File talk:The Rolex Submariner Professional.JPG
This file may represent a fake Rolex, according to Rolex Legal department the authenticity cannot be confirmed. --Chandres (talk) 12:57, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
- This is nonsense. As I explained at Commons Bistro I have bought the watch from a reputable jeweller and serviced it multiple times at Rolex. I will not reveal from which country for privacy reasons. I am a reputable and longtime uploader at Commons and I consider this harrassment. My pictures have always been legal and genuine and uploaded with the right licenses. I may reconsider any further uploads at Commons due to this harrassment. Dr.K. (talk) 12:54, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
- And since when if Rolex cannot confirm the authenticity of a watch, the watch in question may be a fake? Rolex may need more evidence such as serial numbers etc. to confirm the authenticity of its watches. But that does not mean that the depicted watch may be fake. And are you going to do this for all watches at Commons? Are you going to Gucci watches, Bulova, Cartier, etc. and contact their legal departments to verify their authenticity based on silly suspicions? If this is the way OTRS treats longterm, reputable users, you may have to rethink your modus operandi. And you did not even inform me of these ridiculous accusations. User Asclepias did. Dr.K. (talk) 13:48, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
This is the back of my Rolex watch. The original Rolex green sticker, after many dives, wore out and I removed it. Dr.K. (talk) 13:12, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
This is the edge of my Rolex Submariner. Send these pictures to Rolex and tell them to verify it. After they reply, come back and tell me what they told you. Dr.K. (talk) 13:59, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
Now do some investigating of your own, instead of relying on the comments of anonymous readers: The number of the bracelet in the upper picture is 93150. Check amazon.com: Oyster-Rolex-Submariner-93150. Then check the end-piece number: 580 (in the same picture). Then check 580 End Piece for Rolex Submariner at amazon.com. The numbers match. It looks like a genuine bracelet and the end-piece is also genuine. Needless to say, so is the watch. Dr.K. (talk) 15:45, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
And finally, can you tell me and the rest of the users of this wiki what exactly were the complaints of the anonymous reader? What did he tell you? What were his words? Why did he suspect that this watch is a fake? Based on what grounds? Can you give us the details so that we can decide if he had any good reasons to suspect this watch is a fake? Please do tell us what he told you. If the reasons for your suspicion were good, we need to know. If your reasons for suspecting this watch were not good, we also need to know and OTRS needs to know why you acted that way so that they can prevent this inquisition happening to another user. Finally, to use your own words: according to Rolex Legal department the authenticity cannot be confirmed Does that sound to you like Rolex said that the watch may be a fake? You used the word "fake" but Rolex never used the word "fake". You know why? Because Rolex knows better than you. Rolex knows that this watch looks genuine but since they cannot open the case and check the serial number and other details they cannot legally confirm it is genuine. But that holds true for any watch pictured on Commons. It holds true not only for watches but for any product. Or did you not know that simple fact before you made your accusations? Dr.K. (talk) 08:43, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
And then you went to the French wikipedia and replaced my genuine image with this image which has no metadata, as user Asclepias told you, and looks commercial and was originally uploaded on en.wiki by a user whose talkpage is full of image copyright violations. The image you used to replace my genuine picture of my genuine watch may well be a copyright violation. Dr.K. (talk) 09:42, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
I have put the two images side by side. The left image is my image of my watch which you said "may be fake". The one on the right is the image you said has a "higher chance of being genuine" and then you added it to the French wikipedia. Can you explain why? What is the difference you see in these two watches that makes you think so? By the way, as an OTRS member, can you please also send the image on the right to the Rolex legal department to be certified as authentic? You did this for my watch, so I expect you to do the same for the image of the watch you used on the French Wikipedia.
