User:Taivo/Archive20 Apr–Jun

Images of PHL LGU seals

Good day Taivo! I came across from Commons:Deletion requests/File:Philippines Provinces Flag Map.png hehe. Upon seeing your reply about the possible use of {{PD-PhilippinesGov}} (or {{PD-PhilippinesPubDoc}}) on PHL flags depicted on the map (and a possibility that even a user other than the uploader is going to add that tag to the discussed map), is it possible that all extant files of seals of Philippine local government units apply that same public domain license? Such local government units include provinces, and the incorporated places (cities / municipalities). And if possible, can the users other than the uploaders of each of these seals add that PD-Ph government tag to each of the files? There's no mention of LGU seals in Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Philippines, although I assume they fall under PD-gov. Thanks for the reply. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 14:15, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

I suspect, that all extant files of seals of Philippine local government units must have that license. If the files have incorrect license, then every user can change the license. Taivo (talk) 14:55, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Hello Taivo, I always notice the contradiction of what many Commons files of Philippine city seals to those that are stored on enwiki as non free content, e.g. w:File:Ph seal ncr taguig.png and w:Bocaue Bulacan.png. I presume now that these seals do not fall under PD-government since these are "elaborate" and "very sensitive subjects." I mean, these seals are protected by a portion of our law. As stated in w:File:Buenavista Quezon.png of Quezon's Buenavista municipality — "Section 176. Works of the Government. - 176.1. No copyright shall subsist in any work of the Government of the Philippines. However, prior approval of the government agency or office wherein the work is created shall be necessary for exploitation of such work for profit. Such agency or office may, among other things, impose as a condition the payment of royalties. No prior approval or conditions shall be required for the use of any purpose of statutes, rules and regulations, and speeches, lectures, sermons, addresses, and dissertations, pronounced, read or rendered in courts of justice, before administrative agencies, in deliberative assemblies and in meetings of public character." The purpose of Commons is not included among those stated as not needing prior conditions. So I'm concerned that all contents under Category:Seals of cities and municipalities in the Philippines and even File:Metro Manila Logo Map.jpg violate this part of the law. I'm aware of some recent discussions involving PD-PH government content at Wikipedia Tambayan and at a picture RJ Nieto. Although I presume all photographs created by employees of the Philippine government or its government owned and controlled agencies and corporations pass PD-PH government, I think all city seals do not fall here because of their very official and sensitive nature. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 05:45, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

User talk:Furqaanis

Please don't forget to notify users after block. Such message is also helpful for administrators :-) --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:29, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

File:Фену Александр Николаевич .jpg and ru:Файл:Небольсин Аркадий Константинович 1906.jpg

Hello,

About the file ru:Файл:Фену Александр Николаевич .jpg. I do not understand what else proof is needed to convince that I am a real copyright holder of this file. I already gave all explanations by email to NoFrost and asked him to help me with choosing a correct license for this file. The original group photo with A.N. Phenoult (he is my relative) was taken in year 1951 in Helsinki by my relative Anna E. Nebolsine, who was not a professional photographer, who died in 1978 and did not have children, nor grandchildren. Anna E. Nebolsine was a cousin of my grandfather, who's mother was Poliksena K. Nebolsina. I inherited this original photo from my father in year 1991 and he - from his father in year 1959. To prove that this information correct, I gave NoFrost a link to my family tree on MyHeritage website. I assure that previously, neither a group photograph with A.N. Phenoult, nor parts of it, including his image, were not published anywhere including internet. Please help me to choose a correct license for this image in order to return it to biographical article ru:Фену, Александр Николаевич.

About the file ru:Файл:Небольсин Аркадий Константинович 1906.jpg. On 4/3/2020 Well-Informed Optimist unreasonably and without my notification deleted this file and thereby caused serious damage to biographical article ru:Небольсин, Аркадий Константинович. On 4/4/2020 I wrote an email letter to Well-Informed Optimist with attached to this letter pdf file of my scientific article, where this image was published in September 2019. I claimed that since I am the author of this publication, I am also a copyright holder of the image published there. Unfortunately, I did not get any response to this letter, nor the file was restored. I would like to hear from you your opinion and explanation how it could happen and what status this file has now. Thank you in advance. --Natalia Kocharova (talk) 21:39, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

The photos can be in public domain, if they are published before 1966 in Finland or before October Revolution in Russia. Seems like this is not the case. Now OTRS-permission is needed with proof, that you are Anna Nebolsine's heir, actually proof, that your grandfather is Anna Nebolsine's heir. I am not OTRS agent, so I cannot neither see nor confirm the OTRS-permission. You once sent the permission, which was considered unacceptable. Do you have copy of Anna Nebolsine's testament? Do not send it to me, because I am not OTRS agent, NoFrost is. Copyrighted photos can be uploaded into ru.wiki as fair use, but you cannot do it due to your indefinite block there. But there is enough free photos in the article, so fair use photos are not accepted for this article. Taivo (talk) 08:47, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for answer. What about the file ru:Файл:Небольсин Аркадий Константинович 1906.jpg? Why it is still deleted and not restored?--Natalia Kocharova (talk) 10:32, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

I do not know. ru:Небольсин, Аркадий Константинович has no photos, so one fair use photo would be allowed. This photo must be uploaded directly into ru.wiki, because Commons does not allow fair use. I would restore it, but I am a simple user there and not an administrator. Why the photo was deleted – I can only guess, probably due to unclear authorship and copyright status: "I claimed that since I am the author of this publication, I am also a copyright holder of the image published there." This was very wrong claim: publication does not make you copyright holder. Taivo (talk) 11:28, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

As I understand, my publication of Nebolsine's image makes me its AUTHOR and this file had a corresponding license. The image was first uploaded to Commons, and only then to the article. As a the Commons' user, you can restore it in Commons and to the article.--Natalia Kocharova (talk) 11:50, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

No. At first, copyright does not work like that. Copyright belongs to creator, the photographer, not publisher. Books are copyrighted by writers, not by publishing companies. Songs are not copyrighted by record companies. You can read COM:L about that more thoroughly. At second, none of your uploads into Commons has yet deleted, your deleted contributions list is empty. I can restore deleted Commons files, but file:Небольсин Аркадий Константинович 1906.jpg has never been a Commons file. Taivo (talk) 12:00, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

OK, I understand. Taivo, can you please check what license this file had when it was uploaded last October (I remember, it was not fair use and I uploaded it to Commons first) and by what reason it was deleted? By the way, I am NOT a publisher, but AUTHOR of the published in a peer-review journal article, where this image was published.--Natalia Kocharova

I do not see license. In my opinion the file was never in Commons. Only ru.wiki administrators can look deleted file's original description and license there. But I am quite sure, that the original license was wrong. Taivo (talk) 12:34, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

If the original license was wrong, any way it cannot be a reason to delete this file urgently, without setting a template for deletion and without my notification. Could you please help me or recommend me the way (or administrator) to restore this file in the article? --Natalia Kocharova (talk) 13:05, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Well-Informed Optimist deleted the photo. Please ask him to restore it as fair use. Be polite. And wrong license can be reason for speedy deletion (not always, but sometimes). Taivo (talk) 13:12, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

I am always polite. Sorry, but still I don't understand why this file must be for fair use, if this image is PUBLISHED in MY article and thus I am the author? I would not like to ASK again Well-Informed Optimist to restore this file, because this person deleted it without my notification and because I sent him my publication with this image and already twice asked him to restore the file. Could you please apply to some other administrator in Commons, who is not involved in this story, and ask him to restore this file?--Natalia Kocharova (talk) 14:25, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

You are not in situation to demand anything. If you will not ask Well-Informed Optimist, then the file probably will be not restored. By principle you can ask any administrator of Russian Wikipedia, but I am foretelling: (s)he will not restore the image without consulting with Well-Informed Optimist. Bytheway, this month I will publish an article, which consists file:Tako to ama retouched.jpg. Does this make me author of the image? (This is not a lie; I will really publish the article this month.) Taivo (talk) 16:39, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

I don't demand anything, but want the article, where I made the most significant contribution and which Well-Informed Optimist damaged by deleting this file, to be complete. Since this file was published in my scientific article in a peer-review journal with independent editorial board, I am the author of the content of this published article including this image. And let me ask you, where are you going to publish this file:Tako to ama retouched.jpg image? --Natalia Kocharova (talk) 17:23, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Please look next month https://www.ulmeajakiri.ee/ but the text will be in Estonian without translation ... Of course you cannot be author of the photo, if you are not the photographer. Sometimes you can be copyright holder, but not the author. Taivo (talk) 17:33, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

OK, now I am sure that I am the copyright holder, because the image was published in my article in a peer-review journal. And don't make me laugh: Estonian REACTOR is the web journal, not a real one with the independent and large editorial board! Kiitos ja hüvasti. --Natalia Kocharova (talk) 18:25, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Deletion requests

From CSD COM1 we can read: "Or redundant DRs for pages that are eligible for speedy deletion; this requires either formally closing the DR in order to both close the DR and have the bot remove it from the log, or deleting the DR page and removing the daily log entry.". Why don't you just delete these redundant DRs? I mean as the text says you don't have to. I just don't see the point of keeping redundant DRs.Jonteemil (talk) 14:05, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

I closed the requests for sake of history. In my opinion it's better, if such kind of requests are closed and archived properly, not deleted. Then non-admins have better information about who and when requested the deletion and why the file was deleted. I'd like, if you will not nominate these requests for deletion anymore. You can simply nominate the files for speedy deletion and if they are deleted without closing the request, then you or somebody else will close the request. Policy says, that non-admins can close deletion requests, if they know, what they are doing – but you can close the requests only after the files are deleted, not before. Taivo (talk) 16:20, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

So do you want to have DRs for every file tagged with {{Duplicate}}?Jonteemil (talk) 21:28, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

No-no, this is not needed at all, but if somebody will create such DR, then it should be properly closed, not just deleted. Taivo (talk) 07:54, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Well, agreed to disagreed🤷‍♂️...Jonteemil (talk) 12:32, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

File:LamHaMei.jpg

Hello, Tavio. The file File:LamHaMei.jpg is mentioned at en:Lin Xiawei, so you shouldn't list this file on Commons: Deletion requests. Thank you!

Per Commons:Deletion requests/File:LamHaMei.jpg the file was deleted as copyright violation. Taivo (talk) 20:46, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Window Elements.png

Hi Taivo; I voted for keeping in Commons:Deletion requests/File:Window Elements.png because it apparently didn't show any specific software (that would need to be notable in some way), but a "mock-up" with the intention of demonstrating elements of a typical Microsoft Windows window. My only concern was possible copyright protection, but as you saw no copyright problems, I would have kept it (description and categories could have been improved). But then, it's not a huge loss. Gestumblindi (talk) 10:13, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

@Gestumblindi: file:Widgets.png is better and has full source code. Of course, I am not strongly against restoring. Taivo (talk) 11:00, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

File:UK Addiction Treatment Centres.png‬

Hi, why have you marked this for deletion? I created it, and have full permission to use it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jason4656 (talk • contribs) 10:41, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

This is excellent! That full permission must be sent to permissions-commons@wikimedia.com, so that the community can verify, that you really have the permission. Please open COM:OTRS page to see text of the permission e-mail. The permission must come from company representative, because normally companies own permission for their logo. Taivo (talk) 10:45, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

This has been done — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jason4656 (talk • contribs) 13:01, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Good. After the permission is processed and accepted, the file can be kept – but only after accepting the permission. I cannot do it myself, because I am not an OTRS volunteer. Taivo (talk) 12:04, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

How will I know, I suggest we leave the file in place for now as it is being used, and I have done the requested — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jason4656 (talk • contribs) 14:02, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Yes, you are right. There's one week for processing the permission. Taivo (talk) 13:06, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Currently that email is broken, it is rejecting emails? Jason4656 (talk) 11:05, 21 April 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 2A00:23C5:3287:8900:8408:193C:6EB3:5370 (talk) 10:06, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

I do not believe that. If it's really broken, then I cannot explain that. Probably only temporarily. Taivo (talk) 14:51, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Actually that email is broken still, and rejecting emails, happy to forward you the user error Jason4656 (talk) 13:35, 22 April 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 2A00:23C5:3287:8900:D526:F4DC:4CCD:6297 (talk) 12:36, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

I cannot comment that and I cannot give a good advice. Taivo (talk) 09:28, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

What would you like me to do? I have done the requested, but the system is broken, happy to share the screen shot, so please remove the deletion request or give me instructions, thank you Jason4656 (talk) 14:35, 08 May 2020 — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 2A00:23C5:3287:8900:1C37:ED57:9A8A:F6A4 (talk) 13:36, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

You are the only, who complains, that the system is broken. Maybe problem is in your computer? You must send e-mail to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org for confirming free license. It is difficult to believe, that you cannot send e-mail or the address does not accept e-mails. Taivo (talk) 14:41, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

File:Tripoli airport 2.jpg

Your deletion of this image is uncalled for. The copyright marker was public, there are numerous websites using this image, its public with CC0, posted on Facebook. and not a single legal claim for copyright was made. Why is wikipedia engaging in destructive behavior. I've argued that its purpose is historical for documentation. This is just Outright destructive editing and im about to write some complaints. This is extremely ridiculous and irresponsible! Biomax20 (talk) 17:28, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

At first, the file had no CC-0 license. It had no license at all, which means "All rights reserved." At second, "not a single legal claim was made" doesn't matter, Commons respects copyright even if nobody else does. At third, there was no exact link to source file. At fourth, Commons is repository not only for Wikipedia, but for reusers in whole world and we must provide them with files, which are usable for every purpose, including commercial use and derivative works. Deleting unfree files shows responsibility towards reusers. At fifth, complaints must be made in COM:UDEL. Taivo (talk) 17:59, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

@Taivo: I believe i marked the image as CC1.0, but it originally had CC0. CC1.0 is share alike, free to share and edit. This image has been shared, and reshared, and reused, with countless websites, social media accounts, and is literally in the public domain!!! Every single image from Libya, with literally NO LOCAL DIGITAL COPYRIGHT LAWS, and SHARED in swathes of places online as CC0 or CC1.0 if you so will, that i previously uploaded, were marked for deletion from editors before. NO one has come forth to claim any of the images or disputed the images as theirs, because the images are not owned by any individual person and the ORIGINAL uploader knowingly has shared these images with the public domain with the specific purpose to share publicly. My talk page is filled with notifications of equally public images deleted with ridiculous copyright tags. Biomax20 (talk) 18:30, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Please read Commons:Project scope/Precautionary principle. "Nobody knows who the copyright owner is, so it really doesn’t matter" is not an argument. "It can be found all over the internet and nobody has complained" is also not an argument. Libyan photos are copyrighted as well, please read COM:LIBYA about copyright laws of Libya. For example there is no freedom of panorama in Libya and the photo violated architect's copyright – you must obtain permission from architect to publish the photo in Commons. Taivo (talk) 19:18, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Church of Saint John the Baptist (John and Paul the Apostels) in Malín

Thanks for deleting, I already explained to the student. --Gampe (talk) 18:08, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

File:Nobutoshi Kihara.jpg

Regarding File:Nobutoshi Kihara.jpg, in which you passed the file. According to the source site's policy page, information from the source site licensed its content under CC-BY-NC-SA-3.0 and CC-BY-NC-ND-SA-3.0. Meanwhile, the very original version of the file also stated that This picture is a contribution to the IEEE GHN, copyright terms of the IEEE GHN are the Creative Commons Legal Code - Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported. Could you review that there are no any problems? Many thanks.廣九直通車 (talk) 07:41, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

 Done. Seems like I have made a mistake. Fortunately source site is a wiki, so I could review license at moment and also license history. I'll delete the file. Taivo (talk) 09:26, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Biza neira

Hello Taivo, I'm writing you about your choice about the deletion of this file:Bizà Neirà couverture.png. I'm the uploader and when I did it I wasn't sure of the rights. So recently I asked for the deletion of the picture. It was refused, and now it's in the Public Domain but I don't understand why, it's the official logo of a French review. Thank you for the help. --Vida Nova (talk) 14:13, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Complex logos are protected with copyright and usually need permission from company representative. But if the logo is very simple, then permission is not needed. Please see threshold of originality about the difference. The logos are almost always trademarked, but Commons does not care about trademarks, only copyright matters. Sometimes unused logos are out of project scope, but this logo is used and so automatically has educational value. In addition, uploader's request is valid reason for deletion only during first week after upload; here almost 3 years have passed. Taivo (talk) 14:24, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your answer. Moreover you're right I've copy but I created it myself. No problem, I've just wanted to know ! --Vida Nova (talk) 17:12, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Upload Protection on EPA Seal

Can you please take a look at my message on the admin noticeboard? This is causing some serious hardship for what should have been a very simple image replacement, and I don't believe Pandakekok9's original request for full upload protection was warranted. Jadebenn (talk) 22:20, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

I reviewed, declined and answered the protest. Taivo (talk) 08:47, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Review help

can you help review this file:MSC BELLISSIMA.jpg. MoralesKapitan (talk) 11:31, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

 Done. Taivo (talk) 11:40, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

and also File:MSC PREZIOSA.jpg. MoralesKapitan (talk) 02:34, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Hello. Check your email—you've got mail! You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{YGM}} template. — Taichi (talk) 18:45, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Revisión de posible Copyright de file:Gabriel Garcia Marquez.jpg extraída originalmente en una edición inglesa y mas NO en Flickr

Hola! Comunico hacerca de una revisión que no me quedó muy conforme, la cual fue una eliminación de, masomenos, hace 8 meses, donde una edición mía no fue contada y fue reemolazada por la suya en donde la cual yo pedía la eliminación ya que en un artículo periodístico inglés hacen una edición sobre la imagen dicha, donde aparece publicada en la década de los 90 (el 20 de noviembre de 1997) y no en los años 2000 donde supuestamente aparece publicada primero en Flickr y donde se saca el permiso.

Gracias de antemano. Rolo Mai (talk) 03:13, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

@Rolo Mai: I created Commons:Deletion requests/File:Gabriel Garcia Marquez.jpg. Taivo (talk) 20:44, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

@Rolo Mai: and :@Taivo: EN:I am the photographer/author of the photo of Gabriel García Márquez. I've added references to the file's talk page to verify my ownership. I undid the last change that created the deletion request; I'm fairly new here so I hope that's the adequate process. Thanks in advance! ES: Soy el fotógrafo/autor del retrato de Gabriel García Márquez. Agregué a la página de discusión del archivo detalles y un link a referencias que validan mi autoría. --Malvenko (talk) 07:22, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. The best solution is to send OTRS-permission. Please open COM:OTRS page and look, what kind of e-mail should be sent to our permissions department at permissions-commons@wikimedia.org. It's good, that you wrote your opinion into deletion request. Normally deletion requests are not closed by the user, who opened it, so I will not close it myself. Taivo (talk) 08:18, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Help me

Idk what it needs for the image, the guy made a mass deletion nomination to my image. all of them are public domain idk what it needs as me and user on flickr has agreed to put image on Wikipedia. MoralesKapitan (talk) 09:21, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

 Not done. The deletion requests were justified. Public domain mark is not a license and such images are not accepted in Commons, see COM:L#PD 1.0 and Flickr. I made a mistake, accepting one of the images, and I apologize. Taivo (talk) 13:30, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Bkn0029

Bkn0029 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user

Seems like User:Bkn0029 dosent seems to learn from its previous block. Kindly award what it deserves. Thanks --✝iѵɛɳ२२४०^{†ลℓк †๏ мэ} 15:31, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

 Done. Blocked for a month (second block). Taivo (talk) 08:25, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

 Done. Added {{Block}} notice to his userpage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ThesenatorO5-2 (talk • contribs) 08:34, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Thank you :) I would love if you could kindly have a look at the uploads of C1K98V, it recent uploads seems like flickr washing. what do you feel? --✝iѵɛɳ२२४०^{†ลℓк †๏ мэ} 08:42, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

 Not done. Not obvious. The Flickr account is more than 10 years old. If you like, then you can make a regular deletion request, but they cannot be deleted speedily. Taivo (talk) 08:59, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

TheBellaTwins1445

Hi dude, well I have seen you actually review images from YouTube from Creative Commons videos, I am wonderign if you can review some of my images, most of them already have time being here on Wikipedia without being reviewed, specifically they are on Commons. Down below I put you the links to them;

• File:Valentín Elizalde 5.jpg
• File:Valentín Elizalde 4.jpg
• File:Valentín Elizalde 3.jpg
• File:Valentín Elizalde 2.jpg
• File:Valentín Elizalde 1.jpg
• File:Mr. Niebla in 2015 (3).jpg
• File:Mr. Niebla in 2015 (2).jpg
• File:Mr. Niebla in 2015 (1).jpg
• File:Mr. Niebla in 2019.jpg
• File:Edith Gonzalez in 2013 (2).jpg
• File:Edith Gonzalez in 2013 (1).jpg

Hope you can help me. TheBellaTwins1445 (talk) 19:01, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

 Done. I reviewed licenses of other files, but not Elizalde – these files were small and quite dark for my computer, the video was long and there was no exact moment (minutes + seconds) where the image was taken. Sorry. Taivo (talk) 15:45, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Taivo, I'm deleting File:Edith Gonzalez in 2013 (2).jpg, File:Edith Gonzalez in 2013 (1).jpg, and few other files. The issue is that these aren't work from the YouTube channel, but of a TV channel that they reproduced. I agreed with the uploader for a quick and painless deletion ;) Bye! --Ruthven (msg) 17:29, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Would you mind if you can delete

• The subcategories in Category:Photographs of flags of France in France (except for regions of France and cities)
• Same applies to Photographs of flags of [name of country] in [name of country]
• The subcategories of Category:National flags by second-level administrative country subdivision, Category:National flags by third-level administrative country subdivision and Category:National flags by fourth-level administrative country subdivision

I requested deletion of these categories after reviewing the concerns from a French user. SpinnerLaserz (talk) 20:14, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

 Not done. I can but I do not want. In my opinion the categories are all useful. Deletion requests for the categories are open, they should be discussed and properly closed. Taivo (talk) 07:29, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Revision deletion

Hi Taivo. Can you please remove the 20:37, 19 May 2020 revision for Geoffrey Howe 2003 (cropped).tif? This is an exact duplicate of an older revision that I re-uploaded by accident. Thanks! AlbanGeller (talk) 19:41, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

 Done. Taivo (talk) 19:51, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

 Thank you. If/when you find the time Taivo, can you possibly help fulfil the request I made at COM:HMSR? This concerns the two most recent revisions of the file. Thanks again. AlbanGeller (talk) 10:41, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

 Done. Taivo (talk) 08:11, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Taivo, can you also please look at this COM:HMSR request? AlbanGeller (talk) 12:57, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

 Done. Taivo (talk) 14:01, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Taivo. Can you also please merge Theresa May (2015) (cropped and rotated).jpg into the file history of Theresa May (2015) (cropped).jpg? They were uploaded separately as a result of a {{Do not crop}} notice that I forgot to remove for these derivatives. AlbanGeller (talk) 15:51, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

 Please see: Commons:HMSR#File:Theresa May (2015) (cropped and rotated).jpg → File:Theresa May (2015) (cropped).jpg. AlbanGeller (talk) 16:16, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

 Done by 4nn1l2. Taivo (talk) 17:53, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Revision deletion of a copyrighted image

Hello Taivo. Can you please take into account this re-offender user PatriaDeTodos and check and remove this picture: file:Fernando Simon.jpg as well as file:Fernando Simon (cropped).jpg? It all seems that it is not an own work from this user, as this picture is the same as this one you can find at the middle of the site: [1], whose copyright belongs to Agencia EFE. Thanks in advance. Regards, --Veinticuatro de Jahén (talk) 19:21, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

 Done. I nominated them for regular deletion. Taivo (talk) 19:38, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

About LicenseReview

Hi, you have just reviewed a license [here]. There are many images on that website. Is it needed to be reviewed all images or is it enough only one as proof of that site has CC license? LuCKY (talk) 19:17, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Actually every image previously published somewhere outside Wikimedia sites need license review. There's three reasons for it: not always all images on the same website have the same license and it must be easy to find license review. In addition, license review is for confirming, that the image exists at all on the website. Taivo (talk) 08:11, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Recent comments

Hi, I was surprised to see recent comments in the desysop vote. Please consider blanking the flippant comments about death. Though it is very unwise for a user to say inappropriate things about their own health, it looks exceptionally bad for others to write in response anything that could be read as sarcastic about the health of another user.

If you might reconsider, keep in mind the vote will be closed tomorrow, and it will become impossible to retract anything later than that. --Fæ (talk) 20:01, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

I wanted to remove my comment, but other people (including Rodhullandemu) have answered. If the comment is now removed (even partly), then the discussion after that will be not understandable anymore. Sorry, I must live now with that. Taivo (talk) 07:16, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for reviewing it.

Myself, I regret how unpleasant the process has become for the subject, especially at this time. --Fæ (talk) 07:25, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

File:Rakesh singh.jpg

Hello please check this out..

File:Rakesh singh.jpg this file is a copyright violation because it comes from: https://www.instagram.com/p/ByS0ideH-QP/ 𝕃𝕚𝕗𝕖𝕥𝕚𝕞𝕖𝐖𝐢𝐤𝐢 08:31, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

 Done. I deleted it speedily due to uploader's request on uploading week. Taivo (talk) 09:06, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:BJP Election Symbol.png

Hello,
Commons:Deletion requests/File:BJP Election Symbol.png Please check this discussion and made your decision. 𝕃𝕚𝕗𝕖𝕥𝕚𝕞𝕖𝐖𝐢𝐤𝐢 09:38, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

 Done. Taivo (talk) 08:16, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

User Vandalism

Hello, please check out this user User:Jagannath Sarkar MP, is uploading copyrighted images of many politicians. 𝕃𝕚𝕗𝕖𝕥𝕚𝕞𝕖𝐖𝐢𝐤𝐢 06:30, 4 June 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by LifetimeWiki (talk • contribs) 06:30, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

 Done. This is not vandalism. I warned the user and deleted some uploads. Taivo (talk) 07:30, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Copyright issue

Hello, the image File:Dr.S.Sarkar MP.jpg is copied from this websites mentioned below, without any permission seems likely to be a copyright material. (https://bjpbengal.org/upcoming-events/press-conference-of-dr-subhas-sarkar-mp-bankura-on-14-3-2020/) and (https://www.harbourpolitica.com/uploads/candidate_photo/subhasssp.jpg) (https://www.harbourpolitica.com/CandidateDetails/7d3245a2-cb22-43fd-9fe7-92af66d312f5) 𝕃𝕚𝕗𝕖𝕥𝕚𝕞𝕖𝐖𝐢𝐤𝐢 05:10, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done. Regular deletion request is already created. The evidence must be written there, not here. I do not do it myself, because security settings of my computer prohibit me opening these sites. Taivo (talk) 06:22, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for unblock

Hi Taivo, Since I don't want to start publishing photos by making past mistakes I wanted to ask you for a hand with this image from Flickr. It is the photo of the rugby player Nik Jurišić. From what I know it has been published by reliable sources and not through illicit ways, however I ask you for safety, can I publish this photo on Commons? Thanks in advance Immage: [[2]] AndreaD'orrio (talk) 09:01, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Please look license under image. It says: "© All rights reserved". Such photos are prohibited to upload into Commons. I'd like, if you do not ask from me, which files are suitable for Commons or not. Please learn our copyright policies and especially about Flickr files instead. Taivo (talk) 10:07, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Thanks. Kriestovo Nysian (talk) 09:55, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Dawood Ibrahim.jpg

Hello.

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Dawood Ibrahim.jpg Please check the discussion and made your decision. 𝕃𝕚𝕗𝕖𝕥𝕚𝕞𝕖𝐖𝐢𝐤𝐢 16:52, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Regular deletion request generally lasts one week. This has not passed yet. Taivo (talk) 18:48, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

@Taivo: 1 week is passed please make your decision. 𝕃𝕚𝕗𝕖𝕥𝕚𝕞𝕖𝐖𝐢𝐤𝐢 05:37, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

 Done. I deleted it. Taivo (talk) 15:47, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by JustinAutrey886

They uploaded a bunch more after I had made that nom (Special:ListFiles/JustinAutrey886, looks like higher quality of same original?), so some DR comments and also your closure reason equally apply. Should I file a new/continued DR for them? DMacks (talk) 04:02, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

 Done. No need for that. I deleted them all. Taivo (talk) 20:14, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks! DMacks (talk) 21:39, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Deuterated-chloroform-3D-vdW.png

Hello Taivo, could you please take a look at this deletion reqest? The file has been nominated for deletion long time ago and I think the file should be kept since there are no further objections. Chem Sim 2001 (disc) 08:28, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

 Done. Taivo (talk) 09:09, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your help, have a nice weekend! Best regards, Chem Sim 2001 (disc) 10:46, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Dr.S.Sarkar MP.jpg

Hello,

Please make your decision of this nomination. Commons:Deletion requests/File:Dr.S.Sarkar MP.jpg 𝕃𝕚𝕗𝕖𝕥𝕚𝕞𝕖𝐖𝐢𝐤𝐢 11:02, 18 June 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by LifetimeWiki (talk • contribs) 11:02, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

 Done. Taivo (talk) 20:02, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Guida alle costellazioni

Hi, why is my file ineligible for speedy deletion? I uploaded a new version of my book, and the outdated version should be deleted as it includes some typoes that got fixed in the new version. There is literally nothing to discuss. I always do this. Why keeping an outdated version of the book? Roberto Segnali all'Indiano 11:26, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

PS It's the same of this: useless procedure. :) Roberto Segnali all'Indiano 11:27, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, I did not find new version of the book. Now you showed filename of new version and I agree to delete it speedily. No, actually not yet ... The old file os used in Wikibooks main page. If I'll delete it, then I'll ruin something on main page. Let's wait, until it isn't used anymore on main page. Taivo (talk) 11:32, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

It's caching delay. It was included into a template, but I edited it. Roberto Segnali all'Indiano 12:03, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

 Done. Taivo (talk) 12:12, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by 小林子冲

Hello. In the deletion request, you mentioned that "other examples are not relevant here, because different countries have different threshold of originality". However, I also offered many examples in China.

For example, File:Tianjin rapid transit logos.png, File:Guangzhou Metro icon.svg, File:Changchun Light Rail Transit icon.svg, File:Dalian Metro Logo Image Only.svg, File:Shijiazhuang Metro.svg, etc. meet the Template: PD-textlogo criterion.

They are all Chinese subway logos, but are considered simple textlogos. Can you explain why those files meet the PD-textlogo criterion, while the file discussed does not? I think the reasons for those files to be in PD should also apply to the file discussed. -小林子冲 (talk) 16:25, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

I stand behind my decision and I created two additional deletion requests. Taivo (talk) 09:40, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

File:С.Мусаев.jpg

I don't understand why the file was suddenly deleted before Tatewaki had a chance to explain what the proper way to assign a correct licence was - which he/she kindly had promised to do. The fact is we do have a permission from the photographer, it was just a matter of getting a letter from her. Instead of deleting, it would have been more helpful if you simply pointed me in the right direction by leaving a link to the OTRS article.

Usually 1 week is given for sending permission. Tatewiki had 11 days and nothing happened. If Tatewiki sends the permission and it is accepted, then the file will be restored. Taivo (talk) 09:40, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Change the category

Hello,
Please change this category:Narayan Datt Tiwari to this real name Category:Narayan Dutt Tiwari. 𝕃𝕚𝕗𝕖𝕥𝕚𝕞𝕖𝐖𝐢𝐤𝐢 05:38, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done. Not sure. English wiki and file:Dayanidhi Maran, the Chief Minister of Uttaranchal, Shri Narayan Datt Tiwari and the Minister of State for Commerce & Industry Shri Jairam Ramesh at the inaugural ceremony of STPI Incubation Centre at Dehradun, Uttaranchal.jpg give Datt as real name. I am not a specialist of India. You should request that in Commons:Categories for discussion after English Wikipedia has changed the article sccordingly. Taivo (talk) 07:39, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Category:Ukrainian churches in Russia

Please explain your deletion of this category created by me, without any warning or discussion. This category describes churches built by Ukrainians in Ukrainian style that are located on the territory of the Russian Federation. What exactly made you think that it was improperly named? --Sanya3 (talk) 02:34, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

The discussion was here. It was said, that Ukrainian style does not exist and the category is a hoax. Taivo (talk) 06:13, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

I was never notified of any discussion about this, as should have been done. How can I explain anything or defend myself without being notified? This guy is pursuing a personal vendetta against me due to his anti-Ukrainian bias and keeps requesting deletions of things I have created or added (such as here https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Worldwide_News_Ukraine.jpg). First off, Ukrainian style does exist and is not a hoax. It is known as . And second, there is a variety of Ukrainian churches that exist all over the world. A good example would be the category I created for Ukrainian churches in the United States as a parent category for all the categories of Ukrainian churches that exist in the United States. Now, Ukrainian denominations are persecuted in Russia, but they do exist, including Ukrainian Orthodox, Ukrainian Greek Catholic and so on. And so a parent category for them does make sense as well. May I request that the category be restored or do I need to present my arguments somewhere else? I posted this below the discussion as well. --Sanya3 (talk) 06:33, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

I restored and unprotected the category. But I removed some categories. Please learn COM:Overcategorization and please do not overcategorize in the future – your persistent overcategorization lead me to delete the category at first. You are right in that you should be mentioned about the discussion. Taivo (talk) 07:15, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Thank you! In regards to the logo submitted for deletion, how do you explain the fact that there are thousands of logos of public companies on Wikimedia? Are none of them under copyright? Why are they all allowed to be posted here? --Sanya3 (talk) 05:28, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Please look threshold of originality. Yes, most of the logos are free from copyright, but not because they are logos of public companies, but because they are very simple. There are errors, of course, a lot of complex logos must be deleted. Every week I discover complex logos from Commons without searching them and I nominate them for deletion. Taivo (talk) 06:53, 29 June 2020 (UTC)