Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2008/07/13
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
|
|
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Private photo on Flickr. -Nard the Bard 00:54, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Delete Chances are that it's free, but if we can't verify it, then we can't use it. It's already categorized under Category:Flickr images not found, so I suppose it would be dealt with in due time, but no harm in getting it out of the way now. --jonny-mt 05:06, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Ah, another PK image... But private. So it fails flickrreview ShakataGaNai ^_^ 05:46, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
not free, album cover --Paloma Walker (talk) 01:40, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Comment Tagged as obvious {{Copyvio}}. --jonny-mt 04:56, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. ShakataGaNai ^_^ 05:46, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Appears to be advertising Ingolfson (talk) 04:33, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. ShakataGaNai ^_^ 05:47, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
The "permission" section states that "Autor udziela zgody na kopiowanie i używanie zdjęcia zgodnie z niżej określonymi zasadami licencji GFDL i CC-SA, bez możliwości wykorzystania modyfikacji zdjęcia", which apparently translates to "The author grants permission to copy and use photos in accordance with the principles set out below GFDL license and CC-SA, without the possibility of modifying photos" (original edit). Putting aside for the moment that there doesn't seem to be an OTRS ticket documenting these permissions, a license that doesn't allow modifications is incompatible with COM:L. jonny-mt 04:42, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. No Derivative works allowed = Not Commons compatible ShakataGaNai ^_^ 05:50, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Outside of the scope. Kimse (talk) 05:40, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. ShakataGaNai ^_^ 08:09, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Clearly a photo+posterize effect. Original image is not proved free - therefore this is unusable on commons. Megapixie (talk) 06:42, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. No source for orig ShakataGaNai ^_^ 08:09, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Suspected hoax, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cecil Creepseed. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 13:10, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
- Delete No proper source or license for photo. -Nard the Bard 13:13, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Deleted by Kameraad Pjotr: Unfree Flickr license
Surely a copyrighted promotion photo, though I oouldn't find it by Google images. Source website[1] excludes any responsibility. --Túrelio (talk) 08:26, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Wasn't linked permission, was source. And website cites Wikipedia...ShakataGaNai ^_^ 22:00, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Derivative work. -Nard the Bard 12:46, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. ShakataGaNai ^_^ 22:05, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This image has no description or provenance and is hence meaningless and useless --Rcbutcher (talk) 13:30, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This image has no description or provenance and is hence meaningless and useless --Rcbutcher (talk) 13:32, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This image has no description or provenance and is hence meaningless and useless --Rcbutcher (talk) 13:35, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This image has no description or provenance and is hence meaningless and useless --Rcbutcher (talk) 13:36, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
It's a pen lying on the ground - fairly easy to describe. {{sofixit}}. -mattbuck (Talk) 13:47, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This image has no description or provenance and is hence meaningless and useless --Rcbutcher (talk) 13:38, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Appears to be a promotional photo of the band, so own work seems doubtful. -mattbuck (Talk) 13:40, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. ShakataGaNai ^_^ 22:09, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Probably not in de public domain as stated Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 14:43, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Promotion != Public Domain ShakataGaNai ^_^ 22:15, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Probably not in de public domain as stated Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 14:43, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Promotion != Public Domain ShakataGaNai ^_^ 22:15, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photoalbum. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:48, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. And now it is my picture. ShakataGaNai ^_^ 22:18, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Image on Flickr is tagged with the Noncommercial and No Derivatives tags, which are incompatible with Wikicommons Tabercil (talk) 16:09, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. ShakataGaNai ^_^ 22:19, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Image on Flickr is tagged with the Noncommercial and No Derivatives tags, which are incompatible with Wikicommons Tabercil (talk) 16:10, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. ShakataGaNai ^_^ 22:19, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Image on Flickr is tagged with the Noncommercial and No Derivatives tags, which are incompatible with Wikicommons Tabercil (talk) 16:10, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. ShakataGaNai ^_^ 22:20, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
There is no clue to assume that the source is also in the public domain. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 17:28, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. ShakataGaNai ^_^ 22:20, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
The source is Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 2.0 Generic Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 17:30, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. ShakataGaNai ^_^ 22:23, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
The background map is original artwork from John Ronald Reuel Tolkien. See maps of the books Lord of the Rings to be sure. Frór (talk) 17:56, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Deriv ShakataGaNai ^_^ 22:22, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Duplicate, as well as bad filename Romanpoet (talk) 20:36, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. ShakataGaNai ^_^ 22:23, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
I uploaded this photo by mistake with an incorrect filename. It is a duplicate of the correct Heliconius charithonius.jpg file. Thx Inzilbeth (talk) 20:38, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
- Speedy deleted. Please use {{Duplicate}} in the future. Platonides (talk) 20:40, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Accidental upload with wrong file name Amble (talk) 09:45, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. ShakataGaNai ^_^ 22:01, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
useless Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 17:09, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Deleted by Szczepan1990: not needed
No info on the website stating this CC copyright notice Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 18:01, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
- Whoops, a little oversight. Is this authorization notice for me enough? And if it is, is it enough if I have it on my userpage, or must it be added to each image individually? Airwolf (talk) 20:46, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
- Ok, but this notice was not there before. I you sure you can make this statement for this website? Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 20:56, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
- I don't really understand you now, sorry? Can you explain what you mean by "make this statement for this website", please? Airwolf (talk) 21:00, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
- Jan means are you the person in charge of the website? If not, then you cannot give permission as it is not yours to give. -mattbuck (Talk) 21:02, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
- Wait a moment, the notice says that I am "permitted by the editor-in-chief and owner of the Konflikty.pl website to" do it. If the problem is whether the person mentioned in the notice is me (and not just a coincidence of nicknames), I can send an OTRS e-mail with a confirmation for example. Or have the notice changed so as to indicate that I am myself :) Airwolf (talk) 21:06, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
- What I meant is, that this statement conveniently appeared here. But when I click on the text "© Copyright by Konflikty Zbrojne 2004 - 2008. All rights reserved." at the bottom of the page, it doesn't. A little strange. Also, the many typo's suggest that the text was typed in a hurry. And when I use some text elements in Google to search the site for this, even Google doesn't find it. So, it is a copyright statement, but very well hidden. That is why I asked for your confirmation. Still, I think this message you present here conflicts with the statement "© Copyright by Konflikty Zbrojne 2004 - 2008. All rights reserved.". Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 22:15, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
- Oh, now I understand you, thanks. That's what I meant by "a little oversight", I had a spoken agreement with my boss and we never even considered writing it down, because we trust each other. However, since this issue popped out, I asked him to wrtite down what we agreed upon (by the way, there's just one typo, grpahic :) ), that's why it has just appeared. And I believe the statement does not contradict the "All rights reserved" - all rights are reserved, excluding those materials which are released for free use (like the images I've uploaded here). What about if I have the notice moved under a link in the "© Copyright by Konflikty Zbrojne 2004 - 2008. All rights reserved.", will this be an appropriate place for it? Airwolf (talk) 07:27, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
- It wouldn't really help, because you would still have to tag every free image with an appropriate copyright statement. If not, everytime an image is uploaded here, we will have to go in discussion whether it is in the non-free part or in the free part of the website. The best thing to do is to place the entire website under one and the same copyright statement, like PD, GNU FDL, Creative Commons Attribution or Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike. That would prevent discussions. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 15:38, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
- I wish that were possible... Still, I don't understand one thing - the notice (let's say, for the sake of argument, that it's located in a visible place) gives me the right to release any image copyrighted by our website. Due to this my assumption is (or at least was) that if an image is uploaded here or anywhere with this copyright tag ("for any purpose, provided that") by me or any person who has recieved an appropriate e-mail from me, than there is no problem as this was accepted in advance by the copyright holder (who trusts me that I won't do anything stupid, like realeasing literally everything, just the things than can be useful for Wikimedia projects, because this is why I asked him to give me such permission some time ago). That is why the notice reads that "any such action is to be considered as authorized by the editor-in-chief and copyright holder of the website". So according to the notice, if I upload a picture here, it is from that moment in the free part of the website. Airwolf (talk) 17:17, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
- It wouldn't really help, because you would still have to tag every free image with an appropriate copyright statement. If not, everytime an image is uploaded here, we will have to go in discussion whether it is in the non-free part or in the free part of the website. The best thing to do is to place the entire website under one and the same copyright statement, like PD, GNU FDL, Creative Commons Attribution or Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike. That would prevent discussions. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 15:38, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
- Oh, now I understand you, thanks. That's what I meant by "a little oversight", I had a spoken agreement with my boss and we never even considered writing it down, because we trust each other. However, since this issue popped out, I asked him to wrtite down what we agreed upon (by the way, there's just one typo, grpahic :) ), that's why it has just appeared. And I believe the statement does not contradict the "All rights reserved" - all rights are reserved, excluding those materials which are released for free use (like the images I've uploaded here). What about if I have the notice moved under a link in the "© Copyright by Konflikty Zbrojne 2004 - 2008. All rights reserved.", will this be an appropriate place for it? Airwolf (talk) 07:27, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
- Jan means are you the person in charge of the website? If not, then you cannot give permission as it is not yours to give. -mattbuck (Talk) 21:02, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
- I don't really understand you now, sorry? Can you explain what you mean by "make this statement for this website", please? Airwolf (talk) 21:00, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
- Ok, but this notice was not there before. I you sure you can make this statement for this website? Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 20:56, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Kept.
- It is not important when the permission was given. It exists now.
- The notice does not need to be displayed in any visible place, it can be used just for verification whether the uploader had the right to upload.
- There is no conflict between "© Copyright by Konflikty Zbrojne 2004 - 2008. All rights reserved." and the copyright notice. The copyright owner can exclude any part of the material from this if he wants to.
- Nobody has to tag every free image with an appropriate copyright statement, the copyright notice is enough if the rules stated there are kept.
- It's not that easy to place the entire website under one (and free) and the same copyright statement. --Szczepan talk 21:30, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
SVG version available (Image:Qvga.svg), this image is no longer used in any projects Stephantom (talk) 23:12, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Kept. We don't delete superseded images. — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 20:17, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
A version version is available and better than this raster version (Image:Music-player-banshee.svg). This file is no longer used on any projects. Stephantom (talk) 23:33, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Kept. — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 20:17, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
ha sido eliminada de la pagina respectiva (municipo de Sonson) Mauricioagudelo (talk) 00:17, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
- Translation: "Has been removed from respective page (municipality of Sonson)" -Nard the Bard 00:56, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Kept. "Unused" is not a reason for deletion. — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 02:23, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
Derivative work (a photo of cans whose artwork is copyrighted by Procter & Gamble). Has been nominated for speedy deletion several times, but, apparently, never for discussion. AVRS (talk) 21:31, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. ShakataGaNai ^_^ 23:01, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
- Restored - no discussion happened yet. -- aka 06:36, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
- Clearly Commons:Derivative works. What is written on other side of package? --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:54, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
- No discussion needs to happen. It is derivative work of copyright logo's and package designs. So it is a copyright violation. --ShakataGaNai ^_^ 00:35, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
- I agree with the above. There's no point in having discussion just for the sake of having discussion. Lewis Collard! (lol, internet) 08:32, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. An obvious derivative - why this was ever re-opened is beyond me. — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 02:27, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
- Image:Taigete.jpg
- Image:Sinope.jpg
- Image:Pasifae.jpg
- Image:Megáclite.jpg
- Image:Cálice.jpg
- Image:Yocasta.jpg
- Image:Isonoe.jpg
- Image:Himalia.jpg
- Image:Erinome.jpg
- Image:Caldene.jpg
- Image:Carme.jpg
- Image:Calirroe.jpg
- Image:Ananke.jpg
- Image:Harpalice.jpg
- Image:Lisitea.jpg
- Image:Leda1.jpg
- Image:Temisto.jpg
- Image:Tebe.jpg
- Image:Amaltea.jpg
- Image:Adrastea1.jpg
Possible copyvio from http://www.geocities.com/saiza_2003/Moons/PicMoons.htm. All the sources were uploaded by User:Hidra92 (User talk:Hidra92). The source was not specified in the summary of the images. There is not visible copyright information at the former URL (where the images were taken from). -NudoMarinero (Discusión) 00:13, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
- Delete No source and no copyright information given. --Svens Welt (talk) 18:57, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Lewis Collard! (lol, internet) 03:23, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Taken from [2]. Owlbuster, the original uploader, doesn't seem to be the photographer of this picture. (It's taken by "Harald Artner"). According to Owlbuster's user page, he's not from Austria/Germany/Switzerland). This means: It's a copyright violation. ChrisHH (talk) 20:33, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Lewis Collard! (lol, internet) 03:29, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Derivative work of poster in Paris (see Image talk:Los sueños de la razón... vacas.jpg). No Freedom of Panorama in France. dave pape (talk) 02:41, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
- I took the picture in a publicly accessible place in Paris (Place Vendôme). The picture was taken from a publicly accessible point. French case law traditionally admits an exception if the copyrighted artwork is "accessory compared to the main represented or handled subject" (CA Paris, 27 octobre 1992, Antenne 2 c/ société Spadem, « la représentation d'une œuvre située dans un lieu public n'est licite que lorsqu'elle est accessoire par rapport au sujet principal représenté ou traité »). The main subject represented in the picture is the pedestrian. Anyway, please delete it if you are sure it is a violation of a copyright.
- User:Maurice Marcellin
- One subject of the picture is the pedestrian. The poster hardly "accessory". --dave pape (talk) 23:15, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
- Delete I agree with the nominator--any use of this image would have to fall under either fair use or freedom of panorama. Fair use is not allowed on Commons, and France does not have freedom of panorama. --jonny-mt 08:16, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
- Delete This image clearly focuses on the poster. Copyvio - no FOP in France. Anonymous101 talk 20:23, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Delete, fails our free requirements. rootology (T) 05:24, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
This must be erased,
Freedom of panorama:
There is none in France.
Also Image:Barrage structure2 s.jpg. No indication that the author, David Kerr of the Severn Tidal Power Group, granted a license for commercial use and modification. Should be moved back to English Wikipedia with a non-free content rationale. InfantGorilla (talk) 12:21, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
- Delete No evidence for release. Permission for web use only makes it non free. Anonymous101 talk 20:25, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Doesn't meet our requirements for free use. rootology (T) 05:24, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
This alas must go,
David Kerr holds copyrights,
We need permission.
These photos supposedly show the effects of the bombing of Frampol in September 1939 by the German Luftwaffe. They thus were surely not taken by "Polish photographers", but rather by German pilots. Poles published them in a 1979 book. Also, the upper left corner is missing, where a copyright or any other mark have been. Thus, I doubt that the claim about these photos being public domain is valid. --Matthead (talk) 18:09, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
As Matthead did say,
Poles took not this photograph,
Germans took this one.
But this brings bad news,
Life plus seventy applies,
Still in copyright.
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
duplicate of Category:Bukovany (Hodonín district) --Mercy (talk) 20:55, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Incorrectly named
the category emptied,
it serves no purpose.
Dubious pd. Photo itself is over 70 years old, but photographers dates of death is not provided to prove expiration of copyright. Igno2 (talk) 22:54, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
- My mistake for sure, I thought the photo itself must be more than 70 years old. As for the dates of death, I am unable to find any information. Please, do delete it. Regards, --Zoe bird (talk) 23:41, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
- This British photo was published in 1936 in "Country Life" magazine. From Commons:Licensing#United Kingdom: "If the work was published during the author's lifetime then copyright expires 70 years after the death of the author." The photographers are known and it seems unlikely that they died before 1938. Thuresson (talk) 02:08, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
This is deleted,
Copyright violation
Known the author is.
Redundant of Image:Flag-map of Morocco.svg --Koavf (talk) 21:18, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
This is one of many, many Moroccan nationalist images that User:Xiquet has uploaded - almost none of which is useful on any Wikimedia project. This last one was a map of Morocco and Western Sahara with the Moroccan flag on top of the map; I deleted Western Sahara from it, thus making it a redundancy. Koavf (talk) 21:19, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
- This image is showing one of the different maps of Morocco, if you don't like it don't use it --Flad (talk) 00:01, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Keep It shows one of the points of view concerning Moroccan borders. Pursuant to the NPOV policy, we should be able to present all of the different opinions. --Botev (talk) 17:54, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
- Well, it got used on Wikipedia because it was confused for a duplicate map. When would it ever be necessary to use this image on any Wikimedia project? Commons isn't free hosting for nationalists. Koavf (talk) 19:34, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
- Keep if its free, and may be of use to represent a point of view. rootology (T) 05:23, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Kept. We don't do censurship. The image also has its use and if it is only to show the viewpoint of 'the others'. And just for Koavf: We don't overwrite files we don't like with files that are already on Commons. Cecil (talk) 21:55, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
OTRS permission for this file has indeed been received; however, User:Howcheng, in processing these images, has stated he does not believe this image has truly been released to Diana Falzone, Inc., because, in his words, professional photographers need to actually give permission in writing to hand over the image. I am not so sure this is the case, as this was professionally done for Ms. Falzone and her career. However, I thought it was worth a discussion, rather than just being deleted. The Evil Spartan (talk) 22:20, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Yes, I asked Pat Stuart to get clarification on this photo on July 1. So far we have not received a reply. Unless we hear about this image soon, it probably should be deleted. howcheng {chat} 17:01, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
- I ask, if it is possible, that you give me a few weeks yet to work on this. If I do not respond within a few weeks, please proceed with the deletion request as is. Patstuart (talk) 18:54, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
- You've got another week on you, if I see no response I'll delete this picture. --Kanonkas(talk) 11:11, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
- Yeah sorry I'll get on it. Patstuart (talk) 07:04, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
- No response. Pity. Patstuart (talk) 22:31, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
- Do you want to give up? I'll let this remain just incase. --Kanonkas(talk) 20:12, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
- No response. Pity. Patstuart (talk) 22:31, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
- Yeah sorry I'll get on it. Patstuart (talk) 07:04, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
- You've got another week on you, if I see no response I'll delete this picture. --Kanonkas(talk) 11:11, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
- I ask, if it is possible, that you give me a few weeks yet to work on this. If I do not respond within a few weeks, please proceed with the deletion request as is. Patstuart (talk) 18:54, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Photo of Poster --Gustav VH (talk) 13:19, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
- Not true, it is a photo taken by me and there is no poster made from this picture, whatsoever. --سندباد (talk) 20:58, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
- OK, but when you uploaded it you included the text "A mere reproduction of the poster, hence the copyright for the image lies not with the photographer"- was this in error? Gustav VH (talk) 23:03, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
- The text was included accidentally, the uploader copied the licence tag of his previous upload, he allready did this by tagging Image:London 307.JPG with personality rights, in this case the copie was made from Image:London 070.JPG which contains this deletion request at that time. --Martin H. (talk) 01:23, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
- OK, but when you uploaded it you included the text "A mere reproduction of the poster, hence the copyright for the image lies not with the photographer"- was this in error? Gustav VH (talk) 23:03, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Reason: The image is a scan, exactly like Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Kiss 011.JPG (2nd nomination), the metadata is also the same. Martin H. (talk) 01:22, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
This is not a medical image but a porn image. The uploader is not a physician, but an amateur of homosexual forums (see google). I think there is no adenocarcinoma in this picture and a true physician would have removed the shit of the picture, and have put an arrow showing the tumor. For further discussions in french, see Commons:Bistro#Quand_même_... where I ask for a guideline chart to forbid amputated members, dead bodies, shit, vomit and the likes to be deposited here on commons (there is none, Commons has no limits! :-( ). Star Trek Man (talk) 13:49, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
- Certainly revolting. Do we have a similar image that lacks the feces? - Jmabel ! talk 19:59, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
- Ask a physician! So, from your perspective, there is no limit, Commons is also a project of underground images. FYI, a checkusage request reveals it is not used on any wiki. Star Trek Man (talk) 22:43, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
- Keep. No reason for deletion. This is classic case of "I don't like it". Rama (talk) 12:26, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
- DeleteThere is no need for these kind of repulsive images, and it will only move wikimedia e.a behind parental control software, making it inaccessible for a large group, youth. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 15:46, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
- Delete to paraphase Rama, [t]his is classic case of why "I don't like it" is sometimes a very valid argument. Lewis Collard! (lol, internet) 22:20, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Adequate description should be provided, otherwise the picture is unusable and thus should be deleted. In my opinion, remarks about the uploader and his personal tastes are inappropriate. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 10:03, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
- Keep - I see no valid reason for deletion. I agree it is disgusting, but that's not a good reason! — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 20:21, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Neutral after reviewing the (lack of) other images uploaded by this user - I don't know that this has been uploaded for the benefit of Commons or other projects, and I have questions regarding who this user is that this image is "self-made by uploader". However, we often keep images which were intended for self-gratification if we find them useful. I don't know that this is obviously useful, but neither is it obviously deleteable. IDONTLIKEIT is an absolutely invalid reason for deletion, but other factors here may be worth considering. — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 11:09, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Useless and morbid. -- Perky (talk) 07:42, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Regretful keep, since it appears to be free, and may be of use... but ew. rootology (T) 05:27, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
- Comment I don't think observations about the uploader are relevant to a consideration of the validity of the image, which is after all just a part of the anatomy. If it's useful to depict intimate aspects of the human body, then it should be kept. I don't see the need for such images to be restricted to medical sources. Tyrenius (talk) 03:17, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
- Keep. Though the image is unpleasant, I cannot think of any reason it should be deleted. I do not think that this image is necessarily useless, even if it is not used presently. Personal distaste is not a reason to delete. --Sopoforic (talk) 23:35, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Really unpleasant picture but it's not a valid reason to deleted it. This one may be interesting to illustrate BDSM. --Pymouss Tchatcher - 11:00, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
- BDSM has nothing to do with asshole, ;-) This is not an insult, just in case. -- Perky (talk) 08:38, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
2.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
2.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
2.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
2.jpg){kind=link}
2.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted. abf /talk to me/ 15:09, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
Why PD? What/which book is the source for the scanned image? Svens Welt (talk) 18:55, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. No source MichaelMaggs (talk) 22:05, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
and Image:DVC01818.JPG.
Is it allowed by Commons:Freedom of panorama in country of origin? EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:46, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
- Keep - AGF. --Biortem (talk) 09:28, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
- Delete I do not believe AGF can be used when deciding if images should be deleted. If it was used Commons would be full of copyvios. As the description is written in French, it seems likely that the photograph is taken in France, which has no FOP. (I know other countries speak French but most French Wikimedians are from France). Anonymous101 talk 20:29, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. AGF does not mean assume people are familiar with copyright. It might be perfectly possible, that the uploader uploaded in good faith, but violated copyright anyway. As this was probably taken in France, deleted for lack of FOP. Also note: Many countries require a work to be permanently located in a public place. This, however, seems to bee a movable fairground ride. ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 23:41, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
Error in data: numbers over 2008 were not available at date of creation 29-5-2008. Besides the other numbers were manipulated, therefore original research applies. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 10:04, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
- It seems to me, the uploader recalculated the published numbers of source www.vid.nl, but made a mistake. The number for 2003 is actually the recalculated number of 2002, and so on. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 10:16, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
- Keep - an error is a reason to fix that error. An error is not a reason to delete everything. GijsvdL (talk) 22:01, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Error not fixed after over five months. Maxim(talk) 21:29, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
