Open main menu

User talk:Taivo


Hi, Taivo. In a collage like this one is it possible to use an image from a WP with a note like "Noimage.svg"? Is this an accepted practice? --E4024 (talk) 13:59, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

No. I fixed it. Taivo (talk) 10:39, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Not a question nor anything of issue...

Only wanted to say TY and Great Job with ALL you do in conjunction with WIKI. Much love

Nichole at SoulFunds Soulfunds (talk) 06:31, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

I made this.Edit

@Taivo: Sorry, but on what basis you deleted my file? I make the partiture, and the song itself isn't copyrighted. I have dealed with some Estonians about what I've created, and this is the last time I've spared. So please give me a good reason for this because I've been working on this for 6 days, and didn't even get a notice.
According to PD-EE-exempt :

According to the Republic of Estonia Copyright Act (passed on November 11, 1992; consolidated text May 2006):

§ 5. Results of intellectual activities to which this Act does not apply

  • 1) ideas, images, notions, theories, processes, systems, methods, concepts, principles, discoveries, inventions, and other results of intellectual activities which are described, explained or expressed in any other manner in a work;
  • 2) works of folklore;
  • 3) legislation and administrative documents (acts, decrees, regulations, statutes, instructions, directives) and official translations thereof;
  • 4) court decisions and official translations thereof;
  • 5) official symbols of the state and insignia of organisations (flags, coats of arms, orders, medals, badges, etc.);
  • 6) news of the day;
  • 7) facts and data;
  • 8) ideas and principles which underlie any element of a computer program, including those which underlie its user interfaces.
Hence it is assumed that this image has been released into the public domain. However, in some instances the use of this image might be regulated by other laws.

Deutsch | English | Eesti | Italiano | Русский | Українська | +/−


and, in this website, the official national symbols of Estonia includes the national anthem, and the de facto predeccessor of the Estonia is the Estonian SSR *triggered Estonian sounds*. If you want to use the PD-RU-exempt, because the ESSR is in the USSR, the same applies to the tag. And this file and that file file uses the same tag in regarding to the PD-EE-exempt, so why don't you delete it? According to your manner when you delete my file, it should be copyright infringement, eh?
From what I see, you're proud of nominating various files. Don't be so proud, most of your nominations have no basis. But well, unfortunately you are an admin, soooo.....what can I say?🙂😄--Jeromi Mikhael (talk) 14:06, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

You nominated the song for deletion yourself and I fulfilled your request, see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Estonian SSR Anthem Music Sheet.InstrumentalSimple.svg. The license does not apply, because the song is not and has never been symbol of Estonian Republic. The flag seems to me too simple for copyright, although this is debatable. The coat of arms can be out of copyright as anonymous work published more than 70 years ago, at least its authors aren't mentioned neither in, nor in Taivo (talk) 13:04, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

@Taivo: I requested for it because a better file (with lyrics) is available, not bevause it is a copyright infringement. And if you want to delete my file on that basis, you should've make a good reason on why not to delete the

, because only the performance is in the public domain, but the musical arrangement itself is copyrighted (depending on what you say). Jeromi Mikhael (talk) 17:02, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Passione di CristoEdit

Hi, i am Davide Mindo Art Director of Il Diamante 💎 Il Diamante (talk) 14:54, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

I understand. Please open COM:OTRS page and look, what kind of e-mail should be sent into After processing permission the files can be restored. Another possibility is to change license of source site: at moment it is not free, but "@ 2015 Davide Mindo". If you publish the files on your site under free license, then OTRS-permission is not needed and I can restore them myself. Taivo (talk) 14:58, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
Hi Taivo, yesterday I sent mail to with number [Ticket#2018072310005656] , I'm Davide Mindo, the owner of the site I hope this will be sufficicient. Please, if you can restore my images, thank you. --Il Diamante (talk) 06:03, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
Unfortunately I cannot see the ticket, because I am not OTRS-member. After other volunteers will process the ticket, the files will be restored. There is a queue and I do not know, when it will happen. Taivo (talk) 06:43, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Uploads on CommonsEdit


I was banned a couple of weeks ago for uploading pictures I was the sole owner. I did email the proofs back then but unfortunately, I was unable to get in touch with you, as I was banned, to let you know about that. I hope this time around, the pictures I uploaded will not be removed. Best regards, AlexandreDumont (talk) 12:02, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

You must give evidence, that you are copyright holder of the images. For that, you must open COM:OTRS page and look, what kind of e-mail must be sent to If you will send permission for deleted images, then they can be restored and they do not need re-uploading. Taivo (talk) 12:27, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Give your feedback about changes to Special:BlockEdit


You are receiving this message because you are a top user of Special:Block on this wiki. Thank you for the important work that you do. There is a discussion happening about plans to improve Special:Block with the ability to set new types of blocks. To get the best design and new functions added, it is essential that people who use the tool join the discussion and share their opinions about these changes.

Instead of a full site wide block, you would be able to set a Partial Block. A user could be blocked from a single page, multiple pages, one or more namespaces, from uploading files, etc. There are several different ways to add this feature to Special:Block. Right now Important decisions are being made about the design and function.

Please review the page on Meta and share your feedback on the discussion page. Or you can reach me by email Also, share this message with anyone else who might be interested in participating in the discussion.

I appreciate any time that you can give to assist with making improvements to this feature. Cheers, SPoore (WMF) (talk) , Trust and Safety Specialist, Community health initiative (talk) 02:00, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

  • Apologizes for posting in English.

Delete my two photosEdit

Hwllo.I want my two photos to be deleted because of disagreements with other users about considering them about child marriage and I uploaded them to be in category:Child marriage --ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 (talk) 19:28, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Disagreements with other users are not a reason to delete. In my opinion the files are suitable for illustrating child marriages, but even if not, they have still educational value. I do not agree to delete them without regular deletion request. Taivo (talk) 19:31, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
It is not logical to create a request to delete my images and it makes no sense to create a page for a request that I know will be rejected (such as your rejection). I want either to delete the images or return them as they were originally.Thank you ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 (talk) 20:30, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
If two pictures will be kept, please restore the third.Thank you ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 (talk) 06:58, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
  Done. I restored the image. One of previous images cannot be categorized as "child marriage", because depicted person is bridesmaid, not bride. Taivo (talk) 07:39, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

File:Kim Jongin's press conference in 2016.jpgEdit

I regret your protection action, because now I can not start any discussion. If you don't agree with me, you should have started new deletion requests, not protect the file. So, I think it is abuse of right. And I already said, it is a separate issue. Thanks. --Garam talk 07:56, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

First at all, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Kim Moosung and Moon Jaein in 2015.jpg is recently discussion about same source. I think you do not read it. Thanks. --Garam talk 07:59, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

@Garam: the file was kept after regular deletion request, so it cannot be deleted speedily. Nevertheless, you nominated it for speedy deletion. You did not say any particular reason for deleting, except pointing to the deletion request, but license of the file was reviewed (license of the deleted files was not reviewed). So I actually do not understand, why the file is a copyright violation. I did not find any license on source site, but it definitely was freely licensed, when the license was reviewed. Taivo (talk) 08:23, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
So then, you should have started new deletion requests. Now we cannot do anything about that file. So, I request that you create COM:DR, because now that file is protected by you. Thanks. --Garam talk 10:06, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
Reason is needed for creation a deletion request. I do not find any reason why the file is copyright violation. Taivo (talk) 10:08, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
The reason is same with Commons:Deletion requests/File:Kim Moosung and Moon Jaein in 2015.jpg. Please see User Sanandros's opinion. Thanks. --Garam talk 10:41, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
This is not valid. Both files in the request were deleted due to failed license review. Here the license was reviewed. Taivo (talk) 10:44, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
I say you again. I find that the file is non-free image now. So, I want to delete that file. But you don't agree with me. However, I think you don't know Korean language. So then, how do you know that file is free image? And File:Kim Moosung and Moon Jaein in 2015.jpg also was reviewed. So, you should unprotect that file or create new DR. Thanks. --Garam talk 11:00, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
This isn't true, license of these files were not reviewed. Taivo (talk) 11:20, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
And two file come from same article of same website. --Garam talk 11:02, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

PLEASE you choice unprotect that file or create new DR for new disscussion such as Commons:Deletion requests/File:Kim Moosung and Moon Jaein in 2015.jpg. --Garam talk 11:31, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

No. I do not see any valid arguments for copyright violation. Taivo (talk) 11:44, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
What? Do you know where is license on that website? And your protection action is excessive action. --Garam talk 13:02, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
At moment, I did not find any license on source site. But in the past there was a license, because the license was reviewed. Probably the site changed its license and newer uploads on the site are not allowed to upload into Commons, but older uploads can stay here. That's what license review is for. We can add {{Change-of-license}} to the file page, if needed. Taivo (talk) 13:23, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
As I said in User talk:-revi#라이선스 리뷰, I don't think that the website has changed licenses of old all posts. Thanks. --Garam talk 14:11, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

So, you don't still want to open the DR despite User talk:-revi#라이선스 리뷰? --Garam talk 08:53, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

I read user talk of -revi using Google translate and I do not understand, what do you mean with "despite user talk of -revi". As -revi explained, apparently the file was freely licensed in the past and license review is evidence for that. Taivo (talk) 13:37, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
I uploaded some files on that blog. Since then, I could remember the blog's posts didn't include license information. But as far as I remember some photos in the blog have been given permission by photo creator (not blog user) as free license at other website. And user revi said to me, "You can do create new DR". But you didn't agree with me, right? Thanks. --Garam talk 01:30, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
All your arguments have been discussed in previous deletion request and I do not see new arguments. Taivo (talk) 07:00, 15 August 2018 (UTC
I think still you don't understand my point. Now things are different. And the previous deletion request is about other matter. --Garam talk 08:20, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
In my opinion you want to say: now things are different, the file isn't licensed under free license anymore. I answer: this isn't important, because the license was reviewed, when the file was freely licensed. Taivo (talk) 10:33, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
The key point is that the old review looks uncertain. --Garam talk 13:38, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
I asked -revi about that and (s)he confirmed his/her decision to review the license, so it isn't uncertain. Taivo (talk) 13:42, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
No, I already said revi in User talk:-revi#라이선스 리뷰 that license of the blog was/is not free. So, revi said, I can create new Deletion Request. But you don't agree that you do crate new Deletion Request, aren't it? --Garam talk 13:57, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
I do not agree to create a new deletion request, because outcome will be obvious: no copyright violation, license is reviewed. Once the file was nominated for deletion and it was kept. No new arguments are presented here. Taivo (talk) 14:11, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
But it is your opinion only. You have no right to stop new Deletion Request. So, I don't understand why you look tough. --Garam talk 23:43, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

File:Ingrid Veidenberg.jpgEdit

Veidenberg palub, et see pilt Commonsist kustutaks. Talle võib selles osas vast vastu tulla. Äkki aitad? Kruusamägi (talk) 06:19, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Ei taha. Ilus pilt, luba on olemas. Võid öelda Ingridile, et pole siin häbeneda midagi. Taivo (talk) 07:18, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
Minu arust ka ilus pilt ja pole häbeneda midagi. Saatis selle asemele ja palus varasema kustutada, mille lisasin kunagi osana suuremast seeriast Ekspress Meedia töötajate osas, mille sealt sain. Kruusamägi (talk) 07:52, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Wrong colonEdit

I see that you have deleted several categories I created such as CategoryːPoplar Farm Meadows, Langley because they had the wrong colon. I do not understand why my computer is printing the wrong colon. Do you know what the problem might be and how I can fix it? Dudley Miles (talk) 13:27, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

I do not know it either. I have never met such mistake myself. You can contact your IT-support, if you have any. This can be problem with your keyboard. Taivo (talk) 16:43, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
Thanks. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:40, 19 August 2018 (UTC)


申し訳ありませんでした。少し荒らしのような対応を取ってしまいましたことを深く反省いたします。今後荒らし行為は行いません。加えて、岡崎SA 上り.jpgの写真については、あの写真は私にとって本当に大切な写真であり、他の方への利用をされては困る写真です。ただ、アップロードの際CCのことを良く見ないまま全く知らずにアップロードしてしまいまして今回のようなことになってしまいました。本当に全く知らないまま載せてしまい、まったくの無知でした申し訳ありません。著作権がアップロードしても私に残るものだと思っており転載など不可能だと思っていたのですが、アップロードをすると同時に画像をccにしてしまうということを今更ながら知りまして、本当に他の所で使われてしまうのは困る大切な写真です。ccについて見なかった私が悪いです。そこの点は本当に反省しています。もし今後アップロードする際は絶対にccに承諾できる画像だけをアップロードするように注意します。この度は本当に申し訳ありませんでした。今後の利用しっかり注意して行います。最後に一つ本当にお願いですがこの岡崎SA 上り.jpgの画像を削除していただきたいです。それか、今までccを知らずに安易にアップロードをした私の全ての画像を消してください。よろしくお願いします。--Taka1 (talk) 12:33, 21 August 2018 (UTC)


Hey, I just read your profile, I'm curious, who's the "Willy on Wheels" that you mentioned on your talk page? What did he vandalize? Just curious ― Gerifalte Del Sabana 03:03, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

For curiosity, see these links:

and further Taivo (talk) 08:26, 27 August 2018 (UTC)


Bonjour Taivo,

Votre comportement visant à empêcher la demande de suppression immédiate d'un fichier (je suis l'auteur et le téléchargeur de ce fichier) dont les métadonnées ont été utilisés à des fins diffamatoires par un vandale harceleur récurrent est inadmissible. Les masqueurs de modifications de Commons et de WP pourront témoigner de ce problème. Je vous redemande donc de supprimer ce fichier SVP.

À ce sujet, je notifie : @Geralix, Jules78120, Linedwell, Thibaut120094, Lomita:

Cordialement. --NB80 (talk) 17:49, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

J'ai téléversé une nouvelle version avec les données EXIF en question retirées et effectué un masquage léger de la première version (ce que Taivo aurait pu faire au lieu de protéger la page) en attendant l'intervention des OS (ping Rama & PierreSelim).
Cordialement. --Thibaut120094 (talk) 18:23, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
Le ficher est maintenant oversighté. Bonne continuation ! Rama (talk) 19:28, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
@Rama : Merci, peux-tu aussi oversighter la première version de File:Ligne de Paris-Nord à Lille – PK 78,2.JPG ? (oublié de l'inclure dans le courriel que je viens d'envoyer aux OS, merci !) --Thibaut120094 (talk) 20:49, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
@Thibaut120094: C'est fait. Bonne continuation ! Rama (talk) 21:45, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
@Thibaut120094: je te suggère de repasser la page File:Aérodrome de Lille – Marcq-en-Barœul.jpg en semi-protection. Vu le caractère lourd du vandale concerné (la page avait déjà été vandalisée le 15 août dernier par un de ses faux-nez), cette SP ne sera pas inutile, tandis que protection pure et simple (et abusive) de Taivo m'empêche d'avoir l'accès en écriture à mon propre fichier !
Donc, je ne souhaite plus la suppression dudit fichier. Merci beaucoup Thibaut et aux oversighters (@Rama).
Cordialement. NB80 (talk) 21:48, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

  Done. O, what happened tonight! But I'm glad, that the problem is solved, so I lower protection level to semi-protected. I will still monitor the image, though. Taivo (talk) 07:22, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Par contre, il faudrait SVP augmenter le niveau de protection de ma talk page. En effet, la semi-protection est contournée par d'anciens faux-nez.
Cordialement. NB80 (talk) 14:55, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
  Not done. I do not want to fully protect your userpage. Normal users should be able to write on your userpage.
Traduction Google: Je ne souhaite pas protéger entièrement votre page utilisateur. Les utilisateurs normaux doivent pouvoir écrire sur votre page d’utilisateur. Taivo (talk) 15:57, 29 August 2018 (UTC)


Dear Taivo, Thanks for weighing in on my deletion request about a derivative of (new work based on) the Creative Commons logo. Sorry about not watching the page closely and only responding now. My argument for deletion is not that the logo is a trademark, since it is not the official logo of Creative Commons. My argument was that the icon infringes the trademark rights of the official CC logo. Subsequent uses of this file could lead to cease-and-desist letters from Creative Commons to those subsequent users. Shouldn't we reconsider the deletion request based on this?

Official logo:  . Trademark infringing logo (that I suggest we do delete):  

  Not done. Commons does not care about trademark rights. Please read more Commons:Copyright rules by subject matter#Trademarks about that. Taivo (talk) 09:06, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Deletion of six imagesEdit

Hi, Taivo.

As I told you last year (sorry, I took my time ! ;-)), you deleted these 6 files in February 2017 :

Michel Reddé, the copyright holder, just send properly the permission mail at (August 29, 18h10 - Time Zone in Paris, France - no mail object).

Is it possible to process the permission and restore the files, please ?

Thank you very much !

Best regards. --Guise (talk) 06:35, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

  Comment That's good news. I told you last year: "After processing the permission the files can be restored." Unfortunately I cannot process the OTRS-ticket myself, because I am not OTRS-member. Processing ticket demands some time, because there's a queue and I do not know, how much it will last. Maybe even month. Commons has shortage of manpower. Taivo (talk) 06:53, 30 August 2018 (UTC)


Hi, I'm not sure I agree with your block of this user. My warning was the first to mention that a block is possible, and they haven't done anything since. Would you give them one more chance and unblock? Guanaco (talk) 08:38, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

  Done. OK, if you like that way ... I unblocked the user. Taivo (talk) 08:39, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
Thanks. I'll keep an eye on them and reblock if there's any more trouble. Guanaco (talk) 08:43, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
@Guanaco: I think if the first thing you do after being unblocked is to blank another user's page specifically as an act of revenge, a reblock is inevitable, and I have reimposed the original block. Rodhullandemu (talk) 08:59, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
@Rodhullandemu: Revenge against the user who asked for you to be unblocked...well, I tried. Guanaco (talk) 09:01, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm sorry.Edit

Tyler de Noche (talk) 13:11, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Chungwenyin.jpgEdit


I deleted the photo, because it violated photographer's copyright. Taivo (talk) 06:09, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Headers in DREdit

Hi Taivo, It would be better to use the standard headers and footers when closing a DR, i.e. {{udelh}} and {{udelf}}. See Commons:Deletion requests/File:Mala Zimetbaum (1918-1944).jpg, where I have to add them. Regards, Yann (talk) 11:04, 5 September 2018 (UTC)


Hey Taivo, That page on which it's used is purely nonsense and self promotion and tagged for deletion. Do we still have to wait for that article to get deleted? ‐‐1997kB (talk) 19:22, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Probably yes, because I do not understand Somali language at all and I do not understand, is the article pure nonsense or is it poor Google translation. Taivo (talk) 19:27, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
Alright I'll ping once it gets deleted. ‐‐1997kB (talk) 19:29, 15 September 2018 (UTC)


Akinaakud (talk) 00:20, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Please don't delete logo file:Ezperanza-por-el-cambio-logo-png.pngEdit

I communicated with the venezuela politician party ELCAMBIO so they can provide any right. --Edugraph (talk) 16:42, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Any discussion should be in Commons:Deletion requests/File:Ezperanza-por-el-cambio-logo-png.png. Regular deletion request lasts at least 7 days, which should be enough to organize OTRS-permission. Taivo (talk) 17:37, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Zebra tech logo.pngEdit

Zebra tech logo.png and Zebra-technologies-vertical.jpg were uploaded on behalf of the copyright holder Zebra Tech to be used on their Wikipedia pages as the company logo.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Imikeg (talk • contribs) 19:10, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
Any discussion should be in the mentioned deletion request page. Regular deletion request lasts at least 7 days, which should be enough to send OTRS-permission. Taivo (talk) 21:54, 19 September 2018 (UTC)


Dear Taivo..Most of files of Donald Duck category deletion requests had been deleted, except some files (some have been uploaded by me), and of course I have defended for them, but the discussion has not been closed. Why?!--Maher27777 (talk) 21:38, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

  Not done I thought two days and decided, that I do not want to close the request. Taivo (talk) 18:51, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Your opinion neededEdit

Hi Taivo,
Sorry for that, but I appeal to you again. Please, I need at least one opinion of a disinterested person beyond a close-knit group from ru.wikinews with their WP:ITSUSEFUL in order to decide whether to withdraw the nomination or leave it as is. Thanks, Sealle (talk) 20:46, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

I suggest to withdraw the request. Not everybody, who is interviewed by defunct newspaper, is notable, but some of them are. Multiple photos are used. You can create deletion requests for smaller batches, choosing people, who are not mentioned in The newspaper itself seems to be also notable. Taivo (talk) 21:06, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Hugo Sperrle RecoloredEdit

Hi, regarding this discussion: Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Bundesarchiv_Bild_146-1987-121-30A,_Hugo_Sperrle_Recolored.png -- the file was used in one project; I replaced it. Please reconsider your close. --K.e.coffman (talk) 08:05, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

  Done I re-opened the request. Taivo (talk) 08:10, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
Since you are an administrator, can you simply delete it? It's been close to two weeks that the discussion has been open. --K.e.coffman (talk) 08:12, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
I am not sure, that this is right decision. I do not want to take position in this matter. Taivo (talk) 08:15, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
Nazi fancruft. --K.e.coffman (talk) 08:27, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
You are not sure if you should be deleting unused Nazi fancruft? This is an interesting position... --K.e.coffman (talk) 08:16, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
I am not sure, that this is Nazi fancraft. Taivo (talk) 08:18, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

I can tell you with about 100% certainty that this image is Nazi fancruft. It even depicts an SS man. Perhaps you should let others close such discussions. --K.e.coffman (talk) 08:27, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Nazi fancraft is used only by Nazis and neo-Nazis. This file is used in multiple projects by non-Nazis. I suspect, that this is not fancraft at all. But I agree with you: I do not want to close such requests. Taivo (talk) 08:31, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
Thank you. Could you re-open other discussions that you recently closed?
I would greatly appreciate it. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:59, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
I do not want to do that. Your activity (can I say crusade?) seems like gaming the system. At moment, the case is discussed in administrator's noticeboard and I'll wait, until some kind of consensus emerges there. Taivo (talk) 17:06, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Regarding File:George Spitz.JPGEdit

Hello Taivo and JJMC89, I just found this job offer to save this file on posted by the uploader, and I suspect this ticket is the part of that job. The job offer is restricted to those with an account so if you guys can't see let me know I will share the details here or through email. Thank you. GSS (talk|c|em) 09:32, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

File:Auto wreck, U.S., 1923.jpgEdit

Hi, You deleted the redirect with "Temporary deletion for file renaming", but it seems you didn't rename the file. There have been quite a number of unwanted edits on this highly used picture, so do you think a protection would be useful? Regards, Yann (talk) 14:22, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

I renamed the file, but did not protect it. No significant vandalism from IP-s, so semi-protection does not help much, but protection from Infrogmation means full protection and I do not want to do that without broader consensus. You reverted some edits from Infrogmation, where I was not sure, that they needed the revert. I do not want to take a position about the matter and fully protect the file. Taivo (talk) 14:35, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
OK, thanks. So I only protected move. Regards, Yann (talk) 15:51, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

File:Journalists in Sabana Grande 2017.jpgEdit

I have uploaded a new version of the file with the original metadata. QuinteroP (talk) 20:45, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

  Done Thank you very much. I closed the deletion request as kept. Taivo (talk) 07:19, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Voronezh violatorEdit

Как бороться с неадекватным человеком под ником Insider который удаляет под вымышленным предлогом фото и пытается вставить старые фото которое не соответствует реальности сегодняшнего дня, маниакальное преследование хороших фоток к примеру он уже выставил на удаление File:Vozairport.jpg преследует все фотки Воронежского аэропорта и ставит их все на удаление. Защитите хотя бы последнее фото которое он пытается удалить File:Vozairport.jpg он реально психически не здоровый человек а вы ему помогаете. Забаньте этого Insider

Вы должны свои претензии написать в Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Voronezh violator. Файлы представпены на удаление как нарушения авторских прав. Taivo (talk) 17:27, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Insider психически не здоровый человек. Я Специально сфоткаю опять фото аэропорта заново выставлю его только здесь, а он обязательно поставит его на удаление с якобы нарушением авторских прав. Он все фото будет удалять назло а вставлять те что давно не аэропорт Воронеж. вот эти он будет вставлять Voronezh-airport-december-2012.jpg и вот это Airport Voronezh.JPG сейчас ему только надо последнее фото удалить.

Please review File:Naveen Waqar.jpgEdit

Hi you recently created one image nomination page which i tagged for speedy deletion. Anyways will you please review this image 60px, that is uploaded by me and i just want to know if its rightly licensed or not. Rasheed222 (talk) 19:46, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

  Deleted. The file was licensed as "All rights reserved" and this is not acceptable in Commons, please look licenses. Taivo (talk) 07:21, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
Ok! will you please guide me which flickr images i should upload? actually i thought it meets commons guidelines. please guide me. Rasheed222 (talk) 10:05, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
Please read COM:L about suitable licenses. Taivo (talk) 10:10, 5 October 2018 (UTC)


Halb kunstEdit

Palun kustuta see rõvedus. Normaalne fail on ka olemas. Sama kehtib selle ja selle kohta. Kruusamägi (talk) 23:55, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

  Done Taivo (talk) 15:46, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
Tänan! Täna sattus muidu ka see fail ette. Samas on olemas see. Asendasin kehvema faili kasutused ja palun see kustutad, et see jälle kuskile artiklitesse ei satuks. Kruusamägi (talk) 19:17, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Corrections validEdit

Thank you Tavio. Yes these corrections to my updates are valid. The error was on the level up. The women’s page lead by accident to the men’s page. This is the source of the error. I had only realized that Inwas editing the wrong page postum. The corrections back to the original made after my edit are valid. I need to change the incorrect link on the women’s page. 11lionsd (talk) 12:52, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Consent not needed?Really?Edit

Hello Taivo,


You have given the reason "Subject's consent is not needed here", for my image deletion request for this File:Bezwada Wilson in Bhopal 2017.jpg. May i ask why? Why it isn't needed? The subject clearly isn't looking into the camera yet the snapshot was taken. And as far as the venue is concerned that place could be his private place.

There's another file at which i had applied for deletion for this file File:Korea Buddhist flag.png, and you've given a reason of "The file does not surpass threshold of originality". The Commons:CSD celarly doesn't state anything about any threshold, so how would i've know about this. Not only this, i believe your task as an administrator was to check whether the said image was violating free/non-free license citeria or not, which in this case it was with its license laundering Commons:CSD#F6 behaviour. With that said it was an obvious copyright violation.

Yet, you not only overlooked a clear violation of Commons:CSD but went over to come up with the expaination of not surpassing 'threshold of originality'.

Could please explain your reasoning? 14:11, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

I must not show, why subject's consent isn't needed. You as nominator must show, why subject's consent is needed. This seems to be public place and nothing strange is happening here. I'm really surprised, that somebody demands subject's consent, and you need a good explanation for that.
For the another file, it cannot be copyright violation, because it is not protected with copyright (it is too simple for that), and it is in scope as well, because it is used and even in multiple projects. I do not see any reason for deletion. Taivo (talk) 14:24, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
Subject's consent should be required because of this Commons:Photographs_of_identifiable_people#The_right_of_privacy and this - The subject's consent is usually needed for publishing a photograph of an identifiable individual taken in a private place, and Commons expects this even if local laws do not require it. Taken from here: . What makes you say that it's a public place? It could very well be just an image from outside his house, which is going to put it under the criteria - taken at a Private place. In addition to this, he's clearly not looking into the camera. Didn't i mention that earlier?
  • I'm really surprised, that somebody demands subject's consent, and you need a good explanation for that.
My reply to that is - I don't need a good explanation for somebody demanding subject's consent, I need a good explanaiton for somebody not demanding the subject's consent. Btw, i'm asking for your rationale behind you denying my request. That's it! If you're taking somebody's pic ask for their permission. Besides, a picture taken with consent is going to atleast make the subject look into the camera.
Thanks 16:14, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
The file you linked says clearly: "In the United States (where the Commons servers are located), consent is not as a rule required to photograph people in public places." That's that. Taivo (talk) 16:28, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
You're still calling it a public place. Why? 17:26, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
Looks like public place. Taivo (talk) 17:46, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
OR it looks like private place. 17:51, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
If you have evidence, that the photo is made in private place, please present it. Taivo (talk) 17:52, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
Nah, no evidence....but your bias is clear on this one. 17:53, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
1 This picture clearly violates Commons:CSD#F6 versus, User talk:Taivo quote:"it cannot be copyright violation, because it is not protected with copyright (it is too simple for that)". Hmm... which choice would be the right one? I wonder... —Preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 19:18, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
My choice is correct. Sometimes people upload into Commons files with incorrect author, source and license. If the file cannot be correctly sourced and licensed, then it should be deleted. If the file can be correctly sourced and licensed, then deletion is wrong. Instead, file description, author, date, source and license must be corrected and proper categories added. New users sometimes cannot do that themselves and we must not punish them for that, because nobody is born as master and the skill comes with years. Taivo (talk) 10:15, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
I'm really surprised, that somebody uploads image without providing permission, and you need no explanation for that. Very well, if that's the case lets see whether your unexperienced users care to rectify what they've done and provide the license permission or not. 14:58, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
Your unexperienced user was careful enough to call someone else's work theirs, and you're all out in the open to defend that. Not only this, you've changed the author's name alltogether. What a nice job on your behalf! 15:10, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for liking my little detective work! Taivo (talk) 15:19, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
That wasn't meant to be a complement. 15:27, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Respecto a Octavillasmasgranada.jpgEdit

Hola, buenas tardes Taivo. Verás, pediría que eliminases ese aviso que has puesto, dado que esa foto la hice yo, de hecho esa es una mesa de mi casa la que está de fondo. No entiendo a qué viene poner estas alertas sin preguntar ni nada. Ruego las retires por favor. Gracias de antemano, --Granadino7 (talk) 15:59, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

This discussion must continue in Commons:Deletion requests/File:Octavillasmasgranada.jpg. Taivo (talk) 16:11, 17 October 2018 (UTC)


Thanks a lot Taivo and congratulations for your work ! Regards; Cquoi (talk) 12:24, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Return to the user page of "Taivo".