U are now protected from "move". FYI. I've got the suspected "Willy on Wheels" on each of those users. Which doesn't quite look like it's supposed to here. I think one of we administrators have to change the default CSS for it.
Yeah... The page needed to be deleted. I would have deleted it myself if you had not wanted to use that template on it, but I would recommend leaving the deletion. If we left every page move this particular vandal left up then Commons would be 25% vandal pages. Just be advised that your template use was inaccurate. There was never a login use under "Cool Cat en las ruedas" It was merely a page move. Cary "Bastique" Bassparlervoir14:17, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi - I just noticed that all of the insignia you uploaded lately are orphans. Please remember that images on the commons are only useful if they can be found by topic, i.e. if they are in a category and/or on a (categorized) gallery page. Please make galleries for those images! Thanks -- Duesentrieb(?!)12:21, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
All of them were tagged. However I retagged some. Many of those images are used on my userpage as well as en wikipedia articles. Some of them are tagged with german GNU tags. I did not want to change the tag so I copied the one from german wikipedia. Those images are used in meta wiki for wikipedicolism...--Cool CatTalk|@13:36, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Cool Cat. For the thing with anthere, I'm sure you meant well, but forcing a project in any direction is not our place. It's always their choice and when they're ready to make a change, they will.
In general I don't believe vandalism is a huge problem at Commons. The biggest problems that need tackling, in my opinion, are images with unfree, inaccurate or incomplete licenses, orphan images (not in any category and not on any gallery page) and technical multilinguality issues. In fact with the Commons:Tools, any person at all can help out with these. Tagging images as incomplete license, notifying the uploader, giving images categories... These are the real "grunt work" which is rarely noticed or appreciated but sorely needed. The big admin tool at Commons is of course the ability to delete images. But because images can't be undeleted, a deleted image is gone forever and you need to be very certain an image should be deleted. Otherwise it could cause a lot of resentment especially among local project users, who will say again, "Why should we trust the Commons?". So I think admins need a very conservative attitude towards image deletion, which I don't feel that you have. So, I will keep my vote oppose. This doesn't mean that your work is not valued, or that your future work is not valuable. Cheers, pfctdayelise (translate?) 01:26, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You see I process the RC feed, I can adjust my bot for that. Hmmm... How about a bot detecting images uploaded without being tagged? --Cool CatTalk|@12:18, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It could be useful, maybe in combination with Special:Newimages somehow? But two things, one is that some people prefer to upload the image first, then edit it to put in the license. the other is that images being uploaded with the wrong license is a bigger problem... and I don't see any bot fixing that. See how you go. pfctdayelise (translate?) 12:56, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh no there is a reason for that. Rank insignias comes in series. If is very easy to use them when file is named like this. The original name of the rank exists on the article description page.
LT is Latvias code (I dont mind its rename to LAT and I am kicking myself for not doing this)
Army is the branch, I also intend to do Navy, Air force etc.
OF-1d is the NATO equavalent code. OF-5 would be colonel, OF-1d is cadet/student officer.
Sorry for having to oppose your admin nomination. I'll support you the next time, I think you make good contributions. / Fred Chess00:10, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! Thank you for taking the time to vote for me in my recent request for adminship. It ended with a final score of (8/10) and hece failed to reach concensus. I value all of the contributions made during the process and I will take a special note of the constructive criticism regarding interacting with users in the user talk space. If you have questions, or requests, please leave a message. --Cool CatTalk|@12:49, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
RfA
Hello! I'm a bureaucrat on this project. Your request for adminship is now pending for 12 days. Our rules state "Nominations usually remain for seven days, for votes and comments. Admin status will be granted by a majority of at least 75% and a minimum of 4 votes". I'm sorry but I don't see your request approaching at least 75% of the votes (support 6, oppose 10). So that I am going to consider that your request has been rejected. Maybe you could re-apply in a few months. Thank you. villy ♦✎06:52, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I see you oppose my meta adminship too... You have no idea how many times I heard "come back in a month for new rfa". I gave up on adminship on en and come here and I get en people (who are not active here) dominate my rfa.--Cool CatTalk|@13:03, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Star Trek Film S1 OF6.png was renamed as Image:Star Trek Film OF6.png. Films dont have seasons. OF7 OF8 OF9 and OF10 had a similar rename. I already reuploaded the image and renamed all referances to the old image interwiki. Yes, I did my homework.
If I were an admin I could clean up my mess more effectively and save you time but I am not entrusted with such access. Meanwhile I only ask you to trust me with the images I uploaded myself, especialy with rank insignias. It is very stressful to deal with 1000+ images, it is muc more stressfull if one screws up. It is likely I would forget to mention the exact title of the newer image as my errors often cost me hours of tedious work.
I understand any deletion on comons have interwiki results which is why admins need to be careful but I believe you would appriciate my position perhaps?
I hope you don't feel that I am being petty or singling you out because I wasn't, at all. And I wasn't meaning to criticise you, just seek more information. And this is especially not about your unsuccessful RfA. It's just my speedy deletion procedure. It doesn't matter what the image is or who requested it for deletion, I always check to make sure that the duplicate is in fact the same, because it's so easy to make a mistake and edit the wrong page or c&p the wrong thing or whatever. I leave similar messages on the talk pages of newbies. I leave similar messages on the talk pages of admins. We're all only human. Usually people put a link to the other image, or if they don't I can check in their Gallery and it's usually right next to the one requesting deletion. It's only because you have so many uploads that I couldn't check in this way. It is likely I would forget to mention the exact title of the newer image as my errors often cost me hours of tedious work. I am not sure what you mean by this, since I am trying to avoid errors too.
I do consider you a valuable and reliable member of the community - I wouldn't have asked you for the favour of translating for me if I didn't. Again I'm sorry if you got the wrong impression about the intention of my message here. pfctdayelise (translate?) 06:09, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Another message. I think this user speaks Turkish. Could you please leave them a strongly-worded translation of what I wrote. They have uploaded a lot of images now so I am quite suspicious. Please tag any as incomplete source by {{no source since|month=March|day=13|year=2006}} or speedy delete obvious copyvios with {{Delete}}. Thanks for your help, pfctdayelise (translate?) 08:16, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, thanks for the message about User:Rymar. I quickly discovered several questionable uploads from this user and I hope I receive an acceptable explanation for them. The Google Earth image was instantly deleted. Thuresson10:33, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding User:Broc's lack of reasons for his own vote
Hi Cool Cat, I just wanted to let you know that User:Broc sent me a reply to the questions I asked him about his oddly reasonless vote. You can find it here, both in italian and and in english, translated by me. Please feel absolutely free to ask me for elucidations about his reply. Bye! :) --Emc217:53, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploading Image:Sorry Wiki.jpg. I notice the image page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the media on Wikimedia Commons (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.
If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag, then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then you can use {{Cc-by-sa-2.5}} to release it under the Creative Commons or {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.
Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have uploaded other media, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find all your uploads using the Gallery tool. Thank you. gildemax20:37, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, you claim that "International law requires for combatant identification and copyrighting rank insignias violates international law.". Which law is this "international law"? Thuresson12:50, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There are many, but a notable ones are the en:Geneva Conventions. The issue is covered under "combatant identification". Anything restricting combatant/non-combatant identification (such as copyrighting them) is prohibited. The Red Cross and Red Crescent are also covered in a similar manner.
Thank you for a quick answer. I'm afraid I can't find any information about this anywhere, including www.genevaconventions.org. Would you mind pointing me in the right direction, eg. which of the Geneva conventions or perhaps a different convention? Thuresson21:05, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for having patience with me. Since the template claims that "international law" requires something, the template itself or the talk page should clarify which law this is. If this is not possible, the template should not be used any more. Thuresson01:12, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am no expert, but I do not think there is anything spesific about copyrights of rank insignias mentioned on international treaties as it is something very trivial. Countries are required to make this info freely avalible. NATO countries for instance are actualy expected to inform the central body of any change to the rank insinias.
I do not want to bug a "millitary lawyer" unless it is absolutely necesary. I'll however inquire it through other channels.
Although you've been bold in trying to implement a new structure for the COM:DEL page, I don't like the fact you archived everything, even not yet closed debates. Therefore I've reverted your edits. I agree that the current structure is hard to work with, but your move was a little too bold for my taste. By archiving not yet closed debates, you take them out of sight and that'll probably mean they are never looked at again. Cheers, NielsF23:28, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I do not understand this. I cant even load the page (properly) let alone discuss anything. All I did was move debates to the sub pages. The backlog, link clearly indicates further discussion is taking place.
Do as you wish but I'd like to note the "structure" I implimented had taken me several hours. I just like to point out I am less than happy. And current structure is imposible to work with.
And I am less than happy as well. The point is I couldn't do anything other than revert because I tried to encompass most of your changes, working for about half an hour, except the moving of the unclosed debates, but then I had a browser crash trying to save because of the huge size of the page. Becoming disheartened I just reverted...which I agree might've been a bit too blunt. I like the general idea, but don't like treating closed and unclosed debates exactly the same, the use of the backlog link is absolutely unclear to me as it might well be for other non-en.wikipedia users. I'm sorry that I've wasted your work, but discussion about the structure to implement is still well underway; although I appreciate your effort, it might have been better to announce it more beforehand so it could be discussed. Please do not copy back this sort of stuff to my talk page, just a notice (I answered) is enough, as I like to keep discussion in one place. But maybe it's better to talk about this on Commons talk:Deletion requests, don't you agree? NielsF23:56, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh I see. Sorry I am a bit fatigued by some unrelated nonsense, its not right for me to explode on you.
Actualy your response points the need to break the pages apart. ;) Furthermore it is posible to include both the august and july template (though thats more of an overkill)
Thankyou for your comment on my talkpage about these. The images concerned were *absolutely* violating Foundation copyright, and that copyright is and will continue to be enforced. I'll also refer you to this mail on foundation-l; this is the first step in taking control of the situation. --AlisonW18:33, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploading Image:Karakaya dam-GAP.jpg. I notice the image page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the media on Wikimedia Commons (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.
If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag, then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then you can use {{Cc-by-sa-2.5}} to release it under the Creative Commons or {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.
Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have uploaded other media, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find all your uploads using the Gallery tool. Thank you. Thuresson11:33, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploading Image:Karkamis dam-GAP.jpg. I notice the image page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the media on Wikimedia Commons (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.
If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag, then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then you can use {{Cc-by-sa-2.5}} to release it under the Creative Commons or {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.
Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have uploaded other media, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find all your uploads using the Gallery tool. Thank you. Thuresson11:34, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploading Image:Keban dam-GAP.jpg. I notice the image page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the media on Wikimedia Commons (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.
If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag, then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then you can use {{Cc-by-sa-2.5}} to release it under the Creative Commons or {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.
Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have uploaded other media, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find all your uploads using the Gallery tool. Thank you. Thuresson11:35, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Although that is the nowincommons procedure, I dont think it is necesarry. Their upload to en was a mistake on my part. --Catout18:51, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
hello Cool cat, I don't want censure neither, but I don't want commons become a garbage. Some users play with us, uploading unencyclopedic sex pictures, in bad quality (took with webcam), showing nothing clearly. 6 months after the pics is use nowhere, because it's unusable. Simply. So Yes, I deleted such files.
We can play the tolerance, the democraty, talk and talk again. Facts are here : ugly photography of pornography, unusable in wikipedias, and with a point of view unusable.
You even didn't seen which photos a deleted, and you didn't checked their usage to find out that no one wikipedia use such photos.
If you want play the hero saying "Stop the censure", go to China, not on Wikipedia. Chinese gouvernement censure any evocation of Democraty, Taiwanese independance, and Sex.
Yug(talk)23:43, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
O_o;
So long as criteria is not the content of the pictures, I am fine with other criteria such as quality, copyrights, and etc... We want high quality porn on commons after all :P
Exactly ! That what we want ! :] Yug(talk) 09:52, 19 September 2006 (UTC) >.O [I just means we can keep clear sex picture, but we don't have to keep tens ugly and unuse ones. And I think we have to work quicker in this way.] See you. Yug(talk)09:52, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please do NOT reupload deleted content. The new version of the file still does not provide the necesary copyright info.
www.icg.org for instance is a mere redirect site. You should be using the actual site.
You need to cite the image on a page it appears so I know it appears there
You need to source your "free image" claim. You discussing it somewhere else does not provide me the copyright info. You may want to link to that discussion too.
Crisis Group encourages you to copy and distribute the Crisis Group copyrighted materials and documents found on this site (the “Crisis Group Materials”). In that regard, so long as you credit Crisis Group as the source and so long as you comply with the other terms and conditions in this notice, no permission is required to use, reproduce, copy, modify or download any of the Crisis Group Materials.
It will be redelated. Please provide the necesary image on the image description page just like everyone else. Currently it has no source. --Catout12:05, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Crisis Group encourages you to copy and distribute the Crisis Group copyrighted materials and documents found on this site (the “Crisis Group Materials”). In that regard, so long as you credit Crisis Group as the source and so long as you comply with the other terms and conditions in this notice, no permission is required to use, reproduce, copy, modify or download any of the Crisis Group Materials.:From http://www.crisisgroup.org/home/index.cfm?l=1&id=1193:
Yes, thats generic copyright info for "Crisis Group Materials". Nothing suggest this image was created by them. I do not see any info that this image was ever used there. --Catout12:33, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to enjoy this kind of thing, which benefits neither wikipedia nor the patience og users and contributors.
Spending my time to clean other peoples mess does not give me any pleasure.
Uploading copyrigthed images to commons is a breach of core commons policies. If you are going to upload someone elses work, you need to follow a procedure.
You need to provide info (prove) that the image is avalible with a free license. (you have done this)
You need to cite the origin of the file. (you have NOT done this)
Meet other criteria of the licence images are licensed under. (you have done this: crediting them)
Reuploading deleted images is also a problem. People had been blocked for doing so in the past. Images can be undeleted.
Dear Kawaii Neko: I would like to thank you for your support in my recent RfA which passed 20 to 1. I really appreciate the trust you've placed in me. Please help me be a better admin by giving me feedback when you think I need it, and praise when you think I've earned it. Man, Cool, I've seen you around for ages, what a character! I am glad to know you and I look forward to working with you here. ++Lar: t/c04:37, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I chose LEGO to illustrate my thank you messagess, because LEGO is a system that we build things with. Commons holds the building blocks that other wikis use to make great things. Without Commons images and media, other wikis would be much poorer. Let's help build the greatest freely available intellectual collection the world has ever known... together.
Yuklediginiz resimler
Iyi gunler. Wowturkey.com'dan kopyaladiginiz resimler "ticari kullanima" ("commercial use") izin vermedigi icin silinecektir. Commonsa sadece ozgur lisansli resimler kopyalanabilir. --Catout22:17, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Selam,
bir sorum olacak.
simdi benim yükledigim resimlerin altina lisanslarini yazmadigim icin bana uyari geldi ve resimlerimim silinecegi söylendi. ::(wikimedia commons'ta) sizde uyarmistiniz beni.
peki ben simdi nasil lisanslarini ekleyebilirm resimlerimin?
selamlarimla 84.134.50.214 20:38, 18 Ekim 2006 (UTC)
wowTurkey.com resimlerinin telif haklari wowTurkey.com'a aittir. Sizin lisans ekleyebilmeniz için telif haklarına sahip olmanız veya wowTurkey'in resimeleri özgür lisansla yayımlamaları gerek.
WowTurkey ticari kullanıma (comercial use) izin vermediği için commonsda o resimler bulunamaz. Problem senle değil wowTurkeyle ilgili.
Ayrıca resimler silindi diye panikleme. Lisans problemi açıklığa kavuştuktan sonra geri getirmek kolay.
Just the title Kurdistan; it is better to delete the such an image. The original paper was published in Egypt not Iraq ( I think ). --Tarawneh00:17, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You have a great (yet stuffed) userpage!
Could I ask who translated the text to every language? I've re-checked your page at the hebrew wikipedia, to find out even though you don't know hebrew, the text is purrrrfect =) Could I use your User:Cool Cat/Project template in my page as well? Best regards, Yuval Y01:16, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi,
meta:User:Nahum was kind enough to translate my userpage to hebrew. I was actualy suprised by the translation. Never the less it was warmly welcomed.
You are welcome to use anything you see on my userpage including /Project userbox.
(cur) (last) 19:43, 3 November 2006 Gmaxwell (Talk | contribs) m (Null edit to note that I'm not the author, I am only renaming it as his request and I copied the info exactly.) Wow, I didn't ask for that... Well I guess someone saw your talk page and decided to help me :) Thanks a lot, anyway. --Emc217:46, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Cool Cat, I request for your own sake, please disregard this user. It appears that he is attempting to draw you out. I recommend you completely ignore any remarks he makes from here on out, as well as ignore his userpage. If you believe he is acting against you, you have other admins on the Commons aware of it who can determine and act as intermediaries. You are a worthwhile contributor here and I hope that you will continue to do so, and not get wrapped up because someone else has it in for you. Cary "Bastiq▼e" Bassdemandez18:05, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
İyi günler. Öncelikle Wikipedia ya yüklediğiniz resimler için teşekürler.
Birşeyi açıklamak istiyorum, commons daha çok bir medya (fotograf, film gibi). Yazdıgınız yazılar tr:Vikipediye daha güzel yakışacağına inanıyorum. Commons kuralları çerçevesinde katkılrınızın oraya taşınması gerekmektedir.
Sayın Cool Cat, uyarı ve bilgilendirmenizden dolayı teşekkür ediyorum. Birşeyler yazıyor olmama rağmen sizler gibi bilgisayar mühendislerinin yanında teknik konulara yeterince vakıf olmak için kaç fırın ekmek yemem gerek bilemem. Buradaki maddelerin benzerlerini Vikipedi-tr ye de girmiştim. Bundan böyle fotoğrafları buraya, metinleri de diğer ansiklopediye yazarım. Vikipedi-tr de yönetici adaylığından çekildiğinize de üzüldüm. Sağlıcakla kalınız.--Hasan Sami Bolak21:30, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
İyi günler. O zaman izninizle buradaki metinleri Vikipedi-tr'ye taşıyorum. Tabi isterseniz bu işi size de bırakabilirim. Bundaki maksat bir cümlenin bile silinmemesi.
Of course I do not own the Forum. Silly question, isn't it? But I think I understand what you mean. In fact, this is a huge problem, since ALL flags and logos used in any Wikipedia project are created by users without being formally affiliated with the respective institution. Take these:
Madden does not own the United Nations, and David Benbennick is not the owner of Turkey. But both users uploaded the flag and released it into the public domain. I agree with you that in legal terms this is highly problematic. And I pointed to that problem here and here on Commons and here, e.g., on the German Wikipedia. But the majority of users obviously wants to ignore that. So I decided not to push the issue any further. Thanks! Henning Blatt19:55, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, various international treaties such as the Geneva convention forbids any kind of restriction for combatant identification. Copyrighting national flags (restricting their usage) is a breach of these international treaties and is technically a war crime.
Same does not apply to forum logos and flags. Therefore unless you can provide any kind of documentation from a reliable source establishing its copyright status with a free license, I am inclined to delete it.
I did some checking operantly this forum is not some random internet website. I wish you had specified this. I'd still prefer some sort of citation establishing it as PD. --Catout22:03, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, this time I actually do not understand what you mean... What do you want me to provide? A citation establishing it as PD? I created the picture, so I am the owner of the copyright. And in fact I already stated that I released it into the PD. What is a "random internet website"? If you want to delete the picture, please tell me first why you do not want to delete the UN-Flag and the Flag of Turkey, too. Henning Blatt09:07, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am not going to debate the UN flag or Turkish flag. They are irrelevant to this debate.
It doesn't matter if you drew the image yourself. What you have created is a derivative work of the official forum logo. You need to provide info that the logo itself is copyrighted with a free license (or is released into the pd).
Why is the UN flag irrelevant to this debate? Where is the difference? The UN and the Forum are both International Organizations. Please tell me where the difference is! Henning Blatt13:38, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
For starters, United Nations has a military role which means as per Geneva and other similar treaties, combatant identification is required. Furthermore thats the flag NOT the logo.
If you cannot provide me any data establishing this images pd status it will end up getting deleted. If I do not, someone else will eventually. I am really uninterested in discussing the fine points of copyrights and international law. All I need from you is any info establishing that the image in question is either pd, or is copyrighted with a free license
This is ridiculous. Please don't treat me as a baby. I am not new to the Wikipedia.
And I am quite familiar with International Law and the Geneva conventions. Please let me assure you that a possible copyright violation is not a war crime, as you said. The protection of the UN flag has nothing to do with combatant identification. The UN has never contributed own troops to any conflict. The blue helmets are technically not UN forces. You can find this information in any text book on the United Nations or on peacekeeping.
Despite that I really like to know why that matters in copyright issues... There is a template for logos and flags that show how they are treated in the Wikipedia: {{Insignia}}
But, okay, take the UN flag as it is. Just forget it. Here is a list of various International Organizations logos and flags and their uploaders:
I think this is enough. All these pictures have been drawn by users. And none of the respective organizations is owned by any of these users. So, please again, tell me why you want to pick out the Forum logo and delete it, leaving all the other logos untouched? I would consider that highly arbitrarily and a misuse of admin rights.
To make this clear: there is absolutely no legal difference between a flag and a logo. But just in case you insist on a difference, I'd like to point out that there are enough logos in the list, and most of the flags in fact are logos, but they simply are not labelled correctly.
Please don't feel offended just because I uploaded a new Forum pic only a couple of hours after you deleted the old one. The deletion was okay, since the old pic was not in the PD, but my picture is, just like all the other flags and logos of countries, organizations, enterprises, etc., that have been released into the PD by their uploaders.
I am debating the image you have uploaded. Just because other people violate copyrights do not mean you get to violate copyrights as well. I can and will delete all the linked images should I find them to be copyright violations. Thank you for bringing them to my attention, I will be nominating them for deletion soon so as to clear the matter.
{{Insignia}} only means that additional restrictions apply to the image independent and regardless of copyrights.
All you need to do is provide evidence that this forum logo is indeed available with a free license or has been released to the PD. Your work is a derivative work so you cant release someone else's work to the pd.
I am holding back a deletion because I trust that the image can be available with a free license, I however need evidence supporting it. We wouldn't be even talking if I hadn't believe this.
Sayın Cool Cat, Burada yazılması uygun olmayan metinleri Vikipedi-tr'ye taşımak yerine silmenizin daha uygun olacağını düşünüyorum. Çünkü o metinler daha geniş bir şekilde orada da var. Yani "bir kelime bile silinmesin" diye endişe ve üzüntü duymayasınız diye bu konuyu belirtiyorum. Yoksa takdir sizin.. Bundan böyle elimdem geldiğince resim yükleme v.s. konusunda çalışmalarımı sürdürürüm.
Buradaki çalışmalarınıza baktığımda katkılarınızın sayısı ve kalitesini gördüm. Bence "Takdir edildiğiniz yerde" bu tür çalışmalara devam etseniz daha iyi olur mu acaba diye düşünüyorum. Bu konuda da takdir sizin..
"Bir yerde ki yok nağmeni takdir edecek gûş;
Tazyi-i nefes eyleme, tebdil-i makam et"
Sözü sizin ve benim gibi biraz fazla doğrucu (Benim için daha da açık bir tanımlama:aykırı) insanlar için söylenmiş gibi geliyor bana.. O bakımdan bir süredir yönetici oylamalarına katılmama kararı aldım.. Son oylamalarda bu tavrımı görebilirsiniz. Dünyada en kolay kaybedilen şeyin dostluklar olduğunu görüyor ve çok üzülüyorum. Lütfen beni anlayın. Sevgi ve saygılarımla..--Hasan Sami Bolak23:11, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think your "blocking structure" is OK but just too darn long! Things should not get to the 6th block. If they are not responding at all, 3 should be plenty, then indef. And make the first block shorter, as a real shock tactic to make them pay attention but not get too upset.
There are two ways you can know what language a user speaks: (1) what text they put on image pages and (2) which wikis the image(s) are used in. This is often a great tip.
My last tip: don't do any admin action you're not prepared to defend with your full brain. Know what I mean? Don't give them any ammunition. And if you do this, then when you are criticised (and you will be, of course), you can sit back and let meatball:DefendEachOther take place. We can't defend you if you do it first. And we can't defend you if you're not prepared to stand behind every single admin action you do and say, "I believe I was doing the right thing and improving the wiki." But if both those things happen, then it really won't matter what anyone says. It'll be water off a ducks' back. But both those things are up to you.
You know... there's no prize for being mentioned the most times on COM:AN. Are you planning to burn out like a supernova or would you like some longevity to actually achieve some good? In your successful RfA, you said Why do I want to be an admin? I am tired of staring at various backlogs. Is that what you've been doing? Is it so impossible for you to guess which actions will be controversial, and avoid those ones? Or at least space them out between 100 non-controversial ones??
Seriously, there's no other admin that a month after being adminned, I have to read about them three times in a week. Please... go and be as boringly productive as possible. Hundreds of other users manage it every single day. --pfctdayelise (说什么?) 12:01, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Do not worry, I am not seeking a prize :P
Have you reviewed my contribution history? I have made hundreds of deletions. I have cleared two months worth of backlog from CAT:Unknown with over a thousand deletions. I am holding back on contributing to wikipedia as per real life issues (including the preparations wikipedia related panel on a conference in Turkey) taking too much of my time
I am not in any way stressed by all these incidents. The issue about 'Moby Dick' and 'Karl Meier' did raise concerns on my part but those concerns do not exist anymore as per the recent incident.
I am not particularly happy appearing on the ANB either.
Please note, while you made a modification to the image, you did not remove the no source tag, and therefore the image was deleted. I have restored it, but the no source tag remains, and you should make sure that this has been removed if all the issues have been resolved. Cary "Bastiq▼e" Bassdemandez17:19, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Images which are not sourced are tagged accordingly and are speedy deleted. This is because image copyrights require verification. For certain images this is easy to establish, such as national flags.
While it isn't required, English license information is recommended. I would appreciate if you provided that license information in English as well as German. I cant really comment on the issue at all without this otherwise.
As your friend, it would be a big favor to me if you'd avoid using your sysop bit on controversial things, like debates and disputes in which you're directly involved, as well as blocks for all but the most obvious of vandals. I support your admin and believe that you can do a lot of good at Commons, and would regret it if the complaints piled up high enough quickly enough to get it taken away from you. Cary "Bastiq▼e" Bassdemandez16:19, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Do you know when the image was made and by whom? If the author of the image died 70+ years ago, image may be in the pd. Additional details (Such as weather or not images copyright was renewed) would be needed for clarification.
On the page you linked the copyright notice suggests:
"You may save or print this image for research and study. If you wish to use it for any other purposes, you must complete the Request for permission form."
That doesn't necessarily mean it is available for commercial purposes nor does it necessarily mean alterations are allowed, both needs to be clarified. I recommend asking the library the details and getting that answer to permissions@wikimedia.org Thats the cleanest, fastest and most effective way to tackle it.
Hello, Cool Cat. I'm wondering why did you simply remove this pilot-test without waiting for the community opinion. Did I miss something? The problem is that pt:Wikipedia is being use to set homepages for users that don't do anything more than argue, or even nothing more at all. There are *no* internal quarrels. Many users are expressing their feelings against this kind of use of resources and, obviously, FML is the owner of the picture, and one of the most criticized, as you may confirm by reading the whole discussion here. But what really surprises me is how you can cancel a voting based on your own opinion. Please reply, -- Nuno Tavares☜PT16:03, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If he uploads his entire family album, I would delete it at an instant. To my knowlege he only has two and only two images on commons. I have kept the two since they are acceptable under Commons:Project scope:
... However it is allowed uploading in small quantity images of yourself and others as long they are useful for some Wikimedia project (for example an Wikipedia article, a Wikinews report, in a meta article, on a user-page)...
My idea of small quantity can be "5" personal images. Even then, I am more than willing to be flexible if I see any potential educational use. Those two images can have encyclopedic usage on articles talking about the matrix on projects that do not allow fair use. I have such a picture myself on my userpage which can also have an encyclopedic value such as an article about cats. You also have such an image on your userpage.
Harddrives are cheep. 4-5 images per person really doesn't use that much harddrive space. It would use more hard drive space when deleted (we are talking bytes).
Debates on commons are not required to last a certain time span. They can be closed the second they are engaged at an admins discretion. I just do not see a valid/acceptable reason for deletion at the moment since it is clear image is not a copyvio.
As a matter of fact yes. I too made a few modifications. I really want to maintain the wikistress meter though (to warn people when I am explosive :) ). table.toc doesn't appear to be a class. I can add it to the necesary mediawiki page... where is the original code for it? --Catout22:24, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure about the table.toc. Maybe it's just .toc... I'll try to find it in the hebrew wikipedia, and see if it's significant. About the Wikistress... May I suggest... and such? Yuval Y • Chat • 22:47, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please stop confusing me by copying all the conversions, and just tell me you have written a reply in your talk page? Thanks, Yuval Y • Chat • 12:40, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As you wish, however what I am doing is the standard way I communicate with everyone. It was never intended to confuse. --Catout12:47, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, it's just that instead of checking the history of your chat page, I'll have to check mine too. Besides, I check My contributions from time to time, to see if there's any change, so if it isn't something urgent, you don't even have to notify me at my user-talk. Don't worry, I would find your reply =) Yuval Y • Chat • 13:01, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed you deleted Image:Persepolis terrace 4.jpg. I just wanted to tell you that you should stop deleting the images from livius in the Category:Persepolis because a permission was given from livius.org yo use their images on Wikipedia under GFDL License. I wasn't in charge of the mail permission, but I asked fr:User:Pentocelo and fr:User:Céréales Killer to add the OTRS on the images on Commons. Please wait a bit so it is done and we don't have to ask you to undelete the images. Cheers, Fabienkhan17:22, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi cool cat. Thx for having paid attention to Fabienkhan's message. The OTRS process concerning the pictures from livius was completed a few days ago. I will oviously update the picture info page this afternoon. Regards Pentocelo08:44, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am just glad I haven't deleted free images (from what I understand from your comment). Be sure to include the OTRS ticket number on each and every related image. :) --Catout09:45, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to disturb you again, but I encouter some difficulties by applying the OTRS template on the images, could you please show me how to do for the picture above as an example? OTRS Ticket is 2006112210022386, thx for your kindness. Pentocelo10:44, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Cool Cat
I've seen you've deleted Image:Persepolis_terrace_4.jpg I listed in Detetion request and shortly after you restored it, saying « ongoing OTRS process ». What is an OTRS process ?
I posted also a message to the uploader about others pictures from Livius that have less license information (it is not precised « provided that no fees are charged for their distribution »). They are for example Image:Bishapur_relief_2_1.jpg and Image:Kangavar2.jpg (see his contribution list). I asked him to give more information to know if Livius releases them in a free license.
Thanks for your answer. Sting17:55, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OTRS stands for "Open-source Ticket Request System". On Wikimedia projects, it generally refers to the ticket system where volunteers respond to emails that are sent to Wikimedia, including general information (in several languages), press queries and permission emails. On Commons, "OTRS" generally refers only to this later type.
Basically the copyright holder and OTRS people communicate. Image will be redeleted if OTRS doesn't work out. See the section above this one on my talk page. --Catout18:04, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Cited source and the material are not remotely similar. The flag on the linked site is more like the french flag ([1]). The flag that was uploaded looked nothing like it. In fact it did not look like a flag at all. --Catout16:43, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What's the problem
The problem is it is so frustrating to use Wikimedia Commons. I would love to just upload my pictures and not learn to do anything. But every thing I do leads to more frustration. I can't find the right liscence, because it turns out that it's not in the drop-down menu, but it doesn't tell me that in the drop-down menu, I can't figure out how to categorize because I think the tag that says 'categorize' is for putting images in categories, but it's not, its for finding categories, then I finally figure this out after months, realize why I couldn't find a picture I need, because it wasn't in the gallery, figure out how to put it there, and some unilatterally removes it from the gallery, and from my categories. Everything I do here just gives me a headache. This is NOT a user friendly site. And no matter how hard I try to do only things that won't irritate the heck out of me, or take two week breaks in between every access, I keep running smack up against complete and total unusability. I really think that Wikimedia Commons needs a beta-testing overall by non Wikimedia Commons users. It would get blasted. KP Botany01:40, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, allow me to introduce myself, I am the newer incarnation of the short-lived User:CABAL account, which I will not be bothering with any more. The purpose of this is for me to express my sincerest apologies at failing to provide suitable edit summaries for this and this, which I must admit was done in a haphazard manner. In any case, you'll notice that I've reverted to my prior versions, but I see no way I can provide further details as to the changes done. I would like to do so and was wondering if it was possible to insert the relevant information? Specifically, metadata chunks (optional image data) were removed from the files and the compression further optimized; this has no effect on the final images whatsoever, with the exception that it may slightly complicate heavier editing efforts such as in Photoshop. Exterminatus12:21, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi,
Thank you for creating a new account and sticking with us here on commons.
How 'large' is this metadata? It can be tossed to the image description page which wouldn't affect image size.
I am not too concerned about the heavy edit Photoshop issue. Those people can use the older version :)
Metadata is optional information held within a PNG itself. They are not needed to display an image properly, but as mentioned earlier will complicate editing, as the removed chunks contain data such as white balance levels, the proper aspect ratio, gamma and so on . Exterminatus16:40, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please forward it to OTRS. When matter is cleared there, I can gladly undelete it here. I am sorry my hands are a bit tied otherwise. --Catout00:29, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I do not see a problem at all. Whats wrong with the "tone"? What part of the sentence is incorrect? What identical links are we talking about? Why are you removing relevant links to the necessary articles such as w:Star of Life? --Catout16:41, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Cool Cat, you closed a deletion request with as I understand 'deleted' but the image is still there/there again, or perhaps you wrote something different from what action you meant to take. Could you please take another look at the above link? Thanks. Siebrand23:42, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
how am i suppose to find if its copyrighted or not when its not? something doesn't have information about it when it doesn't exist. copyright for that trophy doesn't exist and any information about its copyright cant be found anywhere because its not copyrighted. If it is prove it. It's not like what's not copyrighted, it's what is copyrighted.Ricky21205:56, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
US (and International) law declares any work is copyrighted for 70 years after the creators death unless copyright is renewed.
Commons copyright policy requires anything uploaded to be with a free license. Unless you can prove it, which you say you can't. The image cant exist on commons otherwise. As the uploader it is your responsibility to provide this copyright info, not mine.
It wasn't made or thought of in the US, it was in the UK and the copyright for the uk states that the person that thought of it automatically has copyright but the trophy that the picture is taken from is a replica and in the UK copyright it says the inventor(person who thought of it) has copyright as long as its not been copied from existing work, which the replica is because its been copied from the original one, simple as.
"Once in physical form, as long as it is an original work (in the sense of not having been copied from an existing work, rather than in the sense of being novel or unique), copyright in that work is automatically vested in (i.e. owned by) the person who put the concept into material form." Ricky21207:02, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Who gives away this award? You? Copyright of 2d pictures of 3d objects belong to the owner of the 3d object. You would be right if the cup was not the center of attention. --Catout08:33, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Lets have a different approach shall we? I declare that image as a copyvio. As per US and EU laws derivative works and identical replicas carry the copyright of the original work. If you keep uploading it, you will be blocked. --Catout22:26, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
so why cant we get other people's thought on it like in the normal deletion process because its not a clear case. I'm not going to upload it but I want it to be voted on like in the deletion process because there's points to be taken. It's not dictatorship here in wikimedia, and your not a dictator to take that different approach; it's democracy here in wikimedia.Ricky21223:52, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Clear cut copyright violations can be speedy deleted w/o discussion which this clearly is. Wikimedia is neither a dictatorship nor a democracy. We simply are not a government. Deletion was as per: COM:DEL#Other_deletion_procedures #2.
excuse me, I don't visit Wikimedia that often. You contacted me over [[Image:Statue of Saddam Hussein being draped with the US Flag.jpg|the "Saddam being draped" image]] and I am answering here because I don't know if you are still paying attention to my user talk page. Honestly, I cannot reproduce how I simply uploaded the image - I must have been overly eager to do so because of it's (suggested) high symbolism in the whole Iraq War newsbuzz. I think I had in mind that CNN images were somewhat PD and simply applied this to AP photos. Do you know which license fits (if there is one - this image is unusually important to me ;-) )? I'll have an eye on something like that in future although I mostly upload US military pics in {{PD-USGov-Military} images.
CNN and AP are commercial entities. Everything they own is almost certainly copyrighted and cannot exist on commons. I am sure US soldiers also photographed the toppling, you want those photos. --Catout18:50, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
US Army Institute of Heraldry
I'm trying to compile galleries of US Military Coats of Arms. I noticed a moment ago that you had applied a Request for Deletion on a number of images uploaded from the US Army Institute of Heraldry with the comment that "Images are not free enough" (I think the request has since been removed, since I can't find it anymore, so forgive me if I am misremembering). I was wondering why you decided to have these images deleted, and what you meant by "not free enough." (and now I'm registered on the Commons) v/r,
Hammon2721:30, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for my ignorance; the computer I was on wouldn't even let me go to the Commons website. I have checked out your posts on the Commons:Deletion requests page and I'm looking over a conversation on this very topic from 2005. It can be found at Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2005/11#Template:PD-USGov-Military-Army-USAIOH
The USAIOH images are not restricted to non-commercial use. They have a qualification on commercial use, which is not the same thing.
v/r,
Hammon2722:26, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
According to the first footnote on the basic Commons:Licensing page, http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Licensing#_note-0 , [the use of free content by anyone, for any purpose] "This may be regulated by geographical, trademark, or other laws unrelated to copyrights, which Wikimedia Commons can not account for. Wikimedia Commons tries to ensure that any such restrictions are mentioned on the image description page, but it is the responsibility of the user to ensure that the use of the media does not violate any applicable law. In particular, copyrights of certain material may have expired in one country, while still being applicable in another country. Furthermore, many commons licences, such as GFDL and Creative Commons Share-Alike, require that any derivatory work must be released under the same license conditions."
The Institute of Heraldry is mentioned on this page as well. Is this page being vandalized by pro-insignia forces? Is there a more basic, more canon, document that spells out what the Wikimedia Commons copyright policy actually is, which would support your efforts to rip all insignia off of Wikipedia? If so, that makes me very sad, and I would like to read it. Thank you for your assistance.
v/r,
Hammon2722:43, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The template suggests that the image can only be used "with permission". Thats a problem. Free licenses are required to be used freely without permission. All images on commons should allow derivative works, comercialusage and should not have permission restrictions.
Also the template seems to be redundant, why not simply use {{PD-USgov}}? (Of course provided images are in PD)
On wikipedia commons we often request deletion if we feel there are problems with their copyright claim of a copyright tag or if the tag is redundant. My nomination only raises my reservations addressing both of these issues. Deletion review is a discussion, not a vote.
I agree with you about the free licenses needing to be free for use without any reservations or permissions. Reading "Jimbo's" post about the rationale for not allowing copyrighted works with a "free for non-commercial use" policy, it makes perfect sense not to allow those images. The difference here is the works of USAIOH are not copyrighted works. They are works that are in the public domain, and are not subject to copyright by US statute. The restriction of commercial use is a matter of US Federal law, which is allowed by Wikimedia copyright standards, as far as I've been able to discern from reading the policy pages. The PD-USgov tag is not redundant with the USAIOH tag because the former makes no mention of the special statutory protections that the images from the USAIOH have (again, independent of their status in the public domain) regarding commercial use. Likewise, the other -Military tags are either not truly applicable (referring to works done by "an employee," not an agency like USAIOH), apply only to rank insignia or badges, or don't include the required statutory language. --—the preceding unsigned comment was added byHammon27 (talk • contribs)
hi
How are things going? I had originally posted on your talk at wikipedia, but it seems as if you've departed that project, and hence I've moved my commentary here. I just briefly stopped by to make minor edits and wanted to see if everything was okay.-84.169.214.10821:25, 30 December 2006 (UTC) (Randall Brackett)[reply]
2.jpg){kind=small}
){kind=link}
![[2]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/Image:Doenitz.jpg&curid=1424623&diff=3676572&oldid=3674030){kind=link}
