Commons:Deletion requests/File:Mammuthus-sungari.jpg
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.
Dubious "author": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Asiertxo FunkMonk (talk) 18:56, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
- In what way is the author dubious? Leptictidium (talk) 15:53, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
- Take a look at the talk page. The author has uploaded the same image numerous times before where it ended up deleted, and appears to have "sock puppets" on Wikipedia. It seems unlikely that he would be the original author of the image, which is rather sophisticated. FunkMonk (talk) 17:13, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
- I agree that Commons must delete copyright violations, but this seems more like presumption of guilt to me. OK, the original uploader might have used sockpuppets and uploaded the same image numerous times, but I fail to see how that proves it's a copyvio. --Leptictidium (talk) 18:18, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
- You're right, but there's no description of the file at all, and the alleged author has not uploaded other comparable files, so it still leaves me quite suspicious. FunkMonk (talk) 20:28, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
- Don't get me wrong, I'm not going to defend this image or its author to the last, because I don't know him and can't vouch for his actions. I only want to point out that it does not follow from his previous actions that this image is a copyvio. Just my five cents. --Leptictidium (talk) 22:44, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
- Well, at first glance it seems most of his previous actions have been edit warring on the article this image is featured in, and uploading this image several times in vain. I can see that my arguments are not bullet proof, but I'm still suspicious... FunkMonk (talk) 00:31, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
- Don't get me wrong, I'm not going to defend this image or its author to the last, because I don't know him and can't vouch for his actions. I only want to point out that it does not follow from his previous actions that this image is a copyvio. Just my five cents. --Leptictidium (talk) 22:44, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
- You're right, but there's no description of the file at all, and the alleged author has not uploaded other comparable files, so it still leaves me quite suspicious. FunkMonk (talk) 20:28, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
- I agree that Commons must delete copyright violations, but this seems more like presumption of guilt to me. OK, the original uploader might have used sockpuppets and uploaded the same image numerous times, but I fail to see how that proves it's a copyvio. --Leptictidium (talk) 18:18, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
- Take a look at the talk page. The author has uploaded the same image numerous times before where it ended up deleted, and appears to have "sock puppets" on Wikipedia. It seems unlikely that he would be the original author of the image, which is rather sophisticated. FunkMonk (talk) 17:13, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
Kept, found no decisive evidence of copyvio. Kameraad Pjotr 21:34, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
