User talk:Kameraad Pjotr/Archive1c

I'm gone. Or at least, I lost the interest to be as active as I was. It could be I do the occasional edit, tag the occasional copyrighted image, but frankly, I no longer care. I had enough.

{{[[Template:User:MiszaBot/config |User:MiszaBot/config ]]}}

Welcome to the Commons, Kameraad Pjotr/Archive1c!

First steps tutorial Our first steps help file and our FAQ will help you a lot after registration. They explain how to customize the interface (for example the language), how to upload files and our basic licensing policy. You don't need technical skills in order to contribute here. Be bold contributing here and assume good faith for the intentions of others. This is a wiki - it is really easy. Getting help More information is available at the Community Portal. You may ask questions at the Help desk, Village Pump or on IRC channel #wikimedia-commons. You can also contact an administrator on their talk page. If you have a specific copyright question, ask at Commons talk:Licensing.		Goodies, tips and tricks Put Babel boxes on your user page so others know what languages you can speak and indicate your Graphics abilities. All your uploads are stored in your personal Gallery Please sign your name on Talk pages by typing ~~~~ Use the CommonSense tool to find good categories for your files (then other people can find them too!) To link to an image page, write this: [[:Image:Foo.jpg]], it makes this: Image:Foo.jpg If you're copying files from another project, be sure to use the CommonsHelper Made a mistake? Did you want to rename or move a file? Simply upload the file again and mark the old one like this: {{bad name|Correct name}} For more information read the full Deletion guidelines
(P.S. Would you like to provide feedback on this message?)

Yann 21:09, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

TUSC token 5275fbfcbb2f7da5d2d92708a161d233

I am now proud owner of a TUSC account!

Theresienkirche (Innsbruck)

Hallo Pjotr, Du hast das Bild Innsbruck-theresienkirche-fresko.jpg glöscht. Kannst Du dafür einen Grund angeben? Nach österreichischem Recht ist es zulässig, solche Bilder zu machen und zu veröffentlichen. Nachzulesen in de:Panoramafreiheit#Österreich. Der ursprüngliche Löschantrag wurde auch wieder zurückgezogen, weshalb Dein Eingreifen (löschen) überhaupt nicht erforderlich war. Ich ersuche Dich daher, dieses schöne Bild sofort wieder herzustellen. – Gruß Steindy (talk) 17:05, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Hello,

It seems that I did not notice that Innsbruck was in Austria & the rules were different there. I have restored the image and I apologise for the trouble.

Kind regards, Kameraad Pjotr 18:21, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much, Pjotr. – Kindly regards too from Steindy (talk) 21:34, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

English in the world

Hello,
Can you undelete the file and I will send an email of copyright release ? Please, next time send a message first ! There was nothing wrong with the copyright on the file. I am holder of all the copyrights of www.englishffl.org

Thank you --Mahdi.mrabet (talk) 19:20, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Hello,

If you are the copyright holder of the image, you should follow the procedure at OTRS. In short, you should e-mail you permission for the image to be used under a free licence to OTRS. If that has happened, the image can be restored.

Kind regards, Kameraad Pjotr 09:12, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

File:Tapa.jpg

Hi, Kameraad. I don't understand why you closed Commons:Deletion requests/File:Tapa.jpg as a "keep"; there is no evidence that this work is older than 50 years old, and without that evidence, we can't simply assume that it is. I urge you to reconsider the close. Thank you. Powers (talk) 23:04, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Should I take silence as refusal? Powers (talk) 13:12, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

No, I overlooked your question accidentally. I will reply in the near future, but I'm busy right now. I apologise for my mistake. Kameraad Pjotr 15:00, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Hello,

You're right that we cannot be sure, but I think we can safely assume that the design is older than 50 years.

Kind regards, Kameraad Pjotr 19:11, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Copyvio?

Could you please check if there is a copyright concern with [1] - it was originally uploaded with a different PD license (non-self) - and the uploader (editing using another name at en.wiki; Plastili com ) appears to have had another file deleted as a copyvio by you ([2]) --Janke | Talk 06:45, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Hello,

I have deleted the image, as it lacks suitable permission and is thus probably a copyright violation.

Kind regards, Kameraad Pjotr 09:14, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Innsbruck-theresienkirche-fresko.jpg

Hi Pjotr

I suppose something went wrong with that deletion request. Your decision was "delete" with the rationale "Copyright violation: Eine Genehmigung der Erben/Nachlass von Max Weiler liegt nicht vor. Keine Panoramafreiheit!" (in english: Copyright violation: No approval from the heirs of Max Weiler is available). All discutants agreed that that was not necessary, since freedom of panorama in austria also covers artworks in the inside of buildings. Also, instead of deleting, you removed the deletion request. What was your true intent? --PaterMcFly (talk) 08:42, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Hello,

I didn't close the deletion request, but deleted the image as a "normal" copyvio, so I didn't read the DR. I have now restored the image after a request on my talk page.

Kind regards, Kameraad Pjotr 09:10, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I didn't see that the deletion request was actually closed by a bot. --PaterMcFly (talk) 13:41, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

File:Animacion-com-plastilina-y-clay-animation-pelicula-Kuzmich-153.jpg

Hallo, lieve Pjotr! Laat ons weten wat het probleem was met mijn dossier,http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Animacion-com-plastilina-y-clay-animation-pelicula-Kuzmich-153.jpg  ? Ik ben de auteur van dit dossier, wil ik hem sturen naar Wikipedia, maar ik kan iets verkeerd geschreven in een sjabloon te worden? Leg alsjeblieft, hoe correct in te vullen in het sjabloon, WI net over de auteursrechten? Dank je wel!

--Plastili com | Talk

Hello,

If you are the author, you can easily confirm that by sending your permission to OTRS. The exact procedure is explained on that page, but in short, you should e-mail your permission to use the image(s) under a free licence to the e-mailaddress provided on the page.

Kind regards, Kameraad Pjotr 19:12, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

File:Anna Mahler death notice.jpg

Hello Pjotr, can you give me a hint, where you found that the text of the death notice was written by Gottfried von Einem? Can you tell me the source, please; I had not a hunch about this fact. Thanks, -- Walter Anton (talk) 00:13, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Hello,

I didn't nominate the image for deletion, but Jappalang did. I therefore do not know here he found that, but he probably does.

Kind regards, Kameraad Pjotr 17:52, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! Sorry for my late answer, greetings Walter Anton (talk) 21:53, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Dawgpound3

Why did you delete my file, Kameraad? It was my own work. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dawgpound3 (talk • contribs) 10:39, 4 April 2010 (UTC) (UTC)

Hello,

I'm sorry, but which image do you mean?

Kind regards, Kameraad Pjotr 10:39, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Your assistance please

You closed Commons:Deletion requests/File:Ahmed Al Darbi.jpg with a very brief closing statement.

The first sentence of the first paragraph of en:Public domain explicitly mentions the concept of IP rights being forfeited:

"Works are in the public domain if they are not covered by intellectual property rights at all, if the intellectual property rights have expired, and/or if the intellectual property rights are forfeited or unclaimed."

Forgive me, but this a point you didn't address in your closure. I'd appreciate you returning to your closure and addressing this point.

I'd appreciate you placing the {{Information}} template and other meta-information from the file into User:Geo Swan/review/Ahmed Al Darbi.

My questions and requests are not intended to be confrontational. We are all volunteers here.

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 22:17, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Hello,

While I do not dispute the fact that one can release images in the public domain, I have found no reliable evidence that the family has done that. OTRS-permission should be obtained before the image can be restored.

Kind regards, Kameraad Pjotr 08:20, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:2002 Sklar v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue US Court of Appeals 9th Circuit.pdf

• Commons:Deletion requests/File:2002 Sklar v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue US Court of Appeals 9th Circuit.pdf

I think perhaps you were mistaken about the rationale for this one. This is a work of the United States Government. It is a written opinion by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. This is a part of the United States Federal Government. Every single author of the document is an employee of the U.S. Federal Government. It was an opinion published by the U.S. Federal Government. Perhaps you may wish to withdraw the nomination, please? Thank you. -- Cirt (talk) 21:45, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Hello,

Indeed I was mistaken, I was mislead by the "author"-field on the image description page and probably missed the information regarding the author in de document itself. I have speedy-closed the DR and I apologise for my mistake.

Kind regards, Kameraad Pjotr 09:42, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. -- Cirt (talk) 14:48, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

This was a bad faith nomination. Apparently Pjotr is picking up inappropriate behavior habits from his friend Pieter. Bastique ^{☎ appelez-moi!} 22:34, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Dear Bastique,

Your rude comments are not appreciated and you are kindly requested to take them elsewhere.

Kameraad Pjotr 09:42, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps nominating was a mistake but I see no reason to call it a bad faith nomination. Personally I would have prefered it had been open a little longer so we could have discussed scope. But perhaps it is better to save that discussion some weeks or more to a time where things have cooled down a bit. --MGA73 (talk) 19:19, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Deletion closure

The closure of Commons:Deletion requests/File:1993 Landmark v Conde Nast complaint.pdf doesnt make sense there was only one comment and it says Keep base on another discussion can you explain the deletion. Gnangarra 04:17, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Hello,

It is indeed true the other file was kept, but only after OTRS received permission that the file was under a cc-by-sa-licence. There is no evidence that this happened for this file, and therefore it is a clear copyright violation.

Kind regards, Kameraad Pjotr 09:43, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

When you read that second discussion Mike Goodwin says Pieter, I really think you can relax about this. I think the question of whether there is a copyright claim here is disputable. But even if there is a cognizable copyright claim, the better remedy in my view is to let the injured copyright holder invoke DMCA takedown remedies (with which of course the WMF would comply). There's a strong risk of reading copyright law in an overreaching way, and while I respect editors' impulse to remove what they see as presumptively copyrighted material, I wouldn't want this impulse to act as a chilling effect that prevented publication of relevant information when others reasonably believe that publication is not barred by copyright law. MGodwin (talk) 22:16, 30 March 2010 (UTC) Can you please explain how you can be so certain of the copyright status when the foundations own lawyer cannot be. Gnangarra 10:42, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Hello,

As long as this hypothesis has not been confirmed in a court, this is merely an interpretation. And But even if there is a cognizable copyright claim, the better remedy in my view is to let the injured copyright holder invoke DMCA takedown remedies violates the precautionary principle. If you still disagree with me, you are of course free to open an undeletion request.

Kind regards, Kameraad Pjotr 11:15, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

It is not best practice to early close a nomination against Mike Godwin's recommendation. How about restoring the file procedurally and let the discussion run its normal course. Durova (talk) 15:54, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

No. I stand by my deletion and if you disagree, open an undeletion request. Kameraad Pjotr 16:19, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Do you really think that using the administrative tools in haste during a hot dispute is the appropriate way to proceed? What you are suggesting could migrate a contentious debate to a new forum. That shouldn't be necessary because the closure itself was irregular. Please reconsider. Durova (talk) 19:25, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Admin wheel-warring

This is not appropriate, firstly, because there was ample consensus that the block was justified, and secondly because you are already involved. As you've acted as Pieter's proxy in deleting various files, while he was blocked, there is ample enough evidence that you've abused your admin privileges and are becoming a liability to the Wikimedia Commons project. Bastique ^{☎ appelez-moi!} 19:43, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Hello,

I'm not Pieter's proxy. I unblocked him because I think removing copyright violations is far more important than ego's. Besides, there is a larger consensus for unblocking than for blocking at the Administrator's noticeboard.

If however, you find that I have abused my tools, you are absolutely free to start the necessary procedure.

Kind regards, Kameraad Pjotr 19:46, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Removing suspected copyright infringements is not far more important than restoring and maintaining healthy relationships within the community. Suspected copyright infringements can wait--and always until the situation cools down. I've read the discussion and there was absolutely no consensus to unblock, merely a few users with far too much time on their hands. As an involved administrator, you should have remained a part of the discussion, and not taken the inappropriate action of unblocking him. Bastique ^{☎ appelez-moi!} 19:56, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm not going to waste any more time on this. Healthy relationships within the community are not created by blocking a user who simply does his job, removing, or at least tagging, "possible" copyright violations. Kameraad Pjotr 20:12, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

(ec) I'm going to remove myself from the situation, having read the thread on AN/I, and I apologize for insinuating you were doing less than you were supposed to. I want to stress, however, that we maintain a balance on this project between content and maintaining a healthy community; because we cannot maintain one part without maintaining the other. I recommend, however, that you stop pretending that the removal of a few copyright infringements somehow justifies the poisonous behavior that results from vindictive stalking. Bastique ^{☎ appelez-moi!} 20:16, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Hello,

There is no need to apologise, as I didn't feel insulted. I agree that vindictive stalking should not be tolerated, but I didn't think that Pieter Kuiper's actions were vindictive stalking. On this, we will probably not agree, so I propose to agree to disagree and move on to other subjects.

Kind regards, Kameraad Pjotr 16:04, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:47008, Lostock Hall MPD, 25th March 1964.jpg

Hi, I don't wish to wheel-war, but I am concerned by your closure of this as keep. Assuming good faith is a wonderful thing, but it does not in my opinion apply to copyrights, which are legally binding. AGF is meant to keep people civil, and to remind them that things can come across badly in text which made perfect polite sense in the writer's mind. I agree that Duncharris no doubt had permission from Graham Bean to use this photo, although I also have no doubt it would not have said it on the original source page, but Commons cannot operate on assumptions of permission - we require proof that someone releases a work, in that either they say it's theirs (in which case the legal responsibility is theirs) or we demand OTRS permission from the copyright holder. Duncharris has uploaded a lot of good images, and I hate that I am going through tagging them all as missing permission, but assumptions, or even a userpage copy of an email are not sufficient evidence. Proof must be in the form of OTRS or a note at the source - as the latter is now impossible, and we do not have the former, I can see no alternative but to conclude that we do not have sufficient evidence to allow us to keep this image.

I have reopened the DR with my reasoning, and look forward to your input. -mattbuck (Talk) 22:41, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I have commented on the deletion request. (Please note I won't personally close this DR.) Kameraad Pjotr 16:12, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Thankyou for your understanding. -mattbuck (Talk) 16:41, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Corregidor island history 001.jpg

Hello,

You recently deleted the file "Corregidor island history 001.jpg" with the following note: "lacks suitable permission, it's not a law." What does that mean? You should provide an intelligible explantation when you censor other people's work. I can only infer that you meant that the document, while clearly a photo in the public domain, was of a government document which was not the text of a law and therefore private. I'd love to know where you got that idea, or if that's not what you meant, then I'd love to know what you did mean.
The picture was of a translation of a very old Spanish document. The translation was performed by the Spanish government and was intended to be hung where it was photographed, in a public park. It is unambiguously public: A public document in a public park submitted to a public encyclopedia by someone who wanted to release the photo to the public. Please, reverse your censorship and put it back. It contributed meaningfully to an article on the subject on wikipedia.

An unrelated issue, fyi: most of the links on your user page here on wikimedia commons are broken.

--Wongaboo (talk) 01:22, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Hello,

There are two reasons why this file was deleted. The first reason was that the text is not a Legal or ruling disposition and their correspondent project, resolution of jurisdictional organs and acts, agreement, deliberation and report of public organizations, which means it is copyrighted under Spanish copyright law. The second is that the Philippines, where the picture was taken, have no Freedom of Panorama. For these two reasons the file was deleted.

Kind regards, Kameraad Pjotr 16:21, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		Awarded to Kameraad Pjotr, for keeping a cool head and having the courage to do the right thing at COM:AN/U. JN466 20:40, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I'm honoured. Kameraad Pjotr 08:32, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

PD-Art is about photographic reproduction, cannot be applied to drawings

I was surprised by your decusion to keep in Commons:Deletion requests/File:Urartian Belt02.jpg. The {{PD-Art}} mentions photographic reproduction. It does not apply to drawings. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:58, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

You're right, it should have been PD-Old. Kameraad Pjotr 19:00, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

No evidence that the drawing is old. The drawing was published 1959. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:01, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

You are right, I must have mixed two DR's. I have corrected my mistake and apologise for the confusion. Kameraad Pjotr 19:57, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Well it says that author is "Friedrich Eduard Schulz (died in 1829)". We have {{PD-scan}} for cases where someone scanned a 2D work. Who made the drawing? Frederich or the ones that printed the book? --MGA73 (talk) 16:33, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

From what the uploader said, Friedrich, but I have come to doubt that lately. The image would probably better be deleted. Kameraad Pjotr 18:08, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

The thing was found in 1940, it seems. The drawing could not have been made before that. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:43, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

User Domaleixo

Please, since you entered in touch with the user above, please give a look at this. Kind regards. Tonyjeff (talk) 14:49, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Pjotr, thank you for answer. I hope it does NOT get to the point of blocking the user, believing that he may accept others' opinion. Cheers. Tonyjeff (talk) 02:06, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Stories from the Arabian nights

Can you temporarily undelete these, please, so I can copy them to the English Wikisource, which hosts PD-1923 material and was using these?--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:34, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Done. Let me now when you are finished, so they can be deleted again. Kameraad Pjotr 19:37, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you; I've got copies.--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:51, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Villa uniforme.JPG

Hi. Sorry to bother you, but I'm just wondering if you didn't overlook the fact that {{PD-Mexico}} as a copyright term of 100 years after the author's death, so even if we count from the publication date, this image wouldn't be PD until 2015. Did I miss something? –Tryphon^☂ 18:34, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

No I missed something. I forgot Mexico has a copyright term of 100 years instead of 70. It has been deleted now. Kameraad Pjotr 18:45, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

OK, thanks. –Tryphon^☂ 19:38, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Serbia

I would like to show my appreciation for resolving the issue and I would like to say thank you very much, cheers mate. Regards IJA (talk) 14:02, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome. ;) Kameraad Pjotr 18:25, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

File:ColbertQuote.png

Hi, why did you delete this file? You didn't leave any explanatory statement and no reason why to delete it despite my argument. Greetings, Carbenium (talk) 15:47, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Hello,

I deleted the file as it was out of project scope. (I know that it is white writing on transparent background) I see no educational use for this image, and as it is not used on a user gallery, there is no reason why it should remain at commons.

Kind regards, Kameraad Pjotr 16:41, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Costumes...

I just don't understand why you deleted those files by saying there are not costumes whereas you keep some of them even if there's clearly no difference between File:Rabbid cosplay (edit).jpg and the Pixar ones. They were actually in the same case as this file, which was kept here because it was indeed a person in a costume !!! We need some coherence ! --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 16:57, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Hello,

There is a difference between the Pixar ones and the Rabbid ones. The Rabbids were clearly identifiable as costumes, while the pixars were "gigantic" action figures, with people in them. The Mostra file was a DR that had to be closed as "delete", as I see now.

Kind regards, Kameraad Pjotr 16:39, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Tickets

Hi Pjotr,

Would you double check tickets #2007080810014523 and #2008022410010827 for this dr? As I understood it, the emails were exchanged by Schutz in relation to files other than the ones in this category. Schutz seems to say that they are not covered and, unless the tickets show more recent email exchanges, are not covered. -- User:Docu at 16:14, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Hello,

The email says "les photos des CF publié par la Confédération doivent être/rester libre, sans "copyright"", so any official photos from admin.ch are understood to be free. Those from other departments are not, according to this email. Pictures outside that category, but are official photos are covered, others are not.

I hope this was helpful.

Kind regards, Kameraad Pjotr 18:06, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

I guess it's for the uploader to be sure (the person who first nominated the file for deletion has access to the tickets too).

BTW the deletion is still referenced here. -- User:Docu at 10:34, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you!

Thank you for your help with those deletion requests. Please also have a look at:

• File:Asociación Diocesana de Scouts Católicos Argentinos Castrense.png
• File:Brotherhood of Orthodox Scouts.jpg
• File:Conseil du Scoutisme Congolais.jpg
• File:Croix sevin.svg
• File:OrganisationsScoutesMondiales.png
• File:Scoutisme français.png
• File:Scouts Chrétiens du Liban.png
• File:Scouts de Argentina.jpg
• File:Associação Escoteira Baden-Powell.gif

--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 05:32, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

File:Délibération Conseil municipal Basse-Terre, 28.11.1912, Dulice, Maire.JPG

You deleted File:Délibération Conseil municipal Basse-Terre, 28.11.1912, Dulice, Maire.JPG, but there is no problem with copyright. Please restore. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 08:32, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Isn't the image copyrighted until 70pma? I'm not sure this is a different case.

Kind regards, Kameraad Pjotr 10:15, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

I would say that it was a collective work. But anyway, if I read this correctly (and I am certain that your French is better than mine, and I am not quite certain about whether there are double or triple negatives there) this kind of work of "une collectivité territoriale" would not need permission. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 11:35, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

You're probably right. I will restore the image as soon as I've got time. Kameraad Pjotr 19:23, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually, it's the opposite. "Il n'est pas non plus dérogé à la jouissance de ce même droit lorsque l'auteur de l'oeuvre de l'esprit est un agent de l'Etat [ou] d'une collectivité territoriale" means "There is no exception either to benefiting from this right [copyrights] when the author of a "work of the mind" is an employee of the State or a territorial collectivity"; so works are protected just the same as any other work. There might be exceptions somewhere else in the law, but this is not what this paragraph is about. Let me know if something else is unclear in the French text. –Tryphon^☂ 20:46, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

It would seem that it is a collective work then. I will undelete. Kameraad Pjotr 18:48, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Oceani 3D Locandina.JPG

Hello! Is File:Oceani 3D Locandina.JPG a free image? Does "free downloadable" mean "free licence"? --79.3.54.130 19:43, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Hello,

I'm afraid not. Most press photos and the like are "free downloadable", but not under a free licence. You're simply free to download them, but not to modify or reuse them, which makes them non-free. More information can be found at Licensing and Image casebook.

Kind regards, Kameraad Pjotr 19:45, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your quick answer. Bye! --79.3.54.130 19:49, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Commons:Sexual content

You have now crossed the line. You have restored vandalism to a policy page without consensus and your user page made it clear that you have a POV that is unacceptable on Commons. I will now ask the Foundation and Jimbo to remove your adminship for abuse, especially with you protecting the page for blatant POV reasons. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:01, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Link. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:03, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Please follow the correct procedure. Kameraad Pjotr 21:11, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Jimbo still has the power to desysop. You violated just about every policy we have. You aren't fit to be admin let alone to have any privileges to use this community as you violated all trust. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:19, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Reverting to your preferred version, then protecting the page is in rather poor taste. I really do not want this to turn into a drama fest, or see any action taken against any editors (as Ottava mentioned above, desyopping). So I ask that you unprotect the page. Tiptoety ^talk 21:25, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Probably. Feel free to do it yourself, as you are capable of it. I no longer care. Kameraad Pjotr 21:27, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Please save everybody the trouble and resign voluntarily. - Stillwaterising (talk) 04:56, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

 CommentIf you must know, I only reverted Ottava Rima because he removed:

The following is highly controversial - the last two points are extremely so - and should not be used as the sole reason for deletion until consensus emerges. It is not part of Jimbo's original statement. * Primarily this means, that photographs and film of actual or simulated acts of: 1. Sexual intercourse, including genital-genital, oral-genital, anal-genital, or oral-anal, whether between persons of the same or opposite sex; 2. Bestiality; 3. Masturbation; 4. Sadistic or masochistic abuse - This could eaily serve an encyclopedic purpose. Hell, ever seen a gay pride parade?; or 5. Lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area of any person; This would mean that people can delete any nude, just by claiming titilation. That's ridiculous and out of the spirit of Wikipedia.. are no longer allowed on Foundation projects. For children stricter rules might apply. See also the definition of sexual explicit conduct as applied by the record keeping act. Wether or not the Foundation has to adhere to 2257 is not known, this content limitation, is due to the scope of the foundation's goals.

That Adam Cuerden had inserted Hell, ever seen a gay pride parade? or the like, I only saw afterwards. My protection might have been wrong. Kameraad Pjotr 07:46, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

ArchiveBot

Hi, I noticed you have set up User:MiszaBot to archive your talk page. Unfortunately, the bot has stopped working, and given how its operator is inactive, it is unclear when/if this will fixed. For the time being, I have volunteered to operate a MiszaBot clone (running the exact same code). With that said, your input would be appreciated at Commons:Bots/Requests/ArchiveBot 1. Regards, FASTILY 07:43, 20 April 2014 (UTC)