User talk:Ciell/Archive 2

Hello Ciell, I am pasting Dr Ajaz Anwar 's paintings with his permission. He rather encouraged me. Ajaz Anwar is the renowned painter of Pakistan, single handedly trying to save old buildings and heritage of Lahore, Pakistan. I am his fan and with him in his efforts to save our heritage. His pantings are superior enjoyment too, a poetry in colour. I will send him your message and hope within days yuo will receive his message for his approval. Here are his yesterday's 2 pictures made by me in National Art Gallery, Islamabad:

Please click the 2nd picture and see in detail a poster hanging showing exhibition in Islamabad. Please see the news too --Khalid Mahmood 12:09, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm looking forward to the permssion for all of those paintings: did you use the example on Commons:Email templates to make sure everything will be stated clearly? Ciell (talk) 15:30, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Ceill, I have talked to Mr Ajaz Ahmed. He will send the required permission. At present he is in Islamabad for his exhibition and taking a workshop on water colour paintings. Soon he will be back in his home town Lahore and from there he will send you the message. No problem at all. --Khalid Mahmood (talk) 17:36, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Ceill, some paintings in category Ajaz Anwar have been nominated for speedy deletion since 30th March 2009 due to no evidence of permission by you. But the problem is that the painter does not know how the wikicommons works. He has tried to give written permission but he cannot understand wikicommons. So he has asked that you may call him on his phone number provided on wikipedia's article about him or you may give your phone number to him so that he can call you. I am at least 333 km away from him so I cannot help him. Danish47 (talk) 08:02, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I am not going to call him, neither giving out my phonenumber: nothing personal, but just a plain privacy-thing. If he does not know how Commons works, nor how to e-mail, I'm starting to doubt wether he understands the full extent of the CC-BY licenses? I am going to nominate the other pictures as well. I'm sorry, but we do really need permission from the copyrightholder himself. Ciell (talk) 15:52, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I note that the image File:GardarThorCortes.jpg has been deleted because there was no follow-up from the OTRS since 11 December 2008. Should an image be deleted simply because OTRS volunteers have not got round to assessing the e-mail correspondence? — Cheers, Truth's Out There ^–talk– 08:56, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, you got me wrong there: OTRS volunteers have been waiting since December 11th for an answer on their last mail, but none came. Ciell (talk) 09:10, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I see. I didn't realize there was any outstanding query. Any idea what the query was? Am wondering whether I can help resolve the matter. — Cheers, Truth's Out There ^–talk– 13:16, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The uploader send a permission e-mail, which only contained "permission to use on Wikipedia" and was considered not adequate enough. Next to that the permission was not received directly from the copyright owner. The uploader never responded again. Just curious: in what way do you think you can help? Ciell (talk) 20:44, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was wondering whether it was worth contacting the copyright owner again to see if proper permission could be obtained. Then again, if the uploader wasn't able to get a response from the copyright owner, perhaps it isn't much point trying. — Cheers, Truth's Out There ^–talk– 21:27, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hoi hoi,

Een tijdje geleden vroeg jij op het irc kanaal hoe de flickr upload and review bot(s) aan hun trusted user status zijn gekomen. Het heeft even geduurd maar ik heb het gevonden.

Het verzoek voor trusted user op de daarvoor bestemde pagina is afgewezen omdat de bot geen bit had, vervolgens is hij tijdens het verzoek voor de botbit toegekend.

Al zie ik liever niet dat een bot afbeeldingen controleerd omdat er zo vrij veel copyvios doorschieten heeft de bot toch de steun van de gemeenschap. En helaas is de bot ook echt noodzakelijk zoals we deze week gemerkt hebben. De bot was stuk en hoewel er meerdere mensen aan het controleren waren werd de backlog alleen maar groter ipv kleiner.

Met vriendelijke groet, Abigor talk 10:39, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, okay. Tja, als het brede steun heeft, is er weinig aan te doen nietwaar? Ik blijf het inderdaad een wat vreemde zaak vinden, maar bedankt dat je erop terugkomt! :-) Ciell (talk) 10:48, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Op zich zou ik zeggen van we hebben de bot totaal niet nodig. We hebben meer dan 100 administratoren welke allemaal kunnen en mogen reviewen er komen ongeveer 1000 afbeeldingen per dag bij dus dat zou dan neerkomen op 10 reviews per dag per man. Bij deze som heb ik dan nog niet eens alle trusted users meegerekend welke geen admin zijn. In mijn ogen hebben we mankracht genoeg om het met de hand te kunnen doen. Helaas zien veel mensen trusted user als status en vragen deze dan aan om een keer een review te doen, een mooie gebruikersbox op hun gebruikerspagina en vervolgens er niks meer mee doen. En met het groepje van 5 a 6 mensen die iedere dag reviewen uit de categorie voordat de bot het doet redden we het niet mee.

Ik weet niet of je het gezien hebt maar als de bot iets markeerd als nc of all right reserved krijgt het een flickr review failed template, dit template plaatst het echter niet in de categorie Copyright Violations en deze afbeeldingen zouden nog jaren op Commons kunnen rondzwerven (wat ook regelmatig gebeurd). Dus als je ideeën hebt om het systeem aan te passen heb je mijn steun.

In mijn ogen zou de reviewbot een keer per dag moeten lopen als backup en dan alleen voor afbeeldingen ouder dan twee dagen, dit houdt genoeg ruimte om het de hand te controleren. En de flickr failed template zou moeten worden aangepast. Maar Commons is groot en lomp als je iets veranderd probeerd te krijgen wat al jaren zo werkt. Abigor talk 11:39, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maar volgens mij ben jij ook handig genoeg met botjes om zoiets te bedenken, toch? Ook met sjablonen ben je wel handig: heb je zelf al wel eens een voorstel gedaan? Het klinkt alsof je genoeg ideeën hebt. Ciell (talk) 11:45, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! There are no tickets in info-sv older than three days. --Bensin (talk) 21:28, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, could you do me a favor and check if there is anything about File:Hugo Rodallega123.jpg in the OTRS? It's been {{OTRS pending}} since it was uploaded on 2009-02-18, and I really doubt there is (or ever will be) any kind of permission for it. Thanks. --Tryphon (talk) 00:40, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot find a ticket on the keywords "Hugo Rodellega", "hernanvalencias", or even "Colombian national football team". Bear in mind though, that the searching within the OTRS system is not always optimal. There is a lack of policy in deleting images that have been pending for a while, though there seems to be a general concensus in deleting after pending more than 30 days without any further responce. Be carefull deleting and, in my opinion, you might want to choose for a DR instead at this stage, just to give the uploader a final reminder to complete the upload in a correct way and make sure nothing concerning the permission went wrong on our side of the track (aka tickets ending up between spam or something similair, it does happen). Ciell (talk) 01:47, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for checking. I will leave a message on the uploader's talk page and delete in a week if I don't get an answer. I appreciate your concerns, but when someone uploads a file directly with the OTRS pending template, I'm expecting that the permission email is ready to be sent at that point. So deleting now (after a final request, just in case something went wrong on our side) seems appropriate. Also, deletion is not irrevocable, and if the uploader suddenly notices his image disappearing, and realizes he forgot to send the email, then it will be undeleted right away (unfortunately, many one-time contributors don't check their talk page, and only realize what's going on once the image gets deleted).
Anyway, thanks again for your help and your advice. --Tryphon (talk) 11:39, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm trying to work my way through Category:OTRS pending slowly, it takes up a lot of time. I came upon some of your deletion requests: feel free to close, pending for three months is really too much imho. Ciell (talk) 11:43, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that there is no agreement from the actual copyright holder. The photos have been sent by the band member, who probably doesn't own the copyrights. It looks like we need to delete them, but when appropriate permissions come I'll let you know so that they cann be undeleted. Cheers! Wpedzich (talk) 13:06, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Wpedzich, thanks for looking into it and clarifying the situation! Ciell (talk) 13:08, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, it's me again. I've tagged this file as missing permission, and the uploader contacted me on my talk page saying he had sent these emails to OTRS already (and he sent them again, to be sure). Can you check if they are in the system? I'm afraid the permission is not explicit enough (it sounds like a wikipedia only permission, and it is not explicit about commercial use), and the uploader wants to know if he needs to contact the author again (you can join the discussion taking place on my talk page if you want; I know the uploader is watching there). Thanks. –Tryphon^☂ 12:53, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I responded by e-mail for the moment, the permission was imho insufficient indeed. Ciell (talk) 22:49, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much. –Tryphon^☂ 23:02, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your fast OTRS entry! -- Serpens ?! 23:06, 12 March 2009 (UTC) Sure, you're welcome ;-). Ciell (talk) 13:08, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Erase it in english Wikipedia, becaouse I only upload a photo tah exist in english wikipedia with a licence. --Techarrow (talk) 13:16, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't usually work on the english one (I hoped you did, would have saved me some time figuring out their system ;-), but I nominated it there as well. Ciell (talk) 22:21, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hoi Ciell,

Ik heb geprobeerd een gebruiker te helpen waarvan jij zijn afbeelding terecht hebt genomineerd. Ik heb 3 vrije afbeeldingen gevonden die evt gebruikt zouden kunnen worden. Nu kan ik nog net een poedel van een Duitse herder onderscheiden, dus kan jij mischien even kijken of het wel de goede soort honden zijn?

Ik hoop dat ik deze gebruiker nu ook gelijk een beetje op weg geholpen hebt.

Groetjes, Abigor talk 19:00, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, ik ben bang dat het deze gebruiker om echte wilde Australische nl:dingo's gaat (en dat zijn ook hele mooie dieren). De zwarte dingo is een kleurafwijking, net als bijvoorbeeld een witte leeuw. Ze komen wel voor, maar zijn erg zeldzaam... Maar erg aardig van je om mee te denken Abigor, ik hoop dat ze je moeite op prijs kan stellen! Ciell (talk) 19:57, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Haha daar was ik al een beetje bang voor, zoals ik al zei ik weet helemaal niks van dieren (Op drie geiten na die veel te veel verwend worden.) Ik kan het beter houden op vrachtwagens en fotocameras :) Abigor talk 21:45, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

;-) Ciell (talk) 21:46, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hy I just uploaded an image from Flickr (free of course). I just wander whether I choose the correct license. File:Rare shot of white dingo.jpg --Inugami-bargho (talk) 07:19, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You put two licenses on the page, I only left the cc-by-2.0, because thats the one on the Flickr image as well. Nice white one! But is it really a dingo? He looks kinda... euhm, big for a dingo ;-). Ciell (talk) 07:36, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you put "Dingo ate my baby" into the description? Does that story have anything to do with this picture? Ciell (talk) 08:06, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't put that description in, it was the one of the original source. Don't know why the author named it so. I can correct that with a note. As for the size of the dog: the picture might be misleading, since there is nothing to compare the dogs size against. But as far as I can remember, the dingo in Berlin which I saw, was nearly as high as a german shepherd bitch. Of course it might be another sort of dog or a crossbreed since especially the white and the black-and-tan ones are very hard to distinguish from "pure" dingoes.--Inugami-bargho (talk) 08:27, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You tagged this image as missing source information, however, both the author (en:user:Briangotts) and the licence (GPL) were both given in the description. I have now added the link to the original file (en:file:Khazar1.png), however, I do not think that this should be necessary, because files may be deleted on their original wiki after being uploaded to commons. Therefore, if the author and the license are given, I do not see justification for this tag --Johannes Rohr (talk) 19:09, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The thing is actually, is it fully own work? then the license should be changed to self|GFDL: otherwise we need to know which map was used as base-map for the image. I left a message on his English talkpage, I had forgotten about that yesterday. Ciell (talk) 11:07, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

		The Original Barnstar
		For all your hard work, keep up the good work!!! :D Huib talk 18:54, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well thank you Huib! :-D Ciell (talk) 14:46, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

čeština ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ English ∙ español ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ svenska ∙ العربية ∙ +/−

---

Ciell, congratulations! You now have administrator rights on Commons. Please take a moment to read the Commons:Administrators page and watchlist related pages (in particular Commons:Administrators' noticeboard and its subpages), before launching yourself into page deletions, page protections, account blockings or modifications of protected pages. The majority of the actions of administrators can be reversed by the other admins, except for history merges which must thus be treated with particular care. Have a look at the list of Gadgets (on the bottom there are the ones specifically for admins – however, for example the UserMessages are very helpful too).

Please feel free to join us on IRC: #wikimedia-commons ^webchat on irc.libera.chat. There is also a channel for Commons admins, which may be useful for more sensitive topics, or coordination among administrators: #wikimedia-commons-admin ^webchat.

You may find Commons:Guide to adminship to be useful reading. You can find the admin backlog overview at COM:AB.

Please also check or add your entry to the List of administrators and the related lists by language and date it references.

Congratulations on getting full consensus! Thank you for accepting the challenge and helping Commons :). Patrícia ^msg 19:03, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yep - congratulations from me too. --Kanonkas_(talk) 19:10, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Adding mine, and welcome ;) Finn Rindahl (talk) 19:20, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

and mine. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 19:44, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So that's it, congratulations! Enjoy your new super-powers :) –Tryphon^☂ 20:30, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks to you all! Cheers, Ciell (talk) 21:05, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ciell,

gefeliciteerd met het behalen van je adminbit met 100% support. (Is het een goed teken dat ik mijn wiki-vrienden boven Mel verkiest, nou ja meer even laat wachten :s ) En ehm pas op met de postzegels he :p groetjes, Huib talk 19:34, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I will, I will! Ciell (talk) 21:05, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hallo Ciell, kan je helpen met het volgende: Hier had ik Pvt Pauline gevraagd om een email te versturen, en ze zegt dat dit is gebeurt. Maar het ticket is niet aan de afbeelding toegevoegd, dus vroeg me af of alles wel in orde was. Ook omdat ik File:Dutch Golf Putten, clubhuis GC Bokhorst.jpg tegenkwam, van dezelfde source website. Alvast bedankt! -- Deadstar (msg) 09:49, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hoi Deadstar,

Voor http://www.dutchgolf.nl/, de secties Hattem en Putten, is er een volledige vrijgave onder GFDL. Ciell (talk) 10:34, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hartelijk dank - groeten, -- Deadstar (msg) 13:07, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't "The goddess Lakshmi. Painting by Raja Ravi Varma (1848 - 1906)" enough source information ? Teofilo (talk) 10:34, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, is it taken from an internet site, did you scan it from a magazine: I'm guessing the painting is not on your wall at home? But your right, it's not enough for deletion, I'll remove the template. Ciell (talk) 10:42, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I speak english. Polish people don't stupid. I didn't copy imagies. I don't use Wikimedia Commons. pilkarz9494 10:37, 15.04.2009

Euhm, yeah you do. You've got about 30 deleted images. Please stop uploading unfree content. Ciell (talk) 16:47, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ciell, I give this user a copyvio block before I noticed you where trying to talk with him. I can lift the block if you like, Huib talk 17:06, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you remove my picture of the church, please put it back. Raphael Saulus (talk) 13:35, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No need to get nasty: I replied on your talkpage. Cheers, Ciell (talk) 13:59, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, sorry. Raphael Saulus (talk) 14:04, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hé Ciell, Wil je mij de rollback geven? Kan altijd van pas komen (845 probleemloze uploads op commons & counting :-)). Dank je.Tekstman (talk) 20:24, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hoi, Ik heet geen Ciell maar ik heb je wel rollback gegeven. Ciell als je het er niet mee eens ben neem je het af en geef je het opnieuw :p groetjes, Huib talk 21:10, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, geen probleem ;-). Ciell (talk) 08:04, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please have a short look her: User_talk:HBR#Easter_Bunny HBR (talk) 09:20, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ciell,

I observe that you have removed a picture Henry_Darcy.jpg from Commons, and I don't understand why. The picture has been stored in Commons for a reasonable long time, previous with the incorrect name Henri_Darcy.jpg. It was uploaded to Commons (not by me...) with a claim of being too old to have copyright restrictions. The picture is still in use in the English wikipedia, stored locally. What does it take to get it back? --Toba (talk) 16:34, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I've been looking for that old one! But, sad enough, none of the two images (neither File:Henri Darcy.jpg, nor en:File:Henry Darcy.jpg give any information on the source of the images. Try and find a reliable source, that confirms the image, the PD-old license and the unknown author. Ciell (talk) 18:12, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have deleted the file Valga maakond.svg as "no source" file. Like all other locator maps of Estonia, this file is provided by the permission of the Estonian Land Board. Possibly, it has been forgotten for this file. I am recreating the file now (it is used in hundreds of pages) and providing it with the right template. --Mmh (talk) 13:17, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, to be honest, I don't even see why I agreed with the no source-tagger. I must have mist the Estonian Land Board template being a licensing template. If you want previous versions restored, just let me know. Ciell (talk) 09:32, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have created this media myself. --Zakharii 09:48, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Did you actually draw the image yourself? Because otherwise you just made a derivative... Ciell (talk) 09:52, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But you put a claim in template "If you have not created THIS MEDIA yourself" (then you to change the template) - bcs I have created this media myself if to answer this template claim. It is a commercially reproduced copy of the copy of an ancient Orthodox icon of archangel Michael, whose in orthodox church there are no paintings like in modern art but only ancient, centuries old mainly anonymous ancient images (canonically accepted by the church) allowed to copy only. If if its somemodern art drawing thenit is not Orthodox icon. So I can change license that it is a reproduced copy of ancient icon whose copyright expired bcs of age. --Zakharii 10:08, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But like you say yourself: it has been commercially reproduced: making a derivative of a commercial item is mostly prohibited by the producer. Ciell (talk) 10:14, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a commercial item but an Orthodox icon. Of course Orthodox icons are sold but they can be only copies of canonically accepted ancient images. In addition to that, this icon, like other icons that you put same templates to, are my own objects from my house and I own (and have copyright over them) these objects since I bought them. --Zakharii 10:31, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you wish to use this claim then you have to delete all Orthodox icons from Commons. In all of them it stands copyright expired bcs of age and all of them have been produced, sold or bought somewhere. --Zakharii 10:35, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Buying them doesn't mean you buy the copyrights... Most of the icons we have in PD here in Commons come from retracable paintings, so we know that they are in fact PD. I'll take your advice and file a DR so we can have some more opinions on this: apparently we are in a jam here. Ciell (talk) 11:54, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The English text has been changed. Could you have a look at the translation again please? Many thanks. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 11:00, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I don't get the whole autotranslate-thing. No clue how it works? Ciell (talk) 15:51, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

I removed the template {{PermissionOTRS}} on this picture. User:Rédacteur Tibet isn't the author and the permission is not clear for the moment. See #2008111910023664 (in french) for details.

Cheers.--Bapti ✉ 22:33, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the notification, might be better to use {{OTRS received}} instead, in order to keep te ticket-info on the page. Ciell (talk) 06:23, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not convincing? Convincing should primarily be the claim which person can be seen on a picture. Anyway: This picture was made out of this, where Baschi is seen on the left. The google search linked in the deletion request was very convincing to me and should be to everyone. --83.78.158.70 16:57, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Now deleted. --83.78.158.70 18:16, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See also Why interference Category:Gastronomy? (Category:Gastronomy --> Category talk:Gastronomy)--Tom778 (talk) 10:27, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good day!
I need your help because you are from nl-wiki. I have found there very interesting image: KuitiBaars.jpg. It would be very useful in articles about the Perch. As far as I understand there is a letter from the photographer. Is it a permission for using this image under GNU FDL? Could it be transfered to commons and how can I do it?
Thanks very much for reply.--Lime82 (talk) 19:50, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, no. The e-mail displayed doesn't state a license and doesn't meet the rules for transferring. You could try asking User:GerardM if he still has contacts with the photographer though, because apparently also File:Gymnocephalus cernuus.jpg comes from the same source.... Cheers, Ciell (talk) 05:41, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hy, I have just uploaded a Tamaskan picture (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:German_tamaskan_puppy.JPG). The author of the picture has already sent her permission to wikimedia commons. But I'm not sure what sort of license I should choose and whether what she did was enough.--Inugami-bargho (talk) 18:58, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think she choose a license, she just forwarded your message to OTRS. I'll see if I can find a German OTRS-er to handle the case... Ciell (talk) 16:16, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help. I hope it will work, because she also had other pictures and they are really good, one of the dogs looks so wolfish, that my roommate thought it was a wolf. --Inugami-bargho (talk) 16:30, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hy, me again. I finally got a sufficient permission. My question now is, whether I should just upload the other Tamaskan pictures and what for some of the OTRS to choose the license or can I do that myself, and if, how?--Inugami-bargho (talk) 18:34, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I see you've asked the same question on OTRS. Please wait untill the agent answers, for German is not my first language. Cheers, Ciell (talk) 23:05, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I'll wait. When all of this is done, check out the Tamaskan category. The breeder I asked gave me really good photos, Two of these dogs look so wolfish that you could actually think that they are wolves or at least wolf-dogs. ;-)--Inugami-bargho (talk) 05:23, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

En wel wat mooie foto's nemen ;-) Multichill (talk) 11:04, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dank! :D Ciell (talk) 06:35, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Afrikaans ∙ العربية ∙ беларуска�� (тарашкевіца) ∙ বাংলা ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ magyar ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ ქართული ∙ 한국어 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文（简体）‎ ∙ 中文（繁體）‎ ∙ +/−

---

Hello, Ciell!

Thanks a lot for contributing to the Wikimedia Commons! Here's a tip to make your uploads more useful: Why not add some categories to describe them? This will help more people to find and use them.

Here's how:

1) If you're using the UploadWizard, you can add categories to each file when you describe it. Just click "more options" for the file and add the categories which make sense:

2) You can also pick the file from your list of uploads, edit the file description page, and manually add the category code at the end of the page.

[[Category:Category name]]

For example, if you are uploading a diagram showing the orbits of comets, you add the following code:

[[Category:Astronomical diagrams]]

[[Category:Comets]]

This will make the diagram show up in the categories "Astronomical diagrams" and "Comets".

When picking categories, try to choose a specific category ("Astronomical diagrams") over a generic one ("Illustrations").

Thanks again for your uploads! More information about categorization can be found in Commons:Categories, and don't hesitate to leave a note on the help desk.

CategorizationBot (talk) 11:54, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Image:Logo Johanna KinderFonds.jpg was uncategorized on 9 August 2010 CategorizationBot (talk) 11:54, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, there is a comment on Commons:OTRS/Noticeboard#Dutch_Ministry_of_Defence that relates to an OTRS ticket you last left an internal note on. Perhaps you could update that thread with any known status? Thanks --Fæ (talk) 11:05, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for informing me. The permission is granted, with the only exceptions that explicitly say otherwise, and is applicable for all websites from the Dutch Ministry of Defense, that are in use for external communication. The template sounds correct to me, there's nothing I can add to JCB's comments on the noticeboard. Ciell (talk) 21:52, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, wait. Did do a small addition... ;-) Ciell (talk) 21:53, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

of the images I had +copyvio't. Sure helps the OTRS communication when images are really gone fast ;) --Guandalug 11:40, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, no problem. I happened to be online and the ticket was very clear. Glad to be of help! Ciell (talk) 19:58, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Several images of bills and coins from the Netherlands have been listed for deletion so that the community can discuss if they should be kept or not. we would appreciate if you could contribute your opinion, seeing as you have uploaded one or more of the files. The discussion is here: Commons:Deletion requests/Images of money of the Netherlands. Thank you. Magog the Ogre (talk) 07:15, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

	The Photographer's Barnstar
	Eindelijk de Meesterkok te Ratum op de gevoelige plaat! Bedankt :-) Arch (talk) 13:04, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dank je! Was je daarop aan het wachten dan? Je had het ook mogen vragen hoor. :))

Misschien krijg ik binnenkort nog betere foto's van hunzelf, die ze ook gebruiken voor hun eigen website. Ze hebben mijn kaartje en dus mijn mailadres, dus wie weet... Ciell (talk) 13:17, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alsjeblieft, en inderdaad ik wachtte erop. Had al een oproepje geplaatst bij "gezochte afbeeldingen" en had ook zelf al het idee eens het Ratumse in te duiken, het ligt nogal geisoleerd en ik was er nog steeds niet aan toegekomen. Leuk dat je er een contact aan hebt overgehouden :-) Vriendelijke groeten van --Arch (talk) 13:49, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ach sorry, die heb ik dan gemist. Ja, waar wiki loves monuments wel niet goed voor is... Ken je Landgoed Ravenhorst? Zelfde verhaal, maar die wordt de komende 2 jaar ook nog gerestaureerd. :-) Ik heb nu in ieder geval ook foto's van de monumentale boerderij en (enorme!) spieker. Ciell (talk) 17:19, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Die ken je, zie ik nu! Wacht maar, er komen nog meer foto's, zo gauw ik de nummering van mijn genomen foto's terug heb gevonden... Ciell (talk) 18:24, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Goed project, wiki loves monuments jammer genoeg heb ik dit jaar weinig tijd om aktief bij te dragen, maar de maand is nog niet om ;-) Geweldig die foto van Ravenhorst, binnenkort hoop ik nog foto's te krijgen van Plekenpol. Iemand die daar woont heeft daar een toezegging op gedaan. (Nu maar hopen dat het geen gebakken lucht is) Groetjes --Arch (talk) 11:53, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Verder als de schamppaaltjes kwam ik helaas niet... Ciell (talk) 15:02, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Haha :-) Nou da's al heel wat vind ik... ;-) En wie weet blijft het daar ook bij :-S een bewoner had vorige maand de toezegging al gedaan en ik wacht daar nog steeds op... :-( --Arch (talk) 15:47, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Och, als er nog meer verzoekjes in de buurt hebt, laat maar weten hoor! Ciell (talk) 15:59, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nou je het toevallig zo brengt, grensteen nr 171 tussen Gelderland en Munster, Veenhuisweg te Aalten objrijksnr=6858 staat nog hoog op de verlanglijst ;-) Woon je toevallig in de buurt? Ikzelf woon in Amsterdam, maar ben in Bredevoort geboren, ik ben er een paar keer per jaar voor familiebezoek, als het weer een beetje netjes is, en wat tijd over heb wil ik nog wel eens wat kiekjes maken in de omgeving, ik zal niet weten wanneer de eerst volgende gelegenheid gaat worden. Het is ook weer echt zo'n plekje waar je zo aan voorbij gaat. Maar goed, ga er niet speciaal kilometers voor maken, als het niet dit jaar wordt dan wordt het wel volgend jaar, wat in het vat zit verzuurd niet. Ik kan het dus in principe zelf ook wel een keertje doen, groetjes --Arch (talk) 05:24, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ik woon in de Achterhoek ja en vind het niet erg om soms wat om te rijden voor een extra foto. Ik heb nl:Lijst van rijksmonumenten in Winterswijk (plaats) af en ben nu met nl:Lijst van rijksmonumenten in Winterswijk (gemeente) bezig. Daarna zijn de plaatsen in nl:Lijst van rijksmonumenten in Aalten (gemeente) aan de beurt, hoewel ik misschien morgen al de Heurne vast even inrij. Die weg vanaf Aalten sluit binnenkort voor werkzaamheden, dan wordt het lastiger bereikbaar allemaal. Ik kan wel even kijken of ik dan ook de andere kant op kan rijden, naar de Veenhuisweg.

Helaas zijn niet al mijn afbeeldingen zoals ik ze graag hebben zou, maar veel monumenten zijn ook zomerhuisjes en mensen zijn niet thuis om toestemming te geven voor afbeeldingen op hun terrein of men wil gewoon geen foto's gemaakt hebben van het terrein. Dus zie je een boerderijtje tussen de bomen, of alleen een ingang die wel zichtbaar is vanaf de weg. Wie weet komen er dan vanzelf weer betere foto's, liever iets dan niets, nietwaar?

Heb jij misschien ook enig idee welk veld er een urnenveld is aan de Lichtenvoordsestraatweg (nr 522120)? Volgens mij zie je daar helemaal niks meer van namelijk en de RCE beschrijving is niet echt duidelijk... Ciell (talk) 08:50, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Goed werk Ciell, ik weet hoe lastig het is om gebouwen te kieken die vrijstaand in een buitengebied liggen. In Amsterdam kijkt men niet vreemd op als je met camera gewapend gevels kiekt, maar in het buitengebied heb ik meegemaakt dat de politie op me af gestuurd werd. Mensen zijn tegenwoordig (logischerwijze) wantrouwig tegen "vreemd volk" gewapend met camera's. Ik denk ook altijd maar, beter iets dan niets. Gelukkig kan ik flink zoomen, dat heeft me al regelmatig een tevreden kiekje opgeleverd zonder op privéterrein te komen. Het grafveld ligt op het land van Te Paske van Eerden ter hoogte van Lichtenvoordsestraatweg 66. Als het goed is moet dat land afwijken van omringend gebied. Het is vanuit Aalten aan de rechterkant van de weg ter hoogte van afslag Meinenweg. Volgens mij is het het weilandje meteen achter de boerderij gelegen. Vlakbij een hoogspanningsmast. Misschien dat de bewoners het weten. De meeste Te Paskes van Eerdens die ik ken zijn erg vriendelijk, dat is bij sommige boeren tegen de Duitse grens bij Winterswijk wel eens anders. Veel succes! Groetjes --Arch (talk) 09:42, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

català | dansk | Deutsch | English | Esperanto | español | eesti | français | galego | magyar | Lëtzebuergesch | norsk bokmål | Nederlands | norsk nynorsk | norsk | polski | português | română | русский | svenska | +/− Dear Ciell, 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 20:50, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Ciell, I request your help to solve the issue I was placed on three images that I have recently uploaded. I am the copyright owner of three images (ARCON SOC - Rio de Janeiro.jpg, ARCON SOC - São Paulo.jpg and Logo 250.jpg ARCON), including, I sent an email explaining the permissions-commons-pt@wikimedia.org my rights to use those images. However, I believe that I am not choosing the right licenses for their use here on Wikimedia Commons. I'll be very grateful if you can help me. Thanks a lot --Arcon (talk) 16:44, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Ciell, I request your help to solve the issue I was placed on three images that I have recently uploaded. I am the copyright owner of three images (ARCON SOC - Rio de Janeiro.jpg, ARCON SOC - São Paulo.jpg and Logo 250.jpg ARCON), including, I sent an email explaining the permissions-commons-pt@wikimedia.org my rights to use those images. However, I believe that I am not choosing the right licenses for their use here on Wikimedia Commons. I'll be very grateful if you can help me. Thanks a lot --Arcon (talk) 16:44, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

English | Nederlands | +/− Dear Ciell, 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 23:15, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As you can see above: Job done! :D (sent to the 200 participants listed here). Cheers, Béria Lima ^msg 23:31, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

	The Real Life Barnstar
	WCN 2011 org Vera (talk) 20:47, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dag Ciell, Luxo sent me here. Is dit de bronzen kop van Pater van Kilsdonk of die van Willem Aantjes? Lotje ʘ‿ʘ (talk) 16:22, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Volgens het ticket (en volgens Google)is het het borstbeeld van Willem Aantjes. Die van Pater van Kilsdonk ziet er anders uit, althans daarvan kan ik alleen een versie met bril vinden. Waarom twijfel je? Groetjes, Ciell (talk) 12:07, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dag Ciell, ik twijfelde even vanwege de uitspraak van Willem Aantjes ...in zijn toespraak bij de onthulling van het bronzen kop van Pater van Kilsdonk. Toch bedankt hoor. Lotje ʘ‿ʘ (talk) 10:37, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ceill, I think we must not create not existing problems. I also don't know how it works eactly and I am not interested, because of lack of time. But this dutch page of Willem ten Berge, with the illustrations, were already years ago my contribution. I am a son of the dutch poet Willem ten Berge. My two old brothers agree with this publication on wikipedia. We already gave permission in other contexts(f.i. the Letterkundig Museum was allowed to publish these photo's without rights). Theoretically someone of the Cantre familie (Jozef Cantre was een personal friend of my father) could claim the cover. But really, I cannot imagine that. We And if so, it is early enough. K. r. EMelchior (talk) 12:00, 5 February 2012 (UTC)EMelchior[reply]

Beste Ciell,

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 14:52, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As you can see above, Lucia did her job! :) If you need anything else let me know :D Béria Lima ^msg 15:33, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Beria! Next time, let's spread it like a template, but otherwise: thanks a lot to Lucia! :) Ciell (talk) 07:54, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've sent the permission of my own image File:Orthodontics.png with the correct way, but I don't understand why you think it isn't correct! Odontocrate (talk) 21:02, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Forgive me, I've just sent your comment on ErikvanB user talk page. Sorry, I could send it in English, althougnt the original image version was Italian! Odontocrate (talk) 21:09, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've also sent to OTRS File:Dental life.jpg's email. Can you control it too? Thanks Odontocrate (talk) 21:14, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I put a template on that one to. We've got native Italian speakers handling the Italian e-mails and I can see they're a bit behind on e-mails, so please be patient. The template should prevent the images of being speedy deleted because of missing permission: if not, come back to me.

Do realize though, that you've uploaded 2 images that are a collage, which means that all the separate images used in the image have to be either yours (you owning the copyright) or under a free license. Ciell (talk) 10:00, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. When you have a moment, could you do me a favor. I decided to occupy my time to list the no-FoP files in Italy. It has been a long and difficult work that needs to be reviewed by administrators. Please, could you check if everything is correct on User:Raoli/Deletion requests/FoP Italy? Thanks! Raoli ✉ (talk) 00:23, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Beste Ciell,

Op de helpdesk van Wikipedia is een vraag neergelegd zie [1] over een foto die jij ooit geupload hebt naar Commons. Zou je op de helpdesk willen reageren? vr groet Saschaporsche (talk) 21:52, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hoi Sascha,

Sorry voor het late antwoord. Er zijn op OTRS ook andere vragen over deze foto binnengekomen, die zijn opgepakt door andere medewerkers van de mail-helpdesk. Ik laat dit daarom liever even bij hun liggen, maar zie zo op het eerste gezicht geen reden om aan de vrijgave uit 2009 te twijfelen. Vriendelijke groet, Ciell (talk) 20:03, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Ciell/Archive 2. I am writing to inform you that you are in danger of losing your adminship on Commons because of inactivity.

If you want to keep your adminship, you need both to sign at Commons:Administrators/Inactivity section within 30 days of today's date, and also to make at least five further admin actions in the following six months. Anyone who does not do so will automatically lose administrator rights.

You can read the de-admin policy at Commons:Administrators/De-adminship.

Thank you Trijnstel_talk 23:27, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In Timeline

Why is there an August 31 date between August 11 and August 16? My guess is a typo, and it should be some other date.--Sphilbrick (talk) 20:49, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The data were changed, not by me, but by Odder. You might wanna check with him. Ciell (talk) 10:56, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bedankt voor de reactie op het afspelen van een OGG bestand. Bij mij lukt het niet om dat bestand zo af te spelen door op het driehoekje te drukken. Er zal inderdaad iets moeten gewijzigd worden aan de instellingen van mijn computer. Buiten Wikipedia kan ik het OGG-bestand met verschillende programma's afspelen. Hebt U een idee welke instelling moet ik aanpassen?

Jaguaragd (talk) 16:47, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ik heb eigenlijk geen idee. Ik gebruik zelf Firefox en die speelt de bestanden gewoon direct af.... Ciell (talk) 16:55, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

	Mooi
	Hallo Ciell, heb jij me toen de weg gewezen toen we allebei deze molen fotografeerden. Wat leuk al je foto's te zien. Schaddenspoor (talk) 20:11, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hahaha, wat leuk om je nu hier weer tegen te komen! Ciell (talk) 20:17, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

العربية ∙ català ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ English ∙ español ∙ eesti ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ magyar ∙ italiano ∙ Nederlands ∙ polski ∙ română ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ українська ∙ +/− Thank you for participating in Wiki Loves Monuments 2013! Please help with this survey. Dear Ciell, Thank you for contributing to Wiki Loves Monuments 2013, and for sharing your pictures with the whole world! We would like to ask again a few minutes of your time. Thanks to the participation of people like you, the contest gathered more than 365,000 pictures of cultural heritage objects from more than 50 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 2013. Kind regards, the Wiki Loves Monuments team

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) 13:55, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

العربية | català | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | English | español | eesti | français | magyar | Nederlands | polski | svenska | ไทย | +/− Thank you for taking part in the Wiki Loves Monuments participants' survey! Dear Ciell, Thank you for taking part in the Wiki Loves Monuments participants' survey. Your answers will help us improve the organization of future photo contests! In case you haven't filled in the questionnaire yet, you can still do so during the next 7 days. And by the way: the winning pictures of this year's international contest have been announced. Enjoy! Kind regards, the Wiki Loves Monuments team

Hallo Ciell,

Op dit ogenblik ben ik met een aantal anderen aan het proberen om een aantal landelijke routes in nederland te creëren. Het project dat we zelf zijn opgestart heet NLroute (www.nlroute.nl) We gaan dit jaar met een pilot van start in Overijssel.

En nu vraag je je misschien af wat dit met jou te maken heeft? Dat is als volgt. Ik heb voor de schetsfase op internet gezocht naar mooie en interessante afbeeldingen die bepaalde landschappen laten zien. Ik heb de afbeeldingen al gebruikt in een aantal presentaties voor de NLroute. Een van de afbeeldingen die ik gebruik is een foto die jij hebt gemaakt (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Steengroeve_Winterswijk_1.JPG). De vraag is vind je het goed dat ik je foto gebruik? En wat als het project echt wat wordt, hoe wil je er dan mee om gaan?

Ik hoop dat je wil reageren op mijn vraag zodat ik aan jouw eisen kan voldoen.

Vriendelijke groet, Irma Bannenberg (irma@nlroute.nl)

Hoi Irma,

Zoals de tekst onder de foto al zegt: ja, je mag de foto gebruiken, bewerken en verder verspreiden, MITS je mijn naam noemt en het nieuwe werk onder dezelfde voorwaarden beschikbaar stelt.

Groetjes, Ciell (talk) 19:27, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Kabouter en paddenstoel door K in Provinciaal Domein Kessel-Lo.jpg was undeleted after {{FoP-Belgium}}. It still has a {{OTRS received}} from 2014 which you added. Mind looking at that ticket, if it was about the photo or the artwork. it is in Deutch, so I can't check... Josve05a (talk) 01:22, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dutch, not Deutch.

It is art in free space and the author of the art hasn't explicitly declared his work under a free license. We never received a follow-up. I don't know if art in an open space falls under the terms of FOP in Belgium? Ciell (talk) 07:30, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging Romaine. Josve05a (talk) 01:21, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Since 15 July Freedom of Panorama is in force in Belgium. This means that people do not have to ask permission for publication of their own made photo from the architect or artist of the building/artwork, if that subject is placed in a public place. This artwork is placed in a public space, so since 15 July we do no longer need the permission of the author of the artwork. Romaine (talk) 01:52, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So in Belgium there's no restriction that the art has to be placed in the public space *permanently*? Ciell (talk) 07:24, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Ciell,

I hope the originals with coloured background in Category:Flora by H. Witte remain available on Commons and linked to Wikipedia articles: they are the real thing and should be kept for ever, the cleaned up versions are just derivatives with artificial backgrounds without historical value. Thanks, Hansmuller (talk) 18:27, 10 December 2016 (UTC) `:I totally agree Hans, that's why both versions were uploaded. Ciell (talk) 20:43, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Ciell,

I redirected Category:Lonicera brachypoda to Category:Lonicera japonica, as this is the allowed name used on Commons. All the synonyms and unaccepted species names are tricky. At Category:Lonicera you can see which species names are allowed - they use biological websites such as The plant list to check whether a species name is accepted. When creating a new allowed species category the Taxonavigation template as shown in the header of all species categories, should be used. Yes, a lot of work... Hansmuller (talk) 18:42, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Now the title = Flora. That is an incomplete abbreviated title of the book the image is from. But on the images themselves is the real title, for instance on File:Afbeelding-011-Wistaria_sinensis.tif we can read thanks to the high resolution the title
A. Wisteria Chinensis de C.
B. (Wisteria Chinensis) var albiflora
which i corrected. To ease this laborious editing process i will replace "title = Flora" by "title =". Thanks, Hansmuller (talk) 18:57, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Changed File:Afbeelding-011-Wistaria sinensis.tif to File:Afbeelding-011-Wisteria sinensis.tiff (didn't do the .tiff, automatical!), also the other version. Hansmuller (talk) 19:07, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Put some species names in the description field, otherwise the (modern) species name is not in the metadata fields. Hansmuller (talk) 19:20, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Last remark: in the cleaned up versions the original captions are lost! So i feel we should use the original, not cleaned-up versions authorised by Wendel himself in wikipedia articles. Hansmuller (talk) 19:24, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all your work Hans! I'm really learning here. :)

As for the captions, yes, for some reason Hortus lost them in the cleaning. Weejeevee also remarked this on the email list and made File:Tricyrtis hirta 072.png using GIMP, which is already an improvement. Maybe she wants do the others as well, or teach us how to do it. Ciell (talk) 20:43, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

bahasa melayu ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ deutsch ∙ english ∙ español ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ nederlands ∙ norsk ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ português ∙ polski ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ türkçe ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ ತುಳು ∙ മലയാളം ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ עברית ∙ العربيَّة ∙ فارسی ∙ +/−

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:Citroën Traction Avant 11 B in NL.jpg. I notice that the file page either doesn't contain enough information about the license or it contains contradictory information about the license, so the copyright status is unclear. If you created this file yourself, then you must provide a valid copyright tag. For example, you can tag it with {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} to release it under the multi-license GFDL plus Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike All-version license or you can tag it with {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. (See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of license tags that you can use.) If you did not create the file yourself or if it is a derivative of another work that is possibly subject to copyright protection, then you must specify where you found it (e.g. usually a link to the web page where you got it), you must provide proof that it has a license that is acceptable for Commons (e.g. usually a link to the terms of use for content from that page), and you must add an appropriate license tag. If you did not create the file yourself and the specific source and license information is not available on the web, you must obtain permission through the VRT system and follow the procedure described there. Note that any unsourced or improperly licensed files will be deleted one week after they have been marked as lacking proper information, as described in criteria for deletion. If you have uploaded other files, please confirm that you have provided the proper information for those files, too. If you have any questions about licenses please ask at Commons:Village pump/Copyright or see our help pages. Thank you.

And also:

• File:Flowers 0034.JPG

Yours sincerely, JuTa 22:14, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hoi Ciell,

Ik heb net foto's van de schrijfsessie van de UU toegevoegd en nu zie ik dat de gekopieerde gegevens een autonummering hebben gekregen die niet correct is. Het gaat om deze Categorie:Wikipedia workshop over 19-eeuwse schrijfsters UU. 19-eeuwse wordt in filenaam 20-eeuwse, 21-eeuwse etc. Wil jij dit aanpassen naar19-eeuwse? Dankjewel DDJJ (talk) 15:51, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Opgelost! Ciell (talk) 17:02, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Hello

I'm writing you as one of the most active Commons users right now. Since a while now, the idea of a dedicated Commons conference has been floating around. But since the last Wikimania concrete steps have been taken to actually make it happen next year. If you're interested in participation or maybe willing to help organize the first ever Commons Conference, I invite you to check out the project page and leave your comments; or just show your support for the idea, by signing up.

Cheers,

--Touzrimounir (talk) 22:12, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ciell, wil je me helpen? Ik wil een uitsnede van dit bestand plaatsen maar heb iets verkeerd gedaan: de uitsnede heb ik per ongeluk gerevert zodat het oorspronkelijke bestand nu terug is. Kijk jij er even naar voor ik opnieuw de mist in ga? Groet, Kattiel (talk) 15:00, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gewoon nog een keertje terugdraaien. ;-) Ciell (talk) 15:14, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dankjewel! Kattiel (talk) 15:18, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, this file, and all the files in that upload, aren't properly licensed. They have the text "CC-BY-SA-4.0" on them, but this needs to be the template link, "{{CC-BY-SA-4.0}}" instead. As it is, the 'bots can't see the licence and they're confusedly adding this.

Thanks, Andy Dingley (talk) 12:25, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You are absolutely right, sorry 'bout that. It's been a while since I used Pattypan and I overlooked it. It should be fixed now! Ciell (talk) 15:38, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hoi Ciell, ik wilde zojuist de naam van de category aan de Zweedse ambassade doorgeven voor het uploaden van beelden van de #Wikigap bijeenkomst. Ik zie dat de category weer is verwijderd. Weet jij de reden daarvan? Is dat puur omdat er nog geen foto's instonden? Ik wacht even op jouw antwoord voor ik ga mailen of een nieuwe category aanmaak. Het ging om deze category: Wikigap_editathon_in_The_Hague. Thanks! --DDJJ (talk) 09:18, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ja, dat was omdat hij leeg was. Snel vullen, anders wordt hij weer verwijderd! :) Ciell (talk) 09:28, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Logo Nationaal Archief 2018.svg — Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiTici (talk • contribs) 13:05, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Deleted: The website has CC-0, except for pictures (published before 2016, according to our template - but the site doesn't confirm that anymore). --Ciell"

https://web.archive.org/web/20151120134147/https://www.koninklijkhuis.nl/copyright, Creative Commons is niet herroepbaar. - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 13:05, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for checking that and contacting me: I restored the image. Ciell (talk) 15:17, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is a proposal on the Bureaucrat's noticeboard to automatically expire GWT memberships after one year unless the user requests an extension. Please add your views and suggestions to the discussion. The reasonably informal process for getting access to GWT access will remain as is.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of Revi. 15:42, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ciell,

I come to you because you recently indicated on the OTRS noticeboard that this subject is now closed.

However, the email sent by Jordan Mechner on August the 6th has not been validated yet. Here is the list of the pictures that are still waiting for a validation by an OTRS member :

If you have time in the coming days, could you please check the email and deliver the validation of the permission?

Thank you very much! --ΛΦΠ (talk) 19:47, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi ΛΦΠ,

At the moment there is a backlog of 129 days. Your question about this at the noticeboard was answered, now you just have to wait. I'm sorry that we're backlogged. Don't worry though: if the images are deleted and the permission is sufficient we will take care of the restoring of the image. Ciell (talk) 13:03, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your answer. I did not think there was such a delay to treat the OTRS permissions in English. Thank you for your very clear explanations. --ΛΦΠ (talk) 15:06, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Well, the truth is that I have no problem if you have to delete those files. I made a mistake and you can delete them. Sorry for the inconvenience. Pildeiga (talk) 16:12, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Ciell (talk) 16:33, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi.
I recently created this. I followed all the steps given on the how to page, but I am not sure if i did everything correctly. Would you kindly take a look at it please? Thanks a lot in advance. —usernamekiran(talk) 09:27, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Usernamekiran, Looks perfectly fine to me. We always give DR's (Deletion Requests) 7 days, after that, an admin will look at them and most probably delete them, the way I see it. He claims them to be {own work}, bu they are definitely are not, so we need permission from the creator anyway. Ciell (talk) 15:10, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thanks for the prompt reply. And lol, i know how the deletion requests work. You recently closed Commons:Deletion requests/File:Priyanshu Kumar Jha.jpg, it was started by me. Its just, till now i nominated one file at a time, so it was (semi) automated process. This was my first manual deletion request i think. I was not sure if i did it properly. Thanks for looking into it again. See you around :) —usernamekiran(talk) 15:25, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This explains my doubt :D

Also, kindly disregard my email. Thanks again. —usernamekiran(talk) 15:36, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I recently came around a copyvio on enwiki. The uploader has also uploaded two of his own photos. I am not sure if they should be kept on commons or not. Would you please take a look at them? Thanks a lot. —usernamekiran(talk) 21:48, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, so they are clearly not own work and is he even a Wikipedia editor? Ciell (talk) 09:17, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

After reading your comment I checked and realised the photos were taken using different cameras. I think it is safe/good faith to assume that it was him who took/owns the photos. But I think file:Ambadevi Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana.jpg, and the two photos of himself should be deleted from commons. The two photos dont serve any purpose, and the third photo is of a sugar factory. But i think it fails the pertinence policy like it is explained on enwiki. Not sure about the policies of commons though. Your opinion is requested.

Regarding his wikipedia editing, one of his article was recently deleted (about a company to which the logo belonged), an article about himself was deleted three times; after it was salted, he created it in WP space, then in his userpage. Other than that, his contributions as an editor/contributor are almost non-existent. I wonder why nobody blocked him, or warned about getting blocked. I will warn him after he responds to me. —usernamekiran(talk) 12:25, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

oh wait. That factory photo is photo of a photo featuring the factory. Neither the building, nor the original photo is old enough. So thats a violation of some copyright law or other. —usernamekiran(talk) 12:29, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Ciell. File:Scouts1950-1.jpg has been marked for Speedy Deletion. Before I delete it, I was wondering if the Dutch-language Wikipedia has Fair Use that this file might qualify for?  JGHowes  ^talk 11:50, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@JGHowes: No, we don't. Speedy deletion it is. Ciell (talk) 13:28, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why is it speedy for copyrights, when it is own works? Shouldn't it be asking for permission to be send to OTRS? FOP might have nothing to do with it. Ciell (talk) 13:33, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Now at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Scouts1950-1.jpg  JGHowes  ^talk 16:48, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, File:Scouts1950-1.jpg is taken from a photograph I have in my possession and which I inherited from the person whom I wrote the entry on. I scanned it and used it. How can I ensure its publication?--Belgian thomist (talk) 20:12, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Belgian thomist, if you inherited the original photo from the photographer, the correct license tag is {{Cc-by-sa-4.0-heirs}}. Also, you should add your explanation to Commons:Deletion requests/File:Scouts1950-1.jpg, where its fate will be decided.  JGHowes  ^talk 20:24, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Ciell, maybe you got fooled by the fact that there are actually some statues by Christel Lechner only temporary installed. However, as I knew about this I stictly took images of the permanent ones. Therefore your claim that "these artworks are a temporarily exhibition" is simply not true. If you ever find a true copivio by me feel free to make a delition request. But kindly don't only claim what you believe or heard of. Provide clear proof! Greetings, -- Ies (talk) 07:52, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ies, I'm acting on behalf of user:Pelikana, who asked me to nominate the images that were in the categories, because of the reason I mentioned. Her/his image was deleted as well in another DR.

Indeed I read that some of the artworks turn permanent after the exhibition, but then we have to figure out which ones that are. Ciell (talk) 15:07, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ciell, I can only repeat: don't claim what you only believe or heard of. Making delition requests on behalf of somone without knowing the facts is hardly a good idea. Fact is that the overwhelming majority of images taken from sculptures by Christel Lechner is taken from permanent ones. To me due to File:Rees Dellstraße PM16-04.jpg only the Alltagsmenschen (Rees) appear temporary. Greetings, -- Ies (talk) 07:51, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Vijaymattuk.png [[File::Vijayrajni.png]]

I am a photographer and sent email to permissions wikipedia but no response kindly do the needsome. Many thanksFghjkltyuiop (talk) 13:47, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Vijaymattuk.png File:Vijayrajni.png

I am a photographer and sent email to permissions wikipedia but no response kindly do the needsome. Many thanksFghjkltyuiop (talk) 13:49, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Omdat je me in krap twee uur zoveel bijgepraat hebt over wikipedia /media en alles wat er allemaal mogelijk is dat ik nog enthousiaster ben geworden!

Brutroyyal (talk) 10:57, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, bedankt voor de geit! Ik vond het heel leuk om alles aan je uit te leggen, tof om je nu zo actief te zien. Ciell (talk) 17:24, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

About this, don't worry! Thanks a lot. Better and glad to get some help :) Regards. --Ganímedes (talk) 20:15, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Ganímedes, sorry for my confusion. I'm try to visit the OTRS noticeboard when I have time, and didn't realise you are an OTRS agent yourself. Ciell (talk) 18:45, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hallo Ciell. Zou je mijn laatste bewerking https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Piotrpavel ongedaan kunnen maken? Even niet goed nagedacht, sorry. Bij voorbaat mijn dank. mvg Piotrpavel (talk) 22:56, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. groeten, --Achim (talk) 10:31, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Beste Ciell, Een paar dagen geleden plaatste ik de Engelse vertaling van het lemma Onafhankelijke Realisten Tentoonstelling op Wikipedia: The Independent Realists Exhibition. Het werd door het “overkoepelend orgaan” vrijwel onmiddellijk genomineerd voor verwijdering. Toen bleek dat men de al enige tijd bestaande Nederlandse versie totaal over het hoofd had gezien, dus die staat nu ook op de nominatie. Dit heeft natuurlijk niets te maken met enige vorm van een (gezamenlijke) poging iets tot stand te brengen. Dit is de Botte Bijl. Ik ga niet in verweer, want heb toch echt iets beters te doen dan het voeren van oeverloze discussies. Dus met het plaatsen van 4x ~ komt er een eind aan mijn besognes met Wikipedia. Dat wilde ik je nog even laten weten. Vriendelijke groet, Robert P. Peters (talk) 09:20, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hallo Robert,

Vervelend dat dit je nu overkomt. Laat me vooral zeggen: vat dit niet persoonlijk op. Inderdaad willen we voor Wikipedia graag dat er bronnen zijn, en Wikipedia is wat dat betreft erg afhankelijk van wat er in de onafhankelijke pers verschenen is. Ik ben zelf actief binnen een groep die probeert om meer biografieën over vrouwen in de encyclopedie te krijgen: op dit moment gaat 17% van de biografieën over een vrouw. Het is gewoon soms heel moeilijk om artikelen in de encyclopedie te krijgen - en terecht, want anders zou iedere Frederik van de hockeyclub die in zijn vrije tijd DJ is in het plaatselijke buurthuis een artikel kunnen krijgen. En zijn valse neefje, die eigenlijk helemaal niet bestaat.... Het is dus terecht dat Wikipedia de artikelen ergens aan wil meten, maar het is er niet minder wrang om. Ik zie wel dat er al meerdere mensen proberen om het artikel op de Nederlandstalige Wikipedia geverifieerd te krijgen. Maar dat gaat wel heel moeilijk zijn zonder bronnen.

Het hoeven niet alleen maar internetbronnen te zijn, zoals The Banner nu via Google gevonden heeft. Zijn er misschien nog buitenlandse media geweest die er aandacht aan hebben besteed? Of is er misschien ook gefilmd? Ciell (talk) 21:42, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Just before my bath.jpg

Je verwijderde dit bestand met als reden "These kind of pictures are really outside of the scope of Commons, there is no educational value that is not in the other pictures we have already. And personality right. And suspected of Flickr-washing."

Het verwijderen an sich kan ik begrijpen, bij gebrek aan een duidelijke historie neigt dit naar COM:PRP. Maar ik ben het hartgrondig oneens met de opgegeven reden, en zou willen verzoeken of je deze aan kan passen. De afbeelding was overduidelijk in scope, zelfs als je het daarmee oneens bent is er nog altijd COM:INUSE, de afbeelding was in gebruik op cs:Sexting, hu:Sexting, ja:セクスティング, vi:Sexting en d:Q510866.

Flickr-washing? Kan, maar we weten het niet. Aangezien de Flickr gebruiker de foto van Flickr heeft verwijderd (het account bestaat nog, dus waarschijnlijk niet van hoger hand door Flickr zelf verwijderd) kunnen we de uploaddatum op Flickr niet meer zien. En ik kan honderden redenen verzinnen om naaktfoto's die je bij je volle verstand ooit hebt gedeeld op een later moment weer te verwijderen.

Dat de foto door iemand is geupload op een wraakpornosite zegt op zichzelf niet zoveel. (tenzij heel duidelijk is dat dat chronologisch de eerste vindplek is) Je kan op zo'n wraakpornosite waarschijnlijk ook foto's van Sasha Grey vinden om maar wat te noemen. Samengevat: geen probleem met een COM:PRP verwijdering, maar absoluut oneens met de bewering dat deze afbeelding niet in scope zou zijn. - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 01:03, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hoi Alexis, met alle respect voor je mening: ik ben het hartgrondig met je oneens. Dit was een afbeelding van een naakte vrouw die in een badkamer een selfie nam in de spiegel, met haar mobiele telefoon. Bedankt voor je verwijzing naar COM:INUSE, toch lees ik die pagina als dat Scope de basis is van de richtlijn: "The expression "educational" is to be understood according to its broad meaning of "providing knowledge; instructional or informative". " Deze afbeelding in noch informatief, noch een instructie.

Je zult vervolgens kunnen wijzen op COM:INUSE, waar gezegd wordt "A media file that is in use on one of the other projects of the Wikimedia Foundation is considered automatically to be useful for an educational purpose," . Ik durf in dit geval echter te bestrijden dat een naakte vrouw met een mobiele telefoon in haar hand een correcte weergave is van het onderwerp "sexting", waar de foto inderdaad op vier verschillende projecten werd weergegeven (waarvan tweemaal toegevoegd door dezelfde gebruiker, eenmaal door een nieuwe gebruiker en discutabel). De afbeelding is een suggestief en rolbevestigend, naast dat sexting draait om de berichten die je verstuurd en níet om een "naakte vrouw in de badkamer met een mobieltje in haar hand". Dit onderwerp kan prima geïllustreerd worden zonder vrouwelijk naakt. Dezelfde uploader heeft bijvoorbeeld ook de afbeelding van File:Naked_Selfie.jpg deze jongeman geupload. Waarom valt deze niet in de categorie sexting? En ook bij deze afbeelding durf ik te twijfelen aan de educatieve meerwaarde, net als bij onder andere deze, deze en deze van dezelfde uploader. Het is vrouw-onterend en kwalijk dat dit op Commons staat, wat mij betreft nuken we al de afbeeldingen die door deze gebruiker zijn geupload.

Dus helaas: ik blijf bij mijn opinie dat deze afbeelding (en de twee andere van dezelfde dame) out of scope waren. Ciell (talk) 16:42, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Het is niet aan ons om dat te beoordelen. De afbeelding was 1 jaar geleden aan een deel van de artikelen toegevoegd, in geval van jawiki zelfs 2 jaar en niemand heeft in die tijd de afbeelding vervangen. Je had natuurlijk zelf de afbeeldingen uit die artikelen kunnen verwijderen, maar vervolgens had je een redelijke termijn moeten laten verstrijken zodat de locals jouw edit weer terug konden draaien indien gewenst. Of je had lokaal de discussie aan moeten gaan, maar ik weet niet hoe goed je Japans is.

Door een afbeelding te verwijderen van Commons om "scope" redenen terwijl die afbeelding in gebruik is op een ander project ben jij effectief admin aan het spelen op een buitenlandse Wikipedia. Jij haalt een afbeelding weg en de locals kunnen jou niet terugdraaien omdat je een Commons admin bent. Daar moet je dus héél ver van blijven.

Het kan best dat wij persoonlijk iets niet educatief vinden (iedereen heeft een mening), maar wij moeten andere projecten niet dicteren wat wel en niet educatief is. Het enige wat we daarmee bereiken is dat we projecten stimuleren om uploads lokaal te houden.

En zowel Wikipedia als Commons zijn niet gecensureerd. Sexting betreft zowel tekstberichten als media. "Just before my bath.jpg" was vermoedelijk gemaakt voor precies dat doel: sexting om de partner op te hitsen. Prima afbeelding als illustratie dus, wat betreft scope dan. - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 13:14, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dit heeft absoluut niks met censuur te maken, dan lees je gewoon echt niet wat ik zeg.

Ik ben van plan om een mass DR voor de andere afbeeldingen van deze gebruiker voor te leggen, ik zal daarin deze drie afbeeldingen ook noemen. Ik weet alleen niet of ik daar dit weekend al tijd voor heb, maar ik zal hier de link plaatsen als het zover is, dan ben je op de hoogte. Groet, Ciell (talk) 16:16, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Het zou wel handig zijn als je mensen pingt bij het antwoorden, dat zou je zo langzamerhand toch moeten weten. Dan had ik je ook kunnen waarschuwen voor de catastrofe die je nu hebt ontketend. - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 10:47, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Alexis Jazz: , het is wel handig als je op je volglijst kijkt als je bij mensen een bericht achterlaat. Een ping is voor gevallen waar een antwoord (dringend) nodig is, hier zijn dagen overheen gegaan.

Maw: het is maar net wat je gewend bent, maar ik zal er bij jou in de toekomst rekening mee houden. Ciell (talk) 17:12, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ik heb 100K+ pagina's op mijn volglijst, dus het is vrij eenvoudig om zaken te missen. (al helemaal als er een bot of minor edit overheen komt - was hier niet het geval maar komt wel veel voor) - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 18:29, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, please do not just remove a withdrawn FPC nomination from the list. All nominations are archived to a log. This is usually done by FPCBot after 24 hours, but it can also be done manually. I have fixed that for you now, but in the future, just leave the nom in the list and it will be taken care of. All the best, --Cart (talk) 15:22, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, thank you and sorry about that! Ciell (talk) 15:26, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Are you going to create your DR page, or are you just going to tag a bunch of images for DR and leave it like that? Let me say this is the type of actions that make Commons feel like a warzone, when an administrator decides to claim that photos that are by definition in scope because they're in use are out of scope because they involve nudity, and piles together dozens of images into one DR. We have a thousand images in Category:Unidentified Salticidae, and dozens more categories just like, basically full of images that are useless because they're unidentified, and probably of species that we have decent pictures of, or 172 images of one bridge in one year in Category:Tower Bridge in 2013 but hey, Category:Penile-vaginal intercourse has 120 non-art images in it, for one of the subjects of most interest to human beings, that's what needs its contents thinned out. I don't see any chance for this to actually go anywhere, because they're in use, but you'll sure annoy a lot of editors.--Prosfilaes (talk) 18:17, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Prosfiles,

I've been working all afternoon on the list because I do not want images to be deleted that can be of value to our project or the Public Domain, very kind of you to notice!

If you would like to share your thoughts on the deletion request of these pictures, you are free to weigh in on the DR, now that I've completed it. Ciell (talk) 18:35, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment Without commenting the possibility of flickr washing and\or personality rights (that is another can of worms), let me tell you that the first reason that you gave in Commons:Deletion requests/File:Just before my bath.jpg to delete this image ("These kind of pictures are really outside of the scope of Commons, there is no educational value that is not in the other pictures we have already") are in clear contradiction with Commons:Project scope in particular "A media file that is in use on one of the other projects of the Wikimedia Foundation is considered automatically to be useful for an educational purpose,(...). Such a file is not liable to deletion simply because it may be of poor quality: if it is in use, that is enough.". And this file was in clear and abundant use in cs:Sexting, hu:Sexting, vi:Sexting, ja:セクスティング and wikidata:Q510866. This part of your rationale to delete is completely wrong and, given that you are an administrator and otrs member, deeply disturbing and calls to question if you are indeed aware of what are the Commons policies, specially one as central as Commons:Project scope. Tm (talk) 20:52, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think I am aware of the Commons:Scope, but have a slightly different interpetation. But don't worry, I'll go back in flying low. Ciell (talk) 17:12, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Tm: This is exactly what I told Ciell in #Verwijderingsreden in Dutch. (and since you can't read that discussion, long story short: Ciell doesn't give a damn) Would you support a request on COM:AN to have another admin overrule the deletion rationale? Undeletion is not in order as a COM:PRP deletion is acceptable, but maybe we just shouldn't allow the precedent of deleting in-scope images for scope reasons to take place at all. - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 10:56, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, I don't give a damn? You started mansplaining things to me, talk about nasty behaviour. Ciell (talk) 17:12, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's what it came down to. Oversimplified, but you appear to be mostly tonedeaf to the arguments presented and your final answer here is "let's agree to disagree", which in this case is not particularly satisfying. Commons doesn't exist to editorialize other projects, yet you seem to think that it does. And mansplaining? The longer this goes on, the more I get the impression you are the "wrong" kind of feminist. In fact, I don't even know your gender, but considering your choice of the word "mansplaining", I'm guessing you're a woman. Also, you probably don't know my gender, as I don't advertise it.. If you think I'm being condescending, maybe stop for a moment and consider the possiblity that both your and my gender, skin color, country of origin, etc etc have nothing to do with that. I don't discriminate, I shit on everyone equally! - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 18:42, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, I do not "agree to disagree" and no, I don't care about your gender. I do find your behaviour very confrontational, it seems to be "your way or the highway". Thats not how community project works. I do know you do a whole lot of good work on Commons and respect you for that, I just don't agree with everything you (and others) say. Ciell (talk) 10:36, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Above you said "I think I am aware of the Commons:Scope, but have a slightly different interpetation. But don't worry, I'll go back in flying low." which I do interpret as "agree to disagree". I'm not under the impression you see the error in your ways, even now. And me, I am generally quite willing to compromise and find a solution that works for everyone. At the same time, if the other party seems unlikely to engage in this process, I'm not too likely to really start it and will instead fall back to ridicule. You are an admin, you should know better, yet you started a mass DR with many images that were clearly ineligible for deletion. And on top of that, on the VP you said "if I wanted to be "anti-pron warrior", I could have deleted them all in one go...." errr really? You really think you could have? Sounds more like your way or the highway. (and yeah, you could have done that.. ONCE) - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 09:28, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Alexis, I'm going to stop this conversation because it is leading nowhere. You are taking my words out of context and giving intentions to them I didn't have. You are being aggressive and hostile and I don't want to take this any further. Have a good weekend. Ciell (talk) 11:04, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not aggressive and certainly not hostile, just like I wasn't "mansplaining". And you speak of misinterpretation? Talking about the pot calling the kettle black! I'm not taking your words out of context and if you believe I didn't interpret your words correctly (which could happen), you'd be better off explaining what you did mean. If you can't defend your actions or apologize for them (more clearly than you did so far), that's not a good sign. If you wish to stop this conversation, it's your loss really, but I nevertheless hope you'll have a good weekend as well. - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 11:26, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Good day. Some of the images you nominated in the group deletion request were in use in multiple projects, some had been nominated for deletion before and kept. In both such cases, deletion is generally unlikely (unless for example new information can be shown that the license is false and the image is a copyright violation). I suggest this is something to be aware of to save time for both yourself and others. Cheers. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 22:52, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi @Infrogmation: , sorry about the mess, I thought I did the right thing by asking for an opinion of other users, because(like I said in the DR) I thought the upload patron was harmfull and not within the purpose of Commons. I would've mind reverting the edits myself, but thank you. Ciell (talk) 17:12, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In case Fae succeeds in getting me blocked, I just wanted to say thanks. I wasn't surprised by how Commons:Deletion requests/Nudity from Flickr by Avril1975 ended up but I think it is worthwhile for Commons to consider some of these issues. I was dismayed by how aggressive and antagonistic the comments were.

I have foolishly tried to start a discussion here but it has predictably already drawn claims of "censorship" despite my pains to recognize that Commons should and will always have plenty of sexual content. I suggest you stay away from it, but don't let the few loud voices convince you that this is a lost cause. It may take a lot of time and effort but Commons will improve. It is already less bad than it used to be. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 04:42, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for addressing the problem in a way I couldn't find the right words for. Ciell (talk) 10:27, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@World's Lamest Critic: it was a poor suggestion. You want to make porn into a special case, which it's not. It's not too different (just more intense) from File:DaveScottKUSIByPhilKonstantin.jpg. That's Dave Scott, a TV presenter from San Diego. He's probably not super-notable and this photo probably wouldn't be used in an infobox because he's pulling a "I dunno" face. Which is also why Dave isn't too happy about the photo, he feels it's doesn't represent him properly. (I've never seen him on TV, but I'm guessing it indeed wouldn't)

And what's the difference between pulling strange faces and nudity? Other than intensity, not much. A future employer who googles Dave Scott might decide to go with the other candidate upon finding this photo, an often cited issue with nudity. Dave is demonstrably embarrassed by the photo, the same argument often used for nudity. Only less intense. There are also differences: pulling a strange face typically devalues an image for Commons, while nudity (when nudity is the subject) generally doesn't. And nudity is more strongly associated with copyvio than strange faces are, but that's a matter for copyvio hunters. But whatever you want to suggest, any new policy or guideline should be neutral in dealing with all kinds of personality rights+regret cases. - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 09:57, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dude, I don't know why you would think that you are welcome to start this discussion with me on Ciell's talk page. You have been a complete dick and I don't think they want you here. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 14:56, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I guess i.e. here went something wrong. Cheers. --JuTa 16:17, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I noticed. Thank you for checking though! Ciell (talk) 17:32, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Ciell. Since you are fluent in Dutch, and haven't weighed in on the discussion, would you be willing to provide a translation of this RfC and drop a neutral notification at Commons:De Kroeg? Just trying to get as broad participation as possible. I don't favor the idea of English speakers being the only ones who get to decide site policy. GMG^talk 11:17, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, no problem. I don't have much time today and tomorrow, but will be back online Thursday and check the post for questions. Ciell (talk) 19:32, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello!

For category removals, moves and adding you may use Commons:Cat-a-lot instead of Commons:VisualFileChange. It's a bit simpler and works way faster.Jonteemil (talk) 19:18, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Ciell (talk) 19:23, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]