User talk:Psychonaut

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


Image Tagging Image:Albert_E._Jacomb.png[edit]

العربية | asturianu | беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Ελληνικά | English | español | euskara | فارسی | suomi | français | עברית | magyar | italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | norsk nynorsk | norsk bokmål | polski | português | português do Brasil | русский | slovenčina | slovenščina | svenska | Türkçe | Tiếng Việt | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Warning sign
This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Albert_E._Jacomb.png. I notice the image page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the media on Wikimedia Commons (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page. If the content is a derivative of a copyrighted work, you need to supply the names and a licence of the original authors as well.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag, then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then you can use {{self|cc-by-sa-3.0}} to release it under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike license or {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have uploaded other media, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find all your uploads using the Gallery tool. Thank you. Siebrand 10:19, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Image:Blason provincial luxembourg Belgique.png[edit]

Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Български | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | Magyar | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Русский | Slovenščina | Svenska | Українська | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−



There seems to be a problem regarding the description and/or licensing of this particular file. It has been found that you've added in the image's description only a Template that's not a license and although it provides useful informations about the image, it's not a valid license. Could you please resolve this problem, adding the license in the image linked above? You can edit the description page and change the text. Uploading a new version of the file does not change the description of the file. This page may give you more hints on which license to choose. Thank you.

This message was added automatically by Filbot, if you need some help about it, ask its master (Filnik) or go to the Commons:Help desk. --Filnik 16:32, 21 September 2008 (UTC)


PetarM[edit]

Are you literate ? All those envelopes were made by me !! Now bring them back. Do you understand what mean OWN WORK !? --Mile (talk) 17:58, 17 February 2013 (UTC)


Bring those deleted back. And next time you ask me first.

== [[:File:Postcard of Serbia.jpg]] == {{Autotranslate|1=File:Postcard of Serbia.jpg|base=Copyvionote}} [[User:Psychonaut|Psychonaut]] ([[User talk:Psychonaut|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 09:23, 17 February 2013 (UTC) == [[:File:Конверт Транссибирская магистраль.jpg]] == {{Autotranslate|1=File:Конверт Транссибирская магистраль.jpg|base=Copyvionote}} [[User:Psychonaut|Psychonaut]] ([[User talk:Psychonaut|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 09:23, 17 February 2013 (UTC) == [[:File:Pismo iz Rusije.jpg]] == {{Autotranslate|1=File:Pismo iz Rusije.jpg|base=Copyvionote}} [[User:Psychonaut|Psychonaut]] ([[User talk:Psychonaut|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 09:23, 17 February 2013 (UTC) == [[:File:Транс Сибир конверт.jpg]] == {{Autotranslate|1=File:Транс Сибир конверт.jpg|base=Copyvionote}} [[User:Psychonaut|Psychonaut]] ([[User talk:Psychonaut|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 09:24, 17 February 2013 (UTC)


When you will put photos back, link them again where they were. I dont have time correcting people like you. Reconsider your work on Commons. --Mile (talk) 18:06, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your message. I'm sorry if the images were deleted in error. However, please note that, contrary to your claims, I did not delete the images, and I did notify you in advance that they appeared to be violations of copyright. Fortunately it should be easy to restore the images, provided they don't infringe on any third-party copyrights. Could you please confirm that you were the photographer of the images, and the illustrator of the artwork, depicted on the postcards and envelopes? And furthermore that you did not transfer copyright of them to the publishers? Some of your files were very clearly commercially published by Pochta Rossii, which presumably holds the copyright. —Psychonaut (talk) 18:22, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

About Femgericht_und_inquisition_1889.pdf[edit]

I added two PD tags. Was Google the issue? Google scanned it and placed their logo in front. That gives Google no copyright, neither does Google claim any. Do you think the file is ok now? -- Portolanero (talk) 16:40, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

It's the first two pages which contain text presumably under copyright by Google. Do you have evidence showing that they've released the text under a free licence? If not the easiest way of solving the problem would be to remove the first two pages from the PDF. But then again that goes against Google's express wishes that their "watermark" be preserved. I think as this won't be an isolated case it needs to be discussed by the community, though perhaps it already has been and I'm not aware of where and when. —Psychonaut (talk) 17:22, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
It is about books older than 100 years and therefore copyright free. Google was allowed to scan this books in libraries because they promised to put them public. They did. But they presented them in a way very hard to find the free pdf. And with a changing url so you cant permanent link to the pdf file. Because of the high importance others recently attributed to this almost unknown book I decided to upload it here. My hope is that someone will transcribe it or translate it to English. It should be better known.
The front pages I see as kept in honor for the Google scan project. If the front pages would really be a copyright issue again, then the whole Google scan project would be in question. Was it then some way of fraud by Google? You see, this question here touches serious matters. I would like to see it solved. I suggest you ask others. But I dont know who. -- Portolanero (talk) 19:01, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

opinion[edit]

I Would like to here your opinion here https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Levant_Map.png

and

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:IspifoneyFlag.jpg

OAS Flag[edit]

Êtes-vous êtes personne folle! vous ne pouvez pas supprimer le drapeau de l'OEA! 99.229.41.79 23:54, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Replay Of what are you doing[edit]

You better set down away , my fictional map that you say is not 1% of what fictional is here , Second , What the Hell you say syria isn't an islamic country ? , yes the president of Syria is muslim , Bashar is alwiate and they say he is sunni now , set down away and don't invent new stories from your imagination ok ? GhiathArodaki (talk) 20:30, 22 June 2013 (UTC) what what ???? , repeat ? , hey this is the original flag of the jihad , this isn't a normal text and i made this , so set away , you muslim racismGhiathArodaki (talk) 20:39, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Review of Commons' Scope is now OPEN[edit]

Hi. Earlier this year you contributed to a discussion of Commons' scope at Commons:Requests for comment/scope. I am hoping we can build on the very interesting discussion that happened there, and I would like to invite you to add your further thoughts to a broader review now underway at Review of Commons' Scope. All the best, --MichaelMaggs (talk) 12:09, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

War Diary of the North Irish Horse[edit]

You have made me very angry by your comments regarding this file at Commons:Deletion requests/File:War Dairy October 1944.jpg. Firstly, if I'd known you had doubts about it I could have sorted it as it WAS a free image. What has angered me most though is the fact that you, and your ilk, seem to think you can run around the wiki, deleting free files at will, without having the decency to inform anyone you're doing it and at the same time cast aspersions on the honesty of graduates who give their time comprehensively and freely on this encyclopedia. How dare you suggest I'm a liar. I can tell you now that file is going straight back up. You shouldn't have deleted it and for the life of me I don't know why you did. I suggest you exercise a little more caution in the future and that you show some respect for Wikipedia editors. Above all: assume WP:GOODFAITH - you're not excused that just because you spend your days trying to delete pictures. SonofSetanta (talk) 15:23, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry that this nomination upset you. I'm confused as to why you think I'm suggesting you're a liar or that I didn't notify anyone. That nomination was not even for one of your files; it was contributed by a different user (User:The Thunderer), and I did notify them about the nomination. Do you operate both user accounts? —Psychonaut (talk) 06:59, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
Firstly, let me apologise if my language was a bit less restrained than usual. It was the end of the day and you appeared to be on my case. Let me explain why. At Commons:Deletion requests/File:War Dairy October 1944.jpg you quite clearly call my veracity into question by saying that I couldn't possibly have created the information in the NIH War Diary because I was too young as per File:UDR Soldiers in South Armagh.jpg and that the copyright information was falsified. User:The Thunderer and User:GDD1000 were both previous identities of mine at a time when I was a lot less experienced than I am now. I cannot activate either one of those accounts now or else there would be sockpuppetry issues,(You've no idea what I've been put through as regards that), although I have viewed both recently because of my fear about images used on the Ulster Defence Regiment article I've been working on for the last month to try and achieve A Class. Another issue: yesterday you and I discussed the copyright for File:UDR Service Medals.JPG and I highlighted the licencing on General Service Medal (1962) and Accumulated Campaign Service Medal and indicated I would update those licences if it was discovered they were wrong. You immediately tagged the images on those pages for deletion. I thought that was very underhand of you and it certainly violates WP:CIVIL. I've noticed this amongst copyright editors on many occasions. You seem to think you're engaged in some sort of battle with a load of clandestines who go out of their way to try and fool you. That may indeed be the case in some issues but not with me. You can see clearly over the last few weeks that I have responded quickly and with civility to any issues you have raised. I have worked in co-operation with you to resolve problems on images uploaded by me in all of my identities and I've done it with good grace and friendliness. So please stop being cynical with me. Work with me; educate me and learn from me. That's what Wikipedia is all about.
Now, after that epistle, let me tell you again what the British National Archives have said about licencing medal images. They are the Crown Office who deal with copyright on this matter. They have said that: (where the medals are owned by (awarded to) the individual who take the picture, "they do not require the use of the OGL to display them. The designs themselves remain Crown Copyright, which you could acknowledge in caption." That is taken directly from an e-mail I received yesterday. That is the case in all the images regarding medals we discussed yesterday. So no OGL is required, just a declaration that the design of the medals is Crown Copyright. Now - before I change those licences again do you want to check that information? Do you want the e-mail forwarded anywhere for checking?
Work with me Psychonaut. Advise me of your concerns where images I upload are concerned before nominating them for deletion. Try to bear in mind that, like you, I give my time freely and comprehensively on the wiki to make it better. SonofSetanta (talk) 09:28, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

British Medals issued by the Ministry of Defence[edit]

All MOD medal images are at https://www.gov.uk/medals-campaigns-descriptions-and-eligibility. Note at bottom of the page confirms all images are released under OGL, except where otherwise stated. I hope this resolves the issues surrounding copyright on medals for you? It just remains to be seen if OGL is even required for "own" medal images but in the meantime I see no harm in adding an OGL tag to them with the above explanatory note. would you agree? SonofSetanta (talk) 11:25, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

File:UDR Sign.jpg[edit]

I've advised OTRS of your undue interest in this file and File:Ulster Defence Regiment Insignia.jpg. It's very obvious you're trying to find a reason to delete the first one so you can delete the second one too. It's not going to happen bud. They're well warned now that you can't find the original illustration on the web, because I never published it anywhere else except here. So if you try the old "nominated for deletion because of suspected copyvio" you'll find it won't work. I've still got my original drawing here, buried somewhere in my garage in boxes that haven't been opened since I moved house. I might just look for it one day and republish it, the way I did with all my other images "suspected of copyvio" - also buried in my boxes. You going to leave them alone now and concentrate on the real defaulters? SonofSetanta (talk) 16:47, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

File:Basic Battle Skills.jpg[edit]

Hi Psychonaut. Someone just left this on my talk page. Perhaps you might like to add some comments? Regards, FASTILY 20:53, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification. There's not much to say about the image, is there? Whether or not it's freely usable depends on the outcome of Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Crest_of_the_Royal_Ulster_Rifles.jpg, since it's a derivative work of the subject of that deletion discussion. It's also a derivative work of File:Ulster Defence Regiment Insignia.jpg, and the uploader claims he's the original illustrator. Psychonaut (talk) 23:08, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Deleted files[edit]

Why did you delete File:3 UDR Funeral.jpeg, File:A soldier of 3 UDR on patrol in Irish Street, Downpatrick.jpg, File:Piper 3 UDR.jpeg, and File:3 UDR with RUC-Newcastle.jpeg? These were all from the Bobby Hanvey Collection at Boston College which permits licencing under Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0. They were properly sourced and licenced? That being the case what was wrong with them? The licencing requirement can be seen here. [1] SonofSetanta (talk) 11:07, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works is not a free licence. On Commons you can contribute only media which is freely licenced. Psychonaut (talk) 11:42, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
Ok, if you say so. I saw Creative Commons and thought I was ok. SonofSetanta (talk) 13:44, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Deletion request for File:Metapontum map AvL.JPG[edit]

I replied to your deletion request for this image at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Metapontum map AvL.JPG. I was hoping you would have some time to read my reply and explain to me what I don't understand? --AlexanderVanLoon (talk) 23:04, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Applying information about my wiki on google websearch sir i want my articles information on google when we search about the topic with image. Help me sir what is the code for it?--Arshad Roshan.a.a (talk) 11:21, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

File:Anatoliy Solovianenko - Soviet Life, October 1984.jpg[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:Anatoliy Solovianenko - Soviet Life, October 1984.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 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 | 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)‎ | +/−

Denniss (talk) 08:00, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Icons[edit]

Why have you opened that discussion, now every single icon except only one was deleted! Ridiculous!--Kürbis () 09:40, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry the images had to be deleted, but I explained this on your talk page: without evidence that the icons are in the public domain or freely licensed, we need to assume that they are not. The deletion request was an attempt to get some further eyes on the problem and to identify which icons were free. —Psychonaut (talk) 10:17, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Norden1990[edit]

Hello! I have noticed that our friend Norden1990 is adding files uploaded here to articles from English Wikipedia, by using IP socks (he is constantly evading his block, admin Tiptoey has blocked plenty of them, I think he is is eligible for a site ban for persistent sockpuppetry). What's your opninion? Is he punishable on Wikimedia Commons for illegaly uploading files to en.wikipedia? Iaaasi (talk) 09:31, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

I would strongly encourage both you and User:Norden1990 to refrain from sockpuppetry on the English Wikipedia for a period of six months, and then apply for a lifting of your respective indefinite blocks/ban. You both do excellent work and I would support any sincere request to overturn your sanctions. —Psychonaut (talk) 08:39, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
Why would Norden1990 refrain from socking when no one cares about his illegal edits? The last investigation request (made by yourself) was reviewed after 15 days and the closing message was "IP appears to be dynamic and the last edit made was over two weeks. Sockmaster has likely moved on to another IP, so I don't see how blocking would prevent anything. Closing. ". They ignored his case for 2 weeks and afterwards they said "now it is too late" ? A reasonable administrators would have immediately have made a IP range block for the group of socks 84.236.42.94, 84.236.42.0, 84.236.7.157, 84.236.16.49.
Currently there is a open investigation request at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Norden1990 but of course that no one gives a fuck. Probably admins are waiting for him to "move on to another IP" and to close it with no action. Iaaasi (talk) 12:23, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Dear Iaaasi, I did not really want to respond to your unfounded accusations and harassment, and now I also would like to do this, however you always accuse innocent editors in order to "eliminate me". I can't allow this. First of all, on the Hungarian wiki, User:Biziclop2 wrote to me that he had previously banned because he was accused to be my "sockpuppet". After that I had checked the situation and noticed that you were the accuser and reporter, despite the fact that you were banned from editing forever. Secondly, Tomasso89 is not a sockpuppet, or at least, he/she is not mine. (S)he also has a username on the hu-wiki and edited there, I've checked. Before my ban, I created en:Hungarian local elections, 2014, so, according to your opinion, every other editors, who later will edit that page, should be sockpuppets of me? Also don't forget, since then election was held and that user, Tomasso89 updated the article and wrote the results. Thank goodness, because since my ban, there are lot of outdated articles in Hungary topics. So, please, leave me alone and enjoy edits in English Wiki. Because I, unlike you, abide by the rules and I never created any sockpuppets. This can not be said about you, who was already a banned user, when I just started to edit in 2009.

And User:Psychonaut, please don't compare Iaaasi with me. I always edited constructively the en-wiki, and strives to maintain neutrality and opportunity for discussion. Therefore I had a good relationship with Croatian, Serbian, Slovak etc. and even Romanian editors. In contrast, Iaaasi, a Romanian nationalist and anti-Hungarian POV-editor, has a long-time abuse "career" in English wiki, alongside his counterpart Stubes, a Hungarian nationalist editor. Unfortunately, I made a serious error on english wiki, as a result I was banned rightfully, however I've never been an infamous, troublemaker editor, unlike Iaaasi, who has one of the the largest collection of sockpuppets on English Wikipedia. I recently do my penance, but only because that sin that I committed. I'm not a sockmaser. Iaaasi's only goal is to block here too after English Wiki. All the best, --Norden1990 (talk) 18:47, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Norden1990, you're not banned on the English Wikipedia; you are only blocked. You stand an excellent chance of getting unblocked if, after waiting a few months, you post an unblock request which demonstrates your understanding of why you were blocked, and which includes an affirmation from you that you will not engage in further copyright violations or sockpuppetry. Unlike Iaaasi, whose unban request would need to gain support from the entire community, you need convince only a single administrator to unblock you. —Psychonaut (talk) 19:15, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
User:Norden1990, your unsupported labelling ("anti-Hungarian POV-editor") is deeply unfair. I was unjustly indef. blocked and banned for an edit war where the last 3 of the 6 reverts were made against an obvious (now blocked) sockpuppet, so techically there was no 3RR violation (undoing sock edits don't count when applying the rule). The edit war in question occurred at an article where the subsequent consensus validated my opinion, not the opponent's view (so my allegations were not at all unreasonable or POV)
My ban came into effect in 2011, not before 2009 (I did not even have an account before that year). Probably you refer to the (again, wrong) tagging of me as the sock of User:Bonaparte from March 2010 that was withdrawn after 9 months.
I don't know how credible is your your assertion that you "always edited constructively", when evidence indicate that another statement of yours ("I'm not a sockmaser") is false. My suspicions were confirmed by admin Titpoety, who blocked several IPs as your socks.
P.S. I consider that your indef. block was unjustified, it was an admin abuse of power, like in my case. Iaaasi (talk) 08:41, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

@User:Psychonaut - I'd like to inform you that User:Norden1990 is continuously evading this indef. block on en.wikipedia. Would you like to make a SPI report if I send you the evidence? Iaaasi (talk) 07:26, 12 November 2014 (UTC)