User talk:とある白い猫/Archive/2006/12

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
A Certain White Cat
Bilinen Bir Beyaz Kedi

User Page | Office | Talk Page | Bot edits | Sandbox #1 | #2


Hello this is an Archive. Please do not edit. You are welcome to post comments regarding material here at my user talk page.

Always believe in yourserf and your dreams, you have a wing!
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2006 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 2012 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12
2007 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 2013 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12
2008 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 2014 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12
2009 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 2015 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12
2010 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 2016 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12
2011 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 2017 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12
Archive, December 2006



Thanks for fixing! --Svencb 22:04, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Apology regarding two images[edit]

First of all, allow me to introduce myself, I am the newer incarnation of the short-lived User:CABAL account, which I will not be bothering with any more. The purpose of this is for me to express my sincerest apologies at failing to provide suitable edit summaries for this and this, which I must admit was done in a haphazard manner. In any case, you'll notice that I've reverted to my prior versions, but I see no way I can provide further details as to the changes done. I would like to do so and was wondering if it was possible to insert the relevant information? Specifically, metadata chunks (optional image data) were removed from the files and the compression further optimized; this has no effect on the final images whatsoever, with the exception that it may slightly complicate heavier editing efforts such as in Photoshop. Exterminatus 12:21, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for creating a new account and sticking with us here on commons.
How 'large' is this metadata? It can be tossed to the image description page which wouldn't affect image size.
I am not too concerned about the heavy edit Photoshop issue. Those people can use the older version :)
--Cat out 15:03, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Metadata is optional information held within a PNG itself. They are not needed to display an image properly, but as mentioned earlier will complicate editing, as the removed chunks contain data such as white balance levels, the proper aspect ratio, gamma and so on . Exterminatus 16:40, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Ah ok. --Cat out 05:17, 7 December 2006 (UTC)


Last year I received an e-mail from the photographer releasing this image to Wikipedia without restrictions. ˉanetode╦╩ 00:04, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Please forward it to OTRS. When matter is cleared there, I can gladly undelete it here. I am sorry my hands are a bit tied otherwise. --Cat out 00:29, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Image:Star of life.svg[edit]

Why did you revert Image:Star of life.svg to again include the incorrect sentence and tone with 3 identical links? -- Jeandré, 2006-12-13t11:48z

I do not see a problem at all. Whats wrong with the "tone"? What part of the sentence is incorrect? What identical links are we talking about? Why are you removing relevant links to the necessary articles such as w:Star of Life? --Cat out 16:41, 13 December 2006 (UTC)


Sorry, but did you read de:Schöpfungshöhe before deleting this image? This image could not be copyrighted! --Mogelzahn 15:55, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Image can be deleted for being low quality alone. And no I cant read german. --Cat out 19:38, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

yes, still with us[edit]

but rlly busy, thanks for stopping by. I love deleting my userpage for some reason tho. DVD R W 01:17, 15 December 2006 (UTC)


I think may be a sock puppet of According to my map they are both from the Europe. Also, they both don't like the big picture. It is very coincidental. Could you please ask CheckUser to confirm this? Jecowa 09:49, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

A checkuser is not necessary since they are ips. besides he claims to be the same person on your talk page. --Cat out 21:31, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Image:NPD-Logo-neu-mittel.jpg[edit]

Hi Cool Cat, you closed a deletion request with as I understand 'deleted' but the image is still there/there again, or perhaps you wrote something different from what action you meant to take. Could you please take another look at the above link? Thanks. Siebrand 23:42, 17 December 2006 (UTC)


The trophy is copyrighted unless you can prove that it is not. Insisting will not solve the matter. --Cat out 05:49, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

how am i suppose to find if its copyrighted or not when its not? something doesn't have information about it when it doesn't exist. copyright for that trophy doesn't exist and any information about its copyright cant be found anywhere because its not copyrighted. If it is prove it. It's not like what's not copyrighted, it's what is copyrighted.Ricky212 05:56, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
US (and International) law declares any work is copyrighted for 70 years after the creators death unless copyright is renewed.
Commons copyright policy requires anything uploaded to be with a free license. Unless you can prove it, which you say you can't. The image cant exist on commons otherwise. As the uploader it is your responsibility to provide this copyright info, not mine.
--Cat out 06:04, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

It wasn't made or thought of in the US, it was in the UK and the copyright for the uk states that the person that thought of it automatically has copyright but the trophy that the picture is taken from is a replica and in the UK copyright it says the inventor(person who thought of it) has copyright as long as its not been copied from existing work, which the replica is because its been copied from the original one, simple as. "Once in physical form, as long as it is an original work (in the sense of not having been copied from an existing work, rather than in the sense of being novel or unique), copyright in that work is automatically vested in (i.e. owned by) the person who put the concept into material form." Ricky212 07:02, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Who gives away this award? You? Copyright of 2d pictures of 3d objects belong to the owner of the 3d object. You would be right if the cup was not the center of attention. --Cat out 08:33, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
no i'm right because the replica doesn't have copyright because its a copied from existing work. have a nice day. Ricky212 23:52, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Lets have a different approach shall we? I declare that image as a copyvio. As per US and EU laws derivative works and identical replicas carry the copyright of the original work. If you keep uploading it, you will be blocked. --Cat out 22:26, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

so why cant we get other people's thought on it like in the normal deletion process because its not a clear case. I'm not going to upload it but I want it to be voted on like in the deletion process because there's points to be taken. It's not dictatorship here in wikimedia, and your not a dictator to take that different approach; it's democracy here in wikimedia.Ricky212 23:52, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Clear cut copyright violations can be speedy deleted w/o discussion which this clearly is. Wikimedia is neither a dictatorship nor a democracy. We simply are not a government. Deletion was as per: COM:DEL#Other_deletion_procedures #2.
If you'd like to complain, feel free to do so at Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Disputes and other admins may review the case
--Cat out 11:07, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
hey "cool" cat so since 3d objects that are copyvio why is there other trophies like that
File:FIFA World Cup trophy.png
fifa world cup trophy
there? There are many other trophy pictures here why aren't you deleting those?Ricky212 06:50, 23 December 2006 (UTC)



I don't understand quite the nature of your message.

I'm the main creator of article fr:Révolte d'Oaxaca, as the history can testify.

Therefore I shall ask for an explanation. My will to contribute using an anon IP comes from a personal decision.

Yours, 21:52, 21 December 2006 (UTC)


Hey CoolCat,

excuse me, I don't visit Wikimedia that often. You contacted me over [[Image:Statue of Saddam Hussein being draped with the US Flag.jpg|the "Saddam being draped" image]] and I am answering here because I don't know if you are still paying attention to my user talk page. Honestly, I cannot reproduce how I simply uploaded the image - I must have been overly eager to do so because of it's (suggested) high symbolism in the whole Iraq War newsbuzz. I think I had in mind that CNN images were somewhat PD and simply applied this to AP photos. Do you know which license fits (if there is one - this image is unusually important to me ;-) )? I'll have an eye on something like that in future although I mostly upload US military pics in {{PD-USGov-Military} images.

Thanks for sharpening my senses :-), --Predator capitalism 08:12, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

CNN and AP are commercial entities. Everything they own is almost certainly copyrighted and cannot exist on commons. I am sure US soldiers also photographed the toppling, you want those photos. --Cat out 18:50, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

US Army Institute of Heraldry[edit]

I'm trying to compile galleries of US Military Coats of Arms. I noticed a moment ago that you had applied a Request for Deletion on a number of images uploaded from the US Army Institute of Heraldry with the comment that "Images are not free enough" (I think the request has since been removed, since I can't find it anymore, so forgive me if I am misremembering). I was wondering why you decided to have these images deleted, and what you meant by "not free enough." (and now I'm registered on the Commons) v/r, Hammon27 21:30, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for my ignorance; the computer I was on wouldn't even let me go to the Commons website. I have checked out your posts on the Commons:Deletion requests page and I'm looking over a conversation on this very topic from 2005. It can be found at Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2005/11#Template:PD-USGov-Military-Army-USAIOH

The USAIOH images are not restricted to non-commercial use. They have a qualification on commercial use, which is not the same thing. v/r, Hammon27 22:26, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

According to the first footnote on the basic Commons:Licensing page, , [the use of free content by anyone, for any purpose] "This may be regulated by geographical, trademark, or other laws unrelated to copyrights, which Wikimedia Commons can not account for. Wikimedia Commons tries to ensure that any such restrictions are mentioned on the image description page, but it is the responsibility of the user to ensure that the use of the media does not violate any applicable law. In particular, copyrights of certain material may have expired in one country, while still being applicable in another country. Furthermore, many commons licences, such as GFDL and Creative Commons Share-Alike, require that any derivatory work must be released under the same license conditions."

The Institute of Heraldry is mentioned on this page as well. Is this page being vandalized by pro-insignia forces? Is there a more basic, more canon, document that spells out what the Wikimedia Commons copyright policy actually is, which would support your efforts to rip all insignia off of Wikipedia? If so, that makes me very sad, and I would like to read it. Thank you for your assistance. v/r, Hammon27 22:43, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

The template suggests that the image can only be used "with permission". Thats a problem. Free licenses are required to be used freely without permission. All images on commons should allow derivative works, comercialusage and should not have permission restrictions.
Also the template seems to be redundant, why not simply use {{PD-USgov}}? (Of course provided images are in PD)
On wikipedia commons we often request deletion if we feel there are problems with their copyright claim of a copyright tag or if the tag is redundant. My nomination only raises my reservations addressing both of these issues. Deletion review is a discussion, not a vote.
--Cat out 00:06, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you about the free licenses needing to be free for use without any reservations or permissions. Reading "Jimbo's" post about the rationale for not allowing copyrighted works with a "free for non-commercial use" policy, it makes perfect sense not to allow those images. The difference here is the works of USAIOH are not copyrighted works. They are works that are in the public domain, and are not subject to copyright by US statute. The restriction of commercial use is a matter of US Federal law, which is allowed by Wikimedia copyright standards, as far as I've been able to discern from reading the policy pages. The PD-USgov tag is not redundant with the USAIOH tag because the former makes no mention of the special statutory protections that the images from the USAIOH have (again, independent of their status in the public domain) regarding commercial use. Likewise, the other -Military tags are either not truly applicable (referring to works done by "an employee," not an agency like USAIOH), apply only to rank insignia or badges, or don't include the required statutory language. --the preceding unsigned comment was added by Hammon27 (talk • contribs)


How are things going? I had originally posted on your talk at wikipedia, but it seems as if you've departed that project, and hence I've moved my commentary here. I just briefly stopped by to make minor edits and wanted to see if everything was okay.- 21:25, 30 December 2006 (UTC) (Randall Brackett)

Yo. I make minor contributions on as its mostly unworkable now. --Cat out 22:00, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
I see. - 22:04, 30 December 2006 (UTC) (Randall Brackett)