Txllxt TxllxT

Welcome to Wikimedia Commons, Txllxt TxllxT!

First steps tutorial

Our first steps tour and our frequently asked questions will help you a lot after registration. They explain how to customize the interface (for example the language), how to upload files and our basic licensing policy (Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content).

You don't need technical skills in order to contribute here. Be bold when contributing and assume good faith when interacting with others. This is a wiki.

Getting help

More information is available at the community portal. You may ask questions at the help desk, village pump or on IRC channel #wikimedia-commons (webchat). You can also contact an administrator on their talk page. If you have a specific copyright question, ask at the copyright village pump.

Goodies, tips, and tricks

Put Babel boxes on your user page so others know what languages you can speak and indicate your graphic abilities.
You can find the files you have uploaded in your Uploads.
Please sign your name on Talk pages by typing ~~~~.
To link to an image page without embedding the image, type: [[:File:Foo.jpg]], which produces: File:Foo.jpg.
You may enable gadgets (custom features) for your account.
There are several tools to upload files.
Have you edited Wikipedia before? This guide might be useful.

Made a mistake?

Do you want to have a file renamed or moved? Use the move link and wait for an authorized user to rename it.
Do you want to have your recently uploaded picture removed? Tag it as {{speedy|reason here}}. For more information read the deletion guidelines.

-- Wikimedia Commons Welcome (talk) 21:30, 4 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

Notification about possible deletion

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Some contents have been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether they should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at their entry.

If you created these pages, please note that the fact that they have been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with them, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Afrikaans ∙ العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Zazaki ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ eesti ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 조선말 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ occitan ∙ polski ∙ پښتو ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ shqip ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

Affected:

File:Санкт-Петербург - St Petersburg - Площадь Победы - Victory Square - Монумент героическим защитникам Ленинграда - Monument to the Heroic Defenders of Leningrad 1975 3.jpg

And also:

Yours sincerely, A.Savin 06:17, 23 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

Categorization

Latest comment: 7 years ago3 comments1 person in discussion

Hi. Thank you for your photos. Please notice that Wikimedia Commons (as well as other Wikimedia projects) uses a structured categorization, not hashtags or simple keywords. Please read Commons:Categories and take a look at the structure of commons category tree to understand it better. Thank You. --ŠJů (talk) 21:06, 24 July 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hi. As I can see, you made more uploads without any answer here. Please have respect for the categorization structure. E.g. when you categorize a photo of any building to the category of the building, you need not to categorize the photo by the street or by the architectural style, because the whole category of the building should be categorized so. When you categorize a photo of any city square, don't categorize the photo paralelly to the category of the city, because the whole category of the square is categorized by city. Useless overcategorization make the main categories chaotic and overcrowded, and other users are forced to spend their time cleaning them. Some questions, or problems? --ŠJů (talk) 20:56, 26 July 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I just use the categories that are already available on Wikimedia Commons. I find it important to name the city/village/landscape and the street where the photo was taken. There is also geolocation added. I also want to describe architectural styles (for example Renaissance, Sgrafitto, Antoni Gaudi). So what am I doing wrong, when for example I find 'Mikulov', 'Mikulov Castle Park' and 'Mikulov Castle' available in the pull down list? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Txllxt TxllxT (talk • contribs) 2017-07-26T21:28:26‎ (UTC)

I will try to explain it again. Read please again my previous explanations too. Categories at wiki projects are not keywords nor hashtags but structured categories. A category "Prague" which would contain millions of unsorted files would be unusable. That's why all images should be sorted as precisely as possible. If a file is put in any more specific category, it should not remain in the more general parent category because the parent category would be chaotic and overcrowded. Exactly so with the architectural styles. Subjects of certain architectural styles are sorted by type, by country, by city etc. and every more important building or structure has its own category within the structure. When you tag files with general terms only, you caused that these main categories become overcrowded with masses of unsorted and unsortable content. If a photo of the Mikulov Castle Park is categorized into the category of the Mikulov Castle Park, it is redundant and unwanted to categorize the image simultaneously to the higher category of Mikulov. The whole category of the park is categorized under Mikulov.

Btw., when you use any category, do not use it blind, but take a look into the category and its content and description to assure you its the right category. The Bulgarian city of "Devin" is not the Prague hill of "Děvín", and the political term of "Secession" is not identical with the architectural style of Secession, which is called Art Nouveau in English. At the same time you can notice how the content of the category is organized. If you don't visit categories and don't go through the category tree, you cannot understand how categories works. --ŠJů (talk) 22:00, 26 July 2017 (UTC)Reply

OK thanks for your elaborate answer. I will not click on 'Devin' anymore, which leaves only the big basket of 'Prague' over for photos that are taken in this gorgeous nature reserve, south of the city centre. In Czech language and in the study of architecture 'Secession' refers to the Vienna & Hapsburg empire kind of Jugendstil/Art Nouveau: never thought a homonymous political item would exist! Czech people do not (like to) use 'Jugendstil' because of its German origin. (this is still very sensitive matter). Art Nouveau doesn't exist as a category yet in Wikimedia Commons and is not common in the Czech Republic. I do like to keep the right diversity. I must say that this whole catogory-structure-tree thinking is not intuitive enough and quite lacking in user-friendliness. How do I know, whether a specific category down the tree exists? I just type 'Sgrafitto', and I see lots of 'Sgrafitto in ..[country]..', but not: 'Sgrafitto in the Czech Republic'. So I'm glad, there exists at least 'Sgrafitto' as such. But you blame me for writing & clicking such bigger basket items... This whole way of structuring is collapsing because so many people do the same as I do, but it means the category-structure-system is not able to cope with a bigger influx of media. Perhaps you could use colours: red for overcrowded categories, green for OK categories...

photo competion

Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

Hi Txllxt TxllxT, I've seen your images about Austria, like Schloss Schönbrunn, or Belvedere. Nice images, unconventional views. May I invite you to nominate your images / some of your images for the WMAT 2017 photo competition. It's called WikiDaheim and the scope is as wide as possible. Find hints on how to nominate your images, if you like, on de:Wikipedia:Österreich/Fotowettbewerbe 2017 (in German only). If you need help with translation, I will help you. regards --Herzi Pinki (talk) 21:04, 24 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hi Herzi Pinki, thanks for your appreciation. I'm busy with re-uploading my photos from the soon defunct Panoramio website to Wikimedia. I'll have a look at the photo competition, but soon we'll be on holiday... My intentions with all these photos on Wikimedia are not competitive, but just for adding quality to the huge collection. Greetings from Holland!

if there are still thousands left on panoramio, and you want to save them all (almost all) to Commons, you may ask user:Panoramio upload bot whether he can do the job for you. As a precondition you will need to send a statement to COM:OTRS, that allows your images on panoramio (there under an unsuitable license for Commons: CC-by-nc-nd) to be uploaded here under a free license (CC-by-sa-4.0). --Herzi Pinki (talk) 07:34, 25 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

I've tried the same thing with Mapillary, but that didn't work out. My work on Panoramio is there (http://www.panoramio.com/user/2011723) under a free license, but somehow all the EXIF data (with the geolocation) did not copy well to Mapillary. I had to copy all manually. So I will see, whether the Wikimedia team does better than Mapillary on this. It concerns about 71.000 files (103 Gb). Thanks anyway!

Grenzbilder Ifta

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Ich habe mal Deine Grenzbilder bei Ifta in eine separate Kategorie verschoben und diese dann weiteren vorhandenen Kats. zugeornet. Ich hoffe, Du bist damit einverstanden.--79.214er (talk) 12:40, 17 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

OK, vielen Dank!

Salo or Salò

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello there. When categorizing, please not that there is a fifference between cities of Salo and Salò (about 2500 kilometres).--Htm (talk) 20:34, 27 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hi Htm, I realise that there is a difference. But when such a mix up might occur, it is better to add the country name in brackets behind the name of the place, just to get/keep things right. If I got the name wrong, I'm sorry.

File:Brighton - Esplanade down King's Road - View NE I.jpg

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

File:Brighton - Esplanade down King's Road - View NE I.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.)

This file is a copyright violation for the following reason: Derivative work of a copyrighted photography or painting

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） ∙ +/−

Raymond 13:05, 11 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

File:Amiens - Rue Saint-Maurice - Cimetière de la Madeleine - View East on the Grave of Jules Verne (1828-1905) - Sculpture 1907 by Albert Roze.jpg

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

File:Amiens - Rue Saint-Maurice - Cimetière de la Madeleine - View East on the Grave of Jules Verne (1828-1905) - Sculpture 1907 by Albert Roze.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Afrikaans ∙ العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Zazaki ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ eesti ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 조선말 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ occitan ∙ polski ∙ پښتو ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ shqip ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

83.204.246.57 19:38, 20 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

File:Mikulov - Pavlovská - View SW to Zámek.jpg

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

File:Mikulov - Pavlovská - View SW to Zámek.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Afrikaans ∙ العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Zazaki ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ eesti ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 조선말 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ occitan ∙ polski ∙ پښتو ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ shqip ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

GeXeS (talk) 07:10, 23 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

Notification about possible deletion

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Some contents have been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether they should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at their entry.

If you created these pages, please note that the fact that they have been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with them, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Afrikaans ∙ العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Zazaki ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ eesti ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 조선말 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ occitan ∙ polski ∙ پښتو ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ shqip ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

Affected:

File:Rouen - Place du Vieux Marché - ICE Photocompilation Viewing from WNW to East on l'Église Sainte Jeanne d'Arc 1979.jpg

And also:

File:Rouen - Place du Vieux Marché - View ENE on l'Église Sainte Jeanne d'Arc 1979.jpg

Yours sincerely, Pymouss Let’s talk - 13:11, 8 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

File:Praha St.Vitus Cathedral Great West Window.jpg

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

File:Praha St.Vitus Cathedral Great West Window.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Afrikaans ∙ العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Zazaki ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ eesti ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 조선말 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ occitan ∙ polski ∙ پښتو ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ shqip ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

Daniel Baránek (talk) 18:13, 6 January 2019 (UTC)Reply

File:Antibes - Avenue du Général Maizière - View East - Picasso - Night Fishing of Antibes.jpg

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

File:Antibes - Avenue du Général Maizière - View East - Picasso - Night Fishing of Antibes.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Afrikaans ∙ العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Zazaki ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ eesti ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 조선말 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ occitan ∙ polski ∙ پښتو ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ shqip ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

Túrelio (talk) 18:47, 3 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

Overcategorisatie Kasteel Groeneveld

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Beste Txllxt TxllxT, Geweldig dat u ruim 30 foto's van Kasteel Groeneveld in Baarn hebt ge-upload, èn met de juiste categorie: Category:Kasteel Groeneveld (Baarn). Alleen, als u het daarbij had gelaten, dan was dat prima geweest en had ik u nu niet lastig gevallen. Maar u heeft bij elk van die foto's nog één of twee andere categorieën toegevoegd, die ook al bovenliggende categorieën van Category:Kasteel Groeneveld (Baarn) zijn (of dáár weer van): Category:Baarn en/of Category:Estates in the Netherlands. Dat is echt teveel van het goede, dat vervuilt die andere categorieën en geeft vrijwilligers als ik weer extra werk, die tijd kunnen we beter besteden. Zie Over-categorization voor een toelichting. Ik hoop dat u deze overbodige categorieën zelf weer wilt verwijderen (SVP Category:Kasteel Groeneveld (Baarn) laten staan!) en met dit principe rekening wilt houden bij volgende uploads. JopkeB (talk) 05:58, 4 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

Best JopkeB, het is niet mijn bedoeling om andere Wiki-vrijwilligers onnodig werk te bezorgen en ik zal nu mij houden aan uw advies. Maar... een 'estate' is een landgoed in het Nederlands en niet een 'kasteel'. Er bestaan ook 'estates' zonder kasteel. Volgens mij is uw categorie 'Kasteel Groeneveld' niet voldoende om de lading te dekken. In Google Maps wordt onderscheid gemaakt tussen 'Castle Groeneveld' en 'Landgoed Groeneveld'. Het liefst zou ik foto's met een glimp van Kasteel Groeneveld onder die categorie brengen en de rest (zonder kasteel) onder Landgoed Groeneveld. Vandaar mijn click naar 'Estates in the Netherlands'. Maar vanaf nu blijf ik bij 'Kasteel Groeneveld'. Groet, TxllxT

Beste TxllxT, Goed punt. Om dingen simpel te houden (en de gebruikelijke manier te volgen), heb ik een nieuwe subcategorie gemaakt: Category:Gardens and parks of Kasteel Groeneveld (Baarn). Category:Kasteel Groeneveld (Baarn) blijft de hoofdcategorie. Deze nieuwe categorie kunt u gebruiken voor uw foto's van het landgoed zonder het kasteel erop. Ik zal de andere foto's uit Category:Kasteel Groeneveld (Baarn) die hier horen verplaatsen. JopkeB (talk) 15:29, 4 Ma

Over uw foto's van het Hildo Krop Museum Steenwijk

Latest comment: 3 years ago7 comments1 person in discussion

Beste Txllxt TxllxT, Dank voor het uploaden van zovele foto's van het Hildo Krop Museum. En mèt (bijna correcte) categorieën. Toch nog twee vragen:

De toegevoegde categorieën zijn te algemeen. Wilt u svp volgende keer als u veel foto's uploadt (meer dan ± 10), eerst kijken of er een specifieke categorie voor is en zo niet er één maken? In dit geval heb ik Category:Hildo Krop Museum ervoor aangemaakt, waardoor voor de meeste foto's alle andere andere categorieën overbodig worden. Dit zorgt ervoor dat deze algemene categorieën niet overbevolkt raken en dat iemand die iets zoekt, sneller vindt wat hij/zij nodig heeft. Ik zou het op prijs stellen als u zou meehelpen deze foto's over te zetten naar de nieuwe categorie.
Wilt u er svp nog voor zorgen dat er een verklaring wordt afgeven met toestemming van de rechthebbende(n) van de afgebeelde objecten? Creatief werk valt onder het Auteursrecht; u mag er niet zomaar foto's van publiceren. Dit geldt ook voor objecten in musea. De maker, Hildo Krop, is overleden in 1970, wat betekent dat er nog tot 2041 auteursrecht op zijn werk rust.
1. Als de kunstenaar is overleden, zijn de rechthebbenden normaliter zijn erfgenamen. Wellicht kan het museum u helpen de rechthebbende(n) op te sporen.
2. Een voorbeeld van een tekst voor zo'n verklaring staat op OTRS/Toestemming foto vragen; deze tekst geldt voor foto's; hij zal nog moeten worden aangepast voor foto's van kunstwerken.
3. De mail moet òf alle links bevatten naar de betreffende foto's òf hij mag verwijzen naar een category, in dit geval Category:Hildo Krop Museum (wat de moderators ook liever hebben, zeker voor zoveel foto's; voor hen is het dan "één-druk-op-de-knop" ipv ruim 120 afzonderlijke handelingen). Ook daarom is het handig als alle foto's in één category staan. De mail kan door de rechthebbenden worden gestuurd naar permissions-nl@wikimedia.org met u in de cc.

Houd mij svp op de hoogte van de voortgang van deze actie. Over een maand zal ik anders alle files nomineren voor verwijderen obv schending van het Nederlandse auteursrecht. Maar eigenlijk hoop ik dat dit goed komt en dat de foto's kunnen blijven.

JopkeB (talk) 09:21, 24 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

Het zijn foto's van het souterrain van Rams Woerthe. Mijn 16 mm groothoek foto's hebben geen andere bedoeling dan om mensen op te wekken om zelf te gaan kijken. In de praktijk werkt dat zo.

Helaas. Dit is een juridische kwestie. Er kunnen mensen zijn (bijvoorbeeld de erfgenamen, of degenen aan wie zij hun rechten hebben overgedragen) die door het plaatsen van deze foto's benadeeld worden omdat ze zelf hun rechten willen uitoefenen op de kunstwerken. Die rechten ontneemt u hen door het publiceren van deze foto's. Door de foto's op Commons te plaatsen geeft u derden de kans de foto's van deze kunstwerken te hergebruiken, óók commercieel. Commons is daarom streng op auteursrechten. Met de wet kan niet gesjoemeld worden. Het is het één of het ander: òf er komt een verklaring, òf deze foto's worden verwijderd. Soebatten helpt niet. JopkeB (talk) 12:53, 24 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

De foto's betreffen niet kunstwerken (die staan in Amsterdam of in Leeuwarden) maar voorstudies, meestal in terracotta. Mijn foto's geven weer hoe het een en ander ruimtelijk is uitgestald in het souterrain. Uw opvatting van 'kunstwerk' bevreemdt. Het betreffen voorstudies van kunstwerken die al tijden lang in de openbare ruimte staan. De in juridische zin aan te merken kunstwerken staan in de openbare ruimte. Overigens is mij toestemming verleend om flitsloos te fotograferen toen wij Rams Woerthe bezochten.

Ook voorstudies betreffen creatief werk en ook die worden beschermd door de Auteurswet. Volgens art. 12 gaat het om: "ieder voortbrengsel op het gebied van letterkunde, wetenschap of kunst, op welke wijze of in welken vorm het ook tot uitdrukking zij gebracht." Toestemming om te fotograferen houdt niet automatisch in, dat u de gemaakte foto's ook mag openbaar maken. JopkeB (talk) 15:05, 24 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

Heb geen commercieel oogmerk, enkel educatief & verlichtend volgens wikipedia ethics.

Nogmaals: Helaas. Lees svp de voorwaarden/licentie waaronder u de foto's heeft geplaatst: die staan expliciet ook commercieel gebruik toe. Het gaat er niet om dat u geen commercieel oogmerk heeft, maar u heeft de foto's wel vrijgegeven voor commerciële doeleinden. Een andere licentie, die geen commercieel gebruik toestaat, wordt overigens door Commons niet geaccepteerd. JopkeB (talk) 03:56, 25 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

U realiseert zich niet dat musea als Hildo Krop binnen een paar jaar niet meer bestaan, omdat de vrijwilligers die het draaiende houden er niet meer zijn. Mijn foto-'actie' om het naar Wikipedia te brengen is bedoeld als steun in de rug voor deze mensen. Je moet juist niet de kop in het zand steken, maar laten zien wat je in huis hebt. Daarmee trek je bezoekers aan, en tegelijk maak je mensen in Steenwijk bewust van de schat die ze in huis hebben. Dan komt er misschien een jonge generatie om dit museumwerk over te nemen... Uw verhaal over 'auteursrecht' doet mij denken aan Frankrijk, waar ze aan de de Cote d'Azur overal fotoplekken hebben gemaakt met een in plastic gegoten weergave van een schilderij dat Picasso (of iemand anders) daar geschilderd had. Jaren nadat ik een foto van deze plek naar Wikipedia had geupload, kwam er iemand die begon te klagen over 'auteursrecht' op dat plastic bord, dat juist wil opwekken om daar een foto te maken. Door zo zelotisch te keer te gaan, gaat cultuur te gronde.

Het is een nobele actie, maar valt niet binnen het beleid van WikimediaCommons. U zult hiervoor een ander platform moeten vinden. En als het inderdaad zo is, zoals u schrijft, dan zal het museum meewerken aan het verkrijgen van een verklaring van de rechthebbenden. Ik raad u aan daar uw energie in te steken in plaats van in argumenten die niet ter zake zijn. JopkeB (talk) 13:58, 25 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

U verwart het een en ander. Wie bij het Hildo Krop museum komt, krijgt te maken met vrijwilligers, mensen als u en ik. Hildo Krop heeft geen kinderen nagelaten, zijn atelier is in het souterrain van Rams Woerthe terecht gekomen als een uiterste noodoplossing. Het beste zou zijn wanneer uzelf de nobele actie onderneemt om het museum te bezoeken. Dan kunt uzelf inschatten hoe de zaken ervoor staan. Waarom zou mijn uploaden van foto's uit het souterrain niet stroken met het beleid van WikimediaCommons? Het betreffen helemaal geen commercieel verhandelbare foto's waar het hier om gaat. Daar is uw argumentatie op gebaseerd: volstrekt absurd, als mij de kwalifikatie toestaat. Mede dankzij Covid staat het museumwezen in Nederland dicht bij de afgrond, zeker wat het liefdewerk van vrijwilligers betreft waar nu zo schandalig mee wordt omgegaan door de huidige demissionaire regering. Wilt u werkelijk helpen om dit de afgrond in te schuiven? Strookt dat met het beleid van WikimediaCommons? Heb hart voor cultuur.

Het doel van Commons (zie Commons:Project scope) is om media content (zoals foto's en andere afbeeldingen) beschikbaar te stellen die bruikbaar zijn voor "educational purposes". Het beleid is daarop afgestemd.

"Museums van de ondergang redden" is dus geen doel van Commons. Bovendien mogen de files/foto's geen reclame bevatten of voor promotie-doeleinden zijn ge-upload. Uit uw verhaal lees ik, dat dat hier wel het geval is.
De ge-uploade files moeten een vrije licentie hebben, voor alle doeleinden, ook commerciële. Dit is ongeacht uw intenties met de foto's en of de foto's inderdaad commercieel aantrekkelijk zijn.
Het doel en beleid houden o.a. in dat het zeker moet zijn dat de foto's en afgebeelde creatieve werken vrij zijn van (eventuele toekomstige) claims op auteursrechten. Dat betekent dat een foto of afgebeeld werk:
- afkomstig is van iemand die minimaal 70 jaar geleden is overleden, òf
- het werk in de openbare ruimte is, zoals op een plein of in een vrij toegankelijk park (wat hier niet het geval is, een museum is expliciet hiervan uitgesloten in de wet), òf
- dat er een verklaring is van de rechthebbenden.

Ook al had Hildo Krop geen kinderen, er zijn altijd wel erfgenamen die zijn nalatenschap hebben geërfd, inclusief auteursrechten op zijn beelden en andere werken.

Ik wil zeker niet een museum de afgrond inschuiven, maar:
- bij Commons gaan de auteursrechten echt boven alles; ik heb vele foto's verwijderd zien worden vanwege auteursrechtenkwesties, zelfs die gebruikt werden op Wikipedia-pagina's en dus precies in de doelstelling van Commons pasten; ik verwacht dat voor uw foto's geen uitzondering zal worden gemaakt op basis van uw argumenten;
- ik denk niet dat al of geen foto's op Commons het verschil zal uitmaken tussen voortbestaan van een museum en het laatste zetje "in de afgrond".

JopkeB (talk) 05:43, 26 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

Kijkt u eens naar deze foto's: er staat een door middien gezaagde gips voorstudie van Spinoza in, omdat het beeld niet in de souterrain paste. En u heeft het over 'schending van auteursrecht'.. Alle gefotografeerde objecten stammen uit de jaren tien - dertig van de 20e eeuw. De laatste activiteiten van Hildo Krop stammen uit de jaren vijftig. Uw houding in dezen is dogmatisch.

Als u wilt dat er andere termijnen op Commons gelden, zult u ervoor moeten zorgen dat de Auteurswet wordt aangepast. Bij Commons houden we ons aan de huidige wet. Morgen ga ik aan de slag om deze foto's te nomineren voor verwijdering. JopkeB (talk) 13:39, 26 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

File:Hildo Krop Museum Steenwijk - Portrait of Hildo Krop by Isodoor Opzomer (Oil on Canvas) 1962.jpg

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

File:Hildo Krop Museum Steenwijk - Portrait of Hildo Krop by Isodoor Opzomer (Oil on Canvas) 1962.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Afrikaans ∙ العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Zazaki ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ eesti ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 조선말 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ occitan ∙ polski ∙ پښتو ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ shqip ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

JopkeB (talk) 03:36, 27 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

Notification about possible deletion

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Some contents have been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether they should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at their entry.

If you created these pages, please note that the fact that they have been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with them, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Afrikaans ∙ العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Zazaki ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ eesti ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 조선말 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ occitan ∙ polski ∙ پښتو ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ shqip ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

Affected:

File:Hildo Krop Museum Steenwijk - Exposition of Ceramics 10.jpg

And also:

Yours sincerely, JopkeB (talk) 03:58, 27 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

Please use sub-categories

Latest comment: 7 months ago4 comments4 people in discussion

When categorising files, please avoid placing them into several categories that are directly linked within the same tree (e.g. a parent category and a child category – like Category:United Kingdom and Category:London), to prevent over-categorization of files and over-population of categories. Usually, only the most specific category should be used. See Commons:Categories for more details. Thank you.

If a category is valid for the whole building, but is still missing from the building's category, please add it to the building's category, but not to the individual photographs. Thank you. Sitacuisses (talk) 01:48, 2 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

I join the appeal. When an image is classified in a specific category, do not simultaneously classify it in a parent less specific category or its parent category. This unnecessarily creates clutter and adds work to maintaining category content. --ŠJů (talk) 11:30, 25 October 2022 (UTC)Reply

Sometimes the relation between the parent category and child category is clear, but sometimes not. For example in the Czech Republic there exist many towns that are called 'Hranice'. So there I make clear which 'Hranice' (in this case: Hranice (Prerov region)) is the right parent category. In Holland and Germany the parent category designating a geographical name may get divided into time-related specifications (f.e. the parent category 'Texel' is accompanied by 'Texel in the 21st century', 'Texel in the 20th century' etc.) while this has not happened yet in towns that belong to the Czech Republic. Next to parent categories with a geographical designation there exist parent categories with an art historical designation. The parent category 'Flower garden in Kromeriz' doesn't offer the important art historical information that it concerns here a Baroque garden. Because of this deficiency I add a parent category which contains 'Baroque'. Txllxt TxllxT (talk) 12:39, 25 October 2022 (UTC)Reply

I join the appeal too. For example, your pictures of buildings in Amsterdam are accompanied by categories, of the building, the category of "16XX in the Netherlands"(for the year the building was completed), and a category of the name of the architect. That expands categories unneccessarily, and gives undue weight to the pictures. Moreover, by placing a category like "1997 in Amsterdam" at pictures of the NEMO-building, the suggestion is that these pictures were taken in 1997. That is confusing. So please stop doing that.Jeff5102 (talk) 10:27, 1 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Source of derivative work is not properly indicated: File:Varengeville-sur-Mer - l'Église Saint-Valéry - Side Nave - View East on 'l'Arbre de Jessé - Tree of Jesse' 1961 by Georges Braque II.jpg

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

العربية ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ Deutsch ∙ English ∙ español ∙ hrvatski ∙ italiano ∙ slovenščina ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ беларуская‎ ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ русский ∙ ไทย ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体）‎ ∙ 中文（繁體）‎ ∙ فارسی ∙ +/−

This file may be deleted.

A file that you have uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, File:Varengeville-sur-Mer - l'Église Saint-Valéry - Side Nave - View East on 'l'Arbre de Jessé - Tree of Jesse' 1961 by Georges Braque II.jpg, is a derivative work, containing an "image within an image". Examples of such works would include a photograph of a sculpture, a scan of a magazine cover, or a map that has been altered from the original. In each of these cases, the rights of the creator of the original must be considered, as well as those of the creator of the derivative work.

While the description page states who made this derivative work, it currently doesn't specify who created the original work, so the overall copyright status is unclear. If you did not create the original work depicted in this image, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright.

Please edit the file description and add the missing information, or the file may be deleted. If you created the original content yourself, enter this information as the source. If someone else created the content, 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. 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!

— Racconish ^💬 09:47, 30 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

Source of derivative work is not properly indicated: File:Varengeville-sur-Mer - l'Église Saint-Valéry - Side Nave - View East on 'l'Arbre de Jessé - Tree of Jesse' 1961 by Georges Braque I.jpg

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

العربية ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ Deutsch ∙ English ∙ español ∙ hrvatski ∙ italiano ∙ slovenščina ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ беларуская‎ ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ русский ∙ ไทย ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体）‎ ∙ 中文（繁體）‎ ∙ فارسی ∙ +/−

This file may be deleted.

A file that you have uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, File:Varengeville-sur-Mer - l'Église Saint-Valéry - Side Nave - View East on 'l'Arbre de Jessé - Tree of Jesse' 1961 by Georges Braque I.jpg, is a derivative work, containing an "image within an image". Examples of such works would include a photograph of a sculpture, a scan of a magazine cover, or a map that has been altered from the original. In each of these cases, the rights of the creator of the original must be considered, as well as those of the creator of the derivative work.

While the description page states who made this derivative work, it currently doesn't specify who created the original work, so the overall copyright status is unclear. If you did not create the original work depicted in this image, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright.

Please edit the file description and add the missing information, or the file may be deleted. If you created the original content yourself, enter this information as the source. If someone else created the content, 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. 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!

— Racconish ^💬 09:48, 30 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

Source of derivative work is not properly indicated: File:Spa - Colline d'Annette et Lubin - Thermes de Spa 2004 by Claude Strebelle 13.jpg

Latest comment: 2 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

العربية ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ Deutsch ∙ English ∙ español ∙ hrvatski ∙ italiano ∙ slovenščina ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ беларуская‎ ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ русский ∙ ไทย ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体）‎ ∙ 中文（繁體）‎ ∙ فارسی ∙ +/−

This file may be deleted.

A file that you have uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, File:Spa - Colline d'Annette et Lubin - Thermes de Spa 2004 by Claude Strebelle 13.jpg, is a derivative work, containing an "image within an image". Examples of such works would include a photograph of a sculpture, a scan of a magazine cover, or a map that has been altered from the original. In each of these cases, the rights of the creator of the original must be considered, as well as those of the creator of the derivative work.

While the description page states who made this derivative work, it currently doesn't specify who created the original work, so the overall copyright status is unclear. If you did not create the original work depicted in this image, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright.

Please edit the file description and add the missing information, or the file may be deleted. If you created the original content yourself, enter this information as the source. If someone else created the content, 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. 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!

And also:

Yours sincerely, — Racconish ^💬 13:19, 30 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

Mr Racconish, the educational schoolplates are for sure older than 70 years (probably from around 1900) and belong to the public domain from its very beginning, being school plates, so does the war memorial remembering Nazi atrocities of 1 october 1944. I'm shocked, that you oppose to such photos. Txllxt TxllxT (talk) 16:47, 30 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

Kindly comment on the deletion discussion page where a community consensus is seeked. Thanks, — Racconish ^💬 16:52, 30 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

Copyright status: File:20110221-Texel Trees07 DxO.jpg

Latest comment: 1 year ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Copyright status: File:20110221-Texel Trees07 DxO.jpg

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:20110221-Texel Trees07 DxO.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:Texel - Hoge Berg - Doolhof - View SSE - February 2011.jpg

This action was performed automatically by AntiCompositeBot (talk) (FAQ) 22:06, 2 August 2022 (UTC)Reply

Photo is made by me Txllxt TxllxT (talk) 19:01, 26 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

File:20110221-Texel Trees07 DxO.jpg is not made by me, please delete this file Txllxt TxllxT (talk) 19:04, 26 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

File:Colmar - Unterlinden Museum - Buste of Jean-Jacques Waltz (known as Hansi or Oncle Hansi, Colmar 1873-1951) 1909 by Édouard-Marcel Sandoz - Bronze.jpg

Latest comment: 1 year ago3 comments2 people in discussion

File:Colmar - Unterlinden Museum - Buste of Jean-Jacques Waltz (known as Hansi or Oncle Hansi, Colmar 1873-1951) 1909 by Édouard-Marcel Sandoz - Bronze.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.)

This file is a copyright violation for the following reason: The sculptor died in 1971, the work is still copyrighted until 2042.

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） ∙ +/−

Edelseider (talk) 06:41, 13 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

The sculptor died in 1951 and made the bust in 1909. There is no violation of copyrights Txllxt TxllxT (talk) 08:39, 13 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

Sorry I'm wrong. This is Hansi, not Sandoz. The guy lived extremely long (1881-1971). Txllxt TxllxT (talk) 08:43, 13 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

File:Colmar - Unterlinden Museum - L'enfant Jésus parmi les docteurs (The child Jesus among the doctors) 1894 by George Rouault - Oil on Canvas.jpg

Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments2 people in discussion

File:Colmar - Unterlinden Museum - L'enfant Jésus parmi les docteurs (The child Jesus among the doctors) 1894 by George Rouault - Oil on Canvas.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.)

This file is a copyright violation for the following reason: The work is copyrighted until 1 January 1959 (Georges Rouault died in 1958)

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） ∙ +/−

Edelseider (talk) 05:46, 14 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

I don't mind, because this work seems a Rembrandt pastiche to me. Txllxt TxllxT (talk) 11:50, 14 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

Notification about possible deletion

Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Some contents have been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether they should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at their entry.

If you created these pages, please note that the fact that they have been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with them, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Afrikaans ∙ العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Zazaki ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ eesti ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 조선말 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ occitan ∙ polski ∙ پښتو ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ shqip ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

Affected:

File:Cannes - Boulevard de la Croisette - View West on Palais des Festivals et des Congrès.jpg

Yours sincerely, A1Cafel (talk) 06:59, 19 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

I see no reason for deletion, it is a typical Cannes impression with flowering bougainville Txllxt TxllxT (talk) 08:30, 19 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

Notification about possible deletion

Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Some contents have been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether they should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at their entry.

If you created these pages, please note that the fact that they have been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with them, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Afrikaans ∙ العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Zazaki ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ eesti ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 조선말 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ occitan ∙ polski ∙ پښتو ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ shqip ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

Affected:

File:Strasbourg - Gare de Strasbourg - View WNW.jpg

Yours sincerely, A1Cafel (talk) 06:05, 26 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

Do not agree. This is a public building in public space, not a piece of art. Txllxt TxllxT (talk) 08:26, 26 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

Notification about possible deletion

Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Some contents have been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether they should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at their entry.

If you created these pages, please note that the fact that they have been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with them, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Afrikaans ∙ العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Zazaki ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ eesti ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 조선말 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ occitan ∙ polski ∙ پښتو ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ shqip ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

Affected:

File:Strasbourg - View NW on Musée d'Art Moderne.jpg

And also:

Yours sincerely, A1Cafel (talk) 04:01, 5 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

Do not agree. Public space photography is allowed in most countries of the world. Txllxt TxllxT (talk) 08:36, 5 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

Notification about possible deletion

Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Some contents have been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether they should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at their entry.

If you created these pages, please note that the fact that they have been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with them, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Afrikaans ∙ العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Zazaki ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ eesti ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 조선말 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ occitan ∙ polski ∙ پښتو ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ shqip ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

Affected:

File:Avignon - Allée Abbé Georges Durand - Montée des Moulins - View NE on Art Déco WWI-Monument 1924 by Louis Botinelly - Monument aux morts du jardin des Doms.jpg

Yours sincerely, A1Cafel (talk) 02:55, 17 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

Notification about possible deletion

Latest comment: 1 year ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Some contents have been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether they should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at their entry.

If you created these pages, please note that the fact that they have been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with them, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Afrikaans ∙ العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Zazaki ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ eesti ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 조선말 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ occitan ∙ polski ∙ پښتو ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ shqip ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

Affected:

File:Strasbourg - Place Broglie - Fontaine de Janus.jpg

And also:

Yours sincerely, A1Cafel (talk) 03:19, 17 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

Photo taken in public space, do not agree with deletion Txllxt TxllxT (talk) 19:29, 19 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

Photo from public space, do not agree with deletion Txllxt TxllxT (talk) 19:34, 19 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

Notification about possible deletion

Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Some contents have been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether they should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at their entry.

If you created these pages, please note that the fact that they have been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with them, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Afrikaans ∙ العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Zazaki ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ eesti ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 조선말 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ occitan ∙ polski ∙ پښتو ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ shqip ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

Affected:

File:Echternach - Abbey of Echternach 698 founded by St Willibrord - Romanesque St. Willibrord Basilika rebuilt in Neo-romanesque style after the Battle of the Bulge 1945 - Interior 06.jpg

And also:

Yours sincerely, Adamant1 (talk) 00:56, 8 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

Do not agree, church interiors & church art are free for photography 2A01:E0A:B30:F770:D92:29BE:4E27:CCD7 08:02, 8 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

Notification about possible deletion

Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Some contents have been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether they should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at their entry.

If you created these pages, please note that the fact that they have been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with them, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Afrikaans ∙ العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Zazaki ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ eesti ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 조선말 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ occitan ∙ polski ∙ پښتو ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ shqip ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

Affected:

File:Echternach - Abbey of Echternach 698 founded by St Willibrord - Romanesque St. Willibrord Basilika rebuilt in Neo-romanesque style after the Battle of the Bulge 1945 - Interior 19.jpg

Yours sincerely, Adamant1 (talk) 03:13, 23 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

Do not agree, public space, religious objects are free for photography. Please stop stalking Txllxt TxllxT (talk) 09:21, 23 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

Notification about possible deletion

Latest comment: 11 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Some contents have been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether they should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at their entry.

If you created these pages, please note that the fact that they have been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with them, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Afrikaans ∙ العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Zazaki ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ eesti ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 조선말 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ occitan ∙ polski ∙ پښتو ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ shqip ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

Affected:

File:Strasbourg - Charles de Foucauld in front of Saint-Pierre le Jeune Catholique.jpg

And also:

Yours sincerely, A1Cafel (talk) 03:11, 1 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

Notification about possible deletion

Latest comment: 7 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Some contents have been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether they should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at their entry.

If you created these pages, please note that the fact that they have been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with them, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Afrikaans ∙ العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Zazaki ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ eesti ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 조선말 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ occitan ∙ polski ∙ پښتو ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ shqip ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

Affected:

File:Ulm - Ulmer Münster - View South on Modern Stained Glass Window II.jpg

And also:

Yours sincerely, Martin Sg. (talk) 20:01, 23 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Add topic