User talk:Mabrndt

Welcome to Wikimedia Commons, Mabrndt!

First steps tutorial Our first steps tour and our frequently asked questions will help you a lot after registration. They explain how to customize the interface (for example the language), how to upload files and our basic licensing policy (Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content). You don't need technical skills in order to contribute here. Be bold when contributing and assume good faith when interacting with others. This is a wiki. Getting help More information is available at the community portal. You may ask questions at the help desk, village pump or on IRC channel #wikimedia-commons (webchat). You can also contact an administrator on their talk page. If you have a specific copyright question, ask at the copyright village pump.

Goodies, tips, and tricks Put Babel boxes on your user page so others know what languages you can speak and indicate your graphic abilities. You can find the files you have uploaded in your Uploads. Please sign your name on Talk pages by typing ~~~~. To link to an image page without embedding the image, type: [[:File:Foo.jpg]], which produces: File:Foo.jpg. You may enable gadgets (custom features) for your account. There are several tools to upload files. Have you edited Wikipedia before? This guide might be useful. Made a mistake? Do you want to have a file renamed or moved? Use the move link and wait for an authorized user to rename it. Do you want to have your recently uploaded picture removed? Tag it as {{speedy|reason here}}. For more information read the deletion guidelines.

-- Wikimedia Commons Welcome (talk) 11:06, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

St Hippolyte Triptych (many fils)

Hello Mabrndt, because of your changes in "St Hippolyte Triptych" by Dieric Bouts and Hugo van der Goes (Museum of Sint Salvator Cathedral, Bruges ==> Groeningen museum): The English Wikipedia is not a source when the fact is not specifically referenced. See here. greetings --Botaurus (talk) 19:01, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Hello. If you don't accept Wikipedia, maybe you'll accept http://www.wga.hu/html_m/b/bouts/dirk_e/altar/torture.html, about the same painting triptych. The first line of the explanation there also says it was moved to the Groeninge Museum (for conservation reasons in 1992). http://www.artrenewal.org/pages/artwork.php?artworkid=21836 has the same location.

http://www.wga.hu/html_m/b/bouts/dirk_e/altar/torture.html says: „The Hippolytus altarpiece and a number of other paintings from Holy Savour's Cathedral in Bruges were placed in the Groeninge Museum for conservation reasons in 1992.“ The conservation will probably be completed and the painting is back at his old place. kunstinvlaanderen.com is a source of integrity. --Botaurus (talk) 19:39, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
PS artrenewal.org has many false disclosures (only one emergency source). The Internet is full of lies --Botaurus (talk) 19:39, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
PS 2: bridgemanart is not completely flawless. but also say; Artwork-location: Bruges, St.-Salvatorskathedraal (Cathedral), Schatkamer (Treasury) --Botaurus (talk) 19:44, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Botaurus, http://www.touristspots.org/the-groeninge-museum-in-bruges-belgium/ also directs tourists to The Groeninge Museum in Bruges – Belgium to see the Triptych of the Martyrdom of St. Hippolytus (same triptych). I doubt they want to direct tourists to the wrong location. Sorry about putting the other response under User talk:Botaurus; I'm new to this.

This is interesting. Perhaps the city's museums are all under one roof. The website of the Groening museum is unfortunately very poor. Otherwise, everything would be no problem. --Botaurus (talk) 20:06, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

I didn't see the kunstinvlaaderen.com page before. It has a © of 2012. The tourism page is from 2011. I've sent an enquiry (Google translated to Dutch) to the 1st 2 e-mail addresses listed at http://sintsalvator.be/contact/. If I get a reply, I'll post it here. In the meantime, the map showing path from St. Salvator Cathedral to Groeninge Museum definitely shows they aren't under the same roof.

After quoting the WGA link above, you say: "The conservation will probably be completed and the painting is back at his old place". Where do you get that from? I don't see anything about it at the WGA link, or the kunstinvlaaderen.com page, or the www.frommers.com page it references. If it's been moved back, why would the WGA link say it moved in 1992, but not say it's been returned? I know it's confusing, having essentially both places listed there for the location.

For the end of the puzzle, please read here. greeting --Botaurus (talk) 12:13, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Hmm, Watch this page is checked, but the system never informed me of your 11 July reply; hopefully, you'll see this.

Anyway, when my http://sintsalvator.be/contact/ e-mail addresses enquiry went unanswered, I posted the question at kunstinvlaanderen.com. When even they couldn't answer it, I contacted Bruges Tourism, who, in an e-mail sent last night (my time), confirmed what kunstinvlaanderen.com had. http://www.touristspots.org/the-groeninge-museum-in-bruges-belgium/ is out-of-date regarding this (if it ever was correct). But you already know the internet isn't always accurate. I'll be correcting all the Wikimedia Commons pages I changed, regarding this; if they haven't already been.

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Thank you for the descriptions related to Modiste sur le Pont des Arts Lotje (talk) 11:47, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Copyright status: File:George Frederick Harris - Boy with a Harp.jpg

Copyright status: File:George Frederick Harris - Boy with a Harp.jpg

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:George Frederick Harris - Boy with a Harp.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.

Jcb (talk) 14:30, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

I'm in the process of adding that, plus other infoMabrndt (talk)

Autopatroller

You have made a lot of good work, so your edits do not need to be patrolled anymore and I just made you an autopatroller. Thank you for your work here! Taivo (talk) 08:53, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

File:Adolf Reich - Im Künstleratelier.jpg

File:Adolf Reich - Im Künstleratelier.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!

Prosfilaes (talk) 15:45, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

File tagging File:Norman Rockwell - Freedom of Want.jpg

This media may be deleted.

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

 

JuTa 02:00, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Copyright status: File:Edward Hopper - Intermission.jpg

Copyright status: File:Edward Hopper - Intermission.jpg

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:Edward Hopper - Intermission.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.

This action was performed automatically by AntiCompositeBot (talk) (FAQ) 03:05, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

• Since having it on the Permission line is inadequate for some reason, I have moved the copyright notice from the Permission line to the Source line in the Summary section. I have no idea what else to do. Please remove the {{AntiCompositeBot/NoLicense/tag}} line you added to the file, or tell me what needs to be done to have that removed. Thank you.Mabrndt (talk)

File:Edvard Bentzen - Interiør fra et borgerhjem, 1861.png

Hi Mabrndt. Thank you for your contributions to this file. You have changed the Institution to "Private collection", but you have not given any source for that knowledge. You may personally know where the painting is, but here at Commons you know that we prefer to have some sort of documentation for the statements provided. Cheers Rsteen (talk) 03:18, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

Look at the Object history in the File:Edvard Bentzen - Interiør fra et borgerhjem, 1861.png Summary section. It says it was sold on September 8, 2004. To use the Private collection

institution QS:P195,Q768717

template, I don't have to know to whom. Mabrndt (talk) 15:47, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

Hi again. To observe that it was sold in 2004 says nothing about who it was sold to. It might have been sold to a museum or to a state- or municipal institution. So again, how do you know it is in a private collection? Cheers Rsteen (talk) 03:33, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

If you're really concerned about those 0.0000001% of the cases, change it. Mabrndt (talk) 13:44, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Thank you. Have done that. Cheers --Rsteen (talk) 02:20, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Like the https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Harald_Slott-M%C3%B8ller_-_Picnic_i_skoven_-_1917.png painting, I just replied to you about, I think https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Edvard_Bentzen_-_Interi%C3%B8r_fra_et_borgerhjem,_1861.png should be listed as being in a private collection as well. Mabrndt (talk) 20:21, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

File: Harald Slott-Møller - Picnic i skoven - 1917.png

Hi Mabrndt. Thank you for your contributions to this file. You have changed the Institution to "Private collection", but you have not given any source for that knowledge. You may personally know where the painting is, but here at Commons you know that we prefer to have some sort of documentation for the statements provided. Cheers Rsteen (talk) 04:10, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Read the Summary and you'll see an auction sold it. You can contact the auction house, and if they say it didn't get sold to a private location, I'll change it. Mabrndt (talk) 04:14, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

I am sorry, but that is not how Commons works. It is you who make the statement that the work is in a private collection, so it is up to you to present some documentation for that claim. Cheers Rsteen (talk) 03:47, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

As documented by https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Harald_Slott-M%C3%B8ller_-_Picnic_i_skoven_-_1917.png, https://bruun-rasmussen.dk/m/lots/760FAE4DACD6 says it sold for 39,000 DKK on 15 August 2005. It doesn't say who it was sold to. So, it's a private collection. The owner is private. That's the idea behind a private collection. And frankly, you have how Commons works wrong. Commons is to provide documented information. https://bruun-rasmussen.dk/m/lots/760FAE4DACD6 is the last document about this painting. If the owner gave it to a museum, unless that's publicly documented, insofar as Commons in concerned, who cares? If something changed in the painting's location that is publicly documented, add that document to https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Harald_Slott-M%C3%B8ller_-_Picnic_i_skoven_-_1917.png and change the current location appropriately. I know of no such document; so, I won't be making a change. Please stop hassling me about something I have correct. Mabrndt (talk) 20:12, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Sorry that you feel hassled, but this is just a discussion about accuracy of statements. To observe that the painting was sold in 2005 says nothing about who it was sold to. It might have been sold to a museum or to a state- or municipal institution. Those entities are not private. So again, how do you know it is in a private collection? Cheers Rsteen (talk) 04:24, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Because if it was sold to a public institution (museum or whatever), the public institution would advertise it if the auction house hasn't already (free publicity for the public institution, and probably kudos to the auction house that a public institution was a customer). Mabrndt (talk) 16:23, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

To state that you have not heard of any public institution buying this painting, is not proof that such a transaction did not take place. Here at Commons we want to have documentation for the statements provided. Until that has happened, the way to describe the whereabouts of this work of art is to write that it is in an unknown location. Cheers Rsteen (talk) 04:50, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

https://www.sothebys.com/en/articles/szepmuveszeti-muzeum-acquires-an-adrian-coorte is proof that an auction house says when a museum acquired a painting at auction from it. Over the years I've seen other instances announced by other auction houses. It makes no sense for a public institution to use its funds to acquire something and keep it secret. What reason would there be to buy it other than to bring more people to the public institution to see its exhibits? You don't do that by keeping it secret. I stand by what I said, and won't be responding further. Mabrndt (talk) 19:35, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

That link only shows what we know: Sometimes auctions houses tell the names of the buyers. In those cases we can put the correct institution label on the artwork. In all the oher cases we can only say that we do not know where the artwork is. So let us wrap this up. Wikimedia is a collaboration between colleagues. You have been adviced by a colleague how we treat a certain item. You choose not to listen to that advice. Your previous answer ("If you're really concerned about those 0.0000001% of the cases, change it") indicate that you understand the problem. Therefore, any further changes from your side on this item have to be considered as an infringement of your colleagues' work and an act of bad faith. Sorry it has to come to this. Rsteen (talk) 05:07, 20 March 2023 (UTC)