Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2008/10/06
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
|
|
.JPG){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
Copyright violation: images from most medical journals are (unfortunately) copyrighted. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 16:49, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 19:51, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
copyright violation: most medical journals are (unfortunately) copyrighted. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 16:48, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 19:51, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
copyvio: medical journals don't publish under a creative commons license, as was mistakenly presumed by the uploader. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 16:43, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 19:52, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
Typo in the filename, I will upload the proper file with the correct name. Maniadis (talk) 00:50, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Deleted Duplicate of Image:MesaPublicLibrary.jpg. -- Deadstar (msg) 09:26, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
The public domain claim is highly dubious because:
- It seems derived from a newspaper photograph
- The country of origin is France, not Argentina
- The source is not identified, as required
- The author is unknown
- As the author/photographer is unknown, the copyright status cannot possibly be known
Therefore, it is unlikely that this image is subject solely to Argentine copyright law and likely remains protected under EU copyright and the Berne convention.
—Danorton (talk) 01:01, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
- Berne convention you say? The Berne convention only requires a photograph to be protected for 50 years. Indeed, it is from a newspaper, but it could just as likely be from an Argentine official photograph published in Argentina. -Nard the Bard 22:22, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
- I don't argue what it could be or couldn't be, I simply note that it is unknown. Consequently, it doesn't belong on commons. —Danorton (talk) 15:53, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
- It depends where it was first published... if that was in Argentina, then the Berne Convention would recognize Argentina as the country of origin (even if the photo happened to be taken in France). That is the problem with not identifying the source, and original credit (if any). It is quite possibly OK, but it could also be a French photo agency's picture published with permission in an Argentinean newspaper. If we know something was first published in Argentina more than 20/25 years ago (per their law), we would not necessarily need to know the author, but not providing any info makes that hard. Carl Lindberg (talk) 05:10, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. No source MichaelMaggs (talk) 19:52, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This image is of the wrong person, not of Chris Elder russavia (talk) 01:02, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Deleted, duplicate of Image:Vladimir Putin with Zlatko Lecevski.jpg. --Martin H. (talk) 04:08, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
No encyclopedic value. Intended as an attack. Wordbuilder (talk) 03:38, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Deleted as copyvio: logo from Texas A&M university used. -- Deadstar (msg) 09:32, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Original image is nd. -Nard the Bard 04:22, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
- I have sent an email to the author, asking for it to be relicensed. Lilyu (talk) 04:25, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
- Flickr user is author, he can publish his image wherever he want under any licence he want. There is also no reason for a change of licencen on Flickr. I removed the flickrreview-tag not for no reason, the uploader uses the "its from flickr" in the upload form which results in a flickr review, thats not correct in this case but we must be a bit flexible to make it not to complicated for new (very valuable) contributors. --Martin H. (talk) 04:29, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
- Ok, i found this : Image:KKK.JPG which is the same image, but licensed cc-by-sa 2.0 (and same license on flickr).
- Though, you didn't do your review correctly, the source given was ND on flickr, you could at least have given some information about the other photo which was licensed cc-by-sa 2.0 on flickr.
- As there is no proof that the Commons account is also the flickr account, your edition was not correct, at least without even asking an OTRS verification or explaining it to the uploader on his talkpage.Lilyu (talk) 04:43, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
DeleteI propose the deletion of this image, as it's a duplicate of the other one which have a correct license.Lilyu (talk) 04:43, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
- oh, i did not notice the duplicate. But: we normaly assuming good faith in new users uploads and please also assume good faith in my contributions. I asked the User per Flickr mail, he validates the uploads to commons. So he is the author and the uploader and so we dont need a flickrreview - and we dont need a licencechange on flickr. --Martin H. (talk) 04:52, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
- Flickr user is author, he can publish his image wherever he want under any licence he want. There is also no reason for a change of licencen on Flickr. I removed the flickrreview-tag not for no reason, the uploader uses the "its from flickr" in the upload form which results in a flickr review, thats not correct in this case but we must be a bit flexible to make it not to complicated for new (very valuable) contributors. --Martin H. (talk) 04:29, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Deleted, duplicate Image to Image:KKK.JPG. --Martin H. (talk) 05:09, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
I doubt that it is a notable person... GeorgHH • talk 12:10, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Indeed... delete per GeorgHH. -- Deadstar (msg) 15:08, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
- Delete out of scope --Jarekt (talk) 17:51, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Yann (talk) 13:54, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
There is no FOP in France. The architect of this building, Emilio Terry, died in 1969, so his works won't be in PD before 2040. Pymouss Tchatcher - 12:19, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
16:57, 6 October 2008 Túrelio (Talk | contribs | block) deleted "Image:Hôtel particulier.JPG" (Copyright violation: no FOP in France)
Deleted. Unless i personaly cant see anything of creativity the image was already deleted. --Martin H. (talk) 16:11, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
The Argentine public domain claim is highly dubious because:
- It seems derived from a newspaper photograph
- The country of origin is Italy, not Argentina
- The source is not identified, as required
- The author is unknown
- As the source and author/photographer are unknown, the copyright status cannot possibly be known
Therefore, it is unlikely that this image is subject solely to Argentine copyright law and likely remains protected under EU copyright and the Berne convention. —Danorton (talk) 01:07, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Publication place and time not given, and possibly derivative of copyrighted sculpture in background. -Nard the Bard 22:25, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. No source MichaelMaggs (talk) 19:54, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
It looks like advertising, which makes it out of scope for commons. -- Deadstar (msg) 15:17, 6 October 2008 (UTC) ---- Deadstar (msg) 15:18, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete company brochure --Jarekt (talk) 17:41, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. promo/ad Yann (talk) 13:53, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Look at the watermark. The source is http://www.ayuntaweb.info/ and, on the legal desclaimers page (in spanish), is written that the rights of the pictures published in this site belong to the authors and are not under a free licence (http://www.ayuntaweb.info/legal.php). So the status of the picture, according to the description below it, is unclear Giorgiomonteforti (talk) 15:35, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete Low quality, watermarked image with unclear legal status. If this is uploaded by the author than he/she should be able to provide large version clear of watermarks. --Jarekt (talk) 17:36, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Yann (talk) 13:52, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
collection of doubles without coherence; overlap with Category DNA --Wickey (talk) 15:35, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Keep It might not be a good gallery, but I would suggest improving it not deleting. It does not violate any of our rules (as far as I can tell). --Jarekt (talk) 17:32, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Keep, good gallery--shizhao (talk) 12:52, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
- Page gives confusion with category. One will add a picture to the page, another one add to the category. The name DNA is too unspecific. Makes no sense.--Wickey (talk) 15:41, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Kept You have touched on an old debate: pages vs galleries. You can see pages as displaying perhaps the best that the category has to offer. If the page has random content from the cat, well then there is scope for improvement. No need for deletion. Closing request as kept. -- Deadstar (msg) 11:46, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
No description, no source, and despite what the wikiproject says, this is OUT OF SCOPE. -Nard the Bard 16:23, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete out of scope --Jarekt (talk) 17:26, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
- Description = Commons:Wikis Take Manhattan context shot, source = Team:Three Blind Mice, Scope = the same as Wikimania. Keep.--Pharos (talk) 17:43, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
- This project has been approved by the Wikimedia Foundation (we had to get their permission to use the logo). Jimmy Wales has agreed that as grand prize he will have a dinner with the contest winners. An obscure image deletion request is hardly the right forum to handle this issue.--Pharos (talk) 18:11, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Comment I'm not really a participant here at Commons, and I don't pretend to understand the suffage rules here or all the inclusion criteria, so I'm not going to cast a "vote". However, it seems a little strange to me that people would be so aggressive about deleting images from this event, before all the images from it have even been uploaded. Context images like this provide sequence numbers that can be used to associate images with their targets. Deleting this image, or others like it is, in essence deleting metadata from other images taken during this event. This image is, in short, the metadata for the images that appear after it in the upload sequence, and I don't believe that people are so quick to try and delete image metadata. Without sequence numbers like this, it's going to be very difficult to assign authorship attribution and other information to the other images. At the very least I would like to recommend patience here, wait till all the images are uploaded and all their information is properly filled out. Then, you can work with people like User:Pharos to ensure that images that are no longer useful can be deleted at a later time. A certain amount of tolerance and allowance should be made for the limited automation tools that are used to upload images for large events like this. --Whiteknight (talk) (books) 18:19, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Keep Oh please, this is ridiculous. There's no issue with these images that needs them bringing here. Pharos and other involved people, please add descriptions and sources to all of the images. It's not hard. And if there are any images that are poor quality or bad shots, re-list them. This is not the way to go about it. Majorly talk 18:40, 6 October 2008 (UTC)- Keep Yes, they are disorganized as yet. Yes, the majority are blurred or boring or intended to establish locations or are otherwise inapplicable to any Wikipedia article. When mine are uploaded, I'll categorize the good ones into geographical and other cats and put the most relevant ones into WP articles. And more slowly, do the same for the pix from better photographers than me, when they get organized ino the WTM tree or whatever project cat tree they end up in. But yes, keep them all, no matter how ugly and boring any individual one is. They aren't just individual pictures; they are both raw material and a project record. Jim.henderson (talk) 19:41, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
- "the majority are blurred or boring".. From COM:SCOPE under examples of files with no educational use: "Files that add nothing educationally distinct to the collection of images we already hold covering the same subject, especially if they are of poor or mediocre quality." and which is not "realistically useful for an educational purpose". This file is useless. It does not illustrate Manhattan. Nor does it illustrate the person in the photo. So what good is it? You speak of the numbers in the cards. Guess what? You can convey this in text. Guess what? You could figure out the numbers on your own computer. You don't need to put them on Commons to sort them out. Your logic is this "I'm going to upload everything I have, including the crap, then delete what I don't like." Sorry but project scope does not work like that. Project scope says only the realistically useful files must be uploaded. I do not see a realistic use for this image. -Nard the Bard 20:12, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
- Keep per Pharos, Whitenight, and Jim.henderson until not needed. This project, as Pharos indicated is Foundation approved, and is sponsored by the Wikimedia New York City chapter of the Foundation. It's also part of WikiProject New York City. The next WTM photo hunt uploading process will be better based on the last two experiences. This is a learning process, just like Wikipedia was a learning process when it started and other projects were learning processes. So in this particular case, I do see see a realistic use for this image. — Becksguy (talk) 04:54, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
- Sure; most of these pix don't have to go into topical categories, where anyone would find them looking for a pic to illustrate something. Most including the label shots can be kept in the category tree that, guess what, will be set up for the project, and only a few categorized by subject. And yes, guessing has its relevance, and anyone has a right to guess, but my guess and intention is that the information in the card shots will go into text for those shots that will go into topical categories. But only after we see them, which means after they are uploaded and categorized in the project tree. Remember, most of the photographers are not Wikians and don't know about our methods. Mine of course, can be more directly handled. As usual I'll examine, crop and upload only the good ones on my slow Internet connection, and describe and categorize them. For most of the pictures produced in the project, it doesn't work that way because nobody's got them except whoever transferred them off the cards for the organizers of the event. Jim.henderson (talk) 18:41, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
- Week Delete; "Delete" because this is clearly not in Common's scope. "Week" because we have a tradition of tolerance for out-of-scope images when they are for use in user-space. Maybe Meta would be a better home for these images while you try to sort out what your going to keep and what you actually want to share with the world? J.smith (talk) 02:06, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
- These are not personal user photos. The images are useful documentation of Wikimedia activities. I quote from COM:SCOPE: "Files relating to projects or events of the Wikimedia Foundation are also allowed (eg photographs of user meetings)." These are just as much within scope as Wikimania photos.--Pharos (talk) 13:31, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
- Except they are just photos of index cards and post-it notes. The same information could be replaced with 3 bytes of text. J.smith (talk) 18:18, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
- You could just as well say that this photo would be more profitably replaced by the letters J-I-M-B-O. Look at the sequence of images in something like Team NewYorkDolls; showing the participants actively engaged in Wikimedia content creation gives the whole thing a human touch, and the modest hand-drawn index cards I do think add artistically to that sense of quixotic adventure. Look at me, I'm making artistic arguments, but that's the way I feel.--Pharos (talk) 03:19, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
- Except they are just photos of index cards and post-it notes. The same information could be replaced with 3 bytes of text. J.smith (talk) 18:18, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
- These are not personal user photos. The images are useful documentation of Wikimedia activities. I quote from COM:SCOPE: "Files relating to projects or events of the Wikimedia Foundation are also allowed (eg photographs of user meetings)." These are just as much within scope as Wikimania photos.--Pharos (talk) 13:31, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
- Delete. No discernable value. Doesn't identify subject, photographer, location, or anything else. Can not conceivably be used to illustrate any Wikimedia project. Is not part of a Wikimedia event. Superm401 - Talk 20:38, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
- All of those things are identified. And this is a Wikimedia event. How can you deny the obvious?--Pharos (talk) 21:37, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Useless pictures, no value at all for any Wikipedia project; wasted bandwidth, wasted diskspace, not to mention the time it takes to delete the rubbish... - Erik Baas (talk) 01:18, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you for your kind and considered comments. It should be pointed out that while diskspace might have been a significant issue if this were 1985, such is not the case today. With modern storage technology, Wikimedia Commons has no shortage of space for all the still photos of Wikimedian picnics and other events like this that we can muster.--Pharos (talk) 15:34, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
- Delete If such picture would have been uploaded by a new contributor, this would have been deleted almost immediatly: no description, no source, out of scope. «This project has been approved by the Wikimedia Foundation» : this is not a reason to import any kind of pictures, especially when it doesn't meet official Commons criteria as Commons:Scope and Commons:Licensing. --Guérin Nicolas (messages) 09:09, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
- How many times do I have to quote from COM:SCOPE: "Files relating to projects or events of the Wikimedia Foundation are also allowed (eg photographs of user meetings)." These are just as much within scope as Wikimania photos.--Pharos (talk) 10:59, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
- This is your interpretation, such rule has been written to allow pictures of people during Wikimedia meetings as Wikimania, not to accept kind of picture as the present one that we are discussing now. Anyway, all pictures need essential source information (see my comment below), "source" is a basic Commons requirement to check author and copyright of the related pictures. Guérin Nicolas (messages) 11:09, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
- It is not an "interpretation"; we have hosted pictures of meetings of Wikimedia contributors for years now. Over 50 contributors to Wikimedia Commons attended our 'Wikis Take Manhattan' event, which took place on a rooftop garden in the West Village. In contrast to most such pictures, these pictures directly document Wikimedia content creation, while most of the pictures of other meetings just show social activities (e.g., Category:WikNYC Picnic 2008). Thanks.--Pharos (talk) 11:42, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
- I do not oppose to import pictures of social wikimedian activities, but i see that for Category:WikNYC Picnic 2008 it's only 20 pictures and you can see really people. On the present picture you cannot really see anyone and hundreds pictures are uploaded. Moreover many of them are duplicated (as for example Image:WSTM Mark Frank 0070.jpg and Image:WSTM Mark Frank 0071.jpg). So my question is: is it really a necessity to upload all the pictures of such contest? If you want to upload pictures from participants, one by participant may be enough. To come back to the present picture, the problem is that i don't see how such picture my be used? If i want to see the picture of this person, i can find a better picture in the related category. What the interest? Guérin Nicolas (messages) 12:22, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
- The idea behind keeping the context shots is that you can get a sense of the quixotic adventure of the participants. I agree that most of the context shots are not particularly interesting by themselves, but the intention is that they be seen in context in a gallery as at Team NewYorkDolls; such a gallery gives a good sense of the team's itinerary and human experience. See Commons:Photo scavenger hunts#Benefits for a further explanation. BTW, if there are identical images, then yes it would be OK to delete the duplicate.--Pharos (talk) 15:42, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
- I do not oppose to import pictures of social wikimedian activities, but i see that for Category:WikNYC Picnic 2008 it's only 20 pictures and you can see really people. On the present picture you cannot really see anyone and hundreds pictures are uploaded. Moreover many of them are duplicated (as for example Image:WSTM Mark Frank 0070.jpg and Image:WSTM Mark Frank 0071.jpg). So my question is: is it really a necessity to upload all the pictures of such contest? If you want to upload pictures from participants, one by participant may be enough. To come back to the present picture, the problem is that i don't see how such picture my be used? If i want to see the picture of this person, i can find a better picture in the related category. What the interest? Guérin Nicolas (messages) 12:22, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
- It is not an "interpretation"; we have hosted pictures of meetings of Wikimedia contributors for years now. Over 50 contributors to Wikimedia Commons attended our 'Wikis Take Manhattan' event, which took place on a rooftop garden in the West Village. In contrast to most such pictures, these pictures directly document Wikimedia content creation, while most of the pictures of other meetings just show social activities (e.g., Category:WikNYC Picnic 2008). Thanks.--Pharos (talk) 11:42, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
Comment : looking at Category:Images from Wikis Take Manhattan by Mark Frank and Chloe Carli, i checked that all the pictures have no "source" and "date". Most of them have no "description" and many need the Template:Personality rights, especially those with the beautifull girl :) . Without regarding to scope, duplication or content of those pictures, i want to recall that essential information (source, author, license) are required for each file. As a consequence i added on all pictures the template "{{Nsd}}" which means that source has to be provided within one week, otherwise media could be deleted. To be honnest, i advise voters or contributors here to have a look at the other teams (see Category:Images from Wikis Take Manhattan by participant/team) which also imported pictures regardless to Commons rules. Best regards. --Guérin Nicolas (messages) 10:05, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
- Please bear with us. All of the information was implicit in the other fields; only a technical glitch prevented it being filled out before. All of the fields in that category are now complete.--Pharos (talk) 11:42, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks. Just be aware that even if « All of the information was implicit in the other fields », it's really time comsuming for administrators or others to check where could be such information, that's why it's necessary to fill the field "source" in the template {{Information}} and that's why also such field exists. Guérin Nicolas (messages) 12:00, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks, I'll be getting to re-formatting the others over the next couple of days and making sure the new ones are uploaded in the proper format. Sorry for the untidyness.--Pharos (talk) 15:52, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks. Just be aware that even if « All of the information was implicit in the other fields », it's really time comsuming for administrators or others to check where could be such information, that's why it's necessary to fill the field "source" in the template {{Information}} and that's why also such field exists. Guérin Nicolas (messages) 12:00, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
- Please bear with us. All of the information was implicit in the other fields; only a technical glitch prevented it being filled out before. All of the fields in that category are now complete.--Pharos (talk) 11:42, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
- No offense, but is "time-consuming to administrators" a reason for deletion? It is a bit rude to upload them without those fields there, since it will add them to administrative categories, but putting a no-source tag on them is flat-out inaccurate as both the source and the date are pretty obvious (just the category alone gives the source). Since when do we delete images just because the placement of the source information in the image page is not to our liking? That is far too aggressive, IMO, to start deleting images based on technicalities like that instead of actual lack of source. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:16, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
- Firstly, i didn't delete any of those pictures, secondly it's easy by uploading to fill up the "source" and the "date" fields, thirdly it's not me who invented this template {{No source since}} and who decided that the "source" in the {{Information}} has to be filled (see Commons:Licensing). Please be aware about the rules here, help to upload them properly and maybe many people will stop then to complain about it at the village pump. About, « That is far too aggressive », i didn't delete any of those pictures, i just remind user Pharos to fill up properly the template {{Information}} when he/she will upload the next files and he/she agreed with it. So i really don't understand how your comment might help for anything. And please before writing such things read the discussion before. --Guérin Nicolas (messages) 17:38, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
- This wasn't directed only at you, but ... :-) I thought was pretty familiar with Commons:Licensing, and reading it again, I still don't see where it says the Source field of the Information template must be filled in. It says that a sourcing statement and license are required, but says nothing about placement (other than suggesting the Information template). When this image was nominated for deletion, as well as both times the {{Nsd}} tag was applied (once by you, once not), it contained a template saying "This photo was taken by participant/team Three_Blind_Mice as part of the Commons:Wikis Take Manhattan project on October 4, 2008". That specifies both an author and a source (and a date), which to me is enough to conform to policy. I know that not filling in those fields adds the image to administrative categories, which is causing much of the frustration (since it added a whole bunch of pictures to the backlog in one shot), and the uploader really should be setting a better example by filling out those fields since the information is obviously available and the uploads appear to be somewhat automated, but I still don't see why it justifies an nsd tag. A project scope argument, possibly, but not the source stuff. Even just using a {{Self}} tag should be enough to satisfy the "Source" requirement. It is just odd that using the Information template now carries much more risk of deletion due to missed technicalities then not using the template, and just putting in free-form text. Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:23, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
- Information template does not carry much more risk of deletion, because if you don't fill it properly and then if someone like me comes to complain, you just need to add one sentence as "own-work by author" and the risk of deletion automatically vanished. I removed the template {{Nsd}} from the picture because since the template looks properly filled, no matter to keep such warning, simply no-one thought about removing it. This is completely different than a deletion request as here, where the picture can be deleted whatever the text content. What i don't understand, it is really easy to fill in the template {{Information}}, so why do you need to try differently? For example, imagine that i edit such picture, remove the template {{CC-BY-SA-3.0}}, and instead just write somewhere in the text "CC-BY-SA-3.0", should it be the same according to you? So what is important is to respect some standard that everybody agree with it. I noticed that all the pictures from Category:Images from Wikis Take Manhattan by participant/team look now properly filled, so i don't see any technical problem anymore with the template {{Information}}, such problem is globaly fixed :) Best regards. --Guérin Nicolas (messages) 07:49, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
- With a backlog of incomplete image descriptions, permissions, names, authors and/or categorisations, exceeding the quarter million of images, commons has to be stricter with the information fields as they allow for some level of automated checking. This is recognised by the team and will be improved for the next round (and has been improved already in this round). --Foroa (talk) 08:12, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
- And if the user is away for a week, or does not have email notifications turned on and doesn't look, or has stopped contributing to Commons, an nsd tag will usually result in deletion, and a lost image :-) This is especially common on older images. It would have been just as easy to fill in the fields rather than add the tag, and since the information was present, I don't think the tag should have been added at all. And actually yes, the user could write "CC-BY-SA-3.0" -- Commons:Licensing says a proper tag should be used, but a bare string again should not result in deletion (instead, the image description should be fixed to use the tag by whoever notices it). There are enough legitimate reasons to delete images; we should not be looking to add more, as Commons is intimidating enough for first-time users. I understand the backlogs are filling up, but I guess it would be nice if there was a mechanism other than deletion (and an nsd tag is a fast-track to deletion) to guide users to filling out their description pages better. The new upload screens are a great start. Deletion is a sledgehammer solution though, and generates a lot of ill-will if overused. I would hope there could be a gentler way to notify users that a style of image description is making things unnecessarily hard on administrators or other users to fix them -- maybe disallow future uploads on a user who has a high enough number of non-conforming descriptions, or doesn't fix them after being notified. And agreed that the uploader for this contest should have had the fields filled in better the first time -- could have had a full Information template ready and used the basic upload form even if not automated. It just didn't deserve an nsd tag, that's all. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:06, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
- With a backlog of incomplete image descriptions, permissions, names, authors and/or categorisations, exceeding the quarter million of images, commons has to be stricter with the information fields as they allow for some level of automated checking. This is recognised by the team and will be improved for the next round (and has been improved already in this round). --Foroa (talk) 08:12, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
- Information template does not carry much more risk of deletion, because if you don't fill it properly and then if someone like me comes to complain, you just need to add one sentence as "own-work by author" and the risk of deletion automatically vanished. I removed the template {{Nsd}} from the picture because since the template looks properly filled, no matter to keep such warning, simply no-one thought about removing it. This is completely different than a deletion request as here, where the picture can be deleted whatever the text content. What i don't understand, it is really easy to fill in the template {{Information}}, so why do you need to try differently? For example, imagine that i edit such picture, remove the template {{CC-BY-SA-3.0}}, and instead just write somewhere in the text "CC-BY-SA-3.0", should it be the same according to you? So what is important is to respect some standard that everybody agree with it. I noticed that all the pictures from Category:Images from Wikis Take Manhattan by participant/team look now properly filled, so i don't see any technical problem anymore with the template {{Information}}, such problem is globaly fixed :) Best regards. --Guérin Nicolas (messages) 07:49, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
- This wasn't directed only at you, but ... :-) I thought was pretty familiar with Commons:Licensing, and reading it again, I still don't see where it says the Source field of the Information template must be filled in. It says that a sourcing statement and license are required, but says nothing about placement (other than suggesting the Information template). When this image was nominated for deletion, as well as both times the {{Nsd}} tag was applied (once by you, once not), it contained a template saying "This photo was taken by participant/team Three_Blind_Mice as part of the Commons:Wikis Take Manhattan project on October 4, 2008". That specifies both an author and a source (and a date), which to me is enough to conform to policy. I know that not filling in those fields adds the image to administrative categories, which is causing much of the frustration (since it added a whole bunch of pictures to the backlog in one shot), and the uploader really should be setting a better example by filling out those fields since the information is obviously available and the uploads appear to be somewhat automated, but I still don't see why it justifies an nsd tag. A project scope argument, possibly, but not the source stuff. Even just using a {{Self}} tag should be enough to satisfy the "Source" requirement. It is just odd that using the Information template now carries much more risk of deletion due to missed technicalities then not using the template, and just putting in free-form text. Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:23, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
- Firstly, i didn't delete any of those pictures, secondly it's easy by uploading to fill up the "source" and the "date" fields, thirdly it's not me who invented this template {{No source since}} and who decided that the "source" in the {{Information}} has to be filled (see Commons:Licensing). Please be aware about the rules here, help to upload them properly and maybe many people will stop then to complain about it at the village pump. About, « That is far too aggressive », i didn't delete any of those pictures, i just remind user Pharos to fill up properly the template {{Information}} when he/she will upload the next files and he/she agreed with it. So i really don't understand how your comment might help for anything. And please before writing such things read the discussion before. --Guérin Nicolas (messages) 17:38, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
- No offense, but is "time-consuming to administrators" a reason for deletion? It is a bit rude to upload them without those fields there, since it will add them to administrative categories, but putting a no-source tag on them is flat-out inaccurate as both the source and the date are pretty obvious (just the category alone gives the source). Since when do we delete images just because the placement of the source information in the image page is not to our liking? That is far too aggressive, IMO, to start deleting images based on technicalities like that instead of actual lack of source. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:16, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
- Delete useless out of scope picture. Multichill (talk) 13:57, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Let's be constructive; they are improving every day and I would love to have such actions in our cities. This is a learning process. Just give it some time. --Foroa (talk) 14:05, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Record of an important Wikiproject. All WTM images should be kept by Commons as long as the project is still active. Enigmaman (talk) 14:41, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Frankly, I'm surprised at all the attention that's been given to the removal of these images. The event was designed, at least, in part, to promote the Wikimedia projects and Commons. Anything freely licensed and related to furthering the Foundation's goals is *in scope*. I simply hope the uploaders hurry up and put source and licenses on all the images so they don't get deleted. Bastique demandez 16:23, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
- Keep, per COMMONS:WHYCARE? (create it, someone). --Aqwis (talk) 16:29, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
- Keep. I'm not sure why this is an issue; we have many low value files one Commons, and at least this one and others like it were created and uploaded as part of a project that is actually generating a lot of useful content as well. As Pharos points out, support content like this falls within the scope of Commons, and it's not hurting anything.--ragesoss (talk) 15:26, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
- Keep, for now. Definitely don't want to put a damper on a project promoting Wikimedia so well, and there should be no rush as all of them are implicitly sourced. Eventually though, I'm not sure we need the photos with the number cards in them, as those seem to be primarily for site or team identification. Keeping a bunch of them around as examples on how the meet runs is fine, but it seems like they are more for internal administration and uploading *all* of them does seem to be pushing the bounds of COM:SCOPE. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:16, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
The image is used on various sites on the internet, after the uploader has a history of copyrightviolations i nominate this image for deletion. TinEye found this image (in lower resolutions) on 8 websites in 6 versions, for example: [1] [2]. Martin H. (talk) 16:26, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Tarawneh (talk) 12:07, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Out of scope and photo of an underage girl. Sdrtirs (talk) 16:40, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Out of scope. Yann (talk) 13:49, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Suspected "Flickrwashing", the Flickr uploader has only this singe upload, the image was posted on Flickr on the same day like here, the Commons user has a history of copyright violations. Martin H. (talk) 16:51, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Tarawneh (talk) 10:47, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Este archivo cae fuera de nuestro alcance. -Nard the Bard 16:55, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:54, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
I doubt this is own work. The image can also be found on multiple internet site's Sterkebaktalk 18:09, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. by Túrelio Yann (talk) 13:49, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Notable person? If not: out of scope. GeorgHH • talk 19:28, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
- Also, it's unused. --Túrelio (talk) 09:58, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Deleted: out of scope --Guérin Nicolas (messages) 20:58, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Very poor quality, chemically incorrect (hydrogens missing on CH2 and NH, missing stereochemical information). Improper file format. Better and correct version available. NEUROtiker (talk) 19:46, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Deleted Edgar181 (talk) 15:35, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Poor quality, tagged with template:Low quality chem over 30 days ago. Improper file format. Not used (if CheckUsage works properly), better version available. NEUROtiker (talk) 19:50, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Deleted: Unusable quality - other versions available. Edgar181 (talk) 15:34, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Outside the Commons:Project scope -Nard the Bard 19:59, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:52, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Outside the Commons:Project scope. If these graphs are useful, then .png or .svg is a better format. PDF is practically useless. -Nard the Bard 20:17, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination, Outside of scope. Anonymous101 talk 20:18, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Out of scope. Yann (talk) 13:47, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Look at the watermark. The author of the picture, according to his descriptio, is "yann" or, as in other pictures uploaded by him, is "yann morello". So who is the "patrice Nicolas" on the watermark? Giorgiomonteforti (talk) 20:19, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. by Herbythyme Yann (talk) 13:46, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
not sure whether current license of the image really justified, as originally tagged with the restriction "but please don't ... alter the photo", what I see as ND. Túrelio (talk) 20:38, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
- It can also be read as "please respect personality rights". /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:15, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
- OK, please give me time to ask Housequake.com about this image. --Jeroencommons (talk) 10:16, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
- I have asked Housequake.com and they told me that they don't have any rights regarding the photo. Unfortunately that means that we indeed have to delete this image. --Jeroencommons (talk) 20:28, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
- OK, please give me time to ask Housequake.com about this image. --Jeroencommons (talk) 10:16, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Outside the Commons:Project scope -Nard the Bard 19:59, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:52, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
as of COM:SCOPE; seems to be a fun image, eventually by a bored highschool boy. Túrelio (talk) 20:59, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Out of scope. Yann (talk) 13:46, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
According to the Flickr page at http://www.flickr.com/photos/keithmarshall/83999520/ this image is licensed CC-NC and is not free enough for Commons. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:43, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
- The source is clearly labeled NC. Image has to go. There is still a copy on :en. --Túrelio (talk) 09:38, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. by Túrelio Yann (talk) 13:44, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
uploaded wrong image (by Online PPR) OnlinePPR (talk) 23:37, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Clear copyvio, stolen from Gondwana Studios
- Request by MWAK (talk · contribs), 20:49, 5 October 2008. --Martin H. (talk) 13:26, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Comment It is unclear to me why it is clear that w:User:Peter norton did not take this picture. --Jarekt (talk) 17:47, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
- en:Image:Gondwana arstanosaurus.jpg may help. This and that are the only ones of the images upload by this user to enwiki. The rest were deleted for lacking source/license info. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:49, 6 October 2008 (UTC) [ P.S. Delete as below. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:14, 14 October 2008 (UTC) ]
- Delete Unlikely to be own work. -Nard the Bard 18:00, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
- Delete as likely copyvio. I've just deleted it on enwiki. Stifle (talk) 19:21, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Avi (talk) 07:03, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Picture of non free software. I think its not oke to use it like this --Sterkebaktalk 15:01, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
.JPG){kind=link}
Deleted. Copyright violation: Screenshot of a copyrighted website displayed in a copyrighted program. Mormegil (talk) 18:51, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
.JPG){kind=link}
Notable persons? If not: out of scope. GeorgHH • talk 19:35, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
- Currently used on en: Richard David Smith. New article, nothing else on en-wiki links to it. Its fate here probably depends on the fate of that article there, unless it may be worth a wikinews story or something like that. On the other hand... they look like mugshots, so authorship by the author is dubious -- they were arrested by the Fayetteville Police Department, and indeed, the one on the left appears in the newspaper articles linked in the en-wiki article (not military sites either). Delete Carl Lindberg (talk) 05:38, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Probably not notable, therefore, outside project scope. The enwp article has been deleted as an unsourced BLP/attack page. Mormegil (talk) 18:53, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
License claim is not credible. Image and file size are not consistent with "own work" claim, and uploader is a sockpuppet of a user with an extensive record of false claims. Image has photographer's name on it: Christian Johnston, presumably http://christianjohnston.com/Welcome.html Orlady (talk) 19:25, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Serial copyvio uploader Herby talk thyme 18:46, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
Image is of a decorative street sign. No encyclopedic value. Similar images of New Rochelle decorative street signs (uploaded by other sockpuppets of the same user) have been deleted before when they were demonstrated to be copyvios; I don't know if that's true of this one. Orlady (talk) 19:32, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
- If the photo is not a copyvio and if the sign in itself is not copyrighted, we should keep it. --Túrelio (talk) 17:43, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Sign is copyright: why should it not be? MichaelMaggs (talk) 20:56, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
no metadata, blurred, image by known copyvio-uploader abf /talk to me/ 07:36, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Blocked user MichaelMaggs (talk) 17:08, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
no information on source/license for any of the images GeorgHH • talk 20:32, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Deleted, no source for more than one month now. --Martin H. (talk) 22:15, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
Was {{Derivative}}, I disagree with its speedy deletion because I assume those "works" (it's a question whether most of them are copyrighted. I only see *possible* creativity @ LUX, POP and Tide) are all COM:DM, Tide is surely, pop which is partially-mostly hidden likely [[ Forrester ]] 15:23, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
- Keep All the marks are {{Pd-textlogo}}. -Nard the Bard 16:25, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
- They are not all textlogos but COM:DM. [[ Forrester ]] 21:37, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Cirt (talk) 22:04, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Contains "non-free" and already deleted images from the english wikipedia. Martin H. (talk) 15:57, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted. Cirt (talk) 22:05, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Contains non-free image [3] of HrithikRoshan. Martin H. (talk) 16:10, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
![[3]](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=Image:HrithikRoshan.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted. Cirt (talk) 22:06, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
"any publisher with licence to publish the "Celia" novels can freely use this cover." - not properly free then. It's 1929 as well, what makes it free? Anonymous101 talk 18:26, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
- The GFDL is truly wrong, at last the author of the book w:es:Elena Fortún died 1952, so it is not pd, not in Spain, nor in the US. Theoreticaly: If this cover is ascribable only to M. Aguilar (Editorial, w:es:Celia, lo que dice) and he died shortly after he finished his work in 1929 this work is still not public domain according to Commons:Licencing#Spain - the work is protected in this fiction until 1. Jan 2010. There is no chance that this image is free now because of its age. --Martin H. (talk) 19:49, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Cirt (talk) 22:06, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
i "doubt" self-made *g* abf /talk to me/ 10:09, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Deleted per abf. This looks indeed suspicious as this is the very only upload by User:Djgsparks. In addition, this image lacks a proper description, it was never categorized, and it is nowhere used. As such it is also likely to be out of COM:SCOPE and due to its private setting also possibly a violation of the personal rights of the depicted person. --AFBorchert (talk) 10:21, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Derivative, not ineligible for copyright. -Nard the Bard 16:28, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
- Delete {{Logo}} Sdrtirs (talk) 16:31, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
This logo is not derivative nor from any secondary source. It comes directly from www.tinyalbum.com and I am the creator. Please advise on how I can correct this issue. Thank you. - Mike Hoyles | 13:00 MST, 6 October 2008
- If you are the creator, that would be OK --- you may want to add the {{Trademarked}} tag to it though. However, the one article it is used for on en-wiki is up for deletion; if that happens then this may fall outside of project scope, and may get deleted for that reason. Carl Lindberg (talk) 05:25, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Deleted per Carl Lindberg as it is out of COM:SCOPE. --AFBorchert (talk) 10:51, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Per discussion on IRC I have concluded that this may be PD-textlogo so removed copyvio note and taking to dr. Thanks, Anonymous101 talk 18:57, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Deleted as this unused, uncategorized textual logo without a proper description falls out of COM:SCOPE. --AFBorchert (talk) 11:05, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Me olvidé de rotarla!
- Deletion request by Erickarroqui (talk · contribs) 21:11, 6 October 2008, completed: --Martin H. (talk) 19:26, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
- "I forgot to to rotate it". -Nard the Bard 20:02, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
- So I asked the bot to do it, and it did, and left the uploader a message. I hope everybody's happy. Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:16, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Kept as per Angusmclellan. --AFBorchert (talk) 11:08, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
According to http://explorersposts.grc.nasa.gov/post632/Year2004/17NOV04/batteries.pdf this is copyright Lee Krystek 1998. Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:38, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Deleted per Pieter Kuiper as this indeed copyrighted by Lee Krystek, i.e. {{PD-USGov}} does not apply. --AFBorchert (talk) 11:14, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Images of Joseac15
[edit]- File:Arco carabobo.png (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Trompitos.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Ctovar.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Caracas1259.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Valencia111.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Maracaibo1.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Rio de barinas.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Teatro baralt356.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:S6303635.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Tumbadebolivar7lo.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:FotosArtisticasdeVenezuela1.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Puente sobre el lago de maracaibo.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Salto angel.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
After i identified a large number of this users contributions as violations of copyrights i now nominate the rest. Most of the images are embedded at Skyscrapercity, they are from different users on Flickr and different albums on photobucket or from a few other websites. --Martin H. (talk) 03:11, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
- The user still contributes, also his newly uploaded images are copyvios:
- File:Olla precolombina.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log) - see [4]
- File:Mangovnzla459.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log) - see [5]
- File:Fresas coloniatovar.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log) - no source found
- File:Edf place.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log) - see [6]
- File:Playa Grande.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log) - from Flickr (private) via skyscraperlife or [7]
- File:Malecon de choroni.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log) - from Flickr via skyscraperlife
- File:Desascada.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log) - see [8]
- and so on. --Martin H. (talk) 18:43, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Closed. Already deleted MichaelMaggs (talk) 19:53, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Images uploaded by sockpuppets of Jvolkblum
[edit]- File:WykagylGolfCourseHoles.JPG
- File:WGCfallphoto.JPG
- File:WGCphoto.JPG
- File:WykagylGolfCourseHoles13to18.JPG
- File:WykagylGolfCourseHoles7to12.JPG
- File:WykagylGolfCourseHoles1to6.JPG
- File:SLCCWarren.JPG
- File:SLCGryphonMascot.JPG
- File:SLCWestlandsSouthPhoto.JPG
- File:SLCStudentsOld.JPG
- File:New Rochelle Police Segways2.JPG
- File:New Rochelle Police Segways.JPG
- File:NRzipcodes.jpg
- File:NR10805.gif
- File:NR10801.gif
- File:NR10804.gif
See Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Attention#"New" user uploading numerous images with implausible claims of origin/ownership and Commons:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/ChucksBike-O-Rama for some background on the reasons for doubting claims by these users. This is a partial collection of problematic images from these users.
The first 6 requested deletions are images of Wykagyl Golf Club from Special:Contributions/AgentHart. All images are highly unlikely to be be "self-made" as claimed; they appear to be borrowed from the golf club.
The next 4 requested deletions are from Special:Contributions/ChucksBike-O-Rama. They all appear to be scans of images either published in newspapers or in college archives.
The 6 remaining requested deletions are from Special:Contributions/Geezalou. The first two are fuzzy images of police officers on Segways; they are not suitable for use due to their fuzziness, and it is likely that they are fuzzy due to be overly enlarged versions of copyright images. The last 4 are maps of zip code areas and US Census Bureau approximations of zip code areas; these are ephemera of no value for an encyclopedia. Orlady (talk) 03:13, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Flavio Costantini images
[edit]Source website does not state anything about license given. Its policy (http://www.katesharpleylibrary.net/copyright.htm). "Please contact us if you want to use anything from this website. Reproduction by activists is usually OK if you give us a credit" This means that the images are not free to use.
- Image:A4-Naples-17-Nov-1878 large.jpeg
- Image:Angiolillo por costatini.jpg
- Image:B14-Paris-28-March-1872 large.jpeg
- Image:B15-Tragic-band-I large.jpeg
- Image:B16-Tragic-Band-II large.jpeg
- Image:B18-Geneva-10-Sept-1898 large.jpeg
- Image:Costantini - Henry 2.jpeg
- Image:Costantini - Ravachol - Saint Etiene.jpg
- Image:Sante 01.jpg
- Image:Monza-24-July-1900 large.jpeg
The next two give a different source website, but very likely originated on katesharpley.net as the site given is a collection of quotes & images:
And finally
- Image:Ferrer Tragic Week.jpg which looks to me like it was photographed from a book (see the light reflect & the red "insert" at the bottom?)
-- Deadstar (msg) 15:03, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Come on! Those are anarchist historical contents ilustrations made by an anarchist artist! And everybody knows that anarchists are against private propriety, so for a good understander, half word is enough. I believe that the copyrighted content is that way for grant non comercial use.
Sorry for my terrible english, Libertaries Saluts for you pal.
AltCtrlDel (talk) 23:33, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
This three images are from Our Daily Bleed. their content are AntiCopyrite until 3000.
* Image:Costantini - Ravachol - Atentado a Bulot.jpg * Image:Costantini - Ravachol - Cemetery.JPG * Image:Ferrer Tragic Week.jpg
anti-CopyRite 1997-3000, more or less
AltCtrlDel (talk) 17:30, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
- According to an email exchange with User:AltCtrlDel, permission has been granted by the artist for the free use of these images on Wikipedia. Please see the email exchange (Mutirão Anarquista Wikipediano's Discussion Page), and stand-by while this situation is sorted out. More details have to be ironed out while we go through the process of ascribing the correct license for these images. The wording did not specify if a Free License has been given, and if not, the images will still need to be deleted. Another email exchange must be made.--Cast (talk) 04:26, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
Comment I looked through this thread on pt-wp and unfortunately the permission cited there isn't sufficient due to its restriction on Wikipedia projects. I've pointed this out to AltCtrlDel. --AFBorchert (talk) 10:41, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Deleted, all works are copyrighted by default. Those ones needs to be released under a free license. Lugusto • ※ 19:26, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
Image:3.gif and Image:7.gif
[edit]
Image:3.gif
Image:7.gif
The watermark claims the author is Gualdi Mauro not Fondazione Fossoli. Jarekt (talk) 15:00, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Comment OTRS ticket 2008052310017844 User_talk:Badseed#OTRS_ticket_2008052310017844 says "Fondazione Fossoli" owns the copyright. For the image to stay the OTRS ticket should be from the photographer Gualdi Mauro. The claim that those 2 images were "self-made" by user:Fondazionefossoli seems to be false. If user:Fondazionefossoli represents not a person but an institution of , and this institution somehow owns the copyrights to Gualdi Mauro photographs, than those images should be checked by people familiar with the Italian law and the legal rationale explained somewhere. --Jarekt (talk) 15:19, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Comment Those photographs of paintings are also a derivative works. The painter should be mentioned and need some explanation about "Fondazione Fossoli" owning the copyrights to those paintings. --Jarekt (talk) 15:39, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Closed. Already deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 21:10, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
I think this logo of the ns is protected, This logo can be found on trains (http://ns.nl/cs/Satellite/ns2007/nl/menuitem/include/1193053737790/rekenvoorbeelden?p=1193053737321&packedargs=language=nl) I am not sure of my case so please give more opinions --Sterkebaktalk 15:27, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
- I don't know about the logo itself, I just photographed a part of a train. - Erik Baas (talk) 15:48, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
- The photograph is clearly taken to show the NS (Dutch railways) logo, not the train or anything else. The logo is copyrighted by the organisation. I don't think FOP applies in this case. -- Deadstar (msg) 08:00, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
It sounds absurd, but according to this, the NS is planning to charge 5 Euro per model train with its logo on it. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 15:47, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
Deleted per Deadstar MichaelMaggs (talk) 08:18, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This image contains a non-free logo; see Commons:Screenshots —Danorton (talk) 23:37, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
- Keep, the logos are minimal. SF007 (talk) 16:50, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
- Commons policy does not provide for any "minimal" exception. U.S. "fair-use" law, might, but fair-use images are clearly prohibited on Commons. The aforementioned article reads "If a screenshot contains icons or content of non-free sites, it is not free." —Danorton (talk) 19:11, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
- Comment the main discussion regarding screenshots is here: Commons:Deletion requests/Screenshots with non-free logos
- That discussion does not preempt current policy, which clearly prohibits non-free images. —Danorton (talk) 19:12, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Please note that another image was uploaded over the previous one on 10 November 2008. --AFBorchert (talk) 11:19, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
