Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2008/08/29
 |
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.
This map is incorrect. It has at least 6 errors, three of them major. Jwinius (talk) 00:22, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
- Would you please say what are the major mistakes?--Mardetanha talk 00:29, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
- According to the information available to me, sea snakes do not occur in the Atlantic Ocean or the Red Sea. Also, along the east coast of Africa, the range for Pelamis extends as far south as the Cape of Good Hope; along the Americas, into the Gulf of California. It has also been reported off the coast of New Zeeland. Finally, the colored areas on the left and right sides of the map do not match up. No one should use this map for an article on Pelamis, or for a general sea snake article. --Jwinius (talk) 00:33, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
- As matter of fact i haven't checked the articles which this image was usedi am afraid of snakesbut sometime we need wrong maps to describe right thing .Did you check the articles which this image was used.and if it is so please tell me then i would delete this image--Mardetanha talk 01:12, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
- You mean it's better to use a wrong map than have no map at all? If so, I would disagree: if you have nothing to say that is correct, then it is better to say nothing at all. As for who's using it: fr and pl for their Sea snake articles, and ast, de eo, fr, he, it, la, mk, hu, ml, nl, pl, pt, ro, qu, sr, te and zh for their Snake articles. --Jwinius (talk) 02:02, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
- No. it seems we have kinda misunderstanding here . i told there are situations that we use wrong maps to describe right things and tell differences between what is right and what is wrong--Mardetanha talk 03:01, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. per above discussionMardetanha talk 03:02, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
Copyvio. -Nard the Bard 01:38, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Leafnode 09:16, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
resized copy of Image:Chrysopelea_ornata.jpg --Ponta2 (talk) 04:17, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
- Tagged as {{Duplicate}}. Pruneautalk 09:09, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Leafnode 09:17, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
The flickr-user has just three images in his account and 2 of them are obviously not own work. - Cecil (talk) 07:24, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
Delete Even if it were his own work, the photo is not under a free licence on Flickr. Pruneautalk 09:01, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
Deleted.copyvio Mardetanha talk 12:16, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
Indoors even in UK there is no COM:FOP. Also these images are not installed permanently. So, since the artists from Faile are all still alive it is not allowed to publish this work under a free licence. -- Cecil (talk) 07:42, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Actually, freedom of panorama does apply indoors in the UK (in places open to the public). But it doesn't apply to works which are not installed permanently (this was part of an exhibition), nor to 2D works. Pruneautalk 09:05, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Clear copyvio as FOP does not apply (not on permanent display) MichaelMaggs (talk) 22:01, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
Out of scope, not used Leafnode 09:14, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 20:45, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
Duplicate of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Memphis_front_view.jpg , which was uploaded 3 years prior to this one. 74.203.133.18 15:02, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
Keep + close - Actually you got it mixed up, the one on Wikipedia should be deleted and NOT this one. That's how things work ViperSnake151 (talk) 15:09, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
"This photo was taken by Germain Lussier." on the photosite Wuzur (talk) 17:07, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Now on Flickr it is under CC-BY-NC-2.0 Trixt (talk) 21:05, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
CC licencing on flickr seems doubtful. Uploader at flickr commented "This was sent to me by e-mail". William Avery (talk) 20:11, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry, I missed this comment. If it is there, delete the file. Best regards --Faigl.ladislav (talk) 20:13, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Lupo 20:49, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
Neutral ( Neutral) I really don't care if we delete of save it, but I noticed 75.47 IPs has been trying to place blue tag one of sd tags, and expect it to be deleted fast, while we can't do that. {{Duplicate}} is only for images exactly scale-down. This and Image:I-381 (VA).svg are actually different. The gif ones has a more of indigo shade, plus white text is bolder. That's previous MUTCD, like Florida's pink, blue, green, yellow, brown US shields has once been used. It's same thing as Image:US 1 (FL).svg, when the background was dark pink not white.--Freewayguy What's up? 06:03, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
.svg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
Deleted functionally a duplicate despite minor technical differences, and unused at any article. Durova (talk) 05:23, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
Probably non-free 2D art. Painted in 2007 --Natl1 (talk) 15:17, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Also, has failed Flikr review. MichaelMaggs (talk) 22:14, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
Derived image of copyright/protected design --Sfan00 IMG (talk) 20:03, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 22:13, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
This image is not correct and should be removed. It shows that Kashmir is a part of India although it is still a disputed territory. Kashmir should be shown as disputed territory as according to UNO. Jelahi (talk) 09:55, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
- Fine for me, but it should be replaced with something equivalent. May I stress that the Kashmir issue is mentioned in the map? so what is the real reason for deleting? I do not want to make any fuss about the deletion/maintaining, but I guess there should be a rule in this case.--Ub (talk) 10:11, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
- Keep The Kashmir line is even shown as dashed. No censorship. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 15:28, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
Kept. This file is in use. Please read COM:SCOPE#"Neutral point of view". MichaelMaggs (talk) 21:00, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
This image is not correct and should be removed. It shows that Kashmir is a part of India although it is still a disputed territory. Kashmir should be shown as disputed territory as according to UNO. Jelahi (talk) 09:56, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
Kept.This file is in use. Please read COM:SCOPE#"Neutral point of view". MichaelMaggs (talk) 21:01, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
This image is not correct and should be removed. It shows that Kashmir is a part of India although it is still a disputed territory. Kashmir should be shown as disputed territory as according to UNO. Jelahi (talk) 09:57, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
- NO to the political nationalist propaganda on wikipedia
- 1/ This map show jewish communities in india. The subject is not kashmir.
- 2/ The frontiers witch are show are the present frontiers of india and pakistan, with the parts of kashmir that these countries today control. If the frontiers will change one day, with the whole kashmir in india, the wole kasmir in pakistan, ore the whole kasmir independant, the map will be change. Today, the map show the present frontiers. We will have to destroy ALL the maps of india and pakistan, with this theory. And the map of israel (it's existence is still disputed bu such countries),and so on...
- You have few hundred maps to destroy here Category:Maps of India, and here Category:Maps of Pakistan. Good luck. Christophe cagé (talk)
Kept. This file is in use. Please read COM:SCOPE#"Neutral point of view". MichaelMaggs (talk) 21:03, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
This image is not correct and should be removed. It shows that Kashmir is a part of India although it is still a disputed territory. Kashmir should be shown as disputed territory as according to UNO. Jelahi (talk) 09:58, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
Kept. This file is in use. Please read COM:SCOPE#"Neutral point of view".MichaelMaggs (talk) 21:04, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
This image should be removed as the information represented is not correct. The maps shows that Kashmir is a part of Pakistan. This is not true. The whole region of Kashmir is a disputed territory according to UNO. Jelahi (talk) 22:45, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
Kept. This file is in use. Please read COM:SCOPE#"Neutral point of view". MichaelMaggs (talk) 21:04, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
This image should be removed as the information represented is not correct. The maps shows that Kashmir is a part of India. This is not true. The whole region of Kashmir is a disputed territory according to UNO. Jelahi (talk) 22:47, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
Kept. for consistency with all of your other deletion requests. Please read COM:SCOPE#"Neutral point of view". MichaelMaggs (talk) 21:06, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
(irrelevant file name. I would like to upload again the picture, giving it a more descriptive file name.) --Tg1w (talk) 20:41, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
Please use {{bad name}} when it is uploaded with a better name. — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 16:47, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Sanbec (talk) 17:10, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
Useless. FunkMonk (talk) 22:26, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
- Delete for being out of scope. How many porno and masturbation images are there on Commons? Aren't there enough xx internet sites out there already for people to see? *Sigh* sadly. --Leoboudv (talk) 06:52, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
12:52, 1 September 2008 EugeneZelenko (Talk | contribs | block) deleted "Image:Biamyinmd masturbating while pregnant.jpg" (Missing essential information: source, license and/or permission: since August 24, 2008) (restore)
Likely copyright violation Whpq (talk) 11:35, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
The image is from http://cache.daylife.com/imageserve/0eLdg9k7cw8DM/610x.jpg as noted in the upload, and there is no indication it has been released under a GFDL license. -- Whpq (talk) 19:06, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Yann (talk) 19:48, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
It is unsure wether the image comes from neuwal.com or the Flickr-User took it Wuzur (talk) 17:23, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
- The Flickr-User (Dieter Zirnig/sugarmelon) took the image, he is also one of the website owners of neuwal.com; I just cropped the image to show only Molterer's face and upper body. I don't think there's any reason for deletion here. —Nightstallion (?) 18:12, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
- Then there is no problem with this. --Wuzur (talk) 12:37, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
- Perfect. Should I word the description differently to avoid further misunderstandings? —Nightstallion (?) 12:48, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
- Then there is no problem with this. --Wuzur (talk) 12:37, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
- Nightstallion should not be in "Author" field; cropping is not very much creative. A.J. (talk) 09:26, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
Kept / Corrected license and description, Flicrreview'ed A.J. (talk) 09:31, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
wrong filname uploaded Neodee (talk) 17:55, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
delete: comercial product name / producing company
Deleted by Micheletb: duplicate or a scaled down version of Image:Aufblasbare leinwand Wilde kerle.jpg
Photo of a three dimensional object whose copyright status is presumed unfree MBisanz talk 23:28, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
- Keep It says author "elya" who is the uploader. Since this upload predated OTRS we should assume good faith. -Nard the Bard 23:35, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
- Keep It is a award the German Wikipedia received from the Grimme Institute. Raymond Disc. 16:24, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
- Keep I haven't been assuming and I am not assuming that it is a copyrighted work of art, as it is produced every year in serial production and delivered to several recipients, a good piece of crafts (not too good, in fact, as it broke quite easy and was hard to repair ;-) --Elya (talk) 16:36, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
- But unless Grimme gives out the copyright to its award design to each winner, just the receipt of the award doesn't convey ownership of its design. MBisanz talk 03:05, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
- Keep As for Image:GrimmeOnlineAward Trophäe 2008.jpg Adolf-Grimme-Institut gives the permission. --Lyzzy (talk) 18:36, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
- Okey, seeing as OTRS says we can use it, how do I withdraw this req? MBisanz talk 03:26, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for this Deletion request ,-)
[edit]
Kept. I have checked the OTRS ticket. John Vandenberg (chat) 03:35, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Copyvio from http://www.army.cz/scripts/detail.php?id=11093, 11:50, 1 September 2008 Jvs (talk · contribs)
Deleted, copyright violation. --Martin H. (talk) 16:51, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
comercial product name / producing company Neodee (talk) 17:56, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
Kept, the name is not a reason to delet it, if this imagename is not wanted commercial spam we can rename the image. --Martin H. (talk) 17:10, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
Photo of a three dimensional object that is not PD MBisanz talk 23:22, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. No indication that the designer released his design into public domain (COM:DW). Cecil (talk) 22:45, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
Photo of a three dimensional object whose copyright status is presumed unfree MBisanz talk 23:24, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. No indication that the designer released his design into public domain (COM:DW). Cecil (talk) 22:45, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
PD-Art does not apply (under the new rules or under the old ones), as this is a 3D relief - you can see the shadows. This falls under Commons:When to use the PD-Art tag#This does not apply to photographs of 3D works of art, and should be deleted. The work of art is essentially a sculpture and the photo needs a licence from the photographer. MichaelMaggs (talk) 21:56, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
- Delete It is 3D art unfortunately. The license tag is wrong and the source, Crystallinks did not give permission for it to be used here. We don't even know if this site holds the copyright. --Leoboudv (talk) 11:25, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. MBisanz talk 00:11, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
Prevent deletion of image I uploaded. 124.176.51.76 01:09, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
- Um, ok? Keep image appears to be PD. -Nard the Bard 01:39, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
- He left a message on my talk page, asking me to delete it. Maybe a joke, or just bad English. --Magnus Manske (talk) 19:43, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
Kept. — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 20:46, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
I created an article on Dwight Johns and uploaded a picture to accompany it. Now the image is slated for speedy deletion because some stupid bot created a copy on commons. I did not upload it to commons. Needs to be deleted from commons. DELETE THIS IMAGE FROM COMMONS. What part of DELETE THIS IMAGE FROM COMMONS don't you understand? Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:20, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Commons should not delete a PD image just for the convenience of a local wiki. I have added en:template:NoCommons to the en.wiki copy indicating the uploader's preference that the local copy not be deleted. -Nard the Bard 23:22, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
Kept. Kimse (talk) 02:02, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
Image is from flickr with all rights reserved. There is a discussion at the comments of the image at Flickr, where the author allows the CC-licence with with the image was uploaded here. Problem is that the uploaders question was for "Wikipedia only" and that he never explained the consequences of the licence. -- Cecil (talk) 06:49, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
Deleted, together with some other unverified flickr images from the user. --Martin H. (talk) 23:21, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
This user is a chronic uploader of media he claims to have created ("self-made") but turns out to be just images gathered from the net. I suspect this is just another case of this. The image appears to give copyright info in the bottom right corner, yet the image has been scaled down, and makes it hard to read. Pretty clear this user did not create this image.--Celtus (talk) 09:22, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
See this link on a forum where the user likely ripped this image from. The date of the posting which contains the image in question is Nov 8 2007. The image the user claims to have created was uploaded on the 20th. The other maps posted in the forum follow the same template as the one the user claims to have created. Also this map gives "Map 8.3", showing that it is one map in a series of maps.--Celtus (talk) 09:35, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 21:42, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
The copyright holder does not allow derivative works. -- Kam Solusar (talk) 09:55, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 21:43, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
Copyright holder only allows non-commercial use, see the copyright notice on the source website: "The pictures on this website can be used free of charge by individuals and non-profit organisations for strictly non-commercial use." -- Kam Solusar (talk) 10:10, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 21:43, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
extremely low-res version of Image:General George Washington Resigning his Commission.jpg 76.175.162.28 14:31, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
Kept. It is in use. Suggest linking to the better version and/or persuading local users to use that instead. MichaelMaggs (talk) 21:45, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
Austrian picture postcard from ca. 1900. No author. {{PD-self}} clearly does not apply. Lupo 08:55, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
- {{PD-self}} is wrong per misunderstanding, sorry. {{PD-old}} should be correct. I, the publisher, will change/correct to {{PD-old}} and hope there are no further concerns after.--Sums (talk) 11:24, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
- What evidence is there that the photographer died more than 70 years ago? Lupo 19:40, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
- Per age. Also analog to images used e.g. in Wikipedia page de:Ansichtskarte ! --Sums (talk) 12:40, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
- Head of Stadtarchiv Feldkirch, Mag. Christoph Volaucnik, also confirms that photographer Jos. Vinzenz died around 1935. Company not existing anymore since world war. --Sums (talk) 12:37, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
- The rationale you put in the image description field "Permission" is not acceptable according to the Commons rules. We do not have a 100-year-rule because it is not safe to assume that images which are a little over 100 years old are already PD. There are several examples (from people of that time where the life dates are known) where even 160 years was to short (this is the case with people who got 90 and already worked with 20). So please remove that delusive rationale. And if you put a PD-US-tag into a file there has to be some indication that it was in fact published in the United States before 1923. You just mentioned a publication in Austria. -- Cecil (talk) 22:53, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
- What evidence is there that the photographer died more than 70 years ago? Lupo 19:40, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
Deleted per request. There is no evidence for any of the public domain claims. Code·is·poetry 09:42, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
licensing on CC or GNU is against what it is stated at the source at www.revistanaval.com (shall not relicense) 81.50.77.206 17:14, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
However, the website does not provide a source of the photo. It does not directly say it owns it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.167.208.206 (talk • contribs) 04:22, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
- Thats only a stronger argument for deletion. Delete: source unclear, invalid licence. --Martin H. (talk) 12:06, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
Deleted, per Martin H. Kameraad Pjotr 19:50, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This image looks really like scanned from a newspaper. No Exif data is given Wuzur (talk) 17:28, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
- Comment. Its from Flickr, so anyone can upload any image they find. The image looks to me like its from a video, or off the TV. They angle of which it was taken seems to show that the photographer was down on the same level, or about same level as the player (so its sorta unlikely it was taken by a fan). It seems to me that this photo wasn't taken by the user on flickr. Dubious. Should be deleted i think.--Celtus (talk) 08:55, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Comment: yes, the quality is not very good, but according to the metadata of other and other similar images the Flickr uploader uses everytime the same camera. He uploaded only images from this single soccer match and not from various matches and or only one famous player, so he isnt a uploader of fanimages. So maybe the images lost the metadata because of editing with bad software, but i dont think, that his images are copyvios. Imo Keep. --Martin H. (talk) 17:04, 30 September 2008 (UTC)- Keep I have to agree with Martin H. - looking at the user's other Inter photos, they're all taken from the same height and the image quality is about the same. I wish it wasn't so grainy, but copyright doesn't seem to be an issue here. --Ytoyoda (talk) 15:09, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Kept, per Ytoyoda. Kameraad Pjotr 19:50, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
black and white version of a copyrighted photo visible on the web at [1] (copyright notice at [2]. Used in en.wikipedia on a page I'm about to speedy delete as a copyright violation of that second link. GRBerry (talk) 17:41, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
![[1]](http://music.ucsd.edu/people/assets/edwin_harkins.jpg){kind=link}
Note that the image is taken from Flickr, and the profile of the uploader claims he is "Manager of Audio Computing, Department of Music, U.C. San Diego". I'm not sure if this gives him the authority to release the pictures under CC licenses. I suspect not as this would normally be the purview of an external communications department. The photo itself is marked as a press photo. -- Whpq (talk) 19:04, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
Deleted, lacks permission. Kameraad Pjotr 19:48, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
visible on the web as a copyrighted image, see [3] Also used in en.wikipedia for an article speedy deleted. GRBerry (talk) 17:46, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
Note that the image is taken from Flickr, and the profile of the uploader claims he is "Manager of Audio Computing, Department of Music, U.C. San Diego". I'm not sure if this gives him the authority to release the pictures under CC licenses. I suspect not as this would normally be the purview of an external communications department. The photo itself is marked as a press photo. -- Whpq (talk) 19:03, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
Deleted, lacks permission. Kameraad Pjotr 19:47, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
visible on web as an image with copyright claimed [4], used in en.wikipedia article speedy deleted as a copyright violation. GRBerry (talk) 17:49, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
Note that the image is taken from Flickr, and the profile of the uploader claims he is "Manager of Audio Computing, Department of Music, U.C. San Diego". I'm not sure if this gives him the authority to release the pictures under CC licenses. I suspect not as this would normally be the purview of an external communications department. The photo itself is marked as a press photo. -- Whpq (talk) 19:03, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
Deleted, lacks permission. Kameraad Pjotr 19:47, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
also visible on web with copyright claimed [5] and used in en.wikipedia in a copyright violation of that page. GRBerry (talk) 17:52, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
Note that the image is taken from Flickr, and the profile of the uploader claims he is "Manager of Audio Computing, Department of Music, U.C. San Diego". I'm not sure if this gives him the authority to release the pictures under CC licenses. I suspect not as this would normally be the purview of an external communications department. The photo itself is marked as a press photo. -- Whpq (talk) 19:02, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
Deleted, lacks permission. Kameraad Pjotr 19:47, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
black and white version of copyrighted image on web [6], used in en.Wikipedia for an article that is a copyright violation GRBerry (talk) 17:54, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
Note that the image is taken from Flickr, and the profile of the uploader claims he is "Manager of Audio Computing, Department of Music, U.C. San Diego". I'm not sure if this gives him the authority to release the pictures under CC licenses. I suspect not as this would normally be the purview of an external communications department. The photo itself is marked as a press photo. -- Whpq (talk) 19:02, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
Deleted, lacks permission. Kameraad Pjotr 19:45, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
Had a poke around on the source website (via the internet archive's wayback machien), but could not find any information that this image (or anyting else) there have been released to the public domain. --Sherool (talk) 17:58, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
Deleted, no evidence for public domain. Kameraad Pjotr 19:43, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
black and white version of copyrighted image on web [7]. en.wikipedia article has the usual problem. After 6 nominations all based on the same website, I recommend a thorough review... GRBerry (talk) 18:13, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
Note that the image is taken from Flickr [8], and the profile of the uploader claims he is "Manager of Audio Computing, Department of Music, U.C. San Diego". I'm not sure if this gives him the authority to release the pictures under CC licenses. I suspect not as this would normally be the purview of an external communcations department. The photo itself is marked as a press photo. -- Whpq (talk) 18:23, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
Deleted, lacks permission. Kameraad Pjotr 19:42, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
Images lifted from the website linked to, no definitive author information to justify uploader's copyright claims BrokenSphere 21:06, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Kameraad Pjotr 19:41, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
It doesn't look like a lunar eclipse:
- there wasn't an eclipse on the day it was taken (3 February 2007)
- the edge of the dark area isn't curved
- the position of the dark area is not consistent with the position of the Earth's shadow on the Moon at any time during the eclipse of 3 March 2007 (see the NASA page describing this eclipse - Total Lunar Eclipse of 2007 Mar 03)
Note - the fact that the image is back to front is not a problem, this could be because it was shot through an eyepiece diagonal.
Occultations (talk) 23:51, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
- From looking at my pictures of lunar eclipses, two of your points are invalid: 1) if you are exposing the picture so that the lit portion of the Moon is correctly exposed, the shadow will be black, and 2) the curvature of the Earth's shadow at that stage of an eclipse is subtle and can look straight. --Carnildo (talk) 00:55, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
- As for point three...doesn't it depend WHERE you are whether you see the whole eclipse? NASA says North America only saw partial eclipsing on the moonrise... -Nard the Bard 21:20, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
- I took the picture with a cheap digital camera and a small Mak using eyepiece projection, this is the second time I've had to stop my pic being deleted, I think people sjhould be slightly more reticent about deleting other people's stuff. Its not a Hubble photo, the point is that people can get astro pics without huge budgets, please do not delete my photo
- More information
Lunar2007_eclipse-LiamG.jpg (first picture below) claims to be of the March 2007 lunar eclipse.
I took a picture (second picture below) at a similar stage of the eclipse. I have reversed it and rotated it so that it has the same orientation.
- The edge of the shadow is curved.
- The crater Tycho is already in shadow, but the right-hand edge of the Moon (to the bottom right of the Sinus Iridium) is not.
- In Lunar2007_eclipse-LiamG.jpg, the right-hand edge of the Moon is in shadow but Tycho (bottom left) is not.
- The Earth's shadow passes across the Moon's surface linearly. The dark area in Lunar2007_eclipse-LiamG.jpg cannot be the Earth's shadow during the March 2007 eclipse.
I think PrivateWiddle must have got the wrong picture here if he thinks it's the March 2007 lunar eclipse. I don't want the picture to be deleted, but it's misleading for it to be in Category:Lunar_eclipse.
Occultations (talk) 22:49, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
- Keep This is an editorial dispute, and an abuse of the deletion process. Next time please only ask for deletion for files you want deleted. -Nard the Bard 22:51, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, I seem to have screwed up here. And I was only trying to help. I saw a picture that didn't look like what it claimed to be, I read the help pages to find out what I should do about it, and the "Request for deletion" process seemed to be appropriate. So what process should I have followed to remove something from a category? Occultations (talk) 02:54, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
--Cecil (talk) 22:46, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
Kept, per Nard the Bard. Kameraad Pjotr 19:41, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
I see no evidence that the coypright holder allows derivative works, the notice on the image only mentions distribution and publishing. -- Kam Solusar (talk) 10:14, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
- It says "publishing in any form is permitted" - the rest is comparable to GFDL-requirement that the licence be reproduced. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 15:25, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
- agree with Kuiper -- Chris 73 (talk) 20:10, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
- Hmm... I saw the statement "publish in any form" more as a way to say "you can publish/use the digital version of these images on websites, print them in magazines, flyers or use them in videos", not as "do with it whatever you want as long as you credit us". But now I see that the website says it's an USGS image, would that make the photo {{PD-USGov}}? --Kam Solusar (talk) 23:23, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, that does make it PD_US. DGG (talk) 02:27, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
- Hmm... I saw the statement "publish in any form" more as a way to say "you can publish/use the digital version of these images on websites, print them in magazines, flyers or use them in videos", not as "do with it whatever you want as long as you credit us". But now I see that the website says it's an USGS image, would that make the photo {{PD-USGov}}? --Kam Solusar (talk) 23:23, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
According to the information available to me, sea snakes do not occur in the Atlantic Ocean or the Red Sea. Also, along the east coast of Africa, the range for Pelamis extends as far south as the Cape of Good Hope; along the Americas, into the Gulf of California. It has also been reported off the coast of New Zeeland. Finally, the colored areas on the left and right sides of the map do not match up. No one should use this map for an article on Pelamis, or for a general sea snake article. Jwinius (talk) 13:52, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
- i am not happy with some of the maps i drew a while ago, and mostly refrained from doing new ones due to this. however, the reptiles and amphibian maps were drawn after maps from the book mentioned in the sources, and are most likely correct in most regards. i think it would be better to modify the map (or draw a new one) than to just delete it. i just compared the original map with this one, and it is mostly rather accurate, but i did make a mistake. compare the newly uploaded version, where the northern pacific part has been removed. the source is at least 9 years old, so of course new data should be incorporated into the map. there seem to be no water snakes in the atlantic, but the original map clearly states snakes in the waters in parts of the caribbean and near cape verde. it would be interesting to find out which snakes are found in this areas. conclusion: if you have a better map, remove this one; otherwise, keep and/or optimize this one. --Sarefo (talk) 22:31, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
- There was never any doubt in my mind that whoever made this map did not simply make it up. However, I have some reasonably authoritative sources at my disposal and can only conclude that your source must be inaccurate with respect to the marine distribution. My sources are:
- Campbell JA, Lamar WW. 2004. The Venomous Reptiles of the Western Hemisphere. 2 volumes. Comstock Publishing Associates, Ithaca and London. 870 pp. 1500 plates. ISBN 0-8014-4141-2.
- Spawls S, Branch B. 1995. The Dangerous Snakes of Africa. Ralph Curtis Books. Dubai: Oriental Press. 192 pp. ISBN 0-88359-029-8.
- Parker HW, Grandison AGC. 1977. Snakes -- a natural history. Second Edition. British Museum (Natural History) and Cornell University Press. 108 pp. 16 plates. LCCCN 76-54625. ISBN 0-8014-1095-9 (cloth), ISBN 0-8014-9164-9 (paper).
- Priede M. 1990. The sea snakes are coming. NewScientist, November 1990.
- Mehrtens JM. 1987. Living Snakes of the World in Color. New York: Sterling Publishers. 480 pp. ISBN 0-8069-6460-X.
- U.S. Navy. 1991. Poisonous Snakes of the World. US Govt. New York: Dover Publications Inc. 203 pp. ISBN 0-486-26629-X.
- All of these publications state specifically that sea snakes do not occur in the Atlantic, while both Priede (1990) and Parker & Grandison (1977) believe that the reason Pelamis is not found in the Red Sea is due to the higher level of salinity there.
- I will try to improve this map and upload the results. Perhaps an admin can then use it to replace the current version. --Jwinius (talk) 00:37, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
- thank you for updating the map! :) why don't you just overwrite the old file? there's no admin needed for that, only that you ask the original uploader first, who gladly gives you permission to do so ;) but nevertheless it would be interesting to know what the authors of the original map knew that made them mark the region around cape verde and the caribbean. --Sarefo (talk) 10:45, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
- There was never any doubt in my mind that whoever made this map did not simply make it up. However, I have some reasonably authoritative sources at my disposal and can only conclude that your source must be inaccurate with respect to the marine distribution. My sources are:
Kept. No need to delete this (it is in use). Please upload a corrected version using the same filename. MichaelMaggs (talk) 17:16, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
This image looks like scanned from a newspaper as many other images by this Flickr-User and has no exif-data but many images look like own taken. Wuzur (talk) 16:47, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
Comment: per Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Zlataninter.jpg i think we can keep it. --Martin H. (talk) 17:07, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
Austrian picture postcard from ca. 1900. No author. {{PD-self}} clearly does not apply. Lupo 08:55, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
- {{PD-self}} is wrong per misunderstanding, sorry. {{PD-old}} should be correct. I, the publisher, will change/correct to {{PD-old}} and hope there are no further concerns after.--Sums (talk) 11:23, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
- Instead of {{PD-old}} set to correct {{Anonymous-EU}}.--Sums (talk) 14:06, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Unless someone can provide some evidence that the author is anonymous. --Kam Solusar (talk) 15:52, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry, I don't understand the discussion regarding this (already mass-published) old picture postcard. There are thousands of comparable (as well as also newer images!) in Commons. Please see e.g. Category:Anonymous_work. Would you please release this in the same manner? --Sums (talk) 14:02, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
- Supplement: Here an example where it is already online: Stadt Feldkirch: Historische Ansichten von Nofels (pdf, 4MB). In Stadtarchiv Feldkirch, where one original of this postcard is hosted, they say, this anonymous old thing can be and has already been several times published without any concerns. Please release. --Sums (talk) 11:36, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
- Would it be convincing to show the rear side? --Sums (talk) 16:38, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
