User talk:Fastily

This. You've basically driven off the uploader. He's now uploading only on itwiki with their version of the "keep local" template, even stuff that's way obvious PD, e.g. this. He posted a reply on the DR talk page in Italian. Some IP demanding the author name for archival photo is not exactly reasonable. I could probably nominate 100,000+ files under that criterion (most of the museum archival photos here). Someone not using his real name (talk) 13:26, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That was over a year ago, and the outcome appears correct. Please don't lecture me on 'being friendly'. I do a lot of work to facilitate editor retention, and as you should know by now, I cannot bend the rules to accommodate potential copyright violations. -FASTILY 01:31, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Did you at all give any thought before deleting those files? A couple of them were used by other projects. And there didn't seem to be any consensus anyway. The files were kept as the result of previous discussion. And I don't see why they should be considered of questionable copyright status. ~ RogDel (talk) 09:15, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've invited the nominator to comment. -FASTILY 00:16, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding potential copyright violations, many of the deleted images were of Kedar Joshi alone, and they appeared more like taken by Joshi himself or in some sort of a photo-centre. Also, there never seem to have been any objection from any potentially actual photographer/s about possible copyvio/s. It may be that Joshi ever published images with a CC license that almost obviously appear to have been taken by someone other than Joshi (such as this one, because he looks too young to set the camera and take the picture), but it just also may be that Joshi now actually possesses the copyrights. The important point is Joshi does not seem to have a proven history of copyvios. ~ RogDel (talk) 07:49, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Those articles have not been deleted in other Wikipedias because there is not any active admin there. These articles are planned spamming, see wikiversity:Wikiversity:Requests_for_Deletion/Archives/12#Kedar_Joshi too, where you'll get few more links. --Tito Dutta (Send me a message) 06:10, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The closing rationale at the previous DR was Keeping most of them on the basis (at least) of the current article on Wikibooks (http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Kedar_Joshi). And it seems there are quite a few active admins there. ~ RogDel (talk) 06:30, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And perhaps they, the images of Kedar Joshi, should be kept also on the basis of the research I’ve been doing about notability on Wikiquote which entails Kedar Joshi as a very good example. ~ RogDel (talk) 07:31, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Whoosh another Joshi-spam at Wikibooks, that needs to be deleted too. I don't know what you are trying to do in that Wikiquote userspace, anyway, that is not a reason to keep an image. Anyone can create a userpage draft, claim they are doing research work and ask to save out of scope images. --Tito Dutta (Send me a message) 11:36, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As long as articles on Kedar Joshi exist on any of the WMF projects, his images on Commons cannot be considered out of scope. That the article on him at Wikibooks is a spam is your suspicion, not a proven fact. The existence of seemingly independent and reliable sources citing Kedar Joshi (as noted here) gives a strong reason to believe that not each and every article on him that exists anywhere on a WMF project may be a spam. ~ RogDel (talk) 12:03, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Commons admins are clever enough to understand that it was a planned promotion of Joshi junks. They have created such spams in almost every project and language. The Wikis where we don't have articles on the most notable Indians, they have created article there too. Fortunately, the articles in active Wikis like Wikipedia (en), Wikisource, Wikiversity, Wikiquote etc have been deleted and the results clearly show what they feel. --Tito Dutta (Send me a message) 12:26, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So you exclude the closing admin of the previous DR from "Commons admins"? ~ RogDel (talk) 12:34, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would ask to undelete this image because: 1. you gave the author only 7 days of time to add a license tag (30. August to 7. September), 2. it is a coat of arms of Austria, which is free for use by law (see Template:PD-AustrianGov). After youQve done this I will rename the file to AUT_Judendorf-Straßengel_COA.png and add the license tag. --TheRunnerUp (talk) 10:41, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just so you know, one week is the standard amount of time uploaders are given to resolve issues with their files. -FASTILY 00:16, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In regards to the multitude of timed text subtitles to the PRC national anthem that you deleted on 6 September 2013, for some reason I was not notified of the discussion which took place here, despite being the page creator of most of those, and hence wasn't able to respond to the deletion request. The national anthem of the PRC falls under Article 5 of the Copyright Law of the People's Republic of China, which gives an exemption. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs 15:32, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've responded here -FASTILY 00:16, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! :-) Please see also these:

• File:Alice in wonderland 1951.jpg
• File:Alice in Wonderland 3 1951.jpg
• File:Alice in Wonderland 4 1951.jpg
• File:Alice in Wonderland 5 1951.jpg

Thanks a lot and best regards. --79.32.10.220 23:57, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I'm not sure I understand. What would you like me to do? -FASTILY 00:16, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete those files because are a copyright violation, like this. Best regards. --79.30.10.246 18:00, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You nominated the files about four days ago. We typically wait a week before closing DRs, so that anyone who wishes to provide input will have a chance to do so -FASTILY 02:20, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, this same logo has been re-uploaded without addressing the issue for deletion here, it exists at enwp with a do not copy tag. LGA _talk^edits 00:24, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Re-deleted. Hope that helps, FASTILY 00:26, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I was not sure of the process on commons, I suspect the issue is that eswp does not allow uploads so to be used it has to be here, but absent any guide on El Salvador copyright rules it should not be here IMO. LGA _talk^edits 01:18, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Fastily thanks for clearing the old upload history of the Ireland four provinces flag, could you possibly please do the same for the File:Flag of Connacht.svg, File:Flag of Ulster.svg and the File:Flag of Munster.svg if you have time Setanta Saki (talk) 02:41, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Done -FASTILY 04:55, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Fastily appreciate it Setanta Saki (talk) 06:49, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again Fastily I was using this file File:Four Provinces Flag of Ireland.svg mostly for trial uploads could you please wipe the history of it also when you get the chance, i was going to ask to delete it but i may use it for a variant. Regards Setanta Saki (talk) 22:52, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sure,  Done -FASTILY 02:20, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers Setanta Saki (talk) 07:34, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, why do you think the copyright status of all these models is unclear? As the recent court cases ([1] (pg. 847) and [2] (pg. 42), [3]) have shown, exact replicas (save size) are not copyrighted in the United States. Of course, some of them are not replicas, but many of them seem to be. As stated in the DR, I've planned to take another look at these models, so that only those where an original contribution is visible would be deleted. --Eleassar ^(t/p) 07:28, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've restored them all for now and reverted the close. Would it help if I closed the discussion as keep so as to allow you to nominate the individual files for deletion? -FASTILY 07:36, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I've withdrawn the nomination for most of the files. In my opinion, unless you deem the discussion too confusing, it's best to keep it in one place. --Eleassar ^(t/p) 09:18, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is a bit on the confusing side. To be honest, from an outsider's point of view, it's becoming difficult to follow what's going on. -FASTILY 02:20, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Fastily,

I see that an image I uploaded, Lordship_of_Anholt.png, "has been deleted from Commons by Fastily because: No permission since 28 August 2013: If you are the copyright holder/author and/or have authorization to upload the fil...)". I am the copyright holder, though it is possible that I filled in one of the fields wrong when I made the upload (on July 28 or 29 2013, I think). I have logged in to Commons several times since August 28, and have not seen any warning, on my talk page or elsewhere, that there was anything wrong with the permissions for the file. Do you know if such a warning was sent? What should I do now, to get the image back onto Commons? Maproom (talk) 07:54, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to have marked it with an OTRS-pending tag, which automatically nominates the file for deletion after 45 days without OTRS permission. However, OTRS isn't even necessary in this case, because the map was originally published in 1905, making it PD (published prior to 1923). I've restored the page and removed the extraneous tag -FASTILY 08:10, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for restoring. I shall put it back in the article it was created for. Maproom (talk) 20:41, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see no valid rationale for this mass deletion. I'd also like to note that creators of the files were not warned of the deletion until effectively after they'd been deleted. I'd request that you please undelete. This is a failure of process. --jjron (talk) 09:38, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with jjron. Also, if the files weren't created in Australia, then we do not consider the validity of the image by Australia's threshold of originality. --SuperJew (talk) 10:05, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

They are effectively the same as corporate logo's so the original is created in Australia. In the same way as the Harris Scarfe logo is not allowed here on commons nor are these designs. In the most cases can be uploaded to enwp as fair use and not here. LGA _talk^edits 11:01, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

They should've been transferred to Wikipedia under fair-use (or with a US-PD tag with "do not move to commons"), since deleting them without transferring, just aggravates the contributors from English Wikipedia and the uploader(s) on Commons. Bidgee (talk) 11:22, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A bulk move was not possible while most were probably {{PD-ineligibleUSonly|Australia}} others would have been allowable as Non-Free however a resonable number would others would have failed WP:NFC#UUI, they will need to be moved one by one. Lets not forget it is not the fault of commons that the files have been uploaded here when not meeting the licencing requirements. LGA _talk^edits 11:44, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Then surely they should have been deleted one by one too, as the jumper shape can not be copyrighted, nor can simple geometrical shapes, such as Vs or sashes. I know that this is bit of OTHERSTUFFEXISTS but will you try this on the thousands of soccer kit diagrams? As a guess, I checked one of the biggest ones, Liverpool and was amazed to even see logos on the kits! Category:Football_kit_body/Liverpool_FC In COMMONS!!!!! You guys are really ruining this place. The-Pope (talk) 11:56, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Australia has a very low (probably even lower than the UK) threshold of originality and even the relatively simple Aboriginal Flag which is far simpler than any of these jumpers has been deleted from here. LGA _talk^edits 12:08, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain how corporate logos and complicated designs exist on the English soccer kits. Please explain why the need to consider moving them "one by one" didn't apply to deleting them? Surely each and every logo should have been reviewed in terms of when the original work was created (a lot would have been created pre 1946 or whatever date URAA considers relevant) or when or where the derivative work was created. All would be eligible under fair use, and if you gave us a chance, and let WP:AFL know about it, we could have written the FURs.

So, will you temporarily undelete these files and allow for them to be moved to enWP under fair use rules. The-Pope (talk) 12:45, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The-Pope asked me to comment here. While I think I understand DM pretty well, I claim no understanding of the TOO in Australia -- I'm in the crowd that doesn't understand the Aboriginal Flag decision. My guess would be that if the same judge looked at the football jumpers, he or she would rule that they were all copyrightable -- but that's only a guess. Certainly many of them would not have a copyright in the USA, but that's not relevant.

Rather than undelete all of these for transfer to WP:EN -- which is very time-consuming -- I suggest you ask User:CountryFootyJumpers, who created many of them, to upload them to WP:EN.

As for the complaint that the nom should have notified someone on WP:EN, please, please remember that we see around 8,000 new images every day. Around 1,500 of those are deleted, with ten Admins doing more than 80% of the work. We can barely stay ahead of the avalanche as it is -- we have nowhere near enough hard working Admins to be able to give special notifications beyond those that are created by the {{Delete}} script. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:13, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking the time to have a look and for your comments. I would have thought that deleting an entire category tree of user created images (so not easily replaceable by anyone) may have been significant enough to take the extra couple of minutes to let the relevant project know. Especially as it appears that most of these images were probably here for years, so it wasn't an urgent issue. Decisions like this just annoy article editors, because it makes a real & immediate reduction in the information available in articles whilst only protecting the project from a theoretical possible future, not actual, complaint from an unknown & unnamed (in most cases) copyright holder. The-Pope (talk) 16:59, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Fastily! This file is a Creative Commons Atribuição 3.0 Brasil exceto quando especificado em contrário e nos conteúdos replicados de outras fontes Or "b) Todo conteúdo do Portal EBC está, em regra, licenciado sob a Licença Creative Commons Atribuição 3.0 Brasil, exceto quando especificado em contrário e nos conteúdos replicados de outras fontes. Nessas situações, as licenças específicas deverão ser explicitadas."Source, please, restore that file. Vitor Mazuco^Msg 00:49, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Re-upload the file then, but be sure to make it very clear that the file is indeed published with a CC license, otherwise, the file may be re-deleted -FASTILY 02:20, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I came across User:FSII, and noticed that it seems like that account was a alternate account of yours. It's not particularly my business, but I wanted to confirm whether this was correct, and if so, ask if you remember why you transfered File:EarlyCyrillicDiacritics_(WinXP_IE6).png over from en. The image doesn't look like one that has any need to be on Commons... Thanks in any case for your extrordinary devotion and work at Commons. JesseW (talk) 01:35, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

FSII is my old bot account. It's been so long I don't remember doing the transfer. Maybe someone was using it at the time? -FASTILY 02:20, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. JesseW (talk) 05:35, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Fastily, there's some discussion about you at Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/User_problems#User:The_Big_Bad_Wolfowitz. darkweasel94 12:28, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]