User talk:Wutsje

Other talk pages: fy:wiki · meta · nl:wiki

Archive

Date

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

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

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

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

Copyright Fallibility of Wutsje

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

File:Dr Sanjeev Kumar MLA.jpg

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

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

Deletion of File:6086874202 1283cdb577 o edited.jpg

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

This file is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 Generic license.

You are free:

to share – to copy, distribute and transmit the work
to remix – to adapt the work

Under the following conditions:

attribution – You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made. You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use.

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

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

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

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

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

Speedy deletion

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

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

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

How do I can upload an image in Wikipedia easily?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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