Recent taggings of logos as too complexEdit
Hey there, I just wanted to let you know that some of your recent taggings of logos as too complex for public domain appear, to me at least, to be simple enough. I recommend you check out formally decided cases of logo simplicity. Thanks! Allmightyduck (talk) 22:55, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
The reason why I am tagging them as too complex, is that Commons only accepts files that are in the public domain in the United States and the source country. C3F2k (Questions, comments, complaints?) 03:11, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
File:Oxnard, Ormond Beach surfing 1975.jpgEdit
Hi. Thanks for your work and being attentive to copyright. However you seem to have made an error in tagging an image for speedy deletion. I reverted your edit to File:Oxnard, Ormond Beach surfing 1975.jpg tagging it for speedy deletion. As the image page states, the free license was confirmed at the time, and a look at the article history will show this to be valid. Creative Commons licenses are not revokable. See Template talk:Flickr-change-of-license and Creative Commons FAQ: CC licenses are not revocable for more detailed discussion. Thanks for your attention. Cheers, -- Infrogmation (talk) 23:09, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
- Is there any evidence that it was under the licence at the time? I'm just curious. C3F2k (Questions, comments, complaints?) 00:03, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
- Yes. Again, notice that on the image page the template stating "This image, which was originally posted to Flickr.com, was uploaded to Commons using Flickr upload bot on 21:37, 21 September 2009 (UTC) by Ibn Battuta (talk). On that date it was licensed under the license below.". The bot checks that the license on Flickr is one allowed on Commons and will not upload images that are not free licensed on Flickr. As I mentioned above, you can confirm that this was valid by looking at the page history. this difference confirms that the license information was added by the Flickr upload bot. Cheers, -- Infrogmation (talk) 15:21, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
User:Magog the Ogre/questionably PD-ineligible contentEdit
Do not return rediculously PD-simple images to that page claiming there's no proof. If you think images like File:2division.png and Accessible Media Inc.png (both which you returned) are copyrightable, go ahead and do a DR, you'll get laughed at. Fry1989 eh? 23:48, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
|User:C3F2k/attributionlicence 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 user page, 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.
Please, if you want to blank content on this page or your userpage, that's fine. But do not do it on other pages. If you want to retract a statement, enclose it with strikethrough tags (under edittools). Also, speedy deletion on your images declined, I have moved them to a DR. -mattbuck (Talk) 15:46, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
I hope you will reconsider quitting Commons. We all make occasional mistakes -- I have reopened the discussion at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Minecraftlogo.png because I think you may be right -- not because it might have a copyright in Sweden, but because it may have one in the USA. Your persistence has led to a change in my thinking about the universal applicability of PD-textlogo to 3D fonts.
I will admit that I didn't like the de-admin request, but I think you have learned something from the speed and strength of our colleagues response -- it is a community that I am proud to be part of. If you really want to be an Admin -- as your User page suggests -- go for it. It may not happen as quickly as you think, but we don't hold grudges. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:40, 15 June 2012 (UTC)