The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted as G4 by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 04:04, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Nelson Denis.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Despite claim made on the photo description page, this image is not licensed cc-by-sa-3.0. As can be seen from the Flickr page, it is "licensed" CC BY-SA 2.0. Evidently Denis uploaded to Flickr a bunch of photos that had previously been deleted because of their questionable copyright status, and given them the CC By-SA 2.o license. Even that license is questionable, as he obviously did not create these photos. CC BY-SA 2.0 is insufficient for Wikipedia. Uploader should have checked before uploading. Additionally, this is a replication of a file (File:NDENIS FOTO -1.jpg) that was deleted after a previous PUF. See [1]. Even if properly licensed on Flickr, this photo would still be problematic for the reasons described in that previous deletion discussion. Just because a user uploads to Flickr a photo that he obviously didn't create, that doesn't make it usable just because he slaps on a proper license. In this case, he didn't even do that. ScottyBerg (talk) 00:58, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I've struck out the text about CC BY-SA 2.0, as I believe that the mislabeling of the photo as 3.0 is immaterial. Sorry to have confused the issue. The problem is the same as in the previous PUF discussion as a result of which this photo was deleted. Also, please note that two other photographs were deleted because of the previous PUF, also because of false claims of copyright ownership. See [2][3] ScottyBerg (talk) 18:53, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• This photo was uploaded by an Administrator.

Please Note: I (Nelson Denis) did not upload this photo. As the copyright holder, I am simply responding to a concern about the photo's copyright status. I also e-mailed a Permission to OTRS.

I then placed an OTRS Pending notice in the Image Licensing File.

I make this distinction very clear, so there is no issue about my involvement.

I own the photo, I own the copyright to the photo, and I am also using it in my own Facebook page: [4]

I also use this photo in my own LinkedIn page: [5]

It is plainly evident that I own the photo and the copyright to its use.

Finally, unless I'm missing something, the licenses at FLICKR are all CC-BY-SA 3.0. I placed a notice right under each photo, including this one. FLICKR

Nelsondenis248 (talk) 04:51, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You placed your "notice" on the Flickr photograph after I posted this PUF. You then revised your original post above.[6] But if you look at the licensing information to the right of the photo you can see that it is still 2.0. But it doesn't matter. You can't claim ownership of a photo that you didn't create. All this has been argued previously.

As for your other points (the ones you made before you rewrote your post above, you made them during the last PUF discussion, and they were rejected. You're not the copyright owner. The last time, you claimed that you "created" the article, that the photo was taken with a "remote shutter release." That was obviously bogus, and the photo was deleted. Are you changing your story?

Whether you're sticking with your old story or have concocted a new one, what's happened here is that a deleted file has been re-created, and should be speedily deleted. I have just nominated it per CSD G4. On second thought, the previous PUF was not technically a deletion discussion, so I've taken off the speedy deletion template. However, you are rehashing the same argument as you did in the previous PUF, so functionally there's no real difference. I still think it should be speedied. ScottyBerg (talk) 05:58, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• This photo was uploaded by an Administrator.

Also, for accuracy of record: other photos were previously deleted after this same editor, ScottyBerg, argued and disagreed with the OTRS Administrator, who had issued OTRS Tickets to a series of photos. This OTRS Administrator did not agree with Scotty Berg. In the end, Scotty Berg's only remaining argument was that they were uploaded by a banned user.

That is not the case here. This photo was uploaded by an Administrator in good standing, and the copyright has been properly documented to OTRS by me, the owner of the photo and its copyright.

If I didn't own the photo, it would not be on my Facebook page [7] , my LinkedIn page [8] , and my FLICKR page [9]. As a practicing attorney, I would not endanger my law license by violating someone's copyright. It's simply not worth it.

The photo is mine. I own the copyright. I sent a notice to OTRS. There is absolutely no ground for a deletion, speedy or otherwise. Nelsondenis248 (talk) 06:35, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Uh no, the photo wasn't deleted because you evaded your permablock by using socks. It was deleted because your explanation (that the photo was taken by a "remote shutter release") wasn't credible. By the way, edits such as this[10], rewriting your posts, should not be made in discussions after there have been responses. I had to revise the beginning of my reply. Please don't do that in the future, as it is disruptive. ScottyBerg (talk) 15:15, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - I uploaded the photo in accordance to Wikipedia’s requirement that the photos from “Flickr” be at least CC=by=SA. The photo is intended for the subject’s article. We tend to continue punishing editors for their past mistakes instead of realizing that some editors start off wrong and once given a second chance can become great editors, I believe that Mr. Denis, who is a lawyer and former New York Assemblyman is telling the truth and is not about to jeopardize his career over a mere photo. Antonio Martin (talk) 14:45, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, the requirement is cc-by-sa-3.0, and you uploaded a photo that was cc-by-sa-2.0. After this PUF was filed, he posted a notice on the Flickr page saying it was 3.0. But it doesn't matter, because all the OTRS letters in the world can't change the fact that he didn't create this photo. His claim that the photo was taken with a "remote shutter release" is obviously false, as was discussed in the previous PUF. That's why it was deleted.

Given that this photo was previously deleted pursuant to a PUF, I've inquired as to whether another PUF is really necessary, or whether this should be withdrawn and this really should be discussed at a Files for Deletion.

As for taking actions that would jeopardize his career: I don't think that is a good argument for retaining this photo, as he was permanently blocked for doing things far more serious than putting photos on Flickr that don't belong there. ScottyBerg (talk) 15:15, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Researching the CC requirement further, I'm not clear whether the error on the uploading page (saying it was 3.0 when it was 2.0) was material. However, I don't think the claim of licensing matters, as the photo was obviously not taken by the person in the photograph. ScottyBerg (talk) 15:51, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What is the problem with CC BY-SA 2.0? As far as I can tell, it's identical to CC BY-SA 3.0 in every respect. --Redrose64 (talk) 18:25, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, that's not the problem. The problem is that a person who is photographed does not own the copyright of the photo. This whole issue was thoroughly discussed in a previous PUF a few months ago, and the photo was deleted because the claim of copyright was not valid. See [11]. The copyright is claimed by the person who is in the photograph, on the plainly ridiculous grounds that he took the photo using a remote shutter release. Here we are again, discussing the same photo. I am contemplating closing out this discussion, because we had one before, and going to a Files for Deletion. ScottyBerg (talk) 18:36, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Notice from the Copyright Owner

This photo that was marked for "PUF" by Scotty Berg was uploaded by an Administrator. In addition as the copyright owner, I e-mailed full copyright information and release to OTRS. I own the photo, I own the copyright, and I sent the permission to OTRS.

I made this clear before -- if I didn't own the photo, it would not be on my Facebook page [12] , my LinkedIn page [13] , and my FLICKR page [14]. As a practicing attorney, I would not endanger my law license by violating someone's copyright. It's simply not worth it.

I don't see how ScottyBerg can circumvent the discussion which he himself called for (a PUF discussion), or claim a photo is "identical" to any other photo, or seek to delete a photo that is released by the copyright holder (myself) and uploaded by an Administrator.

Nelsondenis248 (talk) 18:53, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop referring to yourself, the subject of the photograph, as the "copyright owner," and please stop brandishing that it was uploaded by an administrator. This identical photo and two other photographs were previously deleted, in a June 2011 PUF discussion, because you falsely claimed that you took them with a remote shutter release. Your claim that you are the copyright owner therefore has zero credibility, and your repeatedly saying that it was uploaded by an administrator (in boldface, to be sure we see) it just silly. ScottyBerg (talk) 19:10, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I see that you claiming that this file is not identical to File:NDENIS FOTO -1.jpg. You may not realize this, but that file is visible to any administrator. You don't do your credibility any good by saying that they aren't identical. ScottyBerg (talk) 19:19, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Notice AGAIN from the Copyright Holder

Out of consideration for the editors/administrators that will need to review this, I will not drag out this dialogue ad infinitum.

The photo was uploaded by an Administrator and a complete permission/release was e-mailed to OTRS by me, the copyright holder.

All the relevant issues are covered in the permission I sent to OTRS, and in my previous postings above. Nelsondenis248 (talk) 19:46, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Would you please cut it out and stop using terms like "notice" that are intended to intimidate? You've made your point about OTRS about a dozen times, and I've already explained to you that your OTRS emails back in June, when you were permablocked and communicating via socks, made bogus claims of copyright ownership. Your copyright claims had no credibility back in June, when you claimed that you used a remote shutter release, and I think it would be a serious error to give them any credibility today. Also, I'm sensing a bit of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT on your repetitious contention that the uploading of this photo by an administrator has the slightest relevancy. ScottyBerg (talk) 19:48, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nelsondenis. Did you or did you not take this photograph yourself? Moriori (talk) 22:32, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

He has claimed in the past, and probably is claiming now, that he did. That was the subject of the PUF in June. The problem is that this and the other two photographs that he claimed to have taken plainly were taken by a third party, and were deleted for that reason. His claims concerning this photo are not credible, and he is not entitled to the presumption of good faith. He's even implied in this discussion that the two photos (the one deleted in June and the one we're discussing) aren't identical! Any administrator can see that they are. ScottyBerg (talk) 22:38, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nowhere in this PUF has he said he is the author of this image. I'd like to see a yes or no. Moriori (talk) 22:49, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes I did, and I fully explained this in the permission which I sent to OTRS. In addition, I own the photo and its copyright. Since I am the owner, I also placed the photo on my Facebook page [15] , my LinkedIn page [16] , and my FLICKR page [17]. It is plainly evident that I own the copyright. As I stated before -- I am a practicing attorney, and would not endanger my law license by violating someone's copyright. It's simply not worth it. Nelsondenis248 (talk) 22:51, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't the slightest bit "plainly evident" that you "own the copyright." What is obvious is that someone other than yourself took this photograph, as well as the other two photographs that were also deleted that you claimed were taken by a "remote shutter release." You made the same argument, via your socks, in June. The photograph speaks for itself, which is why it was deleted, and contrary to your earlier comment it is identical to the one that was deleted. The fact that you've posted this photo on Flickr and other places is utterly meaningless. You also posted other photographs that were obviously not taken by you. As for not endangering your law license, it is worth noting that you were indefinetly blocked for posting negative text on a political opponent, and then made a nuisance of yourself socking during the term of your block. Making false copyright claims, as you have in the past, is small beer in comparison. Your block was lifted on condition that you avoid your article and articles on your political opponents, except the talk page. I'd say that you are skirting pretty close to violating that condition. It was imposed because of the very same issues we are experiencing in this discussion. ScottyBerg (talk) 23:06, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm sorry ScottyBerg, I will maintain my civility with you, but the only "issue" here is the copyright concern which you raised about this photo. The photo was not uploaded by me, and my entire involvement has been in response to your lengthy posts here.

With all due respect, particularly to the editors/administrators who will now have to review this lengthy dialogue, I believe it is time to drop the stick, walk away from the horse, [18] and allow the copyright issue to be considered. Nelsondenis248 (talk) 23:59, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You've been treated with every courtesy, but you have to understand that the assumption of good faith does not extend to an editor who has behaved as you have, and continues to do so. I am referring to your attempts to intimidate the editors here with your "notices," your refactoring of your post after I replied to it, and your contention that the photo that was the subject of this discussion was not the photo that was deleted in June. My suggestion for you is that you obey both the letter and the spirit of your unblocking and completely withdraw from both the article about you and any photos that may be placed in that article. Once this is completed I intend to raise that issue formally with the Arbitration Committee. ScottyBerg (talk) 05:37, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• The record of this discussion, in its entirety, will speak for itself. Nelsondenis248 (talk) 06:03, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I had previously advised the administrator who had deleted this same photo in June, User:Fastily. However, I just noticed that he is out through the Thanksgiving weekend. I suggest that we keep this in abeyance until he returns. While User:Nelsondenis248 has made much of this file being "uploaded by an administrator" (putting it in boldface to be sure we don't overlook it), the only relevancy of that is the section in WP:ADMIN on administrators reversing each other's actions. While I don't think it's applicable, uploading this file had the effect of reversing a previous deletion, and the deleting administrator should have a chance to weigh in if he or she so desires.

Secondly, it just came to my attention that this is the second time an OTRS letter has been provided concerning this photograph. Reading the lengthy PUF discussion in June[19], I see that the person acknowledged to be behind the Nelsondennis248 account submitted an OTRS letter claiming that he took the photo. His claim was rejected as not credible, and the photo was deleted. ScottyBerg (talk) 04:23, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• All issues have been presented, and the copyright for a casual portrait is commonly deemed to belong to the subject -- regardless of whether the subject took the photo themselves, or if a friend or other person took it for them.

The photo that ScottyBerg just referred to initially received an OTRS Ticket. The OTRS Agent who issued the ticket (his name was Chaser) defended the ticket on June 11, 2011.[20] This OTRS Agent also reminded ScottyBerg that the copyright for a casual portrait is commonly deemed to belong to the subject.

Now currently, in addition to being the subject of the photo, I e-mailed a permission to OTRS. Nelsondenis248 (talk) 06:24, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Unbelievable. You've been claiming all along, and in the PUF you just cited (when you were still banned but were represented by your sockpuppet), that you took this picture. You were just asked by Moriori, above, if you took the picture and you said "Yes I did." In the PUF, you even invented a "remote shutter release." As you can see from the exchange at the PUF, the entire discussion there was about whether or not your "remote shutter release" explanation was credible. The consensus was that it was not. It's not correct to say that Chaser "defended" the OTRS. He did at first, but then he said, "I'll defer to others on whether this portrait is too well done to be self-taken. My point was that it would generally be possible to do so with a remote shutter or a time delay. I lack the expertise to judge whether the quality of this particular photo is too good to be self-taken." Now you're changing your story, admitting that the picture was taken by a third party after all, and was a "casual portrait." However, the "common outcomes" page that you site is for Commons, not Wikipedia, and it specifically exempts "formal or professional snapshots," which this appears to be. If you say otherwise, it doesn't matter, because you simply have no credibility. Even if you were making good-faith claims and were telling the truth, and not lying from day one, the proper way to respond to a PUF is to reply to the claims here, and not to send multiple OTRS letters in the hope that you can con someone to believing your latest story. You can't "e-mail permission" via OTRS because, as you've just acknowledged, you didn't take this picture.ScottyBerg (talk) 13:52, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I have not changed my position at all. The photo was taken by me. I never stated otherwise.

The photo was uploaded by an Administrator. I e-mailed my permission to OTRS. The uploading Administrator defended the photo, and voted to Keep the photo in the discussion above. Finally, I just reminded you that the copyright for a casual portrait is commonly deemed to belong to the subject, regardless of whether the subject took the photo themselves, or if a friend or other person took it for them.

With all due respect, particularly to the editors/administrators who will now have to review this lengthy dialogue, I believe it is time to drop the stick, walk away from the horse, [21] and allow the copyright issue to be considered. Nelsondenis248 (talk) 14:36, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion is lengthy because you keep repeating yourself, and making false and misleading statements. If you are sticking to your story that you took the picture, the "common outcomes" page on Commons is of no relevancy to this discussion. Then we're back to the same story that you gave at the previous PUF, and which was rejected as not credible. See User:B's comment "This is a very high end lens and in order to be in focus, there's only a margin of error of about 2-3 inches. There is no possible way that he clicked the button, ran to the spot, lined up exactly where he needed to be within 2-3 inches, and struck the perfect pose, all without someone else there. That's simply absurd." In the past you made the same "remote shutter release" claim about the other photos that were deleted, which now can be viewed on your Flickr page[22], and for which you are also claiming copyright ownership. I'm sure that if this PUF goes in your favor, will have an avalanche of other photos of dubious copyright status uploaded from that Flickr page. ScottyBerg (talk) 14:42, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Administrator who uploaded this photo disagrees with you. Nelsondenis248 (talk) 15:16, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I know. You've said that about a half-dozen times. If I had a nickel for every administrator who made a mistake, I'd have a small fortune. As has been previously pointed out to you, AntomioMartin was not acting as an administrator, so his having the tools is of no consequence. However, an administrator, Fastily, acting as an administrator, had previously deleted the same photo. See? This is why this discussion is so long. You keep arguing the same points and raising issues that require reply. If you want to stop the "stick" being used against you, you need to keep that in mind. ScottyBerg (talk) 15:20, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ScottyBerg, you initiated this PUF, and you've raised all the issues herein. I have replied to them. At this juncture, you have 54 entries in this discussion, and I have 14. I believe it's time to let the editors/administrators review it. Nelsondenis248 (talk) 16:40, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's correct. And I also initiated the preceding PUF that resulted in the deletion of this same file. So? ScottyBerg (talk) 16:57, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, actually it's not correct. Just for the hell of it I counted my posts here. 17, including my initial PUF report. You apparently counted revisions, which you call "entries." Seriously, Nelsondenis248, do you really think that behaving like this is helpful to you in any way? ScottyBerg (talk) 23:25, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment -First of all I would appreciate it if the "administrator" reference be left out of this conversation because that position has no weight nor bearing on my actions. I had no idea that the image was involved in a previous deletion. I searched for an image of former assemblyman Nelson Denis to add in his infobox and found that one in Flickr with the proper licenses. The license indicted is one accepted by Wikipedia and that is why I uploaded it. I personally do not have any reason to believe that the person who uploaded the picture in Flickr is not the owner of the copyright. That is all that I have to say in regard to this subject Antonio Martin (talk) 05:39, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 04:04, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ladle transfer car.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Watermark in the image indicates self-attribution is doubtful, likely from http://www.hundred-percent.com.cn/ Cmprince (talk) 05:17, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Nice catch, I've nominated another file by the uploader for the same reason. Acather96 (talk) 11:52, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 04:04, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:11-formulas.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs).

• The only information on the page is "Science Bureau inc", which might be [23]. It could mean that the item is © Science Bureau, Inc. In any case, the author part isn't clear enough. Stefan2 (talk) 10:23, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • When notifying the uploader, I saw links to Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2011 October 5#File:10-formulas.JPG and Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2011 October 5#File:12-formulas.JPG on his talk page. Based on the file names, I suspect that the files were similar. Both deleted. --Stefan2 (talk) 10:28, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.