User talk:Siebrand

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to: navigation, search
Please reply at the location of the original topic to not scatter talk all around. I do have that page on my Watchlist. Thanks.
Welkom op Commons, Siebrand!

I have the name from German Wikipedia.--Uwe W. 18:58, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Moving categories[edit]

Hi Siebrand, you can make requests to move categories directly to User:Orgullobot. Look for the page about "commands". If you are not an admin you can put the requests on the talk page and an admin will move them across. cheers, pfctdayelise (translate?) 12:57, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip. I also put the request up there. Siebrand 13:08, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Hello Siebrand,
Just to let you know I saw your request on Orgullomoore's talk page and have moved the categories you identified to the list I left in my reply there. I noted that the locator maps for municipalities in Friesland included the subdivisions "Maps of Menaldumadeel", "Maps of Opsterland", etc; these also contain locator maps, so perhaps should be renamed "Locator maps for X in Menaldumadeel/Opsterland/etc". I'm not sure, though, what X should be: districts?  Thanks for your help, David Kernow 20:57, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, that's kindof hard :). I wouldn't change those. They are municipality names and consist of multiple merged municipalities that no longer exist. I've also added those subcats to the name of the municipality somewhere else in the cat-tree. Siebrand 21:00, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Understood. Thanks for the message you left while I was leaving the above!  David 21:34, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Image:Kampen.jpg[edit]

Hello Siebrand. I see that you reverted the uploader of this image when he tried to tag the image with a license tag. User:Thordivel is new to Commons, so I think that you should have explained to him in his talk page why you reverted him. I have now told him, but in the future you should try to remember to do it yourself. Cheers, Kjetil_r 01:15, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Sure, I'll try and remember. Siebrand 05:06, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Image:Marck.jpg[edit]

Non-encyclopedic is not a qualification for speedy-deletion. Please list the image at Commons:Deletion requests. Thank you. Cary "Bastique" Bass parler voir 20:28, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Image:Boltzmann-Ludwig.jpg[edit]

Er was wel degelijk een reden om dat image weg te commentarieren uit Ludwig Boltzmann. Ik had nl bij nader inzien mijn twijfels over auteursrechten. Het image komt oorspronkelijk van een website van de Universiteit van Wenen. Het probleem is dat het plaatje gemanipuleerd is: het oorspronkelijke plaatje Image:Boltzmann2.jpg is kennelijk op een of andere achtergrond geprojecteerd waar de herkomst niet duidelijk is. Waarmee de auteursrecht situatie troebel is: Het oorspronkelijke plaatje is duidelijk PD (meer dan 100 jaar oud), maar dat kan van het gemanipuleerde plaatje niet gezegd worden. Misschien moet ik het maar listen voor deletion, maar ik heb daar nog geen besluit over genomen. Tot dan leek het mij verstandig derden niet in de verleiding te brengen dat plaatje voor hun project te gebruiken; vandaar dat ik het verdekt wilde opstellen JdH 03:01, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Kan ik inkomen. Maak alsjeblieft gebruik van het commentaarveld/summary bij wijzigingen om aan te geven waarom je een wijziging maakt. Verwijderen van content zonder opgave van reden leidt snel tot terugdraaien. Siebrand 07:18, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
Wel, als je wilt helpen dan heb ik een suggestie voor je. Ik heb nl nogal wat moeite gedaan om goede plaatjes te vinden van Boltzmann, maar helaas zijn er zijn veel kwalitatief slechte copieen, en wel met name van het plaatje in kwestie. Waarschijnlijk copieen van copieen. Wat dat betreft is dat exemplaar van die site van de Universiteit van Wenen veruit het best; misschien hebben zij een oorspronkelijke afdruk van die foto. Kortom, de beste oplossing is waarschijnlijk dat plaatje in te voeren in Photoshop oid, en die achtergrond wegwerken. En tevens omzetten in zwart/wit: kleuren kosten onnodig veel bytes. Ik denk dat het copyright probleem op die manier ook vermeden wordt. Als je gemotiveerd bent dat te doen, ga dan vooral je gang :-) ; anders doe ik het misschien zelf nog eens als ik er aan toekom. JdH 19:00, 17 June 2006 (UTC)


Image Tagging Image:Daidalos Pasiphaë.jpg[edit]

العربية | asturianu | беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Ελληνικά | English | español | euskara | فارسی | suomi | français | galego | עברית | magyar | italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | norsk nynorsk | norsk bokmål | polski | português | português do Brasil | русский | slovenčina | slovenščina | svenska | Türkçe | Tiếng Việt | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Warning sign
This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Daidalos Pasiphaë.jpg. I notice the image page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the media on Wikimedia Commons (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag, then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then you can use {{GFDL-self}} to release it under the GFDL or {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have uploaded other media, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find all your uploads using the Gallery tool. Thank you. Dodo 16:13, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Category:Locator maps for of municipalities in Utrecht[edit]

heb ik verwijderd nadat alle content is overgezet naar Category:Locator maps for municipalities in Utrecht, een al bestaande cat. Dat je 't ff weet. NielsF 13:51, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Bedankt. Die kaartjes is een project waar ik al wel veel werk in heb gestoken, maar het is nog niet af... Voor alle provincies moet er een cat komen en waar een gemeente deelgemeenten heeft, komen die weer in een subcat. Als ik me niet vergis is Friesland inmiddels af. Siebrand 16:58, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Question[edit]

This is about the Tahirih images. Would it be possible for my organization to give you a general e-mail saying that all pictures and media related to Tahirih, and over which Tahirih has a copyright, that I upload on Wikimedia are free for distribution? The e-mail standard that you directed me to is a bit confusing, and I'm not sure under what licensing these images should be released into the public. Thanks.UberCryxic 15:05, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that would be fine, too. Just as long as you explicitely refer to an accepted license in this repository. Siebrand 22:13, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, right now, that's the problem we're having: we're not sure what license to refer to. The person who may know is out of the office this week. It's not really urgent, but what license under the list you have would a non-profit organization like ours be likely to use?UberCryxic 19:38, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Best ask your lawyers. I'm not one of them ;). We prefer Public domain, as it is the most open license imaginable. From a company's point of view, you'd possibly choose a license that does not allow derivative works. However, should you choose the last one, your uploads are not allowed. Please make sure your employer understands what they may be agreeing to. More comprehensive information on licensing is available here. Siebrand 07:47, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Image:Napoleon-rivoli.jpg[edit]

Hi Siebrand. There are two great lies of copyright to watch out for on the web: (1) that nothing is copyrighted, and (2) that everything is copyrighted. Many government/museum-type websites love to claim copyright on anything and everything they have a digital image of. Doesn't mean the claims are true. It's worth investigating. --pfctdayelise (translate?) 16:22, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

So this is your reasoning?
  1. Painting created in 18-something, PD because of age
  2. Is painting, no frame in image: 2 dimensional work: not copyrighted
  3. Can be used as PD because of (1) and (2)

Please let me know if you've used the above reasoning. It'll help a lot in my understanding.

On a hypothetical note: If the painting had been photographed with the frame and I had cropped and uploaded it, would the above apply? Siebrand 21:43, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes that's my understanding. Also yes on your hypothetical note. pfctdayelise (translate?) 23:58, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
Great. Very helpful. Thanks. Siebrand 06:28, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Signs in Category:Road signs of Poland[edit]

Hi Siebrand, You've written "If not all instances have been replaced, please add the {superseded} tag to all images involved. These image are not tagged, so with provided information I say: keep.". --And what if all of them are orphaned? I've checked it and replaced if necessary. Shall I tag them despite? --MStankie 18:30, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

It's proper procedure, I think. If any uses still occur, they'll be mentioned in localised CommonsTickers. That's also a tip for the next time, I think: if you know you'll be asking for deletion a bunch of images that are widely used, tag them with the proper deletion tag and only orphan a few days later. Big chance that editors at local wikis have already some of the work for you. Siebrand 18:33, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Twice25[edit]

Thank you for that. I'll make it. :) --「Twice28.0 · contributi · talk」 11:38, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Excellent! We appear to be able to communicate after all. ;-). Siebrand 12:00, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Apropiate categories[edit]

Thank you for you letter. I don't speak english (only a few words) and for me is very difficult to create right categories because I don't know many names on english. Then I search the name and I use the category where a image on the same topic is already push on line. jolle 16:07, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Any category is OK. Even if it is not the most granular category, please find one or more keywords that apply. Maybe you can use Babel to translate categories for you? Siebrand 21:35, 5 August 2006 (UTC)


Redirect[edit]

Redirect is the way to not loose anything while browsing. So if you browse through cerchiara you always finish to the same page. 1) having to differente pages talking about the same matter is confusing; 2)it's not the standard we chose for the italian cities. Please have a look at the huge job me made till now. 3) For the moment cechaira as only a page, so it's uselss to have a category. For the moment we try tofollow simple rules: cat contains pages and category; photos belongs to pages. If a city as two page, we made a cat for that city and the add two page ( one with the same name intended as the principa one of the category ) toi that. Try to browse category roma. Thanks for your comprehension, --mac 05:27, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Image:Crayfish-Astacus astacusP1002890.JPG[edit]

Dag. Ik heb de vrijheid genomen bovenstaande afbeelding van zijn watermark te ontdoen. Foto's met veel structuur zijn een stuk makkelijker te manipuleren dan diegenen zonder. Als je nog zo'n (fauna- of flora-) afbeeldingen tegenkomt, mag je me daar gerust op attent maken. Groet. Lycaon 06:22, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Ik kan alleen maar zeggen: WOW! Ik vond dat er geen beginnen aan was. Als je meer 'bewerkingswerk' wilt doen, kijk dan vooral eens naar de categorie Images for cleanup. Daar kan jij vast een heel goed bijdrage aan leveren. Siebrand 13:47, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Een gelieerde opmerking: nav een discussie op Template_talk:Deletion_requests#Watermarks is er inmiddels {{Watermark}} (en een Nederlandse vertaling die misschien nog wat opkalefatering behoeft, hint hint) om dit soort dingen te categoriseren. Groet, NielsF 15:49, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Ciao[edit]

Ciao Sieb; I'm not removing I woith other italian users are organizing photos; have had a trip on our pages? We're not removing anything, we just organiza photo in pages and pages under categories. Thank for your collaboraion. --mac 13:52, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Mac9, you are frustrating one part of the search/browse process: that of browsing and organising in categories. Please let them exist together and do not remove categorisation that is already in place. It does no harm and there is IMO no justification to remove it. Siebrand 13:54, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
We had several time this discussion; plese try to consdier other point of view. We're otganizing italian cat this way. There is a page with the same title and the same cat. No loose of info...but more rational organization. Thnaks for your comprehnesion. --mac 13:56, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
As you can see there is a page with the same infoo contents and browsing info as the cat. Please have a look on the overall strucuture in the italian cats. --mac 13:58, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Please see this topic in the Village Pump. Siebrand 14:02, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Hi, mac is generally taking out the category from my pics, I just file with the city category to be quick, the he files in an apporpriate gallery and removes the category. I agree, otherwise now the Category:Firenze would have something like 1 thousand pics in, so I think it is much better this way. You can check the different of approach in a catergory such as category:Istanbul, as you can see the images left in teh category are much more caotic (just filed under alphabetical title list). Thanks for checking! Ciao --Sailko 18:40, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
That's not what my critique is aimed at: I'm asking you to not remove valuable category information just because you happen to have added it to an article with the same name. The category information does not bother you and because you remove the category information, you are removing image properties. Please allow both categorisation and galleries to co-exist. Siebrand 11:28, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Rotate Images[edit]

Hello Siebrand, to mark an image that should rotated you can use {{Rotate}}. That way put the images directly in the right Category:Images requiring rotation. --GeorgHH 15:32, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip. Template mania is hard sometimes ;-) Siebrand 16:57, 11 August 2006 (UTC)


Image Tagging Image:ASP.NET auth.gif[edit]

العربية | asturianu | беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Ελληνικά | English | español | euskara | فارسی | suomi | français | galego | עברית | magyar | italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | norsk nynorsk | norsk bokmål | polski | português | português do Brasil | русский | slovenčina | slovenščina | svenska | Türkçe | Tiếng Việt | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/− Thanks for uploading Image:ASP.NET auth.gif. I notice the image page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. <snip> GeorgHH 22:10, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice, fixed. Siebrand 10:43, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Spam[edit]

Thanks. That's right. They send to me many spams, for example viagra etc... Bye.

Template {{Rename}}[edit]

Hello Siebrand, i see you created a the new template Rename. My question is why you do this, we have already the template {{Rename image}}? With this now two Categories are available, Category:Rename requested and Category:Images requiring renaming. This is inappropriate. --GeorgHH 19:42, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Template mania. I looked around for a template like this, asked on IRC and no one could tell me what you just told me... I'll remove the template I created some day soon and replace its usage by {{Rename image}}. Please assume good faith. Siebrand 22:51, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Fixed. I created a redirect to the previously created template and put up the new category for removal. Now both templates can be used with the same source. Siebrand 16:11, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

geblokkeerd[edit]

ik kan nergens terug vinden hoelang ik nog geblokeerd blijf? jun je dat eens in de kroeg smijten op de vlaamse Wiki? Carolus 09:02, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Hoi, op nl.wp ben je geblokkeerd tot 12 oktober 2006. De Vlaamse wiki (vls.wp) kent geen gebruiker met de naam Carolus, dus ik kan niet voor je nakijken tot wanneer je daar geblokkeerd bent. Groet, Siebrand 16:43, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

FOTW images[edit]

Hi. On Sep 30, you marked zillion images by speedy tag with deletion reason FOTW pic uploaded after 2005-05-19. Can you please explain to me, what is wrong with FOTW after May 2005? Thanks in advance --Zirland 18:56, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

The template {{FOTWpic}} states that images uploaded after 2005-05-19 are to be deleted. I thought I might as well tag them as such. Is {{FOTWpic}} incorrect? Siebrand 18:58, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
That is what Wikimedia promised the FOTW folks. They don't want us to host their images, so they should of course be removed. Just one thing Siebrand, please don't tag images created by Jaume Ollé (Jolle) with {{FOTWpic}} -- he has released all his work published on his personal homepage and FOTW under the GFDL for use on Wikipedias (see es:Wikipedia:Autorizaciones/Banderas de Jaume Ollé) and it would be very sad if they would be speedydeleted! --Himasaram 11:49, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
Yes! I saw that only very late in the tagging process. Only some of the images created by him have a link to the message that you mentioned. I may have 'speedy'ed a few of them. Because I tagged that many (200+ it must be, I think), I'm quite sure there are a few that have been tagged incorrectly. Siebrand 16:27, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
I see in my recent changes that you have tagged many images {{SVG}} and tagged some images with the 'Jolle'-license. Thanks for doing that. Siebrand 16:37, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
I checked all the images in Category:FOTW images, and therefore all images marked with {{FOTWpic}}. Did you mark any images for speedydelete without adding FOTWpic? --Himasaram 13:50, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
Nope. Siebrand 13:53, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
All well then :) --Himasaram 14:03, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

File:Shilshole and kite.jpg[edit]

Ages ago, you deleted File:Shilshole and kite.jpg as a duplicate. It's not a duplicate: it's the actual photo from which another image was created, including some use of cloning. At the time you deleted it, you didn't inform me, so I had no way to raise an objection. Would you have any problem with my undeleting it? - Jmabel ! talk 01:05, 17 August 2015 (UTC)