The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
I don't own the logo, Cauda Pavonis own the logo and have placed it under a Creative Commons license. What proof would you like?
Owain (
talk)
17:10, 15 May 2008 (UTC)reply
Comment that would be OK, but releasing it CC really has been OKd by the band, exactly to prevent these sorts of deletion debates from happening!
Owain (
talk)
06:38, 16 May 2008 (UTC)reply
I don't own the image, Cauda Pavonis own it and have placed it under a Creative Commons license. What proof would you like?
Owain (
talk)
17:11, 15 May 2008 (UTC)reply
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the debate was Commons now showing through for these.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
HeatherRoseF (
talk·contribs) has uploaded a number of very nice shots of NYC and the Phillippines which she claims are her own, but as it turns out are copyright violations. One of them
Image:NYC panorama 2005.jpg was reported via OTRS ticket 2008050810006045 to be identical to
[1]. As such, I don't think we can trust that any of her uploads are legitimate.
Comment. I'm not sure but I think HeatherRoseF is a sockpuppet or at least a meatpuppet of
Ian Fortuno (
talk·contribs). They both edit the same types of articles (New York City,
Cebu City, and towns in
Cavite), mostly mess around with the images (without contributing much text), edit at around the same dates, and upload a bunch of photos and say that they're in the public domain. I have
tagged a bunch of images by Ian Fortuno before as copyright violations and did the painstaking research of finding all the webpages the uploaded images were taken from. I agree that these images uploaded by HeatherRoseF are suspect but in the absence of any clear evidence, I suggest holding off for a bit. --
seav (
talk)
15:52, 16 May 2008 (UTC)reply
In my experience, someone who falsely passes off one piece of work as their own is highly likely to do it again. Call it "guilt by association" but I see a pattern of abuse that cannot be tolerated. howcheng {
chat}16:20, 16 May 2008 (UTC)reply
Image:Midtown Manhattan Oct 2007.jpg is apparently taken from
[2]. The Wikipedia version was uploaded later, and the source site seems to be legitimately uploaded by the photographer. Dang, I hate deleting good images... but I agree with howcheng. 1 fraudulent upload, 2 now... that's enough to conlude that the rest are invalid licenses too, unless proven otherwise. --
Rividian (
talk)
03:00, 17 May 2008 (UTC)reply
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
I don't own the logo, Cauda Pavonis own the logo and have placed it under a Creative Commons license. What proof would you like?
Owain (
talk)
17:10, 15 May 2008 (UTC)reply
Comment that would be OK, but releasing it CC really has been OKd by the band, exactly to prevent these sorts of deletion debates from happening!
Owain (
talk)
06:38, 16 May 2008 (UTC)reply
I don't own the image, Cauda Pavonis own it and have placed it under a Creative Commons license. What proof would you like?
Owain (
talk)
17:11, 15 May 2008 (UTC)reply
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the debate was Commons now showing through for these.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
HeatherRoseF (
talk·contribs) has uploaded a number of very nice shots of NYC and the Phillippines which she claims are her own, but as it turns out are copyright violations. One of them
Image:NYC panorama 2005.jpg was reported via OTRS ticket 2008050810006045 to be identical to
[1]. As such, I don't think we can trust that any of her uploads are legitimate.
Comment. I'm not sure but I think HeatherRoseF is a sockpuppet or at least a meatpuppet of
Ian Fortuno (
talk·contribs). They both edit the same types of articles (New York City,
Cebu City, and towns in
Cavite), mostly mess around with the images (without contributing much text), edit at around the same dates, and upload a bunch of photos and say that they're in the public domain. I have
tagged a bunch of images by Ian Fortuno before as copyright violations and did the painstaking research of finding all the webpages the uploaded images were taken from. I agree that these images uploaded by HeatherRoseF are suspect but in the absence of any clear evidence, I suggest holding off for a bit. --
seav (
talk)
15:52, 16 May 2008 (UTC)reply
In my experience, someone who falsely passes off one piece of work as their own is highly likely to do it again. Call it "guilt by association" but I see a pattern of abuse that cannot be tolerated. howcheng {
chat}16:20, 16 May 2008 (UTC)reply
Image:Midtown Manhattan Oct 2007.jpg is apparently taken from
[2]. The Wikipedia version was uploaded later, and the source site seems to be legitimately uploaded by the photographer. Dang, I hate deleting good images... but I agree with howcheng. 1 fraudulent upload, 2 now... that's enough to conlude that the rest are invalid licenses too, unless proven otherwise. --
Rividian (
talk)
03:00, 17 May 2008 (UTC)reply