User talk:Ww2censor

TUSC token 36200f83ed7e451b0e9762a3748a9e16Edit

I am now proud owner of a TUSC account!

talkback from my pageEdit



  Hello, Ww2censor. You have new messages at F123's talk page.
You may remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Asturianu | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | বাংলা | Català | Čeština | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | English | Español | Suomi | Français | Galego | हिन्दी | Magyar | Italiano | 日本語 | ქართული | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Português | Română | Русский | Slovenščina | Svenska | Türkçe | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

— Preceding unsigned comment added by F123 (talk • contribs) 14:29, 12 October 2016 (UTC)


Hi, I think you are long enough at Commons to know that we have regular DR for this. Jcb (talk) 23:02, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

@Jcb: Most are recent uploads, less then 7 days, so, as I understand it being clear copyvios they do not need DRs, that if for older uploads or non-clear copyvios. Am I incorrect? Considering the few other older uploads it hardly seems necessary to divide them up into DRs and speedies. Do you want me change them? Ww2censor (talk) 23:10, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
The problem is that there are many different rules for currency. Only files that can be deleted without have to read copyright regulations first should be in the copyvio cat. I have declined the speedy requests. If they are from one uploader, the best thing to do is probably creating a mass DR. Jcb (talk) 23:23, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
Of course those two problems you mentioned do not arise as they are all from the same uploader and from the same country with the identical copyright issue, so declining the speedy seems unnecessary. I am sure no editor here, admin or otherwise, knows all the copyright law offhand but I am well aware of India's 60 year copyright term. So I'll just repeat the exercise and do a DR but imho Johan this is really just more work for both of us. Ww2censor (talk) 23:58, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
Not sure if you are aware: deleting all those files from the copyvio category is way more time consuming than deleting them from a mass DR. And apart from copyright duration, many countries have separate rules for money. 16:26, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
I don't know the functionality of a mass DR 'v' mass copyvio deletion for an admin, but as I stated above the copyright duration did not enter into this because all the images I nominated are from the same country. I've made a mass DR, so I hope you are now content, though I feel part of your edit summary "Not a copyright violation" was disingenuous when that is quite clearly not the case. Perhaps you could have phrased it better. Cheers Ww2censor (talk) 16:36, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
I admit that summary was not optimal. Please be aware that this is an automated summary and declining all those speedy nominations is time consuming enough even without having to change the summary manually for each file. Jcb (talk) 16:45, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
I get it and know that admin job is not an easy one but again as I stated they were all from the same country so you edit summary would have been the same for them all. Let's not waste any more time on this as there are other more important things to do for both of us. Enjoy the Gouda or maybe Maasdammer is your preference! Cheers Ww2censor (talk) 16:58, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

File deletionEdit

Hello, when I uploaded this file to the commons the source was "Almrsal" and I didn't know about the Corbis or Getty images, the source data has been changed by the user who did watermark removal in the Photography workshop. Now what is the correct license should I put to avoid the deletion. Thanks.--MrJoker07 (talk) 18:54, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

@MrJoker07: As I state in the deletion notice the original source (that you also link to above) had copied the image from Corbis, as their watermark was on the image, and is still there at the image source. You may not have noticed the slight watermark in the left top corner but, being suspicious of the image, I investigated it extensively and my reasoning is all there on the deletion page. Any comments you have to support it being a Saudi image, which is the copyright tag you added but is clearly wrong should go there. Additionally you should provide evidence the image is freely licenced, not just a source, but, unfortunately I doubt you can do either. If it is a copyright image which I think it is, I'm sorry to tell you, there is no correct licence you can add and the image will be deleted. Anything you have to say should be posted at Commons:Deletion requests/File:King Faisal with Saud Alfaisal 1947.jpg because the closing admin will not bother looking at my talk page. Ww2censor (talk) 23:23, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
But your investigation hasn't proved that it is not a Saudi Governmental Organization, even in the US. The license would be according to Saudi policy not the American!--MrJoker07 (talk) 05:18, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
Please stop posting here; the closing admin will most likely never see your comments. If you read the deletion nomination page and the links provided, you will find out that the Bettmann archive comprises accumulations of many defunct press archives, so it would be virtually impossible for him to have obtained Saudi government archive images for his archive, besides whicht, most importantly, the fact that the image was taken in the US means that US copyright law applies, not Saudi law. If under Saudi law it needs to be freely licenced in both jurisdictions, not just Saudi Arabia. I don;t want to seem mean but as I stated, please make any points you have at the deletion page, not here, I won't respond here again, so please don't waste your time posting here. Ww2censor (talk) 17:14, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

File:Fromager des Hautes-Alpes.jpgEdit


Thanks for your indication, error repared. --Varaine (talk) 17:05, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

File:Debby Ryan 2016.jpgEdit

  File:Debby Ryan 2016.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 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!

Afrikaans | العربية | বাংলা | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | Eesti | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Bahasa Indonesia | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Norsk bokmål | Occitan | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Shqip | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Elisfkc (talk) 23:26, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Return to the user page of "Ww2censor".