User talk:ShakataGaNai/Archives/2008/June

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


TUSC token 9ea6e0a2893379c9d2929a02e41f4379

I am now proud owner of a TUSC account! --— Preceding unsigned comment added by ShakataGaNai (talk • contribs) 19:25, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

"Welcoming" users

Hi - thanks for advising users of copyvio etc. Can I suggest that you always place a {{Welcome}} template if there isn't one already on the page. It may not be perfect but it is one of the best multi lingual templates we have & may well help a new user to find their way around particularly if their en is not very good. Thanks --Herby talk thyme 09:31, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Sure, I suppose I can leave that one in addition to what ever else I was going to leave. --ShakataGaNai Talk 17:03, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. If things start getting "difficult" I feel far happier about taking any action if they have had some they "should" understand - cheers --Herby talk thyme 11:05, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Take page?

What is a take page? A talk page? What should I be reading exactly? I've been asked to assist an Andrew Evans staff member. Your direct assistance at would be much appreciated if this is going to be any bother, I just tried to do something in the interest of not being one sided by helping a party that hates my minority. Timeshift9 07:11, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I left the note on the talk page of User:AndrewEvans --- here. Basically they need to send OTRS an email to prove who they are. --ShakataGaNai Talk 07:17, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Audio Barnstar

I took the liberty to change the graphic in the Audio Barnstar template. The graphic you used comes from the barnstar for the WikiProject 'Spoken Wikipedia' [[1]]. Since all the other barnstar graphics on Commons are the same as those on Wikipedia, I added the graphic from Wikipedia's general Audio Barnstar to the template. Now all stars use the same pics. Hope you don't mind.  Channel ®   09:27, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Cool! Looks even better. I figured the other one worked just because most of the audio was voice recordings - but this will work for all. Thanks! --ShakataGaNai Talk 18:00, 3 June 2008 (UTC)


Thank you so much for creating my account! --Jane Doe 12:37, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I didn't create your account, I simply left you a message welcoming you. But you are welcome none the less. --ShakataGaNai Talk 18:02, 3 June 2008 (UTC)


Thanks! :) --Trixt 01:02, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

You are very welcome! --ShakataGaNai Talk 01:03, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Crab182

I thank you for adding the template, but I don't know the point of wikicommons, and why you did what you did. --— Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk • contribs) 03:56, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

  • You are welcome. I try to add the welcome template to as many new users as possible. As for what commons is:

"Wikimedia Commons is a media repository that is created and maintained not by paid-for artists, but by volunteers. Its name "Wikimedia Commons" is derived from that of the umbrella project "Wikimedia" managing all Wikimedia projects and from the plural noun "commons" as its contents are shared by different language versions and different kinds of Wikimedia projects. Thus it provides a central repository for freely licensed photographs, diagrams, animations, music, spoken text, video clips, and media of all sorts that are useful for any Wikimedia project."

Tnx from enJerzy

I'm boldly editing without much reading, since "enJerzy" refers to my being w:en:User:Jerzy. And my boldest act is that i'm critiquing the text content of Image:AU Burns Canberra.jpg on that page, rather than on the talk page, tho in much more of a discussion style than an article style -- primarily bcz info is needed on the image page, to use the text intelligently, and i'm not sure how fast the needed text for the image page will gel. I'll be grateful for your thots, tho there's a good chance i'll wind up my first contrib quickly after sending you this.

It may also be worth mentioning to you that i'm undertaking a little research in hopes of being able to test the hypothesis that the 2nd line of the "plinth" text had a slip of the pen by the photographer -- tho i suspect that the error was made by the incisor of the stone, or earlier; i'll discuss that, if it bears fruit, on the Image-talk page.

Thanks for the welcome, and i hope i can live up to it!
--EnJerzy*tk 06:52, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to ask questions and discuss the images on their talk pages. I wouldn't recommend editing the image pages directly, unless you are making changes to the descriptions. Generally the image pages are for descriptions, licenses, and the like - not for commentary. Good luck regardless. And you are very welcome for the "welcome". --ShakataGaNai Talk 06:57, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Tnx, i'm gonna leave it overnite, but i'll make a try w/in 24 hours at splitting out my tentative additional description for the image page, and my research and rationale for the talk page.
I'm abt to sign the image page, as the contributor did, but should there be, in the long run, multiple sigs, no sigs, or what?
--EnJerzy*tk 07:07, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Actually there should be no signatures in the image page. Signatures are only used on talk pages. I see whats been done on that image now. We'll wait and see how it goes. In all likelyhood it wont get responded to. --ShakataGaNai Talk 07:34, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Bob Barr Photo

In response to your alert on my talk page, I wasn't the original uploader of Image:Bob Barr-2008.jpg, I only cropped the image. Please alert the original uploader instead of me about the copyright information, if you haven't already done so, that is. Gage 05:07, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually I did. I wasn't really sure who to alert. So I notified everyone. Thanks for the heads up though! --ShakataGaNai Talk 07:37, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Image:Billy Zoom.jpg

It doesn't matter what flickr says. There is an email on file with the OTRS. Please check you facts before doing something rash like tagging something for speedy deletion. Oh, by the way you also improperly removed the OTRS template. Evrik 13:54, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I removed the OTRS template because it was "pending". If there was an email sent - that template should be replaced by the proper template identifying which ticket # it is from OTRS. Since that wasn't there, I went by the link from Flickr. But since you asked nicely, I will replace the copyvio tag w/ an {{npd}}. --ShakataGaNai Talk 17:51, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
  • perhaps rather than tagging the image for deletion, you can prod the people at the OTRS desk to review the image? Evrik 18:02, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Well do you have an OTRS ticket #? If so that will make this much easier. --ShakataGaNai Talk 18:04, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
      • No, I believe there is a backlog at Commons:OTRS. If you have access to the system, it should list the image by its name. Evrik 18:05, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
        • I just had a chat with OTRS. They can't find a ticket. So either we'll need the specific ticket number, or another permission email sent. Until then the NPD needs to stay. --ShakataGaNai Talk 18:29, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
  • I just resent the original email. I am looking for the response that was sent. Evrik 19:05, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

in re: Welcome

Thanks! Best, Ultraexactzz 15:27, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

You are welcome. --ShakataGaNai Talk 17:51, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Julian Barnes Photo


I sent the email from Mr Barnes' agency to OTRS and I got an email with subject " [Ticket#2008060310009077] OTRS confirmation" from permissions wikimedia commons. I'm new about license matters so I don't know what else I can do. Can you please help for this issue?

Regards, Guzelonlu (June 04, 2008)

I will check it out and get back to you. Thanks. --ShakataGaNai Talk 07:39, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
From what I can gather you did nothing wrong. I was in error in the fact that I shouldn't have tagged this image so soon after upload. Additionally you added the otrs # just minutes before I tagged it - so I must have seen the "old" version of the page w/o {{otrs pending}}. I'm sorry about that. I've gone ahead and removed the {{npd}} and it looks like everythings is A-OK. --ShakataGaNai Talk 07:46, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for your concern. Because I'm so inexperienced, I thought I made something wrong. Thank you, again.
I sent the permission mail sample to agency. and told them sending this email to the . I hope this will solve the problem. Thank you, again. Guzelonlu (June 05, 2008)
I sure hope so! --ShakataGaNai Talk 06:44, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Second POST



Actually, no, I don't have to take it. And I didn't... Don't make me use my oversight powers, mystery user... ++Lar: t/c 03:01, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Haha. ;x Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 03:03, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations! I know you'll be a great admin! And I'll be servin' up the copyvios righttt.  :D--Brynn 03:02, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Congrats! Ahonc (talk) 03:03, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

GOD DAMN IT LC2. STOP FIGHTING ON MY TALK PAGE!!! --ShakataGaNai Talk 03:05, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

HE STARTED IT Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 03:07, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
OH SHI- Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 03:11, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Congratulations! You'll do great! :) --Kanonkas(talk) 03:45, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Apparently the qualifications for a great admin on commons, is someone willing to ban Lewis. Awesome! --ShakataGaNai Talk 04:28, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

My image: SimCity Societies Destinations

Hello! I'm spanish so my english isn't exellent but I want to talk with you. I have upload five minutes ago an image about a cover of a new computergame of Electronic Arts. Many webs and sites have that image and how I've seen the page of this computergame without the image, I have upload it to complete the page.

All the images of EA have copyright, but they give us their images to sell his products!! And yes, I have more eliminated images, but you must know that the eliminated images because they have copyright, are mines!!! There are screenshots of my website!!! Them haven't copyright, if it there is, the copyright would be mine!!!

Bye. Reply me, please. --JaimePG 19:48, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but EA's copyright does not allow us to use their images commercial - this is a requirement of commons. All images must be "free" for everyone to use in any way. I appreciate you are trying to help, but you are not allowed to upload these images. Please do not continue to upload images from other companies. --ShakataGaNai Talk 20:25, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
(Traducción automática:) Lo siento, pero EA los derechos de autor no nos permite utilizar sus imágenes comerciales - se trata de un requisito de los Comunes. Todas las imágenes deben ser "libres" para todo el mundo a su utilización en cualquier forma. Soy consciente de que está intentando ayudar, pero no se le permite cargar estas imágenes. Por favor, no sigan a subir imágenes de otras empresas. --ShakataGaNai Talk 20:25, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Ok, now I'm agree with you. Thanks for your information, and if EA gives you permission, put the image! ;) Bye. --JaimePG 20:30, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

You are welcome. Unfortunately they will never give us permission. You can feel free upload the images on your local language Wikipedia instead as "Fair use". --ShakataGaNai Talk 20:35, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
No hay de qué. Lamentablemente nunca nos dan permiso. Usted puede sentirse libre cargar las imágenes en su idioma local en lugar Wikipedia como "uso lícito".

Closind requests for deletion …

… has nothing to do with playing God. Please provide arguments for your decision. --Polarlys 07:23, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Wow. Relax. Have a melon. It is going to be ok. I am not playing god - I am just trying to work through the backlogs of DR's. --ShakataGaNai Talk 07:29, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
I hope you find my new "Argument" more acceptable. I'm sorry that I have a tendency not to tag my comments. Also - if you don't like the outcome, I can ask MichaelMaggs to take a look at the DR as he is also working on the January backlog. --ShakataGaNai Talk 08:44, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations, Dear Administrator!

An offering for our new administrator from your comrades...
Čeština | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | English | Español | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Magyar | Հայերեն | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Português | Português do Brasil | Русский | Sicilianu | Slovenčina | Svenska | +/−

ShakataGaNai, congratulations! You now have the rights of administrator on Commons. Please take a moment to read the Commons:Administrators page and watchlist related pages (in particular Commons:Administrators' noticeboard and Commons:Deletion requests), before launching yourself into page deletions, page protections, account blockings or modifications of protected pages. The majority of the actions of administrators can be reversed by the other admins, except for history merges which must thus be treated with particular care.

Please feel free to join us on IRC: #wikimedia-commons @ Also consider joining #wikimedia-admin, the cross-wiki coordination channel for Wikimedia administrators. Any member of the channel can invite you in temporarily, but you need an invite exemption from a channel operator to get in whenever you want. Please come to #wikimedia and ask for an invite. Any admin from any project is welcome.

You may find Commons:Guide to adminship to be useful reading.

Please also check or add your entry to the List of administrators and the related lists by language and date it references....
Congratulations... Standard advice: Take it slow, ask questions if you need help, lots of us want you to succeed and will be glad to help. Best. ++Lar: t/c 02:58, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I very much wished I was online to close your RfA just so I could get a lolcat thanks. :D giggy (:O) 10:49, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Eh? I closed it and I didn't get one of those so ??? ++Lar: t/c 02:38, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Sorry you missed it. Well if I ever go up for another vote - you'll have to vote ^_^ --ShakataGaNai Talk 18:50, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Commons:Administrators/Requests and votes/ShakataGaNai (de-adminship)? giggy (:O) 02:24, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Nya~ That wasn't what I had in mind. I plan to usurp power! So it would be an RFB obviously. All I have to do is ban white cat and I can be promoted straight to w:POTUS (his words, actually). But you got your CATS --ShakataGaNai Talk 02:50, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Deletion request of Image:FCR to FDR letter complete.jpg

Hi, I have a comment/question regarding your closing of this request. I don't really care about this image, but I have waiting for months for someone to add any relevant argument to the discussion with regards to copyright, and haven't seen much of it. In this regard, your closing of the request with the reason "I dont see any reasoning here to say its copyvio." seems extremely light to me.

It is up to us (as in "the Common community") to indicate why a particular work is in the public domain or under a free licence, and not the opposite (showing why a particular work is a copyvio). In this particular case, the reasoning you are looking for is the following and is, as far as I know, uncontested: this letter was written by Fidel Castro, who is currently alive. Most copyright laws specify that the copyright of the letter thus belongs to him, and it is almost certainly the case in the US; as such, the letter is a copyvio, unless someone indicates why it should not be the case. While many people have indicated their opinion (including mentions that the letter is of historical significance, etc), I haven't seen anything conclusive with regard to copyright law.

I may be wrong, but I would be grateful if you could reassess your closing decision. I don't mind the image being kept, but in my opinion, the reasoning provided should be stronger. Thanks in advance, Schutz 09:09, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Here is how I see it. National Archives page says "Access Restrictions: Unrestricted; Use Restrictions: Unrestricted". That reads "Public Domain" to me. --ShakataGaNai Talk 16:55, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
How can the National Archives grant permission on a copyright that belongs to Fidel Castro ? There is no indication, either, that he authorised the publication of the letter (if the letter was indeed published between 1923 and 1977). This was the whole point of the deletion request. Schutz 05:11, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Well it goes like this. He wrote the letter, mailed it to FDR. The end. It is not physically possible for him to have published it. When it was published for the first time, it would be published under the guise of the National Archives, or the presidential cabinet or some other such item.
Let me give this to you the short and sweet version. I looked over the DR, I saw you against a bunch of other people. There were a number of fairly convincing arguments as to why it is PD from the National Archives, and only you saying that we haven't proven that it's not. If you can bring a convincing argument to the table as to why it is copyright FCR, and not just a "Prove it!", then I'm willing to hear more.
Let's be honest too. Commons isn't perfect. We are user run, user powered, and have to Assume Good Faith. In this case we are assuming that the people at the National Archives (who get paid to deal with this stuff) know more than we do. I'm actually inclined to believe what they say over almost anyone on commons unless they can cough up a copyright law degree - or has a really strong case otherwise. --ShakataGaNai Talk 05:31, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Although I don't care much about this particular image, the discussion (or rather, the lack of discussion) on the deletion request page still leaves me with a feeling of unfinished business . I agree, of course, that commons isn't perfect, but I don't think it should ever be used as an excuse for not doing the right thing (I thing this would start by including a link to this page you mentioned above that says "Unrestricted"; while I have been able to find images of the letter on the National Archives web site, I could not find any copyright information). In any case, here is my detailed reasoning on this image (see also another, similar request where this was discussed, and the start of the discussion):
  • Commons requires an image to be in the public domain in at least the United States and in the source country of the work.
  • I am happy to assume that the National Archives have covered the problem for the US
  • I don't think anyone seriously disagrees on the fact that Cuba is the source country of the work; so it remains to see if the image is under copyright under Cuban law
  • User:Lupo/Hairy_copyright#Cuba tells us that only Cuban works where the author died before 1947 or Cuban photographs published before 1972 could be considered as being in the public domain..
  • Fidel Castro is still alive, so the letter is likely to be under copyright under Cuban law.
Now, to me, this is pretty convincing — I am not saying that you have to agree (although I think that your reasoning for closing the discussion ("I dont see any reasoning here to say its copyvio.") is a bit harsh on me), but at least, I have the feeling to have done my best to help commons reach the correct decision. Cheers, Schutz 06:48, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
I have actually read your argument and I do agree it is convincing. I haven't been ignoring you - just a busy day. Regardless, I do have that link for you. You can check the ARC Search Results and click on the title. I will attempt to respond to this more tomorrow when I have the energy. --ShakataGaNai Talk 07:34, 7 June 2008 (UTC)


Um, why the protection? Are you testing? --MichaelMaggs 22:09, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes. I am. Brynn and I were talking about it over IRC so we figured we'd give it a spin. --ShakataGaNai Talk 22:12, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Test worked fine. I have unprotected now as it's not considered good practice to protect your own user page unless there is a real need. --MichaelMaggs 08:15, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh, sorry. Forgot about that. I turned off Brynn's, I see you already got mine. Thanks. --ShakataGaNai Talk 08:17, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

OTRS permissions

I'm not sure whether you've got access to the OTRS system but I noticed you tagged an image of mine as no permission -- all fixed now, the image permission OTRS was sorted back in March but clearly the admin didn't tag the photo, no matter. I've got problems with a couple of other images though, I've left messages for a couple of people about them but haven't had any replies. I'd like to query the permissions for Image:Amanda Gilman 2.jpg and Image:Amanda Gilman 1.jpg. I am suspicious about both because the photographers are different people, and especially in the case of Image:Amanda Gilman 2.jpg I highly doubt that Fadil Berisha, the official Miss Universe organisation photographer, would grant permission for his image to be released. I think they need to be followed up but I don't know who else to approach... Cheers PageantUpdater 02:25, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

So I saw. I shall check on it and report back. --ShakataGaNai Talk 02:27, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
I checked with OTRS. Your ticket and the ticked for those two images are in order (The ticket for the 2 images you mentioned is from the subject herself). I asked our token girl in IRC to look at the pictures, she and a few others took a look and agreed that they could be the same person. A lot of plastic surgery, photoshop and general tinkering - but possibly yes. Personally I'm suspicious too - but OTRS says it is ok - and that makes it Not Our Problem (TM). And you are always welcome to bother me for anything. Thanks for the heads up. --ShakataGaNai Talk 02:46, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Is there somewhere where I can bring this up? This should not be allowed. The only person who should be able to release the image is the photographer himself, not the girl in the photograph. Isn't that one of the central tenets of the Commons? Why should someone be able to release an image seemingly without the permission of the original photographer? The image was taken of Gilman during the Miss USA 2006 pageant by official photographer Fadil Berisha, who also photographed the other fifty contestants. The copyright is held by Fadil Berisha and the Miss Universe Organization, and I doubt that Gilman has any authority to release the image. Similar images were deleted from Wikipedia over a year ago because they violated the fair use policy. Cheers PageantUpdater 07:12, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Yes. You have 2 options. #1 - you could nominate both images for deletion and explain your reasoning (probably the best). #2 - You could post on the Administrator noticeboard. Theoretically the subject of a photo could own the copyright, if they purchased it from photographer - or if it was done as a work for hire. That being said... I don't know much about the situation with Miss USA and you seem to be more knowledgeable about it than I. --ShakataGaNai Talk 07:28, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, I'll try nominating it for deletion. I'm definitely more of a Wikipedia-girl, I'm always a bit shaky when it comes to Commons practices :) PageantUpdater 07:36, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
That is alright. It is fairly easy actually. Just goto the image and in the toolbox on the left hand side there is a button that says "Nominate for Deletion". One click, enter some text - and it does the rest. --ShakataGaNai Talk 07:39, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Another possibility is to advise the suspected originator of the existance of the image, and advise them that if they have an issue they should send mail to permissions (at) That usually will settle the matter. ++Lar: t/c 15:11, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Deleted images etc.

Hi ShakataGaNai,

Just wanted to say thanks for your helpful comments on the deletion discussions for the Vertexguy images. I was thinking about your comment about how you wish you had the ability to see deleted pages on en-wiki, and I realized there was actually a successful RfA recently for someone who asked for the tools for just that purpose. Since I imagine it would be incredibly useful in your work as a Commons admin, I thought I'd let you know in case you wanted to give some thought to adminship on en-wiki. Thanks! --jonny-mt en me! 03:04, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Well that is interesting. Theoretically I could do it, but I'm not to sure they'd pass me. I read recently that there was an idea to give commons admins the ability to globally see deleted files. I think I'll wait and see how that turns out. Thanks for the heads up though! --ShakataGaNai Talk 07:30, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

My uploads

Btw there are a large number of Miss Universe/Miss USA pics I uploaded recently that are still OTRS pending... no need to tag them, I'll get on to uploading the rest of the bunch tonight then send in the permission for all the images at the same time. Cheers. PageantUpdater 08:32, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh. I didn't. I saw them already. My policy is anything that has was uploaded more than 3 weeks ago (give or take) and still OTRS pending - gets tagged. I saw a few of yours in there. If nothing else, consider it a reminder. But... please don't think I'm targeting you. I'm trying to check every image in the category. Thanks! --ShakataGaNai Talk 08:34, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
I don't, its nice to have someone keeping me on my toes! A few of them the OTRS admin person missed, a few I realised I never actually sent the permission in (oops) and one I realised that I was still chasing up a more specific okay from the person... so I've emailed him again :) (he was pretty clearly ok with the release but I know the OTRS volunteers want more specific language) PageantUpdater 08:43, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Image:Adolfas Jucys.jpg

Hello, I have sent email with copy of a written permission to OTRS about Image:Adolfas Jucys.jpg and there is {{otrs pending}} template on that page. I don't understand, why it is on the delete list? It's a kind of stupid policy to tag image under deletion, if OTRS haven't reviewed it yet. Thank you. - Andrius Vanagas 08:37, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

It is my policy to tag anything that has been uploaded more than 3 weeks ago, and still OTRS pending. If you sent an email to OTRS back in December, you should have received a confirmation ticket # and the image should have been tagged properly. OTRS is not instantaneous - but they don't take 6 months either. If you have that ticket number, great. If not but you are positive that you got a ticket back (you just lost it) - I can check with OTRS to see if they have anything on file. --ShakataGaNai Talk 08:42, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
I haven't got the ticket and I'm not guilty with it. The permision was given in lithuanian language (but I also sent a translation). May be this holds confirmation? Please, check with OTRS. Thanks. Andrius Vanagas 08:46, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Sorry to intrude--I was looking at Shakata's response to my message above--but I've confirmed the permissions and added the OTRS ticket number. Thank you for your contribution. --jonny-mt en me! 10:05, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks Jonny-mt. I didn't realize you were OTRS. I do appreciate your assistance. --ShakataGaNai Talk 20:04, 7 June 2008 (UTC)


Hello ShakataGaNai, you placed the template This image is missing permission on the image. In january of this year I forwarded a e-mail with permission from Markéta Krausová (employee of České dráhy,a.s.) to OTRS. I forwarded the message again today. I hope you can delete the template (or announce what is missing?). Thanks in advance, Erwin1990 10:16, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Hello. I talked with an OTRS volunteer. Unfortunately the email they received is vague and does not have a proper license. Could you please have them send a more specific email, including the license and a link to the image on Commons? You may want to have them use Commons:Email templates. --ShakataGaNai Talk 21:37, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for you reaction! I sended a new message to Ing. Markéta Krausová. I hope she will reply within 6 days. Erwin1990 14:44, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Image:Isak Kimoe.jpg

Hi, I had not noticed that the OTRS-mail had not been received. I'm travelling and don't have access to the permission e-mails&adresses at my home computer, could you please postphone the deadline for deletion until june 30th so that I can fix this when I get back home. I'd prefer not to have the image temporalily deleted, and I'm pretty sure that there must only be a technical issue of some kind that has caused the permission not to reach OTRS. (I'm only checking in via cell phone connection now, and I don't know when I'll be back online). Thanks for your help, --Finn Rindahl 18:34, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Alright. I will keep an eye on this image. Just for the record - I talked to OTRS and they can not find anything. I will removed the NPD tag for now though. --ShakataGaNai Talk 21:48, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Litlle help

Dear ShakataGaNai, ive seen that you tagged some of the files i uploaded with {{no permission since}}. In february i got in touch with the autor of the photographs and i sent all the mails to otrs permissions. Otrs sent me a mail with the subyect "Re: [Ticket#2008011910007414] Files sent by the autor that are in [[Category:GastónRodríguez]]". Until today i tought that everything was set. Could you give me a little help fixing the issues of copyright?. And meanwhile, could you remove the "no permission", so i don't have to upload them again?. Well, i hope you excuse my poor english, (i speak spanish!). Thanks and be well. --Zeroth 19:13, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I talked to an OTRS volunteer today. They say that unfortunately the email they received did not authorize the release of any images. Also, you must provide a link for every image being released. You may want to read COM:OTRS for what text you should send. --ShakataGaNai Talk 21:13, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
(Traducción automática) He hablado con un OTRS voluntarios el día de hoy. Ellos dicen que, por desgracia, el mensaje que reciben no autorizar la liberación de cualquier imagen. Asimismo, debe proporcionar un enlace para cada imagen de ser puestos en libertad. Si lo desea, puede leer COM:OTRS por lo que el texto debe enviar. --ShakataGaNai Talk 21:13, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Help with licensing

I've asked a Flickr user if they would consider releasing a photo, they've replied asking whether they will get credit for it. I think there is a "free" license (one of the Creative Commons ones, maybe?) that allows that on here, but I don't know which it is. Can you give me some suggestions so I can email him back? Cheers. PageantUpdater 22:10, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Well you can tell them that first off it is upload on commons, it will most definitely be linked back to him on Flickr. Also you can tell him that a Flickr license of "Attribution-ShareAlike Creative Commons" or "Attribution Creative Commons" are Commons friendly (The rest of the license are either No Derivative work, or Non-Commercial - which we dont allow). I would suggest the first license that I mentioned (we call it CC-by-SA) the "Attribution-ShareAlike Creative Commons". You can read more about it on the Creative Commons. But basically it requires that one using the picture Attribute & share it under a compatible free license. I hope this helps. --ShakataGaNai Talk 22:17, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the info, I really appreciate being able to pick your brain :) PageantUpdater talkcontribs 22:32, 7 June 2008 (UTC) 22:26, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
No problem. BTW - your signature... You may want to check the "Raw signatures (without automatic link)" --ShakataGaNai Talk 22:27, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Cheers, just figure that out :) Its nice to have some "backup" on Commons where I'm not as knowledgeable about things as on Wikipedia :) PageantUpdater talkcontribs 22:32, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

No permission tags on 20 photos

Hi ShakataGaNai,

You recently tagged all twenty photos here with {{no permission since/en}}.

They all have the following copyright tag: {{attribution|text=Required attribution text: S. Meshi – ZAKA}}

Also, please see OTRS Ticket#2008030810012872. Despite numerous attempts to contact the uploader and photographer for clarification on the premission granted, he never replied after his first message.

I hope that the copyright permission that is on record is sufficient and that the photos needn't be deleted.

Thanks, Reuvenk 22:44, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Hello. I talked with my friends in the OTRS department. Unfortunately the email they received does not grant permission, nor is it even clear that the author understands how his images are being released. If you would like, you can contact him and have him send something from Commons:Email templates. To be in compliance, there needs to be a specific license (example: CC-by-SA) and a link to each image on Commons being released. Unfortunately without that, the images will need to be deleted. --ShakataGaNai Talk 23:02, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Files that needen't to be deleted


I found this in my user talk page:

"Thanks for uploading Image:Holoenzimapol3.jpg. This image is missing permission information. A source is given, but there is no proof that the author or copyright holder agreed to license the file under the given license. Please provide a link to an appropriate webpage with license information, or send an email with copy of a written permission to OTRS ("

But I sent this email with a copy of a written permission. Maybe missed? I'll re-send it tomorrow but please don't delete it yet, I HAVE the permission. Thanks, --Deneapol 02:40, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Re-sent. --Deneapol 02:51, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm thinking maybe something is wrong in what i have done (it's the wrong template?), or maybe there is a problem for uploading free-images from a site that has also other images copyrighted (anyway, this images are specified by the author on the permission i sent), or because it's in spanish(?). If there is any problem i would like to know what happen to resolve it if i can. I see also people have a "ticket" that i had not received yet, I don't know why (and there is a time i sent the email). Sorry for my english, i hope we could understand us. Thanks again, --Deneapol 08:39, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I had OTRS take a look earlier after you left me the first message. All they said was they didn't have enough information and I would have to wait (Since the email had just come in). I will check on this again in another 12-24 hours and see what OTRS says then. --ShakataGaNai Talk 08:45, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
(Traducción automática) tuve OTRS echar un vistazo antes después de que usted me dejó el primer mensaje. Todo lo que dijo fue que no contaban con suficiente información y me gustaría tener que esperar (Desde el e-mail acababa de llegar). Voy a comprobar en este otro nuevo en 12-24 horas y ver qué dice entonces OTRS. --ShakataGaNai Talk 08:45, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Ok! I checked with the OTRS department. We found a ticket that applied. I have tagged all 10 images. You are free and clear. --ShakataGaNai Talk 08:35, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
(Traducción automática) Ok! Lo comprobé con el departamento de OTRS. Encontramos un billete que se aplica. Tengo todos los etiquetados 10 imágenes. Usted es libre y claro. --ShakataGaNai Talk 08:35, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
I think the problem was to send the permission from a public mail account. Thank you! --Deneapol 13:27, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Image:JeffreySkidmore.jpg: OTRS ticket

Hi, Image:JeffreySkidmore.jpg, which you tagged as lacking proper permission, was issued OTRS ticket number #2008051310031552. Kindly add an OTRS ticket to the image description page. Thanks. — Cheers, JackLee talk 00:41, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I ran your ticket through the OTRS dept. Everything checked out. The OTRS permission as added and the NPD removed. --ShakataGaNai Talk 02:24, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Cool, thanks. — Cheers, JackLee talk 11:33, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Image:MaybeMonday October2001.jpg permission

Just some background to this one: I emailed the photographer's permission to "permissions-commons" on 21 Mar 2008. OTRS replied the same day (ticket#2008032110007308) stating that the permission was not adequate. I have since sent two emails to the photographer asking him to clarify his permission, but have not yet received a reply from him. --Bruce1eetalk 07:14, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I checked with the OTRS department. Unfortunately you are correct, the license was not quite there. You can try emailing the photographer one more time, perhaps having him use the email templates. --ShakataGaNai Talk 08:14, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

OTRS permission

Hi! About this picture. I sent to OTRS the email permission I received from YSEE in September 2007. Since then nobody has controlled it and tagged the images. Please search the email in OTRS archive and help me tag the YSEE pictures. --Nyo 18:11, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but the OTRS department can not find anything that fits this image. OTRS automatically sends you a response with a ticket number attached - if you can find that ticket number we should be able to find the lost permission. Otherwise you may consider sending the permission again. Thanks! --ShakataGaNai Talk 08:22, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
I did not receive any ticket number from OTRS. Maybe in 2007 the response system was different: in the case of other images I uploaded and sent the permission, were the admins with OTRS access those who provided tag with ticket link on the images page. Do you have access to the OTRS archive? Otherwise please help ma find an admin with access. --Nyo 19:57, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
The OTRS system has always provided a ticket number. So if you didn't get a ticket - they didn't get your email. Also, as I previously stated, I have already checked with OTRS and they could not find a ticket. So unfortunately you will need to resend permission. --ShakataGaNai Talk 20:10, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
OK. I no longer have the original email, I must demand another one. However I'm sure to have accurately sent the permission in September 2007, so it's strange that OTRS didn't receive it. I think someone deleted it. --Nyo 22:00, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
The system automatically creates ticket's and responds with the ticket number. It isn't possible for someone to have deleted the ticket. My assumption is that your email simply never made it the first time. Sorry. --ShakataGaNai Talk 22:06, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Image:Terreiro_do_Jaua.jpg permission

See a copy of the permission sent in the history of image. Thank you Jurema Oliveira 20:29, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I see two items in the history as an attempt as "permission". The first when you uploaded the file listing the ticket to an offsite URL which is not valid. Second is a copy of an email put into the text of the page, which is also not valid. Please follow the directions on COM:OTRS to get proper permission for this image. Thank you. --ShakataGaNai Talk 20:51, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

You deleted my original content

Why? This is the second time this week that someone has deleted my content from commons. Restore my image! I'm sick of complaining, practice due diligence for gods sake. Please restore File:ICU seal.svg AND please undo the mass de-linking that your bot undertook, since I can't even track its path of destruction. I'd like to re-upload it but I don't even know if I have a file copy of that file anymore. I foolishly assumed noone would be insane and just delete it.

For that matter, the commons delinker AND your deletion policy should be stopped and investigated. In the meantime, observe. --Ingoman 21:53, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Making demands and generally insulting myself does not put you in my good graces. But I am a decent person so I will hear you out. First off, the image you uploaded was titled "Seal of the Islamic Courts Union". Now, being that I doubt you made the logo for the Islamic Courts - it is fairly easy for us to assume it is a copyright violation. I can un-delete the file, but at this point in time I'm still not convinced. You've had several files recently that have been deleted for copyvio including Image:Africaoilcorp.png by myself and Image:RangeResources.png by another admin.
In regards to commons delinker and my policy on deletion... Commons delinker is completely automatic. Any file that is deleted, it delinks in all wiki's - that's it. For me? Well I'm trying to keep copyright violations off of Commons since we get ALOT of users uploading ALOT of copyvio work. If yours isn't copyvio, I apologize. --ShakataGaNai Talk 22:16, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
I drew the UIC logo off of a photograph taken in 2006, I made it myself. This is rather clear considering that I stated that I created the file myself and released it as public domain. I assume you have seen how easy it is to delete someone's license info eh? I just demonstrated it to you. But now I see you have been even more egregious in that you deleted the file EVEN WITH A LICENSE. I had assumed, incorrectly, that you had mistakenly deleted the file as it had been license-wiped rather than what I see now is a deliberate act of vandalism. And you have the temerity to berate me over it? Are you the king of Wikipedia?
Oh by the way, don't think I didn't notice you didn't follow the rules in the warning scale. Level 3 indeed. --Ingoman 22:27, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Well I congratulate your work, you did a very fine job in recreating a very nice logo. Unfortunately, a derivative work of a Copyright work, is still a copyright's violation on commons. And yes, I have deleted images with licenses. Just because you upload the file with a claimed license, doesn't make it any less of a copyright violation. I am sorry if you misunderstood this.
Additionally, removing the license from my images (or any images) constitutes blatant (and in this case knowing & boastful) vandalism. If you continue your vandalism, I will be forced to block your account. Commons does not have as clear cut rules on banning like Wikipedia does. And yes, I chose to use the level 3 template instead of the level 2 (we don't have a level 1) since I felt you know full well what you are doing.
Lastly, I am not berating you. I am attempting to have a calm and civil conversation with you. And I am not the king of Wikipedia. You will notice in fact that you are _not_ on Wikipedia. You are on Wikimedia Commons. --ShakataGaNai Talk 22:37, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
State insignia are not subject to copyright infringement laws, as is stated here, and if you want to bring out the argument that the UIC was not a state, political parties insignia is also not subject to copyright infringement laws. I would advise you to read up on international copyright law a bit more before you delete anything else! You could have just asked me and saved this whole argument you know. --Ingoman 22:44, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
What Country is that page from? Because what I read the Islamic Courts Union is in Somalia and that IJNET has not information on Somalian copyrights. Also, you could have saved your self the entire argument by not starting off so insulting, and calmly explained your position. --ShakataGaNai Talk 23:00, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Somalia has no national or international copyright law or intellectual property law. It is not a signatory of the Berne Convention or the TRIPS agreement, nor is it a member of the World Trade Organization. There are actually no legal protections of copyright in Somalia. Even if there were however, political and state insignia would still be exempt. --Ingoman 23:14, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
(Indent Reset - Again) So.... What country did that link come from then? First you cite me a page with all these laws, then you say there are no laws. But even if there were laws the insignia would be exempt? I don't think so. --ShakataGaNai Talk 23:17, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Quit grasping at straws. Restore my file. --Ingoman 23:24, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
I suppose you've just decided that you've won this stupid argument on points, well fair enough. I quit, go ahead and delete everything I've ever done on commons, I'm sure you can find some specious rationale to delete every last one of them. Hey, the shape of the earth is copyrighted! Can't draw those maps!--Ingoman 23:30, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
I am sorry, but you haven't shown me a clear case of anything. You've told me two completely different sets of copyright laws. One of which you still wont tell me what country it is from. In addition, You've contradicted yourself a number of times. Work with me and I'll work with you. Making demands will get you no where, as I can can happily hum louder and you can shout on my talk page. --ShakataGaNai Talk 23:33, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
I am sorry you feel this way. I am trying to help. Best of luck to you on your future ventures. --ShakataGaNai Talk 23:35, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
I've been down this road before with guys like you, there's no argument that will ever convince you that you're wrong, but thanks for the condescension. --Ingoman 23:44, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
"guys like me" - You mean a decent level headed person that didn't block you for copyvio, that block you for being insulting, and didn't block you for vandalism. Must be hard dealing with nice people. I am not being condescending, trust me, you'd know if I was.
In regards to your image, I don't think I know more about international copyright than you do. In fact it is probable you know more than me - but you haven't explained it in the lease bit. You told me one thing (based on a link) and when I asked for clarification you told me a completely contradictory set of information. When I again asked for clarification - you just started making demands again. I am more than willing to work with you on this, and I have been extremely patient with you. If you would afford me the same courtesy, we could fix this situation.
Oh - and please stop undoing my indention resets. I want my talk page to be readable, not tabbed out into the next county. Thank you. --ShakataGaNai Talk 23:52, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Well tough, what I said wasn't contradictory. Do some research, if you're going to appoint yourself the Copyvio Avenger or whataver. --Ingoman 00:26, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
(Indent Reset) It has become very apparent that you really don't want be civil and work out this problem. Until you can discuss this problem in a civil manner, please do not contact me about this matter. --ShakataGaNai Talk 00:32, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Nah I'm done. --Ingoman 05:25, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
It is very unfortunate that the guy had such a reaction. His Somalia related contributions were really valuable. But instead of clarifying the copyright status of his images, he keeps avoiding the issue. Anyhow... he changed descriptions and copyright on most of his images. Can he do that? If the uploaded images' copyrights are irreversible, should his last changes be undone? Also, I think this logo should be dealt with as a copyvio Image:Range.png --Kimse 05:48, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
I really did want to work it out with him. You are correct though, PD is irrevocable. I will revert the images. Thanks for the heads up Kimse --ShakataGaNai Talk 05:51, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the RV help Kimse. --ShakataGaNai Talk 06:09, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
No problem, I couldn't compete with your speed though! I left a message on his talk page asking to reconsider leaving. --Kimse 06:23, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

My Photos

Hello! You have marked my files to be deleted. The e-mails with each license was send to permissions-pt and i have a copy, i send it in march 2008 and never get answer, and the mark otrs-pending is in my pages, so please don't try delete my photos. Thanks. Lyahoi! 17:44, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Well unfortunately permissions-pt wont get your images cleared on commons. Could you please list the ticket number (or numbers, if there is more than one)? That way I can have them checked out and cleared. Just for future reference, if the images are uploaded to commons, the permission email should be sent to per COM:OTRS. Thank you. --ShakataGaNai Talk 17:47, 10 June 2008 (UTC)


Alright well it's the next day, and I feel a bit less angry (no longer "blind rage" of last night). I still can't find a backup copy of the ICU seal, so you may have obliterated that work from the universe, but I'm feeling more philosophical about that, and I will address your questions. There are two sets of copyright laws, there is the copyright law of the nation where the content is created, and there is the copyright law of the nation where that content is used or displayed. The ICU seal was created in Somalia, where no copyright or trademark legislation exists nor legislation on national symbols, I created a copy of the seal from a photograph of that seal (also taken in Somalia), in Canada, but it is used in the United States on Wikimedia Commons servers (or wherever they are based). The IFOJ article considers the use of national symbols in articles written in the west in countries subject to the Berne Convention, the TRIPS agreement, and member states of the World Trade Organization. The IFOJ points out that the use of national emblems and symbols is not subject to copyright, but are subject to limitations and restrictions of use depending on the national policy relating to their national symbols of the nations in question. Somalia does not have any legislation or law, as is the case in most western countries, relating to the correct use of the nation's symbols. Thus, there are no inherent nor defined copyrights on Somali political symbols (of which the UIC seal was from 2006 to 2007) nor are there specified limitations on the use of said symbols as of June 2008. It can be said that, as the symbols are of national authorities and the potential for abuse of national symbols is important, it could be argued that the ICU seal has inherent restriction and limitations of use, but nowhere was the ICU seal being used to impersonate the ICU, or other such mischief. --Ingoman 19:26, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I want you to know that I have not been ignoring you. I appreciate you leaving me this much clearer message. So I have 2 notes for you. #1 - Deleted files are kept on commons. So if you will email me with a quick note - I will reply and attach a copy of the file for you. #2 - I have created an Undeleteion Request for this and included a copy of the above posted message. More admin's read that, and they will understand the copyright situation better than I do. Hope this helps. --ShakataGaNai Talk 22:02, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
I appreciate it, though having thought out the matter I should probably just get a copy of the file and re-upload to english Wikipedia with a fair use rationale. Just a quick note, I did not myself take the photograph in Somalia, the photo was posted on the Islamic Courts website (now defunct). -- 23:15, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Quitting Commons

I shall not add any new photographs to Commons and am hereby resigning from this project, due solely to the above unnecessarily hyperaggressive treatment received by User:ShakataGaNai regarding the permissions received from kind photographers at Flickr who had granted permission for the use of their images here. Badagnani 21:47, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I was not being hyper aggressive. The original "message" you said that is such - is an automated template. I've replied to you on your talk page also in regards to an explanation of what OTRS is - and the fact that you are not "blocked" --ShakataGaNai Talk 21:52, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Bodies of Water Flickr image

I'm confused. It appears that you removed an [image] I had uploaded from Flickr. According to the Commons:Flickr images page: "Only Flickr images tagged as BY (CC-BY) or BY SA (CC-BY-SA) are allowed on Commons." Looking at the image, I see both of those icons. Am I misunderstanding the licensing requirements? If I am, let me know, as I actually got permission from the flickr user herself, and perhaps I could persuade her to change the licensing if necessary. Dulcettones 20:30, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, you have misunderstood the license. If you look, there are some other icons there as well. When you click where it says "Some Rights Reserved" you will see that in is not licenses as CC-by or CC-by-SA, but in fact is licenses as CC-by-NC-SA (No Commercial). Unfortunately Commons does not allow licenses that prevent commercial re-use, or no derivative work (CC-by-ND). If you can get the Flickr owner to change the license on flickr, Great. Let me know which image it was I deleted and I will undelete it (and {{flickrreview}} ). Good luck and Thank You for your understanding. --ShakataGaNai Talk 20:36, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for clarifying. The photo's author actually got back to me quickly and changed the licensing. The image was titled Bodies-of-water.jpg, but I'm not sure if you need more than that ... Dulcettones 21:31, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
You are welcome. Sorry about that. Regardless, you image has been restored and {{flickreview}}'d. --ShakataGaNai Talk 21:35, 11 June 2008 (UTC)


This is the response I got from Wikipedia:

Thanks for bringing this to our attention. The image is in the public domain in the US because it was published before 1923 and is also in the public domain in Switzerland. I have restored the image and updated the license information.

Yours sincerely, Mike Ingram

-- Wikimedia Commons -

My original message: In response to the request of information about the permission I have to use the image, I have no written permission from the author. I didn't provide any license information because I consider that it belongs to public domain since author died more than 80 years old.

--— Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk • contribs) 02:09, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Image:Stylidium graminifolium cultivation.jpg

Hello there! I was wondering if you could take a look at the text I posted on the talk page of this deleted item. This image and Image:Stylidium graminifolium flower spike.jpg were uploaded at the same time. For some reason, I neglected to include the right flickr template on the one you deleted and by the time a bot came around to automatically check it, the uploader at flickr had changed his license. I assure you that both images had been released under an appropriate license, as the other image "was reviewed on 22-April-2007 by the administrator or trusted user MECU, who confirmed that it was available on Flickr under the above license on that date." If you could take another look at it, I'd appreciate it. Cheers, Rkitko 02:07, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Howdy. I've taken a look at the old image. It looks like you uploaded it 22 April 2007. Unfortunately it was not checked by anyone until 1 April 2008, at which point it failed the check. As a note, I did check the license before I deleted it. Not that I don't what you say about the two images having the same license. Unfortunately from a legal stand point a trusted user, administrator or special bot - has to verify the license - just in case this exact problem happens. Unfortunately I can't do anything about this without a license change on Flickr or OTRS permission. The best thing I can suggest is to contact the Flickr user and ask them to change their license on that picture to CC-BY or CC-BY-SA (Commons doesn't accept Non-Commercial or Non-Derivative). If you can get them to do that, let me know and I will happily undelete the image and do a {{flickrreview}} so this doesn't happen again. Thank you for your understanding. --ShakataGaNai Talk 02:55, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
I appreciate your kind reply. I'm well aware of the copyright restrictions and have deleted a few non-compliant images on en.wikipedia myself. This case is just that much more frustrating since I know it had the proper license at the time of upload. I even mentioned it in the comments of his photo on flickr [2]. The photographer seemed like an affable fellow, so I'll contact him and see if he'll alter license for this photo or e-mail me specific permission that I can forward to OTRS. I understand how difficult it is to see that the license was correct from the information you have and appreciate you taking on the often difficult task of deleting people's pet uploads (and subsequently receiving a flood of "Can you undelete this" messages ;-). Cheers, Rkitko (talk) 11:27, 12 June 2008 (UTC)


I think you didn't actually really read the image description page or the Flickr page linked to, in which the image creator gives me permission. Please read it more carefully. I'm going to remove your tagging since it's wrong. Morven 08:14, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Hello. First off I'd like you to know that I did actually read the image description. That was the only reason I tagged your image {{npd}} instead of deleting it straight away. So the NPD tag in not in error. The short version is that a comment posted on Flickr is not "good enough" for Commons. Either we need COM:OTRS permission, or the Flickr license changed. Also the text he posted wouldn't even be considered valid since all he said was "Feel free to use it as you wish with attribution.". That doesn't specify what license he wants. So I am going to go ahead and put the NPD tag back in place - which gives you 7 days to contact the author and see if he will send OTRS permission or change the license on Flickr.
Also. Please do not tag {{flickrreview}} onto images. The only users that are allowed to tag something as flickr reviewed are administrators or trusted users. Thank you for your understanding in this matter. --ShakataGaNai Talk 18:12, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Canada

see Commons:Deletion requests/WikiProject Canada--shizhao 09:21, 12 June 2008 (UTC)


Hi there,

you asked me about the author of this "picture". Since the image depicts a direct scan from an old newspaper editorial (which usually is the product of collective effort and therefore not creditted, at least not in this case) I reckoned that it is to be used at leisure. However, if by chance the illustrating cartoon (whose artists I unfortunately cannot identify) is objectable I might re-scan the scoop without including the graphic part of the editorial. --Zsasz (talk) 03:11, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I'm sorry if I have this wrong, but I assume you are referring you Image:Meissner Reichschancellor0002.jpg? Actually I am not concerned with the author - rather the license of the image. --ShakataGaNai Talk 05:00, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
To the best of my knowledge there is no license-owner since the publishing house that publicised the saidd newspaper was disassambled in 1945. The rights to the paper thereby pretty much "evaporated". To be on the safe side I produced another scan that does not contain any artistic elements (pictures, sketches etc.), yet restricts itself to displaying the text-parts of the cover-page. --Zsasz (talk) 06:48, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
I would suggest using {{PD-because}} and explaining that the work was from a bankrupt company in Germany(?) from 1945. As far as I can find, we don't have an applicable template - so I'd suggest using that. I personally don't see the problem with your images, but I'm no expert on German copyright laws. --ShakataGaNai Talk 06:54, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Your bot

Heads up (see my last comment). giggy (:O) 09:26, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Roger. --ShakataGaNai Talk 16:47, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Paintings below zero.jpg

It appears that you closed Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Paintings below zero.jpg. I have also moved Image:Boeing North Gallery.jpg. You can delete that here as well.--TonyTheTiger (talk) 17:19, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

✓ Done. Thanks. --ShakataGaNai Talk 17:33, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Deletion notes

The images you notified me about on my talk page were moved from en.wp ages ago. The original uploader is not active anymore. But I fail to see, why a picture that was uploaded as no rights reserved back then could not be a free image anymore. --Dschwen (talk) 18:42, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

As for there is no proof that the author agreed to license the file under the given license. Please provide a link to a webpage with an explicit permission: find an admin to dig up the deleted image pages on en.wp. There is your proof. --Dschwen (talk) 18:44, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
For example the first image I pulled up Image:1911Pope-Hartford.jpg. There is no source, no author and no description. About all it has is a copyright & a "it came from en.wp". --ShakataGaNai Talk 18:46, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Additionally in the example case of Image:4 Tetrarchs.jpg the text says "This image was copied from wikipedia:en. The original description was: Allan Silliphant 2000. Author releases all rights to this 3D photo.". If I go find the deleted copy on En.wp will it say the same thing? That still isn't "Proof". --ShakataGaNai Talk 18:50, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Allan Silliphant is 3dnatureguy is nativeborncal. The amount of proof you expect here goes beyond most uploads on commons. Who says for example that I am Daniel Schwen, that I really took this picture, and that it is really released under CC-BY-SA 2.5?! I had tons of work back then when I was moving these images to commons, and you aren't doing the project any favour by deleting them. The intention of the author was very clear. No rights reserved. These are free images. That guy was new to en.wp and has since then been scared away, he was no expert in licensing, and didn't know commons existed. Anyways, I have gotten many gray hairs over these pictures. And I'm at a point where I don't really care any more. Just ask yourself if the commotion is necessary, whether this is becoming about wanting to be right, and if you are acting according to the spirit and intention of the original uploader. --Dschwen (talk) 19:00, 13 June 2008 (UTC)


Broom icon.svg
Dear ShakataGaNai/Archives/2008,
Thank you for participating in my
unsuccessful request for adminship, shown here. Regardless of not being an administrator, I look forward to working with you in future Wikimedia Commons projects. -- miranda
I am sorry that you did not pass. I know I did not help with a neutral vote. It sucks that one event can skew things so much. But at least that is out of the way now. Keep up the good work and re-apply in just a little bit of time and I'm certain you will pass! Good luck! --ShakataGaNai Talk 22:20, 14 June 2008 (UTC)


I restored that image after a request from the uploader. Word graphics are usually accepted here. I hope you don't mind. Thanks, Maxim(talk) 21:57, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Well other than the fact that the uploader ran around to half a dozen admins requesting undelete, and the fact that the image is out of scope. Plus text generally _isn't_ accepted - from since it can be replaced by proper text (unless it is an old historical document. --ShakataGaNai Talk 22:09, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
It's a graphic - you can't make that with plain text. Maxim(talk) 22:11, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
Well as it only serves the purpose on the user's page & has no value to any project other than that. Still out of scope. Not to mention the fact that the user already has more than a couple "personal" images which we've let slide. It has to stop somewhere. --ShakataGaNai Talk 22:12, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Does this image have the wrong tag

Hi, I thought the flickr tag for this page: File:Variegated Fairywren with food.jpg was ok as the original had a link to:

this licence

is this ok or do I get the author to change it? Casliber (talk) 06:33, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

No, Unfortunately Commons does not allow "Non-Commercial" or "No Derivative" licenses. You will need to get the Author to change it or provide permission to COM:OTRS. --ShakataGaNai Talk 06:36, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Flickr image deletions

Hi. You recently deleted Image:Businessman silhouette.jpg, Image:American Kestrel (Falco sparverius).jpg and Image:Anti-CPE harangue at the Assemblée Nationale, 2006.jpg, which I uploaded from Flickr. For what it's worth, I, as an administrator here and on the English Wikipedia, hereby confirm that these images (and all other Flickr images that I have uploaded) were properly licenced as CC-BY or CC-BY-SA at the time of their upload. Sandstein (talk) 07:32, 15 June 2008 (UTC)


Hi. Just yesterday I have received the new permission and sent it to OTRS. I hope this time it won't be deleted. However, the picture has been removed. --Nyo (talk) 08:32, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Don't worry, the image can be undeleted. If everything checks out, OTRS will undelete the image. If they cannot, let me know and I will. --ShakataGaNai Talk 09:02, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Deleted OTRS pending

Hi. Please check User_talk:Siebrand#Image:Ajmalibu03.jpg. THanks. Siebrand 08:36, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Image:Escudo de Casas-Ibáñez.gif

Images are usually not deleted just because they are replaced by another version in another image format. There may be some other reason for the delation, but then your closing comment for the request should mention the real reason for deletion. /Ö 13:47, 15 June 2008 (UTC)


Why did you delete this image? It was of copyright and I was i the middle of using it on Simple English Wikipedia.--   ChristianMan16  21:23, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Your image is outside the scope of Commons, see COM:SCOPE. It has no encyclopedic value. Monobi (talk) 21:25, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
It is text... seriously... use text instead. --ShakataGaNai Talk 21:26, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
I was going for design here. not just text and I can't do that with HTML code....please restore it if I don't need it I ask you to delete but right now I'm testing with it. Please restore it.--   ChristianMan16  21:27, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
Design for what? Your userpage? Commons doesn't host images for use in the Userspace... it's suppose to host encyclopedic media. Monobi (talk) 21:28, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
Simple English wikipedia does not host images I have to host them here to use on my user page.--   ChristianMan16  21:28, 14 June 200(UTC)
COM:SCOPE - NUFF SAID. --ShakataGaNai Talk 21:29, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
[[[COM:SCOPE]] supports my image cause it's of use to my User pages. Please retore it now please.--   ChristianMan16  21:35, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
(undenting) Not exactly: Private image collections and the like are generally not wanted. Wikimedia Commons is not a web host for e.g. private party photos, self-created artwork without educational purpose and such. Like I said before, there is no encyclopedic use for the image. Monobi (talk) 21:38, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
Nor does this image but you allow it.--   ChristianMan16  21:47, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
Let us see. Your image was going to be used on one page (your personal page). In which you already have more than a few personal use only images - that WE HAVEN'T DELETED and in fact... have left alone. On the other hand, IM_IN_UR_CHEKUSAH_INVSTIGATIN_UR_SOX_lolcat.jpg is used on 10 pages in 3 projects. What can I say - at least lolcat's are funny and amusing to everyone. --ShakataGaNai Talk 21:51, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
It wasn't hurting you, the project or the servers. And you deleted it cause why...some policy? Whatever I'm walking away before I lose my cool.--   ChristianMan16  21:55, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
You're free to leave and start your own project where you can set up your own policies. Monobi (talk) 21:59, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
While I'm not trying to drive you away (be nice Monobi) - You do need to understand what Commons is for...
You weren't hurting me. The project? Hmmm, could be argued yes. Servers, Most definitely, harddrive space is a factor. And I deleted it why? Yes, because of some Policy. That is why ... we have policies. Regardless, let me explain a little clearer. You have a history of uploading Copyright violation images, personal images and claiming fair use. I am sorry that Simple.WP does not allow images to be uploaded - but that really isn't our problem. Talk to the admins on Simple - get them to change the policy there. Additionally, you've gotten 4 personal images up - most people have one. You want more and more and more. Where does it stop? Commons & Wikipedia are NOT MYSPACE. There are even policies about that too.
Lastly - You aren't even uploading useful images. If you had 4 pictures of yourself or your dog, that would be one thing... But you are uploading text. Text in images & Tables as images are generally _always_ considered out of Commons scope because they can be replaced by text. --ShakataGaNai Talk 22:07, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
The server keeps a copy of everything doesn't save hard drive space. hbdragon88 (talk) 07:53, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Stylidium again

Hello again! Sorry to bring this up again (Image:Stylidium graminifolium cultivation.jpg), but I spoke to the photographer and he has altered the license back to the acceptable kind, [3]. Could you take a quick look? Thanks! Cheers, Rkitko (talk) 04:13, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Restored & Reviewed. --ShakataGaNai Talk 04:22, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Much appreciated! Cheers, Rkitko (talk) 04:28, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Image:RIP ChrisBenoit.gif

Are you targeting me or something? That was a legitimate photo. And it was being used. You have something against me or something cause ever since the User image you have targeted my images...what's your problem? Restore and nominate it for deletion instead of QD it and it complies with COM:SCOPE BTW.--   ChristianMan16  05:49, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I am not targeting you any more than any other user who has a bunch of Out of Scope or Copyvio images. I've told you about out of scope images ... more times than I'd tell other users. In fact I'm being far more patient with you than I would any normal user because I know Alison went through alot of trouble to help you - so she must see something in you. If you were ANYONE else - I would have banned you for repeatedly uploading Out of Scope images (more than one Admin has told me I should Ban you). I'm not telling you this to threaten you, I don't make threats. As for your image, I am convinced it is Out of Scope, so I can speedy it. In fact, I haven't found an admin that disagree's with me - and I poled more than a few over IRC real quick. So let me explain real quick how you and I are going to continue to get along.
  1. Stop making demands. I don't respond to well to demands.
  2. Stop uploading out-of-scope images. If they have no value to ANYONE, ANYWHERE except for your userpage - they are OUT OF SCOPE. And you've already gotten your "free" images.
  3. If you are going to talk to me about something, don't go posting on several other pages at the same time unless you and I can't come to a conclusion. I understand you may not like me, but every time you post to my page - you post to Alison.
  4. You are going to remember that while I try to be a fair and level headed admin here - you've got yourself on my Radar - and basically most of the other major admins too.
Do we have an understanding? I sure hope so. --ShakataGaNai Talk 06:09, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
RETIRED!!!! I can't stand the wrongness on this site any longer.--   ChristianMan16  06:21, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Ok. I don't understand what the "wrongness of this site" is. We have rules, Everyone follows them. Even the administrators have to follow them. Right now this very moment up for DR is an admin's picture. Fight as we might - it will probably be deleted because it breaks the rules. --ShakataGaNai Talk 06:31, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Help me understand

The way this looks to me:

  • you: your images don't have any source they will be deleted!
  • me: yes, they do, they were moved from en.wp, as stated on the description page.
  • you: yeah, but that page is deleted and I can't verify it.
  • me: trust me, it's true, or wait till we have viewdeleted on en.
  • you: I don't trust you. I don't want to wait. I want to delete the pictures now.

What am I missing here? Seriously. What has happened that you don't even trust a fellow admin?! You happen to trust basically every other user, as I don't see you going on deletion rampages claiming all licensing might be made up. --Dschwen (talk) 02:26, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not targeting you. Why does everyone assume I am targeting them? I was just going through a category tagging the images, the ones you transfered just happened to be in there - Hell - I didn't even know who you were. I don't check the user when I NSD something, I click the javascript and move on. Even still, I trust you that you say there is a source. But I was told in no uncertain terms that "Wikipedia is not enough of a source", we need the _original_ source. So can you put it down? Do you remember? Were they self made? Can you pop over to en.wp and check?
I would understand if you NSD/NLD/etc my images because I screwed something up. I'm an admin - I should know better. It just so happens to be unlucky that I found the images now and not in 6 months when we might have viewdelete. My problem is two fold. #1 saying "rm bogus/overeager deletion warnings" which ... you admit there is no source listed and that makes it not bogus. #2 saying that we need to wait for viewdelete. Which again, I was told in no uncertain terms that regardless of viewdelete "it still has no source" and "it still has to be checked.
If you look at the viewdelete thread on AN you will see I was the first to post positive. Hell, I was the one pushing gmaxwell in IRC to write something. I even made sure everyone knew about the meta page about it. You will be hard pressed to find someone who wants this functionality more than I do... Still: It isn't technically possible to do at the moment. The draft policy isn't even completed. There hasn't even been a vote on it.
I guess in short I'm saying: I'm sorry we disagree and you feel "targeted". But I don't think Commons should come to a grinding halt (in respect to images moved from Wikipedias) because of a dream that we one day might have a feature. --ShakataGaNai Talk 05:03, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Scratch that. You added sources... that is all that is asked. --ShakataGaNai Talk 05:05, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Ok. Hm, yeah, being the guy who goes around trying to enforce the licensing policy, doesn't help you win a popularity contest. So, sorry if my reaction was a bit too.. ..cynical. The only thing I didn't get was that the source information was there, it just wasn't in the license template (and the one I used has become deprecated in the meantime). --Dschwen (talk) 12:10, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, you should target admins from other projects. That might help us get their support for global viewdelete. ;) Rocket000 (talk) 15:21, 18 June 2008 (UTC)


Facepalm (yellow).svg = 718smiley.svg Awesome! I love it! Rocket000 (talk) 15:17, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

  • To be fair - it was Collards idea in the first place... I just made it into a polling template (got some help from Rama too on the graphics). --ShakataGaNai Talk 18:50, 18 June 2008 (UTC)


Re this see this. IP now blocked for a week - cheers --Herby talk thyme 15:31, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

  • Thank you much for the heads up! Added them to my notes. --ShakataGaNai Talk 18:48, 18 June 2008 (UTC)


I'm a flickr reviewer! :D Thanks for your support! :D Brynn(talk) 15:33, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Deleteion of Flickr images

Hi! You recently deleted lots of images because of incorrect Flickr license. Several of them were uploaded several years ago and were properly licensed also confirmd by Flickrreview. Example: Image:Connexion by Boeing 737.jpg. Did I miss a policy regarding the deletion of Flickr images if the original author changed their license to a noncommercial or nonderivative? If the policy was not changed please undelete all images with similar correct licenses (correct as by date of upload and confirmed by flickrreview). --Denniss (talk) 08:46, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I have the same question. Image:Caught in flight.jpg was Cc-by-2.0 when it was uploaded. It doesn't matter what the current license is since CC licences are non-revocable. See Template:Flickr-change-of-license. You should not be deleting these with no discussion. Angela (talk) 13:31, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Here is what I can tell both of you. Images from Flickr need to be reviewed by either a Bot, Trusted User, or Administrator. Unfortunetly back in the time before the FlickrReviewer bot, not all images got checked speedily. Sometimes they weren't reviewed for a very long time. Regardless of that, if the image did not pass a FlickR Review by one of the groups above in the time it was still freely licensesed, well... it sucks, but it has to go. We can't prove it was every properly licensed. For your individual cases:
  • Image:Connexion by Boeing 737.jpg failed FlickR Review as of October 26th, 2006.
  • Image:Caught in flight.jpg was originally uploaded with FlickrLickr which does not allow for the upload of un-free images. As such, I've restored the image. I'm sorry for the inconvenience, I should not have been deleted it.
--ShakataGaNai Talk 17:04, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for undeleting it. Can you also do the same for Image:Flat-out.jpg which was deleted by another admin for the same reason. It was uploaded by FlickrLickr when it was under the attribution-2.0 license. Angela (talk) 14:40, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
Done. --ShakataGaNai Talk 18:00, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Sauspartan / Izzone

Image:Margo.jpg by Izzone (talk · contribs) is the same wire service image you deleted, originally by Sauspartan (talk · contribs). --Dual Freq (talk) 01:40, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Image:Margo Harshman 1.jpg is the same one by same user different name: Margoharshmanfan (talk · contribs) --Dual Freq (talk) 01:55, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Sorry to take so long to respond. I'm getting so many messages on my talk page a day/night, some are getting lost. Anyways - I had seen both of these previously and blocked indef both the uploading users as suspected socks. my case file. But if you happen to see any more - feel free to let me know. Thanks! --ShakataGaNai Talk 18:03, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Light Eyes Map

hy ! i don't understand the problem with the map "Light Eyes Map.png" . Can you help me ? i can confirm that i'm the author of the map... thanks.--GaiusCrastinus (talk) 18:42, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

    • Well Image:Pigmentation Hair & Eyes .jpg is a Copyright Violation. As "faithful reproductions of a copyright work" are considered derivative works, and therefor also deleted. In the same respect that you can't take a picture of the Mona Lisa and claim it as your own work. That being said - another user on the deletion request seems to be saying that doesn't exactly apply for maps. So we'll let them sort it out. --ShakataGaNai Talk 17:58, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Henry Kravis.jpg

Can you please explain your deletion of this image? This appears to be an acceptable Flickr image. Also, can you explain why you would delete the image without either warning or informing the contributing editor? Please reply on Wikipedia as I don't typicaly watch wikimedia commons Urbanrenewal (talk) 10:14, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Reply left --ShakataGaNai Talk 17:52, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the quick reply. The spot you pointed me to appears to have a different standard than for images I have added through wikipedia. Am i understanding this correctly? Would I be correct in assuming that for a wikipedia article, it would be appropriate to use this same image?Urbanrenewal (talk) 18:18, 19 June 2008 (UTC)


I just left a note there, where I'm urging you to suspend the mass deletion request and reopen those request you closed as "no action taken". I appreciate your effort and believe I agree with the intentions, but this isn't bringing us any closer to a solution. Please consider mine and others comments there.. Best regards, Finn Rindahl (talk) 18:29, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

see also this. Cheers, Finn Rindahl (talk) 11:57, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
I originally didn't respond because I had an email convo about this with... someone else... and they were going to revert the closures. As for Mutter... well lets just say that I generally don't listen to him anyways. He is way off the deepend. --ShakataGaNai ^_^ 18:16, 20 June 2008 (UTC)


I'm referring to your decision made here: As far as I know, copyright on photos expires 70 years after the death of the copyright holder. If the above metioned picture was taken in the 1930-ies, then it is likely/possible that the copyright has not expired yet (even if the author had died the same day). Assuming the author outlived the person shown on the photo, the copyright is still valid. To assume PD-old simply is not correct, especially when the uploader declares it "own work" (=eigene Arbeit). I thus kindly ask to review your decision. Regards from Germany. -- Wo st 01 (talk) 18:45, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

yea... Own work... not likely. I've tagged with {{nsd}}. They'll fit it or it'll be deleted in 7 days. Is that ok? --ShakataGaNai Talk 19:19, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. -- Wo st 01 (talk) 19:38, 19 June 2008 (UTC) images

Hey ShakataGaNai. I've got a question about images from website. There are currently 133 files on Wikimedia Commons. Should we tag them all (except OTRS, if any) with no permission? There is a specific limitation on the use of the pictures [4]. Each one, of course, requires a close look as the contributors to this website and to Commons might be the same people. --Kimse (talk) 06:18, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Well. Their usage of photo's license definitely prohibits Commons use. We'd also have to get permission from each individual photog - so we can't just ask the site for one broad license.... Alot of them claim email permission from the photog - but that ain't OTRS. So ... Yes. NPD time. I'll take care of it & let you know. Thanks for the heads up. --ShakataGaNai ^_^ 06:25, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Done. I surely will get ALOT of hate mail for this. --ShakataGaNai ^_^ 06:40, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Hehe, sorry about that. I would've helped you and share half the blame, but it took you only 15 minutes to tag them while I was going through Feature Picture candidates. --Kimse (talk) 06:55, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
No no, that is fine. It wasn't that many, I wanted to do them myself (plus it would have been hard to split). I'll gladly take the hate mail. Again, thanks for the heads up!! --ShakataGaNai ^_^ 07:01, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

File:Autofellatio image.jpg

Your image(s)

čeština | Deutsch | English | español | français | македонски | norsk | polski | slovenčina | slovenščina | 中文 | 中文(台灣)‎ | +/−

float Thank you for your interest in contributing to Wikimedia Commons, a non-profit media repository with the primary scope of providing educational and informative images and media. Submissions that are low quality or do not fall into Commons' scope may be subject to deletion.

One or more of your recent contributions has been identified by another Commons user as a possible image not in Commons' scope. Commons has guidelines on nudity, as a result of already having a large number of photos of genitalia, specifically the male reproductive system and the penis.

If you have objections to the proposed deletion of your image(s), please see the links to the relevant deletion discussion(s) (listed above or below this message box). This message is not intended to be taken personally. Thank you for your understanding.

Can you cite the policy supporting your censorship of this image? Oven Fresh (talk) 05:43, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

TITLE 18 PART I CHAPTER 110 § 2257 Bjweeks (talk) 05:54, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
Normally I wouldn't respond this way, but since you accused me of censorship instead of asking why I deleted the image....
OMG CENSORSHIP (see right) --ShakataGaNai ^_^ 05:58, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
Free images of autofellatio are very rare, so that caption doesn't apply. The proto-fascist §2257 also doesn't apply, as we did not produce the image and we have no obligation to maintain records about the performer. Otherwise, porn stores would need to stock an enormous amount of paperwork. Next argument? Oven Fresh (talk) 20:32, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
TITLE 28 Chapter I Part 75 of the CFR is more clear. Particularly §75.6. As publishers Commons does not have to host the records, just provide the statement of where the records can be found. Such records don't exist. BJTalk 00:57, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Image Tagging Image:Motor_Piper_PA-18.JPG

As stated in the Image page, I'm the author, how should I prove that I gave myself permission?--Paco 13:32, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Indeed you did. I've removed the {{npd}} tag. Sorry about that. I was doing a run for all images from, your images got caught because of the link. Again, my mistake. --ShakataGaNai ^_^ 20:01, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the quick reply. Can you also do the same for Image:Noller.jpg which was deleted by another admin for the same reason? --Paco 06:02, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
I have restored it BUT you will notice that it was originally deleted for missing source information. I've updated that tag to start from today. You have 7 days to update the source ("old" is not a valid source). Where did the picture originally come from? --ShakataGaNai ^_^ 08:43, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Deletion Conception_Arguello_and_Nikolai_Rezanov.jpg

I saw you deleted the image I uploaded, Image:Conception_Arguello_and_Nikolai_Rezanov.jpg. Furhermore, I did not have a chance to respond to the deletion, after receiving email. In the future contact be before deleting images. This work is in the public domain and was tagged as a product of the US Government. Thanks! Dananderson (talk) 14:27, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

The picture may have been by a US Gov personnel - but the mural is not. It was done by one "Victor Arnautoff" who died in 1979 (if I've got the right guy). Unfortunately the United States does not have freedom of panorama and this image is a derivative of a copyright work.
This is why the Deletion Request was summarily closed by me, without any comments or any time for anyone to comment. Thank you for your understanding. --ShakataGaNai ^_^ 20:09, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

User talk:Benoit Rochon

What's all this? All those images have an OTRS ticket... Can you tell me more about it? Greatings. Benoit Rochon (talk) 08:57, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

If you check the file history, you will see that when I tagged all of the files for NPD - there was no OTRS tag. --ShakataGaNai ^_^ 09:04, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

about chetah C parking

hi ShakataGaNai,

(in advance, sorry, my english is not right)

I'd get in contact with Paul Dunn by email (the author of this picture), and he is agree that we can use the 4 pictures that he taked of the cheetah. But i don´t know what more i need to do publish correctly, please, can you tell me?


Solo si hablas español

me he puesto en contacto con Paul Dunn por correo electrónico (el autor de la fotografía), y está de acuerdo con que utilicemos las 4 fotografias que el ha tomado del cheetah. Pero no se que mas tengo que hacer para publicarlas correctamente, por favor, ¿podrias orientarme?

Gracias --Cuculcan (talk) 15:27, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

You will want to follow the directions on the OTRS page. Additionally, you may want him to use the following Email template. I hope that helps. --ShakataGaNai ^_^ 18:45, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
(Traducción automática) Usted tendrá la oportunidad de seguir las instrucciones de la OTRS. Además, puede que quiera a que utilice los siguientes Plantilla de correo electrónico. Espero que ayude. --ShakataGaNai ^_^ 18:45, 23 June 2008 (UTC)


I add thw iinformation. The picture was added in the english wikipedia by HanzoHattori. I hope this will be enogught.

Rakela (talk) 14:43, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately it is a copyright vio and had to be deleted. --ShakataGaNai ^_^ 16:39, 25 June 2008 (UTC)


Hi ShakataGaNai,

You closed this deletion request as "deleted", but it looks like you forgot to actually delete the file. Cheers, Pruneautalk 17:58, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

The delete link was purple. I swear I clicked it. Damn server errors.... Thanks for the heads up! --ShakataGaNai ^_^ 18:02, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Guatemala reverse

As you can see in the image it says: "Sin valor legal" (no legal value), and "Bimbo" a well know trade mark of bread. Bimbo give thousands of this images as propaganda when I was a boy. I dont't know the status of this image. No problem with deletion if you want. I consider apropiate a warning in Commons: "Don't load images of any kind". --jolle (talk) 22:48, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

You've got almost 50 images that have been deleted. You've got to be more specific. Which image are you talking about? --ShakataGaNai ^_^ 22:49, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Deletion abuse / Cedip.gif

Dear Sir,

You mention that you only speak English and you think you are allowed to delete files in French Wikipedia. Please stay in the topic you understand.

I'm the autor of the file published and it is written and clear. If information are needed, please first ask them and explain.

Your work goes again Wiki interest.



Cedip administrative manager

Creator of Cedip logo

Owner of Cedip logo rigths

I don't "think [I] am allowed to delete files in French Wikipedia". I am an Administrator here on Commons - as such I've been given tools to delete files here on Commons. You particular image was deleted because it is a Logo, and we assume that basically all Logo's are copyright (There for uploading them is a Copyrights Violation, and subject to summary deletion). I'm sorry that your logo got deleted when you are the rightful owner. So here is what I'll do. I will restore the image for you, and mark it as {{npd}}, or having "No Permission". All you need to do is follow the instructions on the OTRS page (or OTRS in French) and send a single email in to the email address listed (there are even email templates), Within 7 days. After that, it will be all taken care of. Thank you for your understanding. --ShakataGaNai ^_^ 17:24, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Re: Image Tagging Image:050314petacchifreire.jpg

The original page belonged to an extinct cycling team, so the page no longer exists. It can checked through

Same case as most photos in Category:Liberty_Seguros. Gothmog (talk) 13:33, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Well I hate to say this, on the bottom of the linked page it says "Copyright © 2004 Liberty Seguros-Würth Team.". Is there somewhere specific that it says those images are PD? Otherwise they are all copyright violations. Thanks for your understanding. --ShakataGaNai ^_^ 16:33, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, sorry, I assumed wrongly you can read spanish. In the section in the center section says:
Fotos libres de uso
Las mejores fotografías del equipo en alta resolución.
* Fotos libres de derechos aptas para uso comercial
The english traduction stays for
Free use photos
The best photographies of the team in high resolution
* Free rights photos, available for commercial use.
Gothmog (talk) 11:08, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

no te entiendo mujer

Escuchame una cosa ponja; Primero ¿por que mierda me bloqueas? despues; ¿por que concha me borras las imagenes en donde la lisencia dice que las imagenes con 20 o 25 años de su primer publicacion en la argentina son de dominio publico, ¿sabes contar pagero? ¿sabes contar 25 años, seria por los 80's? y si las imagenes son de la decada del 60's ¿por que las borras? ademas que las borraste como 5 dias despues que las subi, y habia unas imegenes de etiquetas de singles, ahora pregunta: EN DONDE MIERDA VIOLA EL PUTO COPIRIGHT.

Responde a mi discursion.--Gelpgim22 (talk) 00:52, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Well even though I don't speak Spanish, I got the general idea of what you are trying to say. So let me respond. Number One, Calm down. I will not respond to shouting. Number two, Copyrights are based on the country of first release. You can not take something that was released in America, and claim it as PD-Argentina. I'm sorry, but it just does not work like that. --ShakataGaNai ^_^ 01:00, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
(Traducción automática) Bueno, aunque no hablo español, tuve la idea general de lo que usted está tratando de decir. Así que permítanme responder. Número Uno, calmarse. No voy a responder a gritar. Número dos, Derechos de autor se basan en el país de la primera puesta en libertad. No se puede tener algo que fue puesto en libertad en los Estados Unidos, y afirman que como PD-Argentina. Lo siento, pero simplemente no funciona así. --ShakataGaNai ^_^ 01:00, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Image:Gabor Talmacsi-Pablo Nieto-Czech Grand Prix.jpg

I remember as I had got permission... can't you wait before delete???? --Beyond silence Sort both.svg 07:03, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

If you have received permission, feel free to forward the email to OTRS. The image will then be undeleted. Thank you for your understanding. --ShakataGaNai ^_^ 07:08, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
I don't know which image was that... Generaly I get message to my talk page before speedy deleting... --Beyond silence Sort both.svg 12:01, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
It was - --ShakataGaNai ^_^ 16:23, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Deletion rationale

This is not sufficient rationale for me I'm afraid. Info would be appreciated, thanks --Herby talk thyme 07:13, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Uh, If memory serves it was an empty/unused category. --ShakataGaNai ^_^ 07:14, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
OK - in future please do use something that is more meaningful to others & if giggy was involved I trust he would agree. --Herby talk thyme 07:20, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
He was... since he was the one that told me to delete it... --ShakataGaNai ^_^ 07:20, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, as I said at the time, you really were supposed to check them... but a check afterwards by me showed no issues with the deletions made. giggy (:O) 08:42, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


Dear ShakataGaNai, I saw that you deleted my picture Image:Gezelschapsspellen.jpg, because of copyright violations. I was very surprised by this. Can you please point me to the page where the deletion was requested? I am curious about why this would be a copyright violation. Thank you! Fruggo (talk) 18:12, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

There was no deletion request. It was pointed out to me and I summarily deleted it as a Derivative work. The short version is that all the board games are copyright, there for a picture of them would also be subject to copyright. Sorry. --ShakataGaNai ^_^ 21:16, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for your explanation. Although I do find it odd that an image can be "speedy deleted" without informing the uploader; especially since the image has been on Wikipedia/Commons for several years without any mention of copyright violations, I would have appreciated it if the deletion of this picture would have gone via the regular procedure. Also I'm not sure if this is indeed a copyright violations. If it is, I know of a few categories you can delete for a substantial part: beer, board games (including all sub categories), wine bottles, compact discs, and I'm sure there are several similar cats. Fruggo (talk) 15:07, 29 June 2008 (UTC)


06:30, 27 June 2008 ShakataGaNai (Talk | contribs) deleted "Image:Hang loose brudda.jpg" ‎ (Incorrect Flickr license)

Hi. Regarding this deletion, IIRC, the image in question was appropriately licensed, but apparently the owner of the flickr page deleted their page/images, and subsequently the commons image was reviewed and was declared a mismatch since the flickr image no longer existed. In these cases, is the image automatically deleted from commons? In a similar incident (see my talk page), another image was deleted because the flickr author changed the licensing some months after the upload. In both cases, is deletion standard practice? Viriditas (talk) 13:12, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
We don't want to, but yes, Deletion is the standard process for images that we can't "certify". To explain: Since Flickr users can change the license on the image, we (Commons) need to "Certify" (what we call "FlickrReview") the image was free when it was uploaded (To Commons). Bots, Administrators and Trusted users do this. Generally it is taken care of by a bot with in 24 hours of uploading now. A year or so ago, there was no bot & it could take months or more. Unfortunately yours along with many other images was not reviewed until after the license had changed (or in your case removed from Flickr). Without a valid license or source now, we can't be sure it was ever free. I hope this helps explain. --ShakataGaNai ^_^ 16:03, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Image:Bristol airport overview.jpg

Hi, I noticed you tagged Image:Bristol airport overview.jpg as missing permission, and thus deleted. However, if you look at the link from original upload log, you'll see the en.wp user was the same as the uploader on that page, so it's self-made. Figured I should let you fix this up rather than going behind your back. -mattbuck (Talk) 01:03, 30 June 2008 (UTC)