User talk:Pieter Kuiper/Archive2010a

Archives: 2008 | 2009 | 2010a| 2010b

Copyvio issue

Hi. It's obvious that a cut-out from this image is used in Holger's map. I can't see any indication on Stockholmarenan's website that it should be free to use. All I see is "Copyright Stockholmsarenan AB" at the bottom of the page. It's a clear case of copyvio and it should be deleted. Cheers Tooga (talk) 20:12, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

That little thing even I could make a drawing of. De minimis, or not even eligible. Please make a DR if you disagree. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:18, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Blocked

Good morning Pieter. I'm afraid assume good faith only works up to a point. It is impossible to believe that this nomination was made in good faith, particularly in the context of recent edits. This is a clearly a controversial image as you must understand, and it is an image you must have been aware of for some time, it is hard to see therefore why you'd suddenly decide to nominate it. I had, naively, thought that you might actually consider it appropriate to have this image as part of your recent discussion with Mbz1 but this nomination leaves me feeling it was perhaps just to harass her.

When the block expires, you must try to be more considerate of other members of the Commons community. This is a collaborative project and it only works when users are able to behave civilly towards each other. Regards. Adambro (talk) 11:10, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

In Commons:Featured picture candidates#Guidelines for nominators it says under "Notable in its own right" that subjects of controversy are featurable. Apparently, that is not really true. So please change that text into: "If you nominate a controversial image that annoys the Office, you may get blocked." /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 12:56, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
It is your attitude and rationale behind such nominations that is the issue. You seek to provoke and cause controversy, as such you are, in my opinion, a disruptive user of Commons. --Herby talk thyme 13:06, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
I really think this image deserves to be featured. More than most of the pretty pictures that get the distinction.
Constantly I am the object of personal attacks, yet the administration does not do anything about it. It was Mbz1 who approached me on my talk page about the Latuff image. You can see here what happened then. I calmly removed her personal attack, yet she reintroduced it. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 13:24, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
You certainly do most things "calmly" however, again in my opinion, with the intention of provoking others and then maintaining how innocent you are and how others attacked you.
It does now seem as though the evidence is stacking up however. Maybe others start to see your behaviour for what it is. --Herby talk thyme 13:28, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
Comment for reviewing admin. Pieter wasn't blocked because his nomination didn't meet the FP guidelines, he was blocked because of the context in which that nomination was made. Adambro (talk) 16:54, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
For context of Adambro's measure, see especially this statement by a guy at the Office. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 17:09, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure what the point you are trying to make is. The comment from Bastique results from my hesitance to deal with a complaint about your edits because I was trying to assume good faith and protect your archive talk page from being altered. I perhaps naively thought you might be grateful for my efforts. Adambro (talk) 17:17, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
(ec) Indeed it may well be worth the reviewing admin taking a look at Cary's comments and views on this (the guy at the office). They may also care to look at mine above and of course consider the rather long history that this user has of being around when others are accused of being disruptive while always be innocent himself. --Herby talk thyme 17:19, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
A year ago, for example, see here - to the hounds. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:18, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
• Please note that whilst you are blocked, your user page exists to allow you to discuss unblocking, not for you to use it to commentate on ongoing discussions. For the remainder of the block duration, you won't be able to edit your talk page. Adambro (talk) 08:44, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
• I received a kind email from someone to review Pieter's block, given that this was a situation which was escalated by both parties. I've taken that under consideration and would argue for the unblock; and yet Pieter's attitude in this situation--failure to acknowledge his own wrongdoing while blaming other people for his actions lead me to question whether this is a wise decision. I believe that good faith can still be established as long as Pieter gets over his insinuations that some grand conspiracy is against him and acknowleges that this is a collaborative environment in which he has to learn to work with people with divergent opinions from his own. While he's disruptive and has a habit of antagonizing certain editors, he's certainly not important enough to merit a conspiracy. Linking other people's comments out of context will not help his cause any one bit. Bastique demandez 18:36, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
• Well, Adambro blocked me from my talk page, so I hope it will not be held against me that I am evading a block here in order to respond publicly.
I am not insinuating a grand conspiracy. But it is clear that Mbz1 did call the Office. And you contacted Adambro. After which burocrat Lar tells Adambro that he had warned him. After which Adambro blocks me without any basis in COM:BLOCK for the FP of a political cartoon (nominated later than the Streicher-like antisemitism in this nomination). After which same burocrat Lar endorses the block. Next time someone calls about perceived provocations, tell them that in an international environment one has to deal with divergent views. It would reduce the drama. /Pieter Kuiper
Whoever contacted who about what the fact remains that Commons has to have users who work collaboratively for the project to work and that is the issue.
You have some useful contributions on the project. However you also seem to exhibit similar traits to people such as Mutter Erde and Juiced Lemon - the inability to work collaboratively. It would be good to think that you might look at this in the future and, whether you feel you are right or wrong, work collaboratively. Sadly if you do not I forsee other outcomes. --Herby talk thyme 15:37, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
Herby has it right. If there's reason to believe that you're going to change your approach, Pieter, I'd be inclined to unblock early... but I'm not seeing it yet. I'll be around and listening. I'd rather have you participating here, collegially, than not participating at all. But those are the choices. ++Lar: t/c 18:37, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Categorisation

Theres no indication the photo actally is showing craniometry, thats only your own asumptions. It could be a photo of measuring a skull for any purposes, archology, medicin, art or so on. It doesn´t have to be craniometry just becasuse you think so. Since it´s a "science" linked to the nazi-era, any photo showing people involved in what is categorised as craniometry has to be properly verified. Because of the absense of that verifying, I suppose this was just another way of starting jet another stupid fight, and erase the category.--Godfellow (talk) 14:06, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

The subject of this photo is taking measurements of a skull. That is craniometry, and that is why it belongs in category:Craniometry. The subject was rather fashionable at the time in Sweden, see the 1918 article in Nordisk Familjebok by en:Gustaf Retzius. I do not understand why you are complaining. Proper categorization of the photo that you uploaded will only give it better exposure. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 14:58, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
Don´t act innocent. You´re not interested in articles related to photografers otherwise, this interest comes from your conflict with me. You´ve seems to forget it was not me who blocked you from sv:wp, I just asked for an IP-check and explained that was for protecting you and sv:WP from users acting in your name.
"English: Craniometry refers to the measurement of the skull for anthropological purposes". Since theres no proof the photo actually shows a course (why should a course take place in a private studyroom?) in measuring a skull for anthropological purposes, it´s not right to describe it so. The only thing known about the photo is the year, the persons in it, Lärka and Öhman, and the place, Brunnsvik.
Yes, craniometry was fashionable at the time, both in Sweden and elsewere in Europe. But subjects as medicine, archeology and art was not unfashionable. It is known that Karl Lärka was interested in both art and archelogy. With very little fact, we can just say it´s a photo of the students and at Bommersvik, nothing else.--Godfellow (talk) 21:35, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
My interests have a wide range. I am interested in Swedish photographers, like Carl Curman and Henry B. Goodwin. I am also interested in the history of Swedish race biology, a subject that many Swedes seem to prefer to forget. At the time, archeology was intimately linked with race biology. Archeologists tried to determine cephalic indices of large numbers of skulls. This is a photo of two pupils measuring a skull. Obviously, it is a practical exercise during some educational program. They were learning how to make measurents according to the science of the day. (Now archeologists turn to DNA instead.)
I am not blocked on svwp. I was blocked for one day, two months ago, because user:Dcastor would not let me remove your comments from my talk page. Then I left. Why are you coming to pick a fight here, just now, in the week that I am blocked? Afterall, it was almost two years ago that I categorized your upload. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:03, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
I didn´t say you´re blocked for the moment, I referred to one of the conflicts you´ve had with me. I´m trying to get better licensing-texts on the Lärka-photos, thats the reason I was looking at the photo and noticided the odd categorisation, I´m almost never at Commons otherwise.
My conclusion stands, it was a wrongly done categorisation. To measure a skull in the purpose to learn something else than eugenics is not categorised as craniology. And since we do not know of why the students are studing the skull, it´s impossible to categorise the phot the way you did.--Godfellow (talk) 22:50, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Disposable is not permanent

I now see that Avi undeleted File:PikiWiki Israel 3577 Ramat-Gan City.JPG, just because Deror avi quoted Presenti about ice sculptures. But the quote by Presenti would apply equally well to other countries, see Commons:Freedom of panorama#Permanent vs temporary. In Germany, courts have said that the Christo packing of the Reichstag was not permanent. Election posters are not permanent. Similar things in the UK and Commonwealth countries, but there FOP does not apply to 2D things like posters, so the issue does not come up as often. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 07:41, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Volume of Latuff images

Your comments are requested at Commons:Village pump#Latuff repository. Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 07:23, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I am not in the mood. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:38, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry that you are not in the mood, but as you are someone who has opined much in the past on Latuff and his place in the Commons, it would not be right for me not to request your opinion. -- Avi (talk) 20:19, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

File:Stalin'schildren.JPG

Hi! Of course we both know that "source is Stalin" is by no means a reason for removing an NSD. What really disturbs me is that you think finding an image somewhere on the internet legitimates its upload on Commons. --Noddy93 (talk) 20:23, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

For this kind of images, one may want to have a source to certify that the image is authentic, and not a scene from a film with actors or something like that. The source that I gave by en:Simon Sebag-Montefiore should be a good guarantee for that. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:29, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
Despite of the need of a source to verify the authenticity (which was not provided at the time you reverted the NSD), a valid source has to clarify why an image is PD and thus is eligible for being uploaded on Commons. Sorry, I don't get what Simon Sebag-Montefiore has to do with this case. --Noddy93 (talk) 20:52, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

As an aside, the original EnWiki upload was deemed incorrect, as the applied tag was later deemed invalid. Please see the link I brought at the deletion page. Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 20:55, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Better source request for Image:Jan Willem Kelder.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Jan Willem Kelder.jpg. You provided a source, but it is difficult for other users to examine the copyright status of the image because the source is incomplete. Please consider clarifying the exact source so that the copyright status may be checked more easily. It is best to specify the exact web page where you found the image, rather than only giving the source domain or the URL of the image file itself. Please update the image description with a URL that will be more helpful to other users in determining the copyright status.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source in a complete manner. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. If you have any questions please ask them at the help desk or me at my talkpage. Thank you. High Contrast (talk) 21:35, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Look at the {{ID-USMil}}... /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:39, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

This edit was not in accordance with the consensus on the Commons talk page. Furthermore, it is an edit that seemingly is being made to protest the fact that the consensus opinion was against you. You have a history of making similar edits which has seen your edit privileges revoked for disruption and inability to edit in accordance with accepted commons norms. Please refrain from doing so in the future, or measures may need to be taken to protect the project. Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 22:25, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

But it is true. Kameraad Pjotr 22:31, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
That is solely your opinion, Pjotr, not consensus of the commons. -- Avi (talk) 22:33, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
See my message on Commons talk:Freedom of panorama#Version by Avi/Avraham. (Aren't you a bit hyperactive today?) /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:38, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
The et al refers to Greenman, but Presenti alone is sufficient--she has the gravitas and acceptance in the Israeli courts. And yes, there are days where I can spend more time online . -- Avi (talk) 22:42, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
Greenman does not say anything about FoP that goes beyond the law. And I would be surprised if Israeli courts would blindly rely on Presenti, without reading the law for themselves. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 23:13, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
Yes, you mentioned that all in the discussion, and still the commons consensus understanding was for the Presenti position. -- Avi (talk) 23:15, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Pieter, if you disagree with the consensus position feel free to discuss appropriately. However, please do not make edits such as this and this are they are not productive. Your version of the text in both cases is not useful as irrespective of your view on the point (Israeli FOP in that instance) the tone is inappropriate to a project page, I'd interpret further edits of that type as disruption. Also, I'd point out you need to find new information if you want to generate productive discussion. Rehashing the same info that has already been presented will not acheive anything.--Nilfanion (talk) 00:35, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Your summary: "it is unreasonable to assert that Dr Presenti doesn't give her reasoning in her book" is plain weird. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 00:43, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
I've mentioned "collaborative" working to you a time or two now. What is said by Nilfanion above is reasonable. You seemed determined to maintain your patterns of behaviour which really are not collaborative but are far more combative.
I also mentioned Mutte Erde and Juiced Lemon to you. I really dislike it when productive editors are banned from Commons. The community here have always been reluctant to impose such sanctions and rightly so. However I do think you should be aware that I will consider seeking such sanctions if your behaviour continues. --Herby talk thyme 09:41, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
You have strange standards of what is reasonable. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 10:07, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
Maybe my statement on CT:FOP is unreasonable in your opinion. However, if you consider my message unreasonable - asking you to discuss the matter, warning you not to make edits such as the ones I highlighted and urging you to find actual new information - then there is something wrong here.--Nilfanion (talk) 10:45, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
For the information that I found, see User:Pieter Kuiper/Freedom of Panorama in Israel. Your deciding commons policy on copyright by straw polls is not the way such things are done usually on commons. You are even linking to this "consensus" - strange. You called consensus although few of the regulars on such subjects had given their opinion. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 11:01, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

File:Nagasaki emergency relief.jpg

 File:Nagasaki emergency relief.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Categorisation of Latuff related images

This is a request to those who, looking at page histories, seem most active in changing the categories of Latuff related images. As per my comments here, I must encourage you all to participate in discussions to arrive at a consensus as to appropriate categorisation instead of changing the categories without consensus.

The constant changing of the categorisation of File:Latuff nazi camp 2.png has necessitated its protection from editing. This is an invitation to properly discuss this on the talk page, not to find another Latuff related image and continue to edit war regarding that image's categories.

If the constant changing of categories continues then I will be compelled to take further action to reduce the disruptive nature of this by considering the protection of further pages or blocking of users involved, all of whom are experienced enough to understand why edit warring isn't constructive.

Please try, however difficult it may be, to engage in proper discussions with other members of the Commons community to find an acceptable categorisation to all. Adambro (talk) 13:32, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Just block Drork. As the talk page shows, he is quite impossible to reason with. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 13:34, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
Surely you have mean't that he should block you, since it is very clear that you learn't nothing from your recent block. I do hope that one day you will understand the horrors of the Holocaust and stop behaving like you are doing now. Kooritza (talk) 13:37, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
The Jewish Holocaust should not be used to silence users or opinions. Kameraad Pjotr 21:46, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

File:19 cnv.svg

Pieter Kuiper, thank you for your help with my request for delation of File:19 cnv.svg, but, even though I uploaded a new svg version, the problem I have, and can't solve, is that thing: "This image rendered as PNG in other sizes: 200px, 500px, 1000px, 2000px"...which makes proportions wrong in some illustrations. I have the same problem with files 21_cnv.svg and 23_cnv.svg, and that's why asked for daletion. Than you.--Banderas (talk) 21:02, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I am sorry for prematurely closing the DR. However, I do not see any problems with proportions (see below). I had a look at your source code, everything seems correct. I added the {{ValidSVG}} template. Maybe a problem with cached versions? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:17, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Unacceptable characterization

I find this to be an unacceptable characterization. Nilfanion is working very hard to try to get a solution that everyone will accept. You are not helping. Please discontinue making edits such as that one going forward, and contribute constructively. ++Lar: t/c 23:32, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

What do you think Dr. Presenti would think of Nilfanion's revert? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 23:37, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
No idea, and not a relevant question. ++Lar: t/c 00:29, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
Wrong priorities. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 00:35, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps we're not communicating clearly yet. Discontinue your attacks on other editors. ++Lar: t/c 00:56, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
Indeed. The priority here isn't updating FOP as soon as some information appears that suggests it might be necessary. The priority is to maintain a civil atmosphere so things can actually get done. We should wait a few days and see if Deror avi gets a response. That response might confirm exactly what you've been saying and so there may be no need to spend lots of time trying to convince Deror avi. FOP Israel needs sorting but there is no point rushing things. It is only of any value if it is respected in deletion requests and I doubt that at the moment. In a few days things might be clearer, not necessarily in your mind but perhaps in the minds of others. Adambro (talk) 01:03, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
As I said: wrong priority. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 01:05, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
In your view. Be that as it may, heed the warning you've been given. I'm not sure how to make it any clearer for you. You're a scientist, I suspect you are very clear on what you are being told. ++Lar: t/c 01:42, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

File:OA Äktenskaplig lycka.gif

This message was added automatically by Nikbot, if you need some help about it, ask its master (Filnik) or go to the Commons:Help desk. --Filnik 12:22, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

This file.....

About the age or source of this file, the uploader said: „old french postcard“ okay? And if this is an old french postcard and this is german artillery in France, so we have only two possibilities: the war of 1870/71 and the war of 1914/18. Because the german army didn't wear this type of uniforms in the field no longer as 1910/12 (even not in 1914) so it must be an paintig of the 19th century and sowith {{PD-old}}. The discription was incorrect, therefor I asked for renaming - but with little success. Sincerely, --Erwin Lindemann 14:00, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

For postcards, one would like to know what is on the adress side of the postcard: description, postal stamp giving the period, etcetera. For all we know this can be a 1960 postcard. There is a backlog in renaming; I removed some requests that did not seem well founded. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 14:06, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

What's about this postcard? The source is even „old Postcard“ and it can be from 1960 as well as the one above! --Erwin Lindemann 14:36, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

That does not seem very likely for Gruss von der Musterung marked with "gesetzlich geschützt", but who knows; other stuff exists; feel free to nominate for insufficient sourcing. Also, have a look at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Karte Gothia.jpg, a 1999 postcard of a 1906 drawing. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 14:50, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Timoshenko yulia

I don't remember to have created or modified File:Timoshenko yulia en 1.jpg. What it represented? --Aushulz (talk) 18:12, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I think you had just transferred it from enwp. It was a Ukrainian sculptor with a bare-breasted statue of the beautiful Yulia. Nice image, but not free. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:15, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
Ok, I remembered. User Rerter say that he is the author of the image and that Shmatko is his father, so he can grant the rights for the image. --Aushulz (talk) 23:42, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
This would need some proof, also for Commons:Deletion requests/File:Svyatogorskaya Blessed Virgin.png. The Timoshenko-photo was identical to http://www.kingofmarble-shmatko.com/picture/timoshenko_yulia_en_1.jpg where all rights were reserved. The solution is to put it on a free license on the web site, or to send an OTRS mail from the same domain. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 00:14, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I Shmatko Andrey and Shmatko Rafael we are authors of a site http://www.kingofmarble-shmatko.com/ On this site the photo is placed. We placed it in English, Ukrainian and English Wikipedia. You can take and place a photo with any Wikipedia(English, Ukrainian, English) on Italian Wikipedia. I to you allow to place a photo.

The author(foto Rafael Shmatko)

I can make to confirm from official mail? In everyone Wikimedia it is necessary to have the sanction? Is necessary a lot of time that it to make out. And the agreement between Wikimedia is not present? I allow to take a photo with English, Russian or Ukrainian Wikimedia. For what then the copyright?

--92.112.228.25 09:43, 13 January 2010 (UTC) --92.112.228.25 09:44, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi! You only need to send permission to one place. The address is permissions-commons@wikimedia.org, see Commons:OTRS/ru for an explanation in Russian. Note that a permission for use on wikipedia is not sufficient - commons will only host files that are free to use for anybody, for any purpose. I do not know if you are willing to give your work away like that.
The site http://www.kingofmarble-shmatko.com/news_in/news12.html has a copyright notice. It also says that you, Rafael, are the photographer, so you have the right to release the photo on a free license. You could make this very clear by writing on that web page that the photo is for example licensed as {{CC-BY-SA}}. Or that it is completely free, {{CC-0}}. Best regards, /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 10:05, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I have sent the letter on the sanction from official mail

Original Message -----

From: Арт галерея "Шматько и сыновья" / Art Gallery "Shmatko & sons" To: permissions-commons@wikimedia.org Sent: Tuesday, January 12, 2010 11:02 PM Subject: Permissions

To permissions-commonswikimedia.org

I hereby assert that I am the creator and/or sole owner of the exclusive copyright of WORK Timoshenko yulia en 1.jpg

I agree to publish that work under the free license GFDL from http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Choosing_a_license#Common_free_licenses — THIS DECLARATION IS NOT VALID UNLESS YOU FILL SOMETHING IN HERE ].

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

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

I am aware that the free license only concerns copyright, and I reserve the option to take action against anyone who uses this work in a libelous way, or in violation of personality rights, trademark restrictions, etc.

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

12.01.2010, Rafael Shmatko


Арт галерея "Шматько и сыновья" / Art gallery "Shmatko & sons" http://www.kingofmarble-shmatko.com Web Directory "All about a stone and for a stone" http://www.kingofmarble-shmatko.com/cncat_en/ Интернет каталог "Все о камне и для камня" http://www.kingofmarble-shmatko.com/cncat/

--92.112.246.52 10:34, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Very good. I expect that File:Timoshenko yulia en 1.jpg will be undeleted when the OTRS volunteers have processed your mail. It is a very good photo to have. Regards, /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 11:49, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Good afternoon! Excuse, please. When it will be solved our question? We wait week

--92.112.209.134 10:34, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

There probably is a queue (backlog) at the OTRS volunteers. As I am not one of them, I have no idea how it will take. As I said, the simplest way would be to write on your website that this is a free image. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:12, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Hej Pieter! Vad tror du om denna diskussion: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Stockholm miljöhuvudstad 2010.jpg? hälsningar --Holger.Ellgaard (talk) 15:01, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Ja, i princip och i teori skyddas den nog av upphovsrätt. Och eftersom det är teorier och principer som gäller på commons, kommer bilden nog att raderas. Lite synd, men inte så mycket att göra åt, och inte en så väldig stor förlust egentligen. Det finns en del viktigare svensk konst som i princip och i teori inte heller kan överleva på commons. Hälsningar. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 15:49, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
Tack för upplysningen. Hur liten (eller stor) del av bilden kan affischen var för att accepteras? --Holger.Ellgaard (talk) 16:11, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
Lite svårt att säga. File:Sverigehuset 2010a.jpg har inte dragit till sig uppmärksamhet än; den fokuserar inte på duken, som kan betraktas som för liten att bry sig om. Eller du kan beskära till sådant som inte är skyddat: text och (sam jag anser) Stockholms logga. Hälsningar, /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 17:08, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
Bra, tack. Annars har jag en bild på en ännu mindre affisch på Kulturhuset. Skam den som ger sig. Hälsningar --Holger.Ellgaard (talk) 17:33, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

File:Södra Station Gävle 1925.jpg

Hej Pieter! Har du lust och tid att titta på denna diskussion [1] angående upphovsrätt för bilden här ovan? Hälsningar --Holger.Ellgaard (talk) 18:08, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Jag ser att det mesta redan har sagts. Men se även sv:User:Wanpe/Foton med verkshöjd. Och har Wanpe slutat? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:03, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
Tack! Wanpe har "dragit ner" och here nu Yger. Hälsningar --Holger.Ellgaard (talk) 08:59, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Categorisation of Latuff related images, again

Pieter, how many times do I have to remind you that changing categories which are obviously controversial without discussion is unhelpful? Whilst it is my opinion that the discussion on the talk page doesn't show there is consensus to remove the particular category, that doesn't mean it is appropriate to simply revert the removal since history should tell us that it will probably just get changed again. The way to resolve this is through discussion, despite how difficult that may be. Adambro (talk) 22:50, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Look at the talk page. I tried to discuss. It's the single-issue contributers that are using their numbers to force the issue. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:54, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi. See this: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Ahtum_sermon01.png - I agreed not to upload maps over files uploaded by user:Mladifilozof, but here another user uploaded his map over my map version. Can you please deal with that? Thank you. Note that I was original author of "Ahtum_sermon01.png" map on English Wikipedia while user:Electionworld only moved it to commons and also note that another version of this file is already uploaded as separate file so there is no reason to upload it again over my map: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Realms_of_Ahtum_and_Sermon_in_the_11th_century.png PANONIAN (talk) 09:14, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Done - but it would have been better if you had tried to discuss on the talk page first, instead of requesting help from uninvolved parties. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 12:19, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
The issue was discussed already in English Wikipedia, but I now also provided on map discussion page a list of references that mention empire of Samuil as Macedonian Empire. The point is that I tried to make my map in NPOV way using both descriptions for empire of Samuil (Bulgarian and Macedonian) and both are used in various sources, but these two users obviously want to conduct censorship in this case and to eliminate presentation of Yugoslav-Macedonian point of view, due to modern political denials of the existence and history of Macedonian nation. PANONIAN (talk) 23:19, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Bulgarian To Macedonian?

Pardon me but http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File_talk:Ahtum_sermon01.png has "macedonian" added to it which is as unreal as claiming that Draconians from Alpha Centauri were responsible for the Renaissance. If such things can go into maps every unreal whether nationalist-based or ufologist-based or any other such claim would fill and flood the commons.Megistias (talk) 11:59, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
Whatever. The map is in use in wikipedia articles. Please take your accuracy dispute there. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 17:17, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
The original map was vandalized by PANONIAN adding "Macedonian" to the name of the Bulgarian Empire. I've reverted the change. You should look better before reverting a vandalized versions of maps. --StanProg (talk) 19:09, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
Your action is disruptive. You should refrain from describing a clarification as "vandalized version". But frankly, I do not give a damn about medieval Balkan disputes. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:18, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Carl Gustav Jung

Could you save this image? Thank you very much. --Viejo sabio (talk) 15:30, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Clearly an anonymous photo. The problem is to convince the copyright fundamentalists among the admins. Commons is a bit of a sect, where the fundos rule. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 17:29, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi

Stop editing my user category, there is no policy saying it has to be hidden. If you disagree, don't edit it, but do a poll to include it in the official policies. I'm not going to have a week long discussion with you for that, thanks. --Lilyu (talk) 21:31, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, read Commons:User-specific galleries, templates and categories policy; no need for a poll. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:10, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
I didn't saw the discussion on the talk page : whatever, dont edit the page, but rather participate to the discussion, thx. And the policies dont say it has to be hoidden, for me that's enought.--Lilyu (talk) 12:12, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
Please stop making nasty comments that you edit out a few minutes later. Think before you write accusations of "vandalism", etcetera. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:39, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Pieter, it would seem that you have been removing the files from the categories, and you have done that without conversation with the editor. Your actions on a multiple scale would seem to lack an element of natural justice. I also see that an admin has taken some level of action (rightly or wrongly which you have addressed to the admin noticeboard), and then you have continued with your actions. This would seem to express an attitude that assumes that you are right, and without obvious due consideration for the alternate view.

It would seem that your actions are not within the principle of how Commons operates in that a user can have a gallery of their files. So I would also propose that all the category removals be undone (either you can do them, or an admin can roll them back) to return matters to the status quo.

I understand your concerns about the category being hidden, and that this is an important concern for you, however, it doesn't make the removals acceptable without the consultation. Two wrongs don't make it right; and having people battling over something that would not appear to be breaking Commons, doesn't seem the way to progress. — billinghurst sDrewth 15:05, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I started discussing with the editor on Category talk:Images by Lilyu#Should be hidden. After the editor gave the go ahead for the removal of her name from the list of files in User talk:Lilyu/grr, I removed the category from those files. So I do not quite understand your comments here. I did not remove the category from other files where I feel the "by Lilyu" category is not appropriate (like cropping, or setting contrast levels). /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:46, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Rollback

Why? The deletion request was never logged, and the licenses are invalid. Nyttend (talk) 07:07, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

How interesting; I'll take care of it. Thanks for the clarification; I was surprised that someone had made such a silly mistake as overlooking the "not" in the permission template. I see the deletion nomination as irrelevant to tagging for no license — if there really had been a licensing issue as I thought there was, these easily would have qualified for deletion, and I don't see anything in Commons:Deletion policy that says that images at Deletion Requests can't be speedied. Nyttend (talk) 01:26, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
Sure, obvious cases can be speedied, and I am also doing that sometimes with duplicates or very obvious copyvios, in order to speed up the process. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 07:04, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
Could you help me add these to the current deletion log? I rarely nominate images for deletion, and when I do, I always use the "nominate for deletion" scripted windows feature, so I'm not sure how to add a page to a log manually. Nyttend (talk) 01:47, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
How to add them to the log manually is in the DR template; I did a dozen of them here (the diff does not show that I used the "subst" thing). It would be too much work to convert this to a mass DR now. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 07:04, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Deletion requests

Hello Pieter. I was wondering, why have you changed your rationales at DR to a standard  Keep for all nominations without an uploader notification? Not trying to enforce you to do something, but it would be more helpful to Commons if you would do some of these skipped steps yourself if you are really dedicating some time on checking, or at least going to the nominator's talk page personally or perhaps use  Comment (I believe your keeps will be disregarded?). Cheers, ZooFari 17:47, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Some nominators systematically omit notifying uploaders. Why should I do their work? (But sometimes I do it.) Nominators should notice my comment in their watchlists, and complete their DRs. And I am not voting "keep" when there is a clear reason to delete (like copyvio). /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 17:52, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
You are voting "keep" for the majority of images on today's log with omitted notifications. If you are not voting "keep" when there is a clear reason to delete, then I'm assuming you have a clear reason to those you have been voting keep for. Admins will not assume your entitled opinions. Your votes currently don't weigh anything; I want to make sure whether or not you mean those votes, otherwise it'd be better to use  Comment if not. ZooFari 20:06, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
Whatever. But I don't think I casted any such "keep" votes today. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:12, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
this and this actually surprised me. ZooFari 21:11, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
That was more than three monts ago, on a DR from July. Why are you complaining about my votes? At least I voted. But why should I care whether this is deleted or not? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:17, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
Well sorry, I should have looked at the date. I didn't expect "But why should I care whether this is deleted or not" come from you. You are a well experienced user at DR, I can't see how you wouldn't care. Anyways, just ignore this. ZooFari 22:38, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

File:Sibirien ein Zukunftsland.djvu

Why should this file be kept? Its index on s:de, was quickly deleted after I created it, so I can't imagine that this file is of any use to Wikimedia; if they don't want it on s:de, there really isn't anywhere else where it can be put to any use. V85 (talk) 23:21, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Why should it be deleted? Deletion is not going to serve server space. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 23:26, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

File:SMS Derfflinger.jpg

Hello Pieter Kuiper, I don't want this image deleted, I want the legal issues clarified. Did you have opportunity to check if authorship has ever been claimed? Please let us know why you believe it hasn't. This copyright issue should be solved, best by the uploader. There is a whole bunch of similar images by the uploader. Please leave the nld tag until this has been achieved. --13:31, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

If you want to clarify issues, you need to make a DR. Today all other nld files in Category:Media without a license as of 21 February 2010 were deleted by an industrious admin. That is what happens to these files. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 15:19, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
But what is the difference with a DR? Images without proof of licence will be deleted all the same. And, in fact, to me it seems a lot ruder to ask for deletion if you just want to clarify something.
I'm trying to understand this - I see that a lot of times recently that people freak out about nld and nsd tags, suggesting DRs instead. Why do you prefer DRs? Because you feel the revision process of nlds does not work as well as with DRs? Interested, Wikipeder (talk) 17:22, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
Cannot you read what it says in {{no license}}? Tagged files will be deleted after a week. Without discussion. Now, I supplied a license. You did not agree. Instead of filing a regular DR, you removed that three times in a row, and you retagged for speedy deletion without discussion. Why is it difficult to understand that this will make me upset? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 17:33, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
I understand you were annoyed because of our disagreement. What I don't really get is why you think a DR is more suitable to fixing licence problems than nld. In my understanding, interested editors will improve the licence details within the seven-day period, leaving the nld tag in, and if the admin looking at things after a week thinks your licence tag will do he will remove the nld tag. In my experience, DRs tend to motivate a search for tags that can be better defended. They do rather not motivate a search for better detail to substantiate a given tag. And, I have seen DRs refused lots of times because the given reason was rubbish - whilst the image itself didn't have a proper licence all the same. I assume this is not your experience? --Wikipeder (talk) 15:34, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
You do not seem to get it. No-license tags should be removed if a license is given. Otherwise a bulk-deleting admin tends to delete the file. And I am really getting tired of this "discussion" here, as it is really not getting anywhere. Go write at Commons:Deletion requests/File:SMS Derfflinger.jpg. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 15:56, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
I suppose I see where you're coming from. Bulk deletion is the problem. In fact, the process is not supposed to end in bulk deletion but in case to case decisions. That's how it used to be, for good reason. --Wikipeder (talk) 18:01, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
I agree that mass deletions is a problem. Admins should check and think before they delete. But if there IS a license on the file then we should not use "nld" but start a DR and explain the problem or perhaps use {{disputed}}. --MGA73 (talk) 11:55, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
Exactly.
Some mass deletion would be good though, as the backlog in category:unknown is rather large. I usually scan the older categories there, to see if anything interesting can be saved. If also other people with different interests do that, most of the remainder can be deleted. However, care must be taken that uploaders had been notified, because often only the original uploader can solve the problem. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 12:07, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

 File:Hon dansade en sommar (Ulla,Folke).jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

--Thuresson (talk) 15:35, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi Pieter! I saw you raised your voice in several DR on explicit content or even opened them up. As a European with a more or less liberal background, I don't condemn nudity for ideological reasons and accept such images for various educational purposes. But when I look at these request for deletion and all these images I see a lot of questionable aspects: privacy, model consent, copyvios on flickr, appropriate age of the displayed persons, no age verification system to display this content as requested in many jurisdiction. When I see File:Top50 Commons 09.jpg I have the strong feeling that we have crossed the line where this collection can be considered as educative. Do you know if there is any approach by the WMF to channel this flood of uploads? Cheers, --Polarlys (talk) 13:17, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi Polarlys! I have no hang-ups about nudity either. Yet, when I am checking the categories with images for deletion, and I get all these blown up bodyparts in my face and on my screen in the family living room, I find them disgusting and embarrassing. Yet images like these take forever to delete. Or to keep. With those ones, I do not really care, I just do not want to be confronted with them in the delete categories all the time. But I have no inclination of doing a non-admin keep, and nobody else wants to handle them either.
The real problem are the images that may do harm to people. As it is now, if someone wants to take revenge on a former lover, uploading private photos directly to commons or on a free license to Flickr is too easy. And practically anonymous.
One measure that one can take immediately: OTRS should stop giving its stamp of approval to such images, unless it gives incontrovertible full and valid model permission and identification. As it is now, the OTRS tag is often used as a shield. Few people have insight, so admins hesitate to delete. I do not think that clearing ages and identities of models (and proving that they are fully informed and voluntarily consenting) is a business that the OTRS volunteers want to be in. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 15:07, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
What do you think is the best way to enforce such a policy? --Polarlys (talk) 22:13, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
That is primarily a matter for the OTRS volunteers. I have hardly ever interacted with them. There is a list at Category:Commons OTRS volunteers, but I have no idea on who are most active. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 09:29, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
I’ll contact someone. --Polarlys (talk) 12:08, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

File:Ż.svg

What did you do to the code? It looks correct in Inkscape. Could you please explain. Thanks, Mikemoral♪♫ 00:13, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I am not familiar with Inkscape. I just know that it tends to make those black rectangles, and that one can get rid of it by editing out parts of the code. I do that on a trial-and-error basis, using Firefox for rendering. From what I have read, one should use Inkscape's "traced text" option, or something like that, to get a letter as a path. Regards, /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 00:31, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

File:B-2 spirit bombing.jpg‎

Doesn't a source such as an external link need to be shown so that we can verify its license? I'm kinda new here. username1 (talk) 23:35, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I see no reason whatsoever to doubt uploader's sourcing. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 23:41, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Silver_Target_in_XPS_Spectrometer.jpg

Hey :)

I thought you'd be interested to hear about the lighting conditions of my photo of the silver target in the XPS spectrometer. Actually, there was three sources of light: One was indirect daylight through another window, straight ahead and slightly above from the camera perspective, another was from a (rather weak) lamp to the top right from the camera perspective. But the main source of light, located to the left and back of the camera and by far the most important one, was from the lightbulb-like glowing cathodes of a device that measures the purity of the vacuum by ionizing what little gas there is left. I haven't understood that device 100%, but I know it made for some great lighting :)

Cheers! --MichaelBueker (talk) 23:26, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that is what I thought, the glowing-cathode vacuum gauge. I also noticed your photo of the argion-ion sputtering. It is actually possible to see the ion beam, but you need to turn off the gauge. And it needs a relatively high pressure. Best regardas, /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 23:38, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Apple logo

Sorry but the Apple logos aren't free or in the Public Domain ... Kyro (talk) 16:27, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Reference for that? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:28, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Map source

Hello. Thank you for notifying me about this file and this one. I think I've fixed them.--Rockfang (talk) 12:48, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Ok, those laboratory data have a solid licence now. But such detailed maps must have good sources, and "semhur" does not seem good enough. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 14:36, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Problem tags

Please stop removing problem tags. If you question a nXd tag, replace it by a deletion request. --Eusebius (talk) 21:33, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

I would like to second this, you are removing tags without addressing the problems, this is no better than simply reverting their addition. Hekerui (talk) 23:26, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
Sometimes, there is no problem. Post a DR if you disagree. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 23:27, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
You even removed a notice of "date unknown" by an uploader here. This is falsifying. Hekerui (talk) 23:29, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
What did I falsify? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 23:31, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
"date unknown" Hekerui (talk) 00:00, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
I do not know what game you are playing. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 00:02, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

File:Galegos de soa.jpg

Español: Yo soy el autor de dos fotos de esa obra derivada, no soy adecuadamente mencionado en ella (todos los datos de mis imágenes han de sermencionados, entre ellos el autor). Por otro lado, la única licencia con la que yo he decidido compartir esas fotos es gfdl. Si no gusta esa licencia (no compatible con Cc-by-sa-2.1), bórrense mis fotos de Commons (quizás unas 2000). No acepto la licencia Cc-by-sa-2.1. La imagen es una obra derivada y es un copyvio y si he de denunciar en tribunales, denuncio. Le ruego revierta su edición y borre la imagen. Un cordial saludo

--Lmbuga gl, pt, es: contacta comigo 02:13, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

a) I voted against the relicensing; b) you must not tag the derivatives of your files for speedy deletion. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 07:25, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Siteviewlarge-kasubi tombs-he.jpg

I have pointed out some trees that are clearly copy-pasted, please reconsider your vote in light of this fact. 38.111.13.130 12:20, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

You are right, but I am not going to worry about it. I do not believe that a court would care. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 12:32, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

My main account's talk page is at User talk:Cirt. User:Smee was a prior account. Please leave all user talk page notifications for me, at User talk:Cirt. Thank you, -- Cirt (talk) 21:38, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

The deletion script is programmed to notify the uploader. Just put User talk:Smee on your watch list. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:40, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Cirt

I know you are commenting on a lot of DR's, but because of the issues I am seeing between you and Cirt on here and on the English Wikipedia, I respectly ask you to disengage from him. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 21:28, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Do not take a deletion request personally. Take part in the copyright discussions, supply arguments and facts that help the admins making informed decisions. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:45, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
Well, this is just me noticing a lot of interaction between you two and not on the best of terms. I have no issues with you, even about the Commonwealth flag (I did restore it on the English Wikipedia). User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 23:03, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
The "do not take DR's personally" was not directed at you, it was a quote from the template, directed at uploaders. I am convinced that Cirt just wants no interference from possible opponents with his Scientology articles on enwp. He is is extremely protective of his uploads here. I mean, he is even engaging Mike Godwin to try to change commons policy. Actually, that would be a policy change that I would welcome. If my DR could accomplish that, I will be happy. Thanks for restoring the commonwealth flag. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 23:16, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
Alright. What I did was to change the license to make it unfree (we can always change it back if evidence comes back), changed the colors to make it Pantone and fixed the emblem using a Commonwealth image. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 23:19, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

File:Coat of arms of Wettin House Albert Line.png--DresdenBell (talk) 14:59, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

File:Restaurant Capricorne.JPG

Hello, can you please explain how text "Radisson Blu Schwarzer Bock Hotel" is verifiable source and what exactly does it mean. Is the uploader author of this image or employ of hotel or Capricorne restaurant or maybe he just copy/paste this image? With your current action I presume you dispose some information that I am currently unaware of. Thank you --Justass (talk) 21:12, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Why would you question the source? Do you have any reason for suspecting that uploader had it from somewhere else than from Schwarzer Bock Hotel? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:17, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
Low resolution, professional looking image, only upload by user, unclear source I think can raise come questions. Besides this image is taken directly from nethotels.com website, with the same EXIF and properties --Justass (talk) 21:24, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
There is no proof it comes from nethotels.com. That site would also have the image from the hotel itself. If you want to question whether uploader has the authority to license this image, you should use the no-permission template. Yes, it would be reasonable to ask for an OTRS from the hotel. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:34, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
OTRS would be reasonable only when source is disclosed. Without it there is no one to as for permission --Justass (talk) 21:44, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
Uploader wrote what his source was. What exactly do you want uploader to do? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:47, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
URL, email, name, well anything that can point who "copyright holder" is, and at least any response from the uploader. Have issued deletion request for this image at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Restaurant Capricorne.JPG --Justass (talk) 21:54, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
I would assume that the hotel owns the copyright. They are in Wiesbaden. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:56, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

File:Castelbello.jpg

How did you decide that the image is the uploader's work? ZooFari 21:55, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Uploader wrote that he was the author, and gave a PD-self license. Why did you tag it in the first place. I see no reason whatsoever for that. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:58, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
I see. And I would like the book's name for this. "Historic book" is not sufficient. ZooFari 22:03, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
"La Luz del Porvenir" maybe? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:07, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Deletionist Eusebius

Hello Peter!

Can you help here: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Helicopter of IIAF with machine gun-1976.jpg. Thank you 93.196.42.2 08:30, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, Eusebius had a point, but I think this the image should be kept. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 10:57, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Expeditionary Tank.jpg

I clarified my request. Marcus Aurelius Antoninus (talk) 01:47, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Ok. Somehow I had missed seeing the source link on the file description page. Sorry. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 07:48, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Wrong image description

Hallo Pieter Kuiper, I have seen that you have uploaded the image Rutherford lab.jpg.

However this photograph isn't taken at Rutherford's lab but instead at the Kaiser Wilhelm-Institut (today: Max Planck Institut) für Chemie in Berlin, 1928. It does not depict Rutherford but Lise Meitner and Otto Hahn (see this link). A duplicate image exists in the Commons: Otto Hahn und Lise Meitner.jpg.

Greetings --Furfur (talk) 22:15, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that must be Lise Meitner. It is strange that NARA has this image labeled Rutherford, but these two look a bit similar. Thank you, I will have the wrong one deleted as a duplicate. And I wrote to NARA. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:41, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Notice

Please see Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/User_problems#Behavior_by_User:Pieter_Kuiper. Thanks. -- Cirt (talk) 03:05, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Final Warning

This is your absolutely final warning. I know you've seen the thread on COM:AN/U in regards to your and Cirt. So from now on you are to leave Cirt (and his older Smee) uploads alone. You will NOT under any circumstance touch them in any way, shape or form. This includes posting requests about them in other locations (like OTRS) or commenting on Deletion Requests already in progress. You are most obviously harassing Cirt and all of the assumed good faith has been burned. So let me re-iterate, touch anything uploaded by Cirt, and you're done here on Commons. --ShakataGaNai ^_^ 17:24, 6 April 2010 (UTC) (Oh, and "I didn't see his name there" isn't going to fly as an excuse either)

Congratulations, you're a winner in our bonus round of final warnings. This warning now extends to me also. I can understand that dropping a message on my talk page saying "Hey, I think this file might be a problem" is too difficult for you (but not for anyone else). Fine, but now you're nominating files that have already been nom'd and kept. You're run of vendettas via commons ends today. One way or another. --ShakataGaNai ^_^ 18:21, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Careful, now:

[2] and [3] looks very much like trolling, due to being upset about [4]. Given your recent actions described above, I've blocked you for 24 hours. Adam Cuerden (talk) 20:01, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

 Unblock request granted This blocked user asked to be unblocked, and one or more administrators has reviewed and granted this request. Request reason: "reason for request" Unblock reason: "I have lifted this block, as I think the grounds on which it was imposed were quite shaky. I don't believe the edits were trolling or disruptive. But please take note of the advice provided with regard to your communication. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 21:01, 6 April 2010 (UTC)" This template should be archived normally.

It's pretty clearly disrupting the deletion process just to make a point about the Kindle thing. Given the numerous problems related to you in recent days, I'm afraid such stunts can't be ignored. Adam Cuerden (talk) 20:17, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, that just about does it

 “ This is your absolutely final warning. I know you've seen the thread on COM:AN/U in regards to your and Cirt. So from now on you are to leave Cirt (and his older Smee) uploads alone. You will NOT under any circumstance touch them in any way, shape or form. This includes posting requests about them in other locations (like OTRS) or commenting on Deletion Requests already in progress [...] ”

That's the restriction you were under. You've violated it. [5]

You are now blocked for one month. Adam Cuerden (talk) 21:34, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

 Unblock request granted This blocked user asked to be unblocked, and one or more administrators has reviewed and granted this request. Request reason: "Incomprehensible" Unblock reason: "There is nothing wrong with trying to find out who the author of a file is. On Commons we should try our best to mention author and make sure copyright status is right. Please do not reblock once your block has been undone. --MGA73 (talk) 22:03, 6 April 2010 (UTC)" This template should be archived normally.

Quite simply:

• ShakataGaiNi put you under a final warning. It forbade you from pushing forwards any type of deletion discussion regards to Cirt. [6]
• It included OTRS.
• You continued to push forwards OTRS [7], attempting to open up a new line of enquiry.
• The warning said you would be blocked indefinitely if you continued. I prefer to avoid indef blocks, so was nice and gave you one month instead.
• The warning was unambiguous and clear. "So from now on you are to leave Cirt (and his older Smee) uploads alone. You will NOT under any circumstance touch them in any way, shape or form."
• The warning gave some examples of behaviour to help you understand its breadth. In between the two examples "This includes posting requests about them in other locations (like OTRS) or commenting on Deletion Requests already in progress." your action was clearly of a forbidden type.
• Combinations of forbidden actions are also forbidden actions. Rules-lawyering is not a defense, particularly as the examples made no claim to being exhaustive.

Adam Cuerden (talk) 21:41, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

That was not a new line of enquiry, it had been my question from the beginning. I found it surprising that Erwinfletcher uploaded photos of Miles Fischer from two different continents as his own work.
As to ShakataGaNai's warning, it did not really seem to be consensus, but I have not made new deletion requests, althought I do not quite understand why I would not be allowed to point out the problems with his uploads. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:54, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
I'm sorry, you had been told by an OTRSer that the permissions were fine. This was reopening a discussion. You were forbidden from such discussion, end of story. The warning explicitly forbade you from commenting at deletion attempts someone else opened, reopening one of your own discussions... no. Further, if you disagree with a restriction, you could have asked for it to be reviewed. You made no attempt to do so until the restriction came into force. Adam Cuerden (talk) 22:03, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
You still seem to have a problem distinguishing between enwp and Commons. SNG did not tell me where I could appeal, and there is not really a place for that anywhere here. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:06, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
You're seriously claiming that, while participating in a discussion with administrators related to your behaviour, you are unable to mention that you've had a restriction put on you that you dislike, and would like lifted. Adam Cuerden (talk) 22:22, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
(Edit conflict) Even IF OTRS is ok that does not mean that we should not try to make information on file page clear. Pieter tryed to get Cirt to provide info but when that did not work Pieter had no where else to go. But I agree that Pieter should give Cirt a chance to clean up so I think Pieter should not make any new requests on images related to Cirt. But if we prevent Pieter from giving arguments in excisting discussions how can we judge if he is right or not? --MGA73 (talk) 22:10, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
You haven't read the Administrator's noticeboard thread, or any of the other evidence related to this, have you? Adam Cuerden (talk) 22:22, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
Ofcourse I have. Blocking and unblocking should not be done without due care. I answered on AN and on my talk page and on OTRS-board. --MGA73 (talk) 22:41, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

For the record, here's a timescale:

• ShakataGaiNi gives him a final warning, listing behaviour that will get him blocked.[8]
• Pieter immediately begins nominating her(?) images for deletion. Whatever the merits, it's really suspicious he immediately begins concentratin on her uploads. [9], [10], [11]. This gives strong credence to the idea he's reviewing with the primary purpose to harass.
• After her warning, Pieter makes several edits that give a strong appearance of disrupting Commons to make a point. He posted [12], then went to discussions related to de minimus and commented, in one case linking to his complaint: [13] and [14].
• 24 hour block applied by me, since he was under so many warnings already that boundary-pushing behaviour was a problem.
• Pieter appeals.
• Peter Symonds unblocks, warning him to stick to behaviour advice, but saying that he thought that it wasn't clearly trollish enough for him to have to be blocked at that time.
• Pieter almost immediately violates the terms of his final warning, by attempting to reopen an OTRS discussion. [15] This is forbidden for him to do, on pain of indef block. [16]
• I block Pieter indefinitely.
• I change my mind, reducing it to one month.

The unblock is totally out of line. Adam Cuerden (talk) 22:12, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Adam Cuerden, relax. Pieter almost immediately violates the terms of his final warning. I'm guessing this is about something at the OTRS noticeboard? If Pieter has doubts, we should not leave them up his chest, and I believe what goes on that noticeboard is between him and the OTRS volunteers. I have absolutely no clue why administrators are bugging into the thread with nothing relevant or helpful to say. ZooFari 22:39, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I still cannot edit, although I was unblocked.

While you guys are trying to find out what do do with someone like me... /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:20, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Autoblock removed. PeterSymonds (talk) 22:42, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
Thank you and goodnight. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:43, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Stop immediately.

The warning still applies until you get it removed. You are free to complain about it at COM:AN/UP. You may NOT ignore it with impunity the moment you get unblocked by someone who didn't even follow the unblock procedure.

I have asked for you to be blocked over your continued violations. Adam Cuerden (talk) 00:11, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, I am in a discussion with Cirt, and I will respond in order to try to clarify an interesting legal issue in the copyright of legal documents. You seem to be the only one having a problem with that. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 00:14, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

 This user has been blocked The reason for the block is available in the block log. The administrator listed in the block log can give you further information. See also the contributions of this user or the upload log in order to find out why this user has been blocked.

ShakataGaNai ^_^ 18:00, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Couldn't you at least provide a proper reason when blocking? You seem to be upset because Pieter was checking your uploads (he raised some valid objections [17]). Don't use your sysop tools when you are upset. Let other administrators do that. I hope someone will soon unblock Pieter. Nillerdk (talk) 19:16, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard/User_problems#I.27ve_blocked_Pieter_again I do believe I did. And I didn't use the sysop tools when I'm upset. For the love of christ I really dont care if he deletes that picture. What is much more frustrating is having to chase your ass all over hells half acher to respond. You already found my talk page and mentioned htis... could you not.. I dunno... continue? --ShakataGaNai ^_^ 19:24, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry about the talk block PK. Didn't mean to prevent you from editing your user page. --ShakataGaNai ^_^ 19:29, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

 Unblock request granted This blocked user asked to be unblocked, and one or more administrators has reviewed and granted this request. Request reason: "There was nor consensus, nor reason for this block." Unblock reason: "grant reason Kameraad Pjotr 19:22, 12 April 2010 (UTC)" This template should be archived normally.
Before anyone goes an unblocks him, we're currently trying to work out a plan that would make most everyone happy. Obviously there is some activity that needs to stop, and some re-education that needs to be done (like dropping the vendettas). OK, BITE'ing anyone is not ok. Not newbies, not experienced users, not admins. --ShakataGaNai ^_^ 19:49, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

(ec)Pieter, stalking other users' contributions is vindictive, and disruptive to the project. If you have a conflict with some user, it is not approprate for you to sort through their contributions and nominate any marginal thing for deletion. You've done this to me, you've done this to other people, and you've done it to ShakataGaNai.

Vindictive behavior is disruptive. You're being blocked for being disruptive, which is a valid blocking reason. It doesn't matter whether it's an admin whose contributions you're stalking or another users, it's all the same thing. If you can reconcile these facts, and promise never to act on this behavior, I'd consider asking someone to remove the block, but you don't seem to realize that what you're doing is poisonous and permitting it causes great harm to any sense of community. Bastique demandez 19:54, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

No, I will not promise that, and I will not repent. Checking galleries of users is normal procedure on Commons when copyright violations are detected. I do not see why admins should be exempt from being scrutinized. Anybody is welcome to scrutinize mine. In fact, you can delete the whole bunch, I do not care anymore. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:05, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
Checking galleries of users and nominating images for deletion for users with whom you are in dispute is neither normal nor acceptable behavior. The fact that you have a abject failure to understand the difference, does not make it acceptable. Being disruptive is cause for blocking, and since you maintain a failure to understand the that the context of your behavior actually creates a poisonous atmosphere and disrupts the project, you will no doubt continue to be blocked for longer and longer periods of time. I'm certainly not going to endorse unblocking you. Bastique demandez 20:16, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Suggested a way out of this

Dear Pieter!

I made a suggested way out of this sad story Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/User_problems#Suggested_way_to_solve_this. It is not perfect but I strongly hope you will concider it good and accept it.

As you know I have supported that you should be allowed to hunt down copyvios and I still think that you should. But as everyone should be able to see doing that during a dispute can do more damage than good. We can loose good contributers if disputes get out of hand or continue too long. I therefore thinks that the best would be that you do not hunt down copyvios while you have a dispute with a user. Let other users do that.

Since you are blocked you can not comment on AN but if you answer here I or someone else will make a notice on AN of your response. --MGA73 (talk) 21:02, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Dear MGA,
I appreciate your good efforts, but I will not agree to those terms. Because those terms are exactly what Cirt wants. He intimidates anyone who dares to challenge him, issuing officious warnings, reporting them to admin boards, etcetera. Then arbitrators and mediators suggest that parties disengage. That is how Cirt systematically silences any opposition. Very effective on enwp, most people will back off. He has driven away good people that were not prepared to do that. I am disappointed that he also can get his way on Commons. Who else could get away with labeling non-government documents as {{PD-USGov}}? While unknown photos from the 1800's get deleted here, commons is swallowing contemporary camels. I will not put up with that kind of double standards. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:17, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
The idea it to get rid of bad images without getting into a dispute. As long as you manage to do that you can find all the bad images you want. But IF it ends in a dispute it is sometimes better to let the case rest untill things has cooled down.
If you find copyvios and inform users in an nice and polite way and they still get upset you can leave a fair message on AN if you can not solve the problem with the user. If you does that I expect that you will find support among admins.
As I said I think that Cirt should check his uploads. If it is possible to find several copyvios after a month or so (that should be possible to do some good checking in a month) then I would expect that most users would feel that Cirt did not do a good job. Also I would not be surprised if some admins would do some checking of their own.
Perhaps you feel that Cirt wins if you are told to let him in peace for a month or so. But if you are blocked has he not won?
I will go to bed now and I hope we can figure out something tomorrow. --MGA73 (talk) 21:51, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
Of course, if I am blocked for a month, Cirt has won. I do not care, I will have won time for other things that need to be done. I just want to be able to press the delete button just like anybody else. When I see a file that should not be on Commons according to the rules here, I do not want to be restrained by special conditions on me. The Commons copyright rules are enforced by admins, and they should of course be held to those rules themselves too.
In fact, I am not a big deletionist here. Most of my time here is devoted to searches to try to save interesting images. It helps to have precedents. A challenge to an image of a mighty admin often results in a keep, which makes them very suitable as precedents. I was delighted that Cirt managed to make User:MGodwin one of his very rare appearances here. Mike Godwin proposes that Commons policies should be relaxed. I agree. But they should be relaxed over the board. Not just for Cirt. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:11, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Pieter, you have uploaded how many images here? Thousands? What if Cirt were to go through every one of those images and start a DR on each and every one? For each one, he comes up with some quasi-valid reason to do so. Some of them may even get deleted, correct? And he doesn't even do it all at once - he does maybe 50 per day, and this goes on for months. The result is that you would be tied up doing almost nothing but commenting on DRs of your own images for months! Does that sort of filibuster approach really seem proper? Would you bother? Or would you simply go elsewhere? He could do it - he would be within his rights, esp. if some of them did actually get deleted. Wouldn't you try to get him to agree to stop? What sort of proposal would you make? 14:00, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

@Wknight94: Cirt is as welcome as anybody else to scrutinize my uploads, and to make deletion requests if there is a problem. I am not filibustering. In order of time, I have pointed out problems with the following uploads by Smee/Cirt:

As you can see by all the red stuff, this was teeming with problems. There are many more files uploaded by Smee/Cirt incorrectly tagged as government work, please discuss that issue instead of discussing me. Cirt complains about incivility; well, have a look at the language of User:ShakataGaNai, for example here. Cirt is complaining about harassment, but has uploaded many YouTube videos where anti-cult activists stalk and hound scientologists; I think such videos are out of scope. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 14:58, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Update: the DR's of File:1993 Landmark v Conde Nast complaint.pdf and of File:Mary Sue Hubbard notes on Congressman Leo Ryan.gif have now also been closed. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:28, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
Can you compile a list of Cirt's and ShakataGaNai's remaining uploads that you have questions about? It would set my mind at ease to know that there is a finite list, and that there is an end to this showdown in sight. 17:03, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
As for Cirt/Smee, the remaining copyright problems are primarily with court documents that are labeled {{PD-USGov}}, but not produced by Goverment employees. Such files as in Category:Lawsuits. Of course, one should wait for the outcome of the pending cases on what to do. There is also a lot of stuff that I consider out of scope. I find this especially problematic for video. Please browse Category:Scientology-related videos. In my opinion, some of it makes some anti-cult activists look worse than the scientologists. Probably, a more general discussion is necessary about what kind of video should be allowed on Commons.
ShakataGaNai has uploaded many photos that are derivate work. I already left a note on the talk page of File:Maker Faire 2008 San Mateo 13.JPG. Usually, photos like File:Maker Faire 2009 Batch - 95.jpg will also get deleted on Commons. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 17:33, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
Those categories contain several hundred of Cirt's files. That's not good enough. If you're concerned, list all the files you have concerns with, other people will review the list, and they'll be dealt with. Blanket statements that you intend to limit yourself to any of several hundred files are not good enough: That could allow the situation to persist for years. Adam Cuerden (talk) 18:40, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
Read what I wrote. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:44, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
How about this compromise: You do not nominate Cirt or Shakata's files yourselves, but a few of us will agree to fairly review any lists you make, and any with valid reasons will be nominated. This gives an intermediary, which would diffuse the situation. If you agree to keep it to a centralized list, for others to review, I'll unblock. Adam Cuerden (talk) 18:40, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
Why do not you comment on the actual issues at the open DR's instead of discussing me? Again: read what I wrote: a decision must be reached about what to do with court documents. And it would be good to have a general discussion on a policy for personal video uploads. A centralized list reviewed by admins? That is category:Deletion requests. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:56, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
As I said at COM:AN/U, we could at least discuss the various types of files - one DR per type. That would only be 2 or 3 DRs. We don't need every file DR'ed one at a time if the issues are the same for a whole set. 19:04, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
Indeed, please discuss at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Mary Sue Hubbard notes on Congressman Leo Ryan.gif and at Commons:Deletion requests/File:1993 Landmark v Conde Nast complaint.pdf. With or without me. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:12, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
Some users find it important to know: If you are unblocked. Will you nominate new files uploaded by Cirt or will you be satisfied only to discuss the ones currently nominated? Personally I very much hope that if the two DR's ends as delete then someone will check Cirts uploads. --MGA73 (talk) 19:19, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
Probably, if those two DR's for court documents end as delete (a few months from now...), someone else will start looking at the rest. Or Cirt will design a new template. But if nothing happens, I would start replacing inapplicable {{PD-USGov}} by {{fair use}}. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:26, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
"If nothing happens..." - you mean if result is delete but noone looks for the rest? Or do you mean if it ends as keep? If result is keep what then? --MGA73 (talk) 19:32, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
I find it inconceivable that documents produced by lawyers would be kept with {{PD-USGov}}. I don't know what I would do. Probably wait for the outcome of the case against LexisNexis and Westlaw. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:36, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Cuerden

Sorry if it not allowed to speak without being spoken to, but in view of this I must ask Adam to have a look at the history of File talk:May 1950 Astounding Science Fiction.jpg. You are an admin: please restore so that everybody can see that Cirt consciously ignored the notification of a copyvio. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:57, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Frivolous Bastique

In this edit, Bastique accuses me of making frivolous nominations for deletion. He has no basis for that. My deletion requests all had merit, including my renomination of File:Kindle 2 - Front.jpg that uploader ShakataGaNai imediately closed as kept.
The intervention by Cary Bass seems to grant a high degree of immunity to administrators like Cirt. It is Cirt's complaint about my nominations that should be rejected. Just tell him to deal with it, let DR's be decided by free debate in the community. But muzzling criticism of the uploads of admins, his characterizing my DR's as "bad behavior", his reference to the existence of other stuff, and his reprimand of MGA73 have a chilling effect on Commons.
As the volunteer coordinator, he should worry more about the effect that deletion requests have on newbies than about any loss of face or hurt pride of an administrator. It is because of newbies getting discouraged that Commons is missing many valuable images; admins are not so likely to give up. As explained above, I am mostly in the business of trying to save images. For that, it is good to have precedents like for example this one. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 17:44, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Good faith

Cary's assessment is a fair one, although I concur for slightly different reasons. Many people have difficulty maintaining objectivity when they scrutinize the actions of people with whom they are in active conflict. It's harder to separate chaff from wheat, and the effort to do so may consume much more time and and people and strife than normal. When that happens it's necessary to step back and take a break. Few of us are perfect in that regard and we all hope to self-moderate when that dynamic occurs. Occasionally user blocks are necessary for the good of the project. There is no "winner" in this scenario: it isn't you versus Cirt or networks of alliegences. You do a lot of good work for the project and Commons will miss out on that for a while; we're all on the same team here.

Please take this time to rest and recharge. It does not help to accuse Cirt of deliberate neglect, to accuse Cary Bass (or Mike Godwin) of favoritism, etc. Criticism is welcome when it is well substantiated. Poorly substantiated criticism, though, can be regarded as personal attacks. Assertion of negative motive should be the explanation of last resort after other reasonable possibilities are eliminated. Durova (talk) 19:51, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

For the third time, I urge an admin to undelete File talk:May 1950 Astounding Science Fiction.jpg. As I remember it, it shows that Cirt was aware of the note that someone made a year ago that copyright had been renewed. And ignored it.
As to favoritism, Cirt is clearly your favorite. You should have told him to skip the drama on notice boards, just concentrate on the copyright issue, he (she? I do not even know) might have listened to you. And there would have been no drama. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:22, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
All it shows is that he reverted some pretty obvious vandalism on a page that had a note. This is the note:
 “ The May 1950 issue of Astounding renewed in 1977 with a renewal number of R663297. See: http://digital.library.upenn.edu/books/cce/cache/pdrn1977jj419.gif This may or may not have included the cover illustration, but did include the cover as an collected editorial piece combining the illustration and the text. ”
That he didn't immediately act on something that only says that there might be a problem doesn't show a pattern of willfully ignoring such things. There are many harmless explanations, including that he forgot about it, or even that he asked someone, but never got a response. We can't know.
Can you show a pattern of such behaviour? Adam Cuerden (talk) 20:52, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
Thank you. Fact is that Cirt edited that page after the notice had been given there and did nothing about it. It is extremely charitable to assume that Cirt might not have seen it. I am not getting the same treatment. I am being accused of malice, the volunteer coordinator says that I am not here for the good of the project, etcetera, etcetera. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:04, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
He may well have seen it, but it specifically says the image itself "may or may not" be covered by the link given. That'd need some research before an actual problem was shown, and we do not know what Cirt did in response, all we know is that he edited the page. Adam Cuerden (talk) 21:08, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

It fits in his pattern of behavior. First of all Cirt had applied the {{PD-US-no renewal}} tag without a sufficiently thorough search of the renewal records. Actually, there was no indication of any research having been done. (Maybe there was a reference to the percentage of copyrighted books that had not been renewed.) Which shows a cavalier attitude to the copyright owned by other people.
See also Commons:Deletion requests/File:2006 banner plane Lisa McPherson.jpg; the file description included the link to the St Petersburg times, where it clearly says "Times photo, Scott Keeler". Obviously not free. Japanese photos attributed to the USGov... tagging lawyer's briefs with PD-USGov. Those are not just isolated mistakes. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:16, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Pieter, the only thing shown by Cirt "doing nothing" was that by the time of his next edit there was nothing more to be done. He did promptly self-delete the other example, which he had uploaded three years ago. The pattern that emerges is there does not appear to have been any occasion where you withdrew any accusation regarding him, or acknowledged any mistake on your own part. A similar pattern occurred last December in relation to another editor and another hot button topic: the Israeli-Palestinian dispute. That also had to be resolved by blocking you. It's a shame that despite your considerable talents these things recur: perhaps it would be better to avoid the hot buttons. Durova (talk) 22:50, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Block

Simply a note to say I disagree with you recent block, as I find removing copyright violations far more important than certain people's ego's. Please carry on tagging (possible) copyright violations after your block ends or when it gets overturned.
Kind regards, Kameraad Pjotr 21:21, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. I would like to remind you that you have in teory the power to unblock me, hint, hint. But your closing those two DR's as delete is already very helpful. Please do not get in trouble because of me. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:32, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

COM:AN/B

FYI, Finn Rindahl (talk) 22:50, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the notification. I think you made a mistake there: the one week's block was not reduced to a day, see entries from December above. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 23:18, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, yes I misread the log there. now fixed. Finn Rindahl (talk) 23:43, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

"Ideological enemy"

User:Orderinchaos diagnosed me here as "determined to use Commons and other Wikimedia projects as a forum to attack his ideological enemies" - ludicrous. As to bullying and intimidation, it is Cirt who is the expert at this, see for example en:User talk:Pieter Kuiper#March 2010 and en:Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive58#Pieter Kuiper. It is sad to see also Commons is shifting its attention from the real copyright issue to imagined motives for behavior. Hounding elderly non-english speaking new uploaders for applying the wrong license tags is good, reporting iffy uploads by ideologically "good" admins is bad. I refuse to be intimidated by bullies like the ever politely thanking Cirt or by the brusque language of the very non-mellow User:ShakataGaNai.
It is sad to see that most of those that so aggressively fight copyright violations here just standing by. (Pjotr being one of the exceptions, I sometimes suspected that he was trying to climb the ranks by closing many files as delete, but clearly he is just going by the book and being very tough on copyright; my friend he never was, and his lack of understanding of the separation of powers in the US does not jusify Bastique's accusing him of making a bad faith DR.) /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 09:03, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

trying to get this to move forward

Hope you're still watching... As you will have seen, the discussion concerning your block is in some kind of stalemate. I haven't even tried to get to the bottom of everything (which I presume would include looking at en:arbcom etc etc), but it seems clear (!) that the picture is complex with very different interpretations from different users, and also clear that there is some kind of conflict between you and Cirt which is disturbing this project. So how about keeping things simple? Would you agree to simply leave Cirt alone, provided they return the favour. I'm will not give a detailed definition of "leave alone", trusting yours and Cirts common sense here. Asking you first, if your reply is positive I'll ask a similar question to Cirt. Finn Rindahl (talk) 20:27, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

You should consider the possibility, Finnrind, that being "left alone" is exactly what Cirt wants. Does it not look like this is the whole point of her simply deleting speedy deletion templates from her own uploads without opening a DR, her threatening the users responsible on their talk pages, her shouting "harassment", "disruption", "wasting the community's time"? (Diffs supplied if you need them.) And if that is so, then this exercise of taking Aylaross and Pieter to admin noticeboards whenever they query one of her uploads will have achieved its purpose, won't it? ;) I think it would be much better for the project to have someone like Pieter go through her uploads, given that by now nearly a dozen of them have been deleted as copyvios, to make sure that this area of Commons gets outside eyes and cleaned up where necessary. --Jayen466 21:11, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
I understand your point Jayen466, but I'll await Pieters response before (possibly) seeking a different path out of this (no clue what that would be, given concerns mentioned by previous uninvolved admins like Wknight and Wsiegmund an unblock by a "friendly" admin without some kind of concensus would hardly solve this situation. I'd like to see Pieter back into doing the stuff he's good at here at Commons, but that would require some give and take from "both sides". Finn Rindahl (talk) 22:03, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
(ec) Indeed, as I already had answered MGA73 above. The whole problem is caused by Cirt raising hell over deletion requests. Cirt is responsible for the drama, which is wasting everybody's time. It is not the kind of behavior one likes to see in an admin. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:06, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
I don't think that's "the whole problem" - part of the problem (and the reason your account is still blocked) is that a lot of users see your DR of Cirts uploads (and subsequent DR's of SNGs uploads /previous DR's of Mbz1) as "vindictive" and thus disturbing Commons. That includes users that have previously been univolved in this "drama". Do you have any suggestion for a remedy against that? Finn Rindahl (talk) 00:01, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
I suggest that you make a policy page to institutionalize the hypocrisy of this place, discouraging the cleanup of uploads by admins. You could make a license tag: . I did not choose the easiest target when I renominated SGN's File:Kindle 2 - Front.jpg. I did that exactly because this file had been kept because of the wikipower of the uploader. I could only see that as a blatant example of the weird reasoning that is sometimes applied when copyright violations need to be kept for some reason. Double standards (for pikiwikisrael, for scientology) are a major problem of this place. It is much easier here to nominate 19th century photographs, photos of schools in Romania, images from someone's inherited family album, etcetera. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 06:39, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
This isn't getting anywhere - I rest my case. Finn Rindahl (talk) 07:18, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi Pieter!

I just noticed that you was unblocked. Just because you have the right to make edits does not mean that it is a good idea to use that right to do whatever got you blocked in the first place.

I bet there is a few admins out there that are just waiting to check your edits to see if you do anything that deserves a block.

So I suggest that you spend the next weeks on saveing files and let nominations rest for a while.

So be a good boy ;-) --MGA73 (talk) 19:36, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I would agree with my colleague. Kameraad Pjotr 19:39, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
Primarily because I do not want to get Pjotr into more trouble over this. Thank you, and everybody else. Which does not mean that I would regard your uploads as off-limits... :) /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:43, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

New Files Feed

I don't know if you're aware of this tool, but it has proven a quite useful in getting rid of copyright infringing material as soon as its uploaded. It seems to be more effective if people are actually paying attention to it.

I am surprised by the raw number of blatantly obvious copyright infringements that still get by, in spite of having tools such as these and an active community to deal with it. I only assume that active users like yourself don't avail themselves to them, because either they're poorly advertised or otherwise not made known. Bastique ☎ appelez-moi! 20:24, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I am not an admin, I cannot delete those files anyway. There was a bot once that did TinEye checks for all new uploads. It resulted in too many false positives, but in principle that would be the way to go. Until then, scrutinizing uploads of people with insufficient knowledge of copyright seems to be more efficient. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:30, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Deletion requests/Images of Raulhoracio

I think we can discuss this rather here. I don't like the way you are telling me what I should have done. I am not trying to accuse you, I am just trying to tell you that reading your comments I get the impression that you convey more information than just the mere words. For me it feels as if you are trying to say I was careless and didn't really look carefully into the DR case and that feels like an accusation and that doesn't feel nice and calls up (unnecessary) defense reactions on my side. Amada44 (talk) 06:56, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

To me, your "the webpage could have been redesigned" sounded like a poor excuse. But I appreciate that you composed a mass DR instead of just reverting my removal of the tags. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 07:00, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
I guess that was a defence reaction. I contacted the ower of the homepage via email (and now we know for sure that uploader is owner), I ran arround looking for some spanish guys to translate the stuff and corrected a few malformed info forms. So I did lots to make sure the images won't get deleted. But in the beginning they smelled very much like copyvios. Anyhow, if the images are not deleted, we should probably undelete these two files too. Amada44 (talk) 07:17, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
Will you request undeletion? It is probably better to wait until after the DR is closed. (And I thought your username sounded Spanish.)/Pieter Kuiper (talk)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:HLHimmler.jpg

Stupid comment, and I always thought you are someone who takes things serious and on an educational base. Funny how I was completely mistaken in judging intentions and abilities. --Martin H. (talk) 08:47, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I do not see how anyone could claim copyright protection for this photo. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 08:58, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

File:Romani children ww2.jpg

Thank you for taking the time and effort to find the legal rational for keeping File:Romani children ww2.jpg, considering the subject matter you would think most people would put more of an effort into keeping the image. As far as copyright law, I don't understand how anybody in any country can claim copyright over a film made by the willful participants of a murder, or as in this case multiple murders of innocent children. The studies of Eva Justin and other "scientists" were used as a rationale for slaughtering the Romani, the fact that these children were just as much German was not enough to save their lives.

I happen to be blocked myself at the English Wikipedia, it seems altruism in trying to do the right thing is in short supply, I upset some people. Thank you again for your efforts.7mike5000 (talk) 18:20, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your compliments, but in Commons:Deletion requests/File:Romani children_ww2.jpg it was User:Trycatch who gave the really good references. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:28, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Transforming an image into a svg-file

Hello Pieter Kuiper!

Can you transform this image into a .svg-file? Greets, High Contrast (talk) 19:26, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I can only do very simple files. I know that programs exist that can vectorize line drawings, but I have never used them. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:35, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

File:Mitrovica Bridge 002.jpg‎

If you disagree with my speedy deletion, the required move is to change it to {{delete}}. As the template clearly says, it is not permitted to simply remove the {{Speedydelete}}.

I will put the delete template on it and we can discuss it there. I admit that I have no way of knowing the copyright law in Kosovo, but it violates US copyright law because the sign itself is copyrighted. See Commons:Image casebook#Road signs. This is not a simple sign that might be PD-ineligible. . . . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talkcontribs) 22:36, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Please read the template {{copyvio}} more carefully - what it says about appeal, and that it only should be used for obvious cases. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:55, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, you're right -- the {{speedydelete}} and {{copyvio}} templates have different instructions:
• Speedydelete - Appeal: If you disagree with its speedy deletion, change this tag to a regular deletion request using {{delete}} and list it on Commons:Deletion requests/Current requests so it can be discussed.
• Copyvio - Appeal: If you disagree with its speedy deletion, please explain why on its talk page.
I was remembering the speedy instructions. We should probably change one or the other so they're the same.
As for "obvious", it's an obvious copyvio to me. If I were buying the sign for commercial use in the USA, assuming that one of my staff wrote the first language, my standard paperwork for the purchase would include copyright releases from the translators and the graphic designer. The "simple" rule in the USA applies only to really simple signs, like or to where there is only one way to show the information. If there is a choice of words or way to express it, then the "simple" rule doesn't apply.. . . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talkcontribs) 13:27, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I agree, instructions should be harmonized for these two tags. I would propose to change the {{speedy}} template. It makes most sense that the person proposing deletion makes the deletion request. As to obvious: standards of original creativity differ; also I can think of other reasons why this would be not be a copyright violation. But this is best discussed at the DR. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 13:45, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

File:Viegas-UserActivityonWikipedia.gif

Sorry, but isn't windows interface copyrighted? I mena we can see close,minimize and maximize buttons. Isn't it violation?--Gaeser (talk) 11:51, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

I believe that such buttons would be {{PD-shape}}; also de minimis in this image. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 12:01, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Please do not remove problem tags

Hi! It has come to my attention that you have removed a warning which says that a file doesn't have enough information about the source or license conditions. Nevertheless, it seems to me that this information is still missing and I have restored the tag. You may either add the required information or, if you think that required information is already given, put the image up for a deletion request so that it won't automatically be deleted. Thank you.

Martin H. (talk) 20:08, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

So "it has come to your attention". Well, let me bring to your attention that I nominated this officious template for deletion. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:27, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Queen Mary II - Decksplan - Werbe-Flyer

Hallo - ich fand Deinen Hinweis, dass der Grafiker G.H. Davis noch bis 1960 am Leben war, mithin wäre die erforderlich Zeitdauer von 70-Jahren noch nicht erreicht. Mir sind keine biographischen Daten zu dem Künstler bekannt geworden. Könntest Du mir diese Daten interessehalber an meine Adresse zumailen, da ich das Werbe-Blatt selbst besitze interessiert es mich natürlich, wer es gestaltet hat. Siehst Du eine ander Lizenzform - um das Bild weiter benutzen zu können? Wenn nicht müssen wir darauf als Illustration verzichten, was sicher für alle Freunde und Verehrer dieses Schiffes ein Verlust sein könnte. Gruß --Metilsteiner (talk) 22:03, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Weil ich sehe dass Du ein "en-2" Babelbox hast, schreibe ich weiter auf Englisch. My source is here. The full name is George Horace Davis. That is about all I can find. Unfortunately, I cannot think of any other license tag. Yes, it is a pity, a very nice high-resolution scan. But there are more problems in Category:RMS Queen Mary, especially derivative work of the art on the walls. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:29, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
Hallo ich habe nun die Informationen zu diesem Plakat und muss das leider so akzeptieren, da es urheberrechtlich noch nicht verwendbar ist. Ich schreibe im Löschantrag eine Notiz. --Metilsteiner (talk) 12:39, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

File:Doctors_Trial.jpg

 File:Doctors_Trial.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Martin H. (talk) 16:31, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Susana Giménez

Hola: hablas español, ¿verdad? ¿Por qué has retirado estas plantillas? La información de la imagen no cumple con los requisitos de la licencia, porque no consta fecha y obra de la primera publicación. Ferbr1 (talk) 21:09, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, my Spanish is almost non-existent. But the photo is clearly old enough for {{PD-AR-Photo}}. File a deletion request if you disagree. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:14, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Category:Laser machining

 Category:Laser machining has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this category, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

--Wizard191 (talk) 22:24, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

File:Metro San Juan A.png

In reference to files: 100px 100px 80px I've tried several x uploading a corrected version on this same file names to no avail, i have uploaded an updated (with technical corrections) version with another file name already, please delete mentioned images as i'm not a administrator, sorry for any inconveniences, regards, Moebiusuibeom-en (talk) 12:11, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

There was a problem with uploading files on the same name. I assume that it has been solved, or will be solved soon. If you have uploaded under a new name, please state that new file name in your request for speedy deletion. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 12:14, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
The files mentioned above are the files that have errors and should be deleted
The new updated and technically correct versions with another filename are these: → 100px 100px 80px ← These are the current correct files! Thank you, Moebiusuibeom-en (talk) 17:11, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
I see little difference. But there is also a difference in file format (.gif vs .png), and that also makes it problamativ to upload on the same filename. Anyway, what I did here was to remove category:Deletion requests, because that is not the way it should be done. Nothing would happen. The simplest way for a user to request deletion is to use the link in the left column of the image description. But you might also try with the {{duplicate}} tag, where you should specify the name of the other file. Regards, /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 17:52, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
Hey Pieter, thanks, so simple, new a this part, it must have been the format difference between .gif vs .png that wouldn't let me upload! In regards to the images, there is little diference between files but an important detail has been corrected! Cheers ${\displaystyle \infty }$ Moebiusuibeom-en (talk) 19:43, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Blocked 2

I have blocked you for being disruptive in doing things such as this after already having been warned at [19] that such behavior is unacceptable and for your past lengthy history of poor behavior in interacting with other users. I will unblock you when you agree to stop disrupting Commons in the manner you have been as of recent. MBisanz talk 22:55, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Bye guys. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:58, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

If you add "non suitable for work" images to deletion discussions again, thus disenfranchising folk from commenting, I will block you until you agree not to do it again. I hope that's clear as it is totally unacceptable to do that. ++Lar: t/c 11:51, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Bye guys. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:58, 6 May 2010 (UTC) Man, you are still here?! Please put one's money where one's mouth is and leave Commons as you wrote above! unsigned by a couragious person from 80.187.102.166 (talk · contribs)

File was deleted so nomination was ok. Stop stalking Pieter and do something usefull. --MGA73 (talk) 16:52, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Dragomirna River Basin.jpg

The articles which were using these files indicate that you have requested the deletion of these files, assuming they are a a copyright violation. These maps were drawn by me - it takes quite a long time to draw such maps - and are not copied, which was stated in the presentation. Just because somebody assumes that that they are a copyright violation is not a justification for deleting them. I challenge anybody to prove that that the maps are a copy of any existing map. Such a deletion is simply a vandalism, especially as it is not based on any type of discussion. I have several maps I am working on at present, and am doing this for about 9 months. I am appalled that after putting in all this effort, the maps can be simply deleted by somebody who has no proof at all but just imagines that they are copies. Please take the necessary steps to restore the maps Afil

Why did not you respond at your own Commons:Deletion requests/File:Mitorcu River Basin.jpg then? I cannot do anything about it, I cannot even see the maps. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 06:01, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

 Some contents have been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether they should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at their entry. If you created these pages, please note that the fact that they have been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with them. 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!

What Commons is NOT

A gratis hosting provider for everybody's favorite images. When images do not serve a legitimate educational purpose, they are deleted. There are plenty of sites on the Internet that welcome image uploads of various types. Jehochman (talk) 20:24, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

You seem to be ticked of by stills of old tickle-torture movies from the Prelinger archives. Discussion is at Commons:Deletion requests/File:ABDSM Spreadeagle on Bed.png. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:29, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
Are the w:Prelinger archives themselves notable? If so, the images could be kept on that rationale. Jehochman (talk) 12:56, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Hate speech?

@Pieter, please refrain from hate-speech comments as the one I've reverted now. Others might be tempted to think that your argument is so weak that you would need that, though that wasn't the case in the image where you used that. --Túrelio (talk) 08:21, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Invoking "child protection", "hate speech", "obscenity" or other legal terms is over the top. What is more risky for a child - File:Fabian Photo in White Bikini.png or Sunday School? Not far from here, an employee at a Salvation Army kindergarten was convicted yesterday for sexual assault on toddlers. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 08:30, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
You know well what I meant. Being not an english-native I might have scanned through the dictionary for a more precise word. Your comment discriminated against catholic priests in general, though you might know by yourself that only about 0.1% of child-abuse is associated to priests, nuns, etc, even though that is 0.1% too much. Besides, an employee of a Salvation Army kindergarten is hardly a catholic priests as this is a protestant institution. --Túrelio (talk) 08:36, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
That Salvation Army school took action, and reported this person to the police. But the Catholic Church has been more concerned about "protecting the faith" than about protecting children. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 08:40, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
@Túrelio: Do you have a source for that 0.1% or are you just making up those data? If children wouldn't be kept in the dark, they would know what was happening to them. Erik Warmelink (talk) 04:07, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
@Erik, thanks for your bad-faith-insinuation, I wouldn't have expected anything else from you. As you asked, here is the source I refered to: [20] or [21] (all in German, of course). Another, likely more relevant source is this interview with a forensic psychiatrist from Cicero magazine. To be sure, I'll not enter in any futile discussion with you about this topic. --Túrelio (talk) 19:29, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Keep porn, delete lede image from a featured article

Your priorities are severely messed up. It is not acceptable to use the deletion process for transparent retaliation. If you persist in harassing me, I will see that you are blocked. Jehochman (talk) 12:49, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Copyright is a serious matter. Nicolle Rager is trying to make a living as a science illustrator. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 12:57, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
The image is used in a featured article that appeared on the home page of Wikipedia. Featured article reviewers are quite anal about checking the copyright status of images. The fact that her image is in the lede of a featured Wikipedia article is great publicity for her and should help her career. It was a smart move for her to turn over the rights to NSF so that the image could be in the public domain. Jehochman (talk) 13:08, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
You are echoing COM:PRP - warped self-justifications for copyright infringement. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 13:30, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
Nope. The only justification is that I actually asked for and received permission!!! Jehochman (talk) 13:31, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi Pieter Kuiper, I strongly suggest to avoid anything that could look as if you are using deletion requests with a retaliatory intent. In this case it would have been far more helpful to raise your concern at Jehochman's talk page, possibly along with a suggestion to document a permission through OTRS. I appreciate your insightful comments at countless deletion requests and I would deeply regret it if we would lose you at Commons because the community gets increasingly upset over these interaction patterns. Regards, AFBorchert (talk) 13:47, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I confess I agree with AFBorchert's words here. You do have some background with this sort of behaviour - I think you should think a little about it. Thanks --Herby talk thyme 13:51, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
Hochman's abrasiveness just invited scrutiny. I saw a problem. But you seem to feel that it is more important not to hurt Hochman's feelings that to respect for a living artist's copyright. Hochman should not complain - he has been putting in inappropriate speedy-delete tags, I made a regular DR. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 13:53, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
However I am addressing you not Jehochman Kuiper and I've known you for sometime now. Please ensure that you are thoughtful in your behaviour, it will save any unpleasantness. Thanks --Herby talk thyme 14:01, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
So what do you suggest I do when I see a copyright problem? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 14:24, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
But there was no copyright problem, was there? --Dschwen (talk) 14:29, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
There was a license that did not apply. Should one just let that be? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 14:33, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
Nobody suggests that. But there are many shades of gray between doing nothing and opening a DR. It is all about choosing the appropriate one. And in this case a talk page message would have been the better choice. You might want to avoid the impression that you are trying to "find fault at all cost". My guess is that your work here will then be more appreciated. --Dschwen (talk) 14:37, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
So far, Hochman has deleted all messages on his talk page, with edit summaries that indicate a very unwelcoming attitude. Better to follow standard procedure, I think. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 14:41, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
Well, ok, that talk page history sure doesn't make him look like the most lovable chum... Nonetheless, we can still all try to be a glowing example ;-). --Dschwen (talk) 14:48, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
(ec) Deal with it as you always do :) However it would be best if you would not appear to show a tendency to seek copyright violations from particular users. Many of your contributions are helpful, a few are rather more open to other interpretations. --Herby talk thyme 14:30, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Here, in my opinion, is one of Mr. Kuiper's doozies. He will argue interminably on en.WP and sw.WP for it to be kept as relevant history in the articles on the king and queen in question. Lovely for kids studying history at school! Very sad and totally unecessary, I think (and I am not a prude). I know this comment of mine isn't totally relevant to Commons - but to the general issue of this section perhaps? SergeWoodzing (talk) 21:41, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

As I wrote on the talk page to Woodzing's younger friend, it never ceases to amaze me to what lengths royalists will go in their censorship. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:52, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
So much for royalists then. I am not one. Thank you for using the edit summary "something kids may remember" just now! Sort of discloses one of your interests as an educator. 01:45, 14 May 2010 (UTC)SergeWoodzing (talk)

File:Townes.jpg

 File:Townes.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

--Blacklake (talk) 12:04, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Ottava Rima

Hi. You have participated in the long debate about Ottava Rima. You may want to vote in the final poll about his block. I might have summarized your expressed opinion already, if so please check that it is correct! Only one vote ( Support,  Oppose or  Neutral), with a block length in case of support. Nothing more in this subsection! Thanks. --Eusebius (talk) 11:56, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

That was correctly interpreted. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 12:04, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Biodiesel production.png

Pieter, I'm a bit new to the processes here at WM. Could you clarify the comment you posted with your vote? Was my reason (the instructions in the diagram are dangerous if followed, and therefore not useful for education - COM:SCOPE-Education) for deletion unclear or argument poorly-formed, or is the reason itself insufficient to warrant deletion? Thanks for clarifying --E8 (talk) 16:02, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I included the image here. So the "dangerous instructions" would be to heat up waste organic oils in buckets over open fires? I don't think anybody would interpret the schematic that way. The primary way on Commons to remove an image removed is to argue that it is a copyright violation. Arguing that this is overly simplified in comparison to http://www.utahbiodieselsupply.com/images/MakingBiodiesel2.gif is unlikely to be successful. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 08:34, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
The dangerous component would be the unclear/out-of-order middle bucket steps. You interpret these steps as heating the raw oil, but "stirring" is shown a prior step. Mixing is only useful after the methanol solution is added to the oil, and thus, the diagram shows the heating this oil/methanol mixture with open flame, which is hazardous. It's unclear what is being added in the last stage. It could be water, for the purification step, or it could be methanol (which would be out of proper order). The purification step isn't made clear in the diagram, and it is a necessary step to avoid fuel system and engine damage.--E8 (talk) 21:46, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Second life

Still concern about this really, as the terms of service freely allowing snapshots are very recent (from 2010-04-30). I can't see how we can really argue such a change is retroactive, so all the old content was taken under the old terms of service can't be kept imo. (So don't withdraw those DRs just yet).

Jacklee has started an essay on subject at Commons:Second Life, would also appreciate help in getting the template accurate...--Nilfanion (talk) 20:59, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree. When I wrote that, I had not seen yet how recent those new terms were (I would have preferred if they had waited a month...) /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:28, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Delo 18092006.jpg

Hello Pieter, Could you please explain to me how to issue an OTRS ticket in order to prevent deletion of this file? švabo (talk) 10:49, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

You cannot issue an OTRS ticket. What you need to do is to forward your correspondence with headers to the OTRS volunteers, see COM:OTRS. If they are satisfied that permissions are ok, they will isuue an OTRS ticket. Regards, /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 11:40, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Changing "U" with "V"

Can you change "U" with "V" in the Ohm's law triangle to match the Wikipedia article about Ohm's law? Thanks. Circuit-fantasist

Yes, you can do that. You just edit the very short source code of http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/fb/Ohm%27s_law_triangle.svg . Please upload as a new file. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 17:44, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

FPC careless reviews

Hi Pieter,

You may be interested in participating in this_discussion. Cheers, Alvesgaspar (talk) 16:38, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

I did that two minutes before you invited me :) I regularly take a look, but I rarely vote. And my only nomination got me blocked... /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:43, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

This is extremely useful

I just became aware of your work at Threshold of originality. It is very useful! Thanks. Nillerdk (talk) 17:48, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. I based this primarily on Carl Lindberg's postings at en:Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. He is the guy that really knows these things. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:11, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

 Hello, Pieter Kuiper. You have new messages at Bidgee's talk page. You may remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Bidgee (talk) 14:17, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I noticed that w:Template:PD-Afghanistan and {{PD-Afghanistan}} are inconsistent.

Commons says the image is a work of Afghanistan. Wikipedia says the work was first published in Afghanistan, a higher bar. I think you are likely to agree they should be consistent.

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 14:38, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

The bar is not that different. I would interpret "work of Afghanistan" as published in Afghanistan, or exhibited there, or acquired there. I do not interpret work of Afghanistan as images by a tourist or a journalist of a mountain of Afghanistan. So I would not say they were inconsistent. What is allowed should be a bit wider than "published in Afghanistan", when "published" would be interpreted very technically. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 15:21, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

FYI

I've nominated File:Volkswagen logo.svg for deletion on the copyright issue which I still believe is valid, and would appreciate your input at the discussion. VernoWhitney (talk) 00:21, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Dutch speaker with copyright question on English Wikipedia

Since I've just been discussing copyright issues with you here, and I notice you're a fluent speaker of Dutch, do you think you'd be willing to assist me helping out this speaker of Dutch over on English WIkipedia's Media copyright questions page? —RP88 12:53, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

It is not a copyright question. He is looking for general information about the cars of Rainier of Monaco. Not the right place. I think I will revert him. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 13:02, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, I appreciate it. The google translation was garbled enough that I thought he might be asking about the copyright status of a photo of one of the cars formerly owned by Prince Rainier. —RP88 13:12, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

do not vote on my nomination

you're doing mych better uploading anti-semitic [....] to Commons.--Mbz1 (talk) 09:32, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

You have been blocked for a duration of One week

 You have been blocked from editing Commons for a duration of One week for the following reason: Agressive behaviour (see diff), and uploading Latuff images again, which constitutes unnecessary provocation.. If you wish to make useful contributions, you may do so after the block expires. See block log.

diff Rama (talk) 15:23, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

 Unblock request granted This blocked user asked to be unblocked, and one or more administrators has reviewed and granted this request. Request reason: "Rama's dislike of Latuff is no reason to block me; somebody should do something about Mbz1's personal attacks, like the one above, and her sexist assault on Lycaon's wife." Unblock reason: "Adambro (Talk | contribs | block) unblocked Pieter Kuiper (Talk | contribs) (behaviour does not warrant such a block, particularly since well established consensus supports keeping Latuff images, no reason to believe recent uploads were ill intentioned)" This template should be archived normally.
Comment: I had blocked Mbz1 for her comment above four minutes before I blocked Peter Kuiper [22]. Rama (talk) 16:34, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
So this is supposed to be evenhanded? There are constant attacks on me also a vile one here. Some Jews call uploads of a Latuff cartoon antisemitism, you call it provocation, but the end result is just the same: censorship. Cannot criticize Israel. Deflect discussion about the actions of Israel to the Holocaust, to weapons, to octopuses, to xx-mile zones. Avoid the real problem. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 17:24, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
I don't see how you can possibly claim that uploading images that consensus has stated are appropriate for Commons, that DRs don't delete, is a valid reason to block someone.--Prosfilaes (talk) 17:41, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
Edit conflict I was just writing the unblock granted request and got the edit conflict, so here's what I was writing: "As per the comments from Prosfilaes, blocking a user for uploading images where well established consensus has supported keeping such images is very odd. I also see no reason to believe these images were uploaded with malicious intentions. As far as I can see, the recent Gaza incident prompted Latuff to create a cartoon about that incident which Pieter then found and uploaded. That has then perhaps in turn prompted Pieter to identify any further Latuff images to upload. I see little evidence that there was a malicious intent there. As for the comment on ShakespeareFan00's talk page highlighted, it isn't that friendly sure, but certainly doesn't merit a block of such a length, if at all." Adambro (talk) 18:16, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
I did not block Pieter only for uploading images, though he had been warned before, but also for his vindicative behaviour that you can see here for instance. I have posted the diff with the bock rational, so I do not understand how Prosfilaes and Adambro managed to both miss this. As for blocking for uploading images, I reserve a right to block for disruptive behaviour whatever the means of the disruption. Rama (talk) 23:12, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
That is not vindictive. It was the endless series of DR's without reason that was disruptive. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 05:54, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
1) Yes you were vindictive. "thoughtless", "utterly annoying", "I think "thoughtless" was putting it mildly" are not neutral terms.
2) No it wasn't without reason. It is perfectly reasonable to start a DR on a file without a source, without an author, and with an unsubstanciated date. Rama (talk) 06:13, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
1) You do not know what "vindictive" means in English.
2) The only reason given was that the files were tagged "non-free" on one of the projects that allow non-free material. I had commented on a series of these DR's, but that did not affect the nominator. Whose juggling of his two accounts is confusing and irritating. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 06:22, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
You have a strong tendency to be aggressive, hostile and provocative. You have been in the past, you were in this case, and you are starting to be now. You are clearly intelligent, so I am not willing to assume that you do not realise the provocativeness of your actions and your words.
This is Commons, and we have standards. It is standard procedure to provide an author and source. It is admissible to relax the constraints on the author if he is not known, assuming the image can be determined, with absolute certainty, to be old enough to be in the public domain no matter what. In this case, there is nothing to back the date claimed; the date is too recent to assure the public domain; and the source is still lacking. Ergo, it was perfectly legitimate to ask about this image. If that conflicts with your standards, you sould revise them. Rama (talk) 06:37, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
Am I supposed to guess that you are talking about Commons:Deletion requests/File:Tchaikovsky with wife Antonina Miliukova.jpg? Nominator never questioned dates, nobody ever gave a reason to doubt the date. But please discuss those issues in DR's. And maybe I should have a look whether your uploads are up to standard. But oh no, that would be hostile and aggressive. As opposed to you mild manner of issuing blocks. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 06:48, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
By all means do checks my edits. I will be happy if their comformity with copyright laws and Commons standards is confirmed. I will be happy if mistakes are corrected. I will be happy if you spend your time on something that does not end up, "somehow", by causing conflict and annoyance. Rama (talk)

To respond to Rama's earlier comment, I did consider the comment Pieter made on ShakespeareFan's talk page. If you read my comment above, I've dealt with it in the sentence starting "As for the comment on ShakespeareFan00's talk page highlighted". Adambro (talk) 07:26, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

File:Karrer.jpg

 File:Karrer.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Sfan00 IMG (talk) 19:28, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Teilhard-de-Chardin-1.jpg

It isn't hard for me to guess why you've decided to nominate this image for deletion at the current time. I'm not however convinced that is an appropriate approach to dealing with Commons:Deletion requests/File:Ship to Gaza by Latuff.gif. You're undermining my attempt to have a calm discussion with Rama about that deletion with a view to resolving the issue. You will note that I recently unblocked you. Please don't do anything which may make me regret that decision. Adambro (talk) 08:15, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

See above. Rama says that he welcomes scrutiny of his images. I have seen some questionable ones (FOP stuff), but I do not want to be nitpicking. However, these ones are flagrant copyvios. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 08:19, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
I had not seen that you had already called Rama's attention to User:Rama/Personalities drawings. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 09:21, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Speedy delete

Hello. I see you have marked File:Rue Crémieux - Rue de Bercy, Paris 12.jpg for speedy deletion. I am aware of the no FOP in France policy, but I wasn't aware that it applied to anonymous works such as those that are currently to be found in Category:Murals in France. However, I cannot claim to be an expert in copyright matters, and if you believe this is a clear-cut case, I have no objection to the deletion. - Mu (talk) 23:04, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

The only justification to keep it might be that the painting is a bit small, but it is clearly the raison d'être of the photo. The criterion on Commons is that one should be allowed to market the photo as a postcard without asking the artist for permission, and this photo fails that criterium. Yes, other murals in France also should be deleted, unless they are really old. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 23:08, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply. The intention was to show a Paris street plaque in what might arguably be called an aesthetic context, as for example in File:Rue Le Regrattier - Rue de la Femme-Sans-Teste, Paris 4.jpg. So, in that sense, it would be tricky for me to argue that the picture is not "clearly the raison d'être of the photo". As regards the size of the painting, I really don't know, but if it fails to meet the one essential criterion, then I agree that it should be deleted. - Mu (talk) 11:51, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

WP:POINT

Hi Pieter,
your most recent actions seem most likely to be an attempted revange to this. Please note, that continous violating of a projects peace might lead to some short blocks. Please calm down and try to discuss constructively, not by requesting an enormous amount of files for deletion. Thank you, abf «Cabale!» 10:00, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi abf, it was after Rama's renomination of Commons:Deletion requests/File:Ship to Gaza by Latuff.gif that I looked into how careful he was with copyright. After all, he wrote above that I was welcome to check his uploads for copyright problems. It turns out that his drawings are done from photos. Apparently, this was a wellknown issue (also discussed on enwp), that nobody did anything about. Such double standards reflect very poorly on Commons. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:55, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
Merely adding my agreement with ABF's comment here. Maybe someone would like to count the times this user has had similar warnings for similar actions. --Herby talk thyme 10:04, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
Uploads by admins should not be exempted from scrutiny. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 10:08, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
I completely agree with you. However you should not search for mistakes/opportunities to provoke others among the contributions of people who you are at odds with. You have done this with voting on FP and the like, you have done it with deletion nominations and you have been warned many times about this type of behaviour by a variety of folk here. --Herby talk thyme 10:23, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
The drawings on User:Rama/Personalities drawings were mentioned as rather dubious a long time ago on enwp, yet nothing was done about them. Read Commons:Village_pump/Archive/2009Aug#Possible copyright violation - nothing happens. Read User talk:Rama/archive 8#Paléopinacotrombinoscope - nothing happens. Adambro was aware of those drawings, and thinks that pussyfooting is the best approach. There is a double standard of looking the other way when admins are involved while outsiders are being lambasted with tags for no good reason at all. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 13:04, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
I will repeat - admins are not above the law. However you always seem to pay very close attention to people who you are in some form of dispute with. That is the issue both now and in the past. I am not Rama, I am not Adambro - I do seek collaborative work on this wiki and that is something in which we seem to differ. You have had far too many warning about your behaviour in my view. --Herby talk thyme 13:10, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Sometimes you are very determined not to listen to what is said to you. From above I will repeat - admins are not above the law. Please ensure you read that before replying. I spend a lot of my time deleting copyright violations so your statement is patent nonsense.

The issue is that you target people (not just admins) who you are in dispute with. You review edits etc and try and find things that are wrong or ways you can vote against them. I stress - this behaviour is directed towards people you are in dispute with - this is the issue. This is stalking/disruptive/uncollaborative behaviour. The time for final warnings is part now I think. --Herby talk thyme 13:35, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

And you are persistently targeting me. Save your sermons for Mbz1 please. Or go clean up category:Copyright violations. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 14:49, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
You are without doubt one of the least pleasant people here on Commons. I do clean up copyright violations - I have deleted an awful lot in my time here. Do not tell me what tasks I should undertake as a volunteer here. I do what I can to see that Commons runs as harmoniously as possible. You often take the opposite position. I assure you I will continue to watch and do what I can to encourage you to stop targeting users you are in dispute with. If I fail in that I will review the position and the many warnings you have had on the subject of disruption. --Herby talk thyme 15:02, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
You are so sweet and affable and friendly and virtuous. I love you Herby (have I ever voted against any of your landscapes?), but please try to save other wretches. Consider me a hopeless case, weltering in depravity and wickedness. Do not get contaminated by my demons. Because I am afraid that I am getting under your skin. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 15:17, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
I am sorry to disappoint you but you really are not that clever. --Herby talk thyme 15:30, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
Ouch! Herby, that hurts! /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 15:32, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
I think you are very intelligent. But you have to be careful, that you don't use that intelligence to hurt other people around you. And being intelligent as you are, you have a very sharp weapon that can do a lot of damage if you use it in the wrong way. I hope you understand what I am trying to say here. Amada44 (talk) 18:26, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Tags on river maps

You have tagged some of the maps of river basins I have uploaded. I have clearly stated that they have been drawn by me. They are not copies or derivatives of other maps. In stead of tagging them, maybe you indicate why I am not allowed, according to you, to upload maps which I have drawn myself. I have stated in the upload that the map is my own work. If you do not agree with this, I challenge you to find an existing map which contains the information I have presented on my maps. But if you are not capable of presenting this proof, then I would appreciate if you would abstain of accusing me of being incorrect when I indicate that the maps are drawn by me. It takes months of work to prepare a map like that. Afil (talk) 16:40, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Please account for your sources on the file pages. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:48, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
Dear Mr. Kuiper,
I really do not understand what you want. I have clearly stated that I have released the maps to public domain as copyright holder.
In 1959-1963 I was project manager of the development plan of water resources in Romania. One of my responsibilities was to design the maps of the various river basins, which I did with the team which was under my direct supervision. We used a lot of different information starting with old austro-hungarian maps and finishing witb air photographies for some areas. We also made extensive field reconnaissance. All this is the normal process of producing maps. Also having a printing office under my supervision, I also supervised and coordinated the printing of these maps. As project manager I am the copyright holder of the maps according to prevailing copyright legislation. Releasing the maps you have tagged is fully within my legal rights as copyright holder. While I have adapted some parts of the maps, this does not change in any way my rights as copyright holder.
I really consider that you are not competent to challenge my copyright holder rights. Your attitudine is extremely offensive. What you want to prove is unclear to me. You have already deleted a maps which I have produced and have refused to reinstate it. I do not keep copies of the maps I upload, in the belief that they will not be vandalized or, at least not made unrecoverable. Now you ask for my other maps to be deleted, without any justificatipon, just because you "feel" that something is incorrect. I have stated that I am the copyright holder. Can you understand that as such I also have the right to be a contributor to Wikipedia. Please refrain from continuing this dispute. Afil (talk) 18:12, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
You did not write anything about this professional background in Commons:Undeletion requests/Current requests#Mitocu River Basin.jpg, so this comes a bit as a surprise. And one cannot believe anybody who makes claims like this. But please mail this information to COM:OTRS, and if you can prove to their satisfaction that you are the copyrightholder, everything will be fine. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:19, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
Dear Mr. Kuiper,
I really consider that your assertion "one cannot believe anybody who makes claims like this" is extremely offensive. It also indicates a total lack o manners and civility. Even if you have some doubts, they can be worded in a way which indicates a minimum degree of education. But I am not here to try to teach you manners. In any case, before being agressive, you could have looked for the article about my activity in Wikipedia, where this background is clearly stated. But you may not believe this either. I do not like to brag about my professional background but also do not like to be called a liar. Afil (talk) 18:58, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
I have not called you a liar, and you should not protest so much. Please contact COM:OTRS with evidence instead. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:26, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

┌─────────┘
As project manager I am the copyright holder of the maps... I am not sure if this is true. Copyright holder would most likely be the the organisation you have worked for. Can you show me a link to that prevailing copyright legislation? Thanks, Amada44 (talk) 20:52, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Afil now claims that his maps are based on unspecified "data from NASA". /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 06:52, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

De Wand schildering.JPG

First I dont get any warning it will be fast deleted and what is the rush?

Is there a WP policy decision that you are not allowed to show grafiti? Our is this the work of an known author?

I dont see how anonymous grafiti sprayers doing an illegal activity can expect any copyrigth protection. Or was this a legal activity? Smiley.toerist (talk) 22:02, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Anonymous works are protected by copyright, yes. And as you wrote yourself in nl:Wikipedia:De kroeg/Archief 20100606, this was most probably authorized. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:33, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

File:BildBocuse.jpg

Please discuss this somewhere else. In a deletion request, for example. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 17:46, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Copied this thread to Commons:Forum#File:BildBocuse.jpg_-_Panoramafreiheit_Frankreich since it is mostly in german anyways. Feel free to archive (trash) this. --Dschwen (talk) 18:57, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/File:Curculionidae_01_(MK).jpg

Hi, maybe you can tell me what is confusing for you at this picture?! Thanks -- mathias K 14:28, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Discussion on COM:AN/U

You are again being discussed at Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/User_problems#Pieter_Kuiper_.28talk.C2.A0.C2.B7_contributions.29.   — Jeff G. ツ 18:14, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

By you. There is no reason to bring this matter to a board. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:19, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

{{autotranslate|1=Commons talk:Licensing|base=test2}}  — Jeff G. ツ 05:44, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Na, it is you that is doing the vandalizing. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 06:05, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

== {{autotranslate|base=test4/heading}} == {{autotranslate|base=test4}}   — Jeff G. ツ 19:51, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Ogoniok series

You rv.edits are incorrect (for example). Free status of these magazines can be disscussed only after dates of life for all non-anonymous authors will be specified. Alex Spade (talk) 16:48, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Make an ordinary DR (a mass deletion request) if you propose to delete these. The case is not obvious, they should not be speedied, this merits discussion. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:51, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
I agree that these cases can be not obvious for you, but you have just made undo without any desription/notification of your actions. Alex Spade (talk) 17:01, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
I had written that I disagreed. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 17:18, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
You had written something only today, but you had written nothing when you had done undo. Alex Spade (talk) 17:57, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
Yes, it was in the first edit summaries; then I tired. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 17:58, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Are you always so stubborn?

I had hoped that after our last discussion you would give up your constants attacks. I would kindly urge you to stop. I do not like having disputes and would prefer us to get along. But your aggressive attitude cannot go on indefinitely.Afil (talk) 18:32, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I can be stubborn. If your maps are free, it should be quite simple for you to present some evidence for that. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:42, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
In this case, I agree with Pieter and I commented on the current deletion request: File:Timoc.jpg. Besides, it seems that you are getting personal against Pieter. If you would respond normally, this case would be closed soon, but it seems like you are hiding something. Nillerdk (talk) 18:56, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

File:Polar_T.jpeg

Hi Pieter. Have you got any idea what this could be and if its useful? Amada44  talk to me 21:30, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Probably related to other uploads, figures in use in v:User:Egm6322.s09.mafia/HW4. The project seems to have stalled. Not useful without a description, easily reproduced for someone familiar with the subject. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:49, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
I though maybe you would recognise this as some physics stuff (I didn't,..) I'll put a DR onto it. Thanks!! Amada44  talk to me 22:04, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

This is unacceptable

We had some previous discussions regarding the maps I have uploaded. You had advised that the case be submitted to OTRS which I did. If they have the right to the decision, why do you insist on rapidly deleting them. You are really acting in bad faith.Afil (talk) 19:03, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

You re-uploaded files that were deleted after Commons:Deletion requests/File:Timoc.jpg. You should not do that. Ask for undeletion instead. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:07, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
What you fail to mention is that the information which was requested has been provided. In the discussion you asked for sources to be provided. Therefore the reason you had for asking for the deletion does not exist any more. Are you able to have a decent discussion on a matter or do you always want to be right, even when you are wrong? You asked for the files to be submitted to ORTC. This was done. You asked for the sources to be indicated. This was done. Each time I comply with your requests you invent something new.Afil (talk) 19:46, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
No, you keep inventing new subterfuges. First it is the Bosnian government, then it is NASA, then it is a dozen different sources, always in a way that is difficult to verify. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:19, 27 June 2010 (UTC)