Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2008/10/04
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
|
|
Orphaned low quality old uploaded personal dog photo. OsamaK 01:38, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete - Low quality cellphone snapshot? Out of scope. -- J.smith (talk) 02:10, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Martin H. (talk) 02:15, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
Orphaned personal image. OsamaK 01:41, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
- What is the problem? I've made this picture of a famous soccer player by my own in public space. It cutted from a self made picture with other people, is that the problem? Tukka (talk) 09:35, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
Keep, reccomend Speedy keep. NOT an "orphaned personal image". Photo of noted athelete who has articles about him in multiple wikipedias, and was already properly categorized. Did you notice the category, OsamaK? -- Infrogmation (talk) 12:11, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
- I did not. It should be kept then.--OsamaK 12:18, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
Kept -- Infrogmation (talk) 12:24, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
Derivative work from copyrighted work Peter17 (talk) 06:07, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
- Delete {{Screenshot}} Sdrtirs (talk) 09:47, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per above. -- Infrogmation (talk) 12:21, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
Deleted by Herbythyme: Copyright violation
I think this is out of scope. Sterkebaktalk 13:18, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
16:19, 4 October 2008 Herbythyme (Talk | contribs | block) deleted "Image:Intro.pdf" (spam)
Deleted. --Martin H. (talk) 17:59, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
The artist died in 2004 and there is no FOP in the US. Yes it is just 5 jets of water but it is part of a larger work (the entire gardens) which has a copyrighted design[1]. -Nard the Bard 13:35, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
- Keep. As said "it is just 5 jets of water". guillom 13:43, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
- Do those jets have some special design? I don't think the copyright of the larger work is important. Have those jets originality themselves? Platonides (talk) 13:44, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
- Keep. Why are we going all paranoia mode over just 5 JETS OF WATER? They, themselves, are not artistic. ViperSnake151 (talk) 14:13, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Location where the photo was taken may be at a work of art, but there would be no way to tell that from the image if the photographer hadn't mentioned it. The artwork is not visible from this photo. The artwork is irrelevent to the point of this photo. (I also see that this is a featured photo and no notice of this deletion request was posted on the image or image talk page.) -- Infrogmation (talk) 14:35, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
Kept per above -- Infrogmation (talk) 14:35, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
First time using Wikipedia - misunderstood instructions and would like this image deleted please. Harveyst (talk) 18:18, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
First time using Wikipedia - misunderstood instructions and would like this image deleted please. Harveyst (talk) 18:18, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
Hoax, see it:Speciale:Contributi/Raldo --Yuma (talk) 22:26, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Trixt (talk) 22:30, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
This looks very much like a news photo, not an image that happens to be in a person's personal collection. Orlady (talk) 04:24, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
- I oppose the deletion of this image. This is from my personal collection of college photos and documents. I am a member of the SLC community and have a large stock of related materials dating back throughout the schools history. This is a black and white image of a student protest rally in 1950. The 'less than perfect' quality of the image is reflective of the photography apparatus of the time.--ChucksBike-O-Rama (talk) 05:04, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
- Delete not work by uploader; no info on actual author nor any indication uploader has any authority to license image. -- Infrogmation (talk) 12:01, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
Deleted, seen at [2] with clear copyright notice. -- Infrogmation (talk) 03:05, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
This is a scanned image of a published photo portrait, not something from someone's personal collection. Orlady (talk) 04:32, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
- I oppose the deletion of this image. This is from my personal collection of college photos and documents. I am a member of the SLC community and have a large stock of related materials dating back throughout the schools history. The minor imperfections in the scan of this image might be attributed to the fact that it has been laminated for protection.--ChucksBike-O-Rama (talk) 04:52, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Not work by uploader, no information about actual author nor any indication uploader has any authority to license the photo. -- Infrogmation (talk) 12:19, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
Deleted by Infrogmation: Copyright violation
The source "internet picture" ? Giorgiomonteforti (talk) 18:21, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Thank you to the user for honestly listing the source, but this isn't the place for storing found internet images. -- Infrogmation (talk) 23:19, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
First time using Wikipedia - I uploaded this image in error - please delete. Harveyst (talk) 18:23, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Martin H. (talk) 23:13, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
First time using Wikipedia - I uploaded this image in error - please delete. Harveyst (talk) 18:24, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Martin H. (talk) 23:13, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
Raises questions of scope, and of the source of the original photograph. Megapixie (talk) 00:14, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
- Delete - Out of project scope - no educational use for this image. J.smith (talk) 01:08, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
- Delete - Out of project scope Béria Lima Msg 04:15, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
- Delete agree -- Infrogmation (talk) 11:15, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Out of scope. Yann (talk) 16:50, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Orphaned personal image. OsamaK 01:22, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Out of scope. Yann (talk) 16:55, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Orphaned personal image. OsamaK 01:22, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
- Delete: seems to be out of scope. --Martin H. (talk) 17:02, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Out of scope. Yann (talk) 16:55, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Orphaned personal image. OsamaK 01:27, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Out of scope. Yann (talk) 16:40, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Orphaned personal image. OsamaK 01:29, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
Comment: All the uploads of this user are spam i think, many promotional pdf files.., Some of our turkish (?) speeking users may have a look. --Martin H. (talk) 02:23, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Out of scope. Yann (talk) 16:39, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Orphaned personal image. OsamaK 01:30, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
- Delete: spam image without notability, out of scope. --Martin H. (talk) 17:06, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Out of scope. Yann (talk) 16:39, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Orphaned personal image. OsamaK 01:31, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Out of scope. Yann (talk) 16:27, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Orphaned personal image. OsamaK 01:33, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Out of scope. Yann (talk) 16:27, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Orphaned personal image. OsamaK 01:33, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Out of scope. Yann (talk) 16:23, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Orphaned personal image. OsamaK 01:33, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Out of scope. Yann (talk) 16:23, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Orphaned personal image. OsamaK 01:33, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Out of scope. Yann (talk) 16:15, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Orphaned personal image. OsamaK 01:34, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
- Comment: Maybe this uploader confuses Commons with a private photoalbum, all his contributions are out of our scope i think. --Martin H. (talk) 02:19, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Out of scope. Yann (talk) 16:12, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Uploader is not telling the truth. This photo was screened for publication, not taken by the uploader. Orlady (talk) 04:29, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
- I oppose the deletion of this image. I am the person who took this picture originally. There might be imperfections and formatting issues as the image has been saved onto an external hard drive, copied between three separate computers and has been used in different editing programs for various other purposes.--ChucksBike-O-Rama (talk) 04:56, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
- Delete False license. Uploader is not the photographer and has no authority to release the image under Creative Commons license. Not own work. -- Infrogmation (talk) 11:47, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
- Please delete. Uploader has been blocked as sockpuppet of a notorious user with a long record of making false claims regarding image licenses. See Commons:Requests for checkuser/Case/ChucksBike-O-Rama. --Orlady (talk) 12:46, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Deleted -- Infrogmation (talk) 14:32, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Claims of uploader are not credible. Uploader claims this is "own work by uploader," but this is a scan of an image that was obviously screened for publication (see the little dots). This is a publicity photo that was published, and uploader claims only to have scanned it, not to have been the photographer or publisher. --Orlady (talk) 14:06, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Not work by uploader, no info on actual source, no indication uploader has authority to license image. -- Infrogmation (talk) 14:12, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
Deleted by Infrogmation: Copyright violation
more personal photo album, spam ("Please dont hesitate to contact me via..."). See most of this User Contributions --Xtv (talk) 16:17, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Out of scope. Yann (talk) 16:22, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
all "Wohlfahrtsmarken" are in Category:Wohlfahrtsmarke (Germany) --NobbiP 18:47, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
- Nicht gesehen (wurde nicht auf der ersten Seite im Suchergebnis angezeigt) → Umleitung wäre aber nicht schlecht, eigentlich braucht man keinen AfD deswegen... Mit philatelistischen Grüßen^^. --Mattes (talk) 19:01, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
'Deleted by Martin H.: content was: '{{delete|all "Wohlfahrtsmarken" are in Category:Wohlfahrtsmarke (Germany)}}
Out of scope. Sdrtirs (talk) 21:59, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Out of scope. Yann (talk) 15:45, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
No proof this is free software, and in addition, wouldn't this program be a derivative work of copyrighted software regardless? ViperSnake151 (talk) 21:30, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
It is free software. You can download it here. It's a free program for Weather Channel Fans. It just shows weather conditions. TWCFanChris (talk) 22:39, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
- Do you know the difference between do not need to pay money for usage and Free software? The statement of the author here indicates that this is not a free software, but just one for which you don't need to pay, and since you just get a msi-file and not the code it definitely is not free in the sense of Free Software. Delete. -- Cecil (talk) 11:04, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Totaly clear case, per Cecil's comment. Next time please use {{Copyvio}} for this. abf /talk to me/ 11:10, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
This is not an old map, as claimed by uploader (who has been blocked, BTW). The fonts and art style are clearly modern. Orlady (talk) 00:29, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
- Delete - one of the buildings in the image (Andrews House) was built in 1935. That would mean that the image is likely copyrighted. It could qualify for fair-use on local projects. J.smith (talk) 01:23, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
- The map in question is an old map. I have the same map in my possession as well. The doubt over its font and art style is clearly the users opinion and not fact. The assertion over the age of Andrews house lacks any sort of back-up, and is actually factually inaccurate. The college acquired the house in 1930 therefore it could not have been built in 1935 as the user states in their justification for deletion. I do not know the age of the map but I do not think it should be deleted based on false reasons.--ChucksBike-O-Rama (talk) 06:05, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
- Okay, if you have a copy of the same map, can you add information on actual authorship, date, and copyright? Thanks. -- Infrogmation (talk) 11:35, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
- The 1935 year was based on the article about the college... this article actualy: w:Sarah_Lawrence_College_Campus#Housing I apologize if my information is wrong... however, 1930 would still put it smack dab in the "still under copyright" time period. The map is old, but not pd-old. J.smith (talk) 16:29, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
- According to that article, the college acquired the building in 1935, as an existing building. In any event, the articles about it say that the college was established in 1926, so the map could not possibly be older than 1926. --Orlady (talk) 20:03, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
- The 1935 year was based on the article about the college... this article actualy: w:Sarah_Lawrence_College_Campus#Housing I apologize if my information is wrong... however, 1930 would still put it smack dab in the "still under copyright" time period. The map is old, but not pd-old. J.smith (talk) 16:29, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
- Okay, if you have a copy of the same map, can you add information on actual authorship, date, and copyright? Thanks. -- Infrogmation (talk) 11:35, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
- Delete. Uploader says source is "Scan from personal collection", but lists self as author. Not uploader's own work; uploader has no authority to release it under Creative Commons. Map may or may not be free licensed for some reason or another, but we would need info on actual source, authorship, and date to determine that. (BTW from graphic style alone I'd say the map cannot be no older than 1930s). -- Infrogmation (talk) 11:35, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
- Please delete. Uploader has been blocked as sockpuppet of a notorious user with a long record of making false claims regarding image licenses. See Commons:Requests for checkuser/Case/ChucksBike-O-Rama. --Orlady (talk) 12:43, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Yann (talk) 14:12, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Inaccurate description and license. A scan of someone else's photo is not "own work by uploader." Orlady (talk) 04:18, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
- I oppose the deletion of this image. This is from my personal collection of college photos and documents. I am a member of the SLC community and have a large stock of related materials dating back throughout the schools history. The photo is almost 80 years old and the original creator of the photo is unkown (there are no markings or detail on it to signify its origin). --ChucksBike-O-Rama (talk) 05:43, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Not work by uploader, no information about actual author nor any indication uploader has any authority to license the photo. -- Infrogmation (talk) 12:18, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
- Please delete. Uploader has been blocked as sockpuppet of a notorious user with a long record of making false claims regarding image licenses. See Commons:Requests for checkuser/Case/ChucksBike-O-Rama. --Orlady (talk) 12:44, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Yann (talk) 14:10, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
This is a scanned copy of a published photo (a formal portrait, not something from a personal collection as claimed. Orlady (talk) 04:34, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
- I oppose the deletion of this image. This is from my personal collection of college photos and documents. I am a member of the SLC community and have a large stock of related materials dating back throughout the schools history. The minor imperfections in the scan of this image might be attributed to the fact that it has been laminated for protection.--ChucksBike-O-Rama (talk) 04:52, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
- Delete not work by uploader; no info on actual author nor any indication uploader has any authority to license image. -- Infrogmation (talk) 12:00, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
- Please delete. Uploader has been blocked as sockpuppet of a notorious user with a long record of making false claims regarding image licenses. See Commons:Requests for checkuser/Case/ChucksBike-O-Rama. --Orlady (talk) 12:47, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
- Note: An anonymous user (probably another sock) has edited the image page to identify the source of the image and claim "fair use". This is a clear basis for removing from Commons. --Orlady (talk) 12:55, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Yann (talk) 14:09, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
This is clearly a scanned copy of a published photo (a formal portrait), not an item from a personal collection as claimed. Orlady (talk) 04:35, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
- I oppose the deletion of this image. This is from my personal collection of college photos and documents. I am a member of the SLC community and have a large stock of related materials dating back throughout the schools history. The minor imperfections in the scan of this image might be attributed to the fact that it has been laminated for protection.--ChucksBike-O-Rama (talk) 04:51, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
- Delete not work by uploader; no info on actual author nor any indication uploader has any authority to license image. -- Infrogmation (talk) 12:00, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
- Please delete. Uploader has been blocked as sockpuppet of a notorious user with a long record of making false claims regarding image licenses. See Commons:Requests for checkuser/Case/ChucksBike-O-Rama. --Orlady (talk) 12:47, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Yann (talk) 14:08, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
no info, wrong license, probably copyvio --Tekstman (talk) 06:12, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete copyvio [3]--Machiavelli talk 00:22, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Yann (talk) 14:07, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
The image has a nondescriptive name and isn't used anywhere --Jonjames1986 (talk) 22:47, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
- Delete, according to the userpage (which is also out of scope): out of our projects scope. --Martin H. (talk) 23:12, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Out of scope. Yann (talk) 14:06, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
I have my doubts on these images but I think they are copyrighted even if they are from the press site. Sdrtirs (talk) 21:28, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
- I talk about it with Sdrtirs : images come from a press site = public domain. This site is specially do to use in public domain and to promote the brand. That's why images are not copyrighted. Ascaron (talk) 07:30, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
- Press images do have a copyright. Yann (talk) 15:47, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
A moins d'avoir une autorisation explicite des auteurs, ou que le site dise noir sur blanc que ces images sont libres, les images sont sous copyright et inutilisables ici. Peu importe qu'il s'agisse d'images de presse. Merci de lire COM:APL. Images supprimées. le Korrigan →bla 20:58, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This is a 3 dimensional object. Even if the insignia were PD the photographer would need to be identified -Nard 16:47, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. -mattbuck (Talk) 12:29, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
User has many copyvios. This image has no source. 1+1=copyvio. -Nard the Bard 02:08, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 17:24, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
There is no evidence camacho.com.mx owns the copyright to this or other images hosted there. Name of author is not given. All images of this uploader and site seem professional, and I doubt they're given away freely without explanation, and without photographer wanting his/her name credited. Rob (talk) 04:36, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 17:25, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
There is no evidence camacho.com.mx owns the copyright to this or other images hosted there. Name of author is not given. All images of this uploader and site seem professional, and I doubt they're given away freely without explanation, and without photographer wanting his/her name credited. Rob (talk) 04:36, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 17:25, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
There is no evidence camacho.com.mx owns the copyright to this or other images hosted there. Name of author is not given. All images of this uploader and site seem professional, and I doubt they're given away freely without explanation, and without photographer wanting his/her name credited. Rob (talk) 04:37, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 17:25, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
There is no evidence camacho.com.mx owns the copyright to this or other images hosted there. Name of author is not given. All images of this uploader and site seem professional, and I doubt they're given away freely without explanation, and without photographer wanting his/her name credited. Rob (talk) 04:37, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
- When it entered appears a 404 Error--guerreritoboy (talk) 04:32, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 17:26, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
COM:DW [[ Forrester ]] 08:09, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 17:26, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
no author, no license [[ Forrester ]] 08:11, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 17:27, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
low-res version, replaced by Image:Nuvola apps date.svg and not used anymore Gorgo (talk) 13:51, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
- Keep. we don't delete superseded images, we tag them with {{Superseded}} for legal reasons such as license compliance. ViperSnake151 (talk) 14:44, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
Picture was manipulated. The source (which is volume 2 of the books, not volume 1 as told by the uploader) has only a black-and-white-picture, it was not made in colour. All the colours are either phantasy of the uploader or another unnamed source, but in both cases it is a manipulation of the original image. Either this image should be deleted or there should be a large warning that this image is not useable for enzyklopaedic intentions (only for an article about image manipulation). -- Cecil (talk) 23:51, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
- It is not a reason to request it for deletion. If you want to add a warning - do it.
But by the way: you see here the same picture
, one is false colored. No "large warning" is there, just an information...
Kept. Julo (talk) 09:22, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Re-opened discussion since there has been no discussion at all. There is no guideline how to deal with historical images which were manipulated by our users. Remember the scope of this project, it is not our job to provide images which cannot be used for enzyklopaedic purposes in a historical context. --Polarlys (talk) 09:44, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
- Public domain images everybody can manipulate as he want, it is not a reason for deleting, but for wise usage only. It is not our job to decide what kind of manipulating is acceptable or what is not. In my honest opinion, coloring b&w photography is acceptable as long as the faces are not green, and the skies are not marmalade-orange. Julo (talk) 15:17, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
- The reason I disagree is that it is rewriting history. It is depicting an image that never existed. Tempshill (talk) 19:57, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
As far as I see it, the picture will only create trouble by people trying to use it in historical articles - unless it is equipped with a clearly visible warning saying something like: This image is a manipulated version of a historical photograph. Do not use it for encyclopedic purposes. Of course, this would leave the question what is the actual purpose of existence of this image. --ThePeter (talk) 19:13, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
I replaced the image with the B&W original. A falsely colored image is an unacceptable rewriting of history. Tempshill (talk) 19:56, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
- It was not a wise decision (are you really sure you use an "original" of B&W?). If you want to act consequently, you should find B&W originals for plenty of other false-colored pictures (as "unacceptable rewriting of history" or nature), for instance this
one for the beginning, an d replace them.
I really don't understand what is wrong with this IKL_tervehdys image. Why people accept colorized versions of films (also documentary films from World War II or Corean War made by Military Channel), and you name it "rewriting of history"? Julo (talk) 09:45, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
- In German we call that kind of programm docutainment, meaning that the original documentary was changed to be entertainment. It shows that it is not original material anymore, but contains show effects to make it more interesting for the Average Joe. Some stations probably try to pass that kind of entertaining history as documentary, but nowadays it usually is marked at what it is. -- Cecil (talk) 12:24, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
- What do you think of these
, 
, 
. All these are colorized. Vesteri (talk) 14:49, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
- The second one is definitely material for a deletion request, the other ones are photochromic prints from the original authors. That's a special photographic technique, not some forgery that was created some 100 years later. -- Cecil (talk) 15:00, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
- You mean, the manipulations 100 years old are acceptable, but modern ones are not
Mark them all as docutainment or whatever, and KeepJulo (talk) 15:58, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
- It is not a 100 year old manipulation, it is a special photo technique. -- Cecil (talk) 17:12, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
- Special Photo Technique? Here says: Keep in mind, though, that the original negative or photograph may have been taken many years before the image was printed in color as a photochrom [4]. Vesteri (talk) 21:38, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
- It is not a 100 year old manipulation, it is a special photo technique. -- Cecil (talk) 17:12, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
- So, both are made in B&W picture afterwards? My picture have a original colors of clothes, what for the picture is colorized. (havainnekuva in finnish / model image ?)Vesteri (talk) 16:20, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
- Original colors? How do you know? There are hundreds of different shades of colours. Depending on the light, the time of day, the different shadows and so on, you are a 100% sure that e.g. the ties had exactly that shades of blue and white? Could you please provide the proof. -- Cecil (talk) 17:12, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
- this article[5] and the original univorm, which i own. Vesteri (talk) 18:07, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
- Where is the proof there? You can just proove how your tie looks like right now but not how it or the house or the face colours or anything else in that picture looked like. At what time of the day was the picture made, was it a sunny day or clouded. From which side of the group did how much sun come and how did it influence with all the colours? That's just a few of umpteen things that will influence the colour of each single item in the image. Without a original colour version of this image everything you are do is assuming and that is rewriting history. What will you do next for making images more entertaining? -- Cecil (talk) 07:36, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
- this article[5] and the original univorm, which i own. Vesteri (talk) 18:07, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
- Original colors? How do you know? There are hundreds of different shades of colours. Depending on the light, the time of day, the different shadows and so on, you are a 100% sure that e.g. the ties had exactly that shades of blue and white? Could you please provide the proof. -- Cecil (talk) 17:12, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
- You mean, the manipulations 100 years old are acceptable, but modern ones are not
- The second one is definitely material for a deletion request, the other ones are photochromic prints from the original authors. That's a special photographic technique, not some forgery that was created some 100 years later. -- Cecil (talk) 15:00, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
- What do you think of these
- In German we call that kind of programm docutainment, meaning that the original documentary was changed to be entertainment. It shows that it is not original material anymore, but contains show effects to make it more interesting for the Average Joe. Some stations probably try to pass that kind of entertaining history as documentary, but nowadays it usually is marked at what it is. -- Cecil (talk) 12:24, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
Kept. This is all irrelevant. The image is in use, and it is not Commons' job to decide on encyclopedic value. Please read COM:PS#"Neutral point of view" and COM:PS#File in use in another Wikimedia project. If anyone wants to add a warning, please do.MichaelMaggs (talk) 17:40, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Out of scope. Sterkebaktalk 12:55, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Some use for this might be found. -Nard the Bard 14:30, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
- Delete No, we are not a hoster for private image collections without any (displayed) notability. --Martin H. (talk) 23:29, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
- Delete agree with Martin--Xtv (talk) 11:22, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Unused, out of scope. Mormegil (talk) 18:46, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
It is disturbing and irrelevant. 81.214.75.26 04:11, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
- While "disturbing" is not a valid argument for deletion, (see COM:SCOPE#Censorship), weather or not this video is "realistically useful for an educational purpose" is very much the question we should be considering. I think this should be Keep on the grounds that it would valuable for illustrating sex-ed type articles. J.smith (talk) 16:38, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
- Nope. We do not need more penis-images! Delete! abf /talk to me/ 06:38, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
- Keep abf, this is a penis video. That being said, it is unused. -mattbuck (Talk) 22:26, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
- okay, what about that " Delete(!) we do not need penis videos! abf /talk to me/ 18:26, 1 November 2008 (UTC)"? 18:26, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
- okay, what about that "
- Keep No reason for deletion, images at Commons are for all people who want to use them. --Dezidor (talk) 22:39, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
- Keep This is not just another penis image. The natural setting makes it particularly educational. --Simonxag (talk) 11:31, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per Abf Sterkebaktalk 18:03, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Mizunoryu 大熊猫❤小熊猫 (talk) 13:22, 23 October 2008 (UTC) Why disturbing? Did you never had sex? This video is perfect to illustrate articles about male orgasm.
- Keep No reasonable taionale for deleting has been presented. __meco (talk) 01:37, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
- Delete even commons is not cencored there are enogh good videos in cat:Penis (at least there were) --D-Kuru (talk) 17:01, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
{{delete|pornographic. children can see this.(mandatory)}} — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.64.241.183 (talk • contribs) 03:37, 13 November 2008 (UTC) (UTC)
- Keep I notice that Wikibooks has wikibooks:Human Physiology/The male reproductive system#Ejaculation in particular, and though none of these videos seem to be used there at the moment, I think this indicates that at least this class of videos is in scope. I checked the other videos in Category:Ejaculation (animated), and this video is taken from a different angle than any of them. It would be ideal, I suppose, to have the same 'event' recorded from several angles, but in the absence of such a set of videos, I think that this video makes a worthwhile addition to commons. --Sopoforic (talk) 05:43, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
Kept. While I hate penis pictures as much as the next admin, we really don't have that many videos (even of penises... sigh) ShakataGaNai ^_^ 06:00, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
Whatever happened to the email saying this is OK? Peregrine Fisher (talk) 23:56, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete unless the e-mail permission is verified.--CyberGhostface (talk) 00:26, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
Kept. Has been updated with OTRS. MichaelMaggs (talk) 16:23, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
Orphaned personal image. OsamaK 01:18, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
- Comment not a personal image, see w:en:Safiya Songhai, assuming good faith here in the copyright status this image is ok and we should Keep it. --Martin H. (talk) 16:59, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
- The uploader uploaded a similar image at English Wikipedia with the comment "AmberMag.com Shoot in Manhattan" in the article. Suppose to be non-free as well.--OsamaK 23:44, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
- Like i said, assuming good faith the image is ok. Lets wait for a decission in the english wikipedia, see w:en:Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images/2008 October 4#Image:Safiya Songhai2.jpg, the images are very similar. --Martin H. (talk) 00:56, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
- The uploader uploaded a similar image at English Wikipedia with the comment "AmberMag.com Shoot in Manhattan" in the article. Suppose to be non-free as well.--OsamaK 23:44, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Copyright violation http://www.mpirefilms.com/SAFIYA_SONGHAI/Videos.html and out of scope --Herrick (talk) 07:58, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
- BTW deleted while ago from English Wikipedia.--OsamaK 11:04, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
Deleted, copyright violation, per en.wp. --Martin H. (talk) 23:26, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
This is definitely an old image, so if published it would be PD. However, I don't believe copyright claim that it's from a personal collection. Orlady (talk) 04:26, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
- I oppose the deletion of this image. This is from my personal collection of college photos and documents. I am a member of the SLC community and have a large stock of related materials dating back throughout the schools history. That reason aside, the picture was taken almost 100 years ago and should be of no question since it falls under Public Domain.--ChucksBike-O-Rama (talk) 05:00, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
- If the image is PD and of an encyclopedic topic (as seems to be the case),
- Comment Blocked uploader seems to have yoinked most of their uploads from slc.edu archives. I didn't find this one in a short search. Uploader made multiple false statements in their uploads, so unless some confirming information about this one is found should be deleted; current tagging is as noted false. -- Infrogmation (talk) 14:17, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
- Uploader has been blocked as sockpuppet of a notorious user with a long record of making false claims regarding image licenses. See Commons:Requests for checkuser/Case/ChucksBike-O-Rama. The image may qualify as PD-US, but I'd like to see independent verification of its source and age. --Orlady (talk) 12:45, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 16:25, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
The description states that this is a screenshot, which would imply that someone else who is not the uploader is the copyright holder of this photo russavia (talk) 09:32, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
- Image:Abdüllah Gül 2007.JPG and Image:Gül Perez Abbas.JPG are same description states that this is a screenshot.--Machiavelli talk 00:46, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 17:01, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
I did move the image here but after a question was raised about design plans for buildings I've founded nothing in the Commons:Freedom of panorama#Australia which covers 2D works such as this. Sadly it should be deleted. Bidgee (talk) 12:54, 4 October 2008 (UTC) --Bidgee (talk) 12:55, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 17:01, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
The word "Afganistan" in Polish is stressed on the "ni" not on "ga" as in the audio file. -83.27.241.63 16:15, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
- Perhaps. I thought this is a word of foreign origin which should be stressed on third syllable from the end. Check this and eventually delete.
--Sh33run (talk) 09:50, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 17:03, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
Two different users have uploaded this image, both claiming as self-published. The current version, uploaded by User:Danielrengel, is the only photo he has uploaded with metadata. Possible copyvio. Horologium (talk) 00:30, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
- Keep, it is simply a reupload, the new and the old images metadata are the same, the image is released into pd by the original uploader and i dont expect that the original upload is a copyvio. Maybe the new uploader uses this image for testing reuploads, maybe he creates a new account and want the image to appear in his gallery... we dont know, but there is no problem here. --Martin H. (talk) 16:52, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
Kept. Cirt (talk) 21:55, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
Orphaned personal image. OsamaK 01:19, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
- w:en:Sadakat Kadri 1989 in Prague, not sure, but... --Martin H. (talk) 02:26, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Presuming the uploader's description is correct (any reason to think it isn't?) it shows a writer who has an article on en:Wikipedia, so well within scope. I have added categories to the image and added to the image to en:Sadakat Kadri. -- Infrogmation (talk) 11:22, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
Kept. Cirt (talk) 21:56, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
Orphaned personal image. OsamaK 01:45, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
- strong keep - A depiction of a well-known cartoonist at a public book release ceremony can hardly be considered a "personal image". And how can you determine any useful meaning of "orphaned" one day after it has been uploaded? --Latebird (talk) 00:43, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
Kept. Cirt (talk) 21:57, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
No reference of the license of this program. Sdrtirs (talk) 10:50, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
- The license is GNU GPL v2 , the license is specified here https://launchpad.net/envy . I'm also adding it to the image page. Knownot (talk) 16:27, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
- Keep The image has now the link to permission, but it's needed to add it in the image description page. Sdrtirs (talk) 16:47, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
Kept. Cirt (talk) 21:59, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
Out of scope Sterkebaktalk 12:55, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Image could have some use. -Nard the Bard 14:36, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
- Delete In which context? No, delete. --Martin H. (talk) 23:26, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Cirt (talk) 22:01, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
No author is given; source is a 404 (so no effective source is given); and the licence is plain wrong -- the CIA was founded in July 1947, it cannot have produce a document in 1944. --Rama (talk) 16:19, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
- Keep - Source was easy to find. It's been moved here. CIA website policy is that unless otherwise noted anything found on their site should be assumed to be public domain. Copyright is NOT noted for this picture. J.smith (talk) 20:24, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
- Comment: The caption says: "Photo courtesy of the author". /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 06:46, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Added "Photo courtesy of the author" in description as per CIA policy: "...and that any photo credits or bylines be similarly credited to the photographer or author or Central Intelligence Agency, as appropriate." Tekstman (talk) 09:34, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
- As a side note: it is probably made by an employee of the OSS, the forerunner to the CIA, so the CIA's copyright does not have to be doubted, regardless of the official foundation in 1947. Tekstman (talk) 09:41, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
- Comment: The caption says: "Photo courtesy of the author". /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 06:46, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Kept. Cirt (talk) 22:02, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
Currently tagged as created by NASA, but this image was created before NASA existed. Copyright probably belonged to Goddard and his wife (who served as his photographer). May be PD through non-renewal. NASA lists no copyright information at source site. Needs investigation. Chick Bowen (talk) 18:24, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Please read Copyright Notification on [6] "Photographs are not protected by copyright unless noted."— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jacopo Werther (talk • contribs)
- I am aware of that. I would still like to know the copyright status of this image. Chick Bowen (talk) 00:50, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Per above. Additional notes: You are correct that photo predates NASA, but NASA has been widely and often reproducing the photo for at least 30 years (maybe longer, but that's about as far as I can vouch from memory); if they were using it contrary to anyone elses rights I rather suspect that would have surfaced in decades of frequent and famous reproduction. I also note image is at Library of Congress as LC-USZ62-110433 (sorry no link, part of LOC site seems down or inaccessible at the moment). -- Infrogmation (talk) 23:37, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
Kept. Cirt (talk) 22:02, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
Probably copyvio. Sdrtirs (talk) 21:37, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Looks to me like a reproduction of artwork thousands of years old and thus PD. What am I missing? Why do you think it is "Probably copyvio"? -- Infrogmation (talk) 23:40, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
- Delete This is not a faithful reproduction. Impressions of public domain works do not automatically fall into public domain. This image was created in 1995, therefore it cannot possibly be PD-70 as claimed. Wronkiew (talk) 00:18, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Cirt (talk) 22:02, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
Orphaned personal image. OsamaK 01:19, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
Deleted as this was apparently uploaded without permission (at least in respect to the personal rights). The two depicted persons are Jurij Sadar and Boštjan Vuga, two prominent architects from Ljubljana in Slowenia (see here). --AFBorchert (talk) 21:47, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
Orphaned personal image. OsamaK 01:40, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
Deleted per OsamaK and as it has apparently been taken without permission from here. --AFBorchert (talk) 22:39, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
Orphaned personal image. OsamaK 01:44, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
Deleted as per OsamaK. This photograph depicts apparently the uploader but is unused such that I do not see how this falls into COM:SCOPE. In addition, the license terms of the photograph are contradictory as the uploader stated all rights reserved along with {{PD-self}}. --AFBorchert (talk) 23:14, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
Orphaned personal image. OsamaK 01:45, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
Deleted as this image is uncategorized, without description and nowhere used; hence it is in its current state neither useful and consequently out of COM:SCOPE and given the inactivity of the uploader since March 2007 this is unlikely to change. --AFBorchert (talk) 23:22, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
Flickr uploader with only one image left in his photostream and this one uploaded one day after the Flickrupload, no metadata... very suspicious. Martin H. (talk) 02:45, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
Deleted per Martin H. as possible copyvio. This image was meanwhile deleted at Flickr and the two other images uploaded by Nrxd were likewise deleted as copyvios. In addition, this image is nowhere used, uncategorized, and without a proper description which could make it useful, i.e. it falls out of COM:SCOPE. --AFBorchert (talk) 23:48, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
there is a better image: Image:Metro Barcelona Linea 4 map 0306.png, updated (added L3 in the first station) and preserving the same format in the names of the stations in the "in construction" part --Xtv (talk) 11:14, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
Deleted as this image is redundant, unused, nobody objected, and as indeed the PNG image looks significantly better than the JPEG with its noise and its less readable typefaces. --AFBorchert (talk) 00:02, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Symilar to Image:Metro Barcelona Linea 5 map 0306.png, which is better --Xtv (talk) 12:38, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
Deleted as this image is redundant, unused, nobody objected, and as indeed the PNG image looks significantly better than the JPEG with its noise and its less readable typefaces.
huh...wouldn't this be a COM:DW? ViperSnake151 (talk) 14:10, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
I do not know. I derived the image from this. --Xander89 (talk) 19:01, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
- people need a PNG version instead of GIF, with a transparent background instead of a black one, with pink skin instead of yellow (they're not the Simpsons!). Because of these reasons, this image shouldn't be deleted but it should replace the other version. --Superchilum(talk to me!) 15:55, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
- Well, I did make the original to replace the horrendous pic that was illustrating the Saint Seiya & Shurato wikipedia pages. I though the yellow skin had a good contrast, so I kept it. I also declared the original (the gif with black background) PD, so I don't think this image has a reason to be deleted, but I think it should be PD, just as the original. Oh, By the way, If you, Xander89, didn't actually made it, why the page actually says YOU'RE the author and it's a self made picture? --Alones (talk) 18:05, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
Kept as this is a derived work of Image:Superficie-protegida.gif which is PD. --AFBorchert (talk) 00:25, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Orphaned personal image. OsamaK 01:42, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. howcheng {chat} 00:46, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
Orphaned personal image. OsamaK 02:16, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. howcheng {chat} 00:46, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
Category:Towers by city
[edit]empty category. There are already
- Category:Towers by country
- [[:Category:Towers in <Country>]]
- [[:Category:Towers in <City>]]
Thanks, Ibn Battuta (talk) 04:34, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Martin H. (talk) 13:26, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
Orphaned personal image. OsamaK 01:41, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
- Comment This photograph depicts Salvador Sáinz, a Spanish actor, see his entry at IMDB. However, this photograph could be in violation of Sáinz' personal rights. Unfortunately the uploader doesn't seem to be active at Commons such that it is unlikely to get a comment from him. --AFBorchert (talk) 23:06, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
Kept but nominated for deletion as a possible copyvio. MichaelMaggs (talk) 08:07, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
Re-upload of previously deleted image. -Nard the Bard 02:01, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
- Comment As far as I can see, it was deleted because there was no permission. It now has a PD tag as well as an OTRS pending mention, so the above is not a valid reason for deletion. -- Deadstar (msg) 13:42, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Still no OTRS permission received, so I'd say the tag is there for no good reason (I have removed it). However, Commons:Licensing#Netherlands doesn't say anything about FOP being restricted, AND the website that it came from ([7]) states that all its content can be reproduced without restrictions, as long as the municipality of Apeldoorn is mentioned as source. -- Deadstar (msg) 11:46, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
