User:Taivo/Archive20 Jan–Mar

temp-undeletion of deleted file

Hi Taivo, per User_talk:Túrelio#Temporary_undelete_then_redelete_request I have temp-undeleted File:Светлана Евгеньевна Савицкая, 1982 год.jpg, which you had deleted in June 2019. I'll take care of its re-deletion. --Túrelio (talk) 07:34, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Photo's Copyright

Hello Taivo. My uploaded photo (File:Screenshot android10 Nomal Edition.png) is my phone's screenshot. In this case, the photo isn't my copyright? Thank you. Google nexus (talk) 10:59, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

 Comment There's 5 logos in row in bottom of image. Some of them surpass threshold of originality and are protected with copyright. Taivo (talk) 11:02, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Revision visibility

Hi Taivo. Would you mind hiding my 02:16, 15 May 2019 revision for Anne-Vere-Chamberlain-ne-Cole.jpg? On reflection, this particular revision was uploaded by mistake. It was licensed to me by NPG on a non-commercial licence, and since their master digitisation is not immediately available on their website, the availability of this revision on Commons falls short of respecting their commercial opportunities. Thanks! AlbanGeller (talk) 15:12, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Taivo, this revision is affected by the URAA. Can you please hide it? AlbanGeller (talk) 03:16, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

The file is ineligible for speedy deletion, because it survived a regular deletion request. So I created a regular deletion request. Taivo (talk) 22:20, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Taivo, I am not requesting the deletion of the image. Just that particular revision, which was licensed to me specifically for non-commercial use. Can you please close the deletion request? AlbanGeller (talk) 22:22, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

No. All the versions share the same mistake: they are not in public domain in USA due to URAA. Taivo (talk) 22:23, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

They do not all share the same mistake. The scan that I made of the original work has been freely licensed under the terms of {{cc-zero}}. Their particular scan of the work is not freely licensed. AlbanGeller (talk) 22:27, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Taivo, I would support hiding each and every previous revision of the file, all of which are neither freely licensed nor confirmed as PD in USA due to URAA. The current revision has been freely licensed and this applies worldwide. AlbanGeller (talk) 22:35, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

How do you prove, that some versions are licensed CC-0? File history does not show that. Taivo (talk) 22:38, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Only the current revision is licensed as such, Taivo. Please refer to Special:Diff/388260735. (This is my scan of the original work and I have waived all of my rights to it worldwide under copyright law.) AlbanGeller (talk) 22:42, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Taivo, in light of the above, can you please close the deletion request and simply hide those old revisions of the file that are not freely licensed? AlbanGeller (talk) 12:26, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

AlbanGeller, I thought about that, but this would be speedy deletion. The file was once kept after regular deletion request and it is ineligible for speedy deletion. We must wait full week. In addition, I am not convinced, that the last version is free from copyright. Taivo (talk) 12:39, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

May I ask what is not convincing you? The last version is free of copyright in the UK and my scan of the original work (as a UK national) is free of copyright worldwide in respect of any reuse of this particular scan of the image. The other ones were scanned by NPG themselves and they reserve all rights to their scans. AlbanGeller (talk) 13:02, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

The original photo from 1939 is free from copyright in source country UK, but I'm afraid, that it is still copyrighted in USA. Current license says: "You must also include a United States public domain tag to indicate why this work is in the public domain in the United States." There is no such license and I cannot find a suitable one. CC-0 license does not apply, because the free license must come from copyright holder (National Portrait Gallery), not from scanner. Taivo (talk) 13:19, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

National Portrait Gallery (NPG) is not the copyright holder of the original work. The studio Bassano Ltd were the creators and the studio has since dissolved. There are no known heirs who have claimed copyright to their works. NPG claims copyright for their scans of the copies they hold in their collection (), not the photos themselves, which they did not create. The CC-0 licence applies to my scan of the original work in the UK public domain. AlbanGeller (talk) 13:28, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

@AlbanGeller: At first, I accept, that NPG is not a copyright holder, sorry for misunderstanding. The article en:Sweat of the brow and also Commons official guideline Commons:When to use the PD-scan tag reject the idea, that scanning old documents creates new copyright. At least UK and countries of European Union do not accept copyright by scanning. Although NPG claims all its website content to be protected with copyright, sometimes this does not mean anything. But – although there is no known copyright holder, the image can still be protected with copyright. Most countries have guidelines, what to do, if copyright holder dies without heirs, and this does not mean end of copyright. Taivo (talk) 10:24, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Taivo, the copyright has ended in the source country. There are no known heirs to the original work who can possibly pursue copyright in USA. All of the works made by Bassano Ltd are credited to the studio only, not to any individual person, therefore 70pma is inapplicable. This file can only be pursued for USA copyright on the basis of en:Sweat of the brow, with respect to National Portrait Gallery in relation to their particular scans. AlbanGeller (talk) 21:22, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

@AlbanGeller: we have now two possibilities. At first, I can withdraw the deletion request. At second we can continue the request. Which one you prefer? Withdrawing the request will apply for all versions of the file, because, as I said, Commons does not accept usually copyright by scanning. Taivo (talk) 21:48, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

My concern is, because the original work is not yet automatically in the USA public domain, NPG would be within their rights to claim USA copyright for their scan of the photo, especially their master scan which is not available freely online, which they may argue is an infringement on their commercial opportunities. The scan was specifically licensed to me on a license incompatible with Commons, and since they have a history of , it's my worry that keeping the master scan could lead to another en:National Portrait Gallery and Wikimedia Foundation copyright dispute, in which they state "the public availability of the[se] images would affect revenue acquired from licensing the images to third parties, revenue also used to fund the project of digitizing their collection, an effort that the NPG claims cost the organization over £1,000,000." AlbanGeller (talk) 22:08, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I understand. That case it's better to proceed with deletion request. Taivo (talk) 08:36, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Taivo, to proceed with the deletion request would be disproportionate in relation to this issue (en:don't throw the baby out with the bathwater). The only reasonable response would be either to (a) hide those revisions copyrighted and scanned by NPG or (b) merely hide from view their master scan which (as opposed to other NPG scans) is not available freely online. My own scan of the photo in the UK public domain cannot be claimed credibly for USA copyright (en:sweat of the brow would not be an issue). The original studio is defunct and only merged once, in 1962 (with Vandyk) which lasted until 1978, when the merged studio dissolved without another merger taking place. Furthermore, no human authors have been attributed to their photos, so the question of PMA should not concern. The CC-0 license only serves to definitively affirm the inapplicability of USA copyright. AlbanGeller (talk) 17:10, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

 Just to clarify, my preference is Option A, in which all but the two most recent previous revisions would be hidden with no thumbnail (while keeping the upload summary). This would eliminate any possible confusion in respect of the licensing arrangements for NPG-scanned revisions. (In my view, to be on the safe side, the 02:16, 15 May 2019 revision should be deleted entirely.) AlbanGeller (talk) 20:59, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

 In light of the above, would you please consider Option A? This way, there will be no confusion over copyright and licensing as it pertains to those old revisions. AlbanGeller (talk) 20:27, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

After long thoughtwork I withdraw the request. Explanation was needed, why the file was kept, how to license it correctly (it had no US license) and for history what and why happened with earlier versions. This was maximum, what I can do. Taivo (talk) 19:53, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Taivo, I really appreciate it. Can I just ask you to fully delete the 01:16, 15 May 2019 revision? (The upload summary is a verbatim copy-and-paste of the NPG master-scan description.) AlbanGeller (talk) 20:06, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

(outdent) 

Would it be possible to only delete my edit comment for the 01:16, 15 May 2019 revision? AlbanGeller (talk) 06:05, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Yes, it is possible, but I do not want to delete it. For sake of file history, it's better to keep it. Taivo (talk) 08:37, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Yes, but for the sake of copyright, "Original Full Size File - 300DPI" really should be hidden from view to prevent en:plagiarism. This is copyrighted text that fails en:fair use. AlbanGeller (talk) 08:45, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

This is only 5 words, which is too short for copyright. In UK, at least 10 words, including one complete sentence are needed for that. In addition, such notices are not copyrightable anyway, because they lack originality. Taivo (talk) 09:04, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

It can still be seen as plagiarism, which is what worries me. AlbanGeller (talk) 09:15, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

It's not, don't be afraid. Taivo (talk) 09:28, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Even so, it was still a copy-and-paste that I didn't attribute. I'm just uncomfortable with my username being associated with that particular text. Can you please consider hiding my username instead? AlbanGeller (talk) 09:36, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Such short texts do not need attribution and usernames must definitely be present. Taivo (talk) 09:48, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Taivo, would it be possible to hide my username in the #File history section, while still having my username visible and included in the revision history of the page? This could be a good compromise in striking a balance between my privacy and your transparency concerns. AlbanGeller (talk) 22:57, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

I thought whole day about that and decline the request. There is nothing to be afraid of and nothing to be ashamed of. Taivo (talk) 20:36, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

OK. So, if I understand correctly, that comment would have been irrevocably released under the CC-BY-SA 3.0 license and the GFDL? AlbanGeller (talk) 21:04, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Actually the comment is {{PD-ineligible}}, because it does not contain original authorship. Taivo (talk) 21:07, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks again for all your help, Taivo. Can I just ask you to have a look at these three files?

• Lucy-ne-Ridsdale-Countess-Baldwin.jpg (same studio and copyright as Anne-Vere-Chamberlain-ne-Cole)
• Violet-Helen-ne-Millar-Countess-Attlee.jpg (same studio and copyright as above)
• Margaret-Emma-Alice-Margot-Asquith-ne-Tennant ... .jpg (different studio but same copyright status)

All but the two latest revisions for each file are {{Not-PD-US-URAA}}. AlbanGeller (talk) 21:52, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

I processed the files just as the first and hided older versions. Taivo (talk) 11:11, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Greta Thunberg Summary Video Deletion?

Wanted to know the reason why you deleted (File:Wikipedia-VideoWiki-Greta Thunberg.webm) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pratik.pks (talk • contribs) 06:05, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Uploader KCVelaga (VideoWiki) nominated it for speedy deletion 2 days after upload. During first week after upload the uploader can demand deletion of own upload with any reason or even without reason. Velaga did not provide any additional reason. Taivo (talk) 08:59, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Ahh yes yes, there was 1 minor error at the end of the video. Got it - Thanks for the quick response, and sorry for not signing my previous comment - was rushing into a meeting.--Pratik.pks (talk) 17:35, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Can you...

explain the reason for tagging this as vandalism? The file is not an artwork, it´s a document copyrighted by the Ministry of Culture of Spain, and while I may not like such protection, we must respect their rights. --Rodelar (talk) 10:27, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

You are right: this was not an artwork, and I changed the license. Ministry of Culture of Spain can claim copyright, but as copyright is expired and there is no copyright holder, this does not mean anything. Taivo (talk) 10:34, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

First of all, I would appreciate if you answer me on my talk page, not only because it is the usual way, but out of respect for the other person, as that way they may not find out about your answer. If, according to you, it is not copyrighted, I strongly encourage you to upload to Commons the hundreds of thousands of digitized files which the Ministry of Culture hosts on its website. I'm sorry, but you're not right; although it's terrible, all the Ministry of Culture's digitized documents are copyrighted. --Rodelar (talk) 10:44, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Answering on my talk page is not a whim, it's the usual way, I can't believe I have to report this to an experienced user like you. If not, can you explain to me how other users find out about your answer? As you don't speak Spanish, and you may not know Spanish laws in depth, I inform you: all digitized documents of the Ministry of Culture are published under copyright; all of them, regardless of their date. The documents may be in the public domain because of their age, but the Ministry, by digitizing, generates new rights and publishes them under copyright, it's that simple. And precisely for that reason, no one in Spain (and I assure you that there would be many people who, if they could, would do so) uploads material from the Ministry of Culture to Commons, because it is copyrighted. --Rodelar (talk) 11:18, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Sorry if I misunderstood you, I thought you were an experienced user. Not only you do not want to understand the legal circumstances of this case (I'm still waiting for an answer to why the thousands of Wikimedia users in Spain do not upload the Ministry of Culture's material), but you disrespect other users. Keep it up. Cheers. --Rodelar (talk) 12:03, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Commons:Categories for discussion/2020/01/Category:Chemistry images without english description

Hi Taivo, the category you deleted was recreated. --Leyo 13:19, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

 Done. Taivo (talk) 13:24, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Duplicate file

Hi T. Can I just ask you please to delete and redirect Margaret Thatcher portrait.jpg to the higher-quality Margaret Thatcher stock portrait (cropped).jpg? (The latter file is a superseded JPEG duplicate of Margaret Thatcher.png.) Thanks. AlbanGeller (talk) 08:51, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

 Not done. By Commons policy, redundant files can be deleted after regular deletion request and the request can be created only if the file is unused. I do not follow this policy very strictly, some insignificant uses do not count and some uses I can replace myself by hand, sometimes I delete redundant files even speedily, but the file in question is used more than 100 times in multiple projects. I marked the file as superseded, but at moment I do not want to delete it. Taivo (talk) 09:12, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

User:SEKHEMX

Because of you participation at User talk:NEGUS1010, I thought you might be interested in Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Blocks and protections#User:SEKHEMX. Regards. -- Whpq (talk) 01:27, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

For what it's worth, User:Sarrounia is a confirmed sock puppet of User:NEGUS1010 on English Wikipedia. User:NEGUS1010X seems like a pretty good bet, too, but that account is stale on en.wiki. You might consider asking a Commons CU to take a look at this case. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:43, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

 Done. I blocked master and 3 sockpuppets, tagged them and created a sockpuppet category. Taivo (talk) 16:15, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Revision deletion

Hi Taivo. Can you please delete my 14:18, 13 February 2020 revision for Neville-Chamberlain.jpg? Thanks. AlbanGeller (talk) 16:52, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

 Done. Taivo (talk) 08:40, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks again. Also, can I just ask you please to hide all but the two latest revisions for the file (which are possibly affected by the URAA). The 84-year-old photograph was taken by the same studio (Bassano) and so has the same copyright as those particular files mentioned above. AlbanGeller (talk) 12:05, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

 Done. Taivo (talk) 12:54, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Taivo. Would it be possible for you to transfer the 13:39, 14 February 2020 revision for Neville-Chamberlain.jpg (which I just accidentally overwrote) to Neville-Chamberlain (cropped).jpg? Thanks again. AlbanGeller (talk) 13:44, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

  COM:SPLIT may be of relevance for this situation. AlbanGeller (talk) 16:26, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I know, but this was complicated situation ...  Done? Taivo (talk) 17:17, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I think so, thanks. Can you finally please delete all the former revisions of Neville-Chamberlain (cropped).jpg? These are just the derivatives of those revisions you hid earlier for the other file. AlbanGeller (talk) 17:42, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

 Done. Taivo (talk) 18:24, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

DR

you kept this one Commons:Deletion requests/File:Gabriele Münter und Nell Walden, 1958.png, today another DR "passed": Commons:Deletion requests/File:Herwarth Walden by Edmund Kesting, 1932.png. Please think about it.

The University-Library in Heidelberg went wrong, but they have changed their terms of use after that. --Goesseln (talk) 21:22, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

That's normal, one of them was photo and the other was art, so they are not necessarily similarly closed. Taivo (talk) 08:39, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Licence reviewing

Hi Taivo. Can I just ask whether you might consider granting me licence-review permissions? Only yesterday, I spent much of my time tagging files copied from the NPG as not being PD in the USA (due to URAA). If you were to look into my deleted contributions, you will notice how I have tagged dozens of files for permission or copyright violations. I feel that I'm adequately familiar with licensing policy to scrutinise new files with said permissions. AlbanGeller (talk) 14:22, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

 Not done. Such advanced right must be requested in Commons:License review/Requests. Taivo (talk) 14:53, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

OK. In the meantime, can you please grant me COM:PATROL rights? AlbanGeller (talk) 16:36, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

But the other rights must be requested in Commons:Requests for rights... Taivo (talk) 16:40, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

It doesn't seem to be a requirement: The right ... can be given to trustworthy users upon request. It's possible to ... ask a specific administrator for the user right. AlbanGeller (talk) 16:44, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Yes, you are right. But for sake of transparency, please make a formal request there. Taivo (talk) 17:00, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

OK Taivo, I have made my request at Commons talk:PD files/reviewers#User:AlbanGeller. AlbanGeller (talk) 19:20, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

I see, that this request must be open for 7 days ... Strange. For example, request to become a license reviewer needs only 2 days. Taivo (talk) 16:37, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

I just made you PD license reviewer. Taivo (talk) 20:44, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

File:Grupo RBS se posiciona acima do Rio Grande do Sul 3.jpg

File:Grupo RBS se posiciona acima do Rio Grande do Sul 2.jpg

File:Grupo RBS se posiciona acima do Rio Grande do Sul 1.jpg

Já estavam corrigidos. Não havia porque apagar Eugenio Hansen, OFS (talk) 18:54, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

I deleted the three files due to bad quality and weak educational value.

Traducción de Google: eliminé los tres archivos debido a la mala calidad y al escaso valor educativo. Taivo (talk) 21:53, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

User:Wikipedian770

Hi! I see you reviewed the unblock request of User:Wikipedian770. He has again uploaded an out-of-scope file, File:American_House_(NOT_REAL).svg. I recommend that this user be indefinitely blocked, and the file deleted. Do I need to start a process for this, or can you decide that on your own? --Slashme (talk) 12:08, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

 Done. I did not want to block him/her indefinitely, because (s)he had useful edits as well, so I blocked him/her for a year (third block). Taivo (talk) 12:18, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Musical Fence.jpg

This is a scanned photo of the Musical Fence. I am Mr Matisse's assistant and I uploaded this to his wikipedia page. Please do not delete. We own the image. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WBryson16 (talk • contribs)

@WBryson16: , let's continue in the deletion request. The photo needs two permissions: one from artist and another from photographer. As you are assistant of the sculptor, then you can send us OTRS-permission from sculptor, but how to obtain permission from the photographer? Taivo (talk) 14:17, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Minialuxe -2 Packard 1912 DSC04326 co.jpg

Hi, you delete one photo but the photos to delete are 4. You can see it here: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/2020/02/01#File:Minialuxe_-2_Packard_1912_DSC04323_co.jpg --Arosio Stefano (talk) 07:32, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

@Arosio Stefano: At 7:27 I deleted first file and at 7:32 you complained, that I have not deleted all of the files? Taivo (talk) 07:41, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Excuse me. I want only to help you, not to complain about your good work. Thank you --Arosio Stefano (talk) 07:56, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Máxima

Dear Taivo, Who will restore the broken links to Category:Máxima of the Netherlands? The creator is renaming categories on a large scale, comparable to this former colleague, and isn't taking care of loose ends. Vysotsky (talk) 12:58, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

 Done. Taivo (talk) 14:24, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

To no avail. He made sure it was deleted again. Vysotsky (talk) 20:40, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

I restored and protected the redirect. Taivo (talk) 21:17, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Bob Cooney.jpg

I just saw your close here. I was a bit surprised by it, as @Pigsonthewing's argument seemed reasonable to me, but OK. Would you object if I undelete it but with the photo part of it blanked out? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 17:17, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

 Comment If you blank the photo, then I will not object undeletion. Taivo (talk) 17:20, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, is File:Bob Cooney.jpg OK for you now? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 17:22, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

OK. Taivo (talk) 17:23, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks @Mike Peel and Mike Peel: for the sensible intervention. This has been an interesting experience for me. Watty62 (talk) 18:23, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Здравствуйте. Прошу удалить несвободные файлы с викисклада.

Здравствуйте. Я увидел что вы админ викисклада, поэтому решил написать вам это письмо. Я перенес фото на ру вики, так как фото несвободные. (У нас нет свободы панорамы в Казахстане) Теперь их нужно удалить с викисклада. Я оставил только старые фото, которые перешли в общественное достояние. Нужно удалить все фото кроме тех что ниже:

• File:Дом_врача_Фидлера_в_Алма-Ате.jpg
• File:Дом_братьев_Бреусовых_в_Алма-Ате.jpg
• File:Дом купца Радченко в Алма-Ате.jpg
• File:Музей спортивной славы в Алма-Ате.jpg
• File:Дом-квартира директора Мужской гимназии в Алма-Ате.jpg
• File:Дом аксакала Сейдалина.jpg
• File:Дом купца Филиппова в Алма-Ате.jpg
• File:Дом лесовода Баума в Алма-Ате.jpg
• File:Последнее фото Ж. Досмухамедова, 1938 год.jpg
• File:7-й номер газеты «Казах» от 22 марта 1913 года.jpg
• File:Отцы-основатели газеты «Казах» Ахмет Байтурсынов, Алихан Букейханов и Миржакип Дулатов.jpg
• File:Ахмет Байтурсынов.jpg
• File:Выписка из протокола 1937 года, о расстреле Ахмета Байтурсынова.jpg
• File:Алашская автономия.jpg
• File:Мухаметжан Тынышпаев с супругой Гульбахрам Чалымбековой, г.Верный, 1920 год.jpg
• File:Халел Досмухамедов.jpg
• File:Жанша Досмухамедов, 1920 год.jpg
• File:А.Ермеков с супругой, сыном и гувернанткой, 1925 год.jpg
• File:Выписка из протокола Атестационной комиссии «Об утверждении А.Ермекова в звании профессора», 1935 год.jpg
• File:Выписка из протокола о заключении А.Ермекова в концлагерь, 1932 год.jpg
• File:Деятели партии «Алаш».jpg
• File:Kasaccia Horda.jpg
• File:О восстановлении имени казаки за киргизской национальностью.gif

Список этих фото удалять не нужно. А все что не попало в список нужно удалить.

Можете пожалуйста удалить. --User 0100 (talk) 06:59, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Посмотрю их всех. Некоторые из них всё-таки свободные. Для свободных файлов корригирую лицензию. Taivo (talk) 14:13, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Спасибо, я заметил вы уже начали удалять. Кстати не забудьте удалить фото памятников и мавзолея. Они тоже не свободны. Да и тем более фото памятников я фотографировал на плохую камеру, там все равно надо перефотать и уже загрузить на ру вики --User 0100 (talk) 16:28, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

@Taivo Как вы знаете, файлы, подпадающие под несвободу панорамы, следует удалять не быстро, а через регулярное обсуждение. Пожалуйста, исправьте это. --A.Savin 16:36, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Существуют и другие критерии, например просьба автора немного времени после загрузки, но ... ладно, останавливаюсь. Taivo (talk) 16:52, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Памятник Наурызбай батыру был открыт где то в 2006 году, памятник Отеген батыру в 2018 году, памятник Карасай батыру был открыт в 2019 году, мавзолей карасай и агынтай батырам был построен в 1999 году. И другие здание тоже были построены при советском союзе а не в конце 19 или в начале 20 века. Так что думаю их все равно надо удалить. Здание цезаря вообще новое построено в 2003 году. То есть 70 лет еще не прошло. --User 0100 (talk) 16:47, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

• @A.Savin: . А что за регулярное обсуждение? давайте я тогда выставлю на обсуждение. Как это сделать --User 0100 (talk) 17:13, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

  @Taivo + Бауыржан. Дело не в том, надо ли удалить -- это очевидно. Просто бывает и так, что свободу панорамы законодательно вводят, такие случаи имели место в недалёком прошлом (Россия (для зданий), Армения, Бельгия). И в этом случае файлы, удалённые из-за несвободы панорамы, нужно восстанавливать, а для этого их как минимум надо найти в архиве, что возможно только в том случае, если был регулярный запрос на удаление и он внесён в соответствующую категорию (для Казахстана это Kazakhstani FOP cases/deleted). К тому же, как я понял, некоторые из удалённых фоток использовались, как минимум, в Викигиде. Если так, то аргумент "автор просто попросил удалить" не проходит. Так что просьба восстановить файлы и вынести их на регулярное удаление (Taivo знает, как это делать). И нет, остановиться недостаточно, пожалуйста, исправьте. --A.Savin 00:48, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

@A.Savin: Я вас понял. Но мне вчера пришло уведомление о том что админ Ymblanter (которому я тоже писал чтобы удалил файлы, я всем русскоязычным админам писал так как, не знал кто из них ответит а кто нет) вчера начал восстанавливать некоторые фото. Там была надпись Transferred. Но мне не понятно куда он их перенес. А во вторых перед тем как просить админов викисклада удалять файлы, я всех их загрузил на ру вики. Там была надпись что это дубликат но я игнорировал это предупреждение, так как и на форуме и в переписке с админами ру вики, сказал им что напишу админам чтобы удалили с викисклада. У меня конечно есть оригиналы и я могу их заново загрузить, но в таком случае их будет 2 экземпляра. Один на ру вики и один на викискладе. Загружать заново? И кстати очень важная просьба, удалите пожалуйста 2 фото:

• File:Памятник Керею и Жанибеку в г. Нур-Султан.jpg
• File:Мемориальный комплекс Карасай и Агынтай батыров.jpg

Дело в том что это не мой фото, а моего друга и одного знакомого, которые отдали мне эти фото и даже рады что я их загрузил в википедию. Но автор не я. Я не хотел возится с OTRS волокитой и загрузил просто под своим именем. Признаюсь согрешил. Удалите их пожалуйста. Но все остальные фото принадлежат мне, это даже видно по метаданным. И есть несколько фоток селфи на фоне этих здании. А эти фото надо удалить обязательно. Я не думаю что они будут возится с otrs и что то заполнять. Это было в начале когда я только-только пришел в википедию. Где то 2-3 месяца. А сейчас уже начал понимать что нарушил правила. --User 0100 (talk) 07:02, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

I created User:Taivo/Kazakhstan photos deleted on 2020-02-25. Taivo (talk) 11:28, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

• @Taivo: Увидел что вы упомянули меня. Удалите пожалуйста эти фотографии. Как я и написал сверху автор не я. Автор мой друг и мой знакомый. Думаю их надо удалить. А на счет старых которые я фотал сам думаю разберемся. Либо будем восстанавливать либо еще что то. Но самое главное я хочу чтобы удалили эти. Они у меня как ком в горле. Если удалять нельзя даже если автор не я, даже если я нарушил правила, скажите по какой процедуре удалять. Чтобы опять не возникли вопросы.

--User 0100 (talk) 11:31, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

 Done. Taivo (talk) 11:34, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

• @Taivo: Спасибо большое. А на счет фоток где я сам фотографировал, жду ответов от @A.Savin: --User 0100 (talk) 11:44, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Если Ymblanter временно восстанавливал какие-то из этих файлов, то, скорее всего, для того чтобы перенести их на Викигид. Файлы с несвободой панорамы можно (и нужно) загружать в Википедию и Викигид локально, если для них там есть применение. Кстати, спасибо вам большое, Бауыржан, что вы отнеслись к строгой политике Викисклада с пониманием; это бывает нечасто. Удачи. --A.Savin 14:07, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
    • @A.Savin: @Taivo: И вам спасибо что поняли меня. Кстати у меня еще остались фото которые не удалены. Taivo не все удалил. Как теперь их удалять? Номинировать на удаление и там уже вести обсуждение? --User 0100 (talk) 14:13, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
      • Да, лучше номинировать. Обсуждать там, скорее всего, нечего, но следует для документации и чтобы у коллег было время перенести их в свой проект, если нужно. --A.Savin 14:23, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
        • @A.Savin: Хорошо, так и сделаю. Буду обращаться когда возникнут вопросы. Еще раз спасибо. --User 0100 (talk) 15:56, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

      Да, я всё восстановил, чтобы перенести в Викигид (те файлы, которые у нас использовались), потом их удалил.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:41, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

      • @Ymblanter: Понял. --User 0100 (talk) 16:39, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
        • Здравствуйте еще раз @A.Savin: @Taivo: Можете пожалуйста удалить этот файл. File:Музей_Алматы.jpg так как он является дубликатом этого файла File:Музей_Алматы.jpeg. Одним словом нужно удалить тот вариант, который заканчивается на jpg Или там тоже надо номинировать на удаление? --User 0100 (talk) 16:39, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:GaitskellMP.jpg

Hi Taivo. Can you please have a look at closing this URAA-related deletion request? Thanks. AlbanGeller (talk) 02:00, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Fæ said, that WMF has made a statement about the matter ... Let him to show the statement. Taivo (talk) 08:09, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

File:Alfa Romeo Racing Orlen logo 2020.svg

Hi! Why was the cancellation of this logo requested and not file:Logo Alfa Romeo Racing Orlen.jpg? They're the same. Thanks. --ZG 90 (talk) 08:16, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

 Done I did not discover it. Thank you for pointing it out, I nominated it for deletion as well. Taivo (talk) 08:21, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

File:Garret FitzGerald 1975.jpg

Hi Taivo. Can you please delete this copyright violation? The licensor (verkoopspaarnestadphoto.nl) emailed me to say:

This image is not part of the Creative Commons or Open Data collection of the National Archive since there is a copyright holder involved. Costs for the image license depend on the use

Thanks again. AlbanGeller (talk) 20:33, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

 Done. Taivo (talk) 20:38, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Japan Expo 2016

Hi Taivo, In regards to Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Japan Expo 2016 - I don't agree with those 4 images being deleted as per SCOPE - We have many useless images here some of which are worse than those 4,
Would you reconsider restoring them if not would be fine if I go to AN to seek a second opinion ?,
Many thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 21:14, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

No, I do not restore the images. And please do not go to AN for another opinion, correct place for that is COM:UDEL. Taivo (talk) 21:15, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks!. –Davey2010^Talk 21:26, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Photographs by Pavel Troshkin

Здравствуйте, уважаемый коллега. Прошу вас ознакомиться с аргументацией оппонентов в этом запросе на удаление. Я даже не прошу вас подводить итог, я просто хотел бы понять, чья аргументация более основана на правилах Сommons. Возможно, вы сможете посоветовать мне подготовить дополнительные аргументы. Насколько я знаю, обычно в Википедии доверяют бумажным источникам и не требуют обязательного предоставления онлайн-версии, к тому же опубликованной достаточно давно, чтобы быть в общественном достоянии. Однако именно этого постоянно требует номинатор в своей массовой войне с советскими фотографиями. На этом надуманном основании она уже вынесла на удаление более тысячи файлов. Заранее спасибо за рассмотрение. --VLu (talk) 10:10, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

 Done. I commented the DR. Taivo (talk) 10:47, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Images

Hey Yavio, Sorry to be a pain,
Could you undelete File:DSCN6308 - Davey2010 27.jpg and File:DSCN6308 - Davey2010 28.jpg please as the other image that I kept was actually blurry (Something I didn't realise until pointed out),
Many thanks and sorry again, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 16:38, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

 Done Taivo (talk) 16:40, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Many thanks, Have a great day :), –Davey2010^Talk 16:43, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Please, don't delete the picture

Hi, Taivo. I'm the owner of all rights to the picture of Burkhart Beyerle. There is no "fair use". Please, let it undeleted. Thank you.Pankratius (talk) 11:11, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Ebakorrektne pildinimetus

Tere, kas võiksite palun kustutada foto file:Katrinileonult.jpg, kuna selle failinimetus ei ole korrektne ning rikub privaatsust? Pilt sai üleslaetud ajal, kui teadmised interneti olemusest olid teistsugused, kogenematud. Kahetsusega ning võimalusel tänades... 82.131.42.101 17:36, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Mõistan, et failinimi pole sobiv, kuid kustutamisega pole ma nõus. Faile on võimalik ümber nimetada. Palun teatage sobiv uus failinimi ja ma nimetan faili ümber. Sobiva nime võin ma ka ise valida. Taivo (talk) 08:16, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Kas võite palun muuta file:Vaadepaadiaknast.jpg nimetuse ümber kui file:Vanalinn.jpg ja file:Katrinileonult.jpg ümber kui file:Südalinn.jpg. Ette tänades... 82.131.42.101 20:20, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

 Tehtud. Vanade nimede pealt jäi ümbersuunamine. Kui see on väga vastumeelne, siis ma võin ümbersuunamised ära kustutada. Taivo (talk) 21:04, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Palun kustutage ümbersuunamised. Tänuga! 82.131.42.101 21:12, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

 Tehtud. Taivo (talk) 08:59, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

CC-BY and CC-BY-SA

Hi, just want to tell you that all videos on YouTube that are CC-licensed are CC-BY-3.0, not CC-BY-SA-3.0. I am telling you this because you license approved File:Larissa Manoela no Multishow 2019.jpg without changing the CC-BY-SA-3.0 license tag to CC-BY-3.0. Or maybe I missed something where the channel explicitly says the video is licensed under CC-BY-SA-3.0. Do let me know if I'm wrong. Cheers, pandakekok9 04:49, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Deletion requests

Good morning Taivo. When you find the time, can you please have a look at closing these deletion requests:

• Commons:Deletion requests/File:Princess Marina, Duchess of Kent by Peter North.jpg
• Commons:Deletion requests/File:Frank Collindridge.jpg
• Commons:Deletion requests/File:Patrick Buchan-Hepburn, 1st Baron Hailes.png

These are all copyright violations in the US and source country. Thanks. AlbanGeller (talk) 10:42, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

 Done, but generally such requests to close overdue deletion requests are not good, for example see here. Taivo (talk) 12:06, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Revert Deletion

The image you Deleted file:Teamsoul.png is owned by me and is my property. However presence of celebrity in the picture, I granted permission to many sites to use it. So it's a request to bring the file back SkyVAC (talk) 17:31, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Such file has never existed in Commons. Probably you are talking about file:Teamsoulpmis.jpg. I deleted it, because it was taken from Facebook (deciding by FBMD... in beginning of special instructions field of metadata). All previously published files can be in Commons only with OTRS-permission from copyright holder. The copyright usually belongs to photographer, not to photo owner. Taivo (talk) 17:38, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Deletion of redirect File:11-09-fotofluege-cux-allg-04.jpg

Taivo, was the deletion requested by Ralf, the original uploader? Then I would understand the purpose behind this: He wanted to re-rename, cf. Special:Diff/404098840/404147134, but this request was declined. Otherwise it would have been a mistake from the start. Nonetheless, the redirect should be undeleted because the file has been uploaded over 8 years ago. — Speravir – 02:14, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes, Ralf Roletschek requested deletion of the redirect. As you want, I'll restore the redirect and create a regular deletion request. Taivo (talk) 08:22, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

File:Blackpink2019WorldTourInYourArea.jpg

I have a question about your closure of Commons:Deletion requests/File:Blackpink2019WorldTourInYourArea.jpg. The background of the screenshot is the direct work of the concert's videographer of the stage lights, which was the basis of my nomination. If the background was instead a picture created by a professional photographer, would you also argue that the photograph is not subject to copyright? ƏXPLICIT 00:20, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

There's no difference between work of photographer and work of videographer in such matters. Usually it is protected with copyright and if the screenshot would be made from the same video one second earlier, then it would surpass TOO and I would delete it. So this is borderline case. In my opinion here not enough work can be seen for copyright protection. I see, that the problem worries you. You can make a screenshot from the same video one second later, when the background is totally black (at 0:39) and re-upload it using the same filename. Taivo (talk) 07:53, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Your decision to reject my deletion request

Hello @Taivo: , I'm perplexed that you succinctly disqualified my deletion request for my own (i.e. self-made, self-uploaded) images File:Imperia(I) 00001 01.jpg and File:Imperia(I) 00001 02.jpg as "nonsense". Doing so without even contacting me for further discussion is not only kind of impolite but also ignoring the facts. Of course those two images do show identifiable persons: Both images are of quite high definition and can readily be zoomed; when doing so, image No. 02 shows at least ten people that might be identified by their faces, image No. 01 shows at least three such persons.

When I uploaded those images in 2017 (they were my first and up to now only uploads, kind of a test on how to do get it done...), this was perfectly legal by German privacy rule laws as the German "Kunsturhebergesetz" allowed the publication of images that show identifiable persons as mere bystanders of an object of interest (such as sights, scenic views, buildings or - as in my case - historic cars). But with the new European privacy rule laws coming into effect on 25 May 2018 this changed fundamentally: The "General Data Protection Regulation (EU) 2016/679" (GDPR - in German "Datenschutz-Grundverordnung", in Estonian "Isikuandmete kaitse üldmäärus") forbids any publication of images (which comprises the upload of (formerly private) images on Wikimedia Commons) showing identifiable persons unless those persons gave there consent to the publication - which of course is lacking with regard to my images. I know what I'm talking about, since I worked for some ten years in the field of privacy rule laws and data protection. So please learn about the juridical reality of 2020.

Well, I obviously have no means to force Wikimedia to meet my request for deleting my own images due to my conviction that they are unlawful by the European laws now in effect. But let me just say the following: I'm holding a stock of some 3.000 self-made images of historic automobiles and motorcycles which I had planned to upload one by one after properly anonymizing all identifiable bystanders (now that I have plenty of time on my hands, due to my recent retirement...). But facing the fact that Wikimedia does away with my concerns as "nonsense", I'll surely make up my mind and save the efforts. Best regards, --Purzelbier (talk) 13:11, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Photo copyright on Ensemble Aedes page

Hello Tavo, I see that you question the copyright associated with Ensemble Aedes. I made mistakes on Mathieu Romano's page because I had the authorization for the photo but I am new on wikipedia and I did not understand that we should proceed strictly for copyright. How could I give the proof that the photograph gave me authorization for this use specifically ? The one on Ensemble Aedes page is my photo, you can see that it is not a professional one, I took it last year. Please agree and let it. I would like to do it correctly for Mathieu Romano but I don't know how to proceed. Please help me. --ELIAGAUDIO (talk) 08:36, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Please open COM:OTRS page and look, what kind of confirmation e-mail must be sent to our permissions department at permissions-commons@wikimedia.org. Taivo (talk) 08:41, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Ok thank you, I have just sent a template commons email for the picture of Ensemble Aedes. Also I have asked the photograph of Mathieu Romano's portrait to do the same. Will it be possible to restore both pages that were deleted ? I would like to continue working on it to make as correct as possible. Could you help me for that ? --ELIAGAUDIO (talk) 09:10, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

After the permission e-mail is received, accepted and processed, the files will be restored. Our OTRS volunteers take care about that. I am not OTRS member, so I will not restore the images, because I do not know, is the permission accepted or not. Taivo (talk) 09:12, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

For about picture file:MarwanFarhat.jpg

I took the picture the actor Marwan Farhat in 2018. I own the rights the image. He uses the image on his official page because he likes the photo. Please not delete the image, thank you with respect. @Mohsen Kareem: — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mohsen Kareem (talk • contribs) 12:51, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

All previously published files must have OTRS-permission. Please open COM:OTRS page and look, what kind of e-mail should be sent to our permissions department at permissions-commons@wikimedia.org. Taivo (talk) 13:14, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

User talk:Draslaric

Um, I don't think you meant to delete that. pandakekok9 10:14, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

 Done. Taivo (talk) 10:21, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

ChinQuoc

Hi, is there a reason why that user's email is disabled? Are they abusing the EmailUser function? Thanks, pandakekok9 10:40, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

No, there's no particular reason, but I tend to block users with e-mail disabled, because I see nothing, what he can tell me in e-mail and cannot in unblock request. For example, if I block somebody due to inappropriate username, then I do not disable e-mail. Taivo (talk) 10:43, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

But COM:BP says that blocked users should only be prevented from sending e-mail if they abused or are likely to abuse that privilege. There's also nothing wrong with appealing using email even if they can still use their talk page (from "Appealing a block" in COM:BP: Alternatively, they may request unblocking with an appropriate reason via e-mail to the blocking administrator or another administrator). Since they seem to haven't abused EmailUser, and they seem unlikely to abuse it, I ask you to enable email use just as Herby did. Thanks, pandakekok9 10:50, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

 Done. Yes, you are right. I reblocked the user with e-mail allowed. Taivo (talk) 10:55, 30 March 2020 (UTC)