User:Taivo/Archive14 Jan-Mar

• User talk:Taivo

Instead of protecting wrong versions, you better honour a contributors wish with a huge amount of correctly identified organisms uploaded and delete this bad image. MPF is a bully who forces his opinion on everyone he doesn't agree with. You may have noticed that I have stopped uploading my images to Commons and migrated to FLICKR. Guys like MPF caused this. If you allow this kind of nonsense, more people will follow. So unprotect and delete ASAP.  B.p. 16:04, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

The file was presented for deletion and kept. You nominated the kept file twice for speedy deletion. This was bad. You also try to force you opinion on everyone you don't agree. This is also bad. The file is beautiful and there is no need to delete it, there can be only discussion over how to describe the bird best way. Taivo (talk) 16:13, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

You make me regret every file I ever uploaded here. They WILL be deleted.  B.p. 16:37, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Free licenses are irrevocable. And there is no need to regret. You files are beautiful and I thank you for them. Taivo (talk) 19:32, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello, Taivo. You have new messages at Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Juventus Stadium. You may remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template. asturianu ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ বাংলা ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ English ∙ español ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ हिन्दी ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ ქართული ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ português ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenščina ∙ svenska ∙ Tagalog ∙ Türkçe ∙ 简体中文 ∙ 繁體中文 ∙ +/−

LGA _talk^edits 07:38, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Also done File:Tribuna "sud" Juventus Stadium.JPG. LGA _talk^edits 07:42, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi Taivo, could u also delete the files Oliver Hardy (Figurine).jpg & Stan Laurel (Figurine).jpg? The shown figurines are copyrighted by the designers of 'em. Regards --Anıl Ö. (talk) 15:21, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

 Done What about File:Mevlei figurine (front).jpg and File:Mevlei figurine (side).jpg? Aren't they also copyrighted by designers? Taivo (talk) 16:54, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you very much. Yes, they are also. It's sad, to delete those pictures because of the good quality, but I didn't know about designer-copyrights like here. --Anıl Ö. (talk) 17:45, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

 Done on the same day. Taivo (talk) 11:22, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi Taivo, may I point out that Brimstone's en.wiki and WikiQuote pages was recently deleted, meaning that no WikiMedia pages should be hosting any of Brimstone's files, therefore I urge you to re-evaluate your Keep vote at the deletion request. Thank you. Starship.paint (talk) 23:36, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

 Done Closed and all files deleted. Taivo (talk) 11:22, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your prompt action Taivo! However I notice that the Category:Brimstone (wrestler) still exists. Should I need to propose a further deletion of that category? Starship.paint (talk) 11:24, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

 Done Sorry, I forgot. Deleted now. Taivo (talk) 11:28, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Much appreciated and good day to you. Starship.paint (talk) 11:47, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

• Tänan,--PjotrMahh1 (talk) 14:07, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Hallo, you deleted File:Schwäbisch Hall, Rathaus, Deckengemälde im Trausaal (Heldensaal) "Achilles, Patroclus, Hektor, Aeneas, Caesar, Pompejus, Scipio, Hannibal" o. "Achilles, Patroklos, Hektor, Aeneas, Romulus, Pompeius, Scipio, Fabius".jpg as "redundant or duplicate". Could you please provide the file link them image is redundant or duplicate to, so I can fix the link on my page? Thank you. --Matthiasb (talk) 05:04, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

 Done File:Schwäbisch Hall, Rathaus, Deckengemälde im Trausaal (Heldensaal) "Achilles, Patroclus, Hektor, Aeneas, Caesar, Pompejus, Scipio, Hannibal" o. "Achilles, Patroklos, Hektor, Aeneas, Romulus, Pompeius, Scipio, Fabius" .jpg. I did not wrote the filename in deletion summary, because the filename is too long for it. Taivo (talk) 10:06, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Please give me a reason for why you deleted my subpage. I would like to know why you not just delete without a coment but also why you capitalized the delete info (which of course I know wasnt part of the closing template info). And futhermore you do realize I can just paste the text (which was in my page for more than 1 month, so I do the wording not just by that but also from the thousands of DR who have the same wording.) and therefore you do realize that will not stop me from doing DR's right? And just so for info, that template I used come from Ellin Beltz who has a user page full of those, maybe you should start a DR on his userpage as well. The Photographer (talk) 14:05, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi, The Photographer. Actually I am glad, that you make so lot of deletion requests. Most of these files get deleted and your contribution is overall good. I did not add anything in DR closing, because I had nothing to add to Jim and Tuvalkin. I do not understand, what do you mean with capitalizing information. I did not want to capitalize anything.

Using pre-written texts is rather good than bad. I use myself pre-written texts often, for example:

• {{sockpuppet|Milanopablojavier24|confirmed}}
• {{DeletionFooter|DELETED|~~~~}}
• {{DeletionFooter|KEPT|does not surpass threshold of originality. ~~~~}}
• {{DeletionFooter|DELETED|give us this day our daily penises ... ~~~~}}
• {{DeletionFooter|DELETED|there have been a lot of such deletion requests. ~~~~}}

Of course, you can get the deleted text back from any source you mentioned. The page was simply nominated for deletion – I closed the request as deleted and deleted the page, that's all.

You used the deleted text via transclusion in a lot of deletion requests. Now they are somehow empty. You can recreate the page, if you want, but please do not make the new version very similar to old one. As Jim and Tuvalkin said, there were problems with wording. Sometimes you used the template, if the wording was not well suitable with file. One possible way is to make not one, but more versions and choose for every nominated file this version, which suits the best. Taivo (talk) 15:13, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello, Taivo. You have new messages on another wiki at [[Commons:Deletion requests/File:NangyarKoothu.jpg#{{{2}}}]]. You may remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template. asturianu ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ বাংলা ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ English ∙ español ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ हिन्दी ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ ქართული ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ português ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenščina ∙ svenska ∙ Tagalog ∙ Türkçe ∙ 简体中文 ∙ 繁體中文 ∙ +/−

Hi Taivo,

sorry if I wasn't clear enough: This wasn't about the map being correct or not, it was about copyright. The uploader surely did not walk along all the borders with his GPS in order to get a base map to color, so it's obviously not entirely his own work but based on something else. Maps and geoapatial data are usually copyrighted and since we don't know on what data the map was based, we have no idea whether it is copyrighted or not, so COM:PCP would apply imho. Cheers, --El Grafo (talk) 16:11, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi. I forgot to delete the other picture. Sorry. Now is deleted. Thanks. Érico Wouters ^msg 18:26, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

These images are on Wikipedia. Would it be copyright violation to vectorize these images?
File:PSOnewLogo.jpg, File:Punjab_Group_Of_Colleges_Logo.jpeg. Please tell me whether what type of image formats I can vectorize and upload them on Commons. What type of license is needed to vectorize image? -- wárrãich šÁhiß talk • contribs 13:36, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

These images are not and have never been in Commons. For vectorizing images, either images in Commons or images outside of Commons, no special license exists. For images in Commons, simply vectorize it and re-upload, using the original license. For images outside from Commons, if they are free from copyright, you can also vectorize it and upload into Commons. Both case mark original file as source file. From file names is evident, that they are some kind of logos. The logos must usually be not more difficult than threshold of originality. Most logos do not fulfill that criterium and are ineligible for Commons. Do not vectorize these logos, do not upload them into Commons. Taivo (talk) 15:06, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

These images are on Wikipedia which is a project of Wikimedia. Can I not vectorize these images and upload them on Commons? -- wárrãich šÁhiß talk • contribs 15:14, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

I do not know, I have not seen them. Different local wikipedias have different rules about local images. Some files are marked with messages "Do not upload into Commons!" or "Fair use". They are generally ineligible for Commons. Look at text behind threshold of originality link and try to understand that yourself. Taivo (talk) 15:21, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi Taivo (talk), Tell me Why did you delete my files without explanation ? --Bobbyshabangu (talk) 22:51,21 January 2014 (UTC)

I haven't deleted any of your files. They were deleted by other administrators, because there is no freedom of panorama in South Africa. This is thorougly explained in multiple deletion requests towards you files and also in you userpage. Taivo (talk) 09:40, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

hi Taivo i'm not talking about the other works that pertains freedom of panorama which i used during our wiki loves monuments competitions but i'm talking about my personal picture that i also used on my wikimedia.org.za chapter , that you nominated for deletion and deleted .... this conversation here:

Files of User:Bobbyshabangu 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 gallery, 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. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you! Afrikaans ∙ العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Zazaki ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ eesti ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 조선말 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ occitan ∙ polski ∙ پښتو ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ shqip ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

Taivo (talk) 11:47, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

this is my picture which i took it myself it's got nothing to do with freedom of panorama , so i would like to know why did you delete it , thanks !,, is it possible that you can restore it again (i understand according to policy i shouldn't reload it again right) -- Bobbyshabangu (talk) 10:56, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

So you are talking about File:Bobby shabangu.JPG. As you can see, I did not delete the file. It was deleted by Natuur12. This photo had no educational value. Everybody is allowed to use some personal photos in his userpage, but this photo was used nowhere. Therefore the photo was out of project scope. Commons is not a free web host for personal data.

I restore the photo, but please add it somewhere, for example into your userpage. If it is unused after a week, then I'll delete it again without further notice. Taivo (talk) 10:40, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

this issue of deletion of files needs to be seriously addressed, Taivo (talk)are you gona be attending the London Wikimania? , this is one of the topics i'll be addressing, really now i feel there are Gods amongst us, the thing is if your file or picture if selected for deletion, whether you argue or give a very good reason why i shouldn't be deleted the gods goes ahead and delete it, this is really a course for concern !! -- Bobbyshabangu (talk) 10:28, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

If your pictures were nominated for deletion, then you did not argue and you did not give any reason, why they should not be deleted. The files got deleted, it was normal. I have never been and will not go to Wikimanias, unless they happen in Estonia. Taivo (talk) 11:23, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

you know i think you've been an editor for a sometime now Taivo (talk) and i think you can very well agree with me that no matter how much you can argue your case on why your picture shouldn't be deleted , it gets deleted anyway , i can prove this to you many times, for example you said you will restore the picture but i still see that you haven't restored it and by the way this is not the first and even the 2nd time i'm arguing for this very same picture to be not deleted, infact after fighting a nail and tooth for this picture to be not deleted someone by the name of Warfieldian ^(talk) went ahead and deleted it, this happened right after himself said "Actually, if the photo is actively used in a wikimedia project, that should be sufficient to keep the photo. I will withdraw the nomination for deletion. ", and when i asked why he deleted it, he just ignored me so this tells me that no matter how much you argue for your picture to be not put down, people like you will put it down ,, you can see the conversation i'm talking about here :

File:Bobby shabangu.JPG has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you! Afrikaans ∙ العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Zazaki ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ eesti ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 조선말 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ occitan ∙ polski ∙ پښتو ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ shqip ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

Warfieldian ^(talk) 17:22, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Please don't re-upload photos again after they have been removed. Warfieldian ^(talk)

is it about remaning this picture or the fact that its on the wrong category because i use it here http://wikimedia.org.za/wiki/Board (as you may also see this with my colleagues too that it's not about our personal elevation but it's about wikimedia foundation work). please advice on how to upload a photo that will not violate copyright wikimedia's (commons) copyrights law but on the other hand be able to help make it easier for me to execute my chapter's work ( by this I mean we don't have a domain name and since we are using our own personal email in order to communicate with cooperates and stakeholders it makes it easy for them to see our pictures and what we do through this link http://wikimedia.org.za/wiki/Board , in the advent of 419 scams etc)

Actually, if the photo is actively used in a wikimedia project, that should be sufficient to keep the photo. I will withdraw the nomination for deletion. Warfieldian ^(talk)

hi Warfieldian ^(talk) , this time why did you delete the Bobby shabangu.JPG image? I thought you said you withdraw from deleting this image but will delete all the other pictures because they violate freedom of panorama, I even asked you advice on how to upload it in a ways that wouldn't violate the copyright wikimedia copyright laws , but you never explained this to me.Please return that image back !Bobbyshabangu ^(talk)

and by the way please check the photo's history, i did use it for wikimedia.org.za

so now i'm asking youTaivo (talk) can you help me put the picture in the right place where it won't be selected for deletion anymore ? - Bobbyshabangu (talk) 12:37, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

I can, but I do not want. Find yourself a proper place and use the file there. For example, in your userpage. And I repeat: if the file is still unused in beginning of February, then I'll delete it again. Taivo (talk) 11:09, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

You said to Warfieldian, that he deleted your photo. He did not, Warfieldian did not delete that. That's why he did not answer to you. Taivo (talk) 11:09, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

HiTaivo (talk) but you said one you user page that "In Commons, I am mostly active in deleting and categorizing files. Since 23 September 2013 I am an administrator" what is makes you don't want to categorize my picture ! what have i done to you !

The file was not deleted due to bad or missing categorizing. Nevertheless, I added two categories. Taivo (talk) 19:02, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi Taivo. This deletion was initiated by a sockpuppet of Messina. I had reverted him on this file before. I've deleted File:Relief des Adelswappen von "Gailenkirchen", vermauert im Widmanhaus am Markt Nr. 5 (früher Franziskanerkloster) in Schwäbisch Hall.jpg, which was a duplicate sourced to File:Schwäbisch Hall, Wappenrelief in der Gasse südlich des Rathauses.jpg, which I've restored. FYI, Schwäbisch Hall is a focus for Messina socks. He's creating socks daily, so be on the look out. INeverCry 19:03, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. I'll be careful in the future. Taivo (talk) 09:40, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Is this image a copyright violation? I found a similar resolution of it which dated to October 2013. It is a recent upload. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 03:28, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

I do not know. I suspect yes. Taivo (talk) 11:23, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Secondly, please try to rename this category to the Bazaar of Arak Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 08:55, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

I have no category renaming button and no bot to do this automatically. But there is only 15 photos in the category. Please create yourself Category:Bazaar of Arak and edit manually all 15 photos to move them into correct category. Then you can nominate the old category for speedy deletion, but if not, then I'll delete it myself, if it is empty. Taivo (talk) 11:23, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

•  Comment: I have created the correct Category:Bazaar of Arak. Can you delete this wrong category here since it is empty now. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 01:00, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

 Done on the same day. Taivo (talk) 11:09, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

• Thank you for your help. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 08:50, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

I was not present at the debate, but if I recall the prior consensus for this image, with essentially the same contents, was keep, both on the English Wikipedia and on Commons. May I ask what precisely induced its deletion and whether its components may be altered to fit copyright? Amitabho (talk) 06:22, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Please read Commons:Deletion requests/File:Bengali collage.png, especially, what Stefan said. In such collages every image must be free. You can make a new version, using only free photos. Taivo (talk) 10:09, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Dear Taivo, this file has been deleted because I used another existing file and apparently I needed the author (Norbert Schnitzler)to grant permission for that. I cannot find the file back or the author (perhaps my stupidity). Can you let me know how I can reach Norbert, so that I can ask his explicit permission? Thanks,Fjvelsen (talk) 01:36, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

 Not done I have no idea. There is no useful data in file description. (You cannot see description of deleted files, only administrators can.) Taivo (talk) 10:07, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello Taivo, I am not very handy in this field. The file was used in 'Citroën ID/DS' in the Dutch Wikipedia. Does that help? Thanks in advance Fjvelsen (talk) 01:24, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

I said to you: there is no useful data in file description. There is no contact data of Norbert Schnitzler and have never been. It doesn't matter, where the file has been used. Sorry, I cannot help you. Taivo (talk) 11:09, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi Taivo, thank you for deleting my mistake.--Nikater (talk) 08:53, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Taivo, can you please move File:Kranj 19.jpg from 'Category:Kranj' to 'Category:Views of Kranj' and also add 'Panoramics of cities in Slovenia'? Perhaps unprotection would be in place. Thanks a lot. --Eleassar ^(t/p) 22:27, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

 Done But protect log of this file was empty and I could not so unprotect it. Taivo (talk) 09:49, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. --Eleassar ^(t/p) 10:40, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi, can you tell me where the user requested deletion of User:Petro/monobook.js? To me, this looks more like a mistake with some {. --Didym (talk) 12:24, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Maybe. Somehow it appeared in category of speedy deletions. I was quite surprised, I had never seen a speedy deletion request for .js file, but as Petro was the only contributor of the file, I thought, that apparently he wants somehow to get rid of the file, and I deleted it. Taivo (talk) 12:31, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi Taivo. I noticed a few of your deletions like this one, where the spam is repeated in your deletion rationale. You can get rid of this by going to Preferences/Tools for authorized users, and checking CleanDeleteReasons. INeverCry 18:18, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Hello Taivo, Can you please translate a template for me into Estonian? You can do that by copying the contents of Template:WIKI loves parliaments/European Parliament 2014/en to Template:WIKI loves parliaments/European Parliament 2014/et and translate the parts behind the = . Thanks! Romaine (talk) 17:33, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Hello, Mr. Taivo. Most of the files from my account you've deleted accomplish the following rule:

This image is in the public domain because the copyright of this photograph, registered in Argentina, has expired. (Both at least 25 years have passed after the photograph was created, and it was first published at least 20 years ago, Law 11.723, Article 34 as amended, and Berne Convention Article 7 (4)). Use this template exclusively for photos and NOT for drawings or other pieces of art. Warning: date and source of any publication prior to 20 year old must be indicated so anyone can check it, and clear evidence that the image was taken more than 25 years ago must be given. العربيَّة | Deutsch | English | español | suomi | français | galego | italiano | македонски | മലയാളം | português | português do Brasil | русский | sicilianu | 中文（中国大陆）‎ | +/−

Every single photo taken after Feb 10, 1989 is on the public domain. Would it be possible to upload them again? It's been a hard work to upload one by one after scanning them. Thank you for your time.--MuyDaniel (talk) 03:40, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately Commons requests, that all media must be free from copyright in two countries: in source country (Argentina) and in USA. While these files can be free in Argentina, they are not in USA. United States made a law named URAA, which makes a lot of photos and texts not free, even if they are free in source country. The URAA date is 1996. The files are acceptable in Commons, if they were free in their source country on URAA date. The photos from Argentina are free in 1996, if they were created before 1971 (1996-25=1971). Taivo (talk) 11:32, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

And often you said, that the file is your own work, even if you are not photographer: I do not believe, that you are the photographer of 1933 photo. Name of real photographer is needed. If you do not know, then say "unknown", not "own work". Taivo (talk) 11:32, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi Taivo, just wondering -- why did you undo my courtesy blank? The user obviously wishes to vanish, and I think we should honor that request as best we can. Regards, FASTILY 12:14, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, edit conflict. Probably page blanking is correct, so I reverted myself. Taivo (talk) 12:17, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Glad to help![1] DMacks (talk) 18:02, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Hey there,

Thanks for deleting all my screwed up categories. Much obliged. (Hope I'm getting better at this category stuff.) Parabolooidal (talk) 17:44, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi, now I understand this reversion of yours, it's because there is a source named Inscriptions Romaines de Catalogne and that category wasn't referring to a country. Sorry for what I did. But a little explain is always welcomed. Cya, Kordas (sínome!) 19:29, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Hon.Minister Weerakumara Dissanayaka.jpg

you have said : Symbol delete vote.svg Delete Eeriyaka has uploaded a lot of small photos with no metadata, so I do not believe here own work. Taivo (talk) 11:53, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

this is your private opinion, this images solely created me, from my old camera. i don't have the original image, since both camera and laptop died. but i still waiting to recover my old backups to challenge your personal believing are just your silly believes. not the real fact. which you tend to paranoid about genuine facts.

the above image which you authorised to delete, will not find any public/private domains, this was the reason it was there almost 3-4 years. i will find my original copy and will prove it others you are driving by your personal thoughts. (Eeriyaka (talk) 01:36, 16 February 2014 (UTC))

All your files got deleted anyway due to suspected copyright violation. Taivo (talk) 15:23, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Hello, Mr. Taivo. Since you were concerned about files that seemed to be copyright infrictions, I found something that may concern you. Most of this files, uploaded by former user Albouser (talk) are taken from this weblog. They're even taken from just a few entries: 1, 2, 3, 4 & 5. The weblog says specifically that the images are protected by copyright, including the year and the country were they are registered. Since this clearly seems to be several copyright violations that may be discovered by the copyright owner, I know you will take a proper decision about this. Yours,--MuyDaniel (talk) 02:54, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you very much. I'll look his uploads carefully and probably nominate some of them for deletion. Taivo (talk) 15:23, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Hello! Here (Commons:Deletion requests/File:Petty Image.jpg) you mention an "@" sign on the original image, but you mean a "©" instead, right? -- Tuválkin ✉ 04:35, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Of course. My mistake. This is not the first time, when I make that mistake. Taivo (talk) 15:49, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Hello Taivo: You could delete this file rigth it is my authorship. There is already a vectorized version, so it's not necessary. Thank you. Regards. Hola Taivo: Podrías borrar este archivo rigth es de mi autoría. Ya existe una versión vectorizada, así que no es necesaria. Gracias. Saludos. --Retaux (talk) 21:08, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

The replacement file is not very similar. I do not know, which is correct. The best is to wait, until time of regular deletion request ends. This happens on 23th of February. It is not too long to wait 3 more days. Taivo (talk) 21:12, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

I went up the picture but the design belongs to someone else. And the owner of the coat of arms you want to delete this version. Took several days trying to get me eiminen. What else can I do to eliminate that. Yo subi el dibujo pero el diseño le pertenece a otra persona. Y la dueña del escudo de armas quiere que se elimine esta versión. Llevo varios día tratando de que me la eiminen. Que más puedo hacer para que la eliminen. --Retaux (talk) 21:30, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

What do I have to do to re-upload or link with an image that you can see now in the english version[2]? It's the poster of the film, but you deleted only the one of mine. Thanks --Juan R. Cuadra (talk) 10:15, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

You must obtain permission from copyright owner. Copyright belongs probably to film company, but maybe to artist, who designed, the poster, and maybe to cinema chain, which shows the film. Taivo (talk) 14:16, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi Taivo: You may wish to comment [3] here, [4] here, or [5] here. I didn't nominate the black and white portrait of the former President of Turkey since I am unsure of the free rights given by their goverment. The image is on their website as sourced by the uploader. I also found this old deletion discussion [6] but I do not know if that was the same image or not. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:16, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

I copy this comment into your request for adminship. Taivo (talk) 15:23, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

you commented you might want to keep an image solely for its having no content. Thats funny, but it has a tiny ring of truth. perhaps we need Category:No content for the select few images which effectively portray nothing. Silly idea, but still...Mercurywoodrose (talk) 17:19, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Why not? If there are files in the category, that's totally OK by me. Taivo (talk) 18:25, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for cleaning up my messes today. Thryduulf (talk) 22:37, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for closing my deletion requests! It's much more fun when you do that :D But I'll try to be more precise sometimes. For example vandalism meant here, that the German title seems to be referring to erections because of hotpans worn by men. And your comments are great! lol --Indeedous (talk) 22:43, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Hello Taivo. Since your available, do you mind removing the protection from my talk page? Thank you. --Blurred Lines 16:47, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

 Done some minutes later. Taivo (talk) 09:22, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

	The Original Barnstar
	maldito hijo de puto por que me has bloqueado Mi propag (talk) 22:38, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Taivo, your illusion about me being knowledgeable is going way too far!--Utar Sigmal (talk) 13:55, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Probably you speak about File:Хибридна евроамериканска топола 2.jpg. You nominated it for speedy deletion, I did not agree and reverted you. You claimed, that you cannot identify the species. Maybe. But the plant is identified and categorized, so it does not need identifying any more. This is good photo and does not need deletion. If you still want it deleted, create a regular deletion request, but it does not qualify for speedy deletion. Taivo (talk) 14:23, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

See oli nali, ilmselt ebaõnnestunud. Tänan teid teie täpsus ja parasvöötme suhtumist pilte. Ma kardan, et mu mineviku ja tuleviku vigu on vaja tugevaid käsi. Loodan, et saan arvestada. Lõppude lõpuks, need on vaid pilte.--Utar Sigmal (talk) 18:28, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Please do not use a Google translator for Estonian language. This simply does not work enough well. I do not understand, what do you want to say. Write in English, then I understand. Taivo (talk) 09:22, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

You removed the speedydelete tag on File:Tumblr n1nq3aSFgH1tu63y8o2 1280.jpg without giving a reason – I consider this disruptive editing from you.

In case you haven't noticed:

Appeal: If you disagree with a speedy deletion, change this tag to a regular deletion request using {{delete}} and list it on Commons:Deletion requests/Current requests so it can be discussed.

I would kindly ask you to take a bit more care with these matters. Tony Mach (talk) 14:56, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Please read COM:SCOPE. "Pornographic image" is not a reason to delete anything, "penis image" is not a reason to delete anything. If you still want to delete the photo, please create a regular deletion request, but this photo does not qualify for speedy deletion. Such photo can be deleted only due to poor quality, but not on the grounds that it is not used. I revert you once again and please do not nominate the photo for speedy deletion third time. And removal of speedy deletion template is not disruptive, if the image does not qualify for speedy deletion. Taivo (talk) 15:02, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

• If you disagree with a speedy deletion, change this tag to a regular deletion request. But OK, I will do that on grounds of poor quality – thanks for the pointer.
• This would have been avoided if you had given a short reason in your revert in the first place.
• Reverts should be used only for vandalism, AFAIK. (At least on en.wikipedia; from en:Wikipedia:Reverting Revert vandalism on sight, but revert an edit made in good faith only after careful consideration. – please tell me that my nomination is vandalism, but not the image.)

Tony Mach (talk) 15:46, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

I did not know, that there are such rules in en.wiki. I am myself not a user in en.wiki and there is no such rules where I am user. And I do not consider this image vandalism, this has some encyclopedic value. Taivo (talk) 16:05, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

BTW, from Commons:Nudity#Vandalism: Any image that appears to be uploaded solely for the purpose of vandalism may be speedily deleted. Typically the uploader will be a new user with a low edit count and other users from local projects will come to Commons to request the image's deletion. Tony Mach (talk)

One more, from COM:PORN ("Commons is not an amateur porn site"): Low-quality pornographic images that do not contribute anything educationally useful to our existing collection of images are not needed on the Commons. If the quality is bad, we may keep the file if we have no better file on a subject it can illustrate. As a result, uploaded low-quality photographs of genitalia are generally deleted quickly.

May I advise you reconsider your stance in future cases of similar nature? Tony Mach (talk) 15:58, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

No, I do not do that. If the image has very bad quality, then I can speedily delete it, but "pornographic image" or "penis image" is not a reason to delete anything and especially this is not a reason to speedily delete anything. I recommend you not to nominate nudity-related images for speedy deletion, if they have normal quality. Taivo (talk) 16:08, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

If the given reason was different, you would have deleted it? For crying out loud: Why don't you write that in your revert in the first place? I don't mind having nude images for illustrative purposes here (even bad quality ones), but wikipedia is not an amateur porn site, and the image does nothing to further the knowledge of the human race.

And again, I still think your removal is disruptive, because:

• You gave no reason for your revert.
• You should have placed a normal delete tag there, because you removed the speedydelete tag.
• "Commons is not an amateur porn site" should be clear, or not?
• If you know so much about the rules on commons, why don't you share them right away? A short comment would have sufficed. Instead I have to drag it out of you piece by piece – do you understand why I think your behavior is disruptive? I put the speedydelete tag there in good faith.

I can only tell you that I still find your interpretation of the rules here to be quite peculiar. It is your choice to ignore criticism of your actions – I on the other hand have learned from your criticism and will try to put better reason in speedydelete tags. Tony Mach (talk) 16:28, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

What can I say? I feel towards you the same way: I found your behaviour disruptive, because you nominated an image twice for speedy deletion with bad reason. I believe, that you acted in good faith, but nevertheless. I gave no reason for revert and I acknowlidge, that this was wrong (reverting is only one click, undoing an edit is a lot of clicks and keypresses – this is explaining, not excuse). What if you gave a reason "bad quality" in beginning – I am not sure in bad quality, therefore I would not delete the file, but I would not revert you. I did not make a regular deletion request, because I considered your edits "vandalism made in good faith". Of course, Commons is not an amateur porn site, I have deleted a lot of bad porn and I have nominated for deletion a lot of bad porn. I am not sure, that this photo belongs into bad porn. Taivo (talk) 16:55, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi, you declined my request without explaining why [7]. I made the request because the term "ass hat" is an insult. Rybec (talk) 15:33, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

That's because I did not notice words "ass hat", although they are in filename and in description also. I am totally agree with regular deletion request. Taivo (talk) 15:40, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

It also has what looks like someone's full name. Do you feel that speedy deletion is unsuitable, and if so, why? Rybec (talk) 16:36, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

 Done The file was deleted by INeverCry next day. Taivo (talk) 11:16, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

I moved this section into Commons:Deletion requests/Files of User:Cincell. Taivo (talk) 11:16, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

I added my comments to this page [8]

Thanks for blocking this user- since he/she had repeatedly uploaded nothing but apparent copyvios and ignored all requests for information, I think this is for the best (though I'd be very surprised if they had anything legitimate to contribute even after the month block is up!)

All the best, Ubcule (talk) 12:53, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Is there any way you could merge File:S.M. Linienschiff Baden - restoration 2.png into File:S.M. Linienschiff Baden - restoration.png? Failing that, just delete the latter (restoration.png) and move "...restoration 2.png" over it. Basically, it's over 100MB, so I can only upload with the UploadWizard, which... is not very full-featured. Adam Cuerden (talk) 16:09, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

 Done I deleted and moved. I do not know, how to merge histories. Taivo (talk) 16:16, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for cleaning up the mistake I made and speedy-deleted the page I erroneously created at the wrong capitalization in my own userspace. ^^; Penwhale (talk) 17:09, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Perdone, ¿usted qué sabe del retrato del 1^er duque de Alba? Nada. No sabe que ese retrato es una mala copia de una retrato de Antonio Moro del 3^er duque de Alba, "el Gran Alba". Por favor retire su obra. --Parair (talk) 14:37, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

¿Conoce algo de la Historia de España o de sus héroes y artistas? --Parair (talk) 14:40, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I do not understand Spanish at all and Google translator does not work in my computer. I do not understand, what is wrong. I re-opened the request. Taivo (talk) 15:30, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I do not understand english at all and Google translator does not work in my computer. I do not understand, what is wrong. I re-opened the request. --Parair (talk) 19:43, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Greetings, Taivo. Thank you for your speedy response to my request to delete the file. Unfortunately I requested the speedy deletion before I had read this article. It turns out the image cannot be protected under copyright according to that article and so this image did not need to be deleted. Would you be extra kind and un-delete it? I sincerely apologize for causing you inconvenience and being frustrating. Thank you for your time and consideration. Regards, ArchieWeldment (talk) 17:07, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

 Not done No, this is not a simple logo. The red-white explode surpasses threshold of originality. OTRS-permission from copyright holder is needed. Taivo (talk) 17:17, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi Taivo, With a lot of COM:AGF unblocked. I hope this is okay. Have a nice day! :) --Steinsplitter (talk) 12:53, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm afraid, that the show goes now on ... and on ... and on ... I hope not. Taivo (talk) 12:58, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Maybe i have too much AGF today... I hope this problem is resolved for ever :). --Steinsplitter (talk) 13:08, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello Taivo,

I uploaded to Commons a file that you deleted but on Flickr the license is a CC-BY-SA, so I don't understand very well.

The file is named "Maharishi and the Beatles 2.jpg" and its license review can be found here: https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Maharishi_and_the_Beatles_2.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1

This license review reads: "Non-free license, or license disallowing commercial use and/or derivative works) (global usage; delinker log)", but if you look at its status on the Flickr site, it is a CC-BY-SA allowing commercial use: https://www.flickr.com/photos/93004286@N06/13215718455/

Could you please check what is the problem? Thank you very much in advance. Cordially--Flaberguest (talk) 15:27, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for asking. Stemoc reviewed the license and marked it for deletion with reason "failed". I trusted him and deleted the file without any investigation. If I opened link to original file, there is really license CC-BY-SA-2.0. I mention this to Stemoc. Let him answer, why he marked the license as failed. If he does not answer, simply re-upload it. Taivo (talk) 22:07, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi, the image, even though released on flickr on a free licence did NOT belong to the uploader on flickr (Commons:Flickrwashing) so even if it was released on a free licence there, I realised that image is quite possibly a protected/non-free image after a simple google search, you can find that image here (http://www.beatlesbible.com/gallery/1967-photos/67_beatles_maharishi-mahesh_yogi_002/), and also, it looks like the uploader to wikimedia is involved in flickrwashing too, the image in the link above (https://www.flickr.com/photos/93004286@N06/13215718455/) was uploaded 3 days ago..I hope this much explanation is enough..I would have tagged the originally uploaded image as flickrwashing but unfortunately, the drop down menu doesn't really have that option...so i went for the next best thing..--Stemoc (talk) 00:43, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

 Done Taivo (talk) 12:30, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Very subtle. Nothing bad happens, but nothing good either. I like it, thanks. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:30, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello Taivo, could you please delete these? Thanks! YLSS (talk) 21:10, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

 Done on the same day. Taivo (talk) 09:22, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi, why was this[9] file deleted? I see it is noncommercial now, but it couldn't have been when I uloaded it with the Flickr bot, because it does not accept such licenses. If it was changed afterwards, it does not affect us, as CC licenses cannot be revoked. FunkMonk (talk) 23:03, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Then there was an error. I always upload NC-ND to my flickr account. This file was rightly deleted.  B.p. 09:12, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

The file was uploaded on 4th of March. The license was then cc-by-sa-2.0. On 22th of March Biopics demanded new license review, it was found non-commercial and deleted on the same day. Maybe I was too careless. As free licenses are irrevocable, I can restore the photo and the version with free license. What do you think, FunkMonk? Taivo (talk) 10:23, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Nonsense! The licenses on my Flickr account are never cc-by-sa-2.0.  B.p. 12:49, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

You're wrong --Indeedous (talk) 13:17, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Not sure what's going on. Perhaps it was a mistake on Biopics's part to use that license in the first place? Again, it is simply impossible for the bots to upload non-commercial images, unless the current toolserver problems screwed it up. FunkMonk (talk) 13:27, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Mistakes happen on all sides. It could've been mine, it could've been the toolserver's. But what is certain: I don't want any of my new photo's on Commons. People have been far to unfriendly here lately.  B.p. 14:01, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

"Unfriendly"? How do you expect anyone to know what you think, when the actual image licenses are like this? Can you point out where this "unfriendliness" is expressed? FunkMonk (talk) 15:26, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

The unfriendliness does not concern those in this conversation.  B.p. 16:19, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

To be friendly: What about Commons:Courtesy deletions? If there would be a consensus as the uploader made clear, that it was a mistake, it would be a possible reason for the deletion. --Indeedous (talk) 15:37, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

That was your method. So the current situation is that my images were copyrighted, illegal works, but other similar election posters could remain. Just because your petty revenge. --Norden1990 (talk) 19:01, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Similar will be deleted, but most of them are not similar. Please familiarize yourself with de minimis, freedom of panorama and copyright expiring dates. They are most common reasons, why Commons can host election posters. None of them cannot applied to your photos. Today I nominated a half of dozen of election posters for deletion, and this is not the end. Taivo (talk) 19:51, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

You're wrong, most of them are similar to my image which is also waiting for deletion. I considered date, type, content e.g. when I requested deletions. There are several French election posters in Commons, while France hasn't freedom of panorama. Someone can upload images without restrictions, someone not. --Norden1990 (talk) 20:20, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

No, all are equal. For example, let's look French posters:

• File:Législative Neuilly 1890.JPG (too old for copyright protection)
• File:Affiches legislatives 2012.jpg (ineligible for copyright due to simplicity)
• File:French presidential elections 2007 Paris Place dItalie 12 candidates.jpg (de minimis applies)

And so on. None of them are similar to your photos. But a lot of French posters are deleted also. Taivo (talk) 20:55, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

I loaded to commons mistake photos. For example File:izydor Koper grób.JPG is the same tomb as File:izydor Koper grób0.JPG. File:izydor Koper grób0.JPG is file to delete. Lukasz2 (talk) 13:40, 24 March 2014 (UTC) File:M9837493762487216.JPG is the same of File:Marian Waluchowski grób.JPG. Lukasz2 (talk) 13:42, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

They are beautiful photos. This is not a mistake, if there is two photos about the same tomb. Taivo (talk) 13:47, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Being one of the users involved in my DsR on fictional flags, please have a look at User:Antemister/Fictional flag issue for a general discussion on that topic.--Antemister (talk) 14:14, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

I guess something went wrong here... AFAIR, that was a file, not a redirect. I guess it would be better to delete File:BSicon uxKRZ3+1u.svg now, move the deleted revisions of File:BSicon ueKRZ3+1u temp.svg to that title, and restore them, without leaving any redirects. Could you please do that? YLSS (talk) 10:33, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

 Done. Taivo (talk) 10:38, 31 March 2014 (UTC)