You can be assured that I am indeed an administrator here on commons, not that it is a big thing. I merely dislike the admin category.
Your nominations for "bad quality" includes high res orbital satellite images of metropolitan areas and other perfectly good images, I frankly find that disruptive.
Ok let me rephrase this question. Tell me one reason that I shouldn't delete the image for not being in project scope. --Catout20:46, 15 January 2007 (UTC)Reply
Deletion procedure
Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Thank you for notifying me, unless a deletion debate is closed that template should not have been removed. IN the future dont do it. :) I am closing that debate as a "keep" since no one complained about the image. --Catout00:55, 19 January 2007 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Really to wish you well in this. I hope you succeed as it has gone on for a long time now and quite a number of good editors have dropped out or reduced their input because of the general atmosphere. I'm sure you know that I have cu rights there and if you need any help please ask (email is open here & there). I am not someone who considers the rights should only be used in the direst emergency - they are tools to assist if required - all the best --Herbytalk thyme14:51, 25 February 2007 (UTC)Reply
Prominent mention of Cool Cat
Latest comment: 17 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion
Alright, the licensing starts as "I, the author of this work" which means the uploaded claims authorship.
Legally standing Immodinova C owns the copyrights to the images, not you. I really need some evidence that the images were released with a free license. The images would be PD if the creator died at least 70 years ago.
I am looking trying to find out about Immodinova and will let you know soon. Hopefully I will succeed. If you have any questions please leave a message in my userpage. Thank you! --Ibrahimjon06:20, 8 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 17 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion
Hi, I think the deletions are problematic. Would you mind if I undelete the images and go through the regular COM:DEL process? --Catout15:06, 2 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
Hum - I was wondering when that message was going to arrive. Firstly - of course you can undelete them - I'd give you a hand but I'm out of time for an hour or two.
Actual licensing - after having re-read round the situation I think I understand your concern. My view in deleting them (FWIW) was that they were a form of copvio and while the license couldn't be revoked (?) it may not have been valid in the first place (I don't know where any external evidence of the license came from?).
Latest comment: 17 years ago9 comments2 people in discussion
The person who owns the works whose pictures were taken by me holds the rights to decide if the pictures of these works can be distributed and if they can be released into the public domain. What is more, the painter died in 1971 so the works by him are not in the public domain yet. Uploading photographs or scans of works by this artist is, therefore, prohibited. I was granted permission by the owner to take the photos for my personal use only. I ask you to delete all the photos of Marian Iwańciów works available with the commons immediately. In my opinion, the 'speedydelete' template is justified. I am sorry for the corrections done by me to your message posted at 'Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Attention'. --Riva7218:15, 2 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
As the reviewing administrator, I say no. If an administrator removes a speedy deletion template, you can't revert him/her. Warx and I both feel this isn't speedy deletable. Since I do not see an "obvious" reason for deletion, your only option is COM:DEL. --Catout19:51, 2 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
The deletion request
Latest comment: 17 years ago9 comments2 people in discussion
Hello! I have just placed the template for a deletion request. Can you inform me, please if I did it correctly? This is the case of: Image:Mari1.JPG. Do I need to place the template at my discussion page? I hope that it is not necessary. Thank you. --Riva7222:03, 3 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
Thank you for the information. I have done separate requests.. Before I got your message, I had tried to do it the 'collective' way. Unfortunately, I could not manage to do it. --Riva7201:42, 4 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
You basically list them on the same page, this is preferable because then you need to argue your point once. -- Catchi?01:43, 4 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
You don't "have to". But doing so saves you and everybody else a lot of time. Otherwise people would have to vote on 30 things instead of 1 and you'd have to watch all 30 debates. -- Catchi?01:48, 4 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
I've done the relocations.. but I've noticed some data 'problems' - I mean: March 3 and March 4. Cool Cat, am I to correct these? Can you look at the output of my relocations, please?.. :)--Riva7202:44, 4 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
If you come online today I'd appreciate your views on the recent edits and interchange on talk pages. I think you will see my views quite clearly - thanks --Herbytalk thyme12:02, 5 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I have updated the information at [5] by adding that I am the nephew of the daughter of the artist. She is the person who owns all the works of art which I photographed and uploaded to the commons. She is married. These works (and their copyrights) belong, therefore, to her, her husband and their direct descendants. --Riva7204:49, 9 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
CIA Factbook maps
Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Thanks for the heads-up. I see what I can do in regards to your wish for archiving maps. I seem to remember a user doing this very thing a while back. Hoshie10:05, 11 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 17 years ago11 comments2 people in discussion
İyi günler. Commonsa yüklediğiniz resimler kendinizin değil ise, özgür bir lisansa sahip olup olmadığının kontrolü açısından kaynak gösterilmesi gerekmektedir. -- Catchi?18:22, 11 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
alıntı evette ben istediğim lisansı seçememmi onu soruyorum GNU yu seçiyorum ikisinide silmişler yüklediklerimin neye göre siliyorlar illa bu resim benim diye ilan mı vermem lazım.--Bozkurttt19:55, 16 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
Silinen seyleri geri getirmek kolay, endiselenmenize gerek yok.
Baskasinin yaratigi birseyin telif hakki o kisiye aittir. Ornegin gazetelerdeki fotograflar ve yazilari tarayip commonsa koymak telif haklarini ihlal eder.
Istediginiz lisansi secebilmek icin telif haklarinin size ait olmasi gerekiyor. Eger alinti yapacaksaniz alinti yaptiginiz kaynagin ozgur lisansa uyumlu bir kaynak olmasi lazim. Yani baska bir degisle aliti kaynaginiz orgur lisansa uyumlu bir kaynak olmadikca kendi yaratiginiz birsey olmasi gerekiyor.
Bu resimleri fair-use (adil kullanim) kabul eden bir wikiye (tr.wikipedia.org bunlardan biri) yukleyebilirsiniz.
Commonsdaki bu ugulamanin sebebi butun ulkelerde fair-use'un esdegeri bir yasanin olmayisi. Commons butun ulkelerde kullanilabilmek istiyor.
Evet alıntı yaptığım kaynağın telif hakkı serbest ve buraya rahatça yükleyebilirim.Telif hakkı saklı diye birisi çıkıp resmimi silebiliyor burada silen kişinin alıntı yaptığımı kanıtlaması telif hakkının saklı olduğunuda ispatlaması lazım kafasına göre telifli diyememeli.--Bozkurttt13:03, 17 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
Alinti yaptiginiz kaynagin telif hakkinin serbest oldugunu "kanitlamaniz" gerekmekte. Kaynagini bilinmedigi zaman "en kotusunu" dusunmemizi istiyor sistem. -- Catchi?13:08, 17 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
peki ben bu resimleri GROLİER INTERNATİONAL AMERİCANA adlı ansiklopediden yükledim bunu kaynak olrak gösterebilirmiyim yani telif hakkı serbest hem ben niye kanıtlamak zorundayım telifli diyen kanıtlasın.--Bozkurttt14:20, 17 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
Commonsa resim yuklediginiz zamam kirmiziyla asagidaki ifade yer alir:
"If you do not provide suitable license and source information, your file will be deleted without further notice. Thanks for your understanding."
Cevirisi: "Eger uygun lisans ve kaynak gozteremezseniz, dosyaniz baska bir uyari verilmeksizin silinicektir. Anlayisiniz icin tessekur ederiz"
Bu uygulamanin sebebi uluslararasi telif yasalarina dayanir. Baskasinin yaratigi bir eseri izinsiz yayimlamak, telif haklarini ihlal etmek demektir.
Eger "Grolier International America" icindeki materyal GFDL veya Creative Commons ile lisansliysa, veya kaynak 70 ila 100 yildan eskiyse telif yonunden sorun olmaz. Aksi taktirde materyal buyuk ihtimalle teliflidir.
1) It's not the exact same image. 2) It's a derivative image. Any images of just the World Cup are not free to publish on Commons. The Flickr user could not release the rights to the image, because he did not own the rights to the world cup. Cary "Bastiq▼e" Bassdemandez13:07, 15 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
I think the flickr user can release the rights to the photo because its his but just the photo not the trophy which is the problem, right?--Thugchildz00:59, 17 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
question
Latest comment: 17 years ago8 comments2 people in discussion
You know how we can't have photo of copyrighted trophies, well i was wondering, what if i drew a picture of the trophy? Would that be ok?--Thugchildz00:55, 17 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
Legally that would start venturing into a grey area. It really depends how similar it looks to the trophy. I am not too sure if it would be ok or not. -- Catchi?02:12, 17 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
Well its art, so doesn't it mean that i would have copyrights to my own art? Artist paint a lot of stuff that's copyright but still its not a photo its art so shouldn't it be my copyright option? Well as admin, could you find out and let me know because I don't want to put time in and make it look good then just for it to get deleted in the end.--Thugchildz04:50, 17 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
So long as the throphy isn't the focus of the image it can have independent copyright. Like I said, it really depends on the final product. The painting of a single coke can probably is a copyvio while the painting of a garden with a coke can here and there is not. Copyrights are complicated stuff. -- Catchi?12:55, 17 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
So what your saying is, it can't be just the trophy. Ok then I'm going to draw a field or something and the trophy is going to be on it. Or like flags of countries and then the trophy in the middle. That would be ok right? Because its not just focusing on the trophy the 1st theres a cricket field or the second there's the flags.--Thugchildz14:49, 17 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
Throphy should be a very small fraction of the image so as not to be a "derivative of copyrighted work". There isn't a straight answer to this and I am not trying to confuse or mislead you - its just that copyrights are highly complicated matters. Why is it is that you are using a throphy? -- Catchi?15:46, 17 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
Because I worked really hard on the cricket world cup article on en.wiki to bring it up to FA and it doesn't look good now that there's no picture of the trophy.--Thugchildz15:57, 17 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
You can upload the throphy cup photo to en.wiki under a fair-use license. I assumed you were working on a wiki that didn't allow fair-use. -- Catchi?16:04, 17 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
FP Promotion
Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Now I've deleted (and orphaned) a few more, substied nsd in another one and keept only two images. Thanks for your reminder. Lugusto • ※02:26, 25 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
No problem. If you like, you may also help with money images from other countries. Currently I am working on getting all bill/coin images listed for deletion.
Latest comment: 17 years ago11 comments3 people in discussion
Can I ask who is the copyright holder of Austro-Hungarian money? Maybe Emperor Franz Joseph? Please watch your deletion request. I don't know how can a photo of a coin be copyright violation. —the preceding unsigned comment was added byTimur lenk (talk • contribs)
Hello, you are welcome to voice your opinion on the deletion discussion page. I am mass nominating practically every money image on wikipedia. A good number will be deleted, some will be kept. This is an overall cleanup on an area most over-looked. -- Catchi?23:35, 25 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
It is just a little bit misleading that you state everywhere "XY currency is copyrighted". In many cases this is not true. Or is it the way of copyright protection on wikicommons that a deletion tag is put everywhere and who wishes can defend? (I know, presumtion of innocence is not a convenient way to judge.) So with the same momentum you could remove the tag from obviously not copyrighted images. Timur lenk00:02, 26 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
An image tagged for deletion doesn't necessarily end up getting deleted. It is just a process and I welcome you to participate in it.
On commons, unless proven otherwise images are assumed to be copyrighted.
For example, United States Copyright Law dictates that any work is copyrighted for 70 additional years after authors death. If an image was created in year 1900 and author died in 1950 that means copyright of that would expire in 2020. And in the case of money more rigorous copyrights probably apply.
Probably. The copyright holder of banknotes and coins is the institute (usually bank) issuing it, not the designer/engraver/printer. And the right to copy a banknote (i.e. falsificate) should not be mistaken with copyright. That's why central bank laws specify the ways of publication of paper money images with technical data (e.g. image resolution) not with expirity dates. Only very few banks (including the Bank of England, Bank of Canada, Central Bank of Turkey) hold explicitly copyrights of banknotes.
There is no specific policy on coins and bills but we do have a general "free license" policy. In a nutshell we question if an image can be recreated, mass produced, or altered without copyright issues.
Each countries money should be processed on a case by case basis. Unless the bank states otherwise, we assume the images are copyrighted.
Again, even if a coin is copyrighted, it means that other coins should not have the same design. Making an image (scan or photo) is not the violation of a coin copyright. If the publication of image of a coin is illegal, it should be explicitly forbidden (like taking photos of strategic buildings - not because of their copyrighted design but their military importance). Timur lenk13:17, 26 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
Copyright law doesn't work like that. If you take a photo of a 3D object, you are violating the copyright of the creator of the 3D object. -- Catchi?14:20, 26 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
Further comments
Hi, I do not know, what advance of your action: I am mass nominating practically every money image on wikipedia. A good number will be deleted, some will be kept should have. In the case of the Albanian bills it's only destructive or let's say a kind of sabotage, because you did not read the pages, whre verry clear is shown with a quotation of the albanian law, that albanian money generally is not copyrighted.
It is the same with the money of every state, which do not exist any more, like Austria-Hungary. I guess you are verry incompetent in copyright questions and you have fun disturbing only serious contributions. --Decius19:52, 26 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
Generally not copyrighted? You are welcome to bring your arguments to the deletion nomination page. Yelling at me will not solve anything. Have a nice day. -- Catchi?19:55, 26 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
It is a case of personal stupidity, because you have not nioticed at all the text about permission:
Gemäß dem albanischen Gesetz Nr. 9380 über das Urheberrecht, vom 28.4.2005 (alb. LIGJ Nr. 9380, datë 28.4.2005
PËR TË DREJTËN E AUTORIT DHE TË DREJTAT E TJERA TË LIDHURA ME TË) § 9, Abs. ç sind Zahlungsmittel (also Geldscheine und Münzen) ausdrücklich vom Urheberrechtsschutz ausgenommen.
Zitat: Nuk janë objekt i të drejtës së autorit dhe nuk gëzojnë mbrojtje nga ky ligj:
...
ç) mjetet e pagesës
...
Übersetzung: Nicht Gegenstand des Gesetzes und nicht unter seinem Schutz stehen:
...
ç) Zahlungsmittel
...
Please take your case to the deletion nomination page. As an administrator I have the access to delete the images, there is a reason why they are nominated and not deleted on the spot.
I also ask you to adjust your tone. Personal attacks will only get you blocked.
Latest comment: 17 years ago8 comments3 people in discussion
was deleted supposedly for copyvio. This is my bat and i took the picture but it is being said that since the design is said to be copyrighted it was deleted without even having a discussion 1st. And I don't think falls into Commons:Derivative works because its not a 3d object. Can you please correct this.--Thugchildz20:54, 31 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
Copyright is a complicated thing. The photographed object is a 3d object (the bat), the logo itself is 2d. You are replicating the copyrighted logo with a camera. -- Catchi?22:20, 31 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
Then, I don't think any sports or other stuff would have been here, because most balls bats etc have logos on it. The object isn't copyrighted so how is that derivative work? The logo is but it isn't a picture of the logo.--Thugchildz22:23, 31 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
My comment isn't absolute. Your best bet would be at Commons:Undeletion requests. I cannot undelete the image even if I agree with you. MichaelMaggs or some other person could simply redelete it. That is why an undeletion request discussion saves everyone time. -- Catchi?22:28, 31 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
Can you take a look now at the Commons:Undeletion_requests#Image:Cricket_bat.jpg, and please undelete it. Because I don't think it would be re-deleted. He suggested that i take of the sticker of the bat, but that would ruin the looks of my bat and plus there are other pictures just like this but those are not deleted. And so please undeleted it now.--Thugchildz17:14, 1 April 2007 (UTC)Reply
The castle in Podhorce images
Latest comment: 17 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Hello. I ask you to block the user Ejdzej for some time and to get accustomed with the history of the files and the information provided by me (Riva72, the photos uploader --213.199.192.6023:07, 31 March 2007 (UTC)). I am free to modify the photos as the licence informs. It is not spoiling - it is modyfing (for me, it is very artistic). Besides, I inform that Oksana (the author of this photo)and Riva72 (the authorized uploader) do not wish the Polish wikipedia to use the original photos. I ask you, the administrator, to unblock my acces (as the user Riva72) to the Commons project.Reply
Hello! Have you seen that "modification"? It's very "artistic" indeed, but this particular images are used in pl:Zamek w Podhorcach and other articles not for artism, but for information. This article was written mainly by Riva72, who put a dedication into it and engaged in edit war and useless deletion request when it was removed according to Wikipedia rules. He tried trolling and other disruptive activities later on pl:Wiki. That's why I'm sure that his reasons are false and this "artistic" modification of those photos are part of his revenge campaign. Please consult some other Polish admins on Commons:Bar if you want to verify my words. Cheers! A.J.06:21, 1 April 2007 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 17 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Commonsa yüklediğiniz bazı resimler (Image:Zidane222.JPG,Image:Duyguasena.JPG gibi) tarayicidan cıkmışa benzıyor. Dergideki ve gazetedeki resimlerin kopyasını çıkarmak (fotoğraf makınası ile olsa bıle) dergi/gazete sahibinin telif haklarını ihlal eder. Commonsa yüklediğiniz resimler telifli olmamalıdır. -- Catchi?19:53, 7 April 2007 (UTC)Reply
Merhaba, eskiden yüklediğim flu Zidane ve Duygu Asena fotoğraflar tarafımdan gazeteden çekilmişti ve onların silinmesi için deneyimli bir kullanıcıdan bu konuda yardım isteyecektim. Evet, şimdi ne yapmalıyım? Şimdiden teşekkür ederim, tr:Kullanıcı_mesaj:Bahar101 --Bahar10120:39, 7 April 2007 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I asked you for your opinion a few days ago. I have chosen you to express a few words because you are the Commons administrator. OK - I have got your response in the case at the English Wikipedia.. Anyway, I think it is not rude on my part to finish exchanging any ideas with you (this time with my IP-signature) by placing this invitation:
Cool Cat, I invite you to read the message and to voice your opinion at: [9], if you please.. If you feel like writing a commment, please do it.. I think this may also put the end to our disputes here.. I will not bother you again. Thank you. --213.199.192.6011:24, 8 April 2007 (UTC)Reply
Help with turkish site
Latest comment: 17 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Latest comment: 17 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
Stupit bots! anyway bot you are wrong in my saikano logo! ITS ON WIKIPEDIA.ORG!!! I can upload wilirelated s***! So you Mecha Bot? GO GET YOUR OWNER AND TELL HIM/HER/IT TO FIX YOU!!!KANPAI!!!--Chris Hansen Fan16:26, 18 April 2007 (UTC)Reply
THAT STUPIT MECHA THING WANTS MY NONCOPYRIGHTED INAGE GONE!!! Can you please tell it to F*** OFF?!!! Most of the images i use has no tag on the site!!! this image can from the saikano section of saikano on WIKIPEDIA!!! KANPAI!!!--Chris Hansen Fan16:33, 18 April 2007 (UTC)Reply
That "stupid mecha" happens to be a commons administrator. You are required to be civil to all users (including administrators) or you risk getting yourself blocked.
As for the images in question it is only natural to tag images as "unlicensed" if you do not license them.
Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hi, I have just found out you deleted my photo Image:Schneider Trophy 2006-08-10.jpg. I haven't been online for a while (technical difficulties) and missed the debate. I understand the reason you deleted the file was Commons Derivative works policy. However, on the "Commons:Freedom of panorama" page it states:
United Kingdom
Section 62 of the UK Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, allows photographers to take pictures of
(a) buildings, and
(b) sculptures, models for buildings and works of artistic craftsmanship (if permanently situated in a public place or in premises open to the public)
without breaching copyright. Such photographs may be published in any way.
This would mean that my photo of the Schneider cup trophy should be fine as regards Commons Derivative works policy.
Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
Can you have a look at the followings and delete them. Some/one or two may be ok but the others are all copyright vio's. I hope that you do not practice double standards on these and really without being partial or bias to any delete the ones that should be deleted like you deleted the cricket world cup trophy.--Thugchildz04:55, 8 April 2007 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Merhaba White Cat, ben bir süredir Azeri vikideyim ama nedense commonsa üye olmama rağmen login olamıyorum... Ayrıca zaman ve imkanın varsa Azeri vikiye üye olabilir misin? Teşekkür ederim. Etrüsk
You are welcome to request for bot flag in Vssun's Talk page. Sorry we dont have a bot request page :-(. the word "കമ്പ്യൂട്ടര്" is the Transliteration the English word "Computer". Some people say "ഗണിനി" is the Malayalam word for computer some disagree with that. Any how "കമ്പ്യൂട്ടര്" is more popular. I have a AWB bot in malayalam wikipedia അക്ഷര യന്ത്രം :-). If you don't mind please send your email id to sadik.khalid@gmail.com --Sadik Khalid13:58, 18 July 2007 (UTC)Reply
You are right, there is difficulties for registering some Malayalam names. I had a talk with one of our admin. he said it may be from sql database. I have അക്ഷര യന്ത്രം, ഫലക യന്ത്രം but my name is not accepting :-(--Sadik Khalid15:07, 18 July 2007 (UTC)Reply
typo
Latest comment: 16 years ago9 comments2 people in discussion
Done but I am not sure about the variables. I can provide you with the names of months and days in Arabic if you wish. There is no translation for UTC. --Meno2513:55, 10 July 2007 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
During the course of the discussion the user pretty much admits admits that he traced the image using the automatic tracing function in inkscape on a copyright to produce the resulting svg. That would be pretty much the definition of a derivative work. If you zoom into the SVG [11] you can see none of the lines are distinct - they are blobby and indistinct as the result of automatic tracing process - during the discussion he refuses to explain why the lines are blurry and repeatedly ducks the question The worst thing is that the user in question has uploaded dozens of other images that appear to equally be copyvios.
If you need a final proof that it's a tracing - I've uploaded my own tracing of the image temporarily to bayimg here: http://bayimg.com/faeOBaabk.svg All I did was download the image, resized it to approx 2k, loaded it into inkspace and traced it.
I'm not alone in this - four other users indicated that they thought it was a copyvio in the deletion discussion. The only two who didn't were the uploaded and a low contribution user whose argument amounted to "You can't prove it's a copyvio".
I urge you to reconsider the closing and take action on the other images. Megapixie13:35, 27 July 2007 (UTC)Reply
If you created this image, 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. If the file is up for deletion because it has been superseded by a superior derivative of your work, consider the notion that although the file may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new file.
In all cases, please do not take the deletion request personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!
Latest comment: 16 years ago8 comments2 people in discussion
You're making quite huge changes to that page. Don't you think you had better asked for consensus first? Also, if you would use edit summaries, it would be easier to see what you are trying to achieve with each edit. The page has a talk page, you know ;) Best regards, --rimshottalk10:17, 2 August 2007 (UTC)Reply
Next time use the talk page first, please - that's what it's there for. I am not quite sure that it makes sense at this point to make it too similar to COM:DEL. COM:CFD is not an official page in any way. --rimshottalk10:24, 2 August 2007 (UTC)Reply
I didn't notice that ... anyway, thanks for yor efforts and sorry if I was bothersome. I bet you'll use more edit summaries in the near future :) --rimshottalk12:57, 2 August 2007 (UTC)Reply
No problem. I just wanted to set the system straight before it breaks. Edit summaries are useful when not editing in bulk :P. I think the system of templates. Do you see a problem? -- Catchi?13:00, 2 August 2007 (UTC)Reply
I just noticed the duplicated thread on my talk page. We can keep the discussion in this place, I think. As for the templates: I think we can discuss them on their respective talk pages, if needed. That will make the discussion visible for others as well. --rimshottalk13:10, 2 August 2007 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 16 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
Hi. Thanks for starting the discussion over whether these drawings are copyvios. It's great to finally have a proper discussion about all these potential traces from FSHL. This question is related to that, but I don't really want to put it there, as it isn't the issue in hand, and will just complicate things.
If I get a line drawing from the internet/book.etc., can I do a proper trace of it (like Image:B-52_3-view.svg, which was traced from a [NASA source], so PD is given) and put it under a free licence? This example was done by laying down paths by hand on top of a raster background, and no automatic processes like Inkscape auto-trace were used on the original image. If I can, then surely the best option in the Su-37 debate is to gradually replace them with decent traces, which are more useful anyway as they are not blurry.
Then we enter the wonderful world of copyright discussions. PD-Gov would be problem free by default. I am more than certain NASA has these technical drawings somewhere on their site. -- Catchi?15:18, 2 August 2007 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 16 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Hey White Cat. There's a slight misspelling on this image. Should be "Independents" (the "n" is missing). I'd appreciate it if you can upload a corrected version. Thanks --Pinar11:10, 6 August 2007 (UTC)Reply
Would you mind creating a 3rd chart displaying the current distribution of MP's and their parties? DTP and DSP have seperated. There are two other minor parties. -- Catchi?12:19, 6 August 2007 (UTC)Reply
:(
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Thats all license templates, I am working on standardizing them. Job would be done faster if people assisted. -- Catちぃ？ 13:31, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
OK. Good initiative; I was not aware of the project. Are there design guidelines and a status overview? I might help if I have some clear guidelines... Cheers! Siebrand14:08, 10 August 2007 (UTC)Reply
There are no "actual" guidelines. What I am doing is basically this: [14]. I add the countries flag or seal (whichever are available) and put them in using a template. This way we can make changes to all license templates with ease in the future.
It is unhelpful to just put a seal because seals do not identify countries well. Flags are more universal.
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hi White Cat
Could you have a look at the question and answer posted here? It looks as if there has been some nationalistic voting on your FP nomination. You speak Turkish, I think: could you have a look around to see if you can find any evidence of vote-rigging or anything else untoward? Many thanks. --MichaelMaggs20:28, 24 August 2007 (UTC)Reply
bot request in mlwiki
Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
This is an automated message from a bot. You recently uploaded Image:Wikipedia-logo-uz.png. There seems to be a problem regarding the description and/or licensing of this particular file. Please remember that all uploads require source, author and license information. Could you please resolve these problems, which are described on the page linked in above? If you believed you received this message in error, please notify the bot's owner. Thank you. HermesBot13:01, 1 September 2007 (UTC)Reply
FP Promotion
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Why did you endorse this closure? [15] This was closed totally improperly. If eithr you or Rama had taken the time to read the note left by the admin on the last closure 2 days ago or whatever it was, he/she INVITES me to renominate the image for deletion and states that the only reason they're closing the last one is because it was "tainted" by the bad faith of a voter. I protest the blind closure done without reading previous notes or any consideration for the actual image. Night Ranger03:50, 7 September 2007 (UTC)Reply
Sure, we could just renominate images we dislike repetitively until they get deleted... Such an invitation doesn't ask you to renominate the image the second it was closed. A geniuine copyright concern of this nature should be discussed with the people involved first. So far you have made the absolute minimum on this (an automated msg). You should at least attempt to discuss with the uploader (User:צ'כלברה) or original uploader (user:Alkivar). Since the actual creator does not wish to be identified that can be taken to OTRS. So please slow down and try talking to the people I mentioned. I see no urgent need for admin action. -- Catちぃ？ 09:33, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Question
Latest comment: 16 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
Latest comment: 16 years ago3 comments1 person in discussion
Please do not remove other peoples comments. People have been blocked in the past for doing so as it is considered disruptive. Thanks. -- Catちぃ？ 14:14, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry; I didn't realise that could be considered disruptive in this case. The charges against the user in question were so obviously false that I thought it would be best to save the user the bother of responding, but I'm sorry for violating policy in this regard. Lewis Collard! (talk, contribs, en.wp) 19:16, 7 September 2007 (UTC)Reply
No one is being "charged". I am not a judge or a prosecutor. The uploaded of the images has made a mistake. He either wants the images to be commercially free (GFDL), or wants them to be commercially unfree (cc-by-nc). It is a possibility that he doesn't understand GFDL's commercial usage compatibility. It is his intention that counts. I do not have the legal right to relicense someone else's work, which is why I am asking him.
I technically have the authority (see: template:cc-by-nc) to speedy delete them all as they can be interpreted as commons incompatible (non-commercial clause). It is the recommended action if I follow the policy to the letter. I am following the policy to its spirit. However I am not even nominating them for deletion in the meanwhile because this feels like a simple mistake.
Really depends. If I were assuming bad faith I would have already deleted them... I am doing everything to keep the images. I do not quite understand your involvement with this issue. This is for the most part an issue I intend to resolve with the uploader whenever she shows up. Thanks. -- Catちぃ？ 21:24, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
I noticed about edits like this. It is obviously wrong. Unfortunately your bot does more wrong edits than good edit, at least for the given job. But using AWB it is your own fault. Please have a look, if the media multilicenced, before you give it a wrong tag. If would be nice, if you undo edits. Thanks. --Revolus11:45, 10 September 2007 (UTC)Reply
There is nothing wrong with it. Non-commercial licenses are unacceptable in commons. -- Catちぃ？ 12:50, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Please lets talk in one place. I don't like cluttered talks. On topic: Didn't you know, that the dual licensed images a acceptable for commons/Wikimedia? There has to be at least one valid license. So publishing an image under cc-by-nd/nc _and_ GFDL is valid. --Revolus22:15, 10 September 2007 (UTC)Reply
Conflicting licenses are a problematic issue. Authors rights is the issue. If she never intended commercial use, that is a problem. -- Catちぃ？ 16:43, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
More pictures
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
What is the reason for this tone and false accusation? I am not your enemy. I have NOT altered your or anybodies comment. -- Catちぃ？ 20:29, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
I will reply here. There is no need to duplicate the thread on my user talk page. Here are the diffs where you twice changed my comment: [18] and [19]. So I removed my comment since you wouldn't leave it alone. I am now going to put back my comment again to the way it was. Please leave it alone. --Timeshifter03:26, 13 September 2007 (UTC)Reply
I see that you, Timeshifter, noticed my question about this on your user talk page. I also see that you then deleted it rather than doing the polite thing by responding to it. I believe (as I think Cat believes) that protocol-independent wikilinks are far preferable to insecure-only URLs, for a variety of reasons. Kindly cease and desist from using insecure-only URLs when a protocol-independent wikilink is available, and reverting and ascribing malice to others who do the same (or who make changes to do the same). Thank you. — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 18:40, 4 October 2007 (UTC)Reply
en.wiki RfArb
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
As suggested, I will try to avoid you on en.wiki, and here as well. However, for you to use my presence on Commons as evidence of harassment bothers me. Should I ever try to become an admin on a Wikimedia project that you are not active on, it would be fair to say that you would be welcome to comment on it, because you're still a user who interacted with me, and it's still a part of the Wikimedia-family. My comments were not meant to harass you, they were there because I didn't trust you at the time. Trust is an important thing, even with those you disagree with. When I questioned your adminship here, you were defended by other users and admins, who spoke up for you and said you were doing a good job. If it means anything, for the most part, they are correct, and you are doing a good job in my view.
I felt it was within my right to question your ability, but you should know that the answer I got wasn't bad. As far as I'm concerned, our disputes end on en.wiki. Still, I will keep my distance, for the sake of both our sanity. I do not intend to try to patch things up with this kind of message, but rather, I wanted to set the record straight. -- Ned Scott06:21, 2 October 2007 (UTC)Reply
FP Promotion
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Image deletion warning
Image:1 Star.png 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 image, 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. If the file is up for deletion because it has been superseded by a superior derivative of your work, consider the notion that although the file may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new file.
In all cases, please do not take the deletion request personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!
Potentially the images are free and should be deleted only after a reviewing admin. They should not be deleted "automatically". Thats where I was going. -- Catちぃ？ 10:17, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Ah. As far as I know, no images are removed automagically, unless there has been proper discussion up front. Please let me know if you are aware of categories for which members are removed with any review. Cheers! Siebrand17:23, 8 October 2007 (UTC)Reply
Oh, I do not know any. The warning on the category was merely a generic one. -- Catちぃ？ 17:30, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
templates
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
You are improving templates; that's fine. I don't understand unough to help you. But can you add tl| to the templates in this way: (exemple): {{PD-NL-gemeentewapen}}. The template remains directly accessible for you, and your user page doesn't show up any more in the pages. It also should shorten this long page considerably, making scrolling easier for yourself. Thanks and good luck. Havang13:03, 8 October 2007 (UTC)Reply
User pages
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hi White Cat. You might wish to take a peek at your /da page again. It just occurred to me that it looks like you tried to make a Dutch page but /da is the suffix for Danish language material. If you tried to make a Dutch page feel free to revert my edits but in that case you might wish to move it to /nl. Happy editing. ValentinianT / C08:18, 10 October 2007 (UTC)Reply
If you created this image, 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. If the file is up for deletion because it has been superseded by a superior derivative of your work, consider the notion that although the file may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new file.
In all cases, please do not take the deletion request personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!
Latest comment: 16 years ago6 comments1 person in discussion
Flag of Canada
I gave you the sources from which the images were "borrowed". Please explain to me how copying images created by another website is not sufficiently obvious to require their speedy deletion. While you're at it, you could also explain to me how simply removing SD tags is preferable to replacing them with the proper tag, as I am careful to do at en.wiki. Because if I happen to be correct that these are copyvios, your conduct is preventing them from being reviewed by others and keeping them here. Thanks. --Butseriouslyfolks19:58, 18 October 2007 (UTC)Reply
I guess I need to better clarify what I am doing to you. Here it is.
Why I closed as keep:
Faithful reproductions of two-dimensional original works cannot attract copyright. For example the flag of Canada pictured here is in the Public Domain no mater who draws or redraws it. I can "steal" it from any website, or use any scan of it at my leisure legally. en:Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp. case is the foundation behind the logic of this approach. So if the source object in question is ineligible of copyright all faithful reproductions of the image are also ineligible.
"Stealing images" is not a crime provided the images have a free copyright status. The site you linked for certain does not own the copyright for the images in any case. The copyright in any case would be held by the millitary or government of the country that own the rank insignia.
Nazi era material may also be free of copyright since any "image shows (or resembles) a symbol that was used by the National Socialist (NSDAP/Nazi) government of Germany or an organization closely associated to it, or another party which has been banned by the en:Federal Constitutional Court of Germany." Who would you go to file a lawsuit?
The designs of the images are very simple by very nature of rank insignias and are hence ineligible of copyright.
These above were in my mind for consideration when I closed the speedy nom as a keep. Hence why I closed the speedy deletion as a "keep" or "too close to call" at worst. Commons have dealt with images from en:Flags of the World site. They were eventually deleted after free alternates were made. While FOTW images were never copyvios, we are nice enough to redraw better alternatives and delete them afterwards. This is why most flags have an SVG version actually.
Why have I not retagged:
If I had that kind of time I would be processing Category:Unknown. I am only expected to either delete or keep the images. I am not even required to inform you of my decision or even talk to you at all.
My decision was a keep and it would not be right for me to file a COM:DEL request on something I closed as keep (per coi).
Also as a result of all this you are now more familiar with the commons process in handling non-obvious cases. I learned about it in a similar manner. On en.wiki an admin removing a PROD notice as keep does not have to replace it with an afd. For the most part a nomination is the problem of the nominator and not the processing admin.
Process on commons and why it is important:
On commons "reviewing" of non-obvious cases are conducted through COM:DEL. Majority of cases on COM:DEL are alleged copyvio cases. Speedy deletion is only and only for obvious copyright violations such as TV screen captures or corporation logos.
During a deletion discussion the images in question should NOT be removed.
Commons:Deletion requests has a lot of images being discussed. If they all were removed from articles as you did with the rank insignias, this would have created an unnecessary amount of workload. Images may be deleted or kept. This is not a big deal and happens daily.
We have bots that will automatically remove links to images from articles of deleted images from commons. Manually doing it is unnecessary and problematic.
We however do not have a bot that will readd images if the discussion ends up as "keep".
Also on English wikipedia images that are suspected of violating copyrights are not removed from articles until they are deleted. Typically the closing admin removes them or sometimes there are red links.
Process on commons should be observed. We deal with over 2,041,655 files on commons. Thats over 40,000 images since last threshold pass (2 million) on October 13. It is common to have 5,000 new images a day. These processes are designed to handle this work load with minimal use of resources.
Thanks for combining the deletion requests. That's much better! Oh, and I think you'd be within your rights declining a speedy but listing for deletion discussion. Admins do that all the time at en.wiki. You can even say that it's a procedural (or neutral) listing from a declined speedy. They'll get the idea. Cheers! --Butseriouslyfolks22:10, 19 October 2007 (UTC)Reply
What a horrible font! Anyway, I meant to mention that if you would note "declining speedy, please list for deletion discussion" or something like that in the edit summaries, rather than just reverting speedy tags, you might get less revert-warring on the tags. Even knowing you were an admin, I didn't realize until you specifically told me that your reversions were actually declines. Thanks again! --Butseriouslyfolks22:13, 19 October 2007 (UTC)Reply
Hi, it is generally common practice to assume the removal of speedy deletion notice either as a decline or as disruption (such as a user maliciously removing tags). I see it as a no brainier but I will be more careful in the future. It is sometimes hard to deal with bulk noms though. -- Catちぃ？ 22:20, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Understood. I usally control-V the reason into the edit summary, but it does take a lot longer when there are a lot of them. We need a "roll back all of this user's edits and leave this common edit summary" button! --Butseriouslyfolks22:30, 19 October 2007 (UTC)Reply
A sane idea. I would encourage you to file it on bugzilla. Perhaps the ability to bulk revert with a spesific edit summary as well. ;) -- Catちぃ？ 02:46, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
Latest comment: 16 years ago11 comments2 people in discussion
Speedy deletion tag should only be used in obvious cases. In the case of rank insignias you nominated this is not the case. I have removed the tag as a commons admin. You are welcome to seek COM:DEL. Because you have a "trusted user" template on your userpage I assume you know how commons work so I wont bore you off with the details. -- Catちぃ？ 19:45, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
I do not even recall uploading them. I guess those were the images I uploaded using a bot...
I call it "too close to call" for speedy.
You are welcome to appeal for admin abuse at COM:ANB
Alternatively you can file a COM:DEL request like the one Butseriouslyfolks has done - preferably a bulk nom either as a whole or sorted by country to save time.
Images ineligible of copyright are not expected to have a source. Weather images truly are ineligible of copyright or not is not for you or me to decide. Please use COM:DEL as it exists for this purpose. -- Catちぃ？ 23:22, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
And why is the image ineligible for copyright? It has no license tag that states such. Also, I ask that you please stop removing tags from images that you yourself uploaded. Videmus Omnia23:55, 19 October 2007 (UTC)Reply
I have bulk reverted your speedy noms with giving little consideration to who the uploader was. A good number of the images were not uploaded by me. A good number was wikipedian made svgs not available anywhere else on the web that I can see. There are also a good number you haven't nominated.
Image:GR-Army-OR2a.gif and others are too simple of a design to be eligible for copyright or at the very least are too close to call. That's my stance as the closing admin. Please do not add a different speedy tag right after I closed it as a non-speedy.
The proper median in addressing an issue with this scale has always been COM:DEL. Fundamentally this isn't all that different from FOTW deletion discussion. Commons is familiar with problematic licensing steaming from license tags that became obsolete for various reasons.
There's no need to go through the COM:DEL deletion process for images with obvious problems, like missing sources. That's why we have a speedy deletion process. Unless you can give a reason why your images should not need sources, I plan to tag the ones that have no sources with 'nsd'. Any objections? Videmus Omnia00:30, 20 October 2007 (UTC)Reply
How many images on Category:PD ineligible have a source? Do not tag them with a speedy deletion template. Your only option is COM:DEL or dropping the matter. Let consensus decide. -- Catちぃ？ 00:36, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
The images are not PD-ineligible - they have no license that states such, nor any source by which this can be verified. I plan on tagging them as no source, please do not abuse your admin tools by involving them in a dispute, let an uninvolved admin decide, please. Videmus Omnia00:41, 20 October 2007 (UTC)Reply
An uninvolved admin (me) has already decided. These are not speedyable. Such a disagreement among admins would be evidence enough that such a delete would be controversial. I won't hesitate to undelete controversial deletions until issue is discussed and resolved through COM:DEL. Weather images are PD-ineligible or not is not for you or me to decide. Let community decide via COM:DEL. -- Catちぃ？ 00:49, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
I mass reverted you and User:Butseriouslyfolks alike, User:Butseriouslyfolks prior to you. The uploads are too close to call. If you do tag them, I will be forced to revert you and block you for disruption. Do not "dog fight" with me to avoid a discussion. If they are "obvious copyvios" com:del will agree with that assessment. I will not make the nominations myself since I do not seek a deletion. -- Catちぃ？ 01:18, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
You're threatening to block me for tagging your uploads? And how are images with no source "too close to call" for tagging as "no source"? Videmus Omnia01:40, 20 October 2007 (UTC)Reply
Read what I wrote above, PD-ineligible images are not required to have a source. The purpose of speedy deletion tags is not to find convenient ways to avoid COM:DEL to get an image you dislike deleted. It was a mere friendly reminder. I do not threaten, I take action. If the intention is testing my patience, I would recommend against it. -- Catちぃ？ 01:45, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
And I'm asking that you provide some kind of source to show that the images you are tagging are PD-ineligible. There's no need to go through the COM:DEL process if we can resolve it ourselves. Many rank insignia are copyrighted by the government that produces them, in addition to the claimed derivative work copyright by uniforminsignia.net. Why won't you provide sources or valid licenses for the images which you uploaded? Please work with me and provide some kind of explanation why you feel the images you took from a commercial website are PD-ineligible. Videmus Omnia01:51, 20 October 2007 (UTC)Reply
There was a valid license that was altered after the images were uploaded. These were not uploaded with a false license at the time. Therefore they need to go through COM:DEL for that reason alone. The images do have a temporarily-valid license which I can mass alter the licensing with a few clicks on my bot to convert them to {{PD-ineligible}} which would serve to no purpose given you want to take the issue to deletion either way.
I am explaining you how we process such issues (dealing with images stemming from a formerly valid license) on commons. I ask you to follow it. This was observed in dealing with FOTW images (they were leeched from FOTW site and were never a copyright violation). Same thing was observed in dealing with PD-Soviet images (they were officially in the public domain until the Russian law was altered).
The images will not get deleted through covert means or through revert waring and etc. I will delete the images myself if the consensus ends up being a delete at COM:DEL. Deletion is no big deal.
You have a "trusted user" template on your userpage, please act like one. -- Catちぃ？ 02:05, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
<sigh> - Could you please answer the very simple question - "Why do you believe these images are not eligible for copyright?" You are an administrator, please act like one. Thanks. Videmus Omnia02:16, 20 October 2007 (UTC)Reply
Because it consists entirely of information that is common property and contains no original authorship just like flags - or so I claim. Contesting this is the job of COM:DEL. -- Catちぃ？ 02:45, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
OK, I'm going to wait for the outcome of the above case before nominating, so we're not making similar arguments in two different places. In the meantime, would you please try to start cleaning up the sources and license tags on those images? Since you didn't show where they came from, it's impossible for me to determine the correct license. Videmus Omnia02:49, 20 October 2007 (UTC)Reply
Yes that would be the most productive approach, I agree.
As for my uploads. I had forgotten about them completely. I would have categorised them better had I recalled uploading them. Its been so long and they had been completely out of my mind. Now that I look over them, I do recall having a computer problem and loosing the site I was leeching them from. This was over 2 years ago. I think that was why the uploads are only for the army and not other branches. Back then all flag images and rank insignias were "fine". They may be from the website mentioned. If you do not mind, I'd like to leave the images as is until they undergo a discussion. I'd like to preform any alteration based on the discussion so as to avoid redundancy.
My personal gut feeling on how COM:DEL would result: These images would probably be treated just like how flag images were treated during the FOTW debate. Stealing free images (talking generaly) is perfectly fine legally and is not problematic policy-wise. Mind that not every copyright claim is always valid. However, we had gone the extra mile in being nice during the FOTW discussion after complaints from some of the FOTW people. Non-stolen better alternatives were created and FOTW copies were deleted even though there was no reason whatsoever to do so. Overall, all flag images from FOTW site were deleted but only after svg versions were created. We can observe the same thing with rank insignias. I have no objection to that. This can not be achieved through speedy deletion of rank insignias.
What I think you are doing: I know what you are trying to do is simply protect wikipedia/wikimedia from copyright related lawsuits and etc. Which I respect and admire, but often resolving a problem or possible problem involves extensive discussion. I feel this is one of them.
Oh my, I had no idea. WC, I accept your statement that you had forgotten about it, but I think you really should disclose at the deletion discussion that you have uploaded a large number of these images which would also have to be deleted. And perhaps you should refrain from using your admin powers on these images. (And certainly on your own uploads.) No offense intended, just trying to keep the appearance of impropriety away. --Butseriouslyfolks03:19, 20 October 2007 (UTC)Reply
I should not need to. This issue belongs to COM:DEL. I do not intend to overrule community consensus or anything remotely like that. All I seek is a discussion at COM:DEL prior to any kind of admin action (delete) by anyone. -- Catちぃ？ 03:29, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
US Rank insignias
Latest comment: 16 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion
Hi. You lost revert to your version some U.S. rank insignias:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:US-Army-OF10.gif, Image:US-Army-OF9.gif, Image:US-Army-OF8.gif, Image:US-Army-OF7.gif, Image:US-Army-OF6.gif, Image:US-Army-OF5.gif, Image:US-Army-OF4.gif, Image:US-Army-OF3.gif, Image:US-Army-OF2.gif, Image:US-Army-OF1a.gif. Please revert them to your version. Thanks--88.153.111.5915:00, 20 October 2007 (UTC)Reply
When images are replaced with "freer" alternatives, why should there be any reason for me to revert? I am deleting the semi-problematic older versions. -- Catちぃ？ 15:29, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi, I'll ask you not to revert war with User:Roitr. Just page me and I will block him, revert him and delete the unnecessary versions for you like I have done with Image:US-Army-OF10.gif. -- Catちぃ？ 15:35, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for working this. The Roitr socks and IPs have caused a lot of my frustration with the copyvio issues from uniforminsignia.net, though I think I've pretty much shut him down on the en Wikipedia, and I have been able to get nearly all the images from that site deleted there - there's a few left, but they should be gone soon. (This all began with an innocent attempt to clean up the deprecated Military-Insignia license template and replace it with valid licenses.) Roitr's typical tactic is to create a sock user account to upload the copyvio images - the sock account is normally quickly blocked, but then he uses dynamic IPs to remove speedy deletion tags from the copyvio images that were uploaded by the sock account. The fact that he's been shut down on en Wikipedia has led him to move here with his copyright violations.
On a related subject, I think I'll open a larger COM:DEL request to deal with Commons images from this site in general. I wanted to ask your advice - should I contact the webmaster of uniforminsignia.net to ask their opinion of our usage of their images? Maybe they will give us permission to use them under a free license. (I specialize in getting permission to use images under free license.) If they don't agree to release under free license, they could at least contact the Foundation with their opinion on whether we are violating their copyrights, which should clarify the status of these images - what do you think? Videmus Omnia18:11, 20 October 2007 (UTC)Reply
Oh my, you came here over a lot of frustration from this user. It all makes more sense now. We have a lower tolerance to such nonsense here on commons than wikipedia so do not hesitate to point any nonsense from him either to me or someone else. Since I am now more familiar with the issue at hand, I can more easily deal with him I think. But bottom line is it wont be tolerated.
If uniforminsignia.net can be convinced to let us use their images with a free license that would be an excellent option. Its free advertisement for them as well with attribution. You're more than welcome to try to take that avenue and have my full support. We would loose nothing for trying and both us and they would gain alot. You'd have to explain the usefulness of free licenses and how it helps them.
It is best not to involve the foundation unnecessarily as they are a tangled bureaucracy at times. FOTW issue was resolved without involving the foundation with a wikipedian mediating between FOTW and Wikipedia. You can take on this task if you like.
If a deal with uniforminsignia.net is not possible, we can try this option. I do not see the insignia problem as something too terribly complex as commons have dealt with much more complex issues in the past most notably {{PD-Soviet}}. Generally we try to avoid deletion of the images if free alternatives are possible. You and others claimed this is possible. So the bad bad versions can be overwritten just like how US millitary ranks were handled.
I guess I owe you an apology for causing you further stress than this user. I look forward in resolving this insignia related problem on commons with you. I also prefer images with indisputable copyright status on commons just like you after all. -- Catちぃ？ 19:01, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
Blocked. I am holding back on image deletions for a more permanent solution. He'd just reupload with another sock. Perhaps we should create free alternatives to those as well (or if you can get the free license thing off of uniforminsignia.net that would work too) -- Catちぃ？ 22:11, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Public domain
This file is in the public domain', because Ley sobre Derechos de Autor de Cuba. La foto fue utilizada por primera vez en 1966. Se encuentra en el dominio público por Decreto Ley No. 156 de 28 de septiembre de 1994, modificatorio parcialmente de Ley No. 14 de 28 de diciembre de 1977, Ley de Derecho de Autor (Art 47) que establece que las fotos entran al dominio público 25 años después de su primera utilización. —the preceding unsigned comment was added by201.255.239.66 (talk • contribs) 03:29, 10 October 2007 (UTC)Reply
November
Dutch talk page
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Good morning White Cat,
I noticed that the Dutch version of your talkpage is written in English. You might want to consider this translation:
Nederlands: OVERLEGPAGINA van WHITE CAT
Hallo, welkom op mijn overlegpagina. Voel je vrij om hieronder opmerkingen te plaatsen. Alles wat je hier neerzet zal waarschijnlijk worden gearchiveerd, en is voor iedereen leesbaar. Wees vriendelijk en beleefd, aub.
Om een nieuwe opmerking te plaatsen, klik op deze link
User:White Cat = Gebruiker:White Cat (or Witte Kat in Dutch)
Assume good faith = Ga uit van goede wil
Troll free zone = Trolvrije zone
WikiLove = WikiLiefde
WikiMood = WikiStemming
STOP! Als je hier bent vanwege een administratieve actie van mij, lees dan eerst deze pagina voordat je een opmerking plaatst.
If you created this image, 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. If the file is up for deletion because it has been superseded by a superior derivative of your work, consider the notion that although the file may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new file.
In all cases, please do not take the deletion request personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!
Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Could you please explain why this edit is inaproprate and was reverted? It has nothing to do with the city/town issue that was mention on the talk page for this IP address, and it is unclear why it was reverted. The image _is_ of the of the Benson, AZ train station (which is what is added in English to image desc), and both Category:Benson, Arizona and Category:Train stations in Arizona exist and are a much more exact catigorization than the more root level category of Category:Arizona. -- 208.81.184.422:46, 16 November 2007 (UTC)Reply
I have noticed you are one of the stewards, I would like to ask you for a favour if I may? I need my name chaged from the Arabic User:إبن البيطار to Nasib Bitar, which is my real name. If you are the right person to act on this, please do. If not, may you kindly direct me to the right person.
Hi, you'd need to file that on Commons:Changing username#Procedure. I am sorry I do not have the capability to fulfill your request. -- Catちぃ？ 20:08, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
IRC #wikimedia-stewards
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
This is very clearly a far worse image than the one you have replaced it with - a typical washed-out Yorck project scan from a 50-year-old book. Please reverse this imediately! I am very concerned that you could possibly think this the better image and would be grateful if you could explain your reasoning, preferably at on en WP. diff on enJohnbod23:32, 29 December 2007 (UTC)Reply
Replied on en.wiki. -- Catちぃ？ 23:34, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
.jpg)
_(2007-07-25).jpg)
![[3]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Image:Mari1.JPG){kind=link}
![[6]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Log%26type%3Ddelete%26page%3DImage:World_Cup_Trophy.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
![[7]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=delete&page=Image:Canadiandollar_devilshead.gif){kind=link}
![[8]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Canadiandollar_devilshead.gif){kind=link}
![[11]](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/98/Su-37-Draft.svg){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
_(2007-07-25).jpg){kind=link}
![[15]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Image:Necromouse.jpg){kind=link}
![[16]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:BG-Army-OF5.gif#filehistory){kind=link}
