User talk:Durin

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

Image:Richard Matthew Stallman.jpeg[edit]

Would you please explain why you reverted my changing of the GFDL tag on Image:Richard Matthew Stallman.jpeg? The notation on the image's page says it's from a bookcover. {{bookcover}} seems to therefore apply. I understand that Richard is in favor of free software, but I do not see that this can extend to assuming he or Sam Williams releases rights to the bookcover image. --Durin-en 20:23, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

w:Free as in Freedom: Richard Stallman's Crusade for Free Software explains that the book is GFDL. Template:Bookcover, being a redirect to Template:Fair use, of course only applies to images that should be speedy deleted. User:dbenbenn 02:25, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Tiki Barber[edit]

Great job finding a free use pic for Barber. Quadzilla99 18:02, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

  • Thanks! www.navy.mil is a good resource. A fair number of current and past stars of various types do celebrity appearances to Navy ships/bases. The Navy does the best job of all the U.S. services in regularly posting high quality images of such appearances, and they're almost always public domain. I'm about to post another one of w:Willie Brown. --Durin 14:32, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Image:HitlerMussolini1940.jpg[edit]

Image deletion warning Image:HitlerMussolini1940.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 image, 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. If the file is up for deletion because it has been superseded by a superior derivative of your work, consider the notion that although the file may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new file.
In all cases, please do not take the deletion request personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

Afrikaans | العربية | বাংলা | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | Eesti | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Bahasa Indonesia | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Norsk bokmål | Occitan | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

This is an automated message from BryanBot. 20:25, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations, Dear Administrator![edit]

An offering for our new administrator from your comrades...
Čeština | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | English | Español | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Português | Português do Brasil | Русский | Slovenčina | Svenska | +/−

Durin, congratulations! You now have the rights of administrator on Commons. Please take a moment to read the Commons:Administrators page and watchlist related pages (in particular Commons:Administrators' noticeboard and Commons:Deletion requests), before launching yourself into page deletions, page protections, account blockings or modifications of protected pages. The majority of the actions of administrators can be reversed by the other admins, except for history merges which must thus be treated with particular care.

Please feel free to join us on IRC: #wikimedia-commons @ irc.freenode.net. You may find Commons:Guide to adminship to be useful reading.

Please also check or add your entry to the List of administrators and the related lists by language and date it references....
EugeneZelenko 14:25, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

One Star DB[edit]

Hi, I see you deleted the image One Star DB.svg for copyviol. [1] Are you sure? Can I know from where it comes? Please anwser here, I have a dynamic IP. Bye! --151.27.6.224 10:16, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

  • The reason it was tagged as a copyright violation was "Creating an image yourself of a copyrighted image does not put the image into the public domain. In this case, this image belongs to w:Akira Toriyama since he was the first to draw and copyright such an image and recreating an imitation of it does not qualify it for public domain. At best, it is fair use, which does not belong on Commons." The original from which this image was a derivative is obviously copyrighted, as can be seen from the cover of this. --Durin 13:45, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I only know that the .svg picture was taken from a previous .png that already was on Wikipedia or Commons: an it.wiki user (not me) added transparency to it. I don't remember what kind of license was there written about it. But in my memory the image seemed like someone painted it "from zero" with a program like Photoshop, it did not seem "scanned" from paper or cropped out from a jpg (in was "clear" like a vectorial image) and it has a strange feel (something "different" from other similar images) that I can't describe... so I thought it was painted by a user. Similar to a Dragon Ball, but not really a Dragon Ball. So, (sorry to keep annoying you but I'm trying to understand) a person cannot draw a red star inside an orange circle without breaking the Toryiama's copyright? Is it so? Ouch! --151.38.18.125 17:46, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Even simple corporate logos can be trademarked. So yes, a red star inside an orange circle can be copyrighted. --Durin 13:35, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
I waste some time to recreate this image from bitmap to SVG. Result was that you deleted this , and others upped another images to local projects.
I want to read the deletion request page. Where is it? --Dzag 21:44, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
  • The image was deleted because it was a copyright violation. Commons does not accept such works. The image you reference above will most likely be deleted as well. --Durin 13:22, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Sooner or later. Perhaps never, but we cannot do anything: after the deletion on Commons (a way to control the phenomenon) simply we have more images and (as you stated) more violations, not less. Less control, less uniformity, more violations: these are the effects of this deletion, that it's right to the letter, but wrong in the practice. --Dzag 18:17, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry guys, another question. The star is part of the Dragonball logo. But do you think that also redrawing "by hand" a character is prohibited? It would not be the logo... --151.38.18.125 17:18, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Depends. If you were to redraw by hand the logo for any corporation, the corporation retains rights. It's their logo, whether you draw it by hand or not. If the creation by your hand is obviously a derivative work, then the holder of rights to the original will retain at least some rights to the derivative. --Durin 12:47, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
No way. I spent waste some time to rewrite this "logo" in SVG, but it was deleted. Some time ago, I took a picture of Star Wars cosplayers. And it was deleted. So, if there's some big corporation under anything you want to represent, don't waste time. It will be deleted. Maybe, a photo of your dog of your cat (with the TV off and no copyrighted stuff around) can be published here. Enjoy. --Dzag 20:08, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Ah Durin![edit]

I did not exccept to see you here. So since you want to have more Wikipedia Images, you also went to Wikimedia Commons to have all the images you want! you don't know who I am as a Wikipedian and a Wikimedian well look at my user name in reverse order--David Angel 20:48, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

World Series 1903 poster[edit]

I see a bot deleted that poster at your request. I don't have a problem with it, as it was a mock-up. I just want to get clear on what the deleter meant by this: "Removing "1903_world_series_poster.jpg", it has been deleted from Commons by Durin because: blatantly incorrect copyright statement; post makes name claims that are provably false for 1903." Can you tell me, specifically, what is meant by "name claims"? The fact that it says Red Sox when they weren't the Red Sox yet? Or is it some other fact? Just wanting to know. :) 192.208.44.100 21:37, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Image:Star Trek TNG OF1a.png[edit]

Hello; Sorry, how can Paramount have a copyright on 2 golden pins on a red rag? --DaB. 14:22, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

  • How can multiple companies hold copyrights on their logos that use geometric shapes and colors then? In Germany, for example, the courts ruled they can't. In the U.S., the courts have ruled they can. Another example; how can Pink Floyd hold rights to [2]? It's just a triangle, and some colors. I could go on for a while with multiple examples. Paramount created the basis for these images. If they hadn't, then it's painfully obvious that these are not starfleet ranks. Since they are derivative or copies of works originally held by Paramount, it's their creativity, their work, their copyright. Since there's no release from Paramount, these images are not compatible with our license requirements here on Commons. Thank you, --Durin 14:36, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
    I have restored the images. I do not see a "speedy deletion" rationale. I'll take the matter to COM:DEL. -- Cat ちぃ? 14:40, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
    Please see: Commons:Deletion requests/Star Trek TNG insignia -- Cat ちぃ? 14:52, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

PD UN images deleted[edit]

Sorry: Can you plaes clarify this from PD-UN "Public information material designed primarily to inform the public about United Nations activities (not including public information material that is offered for sale, which, if in the public domain in the United States due to no copyright renewal or notice as required," As these images were explicitly designed to go with their news releases, it would seem clearly "designed primarily to inform the public about United Nations activities". Please look into this further, and unless you can find more information to the contrary (which I accept there might be), please restore the images. You might note that Wikipedia:Africa-related_regional_notice_board has a link to this suggesting these images are uploadable to commons. T L Miles 19:51, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Their terms of use in the gallery is not compatible with our terms here. You might attempt discussion with them on this point at [3] to clarify usage. But for now, those terms preclude the use of photos in that gallery here. I've not deleted a number of UN images that are not, apparently, from that gallery. Hope that helps? --Durin 17:30, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

UN Photos[edit]

You've deleted a large number of UN photos that I've uploaded. You should've created a discussion first because deleting the images. This was a bad action on your part. I have read the copyright rules on the UN site, they do give permission for their images to be used in places such as here.--Executioner 14:53, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

  • No, they do not. As an administrator, I am expected and permitted to delete content that violates our licensing requirements. Please see Commons:Deletion_guidelines#Speedy_deletion and the copyvio section for further guidance. The terms as expressed at [4] cover images available in that archive, and they are not available under a free license. As such, they may not be uploaded here. --Durin 15:33, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

License plates[edit]

I was merely transferring, because whoever uploaded says it's their own work. OhanaUnitedTalk page 21:39, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Image:United Federation of Planets flag.svg[edit]

Given past experience, I'm notifying you in advance of my intention to delete this image as a blatant copyright infringement of Paramount's and CBS' copyright. An example of the infringed work can be see at [5]. We can send this through deletion requests, but it's a blatant case. Regards, --Durin 20:41, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Why me? -- Cat ちぃ? 12:04, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit]

Can you give me a detailed report on how you came to the conclusion to delete our logo? That logo was maded by a Wiki. user and the logo/details are completely different than the real Xbox Logo. Anetode seems to be the only one that has a problem with the logo. The logo has been up on the problem page for months and not one single user has complained about it. In fact, everyone seems to like it and gives credit to Thiing for designing it. I'm very upset that you didn't discuss this before you decided to come out of nowhere and delete our image. Also next time, let us know when something needs to be deleted of the page and WE will do it. You screwed up several templates and userboxes. Let me point out, the that case has been opened for 2 months and still the only one to have a problem was Anetode. I hope to hear back for you very soon. DJS --DJS24 16:57, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
  • For terminology purposes; I call the "circle logo" the series of green circles, some concentric some not. The "X" logo is the green x-like shaped graphic.
  • The circle and X logos are copyrighted to Microsoft. An example of their use by Microsoft can be see here, on the XBOX 360 packaging and the web page in general.
  • You can't create an image that uses this logo and then claim full rights to the image for reasons of derivative work protection. Microsoft retains rights to the circle logo. They also retain rights to the unique X logo, which was also used in this image. As result, this image can not be licensed under a free license, which makes it incompatible with Commons licensing requirements.
  • You can create an "X", make it green, and release rights, without infringing on Microsoft's rights. But, the "X" here is far too close to Microsoft's. That said, there's wiggle room here. But, on the circle logo there isn't. It's the same.
  • Thingg acknowledges the unfree source of components of the image, in a posting he made to Commons talk:Licensing, wherein he said "These are actually modified versions because the originals weren't free". Unfortunately, nobody answered him on that subject, and it was presumed they were ok. This was not correct.
  • As an administrator on Commons, I'm permitted to delete images that I feel violate our image policies. I'm not compelled to discuss these deletions unless it is obvious it will be controversial or debatable. This is a blatant case of copyright violation via derivative works, and such discussion would yield nothing that would undermine Microsoft's rights to these logos. This makes it a cut and dry case, and deleting was clearly the appropriate thing to do.
  • I'm not concerned with how the image is used elsewhere. There is a bot that takes care of image deletions on other projects when it is deleted here on Commons. There is no policy in place that requires administrators to notify the variety of people using the image to handle deletion of an image, in part because such a policy is completely untenable (think: language barriers), and in part because it is not your responsibility to delete it, but the responsibility of Commons to delete the image on Commons, which was done.
  • The issue was discussed in early February on en.wikipedia. Two admins who are well respected in the realm of image rights felt the images violated copyright. You can see the discussion at here.
  • I'm not concerned with messing up userboxes. They do not serve an encyclopedic or Commons purpose. As for the templates, they were not used in the mainspace. Again, there's little (if any) impact to the focus of the project. I'm sorry your operations were disrupted, but they are not central to the project's mission.
  • If you have further questions, I'd be happy to answer. Thanks, --Durin 19:16, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
  • I still don't understand what your thought process is behind your decision. The Rules CLEARLY state here - Licensing#Simple_design that "Commons accepts images of text in a general typeface and of simple geometric shapes, even if it happens to be a trademarked logo." In fact, another admin pointed that out in the case if you read it. Also in fact, two admins commented on keeping the logo, but I guess you’re saying your input is much more important than theirs. I understand if in your opinion, you think the image is a copyright issue. However the rules come over people's opinions, and the rules clearly state "Commons accepts images of text in a general typeface and of simple geometric shapes, even if it happens to be a trademarked logo." So I don't understand how you can delete an image with the reasons you have, when the rules state otherwise. Confused?? Thanks DJS --DJS24 16:26, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
  • If you persist in making derogatory comments towards me such as "but I guess you’re saying your input is much more important than theirs", this conversation is over.
  • As a suggestion, how about you contact Microsoft and see what their stance on the copyright status of the image is? This would be an appropriate measure to take to ensure the image is as you say.
  • This is a pretty cut and dry case. The work was made by Microsoft. They're using it on packaging and invitations. Given that, they certainly would seem to have an interest in protecting their work. If you were to make a bunch of t-shirts using that logo and sell them for profit, you'd probably have lawyers on your doorstep faster than you could put one of the shirts on, much less sell one. --Durin 17:15, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Sorry - I'm just upset that the opinions of other admins aren't being taken into consideration. The fact of the matter is, the "X" is a genertic X, while the circles could use some work but even now there not breaking any rules. That's the problem I have here. The logo was made following the Wiki. Commons rules, so I still don't really know what we're discussing. Normally the rules are the bottom line, I'm not seeing in this case. I don't need to contact Microsoft because we're not breaking the image rules. The logo is a completely genertic piece of art that, yes it looks like the real logo but it was made again, using the guidelines set by a group of admins. Thanks DJS --DJS24 17:27, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Copyright isn't a matter of opinion. I'm sorry the opinions of the other admins mislead you. I grant there's wiggle room on the X. I think it's copyrighted, but I can see an argument that it might not be. The circles logo is blatant though, and there's no wiggle room. The circle logo wasn't made by a wikimedia contributor. It was made by Microsoft. Even the original uploader acknowledges this, and in a later posting on this talk page acknowledges that deleting it was the right thing to do. If you are still interesting in having this copyrighted work appear here on Commons, I advise you contact Microsoft to obtain release of the circles logo under a free license. --Durin 17:32, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit]

Since you are a Commons admin, you can explain this. The X in the logo is generic so it is ineligible for copyright. But you said the circles are copyright of Microsoft. But I found this in Commons, Commons accepts images of text in a general typeface and of simple geometric shapes, even if it happens to be a trademarked logo.[6]. As I can see there is no difference between our logo and what this is telling me. BW21. --Blackwatch21 00:30, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

  • If the circles logo were just a green circle, I'd agree with you. Unfortunately, it's not. It's a variety of circles, of varying colors, arranged in a particular manner. It is clearly eligible for copyright, and we assume it is until its proven it isn't. You might inquire of Microsoft as to their stance on the image. --Durin 00:44, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
I understand what you are saying so is there a way that if we rearrange the circles and their colors, it will be okay? Not to be difficult, but I still don't understand how circles and how they are arranged can be eligible for copyright. BW21. --Blackwatch21 00:50, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
  • If you want to design an entirely new logo that reminds people of XBOX 360's, then fine. But, it can't be derived from theirs. I.e., you can't start with theirs and modify it. You also can't start from scratch and end up with something that's quite close to theirs. Both approaches are grounds for copyright infringement. As for the latter question, people on this project have fought hard about the notion of geometric shapes being copyrightable. The simple fact is they can be, depending on the circumstances. Have a look at Commons:Deletion requests/Star Trek TNG insignia. Paramount has in fact copyrighted gold circles on red rectangle. The case with the XB0X 360 logo is even more in favor of copyrightability. --Durin 13:25, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

just a quick question[edit]

So I saw you deleted the Xbox image and after reading your reasons on that page and I see that you are right. I was just wondering if an "X" of that shape is copyrightable? like, basically what I'm asking is, if I made the image have circles that are evenly spaced instead of the other circles, would that be a free image? I'm just not sure where the line between free image and derivative work lies and I'd really like to be able to make an image that looks somewhat similar to the one that was deleted without overstepping copyrights. If you reply (which I can't blame you if you don't), I'd appreciate if you'd reply on my Wikipedia talk page because I sneak aroundhang out there more. Thanks for the help. Thingg 01:54, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

  • In copyright law, there is no definitive line in the sand. It's deliberately vague. That makes toeing that line basically impossible, and it becomes a case by case basis. Commons errs on the side of staying well clear of that line, just to be sure. No, no one can copyright a green X from a font that is publicly available. A modified X not from any PD font can be copyrighted. It'd be nice if we could draw a distinct line. It certainly would make things easier. But, by the nature of the materials in question across all of copyright, it has to be vague. --Durin 13:27, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Question[edit]

Would this count as derivative work in your opinion? Thanks for the help. Thingg 19:52, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Urgent restore needed[edit]

You erased Image:National Emblem of the People's Republic of China.svg per deletion of a different file from 2 months ago which included raster image. This file is completely different. You need to restore it for 1)it was a different file so deleting a new one with the same name is a mistake 2).svg version is used on many Wikipedias and now articles on PRC are left with nothing in space for the coat of arms. Thank you. --Avala 19:31, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Please see Commons:Deletion requests/Image:National Emblem of the People's Republic of China.svg. Further, there's no evidence this coat of arms has been released by China under a free license. It is therefore incompatible with Commons licensing requirements. You are free to upload the image on your local project if it has an Exemption Doctrine Policy in place. --Durin 14:38, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
    • I have seen that and like I am telling you that deletion request was about the first file which was deleted but I later uploaded a second file which was completely different but you erased it based on a deletion request of a previous file with the same name. And regarding copyright, the image I uploaded was my edit based on .png version and general emblem design you can see on Beijing walls - [:Image:National Emblem of the People's Republic of China.png]. I think it is valid.--Avala 21:03, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


Image:USS_Jimmy_Carter_SSN-23.jpg[edit]

Image deletion warning Image:USS_Jimmy_Carter_SSN-23.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 image, 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.
In all cases, please do not take the deletion request personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!


Afrikaans | العربية | বাংলা | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | Eesti | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Bahasa Indonesia | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Norsk bokmål | Occitan | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

schlendrian •λ• 15:46, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Improper Removal[edit]

This is improper. The way to conduct a deletion is to put up the template and go through the process. You keep removing it, although there is a clear violation of CC 2.5 by not listing the derivative works and time of when the work became derivative, which includes uploading it to the computer (which comes before uploading it to Wikipedia). Not only that, the work is a section of another in which it was admitted that the face was removed.

If you want, I can take this up with an administrator. 75.105.13.17 23:17, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

"This template has been requested for deletion. To discuss it, please go here. Do not remove this tag until the deletion request is closed." Its rather clear right there that you are in violation. 75.105.13.17 23:21, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
The problem (which I'd be happy to have gone in more detail had you an account) is that the deletion you are requesting points to a deletion discussion that happened nearly two years ago. You are performing the request improperly. Plus, you haven't informed the original uploader, per the instructions on that very same template. Please do not re-add the template again without addressing these issues. Thank you, --Durin (talk) 00:43, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
The original uploader, as pointed out before, is inactive. Furthermore, the deletion review was not archived after it should have been, and since it cannot be modified/moved by an IP, then I cannot do it. Thus, you could have completed the action instead of going against the rules and improperly removing it. You didn't do the correct action. Therefore, I can report you, or you can revert yourself and apologize for edit warring improperly. 75.105.13.17 02:09, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Durin's removal wasn't improper nor reportable since you failed to complete the image for deletion. Bidgee (talk) 13:39, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Proof (note the two images at the top of Nandesuka's post) that there is a second work, and thus one is derivative of the other, so it does not fall under CC 2.5 licensing without proof of which work is derivative of the other (required for CC 2.5), and without dates on when the image was modified (also required). 75.105.13.17 02:17, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Not Proof and the image is marked as GNU and CC2.5. There is no proof that the image is a copyvio since no one has given us an link to the image. Bidgee (talk) 13:39, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Wagner question[edit]

You recently deleted File:Honus Wagner statue.jpg due to "Derivative work: no freedom of panorama in the United States". I'll admit I don't have a great grasp on all the copyright laws, but I just wanted to clarify what the problem was. Is it the statue itself that is under copyright? If so, when do the rights expire? As it was erected in 1955. If it's something else, would you mind elaborating on the reason? Like I said I'm not that educated about all the copyright laws, but it was a valuable picture, so if there's some way that I could take a legal picture to the same effect it would be good to know what I can and can't do. Thank you! Blackngold29 (talk) 03:25, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

  • See my response below. As to the age, I believe it still has some decades to go before being out of copyright. --Durin (talk) 14:17, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
The sculptor of the statue, Frank Vittor, died in 1968. Does his copyright remain 40 years after his death? Blackngold29 (talk) 19:28, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Absolutely. See w:Template:PD-art-3d. His estate can maintain copyright or transfer it. Regardless, the copyright remains until vacated by declaration or age. 40 years is not enough. --Durin (talk) 20:02, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
  • I deleted a couple of other images of yours of the Roberto Clemente statue. By the way, you've got a number of nice images. Great work! --Durin (talk) 20:08, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
  • I was wondering if you would be able to revive those images (like File:Honus Wagner statue.jpg and the above-mentioned Clemente statue) for me so that I can put them on regular wikipedia under the Fair Use provisions? It is my understanding that the images would be OK under those limited rules. Please let me know how to proceed with this. Thanks!--TheZachMorrisExperience (talk) 04:27, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Disappointment over deletion[edit]

I'd like to express my disappointment at your sudden deletion of File:Ozzie Smith statue.jpg. I can understand why you deleted it immediately if you thought it was clear violation of copyright law, but even after reading the relevant derivative works and freedom of panorama wiki pages, I would like to respectively say I do not agree 100% with your action. I'm much more used to discussing such large and abrupt changes with other users through talk pages and discussion. Might I suggest posting a friendly heads up on the WikiProject Baseball talk page (located here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Baseball) so that other editors with similar images can potentially make changes or upload new images before these images completely disappear from articles they frequently work on. That said, I accept your decision, but again express my sincere disappointment. Monowi (talk) 06:55, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

  • I raised the issue at Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard#Series_of_baseball_statues_that_probably_need_to_be_deleted, knowing that I'd be deleting a significant number of images. I waited a week for feedback, and there were no significant objections to deletion. I'm sorry you disagree with the action. Nevertheless, the law is clear. Per US Copyright Act of 1976, § 106(2), the copyright holder of a work of art has rights over any derivative works through the life of that copyright. You may be interested in seeing w:Template:Non-free_3D_art which is a non-free tag for such works on the English Wikipedia. The copyright status of the images is not disputable. All of the images I deleted were of statues that exist in the United States. All of them are still under copyright, being of creation short of any possible time frames that cover age based removal of copyright. If you wish to reinstate the images, please contact the copyright holders of the works of art for release of rights under a free license. Thank you, --Durin (talk) 13:32, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

deletion of 3 pics[edit]

Hello, could you please delete Image:Pinyin 1.jpg, Image:Pinyin 1.jpg, Image:Pinyin 1.jpg these 3 pics? I have a new version of them but I failed to upload.--Symane (talk) 10:09, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Image:Bright_Logo.svg[edit]

Could you please supply me with this image that you deleted? A link via e-mail (see my en-wiki account) would be fine. I like to see if it can be uploaded to en-wiki instead. Regards SoWhy (talk) 22:26, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

File:2008FordSportTrac.jpg[edit]

I have re-uploaded a file you deleted claiming it used an improper license. If you checked this properly, you would have seen it's very much using a proper license. See original Flickr image license and please be more thorough in the future. RichN (talk) 20:16, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

  • The image is very clearly marked as being not allowable for commercial purposes. This makes it unacceptable for Commons. I've re-deleted the image. Please do not re-upload the image. Thank you. --Durin (talk) 23:55, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I am now calling your deletion actions into question. Please go to Commons:Deletion requests/Images of Ford Motor Company and discuss a similar set of images that share the same mark. We're trying to figure out what is the position of Ford Motor company's intent is. --293.xx.xxx.xx (talk) 22:53, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Why don't you ask Ford Motor Company? --Durin (talk) 14:43, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi[edit]

Nice to see you here. Majorly talk 23:51, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I never really left here. --Durin (talk) 01:07, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
Well next time, perhaps I shouldn't bother to send an old friend a nice message. Majorly talk 01:53, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
I didn't mean to imply anything negative. I was simply noting that I never really left here. I've become increasingly less active, but haven't left here. --Durin (talk) 14:40, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Featured picture[edit]

DDG59lights.jpg

It's now an FP. Great upload! Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 09:05, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

De-adminship warning[edit]

Deutsch | Español | Italian

Dear Durin. I am writing to you to inform you that you are in danger of losing your adminship on Commons because of inactivity.

If you want to keep your adminship, you need both to sign at Commons:Administrators/Inactivity section within 30 days of today's date, and also to make at least five further admin actions in the following six months. Anyone who does not do so will automatically lose administrator rights.

You can read the de-admin policy at Commons:Administrators/De-adminship.

Thank you – Kwj2772 (msg) 02:46, 17 February 2010 (UTC)