User talk:Cirt/Archive 3

File:BarbaraRobertsSpeaking.jpg

I was invited to its deletion review and I am "forwarding" the invitation to you, as you were part of the file transfer chain and have much experience with image licensing. As I understand, the uploader is inactive, and thus we'll have to decide whether to trust his word on the license. Regards. Materialscientist (talk) 06:24, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks very much for the notification. -- Cirt (talk) 16:23, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not ...

Read what Wiki is not supposed to be. What to discuss if you did it already? Alex Khimich (talk) 16:46, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

File:Rick_santorum_caricature_satire_made_with_frothy_santorum_pic_1.jpg

File:Rick_santorum_caricature_satire_made_with_frothy_santorum_pic_1.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Alex Khimich (talk) 15:21, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

RfCU

Thank you for your support and kind words.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:06, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome! -- Cirt (talk) 16:19, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

donkey punch

Please stop dumping any free image from [1] onto Commons. Unless you can demonstrate that these images are useful for some purpose, you are abusing Commons. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 01:20, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

I've gotta respectfully disagree with your opinion here, the images are useful for multiple purposes. -- Cirt (talk) 04:52, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Demonstrate that. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 07:26, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

I've added some other categories to them. :) They're part of a larger category, photographers and artists expressing their artistic license and freedom of expression on an interesting topic. It's useful to compile free use images on topics in this manner. -- Cirt (talk) 07:28, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

You have only demonstrated that you can categorise them. You haven't demonstrated that these images are useful, beyond increasing the use of the term "donkey punch" on Commons. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 07:34, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, it's difficult to do so, when you've removed the category from them. I've tried to assemble them together, in order to actually demonstrate their usefulness, but then when that category is removed, that hampers that attempt. -- Cirt (talk) 07:36, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Oh? you want to debate their appropriateness in category:donkey punch? I thought my edit summaries where adequate explanations of why your categorisation was not useful, and even inappropriate. Apparently you disagree, so I will explain myself in more detail over at category talk:donkey punch.

In the meantime, perhaps you could try to use one of these images on a content page somewhere on a Wikimedia project? John Vandenberg ^(chat) 07:41, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I disagree about the removal of the categories. Thanks very much for engaging in discussion at the category talk page, I really appreciate that! As for the images, the category itself is linked on multiple sister project pages. :) Viewers can peruse the images, and go back and forth between content on the sister projects. -- Cirt (talk) 07:43, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

File:Donkey punch by Whasername.jpg

File:Donkey punch by Whasername.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Kgorman-ucb (talk) 02:31, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

File:Donkey punch bumper sticker.jpg

File:Donkey punch bumper sticker.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Prof. Professorson (talk) 13:15, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

File:Donkey punch by TheChanel.jpg

File:Donkey punch by TheChanel.jpg has been marked as a possible copyright violation. Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content—that is, images and other media files that can be used by anyone, for any purpose. Traditional copyright law does not grant these freedoms, and unless noted otherwise, everything you find on the web is copyrighted and not permitted here. For details on what is acceptable, please read Commons:Licensing. You may also find Commons:Copyright rules useful, or you can ask questions about Commons policies at the Commons:Help desk. If you are the copyright holder and the creator of the file, please read Commons:But it's my own work! for tips on how to provide evidence of that. The file you added has been deleted. If you have written permission from the copyright holder, please have them send us a free license release via COM:VRT. If you believe that the deletion was not in accordance with policy, you may request undeletion. (It is not necessary to request undeletion if using VRT; the file will be automatically restored at the conclusion of the process.) Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

 

russavia (talk) 14:04, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

File:Donkey punch at pool by TheChanel.jpg

File:Donkey punch at pool by TheChanel.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

russavia (talk) 14:07, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

File:Donkey punch art by Perry Marco.jpg

File:Donkey punch art by Perry Marco.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

-mattbuck (Talk) 19:20, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

File tagging File:Donkey punch final.jpg

This media was probably deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:Donkey punch final.jpg. This media is missing permission information. A source is given, but there is no proof that the author or copyright holder agreed to license the file under the given license. Please provide a link to an appropriate webpage with license information, or ask the author or copyright holder to send an email with copy of a written permission to VRT (permissions-commons@wikimedia.org). You may still be required to go through this procedure even if you are the author yourself; please see Commons:But it's my own work! for more details. After you emailed permission, you may replace the {{No permission since}} tag with {{subst:PP}} on file description page. Alternatively, you may click on "Challenge speedy deletion" below the tag if you wish to provide an argument why evidence of permission is not necessary in this case. Please see this page for more information on how to confirm permission, or if you would like to understand why we ask for permission when uploading work that is not your own, or work which has been previously published (regardless of whether it is your own). The file probably has been deleted. If you sent a permission, try to send it again after 14 days. Do not re-upload. When the VRT-member processes your mail, the file can be undeleted. Additionally you can request undeletion here, providing a link to the File-page on Commons where it was uploaded ([[:File:Donkey punch final.jpg]]) and the above demanded information in your request.

 

russavia (talk) 19:55, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

File:Donkey punch final.jpg

File:Donkey punch final.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Yikrazuul (talk) 19:57, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

File tagging File:Donkey punch final.jpg

This media was probably deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:Donkey punch final.jpg. This media is missing permission information. A source is given, but there is no proof that the author or copyright holder agreed to license the file under the given license. Please provide a link to an appropriate webpage with license information, or ask the author or copyright holder to send an email with copy of a written permission to VRT (permissions-commons@wikimedia.org). You may still be required to go through this procedure even if you are the author yourself; please see Commons:But it's my own work! for more details. After you emailed permission, you may replace the {{No permission since}} tag with {{subst:PP}} on file description page. Alternatively, you may click on "Challenge speedy deletion" below the tag if you wish to provide an argument why evidence of permission is not necessary in this case. Please see this page for more information on how to confirm permission, or if you would like to understand why we ask for permission when uploading work that is not your own, or work which has been previously published (regardless of whether it is your own). The file probably has been deleted. If you sent a permission, try to send it again after 14 days. Do not re-upload. When the VRT-member processes your mail, the file can be undeleted. Additionally you can request undeletion here, providing a link to the File-page on Commons where it was uploaded ([[:File:Donkey punch final.jpg]]) and the above demanded information in your request.

 

russavia (talk) 20:09, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Hello, Cirt. You have new messages at Russavia's talk page. You may remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

File:Drinks Commie Bastard and Donkey Punch by uberculture.jpg description

Hello Cirt, I noticed that you copied the description on Flickr to Wikimedia Commons file description page. While the file is under the CC-BY license, the author did not release the text of the description under the same license. Without permission from the Flickr uploader, the exact description shouldn't be used. Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 03:35, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Oh really, I'd never heard of that before, can you link me to where it's stated that all the info isn't included under the license specified by the Flickr user? -- Cirt (talk) 03:59, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

This sounds very startling to me as well. I've never heard anything like that; where is that policy? I've been under the impression that the titles and captions should usually be copied with the photos -- indeed the Flickr to Commons bots do exactly that automatically. I've been active on Flickr for years, and this is the first time I've ever heard it suggested that the caption might be under a different license than the photo! Flickr has no option for selecting different licenses for the text and the photo that I am aware of. Where are you getting this allegation from? Astonished, -- Infrogmation (talk) 04:31, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I was under the impression that copying the exact description used on Flickr could potentially be en:Wikipedia:Plagiarism. If I am in error, I apologize. Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 18:11, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Shrug, I was always under the impression that the text description was covered under the exact same license as the image. -- Cirt (talk) 18:14, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Voting, deciding .. what next

Hello Cirt, in e. g. this DB both you have voted and decided as admin. I just wonder since when an admin is allowed to vote and decide (in this case, the outcome fits, but it could be also the other way around). --Yikrazuul (talk) 19:54, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

• Only in limited circumstances, in this case:

1. I was the uploader as well.
2. The outcome was unanimous.
3. It would have qualified as speedy-delete anyways, as self-requested-deletion-by-uploader.

Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 19:56, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Category:Amol

Hi Cirt, I started a thread here. You are welcome to join us. Thanks. AMERICOPHILE 10:10, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Okay thanks for the notice, will do! ;) -- Cirt (talk) 10:23, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks...

...for your help on OTRS! Regards, Trijnstel (talk) 15:35, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

See the admin noticeboard

Further discussion is certainly welcome; that is why I put it up on the noticeboard. Just being bold, that's all. Rickyrab (talk) 19:28, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

See here Rickyrab (talk) 19:59, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Now at Commons:Deletion requests/Template:Nsfw. -- Cirt (talk) 20:05, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Category:Videos of ejaculation by year

Why? It's not as if ejaculation changes... -mattbuck (Talk) 03:39, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Video quality changes. Art changes. Cultural norms change. Lighting changes. Technology of cameras change. It's quite useful. :) -- Cirt (talk) 03:40, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

No, it's really not. Video quality fine, but that's no excuse for segregating by year, do it by quality instead. But for crying out loud, there were only 40 of the things, what you've done has just made it a lot harder to compare two videos or find a suitable one. -mattbuck (Talk) 04:46, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

It's really standard categorization practice. I modeled it after another pre-existing and accepted category. If you want to compare two videos, please, create an additional categorization, for quality, in addition to this. :) -- Cirt (talk) 04:48, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Category:Videos_of_male_masturbation_by_year

Category:Videos_of_male_masturbation_by_year has been listed at Commons:Categories for discussion so that the community can discuss ways in which it should be changed. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this category, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for discussion 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. If the category is up for deletion because it has been superseded, consider the notion that although the category may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new category. In all cases, please do not take the category discussion personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

Mormegil (talk) 09:43, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Black Cat .svg

Português: Paz e bem!

Poderias me ajudar com o licenciamento do arquivo Black Cat .svg .

Foi retirado de um repositório de domínio público, mas não consegui registrar isto da forma correta.

Eugenio Hansen, OFS (talk) 00:54, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Fixed it. -- Cirt (talk) 02:12, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for the Category:Nude portrayals of computer technology, I added several more images. The license review for File:GIF89a.gif is still to be done, could you do that? Sven Manguard didn't do it and chose to nominate the image for deletion instead. --Vydra (talk) 10:54, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

 Done. -- Cirt (talk) 19:27, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Note to self: Interesting reading material

Ejaculation video

1. 5 August 2006 = Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Ejaculation Educational Demonstration.OGG (August 2006), Result = Kept.
2. 15 February 2007 = Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Ejaculation Educational Demonstration.OGG, Result = Kept.
3. 18 June 2007 = Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Ejaculation Educational Demonstration Animated.GIF, Result = Kept.

Nudity and sexuality deletion requests

1. Category:Nudity and sexuality-related deletion requests/kept
2. Category:Nudity and sexuality-related deletion requests/deleted

-- Cirt (talk) 01:19, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Cropping

Thanks for you message Cirt. I saw many other images deleted after the "cleaning-process". It is like when we cut away a water mark and then we delete the first photo, I think, don't you? --Lucas 21:15, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

sorry, is there any policy on that or it is just your opinion? id like to understand your position. thanks. --Lucas (msg) 21:19, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Commons:Avoid overwriting existing files. -- Cirt (talk) 21:22, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Oh yes, i know that policy. But this case it seems pretty different to me: the user cutted just registred trademarks (tv logo) and some texts. --Lucas (msg) 21:26, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for your useful opinion. ;) --Lucas (msg) 21:31, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind words! ;) I am sysop on it.wiki and I just know how "dummy" would be to start an edit war (and for what, then?)... I think that talk is the better way to understand different ideas. Also: I just love the open minded environment here on commons. On it.wiki we are a bit "strict", therefore I only have to learn here ;). Have a good night. --Lucas (msg) 21:40, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

File:Identify that substance santorum.jpg

File:Identify that substance santorum.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Bulwersator (talk) 21:00, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Moving of category Commons Featured pictures of User Paolo Costa

Hi, I just found out you moved (without warning me), my page of featured pictures on Commons and incorrectly merged the files with my featured pictures of Wikipedia, two completely different things. My Wikipedia pictures include pictures featured in wikipedia around the world in different laguages. Is it stated anywhere that I can not have two different categories for my FP's? I need a different one for my commons featured pictures, which get more recognition. Now my Userpage commons FP counter cannot count any of my FP's.

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Commons_Featured_pictures_of_User:Paolo_Costa_Baldi

Please return my category as it was, and if it is not possible to have two different categories of FPs (one for Wikipedias and one for Commons), I think you should warn people before deleting and moving files of personal pages. Isn't it fair? If you had told me so, I would have given you permission to delete category Wikipedia featured pictures by me, and keep the ones from Commons, which are more important, not Viceversa as you did. Anyways, now I have a big chaos among my featured pictures categories. Please revert your changes in every file to my Commons Featured pictures by Paolo Costa category. Thank you very much, I'm open to discussion. --Paolo Costa (talk) 20:06, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

It was Foroa (talk · contribs) that first tagged the page, and then deleted the category. Can you please talk to Foroa (talk · contribs) about this? Thank you, -- Cirt (talk) 21:45, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

I will contact Foroa and ask him then. Thanks for your reply. Regards, Paolo Costa (talk) 22:33, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Category:Campanile

Not all campaniles are attached to churches. Could you review your recent edits to this category and its redirect. Cheers. Rodhullandemu (talk) 13:37, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

This has now been fixed. Cheers. Rodhullandemu (talk) 18:53, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the fix! ;) -- Cirt (talk) 20:48, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Creator templates

Hi, I saw that you useed a creator template in File:AlFranken2008.JPG. Creator templates are supposed to be used for authors only. I would emphatically agree that it would be better to have something similar for depicted people as well, but we should not use the current creator template for that, as it is used for mainteance tasks, such as analyzing the copyright status. --Zolo (talk) 11:12, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Respectfully disagree, it's quite informative and helpful and provides useful material and is eminently appropriate for both capacities. :) -- Cirt (talk) 18:34, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

The information it provides may be useful for person description as well but this is not the way it is currently used, and not the way crator template is documented. We should try to keep usage consistent. The template layout, with new line before and after the template is probably not ideal for these cases either. I would very much like to have something for non creators (see Template_talk:Creator/Archive_2#persondata.2C_non-creator_people) but we currently do not have that. A m:Wikidata project is currently under development, it may eventually be useful for that. --Zolo (talk) 08:59, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, but it still is quite helpful for "about" info on those pages, and the complaint about the linebreak thingy is not really a big deal. -- Cirt (talk) 16:20, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Sandra Fluke

It isn't a disruption I am trying to make on the Fluke Imagine. However, since I uploaded the original image and contacted C-SPAN concerning use of the image, I feel some responsibly. It is clear that the copyright holder wanted the "free use" copyright tag off the image. It took over a week to do that. I am sorry, but under those circumstances I see no problem with bring this to someone's attention with a SD tag. It is and remains a copy right violation until properly released. Casprings (talk) 03:43, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Request

Hi Cirt, please do me a favour and delete the main lead image in the Osho article. It has the same file name as the Commons image, and is a non-free image. Thanks. Joyson Prabhu ^{Holla at me!} 17:05, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Yeah there appears to be unanimous consensus at Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard#File:Osho.jpg. -- Cirt (talk) 23:50, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Notification about possible deletion

Some contents have been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether they should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at their entry. If you created these pages, please note that the fact that they have 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 them, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Salvio giuliano (talk) 20:44, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

"remote views of" vs. "views from ..."

Hi, there was asbsolutely no need to move media related to Category:Remote views of Zimmerberg to Category:Views from Zimmerberg – those/'my' uploads are really, really remote views of that mountain ;-)) Roland 18:13, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

I'd suggest you please inquire with Foroa (talk · contribs) at the user talk page, User talk:Foroa. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 20:08, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

WikiLove research

• Commons:Village_pump/Archive/2011/08#WikiLove
• MediaWiki:WikiLove.js = originally added to this project by Multichill (talk · contribs)
• COM:MELLOW

-- Cirt (talk) 21:11, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	Left you a response on my talk page, "Inappropriate edit summary--shit, lube, and anal sex". Thank you. Drmies (talk) 21:44, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

• Cirt, I don't think any of the Santorum neologism (besides the word "Frothy") seems to apply to File:Rick Santorum - frothy Caricature.jpg, at least not according to the "artist's" Flickr. Since lots of things, besides feces and lubriaction, can be frothy, including soft-serve ice cream, can be frothy, I'm going to remove that category. I hope you don't mind. Drmies (talk) 21:51, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

• You may be interested in Commons:Deletion requests/Santorum cocktails. Cheers, Drmies (talk) 23:45, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm guessing this is a bad faith barnstar? -- Cirt (talk) 04:43, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

---

Note: Original subsection title that I left on talk page of Drmies (talk · contribs) was simply "Inappropriate edit summary", diff. Drmies (talk · contribs) then decided to add "shit lube and anal sex" to the subsection title diff. -- Cirt (talk) 15:19, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

---

Some diffs:

Ices2Csharp

Hindustanilanguage

Dschwen

-- Cirt (talk) 05:24, 8 April 2012 (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:Cirt_disruption_of_dispute_resolution. This is in relation to an issue with which you may have been involved.

Rd232 (talk) 00:06, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

 Comment - I thank Killiondude (talk · contribs) for the analysis, diff. I can see that things are certainly going the way of getting heated over recent discussions, and I'm going to go ahead and take a break from further involvement in related issues for a while, and focus on contributions in other unrelated areas. :) Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 05:22, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Category:Freedom of speech - Crosswiki Sister Link project coordination

• Category:Freedom of speech

User talk Cirt/Archive 3 on sister projects:
Wikipedia en:   See more at interwikilinks (?)	Wikinews en:  fa:	Wikiquote en:  da:  et:  es:  fr:  nn:  pl:  ru:  sv:  uk:	Wiktionary en:  de:  et:  fr:  pl:  fi:  ta:	Wikisource en:	Wikibooks en:	Wikiversity en:

---

• I've added the above Sister Links template to Category:Freedom of speech, as a way of coordinating Crosswiki sister Wikimedia projects together along the topic. If anyone knows of any other Sister Wiki site links in other languages, and/or other websites, that aren't yet included, please feel free to suggest them at Category talk:Freedom of speech.

• I'd be most appreciated to anyone interested in this topic who'd like to help out!

Thanks for your time, -- Cirt (talk) 06:36, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Taking a break

What a beautiful sunset. :)

Going to take a break from some recent discussions for a while, sit back, relax, and observe contributions of others. :) -- Cirt (talk) 05:28, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Sandra Fluke

The deletion does suck. It did add to the article. I have nothing beyond getting it from CSPAN, which I tried. Just out of curiosity, why won't wiki allow the use of a file when a company simple says you can use it with permission? I do think the file of her simply reading her statement is effective. 02:43, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

File:Caricature of Justin Bieber by DonkeyHotey.jpg

File:Caricature of Justin Bieber by DonkeyHotey.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

russavia (talk) 11:12, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

I meant...

local checkusers. Sorry for the confusion. Really, only local CUs should be using those templates. It helps to avoid any misunderstandings. Please revert yourself. Tiptoety ^talk 17:23, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

 Done! Per above request. No worries! Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 04:09, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, sir! Cheers, Tiptoety ^talk 04:12, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

File:Everybody Draw Mohammed Day - Burning Mo by Librarianguish.jpg

File:Everybody Draw Mohammed Day - Burning Mo by Librarianguish.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

FunkMonk (talk) 09:45, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Category:Everybody Draw Mohammed Day

I'd like to ask the point of the majority of the files listed in this category. They are too low of a quality for us to keep them here. -- とある白い猫 ^ちぃ？ 00:35, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

1. Commons:Deletion requests/File:Everybody Draw Mohammed Day - Depiction of The "Prophet" Muhammad by Napalm filled tires.jpg
2. Commons:Deletion requests/File:Depiction of The "Prophet" Muhammad by Napalm filled tires.jpg
3. Commons:Deletion requests/File:Depiction of The "Prophet" Muhammad by Napalm filled tires.jpg (2nd nomination)

I refer to above for some related listed discussions about this matter. -- Cirt (talk) 01:54, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

There's probably also relevant discussions about it at w:Talk:Everybody Draw Mohammed Day. -- Cirt (talk) 01:56, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Notice how I am not nominating files for deletion and instead talking. I am ware of such nominations but I do not see what these files add to commons. I would prefer keeping more artistic ones in the category and axing the ones that are insignificant such as File:Everybody Draw Mohammed Day - Mohammed by Jeff Walenta.jpg. It seems like the files are associated with a contest of some sort. I think we should try to be more-selective. First of all, how do we know these files were even participants in the actual competition? Do you know how many participants the actual competition had? -- とある白い猫 ^ちぃ？ 02:41, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I very much appreciate your taking this step to politely and kindly discuss this issue with me here, thanks very much! I think they all were participants in the contest, I really do suggest you read archived discussions at w:Talk:Everybody Draw Mohammed Day. There's probably already lots of similar discussion there. Let me know what you find from those archived discussions? :) -- Cirt (talk) 02:46, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

I do not even know what I am looking for. Is there a source for all the participants? -- とある白い猫 ^ちぃ？ 13:51, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, the specific links are here:

1. w:Talk:Everybody Draw Mohammed Day
2. w:Talk:Everybody Draw Mohammed Day/Archive 1
3. w:Talk:Everybody Draw Mohammed Day/Archive 2
4. w:Talk:Everybody Draw Mohammed Day/Archive 3

Hope that's more helpful, -- Cirt (talk) 16:50, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Please do not ask me to read all of the archives. If you have a specific point, link to that. Existence of commons content should not need a detailed explanation. Also, I still do not see how any of this Wikipedia talk page content is relevant to Commons. -- とある白い猫 ^ちぃ？ 22:43, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Okay well it's there as a resource if you wish to read it at some point in the future. :) Basically, there's been a lot of discussion and support for using those images in various encyclopedic ways, on multiple different language projects, mainly in relation to the phenomenon of w:Everybody Draw Mohammed Day and explanations and depictions about that event. -- Cirt (talk) 13:23, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

OK, there is an art gallery by 5 year olds down the block. I do not think I should upload them to commons even if I get their parents permission to do so. Each image isn't important. Maybe the winner and note-worthy ones are. -- とある白い猫 ^ちぃ？ 18:49, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Well clearly if you read the discussion from the links above, there are editors that respectfully disagree with you. Besides, as the images are currently in-use on multiple other projects, they are in scope and satisfy COM:SCOPE. -- Cirt (talk) 20:31, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

I can delink them fairly quickly since they are used locally in galleries only to meet COM:SCOPE. I have not been told any reason why these very poor quality images should remain on commons. I am not going to pay too much attention to wikipedia talk pages (that are full of trolling probably) to determine inclusion on commons. -- とある白い猫 ^ちぃ？ 23:32, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes but if you actually were to pay attention to Wikipedia talk pages, you would obviously see that the purposes of use locally in various galleries (on multiple different language Wikipedias) is not to meet COM:SCOPE but for other encyclopedic usages. And if you were to try to go and delink arbitrary images due to your own personal dislike of certain images, I would highly recommend that you read prior archived talk page discussions, and initiate your own new talk page discussion before attempting to do so. -- Cirt (talk) 19:59, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Nude portrayals of computer technology

• Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Nude portrayals of computer technology

Note: This discussion was closed as  Keep. -- Cirt (talk) 15:13, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Everybody Draw Mohammed Day - Burning Mo by Librarianguish.jpg

• Commons:Deletion requests/File:Everybody Draw Mohammed Day - Burning Mo by Librarianguish.jpg

Note: This discussion was closed as  Keep. -- Cirt (talk) 18:11, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

File:Everybody Draw Mohammed Day - Depiction of The "Prophet" Muhammad by Napalm filled tires.jpg

File:Everybody Draw Mohammed Day - Depiction of The "Prophet" Muhammad by Napalm filled tires.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Kmniyas (talk) 16:15, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

File:Treptow a d Rega 1941 04 07.jpg i inne

Pommern Kreis Greifenberg nie jest tym samym co Gmina Gryfice. Trzebiatów leży w gminie Trzebiatów, nie w gminie Gryfice. Zwiadowca ²¹ 22:04, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

I suggest you discuss with user Blond Thinker (talk · contribs), please see this edit by that user. -- Cirt (talk) 00:37, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

SVG skills

I'm good at abstract or quasi-geometric symbols, generating vectors from algorithms, or touching up existing SVG files with problems. I'm extremely poor at freehand drawing from scratch. AnonMoos (talk) 19:27, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm an oddity as someone who has uploaded a few hundred original self-made SVG files, and fixed or touched up many hundreds more, yet I almost never use a general-purpose vector editing program such as Inkscape to edit SVGs... AnonMoos (talk) 14:40, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Streisand Estate

Hi Cirt. The image appears to be of a very high quality at full resolution and the sunshine reflection puts additional weight to it. But the composition of the objects, that apparently are part of the estate, does not satisfy that quality. There might be a way to zoom in the main objects and to cut off those that are not important; the white house in the middle seems to be more important than the others. On the other hand, the two houses that are strewn and cropped badly on the left and the right ends do not seem to be of much importance. No doubt that the picture was taken from a very good camera by a person with good knowledge in photography, but I strongly believe that these changes could improve the composition in order to make it featured one. Best regards.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 09:58, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Streisand Estate for Featured picture candidate

I've gone ahead and obtained OTRS confirmation from the author of the image File:Streisand Estate.jpg as a free-use licensed image, and subsequently nominated it as a featured picture candidate, at Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Streisand Estate.jpg. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 01:00, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Freedom of speech related Valued Image candidates

• Two Freedom of speech related candidates for Valued image, discussion pages listed, below:

1. Commons:Valued image candidates/Free-speech-flag.svg
2. Commons:Valued image candidates/Streisand Estate.jpg

Comments and input would be most appreciated, -- Cirt (talk) 07:02, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Good luck, but anything non-photographic almost always seems to be a third-class citizen when it comes to featured / quality / valued images -- I got basically nothing on File:Shoelace knot.svg... AnonMoos (talk) 08:03, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Heh, okay thanks for the advice, I think it's worth a try. :) -- Cirt (talk) 18:18, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Category:Arabic architecture in Indonesia

Hello there, I wonder why you removed this category. There has been a trend in Indonesia since the 1980s to impose Arabic architecture on new mosques. You can see that there is a local Islamic architecture with indigenous features. Today only mosques built by the government retain the traditional three-roofed Indonesian style. Not all Muslim in Indonesia, especially the educated ones, are happy about this "arabisation" of Islam in Indonesia. This sensitivity has to be taken into account. This is why I created the category. By removing it, you are only vindicating those Muslim in Indonesia who want to "arabise" Islam in the country. Humboldt (talk) 09:51, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Suggest you please contact the user that made this edit DIFF, thank you, -- Cirt (talk) 19:03, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you and sorry for any inconvenience caused! :-) Humboldt (talk) 20:39, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Oh, no worries, -- Cirt (talk) 06:16, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Review needed

Hello Cirt,

could you please review the license of File:Head photomotion.ogv? I put this file up for review some time ago, but so far nothing happened. It seems all the reviewers are busy or doing something else. Thx --Vydra (talk) 21:34, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

 Done, I've added a note to the image talk page. -- Cirt (talk) 03:09, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. There is a generic template {{LicenseReview}}, it would be best to use that IMHO (with the parameters site=http://vimeo.com/40806307|user=Cirt|date=2012-12-02). See File:3 years of Geekography, backstage.ogv for an example. --Vydra (talk) 14:59, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

 Done, fixed with {{LicenseReview}}. -- Cirt (talk) 00:13, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Help: no-FoP Italy

Hi. When you have a moment, could you do me a favor. I decided to occupy my time to list the no-FoP files in Italy. It has been a long and difficult work that needs to be reviewed by administrators. Please, could you check if everything is correct on User:Raoli/Deletion requests/FoP Italy? Thanks! Raoli ✉ (talk) 00:23, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Suggest you post to the admin noticeboard instead for wider input please, at Commons:Administrators' noticeboard, thank you, -- Cirt (talk) 03:10, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. I've added the whole discussion in the Administrators' noticeboard. Raoli ✉ (talk) 00:50, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your help with categorizing media files

Hi Cirt, thanks for improving the categorization of some of the files in Category:Uploaded with Open Access Media Importer and needing category review. With a smile, -- Daniel Mietchen - WiR/OS (talk) 22:18, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

You're most welcome, -- Cirt (talk) 22:58, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

File:Mr. Hankey the Christmas Poo says Howdy Ho and Happy Holidays.jpg

Cirt, don't images like File:Mr. Hankey the Christmas Poo says Howdy Ho and Happy Holidays.jpg infringe on the copyright of whoever owns the rights to South Park? I know that whenever there is a Star Wars or Disney character here, it gets deleted - are South Park characters different for some reason? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 06:23, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi there, Delicious carbuncle (talk · contribs), and thank you for your interest in this subject matter!

1. It's the copyright of the artist that made the artwork itself to have the idea to make the greeting card.
2. Also, I don't think it's a close enough representation.
3. Also, it can be seen as in a similar vein to cosplay. And upon review of Commons:COSTUME, seems to be fine usage.
4. It would be inappropriate to go deleting everything in Category:Cosplay.
5.  Question — Delicious carbuncle (talk · contribs), I'm curious to hear how you came by these files in the first place, so soon after they were uploaded to Wikimedia Commons?

Thank you for your time, -- Cirt (talk) 14:06, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

I occasionally look through the recent uploads here which is how I spotted your uploads. I flag a few of the more obvious cases of copyright violation while leaving others to see how long it takes before they are detected and deleted. Concerning your uploads, I am concerned that an OTRS member and admin here would suggest that copyright of a card using a character from a television show belongs to the creator of the card as if that negates the copyrights of the character's creator. I think COM:FAN would apply here, don't you? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:01, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Cirt asked me to comment, so here I am (hi DC! More on you later...)

In my opinion, these images are probably derivative works of South Park, and thus certainly trademark if not copyright infringements. There are exceptions to this rule, we allow cosplay photos on the grounds of utilitarian items, but I don't think a Christmas card counts. Also, unless the Christmas card was made by you, it is a copyvio anyway. So, probably delete, but better send to DR as I'm not entirely sure on these issues. There's probably something in the casebook or something.

Anyway, DC, I flag a few of the more obvious cases of copyright violation while leaving others to see how long it takes before they are detected and deleted. Please just flag them yourself, it really doesn't take long. As my Students' Union keeps saying, be the change.

Toodles. -mattbuck (Talk) 15:16, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Matt, having someone flag copyright violations as they flood in is not the change I wish to see at Commons. Besides, it seems like I must be prepared for an argument every time I file a deletion request and it isn't a good use of my time. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:25, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Sent to DR (as your talkpage is still on my watchlist for some reason). Nothing to do with costumes; seems a pretty clear fan art case to me. Rd232 (talk) 15:33, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

•  Done, I've deleted those mentioned above, and retained the one that was clearly Cosplay, will only keep future uploads to those that are Cosplay. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 17:49, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

File:Mr. Hankey the Christmas Poo says Howdy Ho and Happy Holidays.jpg

File:Mr. Hankey the Christmas Poo says Howdy Ho and Happy Holidays.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Rd232 (talk) 15:30, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

•  Done, I've deleted those mentioned above, and retained the one that was clearly Cosplay, will only keep future uploads to those that are Cosplay. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 17:49, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

File:2011 November 13 Mr. Hankey the Christmas Poo.jpg

File:2011 November 13 Mr. Hankey the Christmas Poo.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:17, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Advice on cosplay from Peter Weis

Note to self: Good advice on cosplay going forwards, from Peter Weis (talk · contribs), diff. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 15:25, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

While I understand to some degree

I see the blocks of Kuiper's IPs. However they are dynamic - the only effect will be to puzzle some future user who attempt to use the IP on Commons - the probability is that it is unlikely to be Kuiper. Actually tagging the Ip seems plain wrong. From experience on en wp - I have had warnings that my IP has vandalised en wp - it may well have but it wasn't me - my IP is equally dynamic. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 10:53, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

plus for info thanks --Herby ^{talk thyme} 11:03, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Respectfully disagree, but I guess I'll respond there. -- Cirt (talk) 15:51, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

I've made some comments at diff and diff, and diff. -- Cirt (talk) 16:09, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

User:90.184.205.91 used by PK?

Why do you think Mr. Kuiper used this IP? Just because it commented on a DR, Mr. Kuiper started? And why the hell did you remove all comments of this user? Thanks in advance. -- Rillke^(q?) 18:11, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

That's a sock IP used by the blocked sockmaster, yes. Where did I remove any comments from it? Please no need for harsh language, thanks. -- Cirt (talk) 20:59, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Please, why do you think it's a sock of him? -- Rillke^(q?) 21:07, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Because the behavior and technical evidence is quite similar to other socks of the main blocked sockmaster that is performing block evasion. -- Cirt (talk) 21:09, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

The behaviour is totally different. When PK is signing he was used using /~~~~. The ISP is also different from other IPs. PK never used typo as edit summary, never nominated whole categories for deletion using VisualFileChange (he dislikes these tools for some reason), … and the wording was much less offensive. I don't think it's him. -- Rillke^(q?) 21:32, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I've gone ahead and voluntarily reduced the block to a block length of one week time expiry for this particular IP, we can revisit it later after that if problematic behavior occurs again. Hopefully this is satisfactory to you. :) Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 21:35, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

I have to disappoint you but this still did not answer my question and I am not out for satisfaction. Please prove that the behavior and technical evidence is quite similar and now I have a new question: Which problematic behavior of User:90.184.205.91 are you referring to (diff links please)? Thank you. -- Rillke^(q?) 21:43, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

 Done, I've gone ahead and voluntarily unblocked this one. I'll admit some of your above evidence is interesting. We can always revisit later if problematic behavior pops up, in the future. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 21:45, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Added new category and creator pages

Added pages on Wikimedia Commons Category:Lawrence Wright and Creator:Lawrence Wright for this notable author.

• Category:Lawrence Wright
• Creator:Lawrence Wright

Added pages on Wikimedia Commons Category:Lawrence Wright and Creator:Lawrence Wright for this notable author. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 07:53, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Question

I was looking through your log of blocks done to see what experience you had doing these range blocks. Several caught my eye (well there weren't many in fact):

• 16/1/12: 76.208.0.0/18 blocked for 1 year - "Abusing multiple accounts"
• 19/2/12: 70.224.32.0/20 blocked for 3 years - something to do with User:Dantherocker1, who has no contributions, "Abusing multiple accounts"
• 17/3/12: 67.236.128.0/17 blocked for 1 year - "Abusing multiple accounts"
• 12/4/12: 216.66.128.0/18 blocked for 1 year - "cross wiki vandalism"

It's not obvious what these are about - would you mind explaining? Rd232 (talk) 02:37, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm not certain I recall each of them, but most likely it's correlated to the checkuser mailing list of cross wiki spammers and the like. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 05:22, 18 December 2012 (UTC)