User talk:The Squirrel Conspiracy

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Babel user information
en-N This user has a native understanding of English.
Users by language

Archives —
SM: 2012 • 2013 • 2014 • 2015+
SQ: Notice Bin • 2020+


Note to self[edit]

File:Bàu Trắng (28965743295).jpg[edit]

Hi there! Would you mind deleting this duplicate file for me? I noticed the similarity on Flickr already, but did not expect that they are exactly the same (as they were uploaded as different files on Flickr). Thanks! Đại Việt quốc (talk) 05:30, 2 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

✓ Done The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 05:31, 2 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi! Sorry to bother you again, but I accidentally uploaded File:Boat by the water - Hoi An (16921928122).jpg which ended up being a duplicate as well. Would you mind deleting it for me? Thanks. Đại Việt quốc (talk) 07:51, 11 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
✓ Done Not a bother. I deleted the file and turned that page into a redirect. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 08:08, 11 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi! Could you delete this one for me? Thanks! Đại Việt quốc (talk) 01:07, 21 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

please undelete[edit]

File:Circumcised penis showing effects of keratinisation.jpg File:Illustration of human scrotum's elasticity as it adjusts to temperature.jpg can you please undelete these? because they are not even F10, you cannot speedydelete them. modern_primat ඞඞඞ ----TALK 09:11, 3 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

they are in scope. modern_primat ඞඞඞ ----TALK 11:05, 3 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
anyway, they are still in database. i will handle this in the future. modern_primat ඞඞඞ ----TALK 20:00, 9 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You are not the only one who is being ignored by The Squirrel Conspiracy. This is a very unprofessional behavior for an administrator. -- Chaddy (talk) 20:16, 9 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Modern primat: Sorry that this slipped through the cracks. I disagree with your assessment, but you're welcome to request undeletion through Commons:Undeletion requests. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 00:20, 10 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Logo esselunga (1).png[edit]

You didn't address COM:TOO Italy or COM:TOO US. Those are the salient questions, so please state your opinion. Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:45, 8 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The fact that I deleted the file is your answer. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 02:01, 9 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That wasn't clear, but since you say so, I now know. I might request undeletion, but probably not. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:17, 9 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A barnstar for you![edit]

The Special Barnstar
You get this star for fast deletions of images deemed unrequired (e. g. low quality chemical images). Alfa-ketosav (talk) 19:15, 9 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

KFSF66.png Image deletion[edit]

Please delete https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:KFSF66.png because the image I said here (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:KFSF_Unimas_66.webp) is on Commons. OWaunTon (talk) 19:13, 14 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Grammy Awards[edit]

Hello,

I noticed that the main image has been removed from Ariana Grande's article. I saw the discussion about the removal and I noticed that the Grammy pictures were deleted without any real clarity or closure to the discussion or clarity, which surprises me a little. Since the whole case about the images are unclear, I would ask you to at least restore the Ariana Grande one. The main image of her article has been active since 2020 and the photos of her at the Grammys are also the most visible when you search her name on Google. I would really welcome it, at least until there is a more current alternative. Grande has not been active since 2021 and no recent pictures of her have been uploaded. The main picture of her is currently from her tour in 2015. I really would appreciate it if you could fix it. Best regards. Mirrored7 (talk) 01:35, 2 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No can do. It's a derivative work of a Getty images stock photo. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 06:36, 2 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks. Is there a way to use a Getty Images photo, if they themselves give consent to it? Mirrored7 (talk) 10:00, 2 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
They never will. They're in the business of selling their images. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 19:36, 2 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Suppose it would work, and I get permission to use the previous image, would you be able to undelete it? I'm right now in contact with them. If they agreed, what is needed, to restore it? Mirrored7 (talk) 12:33, 3 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
They would need to fill out the process at COM:VRT/CONSENT. And then yes, if it did happen, the files would be undeleted. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 08:48, 4 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
So, Getty still didn't reply to me.
I know you have to follow guidelines, but can you make an exception?
It's really only about undeleting the Grande one. Like I said, there's no current image of hers, that is appropriate to be used. It has been her lead image for three years, and there were never any issues with it. As soon, as there is a current one, that can be used, you can delete it again. I really would appreciate it. Best regards. Mirrored7 (talk) 21:46, 8 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No, that's not allowed. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 23:45, 8 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

2019 Cybertruck launch pictures[edit]

The Squirrel Conspiracy: Several Cybertruck launch images from 2019 (before.jpg, after.jpg) got deleted recently. These images were tagged with source and permission information, eg.:

|source=

|author=u/Kruzat |permission=via Reddit:
"<SaucyLegs69420> Are you ok with your images being put on Wikimedia Commons? Specifically,

They would be licensed under a Creative Commons CC-BY-SA 4.0 license."

"<Kruzat> Yes!

Could you help suggest how we can proceed, so that our readers and commons users can once again have the benefit of access to these images, on their respective articles? —12:10, 2 December 2023 (UTC) Sladen (talk) 12:10, 2 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sladen I missed the Reddit link. My bad. I've undeleted the images. 08:51, 4 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

17:04, 4 December 2023 The Squirrel Conspiracy talk contribs changed block settings for Albedo talk contribs blocking the namespace Category with an expiration time of indefinite (autoblock disabled) (Attempting to circumvent topic ban via Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems)[edit]

can you explain what you changed blocking? Albedo (talk) 18:22, 7 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

See Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/User_problems#Category:Graded_roads The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 20:15, 7 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Amina zidani[edit]

Why are you deleting my picture ? 2A01:E0A:99E:FC40:F503:DB7F:9BCC:A0C6 01:45, 12 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Question regarding Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems[edit]

Hey Squirrel Conspiracy, thank you for blocking those accounts/IPs. I would like to ask, should I not revert any posts made there? Thank you, ChrisWx (talk) 22:31, 15 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

ChrisWx It was vandalism so it was fine to remove; you did nothing wrong. I was in the middle of noting that I had just blocked the IP so I put it back so there would be a record as to what was going on. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 22:33, 15 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Alright, thank you for everything! ChrisWx (talk) 22:33, 15 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Forgot to RevDel a few things[edit]

You didn’t RevDel the edit summaries of Special:MobileDiff/830932254 Special:MobileDiff/830932229 Special:MobileDiff/830934793, which contain the attacker’s username. 71.125.36.50 16:24, 17 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

✓ Done Thanks. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 19:04, 17 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This also might need to be revdel'led as the attacker's name is still there, though I will admit that might be going overboard.--170.24.150.113 17:43, 21 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Ljubljana, Ambrozev trg, Hren's cross 01.jpg[edit]

Hi. Please have a look if this is the right deletion rationale, and if the other mentioned image should also be deleted. Thx. --Krd 09:19, 18 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for the catch. Not sure what happened there. I've fixed it. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 17:04, 18 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Deletion of File:DNDM verso.jpg[edit]

Thanks for closing Commons:Deletion requests/File:Verso DNDM.jpg. The user uploaded the same file twice, so there is a duplicate at File:DNDM verso.jpg. Can you please delete that one as well? From Hill To Shore (talk) 10:16, 23 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

user:ttemik, user:luckich[edit]

These are not my accounts. you can see the CU in ruwiki, they belong to one person but not to me. Most of the accounts you blocked were not used in Commons and no sockpuppeting there. Yes, I did COPYVIO from Sipuha From Ruwiki, but it was more than a year ago. I do not sockpuppet anymore, the block in enwiki was a misunderstanding (on my talk page, I left a message where I said that the IP is mine, but forgot to switch the keyboard). SpeedOfLight (talk) 14:44, 23 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Reverting maps[edit]

Hey while i know GraydenCat was another possible sockpuppet of TylerKutschbach please do not blindly revert all of his edits of presidential maps some of them were actually corrections of the results if you look at the original map/original from sources like dave leip's atlas. when the shapes were updated, users like gordfather made some mistakes while making the maps like getting 1 or 2 counties wrong. i am guilty of this as well i am going back and double checking all the maps, this was simply just human error on our parts. just please double check too next before you revert, thank you Putitonamap98 (talk) 09:03, 24 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

thanks.. Solman9 (talk) 09:54, 25 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks[edit]

Thanks Solman9 (talk) 09:52, 25 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Incivility[edit]

Hi Squirrel Conspiracy, this comment where you are calling someone names at COM:AN/U who has been brought to this board because of incivilities at a DR is absolutely not helpful and didn't remain unnoticed. How can we block a user for incivilities for a month while being insulted this way by another admin during the same discussion? Please fix this ASAP. Regards, AFBorchert (talk) 21:54, 6 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't necessarily agree, but I changed it to douse the fire. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 23:10, 6 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for the fix but I do not understand how you can disagree here. Civility is expected here from all, including admins. --AFBorchert (talk) 00:08, 7 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

AI-generation related deletion requests[edit]

Please remember to place your AI deletion requests in the category in the future. Thanks Trade (talk) 04:11, 7 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I give up[edit]

You don't enforce COM:INUSE and COM:NPOV, so why should I ever waste my time arguing based on those policies again, especially as I get abuse for doing so? Either Commons is not the place to argue about the accuracy of files in use in articles in other wikis or it is. Since you think it is, you should propose to delete COM:INUSE and COM:NPOV. But I won't cite either policy again. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:27, 7 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi The Squirrel Conspiracy, I am likewise surprised by this. If we close COM:INUSE cases, we do not remove the images ourselves first from the respective articles as you did here: [1], [2]. We should either remove the images or close the DR but not both. Otherwise we have to live with comments like this one at COM:AN/U, making it hard to defend COM:INUSE. Regards, --AFBorchert (talk) 11:21, 7 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As KPSroka pointed out at Commons:Deletion requests/Images titled Witch of Armageddon, these images were stuck into articles after the deletion discussion began in an attempt to game the system - they weren't good fits for where they were placed because the only motivation for placing them there was trying to keep the files - which is behavior that's not constructive towards either project.
AFBorchert, if you'd like, I can undelete the files and reopen the DR, leave a comment supporting the deletion per KPSroka, and just be the person removing the files from EnWiki so that I'm not in both roles. Let me know if my explanation above was sufficient or if you'd like to go down that route.
Ikan Kekek, the relevant rule here is COM:INUSE, and I found KPSroka's argument was persuasive that adding those images to the articles was abusing the spirit of INUSE to gum up the DR process. COM:NPOV does not apply in this case; that policy is about how Commons handles when there is a dispute about which file, or which version of a file to use. In this case there wasn't such a dispute; it was just whether or not a given file was in scope. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 04:24, 8 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If you mean to make a narrow exception to COM:INUSE, it would have been really helpful for you to have stated that clearly in your closing statement. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:52, 8 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for the explanation. Under these circumstances, I suggest to augment your closing rationale of that DR to address this. Regards, AFBorchert (talk) 07:59, 8 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Momi Maiga[edit]

Hi TSC,

I believe you deleted the images of Momi Maiga without looking at the discussion page of these images, the assigned place for objections, where it is explained why exactly the uploads are not in violation of Discog's Terms of Service. In these TOR is written: You may only contribute content which is in the public domain (i.e., expired copyright or public from inception) or otherwise available through a CC0 “No Rights Reserved” license, or content for which You are the rights holder. Certain content may also be contributed if it complies with applicable fair use or quotation standards and/or represents an item You are listing for sale in the marketplace (i.e., images, specific item information).

Also in Discog's Database Guidelines 13. Images, under Intellectual Property Rules, is stated: By uploading images to Discogs you agree that the image meets one of the following requirements: 1. Image is Public Domain (expired copyright or public from inception); or 2. You own the rights to the image and agree to make it available via a CC0 "No Rights Reserved" license; or 3. Image is already made available through a CC0 "No Rights Reserved" license; or 4. Fair Use – any image representing a physical or digital product in the Discogs Database for the purpose of critical commentary or for the purpose of reselling a physical product under the First Sale Doctrine."

Please, kindly reinstate the images if you agree with above; or else kindly explain why you disagree, for future reference. I am pinging @ErikvanB, the original nominator, as he may be interested in the outcome of this case.

Best regards, Chescargot (talk) 09:26, 7 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Chescargot. I've undeleted the files and opened up a regular deletion discussion at Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Chescargot. I copied over the comments from your talk page and the file talk page there. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 04:44, 8 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Many thanks TSC, much appreciated. Chescargot (talk) 06:41, 8 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Marginataen[edit]

Hi, it looks like Marginataen is posting talk page messages as both Marginataen and Zeitgeistu after you blocked them. I think that might be confusing for other editors if they don't understand the relationship between accounts. Could you ask them to just use one account? Thanks. Counterfeit Purses (talk) 21:49, 8 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for the catch. Done. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 22:34, 8 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Just FYI, they have been unblocked. Counterfeit Purses (talk) 16:32, 21 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

An apology[edit]

Hey, I'm sorry for uploading a copyrighted image on Wikipedia Commons- I found the image on flicker and assumed it was safe to upload. Microplastic Consumer (talk) 02:43, 10 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Deletion request[edit]

Het there! A few weeks ago, I wanted to delete pictures of mine with embassies in Bucharest. This is why a created Commons:Deletion requests/Photos of embassies. The reason I wanted to do this is because it might be illegal, the two main reasons for this being the fact that in front of most embassies in Bucharest, there is a guard cabin, and if you take a picture of the embassy, they tell you that you're not allowed, and the second is the fact that it is mentioned that it is illegal, in this Youtube video about what you can and can not photograph in Romania: Filmatul interzis? Ce zice legea, uploaded by Dezaburit. Aren't these reasons valid?--Neoclassicism Enthusiast (talk) 17:22, 12 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

template[edit]

Hi! Yeah, I'm not really an experienced user here, so I don't know much about how copyright templates are usually made and so on... I can try, but I'll need help XD I ping also @Ruthven. Friniate (talk) 12:27, 15 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

But isn't it sufficient Template:Monumento italiano? Or, isn't it sufficient to modify it, in order to cover also photos not taken within WLM, for the cases in which the authorization is not limited to WLM? (for the other cases in which the authorization it is limited only to WLM, we have already Template:WLM-Italy-disclaimer)
And for not-WLM related monuments, isn't it sufficient Template:PD-ItalyGov? Friniate (talk) 12:41, 15 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ok, for not WLM related monuments Template:PD-ItalyGov is not sufficient because it's only about works created before 1976, but monuments fall under FOP in the US, so (correct me if I'm wrong), the URAA threshold shouldn't be relevant here. We probably need something like "Template:PD-ItalyGov-Monuments"... Friniate (talk) 13:47, 15 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Just my opinion, but it's probably better for the purposes of clarity not to include the work "monument" in the template since a lot of government buildings weren't erected to commemorate a famous or notable person or event. But I assume they would still qualify. --Adamant1 (talk) 14:10, 15 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There is no reason to create a different template. {{PD-ItalyGov}}, and when necessary {{PD-1996}}, suffice. @Friniate The US FOP has absolutely nothing to do here. Please read Commons' guidelines before attempting any discussion about copyright! You can start with Commons:Copyright rules. Ruthven (msg) 11:21, 16 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
At least from what you guys said works created at the expense or on behalf of the government of Italy are copyrighted until 20 years after the date of creation. Maybe it's ignorance (although I suspect it's more up to your unwillingness to explain things a clear way), but I don't see how either of those templets would apply in that case where the work was created in the last 20 years. {{PD-ItalyGov}} clearly doesn't, otherwise there wouldn't have been all these DRs to begin with, and {{PD-1996}} wouldn't either because it's not specific to Italy. At least not on it's own it doesn't actually explain anything and we there needs to be a valid license for both the country of publication and the United States, not just the United States. Otherwise it would help if one of you could explain why that's wrong. --Adamant1 (talk) 14:47, 16 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Little mermaid on tinder.png[edit]

I would much have preferred a DR so the community have a say in whether or not the files should be deleted Trade (talk) 15:42, 15 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Bobbie_R._Allen,_Najeeb_Halaby,_Alan_S._Boyd.jpg[edit]

I was notified about this file several weeks ago and responded. This photograph is public domain as the three subjects are U.S. Government employees attending a government sanctioned event. I would appreciate it if you could restore the file. Thanks. Wdallen49 (talk) 01:17, 23 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wdallen49 - The issue is that we don't know who the photographer is, and the copyright is owned by them. If you can find proof that the photograph was taken by a US government employee during the course of their duties, bring it to Commons:Undeletion requests. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 03:03, 23 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:The_Squirrel_Conspiracy&oldid=844413783"