Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Δ

Discussions on this page may escalate into heated debate. Please try to keep a cool head when commenting here. See also: Wikipedia:Etiquette.

This a centralized page of discussion pertaining to User:Δ, formerly User:Betacommand, and his bots User:BetacommandBot and User:Δbot (User:Deltabot). These discussions were previously on the Administrators' Incidents Noticeboard, but haved been moved here in the interests of space and navigation. This page is for participating and discussing in a civil manner all matters that relate to this user and his bots.

Please do not use this page to attack these users instead of participating in civil discussion.
This is not a complaints department. If you have a private matter that concerns this user, please discuss it with Δ on his talk page.

"Deletion" of File:Ltte emblem.jpg

The issue with the deletion of File:Ltte emblem.jpg is significant. That's a deletion which should not have been done without careful consideration. The Tamil Tigers were a terrorist organization, and they were mostly wiped out by the army of Sri Lanka in 2009. It's not clear that anyone owns their "intellectual property", since they were never a legal entity of a state signatory to the Berne or Paris Convention. But rather than a discussion over this point, we seem to have yet another quick deletion by one of Betacommand's automated or semi-automated processes. --John Nagle (talk) 19:57, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

• Lack of research on your part, as it's obvious you are in error. Δ didn't remove a single instance of File:Ltte emblem.jpg from any article, so far as I'm aware. I...I...did. Now, if you want to attack me for using an automated or semi-automated process to remove File:Ltte emblem.jpg from 49 articles, then by all means feel free to attack *me*. You will of course be errant in your accusation, but I'll be happy to set you straight on that score as well. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:17, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

More content policing

An anon has noted here: [1] that Beta destroyed three articles about current British coinage. He has defended himself claiming he is 'enforcing policy'.

Now this is all very well, but I do think that the hit and run approach he employs is contrary to good manners and also to building a useful free encyclopedia.

Removing current circulating coin images seems to be contrary to the public interest and that indeed of the Royal Mint, which exercises copyright rights on behalf of the Crown. It states that coin images may be used for advertising and promotional purposes. [2]

Now that many images have been auto-deleted it seems unlikely that past content contributors will feel inclined to return to Wikipedia, since numsimatics pages without images are close to useless. Indocopy (talk) 11:53, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

• Royal Mint's copyright is incompatible with our licensing. There's no middle ground. Sorry. As to "destroying" articles, hardly. I could just as well argue that you seek to destroy articles by including so many non-free images, especially since it contradicts our mission. Enough hyperbole please. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:57, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

The articles in question have been stable for over half a decade until they were destroyed by Delta. That's not hyperbole, that's just what happened. Article was stable and useful, images were used in accordance with copyright holder's wishes. This is not something like a sports article reusing many professional ($$$) photographs, these are images that the copyright holder is happy to see reproduced.

I am afraid that you and Delta are living in some sort of alternate reality - of course there is a middle ground, Wikipedia has millions of copyrighted images in it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Indocopy (talk • contribs)

Bullshit, before you start quoting random numbers, we have 400,707 non-free files, across 354,668 articles. That is only 9.75% of our articles that contain non-free content, and no where near a million non-free files. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 00:49, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

PS just because an article is stable doesn't mean its right, take a look at an old scandal that landed us in hot water, it was posted for 4 and a half months. [3] ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 01:00, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

It's also worth noting that File:British_50_pence_obverse.jpg states that "Reproductions on Wikipedia of Bank of England currency notes are made by permission of the Bank of England, ref. FCA/9292C", so we have explicit permission from the copyright holder to use these images. The only conceivable reason for removing them is thus a highly contentious personal definition of "overuse". Jpatokal (talk) 22:49, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

• It would seem that both of you have a misapprehension of how images are managed here. Both of you are arguing in favor of liberal inclusion of images because they fit within the copyright holder's permission. No such class of images exists here on Wikipedia. In fact, it's a criteria for speedy deletion. In effect, what you are asking us to do is void our speedy deletion policy in this respect, and also ignore Jimbo Wales' statements from years ago regarding permission-to-use-on-Wikipedia media. As to the articles subsisting for half a decade in the form they were in, as has been mentioned elsewhere the duration of a mistake on the project doesn't make it any more acceptable. You are certainly welcome to your opinion on accepting free-as-in-beer media, but please don't be upset when it comes it contact with our policies and mission here. --Hammersoft (talk) 00:07, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

You seem very confused here. Speedy deletion applies to images without fair use notices, but all the images in question have the proper notices, and this noticeboard is entirely the wrong place for any such discussion anyway. What is at issue here is the tremendous disruption caused by Delta through mass removals of images from articles with what seems to be an unauthorized bot, justified solely by his idiosyncratic interpretation of NFCC. Jpatokal (talk) 00:51, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Stop wasting our time, and read the fucking links:

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.

• {{db-f3}}, {{db-noncom}}

F3 states clearly for Wikipedia only images will be deleted on sight. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 01:03, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Unless they have fair use notices, as is the case here. (As I just said in the comment you are replying to.) If you disagree, by all means go ahead and tag File:British_50_pence_obverse.jpg for speedy deletion, and see what happens. Jpatokal (talk) 02:35, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

I dont see any exceptions to that rule.... anywhere in policy. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 02:37, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

You just quoted the exception yourself: "unless they comply with the limited standards for the use of non-free content".

What F3 is saying is simply that a "for Wikipedia only" license does not make the image free content; it can still be used under fair use in the same way that any other non-free content can be used.

Jpatokal (talk) 05:37, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

We're talking about the license, which is a requirement from the Foundation. Without a license, regardless of how perfect the non-free rationale is, it will be deleted unless the license can be added. The uploader is suppose to add this on uploading. --MASEM (t) 02:47, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

You know, you could just click on the link and find out? It's tagged with the licensing template {{Non-free currency-UK|created=1998}}, which correctly identifies it as a copyrighted non-free work. Jpatokal (talk) 05:32, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm only pointing out that speedy deletion applies if the image did lack any licensing info, in addition to the case of lacking required rationale elements. Not the case here as you note. --MASEM (t) 05:40, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

• And my point was that Jpatokal and Indocopy were arguing that since the images are usable here under a license that gives permission to use here, they're somehow more acceptable than other non-free images. They aren't. Permission to use on Wikipedia is absolutely meaningless to us. Permission to use for an educational resource is absolutely meaningless to us. Either an image is available under a free license or public domain, or they are treated as non-free here. If treated as non-free, there is no special exclusions for any given image that it gets a free pass from NFCC requirements. It either meets them, or it doesn't. If it doesn't, you can and should expect them to be removed. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:08, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Nope, it's not meaningless. The images are not licensed under a preferred licence, they are under a 'permissive' licence, and Wikipedia allows this as 'fair use'. The images are individually 100% acceptable within Wikipedia, the problem has arisen because you two are on some pointless content zapping expedition and you two have decided that anything in excess of 'n' images (where 'n' is I suspect a moving target) is 'overuse'. Overuse is not a question of fact, it is a question of judgement. Now I understand that you two have poor judgement, but you look pretty damn stupid when the copyright holder says 'hey you guys can use all our copyrighted images/designs, it's no problem', and then you reply 'Er thanks, but actually we'd prefer it if you licensed them GFDL'; copyright holder then says 'no, take it or leave it', and you respond by saying 'ok, in that case we'll take it, but only n per page, I know you said we can have more, but actually we're just going to go around randomly deleting the images and only using some of them'.

Please engage your brains, I can see that they only work in 'yes' or 'no', but trust me sometimes things are more nuanced than that. The question of what is 'overuse' will vary - if you are reusing commercial $$$ photographs without permission, well that really needs to be kept to a minimum, but when the copyright holder says 'you guys can use our images', that's not overuse. A page with ONE 'unfree' image is not 'free'. A page with 100 'unfree' images is also 'unfree', so this is not an ideological 'thou shalt not create unfree pages' position, nope this is about not breaching the LEGAL doctrine of 'fair use'. And trust me, when the copyright holder says it's ok, you are not breaching that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Indocopy (talk • contribs)

The situation is one created by the Foundation which has 1) only outlined specific licensing that qualifies as "free" for the free content mission, and 2) has asked projects to restrict non-free images beyond what fair use would otherwise allow, including minimal use and using free content (including text) in place of non-free content. It doesn't matter if the copyright owner says "please use these but only for this purpose"; if WP cannot redistribute them for building more free content, its unacceptable to the goals of the Foundation. Now, as for what that actually is on en.wiki has some room for discussion and consensus, but past consensus has shown that within any list article, illustration of a majority of elements within the list with multiple non-free images generally runs afoul of en.wiki's NFC policy; decorative or even utilitarian use is not accepted if there's no actual discussion from sourced material about the images in question. That's documented on WP:NFLISTS. So what Delta and Hammer are doing follows with past consensus (without making currency articles a special case). Note that neither have said "no images" on these lists, as I think both would readily agree a front-back image combo, or even a single image (not user-generated montage) from a single source would be acceptable. Note that the maximum number of images is a moving target. Some articles depending on content could support 20 or 30, some could only support one, or even zero. We can't give a hard piece of advice as to what the maximum is; but we do recognize that illustrating most entries in a list with NFC is definitely not "minimal use". --MASEM (t) 23:24, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

@Indocopy; I want to take the opportunity to thank you for pointing out that I (1) am on a pointless content zapping expedition, (2) have poor judgment, (3) am pretty damn stupid, (4) am randomly deleting images, and (5) am failing to engage my brain (though since I'm stupid I don't see what engaging my brain would help). I feel a sudden lightness of being, now that I understand my true self thanks to your enlightening commentary. As to the non-insulting portions of your commentary, Masem is correct. Further, you're arguing for a position of what is acceptable here is what is legal under Fair Use. That simply isn't the case on Wikipedia. --Hammersoft (talk) 04:16, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

• What I don't understand is why anyone (other than a deliberate vandal) would take it upon themselves to embark upon this crusade of mass deletion and mass destruction of articles, when no one is complaining and articles/images have been stable for years. Do these people wake up in the morning looking forward to spending all day depleting the encyclopedia and deleting other people's work, and then go to bed at night thinking it was a day well spent? 86.177.108.163 (talk) 13:16, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

See m:Mission - we are trying to write a free encyclopedia here. That is why the use of non-free images should be minimised, and when overuse is claimed, images should be removed and a discussion should be started for which to keep. If there is no rationale for using 10 images, but there is a rationale for keeping 1 or 2 .. then do it. If there is a rationale for keeping all 10 .. then write it out, get that consensus. That is the way to ensure that not all is deleted. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 13:20, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

The rationale is pretty clear: Articles about coins and banknotes are largely pointless without pictures. I would love for all the deleted images to be restored, and all the damaged articles to be repaired. Unfortunately I do not have the skill or patience to negotiate Wikipedia's bureaucracy. However, I hope that someone else here may be able to take on that task. 86.148.152.182 (talk) 17:46, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

• Well then there shouldn't be any reason why we can't include non-free images on all articles, such as episode lists, discographies, bibliographies, sports seasons, etc., right? As I've said before, you don't need to have an image of each side of every unit of currency within a system of currency in order to discuss the article in an encyclopedic manner. Now, if you're trying to be a guide (which we're not), then I agree you would want to have every image of every side. We'd be failing our purpose if that were the case. Of course, we're not a guide. As for "damage" being caused; you think it's damage. Not everybody agrees with you, and characterizing it as damage is inappropriate. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:54, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

I understand that Wikipedia has a pretty big collection of episode lists. In fact, I see that there are over 200 South Park episode pages, each using non-free images, totally hundreds of non-free images of a copyrighted show whose image rights are commercially valuable and protected using expensive lawyers. So your argument there is rather weak.

Although most of their users probably don't create Wikipedia fancruft, it's a reasonable assumption that banknotes are more widely used and recognised than South Park episodes, each of which, as I mentioned has its own page, a pretty handy notguide.

Equally, Britney's New Look has a fulsome guide/plot synopsis, which does a good job of detailing what goes on in a 20-minute episode. Relatively speaking to the text, the picture is useless - it would not be clear that Britney has a gun, rather than some kind of microphone or sex toy, in her mouth, without the text caption or episode synopsis.

Suffice to say, in the context of a moving picture or animation, a single image conveys very little information and is largely non-essential, and except for a very few iconic scenes (most of which Wikipedia is in fact missing - the copyrighted, non-free image Image:Psycho_(1960).jpg is not irreplaceable in the way that the classic 'Janet Leigh in the shower' shot would be), Wikipedia simply does not NEED to include these images. Despite their limited utility, these stills of copyrighted productions are all over Wikipedia, in the name of 'fair use'.

By contrast, a banknote has no plot, it has no beginning or end, music or special effects, it is simply a 2-d visual object, albeit with some cultural and financial significance (as does a movie picture). If you have an article entitled 'banknotes of xyz', and you take away the images, then yes you have destroyed it. The article would not have been created without the images, and without the images the article is dead, destroyed, useless. 86.173.175.206 (talk) 00:40, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

86.148.152.182: You say 'The rationale is pretty clear: Articles about coins and banknotes are largely pointless without pictures.' .. a) we are not saying that they should be 'without pictures', we are saying that there should be a minimal amount of pictures, b) there is a rationale for 'this picture depicts this banknote, so it is fair-use on this page', however, there is not a rationale for 'this picture of the 10-xxx note is practically the same as the picture of the 5-xxx note except that this one is not green but blue' .. and one can not defend that second part. If the two are practically the same, what, if 5, 10, 25, 50, 100, 200, 500-xxx are all practically the same except for, say, colour and one image on the backside, then depicting 14 images is not 'fair use' .. it is overuse of non-free images. So first of all, there is no rationale given for depicting all of them (even for pages where 5, 10, 25, 50, 100, 200 and 500 are all completely different, and they should be all shown, back and front, then there is not a rationale given why all 14 images have to be shown (which in this case is defendable, but editors are not taking the effort to actually do that.

Again, the solution is then not 'notify the editors while we leave the copyright violation stand and wait until they (while they may have left Wikipedia already) resolve it' .. no, the solution is to remove all 14 and notify the uploader, and hope that they, or other people who watch the page (and there are obviously people who do watch the pages, are interested in the subject and knowledgeable about it, see Indocopy's, yours, Jpatokal's comments about it) actually resolve it. Make a choice, depict one (or two, front and back) and describe the changes that result in the others, or write proper rationales on all the images why they have to be used while the others are there as well. Instead, people are blindly reverting a copyright violation back in, people are changing sets of rationales without discussion but which may (and that would be fine) or may not be true (which would result in miss-tagged images which is probably an even bigger issue in terms of copyright), or start lengthy threads on noticeboards or user talkpages about how a page got destroyed. Those editors that complain about the destruction are the perfect editors to make sure that the rationales etc. are solved, however, they seem more interested into getting into situations which do not solve the problem, see the images deleted, and then start yelling even harder. And it is so easy to solve (and yes, it will result in less images on the pages, and a more free encyclopedia, perfectly in line with our m:Mission). Thank you. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 07:13, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

• Some people seem to be on a mission to delete every coin and banknote image they possibly can. This is not benefitting the project. If these people are interested in tidying up copyright loose ends, they should spend their time trying to keep as many coin/banknote images as possible, including constructing the appropriate rationales where necessary. At the moment, their attitude seems to be "I'm going to delete everything in sight; tell me why I shouldn't". I don't care what piece of Wikipedia legislation you want to quote at me, this behaviour is unhelpful. 86.176.212.96 (talk) 13:02, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Did you perhaps forget to log in to your account? Are you perhaps Indocopy above? Syrthiss (talk) 14:13, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

That is rather facile. Banknotes are (deliberately) complex works of art. It is breathtakingly silly to suggest that you can reduce the differences between them to 'this one is red, this one is blue'. For poker chips (which are also copyrighted), sure. Banknotes no, never, except in some rare cases of hyperinflation, they are designed to be quite distinct from each other banknote. You can no way say 'let's show one image and then people can use their imagination for the rest'.

The fact is that there is no process for checking the validity of rationales on upload, making it more than a little hypocritical to complain about people changing those hastily-chosen-for-upload rationales to more carefully considered ones, to revert those better rationales to incorrect ones, or to insist on absurd amounts of discussion quite unsustainable across the volume of project images, even when there is at least prima facie evidence of their validity, and all this when we are talking, not about images for which there is a realistic prospect of legal challenge, but some third world banknotes.

As for the 'perfect editors to make sure that the rationales etc. are solved', the fact is that all those contributors actually concerned with the subject matter (at least in respect of Indonesian banknotes, various Indonesia-related editors have concurred in trying to preserve the images in situ - although perhaps Mr. 86.whatever above has another area of interest) have made every effort to show that the images are in all likelihood free, that they are essential to the article in any case, but the response from Δ has been to make every effort to effectively destroy the page, making no contribution to discussion about copyright beyond repeatedly saying 'no' to every reasoned argument that has been mooted , reverting valid licence tags out-of-process and without discussion with the result of near-immediate deletion of free images. It is hard to imagine, therefore, what further response should be taken - the reality is that a user such as Δ, who repeatedly violates WP:3RR and is not censured for it, and is on a one-man mission to find copyright problems where in reality none existed (no 'copyright violation', in spite of what you say, merely so-called overuse, even though anyone with the most basic understanding of numismatics would understand that each numismatic object has two sides, each of which requires imagery for identification and detection of forgeries, both contemporary and modern, as well as for identification and apprecation purposes), are well able to wreak havoc, destroying in seconds hundreds of hours of work, claiming in justification image 'freedom', a goal that in fact en.wikipedia.org has no chance of ever achieving, and if it did, certainly not by ad hoc scripted attacks on a handful of uncontroversial pages.

As for yelling, it is no surprise that people get upset when faced with Δ, a user who bleats on about one set of rules while blithely ignoring others, and who is far to stubborn to back down from his page destruction project, clinging on to anything that allows him to maintain his flimsy position - it would be easier to accept his actions, if in fact, following his unthinking image removal sprees, he accepted the advice of those with more subject matter knowledge than he, instead of simply edit warring and insisting that those others must be mistaken, that it is better to leave pages trashed and destroyed than to accept a revised copyright rationale that follows entirely reasonably from a straight reading of the law of a country that in any case is more likely to physically move itself across the sea to the mainland of Asia than to take legal action against Wikipedia. 86.173.175.206 (talk) 00:13, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, you will have to do that for all non-free images that you want to display. We are not saying that 100 images may not be a minimum, but you will have to write a rationale for every single image stating why this one is not superfluous to any other image already in the document. That rationale is not there, and without such rationale, it is not fair-use. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 08:17, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Vandalism by User:Δ

User:Δ has a troubled history for his habit of content policing (see WP:Administrators'_noticeboard/Δ). He has been trying to get images deleted from Indonesian rupiah and Banknotes of the Indonesian rupiah on the basis of putative 'non-free content overuse', although in fact it appears that all images may in fact be free, and in any case the older ones most certainly are free.

I tagged images such as this one: [4] as public domain since it was published in 1952 in Indonesia, and according to Indonesian copyright law, the maximum copyright term is 50 years from publication. He has just reverted this with the intent that the files be deleted tomorrow: [5].

I notified him on his talk page that he is vandalising the encylopedia by tagging clear public domain images for deletion, see contributions: [6], and he responded by immediately deleting/archiving my notice and taking no action. He has been reported several times in recent days for breaching 3RR over his content policing actions, and I have no intention in getting into a revert war with him over this, so I am reporting here. Indocopy (talk) 09:08, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

When you refuse to listen, remove image sourcing and are disruptive you will be reverted. You replaced all of the information on the image description pages with a generic template. I could have gone through and tagged them all as no-source. I have not breached 3RR as you have been told multiple times before. Enforcing NFC is exempt from that. Calling me a vandal is a personal attack which Im brushing off. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 09:16, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

I came very close to handing out some blocks here - Edit Warring is a bright line Δ, you should know that! However - both pages are protected (one from a few days ago), please resolve the dispute on talk pages as to whether any of these images are out of copyright yet, or come up with a compromise non-free usage. --Errant ^(chat!) 09:22, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Ive tried, but been ignored. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 09:23, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Please show where you have tried and have been ignored, I do not believe this is the case. Indocopy (talk) 09:50, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

@ErrantX, if non-free images are used without a proper rationale, then such a rationale should be provided before the images are (re-)included. Reverting edits without providing that proper rationale first is a form of disruption, and as such exempt from 3RR. The WP:BURDEN is on the editor wanting to include the images. I am sure that Δ is aware of the bright line, as is Indocopy about the regulations of NFC. You are right, the dispute has to be resolved on talkpages, or a proper selection has to be made - not by changing licensing information or reverting images back in without having proper rationales. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 09:29, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

I refuse to listen??? I'm not the one who just deleted comments from his talk page without action/discussion.

The template is not generic, it is one I personally created for these images. The content is more than 50 years old and is therefore public domain, and were correctly tagged as such 6 days ago, now you are reverting them in what appears to be an attempt to get free content deleted based on an 'unused non-free image' tag. This is vandalism, nothing more.

Your behaviour is highly disruptive, if you had a problem with my image tagging you could have notified me and explained any issues you had, but nope you just revert (after six days!) and don't say anything, and edit war over and over and over again.Indocopy (talk) 09:34, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

There has recently been some discussion over Commons about this subject.[7][8] I feel it would be best to take it there. —BETTIA— ^talk 09:28, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

I rather disagree. I have a simple complaint here. I tagged numerous images as public domain, which they are unquestionably are, being older than the 50-year term, and this was reverted by Delta who refused to discuss the matter. It is not a copyright matter, it is a complaint about Delta's obstructive behaviour in (a) edit warring and (b) not discussing. Indocopy (talk) 09:44, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

You'll need to cite where "older than the 50-year term" makes them public domain. In the USA, at least, that's no longer the case. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 12:36, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Well yeah I did that, that's why this is vandalism. I created Template:PD-Indonesia, in accordance with numerous (Category:Public_domain_copyright_templates_by_country) similar templates on Wikipedia, and then tagged the image accordingly, as I explained in my original post (above). The copyright law in Indonesia is clearly hyperlinked from the template and hence from the image that Delta disrupted reverted without cause and refusing to discuss it. Indocopy (talk) 14:49, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

No, it is not vandalism. You definitely need to stop using that word, which has a very specific meaning here, in this context. On a side note - the bank note in the photo was issued in the 90s... but the design is from 1960? Does that affect things? This whole bank notes issue is largely unresolved. --Errant ^(chat!) 14:55, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

There are no photos, only scans, there is an important difference in copyright terms, scans of an object enjoy no secondary copyright whereas photos do.

As for 'the banknote in the photo being issued in the 90s... but the design is from 1960?', nope I've no idea where you get that idea from, although equally I'm not sure what image you are referring to? The banknotes issue might be 'largely [or partly] unresolved', but when you take 50+-year-old images that are clearly in the public domain and you edit them such that they will be auto-deleted within 24 hours, and then refuse to discuss the matter, well I think it's legitimate to regard that as 'vandalism'. Indocopy (talk) 15:21, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

"...scans of an object enjoy no secondary copyright whereas photos do..."

Wait, what? Where do you get the assertion that a scan of a work enjoys different copyright status to a photograph of a work? Book publishers might want to have a word about that... — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 22:46, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

• @Indocopy; asserting a violation of 3RR because you believe you're right and Δ is wrong when there's been no consensus that you are right, in a situation regarding copyright is improper. As Dirk noted, the burden is on you. Fail that burden, and those policing your edits are not in violation of 3RR. Attempting to force your way by rampant reversions is not the way forward. If you can't convince a body towards consensus that a given set of images are free license/public domain, edit warring won't work either. Be patient, wait for consensus to develop, and stop edit warring. We've had enough blasts about this pattern of edits that are entirely avoidable if you simply choose to wait it out. We take copyright seriously here, and no amount of edit warring is going to change that. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:49, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
  • FWIW, no, I disagree. This is not a case that unquestionably violates the free-content policy. The only thing that can be enforced in this case is common consensus (which seems to be slowly emerging). So both parties here are in violation of WP:EW and 3RR still applies. --Errant ^(chat!) 13:59, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
    • As Dirk noted, the burden is on the editor wishing to use the content. Failing that proof, we have to treat the images as non-free. NFCC applies. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:08, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

(Non-admin comment) NFCC states that it is the duty of users seeking to include or retain content to provide a valid rationale; those seeking to remove or delete it are not required to show that one cannot be created. A valid rationale was provided, fulfilling the burden of proof. Even if the user wishing to remove it has a valid counter-argument, it no longer unquestionably violates the free-content policy, thus 3RR applies, so far as I can tell. - SudoGhost™ 14:17, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

SudoGhost is correct. I agree with these images removals FWIW, but there is nothing there that is valid as an exclusion under 3RR. Edit warring is a bright line with few exceptions. --Errant ^(chat!) 14:22, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

No ErrantX and SudoGhost, there is not a rationale for using so many of these images. That qualifies as overuse, which we, per our m:Mission should try to minimise, as we are trying to write a free encyclopedia here. Someone has questioned the use of so many of them, so the burden of proof is on the person who is re-inserting them. Be it 1, or be it all. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 14:26, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Expanding, if someone questions the rationale, then the rationale is not unquestioned anymore, and hence it can not be a valid rationale until those questions are answered - the burden of proof is on the one wishing to (re-)insert them. Its painful, but if there is a vandal making some silly removal of an image one would even have to answer that rationale - 'I think it does' is not good enough. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 14:35, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

All true. However it still does not count as an exception. The proper response is not to edit war but to report the user rv-ing or to request protection of the article until matters are resolved. --Errant ^(chat!) 14:40, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

• It's inappropriate to request protection for an article when one user is acting against policy and revert warring in a way that violates our NFCC policy. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:43, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

• If the other option is to edit war against them.... no, no it certainly is not. Where on earth did you get that from :) I'm not trying to be awkward - just pointing out that a less laid back admin might well have handed out blocks here. --Errant ^(chat!) 14:48, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Logical rationale has been given on the article's talk page that the images are PD (among other things), which means it no longer unquestionably violates the free-content policy. I'm not aware that a questioned rationale is not a valid one, nor of any policy that states that. Show me a rationale that is never questioned, because that seems unlikely. The talk page itself shows that it no longer unquestionably violates the free-content policy, and there is an ongoing discussion as to that very question, with valid rationales being given by those who wish for the images to be used.

If you ask ten editors if it violates NFCC, and six say yes, but four say no, and give very good, logical reasons why it doesn't, that seems to be the very reason the policy says unquestionably violates the free-content policy instead of the other way around, images can be removed unless those images unquestionably do not violate the free-content policy. - SudoGhost™ 14:55, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, so much for WP:BURDEN. It's been officially vacated. Facepalm. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:01, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Huh? Totally unrelated. It is definitely not appropriate to use WP:BURDEN as a rationale to edit war, it is not an exclusion. That the edits failed WP:BURDEN is a matter for the talk page & other dispute resolution (i.e. here, RFPP, etc.) --Errant ^(chat!) 15:04, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

(ec) Well, that PD is not that unquestionable I am afraid. That some thing is not under a copyright anymore does not make them PD. But well. Yes, bingo, SudoGhost: images get removed unless they unquestionably do not violate the non-free-content policy. I am sorry, there is no negotiation there, if they violate the non-free-content policy, or in other words, if they they violate copyright, then they have to go until the opposite is proven. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 15:06, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Uh, you might want to check out the Wikipedia page on public domain. 'Works are in the public domain if they are not covered by intellectual property rights at all, if the intellectual property rights have expired' Indocopy (talk) 15:13, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

• No, that's not accurate. We suspend all tenants of WP:NFCC policy as soon as anyone disagrees with them. WP:BURDEN is also suspended. Didn't you know that? --Hammersoft (talk) 15:10, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Don't be glib. I am trying to helpfully explain a better process than edit warring, because all that will happen is eventually someone will be blocked for NFCC reasons (which in this case IMO are being reasonably questioned, though it looks like the removal will prove valid) and there will be a massive fucking fall out etc etc. Just use the right process. That is all :)

--Errant ^(chat!) 15:13, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

I think you misunderstood, I was saying the opposite. The 3RR exemption is not Removal of content that might violate the non-free content policy., but says Removal of clear copyright violations or content that unquestionably violates the non-free content policy. I did not add the emphasis to unquestionably, it's presented that way in WP:3RR. Seems to me the policy-writer thought that part important, for reasons such as this, I can't think of a reason to bold that word unless it was important. As per the policy as written, and the spirit of the policy, Δ violated 3RR. If he didn't, then who possibly could? That unquestionably certainly isn't there for giggles. - SudoGhost™ 15:16, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Missing the point

In response to Hammersoft et al above, I did not come here to assert a violation of 3RR, I came here to point out that Delta has vandalised public domain images (being older than 50 years, in accordance with Indonesian law), and then removed my attempt at discussion, and given his past history was liable to edit war to revert them, so I had no alternative but to flag it here having exhausted other angles to resolve this. There is no one 'set of images' here, there are many different scans of banknotes dating in publication date from 1945 up to 2010, and after earlier Delta-initiated dramas, he eventually conceded that those images published in the name of 'Republik Indonesia', 'Republik Indonesia Serikat' and 'Indonesia' are free content in accordance with Indonesian law, and these were tagged accordingly. Subsequently I also tagged scans of those banknotes published prior to 1 January 1961 as PD-Indonesia, since they are unquivocally public domain according to Indonesian law. The status of those more recent banknotes is not the subject of this AN/I report, and I would suggest that be discussed at a different venue - I posted here ONLY because Delta vandalised the >50 year-old, public domain images and refused to discuss the fact that he had done so or to revert the same; accordingly the comments about NFCC/WP:BURDEN while germane to Delta's wider pattern of putative misbehaviour overcomplicate what is in fact a simple problem of him reverting valid PD tags on old images.Indocopy (talk) 15:11, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

And you've been told that vandalism is a very very specific thing here, and thats not what Delta did. When you stop using that term, maybe we can advance the discussion. Syrthiss (talk) 15:19, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

The only way to resolve this is to have someone with media copyright knowledge r.e. bank notes take a look. There are a number of issues which concern me that they may not be free images. But that is an issue for the talk pages - is there any admin action still needed? --Errant ^(chat!) 15:23, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Uh yes, the 50+ year-old images, which have been tagged for deletion by Delta tomorrow, which apparently I'm not allowed to call vandalism, should be reverted en-masse - I'm not sure how to do this, and would like it to be made clear that Delta should not revert these when his block expires Indocopy (talk) 15:41, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Indocopy I think I understand what the disconect is. You keep claiming the 50 year old images are PD, but you are not using 50 year old images. The bank note is more than 50 years old but what you are adding are the less than 20 year old scans. Bank notes are 3 dimensional peices of art work ( they must be scanned from at least 2 angles to show them in 2 dimensions) therefore the scans that you are useing are copywrited to the maker of the scans at the time he made them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DeadImmortal (talk • contribs)

Uhm, no, not really. The banknote is 2D, and a mere scan of each side of it doesn't create a new copyright, per Bridgeman vs Corel. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:24, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Beat me to it FutPerf. — BQZip01 — ^talk 16:26, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

My naive guess is that that would also apply to these copyrights, but do we actually know what the Indonesian law is for this sort of thing? I agree that there's enough of a reasonable dispute here that Delta cannot reasonably claim a 3RR exemption. JoshuaZ (talk) 03:45, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Indocopy - to reply to your message further up the thread. The original image uploader noted that the scanned note (thanks for pointing out that) was issued between 1995 and 2008 (check the history). --Errant ^(chat!) 15:24, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Could you provide a permanent link to the relevant version, I'm not quite sure what we are looking at here. Indocopy (talk) 15:41, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

It's just a simple copy/paste issue caused by doing many uploads with the same text: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&offset=20080701000000&limit=500&contribs=user&target=Sumbuddi Indocopy (talk) 16:54, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Uh. Look at the original revision for one of the images. Note the uploaders comment: Indonesian currency issued 1998-2005. --Errant ^(chat!) 15:45, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

In reference to that specific image, the original uploader marked it wrong -- that note was not issued between 1998 and 2005 -- it was issued in 1953. See here : [9], looking for better examples. -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 16:22, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia. I don't think for a moment that Δ is attempting to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia. I suggest you read WP:NOTVAND. Wikipedia is pretty strict on what is considered vandalism, and accusing someone of vandalism when they haven't vandalized anything isn't the nicest thing, and tends to only cause problems. - SudoGhost™ 15:26, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

No that's true, it's a shame therefore that Delta, whose behaviour wih me from the beginning has been aggressive and obnoxious started off by inappropriately calling my Good Faith edits, made prior to registering, vandalism. [10] Incivility tends to breed the same, he uses abusive language [11] threatens people with blocks, destroys people's hard work and refuses to discuss the matter, has made only minimal contribution to the copyright discussion except saying 'no', and then wonders why he gets blocked and people accuse him of 'vandalism'.Indocopy (talk) 15:41, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Didn't you get that one memo? "Vandalism" is any edit in which you disagree with, period. –MuZemike 13:54, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Not to worry everyone, Indocopy has remained very civil throughout all of this. This isn't spillage of multiple debates in multiple venues. Can we just trout slap the hell out of this and close this thread? Nothing productive is coming from it. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:08, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

How does troutslapping resolve the copyright concerns? 216.93.212.245 (talk) 18:13, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

• How does posting to WP:AN/I solve the copyright concerns when it's being discussed elsewhere? --Hammersoft (talk) 19:56, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

The fact that 50+-year-old images are public domain in Indonesia is something that Delta refused to discuss, having previously reverted the correctly applied PD-Indonesia template. So er, no, no discussion elsewhere. Again, 'missing the point'. Indocopy (talk) 21:29, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

• Discussion is happening elsewhere regarding the images and their tags, and further your assertion of the inviolability of the 50+ year old images being PD has been contested. I'm sorry you've found people disagreeing with you, but that's part of the reality of a community developed resource. Regardless, WP:AN/I isn't the place to be determining the copyright status of an image. --Hammersoft (talk) 02:23, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Again, I tagged the >50-year images as PD, and Delta reverted this without discussion, and then refused to revert and/or justify when asked to do so. That is not (or should not be at any rate) part of developing a community-developed resource. Hence AN/I was and remains the appropriate venue for signposting destructive behaviour.

Further, the fact is these 50+-year old images ARE PD in Indonesia, that fact is inviolable, and if you believe otherwise, well I suggest you, or indeed anyone else that might agree with you, cites something to contradict the copyright law of Indonesia, which was prior to Delta's destruction, helpfully linked from the images. Because there has been zero, just sweet FA, posted to say otherwise, so what this amounts to is disruption, it's disruptive to say 'x is not public domain' or even 'there is an ongoing debate about whether x is public domain', without providing anything to contradict the evidence that it is, but instead, disingenuously, claim that this should be discussed elsewhere, when there is in fact nothing to discuss.

Now, in view of the disruption caused, which has not been and cannot be justified, I have requested, and continue to request, that the reverts to these PD images be rolled back and we can move on. Of course you seem to be enjoying this pointless battle over a collection of half-century-old demonetised banknotes, far exceeding the attention paid to 99.99% of other images on Wikipedia, including many of much more obviously dubious status, so I daresay you will have a ready riposte???Indocopy (talk) 08:53, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Again, Indocopy .. I, for one, dispute that those images are PD, and that the copyright is actually gone (the copyright document you linked to is unclear whether currency falls under the group that looses copyright .. or under a group which never looses copyright. And then still .. loosing copyright (or IP, as you noted elsewhere) does not automatically make things public domain). If it is disputed, then the original one may be more accurate. Maybe time to find a specialist to really solve it? And tagging such images wrongly is certainly not the way to go. Things are non-free until proven otherwise. And WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS, indeed. Time to do something about it, Indocopy? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 09:03, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

As the items are out of copyright, being 50+ years old, they are by definition public domain. This is really not rocket science, and I do apologise but I've had quite enough of being asked to prove that the Pope is Catholic - I am done here. Delete the images, trash the article, I care not, I will mirror it myself - not a problem, I should have bailed on this nonsense rather earlier, but never mind - it's never too late to say goodbye.

You have a nice day now. Indocopy (talk) 12:20, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Repeatedly asseting something which others disagree with doesn't mean the they will suddenly sit up and say, "Wow, you're right." You need to find further evidence to prove your claim. 216.93.212.245 (talk) 16:52, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Eh .. no. First of all, I doubt if currency is in the category of material that loses its copyright after 50 years .. ánd there are other legal laws than only the copyright that protect images and make them non-free (see e.g. logos .. the copyright may be gone, or they may be too simple for copyright, but they are still trademarked and non-free). So I dispute the PD status .. but maybe a copyright expert should look at it.

You are of course free to host the page yourself .. you are not bound to minimal non-free use, as Wikipedia is. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 12:30, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Ahem. Without checking Indonesian copyright law, if an item falls out of copyright protection, it is public domain (at that time — in some rare cases, copyright protection is later restored.) Whether an item which is no longer protected under Indonesian copyright law is no longer protected under US copyright law is another questions, which the lawyers can debate, but if "Indocopy" is correct as to Indonesian copyright law, the images can properly be uploaded to commons:, and be linked here with little question. Personally, I think Δ is probably correct, but his actions are not exempt from 3RR, and he should be blocked if he's violated 3RR. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 04:16, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Eh, there is enough material that is not copyrighted, but still is non-free. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 08:48, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Explain? Trademark, trade secret, and (potentially) patents, although possibly not free, are not covered by NFCC? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 10:00, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

A trademarked picture is covered by NFCC. And others are covered by WP:COPYRIGHT .. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 11:19, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Beetstra, no they are not. Copyrights expire, but trademarks, if protected properly, never do. While there are some restrictions, they are in the Public Domain like patents. Trade secrets are not copyrightable as they have not been published. — BQZip01 — ^talk 14:23, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

You also can't trademark a picture. An object contained in a picture, such as a logo or design, may have a trademark associated with it, but the picture itself is only subject to copyright. And copyrights, as has been already pointed out, do expire. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 14:34, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Pictures with trademarks in them may have trademark restrictions and they may have copyrights as well, but you have to take into account the concept of de minimus (if a Major League Baseball logo is in the distant background of a family photo at a ballpark, Major League Baseball doesn't suddenly own the copyright on the photo). — BQZip01 — ^talk 14:56, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Just how many years has this user Delta been problematic? BarkingMoon (talk) 20:10, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Many. Most Wikipedians manage to interact over these issues without generating such drama and animosity all the time. I don't know the answer to the underlying copyright issue, but it's clear, as noted above, that these images were not "unquestionably" infringing, and yet Delta repeatedly reverted their restoration by multiple editors instead of proceeding with a discussion. So I agree there was edit warring here.

The underlying problem is Delta's approach is, and has long been, authoritarian across the board. It's "be bold, revert, discuss", not "be bold, revert, revert, revert..." Believing that your own interpretation is the correct one does not entitle you to unilaterally impose it in the face of legitimate disagreement. And there are few concerns on Wikipedia that are so urgent that they need to be addressed before a discussion takes place.

I get rather tired of seeing the same problems over and over again with editors who do little (if anything) outside of deletion-related activities and can't do it without pissing a lot of people off. So what's the final solution here? My own judgment is that anyone who repeatedly (and justifiably) gets hailed to AN/I over the manner in which they conduct deletion processes should simply be banned from participating in deletion processes. Let the multitudes address those issues who can do it without raising hackles and wasting time. Why not simply ban Delta from image removal and deletion? postdlf (talk) 16:20, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

He has his own AN/I board here: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Δ, if you want to make the suggestion. 86.182.96.138 (talk) 18:24, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Image copyright status

The key question is not "Are these images more than 50 years old?", it's "were they in the public domain in Indonesia in 1996?", to which the answer appears to be an unambiguous "no". Because of this, they are copyrighted in the United States for another 40 years or so (see http://copyright.cornell.edu/resources/publicdomain.cfm, section "Works first published outside the US", footnote 20, and List of parties to international copyright agreements). Since Wikipedia needs to follow US copyright law, the fact that the images may be in the public domain in Indonesia is irrelevant. --Carnildo (talk) 00:36, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Actually, no it isn't. If it is PD in Indonesia where it was published, it is PD in the US (that's one of the reasons we signed the treaty in the first place...to make PD in one country PD in all; copyrighted in one=copyrighted in all). — BQZip01 — ^talk 15:46, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Indeed. As I understand the Berne Convention (disclaimer: I'm a photographer, not an attorney), if examining a copyright in one country when it was granted in another, the copyright is deemed to expire at the earlier limit between countries. If Indonesia says 50 years but the US says "death of creator plus 70 years", the copyright is deemed ended at the 50-year mark, even in the US. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 16:12, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Indocopy I think I understand what the disconect is. You keep claiming the 50 year old images are PD, but you are not using 50 year old images. The bank note is more than 50 years old but what you are adding are the less than 20 year old scans. Bank notes are 3 dimensional peices of art work ( they must be scanned from at least 2 angles to show them in 2 dimensions) therefore the scans that you are useing are copywrited to the maker of the scans at the time he made them. Copyed from above to a current conversation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DeadImmortal (talk • contribs) 16:26, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Bank notes are 2 dimensional (that they have a front & back is irrelevant). As mentioned above, a scanned in version does not attain a new copyright. — BQZip01 — ^talk 16:28, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Correct, derivatives of copyrighted (or previously copyrighted) works do not attain a new copyright. Otherwise, anyone could just take a picture of the Mona Lisa and claim copyright. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 17:40, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Actually Wikipedia got in some trouble about doing just that (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/07/13/wikimedia_npg/). The issue is fairly simple - is there any creative work in making the image of an object. If you paint a car, then your painting has creative work in the use of style, perspective, colour, and so on, even though the car itself also a work of creativity. Equally, if I photograph the Mona Lisa, it's probably not going to look as good as a professional photo, even if we both use the same equipment - again there is creativity in lighting, choice of angle and so on (although I believe under US law there is no secondary copyright - this is a UK Law). That said, sticking a banknote or even something '3d' like a coin under a scanner has no creative force whatsoever, anywhere, and such images are public domain if the item being scanned is likewise public domain. 86.173.175.206 (talk) 23:29, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Derivative works of copyrighted works do create a new copyright, assuming the changes are sufficient to be considered "creative". Atempts to create accurate reproductions of copyrighted works do not create a new copyright in the US (see Bridgeman v. Corel), but the situation in the UK is unclear. As a concrete example, L.H.O.O.Q (a derivative) was copyrightable in the US, but File:Mona Lisa.jpeg (an accurate reproduction) is not. --Carnildo (talk) 21:26, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

The Berne Convention isn't the relevant legislation here -- in fact, it has absolutely no legal force in the United States (see the first paragraph of Rule of the shorter term#Situation in the United States). The law is the Berne Convention Implementation Act of 1988 (and subsequent modifications), and when Congress passed that legislation, they did not include rule of the shorter term provisions. Because of this, PD in one country does not equal PD in all. --Carnildo (talk) 21:19, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but I think a couple of the notes date back to 1945 so were PD in Indonesia in 1996. Also, there's a possibility all the notes were PD right from the start, see Commons:Commons:Licencing#Indonesia. I certainly think the date of any photography or scanning is irrelevant. But are these issues being discussed in a copyright forum? Certainly, for this forum, no one should have been edit warring. Commons is a less vulnerable host for these sort of images, I think. Thincat (talk) 23:17, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

So why are there all those 'public domain in [country]' templates in use on Wikipedia/Wikimedia, taking advantage of the shorter terms? 86.173.175.206 (talk) 23:29, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

It is because international copyright matters are too complex to be comprehended by the human brain. On Commons, where people are more thoughtful than here and where there is less marauding, see Commons:Commons:Copyright_tags#Non-U.S._works but even there you will see the templating policy is not coherent. Just to avoid any doubt, I am unable to understand these matters, just like everyone else. Thincat (talk) 14:23, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Public domain images deleted due to Δ's actions

Nearly all of the banknote images in question have now been deleted, since Δ removed them from pages, triggered an edit war that happened to result in the imageless version of the page getting protected, and then these new "orphans" were nuked by automated processes. This is particularly infuriating since 78 of the images, eg. [12], were of banknotes published before 1961 and, given Indonesian copyright duration of 50 years, are most certainly in the public domain -- yet Δ repeatedly reverted attempts to tag them as such, and now they have all been deleted along with the rest.

I've been on Wikipedia for 8 years, and I don't think I have ever been quite as viscerally revolted by a user's abuse of process. How much longer do we have to tolerate this? And if I spent my weekend cleaning up after the damage done he has done, what guarantees do I have that he doesn't just do it again? Jpatokal (talk) 12:14, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Note that they were not nuked by 'automated processes', but after being tagged by another editor (i.e., not Δ) they were deleted by a third. I think that 13 days is plenty of time to solve it properly and to convince editors properly of the PD-status of the images, or to provide a proper fair-use rationale. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 12:29, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Wrong. The images were not deleted because they lacked fair-use rationales (CSD F6), they were deleted because they were tagged as orphaned fair-use images (CSD F5). And, contrary to your assertion, most sweeps of orphaned images and deletions of orphans are done by bots. (In fact, Wikipedia:Non-free content/orphans states that they are done by... drum roll please... BetacommandBot, better known as Δbot!) Jpatokal (talk) 13:00, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Your stupidity astounds me:

1. I did not tag them for deletion

2. I did not delete them

3. I have not run an image tagging bot in over 3 years, check the contribs

4. I asked repeatedly, and you where told by multiple people that we needed proof that the images where PD.

5. You failed to provide adequate proof of your claims.

6. There where at least two humans who reviewed the images, prior to deletion and multiple more who reviewed it due to the bullshit claims and personal attacks you have made against me across multiple notice boards. So PLEASE SHUT THE FUCK UP AND CHECK YOUR FACTS prior to attacking users. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 13:07, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Exactly, the issue is that no one has proven beyond a doubt that the images are PD, and per copyright law, we need to assume them as non-free, and per the Foundation, minimize their use or delete them when not used. Now, the latter as pertaining to lists of currencies is still under discussion, but the present consensus is to remove excess non-frees from any list-type article, which is what Delta did, even after Hammersoft warned the Numismatics group of this coming issue in March. --MASEM (t) 12:46, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Discussion continues for post-1961 images, but I have yet to see any reasonable doubt cast on the public domain rationale for pre-1961 images. Indonesia's Copyright Act Article 29(1) decrees that copyright on "all forms of arts, such as paintings, engravings, sculptures ... shall be valid for the life of the Author and 50 (fifty) years after his death."; Article 30(3) clarifies that "The Copyright on works as referred to in ... Article 29 paragraph (1) which are owned or held by a legal body, shall be valid for 50 (fifty) years as of from the first publication." Bank Indonesia and its predecessors are legal bodies, it published the notes before 1960, and hence their copyrights expired on or before 2010. Full stop. Jpatokal (talk) 13:00, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Also, Δ did not remove "excess" non-frees, he removed all non-frees and caused the deletion of all non-frees -- and because of the page protection, it wasn't even possible to rescue a selection of them. Jpatokal (talk) 13:00, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

More note - providing a proper fair-use rationale of why all these images are needed would also have helped. Maybe you are right, but then please do state so on all the images which are used on these pages, in a proper way. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 12:51, 25 May 2011 (UTC)