User talk:Natuur12/Archive 3

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Welcome to Wikimedia Commons, Natuur12!

-- Wikimedia Commons Welcome (talk) 16:32, 8 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A barnstar for you![edit]

Tireless Contributor Barnstar Hires.gif The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
The Tireless Contributor Barnstar is awarded to especially tireless Wikimedians who contribute an especially large body of work without sacrificing quality.

Please keep up your good work! Steinsplitter (talk) 15:33, 5 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks, and will do :). Natuur12 (talk) 21:58, 5 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A barnstar for you![edit]

Administrator Barnstar Hires.png The Admin's Barnstar
Thank you for being willing to listen and revise your admin decisions based on new information. Commons needs more admins like you - keep up the good work! Mike Peel (talk) 19:49, 24 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

License review request[edit]

Greetings
Could you please do the license check for the following files:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Spetsnaz-shooter-ak74.jpg
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Ak_74_and_gp_30_by_grafdewolfgun-d7sntml.jpg
Thanks a lot in advance and best regards --RussianTrooper (talk) 15:24, 15 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

✓ Done Natuur12 (talk) 15:39, 15 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

License review request[edit]

Greetings
Could you please do the license check for the following files:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Ak-74-762.png ?
Thanks in advance for your help --RussianTrooper (talk) 20:09, 16 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

✓ Done Natuur12 (talk) 20:19, 16 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Daniel Edlen creates art on the artifacts of creativity, photo by Zane Ewton, 2010 2014-07-08 15-53.jpg[edit]

I sent in a permissions letter for https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=delete&page=Image%3ADaniel_Edlen_creates_art_on_the_artifacts_of_creativity%2C_photo_by_Zane_Ewton%2C_2010_2014-07-08_15-53.jpg and hope it's smoothly undeleted. Can you take a look and help me through the process? Thank you!Dedlen (talk) 06:59, 17 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, that's fine. I responded to the email. Natuur12 (talk) 10:09, 17 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The photographer has sent a permissions letter with the ticket number. Hopefully this will resolve the issue? Thank you!Dedlen (talk) 03:10, 18 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, this solves the issue :). I undeleted the file. Natuur12 (talk) 06:54, 18 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Editor Niele provoking war of editors[edit]

Editor Niele provoking to the war of editors. He absolutely ignores the arguments of the other editors that he was wrong and continues to revert of edits other editors. You can that something doing with this editor that violates the rules.--Hanibal911 (talk) 13:51, 18 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This editor today the five times revert the updates that were the made by another editor on this map.2014 Russo-ukrainian-conflict map--Hanibal911 (talk) 14:08, 18 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
For now I protected the file. There is not much I can do here since I already dealth with this users POV-pusing at another project. Natuur12 (talk) 14:33, 18 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You can to again install the protection for this map 2014 Russo-ukrainian-conflict map because the editor Niele again harms to this map he making not substantiated changes on based the not reliable sources. Maybe it would be better for a little while for this editor put to ban for editing of articles about the military conflict in Ukraine. So now another administrator has blocked it on for 3 days but at the expiration of this period, he again continue make harm of the map.--Hanibal911 (talk) 18:11, 19 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Lalla Salma's page[edit]

File:PrincessLallasalmainamsterdam.jpg was uploaded recently, but on a google search I found several just like it. The only reason I'm suspicious is because she rarely appears in public. --Hipposcrashed (talk) 19:57, 23 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Taken care of it. This one is a copyrightviolation. It is hard to find actual free images of her :(. Thanks for the notice. Natuur12 (talk) 20:04, 23 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Julianvanberchum123.jpg[edit]

Dag, Natuur12, hier een oude bekende. (Ik.) Zou je File:Julianvanberchum123.jpg kunnen deleten als dat nog niet gebeurd is. Gebruikt voor privacyschending op nlwiki, het Twitteradres bestaat niet, maar je kan niet zomaar afbeeldingen van Twitter plukken, nog afgezien van portretrecht. Dank en groet, ErikvanB (talk) 13:18, 24 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Afbeelding verwijderd, persoon gewaarschuwd. Dank voor de melding. Natuur12 (talk) 13:31, 24 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Vriendelijk dank. ErikvanB (talk) 23:41, 24 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

License review[edit]

Dear Natuur12, I have collected a bunch of Youtube-CC-BY images over time, could you please take a look at them at your spare time, I'll be much obliged.

Best, --Nabak (talk) 03:27, 25 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I marked all of them except for File:Self defense of Donbass flag.jpg since I am not familiar enough with Ukrainian Copyrightlaw to be sure if this one is okay or not. Natuur12 (talk) 05:27, 25 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Autopatrolled ✔[edit]

Thanks for a lovely surprise! :-) - Aiko (talk) 16:06, 27 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your welcome. Natuur12 (talk) 16:13, 27 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Tim Leiweke in LA.png -- Deleted?[edit]

Hello,

I uploaded the files 'Tim Leiweke in LA.png'. I noticed that you had it removed due to a copyright violation. I checked the copyright information on Flickr, and see no problem. Could you please explain to me why it was deleted.

Thanks!

tECHNO31

01:42, 28 September 2014 (EST)

Hi, the image is released under a non commercial license and non commercial licenses are not allowed at Commons. Natuur12 (talk) 08:41, 28 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Commons:Deletion requests/File:SucharitSuda and King Vajiravudh (Rama VI).jpg[edit]

Why do you think that this apparetly is OK? As far as I can see, no one was able to prove that the picture was published before 1923 (as required by the template) or that the template provides copyright information about both the United States and the source country. --Stefan4 (talk) 14:28, 28 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Grmbl. Missed that. Sorry. Natuur12 (talk) 14:42, 28 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't know[edit]

I don't know what Baylee Romero vandalized.

Amsterdamse tram[edit]

Dag Natuur12,

ik zag dat u mijn verwijderingsverzoeken voor oude bestanden van de Amsterdamse tram niet hebt gehonoreerd, met als reden dat ze nog in gebruik zouden zijn. Behalve bij het bestand AmsterdamTram+Metro zie ik niet dat deze bestanden nog op andere pagina's worden gebruikt, of zie ik iets over het hoofd?

Ik hoor graag van u. Vriendelijke groet,

Alargule (talk) 08:22, 29 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Eigenlijk heb ik maar bij die ene DR een reden opgegeven. Voor de rest ben ik zelf vrij terughoudend (behalve met vlaggen en logo's) om redundant files te verwijderen. Deze kunnen namelijk ook gewoon door re-users gebruikt worden. En deze re-users hebben misschien wel de voorkeur voor een jpeg of png. Natuur12 (talk) 09:36, 29 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sorry, nog even File:Schilderij, zelfportret van Jacob Por - Utrecht - 20428314 - RCE.jpg[edit]

Beste Natuur12,

Ik begrijp de verwijdering nog niet helemaal. De erfgenamen Por (familie) hadden dit beeld geschonken aan de Rijksdienst voor het Cultureel Erfgoed voor opname in de publieke beeldbank van de RCE, waar iedereen het kan downloaden onder CC-BY-SA-3.0. Dus het auteursrecht is in Nederland geregeld. Maar in VS niet? Groeten, Hansmuller (talk) 10:15, 29 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Er van uit gaande dat de licentie alleen voor de foto geld en niet het schilderij wat vrij vaak gebeurt behoort dit schilderij in Nederland niet tot het publieke domein. In de VS misschien maar om dat was te stellen heb ik nu te weinig informatie over het schilderij. Indien de nabestaande het auteursrecht hebben kunnen zij toestemming geven om het schilderij vrij te geven onder een cc-licentie. Wel hebben we daarvoor een expliciet bewijs nodig via com:OTRS aangezien de ervaring leert dat mensen en organisaties van alles vrij geven onder een cc-licentie zonder na te denken over of het werk op de foto wel in het publieke domein valt. Voor dit soort cases hebben we eigenlijk het Precautionary principle. Er kunnen dusdanig veel vraagtekens bij deze foto gesteld worden dat er gerede twijfel bestaat dat dit bestand niet oké is. Er is dus bewijs nodig dat zowel de fotograaf als de nabestaanden akkoord gaan met een vrijgave onder een cc-licentie. Indien de nabestaande hier afspraken over gemaakt hebben is het vast niet lastig om het document waarin dit alles geregeld is op te sturen naar OTRS. Natuur12 (talk) 10:25, 29 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
RCE-beeldbank fotograaf en rijksambtenaar is in 2009 langs geweest bij erfgenamen, mondelinge toestemming was voldoende. De Nederlandse overheid garandeert rechtenvrije beelden op de beeldbankwebsite. Maar dat is blijkbaar niet genoeg voor wikimedia ;-) Hansmuller (talk) 10:58, 29 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
File:Aquarel, portret van Jacob Por, vervaardigd door H.W. Rosema in 1910 - Unknown - 20428316 - RCE.jpg ligt iets anders, de erfgenamen Por schonken dit op dezelfde manier enz. waarbij er vanuit gegaan werd dat zij de rechten hadden op de aquarel door Rosema. Hansmuller (talk) 10:31, 29 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
De tweede afbeelding is waarschijnlijk niet oké. Maar wat is er nu precies afgesproken? En rechtenvrij is nogal een dubieuze term gezien er niet afgedaan wordt aan het auteursrecht wanneer een afbeelding wordt vrijgegeven onder en vrije licentie. En Commons is streng, dat klopt, maar dat is niet zo verwonderlijk. Natuur12 (talk) 11:28, 29 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]


could you restore my article picture[edit]

Hello Natuur12,

On september 14th, you deleted the picture "Jean-Pierre Fragnière.jpg" that I uploaded for the article "Jean-Pierre Fragnière". This picture was sent to me by Jean-Pierre Fragnière who took it himself a long time ago. I might have made a mistake, since this was my very first contribution on Wikipedia, but I would like the picture to be back.

What kind of proof do you need and where can I explicitly mention that the picture is free of use?

Thanks in advance for your answers.

Vel2014 LHi, we need permission from the copyrightholder to hoste this image under a free license. Please make hin send evidence of permisison to OTRS. Natuur12 (talk) 16:13, 3 October 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Zhuyifei1999[edit]

Dear Natuur12,

Do you know how to E-mail Zhuyifei1999 to tell him that his flickr review bot has stopped marking images since Sept 30 and that the flickr backlog is over 4,000 images. He has been away from Commons for a few days now. He would know how to restart the bot. Kind Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 06:36, 3 October 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Have you tried Special:EmailUser/Zhuyifei1999? --Stefan4 (talk) 15:32, 3 October 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Restarted --Steinsplitter (talk) 15:40, 3 October 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Seems solved, thanks everyone. Natuur12 (talk) 16:14, 3 October 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Thanks for your reply. I was hoping other users can mark some images once the bot is fixed as I am free likely on weekends only. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 19:09, 3 October 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

License review request[edit]

Greetings!
Could you please do the license check for the following files:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:AK74-by-spaxspore.jpg
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:AK74-by-spaxspore-2.jpg
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:AK47_by_spaxspore.jpg  ?
Thanks in advance
Best regards --RussianTrooper (talk) 05:16, 5 October 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment: I have marked those images but can you or another Admin or trusted user please mark this image below as Commons has no good image of Jose Pekerman of Argentina.
  • File:Jose N. Pekerman (September 2013).jpg

Kind Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 06:30, 5 October 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This DR[edit]

Can you reply to this DR. Its clearly a derivative but the uploader is new and doesn't know the rules. Unfortunately, I have to sign off now and go to bed. Goodnight, --Leoboudv (talk) 09:46, 6 October 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I made a reply. Natuur12 (talk) 10:23, 6 October 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Thanks for your reply. It is helpful and may educate the new uploader. Kind Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 18:05, 6 October 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Pictures deleted in Electrical Muscle Stimulation[edit]

Hi Natuur12, I noticed that the pictures I had loaded for [1] have been deleted for lack of copyright permission. I probably did something in my filling out the copyright procedure, but I don't understand what it is. Since this happened to me in the past, and you seem to have a good grasp of the copyright matter, would you mind explaining it to me, so that I can correct the situation?--Gciriani (talk) 11:58, 16 October 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Gciriani, In this case it is really simpel. You overwrote a file some time ago so I had to split the file history. All you have do do is inclcuding a license tag like {{cc-by-sa-3.0}} and the problem is solved. After you have added this template or another valid licensing template you may remove the no license tag. Natuur12 (talk) 12:08, 16 October 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't think I overwrote it. Somebody else changed the extension, because it was not loading correctly. It was something like changing from jpeg to JPG, or similar to that when the pictures went into OTRS (a process I don't really understand). If I go to where the pictures where supposed to be they are not there. What shall I do?

Also it sees that the Wikipedia automatic e-mailing system for the watchlist seems to be malfunctioning. Did it happen to you too. Where do I address this problem?--Gciriani (talk) 12:33, 16 October 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Whoops sorry, that responce was written for something else. Please ignore it.If you send evidence of permission to OTRS there is nothing that you need to de except watching your email in case you receive an email from OTRS. If everyting is validated an OTRS-agent will restore those files. If you didnot have send evidence of permission please do so, for more info about this subject see OTRS. You can enable the email at the tab preferences. Natuur12 12:52, 16 October 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The pictures had been OTRS validated. See the edit and comment by Kylie Tastic: "Fixed images - just a slight file name issue - User:Gciriani pointed me towards the OTRS validated images". Could you please let me know what else needs to be done? Is it the case of an extension spelled differently like JPG instead of JPEG or of different capitalization? --Gciriani (talk) 16:38, 23 October 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You just deleted a candidate of a picture of the year and favorate picture in astronomy[edit]

Dear Natuur12,

Please review the full discussion regarding the copyright before deleting

File:Eta_Carinae_Nebula_1.jpg

Best regards, --Fabian RRRR (talk) 18:51, 17 October 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

PS.: And File:M101 hires STScI-PRC2006-10a.jpg had already an deletion discussion around this topic...

Well, I did review the discussion before I deleted the images (except for the talk pages) but I restored the files for now so that commonsdelinker won't remove the files from the articles while the discussion is ongoing however I don't understand, you are the one who nominated them for speedy deletion. Could you please explain since this is something I really don't understand. Natuur12 (talk) 19:21, 17 October 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have choosen the unconventional way in order to raise some attention here.
If a well respected organization publishes an image under cc-by-3.0 in a comprehensible way, it shouldn't be a matter of doubt to delete the image.
At least not in speedy way.
That happens to File:Opo0210b.tif - contradicting the discussion in File_talk:M101_hires_STScI-PRC2006-10a.jpg. I've tried to link this together with prominent examples.
ESO is a major source for wikimedia, for me it is important to know for future contribution, wether i can believe their copyright assignment. In fact if we do not believe, a large pile of images has to be deleted.
A third thread is forming under Commons:Deletion_requests/File:The_remnant_of_the_supernova_SN_1006_seen_at_many_different_wavelengths.tiff. Do you see a better way to resolve this issue?
Best regards, --Fabian RRRR (talk) 09:29, 18 October 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You mean another solution than blocking you for vandalisme and whacking myself with a trout for not noticing it? A discussion in the village pump perhaps? Natuur12 (talk) 14:27, 18 October 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Image review[edit]

Can you review these images from Flickr ?

Full book trucks ready and waiting to be shelved..PNG
Denmark's anointing throne.PNG

--Hipposcrashed (talk) 02:44, 19 October 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

One was already marked and I marked the other. Natuur12 (talk) 11:04, 19 October 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And this one?
Mascot of the Spanish Legion.PNG
--Hipposcrashed (talk) 20:50, 19 October 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Marked it. Natuur12 (talk) 20:54, 19 October 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]


File:US Navy Landing Craft Utility 1665 delivers personnel and hardware as the amphibious transport dock ship USS Cleveland (LPD-7).jpg‎[edit]

It works in Commons, but not in Wikipedia

Hello Natuur12! I know, the rename reason is not exactly listed, but since the photo is not possible to see anymore in the article in Wikipedia since the last renaming. Please have a look at de:Cristo Rei (Dili). Maybe you have an idea to solve the problem. Greetings, --JPF (talk) 07:31, 22 October 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

OW dear, this is an onorthodox problem. I renamed the file for you but their may be a whole set with disfuctioning filenames since it was renamed before under criteria 5. Should be fixed in a few minutes. Natuur12 (talk) 09:26, 22 October 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you! It works now. ;-) --JPF (talk) 16:58, 22 October 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/User_problems#File:Chadwick.jpg[edit]

Hi Natuur12, there is a discussion at AN/U that mention you too. :)

BTW, could you confirm whether there was an active DR notice on the top of the file page when you deleted it? Or there was no such notice after first DR was closed? It will help as to find whether it was a negligence from the TFA team at EN. Jee 07:50, 22 October 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hey, calling it negligence on my part (and by inference my part alone) is rather harsh. There are lots of fingers that can be pointed in different directions - I'm not having them all pointing at me. Bencherlite (talk) 08:25, 22 October 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi Jee, Thanks for the notice. There was an deletion template with the following text: {{delete|reason=Invalid closure. A file can't be kept under a claim that the image is anonymous unless it can be shown that it is anonymous. Such evidence could for example be evidence that the photographer wasn't credited in the original publication (which typically means that the photographer is anonymous). However, such evidence has not been provided here, and it doesn't say how to check the original publication to confirm whether the photographer is credited or not. The only source which has been provided is a link to a contemporary website, which provides absolutely zero invormation about whether the photographer was credited in the original publication or not.|subpage=File:Chadwick.jpg|year=2014|month=October|day=7}}. This notice has been there since seven October. I didnot know that it was used un the main page since a) the file was not protected b) nobody mentiones it and c) what are the odds that someone uses an image nominated for deletion at the main page?. So it is a pitty that this happened, if I would have know I would have left it open untill it was removed from the main page. @Bencherlite, nobody is poiting all the fingers at you. All you could have done wrong is missing a deletions template (I understand that you are the one that put it on the main page?) and stuff like that does happen. Believe me, nobody is pointing all the fingers at you but I can understand that it feels this way. Natuur12 (talk) 09:20, 22 October 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks Natuur12 for the clarification. Jee 09:25, 22 October 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Honestly, I, for one, would rather avoid copyvio on the main page, so would say it being on the main page was a good reason to panic and get it off, not to wait. =) Adam Cuerden (talk) 10:09, 22 October 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Err, re your point (a): although it wasn't on the en main page at the time of deletion, it was still protected at that time - see this page which shows that it had full cascading protection at Commons at the time of its deletion. Not that it particularly matters now, but I was worried when you said it wasn't protected - if it wasn't, then we would have had another Commons protection failure in the space of less than a week (see here for the previous problem). Bencherlite (talk) 23:00, 22 October 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sorry, cascade protection and I are not friends and we will never be friends either ;). But luckly it was protected anyways. Natuur12 (talk) 09:59, 23 October 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

License review[edit]

Deer Natuur12, many thanks for checking the batch of stills in September, but here comes another one! Could you please take a look in your spare time:

Thank you in advance, --Nabak (talk) 07:51, 27 October 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Mass DR[edit]

Dear Admin Natuur12,

Could you file a mass DR on these images here? They fail French FOP since this building was built in 2006. Kind Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 04:00, 28 October 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Done, nominated the files for deletion. Natuur12 (talk) 09:12, 28 October 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This DR[edit]

Dear Natuur12,

If you can determine if this image is the flickr account owner's own work, then please close the DR as keep. If not, consider deleting it as the other Admins don't seem to want to deal with this problematic image. Or don't make a decision. Its up to you here. Kind Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 04:41, 29 October 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I closed it as deleted. Natuur12 (talk) 11:34, 29 October 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Thank You for determining that it is a copyright violation. Perhaps this account should be put on a blacklist, if necessary. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 17:55, 29 October 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks![edit]

Thank you for your intervention! I'm new to this place and the intense reception by a very eager editor was a bit too much. I'm really trying to learn the ropes, and I appreciate the guidance. Kjetil Prestesæter (talk) 22:34, 30 October 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You're welcome, however it is most of the time not an good ending when somebody gets blocked. You might find Commons:Talk page guidelines usefull to read btw. You did nothing wrong of course when you removed the warning tags but some people can get a bit irritated if you do so. I saw that some of your uploads are deleted as copyrightviolations. If you are the copyrightholder you might want to concider mailing evidence of permission to OTRS. Natuur12 (talk) 15:23, 31 October 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks[edit]

Hi Natuur12. Thanks for all your good faith work around here; much appreciated! Can you perhaps spare a few moments and verify the licenses on several newer uploads (viz. File:Qasnabiamhd1.png, File:Osmmohdufhd1.png, File:Osmmohdufhd7.png, File:Somdjibminhd1.png, File:Somdjibminhd21.png, File:Faisalhawhd5.png, File:Faisalhawhd6.png, File:Faisalhawhd7.png, File:Faisalhawhd3.png, File:Faisalhawhd10.png, File:Somohralhd1a.png, File:Jawarimohd6.png, File:Jawarimohd1.png, File:Jawarimohd11.png, File:Somdjibminhd17.png ,File:Somdjibminhd4.png, File:Somdjibminhd7.png, File:Somdjibminhd12.png, File:Somdjibminhd11.png, File:Somdjibminhd14.png, File:Somdjibminhd10.png)? JurgenNL seems to be busy at the moment, so they've been backlogged for a while. Best, Middayexpress (talk) 17:02, 31 October 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I marked them as confirmed. I'm a bit busy myself as well so I can't do something about the backlog :(. Natuur12 (talk) 18:15, 31 October 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Fernando Collor 2014.jpg[edit]

Please feel free to mark this image if you know what license to give it. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 09:31, 3 November 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I changed the licensing info since the given license was not available at the source. I marked the image as confirmed. Natuur12 (talk) 10:58, 3 November 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Peter Calandra in the studio, PeterCalandraPortrait.jpg[edit]

Dear Natuur,

This is the only image on this flickr account and I do not know if it is own work. If you think it is own work, please consider passing it. If it is a flickrwash, please delete it. The uploader appears to be new. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 02:56, 4 November 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I nominated the file for deletion since this not a clear to the cut case. Natuur12 (talk) 10:19, 4 November 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Thank You. By the way. there is a Michael Howard account with some derivative images like this and this.

An uploader has uploaded several images from this account like these two...and several more (maybe 3 more):

If they are all flickrwashes, please consider deleting them or filing a DR. Kind Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 10:29, 4 November 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • I got the feeling that those images are scans or printscreens. They don't look like "own work" but I can't find them elswhere. Either way, more opinions on those two are welcome so I nominated them for deletion. Natuur12 (talk) 10:57, 4 November 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Sorry. I was busy with work. Thanks for your help and reply. Kind Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 05:48, 6 November 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Bucher Schörling AG Logo.jpg[edit]

Dag! Did you see this question? The file is in use only in the German graphics workshop's archive where the SVG version was created. In my opinion, the JPG may be deleted. --193.18.240.18 09:02, 5 November 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for the message, that changes things. I got the impression that the JPG was used to illustrate a discussion but since that's not the case I will reclose the DR as delete. Natuur12 (talk) 11:20, 5 November 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you. --193.18.240.18 11:31, 5 November 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Geen bron[edit]

Dit plaatje File:Rollator, to help with walking.JPG staat zonder bron in de Delftse Post van vandaag. Bij "Attribution" staat: "You must attribute the work in the manner specified by the author or licensor". Wat betekent die laatste zin? Als ik het zo lees kun je het lezen dat wanneer de "author" niets specificeert dan mag de foto zonder meer door eenieder gebruikt worden. Klopt dat? Er staan trouwens zoveel "licenses" dat niet duidelijk is welke je moet gebruiken. --VanBuren (talk) 14:56, 5 November 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Beste VanBuren, het duurde even voordat het krantje binnen was bij mij. In dit geval zal JohannesJ dus als auteur genoemd moeten worden samen met de licentie. De auteur mag dus kiezen hoe hij/zij aangeduid wil worden. Bij mijn foto's is dat als Natuur12 maar ik zou er bijvoorbeeld ook voor kunnen kiezen om aan te geven dat ik J. Flipse als credit wil of www.natuur12foto's.nl om maar wat voorbeelden te noemen. En dit dient dan ook als credit gegeven te worden. Daarnaast dient natuurlijk de licentie genoemd te worden. Bij deze licenties dient er altijd een auteur genoemd te worden, de licentie eist namelijk dat er een auteur genoemd wordt. op Commons worden foto's onder een cc-licentie verwijderd wanneer er geen auteur genoemd wordt maar dit is een beetje een grijs gebied.
Wat betreft de licenties, is het bestand vrijgegeven onder meerdere licenties mag de gebruiker kiezen welke hij wilt volgen. Natuur12 (talk) 18:34, 5 November 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Dag Natuur12, de regel: "attribution – You must attribute the work in the manner specified by the author" suggereert dat niet de naam van de auteur genoemd moet worden (in dit geval "Author JohannesJ") maar dat de auteur feitelijk een specifieke beschrijving moet geven die overgenomen moet worden door een gebruiker van de foto. De onduidelijkheid kan ik ook verwoorden als: "Attribution ... in the manner specified by the author" is iets anders dan: "Attribution ... by specifying the name of the author". Als de persoon die het plaatje gebruikt geen specificatie kan vinden van hoe de auteur zichzelf vermeld wil zien dan hoeft dat blijkbaar niet. Kun je me volgen?
En wat betreft de licenties: er staat nu een licentie naar versie 1.0, 1.2, 2.0, 2.5 en 3.0. Er wordt steeds verwezen naar de laatste, dat maakt de oudere blijkbaar overbodig en/of ongeldig. Om verwarring te voorkomen zouden die dan toch beter verwijderd kunnen worden? Groet. --VanBuren (talk) 15:25, 6 November 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Beste vanburen, wat het eerste punt betreft, we zijn het geloof ik redelijk met elkaar eens enkel twijfel ik of geen auteur opgeven wel kan. Ik heb gezocht maar kan hier nergens duidelijk uitsluitsel over vinden helaas.
Wat betreft de versienummers, elke versie heeft een net wat andere licentievoorwaarde. Alle versies zijn geldig en die horen ook te blijven staan omdat deze licenties niet in te trekken zijn. Het verschil is marginaal maar het is er wel. De oude versies zijn ook nog geldig. Die oude versienummers zijn inderdaad een beetje overbodig maar weghalen mag ook niet en zo kan iedereen de licentie kiezen die hij/zij wilt gebruiken. Natuur12 (talk) 19:44, 7 November 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@VanBuren: - volgen mij heb ik bewijs gevonden dat jij gelijk hebt met dat indien er geen auteur vermeld wordt, deze ook niet genoemd hoeft te worden. Kwam het toevallig tegen, weet ik nu eindelijk zelf ook hoe het zit :). Natuur12 (talk) 16:42, 10 November 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Request for license review[edit]

Deer Natuur12, many thanks for checking the recent batch of uploaded stills, but I've collected more during passed time! Could you please take a look in your spare time at:

Thank you in advance! --Nabak (talk) 04:23, 8 November 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Marked them. Natuur12 (talk) 19:19, 8 November 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Question[edit]

Should a deleted image mention here be restored if it preserves metadata naming the flickr account owner...Kirk Stauffer? Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 08:08, 9 November 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I asked the deleting admin if he is willing to undelete the file based on this new evidence. Natuur12 (talk) 12:00, 10 November 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Another request[edit]

Deer Natuur12, as always many thanks for checking the stills! I looked at the old ones and to my surprise discovered that some of them are already being heavily used in different projects, that means that our time was not wasted away in vain! I am asking you to kindly look at another batch: this time I have noted the exact minute of every still placement in the source:

Thank you in advance! --Nabak (talk) 05:17, 10 November 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for mentioning the exact time, that makes it easier to mark them. All done. Natuur12 (talk) 12:12, 10 November 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Commons:Deletion requests/PNG versions of EFF-IA National Security Letters[edit]

I restored the files. We never delete files just because they are available in other formats - unless each and every usage has been replaced or can be replaced. In this case commons delinker bot can't replace them, and at least one usage at de-WP can't be replaced by links to the pdf file due to format limits. --h-stt !? 11:18, 10 November 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

We also don't undo adminactions ourself because we don't agree with them, we file a request or discuss it with the admin who did the specific action. If something goes wrong when the file is beiing replaced, what does happen every now and than, just recplace it yourself or go to com:UNDEL but don't misuse your tools. Plus your second statement is false, we do actually delete them if somebody just put the file somewhere to prevent deletion for example. Natuur12 (talk) 11:47, 10 November 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Umm-ul-Banin-Salaam.jpg[edit]

Dear Natuur12,

Can you mark (pass or fail) this image? It appears to come from a fickrwashing account but may be too simple to be copyrighted. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 18:49, 13 November 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • PS: Do you or Lymantria mark video files like this example? Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 09:30, 14 November 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • I think that it is better if an Arab speaking reviewer looks at the first image,I'm not sure of this one is okay or not. Yann marked the video. Natuur12 (talk) 16:06, 15 November 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:John S. Dunne, C.S.C..JPG[edit]

Dear Natuur,

Do you or Lymantria know how to mark this image? It does not appear to be a picasa image but the permission is given on the image link. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 03:48, 15 November 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Secondly, I told this new user on 6:19 on his talkpage that a few of his uploads were not free. Now, after 6:19 he deliberately uploads images with no verifiable online source...and I cannot find the source. He must be deliberately doing this and his unsourced images should be deleted...at a minimum since he was told what was a free license here. Best, --Leoboudv (talk) 08:16, 15 November 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don;t have a google plus account so I can;t validate the source. Theere is something strange going on with that new user, his images are used here en this looks fishy. Added the no permission template to the image without the proper source information.
I will be away the next two weeks, first I'm in London for a few days and the next week I'm in an area called Veluwe so I won't be able to check my talk page often. Natuur12 (talk) 16:12, 15 November 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Thank you for your reply and the message. Best Wishes on your trip, --Leoboudv (talk) 18:58, 15 November 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Special:Diff/139682730[edit]

avoids a double-archival. Sorry for having written your username incompletely in the edit summary. --Leyo 12:42, 16 November 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks and NP. I got cought up by something so I forgot about removing the archive post. Natuur12 (talk) 22:39, 16 November 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

DR note[edit]

Just a quick note: the image in Commons:Deletion requests/File:MooddisorderMooddisorderinspanish.jpg is an upload by LTA sockmaster Albianmoonlight. I've blocked the new sock, but since you kept the image, I figured it'd be better to let you decide whether to let the keep stand or not. I'll leave a quick note for Turelio too. INeverCry 01:00, 26 November 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Update: File:Iamsad.jpg is another copy of the same image uploaded by another AM sock, and File:MooddisorderMooddisorderbrazil.jpg is another copy uploaded by yet another sock. I'm going to delete all three since this is now some obvious sock gaming. INeverCry 01:19, 26 November 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for the message, that's fine with me. Don't those sockmasters have anything better to do.... Natuur12 (talk) 08:19, 26 November 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Grawp and a few others have been at it for about 10 years. Jermboy27 has been on Commons for atleast 6 or 7, and has done atleast 250000 edits here, all on roadsign images and cats. We have 2 sockmasters that I know of with 10000+ socks each... INeverCry 08:56, 26 November 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

New request[edit]

Deer Natuur12, thank you for checking the previous uploads! To turn your mind away from all these scheming sockmasters and their ever-multiplying socks (my sock drawer is full of guys missing their mates, so now I know where to look for them), I decided to ask you to kindly check these images, the exact minute of every still placement is noted:

Thank you in advance! --Nabak (talk) 22:51, 26 November 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete request[edit]

I got it from Flickr but at the bottom it says credits to another site.--Hipposcrashed (talk) 04:26, 29 November 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I deleted the file. Natuur12 (talk) 17:01, 29 November 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Please delete these two files. They are my own work- low quality vector images based on non-free images.
Arms of Chief Herald of Canada.svg
--Hipposcrashed (talk) 03:13, 3 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As you wish. Natuur12 (talk) 09:30, 3 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Blanca Padilla J. Mendel SS 15 Show.jpg[edit]

Hello. Please restore a deleted image file was deleted by mistake. The file that you want to be removed was removed about a week ago, this is the right file again loaded me with the correct license and faithful description, just the name of both files are the same. Apparently page remove the red link again turned blue after downloading :) JukoFF (talk) 20:32, 6 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As you wish. I restored the file. Natuur12 (talk) 20:34, 6 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Senk :) JukoFF (talk) 20:39, 6 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Halt![edit]

Please stop deleting the Table4five images. Ok, explanation. 1) The files are not overseen yet. As you can see at the bottom, I've been going through them as there indeed are useful files amidst the many, many personal ones. No other editor has mentioned going through them either. I am not yet ready with the files from " to J. I have not seen any of them. 2) There has not been much discussion. Consensus has not been reached. No one has commented on my comments as per what files are useful, and there has not been enough time either. Some of the files are such that my current knowledge is not enough to determine if they can be kept. 3) You are welcome to delete the commented-on Spaceship Earth files and all files without comments from "Spartys" to the end and from "H" to "Some of these". Those are good to go (unless you have something to say). --Pitke (talk) 20:57, 6 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Just just checked a few of them and deleted because they really are out of scope so don't worry. Natuur12 (talk) 21:01, 6 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ok, thanks for shortening the list! I was getting a bit paranoid because I worried someone was going full-automatic. --Pitke (talk) 21:08, 6 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Ginza Sony building.jpg[edit]

It may be premature to delete this file as the topic is still under discussion at https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_in_Category:Aibo

I'm sorry but it's not premature. This file is a clear copyrightviolation and that discussion is already over, only you refuse to accept the outcome. Natuur12 (talk) 13:38, 7 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Pripyat; We live in the land of Lenin.jpg[edit]

If this 2D art image can be passed, please consider marking it. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 09:23, 7 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

By the way, an uploader uploaded this image and many other images from this flickr account but I don't know if this account is OK. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 09:27, 7 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nominated the first one for deletion and marked the second since I cannot find other versions of this file on they internet but nontheles, the file looks a bit suspicious. Natuur12 (talk) 13:49, 7 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Consultas de borrado[edit]

I not speak english. Hola. He quité las imágenes del artículo en donde se las usaba, ¿cómo hacer para retomar las consultas de borrado? --DLeandroc (talk) 15:37, 8 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Natuur12 no sabe español y me pidió a ayudar en eso. Lo que hay que hacer es simplemente nominar los archivos de neuvo. Puedes nominarles con como razón (incluido una traducción en inglés): 'mapa contiene error, ya no en uso / map contains error, no longer in use' - Jcb (talk) 22:06, 8 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Vale, gracias. --DLeandroc (talk) 20:19, 9 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This Message[edit]

Dear Natuur12, Can all the campaign poster on Commons mention in the above message be deleted--as clear copyright violations?

I don't know why they are here on Commons. Best, --Leoboudv (talk) 09:22, 9 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dear Leoboudv,
Some of those posters are likely copyrightviolations but we have permission from the copyrightholder for others. Some are PD and some are below TOO. It really depends on the poster. Not all of the posters can be deleted. Natuur12 (talk) 17:57, 9 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Thank you. On the poster where I filed a copyvio notice there was a picture of the candidate so it was likely unfree. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 19:52, 9 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Arena Corinthians Logo.jpg[edit]

Hi Natuur12. I noticed the above discussion was closed as delete, but the image was not deleted. I think this was an oversight? -- Diannaa (talk) 01:59, 11 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for the message. I deleted the file. Likely the script I use tpp close those DR's had a hitch up again. Natuur12 10:32, 11 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your comment at DR[edit]

Hello Natuur12, please see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Land and Sea Breezes in Day and Night.gif and Commons:Deletion requests/File:Distribution of Local Winds over the globe.gif. Could you kindly refrain from making snide closing commentaries like "Gaming the System"? The exchange with de-watermarked images was agreed upon with the initial uploader, the DR was made in good faith to remove a duplicate file. If I made an error (where exactly?), a simple correction pointing out the correct handling would have sufficed. GermanJoe (talk) 22:39, 11 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I didnot remove them because of Wikilegal/Removal of watermarks from Commons images. Natuur12 (talk) 22:45, 11 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Maybe you misunderstood, and my request wasn't clear enough. The watermark was removed voluntarily by the copyright owner himself, not by me. There was no infringement on the copyright owner's rights of any kind - the linked draft does not include removal of own watermarks. As a new uploader, he just wasn't aware, he could overwrite the old version and uploaded the de-watermarked version under a new filename. Sorry for the confusion. But please do not imply bad intent on my actions, I usually try to follow current procedures - as far as I understand them :). GermanJoe (talk) 22:58, 11 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Okay, the gaming the system comment was not okay. Sorry. But feel free to renominate the files with clearer statement. Natuur12 (talk) 23:00, 11 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you - all OK. I have renominated the files with a hopefully clearer description of the situation. GermanJoe (talk) 23:28, 11 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
All done now. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 14:13, 29 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks! Natuur12 (talk) 14:14, 29 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete[edit]

Please delete this file.

Coat of Arms of Queen Sylvia of Sweden.PNG

It is my own work and I have created a more accurate vector version(based on this).

I'm sorry but this file is in use so I can't do a courtesy deletion plus the file has been on the Common for more than 7 days so the file needs to face a regular DR. If you remove the image from the article, it is quite likely that an admin will delete the file if you nominate it but there are no quaranties. Natuur12 (talk) 14:51, 13 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Copyvio afbeedingen[edit]

Moi Natuur12, Volgens mij heeft de gebruiker [[User:Richard Drost] diverse afbeeldingen van het internet geplukt en hierheen geupload. Ik had er een genomineerd en zit nu de rest te kijken. Met al die watermerken geloof ik er niets van dat deze foto's (of in ieder geval de recente) eigen werk zijn. Zou je hier naar kunnen kijken? --Meerdervoort (talk) 14:18, 13 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Moi Meerdervoort, ik heb ze op twee na allemaal genomineerd. Twee foto's uit 2012 kunnen best eigen werk zijn maar de rest zeer waarschijnlijk niet. Bij een van de printscreens stond de cursor van de muis zelfs in beeld. Natuur12 (talk) 14:49, 13 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Dankjewel voor het uitzoeken en het starten van de massanominatie. --Meerdervoort (talk) 14:52, 13 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Moi, Ik heb inmiddels weer drie nieuwe afbeeldingen van deze gebruiker ter verwijdering aangedragen. Ik heb niet het idee dat hij wat uit doet op de berichten op zijn overlegpagina. Misschien dat er wat andere stappen moeten volgen? --Meerdervoort (talk) 10:41, 16 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Moi, ik heb de gebruiker voor de duur van 2 weken geblokkeerd. Hij is niet regelmatig actief (vandaar ook deze lengte) maar hopelijk ziet hij dit en komt hij tot inkeer. Natuur12 (talk) 10:51, 16 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:マクドナルド渋谷東映プラザ店 in Oct 2014 (15487887158).jpg[edit]

Dear Natuur,

Could you consider passing or failing this image? I don't know if it can be copyrighted but I thought it has this problem. The image is a recent upload. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 10:17, 16 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Secondly, if possible perhaps this DR can be closed as delete now. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 10:22, 16 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • I nominated the image for deletion, DW of a poster and McDonalds likely owns the copyright and not the Flickr account holder and I closed the DR. Natuur12 (talk) 10:27, 16 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Thanks for both your help here. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 19:06, 16 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Dekorationstallrik från Gustavsberg gjord 1914 - Hallwylska museet - 93919.tif[edit]

Hi, I don't know if you saw Commons:Deletion requests/File:Dekorationstallrik från Rörstrand dekorerad med Landsstormen 1914 - Hallwylska museet - 93904.tif. I think we have enough info to keep this image. Would you restore it? Regards, Yann (talk) 20:19, 16 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, I restored the file. Regards, Natuur12 (talk) 23:46, 16 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Commons:Deletion requests/Images of various works of art in Pori, Finland[edit]

Hi! I just wanted to notify that File:F. A. Juseliuksen muistoreliefi.JPG remains not deleted even though you stated all files in Commons:Deletion requests/Images of various works of art in Pori, Finland as deleted. Best regards, ––Apalsola tc 20:15, 17 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, thanks for the message. I deleted the file. Natuur12 (talk) 20:48, 17 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Repeat it[edit]

please delete it File:Río Táchira Forntera Colombia -Venezuela.PNG now on jpg as File:Río Táchira, frontera Colombia - Venezuela.JPG and File:Frontera Colombia-Venezuela.PNG Thanks in advance.--EEIM (talk) 04:55, 18 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

✓ Done Natuur12 (talk) 22:45, 21 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please look again[edit]

A while ago, I nominated File:QuattroElementi.png for deletion. The image had then and has now no source. It's fairly obviously copied from a book or a poster. Would you be so kind as to either find a source for the image and get it out of images without source or reconsider your closure? Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:03, 20 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I see you're problem and my closure seems to be a bot strange, however, reconsiddering my closure is not the outcome I preferre. I would rather see a new nomination based on the no source argument since the DR was about "scope". Natuur12 (talk) 22:43, 21 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Logo S.H.I.E.L.D..svg[edit]

¿Porqué eliminaron mi diseño? ¡si es una creación mía! --EnekoEnekonis (talk) 21:44, 22 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Because it's a derivative of a non free logo. Natuur12 (talk) 21:51, 22 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Logo MetroparkW.png and other[edit]

I'm sorry, but the image File:Logo FerserviziW.png was removed for copyright, also being the logo is registered as a user to release a picture with creative commons because it does not have rights? --ZioNicco (talk) 15:25, 24 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Those logo's may or may not be below com:TOO but more important, the files where imported from Flickr and the account at Flickr seems to be the copyrightholder. It could be a com:LL account of course but I found no evidence of that. You can release a trademark under a cc-license but there could be some consequences. We ignore trademarklaw but you can add the {{trademark}} template to the file pages if you wish. Natuur12 (talk) 21:56, 24 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Season's Greetings[edit]

Wikipe-tan holding sign Season's Greetings.png Season's Greetings and Good Wishes
Best wishes for the season and the New Year. Ellin Beltz (talk) 05:00, 25 December 2014 (UTC) |}Reply[reply]
Thanks! And the best wishes to you as well! Natuur12 (talk) 13:28, 25 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Gmhofmann[edit]

Hello Natuur12,

I just noticed this DR. While many of the files are certainly derivative works of packaging, I ask you to reconsider the deletion of File:Freikartensperre-Cinemaxx.jpg and File:Freikartensperre Cinemaxx.jpg (two files, once with hyphen, once without). There is no drawing etc. to consider here, and the text is very basic and formulaic. It essentially says that it is not possible to attend screenings of these particular films with complimentary tickets because the film distribution company requested this. So the text is below the threshold of originality. Regards --Rosenzweig τ 22:20, 27 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

✓ Done - you're arguments are convinsing and based on this arguments I would have kept those files. Natuur12 (talk) 22:24, 27 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks. --Rosenzweig τ 22:33, 27 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Trolling?[edit]

Is that the best argument you can come up with for protecting ANU? "Trolling"? I'm not trolling.

I'm not breaking any rules. I'm not evading any blocks. There is no rule that says I must login to my account to leave messages. I simply don't wish to get in the sights of the people who took out Fred simply for defending him. He's done me a few favors and I like him as a person, and believe he's been unfairly treated. So your response is to deny me access and censor what I have to say? You wouldn't happen to be a right-wing voter would you, they enjoy the curtailing of people's free expression and reducing their right to privacy. Or are you just pissed that your blocking of a dynamic IP didn't work? --103.17.199.80 23:21, 29 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You're violating Meta:No open proxies. INeverCry 01:31, 30 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No I'm not violating any policy or rule. Perhaps you should read the link you gave, specifically the second half of the very first sentence? I'm not using Tor, and it says that users are free to use proxies until they are blocked. There was no vandalism, no rule breaking and there was no reason to block the Czech IP address. We have such a low quality set of admins these days. No wonder the project is going downhill. You block productive (but mouthy) editors and you welcome copyright violaters and perverts <smh>.
Are you really sure you should have returned if you can't even get something simple like this right? Also, I'm not using an "open" proxy, I'm using a closed one. Try and connect through it if you can. So please carry on doing what is easy rather than what is right.
Oh, and BTW Natuur12, Steinsplitter is German and is active on de.wiki FYI, sort of makes your comments look a bit silly now eh? --103.17.196.103 10:30, 30 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Since when is Tyrol part of Germany? Natuur12 (talk) 14:02, 30 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm an American who has no particular interest in Europe. He speaks German, is active on de.wiki so whether he is Austrian or German makes no difference to me, to me they are pretty much the same thing.--103.27.221.251 15:24, 30 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
User:Fred the Oyster, please understand that saying anti-FtO (predominantly German) cartel is at least personal attack for admins speaks German. As a matter a fact you were, according to you rational, under international cartel - German, Israeli, Russian, French and others that support you indef block. But in fact you blocked because of your behavior which include personal attacks, bad wording against other users etc. And even that you were already blocked for three month after discussion were some users support your indef block, you still don't understand the problems in your behavior. Not even thinking for apologize. So if you dont have nothing else to do beside trolling go ahad. you will be one among others. And you dont full nobody by calling Fred the Oyster him. -- Geagea (talk) 14:26, 30 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You have no proof whatsoever that I'm FtO so you are making unfounded allegations. Not that this is unexpected from you. Your history demonstrates your non-neutral bias against certain users. Why do you think I'm staying anonymous? It's because of unethical and deficient admins like you and their petty politicking. Incidentally, it's "fool noone" and "dont" has an apostrophe in it because it's a contraction. I think I made it clear from my report of the email conversation I had with FtO that he doesn't care about coming back, therefore he doesn't care about the block being lengthened. He is quite comfortable with openclipart. I understand why he doesn't want anything to do with the toxic atmosphere that is so prevalent at Commons. I can't say I blame him. This is quite apparent by the lack of action against Freud for his unsolicited attack on FtO. Without that, none of this would have happened. But because it was against someone like FtO the perpetrator gets off scott free. Just another example of the corruption and double standards in this cesspit. FtO has nothing to apologise for, he was the one who was attacked. If you can't see that then you are very much a part of the problem here. --103.27.221.251 15:24, 30 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Face-crying.svg Face-crying.svg Face-crying.svg Face-crying.svg Face-crying.svg Face-crying.svg Face-crying.svg Face-crying.svg Face-crying.svg Face-crying.svg Face-crying.svg Face-crying.svg Face-crying.svg Face-crying.svg Face-crying.svg Face-crying.svg INeverCry 18:29, 30 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you for your tacit admission that you serve no useful purpose in this discussion, and that you are prepared to lie on a block log about your reaons for blocking an IP range. There has been no spam or abuse from that IP range. It seems my views on the current state of adminship on Commons is quite correct. --43.249.129.102 18:58, 30 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"Views" is plural, so you should've used "are quite correct" not "is quite correct"... Now go find another page to drone on with your tedious bullshit. I need to up my protection stats anyways. Face-tongue.svg INeverCry 19:19, 30 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@43.249.129.102: Tell me that you're not a sockpuppet of the now-blocked IP range. DLindsley Need something? 19:11, 30 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Belgisch geld[edit]

Blijkbaar hen je niet zo veel van Belgische Franken. Het is algemene kennis en staat trouwens ook op wikipedia dat de biljetten van 20 en 50 niet zijn uitgegeven door de nationale bank en dus nu waardeloos zijn omdat ze niet kunnen ingewisseld worden aldaar. De biljetten werden uitgegeven door de schatkist (de munt) zelf. Daarom vallen ze totaal niet onder de bescherming van de NB en heeft de NB geen rechten op deze biljetten. Gelieve in de toekomst juiste en correcte argumenten te gebruiken. Vdkdaan (talk) 08:31, 31 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

En dan zit er geen auteursrecht op omdat? Dit betekent enkel dat de schatkist de rechthebbende is en niet de nationale bank tenzij je bewijs hebt dat de 20 en 50 Frank in het publieke domein vallen. In dit geval heb ik enkel naar het beleid op Commmons verwezen en dat in die samenvatting staat dat afbeeldingen van franken niet toelaatbaar zijn op Commons en dat er in het beleid op Commons niks terug te vinden is over of afbeeldingen van deze Franken PD zijn dus totdat je dat bewijst is het simpel, dan verplicht het com:PCP admins er vanuit te gaan dat zoiets niet oké is. Wat jij denkt dat ik allemaal van Franken weet is in deze niet ter zake doende gezien je zelf niet aan het beleid voldoet met jouw uploads. Natuur12 (talk) 10:00, 31 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:HaHa, Running Man Bros US Tour 2014, Dallas, December 14.jpg[edit]

If the flickrbot has not marked this image, please consider marking it as an Admin. The bot did not mark this photo in 2 days strangely. Best, --Leoboudv (talk) 08:58, 2 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Romaine beat me to it. And a happy new year btw. Natuur12 (talk) 22:44, 2 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:IMF_Developing_Counties_Map_2014.png[edit]

I noticed your revision to an entry on Wiktionary, which drew my attention to this file. The title contains a typo -- clearly, this is a map of countries, i.e. nation-states, and not counties, i.e. administrative or geographical subdivisions of a nation-state. Could you fix the filename? -- Eiríkr Útlendi | Tala við mig 23:26, 4 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It should be fixed by now, could you please let me know if this title is okay? Natuur12 (talk) 23:41, 4 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Brilliant, thank you! -- Eiríkr Útlendi | Tala við mig 18:50, 5 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

mijn foto's[edit]

Beste Natuur12

Zouden mijn foto's hersteld kunnen worden? Op deze foto's rust geen copyright, ik heb de foto's zelf gemaakt, vrienden van mij of ik krijg ze opgestuurd van de schaatsers zelf. Ik heb veel zitten in die pagina's en ze zien er met foto veel beter uit.

Nee dat kan niet. Natuur12 (talk) 19:23, 12 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Foto's van Delfts archief[edit]

Hoi Natuur12, zou jij even kunnen kijken naar deze foto's van NinaAlice, de foto's zijn wel vrijgegeven maar met naamsvermelding. NinaAlice heeft alle foto's als eigen foto's geplaatst, wat niet correct is. Bij alle foto's staat op de pagina's vermeld dat de foto's zijn vrijgegeven voor alle gebruik. Ik vermoed zo dat de licentie dus ook niet helemaal correct is. Als je op deze pagina zoekt naar "jongenshuis" dan krijg je de meeste foto's te zien. Mocht je meer hulp willen... ik ben na 18:30 hopelijk thuis. Dqfn13 (talk) 15:11, 20 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Mogelijk zijn ze niet vrijgegeven, de boodschappen op de individuele pagina's zijn tegenstrijdig: foto op archief en deze pagina heb ik wel alvast voorgedragen, die foto's is sowieso te recent. Dqfn13 (talk) 15:15, 20 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Helaas wil mij browser de plaatjes niet laden van het archief :(. Je zal het zelf moeten doen vrees ik. Misschien kan je Bas nog wel strikken om dit op te lossen ;). Natuur12 (talk) 17:52, 20 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ik kan ze helaas in drie verschillende browsers niet bekijken. Ik denk dat mijn laptop Java gedeeltelijk blokkeert. Dqfn13 (talk) 20:39, 20 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Commons:Deletion requests/File:LiveUSB gamyba Windows sistemoje.webm[edit]

Please take care about second file mentioned in request. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:34, 23 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

✓ Done Natuur12 (talk) 15:39, 23 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

About File:Vandrare omslag i 3d.png[edit]

License permission sent to OTRS January 21, 2015 as promised in discussion. Can you plz undelete!? Deryni (talk) 19:38, 24 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dear Deryni,
I'm afraid that I can't find the related OTRS-ticket. Too which email address did you send your email?. Natuur12 (talk) 19:49, 24 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Natuur12: I follow the recommendations at Commons:OTRS and mailed to the address permissions-commons@wikimedia.org. Kind regards Deryni (talk) 19:26, 28 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Sefer Masaot Benjamin MiTudela Hebrew cover.jpg[edit]

Please restore File:Sefer Masaot Benjamin MiTudela Hebrew cover.jpg. The book is in public domain and the cover page is needed in he.wikisource. Thanks! 149.88.91.99 19:54, 24 January 2015 (UTC) (s:he:User:Nahum)Reply[reply]

Could you please explain to me why this book cover is PD? Evidence that this cover is PD is still missing. I would love to restore this file but without a clear motivation why the cover is PD I cannot. Natuur12 (talk) 19:57, 24 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:GAEC_2.png and File:Výzkumný ústav meliorací a ochrany půdy.jpg[edit]

I don't want to be disrespectful, but can you, my dear colleague, explain to me, why did you deleted my files? Your colleague flagged those two files one hour before you deleted them so I had no time to make necessary edits. Futhermore I would appreciate to be enlightened which crucial information about my files were missing? I upload them with wiki Upload Wizard, I filled all columns, I stated that I created this media, no alert appeared. So how can I tell that something is wrong? Thanks for reply. --Tarenor (talk) 22:45, 24 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The problem is that the name mentioned as author differs from your username. That's why they are deleted. Or did you perhaps use your real name when you filed the author-field? Natuur12 (talk) 23:03, 24 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Of course I used real name. Why would I use nicname when I am making a legal act? It seemed to me more appripriate. And this is the reason to delete any file without a hesitation? --Tarenor (talk) 18:02, 25 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • The first one is a map and no there is no evidence provided that the base map is free and the secnd image appears elswhere on they web so we need evidence of permission via OTRS. Natuur12 (talk) 18:08, 25 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
        • So I have to state the very same information, I wrote before by sending an e-mail? Or do you want to send a link to the other picture on the Internet or should I send the same image you just deleted as an attachment?
        • Secondly which kind of evidence do you need to validate that I have the right to publish the map with all containing map layers?
        • Thanks for reply. --Tarenor (talk) 21:03, 25 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
          • Just fill in the standard statement and send it to OTRS. For the map, a source confirming the PD-status would be a good start. Natuur12 (talk) 19:26, 27 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
          • About base map: there is description [2] of base map by its publisher, Czech Office for Surveying, Mapping and Cadastre, unfortunately in Czech. There are also metadata [3] in English. When we had a discussion with employees at Open data Seminary they stated, that this map (along with cadastre map) is a) free b) cannot be protected by copyright (at least by Czech law) because those map are not created by definition a product of creative work (those map has to be same no matter who creates them) c) base maps are used at daily basis as a layer in our web projects and unlike the ortophotos by same source we are not obliged to mention them at web applicatons or at printed outputs. When we try to make an official request to confirm that we can make map with boudaries of Czech Republic and put it on Wikipedie, I think we would be laughed by them. --Tarenor (talk) 21:41, 27 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
            • And possible other layers you used? Natuur12 (talk) 21:45, 27 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
              • There is only one other layer, the one which is reason why the file is created, and that is based on research of our Institution. --Tarenor (talk) 00:41, 28 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
                • OTRS restored your files so I believe that everything is done now. Natuur12 (talk) 16:40, 30 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You deleted files I uploaded - do I need to upload them again?[edit]

You deleted the files Thirteen_by_George_Chakravarthi.jpg, Olympia_by_George_Chakravarthi.jpg and Barflies_by_George_Chakravarthi.jpg because "no evidence of permission since 16 January 2015". I know for a fact that the copyright owner (George Chakravarthi) sent permission shortly after the images were uploaded, and again around 16 January. Two other images uploaded with the same copyright owner seem to have been accepted.RichardSkelding (talk) 13:50, 27 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Do I need to upload the images again and ask George Chakravarthi to send his permission again?

We have a bit of a backlog at OTRS and it can take up to more than 30 days before someone answers an email but I looked up the specific email and restored the files. I need some extra information for one of the files since it is a derivative of possibly copyright protected content. Natuur12 (talk) 19:40, 27 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Can you tell me which information you need more information about and what that information is. None of the work is derivative in the sense that all of the work is George Chakravarthi's and he supplied them to me. They are either reproductions of his still work, stills of video work or photos of his work at exhibitions (which he took himself). His official website is www.georgechakravarthi.co.uk and his email is george@chakra7.demon.co.uk (you will find this email address on his website) RichardSkelding (talk) 20:07, 27 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I need to know who the artist is of file:Olympia by George Chakravarthi.jpg, when he died and where the painting was "published" for the first time. Natuur12 (talk) 20:10, 27 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is NOT a photograph of a painting, it is a still from a video. The reclined person is George Chakravarthi, who produced the video, provided me with the still and emailed Commons with his permission (he is very much alive). I am sure he will take it as a compliment that you thought it was a painting, it was his intention that the video looked like a painting with movement!!RichardSkelding (talk) 20:21, 27 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I received further clarification via email and I accepted the permission. Btw, there actually are paintings named "Olympia". Natuur12 (talk) 20:24, 27 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Great, thanks. The video work was inspired by Manet's 'Olympia', hence the name, but plays with the gender and race of the characters. I hope you will have a look at the 'George Chakravarthi' wiki article when it is made live. RichardSkelding (talk) 20:30, 27 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:La Chambre de la Reine et lart contemporain (Versailles).jpg[edit]

Hey there, This file was marked deleted by you on the DR], but I think it was missed because it was listed by someone else there. I listed it for speedy deletion because I remember at one point it was standard to do so if a file was missed but another admin removed the SD template. I can't delete it myself or else I would. Thanks, The Haz talk 17:20, 31 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The file wasn't listed clearly so that would indeed the reason why I missed that. In the meantime Yann kept the file, probably as DM. Natuur12 (talk) 18:17, 31 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sounds good. Thanks for the clarification. The Haz talk 21:57, 31 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Shimer Class Chicago.PNG[edit]

Hi. You deleted this file because OTRS had not received permission for it. But I checked with the owner who confirmed that permission was sent on 1/25/15. Is it possible that the permission was just not processed in time? Should I upload again and have them resend the permission? Thanks. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 04:37, 2 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

OOTRS has quite a back log so the permission was not proccessed but I looked up the ticket, checked the details and restored the file. Natuur12 (talk) 12:04, 2 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

OTRS[edit]

The details supporting the release of this image were provided by ORTS. Why did you delete it?

[4]

James Heilman, MD (talk) 04:48, 3 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

OTRS does not appear to answer their emails. James Heilman, MD (talk) 04:53, 3 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Anyway uploaded it locally on En Wikipedia. [5] If you wish to see the emails would be happy to share them. James Heilman, MD (talk) 05:11, 3 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It looks like Revi dealth with the OTRS-ticket in the meantime. OTRS has a back log of several weeks so it may take some time till emails are awnsered. Natuur12 (talk) 13:49, 3 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]


File:Sgarbi Macellari.png[edit]

Hi Natuur12, Ref. the following file File:Sgarbi Macellari.png , yesterday an Admin has delated the file, than I wrote to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org sending copy of analogic negative of the photo deleted and a declaration about the copyright. Than tonight 00:14 you restored the file (thanks for that) than today 15:24 you deleted the file. Please let me know what the problem is, so that I can try to correct it. Thanks for your time. --Ercomar (talk) 16:54, 5 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

We need permission from the photographer, not the cameraowner. Natuur12 (talk) 15:07, 7 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Natuur12, thank you for your reply. I'll talk to the photographer asking him if he can give me permission to publish the photo. In this case, I'll write again to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org. Thank you for your time. --Ercomar (talk) 16:32, 7 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:Evangelische Kirche Launsbach[edit]

Hoi Natuur12, jij hebt op 17 december 2014 via OTRS een aantal foto's van Launsbach bevestigd. Helaas zijn vijf verwijdert:

Hebt je die misschien over het hoofd gezien of zijn er andere redenen? Vriendelijk bedankt, --Wikiwal (talk) 20:04, 7 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

OTRS loopt een beetje achter met de mails en daarom worden toestemmingen soms wat laat bevestigd met als gevolg dat bestanden verwijderd worden. Ik heb het bijbehorende ticket opgezocht, de bestanden teruggeplaatst en de toestemming bevestigd. Natuur12 (talk) 20:25, 7 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
O wacht, er zijn twee mails verstuurd. In dat geval ben ik inderdaad vergeten deze te bevestigen tijdens de eerste mail waarvoor excuus. Natuur12 (talk) 20:32, 7 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hartelijk dank! Ik ben blij dat alles goed verlopen is. Vanwege de verwijdering heeft de auteur de tweede mail opgestuurd. He ga je goed, --Wikiwal (talk) 22:14, 7 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Windows Phone 7 Foto's[edit]

Ik schrijf het hier omdat de on-verwijder pagina geen reacties toe laat.

"Wikimedia Commons generally only enforces copyright restrictions, for these reasons:

Almost anything can be trademarked, and it wouldn't make sense to forbid everything. Trademarks and industrial designs restrictions are pertinent to industrial reproduction, but photographs of such items can otherwise be freely reproduced." Als mijn afbeeldingen van andere copyright materiaal komt, ¿waarom kan deze dan wel maar mijn afbeeldingen niet? ¿wat is het verschil? Hoogachtend, --Namlong618 (talk) 21:26, 8 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Er zit auteursrecht op de logo's die op het scherm afgebeeld worden gezien deze complex zijn. Het merendeel van de afbeelding bestaat uit auteursrechtelijk beschermd materiaal en daarom is dat niet toegestaan. De "afbeelding" (volgens mij is rendering van de software de term die ik zoek) op het scherm van de foto die u hier aanhaalt is onscherp, een stuk simpeler en daarom waarschijnlijk com:DM of zelf beneden com:TOO. Ik heb niet naar het merkenrecht gekeken in deze. Natuur12 (talk) 21:42, 8 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
¿Kan ik de afbeelding dan niet wijzigen zoals deze gebruiker hun [afbeelding heeft gewijzigd door de logo's te vervagen? Dezelfde Facebook afbeelding komt er in voor (ik heb het nú over de Microsoft Lumia 535 foto die ik van Flickr af ik heb gehaald, sinds er geen reactie onder stond ga ik ervan uit dat ge de reactie onder de W.P.7 foto's ziet als de reactie op deze, persoonlijk hoef ik het eigen werk niet, ik vindt wel een open afbeelding die bruikbaar is, maar ik zie niet dat deze afbeelding vage logo's bezit anders dan die van Google één die niet op de mijne staat.) --Namlong618 (talk) 22:52, 8 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Twijfelgeval maar de kans is dan in ieder geval een stuk groter dat de afbeelding kan blijven. Natuur12 (talk) 10:37, 9 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
deze afbeelding is geüpload door RaviC, een redelijk belangrijke persoon in de Nokiasfeer en Microsoft Mobile Oysfeer van Wikipedia, hij is geüpload met hetzelfde licentie (Yahoo! Flickr), en zelfs van dezelfde auteur (Kārlis Dambrāns), maar deze afbeelding staat er al sinds 2013 en is vertrouwd, ik zie niet hoe ik andere auteursrechten schendt die hij niet schendt. Hoogachtend, --Namlong618 (talk) 12:10, 9 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Heel simpel, die is waarschijnlijk ook niet oke. Natuur12 (talk) 12:12, 9 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:ಕ್ರಿಯೇಟೀವ್ ಕಾಮನ್ಸ್(Creative Commons) - ಏನು, ಹೇಗೆ, ಏಕೆ?.pdf[edit]

Dear Natuur12,

Do you know how to mark this image? Some of the sources given are NC, one has been deleted....and I don't know which apply to this image. Perhaps you know whether it is safe to pass or fail it. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 01:37, 9 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This one should not be passed since many of the images have a NC-restriction but a DR is more apropropriate than simpply failing the LR since the NC images could be removed. Natuur12 (talk) 10:38, 9 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Someone else has now marked it. Thank you for your help here. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 19:19, 9 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Sugihara visa.jpg[edit]

Hello

May I ask why you deleted an image I uploaded from my personal WW2 Holocaust collection? I collect WW2 material for over 20 years and find this very offensive. Please plain.

Thanks, Neil --Huddyhuddy (talk) 10:31, 9 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The images contained copyrighted material. See the discussion at the DR for more info. Natuur12 (talk) 10:40, 9 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
According to this - 1940 issued visa by consul Sugihara in Lithuania, showing a journey taken through the Soviet Union, Tsuruga, and Curaçao. Might be qualify as {{PD-Japan}}. -- Geagea (talk) 12:11, 9 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Good point. To bad it wasn't mentioned in the DR. Perhaps an UNDEL request is the next logical step? Natuur12 (talk) 12:14, 9 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

✓ Done. Commons:Undeletion requests/Current requests#Commons:Deletion requests/File:Sugihara visa.jpg. -- Geagea (talk) 12:23, 9 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Tnx :). Natuur12 (talk) 12:35, 9 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Fix Grand Union Flag.svg.png[edit]

I fail to see how a question mark is a valid closing summary for a DR. Unless you are willing to explain properly why you have kept a file for an image that never existed, I shall renominate. Fry1989 eh? 16:04, 9 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Script hick up. I wil ad the reason. Natuur12 (talk) 16:14, 9 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Vidsich[edit]

I asked to wait the issue is in the process of solving.--Trydence (talk) 20:22, 13 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You had almost two weeks to solve this. If there are no updates DR's will be closed eventually. We cannot host copyrightviolations forever just because someone is sorting it out. Some time is pretty vague. Those files can always be restored if permission comes in via OTRS but given the currect backlogg this could take weeks, even months. How long do you need to arrange the last details? Natuur12 (talk) 20:27, 13 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Just to be clear, I am willing to help you with this one but I need to know a when. Natuur12 (talk) 20:29, 13 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I do not know exactly when. Activists are now negotiating with the Museum of Communism in Prague, which probably are the copyright owner of using image.--Trydence (talk) 20:35, 13 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I understand and that surely doesn't go well if the images are deleted. I guess that we can leave the DR open a little longer. Natuur12 (talk) 20:40, 13 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello. I want to add a new version of the photo File:PTN KhYLO.jpg, where elements which can not extend my copyright will be retouched. Can I add a new version to a remote file or I need to add as a new article?--Trydence (talk) 18:37, 13 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yeah sure. That is possible. You probably need to add it as a new file. Natuur12 (talk) 18:42, 13 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Demonstrations and protests by Vidsich in Ukraine[edit]

File:Пам'яті Героїв Крут.2011.jpg - I am in discussion proved that this photo free. Please give me the original of this photos: File:Флешмоб пам'яті жертв Голодомору Львів 2011.jpg, File:Пам'яті Героїв Крут.2011.jpg--Trydence (talk) 21:36, 13 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Trydence: I undeleted both files. Please let me know when you downloaded File:Пам'яті Героїв Крут.2011.jpg. After you are done I will delete the file again. And please let me know when evidence of permission is send to OTRS. That way I can validate the permission and all can be arranged a lot quicker that way. Natuur12 (talk) 16:23, 14 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Vidsich now sent to OTRS (permissions-uk@wikimedia.org) permissions of the photo File:Пам'яті Героїв Крут.2011.jpg. Information from the files I kept.--Trydence (talk) 17:38, 14 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks, I needed to respond in English but the file is marked as confirmed. This is probably the fastest way to deal with this situation. THe OTRS-agent who dealth with the previous ticket already checked all the details so we don't need to go through that procedure again. I deleted the other file. Natuur12 (talk) 18:06, 14 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"Fry1989"[edit]

@Fry1989: still has problems. --58inejohns (talk) 22:46, 13 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Fry's edit seems to be correct. So what's the problem? Natuur12 (talk) 16:24, 14 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Replicas of the Statue of Liberty[edit]

Check out: Commons:Undeletion requests/Current requests#Replicas of the Statue of Liberty

Thanks. Evrik (talk) 04:11, 20 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for the notice. I really appriciate that. Natuur12 (talk) 17:28, 20 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Teresa Cheung.jpg[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg
File:Teresa Cheung.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!

Алый Король (talk) 06:06, 24 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Orgel foto's[edit]

Hoi Natuur12, de auteur van deze foto's heeft nog steeds geen bevestiging van OTRS ontvangen: File:Bad Langensalza Marktkirche Orgel.jpg File:Eisenach Georgenkirche Positiv.jpg File:Eisenach Georgenkirche Orgel.jpg File:Mühlhausen Divi Blasii Orgel.jpg File:Mühlhausen Divi Blasii Orgel 2.jpg File:Nordhausen Dom Orgel.jpg File:Nordhausen Dom Orgel 2.jpg File:Aabenraa Nicolai Orgel.jpg File:Aabenraa Nicolai Orgel 2.jpg File:Kopenhagen Marmorkirken Orgel 1.jpg File:Kopenhagen Marmorkirken Orgel 2.jpg File:Kopenhagen Marmorkirken Orgel 3.jpg File:Kopenhagen Marmorkirken Orgel 4.jpg File:Holmens Kirke Orgel.jpg File:Holmens Kirke Innen.jpg File:Kopenhagen St. Albans Orgel.jpg File:Kopenhagen St. Albans Orgel 2.jpg File:Kopenhagen St. Albans Orgel 3.jpg File:Løgumkloster Kirke Orgel.jpg File:Møgeltønder Kirke Orgel.jpg File:Møgeltønder Kirke Orgel 2.jpg File:Møgeltønder Kirke Orgel 3.jpg File:Møgeltønder Kirke Orgel 4.jpg

Hij heeft de verklaring opgestuurd op 5-1-15 en nog eens op 10-2-15. Heeft dat met de achterstand te maken van die boven sprake was? Hartelijk dank en vriendelijke groeten, --Wikiwal (talk) 08:03, 26 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Wikiwal, dat heeft inderdaad met de achterstand te maken. Zelf ben ik deze dagen een beetje druk en vrij moe dus heb weinig tijd voor OTRS vrees ik :(. Natuur12 (talk) 21:41, 26 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Dank je wel voor de informatie en succes met de verkiezing! Groeten, --Wikiwal (talk) 22:51, 26 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

MeechStashHouse.jpg[edit]

Hello, I am curious as to why you deleted the below image:

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:MeechStashHouse.jpg

It says some guy on Flickr is using it, claiming it is his, but it is 100%, without a doubt, not his. I haven't been on Wikipedia in a long time, and this deletion happened while I was gone. But I would like a link to whoever is claiming he owns the image, because he is absolutely lying. I personally took the picture while visiting Atlanta and the Buckhead area with my wife. We specifically went to the house to view it since it related to the case and I am the original author of the "Black Mafia Family" article. Jlcoving (talk) 01:33, 28 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, the file was uploaded at Flickr before it was uploaded at Wikimedia Commons. Policy requires that evidence of permission is send to com:OTRS if that's the case. It would also help if the Flickr accountholder deletes the image. Natuur12 (talk) 13:34, 1 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Could you link to this Flickr account so I can contact him directly and contact Flickr about him using the image without my permission? I had previously posted the picture on the SomethingAwful.com forums in a post about BMF, on Reddit, and on a Facebook group about them as early as March 2006. Jlcoving (talk) 03:57, 2 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I believe you. You can find the Flickr account here. I take a carefull look at the Flickr account and it seems like it that they grap random images from they internet. I will place the account on the blacklist and after your explenation I believe that it is safe to restore the file :). Natuur12 (talk) 10:08, 2 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Landscapes is not a wastebasket category[edit]

You recently uploaded a lot of images to the landscapes category, most of which clearly do not belong there. Images of mountains, clouds, streets etc are clearly not landscapes by any definition. As the page itself notes, "especially buildings, mountains and forests do NOT belong into this category". Landscapes is not a dustbin category for anything that can't be placed elsewhere. The category constantly becomes overcrowded by editors using it that way, and it takes a lot of editors a lot of work to keep it useable and uncrowded. It would be appreciated if you could assist us in cleaning up your mess. thank you. Mark Marathon (talk) 07:36, 2 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

He is already doing clean up. Damn, take a look at the contributions first. Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 08:38, 2 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Something went wrong with a batch upload and it will be cleaned but but since we are talking about more than 1.7k files originally it can take a few days before everything is placed in the proper cats. Natuur12 (talk) 10:05, 2 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Paloma de Paz Blanca.gif[edit]

Hi! Tĥ for closing Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Percy Meza where you deleted above file but I mentioned also the svg-version File:Paloma de Paz Blanca.svg which was derivated from File:Paloma de Paz Blanca.gif. Could you "treat" this file as well? Gunnex (talk) 23:08, 4 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

✓ Done Natuur12 (talk) 23:12, 4 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Undelete[edit]

Your very words: "so I would like to ask for a second opinion". By voting against undeletion on File:Gerrit Jan Heijn.jpg you did not allow a second opinion. You showed not to be impartial, I'm sorry to say. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 10:33, 5 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I dont have to be impartial since everyone may give his or her opinion. It will be a problem when I close the requests of DR's which I closed of course but thats not the case. The instructions at com:UNDEL for administrators are very clear: The deleting administrator may also participate in the discussion. The deleting administrator should, however, not close contentious requests as "Not done." When a debate is settled, close it with a remark such as "Not done" or "Undeleted" and add the template {{Udelh}} above the header and the template {{Udelf}} below your own comment. (The templates are short for "undelete header" and "footer.") Closed requests are automatically archived. Please take a look at the archive and you'll see that this is not uncommon. At the Dutch Wikipedia where you are also active works exactly the same when it comes to undeletion request so it is really not uncommon. That I asked for a second opinion in a set up where I overlooked something is a different case since I am the one that asks a second opinion, not you. Natuur12 (talk) 10:47, 5 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
My request for undeletion of File:Gerrit Jan Heijn.jpg is in fact a request for a second opinion. Since you deleted the file, it is not proper to interfere (you are allowed your opinion but it is improper to vote) with the undeletion request, which User:Fastily closed very quickly "per Natuur12". The whole point of the undeletion request is to have others have their say. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 11:12, 5 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Undeletions requests are not votes and even the instruction page allows me to interfere. (I'm only not allowed to close it as notdone) If you don't agree with that, bad luck for you but don't waste my time. You got your second opinion from Fastily so I suggest that you leave it be or discuss the timespan of the closing with Fastily. If you want to change standard practice go ahead but this is not the place to do so. Natuur12 (talk) 11:22, 5 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree with Natuur12's deletion of File:Gerrit Jan Heijn.jpg, plain and simple. Jan Arkesteijn, the fact that I do not agree with you does not invalidate my input as a 'second opinion'. -FASTILY 22:26, 5 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I didn't want to react anymore but now I have to. The source of these images says; All photos can be downloaded for publication free of copyright. That is all, these images needed not be deleted. Punt. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 22:50, 5 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

PD-Nigeria[edit]

Not before 1960+70=2030!--Antemister (talk) 22:43, 5 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm leaving that case open for someone else. Or are you referring to a certain DR I closed? Natuur12 (talk) 10:06, 6 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes the categories of nigerian coins and banknotes!--Antemister (talk) 18:46, 6 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Wait, of course. Nigeria didn't excist before that date. Do you have a link to the DR's? Than I'll take care of it. Natuur12 (talk) 18:48, 6 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Commons:Deletion requests/Category:Banknotes of Nigeria, Commons:Deletion requests/Category:Coins of Nigeria - those cats contain only rather new banknotes.--Antemister (talk) 09:54, 7 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
See here and here. I will delete the cats if the files in it are deleted. Natuur12 (talk) 18:09, 7 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ik mag dus moven[edit]

Hoi Natuur12, dank dat je mij (geheel onverwachts) de status 'file mover' hebt verleend. Dat zou nog best eens van pas kunnen komen. Ik heb hierbij wel een vraagje. Wat is de normale gang van zaken bij verzoeken om bestandshernoeming? Komen die in een lijst of een categorie, of lopen movers meestal de recente wijzigingen na? Dergelijke verzoeken worden vaak snel ingewilligd, dus het lijkt op dat laatste. Groet, Apdency (talk) 09:32, 7 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hoi, graag gedaan! De verzoeken komen in Category:Media requiring renaming terecht en bestanden mogen alleen hernoemd worden wanneer er aan het beleid voldaan wordt. Natuur12 (talk) 18:18, 7 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ah, inderdaad een categorie dus. Bedankt voor je antwoord. Misschien iets om een keer uit te proberen. Groet, Apdency (talk) 18:57, 7 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ik heb onlangs inderdaad wat geëxperimenteerd. Zie Order of the Sinai Star medal.jpg. Waarschijnlijk is dat wel goed gegaan (zo niet, dan hoor ik het graag). Wel nog een vraagje. Ik heb gemerkt dat er een standaardmanier is om de verwijderreden te formuleren, met criteriumnummer én aanduiding van het criterium. Dat heb ik nu gedaan met kopieer- en plakwerk vanuit Commons:File renaming. Maar kan het wellicht ook op een makkelijker manier? Groet, Apdency (talk) 09:13, 11 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
De rename ziet er goed uit. Geen idee hoe dit simpeler kan, zelf zet ik meestal criteria 5 of iets dergelijks in de samenvatting. Natuur12 (talk) 19:33, 11 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OK, wederom dank voor het antwoorden. Apdency (talk) 20:46, 11 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:BCP-mikeu-3.JPG[edit]

Your deletion of this file per Commons:Deletion_requests/File:BCP-mikeu-3.JPG appears to have missed that the file was in use on en.wikiversity, at least, and was apparently uploaded to Commons for that purpose. Deletion of files in actual use, for quality reasons, is generally inappropriate, because the decision is made out of context. Please undelete. Thanks. --Abd (talk) 15:15, 9 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, sorry about that. I wanted to keep this one just like all the other ancient out of scope noms since they at least need a new DR. The files has been undeleted and the bot has been reverted. In case you wonder, it's probably C. vernus but it is really out of focus so SiGarb seems to be correct. Natuur12 (talk) 15:27, 9 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I decided to work on that page a little and invoked your comment as a confirmation.... --Abd (talk) 16:27, 9 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks. There is an issue where files are in use that they may have been uploaded long ago by someone no longer active. They may be in wide use. But nobody who used them is notified that they are under deletion request. So always usage should be checked. There is no procedure for notifying affected wikis, and this means that those who might care don't know until CommonsDelinker shows up and removes the link. Because we are so often hit by this on Wikiversity, we are considering discouraging sole upload to Commons; rather encouraging that files will be locally uploaded and not deleted if transferred to Commons. In many cases, local files have been deleted "because transferred to Commons," and then years later, were deleted from commons. We can claim fair use, Commons cannot.
I just saw another deletion because it's the most recent on Wikiversity: File:Crystal_Clear_app_aim.png. Commons:Deletion requests/File:Crystal Clear app aim.png The claim was "Obvious derivative work." That is not a deletion reason, to my knowledge, if the original work is free. This still exists: File:Crystal_Clear_app_aim3.png. Once a page is deleted, the reason is not "obvious"! Requiring that the deletion discussion be complete, and taking special care when files are in use, could avoid wasted work.
I also could not find a notification of the uploader for that deletion, in spite of some searching. That should be checked as well! (But maybe I missed it.) --Abd (talk) 16:11, 9 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, it's not an admins job to look after notifications and Commons doesn't have enough admin to do so. I will restore the other file as well since the license seems to be okay. Problem with those old DR's is that they are a mess. Script hick ups etc and it is tough to determine if deletion is justified. In this case it clearly wasn't. When it comes to informing local projects I have an idea. How about a global bot that posts a list of files nominated for deletion in the local village pumps? (Or any other place) Community's can opt in, opt out or whatever they want. I understand the problem that Commons is some kind of ivory tower who decides which files local projects may use but a real solution? I have none. Natuur12 (talk) 17:27, 9 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks. I'll handle the en.wikiversity restorals of links. I haven't looked globally. Yes, some good ideas. --Abd (talk) 18:28, 9 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

License review request[edit]

Could you please do the license check for the following file - https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Ak_103_wood_furniture_by_souzousha-d85dry4_(1).png ?
Thanks in advance --RussianTrooper (talk) 18:10, 9 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

✓ Done Natuur12 (talk) 18:15, 9 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:Furcipus[edit]

Hi, could you please check if this category (and Category:Furcipus rectirostris) are intentionally blank and uncategorized? You created them and they were blanked by some other user the following day. If so, please nominate them for (speedy) deletion or set a category redirect. Herzliche Grüße, --Rudolph Buch (talk) 19:57, 9 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, it seems that the scientific names are synonyms. I redirected the cats. Regards. Natuur12 (talk) 20:19, 9 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Deletion by you of File:"Farinde_Esther.jpg" on March 10th 2015[edit]

Hi Natuur12,

I wonder if you could help me with some guidance. My file was deleted by you with a note that: (Removing "Farinde_Esther.jpg", it has been deleted from Commons by Natuur12 because: Missing essential information such as license, permission or source since 2 March 2015 - Using).

It seems I have missed what is required because the file did feature the note generated by me electing to publish under the free license: Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International. I also sent a confirmation email to: permissions-commons@wikimedia.org on 2nd March 2015 as follows:



I hereby affirm that I, Ivan Brown of Idtenti, am the creator and sole owner of the exclusive copyright of the media work Farinde_Esther.jpeg https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Farinde_Esther.jpg

I agree to publish the above-mentioned content under the free license: Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International.

I acknowledge that by doing so I grant anyone the right to use the work in a commercial product or otherwise, and to modify it according to their needs, provided that they abide by the terms of the license and any other applicable laws.

I am aware that this agreement is not limited to Wikipedia or related sites.

I am aware that I always retain copyright of my work, and retain the right to be attributed in accordance with the license chosen. Modifications others make to the work will not be claimed to have been made by me.

I acknowledge that I cannot withdraw this agreement, and that the content may or may not be kept permanently on a Wikimedia project.


Ivan Brown

Copyright Holder

2nd March 2015


Is there something else that I should have done that I haven't done?

Please advise,

Kind regards,

Ivan Brown


Idtenti (talk) 17:30, 11 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

An OTRS-agent will check out your email soon and if everything is sorted out he/she will restore the file for you. Natuur12 (talk) 19:32, 11 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Syrian photographs[edit]

I was about to make a comment when I edit conflicted with you regarding Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Free Syrian 200. Some photos could have used closer inspection. 朝彦 | asahiko (talk) 16:16, 13 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Perhaps but evidence is missing and it is not up to the closing admin to collect the evidence so a file can be kept. That's a job for the persons who want to keep those files. At the moment I deleted those images the copyrightstatus was questionable and than we can't hoste those files. Natuur12 (talk) 16:20, 13 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks. I understand your principle and it's not like I will file undeletion for those files. It bothered me that the uploader didn't mean to do harm, but our policies have a steep learning curve, and mass deletion is frequently perceived as a hostility from the new user's viewpoint. (I'm not saying that it actually is so, but that it appears to be.) More users from under-represented countries need to come in to the project and I hope we can ease the bump for inexperienced users as we go along. Cheers. --朝彦 | asahiko (talk) 17:47, 13 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

en:Draft:Sarah DeRemer[edit]

Looks like they're in use for a draft bio article on the artist at en:Draft:Sarah DeRemer. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:17, 17 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for letting me know :). I don't know if she is notable but it was fun to read. Natuur12 (talk) 20:33, 17 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Renaming file[edit]

Helloǃ Why you don't renamed file File:USSR stamp Memories of cosmonauts 1971 4k.jpg? I harmonizing the file names of a set of images File:USSR stamp Memories of cosmonauts 1971 4k.jpg, File:The Soviet Union 1971 CPA 4060 stamp (Cosmonauts Georgy Dobrovolsky, Vladislav Volkov and Viktor Patsayev).jpg and File:The Soviet Union 1971 CPA 4060 stamp (Cosmonauts Georgy Dobrovolsky, Vladislav Volkov and Viktor Patsayev).png. --Matsievsky (talk) 21:33, 17 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Because you gave uploader requested as the reason and you are not the uploader. That's the mere reason. It is rather impossible to find out why if the reason is incorrect. Natuur12 (talk) 21:35, 17 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
How I can to renaming the file correctly? --Matsievsky (talk) 22:05, 17 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
O, there is mistake in new requested robot... --Matsievsky (talk) 22:20, 17 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_in_Category:Logos_of_universities_and_colleges_in_China[edit]

Thank you for closing this deletion request. Your decision on this request was "Deleted: but kept one as below TOO". However, I noticed that you only deleted 2 out of 16 files in question. and the one you kept, File:XJTU name.png, as explained in the discussion, is clearly not below TOO according to COM:TOO#China (PRC) and other past deletion requests mentioned in the discussion. Would you take another look on this file as well as the others that are not deleted? Thanks again. --Wcam (talk) 20:24, 20 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I missed the second part of the DR and therefor the links to the pervious DR's. (That happens really quickly when you use two headings in one DR) This all together is convincing enough to delete it. Natuur12 (talk) 20:47, 20 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

~Miguel~2000~Teirlinck~[edit]

Beste Natuur12, zou jij ~Miguel~2000~Teirlinck~ een waarschuwingssjabloontje kunnen geven als je het ermee eens bent, want hij blijft zaken uploaden als eigen werk of met verkeerde licenties en ik blijf er erachteraan hollen. Ik weet niet hoe dat moet.

Overigens ben ik het oneens met deze beslissing (is dat een moderator?), want ook dit logo is natuurlijk geen "eigen werk", maar hij zet er wel zelf een vrijgave-licentie op. Een andere moderator heeft andere logo's om die reden wél verwijderd, zie hier en hier. Vriendelijke groet, ErikvanB (talk) 01:15, 23 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • PS: Als de hierboven gelinkte User:Amitie 10g een moderator is, die vindt dat je hier bestanden als eigen werk mag presenteren terwijl het je eigen werk niet is, dan is dat toch absurd? Het gaat er niet eens om of de afbeelding de "threshold of originality" haalt, het gaat erom dat hij valsheid in geschrifte goedkeurt. ErikvanB (talk) 01:33, 23 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Hoi Erik, waarschuwingssjabloon geplaatst. Amitie 10g is geen admin. Technisch gezien is het aan de uploader om de juiste gegevens en de juiste licentie te vermelden. Ik snap je punt alleen is dit iets wat vrij vaak gebeurt ben ik bang. Mensen zijn nogal terughoudend met het wijzigen van andermans licenties. Stel dat dit een account aangemaakt door het bedrijf is, in dat geval zou de licentie geldig zijn maar kunnen we het alleen niet controleren. Natuurlijk is dit allemaal niet heel erg zorgvuldig maar dit is hoe de dingen op Commons in de loop der jaren gegroeid zijn ben ik bang. Het hangt erom of dit logo wel of niet de originaliteitsdrempel behaald maar het logo is out of scope. Natuur12 (talk) 10:10, 23 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • Top. Bedankt voor je prima antwoord, de waarschuwing en de "out of scope". Heel tevreden over. Hartelijke groet, ErikvanB (talk) 12:13, 23 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
        • Update: Het is hopeloos. Weer een nominatie. En zie dit overleg bij de vorige. Misschien is het ook wel geestig om Woodcutterty's antwoord te lezen. :) Groet, ErikvanB (talk) 21:52, 1 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
          • Smile. Het is toch wat. Ik heb het antwoord gelezen en het advies van Woody lijkt me verstandig. Commons is een jungle vol gevaarlijke roofdieren, verouderde wetboeken, half geïnterpreteerde rechtelijke uitspraken, onterechte generalisaties, gemene admins and mijzelf. :p. Waarschijnlijk blijven die logo's wel behouden maar ik twijfel of dit wel overeenkomt met de jurisprudentie in Nederlandse arresten. Natuur12 (talk) 22:25, 1 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Superman Ultimate Flight SFGA.jpg et al[edit]

When you make a number of more or less identical DRs such as these, it is much easier for you, the uploader, and all of us who might comment on or close the DRs if you do them all on one DR using VFC. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:14, 24 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for the tip. I used VFC for one of the DR's but after I was done I kept finding files that where not okay and it turned out that there where more files than I thought. Natuur12 (talk) 18:26, 24 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

page unprotection[edit]

You protected File:The_Times_-_Argentine_Capture_of_the_Falkland_Islands_1821.jpg. Please see the request at [6]. I probably should have asked you to handle this first. It's straightforward, please either make the edit that has consensus, or unprotect; because of translations, the page should probably just be unprotected, revert warring is now unlikely, but if it does happen, consensus is clear and disruption will be clearly identifiable, unlike before. Thanks. --Abd (talk) 20:07, 24 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

✓ Done - Let's hope the edit warring doesn't start again. Natuur12 (talk) 20:11, 24 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And thanks. Several of these users are touchy, easily offended, and, because of old history elsewhere, ready to start attacking each other at the drop of any misunderstanding. However, I seem to have engaged them and have built some respect. They did agree, all but one, and that one has said he is out of there. I don't know if he will stay out, but we did have clear consensus, so I do know what to do if something goes awry. I'm inviting him to help with translations. We'll see. --Abd (talk) 23:49, 24 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Tom Frost photos[edit]

Hi, thank you for the carefully prepared DR on Tom Frost's photos. I am trying to read up on the issues, but it seems my OTRS account does not have access to the appropriate queue to read the letter from Aurora. Do you have the ability to add that queue for me, and if so, would you be willing to do so? -Pete F (talk) 22:26, 30 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I temporarely moved the ticket to the permission-commons queue. Please let me know when you are done so I can move it back. It is confusing if I respond with a different mailadress. Natuur12 (talk) 22:32, 30 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you, I have what I need now. Commenting on the DR shortly. -Pete F (talk) 22:39, 30 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Okay, I moved it back. Natuur12 (talk) 22:59, 30 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The notion that I misled Tom Frost in any way back in 2009 is demonstrably false, and I intend to do my very best to ensure that any implication that I behaved incorrectly in this matter is refuted. Cullen328 (talk) 07:40, 31 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Where did I say you misled him? Apperantly he didn't know what he signed. That's not the same as you misleading him. This happens from time to time and that's something we can't do anything about. Natuur12 (talk) 10:11, 31 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It seems that Tom Frost is saying or implying that I misled him. Is it possible for me to see a copy of his recent letter about this? Cullen328 (talk) 15:10, 31 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No he's not and no it's not. I cant give you documents stored in the OTRS-system. Natuur12 (talk) 15:25, 31 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
For what it's worth, I think the most likely explanation is that Mr. Frost, who may not deal with free licenses very often, simply forgot some of the details about that communication from 5 years ago. I very much doubt that he is making an accusation of deception, either directly or by implication. -Pete F (talk) 15:33, 31 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Seeing this discussion, I commented in the DR, specifically assuring Cullen that there is no sign of any accusation of "misleading" Frost in what has been written. "I was not fully aware" is not a claim that "I was misled." The issue in the DR is not