Christinahernandez
|
.jpg){kind=link}
Speedy deletion of "Lorenzo Peña" edit
A tag has been placed on "Lorenzo Peña" requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies.
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. T3chl0v3r (talk) 21:45, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
Possibly unfree File:LorenzoPena2007.jpg edit
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:LorenzoPena2007.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 19:58, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
The problem was apparently caused by a misplacement of the copyright public permission, which by now seems to have been corrected. The file, besides being free in the sense of gratis, is also generally free, in a more general sense, provided reproductions are done in good faith and the integrity of the image is kept unaltered.
Christinahernandez (talk) 17:00, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
If you created this media file and want to use it on Wikipedia, you may re-upload it (or amend the image description if it has not yet been deleted) and use the license {{cc-by-sa-3.0}} to license it under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 license, or use {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. Note, if you did create this file, you may want to upload it to Wikimedia Commons, which will allow the image to be accessed by all Wikimedia Foundation projects (which include the various localized versions of Wikipedia)
If you did not create this media file, please understand that the vast majority of images found on the internet are not appropriate for Wikipedia. Most content on the internet is copyrighted and the creator of the image has exclusive rights to use it. Wikipedia respects the copyrights of others - do not upload images that violate others' copyrights. In certain limited cases, we may be able to use an image under a claim of fair use - if you are certain that fair use would apply here, you may choose one of the fair use tags from this list. If no fair use rationale applies, you may want to contact the copyright holder and request that they make the media available under a free license.
If you have any questions please ask at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 21:20, 22 October 2012 (UTC)Contested deletion edit
This file should not be speedy deleted as bearing an improper license, because... (your reason here) --Christinahernandez (talk) 16:08, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
The deletion is wrong and unfair. The alleged ground is as follows:
"F3. Improper license.
Media licensed as "for non-commercial use only" (including non-commercial Creative Commons licenses),
"no derivative use", "for Wikipedia use only" or "used with permission" may be deleted, unless they
comply with the limited standards for the use of non-free content. Files licensed under versions of
the GFDL prior to 1.3, without allowing for later versions, may be deleted."
Yet the publicly displayed licence covering the image I uploaded cannot be blamed on any of those four accounts.
For one thing, it allows for commercial use (with a minor and trivial proviso, namely not hinting at the owner's receiving any part of the earnings).
For another, it is not a "no derivative use" license, since many derivative works are freely allowed, viz. such derivative works as are neither deceiving nor misleading nor distorting nor dispariging nor malevolent. There are of course a great many derivative works which remain licit, such as combinations of the image with other images (e.g. in order to form a collection of pictures of analytical philosophers or the like).
A "no derivative use" license is one PROHIBITING ANY derivative use. In between banning ALL derivative works and allowing all of them there are a great many possibilitites. The license puts forward one of them, namely it allows such truthful derivative works as are not detrimental to the owner's credit. Which for practical purposes means most good-faith derivative works.
Furthermore the image is neither "for Wikipedia use only" nor "used with permission", since it is used on the ground of a GENERAL licence granted by the owner.
Thus foundation [F3] does not apply. The covering licence is not one of those banned by the F3 provision.
Moreover, even if the license under consideration is somewhat deviant as regards more standard free licenses, the deviation is minimal. I understand Wikipedia's general policy implies accepting non-free images whenever there is no alternative and the use is minimal and otherwise harmless.
There are probably few individuals granting a public license concerning their photographs and allowing distortions, photomontages, or a use of the images hiding the owner's name. Under some jurisdictions such usages would amount to civil torts and in certain cases even punishable misdemeanours. Therefore, whether silently or not, many images of living people are allowed to be used under conditions quite similar to those stated on the licence under consideration. — Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])
- It is very clear from the licence formulation that this is a licence which doesn't permit derivative works, so F3 clearly applies. Compare with {{Non-free Microsoft screenshot}}. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:34, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free image File:Lorenzo Peña in 2007 (thumbnail).jpg edit
.jpg){kind=link}
Thanks for uploading File:Lorenzo Peña in 2007 (thumbnail).jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:41, 8 October 2019 (UTC)