Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2013 May 12



File:Statue of kamikaze pilot.jpg

 * 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 AnomieBOT ⚡  00:54, 21 May 2013 (UTC)


 * File:Statue of kamikaze pilot.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * No evidence that the sculptor died before 1946 as required for PD-URAA. Stefan2 (talk) 00:17, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 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.

File:ErnestBethel.JPG

 * 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 AnomieBOT ⚡  00:54, 21 May 2013 (UTC)


 * File:ErnestBethel.JPG ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * No evidence that the copyright holder has donated this to the public domain. From 1905, so potentially PD because of age, but this depends on when it was first published. Obviously taken from some publication, but when was that publication published? Stefan2 (talk) 00:21, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 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.

File:Drago Kocakov autoportrait.jpg

 * 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 AnomieBOT ⚡  00:54, 21 May 2013 (UTC)


 * File:Drago Kocakov autoportrait.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * Original painting was created by a Croatian who died in 1977. His work was still under copyright on January 1, 1996, because Croatian copyright lasts for 50 years after death. ALH (talk) 04:48, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
 * (The painting is dated 1942) ALH (talk) 05:22, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete - Croatia is actually 70pma not 50 - see Non-U.S._copyrights — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ronhjones (talk • contribs) 2013-05-14T20:57:00
 * 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.

EMC Cement Files

 * 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 discussion was: Closing this mess / keep - a statement of permission has been received as OTRS ticket 2013051410005944. All involved are reminded to be civil and not bite inexperienced editors. We need to help those who have trouble navigating our processes, not make accusations. --B (talk) 15:11, 15 May 2013 (UTC)


 * File:CemPozz Production Flow.jpg
 * File:CemPozz Production Flow.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * Uploader falsely claims ownership of works actually acquired from Luleå University of Technology. See this diff where the uploader admits this. &#124;  Uncle Milty  &#124;  talk  &#124;  19:02, 12 May 2013 (UTC)


 * I NEVER said it was from LTU. The editor "Uncle Milty" is being extremely presumptive. That file is a copy of a graphic that I had permission to crop and edit by the author Vladimir Ronin for purposes of the energetically modified cement page. I was granted full copyright by Dr. Ronin to edit and modify the photo as I deemed fit before uploading to Wiki, which I did do, with his full prior knowledge. The attestation I gave was that I was the copyright holder. This existed in two dimensions: (i) I modified the work before upload, (ii) I was granted full copyright for the purposes of upload irrespective of whether I amended it or not. The attestation I gave was in genuine honest belief and concordant with copyright privilege under the pertinent international copyright law. Further, concordant with the releases inherent in uploading it, it may be used elsewhere on wiki. Jono2013 (talk) 22:17, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
 * You previously wrote that "The major images on the page are from LTU." What did you mean with this? Which images are from LTU? Above you wrote that this is a derivative work of a file by Vladimir Ronin, so Vladimir Ronin needs to follow the instructions at WP:CONSENT. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:33, 12 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Let's clear this up right now. The MAJOR images to which I was referring in a HISTORICAL thread, are NOT these images. For godsake. I was referring to the images in the major pictorial insert --- NOT THESE --- which came from Ronin who is a professor at LTU, in the context not of justifying copyright but being "hands clean" that there was no COI. Will you please not mix apples with pears.


 * And where did I say I was the photographer. I said I was the copyright holder. Which I am. Do not misrepresent what I am prepared to state and attest. Nor misrepresent copyright law. Jono2013 (talk)
 * You wrote "Author: Jono2013" on the image page and now you are claiming that this is a hoax. In either case, Vladimir Ronin needs to contact OTRS (see Commons:COM:OTRS) so that it can be verified whether the copyright indeed was transferred to you or not. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:56, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I am and always was the author of the files. So where's the hoax? That applies to all seven of them. I have sent an email to Vladimir Ronin asking him to send an email confirming matters. Maybe he will maybe he wont. He has already been attacked this evening by a user who has nominate the entire page for deletion (the seond time in a little more than a week and despite the page's first nomation having been withdrawn).


 * So perhaps Professor Ronin will ask that the entire article should be deleted. And that no amount of self-righteousness or male fide conduct on the part of "wikipedian" permits the right to disparage his impeccable academic standing. TWENTY YEARS research, on the part of a Professor who gained his undergraduate qualifications in 1973. And, despite my working on it for a month. This issue about copyright is a mountain out of a molehill. You forget that for a serious scientific article, where COI can arise, and therefore the main academic behind it is having no input on the page, matters are nuanced. You have not answered how the COI aspect is to be handled in such respects. Rather, you are focusing on formalities which are confirmatory only of the de facto and de jure status quo. Namely, I hold the copyright in all 7 images on the page and consistent with that, as copyright holder, I amended and modified them as I deemed fit before upload, at all times consistent with the permissions granted.

Jono2013 (talk) 00:16, 13 May 2013 (UTC)


 * This page is only for discussing copyright issues, not COI issues. First you wrote that you were the author, then you wrote that Ronin was the author and now you are again writing that you are the author. Don't you realise what impression this gives, if you constantly change the source information for the images? How are you going to be believed that way? --Stefan2 (talk) 21:26, 13 May 2013 (UTC)


 * I have received the following email from Professor Ronin, which he sent earlier to "permissions-en@wikimedia.org".Jono2013 (talk) 17:05, 14 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Från: Vladimir Ronin
 * Datum: 14 maj 2013 12:20:18 CEST
 * Till: "permissions-en@wikimedia.org" 
 * Ämne: Images on Energetically Modified Cement entry.


 * Dear Sirs:


 * It has been brought to my attention that a number of serious allegations have been made regarding usage of photos on the "Energetically Modified Cement" Wikipedia page. In order to close matters satisfactorily, I can confirm that I am the holder of the copyright of the source images set out in the article's page as of the May 13, 2013. There are seven (7) images on the page. With respect to each and every one of them, I confirm that I granted the originator of the page, the right to modify or amend them as he deemed fit for the purposes of the page. I also allowed the user to upload the files consistent with Wikipedia's usage policy and have no prohibition for other users to use any of the images, provided that such use is within Wikipedia's own rules.


 * I have seen the page and will not comment on its contents other than to state that the depictions are tasteful and the captions accurate. Beyond this, note that a purposeful decision was made that I would have no input on the page so that there was no possibility of any allegations of conflict of interest.


 * Let me be clear: I do not support the page, but I was, after persuasion and consideration, prepared to allow these pictures to be used, as I share the author's view that the EMC page substantially adds to the Wikipedia knowledge base in the material sciences subject. On this footing alone, did I grant my permission for the usage of the photos.


 * I now understand that the author of the page has had it alleged that he is both a "liar" and has committed a "fraudulent action" and a "hoax". This is disputed in its entirety. I am entirely satisfied that any upload was made in good faith, in reliance of the permissions I had granted, and upon a good faith interpretation of Wikipedia policy that is consistent with international copyright law.


 * I also understand that it has been alleged by a separate user that a stub article about me, has been written for reasons of "vanity". I find this allegation deeply disparaging and would ask that you contact me in the event any person ever makes any such allegation again. Like the main article, the said "stub" has been written without my input.


 * The EMC article was written from the "best intentions" perspective to increase Wikipedia's knowledge base in an area where it is very poor. EMC represents over 20 years of the highest academic rigor, and I will not easily allow it to be disparaged by those who have no knowledge. In this regard, I have already discussed with the author of the EMC page, that I, as a professor of material sciences, consider several of the "ancillary" pages concerning various "cementitous materials", to be inaccurate. The EMC page redresses this major imbalance and I cannot fault its accuracy or impartiality.


 * I trust this is to your satisfaction. I had no idea that goodwill intentions should cause the editor so much upset, nor then, cause me to be diverted from my work. I trust that those users who have impugned my name (which is impeccable) will be dealt with appropriately and look forward to your indication in such regards.


 * I am am concerned that the nominations for deletion of the EMC page twice in barely over a week (together with the "stub") have not been made in good faith but for spurious reasons, and maybe even unsubstantiated mischief.


 * I also ask that my contact details are removed.


 * Below you will find formal attestation


 * Kind regards


 * ATTESTATION


 * I hereby affirm that I, Vladimir Ronin, in respect of the following SEVEN (7) files, am the creator and/or sole owner of the exclusive copyright of the original images that were subsequently modified with my permission before upload to Wikipedia ("Work"):


 * 1. File:EMC RILEM Beam.jpg
 * 2. EMC CemPozz Sep 12.jpg
 * 3. EMC CemPozz Feb 13.jpg
 * 4. CemPozz Production Flow.jpg
 * 5. EMC Cement Natural Pozzolan Deposits (Southern California).jpg
 * 6. Bache Durability Test for Concrete.png
 * 7. EMC Cement (CemPozz) IH-10 Texas.jpg


 * I confirm that, to the extent required:
 * • I agree to publish that Work under the free license "Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0" (unported) and GNU Free Documentation License (unversioned, with no invariant sections, front-cover texts, or back-cover texts)
 * • I acknowledge that by doing so I grant anyone the right to use the work in a commercial product or otherwise, and to modify it according to their needs, provided that they abide by the terms of the license and any other applicable laws.
 * • I am aware that this agreement is not limited to Wikipedia or related sites.
 * • I am aware that I always retain copyright of my work, and retain the right to be attributed in accordance with the license chosen. Modifications others make to the work will not be claimed to have been made by me.
 * • I am aware that the free license only concerns copyright, and I reserve the option to take action against anyone (including any Wikipedia editor) who uses this work in a libelous way, or in violation of personality rights, trademark restrictions, etc.
 * • I acknowledge that I cannot withdraw this agreement, and that the Work may or may not be kept permanently on a Wikimedia project.


 * Dr, Vladimir Ronin


 * COPYRIGHT HOLDER AS AFORESAID


 * 13 MAY 2013


 * Can we merge these three discussions or something rather than having comments copied into three sprawling topics? For those with OTRS access looking at this, the ticket ID is 2013051410005944.  For me: commons:Special:ListFiles/Jono2013, Special:ListFiles/Jono2013 --B (talk) 13:14, 15 May 2013 (UTC)


 * File:EMC Cement Natural Pozzolan Deposits (Southern California).jpg
 * File:EMC Cement Natural Pozzolan Deposits (Southern California).jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * Uploader falsely claims ownership of works actually acquired from Luleå University of Technology. See this diff where the uploader admits this. &#124;  Uncle Milty  &#124;  talk  &#124;  19:05, 12 May 2013 (UTC)


 * I NEVER said it was from LTU. The editor "Uncle Milty" is being extremely presumptive. That file is a copy of a photo that I had permission to crop and edit by the author Vladimir Ronin for purposes of the energetically modified cement page. I was granted full copyright by Dr. Ronin to edit and modify the photo as I deemed fit before uploading to Wiki, which I did do, with his full prior knowledge. The attestation I gave was that I was the copyright holder. This existed in two dimensions: (i) I modified the work before upload, (ii) I was granted full copyright for the purposes of upload irrespective of whether I amended it or not. The attestation I gave was in genuine honest belief and concordant with copyright privilege under the pertinent international copyright law. Further, concordant with the releases inherent in uploading it, it may be used elsewhere on wiki. Jono2013 (talk) 22:16, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
 * You previously wrote that "The major images on the page are from LTU." What did you mean with this? Which images are from LTU? Above you wrote that this is a derivative work of a file by Vladimir Ronin, so Vladimir Ronin needs to follow the instructions at WP:CONSENT. Also, if the image was made by Vladimir Ronin, then why did you write that you are the photographer when you uploaded it? --Stefan2 (talk) 22:34, 12 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Let's clear this up right now. The MAJOR images to which I was referring in a HISTORICAL thread, are NOT these images. For godsake. I was referring to the images in the major pictorial insert --- NOT THESE --- which came from Ronin who is a professor at LTU, in the context not of justifying copyright but being "hands clean" that there was no COI. Will you please not mix apples with pears.


 * And where did I say I was the photographer? I said I was the copyright holder. Which I am. Do not misrepresent what I am prepared to state and attest. Nor misrepresent copyright law. Jono2013 (talk) 22:53, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
 * You wrote "Author: Jono2013" on the image page and now you are claiming that this is a hoax. In either case, Vladimir Ronin needs to contact OTRS (see Commons:COM:OTRS) so that it can be verified whether the copyright indeed was transferred to you or not. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:56, 12 May 2013 (UTC)


 * I am and always was the author of the files. So where's the hoax? That applies to all seven of them. I have sent an email to Vladimir Ronin asking him to send an email confirming matters. Maybe he will maybe he wont. He has already been attacked this evening by a user who has nominated the entire page for deletion (the second time in a little more than a week and despite the page's first nomination having been withdrawn, and despite my being awarded a "barnstar" for it).


 * So perhaps Professor Ronin will ask that the entire article should be deleted. And that no amount of self-righteousness or male fide conduct on the part of "wikipedian" permits the right to disparage his impeccable academic standing. TWENTY YEARS research, on the part of a Professor who gained his undergraduate qualifications in 1973. And, despite my working on it for a month. This issue about copyright is a mountain out of a molehill. You forget that for a serious scientific article, where COI can arise, and therefore the main academic behind it is having no input on the page, matters are nuanced. You have not answered how the COI aspect is to be handled in such respects. Rather, you are focusing on formalities which are confirmatory only of the de facto and de jure status quo. Namely, I hold the copyright in all 7 images on the page and consistent with that, as copyright holder, I amended and modified them as I deemed fit before upload, at all times consistent with the permissions granted.

Jono2013 (talk) 00:15, 13 May 2013 (UTC)


 * This page is only for discussing copyright issues, not COI issues. First you wrote that you were the author, then you wrote that Ronin was the author and now you are again writing that you are the author. Don't you realise what impression this gives, if you constantly change the source information for the images? How are you going to be believed that way? --Stefan2 (talk) 21:25, 13 May 2013 (UTC)


 * I have received the following email from Professor Ronin, which he sent earlier to "permissions-en@wikimedia.org". Jono2013 (talk) 17:03, 14 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Från: Vladimir Ronin
 * Datum: 14 maj 2013 12:20:18 CEST
 * Till: "permissions-en@wikimedia.org" 
 * Ämne: Images on Energetically Modified Cement entry.


 * Dear Sirs:


 * It has been brought to my attention that a number of serious allegations have been made regarding usage of photos on the "Energetically Modified Cement" Wikipedia page. In order to close matters satisfactorily, I can confirm that I am the holder of the copyright of the source images set out in the article's page as of the May 13, 2013. There are seven (7) images on the page. With respect to each and every one of them, I confirm that I granted the originator of the page, the right to modify or amend them as he deemed fit for the purposes of the page. I also allowed the user to upload the files consistent with Wikipedia's usage policy and have no prohibition for other users to use any of the images, provided that such use is within Wikipedia's own rules.


 * I have seen the page and will not comment on its contents other than to state that the depictions are tasteful and the captions accurate. Beyond this, note that a purposeful decision was made that I would have no input on the page so that there was no possibility of any allegations of conflict of interest.


 * Let me be clear: I do not support the page, but I was, after persuasion and consideration, prepared to allow these pictures to be used, as I share the author's view that the EMC page substantially adds to the Wikipedia knowledge base in the material sciences subject. On this footing alone, did I grant my permission for the usage of the photos.


 * I now understand that the author of the page has had it alleged that he is both a "liar" and has committed a "fraudulent action" and a "hoax". This is disputed in its entirety. I am entirely satisfied that any upload was made in good faith, in reliance of the permissions I had granted, and upon a good faith interpretation of Wikipedia policy that is consistent with international copyright law.


 * I also understand that it has been alleged by a separate user that a stub article about me, has been written for reasons of "vanity". I find this allegation deeply disparaging and would ask that you contact me in the event any person ever makes any such allegation again. Like the main article, the said "stub" has been written without my input.


 * The EMC article was written from the "best intentions" perspective to increase Wikipedia's knowledge base in an area where it is very poor. EMC represents over 20 years of the highest academic rigor, and I will not easily allow it to be disparaged by those who have no knowledge. In this regard, I have already discussed with the author of the EMC page, that I, as a professor of material sciences, consider several of the "ancillary" pages concerning various "cementitous materials", to be inaccurate. The EMC page redresses this major imbalance and I cannot fault its accuracy or impartiality.


 * I trust this is to your satisfaction. I had no idea that goodwill intentions should cause the editor so much upset, nor then, cause me to be diverted from my work. I trust that those users who have impugned my name (which is impeccable) will be dealt with appropriately and look forward to your indication in such regards.


 * I am am concerned that the nominations for deletion of the EMC page twice in barely over a week (together with the "stub") have not been made in good faith but for spurious reasons, and maybe even unsubstantiated mischief.


 * I also ask that my contact details are removed.


 * Below you will find formal attestation


 * Kind regards


 * ATTESTATION


 * I hereby affirm that I, Vladimir Ronin, in respect of the following SEVEN (7) files, am the creator and/or sole owner of the exclusive copyright of the original images that were subsequently modified with my permission before upload to Wikipedia ("Work"):


 * 1. EMC RILEM Beam.jpg
 * 2. EMC CemPozz Sep 12.jpg
 * 3. EMC CemPozz Feb 13.jpg
 * 4. CemPozz Production Flow.jpg
 * 5. EMC Cement Natural Pozzolan Deposits (Southern California).jpg
 * 6. Bache Durability Test for Concrete.png
 * 7. EMC Cement (CemPozz) IH-10 Texas.jpg


 * I confirm that, to the extent required:
 * • I agree to publish that Work under the free license "Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0" (unported) and GNU Free Documentation License (unversioned, with no invariant sections, front-cover texts, or back-cover texts)
 * • I acknowledge that by doing so I grant anyone the right to use the work in a commercial product or otherwise, and to modify it according to their needs, provided that they abide by the terms of the license and any other applicable laws.
 * • I am aware that this agreement is not limited to Wikipedia or related sites.
 * • I am aware that I always retain copyright of my work, and retain the right to be attributed in accordance with the license chosen. Modifications others make to the work will not be claimed to have been made by me.
 * • I am aware that the free license only concerns copyright, and I reserve the option to take action against anyone (including any Wikipedia editor) who uses this work in a libelous way, or in violation of personality rights, trademark restrictions, etc.
 * • I acknowledge that I cannot withdraw this agreement, and that the Work may or may not be kept permanently on a Wikimedia project.


 * Dr, Vladimir Ronin


 * COPYRIGHT HOLDER AS AFORESAID


 * 13 MAY 2013


 * File:Bache Durability Test for Concrete.png
 * File:Bache Durability Test for Concrete.png ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * Uploader falsely claims ownership of works actually acquired from Luleå University of Technology. See this diff where the uploader admits this. &#124;  Uncle Milty  &#124;  talk  &#124;  19:06, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I NEVER said it was from LTU. The editor "Uncle Milty" is being extremely presumptive. That file is a modification of the bache flow method diagram that I had permission to edit by the author Vladimir Ronin for purposes of the energetically modified cement page. The first method was via an svg file, generated by me, using Inkscape, which did not yield satisfactory results. I therefore produced a bitmap version. I was granted full copyright by Dr. Ronin to edit and modify the diagram as I deemed fit before uploading to Wiki, which I did do, with his full prior knowledge. The attestation I gave was that I was the copyright holder. This existed in two dimensions: (i) I modified the work before upload, (ii) I was granted full copyright for the purposes of upload irrespective of whether I amended it or not. The attestation I gave was in genuine honest belief and concordant with copyright privilege under the pertinent international copyright law. Further, concordant with the releases inherent in uploading it, it may be used elsewhere on wiki. Jono2013 (talk) 22:15, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
 * This one is probably below the threshold of originality. If the source and licence claims are hoax, they should of course be removed, though. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:35, 12 May 2013 (UTC)


 * What do you mean "below the threshold of originality"? Please dont use jargon which obfuscates. What do you mean by "hoax"??? Jono2013 (talk) 22:56, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
 * See Threshold of originality and hoax. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:58, 12 May 2013 (UTC)


 * I still dont think you understand. Irrespective of such "threshold" or not, I was granted copyright and exercised those rights consistnelty as holder of those rights. If you want Ronin to upload the photos, then fine, I can ask him to do that. But then DONT YOU DARE attack the page for COI Jono2013 (talk) 23:06, 12 May 2013 (UTC)


 * I have received the following email from Professor Ronin, which he sent earlier to "permissions-en@wikimedia.org".Jono2013 (talk) 17:03, 14 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Från: Vladimir Ronin
 * Datum: 14 maj 2013 12:20:18 CEST
 * Till: "permissions-en@wikimedia.org" 
 * Ämne: Images on Energetically Modified Cement entry.


 * Dear Sirs:


 * It has been brought to my attention that a number of serious allegations have been made regarding usage of photos on the "Energetically Modified Cement" Wikipedia page. In order to close matters satisfactorily, I can confirm that I am the holder of the copyright of the source images set out in the article's page as of the May 13, 2013. There are seven (7) images on the page. With respect to each and every one of them, I confirm that I granted the originator of the page, the right to modify or amend them as he deemed fit for the purposes of the page. I also allowed the user to upload the files consistent with Wikipedia's usage policy and have no prohibition for other users to use any of the images, provided that such use is within Wikipedia's own rules.


 * I have seen the page and will not comment on its contents other than to state that the depictions are tasteful and the captions accurate. Beyond this, note that a purposeful decision was made that I would have no input on the page so that there was no possibility of any allegations of conflict of interest.


 * Let me be clear: I do not support the page, but I was, after persuasion and consideration, prepared to allow these pictures to be used, as I share the author's view that the EMC page substantially adds to the Wikipedia knowledge base in the material sciences subject. On this footing alone, did I grant my permission for the usage of the photos.


 * I now understand that the author of the page has had it alleged that he is both a "liar" and has committed a "fraudulent action" and a "hoax". This is disputed in its entirety. I am entirely satisfied that any upload was made in good faith, in reliance of the permissions I had granted, and upon a good faith interpretation of Wikipedia policy that is consistent with international copyright law.


 * I also understand that it has been alleged by a separate user that a stub article about me, has been written for reasons of "vanity". I find this allegation deeply disparaging and would ask that you contact me in the event any person ever makes any such allegation again. Like the main article, the said "stub" has been written without my input.


 * The EMC article was written from the "best intentions" perspective to increase Wikipedia's knowledge base in an area where it is very poor. EMC represents over 20 years of the highest academic rigor, and I will not easily allow it to be disparaged by those who have no knowledge. In this regard, I have already discussed with the author of the EMC page, that I, as a professor of material sciences, consider several of the "ancillary" pages concerning various "cementitous materials", to be inaccurate. The EMC page redresses this major imbalance and I cannot fault its accuracy or impartiality.


 * I trust this is to your satisfaction. I had no idea that goodwill intentions should cause the editor so much upset, nor then, cause me to be diverted from my work. I trust that those users who have impugned my name (which is impeccable) will be dealt with appropriately and look forward to your indication in such regards.


 * I am am concerned that the nominations for deletion of the EMC page twice in barely over a week (together with the "stub") have not been made in good faith but for spurious reasons, and maybe even unsubstantiated mischief.


 * I also ask that my contact details are removed.


 * Below you will find formal attestation


 * Kind regards


 * ATTESTATION


 * I hereby affirm that I, Vladimir Ronin, in respect of the following SEVEN (7) files, am the creator and/or sole owner of the exclusive copyright of the original images that were subsequently modified with my permission before upload to Wikipedia ("Work"):


 * 1. EMC RILEM Beam.jpg
 * 2. EMC CemPozz Sep 12.jpg
 * 3. EMC CemPozz Feb 13.jpg
 * 4. CemPozz Production Flow.jpg
 * 5. EMC Cement Natural Pozzolan Deposits (Southern California).jpg
 * 6. Bache Durability Test for Concrete.png
 * 7. EMC Cement (CemPozz) IH-10 Texas.jpg


 * I confirm that, to the extent required:
 * • I agree to publish that Work under the free license "Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0" (unported) and GNU Free Documentation License (unversioned, with no invariant sections, front-cover texts, or back-cover texts)
 * • I acknowledge that by doing so I grant anyone the right to use the work in a commercial product or otherwise, and to modify it according to their needs, provided that they abide by the terms of the license and any other applicable laws.
 * • I am aware that this agreement is not limited to Wikipedia or related sites.
 * • I am aware that I always retain copyright of my work, and retain the right to be attributed in accordance with the license chosen. Modifications others make to the work will not be claimed to have been made by me.
 * • I am aware that the free license only concerns copyright, and I reserve the option to take action against anyone (including any Wikipedia editor) who uses this work in a libelous way, or in violation of personality rights, trademark restrictions, etc.
 * • I acknowledge that I cannot withdraw this agreement, and that the Work may or may not be kept permanently on a Wikimedia project.


 * Dr, Vladimir Ronin


 * COPYRIGHT HOLDER AS AFORESAID


 * 13 MAY 2013

File:EMC Cement (CemPozz) IH-10 Texas.jpg
 * File:EMC Cement (CemPozz) IH-10 Texas.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * Uploader falsely claims ownership of works actually acquired from Luleå University of Technology. See this diff where the uploader admits this. &#124;  Uncle Milty  &#124;  talk  &#124;  19:07, 12 May 2013 (UTC)


 * I NEVER said it was from LTU. The editor "Uncle Milty" is being extremely presumptive. That file is a copy of a photo that I had permission to crop and edit by the author Vladimir Ronin for purposes of the energetically modified cement page. I was granted full copyright by Dr. Ronin to edit and modify the photo as I deemed fit before uploading to Wiki, which I did do, with his full prior knowledge. The attestation I gave was that I was the copyright holder. This existed in two dimensions: (i) I modified the work before upload, (ii) I was granted full copyright for the purposes of upload irrespective of whether I amended it or not. The attestation I gave was in genuine honest belief and concordant with copyright privilege under the pertinent international copyright law. Further, concordant with the releases inherent in uploading it, it may be used elsewhere on wiki.Jono2013 (talk) 22:14, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
 * You previously wrote that "The major images on the page are from LTU." What did you mean with this? Which images are from LTU? Above you wrote that this is a derivative work of a file by Vladimir Ronin, so Vladimir Ronin needs to follow the instructions at WP:CONSENT. Also, if the image was made by Vladimir Ronin, then why did you write that you are the photographer when you uploaded it? --Stefan2 (talk) 22:35, 12 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Let's clear this up right now. The MAJOR images to which I was referring in a HISTORICAL thread, are NOT these images. For godsake. I was referring to the images in the major pictorial insert --- NOT THESE --- which came from Ronin who is a professor at LTU, in the context not of justifying copyright but being "hands clean" that there was no COI. Will you please not mix apples with pears.


 * And where did I say I was the photographer. I said I was the copyright holder. Which I am. Do not misrepresent what I am prepared to state and attest. Nor misrepresent copyright law. Jono2013 (talk) 22:52, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
 * You wrote "Author: Jono2013" on the image page and now you are claiming that this is a hoax. In either case, Vladimir Ronin needs to contact OTRS (see Commons:COM:OTRS) so that it can be verified whether the copyright indeed was transferred to you or not. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:56, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
 * No he doesn't. I can stand by the attestation. If you think Im lying or committing "fraudulent" behavior then write to him. Go the the energetically modified page, go to the external inks to the EMC website, and click the contact form. See what answer you get. Or contact him via his page at LTU. But dont expect Ronin to contact whomever it is you are suggesting, just on your say so. He does not support the page for COI reasons. Do you understand that? YET, he was kind enough to allow me the copyright of the pictures to modify and amend as I deemed fit, prior to upload. And I attested that I have copyright, which I do - and if you email Ronin, he will confirm this. This is a MOUNTAIN out of molehill. Jono2013 (talk) 23:03, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Unless Vladimir Ronin sends a confirmation to OTRS, the image has to be deleted due to the copyright claim being unverifiable. See WP:CSD. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:05, 12 May 2013 (UTC)


 * I still dont think you understand. I was granted copyright and exercised those rights consistently as holder of those rights. If you want Ronin to upload the photos, then fine, I can ask him to do that. But then DONT YOU DARE attack the page for COI Jono2013 (talk) 23:06, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
 * There is no way to verify your claims. This is why Vladimir Ronin has to contact OTRS. If Vladimir Ronin creates an account and uploads the files himself, then he still needs to contact OTRS so that it can be verified that the account is authentic and that he isn't subject to impersonation. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:09, 12 May 2013 (UTC)


 * I am and always was the author of the files. So where's the hoax? That applies to all seven of them. I have sent an email to Vladimir Ronin asking him to send an email confirming matters. Maybe he will maybe he wont. He has already been attacked this evening by a user who has nominate the entire page for deletion (the seond time in a little more than a week and despite the page's first nomation having been withdrawn).


 * So perhaps Professor Ronin will ask that the entire article should be deleted. And that no amount of self-righteousness or male fide conduct on the part of "wikipedian" permits the right to disparage his impeccable academic standing. TWENTY YEARS research, on the part of a Professor who gained his undergraduate qualifications in 1973. And, despite my working on it for a month. This issue about copyright is a mountain out of a molehill. You forget that for a serious scientific article, where COI can arise, and therefore the main academic behind it is having no input on the page, matters are nuanced. You have not answered how the COI aspect is to be handled in such respects. Rather, you are focusing on formalities which are confirmatory only of the de facto and de jure status quo. Namely, I hold the copyright in all 7 images on the page and consistent with that, as copyright holder, I amended and modified them as I deemed fit before upload, at all times consistent with the permissions granted.

Jono2013 (talk) 00:15, 13 May 2013 (UTC)


 * This page is only for discussing copyright issues, not COI issues. First you wrote that you were the author, then you wrote that Ronin was the author and now you are again writing that you are the author. Don't you realise what impression this gives, if you constantly change the source information for the images? How are you going to be believed that way? --Stefan2 (talk) 21:25, 13 May 2013 (UTC)


 * I have received the following email from Professor Ronin, which he sent earlier to "permissions-en@wikimedia.org".Jono2013 (talk) 17:04, 14 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Från: Vladimir Ronin
 * Datum: 14 maj 2013 12:20:18 CEST
 * Till: "permissions-en@wikimedia.org" 
 * Ämne: Images on Energetically Modified Cement entry.


 * Dear Sirs:


 * It has been brought to my attention that a number of serious allegations have been made regarding usage of photos on the "Energetically Modified Cement" Wikipedia page. In order to close matters satisfactorily, I can confirm that I am the holder of the copyright of the source images set out in the article's page as of the May 13, 2013. There are seven (7) images on the page. With respect to each and every one of them, I confirm that I granted the originator of the page, the right to modify or amend them as he deemed fit for the purposes of the page. I also allowed the user to upload the files consistent with Wikipedia's usage policy and have no prohibition for other users to use any of the images, provided that such use is within Wikipedia's own rules.


 * I have seen the page and will not comment on its contents other than to state that the depictions are tasteful and the captions accurate. Beyond this, note that a purposeful decision was made that I would have no input on the page so that there was no possibility of any allegations of conflict of interest.


 * Let me be clear: I do not support the page, but I was, after persuasion and consideration, prepared to allow these pictures to be used, as I share the author's view that the EMC page substantially adds to the Wikipedia knowledge base in the material sciences subject. On this footing alone, did I grant my permission for the usage of the photos.


 * I now understand that the author of the page has had it alleged that he is both a "liar" and has committed a "fraudulent action" and a "hoax". This is disputed in its entirety. I am entirely satisfied that any upload was made in good faith, in reliance of the permissions I had granted, and upon a good faith interpretation of Wikipedia policy that is consistent with international copyright law.


 * I also understand that it has been alleged by a separate user that a stub article about me, has been written for reasons of "vanity". I find this allegation deeply disparaging and would ask that you contact me in the event any person ever makes any such allegation again. Like the main article, the said "stub" has been written without my input.


 * The EMC article was written from the "best intentions" perspective to increase Wikipedia's knowledge base in an area where it is very poor. EMC represents over 20 years of the highest academic rigor, and I will not easily allow it to be disparaged by those who have no knowledge. In this regard, I have already discussed with the author of the EMC page, that I, as a professor of material sciences, consider several of the "ancillary" pages concerning various "cementitous materials", to be inaccurate. The EMC page redresses this major imbalance and I cannot fault its accuracy or impartiality.


 * I trust this is to your satisfaction. I had no idea that goodwill intentions should cause the editor so much upset, nor then, cause me to be diverted from my work. I trust that those users who have impugned my name (which is impeccable) will be dealt with appropriately and look forward to your indication in such regards.


 * I am am concerned that the nominations for deletion of the EMC page twice in barely over a week (together with the "stub") have not been made in good faith but for spurious reasons, and maybe even unsubstantiated mischief.


 * I also ask that my contact details are removed.


 * Below you will find formal attestation


 * Kind regards


 * ATTESTATION


 * I hereby affirm that I, Vladimir Ronin, in respect of the following SEVEN (7) files, am the creator and/or sole owner of the exclusive copyright of the original images that were subsequently modified with my permission before upload to Wikipedia ("Work"):


 * 1. EMC RILEM Beam.jpg
 * 2. EMC CemPozz Sep 12.jpg
 * 3. EMC CemPozz Feb 13.jpg
 * 4. CemPozz Production Flow.jpg
 * 5. EMC Cement Natural Pozzolan Deposits (Southern California).jpg
 * 6. Bache Durability Test for Concrete.png
 * 7. EMC Cement (CemPozz) IH-10 Texas.jpg


 * I confirm that, to the extent required:
 * • I agree to publish that Work under the free license "Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0" (unported) and GNU Free Documentation License (unversioned, with no invariant sections, front-cover texts, or back-cover texts)
 * • I acknowledge that by doing so I grant anyone the right to use the work in a commercial product or otherwise, and to modify it according to their needs, provided that they abide by the terms of the license and any other applicable laws.
 * • I am aware that this agreement is not limited to Wikipedia or related sites.
 * • I am aware that I always retain copyright of my work, and retain the right to be attributed in accordance with the license chosen. Modifications others make to the work will not be claimed to have been made by me.
 * • I am aware that the free license only concerns copyright, and I reserve the option to take action against anyone (including any Wikipedia editor) who uses this work in a libelous way, or in violation of personality rights, trademark restrictions, etc.
 * • I acknowledge that I cannot withdraw this agreement, and that the Work may or may not be kept permanently on a Wikimedia project.


 * Dr, Vladimir Ronin


 * COPYRIGHT HOLDER AS AFORESAID


 * 13 MAY 2013


 * 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.

File:ShangriLa Boracay.jpg

 * 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 AnomieBOT ⚡  00:54, 21 May 2013 (UTC)


 * File:ShangriLa Boracay.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * Appears to be copied from facebook: https://www.facebook.com/ShangrilaBoracay Eeekster (talk) 21:08, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 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.

File:Ayesha.jpeg

 * 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 AnomieBOT ⚡  00:54, 21 May 2013 (UTC)


 * File:Ayesha.jpeg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * Copied from Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/pages/Ayesha-Kaduskar/413337985367581 Eeekster (talk) 21:38, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 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.

File:Female Tibetan Serin, found at Varsey Rhododendron Sanctuary on 11th March 2013.jpg

 * 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 AnomieBOT ⚡  00:54, 21 May 2013 (UTC)


 * File:Female Tibetan Serin, found at Varsey Rhododendron Sanctuary on 11th March 2013.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * Previously uploaded as File:Female of Tibetan Serin, found at Varsey Rhododendron Sanctuary on 11th March 2013.jpg with a previous publication. This upload fails to mention that previous publication. Eeekster (talk) 21:57, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 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.

File:Former VPSB.png

 * 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 F8 by AnomieBOT ⚡  04:04, 16 May 2013 (UTC)


 * File:Former VPSB.png ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * The source only goes to the old revision of the file. See also Commons:COM:ART which might be an issue here. Stefan2 (talk) 22:28, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I forgot to update the source information, sorry. Action complete; please do not delete! --McChizzle (talk) 00:00, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
 * So the only thing left to do is to split media, then. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:26, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
 * The book used for the first revision isn't a US government work, right? If not, then that file is potentially a copyvio. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:34, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Since I finally found the actual badge and was able to take a picture of it, I don't see the need for the drawing. However, I find the question quite confusing when I try to de-conflict it with the following copyright template's statement:


 * If a publisher uses a United States Government (USG) drawing in their publication, they are not allowed to then copyright the drawing. These badge designs are created by the USG and thus belong to the public.  If someone were to recreate a drawing of an out-of-copyright work, it does not make it a copyrightable item ("originality of expression is necessary"); unless the above copyright statement is incorrect.  If this copyright statement is disputed, we need to get legal council to way in and correct the template?  If not, then it’s one person’s opinion versus another’s and we will keep making these mistakes.  I understand the coin analogy you sight above, but that's in conflict with this copyright template; so it needs to be corrected or the coin analogy does not apply. --McChizzle (talk) 23:18, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 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.

File:Welcome to Ely.JPG

 * 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 discussion was: Tagged as non-free and already undergoing a parallel discussion at FFD. (ESkog)(Talk) 20:05, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * File:Welcome to Ely.JPG ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * 2D artwork.  Ron h jones  (Talk) 22:29, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Resolution reduced, FUR provided. Hope this helps. --My another account (talk) 19:49, 13 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Note: This image is currently tagged as non-free. If there is a dispute with the rationale, please tag the image with dfu or list it at WP:Non-free content review. AnomieBOT ⚡ 20:09, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 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.