User talk:Twthmoses

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to: navigation, search

Categorization of the Mezquita[edit]

Hi Twthmoses, I just wanted to drop you a note to let you know that the Mezquita in Cordoba, Spain, really needs to be dual categorized as both a Mosque and a Church. It has been both in it's history - it was built as a mosque by the Moors, and still bears many marks of being a mosque - and then converted into a church when the Spaniards conquered Cordoba in 1236. For more information, see en:Mezquita. Kevyn 04:20, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. Just doing some cleaning up and one can't know everyhting :) Twthmoses 18:03, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Great user page[edit]

Hi Twthmoses. I totally agree with your user page. "To me categories are the only way to organize a media library. Articles? Huh? I go to wikipedia to read articles." Yes! You might want to vote at Commons:Images on normal pages or categories:Vote. Cheers, Dbenbenn 20:32, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thanks! I thought the voting did note lead to anything? Might look it over again. Twthmoses 23:30, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)


Comment about your recent acts of vandalism[edit]

You have commiteed something I consider an act of pure and outright vandalism on all coats of arms for Norwegian municipalities and counties, by simply deleting the explanation of their legal status, and changing this to copyright unknown on approx 450 images. As further evidence of your intent of vandalism, this vital change to the status of the image page was logged with a blank comment, with the minor change bit set.

The explanation about the copyright status was based on thorough research, including consultation with the leading Norwegian lawyer on these matters. The coats of arms were uploaded by myself after several discussion on the wikimedia deletion requests, where it was made clear that arms of this status belonged on the commons.

In my view, your behaviour is nothing other than that of an outright bully. You did not even bother to put a notice on my user page asking a simple question about this. Instead, you simply chose to charge ahead with your deed, breaking all the windows in your sight. I do not know what sort of joy this gives you, but that is really your problem.

You have elected to consider everything I wrote about their copyright status as void, and simply deleted everything and offered it up on speedy deletion. It is also quite obvious that you have not bothered to investigate the matter yourself even a single bit. You've only offered up the explanation that you didn't believe what was written.

I have no interests whatsoever spending my time in "discussions" with such persons. When it is so obvious that they have lost sight of normal reason and conduct in their crusade for a goal I do not know, then the ability to do an intelligent conversation is also lost. I must admit I totally loose interest, and could not be bothered wasting more time. Not even out of curiosity to find out what is driving people like you.

-- Egil 06:50, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Claim down! So we can speak. Ok?
First of all you have to distinguish between two things. The very image, what is the copyright tag of the very image, the physical file – who made it and under what license is it published? That is always required when uploading, no exception.
2nd COA is special, as you surely know, since the very COA itself can be in various states of copyright. This is fully and completely independent of the rights of the image on which the coat of arms is displayed. That is why the is an additional tag “insigna”.
The tag Template:Norwegian coat of arms is not an image copyright tag. It simply stats that “This official Norwegian coat of arms is ineligible for copyright”, without offering any source or reference. With such a claim a source must be provided so other can check it. It is that simple. Does it mean everything? University seals, library seals, Ship banners, Royal Coa etc..
Now whether this is true or not, (and I severally doubt this is the case with the Royal Coa), there is still the point of who actually made the image and under which license it is? Not a single of the images that did carry this tag, had ANY such information. Information that IS required for every single image here, regardless if the actually COA it display, is ineligible for copyright.
Since none of them has any such info, I tagged the whole lot with Template:Unknown – because they are!
I wrote to the source of the images, 3 days ago, but have not heard from him yet. Asking about the legal status of the images (regardless of the COA they display), who made them and how may they be used. If he writes back and say he is the creator of the images and grants PD for them, I will tag the whole lot as such. However if he writes back and stats he is not the original creator or does not allow any of the legal tags to be used, they are to be delete. They are then copyright violations (and that is regardless of whether or not the COA itself is ineligible for copyright). Somebody made these images, and they have to be asked.Twthmoses 07:36, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)


You again demonstrate a fundamental lack of understanding of these matters. You deleted the explanation of the legal status, and now you say there is no explanation. Now you say you need permission on symbols even if they are ineligible for copyright! (One is not needed, and even though I out of politeness did ask for it, you deleted that reference too). I see no reason to continue this farse, and have explained the situation on Category:Norwegian coats of arms (unless you deleted that too, already). With the current state of anarchy that reigns on the commons, it seems the best choice is to upload these and other images to the various Wikipedias that uses them. Unfortunate as it is. -- Egil 09:08, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I have just been made aware of the problem with Egil and I am trying to read all about it in order to help you resolve this issue. Please give me a little time to try and get all information on the subject. notafish }<';> 09:15, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Egil, try to distinguish between two things that have absolutely nothing to do with each other. Every single COA ever made in all history of Norway may be PD, however does not change the fact that somebody made the very image on which the CoA is displayed. Somebody sat down painted it computerized it, made it out of a magical pot or whatever. HE has to be asked, HE has to provide HIS terms for the image use.
Say CNN have taken an image of a Norwegian CoA and copyrighted it harshly. Then I can’t upload it here, regardless that the CoA may be free, since the image on which it is on, is not. You still have to ask the creator of that very file about HIS terms how it may be used. It is HIS creation – and that is fully independent that it is actually legal to display the CoA in the first place. It is HIS work and it happens to include something that is free to use.
The images for the Norwegian CoA’s has a source on them (and as said I mailed the source on info on that), but is not tagged for how it may be used here! And that is what matters. Remember this is a "free"-source place. People have to be able to use these images under some form of free condition. If you can supply the creators name and statement that they are free, then there is no problem. Twthmoses 09:19, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Gotcha. Can we talk here about this ? notafish }<';> 09:36, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
My mistake, the source was provided upon first upload. The images should be reinstated. See here. This said, the way you handled this was a bit rash in my opinion, and before reverting hundreds of copyright tags, you should try and talk with the person who uploaded the images. Prompt reaction is good, but rash is not. The work you're doing here is fantastic, but it should not prevent people from contributing to the project. notafish }<';> 10:04, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Hmm... I see. My mistake. The image police here is a bit lose after all. Fair enough. No need to tag any futher images, regradless if the have an actual tag for how to use or not. Twthmoses 12:13, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Categorization of México[edit]

Twthmoses, please take a look at Category talk:México. Thanks, Kevyn 19:16, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for stopping by. I added my view. Twthmoses 19:45, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Category:Coats of arms of German municipalities[edit]

I have seen, that you create the Category:Coats of arms of German municipalities. Is this category intended only for villages or, in a broader sense, for cities and villages? Gruß --Kookaburra 08:20, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Image deletion warning Image:Demo 003.png has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests. If you feel that this image should not be deleted, please go there to voice your opinion on its entry.
Afrikaans | العربية | বাংলা | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | Eesti | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Bahasa Indonesia | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Norsk bokmål | Occitan | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

(I see no reason to keep this example files) Røed 18:29, 31 August 2006 (UTC) .


Template:PD-Coa[edit]

Image deletion warning Template:PD-Coa has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this image, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. If the file is up for deletion because it has been superseded by a superior derivative of your work, consider the notion that although the file may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new file.
In all cases, please do not take the deletion request personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

العربية | dansk | Deutsch | English | español | français | galego | Bahasa Indonesia | 日本語 | Nederlands | norsk nynorsk | norsk bokmål | polski | português | русский | suomi | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

--Michelet-密是力 13:26, 4 August 2007 (UTC)


Template:PD-Seal[edit]

Image deletion warning Template:PD-Seal has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this image, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. If the file is up for deletion because it has been superseded by a superior derivative of your work, consider the notion that although the file may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new file.
In all cases, please do not take the deletion request personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

Afrikaans | العربية | বাংলা | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | Eesti | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Bahasa Indonesia | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Norsk bokmål | Occitan | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

--Samulili 07:41, 15 October 2007 (UTC)


Category:Vatican City[edit]

Category discussion notification Category:Vatican City has been listed at Commons:Categories for discussion so that the community can discuss ways in which it should be changed. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this category, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for discussion 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. If the category is up for deletion because it has been superseded, consider the notion that although the category may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new category.
In all cases, please do not take the category discussion personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Deutsch | English | Español | Français | עברית | Magyar | Italiano | 日本語 | Македонски | Polski | Português | Русский | +/−

--Teofilo (talk) 13:09, 17 June 2010 (UTC)