Commons:Deletion requests/Uploads by Corpx from ShaggyBevo.com

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

Uploads by Corpx from ShaggyBevo.com

These images are sourced from the forum ShaggyBevo.com. However unless one is a registered user and logged in, this forum cannot be searched nor can threads be linked to that can be viewed. The license permissions are stated to come from the authors via PMs or chat messages, e.g. "Picture taken by aaronisnotcool of ShaggyBevo.com and permission granted to upload here under CC2.0 license through correspondence through site PM," or "orangesky : 'I license my pics of Mack Brown, Major Applewhite, and Will Muschamp under cc 2.5. Corpx (talk) 09:09, 30 July 2008 (UTC) '. This is a completely unverifiable means to confirm the licensing or indicate that the authors are aware of how the licenses work. Several of these images were tagged for {{LicenseReview}}, which was reverted by CorpX for reasons such as "dont mess with templates you dont know how to use" or "source is dynamic and threads are pruned all the time. no way to provide active link." --BrokenSphere (Talk) 02:18, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • I dont know what your problem is. You first went through tagging images with a template that you obviously do not know how to use and now you've nominated them for deletion. A bunch of the High Res ones are from flickr as well, but they were were apparently deleted since upload to commons. The only one that had a problem was one with a logo on a scoreboard, and I requested deletion for that. Anyway, if you question my sources, feel free to contact the associated posters on the forum and they'll confirm it. It's stupid to nominate something for deletion because you're not, or too lazy to, verify the authors credited. Corpx (talk) 03:49, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I asked about this on the Village Pump and was advised to use the License Review tag. A few admins responded to this. As I said, I went through and tagged several of these images with that tag. Instead of following process and allowing third party reviewers to actually review the images, you removed the tags. As these are YOUR UPLOADS, it is YOUR RESPONSIBILITY to PROPERLY confirm and make it verifiable that they are licensed for what you claim them to be. For all I or anyone else knows you could have taken them right from ShaggyBevo and just made up the license release dialog yourself. Instead of doing something like OTRS, like you did with File:Earl campbell shaggybevo.jpg, also sourced from ShaggyBevo, for this group of images instead you asked people via PM and chat message to license their images freely. It seems to me that YOU are the one who was taking shortcuts and was not willing to take the time to set up these uploads so that there wouldn't be potential problems lateer on with verifying authorship or licensing. If you are using on such a dynamic and unstable source for your uploads, maybe you need to find something more stable and reliable or use proper and reliable means of verifying authorship and license. BrokenSphere (Talk) 04:43, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The only one that had a problem was one with a logo on a scoreboard, and I requested deletion for that.

If you're talking about File:Rrslogo.jpg, you didn't request deletion for this image, I flagged it as a derivative. BrokenSphere (Talk) 04:53, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I requested deletion for that file through IRC after talking with some of the people there, when I determined that the argument to keep it would probably fall under fair use. As for the template, that is NOT how you use it. If you were to use it properly, it would not show up like this. So, either learn to use it properly, or quit using it at all. You're obviously not familiar with templates, or you would not be tagging pictures for deletion like this. At least learn how to properly nominate stuff for deletion before you nominate people's uploads. I know full well how to go through OTRS, but it is just not worth the trouble making a message board poster jump through hoops to get it here. The poster names are on the pictures, if anyone wants to verify them. I'm not an idiot to make up stuff so that I can upload them to Commons. As far as I knew at the time of the uploading, commons did not delete stuff unless evidence of the contrary was presented, so I'm not sure what the point of your witch hunt through my images is. Corpx (talk) 07:44, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed that these uploads had a problematic source and licensing that I couldn't verify and wanted to flag them for further review. What I wanted to do when tagging images with the LicenseReview template was to get them into Category:License review needed so that admins and trusted reviewers could verify the licensing. It seems that this is something that you didn't know about how this template works. I am neither an admin or a trusted user, so I didn't feel the template out. This was what was suggested to me when I asked about it on the VP. I tag images for speedy deletion as well as normal DRs all the time, what I DON'T DO is use an unstable source like a forum, get the authors' permissions by PMs and chat messages, AND and expect someone else to come along to be able to verify this. Unless someone is registered and logged into this forum they can't search that forum nor view any linked topics. How can you expect someone else to later verify the source and licensing under such circumstances??? If it's not worth the trouble for you to explain to someone else how the OTRS process works, then take some responsibility for deciding not to take the trouble to do this instead of trying to avoid it and put it on others by making them jump through hoops to verify source and licensing, or use another, more reliable and stable source instead. BrokenSphere (Talk) 03:12, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, learn to "feel out" templates before you start using them. It's not rocket science. If you want to just include it in a category, there are other ways of doing instead of plastering a template that you have not "felt out" yet. You're on some sort of witch hunt with tools that you have not "felt out" yet. Second of all, there are much better places to discuss something like this instead of dragging this to RFD because I pointed out your lack of template knowledge. I felt, at the time of the upload that the sourcing was sufficient, and unless the consensus is that it needs more sourcing, I do not see a need to take any action. You're the only one who has had any problems with them in the three years that most of those images have been up. Corpx (talk) 04:54, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Explain how I could have flagged these images for license review if I felt it was necessary without using this particular template. To initiate some discussion on this and avoid edit warring over the template tagging was why I started this DR. Secondly, I did discuss this issue at the Village Pump, see above. BrokenSphere (Talk) 05:16, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It clearly tells you how you are supposed to be using it. Corpx (talk) 06:38, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/Uploads_by_Corpx_from_ShaggyBevo.com&oldid=43617088"