User talk:Ellywa/2023

Thank you for participating in Wiki Loves Monuments 2022! Please help with this survey

Wiki Loves Monuments logo

Dear Ellywa/2023,

Thank you for contributing to Wiki Loves Monuments 2022, and for sharing your pictures with the whole world! We would like to ask again for a few minutes of your time. Thanks to the participation of people like you, the contest gathered more than 150K+ pictures of cultural heritage objects from more than 35 countries around the world.

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). 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 and help us learn what you liked and didn't like about Wiki Loves Monuments 2022.

Kind regards, Wiki Loves Monuments team, 09:41, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Regarding the Deleted Image/File:Darsh-3.jpg

File:Darsh-3.jpg

(From deletion request)

This is, or appears to be, a picture of the uploader, albeit as a small child, but there is no evidence that the image is under an acceptable free licence. Ownership or possession of a photo, proprietorship of the equipment used to take the photo, or being the subject of the photo does not equate holding the copyright. The copyright holder is the photographer (i.e. the person who took the photo), rather that the subject (the person who appears in the photo) or the person possessing the photo, unless transferred by operation of law (e.g. inheritance, etc.) or by contract (written and signed by the copyright holder, and explicitly transfers the copyright). Evidence of any transfer of licencing must be sent via COM:VRT
Personal vanity picture 🇺🇦 Timtrent 🇺🇦 talk to me 🇺🇦 12:59, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Hello Timtrent, I took this picture from my neighborhood while a child play with her mother. a decent boy playing with her mother near a road side. This is my own work please do think Wikipedia need my work in Indian Project. Thank you 103.69.217.25 14:16, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

---

Deleted: per nomination. @DarshBaghel: , please login to Commons and upload a new version of the original image, with exif data and the original size, not cropped to 800x800px, to show you are the photographer. --Ellywa (talk) 14:59, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Regarding the Deleted Image: @Ellywa: , new version of the original image with no any cropping. I have uploaded a new version of the original image that was recently deleted from Wikipedia. The new version of the image can be found here:

a child with her mother in Bhidauni Village

. I understand that the image may have been deleted due to concerns about copyright, but I can assure you that I am the photographer of the image and that it is being used under the appropriate license. I have also included Exif data in the new version of the image to prove that I am the photographer. -- DarshBaghel (talk)

Hi DarshBaghel, thanks for your message, I did not note it on the DR (I do not follow all deletion requests I am handling - would be impossible). Imho it is now clear you made this photo, so it can be maintained. I restored the use on en:Bhidauni.

An additional remark, if you write a message on a talk page, you can sign your message with ~~~~, 4xtilde. Then your signature appears with data and time like this: Kind regards, Ellywa (talk) 08:23, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

File:Gereja Paulus 1948.jpg

Since this is a deleted file that was uploaded with Upload Wizard, I cannot see the description. If it's the church I'm thinking of, the architect died in 1947. I'm trying to check if this can be undeleted or if it would have to wait until a specified date. Abzeronow (talk) 20:00, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

Hi Abzeronow, this is the text on the deleted file page:

=={{int:filedesc}}== {{Information |description={{id|1=GPIB Paulus}} |date=1948-08-05 |source={{own}} |author=[[User:Yosua olgaf|Yosua olgaf]] |permission= |other_versions= }} =={{int:license-header}}== {{self|cc-by-sa-4.0}} [[Category:Uploaded with UploadWizard]] {{Uncategorized|year=2014|month=August|day=1}}

This is the Deletion request: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Gereja Paulus 1948.jpg The photo is a b/w image of a church. It seems exactly the same as the image here: http://p2k.unkris.ac.id/id3/2-3065-2962/Gereja-Paulus-Menteng_70276_p2k-unkris.html

Kind regards, Ellywa (talk) 20:36, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. It was a photograph of the church that I had guessed it was of. Abzeronow (talk) 20:57, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

Vrije licentie op kamerstukken

Dag Elly,

Het verwijderen van een reeks Kamerstukken lijkt me echt onnodig. Ik kan me iets voorstellen bij de gedachte dat de Tweede Kamer niet automatisch begrepen is onder de Rijksoverheid, maar ook de Kamer heeft de afgelopen jaren van harte meegedaan met het realiseren van de open overheid waar we 15 jaar terug voor lobbyden. De Tweede Kamer heeft een eigen opendataportaal. Via het interface van die site worden alle kamerstukken openbaar gemaakt. Daar wordt ook uitdrukkelijk uitgelegd dat CC0 van toepassing is, tenzij uitdrukkelijk anders is aangegeven. Wij zijn het erover eens dat dat laatste bijvoorbeeld het geval kan zijn bij beeldmateriaal. Maar ik begrijp in alle eerlijkheid niet hoe op dit moment nog is vol te houden dat een doorsnee Kamerstuk (zonder onderdelen waarop een niet-overheid auteursrecht kan doen gelden) niet onder CC0 zou vallen. Zou je de verwijdering nog eens willen heroverwegen? MarcoSwart (talk) 14:21, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

ik heb niet nagezocht op welk DR je doelt. De website van de Tweede Kamer laat duidelijk zien dat de licentie wel een soort van open is, maar niet compatibel met de licenties die we op Commons gebruiken. Zie https://www.tweedekamer.nl/applicaties/colofon . Een van beide moet veranderen om overname mogelijk te maken. Stukken van de TK mogen niet gewijzigd worden naar believen en dat is eigenlijk volkomen logisch. Je zou moties kunnen omkeren bijvoorbeeld. Groet, Ellywa (talk) 20:12, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Ik vermoed dat je naar deze disclaimer wilde linken, want daar wordt de licentie van de tekst vermeld, t.w. Creative Commons CC BY-ND (naamsvermelding - geen afgeleide werken). Gouwenaar (talk) 20:54, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Ja, dank je hartelijk Gouwenaar, daar staat het nog helderder. Ellywa (talk) 21:25, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Ik heb nog even wat verder rondgekeken. De open data betreffen onder andere het "kamerstukdossier". Open data is allerlei informatie over dat dossier, zoals titel, citeertitel, of het is afgesloten etc, zie hier. Daar staat onderaan zelfs een voorbeeld. Klik dat eens aan dan zie je dit. Maar de inhoud/tekst van het kamerstukdossier is beslist niet CC0. Ellywa (talk) 22:48, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

@Gouwenaar De disclaimer heeft betrekking op de tekst van de website zelf. Onze discussie gaat hier over documenten die ook, maar niet uitsluitend door deze website worden gepubliceerd. Het auteursrecht op documenten die ook op tweedekamer.nl worden gepubliceerd, kan sterk uiteenlopen: documenten voor discussies in de Kamer kunnen van allerlei auteurs komen en die hoeven niet per se een vrije licentie te verlenen.

Het onderdeel "opendata" van de site is uitdrukkelijk bedoeld om informatie voor hergebruik te verspreiden. Vandaar dat CC0 hier het uitgangspunt is, ook al zijn er uitzonderingen mogelijk, maar die worden dan uitdrukkelijk aangegeven ("Tenzij anders vermeld").

@Ellywa geeft een prima voorbeeld van zo'n beperking: het gaat hier om een feed, waarbij uitdrukkelijk een aantal beperkingen worden gegeven die op die feed zelf van toepassing zijn. Maar het gaat ons niet om (continu bijgehouden) lijstjes van onderliggende documenten die bij een onderwerp horen ("Kamerstukdossier"), maar om die documenten zelf.

Het relevante voorbeeld is dan op deze pagina te vinden. Hier is niet alleen een link "SyncFeed API" met meta-informatie, waarop weer een beperking van toepassing is, maar ook een link naar het onderliggende document zelf. Dat kun je gewoon als pdf downloaden, zonder dat je ergens iets over een beperking te lezen krijgt. Daar is CC0 gewoon van toepassing.

De griffie van de Tweede Kamer is een grote, professionele organisatie met eigen juristen en ict'ers. Als zij op hun site in een disclaimer zeggen dat CC0 van toepassing is, "tenzij anders vermeld", dan mag ik aannemen dat op elk bestand dat ik via een API direct kan opvragen die licentie van toepassing is.

Strikt genomen lijkt het voorgaande mij gewoon voldoende bewijs dat op alle Handelingen en de bulk van de Kamerstukken CC0 van toepassing is. Aanvullend wil ik nog wel iets zeggen over punten die verder te berde zijn gebracht.

Als er een meer beperkte licentie voor de pdf van een Kamerstuk zou gelden, zou het eenvoudig zijn om die automatisch in die pdf te verwerken. Als dat in het algemeen het geval zou zijn, dan zou het voor de hand liggen om die licentie als verstekwaarde te gebruiken, want dit soort documenten vormen vermoedelijk het leeuwendeel van de opgevraagde informatie.

Veel van dit soort stukken zijn afkomstig van andere overheidsorganisaties, meestal de departementen. Auteursrechtelijk zijn dat zeker geen documenten waarop de Kamer auteursrecht kan doen gelden. Het is gebruikelijk dat departementen stukken die ze naar het parlement sturen ook op overheid.nl publiceren. Hier staat duidelijk dat CC0 daarop van toepassing is. In dat licht is het ook logisch dat die licentie de verstekwaarde voor open data bij de Tweede Kamer is.

De vrees dat een vrij bewerkbaar stuk misbruikt kan worden voor manipulatie ("een motie omdraaien") was in het verleden wel een argument om voor de beperking "no derivatives" te pleiten. Maar veel vormen van hergebruik (toegankelijkheid, educatief) zijn te waardevol om ze te blokkeren, enkel als een vrij theoretische extra bescherming tegen manipulatie. Theoretisch, omdat tegen de kwalijkste vormen van hergebruik auteursrecht nauwelijks bescherming toevoegt en bij de minder kwalijke vormen juist eenvoudige toegang tot de ongemanipuleerde vorm een effectieve waarborg is. Als CC0 goed is voor wetten, is het ook goed voor Kamerstukken.

De extra beperking op feeds vind ik in dit licht niet onlogisch. Als iets wordt gepresenteerd als "het (complete) dossier)" of "de laatste versie" dan is dat actuele informatie die haar waarde vooral ontleent aan het feit dat de Tweede Kamer dat zegt. Het publiceren van een "bewerkte" vorm van die specifieke (meta-)informatie is gevaarlijker, juist door het veranderlijke karakter ervan. Het is juist dit stukje informatie waardoor je altijd het geautoriseerde document kan vinden.

Aangezien de doorbraak van open data bij de overheid blijkbaar zelfs goed geïnformeerde Nederlanders verrast, is het misschien een idee om projectinformatie en/of sjablonen op Commons wat aan te vullen? MarcoSwart (talk) 11:43, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

Beste Marco, als je het oneens blijft met de verwijdering, neem dan svp de actie conform de bovenste opmerking op deze pagina. Ik ben niet overtuigd van de CC0 op kamerstukken. Groet, Ellywa (talk) 11:49, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

Ik lees in de aanhef op de disclaimer: "Deze mededelingen zijn zowel van toepassing op alle bezoeken aan en het gebruik van deze internetsite als op alle informatie en gegevens die op of door middel van deze internetsite worden aangeboden". (onderstreping door mij) Gouwenaar (talk) 11:52, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

@Ellywa Ik ben in deze discussie terechtgekomen door het via Commons verwijderen van een voorbeeld op WikiWoordenboek. Er staan nog wel meer kamerstukken op Commons, dus het probleem op WikiWoordenboek is al opgelost. Ik word niet vrolijk van alle tijd die Wikimedianen besteden aan onderlinge discussies die voor de buitenwereld steeds minder begrijpelijk worden. Om die reden heb ik bewust een constructief voorstel gedaan: duidelijk(er) maken welke overheidsinformatie wel onder CC0 valt. Aan zoiets wil ik mijn tijd nog wel besteden, niet aan interne beroepsprocedures.

@Gouwenaar Stel nu eens dat ik op mijn eigen website een disclaimer zou zetten met de strekking zoals je nu aanhaalt. En als ik op die website ook afbeelding van Commons plaats, met de vereiste bronvermelding. Welke licentie zou dan volgens jou gelden voor dit bestand?

Maar de tegenspraak is feitelijk niet aanwezig. De geciteerde aanhef gaat over allerlei mededelingen, niet alleen het auteursrecht. De tekst onder "Copyright" begint met "Tenzij anders vermeld...". De door mij hierboven aangehaalde disclaimer bij het onderdeel open data is daar een invulling van (waarop vervolgens ook weer uitzonderingen mogelijk zijn).

De regering heeft een Kamerstuk al onder CC0 gepubliceerd en dat doet de Tweede Kamer ook. Dat wil inderdaad niet zeggen dat alles wat op tweedekamer.nl staat dus CC0 is. Maar Handelingen en Kamerstukken zijn vanaf het portal open data direct opvraagbaar, zonder dat er een uitzondering op de daar geldende algemene licentie CC0 wordt gemaakt. MarcoSwart (talk) 13:08, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

Ik meld slechts wat er in de disclaimer op de website van de Tweede Kamer wordt vermeld. Ik ben geen jurist en laat de interpretatie graag over aan deskundigen op dit gebied. Gouwenaar (talk) 18:10, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

@Ellywa, @Gouwenaar, is het een oplossing als ik mijn opvatting in een mailtje voorleg aan de griffie van de Tweede Kamer? Als ik het bij het verkeerde eind heb, zullen ze dat ongetwijfeld laten weten en hoeft er hier verder niets te gebeuren. Als mijn opvatting juist blijkt, zou ik een aangepaste versie van Template:Rijksoverheid kunnen maken voor Kamerstukken en wanneer de verwijderde stukken dan worden teruggeplaatst kunnen we dit sjabloon erop zetten. Volgens mij is deze hele discussie ontstaan door een sjabloon dat niet op Kamerstukken was toegesneden. MarcoSwart (talk) 19:23, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

Lijkt mij een uitstekend idee. Gouwenaar (talk) 19:28, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

Prima. Mijn advies is dan alle correspondentie in CC naar VRT te sturen. Is mogelijk handig ter vastlegging. Groet Ellywa (talk) 19:51, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

@Ellywa, @Gouwenaar, het heeft even geduurd, omdat ze ook de concernjurist gevraagd hebben ernaar te kijken, maar we hebben nu een bevestigend antwoord van de Tweede Kamer. Omdat ik ze via hun webformulier heb benaderd, heb ik geen cc: kunnen gebruiken, maar ik heb het bericht met header naar het contactpunt doorgestuurd, omdat de hele communicatie in het Nederlands is.

De volgende stap lijkt me het maken van een sjabloon met toelichting. Dit kan wel een paar weken duren, omdat ik op het moment nog wat meer omhanden heb en ik veronderstel dat het handig is als de toelichting zowel in het Engels als het Nederlands aanwezig is. Ik veronderstel dat het mogelijk is om in die toelichting naar het ticket te verwijzen.

Als het sjabloon af is, zou de volgende stap zijn om de verwijderde bestanden terug te zetten, deze na te gaan en te voorzien van dit nieuwe sjabloon of een verwijzing naar de KB, dat de oude Kamerstukken onder open licentie op de site heeft staan. Dat is meteen een aardige test of mijn stapsgewijze instructie naar behoren werkt. Ik meld me weer als het sjabloon af is. MarcoSwart (talk) 12:41, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Dat lijkt mij uitstekend. Dank. Gouwenaar (talk) 12:45, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Beste MarcoSwart, de mail is op VRT ontvangen. Ik heb gevraagd of een andere vrijwilliger deze wil behandelen, maar er is nog niemand aan toegekomen zag ik. Graag geduld oefenen.... Groet, Ellywa (talk) 21:05, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

File:Jose de cauwer-1662251412.jpeg

File:Jose de cauwer-1662251412.jpeg

Hello, That is not a photo of the former Belgian cyclist José De Cauwer from Temse. Delete it, please. Thank you 1.11.10.69 16:29, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

I asked for an explanation through ticket:2022090410000032. Perhaps this brings some clarification. Ellywa (talk) 19:51, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

I am convinced you are right. here is the right person, looks different. I nominated the photo for deletion on Commons:Deletion requests/File:Jose de cauwer-1662251412.jpeg. Ellywa (talk) 20:57, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Thank you very much. 1.11.10.69 18:51, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Delete this image

Hi, Ellywa! I've just uploaded a higher-clarity SVG image version of the image below. As it isn't used in any article in any Wikimedia project, please delete it! Thanks!! Intrisit (talk) 13:28, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

I saw you asked the same to another admin. So no action from my side required. Please use the deletion request procedure next time. Ellywa (talk) 10:10, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

If you love kittens, please, take this one! Thanks for everything that you do on this encyclopedia. I am glad that we have supportive admins like you. Best,

─ The Aafī (^talk) 17:54, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

File:Bjorn de jong-1537707433.jpg

File:Bjorn de jong-1537707433.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!

Hoyanova (talk) 08:56, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:U-Bahnhof Rathaus Steglitz

Hi Ellywa; although I think that your decision to delete these files is reasonable (given the apparant inconclusive state of FOP in train/metro stations in Germany and COM:PCP), I think your comment misses the point of the whole discussion: This was not really about whether the design is above the threshold of originality; at least no one denied that. The discussion was mainly whether freedom of panorama (which allows to take photographs of copyrighted architecture, but usually only outdoors) might apply in such places. Gestumblindi (talk) 14:35, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Bessie Maida Vale.jpg

Hi. I just now noticed that you kept File:Bessie Maida Vale.jpg back in September. The uploader clearly wasn't the one who took the picture since it was a cross Wiki upload and they've had other images deleted as copyvio in the meantime. So wouldn't it still be copyrighted until 70 years after the date of publication per Commons:Copyright rules by territory/United Kingdom and the whole create/publish date + 70 years term for anonymous works thing regardless of who ultimately took the photograph? Thanks. Adamant1 (talk) 04:08, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Hi Adamant1, I am sufficiently convinced that the photo has been made by the uploader, although they did not comment on the DR, but it seems a fan who wrote the article about her on EN:WP. It clearly isn't a still from the film or a professional BBC photo, it is rather amateurish. So I decided to keep the photo. But if you do not agree with the deletion, please feel free to renomate the photo. Ellywa (talk) 13:38, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

That's fine. I trust your judgement and the extra information helps. It's not like celebrities don't let fans take pictures of them sometimes either. So your probably right that it's an amateur photograph from the uploader. Thanks. --Adamant1 (talk) 13:49, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Yw, I could have explained this reasoning more clearly while closing the DR. Will try next time. Ellywa (talk) 17:22, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Greg Page 2022 mistakenly deleted

Hi there, I just want to let you know that the image of Greg Page that you deleted was actually uploaded by me from August 9 2022, yet the Facebook page in which you thought I took it from actually uploaded it to its account on December 2022 if you look on my contributions compared to the date this image was uploaded. TonyStank1434 (talk) 05:02, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

@TonyStank1434: , you are referring to Commons:Deletion requests/File:Greg 2022.png. The image on facebook has a larger resolution (553x1106) then the photo uploaded by yourself (471x942). Both can have been copied from another source. If you want undeletion of the image, please show you are the photographer by uploading the full uncropped photo including exif data. You uploaded the photo as "own work" which did not convince me. We need evidence it is an own photo to maintain it on Commons. Ellywa (talk) 13:53, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Category:Arbre d'or

Would you mind expanding upon how this meets the French threshold of originality standard of "[brearing the] imprint of the personality of the author"? It seems to me that any artist who decided to cover this tree in gold leaf would end up with fundamentally the same work. Thanks. IronGargoyle (talk) 19:12, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Imho this relates to the basic question, "What is art?", especially "What is en:conceptual art?" and the copyright of the artist of such art forms. To give some other examples. Anybody could cover a skull with diamonds, but Damien Hirst made this into an object of art. (Fair use on En:WP, en:File:Hirst-Love-Of-God.jpg - the version on Commons should be deleted imho File:Damien Hirst's diamond-studded skull.jpg). Jeff Koons made multiple copies of balloon dogs. Anybody could do it, any ceramics firm could make these objects. (Fair use on en:wp en:File:Jeff Koons - Balloon Dog (Magenta).jpg). An example from my home country, the peanutbutter floor, by Wim.T.Schippers. Not on Commons, but there is an article about it: en:Pindakaasvloer. I cannot solve this dispute, but I'm convinced such artists, all such artists, have a copyright on their creation, and certainly in France or the US in case of no FOP. Ellywa (talk) 21:14, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

I don't think those examples are really comparable. The skull is a naturally-formed object (just like the tree) but there is substantive creative input in the arrangement of diamonds on the skull. Koons decided what form his balloon dog should take. There is substantial creative texturing in the peanut butter floor. If I went out and spray painted a tree in my front yard with a single color, I wouldn't suddenly have a copyrightable work. The tree is a natural form and the painting of a single uniform color is not creative. IronGargoyle (talk) 03:05, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

Ballonnen

Elly, wat maakt dat een foto van de Potsdamer Platz in Berlijn verwijderd moet worden, wegens/per COM:FOP USA. Groetjes Lidewij (talk) 12:35, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Ja, die niet natuurlijk. Doorgeprikt... ehh.. doorgehaald! Merci Lidewij. Groet van Ellywa (talk) 13:23, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Dank. Ik ben blij dat verwijdernominaties ook bij overleden personen worden geplaats. Kunnen sommige in de gatenhouden wat daar gebeurt. :-) Lidewij (talk) 13:59, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Oeps, heb ik dat op mijn geweten? Maar dat kan natuurlijk. Ellywa (talk) 20:07, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

DR Commons:Deletion requests/File:Drug and sex.png

Could i convince you to conclude some of the discussions in Category:AI-generation related deletion requests/pending? Trade (talk) 22:15, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

I am working from old to new.... today I closed some DR's from november 2022. I considered this one out of scope, not because it is AI generated. Newer DR'requests will come to my attention or another admin someday... Regards, Ellywa (talk) 22:27, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Understood. Could i get you to concluce File:Alice and Sparkle cover.jpg, Files uploaded by StuckInLagToad and Files uploaded by Benlisquare specifically? Trade (talk) 22:37, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Well, the first takes a lot of time to read all comments. This is complicated matter. Ellywa (talk) 22:42, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

There is no rush. Just if you have time to look at it at some point Trade (talk) 22:52, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

File

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:1927_-_Lord_Mayor_Hugh_Lupton_(in_Mayoral_chains)_at_a_luncheon_in_Leeds_with_Lord_Harewood_(left).jpg The above file - after much helpful discussion - was deemed to be OK. I have returned it to 6th Lupton family page. Thanks for your help 175.38.42.62 07:36, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

Well, Yann undeleted the file, while I decided it had to be deleted, regrettably. @Yann: could you please explain why you are convinced the file is in PD? It was made in 1927 and imho there is no evidence it was published at the time anonymously. I think it will in PD from 1927+121=2048. I think your decision should also be added as a remark to the deletion request, Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Srbernadette, because it now appears it was forgotten to delete the file after the nomination. Thanks, Ellywa (talk) 08:54, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

There is also no reason to believe it wasn't published anonymously at the time. For such old images, we require significant doubt that the file is under a copyright. There isn't such doubt. Yann (talk) 12:10, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

Please see my response to this issue on the deletions page regarding this photo - I have done my best. Thanks Srbernadette (talk) 03:44, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Drawings of Hengelo (OV)

Hey Ellywa, Ik zag net je berichtje op de commonspagina voor De Category:Drawings of Hengelo(OV) die kan inderdaad verwijderd worden want uiteindelijk is Category:Drawings of Hengelo (OV) (een extra spatie) diegene geworden die gebruikt werd voor foto's. Dank je wel voor je hulp Mx Lucy (talk) 19:04, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Hoi Mx Lucy, die categorie is in december al verwijderd. Alles in orde dus. Groet, Ellywa (talk) 21:11, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

File:Timothy Herman in 2021.jpg

Hallo Ellywa, zou jij de verdere afwikkeling van 'File:Timothy Herman in 2021.jpg' op je willen nemen? De e-mail met deze foto is op 24 mei jl. verzonden door Chris Herman aan permissions.nl. Bvd en groet, Piet.Wijker (talk) 08:11, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

Goedemorgen Piet.Wijker, de mail is al behandeld op VRT, de auteursrechthebbende is Johnny De Ceulaerde, dat kan je ook zien op de file pagina hier, als je naar de metadata kijkt. Deze foto kan dus niet geplaatst worden, tenzij er toestemming van Johnny De Ceulaerde ontvangen wordt. Ellywa (talk) 08:40, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

P.S. Ook hier staat die fotograaf genoemd, en metadata code FBMD betekent dat de foto van facebook afkomstig is. Ellywa (talk) 08:48, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

Hallo Ellywa, nou, dat is ook wat! Dit is mij nog niet eerder overkomen. Ik zal de inzender van de foto hiervan op de hoogte stellen. Van zulke ‘spelletjes’ ben ik niet gediend. Bedankt voor deze info. Groet, Piet.Wijker

Haha, ja, ons overkomt dat vrijwel dagelijks... mensen willen zoooo graag een mooie foto! Ellywa (talk) 10:30, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

Beste Ellywa, inmiddels heeft de echte maker van de foto, Johnny De Ceulaerde zich zelf vandaag per e-mail gemeld en de foto vrijgegeven voor publicatie. Als ik de tekst bij de foto op dit punt aanpas, kan ik dan de verdere afhandeling ervan aan jou overlaten? Bvd en groet, --Piet.Wijker (talk) 14:45, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Beste Piet.Wijker, wat fijn, eind goed al goed.  Done. Ik heb de toestemming op de foto vermeld, en er is nog een versie bijgekomen, File:Timothy Herman in 2021 (portrait).jpg. Groet, Ellywa (talk) 15:37, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Prima. Goed afgelopen en nog een extra foto ook! Bedankt voor de snelle actie. Groet, --Piet.Wijker (talk) 21:26, 29 May 2023 (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!

Affected:

• File:Le MAXXI (Rome) 3.jpg

And also:

• File:MAXXI0.jpg

Yours sincerely, A1Cafel (talk) 04:31, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Logo grana padano-220921.png

I understand the reason for closure, but what I don't understand is how it can be released in cc4, when the author is not the one who uploaded the logo, maybe the license needs to be changed? ZioNicco (talk) 12:46, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Hi ZioNicco, Yes, I suppose you can change the license into {{PD-textlogo}}. The design is not copyrighted, so in public domain. However, as it is in PD, anybody can do what they like with it, even give it a CCBYSA license I assume. But it is more correct to add the PD template. Thank for taking the action! Ellywa (talk) 22:39, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:L. N. Tolstoy. All in 90 volumes. Volume 84.pdf

Hello. You have deleted this file. But I see that you didn't read the argument about keeping the file because it's not in English. To clarify, there is a quote from the preface of this edition, written by the editor-in-chief of the edition. Where he and all contributors to this publication, including the editors, the publisher, the authors of all accompanying materials and notes in the publication, have release their copyrights into the Public Domain. This is a public statement from the publishing team, if you reject it, you are violating their copyright.
Could you to read the quote and argumentation and restore the file? Vladis13 (talk) 06:29, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

@Vladis13: Because you think I made a wrong decision about deletion of the file, please formulate your motivation and ask for undeletion on COM:UNDELETE. Another admin will decide on the matter. Ellywa (talk) 09:00, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

File:Pierre buyle l tom zwitser r-1510171079.jpg

Hallo Ellywa, mag men ervan uitgaan dat de persoon rechts in beeld Tom Zwitser? Een crop om toe te voegen aan het lemma zou welkom zijn. Thanks. Lotje (talk) 08:55, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

 Done. Ellywa (talk) 11:38, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Dankuwel Ellywa. :-) Lotje (talk) 11:54, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

File:Sozialarbeiter Gerhard Schönborn im Gespräch mit einer bulgarischen Prostituierten in Berlin Tiergarten.jpg

Hi Ellywa, I just came upon this image and the previous deletion discussion via someone's attempt to have the article on the German WP deleted. I see several issues with the image that were not considered in the "keep" decision and would ask you to please have another look:

• The image has been published here in 2016. I don't see any indication of a Creative Commons licensing on that Website.
• Who is the photographer (= copyright holder)? Do we have their consent? Is there any indication that the uploader = photographer? In the deletion discussion, an IP user claims to have taken the picture.
• The prostitute may not be identifiable, but Mr Schönborn sure is. We have the approval of an IP user that Mr Schönborn has agreed. Is that sufficient?
• There is a clearly legible car license plate in the image. Now that could easily be amended by pixelating or cropping the image, but it would need to be done, and all previous versions of the image would need to be deleted.

Considering that this image was uploaded by a user that has been blocked infinitely on the German WP, I think this deserves a second look. Thanks, --2003:C0:8F4F:5200:B407:62:CDD7:1B38 11:18, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

We do not have rules on Commons about license plates or personality rights (of notable people) which would require deletion of a file. There is no reason to assume the uploader has not made this photo and that the licensing is not correct. If the uploader is blocked on another wiki, this is no reason to delete their uploads on Commons. However, as I stated on the DR, the image should be evaluated again if the article on de:WP is deleted. So please renominate the image for deletion if that is the case. Any admin can finalize a second nomination for deletion. Regards, Ellywa (talk) 20:30, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

The article is currently in the deletion process, we'll see how this ends in a few days. The image had been removed from the article a long time ago anyway with the reasoning that the prostitute, by German jurisdiction, might in fact be considered to be identifiable. --2003:C0:8F4F:5200:B407:62:CDD7:1B38 21:01, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

The image can easily be cropped to remove the woman. (I suppose you have to login to be able to perform cropping). Ellywa (talk) 21:15, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I am sure it could, but that's not worth the trouble now. In the first place, I do expect the article to be deleted with a fairly high probability. In the second place, I see too many other issues with the image, I would not want to put it in there anyway. --2003:C0:8F4F:5200:B407:62:CDD7:1B38 21:23, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Jorinde van Klinken en Alida van Daalen

Hallo Ellywa, zou jij eens willen kijken naar de categorie-indelingen van Category:Jorinde van Klinken en Category:Alida van Daalen? Ik krijg bij beide categorieën een default-conflictmelding. Beide atletes moeten echter toch echt op de K resp. D worden gecategoriseerd, terwijl dat eerder blijkbaar op de v is gebeurd. Ik weet niet hoe ik dit moet aanpassen. Vandaar mijn vraag. Alvast bedankt voor je hulp. Piet.Wijker (talk) 08:41, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Dag Piet, het heeft zo te zien te maken met Wikidata. Als ik {{Wikidata Infobox}} verwijder dan is het conflict weg. Op Wikidata is de achternaam Van Klinken, en dan wordt het kennelijk zo gesorteerd. Als je dat wil veranderen zou je waarschijnlijk de route via Wikidata moeten volgen. Nederlandse achternamen moeten dan anders worden aangeduid.. een flinke klus, waarvoor je denk ik eerst overleg moet plegen daar. Of misschien kan User:Mbch331 wat tips geven. Ik weet niet zoveel van Wikidata. Hartelijke groet, Ellywa (talk) 09:30, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

@Piet.Wijker Ik heb de achternamen aangepast op Wikidata. Achternaam is tenslotte Klinken en Daalen. van is een tussenvoegsel.

Anders zal de Wikidata Infobox aangepast moeten worden zodat voor Nederlandse achternamen de tussenvoegsels (de, van, van de, van der etc) geschrapt worden. Mbch331 (talk) 09:44, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Dank je wel, Mbch331, een oplossing voor nu. Het is - zoals zoveel - een ingewikkelde kwestie. In Nederland en België is het al verschillend, zie https://taaladvies.net/alfabetische-rangschikking-van-namen/. Dus dan wordt een Nederlandse Van Daalen bij de D, maar een Belgische of Amerikaanse bij de V neergezet... Wil je in een achternamencategorie op Wikidata alle "Van Daalen" personen bij elkaar zien, of de Nederlandse apart van de Belgische en alle anderen? Ellywa (talk) 10:00, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

p.s. daarnaast geldt dat namen met of zonder "van" verschillende namen zijn. Zo bestaat er de naam Wijngaarden en (vaker voorkomend) van Wijngaarden.... Ellywa (talk) 10:08, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Ik schreef ook al niet voor niets Nederlandse achternamen en niet Nederlandstalige achternamen. Ik weet dat het in België wel deel uitmaakt van de achternaam. Ik zie nu ook dat je bij de Wikidata infobox op kan geven DEFAULTSORT=n en dan voegt het sjabloon geen DEFAULTSORT toe, Mbch331 (talk) 10:09, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Ja, dat is een betere oplossing. Ellywa (talk) 10:13, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Mooi opgelost zo, Ellywa en Mbch331! Mijn dank is groot. Overigens ter verdere illustratie van jouw voorbeeld over de naam Wijngaarden, Ellywa: in Nederland komt dezelfde achternaam zonder, met een en zelfs met twee tussenvoegsels voor. Voorbeelden: Stephan Veen (hockeyer), Leo van Veen (voetballer) en Bert Jan van der Veen (schaatser).--Piet.Wijker (talk) 13:29, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Help to delete files

Hello dear editor, do you mind helping me delete the following crops? They are all pretty bad and no longer necessary due to better free licensed images uploaded on Wikimedia. Thanks in advance!

• Gean Loureiro (cortado).png
• Gean Loureiro em 2018 (recorte).jpg
• Angela Amin (cropped).png
• Ângela Amin 2009 (cropped).jpg
• Ângela Amin 1994 (cropped).jpg

Ps: I'm not affiliated with either of these politicians, they are just the former mayors of the same city and these unfavourable crops just look way too bad on wikipedia Przelijpdahl (talk) 23:56, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Hi Przelijpdahl, bad quality is not a motivation for speedy deletion requests, so I cannot help you. Fyi, the policy is described on Commons:Deletion policy. Kind regards, Ellywa (talk) 10:03, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Netherlands

What's the rush to edit the article? There's no reason not to wait until the conversation is concluded and we've decided exactly what it should say before editing it. Otherwise the wording might be different and your version could be wrong. One person's comments if they are an authority or not isn't a consensus either. I'd really like this to get worked out in a clear way that satisfies everyone in the discussion so there isn't just needless arguing about it in DRs later. That's not going to happen if the only thing that gets added to the article is "a lawyer said this, but there's no evidence their opinion is how the law actually works." Adamant1 (talk) 03:05, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Engelfriet is sometimes hired by the Dutch chapter for expert advice on policy of copyright and his advice has always incorporated on Dutch WP to finalize long discussions. He was so kind to help in this case. Discussions by laypeople like myself is useless imho. As there was nothing said about FOP in churches before this is the best we have today. Text may surely be revised but not deleted. Regards, Ellywa (talk) 05:59, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

his advice has always incorporated on Dutch WP to finalize long discussions. I don't have a problem with what he said being integrated into a longer piece based on the out come of the conversation, but it was just started and only a few people have even left comments. There's really incentive for anyone to participate in it if they opinions are just going to be ignored and the only thing that comes out of conversation is a single sentences that amounts to "expert lawyers says..." Why even bother with it at that point? You could have just pinged the dude on your time and edited the article everyone else wasting their time on it. You can say discussions by laypeople like us are useless in the meantime, but consensus matters and the only thing anyone cares about when a dispute in DR happens. I've pointed expert opinion plenty of times myself and it was totally disregarded because of some random discussion from 15 years that only a few people participated in. So it's not nothing and the endless bickering in DRs because the copyright guidelines are to vague, based on personal opinions, blah blah blah is just getting tiring to deal with. The only way to resolve that is to put thought and work into writing them well, basing the wording on the totality of the conversation, and not just calling it good the second an expert who shares your opinion comes along. --Adamant1 (talk) 06:10, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Hello

I want to edit your page. For example we don't say more then, we say more than. If you don't let me edit these mistakes I won't tell you any more. Bye bye. 200.111.222.193 19:14, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

thanks, I corrected the mistake. I am not a native speaker of English, so your help is appreciated. Ellywa (talk) 19:17, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Terry850324‎

Hello, as I am the VRT agent, I can verify those photos listed on that deletion request have valid permission, as those photos are high resolution, contain EXIF data and are never published on other websites before. See also ticket:2022072610005437. Could you please undelete these files? Thanks.

Sorry that I cannot leave above statement on that deletion request previously due to busy real life. SCP-2000 14:34, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Hi SCP-2000, thanks for your message. I undeleted all files deleted yesterday and will check the usage. I removed the nomination template, but can you please add the permission template? I cannot understand the Chinese to be able to do this accurately. Question: I undeleted the series File:2022 Taipei Open July 22 2022 - 01 - 31, but not the earlier images listed on the deletion request, Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Terry850324‎. Is the permission valid for those 3 images as well? Kind regards, Ellywa (talk) 19:21, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

I have added the permission template. Only the series File:2022 Taipei Open July 22 2022 - 01 - 31 have valid permission. Thanks. SCP-2000 03:21, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

Kept by mistake?

Hello. It seems like you decide not to delete File:PetrDamaskin.jpg after Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Swehlam. You even stated it was to be kept. Was this by mistake? Veverve (talk) 14:03, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Hi Veverve, indeed, the image dates from 1905 and therefore {{PD-RusEmpire}} is applicable, as remarked by rubin16 on the Deletion Request. Regards, Ellywa (talk) 17:31, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Keep decision at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Morada Nova Salina aerea.jpg

This DR is 5 months old so I'd forgotten about it, but the photo is available at a higher resolution at [1] and was published at least a year before the Commons upload at [2]. And given that the user's other uploads were all copyvios, I don't think there's a strong reason to think this is their work. Adeletron 3030 (talk) 03:40, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

@Adeletron 3030: thanks! I deleted the photo. Yes, there is a backlog on deletion requests. Best is to follow your request, as you did, apperantly. Kind regards, Ellywa (talk) 08:56, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for your response! Adeletron 3030 (talk) 13:17, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

Spain copyright term

Spain is 80 years PMA for authors who died before 1987 (and exactly 80 years PMA). Abzeronow (talk) 15:33, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:40-year old guy doing ahegao.jpg

Mind reopen this DR? Trade (talk) 16:01, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

hi Trade, you can reopen a Deletion request any time using new argumentation or references to other DR's. I would agree to delete this one based on COM:clothing but another admin could have another view. Regards, Ellywa (talk) 16:58, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Esquí any 1911 sports de muntanya esports d'hivern cartell Jaume Llongueras.jpg

Hello Ellywa,

just saw this, and ... I don't quite understand. 1955 + 70 + 1 = 2026, which is still a few years away. Also, Spain does have 80 years pma for authors who died before 7 December 1987 (Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Spain#General rules). Regards --Rosenzweig τ 01:25, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Rosenzweig, thanks - I must have been sleepy - I have revised the DR and deleted the image. Regards, Ellywa (talk) 20:06, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Logo-Wappen der Hamburger Liedertafel von 1823.jpg

The file is still online, did you forget something? GerritR (talk) 07:57, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes. Its deleted now. Thank you! Ellywa (talk) 11:08, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Thank you!

	A tompouce cake for you.
	I hope you like a tompouce. I do. A bit difficult and messy to eat, but it tastes great. Hortensja Bukietowa (talk) 17:06, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Thank you so much! I love these typical Dutch treats! Even with orange glazing sometimes. Ellywa (talk) 11:53, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

ANV

Hi, This should simple be reverted. There is no point to answer to test it by IPs. Yann (talk) 11:51, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

okay, thanks Yann. Ellywa (talk) 11:54, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Recruitment posters displayed in Portsmouth Historic Dockyard.jpg

Hi, Don't you think that it is most probable that the posters were works for hire, and therefore out of copyright? Yann (talk) 16:50, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

@Yann: could be. Don't you think we need evidence per COM:EVID about the hiring of the designers of all posters to maintain the photo? The photo was showing more then 15 posters, some of them showing other photo's. So imho it is difficult or impossible to prove all are in PD. Regards, Ellywa (talk) 21:34, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

If only half are OK, then the rest are de minimis. Yann (talk) 16:08, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

File:Anthonij bonebakker-1584142931.jpg

File:Anthonij bonebakker-1584142931.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!

Amsterdamszilver (talk) 14:00, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

File:Renaat peeters-1677160349.jpg

Hallo Ellywa, is dit misschien Renaat Peeters. Indien ja, kan deze foto aan het lemma en wikidata worden toegevoegd thanks. Lotje (talk) 16:57, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Dat dacht ik eerst ook bij het uploaden, maar dat is verwijderd, het is kennelijk een jongere naamgenoot. Ellywa (talk) 18:36, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Mass renaming of files

Hi Ellywa,

I hope you are doing well.

I have a few questions for you. The team who is working on a microgrant project made mistake with naming photos from the category Projekat Spomenici Eparhije raško-prizrenske u digitalnom prostoru, the names of the files are not descriptive enough, and can't be searched easily, and therefore they should be changed. Is it possible to raname all of those files at once? If the first solution is not possible, is there a way for those files to be deleted, so they can be uploaded again with appropriate names?

Thank you for your attention regarding this matter. Best, Nevena Rudinac (talk) 08:20, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Hi Nevena Rudinac, thank. I have never tried it, but there seems to be a method, please look at header "mass rename" on Commons:File_renaming#Mass_rename. Perhaps you will better answered on the Commons:Village pump. To be found, an extensive file description and structured data are perhaps more efficient. This file for instance is showing nothing more then the name of the church. That should be described in more detail. File:PRIZREN 1 668A8953-6.jpg. All the best and success. Ellywa (talk) 09:46, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Thank you kindly. Best, Nevena Rudinac (talk) 12:20, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Deletion of Denis-Benjamin Papineau pic

Hi, not contesting your deletion of the picture of Denis-Benjamin Papineau (File:Denis-Benjamin Papineau.jpg), but I was wondering - could you give me information on where the original drawing was located? (federal archives Ottawa, or Quebec archives, perhaps?) I may be travelling in that direction and could look into taking a picture of the original, (which is surely out of copyright by now), and then I could post my pic and transfer copyright to Wikimedia? Any info would be appreciated. Thanks. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 16:29, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Hi Mr Serjeant Buzfuz, below the information from the file page. The problem with the image is that the image is a drawing made by Lucien Martial, which is still in copyright. Please read the deletion request: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Denis-Benjamin Papineau.jpg. If you find the original photo or painting, which would date from before 1854, that can be uploaded to Commons. Uploading the drawing by Martial is not useful, as this will be deleted again. Kind regards, Ellywa (talk) 23:21, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. I understand that Martial's drawing is still in copyright, but I'm curious what source he used. Papineau had been dead for 77 years by that point, so Martial couldn't have made the drawing from life in 1931. I will poke around at BaNq and see if I can find the source that Martial had used. 71.17.186.145 00:46, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

Yes, that would be a success! Ellywa (talk) 08:27, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

DescriptionEllywa/2023	Denis-Benjamin Papineau (1789-1854). Reproduction made circa 1950 of a drawing made in 1931 by Lucien Martial.
Date	1931
Source	This image is available from Bibliothèque et Archives nationales du Québec under the reference number 3263370 This tag does not indicate the copyright status of the attached work. A normal copyright tag is still required. See Commons:Licensing. image
Author	Lucien Martial (1892-1987)

Copyright status: File:Sara Ledebour - Meibloemen.jpg

Copyright status: File:Sara Ledebour - Meibloemen.jpg

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:Sara Ledebour - Meibloemen.jpg. I notice that the file page either doesn't contain enough information about the license or it contains contradictory information about the license, so the copyright status is unclear. If you created this file yourself, then you must provide a valid copyright tag. For example, you can tag it with {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} to release it under the multi-license GFDL plus Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike All-version license or you can tag it with {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. (See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of license tags that you can use.) If you did not create the file yourself or if it is a derivative of another work that is possibly subject to copyright protection, then you must specify where you found it (e.g. usually a link to the web page where you got it), you must provide proof that it has a license that is acceptable for Commons (e.g. usually a link to the terms of use for content from that page), and you must add an appropriate license tag. If you did not create the file yourself and the specific source and license information is not available on the web, you must obtain permission through the VRT system and follow the procedure described there. Note that any unsourced or improperly licensed files will be deleted one week after they have been marked as lacking proper information, as described in criteria for deletion. If you have uploaded other files, please confirm that you have provided the proper information for those files, too. If you have any questions about licenses please ask at Commons:Village pump/Copyright or see our help pages. Thank you.

This action was performed automatically by AntiCompositeBot (talk) (FAQ) 23:05, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Open data Tweede Kamer

Dag Elly,
Het heeft allemaal even geduurd, maar ik heb - zoals begin dit jaar besproken - dit sjabloon met toelichting voor open data van de Tweede Kamer gemaakt. Dit leidt tot een drieledig verzoek.

1. Wil je er jouw kritisch oog over laten gaan en eventuele verbeteringen aanbrengen?
2. Kun je als lid van het VRT-team het sjabloon voorzien van een verwijzing naar het toepasselijke ticket (nr. Ticket:2023020910008527)?
3. Zou je deze bestanden weer kunnen terugplaatsen? Ik zal ze dan aflopen en er ofwel dit nieuwe sjabloon ofwel een verwijzing naar de KB op plaatsen (afhankelijke van de datering; de stukken tot 1995 staan niet op tweedekamer.nl, maar zijn door de KB onder CC0 online gezet.

MarcoSwart (talk) 16:48, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Dag Marco, gezien de reikwijdte lijkt het mij beter dit openlijk te bespreken. Dus ik zou voorstellen jouw vraag en het antwoord erop te publiceren en de vertaling naar het sjabloon te bespreken in de copyright sectie van de Village pump en na positieve conclusie een undeletion request in te dienen. Groet, Ellywa (talk) 21:15, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Suggestie uitgevoerd. MarcoSwart (talk) 15:09, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Hoi MarcoSwart,

Ik kijk even mee als derde paar ogen. Wat betreft je sjabloon:

1. De indruk wordt gewerkt drie zaken door elkaar. Artikel 11 van de auteurswet, de reguliere website en het dataportaal. De scope van het sjabloon is nu niet duidelijk. De scope verduidelijken is de eerste stap, daarna kan ik verder met je meekijken.
2. Daarvoor zijn VRT-tickets niet bedoeld.
3. Deze bestanden zijn out of scope.

Met vriendelijke groet, Natuur12 (talk) 21:28, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

1. Ik heb de suggestie van Elly gevolgd. Misschien is het een idee eerst mijn vraag en antwoord met de Tweede Kamer te lezen, omdat ik vermoed dat dat je eerste vraag beantwoord.

2. Mij is uitdrukkelijk aangeraden om VRT te gebruiken. Ik veronderstelde dat er dan ook iets met het ticketnummer moet gebeuren.

3. De verwijderreden was zuiver auteursrechtelijk. Ik ben in deze discussie beland omdat er als gevolg van deze verwijdering een bestand uit een WikiWoordenboeklemma werd verwijderd. Of een bestand niet zinvol in Wikimediaprojecten kan worden gebruikt lijkt me iets om eventueel per bestand te bespreken. MarcoSwart (talk) 15:22, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Files found with insource:/mynewsdesk.com.se.atg/

There are still deletion templates in files discused in this closed request, remove from thse files templates. Michalg95 (talk) 09:36, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Yes many remained. I do not know why and how to solve this... except manually. I asked Jim, here : https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jameslwoodward#deletion_template_still_on_%22kept%22_image . Ellywa (talk) 12:18, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Michalg95 , thanks for helping with removing the delete templates! Ellywa (talk) 12:22, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

"Cannot reproduce the alt text"

Hello Ellywa, I just wanted to nominate this file for deletion because it's an obvious copyvio from here (photographer: Pia Henkel, according to alt text), and then I find that there has already been a deletion discussion with the exact same reasoning which has been closed with you saying "I cannot reproduce the alt text" (and therefore we will keep it). I find that a bit surprising. Why would you make a decision on something if you technically can't follow the reasoning, instead of simply asking another admin to handle this one?

Here's the alt text for you: "Marlene vom UNSERDING liebt euch-Podcast (Foto: Pia Henkel)". Do you have any reason to assume that the uploader Doraaa St is, in reality, Pia Henkel?

She has in fact been asked on her German WP user page but never bothered to reply. --87.150.13.77 16:08, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

With the deeplink which was given in the deletion request I could not see the alt text and I had no reason to disbeleive the uploader. The discussion on de:wikipedia was not listed on the deletion request either. I had to take a decision based on incomplete evidence. I will nominate the image again, as you did now show the link where I can see the alt text, e.g. https://www.unserding.de/unserding/images/podcast_liebt-euch_marlene100.html. Ellywa (talk) 16:21, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Pizza Tower logo.webp

Do you have time to conclude this? Trade (talk) 23:34, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

Yes. This did not take much time.  Done Ellywa (talk) 23:40, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

File:GV - Rive 1934.gif / PD-Switzerland-photo

Hello Ellywa,

FYI you shoudln't add {{PD-Switzerland-photo}} to new imports. It's written on the license banner itself (This licence tag cannot not be used for new imports after April 1, 2020.) Omnilaika02 (talk) 10:40, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

@Omnilaika02: . Indeed. But this photo was uploaded on 18 March 2014, so it can be applied. Can you please add the template again? To prevent a new deletion request. I kept the file on basis of the pd situation in Switzerland. Thanks, Ellywa (talk) 13:18, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

I can't, the file is not reusable. Please see Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:PD Switzerland (Individuality). Omnilaika02 (talk) 13:48, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Dampierre.svg

Hi! I'm not sure I understand your close here or at the other deletion request. You said "Kept: no need to deleted. Redirects can be made by anybody." and "Kept: no need to delete. Redirects can be made, but preferably the text on all images should be maintained on the final version.", but the files are not redirects, and I don't seem to be able to make it a redirect if that's what your close was calling for. It's a duplicate of the other file mentioned in the DR. Hmm... OK, after searching for the commons policy forbidding duplicates, to double-check that they were forbidden, I stumbled upon Template:Duplicate, so I guess I should just tag the file with that and an admin will speedy delete it...? -sche (talk) 04:50, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Hi -sche, imho these images should not be deleted, mainly because the filenames are showing different purposes. But if you insist, anybody can make a redirect, please note Commons:Redirect. But you can also nominate the images again if you do not agree with my decision. In that case, another admin will decide. Kind regards, Ellywa (talk) 23:05, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

File:Oud Drimmelen Oud Drimmelen 9 Boerderij woonhuis.jpg

File:Oud Drimmelen Oud Drimmelen 9 Boerderij woonhuis.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!

Den Engelsen (talk) 08:17, 19 December 2023 (UTC)