Delicious carbuncle

Replied

Delicious carbuncle, thanks very much for your polite comment at my user talk page, I most appreciate the polite and kind way in which you have comported yourself recently in this discussion with me! This is to let you know that I've replied back there at my user talk page. Once again, thank you for your kindness in being polite with me! Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 23:00, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Politeness is the sport of kings. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 23:19, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Heh, well, however you think of it, I really appreciate your use of such a kind and polite tone with me personally! :) Thanks again, -- Cirt (talk) 23:21, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Replied again over at my user talk page. -- Cirt (talk) 00:51, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

re File:Vladimir Putin caricature - Putin Rearmament Plan - by FreedomHouse.jpg

Understood, Herby, thank you for this clarification. I will keep that in mind in the future. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 14:58, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't think this message was for me. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:07, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Right, but just giving in a heads up as a friendly FYI, here also. I hope you and your family are doing well, Delcious carbuncle, and have a great day! Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 15:13, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Cirt, same to you. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:20, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, very much, Delicious carbuncle, I appreciate that. A lot. :) Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 15:22, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Removing categories

Hello. If you are going to remove a category [1] from the exemptions and view the false positives,[2] please promptly remove any future unrelated photographs of people that show up on the page. It is possibly libelous, and I do not want my bot involved in posting photographs of individuals to a page with the title "penises" . Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 00:14, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Magog, I doubt very much that any reasonable person would make the assumption that I am calling anyone "a penis" because their image has inadvertently been included in a gallery of actual penises. Nonetheless, I take full responsibility for any such cases. If anyone asks, please tell them to speak to me and I will explain the mechanism by which those galleries are built and my purposes for having those galleries. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:29, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

DC having a photo of a living person at User:Delicious_carbuncle/Newly_added_penises/2013_March_1-10#7_March_2013 could be problematic as Magog the Ogre has mentioned; they have also stated that they do not want their bot being used to post photographs of individuals to a page called "penises". I would suggest that you remove that photo from the page, or I will advise MtO that you haven't complied with their request, and they can stop running that on your behalf if they so wish. russavia (talk) 16:29, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

I think my earlier comment suffices. If this really is an issue, Russavia, I can just rename the galleries. Mattbuck's galleries of newly added "nudity" and "sexuality" images are also affected by this, so perhaps a wider discussion is in order. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:00, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

I have removed the image from the gallery, as your earlier comment does not suffice unfortunately. The pages which are in Mattbuck's userspace is an issue for him to deal with MtO if MtO has an issue with them; but I don't see anything problematic as they are two all-encompassing new upload galleries, and are not restricted only to "penises", and MtO has not raised that issue with them. Please comply with bot operator' wishes when they raise issues with you; don't simply ignore them, otherwise I would suggest to them that they cease doing that run for you. russavia (talk) 17:29, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Russavia, given the open hostility you have shown towards me here and elsewhere, it would probably be a good idea for you to avoid me, rather than looking for ways to annoy me. I don't think a reasonable person would find any cause for concern here. However, if you want to start a wider discussion and get consensus that there actually is an issue here, I will gladly deal with the issue myself. Until then, I'm going to put the image back. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:54, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

I have now removed the image, yet again, and have protected the page. Magog the Ogre has requested for the image to be removed, and have stated that they do not want their bot to be associated with adding photographs of individuals to a page entitled "penises". Their request was very, very clear. I have protected the page to ensure that you don't insert what may be a libellous addition to the page, as stated by the bot operator. If you wish to discuss this further with them, then do so, but given that you do not want to comply with their request, I can now only suggest to Magog the Ogre that they should consider cease doing that bot run for you. russavia (talk) 18:04, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Given the penises page presumably contains only images which turn up on my nudity results, I don't see why you even want one other than to create drama. -mattbuck (Talk) 19:48, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

It doesn't seem to have created any drama at all until now and if Russavia hadn't involved himself here it wouldn't have created any at all. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:04, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

You raise a very valid point here Mattbuck -- The images all show up on the nudity results run that MtO also runs for yourself, which I have used on the odd occasion when I have some spare time to search for potentially problematic files. So perhaps DC could now explain what purpose this "new penises" run that MtO serves that isn't covered by the run that is done for Mattbuck. And why an image of an individual who is obviously not a penis is required to be a part of that new upload gallery, particularly when concerns on the inclusion of that particular image have been raised by the bot operator. russavia (talk) 21:04, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Russavia, "an image of an individual who is obviously not a penis" would seem to acknowledge that the image in question is unlikely to be misunderstood by someone looking at these galleries in my userspace. I do not know if all of the images in those galleries are included on Mattbuck's pages but I am using different categories than he is so there are likely to be differences. As for your request, I could explain my purpose for compiling these galleries, but since it is you who is asking, I'm not going to and I don't believe any reason is required. So far they have been serving their purpose fairly well. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:20, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Given that the images in your galleries are clearly found, with the exceptions of images such as File:Luxor Sharia al-Mahatta R01.jpg, File:Obélisque de la Concorde, Paris 001.jpg, File:Luxor Temple.jpg and File:Luxor Temple Square R01.jpg, in the recent upload runs done for Mattbuck (I'm not too sure that the uploaders of the aforementioned files would be pleased at having their images appear in your penis gallery), plus given that you refuse to cede to requests from the bot owner, plus given that you refuse to answer questions in relation to the purpose of the galleries, I can only suggest to Magog the Ogre that they stop running this particular gallery for you as superfluous to our needs. russavia (talk) 21:59, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

I have not "refused to cede to requests", I explained my position. I assume that if Magog wanted to pursue it, they would have. Perhaps you could more productively spend your time determining why File:Luxor Temple.jpg is categorized such that it gets picked up by Magog's bot? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:21, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

I've removed the category; the gallery will no longer be updated. If DC changes his mind and is willing to prune the page on a regular basis for potentially libelous material, he may feel free to ask me and I will add it again. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 01:09, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

I thought those facilities were provided for anyone in the community to use. I wasn't aware that bot owners were able to pick and chose who uses a public service. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:30, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Well now you know. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 16:19, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

In relation to your latest attack piece relating to an editor on this project, it should noted that the bot owner was NOT "prompted to put a stop to that." in relation to your use of their bot. That is a decision that they reached on their own, after you decided that it better to troll above, rather than comply with bot owners instructions to remove problematic images from the results that their bot was running for you. For someone who holds themselves up as a shining beacon of protection of living people and everything that goes along with it, it really wasn't wise on your part to troll others on this project with your refusal to comply with what were valid concerns relating to the use of that bot. I don't expect your ilk to be upfront and honest with others, so I have taken care of that for you with this.

I will comment in a new section in relation to the rest of your half attack piece and "All hail glorious Delicious Carbuncle" piece. Have a nice day. russavia (talk) 07:59, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

What I wrote is my understanding of what transpired. You may disagree with my interpretation of those events, but that was really just an aside and not materially related to the larger topic. I'm not sure what "ilk" I am part of, but it isn't the ilk of trolls, so please stop referring to me as a troll or to my actions as trolling. For the record, I do not hold myself up as "a shining beacon of protection of living people and everything that goes along with it". I try to do the right thing and help where I can, but I am as fallible as anyone else and rely on others to steer me right when I have gone off course. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:57, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

The edit summary which you used here (There's no point asking - you'll get no reply.) is precisely amongst the reasons that MtO stopped your usage of their bot; that being refusal to comply with their wishes, and refusal to answer questions, and basically your general trolling attitude. No need to reply; especially as you said you wouldn't. russavia (talk) 19:52, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

You may have misunderstood what that edit summary meant. :) Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:11, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

File:Black thong whale tail.jpeg

Hi friend, why should the upload image be deleted? fuzzy and incompetently edited is not a very good reason as to why an upload should be deleted. My upload is not breaching copyright laws, so It does not make sense to delete it.Jushne (talk) 19:19, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

We do not need low quality images of dubious origin. If you upload the unedited original, perhaps people will stop thinking that it is a copyright violation, but it won't save that image. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:59, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Let's work together and make Wikimedia Commons a cleaner place

Dear delicious carbuncle, thanks for your kind help for blanking out my page with guideline "Removing gallery of genitalia. This isn't what a user page is for", meanwhile, I found your super galary of penises, really eyes wide open, and I have helped you cleaned it up. Hope it meets your standard. Let's work together and make Wikimedia Commons a cleaner place. Thank you! :) -Bebop7 (talk) 07:40, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

You may have misunderstood the difference between a user page and a page in user space. I look forward to working with you in the future. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:11, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

+1. A userpage is acceptable for non-literal willy-waving... Rd232 (talk) 15:24, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Dear delicious carbuncle, first of all, I don't like non-admin Wikipedian blanking out my own userpage, as a regular user, if you don't like my page, then just don't visit it again. Secondly, why don't you clarify the purpose of your super penis gallery? Some of my works are involved, and I'm concerned --- As Commons already have its public page for penises, what are you doing?? BTW, as a Commons file uploader, it's absolutely normal to display my latest uploads in my own userpage, unlike you, have nothing to show in your userpage because you never donated a file. I've fixed my page like you fixing your penis gallery, will be happy to help the cleanup again if you like. -Bebop7 (talk) 16:08, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm not a regular user. I'm special. :) Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:24, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

I've moved your gallery where it belongs, per Commons:User-specific_galleries,_templates_and_categories_policy#Gallery_pages. Because of the graphic sexual nature of some of the uploads, it's not appropriate on your userpage. Rd232 (talk) 16:40, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

That in no way states that you can't have the gallery directly on your userpage. If you're going to say that we aren't allowed galleries on our userpages, then you'll have to delete most admins' pages. As for the content, I don't really see the problem, and there's certainly no policy to justify your intrusion into another user's personal page. -mattbuck (Talk) 16:50, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

It may not state that, but common sense does, and if you need a policy to state that, I would guess I can get community approval in under 2 weeks. Worth the bother? Rd232 (talk) 17:09, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

It seems unlikely that you could get consensus within two weeks, or in fact ever. Stop messing with other people's pages. -mattbuck (Talk) 19:52, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Challenge accepted. I take it you'll want to argue for the right of users to wave literal willies on their userpages, and I doubt few others will, so I'll drop you a line when I've sorted a proposal. Rd232 (talk) 21:10, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Don't like anyone redesigning my userpage and I've restored it. I'm just showing my latest uploads in my own page, it's reasonable and don't against any Wikimedia Commons rule. All its content are accepted by Wikimedia Commons. Feel unhappy about "willies"? Check delicious carbuncle's secret super gallery, it will help you. :) -Bebop7 (talk) 03:07, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

They aren't secret, just in an appropriate place. You were given a chance to figure out what that meant, but you don't seem to have taken it. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:39, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Wow, "appropriate"... isn't it. :) As you provide no clarification about the purpose of your penis gallery to my concern, i'll consider the gallery is built for your own preference and interest. It's okay you like my pictures, i'll talk to my models about this news, i'm sure they're okay too. Also, i'll reflect this case in my latest blog (anonymously). Meanwhile, Rd232 seems to be an expert of adding links to "user space" on "user page", maybe you can turn to him for help to link your super gallery to your userpage so everyone can share. Cheers! :) -Bebop7 (talk) 04:08, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Anyone is free to view those galleries, and presumably they know what they are getting when they see the title. Why someone might want to look at them is entirely a different question. Speaking of questions, I notice that your uploads were placed into articles on the English-language Wikipedia by a user named "Moscowsky" - do you know them? According to Russianavia.net, Moscow Sky is the name of "a group of Russian business aviation companies". I'm being hassled here by an admin who is interested in Russia and aviation, and the editor who adds your uploaded images to articles shares the name of a Russian aviation company. I find the coincidence amusing, don't you? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:10, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Wow, that's interesting... Do you think I can get some flight coupons from this "Moscowsky"? It will be sweet if I can get some. I appreciate your time collecting and following up the usages of my images, you must be a super fan of me, and again, that's okay. Your new Soviet Union fly story will be spice up my blog. :) BTW, as you promised in above section "I take full responsibility for any such cases. If anyone asks, please tell them to speak to me and I will explain the mechanism by which those galleries are built and my purposes for having those galleries", so...shouldn't you answer something more to me here, as a closure of this discussion? Too bad the bot owner taken away your access, i'll try to recommend you a new bot if possible. Cheers! :) -Bebop7 (talk) 15:16, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I should have been more clear - I meant if anyone with genuine concerns asks. I didn't mean you. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:25, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Bebop7, send me your details, I'll be more than happy to supply you with flight coupons to Bakui, SRiga or Gondon. russavia (talk) 18:40, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

I knew it!:) Just by your name I have guessed that you must be an awesome expert of Gondon things and others, analyzing and collecting all the time, owning more than a trillion coupons. If you're really interested in the mentioned area, maybe you should contact my super fan Delicious carbuncle for further discussion, so you guys can improve each other. I would be thrilled to share some tips to enhance your discussion by then. Cheers! :) -Bebop7 (talk) 12:18, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Bebop7, as much fun as it has been having you here, you're getting tiresome. You and Russavia can carry on your "discussion" on your talk page. Feel free to let me know when you get your blog up. Thanks! Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:59, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

No, thank you Delicious carbuncle, for throwing this wonderful party. Everybody enjoyed. Tired of it? Please never. Always be ready for another one when you blank out someone's userpage in this way, new better drama might be on by then, we can't wait! :) -Bebop7 (talk) 01:56, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

The only reason I haven't blanked it again is because I want to see how Rd232's efforts play out. Sometimes it's good to let people see just how wrong people here can be about things which are obvious to everyone else. Anyway, if you don't mind, it's really important to me that I have the last word in this conversation because I have very low self-esteem, so I'm going to ask you not to post here again. Thanks for your understanding in this matter. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 02:35, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Last! -mattbuck (Talk) 10:16, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Regarding myself and my actions

Hi DC. Thanks for your comments on the AN, I apologize for sounding pissy, but the last 48 hours for me have been just about the hardest of my life. I've surrendered 8 years of work on en.wp in favor of doing the decent thing, admitting I've been a dick, and committing suicide by checkuser with administrative assistance. If you care to go back here you'll see I've been completely open about my history on here, and agreed to have both of my outstanding socks (who are here and their edits are noted) blocked. I have also made it clear what I have done here, and the fact that there is genuinely no site abuse from this account. Thanks -- BarkingFish (talk) 21:40, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

AN/U cmt

I love how there's now an unofficial dance regarding Penyulap's involvement in Commons. Killiondude (talk) 06:13, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Russavia says

I note in your latest attack piece that you have used an image from Flickr. Do you realise that you are setting yourself up for a lawsuit? Your use of that person's likeness in a so-called piece of journalism (I prefer to call it virtual toilet paper) could reasonably lead one to assume that this person is involved in child pornography. Given that the person lives in Australia, you would be well advised to read up on Australian law in relation to libel, etc. Especially in relation to something as sensitive as child pornography, and accusations thereof. Your using that image without any context whatsoever (particularly the image description and the fact it was a humourous photo for use between friends), and it being mentioned on JW's English Wikipedia talk page, which is going to cause a streisand effect (of such) is only going to lead to potential trouble.

In light of this, I have contacted the Flickr user in question, giving them a link to the virtual toilet paper which has your name attached, and have included an archived version for their reference.

You really should be more careful, for it is disgusting that in your continued trolling, you have (long ago) lost the moral high ground in your arguments, and this is simply yet another example of such.

Yes, this really has nothing to do directly with your Commons activities, but given that you are linking yourself to this project, let me say, that I, and I imagine the rest of this project, would like to distance ourselves from your activites on a site unrelated to this project, especially as it concerns using random photographs of living people and connecting it to accusations of child pornography. You should be ashamed. russavia (talk) 08:25, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Russavia, you are welcome to email me if you have personal comments like this. It would probably be wiser than posting them in public. I did not choose the image that accompanied that blog post, but if the author contacts me I will pass their comments along to the site's moderators. I am sure they will be much more accommodating than the Commons community is when faced with a complaint from an image author or subject. Your disgust is duly noted. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:38, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

COM:AN/U

---

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems#User:Delicious carbuncle. This is in relation to an issue with which you may have been involved.

--Stanzilla (talk) 11:29, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Flicker images uploaded by High Contrast

Do not create categories connected with my username especially if you have not asked me and especially they are this poorly spelled. --High Contrast (talk) 10:48, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Sorry. I'm not sure why you would have an issue with a maintenance category that most users will not see, since it is a hidden category, but I don't think it was appropriate to use your admin rights to delete the category and revert all of my changes. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:11, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

I did never agreed in the creation of this category. That's all, do not recreate it, please. --High Contrast (talk) 13:33, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Why would you have to agree to it? It is possible to list the images you have uploaded yourself, but not possible to list the images you have uploaded via Flickr. No one is asking for your agreement when viewing your direct uploads, why should a hidden category allowing me to do this for Flickr uploads be any different? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:41, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

I have to agree with it because a rondomly chosen number of flickr files gets connected to my username. Please keep in mind that reviewing uploads is something different. --High Contrast (talk) 13:53, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, they are connected to your username because you uploaded them. I didn't choose them randomly, I chose them because they need to looked at (consent issues, personality rights templates, etc). You went to Flickr, selected these particular images and uploaded them - what objection do you have to your username being associated with them? I think all Flickr uploads should be categorized by uploader, but that's not my concern with these issues. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:01, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Then create categories like flickr images (personality rights template to add), flickr images (whatever) if you must. But if you do so pay attention to the correct spelling: "flickr" not "flicker". Regards, High Contrast (talk) 15:59, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Re:Autopatroller

Technically, I am able to remove it, but I will not do so—this right only serves other people (administrators and patrollers) as a sign that your edits do not need to be patrolled. I've been marking them as patrolled for a very long time, but got tired of doing it, in the end. I see no reason for other people to have to patrol your edits, either. odder (talk) 22:40, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Ok. Thanks for your help! Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:55, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Mutton Busters

I don't know if I am using this area right. But I am writing about the proposed deletion of my submition of 'Mutton Buster.'

What are the problems with it?

It is the most iconic image of its genre. I am also a curator of photography and have many images I'd like to submit to Wiki Commons. Is this area of curating 'others work' going to be a problem?

Thanks,

Daniel Teoli Jr.

If you are unsure of the license, do not upload it here. See COM:PRP. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:09, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Understanding copyright basics

Copied from Fastily's talk page: I'm not very smart and I need to approach things in a simple way. Perhaps if you work with me, I'll get it. Why don't we give that a try? The dust jacket, including the author photo, publishing house logo, etc is a copyrightable work - agreed? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 12:30, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

No, not in the sense you mean. I haven't seen the whole dust jacket, but we can assume that yes, it does contain an author photo and publisher logo, each of which are independently copyrightable. But that doesn't affect the public domain nature of the text displaying the title and author, and doesn't mean that the dust jacket as an indivisible object is copyrightable. Even its particular arrangement of elements is not copyrightable (big title and author's name on the front, title on the spine, author's picture on the back) because that composition is not original, though we don't even need to go that far to resolve the issue.

Even if we are talking about the novel itself, more easily characterized as a copyrighted work, the author's copyright only extends to the elements that are copyrightable expression. If a character in that novel quotes Shakespeare at length, or counts from 1-20, we can copy those bits of dialogue without infringement or even a fair use claim because that content is public domain. So your error is in thinking that merely copying a copyrighted work means the copy is nonfree without regard to what was actually copied. And that is why I asked about a public domain photo reproduced in a newer, copyrighted book, or a public domain logo displayed in a copyrighted website. The issues are the same: copying only what elements the copyright holder does not own, even when those elements are incorporated in an otherwise copyrighted work, means the copy is free and clear of that copyright. Postdlf (talk) 16:08, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

So, to be clear, you are saying that the dust jacket is not eligible for copyright? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:31, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

You're asking the wrong question. Try actually reading what I wrote instead of sticking to a point that you admittedly don't understand. I would like to see some indication that you understand everything that I've said, because I'm not going to keep writing you explanations you don't bother digesting. Postdlf (talk) 16:43, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm asking the question that I need to ask to understand. I'm trying to establish if the dust jacket is eligible for copyright. If it is not, then my assumptions about taking a part of a copyrighted work are invalidated. You seem to be saying it isn't. I'm asking you to clarify that. Is the dust jacket eligible for copyright? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:49, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

It doesn't matter. Because even if we can say that a work is copyrightable, if that work contains public domain elements, those elements can be copied freely because they are public domain. A "work", however we define that, can contain both copyrightable and uncopyrightable elements, and the author's rights only extend to the copyrightable elements. Period. That's what it means for something to be uncopyrightable. Now re-read the rest of my comment above. Postdlf (talk) 16:55, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

And now I've wasted my own time doing research you could have easily done yourself:

"United States law fully complies with the TRIPS-Berne obligation, in providing that copyright protection extends only to the original elements of a work...Certain types of information...are...uncopyrightable. They can, however, be included as elements in a work...which merits copyright protection...Even in such a case, however, no copyright protection can be accorded to the non-original elements themselves." Intellectual Property Licensing: Forms and Analysis (2006). Richard Raysman, Edward A. Pisacreta, Kenneth A. Adler, Seth H. Ostrow. Law Journal Press, § 3.03[1] (emphasis added).

And that's why it doesn't matter whether it makes sense to say "the dust jacket is copyrighted", because there's no copyright in non-original, uncopyrightable elements even when they are included in an otherwise copyrighted work.

Even more clear:

"[T]he infringer must copy protected elements of the work; to the extent that the work includes both copyrighted elements and uncopyrightable elements, at least some of the copyrighted elements must be copied for there to be infringement. For example, if the package design of a product is copied as to the ingredients and the background color, but not the graphics, this does not constitute copyright infringement, since neither ingredients nor color per se can be protected by copyright." The Intellectual Property Handbook: A Practical Guide for Franchise, Business, and IP Counsel (2005), William A. Finkelstein, James R. Simms. American Bar Association. p. 209 (emphasis added).

Postdlf (talk) 18:04, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

I hope you don't think you have wasted your time, because your second last response finally got through and the quotes convinced me that you weren't just talking out of your ass. I think I get it. Regardless of the copyright status of the whole, if certain elements are not intrinsically eligible for copyright, they do not have copyright protection. Thanks. Really. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:08, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

That's nice, but now let's deal with why it took so much time for you to get that. When you posted a deletion nomination that three editors vociferously disagreed with (and explained why) and an admin speedy closed, why did you persist in thinking you were correct? Why did you assume those three editors and admin, all but one of whom have years more experience on Commons than you have, were "talking out of [their] ass[es]"? What gave you so much confidence in your copyright claim, when you clearly had no idea what you were talking about and didn't and couldn't cite anything remotely supporting your view? Postdlf (talk) 02:31, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

I do not know why it took so long for me to get it, because it really isn't complicated. Perhaps it was because no one seemed willing to help me work through it in language that made sense to me. My experiences here have not made me place any stock in the fact that other editors disagree with me. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:18, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Why do you think that is? Do you think it might have something to do with how you interact with other users here? Postdlf (talk) 19:28, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that's probably part of it. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:20, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Off-topic?

I'm sorry but I do not understand this. As the image is one of the main reasons for the entire de-crat proposal, mentioning it cannot be by itself off-topic. I think that the discussion you closed, apart from the usual Penyulap-ish comments by Penyulap, centered around russavia's behavior in uploading the image, not about its deletion. darkweasel94 23:06, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

My proposal is not about keeping or deleting the image. Nor is it discussing why the entire request to remove Russavia's bureaucrat rights is improper. Those discussions are already happening and do not need to be repeated in every thread. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 23:20, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Would you object if I moved the parts that might actually bring the discussion forward to their own section? I am genuinely interested in a possible response to my comment in the collapsed section. darkweasel94 23:26, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Please do. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 23:31, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Lies told by a lying liar

Just FYI: I have removed (hidden) your willfully inflammatory and insulting edit-summary[3] as a clear PA against User:とある白い猫. --Túrelio (talk) 06:20, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

My edit summary of "Lies told by a lying liar" was not a personal attack against とある白い猫. とある白い猫 is not lying, simply making poor arguments. I am the "lying liar" in question. Earlier, I pointed out that Russavia, according to his own admission, had commissioned the painting which sparked the request to remove his Bureaucrat rights. Count Iblis responded by linking to "Big Lie", which not only implied that I was lying, but also using Nazi propaganda techniques. All's fair in love and war, I guess. Thus, I am a liar despite all of my statements being true and easily confirmed. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 12:43, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Unacceptable insinuations of my lying about OTRS tickets

Your edit summary here is unacceptable, for it is implying that I am lying about the OTRS ticket. Given the seriousness of this accusation, I am asking you to either back up this assertion with some facts, and then once those facts are established you may approach an OTRS administrator or start a discussion on having my OTRS right revoked for being untrustworthy enough to be able have access to the OTRS queues. Of course, it could just be that you are blowing hot air out of your behind, in which case we'll just chalk your trolling up to yet more harassment. russavia (talk) 18:41, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm asking for someone other than yourself (the person who initiated the request) to check the OTRS ticket, due to the discrepancy in licenses. That isn't trolling, harassment, or an implication that you are lying. It's just due diligence. Try to stay mellow. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:59, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

No, I will NOT "Chill dude". You stated very clearly in the edit summary, "Perhaps someone trustworthy could double-check this assertion?" This is in direct response to this where I stated the OTRS ticket is ok, and verified by the person who processed the ticket. This is a public accusation against myself in relation to OTRS, and I am asking that you retract this accusation immediately. russavia (talk) 20:21, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

There's no accusation for me to retract. I think someone trustworthy should doublecheck the ticket, under the circumstances. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:26, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Retract the accusations immediately. You are again implying that I am not trustworthy enough to deal with OTRS. russavia (talk) 20:29, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps that what you are inferring, but I have explained to you more than once that there is nothing for me to retract. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:32, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps someone trustworthy could double-check this assertion? -- what exactly do this imply to the layperson? russavia (talk) 20:39, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

See my first response. I'm not going to try to explain this to you again. Please go away. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:44, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

I must agree with Russavia, this is an accusation of bad faith against an OTRS user. I'm told you have a history of inflammatory edit summaries. End it. -mattbuck (Talk) 20:46, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Mattbuck, please find someone else to focus on. I'm tired of you and Russavia hassling me. Please go away. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:50, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Files from Foreign and Commonwealth Office Flickr stream -- call my "trustworthiness" into question again, and by doing so in such a trolling way, and it is you who will be going away. russavia (talk) 21:09, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Russavia, you owe DC 10 cents. Threat charges are five cents for implied threats and 10 cents for overt threats. Pay up please. Cla68 (talk) 05:53, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

This hysteria from Russavia is unbecoming, and the thoughtless reactionary back up from Mattbuck telling. These guys run this place? Ceoil (talk) 23:31, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Mattbuck and Russavia don't run Commons, but they often take it upon themselves to squelch discussions they don't like. Just like on WP, there are good admins who spend their time quietly cleaning up messes. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 02:44, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Email

I've sent you an Email. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 11:49, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

RE: Email

I've sent a reply. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 23:48, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

How can I help you?

I´m new here and I want to help you in your work here

A barnstar for you!

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	ESTAS HACIENDO UN BUEN TRABAJO Gadrell (talk) 04:35, 20 April 2014 (UTC)