Commons:Disputes noticeboard/Archive 3

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Archive This page is an archive. Please do not edit the contents of this page. Direct any additional comments to this page.

Kurdistan

Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Disputes/Kurdistan
Moved to save space -- Cat chi? 11:51, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Your intervention is much needed with the article regarding the controversial Argentine politician Elisa Carrio and the activities of webmasters that block friends of mine and their opinions while allowing others to post theirs. This is a clear case of censorship and a clear violation of the freedom of speech. This two crimes are rather serious in our country and i won't hesitate to notify the local newspapers, among them the San Francisco Cronicle, of the preposterous activies taking place at Wikipedia. The page of Elisa Carrio in spanish must be freed for everybody to post his opinion and the activities of your "inquisitors" must be monitored closely in order to avoid legal issues to Wikipedia. I regret that freedom of speech is of no importance to other countries but we take that seriously here in California. I request the inmediate opening to discussion of that page. —the preceding unsigned comment is by 75.6.143.105 (talk • contribs) 02:53, 29 April 2007 Yours,


Saint Peter

This about both Petrus and Category:Petrus. Originally, the category Category:Saint Peter, also most of the subcats (like Category:Saint Peter's church) were listed as St Peter as well.

In the English language no one uses Petrus, and all the subcats were left with St Peter (none using Petrus). Could somebody lease help straighten this out? --Evrik 12:13, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Popes are listed with their Latin names, see Commons:Language policy. Gryffindor 13:48, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Looks like I forgot about the guidelines. If I had remembered, I would have not have moved it. Sorry. Zzyzx11 15:51, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Peter was the Bishop of Rome, the first of the popes, but he is primarily Saint Peter. This may be a multi-lingual project, but listing him as with the latin Petrus is non-sensical. Saints are generally listed in the language that is being used, at least by the Catholic church. Since most of his references are in English, that's what the article and the category should be.
Seeing as no one calls him Pope Peter, changing Category:Saint Peter to Category:Petrus is inconsistent with all the other St Peter categories. On a side note, doing a google search under Pope Peter yields 2,310,000 hits, none of which have Pope Peter in the title; doing a google search under Saint Peter yields 30,800,000 hits, many of which have Saint Peter in the title; and finally a search on Petrus shows almost no relevance at all. --Evrik 05:03, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

The Commons are clearly multi-lingual. Saint Peter was the first pope, the Commons rule states that in that case Latin be used for popes. Nobody is saying that we should change the categories pertaining to him, such as "Cross of St. Peter", etc. that can remain where it is. Btw there should be a guideline if we use a period mark after "St." or not and leave it as "St" or write it out as "Saint". Is there such a guideline? Gryffindor 10:52, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

    • There is no standard here on the commons for naming saints. There is one on the English wiki, but doesn't apply here. --Evrik
      • I have just reorganised the category:Popes, which took me two days of work. This is why I want to spend my 2 cents about this dispute. I favour the moving towards "Saint Peter". First of all, "Petrus" does not exist as an official latin name of a Catholic pope. Ioannes XVII exists, Paulus III exists, Benedictus XVI exists, but there is no such a thing as a "Petrus". There is either "Petrus apostolus", or "Saint Peter", or worse "Saint Peter apostolus" (or latine: "Sanctus Petrus apostolus"). Even in the List of popes in the Vatican (the Index paparum), there is a Sanctus Petrus - which is a fair way to recognise him - but no "Petrus".
Furthermore, reasoning encyclopedically, "Petrus" is not the real name, the real name being "Simon"; therefore if you want the entry in Latin, it should be "Simon Petrus", as in German.
Third, and most important, it is true that popes should be in Latin, which is the rule I followed in creating all of the new entries for popes in these days, but it is also true that all of the other names of APOSTLES are in English, and that all the names of saints are in English. Therefore in these TWO cases it is "Petrus" which goes against the rules we set, not the other way round!
Finally, it should be explained first why in the mythical figure of Simon Petrus the Papal rank should prevail on the others, especially considering the fact that his being a pope for real is a controversial fact from a historical point of view (of course not from the point of view of listing - as we have the encyclopedical duty to do - the popes as per catholic tradition, which is a different thing).
In short, let's not make a simple thing into a complicated one. Let's keep "Petrus" in the list of popes, in latin, as per rule and as per request, but let's make a redirect from it to "Saint Peter". People have the right to find what they are looking for. And I guess that 99% of those looking for Simon the apostle are not looking for the first (purpoted!) pope, but for the Apostle - therefore, name in English, as all of the other apostles. Best wishes. --G.dallorto 12:55, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

 Comment Hmm... should I move Category:Jerusalem to Category:ירושלים then (or something that would be less disputed like Category:Tel Aviv to Category:תל אביב)...? It doesn't make much sense to me... Yonatan talk 15:32, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

 Comment I'm very sorry to see that this was moved back to Petrus. Evrik's point about how people actually LOOK for images is, to me, a compelling one. Google shows clearly that on the Web the term "Petrus" has very little to do with Saint Peter; "Petrus" is a restaurant, a chateau, a nightclub. Pretty far down the list of results one finally sees NOT "Petrus" but "Simon Petrus" from German Wikipedia. If people are looking on google for Peter or Saint Peter under "Petrus", they will pretty much not find him there. I'm simply not understanding why it makes more sense for Peter to be listed using uncommon, even obscure, nomenclature. PatriciaT talk 16:37, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

And I don't agree. Have you seen the disambiguation page for St. Peter? Going by the argument of PatriciaT, St. Peter could be many saints, churches, schools, even places. By naming the category "St. Peter" you are creating extra problems which one you mean. And if you don't want to use "Petrus" then use "Simon Petrus" in that case. Gryffindor 14:45, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

  • ... as for St. Peter (disambiguation) ... the first entry is Saint Peter, the apostle. Saint Peter is the most common form, it is the standard by which the other categories are listed. You're the only one who disagrees ... and you're the one who made the repeated changes without discussing it with anyone. Can we please agree that Petrus is not the correct title and move on to other more important things? --Evrik 22:45, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Nope, sorry I don't agree. The Latin Wikipedia lists him as Petrus, or are they wrong? the Commons policy stipulates that popes should be in Latin. I have made one change, which was to move the category to the Latin name, so quit saying that I made repeated changes. So far the arguments you have brought are not convincing, I have pointed out the disambiguation problem as well for which we need to find a solution on top of that. I am obviously open for solutions. Gryffindor 23:53, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Popes should be in latin - what about apostles? St Peter is better characterized as an apostle. Michelet-密是力 06:15, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
I haven't really looked for it, but where does it read that Popes should be in Latin in Commons? Samulili 18:38, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
It doesn't afaik, it's probably just the common practice. Yonatan talk 03:57, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
So far gives way to evolution, not to exceptions. It means that possible exceptions will have to be unequivocally detailed, therefore that we are not allowed to do what we want. At the moment, Category:Petrus infringes the custom rule, and I have not yet read serious arguments for changing the rule (in order to keep Category:Petrus for Saint Peter). --Juiced lemon 08:24, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Well, do you need an apostolic benediction to change it ;o) Michelet-密是力 18:09, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Seems to me that common sense says everything should be Saint peter and not Petrus, but that some people refuse to acknowledge common sense. --Evrik 14:56, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Can someone review this

for the reasons given on this page, not to mention the discussion a while back on the pump, this admin Polarlys, seems bent on rash action. My watchlist looks like a battle zone as he/she is running a bot and without following due process, is extending a discussion beyond one template to others of similar name and very different purposes. I'd appreciate it. // FrankB 20:07, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

As far as I understand you disagree with the deletion of one template. We can discuss this on my talk page. --Polarlys 20:20, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done discussion reviewed. Fabartus seems very agressive indeed, and tends to use Commons as his sandbox for personal projects. Since there seems to be no consensus on this interlink idea, why should he be allowed to disorganise the whole wiki project to prove a non-consensual point? Michelet-密是力 04:29, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Turelio

Welchen Schadensersatz kann ein Anwalt von Wikipedia oder von Turelio verlangen, wenn unbelegte Behauptungen gegen einen deutschen Arzt aufgestellt werden? Ist es nur ein Verstoß gegen das Persönlichkeitsrecht oder kann insbesondere Turelio/Wikipedia wegen Rufschädigung auch strafrechtlich verfolgt werden??? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.104.78.181 (talk • contribs) at 08:07, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Zuerst soilltest du einmal sagen, was oder wer Trulio ist! Zum zweiten solltest du einen Verweis darauf machen, was er überhaupz verbrochen hat (Zum Beispiel einen Link eines Edits oder die seite mit einem Zitat).
Wenn es sich bei deinen uminösen Behauptungen nur um einen Akt des Vandalismus handelt, dann wirst du garnichts bekommen. Wikipedia und Commons sind FREIE (!!!) Enzyklopedien - das heißt, dass jeder Seiten verändern kann. Manche benutzen diese Tatsache der freien Wissensammlung aber dazu aus Spaß zu vandalieren.
Sollte es sich um eine Seite (Galerie) oder ein Bild handeln, dann kann man auch keinen Schadensersatz verlangen, weil auch jeder selbst Seiten eigenständig erstellen kann - allerdings sei noch hinzugefügt, dass solcherart Seiten (hat sie ein Administrator erst mal gefunden) innerhalb von wenigen Sekunden gelöscht werden können.
Wenn es wirklich diese "unbelegte Behauptungen gegen einen deutschen Arzt" gibt, dann mach einen Verweis darauf oder streich es selbst mit der Begründung mangelnder Quellen raus!
--D-Kuru 08:59, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Das was er gemeint hat, gehört übrigens zu seinem letzten edit
--D-Kuru 09:04, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Nicht wirklich. Auch auf meiner Disku hat er nur eine anonyme Drohung mit rechtlichen Schritten (übrigens ein klarer Verstoß gegen WP:KPA) hinterlassen, ohne anzugeben worauf er sich eigentlich bezieht. -- Túrelio 08:38, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Italian Soldiers on Parade.png

user:Polarlys has requested that the images uploaded from the Italian Army homepage be deleted- although the Italian Wikipedia has the authorization of the Italian Army to use all the material that is on its homepage, with the sole condition that the "source" (in Italian "la fonte") always be named. 9 posts about this fact have been ignored by user:Polarlys, who by insisting on this behaviour puts himself above the entirety of the Italian Wikipedia and shows no sign whatsoever of cooperation. Even posts by other users pointing out the existence of the authorization have not brought him to his senses: http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Autorizzazioni_ottenute/Esercito the license clearly states that the Army has only one condition: "Può utilizzare tutto il materiale che è on line sul sito, l'unico vincolo è che venga citata la fonte" = "You can use all the material that is on line on the site, the only condition is that the source be named!" Instead of cooperating he is obstructing the work of editors on the German, English and Italian Wikipedia by his behaviour. I create all graphics I upload myself (i.e. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Noclador#graphics_I_made ) and only go the Italian Army’s homepage for pictures that can not be found elsewhere. To come to the point-user:Polarlys insists that the images must be deleted- even posts by a user from the German Wikipedia telling him, that his insistence on deletion is unfounded has not brought him to his senses- reasoning doesn’t work either and he always reverts my edits and demands that a third party from commons has a look at the issue- so I would like to ask an administrator to come to http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Italian_Soldiers_on_Parade.png and http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Image:Italian_Soldiers_on_Parade.png and help resolve this issue. Noclador 19:38, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I don’t insist on the deletion. As I already pointed out, „use it, name the source“ is not „CC-by-SA“, a license which is used here. Are derivative works allowed, commercial use, context different to the Italian army? I talked to another user on de.wikipedia.org, showing up possible solutions (new request for concrete license; permission via OTRS) - that’s no cooperation? Noclador instead was blocked for one day on de.wikipedia.org because of insulting me rudely. I also don’t accept that Noclador removes my request for deletion, so I asked another admin to block this page until the topic is solved by someone else - neither me nor Noclador. --Polarlys 20:21, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Hello,

User:NE2 has reverted my correct licensing information on images Image:Handicap reverse.svg and Image:Handicap.svg. He maintains that The FHWA cannot override existing copyright; I say that this is none of my business and that the document out of which those images are taken very clearly says, in the beginning, that

Any traffic control device design or application provision contained in this Manual shall be considered to be in the public domain. Traffic control devices contained in this Manual shall not be protected by a patent, trademark, or copyright, except for the Interstate Shield and any other items owned by FHWA.

Please tell this user to stop changing this correct license block to a {{Delete}} template. Thanks! lensovet 17:06, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

This section of the Administrators' noticeboard is being deprecated due to little activity. Can you please post your message at Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems? Thank you. / Fred J 17:38, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
The FHWA cannot override existing copyright. The deletion discussion has been open for almost four months with no resolution. --NE2 21:28, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

About File:Gibraltar espanol.PNG deletion

Hi, RedCoat has deleted this imagen (File:Gibraltar espanol.PNG) without giving any eciclopedic reason (he only said that "it wasn't used at any article"). However, it seems to be founded on personal reasons. Could anybody help me here? I've been said this is the only place I can complaint. Thanks. --Javitomad 23:32, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Please note that User:RedCoat (that would be me) did not delete the image, it was speedily deleted by an administrator who deemed it unencyclopaedic. This issue should thus be dismissed. RedCoat 15:07, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
Did the admin say so? If not, it's not up to you to present his/her assumed motivation. -- Túrelio 15:27, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
Yes the administrator did say so on the deletion log (unencyclopaedic and orphaned) I did not assume his/her motivation. RedCoat 15:37, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
True, thanks for the link. The deletion logs [1][2] say:
16:26, 24. Jun. 2007 ChrisO (Diskussion | Beiträge) hat „Image:Gibraltar espanol.PNG“ gelöscht (Speedy deletion - unencylopedic and unused)
@Javitomad, admin ChrisO speedy-deleted this image. You may contact him directly and/or contest his decision as the Commons:Deletion guidelines do not mention unencylopedic and unused as a reason for deletion, let alone for speedy deletion. The image might well be deleted but should so after a regular discussion that should be open a little longer than 24 hours.
Here a link to the deletion discussion that actually took place after the deletion. -- Túrelio 16:00, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
Who proposed speedy deletion of this image, and why, if the regular deletion discussion had only been going on for 19 hours (19:29, 23 June 2007 (UTC) to 14:26, 24 June 2007 (UTC))? Also, please convert to UTC when quoting your (local time) deletion logs like this one, as you appear to be in +0200 (WET +0100 in or near Germany plus an hour for DST).   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 19:37, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
If I don't remember wrong this was the same image as Image:Gibraltar map.png but with the Gibraltar-Spain border removed and Spain written across Gibraltar. It was at the time only used to vandalised the Gibraltar article on es.wiki. /Lokal_Profil 13:52, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Removing categories from images

Greetings. I'm an admin here on Commons, but I wanted to get some opinions here about whether a block would be appropriate.

There has been a longstanding debate about whether to place images in articles or categorize them so that they are included in category pages. After a long and unpleasant debate, the community consensus was determined to be "both". Here I quote from our policy at Commons:Categories:

Some users are of the opinion that when an image is included in a gallery article, it is sufficient to categorize that article. Others believe that each individual image should be categorized too. The consensus on this issue, as determined by vote, is that both systems are equally valid and should be used concurrently. Do not remove categories just because an image is in a categorized gallery.

Some users, of course, do not want to accept this consensus, and continue to remove categories from images regardless. I recently used automated tools to add appropriate categories to a great number of images, and I have applied for a bot flag. My bot application has proven controversial, and I have stopped adding categories to images temporarily until we figure out what to do there. (Incidentally, any comments would be appreciated.)

One user, Olei (talk · contribs), has taken it upon himself to remove hundreds of categories from images, by reverting the changes I made. When I informed him that removal of image categories was against policy he threatened "If anyone will block me the german community will force an deadmin against you!" He continues to remove these categories undeterred.

I don't think it would be appropriate for me to block him, since I'm so involved. But it seems to me that his actions are clearly against policy, and his threats are inappropriate. If anyone thinks a block is warranted, be my guest. All the best, Quadell (talk) 23:24, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Not in my name. As being from the "german community", whatever that is, I reject User:Olei's usurped claim to speak for us and to make such threats. -- Túrelio 05:55, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
I have requested the user to be more civil, explained what he did that was uncivil, requested him to remain on-topic and to not be personal, and reverted his reverts. Siebrand 06:55, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
I agree that Olei has certainly overstepped the bounds of civil conversation, and support Siebrand's actions.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 16:40, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
Removing legitimate categories from images is not acceptable behaviour, see Commons:Categories, which happens to also be explained in German. Each image should be in at least one category so that it can always be found, since articles can easily be tampered with. Should this occur again, please contact a sysop. Gryffindor 12:35, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Now it's getting rediculous

Category:Other_speedy_deletions is now filled to the point of uselessness, mostly due to User:Ies and others reverting User:Quadell's categorizations. Personally I think Ies should either make an RFA (to clean up his mess), or just cut it out. If anyone has a rollback bot, that might also be handy. --SB_Johnny|talk|books 12:27, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps we can keep this in one place, and we are already discussing it at Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard#Anti-category_crusade. I'd kindly request all interested parties to comment there, in order to prevent the discussion from forking in two places.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 16:40, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

User:LX and User:Stahlkocher

I recently remarked to User:Stahlkocher, an administrator here since 2004, that I thought blanking one's user talk page with such sarcastic remarks as "Brilliant contribution removed", "Funny thing removed", "Huuuu, this was pretty interesting", and "Next time just ask for help...." was uncivil and inconsistent with Commons:Talk page guidelines. This comment was blanked.

Noting that this behaviour was coming from a fellow administrator, I became concerned and started reviewing the Stalkocher's logs. Deletions and undeletions are apparently the only type of administrative powers that Stahlkocher has used. I noticed that he or she had recently restored a number of his/her own uploads which had been deleted for missing legal information, rather than providing the information before the image was deleted or using Commons:Undeletion request to dispute the deletion. I noted that one such case of wheel warring had restored an image whose legal information I still found lacking, and I therefore filed Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Bf 109-6.jpg. Stahlkocher's response to this deletion request, which I made for what I believe to be good reasons, was to blank the deletion notice on the image description page and on his/her own user talk page.

At this point, Stahlkocher also expressed concerns that I was being hostile and uncivil and that I was "raging around". I'd like some second opinions on this case. I genuinely feel that Stahlkocher's behaviour is inappropriate for any user, and I'm especially concerned by the use of administrative powers in cases where the user is personally involved. If my way of calling attention to this is uncivil, how can I express my concerns in a more civil fashion? —LX (talk, contribs) 15:43, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I am unsure about how this should be tackled however looking at the talk page and its history I share LX's concern I think. I have another issue that I need to address at present but hope to return to this --Herby talk thyme 15:58, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I added a OTRS ticket to the case. Since i uploaded the images upon a user request. Since LX claims my behaviour hostile and uncivil. I'm just blanking out thinks i were aware. LX suddenly starts bothering me today while reverting my disussion page and give me some advice. Never ever annother user complaint on my behaviour. -- Stahlkocher 16:03, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I consider the repeated removal of recent warning messages from a talk page incorrect and against the spirit of collaborative working which is important here. I have previously re-instated such blankings and warned the user. In extreme cases I have found it necessary to block people who persisted in such uncooperative actions --Herby talk thyme 16:09, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Please don’t forget to mention User:Polarlys. I complaint about restoring images with insufficient license information (see the linked deletion request above) and considered the removal of any hints with the cited remarks as an incivility as well. All in all I can’t get rid of the feeling, that Stahlkocher considers any action by me or other admins and users as a disturbance. After I requested a permission for a certain file, he “diagnosed” that I am possibly “bored” („Wenn dir mal wieder langweilig ist“). --Polarlys 16:23, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I really have a problem with the label "missing sources" when the sources is clearly stated. Sorry for that. I will be back in a a few days. Oh, btw.: the Bf 109 image was erroneous marked as missing sources by Siebrand, without giving me a hint. Siebrand himself deleted the image after 10 days, which is for shure not according to our guidelines. Therefor i restored it. Thats all. -- Stahlkocher 17:08, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

The source has to be comprehensible. It’s still not („Who is the photographer?“). BTW: You restored also other images and the Bf 109 images was tagged by me and deleted by Siebrand. --Polarlys 17:20, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
I have placed a warning about premature deletion of messages on the user's talk page, apart from anything else I do not see why I have to track down edits via the history --Herby talk thyme 17:38, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

The reason for this is, that the photographers (or: the heirs, often the widows) won´t be named. Furthermore the photographer are completely unknown. In cases in which they agree to report the name (or were substantial for the allowance) it had been done. You have to respect this, espially under the aspect of personality rights. Also you have to respect that i'm using an alias. Like you. It es a fundamental right of every contributor to the project to keep anonym. I and some other users extensionally explained to you what is going on. Probably i'm not comprehensible enough. If you can not agree to that, you have to delete all my contributions, since i will not give you my real name nor will i contribute to the OTRS system. Sad sad, such nice images of really rare cars Category:2000 km durch Deutschland 2007 and 8600 more.....

btw.: "freedom of panorama" is definitly "non derivative". I think, you, as an admin, should know that. [3]. It is probably compatibel with {{cc-by-nd}}. Have a nice day. -- Stahlkocher 18:00, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

CC-by-nd as in Template:cc-by-nd? But what does that have to do with the dispute over page blanking, wheel warring, hostile edit comments and bypassing Commons:Undeletion request? Nobody is saying you can't object to deletions; just do it properly instead of self-righteously reverting other administrators' actions, especially when there's a conflict of interest. —LX (talk, contribs) 18:13, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Ok, a comprehension question: There is an archive. Someone manages this archive and provides files to you. The photographers don’t want to be named or their names are not know. But someone else can release all the content under a free license?
Of course it’s possible to remain anonymous, but there are limitations. If someone wants to know the origin of a certain file you (via OTRS) have to reveal the author and why you are allowed to upload an image which is obviously not your work. If you don’t want to provide the artists name, the file has to be deleted. BTW: The GFDL requires an author. An anonymous work can’t be licensed under the GFDL. Your argumentation is distracting: We neither talk about your own contributions nor FOP. --Polarlys 18:28, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

LOL, this overpowers UrhG §10 Abs 2. And who is this damned crowd "we"? Pluralis majestaticus? And since when a free license is depending an the OTRS? And why do you think an easy to fake e-mail changes everything? And is this "assume good faith"?

But since a torch may suddenly became copyrighted [4] it is now unsafe to upload to wikipedia. Every artificial think may now be copyrighted. Contributing under such terms is a waste of time. I will now wait until this project develops back to an reliable source and holder of my and my friends personal work. I'm not in hurry, i can wait a long time.

At least we play one round "copyrighted or not":

Which of these images did not show a copyrighted work? Enjoy! -- Stahlkocher 09:25, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

If you read Swedish, the page you refer to actually says the notion that the flashlight was copyrighted was overruled. But once again, what does that have to do with the dispute over page blanking, wheel warring, hostile edit comments and bypassing Commons:Undeletion requests? Please, let's stay on topic here. —LX (talk, contribs) 12:16, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Brave boy. The Ferrari logo that you deleted is orignal work of Francesco Baracca. Hi died 1918. This work is not copyrighted, trademarked or not. The inside view of Sonycenter is copyright Helmut Jahn, the idea of Eiffelturm is copyright by Maurice Koechlin (died 1946) and the Dome on the Reichstag is copyrighted by Sir Norman Foster. Congratulations! -- Stahlkocher 15:19, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Scuderia Ferrari was founded in 1929. Its copyrighted logotype is different from Baracca's emblem, and the artist who created this three-dimensional rendition holds additional copyright to his interpretation. But once again, what does that have to do with the dispute over page blanking, wheel warring, hostile edit comments and bypassing Commons:Undeletion requests? Please raise any objections to deletions at Commons:Undeletion requests and any copyright concerns at Commons:Deletion requests, not here. —LX (talk, contribs) 19:34, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Disputes_noticeboard/Archive_3&oldid=91559218"