Commons:Deletion requests/File:FA Chile.png
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.
Complex design which does not qualify to be in the public domain 201.215.141.30 22:58, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
- It's not a complex design since it only has simple shapes (triangles, trapezoids, etc.) merged together with no originality at all. Also: an IP address making deletion requests? It would be more suitable if a registered user could start these discussions, since we could suspect that there's a sockpuppet behind these fake accusations. I could suspect that user "Diego Grez" (long-time banned from English Wikipedia) is behind these fake accusations, since this IP address made edits on some files uploaded by, oh coincidence, "Diego Grez". --Sfs90 (talk) 20:21, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
- I do not agree with your response. And... what is your problem with IP addresses? --201.215.141.30 19:32, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
- If you don't agree with muy response, that's not my problem. Let's see what other users think about this request. Regards! :D --Sfs90 (talk) 01:35, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
Oppose I'm against this deletion request because I think there is no real argument in order to delete this file. "Complex design" is not a real argument to my mind. Moreover, the public domain can accept all the types of files, it depends only of the used license for the file and not his complexity which is a very subjective thing.Heribor ✉ 22 novembre 2017 à 11:16 (UTC)
- The Frente Amplio emblem has not been released into the public domain, so claiming it was licensed this way is wrong. --201.215.141.30 02:35, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
- It also doesn't have any copyright notice in any site that could state that it have some rights above the logo (if you have a copyright notice that clearly states that someone had the rights over FA logo, please post it here to take a look). Therefore, in absence of a valid copyright notice, the templates are correct since these are simple shapes and below the threshold of originality. --Sfs90 (talk) 19:27, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
- So let's take a picture from any website which does not have a copyright notice, ta-da! It's public domain because I claim it! Is that your point? --201.215.141.30 00:24, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
- Diego, we had this discussion lots of times before (long time before you were banned from English Wikipedia for continuous disruptive and self-promotional editing...). If you don't have any prove of an author holding legal rights over a work, we couldn't assume that an image or work is owned by some organisation (do you have any source about saying that an institution called "Frente Amplio" owns the rights over the image? The fact that the image is posted on their website doesn't mean anything, since they don't have any copyright notice about that, and it's not legally registered before Chilean (INAPI) or international authorities). Regards! --Sfs90 (talk) 21:17, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
- Have you even read Chile's intellectual property law? Consider doing so that you can avoid being a fool. --201.215.141.30 03:17, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
- Chilean law doesn't say anything about these cases. And don't make personal attacks (calling other people "fool"), that was a very clear characteristic from banned user Diego Grez. Regards! --Sfs90 (talk) 15:22, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
- I think you should read carefully and closely the Law. And by the way, I'm not banned here so please stop despising me. I am certainly not interested in knowing the reasons you despise me - I only ask you to stop making personal attacks every single time you encounter me around. Every time you have no reasons to counter my arguments, there go the personal attack. "blah blah banned on en.wikipedia", can you think of a better reason other than having an intense hatred? --186.79.127.103 04:56, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
- The tone you use on your statements only confirms that you're long-time banned user Diego Grez, using an IP as a sockpuppet. If you think that we need to "read carefully and closely the Law", then you could illuminate us and explain the laws that support your statements about this request. If you know that laws so perfect, you could explain us about that. We're waiting for your explanations. Regards! --Sfs90 (talk) 19:05, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
- I have already told you I'm not even banned here. It is my choice to edit as an IP. My problem, not yours. So stop making false claims and attacks, it only discredits your nonexistent arguments. And it is not my problem, either, that you are unable to understand the law. Perhaps somebody could help you, it won't be me. --186.79.43.55 01:52, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
- Well, if you don't have a clear explanation about the laws, we could assume that you couldn't gave us information about this case. We don't have the obligation to neccessarily read and understand all the laws, so if you could give us an explanation about that, it would be very useful. If you don't give us, we couldn't understand your point. It's just that simple. Regards! (and one more thing: nobody said that you [Diego Grez] are banned here, I said you're banned on English Wikipedia because of your disruptive editing, a thing anyone can see) --Sfs90 (talk) 03:46, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
- I have already told you I'm not even banned here. It is my choice to edit as an IP. My problem, not yours. So stop making false claims and attacks, it only discredits your nonexistent arguments. And it is not my problem, either, that you are unable to understand the law. Perhaps somebody could help you, it won't be me. --186.79.43.55 01:52, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
- The tone you use on your statements only confirms that you're long-time banned user Diego Grez, using an IP as a sockpuppet. If you think that we need to "read carefully and closely the Law", then you could illuminate us and explain the laws that support your statements about this request. If you know that laws so perfect, you could explain us about that. We're waiting for your explanations. Regards! --Sfs90 (talk) 19:05, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
- I think you should read carefully and closely the Law. And by the way, I'm not banned here so please stop despising me. I am certainly not interested in knowing the reasons you despise me - I only ask you to stop making personal attacks every single time you encounter me around. Every time you have no reasons to counter my arguments, there go the personal attack. "blah blah banned on en.wikipedia", can you think of a better reason other than having an intense hatred? --186.79.127.103 04:56, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
- Chilean law doesn't say anything about these cases. And don't make personal attacks (calling other people "fool"), that was a very clear characteristic from banned user Diego Grez. Regards! --Sfs90 (talk) 15:22, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
- Have you even read Chile's intellectual property law? Consider doing so that you can avoid being a fool. --201.215.141.30 03:17, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
- Diego, we had this discussion lots of times before (long time before you were banned from English Wikipedia for continuous disruptive and self-promotional editing...). If you don't have any prove of an author holding legal rights over a work, we couldn't assume that an image or work is owned by some organisation (do you have any source about saying that an institution called "Frente Amplio" owns the rights over the image? The fact that the image is posted on their website doesn't mean anything, since they don't have any copyright notice about that, and it's not legally registered before Chilean (INAPI) or international authorities). Regards! --Sfs90 (talk) 21:17, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
- So let's take a picture from any website which does not have a copyright notice, ta-da! It's public domain because I claim it! Is that your point? --201.215.141.30 00:24, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
- It also doesn't have any copyright notice in any site that could state that it have some rights above the logo (if you have a copyright notice that clearly states that someone had the rights over FA logo, please post it here to take a look). Therefore, in absence of a valid copyright notice, the templates are correct since these are simple shapes and below the threshold of originality. --Sfs90 (talk) 19:27, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
- The Frente Amplio emblem has not been released into the public domain, so claiming it was licensed this way is wrong. --201.215.141.30 02:35, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
- If you don't agree with muy response, that's not my problem. Let's see what other users think about this request. Regards! :D --Sfs90 (talk) 01:35, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
- I do not agree with your response. And... what is your problem with IP addresses? --201.215.141.30 19:32, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: Above the ToO. No free license at http://frente-amplio.cl/. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 23:17, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
