- File:Casey_Anthony.jpeg (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore); FFD
There's ample precedent that {{PD-FLGov}} applies to, among other things, all Florida mugshots; per the Supreme Court's interpretation of the Florida Constitution, § 24. The deleting admin isappears to be not responsive to discussions at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Peripitus. Elvey (talk) 23:57, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I think my endorse may not have been very helpful. As well as reviewing XfD closes, DRV also has a role in undoing deletions that now seem inappropriate. If Commons is accepting Florida State images as public domain, at the very least WP should consider whether the same should apply here. I don't know the process for such a review. Are such matters decided here at DRV? Suppose many images are involved? Thincat (talk) 10:34, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse The photo is a mugshot created by the Orange County police and as such is not a work of the government of the State of Florida. PD-FLGov does not apply. --MASEM (t) 15:52, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Reverse, but... As noted below, the Commons version of the PD FL template is more detailed and asserts that even lower recognized governments of Florida are in the PD (save for certain cases, but mugshots aren't that). That said, while reversing the closing the decision is correct, the right course of action is to upload this file to Commons, since it would end up there anyway. We also need to bring our version of the PD FL template in line with Commons. --MASEM (t) 02:14, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment "The deleting admin is not responsive to discussions at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Peripitus" - perhaps to be responsive you need to start a discussion? Of the various messages on that talk page, those which would require some sort of response do seem to have been responded to, perhaps that response is not on that talk page, but it seems to happen. The first (at the moment) includes the other part posting a "Thanks for responding on my talk page". The third asking for a more detailed rationale for new users was responded to by this quite shortly after the request etc. The fifth was responded to here etc. I've notified that admin of this discussion for you too--86.2.216.5 (talk) 16:50, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
-
- Ok, Let's take a look - Working backwards, RacingQueen had posted two comments, a few hours before, so I assume you don't expect instant responses? Mercy11 posted a comment which doesn't require a response, it isn't a question (it was however replied to here same day). Someone posted a section title "F.U." I assume you don't expect a response to that? We are now back to 26th Feb, where User:Desiderata45 posted some questions, these were duly replied to here over the next two days. We're then back to the comments I previously mentioned as having replies. So sorry your assertion that they were not responsive is bullshit - it amounts they didn't respond within a few hours to the latest post, or someone posting "FU" to them --86.2.216.5 (talk) 07:40, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Dear logged out user: At the time I posted the DRV, The deleting admin appeared not responsive to multiple recent such discussions opened at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Peripitus". RacingQueen had posted? No, you're mistaken. That was later; there was no impatience evident; you misread the record. OTOH, the responses on other talk pages were not visible, so my conclusion re non-responsiveness was made without it, and I have corrected it. That's one reason why best practice is not to split up a discussion. @Peripitus: Apologies for any offense caused.--Elvey (talk) 18:00, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- As the deleting admin I see that I made the correct call here. Regardless of the participation in the debate—thin as usual—this is a local county police forces image, published by a newspaper that is claimed as a state govt work. The image is not PD as stated. I notice that a very similar image of the same person from what looks like the same source is on commons File:Casey Anthony Mugshot.jpeg. I suspect that this one has the same issue, though there are those more knowledgeable about this on commons. - Peripitus (Talk) 20:50, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Note that our local
{{PD-FLGov}} doesn't say the same thing as {{PD-FLGov}} on Commons. According to the Commons template, the tag also applies to works by "counties, municipalities, and districts". According to our local template, it is unclear whether the tag applies to works by "counties, municipalities, and districts". In this case, I believe that the error is in our template. --Stefan2 (talk) 19:26, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- This is an important point. User:Masem any thoughts here? Hobit (talk) 02:03, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I would give weight to the Commons interpretation (they are better at knowing when PD is met) to our case, and if that's how they are saying that court decision is to be read, we should be doing the exact same thing, and thus our PD is wrong - that is, as commons state, the PD-ness extends downwards to all recognized sub-entities of the Florida gov't including counties. I would recommend that even without closing this DRV that the file be re-upped on commons, as then we don't need to recreate it here. --MASEM (t) 02:14, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- This edit is what made our template ambiguous, by removing the bit that reads, "This section specifically includes the legislative, executive, and judicial branches of government and each agency or department created thereunder; counties, municipalities, and districts; and each constitutional officer, board, and commission, or entity created pursuant to law or this Constitution." I am tempted to revert, but ask that someone else who is less involved restore a quote directly from the Constitution. --Elvey (talk) 02:03, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- The disputed decision was taken over five years ago. Will the nominator please explain why it has taken so long to make this listing? ✄ (talk) 12:49, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- @✄: How would I find such files faster? After a license template is restored, how do I find files that were deleted because the template was deleted? --Elvey (talk) 01:54, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Recreate on commons per Masem. Hobit (talk) 13:08, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Although I agree that the logical conclusion of this rather productive and illuminating discussion is that the image should be re-created on Commons, that's not strictly within DRV's purview. We can't, strictly speaking, make decisions about what Commons should do. Please would the closer consider restoring the image and adding it to Category:Copy to Wikimedia Commons?—S Marshall T/C 22:06, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- No one should be deleting work tagged with a license template prior to taking the time to make a minimal effort to learn about the rationale for the template, which would, at a minimum, include reading the template itself, pages it links to (such as, in this case, Microdecisions, Inc. v. Skinner) and the template's talk page. In this case, the latter page has had this section since a few months after deletion of the file in question. It reads:
…
- Validity
The validity of this template has been confirmed multiple times, e.g. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Template:PD-FLGov and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2009_April_12#Template:FLGovernment and elsewhere!
The Florida constitution states:
"(a) Every person has the right to inspect or copy any public record made or received in connection with the official business of any public body, officer, or employee of the state, or persons acting on their behalf, except with respect to records exemptedpursuant to this section or specifically made confidential by this Constitution. This section specifically includes the legislative, executive, and judicial branches of government and each agency or department created thereunder; counties, municipalities, and districts; and each constitutional officer, board, and commission, or entity created pursuant to law or this Constitution." parts (c) and (d), define the records exempted.
BTW, this template has been deleted before: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/delete&page=Template:PD-FLGov .--Elvey (talk) 20:50, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
|
