Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Sdunham6
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.
Historical documents. Proper author/date/country of creation information should be supplied to determine copyrights status and license tags corrected.
EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:12, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
Keep There is no copyright notice on these. {{PD-US-no notice}} Also Pinging @Alexis Jazz Abzeronow (talk) 17:33, 25 January 2019 (UTC)- Keep Agree with Abzeronow. No visible copyright notice. (and the recently uploaded PDF shows a bit more) Note that this document also predates 1963. To believe that this document has A) a concealed copyright noticed we missed and B) a registered copyright and C) a renewal for said registration is way beyond COM:PRP. @EugeneZelenko: the author, date and source country are perfectly clear. Once again, avoid nominating files for deletion that you don't understand. You're an admin, the community expects you to understand that. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 18:31, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
- @Alexis Jazz: I perfectly understand about problems were with files. Please propose better way to deal with historical works with incomplete source information and/or claimed to be own work by uploader. Uploader also need to be educated in this matters. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 19:10, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
- The uploader used cross-wiki upload. Our software is flawed, that's no reason to make users who try their best suffer. The description, even at time of upload, clearly stated who the author is, the date, and anyone who understands what this document is will know the source country. Actually, the address is right there in the document! Which does leave the license, but your claim "Proper author/date/country of creation information should be supplied" made no sense. We should enter those things in our fields in our information template (already done now by Abzeronow), but the information was supplied. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 19:28, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
- License tags were completely incorrect. See files history. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 19:35, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
- Yes, exactly as I said, and "author/date/country of creation information" were all supplied even though you said they weren't. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 02:00, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
- Didi you see and license tags corrected in nomination? --EugeneZelenko (talk) 02:32, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
- Yes, exactly as I said, and "author/date/country of creation information" were all supplied even though you said they weren't. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 02:00, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
- License tags were completely incorrect. See files history. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 19:35, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
- The uploader used cross-wiki upload. Our software is flawed, that's no reason to make users who try their best suffer. The description, even at time of upload, clearly stated who the author is, the date, and anyone who understands what this document is will know the source country. Actually, the address is right there in the document! Which does leave the license, but your claim "Proper author/date/country of creation information should be supplied" made no sense. We should enter those things in our fields in our information template (already done now by Abzeronow), but the information was supplied. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 19:28, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
- @Alexis Jazz: I perfectly understand about problems were with files. Please propose better way to deal with historical works with incomplete source information and/or claimed to be own work by uploader. Uploader also need to be educated in this matters. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 19:10, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:15, 14 March 2019 (UTC)