User talk:JurgenNL/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Problematic uploaded files.

User:Graf von dem Bergh

Picture 1: File:Graf von dem Bergh, Fotografie Schmidgaden, Ortsteil Trisching.jpg

Picture 2: File:Graf von dem Bergh, Flugplatz Schmidgaden.jpg

Problematic uploaded files.--217.81.172.197 22:43, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Picture of the Year 2013 R2 Announcement

Round 2 of Picture of the Year 2013 is open!

⧼Wikibase-terms/Archive 2⧽: Deutsch, Ελληνικά, English, ‎français, magyar, ‎italiano, македонски, ‎‎日本語, ‎‎‎русский, ‎‎‎svenska

Dear Wikimedians,

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

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

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

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

Thanks,
the Wikimedia Commons Picture of the Year committee

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

This Picture of the Year vote notification was delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:21, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted photo

Dear Jurgen. May you tell me why have you deleted the photo about Mandela and de Klerk in Davos? I used it in one article and I have no idea of the reason. Thank you.--Chamarasca (talk) 13:12, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Chamarasca, I only deleted the talk page from this file - the file still exists. A crosswiki spambot created this talk page so I deleted only that page. JurgenNL (talk) 13:13, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I have already seen the point. It's only the talk. I'm sorry. It was a mistake.--Chamarasca (talk) 13:15, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Photo

Bonjour,

J'ai bien reçu ton message et je tenais à te répondre. Tout d'abord, je voulais te dire, loin de moi toutes mauvaises intentions de prendre des photos qui ne sont pas miennes et les publier sur des articles Wikipédia pour en violer les droits. Le problème est que pour télécharger des photos c'est une mission pour un débutant. Plusieurs photos que j'ai pu télécharger sont en fait des photos d'un blog culinaire : Les joyaux de Sherazade, une amie qui m'a donnée les pleins droits pour que je puisse illustrer les articles Wikipédia à des fins intellectuels. Elle a même laissée un message visible par tout le monde sur son blog avec mon pseudo : "NB : J’autorise FlavorOfAlgeria a utiliser mes photographies pour des projets intellectuels notamment sur l’encyclopédie informatique : Wikipédia." vérifiable sur ce lien : http://www.lesjoyauxdesherazade.com/2014/01/tournage-m6-lemission-100-mag/. De plus, plusieurs photos dont je suis l'auteur ont été supprimées. Après ces événements, j'ai décidé de m'expliquer avec toi et te demandé via ces deux questions ton aide :

1) Comment peut-on télécharger des photos sur Wikimédia commons qui ne sont pas notre propriété même si nous avons les pleins droits de l'auteur ?

2) Pourquoi avoir supprimé mes photos alors que je suis l'auteur ?

J'espère que j'ai été clair mais sache que je n'avais pas de mauvaises intentions.

Cordialement, en attente d'une réponse. --FlavorOfAlgeria (talk) 18:05, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I don't speak French. Please post your message in English. JurgenNL (talk) 13:17, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

I received your message and I wanted to meet you. First, I wanted to tell you , from me all evil intentions to take pictures that are not mine and publish articles on Wikipedia to violate rights. The problem is that to upload photos is a task for a beginner. Several pictures that I have downloaded are actually photos of a food blog: Jewels Sherazade , a friend who has given me full rights so that I can illustrate Wikipedia articles for purposes intellectuals. She even left a message visible by everyone on his blog with my nickname : " NB : I authorize to use my photographs FlavorOfAlgeria for intellectual projects including IT encyclopedia . Wikipedia " verifiable on this link: http://www.lesjoyauxdesherazade.com/2014/01/tournage-m6-lemission-100-mag/ . In addition, several photos which I am the author have been removed. After these events, I decided to explain myself to you and ask you these two questions via your help :

1) How can I upload pictures on Wikimedia commons that are not our property, even if we have the full rights of the author?

2) Why have you deleted my photos as I am the author ?

I hope I was clear but know that I had no bad intentions.

Sincerely, waiting for a response .--FlavorOfAlgeria (talk) 23:51, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, just a permission for "usage on Wikipedia" is not adequate anough. The copyright holder has to release the images under a suitable license. See COM:Licensing for this. JurgenNL (talk) 08:03, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Nieuwjaarsborrel Wikimedia Nederland bij het Nationaal Archief en de Koninklijke Bibliotheek. (12026154495).jpg

File:Nieuwjaarsborrel Wikimedia Nederland bij het Nationaal Archief en de Koninklijke Bibliotheek. (12026154495).jpg has been marked as a possible copyright violation. Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content—that is, images and other media files that can be used by anyone, for any purpose. Traditional copyright law does not grant these freedoms, and unless noted otherwise, everything you find on the web is copyrighted and not permitted here. For details on what is acceptable, please read Commons:Licensing. You may also find Commons:Copyright rules useful, or you can ask questions about Commons policies at the Commons:Help desk. If you are the copyright holder and the creator of the file, please read Commons:But it's my own work! for tips on how to provide evidence of that.

The file you added has been deleted. If you have written permission from the copyright holder, please have them send us a free license release via COM:VRT. If you believe that the deletion was not in accordance with policy, you may request undeletion. (It is not necessary to request undeletion if using VRT; the file will be automatically restored at the conclusion of the process.)

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

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

Vera (talk) 20:21, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Verwijdernominaties

Wanneer u afbeeldingen verwijderd wil zien kunt u een meer collegiale toon aanslaan. Dank u en collegiale groeten uit V. van 151.40.181.63 12:49, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Facistdeleter

Can you take a look at User_talk:Natuur12#Facistdeleter? I'm trying to find out who's sock Facistdeleter is. INeverCry 21:28, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We got it figured out: User:Sven nestle2. INeverCry 22:49, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Fefita La Grande.jpg and File:Fefita La Grande2.jpg

Please restore the images, it's not a copyright violation, just give me time to insert the permission.--Inefable001 (talk) 15:36, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done. JurgenNL (talk) 15:38, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Plakkaat

Hej Jurgen,

jij hebt file:Plakkaat van Verlaetinghe.jpg op commons gezet. Eigenlijk heet dat document het Plakkaat van Verlatinghe (zonder 'e' achter de 'a'). Dezelfde tikfout staat ook een aantal keren in de omschrijvende tekst. Om het verhaal nog wat lastiger te maken: er bestaat ook al een file:Plakkaat van Verlatinghe.jpg (en zelfs een hele category:Plakkaat van Verlatinge). Zomaar hernoemen kan dus niet, maar een bestand met een verkeerde naam is volgens mij ook niet de bedoeling...

Richardw (talk) 15:53, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ha Richard, dank voor je bericht. Ik heb de foto van de Flickr-stream van de minister-president gepakt. De uploadwizard neemt de naam en omschrijving automatisch van Flickr over, vandaar dat dezelfde namen erin staan. Niet dat ze er anders niet hadden gestaan, maar het is een goed excuus lijkt me.

Ik heb de afbeelding hernoemd naar File:Mark Rutte standing near Plakkaat van Verlatinghe together with Barack Obama and Wim Pijbes.jpg. Is dat beter? Groet, JurgenNL (talk) 16:03, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lang, maar helemaal correct. Bedankt voor de snelle actie! Richardw (talk) 16:04, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Picture of the Year 2013 Results Announcement

Picture of the Year 2013 Results

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

Dear JurgenNL,

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

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

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

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

Click here to view the top images »

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

Thanks,
the Picture of the Year committee

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

Delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:59, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Missing permission ?

Hey Jurgen.

Could you explain this diff ? The uploader says own work and release the work as PD, I don't see the problem. Is there something I missed ?

Pleclown (talk) 12:56, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Pleclown, thanks for your message. I saw this edit where the uploader was removing the no source tag and tagged it as own work and I thought this wasn't true. After a quick Google Search I saw there are no other images like this so I was a little bit too fast. I removed the tag. JurgenNL (talk) 13:00, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Jubilee Campus MMB N2.jpg

Please check before you delete things. If you had, you would see this file is not a duplicate of File:Jubilee Campus MMB N1.jpg. -mattbuck (Talk) 13:11, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File tagging File:Benedicta-boccoli-2013.JPG

Dear JurgenNL, thanks for your advice!

I'll arrive hjome tonight and will send the mail-authorization. Thank again and help me every day!

Rei Momo (talk) 14:33, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Frage

Warum hast Du die Datei File:Purbach - Scheunen, Obere Bahngasse.JPG gelöscht und die Datei mit der (jetzt sinnlosen) Zahl "2" behalten: File:Purbach - Scheunen2, Obere Bahngasse.JPG? -- Bwag (talk) 18:10, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

These images were duplicates of each other. There should be only one exact copy of a file. See Commons:Deletion guidelines#Duplicates. JurgenNL (talk) 19:13, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, "these images were duplicates of each other", but why don't you take picture with simply name? Bwag (talk) 20:01, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know. Feel free to request renaming. JurgenNL (talk) 20:04, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notification about possible deletion

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

If you created these pages, please note that the fact that they have been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with them, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

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

Afrikaans ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ 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:

File:Gesprek in Rijksmuseum.jpg

And also:

Yours sincerely, russavia (talk) 19:34, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hoi Jurgen

Wat ik putten uit Street View is copyvio? mamá sabe... TOTTUS te da más por menos 15:01, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? JurgenNL (talk) 15:02, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ik verwees naar het bestand dat u hebt. mamá sabe... TOTTUS te da más por menos 15:03, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Doe het maar gewoon in het Engels als je geen Nederlands kan. JurgenNL (talk) 15:04, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ik verzoek mijn bestand wordt hersteld. mamá sabe... TOTTUS te da más por menos 15:05, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nee ga weg JurgenNL (talk) 15:07, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Permission of File:Volvo_Duett_anwb_wegenwacht_P210.JPG

What problem did you see in Special:Undelete/File:Volvo_Duett_anwb_wegenwacht_P210.JPG? We have received ticket:2014022410019727, but I'm not sure if tagging is necessary. whym (talk) 08:59, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The images can be found on this site, so OTRS permission or a confirmation on the site is required. JurgenNL (talk) 09:11, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the explanation, that makes sense. whym (talk) 09:25, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion file "Nicolaus-Schmidt-Haizmann-Museum-wiki.jpg"

Hi Jurgen,

you deleted the file: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Nicolaus-Schmidt-Haizmann-Museum-wiki.jpg because there "was no permission". Im am not only the commons user NICOLAUS-S but also the artist that has created the content of that picture. I have sent two e-mails to permissions.de – with no response.

So I don't agree with the delete. At least there should have been a response telling me where the problem is.

Here my second mail from March 28:

"[Ticket#2014032710007349]

Hallo, bislang habe ich keine Antwort auf meine E-Mail bekommen, deshalb sicherheitshalber auch noch der Vorlagentext:

Ich erkläre in Bezug auf das Bild "Nicolaus-Schmidt-Haizmann-Museum-wiki.jpg", https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/44/Nicolaus-Schmidt-Haizmann-Museum-wiki.jpg, dass ich a) dessen Fotograf und Designer bin und damit der b) Inhaber des vollumfänglichen Nutzungsrechts bin.

Ich erlaube hiermit jedermann die Weiternutzung des Bildes unter der freien Lizenz „Creative Commons Namensnennung-Weitergabe unter gleichen Bedingungen 3.0 Deutschland“ (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/de/legalcode).

Ich genehmige somit in urheberrechtlicher Hinsicht Dritten das Recht, das Bild (auch gewerblich) zu nutzen und zu verändern, sofern sie die Lizenzbedingungen wahren. Mir ist bekannt, dass ich diese Einwilligung üblicherweise nicht widerrufen kann.

Mir ist bekannt, dass sich die Unterstellung unter eine freie Lizenz nur auf das Urheberrecht bezieht und es mir daher unbenommen ist, aufgrund anderer Gesetze (Persönlichkeitsrecht, Markenrecht usw.) gegen Dritte vorzugehen, die das Bild im Rahmen der freien Lizenz rechtmäßig, aufgrund der anderen Gesetze aber unrechtmäßig nutzen.

Gleichwohl erwerbe ich keinen Anspruch darauf, dass das Bild dauerhaft auf der Wikipedia eingestellt wird."

27.März2014, Nicolaus Schmidt - Berlin Prenzlauer Berg, Kollwitzstr. 52."

Please cancel the deletion.

with best regards --NICOLAUS-S (talk) 11:37, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I saw your messege and I checked the ticket and restored the file. Sorry for intervening Jurgen. Natuur12 (talk) 13:16, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for handling this, Natuur12. JurgenNL (talk) 14:03, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Natuur12 too. I am a bit surprised that the mails to permission are not observed. --NICOLAUS-S (talk) 14:08, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We have a bit of a backlogg so it takes a little longer to process them. Natuur12 (talk) 14:21, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Pene nell'ano.JPG ‎

I apologise, I forgot to warn you. I requested the restore of the said picture and asked for its deletion to be discussed through an RfD because I think it's not so evident that it involves a minor, plus there are no personality rights infringed being she not identifiable. Your opinion about the file is welcome. -- SERGIO ^{(aka the Blackcat)} 07:48, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for notifying me. I will see the outcome from the DR. JurgenNL (talk) 17:20, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion query Commons:Deletion requests/File:Blackmaryofkenema.jpg

When did religious statues start to have personality rights?

Would this have been clearer if the filename was "The Black Mary statue of Kenema, Sierra Leone"? Andy Dingley (talk) 13:53, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not recreate deleted content

We apologize an error has been.--Jordi Malanyeu (talk) 15:09, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

License review all Nicolas Mollet icons

Hi Jurgen, I think it will be a bit impractical reviewing thousands of uploads by hand so I wonder whether you could archive the site (or take a screenshot of) and create an OTRS ticket. The template can then be documented restricting usage to uploads by GeoUploadR from http://mapicons.nicolasmollet.com/

Thanks in advance. -- Rillke^(q?) 19:35, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Rillke, I removed the review template there because the images came still in CAT:LR, despite they were reviewed. I have created a ticket in OTRS and added that to {{Map icons by Nicolas Mollet}}. It seems everything is correct now. JurgenNL (talk) 11:48, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. What I however didn't notice and that I have to fix now are the different authors. Sadly, I just discovered this now and not before I started uploading. -- Rillke^(q?) 11:51, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The site says that you have to mention Nicolas Mollet as copyright holder and you do this in the template, so imo you meet the requirements for the given license. JurgenNL (talk) 12:24, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Escudo campeonatos chilenos.jpg

It's no longer in use now. Can u delete it now, please. Thank you. OAlexander (talk) 04:20, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done. JurgenNL (talk) 07:15, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Patricia O'Callaghan.jpg

Hi, I have an email on OTRS related to Ticket:2014021510006052. I do not understand the correspondence history as there was no reply back to the correspondent. If there was some communication outside of OTRS, or this was associated with a different ticket, could you add an internal note for our records? Thanks --Fæ (talk) 15:01, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't reply on this OTRS ticket. I just undeleted the file and added the OTRS template on request of Mdann52 here. JurgenNL (talk) 16:08, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clarification. --Fæ (talk) 16:28, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ArchiveBot

Hi, I noticed you have set up User:MiszaBot to archive your talk page. Unfortunately, the bot has stopped working, and given how its operator is inactive, it is unclear when/if this will fixed. For the time being, I have volunteered to operate a MiszaBot clone (running the exact same code). With that said, your input would be appreciated at Commons:Bots/Requests/ArchiveBot 1. Regards, FASTILY 07:46, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Boom van groei 1998b.jpg

Hoi JurgenNL. Jammer dat je gestopt bent als moderator op Wikipedia-NL. Maar je zult zo wel je redenen hebben.. Ik heb nog een vraagje over twee afbeeldingen. Ze zijn onder dezelfde naam geupload. Het is een bordje met tekst en een foto met natuur en een wandelpad. In mijn lijst Uploads zie ik een thumb van beiden, maar als ik het aanklik komt alleen het bordje tevoorschijn. Ik zal nog proberen om de afbeelding opnieuw up te loaden later, ik ga eerst eten en dergelijke :) Maar misschien weet jij een oplossing.. Grtz. - Richardkw (talk) (talk) 15:39, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dat komt doordat je het bestand hebt overschreven: je hebt eerst een foto van een straatje met 3 mensen geüpload en daarna onder dezelfde naam het bordje. Als het goed is staat in het tabelletje met jouw uploads naast de afbeelding van het weggetje ook "Nee" (of no, afhankelijk van je instellingen). Dat betekent dat die afbeelding niet de meest recente versie is van die afbeelding. Als je ze allebei wilt gebruiken/uploaden, zul je een van de twee afbeeldingen een andere naam moeten geven. Groet, JurgenNL (talk) 20:18, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted files

Hi Jurgen. Recently, you have deleted 2 files, File:Terry Pratchet - Ostatni bohater - empik - Produkt niedostępny 2010.jpg & File:Terry Pratchet - Ostatni bohater - Aukcja Allegro 2010.jpg. As I informed in the deletion requests (1 & 2), the files were in use as sources for the information given in pl:Ostatni bohater, confirming (1) unavailability of the book in Polish bookstores and (2) enormously high prices in an auction website. The files were the only sources in this topic, and now the references link to nowhere. What was the reason for the deletion? Regards, Bosm (talk) 09:10, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bosm, when I deleted the files, they weren't in use on plwiki, so I expected the article where they were used in where deleted. There is also no delinker log: 1, 2. If you want to use them again, feel free to request undeletion here or at COM:UNDEL. JurgenNL (talk) 09:55, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again. Well, you are right, the files are not in use in pl:wiki as graphics; however, you are wrong, the files are in use as a reference material. You cannot see their use because they have a [[:File:Filename.jpg]] syntax. I put the links in pl:Ostatni bohater in 2010 and they exist there still all the time. Please, go there and click on any of the two links in the "Przypisy" ("References") section to verify this.

You have deleted the files ignoring completely my notifications of their use in pl:wiki. I really cannot understand why I should start any procedure for undeletion. IMHO it was your mistake, so please, correct it and restore the files. Regards, Bosm (talk) 13:04, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see. This is clear. I have undeleted the files. JurgenNL (talk) 13:11, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Regards, Bosm (talk) 20:46, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Heleenmees2.png

Has the Eurpean Press Agency confirmed in written that the restrictions imposed to the uploading user User:Bmwz3hm have been lifted? They confirmed that they not longer require that EPA is contacted for any usage outside wiki? Otherwise the restrictions would be still intact. Having a conversation that doesnt mention the restrictions does not mean that this restrictions not exist. And the uploader not invented those restrictions, he repeated what is part of his/her contract with EPA, any channge of this contract requires approval from both contract parties. --Martin H. (talk) 15:30, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, Epa has confirmed in writing that it agrees with release of the photo under license cc-by-sa-3.0. Copy of permission is with JurgenNL.Bmwz3hm (talk) 17:01, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And, @Bmwz3hm, there is no misunderstanding of the license or contradictory statements? They revoked the requirement to ask before reusing the file outside of Wikipedia for whatever purpose? --Martin H. (talk) 17:46, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, there are no restrictions given - only the cc-by-sa-3.0 license is mentioned. JurgenNL (talk) 20:11, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually they agreed with releasing the image under the cc-by-sa for the Wikipedia page as long as she pays the licese fee. The actuel statement is We're fine with you to use the image for your article in Wikipedia under license cc-by-sa-3.0 as long as you'll pay the license-fee.. Natuur12 (talk) 20:36, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That is not a restriction. Heleen Mees has agreed to pay the fee to have the photo released under license cc-by-sa.3.0. All requirements have been fulfilled, so why has the photo not been undeleted. Bmwz3hm (talk) 14:33, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

in Wikipedia under license cc-by-sa-3.0 is a contradictory statement and cant be a valid release under cc-by-sa. Its a release for reuse in Wikipedia, but that doesnt make it free. My explanation for that is that maybe the wrong questions have been asked ("can I reuse this in Wikipedia" instead of "can anyone reuse this, including pages like Wikipedia"), maybe misunderstanding of the license exists or maybe there is ignorance of who the licences are: not the subject, not Wikipedia but any legal personality worldwide. A cc-by-sa license means that anyone can reuse the file anywhere for every purpose without further asking or payment. So the only appropriate question is, if the copyright holder voluntarily allows anyone (any person or company, worldwide) to reuse the file anywhere. --Martin H. (talk) 09:44, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

p.s.:Maybe asking a press agency is the hardest way to obtain free content. Going other ways can be sucessful too.

Step 1: Searching for free content. Regretably the file https://www.flickr.com/photos/chinaherald/7486470124/in/photostream/ marked as free turns unfree on 2nd look because the licensor on flickr is neither the creator or copyright holder but toke both files from Wikipedia (see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Heleen Mees.jpg) and both copyright holder disagreed.

Step 2: Searching for content that is close to a free licensing, ive asked https://www.flickr.com/photos/davepinter/5693262412/ to waive the non-commercial, non-derivative restrictions for that photo.

--Martin H. (talk) 10:03, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Martin, I see the confusion but EPA did agree to free usage of the file outside of Wikipedia under license cc-by-sa.3.0. The file EPA has given that can be freely used by all is quite small, so EPA probably knows that it will not be of good use for any serious media-outlet. Bmwz3hm (talk) 02:15, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is the full email exchange:

From: epa Sales <sales@epa.eu> Date: April 21, 2014 4:49:47 PM GMT+08:00 To: Subject: AW: AW: [Ticket#2014040910020553] Wiki Commons - Heleenmees2.png

Thanks, dear

I found your email exchange with Oliver in the meantime. We're fine with you to use the image for your article in Wikipedia under license cc-by-sa-3.0 as long as you'll pay the license-fee.

Kind regards, Mikko

Von:] Gesendet: Montag, 21. April 2014 10:43 An: epa Sales Betreff: Re: AW: [Ticket#2014040910020553] Wiki Commons - Heleenmees2.png

Dear Mikko,

Thanks for your quick reply. It's a frame out of photo no. 51054550 with very low resolution. Oliver agreed that I used it for Wikipedia but I need the license mentioned below for it, otherwise Wikipedia will delete it. We agreed to $150 for the pic as attached.

On Apr 21, 2014, at 4:28 PM, epa Sales <sales@epa.eu> wrote:

Dear ,

Unfortunately I don't understand any Dutch and neither can I locate that specific image in our database. Do you still happen to have the epa image number at hand ?

Kind regards, Mikko

Von: Gesendet: Samstag, 19. April 2014 20:25 An: epa Sales Betreff: Fwd: [Ticket#2014040910020553] Wiki Commons - Heleenmees2.png

Dear Oliver,

Please see the exchange with Wikicommons, the image department of Wikipedia. Can you please confirm that the attached picture falls under a free license like cc-by-sa-3.0? Otherwise it will be deleted from Wikicommons.

Bmwz3hm (talk) 02:16, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It should be correct now. Natuur12, could you confirm this please? JurgenNL (talk) 08:38, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still not sure if the copyrightholder does understand what a creative commons license is. Maybe it would be an idea to make them use the standard text. The problem is that it is a different agent responding to the email every time which makes it unclear if they do understand what Bmwz3hm want from them. The latest statement is: As long as you pay the license fee, anyone can reuse the attached file, including pages like Wikipedia. Please don’t forget to credit the picture correctly. This picture is pretty low quality. Why don't you let a relative or close friend making an picture and then you let him upload it to www.wikiportret.nl? That might work better than sorting this mess out. Natuur12 (talk) 22:40, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wat EPA ook zegt, het is nooit goed genoeg. Ze hebben de licentie goedgekeurd zoals die door WikiCommons wordt gevraagd, en vervolgens exact de statement afgegeven waar Martin H. om heeft gevraagd, en nu is het nog niet goed? Bmwz3hm (talk) 22:47, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever the EPA says, it's never sufficient enough. They have approved the license as asked by WikiCommons and they gave the exact statement where Martin H. asked for, and now it's still incorrect?

translator: JurgenNL (talk) 07:24, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Heleen Mees linked to the license page on the Creative Commons page with all the conditions for the cc-by-sa license, so they can't tell they know the conditions of the license. Thereby, it seems very logic for a professional press agency that they know what a creative commons license is. JurgenNL (talk) 07:15, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[File:Karthistudio.jpg]

HI JurgenNL, you reviewed the license for this file, but there is a discussion about this ticket:Commons:OTRS/Noticeboard#multiple_images_claimed_under_single_ticket_number. --ThaThinThaKiThaTha (talk) 06:38, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Answered there. JurgenNL (talk) 08:03, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Danke für deine ganzen Bearbeitungen. :) -- Steinsplitter (talk) 20:24, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So süß von dir! Danke schön! I hope my German is valid :p JurgenNL (talk) 07:04, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

License plates

Hola, JurgenNL. Thank you for delete the license plates. Subí esas fotos con la matrícula porque no sabía que una ley lo prohibía. No quería causar molestias, pido disculpas. --MARC912374 (talk) 17:56, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Canadameer 2.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments You forgot to mention the photographer for our QICbot. --A.Savin 15:09, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's beautiful. Mattbuck 20:19, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]