User talk:155.63.64.16

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search

The following is copied from a post-closure comment made at the subject page:

"Why did the debate only last for only 3 days before the delete action was carried out? The request posted on Dec 28th and the file was deleted on Dec 31st. The picture was on the sites for years, I think it deserves a longer wait time than 3 days. In my opinion, whatever you did was extremely rude. The appearance of Gestapos like you on wikipedia was the main reason why I stopped contributing in recent years. To tell the truth, I could even care less if you revert all the contributions I made in the past 10 years. For what it is worth, the statue shown in the picture was not even a piece of copyrighted art. It was a manufactured figurine that can be found everywhere in China. I guess the manufacturer of the product would have enjoyed the free publicity instead of claiming copyright on the image. 155.63.64.16 22:04, 31 January 2011 (UTC)"

I do not know why you believe the file was deleted on December 31. The record shows clearly that the file was deleted on January 12, 2011. The line from my deletion log is:

"# (show/hide) 14:36, 12 January 2011 Jameslwoodward (talk | contribs | block) deleted "File:GuanYuStatue.jpg" ‎ (Per Commons:Deletion_requests/File:GuanYuStatue.jpg) (view/restore) (global usage; delinker log)"

The history of the file shows the same thing:

"Warning: You are recreating a page that was previously deleted. * (show/hide) 14:36, 12 January 2011 Jameslwoodward (talk | contribs | block) deleted "File:GuanYuStatue.jpg" ‎ (Per Commons:Deletion_requests/File:GuanYuStatue.jpg) (view/restore) (global usage; delinker log)"

That shows that the discussion ran fifteen days, more than twice what we require.

It was a straightforward deletion as there was no evidence offered as to its provenance. "Manufactured art", to use your description is certainly subject to copyright. Guessing that the manufacturer would welcome the publicity is explicitly not allowed by our rules.

It appears that it was an appropriate deletion. If you disagree, please take the discussion to Commons:Undeletion requests.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 00:23, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]