Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2013/07/12
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_-_male,_January_2013,_Singapore.jpg){kind=link}
The artwork on this ticket is not free, hence this is a derivative work and a copyvio russavia (talk) 14:40, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
- you're most probably right. -- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 14:49, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Per nom SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 14:49, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
thats not own work as stated JuTa 07:44, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
Delete this need OTRS-permission from GoogleMotopark (talk) 19:40, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . JuTa 08:24, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
The source/license and author information of 5 images used in this collage is missing or is insufficient, compromising the whole file. Gunnex (talk) 22:22, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 00:19, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
Incorrect structure for image-name (and in-image caption). Text is trans, and we already have lots of correct images of it at Category:Fumaric acid. The image itself is cis, and we already have lots of images of it at Category:Maleic acid without an incorrect title. DMacks (talk) 02:50, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Per nom. Leyo 08:48, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
this file was uploaded by me, but contains incorrect information and name Santonm (talk) 17:59, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry (talk) 02:04, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
The artwork on this ticket is not free, hence this is a derivative work and a copyvio russavia (talk) 14:38, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry (talk) 01:51, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
The artwork on this ticket is not free, hence this is a derivative work and a copyvio russavia (talk) 14:27, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry (talk) 01:50, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
multiple source images have been deleted an need to be replaced or the collage has to be deleted. Denniss (talk) 22:42, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
Yes you are Correct :),Please Delete this Montage (The Uploader).MediaJet talk 07:53, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry (talk) 02:08, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
spelling error philmarin (talk) 17:10, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
- Where? If it is in the file name, use {{Rename}}. If it is in the picture, please fix it yourself. darkweasel94 17:59, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
Kept: Not a valid reason for deletion. INeverCry (talk) 02:03, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
Threshold of originality concern, Non-free at English Wikipedia Sfan00 IMG (talk) 20:34, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry (talk) 02:07, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
Fair use image tagged with incorrect license. Dismas (talk) 23:54, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry (talk) 02:09, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
Copyrighted artwork, cannot be released under CC by anonymous editor. Randykitty (talk) 18:35, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry (talk) 02:05, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
I, Adrian Piper, am the owner of this image, and wish to withdraw it from Wikimedia Commons. 77.191.90.73 16:41, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
Comment The image is in use on several other projects and has a valid OTRS ticket. No valid reason for deletion stated. Speedy keep. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 18:15, 27 December 2018 (UTC)- Comment Agree with above. If an OTRS agent sees a problem with the ticket, they should bring it up here; in the absence of that, I see no reason for deletion. -Pete Forsyth (talk) 02:37, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --DaB. (talk) 15:12, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Adam Kimberley as Copyvio (Copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: Image is the sole property of Adrian Piper, who has not given permission for it to be used on Wikimedia Commons and niether has she given permission to any OTRS agent to use the image. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 18:09, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
- Absent OTRS saying that the ticket is invalid,
Keep. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 18:10, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Minoraxtalk 06:06, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
no permission received, tag removed Docu at 12:04, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Same image as on http://www.adrianpiper.com/vs/sound_conwill.shtml but with better resolution. Seems legitimate to me, but I also left a note of this DR at en:User talk:New apra wiki master. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 12:14, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
- Even if the uploader is her (or authorized by her), it still needs an OTRS tag (it's a fairly recent upload). Docu at 12:20, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
- I am the uploader and i am authorized by Adrian Piper herself to upload this image and use it in her personal article. That is true for all images used in the article Adrian Piper. If i have made a mistake or forgot something (like the OTSR tag (i don't know what it is)) let me know what to do, so that there are no further problems with the images. Thanks for your help. New apra wiki master (talk) 13:16, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
- It should not be really necessary, but this image will be safer on Commons if you could send permission of a valid license to COM:OTRS from an email in the adrianpiper.com domain. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 06:09, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
- I am the uploader and i am authorized by Adrian Piper herself to upload this image and use it in her personal article. That is true for all images used in the article Adrian Piper. If i have made a mistake or forgot something (like the OTSR tag (i don't know what it is)) let me know what to do, so that there are no further problems with the images. Thanks for your help. New apra wiki master (talk) 13:16, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
Kept, AGF on uploaders behalf, added {{OTRS pending}}. Kameraad Pjotr 12:05, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
Copyrighted painting, cannot be released under CC by anonymous editor. Randykitty (talk) 18:35, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry (talk) 02:05, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
I, Adrian Piper, am the owner of this image, and wish to withdraw it from Wikimedia Commons. 77.191.90.73 16:42, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
- Comment The image is in use on several other projects and has a valid OTRS ticket. No valid reason for deletion stated. Speedy keep. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 18:16, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
- Comment Agree with above. If an OTRS agent sees a problem with the ticket, they should bring it up here; in the absence of that, I see no reason for deletion. -Pete Forsyth (talk) 02:41, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --DaB. (talk) 15:13, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Adam Kimberley as Copyvio (Copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: Image is the sole property of Adrian Piper, who has not given permission for it to be used on Wikimedia Commons and niether has she given permission to any OTRS agent to use the image. OTRS ticket appears valid, Keep unless OTRS says otherwise. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 18:13, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
- I asked if a OTRS-volunteer can check the permission, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:OTRS/Noticeboard&oldid=571128956#Deletion_request_work_by_Adrian_Piper . Elly (talk) 21:17, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
Kept: has been kept by another admin. --JuTa 15:05, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
Copyrighted artwork, cannot be released under CC by anonymous editor. Randykitty (talk) 18:37, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry (talk) 02:05, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
I, Adrian Piper, am the owner of this image, and wish to withdraw it from Wikimedia Commons. 77.191.90.73 16:44, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
- Comment The image is in use on several other projects and has a valid OTRS ticket. No valid reason for deletion stated. Speedy keep. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 18:17, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --DaB. (talk) 15:15, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Adam Kimberley as Copyvio (Copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: Image is the sole property of Adrian Piper, who has not given permission for it to be used on Wikimedia Commons and niether has she given permission to any OTRS agent to use the image. OTRS ticket appears valid, Keep unless OTRS says otherwise. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 18:15, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Reinhard Kraasch (talk) 10:22, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
Copyrighted painting, cannot be released under CC by anonymous editor. Randykitty (talk) 18:33, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry (talk) 02:04, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
I, Adrian Piper, am the owner of this image, and wish to withdraw it from Wikimedia Commons. 77.191.90.73 16:39, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
- Comment The image is in use on several other projects and has a valid OTRS ticket. No valid reason for deletion stated. Speedy keep. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 18:12, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
- Comment Agree with above. If an OTRS agent sees a problem with the ticket, they should bring it up here; in the absence of that, I see no reason for deletion. -Pete Forsyth (talk) 02:41, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --DaB. (talk) 15:10, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Adam Kimberley as Copyvio (Copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: Image is the sole property of Adrian Piper, who has not given permission for it to be used on Wikimedia Commons and niether has she given permission to any OTRS agent to use the image. OTRS ticket appears valid, Keep unless OTRS says otherwise. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 18:15, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Reinhard Kraasch (talk) 10:23, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
Copyrighted painting, cannot be released under CC by anonymous editor. Randykitty (talk) 18:35, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry (talk) 02:04, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
I, Adrian Piper, am the owner of this image, and wish to withdraw it from Wikimedia Commons. 77.191.90.73 16:40, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
- Comment If an OTRS agent sees a problem with the ticket, they should bring it up here; in the absence of that, I see no reason for deletion. -Pete Forsyth (talk) 02:43, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --DaB. (talk) 15:11, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Adam Kimberley as Copyvio (Copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: Image is the sole property of Adrian Piper, who has not given permission for it to be used on Wikimedia Commons and niether has she given permission to any OTRS agent to use the image. OTRS ticket appears valid, Keep unless OTRS says otherwise. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 18:16, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Reinhard Kraasch (talk) 10:22, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
COM:DW sугсго 04:57, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry (talk) 01:34, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
The copy on en.wiki shows the source as "Available Online"; author as Justin Briggle; permission: Evidence: Will be provided on request. So I do not think the uploader is the photographer and copyright holder. The copy on en.wiki is being deleted as F8. Diannaa (talk) 03:51, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry (talk) 01:34, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
The maker of a statue maintains copyright for photos of the statue in Denmark. The statue is from 1983 by Arne Ranslet who has not authorized CC-BY-SA. Fnielsen (talk) 16:39, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry (talk) 02:02, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
I doubt that this image is the uploader's own work: looks like a typical promotional image of the manufacturer High Contrast (talk) 18:27, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry (talk) 02:04, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
COM:DW sугсго 19:10, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry (talk) 02:06, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
COM:DW sугсго 19:09, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry (talk) 02:06, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
imho authorship not clear [see metadata], Roland zh 18:49, 12 July 2013 (UTC) Roland zh 18:49, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry (talk) 02:06, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
COM:DW sугсго 19:39, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry (talk) 02:06, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
The artwork on this ticket is not free, hence this is a derivative work and a copyvio russavia (talk) 14:30, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry (talk) 01:50, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
No clear educational use. The article it was intended to illustrate was deleted as self-promotional nonsense. 63.251.123.2 22:52, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry (talk) 02:08, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
The artwork on this ticket is not free, hence this is a derivative work and a copyvio russavia (talk) 14:30, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry (talk) 01:50, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
imho authorship not clear, 'bad quality' [see metadata], no 'educational use' and not in use, i.e. imho "out of scope", Roland zh 18:32, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry (talk) 02:04, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
imho authorship not clear [see metadata], 'bad quality', no 'educational use', and not in use, i.e. imho "out of scope", Roland zh 18:33, 12 July 2013 (UTC) Roland zh 18:33, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry (talk) 02:04, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
The artwork on this ticket is not free, hence this is a derivative work and a copyvio russavia (talk) 14:44, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry (talk) 02:00, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
The artwork on this ticket is not free, hence this is a derivative work and a copyvio russavia (talk) 14:54, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry (talk) 02:01, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
The artwork on this ticket is not free, hence this is a derivative work and a copyvio russavia (talk) 14:39, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry (talk) 01:51, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
Text contribution, out of project scope. Commons:Project scope#Excluded educational content. Martin H. (talk) 02:38, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry (talk) 01:34, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
The helm and mantling and the poor, pixelated resolution suggest that this is an upscaled derivative of images from this website. Furthermore I challenge the existence of this particular arms since I cannot find any such family in the Armorial Rietstap and the Almanach de Gotha. Obvious misinformation and likely made-up sources in the article es:Jakov suggest also that the entire history of this Jakov family for Wikimedia purposes was made up by the uploader Lord Carisbrooke. De728631 (talk) 13:33, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry (talk) 01:48, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
The artwork on this ticket is not free, hence this is a derivative work and a copyvio russavia (talk) 14:30, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry (talk) 01:50, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
Copyvio. This image is property of Le Monde, and it is used in Tolkien Gateway under special permission and fair use, as stated in the page of the image: http://tolkiengateway.net/wiki/File:Christopher_Tolkien.jpg Rondador (talk) 07:18, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry (talk) 01:36, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
Unclear description, no EXIF data, oddly small size, only contribution from uploader -- all in all, suspicious provenance. 63.251.123.2 22:48, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry (talk) 02:08, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
No clear educational use. The article it was intended to illustrate was deleted as out of scope. 63.251.123.2 22:53, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry (talk) 02:08, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
No clear educational use. The article it was intended to illustrate was deleted as self-promotional nonsense. 63.251.123.2 22:51, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry (talk) 02:08, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
Mislabelled, low-quality duplicate of File:David's return to his kingdom.jpg Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:16, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry (talk) 02:08, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
Images from PR article in ru-wiki. 2010s "Help yourself" books about psychology. Out of SCOPE. Also copyright violation - as uploads from different users, who can't be authors of covers. Shakko (talk) 09:32, 12 July 2013 (UTC) Plus:
- File:Depressia-simptomi.jpg
- File:Depressionbookmin.JPG
- File:Sprapochnik psihpoterapevta.jpg
- File:V. L. Minutko Spravochnik psihoterapevta.jpg
- File:Nepravilnoe pitanie.jpg
- File:Книга В.Л. Минутко - "Шизофрения".jpg
- File:Navyazchivye sostoyaniya.jpg
- file:Депрессия.jpg
--Shakko (talk) 09:37, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry (talk) 01:37, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
Not really own work (see original photo) and out of COM:SCOPE. -- Túrelio (talk) 20:50, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry (talk) 02:07, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
The artwork on this ticket is not free, hence this is a derivative work and a copyvio russavia (talk) 14:31, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry (talk) 01:50, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
The artwork on this ticket is not free, hence this is a derivative work and a copyvio russavia (talk) 14:31, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry (talk) 01:50, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
The artwork on this ticket is not free, hence this is a derivative work and a copyvio russavia (talk) 14:37, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry (talk) 01:51, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
The artwork on this ticket is not free, hence this is a derivative work and a copyvio russavia (talk) 14:31, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry (talk) 01:50, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
The artwork on this ticket is not free, hence this is a derivative work and a copyvio russavia (talk) 14:36, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry (talk) 01:50, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
Text contribution, out of project scope. Commons:Project scope#Excluded educational content. Martin H. (talk) 15:14, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry (talk) 02:01, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
professional photo by Nicolas Sage, not available under stated license, see http://web.archive.org/web/20111102011942/http://nicolassage.com/portraits.html#_self 24.49.143.254 14:05, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: INeverCry (talk) 01:48, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
copy of http://www.uclouvain.be/franck.monnier&langue=en Patrick Rogel (talk) 17:40, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry (talk) 02:02, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope. Self-prmotion. Southgeist (talk) 06:57, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry (talk) 01:36, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
Speedy delete. Obviously nonfree, watermarked and carries professional credit. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (talk) 02:19, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry (talk) 01:34, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
Thats not own work as stated JuTa 07:45, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
- Delete need OTRS-permission from Google Motopark (talk) 06:53, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry (talk) 01:36, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
The artwork on this ticket is not free, hence this is a derivative work and a copyvio russavia (talk) 14:28, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry (talk) 01:50, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
The artwork on this ticket is not free, hence this is a derivative work and a copyvio russavia (talk) 14:31, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry (talk) 01:50, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
Likely a screenshot/capture from the recent anime film en:Grimm's Fairy Tale Classics, as was first detected by User:PigeonIP. -- Túrelio (talk) 06:34, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry (talk) 01:35, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
I doubt this is own work as stated. Variations can be widel found in the internet -compare here. JuTa 20:56, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
The same applies to:
- File:Hosokipicture.png
- File:Hosoki prof.png
- and the redirect File:Hosoki picture.png
--JuTa 20:59, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry (talk) 02:07, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
copied from here: http://www.kopex.com.pl/idm,5022,nr-6-83---str-2.html 64.102.249.13 12:39, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry (talk) 01:39, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
The artwork on this ticket is not free, hence this is a derivative work and a copyvio russavia (talk) 14:39, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry (talk) 01:51, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
Picture probably is copyrighted although the rest is users own work. Flickrworker (talk) 22:09, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry (talk) 02:08, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
The artwork on this ticket is not free, hence this is a derivative work and a copyvio russavia (talk) 14:31, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry (talk) 01:50, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
copied from here: http://www.kopex.com.pl/idm,51,maszyny-i-urzadzenia-do-eksploatacji-kopalin.html 64.102.249.13 12:43, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry (talk) 01:39, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
Appears to have been copied from here: http://www.kopex.com.pl/idm,2852,offer---longwall-shearers.html 107.223.189.103 11:48, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry (talk) 01:38, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
This is logo artwork, so it's not a self. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 08:15, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry (talk) 01:36, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
Ponieważ jako autor i osoba na zdjęciu chcę pozbyć się publikacji owych zdjęć z sieci. Z góry dziękuję! Emruk (talk) 16:10, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
- Delete unused personal photo, out of scope. darkweasel94 17:57, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry (talk) 02:02, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
Copied from here: http://www.kopex.com.pl/idm,4692,nr-2-79---str-3.html 64.102.249.13 12:37, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry (talk) 01:39, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
Copyright claim is dubious. This image is clearly from the 1950s, And while it is possible the uploader took the photo themselves, I find that unlikely. Resolute (talk) 14:47, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
- But maybe the author really WAS born in the... 1930s... and... is now pushing close to 80 years old. I know lots of 80-year-old people who regularly... upload stuff to... Wikimedia. I am 158 myself. Those kids are the future! You young whippersnappers should show your respects! (is all I have to say.) KDS4444 (talk) 08:28, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: per COM:PRP. INeverCry (talk) 02:01, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
unused personal photo, out of scope Mjrmtg (talk) 11:35, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry (talk) 01:38, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
unused personal photo, out of scope Mjrmtg (talk) 11:40, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry (talk) 01:38, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
unused personal photo, out of scope Mjrmtg (talk) 11:54, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry (talk) 01:38, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
unused personal photo, out of scope Mjrmtg (talk) 11:55, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry (talk) 01:38, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
unused personal photo, out of scope Mjrmtg (talk) 11:54, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry (talk) 01:38, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
unused personal photo, out of scope Mjrmtg (talk) 11:57, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry (talk) 01:38, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
unused personal photo, out of scope Mjrmtg (talk) 11:58, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry (talk) 01:38, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
unused personal photo, out of scope Mjrmtg (talk) 11:30, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry (talk) 01:39, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
unused personal photo, out of scope Mjrmtg (talk) 11:59, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry (talk) 01:38, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
unused personal photo, out of scope Mjrmtg (talk) 12:04, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry (talk) 01:38, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
unused personal photo, out of scope Mjrmtg (talk) 12:03, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry (talk) 01:38, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
unused personal photo, out of scope Mjrmtg (talk) 12:06, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry (talk) 01:39, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
unused personal photo, out of scope Mjrmtg (talk) 12:05, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry (talk) 01:38, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
unused personal photo, out of scope Mjrmtg (talk) 11:57, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry (talk) 01:38, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
unused personal photo, out of scope Mjrmtg (talk) 12:02, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry (talk) 01:38, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
unused personal photo, out of scope Mjrmtg (talk) 11:38, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry (talk) 01:38, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
unused personal photo, out of scope Mjrmtg (talk) 11:33, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry (talk) 01:39, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
unused personal photo, out of scope Mjrmtg (talk) 12:07, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry (talk) 01:39, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
unused personal photo, out of scope Mjrmtg (talk) 12:01, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry (talk) 01:38, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
unused personal photo, out of scope Mjrmtg (talk) 11:59, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry (talk) 01:38, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
The artwork on this ticket is not free, hence this is a derivative work and a copyvio russavia (talk) 14:35, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry (talk) 01:50, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
The artwork on this ticket is not free, hence this is a derivative work and a copyvio russavia (talk) 14:40, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: INeverCry (talk) 01:51, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Thats not own work as stated. JuTa 07:50, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry (talk) 01:36, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
Clear copyright violation. Map has all the hallmarks of an Al-Jazeera English map, from base map to colours to font. See e.g. [1] Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 21:55, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
![[1]](http://www.aljazeera.com/mritems/imagecache/218/330/mritems/Images/2012/9/17/201291710641150734_2.jpg){kind=link}
- Delete Glad I wasn't the only one to think this. It really is indisputable that this map is in the style of Al-Jazeera English. The only way this could be self-copyright is if the uploader had purposely done the map in the style of AJE, but I find that highly unlikely. Unless the uploader has a convincing reason as to why he would have done this map in the style of AJE if it was his own creation, this is a clear case for deletion. Redverton (talk) 15:24, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry (talk) 02:08, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
authorship not clear [see metadata], 'bad quality', no 'educational use', i.e. imho "out of scope", Roland zh 18:44, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry (talk) 02:05, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
The artwork on this ticket is not free, hence this is a derivative work and a copyvio russavia (talk) 14:54, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
- Well, if it's not free it should be deleted... but are you sure with that? Olos88 (talk) 18:03, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry (talk) 02:01, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
personality rights Catfisheye (talk) 09:36, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry (talk) 01:37, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
Speedy delete. Taken from subject's website, no plausible authority to license for uploader. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (talk) 10:47, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry (talk) 01:37, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
The artwork on this ticket is not free, hence this is a derivative work and a copyvio russavia (talk) 14:32, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry (talk) 01:50, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
The artwork on this ticket is not free, hence this is a derivative work and a copyvio russavia (talk) 14:35, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry (talk) 01:50, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Copyright violation. See here. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:24, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: INeverCry (talk) 02:03, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Unlikely to be own work: small/inconsistent resolution, missing EXIF. File was cropped from http://www.panoramio.com/photo/63778747 which was uploaded later on Panoramio but shows the original frame in higher res and a watermark "Kamaran photographer". Needs permission from "Kamaran photographer". Affected montage: File:Montage Sulaymaniyah.jpg Gunnex (talk) 19:50, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry (talk) 02:06, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
I remember seeing something in the news a while ago about the pop-tart cat with the rainbow trail being copyrighted. Fry1989 eh? 02:52, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
- Delete clear copyvio darkweasel94 09:12, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry (talk) 01:34, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
je ne sais pas qu'elle infos il attend dans source ? Un tireur sportif 14:37, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry (talk) 01:50, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
COM:DW sугсго 05:00, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry (talk) 01:34, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
COM:DW sугсго 05:01, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry (talk) 01:34, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
Thats not own work as stated. JuTa 07:46, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry (talk) 01:36, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
unused personal photo, out of scope Mjrmtg (talk) 11:07, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry (talk) 01:39, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
Text contribution, out of project scope. Commons:Project scope#Excluded educational content. Martin H. (talk) 01:51, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry (talk) 01:34, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
This was uploaded twice with different souces and authors. I just merged this together. I doubt own work and the text is not ineligible to be copyrighted. JuTa 20:33, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
- PS: dont forget the redirect File:Ten Ethical Proverbs from Hehe Tribe in Tz.pdf. --JuTa 20:34, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry (talk) 02:07, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
The artwork on this ticket is not free, hence this is a derivative work and a copyvio russavia (talk) 14:28, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry (talk) 01:50, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
The artwork on this ticket is not free, hence this is a derivative work and a copyvio russavia (talk) 14:34, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry (talk) 01:50, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
This image was recently deleted on en.wiki at en:Wikipedia:Possibly_unfree_files/2013_July_2#File:TrinityShoal.jpg for having no real evidence that it's PD. – Quadell (talk) 11:00, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
- Keep. First off, the WP:PUF discussion was closed early because someone noticed that the image was on Commons; the deletion didn't address copyright issues. Moreover, the image description page here has an important element that was missing from the en:wp description page — our page here says that this comes from an 1872 publication by the U.S. Light-House Board. Anything published in the USA in 1872 is in the public domain, so unless we have reason to dispute the source claim, there's no reason to find fault with this image. Nyttend (talk) 18:49, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
- I'm not sure how I missed that, but you're right, the version here gives specific publication information. The source URL doesn't mention the original publication and the built-in LOC link is broken, but I did find it at LOC and it is indeed published in 1872. – Quadell (talk) 12:01, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
- Keep, nomination withdrawn per Nyttend, above. – Quadell (talk) 12:01, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
Kept: INeverCry (talk) 01:37, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
The artwork on this ticket is not free, hence this is a derivative work and a copyvio russavia (talk) 14:39, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry (talk) 01:51, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
Trademark out of scope, self-promtion. Southgeist (talk) 07:03, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry (talk) 01:36, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
The artwork on this ticket is not free, hence this is a derivative work and a copyvio russavia (talk) 14:54, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry (talk) 02:01, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
this looks pretty much like out of scope. JuTa 21:06, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry (talk) 02:08, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Probable copyright violation. See here for example. If this is the uploader's own work, verification by an email to OTRS should be provided (and properly vetted). Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:18, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: INeverCry (talk) 02:03, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
The artwork on this ticket is not free, hence this is a derivative work and a copyvio russavia (talk) 14:29, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry (talk) 01:50, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
Same as File:Wv logo proposal two worlds orange2.png, but worse aspect ratio. Globe-trotter (talk) 17:47, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry (talk) 02:04, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
The artwork on this ticket is not free, hence this is a derivative work and a copyvio russavia (talk) 14:35, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry (talk) 01:50, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
The artwork on this ticket is not free, hence this is a derivative work and a copyvio russavia (talk) 14:35, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry (talk) 01:50, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
Nonsense: not relevant file name / file description Jackie (talk) 06:08, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
- Rename it, don"t delete.--Scorpion-811 (talk) 06:39, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
Kept: use {{Rename}} instead. INeverCry (talk) 01:35, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
The artwork on this ticket is not free, hence this is a derivative work and a copyvio russavia (talk) 14:29, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry (talk) 01:50, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
Files in Category:2008 Summer Olympics tickets
[edit]The artwork on this ticket is not free, hence this is a derivative work and a copyvio
- File:2008 Beijing Summer Olympics, 2 tickets.JPG
- File:Beijing2008 Tickets 02.jpg
- File:Beijing2008 Tickets.jpg
- File:Ticket of 2008 Summer Olympics Celemony HK.JPG
russavia (talk) 14:35, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry (talk) 01:50, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
Files in Category:2013 Summer Universiade tickets
[edit]The artwork on this ticket is not free, hence this is a derivative work and a copyvio
- File:Kazan-universiade-closing-ticket.jpg
- File:Kazan-universiade-opening&closing-tickets.jpg
- File:Kazan-universiade-opening-ticket.jpg
- File:Kazan-universiade-tickets.jpg
russavia (talk) 14:38, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry (talk) 01:51, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
Files in Category:Ski passes
[edit]The artwork on this ticket is not free, hence this is a derivative work and a copyvio
- File:1999 Skipass Val D'Isere.JPG
- File:2000 Skipass Val Thorens.JPG
- File:2003 Skipass Val Thorens.JPG
- File:2010 Skipass Dolomiti.JPG
- File:Liftkort Åre.JPG
russavia (talk) 14:42, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry (talk) 01:51, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
Files in Category:Strongmen tickets
[edit]The artwork on this ticket is not free, hence this is a derivative work and a copyvio
- File:Giants Live 2009 Malbork ticket.jpg
- File:Poland's Strongest Man 2009 Malbork ticket.jpg
- File:Poland's Strongest Man 2009.jpg
russavia (talk) 14:42, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry (talk) 01:52, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small/inconsistent resolutions, missing EXIF.
- File:Sansare iglesia.jpg
- File:Municipalidad Sansare.jpg
- File:Parquesansare.jpg
- File:Universidad chorrera.jpg
- File:Feria de la chorrera.jpg
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:05, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry (talk) 02:01, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
All images of coins uploaded by this user are taken from other websites. From the very beginning in December 2012 (File:Jahangir 01.jpg ) untill today (File:Kozi 02.jpg).
Commons:Deletion requests/File:Huvishka.jpg and the files nominated for {{Copyvio}} already show a clear pattern: Stealing from other websites, upscaling, uploading to Commons with false own work claim. The claim at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Huvishka.jpg that the uploader bought the coin is irrelevant for the copyrights on the photos. You have to make your own photos.
I excluded reproductions of banknotes. If the banknote is public domain by law or by age Commons:When to use the PD-Art tag applies.
| Full list of files |
|---|
* File:Kozi 02.jpg
|
Martin H. (talk) 14:41, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
Dear Mr. Martin, I absolutely resent and disagree with your assertion that I am "stealing" images of coins from other websites and claiming these as my own. As mentioned before, I only claim rights to those images of which I am the owner. If you have any doubt, please go ahead and check with those websites who owns the coins in question. I do not wish to re-invent the wheel by clicking my own photos of the same subject when clearly my purchase of the coin includes the image right to that coin too. This is common law, you may disagree but this is how I see it. Lastly, please desist from tarnishing others reputation on a common forum when the intent is to share knowledge to the wider public domain which I believe is the ultimate Wiki objective. It is people like you who don a holier than thou attitude, become judge jury and executioner and make people think whether it is worth the time and effort to contribute to Wiki. Rather than encourage and support, the exercise becomes one of condemnation and discouragement. I have uploaded coin images to my own website (www.meluhacoins.com) as well as shared these at coin forums where like minded collectors do the same ie post images of their acquisition. I do not think Mr Martin you are either a collector or an educator as you seem to jump to hasty conclusions and insinuate lack of trust and ethos in a fellow Wiki-ian. Lastly,I strongly suggest you desist from using words like stealing before having clarified first with the uploader the source of the uploads and if contrary to Wiki guidelines, providing necessary support. Thank you. Meluha66 (talk) 01:29, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
A case in point being File: Gandhar_05 that you have listed as 'copied' from other websites. I challenge you to prove it because this is my own personal photograph of the coins from my own camera. This proves your malicious intent where, with one sweep of brush, you try to malign and taint me. Re: the coin images that you allege I have 'stolen' from other websites, please let me know the relevant files for which the Wiki panel of adjudicators would like to see release permission and the email where I can forward it. It may be that I'm unaware of the proper license category to select for such images but Mr. Martin please exercise refrain from calling people a 'thief'as otherwise you leave yourself open for libel and false accusations tarnishing the reputation of a collector whose only intent is sharing knowledge in the public domainMeluha66 (talk) 02:52, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
- "I do not wish to re-invent the wheel by clicking my own photos of the same subject when clearly my purchase of the coin includes the image right to that coin too." Your purchase of the coin does not mean, that you purchase the photographers intelectual proerty rights. You can not upload other peoples work here - photos - and declare yourself the author. Make your own photos thats the only way. I see your intention to share knowledge, but other peoples work is NOT in the public domain! You can not distribute other peoples work for commercial reuse and claim credit for yourself. --Martin H. (talk) 22:07, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
But I did make my own photo - please see File Gandhar_05, Demetrious_01, Eukratides I_01, etc that you have also marked for deletion??? Also, could you please let me know if there is an alternate Wiki license that I can use to release the photos of my purchased coins or attribute my purchased coin to the source website from where the coin was listed? I have no problem in making it known on public domain the source of my purchase. If there is no alternate Wiki license and no other way but to make your own photo of the purchased coin, then please do let me know so that I am clear on this account for future uploads, if any. Please note that I have documented evidence available for each and every purchased coin (invoice, payment, email correspondence, courier/regd letter reference etc) and as a matter of personal ethics, have never uploaded an image unless the coin has been physically delivered to me and in my hands first, and this also is verifiable from the date of purchase, shipping, delivery and upload to Wiki.Meluha66 (talk) 07:40, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
Further to above, I am listing below few examples of files that is my own work but that has been lumped together by Martin for deletion. As I mention above, I challenge anyone to prove this is not my work because I have photographed these coins myself with my own camera (Sony Model No DSC T-100). The files in question are:
1)PMC Shakya 02.jpg
2)Shakya 01.jpg
3)Gandhar 05.jpg
4)Kosala 01.jpg
5)PMC Kosa 02.jpg
6)Takku 01.jpg
7)Taxila 05.jpg
8)Takku 02.jpg
9)Takku 03.jpg
10)Demetrious 02.jpg
11)Eukratides I 01.jpg
12)Koziya 01.jpg
13)Ardu 01.jpg
14)Ghazni 01.jpg
15)Nusru 01.jpg
16)Cooch Behar 01.jpg
17)Assam 02.jpg
I think, in view of above, any reasonable Wiki administrator, adjudicator or visitor would agree that I have been unfairly targeted. I again repeat that (a) I have uploaded images of only those coins that I own (b) I can provide any documented evidence to whomsoever it may concern to prove I own these coins (c) where required, I can provide release rights of the images from the source where I purchased my coins (d) If I should use a different license for purchased coins where I have not made my own photograph, then please let me know the relevant license category to use, and I am happy to do so (e) I have my own website (www.meluhacoins.com) where I have uploaded same images and any search engine would show the same (f) it must be remembered that many coins look similar as they were produced at the same mint using the same technique and die, just beacuse my coin happens to look same/similar to other coins of the same nature and type does not mean I am pilfering someones else image. Just type 'Athens Owl Coin' in Google Images and you will see what I mean where there are thousands of similar looking coins as the 'Owls' were produced in millions. Meluha66 (talk) 06:25, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
- Realy, when joining a project the first thing to do is reading the first steps. Here: License selection, what to upload and what not. You can’t upload other peoples copyrighted work unless you got written permission for a free license. The copyright holder must agree to an irrevocable license that allows anyone to reuse the copyrighted work anywhere, anytime for any purpose including commercial purposes. And no, there is no alternative licensing here on Commons, a free license is required. See Commons:Project scope section 3.
- So now that you did break this basic rule many times already, you have to correct the sources for the photos that are not your own work. You have to remove your name when you not created the photo and replace it with the true author’s name. And you have to provide written permission to the license from the copyright holders.
- And please, I’m not stupid. The files I identified have something special to clearly identify them, that’s EXIF data, scratches, distance between imprinting and edge of the coin, and other characteristics. The reaction is precautionary; and correct: we have a fundamental misunderstanding of copyrights on your side, and apparently ignorance in carelessly using the button "it’s my own work" in the upload wizard. It is YOU who lumped together self-created photos and photos uploaded with untrue information, i.e. "own work". Isn’t there a picture tutorial at the beginning of the Upload Wizard telling anyone that uploading works created by others isn’t allowed, except written permission has been obtained?
- Your purchasing of the coins or your physical ownership is entirely irrelevant. It doesnt give you any rights on the photographic work, you neither can claim the photos your own work, you can’t publish them under a free license and allow commercial reuse. You can make photos in a museum or from someone else collection, it doesn’t matter. The only important fact is the origin of the photographic work, the copyright holder and the copyright holders (written) agreement to a free content license. --Martin H. (talk) 01:48, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvios per nom. INeverCry (talk) 01:57, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
A group of photographs of coins and currency, all labeled own work which cannot be as the objects depicted were not created by the uploader. These require proper licensing for retention.
- File:Samu 01.jpg
- File:EIC Mohur.jpg
- File:MBT Token.jpg
- File:HuviCouch.jpg
- File:HuviRider 01.jpg
- File:HuviCross.jpg
- File:RomaUn.jpg
- File:BH500.jpg
- File:BH1Bn.jpg
- File:BH10k.jpg
- File:5error.JPG
- File:Rue2.jpg
- File:Rue1.jpg
- File:Hanu01.jpg
- File:Jim01.jpg
- File:GVI1B.jpg
- File:GVI10Bu.jpg
- File:GVI10B.jpg
- File:GVI5B.jpg
- File:GVI5Bu.jpg
- File:Gvi10b.jpg
- File:Gvi10s.jpg
- File:Gvi5.jpg
- File:Gvi2.jpg
- File:Gvi1.jpg
- File:Gv10s.jpg
- File:Gv10b.jpg
- File:Gv5.jpg
- File:GoPd.jpg
- File:GoP1.jpg
- File:GoP10.jpg
- File:GoP5.jpg
- File:Gv100.jpg
- File:Gv1000.jpg
- File:Srg100.jpg
- File:Hyd1000.jpg
- File:GoI10.jpg
- File:GoI5.jpg
- File:GV perf.jpg
- File:GV 1 Perf.jpg
- File:GoI 01.jpg
- File:GVI Pak.jpg
- File:EIC 1853.jpg
Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:13, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
Deleted. --Steinsplitter (talk) 17:31, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Rawauploaded89 (talk · contribs)
[edit]Both files (no exif) previously published via http://www.flickr.com/photos/kurdistan_rawa/3179127221/ and http://www.flickr.com/photos/kurdistan_rawa/3179956016/ (both 01.2009, identical res, but no exif). Uploader is Rawauploaded89, Flickr account is "Rawa raza" or Kurdistan_rawa. Related? Anyway: Needs permission. At User talk:Rawauploaded89 are stored a significant number of copyvios and otherwise deleted images. Related: Commons:Deletion requests/File:SArchinar esurt.jpg. Affected montage: File:Montage Sulaymaniyah.jpg.
Gunnex (talk) 20:12, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry (talk) 02:07, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
The artwork on this ticket is not freeSource: , hence this is a derivative work and a copyvio russavia (talk) 01:49, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
- In this case an artwork picture is not wholly and troubly to reproduce because it covered by other elements of typing of ticket. Besides, this picture placed not in ticket only but in many-many Universiade objects and things also; it is one of the official symbols of state owned Universiade direction. As a whole, according to above-stated logics a significant of thousands photos of tickets, of facades of many buildings, of street sculptures and monuments, etc need to be deleted because they contains artworks. But all these artworks are not painting pictures/sculptures as itself and, obviously, in all of these cases an artworks copyrights at public placed objects were transferred from authors to tickets letouters, buildings and monuments owners, etc. Undoubtedly, Keep all. Kazaneer (talk) 07:14, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Speedied. Derivative of non-free content FASTILY 01:00, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
Unclear original source, but see e.g. [2] which contains the photo. Uploader's claim to have created this work is unlikely. (ESkog)(Talk) 06:19, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
- La imagen citada es una foto de una cuadro o pintura presente en la Asamblea Legislativa de Costa Rica el cual tiene más de cien años y por ende los derechos de autor ya expiraron. Así mismo la foto del cuadro fue tomada por mi persona. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 05:49, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Unclear copyright status. Unless we have clear, explicit written/textual, tangible evidence indicating that this file is indeed freely licensed under a Commons compatible license, we cannot host it on Commons FASTILY 06:49, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
Unlikely to be uploader's creation. See e.g. here. Unclear original source. (ESkog)(Talk) 06:22, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
- La imagen citada es una foto de una cuadro o pintura presente en la Asamblea Legislativa de Costa Rica el cual tiene más de cien años y por ende los derechos de autor ya expiraron. Así mismo la foto del cuadro fue tomada por mi persona. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 05:50, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Unclear copyright status. Unless we have clear, explicit written/textual, tangible evidence indicating that this file is indeed freely licensed under a Commons compatible license, we cannot host it on Commons FASTILY 06:49, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Motopark as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: http://hollywoodnose.com/images/net_worth4/kelly-pavlik-wealth/kelly-pavlik.png.thumb_200_width.png are bigger version
Converted by me to DR, as this image had been on :en since early 2008, which suggests a bit of discussion. -- Túrelio (talk) 06:37, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Looks like a promo photo. Missing evidence of permission FASTILY 06:48, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
Copyvio, trademark? Southgeist (talk) 07:22, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY 06:47, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
IP (87.175.213.225 / 87.175.207.179) claims that this image is by "Horst Helmut Schmeck,Koeln" who did not gave permission for the publication. I have no way of knowing if (s)he or User:T. E. Ryen, who also claims ownership, is correct, so I am tagging it so others can help investigate. Jarekt (talk) 12:06, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Missing evidence of permission FASTILY 06:48, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
The artwork on this ticket is not free, hence this is a derivative work and a copyvio russavia (talk) 14:43, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
- the lettering font is too simple be copyrighted, The Union Flag isn't copyrighted, RAC logo is too small and insignificant, the rest of the ticket is simple shapes and colours that are too simple to be copyrighted, there is nothing present to copyright. Oxyman (talk) 15:38, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
- The UK has a low threshold of originality, and the FIA logo is an essential part of the overall image, and we can't claim de minimis on it. russavia (talk)
– This file is in use on en.wikipedia at 1991 Formula One season. It was moved to Commons, so do not simply delete it without copying back first. Senator2029 23:48, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
- if its a copyvio here, its a copyvio elsewhere. I doubt that nfcc would apply as the ticket is not being used for commentary, but as illustration only. russavia (talk) 03:18, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
- It isn't up to you, russavia, to make that determination. Since the file was moved here, it should be moved back. Let the editors at en.wikipedia come to a consensus as to how they will handle the file. It is our responsibility to give them that opportunity. Senator2029 04:58, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
- What you are suggesting is something that no-one should be doing; i.e. re-uploading something they know to be a copyvio, or something that would fail the NFCC on en.wp, back to en.wp. That's a problematic suggestion that you are making there. russavia (talk) 08:48, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
- It isn't up to you, russavia, to make that determination. Since the file was moved here, it should be moved back. Let the editors at en.wikipedia come to a consensus as to how they will handle the file. It is our responsibility to give them that opportunity. Senator2029 04:58, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: derivatives of non-free content are prohibited on Commons FASTILY 06:50, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
This is a logo, not self as claimed. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 20:38, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
- Keep Too simple. Fry1989 eh? 17:46, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
Kept: pd simple FASTILY 06:47, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
The logo is not an American logo, is Venezuelan. Regardless COM:TOO, there's needed evidence that Venezuela's copyright law qualifies this as "simple". Tbhotch™ 18:01, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
- Delete I am not able to redraw that logo (I mean football in the middle), therefore I do not consider this a simple logo. Taivo (talk) 11:43, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
- Keep Too simple to be copyrighted. - Fma12 (talk) 12:36, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
- Keep Still too simple. Fry1989 eh? 20:02, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
Kept: too simple, double DR. already kept by Fastily --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 00:25, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
Appears to be a copyright violation of http://katgym.by.lo-net2.de/c.wolfseher/web/analogdigital/digitalerOrca.jpg ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 23:17, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
- Keep. The uploader also uploaded File:Maligne Lake.JPG and File:Orca Text.JPG with the same camera and exif. The second photo was in the next province so they were probably on a western Canadian tour when they were taken. They are probably from Germany as they created http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/9_O%E2%80%99Clock_Gun . They probably heard it will in Vancouver as it is very load and freaks many tourists each night. File:Orca Text.JPG can probably be speedy deleted as a copyvio of the plaque text. I get a 404 error when I tried to find http://katgym.by.lo-net2.de/ which has another version of the same file. http://regex.info/exif.cgi shows the file on their site as coming from commons so ours was here first.--Canoe1967 (talk) 01:19, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
Appears to be a copyright violation of http://www.online-utility.org/image/ImageCache?file=7/7f/Girl_in_a_Wetsuit.jpg/800px-Girl_in_a_Wetsuit.jpg ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 23:20, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
- As the file says, I took the picture; it's in the public domain.
Keep. The link above to the obscure http://www.online-utility.org/ is far smaller and has far less exif data. We don't know that it was posted earlier than here. The photo was taken the day before it was uploaded to commons. The other uploads by the same user have the same camera in the exif. I seriously doubt that he actually found another on the net with exif, ripped it, and then uploaded here all within one day. I put the few I found through http://regex.info/exif.cgi and ours it definitely the original. Do you have real indications that the uploader is not being truthful? The above just doesn't cut it in the least.--Canoe1967 (talk) 00:44, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
- Keep due to Canoe1967's fantastic research. InverseHypercube 06:23, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
Appears to be a copyrighted image from http://cdn1.sbnation.com/imported_assets/1581487/800px-Gate-to-the-Northwest-Passage.jpg or http://www.flickr.com/photos/jeffmcneill/2723167573/ ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 23:22, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
- Keep. http://cdn1.sbnation.com/ gives a 403 error. The Flickr page claims it actually came from commons. The uploader: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Ehofbauer and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Log/Ehofbauer seems to have created an account just because he had an image of the sculpture for an article. I couldn't find any versions on the net that were older, larger, or had more exif. I would say that the uploader is the true rights holder in this case.--Canoe1967 (talk) 01:00, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
Could someone help me to delete this image? I no longer want to have it on Commons. ✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎ 13:24, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
_-_male,_January_2013,_Singapore.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_-_male,_January_2013,_Singapore.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
I, the creator of this work, no longer want to have it on Commons. ✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎ 13:28, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
Keep. Widely used file. A local copy can always be kept at the English Wikipedia, but even if it was deleted at Commons, the file would quickly be disseminated to other Wikipedias, so why not have it at a central repository? De728631 (talk) 14:03, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
- I'm gonna place a note there, to say that no transfer to Commons or any other wikis, or if not, I promise to nom the file for deletion entirely in protest. I really don't wish to do that, but that is a last resort. ✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎ 14:11, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
- Sorry but such a note would be incompatible with the free licence you've granted for this file. By granting the CC-by-SA licence you agreed that the file may be copied, distributed and transmitted anywhere, and you cannot revoke that. De728631 (talk) 14:15, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
- It's unlicensed. ✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎ 14:18, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
- No, it's not. Like I said, you cannot revoke a licence once you've granted it, so this edit was totally pointless. De728631 (talk) 14:21, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
- Yup, somebody at ANI gave me a link to the policy page and I just read about that. ✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎ 14:24, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
- At ANI you wrote also that you feel uncomfortable with your image being used all over the place instead of being limited to the English Wikipedia. Could you please elaborate on that and explain why other Wikipedias shouldn't use it? De728631 (talk) 14:27, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
- Probably you want to read what I wrote at ANI again? It's all stated inside there. Cheers. ✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎ 14:33, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
- Well, if your concern is mainly about copyright I can assure you that you never waived it. The good thing about CC licenses is that you remain the copyright holder, but permit others to reuse your work under that specific set of rules as devised by the Creative Commons. You will have to be credited as the photographer, and any use outside the limitations by the CC licence would still require your consent. De728631 (talk) 14:41, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
- What I meant about that "copyright" is that I would even try getting even with you if you tried saving it in your computer. Which means, you can't do a single thing with it, other than enjoying it on wherever I place it. But obviously, Wikipedia/Commons is different, so I'm sacrificing lots of my rights already. ✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎ 14:53, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
- Well, if your concern is mainly about copyright I can assure you that you never waived it. The good thing about CC licenses is that you remain the copyright holder, but permit others to reuse your work under that specific set of rules as devised by the Creative Commons. You will have to be credited as the photographer, and any use outside the limitations by the CC licence would still require your consent. De728631 (talk) 14:41, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
- Probably you want to read what I wrote at ANI again? It's all stated inside there. Cheers. ✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎ 14:33, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
- At ANI you wrote also that you feel uncomfortable with your image being used all over the place instead of being limited to the English Wikipedia. Could you please elaborate on that and explain why other Wikipedias shouldn't use it? De728631 (talk) 14:27, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
- Yup, somebody at ANI gave me a link to the policy page and I just read about that. ✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎ 14:24, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
Deletion requests like "I've heard that that Commons is very unorganized and in a mess and I don't want to share my pictures with other projects" makes me seriously doubt that Arctic Kangaroo understands what a en:Free license is about. It also makes me doubt that you understand the overall mission (and vison) of Wikipedia and other WMF projecs. If you disagree with this mission statement and the concept of a free licence you should stop editing. If you agree, you shouldn't object the possibility that even if you upload the work on en, it might end up on commons. Keep no valid reason for deletion stated. --Isderion (talk) 15:21, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
- You're commenting without knowing what's going on. Then what's this? ✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎ 01:52, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
- You mean this File:Mantis eating a Common Bushbrown (Mycalesis perseus) butterfly.jpg? Really, you seem to be the one not understanding licenses. Just FYI: if somebody releases an image under a real free license (such as CC-BY/Zero and alike), he can't prevent anybody from re-using and distributing it, provided the license terms are met. --Túrelio (talk) 15:43, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
- @Túrelio: I think I know it better than you. Not me; it is your honourable crat and the supporters trying to make Commons a hostile environment for child editors and readers. Further, this user is from Singapore; not from Europe or America where children start playing with the gen…ls in a much younger age. (I can use my user name, real name, or any other pen-name in the author field. Please don’t be fooled by your childish acts.) JKadavoor Jee 16:18, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
- You mean this File:Mantis eating a Common Bushbrown (Mycalesis perseus) butterfly.jpg? Really, you seem to be the one not understanding licenses. Just FYI: if somebody releases an image under a real free license (such as CC-BY/Zero and alike), he can't prevent anybody from re-using and distributing it, provided the license terms are met. --Túrelio (talk) 15:43, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
_butterfly.jpg){kind=link}
_butterfly.jpg){kind=link}
- Courtesy Delete. Penyulap ☏ 16:24, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
- Keep obviously. darkweasel94 17:53, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
- Keep Per De728631, which makes a Courtesy delete proposed by Penyulap improper, and per Isderion. Arctic Kangaroo the CC license that you granted is permanent and unrevocable: Section 7, Subsection b. "Subject to the above terms and conditions, the license granted here is perpetual (for the duration of the applicable copyright in the Work)." Liamdavies (talk) 08:11, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
- Keep widely used and non revokable license.PumpkinSky talk 11:21, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
Let me warn you guys, I'm gonna continue protesting until the file is deleted. This is bullshit. You people at Commons have total disregard and no respect for others who contribute. And no respect for creators' rights too. I'm not gonna give a damn on whatever shame this will cause, and also how embarrassing this can be. I just want it deleted, and after that, nobody is to upload it again, even if you make whatever minor tweaks with Photoshop or whatever, as nobody is given permission by me to upload the copyrighted work. ✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎ 14:56, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
- I have done my best to reduce the file usage for the deletion. But I wasn't able to remove everything fully, since some pages were protected or I don't know where the file is located. ✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎ 15:26, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
- Comment Dear admins: (en: User:Arctic_Kangaroo is a schoolboy; so probably under 16, busy attending school, according to the information provided by him on his page. Please be more generous to him based on our established policies like en: Wikipedia:Guidance_for_younger_editors, en: Wikipedia:Child_protection, en: Wikipedia:Protecting_children's_privacy, … you know them better than me. My doubt; but not sure: I doubt whether it is a copyvio considering the limited contributions from him and the high image quality. May be I’m jealous. I can’t see the exact image anywhere; but it looks somewhat like a sibling shot as in http://www.butterflycircle.com/checklist%20V2/CI/index.php/start-page/startpage/showbutterfly/319#2 @ Arctic_Kangaroo: Please be patient and cool down. Your current actions will only attracts a block or page protection. (I hate to comment here; but my name/work is specified somewhere in this discussion and I was the nominator of this work at COM:FP) JKadavoor Jee 15:42, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
- You can be sure it's me. Most of the time, my images are not that good. I was just lucky on this, actually. But no surprise, I know someone who's 14 and can shoot really good pictures (better than 99% of mine so far) even when he was 12/13. ✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎ 15:45, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
- I would like to show that evidence (the guy who's 14), but based on policy, I think it's better to just not show it. Sorry about this, policy's preventing me from giving the evidence. ✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎ 15:49, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
No blocks please, I have my rights, and I have to fight for my rights. ✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎ 16:00, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
@Jee: There's no way I can tweak it. I have no Photoshop, and I don't know how to use Photoshop. It's one of my principles anyway that there is totally no pride if I were to impersonate/tweak others' work and say that it's mine. No way. ✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎ 16:02, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
- Sorry if I hurt you. Keep on your excellent works; but safe outside Commons.
JKadavoor Jee 16:23, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
- JKavador, this discussion is not about any copyvios. It was initiated by Arctic Kangaroo himself who would now like to have this file deleted after he uploaded it under a free license some weeks ago. De728631 (talk) 22:47, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
- OK; he already confirmed that this is his work. It was only my doubt while considering all the possibilities why he afraid the huge publicity that he gain when this picture is showcased as a POTD in multiple languages. From his comment, I assume he has little knowledge about licensing. He may thought only Wikipedia will use his work and only to describe the article related to it. But unfortunately, anybody including Commons and websites like http://www.butterflycircle.com/ can use his work according to the licensing terms. So this DR. I would like to ask Arctic Kangaroo a few questions.
- Do you still prefer to keep the file in English Wikipedia? Please not that you can’t prevent anybody from re-using it as per the licensing terms. The contribution to Wikipedia can’t be limited to their in-house use (except for a fair use license which is not suitable for this case).
- If your answer is “no”; then do your deletion request is based on your previous ignorance about the licensing as a young boy? Further, do you afraid the publicity that may gain here will affect your privacy as a young boy?
- If your answer is yes; I think you are eligible for a courtesy delete per en: Wikipedia:Protecting_children's_privacy. I hope the watching admins will act appropriately; or you can contact some seniors. My suggestions: User:99of9, User:MichaelMaggs, User:Russavia.
- Alternately, you can contact a WMF staff (User:Mdennis_(WMF), User:Philippe_(WMF)) and share your concerns.
- Hope the current controversies and the blaspheming words from a few (only from a few; others responded very gently) will not affect your health or education. Remember, homework and schoolwork come first! Please consider keeping fit and not passing too much time in front of a computer monitor! Best wishes. (I had removed this work from the POTD as requested by you on your talk page; unfortunately some admins prefer edit warring neglecting all your privacy rights.) JKadavoor Jee 07:57, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
- Jkadavoor, please stop WP:BITING immediately. Your condescending remarks are out of place. You have to behave in a WP:CIVILISED way. Arctic Kangaroo is an experienced editor with 12,000+ edits and reviewer+rollbacker rights on English Wikipedia; apparently just (s)he doesn't have experience with images and media copyright. If you can't be helpful, just keep silent. kashmiri 19:57, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
- OK; he already confirmed that this is his work. It was only my doubt while considering all the possibilities why he afraid the huge publicity that he gain when this picture is showcased as a POTD in multiple languages. From his comment, I assume he has little knowledge about licensing. He may thought only Wikipedia will use his work and only to describe the article related to it. But unfortunately, anybody including Commons and websites like http://www.butterflycircle.com/ can use his work according to the licensing terms. So this DR. I would like to ask Arctic Kangaroo a few questions.
- JKavador, this discussion is not about any copyvios. It was initiated by Arctic Kangaroo himself who would now like to have this file deleted after he uploaded it under a free license some weeks ago. De728631 (talk) 22:47, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
_-_male,_January_2013,_Singapore.jpg&diff=99890671&oldid=99889944){kind=link}
- Arctic Kangaroo, you have consciously agreed to a free license which is not revocable, so you gave up some (not all) of your rights; perhaps next time you should think for ten seconds before clicking "Upload", I always do that. If you announce you will keep protesting, that is called disruptive behavior and won't get you far. darkweasel94 17:31, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
- Keep Non revokable license (+ widely used file).--Steinsplitter (talk) 19:37, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
- @darkweasel94: But as I have mentioned above, you people at Commons have no respect and total disregard for people who contribute here. I did not know about that "non-revocable license" stuff, but that's totally out of the point with the reason for deletion. I'm totally new to Commons, and I don't even know how to navigate around here. But guys, just put yourselves in my shoes and spare a thought, seriously. ✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎ 00:26, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
Someone has mentioned earlier that for deletion, the file should most preferably not be used. I have done my best to reduce file usage, and why it could not be reduced totally, it has been explained somewhere above. ✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎ 00:36, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
- That is for a courtesy delete, which isn't policy, but a loose convention that sometimes occurs. Removing a files usage from being legitimately used in pages across wikiprojects is completely against the spirit of the requirement, and will do your delete request no good. Liamdavies (talk) 08:07, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
- Arctic Kangaroo, I have a question for you (and please don't take it wrongly): did you or did you not fully understand the implications of releasing your work under a CC-BY-SA?Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:40, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
- Crisco 1492, Arctic Kangaroo has over 20,000 edits at EN:WP over about eight months, I don't see how someone could be that involved and have created so much free content without the most basic concept of creative commons licensing. Liamdavies (talk) 17:43, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
- Liamdavies, I am not familiar with his en-wiki contibs. Can you point out any that discuss copyright or licensing (especially irrevocability)? His arguments above sure suggest that he did not understand much about licensing. I would also like to hear his answer to Crisco's question. Arctic, also, do you plan to contribute any more to wikipedia and commons, and if so, do you understand that all contributions are irrevocable and can be used anywhere, not just where you uploaded them? --99of9 (talk) 19:23, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
- Liam, Never assume, particularly when it comes to one's legal rights. When I started I was 16 or so, and I didn't really get the commercial value of my contributions until about five years later. For me it was just an experiment in helping other people. One may have been vaguely aware of the license, but not of the possible negative implications on one's own ability to sell or exploit one's work for one's own benefit.Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:01, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
- Liamdavies, I am not familiar with his en-wiki contibs. Can you point out any that discuss copyright or licensing (especially irrevocability)? His arguments above sure suggest that he did not understand much about licensing. I would also like to hear his answer to Crisco's question. Arctic, also, do you plan to contribute any more to wikipedia and commons, and if so, do you understand that all contributions are irrevocable and can be used anywhere, not just where you uploaded them? --99of9 (talk) 19:23, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
- Crisco 1492, Arctic Kangaroo has over 20,000 edits at EN:WP over about eight months, I don't see how someone could be that involved and have created so much free content without the most basic concept of creative commons licensing. Liamdavies (talk) 17:43, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
- Courtesy Delete per author request. kashmiri`
- Comment I don't see how the image can be held on Wikipedia but not on Commons - such situations AFAIK only occur with FoP or fair-use issues. Arctic Kangaroo should be made aware that Wikipedia is a "free content" project too and his written contributions to that website aren't "for Wikipedia only" but could be used elsewhere too, including for purposes or by people he disagrees with. However, if he really doesn't want to upload images that can be freely reused by anyone (including hosting on Commons) then he shouldn't have used that CC licence or uploaded to Wikipedia. On the one hand, I see this as just one picture of a butterfly and Arctic Kangaroo will I'm sure go on to taken many thousands of excellent pictures. Arctic Kangaroo, can you not just put this licence misunderstanding down to experience and move on? On the other hand, if Jkadavoor is right and Arctic Kangaroo is a child, then I strongly disapprove of a hard-line stance on the "irrevocable" aspect of the CC licence. That the image is used on some Wikipedias should have absolutely no bearing on our ethical behaviour -- that factor should only influence scope discussions. While we can do nothing if external bodies have picked up the image and use it, Commons/Wikipedia can decided to handle this how they wish. And besides, we have other very good pictures of this butterfly, although they aren't at FP level. So while I'm disappointed at Arctic Kangaroo's attitude towards sharing his image freely, and wish he could just put this mistake behind him, it is his choice and I don't think we should hold a child to a "tough luck mate, we've got it, we're using it, and there aint nothing you can do about it" attitude. -- Colin (talk) 20:00, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
- I believe JKadavoor was only trying to be nasty and condescending by alleging that Arctic Kangaroo, a more experienced editor than him, is a "child". I wouldn't really pay attention to that; rather, I feel tempted to give a warning to JKadavoor for biting other contributors. Also, Arctic Kangaroo is in Singapore and JKadavoor lives in Kerala, India, little chance they would know each other's date of birth.
- AK's WP user page strongly implies that AK is still of school age, although no YOB is given. There's always the possibility of off-wiki contact, disclosing such information.Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:10, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
- @Kashmiri: I don’t want to argue with you, allowing this thread being hijacked; that’s why I didn’t respond to your earlier comment. But I doubt whether you are thoroughly mistaken about my involvement here; so this clarification. It was me who original nominated his work at COM:FPC. Till then, his contributions in Commons are merely on the POTY votes and a few file uploads which were originally from the EN:WIKI upload tool. He even set http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Arctic_Kangaroo/sig&action=history his signature] after that. It was to vote here after reading my notification on his EN:WIKI nomination. After that, he participated in a few COM:FPC discussions; but I can’t see any other contributions so far. Probably he may an experienced editor at Wikipedia; but it seems his knowledge on copyrights of media files is limited.
- I believe JKadavoor was only trying to be nasty and condescending by alleging that Arctic Kangaroo, a more experienced editor than him, is a "child". I wouldn't really pay attention to that; rather, I feel tempted to give a warning to JKadavoor for biting other contributors. Also, Arctic Kangaroo is in Singapore and JKadavoor lives in Kerala, India, little chance they would know each other's date of birth.
_-_male,_January_2013,_Singapore.jpg){kind=link}
- It was me who inserted his work at POTD too. It is always done by the nominators if they wish. I think you know POTD is not compulsory; there are so many non-participated FPs already there. Here I though it will be nice to postpone it till this discussion is closed; as requested by him on his talk page. Further, I thought it will be a disgrace to us if we showcase that file as it is; with all those reverts/edit warring under file history. But an admin immediately reverted it without any discussion with me. I don’t think he did it with a bad intention; but he did it without proper home work. He may just peep through my recent contributions to find any misbehaviour from me.
- I can’t say anything more about his age that what he disclosed on his EN:WIKI user page. Our policies strictly discourage any attempt to disclose such matters (w:Wikipedia:Child_protection, w:Wikipedia:Protecting_children's_privacy, w:Wikipedia:Guidance_for_younger_editors).
- It is not my style to bite a newbie. In fact, my first encounter with him was at w:Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/Common_Pierrot_butterfly where he strongly oppose the nomination of my work. Again, he opposed the re-nomination here. But I kept silent in both places. I can’t see any reason to bite him for his professionally talented reviews. Only later, after seeing this work at EN:FPC; I came to understand the real reason for his oppose. It is very professional compared to me. No wonder, if someone’s reviews reflect their personal talent and experience. I nominated it to Commons to see what our reviewers are saying since it was neglected there (it was featured in the second attempt there, later).
- As I commented somewhere else; I feel a bit guilty if it is my involvements (stated above), the indirect reasons for his struggling now. I’m happy with the progress of the discussion now. It is up to Arctic to decide whether he prefer it being deleted from all places in the WMF projects; or changed his mind and willing to keep in any places (even outside any Wikimedia projects like the Butterfly Circle), as Colin suggested. JKadavoor Jee 03:32, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
- JKadavoor, this simply means that all your fight against Arctic Kangaroo is a vendetta caused by hurt ambition. See, I doubt it is Arctic Kangaroo who deserves to be called a child here. Regards, kashmiri 13:54, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
- The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (commonly abbreviated as the CRC, CROC, or UNCRC) is a human rights treaty setting out the civil, political, economic, social, health and cultural rights of children. The Convention defines "a child as any human being under the age of eighteen, unless the age of majority is attained earlier under a state's own domestic legislation." Read these too: Child, Minor_(law), Age_of_majority. In my knowledge, the age of a schoolboy belongs 5-16. (All other personal attacks against me are simply neglected.) JKadavoor Jee 14:16, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
- As to the issue, Arctic Kangaroo has given an irrevocable right, true. By using all crazy aruging or insults towards Commons he fails to accept responsibility for the actions. This project is governed by certain laws, applicable to all editors, and ingorantio iuris nocet. On the other hand, I believe we at the project could be more corteous and heed the request which I personally don't think is very unreasonable: it's just a deletion request by an author. If only we forget about the peculiar way that author is arguing for his point, we should have no problems deleting the image. Wikipedia/Commons won't go bust for that image. kashmiri 20:25, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
- Before the file gets deleted as a matter of courtesy, it would be important though to learn about Arctic Kangaroo's intention for the copy at the English Wikipedia. From what I could get from his previous arguments, he either seems to think that Wikipedia has different rules than Commons, or it is at least organized differently. Arctic Kangaroo, please note that the same licensing policies for free images applies at Wikipedia and Commons. Consequently, if you would like to have the image removed from Commons but retain a local copy at Wikipedia, that wouldn't make very much of a difference. Anyone would still be able to use the Wikipedia image under the provisions of the Creative Commons. A true courtesy deletion should then also involve the deletion of the Wikipedia copy. De728631 (talk) 20:46, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
- As to the issue, Arctic Kangaroo has given an irrevocable right, true. By using all crazy aruging or insults towards Commons he fails to accept responsibility for the actions. This project is governed by certain laws, applicable to all editors, and ingorantio iuris nocet. On the other hand, I believe we at the project could be more corteous and heed the request which I personally don't think is very unreasonable: it's just a deletion request by an author. If only we forget about the peculiar way that author is arguing for his point, we should have no problems deleting the image. Wikipedia/Commons won't go bust for that image. kashmiri 20:25, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
- Delete Iff AK is truly under 18, then I doubt he would have had the legal competence required by American law to validly enforce the contract set by the terms of use, and as such the irrevocableness of the CC license may not apply. It is clear that he now does not want this on Commons, and appears to not want the CC license, although I must note to AK that a deletion here will necessarily mean that use on the English Wikipedia should also not be allowed. There's no way to have your cake and eat it here.Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:15, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
- Keep If we remove we create a reference and others come to take their images under various pretexts. We spend our time to vote. I understand the plight of our friend, but whatever the age and circumstances of the law is harsh but it is the law. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:22, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
- If he were considered not competent under US law, the circumstances of the law would likely support deletion.. Age can be a consideration in that, certainly.Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:07, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
- Archaeodontosaurus, we are not saying that in general anyone can come here and change their mind about the licence. What makes us reasonable moral humans, and not robots, is our ability to rise above the basic requirements of law when justified. Far too often Commons seems incapable of doing this. I'm not proud to contribute here if we can't forgive mistakes whether caused by accident or youth. Colin (talk) 07:44, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
Just to get it clear first, Jkadavoor wasn't attacking me for the whole time. ✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎ 14:29, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks Arctic, for understanding me. From his user name and from his resent contributions ([3] at Baltistan, [4] at Rana_Muhammad_Akram_Khan, [5] at Bulleh_Shah), it is clear that he is personally attacking me only because I am a proud Indian. I don’t know whether Commons has a policy to handle this. Can anybody help me, please. JKadavoor Jee 14:51, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
Before any further comments, I want to get it clear that uploading this file is solely for helping en.wiki, and perhaps a few other wikis that I help. However, I would prefer uploading locally, and not allowing it to fly anywhere else. But as mentioned by someone above, I can't have it on en.wiki but not on Commons, and I'm also not happy with having CC licenses, since I prefer "All rights reserved" instead of "Some rights reserved", and I don't like my work to be shared or what. So just to summarise, I would really like to contribute some of my best photos to Wikipedia, but I'm being forced to sacrifice. Anyway, I'm glad and relieved to see that there are still some Commoners who know the morals, instead of those who only know how to play by the book. I will try to discuss for solutions first, but in the meantime, could use of the above-mentioned file be reduced to as little as possible, and I don't want it to be POTD anywhere. After this file's been settled, I also have other files to settle. Thanks. ✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎ 14:40, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
And this thing is taking up a lot of my time, sacrificing the time I should be spending on AfC backlog drive back at en.wiki. The competition and pressure now is extremely fierce, and also given my limited time available now, the top spot which I'm holding now is at stake because of these stupid stuff. BTW @Jee, it's OK if ButterflyCircle uses my stuff, I'm a member who's trying to be neutral. :)
- @C1492: Please get it clear, I'm not here to promote. It's just one of the most comprehensive and reliable butterfly source you can find on the net.
✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎ 14:57, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
- I don't think I've said anywhere that you were here to promote yourself, so I don't know why that was directed at me. Regarding your other point, if you were to upload any new images at a much lower resolution (allowing you to keep full copyright on the higher resolution versions), that would certainly be a compromise. You could use the low resolution (500px on the longest side?) images for Wikipedia projects (although this would guarantee no more FPs, it's not the worst thing in the world), and sell the larger ones. A lot of skilled photographers here do it.
- Only issue with that compromise is that, by doing so, you are confirming that you understand the terms of the licensing. This means that anything already published on Commons/Wikipedia would almost certainly not be able to be deleted, as the license is non-revocable.
- Regarding the sacrifice... it's different for everyone. I'm open for discussion on that one elsewhere.Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:07, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
- If you did read the @Jee comment, you would know why I talked about promoting. :) ✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎ 15:10, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
- Oh, I saw that. Just curious why I was singled out.Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:16, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
- I’ve no idea; this is the first time I heard you’re a member of ButterflyCircle. I knew that site is also from your country though. I too participated in sites like http://www.asia-dragonfly.net/, and a member of FB groups like butterflies/dragonflies/insects of India; but I don’t know how those relevant here. JKadavoor Jee 15:21, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
- I also give some book publishers permission to use my work, but obviously, it's not relavant here. It's just a FYI. ✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎ 15:23, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
- If you did read the @Jee comment, you would know why I talked about promoting. :) ✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎ 15:10, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
- Wow...those admins here do a really great job. ✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎ 15:20, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
- They don't care about the contributors, which leads back to my comments on them and some users here, no respect and total disregard for contributors. I will update the list if I think of anymore. Hmm... ✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎ 15:21, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
OK whatever, but I will see how it goes, see if there's a solution. But I will see how the POTD thing goes as well. ✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎ 15:31, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
- Arctic Kangaroo, if on Wikipedia you nominated an article for deletion because you are its original author, wanted it deleted but there was otherwise nothing wrong with it, and you are told that won't be done, would you also react like here ("no respect and total disregard for contributors")? Or is this some kind of prejudice you have against Commons? darkweasel94 15:46, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
- For me, I wouldn't nominate my own article for deletion, as I put in effort to write the article only because I know that I want it on Wikipedia. But for my photos, I shoot it as it is my hobby, not for Wikipedia. My best photos are very treasured, although I would not allow you to use my worst shot as well. The Wikipedia thing is just an extra act of goodwill, in other words, a bonus to Wikipedia. ✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎ 15:56, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
- But you do realize that every Wikipedia article can also be copied by everybody everywhere? This is exactly the same situation we have here. darkweasel94 16:02, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
- As I have said, articles and photos are 2 totally different things, and I do them for different purposes. ✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎ 16:21, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
- But you do realize that every Wikipedia article can also be copied by everybody everywhere? This is exactly the same situation we have here. darkweasel94 16:02, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
- For me, I wouldn't nominate my own article for deletion, as I put in effort to write the article only because I know that I want it on Wikipedia. But for my photos, I shoot it as it is my hobby, not for Wikipedia. My best photos are very treasured, although I would not allow you to use my worst shot as well. The Wikipedia thing is just an extra act of goodwill, in other words, a bonus to Wikipedia. ✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎ 15:56, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
- I have a huge problem with what is going on here. As I can see it, a user has (for what ever reason) 'had it' with commons, and now wants to have their images re-licensed, well that's just not: either in the spirit of wiki, or legally enforceable. These are the two major reasons I oppose it. If it is decided that Arctic Kangaroo is to young to have fully understood the licensing - as Crisco 1492 and others contest - and it is deleted, what does this say about the project? Everything (and I mean literally everything) posted onto any wikimedia/foundation project is licensed under CC conditions. I want everyone to thing very hard and long about this; if we say this user was to young, and therefore when he - of his own volition - licensed a contribution CC this wasn't valid, this throws ALL contributions foundation wide made by minors into doubt, and would lead to only one legally tolerable (but regrettable) solution: only those legally able to enter into contract law in their country of origin may contribute (essentially those over 18, in most cases). That is the (hypothetical, but possible) ramification of this. Liamdavies (talk) 16:30, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
- Agree except for one part: not everything on Commons is under a CC license. Also, do we have any statement by Arctic Kangaroo himself on how old he is? On his enwiki user page he says was born on March 19 in a Year of the Snake. That would place his year of birth in 2001 (or 2013 - just kidding) if he really is a minor. Then again, I also contributed to Wikimedia projects including Commons when I was 12 (under a previous account). I don't think however that a 12-year-old would be judged legally incompetent to grant a copyright license, and such a legal interpretation would be very dangerous for the reasons you state. darkweasel94 18:32, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
- My interpretation of Crisco's remark is that it is a response to those who take a hard-line legal view to the whole thing: if you take that view then you might find there is no enforceable legal contract in the first place. Only a bit of naive wishful thinking and good faith assumptions. Perhaps indeed Commons should be wary of accepting contributions from those unable to consent to the legal contract it expects from contributors. I think Commons/Wikimedia make a mess for themselves by allowing children to contribute to an adult project. But ultimately, the laws are the laws and the Community can't decided them by thinking "long and hard" -- that's something the WMF should hire their lawyers to find out. And the WMF should decided if they want minors to contribute images to Commons and consider the ramifications of allowing that. But anyway, I don't feel that us making ad-hoc allowances for a contributor's youthful mistake binds us to voiding all the licences from minors: don't use the slippery slope as an argument.
- I am, though, losing patience with Arctic Kangaroo. It is just one bloody picture. My advice is to get over it and enjoy your double-FPs. If you want us to delete the image as a goodwill gesture because you made a mistake, then you could start by acting in a way that encourages feelings of goodwill. -- Colin (talk) 19:20, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
- I agree - if there are legal issues here, it's the WMF's lawyers who should tell us so. Not some random users who probably aren't lawyers. darkweasel94 19:55, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
- Not slippery slope Colin, I come from a Westminster nation where precedent is the cornerstone of laws and conventions. If we grant this, we'll be back here again right after with the next image, and the next after that - this is not an assumption, but taking Arctic Kangaroo at their word. Liamdavies (talk) 20:03, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
- Not uploading here anymore unless a solution is found. ✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎ 10:39, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
- A goodwill gesture doesn't set a precedent. That's the whole point of it. And even if a precedent was set, it wouldn't necessarily cause the scenario you predict (banning all uploads from minors), which is the slippery slope argument. It would just indicate that sometimes Commons would be more lenient about licence choice mistakes by minors. I agree that he/we should consider all his photo contributions -- there are only a few pictures. Either he's mistaken about his choice of licence for all photos or he isn't. My main argument is that we should be capable of taking a softer approach with children than the hard-line one expressed by some !votes. Whether any of us are feeling particularly sympathetic to Arctic Kangaroo at this point, is another matter. -- Colin (talk) 21:27, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
- Thank you, Colin. Very well reasoned, and it reflects my position almost entirely. Regarding whether Arctic is/is not legally competent to grant a license under US law, (i.e. @darkweasel94) I never said that he is or is not: I said that he may or may not be, with my reasoning as already explained by Colin. If we say "licensing is irrevocable" (i.e. you cannot reneg on your contract), what happens if we have no legal right to enter a contract in the first place? But as they say, IANAL and that. I'll see if MRG can ask someone at legal to look into it.Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:07, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
- From my understanding of US law, a license is not a contract. darkweasel94 02:30, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
- You are right, about the image licence, which isn't a contract, and I should have been more careful with the wording there. It is a legal document however and expecting a child to understand what rights they are giving away is dubious. It may well be the child's parents would need to be involved for it to be valid. Every contributor to WP/Commons agrees to the Terms of Use (which require us to release our contributions under a free licence) and that is a contract. Currently, WMF accepts children users. IMO there's no clear legal guidance here, and pointing to some "irrevocable" clause in a CC document might be as pointless as trying to sue a child for copyright infringement. Colin (talk) 11:06, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
- Thank you, Colin. Very well reasoned, and it reflects my position almost entirely. Regarding whether Arctic is/is not legally competent to grant a license under US law, (i.e. @darkweasel94) I never said that he is or is not: I said that he may or may not be, with my reasoning as already explained by Colin. If we say "licensing is irrevocable" (i.e. you cannot reneg on your contract), what happens if we have no legal right to enter a contract in the first place? But as they say, IANAL and that. I'll see if MRG can ask someone at legal to look into it.Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:07, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
- Not slippery slope Colin, I come from a Westminster nation where precedent is the cornerstone of laws and conventions. If we grant this, we'll be back here again right after with the next image, and the next after that - this is not an assumption, but taking Arctic Kangaroo at their word. Liamdavies (talk) 20:03, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
- I agree - if there are legal issues here, it's the WMF's lawyers who should tell us so. Not some random users who probably aren't lawyers. darkweasel94 19:55, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
- I am, though, losing patience with Arctic Kangaroo. It is just one bloody picture. My advice is to get over it and enjoy your double-FPs. If you want us to delete the image as a goodwill gesture because you made a mistake, then you could start by acting in a way that encourages feelings of goodwill. -- Colin (talk) 19:20, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
In my opinion this is a no-brainer DR, so I'm actually amazed by the lengh of the discussion here. Half of it seem to be wild guesses about the uploader's age, despite the fact that he doesn't want to tell. It's Arctic Kangaroo's job to provide reasons for deletion. If "Commons is evil" the only thing he got, the file will be kept. --Isderion (talk) 20:29, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
- Keep -- we sometimes agree to delete images, even though they are properly licensed, as a courtesy. But we are less likely to do so when the uploader is not courteous to those participants. As others have pointed out, the image is in use. Uploader's explanation for why the image should be deleted doesn't make any sense. I can't help wondering whether we are being trolled, and suggest we should extend no weight to uploader's claim they are just a kid. Geo Swan (talk) 03:01, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
- Comment -- Several of uploader's comments seem to imply disruptive behavior. Several contributors explained to the uploader that we are reluctant to delete the image, because it is in use on many projects. Uploader replied "I have done my best to reduce the file usage for the deletion. But I wasn't able to remove everything fully, since some pages were protected or I don't know where the file is located." What does this mean? It reads, to me, as if the uploader read that the image can't be deleted because it is in use on other WMF projects, so he went to those other projects and removed all the instances they could, so it was no longer in use. If I read this comment correctly this is an admission of highly disruptive behavior.
- See also this comment "Someone has mentioned earlier that for deletion, the file should most preferably not be used. I have done my best to reduce file usage..." Geo Swan (talk) 03:17, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
- Remaining instances where the image was used include: [6][7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24]. I am recording them here in case uploader succeeds in removing those instances. Geo Swan (talk) 03:46, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
- Please read the related discussions, Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard#Deletion_for_File:Doleschallia_bisaltide_bisaltide_.28Autumn_Leaf.29_-_male.2C_January_2013.2C_Singapore.jpg:_URGENT.21 and User_talk:Arctic_Kangaroo. It was happened while he was in a discussion with Rillke who tried to clarify his doubts. It seems AK was very disturbed and so in a hurry because that POTD was scheduled on 18 July. So it seems a misunderstanding of the advice he got; so an ignorant behaviour, not a disruptive behaviour. Now it seems he is succeeded to postpone the POTD with the permission of Rillke. JKadavoor Jee 04:03, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
- Why is this relevant? Geo Swan (talk) 04:23, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
- Please read the related discussions, Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard#Deletion_for_File:Doleschallia_bisaltide_bisaltide_.28Autumn_Leaf.29_-_male.2C_January_2013.2C_Singapore.jpg:_URGENT.21 and User_talk:Arctic_Kangaroo. It was happened while he was in a discussion with Rillke who tried to clarify his doubts. It seems AK was very disturbed and so in a hurry because that POTD was scheduled on 18 July. So it seems a misunderstanding of the advice he got; so an ignorant behaviour, not a disruptive behaviour. Now it seems he is succeeded to postpone the POTD with the permission of Rillke. JKadavoor Jee 04:03, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
Some editors have earlier said I misunderstood the meaning of "copyright", but that's not true and I can't blame them, though. I was just trying to use that post to show how fussy I am, but I actually do understand the meaning of copyright. ✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎ 09:37, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
Since there is no solution, let's just delete this file, as well as the rest that I have uploaded. ✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎ 09:41, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
- I think I see a solution. Why don't we close this as "keep", as we are legally entitled to do? Geo Swan (talk) 04:23, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
@Jee: Playing with the gen. What's that? ✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎ 10:22, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
Keep On balance I would want to keep this image in view of the of the uploader’s rather ungracious behaviour in requesting its removal (politeness and some cogent reasons should be a prerequisite for the community to consider a courtesy delete), and also in view of his very extensive experience on Wikipedia. Although the uploader's user page mentions “school" it is not clear to me whether that term is being used in the sense I would understand it in the UK (ie that he is under 18) or whether it is being used in the US sense of "College/University” (American-English generally calls the pre-college stage “high school” rather than "school”). In any event, his huge experience and obvious sophistication of expression does not make me think we need to treat him as a child in need of protection.
(As a side note, I was sorry to see Jkadavoor being attacked for trying to help him. This is an international project and there are differences in culture and language; Jkadavoor was not trying to be sarcastic as appears to have been assumed above). --MichaelMaggs (talk) 21:36, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks Michael for your kind words. I don’t know much about Singapore education system; but just checked this. Further it is up to AK whether or not to disclose his age. I strongly discourage it here, in a public forum per w: Wikipedia:Protecting_children's_privacy if it below 18. But he can, if he wish, do mail it to Michael or 99o9; two participating 'crats so far. (I will be in a vacation for a week; so may not able to respond any further in this thread. Thanks all.) JKadavoor Jee 02:28, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
I can only say that you guys are doing some excellent work here. I wasn't rude at first. Rather, it was the terrible attitude and inmorality of some Commoners here that irritated me. And now the finger is pointed back at me?! ✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎ 09:38, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
Can someone delete this file immediately? Some wikis are gonna look like clowns when they use this non-FP for POTD tomorrow. Just look at the file usage. ✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎ 10:58, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
- The POTD nomination for tomorrow has been switched, see COM:POTD#18. --Quartl (talk) 11:28, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
- Non-FP? I thought the file got featured here. Has it suddenly been delisted per consensus or did you decide on your own that it should no longer be promoted? De728631 (talk) 13:40, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
- Hilarious. An FP going for deletion. ✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎ 14:09, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
- Since authors are allowed to withdraw FPC nominations, I think they should also have the right to delist them after the nomination. It's not currently written in the rules however. darkweasel94 14:53, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
- @AK There's nothing hilarious about it. It isn't uncommon. The FP requirements and deletion policy look at different things.
- @DW Only the nominator may withdraw a nomination (and there's nothing stopping someone else nominating), and once it's an FP, it can't be withdrawn without community discussion. Authors have no control over FP whatsoever. And it looks very much like this image, and the others, are going to be kept. Colin (talk) 18:36, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, the author can withdraw a nomination too, see rule 6 in COM:FPC#General_rules. darkweasel94 19:37, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
- Actually that rule refers to the nomination process. Once the image has been featured, a delisting usually requires another voting process involving the community. The page says that "all rules can be broken" but I'm not impressed by the way that has been done. De728631 (talk) 20:02, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
- Yes I know, that's why I said what I said: they should have that right (in my opinion) but it's not currently written in the rules, and probably would require previous community discussion. darkweasel94 20:10, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
- I stand corrected on that point. However, I've never once seen an author do it. It isn't their nomination, so it would be rude IMO. I've seen them oppose, which may well kill the nomination's chances if done early enough. The whole point of the picture being on Commons is that people can do what they like with it, including nominate it for FP. Colin (talk) 06:58, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
- Actually that rule refers to the nomination process. Once the image has been featured, a delisting usually requires another voting process involving the community. The page says that "all rules can be broken" but I'm not impressed by the way that has been done. De728631 (talk) 20:02, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, the author can withdraw a nomination too, see rule 6 in COM:FPC#General_rules. darkweasel94 19:37, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
- Keep Unless there are licensing issues here, I don't see any reason to delete the file. It's a nice picture, it's in use and it's clearly in scope. --Stefan4 (talk) 20:33, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
- Keep In scope, in use, free license; no reason to delete. INeverCry (talk) 01:46, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
Note to the closing administrator: The uploader now claims to be a minor. I have requested the uploader confirm this claim via OTRS. I request you give this claim no weight unless the OTRS team confirms that the uploader's parents or legal guardian confirm the uploader is a minor, who was not authorized to upload images to WMF projects. Geo Swan (talk) 23:11, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
Respecting uploader's rights and end user's rights
[edit]_-_male,_January_2013,_Singapore.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-2){kind=link}
This image was released as a cc0 -- tantamount to public domain cc3 share-alike. Any commons user who views this image, or their other cc3 images, is entitled to re-use them. Even if they were to be deleted here anyone who downloaded a copy would still be entitled to re-use it, consistent with the original license.
Uploader hasn't claimed to be a minor. Some other participants here, have, forgetting how easily we can be fooled, as demonstrated by User:Essjay, and the more recent case of User:Qworty, the minor novelist who spent 5 or 6 years trying to mis-use the wikipedia to destroy the reputation of his literary rivals, as described in an expose in Salon magazine Revenge, ego and the corruption of Wikipedia.
I am skeptical our uploader is a minor.
I am not a parent -- but I tried to imagine how I would react it if I was the uploader's parent. Those who suggest uploader is a minor assert we would be in trouble if the uploader went to their parents and said:
|
If I allowed my kid unsupervised use of an expensive camera, and unsupervised access to the internet I think I would:
- Thank my lucky stars the image was of a butterly -- not a daring series of erotic "selfies";
- Confiscate the camera until they reached the age where they were no long a minor;
- Cut off their internet access;
- Given them a stern lecture on how my spouse and I hadn't worked hard to build that college fund only to have my ungrateful kid squander it on a trivial lawsuit -- one that made us look like lazy negligent parents;
- Thank my lucky stars a second time that the image was of a butterly -- not a daring series of erotic "selfies".
I am not a lawyer, but, to those who are convinced the uploader is a minor, and wasn't legally competent to release their images -- I suggest that if the uploader's parents did take this to court, the decision would be that since (1) the parents allowed the uploader to make unsupervised use of the fine camera; and (2) the parents allowed the uploader unsupervised use of the internet; the parents had tacitly authorized the uploader to release their images. Geo Swan (talk) 04:33, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
- Well the upload history of this file is rather confusing but I can only see CC BY-SA, not CC0. It is rather pointless to imagine scenarios involving expensive lawyers on either side. It wouldn't happen. I don't see how your tacit parental authorisation argument has any merit, though. If the WMF was serious about providing a repository of media that organisations could reuse with legal confidence, it wouldn't allow uploads from minors, and would require contributors to provide some kind of proof of identity and contact details. With our current system, where we really have no idea who the uploader is, what age they are, and a vague promise that it is their own work, all bets are off frankly. Which is why our decision make a goodwill gesture towards AK shouldn't imo be based on any legal guesswork or argument, but simply on trying to do the right thing. And AK isn't making it easy for himself. Colin (talk) 10:19, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
- When it is deleted, the orignal license becomes invalid, the file no longer exists. And BTW, do the right thing, respect others. ✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎ 14:09, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
- It is unlikely to be deleted now. Deleting it on Commons doesn't make the licence invalid (supposing some third party used it already). Respect is not the same as "do anything I ask". When you uploaded the file, you agreed to the terms of use of this site, which require you to irrevocably agree to release your contribution under a free licence. There are two ways this can go. We could treat you as a child and make a goodwill gesture to delete the file that you uploaded in youthful ignorance. Or we could treat you as an adult and you have to abide by the contra* Ict you have with WMF when you pressed the upload button. I think you'd like us to treat you as an adult. AK, you should really just let this one go. Colin (talk) 14:20, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
- Well, I still prefer the deletion. It really was a case of youthful ignorance. I'm not someone who really understands those CC licenses, neither do I like them. Now, I'm finding that it was actually a very big mistake to do so, considering what I have uploaded so far are some of my best pictures. I also feel rather disturbed and worried, and hopefully it doesn't affect the 2 very important upcoming exams. ✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎ 14:31, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
- Licenses like the creative commons licenses are irrevocable. People viewing the commons are entitled to re-use copies they make of commons images, so long as they abide by the terms of that license. This holds true forever -- even if the image is deleted from all WMF sites, or even if the WMF goes bankrupt, and closes down.
- It is unlikely to be deleted now. Deleting it on Commons doesn't make the licence invalid (supposing some third party used it already). Respect is not the same as "do anything I ask". When you uploaded the file, you agreed to the terms of use of this site, which require you to irrevocably agree to release your contribution under a free licence. There are two ways this can go. We could treat you as a child and make a goodwill gesture to delete the file that you uploaded in youthful ignorance. Or we could treat you as an adult and you have to abide by the contra* Ict you have with WMF when you pressed the upload button. I think you'd like us to treat you as an adult. AK, you should really just let this one go. Colin (talk) 14:20, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
- I think a re-user's obligations are to attribute cc-sa images to the original photographer and to inform people, when they re-use the image, of the terms of the original photographer's license, so further re-users can comply with that license. I uploaded this image to flickr, attributed it to you, and informed re-users of your license. I believe I complied with the terms of your license when I uploaded it here. Geo Swan (talk) 21:20, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
- C'mon dude, just accept my request. Remove it from your Flickr. I'm not wanting this image anymore. If I had known earlier, I wouldn't have uploaded it and get myself into all this shit. It was unintentional and I hope you can understand. I don't think you would like me to have terrible impression of you, which it what I have now. ✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎ 10:44, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
- Everyone here was prepared to extend to you the assumption of good faith. My ability to assume good faith was exhausted when I read your threats to go to individual wikiprojects to edit articles there, so they no longer used this image -- and you could then claim it was unused. This may have convinced some readers here that you were a teenager.
- But the sad truth is that the structure of WMF projects leave us open to trolls. User Essjay, succeeded, for years, in claiming to be a Theology professor, when he was a 24 year old dropout. User Qworty was an embittered failed novelist, who used his ID on a dedicated campaign to ruin the reputation of his literary rivals. Given your willingness to disrupt the project to get your own way, which you showed above, why should any of us accept your claim to be a minor, instead of assuming you are merely pretending to be a minor in another attempt to get your way?
- I just looked at User talk:Arctic Kangaroo -- and saw nothing to indicate you were not an adult. Rather, I saw less experienced contributors turning to you for advice. Over on the English wikipedia you are continuing to approve and decline candidate articles at articles for creation. I'd be furious if I was a good faith contributor, who had my new candidate article declined, only to learn the individual who declined it was also claiming to be a minor, under 16, who didn't even understand which intellectual property rights contributors retained, and which they gave away, when they contributed to WMF projects. Geo Swan (talk) 19:35, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
- C'mon dude, just accept my request. Remove it from your Flickr. I'm not wanting this image anymore. If I had known earlier, I wouldn't have uploaded it and get myself into all this shit. It was unintentional and I hope you can understand. I don't think you would like me to have terrible impression of you, which it what I have now. ✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎ 10:44, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
- I don't need any bloody attribution, just take the image off anywhere you can control, and I would say a very grateful "Thank you" to you. ✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎ 10:45, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
- And same thing for the other images I have uploaded. ✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎ 10:46, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
- Your wikipedia contribution history shows that, acting as a reviewer at articles for creation, you declined hundreds of candidate new articles. I'll tell you what -- have your parents, or legal guardian confirm that you really are a minor, and that you did not have their permission to upload your images, and I'll delete the copies I made of your images on flickr. Don't share those personal details here. Use OTRS.
- You keep repeating that we should be "doing the right thing". I am going to suggest that if you are really a minor, the "right thing" for you to do would be to write to each of the hundreds of good faith contributors whose articles you blocked from transfer to article space, and apologize to them for masquerading as a responsible person whose judgement merits trust. Geo Swan (talk) 23:11, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
- And same thing for the other images I have uploaded. ✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎ 10:46, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
If I were to allow it kept here, I think someone must have a extremely good reason to convince me into keeping it. If not, it's delete all the way. ✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎ 10:49, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
And, please understand that all the uploads were mistakes, as I was unfamiliar, and still young (U16). Perhaps, if all my files are deleted, I may consider continuing to contributing to FPC nominations, on the grounds that I do see moral values and respect in Commoners. ✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎ 10:55, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
Kept: As has been noted, free licences are irrevocable. Frankly, the DR could be closed with that one sentence, but I'll continue. I note that Arctic Kangaroo states that he thinks Commons "shows no respect" for authors. I disagree, our whole system is set up to respect authors - we respect their copyrights, we respect their attribution, we thank them for their generosity and we respect their decisions. Unfortunately some decisions cannot be unmade, and in circumstances like this we make a judgment call. Our general policy on this matter is that if the image is in use on other projects then courtesy deletions are declined. The wikisoftware cannot even list all the places this file is in use there are so many! I also note that, frankly, my decision is coloured by the respect Arctic Kangaroo gives us - namely next to nothing. Threatening to vandalise projects to get your way is pathetic and petty. That said, Geo Swan, your point that 16 year olds should not be allowed to contribute to AfC on Wikipedia is also out of line - we have many good contributors who are under 18, and your comments do them an injustice. -mattbuck (Talk) 07:08, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
out of scope - promotional image INeverCry (talk) 23:37, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY 08:42, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
This file is a fabricated hoax/re-creation from a map showing those of American ethnicity w:File:American1346.gif (please check it out to compare). User:Koolx copied the distribution pattern of choropleth and painted over the map in diverse shades of red arbitrarily while simultaneously messing up county boundaries. The source and licensing information for this file is also falsified, given source URL (please check it out to confirm) is concerned with "Historical Census Statistics on the Foreign-born Population of the United States: 1850 to 2000", without distribution data of Spanish nor specific ethnic/ancestry groups by county-level. Che829 (talk) 14:22, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY 08:42, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
