User talk:Wutsje/Archive

This is an archive of my talk page. Please do not post any new comments on this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so here.

---

Welcome to Wikimedia Commons, Wutsje!

First steps tutorial Our first steps tour and our frequently asked questions will help you a lot after registration. They explain how to customize the interface (for example the language), how to upload files and our basic licensing policy (Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content). You don't need technical skills in order to contribute here. Be bold when contributing and assume good faith when interacting with others. This is a wiki. Getting help More information is available at the community portal. You may ask questions at the help desk, village pump or on IRC channel #wikimedia-commons (webchat). You can also contact an administrator on their talk page. If you have a specific copyright question, ask at the copyright village pump.

Goodies, tips, and tricks Put Babel boxes on your user page so others know what languages you can speak and indicate your graphic abilities. You can find the files you have uploaded in your Uploads. Please sign your name on Talk pages by typing ~~~~. To link to an image page without embedding the image, type: [[:File:Foo.jpg]], which produces: File:Foo.jpg. You may enable gadgets (custom features) for your account. There are several tools to upload files. Have you edited Wikipedia before? This guide might be useful. Made a mistake? Do you want to have a file renamed or moved? Use the move link and wait for an authorized user to rename it. Do you want to have your recently uploaded picture removed? Tag it as {{speedy|reason here}}. For more information read the deletion guidelines.

--SieBot 12:28, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 080520 d' Olde Zwarver Kampen NL.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Nice composition --Ianare 17:26, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Image Tagging Image:Kuipers.jpg

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Kuipers.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 content is a derivative of a copyrighted work, you need to supply the names and a licence of the original authors as well.

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 {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} to release it under the multilicense GFDL plus Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike All-version license 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. Multichill (talk) 21:03, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Multichill, hier word ik nou doodmoe van. Ik vind op Commons ergens een plaatje, dat te donker is. Ik maak er een iets lichtere versie van. Vervolgens flikkert iemand het origineel weg, waardoor de gegevens van de originele uploader verloren gaan. Ik meld dat tot twee maal toe netjes, zowel op de opee als bij het plaatje. En tenslotte komt er iemand die besluit dat de bewerkte versie ook maar weg moet, want er ontbreken essentiële gegevens. Nee, dat gaat lekker hier hoor. Wutsje (talk) 21:10, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Wat is de naam van het orgineel? Dat had je zowieso in de nieuwe upload kunnen en moeten vermelden.

Ik heb trouwens al gezocht op alle afbeeldingen met "uipers" dan wel "uypers" in de verwijderde afbeeldingen en kon niets vinden. Ook kon ik geen verwijderde afbeeldingen vinden die 384 × 431 pixels zijn. Multichill (talk) 21:18, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

(na bwc) Dus nou krijg ik zelf de schuld? Fantastisch. Hoe dan ook: ik heb geen idee meer hoe het origineel heette. Iets met Kuipers of Kuypers of met Gra Ligia. Het was een van mijn eerste uploads op Commons, ik wist toen nog niet zo goed hoe het hier (niet) werkte. Als ik had voorzien dat het origineel zou worden verwijderd, dan had ik die gegevens heus wel vermeld. Wutsje (talk) 21:20, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Nee, ik geef je nergens de schuld van. Ik vertel je dat bij gebrek aan link naar het orgineel de auteur niet te achterhalen is. Ik heb gisteren met Effeietsanders een aantal pogingen ondernomen om het orgineel terug te vinden in de verwijderde afbeeldingen (zie boven), maar er kwam niets boven water. Omdat de auteur niet te achterhalen is kan deze afbeelding helaas niet behouden blijven. Als deze afbeelding om de nl wikipedia had gestaan dan was deze ook verwijderd wegens gebrek aan informatie. Multichill (talk) 19:54, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Ik ben blij dat het orgineel boven water is. Het was dus zo te zien niet weggeflikkerd...... Multichill (talk) 13:04, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

User talk:84.87.184.247

Hi,

Ik had de afbeelding eigenlijk genomineerd hier om een discussie op Commons te starten. Ik heb/had niet in de gaten dat er op dat moment ook al een discussie op de wiki liep. Als ik iets beter had opgelet hadden we niet langs elkaar op gediscusseerd.

Ik zag zojuist ook pas dat ik niet ingelogd was. Waarschijnlijk door de FF update.

Groetjes, Sterkebaktalk 17:04, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

for keeping an eye on newpages, speedy tagging and informing users about project scope, it is really appreciated. Regarding notifying this user my opnion is that one single general template would have been sufficient, adding a scope-template for every single one of the pages was probably more overwhelming than informative for the user. Regards, Finn Rindahl (talk) 13:26, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Might be, but it's also a way of trying to get the message through. And I think he has a right to know that his contributions were marked for deletion - every one of them. Wutsje (talk) 13:33, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Then I would suggest leaving one general scope template, and actually writing (without templates) below a note explaining which pages this was about. Literally filling a user page with identical templates is too much in my opinion. Regards, Finn Rindahl (talk) 13:41, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

And less boring to do too. Okay, I'll do that next time. Regards, Wutsje (talk) 14:53, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Per Finn - useful work thanks (few people beat me to new pages when I am around :)). --Herby ^{talk thyme} 15:05, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 090330 Veenhuizen NL Graven bliksemslachtoffers.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Quality good enough for me, I like the colours and the lighting. The panorama ratio is a strange choice given the subject, but it's nice. --Eusebius 09:28, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Administrator

---

Een cadeau voor onze nieuwe adminstrator van je collega's

Wutsje, gefeliciteerd! Je hebt nu administratorrechten op Commons. Neem een moment om Commons:Administrators te lezen en plaats gerelateerde pagina's op je volglijst (vooral Commons:Administrators' noticeboard en Commons:Deletion requests), voor je in verwijderen, beveiligen, blokkeren of wijzigen in beveiligde pagina's duikt. De meerderheid van de acties van administratoren kunnen ongedaan worden gemaakt door andere administratoren, behalve het samenvoegingen van bewerkingsgeschiedenissen, die dus met bijzondere zorg behandeld moeten worden.

Neem eens een kijkje op het IRC-kanaal: #wikimedia-commons @ irc.freenode.net.

EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:44, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Indeed I suddenly noticed a few new (but familiar) tabs. :-)   Wutsje (talk) 14:53, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Could you please explain further...

Could you please explain why you removed Category:Konar Province from some images I uploaded recently? Geo Swan (talk) 21:07, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Aah, that was a stupid mistake. To avoid double categorisation wanted to move the new Category:Guryak Truck Bridge to Category:Konar Province. I therefore moved all the Guruyak Truck Bridge images to the bridge category, but instead of the Guryak Truck Bridge category I moved the new Guryak Truck Bridge gallery to the Konar Province category. I'm very sorry. It's corrected now. Thank you very much for pointing this out to me. Regards, Wutsje (talk) 22:01, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Château de Wangenbourg

Thank you for adding summary sentences on Château de Wangenbourg. I won't forgot to do so next time I create a page on Commons. --Pethrus (talk) 19:47, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome. Regards, Wutsje (talk) 21:56, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

RE: Diomede Islands

How so? The page was created with the word "arabic" and nothing else. - Rjd0060 (talk) 15:22, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I noticed that, of course, but it was very easy to reshape this test page into a real gallery. I saw no reason not to do just that. Wutsje (talk) 15:31, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

File:Tropic_of_fear.jpg

Hello. I'm a relatively new user, so may not have corrected flagged three files that I uploaded. I did indicate that all three are Public Domain. Still, you deleted all three, I believe because you question the copyright. Here are the file names:

• File:Tropic_of_fear.jpg
• File:Nine_days_in_october.jpg
• File:League_of_shadows.jpg

And here's why I think all three need to be restored: First, each image is of the front cover of a dust jacket of a book that I, myself, published. I either commissioned the design (paid for with all rights being mine) or did the design myself. On publication of each book, these files were made available on several web sites as "public domain" files, free to anyone. They were initially intended primarily for media sources. So they were posted on the publisher's web site (now out of business) and on the author's web site (www.ronterpening.com), for free distribution to all. So, to repeat myself, I own these images, I released all of them as public domain files, and they have no copyright protection. How do I make that clear? Do I need to file some type of license? As I said, I uploaded them as "public domain" and that's exactly what they are. Please reverse your decision or explain what I'm doing wrong, if you would! Thanks. NickStuy (talk) 22:23, 11 June 2009 (UTC)NickStuy

Hi. In itself you did nothing wrong. The general problem with a lot of images already widely used on the internet (such as book cover images) is, that they are quite frequently uploaded to Commons with sources, licenses and permission statements that have no roots in reality. There is however a procedure to make clear that your images are in the public domain. You will find it here. The instructions should be self-explanatory, but if you have any further questions I'd be of course happy to answer them. Regards, Wutsje (talk) 23:15, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Many thanks! I'll look at that link.NickStuy (talk) 23:50, 11 June 2009 (UTC)NickStuy

Hello, COA of Macedonia

Hello Wutsje. I have one problem and I asked several users but I still did not get answers. The problem is with the COA of Macedonia. I have given several sources about that the currently used COA of Macedonia is incorrect and it should be corrected. You can see it here. Can someone correct it according to the original COA that is on the talk page? Thanks, --MacedonianBoy (talk) 22:28, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi. My knowledge of editing svg files is very limited, so I can't do this for you. You may probably find someone who can on irc (#wikimedia-commons). Regards, Wutsje (talk) 17:00, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Descriptions in categories

Please don't remove these: they should appear in both the category and the gallery. Indeed, given the appallingly bad shape of 99% of our galleries, putting it in the only up-to-date page is more important.

In particular, the {{Taxonavigation}} template is meant for navigating categories, and links to the categories of the higher-level classifications. This is incredibly useful for navigating species, but breaks completely if it gets removed from some of the categories. Adam Cuerden (talk) 06:10, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the template: that was a mistake, sorry. Regarding the descriptions: the "only-up-do-date page" is always just one click away and having descriptions in both galleries and categories seems a bit redundant to me. There's however certainly no need to bluntly restore a complete encyclopedical lemma, like you did here. A description should be short and simple. See also the guidelines: "Commons is not an encyclopedia. We are not here to educate readers through text. If they want to read more about a subject, there is another project that exists solely for that purpose." Wutsje (talk) 12:59, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Point taken. I do think, though, that we should have enough information that the person can be sure that they're in the right place: That it's on, say, the person they're looking for, not someone else of similar name. That can't be done without a brief description. Adam Cuerden (talk) 20:11, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 090623 Drie wiggen Stadspark Groningen NL.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Minor problems with sharpness, but good light and shows also the context of the location. Very nice. -- Smial 15:47, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Corrections

Thanks for fixing a couple of my errors. I have a question. How many edits are usually asked of an administrator on Commons? I know I'm not even close to qualifying for adminship yet, but I'd like to have a general idea of when I could apply, say, six months or so. Feel free to post this at my en.wikipedia talk page, if more convenient. Ceranthor 20:06, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi Ceranthor, you're welcome. Regarding your question: there are no hard criteria for the minimum number of edits or the period of activity, I'm afraid. A clearly noticeable involvement in the project (e.g. checking new pages and files, RfD's) is important though, just like some basic knowledge of what's expected from a Commons moderator (see Commons:Guide to adminship). I'd say you may apply as soon as you feel you know your way around on Commons and can comfortably say your work reflects that. This does of course not necessarily have to take half a year, it all depends on how much time and energy you put into it. If you deliver good work, people will notice that and you may even be asked to apply. Hope this helps somehow. Regards, Wutsje (talk) 21:05, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

File:Bohai Sea map.png

could you please revert this file to the original version and protect it? thought The Korea Strait is still a controversial name with another Japanese name. thanks. Gzhao (talk) 01:36, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, the protected version is always the wrong version. May I suggest that you work this problem out with the other edit war participants on the talk page? Thank you. Regards, Wutsje (talk) 01:53, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

thanks, i will try to contact that guy. Gzhao (talk) 03:48, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

RE: uploading copyrighted images

Hey Wutsje, I'm new to wikipedia and I was having a hard time. Those images are all mine, I couldn't figure out why my images keep getting deleted because I thought I had all my Flickr images set to the attribution CC. But apparently I didn't. I went back and changed that. So everything should be fine now. Hoping you don't block my account over a mix up.

Thanks,

SylviaBoBilvia (talk) 00:27, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi Sylvia, thank you for your explanation - and for setteling the Flickr copyright situation. Should you have any questions: you already found my talk page. Regards, Wutsje (talk) 00:39, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Album

Yeah, how does the album cover break copyright violations? I listed the copyright holder, and its about 200x pixels, so I highly doubt anyone will try to reproduce it. Aussie409 01:37, 14 August 2009

See your talk page. Regards, Wutsje (talk) 04:34, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Ghimbav

Hallo Wutsje,
danke, hatte beim Artikel Ghimbav die Interwikis vergessen. Ciao, --L.Kenzel (talk) 19:00, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome. Regards, Wutsje (talk) 22:25, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Changes by User:Ianezz

I saw the message you left in my talk page. Which changes are you referring to (that I assume are being reverted)? Using Category:Taken with Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ28? Sorting out Category:Towers in Italy? Thanks for your reply. --Ianezz (talk) 17:39, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi Iannezz, my message concerned your creation of Foobar.jpg, a test image/page that is regularly created by accident - and then deleted again. Regards, Wutsje (talk) 20:27, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Strangely, I don't remember creating it at all and my mother tongue is italian so I wouldn't use that for tests (wondering how could it happen...). Oh, well. Thanks again -- Ianezz (talk) 07:44, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Who is Discuss?

• • User talk:Tom778 --> Please experiment in the sandbox - -- Wutsje (talk) 09:00, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
• --> Category talk:Gastronomy#Who is Discuss?--Tom778 (talk) 10:13, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

You created Differences are too subtle to be understood - obviously a test page - which was subsequently deleted. Regards, Wutsje (talk) 10:18, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Aha thanks, I noticed that User Foroa it gave the following

• {{Mergeto|Cuisine|Differences are too subtle to be understood}}
  • template view in Category:Gastronomy - It has been suggested that this page or section be merged into Cuisine. (Discuss) - (Discuss to create). Also Regards--Tom778 (talk) 10:27, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

uploading images

hello Wutsje,

I'm new to wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons and I am having difficulty in determining the type of license for the image that i have upload it , Because there are a lot of options, I do not know any of them apply to the image that you have deleted. I tried to see the article "Commons:Licensing" and "Commons:Image casebook" , but the article is long and difficult to understand. What is the most appropriate way to upload that image without any problems? thanks X21asek 15:29, 8 September 2009

Hi X2lasek, the problem with the image you tried to upload was that it was obviously copyright protected (see [1]), so there would indeed not be any suitable license. I'm sorry you find the information on Commons:Licensing difficult to understand, but copyright regulations are quite complicated, that cannot be helped. In general though: for images you really created yourself a Free Creative Commons license would be okay. See also Commons:Copyright tags and the Copyright FAQ on en:wiki. The latter may take some time to read, but is very informative (be aware though that fair use licenses are not permitted on Commons). Regards, Wutsje (talk) 14:38, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Help!

Hi! As you can see, someone is anonymously making a mess on this page, deleting all the photos and changing the description. If you are an Administrator, can you do something like blocking the edits or something similar? If you aren't an Admin, do you know any? Thank you! -- Vonvikken (talk) 23:25, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I noticed. I am an admin indeed and I've just warned him that any more of this will be considered to be vandalistic actions that will get him blocked. Regards, Wutsje (talk) 23:32, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you! Good night! -- Vonvikken (talk) 00:17, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

That was no "experiment"

150.250.43.209 05:37, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Groningen

Beste gebruiker met het pseudoniem Wutsje,

Als eerste bedankt dat ik niet meer per e-mail wordt gestalkt. Als tweede, ik vroeg jou (en daarmee degenen die je als meatpuppet gebruiken) of ik weer mocht bewerken op category:Groningen (city); op die vraag heb ik nog geen antwoord gehad. Erik Warmelink (talk) 23:19, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, zo had ik dat niet begrepen. Mij lijkt dat toestemming daarvoor geenszins nodig is en al helemaal niet van mij. Alle hulp is welkom, dus ga vooral je gang - graag zelfs. Wutsje (talk) 01:17, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Tja, ik dacht dat er ook geen toestemming nodig was om onder GFDL geplubliceerde gegevens aan te halen en daar blokkeerde je me drie maanden voor op nl.wikipedia.org. En dat blokkeren is nog tot daar aan toe, maar dreigementen tegen familieleden hakken er toch wel aardig in.

Nou ja, bedankt voor de toestemming. Ik heb zo direct geen project, maar het was nogal lastig om geen kleine wijzigingen te mogen doen bij m'n woonplaats. Erik Warmelink (talk) 01:33, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Why ?

Je ne comprends pas ton intervention ici ... C'est le genre de liens que je fais régulièrement depuis 2 ans et qui n'a jamais posé de problème à personne ! Serait-ce parce que mon ajout avait été fait sous IP (ma connection ayant été fermée sans que je m'en aperçoive). Marc ROUSSEL - --Markus3 (talk) 04:07, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Excusez-moi de ne pas répondre en français, s'il vous plaît. In short: I may be wrong, but my understanding is that categories should be interlinked to categories and articles to galleries. I've created a gallery Claude Chabrol now, which has interwikis to all the articles about him on the various projects. Suppose there was a fr:Category:Claude Chabrol, you would want to link that to Category:Claude Chabrol. Wutsje (talk) 04:59, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Ok, if you want ! Marc ROUSSEL - --Markus3 (talk) 05:37, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi Wutsje, interwikis in Commons categories can link to wp articles. It's the place where one is most likely to find further information on a subject. Please avoid removing them from categories. -- User:Docu at 07:01, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Please answer this question then: if Commons has both a gallery and a category about a subject, what should be interlinked to what? One out of many, many examples: the Category:London links to en:Category:London (and 55 other categories), the gallery London links to the article en:London (and 147 other articles about that city). It seems the only logical interwiki linking structure to me. Wutsje (talk) 13:02, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Generally each encyclopedia article has a corresponding Commons media category. The usual way to link Commons categories to encyclopedia articles is through interwiki links (the other way round, this doesn't work in most languages, one has to use "commonscat").

For categories with many images (and other media), some take time to select some to create and maintain a gallery. These galleries can include interwikis and other information. This isn't always being done though, just as we have many quality images, but these aren't necessarily identified as such. -- User:Docu at 15:44, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

That does not really answer my question: if there's a cat and a gallery, what should be linked to what? Wutsje (talk) 11:24, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

speaking as someone whose main focus is on en.wikip, i'd say that "best practices" would be to link from the wikip article to the subject's category @ commons, as being the top-level access point for the information, so long as the category is specific to the article topic;

i.e.: an article about "ford mustang" would be linked to the category:Ford Mustang @ commons & NOT to the category:Ford cars/automobiles/vehicles/etc.

common's stated purpose is to serve as a media repository, NOT an image gallery for wikipedia articles.

in theory, ALL relevant media files should be included in the wikip article itself, or on related pages @ wikip; the link to commons is intended to provide access to the full set of media files that we have in our collection, for that topic.

hope that helps.

Lx 121 (talk) 01:52, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I see your point. Maybe ones point of view just depends on personal preferences (I like to be able to navigate from cats to cats across wiki projects, as this provides the best general view about what is written about a subject c.q. what media files are available to illustrate those articles). In the meantime however it became clear to me that interwiki linking subject has been discussed quite intensively on Commons before (e.g. see [2]). If the outcome of these discussions was ever formalised in some sort of rule though, I couldn't find it (and Help:Interwiki linking is not very helpful). Anyway, had I known what I stuck my head into I would certainly have spared myself the trouble, so I will probably never touch interwikis on Commons again. Wutsje (talk) 20:40, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

believe me, i know the feeling! actually, i don't see any problem doing cat 2 cat links inter-wiki, it makes sense, just most ppl won't see them on the wikip end. the point i was focussed on was that, in general the wikip article 2 commons link should go to the top-level @ commons for the topic, especially the ;link in the main inter-wiki box thing. there are exceptions of course; for the voynich manuscript article (for example) there is a cat link @ the bottom, in the usual place, but since someone actually compiled a page of the Vms in proper order @ commons, i included an in-line hatnote link to it at an appropriate place in the article (normally, i'd expect to be linking to wikisource, not commons, for such material); in this case it just made sense, even tho, in general, creating "galleries" on commons for articles @ wikip is kind of discouraged. this is something that is kind of "in-flŭ", in terms of how various parts of wikimedia should inter-related with each other. still open to be discussed & shaped. Lx 121 (talk) 23:01, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Note removal

It seems to me that this annotation was perfectly consistent with the guidelines, and I see no good reason to delete it. I revert. --Eusebius (talk) 09:11, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't see why it would be useful to add the Chinese name of one French town to a fysical relief map of France, created for geo-location purposes, nor do I see how that would be "perfectly consistent" with the guidelines. "The ultimate goal of the ImageAnnotator tool is to improve information content of the image description." This annotation just didn't. Wutsje (talk) 14:57, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

It did improve information, even if you didn't find it useful. Feel free to add other significant cities if you think one is not enough... --Eusebius (talk) 18:40, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

It wasn't even placed on the proper location. How could that "improve information"? Wutsje (talk) 18:59, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

And reverting without even a note solves the mistaken location? --Eusebius (talk) 19:11, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I did leave a note: [3]. Wutsje (talk) 19:22, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Which was totally irrelevant. --Eusebius (talk) 19:24, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

What is it you want? Someone added non-information - his very first edit on any Wikimedia project - to an image on Commons. I reverted that and directed him to the sandbox. I don't see what's wrong with that. Wutsje (talk) 19:31, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

It is not non-information, it was not a "test", it was not vandalism, it was totally within the scope of images annotations (even though you don't find the information useful because you don't need any landmarks in a France relief map), it was his first contribution (or maybe not, who knows, it was an IP) and you basically told him to go away (note that this is an observation and not an accusation, I tend to bite newcomers myself). --Eusebius (talk) 19:52, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, as you may have gathered by now, I do not agree. And by the way, the text of the test template certainly does not basically tell people to "go away". Wutsje (talk) 20:25, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

What would you think about putting an end to a conversation that goes nowhere and talks about almost nothing? --Eusebius (talk) 20:27, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Uitzichttoren Kasteel Selwerd

Hoi Wutsje, volgens mij is het "ding" op File:090728 Uitzichttoren Kasteel Selwerd Groningen NL.jpg een boot, die langs zijn mast naar boven is geschoven, zodat je hem als uitzichttoren kunt gebruiken. Een "kale" uitzichttoren zou uit minder materiaal gemaakt kunnen worden, maar zou ook veel minder duidelijk maken, waarom het kasteel gesloopt is.

Tsja, of dat dan een "sculptuur" is, weet ik niet. Ik ben ook maar een boerenlul, die toevallig wat wiskunde kan. Erik Warmelink (talk) 23:35, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Ergens heb je ook wel gelijk, het zou inderdaad een schip kunnen zijn. Ik heb de cat dus teruggezet. Dank voor de melding. Wutsje (talk) 15:48, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

En jij hebt natuurlijk ook gelijk dat het vooral een uitzichttoren is. Dat is eigenlijk een van de redenen dat ik 'm wel mooi vind: je hoeft het geen kunst te vinden en je kunt er vaak langsfietsen zonder er kunst in te zien, het dringt zich niet op. Erik Warmelink (talk) 20:00, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

User talk:Jimbo Wales

Hello! I removed the post since I think it's an unnecessary provocation to include an erotic picture. It does not make for a constructive discussion. Obelix (talk) 22:30, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much for exactly proving my point: art is not porn and some people are incapable of seeing the difference. You've just earned yourself a place in a long tradition of censorship which started already in 1866. Congratulations. Wutsje (talk) 23:27, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Hoi Wutsje, dat plaatje plaatsen zou je zelf trollen noemen als 't ergens anders om ging (en, kuch, ik kan dat weten). En misschien doet Jimbo 't daar ook wel om, er is weinig zo goed voor de "esprit de corps" als samen afgezeken worden door, ehh, intellectueel en/of emotioneel niet zo begaafden. Dat is dan jammer voor complete losers als Obelix en Ottava Rima, maar daar trekken "leiders" zich meestal weinig van aan. Erik Warmelink (talk) 02:54, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Wat dat schilderij betreft heb je wellicht een puntje, al stel ik me bij trollen zelf meer een patroon van dergelijke bewerkingen voor, niet een eenmalige woede-uitbarsting zoals deze, die het m.i. bepaald niet haalt bij het zonder enige vorm van consensus plaatjes gaan verwijderen omdat ze je om de een of andere reden plotseling niet aanstaan (waaronder afbeeldingen van negentiende-eeuwse kunstwerken), onder het mom van policy en zeggend dat ze altijd nog kunnen worden teruggezet. Als ik zoiets zou doen, als gewoon moderatortje, dan werd ik prompt geblokkeerd en gedesysopt. Wutsje (talk) 03:54, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Dat patroon is er bij jou niet, maar het is een klassieke troll (niet die slappe imitaties die je mij te vaak ziet doen): tijdens een discussie over een onderwerp, doe je iets wat iedereen met een beetje algemene ontwikkeling herkent (als het al niet het schilderij is, dan zou je toon een hint kunnen zijn), maar wat newbies uitlokt om te laten zien dat ze niet eens doorhebben dat dit wel eens zo'n situatie zou kunnen zijn, waarbij je beter even kunt wachten voor je een te grote bek opzet. Obelix heeft nu een haakje in zijn mond. Daar kun je van leren en je kunt blijven bijten. Ik bijt nog steeds veel te vaak, maar hoop ook iets geleerd te hebben. Erik Warmelink (talk) 05:53, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Ook de woorden "outrageous filth" waren voor de goede verstaander bedoeld: die refereren aan een uitspraak van senator Ernest Hollings tijdens een PMRC-hoorzitting in 1985, gesampled in een geluidscollage van Frank Zappa genaamd Porn Wars. Wutsje (talk) 06:25, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Zoals ik hier al eerder zei, ik ben maar een botte boerenlul. Maar ik hoefde die referentie niet te kennen, om toch op te merken dat die toon wel eens zou kunnen betekenen dat je beter even kunt wachten met een reactie.

Wat ik bij nalezen wel grappig vind (ja, ik heb een matig ontwikkeld gevoel voor humor), is dat je "ik kan dat weten" op minstens twee manieren kunt lezen:

1. ik kan weten dat jij het zo opvat (omdat jij me voor iets dergelijks 3 maanden hebt geblokkeerd)
2. ik weet wat trollen is

ik bedoelde het eerste, maar vind de dubbele betekenis niet eens zo erg. En nu ik nog verder lees, ik was misschien wat te optimistisch over mijn eigen troll-detectie, maar ik heb ooit erg veel Zappa gehoord tijdens kerstgotoernooien, "Frank Zappa Meets the Mothers of Prevention' kan daar best tussen hebben gezeten, alhoewel de Europese versie me waarschijnlijker lijkt. Erik Warmelink (talk) 07:20, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

I am no troll or a newbie. I am an active user at SVWP since 2008 and I have done more then 30 000 edits. I am sorry for removing Wutsjes post, please see my comments here. I have tried to understand your discussion but it has been very hard, because you havn't been writting in English. Obelix (talk) 22:05, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

I did not say that you are a troll, I said that you have been trolled (I don't think that trolling is bad by definition). You may not be a newbie on wikipedia, but not recognizing l'Origine du monde (erotic images) does mark you as a relative newbie on art. Your censorship of that contribution served as a nice example why art shouldn't be speedily deleted. Erik Warmelink (talk) 03:49, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

FYI

Special:Contributions/French_clock_67890 - we will probably never see that account anyway, but if I still had the bit I would have blocked them just to make sure ;) Best regards, Finn Rindahl (talk) 20:50, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Gemeentelijke monumenten.

Hallo Wutsje,

ik zag dat je de gemeentelijke monumenten aan het categoriseren bent. Is het niet een goed idee om ze gelijk per gemeente in een eigen categorie te stoppen, de eisen die per gemeente aan een monument worden gesteld zijn namelijk heel verschillend dus een opdeling op basis van gemeente lijkt me logisch.

Mvg, Basvb (talk) 15:27, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Ja, maar dan moet je ze eerst een keer bij elkaar in één categorie zien om te zien hoeveel het er precies zijn en waar ze zich bevinden. Ben daar nu mee bezig. Wutsje 15:28, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Ik pleit er ook voor bij slechts 1 afbeelding in een gemeente die gemeentelijk monument is een eigen categorie te maken. Mvg, Basvb (talk) 15:33, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Bas, ik kan niet heksen. Wutsje 15:33, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Het is niet mijn bedoeling je op te jagen, maar ik wist niet wat je van plan was. Mvg, Basvb (talk) 15:43, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Nee, snap ik, maar ondanks mijn welbekende "bekrompen visie" denk ik meestal wel even na voor ik aan zo'n operatie begin. Hoe dan ook, ik denk dat deze hernoemingen voorlopig wel zijn voltooid. Ik heb de gemeentelijke monumenten overigens niet in de categorieën Buildings in <gemeente> gecategoriseerd, maar steeds eentje hoger, omdat zoals bekend lang niet elk monument daadwerkelijk een gebouw is (zie bv. deze, deze of deze). Dat zou m.i. met de rijksmonumenten ook behoren te gebeuren: die horen eerder thuis in categorieën met de naam Monuments in <gemeente>. Wutsje 17:44, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Wiki Loves Monuments 2011 has finished

Dear Wutsje, Thank you for contributing to Wiki Loves Monuments and sharing your pictures with the whole world. You are very welcome to keep uploading images, even though you can't win prizes any longer. To get started on editing relevant Wikipedia articles, click here for more information and help. You can find all uploaded pictures in our central media collection Wikimedia Commons. Many photos are already used in Wikipedia. The contest was very successful with more than 165,000 images submitted throughout Europe. To make future contests even more successful, we would like to invite you to share your experiences with us in this survey. Kind regards, the Wiki Loves Monuments team

Message delivered by Lucia Bot in 01:35, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Attend the award ceremony of the Dutch Wiki Loves Monuments 2011

Dear Wutsje, We've already thanked you for your contribution to the Wiki Loves monuments photo contest. But with a contest, there are prizes to win! The award ceremony will be held in Utrecht on Saturday the 5th of November, at the end of the Dutch Wikimedia Conference at Media Plaza, held the same day. Media Plaza is located next to the Central Station in Utrecht, in the middle of the shopping mall. Admittance is free from 3pm onwards, just in time to catch the last few presentations at the WCN. Off course you can join us for the full day conference as well and enjoy a day full of information on wiki's and cultural heritage. After the ceremony, our location sponsor generously offers a free drink to everyone! Remember: in order to make a chance to win, you need a confirmed e-mail address added to your Commons settings. Kind regards, the Wiki Loves Monuments team and the Dutch Wikimedia Conference team

Sent by Lucia Bot^talk in 23:28, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Swarte Kees

Beste Wutsje,

Op de Fryse Wikipedia heb je de gebruiker Swarte Kees die zeer actief lijkt te zijn. Hij heeft een behoorlijk groot aantal foto's daar geupload met een CC of GNU licentie. Zo zijn er deze deze twee afbeeldingen nu gemigreerd. Hij lijkt veel afbeeldingen van derden te hebben gekregen voor gebruik op Wikipedia. Misschien kan je eens kijken of alles in orde is en Wikimedia Commons uitleggen. --Vera (talk) 18:37, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Beste Vera, ik ken Swarte Kees niet als een gebruiker die maar wat aanklooit, integendeel. Dat er op fy:wiki gebruikers zijn die afbeeldingen lokaal en niet op Commons uploaden, kan ik me eigenlijk wel voorstellen. Het is al verschillende keren gebeurd dat een op fy:wiki geuploade afbeelding na verplaatsing naar Commons ondanks toestemming van de rechthebbende werd verwijderd, omdat die toestemming niet voldeed aan de op Commons gehanteerde eisen, bijvoorbeeld omdat ze "slechts" mondeling was gegeven. Op fy:wiki is dat echter voldoende (in man in man, in wurd in wurd). Bovendien heeft lang niet iedereen zin om in het Engels te moeten discussiëren. Ik heb hem overigens even een linkje naar deze pagina gegeven (hier), zodat hij zelf ook op uw vraag kan reageren. Groet, Wutsje 18:48, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Dag Vera. In het verleden is een flink aantal afbeeldingen/foto's van de Friese Wikipedia door anderen naar Commons overgezet. Toen die afbeeldingen niet aan de eisen van Commons voldeden werden de betreffende foto's verwijderd. Hiermee verdween echter ook de afbeeldingen van de Friese Wikipedia. Omdat de originele afbeeldingen die door mij zijn aangeboden niet meer op mijn computer stonden waren deze voorgoed verdwenen en kon de verwijdering van de afbeeldingen niet ongedaan gemaakt worden... En dat terwijl bij alle afbeeldingen op de Friese Wikipedia destijds met nadrukkelijke schriftelijke en/of mondelinge toestemming waren aangeboden. Het betreffen daarbij ook nog vaak afbeeldingen waarvoor de Nederlandstalige wikipedia geen belangstelling heeft, of die ze daar niet de moeite waard vinden omdat het een onderwerp betreft dat te 'klein' is voor de nl.wikipedia. Omdat toen geen oplossing werd geboden voor de 'zoekgeraakte' verwijderde afbeeldingen van Commons en er geen garanties voor de toekomst konden worden gegeven heb ik nadien nimmer meer een afbeelding aangeboden op Commons. Dat Commons een zeer belangrijk onderdeel is van de Wikipedia staat daarbij buiten kijf, en als het foto's betreft die ik zelf heb gemaakt lijkt het me stug dat die worden verwijderd. De schrik voor aanbieden van afbeeldingen is bij mij en enkele andere fy.gebruikers echter dermate groot dat ik niet actief wil meewerken aan uploaden naar Commons. Als de licentie niet geregeld is dienen afbeeldingen ook niet naar Commons geüpload te worden. Wie dat toch zo graag wil zal dan contact op moeten nemen met degene die de foto aan fy heeft aangeboden. Deze wordt op fy ook altijd vermeld. Kees

Ok, ik snap dat Commons niet altijd te als de meest veilige plek kan voelen. Dank voor het antwoord. --Vera (talk) 20:45, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Wiki Loves Monuments NL

Beste Wutsje,
Alle winnende foto's van Wiki Loves Monuments 2011 zijn ondertussen gedrukt als kalenders. Wikimedia Nederland stelt er hier 100 van beschikbaar voor alle uploaders van de afbeeldingen. Geef op de bijgevoegde link je naam en adres en we sturen je kosteloos een exemplaar toe, als dank voor je deelname! Let op: op = op!! Bestel hier één kalender per adres.

Ook dit jaar zal er in september weer een Nederlandse Wiki Loves Monuments plaatsvinden, als onderdeel van de internationale wedstrijd. Meer informatie vind je tegen die tijd op http://www.wikilovesmonuments.nl/. Ook zoeken wij nog vrijwilligers die het leuk vinden om mee te helpen met het organiseren van de landelijke wedstrijd of van locale evenementen (een "Wiki takes..." in je eigen woonplaats dus!). Meer informatie daarover vind je op de wiki van Wikimedia Nederland.

Sent by Lucia Bot^talk in 15:01, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Gallery Teresa Surita

Why the Teresa Surita gallery page is out of the project scope? It has biography in wikipedia pt / en / es Edgard.magalhaes (talk) 19:41, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi Edgard.magalhaes, the version I deleted looked much more like a biographic article than as a gallery and articles are out of scope (see COM:NOT). The way the gallery looks now is fine with me. Regards, Wutsje 21:29, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diplomacy
	Peace Piltrafa666 (talk) 16:06, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Wutseputs!

Beste Wutsje, ik heb mijn reden voor nominatie deze keer maar op File talk gezet, met een link erheen vanaf de nomination page. Dus niet in het nominatiesjabloon zelf. Kan dat zo, denk je? Terechte nominatie, denk je? Vriendelijke groet, --ErikvanB (talk) 23:45, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Hoi Erik, wat je eerste vraag betreft: dat kan om mij op zich zo wel, maar waarschijnlijk is het toch handiger om je redenen hier te plaatsen, want dat is normaal gesproken waar men ze verwacht. De nominatie lijkt me zeker terecht, alleen al omdat het hier overduidelijk een minderjarig meisje betreft en dus extra zorgvuldigheid wenselijk is. Groet, Wutsje 14:53, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Aldus is geschied. Bedankt voor je commentaar. Mvg, --ErikvanB (talk) 15:56, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

En nog vandaliseren ook. --ErikvanB (talk) 21:21, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Request

Whoops. I didn't want to touch the |Source field. I just wanted to change the template parameter to lowercase. I agree that the location of the template is just a personal preference. Platonides (talk) 20:07, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

---

Thank you for participating in Wiki Loves Monuments 2012! Dear Wutsje, Thank you for contributing to Wiki Loves Monuments 2012, and for sharing your pictures with the whole world! Thanks to the participation of people like you, the contest gathered more than 350,000 pictures of cultural heritage objects from 36 countries around the world, becoming the largest photography competition to have ever taken place. You can find all your pictures in your upload log, and are of course very welcome to keep uploading images and help develop Wikimedia Commons, even though you will not be able to win more prizes (just yet). If you'd like to start editing relevant Wikipedia articles and share your knowledge with other people, please go to the Wikipedia Welcome page for more information, guidance, and help. To make future contests even more successful than this year, we would like to invite you to share your experiences with us in a short survey. Please fill in this short survey in your own language, and help us learn what you liked and didn't like about Wiki Loves Monuments 2012. Kind regards, the Wiki Loves Monuments team

Message delivered by the Wiki Loves Monuments 2012 notification system on 13:48, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Brigitta Callens

Beste Wutsje, neem me niet kwalijk dat ik je maagdelijk lege overlegpagina bevuil met mijn geschriften. Neem me ook niet kwalijk dat ik je in het Nederlands schrijf, waardoor anderstalige collega's niet direct kunnen zien of ik je aan het uitschelden ben. Het gaat om de foto's die hier werden toegevoegd. De uploads van gebruiker Bpictures verschillen nogal van kwaliteit: ik zie een haarscherpe foto en een vermoedelijk bijgesneden, tamelijk onscherpe foto. Ook de grootte varieert nogal: tussen 175 × 298 (erg klein) en 417 × 608 pixels. Op deze foto staat een soort watermerk: DS-Photography of DS-Photographers. Van deze zwart-witfoto trof ik hier een kleurenvariant aan, maar het is me niet gelukt nog meer bronnen te vinden waar de foto's gepubliceerd zijn. Vanwege "gebrek aan bewijs" dorst ik de foto's niet te nomineren en daarmee Bpictures verdacht te maken, maar ik denk haast wel zeker te weten dat het geen eigen werk betreft. Zou jij eens een oordeel over de foto's willen vellen en zonodig daarnaar handelen? Misschien ben jij wél in staat nog meer kopieën op internet te vinden. Met dank en vriendelijke groet, ErikvanB (talk) 02:02, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

TinEye vindt niks en Google Images hoest vooral een mini-versie van "jouw" kleurenvariant op Feesboek op, inclusief deze versie. (Mocht je dat nog niet hebben gedaan: voor TinEye en GI zijn handige tabjes beschikbaar, kun je aanvinken in je prefs). Meer vind ik zo ook niet - maar ik ben het met je eens dat er een luchtje aan zit. Ik zou zeggen: gewoon nomineren, want dat het "eigen werk" zou zijn, zoals de uploader claimt, lijkt me onwaarschijnlijk. Kun je gelijk deze foto meenemen (ook op Feesboek, hier), net als deze (hier). Dat deze foto (zo te zien afkomstig van deze sessie) dan opeens wél echt eigen werk zou zijn, geloof ik dan al niet meer. Groet, Wutsje 03:37, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Reuzebedankt, daar heb ik wat an. Ik zal er morgen mee aan de slag gaan als het even kan, want dit is niet echt een jofel tijdstip. Vooral met de vondst van deze Feesboekfoto ben ik blij. Ik zal ook mijn prefs nakijken, want die tabjes voor TinEye en GI heb ik niet. Zeer bedankt en hartelijke groet, ErikvanB (talk) 04:01, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Uitgevoerd. Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Bpictures. Groet, ErikvanB (talk) 22:50, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Cairo metro logo

Wutsje, mag ik je nog een keer lastigvallen? Ik had het logo van de metro van Caïro genomineerd, maar nu heeft de uploader na een minimale aanpassing van de afbeelding de delete template verwijderd. Mag dat zomaar? Volgens mij is dat vandalisme. Groet, ErikvanB (talk) 04:36, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Hoi Erik, ik heb het sjabloon teruggeplaatst en de betrokkene geïnformeerd dat en waarom een dergelijke actie niet gepast is. Groet, Wutsje 12:35, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Vriendelijk dank. Groet, ErikvanB (talk) 17:50, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Categorieën

Hoi Wutsje. Prima werk wat je doet m.b.t. het nalopen van de RCE-monumenten. Wel even aandacht voor de categorisatie. Waar ik zie dat jij standaard de categorie van de plaats erbij voegt (ook al is Category:Rijksmonumenten in <plaats> aanwezig), zie ik Rudolphous hier dat juist weer weghalen. Wellicht handig om een gezamenlijke lijn hiervoor te nemen, zodat jullie elkaar niet tegenwerken. Groet, Pompidom (talk) 08:14, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Dag Pompidom, soms - zeker niét "standaard", dat klopt niet - zet ik de plaats erbij, met name indien het duidelijk een object betreft dat mensen in de hoofdcat van die plaats zouden kunnen willen zoeken. Je kunt niet van iedereen verwachten dat ie bij het zoeken naar plaatjes van een object al van te voren precies weet of dat een rijks-, gemeentelijk of provinciaal monument is. De belangrijkste objecten in een kleine plaats (bijvoorbeeld de dorpskerk of de dorpsmolen) horen wat mij betreft daarom ook in de hoofdcat van die plaats. Dat alles op Commons overal op dezelfde wijze gecategoriseerd zou kunnen worden is sowieso een illusie, er zullen altijd verschillen zijn. Bijvoorbeeld: de een neemt de moeite om de inhoud van een cat zorgvuldig te beschrijven en er ook de objectlocatie bij te zoeken, de ander pleurt er gewoon een sjabloontje in. Zo gaat dat. Zelf werk ik echter liever zo zorgvuldig mogelijk.

Als het gaat om aandacht voor de categorisering zijn er wel grotere problemen. Zelf vind ik het bijvoorbeeld erg onhandig dat nogal wat objecten in plaatsen die dezelfde naam dragen allemaal bij elkaar in één possible-cat zijn opgenomen, wat achteraf een heleboel extra werk oplevert (Veenhuizen is een goed voorbeeld: die puzzel heeft me bijna een dag gekost). Ook begrijp ik nog altijd niet waarom monumenten altijd onder de Buildings zouden moeten hangen en niet omgekeerd, want lang niet alle monumenten zijn bouwwerken. Dat is echt een grote misvatting, die we m.i. niet zouden moeten voeden. Monumentale bomen, straatklokken, siervazen en grachten zijn écht geen bouwwerken of buildings, taalkundig is dat onzin, zowel in het Nederlands als in het Engels. Monumentaalheid is een abstractie, een door mensen toegekende eigenschap, die bovendien kan veranderen terwijl aan het betreffende object zelf niets wijzigt: dat blijft een gebouw, een siervaas, een gracht. Dát zijn dus de hoofdeigenschappen van die objecten en daarop zou wat mij betreft in eerste instantie moeten worden gecategoriseerd. Groet, Wutsje 18:42, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Een uitgebreide reactie, die ik zeer aandachtig heb gelezen. Mijn intentie voor mijn bericht was in principe om te voorkomen dat jij dingen plaatst en dat Rudolphous weer dingen weghaalt, of andersom. Welke variant wordt gevolgd, is mij in principe om het even, aangezien ik Commons eigenlijk niet veel gebruik en door de RCE-foto's pas echt actief hier ben geworden.

Ik volg je redenatie omtrent dat de (rijks-)monumenten lang niet altijd buildings zijn. Ik heb al vele vazen, begraafplaatsen, parken en andere niet-gebouwen-zijnde monumenten. Wellicht dat Rijksmonumenten-categorieën dan standaard onder de plaats-categorie moeten vallen, aangezien, zoals jij het ook betoogd, veel meer omvat dan gebouwen.

Ten slotte ga ik nog even op Veenhuizen in: Er zijn inderdaad een aantal plaatsnamen die meermalen voorkomen in Nederland. Vaak is het geluk dat de plaatsen in verschillende provincies liggen. De provincie is in de metadata opgenomen, dus die zou ik eventueel met mijn bot kunnen scheiden, hetgeen het uitzoekwerk vergemakkelijkt. Een geval zoals Veenhuizen zou dan makkelijker worden, maar aangezien er meerdere Veenhuizen in zowel Groningen alswel Drenthe zijn, blijft het een lastige klus waarin meerdere plaatsen in één category staan. De enige mogelijkheid die ik dan bedenk om de bestanden te scheiden is iets met de coördinaten, maar dat moet dan uitgezocht worden. Groet, Pompidom (talk) 19:02, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Over waar de monumenten worden gecat moeten we het inderdaad nog maar eens hebben. Wat de plaatsen met dezelfde naam betreft: die leveren nu soms even flinke puzzels op, maar die zijn eenmalig. Veenhuizen is nu uitgezocht (op een paar afbeeldingen na die ik écht niet thuis kan brengen) en wie nu een foto in een plaats met die naam maakt, zal die op Commons voortaan gemakkelijk kunnen onderbrengen. De categoriestructuur is nou eenmaal ook iets dat groeit en gaandeweg wordt verfijnd en natuurlijk weet niet iedereen dat er maar liefst acht Veenhuizens zijn (ook ik kende er maar vier van). Roden was ook zoiets. Uiteindelijk komen dit soort schoonheidsfoutjes wel goed, dat is een kwestie van tijd (al lijkt me een en ander per bot rubriceren verrekte lastig, het blijft uiteindelijk toch handwerk). Ik vind dat we er met die monumenten al met al best iets moois van maken, zoals het nu gaat. Dat je in de lijsten op nl:wiki nu steeds vaker direct naar een monumentencat op Commons kunt klikken om meer plaatjes van een object te bekijken, is een grote aanwinst - met dank aan de RCE en alle collega-vrijwilligers. Wutsje 19:49, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Buikstede

Hallo Wutsje

Wat jij vermeld als Buikstede is hier ter plaatse beter bekend als: Kievitjeburen. Dit is op Wikipedia weer fout vermeld als Kievitsburen, zie verder: www.kievitjeburen.nl. Groeten van Sietse te Buikstede 4

Dag Sietse, ik heb dat rechtstreeks overgenomen van het artikel over Buikstede op de Nederlandse Wikipedia (hier). De oorspronkelijke auteur daarvan is Hardscarf, wellicht kun je een en ander even met hem bespreken (hier). Groet, Wutsje 21:35, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Fixes

Thank you for making the fixes. When I saw "2005" I thought it was the year (often a year is included in an image description, and I did not know that I should be following the EXIF information below). Did that value refer to something else? WhisperToMe (talk) 03:15, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Hoi Wutsje

Bedankt voor je vriendelijke woorden elders en eerder. Ik heb jou altijd als een baken van vriendelijkheid ervaren. Tijdens mijn werken voor Wikipedia heb ik meerdere goede vrienden gemaakt en in mijn studie voor artikelen ben ik wonderlijke en indrukwekkende zaken tegengekomen. Dat is winst en niet verloren. Dat ik mijn tijd voor Wikipedia toch als verloren beschouw, komt omdat er veel onzin in Wikipedia staat. Daar word ik nou triest van. En die berg onzin staat direct in verband met de structuur (of het ontbreken daarvan) van Wikipedia. Maar het maken van dergelijke opmerkingen is volstrekt zinloos want ik ben de eerste niet die dit probeert en ik zal bijlange de laatste niet zijn. Wikipedia stormt voort en voort als een trein zonder machinist. Ik ben er uit gestapt. Veel goeds wens ik je toe. Hartelijke groet: 80.101.191.27 17:16, 21 July 2013 (UTC) of beetjedwars of Ed Jussen.

Hoi Beetjedwars, met oprechte verontschuldigingen voor de late reactie (als ik druk bezig ben klik ik zo'n balkje wel eens weg en vergeet ik vervolgens te reageren): je ergernis begrijp ik én deel ik, dat je er moedeloos van bent geworden kan ik me goed indenken. Zelf probeer ik me maar te richten op de dingen die wél goed gaan - want die zijn er wel degelijk, al wordt het zicht erop soms inderdaad wel benomen door een enorme lading irrelevante troep - de lijsten met afleveringen van tv-series die vrijwel iedereen over tien jaar weer is vergeten, de c-acteurs, de hitparadenoteringen, afijn, je kent het. Toch zou ik willen dat je ooit toch nog weer wat inspiratie terugvindt, je bijdragen mis ik - maar mocht dat er niet van komen, dan hoop ik dat er ooit een moment zal komen dat je terug kunt kijken zonder je tijd op de wiki's achteraf als verloren te beschouwen, want echt, daar doe je jezelf tekort mee. Met vriendelijke groet, Wutsje 17:08, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Dank je en het ga je goed. 80.101.191.27 15:21, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

IP

Hoi Wutsje,

Dit even hier, zodat niet de hele kermis direct meeleest.

Terugzetten had niet gehoeven perse, want in principe vind ik dat iedereen (binnen de grenzen van het redelijke) zelf de inhoud van zijn overlegpagina mag beheren. Hoewel deze gebruiker er dan twee overlegpagina's op na houdt waarvan eentje nog wel aan een IP-adres verbonden - dat maakt het wat minder zwart-wit af te wegen.

Het was ook geen opmerking om trots op te zijn, hoewel wel eerlijk bijzonder contraproductief. Mijn ervaring is dat mannelijke personen in die leeftijdsgroep alleen positief reageren op competitieve stimulans. Ons vandalismebestrijdingscorps (excusez le mot exprès) biedt daarbij gelukkig ampel mogelijkheid.

Ik ben desalniettemin blij met je ingreep omdat ik hoop dat BlueKnight mijn laatste opmerking ook meekrijgt, anders komt het wat eenzijdig over. Mijn ervaring is dat hij met zulk extra inzicht overigens niets doet - maar ook desondanks dat. Daarna mag van mijn part die opmerking alsnog verwijderd - of zelfs de hele pagina. Draai hem in ieder geval maar niet opnieuw terug als de IP-er, terug van blokkade, weer gaat wissen en knoeien in de discussie.

Hartelijke groet, Woudloper (talk) 11:54, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Hoi Woud, ik zag dit bericht pas een half uurtje geleden en zoals je weet heb ik inmiddels de overlegpagina meegeblokkeerd omdat het gelazer toch maar weer bleef doorgaan. Ik ben het met je eens dat bij deze doelgroep positieve stimulansen in het algemeen beter werken, maar wat deze gebruiker betreft betwijfel ik dat inmiddels sterk. Begin juli heb ik op vriendelijke en volgens mij alleszins redelijke en respectvolle toon getracht om hem te bewegen zijn bewerk- en overleggedrag te veranderen, toen met betrekking tot dat hardnekkig als ip-er bewerkingen willen markeren terwijl hij best weet dat dit anderen nodeloos extra werk bezorgt (link. Had geen enkel effect, integendeel: ook ik kreeg prompt de kous op de kop. Naar aanleiding daarvan heb ik de afgelopen weken vooral vanaf de zijlijn wat meegekeken, en wat ik zag is alleen maar meer van hetzelfde. Het is net alsof hij ruzie wil - en daar schiet volgens mij niemand iets mee op, in de eerste plaats de wiki niet. Wat je meningsverschil met BlueKnight betreft: daar ken ik de achtergrond niet van. Er lijkt meer achter te zitten dan ik weet (je hint hierboven wijst daar in ieder geval op) en ik ben dus wat huiverig om me daarmee rechtstreeks te bemoeien. Overigens: ik ben blij dat er op de wiki toch nog altijd mensen zoals jij actief zijn, die er overduidelijk niet op uit zijn om zichzelf populair te maken en ingewikkelde problemen met gebruikers dus niet uit de weg gaan, zeker nu dat laatste - in ieder geval onder de mods - toch echt wel de trend lijkt te zijn. Eveneens met hartelijke groet, Wutsje 16:30, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Dat beschrijf je goed ("net alsof hij ruzie wil"). Ik vermoed dat dat inderdaad zo is met veel van dit soort personen. In elke klas hier op school zitten er ook zo een paar. Mijn ervaring is dat als je ze goed laat zien wie de baas is (paar keer stevig de les lezen), het gedrag 180 graden verandert. Jongens zijn als honden: spelen, klieren, treiteren, uitdagen en grenzen opzoeken, op zoek naar bevestiging van hun prestaties en gevoelig voor gezag. Meisjes werken rustiger en stiller, hebben minder gezag nodig. Die willen ook bevestiging, maar dan van hun werk.

Aanleiding van mijn ruzie met Blueknight is deze discussie en de laster die hij daar jegens me uitte. Daarop werd hij later nog eens door een derde gebruiker aangesproken ([4]), maar verdere uitleg is nooit gekomen. Sowieso begrijp ik er maar weinig van als een gebruiker waarvan ik dacht dat we redelijk goed samenwerkten me ineens persoonlijk aanvalt. Een eerder voorbeeld is Peter b. Mijn eerste vermoeden is in zo'n geval dat een bepaald groepje op IRC weer over me heeft zitten kletsen en een nieuw persoon tegen me heeft opgestookt, maar misschien heeft dat gedoe rond de bitjes van MoiraMoira en MarkW destijds ervoor gezorgd dat ik spoken ben gaan zien. Als je daarmee op een of andere manier zou kunnen helpen, graag.

Het is jammer dat alle goedwillenden op Wikipedia niet samen een vuist kunnen maken maar telkens in onderling gekibbel terecht raken waarbij de een na de ander afhaakt. Inhoudelijk draag ik nauwelijks bij, sinds uitgerekend Lymantria onterecht mijn account blokkeerde, zogenaamd wegens naming and shaming. Dezelfde die, toen MarkW eenmaal was weggepest, een poging deed tot verzoening en die poging vervolgens zelf de grond in boorde, toen er kritiek bleek te komen - o.a. op het beleid van naming and shaming! Het plezier is me echt een beetje ontgaan. Woudloper (talk) 06:42, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Dat laatste heb ik zoals je weet regelmatig ook hoor, en om dezelfde reden, maar ik zet me daar dan uiteindelijk maar weer overheen, want het idee om alle kennis voor iedereen vrij beschikbaar te maken blijkt gelukkig nog steeds meer aantrekkingskracht te hebben. Wikipedia blijft uiteindelijk toch een wondertje en per saldo boeren we volgens mij nog altijd vooruit, hoeveel onzin er ook in te vinden is en hoeveel bijdragers ook meer met hun eigen ego bezig zijn dan met de encyclopedie. Wat altijd wel helpt, is eens rondvragen aan niet-bijdragers wat ze van wp vinden. Je hoort dan vrijwel alleen positieve reacties (weliswaar soms met wat kanttekeningen, meestal over de betrouwbaarheid, maar soms is dat nou eenmaal terecht). Wutsje 14:26, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Sortering

Ik zag dat je de sortering van de vissersschepen aanpaste. Prima. Even ter informatie: het was gemakzucht om ze zo te sorteren als was gedaan. Copy-paste. Ik zal er voortaan op letten de streepjes en punten weg te laten bij het sorteren. De achtergrond van die streepjes en punten is niet anders dan dat ik vrij principieel de categorisering doe naar de naam zoals die op het schip geschilderd staat. Die komt inderdaad vaak niet overeen met de lijst van de overheid. --Stunteltje (talk) 07:11, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Editor @ ar.wiki

Hello. I would like to inform you that I have granted you editor flag at the Arabic Wikipedia, all your edits there will be automatically marked as patrolled. Best regards.--Avocato (talk) 14:06, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

File:Round_Island(Scillonia)2.jpg

Hi, regarding the deletion request for Round_Island(Scillonia)2.jpg, it was deleted and restored with new source information however I was under the impression because the photograph is not being published for the first time here we needed something more then just a licence template claiming the author releases the work to the public domain given the uploader doesn't appear to be the photographer? Just wanting to make sure everything is OK prior to moving it from en.wiki. Thank you. Cube00 (talk) 09:14, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi Cube00, I already left a message on Tom Corser's Commons user page to clear this matter up. Regards, Wutsje 10:26, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Second opinion

Hoi Wutsje, wat vind jij hiervan? Monumenten zijn op deze manier alleen nog te vinden als je weet dat het een monument is (en bovendien het woord "Rijksmonument" kunt begrijpen). Ik vind dat nogal ver gaan (heb zojuist ook zo'n wijziging ongedaan gemaakt), maar misschien bestaan hier afspraken over die ik niet ken. Voordat ik eventueel aan de bel trek, vraag ik jou eerst maar even wat jij ervan vindt. Groeten, Fransvannes (talk) 23:12, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Hoi Frans, daar kan ik kort over zijn: zulke afspraken zijn me niet bekend en ik word ook niet blij van veranderingen als deze. Het eerste aspect waarop iemand zal zoeken die hiervan afbeeldingen wil zien, is volgens mij toch echt de naam van de plaats waar ze staan - en zeker niet het predikaat rijksmonument, waarvan hij inderdaad maar net moet weten wát dat is en dan ook nog óf het dat is (wat nog veranderen kan ook). Groet, Wutsje 01:40, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Roodharige man

Beste Wutsje, dit is waarschijnlijk ofwel cyberpesten ofwel puberale lolbroekerij, hier toegevoegd. Het zou eigenlijk weg moeten als privacyschending (portretrecht e.d.), maar ik weet niet hoe ik dat overtuigend moet uitleggen. En dan nog wel in het Engels! :) Vriendelijke groet, ErikvanB (talk) 16:49, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Hoi Erik, er het Template:Speedydelete op plakken met als toelichting iets als very likely an attack image zou voldoende moeten zijn. Groet, Wutsje 22:45, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Iemand is me voor. Bedankt. ErikvanB (talk) 04:28, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Machines

Dag, Wutsje. Weer zoiets: deze afbeelding ziet er wel erg gelikt uit, en deze machine heb ik al genomineerd omdat ik hem op een website aantrof. De "gelikte" afbeelding heb ik nog nergens gevonden en is zeer groot (3.661 × 2.953 pixels), wat erop zóu kunnen duiden dat het om een origineel gaat en dat de uploader de fotograaf is, maar de vijf uploads verschillen nogal in afmeting, wat weer enigszins wijst op her en der bij elkaar gesprokkeld. Als jij alles nog even zou willen bekijken en zo nodig nomineren, zou ik je bijzonder erkentelijk zijn. Hartelijke groet, ErikvanB (talk) 13:32, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Dag Erik, wat de vier nog niet genomineerde uploads betreft:

• File:Mechanical press.JPG en File:Persen.JPG kan ik nergens op het net vinden, bovendien zijn ze duidelijk van een andere kwaliteit. Mogelijk is hier dus niets mis mee.
• File:Euromaster-Achtergrond.jpg lijkt zeer sterk hierop en File:Haco Punching Machine.jpg erg hierop, dus No permission lijkt me wat deze twee betreft wel terecht.

Ik neem aan dat je er nu zelf wel uit komt? Dan ga ik nu even een stukje slapen. :-)   Groet, Wutsje 03:08, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Enorm bedankt, Wutsje! Vooral Euromaster-Achtergrond is "een goede catch", zoals MoiraMoira zou zeggen. Inmiddels zie ik dat Natuur12 (die is ook overal, zeg!) reeds druk aan het nomineren is geslagen, wat me verder nadenken bespaart. Dat is bijzonder prettig. En nu ga ik hetzelfde doen als jij, want het tijdstip van dit bericht bezorgt me haast rode wangen van schaamte. Alle goeds. Mvg, ErikvanB (talk) 04:07, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Heleenmees2.png

Epa has given permission to use the cropped photo on Wikipedia. Proof has been sent to: permissions-commons@wikimedia.org Why delete the file without checking out the permission? Bmwz3hm 02:03, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

In de verwijderde versie stond geen letter over het verzonden zijn van toestemming vermeld, ook niet in de bestandsgeschiedenis. U kunt desgewenst hier een verzoek doen de foto terug te laten plaatsen. Wutsje 03:01, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Windmills

Hi Wutsje. Sorry for writing in English. I can read Dutch but make too many mistakes when writing it. The windmill categories seem to be confused between design and usage. There's Category:Wind pumps, which looks like it should include any windmill that's used to pump water, regardless of how its designed. There are also windmills for generating electricity, Category:Wind turbines, and for milling grains, which doesn't seem to have a category at all. Maybe there are other uses that I don't know about. Then on the design side, there are categories like Category:Wind wheels (windmotor in Dutch?) which is a particular design of windmill which is often used as a wind pump. If wind wheels are always used as wind pumps, then it should be a subcategory of wind pumps (not the other way around, as it is at present). If wind wheels also have other uses, then it's more complicated. Likewise with other designs like Category:Smock mills. Anyway, it seems to me that any windmill that pumps water should be in a subcategory of Wind pumps, as well as a category for whatever particular design it may have. Do you disagree? --ghouston (talk) 01:16, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi Ghouston, no, in itself I don't disagree, there certainly is quite some mix-up between form and function here. However, I strongly advise you to contact one of the Dutch windmill experts before you make any changes to these categories, since the impact on nl:wiki content could be immense. nl:User:Akoopal is the first who comes to my mind and he's probably best reached at his nl:wiki talk page.

By the way, you may want to take a look at nl:Windmotor to see what the Dutch call an Amerikaanse windmotor.

Regards, Wutsje 01:39, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. I'm not planning to change any of the windmill categories, it would be too much work for me at the moment. --ghouston (talk) 08:11, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

File:Nieuwe Hof 28.JPG

Hoi Wutsje. Je hebt gisteren aan bovenstaande foto het nummer 512689 toegevoegd. Volgens de lijst heeft dat pand het adres Nieuwe Hof 18-19. De foto heeft echter een omschrijving van huisnummer 28. Wat klopt er dus niet? Groet, Pompidom (talk) 20:05, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Hoi Pompidom, niet ik, maar de uploader had 512689 toegevoegd, want ze verkeerde blijkbaar in de veronderstelling dat het hier nr. 18-19 betrof. Het is echter toch echt nr. 28 en dat pand maakt deel uit van rm 15716 (het Westervrouwengasthuis). Nr. 18-19/rm 512689 is het voormalige schooltje dat aan de noordzijde van het hofje staat. Gefixt, met dank voor de opmerkzaamheid. Groet, Wutsje 22:11, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

En dan nog mijn excuses voor het scheef kijken. Ik was in de veronderstelling dat jij het nummer erop had geplakt. Bedankt voor het controleren en aanpassen! Groet, Pompidom (talk) 06:51, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Hallo Wutsje, Ik heb een aantal zeer mooie foto's van je gespot. Kom graag met je in contact om over het gebruik van één van je foto's te praten. Hoop dat je op deze melding reageert. met vriendelijke groet, Diana de Kruis Dianarcadis (talk) 10:51, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Beste Diana, je kunt me een berichtje sturen via de link Email this user (die je links ziet wanneer je bent ingelogd). Groet, Wutsje 16:50, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Hoofdpostkantoor Groningen

Dag, Wutsje. Mocht het je misschien ontgaan zijn, hier een foto van jou. Vriendelijke groet, ErikvanB (talk) 19:40, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Altijd aardig, een foto hergebruikt zien worden - en dan ook nog met een onberispelijke bronvermelding. :-)   Dank en groet, Wutsje 22:53, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Deletion

Hi Wutsje, Could you delete this quickly for me pleeeeaaase :), Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 13:38, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Done. Regards, Wutsje 13:40, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm an idiot, I planned to move a file back to the one you deleted as I thought the requester removed the number only however they'd actually requested a completely different (and correct) name .... So essentially I've just wasted your time so I'm really sorry!, I'll let you shoot me if you like , Anyway thanks for deleting the redirect and for your quick help, Have a great day. –Davey2010^Talk 13:45, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Vraag

Dag Wutsje. Mag ik jou wat vragen? Ik heb voor het eerst eigen werk geüpload ten behoeve van mijn nieuwe artikel. Het uploadformulier bood niet de keuze CC BY-SA 3.0, zoals de licentie wel in mijn camera-metadata was ingevoerd. Ik heb daarom onmiddellijk na het uploaden de licentie handmatig aangepast. Is dat acceptabel zo? Heb ik trouwens verder alles goed vermeld? Met vriendelijke groet, ErikvanB (talk) 15:30, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Hoi Erik, er is een auteur, een bron, een licentie en een datum (al kan die wellicht nog iets specifieker), dus op zichzelf is dit theoretisch gezien genoeg. Het kan alleen wel zijn dat iemand(s bot) struikelt over het feit dat geen Permission-veld is ingevuld. Zelf doe ik dat daarom wel altijd (vb). Voor uploads van eigen werk vind ik trouwens deze pagina handiger dan de standaardoplossing: je kunt daar heel makkelijk alles wat je wilt in één keer toevoegen. Groet, Wutsje 19:33, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Zeer bedankt, Wutsje. Ik heb dat nu gedaan. Het vreemde is alleen wel dat er nu zowel naast Toestemming als onder de kop Licentie iets staat, maar bij jou niet, terwijl ik geen verschil zie tussen onze broncodes. Het lijkt nu bij mij haast dubbelop. ErikvanB (talk) 20:12, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Het uploadformulier dat ik doorgaans gebruik maakt geen kopje {{int:license-header}} aan, dat is het verschil. Wutsje 20:18, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Ah. Haha. ErikvanB (talk) 20:50, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Korreweg 59 (Groningen)

Hi Wutsje,

ok, I understand that the category is only concerned with Korreweg 59. But I guess that most of the pictures in this category do not belong to this building. For me the filenames and descriptions of the pictures point to the building Bernoulliplein (?) 24 and 24a, even the have an address template for Korreweg 59. Shouldn't this be moved to the category of the whole complex Category:Woningcomplex Bernoulliplein c.a. (Groningen)? What do you think about it? Kind regards Bardenoki (talk) 21:02, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi Bardenoki, you may be right and creating a category Bernoulliplein 24, Groningen could be a good idea - but Multichill, the original uploader of these files, situated all of them Korreweg 59. Maybe ask his opinion too? Regards, Wutsje 11:23, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

I guess these files have been uploaded from an RCE source with the information of the RCE about the picture and the RCE has stored the pictures with the "main address" of the whole complex. But of course, why don't ask Multichill. Regards Bardenoki (talk) 15:59, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

@Multichill: : Hi, can you please take a look to our discussion? Do you have further information about the files in cat Category:Korreweg 59 (Groningen), especially why the files have an address template with "Korreweg 59", but filesnames and descriptions which suggest a different address (no. 24, 24a, maybe of Bernoulliplein)? Thanks Bardenoki (talk) 15:59, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

This was the data supplied by the RCE. I think you're right about the main address part. I would just move everything to the complex and add a note to the images about the address. Multichill (talk) 09:39, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your answer. I had the same idea to move all the pictures to the cat of the "Woningcomplex Bernoulliplein" because we can not be sure which part of the complex is shown on the pictures. Regards Bardenoki (talk) 12:02, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

A request for a translation

Hi,

I am about to edit Wikidata and would like to know how to translate "Village in China" into Frisian. Thanks in advance. Artix Kreiger (talk) 18:03, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi Artix, that would be "Doarp yn Sina". Best regards, Wutsje 00:54, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Category Jopie Huisman op WikiCommons

Hi Wutsje,

Ik ben net begonnen om quotes/citaten van Jopie Huisman op de Engelse Wikiquote te plaatsen - in het Nederlands en in het Engels. En ik wil graag door kunnen linken naar de Category:Jopie huisman op WikiCommons, maar die is er (nog) niet. Zou jij hem willen aanmaken? Ik weet niet hoe dat moet. Er komen ondertussen al wel een stuk of elf afbeeldingen tevoorschijn, als ik daar Jopie Huisman intik.
Weet jij hoe er ook een aantal afbeedlingen van zijn werken op WikiCommons kunnen komen? Ik mag op Wikiquote helaas alleen afbeeldingen van Wikicommons gebruiken. En het is zo zinnig voor mensen om, als ze zijn citaten lezen, daarnaast ook enkele werken van hem te kunnen zien. Dat doe ik bij zoveel mogelijk kunstenaars, zoals nu bij Breitner, Werkman en Gerard Bilders, waarvan ik al heb geplaatst inmiddels op de Engelse Wikiquote. Ik wil binnenkort ook beginnen met quotes/citaten van Gerrit Benner, van wie helaas nog bijna niks op WikiCommons staat afgebeeld. Als jij daar raad mee weet? vriendelijke groet, FotoDutch (talk) 08:22, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Foto gebruikt door RTV Noord

Ter info, jouw foto File:20100523_Grote_Markt_en_Martinitoren_Groningen_NL.jpg is door RTV Noord gebruikt, maar zonder correcte naamsvermelding: https://www.rtvnoord.nl/nieuws/203196/Welke-gemeente-is-nou-de-vijfde-van-Nederland-Groningen-of-Eindhoven -- Spinal83 (talk) 15:44, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Ik had het gezien, maar toch bedankt voor de notificatie. Inmiddels heb ik ze een mailtje gestuurd met het verzoek de bronvermeling te corrigeren. Groet, Wutsje 00:46, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Update: dat blijkt ondertussen te zijn gebeurd. Wutsje 16:19, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Hans Mooij

Overlijdensberichten J.J.A. Mooij stonden vandaag (03/12/19) in NRC etc., zie bijv. hier en hier. Groet, Eissink (talk) 01:19, 4 December 2019 (UTC).

Dag Jürgen, dank. Ik zal het aanpassen. Groet, Wutsje 01:33, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

De Hoop, Middelburg

Dag Wutsje, ik heb File:BUITENLANDSE STUDENTEN WERKEN IN NEDERLAND-PGM4011898.webm in Category:De Hoop, Middelburg gezet, vooral vanwege de gelijkenis met File:Geinundeerde gebied (Vlissingse singel) Op twee bomen zijn borden met maximum-, Bestanddeelnr 900-5285.jpg, waar zelfs de wieken nog gelijk lijken te staan — eens? Groet, Eissink (talk) 15:57, 11 December 2019 (UTC).

Ja. Wederom: knap gevonden, dankjewel. Groet, Wutsje 16:34, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Geen probleem. Zou je mij een plezier willen doen? Ik heb Romaine hier gevraagd een foto te plaatsen op de Nederlandse Wikipedia. Ik had het anders niet gevraagd, maar iemand in Luxemburg is er speciaal voor op pad geweest, na eerdere vragen van mij in de zomer. Romaine is niet continu op Commons, dus ik weet niet hoelang het anders nog duurt. Ik hoor het wel. Eissink (talk) 17:14, 11 December 2019 (UTC).

Zie hier. Graag gedaan. Wutsje 17:25, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Bedankt! Eissink (talk) 17:27, 11 December 2019 (UTC).

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 20120715 Grondstation Nationale SIGINT Organisatie (NSO) Burum Fr NL.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --The Cosmonaut 04:54, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:31, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

File:Partey Atlético.jpg

Soccer.ru gave permission for publication. — Mr.Drax 03:33, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi Mr.Drax, soccer.ru doesn't seem to have published this image under a really free license. The site says: "Футбол @ Soccer.ru © 2000-2019. При использовании материалов гиперссылка на www.soccer.ru обязательна". In my opinion and as far as my Russian goes that is an attribution requirement, as opposed to an attribution request. This may become problematical when this image is used to create a derivative work. See Commons:Licensing#Acceptable licenses and freedomdefined.org/Licenses#Attribution for more information. Regards, Wutsje 04:06, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Category:Antoni Głowacki

See please here: [5] and learn please more over categoriasation. I transfered 2 categories from picture of Antoni Głowacki ... to Category:Antoni Głowacki. That wasn't a test, please don't break my work. As an example ... You don't categorize every single picture of Donald Trump as a category politician in the USA and presidents of the USA but only as Donald Trump. 77.6.173.31 13:25, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Hi 77.6.173.31, you're right, my mistake. Sorry. Regards, Wutsje 13:35, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

A request

Please protect my userpage and talkpage from editing by unregistered users. Also, judging by the behaviour, user Misijabokserska is the same person.[6] Kubura (talk) 21:48, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi Kubura, done. Regarding Misijabokserska: I've requested a global lock for them, see here. Regards, Wutsje 22:15, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi, Wutsje. This user [7] is a vandal that usually vandalizes via IP edits. His edits are personal attacks pointed towards the targeted users and their family members. He hounds his targets across the pages across the wikis (articles, talkpages [8][9], file [10][11]). There he writes similar messages towards the original targets but also towards the user whome the original target talked to, as it happened here [12]. The attacks are sexist messages containing very detailed graphic descriptions of sexual intercourse. Often he writes targeted users' personal data. Often its messages escalate into something worse, threatning with beating, raping and murder by slaughter. The sicco snapped in last year's May and he appears on daily basis. He should be globally blocked. This is the extensive (not complete) list of the IP's from which he made edits: [13] Kubura (talk) 23:16, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi Kubura, if they edited Commons only, they can only be blocked here (which I have done now). As far as they vandalise cross wiki, you really should take this matter to m:SRG. Regards, Wutsje 23:35, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Hey Wutsje! He is back, but this time he is insulting you: [14]. Please intervene and block him! --Koreanovsky (talk) 12:35, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

---

Captain, the IP-vandal is back. He has personally attacked one user +20 times and caused damage on two files: Special:Contributions/93.143.124.96. Please intervene, is there anything else we can do to stop this? --Koreanovsky (talk) 07:35, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi Koreanovsky, thanks for your attentiveness. I've blocked them for a week and filed a request to take cross wiki measures on Meta (link). Regards, Wutsje 16:30, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 20140502 Vm Stadhuis IJlst Fr NL (1).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality --Cvmontuy 11:18, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:36, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 20110805 Vm Station Leens Gn NL.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Good quality. --Ercé 07:55, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:33, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Again, again...

...I guess you can imagine what is going on, since Koreanovsky is texting you again. This time the IP-offender was sexually harassing an female administrator from the Croatian Wikipedia on commons: [15] and was also insulting an administrator (also from the Croatian Wikipedia), that died years ago: [16].

I think this time he has crossed all lines. Globally blocking does not really seem working, since the IP is always a different one. Honestly I have no clue what we can do anymore. The last IP the user was editing from is (or was): 93.143.115.199.

Please intervene fast! Best regards, Koreanovsky (talk) 12:07, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

[17] Here he is. Also, he has a pick on that page [18], so I suggest protection. Kubura (talk) 23:38, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

[Sorry for the slow response, I've been afk for a while.]   Hi Koreanovsky and Kubura, I've semi-protected that page for a month now and I've blocked the 89.172.x.x ip-address you mentioned (the other one was already blocked by steward Martin Urbanec. In view of the fact that this seems to be a cross wiki affair though, I'd strongly suggest you keep taking this to m:SRG: I'm not a steward anymore and I can only offer some help on the Commons. More effective measures can only be taken by stewards. Regards, Wutsje 12:49, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Halis Yen

Beste,

ik weet niet wat de probleem is en waarom mijn pagina niet op wikipedia mag.
volgens mij is alles volgens de richtlijnen die wikipedia toepast. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Halis Yen (talk • contribs) 2:56, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Beste Halis Yen, ik begrijp uw vragen, de nominator heeft het u ook niet uitgelegd, zie ik. De korte versie is dat hij het artikel NE vindt, oftewel de beschreven persoon is "niet encyclopedisch (niet belangrijk genoeg)". Verdere reacties kunt u het beste hier geven, want dat is de plaats waar de inhoudelijke discussie over dit artikel wordt gevoerd. Met vriendelijke groet, Wutsje 13:45, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Ik dacht dat iedereen op Wikipedia belangrijk is. wat is niet belangrijk? dat ik minder bekend ben dan andere trainers? alvast bedankt om mijn artikel te laten staan omdat alles duidelijk is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Halis Yen (talk • contribs) 14:35, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Beste Halis Yen, nogmaals, opmerkingen over deze verwijderingsvoordracht kunt u het beste hier plaatsen. Eventueel kunt u ook bij de nominator om een nadere toelichting vragen. Met vriendelijke groet, Wutsje 22:51, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Copyvios

Hello Wutsje, while patrolling I came across these user uploads which I tagged for csd. But I'm not sure about these two files. Please have a look here when you're free. Thanks, stay safe. C1K98V ^{(💬 ✒️ 📂)} 00:55, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi C1K98V, I've deleted both of them (Insufficient or doubtful author or license; OTRS validation required (F1)): as all their other uploads were clearly copyright violations, I think it's safe to assume these were too. Thanks for your attentiveness and regards, Wutsje 01:09, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Hello once again Wutsje, I want to thank you for your quick response as an admin. I was thinking of tagging, as F1, but google ris was not showing any results, so waiting to consult an admin. Thanks you, stay safe. C1K98V ^{(💬 ✒️ 📂)} 01:13, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

---

Hello Wutsje! I thought that if I downloaded the images in wikimedia and added them to the files nothing would happen, but I see that there was no permission ...

Regarding the file "Draft: Jackie Hollywood" is a singer "rapper" model and interviewer of great personalities. I have spoken with her on instagram, and she is fine with creating a wikipedia for her, so there if I see that I have permission, I know that I still have to perfect her file, nothing more, greetings. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paul Polimero (talk • contribs) 9:22, 22 September (UTC)

Hi Paul Polimero, her permission for "creating a wikipedia for her" is irrelevant on Wikimedia Commons. This is not Wikipedia, see Commons:Project scope. What is relevant on Wikimedia Commons though, is that it is generally not allowed to upload images made by someone else without explicit written permission of their creator. See Commons:Licensing, see also Commons:OTRS#Licensing_images:_when_do_I_contact_OTRS?. Regards, Wutsje 16:27, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

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

Dear Wutsje

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

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

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

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

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

Let me know if you have any questions.

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

Please take a short survey regarding UCoC

Hello Wutsje,

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

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

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

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

Report

Hello, please take a look at this report: Commons:Administrators' noticeboard#Files named with meaningless/disruptive names (motivated renaming was reverted without any valid reason) as these are serious everyday violations of the Commons rules and protection of meaningless names (in this case, Kalumny which translates as Columns). User Kazimier Lachnovič with filemover rights constantly performs violations of the Commons rules, creates instability issues and protects meaningless names, thus creates confusion. His Commons admin rights previously were lifted, but it is clear that it is not enough. -- Pofka (talk) 17:29, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

How we will see unregistered users

Hi!

You get this message because you are an admin on a Wikimedia wiki.

When someone edits a Wikimedia wiki without being logged in today, we show their IP address. As you may already know, we will not be able to do this in the future. This is a decision by the Wikimedia Foundation Legal department, because norms and regulations for privacy online have changed.

Instead of the IP we will show a masked identity. You as an admin will still be able to access the IP. There will also be a new user right for those who need to see the full IPs of unregistered users to fight vandalism, harassment and spam without being admins. Patrollers will also see part of the IP even without this user right. We are also working on better tools to help.

If you have not seen it before, you can read more on Meta. If you want to make sure you don’t miss technical changes on the Wikimedia wikis, you can subscribe to the weekly technical newsletter.

We have two suggested ways this identity could work. We would appreciate your feedback on which way you think would work best for you and your wiki, now and in the future. You can let us know on the talk page. You can write in your language. The suggestions were posted in October and we will decide after 17 January.

Thank you. /Johan (WMF)

18:11, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

You are a fucking loser

You son of a bitch.-BirdImportant2022 (talk) 18:15, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

I take that as a compliment. Thank you very much. Wutsje 18:17, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Editing Soft Girl Article

I need your help with my article every time I keep giving the original author credit, you keep denying my uploads for no reason whatsoever. If you have any better ideas, please let me know asap. I already gotten the permission of the Instagram user to use the photo. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Soft_girl.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wandavisionvixen101 (talk • contribs)

Hi Wandavisionvixen101, all you need to know and do has been quite adequately explained on your talk page. Just follow the instructions. Thanks in advance and regards, Wutsje 18:53, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 20130608 Coulonhûs (Fryske Akademy) Leeuwarden NL.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Good quality. --Steindy 22:49, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:13, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Redirect duplicate?

Beste Wutsje, Klopt het dat bij deze File:PM 089492 B Lessines.jpg nog geen redirect is gemaakt naar File:Lessines NDame a la Rose PM 089492.jpg? Ik dacht dat dat standaard gebeurde bij duplicates, of vergis ik me? Vysotsky (talk) 09:31, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Dag Vysotsky, dat laatste meende ik ook. Deze heb ik nu opnieuw aangemaakt, maar ik vrees dat het vaker mis is gegaan. Wutsje 09:37, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Dat zou heel vervelend zijn, omdat die doorverwijzingen nodig zijn voor verwijzingen buiten Wiki. Gaat het in de toekomst wel goed? En kan je aangeven bij hoeveel bestanden het ongeveer fout is gegaan? Vysotsky (talk) 09:41, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Rond de honderd, schat ik. Die ik allemaal zal herstellen. Wutsje 09:53, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Geweldig. Dank voor de moeite. In principe zet ik relevante informatie altijd over naar de te behouden afbeelding, maar ik kijk niet of de afbeelding in gebruik is op Wiki, omdat ik weet dat dat met een redirect altijd in orde komt. Vysotsky (talk) 09:56, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Vysotsky: klaar. Koekje 11:46, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 20100418 Nieuwe Kerk Groningen NL.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Good quality.--Famberhorst 17:44, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:28, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Your revert

Good afternoon. I did not quite understand why you want to re-install an empty cat.

See Category:De Havilland Canada DHC-8 in Greek service, which is still in service, but according to ICAO is counted as DHC-aircraft (not the later manufacturer Bombardier).

Please enlighten me, thank you. --Uli Elch (talk) 15:31, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

See Special:WhatLinksHere/Category:De_Havilland_Canada_DHC-8_in_Greek_service. Regards, Wutsje 15:34, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Erection development

Hi, you deleted the file File:Erection_development_2.jpg. This file was in use on nlwiki. I think this was a mistake as I could not find a reason. Could you revert this? Hannolans (talk) 16:16, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Dag Hannolans, de reden was: Personal photo by non-contributors (F10): see also COM:PENIS and COM:PORN. Het bestand was afkomstig van iemand die hier intussen voor onbepaalde tijd is geblokkeerd (overigens niet door mij), zie hier en ook hier). Mijn neiging om het terug te plaatsen is niet groot, al kan dat anders worden indien mocht blijken dat er écht geen alternatief voor is (wat ik gezien het enorme aantal dikpiks hier betwijfel). Met vriendelijke groet, Wutsje 18:33, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Ah ja ik zie het. En er werd ook geplugd van beeldmateriaal waarvan de herkomst ook dubieus is. COM:PORN lijkt hier overigens niet van toepassing, daardoor lijkt het op een kuisheidsactie. --Hannolans (talk) 19:22, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Achteraf begrijp ik dat, maar daarvan was dus geen sprake. Het ging om een hele serie plaatjes en de verwijderreden was one size fits all. De uploader weet denk ik prima wat bij wat hoort. Wutsje 22:06, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Same person, different name

Hi! I saw your notice here, so I thought you might be interested in this. Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:47, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Hi Justlettersandnumbers, yes, indeed I am. I deleted both images and warned the uploader not to reupload them, or else. Thanks for the notification. Regards, Wutsje 22:06, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Hmm, I seem to failed to notice these two when I was writing the above. Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 14:55, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Purge of images in use in several projects

I did not know that "(Personal photo by non-contributors (F10): see also COM:PENIS and COM:PORN)" was used as an excuse to purge images that someone does not like, even when they are in use.

You deleted imagery of genitalia with that excuse, like File:射精.jpg, File:男性器 2.jpg, File:射精.jpg, File:男性器.png, File:Comparison of male genitalia 男性機の比較.jpg, File:射精.png, File:Description of the penis.jpg, File:The nature of the penis.png, File:男性の生殖器.png, File:Ejaculation.jpg.

Well, the fact is that lame excuse was used yo purge several files in use like File:Erection development 2.jpg (previously kept in a deletion request( and in use in it.wikipedia.org Prepuzio, ja.wikipedia.org 勃起 and 仮性包茎, tl.wikipedia.org Paninigas at pagtayo ng titi, www.wikidata.org Q133993 and zh.wikipedia.org 勃起.

So you purged a file in use (and so automatically in use per Commons:Scope you unilaterally went against a deletion request that kept the file. "Good" to hear that administrators can unilaterally and at thir one pleasere overturn community decisions.

But this purge of files in use does not stop here:

2 - File:射精の過程（外観）.jpg in use in ja:射精

3 - File:Erected clitoris.jpg in use in bn.wikipedia.org ভগাঙ্কুর উত্থান, fa.wikipedia.org نعوظ, fr.wikipedia.org Gland (anatomie), ro.wikipedia.org Erecția clitorisului

4 - File:仮性包茎の包皮.jpg in use in ja:仮性包茎

5 - File:女性器の変化.jpg in use in ja:陰核.

So, against the rules, deleted several images that were in use, were previously kept in deletion requests. Your purges editorialized other projects, also something against Commons rules. Other users have complained about the same fact. Also Commons does not delete images by uploader just because said uploader was blocked.

So, now, it doesnt matter why did you deleted this images (prudish zeal, administrative overzeal), you should undelete this images and, if you still think this images should be deleted open a proper deletion request, instead of acting unilaterally. Tm (talk) 11:31, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Hi Tm, deleting images that were in use was an error, mainly due to a lack of research, so I restored those. As for the other ones: it's not a matter of what I like or not like: Commons really has many, many personal images of human genitalia, especially of own dick picks. The uploader and their sock puppets have treated this project as an amateur porn site for several years now and I see no reason why that should be facilitated. Regards, Wutsje 13:02, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Sound Logo

Hello,

I am messaging you because a contest for a sound logo for Wikimedia is being developed and your opinion as a Wikimedia Commons admin is appreciated. My team would like to know if it is possible for the top finalist sound logos in the contest to have attribution temporarily hidden from public view until all the votes are final? The idea is to let the public judge the sound logo contestants based on the merit of the logo, not the person or people who made it. Again, any feedback is appreciated.

Thank you,

VGrigas (WMF) (talk) 18:13, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

File:Paul Kuijpers bust in Gra Ligia.jpg

File:Paul Kuijpers bust in Gra Ligia.jpg has been nominated for deletion at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Paul Kuijpers bust in Gra Ligia.jpg This is a deletion request for the community to discuss whether the nominated page should be kept or deleted. Please voice your opinion in the linked request above. Thank you very much! If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

ǁ ǁǁǁ Chalk19 (talk) 07:43, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Deletion request

Hello. Do you think all these files should be deleted? I think they are subject to speedy deletion under criterion F10.

• File:EM1P0279_(44820730284).jpg
• File:OM20781_(31647313198).jpg
• File:OMD2703_(45715215592).jpg
• File:OMD2892_(44222637825).jpg
• File:OMD2979_(43867653725).jpg
• File:OMD30327_(40150531892).jpg
• File:OMD41773_(41060783004).jpg
• File:OMD51618_(39787416674).jpg
• File:OMD82168_(26444815167).jpg
• File:DSC02505_(31693094594).jpg
• File:DSC02507_(32288118390).jpg
• File:DSC02515_(32288124460).jpg
• File:DSC02522_(32667116695).jpg
• File:DSC02532_(32288137290).jpg
• File:DSC02535_(32544916441).jpg
• File:DSC02543_(32491677096).jpg
• File:DSC02544_(32514201322).jpg
• File:DSC02547_(32514208202).jpg
• File:DSC02703_(32468395702).jpg
• File:DSC02706_(32242918700).jpg
• File:DSC02716_(32622261825).jpg
• File:DSC02725_(32538711701).jpg
• File:DSC02727_(32649045915).jpg
• File:DSC02728_(32269722750).jpg
• File:DSC02729_(32281902060).jpg
• File:DSC02734_(32268842950).jpg
• File:DSC02767_(32624800796).jpg
• File:DSC02782_(31826424573).jpg
• File:DSC02783_(32596581631).jpg
• File:DSC02784_(32596586051).jpg
• File:DSC02800_(31831731794).jpg
• File:DSC02802_(32701705235).jpg
• File:DSC02803_(31858996684).jpg
• File:DSC02820_(32662559346).jpg
• File:DSC02822_(31860280304).jpg
• File:DSC02825_(32521808922).jpg
• File:DSC02844_(32550749922).jpg
• File:DSC02851_(31890665403).jpg
• File:DSC02862_(31831730264).jpg
• File:DSC02870_(32550824672).jpg
• File:DSC02888_(31854172423).jpg
• File:Portrait_(31876425914).jpg
• File:P1250627_(31814427773).jpg
• File:P1250393_(32288162100).jpg
• File:P1250389_(32288157350).jpg
• File:P1250379_(32566959095).jpg
• File:P1250358_(32667109135).jpg
• File:P1250378_(32566928915).jpg
• File:P1250331_(32382855832).jpg
• File:P1250341_(32382872602).jpg

I batch uploaded these images nearly a year ago (via #flickr2commons) because there were many beautiful scenic pictures posted on this Flickr account. It turned out that this user also uploaded quite a lot of personal photos. This seems to be a private image collection, and I think it is not suitable for Wikimedia Commons. These photos fall outside the scope of Wikimedia Commons, and they are also not used in any projects. Ltn12345 (talk) 10:11, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Hi Ltn12345, sorry for the delayed response. I fully agree, so I deleted the lot. Thank you for drawing my attention to these images. Regards, Wutsje 05:01, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

Question

Hello, Please can you explain where in use? -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:48, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Hi, please take a look under File usage on Commons on the file page. COM:CSD#G7 does not specify where the file in use. Again: please file a regular DR. Regards, Wutsje 03:06, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

This in not in use in the official sense. See Commons:Project scope#File in use on Commons only -- Basile Morin (talk) 03:13, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

There's nothing there about quality images. Wutsje 03:15, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

COM:INUSE A QI does not become "in use" just because it gets the label. It's written on the page A file does not acquire educational purpose solely because it is in use on a gallery page or in a category on Commons. A template added somewhere does not change anything either. Don't confuse "quality image" and "already in use" -- Basile Morin (talk) 03:24, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

(ec) You may have missed the word solely there. This is a quality image, so it has an educational purpose by definition - and it is in use. Wutsje 03:31, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

This file is potentially "educational", of course. But it is definitely not "in use", right now. Your own interpretation of "in use" is wrong in my opinion. We don't call "in use" all the thousands of files that are somewhere hosted on Commons. Even if their upload is (fortunately often) legitimate. There's a good reason why COM:INUSE redirects to "File in use in another Wikimedia project" -- Basile Morin (talk) 03:46, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Now you may have missed the quality image part. Please, just file a regular DR, as has been made clear to you several times now. Wutsje 03:58, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Wutsje, you're claiming that the file is "in use", while it is currently not in use outside of Commons. Above you're writing "There's nothing there about quality images", then later "you may have missed the quality image part" (without quoting anything). Yes please we would like to hear where on Commons it's written that "any QI is declared IN USE simply because it's a QI" . Is it necessary to discuss this point in the Village Pump? I have no problem to start a regular DR for this image when the time comes. However if the {{Speedy}} is legitimate there's no reason also to revert. Greetings -- Basile Morin (talk) 04:29, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Problem

Hallo Wutsje, ich schreibe auf Deutsch und hoffe, das ist in Ordnung.

Du hast die Hauptkategorie Category:Grégoire Sport gelöscht. Mit der Begründung C1. Die Anleitung schreibt dazu: Falsch benannte Kategorien können schnellgelöscht werden, nachdem ihr Inhalt in eine richtig benannte Kategorie verschoben wurde.

Die Kategorie ist nicht falsch benannt! Das Fahrzeugmodell heißt Grégoire Sport und nicht anders. Siehe de:Grégoire Sport. Es ist kein Einzelstück und wurde sogar in 2 verschiedenen Karosserieversionen (Cabriolet und Coupé) hergestellt.

Die Existenz von separaten Unterkategorien für einzelne erhaltene Fahrzeuge ist kein Problem. Aber das darf nicht die Hauptkategorie für das Fahrzeugmodell ersetzen. Die Folge der Löschung ist, dass man über de:Grégoire Sport#Weblinks Commons nicht mehr zu den Fotos auf Commons kommt. Über Wikidata auch nicht. --Buch-t (talk) 10:16, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Hallo Buch-t, Entschuldigung für die späte Antwort, ich war zwei Wochen nicht da. Mir war nicht klar, dass es zwei verschiedene Grégoire-Autowerke gibt (gab). Ich werde darum den alten Zustand wiederherstellen. Grüße, Wutsje 19:29, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Schön. Das gleiche Problem besteht auch bei Category:Grégoire R. Ebenfalls von mir angelegt, passend im Artikel de:Grégoire R eingebunden. Dann folgte ohne Diskussion:

• verschieben des Kategorieinhalts nach Category:Grégoire R prototype 1947 (Cité de l'Automobile)
• Schnelllöschantrag auf die Ursprungskategorie. Wahrscheinlich mit Begründung falsch benannt, was nicht zutrifft. Die war zwar leer, aber weiterhin im de-Artikel eingebunden. Folge: Beim Klick auf Commons: Grégoire R – Sammlung von Bildern, Videos und Audiodateien im de-Artikel landet man auf der gelöschten Kategorieseite.

Der de-Artikel beschreibt die komplette Baureihe Grégoire R, nicht nur das erhaltene Exemplar in der Cité de l'Automobile. Daher brauchen wir eine Hauptkategorie Grégoire R. Die Unterkategorie für das Fahrzeug in der Cité kann weiterhin existieren.

Weiteres Beispiel: Category:Bugatti Type 28. Das ist ein Prototyp, aber das ändert ja nichts an der Sache, dass das Fahrzeug offiziell so genannt wurde und eben nicht "Bugatti type 28 torpédo 1921 (Cité de l'Automobile)".

Es gibt noch mehr solcher Fälle vom selben Benutzer. Ich finde es ärgerlich. Ich diskutiere schon längere Zeit mit ihm, aber das ist schwierig. Gleich folgt ein längerer Beitrag auf seiner Diskussionsseite. Vielleicht schaust Du mal rein. Gruß --Buch-t (talk) 11:50, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Meerdere accounts?

Ha Wutsje, Zijn er voor Commons andere regels dan op de encyclopedie w.b.t. meerdere accounts te hebben door een gebruiker? Waarom vraag ik dit, omdat ik een vermoeden heb dat acht nieuwe gebruikers die pas actief zijn op Commons en die aan de lopende band veranderingen aanbrengen die veelal op elkaar lijken ik mij daarbij afvraag of het niet een en de zelfde persoon betreft. Dat had ik al toen het er nog maar twee waren, maar nu zijn het er inmiddels acht die praktisch de zelfde handelingen aan de lopende band verrichten waarbij ik mij zelfs afvraag of het niet een bekende van vroeger is? Omdat ik weet dat jij je hier geregeld mee bezig houdt vraag ik het daarom aan jouw. Maar mocht op Commons hier geen regels voor zijn, beschouw dit dan als niet geschreven! Vr. gr. Antoine.01_overleg(Antoine) 17:14, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Hoi Antoine.01, sorrie voor de late reactie, ik was er even tussenuit. De regels op Commons zijn inhoudelijk hetzelfde als op en:wiki (en nl:wiki): meerdere accounts gebruiken is op zichzelf niet verboden, maar die misbruiken wel (blokontduiking, dubbel stemmen, discussies beïnvloeden, et cetera). Zie en:abuse of multiple accounts. Mogelijke gevallen van foute sokpopperij kun je aan de orde stellen op het Administrators' noticeboard (onder Other). Als daar blijkt dat er daadwerkelijk sterke aanwijzingen voor een probleem zijn, dan komt Requests for checkuser in beeld. Zie laatstgenoemde pagina voor meer informatie over het beleid en de procedure. Groet, Wutsje 19:15, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Hallo Wutsje, Bedankt dan ga ik daar een kijkje nemen! Dit gezien er inmiddels nu acht accounts zijn aangemaakt waarvan ik sterk het vermoeden heb dat deze door een en de zelfde persoon zijn aangemaakt omdat het de zelfde soort bewerkingen zijn en het ook steeds de zelfde onderwerpen betreft op Commons en ze allen recentelijk zijn aangemaakt. Want waarom heb je hier acht account voor nodig daar je die bewerkingen toch ook met een account kan doen. Maar mogelijk gaat het hier om een blokontduiking daar ik anders niet de logica hiervan kan inzien om er zoveel accounts op na te houden!? Vr. gr. Antoine.01_overleg(Antoine) 10:35, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Ha Wutsje nogmaals, Het heeft wat lang op zich laten wachten maar nu heeft ook iemand anders geconstateerd dat er sprake is van een persoon die meerdere accounts gebruikt zie (hier). Vr. gr. Antoine.01_overleg(Antoine) 21:35, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Dag Antoine.01, dank voor de melding. Wat de andere accounts betreft moet ik me er nog even in verdiepen, maar de werk- en schrijfstijl van zowel Eissink als Wwikix kennende lijkt het me extreem onwaarschijnlijk dat die twee gebruikers sokpoppen van elkaar zouden zijn. Heb je een linkje naar een cu-onderzoek? Groet, Wutsje 21:46, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Ha Wutsje, Vandaag weer thuis gekomen dus lees nu pas je reactie. Nee ik heb geen linkje naar een cu-onderzoek, wel heb ik je raad opgevolgd door er melding van te maken (hier) maar daar geen reactie opgehad dus heb ik het maar zo gelaten. Wat betreft Eissink alsook Wwikix daar heb ik geen zicht op dat het hun beiden betreft die gebruik maken van diverse accounts of dat ze sokpoppen van elkaar zouden zijn!? Maar wat betreft de vele nieuwe accounts die de laatste maanden aan worden gemaakt, nu de bewerkingen die men uitvoert op Commons hebben heel veel overeenkomsten zo dat ik er stellig van overtuigd ben dat het een en de zelfde persoon betreft alsook dat het geen nieuwkomer is! Vr. gr. Antoine.01_overleg(Antoine) 14:52, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Dag Antoine.01, ik heb Eissink verward met iemand anders. Nu ik dit en dit heb gezien kan ik alleen maar zeggen dat je volledig gelijk hebt. Groet, Wutsje 00:38, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

AI

I would appreciate if you would give your input on the talk page of Commons:AI generated media Trade (talk) 22:53, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Hi Trade, I just did. Thanks for drawing my attention to that discussion. Regards, Wutsje 23:08, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Might wanna tell the uploader not to upload more images like this until we get a response from the legal team Trade (talk) 01:05, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Without jumping to legal conclusions (not my call) this should be enough. Wutsje 01:08, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Uhm, you might wanna look at the age in the description here. I can't believe this somehow managed to get even weirder. Suffice to say it's either the same person behind both accounts or there's some meatpuppetry going on. @Wutsje: --Trade (talk) 02:32, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Sigh, another user--Trade (talk) 02:33, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Yet another one--Trade (talk) 02:36, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

This is literally a child corpse... --Trade (talk) 02:37, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Turns out the above corpse is based on the child victim of a serial killer--Trade (talk) 02:44, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

I deleted the lot and blocked the uploaders. Thanks for the notification. Wutsje 03:02, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Missed this one and this one--Trade (talk) 03:10, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Josef Hedinger cropped.jpg

Hello - there IS a permission - look here: Commons:Undeletion_requests/Current_requests#File:Josef_Hedinger_(cropped).jpg_and_File:TRIBBS_Polish_music_producer_(cropped).jpg and ask the one who got permission. Myan1948 (talk) 06:25, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

The problem was that this image is a derivative file of File:Josef Hedinger.jpg, an image that was deleted as copyvio. I don't know why that one wasn't undeleted too. I left a message at Polimereks talk page, see here. Wutsje 12:37, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

thanks for contributing and deleting all the files to my speedy deletion nomination requests of ads and selfies files!!!!!!! i awarded a kitten for your support!!!!!!! from me

--BoulevardBowl27 (talk) 18:12, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

You're welcome, and thank you! Me likes kitties. Wutsje 18:16, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Hi

Hi, I added a file on that page and posted it. Thank you for the clarification Kigdol (talk) 02:27, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

Question

Hey @WutsjeI

I appreciate all the work you are doing here on Wikimedia Commons.

As a new user, I have some questions to ask the more experienced users here. Is it allowed to delete content from the discussion/talk page? Riad Salih (talk) 11:33, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Hi Riad Salih, technically 'yes', but archiving to a subpage is much more preferred. See Commons:Talk page guidelines#User talk pages. Regards, Wutsje 21:06, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Thank you @Wutsje for your help I really appreciate it. Riad Salih (talk) 14:36, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Question 2

Hey @Wutsje

If it's possible, I have an additional question about the FoP-Algeria license. I uploaded a picture from a public Algerian company (here is the link) and applied that license, but someone has nominated it for deletion. Can you please advise me on whether this license permits me to share the picture or not? I'm asking for your input as you have a lot of experience in this matter.

Riad Salih (talk) 15:59, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

Hi Riad Salih, the legal notice on the source site states: © Copyright Ratp Développement 2019. All rights reserved, so I'm afraid the FoP-Algeria license does indeed not apply. Regards, Wutsje 16:22, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

@Wutsje Even though the law states that "... to communicate to the public, without authorization of the author and without remuneration". ? Riad Salih (talk) 16:37, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

Legally, the site is not Algerian: Le site et son contenu sont régis par le Droit Français, et tout litige éventuel s’y rapportant sera soumis à la compétence des tribunaux français. Wutsje 17:40, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

Speedy deletion

Hi @Wutsje

Is it possible to remove the speedy deletion tag from this picture, which was randomly selected for deletion? The picture is in the public domain of Algeria and even Alamy states clearly: " This image is a public domain image, which means either that the copyright has expired in the image or the copyright holder has waived their copyright. Alamy charges you a fee for access to the high-resolution copy of the image ".
I'm extremely grateful for your assistance.
Riad Salih (talk) 22:39, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Hello,

Thanks for verifying this is truly a PD picture. Without an author, a reference and a 2012 date, this could have been questionable. I have added the URL to the description and removed the incorrect date so this is clear for all users.

BTW @Riad Salih, I think you should remove the watermark you have added to this picture (and others if you did the same elsewhere) as it goes against Commons:Watermarks (not an invisible watermark which is the one allowed). Users are actively removing those so let’s try to make their life easier by not adding more. Moumou82 (talk) 06:09, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Wutsje

I'd like to clarify that @Moumou82 has more than 175,000 edits (xtools). Instead of adding the speedy deletion tag, he should have nominated the picture for deletion. However, he did conduct research on TinEye and found the photo on Alamy, and as an expert, he should have added the missing details to the description himself. He has since done so after your intervention.

This incident occurred after some edits were made to the Jebba (North African traditional dress) article on French Wikipedia (link). Moumou82 wanted to keep only the Tunisian version and delete the picture related to Algerian people wearing it.

In reply to Commons:Watermarks, at that time I was new and learning the rules gradually. I didn't add the watermark to mark the picture, but just to indicate that the photo had been enhanced and modified. After that, I used an invisible watermark for all other pictures I uploaded as you can see here. However and I no longer use this technique.

Again @Moumou82 I'm extremely grateful for your assistance. Riad Salih (talk) 14:15, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

I would like to correct an inaccurate statement about the Wikipedia article in French: I never keep an article version based on a certain country, I work with others to ensure content is only added and maintained if it has reliable sources per Wikipedia rules. @Riad Salih: you know it as I made it clear here so would appreciate you reflect this accurately and do not give Wutsje partial information.

As for the picture, I indeed made a search on TinEye and found multiple occurrences, not just the Alamy one, so I did not open them all to find further details. I recognize I might have been too fast on that particular one, but the picture description was seemingly erroneous since upload 11 years ago so I am glad this action led to a positive clarification.

@Riad Salih: will you remove the watermark then since this is not an action you practice now? Moumou82 (talk) 14:48, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Hi you two, now that the copyright issue is clarified I don't see much point in further discussing that subject on this talk page, although you're of course free to do so somewhere else. As for the watermark I agree with Moumou82: that should be removed from the image, see COM:WM. Regards, Wutsje 17:25, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

File:Neil Armstrong reviews flight plans.jpg

Hi. Thanks for deleting the duplicate. I'm surprised there isn't a redirect in place now. If external websites were using this picture, they would now be broken. Cheers. Cryptic-waveform (talk) 19:02, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Haha. I just see you created it. Nevermind :) Cryptic-waveform (talk) 19:02, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, most things here take some time, at least half a minute. Take it as proof that I'm not a bot. Wutsje 19:10, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

About my file

Hi, I recently have noticed you want delete my file File:26-01-2015 - WHITE AO DAI - QUAN NGUYEN PHOTO.jpg. I have done the permission through licensing. Can you review it and reply to me? If anything wrong I will rewatch it. Thank you. Mickey Đại Phát (talk) 09:06, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Hi Mickey Đại Phát, that was a mistake, my apologies. Your file is safe. Regards, Wutsje 13:56, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Oh my god. So I thought. No problem, friend. Have a good day. Mickey Đại Phát (talk) 14:51, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Re: File:Arizona's Family Sports Logo.jpg

Hi, I see you put that this file is a copyright violation and meets the may meet the criteria for speedy deletion. However, the logo consists only of simple geometric shapes (circles) and text, I could be wrong, but I believe it would not meet the threshold of originality needed for copyright protection in the United States and can only be trademarked protected. Please see the licensing tags I placed on the page and Commons:Threshold of originality. Thank you. Powergate92Talk 04:52, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

Hi Powergate92, I did notice those licensing tags and although I'm no specialist in Anglo-Saxon law, the provisions in the ToS on the source site however make it not unlikely that the logo can't be used in for instance the EU, especially due to the stated non-commercial use limitations. Imo that raises significant doubt that the image is not copyrighted as meant in COM:TO. Regards, Wutsje 05:09, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

GrygoryZach2077

Could you please change this guy's block to permanent? Trade (talk) 22:09, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

Hi Trade, that user has never been blocked (link), so what do you mean with 'change to permanent'? Perhaps you mean someone else? Wutsje 22:18, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

No i did meant him specifically Trade (talk) 22:24, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

Done. Wutsje 22:27, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

The reason was for uploading nude photos of Mia Goth that was leaked during the "Fappening". I asked him to be blocked due to privacy violation, not due to copyright Trade (talk) 22:52, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't do mind reading. Anyway, it doesn't really matter: Yann already warned this user that uploading copyvio files again would lead to a block. Wutsje 22:57, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

The warning was posted after the images were uploaded so the ban would never have been valid regardless. Could you please correct the ban reason? Trade (talk) 00:15, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Only now I understand you were referring to this request. You might have mentioned that in the first place. Well, I'm sorry, but I'm not blocking someone on hearsay for uploading a file that I haven't seen with my own eyes - which is impossible now. Wutsje 00:31, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Can't admins see deleted files? Trade (talk) 00:36, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Not if they're oversighted. Wutsje 08:12, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Maybe ask the oversighters? Trade (talk) 14:15, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Hi- you just deleted my picture

I just created my account so I can upload my picture to my WIKIPEDIA page. why did you delete it? can you please help me with my image please so I can upload it to my wiki page? Thanks Israelbachar (talk) 18:01, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Hi Israelbachar, was this explanation not clear enough? The WMF projects, including all Wikipedias, are not part of the social media, so there is no such thing as my WIKIPEDIA page. Regards, Wutsje 18:07, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

bro same! Loosinator (talk) 00:47, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

File:2022 cover Wordsworth Circle.png

Hi, why did you delete File:2022 cover Wordsworth Circle.png as fair use material? This is plain text and a simple geometric shape published in the United States. This is well below the threshold of originality. ✗plicit 10:49, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

Hi, in short: see Commons:Fair use. The image was originally uploaded on 13:39, 18 May 2023 (UTC) with {{Non-free use rationale serial publication | Article = The Wordsworth Circle | Use = Infobox | Title = The Wordsworth Circle | Issue = 4 | Volume = 53 (2022) | Owner = University of Chicago Press | Type = journal | Source = https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/toc/twc/current | Portion = All | Low_resolution = No | Replaceability = Impossible }}, an explicit reference to the fair use doctrine. You're of course welcome to file a undeletion request, although just uploading the image to en:wiki instead will save you that trouble. Regards, Wutsje 11:20, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

The file originally being uploaded as fair use has no bearing on the fact that it's too simple to qualify for copyright, hence I re-licensed it as {{PD-text}} and transferred the file from the English Wikipedia in the first place. This should not have to require an undeletion request. COM:TOO US is clear and your deletion is out of touch with copyright policy. ✗plicit 11:38, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

You may have missed the part with "Fair use" media files uploaded to Wikimedia Commons will be deleted on sight, without warning. Your changing the license does not alter that. And I'm sorry, but when I look at that file I see a journal cover, not just "plain text and a simple geometric shape". This image would be unusable on WMF projects for non-common law countries. Please do file that udr, including a link to this discussion. Regards, Wutsje 11:54, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

Logo Sonelgaz

Hi @Wutsje,

I hope you're doing well. Could you please take a look at this? I believe this logo is composed solely of basic shapes and uncomplicated fonts.

Regards Riad Salih (talk) 22:57, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Hi Riad Salih, you could very well be right, but then again, the font(s?) may be copyrighted and the image may be a registered trademark. As I can hardly read Arabic scripts, there's almost no way for me to know. Regards, Wutsje 01:18, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

@Wutsje Hi, these are just simple fonts (Arial in French and Traditional Arabic in Arabic). Nothing is copyrighted, and even if there is a percentage of copyright, the company logo was made in 1968. According to this law, it's in the public domain.

Regards Riad Salih (talk) 14:44, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Eggs etc

Just curious, your recent deletion request only seems to have included about half of their uploads. Were the others questionable or did they get uploaded after the nomination started? Primefac (talk) 11:35, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Hi Primefac, the latter. After the nomination I left a request to respond on their talk page. They obviously ignored that, but until now I wasn't aware that they had uploaded even more copyvios. Regards, Wutsje 14:21, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Uploadcheck

Dag Wutsje,

Zou je eens kritisch naar al deze uploads willen kijken?

• File:Hans Cools - De Spil Roeselare 2023 (première).jpg, bijvoorbeeld, heeft als auteursrechthebbende en auteur "Pieter Verhaeghe" in de metadata, maar onder Summary staat "Own work" en "Simon Beckers".
• File:Amelie Albrecht Portret.jpg staat op Amelie Albrechts website en wordt door De Morgen gebruikt met in het onderschrift "Beeld 5to9" (de kennelijke auteursrechthebbende).

Bedankt.

Groet, ErikvanB (talk) 01:32, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Dag ErikvanB, dit lijken me stuk voor stuk gevalletjes no permission en ik heb ze dan ook alle vijf als zodanig "getagd". Dank voor je opmerkzaamheid. Groet, Wutsje 01:43, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Dank je zeer. ErikvanB (talk) 13:05, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Imágen

¿Porque me borras las imágenes? Ns797977 (talk) 23:03, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Dat witte jo donders goed, sjoch Special:Diff/783100588. Sjoch fierder Special:CentralAuth/Ns797977. Wutsje 23:27, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Need for unused redirects after file renaming

Hello Wutsje, I wonder about this and similar. Is there a reason to keep unused redirects after file renaming that I'm not thinking of right now? There are quite a few such redirects among my files that unnecessarily inflate listing of file usage on commons, but before I unnecessarily send them a deletion request, I prefer to ask how to handle them first. Regards Anil Ö. (talk) 09:18, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Hi Anil Ö., see Commons:File redirects: there is almost always no need to delete file redirects after renaming. Even if they're not used in the WMF universe, they may be in use outside of that. Regards, Wutsje 01:48, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Nick Jr.-logo

Dag Wutsje. Hopelijk zo goed gedaan. Zie ook de paginageschiedenis daar. Die Nickelodeon-kleuters ook altijd... Groet, ErikvanB (talk) 00:41, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Dag ErikvanB, op dit soort dingen druk ik doorgaans No permission, dan wordt het probleem na zeven dagen automagisch opgelost. Met logo's bemoei ik me hier niet meer, Amerikanen hebben daar véél meer verstand van. Groet, Wutsje 00:50, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Dankjewel. En ik maar blijven moeite doen... ;-) Groet, ErikvanB (talk) 00:59, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Wanneer leren 'zullie' – die Amerikanen – trouwens eindelijk eens license als licence te schrijven. ErikvanB (talk) 01:07, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

PS: Het zal wel weer behouden worden omdat de 'threshold of originality' niet gemeet wordt, ook al wilde de ontwerper er 70.000 dollar voor hebben, wat best duur is voor een ontwerp dat de originality niet meet. Ben benieuwd. ErikvanB (talk) 13:58, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Auteursrechten?

Hoi Wutsje, Ik vroeg me af of deze wel helemaal correct is? De afbeelding is van recente datum, de uploader is niet de maker, en ik kan in het bewuste archief niks terugvinden (dus ook niks over rechten). Thieu1972 (talk) 16:46, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Hoi Thieu1972, ook dit lijkt me een gevalletje No permission, zie hierboven. Dat de uploader is gevraagd deze afbeelding op Commons te plaatsen geldt op zichzelf niet als toestemming van de auteur voor publicatie. De herkomstsite bezoeken levert mij in FF een Warning: Potential Security Risk Ahead op, dus ik ga niet kijken of daar soms (toch) een vrije licentie wordt vermeld. Groet, Wutsje 17:00, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Ik heb de website van AMVB zelf bezocht, want de gegeven link levert inderdaad niks op. Maar op die site kom ik ook niks tegen. Thieu1972 (talk) 20:13, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Oh wacht: dit lijkt me het betreffende portret. Althans, de omschrijving lijkt wel zo te zijn. Geen afbeelding helaas. En al helemaal niks over rechten. Thieu1972 (talk) 20:16, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Didimaduo pl.jpg

As I recall, that file was COM:INUSE in a Wikipedia article about the duo. Was it suddenly no longer still in use when you deleted it, or if it was, what happened? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:04, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

The article in which the image was used was not in accordance with nl:WP:BLP en was therefore speedily deleted. Wutsje 22:09, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

I see. Thanks for explaining, and thanks for your work. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:13, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Miss Bashirat 4.jpg

Do you mind updating the category from Pending to Deleted when taking care of deletion requests? Trade (talk) 17:06, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

No, but I was under the impression that the bot/template takes care of that. If it doesn't, it should: avoidable useless extra edits should be exactly that: avoided. Wutsje 17:31, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Would you be interested in helping out with spam? Its a bit exhausting after marking more than fifty images for speedy deletion Trade (talk) 22:34, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Have you ever taken a look at my contribs on Commons? :-)  Wutsje 23:41, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

I meant deleting them without me having to tag them. Some of the images i tagged that you deleted were uploaded weeks, even months ago Trade (talk) 09:38, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Basically i wish i didnt had to spend spend so much of my time tagging files Trade (talk) 16:30, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

I'm sure you do. But luckily, you don't really have to, there are many people watching the front door. Wutsje 16:32, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

There are probably more effective ways to detect spam Trade (talk) 16:41, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Could you please hide the entire file history of this image? Its nothing but obscenities--Trade (talk) 05:17, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for restoring my photo

I just wanna say, thank you for restoring my Urinal photo. We can all make mistakes, but you quickly corrected it and I appreciate that! Keep up the good work :). Amin (talk) 20:42, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

File:Behzad Qasemi at Deep in Blockchain Webinar 2021 - (02).jpg

Hi, This file had a permission. Such files should not be deleted without a proper DR. Could you please undelete it? Thanks, Yann (talk) 10:45, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Hi Yann, just did. I'm in a hurry. Thanks, Wutsje 10:55, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

See also here. Wutsje 18:28, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Hello, I am the photographer of this image and I have given permission in an email. Why are you deleting my images that are not copyrighted? BenYaaminHusseini (talk) 22:06, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Hi, there were two files you gave permission for in an email. I deleted (and subsequently undeleted) only one of them, because at the time the other one was still in use (on la:wiki). As for all files the problem is that Mr Qasemi is not regarded as notable on every single wiki where an article about him was published: all language versions are now deleted (see the Wikidata history). There is also a cross-wiki spam problem, see e.g. nl:Overleg_gebruiker:Garshaasp and m:Steward_requests/Global/2023-w40#Global_lock_for_Behzad_Qasemi_spammers. Regarding the remaining two files see User_talk:Tehonk#File:Behzad_Qasemi_at_Deep_in_Blockchain_Webinar_2021_Zoom.jpg. Wutsje 06:26, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the answer and explanation

I am not a writer, I am a photographer and I publish my photos publicly so that if a website or newspaper needs images, they can use the images that I am the creator of. I don't know whether Mr. Ghasemi is competent or not (because I don't know about the rules of Wikipedia), but I read the rules of the wiki repository and I publish the images that I own in this repository so that others can use them. .

Some of my images that I had previously sent the copyright email to have been deleted. BenYaaminHusseini (talk) 09:22, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

@Wutsje so, why one of (many) socks of a globally locked cross-wiki spammer is regarded as a valuable contributor? "spam is spam, regardless of permission" as you wisely said. Can one also upload illegal files as long as it has "permission"? This is so senseless. Tehonk (talk) 01:56, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Delete image

Hello.

Could you delete a specific image?

I'm not a Commons user, but I saw in Recent Changes that you deleted an image and on your user page here it says you are an administrator.

The image in question that I tell you to delete was sent by another user to insert in an article on the pt-wiki which is an attack directed at me, the page was deleted and the image I am coming to ask for help is missing, as this photo is mine and it was removed from my social networks, but it is not intended to be used for attack articles, and I didn't even send this file here on Commons precisely because I didn't know how to use it.

The image is this one. Elder N (talk) 05:09, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

@Elder N: done. Wutsje 05:13, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks.

I hope I don't see images of me here being uploaded by third parties anytime soon, but if that happens, I'll come back here.

I started following the discussion page to find it more easily. In fact, this message of mine is via Google translator, my native language is Portuguese.

For now, thank you. Elder N (talk) 05:16, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

@Elder N: you're welcome. Should this happen again, you can nominate the image for speedy deletion by tagging the file page with {{SD|G3}}, see COM:GCSD (or Commons:Criteria for speedy deletion/pt-br). If a block is needed, ask any admin for assistance (via COM:AN). Best wishes, Wutsje 05:33, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

Troy von Tempest's uploads

Hi, You speedy-deleted Troy von Tempest's uploads. However there is no valid reason for that. "Found on the Net" is not a valid reason for speedy deletion for old images. Thanks, Yann (talk) 20:24, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Hi Yann, in hindsight, having read the undeletion requests, I agree a regular dr would have been the better option. Regards, Wutsje 01:38, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Fixing

Hi, I am fixing descriptions of NDL books. Redirects will be replaced. I will revert back later. Wmr-bot (talk) 14:56, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Lope de aguirre.jpg

Hello, Wutsje.

As I'm not sure if I've notified you correctly : I have a few questions about the file Lope de aguirre.jpg.

Best regards. Guise (talk) 10:20, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Hi Guise, I replied there. Regards, Wutsje 21:58, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for blocking that random IP. I didn't even revert their vandalism (I wasn't fast enough), they were mad for no reason. Dream Indigo 21:55, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

You're welcome. They had it coming. Wutsje 00:23, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Reminder to vote now to select members of the first U4C

You can find this message translated into additional languages on Meta-wiki. Please help translate to your language

Dear Wikimedian,

You are receiving this message because you previously participated in the UCoC process.

This is a reminder that the voting period for the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) ends on May 9, 2024. Read the information on the voting page on Meta-wiki to learn more about voting and voter eligibility.

The Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) is a global group dedicated to providing an equitable and consistent implementation of the UCoC. Community members were invited to submit their applications for the U4C. For more information and the responsibilities of the U4C, please review the U4C Charter.

Please share this message with members of your community so they can participate as well.

On behalf of the UCoC project team,

RamzyM (WMF) 23:17, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Reversed file

Hi. I saw that you rolled back my edit on the image Redmi 9A, which was inverted. Why did you like it if it is not used + upside down. There is a better picture --Мункач Варош (talk) 08:48, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Hi Мункач Варош, with this edit you tagged this file as a duplicate or scaled down version of this file, but these images are clearly different, so I reverted your request for speedy deletion. You're welcome to file a regular deletion request instead. Wutsje 21:29, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

redirects

Hi, Wutsje, I think the three redirects can be safely deleted. They were intended to be a part of the collection. By mistake I had uplouded them twice:

part21
part22
part23

Regards Draco flavus (talk) 07:26, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

 Done by Billinghurst Regards Draco flavus (talk) 18:50, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Date

Dag Wutsje. Wat is ook alweer "Date" in de Summary van bestanden? Volgens mij is dat altijd de opnamedatum. In dat geval geef ik je de eer om de datum van dit bestand te veranderen in 23 maart 2016.

Als "Date" niet altijd de opnamedatum is, zou dat niet zo best zijn, want gebruikers gebruiken deze datum om op Wikipedia in te vullen van wanneer foto's dateren. Vandaar dat het hier misging. Vriendelijke groet, ErikvanB (talk) 20:39, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Hoi ErikvanB, ik weet niet anders dan dat Date betrekking heeft op wanneer de afbeelding is gemaakt. In de metadata van de foto staat Date and time of data generation 2016-03-23T12:03:53 en op de bronsite Flickr wordt Uploaded on January 19, 2017 en Taken on March 23, 2016 vermeld (link). Dan zal 23 maart 2016 als opnamedatum dus inderdaad wel kloppen. Gefikst, met dank voor je opmerkzaamheid. Groet, Wutsje 01:33, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

En jij ook bedankt! Allerhartelijkst, ErikvanB (talk) 09:52, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

Copyright Fallibility of Wutsje

Wutsje, you have deleted a photograph based on your subjective “opinion” and not fact. You appear to have done so from a long distance away as you evidently have no local knowledge. Ergo the foundation of your subjective opinion is fallible and evidently flawed based on your lack of proper evidence.

As a serving police officer with the credentials to give evidence that has, in the past resulted in custodial sentences of miscreants and a knowledge of the subject based on first hand corroboration, I hereby state that: (i). You are wrong to delete this photograph and: (ii) You and your colleague AntiCompositeNumber have wrongly “assumed” the BBC hold a copyright as per your “evidence” when the fact is the BBC have BREACHED the CC 2.0 and CC 4.0 Creative Commons licences and: (iii) You and your AntiCompositeNumber colleague are wrong to assume that because others have not used a Creative Commons photograph as some form of evidence that justifies deletion and: (iv). It is a fact that the originator of the disputed copyright photograph (myself) asked the subject (Denzil Meyrick) an ADDITIONAL request of whether he granted permission for his photograph LIKENESS (the one you deleted) was permissible in terms of the law on a public figures “likeness” being uploaded onto a public domain website? The reason being that some public figures (and in Scotland, Denzil Meyrick is/was a well known author to the day he died on 14 February 2025) have legal protections of their image. Both Denzil Meyrick and I served as police officers, albeit in different areas of Strathclyde Police. So I would respectfully suggest that you have made a gross mistake in “assuming” what has happened and as a result you have offended and been offensive in contradiction of Wikipedia rules and in fact the law of Scotland.

I would thank you and the AntiCompositeNumber autocrat (as per his/her/their profile). You have both sickened me beyond recovery.

When I established the Denzil Meyrick page in 2015, it was to hold to the aims of Wikipedia.

Now I have seen enough of “edit-wars” and “speedy-deletion” errors, alongside an anti-disability, toxic, harmful environment. So after 10 years of trying to contribute to Wikipedia, your removing a photograph I had on MY IPhone of my colleague, Denzil Meyrick and uploaded it a few days after he died and as was his wish, my days being part of Wikipedia are at an end.

The discussions about you and AntiCompositeNumber appear to be true: https://www.reddit.com/r/news/comments/5tg4qg/handful_of_highly_toxic_wikipedia_editors_cause_9/?rdt=50631

Russ McLean (talk) 20:31, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

Hi Russ McLean, the BBC page on which File:Denzil Meyrick on IPhone of Russ McLean at Balloch McDonalds.jpg was published on 26 August 2018 at the bottom clearly states Copyright 2025 BBC. All rights reserved. Your version of this image was uploaded to Commons on February 18, 2025, without EXIF data. This strongly suggests a possible copyright violation. Of course, I may be wrong in assuming this, and so might AntiCompositeNumber. For cases like these, Commons has the COM:UNDEL procedure, as you seem to have already found out. Please use it and file a undeletion request, so yet another admin can look into the matter. You may also want to take a look at COM:MYWORK. Thanks and regards, Wutsje 00:59, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

Redirect of File:G. B. Falci 135 - Jvan Mosyoukine in Casanova.jpg

Hi. The redirect of File:G. B. Falci 135 - Jvan Mosyoukine in Casanova.jpg to File:G. B. Falci 133 - Jvan Mosyoukine and Diana Karenne in Casanova.jpg should have gone the other way. The postcard is actually 135. So can you correct it? I'm not well versed on how redirecting files works. Thanks. Adamant1 (talk) 01:31, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

Hi Adamant1, fixed that. Regards, Wutsje 01:56, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

File:Dr Sanjeev Kumar MLA.jpg

Hi Wutsje. Could you take a look at File:Dr Sanjeev Kumar MLA.jpg? I'm pretty sure it's the same as File:Dr Sanjeev Kumar JPG.jpg and File:Dr Sanjeev Kumar pic.jpg. The uploader has claimed to related to subject of photo en:Sanjeev Kumar (politician, born 1979), and I think they're just getting the photo from some Facebook page. I can read en:Hindi but there's nothing to indicate whether the photo even originates from that Facebook page or whether its been released under the type of license the uploader is using. I've tagged the file with {{npd}} this time to see whether the uploader can get the copyright holder's consent; if, however, you feel that the file is indeed a copyvio, please delete it as before. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:23, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

Hi Marchjuly, you're right, that is the very same Facebook image, according to Google Lens already in use since at least May 7, 2022. This is certainly not "own work" and since there's indeed no sign of a free license on the source site, I deleted this image as copyvio too. Thank you for pointing this out. Regards, Wutsje 17:57, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

Deletion of File:6086874202 1283cdb577 o edited.jpg

Hi. Im new to Wikimedia Commons but I think you have faultily deleted an image I uploaded. As reason for deletion you stated "Derivative work of non-free content (F3): https://www.flickr.com/photos/jeriaska/6086874202/". The image in question is under the CC BY-NC 2.0 license () which allows anyone to adapt the image as long as the original author is credited. Also CC-BY-2.0 is a free license to use, as you can see here:

Now please help me understand how this is non-free (Commons:CSD#F3) content. The source you have provided is clearly stating it is CC-BY-2.0. Is that not a valid license? Or have you found a different older original source and forgot to include it in your deletion reasoning? Thank you for your time. 222emilia222 (talk) 15:10, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

Hi 222emilia222, if you click on Some rights reserved in the Additional info section on the source page, you'll find that this image was originally published under the CC BY-NC 2.0 license, which differs from the CC-BY-2.0 license in that an image published under the CC BY-NC 2.0 license may not be reused for commercial purposes (the NC stands for non-commercial, see here). Wikimedia Commons does not accept that kind of unfree material, so the derivative work of this file you uploaded has been deleted. See Commons:Licensing for more information. I hope this explanation helps. Regards, Wutsje 15:54, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

Oh I did see that! I didnt think too much of it because Wikipedia isnt commercial, but I guess I was wrong. I also read that specifications like NC are left out for CC licenses so I thought it didnt matter to wikimedia. Thanks for clearing that up! Have a nice day 222emilia222 (talk) 16:09, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

If you would indulge me, could you explain the process of getting and proofing author consent? If the original author of that image gave me permission to use it on Wikipedia then I could right? Does this permission have to be directed at Wikipedia itself and does it have to be public? Does it have to contain personal information of the author (signature / photograph as proof)? I would like to message the author and request their consent. So im trying to figure out the rules around that. Thanks for your time and effort!! 222emilia222 (talk) 16:26, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

Hi 222emilia222, yes, yes, no and no, and yes. All information about those rules can be found on Commons:Volunteer Response Team, including an email template that may come in handy. Wutsje 02:53, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

Speedy deletion

Why did you revert sd tempates? 203.57.51.188 17:03, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

That was a mistake, my apologies. Wutsje 02:00, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

Oh, I see. That's ok for now, it's already deleted. Thank you for your answer! 203.57.51.188 22:18, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

How do I can upload an image in Wikipedia easily?

Hi Wutsje! I Really struggle with uploading a proper non-free image of the cover art of Kobold siege: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Kobold_siege.png

PLEASE can you help me to do it in a easier way? I do have no idea how to do it in a proper way with a right and proper Licensing to it. So there's some guides and tips that can make it easier to me to upload them in any way?

I did upload it with a help with a Wizard uploader I did messed up with AGAIN!!!

Thanks! Grubisz440 (talk) 12:49, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

Hi Grubisz440, yet, using the UploadWizard is the easiest way to upload files to Commons. File:Kobold siege.png is, as you put it, a proper non-free image of the cover art of Kobold siege. You are not its original creator and there's also no sign of a free license on the source site(s), so the copyright status of the image remains unclear. We can't have that on Commons. For more information, please take a look at Commons:First steps, our guide to contributing content to Wikimedia Commons. Thanks for you understanding. Wutsje 05:04, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

Thanks! So, how can I make an image non-free use rationale for video games media data?

I somehow managed to get a cover art for the "Rayman: The Animated Seires", but I have no idea how I made that non-free rationale image in the first place?

Could you help me with that? With Kobold Siege I tried to do the same but failed (twice).

Thanks!! Grubisz440 (talk) 16:08, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

The problem is: fair use is not allowed on Commons, see Commons:Fair use. You may want to try to upload your image on the English Wikipedia, see en:Wikipedia:Non-free content, but I'm afraid I can't help you with that. Wutsje 23:08, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

Change actor photo

Hello, I'm working with an actor and she wants to change her photo. Farah244 (talk) 18:07, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

File:The God of Love, by Norman Wilkinson of Four Oaks.jpg

Can I get you to undelete this (at least the text and structured data parts)? If you want to delete one of those it should be File:Ydelnesse, by Keith Henderson.jpg as it has the wrong attribution. See some discussion of this at User talk:Cbaile19#Illustrations from Romaunt of the Rose (1911). Either that or rename the latter to the former but it still needs the description and structured data you deleted. Thank you, —Uzume (talk) 09:05, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

Hi Uzume, I've undeleted File:The God of Love, by Norman Wilkinson of Four Oaks.jpg. Both files are in use now, so I won´t delete any of them. Please take any action you see fit. Regards, Wutsje 03:32, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

Undeletion of User:Er. Shailendra Prajapati Jhansi

What's going on? Trade (talk) 17:52, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

Just click on the link please, its self-explanatory: I forgot to specify a reason for the first deletion. Wutsje 19:12, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

Recent speedy

Hello, I was thinking about converting the F10-speedy to a regular DR, as I could envision some educational value to show a sexual fetish (from the BDSM area), also with observance of COM:PENIS, when you processed it. Mind undeleting the file for such a discussion? I'm not hellbent on it, though. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 04:09, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

Hi Grand-Duc, better not, I think. See their talk page: this user seems to think Commons is an amateur porn site (and they had uploaded it before under another filename). Regards, --Wutsje 04:26, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

OK, I understand - but I'm not alone in having the view that this kind of image may be useful, see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Hodensackinfusion mit 500 ml.jpg (outcome: kept) that was linked on said talk page. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 04:34, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

Help with restoring a photograph to the page

Hi. Recently, I uploaded a photograph to the page for which I am a contributor (Claudio Tadeu Daniel-Ribeiro, a Brazilian physician). The copyright holder sent the license by email to Commons so that I could use the photograph. He sent it over two months ago. I would like to know if you could help me restore the photograph to the page. Thank you very much. Maria Clara Barbosa de Souza (talk) 17:23, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

Hi Maria Clara Barbosa de Souza, is this about File:Cláudio Tadeu Daniel-Ribeiro.jpg? Assuming the copyright holder sent their permission to the Commons Volunteer Response Team, you may want to email them to ask what happened to it. I'm not a VRT-member, so there's no way for me to know. They do have a bit of a backlog though. Regards, Wutsje 03:43, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

Stellst du bitte diese Datei wieder her: RD 250827 Schwarzbachbahn Brücke km 5,785.jpg. Danke. ---Rolf-Dresden (talk) 02:25, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

File:Apple Fitness App iOS 18 with Apple Watch.jpg

Hi Wutsje. You deleted File:Apple Fitness App iOS 18 with Apple Watch.jpg back in May per F3. The uploader of the file posted a comment at User talk:AB1209LJ#File:Apple Fitness App iOS 18 with Apple Watch.jpg regarding the file's deletion, but the comment looks like it might be in German, a language I don't understand. Since you do understand some German according to your user page, perhaps you wouldn't mind responding to the uploader. I could try Google Translate or just add a link to Commons:Screenshots/de, but it might seem too impersonal or sound odd. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:34, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

Help

Another sock of User:SreeramKalyan User:WikiLovesYou143 is uploaded recently deleted file again File:A Little Girl is Standing Behind The Mirror.jpg. Please delete this file and block this user. 2409:408D:3C8D:B9E1:C577:3BD8:FF60:7D15 03:29, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

RfA

Hello, I wanted to ask for your opinion. Do you think I should apply for adminship on Commons? Since you’re already an experienced administrator, your opinion is important to me. I have a good understanding of licensing rules (especially in Central Asian countries), and from time to time I participate in DR. After becoming an administrator I also plan to work on CSD and RfR. I am already an administrator on the kywiki, but there I mostly handle technical tasks and sometimes act as a mediator.

The main reason I’m considering requesting admin rights is that there are no administrators from my region — that is, from Central Asia. I could easily handle requests in languages such as Russian, Kyrgyz, and other related languages (see Robert Lindsay, p. 9). I will also ask other administrators for their opinions and summarize their feedback before deciding whether I should apply for adminship or not. Incall ^talk 16:53, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

Distribution of CD 2021.svg

Hello Wutsje,

please restore this file. test.svg is a sole play ground to test svgs before one uploads them. After tests I have uploaded Distribution of CD 2021.svg for use in wikipedia articles. You have runied some work since in few days another user will use test.svg for his tests. Thank you. --Julius Senegal (talk) 20:17, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

Hi Julius Senegal, made it so. Obviously I misinterpreted this edit. My apologies. --Wutsje 00:55, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

YouTube licensing question

Hello Wutsje, I just suddenly got a question about licensing YouTube screenshots (or videos). In this file, and its deletion discussions (1, 2), the uploader had stated that this file is from WMG, and so is fair to be uploaded, saying: Warner Music New Zealand is an official subsidiary of Warner Music Group, and thus they have the proper authority to use a CC license.

However, in the video the uploader cited, the words such as "CC-BY, CC-BY-SA" are not found. Then, is it still fair to upload these files in Commons? As you stated in this edit summary, no Creative Commons CC BY license to be found, I think the case above also violates this.. (or not?) Camilasdandelions (talk) 01:28, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

Hi Camilasdandelions, this file is a still from a short YouTube video of a Britney Spears concert, likely taken by a member of the public. YouTube allows users to mark their videos with a Creative Commons CC BY license, but the uploader didn't. To me that alone is enough reason to mark the file as a copyvio, even assuming that the uploader was allowed to film at the concert in the first place. The difference with the Sia image is that its uploader explicitly claimed to own the copyright to it (and that this claim was honoured by the admin handling the second deletion request). I hope this answers your question. Regards, Wutsje 03:00, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply and I really appreciate it. However, still one question is unsolved:

... its uploader explicitly claimed to own the copyright to it

Does it mean that the cover art for Sia's Reasonable Woman is the uploader JohnCWiesenthal's own work? Or, are just images from Warner Music Group available in Wikimedia Commons? Camilasdandelions (talk) 03:32, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

The latter, it seems, see also the undeletion request. Please disregard my remark about that explicit claim. Wutsje 03:41, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

Laurene Powell Jobs image upload

Hi Wutsje - I've just spotted you flagged the image of Laurene Powell Jobs I uploaded for speedy deletion. To flag, the image has a CCA 4.0 license credit on the source website where I took the image from. Is this sufficient for upload? :) BeansS77 (talk) 15:39, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

Hi BeansS77, yes, it is. Didn't notice that. Oops. Wutsje 15:44, 13 December 2025 (UTC)