What is the reason for this tone and false accusation? I am not your enemy. I have NOT altered your or anybodies comment. -- Catちぃ？ 20:29, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
I will reply here. There is no need to duplicate the thread on my user talk page. Here are the diffs where you twice changed my comment: [2] and [3]. So I removed my comment since you wouldn't leave it alone. I am now going to put back my comment again to the way it was. Please leave it alone. --Timeshifter03:26, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I see that you, Timeshifter, noticed my question about this on your user talk page. I also see that you then deleted it rather than doing the polite thing by responding to it. I believe (as I think Cat believes) that protocol-independent wikilinks are far preferable to insecure-only URLs, for a variety of reasons. Kindly cease and desist from using insecure-only URLs when a protocol-independent wikilink is available, and reverting and ascribing malice to others who do the same (or who make changes to do the same). Thank you. — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 18:40, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As suggested, I will try to avoid you on en.wiki, and here as well. However, for you to use my presence on Commons as evidence of harassment bothers me. Should I ever try to become an admin on a Wikimedia project that you are not active on, it would be fair to say that you would be welcome to comment on it, because you're still a user who interacted with me, and it's still a part of the Wikimedia-family. My comments were not meant to harass you, they were there because I didn't trust you at the time. Trust is an important thing, even with those you disagree with. When I questioned your adminship here, you were defended by other users and admins, who spoke up for you and said you were doing a good job. If it means anything, for the most part, they are correct, and you are doing a good job in my view.
I felt it was within my right to question your ability, but you should know that the answer I got wasn't bad. As far as I'm concerned, our disputes end on en.wiki. Still, I will keep my distance, for the sake of both our sanity. I do not intend to try to patch things up with this kind of message, but rather, I wanted to set the record straight. -- Ned Scott06:21, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Image:1 Star.png 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 image, 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. If the file is up for deletion because it has been superseded by a superior derivative of your work, consider the notion that although the file may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new file.
In all cases, please do not take the deletion request personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!
Potentially the images are free and should be deleted only after a reviewing admin. They should not be deleted "automatically". Thats where I was going. -- Catちぃ？ 10:17, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Ah. As far as I know, no images are removed automagically, unless there has been proper discussion up front. Please let me know if you are aware of categories for which members are removed with any review. Cheers! Siebrand17:23, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I do not know any. The warning on the category was merely a generic one. -- Catちぃ？ 17:30, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
You are improving templates; that's fine. I don't understand unough to help you. But can you add tl| to the templates in this way: (exemple): {{PD-NL-gemeentewapen}}. The template remains directly accessible for you, and your user page doesn't show up any more in the pages. It also should shorten this long page considerably, making scrolling easier for yourself. Thanks and good luck. Havang13:03, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi White Cat. You might wish to take a peek at your /da page again. It just occurred to me that it looks like you tried to make a Dutch page but /da is the suffix for Danish language material. If you tried to make a Dutch page feel free to revert my edits but in that case you might wish to move it to /nl. Happy editing. ValentinianT / C08:18, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you created this image, 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. If the file is up for deletion because it has been superseded by a superior derivative of your work, consider the notion that although the file may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new file.
In all cases, please do not take the deletion request personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!
I gave you the sources from which the images were "borrowed". Please explain to me how copying images created by another website is not sufficiently obvious to require their speedy deletion. While you're at it, you could also explain to me how simply removing SD tags is preferable to replacing them with the proper tag, as I am careful to do at en.wiki. Because if I happen to be correct that these are copyvios, your conduct is preventing them from being reviewed by others and keeping them here. Thanks. --Butseriouslyfolks19:58, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I guess I need to better clarify what I am doing to you. Here it is.
Why I closed as keep:
Faithful reproductions of two-dimensional original works cannot attract copyright. For example the flag of Canada pictured here is in the Public Domain no mater who draws or redraws it. I can "steal" it from any website, or use any scan of it at my leisure legally. en:Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp. case is the foundation behind the logic of this approach. So if the source object in question is ineligible of copyright all faithful reproductions of the image are also ineligible.
"Stealing images" is not a crime provided the images have a free copyright status. The site you linked for certain does not own the copyright for the images in any case. The copyright in any case would be held by the millitary or government of the country that own the rank insignia.
Nazi era material may also be free of copyright since any "image shows (or resembles) a symbol that was used by the National Socialist (NSDAP/Nazi) government of Germany or an organization closely associated to it, or another party which has been banned by the en:Federal Constitutional Court of Germany." Who would you go to file a lawsuit?
The designs of the images are very simple by very nature of rank insignias and are hence ineligible of copyright.
These above were in my mind for consideration when I closed the speedy nom as a keep. Hence why I closed the speedy deletion as a "keep" or "too close to call" at worst. Commons have dealt with images from en:Flags of the World site. They were eventually deleted after free alternates were made. While FOTW images were never copyvios, we are nice enough to redraw better alternatives and delete them afterwards. This is why most flags have an SVG version actually.
Why have I not retagged:
If I had that kind of time I would be processing Category:Unknown. I am only expected to either delete or keep the images. I am not even required to inform you of my decision or even talk to you at all.
My decision was a keep and it would not be right for me to file a COM:DEL request on something I closed as keep (per coi).
Also as a result of all this you are now more familiar with the commons process in handling non-obvious cases. I learned about it in a similar manner. On en.wiki an admin removing a PROD notice as keep does not have to replace it with an afd. For the most part a nomination is the problem of the nominator and not the processing admin.
Process on commons and why it is important:
On commons "reviewing" of non-obvious cases are conducted through COM:DEL. Majority of cases on COM:DEL are alleged copyvio cases. Speedy deletion is only and only for obvious copyright violations such as TV screen captures or corporation logos.
During a deletion discussion the images in question should NOT be removed.
Commons:Deletion requests has a lot of images being discussed. If they all were removed from articles as you did with the rank insignias, this would have created an unnecessary amount of workload. Images may be deleted or kept. This is not a big deal and happens daily.
We have bots that will automatically remove links to images from articles of deleted images from commons. Manually doing it is unnecessary and problematic.
We however do not have a bot that will readd images if the discussion ends up as "keep".
Also on English wikipedia images that are suspected of violating copyrights are not removed from articles until they are deleted. Typically the closing admin removes them or sometimes there are red links.
Process on commons should be observed. We deal with over 2,041,655 files on commons. Thats over 40,000 images since last threshold pass (2 million) on October 13. It is common to have 5,000 new images a day. These processes are designed to handle this work load with minimal use of resources.
Thanks for combining the deletion requests. That's much better! Oh, and I think you'd be within your rights declining a speedy but listing for deletion discussion. Admins do that all the time at en.wiki. You can even say that it's a procedural (or neutral) listing from a declined speedy. They'll get the idea. Cheers! --Butseriouslyfolks22:10, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What a horrible font! Anyway, I meant to mention that if you would note "declining speedy, please list for deletion discussion" or something like that in the edit summaries, rather than just reverting speedy tags, you might get less revert-warring on the tags. Even knowing you were an admin, I didn't realize until you specifically told me that your reversions were actually declines. Thanks again! --Butseriouslyfolks22:13, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, it is generally common practice to assume the removal of speedy deletion notice either as a decline or as disruption (such as a user maliciously removing tags). I see it as a no brainier but I will be more careful in the future. It is sometimes hard to deal with bulk noms though. -- Catちぃ？ 22:20, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Understood. I usally control-V the reason into the edit summary, but it does take a lot longer when there are a lot of them. We need a "roll back all of this user's edits and leave this common edit summary" button! --Butseriouslyfolks22:30, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A sane idea. I would encourage you to file it on bugzilla. Perhaps the ability to bulk revert with a spesific edit summary as well. ;) -- Catちぃ？ 02:46, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
Speedy deletion tag should only be used in obvious cases. In the case of rank insignias you nominated this is not the case. I have removed the tag as a commons admin. You are welcome to seek COM:DEL. Because you have a "trusted user" template on your userpage I assume you know how commons work so I wont bore you off with the details. -- Catちぃ？ 19:45, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
I do not even recall uploading them. I guess those were the images I uploaded using a bot...
I call it "too close to call" for speedy.
You are welcome to appeal for admin abuse at COM:ANB
Alternatively you can file a COM:DEL request like the one Butseriouslyfolks has done - preferably a bulk nom either as a whole or sorted by country to save time.
Images ineligible of copyright are not expected to have a source. Weather images truly are ineligible of copyright or not is not for you or me to decide. Please use COM:DEL as it exists for this purpose. -- Catちぃ？ 23:22, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
And why is the image ineligible for copyright? It has no license tag that states such. Also, I ask that you please stop removing tags from images that you yourself uploaded. Videmus Omnia23:55, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have bulk reverted your speedy noms with giving little consideration to who the uploader was. A good number of the images were not uploaded by me. A good number was wikipedian made svgs not available anywhere else on the web that I can see. There are also a good number you haven't nominated.
Image:GR-Army-OR2a.gif and others are too simple of a design to be eligible for copyright or at the very least are too close to call. That's my stance as the closing admin. Please do not add a different speedy tag right after I closed it as a non-speedy.
The proper median in addressing an issue with this scale has always been COM:DEL. Fundamentally this isn't all that different from FOTW deletion discussion. Commons is familiar with problematic licensing steaming from license tags that became obsolete for various reasons.
There's no need to go through the COM:DEL deletion process for images with obvious problems, like missing sources. That's why we have a speedy deletion process. Unless you can give a reason why your images should not need sources, I plan to tag the ones that have no sources with 'nsd'. Any objections? Videmus Omnia00:30, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How many images on Category:PD ineligible have a source? Do not tag them with a speedy deletion template. Your only option is COM:DEL or dropping the matter. Let consensus decide. -- Catちぃ？ 00:36, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
The images are not PD-ineligible - they have no license that states such, nor any source by which this can be verified. I plan on tagging them as no source, please do not abuse your admin tools by involving them in a dispute, let an uninvolved admin decide, please. Videmus Omnia00:41, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
An uninvolved admin (me) has already decided. These are not speedyable. Such a disagreement among admins would be evidence enough that such a delete would be controversial. I won't hesitate to undelete controversial deletions until issue is discussed and resolved through COM:DEL. Weather images are PD-ineligible or not is not for you or me to decide. Let community decide via COM:DEL. -- Catちぃ？ 00:49, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
I mass reverted you and User:Butseriouslyfolks alike, User:Butseriouslyfolks prior to you. The uploads are too close to call. If you do tag them, I will be forced to revert you and block you for disruption. Do not "dog fight" with me to avoid a discussion. If they are "obvious copyvios" com:del will agree with that assessment. I will not make the nominations myself since I do not seek a deletion. -- Catちぃ？ 01:18, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
You're threatening to block me for tagging your uploads? And how are images with no source "too close to call" for tagging as "no source"? Videmus Omnia01:40, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Read what I wrote above, PD-ineligible images are not required to have a source. The purpose of speedy deletion tags is not to find convenient ways to avoid COM:DEL to get an image you dislike deleted. It was a mere friendly reminder. I do not threaten, I take action. If the intention is testing my patience, I would recommend against it. -- Catちぃ？ 01:45, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
And I'm asking that you provide some kind of source to show that the images you are tagging are PD-ineligible. There's no need to go through the COM:DEL process if we can resolve it ourselves. Many rank insignia are copyrighted by the government that produces them, in addition to the claimed derivative work copyright by uniforminsignia.net. Why won't you provide sources or valid licenses for the images which you uploaded? Please work with me and provide some kind of explanation why you feel the images you took from a commercial website are PD-ineligible. Videmus Omnia01:51, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There was a valid license that was altered after the images were uploaded. These were not uploaded with a false license at the time. Therefore they need to go through COM:DEL for that reason alone. The images do have a temporarily-valid license which I can mass alter the licensing with a few clicks on my bot to convert them to {{PD-ineligible}} which would serve to no purpose given you want to take the issue to deletion either way.
I am explaining you how we process such issues (dealing with images stemming from a formerly valid license) on commons. I ask you to follow it. This was observed in dealing with FOTW images (they were leeched from FOTW site and were never a copyright violation). Same thing was observed in dealing with PD-Soviet images (they were officially in the public domain until the Russian law was altered).
The images will not get deleted through covert means or through revert waring and etc. I will delete the images myself if the consensus ends up being a delete at COM:DEL. Deletion is no big deal.
You have a "trusted user" template on your userpage, please act like one. -- Catちぃ？ 02:05, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
<sigh> - Could you please answer the very simple question - "Why do you believe these images are not eligible for copyright?" You are an administrator, please act like one. Thanks. Videmus Omnia02:16, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Because it consists entirely of information that is common property and contains no original authorship just like flags - or so I claim. Contesting this is the job of COM:DEL. -- Catちぃ？ 02:45, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
OK, I'm going to wait for the outcome of the above case before nominating, so we're not making similar arguments in two different places. In the meantime, would you please try to start cleaning up the sources and license tags on those images? Since you didn't show where they came from, it's impossible for me to determine the correct license. Videmus Omnia02:49, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes that would be the most productive approach, I agree.
As for my uploads. I had forgotten about them completely. I would have categorised them better had I recalled uploading them. Its been so long and they had been completely out of my mind. Now that I look over them, I do recall having a computer problem and loosing the site I was leeching them from. This was over 2 years ago. I think that was why the uploads are only for the army and not other branches. Back then all flag images and rank insignias were "fine". They may be from the website mentioned. If you do not mind, I'd like to leave the images as is until they undergo a discussion. I'd like to preform any alteration based on the discussion so as to avoid redundancy.
My personal gut feeling on how COM:DEL would result: These images would probably be treated just like how flag images were treated during the FOTW debate. Stealing free images (talking generaly) is perfectly fine legally and is not problematic policy-wise. Mind that not every copyright claim is always valid. However, we had gone the extra mile in being nice during the FOTW discussion after complaints from some of the FOTW people. Non-stolen better alternatives were created and FOTW copies were deleted even though there was no reason whatsoever to do so. Overall, all flag images from FOTW site were deleted but only after svg versions were created. We can observe the same thing with rank insignias. I have no objection to that. This can not be achieved through speedy deletion of rank insignias.
What I think you are doing: I know what you are trying to do is simply protect wikipedia/wikimedia from copyright related lawsuits and etc. Which I respect and admire, but often resolving a problem or possible problem involves extensive discussion. I feel this is one of them.
Oh my, I had no idea. WC, I accept your statement that you had forgotten about it, but I think you really should disclose at the deletion discussion that you have uploaded a large number of these images which would also have to be deleted. And perhaps you should refrain from using your admin powers on these images. (And certainly on your own uploads.) No offense intended, just trying to keep the appearance of impropriety away. --Butseriouslyfolks03:19, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I should not need to. This issue belongs to COM:DEL. I do not intend to overrule community consensus or anything remotely like that. All I seek is a discussion at COM:DEL prior to any kind of admin action (delete) by anyone. -- Catちぃ？ 03:29, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi. You lost revert to your version some U.S. rank insignias:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:US-Army-OF10.gif, Image:US-Army-OF9.gif, Image:US-Army-OF8.gif, Image:US-Army-OF7.gif, Image:US-Army-OF6.gif, Image:US-Army-OF5.gif, Image:US-Army-OF4.gif, Image:US-Army-OF3.gif, Image:US-Army-OF2.gif, Image:US-Army-OF1a.gif. Please revert them to your version. Thanks--88.153.111.5915:00, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You should know that the above IP is en:User:Roitr, a notorious long-term abuser and sockpuppeteer. He's repeatedly reverting a known free version of the insignia to a possible copyvio version from here. Videmus Omnia15:07, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
When images are replaced with "freer" alternatives, why should there be any reason for me to revert? I am deleting the semi-problematic older versions. -- Catちぃ？ 15:29, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi, I'll ask you not to revert war with User:Roitr. Just page me and I will block him, revert him and delete the unnecessary versions for you like I have done with Image:US-Army-OF10.gif. -- Catちぃ？ 15:35, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for working this. The Roitr socks and IPs have caused a lot of my frustration with the copyvio issues from uniforminsignia.net, though I think I've pretty much shut him down on the en Wikipedia, and I have been able to get nearly all the images from that site deleted there - there's a few left, but they should be gone soon. (This all began with an innocent attempt to clean up the deprecated Military-Insignia license template and replace it with valid licenses.) Roitr's typical tactic is to create a sock user account to upload the copyvio images - the sock account is normally quickly blocked, but then he uses dynamic IPs to remove speedy deletion tags from the copyvio images that were uploaded by the sock account. The fact that he's been shut down on en Wikipedia has led him to move here with his copyright violations.
On a related subject, I think I'll open a larger COM:DEL request to deal with Commons images from this site in general. I wanted to ask your advice - should I contact the webmaster of uniforminsignia.net to ask their opinion of our usage of their images? Maybe they will give us permission to use them under a free license. (I specialize in getting permission to use images under free license.) If they don't agree to release under free license, they could at least contact the Foundation with their opinion on whether we are violating their copyrights, which should clarify the status of these images - what do you think? Videmus Omnia18:11, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh my, you came here over a lot of frustration from this user. It all makes more sense now. We have a lower tolerance to such nonsense here on commons than wikipedia so do not hesitate to point any nonsense from him either to me or someone else. Since I am now more familiar with the issue at hand, I can more easily deal with him I think. But bottom line is it wont be tolerated.
If uniforminsignia.net can be convinced to let us use their images with a free license that would be an excellent option. Its free advertisement for them as well with attribution. You're more than welcome to try to take that avenue and have my full support. We would loose nothing for trying and both us and they would gain alot. You'd have to explain the usefulness of free licenses and how it helps them.
It is best not to involve the foundation unnecessarily as they are a tangled bureaucracy at times. FOTW issue was resolved without involving the foundation with a wikipedian mediating between FOTW and Wikipedia. You can take on this task if you like.
If a deal with uniforminsignia.net is not possible, we can try this option. I do not see the insignia problem as something too terribly complex as commons have dealt with much more complex issues in the past most notably {{PD-Soviet}}. Generally we try to avoid deletion of the images if free alternatives are possible. You and others claimed this is possible. So the bad bad versions can be overwritten just like how US millitary ranks were handled.
I guess I owe you an apology for causing you further stress than this user. I look forward in resolving this insignia related problem on commons with you. I also prefer images with indisputable copyright status on commons just like you after all. -- Catちぃ？ 19:01, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
Blocked. I am holding back on image deletions for a more permanent solution. He'd just reupload with another sock. Perhaps we should create free alternatives to those as well (or if you can get the free license thing off of uniforminsignia.net that would work too) -- Catちぃ？ 22:11, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
Public domain
This file is in the public domain', because Ley sobre Derechos de Autor de Cuba. La foto fue utilizada por primera vez en 1966. Se encuentra en el dominio público por Decreto Ley No. 156 de 28 de septiembre de 1994, modificatorio parcialmente de Ley No. 14 de 28 de diciembre de 1977, Ley de Derecho de Autor (Art 47) que establece que las fotos entran al dominio público 25 años después de su primera utilización. —the preceding unsigned comment was added by201.255.239.66 (talk • contribs) 03:29, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
