User talk:Jan Arkesteijn

Welcome to Wikimedia Commons, Jan Arkesteijn!

First steps tutorial Our first steps tour and our frequently asked questions will help you a lot after registration. They explain how to customize the interface (for example the language), how to upload files and our basic licensing policy (Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content). You don't need technical skills in order to contribute here. Be bold contributing here and assume good faith for the intentions of others. This is a wiki — it is really easy. Getting help More information is available at the community portal. You may ask questions at the help desk, village pump or on IRC channel #wikimedia-commons (webchat). You can also contact an administrator on their talk page. If you have a specific copyright question, ask at the copyright village pump. If you have experience contributing to Wikipedia, we have information that you might find useful.

Goodies, tips and tricks Put Babel boxes on your user page so others know what languages you can speak and indicate your graphic abilities. You can see the files you have uploaded in your gallery. Please sign your name on Talk pages by typing ~~~~. To link to an image page without embedding the image, type: [[:File:Foo.jpg]], which produces: File:Foo.jpg. Only upload freely licensed or public domain content. Fair use is not allowed on Commons. If you're copying files from another Wikimedia project, use the CommonsHelper. You may enable gadgets (custom features) for your account. There are several tools to upload files. Made a mistake? Do you want to have a file renamed or moved? Simply use the move link and wait for an authorized user to rename it. Do you want to have your recently uploaded picture removed? Simply tag it as {{speedy|reason for deletion}}. For more information read the full deletion guidelines.

File:Heliopolis-Poster-WEB.jpg

I hold the copyrights of this file and the film. how to upload it? I tried to even publish it @ flickr under public domain. but still Commons refuses it,

Help please

I created the files you claim are copyrighted!

For example http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Conversionunit.jpg

I created them myself! Do I have to pay myself then copyright dues? No I think not.

Old masters paintings

Hello Jan. I am very interested in painting of old masters of Europe. especially I am a fun of portraits. You know how to download images from different auction sites, such as christies, sothebys and others. I constantly watch for updates in your gallery. Thank you for what you do. In this regard, I request to you. Display (upload) at the your gallery regularly or send me on my address lois976@yandex.ru high resolution images of the old masters from the sites auctions christies and sothebys. I'll be very grateful for the help.

180px-LIO-Architecture.png

This file helps to understand the architecture of the LIO open source target software. Thomas Uhl (talk)

?

Misschien heb je het vermogen en de wens om hoge-resolutie afbeeldingen plaats van deze bron:

http://www.collectieantwerpen.be/component/option,com_memorix/Itemid,2/lang,nl/

Portret van aartshertogin Isabella Rubens, Peter Paul Rubenshuis

Portret van aartshertog Albrecht Rubens, Peter Paul Rubenshuis

Portret van Cosmo di Medici Rubens, Peter Paul Museum Plantin-Moretus / Prentenkabinet

Portret van Alfons, koning van Aragon en Napels Rubens, Peter Paul Museum Plantin-Moretus / Prentenkabinet

Portret van Paus Leo X Rubens, Peter Paul Museum Plantin-Moretus / Prentenkabinet

Portret van Lorenzo di Medici Rubens, Peter Paul Museum Plantin-Moretus / Prentenkabinet

Francesco I de Medici Allori, Alessandro Bronzino Museum Mayer Van den Bergh

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.187.237.92 (talk • contribs) 2011-07-21T11:10:01 (UTC)

Reply

Hello, Jan Arkesteijn. You have new messages at Morning Sunshine's talk page. You may remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Picture of the Year 2013 R1 Announcement

Round 1 of Picture of the Year 2013 is open!

• ⧼Wikibase-terms/Jan Arkesteijn⧽: العربية, български, Deutsch, English, ‎français, ‎italiano, македонски, ‎‎മലയാളം, ‎‎日本語, ‎‎‎русский, ‎‎‎svenska, اردو, 中文

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

Dear Wikimedians,

Wikimedia Commons is happy to announce that 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 are all 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.

For your convenience, we have sorted the images into topical categories. Two rounds of voting will be held: In the first round, you may vote for as many images as you like. The top 30 overall and the most popular image in each category will continue to the final. In the final round, you may vote for just one image to become the Picture of the Year.

Round 1 will end on 7 February 2014. 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 2012 Picture of the Year contest.

Source portrait of Sebastian I of Portugal by Sanches Coelho

Hi! I'm currently writing an article about the portraits of Sebastian I and I haven't been able to find the source of this portrait in which he appears as a child. Could you add the source from which you took it, if you know in which museum can be found right now? I would be very grateful. —Preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.142.245.111 (talk) 19:19, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

File:Young woman at an open half-door, attributed to Samuel van Hoogstraten.jpg en File:Samuel van Hoogstraten - Vrouw bij een half open deur.jpg

Hallo Jan Arkesteijn, kan je deze afbeeldingen eens van dichtbij bekijken en de nodige correcties aanbrengen, categoriseren/beschrijving aanpassen. (Rembrandt catalog raisonné, 1968)?.Thank you for your time. Lotje (talk) 08:34, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, wat moet ik er mee doen? Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 09:35, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Mezelf weer niet duidelijk uitgedrukt waarschijnlijk: deze afbeelding -- > File:Young woman at an open half-door, attributed to Samuel van Hoogstraten.jpg werd ondergebracht in de Category:Paintings by Samuel van Hoogstraten en deze file File:Samuel van Hoogstraten - Vrouw bij een half open deur.jpg zou volgens wikidata het werk van Rembrandt zijn. 2x hetzelfde schilderij hoort toch in principe te worden ondergebracht in dezelfde categorieën en dezelfde titel te dragen? Vandaar mijn vraag. Ik had mijn vraag misschien ook aan Dedden kunnen stellen. Lotje (talk) 13:35, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

RKD schrijft het werk toe aan Hoogstraten. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 22:36, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

File:Johan van Wassenaer van Duvenvoirde (1576-1645), by Evert van der Maes.jpg

@Jan Arkesteijn: de beschrijving op het lemma Kasteel Duivenvoorde en Johan van Duvenvoorde geeft 1577 aan als geboortejaar. Wanneer dit correct is, misschien best de file hernoemen om misverstanden te voorkomen. Graag je advies. Lotje (talk) 11:25, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Hallo Lotje, ik heb de beschrijving uit RKD aangehouden. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 11:48, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Bedankt Jan Arkesteijn, ik pas het aan onder toevoeging van de referentie. Lotje (talk) 04:36, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Constant Willem Lunsingh Scheurleer

Dag Jan,

Gisteren zag ik dat je op NLWiki bij Scheurleer de afbeelding aldaar verving door een nieuwe upload uit dezelfde bron, maar die nieuwe afbeelding was ernstig verkleurd, verbleekt mag ik wel zeggen – ik wil je vragen: pas je filters toe op de afbeeldingen van schilderijen die je download, voordat je ze naar Commons upload? Ik heb wat van je uploads van schilderijen nader bekeken en die weken allen enorm af van het origineel, dat wil zeggen van de afbeelding van de gegeven bron. Groet, Jürgen Eissink (talk) 23:36, 1 September 2018 (UTC).

Hallo Jürgen Eissink, ik plaats over het algemeen afbeeldingen die voor illustratiedoeleinden zijn aangepast. In dit geval had de oorspronkelijke afbeelding van Scheurleer een geelgroen gezicht en het contrast was beperkt, waarschijnlijk door veroudering en vervuiling van de vernislaag. Ik dacht dat de afbeelding die ik uploadde een verbetering was, maar als je het daar niet mee eens bent draai het dan terug. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 14:19, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Bedoel je met "afbeeldingen die voor illustratiedoeleinden zijn aangepast" dat je naar eigen smaak en inzicht originelen wijzigt? Dat lijkt mij een zeer onwelkome praktijk. Jürgen Eissink (talk) 14:23, 3 September 2018 (UTC).

Oh, het overleg gaat ineens een kant uit waar ik geen zin in heb. Kijk eerst eens hier. Misschien dat dat een inzicht geeft in het antwoord waar je naar zoekt. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 14:28, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Begrijp me niet verkeerd, soms zijn retouches of contrastwijzigingen echt een verbetering. Waar meerdere foto's van hetzelfde schilderij (of ander voorwerp) bestaan, daar zullen altijd verschillen bestaan. Als een fotograaf zijn eigen foto enigszins meent te moeten bijwerken, dan kan ik daar ook geen bezwaar tegen hebben. Maar ik heb gisteren, wegens Scheurleer, eens gekeken naar enkele andere van je uploads en daar gebeurt toch echt wat anders: je download een afbeelding van iemand (of een instituut) en die wijzig je zonder vermelding van die wijziging. Als ik bijvoorbeeld deze afbeelding bekijk, dan is het verschil met de bron levensgroot, en mijn oog vindt de roodverschuiving daar echt verschrikkelijk - je vernietigt gewoon het beeld. Als dat een discussie is die je niet wilt aangaan, en door blijft gaan met een naar mijn mening onacceptabele werkwijze, dan zal ik het elders moeten aankaarten. Het is gewoon cultuurvervalsing. Jürgen Eissink (talk) 14:38, 3 September 2018 (UTC).

Om terug te komen op Scheurleer, als je vindt dat een geelgroen gezicht hem beter staat, gebruik dan die afbeelding. En niets weerhoudt je om afbeeldingen van andere sites hier te uploaden. Daar hoef je anderen niet voor te kapittelen. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 14:49, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Mijn geschoktheid is niet geveinsd. Ik zal deze m.i. zeer onwenselijke praktijk elders voorleggen. Jürgen Eissink (talk) 14:54, 3 September 2018 (UTC).

Tsja, dan moet je ook de redacties van kranten en tijdschriften gaam aanspreken omdat ze afbeeldingen wijzigen om ze voor publicatie geschikt te maken. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 15:18, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Ik werk niet op die redacties en jij werkt niet bij de instellingen die zo vriendelijk zijn een foto te delen van een kunstwerk dat ze in bezit hebben. Misschien moet je een cursus restauratie volgen, dan kun je de originelen 'verbeteren'. Jürgen Eissink (talk) 15:25, 3 September 2018 (UTC).

Aanpassingen en originelen

Direct hierboven staat een vergelijkbare discussie, maar ik wil het over een andere boeg gooien. Ik vind het prima wanneer je aanpassingen doet. Doe ik zelf ook vaak genoeg. In een aantal gevallen is dat ook echt nodig.

Maar.

Wanneer je dit doet, kan je dan alsjeblieft óók het onbewerkte originele bestand uploaden? Niet alleen bij kunst, maar ook bij afbeeldingen van YouTube videos, foto's, etc. Bij voorkeur als apart bestand, maar als dat moeilijk is binnen je workflow dan is overschrijven eventueel ook acceptabel. Maar liever als apart bestand. Op die manier hebben we een keuze, kan iemand anders later besluiten om op basis van het origineel een nieuwe aangepaste versie te maken en is het duidelijker dat één van de bestanden is bewerkt. - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 17:34, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Alexis Jazz, dan moet ik eerst een video gaan downloaden, geen idee hoe dat moet, en dan weer uploaden om vervolgens de printscreen te uploaden. Dat gaat mij te ver, hoor. Ik vermeld de source zodat eenieder die denkt er een betere afbeelding van te halen het zelf kan doen. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 08:36, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Video's naar Commons uploaden kan met COM:Video2commons en van Commons kan je ze weer eenvoudig downloaden. Maar dat was niet wat ik bedoelde. Ik bedoelde: upload ook de originele printscreen zonder aangepaste kleuren/scherpte/etc. Video's verdwijnen ook wel eens en dan hebben we (zoals het nu gaat) alleen nog de bewerkte versie. - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 20:56, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Ik beloof niks, ik vind het een hoop gedoe. Als iemand behoefte heeft aan het origineel hoeft hij alleen maar de bron te volgen. Overigens, je noemt dat hierboven een discussie, ik ervaar het alleen maar als een twistgesprek waar Eijssink op uit was. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 21:53, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Als het teveel gedoe is kan je ook allééń het onbewerkte bestand uploaden. Dat zie ik dan liever. Wanneer het echt nodig is kan dat dan ook achteraf nog wel bewerkt worden, door jou of door iemand anders. Het is niet zo eenvoudig om "even de bron te volgen". De bron kan offline gaan en omdat je het {{Retouched}} sjabloon niet gebruikt is überhaupt niet duidelijk dat de afbeelding bewerkt is. In geval van videos is het dan ook nog zoeken naar het exacte moment in de video. - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 01:13, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Nogmaals, ik beloof niks. Ik ben niet iemand die afbeeldingen upload slechts omdat het kan. We hebben al genoeg uploaders die dat doen, maar die afbeeldingen zullen waarschijnlijk nooit ergens gebruikt worden, ballast dus. De meeste afbeeldingen die ik upload worden ergens gebruikt. Daarvoor moeten ze bewerkt worden, omdat veel afbeeldingen in ruwe vorm ongeschikt zijn voor publicatie. Maar iets anders, Alexis Jazz, de moeite die je besteed om iemand te overtuigen in een of ander onbeschreven gareel te laten lopen is futiel vergeleken bij het aantal uploaders. Hoeveel zullen dat er zijn? Honderdduizend? Een miljoen? Misschien nog wel meer. Die horen zich te gedragen volgens de Commons richtlijnen, dat is iets wat je kan afdwingen. Dus als je iets wil veranderen is dat de plaats om te beginnen. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 10:19, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

We werken eraan. - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 15:06, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

File:Christian Ingrao (2018).jpg

File:Christian Ingrao (2018).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!

Droit de retrait 03 (talk) 03:58, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

File:Cornelis Cornelisz van Haarlem - Een monnik en een begijn - 1590.jpg

@Jan Arkesteijn: die alternatieve titel in het Engels zit imo niet goed. Kan dit aangepast worden? Lotje (talk) 12:17, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

ik heb op rkd en het Frans hals museum gekeken, maar ik zie niet at het anders moet zijn. Of bedoel je iets anders? Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 13:49, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

@Jan Arkesteijn: Een monnik die in de borst van een begijn knijpt wordt toch anders vertaald in het Engels dacht ik. Maar ach ja, who cares. Lotje (talk) 15:57, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Het gaat hier niet om een vertaling maar om onder welke Nederlandstalige en Engelstalige titel het werk bekend staat. Zie: A monk and a nun (Frans Halsmuseum) en A monk and a nun (RKD). Gouwenaar (talk) 20:52, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Category:Studio_of_Michiel_Jansz._van_Mierevelt

Studio of Michiel Jansz. van Mierevelt has been listed at Commons:Categories for discussion so that the community can discuss ways in which it should be changed. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at Commons:Categories for discussion/2018/10/Category:Studio_of_Michiel_Jansz._van_Mierevelt. If you created this category, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for discussion 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. If the category is up for deletion because it has been superseded, consider the notion that although the category may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new category. In all cases, please do not take the category discussion personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

Oursana (talk) 17:55, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

COM:AN/U

---

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems#Jan Arkesteijn. This is in relation to an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

  — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 14:07, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

File tagging File:Jacob Kistemaker 2008.jpg

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:Jacob Kistemaker 2008.jpg. This media is missing permission information. A source is given, but there is no proof that the author or copyright holder agreed to license the file under the given license. Please provide a link to an appropriate webpage with license information, or send an email with copy of a written permission to OTRS (permissions-commons@wikimedia.org). This also applies if you are the author yourself. Please see this page for more information on how to confirm permission, and Commons:Permission if you would like to understand why we ask for permission when uploading work that is not your own. Unless the permission information is given, the image may be deleted after seven days. Thank you.

 

4nn1l2 (talk) 15:57, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

File:Jacob Kistemaker 2008.jpg

File:Jacob Kistemaker 2008.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!

℺ Gone Postal (〠 ✉ • ✍ ⏿) 14:37, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

File:Richard Wilson (1714-1782), by Anton Raphael Mengs.jpg

File:Richard Wilson (1714-1782), by Anton Raphael Mengs.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!

Fæ (talk) 17:54, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Hello, I have asked you two questions here. Could you please kindly answer? Thanks, — Racconish ^💬 09:54, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Racconish, I thought about that, but the ranting contains so much bad faith, that I think it will not make any difference. The image existed on Commons long before I uploaded this file. I uploaded it not to illustrate the work of Mengs, but to provide an image of Wilson. Whether it is good enough is a personal matter. Even if would have reduced all the colours it still has nothing to do with fake. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 11:03, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, but please answer there: I will not comment here. — Racconish ^💬 11:08, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

No. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 11:11, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

File:Rembrandt van rijn-self portrait.jpg

File:Rembrandt van rijn-self portrait.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!

Fæ (talk) 22:09, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

File:John La Farge, by Robert Wilton Lockwood.jpg

File:John La Farge, by Robert Wilton Lockwood.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!

Fæ (talk) 14:27, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

File:Nymphs and Satyr, by William-Adolphe Bouguereau.jpg

File:Nymphs and Satyr, by William-Adolphe Bouguereau.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!

Fæ (talk) 14:59, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

File:Elizabeth Murray (1626–1698), by Peter Lely.jpg

File:Elizabeth Murray (1626–1698), by Peter Lely.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!

Fæ (talk) 15:48, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

File:After the bath, by Jean-Léon Gérôme.jpg

File:After the bath, by Jean-Léon Gérôme.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!

Fæ (talk) 18:11, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

File:After the bath, by Jean-Léon Gérôme.jpg

File:After the bath, by Jean-Léon Gérôme.jpg is considered to fulfill the criteria for speedy deletion and has been marked on its page. The following reason has been specified: Fraudulent EXIF data, please see Commons:Deletion requests/File:After the bath, by Jean-Léon Gérôme.jpg. If you believe the content does not meet the criteria for speedy deletion, you may replace the speedy deletion tag with a regular deletion request (if the content has not been deleted) or request undeletion (if the content has already been deleted). All your uploads, including deleted ones, are listed in your upload log. If you need help, please read our frequently asked questions or visit the help desk. Please do not remove this message from your talk page. You may set up archiving instead.

  — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 00:13, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

File:Allegory of Fortune, by Agnolo Bronzino.jpg

File:Allegory of Fortune, by Agnolo Bronzino.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!

Fæ (talk) 13:20, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

File:Mata Hari (1905-1917).jpg

File:Mata Hari (1905-1917).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!

Fæ (talk) 19:15, 8 November 2018 (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 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:Aad Veenman (2015).jpg

And also 257 other files:

Yours sincerely, Fæ (talk) 11:56, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Blocked

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing Commons. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may add {{unblock}} below this message explaining clearly why you should be unblocked. For more information, see Appealing a block. See the block log for the reason that you have been blocked and the name of the administrator who blocked you.

Unblock request declined This blocked user asked to be unblocked, but one or more administrators has reviewed and declined this request. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked. Other administrators can also review this block, but should not override the decision without discussion. Request reason: "User:Pi.1415926535 If I broke a commons rule, please name it. I did not falsify images. I merely adjusted the colours to make them more fit for publication. Many people do, f.i. cropping, or changing to B/W. It is a false premise that there is only one color that can represent an image. See for instance Category:Portrait of a Girl in Blue Dress (Johannes Cornelisz Verspronck - Rijksmuseum Amsterdam). I did not falsify EXIF data. I added information that was not there. It is part of my workflow. During upload I copy this info to the description field. The EXIF field is not a protected area, but a datablock added to an image to contain data about the image. There is only one field in that dataset that should not be changed: Unique ID of original document. I never changed that. It is even worse, many uploaders have the habbit of (unknowingly) discarding the EXIF block making it unclear what the original image was. I stopped engaging with the community because of the endles flow of accusations, the assumption of bad faith, and the fact that it is mainly a limited group that is participating in that. A group that is prepossessed with the idea that I did something wrong. and whatever I say is untrue in there eyes. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 08:57, 9 November 2018 (UTC)" Decline reason: "Jan, at this stage you must talk to the people first. You do have talk page access. When you come to an understanding what went wrong and then to an agreement on how to start contributing again without causing trouble, only then it makes sense to talk about an unblock. Jcb (talk) 22:13, 9 November 2018 (UTC)" Administrators: This template should be removed when the block has expired.

(Block log) (unblock) (Change local status for a global block) (contribs)

 Comment what makes me so sad is that you only had to do one thing: uninstall Photoshop. That's it. Just remove it from your computer. Upload images from auction sites, public domain photos from archives, unaltered screenshots from CC YouTube videos. Those things are all awesome and highly appreciated. And if really needed, you could ask Commons:Graphic Lab/Photography workshop to fix an image.

But you couldn't resist. You didn't make any image "more fit for publication". You just colored everything blue, yellow and green. And created Ken and Barbie. I would actually support an unblock if you could promise to upload exclusively unaltered images from now on. Your "artwork" has also spread to professional websites and Paul Fearn is selling them, not knowing he's actually selling Arkesteijns. - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 10:40, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

This user shows himself, again, completely unaware of the damage he has done, unblocking should not even be considered at any moment in the near future. Jürgen Eissink (talk) 13:12, 9 November 2018 (UTC).

Agree with Jürgen Eissink, additionally the unblock request confirms that a indef. block is needed here. --Steinsplitter (talk) 14:33, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

@Jürgen Eissink, Steinsplitter: To be honest, I have my doubts Arkesteijn would agree to uninstall Photoshop. But if he's willing to upload only completely unaltered files (no changes to EXIF either, just upload whatever the source provides, no "improvements" of any kind, visible or invisible. Cropping YouTube/video screenshots could perhaps be considered as an exception, but absolutely no color changes, sharpening, retouching or anything else), I would support an unblock. In such a case however, this would be combined with a one-strike enforcement: if he were to upload a single blue tinted painting again, it's right back to indefblock and I wouldn't support unblocking at that point. - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 14:58, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Since Arkesteijn doesn't mind wikilawyering, I'm willing to write down the above in a more formal form. If Arkesteijn is willing to consider this. - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 15:08, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose unblock in the present conditions. Jan fails to realize that caused extra workload for volunteers and outrage for consumers with his overwrites. He opted to argue with the blocking sysop (whose action may or may not follow the policy) and attributing grievances to “a limited group” instead of admitting his own mistakes first. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 18:43, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose based on comments at AN/U. Block is justified and the next step must come from Jan the way it does for any indef block. -- Colin (talk) 19:55, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose unblock - They were essentially given a lifeline in 2016 to stop the bullshit .... but instead they've seemingly carried on, I oppose any unblock despite what promises may be made, They had their chance to stop but instead ignored the community and carried on. –Davey2010^Talk 21:46, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

@Davey2010: blocks are supposed to be a preventative measure, not a punitive one. If Arkesteijn were to agree to some restrictions I could write (Arkesteijn may be wikilawyering, but I'm worse) his contributions would be highly valueable. The lifeline in 2016 wasn't restrictive enough and probably not written by a wikilawyer. Any violations of new restrictions could be quite easily detected and there's no doubt Arkesteijn will be watched. But Arkesteijn should first indicate if he's willing to consider any such thing. - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 00:44, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

"I merely adjusted the colours to make them more fit for publication" tells you all you need to know. Jan is arrogant in thinking he can do a better job than the professionals at museums and galleries, and self-promotingly insistent that his reworked variants appear on wikidata and wikipedia so that 1000s of readers see his work. Alexis, stop wasting your time on this user. And as for your proposal on editing restrictions, stop wasting our time on this too. This isn't solved by crafting rules, but a change of mindset by Jan. Jan needs time to realise what he's been doing wrong, and I don't think that will happen any time soon. -- Colin (talk) 12:00, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

• Blocks are always meant to be preventive and not punitive and I've always been an advocate of that .... but in this specific case we're not EN and they're not being asked to stop edit warring or to stop being incivil .... they're being asked to stop reuploading retouched images ... something of which they've carried on with ....,

The reason I said " oppose any unblock despite what promises may be made" is Commons isn't like EN in that we don't really monitor contributions as such ....., It's not a hard concept to simply stop uploading retouched images,

If we had some sort of tool that disabled editors from uploading images then sure I would happily support an unblock as Jan could easily edit elsewhere but there isn't and like I said we're not a nursery and cannot monitor editors 24/7 365 days a year. –Davey2010^Talk 13:45, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

@Davey2010: Arkesteijn would be watched. By me, by Fæ, and likely many others. Enforcement is not the thing to worry about here. - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 21:36, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Fair point I suppose,

Well I would only support unblocking if they were to be topic banned from uploading images (other than their own or from Flickr), Screenshots would be included in that topicban - If they break said topicban then it would be on the spot indef, This would be the only best ooption I think. –Davey2010^Talk 21:52, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

•  Comment I also oppose unblocking per the above and the discussion I started at Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems#Jan Arkesteijn.   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 12:05, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

@Jcb: Please, name the Commons rule I broke, then I can with peace of mind say this beautiful project goodbye. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 13:40, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

• Jan, you should be fully aware of the community feeling towards your uploads. Commons is an educational media repository. Truth and honesty are fundamentals and we don't encode them in policy rules. Your uploads have been determined by the community to lack truth and honesty especially wrt source and what edits have been applied. They have damaged educational value due to your perverse colour toning and other adjustments, which is unacceptable when you offer them as the official JPGs and seek to push your variants on Wikidata and Wikipedia. Commons values the institutions who provide free images of artworks, which we can reuse here. Commons respects the photographers and scanners who have exercised their professional skill to reproduce those artworks. Our relationships with source archives, image professionals, and our users (directly or via sister projects) require trust, honesty and transparency wrt what exactly people are looking at and downloading. You have consistently, for years, broken all those values. Please take a break and reconsider whether you share those values. -- Colin (talk) 16:37, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

• If I may add, and correct: Commons:Project scope is considered an official policy. Therefor Fæ was right in stating that the Project scope has been violated. Breaking those rules is pretty much a constitutional offense. Jürgen Eissink (talk) 16:47, 10 November 2018 (UTC).

• Jan, I've been trying to throw you a lifeline here. When I look around, I am the ONLY person willing to throw you a lifeline. Instead of talking to me, you just continue your wikilawyering as you drown. Which is seriously hopeless at this point. Jcb declined your unblock request, the only admin who opposed blocking you in the ANU thread. - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 21:36, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

???

@Jan Arkesteijn:, wat is er loos mijn beste? Waarom hul jij jezelf in volledig stilzwijgen? Dat verbaast mij ten zeerste Kan ik ergens behulpzaam zijn? Lotje (talk) 14:29, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Dat is onmogelijk om uit te leggen, Lotje. Eerlijk gezegd snap ik het zelf ook niet, ik word van van alles beschuldigd en het wordt alleen maar negatief uitgelegd. Lees bovenstaande en lees Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems#User:Jan_Arkesteijn, en ik hoop dat je er iets van begrijpt. Ik ben geblokkeerd en tot nog toe heeft men niet aangegeven welke Commons regels ik heb overtreden. Het dieptepunt is dat iemand voor al deze files een nominatie voor verwijdering heeft ingediend. Ik word beschuldigd van wikilawyering, maar als ik de definitie goed begrijp is juist die verwijderingsnominatie een geval van wikilawyering. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 15:45, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

@Jan Arkesteijn: als je 't mij vraag is het probleem het photoshoppen, als je iets aan een afbeelding wijzigt is dat geen originele foto meer. Lotje (talk) 15:49, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Dat hoeft ook geen originele foto te zijn. De copyright laat het toe, en Commons laat het toe, maar dat is het laatste wat ik er over zeg. Ik ben moe. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 15:52, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Ik neem aan dat je het dan moet vermelden. Maar als je moe bent, knijp er een paar dagen uit. Ik begrijp het best. Lotje (talk) 15:58, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Beste Lotje, Wikipedia is er voor iedereen. Voor verbeteringen heb je mijn toestemming niet nodig. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 10:21, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Wat ik ervan begrepen heb is dat men het je nogal kwalijk neemt dat je afgeleide werken maakt en dat het gevolg is dat die afgeleide werken nu in allerlei artikelen staan alsof het het originele werk is. Ik moet toegeven dat ik afbeeldingen als Ken en Barbie ook wel problematisch vind. Verder is er een structureel probleem met de bronvermelding. Wat men nu van je vraagt is met name dat je aan de ene kant laat zien dat je begrijpt wat het probleem is en aan de andere kant aangeeft hoe je je werkwijze gaat veranderen. Het is waarschijnlijk helemaal zo slecht nog niet er een paar dagen tussenuit te gaan. Laat het allemaal eens rustig op je inwerken. Bij Commons is 'straf' nadrukkelijk geen geldige reden voor een blokkering, dus op het moment dat de gemeenschap er vertrouwen in heeft dat de problemen niet terugkeren als je wordt gedeblokkeerd, dan zal dat over het algemeen vrij snel gebeuren. Jcb (talk) 16:34, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Jcb, ieder tijdschrift publiceert afgeleide werken bij zijn artikelen. Al die afbeeldingen worden voor publicatie opgemaakt. Daar wordt alleen de rechthebbende en bron bij vermeld. Ik zie niet in waarom dat hier verboden is. Verboden? Het is niet verboden, maar een beperkte groep blaast het op. Als je de Commons-regel waar ik naar vraag niet wilt vermelden, vraag dan een van je collega-administrators die niet betrokken is bij dit verhaal dat te doen. Dank je, Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 10:31, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Ik ben een relatieve buitenstaander in dit verhaal. Ik heb gezien wat er gaande is, maar ik heb er niet aan meegewerkt dat je geblokkeerd bent. Ik heb geprobeerd je te adviseren over welke stappen te bewandelen om eventueel weer mee te mogen gaan doen. Ik weet wat voor gebruikers Alexis Jazz en Fae zijn. Als zij nu de enigen waren die zich zo druk maakten over je uploads, dan was je echt niet geblokkeerd. In dit geval zien echter ook meerdere evaren administrators een ernstig probleem in je bijdragen en echt noemenswaardige bijval voor jouw standpunt zie ik eigenlijk niet. Consensus is een van de basisprincipes die de gemeenschap hier laat functioneren. Als er dus een zodanige controversie is over jouw bijdragen, dan moet je daarover op zoek naar consensus, voordat je verder kunt gaan met bijdragen. Voor wat betreft de blocking policy, het verwijt dat men jou maakt is: Insertion of deliberately false information (e.g. fake image sources). Daar kun je het mee eens zijn of niet, maar uit de discussie blijkt wel dat er enige steun is voor dat verwijt. Daar zul je dus eerst over in gesprek moeten, voordat je gedeblokkeerd kunt worden. Blijven roepen dat je niets verkeerds hebt gedaan zal de oplossing niet dichterbij brengen. Jcb (talk) 10:59, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Jcb, doe me dan een plezier. Maak mijn gebruikerspagina leeg, daar kan ik niet bij. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 11:51, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

 Done - Jcb (talk) 11:53, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

File:Bernhardus Clesius, by Bartholomäus Bruyn the Elder.jpg

File:Bernhardus Clesius, by Bartholomäus Bruyn the Elder.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!

Fæ (talk) 17:18, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

File:Nina Bouraoui (2016).jpg

File:Nina Bouraoui (2016).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!

Leoboudv (talk) 10:10, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

File:Amazons and Scythians, by Otto van Veen.jpg

File:Amazons and Scythians, by Otto van Veen.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!

Fæ (talk) 14:44, 11 November 2018 (UTC)