|(P.S. Would you like to provide feedback on this message?)|
SieBot 12:19, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, Kubura. You appear to be well-meaning, but I am in no need of advices and remarks.
- Some of them appeared on wikis with their true identities - unlike You.
- They wrote something about themselves on their userpages.
- You - nothing. Your sole edit on Your userpage is a redirect to the talkpage.
So? Does that make them more trustworthy, more reliable or more productive? If not, what was the purpose of this "remark"? Am I supposed to use my Wikipedia user page as a personal blog? This bit is especially bizarre given that you do not seem to be one of those who "appeared on wikis with their true identities", and that your sole edit on your userpage is one simple sentence. But then again, it is bizarre enough on its own.
- And You have not properly archived Your talkpage! You simply deleted the content , where is the archive? Talkpages are not deleted, but archived.
I have properly disposed of my talkpage by disposing of it as I saw it fit. I am free to deal with my talkpage as I please. How can that possibly concern you?
- The author has not made false copyright claim (Or You were there so You know who made the photos?)
That is obviously not true. He or she claimed that the photographs were released under a free license and thus suitable for the Commons, which they were not.
- But, You assumed bad faith on many places, attacked the user by accusing him.
I explained why I could no longer assume good faith. The uploader did not seem to know much about FOP copyright policies, so why should it be assumed that he or she knew about exemptions to it?
- All You had to do is to notify him that there is this "catch" with the picture. And You had to give the user some reasonable time to provide the permition from the author (or some legal body).
I did not have to do anything. If there is anything I had to do, it is to report copyright violation - which is what I did. I have given the user a reasonable amount of time to provide the permission by notifying him or her about the deletion nomination. The file won't be deleted within a day; there's enough time to obtain the permission. The Commons are not (and cannot be) used to store non-free files while their uploaders seek permission.
- So, please, will You be more careful next time?
Careful about what?
Anyway, I completely agree with you about the commercial use, but there is surely a reason why it must be allowed. If the purpose of this project is to spread knowledge for free, its bureaucrats surely would not hinder it without a good reason. Should we ignore and/or endorse copyright violations on the Commons because of it? I am not convinced that we should. Surtsicna (talk) 20:18, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
Admin Turelio's talkpage
You can leave a message at Admin Turelio's talkpage. He won't be online for another 4 hours since he's in Germany. I am not an Admin. I may tag an image as a speedy delete--but I have to give a reason why. Turelio deals with the deletions. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 02:06, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
Hi! Thanks for getting back with me!
The one I uploaded to File:Watercycle-croatian.jpg is credited to Dario Omanovic so I mentioned that in the file page. Looking at hr:Datoteka:Kruženje vode-hidrološki ciklus.png it seems like for that picture a Wikipedian (hr:Suradnik:Bully) translated it independently by himself. So there were two different groups of people translating.
For the capitalization, if it is a serious enough issue, I can make a request at the graphics lab for someone to make a "corrected" version based off of the Omanovic translation as it uses a newer image as its basis.
|Hello, Kubura. You have new messages at Eleassar's talk page.
|File:RomanCatholicismInEurope.png 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.