User talk:Jan Arkesteijn/Archives/2018/November

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

Aanpassingen en originelen[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
We werken eraan. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 15:06, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

COM:AN/U[edit]

Deutsch ∙ English ∙ español ∙ français ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ português ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenščina ∙ svenska ∙ Tagalog ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ मराठी ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ العربية ∙ +/−

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.

  — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 14:07, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File tagging File:Jacob Kistemaker 2008.jpg[edit]

العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ español ∙ euskara ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ 한국어 ∙ lietuvių ∙ latviešu ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ मराठी ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ اردو ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−
Warning sign
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 ask the author or copyright holder to send an email with copy of a written permission to VRT (permissions-commons@wikimedia.org). You may still be required to go through this procedure even if you are the author yourself; please see Commons:But it's my own work! for more details. After you emailed permission, you may replace the {{No permission since}} tag with {{subst:PP}} on file description page. Alternatively, you may click on "Challenge speedy deletion" below the tag if you wish to provide an argument why evidence of permission is not necessary in this case.

Please see this page for more information on how to confirm permission, or if you would like to understand why we ask for permission when uploading work that is not your own, or work which has been previously published (regardless of whether it is your own).

Warning: unless the permission information is given, the file may be deleted after seven days. Thank you.

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

File:Jacob Kistemaker 2008.jpg[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

Hello, I have asked you two questions here. Could you please kindly answer? Thanks, — Racconish 💬 09:54, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Thanks, but please answer there: I will not comment here. — Racconish 💬 11:08, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 11:11, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Rembrandt van rijn-self portrait.jpg[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

العربية ∙ Deutsch ∙ English ∙ español ∙ français ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ 日本語 ∙ português ∙ Türkçe ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 简体中文 ∙ 繁體中文 ∙ +/−

  — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 00:13, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Allegory of Fortune, by Agnolo Bronzino.jpg[edit]

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

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

File:Mata Hari (1905-1917).jpg[edit]

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

Fæ (talk) 19:15, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notification about possible deletion[edit]

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

Affected:

And also 257 other files:

Extended content

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

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

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

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

File:Nina Bouraoui (2016).jpg[edit]

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

Leoboudv (talk) 10:10, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

???[edit]

@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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Jcb, doe me dan een plezier. Maak mijn gebruikerspagina leeg, daar kan ik niet bij. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 11:51, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
✓ Done - Jcb (talk) 11:53, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"Al die afbeeldingen worden voor publicatie opgemaakt."
Nee, Jan. Niet zoals jij dat doet. Nouja, de Playboy misschien. Tijdschriften pogen niet om een archief te creëren met historisch correcte afbeeldingen. En het zou best kunnen dat je van geen enkele regel de letter gebroken hebt. Durf ik niet met zekerheid te zeggen. In een rechtszaak heb je daarmee vaak een solide verdediging. Maar dit is geen rechtszaak. En de geest van verschillende regels heb je wel gebroken. Daar hebben heel veel gebruikers over de jaren kritiek op geleverd en die kritiek heb je consequent terzijde geschoven. Het was een kwestie van tijd voor de bom zou barsten. Op 11 oktober (ik was toen onbekend met de lange geschiedenis van deze zaak) vroeg ik je zelfs nog om ook altijd onbewerkte originelen te uploaden. Als ik toen op de hoogte was geweest van de geschiedenis had ik dat verzoek strenger verwoord. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 08:06, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Jan Arkesteijn: , @Alexis Jazz: , @Jürgen Eissink: wie kan hier uitsluitsel gevenis wie is wie? --> dit Carlo Emanuele d'Este of Philippe II François d'Este. Ik heb namelijk zonet de stok in het hoenderhok gegooid op wikipedia omdat hier toch dringend iets moet ondernomen worden meen ik. hier wordt pijnlijk duidelijk waarom er verwarring ontstaat --> Ook hier moeten jullie nu duidelijkheid scheppen vind ik. Lotje (talk) 14:08, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Lotje:
http://www.khm.at/objektdb/detail/654/ "Abbildung/Person: Marchese Filippo II. Francesco di Sigismondo III. d´ Este di San Martino (1621-1653)"
https://rkd.nl/nl/explore/images/48285 "Portret van Filippo Francesco d'Este (1621-1653) als jongen, 1634-1635"
Mijn bestandnaam komt van de beschrijving van File:Anthonis van Dyck 085.jpg zo te zien. https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Anthonis_van_Dyck_085.jpg&oldid=16250436 (2008) zei ook al Carlo en linkte toen ook al naar khm.at. Dus vermoedelijk is het KHM er ergens in de afgelopen 10 jaar achtergekomen dat het Filippo is. Ik noem hem voortaan Flip. Ik kan al die moeilijke namen niet onthouden. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 14:31, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Alexis Jazz: Moet de beschrijving dan niet worden aangepast om het helemaal compleet te maken of houd je er liever de suspense in? Lotje (talk) 15:01, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Lotje: tis wel een rommeltje geworden idd.. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 15:07, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Alexis Jazz: 't is inderdaad een rommeltje geworden. Wie wij hier nu dringend nodig hebben om ons te helpen is, jawel.... Jan Arkesteijn, dus: for the sake of the universal knowledge, please unblock... Lotje (talk) 15:11, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Lotje: ik heb mijn best gedaan, maar de bal ligt bij Arkesteijn.. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 15:13, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ach, ik vind het allemaal zo in-triest. Kon ik maar behulpzaam zijn. zucht. Lotje (talk) 15:22, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Lotje: Ik denk dat jij en ik behulpzaam kunnen zijn vanaf het moment dat Jan weer zover is dat hij over de zaak kan praten. Een permanente blokkade voor iemand die (voor zover ik kan zien) goedwillend is maar onhandige dingen gedaan heeft is m.i. eigenlijk een zwaktebod. Maar ik zie niet in hoe we hem kunnen deblokkeren voordat met hem duidelijk is geworden wat het probleem is en hoe we dat in de toekomst kunnen voorkomen. Ik ben beschikbaar om mee te denken. Jcb (talk) 17:46, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Jcb: vraagje: waarom zijn er zoveel afbeeldingen in deze category vraag ik me af? Ik kwam deze category tegen toen ik op zoek was naar de correcte beschrijving bij deze 25 gulden. Alweer iets waar Jan Arkesteijn zou kunnen behulpzaam zijn. Lotje (talk) 06:23, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ik heb geen idee, ik weet eigenlijk totaal niets van schilderijen. Jcb (talk) 12:20, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Lotje: Arkesteijn is nog gewoon welkom op Wikipedia en heeft daar gisteren nog pagina's bewerkt, misschien kan je hem daar om hulp vragen. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 12:39, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Aanpassing van cijfers[edit]

In deze bewerking wordt er tot onze aandacht gewezen dat u de cijfers in de achtergrond van een foto hebt veranderd, kunt u hier uitleggen wat uw motivatie voor dit was? Sinds u van trollen wordt beschuldigd lijkt het mij belangrijk dat uw perspectief in de discussie vertegenwoordigd wordt. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 07:17, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Donald Trung: lijkt me duidelijk, poging om de privacy te beschermen. Er was trouwens ook wat stof van zijn jas verwijderd. Dat doe ik zelf normaal niet, al haal ik vlekken door stofjes op de scanner en cameradefecten wel eens weg. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 07:47, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Onzinnig verwijt. Dit was (in 2008!) een duidelijke poging de privacy te beschermen. Overigens ben ik het eens met de stelling dat op Commons aanpassingen in afbeeldingen altijd met {{retouched}} moeten worden aangegeven. Maar dat gebeurt ook door anderen niet standaard, zelfs niet na bewerking in de zeer nuttige Photography workshop op EN-Wiki en op Commons -daar wel altijd in de Comments. Vysotsky (talk) 09:33, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Gevelsteen in Amsterdam met Bredero's lijfspreuk
Had ik maar niet gekeken naar wat die Photography Workshop inhoudt... Het eerste 'verbeterde' bestand dat ik daar zie is dit (origineel) / toegejuichde bewerking – wat is er toch aan de hand met het zicht en de smaak van die mensen? Dat is toch verschrikkelijk? De wereld is ziek. Jürgen Eissink (talk) 14:19, 16 November 2018 (UTC).[reply]
De wereld is niet ziek. De wereld is bevolkt met mensen, en die zijn allemaal niet bepaald perfect. Ik neem aan dat je gezien hebt wie een van de bewerkers van die brief is? Dat is een van de mensen die nu lekker hard tegen Jan Arkesteijn aanschoppen. Het kan verkeren, zei Bredero al. En misschien wordt het morgen beter! Vysotsky (talk) 16:18, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ik had het gezien, maar er nog niets mee gedaan – ga ik nu alsnog doen. Jürgen Eissink (talk) 16:41, 16 November 2018 (UTC).[reply]

Blocked[edit]

Blocked Indefinitely
Blocked Indefinitely
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.

azərbaycanca ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ Deutsch ∙ English ∙ español ∙ français ∙ hrvatski ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ italiano ∙ kurdî ∙ la .lojban. ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ sicilianu ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Türkçe ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Zazaki ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ हिन्दी ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ไทย ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体）‎ ∙ 中文（繁體）‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ فارسی ∙ +/−

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.
  1. 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).
  2. 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.
  3. 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)"[reply]
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)"[reply]
Administrators: This template should be removed when the block has expired.
 (Block log)
(unblock)
(Change local status for a global block)
(contribs)

Deutsch ∙ English ∙ español ∙ français ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ português ∙ Simple English ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ हिन्दी ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ 中文（臺灣） ∙ +/−

 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)[reply]
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).[reply]
Agree with Jürgen Eissink, additionally the unblock request confirms that a indef. block is needed here. --Steinsplitter (talk) 14:33, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Jürgen Eissink and 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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. –Davey2010Talk 21:46, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@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)[reply]
"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)[reply]
  • 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. –Davey2010Talk 13:45, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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. –Davey2010Talk 21:52, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@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)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
@Anna Frodesiak: that happened over 10 years ago. Just in case you hadn't noticed. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 15:22, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
And on top of that: it was done to protect the privacy of the owner of that mobile phone. Vysotsky (talk) 15:30, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry. You are both right, of course. I was very tired when I saw that and posted about it. My apologies to Jan Arkesteijn. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 19:29, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment An indef block is not intended to be forever. As the person who did most of the research into Jan Arkesteijn's contributions, the case was never about personalities, so I have no objection to an unblock when Jan can make a commitment to changing the way they go about uploads. There must be evidence of their understanding of why editing GLAM related archive quality photographs is only acceptable for images where a digital restoration uncontroversially adds educational value for reusers and viewers. Hiding scratches on old photographs, simple crops and rotations are all areas where there would be no dispute as to added value. The project would benefit from better guidelines on recolouring and definition of when non-visible file changes such as amending original EXIF data is appropriate, especially as faking EXIF data has been used for vandalism in the past, and changes to checksum values makes automated identification of duplicates and automatic comparison with a declared source image file impossible. There is a risk that Jan may be subject to a global ban discussion, now that their account has been blocked on the English Wikipedia. Successfully returning from a global ban is rare and complex, for this reason I would hope that Jan feels they could start helping with discussing how to improve guidelines on at least Commons and the English Wikipedia, and a commitment to cease all uploads until the guidelines are agreed might be a positive way forward which would be seen by most fellow contributors as a significant step to avoiding a potential ban. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 12:47, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Fæ: , ”There is a risk that Jan may be subject to a global ban discussion, now that their account has been blocked on the English Wikipedia. Successfully returning from a global ban is rare and complex”, technically global bans can only be overturned with an RfC, however no RfC for a global unban has ever been started and from my experience a block on a Wikimedia project automatically means a ban from the IRC so globally banned users have no way of communicating with any users if they want to be unbanned, you might be confusing global bans with global locks which are by policy against the account and not the person but in practice are seen as de facto global bans (to the point that very few users even know the difference), no globally banned user has ever been globally unbanned in the history of Wikimedia, in fact I hope that if global blocks for named accounts ever happen that the whole non-WMF global ban system will be abolished as all it does is make sure that users who are productive in one project but banned from another project be banned from every project for the sake of punishment, not prevention. If this were to happen to Jan Arkesteijn the chances of him ever getting unbanned are based on historical precedent 0% (zero percent), I do support an unblock of Jan Arkesteijn as he is a very productive user who has a few disruptive habits and every day that he’s blocked Wikimedia Commons is missing out of high quality imports of great historical works. Unfortunately Jan Arkesteijn hasn't shown the insight into his own errors nor has he offered to fix his own mistakes so I do see why this continued block is being enforced, I just hope that Mr. Arkesteijn will see the error of his ways, self-reflect, and then write an appeal where he addresses his issues and explains that he will avoid them, something which he unfortunately isn't doing as of now. Unfortunately this won't necessarily put a global ban of the table as I’ve read that he replaced realistic images with his photo shopped ones on Wikidata, but fortunately for Mr. Arkesteijn no-one on Wikidata has brought these issues up at Wikidata. I still think that we should have policies and guidelines in place for retouched works and agree with some of Jürgen Eissink’s proposals. Going through Arkesteijn's uploads and creating new categories for maintenance is great, but we shouldn't underplay the value many of his uploads have had either and it’s probably best not to take either a Deletionist and/or exclusionist stance. Jan Arkesteijn has been very beneficial for the project (mobile link) and I hope that he will self-reflect, we shouldn't blow this out of proportions and advocate global action will be to the detriment of the project. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 23:27, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Donald Trung and Fæ: I've read the siteban discussion. The discussion was started (by you) on 5 November. The first response came on 8 November (by Jürgen Eissink, so no news at that point). On 11 November Swarm responded. The actual ban proposal wasn't started until 16 November (also by Swarm), a week after Arkesteijn was blocked here. I'm saying this because Jan Arkesteijn didn't edit anything on enwiki after 3 November. He didn't have a reason, because he was blocked on Commons. Any disruption on enwiki was cut off the moment Arkesteijn was blocked here. Which makes me question: why did Arkesteijn have to be blocked on enwiki in the first place? What purpose did that serve, other than punishment? - Alexis Jazz ping plz 00:13, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, though I know this is not related to Jan Arkesteijn, I have a specific question: why are there different images of this work by Adriaen van Ostade? IMO, all but one should be deleted. Keep the best quality image I guess. Thank you for your time. Lotje (talk) 10:34, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Jacob Kistemaker 2008.jpg[edit]

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

Lotje (talk) 06:13, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Concrete vraag m.b.t. afbeeldingen nu in de Category:Wilhelm Dreesen[edit]

@Jan Arkesteijn: toevallig stootte ik op deze afbeelding en ik vroeg me af wat de reden hiervoor was omdat dit reeds bestond. Thank you for your time. Lotje (talk) 06:26, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Fæ: what to do with that? The source is dead, when entered into archive.org it returns a .pdf which contains a 915 × 702 image (which is far less blue) which is not the source for this 1,821 × 1,403 image. Maybe Landesmuseum Hannover offered something better at the time of upload. I'm also not sure if the color profile in the pdf was set correctly (visually, it would seem Adobe 1998 should be applied). Image from pdf with Adobe 1998. (note: recompressed by imgur, I can provide the original) - Alexis Jazz ping plz 19:02, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the source is long gone. I have uploaded an old cache version which seems to match the old thumbnail version from the original exhibition page and has not been cropped. --Fæ (talk) 20:24, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Vincent van Gogh 1866.jpg[edit]

File:Vincent van Gogh 1866.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!
Afrikaans ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

Happytravels (talk) 16:01, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jan_Arkesteijn/Archives/2018/November&oldid=340954676"