User talk:Taivo

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to: navigation, search
Brass plaque on concrete communications.jpg

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Wooodcut of li hua.png[edit]

Hello Taivo. I thank for your processing, but I inform that there is unsigned.--Y.haruo (talk) 13:04, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

✓ Done Taivo (talk) 09:45, 5 October 2014 (UTC)


Hi Taivo, thanks again for everything! I have listed several recently uploaded icons that duplicate already existent ones. I've replaced all relevant usage, so they can be deleted straight away. Could you include a link to the other icon is their deletion logs, so that the original user knows which icons to use instead? YLSS (talk) 11:33, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

✓ Done Taivo (talk) 13:10, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

And again thanks ;) Could you also delete the 18 files listed directly below? We seem to be unanimous WRT getting rid of them. YLSS (talk) 21:07, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

✓ Done Taivo (talk) 21:35, 10 November 2014 (UTC)


Have a look at this. Without having CleanDeleteReasons enabled in your Preferences/Gadgets/Tools for authorized users, you'll often leave spamlinks and other unwanted material visible in the summary of your deletion. INeverCry 06:17, 6 October 2014 (UTC)




Cedricguppy (talk)

Commons:Bureaucrats/Requests/Odder (de-bureaucrat)[edit]

In the discussion at Commons:Bureaucrats/Requests/Odder (de-bureaucrat) you have expressed an opinion that Odder's bureaucrat status should be kept or removed, but you did not express the reasoning behind that opinion. I would appreciate it if you would return to the discussion and share why you believe Odder's actions were or were not appropriate for a bureaucrat. This will help avoid future drama by making it clear why (or why not) the community believes bureaucrats should be free to act in this way. Thank you. Thryduulf (talk) 17:25, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Deleting of categories[edit]

Hello! Somebody removed the pictures of Category:Featured pictures of Lüdinghausen and Category:Featured pictures of Senden (Westfalen) and so this two categories where empty. I moved the pictures back but the categories are missing. Please restore these two categories. Thank you.--XRay talk 13:17, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

I just restored both categories. So there is nothing to do for you. Thanks.--XRay talk 17:29, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Image copyrights[edit]


I can safely say that I possess the ownership of the pictures you added to the nomination page HERE. Therefore, I believe your dispute of copyright claims on my images are invalid. --KalyEV. talk 8 October 2014 | 20:09 (UTC)

Forward, thanks.

You said in commons talk:Deletion requests/Files of KalyEV, that the files were firstly uploaded into Facebook. I can safely say, that you do not possess the ownership of these pictures, because Facebook claims copyright to every picture, uploaded into Facebook. These files are now Facebook's property and cannot be uploaded into Commons without Facebook's permission. Taivo (talk) 06:30, 9 October 2014 (UTC)


De laatste maanden ben ik actief op wikipedia en heb ook een aantal foto's geplaatst. Nu kreeg ik een waarschuwing dat deze genomineerd waren voor verwijdering omdat ik geen toestemming heb, incl. een krantenartikel en een zelfgemaakte foto. Nu blijkt dat niet Moira, maar U heeft genomineerd. Ik heb naar haar gereageerd, maar intussen zijn de foto's gewist. Zie User talk:Oemoemenoe#Kennisgeving verwijderverzoek. De foto's zijn meer dan 70 jaar oud en de fotograaf is in alle gevallen onbekend. Ze komen deels uit familiebezit, een collectie of uit een archief. Ik heb geen achtergrondkennis hoe ik daar mee moet omgaan. Kun je mij een korte toelichting of een verwijzing geven. En ook wat te doen als de maker onbekend is. Mag ik wel een foto gebruiken die elders op internet in gebruik is. Kan de verwijdering nog voor een moment teruggedraaid worden? Met vriendelijke groeten, Oemoemenoe (talk) 12:40, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

I do not understand Dutch. I do not understand, what do you write. Can you write in English (or at least in German)? If you got these photos from family archive, then they are not necessarily free. I am not sure, that these photos are really anonymous. Taivo (talk) 13:18, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
Vor einigen Monaten war ich erstmals auf Wikipedia aktiv und habe auch einige Fotos veröffentlicht. Ich bekam eine Warnung, dass ich dafür keine Erlaubnis hatte. Auch nicht für ein Zeitungsartikel und ein hausgemachtes Foto. Ich dachte dass MoiraMoira mich nominiert hat und habe korrespondiert. Sehe bitte Jetzt sind die Bilder gelöscht worden. Die Fotos sind über 70 Jahre alt und der Fotograf ist in allen Fällen unbekannt. Die kommen teilweise aus Familienbesitz oder aus einem Archiv. Ich weiß nicht was ich weiter tun sollte. Können Sie mir bitte eine kurze Verweisung geben. Was zu tun, wenn der Hersteller nicht bekannt ist. Kann ich ein Foto von Internet gebrauchen? Oemoemenoe (talk) 14:59, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
Das Diskussion war hier: Commons:Deletion requests/Files of Oemoemenoe. Das Lizenz war falsch. Sie sagen, das der Fotografer ist 70 Jahren tod. Aber wir können nicht wissen das, Fotografer ist unbekannt. Und Creative Commons Lizenz existiert nicht in 1940. Fotos in Familienarchiv sind nicht gut für Commons. Und bitte gebrauch nicht Fotos von Internet, dieses Fotos haben Copyright. Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Netherlands sagt, das vielleicht {{PD-EU-no author disclosure}} ist korrekt Lizenz. Aber unbekannt ist nicht anonymus. Und wenn dieses Fotos sind publiziert? Taivo (talk) 08:52, 11 October 2014 (UTC)


I am working on response to the OTRS ticket concerning this image and I am a bit surprised the deletion reason. Could you, please point me the request you mention in the deletion log? Ankry (talk) 07:50, 12 October 2014 (UTC) . He nominated a lot of his other uploads also for speedy deletions and I deleted them. Taivo (talk) 07:53, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. So I have closed the tickets as outdated. Ankry (talk) 12:23, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Content by KMDiKS12[edit]

Hi, Taivo. You just deleted the two files by KMDiKS12 (File:Pressja 1.JPG and File:Pressja 2.JPG), which meet the criteria "Non-free magazine cover". I already noticed that there is such more! Please pay attention to the entire contribution by KMDiKS12. -- 11:00, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

✓ Done Taivo (talk) 20:07, 15 October 2014 (UTC)


Tigers... or puxiu?

Thank you for your comments and questions in Commons:Deletion requests/File:Linggu-Gates-Pixiu-2898.jpg.

I actually have a photo of the quadrilingual (Zh/En/Jp/Kr) information plaque nearby, which talks about the gate and the statues. I have added the Zh and En text to the description of the image. Curiously, the statues are described as "stone Pixiu (a kind of fabulous wild beast recorded in ancient books)" in English, but merely "石虎" ("stone tigers") in Chinese. In the Japanese text they are also called pixiu (貔貅 - this has its own pronunciation in Japanese of course, different from Chinese), with a description of the creatures' properties that is somewhat more interesting than in the English version. But, in any events, they are never called lions!

The plaque tells who wrote the text above the arch, but, alas, does not talk about the sculptor. Anyway, since the statues were donated by the same 17th army, they must have been created ca. 1929 as well. So if the sculptor managed to survive WWII (not an easy thing in Nanjing...), he may have died less than 70 years ago. However, PRC has a broadly understood Freedom of panorama, which makes the photos legal for us to keep. -- Vmenkov (talk) 03:51, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

P.S. Various articles in Chinese also describe these creatures as pixiu. E.g. in 灵谷寺 we have, "此兽似虎非虎,名叫貔貅" ("These creatures look like tigers but are not tigers; they are called pixiu"). Alas, still no mention of the sculptor... -- Vmenkov (talk) 04:20, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

File:Ardo Varres.jpg[edit]

Can be restored. Have OTRS permisson. Kruusamägi (talk) 01:43, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

✓ Done Ivo, palun lisa OTRS-luba. Aega selleks on umbes novembri lõpuni. Taivo (talk) 14:54, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

As for me loaded files[edit]

As to File:En Avant Guingamp 86-94 logo.svg. What do you mean a product of its not own work? I created this file yourself in Inkskape based on the team photo of the football club 80s-90s. Analogues of this image on the Internet is not. As for the rest I downloaded this logos of the French team, their primary source is the site, where they are laid out by the authors to the public and free download.

I answered in Commons:Deletion requests/File:En Avant Guingamp 86-94 logo.svg. Taivo (talk) 20:38, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Delete previous versions[edit]

Hi Taivo. I have a question, I have been experimenting with coloring a black and white photo but I didn't like the result. Due to old monitors I wasn't able to see it before and I made the mistake of uploading them. I decided I only want the original black and white photo uploaded. So I did today. I replaced the earlier upload. This is the final version and the only version I want to have uploaded. The permission of the work is already done. Can you please remove the previous uploaded versions? (the ones from 29 and 8 September). The only reason they are bigger is because of the fake colors. Thanks in advance! E. Monteyn (talk) 00:47, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

✓ Done Taivo (talk) 20:38, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks so much! E. Monteyn (talk) 20:55, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Andrey Dmitriev[edit]

Ask to restore files, because I do not agree with his removal. Photos taken from the site is not Flickr, but from the forum The size of uploaded photos is the same size as the photos on the forum, and not on Flickr. +: I authorize the use of all of the photos published on the website Belarus Globe and licensed under CC-BY-SA-3.0. Andrey Dmitriev ([1]).

✓ Done I restored the files and re-licensed them. Taivo (talk) 18:23, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Recent deletion closure[edit]

Commons:Deletion requests#Closing discussions says that "In general, requests can be closed by an administrator after seven days.". So I'm wondering why you closed Commons:Deletion requests/File:Kalachakra 2014 (14515227658).jpg (as "delete") when less than three hours had passed? – Philosopher Let us reason together. 00:17, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

It seemed to me, that the result was so obvious. Taivo (talk) 09:48, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Would you mind un-deleting the image restoring the discussion? I'm sorry, but deleting an image in a discussion-based deletion process (as opposed to the speedy deletion process, which is separate) seems quite inappropriate when there is no time given for the discussion to take place. – Philosopher Let us reason together. 20:42, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Actually, if new circumstances do not appear, then the photo would be deleted anyway. Please say, what kind of educational value is here, and I may consider restoring the photo. Taivo (talk) 21:42, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
I can't do that unless I can see the photo. And I can't do that because you deleted it. Unless it met a speedy deletion criterion (if so, it should have been noted in your close notice and the deletion log), such an early close was inappropriate anyway. I suppose the next step is for me to head over to Commons:Undeletion requests, then? – Philosopher Let us reason together. 01:38, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
OK, you did not show any reason to restore, because there isn't any, so I do not restore the file. I explained when closing the request, why the file should be deleted, so you can go into undeletion requests. Taivo (talk) 08:44, 24 January 2015 (UTC)


.moe TLD logo.svg

This image is considered textlogo, so many images from Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Association football logos of Turkey probably would be too. EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 21:05, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

No. All deleted logos had other problems. Taivo (talk) 22:30, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi Taivo. You deleted some of these files, but that is not a right thing to do. First of all, you should have done a better research for the creation dates of these logos. For example, "Logo of Vefa SK.gif" has been created circa 1910s, and "Logo of Feriköy SK.png" has been created circa 1930s, "BJK 1903.png" has been created circa 1900s-1910s etc. We can not act on "possibilities" to delete files. Secondly, if we take a public domain logo (lets take this one) and change it a little bit with replacing the text with ehatever we want and change it colours. After some minor changes, we get another logo, right? So if the first logo is public domain because "it consists entirely of information that is common property and contains no original authorship", the second logo that we created must be a public domain too. What I'm thying to say is, logos that you deleted are public domain, because "they consist entirely of information that is common property and contains no original authorship".--Rapsar (talk) 15:18, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Rapsar, please give links, which show, that some files are old, and the old files are restored. Finding these links are actually uploader's work and the deletion nomination was open whole month. Taivo (talk) 15:46, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
They should be kept beacues of they are simple designs. Some of them are public domain because of their creation date, too. I may have added wrong licenses some of these files, but that is not a reason to delete them, right?--Rapsar (talk) 16:08, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
Microsoft logo is simple, Audi logo is simple, Volkswagen logo is simple, Olympic rings are simple. None of the logos, which I deleted, was simple. Wrong license (for example PD-textlogo here) can be reason to delete, when correct license is not found. Some deleted logos could be old, but without proof for that they remain deleted. Taivo (talk) 21:04, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
They were consist only simple geometric shapes and text. Most of the people who participated the DR said "we shold keep them" and made reasonable comments, but you deleted them anyway. What is the point of discussion, if you act however you want?--Rapsar (talk) 12:15, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
They had all elaborate shield of coat of arms. The simplest of them was file:Logo of Beyoğluspor.png, this is borderline and I considered it keep due to simplicity, but actually this shield surpasses also threshold of otiginality, it is not made of simple geometrical figures. Fortunately this logo is very probably old. The point of discussion is presenting arguments. The deletion discussion is not voting, you can look here for an extreme example: I voted delete, other 31 people voted keep and my 1 vote weighed more than 31 other votes altogether. Taivo (talk) 22:50, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
I agree with your opinion about "deletion discussion is not voting", I'm supporting the same idea in Turkish Wikipedia. But your example is not good, because these anonymous users are the same person obviously. Anyway, just take a look at this logo. It only consists simple shield of coat of arms, a star and some text. Can you tell me, are there any elaborate shape in that one?--Rapsar (talk) 11:04, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
The shield of coat of arms is not simple. If the shield would be rectangular or ellipsoidal, it would be simple. Taivo (talk) 14:08, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
The shape of the shield does not matter, it is a public domain anyway. Just look at here or here. If I take this one (which is pulic domain) and add some text, vertical lines and a star, it would be a pulic domain too.--Rapsar (talk) 16:34, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
Yes, but Bilecikspor's shield has bigger holes left and right and it has not a pointy, but round bottom. Standard shields are of course in public domain, but this shield is not standard and is not in public domain. Taivo (talk) 17:00, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

File:Alfa vector.png[edit]

Dear Taivo, this vector image is absolutely and totally my own work and I can present a CDR (CorelDraw) file created by me at any time. The logo itself is not registered yet but de-facto it is used by company where I work.

That case, please follow OTRS and send appropriate e-mail. You may also comment in Commons:Deletion requests/File:Alfa vector.png. Taivo (talk) 16:30, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the note on my talk page[edit]

Hey mate, thanks for the note on my talk page. I, too, only have good memories of dealing with you. In fact, it is like this for most of the editors here on Commons. But, seriously, I am much more like File:Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-29 (9-13), Russia - Air Force AN1174572.jpg -- still flying strong. :) Best, Aviationfirst (talk) 18:28, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

File:Andres Anvelt.jpg[edit]

Palun taastamist. Kruusamägi (talk) 16:17, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

✓ Done Taivo (talk) 16:19, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

User talk:Aleksander Kaasik[edit]

Palun vaata kustutatud pilte. Kõik peaks olema A. Kaasiku tehtud. Need võiks taastada ja lisada puuduolnud info. Kruusamägi (talk) 13:30, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Konkreetsemalt. Kolmel failil pole litsentsi, missugune litsents neile lisada? Nelja järgmist faili ma ei tohi ja kaht viimast ei taha taastada.
  • file:A.Kaasiku fotonäituse avamine.jpg – pole litsentsi.Faili kasutusluba on mul olemas,kuna kasutan kas alati mulle kingitud kasutusõigusega faile või enda tehtud tööd virtuaalsetest arhiividest.

Kui juhtun ise pildil olema, on võimalus näiteks loodusvaate puhul autoknipsi kasutada. Ent konkreetset pilti fotonäituse avamisest enam hästi ei mäleta ja ei hakka siin aega raiska. Mees kes tahab pilti kustutada ja kui teab, miks ja milleks- mis mul vastu öelda...

Brest, 22 september on pärit üldkasutatavast virtuaalsest arhiivist.

Niinsaare puhkekeskus on minu Aleksander Kaasiku pildistatud üldkasutatavast hoonest järve ääres ja ei saa aru litsentsi küsimisest nagu kasvõi igast bussipeatuse pildistamisest. Võib olla peaks pilti ümber nimetama, aga praegu ei tule see pilt ka silme ette, et öelda sõna - kas tegu ainuomase arhitektuuriga või loodusfotoga jne

  • Diplom."narva Sügis 2008".jpg – tuletatud teos autoriõigusega kaitstud diplomist.

Kui autoriõigused on teada, mis mul siin vahele rääkida!

  • Narva Sügis 2007.jpg – tuletatud teos autoriõigusega kaitstud diplomist
  • Diplom.September 2006.jpg – tuletatud teos autoriõigusega kaitstud diplomist
  • Sotsialistliku võistluse toime.jpg – tuletatud teos autoriõigusega kaitstud teosest.

Ei mäleta, millest siin (Sotsialistliku võistluse ...) lugu ja tegu, aga kui ei sobi, tuleb kustutada

  • Kollaaž näitustest.jpg – minu meelest pole seda pilti Commonsisse vaja.

Ise pead teadma, mis vaja, minul pole vastu midagi väita.

  • Грязебальнеолечение в лимане Мойнаки 1980. г.jpg – olemasoleva faili koopia, taastamine on seetõttu mõttetu. Taivo (talk) 16:40, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Ma jah, olen asendanud teinekord kuhugile kadunud pilte ja samas mõtlen, et kas olen unustanud siis üles laadida, et kuhu pilt sai kaduda ja siis ka asendanud jne. Vabandan, kui ei osanud konkreetseid vastuseid öelda, pilte on silme eest palju läbi käinud, praegu tegelen ülesvõtetega Venemaast ja raske tagasi möödunud aastatele vaadata. Vahel mõni suure jutuga ingliskeelne sedastaja pajatab mõne pildi või kirjutise juures, ent ma ei hakka lugema sõnastiku abil teateid, aru saan eestist ja venest, ülejäänuga end ei pinguta. Ja nagu olen maininud, aeg pole raiskamiseks kui pilditöö ootamas Soovin Vikitegijatele parimat! User:Aleksander Kaasik

Aleksander, ma pean konkreetsem olema. Ma saan kolm esimest pilti taastada, aga neil puudub litsents. Missugustel tingimustel oled nõus need pildid Commonsis avaldama? Kas nõuad näiteks, et pildi juures tuleb alati sinu nime mainida? Või ei sea üldse mingeid tingimusi?

Vabandan, et ei saanud litsentsi olemusest aru. Mulle teeb ainult röömu, kui teised saavad ka kasutada neid pilte ükskõik mis otstarbel. Need tingimused mulle sobivad. Tegin näiteks üsna heaks Bresti pildi, nägi ühel ajal Eesti ajalehes sarnast, kuid kehvakeses vormistuses. Siinkohal mainin, et olen valmis mudima mõnd pilti kui eesti Vikitajal vaja üldkasutatavaks tarbeks üles seada mõnd olulist ülesvõtet. Asjandust mida tunnen, saan abistamisena pakkuda, ent mitte inglise keelses olus.User:Aleksander Kaasik

{{CC-by-sa-3.0}} või {{PD-self}} või midagi muud? (Pildid peavad olema tasuta kasutatavad ükskõik milliseks, sealhulgas äriliseks otstarbeks, teistel inimestel peab olema ka õigus pilte umber teha. Kui need tingimused pole vastuvõetavad, siis need pildid Commonsisse ei sobi.) Taivo (talk) 20:53, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Tema viimased pildid on CC BY-SA 4.0 litsentsi all. Seega küsiks pigem ühe lihtsa kas küsimuse: kas see sama litsents sobib ka nende teiste litsentsita piltide juurde? Ega Aleksander esimest korda pilte lisanud. Kruusamägi (talk) 09:36, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
Taastasin kolm ülemist fotot. Taivo (talk) 10:42, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Section edit summary[edit]

Can you please use the section edit summary? It is annoying to always klick on the diff :-) --Steinsplitter (talk) 18:34, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

✓OK, I'll remember, that {{done}} is not enough. Taivo (talk) 18:37, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
Normally mediawiki does it automatically. Only on AN of course for easy tracking. Thanks and have a nice evening! --Steinsplitter (talk) 18:41, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

"Mantra" images[edit]

While I of course don't disagree with you deleting them (obvious, since I made the actual requests) it's worth noting IMO that the copyright logo itself doesn't make them fair use... they are probably PD-logo as below the threshold of originality. What is apparent (though I didn't want to try to get into the details there, largely out of a desire to not BITE the 'owner') is that they are rather out of scope... they were connected to a draft about a not-notable business and self-published ebook about a form of 'therapy' that, from looking at the author's website, apparently consists of traveling to Singapore and paying to be masturbated. No, I'm not kidding. Revent (talk) 21:09, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Copyright question[edit]

As I know it is not right to upload a company logo to commons. File:Sanalphp.png is this site's logo. And the pages which consist it are deleted on wikipedia. So is it okay to upload this kinda photo?--Ayrıntılı Bilgi (talk) 18:52, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Usually OTRS-permission is needed from company representative. Permission is not needed for very simple logos (which do not surpass threshold of originality). You asked, is it OK to upload this kind of logo. Usually no, because in my opinion it surpasses threshold of originality. I thought, that this case is exception, because probably company representative himself uploaded it. Everybody is allowed to have some personal files on his/her userpage. Taivo (talk) 19:08, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
When I declined speedy deletion, it was used on 3 userpages. Now it is still used in 1 userpage. If the last userpage is deleted, then I can delete the file as out of project scope (unused logo of non-notable company), but not earlier. If you want, then you can create a regular deletion request. That way the logo can be deleted even if the last userpage will not be deleted. Taivo (talk) 19:08, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Sorry to bother but it is no longer used like you said. I didnt mean to take your time. Just want to help.--Ayrıntılı Bilgi (talk) 20:47, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
✓ Done That's normal, that's my work. I deleted the file. Taivo (talk) 21:36, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

photo I have uploaded[edit]

Havvanur Unver Altun.jpg has been deleted , I agree that it has been uploaded to here but the uploader is me,too. The wikipedia article ( Havvanur Unver Altun ) introduces a government personal (Turkey Republic Prime Ministry Press Advisor) , there are no such a thing about elections and the article has written objectively. The user: Ayrıntılı Bilgi might be a member of opposition of Turkish Government. Please undo your deletion. Regards.. Alperkursatt (talk) 23:49, 1 March 2015 (UTC)