299:
You are right, I should have discussed this. Therefor I apologise. I do feel the undeletion was just as much out of process as the deletion, hence why we are here now. And I do take issue with Magog not feeling the need to support his action with an explanation, in this case, pointing to a discussion
649:
local copy. A request to keep a local copy should ordinarily defeat a deletion under F8 which is for clear and uncontroversial cases. Now that a requests has been clearly made, and a passable reason given it should be retained. The discussion on
Commons clearly implicates this file, whether it is
275:
You will find that there are very few circumstances in which DRV will endorse wheel warring, and this is not one of them. You would need a very urgent and pressing reason for doing it. Our main job here at DRV is to see that the deletion process is correctly followed, and wheel warring is very far
300:
on
Commons would have been appropriate. How am I supposed to be aware of discussion on other projects if there is no explanation? I will not be closing this DRV because I am involved now, so I will let another admin use his/her discretion. If that results in a keep, I will happily file an FFD.
230:
listed in the
Commons discussion either). I just saw a file with a CSD-F8 tag, reviewed it (twice now) and found no reason not to delete it. So don't be suprised if other admins revert your changes because you fail to point to any relevant discussion elsewhere. Since the file is not even under
400:("Do not copy to Commons") adds to the confusion because the file is already there. This created an ambiguity in which I could only guess at the reasoning. That said... why not just wait until the file on Commons is actually under discussion before restoring any redundant local copies?
259:
Edokter, you have wheel-warred and you do need to take that seriously. Technically, the evidence in the history of that file would be sufficient grounds to refer you to ArbCom for a summary desysopping. I think that would be much too extreme in this case, but you are
585:
Not quite true; the UK may hold a lower threshold of originality, not a "no" threshold of originality. While that concept is under discussion on
Commons, I still feel there is no point in maintaining a duplicate here while the file on Commons is still not tagged.
610:
Right, let's delete it here so that it will be forgotten here and disappear altogether from
English Knowledge when people forget to reundelete it here after the Commons deletion. All for the sake of creating extra work for the admins.
515:
191:
625:
The UK threshold of originality is practically so low to allow any text logo to be copyrightable - I can't think of any recent examples where a logo was judged too simple to be copyrightable in the UK.
372:
Just to be clear on two points you've brought up: 1) Yes, I undeleted after your redeletion, but I'd thought you'd made some sort of mistake. 2) the PD-ineligible-USonly tag has a link to
376:, which itself has a decent length section on why the UK threshold of originality is extremely low. By adding the tag, I was under the impression that this would suffice for reasoning.
650:
tagged or not and there is no reason to weight for
Commons to decide what they are doing there before we take action here. It doesn't save space to delete the local copy, after all.
522:. I suggest that no one deletes any British logos from here for F8 reasons until this has been sorted out on Commons since it is likely going to cause lots of deletions over there. --
424:
Because it's not a done deal that someone will remember to undelete it locally; people forget. I've seen it happen even after I place a strongly worded note on the talk page stating
348:
Once, after I reverted myself. And since the
Commons copy was not marked PD-USonly, nor subject to any linked discussion there, the PD-USonly is null and void here.
390:
First time I missed the fact that it was even undeleted. I only looked at the
Commons version, and saw no discussion linking to it in any way, shape or form. Plus,
226:
have provided the reasoning you just gave; I spent a good hour searching for any discussion on
Commons relating to the BBC logo, and I couldn't find any (and it is
48:
34:
474:. Basically, British logos are problematic in that they have been moved to Commons for years but that it seems that many of them are copyrighted in the UK. --
264:
to engage in collegial discussion with your fellow administrator rather than trying to steamroller him. The appropriate course of action for you now is:-
519:
43:
190:
is clearly willing to wheel-war over the issue, and I don't want to lose my adminship status. The reason I want it to be kept local is this:
186:
This condition is clearly not met. I would normally just undelete it, but I already did that twice, thinking there was a mistake. However,
335:
144:
39:
505:
289:
178:
222:
delete the image on
January 10 2012 and slap a do-not-move template on it. That's circular reasoning. And yes, you definitely
394:
329:
159:
21:
194:(not that I should need to provide this, seeing as policy does not require it for the user wanting the image to be kept.
571:- as the file at Commons should be deleted, because even the most trivial of text logos are copyrightable in the UK. --
79:
670:
94:
17:
433:
381:
199:
339:
659:
635:
631:
620:
605:
580:
576:
555:
531:
509:
483:
460:
437:
419:
385:
367:
343:
319:
293:
254:
203:
83:
272:
3) If you still wish to delete the file, open a FFD and seek a good faith consensus to support your view.
470:(and other sections higher up on the page). For explanation of PD-textlogos in different countries, see
75:
655:
501:
285:
429:
377:
195:
168:
This file is ineligible for speedy deletion, because I tagged it as do not move to Commons. From
627:
616:
598:
572:
548:
527:
479:
412:
360:
312:
247:
114:
516:
Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Logos of companies of the United Kingdom
192:
commons:Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Logos of companies of the United Kingdom
467:
651:
493:
456:
277:
169:
471:
612:
589:
539:
523:
475:
403:
351:
303:
238:
187:
110:
70:
373:
452:
492:
That line of argument, worthwhile though it sounds, probably belongs at FFD.—
451:
I'm sure you guys get a kick out of communicating in wikispeak. Just sayin'.
74:– Undelete local copy without prejudice to an FFD at editorial discretion. –
536:
And yet, the file on Commons is still not tagged as being under discussion.
514:
Deletion discussions are currently being held for a lot of other logos at
428:(I've noticed only some; I'm sure there are ones I didn't even see).
466:
I didn't notice this discussion until today. For a discussion, see
426:
PLEASE UNDELETE AT ENGLISH WIKIPEDIA IF THIS IS DELETED ON COMMONS
151:
137:
129:
121:
520:
Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/Two British logos
218:and deleted locally at the same time. Then you
269:2) Speedily close this DRV as "snow overturn".
8:
210:NOTE: Undeleted for the purpose of this DRV.
93:The following is an archived debate of the
334:and then speedy it yourself, twice? Wow.
63:
214:The image has been moved to Commons in
172:, the following condition must be met:
7:
673:of the page listed in the heading.
28:
669:The above is an archive of the
1:
587:
537:
401:
349:
301:
236:
660:05:55, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
636:18:52, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
621:01:59, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
606:01:38, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
581:19:29, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
556:21:36, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
532:21:18, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
510:08:34, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
484:16:09, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
461:00:57, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
438:20:16, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
420:20:35, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
386:19:28, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
368:14:01, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
344:13:07, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
320:12:54, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
294:12:25, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
255:10:54, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
204:04:06, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
84:18:47, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
326:Did you really revert away
174:The image is not marked as
696:
468:commons:COM:VPC#BBC logos
18:Knowledge:Deletion review
676:Please do not modify it.
100:Please do not modify it.
40:Deletion review archives
231:discussion on Commons,
266:1) Apologise to Magog.
179:do not move to Commons
332:|the United Kingdom}}
395:PD-ineligible-USonly
330:PD-ineligible-USonly
97:of the page above.
472:commons:COM:TOO#UK
683:
682:
508:
292:
211:
687:
678:
604:
601:
595:
554:
551:
545:
500:
498:
418:
415:
409:
399:
393:
366:
363:
357:
333:
318:
315:
309:
284:
282:
253:
250:
244:
209:
183:
177:
164:
162:
154:
140:
132:
124:
102:
64:
53:
33:
695:
694:
690:
689:
688:
686:
685:
684:
674:
671:deletion review
599:
590:
549:
540:
494:
413:
404:
397:
391:
374:commons:COM:TOO
361:
352:
327:
313:
304:
278:
248:
239:
181:
175:
158:
156:
150:
149:
143:
136:
135:
128:
127:
120:
119:
98:
95:deletion review
62:
59:30 January 2012
55:
54:
51:
49:2012 January 31
46:
37:
35:2012 January 29
31:
26:
25:
24:
12:
11:
5:
693:
691:
681:
680:
665:
664:
663:
662:
644:
643:
642:
641:
640:
639:
638:
565:
564:
563:
562:
561:
560:
559:
558:
487:
486:
449:
448:
447:
446:
445:
444:
443:
442:
441:
440:
430:Magog the Ogre
378:Magog the Ogre
324:
323:
322:
276:from correct.—
257:
233:endorse delete
212:
196:Magog the Ogre
166:
165:
147:
141:
133:
125:
117:
105:
104:
89:
88:
87:
86:
61:
56:
47:
38:
30:
29:
27:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
692:
679:
677:
672:
667:
666:
661:
657:
653:
648:
645:
637:
633:
629:
624:
623:
622:
618:
614:
609:
608:
607:
602:
596:
593:
584:
583:
582:
578:
574:
570:
569:Undelete here
567:
566:
557:
552:
546:
543:
535:
534:
533:
529:
525:
521:
517:
513:
512:
511:
507:
503:
499:
497:
491:
490:
489:
488:
485:
481:
477:
473:
469:
465:
464:
463:
462:
458:
454:
439:
435:
431:
427:
423:
422:
421:
416:
410:
407:
396:
389:
388:
387:
383:
379:
375:
371:
370:
369:
364:
358:
355:
347:
346:
345:
341:
337:
336:74.74.150.139
331:
325:
321:
316:
310:
307:
298:
297:
296:
295:
291:
287:
283:
281:
273:
270:
267:
263:
258:
256:
251:
245:
242:
234:
229:
225:
221:
217:
213:
208:
207:
206:
205:
201:
197:
193:
189:
185:
180:
171:
161:
153:
146:
139:
131:
123:
116:
112:
109:
108:
107:
106:
103:
101:
96:
91:
90:
85:
81:
77:
73:
72:
68:
67:
66:
65:
60:
57:
50:
45:
41:
36:
23:
19:
675:
668:
646:
628:He to Hecuba
591:
573:He to Hecuba
568:
541:
495:
450:
425:
405:
353:
305:
279:
274:
271:
268:
265:
261:
240:
232:
227:
223:
219:
215:
188:User:Edokter
173:
167:
111:File:BBC.svg
99:
92:
71:File:BBC.svg
69:
58:
44:2012 January
652:Eluchil404
496:S Marshall
280:S Marshall
170:WP:CSD#F8
76:T. Canens
262:required
20: |
613:Stefan2
524:Stefan2
476:Stefan2
160:restore
130:history
594:dokter
544:dokter
408:dokter
356:dokter
308:dokter
243:dokter
224:should
453:Dadge
152:watch
145:links
52:: -->
16:<
656:talk
647:Keep
632:talk
617:talk
603:) —
600:talk
577:talk
553:) —
550:talk
528:talk
518:and
480:talk
457:talk
434:talk
417:) —
414:talk
382:talk
365:) —
362:talk
340:talk
317:) —
314:talk
252:) —
249:talk
216:2008
200:talk
138:logs
122:edit
115:talk
80:talk
32:<
228:not
22:Log
658:)
634:)
626:--
619:)
611:--
588:—
579:)
538:—
530:)
482:)
459:)
436:)
402:—
398:}}
392:{{
384:)
350:—
342:)
328:{{
302:—
237:—
235:.
220:un
202:)
182:}}
176:{{
82:)
42::
654:(
630:(
615:(
597:(
592:E
575:(
547:(
542:E
526:(
506:C
504:/
502:T
478:(
455:(
432:(
411:(
406:E
380:(
359:(
354:E
338:(
311:(
306:E
290:C
288:/
286:T
246:(
241:E
198:(
184:.
163:)
157:(
155:)
148:|
142:|
134:|
126:|
118:|
113:(
78:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.