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)

Posters within the category Category:Election posters in IsraelEdit

Hi. I've individually nominated files within the category Category:Election posters in Israel (as you proposed in Commons:Deletion requests/Election posters) following this recent discussion. Yours, --Patrick Rogel (talk) 11:32, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Category talk:Icons for railway descriptionsEdit

Please restore and move to Category talk:BSicon/railway. Thank you. Useddenim (talk) 22:43, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

  Done Taivo (talk) 08:02, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Admin homophobiaEdit

Are the licenses on this site[1] fake? s it possible to threaten a ban for downloading this image? Sealle spoke rudely in Russian on his page. My English is not so good. --Терпрп (talk) 16:12, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

License is valid and unacceptable for Commons. You must make difference between block and ban. Repeated uploading copyright violation can lead a block and even indefinite block, but probably not a ban. Со мной можно говорить и по-русски. Taivo (talk) 16:19, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
@Терпрп: Admins do not care about what you download from Commons. Everybody may download stuff from Commons, even users who are blocked or banned. It's uploading that can be a problem. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:18, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
What do you have in mind? I do not understand. --Терпрп (talk) 16:51, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
Почему CC-BY-SA-4 не подходит? --Терпрп (talk) 16:50, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
Можете ли пояснить? --Терпрп (talk) 17:36, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
@Терпрп: Вот теперь я видел. Внизу была лицензия "All rights reserved © Slava Mogutin, 2018" и вначале я больше вообще не посмотрел. Теперь вижу, что у некоторых фотографии отдельная лицензия CC-BY-SA-4. Эта лицензия подходит. Извиняюсь. Taivo (talk) 17:48, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
Дело в том, что фотография была удалена и выписана предупреждение с мотивом, что это "фейковая лицензия" и что я должен в фонд отправить письмо от самой фотографа Лауры --Терпрп (talk) 12:19, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
Я не понимаю, какие фотографии были удалены. Вы ни одного файла в Викисклад не загрузили. Может быть, вы загрузили их в русскую Википедию? Тогда я не могу помочь. Конечно, OTRS-разрешение от Лауры было бы особенно хорошое. Taivo (talk) 14:12, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
Простите. Я это User:Терпр. Я в той рувики пароль потерял. А файл File:Slava Mogutin and Robert Filippini.jpg --Терпрп (talk) 14:39, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
Я создал заявление для восстановления в COM:UDEL. Я не хочу восстоновить такие файлы без согласия других. Taivo (talk) 15:09, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
Спасибо! --Терпрп (talk) 18:48, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
Taivo, I'm afraid you missed the authorship issue, see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Slava Mogutin and Robert Filippini.jpg. The uploader was well aware the file was deleted for this reason and misled you, as well as allowed himself another offensive thread header. I hope next time you will let me know and force this person to keep the AGF policy after multiple warnings he's got. Sealle (talk) 11:23, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

File talk:După trecerea unui convoi între Birzula şi Grozdovca.jpgEdit

Good morning!

I quote:

1.Long descriptions are not wrong, until they are not too long.

2. References are not written into description, but into source field.

In reality:

1. The description of the photo is very long. It also includes the source of non-photo affirmations. It does not match the description of the photo with what Carp writes. This (Carp) does not say the dead of that photograph are shot. He does not say that their author is the Tarca sub-officer. Do not tell if he (Carp) is the author of the photo or someone else from whom he took it. That's an unknown one. There is also a big problem of verifiability.

2. In the source field only the source of the photo is mentioned, not the source of the statements made by the author of the posting of the photo.

In conclusion, if we go over length descriptions (which is a relative problem), we can not overcome the inaccuracies in the description or the lack of sources to confirm what Dahn says. Respectfully 05:21, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Speaking of the wolf, Tarca is at p. 259. And no, it does not say they were shot by Tarca, just that he was the highest in charge for the whole operation. Of course, he also received orders from higher officers, but locally he was the highest in rank. Footnote points to sheet X, and the legend of the first photo says "the convoy", not "a convoy" as the second photo. Such articulation points that the author already spoke of which convoy was "the convoy". It is not original synthesis, it is reading with comprehension. And, yes, the only person who gets such shootings attributed (whether he shot them himself or just gave the order) is Tarca. Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:05, 19 November 2018 (UTC)


Mr. Ariadacapo also let me delete my photographs and pictures eg File: Walter WIZ (1921), drawing Milan Tošnar 1981.jpg, File: Walter 0 a.jpg (Walter 0 racing 1924, drawing by Milan Tošnar 1980) and File: Walter Super 6 (1930) at a commemorative ride 1,000 miles Cz. 2018.jpg. I have explained several times to the other pictures (from 1913-1936) that I acquired them legally in the years 1980-1982 from the company archive as a Walter employee. Now all these pictures (glass plates) are stored in the State Regional Archives in Prague, because Walter collapsed in 1995. Libor Tošnar Ltosnar (talk) 16:32, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for mentioning. Now please read Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Ltosnar about what to do for undeleting the images. Taivo (talk) 17:29, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Long time no seeEdit

Hello, Taivo. I have not disturbed you since quite some time now. Therefore please do me a non-admin favour to have a look at User:Peteravivangel's contributions, such as in and help me to avoid a silly edit war. Thank you very much in advance. Best. --E4024 (talk) 19:29, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:At hyderabad.jpgEdit

Some browser problem waiting a helping hand from a good admin: Commons:Deletion requests/File:At hyderabad.jpg. Tyvm. --E4024 (talk) 13:51, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

  Done Taivo (talk) 15:35, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Mug shots of people of RussiaEdit

Спасибо за вашу помощь. Я хотел бы у вас спросить ещё об одном вопросе политики Викисклада. Категория Category:Mug shots of people of Russia и Category:Victims of political repression in the Soviet Union содержат "шоты" из уголовных дел многих известных личностей. Их метят или {{PD-RU-exempt|type=mug shots}}, поскольку материалы уголовных дел вроде как государственный документ, эти фото сделаны неизвестным автором по госзаказу с целью составления госдокумента. Или {{PD-old-70}}, {{PD-Russia-1996}}, поскольку это старые фото неизвестных авторов. Но эти фото избирательно удаляются. Возражения что 1) госматериалы уголовного дела это не государственные документы 2) что дата публикации вне суда этих фото часто имеет дату 1990-х. Такая трагическая ситуация сложилась с File:Anna Barkova.jpg. Вопрос в том, нужно ли бороться за восстановление или нужно срочно эвакуировать эти категории в Русскую Википедию как несвободные? --Терпрп (talk) 14:44, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

{{PD-Russia-1996}} скажет, что 70 лет считают не с момента фотографирования, а с момента первой публикации. Так что эта лицензия вас обыкновенно не поможет. Но {{PD-RU-exempt}} кажется правильной: "other materials of state government agencies and local government agencies ..., including ... other materials of ... judicial character". Taivo (talk) 15:34, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
Hi Taivo, please take a look at w:ru:Википедия:Форум/Архив/Авторское право/2011/02#Фото документов, w:ru:Википедия:Форум/Архив/Авторское право/2014/10#Снимки заключенных из дел НКВД and w:ru:Википедия:Форум/Архив/Авторское право/2014/02#Фотографии советских и российских преступников. Sealle (talk) 11:17, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
Похоже Sealle ещё и преследованием занялся. --Терпрп (talk) 12:46, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
Нет. Я спросил у него совет. Taivo (talk) 17:22, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!Edit

  The Admin's Barnstar
Thank you for giving me a second chance for me to contribute constructively at commons. Your unblock is something that I'll never take for granted. You're one of the kindest admins I know and I hope you continue working on commons.  Eltomas2003 (talk) 21:33, 2 December 2018 (UTC)


Taivo, I've restored the block on Eltomas2003, which you lifted inappropriately and contrary to policy. 1) Eltomas2003 was blocked for sockpuppetry, not copyvios; the unblock rationale did not address the socking issue, which was as recent as one month ago (!!!) with J0n 47 n454 (per COM:BLOCK, we require "An acknowledgement that the block was appropriate and a credible promise that the behaviour that led to the block will not be repeated"); 2) in addition to copyvios and sockpuppetry, many of the socks have been used to upload COM:NOTHOST/COM:SCOPE violations, an issue that also needs to be addressed; and 3) again, per COM:BLOCK: "Before granting a request to lift a block placed by another administrator, the reviewing administrator should consult with the blocking administrator, except in obvious, uncontroversial cases." (emphasis in original). This is not an obvious, uncontroversial case. See, for example, Category:Sockpuppets of Eltomas2003 for the extensive known socks, many of which are recent. Эlcobbola talk 23:16, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Aaah, I eat bananas 101. That   - Alexis Jazz ping plz 23:23, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
Guess what? - Alexis Jazz ping plz 07:19, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Sorting paintings from DenmarkEdit

Hi Taivo. I can see that you have changed the sortorder for some of the paintings by painters from Denmark, for instance File:Jørgen Roed - La Scala Santa i San Benedetto - studie - 1839.jpg. The sortorder in the "Paintings by Jørgen Roed" was set to 1839, and you changed it to something else. I hope it is clear to you, that when members of the community make a sortorder in the first place, there is a reason for that, and it is not a good idea to change it without a discussion. The reason for the original sortorder is that we wish to follow the artist through the years of her/his working life, and that is conveniently done by using the dates of the works. Do you see the point in this practice? Cheers --Rsteen (talk) 05:45, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

OK, I will remember, that Denmark is different from any other country, and will self-revert the sorting . Taivo (talk) 08:58, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for bearing over with our backwards ideas. Cheers --Rsteen (talk) 13:03, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

File:Arcturus (optical).pngEdit

I was about to nominate this file for deletion, but noticed that it was previously nominated for deletion (by me), and then kept (by you). The file description has been updated with the following text:

Data retrieved from the Mikulski Archive for Space Telescopes (MAST) are part of the public domain and need no explicit permission for use, with the exception of proprietary data. We take care that these proprietary data are only provided to those who have proprietary rights. No explicit permission is needed for the use of MAST tools. Please acknowledge NASA and MAST when using data retrieved from MAST.

and also tagged as "solely created by NASA". It is not solely created by NASA and it still copyright. The blockquote explicitly states "with the exception of proprietary data" and DSS2 data is proprietary. This is stated at the bottom of the link in the permission section and explained fully here and here. The acknowledgements and permissions explanation is geared mainly towards scientific (non-commercial) users, but makes it very clear that the datasets are subject to copyright, which makes them unsuitable for inclusion here. The status of all the MAST Catalogs and Surveys Group products is explained here. None of this should be confused with the similarly-named but entirely separate SDSS (Sloan Digital Sky Survey), which has recently been released into the public domain. Lithopsian (talk) 15:05, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

There is no evidence, that DSS data is used for creating the image. Neither file page nor source page mentions DSS. en:Mikulski Archive for Space Telescopes does not mention DSS. Actually MAST as archive does not create any data; it only storages data. So in my opinion the license is correct: neither MAST nor DSS was co-creator of the file, all work of NASA. Taivo (talk) 18:14, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Arcul de Triumf by Britchi MirelaEdit

Domnule Taivo, ma numesc Britchi Iulia Mirela cea care a fotografiat Arcul de Triumf. Constat ca vreti sa le scoateti pe motiv ca arhitectul (Petre Antonescu) are drepturile de autor pana in 2036.

Dar daca vreti sa le scoateti sau deleted de ce nu scoateti si poza lui DanielValahul (File: Arcul de triumf noaptea) poza din Concursul Wiki Loves Monuments 2018. O poza foarte frumoasa. Am mai vazut poze cu Arcul de Triumf, din Concursuri Wiki Loves Monuments si nu le-ati scos. Dar mie imi scoateti pozele intr-o veselie. Eu nu sunt de acord sa-mi tot scoateti poze, care au fost acceptate, inventand diverse motive sau chiar fara motive. Britchi Iulia Mirela --Britchi Mirela (talk) 11:24, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for responding. The discussion should be in Commons:Deletion requests/Arcul de Triumf by Britchi Mirela. I have not yet discovered every photo about the Arc of Triumph, but I'll work to find and nominate them all for deletion. Taivo (talk) 11:31, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Domnule Taivo eu doresc numele celor care au propus stergerea fisierelor mele cu Arcul de Triumf, poze care au fost acceptate in Concursul Wiki Loves Monuments. Sa ma razboiesc cu ei nu cu dumneavoastra, daca dumneavoastra nu aveti nici o vina. Britchi Iulia Mirela --Britchi Mirela (talk) 13:43, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Return to the user page of "Taivo".