User talk:XPanettaa

Welcome to Wikimedia Commons, XPanettaa!

First steps tutorial Our first steps tour and our frequently asked questions will help you a lot after registration. They explain how to customize the interface (for example the language), how to upload files and our basic licensing policy (Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content). You don't need technical skills in order to contribute here. Be bold when contributing and assume good faith when interacting with others. This is a wiki. Getting help More information is available at the community portal. You may ask questions at the help desk, village pump or on IRC channel #wikimedia-commons (webchat). You can also contact an administrator on their talk page. If you have a specific copyright question, ask at the copyright village pump.

Goodies, tips, and tricks Put Babel boxes on your user page so others know what languages you can speak and indicate your graphic abilities. You can find the files you have uploaded in your Uploads. Please sign your name on Talk pages by typing ~~~~. To link to an image page without embedding the image, type: [[:File:Foo.jpg]], which produces: File:Foo.jpg. You may enable gadgets (custom features) for your account. There are several tools to upload files. Have you edited Wikipedia before? This guide might be useful. Made a mistake? Do you want to have a file renamed or moved? Use the move link and wait for an authorized user to rename it. Do you want to have your recently uploaded picture removed? Tag it as {{speedy|reason here}}. For more information read the deletion guidelines.

-- Wikimedia Commons Welcome (talk) 16:27, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

• User talk:XPanettaa/Archive

Unblock request

@Yann: You received a new message at the English Wikipedia. See this. XPanettaa (talk) 20:09, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

If you want to be unblocked, you need 1. To acknowledge issues which lead to your block; 2. Show that these issues won't occur again. 3. Do not post on the English WP, but here. Regards, Yann (talk) 20:46, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

See also Commons:Requests for checkuser/Case/XPanettaa. The issue of socking/block evasion should be addressed before unblocking as well. Эlcobbola _talk 22:04, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

@Yann: Okay, how does it work, and how am I going to do that? XPanettaa (talk) 20:25, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

I'd suggest reading w:WP:SECONDCHANCE and w:WP:SO to start. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 17:31, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Yann, Will you please help me, because I don't know how how to acknowledge issues which lead to the block, and I also don't know how to show that these issues won't occur again. I have tried everything to do this you've said to me, but it won't work, because it is probably too difficult for me to do this. XPanettaa (talk) 07:43, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

@Yann: Why would you not to reply me? Where are you? XPanettaa (talk) 20:43, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Yann won't be the one to review your unblock because he blocked you in the first place. You'll want to ping the person you sent you a message to begin with. That said, what did you not understand about the links I sent you? Or are you ignoring them? Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 20:51, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

@Magog the Ogre: Oh yeah? Yann is the one who blocked me on sight and said that I am "blocked for uploading copyvios after warnings" after he deleted these seven files (which was nominated for deletion by Nick on January 17th) on January 18th, even though I did not upload these images, which was nominated for deletion by Nick on January 17th and deleted by him at this deletion request on January 18th. And yes, I am not ignoring the links that you've sent to me. I was calling him to help me how to acknowledge issues which lead to the block and how to show that these issues won't occur again, but he won't reply to me, and ignores me instead. He said that I am "blocked for uploading copyvios after warnings" after he deleted these seven files, but it seems very highly unlikely to me that I did upload these images, which was nominated for deletion by Nick on January 17th and deleted by him on January 18th. I only want to license under a free license when uploading an image, such as logos, categorize images, and/or transfer free images to Wikimedia Commons, etc., not upload these images (such as attack files, stupid, offensive and/or rough things, file with a name that would be a violation of Commons' policies and guidelines, or reproductions of other inappropriate works, etc.). However, six months ago, I have read COM:L and COM:First steps. On March 28th, I have read w:WP:SECONDCHANCE and w:WP:SO, but I don't know how I can do it in order to get unblocked right now after I read these. Can you please help me to get me unblocked? All I want is to be unblocked right now, because I am not the one who uploaded these images, which was nominated for deletion by Nick on January 17th and deleted by him on January 18th. Now, I have the experience and the responsibility to work in Wikimedia Commons. Mainly, I only want to upload free logos, categorize images, and/or transfer free images to Wikimedia Commons, etc., not upload any photo. Thank you. XPanettaa (talk) 19:16, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

User continued to upload wrongly licened files at en (en:file:TV Oranje logo.jpg, en:file:3FM TV logo.png, en:file:Source (record label) logo.png). Also, his reply still seems to indicate that he doesn't understand copyright law. Got blocked indef at another project in April. Harassment in June this year at NL-wiki. (Copy pasting the unblock request of a user I blocked at that project) recent ignorant comment at EN-wiki regarding copyright. Natuur12 (talk) 20:32, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, Natuur12, but it was you the one who is incredibly hostile to me, hates me so much and got me blocked by Yann on January 18th. I am NOT the one who uploaded copyvios, which was nominated for deletion by NickW557 on January 17th and deleted by Yann at this deletion request on January 18th. And yes, I certainly do understand copyright law. I am very disappointed with you. Yann is the one who said that I am "blocked for uploading copyvios after warnings" after he deleted these seven files, but it seems very highly unlikely to me that I did upload these images, which was nominated for deletion by Nick on January 17th and deleted by him on January 18th. I only want to license under a free license when uploading an image, such as logos, categorize images, and/or transfer free images to Wikimedia Commons, etc., not upload these images (such as attack files, stupid, offensive and/or rough things, file with a name that would be a violation of Commons' policies and guidelines, or reproductions of other inappropriate works, etc.). Please tell me why. XPanettaa (talk) 19:26, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

That's enough. You've been told enough but you are playing w:WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Either stop attacking other people or I will lock your page to prevent further requests. You will attract more flies with honey than vinegar. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 01:07, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

OK, my tone was too harsh, and I apologize (no, I don't apologize for apologizing, that's just how I roll). However, the point remains that in order to unblock you, we'll need to see that you understand why you were blocked in the first place. It's a bit cliché (I'm not sure if you've seen this), but w:WP:NOTTHEM sums it pretty well: it's a good idea to focus on your block reason and not on a dispute with another user or administrator.

So can you please show that you understand why you were blocked, what the problem is with your uploads on English Wikipedia linked by Natuur12 above? If you can't do this, we can't unblock you. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 01:30, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

@Magog the Ogre: Oh, I see it, and en:File:TV Oranje logo.jpg at the English Wikipedia has been converted into fair use, and en:File:3FM TV logo.png and en:File:Source (record label) logo.png at the English Wikipedia has been released under a free license by the copyright holders, because I followed the steps at Commons:OTRS#If you are NOT the copyright holder. Now, shall I be unblocked right now or shall I do next in order to get unblocked? XPanettaa (talk) 20:49, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

So Magog the Ogre, shall I be unblocked right now or shall I do next in order to get unblocked? XPanettaa (talk) 20:51, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

I'll look tomorrow. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 04:02, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

So Magog the Ogre, are you here to get me unblocked? XPanettaa (talk) 20:37, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Your ability to understand cause and effect is concerning me. I am worried that you are going to go right back to uploading copyvios and get indefinitely blocked again. Can you promise you won't do that? Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 04:58, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

No, Magog the Ogre. I only want to license under a Commons-compatible free license when uploading an image, categorize images, and/or transfer free images to Wikimedia Commons, etc., not going back to uploading these images (such as attack files, stupid, offensive, blatant and/or rough things, file with a name that would be a violation of Commons' policies and guidelines, or reproductions of other inappropriate works, etc.). However, I forgot to obtain permission for the work to be uploaded here. Yann is the one who said that I am "blocked for uploading copyvios after warnings" after he deleted these seven files at Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Fox Sports, but it seems very highly unlikely to me that I did upload these images, which was nominated for deletion by Nick on January 17th and deleted by him on January 18th. These Fox Sports logos, which was nominated for deletion by NickW557 on January 17th and deleted by Yann at the above-mentioned deletion request on January 18th are not uploaded by me. I've checked if these Fox Sports logos (which is not uploaded by me) are included in the list of files I've uploaded, but unfortunately it isn't shown here. I think that he made a mistake for what he did. First of all, on January 20th, I requested unblocking on the talk page, then Hedwig in Washington came on January 21st and said that this is my "second block within a short period" and that I obviously don't know about copyright and that these images (which I have uploaded) have proven that. He also says that he wants me to use the week to read up on Com:L, Com:Copyright, Com:L, Com:Scope and that he wants me to read that several times and compare what you read to these images (which I have uploaded). I already did that seven months ago. And yes, I certainly do know about copyright, but I did not upload copyvios categorized in Category:Fox Sports, which was nominated for deletion and deleted by you in Commons on January 18th. On January 27th, I requested unblocking on the talk page again, then Taivo came on January 28th and says that I "cannot publish an image (e.g. a logo) under free license", and "its copyright belongs to somebody else" and that I'm not allowed to use the image in sister projects, for example: nl.wiki and using images in sister projects, such as nl.wiki is copyrighted and therefore not free at all. He also says that I do not understand copyright and he will just block me and extend the blocking time for a year instead by changing the block settings, with no more any rights to do something to be unblocked, even request unblocking on the own talk page in Wikimedia Commons, and refuses to unblock me after I said that I did not upload copyvios categorized in Category:Fox Sports, which was nominated for deletion and deleted by you in Commons on January 18th and will just ignore and dismiss me instead, because he thinks that I do not understand copyright. But it seems highly likely to me that I clearly do understand copyright, can release images (such as logos) under a free license or in the public domain and use images in sister projects, such as nl.wiki, because files from Wikimedia Commons can be used across all Wikimedia projects in all languages, including Wikipedia, Wikibooks, Wikivoyage, Wikispecies, Wikisource, and Wikinews, or downloaded for offsite use, not only in one Wikimedia project. That's all what I do. I wonder if it is possible to unblock me in Wikimedia Commons, because I didn't upload copyvios categorized in Category:Fox Sports, which was nominated for deletion and deleted by you in Commons on January 18th. Now, I have the experience and the responsibility to work here in Wikimedia Commons, because these Fox Sports logos, which was nominated for deletion by NickW557 on January 17th and deleted by Yann on January 18th are not uploaded by me. Now, I have the experience and the responsibility to work here. At first, I only want to upload logos and/or transfer free images to Wikimedia Commons, not upload any photo. Thanks for reading. Best regards. XPanettaa (talk) 20:43, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

I asked if you promised to stop uploading copyvios, and you've said no. Was that an error, are you confused, or are you promising you will keep uploading files like File:Fox Sports Chile logo.png? Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 03:33, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

@Magog the Ogre: Oh, yes I do promise to stop uploading copyvios. By the way, I am so confused that I made a mistake and got blocked on sight by Yann, who is the one said that I am "blocked for uploading copyvios after warnings" after he deleted these seven files (which was nominated for deletion by Nick on January 17th) on January 18th, even though I did not upload these images, which was nominated for deletion by Nick on January 17th and deleted by him at this deletion request on January 18th. I only want to license under a Commons-compatible free license when uploading an image, categorize images, and/or transfer free images to Wikimedia Commons, etc., not upload these files (such as attack files, stupid, offensive, blatant and/or rough things, file with a name that would be a violation of Commons' policies and guidelines, or reproductions of other inappropriate works, etc.) like File:Fox Sports Chile logo.png. XPanettaa (talk) 13:31, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

I have unblocked your account. Please don't upload any more copyrighted material, or we might block the account again. I apologize if that sounds like a threat; I mean it to sound like a notice in case it ever happens. If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a note or ask at COM:HD. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 02:33, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

@Magog the Ogre: Wait a minute, I cannot edit or create pages or either upload files, but I can only transfer files to Commons. I think these IP addresses are still blocked (User:86.84.247.233, User:141.138.146.132). This means that I am still unable to upload files or edit or create pages. Can you please unblock these two IP addresses, because I still cannot upload files or either edit or create pages, but I can only transfer files to Commons. Thanks in advance. XPanettaa (talk) 15:23, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

I've done this. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 17:00, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

@Magog the Ogre: And again! Now I got blocked by Steinsplitter, even though I didn't do anything wrong and I was only uploading free images, categorize images, and/or transfer free images to Wikimedia Commons, etc. and therefore not going back to uploading these files (such as attack files, stupid, offensive, blatant and/or rough things, file with a name that would be a violation of Commons' policies and guidelines, or reproductions of other inappropriate works, etc.) and Natuur12 is now nominating logos (which I believe too simple to be copyrighted as it only consists of shapes and text), for deletion and says that these logos are "complex logo". But it seems highly unlikely to me that these are copyrightable, complex enough, not simple to be copyrighted, copyright violations, that these does not only consists of simple geometric shapes and/or text, that there are creative elements on such logos (which I see are too simple to be copyrighted as it only consists of shapes and/or text) or that striped logos are not permitted here on Commons, who have have mistakenly assumed anything (which I see are too simple to be copyrighted as it only consists of shapes and/or text) uploaded here he finds on Commons can be nominated for deletion as "complex logo". Yesterday, I didn't do anything wrong and was so nice that I was only uploading logos, which are too simple to be copyrighted as it only consists of (simple geometric) shapes and/or text, but now I got caught again after I uploaded these logos, which I see are too simple to be copyrighted as it only consists of (simple geometric) shapes and/or text, but once again it seems unlikely to me that I certainly do upload copyvios or "file in violation of COM:L after warnings ans previous blocks" after you unblocked me. I only want to license under a Commons-compatible free license when uploading an image, categorize images, and/or transfer free images to Wikimedia Commons, etc., not upload these files (such as attack files, stupid, offensive, blatant and/or rough things, file with a name that would be a violation of Commons' policies and guidelines, or reproductions of other inappropriate works, etc.). XPanettaa (talk) 13:52, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

So Magog the Ogre, can you please tell Natuur12 and Steinsplitter that these logos are too simple to be copyrighted and therefore not complex at all, because I see the these logos are too simple to be copyrighted as it only consists of (simple geometric) shapes and/or text. And also, can you also tell them that I didn't do anything wrong and that I only want upload free images, categorize images, and/or transfer free images to Wikimedia Commons, etc., not upload these files (such as attack files, stupid, offensive, blatant and/or rough things, file with a name that would be a violation of Commons' policies and guidelines, or reproductions of other inappropriate works, etc.) like File:Fox Sports Chile logo.png? Thank you. XPanettaa (talk) 17:17, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

In Nederland ligt de originaliteitsdrempel erg laag. Een werk is beschermd als dit een eigen, oorspronkelijk karakter heeft en het persoonlijk stempel van de maker draagt. Als het onwaarschijnlijk is dat twee mensen tot hetzelfde resultaat komen (dus hetzelfde logo ontwerpen in dit geval) zal iets een auteursrecht hebben. En dat is al best snel. Daarnaast kan het rangschikken van simpele vormen ook een auteursrecht genereren. Ik pak File:DOORN Records.png er even uit. Vijf vierkante blokken met een witte stip in het midden zullen geen auteursrecht genereren. Ook niet als je er tekst onderzet. Want je, vijf dobbelstenen naast elkaar leggen geeft hetzelfde effect. Door te spelen met de happen uit de zijkant van deze "dobbelstenen" (Zowel qua omvang als qua locatie) worden er creative keuzes gemaakt en krijgt dit logo een eigen oorspronkelijk karakter en heeft dit logo het persoonlijk stempel van de maker. Als je dan bedenkt dat de originaliteitsdrempel in Nederland laag ligt is de conclusie dat het bijzonder aannemelijk is dat een rechter zal oordelen dat dit werk auteursrechtelijk beschermd is. Natuur12 (talk) 17:47, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

O ja, Natuur12? Maar in mijn ogen is de zijn de letters DOORN alleen vierkanten en daarvoor te simpel om authersrechtelijk berschermd te worden. Kunt je mij vertellen waarom? Wacht eens even, ligt de originaliteitsdrempel in Nederland lager net als het Verenigd Koningkrijk en/of Australië of is Nederland ook een gewoonterecht land? XPanettaa (talk) 18:21, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

In Nederland speelt het gewoonterecht slechts een beperkte rol. In Nederland heb je continentaal recht dat gebaseerd is op het Romeins recht (civil law) en de Nederlandse code is beïnvloed door de Franse code Napoléon.

In Nederland heb je vier rechtsbronnen. Wetten, verdragen, jurisprudentie en gewoonte. Die laatste komt niet veel voor. Want de Nederlandse code is redelijk dekkend. Wel hebben we rechtsregels die door rechters in het leven geroepen worden. Daarover kan je hier meer lezen. Om voor auteursrechtelijke bescherming in aanmerking te komen, is vereist dat het desbetreffende werk een eigen, oorspronkelijk karakter heeft en het persoonlijk stempel van de maker draagt is z'n rechtsregel waarmee de rechter afgebakend heeft welke erken vatbaar zijn voor auteursrecht. (Nu kan het zo zijn dat ik de laatste ontwikkelingen op dit gebied gemist heb maar de trend is volgens mij onveranderd gebleven.)

Dan nu de originaliteitsdrempel. Australië is niet z'n goede vergelijking want ons enige voorbeeld gaat over de Aboriginalvlag en het is niet ondenkbaar dat er politieke motieven hebben meegespeeld toen ze daar oordeelde dat iemand het auteursrecht op die vlag heeft. De Nederlandse drempel ligt laag. Sommige advocaten omschrijven hem zelfs als erg laag/zeer laag. Dat blijkt ook uit wat de feitenrechters steeds oordelen. Mijn inschatting is dat de drempel in Nederland anders ligt dan die in het VK maar dat het voor moderne logo's niet zo gek veel zal schelen. Wat wel een belangrijk verschil is, is dat ze in het VK nogal eens vast willen grijpen op de sweat of the brow docterine (al zouden ze dat na dit afgeleerd moeten hebben maar ze stappen uit de EU dus geen idee hoe ze dat nu gaan doen) maar in Nederland kennen we dit niet. Hard werk zorgt niet voor een auteursrecht. Creativiteit wel. En een klein beetje creativiteit is al voldoende. Een lagere rechter is zelfs een keer zover gegaan dat hij oordeelde dat er een auteursrecht zit op de woorden "zo, nu eerst" maar dit vonnis is gelukkig vernietigd.

Als laatste wil ik opmerken dat het feit dat een land een common law of een civil law land is niet per se uitmaakt voor de originaliteitsdrempel. Natuur12 (talk) 08:46, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Dit arrest geeft een aardige samenvattingen van wat er over de originaliteitsdrempel is gezegd. Natuur12 (talk) 08:50, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

@Natuur12: Ik weet het en ik heb ze gelezen, maar ik wil alleen vrije afbeeldingen (zoals logo's) uploaden, afbeeldingen categoriseren en/of vrije beelden naar Wikimedia Commons verplaatsen, enz., niet deze bestanden (zoals aanval bestanden, stom, aanvallend, flagrante en/of ruwe dingen, bestand met een naam die een schending van het beleid en richtlijnen van Commons zou zijn, of reproducties van andere ongepaste werken, enz.) uploaden. En trouwens, de logo's (die je voor verwijdering hebt genomineerd) bestaat in mijn ogen alleen uit simpele geometrische vormen en tekst. Ze voldoen niet aan de drempel van originaliteit en bevinden zich daarom in het publiek domein. Ik zou je uitleggen waarom.

• File:DOORN Records.png, waarbij de letters D, dubbele O, R en de N boven de "Doorn Records" tekst, zijn allemaal vierkante vorm en een simpele geometrische rechthoek. en is daarom in mijn ogen helemaal niet complex en daarom zou {{PD-textlogo}} en {{PD-shape}} hier van toepassing zijn.
• File:Musical Freedom Records logo.png en File:Musical Freedom.png, waarbij de gestreepte rechthoek boven de tekst, is in mijn ogen een simpele geometrische vorm, net als bijvoorbeeld File:Adidas Logo.svg en File:Meidensha.svg en is daarom helemaal niet complex en daarom zou {{PD-textlogo}} en {{PD-shape}} hier van toepassing zijn.
• File:Hexagon (record label) icon.png, File:Hexagon (record label) logo.png, File:Hexagon (record label) logo.jpg en File:Hexagon (record label) icon.jpg, waarbij de simpele geometrische cirkel en de driehoek-vormige pijl naar boven (/\) op de zeshoek, zijn in mijn ogen simpele geometrische vormen. De cirkel op de zeshoek is in mijn ogen een rond grafische ornament en de pijl naar boven (/\) op de zeshoek is in mijn ogen een driehoek zonder een lijn op de onderkant, net als File:Axwell & Ingrosso - Logo.jpg en is daarom helemaal niet complex en daarom lijkt te strikte definitie van {{PD-textlogo}} of {{PD-shape}} (of allebei) past.
• Als dezelfde reden voor de Musical Freedom logos's, File:AFTRHRS logo.png, waarbij de gestreepte vorm die ik niet ken boven de tekst, is in mijn ogen ook een simpele geometrische vorm, net als bijvoorbeeld File:Adidas Logo.svg en File:Meidensha.svg en is daarom helemaal niet complex en daarom zou {{PD-textlogo}} en {{PD-shape}} hier van toepassing zijn.

Ben ik duidelijk? Het kan zijn dat de drempel van originaliteit uit Nederland heel laag is, maar de logo's (die je voor verwijdering hebt genomineerd) bestaat in mijn ogen alleen uit simpele geometrische vormen en tekst en ze voldoen niet aan de drempel van originaliteit en bevinden zich daarom in het publiek domein. Ik denk dat de logo's (die je voor verwijdering hebt genomineerd) werden voor het auteursrecht registratie ingediend bij de US Copyright Office, een beroep twee keer, en werd al drie keer geweigerd op grond dat er onvoldoende artistieke creativiteit in het ontwerp. Zie File:Best Western Logo.pdf. Het is nog steeds een geregistreerd handelsmerk, zo vol handelsmerk beperkingen zijn van toepassing. (Also pinging @Magog the Ogre: to tell you and Steinsplitter that I was only nice and didn't do anything wrong day before yesterday and that I only want upload free images, categorize images, and/or transfer free images to Wikimedia Commons, etc., not upload these files (such as attack files, stupid, offensive, blatant and/or rough things, file with a name that would be a violation of Commons' policies and guidelines, or reproductions of other inappropriate works, etc.) like File:Fox Sports Chile logo.png.) XPanettaa (talk) 19:43, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Beste XPanettaa,

Als je die uitspraken door had gelezen had je waarschijnlijk doorgehad dat het niet de vormen gaat maar om de rangschikken ervan. Toegegeven, het is een veelgemaakte fout maar ik heb je dit vaak genoeg uitgelegd. Natuur12 (talk) 19:59, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

O ja, Natuur12? Ik heb ook vaak genoeg uitgelegd. Heb je boven, dat ik over de logo's heb gezegd, gelezen? XPanettaa (talk) 20:08, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Ik heb het gelezen maar dit spelletje ga ik niet in mee. Natuur12 (talk) 20:15, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

En wat heb ik gezegd tegen jou over de logo's, Natuur12? XPanettaa (talk) 20:19, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

@Magog the Ogre: I got blocked by Steinsplitter two days ago, even though I didn't do anything wrong and I was only uploading free images, categorize images, and/or transfer free images to Wikimedia Commons, etc. and therefore not going back to uploading these files (such as attack files, stupid, offensive, blatant and/or rough things, file with a name that would be a violation of Commons' policies and guidelines, or reproductions of other inappropriate works, etc.) and Natuur12 is now nominating logos (which I believe too simple to be copyrighted as it only consists of shapes and text), for deletion and says that these logos are "complex logo". But it seems highly unlikely to me that these are copyrightable, complex enough, not simple to be copyrighted, copyright violations, that these does not only consists of simple geometric shapes and/or text, that there are creative elements on such logos (which I see are too simple to be copyrighted as it only consists of shapes and/or text) or that striped logos are not permitted here on Commons, who have have mistakenly assumed anything (which I see are too simple to be copyrighted as it only consists of shapes and/or text) uploaded here he finds on Commons can be nominated for deletion as "complex logo". Two days ago, I didn't do anything wrong and was so nice that I was only uploading logos, which are too simple to be copyrighted as it only consists of (simple geometric) shapes and/or text, but now I got caught again after I uploaded these logos, which I see are too simple to be copyrighted as it only consists of (simple geometric) shapes and/or text, but once again it seems unlikely to me that I certainly do upload copyvios or "file in violation of COM:L after warnings ans previous blocks" after you unblocked me two days ago. I only want to license under a Commons-compatible free license when uploading an image, categorize images, and/or transfer free images to Wikimedia Commons, etc., not upload these files (such as attack files, stupid, offensive, blatant and/or rough things, file with a name that would be a violation of Commons' policies and guidelines, or reproductions of other inappropriate works, etc.).

So can you please tell Natuur12 and Steinsplitter that these logos, that I have said about as per above, are too simple to be copyrighted and therefore not complex at all, because I see the these logos are too simple to be copyrighted as it only consists of (simple geometric) shapes and/or text. And also, can you also tell them that I didn't do anything wrong and that I only want upload free images, categorize images, and/or transfer free images to Wikimedia Commons, etc., not upload these files (such as attack files, stupid, offensive, blatant and/or rough things, file with a name that would be a violation of Commons' policies and guidelines, or reproductions of other inappropriate works, etc.) like File:Fox Sports Chile logo.png? Thank you. XPanettaa (talk) 20:37, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

@Steinsplitter: I know it, but despite that the threshold of originality is low, there are no creative elements in these works and they are too simple to be copyrighted in my mind as it only consists of simple geometric shapes and/or text (see the message I sent you, where I have told about these logos). Also, they are all below the threshold of originality in my mind, even if the threshold of originality is ridiculously low. And also, I didn't evaded a block. I just want you to unblock me, because I have only uploaded images, which are too simple to be copyrighted as it only consists of simple geometric shapes and/or text on August 20 and 21. And also, it seems highly unlikely to me that I certainly did upload copyvios or "file in violation of COM:L after warnings ans previous blocks" in that same day after Magog the Ogre unblocked me on August 20th. XPanettaa (talk) 19:16, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

So Magog the Ogre, are you here to tell Natuur12 and Steinsplitter that these logos, that I have said about as per above, are too simple to be copyrighted and therefore not complex at all, because I see the these logos are too simple to be copyrighted as it only consists of (simple geometric) shapes and/or text. And also, can you also tell them that I didn't do anything wrong and that I only want upload free images, categorize images, and/or transfer free images to Wikimedia Commons, etc., not upload these files (such as attack files, stupid, offensive, blatant and/or rough things, file with a name that would be a violation of Commons' policies and guidelines, or reproductions of other inappropriate works, etc.) like File:Fox Sports Chile logo.png and get me unblocked? XPanettaa (talk) 19:45, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Any point you have is completely drowned out by the wildly combative and abrasive tone you take toward everyone else. I don't think these logos are copyrightable in the US. They may be copyrightable in the Netherlands, which has a different standard. Steinsplitter is more of an expert than I am.

Unfortunately, you've used up all the good will on this project by frequently and abrasively insulting everyone who tries to point out your faults, even while breaking our rules on copyright and sockpuppetry. I've tried to explain this before. I pointed to w:WP:NOTTHEM as a good point of reference. But it's all been lost on you. As such, even though I was willing to have patience, most other administrators were not.

Even now you might be unblocked if you admitted where you're wrong instead of constantly pointing at other people. You attract more flies with honey than vinegar. But I fear you're incapable. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 03:10, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Look Magog the Ogre, some of the logos may be above the threshold of originality of the Netherlands to be considered to be {{PD-textlogo}}. For example, if the logo is too original, complex or creative or has original or creative design such as its own, original character, shading, color gradients, non-basic shapes, own, creative elements and so on. But in my mind, these logos are considered uncopyrightable as it only consists of simple geometric shapes and/or text. I'll tell you why.

• File:DOORN Records.png, which the letters D, double O, R and N above the "Doorn Records" text are all square-shaped and a simple geometric rectangle and seems therefore unlikely to be complex and dubious in terms of meeting the threshold of originality in my mind and therefore {{PD-textlogo}} and {{PD-shape}} would apply here. That is why the simple geometric rectangle consisting of five square-shaped letters D, double O, R and N above the "Doorn Records" text certainly does seem dubious in terms of meeting the threshold of originality.
• File:Musical Freedom Records logo.png and File:Musical Freedom.png, which the striped rectangle above the text, is a simple geometric shape, like for example File:Adidas Logo.svg and File:Meidensha.svg and seems therefore unlikely to be complex in my mind and therefore {{PD-textlogo}} and {{PD-shape}} would apply here. That is why the simple geometric rectangle made of stripes above the text certainly does seem dubious in terms of meeting the threshold of originality.
• File:Hexagon (record label) icon.png, File:Hexagon (record label) logo.png, File:Hexagon (record label) logo.jpg and File:Hexagon (record label) icon.jpg, which the simple geometric circle and the triangle-shaped arrow facing up (/\) on the hexagon, are simple geometric shapes in my mind. The circle on the hexagon is a round graphic ornament and the arrow facing up (/\) on the hexagon is in the shape of a V or an inverted V and looks like a chevron and/or a triangle, like File:Axwell & Ingrosso - Logo.jpg and seems therefore unlikely to be complex in my mind and therefore they seem to fit strict definition of {{PD-textlogo}} and/or {{PD-shape}}. That is why the circle that is a round graphic ornament and the arrow facing up (/\) that is in the shape of a V or an inverted V, resembling a chevron and/or a triangle on the hexagon certainly does seem dubious in terms of meeting the threshold of originality.
• As the same reason for the Musical Freedom logos, File:AFTRHRS logo.png, which the striped shape (which I don't know) above the text, is also a simple geometric shape in my mind, like for example File:Adidas Logo.svg en File:Meidensha.svg and seems therefore unlikely to be complex in my mind and therefore {{PD-textlogo}} and {{PD-shape}} would apply here. That is why the shape (which I don't know) made of stripes above the text certainly does seem dubious in terms of meeting the threshold of originality.

You see? This means that they are all below the threshold of originality in my mind, even if the threshold of originality is ridiculously low. I only want to license under a Commons-compatible free license when uploading an image, categorize images, and/or transfer free images to Wikimedia Commons, etc., not upload these files (such as attack files, stupid, offensive, blatant and/or rough things, file with a name that would be a violation of Commons' policies and guidelines, or reproductions of other inappropriate works, etc.). Now, shall I be unblocked right now or shall I do next in order to get unblocked? XPanettaa (talk) 21:09, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

So Magog the Ogre, shall I be unblocked right now or shall I do next in order to get unblocked? XPanettaa (talk) 14:01, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

@Yann: Thank you for closing the deletion requests (Commons:Deletion requests/File:AFTRHRS logo.png, Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Tiësto) as keep. These logos, which the shapes (rectangle and an unnamed shape) made of stripes (like for example File:Adidas Logo.svg and File:Meidensha.svg) above the text certainly does seem dubious in terms of meeting the threshold of originality in my mind, in which case {{PD-textlogo}} and {{PD-shape}} necessarily applies here. XPanettaa (talk) 20:44, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

So Magog the Ogre, have you asked that an administrator could review my request for unblock? XPanettaa (talk) 21:02, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

No, I'm sick of this game. You've had your chances. I will not unblock your account. You can use the standard unblock request form. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 20:02, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

@Magog the Ogre: Which standard unblock request form? You will not unblock me, but I have only uploaded images, which are considered too simple to be copyrighted in my eyes as it only consists of simple geometric shapes and/or text on August 20 and 21 and therefore not copyvios or "file in violation of COM:L after warnings ans previous blocks" in that same day after you unblocked me on August 20th. By the way, when I use the standard unblock request form, one or more administrators (especially Natuur12, the one who doesn't like me and is hostile or opposed to me while I'm uploading freely-licensed images, categorizing files, and/or transferring free files to Wikimedia Commons, etc.) who reviewed the unblock request does not have a choice at all and will decline it, refuse to unblock me and dismiss me instead, and they thinks that I highly likely do not know about copyright, do not understand copyright at all, do upload copyright violations and they thinks that they're so really sick and tired of me. This means that I'm really getting sick and tired of this.

By the way, I saw that File:Armada Music logo.svg has been deleted by Jcb because "Copyright violation: i dont think the first part of the logo is a simple geometric shape", despite it is simple as only consists of simple geometric shape and text. But it seems highly unlikely to me that this is copyrightable, complex enough, not simple to be copyrighted, an extremely blatant copyright violation, that this does not only consists of simple geometric shapes and/or text or that there are creative elements on this logo (which I see are too simple to be copyrighted as it only consists of shapes and/or text). The first part of this logo certainly is considered a simple geometric shape (like File:Armada Music Logo.svg, which was transferred from the German Wikipedia to Commons) in my eyes, in which case it should be restored. I think that this logo was submitted for copyright registration at the U.S. Copyright Office, appealed twice, and was denied all three times on grounds that there was not sufficient artistic creativity in the design. See :File:Best Western Logo.pdf. It is still a registered trademark, so full trademark restrictions apply. XPanettaa (talk) 19:06, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

You have been told enough and you have chosen to ignore it. This leads me to believe that you lack the lack the competence to be here. We're done entertaining this. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 01:23, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

File:AFTRHRS logo.png

File:AFTRHRS logo.png has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Natuur12 (talk) 12:56, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

File:Kontor Label.png

File:Kontor Label.png has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Natuur12 (talk) 12:58, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Notification about possible deletion

Some contents have been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether they should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at their entry. If you created these pages, please note that the fact that they have been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with them, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Affected:

• File:Hexagon (record label) logo.jpg

And also:

• File:Hexagon (record label) icon.png
• File:Hexagon (record label) logo.png
• File:Hexagon (record label) icon.jpg

Yours sincerely, Natuur12 (talk) 13:00, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Notification about possible deletion

Some contents have been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether they should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at their entry. If you created these pages, please note that the fact that they have been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with them, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Affected:

• File:Musical Freedom.png

Yours sincerely, Natuur12 (talk) 13:01, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

File:DOORN Records.png

File:DOORN Records.png has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Natuur12 (talk) 13:03, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

You have been blocked for a duration of 1 year

You have been blocked from editing Commons for a duration of 1 year for the following reason: {{{2}}}. If you wish to make useful contributions, you may do so after the block expires. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may add {{unblock|(enter your reason here) ~~~~}} below this message explaining clearly why you should be unblocked. See also the block log. For more information, see Appealing a block.

Uploading file in violation of COM:L after warnings ans previous blocks.Steinsplitter (talk) 13:22, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

File:Armada Music logo.svg

File:Armada Music logo.svg has been marked as a possible copyright violation. Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content—that is, images and other media files that can be used by anyone, for any purpose. Traditional copyright law does not grant these freedoms, and unless noted otherwise, everything you find on the web is copyrighted and not permitted here. For details on what is acceptable, please read Commons:Licensing. You may also find Commons:Copyright rules useful, or you can ask questions about Commons policies at the Commons:Help desk. If you are the copyright holder and the creator of the file, please read Commons:But it's my own work! for tips on how to provide evidence of that. The file you added has been deleted. If you have written permission from the copyright holder, please have them send us a free license release via COM:VRT. If you believe that the deletion was not in accordance with policy, you may request undeletion. (It is not necessary to request undeletion if using VRT; the file will be automatically restored at the conclusion of the process.) Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

 

Dinosaur918 (talk) 20:56, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Blocked

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistently uploading media that is in violation of Commons' licensing policy, despite our warnings not to do so, and despite our instructions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may add {{unblock|your reason here}} below this message explaining clearly why you should be unblocked. See block log. (toolbox: contributions • page moves)

File:DOORN Records.png

File:DOORN Records.png has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Natuur12 (talk) 11:23, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

File:LiteTVlogo.jpg

File:LiteTVlogo.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

User:Pitpisit (talk) 12:02, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

File:538 logo 2012.png

File:538 logo 2012.png has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

User:Pitpisit (talk) 12:18, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

File:Joe FM logo.png

File:Joe FM logo.png has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 02:18, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

File:Kindernet 1988 logo.jpg

File:Kindernet 1988 logo.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 03:00, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Notification about possible deletion

Some contents have been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether they should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at their entry. If you created these pages, please note that the fact that they have been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with them, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Affected:

• File:BBC Earth logo.png

Yours sincerely, Anarchyte (work | talk) 16:52, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

File:SpinningR.gif

File:SpinningR.gif has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Nutshinou ^Talk! 10:28, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

File:NPO Doc logo 2014.png

File:NPO Doc logo 2014.png has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Taylor 49 (talk) 01:38, 1 December 2024 (UTC)