GerardM

Hi Gerard, you made a small mistake in the pronunciation of Bettino Ricasoli's surname, it should be stressed on the A, not the O.

Commons:Pronunciation files requests

Hi. Can you add your recordings to Dutch instead of Category:Dutch? thanks -- Chris 73 10:12, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Why? Categories are more convenient. GerardM 11:47, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Hi. You're fast :-) But sth's wrong, I cannot listen to the "chemical" words you've uploaded (eg. Media:Nl-atoomnummer.ogg), while I can listen to the "language" files (eg. Media:Nl-Sami.ogg). Even the links look different. Is it just my problem (cache perhaps)?
--tsca 12:04, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Hi. Could you add copyright tags to the images you uploaded? For now I have tagged your image as "Unknown". If there are no tags, the image may have to be deleted. The image in question is Image:Edward Elgar.jpg. Thanks -- Chris 73 03:20, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Note: You missed the copyright tag for Image:Nl-moeder.ogg. -- Chris 73 04:10, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Hi Gerard, Bdka told me you are the local specialist for ogg files ;-) I work with Macintosh OS X and would like to record some spoken sound via the internal microphone. Could you recommend a software for doing that and saving/exporting it as ogg? I'm not very Sound-savvy... Thx for any help --Elya 23:25, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Hoi, I use "Audacity" I know it also runs on the Macintosh as Jimbo Wales has it also installed on his portable Mac. It is easy to use. Recommended. GerardM 07:12, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Thank you! I'll try that. --Elya 07:42, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I tried it, it's super! Quite easy to use, I produced media:juschtschenko.ogg, and hope it is not too bad ;-) thanks again. --Elya 23:00, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

There is a naming standard for pronunciations; xx-word.ogg where xx is the ISO-639 code for a language. What language do you speak natively ?? GerardM 16:05, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Oups. Quite a long time to answer this question ;-) Natively, you know it in the meantime, in Ukrainian, I'm just an „amateur“... Best wishes, --elya@22C3 --81.163.155.226 15:24, 29 December 2005 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Why did you list this for deletion, and could you use the {{delete}} tag instead？ -- Chris 73 13:40, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)</nowiki>

The name has an error in there it should be "aardoppervlak", it was a typo. The way I cam to tag it to be deleted has everything to do with the difficulty in finding how to mark something as to be deleted. I went through the Community portal to find this. GerardM 16:05, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Heya there, nice (actually not so nice ;) ) pictures you upload there. Could you specify a license tag for these pictures and add them to pictures you uploaded? It's not clear on which license they are at the moment. Thanks. --Conti|✉ 00:04, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Hello Gerard, could you please always give a reason when you use {{delete}}? E.g. what is wrong here? Thanx a lot --:Bdk: 22:47, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I am involved in uploading loads of pronounciations. The naming has to be to a certain standard and, it has to be letterperfect to the word that is being used. Sometimes we make errors and then we use delete to ask them to be deleted. They will never be used as a properly spelled version has been uploaded as well. GerardM 09:28, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

U bent nu een admin voor het Commons. Gelukwensen! villy 20:18, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Hi Gerard, please add a license to the following files:

• Image:Nl-slot.ogg
• Image:Nl-remlicht.ogg
• Image:Nl-orator.ogg

Thank you. —Breeze 14:00, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

We've had a request from a Norwegian television station to have the names of Cardinals in pronunciation files. I imagine this would be useful for many small radio and television stations over the next few weeks and should show Wikipedia as an invaluable source. As such, I am trying to find native speakers of the primary languages of the countries from which the Cardinals come to record the correct pronunciation of their names. There are two Dutch cardinals: "Johannes Gerardus Maria Kardinaal Willebrands" and "Adrianus Johannes Kardinaal Simonis". It would be a great help if you could record these two for us. Further, if you can find any other significant historical Dutch Cardinals at http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kardinaal there would be no harm in recording those names, or indeed the names of Dutch Archbishops, etc. Most importantly are the two current cardinals I have stated. Thanks. --Oldak Quill 14:07, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I have recorded four soundfiles: the names as listed and the names without the first names, GerardM 14:14, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hi - thanks for all the sound files. Sadly, a great many of them are missing copyright info and/or categorization. Please have a look at Commons:Untagged_images#G, many of your uploads are listed there. Please add appropriate licens info, files without such info will have to be deleted. Thank you. -- Duesentrieb 12:29, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Oh - if all those files where created by you, and they are all under the same license, you can ask User:Andre Engels to tag them using his bot. -- Duesentrieb 13:00, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I have already tagged them with the complete information (including categories) :) GerardM 05:47, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Gerard, wat denk van het gebruiken van de vermelding "nl-nl" en "nl-be", zoals veel software gebruikt om een verschil te maken tussen Nederlands van Nederland en Nederlands van België (Vlaanderen)? --Walter 11:31, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

PS: ik heb de pagina List of the different audio-templates for the Wikipedias aangemaakt. is nog werk aan maar dit mijkt mij zeer handig om de audio-bestanden effectief in de diverse wikipedia's te kunnen plaatsen --Walter 11:33, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Dat is alleen zinnig als er een echt onderscheid is. Ik gebruik nl omdat het een standaard Nederlandstalige uitspraak is. Bij speciale woorden waar er een wezenlijk verschil is in de uitspraak zou ik het anders doen. GerardM 11:35, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I don't understand clearly the utility of all your files... That's just than I want know why wikicommons need all this, what is all this, and who will use all this in add of yourself. Yug talk 12:36, 16 May 2005 (UTC)Reply

These files are for use in the Wiktionary project. They are soundfiles that help people pronounce words. GerardM 15:00, 16 May 2005 (UTC)Reply

(No license) Thuresson 20:42, 11 July 2005 (UTC)Reply

Hi - thanks for your great work on the commons. Please note that you can not license program screenshots as your own work - they are reproductions of the user interface created by the programmers, so they have rights to it too, in many cases. For this reason, only screenshots of free software are allowed on the commons - please see Commons:Licensing#Screenshots. Pictures of MS programs are especially probelmatic. It would be excelent if you could draw the ERD with a graphics program, or with a free modelling software. Thanks! -- Duesentrieb 12:22, 19 July 2005 (UTC)Reply

Please do your homework again. I checked Microsoft's website and it is completely legal to publish a screenshot from a Access ERD. This is also an instance where Commons has a function to decimate content that is important to many projects; the ERD is relevant as documentation of a programming effort by the WMF. It should not be changed by anyone for whatever reason.

Asking me to draw this in another tool is unrealistic. Here Commons is used as a vehicle to make information available that is required for programming. Do also note that it is not published as GFDL but as GPL. GerardM 15:00, 19 July 2005 (UTC)Reply

You are right that it is legal to publish it, but it's a violation of the current commons policy, as stated in Commons:Licensing. You are basically claiming fair use, which is not applicable here - the commons is a media database, the pictures are primary content. Also, Microsoft explicitely sais in the EULA that you are not allowed to publish modified versions of the image - which, again, is a violation of the policy (source of that info, german). I'm aware that the policy is not perfect, and that (c)-laws can be a real PITA. If you want to discuss this, please do so on the vialage pump or start a vote.

Anyway, it is also not leagal to put the image under the a license of your choice (GPL or otherwise), because you don't have any rights to it, or at least are not the only one that has rights - you would have to ask MS first. All you could do is publishe it under the terms defined by MS, which are not compatible with the commons policy. You can put the database design onder the GPL, and represent it as SQL code, or draw a UML or ER diagram with a tool that allows you to export graphics that can be published freely.

As for the technical part - sure, the ERD is an important tool for DB design - but the commons is simply the wrong place to put such information. Maybe such images are acceptable on meta or the dev wiki, or it may be a good idea to start a separate wiki for that. It would also IMHO be better to use UML for modelling the entity relations, since you will have to migrate the design to another DBMS anyway.

Sorry to be picky, but we have had a lot of trouble with screenshots in the past, and, as you know, licensing is very important to keep the project going. Regards -- Duesentrieb 20:34, 19 July 2005 (UTC)Reply

There is one thing you forget. Commons has a utility; it is the only place from where you can share data to all projects. As Ultimate Wiktionary has an impact on many projects it is vitaly important that the latest and greatest version of the ERD is available. It is highly unlikely that it will be used in ordinary content. It is also extremely stupid to make changes to this particular screenshot.

Your argument is flawed as Commons is the only place that has the necessary utility. To say that the tool that I use is wrong is also a bit odd. This is the tool that I know well and use effectively. Licensing is important but it is not the only consideration. GerardM 05:33, 20 July 2005 (UTC)Reply

hi, this image and this images are the same, can you del one please? Matanya 16:22, 19 July 2005 (UTC)Reply

Which one to delete, they may both be in use ?? GerardM 19:37, 19 July 2005 (UTC)Reply

don't know. Matanya 19:44, 19 July 2005 (UTC)Reply

Image:Nl-Hebreeuws.jpg seems to be broken. Could you try uploading it again? dbenbenn | talk 21:45, 21 July 2005 (UTC)Reply

Hoi,

You as an administrator are involved in en edit war on Image:Dumper Truck.JPG

I have been asked to intervene and I did protect the article. By changing the picture you do something that is in my opinion not something that you have the right to do. By removing the picture and changing it, you are not able to attribute this picture. The picture is not yours; it is by Noorse.

The reason why many on the Dutch wikipedia use a marker is because of a fight with a wikipedia clone. The point is, the article was protected and it was not for you to upload without consultation.

Thanks, User:GerardM

Hi Gerard. I hope you don't mind I copied your email here. I prefer talk pages.

First, let me say I didn't notice that Dumper_Truck.JPG was protected when I uploaded the cropped version. As you might be aware, MediaWiki doesn't warn about that. I'm sorry; if I had noticed that you protected it, I wouldn't have uploaded a new version.

As far as "not something that you have the right to do": well, cc-by allows modifications. I do indeed have the right to modify the picture, including removing the watermark. I'm pretty sure that isn't vandalism. And as long as Noorse is attributed somehow (for example, in the image description page), it isn't a copyright violation either.

Finally, I'm surprised you deleted the image. The only effect of that action is that now you are listed as the original uploader in the image history, instead of Noorse. dbenbenn | talk 15:55, 31 July 2005 (UTC)Reply

By the way, I've uploaded the cropped version as Image:Dumper Truck, cropped.JPG. I suggest that Image:Dumper Truck.JPG should be unprotected. I won't be editing that page either way, but the protection stops Noorse from editing it. dbenbenn | talk 16:06, 31 July 2005 (UTC)Reply

Uploading to a new name is your "right". Creating modifications is not the same as modifying the original. It is simply not the same. As to Noorse, she is happy that it is like it is. GerardM 18:23, 31 July 2005 (UTC)Reply

Gerard, I'd like to thank you for trying to help here, but as the people here do not seem to understand english, would you please change the license from {cc-by-2.0} to {cc-by-nd-2.0} for me? This change is due to the behaviour I've encountered here at Commons. Otherwise I expect that the same edit-war will erupt again with {redundant} being moved hence and forth. I'm not interested in contributing to a project where participants behave like this. Noorse 19:03, 31 July 2005 (UTC)Reply

P.S. If appropriate I'd also like the image that user:dbenbenn mauled to be marked with the same license.

I think this is a screenshot of non-free Microsoft software. Please read Commons:Licensing and think of a solution how to present the results, without a screenshot. --Paddy 11:06, 22 August 2005 (UTC)Reply

I cropped the image now so that you can not see the stuff of the programm. I also think a *.png would be better than a jpg version. Can you not print the image to a *.prn (and convert to *.png) or produce *.gif output directly without printing the srceen? --Paddy 20:56, 22 August 2005 (UTC)Reply

Ik was net even terug, ik dacht de licenties aan te passen. Alleen om te vinden dat ene Paddy het op zich had genomen ze zonder mijn weten te reverten. Gerard, dit is voor mij de druppel. Ik heb net de licenties teruggezet op nd en berichten achtergelaten bij paddy (ja, ik werd nogal kwaad om zijn eigenmachtige actie) en duesentrieb. Het liefst zie ik ze gisteren verwijderd van Commons. Het is jammer, maar aan een zo'n anarchie als hier wens ik niet deel te nemen. Sterker nog, als het mij gevraagd wordt ga ik mijn uiterst best om het anderen uit hun hoofd te praten om afbeeldingen te uploaden hier, en indirect dus ook op nl. omdat je daar de risico loop dat ze overgeheveld worden hierheen.
Als ze hier een beetje normaal had kunnen doen, en met je communiceren voordat ze hun gang gingen is de kans groot dat ik heel anders had gereageerd. Echter, zoals het hier is? I'd rather not get caught dead here... Overigens jammer van het gebeuren tussen jou en w op nl:. Ik hoop dat je af en toe langskom ongeacht :) - en succes met je wiktionary ;)
mvg Noorse 23:55, 25 August 2005 (UTC)Reply

Hi Gerard, today I found your great dutch pronounciation sound files on commons. I just wrote an article about "Nieuw Nederland" on the german wikipedia (de:Nieuw Nederland) but I doubt whether any of the german readers knows the right pronounciation. I would be very grateful to you for providing a sound file for the two words "Nieuw Nederland". Thanks in advance, --Frank Schulenburg 10:40, 8 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

Hoi Gerard, ik heb onlangs de hoofdpagina in het Nedersaksisch geschreven, maar iemand kreeg het idee dat de hoofdpagina in het Platduits is geschreven. (iemand die Platduits spreekt kan dit waarschijnlijk niet zo goed lezen en is dus misleidend) Het is overigens bedoelt voor een toekomstige Wikipedia die hopelijk binnenkort gecreëerd wordt. Zou jij de naam Niedersassisch (Plattdüüts) naar Nedersaksisch kunnen veranderen? Servien 10:26, 12 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

De Eesti Commons moet ook toegevoegd worden staat op de overlegpagina van het sjabloon...

Schitterend, die pannenlikker en die flessenschraper! MartinD 15:16, 1 December 2005 (UTC)Reply

Hi Gerard, I notice you are an admin and you speak Dutch. I was wondering if you can maybe help out here. It seems like there are a lot of problems lately between nl.wikipedia and PNG flags and coat-of-arms being updated to SVG (see Commons:Village_pump#problem for the latest). We need some help so that nl.wikipedia people are happy with what we're doing, understand what we're doing and why we're doing it. At the moment it is very heated with talk of boycotting the Commons etc. I think we desparately need to improve our reputation with nl.wikipedia so I am hoping you can look into this issue and help keep it calm any way you can. Thanks, pfctdayelise (translate?) 23:45, 19 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

The problem is that it is absolutely not clear WHY it is done what is done but even more the way it was done was not open for consideration when it proved problematic. This has been discussed in the past with the admins involved and this resulted in rather heated discussions where arguments were used like "it is allowed according to the rules of the GFDL" and "go away". And also "we have voted on this in Commons so this is the way we are doing it".

I have tried to mediate in the past and this was not really apreciated. Now the pidgeons come home to roost. It is indeed a sad moment. But when you want to improve the adoption of Commons, you have to enter an open discussion. GerardM 21:58, 20 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hello. Can you check the license information on nl:Afbeelding:214493.jpg and see if it complies with Commons restrictions? Thanks in advance, and contiue to have a nice Sunday  :-) / Fred Chess 11:02, 26 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

It says that it is part of a collection. From the collection there is permission provided that it states that it is from this collection BUT it also says that it cannot rely confirm that there is no someone else who might have a right.. It my be good, it may be not. It is not an absolute. GerardM 16:28, 26 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

I noticed you've uploaded Image:Lourdeskapel 6.JPG, would it be possible to add some more details, like the name and location of the church, and when the photo was taken? edward 19:27, 27 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hi Gerard

Below is a list of ogg files ou uploaded, that have net been recognized as being vorbis encoded. I tried to look for the reason, a found another strange thing: the files are not there at all!. Please wait a bit before re-uploading, I will try to get someone to investigate this... it appears that some files have actually vanished from the server - or they where never stored, because something went wrong during upload - I don't know yet.

Regards -- Duesentrieb^(?!) 17:30, 4 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

• Image:Nl-Thai.ogg (file) (User:GerardM, 20041103100842)
• Image:Nl-zich_verheugen_op.ogg (file) (User:GerardM, 20050329080622)
• Image:Nl-afhangen_van.ogg (file) (User:GerardM, 20050411060519)
• Image:Nl-behept_zijn_met.ogg (file) (User:GerardM, 20050411063001)
• Image:Nl-voorzien_van.ogg (file) (User:GerardM, 20050411085237)
• Image:Nl-spijt_hebben_van.ogg (file) (User:GerardM, 20050412074052)
• Image:Nl-berichten_over.ogg (file) (User:GerardM, 20050412105337)
• Image:Nl-Amerikaanse_dikkop-elrits.ogg (file) (User:GerardM, 20050430061531)
• Image:Nl-aplastisch_anemie.ogg (file) (User:GerardM, 20050509173616)
• Image:Nl-cervix_uteri.ogg (file) (User:GerardM, 20050511101718)
• Image:Nl-cor_pulmonale.ogg (file) (User:GerardM, 20050511103328)
• Image:Nl-duro_mater.ogg (file) (User:GerardM, 20050512132647)
• Image:Nl-post_partum.ogg (file) (User:GerardM, 20050522180200)
• Image:Nl-vitale_capaciteit.ogg (file) (User:GerardM, 20050523210129)
• Image:Nl-arctische_walvis.ogg (file) (User:GerardM, 20050527072854)
• Image:Nl-blauwe_vinvis.ogg (file) (User:GerardM, 20050527073023)
• Image:It-acido_citrico.ogg (file) (User:GerardM, 20050613063105)
• Image:It-antralinato_di_metile.ogg (file) (User:GerardM, 20050613070445)
• Image:It-detartraggio_del_vino.ogg (file) (User:GerardM, 20050613074659)
• Image:It-estratto_secco.ogg (file) (User:GerardM, 20050613080119)
• Image:It-estratto_ridotto.ogg (file) (User:GerardM, 20050613080120)
• Image:Nl-Ter_Aar.ogg (file) (User:GerardM, 20050625120057)

I have now reported this on bugzilla:5828 - please keep this section until the bug is resolved. If you want to move it to a subpage or something, please update the URL in the bug report. -- Duesentrieb^(?!) 18:04, 4 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:Deletion_requests#All_pictures_of_little_girls_uploaded_by_User:Belginusanl

Ik heb vier van de foto's zelve getrokken in the Verenigde Staten waar ik woon. Als ik aan en advocate in Amerika raat gevraagde heb hij geef mij het volgende antwoordt ge geven. "Are you allowed to take pictures of people including children in plain view, anything visible from public area with out there permision and registering them as copyright and posting it on the Internet (wikipedia.org) and publising it?" Die weten kunnen anders zijn in Belgie of in Nederland. Ik weet niet hoe je een goot copyright licence moet schrijven. Kun je een good copyright licence schrijven in het Engels en het Nederlands voor die vier foto's. The eendere foto's zijn af en adre website genomen en de staan op de public domein. Voorleggens en nederlandse talige administrateur van en.wikipedia.org mogen die op commons staan. --Belginusanl 20:32, 12 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hello GerardM,

as per Commons talk:Administrators, I am asking all admins to subscribe to commons-l, a mailing list for Wikimedia Commons policy and project discussion. Since many admins are only on Commons infrequently, this is a good way to alert people about important happenings. The mailing list is nominally multilingual, but predominantly English.

If you are already subscribed to commons-l, I apologize for bothering you, and you are free to ignore this message. If you don't want to use your regular e-mail account, feel free to leave me a message, and I can send you a GMail invite. Traffic on the mailing list is relatively low, and we do not expect admins to read all messages to the list, but it would be nice if you could check on it at least every few weeks. Thanks for your time,--Eloquence 23:02, 4 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hello,

If you consent for statistics to be published about your actions as an administrator, please sign here: Commons:Administrator permission for statistics. (I expect that most people will not have a problem with it unless you are especially concerned with privacy.)

Also, please be aware that we now have a Commons:Administrators' noticeboard. Please put it on your watchlist, if you haven't already!

cheers, pfctdayelise (translate?) 05:33, 7 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hello,

If you consent for statistics to be published about your actions as an administrator, please sign here: Commons:Administrator permission for statistics. (I expect that most people will not have a problem with it unless you are especially concerned with privacy.)

Also, please be aware that we now have a Commons:Administrators' noticeboard. Please put it on your watchlist, if you haven't already!

cheers, pfctdayelise (translate?) 05:33, 7 September 2006 (UTC) P.S.: Pardon if this is a repeat (bot debugging...)Reply

I can't seem to find any reply from you to the this old note... Do you know what the story is with these files? It looks like at least some of them were deleted but the transaction to actually pull the pages out of the database was lost... I do have the underlying files, or at least some of them but it would be a pain for me to pull them out of archival storage, especially if they should be deleted. --Gmaxwell 06:46, 14 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

Sorry, but, like I've already write in the discussion, I don't understand your point... The dialetcs names are in Italian, maybe this is your problem? The image is in the Italian wikipedia (see there) --F l a n k e r 15:47, 17 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

First the names are known to me even in Italian, and also the names are not the accepted names for these languages. GerardM 06:26, 18 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

Accepted by who? And also which are that names? --F l a n k e r 08:45, 18 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

I think you're alone in your belief, and it can't be anything else, because in my map there are informations so obvious and well acquainted for Italian speaking people. Why do you persist in your absurd request? Moreover I've uploaded the map in the Italian Wiki (see [1] and [2]), so I don't use that one. Cheers, F l a n k e r 22:35, 13 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

PS: precisely, keep asking for reference for this map is the same thing like to asking reference for the statement "the water is wet"... And check your sources, maybe those are original research, but, for sure, not my map.

Moving the map to the Italian Wikipedia only moves the problem and does not solve it. I have seen an authoritative source that explains Campano as a dialect of "spoken Neapolitan" this is done in a similar way for Abbruzese. FYI it was in the concept for the upcoming ISO-639-6.

So here is one authoritative source that supports that "water is wet". GerardM 14:39, 14 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

When you want to made a reply, please send that reply to the user discussion page, otherwise the recipient can't notice your new text.

So, I read about Ethnologue page for Italy. It is not far for my map, why do you think is so wrong?

For the Neapolitan: this language is spoken principally in Neaples (Napoli), in other city of Campania there are many sensible variations of this idiom. So sensible that is absolutely incorrect to say that at, say, Salerno is spoken Neapolitan. Is for that reason that I named "campano" the language spoken in Campania, is a common word in Italy, and make everyone happy. Unfortunately Ethnologue simplify too much a complex reality (is understandable, as it is an international point of view). If my map is round down, Ethnologue is unacceptable rounded down.

Anyhow you are the only one that have problem whit this map. F l a n k e r 19:13, 14 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

Do you need sources? Here and here it is... --F l a n k e r 20:06, 15 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

From the documentation it is clear that they did look at it from a dialectal perspective of the Neapolitan language. We will write these people for confirmation. GerardM 17:15, 19 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

Why do you insist, making yourself ridicolous? Are you a troll? Would you ask references also for the sentence "Michelangelo paint the Sistina chapel"? Please stop it! Do you think you are a linguist? If so, visit Italy, visit Campania and then study Italian and his dialects, or languages or whatever you prefer to name them. Don't think you are right just because you think I'm wrong! Cheers, F l a n k e r 12:39, 22 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

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

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Orlando_Gibbons.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|cc-by-sa-2.5}} to release it under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 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. Siebrand 08:05, 5 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Afrikaans ∙ العربية ∙ беларуская (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!

Thank you for providing images to the Wikimedia Commons. Please keep in mind that images uploaded to the Commons should be useful to all users of Wikimedia projects. This is possible only if the images can be found by other people.

To allow others to find the images you uploaded here, the images should be in some place that can be found by navigating the category structure. This means that you should put the images into appropriate topic pages, category(ies), optionaly gallery(ies), or both of them (see Commons:Categories). To find good categories for your images, the CommonSense tool may help.

You can find a convenient overview of your uploaded files in this gallery.

The important point is that the images should be placed in the general structure somewhere. There are a large number of completely unsorted images on the Commons right now. If you would like to help to place some of those images where they can be found, please do!

Thank you. Siebrand 13:57, 12 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ español ∙ euskara ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ 한국어 ∙ lietuvių ∙ latviešu ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ मराठी ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ اردو ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Hollandopen.gif. This image is missing permission information. A source is given, but there is no proof that the author or copyright holder agreed to license the file under the given license. Please provide a link to an appropriate webpage with license information, or send an email with copy of a written permission to OTRS (permissions-commons@wikimedia.org).

Unless the permission information is given, the image may be speedy deleted after seven days. Thank you. Siebrand 22:11, 9 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ italiano ∙ lietuvių ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ português ∙ polski ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ עברית ∙ فارسی ∙ +/−

Hello, and thank your for sharing your files with Commons. There seems to be a problem regarding the description and/or licensing of this particular file. Please remember that all uploads require source, author and license information. Could you please resolve these problems, which are described on the page linked in above? Thank you. --Siebrand 00:54, 21 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ italiano ∙ lietuvių ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ português ∙ polski ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ עברית ∙ فارسی ∙ +/−

Hello, and thank your for sharing your files with Commons. There seems to be a problem regarding the description and/or licensing of this particular file. Please remember that all uploads require source, author and license information. Could you please resolve these problems, which are described on the page linked in above? Thank you. --Siebrand 00:57, 21 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ italiano ∙ lietuvių ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ português ∙ polski ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ עברית ∙ فارسی ∙ +/−

Hello, and thank your for sharing your files with Commons. There seems to be a problem regarding the description and/or licensing of this particular file. Please remember that all uploads require source, author and license information. Could you please resolve these problems, which are described on the page linked in above? Thank you. --Siebrand 00:59, 21 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ italiano ∙ lietuvių ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ português ∙ polski ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ עברית ∙ فارسی ∙ +/−

Hello, and thank your for sharing your files with Commons. There seems to be a problem regarding the description and/or licensing of this particular file. Please remember that all uploads require source, author and license information. Could you please resolve these problems, which are described on the page linked in above? Thank you. --Siebrand 01:02, 21 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

Deutsch

Hi. This message is sent out to you because you are an administrator on Commons, and you made little use (or no use) of the admin tools lately: less than 5 times in the last five months.

Commons has a new policy on admin activity, Commons:Administrators/De-adminship, taken into use on June 13, 2007 (after a poll among users). According to that policy, admins who use their tools infrequently will be asked whether they still need their adminship, and if they do not respond or require them the removal of the tools will be requested.

If you feel you still need your admin tools, please sign at Commons:Administrators/Inactivity section within 30 days from the date this message was sent out. However, if you then don't make 5 admin actions in the following 5 months, you will lose the adminship without any notice.

This is not a comment on the considerable help you have given to the project in the past but reflects the wish of the community to see active administrators and to ensure that possible security breaches are minimized.

hi,

kannst Du mir bitte erklären, was das jennen dort bedeutet ? Ein Name ?

--212.202.20.133 12:43, 4 September 2007 (UTC) (In der Deutschen Wikepedia: Alia 2005)Reply

http://nl.wiktionary.org/wiki/jennen GerardM 07:47, 9 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

• The map shows dialects (a dialect, from the Greek word διάλεκτος, dialektos, is a variety of a language) not languages (a language is a system of symbols and the rules used to manipulate them). --F l a n k e r 11:28, 4 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

• In that case they are not Italian dialects. Because dialects refer to languages. These do not. GerardM 19:33, 10 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

• LOL I mean some are dialects, some others languages. Who cares which ones? In the map are not differenced. --F l a n k e r 21:05, 11 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

So your map does not show anything clearly, it befuddles the issues. All the more reason to move to remove this map. GerardM 14:19, 16 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hi GerardM, do you have a permission for using this picture under GFDL? --Flominator 23:51, 15 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

Yes, and you can ask User:SabineCretella that this is indeed the case. GerardM 11:28, 16 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hi there Gerard,

My name is Rachel and I work for the HIV and AIDS information charity AVERT. We are currently compiling some STD pictures to add to the STD section of our website at http://www.avert.org/std.htm

We have found some STD photos in Wikimedia commons that you uploaded on January 24th, 2005. We would like to use these photos for our new page, but before we can add them to our website we need to confirm that the people pictured are over 18.

Are you able to confirm this? I am wondering where you found the photos originally and if this source could confirm the age of the people pictured?

Thank you in advance for your reply. Aids charity 15:50, 14 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

The pictures in question are from a Dutch STD organisation. They are already widely used and I have been given given explicit permission to use them for all purposes that help in the fight against people suffering from STDs. The way these pictures are, it is practically impossible to connect them with any person. So yes, I am willing to confirm that these pictures are of people aged 18 years or above. GerardM 16:31, 14 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thanks very much, Gerard. I'm sure these pictures will be of much benefit to our readers. Aids charity 13:04, 17 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

I believe that in the recording of Image:Nl-Edwin van der Sar.ogg the name "Edwin van der Sar" is pronounced as "Edwin van de Sar". – Ilse@ 15:33, 12 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

Deutsch

Dear GerardM. I am writing to you to inform you that because of inactivity, you may lose your adminship on Commons.

Commons has a new policy on admin activity, Commons:Administrators/De-adminship, taken into use on June 13, 2007 (after a two-week poll on the proposed policy's talk page).

If you want to keep your adminship, you have to sign at Commons:Administrators/Inactivity section within 30 days. Note that if you don't make 5 admin actions in the following 5 months, you will then lose the adminship anyways.

Thank you,
abf /talk to me/ 11:18, 31 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ español ∙ euskara ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ 한국어 ∙ lietuvių ∙ latviešu ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ मराठी ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ اردو ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:SOA-Condylomata-acuminata-around-anus.jpg. This image is missing permission information. A source is given, but there is no proof that the author or copyright holder agreed to license the file under the given license. Please provide a link to an appropriate webpage with license information, or send an email with copy of a written permission to OTRS (permissions-commons@wikimedia.org).

Unless the permission information is given, the image may be speedy deleted after seven days. Thank you. ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 22:31, 16 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hi GerardM. Because you have been inactive for a long period and you have not signed at this page in the last month you lost your adminship on Commons (->meta-request). If you want to be sysop again, please start a new RfA.
Thank you for your long and helpfull work on Commons! abf /talk to me/ 12:52, 11 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

Afrikaans ∙ العربية ∙ беларуская (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, GerardM!

 

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.

BotMultichillT (talk) 05:51, 18 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

• Image:Rational scale to assess the harm of drugs (mean physical harm and mean dependence) nl.svg is uncategorized since 17 December 2008. BotMultichillT (talk) 05:51, 18 December 2008 (UTC)Reply
• Image:OP dood hert 2.jpg is uncategorized since 28 February 2009. BotMultichillT 05:52, 1 March 2009 (UTC)Reply
• Image:OP dood hert 1-1.jpg is uncategorized since 28 February 2009. BotMultichillT 05:52, 1 March 2009 (UTC)Reply
• Image:OP dood hert 1-2.jpg is uncategorized since 28 February 2009. BotMultichillT 05:52, 1 March 2009 (UTC)Reply
• Image:Marken Island2.tif is uncategorized since 26 March 2009.
• Image:Tropenmuseum sample3.tif is uncategorized since 5 August 2009.
• Image:Dalle terre liberate dalla mafia.JPG was uncategorized on 6 September 2009.
• Image:Zwijntje 2.JPG was uncategorized on 6 September 2009.
• Image:MediaWiki Testing Environment.pdf was uncategorized on 15 September 2009.
• Image:COLLECTIE TROPENMUSEUM Opening van het Koloniaal Instituut in Amsterdam, in de lichthal van het huidige Tropenmuseum en Koninklijk Instituut voor de Tropen, door H.M. Koningin Wilhelmina op 9 oktober 1926 TM-nr 10020669.tif was uncategorized on 8 August 2010 CategorizationBot (talk) 12:02, 9 August 2010 (UTC)Reply
• Image:Localisation team.jpg was uncategorized on 1 October 2011 CategorizationBot (talk) 01:09, 3 October 2011 (UTC)Reply
• Image:Arabic terms of use.png was uncategorized on 11 November 2011 CategorizationBot (talk) 13:19, 12 November 2011 (UTC)Reply
• Image:Work left to do.png was uncategorized on 11 November 2011 CategorizationBot (talk) 13:19, 12 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

Abigor talk 13:08, 21 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

Please remove the Windows Vista parts from the images, The are making a copyvio from it. Abigor talk 13:09, 21 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

I have a great quote from Les Nessman about the Russians, would you like for me to leave it here for you to read? It is scheduled to appear on my web site, sometime in the future -- I really like the quote though.

I am kind of sorry that the 25th commoner is producing (perhaps merely uploading) Windows(tm) screen grabs. How many of the first commoners here were using the software? -- carol (talk) 00:20, 12 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

ik wordt hier met een "fop" geconfronteerd (zie mijn op) en vraag me ernstig af wat er van klopt :S kun je ff meekijken? dank! oscar 00:30, 12 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

I ask you politely to remove the link to MOR from the FPC pages. FPC is a collective project with a rationale and a history, and any non-trivial change to its purpose and policy (even if implicit) should be discussed. Thanks, Alvesgaspar (talk) 18:12, 18 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for introducing an acronym that is new to me. FPC is indeed a collective project and it is about pictures. In its past it has been agreed on that the current emphasis on digital photography is not good for the project. When you consider that it apparantly took a fight to "allow" for a meet the illustrators something that was not reflected on. The history is one that is not that happy. When things get discussed nothing happens and asking for attention for restorations and the people who do them is appropriate.

When you think that this is not the case say so. At this moment all you are doing is hide behind formality. One of the principles of the Wiki is to be bold. The arguments why in the featured pictures restorations have their place are obvious and clear. The criteria for a FPC are biased towards digital photography it has been agreed upon that they need refactoring to reflect the new reality and you now ask to undo all this for the sake of formality ? Thank you no GerardM (talk) 19:27, 18 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

• Not formality, decency. Intelectual honesty would also help. Alvesgaspar (talk) 19:39, 18 March 2009 (UTC)Reply
  • Indeed, may I present a mirror ? Thanks, GerardM (talk) 19:50, 18 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

If you want to make a fool out of yourself, the restorers, and ultimately commons (if the press gets to see that page), be my guest. This is just a silly childish action, purely out of spite. --Dschwen (talk) 20:05, 18 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for having an opinion, thank you talking before moving headlong into a conflict. As I mentioned in the comment, a restorer is someone who restores the original material. This is something we do not do. GerardM (talk) 20:08, 18 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

I have to savor this a little more A genuine restore done by restorers is done on the actual material. This is not what we do. We reconstruct something digitally, so (by your own made up definition) you are not restorers but something else, and instead of making up a new word you chose to use one that already has an entirely different meaning. I am frankly flabbergasted. --Dschwen (talk) 20:57, 18 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

Try the word "homonym", it applies. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 23:10, 18 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

No, it does not apply. And I'm beginning to wonder if you actually think you are right or whether you continue making up pseudo-explanations because you think I'm your enemy and just cannot get yourself to say well, I guess you were right, the renaming was indeed the right move. Let me apologize, but in my line of work I'm used to deal with people whose minds work on a rational level, so I might not be good at this game here. In any case if you have any credible source whatsoever that shows your meaning of the word restorationist as opposed to the Merriam-Webster version restorer I'll gladly say sorry, I was wrong, and it would certainly help me sleep tonight. But this twisted discussion is starting to make me feel pretty uneasy. --Dschwen (talk) 23:20, 18 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

Ok add another word that applies "neologism". Thanks, GerardM (talk) 07:32, 19 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

No, first of all it is not another word that applies, as homonym already didn't apply, at least outside your little world, where you make up new meanings. Since image restoration is done on the actual material should we call what you are doing image restorationism? As the verb to restore an image refers to the work done on the actual material should we call what you are doing to restorationate an image? I'd like to be polite and say that I'm looking forward to your answer, but so far you haven't answered any of my points (hello, source?!). Although this weaseling does have some mild entertainment value. Oh, and I perfectly realize that we have drifted so far into sarcasm-land that it is becoming near impossible for you to admit your mistake while still saving face. That I do regret, because ultimately it is hurtful to commons, which will be the butt-end of this joke, should the press get not of MOR (and should they care enough). --Dschwen (talk) 13:15, 19 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

Regarding File:Democratic presidential ticket 1864b.jpg; Sorry but I don't feel I can reconsider my opinion. I don't find these campaign images compelling. I think FPs should be outstanding contributions within a genre, not a standard example of the genre. My main issue is that 75% of these images is the same from one to the next; the only things that ever change on them are the pictures of the candidates and the image in the lower central oval. The photos of the candidates are not outstanding and nor if the image in the lower oval. So what, therefore, is outstanding about the rest? Nothing in my opinion. It's not a big deal really; it's going to pass anyways. All the best fr33kman -s- 20:33, 19 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hoi, the same can be said of the next monument, the next bug in a macro, the next illustration of a moving part. The point of these things is the same. Are they great specimen of their category. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 23:42, 19 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

I, don't think they are great examples of their category. The first restoration might be a great image, but after that it's just more of the same. As I said, these cards only ever changed three aspects of the image; the candidates and the lower oval scene. None of these three is outstanding in my opinion. It's a personal choice I guess. My !votes not going to make a difference one way or the other here. I'd not change it even if it was going to affect the outcome. Sorry :) fr33kman -s- 16:11, 20 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

Blijkt alsof de luidste roepers [3], [4], [5] toch altijd aan het langste eind trekken... Jammer. In plaats van wat nuttig werk te doen (en dan heb ik het niet over de restauraties). Misschien moet je hem ook maar 'ns aanmanen het wat kalmer te doen en zelf niet altijd als de verontwaardigde ontschuld één kant te kiezen. Ik heb Durova, bvb al veel verstandiger uitspraken zien doen. Het is nu eenmaal niet zo dat Alvesgaspar of ikzelf iets tegen het verfraaien van historische documenten hebben, integendeel. Echter de aggresieve manier waarop dit wordt opgedrongen is ongehoord. Vooral door personen die buiten hun uploads niets anders doen dan commentaar geven op idereeen die het niet met hun eens is. Mijn standpunten zijn vaak kritischer dan die van een ander maar daarom hoeft mijn naam nog niet door het slijk te worden gehaald. Lycaon (talk) 09:32, 23 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hoi, in wat ik doe ben ik afhankelijk van de mensen die restaureren. Ik werk in deze vooral samen met Durova. We zijn bezig om onze groep uit te breiden, hiertoe gebruiken we een skype groep. Dit werkt goed omdat de plaatjes ook middels skype aangeboden kunnen worden aan newbies. Durova helpt diegene die willen restaureren met raad en daad. Ik neem aan dat je gemerkt hebt dat we een pagina begonnen zijn met kandidaat restauraties. Ons doel is om met een grote groep vrijwilligers VEEL plaatjes te restaureren en "featured pictures" is daar een onderdeel van.

In de communicatie jou en Alvesgaspar zie ik geen enkele motivatie waarom restauraties geen plaats mogen hebben als featured picture. Wanneer je nu zegt dat je niets hebt tegen het "verfraaien van historische documenten" dan snap je volgens mij niet wat het doel is van de restauraties die we doen. We voegen namelijk niets toe, het doel is veel eerder om de verkleuringen, de vouwen, de scheurtjes te verwijderen. Het doel is om het materiaal dat we restaureren in de oude glorie te herstellen en daardoor een betere illustratie aan te leveren dan alleen een kwalitatief hoorwaardige scan.

Je noemt je standpunt "kritisch". Ik ben het met die karakterisering niet eens immers het komt over als een campagne tegen restauraties. Opmerkingen als "als het oud is dan kan het getoond worden" zet compleet de verkeerde toon. Wanneer je plaatjes af doet als "nog een voorbeeld uit een categorie" dan geef je anderen de ruimte om de volgende foto van een insect ook zo af te doen.

In je stemgedrag en argumentaties zie ik boosheid omdat we ons profileren als een belangrijke groep op Commons. Boosheid omdat we niet gevraagd hebben om onze plaats, maar laten we wel wezen, kan jij mij uitleggen waarom de Engelstalige Wikipedia zo veel meer restauraties accepteerd, waarom de vijandigheid die Commons kenmerkt afwezig is?

Wij zijn onderdeel van Commons omdat Commons veel breder hoort te zijn als de Engelstalige Wikipedia. Wat nu bereikt wordt is dat de nieuwe restorationisten wel op en.wp featured pictures krijgen en Commons links laten liggen omdat het als veels te vijandig gezien wordt. Mij lijkt dat dit Commons en haar gemeenschap te kort doet. Mij lijkt dat dit noch jouw noch Alvegaspar's bedoeling is. Groetjes, GerardM (talk) 15:55, 23 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hi Gerard,

unfortunately, I am not back on Skype. It does not run with the new hardware either, which also does not run reliably :-(

Did you allow http://www.adler-reisen.de/wildarten.htm to use the Zwijntje.JPG on their web page (3rd row in the block of the images, at right)? Wikipedia:de:User:S1 told me that they were using his Kottenforst-Rothirsch.jpg without permission and not following the published license terms, which he is taking action about. Greetings --Purodha Blissenbach (talk) 23:48, 28 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hi, GerardM. I read this Commons-l post - is it yours? If so, let me respond you here, for I feel a little difficulty to post a comment to the mailing list in English.

I arranged all the Final result and asked to check it, but no one would. So I announced the results as it is. I would be relieved and happy, if you will check and correct them if necessary. If you think you should edit the result of POTY2008, please do so - an explanation of the reason in Commons talk:Picture of the Year/2008 beforehand would be preferable.

If you prefer an official reaction, list your name in the committee member. Thank you.--miya (talk) 12:12, 2 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ español ∙ euskara ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ 한국어 ∙ lietuvių ∙ latviešu ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ मराठी ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ اردو ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

This media was probably deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:SOA-Herpes-neonatorum.jpg. This media is missing permission information. A source is given, but there is no proof that the author or copyright holder agreed to license the file under the given license. Please provide a link to an appropriate webpage with license information, or ask the author or copyright holder to send an email with copy of a written permission to VRT (permissions-commons@wikimedia.org). You may still be required to go through this procedure even if you are the author yourself; please see Commons:But it's my own work! for more details. After you emailed permission, you may replace the {{No permission since}} tag with {{subst:PP}} on file description page. Alternatively, you may click on "Challenge speedy deletion" below the tag if you wish to provide an argument why evidence of permission is not necessary in this case. Please see this page for more information on how to confirm permission, or if you would like to understand why we ask for permission when uploading work that is not your own, or work which has been previously published (regardless of whether it is your own). The file probably has been deleted. If you sent a permission, try to send it again after 14 days. Do not re-upload. When the VRT-member processes your mail, the file can be undeleted. Additionally you can request undeletion here, providing a link to the File-page on Commons where it was uploaded ([[:Image:SOA-Herpes-neonatorum.jpg]]) and the above demanded information in your request.

 

Matt (talk) 12:11, 15 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hi Gerard, I saw you making this comment here and something along the same lines here. I do not mind when users see some projects as not worthwhile, as every user is entitled to have an opinion. That is also true in this case. I would be interested in some insight into the observations/feelings/impressions you base your opinion on. I am curios to hear because I originally initiated the valued images project, and naturally, I have a quite opposite view on this. What I hear most is appraisal of the project, but that may just be users trying to be kind without really telling the truth, and there are also certain aspect of the project and how it is running, which I could have wished were doing better. I think hearing the opinion from "opposers" may sometimes be a better place to find sources for improvement, so I hope you will take your time to drop a few lines with your impressions about the Valued Images project. Best wishes, --Slaunger (talk) 22:31, 26 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

There is no benefit to this program. It is used as an argument not to feature a picture. It is used against graphics and restorations. I am in favour of ending this program because in my observation it has a net negative effect. GerardM (talk) 06:22, 27 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

Do you have any specific examples where it has been used against graphics and restorations? Before we had VI, we only had the oppose votes for those images, which were valuable, but not good enough for FP. It is not my perception that the opening of COM:VI triggered any change in which types of images were opposed at COM:FPC. I believe that was more a slap in the face of the nominators than today, where there is an alternative path for some highlightning of good and valuable media. The FP bar has to be set very high. IMO so high that only about one image can be promoted per day, such that they do not queue up for Picture of the day. With such a high bar there will naturally be quite a lot of valuable images, which will not be featured, and here I believe VI is a good alternative, if the image meets the requirements.

As a counter-example of whether valued images are valued or not, I would like to mention one of the first VIs we had, File:Kaaba mirror edit jj.jpg of the Kaaba. This photo does not have the technical quality to become featured, but it is VI within two scopes and it is shown on the main page of COM:VI. The creator Muhammad Mahdi Karim has since received 12 requests/informative notes of reuse of that particular image on his talk page. I have never seen so much external interest for a single image on Commons. I think that is a clear illustration that at least this valued image is a "valued image". Of course, I do not know if the many requests have anything to do with the exposure on the main page of COM:VI, actually I do not think so, rather I think it is because it is truly valued as good and freely licensed images of the Kaaba are simply not available. --Slaunger (talk) 22:04, 27 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

The current requirements for featured pictures are biased towards digital photography. As a consequence we have a lot of macro photography of insects, vistas and photos where the colour balance makes for arty and artificial images. The material that matters and should be featured because they show the best of what we have to offer is not really that. Imho featured pictures should show what makes Commons important. Historic material and illustrations are essentially more valuable and demonstrate the value of Commons better.

When technical criteria prevents the most relevant pictures not te be featured, it is clear that those criteria show a bias and deserve to be changed. GerardM (talk) 22:13, 27 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

Oh, so as I see your viewpoint is more that the FP criteria (or current FPC review practise) is wrong, not that VIs are not VIs at all? --Slaunger (talk) 22:20, 27 July 2009 (UTC) ...And maybe it would be a good idea to voice your opinion here then? --Slaunger (talk) 22:24, 27 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

I do not perceive the added values of valued images while the push of important material away from featured pictures is strong. When you say "valued" it needs to be measurable and I only notice the negatives. GerardM (talk) 22:38, 27 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

Please, do inform me when a new version of the file has been uploaded so we can start over the process of featuring this picture. Thank you very much.--Ocre (talk) 18:13, 29 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

The person who to ask is on a holiday at the moment.. I have been in contact with the Nationaal Archief ... you know how these things go. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 19:43, 29 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

What do you think of Talk:Main_Page#News:_Tropenmuseum. We could a notice until the 5,000,000th file is announced. -- User:Docu at 15:05, 1 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hoi Gerard, wil je de toestemming voor deze afbeelding nog even naar OTRS (laten) sturen? Multichill (talk) 23:06, 14 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ español ∙ euskara ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ 한국어 ∙ lietuvių ∙ latviešu ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ मराठी ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ اردو ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:Affiche_Kunst_van_Overleven.jpg. This media is missing permission information. A source is given, but there is no proof that the author or copyright holder agreed to license the file under the given license. Please provide a link to an appropriate webpage with license information, or ask the author or copyright holder to send an email with copy of a written permission to VRT (permissions-commons@wikimedia.org). You may still be required to go through this procedure even if you are the author yourself; please see Commons:But it's my own work! for more details. After you emailed permission, you may replace the {{No permission since}} tag with {{subst:PP}} on file description page. Alternatively, you may click on "Challenge speedy deletion" below the tag if you wish to provide an argument why evidence of permission is not necessary in this case. Please see this page for more information on how to confirm permission, or if you would like to understand why we ask for permission when uploading work that is not your own, or work which has been previously published (regardless of whether it is your own). Warning: unless the permission information is given, the file may be deleted after seven days. Thank you.

 

Lycaon (talk) 09:14, 17 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hoi Gerard, zie Commons:Template i18n & Commons:Template i18n/Most linked-to templates. Stats voor links vanuit Wikipedia's op User:Multichill/Commonscat stats. Multichill (talk) 10:01, 6 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

Thanks very much for creating this. Helps the article a lot. upstateNYer 14:46, 15 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

The files listed below, which you uploaded, have been tagged {{OTRS pending}} for more than 30 days. This tag indicates that an email setting out permission to use the file was sent to the OTRS team. Unfortunately, we cannot find any record that such an email has been received, and accordingly the file remains without permission. Unless the OTRS team receives evidence that permission has been granted within 15 days of today's date, the file will be deleted. If you have already sent the permission, please re-send it to "permissions-commons wikimedia.org" now. Please quote the file name in your email. At the same time, please leave a message at the OTRS noticeboard so that a volunteer can follow this up. Alternatively, you can contact an OTRS volunteer directly. Please note that this message is being left by an automated bot, whose operator is not an OTRS volunteer, therefore please do not send this information to me, as it will not save your images from deletion. Thanks for your time! Please help translate this message! HersfoldOTRSBot^{(talk/opt out)} 01:59, 13 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

• File:Affiche Kunst van Overleven.jpg

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

This media was probably deleted.

A file that you have uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, File:SOA-Herpes-neonatorum.jpg, was missing information about where it comes from or who created it, which is needed to verify its copyright status. The file probably has been deleted. If you've got all required information, request undeletion providing this information and the link to the concerned file ([[:File:SOA-Herpes-neonatorum.jpg]]). If you created the content yourself, enter {{Own}} as the source. If you did not add a licensing template, you must add one. You may use, for example, {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} or {{Cc-zero}} to release certain rights to your work. If someone else created the content, or if it is based on someone else's work, the source should be the address to the web page where you found it, the name and ISBN of the book you scanned it from, or similar. You should also name the author, provide verifiable information to show that the content is in the public domain or has been published under a free license by its author, and add an appropriate template identifying the public domain or licensing status, if you have not already done so. Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Please add the required information for this and other files you have uploaded before adding more files. If you need assistance, please ask at the help desk. Thank you!

--Polarlys (talk) 01:27, 24 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

Did you ever hear back from Warren Faidley about him possibly donating images? As I recall when you emailed him back last spring he said he would get back to you when he was done storm chasing, and I never heard if he had gotten back to you. Ks0stm If you reply here, please leave me a {{Talkback}} message on my talk page. 15:36, 10 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★ The image File:Harpon 2010.0.3.5. Global simple .JPG, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Harpon 2010.0.3.5. Global simple .JPG has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

/FPCBot (talk) 21:00, 12 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

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

This media may be deleted.

A file that you have uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, File:Neapolitan_broccoli.JPG, is missing information about where it comes from or who created it, which is needed to verify its copyright status. Please edit the file description and add the missing information, or the file may be deleted. If you created the content yourself, enter {{Own}} as the source. If you did not add a licensing template, you must add one. You may use, for example, {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} or {{Cc-zero}} to release certain rights to your work. If someone else created the content, or if it is based on someone else's work, the source should be the address to the web page where you found it, the name and ISBN of the book you scanned it from, or similar. You should also name the author, provide verifiable information to show that the content is in the public domain or has been published under a free license by its author, and add an appropriate template identifying the public domain or licensing status, if you have not already done so. Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Please add the required information for this and other files you have uploaded before adding more files. If you need assistance, please ask at the help desk. Thank you!

Amada44  ^{talk to me} 13:31, 22 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

It would be nice if you would check Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Pilsumer Leuchtturm 2010-10 CN-I.jpg and give an answer/a statement. Regards --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 10:44, 7 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

There is nothing more to say.. what is the point in a I say, you say ? GerardM (talk) 13:04, 7 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hi Gerard, I understand from Peter Weiss that you are in contact with the Tropenmuseum and would be able to request high resolution images for restoration. Over the last year I added a few candidates here, many of which are now in use on multiple Wikipedias. I think it would be great if we could obtain high resolution copies which than could be restored and promoted on Commons and various Wikipedias to FP status to raise awareness of this valuable donation. I would be able to help with restoration, but I am sure others would help out too. I am particularly interested in File:COLLECTIE TROPENMUSEUM De Bragaweg Bandoeng TMnr 10014713.jpg and File:COLLECTIE TROPENMUSEUM Villa Isola aan de Lembangweg bij Bandoeng TMnr 60026637.jpg. Let me know if you would be able to help. ELEKHH^T 04:08, 18 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

I am now proud owner of a TUSC account!

You're spoken about: Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/User_problems#User:GerardM. Jcb (talk) 20:56, 13 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

You have been blocked from editing Commons for a duration of 24hrs for the following reason: I see a need for a swift smack here. GerardM, calling other commons users dickheads is NOT acceptable behaviour here. Furthermore, your response at AN/U, "a fine specimen of the human species" is also inappropriate. Take 24hrs to cool off. If you wish to make useful contributions, you may do so after the block expires. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may add {{unblock|(enter your reason here) ~~~~}} below this message explaining clearly why you should be unblocked. See also the block log. For more information, see Appealing a block. العربية ∙ azərbaycanca ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ euskara ∙ français ∙ Gaeilge ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ română ∙ sicilianu ∙ Simple English ∙ slovenščina ∙ svenska ∙ suomi ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ हिन्दी ∙ বাংলা ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ ತುಳು ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ไทย ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体）‎ ∙ 中文（繁體）‎ ∙ עברית ∙ فارسی ∙ +/−

-mattbuck (Talk) 00:13, 14 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

• A request has been made by me at AN/U to remove this block. Alvesgaspar (talk) 12:40, 14 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Bob_van_der_Lans_-_Monument_archiefvormer_Hillegom.jpg Jane023 (talk) 07:25, 15 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

It seems to me you've voted twice: here and here. Don't know what the committee will do but it's probably better to remove one vote-cast as one should only vote for one picture. -- RE rillke questions? 14:09, 8 June 2011 (UTC) Ah and BTW thank you for the translator-rights on tw. There will be some time, I'll have time to use them. -- RE rillke questions? 14:20, 8 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ español ∙ euskara ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ 한국어 ∙ lietuvių ∙ latviešu ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ मराठी ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ اردو ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:Valerie Sutton in 1985.jpg. This media is missing permission information. A source is given, but there is no proof that the author or copyright holder agreed to license the file under the given license. Please provide a link to an appropriate webpage with license information, or ask the author or copyright holder to send an email with copy of a written permission to VRT (permissions-commons@wikimedia.org). You may still be required to go through this procedure even if you are the author yourself; please see Commons:But it's my own work! for more details. After you emailed permission, you may replace the {{No permission since}} tag with {{subst:PP}} on file description page. Alternatively, you may click on "Challenge speedy deletion" below the tag if you wish to provide an argument why evidence of permission is not necessary in this case. Please see this page for more information on how to confirm permission, or if you would like to understand why we ask for permission when uploading work that is not your own, or work which has been previously published (regardless of whether it is your own). Warning: unless the permission information is given, the file may be deleted after seven days. Thank you.

 

Túrelio (talk) 18:14, 18 August 2013 (UTC)Reply

العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ español ∙ euskara ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ 한국어 ∙ lietuvių ∙ latviešu ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ मराठी ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ اردو ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:Valerie Sutton in 1985.jpg. This media is missing permission information. A source is given, but there is no proof that the author or copyright holder agreed to license the file under the given license. Please provide a link to an appropriate webpage with license information, or ask the author or copyright holder to send an email with copy of a written permission to VRT (permissions-commons@wikimedia.org). You may still be required to go through this procedure even if you are the author yourself; please see Commons:But it's my own work! for more details. After you emailed permission, you may replace the {{No permission since}} tag with {{subst:PP}} on file description page. Alternatively, you may click on "Challenge speedy deletion" below the tag if you wish to provide an argument why evidence of permission is not necessary in this case. Please see this page for more information on how to confirm permission, or if you would like to understand why we ask for permission when uploading work that is not your own, or work which has been previously published (regardless of whether it is your own). Warning: unless the permission information is given, the file may be deleted after seven days. Thank you.

 

Werieth (talk) 19:40, 9 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

Sorry, my screen watchlist is flooded by your automated file re-writing of borobudhur images/files, I was trying to do something else and I accidentally reverted part of your hard work - hope it hasnt interrupted the flow... fixed it, hope all is ok sats (talk) 10:00, 26 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

File:25jaarBeatrix-programmaboek.JPG has been marked as a possible copyright violation. Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content—that is, images and other media files that can be used by anyone, for any purpose. Traditional copyright law does not grant these freedoms, and unless noted otherwise, everything you find on the web is copyrighted and not permitted here. For details on what is acceptable, please read Commons:Licensing. You may also find Commons:Copyright rules useful, or you can ask questions about Commons policies at the Commons:Help desk. If you are the copyright holder and the creator of the file, please read Commons:But it's my own work! for tips on how to provide evidence of that. The file you added has been deleted. If you have written permission from the copyright holder, please have them send us a free license release via COM:VRT. If you believe that the deletion was not in accordance with policy, you may request undeletion. (It is not necessary to request undeletion if using VRT; the file will be automatically restored at the conclusion of the process.) Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Afrikaans ∙ العربية ∙ asturianu ∙ azərbaycanca ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ español ∙ euskara ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ Lëtzebuergesch ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ मराठी ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ Malti ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ தமிழ் ∙ тоҷикӣ ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ oʻzbekcha / ўзбекча ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

 

Vera (talk) 13:11, 6 January 2014 (UTC)Reply