User:Taivo/Archive15 Jan–Mar

As for me loaded files

As to File:En Avant Guingamp 86-94 logo.svg. What do you mean a product of its not own work? I created this file yourself in Inkskape based on the team photo of the football club 80s-90s. Analogues of this image on the Internet is not. As for the rest I downloaded this logos of the French team, their primary source is the site www.brandsoftheworld.com, where they are laid out by the authors to the public and free download.

I answered in Commons:Deletion requests/File:En Avant Guingamp 86-94 logo.svg. Taivo (talk) 20:38, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Delete previous versions

Hi Taivo. I have a question, I have been experimenting with coloring a black and white photo but I didn't like the result. Due to old monitors I wasn't able to see it before and I made the mistake of uploading them. I decided I only want the original black and white photo uploaded. So I did today. I replaced the earlier upload. This is the final version and the only version I want to have uploaded. The permission of the work is already done. Can you please remove the previous uploaded versions? (the ones from 29 and 8 September). The only reason they are bigger is because of the fake colors. Thanks in advance! E. Monteyn (talk) 00:47, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Erledigt Taivo (talk) 20:38, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks so much! E. Monteyn (talk) 20:55, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Andrey Dmitriev

Ask to restore files, because I do not agree with his removal. Photos taken from the site is not Flickr, but from the forum http://forum.globus.tut.by/. The size of uploaded photos is the same size as the photos on the forum, and not on Flickr. +: I authorize the use of all of the photos published on the website Belarus Globe and https://www.flickr.com/photos/_ad/ licensed under CC-BY-SA-3.0. Andrey Dmitriev ([1]).

File:Замалёўкі_Мінска_16.jpg
File:Замалёўкі_Мінска_22.jpg
File:Замалёўкі_Мінска_50.jpg --Чаховіч Уладзіслаў (talk) 16:54, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Erledigt I restored the files and re-licensed them. Taivo (talk) 18:23, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Recent deletion closure

Commons:Deletion requests#Closing discussions says that "In general, requests can be closed by an administrator after seven days.". So I'm wondering why you closed Commons:Deletion requests/File:Kalachakra 2014 (14515227658).jpg (as "delete") when less than three hours had passed? – Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 00:17, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

It seemed to me, that the result was so obvious. Taivo (talk) 09:48, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Would you mind un-deleting the image restoring the discussion? I'm sorry, but deleting an image in a discussion-based deletion process (as opposed to the speedy deletion process, which is separate) seems quite inappropriate when there is no time given for the discussion to take place. – Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 20:42, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Actually, if new circumstances do not appear, then the photo would be deleted anyway. Please say, what kind of educational value is here, and I may consider restoring the photo. Taivo (talk) 21:42, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

I can't do that unless I can see the photo. And I can't do that because you deleted it. Unless it met a speedy deletion criterion (if so, it should have been noted in your close notice and the deletion log), such an early close was inappropriate anyway. I suppose the next step is for me to head over to Commons:Undeletion requests, then? – Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 01:38, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

OK, you did not show any reason to restore, because there isn't any, so I do not restore the file. I explained when closing the request, why the file should be deleted, so you can go into undeletion requests. Taivo (talk) 08:44, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

PD-textlogo

This image is considered textlogo, so many images from Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Association football logos of Turkey probably would be too. EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 21:05, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

No. All deleted logos had other problems. Taivo (talk) 22:30, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi Taivo. You deleted some of these files, but that is not a right thing to do. First of all, you should have done a better research for the creation dates of these logos. For example, "Logo of Vefa SK.gif" has been created circa 1910s, and "Logo of Feriköy SK.png" has been created circa 1930s, "BJK 1903.png" has been created circa 1900s-1910s etc. We can not act on "possibilities" to delete files. Secondly, if we take a public domain logo (lets take this one) and change it a little bit with replacing the text with ehatever we want and change it colours. After some minor changes, we get another logo, right? So if the first logo is public domain because "it consists entirely of information that is common property and contains no original authorship", the second logo that we created must be a public domain too. What I'm thying to say is, logos that you deleted are public domain, because "they consist entirely of information that is common property and contains no original authorship".--Rapsar (talk) 15:18, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Rapsar, please give links, which show, that some files are old, and the old files are restored. Finding these links are actually uploader's work and the deletion nomination was open whole month. Taivo (talk) 15:46, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

They should be kept beacues of they are simple designs. Some of them are public domain because of their creation date, too. I may have added wrong licenses some of these files, but that is not a reason to delete them, right?--Rapsar (talk) 16:08, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Microsoft logo is simple, Audi logo is simple, Volkswagen logo is simple, Olympic rings are simple. None of the logos, which I deleted, was simple. Wrong license (for example PD-textlogo here) can be reason to delete, when correct license is not found. Some deleted logos could be old, but without proof for that they remain deleted. Taivo (talk) 21:04, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

They were consist only simple geometric shapes and text. Most of the people who participated the DR said "we shold keep them" and made reasonable comments, but you deleted them anyway. What is the point of discussion, if you act however you want?--Rapsar (talk) 12:15, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

They had all elaborate shield of coat of arms. The simplest of them was file:Logo of Beyoğluspor.png, this is borderline and I considered it keep due to simplicity, but actually this shield surpasses also threshold of otiginality, it is not made of simple geometrical figures. Fortunately this logo is very probably old. The point of discussion is presenting arguments. The deletion discussion is not voting, you can look here for an extreme example: I voted delete, other 31 people voted keep and my 1 vote weighed more than 31 other votes altogether. Taivo (talk) 22:50, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree with your opinion about "deletion discussion is not voting", I'm supporting the same idea in Turkish Wikipedia. But your example is not good, because these anonymous users are the same person obviously. Anyway, just take a look at this logo. It only consists simple shield of coat of arms, a star and some text. Can you tell me, are there any elaborate shape in that one?--Rapsar (talk) 11:04, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

The shield of coat of arms is not simple. If the shield would be rectangular or ellipsoidal, it would be simple. Taivo (talk) 14:08, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

The shape of the shield does not matter, it is a public domain anyway. Just look at here oder here. If I take this one (which is pulic domain) and add some text, vertical lines and a star, it would be a pulic domain too.--Rapsar (talk) 16:34, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, but Bilecikspor's shield has bigger holes left and right and it has not a pointy, but round bottom. Standard shields are of course in public domain, but this shield is not standard and is not in public domain. Taivo (talk) 17:00, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

File:Alfa vector.png

Dear Taivo, this vector image is absolutely and totally my own work and I can present a CDR (CorelDraw) file created by me at any time. The logo itself is not registered yet but de-facto it is used by company where I work.

That case, please follow OTRS and send appropriate e-mail. You may also comment in Commons:Deletion requests/File:Alfa vector.png. Taivo (talk) 16:30, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the note on my talk page

Hey mate, thanks for the note on my talk page. I, too, only have good memories of dealing with you. In fact, it is like this for most of the editors here on Commons. But, seriously, I am much more like File:Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-29 (9-13), Russia - Air Force AN1174572.jpg -- still flying strong. :) Best, Aviationfirst (talk) 18:28, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

File:Andres Anvelt.jpg

Palun taastamist. Kruusamägi (talk) 16:17, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Erledigt Taivo (talk) 16:19, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

User talk:Aleksander Kaasik

Palun vaata kustutatud pilte. Kõik peaks olema A. Kaasiku tehtud. Need võiks taastada ja lisada puuduolnud info. Kruusamägi (talk) 13:30, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Konkreetsemalt. Kolmel failil pole litsentsi, missugune litsents neile lisada? Nelja järgmist faili ma ei tohi ja kaht viimast ei taha taastada.

file:A.Kaasiku fotonäituse avamine.jpg – pole litsentsi.Faili kasutusluba on mul olemas,kuna kasutan kas alati mulle kingitud kasutusõigusega faile või enda tehtud tööd virtuaalsetest arhiividest.

Kui juhtun ise pildil olema, on võimalus näiteks loodusvaate puhul autoknipsi kasutada. Ent konkreetset pilti fotonäituse avamisest enam hästi ei mäleta ja ei hakka siin aega raiska. Mees kes tahab pilti kustutada ja kui teab, miks ja milleks- mis mul vastu öelda...

file:Brest, 22 september 1939.jpg – pole litsentsi

Brest, 22 september on pärit üldkasutatavast virtuaalsest arhiivist.

file:Niinsaare puhkekeskus.jpg – pole litsentsi

Niinsaare puhkekeskus on minu Aleksander Kaasiku pildistatud üldkasutatavast hoonest järve ääres ja ei saa aru litsentsi küsimisest nagu kasvõi igast bussipeatuse pildistamisest. Võib olla peaks pilti ümber nimetama, aga praegu ei tule see pilt ka silme ette, et öelda sõna - kas tegu ainuomase arhitektuuriga või loodusfotoga jne

Diplom."narva Sügis 2008".jpg – tuletatud teos autoriõigusega kaitstud diplomist.

Kui autoriõigused on teada, mis mul siin vahele rääkida!

Narva Sügis 2007.jpg – tuletatud teos autoriõigusega kaitstud diplomist
Diplom.September 2006.jpg – tuletatud teos autoriõigusega kaitstud diplomist
Sotsialistliku võistluse toime.jpg – tuletatud teos autoriõigusega kaitstud teosest.

Ei mäleta, millest siin (Sotsialistliku võistluse ...) lugu ja tegu, aga kui ei sobi, tuleb kustutada

Kollaaž näitustest.jpg – minu meelest pole seda pilti Commonsisse vaja.

Ise pead teadma, mis vaja, minul pole vastu midagi väita.

Грязебальнеолечение в лимане Мойнаки 1980. г.jpg – olemasoleva faili koopia, taastamine on seetõttu mõttetu. Taivo (talk) 16:40, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Ma jah, olen asendanud teinekord kuhugile kadunud pilte ja samas mõtlen, et kas olen unustanud siis üles laadida, et kuhu pilt sai kaduda ja siis ka asendanud jne. Vabandan, kui ei osanud konkreetseid vastuseid öelda, pilte on silme eest palju läbi käinud, praegu tegelen ülesvõtetega Venemaast ja raske tagasi möödunud aastatele vaadata. Vahel mõni suure jutuga ingliskeelne sedastaja pajatab mõne pildi või kirjutise juures, ent ma ei hakka lugema sõnastiku abil teateid, aru saan eestist ja venest, ülejäänuga end ei pinguta. Ja nagu olen maininud, aeg pole raiskamiseks kui pilditöö ootamas Soovin Vikitegijatele parimat! User:Aleksander Kaasik

Aleksander, ma pean konkreetsem olema. Ma saan kolm esimest pilti taastada, aga neil puudub litsents. Missugustel tingimustel oled nõus need pildid Commonsis avaldama? Kas nõuad näiteks, et pildi juures tuleb alati sinu nime mainida? Või ei sea üldse mingeid tingimusi?

Vabandan, et ei saanud litsentsi olemusest aru. Mulle teeb ainult röömu, kui teised saavad ka kasutada neid pilte ükskõik mis otstarbel. Need tingimused mulle sobivad. Tegin näiteks üsna heaks Bresti pildi, nägi ühel ajal Eesti ajalehes sarnast, kuid kehvakeses vormistuses. Siinkohal mainin, et olen valmis mudima mõnd pilti kui eesti Vikitajal vaja üldkasutatavaks tarbeks üles seada mõnd olulist ülesvõtet. Asjandust mida tunnen, saan abistamisena pakkuda, ent mitte inglise keelses olus.User:Aleksander Kaasik

{{CC-by-sa-3.0}} või {{PD-self}} või midagi muud? (Pildid peavad olema tasuta kasutatavad ükskõik milliseks, sealhulgas äriliseks otstarbeks, teistel inimestel peab olema ka õigus pilte umber teha. Kui need tingimused pole vastuvõetavad, siis need pildid Commonsisse ei sobi.) Taivo (talk) 20:53, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Tema viimased pildid on CC BY-SA 4.0 litsentsi all. Seega küsiks pigem ühe lihtsa kas küsimuse: kas see sama litsents sobib ka nende teiste litsentsita piltide juurde? Ega Aleksander esimest korda pilte lisanud. Kruusamägi (talk) 09:36, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Taastasin kolm ülemist fotot. Taivo (talk) 10:42, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Section edit summary

Can you please use the section edit summary? It is annoying to always klick on the diff :-) --Steinsplitter (talk) 18:34, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

OK, I'll remember, that {{done}} is not enough. Taivo (talk) 18:37, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Normally mediawiki does it automatically. Only on AN of course for easy tracking. Thanks and have a nice evening! --Steinsplitter (talk) 18:41, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Again. Can you please use a section edit summary on AN? It is highly annoying to klick at the diff to see on which section you commented... - sigh - you are the only admin doing so. --Steinsplitter (talk) 10:01, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I forgot it again ... and again ... Taivo (talk) 11:19, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

"Mantra" images

While I of course don't disagree with you deleting them (obvious, since I made the actual requests) it's worth noting IMO that the copyright logo itself doesn't make them fair use... they are probably PD-logo as below the threshold of originality. What is apparent (though I didn't want to try to get into the details there, largely out of a desire to not BITE the 'owner') is that they are rather out of scope... they were connected to a draft about a not-notable business and self-published ebook about a form of 'therapy' that, from looking at the author's website, apparently consists of traveling to Singapore and paying to be masturbated. No, I'm not kidding. Revent (talk) 21:09, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Copyright question

As I know it is not right to upload a company logo to commons. File:Sanalphp.png is this site's logo. And the pages which consist it are deleted on wikipedia. So is it okay to upload this kinda photo?--Ayrıntılı Bilgi (talk) 18:52, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Usually OTRS-permission is needed from company representative. Permission is not needed for very simple logos (which do not surpass threshold of originality). You asked, is it OK to upload this kind of logo. Usually no, because in my opinion it surpasses threshold of originality. I thought, that this case is exception, because probably company representative himself uploaded it. Everybody is allowed to have some personal files on his/her userpage. Taivo (talk) 19:08, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

When I declined speedy deletion, it was used on 3 userpages. Now it is still used in 1 userpage. If the last userpage is deleted, then I can delete the file as out of project scope (unused logo of non-notable company), but not earlier. If you want, then you can create a regular deletion request. That way the logo can be deleted even if the last userpage will not be deleted. Taivo (talk) 19:08, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Sorry to bother but it is no longer used like you said. I didnt mean to take your time. Just want to help.--Ayrıntılı Bilgi (talk) 20:47, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Erledigt That's normal, that's my work. I deleted the file. Taivo (talk) 21:36, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

photo I have uploaded

Havvanur Unver Altun.jpg has been deleted , I agree that it has been uploaded to here but the uploader is me,too. The wikipedia article ( Havvanur Unver Altun ) introduces a government personal (Turkey Republic Prime Ministry Press Advisor) , there are no such a thing about elections and the article has written objectively. The user: Ayrıntılı Bilgi might be a member of opposition of Turkish Government. Please undo your deletion. Regards.. Alperkursatt (talk) 23:49, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Sorry for unnecessary interruption, I have no political view and even if I had it wouldn't matter due to clear policies of Wikimedia. It is all clear. If user:Alperkursatt verifies that he owns the rights of pic. I cannot call speedy. However, the person who is in the pic has notability problems. This is the case. He can upload, this depends on you but due to notability problem this pic. likely to be orphan. Regards.--Ayrıntılı Bilgi (talk) 14:14, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

I deleted both Alperkursatt's uploads. He claims, that is copyright holder. If he sends OTRS-permission, then the files will be restored. Taivo (talk) 15:32, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Do you know Web Archive?

I suppose you as administrator really know them. So, please before deleting file with source website down, please take a look at the Web Archive. I found some source sites down or license changes, including Deviantart (that is crawled). --Amitie 10g (talk) 03:14, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

you said that my image is not MINE !!

Hello The image what you removed is MINE how can I tell that to wekipedia !!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 197.35.28.75 (talk • contribs)

I do not know, what picture you are talking about. I delete a lot of images. Taivo (talk) 16:21, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

A question

Hi, File:Solaris II.JPG has high res. and data. However, origin is here. Is it violation?--Ayrıntılı Bilgi (talk) 20:42, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

I tend to believe own work. Taivo (talk) 21:02, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

So do I. If it is not clear violation, it will remain I guess. Thank you for the answer. --Ayrıntılı Bilgi (talk) 21:26, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Watermarks

Hi Taivo, I'm really sorry to have to ask this ..... But I'm not the original owner of these: Image 1 Image 2 and I had no idea about this [2] so could un-delete the original version and wipe mine off instead please?
Thanks and again I'm really sorry for the cock up,
–Davey2010 • (talk) 15:31, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Erledigt No problem, because I got now cleverer. Taivo (talk) 15:52, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Brilliant thank you - very much appreciated :), Haha I on the other hand haven't

, Thanks, –Davey2010 • (talk) 15:55, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Taivo, are you sure these restorations actually worked? When I click the links I see the image, file history and metadata, but not the description or categories... (to clarify, I'm not the author either, just the uploader). Ultra7 (talk) 00:24, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Erledigt This was my mistake. I thought, that history and categories are restored automatically with file, but they need to be restored separately. Now there are history and categories. Taivo (talk) 09:03, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Festival de Cine de Alcalá de Henares 2014 (ALCINE 44) cartel.png

Hola Taivo:

Recientemente has borrado la fotografía "File:Festival de Cine de Alcalá de Henares 2014 (ALCINE 44) cartel.png". El director del Festival de Cine de Alcalá de Henares me confirma que envió la autorización el pasado 15/02/2015, para que se pudiera reproducir el cartel que aparece en dicha fotografía en Wikimedia Commons. Por lo tanto, no sé porque ha sido borrada. ¿Es posibles restituirla?. Un cordial saludo: --Raimundo Pastor (talk) 17:41, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I do not understand Spanish. I deleted the photo, because it was derivative work of copyrighted poster and there is no freedom of panorama in Spain for artworks, which do not permanently situate in public place. The poster was apparently in public place, but not permanently. But if poster copyright holder sends OTRS-permission, then the file can be restored. Taivo (talk) 18:33, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

El permiso fue enviado el 15 de febrero de 2015 por el director del Festival de Cine de Alcalá de Henares. Un cordial saludo:--Raimundo Pastor (talk) 20:16, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

User:Raimundo Pastor, as much as I understood, you said, that you have permission. I restored the file. Please add OTRS-permission, or the file will be deleted again. Taivo (talk) 20:24, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

¡Gracias! --Raimundo Pastor (talk) 20:38, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Open Source game screnshots

Why did you deleted Screnshots form OpenRA. Game is open source and there is no problem with they be in Commons. Game's logo is also on commons. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:OpenRA.svg M.A.SEKİ ^WMS 13:41, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Also look this; http://www.openra.net/legal/ M.A.SEKİ ^WMS 13:41, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Please, undelete them they are under GPL 3 licence. M.A.SEKİ ^WMS 09:58, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Erledigt I beg you pardon, Mustafa Alperen SEKİ, this was my mistake. All 3 files had really free license. Taivo (talk) 21:43, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

File:Смена начинается в шесть.jpg

You are aware that the youtube chanel is not realeasing something in the public domain? They publsish content that they think is in the public domain. For this file however there is no reason to believe that their public domain assessment is correct, the law does not provide any reason for this beeing public domain. --Martin H. (talk) 01:15, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Kommentar If I think about that once again, then you are right. Gosfilmofond can release into public domain whatever it wants, if it owns copyright. But it is only storage of films. Copyright belongs to film directors or companies or somebody like that. Gosfilmofond has no right to publish them under any license. I'll change my decision and delete the screenshot. Taivo (talk) 08:54, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

File:Serdar Gökalp.jpg

This is routine request for small photo without metadata. Is the uploader really the photographer? Why the photo is so small? Can you upload a bigger version, for example, 2000×1500 pixels? Can you upload a version with EXIF data? Can you categorize the file correctly? This is the user's last remaining upload. Taivo (talk) 09:46, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Photo I took, why do I say that because of the poor quality of the high-dimensional camera if you ask. This photo deserves to remain until the end of the commons, please undo the deletion. 88.232.43.217 14:40, 28 March 2015 (UTC)