User talk:Jan Arkesteijn

Welcome to Wikimedia Commons, Jan Arkesteijn!

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.

Text of Law 23

Por "entidad legal" se hace referencia a propiedad intelectual registrada por una persona jurídica, corporación o una entidad privada que es sujeto de derecho.

Cordial saludo. 69

??? Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 15:38, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Alexander Graham Bell

I reverted your changes to Image:Alexander Graham Bell.jpg, and instead uploaded your version as Image:Alexander Graham Bell.jpeg. It's usually a bad idea to overwrite an image that someone else uploaded, especially here since we can't tell which projects even use it. And anyway, there's no reason not to have both pictures here!

By the way, the link you provided to the Library of Congress doesn't work, and I was unable to find the picture there. Perhaps you could find it again and provide more information at Image:Alexander Graham Bell.jpeg?

Thanks, Dbenbenn 17:43, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Categories

Hi, there's really not much value in adding an already-indexed picture like Image:Fallugia paradoxa flowers.jpg to the general plant category, because we have perhaps as many as 10,000 plant pictures already, which would make a rather large category! In practice Category:Plantae is for very generic images (like a diagram of a plant cell) or some plants not identified yet. Stan Shebs 13:46, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Hi Stan, the picture was not categorized (except for GFDL which is not useful for searching a picture). I agree that adding a plant to the category Plantae is not very specific. But the picture was not in any category and when the search engine is not working, which happens more often than we would like, pictures are impossible to find. Maybe Plantae was not the best choice, but I rely on my fellow-wikipedians to improve the work. Jan Arkesteijn 14:41, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

For plants (and animals) what we usually do is to create a gallery page and categorize that, as you can see with Fallugia paradoxa. It has the advantage that the scientific information about families and other taxa only has to be maintained once for each species, rather than repeated for each of a half-dozen pictures (as the number of pictures increases for instance, we're starting to create subcategories of families for genera that have hundreds of species in them). Stan Shebs 18:39, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

columbian art from flickr

Thanks- I will deal with this. Response on my talk page. -Mak 16:39, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Photographer ok'd this use. More on my talk page. Regards, -Mak 09:58, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Image:Batavia 05 gnangarra-1-.jpg

Very nice edit to this image thank you, I have nominated it at COM:QIC Gnangarra 14:06, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you.Jan Arkesteijn 08:08, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

JPEG cropping

When cropping a JPEG image, you may like to consider using a lossless cropping tool such as jpegtran. Other tools may inflate the file (although no additional information can be included). Finavon (talk) 20:48, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I could, but in this case I am using the original TIF-files as a source. They are 26 MB. I thought it's worthwhile to compress these only slightly. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 12:25, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Great results. You are obviously way ahead of me. Finavon (talk) 13:27, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Detroit Publishing C. postcards

Hello! If you remove the place designators from the Detroit Publishing Co. postcards and alter the hue, you're manipulating a historical document. So please don't just upload it over the unaltered version but upload it separately, mark it with {{RetouchedPicture}} and link to the unaltered version. Category:Images with watermarks doesn't refer to original elements of historical images, but to timestamps or contemporary attempts to establish authorship. Thanks. ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 08:22, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I was urged to crop the images by user Finavon, see User_talk:Finavon#LOC_photochrome_pictures. As for the the other objection: Wikimedia is by it's open and accessible structure not the tool to preserve historical images. Anyone is allowed to alter and upload images, as long as the copyright allows it. And the copyright allows it. In fact what I do, is overwriting a crude low res artificially sharpened copy of the image by it's high res counterpart. Furthermore, by removing the yellow tone caused by aging I am not in fact manipulating a historical document, but retrieving one. If someone needs to access the crude low res tainted copy, there is always the possibility to go back in the file history, or follow the link to the original at the Library of Congress, which is really the place to preserve history. I am sorry, but if someone should have told me in the beginning, I might have had the chance to adapt to some rules I wasn't aware of, but after the processing of some 400 images.... Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 09:00, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Well technically you are retrieving what you believe is the orginal version. We have no evidence that you're removing the right amount of yellowing from the current version. I'm actually pretty certain from browsing LoC and eBay that the original postcards already had a noticeable yellow hue. In any case, I'm not discouraging you from what you're doing, but if we significantly alter an original historical image, we store it separately from the original and leave it to the Wikiprojects to pick the version they prefer for their use. That's something you can't do if the original is only in the picture history, and the storage requirement for both is identical.~ trialsanderrors (talk) 12:04, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand, "the original postcards already had a noticeable yellow hue"? You are looking at copies that are 110 years old, you are not able to say that in 1895 they already looked yellow!!! The only certainty is that these are colored black/white photographs, so black and white is the only reference. As a matter of fact, I have studied this material quite intense, and I am certain, that it are the colors that are yellowing, because at places where no color was applied, an almost perfect grey is still visible. As with paintings, yellowing takes place over time, and as with paintings there is nothing wrong to clean them once in a while. Allright, I will follow the consensus, from now on I will leave the caption, but I suppose others will not agree. Could you tell me where to look for the consensus on how to behave in restoring photographs? Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 14:01, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Exactly, the only thing we know for sure is how the postcards look like today. How they looked 110 years ago is conjecture, and your conjecture likely differs from mine. My opinion stems from looking at different copies of the same motive trying to see if they show different degrees of yellowing (essentially they don't, but you would expect different degrees of yellowing if cards are stored in different locations, which leads me to believe that the yellow hue existed from the beginning). They're actually not colored b/w photographs, they're chromolithographs based on b/w photos. There is a simple rule of thumb on when to store pictures as separate file or as a new upload of an existing file: it's whether you clean up or manipulate the original file. Cropping black or white picture frames, rotating, cloning out dirt, and minor level/color/hue corrections are usually considered cleanup, anything beyond that is manipulating. Of course if you upload over your own prior versions you're free to do what you want. But you shouldn't upload a manipulated picture over someone else's original file. Better keep it separate. And again I don't want you to discourage you from uploading the versions you uploaded so far, just to keep them separate from the unaltered versions. ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 01:51, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

It's sentiment to look at the past in sepia or yellow tones. People in those days did not look at the world in this mood, and it is impropable that these images were produced with yellow clouds, greenish blue sky, and yellow-green grass, as they show now after so many years.
Oké, just point me to the procedure on how to behave. I will follow the consensus, but even if I do that, there are many others who are improving these pictures like I do. You are forgetting that everyone is allowed to improve material on Wikip(/m)edia, and is encouraged to do so. Wikimedia is by nature not a safe storage for material that has to be protected. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 13:29, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
P.S., I noticed that the remark about historical images in the category Images with watermarks was recently added by you. Is there consensus about that?

The last two Detroit Publishing Co. postcards that were promoted to Featured Picture were both promoted with identifier: Image:Elderlyspinnera.jpg and Image:Mulberry Street NYC c1900 LOC 3g04637u edit.jpg. You can ask the uploaders how much yellowing was removed, but from looking at them, my impression is very little. You assertion about historic sentimentalism might be a valid assertion, but it's still only conjecture. ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 14:21, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Allright, I must assume that there is no consensus, and that we are only discussing your opinion (and mine).Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 14:36, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

COM:FPC is a regular forum to establish consensus. ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 15:19, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

The outcome of this discussion, to me, is unsatisfactory. There does not seem to be consensus about how to behave, so what we are talking about is what you want and what I want. For that reason I decided to do the following: I will not overwrite hi-res photochrom pictures, unless the the quality is poor. I will leave the watermark in the images, allthough I concluded from the cat-description this is your wish, not consensus. Anyway, it's easier to remove it later on, than to stitch it back again. I hope you agree with this. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 15:05, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

You wrote "I will leave the watermark in the images...". I can't see that. [1]. --Tohma (talk) 18:27, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I will redo it. I don't know why I cut it off. Some images are so crooked that it is not possible to leave it on, like this one, but it doesn't seem to be the case here. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 18:54, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

By the way, Tohma, I like your work but could you be a little bit gentile on the blues. They sometimes fade to much to white. Look f.i. at Image:Knochenhaueramtshaus 1900.jpg. There is still a lot of blue sky in the original. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 20:14, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

The only thing I asked you to do is not to overwrite old uploads with modified (cropped, de-yellowed) versions. If you want to upload a larger, unmodified version over a small-sized old version, that's fine and everybody is doing that. If you want to upload a modified version separately from the old upload, that's fine too. I think there is wide consensus on that, beyond the Detroit postcards. ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 20:20, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

We have got to stop this. I worked on 400 images sofar, and nobody objected. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 13:04, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Doing new versions of other people's images

At File:Thayil et al 01.jpg and elsewhere, you seem to have overridden a photo I uploaded with what you presumably considered to be an improvement. In this case I think the change is quite the opposite. There was considerable loss of information, and on the monitor I use for graphics work (which I believe is calibrated roughly exactly where it is supposed to be) the original image had an appropriate tone range, and the replacement looks rather washed out. Is it possible that you are working on a monitor that is darker than it should be?

When you wish to make a change to someone else's image that is not unambiguously an improvement, I would strongly urge you to follow Commons policy and place the new image under a new name and leave the original accessible. Then you can use other_versions in the description to link them to one another.

Among other things, it is extremely difficult to do a search for places where you have done this, and since apparently you didn't notify me as original uploader, it leaves me with little opportunity even to be aware this has happened. I would not have known about this if I hadn't been revisiting the image to add a category. - Jmabel ! talk 04:41, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi Jmabel, actually I was not happy with the result either. Pictures of poor quality are not easy to improve, adjusting one aspect makes other errors more apparent. I could have uploaded it under a different name, but the disadvantage is that by doing so, the number of poor images just doubles. Nobody is served by that, and at best only one of the duplicates is ever used, the rest is just stowaway. I do not agree that a picture should look at its best on a high quality monitor, it should look at least agreeable on an average monitor. As for Commons policy, it led to a link on every media page Upload a new version of this file, where upon uploading a description is required. I all did this, and you were probably noticed about my upload if the picture was in your watchlist. And please remember, Wikimedia/Wikipedia invites anyone to feel free and improve any work available. Anyway, I reverted it, the improvement did not lead to an overall better picture. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 09:26, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I've placed over 10,000 images on Commons, probably approaching 15,000. There is no imaginable way I can meaningfully keep track of them all via a watchlist. -- Jmabel ! talk 15:42, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi res version of File:Hondius - Francis Drake 1577.jpg

Can you please add a link to the source of the LoC version for this image? Thanks. --BrokenSphere 17:07, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Done. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 09:30, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Rooster

You were asking about the rooster image. The version available here for free has strict rules for using, including attribution and a copy of the GFDL license in immediate vicinity where the image is used. The version available from istock, does not require this. --Muhammad (talk) 15:19, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

File:Heliopolis-Poster-WEB.jpg

I hold the copyrights of this file and the film. how to upload it? I tried to even publish it @ flickr under public domain. but still Commons refuses it,

Help please

Need Help

I have some of my own great phots of India, Canada and Netherlands, that I wanted to give to wiki commons. However, when I upload file in wiki commons; in the information box; under author, I can only write my name. I want to write my name but also when they click on my name it goes to my Flickr page, like how some people have it. Can you please tell me how to do this and also how to go back and do it for the one's I already uploaded.

Thanks

--Theoffice89 (talk) 19:28, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi, you don't seem to have a Flickr page, am I right? First upload your image to Flickr with a copyright notice (important) that makes it legally possible to upload it to Commons also. That is Creative Commons Atribution Sharealike 2.0 or Creative Commons Attribution 2.0. Then upload the image at commons under the same copyright notice. As the original source in the commons upload mask specify [http://www.flickr.com/photos/araswami/2267921635/ My picture of Goa from Flickr], and you're done. When your photo is uploaded to Commons that line will look like this: My picture of Goa from Flickr, and when you click on that you will be transferred to Flickr. In this example I did use a picture from a certain araswami, because I could not find any of you pictures, but I suppose it is clear that there must be your username in the link, and the specific number of you photograph. Hope it helps, Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 21:06, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes you are right I don't have pics on my Flickr account as of now.

But thanks so much for the help, I really appreciate it. I will give it a shot in the next couple of days. Cheers, --Theoffice89 (talk) 05:59, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes you are right I don't have pics on my Flickr account as of now.

But thanks so much for the help, I really appreciate it. I will give it a shot in the next couple of days. Cheers, --Theoffice89 (talk) 05:59, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Hello, Thanks for the help to upload pics on Flickr, it does work now for my new pictures , thanks, but when I go and type it into the search box to find it in commons. The pic does not show up. However when I go to ‘my contributions’ it says 04:53, 28 August 2009 (hist) (diff) N File:Naval Aviation Museum.jpg ‎ (Preparing upload using Flickr upload bot) Firstly what does the N mean and I guess someone has to review it first before it can be seen in the commons search directory. Am I right?

Secondly, how do you think I should go back and change the author for the pic I already uploaded before so a link shows up as my name to my Flickr account. I was thinking of doing a speedy deletion and then re upload it again, using speedy deletion feature

Thanks, --Theoffice89 (talk) 20:15, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi, you could change the links by hand like I explained abouve, but maybe deleting and re-uploading is more convenient for you. Regards Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 10:26, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Ralph Izzard photo

Why do you keep fiddling with my Ralph Izzard photo? I own the damned thing. What else do you need?

I think, you have mistaken me with someone else. Look in the history of the image. But to go into detail about what is wrong here: you said "Own work", as the source. But who is the author, I mean the person that made this photograph? I suppose it is not you. And unless some agreements were made, the owner of the copyright is still the photographer. Owning the photo does not automatically mean owning the copyright.Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 21:03, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

File:Scotland-Staffa-Fingals-Cave-1900.jpg

What was the basis of your colour correction to this image? Unless you have seen the physical object yourself or have data on the camera and lighting conditions used when the photograph of it was taken then your modifications are misleading. Kindly drop a note at w:User Talk:OrangeDog. when you reply. Thanks. OrangeDog (talk • contribs) 21:41, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

File:Ivo Samkalden in gesprek met Willem Drees.jpg

De reden dat ik "socialistic congress" veranderde is dat het slecht Engels is (i.e. een "dutchism"). Wat wel zou kunnen is "Social democratic", maar dat zou een een herhaling zijn van wat er al staat. Bovendien heeft het woord "Socialism" in het Amerikaans Engels dezelfde betekenis als "Communism"; vziw is de PvdA een sociaal democratische partij, dus die associatie met communisme is onterecht. In Brits Engels zou je het woord "Labour party" gebruiken, dus "Congress of the Labour Party" zou eventueel wel kunnen, maar dat is ook een herhaling van wat er al staat. JdH (talk) 18:40, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Ok, verander het maar naar eigen goeddunken. Je hebt denk ik wel gelijk dat socialistic niet zo'n begrijpelijk woord is. Het ging mij er eigenlijk alleen maar om dat de tekst ging afwijken van de bron. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 21:27, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

O, je had het al veranderd. Goed. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 21:28, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I created the files you claim are copyrighted!

For example http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Conversionunit.jpg

I created them myself! Do I have to pay myself then copyright dues? No I think not.

Seth William Scott

Hello Jan please Don t Remove My Picture please Seth William Scott 10:08, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

But some of these pictures are clearly not your own. You are not allowed to upload copyrighted pictures. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 10:11, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes worry, i shortened the answer. This images where uploaded by the persistant copyright violator User:Chace Watson. --Martin H. (talk) 13:06, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Ansar al-Islam cameraman.PNG

You voted "Delete" pending the posting of the link showing its PD nature on Archive.org; it has now been provided. I would appreciate if you would amend your vote. Sherurcij (talk) 20:52, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Flickr

I'm usually very careful when I review images. I cannot recall what this particular photo license was, but as I left a 'thank you' and approved the photo in Commons, it should be free.--OsamaK 06:38, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

question

can i ask you sthing? i have a book with images of greek war of indepedence and ppl can i use them in wikimedia?(scanning) thank you Greco22 (talk) 14:06, 24 May 2010 (UTC) Hi, it depends on which date the creator of the images died. It must be more than 70 years ago. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 15:41, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

thats for sure 100% Greco22 (talk) 18:06, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

can u please take a look? ,i uploaded a picture of iakovos tombazis.if its all ok,can i continue to upload? thank you Greco22 (talk) 16:40, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Please, specify the source. Net is not sufficient. And because the year of the author's death is relevant (after 70 years, the images are automatically public domain) specify that as well. The images look old enough to be PD, but you must give sufficient information so that anyone else can check that. By the way, why do you give Net as the source, when you said before that you were going to use pictures from a book. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 20:00, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

"net" i mean google... For some pictures i know the artist (obviously dead more than 70 years),but for some i m not sure.I think there are something like popular images(but im sure that are very very old,over 70 years)

why i didnt use the pics from my book?Cause there are the same whith the pics i found in google.So,i though that it could use them what do you think?

Greco22 (talk) 20:11, 25 May 2010 (UTC) may i write "google" instead of "net"?

Greco22 (talk) 20:12, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

i think the better solution would be to write "national and historical museum of greece" for some that can be found there and scan some Greco22 (talk) 21:01, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Don't use net or google. When you find a picture in the internet, give the webpage address. When you scan it from a book, give the title, author and ISBN number. Simply be complete. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 23:11, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

National Gallery

Images from National Gallery came from fully color-calibrated digital image files created by The National Gallery. Each image is consistent with any other, meaning that informed comparisons about color, tone and brightness can be made by the users of the images to ensure consistent production to print. Each image has been individually calibrated using the Gretag Macbeth 24-patch color rendition chart.

Read this article: http://www.nationalgalleryimages.co.uk/upload/documents/TB%20Marc%20article.pdf

Please do not revert my uploads. They have exact color like you would see by your own eyes in the gallery. 4649 00:55, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

First of all, you overwrote my upload, rembember? The color of my upload wasn't very good though, I admit. Secondly, you say 'they have exact color'. Your upload does not contain a color profile so any color calibration got undone the moment you discarded the original color profile. Thirdly, although the National Gallery created high quality calibated images of their collection, your assumption that this web-image is one of those is based on nothing. It's more likely that the freely available web-images are just average quality compressed derivatives. Any organisation that spends such an amount of time and money on digitizing, requests a considerable sum of money for copies of that work.

They do request.[2] There it has same colors and brightness as in my upload. 4649 13:16, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

I suppose you wanted to show that they do request money? Even there they only offer compressed jpg files, not the original tiff's (see page 80 in the pdf). But it doesn't matter, because you did not even buy the jpg there, you copied the free image from the website, which is probably less in quality than the images they offer for sale. But you evaded my question about the missing color profile, which is absolutely necessary for calibration. Your uploads are not calibrated so you should not present them as such. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 15:45, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Four, being able to compare the brightness between their paingings is not relevant when a single piece is displayed. I do not remember the painting to be as murky as your upload. Last but not least, what the colors really look like will only be known when the old varnish layer has been replaced. I will avoid a edit war, and upload it under a different name. I advise you to do the same in future. Presenting you uploads here with terms as fully color-calibrated and informed comparisons about color, tone and brightness is a misrepresentation. The only thing you did was adding pixels. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 11:37, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

You should read about human vision and why we do need these colorimeters to calibrate our displays. Imagine, you have a Photoshop inside your brain, in which you automatically adjust contrast of everything you see. That is why, everything we see is not true. It is what our brain show us. You can`t accurately calibrate a display with your eyes only. Same with art. 4649 13:16, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

I know all about that, don't worry. It amazes me though that you seem to calibrate your monitor without using color profiles. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 15:45, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

One more point. Artworks generally have fixed contrast. They have brightest point and lightest point. Some are really bright. Some are dark. That is because a master painted them such. It was his intention. You can`t just pump contrast and hope that everyone would see same in a gallery. 4649 13:22, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

We will only see the artists intention after the old varnish will have been replaced. Start using color profiles; that is the primary prerequisite for 'everyone would see same in a gallery'. And don't build one of your own, use the one in the original. And please, upload your images as new files. They are not the calibrated images you think they are. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 15:45, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Do you mean that The National Gallery are liars? They say that their images are calibrated. 4649 17:16, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

I think you don't know what I mean. Look in the pdf you mentioned before at page 80, table 1. It says that images are stored in different qualities. The TIFF images are stored with a color space CIE Lab. The JPG images are stored with the sRGB color space. A color profile is used to display the image on a different monitor or printer in the same way as the creator of the image saw it on his monitor. When you calibrate your monitor the software should produce a color profile to use with your monitor, so that software knows that f.i. when a pure yellow, to be displayed on your monitor, slightly differs from the real pure yellow, it can recalculate the colors of the file before displaying it. If this profile is kept with the file, from the beginning to the end, software on different systems can make their own individual corrections for color differences until the end. If you discard the color profile, which you did, we will not see the image like the creator of the image saw it. So how can you maintain that your uploaded images have exact calibrated colors? As for the brightest point in a painting which is chosen by the artist, this brightest point is obscured by the varnish, which can be very dirty, depending on it's age. Since the objective of the National Gallery is not to show the brightest point in the painting as the brightest point in the image, but rather as you said before, consistent with any other painting for comparison reasons, this means that one particular image might appear much to dark. We are not here to maintain this means of comparison for the National Gallery, we are here to produce images so that users on Wikipedia can illustrate their writings. So why would we store an individual image to dark, which does not do that image justice? Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 18:15, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

File:Philip II, king of Spain.jpg

Hi, as you can see here Category:Philip II of Spain, this king wears Order almost in every portrait. So whole "category Philip II" already is the subcat of Category:Knights of the Golden Fleece (16th century), were I do housekeeping now.Shakko (talk) 10:01, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Oké, I agree with the way you are re-arranging now. Regards. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 11:37, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Photos on Wikimedia Commons

Hello! I see that you sent me a few messages saying that I did not have the correct permission for those images. Please delete those images as I don't want any trouble here. Thank you very much for your cooperation and time! MrABlair23 (talk) 21:50, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Hello, Jan Arkesteijn. You have new messages at Moonriddengirl's talk page. You may remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

File:091507-USCNeb-CorsoHerbstreit crop to Corso.jpg

Once you figured out that File:091507-USCNeb-CorsoHerbstreit crop to Corso.jpg had been vandalized, why didn't you revert the vandalism? --UserB (talk) 22:09, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

That's strange. I thought I did, but apparently not. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 22:56, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

File:Goethe_Schiller_Weimar_1900.jpg

File:Goethe_Schiller_Weimar_1900.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!

-Nard (Hablemonos)(Let's talk) 02:25, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

JAM Project

hello,

I am not gifted for the post-treatment, but I keep the raw files (Canon .cr2) for all my recent photos. If you think it's easier to fix my photos, I can send them to you. Okki (talk) 22:15, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi, no don't do that. Sometimes I just randomly go through Wikimedia, and fix whatever I encounter. I like the randomness more than being stuck on one project. Regards, Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 22:32, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

File:Jacques de Gheyn (II) - Venus and Cupid - c.1605-1610.jpg

Beste Jan Arkesteijn, Weet je nog te achterhalen waar deze afbeelding vandaan komt? Mvg, Vincent Steenberg (talk) 14:16, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Hoi Vincent, meestal haal ik de grotere afbeeldingen van geheugenvannederland.nl, maar deze komt daar niet vandaan. Ik denk dat ik hem een keer van een dvd of cd heb gekopieerd. Maar welke weet ik niet meer, want die leen ik meestal hier of daar. geheugenvannederland noemt als bron SK-A-2395 (schilderij, olieverf op paneel), Schilderijencollectie Rijksmuseum. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 07:14, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

ok, dan hou ik het veld "source" voorlopig nog open. Wat me ook opviel was het kleurverschil en andere details tussen jouw versie en de Rijksmuseum/geheugenvannederland-versie. Vergelijk File:Jacques de Gheyn (II) - Venus and Cupid - c.1605-1610.jpg en File:Jacob de Gheyn (II) 001.jpg. Enig idee waar dat aan zou kunnen liggen? Mvg, Vincent Steenberg (talk) 10:33, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Het kleurverschil is nog niet eens zo groot als je de luminatie opdraait, maar er zit veel meer detail in de middentinten. Het schilderij lijkt te zijn hersteld, want behalve de verdwenen beschadigingen is ook de snaar van de boog van Cupido veel dunner dan in de rijks-versie. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 10:25, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

File:France-Mont-Saint-Michel-1900_bordercropped.jpg

File:France-Mont-Saint-Michel-1900_bordercropped.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!

trialsanderrors (talk) 10:17, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

File:Anthonis_van_Dyck_036.jpg

File:Anthonis_van_Dyck_036.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!

91.4.142.205 07:58, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

File:File-Someren-Downer,_Haya_van_-_SFA002010540_copy.jpg

File:File-Someren-Downer,_Haya_van_-_SFA002010540_copy.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!

Robotje (talk) 10:57, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

File:Berlin_Stadtschloss_um_1900.jpg

Hello, there is a problem with this picture you modified some time ago. As other Berlin postcards from the US National Archives, this had a yellow tone you removed two years ago. The matter is, the building displayed in the picture (The Berlin City Palace) had in fact pale yellow walls, those become white with a minimal blue tone after you modified the picture. Could you please restore the yellow tone only in the part regarding the palace walls? Thank you.

The yellow tone that I removed, was caused by aging. The problem with these postcards is that none of the colors are true. These were in fact black and white photographts, handcolored by people who never actually saw the place. They knew that sky was blue and trees were green, and the rest was left up to their fantasy. So making the walls yellow would not mean the image would be more true to life. It would change the color of the granite bowl, it would change the color of the copper roof covers, the street pavement, anything. To suit youre desire for an aged photograph I uploaded File:Berlin Stadtschloss um 1900 (aged colors).jpg for you. You can choose to use either this or that one. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 09:36, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

The problem is, I need a picture with the dimensions of the current one (3,494 x 2,495 px). Other versions of that file are 1024x776 ('small').

Why don't you follow the source then? http://loc.gov/pictures/resource/ppmsca.00333/ Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 14:48, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

One last question...how can I open the .tiff file (the bigger version)? Which application should I use to?

Several programs support tif-files. f.i. Gimp, but I uploaded a hi-res jpg-version over the aged color file for you. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 21:25, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, friend.

Category:Statuts, Ordonnances et Armorial de l'Ordre de la Toison d'Or

Hello Jan, I'm looking for pictures from Statuts, Ordonnances et Armorial de l'Ordre de la Toison d'Or. I've find it here : collecties.meermanno.nl, but I can't charge it in high definition (quality). I wich to know if you could help me. Cord.--Jimmy44 (talk) 06:51, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

I will see what I can do, but at the moment I think the websit is out of order. By the way, I noticed, that you sometimes remove categories that seem to be not relevant, but I would like to ask you to not undo work of other people. F.i. for File:Jean V de Créquy.jpg you removed category 1470s fashion. If someone puts an effort in collection examples of fashion in certain time-periods, why undo that? Anyway, at the moment the website is not accessible so I will try later. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 09:27, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much for help Jan. Cordialement,--Jimmy44 (talk) 14:58, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Jimmy, I have been trying to download these images, but so far no result. I don't know what is happening. Anyway, many of these images, maybe all, are also available at Koninkljke Bibliotheek. I noticed that the Meermanno Instituut retrieves the large files from Koninklijke Bibliotheek, not from their own servers. But even Koninklijke Bibliotheek produces an error message. Don't know what to do now, but keep on trying, once in a while. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 09:50, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

National Gallery

Hello. My name is Igor Sokolov. I am a history teacher at the university. I am very interested in portraits of rulers of Europe. Maybe you have the ability and desire to place and other high-resolution images from the collections of the National Gallery? I'll be very grateful for the help. I think these high-quality images will please many fans of portraiture.

• Portrait of the Doge, Andrea Gritti probably 1523-31, Vincenzo Catena http://nationalgallery.org.uk/paintings/vincenzo-catena-portrait-of-the-doge-andrea-gritti
• Cardinal de Richelieu 1633-40, Philippe de Champaigne http://nationalgallery.org.uk/paintings/philippe-de-champaigne-cardinal-de-richelieu
• Triple Portrait of Cardinal de Richelieu probably 1642, Philippe de Champaigne and studio http://nationalgallery.org.uk/paintings/philippe-de-champaigne-and-studio-triple-portrait-of-cardinal-de-richelieu
• Edzard the Great, Count of East Friesland 18th century, German http://nationalgallery.org.uk/paintings/netherlandish-edzard-the-great-count-of-east-friesland
• Cardinal Ippolito de' Medici and Monsignor Mario Bracci after 1532, Attributed to Girolamo da Carpi http://nationalgallery.org.uk/paintings/attributed-to-girolamo-da-carpi-cardinal-ippolito-de-medici-and-monsignor-mario-bracci
• The Duke of Wellington 1812-14, Francisco de Goya http://nationalgallery.org.uk/paintings/francisco-de-goya-the-duke-of-wellington
• The Duc d'Orléans after 1842, Studio of Jean-Auguste-Dominique Ingres http://nationalgallery.org.uk/paintings/studio-of-jean-auguste-dominique-ingres-the-duc-dorleans
• Portrait of Pope Julius II 1511, Raphael http://www.nationalgallery.org.uk/paintings/raphael-portrait-of-pope-julius-ii
• The Dauphin, Louis de France 1760s, Studio of Alexandre Roslin http://www.nationalgallery.org.uk/paintings/studio-of-alexandre-roslin-the-dauphin-louis-de-france
• Cardinal Fleury after 1728, Studio of Hyacinthe Rigaud http://www.nationalgallery.org.uk/paintings/studio-of-hyacinthe-rigaud-cardinal-fleury
• Portrait of the Archduke Albert about 1615, Studio of Peter Paul Rubens http://www.nationalgallery.org.uk/paintings/studio-of-peter-paul-rubens-portrait-of-the-archduke-albert
• Portrait of the Infanta Isabella about 1615, Studio of Peter Paul Rubens http://www.nationalgallery.org.uk/paintings/studio-of-peter-paul-rubens-portrait-of-the-infanta-isabella
• The Grand Duke Ferdinand II of Tuscany and his Wife probably 1660s, Justus Sustermans http://nationalgallery.org.uk/paintings/justus-sustermans-the-grand-duke-ferdinand-ii-of-tuscany-and-his-wife
• The Emperor Napoleon I 1815, Emile-Jean-Horace Vernet http://www.nationalgallery.org.uk/paintings/emile-jean-horace-vernet-the-emperor-napoleon-i
• Philip IV of Spain about 1656, Diego Velázquez http://www.nationalgallery.org.uk/paintings/diego-velazquez-philip-iv-of-spain
• Philip IV of Spain in Brown and Silver about 1631-2, Diego Velázquez http://www.nationalgallery.org.uk/paintings/diego-velazquez-philip-iv-of-spain-in-brown-and-silver

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.187.77.54 (talk • contribs) 08:37, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi Igor, I am flattered that you addressed me, but I must tell you, that I don't do requests. This is a hobby, and I choose my work by what comes on my way. Looking at the subject of these images, it is not likely that they will come on my way. If you ask one of your students, they will quickly figure out how to retrieve high-definition images from the viewer supplied by the National Gallery. I know there is some sort of tool around to do it automatically, but you can also do it in a cut-and-paste manner. I can only promise you this: if I do retrieve some of these images in the future, I will provide a link on this page to it. Kind regards, Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 10:09, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Dear Jan, Thank you for your reply. I did not order these images. I just wanted to know whether you have the ability and desire to place these portraits. I am interested in the genre of painting portraits, which depict the rulers of Europe. This is a hobby of mine ever since the Soviet era, when such images are prohibited. Now I use portraiture and still training for their students. I use only high-resolution images and superior quality. I really need these portraits from the collections of the National Gallery, but unfortunately I can not download these images. I asked our expert on computers how to download these photos, but he could not help me. Images of such high quality is rarely available for download and, therefore, a pity not to take advantage of this opportunity. I apologize for the poor knowledge of English, I hope you understand me. Sincerely, Igor

Hi Igor, I copied your request to Commons:Village_pump#Portraits_from_National_Gallery. At that place it will attract more attention. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 13:28, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your help and participation. Sincerely, Igor

File:Charles_Abbot,_1st_Baron_Colchester_by_John_Hoppner.jpg

File:Charles_Abbot,_1st_Baron_Colchester_by_John_Hoppner.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!

Havang(nl) (talk) 22:10, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

File:Mrs William Shaw Ward.jpg

Thank you for uploading this. I've been "collecting" Eakins paintings and I somehow missed that one. Raul654 (talk) 01:27, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 08:41, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Hello. Maybe you have an opportunity to place high-resolution images from the sales of auction Bonhams. Of course, if you personally would be interested. Sincerely, Igor

Bonhams Sale 17965 - Fine Portrait Miniatures Knightsbridge, 24 Nov 2010 at 14:00 Lot 95 Continental School, late 18th Century Frederick William II, King of Prussia (1744-1797), http://www.bonhams.com/cgi-bin/public.sh/WService=wslive_pub/pubweb/publicSite.r?sContinent=EUR&screen=lotdetailsNoFlash&iSaleItemNo=4629344&iSaleNo=17965&iSaleSectionNo=1

Bonhams Sale 17954 - Old Master Paintings Knightsbridge, 27 Oct 2010 at 13:00 Lot No: 147 Studio of the Beaubrun family, 17th Century Portrait of Ann of Austria http://www.bonhams.com/cgi-bin/public.sh/WService=wslive_pub/pubweb/publicSite.r?sContinent=EUR&screen=lotdetailsNoFlash&iSaleItemNo=4621167&iSaleNo=17954&iSaleSectionNo=1

Questions

Two quick questions - (A) How did you get this off of Christie's site? (I've been doing it manually and it's agonizingly tedious). (B) Can you take a look at this? There are several pics there that, if you have an automated process, I would love to be able to use. Raul654 (talk) 18:32, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry to disapoint you, but (A) it's not tedious, and (B) I don't have an automated process. It's all done manually. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 00:31, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

File:Quentin Massys 008.jpg now featured and POTD

Just so you know. -- IdLoveOne (talk) 20:49, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

File:070429_21.JPG

File:070429_21.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!

Torsch (talk) 21:59, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Old masters paintings

Hello Jan. I am very interested in painting of old masters of Europe. especially I am a fun of portraits. You know how to download images from different auction sites, such as christies, sothebys and others. I constantly watch for updates in your gallery. Thank you for what you do. In this regard, I request to you. Display (upload) at the your gallery regularly or send me on my address [email protected] high resolution images of the old masters from the sites auctions christies and sothebys. I'll be very grateful for the help.

File:David_D_Clark_in_office.jpg

I am fairly certain that the walls in Dr. Clark's office are not blue. I believe the original photo's rendition of the lighting is more accurate. 121a0012 (talk) 03:34, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Okay. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 08:38, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Discover the secret

Hello Jan. Be kind enough to share the secret of how to download images in high resolution from the site of Christie's. For earlier thanks for the reply. Everything we do is one thing.

There is no secret. I make several copy's of parts of the image and paste them together in a photo editing tool. Anyone can do it. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 14:36, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

So I also want to learn it. Where to take parts of the image for copying (on what site they are?) and as them together then in a photo editing tool for reception of the high-grade image. If not difficultly write please.

I am sorry, I am here to do what I like to do, I am not here to teach. Just download Gimp, or any other photo editing tool. Go to for example http://www.sothebys.com/app/ecatalogue/fhtml/index.jsp?event_id=30424#/r=index-fhtml.jsp?event_id=30424%7Cr.main=lot.jsp%7Cr.main=lot.jsp%7Cr.main=lot.jsp?event_id=30424%7Cr.main=lot.jsp%7Cr.main=lot.jsp&id=5/ or whatever site. Make the window full screen, zoom in, and copy. Just combine your copies to one full screen image. That's it. It will take you a day to do your first image, and after 100 images it will take you 15 minutes. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 23:20, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Hello Jan! I know that you do not place the images on the requests of others. Nevertheless, I venture to address you with a request to place a few high-resolution images. I also want to remind you that I am a history teacher from Russia and the images are used only as a teaching tool for students. Thanks in advance. Regards, Igor

Museum Plantin-Moretus/Prentenkabinet, Antwerpen

Portret van Paus Nicolas V Rubens, Peter Paul

Portret van Cosmo di Medici Rubens, Peter Paul

Portret van Alfons, koning van Aragon en Napels Rubens, Peter Paul

Portret van Paus Leo X Rubens, Peter Paul

Portret van Lorenzo di Medici Rubens, Peter Paul

180px-LIO-Architecture.png

This file helps to understand the architecture of the LIO open source target software. Thomas Uhl (talk)

Q Music uploads

Just dropping a quick note to you that I'm in touch with someone at Q Music and hope to clarify if User:Gblwik has the authority to upload those DJ photos. Tabercil (talk) 12:13, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Retraction at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Bratina of Władysław IV Vasa.jpg

Hello, Jan

When you want to retract a comment:

But the images are exactly the same.

the best way to show it is to use the strike-through

But the images are exactly the same.

on the offending text. This shows that you no longer stand behind the comment, but leaves it as part of the discussion's history.

The wiki markup for this is

<s>But the images are exactly the same.</s>.

By the way, I wouldn't be surprised if your overall assumption is correct -- the other image was exactly the same, after allowing for resampling. We just haven't found the source.

Regards,

     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:25, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Jim Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 12:27, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

File:Erskine crest.jpg

Hi! This is not OR, but really, the graphics contains some mistakes, I'll try again today to load the revised version. Regards, Steifer (talk) 19:33, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Okay, please make a note of that at the DR, when you'r done. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 19:36, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Copyvio Vs. No Pemrission

Hi Jan Arkesteijn. I noticed you tagged a file with copyvio, but the uploader admitted to the source and author, as well as a license that does not say that he or she owns the copyright. Therefore it would be more appropriate to use {{No permission}} instead so that the user can seek permission, which can't be done efficiently using speedy deletion. The file I was referring to is now deleted: File:Kohat Tunnel.jpg. Thanks for your contributions! --ZooFari 17:58, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I will take more care. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 18:00, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

When I said use no permission, that's not kind of what I meant. See my talk page for my reply. --ZooFari 16:43, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

About my files

Hi Jan. My files are my work. Sorry for my english. This photos I shot by my camera in TV during the documentary series of Polish Television about death penalty in Poland. I recorded every documentary movies and next I shot this photos from DVD. I know - I'm NOT author orginally photos but authors these photos are unknowns. This are old archiv photos from Polish Police files and this is all public domain in Poland. This photos is presented in all polish media without authors. Sorry I don't know what I send this photos under license ??? This photos are very interesting and maybe ONLY in all web sites presented famous polish serial killers or mass murderers. Stanisław P 00:44, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Please do not overwrite files

---

I noticed that you uploaded a file using the name File:Miller-Chaucer.gif. A file by this name already existed on Commons. Overwriting an existing file should not be done except when making minor, uncontroversial corrections, so the file has been restored to its previous version. If the file that you attempted to upload is within our project scope and is in the public domain or published under a free license, please upload it again under a different name. Thank you. For more information, please see Commons:Overwriting files.

Saibo (Δ) 00:41, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Hello Saibo, I noticed you reverted my upload of File:Miller-Chaucer.gif. The tag you placed on my talkpage pointed to Commons:Avoid overwriting existing files to clarify when an overwrite is okay, an when not. Perhaps you didn't notice that the image I uploaded was the exact same image that was already there, only now in hi-res and less vague. Commons:Avoid overwriting existing files says that a overwrite is okay in case of "higher resolution versions, and similar things where the essential composition is not altered", so I don't see why my upload was wrong. I will revert your revert in a couple of days, unless you see another problem with the image. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 15:04, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

(moved your message to this page from my talk to keep the disc. in one place) Hi Jan, the guideline page says: "If digital restoration work is being done on a historical document or artwork, the restoration (no matter how minor) should always be uploaded under a new filename [...]"

And: your copy is a totally different scan/photo of the same original: the background is substantially different (half dark instead of white) and your version has dark smudges at the head of the horse. There may be uses where the old version is preferred. Of course the higher res. is great - thank you for finding it. Just copy the description page, use the basic upload form and link both files with "other versions".

Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 15:36, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I did not read far enough, but I doubt whether you could still call the original image a historical document or artwork. Both versions are just derivatives from the (smudged) original Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 16:43, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, sure - nothing is "the original". Just upload under a new name (as described) please. Both versions can be useful. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 16:09, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

?

Misschien heb je het vermogen en de wens om hoge-resolutie afbeeldingen plaats van deze bron:

http://www.collectieantwerpen.be/component/option,com_memorix/Itemid,2/lang,nl/

Portret van aartshertogin Isabella Rubens, Peter Paul Rubenshuis

Portret van aartshertog Albrecht Rubens, Peter Paul Rubenshuis

Portret van Cosmo di Medici Rubens, Peter Paul Museum Plantin-Moretus / Prentenkabinet

Portret van Alfons, koning van Aragon en Napels Rubens, Peter Paul Museum Plantin-Moretus / Prentenkabinet

Portret van Paus Leo X Rubens, Peter Paul Museum Plantin-Moretus / Prentenkabinet

Portret van Lorenzo di Medici Rubens, Peter Paul Museum Plantin-Moretus / Prentenkabinet

Francesco I de Medici Allori, Alessandro Bronzino Museum Mayer Van den Bergh — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.187.237.92 (talk • contribs) 2011-07-21T11:10:01 (UTC)

Vraag

Beste Jan, Ik probeer het plaatje en:File:Imperial Coat of arms of France (1852–1870).svg te uploaden naar commons. Maar dit lukt maar niet omdat commons een foutmelding blijft geven: Het MIME type zou niet correct zijn. Ik heb geprobeerd het op te lossen maar dat is niet gelukt. Ik zag dat jij al eerder plaatjes had geüpload naar commons. Zou jij dit plaatje voor mij kunnen uploaden? Alvast bedankt. Mvg, Kennyannydenny (talk) 09:31, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Hoi, ik heb geen enkele ervaring met SVG files. Ik zou het kunnen proberen, want de fout zegt me niets, maar waarom gebruik je File:Coat of Arms Second French Empire (1852–1870)-2.svg of File:Coat of Arms Second French Empire (1852–1870).svg niet? Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 18:01, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Ow lol oeps. Heel erg bedankt voor de tips. Heb ik geheel over het hoofd gezien. De botmelding meldde die twee niet. Alsnog bedankt maar dan hoeft het niet meer ;). Mvg, Kennyannydenny (talk) 20:03, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Plattegrond van Deshima

Dag Jan,

(I suppose you're Dutch, if otherwise, let me know)

wat een prachtige upload van Deshima! En ook nog voorzien van annotaties! Geweldig...

Een paar vraagjes:

1. welke bron heb je gebruikt voor de annotaties? Dat kan ik zo 123 niet vinden.
2. ik lees dat de annotaties ook op de wikipedia's geimplementeerd kunnen worden. Weet jij of dat op de Nederlandse al is gebeurd?
3. denk je niet dat het beter is om een engelse naam voor het bestand te gebruiken? Ik doe daar (als ik het niet vergeet) altijd veel moeite voor, omdat ik geloof dat het de "usance" is op commons.
4. ik zie dat je "Deshima" gebruikt als schrijfwijze. De voorkeur op nl.wikipedia is "Dejima" (ook op en-wiki, trouwens).

Ik zie je antwoord(en) met belangstelling tegemoet, Dick Bos (talk) 11:41, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Hallo Dick Bos, de annotaties die ik op 24 oktober 2009 heb toegevoegd waren gebaseerd op http://www1.city.nagasaki.nagasaki.jp/dejima/en/new_dejima/contents/index004.html. De annotaties die ik op 15 september 2010 heb toegevoegd zijn gebaseerd op het boek Illustrations of Japan van Titsingh, hier in te zien. Annotaties op wikipedia? Ik kan je daar niets over vertellen. Een Engelse bestandsnaam zou misschien beter zijn geweest, hoewel het in dit geval in welke taal dan ook duidelijk is dat het om een plattegrond gaat. Dejima is op dit moment meen ik de officiele spelling, maar in de geschiedenis komen vele varianten voor: Desima, Decima, Deshima, noem maar op. Ik zie dat ik in de omschrijving ook Nangasaki in plaats van Nagasaki heb gebruikt. Ik zal er nog een Engelse vertaling aan toevoegen met de moderne schrijfwijze. Groet, Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 19:07, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Copyright status: File:Haya van Someren.jpg

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:Haya van Someren.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.

Saibo (Δ) 15:17, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Portrait of Dorothy Latimer

Oh, that makes sense! Thanks. - PKM (talk) 17:48, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

File:Westfaelischer Friede in Muenster (Gerard Terborch 1648).jpg

Beste Jan, Ik zag dat je deze afbeelding verkleind had om van de schaduw af te zijn. Op de website van de National Gallery staat een afbeelding van dit schilderij zonder schaduw. Ik heb alleen geen idee hoe ik deze afbeelding moet downloaden. Misschien lukt jou dit wel. Alvast bedankt. Mvg, Vincent Steenberg (talk) 09:57, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Ik zal het doen, maar over een paar dagen want ik heb op dit moment geen tijd. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 14:00, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

ok, geen probleem. Het heeft absoluut geen haast. Mvg, Vincent Steenberg (talk) 15:18, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Category:Wrocław on photochrome prints

Thank you very much. Again sorry for bothering. Kekator (talk) 00:03, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Reply

Hello, Jan Arkesteijn. You have new messages at Morning Sunshine's talk page. You may remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

File:Alan Rickman BAM 2011-01-15 n3.jpg

Hi! I don't really agree with your colour correction of this picture. It looks unnaturally bluish and unflattering on three different screens I tried, including one colour-calibrated. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 09:38, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Revert it. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 10:43, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

File:Gabrielle Cot 1890.jpg

It's achieved featured picture status ! Congratulations.

Btw, can you share your method of getting hi-res images off Sotheby's site with me ? I know how to access the full images on the Bonhams site, but no others. Thanks. --Claritas (talk) 15:33, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Sotheby's

Dear Jan Arkesteijn, please, if you can also put a few pictures from the site www.sothebys.com

Important Old Master Paintings and Sculpture [N08826], New York:

Lot 575. Russian School, 18th Century. Portrait of Elizabeth Petrovna

Lot 471. Sir Godfrey Kneller. Portrait of the Duchess of Newcastle

Lot 443. Circle of Sir Anthony van Dyck. Algernon Percy, Earl of Northumberland

Lot 487. George Romney. Portrait of Mrs. Marie-Jean Gomm

Lot 456. Genoese School, 17th Century. Judith with the Head of Holofernes

Lot 437. Attributed to Pierre Mignard. Portrait of a Lady in Allegorical Guise, holding a dish of pearls

Lot 476. Attributed to Jean-Baptiste Marie Pierre. The Birth of Venus

Lot 439. Attributed to Claude Deruet. Portrait of a Man with Blue Sash

Lot 435. Follower of Frans Hals. Portrait of a Man

Lot 418. Venetian School, 17th Century. The Presentation

Lot 562. Joseph Bernard. Venus and Cupid

Lot 407.

Lot 438.

Lot 444.

I'm sorry, I don't do requests. I am only looking for pictures that we need to illustrate articles. So if a person does not have a portrait, or if an image illustrates a specific event, described in the article, or if an image is just very interesting, I will do the effort of uploading them. So, please check in about a week what images from this list I uploaded. The rest I will have skipped. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 09:41, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Be gracious to me, or really need it so difficult for you? No longer will you worry.

Why do not you make a courtesy.

Philadelphia Museum of Art

If you are interested in the following work from the site www.philamuseum.org, could you place them, or at least some of them. Thank you.

Studio of Jean-Marc Nattier. Portrait of the Marchioness of Baglion 1944-9-3

Charles-Joseph Natoire. Venus and Adonis 1989-3-2

Louise-Elisabeth Vigée-Lebrun. Portrait of Madame Du Barry 1984-137-1

unknown. Portrait of a Man F1938-1-12

Names of Dutch Ships

Hello, Regarding the file Wondering if you might be able to translate this - Does it name the ships? Excuse my ignorance of the language and TIA for any help.

"Het jacht van de Kamer Rotterdam van de Verenigde Oostindische Compagnie (VOC) begroet een Rotterdamse Oostindiëvaarder en een Nederlands oorlogsschip op de rede van Hellevoetsluis (The yacht of the VOC-Chamb)"

Kind regards, KHS-Boab (talk) 14:13, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi, I added the translation on the file-page. No, the source does not mention the names of the ships. But if the painting depicts an actual event in 1790, it limits the options, because only a few ships arrived in Rotterdam that year. The roadstead of Hellevoetsluis is opposite of the island Goeree and in 1790 the arrival of 5 ships are registered:

• 8272.1 LUCHTBOL 29-04-1790
• 8260.1 HOUTLUST 24-05-1790
• 8261.2 ROZENBURG 23-06-1790
• 8274.1 DELFT 23-09-1790
• 8279.1 DORDWIJK 25-09-1790

(If you want, you can look it up over here: http://www.historici.nl/Onderzoek/Projecten/DAS/search) The Dordwijk was a nl:Hoeker, not the type of ship that is shown here. The Luchtbol is a pakketboot (parcel ship), a rather small and faster ship. The other ships are not defined but their tonnage of around 800 suggests these are East Indiaman. I assume the ship on the left is the man-of-war as it carries more arms. The ship in the center seems rather small, so it could be a parcel ship. A parcel ship was typically a two-master, 136 ton, and a length of around 80 feet. However, the painting shows three masts, not a two-master. Is the impression of it's size wrong and is it an East Indiaman? Then it could be the Houtlust, the Rozenburg or the Delft. So, there is no way to tell which ship this is. Furthermore, the painting was made in 1790, but it could show an arrival in 1789, which makes 3 more ships possible candidates. Or mayby the painting just shows an imaginary arrival. The names will remain a mystery, I suppose. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 18:13, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the thorough explanation Jan. KHS-Boab (talk) 20:45, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

File:BurjDubai.JPG

File:BurjDubai.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!

[chinneeb|talk] 11:01, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks

for pointing out the correct portrait on which the engraving File talk:Wenceslas Hollar - Two deformed heads behind a wall (State 2).jpg is based. I have changed it.

The name of the file needs changing, however. The male head is not "deformed"; he has simply lost his top teeth. I would also hesitate to call the "Ugly Duchess" deformed.... merely ugly!

Amandajm (talk) 06:21, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

The source uses the word "deformed", so there is no reason to change it. It would be point-of-view. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 16:31, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

File:Edgar Degas - Self-portrait ca 1857 .jpg

Of course I am not modifying the painting, but the photograph of the painting, which looks evidently underexposed in the upper part. If you look at the hair and at the beard you see clearly that in the upper part of the original photo they are nearly undistinguishable against the background, whereas they can be clearly distinguished in the lower part. With my modification the are nearly homogeneous. So I think I have approached the appearance of the original painting, rather than distorting it.
I believed you had reverted my edit only because of the very heavy compression of the jpg (and surely I have no idea of why this happened, usually my procedures preserve more or less the original compression), but if you think I'm distorting the appearance of the true painting, feel free to revert again my edit. Regards --GianniG46 (talk) 10:31, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

P.S. I bring to your attention that in your last edit of File:Rembrandt - Zelfportret 1640.jpg there is a bad operation: the top of the hat has been partially doubled by the paste procedure.--GianniG46 (talk) 10:33, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Hey, I had to look twice to see what you mean. I am surprised I missed that. I will fix it, the first moment I am able to. Thanks.

As for Degas, the photograph was made by professionals of Christie's, and I am quite sure there is no partial underexposure in that image. If there is underexposure, it is in the entire image. I am quite sure this is what Degas intended to show. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 11:57, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

blokken

Kun je van dit plaatje misschien een nieuwe, wat rustiger versie maken? De felle kleuren zijn voor mij nogal storend en ik kan me voorstellen dat mensen die gevoelig zijn voor epileptische aanvallen hier echt last van zullen hebben! --95.97.46.77 16:26, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

I will have a look at it. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 22:06, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

File:Lenoir, Charles-Amable - The Seamstress.jpg

Could you update the source to show where you found the higher-resolution copy for this artwork? VernoWhitney (talk) 15:36, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

done Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 16:18, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! VernoWhitney (talk) 16:55, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Nicolaas Maes portrait

Dag Hr Arkesteijn,

Het portret van N. Maes (Jacob Trip) dat u plaatste op Wiki is van het Mauritshuis. Het andere, vrijwel gelijke, dat reeds op die plaats stond, is van het museum in Boedapest. Het is dus geen "more detailed". Er was overigens nog een derde versie. Groet, M. van Wassenaer

Bedankt, Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 21:52, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Ping

See File talk:Jan Schenkman.jpg. Trijnstel_talk 14:23, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

File:Ancient Paris, Exposition Universal, 1900, Paris, France.jpg

File:Ancient Paris, Exposition Universal, 1900, Paris, France.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!

 — billinghurst sDrewth 15:12, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

File:Bettie Page.jpg

File:Bettie Page.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!

Delicious carbuncle (talk) 05:04, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Public Domain - exact day

Hi Jan, I notice that you have uploaded several paintings by artists who died in 1942. You uploaded them right after 70 years after their death date. In fact, all European and international copyright laws demand that works become part of the Public Domain only on January 1st of the following year. That means, for example, that paintings by Huib Luns who died on 24 Feb 1942, become copyright-free on 1 Jan 2013. For a list of those artists whose work will become "uploadable" tomorrow, please see User:FA2010/PD2013. For anyone who died in 1943, please wait until January 1st 2014 with your (most welcome) uploads. Thanks. --FA2010 (talk) 11:29, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, I will try to remember that. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 12:41, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Notification about possible deletion

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!

Dcoetzee (talk) 22:45, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Notification about possible deletion

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!

Affected:

• File:George Spencer Watson (1869-1934) - The saddlers daughter.jpg

Yours sincerely, Stefan4 (talk) 19:38, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Notification about possible deletion

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!

Dcoetzee (talk) 05:05, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Notification about possible deletion

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!

Dcoetzee (talk) 01:18, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Reinier de Graaf

Dag Jan, zou ook de bron willen aanpassen in File:Reinier de Graaf 17e eeuw.jpg, want de indertijd door mij gegeven bron correspondeert niet meer met de huidige afbeelding. Met vr. groet, Gouwenaar (talk) 22:04, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

 Done Je hebt gelijk. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 22:20, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Picture of the Year voting round 1 open

Dear Wikimedians,

Wikimedia Commons is happy to announce that the 2012 Picture of the Year competition is now open. We're interested in your opinion as to which images qualify to be the Picture of the Year for 2012. Voting is open to established Wikimedia users who meet the following criteria:

1. Users must have an account, at any Wikimedia project, which was registered before Tue, 01 Jan 2013 00:00:00 +0000 [UTC].
2. This user account must have more than 75 edits on any single Wikimedia project before Tue, 01 Jan 2013 00:00:00 +0000 [UTC]. Please check your account eligibility at the POTY 2012 Contest Eligibility tool.
3. Users must vote with an account meeting the above requirements either on Commons or another SUL-related Wikimedia project (for other Wikimedia projects, the account must be attached to the user's Commons account through SUL).

Hundreds of images that have been rated Featured Pictures by the international Wikimedia Commons community in the past year are all entered in this competition. From professional animal and plant shots to breathtaking panoramas and skylines, restorations of historically relevant images, images portraying the world's best architecture, maps, emblems, diagrams created with the most modern technology, and impressive human portraits, Commons features pictures of all flavors.

For your convenience, we have sorted the images into topic categories. Two rounds of voting will be held: In the first round, you can vote for as many images as you like. The first round category winners and the top ten overall will then make it to the final. In the final round, when a limited number of images are left, you must decide on the one image that you want to become the Picture of the Year.

To see the candidate images just go to the POTY 2012 page on Wikimedia Commons

Wikimedia Commons celebrates our featured images of 2012 with this contest. Your votes decide the Picture of the Year, so remember to vote in the first round by January 30, 2013.

Thanks,
the Wikimedia Commons Picture of the Year committee

---

Delivered by Orbot1 (talk) at 09:35, 19 January 2013 (UTC) - you are receiving this message because you voted last year

File:Frédéric Soulacroix - Flirtation.jpg

It's very simple and very solidly factual information (go through the History of Western fashion article series if you want, and see for yourself which period their clothes belong to), and moving it from the text to an annotation doesn't make anything better and doesn't make anything worse. Churchh (talk) 03:13, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

As long as you don't add solid sources it is original research. And you know Wikipedia is not a solid source. I know moving it to a annotation does not make it better, it was just an experiment . Please, give your source and stop your original research. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 10:15, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

You need a severe attitude adjustment, since you could hardly make such a statement without either willfully ignoring clear facts or wanting to annoy. If you paid any attention at all to the discussion on the Commons Village Pump you would know that there is no Commons ban on original research. When someone adds a category to an image based on their knowledge of what is seen there, that's very often "original research". You can find the information that would prove that Soulacroix meant to show an early nineteenth century scene in many places, if you don't like Wikipedia, but it's not my obligation to disable my brain and pretend not to know things which I do know in order to placate you. It's sad that you value sterile legalisms, which are often quite irrelevant or inapplicable here, above adding useful information which will enable modern people to understand what historical images meant in their original context. Lacking such information, people can gaze at a historical image and find it beautiful, but quite remote and unconnected with themselves, since they have no idea what is going on or what it was meant to convey (see previous discussion). Churchh (talk) 16:04, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Six weeks, why this outburst now? I consider(ed) the discussion closed. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 16:54, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

info request

info request

Hi, am a photo conservator who's taking some time apart in order to research about a well known but lost image from one of the historical personalities here in Argentine. I see you recently posted some picture made by Paris-based photographer Robert Bingham. I will love to know if you have some info about him or a clue about where to search. Am looking some pictures he sold and reproduced in the middle 1850s and 1860s. Kind regards, Mauro Mazzini MJM (talk) 16:44, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Hello Mauro, I am not a specialist on the work of Bingham, so I could not advise you in this matter. I usually provide source information with all my uploads. Since I don't know which of my uploads you are referring to I advise you to follow the source information there. Kind regards, Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 20:55, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Nice job

Nice job on adjusting the colors on File:Baron Alexander von Humboldt by Julius Schrader 1859.jpg. Also, thanks for your work on some of my other images, as well. You always look after the image, which I really appreciate as an uploader. Best, MarmadukePercy (talk) 00:26, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 14:04, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

FP Promotion

★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★ The image File:Willem van de Velde II - Dutch men-o'-war and other shipping in a calm .jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Willem van de Velde II - Dutch men-o'-war and other shipping in a calm .jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

/FPCBot (talk) 22:06, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Alexandrine Tinne

Beste Jan Arkesteijn, Hier een vraag n.a.v. afbeeldingen van Alexandrine Tinne (gekopieerd van mijn Wikipedia overlegpagina):
---(eerst een vraag aan mij, daarna mijn antwoord en dan een vraag aan jou)--
Bij twee van de foto's die ik bekeek, staat: Rechtenvrij gebruik van de afbeeldingen uitsluitend toegestaan ter aankondiging of vermelding van de tentoonstelling en o.v.v. de creditline. Het lijkt me hiermee niet toegestaan deze, en wellicht ook de andere, voor WP te gebruiken. Zou je hiernaar kunnen kijken? Met vriendelijke groet, Salix2 (overleg) 7 apr 2013 18:53 (CEST) Beste Salix2, Ik heb meteen maar naar alle 5 de afbeeldingen gekeken die ik bij het artikel over Alexandrine Tinne gebruikt had. Ik was zelf niet de uploader in Wikimedia, maar dat was gebruiker Jan Arkesteijn. Per afbeelding: 1. Tinne op paard: uit 1849. Schilder D'Anecy Montpezat. Collectie Haags Historisch Museum. Afbeelding afkomstig van website Haags Historisch Museum (en daar staat de afbeelding nog). 2. Tinne naast paard; foto rond 1860. Fotograaf Bingham? Collectie Nationaal Archief. Afbeelding afkomstig van website Haags Historisch Museum, maar daar alleen nog in de parent directory te vinden. De vermelding die jij hierboven geeft, slaat op de huidige website alleen nog op 3 Couperus-afbeeldingen, maar heeft eerder ook naast de Tinne-afbeeldingen gestaan (want in dezelfde oude directory). 3. Tinne en familie: foto uit 1860. Fotograaf Bingham. Collectie RKD. Afbeelding afkomstig van website Haags Historisch Museum, maar daar alleen nog in de parent directory te vinden. De vermelding die jij hierboven geeft, slaat op de huidige website alleen nog op 3 Couperus-afbeeldingen, maar heeft eerder ook naast de Tinne-afbeeldingen gestaan (want in dezelfde oude directory). 4. Tournooiveld: foto rond 1860. Fotograaf Tinne. Collectie Haags GemeenteArchief(?). Afbeelding waarschijnlijk afkomstig van website Haags Historisch Museum, maar daar ook niet meer in de parent directory te vinden. 5. Tekening Beyrouth door Tinne, 1857. Collectie familie-archief Tinne. Afbeelding afkomstig van website Haags Historisch Museum, maar daar alleen nog in de parent directory te vinden, dus vermoedelijk ook uit de "online persmap". Ik weet niet hoe het precies met copyright op deze afbeeldingen zit. Ze zijn ouder dan 100 jaar, en ook de makers zijn in alle gevallen meer dan 70 jaar geleden overleden. Idem de afgebeelde personen. Blijft dus over het copyright van de eigenaars, en dat zijn vijf verschillende instanties. Als je dat een goed idee vindt, vraag ik degene die de vijf afbeeldingen geupload heeft, hoe dat zit. Vysotsky (overleg) 7 apr 2013 22:03 (CEST)

Zelf vermoed ik dat het HHM geen bezwaar heeft tegen gebruik van afbeeldingen van hun eigen collectie (afb 1 staat nog steeds op de website van het HHM), maar hoe zit het met de positie van Nationaal Archief, RKD, HGA en familie Tinne? Heb je die vier laatste afbeeldingen niet te snel overgenomen van de site van het HHM? Of weet je meer over hun positie ten opzichte van copyright? Vysotsky (talk) 00:07, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Hallo, ik zie dat ik op deze vraag geen antwoord heb gegeven. Als er geen rechten meer op een afbeelding zitten, dan zitten er geen rechten meer op. Punt. Het is niet zo, dat iemand bepaalde rechten heeft, als er door de leeftijd geen rechten meer op zitten. Dat geldt voor alle genoemde instanties en rechtspersonen. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 09:36, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

File:Vigée_Le_Brun_Baronne_de_Crussol_(RO_307)_2.jpg

Hi ! I've splited File:Vigée_Le_Brun_Baronne_de_Crussol_(RO_307)_2.jpg and [[:File:Vigée_Le_Brun_Baronne_de_Crussol_(RO_307).jpg into two sperates files. Your version is really really great and the lyrics on the sheet music are now readable, but the colors are differents from the ones in the picture library ("photothèque") of the museum, so it is better to keep the two files IMHO. More importantly, your version is not from the picture libary of the museum so you should indicate your own source. Thanks :) Léna (talk) 11:21, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Questions about an image...

Hello Jan Arkesteijn,

I'm wondering what is the source of the higher resolution version you uploaded to File:1869 Edward Poynter - Andromeda.jpg? Also, was the higher resolution image already digitally restored or was this something which you contributed to the image?

Thanks for your time and attention, --Kevjonesin (talk) 13:08, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

The source is in the exif-data: it's Sotheby's. Only a slight colour adjustment was made to compensate for ambient light and ageing effects. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 14:59, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

talkback

Hello, Jan Arkesteijn. You have new messages at File_talk:Anonymous,_Portrait_of_Charles_V,_Rijksmuseum.jpg. You may remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

--Kevjonesin (talk) 23:15, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

File:Krøyer PS.jpg

Hallo Jan Arkesteijn, your second upload over this file in 2011 is wrong. It is not the same painting. The first upload in black and white is a Krøyer-selfportrait in the Uffici Firence, 49x41 cm (here in colour see also here or here). Your upload is from the auction house „Palais Dorotheum“ 11.10.2011, lot 107 (Self Portrait, 1888, oil on canvas, 50x41.5 cm). --Botaurus (talk) 23:32, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, I reverted it. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 07:56, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Filemover

Hi Jan. In consideration of your experience, I've added the filemover right to your account. INeverCry 20:39, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, INeverCry, I will use it with great care. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 21:12, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Category:Léonard_Limousin

Léonard Limousin has been listed at Commons:Categories for discussion so that the community can discuss ways in which it should be changed. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this category, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for discussion 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. If the category is up for deletion because it has been superseded, consider the notion that although the category may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new category. In all cases, please do not take the category discussion personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

Jwh (talk) 16:11, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

File:Frederik Hendrik, circle of Michiel Jansz van Miereveld.jpg

hoi Jan Arkesteijn, ik vermoed dat bovenstaande schilderij niet Frederik Hendrik van Oranje is maar Frederik Hendrik van de Palts. Dat wordt ook op de website van Christie's gezegd. Daarnaast was Frederik Hendrik van Oranje bij de vervaardiging van het schilderij in 1626 42 jaar, terwijl de afbeeldde nog een kind is. Het zou logischer zijn dat dit daarom zijn achterneefje is. groet Druifkes (talk) 16:02, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Better to discuss this at File talk:Frederik Hendrik, circle of Michiel Jansz van Miereveld.jpg. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 23:27, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

FP promotion

★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★ The image File:Stefan Heym (1982).jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Stefan Heym (1982).jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

/JKadavoor Jee 09:19, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

 Done; thanks. JKadavoor Jee 14:22, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Category:Eric_Koch

Eric Koch has been listed at Commons:Categories for discussion so that the community can discuss ways in which it should be changed. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this category, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for discussion 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. If the category is up for deletion because it has been superseded, consider the notion that although the category may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new category. In all cases, please do not take the category discussion personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

PanchoS (talk) 05:49, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Editor @ ar.wiki

Hello. I would like to inform you that I have granted you editor flag at the Arabic Wikipedia, all your edits there will be automatically marked as patrolled. Best regards.--Avocato (talk) 07:10, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 08:02, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Artwork template

Hello! You've uploaded so many nice high-res images of portrait paintings from auction houses, and I think they are wonderful! Thank you!

Did you know that you can use the {{Artwork}} template for images of paintings and drawings? (But not portrait photographs; there are other templates for them.) The specialized templates provide for a lot more data and render automatic translations to other languages if you use the sub-templates for dates, {{Technique}}s (e.g., {{Oil on canvas}}), {{Size}}, etc. (all of which you can use in the Information template too, btw).

Hope you find my suggestion useful. Have fun! Laura1822 (talk) 20:49, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you.

About the template artwork, I have mixed feelings about it, but I don't want to go into a discussion about that. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 19:59, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

No problem, keep up the good work! Laura1822 (talk) 16:38, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Notification about possible deletion

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!

Affected:

• File:Ossuaire van Douaumont.JPG

Yours sincerely, Labattblueboy (talk) 07:28, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

File:Vigée Le Brun Baronne de Crussol (RO 307) 2.jpg

Hi Jan,

I am unsure why you reverted my edit: it so happens that this portrait had its information factorised on Category:Baronne de Crussol using {{Category definition: Object}}, and that this description is more complete than the current one on File:Vigée Le Brun Baronne de Crussol (RO 307) 2.jpg. I thus do not understand your comment “no required information” − this was not the point of my edit, which was to have a more complete description.

If you refer to the fact that {{Object photo}} complains if no souce/author is given − then I rather suggest either amending this template so that it does not complain anymore if it should not, or adopting a similar strategy as many files like File:Antonio Covarrubias.jpg.

What do you think?

Cheers, Jean-Fred (talk) 11:25, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

This was what I was thinking. Why adding a template object photo, and not adding the required information photographer? For the rest, I think a template that uses info from a category complicates things and makes it very user unfriendly for new contributors. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 11:32, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

File:Maarten van Rossem, 2013 cropped.jpg

You should refer to an artist by the name he or she chooses, and not interchange it with a username. Doing so violates the CreativeCommons license }:-( - Vera (talk) 22:04, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

You are in a bad mood. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 22:38, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

yes, because I expect an apology for violating the CreativeCommons license. - Vera (talk) 11:01, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

I attributed it to you. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 13:08, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

To my username, while I had choisen to publish it under my real name. I would find it truely dreadfull had a newspaper published the picture doing that too. --Vera (talk) 23:24, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

First of all, I attributed it to you. Second, the license does not say anything specific about this or that name. Third, you could have tried to prevent it by not making the link between this and that name. Finally, if you are not satisfied, feel free to improve it. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 17:17, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Picture of the Year 2013 R2 Announcement

Round 2 of Picture of the Year 2013 is open!

• ⧼Wikibase-terms/Jan Arkesteijn⧽: Deutsch, Ελληνικά, English, ‎français, magyar, ‎italiano, македонски, ‎‎日本語, ‎‎‎русский, ‎‎‎svenska

2012 Picture of the Year: A pair of European Bee-eaters in Ariège, France.

Dear Wikimedians,

Wikimedia Commons is happy to announce that the second round of the 2013 Picture of the Year competition is now open. This year will be the eighth edition of the annual Wikimedia Commons photo competition, which recognizes exceptional contributions by users on Wikimedia Commons. Wikimedia users are invited to vote for their favorite images featured on Commons during the last year (2013) to produce a single Picture of the Year.

Hundreds of images that have been rated Featured Pictures by the international Wikimedia Commons community in the past year were entered in this competition. These images include professional animal and plant shots, breathtaking panoramas and skylines, restorations of historical images, photographs portraying the world's best architecture, impressive human portraits, and so much more.

There are two total rounds of voting. In the first round, you voted for as many images as you liked. The top 30 overall and the most popular image in each category have continued to the final. In the final round, you may vote for just one image to become the Picture of the Year.

Round 2 will end on 7 March 2014. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:MyLanguage/Commons:Picture_of_the_Year/2013/Introduction/en Click here to learn more and vote »]

Thanks,
the Wikimedia Commons Picture of the Year committee

You are receiving this message because you voted in the 2013 Picture of the Year contest.

This Picture of the Year vote notification was delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:22, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

File tagging File:Rajmohan Gandhi (1960).jpg

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:Rajmohan Gandhi (1960).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 ([email protected]). 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.

 

Sitush (talk) 19:08, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Picture of the Year 2013 Results Announcement

Picture of the Year 2013 Results

• In other languages: Deutsch, ‎español, ‎français, ‎日本語, Nederlands, русский, ‎svenska, ‎Türkçe, ‎українська

The 2013 Picture of the Year. View all results »

Dear Jan Arkesteijn,

The 2013 Picture of the Year competition has ended and we are pleased to announce the results: We shattered participation records this year — more people voted in Picture of the Year 2013 than ever before. In both rounds, 4070 different people voted for their favorite images. Additionally, there were more image candidates (featured pictures) in the contest than ever before (962 images total).

• In the first round, 2852 people voted for all 962 files
• In the second round, 2919 people voted for the 50 finalists (the top 30 overall and top 2 in each category)

We congratulate the winners of the contest and thank them for creating these beautiful images and sharing them as freely licensed content:

1. 157 people voted for the winner, an image of a lightbulb with the tungsten filament smoking and burning.
2. In second place, 155 people voted for an image of "Sviati Hory" (Holy Mountains) National Park in Donetsk Oblast, Ukraine.
3. In third place, 131 people voted for an image of a swallow flying and drinking.

Click here to view the top images »

We also sincerely thank to all 4070 voters for participating and we hope you will return for next year's contest in early 2015. We invite you to continue to participate in the Commons community by sharing your work.

Thanks,
the Picture of the Year committee

You are receiving this message because you voted in the 2013 Picture of the Year contest.

Delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:00, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

William L. Breton vs. William Britton

I salute your attempt to correct an apparent error, getting the artist right for the "Market Square, Germantown" image. But in this case, the Philadelphia Museum of Art almost certainly has it wrong. A lithograph of this same view of "Market Square, Germantown" by William L. Breton was an illustration in John Fanning Watson's Annals of Philadelphia (1830). Breton (who's name was sometimes misspelled "Briton") made watercolor views of the city and its surroundings which he used as the basis for his lithographs. He also made and sold copies of his watercolors. (For instance, there are 5 Breton watercolors of the President's House in Philadelphia all taken from the same angle as Breton's lithograph in Watson's Annals.)
I guess there is the remote possibility that there was another artist named William Britton who copied William L. Breton's view for this painting. And I'll admit that I've never seen an oil-on-canvas by Breton. I added [Category:William L. Breton] back to the image, but left [Category:William Britton] just in case. -- BoringHistoryGuy (talk) 22:22, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. Although it sounds convincing, I rather rely on the judgment of the museum. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 23:15, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

I'll inform the museum of their error, and delete your category once they've corrected it. -- BoringHistoryGuy (talk) 01:45, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Okay. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 10:52, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Some stroopwafels for you!

Beste Jan, bij deze mijn zeer grote appreciatie voor het prachtige beeldmateriaal dat je zo consistent op Wikimedia Commons uploadt. Spinster (talk) 11:41, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Hartelijk bedankt. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 11:42, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

File:Frida Kahlo, by Guillermo Kahlo.jpg

File:Frida Kahlo, by Guillermo Kahlo.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 may soon be deleted. If you have written permission from the copyright holder, please replace the copyvio tag with {{subst:OP}} and have them send us a free license release via COM:VRT. If you disagree that the file is a copyright violation for any other reason, please replace the copyvio tag with a regular deletion request. Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

 

Yanguas (talk) 14:13, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

File:Frida Kahlo, by Guillermo Kahlo.jpg

File:Frida Kahlo, by Guillermo Kahlo.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!

Yanguas (talk) 19:47, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Jan

Jan, I have nominated your picture at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/The Art of Painting

here, you can check that. There are some questions about the licensing an editor asked me, that I can't answer. Could you help? I rather have this picture that the alternative, since it is this the one used in most articles... Hafspajen (talk) 13:10, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

File:Eakins, Miss Helen Parker 1908.jpg

Your upload drastically changed her dress color from green to gray. AnonMoos (talk) 01:13, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Don't you think you have to address the museum for that? Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 08:44, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

(chiming in) I splitted the file. Jan, please be careful when overwriting files ; and when you do so please update the source − in this case AnonMoos (or anyone else) had no easy way to know that your new version was coming from the authoritative source that is the museum (yeah, it was in the EXIFs but I don't think many people check that :)

Cheers, Jean-Fred (talk) 09:27, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the splitting. The source is in the meta-data for anyone to see. The painting has obviously been cleaned. The dirty version was only used in a list of his works, I don't so no reason why not to overwrite a mediocre version with a better one. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 09:35, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

language expertise

Dear Jan,

You seem to be familiar with several European languages and I would like to request your expertise in a very small matter. Would you please take a look at File:Gabriel Metsu - Portrait of a Lady - Google Art Project.jpg and examine the inscription? I think there is some kind of mark above the "u" in the signature but I don't know what it is, much less how to reproduce it on my keyboard. Can you correct the inscription in the artwork template for me?

Thanks for all the amazing work you do and the wonderful images you upload! Laura1822 (talk) 22:44, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi Laura, according to this database it says G. Metsue An° 1667. Thanks for the compliment. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 23:35, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you! Laura1822 (talk) 16:04, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Meisje_met_brede_hoed_-_Caesar_van_Everdingen.jpg&oldid=128556588&diff=prev

Dag User:Jan Arkesteijn, I noticed your edit. Why, if I may ask? Lotje (talk) 16:21, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Because your claim that these images are the same is not true. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 16:46, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Bedankt voor de uitleg. Wat te doen hiermee en dit? Lotje (talk) 04:54, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

I dont get your point, these images are not the same so why delete? For instance, what do we do with the eleven states of File:Repin Cossacks.jpg. Nothing. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 07:25, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

cropped image

Regarding File:Prince Hoare (1755–1834), by Thomas Lawrence.jpg, I noticed that you did a nice crop of the painting showing the head, which would be particularly useful for illustrating Wikipedia articles, but I think this sort of image should be uploaded as a separate file, perhaps with "detail" in the title. The original painting, though unfinished, is important in its entirety and so the image of the entire painting should be preserved on commons.

Thank you for all the wonderful images you upload! Laura1822 (talk) 18:35, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi Laura, there are two approaches to storing images here. One is storing originals (as far as you can consider a copy be an original), and the second is publishing-ready imagery. I favour the second, because the first is practically impossible, considering the lively character of images here. I mean, re-uploads can change its appearance every day. However, an upload is always preserved in older states of the image. That is why I first uploaded the entire image, and then the crop. I can imagine, you are not satisfied with that, and feel a self-contained upload is in its place. Feel free to do so. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 09:29, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your thoughtful response! I appreciate it.

However, I've reviewed the official guidelines and I think your position is contrary to it. Please review COM:CROP. Specifically, it says do not overwrite files with a substantial change, including "removing parts of historical images", or making "major changes (eg a radical crop)". In general, a "substantial crop" (defined as depending "partly on the proportion of the image cropped, and partly on how much the excluded content affects the composition") should be uploaded as a separate file. The files can be linked through a gallery, as provided in the {{Artwork}} template, or simply with direct links.

I am happy to work with you to upload a restored version of this particular image as a separate file, but do you have any idea how many files you may have similarly cropped and overwritten? I have looked at your upload history, which is impressive, but it would take quite a while to review all of them looking for crops.

Please don't let this offend you or discourage you from uploading. I think you're doing important work. Laura1822 (talk) 13:25, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

No Laura, I am not offended. Apart from the occasional removal of frames, I can remember that this has happened once or twice before, but I can't find those pictures. Anyway, you know how I feel about it. I will take notice in the future. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 18:22, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you very much. It's very kind of you. Ecummenic (talk) 23:49, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Reversions

Just curious why you would revert changes to images that are obviously inferior (gray, dull, blurry). I know the originals don't look that way, and its obvious from your user page that you are a good judge of images. So...? WQUlrich (talk) 23:57, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

PS:You're not also known as "JoJan" are you? WQUlrich (talk) 00:00, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

There is a guideline about overwriting images. You uploaded less detailed images over detailed ones. What you might consider an improvement, might be considered a degradation by someone else. So, in case of doubt, upload it as a different file, please. By the way, no, I am not Jojan. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 09:11, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. So despite their use of the word "guidelines" it's really rather subjective. Best to always be in doubt, eh? WQUlrich (talk) 18:17, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Don't need to say "their". You are part of it as well. If you think you can improve the guideline, start a talk on the talkpage. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 19:17, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Notification about possible deletion

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!

Editør (talk) 12:53, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Hiddencat

Hi Jan Arkesteijn. I saw this and I've asked others whether that's true or not, but JurgenNL agreed with me that it's not. I also couldn't remember that it's only for user categories. It's used for several categories of "Photos made by...". See for example Category:Images by Paul Van Welden and Category:Photographs by Filip Naudts. Trijnstel_talk 15:42, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Could you start then with f.i. Carl Van Vechten or Ansel Adams and see what happens? Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 15:50, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Nationaal Archief

Hallo, achtest Du bitte darauf, die Lizenz nach Quelle anzugeben. Eine Creative-Commons-Lizenz „Namensnennung – Weitergabe unter gleichen Bedingungen 3.0 nicht portiert ungleich Creative-Commons-Lizenz „Namensnennung – Weitergabe unter gleichen Bedingungen 2.0 Niederlande. Danke Dir. Grüße diba (talk) 12:04, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Hallo User:Diba‎, Nationaal Archief ist darüber nicht klar. Man hat ein Pagina http://www.gahetna.nl/over-ons/open-data über offene Data, und da steht im paragraph Foto's Creative-Commons-Lizenz „Namensnennung – Weitergabe unter gleichen Bedingungen 3.0 nicht portiert. In sofern ich mich erinnern kann war das auch so beim einzelnen Foto's bevor man das Logo für CC-BY-SA in die Beschreibung einfügte. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 12:16, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Hello Jan - sorry for the german language in the first post - i didn't realize you are from the netherlands. I saw the pic File:An Rutgers van der Loeff (1982).jpg (a new upload) in :de and was just wondering why you don't use the CC-information right beside the image in the source. I think it would be a good idea to use the CC-information just like the source recommends. Greetings diba (talk) 12:30, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Hallo User:Diba‎, I thought you were warning about the difference between 2.0 and 3.0 and unported vs. Dutch. Anyway, a click on the image will show all that you are referring to. Besides in the meta data is a link to the source and a link the open data page. I think this is sufficient. If not, we will have to start a discussion because I am not the only one not showing the license and/or conditions in the caption. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 12:53, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

On second reading, you are talking about 2.0 vs 3.0 and unported vs. dutch, aren't you? Like I said, as far as I can remember, Nationaal Archief used 3.0 unported for the images and than inserted the logo in the description of the file. It is a general logo for CC-BY-SA, but it directs now to 2.0 Dutch. I can't change the rights of all my previous uploads, and the page open-data still refers to 3.0 unported. So it is not me, but them that are unclear. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 13:00, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. What does not make sense to me for new uploads is the fact that we have an accurate CC-license in the source right beside the picture (!sic!) and nevertheless we use a different CC-specification here. The people who wants to use this picture from the commons must trust the license specified here, without further looking into the source. Why we should not use the original CC-license as stated right beside the picture (...for new uploads now on...)? Greetings diba (talk) 13:12, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

I am quite sure Nationaal Archief made a mistake. Anyway, since they say that version 3.0 applies ánd they say that version 2.0 applies, I think it is best to use the higher version. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 14:01, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

I have sent an e-mail to Nationaal Archief about the matter. Besides, the upload procedure does not offer a v2 option of CC-BY-SA. 2.5 is the lowest. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 17:53, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you - alle CC-Templates are listed in a category --> Category:CC license tags. You can easily switch a template just like i did here. diba (talk) 22:14, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Hello User:Diba‎, I noticed Nationaal Archief quietly changed the link on their photopages to CC-BY-SA 3.0 again. Apparently, 2.0 was their mistake. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 15:00, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi Jan, thank you for your inquiry. Now i've tagged the images with {{cc-by-sa-3.0-nl}}. diba (talk) 21:46, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

File:Mondriaanmode door Yves St Laurent (1966).jpg

File:Mondriaanmode door Yves St Laurent (1966).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!

Alinea (talk) 10:02, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

File:Mondriaanmode door Yves Saint Laurent (1966).jpg

File:Mondriaanmode door Yves Saint Laurent (1966).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!

Alinea (talk) 17:54, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Non free frames

Hello dear Jan! I´ve just read your message about the File:Cornelis Engebrechtsz. - Crucifixion Altarpiece - WGA07521.jpg. I cropped the frame because this file was in the category "images with non free frames". I didn´t add the non free frame template to this image. After having cropped the frame I added the corresponding template in order to remove this file from the category non free frames. But anyway, you can revert my edit if you have another opinion. Thanks for your attention,[andˈɾikʰːɔs] ^[TALK] 15:53, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 15:56, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Web Gallery of Art images

Hi. I've noticed a couple of examples of where you have overwritten an image from the 'Web Gallery of Art' with a higher resolution image, presumably from some other source (since they don't seem to have it at that resolution). No complaints about that, but could you please make sure to change the 'Photographer/source' to indicate the source of the new version, and request a file move to strip the WGA identifier? It's kind of misleading to say it's a image from there when that's not the case anymore. Thanks. :) Revent (talk) 00:41, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

If possible, I add the source (or the provider) in the metadata, so when the image is copied to a different location the source is moved with it. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 09:51, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

File:Samuel van Hoogstraten - The Anaemic Lady.jpg is the image I was specifically referring to, and I now see that the information is included in the EXIF data. (this was File:Samuel van Hoogstraten - The Anaemic Lady - WGA11719.jpg when you overwrote it, which was quite a while back). My point, tho, is that the actual file page (and file name) was indicating the source of the image actually shown was still the Web Gallery of Art, which was no longer right. I think it's fair to assume most people would just glance at the 'human readable' page, rather than the encoded data. Again, not a huge thing, mainly noticed it because another version of this image (which is a book scan) had had it's information completely overwritten, and was shown as 'unknown' rather than being attributed to the book, so I was checking.

I'm actually curious, btw, exactly how you obtained such a high resolution image, since the version that I can see from the Rijksmuesem (uploaded by Fae at File:'De bleekzuchtige dame' Rijksmuseum SK-C-152.jpeg, and visible at https://www.rijksmuseum.nl/mediabin.jsp?id=SK-C-152 ), while quite good, is nowhere near as high quality. Yours is obviously not just 'magnified', there is considerably more detail visible. Please don't take this as any kind of 'criticism', btw, about the 'provenance' of your image of the painting... it's obvious PD-Art, with no copyright drama regardless of the source. I'm just wondering if the Rijksmuseum provides higher resolution images somewhere else, or if being actually in the Netherlands (which I assume from your name) makes a difference. Revent (talk) 05:11, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

I used to rename files, but there were problems with the Commons Delinker. That is the bot that replaces the filename on the Wikipedia's that use the file. So I stopped doing that. I don't know if these problems still exist. I can't go into detail about the photographs. They are different for each image. Anyway, they are legitimate, I am not a hacker. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 10:18, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

I wasn't at all implying that they are 'illegitimate'... the thought, honestly, hadn't crossed my mind. Sorry if I gave that implication, my 'guess' was that the Rijksmuseum itself served higher quality images to local users, or perhaps from an ftp server to reduce load on their webserver. Under whatever circumstances, though, a 'faithful' photo of 2D art doesn't create a new copyright anyhow, so there are no issues. I was simply curious. The 'better' photos are definitely a good thing...there is a particularly horrible 'enhanced book scan' of that particular painting.

I'm unaware of any outstanding problems with the bot, but when I move something I tend to let the script go ahead and make the change on all wikis, instead of waiting for the bot to do it. A renaming, though, isn't really as big a deal as changing the 'source' field in the artwork template, and 'anonymous' or 'unknown' is perfectly fine. My comment was really just a request that you take the 'web gallery of art' out of the source field when you overwrite them, since it's then incorrect. Revent (talk) 10:56, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

File:View of Singel, by George Hendrik Breitner.jpg

Hey. The image is not displaying on where the image displays on the above linked file page. Could you consider fixing it? Thanks. DLindsley ^{Need something?} 21:01, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

I see you have taken care of it, so scratch that. Anyways, thanks. DLindsley ^{Need something?} 21:04, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't know what happened, but it is there. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 21:06, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

File:WLANL - karinvogt - Hans Holbein de Jonge, Richard Mabott (ca.1485-1540).jpg

Dear Jan, you have already been asked by several user to follow the policy at Commons:Overwriting existing files. Take for example File:WLANL - karinvogt - Hans Holbein de Jonge, Richard Mabott (ca.1485-1540).jpg, this photo was uploaded as part of a photo competition and you uploaded a completely different image. Please stop doing this. You're doing very good work here, but this will get you blocked if you continue doing this. Multichill (talk) 19:49, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

You are wrong, it is the same painting. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 20:49, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Come on Jan. It doesn't matter if it is the same painting. It's a different photo so you have to upload it under a different name. You should know that by now. Multichill (talk) 21:19, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

So no, the re-uploads you did at File:Reinoud III van Brederode1.jpg are not acceptable. Please just upload these files under a new name. Multichill (talk) 21:26, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Uploading higher resolution images is commonly done by many of our colleagues. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 21:49, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/User_problems#Jan_Arkesteijn_.28talk.C2.A0.C2.B7_contribs.29_overwriting_files. Multichill (talk) 18:01, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Sourcelink File:Jan Steen - Het Sint Nicolaasfeest.jpg for example

Beste Jan, Dear Jan,

I saw that you have done a lot for the collection of the Rijksmuseum. Just a remark, perhaps you know already: in some of your uploads the sourcelinks using the search engine of the Rijks are broken. The best solution seems to be to use the permalink instead, like http://hdl.handle.net/10934/RM0001.COLLECT.5500 (mentioned down their metadata page, but not always) or alternatively if this permalink is not shown something like https://www.rijksmuseum.nl/en/collection/SK-A-385 (also .../nl/collectie/...). Vriendelijke groet, Hansmuller (talk) 12:55, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 14:43, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

OC

That's overcategorization, Jan... -- SERGIO ^{(aka the Blackcat)} 15:46, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

No, it's not. If you want to take Florence Ballard out, it is not logical to leave the others in. Many pictures in the cat The Supremes are also categorized with the individual singers. --Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 16:01, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Indeed the correct category of that photo must be The Supremes. Photos of the single members of the group must be placed in the person's category. -- SERGIO ^{(aka the Blackcat)} 16:08, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

File tagging File:Gerrit Jan Heijn.jpg

This media was probably deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:Gerrit Jan Heijn.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 ([email protected]). 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 ([[:File:Gerrit Jan Heijn.jpg]]) and the above demanded information in your request.

 

Stefan4 (talk) 21:23, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

File:Gerrit Jan Heijn.jpg

File:Gerrit Jan Heijn.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!

.     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:31, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Chaim Topol and Hans Fritzche

Hi!

I'm sorry, I sadly misunderstood the information provided by the source andd that's why the wrong uploads. Hungarikusz Firkász (talk) 18:43, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

File tagging File:Virginia Vee (1975).jpg

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:Virginia Vee (1975).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 ([email protected]). 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.

 

— Racconish^📥 17:23, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

.

Jan, you forgot to change source.. File:Jacob Cornelisz. van Oostsanen 001.jpg is not a York scan. Will you please change it? --Hafspajen 13:48, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

I noticed you added a source, but I doubt whether this is the source I got it from. However, I don't remember my source. Sometimes I get images handed over from other people and I don't have any idea what the source really is. Anyway, in the end it must be Gemäldegalerie Alte Meister. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 17:29, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

FP Promotion

★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★ The image File:Jane Digby, Lady Ellenborough, by William Charles Ross.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Jane Digby, Lady Ellenborough, by William Charles Ross.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

/FPCBot (talk) 14:05, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Theo Frenkel (Mann-Bouwmeester) in haar rol als Francine de Riverolles door George Hendrik Breitner

Hi Jan, You suggested that Theo Frenkel (Mann-Bouwmeester) in haar rol als Francine de Riverolles door George Hendrik Breitner.jpg‎ is not a duplicate. I'm new to the duplicate template, could you please help me why this is not a duplicate of the painting? Do you mean we should keep both black and white and color reproduction of a painting? Or is this not the same painting? --Hannolans (talk) 22:22, 15 March 2015 (UTC) Note that there is also https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Breitner_Mann_Bouwmeester_original.jpg is that one the painting in an earlier state? --Hannolans (talk) 22:30, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

OK, I think I understand that black and white needs another entity. I added the field other versions with a gallery, could you have a look if it is correct like this? --Hannolans (talk) 23:24, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi Hannolans, there is no strict procedure concerning duplicates, only guidelines. Almost everything here is managed through guidelines, although some would like to see that differently. You added a template that says this image is an exact duplicate or scaled-down version. It is not scaled down, in fact it is bigger. And it is not an exact duplicate, it is a black and white version of the image. I don't especially hang on to this version but I don't like lame reasoning determine it's deletion. The category you added looks alright to me, but my personal opinion is that it is to specific. It is obvious that it is a black and white image, and the category is only valid until someone decides to overwrite it with a colour version. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 09:55, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

I see. Is there a guideline of artwork to keep both the colored and a black and white? I wasnt aware that the black and white one is of better quality. If I find a better color resolution should we replace this black and white as duplicate or keep both? I added a gallery with the different versions. Did you have a look at it, especially because we have two black and white versions of the painting, but in two stages? Is the repainted version of the painting the same year? --Hannolans (talk) 10:41, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

I am not very familiar with all the guidelines. I rely on common sense, most of the times it keeps me in line with the guidelines. The template duplicate is a very destructive one. Images will be speedily deleted, and most of the times administrators don't really check why the images are in that specific category. Commons publishes free media for use inside and outside the wikipedia environment. Sometimes people need a higher resolution, sometimes a lower resolution. Sometimes the need a colour version, sometimes a black and white version. The template duplicate is intended for real duplicate versions. Don't use it unless you are absolutely sure of that. By the way, the two black and white versions are not the same. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 17:27, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

This was the first time I did use this template. Didn't know how this template works. In nlwiki we have 'samenvoegen met', but this is another beast, sorry! Yes I became aware of the two versions. That's why I added the gallery in the color version links to the other versions with a short note. Hope that helps others. Not sure if I should add those galleries in each version. --Hannolans (talk) 20:16, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

It would be nice to do that, I mean the gallery. There is no rule for that, but it is commonly done by others as well. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 21:00, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Gerard van Honthorst (studio): Elizabeth Stuart as Queen of Bohemia (1631)

Dear Sir, You published a portrait of Elizabeth Stuart (as mentioned in the title) with the reference "Sotheby's". We are going to reconstruct the lost Heidelberg Painting Gallery (lost since 1685), in whose inventary a portrait of the queen in full length is mentioned. There is an other version of that painting at Heidelberg, Kurpfaelzisches Museum (palatinate Museum) (clearly different in some details) and a totally other painting of the queen at Govenmenr Art Collection (actually exhibitet in the netherlands). Do you have more informations about that portrait you published? Owner, Location, origin, provenience? I were glad if You could help at our reconstruction attempt. Please be so kind as to answer to my private mail: buehler(at)landeskunde.eu Yours sincerely Dr. Christoph Buehler - Forschungsinstitut Kurpfalz, Heidelberg --Geroldsecker (talk) 15:55, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

I am sorry, I published this painting five years ago and since then Sotheby's removed the source, as far as I can see. I can only advise you to address Sotheby's. Kind regards. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 16:36, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

File tagging File:Hugo Walker (1974).jpg

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:Hugo Walker (1974).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 ([email protected]). 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.

 

MoiraMoira (talk) 17:21, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Nationaal Archief licentie

Dag Jan, dank voor het controleren en terugdraaien van m'n bewerking op het sjabloon van het NA. Ik wilde alleen de licentie veranderen, maar plaatste per ongeluk een oudere versie met de betreffende categorie erin terug. Groet, JurgenNL (talk) 16:47, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

File:Piet Wijnberg (1979).jpg

Hello Jan!

Het is Ruud Kaiser ([3])! --ManFromNord (talk) 09:40, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Ik denk dat je gelijk hebt. Hier staat een foto van Wijnberg uit ongeveer die tijd en dat lijkt toch iemand anders. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 19:43, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Ik heb een en ander aangepast. Bedankt. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 20:00, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

File:Sachindra Chaudhuri en Rajkumar Raghunath Sinha (1966).jpg

Can the file, mentioned as subject of this section, be cropped for use in the article, en:Minister of Finance (India)?

Karan Kamath (talk · contribs) 21 Apr 2015 / 1312 HRS IST.

From a photographic point of view this is not a good image to be cropped. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 08:47, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Alfred Kosmann vs Enno Endt

Jan,

De foto File:Enno Endt (1965).jpg (oorspronkelijk Alfred Kossmann (1965).jpg genaamd door jou) is niet Alfred Kossman, maar Enno Endt. Zie ook http://www.gahetna.nl/collectie/afbeeldingen/fotocollectie/zoeken/weergave/detail/q/id/aad24422-d0b4-102d-bcf8-003048976d84. Ik heb de afbeelding laten hernoemen. Mbch331 (talk) 11:35, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Ok, bedankt. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 14:12, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

FP Promotion

★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★ The image File:Wessel Couzijn (1980).jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Wessel Couzijn (1980).jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

/FPCBot (talk) 05:02, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Decrease/increase

Hello,, I noticed you reduced the file size of Galileogalilei.png. But do you realize you actually increased the file size now? That is because old files are not overwritten, they stored there as well entirely so the total file siz is not 488kB, but circa 1100 kB.. Regards --Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 08:05, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi Jan, thanks for the feedback. I understand the issue, and because of that I restrict my script to only upload images that compress to 75% or less of the original size. Occasionally I run across outliers that compress to <10% of the original size, which is clearly worth doing, but mostly it's in the 60-75% range. There's a tradeoff here though, isn't there? If I compress a frequently viewed image (eg a logo on a page, or something like that), then there'll be bandwidth savings for wikipedia (and the users). This can be especially useful on slow connections or mobile internet.

I'm not sure how expensive file storage is for wikipedia, but if it became a problem, I wonder would it be possible to run a deduplication job that removes older images when the pixel values and metadata for two images are identical.

For what it's worth, I think I'm going to run this script much less from now on, because I wanted to prove the idea to myself more than anything else, and to see if there could be much benefit to recompression.

Cheers, Cmdrjameson (talk) 15:12, 26 July 2015 (UTC).

File:H van kruiningen 1954.jpg

File:H van kruiningen 1954.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!

Gouwenaar (talk) 15:27, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Comment

Hi, Jan! Well, would you mind reverting this upload? Of course yours has better quality, but the former picture was a scan from a Spanish magazine and the one you uploaded seems a photograph, so I think it's more convenient uploading the second one into another file. Different sources, different... everything (except the picture itself, of course!). Cheers! Strakhov (talk) 18:47, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Van Pol

Knap gevonden, die Jacques van Pol! Petje af. Vysotsky (talk) 20:48, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Bedankt. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 21:57, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

File:Miranda - John William Waterhouse.jpg

Hi! Thank you for new upload. Can you add the source, please? --Micione (talk) 20:07, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Good morning, the source is in the image's metadata. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 10:30, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Ok, thank you. --Micione (talk) 19:02, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Pieter Kooistra

Jan, ik zag zojuist dat je twee afbeeldingen van het werk van Pieter Kooistra hebt laten verwijderen, met als reden I doubt weather this qualifies as own work. The artist Kooistra died in 1998. Jammer dat je niet eerst contact met mij hebt opgenomen. Ik weet absoluut zeker dat beide werken van de hand van Kooistra zijn. Bij Permissions is de toestemmingsverklaring aanwezig die is afgegeven door zijn erfgenamen. Ik zal Henry Mentink, die het werk van Kooistra beheert, vragen nogmaals te verklaren dat het werk wel degelijk van hem is. Groet, Kattiel (talk) 20:02, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

De deletion request is er om input te leveren. Daarom heeft deze ook enkele weken opengestaan. Beide werken zijn van Kooistra, en hij of zijn erfgenamen hebben tot 70 jaar na zijn dood het auteursrecht. Henry Mentink is al ik het verhaal zo lees op dit moment de eigenaar, maar iemand die het schilderij koopt koopt wel het werk maar niet het auteursrecht. Als Mentink niet ook expliciet dat recht heeft gekocht, moet de toestemming van de rechthebbende komen, ik schat zo in de erfgenamen. En dan moet hier de procedure Commons:OTRS gevolgd worden.

Je uploadde het als Eigen werk/Own work maar een ding is duidelijk. Het is geen eigen werk, maar dat van Pieter Kooistra. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 20:35, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Werden de afbeeldingen niet geüpload door RVTiel (zie hier)? Ik zie dat hij (of ik?) indertijd iets verkeerd had begrepen: "Eigen werk" sloeg op de foto's, niet op de schilderijen zelf. Als dat onjuist was, is dat waarschijnlijk gekomen doordat ook de afbeeldingen van de beelden van Kooistra als eigen werk zijn geüpload. RVTiel en ik zijn indertijd bij het uploaden van afbeeldingen gecoacht door GerardusS.

De erfgenaam van het werk van Pieter Kooistra was de Stichting Uno-inkomen, thans Uno Foudation, waarvan Henry Mentink de directeur is. Hij heeft dus het auteursrecht en heeft de toestemmingsverklaring aan Permissions afgegeven. De procedure Commons:OTRS is gevolgd, helaas weet ik het ticketnummer niet. Is dit voldoende informatie om de afbeeldingen te laten undeleten, of heb ik nog een andere verklaring van Henry Mentink nodig? Groet, Kattiel (talk) 09:43, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Wie daadwerkelijk de files heeft geupload weet ik niet. Als je de OTRS procedure hebt gevolgd dan was daar in ieder geval in de file beschrijving geen indicatie van aanwezig. Om een undelete request te beginnen raad ik je aan hier te kijken Commons:Undeletion requests. Ik heb de delete request gestart omdat in de filebeschrijving een andere indruk gaf dan dat je hier vermeldt. Ik kan je aanraden om bij de undelete request in ieder geval het OTRS resultaat te vermelden. Als je besluit om de afbeeldingen opnieuw te uploaden raad ik je aan om de OTRS procedure opnieuw te doorlopen. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 10:14, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

OK, zal ik doen. Jammer van het dubbele werk. Groet, Kattiel (talk) 11:02, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

changing licenses

He Jan, je merkte een video op die ik geupload had die geen juiste licentie zou hebben .Volgens mij was dat ten tijde van het uploaden wel het geval, ik let er vrij nauwkeurig op. Zou het kunnen dat mensen dat wijzigen? Is er een manier om die licenties vast te leggen ten tijde van het uploaden naar Commons? Ik ontdekte gisteren toevallig dat er voor youtube eentje bestaat: {youtube cc-by}. Is het verstandig om bij mijn uploads die alsnog toe te voegen om te voorkomen dat ze straks verdwijnen als licenties gewijzigd worden? En weet je of er ook ziets bestaat voor Vimeo? --Hannolans (talk) 12:46, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Hallo Hannolans, ik zag dat je inmiddels zelf de template LicenseReview hebt gevonden. Het gebeurt wel dat na verloop van tijd iemand besluit het copyright te veranderen, maar het eerste copyright blijft geldig. Dat moet dan wel aangetoond kunnen worden. In het geval van dit filmpje ben je denk ik te laat. Ik denk niet dat je nu nog kan aantonen dat de film destijds was vrijgegeven onder een commons-compatibele licentie. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 08:44, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Ja ik ga dat overal maar even toevoegen zodat het gecheckt wordt. Het plaatsen van video's is best een proces. En dan weet ik ook echt zeker dat het zo is. Misschien dat ik ze nog aanschrijf of ze dat inderdaad veranderd hebben, of dat ik een foutje heb gemaakt. --Hannolans (talk) 00:15, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Voor dit geval: ik heb degene die filmde, gevraagd af te staan onder CC-BY-SA. Voor algemeen gebruik: dat gaat in de toekomst dan nog veel problemen geven. Archive.org slaat niet alles op, en de helft van alle websites is na een paar jaar verdwenen. Vysotsky (talk) 00:31, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Bedoel je dat straks de oorspronkelijke bron waarop het werk is vrijgegeven niet meer beschikbaar is en dat daardoor discussies kunnen ontstaan? Dat zou best problemen kunnen geven idd, want in feite is dan de licentie niet meer beschikbaar en de periode dat dit tot discussie zou kunnen leiden duurt minimaal 70 jaar. Zouden we zo ver moeten gaan om screenshots waarop de licentie staat op te slaan? Of zorgen dat archive.org speciaal aandacht schenkt aan cc-materiaal? --Hannolans (talk) 08:56, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

File:Louis Couperus 2.jpg

File:Louis Couperus 2.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!

Yann (talk) 22:11, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

File:Marten Toonder (1972).jpg

File:Marten Toonder (1972).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.

 

Vera ^(talk) 14:54, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

File:BoschTheCrucifixionOfStJulia.jpg

Hallo Jan, Waar komt deze afbeelding vandaan? Mvg, Vincent Steenberg (talk) 18:01, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Van de tentoonstelling in Den Bosch. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 18:15, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Bedoel de deze: http://www.hetnoordbrabantsmuseum.nl/over-ons/pers/persbeelden-nl/ ? Vincent Steenberg (talk) 20:08, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Nee, ze komen van de restauratieafdeling. Ik kreeg ze van iemand, of ze via het internet bereikbaar zijn weet ik niet. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 09:58, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

File:François Boucher - Cupid disarmed (painting).jpg

Hi. Where did you find the 1,564 × 1,249 (1.45 MB) version of this file? Please update the "source" field.   — Jeff G. ツ 04:16, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

I found it at Sotheby's. I made a note of it in the metadata, so it stays with the file. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 11:30, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

File:Adriaen van der Kabel-Marine.jpg

Bonjour, Désolé, je ne parle pas anglais. J'ai pris la photo au musée de Narbonne et j'ai pris les indications sur l'étiquette. Vous pouvez vous reporter au site du musée [4]. Cordialement Robert Valette (talk) 07:25, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Je vous remercie. Ceci est ce que je demandais, la source. Cette peinture ne ressemble pas au style de Adriaen van der Kabel. Je vois maintenant qu'il porte les initiales G.V.V., donc je pense qu'il est peu probable d'un van der Kabel. Je me demande qui le peintre est? (Traduit avec translate.google.com) Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 11:29, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Attention : la photo de Wikimedia a été prise par moi. Dans le site du Musée de Narbonne l'auteur mentionné sous la photo est bien "Cabel Adriaen van der". La mention G.V.V. est "apogryphe", ce qui veut dire que "le texte n'est pas authentique".Robert Valette (talk) 13:28, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Oups, je suis désolé. Je reviens il. (S'il vous plaît, utilisez translate.google.com de communiquer) Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 19:19, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

File:Maria and Child, Anonymous, Southern Netherlands.jpg

File:Maria and Child, Anonymous, Southern Netherlands.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!

Vincent Steenberg (talk) 09:59, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Beste Jan, Het valt me gewoon op dat je standaard de kleuren van een afbeelding wijzigt. Soms een klein beetje, soms naar mijn smaak teveel. Vroeger liet je dat nog duidelijk weten, bijvoorbeeld hier. Tegenwoordig vervang je bestaande afbeeldingen met jouw bewerkte versie zonder ook maar de bron te noemen. Ik vind dit niet zo heel erg fijn. Ten eerste snap ik niet waarom je de kleuren van een schilderij zou willen veranderen. Deze dient m.i. in originele staat getoond te worden, ook al heeft hij beschadigingen en gele vernis. En ten tweede, het origineel wordt op een dag offline gehaald en alleen de bewerkte versie blijft alleen over. Misschien ben ik aan het mierenneuken, maar dit is wat ik vind, zeker na je laatste upload. Mvg, Vincent Steenberg (talk) 10:12, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Beste @Vincent Steenberg: , in de delete request zei je dat het om een kunstwerk gaat. Maar het gaat niet om een kunstwerk, het gaat om een foto, een kopie. Jij werkt hier al zo lang dat je moet weten dat geen enkele afbeelding van een kunstwerk hetzelfde is, zelfs niet als ze door musea worden geleverd. Verschillende kleur van het omgevinglicht, verschillende plaatsing van de belichting, verschillende stadia van het verval van vernis, etc., het zijn allemaal oorzaken waarom iedere afbeelding afwijkt van de indruk die je krijgt als je in het museum tegenover het kunstwerk staat. Bovendien is die indruk subjectief. Afbeeldingen hier zijn er om te illustreren, niet te preserveren, en je kan niet verlangen dat mensen die uploads niet overschrijven, met een voor hun gevoel betere versie. De link "upload a new version" is niet voor niets prominent aanwezig. Net als uitgevers van boeken doen is er niets mis mee om de afbeelding te corrigeren. Overigens geef ik je gelijk over de kleur van het betreffende werk. Ik heb me teveel geconcentreerd op de blauwe mantel en dat is ten koste gegaan het totaalbeeld. Tot slot, als ik een bronlink heb zet ik die in de metadata, dan zit het bij het bestand. Met vriendelijke groet, Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 10:41, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

P.S., ik begrijp niet waarom een upload die ik zelf geplaatst heb moet worden gewist omdat iemand anders 3 jaar later dezelfde upload plaatste. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 10:41, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Jan, Ik ben het met je eens dat een foto per definitie de waarheid manipuleert. Maar jij manipuleert deze steeds verder. Ik denk dat afbeelding hier zijn om waarheidsgetrouw beeld te geven, niet een geïdealiseerd beeld. Maar als je toch voor dat laatste kiest, geef dat dan op zijn minst aan. Bijvoorbeeld met een sjabloon {{Retouched picture}}. Vincent Steenberg (talk) 11:09, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Beste Vincent, zelfs de foto's op de website van bijvoorbeeld het Rijksmuseum zijn niet waarheidsgetrouw. Dat weet het Rijksmuseum ook wel. Hoewel hun hele fotodatabase colour-managed is, stellen zij de foto's alleen maar ter beschikking zónder kleurprofiel. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 11:15, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Dat is waar. Dat vind ik zelf ook erg irritant. Alleen mijn indruk is dat het Rijksmuseum en elk ander zichzelf respecterend museum werken laat zien zoals ze zijn, d.w.z. in normaal licht en zonder dat eventuele beschadigingen en verkleuringen weggeretoucheerd zijn. Vincent Steenberg (talk) 16:38, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Ach de meesten leveren geen kleurprofiel, en als je, zoals het Rijksmuseum, het Adobe profiel er zo maar afkapt is de verzadiging veel te laag. Er zijn wel goede musea, maar de meesten bieden in het consumentenkanaal slechts beelden met zichtbare jpg-compressieresten. Ik kan het ze ook niet echt kwalijk nemen. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 17:23, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

File:Breitner the red kimoni - digitally manipulated by Jan Arkesteijn.jpg

File:Breitner the red kimoni - digitally manipulated by Jan Arkesteijn.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!

Fæ (talk) 12:09, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

ANU

I have raised a request for action at Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems#{{user.7CJan Arkesteijn}} overwriting files. --Fæ (talk) 16:10, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

You have been blocked for a duration of 1 day

You have been blocked from editing Commons for a duration of 1 day for the following reason: Edit warring after a long discussion on AN/U, see COM:AN/U for details.. 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.

Controversial edits/uploads during a AN/U discussion is not okay. Steinsplitter (talk) 16:19, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

I closed Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems#Proposal. --Steinsplitter (talk) 16:32, 8 March 2016 (UTC)