User talk:Natuur12

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to: navigation, search
Busy desk.svg This user is busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries.

العربية | Беларуская‎ | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | বাংলা | Česky | Dansk | Deutsch | English | Español | Euskara | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | Magyar | Հայերեն | Italiano | 日本語 | ქართული | 한국어 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Nederlands | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Русский | Simple English | Slovenščina | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | Українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Bold text


Thanks for all your cleanup -- the page was getting very long, but I don't feel comfortable closing UnDRs where I am the only one that has left a comment. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:02, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

You're welcome and I am glad that you comment. Otherwise admins would have to close them with zero extra input. Natuur12 (talk) 00:07, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

file:Halo of Flies.jpg[edit]

Hoi Natuur12, Bedankt voor het terugzetten: [:]. Ik constateerde dat er nog een bestand verwijderd is, file:Halo of Flies.jpg. Wil je die ook terugzetten? Overigens, ik was hierover niet geïnformeerd. Weet jij hoe dat kan? En hoe kan ik achterhalen of er nog meer zonder kennisgeving verwijderd is? Alvast bedankt. Tekstman (talk) 06:14, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Beste Tekstman,
Ik heb het bestand teruggeplaatst. Je kan checken of er nog meer verwijderd is via deze pagina. Is een upload naderhand verwijderd is de kleur van de logboekregel rood. Natuur12 (talk) 09:31, 31 March 2016 (UTC)


Zou je hier eens naar willen kijken. Deze afbeelding heeft in de Weekkrant gestaan en is gemaakt volgens deze website door Maaike van Helmond. Ook dit portret en deze foto zijn geen eigen werk van de uploader en zeker niet rechtenvrij. Ik vermoed dat dit geldt voor meer afbeeldingen. Gouwenaar (talk) 11:12, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Beste Gouwenaar,
De overduidelijke heb ik alvast verwijderd. De rest moet ik later nog eens goed naar kijken. Natuur12 (talk) 11:24, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
Dank, Gouwenaar (talk) 12:10, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
Deze en deze afbeelding zijn afkomstig van deze website. Bij klikken op het fotootje linksonder in de grote foto verschijnt de afbeelding met vermelding van de fotograaf Rob Essers. In de metadata van deze afbeelding staat dat de rechten toebehoren aan Dick Breedijk. Gouwenaar (talk) 13:52, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
Inmiddels heeft deze gebruiker het OTRS-pending sjabloon toegevoegd aan een aantal afbeeldingen. Ik denk dat we dat wel kunnen afwachten. Gebeurt er niks worden de afbeeldingen over 30 dagen verwijderd. Natuur12 (talk) 12:37, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Please see[edit]

[1]. 20:02, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

An OTRS-agent will deal with the ticket in due course and will ask for th restoration of the files. Since the ticket is written in a language I cannot read or write I cannot help you out especially since this tickets needs some work. Natuur12 (talk) 12:39, 1 April 2016 (UTC)


Hi, diff read in the context of recent actions as deliberately unpleasant sarcasm, possibly hounding. Could you back off and do something nicer to help the project? I'm sure that you can drop a note to other admins if something appears to need an action or warning. I am commenting casually here, rather than inflame anything further. Thanks -- (talk) 17:15, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

There are some who words alone will not reach. I noticed that this user made several policy violations in a short ammount of time so I will surely ask for a block if this continues but for now I hope that the sarcastic mirror trick will work. Natuur12 (talk) 21:44, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
Sigh, I know that (thanks to notifications), and I know what you mean, Natuur12. It seems to be a problem with my words. Just say it directly, I don't need your sarcasm. Poké95 00:54, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
Or maybe, because I am responding at the administrators' noticeboards, and you think that I am intimidating the admins here. I don't meant that, I just wanted to help (what is bad on it?). Also, this is not always what I do on Commons, I also tag copyvios, countering vandalism, and sometimes, participating at COM:FP and COM:VI. Poké95 00:58, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
Dear Pokéfan95,
If I wouldn’t have been sarcastic you would probably not have thought about what you might have done wrong. The main problem is that you currently don’t have the experience nor the skill set to deal with the requests at the administrators noticeboards.
For example, not knowing the impact of the word Nazi’s in a lot of cultures indicates that you miss the cultural baggage to asses situations. When you nominated files kept after a DR for speedy deletion you showed that you don’t have the temper and the patience to deal with different viewpoints. When you assigned Dennis the LR flag you forgot about Dennis his wishes. Perhaps he didn’t wanted the LR flag. This indicates that your people skills aren’t developed enough.
I understand you are trying to help and I doubt anyone is intimidated by the likes of you but your current behaviour is annoying. Getting yourself involved in discussions without knowing the actual back ground story’s is not a smart idea and in some cases it can even be dangerous. I kicked enough lunatics from this wiki and my other homewiki to know. I even ended up in some national newspaper because I deleted the article about a certain columnist ;). My point is, most people here know what they get themselves in to when they step into the arena. Currently we are speaking of a pretty simple case but you also get yourself involved when the discussion and the drama is far too complex for you to fully understand. I am basing this assignment on the comments you have given so far during several occasions.
I understand that this post sounds really harsh but you do have to change your behaviour and there is no nice way to deliver this message. Natuur12 (talk) 15:26, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Copa Interamericana 1994[edit]

Hi Natuur12, there was a serious error. The cup had a different design in some editions. The 1994 edition was designed especially for that year. The photograph was created in an exhibition of the Chilean club Universidad Catolica, 1994 InterAmerican Cup champion, like this: Youtube search "feria cruzada 2012" "feria cruzada 2013". Obviously, the picture was absolutely original. Columna de Razta (talk) 14:58, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Dear Columna de Razta,
I have no doubt that the photograph is original but the trophy is protected by copyright law which makes it a derivative of non free concent. Natuur12 (talk) 15:06, 5 April 2016 (UTC) Chilean law: Artículo 71 Q. Es lícito el uso incidental y excepcional de una obra protegida con el propósito de crítica, comentario, caricatura, enseñanza, interés académico o de investigación, siempre que dicha utilización no constituya una explotación encubierta de la obra protegida. La excepción establecida en este artículo no es aplicable a obras audiovisuales de carácter documental. "
Q. Article 71 is lawful incidental and exceptional use of a protected for the purpose of criticism, comment, caricature , teaching, academic or research interest, provided that such use does not constitute a disguised exploitation of the protected work. The exception in this article does not apply to audiovisual documentary works." The photograph was created in Chile. Columna de Razta (talk) 15:28, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
This clause fails com:L. Natuur12 (talk) 15:29, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

OTRS ticket[edit]

Hi Natuur12—I need a favour. Would you mind processing this OTRS ticket for me? There should be two e-mails from my personal e-mail address in there, one containing the copyright owners' permission to release the three files under CC BY-SA 4.0, and the other containing my original e-mail explaining free licencing and our strict copyright policies. The photographer—Mark—has just sent in this permission after my having badgered him for a while :-) Thanks! odder (talk) 21:04, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi, I marked the related files as permission confirmed. Natuur12 (talk) 21:11, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
Wow, that was super fast. Brilliant, thank you! odder (talk) 21:12, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

History logos[edit]

Hello, I see you removed my copyvio tag from File:History Logo.svg, because you think it is simple. However, I think it is complex, because of the "H". Can you explain to me why the file is simple, and also the "H"? Thanks! Poké95 01:14, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi Pokéfan,
First things First. When we are dealing with widely used logo’s that do have a licensing tagg and all uploaded years ago they should face a regular DR instead of a speedy nomination. Especially when we are talkin gabout logo’s from country’s with a pretty high treshold of originality.
We are talking about a US logo since the history channel is from the US. In the US font’s aren’t copyrighted and the H is just a pretty font which isn’t elegible for copyright. You can compare it with the Bern Western logo where the crown on top is the logo is in fact a nice ans shiny W. Natuur12 (talk) 07:15, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
Okay, thanks for the explanation. It will help. Face-smile.svg Poké95 07:22, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Code issues in MediaWiki:Gadget-geonotice-list.js[edit]

Hi Natuur12, I am a bored bot (this is kind of a computer program) that is watching the recent changes and tapping buttons like I did now.

Curious about the reason? Possibly not but I will tell you anyway:

  1. You edited MediaWiki:Gadget-geonotice-list.js. Thank you for caring about Wikimedia Commons's javascript pages.
  2. Though, that change appears to introduce 2 new jshint issues -- the page's status is now having ERRORS.
  3. To help you understanding where the issues are, I have aggregated a report here and now. If you have questions, don't hesitate to ask users experienced in javascript writing for help. But do not ask the bot's operators (chronically overwrought) unless you suspect an error of mine.
  1. ISSUE: line 2 character 11: Label 'begin' on 13 April 2016 00:00 UTC statement. - Evidence: { begin : '13 April 2016 00:00 UTC',
  2. ISSUE: line 3 character 2: Expected an assignment or function call and instead saw an expression. - Evidence: end : '27 April 2016 00:00 UTC',
  3. ISSUE: line 3 character 5: Missing semicolon. - Evidence: end : '27 April 2016 00:00 UTC',
  4. ISSUE: line 3 character 6: Expected '}' to match '{' from line 2 and instead saw ':'. - Evidence: end : '27 April 2016 00:00 UTC',
  5. ISSUE: line 4 character 2: Expected an assignment or function call and instead saw an expression. - Evidence: corners : [ [38.2,-123.0], [37.2,-121.4] ],
  6. ISSUE: line 4 character 9: Missing semicolon. - Evidence: corners : [ [38.2,-123.0], [37.2,-121.4] ],
  7. ISSUE: line 4 character 10: Expected '(end)' and instead saw ':'. - Evidence: corners : [ [38.2,-123.0], [37.2,-121.4] ],

Your CommonsMaintenanceBot (talk) at 22:19, 16 April 2016 (UTC).

Code issues in MediaWiki:Gadget-geonotice-list.js[edit]

Hi Natuur12, I am a bored bot (this is kind of a computer program) that is watching the recent changes and tapping buttons like I did now.

Curious about the reason? Possibly not but I will tell you anyway:

  1. You edited MediaWiki:Gadget-geonotice-list.js. Thank you for caring about Wikimedia Commons's javascript pages.
  2. Though, that change appears to introduce 1 new esprima issue -- the page's status is now having ERRORS.
  3. To help you understanding where the issues are, I have aggregated a report here and now. If you have questions, don't hesitate to ask users experienced in javascript writing for help. But do not ask the bot's operators (chronically overwrought) unless you suspect an error of mine.
  1. ERROR: Cannot parse line 3 column 6: Unexpected token :

Your CommonsMaintenanceBot (talk) at 22:19, 16 April 2016 (UTC).


After this undeletion request was declined, the same editor appears to have uploaded a number of other files with medata including the same statement "Copyright,Spreadtrum,2011" and no indication of any OTRS clearance. I fear that this editor, many of whose other files have been deleted as copyright violations, either does not understand copyright rules or is deliberately flouting them, so that admin action is required. --David Biddulph (talk) 12:38, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your message. I deleted the new uploads and I gave the uploader a final warning. Natuur12 (talk) 17:37, 20 April 2016 (UTC)


I have taken the photographs from my camera and I have uploaded in my university wikipedia page "National Institute of Technology, Tiruchirapalli". Why you have deleted all those photographs ??? If you feel that I have violated any rules, then mention those rules and steps in your wikipedia commons uploader page too !!! --Tigerson1995 (talk) 16:40, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

The problem is that there is significant doubt that you are the copyright holder. File:Melbourne 2006 opening ceremony.jpg has been uploaded here before it was uploaded to Commons for example. Others had "Copyright,Spreadtrum,2011" listed as the copyright holder in the EXIF data. Both of this issue's need to be clarified and since you uploaded a great deal of copyright violations quite recently and failed to follow the instructions here for a similar case you won't get the benifit of the doubt but rather the oposit. Natuur12 (talk) 18:05, 21 April 2016 (UTC)


Thanks for blocking that David Beals sock so quickly. I should really request adminship here some day so I can more quickly deal with this cross-wiki vandalism. IronGargoyle (talk) 20:24, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

You're welcome. If there is something urgent you can always find an admin via the IRC-channel. Natuur12 (talk) 20:26, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

License template categories[edit]

Recently, a template with an OTRS reference was created for my photos in another site. As usual, this template was protected (in this case, by you); so I cannot edit it. I have recently spotted a small problem with this template: photos with that template are automatically located in "Category:Photos by Spotter LEVT", but there's already a category with the same purpose ("Category:Photographs by Spotter LEVT"). As I would like to have all my photos in the same category, I request you to change the template so that it includes media with it in "Category:Photographs by Spotter LEVT".--Spotter LEVT (talk) 14:03, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done please let me know if my edit is correct. Natuur12 (talk) 07:29, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

List of the oldest buildings in Rhode Island[edit]


I just submitted an OTRS ticket for the 5 files that were deleted. I see they lacked the required licensing data, but I believe I can provide evidence they should be allowed. They are from a document, Historic and Architectural Resources of South Kingstown, Rhode Island: A Preliminary Report published by the Rhode Island Historic Preservation Commission in 1984. This document was cited as the source in the file description and on the page where the images appeared.

On page 2 of the original document, paragraph 3, it states that "This document is based on publicly supported research and may not be copyrighted. It may be reprinted in part or in full, with the customary credit of the source".— Preceding unsigned comment added by Iceburned (talk • contribs)

Dear Iceburned,
I am not sure if this clause apply's to the photographs as well. It might be better if you ask for more opinions at com:UNDEL. Another option is wating untill an OTRS-agent picks up the ticket. Natuur12 (talk) 07:32, 28 April 2016 (UTC)


Thanks for blocking Unfitlouie as an IAC sock. I too has suspected that they are an IAC sock seeing their unblock request at enwiki. I cannot however say my supiscion since you close that AN/U thread. And thanks also for closing Commons:Deletion requests/File:Air Force One in Havana (25562710754).jpg as kept! Face-smile.svg Poké95 10:13, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

You're welcome. But please be carefull when dealing with them. Will show you why if you why if you pay a visit to IRC. Natuur12 (talk) 10:22, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
Why are they blocked on Commons for actions on en:WP? Commons, some people vehemently more so than others, will defend Commons' independence from WMF and en:WP at all costs. Yet here, Commons somehow rolls right over? Andy Dingley (talk) 19:35, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
Privacy violations, onwiki harrasment, off wiki harrasment, block evasion and other forms of sockpuppetry and this involves Commons and Commons users. I can continue if you want but please don't make a fuss about some blocked creepy LTA. Natuur12 (talk) 19:48, 30 April 2016 (UTC)


Hi Natuur12 - it seems you inadvertently included a reply to a different topic at the top of the closure... Cheers, Storkk (talk) 10:42, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi, my post is correct. I was investigating the IP edits by the IAC-socks including the once made in the in the DR's in which Unfitlouie participated and found out that Unfitlouie was listed at en:Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/India Against Corruption sock-meatfarm. Natuur12 (talk) 10:50, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
You're right. I thought your the "contract"-related comment was for the item above. I seem to be making a lot of stupid errors today and yesterday, so apologies. I must be coming down with something. Storkk (talk) 11:58, 29 April 2016 (UTC)


I'm sorry I'm late to this, however, I was pinged less than 24 hours before this copyrighted file -

Princess Beatrice with Dave Clark.jpg

- was undeleted from a previous deletion decision by Ellin Beltz and was unable to participate in time. Aside from the current tag citing "All Rights Reserved", the file was (a) reviewed by FlickreviewR bot which was, shortly thereafter, deactivated due to chronic malfunctioning, (b) the uploader, at the point of upload, did not point the permissions file to the license tag. As noted by Jameslwoodward "the point of the review is to have the ability to go into court and testify that an independent review absolutely without question established that the license was CC-BY on the date of the review". The two facts I've noted (it was reviewed by a bot that we acknowledge was so faulty we had to deactivate it a few weeks later, and, the licensing link was not correctly directed to the licensing page), taken in tandem, would create reasonable doubt that the image was CC licensed at the point it was uploaded but the owner later went back and changed the licensing terms to All Rights Reserved. (I originally requested this deletion as I'm personally, for offline reasons, aware that the photographer in question never CC-BY licensed this image.) LavaBaron (talk) 18:55, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

We also have a huma review confirming the license of a file from the same stream. (Though I admit that I overlooked that Jim also pinged you which makes my closing a bit to soon). You really believe that the uploader, the bot and a third independant human rievewer where mistaken? I won't oppose re-opening the DR btw. Natuur12 (talk) 19:03, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
(a) I believe this file was reviewed by a bot which was taken off-line a weeks later due to chronic malfunctioning. (b) It would not be productive of me to speculate on the intentions of anonymous internet users who upload images to the Commons other than to note, as I have, the licensing link was not correctly pointed at the license at the point of upload. (c) The file was not reviewed by a human reviewer; another file uploaded by the owner was reviewed by a human reviewer. As a user of Flickr myself I frequently freely license some files, and reserve other files, particularly ones of higher or historic value.
I won't participate in a new DR given the combative turn my original nomination took; I don't actively seek-out those type of experiences. The image can be kept or deleted at your judgment, I'm simply providing some additional facts because I was pinged. Best of luck. (As I noted, though, I am absolutely aware for reasons other than those enumerated, this was not a freely licensed image whose license has simply been changed in the interim. For reasons of personal privacy, I'm not willing to elaborate on that point and I don't certainly blame you if you disregard it entirely, as I would in your situation as well.) LavaBaron (talk) 19:32, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
Okay. Before I decide anything, would @Zhuyifei1999: do me a favour and comment on the technical aspect of the bot? Natuur12 (talk) 19:58, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
The basis of my Symbol support vote.svg Support at the UnDR is that LavaBaron's DR was based on an incorrect premise -- that the bot had looked at the lightbox on Flickr. In fact, although the uploader called out the lightbox as the source, the bot looked at the file page (see my examples at the UnDR). As far as I know, that should have been completely reliable. I note that LavaBaron repeats that incorrect premise above. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 01:17, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
My premise is that an image, currently tagged All Rights Reserved, was previously cleared by a bot that was malfunctioning to the point of irreparability. That premise is correct. I don't have a dog in this fight so don't really care if it's retained or re-deleted. I'm simply providing partial information (as mentioned, to the limit at which I'm comfortable to do so) in response to being pinged. LavaBaron (talk) 02:53, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
@LavaBaron: can you point to a specific discussion, log, commit, or whatever that can describe such malfunction near 26 July 2013‎? I searched old FlickreviewR commit history and do not find a single commit after Feb. And with the bot logic ever since I took over the bot, whatever appearing inside {{User:FlickreviewR/reviewed-pass}} in any reviewing edit is what flickr image the bot thought the commons image to be. --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 05:01, 30 April 2016 (UTC)