User talk:ShakataGaNai/Archives/2008/July

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Commons:Deletion requests/Images by Think outside the box

So, when are they likely to be deleted? Has this been forgotten? Think outside the box 17:17, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

duplicated image

This image is a duplicated of another one. Could you please delete it?


--Torax (talk) 03:40, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

And this one was taken from the La Opinión newspaper. It was scanned.
--Torax (talk) 03:42, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
What are the original file? (for the first one). --ShakataGaNai ^_^ 06:20, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Commons:Undeletion requests/Current requests#Image:Friedman dinner.jpg

Greetings. I have nominate an image for undeletion, and I wanted to let you know since you had tagged it with {{nld}}. All the best, Quadell (talk) 17:44, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Scope proposal

Can you comment on Commons talk:Project scope/Proposal, please? See the last section. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 19:11, 9 July 2008 (UTC)


Please restore the files that you wrongly listed has missing permission information - the permissions were clearly available on the description page.


-- Trödel (talk) 13:30, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

The short version is that anyone can modify a wiki page, which is why we don't accept permission pasted into image page itself. Additional some information that we need is lacking (like the specification of which images are released - but I presume that if we could see the rest of the email conversation - it would be there). You can read more at OTRS. Once you forward the emails on to OTRS, they will process the ticket, have the images undeleted and tag them accordingly. Thank you for your understanding. --ShakataGaNai ^_^ 18:52, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Image:Henry7Chapel 15.jpg

Hi Shakata,

You're fast! I was literally just about to fix this image by pointing to the proper source here :) Any chance you could undelete the image so I could take care of the sourcing and Flickr review? --jonny-mt 08:00, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Restored ^_^ --ShakataGaNai ^_^ 08:03, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Danke! --jonny-mt 08:12, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Image:Yoshida torii sakura 01.jpg et al

This was free, see User:Para/Flickr/Licensing differences/Compatible earlier but not anymore. CC licences do not allow for a change to a different licence after the fact. --Melanom (talk) 17:37, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I talked to Para on IRC just a bit ago. I asked him if he'd be willing to vouch for his bot. In short he said no because it is possible the Flickr user changed the image. His script only checked licenses, nothing else. Plus, most of the images on that page have been deleted... so it seems that it isn't a very reliable indicator. --ShakataGaNai ^_^ 21:57, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Image re-uploaded after deletion

Hi, just a heads-up, Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Hungarians are attacking Byzantine.jpg; the user has immediately re-uploaded the image you deleted. Fut.Perf. 18:40, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. Re-deleted and indef full prot. --ShakataGaNai ^_^ 21:53, 13 July 2008 (UTC)


Man, you could have asked me about this one first before deleting it. This was a legitimate Flickr-change-of-license that I did before I knew about OTRS. I forwarded my email correspondence and then did the OTRS processing, but I would appreciate some help undoing CommonsDelinker: [1]. Thanks. howcheng {chat} 02:50, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Undid on all article pages. Sorry, but the image was unfree on flickr, wasn't uploaded by a bot, and had been marked failed FlickrReview for over a year. I also removed the flickreview so this wouldn't happen again. --ShakataGaNai ^_^ 03:40, 14 July 2008 (UTC)


Could you delete this? It's fake but still a copyvio.--   ChristianMan16  03:17, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Gladly done. --ShakataGaNai ^_^ 03:32, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Copyright violation

Thank you for pointing out my copyright violations out to me on my talk page. I'm afraid I didn't do my research, but that will not happen again. Do you have tips for getting permissions/copyrights? The images in question were from . Thank you very much.

-Skip Hinnant

Unfortunately in the case of images from a Movie, you would need permission from the studio. To be completely honest, you aren't likely to get it. Very few companies are willing to license images from their products (Be it movies, games, etc) in a license that is acceptable on Commons. You will find more information about how to get "permission" on COM:OTRS including some email templates. Just remember that permission needs to come from the copyright holder, which can be different than where you got the images (EX: In the case you mentioned previously. does not own the copyright to the movies, so permission from them would not be useful. You'd need permission from Walt Disney Pictures). I hope this helps and thank you for your understanding. --ShakataGaNai ^_^ 05:27, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing me in the right direction. However, these were pictures taken by individuals who attended different premiers of "Prince Caspian" - not images from the movies. I do not think that I would need permission from the studio to post photographs of celebrities on the red carpet taken by independant photographers who "donated" or just submitted their photos to the website. (These images could have also been taken by the site owners, I'm not completely sure) Would you reccommend my asking the webmaster for permission to use his images, or asking him who took the pictures in order for me to ask them, in turn, if I could use them? -Skip Hinnant

If the images were taken by an independent photographer, of an Actor - then you need the permission of the photographer. Of course if the photographer took a picture of the movie, movie poster, etc - that would be a different story. In the case of a website - if the photo's are uploaded by members - you'd need the uploader (which one would assume to be the owner of said picture) permission. If you aren't sure, email the webmaster and ask them. They may be able to direct you to whom took the picture, or provide permission if they took the picture themself. As long as you get them to fill out the email templates and send it along to OTRS - you should be good to go. I hope this helps. --ShakataGaNai ^_^ 05:36, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much. That helped tremendously. I'm going to ask the web owner right away. Thanks for being patient! -Skip Hinnant

Good luck. --ShakataGaNai ^_^ 05:19, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Hey there!

:D Wanna do something admin-ly? How about check out Pierrick8's uploads...source=google. I'd do a mass DR..but I don't know how, and I didn't feel like tagging each one. :D Brynn (talk!) 03:58, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Amusingly enough, your smiley indented your message. Anyways, all images deleted & End Copyvio note left. Thanks for the heads up (and don't bother with Mass DR's for something silly like obvious copyvio - waste of your time). Oh - and if you see any more of his - just lemme know and I'll take a ban hammer to him. --ShakataGaNai ^_^ 04:02, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
k! also...gimme five mins after I tag something to leave a nice note on a copyvio uploader's page (in this case chimpdick's...nice user name). I will always leave a note. I was writing a lovely letter when you hopped in and templated him before I hit save. haha Brynn (talk!) 04:19, 15 July 2008 (UTC)


How is using the OFFICIAL cd or album covers for the cd or album section a coptright violation, every other page has them? --

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Chimpdick (talk • contribs) 04:44, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Because you MUST own the copyright, have permission from the copyright owner, or have get an image from under a FREE license; in order to upload a file onto Commons. I can safely say that the album cover for a CD is a copyright work - and I doubt you have permission. --ShakataGaNai ^_^ 04:55, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
  • So the albbum sections are meant to be left balnk then with no artwork at all, how appealing!!! --
    — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chimpdick (talk • contribs) 05:07, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Well if you want pictures on an Album page for the English Wikipedia, you can upload them directly to the English Wikipedia with "Fair Use" rationale. But as noted previously, Commons does not accept that. I'm sorry you don't like it, but the law is the law. --ShakataGaNai ^_^ 05:17, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry i was off, i just didn't understand whay the photos had been deleted. --

— Preceding unsigned comment added by chimpdick (talk • contribs) 05:21, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
I understand. You may want to spend some time reading Commons Licensing policy. Specifically what we accept and what we don't. Again though, the short version is that the images you uploaded were Copyright by a party that is not yourself. --ShakataGaNai ^_^ 05:25, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Image:43 AWB illustrations for AWB manual.png and Image:* 42 AWB illustrations for AWB manual.png .png

What about buttons, check boxes, and scroll bar? They all copyrighted.--OsamaK 15:23, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Essentially they are PD-Ineligible because they aren't "different enough" (or something like that). There was a mass DR about windows screen shots somewhere (But I'm too lazy to go find it). Basically, as long as it doesn't contain Windows specific components (Like the Start Button, Desktop, etc) it is fine. So if it is an image of a "free" Windows application, cropped down to just the application - we're fine with it. --ShakataGaNai ^_^ 17:09, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Eye of the Devil images

Hi, I was just wondering about the deletion of several images from this film trailer, which I uploaded and which I thought were OK. I don't want to be uploading images that I shouldn't so would you mind clarifying why they were copyright violations? thanks Rossrs (talk) 11:00, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

From Sabucat (Which you sourced). The short version is that only movie trailers before 1964 that were published without a copyright notice (most of them), are public domain. The ones that I deleted were from 1967 I believe. --ShakataGaNai ^_^ 18:26, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Yes, they were from 1967, and I think I also linked to [2] in addition to the Sabucat one (which is not very detailed) and this one says that up to 1976 without copyright notice are also public domain. "In any event, industry custom and practice has been to use trailers prior to 1972 based on the above information. " I may have linked the Sabucat site by mistake when it was actually the "creative clearance" reference that was applicable. On the other hand, Sabucat also says "Note that all trailers, regardless of year, until the late 80's, are O.K. to use if they contain no copyright notice." Rossrs (talk) 21:32, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Ok. What ever. I'm not an expert. One says yay, one says nay, but as you pointed out the yay has much more detail. So unless else speaks up, sure. If you could be so kind as to list the images, I'll restore them. --ShakataGaNai ^_^ 03:12, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
It's not the clearest issue is it? Thank you for offering to restore them, and I really do appreciate that. The images are :

I think that's all of them. thanks again! Rossrs (talk) 07:54, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I restored them all, and removed the copyvio note so they won't be deleted again (immediately, at least). I have a few suggestions though. #1 - Put down a proper author (ex: "Self made screen capture"). #2 - Get rid of the sabucat site link since that seems to be the problem, and put the other link in with the license/permission information. Hopefully this will help. In fact we might consider making a PD-trailer template or something of the like which would be a more "permanent" solution. Oh - and if you run across any more that need to be restored, feel free to poke me again. --ShakataGaNai ^_^ 08:11, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for doing this so willingly and so quickly. The advice is really appreciated too, and I will update the pages. A template would be great. I know nothing about making templates, but if you ever become aware of any discussion about it, I'd be happy to get involved if you let me know. Thanks again. Rossrs (talk) 12:44, 18 July 2008 (UTC)


Why the heck did you delete this?

I uploaded this in good faith from a government website, with a source that pointed to another government website.

I tracked down the original it's here:

The copyright claim on the website is copyright 'US Department of Energy'; which is a government department, as is NASA for example, and under federal law is actually PD (the government can't actually copyright anything).

Please restore it. It concerns me greatly that I was unable to find any process that lead to this deletion, nor did you contact me, which given that I uploaded it, is a bit strange.Wolfkeeper (talk) 13:52, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Well first off, you won't find any process that is visible to a user. The short version is that someone tagged the image as a copyright violation (was supposed to let you know - but that is up to them). I see the image, evaluate their claim, and either delete or keep. In this case delete. I'll explain why:
Your original source was from Fermilab. Now Fermilab employee's aren't necessarily government employee's. Yes Fermilab has a contract, but that doesn't mean they are direct employee's - and there for what they do is not PD by default. Additionally on their legal page it says: "COPYRIGHT STATUS: Documents authored by Fermilab employees are the result of work under U.S. Government contract DE-AC02-76CH03000 and are therefore subject to the following license: The Government is granted for itself and others acting on its behalf a paid-up, nonexclusive, irrevocable worldwide license in these documents to reproduce, prepare derivative works, and perform publicly and display publicly by or on behalf of the Government.". Again, nothing about Public domain. The government has a license to use the images how they see fit, but nothing else.
As for your new source. The Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory is just the same setup as Fermilab. On their Disclaimer page it reads: "COPYRIGHT STATUS: LBNL authored documents are sponsored by the U.S. Department of Energy under Contract DE-AC02-05CH11231. Accordingly, the U.S. Government retains a nonexclusive, royalty-free license to publish or reproduce these documents, or allow others to do so, for U.S. Government purposes. These documents may be freely distributed and used for non-commercial, scientific and educational purposes." So here the statement is the same as fermi. Though legally you can use their work for non-commercial purposes, sadly that is not commons compatible.
Lastly, I realize that you uploaded this image in good faith. Alot of people assume that if the URL ends in ".gov" all images are public domain and free to use. If I thought you were being malicious, you would have heard from me. I hope this clarify what is going on. Thanks for your understanding. --ShakataGaNai ^_^ 18:19, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

"Image:Maplebrook School.jpeg"

You tagged this image for deletion and I didn't notice until I visited the Wikipedia article that used it.

The following is the e-mail chain which approved the picture:

From: Permissions - Wikimedia Commons <> To: REDACTED Cc: Sent: Tue, 25 Mar 2008 10:10 am Subject: Re: [Ticket#2008032410016392] Maplebrook Picture


Thank you for your mail.


> > Dear sirs, > > I am contacting you to inform you that the photo of Maplebrook school, > submitted to Wikimedia by REDACTED (LedRush)was taken by one of our staff > members for use by Maplebrook in promotional materials. It belongs to > Maplebrook School,Inc. and I have given my permission for it to be used on > Wikipedia. The business officer of the School,Mr. REDACTED, also approves of > the use of this photo. It does not have a copyright. > Should you have further questions or comments please contact me at REDACTED or at this email address. > ??? Regards, > ??? REDACTED > ??? President/CEO > ??? Maplebrook School

As this image is hosted on Wikimedia Commons, it requires the owner of the image to provide a specific release of the image under a suitably free license (such as certain Creative Commons licenses or the GFDL). If you do this, then your content may be used on Wikipedia. I'm afraid that "permission to use on Wikipedia" or "for promotional use" is not adequate enough.

Thank you for your understanding! Please see <> for more information. If you require a sample email, you may visit <>.

Yours sincerely, Toni Desplà

-- Wikimedia Commons - --- Disclaimer: all mail to this address is answered by volunteers, and responses are not to be considered an official statement of the Wikimedia Foundation. For official correspondence, please contact the Wikimedia Foundation by certified mail at the address listed on


Could you please put the picture back? Also, why did you mark it as not having permission when it was previously so marked and then unmarked because permission had been given? I ask only to avoid this problem in the future... Thanks.LedRush (talk) 14:49, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

As the previous email states "it requires the owner of the image to provide a specific release of the image under a suitably free license (such as certain Creative Commons licenses or the GFDL). If you do this, then your content may be used on Wikipedia.". I checked the ticket myself and it seems you still have not replied to this with the proper information. If you'd like, we have email templates for you to have the copyright owner to fill out. Thank you. --ShakataGaNai ^_^ 17:19, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
I see. Neither REDACTED nor myself thought that it required any further action, but I will make sure that they send the permission. The e-mail asks for a link to the picture...but the picture has been deleted. How can I link to it, or is it enough to refer to it by the name "Image:Maplebrook School.jpeg"?LedRush (talk) 18:23, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Yes, just include "Image:Maplebrook School.jpeg". You can note that it was deleted. Once the ticket passes, they OTRS will undelete the file. --ShakataGaNai ^_^ 18:46, 18 July 2008 (UTC)


All those incomplete deletion requests I just ran through--I just gotta say, I *love* how straightforward things are here compared to some other projects. rootology (T) 01:18, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. As I follow you around finishing them off in a few min. I must say, Thanks for bringing them up! I was getting bored. --ShakataGaNai ^_^ 01:19, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm about out of time today (family just arrived) but I'll get some more later for ya. rootology (T) 01:32, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
Kewl, I like killing things! Have fun. --ShakataGaNai ^_^ 01:33, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Could you please explain more fully...

Could you please explain more fully why you deleted Image:Alleged to be Omar Khadr, being trained to construct a time bomb, from video captured by the USA.jpg?

Could you please explain more fully why you deleted this image without initiating a discussion first, or giving some kind of heads-up afterwards?

I am sorry, but I am very concerned you have exceeded your authority. Geo Swan (talk) 05:30, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Someone pointed the image out to me as a possible copyright violation, I agreed and summarily deleted the image. That was the entire process. I could have put a notification on your talk page afterward about the deletion of a copyright violation image, but I prefer to do that only to people whom I believe have uploaded the image in bad faith. I believed that you had not intentionally violated copyrights, so I didn't.
To why I deleted this. First off, the image is a screen capture of a video that includes the "60 Minutes" logo. But the real issue is the video itself. From how the image looks and what you said, it was a captured video this screen capture comes from. I assume captured from the terrorist depicted. Now you marked the image with two separate licenses, {{PD-USGov-Military}} and {{PD-USGov-Military-Army}}. The key with these licenses is that they only apply to works that were made by "a U.S. Army soldier or employee, taken or made during the course of the person's official duties." Anything that the US Government "captures" is not PD, even if made by a terrorist, the copyright still belongs to someone. Hence why this image is a copyright violation.
As for your concerns about me having "exceeded your authority". I am an Administrator here on Commons. I was given this position by the community. I use the tools afforded to me in the manner I see fit, in accordance with the rules and regulations here on Commons. As the rules state, I am well within my rights to summarily delete any copyright image without warning.
Thank you. --ShakataGaNai ^_^ 06:08, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
Okay. You are operating in good faith.
But, I suggest, it is a serious mistake to not inform contributors when you delete their contributions. If, for the sake of argument, the contributor made a good faith mistake when uploading the image, they aren't going to learn they made that mistake, and will innocently repeat that mistake, if you don't inform them of that mistake.
So, is it your position that uploading the image violates the copyright of the Afghan who took the video?
You drew my attention to COM:L. Well what about COM:L#Afghanistan? It directs readers to w:Afghanistan and copyright issues, which starts:
"As of 2005, Afghanistan has no official copyright relations with the United States, resulting in works created in the country not being copyrighted in the United States, regardless of the local copyright laws of these countries."
Over on the wikipedia I find that some admininstrators, just like some regular people, in real life, regard any kind of question about their statements or actions as some kind of personal attack. I find this unfortunate. When I participate in {{rfa}}s there I ask a question of all candidates -- can they commit themselves to consider all questions on their merits, and consider the possibility they made a mistake.
I am not trying to rub your nose in this, but I continue to be very concerned that you made a mistake in deleting this image without discussion.
You informed me that deleting admins are not obliged to give prior warnings, or post-hoc heads-ups. Frankly this surprises me.
I understand that there are circumstances when a prior warning is not well advised. But, in those cases I can't understand how administrators could possibly be authorized to perform a deletion without doing one or the other. That does not seem accountable to me.
Over on the wikipedia, about nine months ago, an administrator started deleting articles I started. In one session he deleted eight articles. I didn't discover these deletions for three months. I left him a query, on his talk page, asking for an explanation. He didn't explain. So I raised my concern at DRV. Many of the respondents there looked at the deletion log, where this admin had recorded mundane {{csd}} justifications for the deletions, and assured me that the deletions were merely conclusions of ordinary speedy deletion requests, but, when I got those articles restored, it turned out that they weren't the conclusions of speedy deletions. Further, the speedy deletion tags he place were unsupportable.
I call what this guy did "stealth deletions" -- unaccountable deletions, where he acted to obfuscate the record.
In my opinion there should be no deletions where the process doesn't end up informing the contributor of the content. This is absolutely required for accountability. And, as I noted above, even when the deletion is totally justified by policy, it is absolutely necessary to tell the contributor of the intellectual conflict about the deletion, so that they can learn what they were doing wrong.
Candidly, Geo Swan (talk) 08:12, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
In the words of the great Collard "tl;dr". What I think I've got from the above is that you would like me to notify you about deletes. Ok. Also that you think Commons is Wikipedia, it isn't. Lastly, Afghanistan has no copyright laws acknowledged by the US, Shiny. But Commons respects the country of origin's copyright laws AND the United States (yes, have to play nicely in both). I don't know what Afghanistan's copyright laws are, will have to investigate this and get back to you. Regardless - the image was still justifiably deleted - because it wasn't made by a US Soldier. --ShakataGaNai ^_^ 08:34, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
Granted -- Commons is not wikipedia. I never thought it was.
Are you telling me that you don't think administrators on the commons are obliged to use the authority granted them by the community in a responsible, open and accountable manner? If not, was there another point you were trying to make by this comment? Geo Swan (talk) 11:53, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
I asked a general question about your statements about an administrator's powers and obligations, on the village pump. Geo Swan (talk) 12:35, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
Yes. So terribly general. And I never said the administrators on Commons shouldn't be responsible - now you are just putting words into my mouth. You asked me why I delete the image, I happily explained. You've pointed out an additional option in copyright laws, I happily said I would investigate. The rest of this conversation has been pointless and mostly veiled threats. My talk page works by the gold rule, as noted at the very top of the page, "treat others as you would like to be treated.". In other words if you play nice, I'll play nice.
As this "accountable manner". All admins are accountable. In fact if you are curious: My Deletion Log, My Block Log, My Protection Log, and finally My Contributions. You can feel free to sift through any of those logs. It is impossible for me to delete or modify anything in those logs, so you can evaluate every file I've deleted all the way back to June 4th, 2008; if it makes you feel any better.
So if you would like to play nicely with me, I'll happily play nicely with you. If so, I will go and look up the laws for Afghan'y copyrights and see what we can do. --ShakataGaNai ^_^ 19:34, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
I believe I have "played nice" with you. I did not, for instance, say you told me to F.O. I said:
...which seems to me like a big juicy Foxtrot Oscar.
I say nothing about your intent. I am giving feedback about how it feels to read "tl;dr". I am perfectly open to considering that you have no idea how abrasive and disrespectful being told "tl;dr" will appear to your readers.
I do not believe I have made any threats, bald or vieled. Feel free to explain to me which passages I wrote you interpret as threats. Or don't explain.
I am going to continue to do my best to "play nice" with you, and every other contributor here. And I call on you to do your best to "play nice" with me.
Part of "playing nice" is to avoid misinterpreting what the other person has written -- correct?
Both deliberate misinterpretation and good faith, innocent, misinterpretation should be avoided -- correct?
I believe the record shows I have done my best to avoid misinterpreting you -- by stating what I think you meant, and asking you to confirm or correct my interpretation.
I am sorry, but, honestly, it seems to me that, so far, your record shows you are falling short of making the effort to extend the same courtesy to me.
Candidly, Geo Swan (talk) 01:24, 21 July 2008 (UTC)


I don't speak English, sorry. Por favor, deja mis ediciones como yo las tenías. Conozco a los otros ususarios que subieron las fotos (somos todos de Granada), y tengo su consentimiento. Además, son de mejor calidad. Saludos. Veggg (talk) 16:59, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Image:Peoples from United States.jpg

It's necessary add the licences of all the images? Transfer (talk) 02:27, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Um. I suppose that is up to you - if you want to add a section below the image with all the original licenses (granted, there will be many more if you include all the different variations of PD). As long as it is made clear that you are releasing the image you've made as cc-by-sa. --ShakataGaNai ^_^ 02:37, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I add more licences. And now? Transfer (talk) 02:50, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I suppose so. --ShakataGaNai ^_^ 02:52, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

The image is in all the licences? Transfer (talk) 03:00, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Is this too derivative for us?

This image. It's for the Science Fiction Museum and Hall of Fame. rootology (T) 03:20, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I'd think so. That "poster" is about half the image and regardless of its copyright, alot of the content of it is copyrighted sci-fi (like enterprise, etc). --ShakataGaNai ^_^ 03:21, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
I figured as much, but wanted to make double sure since that's the actual front facade of the building. Ah well, thanks. rootology (T) 03:46, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

And now?

And now? The image Peoples from United States.jpg is in all the licences? Transfer (talk) 03:26, 21 July 2008 (UTC)


I hereby accuse you of adding a template to my talk page, threaten that I will cover your talk page with cats if you do it again, and demand you bring me cake. -mattbuck (Talk) 21:19, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Give me some too. —Giggy 00:57, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

lolwutGiggy 09:17, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

zomgHAX!!1! --jonny-mt 14:29, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
IMAGES NEED NO BE THAT BIG!!! SHEESH!!! --ShakataGaNai ^_^ 17:47, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Cake eater!

Erm no reason actually, I just needed to leave you a message after that cake note on my talk page. --Kanonkas(talk) 21:14, 23 July 2008 (UTC)


WikiThanks.png Thanks for the help with the image deletions! Leo Johannes (talk) 16:42, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

unfinished business...

You've left me with the impression that you think I have breached civility. For the record, I don't see it that way.

Normally, I'd respect your apparent decision to close of our discussion. However I think there are a couple of things I should draw to your attention.

First, I decided not to wait for you, and I posed a question on the village pump about the copyright status of images in Afghanistan. It looks like my question is only going to net two answers. Both answers, I believe, support my position that your deletion of the image, without making any effort to inform me of the deletion, was a mistake.

In the village pump discussion I suggested there were:

  1. images that merited deletion due to {{copyvio}} or some other breach of policy.
  2. images that had a bad tag, or other problems, but which, nevertheless, merited inclusion, and could be included with a different liscence, and possibly a little bit of other work.
  3. images that were deleted where the administrator unambiguously was in error.

I suggest to you that the image you deleted was an example of the second class -- one that needed attention, not deletion. I suggest to you that it needed attention, not deletion, even though it might have seemed to you like an image that was hopelessly irredeemable.

Second, with a week to think about an administrator's responsibility to conduct themselves in an open, transparent and accountable manner, I have a suggested approach for you consider when you get concerns about images sent to you by e-mail. I suggest one of your choices when you get that kind of e-mail is to reply to them with one of:

  1. "I agree your concern holds merit. Why don't you put a tag on it, and inform the uploader?"
  2. "I am not sure your concern holds merit. But you are perfectly free to put a tag on it, and inform the uploader."
  3. "I disagree with your concern, for XYZ reasons. Nevertheless you are perfectly free to put a tag on it, and inform the uploader."

I have had several vandals harass me on the wikipedia. One of them wikistalked me for months, applying bogus maintenance tags, and instantiating frivolous {{afd}}s on material I contributed. There certainly are vandals capable of sending innocent looking queries to administrators, in order to harass other contributors. I suggest the open, transparent, accountable way for an administrator to make sure they aren't being duped by a vandal is for them to ask those who choose to raise a concern through e-mail to instead do so through the normal channels. Note: I am not saying the person who sent you the email was a vandal. I have no idea who it was. But I remain sure that the process you chose to follow was not as open, transparent and accountable as it could have been. If you had a reason for choosing the less open, accountable track you haven't offered it. So, forgive me if I consider that it just may not have occurred to you why your choice would be a problem.

Third, you may not have realized that I specifically chose to withhold your identity when I raised my questions on the village pump about the assertions you made to me. Another contributor, who no doubt thought he or she was being helpful, was the one who directed readers to the discussion on your talk page -- not me. If you resented being "outed" your resentment was misplaced.

Candidly, Geo Swan (talk) 14:01, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Weird deletion requests

You solved this issue here Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Bui Clit.jpg which was the right thing to do. There are a view more piercing images that are tagged by the same person with the same reason. Could you also take care of them since I#m not an administrator:

Thanks, --Lamilli (talk) 16:07, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

✓ Done, Done and Done. If you spot any more. Feel free to let me know. --ShakataGaNai ^_^ 16:16, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

simple quote

And as you can see it was a simple quote of a response to a suggestion that I made that was civil and all of those other bloody choicy words :) -- carol (talk) 21:01, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I actually would not mind an opinion on what was expressed in that diff of a public discussion in which that particular user was going against the what had been determined there, again. When I read that statement, I actually sometimes say things like "I can be a dumb blonde" which is similar to that. If anyone quotes me as having said that, I laugh, because I did say that and I have never yet once regretted saying such things nor made an issue out of that kind of thing being quoted. The opinion I would like though is this: does that public thing that WayneRay wrote cause you to think that this user has (for whatever reason) stated that they would stay out of this subject now?
When I made that statement which I guess has been perceived to be uncivil (and if it is, the uncivility should go to the originator of it, I would think) I was actually trying to remind that user that they had said publicly that they would no longer cause interference which is what that user (is it a single individual as opposed to several individuals using one user name?) was doing where I wrote that. -- carol (talk) 21:24, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
It is a lot of words. I tried to say:
  1. If I call myself something, you can call me that as well and not get in trouble for it.
  2. Does that diff look to you like that user was agreeing to stop interferring?
  3. Thanks -- carol (talk) 21:24, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

RE First comment (Got edit conflicted) Yea, actually I did see it. I know you've had your "differences" with people around here, but I haven't seen nearly enough to warrant you being a "problem" child. Which is why I just left the run of the mill "Be Civil" template (more to placate the community than anything else). --ShakataGaNai ^_^ 21:25, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
RE your second bit. I've re-read things (Sorry, I'm exhausted today). No, I did not see that comment from Wayne originally, but now I understand the context of your comment. As far as I see now, all you were doing was writing a personal comment back to Wayne that he would have understood. It was taken out of context by another admin. I've got no problem with you, I've seen you around the wiki and never had any problems. I was mainly leaving the "Be Civil" template to placate COM:AN/U. I will go leave them another note saying that the other admin misunderstood. (IMHO, next time something like this that could be misunderstood - link back to the original comment. Granted, I don't blame you for not doing it - I'm lazy and wouldn't do it myself). --ShakataGaNai ^_^ 21:33, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Eh, thank you then. I will leave it there for the memory of the little pat on which ever one of the four cheeks it was aimed at then :) -- carol (talk) 21:34, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
I really was not knowing which comment had been perceived as uncivil. I have been thinking about how the "Graphics School" here is more active when it is winter in the Northern hemisphere and a comment about that might have been perceived as uncivil. It does seem as if I am walking literally on pins and needles (each with a little prick associated with it) since the problems at english wikipedia. There is a funny joke I heard on tv about how the smallest prick can make some blowup toys explode; but this is probably not the place for that....
I am sorry you are exhausted -- that usually makes sleep a nicer thing though. -- carol (talk) 21:38, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
(edit conflicted, AGAIN) I removed it before I saw this comment. Oh well. I think in the end the reporting admin was getting a little ahead of themselves. I've suggested next time to talk to the user involved, before posting to COM:AN/U. Yea, it seems that there are many eyes on you because of the "other wiki's". It is stupid, people can learn. Commons is supposed to be Mellon, some people seem to miss that. Keep up the good work. --ShakataGaNai ^_^ 21:40, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
I waited until you should be sleeping for this. A confession. I had enough problems in the blur which are those years between ages 20 and 25 in which I needed to go live with my mom again. Interestingly enough, my mom was at that time, living with her mom. I am glad that this all happened as well. It was some very good time that I got to spend with my grandma who passed away a few years after that and it is part of what I am now which I really would not change anything about except for my location these last five years....
The perception of uncivility is or can be one of those mirrors into the things that are really bothering the person who perceives it, perhaps. Or, maybe it is a loophole in the "rules". Living with loopholes that were created due to a complicated justification system, that has been for me one of the most difficult things. I have enough problems with the loopholes I created in my life; I have little patience for maintaining those created by or the use of justified by others. -- carol (talk) 00:32, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Alas, you can not catch me sleeping at my post! (My normal sleep time is 0800 UTC to 1600 UTC. I live in UTC-07) --ShakataGaNai ^_^ 00:41, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
An ostrich, but I saw an EMU

(reset)I shall continue then, but if I were your commanding officer, I would see about getting relief for you if you are indeed exhausted.

When the image I pasted here went in to the QI review, which I tend to enjoy inspite of this kind of thing -- I saw an Emu and I thought to myself (no need to mention user names here, I think) "THAT BASTARD THINKS HE HAS ME ON THE RUN!!". I cannot remember what made me think that I was in such a combative position and take this so personally but I did. I attended a university EMU for many years.

I have recently wanted to ask that photographer if he thought that the large flightless bird was running way ahead of him or quickly away from him. The difference in the photographer perception is more interesting now, a few months later.

Probably, mostly, I should not have taken the images so personally -- then it would not have been so much fun though.

I used to live in UTC-06 and now in UTC-09 and the -09 is a lot more difficult to think about. Did you know that Australia has a timezone which is something.5 different from UTC (Adelaide) ? That one really messed me up to think about. -- carol (talk) 00:58, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. I spent some time in Alice Springs which is UTC+9:30. I believe a few other places like India are a half hour off. For Alice Springs, it makes sense. It is dead center of the timezone (Which is everything but the east and west coasts of Australia), and it is so terribly flat out there. It is a little unusual though, when flying from Sydney to have to set your watch a half hour off. One thing I can say though, that place is FREAKING HOT. I remember a tour out to Uluru left at 5 am in the morning. I thought it was assinine, and getting up that early was just crazy. You get there at 9am, and wish you had left earlier. --ShakataGaNai ^_^ 06:24, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
I might have gotten my UTC pluses and minuses wrong in the preceeding text, btw.... -- carol (talk) 20:35, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Spam filtered image

Can you take a look at the contribution history of Oparuparu (talk · contribs)? This user is very disruptive. I intended to request for deletion on Image: K o w t o w_ k o r e a n . JPG (due to "spam filter, I insert a space between each alphabet) for dubious copyright status like the below reason. {{delete|Very dubious copyright status. It does not have any EXIF information that other images have. It looks like a copy-scanned image from books published in 80s or 90s or somewhere. Its pixel is very blurred. The uploader [[User:Oparuparu]] is [[:en:User:Pabopa]] that uses it in bad faith. The image itself has programmed with "spam filter" for preventing it to be deleted.}}

However, Oparuparu (talk · contribs), (same as en:User:Pabopa) programmed the image not to be deleted or to be requested for deletion. It can't be even linked. It can't be editable anyway. It is very bad faith edit. Could you look at it and fix the problem? I think it is beyond of image policy here. And is there a board like en:ANI here? --Caspian blue (talk) 01:31, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

By the time I got to looking at this, the image had already been deleted by another admin. I'm currently trying to hunt down why the word "kowtow" is blacklisted. --ShakataGaNai ^_^ 07:11, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

questions about the stylized user names

When your administrative duties subside, I have some questions about the stylized user names. I was a little rude about them recently when I was blocked in one of those little prick incidence I mentioned yesterday, but I have been thinking since then about these.

My playing with inkscape is not so interesting to keep me from talk pages today, please forgive me for this and don't blame inkscape.... -- carol (talk) 07:31, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

LOL. Admin duties never subside. But my interest ebbs and wanes. Currently I'm fiddling with OTRS instead. Regardless, what do you want to know about stylized usernames (I'm not an expert granted). I wont be up for too much longer tonight, but I'll happily fill you in with any info I can. --ShakataGaNai ^_^ 07:34, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
They first started to appear here right after I read an article about ants. I can paste the url to the article if you are interested in that kind of thing and haven't read it before. The article mentioned using little drops of paint to keep track of some of them and what group they came from. I can't help but equate the stylized names with that article (not a wiki article btw).
About admin. I was writing somewhere about how at my last job, a person stepped into the position of being my nemesis. Here is the problem with that (there is so much inspiration for superheros and supervillians via all sorts of means to get inspiration from) that the busy location and with things actually functioning the way they were supposed to, operational cruft was the real nemesis and not so idiotic and with such complicated justification systems and everything.
Bay area huh? Do you like it there? Isn't that more than + or - 7 UTC? -- carol (talk) 08:01, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

OTRS Tagging

Hi, you recently tagged a set of images that I uploaded on behalf of the copyright owner. This was ticket 2008072210012641 and one image that is tagged in the series is Image:Gangara_thyrsis_cat_sec.jpg. I just found that there are more images from that series that are not tagged. I am listing the images below and I am not sure about the wording of the permission letter, if it is not broad enough to cover the following, I can ask the author to send another mail to cover the following. Do let me know. Shyamal (talk) 08:10, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

The ticket was specific to what images were released. Those were all tagged. --ShakataGaNai ^_^ 17:10, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
Ok, will ask for another mail to cover these. Thanks. Shyamal (talk) 18:19, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
You are welcome. Good luck. --ShakataGaNai ^_^ 18:19, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Image:Drop Dead! - Sep 04.jpg

Hi! Since you seem to be the one who worked on the OTRS-ticket for this pic, could you please add the real author too? After all he has to be known now. -- Cecil (talk) 16:12, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Not really. The authorization was from the Band's manager or some such person. I change the author to be the band. That's all I got. --ShakataGaNai ^_^ 16:21, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Image:Tabakalerako logoa.jpg

Hi. Could you please explain me why did you delete the Image:Tabakalerako logoa.jpg image? I think it is a clear "simple design", as you can see here: Commons:Licensing#Simple_design, since it does not have any drawing or design. --Unai Fdz. de Betoño (talk) 07:45, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure how "simple design" comes into play. When I looked at the source last night, I did not see the "CC" Sticker on the website. So I apologize and have restored the image. --ShakataGaNai ^_^ 16:22, 29 July 2008 (UTC)


Why do you class this as "Grawp vandalism"? It's Hagger vandalism. Is there an official policy that means Hagger vandalism warants a one year block and that all requests for it being lowered are to be denied? I don't think you gave a suitable reason for the unblock. Slave (talk) 13:20, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't know what "hagger" or "grawp" vandalism is. Vandalizing of a top 500 template in such a way as was done, deserves a lengthy block for users to think in over. If I had my druthers, I would have indef blocked. --ShakataGaNai ^_^ 16:13, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
I have some info on this one & I am "digging". Expect me to get back to you. This is a cross wiki issue that has been discussed on the CU list. --Herby talk thyme 16:19, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
Kewl. I guess. --ShakataGaNai ^_^ 16:23, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
OK - odd situation. This user - with some positive contributions on both here & en wp - appears to have been vandalising other wikis (fr at least) imitating Grawp. Equally - as when previously blocked on en wp a while back - has created the above account (which redirects to brsboy) to evade the block (indef blocked now). It is sad but I'm inclined like you to indef brsboy now. Given the cross wiki experience I think they knew what they were doing. I guess it might be worth taking to an admin board or whatever. Cheers --Herby talk thyme 17:44, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
I've indef'd for less. So we've got a user with at least one confirmed sock here, bad vandalism here, and cross wiki vandalism/bans? --ShakataGaNai ^_^ 17:48, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
Good summary. Add in previous socking on en wp if you want to stretch it :) --Herby talk thyme 17:50, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
Indef'd. --ShakataGaNai ^_^ 17:55, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Permission Question

Hello, I'm not a wiki-specialist at all ;-) But you left some comments on my talk pages about the pics I posted. I' don't get it, I got the permission fromthe authors , i forwarded those mails to the permissions adress of wikipedia (in dutch, because the mails were in dutch)and I keepgetting these messagges, I don't know what to do more as I got their approval. I symply don't have the time to put more time into the matter, a pitty. But if you have tips or suggestions or can help, please do so. Tha&nksFunkibizniz (talk) 12:25, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Did you get a response back from OTRS? They will have responded with a Ticket # in the subject line and some additional information, like if your ticket was accepted or if additional information was needed. I am an OTRS volunteer, so I know any ticket more than a week old has been processed. If you can find the ticket #, I can look it up and see what the details are. If you never got a response, I suggest you forward the emails (again, sorry) to . Thanks. --ShakataGaNai ^_^ 16:31, 29 July 2008 (UTC)


If was safe bet that I knew which edit you're referring to and it was just plain rude and needless on my account. Getting a bit upset now on English Wikipedia with this silly Kassel or Cassel nonsense, but really again, needless to bring it over to Wikimedia Commons. Civility my middle name from now on. Cladeal832 (talk) 03:11, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Its ok. Everyone looses their temper every now and then. Even I've written less than friendly things in a fit of rage. We have the friendly templates for those time when we get aggravated. --ShakataGaNai ^_^ 04:32, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for participating

Purple flowers on Capitol Hill.jpg Thanks for taking part in my RFA. It passed 29-5-0, and I appreciate and will take to heart all of the feedback, and do my absolute best to better Commons with the trust placed in me by the community as a whole. rootology (T) 17:15, 31 July 2008 (UTC)