Butseriouslyfolks

I'm much more likely to see your message soon if you leave me a note at w:User talk:Butseriouslyfolks.

---

Welcome to the Commons, Butseriouslyfolks!

First steps tutorial Our first steps help file and our FAQ will help you a lot after registration. They explain how to customize the interface (for example the language), how to upload files and our basic licensing policy. You don't need technical skills in order to contribute here. Be bold contributing here and assume good faith for the intentions of others. This is a wiki - it is really easy. Getting help More information is available at the Community Portal. You may ask questions at the Help desk, Village Pump or on IRC channel #wikimedia-commons. You can also contact an administrator on their talk page. If you have a specific copyright question, ask at Commons talk:Licensing.		Goodies, tips and tricks Put Babel boxes on your user page so others know what languages you can speak and indicate your Graphics abilities. All your uploads are stored in your personal Gallery Please sign your name on Talk pages by typing ~~~~ Use the CommonSense tool to find good categories for your files (then other people can find them too!) To link to an image page, write this: [[:Image:Foo.jpg]], it makes this: Image:Foo.jpg If you're copying files from another project, be sure to use the CommonsHelper Made a mistake? Did you want to rename or move a file? Simply upload the file again and mark the old one like this: {{bad name|Correct name}} For more information read the full Deletion guidelines
(P.S. Would you like to provide feedback on this message?)

SieBot 21:34, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

nsd

Please do not remove licences from images, even if you're nominating them for deletion. the nsd template does not replace the licence, and removing the licence makes the review of the matter confusing. Thank you for your understanding. Rama 15:22, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Speedy deletion

I have removed the speedy deletion nomination tags a second time. Do not reinclude them to the same images. The images in question do not fall under speedy deletion criteria as they are not obvious. For the 6th time, use COM:DEL. -- Cat ^ちぃ？ 19:11, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Talk flood

21 copyvio notices on my talk are so exaggerated... you could write only 1 summary, synthetic... please stop it!--Nick1915 09:40, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Nevermind :) Thanks for your zeal ;)--Nick1915 18:37, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

On image deletion notice

Thanks for your kindly noticing about the deletion request of Image:Fleet_Admiral_of_the_Russian_Federation_rank_insignia.gif. I'm sorry to have put you to the toil of formalities for deletion requests.--Sciss 13:17, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Help!

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. --Butseriouslyfolks 19:58, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

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.

P.S. can we keep this discussion on one wiki?

-- Cat ^ちぃ？ 16:20, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

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! --Butseriouslyfolks 22:10, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

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! --Butseriouslyfolks 22:13, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

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! --Butseriouslyfolks 22:30, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

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？ 02:48, 20 October 2007 (UTC)