Commons:Deletion requests/False Namecoin Logos

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

False Namecoin Logos

[edit]
  •  Info: Someone has been trying to force their own logo onto the Namecoin project they have brought their crusade to Wikipedia. The logos listed here are all using this unofficial logo that has been rejected by the developers (of which I am one). When I corrected the main Wikipedia article, an account with the username "Namecoin" reverted my edits and scolded me for using the term "correct" when referring to the correct logo. This puppet account was in violation of the username policy and it was locked. However, edits from anonymous accounts and revert wars got the article placed into semi-protected status. --Indolering (talk) 12:13, 8 October 2014 (UTC) (updated --Indolering (talk) 20:45, 19 October 2014 (UTC))[reply]
  •  Comment - I have notified en:Talk:Namecoin of this DR. I request it be left open longer than usual so that people can comment. -mattbuck (Talk) 14:49, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Info: The OTRS "permission" comes from a Gmail address.    FDMS  4    01:24, 13 October 2014 (UTC)*[reply]
  •  Close without deletion – as with disputed territories, there can be different versions of a logo. After this DR is closed, I will start a scope DR.    FDMS  4    15:16, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment - Disputed territories? I'm not sure of the Commons equivalent to relevancy and notoriety, but these logos lack both items. I've made multiple alternative logos which have even been used in semi-official capacities but they shouldn't be posted here! If I came up with an alternative logo and branding for Apple and set up a bunch of social media accounts and fake Apple stores, I'm sure my branding would be on the Commons but not because anyone saw this as a legitimate dispute. Indolering (talk) 02:36, 16 October 2014 (UTC) (updated --Indolering (talk) 20:45, 19 October 2014 (UTC))[reply]
The Namecoin brand appears to be neither protected by trademark nor copyright laws. There are different websites and social media accounts using different logos. It is not up to the Wikimedia Commons community to decide which one is correct. Therefore, both version should be kept and the decision left up to reusers (including Wikipedia) which version they want to use.    FDMS  4    21:39, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"The Namecoin brand appears to be neither protected by trademark nor copyright laws." We have common-law claims on the trademarks and plan on applying for formal trademark protection. I recreated all of the files in vector and I hold the copyright on those files. However, this is a straw-man argument made for the sole purpose to try and debase our credibility without any bearing on scope.
"There are different websites and social media accounts using different logos." Incorrect: the official website and all official social media accounts use the blue logo. Only social accounts controlled by a single person uses the purple logo. That person and those accounts were making false and dangerous claims about anonymity. These claims had the potential to place people's lives at risk and the core developers decided to step in.
"It is not up to the Wikimedia Commons community to decide which one is correct." You are right: it is up to the Namecoin community to decide which one is correct: I am a core Namecoin contributor and I am telling you that the purple logo is incorrect and the blue logo is correct!
"Therefore, both version should be kept and the decision left up to reusers (including Wikipedia) which version they want to use." As both your points supporting this conclusion are ALL fatally flawed, I will assume that you will reverse your stance and vote in favor of deletion. --Indolering (talk) 03:18, 19 October 2014 (UTC) (updated --Indolering (talk) 20:45, 19 October 2014 (UTC))[reply]
You are simply failing to provide evidence that "your Namecoin (community)" is the "official Namecoin (community)". Instead, you are just insulting another person, despite being told not to do so. Wikimedia Commons is not the right place to live out any personal quarrels with another person.    FDMS  4    11:46, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm listed as a core developer and the [Github repo], website, and social media accounts all use the blue logo.
  • Images with the purple logo are not in use on MediaWiki related properties.
  • Even if if they had the correct logo, most of these images are not educational.
  • I find your assertion about myself and the project insulting: they are unrelated to scope and only serve to undermine our credibility. I'm sorry if my reaction to such comments also insulted yourself. I would prefer to stick to scope and I would honestly appreciate a response to my scope analysis below. --Indolering (talk) 20:45, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Namecoin videos

[edit]

 Delete (only one of these were on this DR) as no permission, evidence to belive music is NC and other reasons brought up on IRC, as no evidence the YouTube-account is the copyright-owner to begin with and that the WIkipedia logo shown inside the videos are a breach of WMF's Trademark rules, but hey IANAL. Josve05a (talk) 22:35, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
DRs split and filenames moved into a list.    FDMS  4    23:07, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

'What is Namecoin?.ogg' links to a YouTube page where the rights clearly laid out. I believe that the use of the wikipedia logo falls within fair use.--Indolering (talk) 22:14, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Scope Analysis

[edit]

From the Commons Project Scope article:

File not legitimately in use
A media file which is neither:
  • realistically useful for an educational purpose, nor
  • legitimately in use as discussed above
falls outside the scope of Wikimedia Commons.
The emphasis here is on realistic utility, either for one of the Wikimedia projects or for some other educational use. Not all images for example are realistically useful for an educational purpose, and an image does not magically become useful by arguing that "it could be used to illustrate a Wikipedia article on X", where X happens to be the subject of the file.

None of these files are in general use by Wikimedia related projects, including the english Namecoin Wikipedia article. The only user of these images is a single bot who automatically generates lists of new content.

The content of these logos are not educational and FDMS4's argument that "both version [sic] should be kept and the decision left up to reusers [sic] (including Wikipedia) which version they want to use." falls under a hypothetical use case which as outlined in the official guidelines does not validate the usefulness of these images.

Indeed, the VAST majority of these logos (login buttons, dummy debit cards, ) are inherently inappropriate even with the correct logo:

However, even the vanilla logos are far outside the scope of the Wikimedia commons. --Indolering (talk) 03:09, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I  agree that these files are outside our project's scope.    FDMS  4    11:46, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Should we delete the non-logo images and then clean up this page to address only the incorrect logos or do everything at once?--Indolering (talk) 23:00, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: Out of scope -- unused personal art. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:01, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/False_Namecoin_Logos&oldid=137654781"