User talk:Multichill/Archives/2013/September

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

Category:Gemeentelijke monumenten in Zeevang

Commons-emblem-issue.svg
Category:Gemeentelijke monumenten in Zeevang 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 category, 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.

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

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

Dqfn13 (talk) 19:01, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Monument statistics

Hello, I like your statistics about lists of monuments such as this one. Would it be somehow possible to get these stats not only for municipalities but also for higher administrative units? Thank you. --Reaperman (talk) 20:04, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi Reaperman, I was thinking about the same day and opened a bug for it earlier, see Bugzilla53811. The code was written by User:Nuno Tavares and I don't really know how it works. Someone would have to dive into that. Multichill (talk) 20:19, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Ah, what a coincidence (^_^) Thank you for your information. --Reaperman (talk) 20:41, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

File:Bassilica (Blessed Kateri) Santa Fe NewMexico PA300072.jpg

Pay attention to copyright
File:Bassilica (Blessed Kateri) Santa Fe NewMexico PA300072.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.

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

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

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

Sarah (talk) 01:10, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

File:NotreDame.JPG

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

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

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

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

Oursana (talk) 07:49, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

verkeerde beschrijving?

Dag Multichill, de beschrijving van deze foto klopt niet: File:Naar het noordoosten - Aerdt - 20005003 - RCE.jpg , dit is de kerk niet. Kun jij het origineel bekijken en dit corrigeren? --Havang(nl) (talk) 18:15, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

File:Wiki-servien.png

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

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

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

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

Servien (talk) 15:24, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Copyright status: File:Leeuw met zwaard.png

беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | български | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | English | فارسی | suomi | français | magyar | italiano | македонски | മലയാളം | Bahasa Melayu | 日本語 | norsk | polski | português | português do Brasil | română | slovenščina | svenska | українська | ಕನ್ನಡ | ತುಳು | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−
Warning sign
This media may be deleted.
Thanks for uploading File:Leeuw met zwaard.png. I notice that the file page either doesn't contain enough information about the license or it contains contradictory information about the license, so the copyright status is unclear.

If you created this file yourself, then you must provide a valid copyright tag. For example, you can tag it with {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} to release it under the multi-license GFDL plus Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike All-version license or you can tag it with {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. (See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of license tags that you can use.)

If you did not create the file yourself or if it is a derivative of another work that is possibly subject to copyright protection, then you must specify where you found it (e.g. usually a link to the web page where you got it), you must provide proof that it has a license that is acceptable for Commons (e.g. usually a link to the terms of use for content from that page), and you must add an appropriate license tag. If you did not create the file yourself and the specific source and license information is not available on the web, you must obtain permission through the OTRS system and follow the procedure described there.

Note that any unsourced or improperly licensed files will be deleted one week after they have been marked as lacking proper information, as described in criteria for deletion. If you have uploaded other files, please confirm that you have provided the proper information for those files, too. If you have any questions about licenses please ask at Commons:Village pump/Copyright or see our help pages. Thank you.

JuTa 21:00, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Copyright status: File:Islamieten in Nederland cirkel.jpg

беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | български | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | English | فارسی | suomi | français | magyar | italiano | македонски | മലയാളം | Bahasa Melayu | 日本語 | norsk | polski | português | português do Brasil | română | slovenščina | svenska | українська | ಕನ್ನಡ | ತುಳು | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−
Warning sign
This media may be deleted.
Thanks for uploading File:Islamieten in Nederland cirkel.jpg. I notice that the file page either doesn't contain enough information about the license or it contains contradictory information about the license, so the copyright status is unclear.

If you created this file yourself, then you must provide a valid copyright tag. For example, you can tag it with {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} to release it under the multi-license GFDL plus Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike All-version license or you can tag it with {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. (See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of license tags that you can use.)

If you did not create the file yourself or if it is a derivative of another work that is possibly subject to copyright protection, then you must specify where you found it (e.g. usually a link to the web page where you got it), you must provide proof that it has a license that is acceptable for Commons (e.g. usually a link to the terms of use for content from that page), and you must add an appropriate license tag. If you did not create the file yourself and the specific source and license information is not available on the web, you must obtain permission through the OTRS system and follow the procedure described there.

Note that any unsourced or improperly licensed files will be deleted one week after they have been marked as lacking proper information, as described in criteria for deletion. If you have uploaded other files, please confirm that you have provided the proper information for those files, too. If you have any questions about licenses please ask at Commons:Village pump/Copyright or see our help pages. Thank you.

JuTa 07:18, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

That was very simple to fix the incorrect call to the license template ... Akoopal (talk)

WLM Armena vs. Azerbaijan

Dear Multichill, while I appreciate your help at trying to settle down edit-war a lot, I'm not sure you understand, that User:Vacio, User:Lilitik22, and User:RobT Armenia, were bringing file pages to a state created by Wiki Loves Monuments Upload wizard/campaign, WLM scripts and bots and participants of contest, while other side thought that hidden categories, used for technical purposed are endangering WP:TRUTH. As far as I understand from converstation at WLM mailing list, changing/renaming/or adding categories and templated used by WLM tools, leads to _technical_issues_, and breaks WLM workflow, and those categories/templates should stay in the way created by those tools, until WLM is completly over. So this wasn't yet another edit-war, there are technical consequences, which required immediate action. Regards. --Xelgen (talk) 17:18, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Hello dear Multichill. I have a question. If the participant knows that the picture he has taken is included in the state monument lists of both countries' contest (Armenia/Nagorno Karabakh and Azerbaijan WLM) and if he has decided to participate for example to the WLM of Armenia/Nagorno Karabakh then why the editors/organizers of Azerbaijan contest should "force" him to participate to WLM of Azerbaijan as well adding templates and categories. Isn't it violation of the rights of the authors of the pictures? Shouldn't the participants decide themselves to which contest they want to participate? Thanks --Lilitik22 (talk) 18:10, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Botje voor Category:Burgerweeshuis (Amsterdam)

Hey Maarten,

Met het invoegen van de afbeeldingslinks kom ik af en toe dubbele categorieën tegen: 2 keer hetzelfde monumentnummer met een andere naam. Meestal kan ik het zelf wel rechtzetten, maar deze categorie heeft wel een hoop afbeeldingen. Zou jij met je botje misschien die afbeeldingen uit Category:Burgerweeshuis (Amsterdam) naar Category:Amsterdam Museum kunnen zetten? Of weet je iemand die dat misschien even wil doen?

Groetjes, Ciell (talk) 16:28, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Moeten ze allemaal verhuizen. Dat kan met cat-a-lot. Kan ik zo doen. Havang(nl) (talk) 18:49, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Het zijn 2 categorieën over hetzelfde onderwerp, dus ze mogen allemaal verhuizen ja. Zou fijn zijn als je het wilt doen Havang! Ciell (talk) 19:01, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Wacht even, volgens mij is het niet precies hetzelfde. Niet te snel gaan schuiven aub. Multichill (talk) 19:45, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
OKE, ik doe niets, laat het aan jullie over.--Havang(nl) (talk) 20:07, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Dan klopt het rijksmonumentnummer niet? Ciell (talk) 20:39, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Eenzelfde probleem lijkt er te zijn met Category:Broerekerk (Bolsward) en Category:Saint John the Evangelist Church (Nes, Dongeradeel). Ciell (talk) 18:07, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
En Category:Huis Sint Martinus (Bolsward) met Category:Martinikerk (Bolsward). Ciell (talk) 18:09, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

ErfgoedBot and category tracker template

I've added tracker templates including monument ID to almost all categories of specific Estonian monuments as suggested here. But ErfgoedBot makes no use of this and apparently rarely uses some other unknown logics regarding these categories of specific monuments: like here the category that was addes is correct, but the category tracker template wasn't yet available. Could ErgoedBot make use of category tracker templates? 193.40.10.181 18:42, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't know if you changed something, but now it adds non-existing categories like here and here. 193.40.10.181 09:02, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

I know that you might be quite busy during the competition, but something still doesn't work. See User_talk:ErfgoedBot#Time_periods_between_bot_runs. Cheers, --Mai-Sachme (talk) 13:24, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Categorisation of ErfgoedBot for South African files

Hi Multichill. ErfgoedBot has been adding several hundred files to the wrong category, this diff provides an example, but nearly all the files in the Category:Cultural heritage monuments in Mpumalanga (which I'm in the process of cleaning up) were moved there by mistake and belong somewhere else.--Underlying lk (talk) 04:12, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

The bot doesn't make up categories, it uses the id. In this case a someone set 0000 as id, so that seems to be the source of the error. Multichill (talk) 12:47, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

File:US Army 53556 Injured Soldiers Attend Weekly Riding Sessions.jpg

Commons-emblem-issue.svg
File:US Army 53556 Injured Soldiers Attend Weekly Riding Sessions.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

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

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

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

Closeapple (talk) 10:37, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Category:Kerk van H. Antonius Abt, Schaijk

Kerk van H. Antonius Abt, Schaijk is gemeentelijk monument, geen rijksmonument. Het losse orgel is wel rijksmonument, staat in een aparte Category:Koororgel kerk van H. Antonius Abt, Schaijk‎. Groeten --Havang(nl) (talk) 19:03, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Dat is niet hoe aanwijzingen werken. De kerk is een Rijksmonument omdat het het orgel bevat ([1]). Maar maakt me allemaal niet zoveel uit, ik was gewoon aan het opruimen voor Category talk:Rijksmonumenten#Categories not in the tree. Multichill (talk) 20:47, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

File:- Flickr - fabola (36).jpg

Pay attention to copyright
File:- Flickr - fabola (36).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.

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

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

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

Vera (talk) 11:53, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Template:NRHP

Hi Multichill ... something went kerflooey (technical term ;^) with the edit you made to Template:NRHP today. It renders the "This is an image/a category about a place or building that is listed ...", but it also shows:

}{{#switch:File
|File|Category =

Perhaps you missed a { or a }, but I can't be sure. --Sanfranman59 (talk) 15:45, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Aargh, look like I tripped over a noinclude, I fixed it. Missed this when checking some samples, was probably looking at an old page. Thanks for pointing out! The reason I was updating the template is described at en:Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places#Commons category links. Care to comment there? Multichill (talk) 15:58, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Monumenten en duiding

Dag Multichill. Excuus voor de ontstane situatie zojuist. Even wat achtergrond. Ik ben professioneel op redelijke schaal met bouwkundig erfgoed in Nederland bezig geweest. Ik zie dat je je ook fors met zulk erfgoed bezighoudt. We streven naar ik aanneem beiden naar uitbreiding daarvan met goede info voor de lezers hier op commons/wikipedia.

Mbt het blauwwit schildje heb ik gekeken naar wat oa de Rijksdienst voor het Cultureel Erfgoed erover zegt. Ze schrijven er hier wat over. Volgens hen is er onder meer sprake van oneigenlijk gebruik en [...] verwatering van de oorspronkelijke functie, wat zij betreuren.

Dezelfde strekking met wat extra info staat hier op monumenten.nl, een initiatief van Nationaal Restauratiefonds en de Rijksdienst voor het Cultureel Erfgoed. Zij schrijven: Veel mensen denken dat een rijksmonument herkenbaar is aan het blauw-witte schildje. Dit schildje is echter bedoeld als kenmerk van gebouwen die in tijden van bijvoorbeeld oorlog beschermd moeten worden. Zo kan een modern pand waarin een waardevol archief zit ook een schildje dragen.

Ik hoop dat je nog eens naar het schildje wilt kijken. Mvg Sonty (talk) 16:40, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Zou je om het centraal te houden een evt. reactie op Template talk:Rijksmonument#Gebruik van blauwwit schildje in templates willen plaatsen? Dank Sonty (talk) 23:40, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Removing/adding templates in WLM images

Hi, probably you are aware of this, but just in case: if there are again issues about removing/adding templates in WLM images, please kindly take a look at this recent decision of WLM international team. Among others, it holds that users are allowed to remove additional templates from images they've uploaded and other users should better not re-add them. Thank you. --vacio 23:45, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Just to correct Vacio. According this users are allowed to remove WLM templates from images they've uploaded, not Monuments identifier template. For example, as user Vagharsh did here (removed monument identifier template with Azerbaijani ID). Even after my warning: [2]. --Interfase (talk) 07:09, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Database of Russian monuments

Hello! I have a question about the Russian part of the monuments database. It is in a very sorrow state, because all 'commonscat' fields are empty, and we have to categorize thousands of new WLM photos by hand. Some people from Commons and other projects are thinking of updating the database, but I do not fully understand how it works. I have read the "harvesting" part of the manual, and I am still wondering who should be doing the updates. Is it something that every user can do, or someone needs some sort of admin rights, or you always do it on your own?

I see that right now the monuments_config.py script is linking to Russian Wikipedia, but there is absolutely no activity there. The lists of monuments are basically protected from editing. If we want to do something, we will have to do it independently.

Thanks in advance for your reply! --Atsirlin (talk) 06:14, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi Maarten. Just a couple of things. First, we are not now talking about WLM2013, this year we will do it manually (thanks to Atsirlin, we can now categorize images more easily). It is more for the future. We have a number of independently created lists on Commons, as you probably know, and there is some interest in further work in this direction.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:44, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
OK, I think that now I can be more specific. Would it be possible to switch monuments_config.py from Russian Wikipedia to a different location (Russian Wikivoyage or Commons), where we plan to work on the lists? Then bots will do the rest. The lists at Russian Wikipedia are completely idle. They can't be improved. --Atsirlin (talk) 06:38, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

File:Voorgevels - Wemeldinge - 20253352 - RCE.jpg

Commons-emblem-issue.svg
File:Voorgevels - Wemeldinge - 20253352 - RCE.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

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

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

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

DJ TUeRIO SET (talk) 14:16, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

File:Overzicht met het Paleis Lange Voorhout - 's-Gravenhage - 20335726 - RCE.jpg

Pay attention to copyright
File:Overzicht met het Paleis Lange Voorhout - 's-Gravenhage - 20335726 - RCE.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.

The file you added may soon be deleted. If you believe this file is not a copyright violation, you may replace the copyvio tag with a regular deletion request.

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

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

Vera (talk) 14:15, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

File:Nat Theezakje.jpg

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

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

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

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

Ubcule (talk) 18:48, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

File:Flickr - cyclonebill - Te (1).jpg

Commons-emblem-issue.svg
File:Flickr - cyclonebill - Te (1).jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

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

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

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

Ubcule (talk) 18:49, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Rijksmonumentenseries zonder id

Hallo Multichill, is het mogelijk een lijst te maken van rijksmonumentenseries (categorieën) die op commons nog geen rijksmonument sjabloon bevatten? Ik heb zojuist 60 id's geplaatst maar weet vrij zeker dat er nog veel meer zijn. Rudolphous (talk) 05:33, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Heb je het nu over bestanden of categoriën? Voor categorieën is het wel goed te doen. Dat zou een lijstje zijn van alle categorieën die in een "Rijksmonumenten in ... " zitten, zelf daar niet mee beginnen en niet in Category:Rijksmonumenten with known IDs zitten. Is dat wat je wilt? Zie trouwens Category talk:Rijksmonumenten voor wat ik de afgelopen tijd al geschoond heb. Multichill (talk) 09:38, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
Hallo Multichill, ik heb het inderdaad over categorieën. Volgens mij komt wat ik wil overeen met wat je schrijft. Rudolphous (talk) 19:13, 28 September 2013 (UTC)