User talk:Natuur12/Archive 6

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

ROA

Dag Natuur12, ik heb goede redenen om te twijfelen aan de auteursrechten van de uploads van ROAAOR, een gebruiker die het op de Nederlandse Wiki louter op het artikel nl:ROA (kunstenaar) bijdraagt. Is er een manier voor om dit te checken? Aan de layout van enkele foto's te zien zijn ze recht van internet geplukt. heinGlas z3.pngnlein'' 05:43, 11 April 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Heinonlein,
Het is wat lastig om de bron te achterhalen via reversed image search want er zijn heel veel foto's die redelijk op elkaar lijken maar via |Tineyeye is er toch wat te achterhalen. file:ROA DANIZA.jpg lijkt van deze te komen gezien de exif van de foto bij ons en de titel van de file op google. file:Vis van ROA in Gent.jpg heeft een watermerk en file:Uil van ROA in Hasselt.jpg lijkt van Pinterest te komen.
Wil je zelf een nominatie starten of zal ik het doen? Met visual change kan je heel makkelijk een verwijdering voor alle uploads aanvragen. Natuur12 (talk) 12:56, 11 April 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ik zou niet weten hoe te beginnen, die js-dingetjes zijn nogal nieuwerwets voor mij... Er is mij gevraagd om het Nederlandse artikel in de gaten te houden, daar ik het ooit gestart heb. ROAAOR heeft een groot aantal externe links geplaatst die ik nog moet nalopen, dus ik ben daar wel even zoet mee. Dus als jij die afbeeldingen wilt nomineren, heel graag! ;) heinGlas z3.pngnlein'' 13:04, 11 April 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Heinonlein: zie Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by ROAAOR. Natuur12 (talk) 13:21, 11 April 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks, Natuur12! heinGlas z3.pngnlein'' 14:37, 11 April 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
deze blijkt hier vandaan te zijn geplukt. tsk, tsk! heinGlas z3.pngnlein'' 17:00, 11 April 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Golemi FC Logo.svg

Hi Natuur12. I saw your close to Commons:Deletion requests/File:Golemi FC Logo.svg so I am wondering if you wouldn't mind taking a look at Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2017/03#{{PD-Albania-exempt}} and football clubs logos too. The thread was archived without anything being resolved and without any explaination provided by Kj1595. The change in the "PD-Albania-exempt" seems to have been specifically made to allow so that it can be applied to these types of logos, etc. being uploaded by Kj1595 and there are quite a number of other files which are similiar to the "Golemi FC" one you deleted. Some of the files tagged this way, such as File:Besa Kavajë Club Logo.svg even seem to have been previously deleted from Commons per a DR, uploaded locally to English Wikipedia as non-free under a slightly different name [1], and then moved back to Commons. Non-free use on WIkipedia is quite restrictive and PD files are not subject to en:WP:NFCCP. So, whether this is intentionally gaming of the system or simply just a good-faith mistake, I think, as suggested by XXN, that this kind of change to a PD should be further discussed or reviewed to make sure it's OK to make. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:33, 31 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Marchjuly,
I reverted his modifications since he must find consensus for his change first. If you want I can start a mass deletion request for the other logo's he uploaded. Perhaps this will result in a debate that provides more opinions than merely Kj1595 coming up with a claim not backed up by a source. Natuur12 (talk) 14:06, 2 April 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Natuur, as there is no progress in the last week (either a debate at VP/C or a RFC, as suggested in section below), a discussion is inevitable, and probably a mass DR opened now is preferred over potential multiple separated DRs which might be started in future by different users. --XXN, 00:23, 10 April 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@XXN and Marchjuly: see Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Kj1595 and sorry that it took me so long too start the DR. Natuur12 (talk) 13:07, 11 April 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank's for doing that Natuur12. There are a few other files such as File:Alpha Bank.svg, File:TV Klan.svg and File:ABC News Albania.svg where the same PD template was used even though they all appear to be privately owned and one (Alpha Bank) is not even Albanian. Should these be discussed separately from the football logos? -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:20, 11 April 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • @Marchjuly: yes I believe that a seperate DR for those file is the right course. But perhaps it is best too wait untill the current DR is closed. Makes it easier too check the files which are left. Natuur12 (talk) 12:25, 14 April 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Understand. Thanks again for helping to sort this out. -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:23, 14 April 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:President Obama and Google CEO Sundar Pichai Step Inside the Google Portal (27807461171).jpg

Dear Natuur12,

Would you pass or fail this image? The source says GES Photo/Public Domain but the metadata says "(c)Benjamin Solomon"--perhaps the photographer? The license is PD-Mark. Best, --Leoboudv (talk) 05:33, 15 April 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Leoboudv,
The file discription at Flickr states that this work is in the public domain (GES Photo/Public Domain) and the file comes from the events official Flickr stream. I reviewd the file. I think that we can trust the event organizers. Natuur12 (talk) 11:57, 17 April 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Nasrdin-dchar-1360145485.jpg

Dag Natuur12, ik zou graag een beroep op je doen als OTRS'er. Ik zou graag meer weten over dit ticket: [2]. De reden is dat ik een tijdje terug de een aantal verwijdernominaties heb gedaan van afbeeldingen die geüpload waren door user:Fallonvandermeeren (zie zijn overlegpagina), terwijl als maakster Janey van Ierland werd opgevoerd. Deze zijn alle verwijderd. De moderator constateerde in één geval dat de foto van IMDB was 'geplukt'. Het lijkt me zinvol om na te gaan of de toestemming wel werkelijk van de eigenaar van het auteursrecht afkomstig is. Tekstman (talk) 07:04, 24 April 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Beste Tekstman,
Voor zover ik kan nagaan is de persoon die toestemming geeft de rechthebbende maar helaas is de toestemming zelf niet voldoende. De rechthebbende geeft enkel toestemming voor publicatie op Wikipedia. Ik zal de afbeelding nomineren voor verwijdering. Natuur12 (talk) 20:30, 24 April 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OK, bedankt. Het baart me wel een beetje zorgen dat er bij OTRS dan wel Wikiportret zo onzorgvuldig schijnt te worden gehandeld, vooral omdat het oncontroleerbaar is voor normale gebruikers. Hoe denk jij daarover? Tekstman (talk) 05:49, 25 April 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Tekstman: mijn ervaring is dat het vooral oude tickets zijn waarbij dit soort problemen optreden, mede omdat de lat vroeger een stuk lager lag dan nu, er was minder expertise binnen de gemeenschap etc. (Al is het ticket waar we het nu over hebben behoorlijk slordig.) Dat we een hele serie tickets hebben die mogelijk niet aan de hedendaagse standaarden voldoen baart me zorgen. Gelukkig zijn er bij recente tickets een stuk minder slordigheden in mijn beleving. Daar maak ik me dan weer weinig zorgen over. (Los van eventuele andere problemen zoals een bedrijf of politieke partij die denkt de rechthebbende te zijn, een ticket instuurt maar achteraf enkel een licentie voor eigen gebruik gekocht bleek te hebben maar dat valt niet te controleren.) Helaas is het wel noodzakelijk dat de gegevens enkel voor gebruikers inzakelijk zijn die daadwerkelijk OTRS-werk verrichten want de verzameling persoonsgegevens opgeslagen in het OTRS-archief is gigantisch. Bij Wikiportret is dat weer minder want het aantal mails gerelateerd aan Wikiportret is kleiner. (Het aantal mensen met toegang tot de relevante tickets ook.) Maar ja, een oplossing voor dit dilemma heb ik helaas niet. Natuur12 (talk) 17:30, 25 April 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

USGS images

FYI (you were asleep by the time I commented on IRC) I reverted myself on all those, and then reran VFC simply 'adding' {{PD-USGov-USGS}} while leaving the original information intact. Hope that works for you. - Reventtalk 02:55, 25 April 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Revent: thanks! Natuur12 (talk) 17:30, 25 April 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

IRC

I went off to get the link for requesting a cloak. --Well-Informed Optimist (talk) 19:01, 25 April 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for leaving a message. I gave you +V and all at the admin channel at IRC. Natuur12 (talk) 19:07, 25 April 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your VFC installation method is deprecated

Hello Natuur12, we are aware that using the old installation method of VFC (via common.js, which you are using) may not work reliably anymore and can break other scripts as well. A detailed explanation can be found here. Important: To prevent problems please remove the old VFC installation code from your common.js and instead enable the VFC gadget in your preferences. Thanks! --VFC devs (q) 16:23, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Very different pictures under same file name

Hi natuur12, would you be so kind as to have a look at this page: File:Calvijn College.jpg? The first image was uploaded by CrazyPhunk, who is listed as the author. The second, current, image was uploaded several years later by Smit60. It replaced the original image without replacing the name of the author. My guess is that the second image should have been uploaded as e new file. Anyway, the user now gets to see the name CrazyPhunk as the author of an image he never created. What to do in an instance like this? Wikiklaas (talk) 16:49, 2 June 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dear Wikiklaas,
In cases like this a admin needs to split the file history. See File:Calvijn College 2.jpg for the result. Commons:History merging and splitting/Requests is where you can request history splits and merges. Regards, Natuur12 (talk) 17:10, 2 June 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks, I was indeed looking for a page where I could make the request in stead of having to bother you. Cheers. Wikiklaas (talk) 17:13, 2 June 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Donald Trump close

Your closing statement is obnoxious and absolutely deserves no respect - it's nonsense on stilts that a ticket creates a substantial doubt for a licence that is public and prominent. Please learn that your statements can be read and people who actually contribute here will find what you say in that statement totally offensive and not wish to help us out. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:50, 14 June 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Please elaborate why you find my statement offensive. And yes, the ticket doesn't create/generate significant doubt but the content of the ticket does. Slip of the pen. Natuur12 (talk) 18:02, 14 June 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It is offensive, because you actually misrepresent that we, who participated, are not photographers and that we are instead children you think you can talk down to. And no, what's in the ticket does not create doubt because the file is right now downloadable under a prominent and public CC licence by the whole world. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:09, 14 June 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
When I stated photographers I was clearly referring to professionals not part of the Wikimedia Community. (Given the context of my post that was pretty obvious.) And look, you don’t know what the OTRS-ticket states and therefor you cannot judge if the content generates significant doubt or not. Natuur12 (talk) 18:20, 14 June 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
So, you offer excuses for being offensive. No wonder your close was so obnoxious, what you think what other photographers may or may not think is what's called 'concern trolling'. I most certainly do know that it creates no doubt that the image is right now under CC licence for the whole world to download. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:31, 14 June 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Alanscottwalker: Please moderate your language (obnoxious; calling someone offensive; absolutely deserves no respect; it's nonsense;) --Steinsplitter (talk) 18:47, 14 June 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I did not call someone offensive, I said what they wrote is offensive because it is. I said what the wrote deserves no respect, I said what they reasoned is nonsense, etc. And I have said why I am criticizing their writing - directly. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:54, 14 June 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It is splitting a very fine hair indeed if you find a material difference between saying someone is offering "excuses for being offensive" and "calling someone offensive". I also endorse Natuur12's closure of that undeletion request, specifically the language he used, and I do not think it was provocative in the least. If you do upon a second honest reading of it, I think you should seriously consider recalibrating your radar. Storkk (talk) 20:35, 14 June 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What are you talking about? I did not find a difference between saying someone is offering excuses for being offensive, and calling someone offensive. I did not however call someone offensive, I called what they wrote offensive. Because it is. That you endorse writing offensive nonsense is irrelevant, and just demonstrates your comments lack of what you call "calibration." So, no, I won't taking your pompous calibration comment seriously because it is not. Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:16, 14 June 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Need Your Help Again

Hello Natuur12, Two years ago you helped me with photo verification on some photos I took and put in an article I created Chris Roupas. I recently figured out how to get another photo from that batch I took to upload into the article, can you take a look and make sure I verified it correctly like the way you helped me do the other ones so it does not get removed. Thank you very much for any help you can give me.Here is the file I just uploaded to the article if you need that as well.Thank you again.Chris Roupas 1982 USA-AHEPA AllStar Reverse DunkPSUSTATS (talk) 22:37, 19 June 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Natuur12, It looks like you already did this for me two years ago, I see comments from you now after I sent the above help request. Sorry to have bothered you, thanks again for you all do and for helping me.PSUSTATS (talk) 22:44, 19 June 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:John-mcgough.jpg

Hi. Is this the same file you deleted?   — Jeff G. ツ 03:49, 20 June 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Likely, yes. There are no other deleted versions present. Natuur12 (talk) 20:38, 20 June 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The file is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike License

Hello. According to the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike License You are free to:

Share — copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format Adapt — remix, transform, and build upon the material for any purpose, even commercially.

As long as you give credit which I did.

So why did you remove the Fanta logo file? — Preceding unsigned comment added by FoldupLeak (talk • contribs) 22:13, 29 July 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:Honkballers voor MoiraMoira

Hallo Natuur12, ik stootte toevallig op deze category. Kan die worden ondergebracht bij de Category:Baseball denk je of moet er een nieuwe category worden aangemaakt? Alvast bedankt. Lotje (talk) 04:59, 3 July 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Of misschien Baseball players from the Netherlands ? Lotje (talk) 05:01, 3 July 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Beste Lotje,
Die categorie is niets meer dan een hulpmiddel om de afbeeldingen die ik een hele tijd terug voor Moira geupload heb zodat het makkelijker is om na te lopen welke afbeeldingen in een artikel geplaatst kunnen worden. Deze categorie is in Category:Images uploaded by Natuur12 geplaatst en hoeft verder in geen enkele andere categorie geplaatst te worden. Het gaat hier tenslotte om een verborgen categorie. (Hiddencat.) Natuur12 (talk) 11:50, 3 July 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Okay, bedankt. Lotje (talk) 13:18, 3 July 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

GWF-Wappen

Hallo Natuur12, Du hast vor kurzem folgende Dateien gelöscht:

Kannst Du mir diese Dateien kurz beziehungsweise temporär in einem Unterordner zu meinem Benutzer (zum Beispiel User:Arthur Diebold/Temp mit Hilfe der Vorlage {{Request temporary undeletion}} wiederherstellen? Ich möchte diese gerne in das Wiki-Projekt heraldik-wiki.de transferieren, welches entsprechende Lizenzenvorlagen gestattet. Nach dem Transfer könnten die Dateien dann endgültig aus Commons gelöscht werden. Für Deine Bemühungen vielen Dank im Voraus. 1001 Grüße --Arthur Diebold (talk) 00:10, 9 July 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi,
Seems that Daphne Lantier took care off this. But don't you want too release your works under a license that allows the creation of derivative works? That way we can keep the files at Wikimedia Commons as well. Natuur12 (talk) 21:52, 9 July 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oplossing gezocht.

Hallo Natuur, ik (je kent me misschien nog als Arch, de wapensmid) richt me even tot jou, omdat ik zag dat je ook al bij een eerder geval (toen behouden) je zegje hebt gedaan, en nu weer door precies dezelfde nominator om precies dezelfde reden een soortgelijk bestand ter verwijdering is genomineerd. Ik was al even in overleg getreden met de nominator, maar hij beweerd dat het probleem ligt in het feit dat de oorspronkelijk auteur onbekend is. Dat lijkt me onzin, gezien het bestaan van Category:Template Unknown (author) met meer dan 900.000 bestanden. Dan gooit hij het op de hoek van "copyright", terwijl wapens onder PD-NL-gemeentewapens vallen, waarvan het toegestaan is afgeleiden te maken. Hij gaat niet in op argumenten, koerst nu weer van de hak op de tak naar de leeftijd van de afbeelding. Terwijl dat niet relevant is, daarnaast uit 1817 stamt, waarover geen enkele twijfel bestaat. Enfin, zou jij misschien je licht kunnen/willen laten schijnen over die kwestie? Ik ben net weer terug na een afwezigheid van een half jaar, hebben ik dit weer. Om moedeloos van te worden. Groetjes --Rode raaf (talk) 11:03, 14 July 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Beste Rode raaf, ik heb je nu in de DR al 2 keer het volgende uit de licentie geciteerd: "But there is copyright on each individual representation of the arms. This copyright lies with the artist that made that specific drawing", maar op de een of andere manier vind je het handig om dat straal te negeren en er langsheen te praten. In het geval van Arch bleek het om samengevoegd eigen werk te gaan, maar in dit geval is tot nu toe op geen enkele manier uitgelegd waar deze versie van het wapen vandaan komt. Geen idee of je Engels misschien gewoon niet goed genoeg is, daarom maar even in het Nederlands wat dit citaat uit de licentie betekent: Je mag op basis van de beschrijving een versie van het wapen maken, maar zo'n versie heeft een eigen auteursrecht, dat ligt bij degene die die versie heeft gemaakt. In dit geval heb jij een afgeleid werk gemaakt van zo'n versie van het wapen, maar is niet duidelijk wie de auteur is van die versie. Een onbekende auteur is (zoals ik in de DR ook al schreef) geen probleem als de versie hoe dan ook oud genoeg is. Wij hanteren daarvoor 120 jaar voor PMA+70 landen. In dit geval is allerminst duidelijk dat de versie waar jij een SVG van hebt gemaakt al zo oud is en kan dus niet worden bepaald wat de auteursrechtelijke situatie is. Jcb (talk) 11:24, 14 July 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Dat antwoordde ik je ook op je eigen OP JCB, IK ben in dat geval auteur, IK teken die dingen. IK is diegene die upload. Het staat er ook altijd bij; SVG = Own work. Eigen werk. Zelf getekend. Die versie komt nergens anders vandaan dan uit mijn eigen hoofd. Als je hier nu naast me zou staan, zou ik je zo een demonstratie geven. Teken het zo voor je uit, op de PC of papier, sneller dan wie dan ook. Met een blinddoek voor als het zou moeten. Ik doe het nu al 10 jaar, heb niet eens meer een voorbeeld nodig. Ik kan je wat wapens tonen, dan mag jij ergens een replica ervan vinden, onmogelijk. Als ik een tekening laat lijken op het origineel, maar het is in mijn eigen stijl. D'r is zelfs één specifieke wapentekenaar die dat niét leuk vond. Voor hem heb ik de wapens die hij voor de HRVA tekende wél totaal laten afwijken van het origineel. En dat doe ik met plezier als iemand erom vraagt. Voor de rest geldt, het zijn een afgeleiden, ondanks de sterke gelijkenis van sommige wapens. Op basis van een beschrijving alleen maakt je geen gelijkend wapen met een authentieke uitstraling. Als ik op basis van de beschrijving van het wapen van Amsterdam dat zou moeten tekenen, zonder ooit het wapen te hebben gezien zoals het op het diploma voorkomt, zou ik zoiets als Loekie de Leeuw kunnen tekenen. Dat zou niemand accepteren als dat op de pagina staat, hoewel ik best overwogen heb om alle wapens in een eigen stijl uit te werken. De oorspronkelijk auteur is morsdood voordat copyright wetgeving bestond, maar dat vind ik werkelijk irrelevant. Een gemeente kan slechts copyright aanvragen op hun wapen als ze dat specifiek regelen, dat staat dan ook aangegeven op de gemeentesite, aangezien overheid alles in de CC0 gedaan heeft. Die bewuste wapens, een serie van (uit m'n blote hoofd stuk of 12) heb ik alle in geheel eigen ontwerp getekend, schildvorm, schilddhouders, leeuwen en kroon, zelf ontworpen. Voor de rest geldt dat tientallen gemeenten inmiddels hun oude GIF bestand hebben vervangen voor een vector die ik getekend heb. Dat is toch erg leuk. Mijn grote punt is (geloof het of niet) al zou alles verwijderd worden, ik zal er geen traan om laten. Wat me wel mateloos stoort, het eeuwige (typisch wikipedia gedrag) met twee maten meten. Ik wijs je erop (ik zie dat je ook mod bent) dat er duizenden ORIGINELEN op commons staat. Dát negeer jij dan weer volkomen. Je zou meteen in actie moeten komen. Je hebt notabene zelf iets geplaatst dan onder auteursrecht valt. Waarom zo fel om mijn tekening, van een wapen van één of ander boerenk.tdorp in Brabant, verwijderd te krijgen, maar tegelijkertijd geen vinger uitsteken naar grootschalige, overduidelijke copyright schending? --Rode raaf (talk) 12:09, 14 July 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Kijk, nu leg je eindelijk uit hoe het zit. Waarom moet er eerst een lange stompzinnige discussie plaatsvinden verspreid over allerlei verschillende overlegpagina's, voordat je gewoon uitlegt hoe het zit? Als jij in het 'author' veld zet: 'Unknown, SVG is Own work', dan ga ik er vanuit dat je dat ook bedoelt. Je hebt die DRs aan jezelf te danken door de boel verkeerd in te vullen. Het verhaal van met twee maten meten slaat nergen op, ik nomineer elk bestand dat ik tegenkom waarvan de auteursrechtelijke situatie onduidelijk is en dat zijn er al heel wat geweest. Van wat ik nomineer wordt zo'n 98% verwijderd en kan 2% blijven na aanvullende informatie, meestal aangeleverd door de oorspronkelijke uploader. Alleen die maken daar gelukkig doorgaans niet zoveel heisa van als jij. Ik zal je bij dit bestand voordoen hoe je de velden goed invult. Het lijkt me verstandig dat je de komende tijd zelf je uploads naloopt en de informatie waar nodig corrigeert, om nieuwe DRs te voorkomen. Het is per slot van rekening jouw eigen verantwoordelijkheid om de informatie correct in te vullen. Jcb (talk) 12:52, 14 July 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
En over File:Kaap Oosterend 5.jpg, in Nederland hebben we Freedom of panorama, het is maar dat je het weet. Jcb (talk) 12:54, 14 July 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

-PS- Ik gok dat al tien keer eerder geprobeerd is werk te laten verwijderen (zie jou eigen nominatie van vorig jaar) die in alle gevallen behouden bleef. Laat het gaan. --Rode raaf (talk) 12:12, 14 July 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ik was me net aan het inlezen maar zo te zien is het opgelost. Rode raaf: ik zie trouwens dat je geen licentie hebt toegevoegd anders dan een algemene vermelding over de regels omtrent COA's. Zou je voor de volledigheid ook een creative commons licentie willen toevoegen? In ieder geval een deel van je werk omvat een eigen, oorspronkelijk karakter waardoor je mogelijk wel een auteursrecht hebt. Natuur12 (talk) 13:01, 14 July 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@ CC toegevoegd Natuur ;) Met vriendelijke groeten, --Rode raaf (talk) 15:04, 14 July 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@ Jcb, als je vind dat ik "heisa" maak, en een "een lange stompzinnige discussie" voer, dan zou je misschien beter geen herhaling van zetten maken. Op je OP verwees ik al naar een precies dezelfde situatie van vorig jaar. Als ik daar in de geschiedenis kijk, zie ik dat er een "}" weggevallen was, waardoor één en ander niet meer werkte en daardoor onzichtbaar was geworden en kennelijk zodoende botmatig onder je aandacht gevallen. Neem het me niet kwalijk dat ik denk dat het dan persoonlijk is. Dat gevoel zou jij ook hebben gehad als ik wat sjablonen op jouw werk had geplakt, waarvan pas achteraf zou blijken dat het werkelijk toeval was. Je zou misschien wel denken: "man, man, ik ben Jcb, daarvan wéét je toch dat het snor zit?" Wegvallen (in mijn geval) van een stukje code is een menselijke fout, neem het me niet kwalijk dat ik menselijk ben. Met het nomineren (naar je eigen zeggen) van elk bestand dat je tegenkomt waarvan de auteursrechtelijke situatie onduidelijk is, geef je meteen het probleem aan waar ik tegenaan loop; je bent een mens, geen machine. Als een bot daar een verwijdernominatie op zou plaatsen heb ik er geen enkele moeite mee, wel als een mens dat doet die even kijken kan of de uploader een nieuweling is met een paar uploads van afbeeldingen van overduidelijke c schendingen. Maar goed, da's mijn gevoel erover en tevens misschien een feedback, je hoeft hier uiteraard niets mee te doen. Ik ga verder niet in op andere aantijgingen zoals vermeende PA's, ik houdt de eer aan mezelf. Wat betreft die foto wil ik je nog ten leste wijzen op een eerder verwijderingsverzoek rondom een soortgelijke foto van een informatie paneel werd verwijderd die pas herplaatst werd na een OTRS. De tekst op het bord werd niet door die uploader en maker van de foto gemaakt en valt derhalve onder het auteursrecht, 't is geen verkeersbord waar "stop" op staat. Staat er op zo'n foto nu een huis, waar het bord (als je de foto uitvergroot) leesbaar is zou deze inderdaad onder panoramarecht vallen, maar het bord staat er van rand tot rand op, verder geen panorama zichtbaar. Ik twijfel serieus of je argument "Freedom of panorama" zal standhouden als het zou worden genomineerd. Nou... Ondanks alles, toch een fijne dag gewenst, maar hopelijk tot een nooit weerziens ;) Met vriendelijke groeten, --Rode raaf (talk) 15:04, 14 July 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

NC plaatjes toch toegestaan?

Toevallig liep ik aan tegen File:Agnes van Ardenne.jpg. Als ik naar de bron ga en daar doorklik blijkt dat het vrijgegeven is onder CC BY-NC 2.0 wat inhoud dat het niet toegestaan is voor commercieel gebruik. Ooit is er blijkbaar met een bot vastgesteld dat de afbeelding vrijgegen is onder 'cc-by-2.0' maar dat sluit blijkbaar niet uit dat het gaat om de NC-variant. Heeft die bot z'n werk niet goed gedaan? Is de licentie wellicht stiekem aangepast? Of zijn NC afbeeldingen toch toegestaan op Commons? - Robotje (talk) 13:59, 14 July 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

De bot heeft zijn werk goed gedaan. Allen de fotograaf (Roel Wijnants) is een hele tijd terug overgestapt op een non commercial licentie. Jammer voor ons want hij heeft een schat aan waardevolle foto's van bekende mensen gemaakt.Ik zal even een sjabloon toevoegen dat duidelijk maakt dat het hier om een relicense gaat. Natuur12 (talk) 14:09, 14 July 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Bedankt voor de snelle reactie en natuurlijk de toelichting daarin. Duidelijk. - Robotje (talk) 15:07, 14 July 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Steve Kisko-Brighton Museum

Hello Natuur12, surfing in our DR backlog I found this DR that reminder me the DR kept by you. The files nominated by me are even worse because, not only the files itself are clearly "no permission" cases, but we don't have even a single statement coming from the museum and saying the artist have given their agreement, which is equal to the rationale of this DR. After to have asked the opinion of another administrator+ the other DR cited just before, I think I was right. And I'm going to open another DR, do you have something to argue? or maybe do you want to open the DR yourself? Christian Ferrer (talk) 22:19, 4 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dear Christian Ferrer,
I respectfully disagree with Jim. They are a GLAM partner and there is no evidence that the museum didn't ask the artists for permission or that the works are copyrighted. The Brooklyn Museum on they other hand seems to confirm that they haven't asked all the artists for permission. Richard Nevell (WMUK) seems to be involved with the donation/has knowledge about the donation given the DR. Perhaps he can give an update regarding the content donation? Natuur12 (talk) 22:41, 4 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Except, the fact that a user said they are "GLAM partner", there is not the begin of an evidence (not a single source, not a single link to a web page museum, not a single OTRS permission, nothing...) that can make us think the museum agreed, even just one time, to upload their content. And there is no more evidence that the the content itself come from this museum, as not even a single valid source have been provided. Christian Ferrer (talk) 04:27, 5 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I opened another DR, maybe that indeed one of the many participants can update this case with the beginning of an evidence, see Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Steve Kisko-Brighton Museum Christian Ferrer (talk) 04:46, 5 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • I do wonder why you bothered to contact me if you were merely going to ignore what I say and re-open the DR anyways. Natuur12 (talk) 14:54, 5 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • I wondered if we could convince ourself one or the other, however your answer+your edit summary did not let me a single doubt on the fact that I will not convince you nor you will not manage to convince me. You know the rest. Christian Ferrer (talk) 18:19, 5 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
        • This edit summary? I merely made clear that I changed my reply a bit because I made an assumption about someone's involvement instead of using/trying to use a deduction. Natuur12 (talk) 18:31, 5 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
          • I have also, after to have read your answer, explained above, and just below your answer, why I still disagree, and this is exactly why I want a greater audience. The museum is not a GLAM partner. The files are not own works, and not a single valid source or permission have been provided. I don't understand how we can keep the files, that's all. Sorry that you take the reopening, or the way I done it, against you, but It's not the case. We should have a proper "closure appeal", in the same way as UDR IMO. Christian Ferrer (talk) 19:07, 5 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
            • I don't believe that this is done "against me". Though asking a second opinion without giving a courtesy ping, than coming here to leave a passive aggressive opening post followed by another comment and 30 minutes later you have already nominated the files for deletion doesn’t seem really mellow. In the DR you mention Jim's comment but you leave out mine.... The methods you use are rude and a bit dishonest. Natuur12 (talk) 22:52, 5 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
              • Then sorry to have been perceived as rude, to have a greater audience was of course my only purpose, rather than to be rude, aggressive and dishonest with you. But this confirm that the tone of your first answer, and maybe the answer itself, was more motived by the fact I asked Jim's opinion without to have pinged you, or that it is an even farther reason, is it? Therefore I was right not to wait very long for opening the DR, and I was right not to wait, after your first answer any other positive or constructive answers coming from you. You have just confirmed that your answer was a matter of principle on the form, I now understand your use of this falsely honeyed tone in your first answer, and I wonder how you wanted a constructive discussion, if since the beginning you were not able to do it either. Show me the example, if you are able, or keep your lessons. The only thing that you say to me here is that you don't, and did not, want really to talk about the DR, and it seems that it wasn't your purpose since the beginning of the discussion, me I proven, that my purpose was indeed to argue in the DR, as evidence see the DR history. Christian Ferrer (talk) 05:00, 6 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And I add that if I come to ask for a simple opinion to another experimented administrator, example if I come here saying :

" Hello Natuur12, with your experience what is your quick opinion about this DR regarding XXX and yyy potential issues?"

(DR taken by chance in the UDR page), if I come here to ask this, in order to have your quick opinion, and only your opinion, I have of course in no way the obligation to ping anybody else. And there is absolutely nothing rude as regards to the closing administrator. You can not require this from me, or this is you who is dishonest. The is just pretext and bullshit, I have not to ping all the closing administrators as soon I just give the link of a DR, this is a bullshit. Your tone "Dear Christian Ferrer, I respectfully ...) is the first thing rude and dishonest here, as you confess yourself that when you wrote this you already thought that it was me the rude and dishonest... therefore your comment is at least the exact opposite of what you thought. Your first answer was therefore without reason, more sarcastic and cynical than other thing. Who was rude, you or me?
Despite all that, despite also the fact that if it was really your purpose, or your will, you could very well have commented in Jim talk page when I noticed it to you, despite seeing the obvious sarcastic tone and patronising tone of your answer, I answered my point of view about the DR once again, reopened the DR, this took me a few dozen of minutes to make something a bit logical, and as soon it was done, I noticed you. And before that I was ready to leave your talk page and ready to pass my way. Thing that I can do right now, but if you comment more, event by adding a single word, I keep the right to answer or to defend myself. Christian Ferrer (talk) 11:16, 6 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Deletion

Why did you delete this image? This image is allowed at Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons.

16 August 2017 (diff | hist) . . b Template:User Chess.com‎; 15:55 . . (-32)‎ . . ‎Filedelinkerbot (Talk | contribs)‎ (Bot: Removing Commons:File:Chess.com logo.gif (en). It was deleted on Commons by Natuur12 (per Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Chess.com).)

(diff | hist) . . b Template:User Chess.com1‎; 15:55 . . (-32)‎ . . ‎Filedelinkerbot (Talk | contribs)‎ (Bot: Removing Commons:File:Chess.com logo.gif (en). It was deleted on Commons by Natuur12 (per Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Chess.com).)

IQ125 (talk) 18:40, 16 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please see the deletion rational at Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Chess.com. Per nomination means that I agree with the person who nominated the files for deletion. The license mentioned at the website the logos are taken from doesn't contain a license that is explicit enough to for fill the requirements stated in our licensing policy. Natuur12 (talk) 18:45, 16 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It met the licensing needed to be used at Wikipedia until some arsehole moved it to Wikimedia Commons. Next time leave it where it belongs! 18:48, 16 August 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by IQ125 (talk • contribs) 18:48, 16 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dear IQ125,
Please refrain from swearing and/or making personal attack. Have you read the "license" at the webpage I linked? I'm not an expert on en-wiki policy but I rather doubt that they accept files that violate the licensing policy which all projects need to follow. Natuur12 (talk) 18:59, 16 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You could upload a local copy under fair use if policy allows this for the article about Chess.com though. If you need a copy off the file to do so, please let me know. Natuur12 (talk) 19:11, 16 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Licensing question

Hi Natuur12. Was wondering if you could clarify the licensing of an image you deleted at Commons. The same file has been uploaded locally to Wikipedia and is being discussed at en:Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2017 August 21#File:Imagechess.jpg. I am not an admin on either Wikipedia or Commons, so I am unable to see how the Commons file was licensed. Thanks in advance. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:01, 21 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dear Marchjuly,
The file was uploaded under a cc-by-sa-3.0 license and the source didn't mention such a license. I don't believe that the claim that this logo is not creative enough to hold a copyright is correct. But this is always a bit subjective and I don't know how the English Wikipedia interprets US case law. Natuur12 (talk) 23:01, 21 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for clarifying things. First of all, I am not questioning your close. I think it was correct given the clear lack of permision for the cc licensing. My understanding, however, is that Wikipedia and Commons are basically the same when it comes to things like "PD-logo" of "PD-simple". Wikipedia does allow files to be uploaded locally as en:Template:PD-ineligible-USonly, but this is usually only when the file would be below COM:TOO#United States, but might be under copyright protection in the country of origin. This kind of thing often is occasionally for logos from the UK since the COM:TOO#United Kingdom is much lower than the TOO for the US. These files are uaually tagged with en:Template:Do not move to Commons for this reason. In this case, however, the original copyright holder (en:Chess.com) appears to be a US based company, which means that either en:Template:PD-logo or en:Template:PD-simple would need to be used. I believe these are equivalent to {{PD-textlogo}} on Commons, so I've asked about this at COM:VP/C#Licensing question. If Commons won't accept this file as PD, then Wikipedia probably shouldn't either. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:18, 22 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Deletion on Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Disneyland Park (Paris)

Just a heads up, you seem to have missed File:Disneyland Paris - panoramio (9).jpg on Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Disneyland Park (Paris). Elisfkc (talk) 15:05, 22 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Rembt Tobias Hugo Pieter Liebrecht Alexander van Boneval Faure (cropped).jpg

Commons-emblem-issue.svg
File:Rembt Tobias Hugo Pieter Liebrecht Alexander van Boneval Faure (cropped).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!

180.190.54.124 12:22, 23 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"captain redundant"

Kindly stop calling me that and remove your use of it. It is insulting.   — Jeff G. ツ 00:30, 28 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Just stop making redundant comments and I will stop calling you that. Admins actually have to read every comment made in a discussion. I read over a 100 redundant comments made by you today while clearing up DR's. I hope you have better things to do than making "per nom"-kindish statements and I'm 100% that admin have better things to do than reading those kind of statements. Natuur12 (talk) 00:48, 28 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I stopped on the 23rd when I got to the bottom of the DRs for the 20th. When !voting on DRs and UDRs, I will put in more effort.   — Jeff G. ツ 01:22, 28 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ok glad to hear. Natuur12 (talk) 15:01, 28 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Copyvio

Hallo Natuur12, zijn volgens jou de afbeeldingen die deze gebruiker hier neerzettte copyvio's? Lotje (talk) 13:28, 29 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Lotje,
Dat zijn inderdaad copyvio's. Heb de afbeeldingen verwijderd. Natuur12 (talk) 22:36, 29 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hallo Natuur12, ik zag net dat iemand ze ondertussen verwijderde. Dat is goed dus! Lotje (talk) 04:48, 30 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Commons:Deletion requests/Files of User:Torskpoll

Hi Natuur12, I just noticed your comment. The castle is indeed ancient but the mural isn't (the clue is the modern English names and perhaps the cartoonish styled employed by the artist; see here for a better view [3]).

One of the images up for deletion shows the kings Eochaid and Giric sharing a sword. In fact, it's only modern historians who have suspected that these two men shared the kingship between 878-889. One of the remarkable things about Scottish history is that Eochaid is not attested by a single late medieval Scottish chronicler, and he is attested by name in only one historical source. So, the fact that this mural shows Eochaid and Giric sharing kingship, with the deduced date of 878-889, is more evidence that the painting is modern (I overhauled Eochaid's Wikipedia article this summer, so I think I've got a good grasp of the historiography concerning this guy).

The most famous mural displayed at the castle is one by William Hole. This man died in 1917, so his work is out-of-copyright. Hole's work also depicts famous Scottish kings, so he's probably not the artist of the mural we're discussing (see here for example of Hole's mural [4]). The fact is we just don't know who painted the mural, and there is indeed reason to suspect it's modern. Could you please reopen the discussion?--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 02:42, 30 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dear Brianann MacAmhlaidh,
Thank you for your message. This information changes things and I will reclose the DR as delete. Natuur12 (talk) 11:20, 30 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks Natuur12.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 00:28, 1 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Map a3 bw.jpg

Hi. When closing the discussion, you probably forgot to delete the file linked to in the section header of the deletion request. --Paul_012 (talk) 12:04, 5 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dubbelcheck

Hoi Natuur12, zou je eens willen kijken of ik de licentie van CC0 goed heb gezien bij deze twee foto's? Ik wil in de toekomst namelijk nog wat meer schrijven over Suriname en er staan toch wel wat foto's op de website van de Surinaamse overheid die we kunnen gebruiken. Alvast bedankt! Ymnes (talk) 18:45, 9 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hoi, de website wil bij mij niet laden. Zal er later nog eens naar kijken. Misschien dat de website dan wel werkt. Natuur12 (talk) 21:59, 9 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hey Ymnes,

De website werkt voor mij weer dus ik heb even gekeken. Dit is in ieder geval geen CC0-licentie. Er doet hier immers niemand afstand van diens auteursrecht. Dan rest de vraag of dit vrij genoeg is voor Wikimedia Commons. Dan is het antwoord misschien. Er wordt niet specifiek toestemming gegeven voor het maken van afgeleidde werken wat voor sommige een probleem is. Er staat wel Maar bij het citeren van de inhoud mag niet de indruk worden gewekt dat de Surinaamse overheid zonder meer de strekking van het afgeleide werk onderschrijft. wat sommige met behulp van google translate zullen interpreteren als nee, je mag geen afgeleidde werken maken waarna het veel pijn en moeite kost om uit te leggen dat dit gewoon een clausule is om te voorkomen dat de overheid geframed wordt.

Kortom, ik zie geen auteursrechtenproblemen maar mogelijk wel problemen met ons eigen licentiebeleid en vooral een heel hoop beren. De beste stap is denk ik om een speciaal licentiesjabloon te maken voor deze website en om dat sjabloon vervolgens te bespreken in com:VPC.

Maar leuk dat je gaat schrijven over Suriname. Dat is toch een beetje een onderwerp dat we collectief lijken te vergeten zo nu en dan. Natuur12 (talk) 11:34, 11 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wat ik me afvraag is in hoeverre je op Commons een bron verkeerd mag citeren (of de waarheid geweld aan mag doen). Mag je bijvoorbeeld een foto manipuleren en veinzen dat de Surinaamse overheid dat zo bedoelt heeft? Wanneer je dat (stelselmatig) op Wikipedia zou doen, zou je o.t. geblokkeerd worden. Is dat op Commons niet zo? Ymnes (talk) 12:25, 11 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ik elk geval bedankt voor deze reactie! Ik heb in het Auteursrechtencafé op Wikipedia een voorstel gedaan, om tot zo'n sjabloon te komen. Ik denk niet dat ik in mijn eentje doorgewinterde Commons-gebruikers kan overtuigen. Hopelijk lukt het op deze manier om het voor elkaar te krijgen. Suriname is inderdaad een nog wat ondergeschoven kindje en die foto's kunnen we goed gebruiken. Ymnes (talk) 13:07, 11 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Ymnes: ik vrees dat Wikimedia Commons weinig richtlijnen heeft die mensen verbieden een bron verkeerd te citeren. Dat iemand eerst een foto loopt te bewerken en vervolgens upload zonder duidelijk te maken dat de foto is aangepast is niet ondenkbaar bijvoorbeeld. Gezien het grote aantal uploads wordt hier in de praktijk weinig tegen gedaan. Alleen sporadisch. Hier kan je trouwens een kopie vinden van de Surinaamse auteurswet. Ik denk dat vooral artikel 13 relevant is. Maar dat is meer voor een expert om te zeggen. Ben benieuwd wat de andere in het auteursrechtencafé te zeggen hebben. Natuur12 (talk) 14:11, 11 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Strange file names; one seems a comment on the other

Hi Natuur12, what would you do when you encounter the file name Romp of Otters. Sea Otter Mom with NOT Two Pups but ONE sea-otter-mom-and-pup-4-16-07 2 (462500055).jpg and then find the same image is also present as Four sea otters.JPG (probably uploaded by someone who lost the ability to count). It seems the dispute on what is depicted took place outside Commons (probably on Flickr) but what was the use of copying a duplicate file with such a strange name to our project? Most likely a bot was responsible, but now I noticed this, we can probably do some proper thinking about it. Wikiklaas (talk) 21:23, 14 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Wikiklaas,
I noticed your message but looking into this will take some time. I'll try to do so tomorrow or Sunday. Natuur12 (talk) 17:43, 15 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dear Wikiklaas,

It seems that the number of pups is disputed. I suspect that the file name at Flickr was changed after there was a debate about how many sea otter pups are present which lead to a double upload. The most recent upload has to be redirected to the old upload. Part of the debate about how many pups are present is visible via the comment section of the file page at Flickr. Unfortunate not all information is present.

They did consult a biologists specialising in sea otters. The expert is named Michael Harris and allegedly stated the following: I agree. I see 3 independent and 1 dependent (pup) in this image. In my opinion we should follow the observation made by the expert. There is one but, we don’t know the exact question which was send to the expert. My suggestion would be to rename the file of the oldest upload so that this reflects the expert’s observation and that the file page is updated. Natuur12 (talk) 13:31, 17 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for taking notice. I also think we should agree with the specialist, but we should not allow file names that are merely commenting on other files: comments should be made on talk pages; as a result, file names might be changed. It is only now, by the way, that I noticed there are indeed four animals in the picture, so the file name is at least correct, the description can go where it should be, on the description page. I think redirecting the newer name to the old one is a good solution. Wikiklaas (talk) 13:39, 17 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Wikiklaas: I noticed that Four sea otters.JPG isn’t the original. The uploader modified the file before uploading it to Wikimedia Commons. This also explains why the license had to be reviewed by a human instead of the bot. I renamed Romp of Otters. Sea Otter Mom with NOT Two Pups but ONE sea-otter-mom-and-pup-4-16-07 2 (462500055) and I made clear that this is the original version from Flickr and that Four sea otters is a modified version. Four sea otters being a modified file also explains why the file was uploaded twice. Natuur12 (talk) 17:31, 17 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's why you are an administrator here, and I am just someone to report problems when I think I see them. Wikiklaas (talk) 22:00, 17 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Xonotic screenshots restored illegitimately

Here we go again...

You need to offer the complete corresponding source code or else these need to be deleted again. Please read the license GPLv2+ conditions. 2001:2003:54FA:2751:0:0:0:1 17:24, 15 September 2017 (UTC); edited 17:29, 15 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Dear 2001:2003:54FA:2751:0:0:0:1,
  • This is not how the community has interpreted the license. You might be right, you might be wrong but going after individual print screens isn't the right course of action. A general debate in com:VPC. If you are right this effects almost all print screens released under this license. Wouldn't it make more sense to find consensus instead of having a major debate over some print screens?
  • Also, a regular DR would have been the correct course of action instead of nominating these files for semi speedy deletion. But for now, would adding a link to gitlab solve this for you? Natuur12 (talk) 17:37, 15 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Would it be enough for me to link you to the following literature, if you doubt my arguments?

Especially the In what cases is the output of a GPL program covered by the GPL too? part in the GPL FAQ. That I may have previously inaccurately represented in few cases.

Adding a link to the repository would be an improvement, but may not exactly satisfy the corresponding source code requirement and not necessarily the completeness, which I've expressed to be a burden of proof on the uploader.

Yes, I'd love to bring it to a wider attention at COM:VP/C. There's a related thing going on right now at COM:VP about license terminations. There's an RFC about local copies of GNU licenses ongoing at Template talk:GPLv2+ that I created earlier today. At smaller scale, I have already asked COM:VP/C for help about GNU license violations at larger scale three times. User:Gazebo has previously agreed with me there to be an issue, twice on seperate issues: Once on Inkscape (GPL) and once on some LGPL toolkit.

There's the chicken-and-egg problem too: An user at COM/VP asked if this has happened on Commons before, not doubting that it has happened outside of Commons. Seeing how the undeletion request was approved by you is really upsetting and a setback for that goal. I lack social skills and ability to express the wider issue to the community. If you believe I'm right, would you please consider helping? I'd love to have a more in-depth conversation with someone understanding. 2001:2003:54FA:2751:0:0:0:1 17:56, 15 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Regarding the network access to source link once again, only under GPLv3+ without a written offer or (physical) medium of distribution (which I also had previously replaced a GPLv2+ tag with). 2001:2003:54FA:2751:0:0:0:1 18:03, 15 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I forgot to mention: There's no remaining right to distribute these three screenshots under GPLv2 without OTRS verification, per automatic termination provisions. GPLv3+ would still (theoretically) have a way to cure. Thus I find the change of license tags to GPLv2+ by you have also been incorrect (but then again, you're also not the copyright holder). Unless there's arguing for threshold of originality, which I'd say has been exceeded. 2001:2003:54FA:2751:0:0:0:1 21:20, 15 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dear 2001:2003:54FA:2751:0:0:0:1,

I’m not an expert on software licenses so I doubt that I will be of much help with establishing a new consensus or policy. And please realise that admins merely follow the communities interpretation of licenses, copyright law etc.

You say that you lack the social skills to express the wider issue. One of the problems seems to be that you give your personal interpretation. Aren’t there copyright experts who have blogged about this topic? Are there legal scholars who have published about this? It might also work if you stick your posts to an minimum when you initiate a proposal. People aren’t going to comment if the initiator is responding to everyone.

I added a link to the library to the file pages. If you still believe the files should be deleted, feel free to start a regular deletion request. Though I doubt that raising DR’s will help your cause because this could antagonise users even more.

About license terminations. Our standard practice is to fix uploads instead of deleting them and letting someone else re-upload them. I do find this practice a bit odd (but follow our standard practices anyways) but on the other hand. Is it really our job to worry about license breeches? In my opinion that is something for the copyright holder to worry about. Natuur12 (talk) 14:30, 17 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please follow the normal procedure

Natuur12, there's a problem with your decision to keep this file. This doesn't respect the right procedure. The picture is redundant and redundant files can be nominated for deletion. Your decision didn't take in consideration this paramater and seems to invoke an illegitimate reason. In that case, this is a complex problem. Kindly reconsiderate the issue. - Basile Morin (talk) 09:44, 25 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Basile Morin,
The file we are talking about is a quality image which has been around since 2012. Deleting the image could break external usage or break attribution elsewhere. About following the correct procedure. The procedure states the following ‘’’ In general’’ , requests can be closed by an administrator after seven days. (emphasis mine) This implies that there are exceptions to the 7 days rule of the thump. Examples are vandalism or copyright violations but also acts of sheer vengeance. You ended up in a conflict with Yann and during this conflict you nominated a quality image uploaded by him for deletion using a dishonest reasoning. (Forgetting to mention that both files are quality images isn’t merely a small oversight making your deletion statement misleading.) Btw, that you have a conflict with Yann doesn’t make the DR complex. Natuur12 (talk) 11:08, 25 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Firstly, there are 2 allegedly "quality" images really too much identical, and that makes the case even more damaging, because Wikimedia gets overloaded from such redundant files. Honestly, Natuur12, assume good faith and tell me what distinguishes these two images. In my opinion nothing, just one is too much, but you closed the debate without consensus, with just a very poor participation.
  • Secondly, what about this "revenge DR" (as you call it) ? Once again, assume good faith and explain me the reason for nominating the file : "Keeping this, we are looking for the stick to be beaten", it's stated ! Incredible. But this discussion will you close it also early and write "Revenge DR,. DR is clearly invalid", will you ? No you won't, even if it's truth. - Basile Morin (talk) 14:08, 25 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Some stroopwafels for you!

Gaufre biscuit.jpg Have some, add a hot tea or coffee and come back in a few. Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 01:43, 15 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for the stroopwafels! Natuur12 (talk) 21:26, 16 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Rectorado de la UCLA.jpg

Hi, Natuur12. You deleted the image after closing Commons:Deletion requests/File:Maxresdefaul2684.jpg. In my opinion only Maxresdefaul was nominated for deletion, but you deleted Rectorado de la UCLA too. Is it mistake? Do you want to reconsider the deletion? There exist collages consisting Rectorado de la UCLA. Taivo (talk) 17:05, 22 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Taivo, this indeed seems to be a mistake. I restored the file. Natuur12 (talk) 23:10, 22 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

My pictures deleted

Why have my pictures were deleted? They were my own work as stated when requested: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_uploaded_by_Alainmoscoso — Preceding unsigned comment added by Buccaneer008 (talk • contribs) 14:58, 25 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dear Buccaneer008,
Because the issue's brought up by Taivo weren't resolved. A picture taken with a phone has EXIF and phone camera's have consistent file resolutions plus unless you use a phone invented in the year zero the resolution should be much higher. Would it possible for you to upload the original non-modified photographs? Natuur12 (talk) 20:37, 26 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Flickr license review

Hoi Natuur12,

jij had ooit de Flickr license review bij me ingesteld. Die knop werkt nu helaas niet meer. Misschien is er een update geweest. Zou je kunnen kijken of er iets is veranderd?

Mvg, Taketa (talk) 01:59, 8 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Beste Taketa,
Als goed is zou je LR-script nu weer moeten werken. Natuur12 (talk) 15:34, 8 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hij doet het nog niet. Nog iets wat ik kan proberen? Taketa (talk) 15:49, 8 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Taketa: heb je je browser cash geleegd? Natuur12 (talk) 16:11, 8 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ja. Taketa (talk) 16:34, 8 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Taketa: welke browser gebruik je en is die browser up to date?
Chrome, geen idee. Taketa (talk) 16:42, 8 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Taketa: heb je recent nieuwe gadgets aangezet? Ik gebruik ook Chrome en bij mij werkt het. Natuur12 (talk) 16:56, 8 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ik gebruik geen gadgets. Dus niks aan of uit gezet. Taketa (talk) 17:07, 8 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Taketa: ik kan nog één ding bedenken. Gebruik je monobook of vector? Natuur12 (talk) 23:04, 9 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Geen idee wat die zaken zijn, dus waarschijnlijk niet. Mvg, Taketa (talk) 23:06, 9 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Taketa, Ga naar voorkeuren/uiterlijk, welke vormgeving is daar aangevinkt. Of als je taalinstelling op Engels staan: Ga naar Preferences/Appearance en kijk welke skin er aanstaat. Natuur12 (talk) 23:39, 9 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Staat op vector. Mvg, Taketa (talk) 23:45, 9 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Typo in categorie

Hallo Natuur12, ik heb net Category:Antoinette Scheulderman (met een 'n' te weinig in de voornaam) aangemaakt, maar die kan weg want de naam is fout en intussen is die categorie weer leeggemaakt. Intussen bestaat Category:Antoinnette Scheulderman ook en die moet dus blijven. Kun jij de verkeerde categorie verwijderen? - Robotje (talk) 22:52, 20 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hoi Robotje,
Ik heb de verkeerde categorie verwijderd. Natuur12 (talk) 22:58, 20 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Bedankt. - Robotje (talk) 23:00, 20 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Request for rights

Thanks for patroller's rights! Please see also my filemover request. --Dim Grits (talk) 18:24, 5 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dear Dim Grits,
You're welcome. I noticed that you made three requests for three different user rights. Your request for rollback got rejected and therefor I would rather see a third admin taking care of your request for the filemover userright. Natuur12 (talk) 21:03, 5 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Distorted image

Re: image above right. This is a terribly skewed image that badly distorts the original painting. I am aware that it was previously nominated for deletion based on copyright status, and that this was dealt with. But it does the artist a real disservice to have this distorted and color-inaccurate image on Wikipedia, especially when there is already a perfectly serviceable image on file (image below right). I am not sure if I should request that you reverse the keep decision or nominate it anew for deletion, but either way, a takedown is what I am advocating. Alafarge (talk) 22:21, 5 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Art Jury, Wayman Elbridge Adams, 1921.jpg
Dear Alafarge,
I merely kept the file because there wasn't a copyright problem and that was the concern raised during the deletion request. Therefor I rather not reverse my closere based on a new argument that has no relation with the original concern. Therefor a new nomination would be my preferred course of action. Please don't forget to link to the high quality version in the deletion request. Regards, Natuur12 (talk) 22:25, 5 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OK, will do. Alafarge (talk) 22:28, 5 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wiki Science Competition 2017 closes on December, the 15th

Logo for Wiki Science Competition.svg
Hi, "Wiki Science Competition" 2017 has started

It is a world event.
The upload phase in Asian, American and European countries without juries ends on December 15th.
Here you can find more details.

This is a manually inserted message for commons users with knowledge of the English language who are also globally active or who have uploaded images related to the competition's themes (science buildings, microscopic images, scientists, wildlife...).

Twitter Logo Mini.svg #WSC2017 #WikiScience #WikiScience2017

Linkedin icon.svg Wiki Science Competition

--Alexmar983 (talk) 05:52, 8 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

sarcasme, irony and jokes

Hello Natuur12, I wholeheartedly agree with your position on sarcasm and on the sort of stating the opposite of what one means, which people often sell as "irony". I also agree that jokes in general can cause misunderstandings in a multilingual (and multicultural!) environment, but people need to have some fun, too, and most jokes I've seen around here are obviously well-intended, so I would cut people some slack. SebastianHelm (talk) 22:42, 20 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hey SebastianHelm,
I'm not against making jokes but jokes about guns or other sensitive topics. (Drugs, politics, terrorism etc.) Those kind off jokes can be harmful and even scare editors away. This doesn't mean that I believe that we should start blocking people over tasteless jokes but rather in explaining why such jokes can be hurtful or offensive. For people who like such jokes there is a whole realm outside the wikiverse to make them. Natuur12 (talk) 21:45, 21 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Good thing I asked. I now see we actually agree on this. The gun in the joke is something that makes it worse, for me, too. There is a good faith explanation, though: Given that Tomi Ungerer is known to be sexually provocative, I can imagine that the picture (which I can't see) inspired a connection with the famous quote "Is That a Gun in Your Pocket, or Are You Just Glad to See Me?". – SebastianHelm (talk) 23:55, 21 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Merry Christmas!

Merry Xmas

"acting in bad faith"

Wil je zo vriendelijk zijn je beschuldiging aan mijn adres hier te verwijderen? Je zou me redelijkerwijs onderhand goed genoeg moeten kennen om te weten dat 'acting in bad faith' niet mijn modus operandi is. Jcb (talk) 21:50, 28 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Beste Jcb,
Je weigert het punt te begrijpen en weigert adviezen over oude jpg's op te volgen. Dan handel je ter kwader trouw. Mooier kan ik het niet maken. Hetzelfde geld voor Jim die eisen stelt waarvan ieder weldenkend mens weet dat ze niet realistisch zijn. En daar ben ik ondertussen redelijk klaar mee. Natuur12 (talk) 22:01, 28 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Request for AWB rights

Hi Natuur12, would you mind looking over my request for AutoWikiBrowser rights, I've been waiting a while. Cheers. - Samuel Wiki (talk) 03:37, 1 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hey Samuel Wiki,
Concider it done. Natuur12 (talk) 14:22, 1 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

These 2 DR's

Dear Natuur12,

I realise that you are not very active on Commons. However, since you are still an Admin is it possible if you could delete the images in these 2 DRs here and here ? They were nominated for deletion on December 21 and we have some replacement images in this species category. I uploaded the other 2 free images in the category myself but Dicasto who marked my images cannot close a DR since he is not an Admin. Its you decision here. (its very funny! I uploaded images of a mushroom that wikipedia has no article on. But perhaps in future someone can create an article here) Best, --Leoboudv (talk) 01:54, 6 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hey Leoboudv,
I closed the DR’s as delete. Unfortunate we cannot validate the license. I’m actually planning on picking up some small maintains work. This debate reminds me what I don’t want to become. An admin that doesn’t use his tools to serve the project.
Regarding Lactifluus griseu, a lot of articles about fungi, and especially fungi that don’t form mushrooms are missing. I guess this is because the topic is pretty niche and requires specialist knowledge. If I have time I’ll try to write a Dutch article about this mushroom. Been a while since I wrote about a mushroom. Natuur12 (talk) 19:26, 6 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Dear Natuur12,

I did know about this policy which is one reason why I don't want to be an Admin since Admins are expected to use their tools. I am happy to be a license reviewer. I hope Commons is not really considering increasing the requirement of more than 5 edits over 6 months to 25 or 30 edits as that would drive more Admins to "retire." At least today you used your tools on 2 items here. We all have a job in real life while on Commons we are unpaid volunteers. Best Regards from Vancouver, --Leoboudv (talk) 20:13, 6 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Commons:Glam2Commons

Hoi Natuur12, bedankt voor de extra rechten en de tip; zojuist succesvol uitgetest. Werkt dus prima. Op niet al te lange termijn komt gahetna.nl trouwens te vervallen omdat dat wordt ondergebracht in www.nationaalarchief.nl en hopelijk blijft die tool dan wel werken. - Robotje (talk) 16:38, 19 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hoi Robotje,
Graag gedaan. Of de tool blijft werken weet ik niet. In ieder geval is Bas betrokken bij de ontwikkeling en hem kennende gaat dit vast goedkomen. Mvg. Natuur12 (talk) 16:46, 19 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User rights

Hi,

I wanted to thank you for the patrol and rollback on my User:Artix Kreiger 2 (alt account). I had used it while on vacation. Much appreciated

I wanted to ask if the autopatrol on my main (this one) with patrol to match with it. Thanks.

Artix Kreiger (talk) 16:18, 25 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hey Artix Kreiger,
Consider it done. Regards. Natuur12 (talk) 16:29, 25 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You do not have the permission to review images, this edit was therefore disabled

When I go to upload an image by a url I get the message: "You do not have the permission to review images, this edit was therefore disabled." Where do I apply for these rights? RAN (talk) 05:29, 18 February 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dear RAN,
You will need the license review flag for that. However, this flag is almost never granted purely for making file transfers from Flickr easier. The flag can be requested at Commons:License review/requests. Natuur12 (talk) 15:18, 18 February 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Return of globally blocked user

User:Ochoa's is the latest incarnation of globally blocked User:جووو. They are uploading copyright violations and doctored images with nudity pasted in. Can you please delete the images and block the account? And since I find myself blocked on Wikipedia right now, if you could drop a note here that would be nice. Thanks. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 16:23, 23 February 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hey,
I Blocked the account, reverted some sock edits and made a new SPI-report. Natuur12 (talk) 16:56, 23 February 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks! World's Lamest Critic (talk) 17:04, 23 February 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A new one: MarianaOch World's Lamest Critic (talk) 13:50, 27 February 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Blocked. Natuur12 (talk) 15:45, 27 February 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

And another one: Masteralala. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 21:09, 28 February 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Taken care off. Natuur12 (talk) 21:15, 28 February 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Abuse of file mover rights by NatigKrolik

Could you have a look at User talk:NatigKrolik#Renaming? The issue is still going on, and you may be interested in this as you assigned the file mover rights. --Didym (talk) 18:23, 4 March 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, of course I can take a look. This user seems to have made several bad renames. Feel free to revoke the flag if this users continues to do file renames without addressing the concerns. I will keep an eye on their renames. Natuur12 (talk) 18:32, 4 March 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Logo NA

Hallo Natuur,

KB en het NA hebben hun logo allebei gewijzigd en ik zit even te denken hoe we deze het makkelijkst kunnen vervangen op alle pagina's.

Door het nieuwe logo als een nieuwe versie van het oude logo te uploaden of door alles botmatig te gaan vervangen... Jij weet misschien beter dan ik wat gebruikelijk is op Commons?

Groetjes, Ciell (talk) 12:31, 17 March 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hoi Ciell,
Het oude logo overschrijven is in ieder geval niet zo handig want dat gaat in tegen Commons:OVERWRITE. Botmatig vervangen lijkt me de aangewezen route al is voorzichtigheid bij de sjablonen waarin de logo's gebruikt worden wel aan te bevelen. Natuur12 (talk) 13:54, 18 March 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:2 vissen.jpg

Hi Natuur, this image is currently using a fallback template for the CC licence. It would be good to know the version of the licence though that was originally intended by you or the original artist, as in 1.0, 2.5, etc. Can you please have a look at this? De728631 (talk) 18:51, 2 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hey De728631,
This must be one of the first tickets I ever processed. The ticket doesn’t mention a version number but back then that wasn’t really an issue. A lot of Dutch tickets between 2010 and June 2014 will have this problem. However, the version number should be 3.0 because off what’s stated in the Supreme Court Ruling Ermes/Haviltex.

The question of how the relationship between the parties is arranged in a written contract and whether this contract leaves a gap that needs to be supplemented can not be answered on the basis of merely a purely linguistic interpretation of the provisions of that contract. In order to answer that question, it comes down to the sentence that, in the circumstances and circumstances, the parties could reasonably have attributed to these provisions and to what they could reasonably expect from each other in that respect. It may also be of importance to which social circles parties belong and which legal knowledge of such parties can be expected.

Ermes/Haviltex, translated by google Translate.
I will update the file page accordingly. Natuur12 (talk) 15:18, 5 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ok. Bedankt! Face-smile.svg De728631 (talk) 18:00, 5 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Freiheits- und Einheitsdenkmal Berlin

Hello Natuur12, I have just noticed your deletion of a sketch for the de:Freiheits- und Einheitsdenkmal. You stated that the picture would violate copyrights. Could you please specify why? The person who created the sketch had agreed to a free license and had stated that the picture could be used for Wikipedia. Greetings, --Andropov (talk) 15:01, 24 June 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You also deleted this file, what was the problem with the license? --Friedo (talk) 15:31, 24 June 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dear Friedo and Andropov,

The two files have been deleted for various reasons but the primary reason is that a license reviewer marked them as “failed” which is a reason for speedy deleting a file. The license reviewer mentioned the following reasoning when requesting speedy deletion: “License review NOT passed: Author did not state a release under any specific license.” Unfortunate this is true. Only the license types are mentioned. Also: nobody properly explained the license terms and a sloppy release has little value.

When following the source URL the files are not present making it impossible to do a proper license review. Any attempt will result in a failed license review making the file eligible for speedy deletion. The last reason for deletion is one that I cannot disclose but is related to a complaint received by the OTRS-team. (2018062410001945) The non-confidentiality agreement forbids me to disclose anything making it utterly impossible for admins to properly motivate OTRS-based deletions. Regards, Natuur12 (talk) 17:07, 24 June 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for your kind and thorough response. Now, I do think I understand this case. Regards, --Andropov (talk) 21:42, 24 June 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Amerikaanse wetgeving op Nederlandse foto?

Hoi Natuur12, zou je eens willen kijken naar deze discussie. Klopt het dat naast de Nederlandse wetgeving ook Amerikaanse wetgeving op deze foto van kracht is, omdat er (ook) servers van Commons in de VS staan? Ymnes (talk) 17:26, 18 July 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hoi Ymnes,
Hoewel het een fabeltje is dat de serverlocatie uitmaakt voor welke wetgeving van toepassing is hebben we afgesproken dat een bestand in het publiek domein moet vallen in het land van eerste publicatie (of specifiek voor Nederland: openbaarmaking) en de Verenigde Staten. Dit staat op com:L: that are in the public domain in at least the United States and in the source country of the work.
Is het dan een gelopen race? Nee. Over de URAA waarop een beroep wordt gedaan is veel discussie geweest en echt consensus over de toepassing ervan is er niet. Bovendien is het lastig vast te stellen of de URAA van toepassing is. Maar er is nog iets anders. De beschermingsduur van een werk is lang niet altijd 70 jaar na overlijden of na openbaarmaking indien de fotograaf "anoniem" is geweest. Dat was vroeger 50 jaar. Je zou uit kunnen zoeken of de termijn van 50 jaar misschien van toepassing is. Een tijd terug was er een discussie over het dagboek van Anne Frank en de auteursrechten erop. Dit blog legt haarfijn uit waarom er voor dat werk helemaal geen termijn van 70 jaar na overlijden geldt. Zoals je hier kan lezen is de termijn voor anonieme werken in 1995 ook van 50 naar 70 jaar gedaan. Artikel 38 regelt de beschermingsduur van wat wij anonieme werken noemen. Of deze verdediging stand gaan houden durf ik niet te zeggen. Anders is het hopen op een admin die zich niet blind staart op de URAA. Natuur12 (talk) 20:36, 18 July 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Bedankt voor je uitleg. Ik wist niet dat het zo complex in elkaar stak. Ik vond 70 jaar al lang :-) Ymnes (talk) 09:09, 19 July 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Commons beta cluster request

Would it be possible to grant me sysop on the Commons beta cluster? My account can be found here. I'd like to test some edits to one of the upload wizard's messages per Commons:Village_pump/Proposals#UploadWizard isn't clear enough about re-uploading on something that isn't live. Thanks! --Majora (talk) 02:54, 20 July 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I would like a similar opportunity, please.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 03:01, 20 July 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hey, consider it done. Natuur12 (talk) 08:20, 20 July 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Re-nom?

One of your previously failed FP nominations is now eligible for re-nomination due to a sock double vote. You are welcome to nominate it again if you like. The nom is: Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Caupolicana electa, f, ga, baker, side 2015-01-08-09.24.44 ZS PMax (16394012107).jpg. --Cart (talk) 20:41, 4 October 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for the heads up. It's a pitty that some people go to such extreme lenghts to disrupt something like FP. :(. I won't do a re-nom though. Seems that there already is a discussion about which stept can be taken. Natuur12 (talk) 21:47, 7 October 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Vraagje

Sinds vele jaren bestaat hier de Category:Ships by name en daar verzamelden we de plaatjes van elk schip waarvan we de naam konden vinden. Meer dan 50.000 schepen. Meestal met het bouwjaar of het jaar van oplevering. Nu is User:Themightyquill, een administrator die nog nooit iets met schepen heeft gedaan (voor zover ik dat kan zien), die daar plotseling de naam Category:Ships by name (flat list) aan heeft gegeven. Die toevoeging is de enige category die zo heet in Category:Categories by name (flat list). Slaat in mijn ogen nergens op, hij kan mij en andere gebruikers niet overtuigen. Nu bestaan mijn bewerkingen in commons meestal uit het categoriseren, kijk maar even in de grafieken. Meen daar dus enige kaas van gegeten te hebben. Maar als simpele user lukt het niet deze administrator te overtuigen. Zou jij er eens naar willen kijken? --Stunteltje (talk) 21:35, 26 October 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hoi Stunteltje,
Vervelend dit maar ik ben in dit geval denk ik niet de juiste persoon om te helpen omdat ik zelf ook een akkefietje met deze persoon heb gehad en daarbij geopperd heb dat deze persoon afgezet dient te worden als admin. (Een categorie voor verwijdering nomineren, zelf de nominatie afhandelen en vinden dat er niks mis is met deze werkwijze is natuurlijk het schoolvoorbeeld van modonwaardig gedrag.) Als ik me ermee zou bemoeien is dat denk ik alleen maar olie op het vuur. Mvg. Natuur12 (talk) 21:09, 28 October 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Waar ik me helemaal iets bij kan voorstellen. Dan zijn we het waarschijnlijk eens over het feit dat deze administrator niet gevoelig is voor argumenten en dan houdt het gewoon op. Ziel in lijdzaamheid bezitten is dan het enige dat over blijft. Misschien ga ik er nog iets mee doen, maar de lust is niet zo groot. Dan moet het via de kroeg of zo en dan wordt het snel een gekrakeel. --Stunteltje (talk) 21:55, 28 October 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Hl.png

Can you please delete this file as well; it's another copy of the vandal's image. I overwrote the file with a blank earlier. Thanks. Home Lander (talk) 21:24, 25 November 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hey [User:Home Lander|Home Lander]],
the file is deleted. Natuur12 (talk) 21:25, 25 November 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And if you're still on, File:A5.png is the same, and the user can be blocked. Home Lander (talk) 21:39, 25 November 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
✓ Done Home Lander. Natuur12 (talk) 21:43, 25 November 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dena Takruri photo

Hi there,

I noticed you removed the photo of Dena Takruri on her wikipedia page. I am her colleague and uploaded that photo of her with her permission. It is her photo. I’m not sure why it got taken down. What would it take to prove that we own the photo? May we upload it back now that we clarified it is her photo used with her permission or will it get removed again?

Thanks. Klgong (talk) 21:53, 6 November 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dear Klgong,
My apologies for the late response. I read your message on my mobile phone and therefor forgot about it.
What we need is a declaration from the photographer that he/she agrees with releasing the photograph under a free license. This declaration needs to be send to our OTRS-team. This wizard can be used to make sure the declaration contains all the required elements.
Please give me a heads up after the email is send so I can speed up the process. The OTRS-team has quite the backlog. Natuur12 (talk) 18:54, 9 November 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Hi Natuur12, I just submitted the release email [Ticket#: 2018113010009532]. Let me know if you need anything else for photo clearance. Thanks -Klgong (talk) 22:27, 30 November 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hey Klgong,
Seems that someone else already replied. Natuur12 (talk) 19:24, 4 December 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A cup of coffee for you!

Cup-o-coffee-simple.svg Get your butt back over here next year! Some people actually miss you here. Meanwhile enjoy a cup of coffee and take it easy. :-)) Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 08:23, 1 December 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hey Hedwig,
Thanks for the coffee. :Thanks for the coffee. I don’t have as much time as I used to but I plan to pick up some DR work in the future. But in the meantime I’ll continue to help out a bit with the speedy deletions 😊. Natuur12 (talk) 21:05, 4 December 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Request & Invitation for Wiki Loves Love 2019 Jury

Hello @Leoboudv: , Hope you are doing well! I am co-ordinator of Wiki Loves Love 2019, an international Commons Contest aimed at documenting love in different cultures and the theme of 2019 is festivals, ceremonies and rituals of love. We would be honored to have you on Jury for the contest, which will happen from February 1- February 28 2019. Please let us know if it is agreeable, our team would be excited and thrilled to have you on board. The timeline would be after first week of March to couple first weeks of April. Hopefully, that time would be enough for the jury. And if it is not, then we can always extend. But we will do the pre-work and your work would be to select the winner photographs. Happy New Year to you. Wishing you lots of love and happiness.Wikilover90 (talk) 13:00, 14 January 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Wikilover90: are you sure this message is meant for me? Because I'm not Leoboudv :). Natuur12 (talk) 14:48, 14 January 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Natuur12! Forgive me for my most embarrassing act yet in Wiki journey! This message is indeed meant for you. I am so sorry for my mistake. We are looking for a board of Jury and we would love to you as one of our International Jury members. Do let me know. Once again, apologies and best regards!Wikilover90 (talk) 14:55, 14 January 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hey Wikilover90,
No worries :). Such mistakes are easely made. I would love to help! Natuur12 (talk) 21:39, 15 January 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you Natuur12! I will add your username to our Jury. We will be forwarding the pre-selected photos in the mid-March for final judging for the Jury. Lots of love from WLL Team! Wikilover90 (talk) 06:04, 16 January 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Creating Beta Commons Test User

Hi Natuur12. Lotje suggested I contact you about blocking two users (User:AndroidTesterNoMedia, User:AndroidTesterMedia) from accessing pages in the Special namespace on Beta Commons.

This is so these accounts be safely used as test accounts for automated tests to help develop the Android app into something more stable.

There's also discussion which explains more details on:

domdomegg (talk) 22:05, 23 January 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dear domdomegg,
I'm afraid that I don't see an option in the drop down menu to block a user from accessing the special namespace. I can block the accounts from editing every possible namespace but not the special namespace. Natuur12 (talk) 22:19, 23 January 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Vraag over afbeeldingsgeschiedenis

Hi,

Ik hoop dat je nog actief ben hier! Je had me in het verleden al een keer geholpen met een andere foto. Het gaat om de afbeeldingsgeschiedenis. Ik heb op 16 december de juiste versie van een afbeelding geupload, die nu ook als "current" staat. Daar hoeft verder niets aan te gebeuren, die is goed. Maar daarvoor had ik 4x een verkeerde versie van diezelfde foto geupload door onkunde. Nu ben ik bang dat iemand in de toekomst op "revert" gaat drukken en dat dan een van die verkeerde versies gebruikt gaan worden. Zou je die 4 ongebruikte versies kunnen wissen? (dus die van 13 december, 22 november en 27 augustus)

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Sander_Jan_Klerk_at_premiere_The_Happytime_Murders.jpg

Dat zou geweldig zijn. Alvast bedankt! Mvg, GvWinkelhof (talk) 15:20, 7 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Beste GvWinkelhof,
Ik heb de oude (verkeerde) versies verwijderd. Natuur12 (talk) 17:37, 7 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Enorm bedankt voor je hulp! Fijn weekend. Ik zie net dat ik het bij deze foto ook verkeerd had gedaan: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Sander_Jan_Klerk_at_Paleis_Het_Loo_2016.jpg Als je tijd hebt zou je dan ook alleen die van 8 april 2017 17:06 willen laten staan? (current). Nogmaals bedankt en fijn weekend. GvWinkelhof (talk) 21:50, 7 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Beste GvWinkelhof,
Gedaan. Jij ook een fijn weekend toegewenst! Natuur12 (talk) 22:28, 7 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Dank je wel! GvWinkelhof (talk) 05:31, 8 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Niek sebens-1465071183.jpg

Commons-emblem-issue.svg
File:Niek sebens-1465071183.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!

217.103.165.137 22:48, 18 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Choudhary with Shri Pranab Mukherjee.jpg

Hi. As another user I suspect File:Choudhary with Shri Pranab Mukherjee.jpg is a recreation under COM:LL of File:Choudhary Rakesh Singh Chaturvedi with Shri Pranab Mukherjee, Former President of India.jpg. May you check this file? Thanks, --Patrick Rogel (talk) 13:17, 14 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hey Patrick Rogel,
They are exactly the same. I deleted the file and I'll warn the uploader. Natuur12 (talk) 16:25, 14 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You've got an email!

File:Gayle tufts 20071130.jpg

Why the deletion? Now Commons caters to the needs and wishes of PR of depicted persons. And what about the fact that the file was in scope, had zero personality rights problems?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Tm (talk • contribs)

Dear Tm,
com:IDENT states the following: The subject, photographer, or uploader of an image may request that it be removed from Commons. The reasons for removal may include such things as "It causes embarrassment" or "It was published without my consent", etc. Generally, images are not removed simply because the subject does not like them, but administrators are normally sympathetic to removal requests if good reasons can be given. In any case you may address a removal request through the normal public review process of a deletion request. If discretion is required, a deletion request explaining this may also be sent privately through Commons:Contact us/Problems.
The DR states: I doubt it's the ethical choice to prioritize this over our empathy for a person who changed her body through hard work and would like to see this reflected in her online presence.
The reason provided for the deletion request matches one of the reasons mentioned in our policy regarding media about living persons. Namely, embarrassment. And we have a replacement: File:2018-11-07-Gayle Tufts-Maischberger-1172.jpg. Natuur12 (talk) 16:01, 16 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Commons:Deletion_requests/File:WalterSchimana.jpg

Hi, could you please clarify the close? I provided a rationale; not sure what was unclear. --K.e.coffman (talk) 06:56, 17 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dear K.e.coffman,
You renominated the file basically using the same argument as before. Ruthven already ruled in September 2018 that those arguments aren't sufficient to warrant deletion. That's the only reason why the file is kept. Every closed DR states: if the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted. after all. And the circumstances aren't notably changed. Natuur12 (talk) 11:58, 17 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Méduse1819

License tags still need to be fixed. Same for Commons:Deletion requests/File:Павел Россиев "На севере диком" книга 1904 год pdf.pdf. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 17:17, 15 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, feel free to update the relevant pages. Natuur12 (talk) 17:24, 15 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This should be done before or at time of deletion request closure. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 18:44, 15 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@EugeneZelenko perhaps I missed a policy update but could you please point out which policy states that the license info needs to be updated by the closing admin? Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to be lazy but you can't nominate dozens of historical files which have wrong license info because someone made a newbie mistake and then expecting the closing admin to do all the work. Natuur12 (talk) 16:04, 16 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Problem with license tags were stated in both reasons. If it was not fixed, why deletion requests were closed? --EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:22, 17 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@EugeneZelenko: Because the files are not copyright violations and there aren't any scope issue's either. For wrong license tags we have {{Wrong license}}. Anyone can add this template. For another example of using this template after a DR was closed as kept, see here. Natuur12 (talk) 16:44, 17 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
At least in ex-USSR countries authors have right for name forever. So claiming own work over other person work is copyrights violation. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:18, 18 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@EugeneZelenko: And your point is? File:Павел Россиев "На севере диком" книга 1904 год pdf.pdf already had the correct author information and the other files are most likely Canadian. If you're so worried about the license info. Feel free to update the info yourself. I'm not going to resolve your issue when you are perfectly capable of resolving it yourself. Either provide that policy quote I asked for or consider this discussion over. Natuur12 (talk) 17:18, 18 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Please read first statement in this section. Administrator who closes deletion request is responsible to verify that issues (by the word, Commons:Licensing#License information) fixed or fix them himself/herself. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:23, 19 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@EugeneZelenko The English version doesn't mention "Administrator who closes deletion request is responsible to verify that issues". I'm not arguing that the license and author info shouldn't be fixed but when it's not fixed it doesn't necessarily follow that a file should either be deleted or the admin who closes a DR should fix the license info. I'm done discussing this issue. Natuur12 (talk) 15:59, 19 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Incendie Notre Dame de Paris.jpg

I have a new version of the file (straight and tonal correction), can you please briefly unlock? Similar to File:Notre Dame on fire 15042019-1.jpg --Ralf Roletschek 20:00, 15 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Ralf Roletschek: I can't help you with that I'm afraid. I already reduced my protection but File:Incendie Notre Dame de Paris.jpg is also cascade protected and that's something I can't undo. The only solution would be if an administrator uploads the file. (I'm currently in the middle of something and therefor can't do it). Natuur12 (talk) 20:16, 15 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ok, i have upload it with another name. Can you insert the other version File:Incendie Notre Dame de Paris-2.jpg, the file is to me totaly protected. --Ralf Roletschek 20:20, 15 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Ralf Roletschek: the file merge is done. Natuur12 (talk) 21:36, 15 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Deletion of Notre Dame

You deleted the Notre Dame video because it was "from Twitter" but it is my understanding that it was from Youtube under a CC license, if you check the provenance information. Can you clarify? @Ainali: Link for deletion: [5] -- Fuzheado (talk) 19:04, 15 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The source is here, still with a CC BY 3.0 license. Ainali (talk) 19:06, 15 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Dear Fuzheado and Ainali,
As explained in the deletion summary. This is a blatant case off license laundering. The YouTuber took the video from Flickr and uploaded it too his own YouTube account. The YouTuber is from Bangladesh and hasn't ever uploaded own work. Two hours before uploading the Notre Dame video he uploaded another video, clearly not shot in Paris. Plus, the date of the original tweet predates the upload date at YouTube. Please pay a bit more attention when uploading high profile pictures/video's/screenshots of current events. Natuur12 (talk) 19:10, 15 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ah, I was to naïve this time. Thanks for keeping your eyes open! Ainali (talk) 22:22, 16 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Pending Confirmation for File:Sirio berati foto portret.jpg

Hello, https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Sirio_berati_foto_portret.jpg is till pending confirmation after 15 days. The licence can be found on https://sirioberati.com/licence— Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:|]] ([[User talk:|talk]] • contribs)

Hi Andinano12,
I also did a license review for this file. Someone from volunteer email response team will have a look at the rest after they worked their way through the backlog. Natuur12 (talk) 17:48, 16 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Deletions

Re these deletions, I have been in contact with someone from Wild Republic to see if the tiger mascot was their product and see if they would be willing to release the copyright for one or more specific images. They thought the mascot looked like CK Tiger Cub (item # 19372), copyrighted in 2016 for the 2017 Model Year, Registration Number: VAu 1-255-178, however they thought it was hard to tell because of the mascot's t-shirt. I believe most of the files of this mascot have already been deleted, but they would want to see the images and the context they are being used before providing an OTRS ticket. I'm not sure of all of the images, but I think two of them were File:Wikimania 2017 - Building a Better Dispute Resolution System 7490.jpg and File:Purrrrrcy_Head_Tiger_Legal_Team.jpg What is the best way forward with this? Best, Avery Jensen (talk) 23:36, 8 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dear Avery Jensen,
There's a picture of the tiger here. (Same picture as Purrrrrcy Head Tiger Legal Team.jpg). This one won't be deleted because the WMf can host fair use files at their own non community website whilst Wikimedia Commons cannot. Perhaps an online picture will come in handy. I noticed that you listed your email address at your user page. If you want I can check the deleted files and mail them or share them via Wetransfer. Whatever works for you. Regards. Natuur12 (talk) 17:51, 9 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Much appreciated. Yes, please send. Avery Jensen (talk) 17:11, 10 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Avery Jensen you got mail. Natuur12 (talk) 16:15, 11 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you, but there was some difficulty with the email, could you try again? Avery Jensen (talk) 18:53, 11 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Avery Jensen: are you able too open zip-files? Natuur12 (talk) 18:55, 11 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I suppose so. I think you can just right-click and it should open by itself. It is not for me though, it will be passed on. I don't know what size files I can email, I had problems with this before. If I have problems forwarding the email, I suppose I can put it in a google-doc and email the link. Just to be clear, the files are
  • File:Wikimania 2017 - Building a Better Dispute Resolution System 7490.jpg
  • File:Wikimania 2017 - Building a Better Dispute Resolution System 7491.jpg
  • File:Wikimania 2017 - Building a Better Dispute Resolution System 7492.jpg
  • File:Purrrrrcy Head Tiger Legal Team.jpg
Avery Jensen (talk) 00:44, 13 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Avery Jensen: I send them again. This time using wetransfer. Natuur12 (talk) 14:27, 13 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you, I received them and passed them on to Wild Republic/ K&M International, Inc. Unfortunately, after discussion with their legal reps, they decided that they do not want to give permissions. Thank you anyway for all your efforts. If someone wants a copy for their personal use, I think I made all or most of the images PD before they were deleted, or I would also be happy to send them a copy. Thank you again. Avery Jensen (talk) 03:10, 26 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi I noticed you reverted my edits to Nur-Sultan images

Hi I noticed you reverted my edits to Nur-Sultan articles. On the Wikipedia article about the city on English Wikipedia the page has been moved and all categories associated with the city have been moved to the new name. Other Wikiprojects are following suit. I am merely updating manually the categories on wiki-commons. If you dispute my actions, please give reasons. Best.Resnjari (talk) 16:00, 17 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dear Resnjari,
I already provided a reason for my actions but I'll happily clarify my reasoning further. The reason why your rename requests are rejected is that your requests don't meet one of the criteria mentioned at Commons:File renaming. The reason you provided doesn't apply. The photographs aren't part of a set as defined in the file renaming guideline. When a city changes its name that's not a reason to rename hundreds of files. Regards. Natuur12 (talk) 16:06, 17 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Still that does not preclude changing the name of pictures either. I could place my own reason, i.e name change but that would take more work. I am changing the image name because most are generic and of landmarks etc. Not all people know of Kazakhstan, yet alone the names of the cities. My changes are done so editors are able to identify the images.Resnjari (talk) 16:11, 17 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Resnjari: Could you please elaborate which reason mentioned in the rename policy applies? Natuur12 (talk) 16:12, 17 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Maybe i picked the wrong option first with 4 -i thought the "harmonize the names of a set of images" was the way to go. However @Option 3 would be the one regarding obvious errors. The city is no longer known as Astana. In the additional option Additional explanation / reason / justification is where i would have to write update name or something like when making the request, but that would take to much time for each image. The Nur-Sultan name has been applied to all its categories already in Wiki commons. There is nothing uncontroversial in updating file names of cities where contemporary landmarks are located. Obviously i am not touching things in the city that still have Astana in its name like sports teams and some landmarks like the opera house etc as the changes to those are not applicable.Resnjari (talk) 16:23, 17 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Resnjari: the guideline pretty much explains what is meant with "obvious error". It's either misidentified (not outdated), a wrong noun, a wrong date or a spelling error. Based on this there is little reason to assume that outdated is also covered by criteria 4. We don't rename all pictures which refer to Macedonia to North Macedonia either. Natuur12 (talk) 16:49, 17 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
But wait hold on, some of my file renamings regarding Nur-Sultan were passed by an admin, only correcting my option to number 3 [6] while still keeping option 4. So that would mean that there is nothing precluding the renaming of image names to update them? Regarding Macedonia, its has its own unique can of worms and has always been such on Wikipedia. I know. I was involved in the recent MOSMAC process on redrafting guidelines. No other part of Wikipedia has such topic specific guidelines. Those circumstances are not applicable here. The Kazakh capital city's name was not disputed internationally, there have not been edit wars over its name on Wiki etc. I am merely updating image names.Resnjari (talk) 17:03, 17 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Resnjari: A discussion only has merit if someone makes an effort to avoid the excessive use of fallacy's. You are wrongly using an argumentum ab auctoritate, using several non sequitur, avoiding my main point and are creating an alphabet soup. MOSMAC is some niche en-wiki jargon. And obviously your conclusions don't add up. Regarding Macedonia: my point is that a rename doesn't equal file rename.
Some renames are accepted but that doesn't mean that the renames are valid. You still haven't provided a valid reasoning based on our guideline for your renames. If a guideline isn't suitable for a situation you require consensus. Natuur12 (talk) 17:24, 17 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hold on, using Macedonia is a strawman. I say this not in disrespect but because one admin accepted my reasons for a name change via option 4 and added option 3. This is what the admin wrote: [7] "Criterion 4 (harmonizing names of file set) + Criterion 3 See w:Nur-Sultan naming "previously Astana".)" This is exactly my rationale too as per my comments for updating the file names. I have not stated otherwise nor is it my intent to do so. I should also note i as an editor are not given the option of picking two options when nominating a image file for renaming, while the admin who did it appears can do so with the tools available to them. So most editors are also limited in that respect in picking one option or the other. As both you and a fellow admin colleague were on at the same time, now there is a bit of a conundrum because there are image sets [8] where half the file names have been renamed because one admin got to them and accepted them first, while a whole host of others on the same file set did not go though because you rejected them and some wher rejected by that editor. What is the consistency here? If you say its about the wrong reasoning or option, i can renominate all the file names using the option the other admin gave for the images.Resnjari (talk) 17:44, 17 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Anyway i doubt images will get updated. Never mind.Resnjari (talk) 17:55, 17 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
(after edit conflict) @Resnjari: Again, you haven't demonstrated that your requested renames are supported by our guidelines. Unfortunately it often happens that files are unjustifiably renamed. And when that happens there can be inconsistency. But that doesn't necessarily mean that there is a problem. There is no reason why the old and new variant can't be both used at the same time. Common isn't a place where we harmonize for the sake of harmonizing after all. (Btw, an analogy and a strawman are different). I already explained the proper steps to take. Natuur12 (talk) 17:56, 17 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I know what an analogy and a strawman are and their differences. The Macedonia thing has been used ad nausuem to make strawman arguments before on Wikipedia. The Macedonia case has been treated differently over there because of its contested and screwed up nature due to nationalism and other Balkan insanity. That's why the name wars via wiki editing required specific enforced guidelines by the wider project which other topic areas have not had. I am not going to go into it here as that was not the purpose for what this thread was about in the first place and i am not going to treat your talkpage as a forum. I guess wikicommons works differently from the main Wikipedia project. Its a shame because i was willing to update the file images and its Wikicommon's loss, not mine. Its editors who will have a poorer experience as not all are familiar with obscure topic areas like Kazakhstan and finding images wont be so easy when official and uncontested changes like this happen.Resnjari (talk) 18:06, 17 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

RFA Support

Hi. Since I cannot edit on Commons:Administrators/Requests/Fitindia anymore, I wanted to thank you for your support on my recent successful RFA, Your trust and faith in my candidature is much appreciated and I could not have done it without your support. Warm regards FitIndia Talk Mail 15:00, 5 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:張志軍於馬習會後召開記者會.jpg

Hi Natuur12, some time ago, you had restored (or decided Keep) this image, based on a collective DR. Now it is again requested for deletion for being a screenshot. The latter seems justified, as a TV logo is visible in the left upper corner. In addition, recently we had to delete a number of images from VoA, as they obviously don't care too much about copyright. Would you like to voice your opinion? --Túrelio (talk) 10:58, 7 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Túrelio,
I believe the file should be deleted. The logo indeed indicates that this isn't an original work by VOA. And since we have plenty of backlog we can't trifle over yet another VOA-file. Regards, Natuur12 (talk) 17:11, 7 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • . Symbol support vote.svg Support.
@Minorax:  :@Majora: merry Christmas, best wishes for future. From INC — Preceding unsigned comment added by YrcRevenI (talk • contribs) 13:40, 25 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Deleted photo

Hello, a while ago you have deleted a photo which I've created myself. It was taken from a music score of Mozart. Please reverse. Thanks, Jab-jab (talk) 06:24, 4 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks

Thank you for handling the rights request. I also filed a request at License review, but it looks like that has a minimum length before it can be processed.

The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 21:43, 19 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@The Squirrel Conspiracy: You're welcome. There is indeed a minimum length for the LR flag, but I don't doubt that someone will grant the flag soon :). Natuur12 (talk) 21:46, 19 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Not a problem. The files I spotted that prompted the request aren't going anywhere in the next 48-72 hours. :) The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 21:50, 19 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Block for a whistleblower?

Dear Natuur12,

Looking back i think you will agree that the block you gave me for telling the truth was unproductive and worse. Many decisions are made on Commons on a daily basis by a lot of volunteers with some measure of power, which tends to corrupt or at least cause problems in the hands of inexperienced people. Statistically, at least a few % of those decisions will be mistaken and sometimes even downright evil in their consequences. User:Krd prompted me to be specific, I warned people would resent. Then you blocked me while you could rightly consider me a whistleblower: i want to improve Commons and defend it against abuse of power. You could know or infer that i just told the simple truth (perhaps you can even read the ticket in Dutch for the Van Achterberg Collection, so you can see for yourself).

Well, let's do better next time, Hansmuller (talk) 12:42, 2 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dear Hansmuller,
I'm going to give you a final warning. If you continue your abusive behavior, I will block your account for a much longer duration. You keep slandering the two OTRS-volunteers you disagree with, even now. There is no tolerance at Wikimedia Commons for abusing other users. Drop the stick, and walk away. Regards. Natuur12 (talk) 18:54, 2 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I will use the option User:Krd suggested anyway, seems OK? Hansmuller (talk) 15:55, 7 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, that's okay. Natuur12 (talk) 16:50, 7 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

My Pattypan blocked?

Dear Nature12,

Is my use of Pattypan blocked? I get the message "Aanmelden mislukt" (Login failed), but can use UploadWizard, but you know this is of little help for uploading more than a few files. So perhaps there might still be a specific block for my using Pattypan? Or is this paranoia? Thanks, Hansmuller (talk) 15:59, 7 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dear Hansmuller,
It's for me, as an administrator not possible to prevent someone from using Pattypan. It is more likely that this is some kind of technical glitch, rather than a specific block. Regards. Natuur12 (talk) 16:50, 7 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Bollywood Humgana

I tried that about a year ago, it didn't go very far: Commons:Village_pump/Copyright/Archive/2019/08#Bollywood_Hungama. If you've got any ideas short of getting BH to send in a new ticket invalidating the old one (since, iirc, that didn't work either), I'm all ears. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 00:35, 1 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hey AntiCompositeNumber,
Seems that not a lot of people care, which is bad. Bollywood reminds me a bit of {{Indian navy}}. See here, here and here. Same dreadful ticket quality, huge amount of highly used files and a clear lack of interest.
Personally I doubt they will ever send us a proper ticket, therefor I would rather just stop accepting Bollywood Hungama files. For that, the appropriate steps would be a discussion at the OTRS notice board followed by a proposal at com:VPP. I'll see what I can come up with the next couple of days. Regards, Natuur12 (talk) 11:10, 2 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Opmerking

Dag Natuur12,

Misschien wel zo netjes als ik je over het volgende informeer:

Ik vermoed dat door 도성전 misbruik wordt gemaakt van sokpoppen. Het onderzoek vind je op deze pagina. De reden waarom ik je hierover informeer is omdat jij een van de betrokkenen bent. Ik hoop dat ik je voldoende geïnformeerd heb.

Nieuwsgierige Gebruiker OverlegCA 16:54, 1 November 2020 (UTC) (bericht is iets uitgebreid op 16:58, 1 November 2020 (UTC))Reply[reply]

@Nieuwsgierige Gebruiker: thanks voor de info! Natuur12 (talk) 17:05, 1 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please participate in the Universal Code of Conduct consultation on Wikimedia Commons!

Dear Natuur12

Thank you for your hard work to create the sum of all knowledge that is freely sharable to every single human being across the world. As our diverse community grows, we need a guideline that will help all of our work collectively and constructively where everyone feels safe, welcomed, and part of a team. That is why the Wikimedia movement is working on establishing a global guideline called the Universal Code of Conduct, often referred to as UCoC.

After the months-long policy consultation, we have prepared a policy (available in many languages) that has been ratified by the Board of Trustees. We’re currently in the second phase of the process. During this round of consultation, we want to discuss the implementation of this policy. As a member of the functionary team of Wikimedia Commons, your opinion on enforcement is of great value. We want to hear from you on how this policy can be enforced on the Wikimedia Commons community and what might be needed to do so. There are a few enforcement questions so you can easily outline your answers based on them. Please do not hesitate to bring any more questions/challenges you think are not yet discussed.

The discussion is taking place on Commons:Universal Code of Conduct consultation. You can also share your thoughts by replying to this message (Please ping me so I get notified), posting your message on my talk page. I am aware that some thoughts cannot be expressed publicly, so you can always share your opinion by emailing me as well.

As a valued member of the Commons community, please share your thoughts, ideas, and experiences that relate to UCoC. Let us know what needs to be improved so we can build a more friendly and cooperative space to increase editor engagement and retention of new users.

Wikimedia projects are governed by you. So, it is you who needs to step up to ensure a safe, comfortable, and pleasant working environment.

Let me know if you have any questions.

Thank you! Wikitanvir (WMF) (talk) 10:18, 5 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please take a short survey regarding UCoC

Hello Natuur12,

I would like to inform you that we now have a survey in place to take part in the UCoC consultation. It is not a long one and should take less than 10 minutes to complete. You can take the survey even if you have already participated in the on-wiki consultation. It has a different set of questions and allows you to participate anonymously and privately.

As a member of the Commons functionaries, your opinion is especially essential. Please click here to participate in the survey.

You are still welcome to participate in the on-wiki discussions. If you prefer you can have your say by sending me an email. You can also drop me an email if you want to have a one-to-one chat.

Thank you for your participation! Wikitanvir (WMF) 13:54, 12 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello can you restore the image ?

Hello ! My image of my paintings and drawing have been deleted by you. The art is my own can you undo the deletion of the images and restore the articles please ? Thank you :) Lucie https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Witch_Befana_painting_by_Lucie_Schrimpf.jpg

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Hobbit_lucie_schrimpf.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by Charliewendiga (talk • contribs) 16:40, 3 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • I realize it's not clear I am indeed the real author of this paintings and drawings so I created an account under my name, the adress email is confirmed hope it will help to certify my identity : Lucie Schrimpf User:Lucie_Schrimpf
  • I'm afraid that I can't validate your e-mailadres. Wikimedia Commons (and Wikipedia) is a community based project. Volunteers don't have acces to any account details like e-mailadresses. However, there is a procedure for validating your identity in cases such as this. You can follow the steps listed at Commons:Wikimedia OTRS release generator. This wizard provides instructions for validating that you are the copyright holder. The wizard results in a template which can be mailed to the volunteer response team. IF you do, you should get an automated reply providing you with the ticket number. If you provide me the ticket number I can undelete the files. If you don't, the files will likely still be undeleted eventually, however the mail ends up at the back of the queue. Kind regards, Natuur12 (talk) 19:36, 3 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • It's done Natuur12 ! Thank you so much for your help ! Will know better in the future ;) [Ticket#2021050310009446] Lucie Schrimpf, 3 May 2021
The files are restored. Kind regards, Natuur12 (talk) 20:10, 3 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you Natuur12 ! But it seems other moderator deleted the articles again and I don't understand why... --Charliewendiga (talk) 22:24, 3 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dear,
My apologies for the late response. The files are still present at Wikimedia Commons but another editor at Wikipedia didn't wish to see them included in the Wikipedia articles. There's little I can do about that since every projec decides for them self if they want to use a file or not. King regards, Natuur12 (talk) 16:50, 6 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]