File talk:Luyang II (Type 052C) Class Destroyer.JPG

 

As a reminder...

此删除讨论现已结束。 请不要对此存档做任何编辑。 您可以参阅删除方針，或在互助客栈提出问题。 若此文件的相关状况已有明显改变，您可以再次提删文件或请求恢复。

File:Luyang II (Type 052C) Class Destroyer.JPG

This file was initially tagged by Tyg728 as Speedy (speedy) and the most recent rationale was: 请求删除原因： 当前 2017年6月21日 (三) 07:00 版本带水印，可能违反许可协议 Hedwig in Washington ^(mail?) 07:14, 25 June 2017 (UTC) And what exactly is the REASON for this speedy deletion nomination? The image came from a US Congressional Research Service publication provided to the CRS by the US Navy and therefore it is in the public domain?Marcd30319

Okay, I went ahead and actually translated the Chinese notation which claimed that the most recent version of this image has a "watermark" and could be in violation of copyright. I sure don't see anything like a "watermark" on the current version, but I went ahead and reverted the image back to the original version that I uploaded way back in 2014. THAT version was from the US Congressional Research Service publication provided to the CRS by the US Navy, and therefore it IS in the public domain. I hope this clarifies matters.Marcd30319 (留言) 16:51, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

那个带水印的版本是否需要删除？--Tyg728 (留言) 01:36, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

According to Google Translation, "那个带水印的版本是否需要删除" means "The watermarked versions need to be deleted." Since I reverted back to the ORIGINAL VERSION that I uploaded back in 2014, the problem ought to be solved. For background, I took a screenshot of the photograph of this destroyer that appeared in a US Congressional Research Service publication, and the photo in question was provided to the CRS by the US Navy. Therefore, this photo is public domain, and in any case, there was NO WATERMARK on this photo. This should clarify this situation, but knowing Wikipedia, who can say?Marcd30319 (留言) 10:11, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Tyg729 says: 那个带水印的版本是否需要删除？ which translate to "Whether the version with the watermark needs to be deleted?" Tyg729, I reverted the image back to the original that I initially uploaded way back in 2014. There was NO watermark on that image. I did not see ANY watermark in the image in dispute, but since I reverted to the original image that I uploaded in 2014, there should be NO issues NOW. There is No violation of license because the original image that I uploaded back in 2014 was from the public domain. And, Tyg729, please try to translate to get your messages here; it would greatly facilitate this discussion. Thanks!Marcd30319 (留言) 22:41, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

I looked at the history of this image, and I see that user Tyg729 was responsible to adding the "new" (新版本) version of this image, and then promptly started this speedy deletion process. I do not want to suggest any thing less than good faith, but this is still a highly suspect chain of events. Now, user Yi Park new homes (颐园新居) reverts this image back to "Update Version" (更新版本) introduced by Tyg729 who started this speedy deletion process AFTER introducing HIS version. Again, this is highly suspicious. I strongly suggest that this entire deletion process be halted, and users Tyg729 and 颐园新居 refrain from such frivolous and wasteful activities. Marcd30319 (留言) 10:25, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

---

Kept: no valid reason for deletion: from a public domain source. --BrightRaven (留言) 09:54, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Final comment about the above fiasco

A total waste of time and effort from beginning to end, instigated by individual for no apparent reason, an all too-frequent situation on Wikipedia. One wonders shat would have happened if I had not been alerted about this attempt to delete of perfectly legitimate PD image, and had I not done my due diligence in pointing out the highly suspect chain of events behind this attempt. Marcd30319 (留言) 11:55, 4 July 2017 (UTC)