Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2008/10/11
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
|
|
Outside project scope --Mach (talk) 00:00, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete spam. -Nard the Bard 01:41, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Out of scope. Yann (talk) 12:35, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
No valid licence. Mr. Mario (talk) 00:54, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Keep The author died 1929, so the image is {{PD-OLD}}. Went ahead and updated the info for you. -Nard the Bard 01:32, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Kept. PD-old Yann (talk) 12:36, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Out of scope. Mr. Mario (talk) 02:46, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Looks pretty scopish to me. -Nard the Bard 02:51, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Kept image is inside the scope. Sterkebaktalk 13:14, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
usaron informacion personal Manuel B. Lomba (talk) 02:12, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Out of scope. Yann (talk) 12:34, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
no description, not used, seems to be rubbish Avron (talk) 07:13, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Out of scope. Yann (talk) 12:33, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
private picture, not usede, not in scope Avron (talk) 07:15, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Out of scope. Yann (talk) 12:32, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
copyvio, http://hi.baidu.com/fzkeyuan/album/item/e3e7931865a1d85d42a9ad56.html dingar (talk) 13:24, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 22:08, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Orphaned personal image. OsamaK 13:29, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Out of scope. Yann (talk) 21:57, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Orphaned, No links, a higher quality copy is avaliable. OsamaK 13:31, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Martin H. (talk) 14:27, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Orphaned personal image. OsamaK 13:33, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Martin H. (talk) 14:29, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Orphaned personal image. OsamaK 13:34, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Out of scope. Yann (talk) 21:56, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Orphaned personal image. OsamaK 13:36, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Martin H. (talk) 14:31, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Orphaned personal image. OsamaK 13:42, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Martin H. (talk) 14:31, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Orphaned personal image. OsamaK 13:43, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Martin H. (talk) 14:32, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Orphaned, No links, higher quality is available. OsamaK 13:46, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
- Delete image is redundant to the build-in thumbnail feature. J.smith (talk) 17:40, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Duplicate. Yann (talk) 21:56, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Orphaned personal image. OsamaK 13:52, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Out of scope. Yann (talk) 21:54, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Orphaned personal image. OsamaK 13:53, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Out of scope. Yann (talk) 21:54, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
copyvio, http://www.jjfj.com/chaoan.htm dingar (talk) 13:56, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 22:09, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
copyvio, http://www.chandao.com/dharma/42/395421.htm dingar (talk) 14:10, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 22:09, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
The size of the name of the image seems to be unusable in Wikipedia article Михал Орела (talk) 16:36, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
- Speedy Delete - frankly this is a non-issue. A exact duplicate with a better name has already been uploaded. J.smith (talk) 18:04, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Duplicate. Yann (talk) 21:51, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Unknown image, not used, rather useless. Yarl ✉ 17:28, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Out of scope. Yann (talk) 22:02, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Really poor quality picture. It isn't used in any project. Very light description. For me, it's out of scope. Pymouss Tchatcher - 18:30, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Out of scope. Yann (talk) 21:48, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
I created this page with the first letter of each word capitalized and didn't realize it. i hav since made a new page which will match better with the other dog page categorys.. The new page is here Category:Dog audio files --Ltshears (talk) 20:15, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Empty. Yann (talk) 22:00, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
The image is nonencyclopedic and not used --Jonjames1986 (talk) 20:46, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Out of scope. Yann (talk) 21:40, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
It has no categories, a nondescriptive name and isn't used anywhere --Jonjames1986 (talk) 21:21, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Out of scope. Yann (talk) 21:40, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Not going to hold my breath for the OTRS... Megapixie (talk) 00:16, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
- Keep. I don't understand why this image is being deleted. --Frogger3140 (talk) 02:32, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
- Because it was uploaded without permission. Permission was requested at http://www.fotop.net/boman - but there is no indication that it has been given. All the time we are using the image as if it was free. I don't understand why it hasn't been deleted already. Megapixie (talk) 04:16, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
- Excuse me, the author of this photograph, Boman, has granted me the permission to use this photo. And I have already sent all the permission emails to OTRS. So I don't understand why have you requsted to delete this image. Tinbin (talk) 06:08, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
- I believe it when I see someone with OTRS access confirm it. Megapixie (talk) 08:12, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
- What? you don't have OTRS access? Then who do you think you are? Going around requesting images to be deleted with absolutely no ground and evidence to support your action when other people trying hard to follow Wikipedia policy and rules. It is people like you that discouraging people from contributing to Wikipedia. Tinbin (talk) 15:04, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
- I believe it when I see someone with OTRS access confirm it. Megapixie (talk) 08:12, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
- Excuse me, the author of this photograph, Boman, has granted me the permission to use this photo. And I have already sent all the permission emails to OTRS. So I don't understand why have you requsted to delete this image. Tinbin (talk) 06:08, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
- Because it was uploaded without permission. Permission was requested at http://www.fotop.net/boman - but there is no indication that it has been given. All the time we are using the image as if it was free. I don't understand why it hasn't been deleted already. Megapixie (talk) 04:16, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Neutral - I'll be happy to check for a ticket once I get to my office. Do you have a ticket number I can look up? J.smith (talk) 15:57, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry, I don't have a ticket number. I just followed the instruction here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:COPYREQ, and forward the permission emails to "permissions-commons AT wikimedia DOT org" and "permissions-en AT wikimedia DOT org" with the image's original URL and the proposed Wikipedia link for the image:- http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Yuyuan.jpg.
- I thought editors with OTRS access will assign a ticket number to an image after they review the permission emails. It is my first time asking someone for permission on using an image, so I don't know the procedure too well. Tinbin (talk) 16:11, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
- Thats fine, I'll search via the image name and see what I can come up with. J.smith (talk) 16:53, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
- Permission received via OTRS ticket 2008101010026714. Image has been marked accordingly. J.smith (talk) 17:03, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
- Thats fine, I'll search via the image name and see what I can come up with. J.smith (talk) 16:53, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Kept, OTRS permission has been received and is indicated on the image. —Angr 17:27, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Contains the Wikipedia Logo, which is copyrighted. 71.41.122.142 02:29, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Violation of the GPL license for the Nuvola original icon, Image:Nuvola_apps_email.png. The non-free Wikimedia logo violates the sharealike clause of the GPL license. -Nard the Bard 02:33, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. per Nard the Bard. MichaelMaggs (talk) 03:36, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
This is a photo of a copyrighted game cover. --98.17.227.146 00:36, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 22:09, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
I did'nt upload it correctly Teotret (talk) 16:25, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
- If you just want to add the licensing tags you can do it by clicking on the "edit" tab near the top of the image page. J.smith (talk) 18:00, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Duplicate to Image:Law-firm-paul-hastings-janofsky-walker-llp-photo-331155.jpg9 Martin H. (talk) 00:57, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
copyvio, http://www.zh5000.com/ZHJD/qiao/qiao-0032.htm dingar (talk) 13:43, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Deleted: copyright violation --Guérin Nicolas (messages) 11:49, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
copyvio, http://www.cts2008.com/Member/Sight/lss/info.html dingar (talk) 13:48, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Deleted: copyright violation. --Guérin Nicolas (messages) 11:48, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
Derivative work. -Nard the Bard 17:28, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Deleted by Rama: Copyright violation
No license. I used nld but user removed the tag. User also did this for many other uploads. Then he removed the no license warning from his page and just left the "thank you" with my signature! Request deletion of all unlicensed files by this user. -Nard the Bard 20:58, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Deleted by Rama: logo
No comment by 
............! ( Ils Ne savent Pas Lire ) --Bernard Piette (talk) 15:53, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
wrong name --FieldMarine (talk) 21:58, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Deleted by Martin H.: content was: '{{db|wrong name}}' (and the only contributor was 'FieldMarine')
spelling --FieldMarine (talk) 23:48, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Deleted by Martin H.: content was: '{{db|spelling}}' (and the only contributor was 'FieldMarine')
It is more than text logo, an image included. OsamaK 13:23, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
- Delete - does seem to pass the threshold for creativity to be protected by copyright. J.smith (talk) 17:38, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Tarawneh (talk) 23:15, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
copyvio, http://www.eu169.com/diy/note_81781.html dingar (talk) 13:59, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Deleted by Guérin Nicolas: Copyright violation
Image:Courrier_-_Ville_d_Arlon_signe_par_Biren_-_Histoire_du_Blason_par_Jean-Marie_Triffaux.jpg
[edit]I marked no license but user reverted. Lo, there is no license! -Nard the Bard 20:58, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
18:30, 13 October 2008 Anonymous101 deleted "Image:Courrier - Ville d Arlon signe par Biren - Histoire du Blason par Jean-Marie Triffaux.jpg" (Copyright violation)
Deleted. Martin H. (talk) 22:18, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Possible copyright violation, the image appears also on the official movie homepage http://www.brandnerkaspar-derfilm.de/ Martin H. (talk) 13:56, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Deleted by Kved: In category Unknown as of 9 October 2008; no permission
Photo taken in Germany in 1962. I don't know who the photographer was, but even anonymous works are copyrighted for 70 years after first publication (and I guess if it was still copyrighted in Germany in 1996, it's copyrighted in the US too, due to the Uruguay Round Agreements Act). Maybe someone can copy it back to the English Wikipedia and add a fair use rationale. -- Kam Solusar (talk) 00:40, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Not free. Maybe fair use on Wikipedia per nominator.--Paloma Walker (talk) 01:34, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Anonymous101 talk 13:22, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
Licence violation. LGPL and CC-BY-SA images cannot be combined. ViperSnake151 (talk) 02:55, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oh blast, you may be right there. J.smith (talk) 17:10, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Anonymous101 talk 13:25, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
This image is far too dark. I think the uploader just put it here to make a point. -Voidxor (talk) 03:15, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
- Keep It's his user page picture. He can have it however he wants. And it doesn't matter what kind of point he's making. -Nard the Bard 03:16, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Author Indolences said: "Photo can be used for non-profit use.". That is not PD. 85.177.176.109 06:56, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
- Where does he say that? It says "Released into the public domain (by the author).". // Liftarn (talk) 08:50, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
- The image was originally tagged as Non-profit. However, after the issue was raised the original unloader changed the license to PD. J.smith (talk) 17:22, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
- That should settle the issue then. // Liftarn (talk) 19:56, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
- The image was originally tagged as Non-profit. However, after the issue was raised the original unloader changed the license to PD. J.smith (talk) 17:22, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
- Delete "Wikipedia is no file space" - isn't there a simliar remark on Commons as well? Anyway, regarding that and the fact that the image is nowhere used AND some private expression, I'd say delete it. I have nothing against the image, I just don't see why to keep it. • Lirion (Λιριων, Лирион, ليريون) wtf? • 21:54, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
Deleted - clear deriveative of images on cup. Anonymous101 talk 13:27, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
Can scans of academic degrees be copyrighted (not by the uploader, but by the university)? See also Image talk:Bscbangor2005.png. If academic degrees could be copyrighted then no one could photocopy them, so employers and schools themselves could not ask for photocopies. Degrees are also personal documents, which I think could be regarded as some form of personal property. Also many people apparently put their degrees scanned online, and in fact WikiCommons and Wikipedia have many images of scanned degrees (so if this is removed, the other pics should be removed as well). Also note that scanning one own degree and putting it online or photocopying it to show it to another university or an employer does not limit the university's ability to sell its educational product (in fact I could say that it acts as free advertisement). But I know nothing about this issue. It is just that the whole concept of copyrightability of academic degrees sees absurd and foreign to me. If someone knows more I would be very interested to learn more about it. NerdyNSK (talk) 22:28, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Anonymous101 talk 13:29, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
Appears to be an air-to-air publicity photograph probably for Brussels Airlines when they changed livery, also available at http://belgiumstuds.blogspot.com/2007_07_01_archive.html, no metadata or other source information --MilborneOne (talk) 15:19, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete: yes, appears also on other websites, e.g. it is published here prior to the uplaod at commons. --Martin H. (talk) 01:10, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Anonymous101 talk 13:32, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
Official images of the Knesset are taken when the member is elected, in this case 1969. probably not in the public domain in Israel Alonr (talk) 17:36, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
- Delete dosn't appear to be PD if 1969 is right. Call back in 2019 when the copyright protection expires! J.smith (talk) 18:08, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Probably correct, now that I think about it. -- Nudve (talk) 11:07, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Anonymous101 talk 13:33, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
He is a musician from an Argentine Metal band. I can't see any metadat on this picture proving that it was taken by Metalsickk Mizunoryu 大熊猫❤小熊猫 (talk) 20:23, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
I found this same photo here. Mizunoryu 大熊猫❤小熊猫 (talk) 20:25, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Anonymous101 talk 13:34, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
Source information is inadequate to verify that the {{PD-old}} tag is correct. --—Angr 17:20, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. per COM:PRP MichaelMaggs (talk) 20:59, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
Image is not "self-made" and not from january 2008, it is a copy or scan, the image is maybe copyright proteced and an author or source is missing. Martin H. (talk) 21:53, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. No valid source of original image stated. MichaelMaggs (talk) 21:00, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
The image is nonencyclopedic, is not used, and has no categories --Jonjames1986 (talk) 20:50, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Very low quality. Kimsə (talk) 05:40, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
It has no categories, no apparent usefulness, and isn't used --Jonjames1986 (talk) 21:08, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Obviously a high-quality image. "No categories" is not a very good reason for deletion. After some googling, I put this in Category:Parque Fundidora; it seems this is art in a steel foundry now used as an art center. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 14:32, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
Kept. Potentially useful image. Kimsə (talk) 05:32, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
I do not believe the story that CBS gave the rights to the government, making it public domain. It's not a good picture anyway. --Redddogg (talk) 05:40, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
- It's possible that CBS released this into the public domain. However, that isn't what seems to have happened. If CBS gives the government permission to use an image it doesn't suddenly lose the rights to the image. The federal government can own or license copyrights that they haven't created under any terms they care to negotiate. PD is only automatic for works created by the feds. J.smith (talk) 17:20, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks. I will remove the picture from the WP article that uses it. I don't know how to delete it from the Commons. Redddogg (talk) 21:32, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 20:12, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
This photo taken about 55 years old! (she was born in 1950 as per plwp) Mostly it is not the uploader's work. OsamaK 13:50, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
- I'm more concerned with source rather than license. This picture doesn't appear to exist elsewhere on the web. So the person may have had access to an original picture, but they may not own the license. The source must be clarified. -Nard the Bard 13:56, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. No valid source: not self made. MichaelMaggs (talk) 20:14, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
I think, that is not PD Beax 17:18, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Copyvio of original artwork/photo on wall. MichaelMaggs (talk) 20:16, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
it has a nondescriptive name, no categories, isn't used, has no description, and has no apparent usefulness --Jonjames1986 (talk) 20:35, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Comment Looks like some part of a windmill. We can rename the image if somebody can recognize it. --Kimsə (talk) 05:45, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Not educationally useful without a description saying what it is. MichaelMaggs (talk) 20:17, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
not public domain dingar (talk) 14:08, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Kept. AGF no reasson given to show it is not in the PD Sterkebaktalk 22:28, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
not public domain dingar (talk) 14:09, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
- Why? - What makes you think that? J.smith (talk) 17:43, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you. I change my idea. According to description, it's a kamon (家紋) of Saitō clan (斎藤氏). Now, I don't know if it's belong to public domain. --dingar (talk) 00:16, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
Kept. No reasson to believe it is not PD Sterkebaktalk 22:28, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
States that email to OTRS has been sent, but has not been verified. I am think that perhaps permission has not been granted for use of this photo. russavia (talk) 23:47, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
- The editor above added the unnecessary OTRS request (I had already emailed the permission email and received confirmation from wikimedia, ticket #2008091410014401). --Asterion (talk) 16:56, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
- That ticket was merged to 2008091410014321. That request is still pending and has not yet been approved. The language that the owner of the image isn't quite specific enough. J.smith (talk) 16:15, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
- Still no response after 25+ days since request. J.smith (talk) 17:59, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. it can come back when licence is in order Sterkebaktalk 22:30, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
PD-GermanGov only applies to a very narrow set of works (law texts, court decisions, etc.). The law does not include all photos created by agencies of the 16 states of Germany. -- Kam Solusar (talk) 00:25, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
- The licence was changed, ok now? --Martin H. (talk) 18:05, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
- As the image is copyrighted, we need the permission of the Landesamt to use it. The website says "© Bayerisches Landesamt für Umwelt 2008" and "Alle Rechte vorbehalten. Es ist insbesondere nicht gestattet, ohne ausdrückliche Genehmigung des Bayerischen Landesamtes für Umwelt diese Veröffentlichung oder Teile daraus zu übersetzen, zu vervielfältigen, auf Microfilm/-fiche oder in elektronische Systeme einzuspeichern oder in irgendeiner Weise zu verändern oder solche Vervielfältigungen an Dritte abzugeben (bzw. zu veröffentlichen)" [1]. --Kam Solusar (talk) 18:23, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
- Just saw that an anonymous user removed the deletion request with this comment: "Family Eberhardinger allowed publishing in electronic media through the ‘Bayer.Staatsministerium für Umwelt, Gesundheit und Verbraucherschutz’ in 1982" [2]. So the question is, whether this permission includes derivative works and commercial use by anyone. --Kam Solusar (talk) 18:26, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Deleted as we would need a permission that gets sent to our OTRS team. This image can be undeleted as soon we get that confirmation. --AFBorchert (talk) 23:09, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Although this file seems to be exactly what is (now) available at af.mil it should be deleted because it has wrong proportions and is misleading. The same image with correct proportions is available here: Image:MQ-1 Predator.jpg. To check for the right proportions you can compare both images with Image:MQ-1 Predator taxis at Balad 2006-06-14.jpg. The egg-shaped camera should be round. And probably jamesdale10 is not the original author and so the given license is wrong. --Timak (talk) 09:06, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Deleted per Timak and as it is currently unused. --AFBorchert (talk) 11:15, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
"Auf Nachfrage für die Wikipedia freigegeben" (approved for Wikipedia) does not mean, that this image is free. Martin H. (talk) 15:46, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
I am the orginal uploader of this picture. I mailed Ms. Waldron a few years ago - when the article about Lumumba desperately needed more pics - about this picture of her website (http://www.dlynnwaldron.com/Lumumba_telegram.html) to use for Wikipedia. She mailed the current (smaller) version of it back to me with the comment, this should fit for Wikipedia. I understood at that time that this permission contained every legal purpose to use it on the Wikipedia including all resulting legal issues. Therefore I think this pic should NOT be deleted and kept in. Remember, this is a much smaller version as on Ms. Waldron's homepage. Regards -- 84.151.142.113 00:05, 15 October 2008 (UTC) (I dont have a COMMONS account yet but you can reach me on my german Wikipedia site here: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benutzer:Mons_Maenalus)
Deleted as the license "auf Nachfrage für die Wikipedia freigegeben" is not sufficient, see COM:L. Images uploaded to the Commons must not just be free to be used at the Wikimedia projects but by anyone including commercial usage. This image can be restored as soon a permission for an acceptable license by the copyright holder gets delivered to our OTRS team. --AFBorchert (talk) 11:42, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Out of our project scope, the youtube user (http://www.youtube.com/user/PropagandaBuster) is out of notability. Martin H. (talk) 16:30, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Deleted as per Martin H. --AFBorchert (talk) 12:20, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Official images of the Knesset are taken when the member is elected, in this case 1969. probably not in the public domain in Israel Alonr (talk) 18:01, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
- See also Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Erlich simcha.jpg. Alonr (talk) 18:42, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
Deleted per Alonr. --AFBorchert (talk) 12:28, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Official photographs of the Knesset are usually taken when the member is elected, in this case 1961. probably not in the public domain in Israel Alonr (talk) 18:06, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
- See also Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Erlich simcha.jpg. Alonr (talk) 18:42, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
Deleted per Alonr. --AFBorchert (talk) 12:30, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Really poor quality picture. It isn't used in any project. Very light description. For me, it's out of scope. Pymouss Tchatcher - 18:32, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Deleted as possible copyright violation as this image was apparently taken from here. Rosemary Owens is notable as dean of the Law School of the University of Adelaide. As soon as we receive a permission through our OTRS team this image can be restored. --AFBorchert (talk) 12:39, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Copyvio. It is written to the column of Source as "カーセンサー" = http://www.carsensor.net/ , and the images at the site are unfree. -Vantey (talk) 20:53, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Copyvio. See also This page.--FREEZA (talk) 23:20, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
- Delete "www.carsensor.net" is selling pre-owned vehicles are commercial sites. It's unfree image. --KAMUI (talk) 11:23, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. --AFBorchert (talk) 12:49, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
It isn't used anywhere, and there's no article on the subject --Jonjames1986 (talk) 21:16, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
- Delete I can't find any notable people by this name, so probably no use to the project in the future. TimVickers (talk) 17:38, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
Deleted per Jonjames1986 and TimVickers. This image was apparently uploaded to illustrate an article at de-wp which got deleted. There was another image from the same uploader which I've deleted for the very same reason. --AFBorchert (talk) 17:37, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
Unlikely to be a work of the US federal government or an employee it was only used as an illustration in a naval newspaper. Images of prototypes are far more likely to be UK crown copyright or from the manufacturer Blackburn/Hawker Siddeley. US military had no involvement in the development programme. --MilborneOne (talk) 09:06, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
- Well, no source is given in the Naval Aviation News. However, even photos of British Spitfires are USAAF photos, see Image:SpitfireIX 611Sqn 8 Biggin Hill 1943.jpg. If it (Buccaneer photo) would be UK crown copyright, it would be probably sadly a year or two too young. Cobatfor 12:58 11 Oct 2008 (UTC)
- The image appears in Flight International 1 May 1959 with the caption An oustanding air-to-air photograph of the first, second and fifth NA.39s. Their respective crews are G R I "Sailor" Parker and M R Bailer, Bobby Burns and D. Dunn and Derek Whitehead and G R Capeman. The photograph was secured on March 26, the birthday of the late Robert Blackburn' the photographic aircraft was the Meteor NF12, flown by Dick Chandler. [3]. No mention of the foreign United States Navy taking Blackburn publicity pictures. MilborneOne (talk) 13:54, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
- So what now? Maybe you could be a little more specific, like it is a Blackburn publicity photograph, see [link], therefore it should be deleted. If it is a Blackburn photo the rights would probably be today with BAe. Right or wrong? If, then it should be deleted. If you could find another suitable copyright, please change it. Thank you. Cobatfor 21:00 11 Oct 2008 (UTC)
- The image appears in Flight International 1 May 1959 with the caption An oustanding air-to-air photograph of the first, second and fifth NA.39s. Their respective crews are G R I "Sailor" Parker and M R Bailer, Bobby Burns and D. Dunn and Derek Whitehead and G R Capeman. The photograph was secured on March 26, the birthday of the late Robert Blackburn' the photographic aircraft was the Meteor NF12, flown by Dick Chandler. [3]. No mention of the foreign United States Navy taking Blackburn publicity pictures. MilborneOne (talk) 13:54, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
- So it is fairly certainly not a USN image and is copyright of Blackburn and should be deleted as non free. MilborneOne (talk) 19:28, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
Deleted per MilborneOne and COM:PRP. --AFBorchert (talk) 07:11, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
- File:Helicopter-MG.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Monte Castelo - SC.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:ViaturaRN.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:GMAmparo.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
This are not an brazilian official symbol, are images from brazilian government employees public domain? Martin H. (talk) 21:07, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
There are many more by uploader EUDOXIO (talk · contribs), some of them are reproductions of 3d Logos of the brazilian police, i dont know how to hanlde this image. I left some images, they are not so obvious a 3d reproduction, so i think they are ok.
- File:PCEPE.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:GT3 - I.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Unidadetigre.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:AM.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log) (Logo)
- File:E.S..png (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:PJC.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:PCETO.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log) (Logo)
- File:PCESC.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log) (Logo)
- File:CORE helicopter.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Viatura SC 1.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Viatura RS.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:DPF.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
--Martin H. (talk) 21:46, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Some {{PD-BrazilGov}} images from Tecnocrata (talk · contribs) are nominated for the same reason:
- File:Police-Birthday.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log) (not an official stamp, maybe derivative work?)
- File:ViaturaPFF.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Taticointegrado.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:AlvaroLins.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:PRFfiscalização.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
--Martin H. (talk) 22:11, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Deleted as these images which were copied from various Brazil government sites attempted to take advantage of {{PD-BrazilGov}} even if this excemption covers Brazilian official symbols only. The set included four photographs of COAs of the Brazilian civil police. But these photographs where copied from government sites as well and were not all strictly 2D-reproductions. It is similarly not clear to me if these COAs fall under the cited law. Finally, a reproduction of a Brazilian stamp was included, likewise copied from a governmental site. There is, however, no exception included for Brazil in this list which would allow us to keep this. --AFBorchert (talk) 13:20, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
Violation of sharealike clause of Image:Stop hand nuvola yellow.svg. You cannot put a sharealike and non-free image together in the same derivative work. -Nard the Bard 02:48, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
- Keep I see no problem. New Image is also licenced as sharealike. Where is the problem? ChristianBier (talk) 17:15, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Deleted as the combined image is no longer CC-AT-SA due to the incorporation of the unfree logo. I asked the copyright holder of the CC-AT-SA image for an extra permission but he declined. --AFBorchert (talk) 20:47, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Does reproduction mean use by anybody for any purpose? EugeneZelenko 14:16, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
According to what I see, both Russian, Spanish and English Wikipedias use this image in articles about current president of Nicaragua Daniel Ortega. I think this image is interesting because it was taken during a speech in Cuba before reelection and because Daniel is wearing a red shirt that reflects his political views (communism). I haven't seen better images of this politic that are acceptable to be uploaded yet. --189.154.22.246 21:59, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Got this off a list of "missing images". Was going to restore it but I looked at the license. License is for reproduction only, which is not free enough. I know this previously survived a DR but I'm renominating it. That's not a free license. -Nard the Bard 00:41, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Uploaded images by Julienzwa
[edit]- File:Fond ecran jack.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:JackArbre.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Fondjack.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Fondjack3.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Fondjack5.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Thanks28.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Fond.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Fond2.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Logo22.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Logo32.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Logo42.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Fond3.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Fond4.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Fond5.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Fond6.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Fond7.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Amis-pour-la-vie.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
No descriptions and i can't find anything about notable. Outside project scope.--Mach (talk) 00:51, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Deleted out of scope possible copyvio Sterkebaktalk 13:11, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
copyvio, http://image.baidu.com/i?ct=503316480&z=0&tn=baiduimagedetail&word=%E0%C2%86%AA%86%F6&in=1645&cl=2&cm=1&sc=0&lm=-1&pn=5&rn=1&di=788313600&ln=13 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dingar (talk • contribs) 13:33, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Was already deleted as copyvio by Túrelio on 20:22, 11 October 2008. --AFBorchert (talk) 13:44, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
Outside project scope. Encourages hatred toward Poland. -Nard the Bard 14:58, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
- Really? See: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Anti_logos (several different examples:
and other. Example - use (in page of user):
|
- Delete art. 137. § 1 KK - znieważenie flagi Rzeczypospolitej Polskiej (flag profanation of Rzeczpospolita Polska - art. 137. § 1 penal code). Poznaniak (talk) 16:12, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
- Lie! Znieważenie to co innego. Lepiej poznaj prawo i to co jest znieważeniem, później się wypowiadaj. PS: I ask about opinions not-Poles. Voting/Statement from Poles in this subject is nonsense. LUCPOL (talk) 16:41, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
- Tak się składa, że studiuję prawo. Swoim czynem wypełniłeś ustawowe znamiona czynu zabronionego określonego w art. 137. § 1 (Dz. U. z 1997 r. Nr 88 poz. 553 z późn. zm.) i proszę nie zarzucaj mi kłamstwa. Poznaniak (talk) 18:52, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
- Tak więc zacytuj tu ten artykuł który mówi że komputerowe przekreślenie flagi polskiej jest jej profanacją i jest czynem zabronionym. Przepraszam, że z góry oskarżyłem cię o kłamstwo ale twoją pierwszą wypowiedź uznałem za absurd podobny do tego jak oskarżenie kogoś za próbę morderstwa za to że krzywo na kogoś popatrzył. Pomiędzy profanacją flagi czyli jej opluciem/"skałowieniem" (lub podobnymi), spaleniem, zdeptaniem a zwykłym oficjalnym przekreśleniem w formie elektronicznej jest duża różnica. Przekreślenie czegokolwiek, w tym flag, nazw np.
Polska, tekstów, znaków itd itd nie jest żadną profanacją niczego. Jako student prawa powinieneś to wiedzieć. Uznaję, że po prostu byłeś nieobecny na zajęciach kiedy braliście ten temat ;) Pozdrawiam. LUCPOL (talk) 21:16, 11 October 2008 (UTC)- Proszę bardzo: "Art. 137. § 1. Kto publicznie znieważa, niszczy, uszkadza lub usuwa godło, sztandar, chorągiew, banderę, flagę lub inny znak państwowy, podlega grzywnie, karze ograniczenia wolności albo pozbawienia wolności do roku." Przekreślenie flagi może jest społecznie szkodliwe w mniejszym stopniu niż np. jej publiczne spalenie jednakże wypełnia znamiona ww. czynu zabronionego pod groźbą kary. Co do przekreślenia nazwy "Polska" to zależy od interpretacji ale można by uznać to za wypełnienie znamion czynu zabronionego opisanego w art. 133 KK (na pewno byłoby tak w czasach II RP gdy przyjmowano bardzo szeroką definicję znieważenia Rzeczypospolitej). P.S. Nie opuszczam żadnych zajęć. Poznaniak (talk) 11:50, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
- Bez obrazy, ale zdecydowanie za bardzo nadinterpretowałeś artykuł 137. § 1 i 133 KK. Modlę się tylko, aby po studiach bardziej realnie zacząłeś spostrzegać świat. Powinieneś zrozumieć jedno (pewnie już to wiesz, ale napiszę): w dzisiejszych czasach wszystko można podpiąć pod złamanie jakiegoś artykułu prawnego lub konstytucyjnego, wszystko: od pokazania języka innej osobie (...) po nieprzyjęcie kobiety do szpitala jako dawcę spermy - na wszystko można naciągnąć jakiś paragraf. Dobra, skończmy już tę rozmowę. LUCPOL (talk) 12:27, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
- Proszę bardzo: "Art. 137. § 1. Kto publicznie znieważa, niszczy, uszkadza lub usuwa godło, sztandar, chorągiew, banderę, flagę lub inny znak państwowy, podlega grzywnie, karze ograniczenia wolności albo pozbawienia wolności do roku." Przekreślenie flagi może jest społecznie szkodliwe w mniejszym stopniu niż np. jej publiczne spalenie jednakże wypełnia znamiona ww. czynu zabronionego pod groźbą kary. Co do przekreślenia nazwy "Polska" to zależy od interpretacji ale można by uznać to za wypełnienie znamion czynu zabronionego opisanego w art. 133 KK (na pewno byłoby tak w czasach II RP gdy przyjmowano bardzo szeroką definicję znieważenia Rzeczypospolitej). P.S. Nie opuszczam żadnych zajęć. Poznaniak (talk) 11:50, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
- Tak więc zacytuj tu ten artykuł który mówi że komputerowe przekreślenie flagi polskiej jest jej profanacją i jest czynem zabronionym. Przepraszam, że z góry oskarżyłem cię o kłamstwo ale twoją pierwszą wypowiedź uznałem za absurd podobny do tego jak oskarżenie kogoś za próbę morderstwa za to że krzywo na kogoś popatrzył. Pomiędzy profanacją flagi czyli jej opluciem/"skałowieniem" (lub podobnymi), spaleniem, zdeptaniem a zwykłym oficjalnym przekreśleniem w formie elektronicznej jest duża różnica. Przekreślenie czegokolwiek, w tym flag, nazw np.
- Tak się składa, że studiuję prawo. Swoim czynem wypełniłeś ustawowe znamiona czynu zabronionego określonego w art. 137. § 1 (Dz. U. z 1997 r. Nr 88 poz. 553 z późn. zm.) i proszę nie zarzucaj mi kłamstwa. Poznaniak (talk) 18:52, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
- Lie! Znieważenie to co innego. Lepiej poznaj prawo i to co jest znieważeniem, później się wypowiadaj. PS: I ask about opinions not-Poles. Voting/Statement from Poles in this subject is nonsense. LUCPOL (talk) 16:41, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
- What do you support? The deletion or the image? J.smith (talk) 17:51, 11 October 2008 (UTC)Thanks for the clarification. --J.smith (talk) 18:16, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
{{Vk}}- Commons has no NPOV requirement. See Commons:Project scope/Neutral point of view. J.smith (talk) 17:51, 11 October 2008 (UTC)- I've been thinking about this a bit and I'm having a hard time seeing how this (and about 25% of the images in the anti-cat) are within our scope. What value do they bring to the project? Is there any wiki that would have a use for this image and in what context? J.smith (talk) 08:58, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
- Probably, we to should delete whole category. 100% images in this category is POV. LUCPOL (talk) 09:33, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
- I've been thinking about this a bit and I'm having a hard time seeing how this (and about 25% of the images in the anti-cat) are within our scope. What value do they bring to the project? Is there any wiki that would have a use for this image and in what context? J.smith (talk) 08:58, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
- Delete according to polish law this is profanation of Flag of Republic of Poland. --JDavid (talk) 18:59, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
- Comment I didn't realize Poland had laws regarding their flag. It might still be ok for us to host the images here. We host some images illegal in Germany and the German Wikipedia does not use the images. Can you point me to an English translation of the law so I can study it further? Even if it's in polish, a computer translation might be enough. J.smith (talk) 19:54, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Poles - how always. How many yet will come Poles to vote here? I ask for neutral users (not from Poland). Opinion from Poland is already well-known. LUCPOL (talk) 21:23, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
- If I was polish I would take offense to your comment. I recommend retracting it immediately. J.smith (talk) 23:39, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
- Delete I am not sure if X-ing of national flag can be named its profanation. For me profanation of flag could be burning, trampling, tearing etc. Crossing it is only not polite and rather difficult to accept (as POV), but might be not penalized. But from the other side, in the Category:Anti_logos
we don't have any national flag: American, German, British, Iranian, Israeli...(I've uploaded them just for test) Would be it possible, Poland is most hateful coutry of the world? Julo (talk) 00:06, 12 October 2008 (UTC) - Delete Hateful stuff should be deleted from Commons. - Darwinek (talk) 09:41, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
- Comment This not "Hateful". LUCPOL (talk) 10:23, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Far from being hateful, the flag is being used on the Wikipedia to express opposition to Polish nationalism rather than Poles or Poland. The Commons is not censored. --Simonxag (talk) 10:38, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
- Well, ok. If you accept this kind of expressing somebody's opposition, what will you do with this kind of expression
Image:Schlesien crossed.png? Julo (talk) 18:23, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
- Well, ok. If you accept this kind of expressing somebody's opposition, what will you do with this kind of expression
- Delete all--Orlovic (talk) 19:59, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Oh dammit, another public over-reaction of fluffy sensitiveness. This is not racist in itself! "Encourages hatred" is not a reason, it's a joke. Seriously - if that would be an argument, you'd have to censor 95% of the world's press. Guys, please think about that for more than five seconds, then loads of deletion debates would be spare. You MAY consider necessity, but you MUST NOT consider feelings. This is an encyclopedia, not a forum. For this request reason: KEEP. • Lirion (Λιριων, Лирион, ليريون) wtf? • 00:37, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
- I don't it understand: you vote to "keep" here, and in Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Israel flag crossed.png - to delete. Be more consequent. Or should I draw more national flags crossed? Julo (talk) 10:43, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
- Keep I do not find this image offending. Beau (talk) 15:07, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
- Keep all, they are offensive but censorship is more offensive. Commons isn't censored for good reason! Anti-logos are absolutely within scope. If there are issues with how the images are used (which I don't think there is, but it's hypothetically possible) then we can discuss that separately - the solution won't involve deleting the images. — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 20:44, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
![[2]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image%3AGruentensee_de.jpg&diff=15185943&oldid=15177763){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
Proposal
[edit]
I will agree on removal this image but together with other anti-countries/states etc images:
LUCPOL (talk) 09:12, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
- Delete all --Orlovic (talk) 18:31, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
- I'm fine with deleting these images as well, but I think we should have a wider discussion as this is basically a new application of COM:SCOPE. Maybe we should move this to the village pump? J.smith (talk) 18:44, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
Actually, Image:Anti-Communist.png is an anti-ideology symbol, and is not against any one particular nation. AnonMoos (talk) 20:12, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
- No, this Image:Anti-Communist.png is really crossed flag of USRR. Anti-ideology symbol this is: Image:Anti-Socialist-Symbol.svg and Image:Nno.jpg. LUCPOL (talk) 21:10, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
- No it is not the flag of the USSR crossed. The flag of the USSR had a small hammer and sickle in the upper left, accompanied by a hollow yellow star, while this image obviously has the emblem throughout the flag, and no star. AnonMoos (talk) 21:31, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
- ...and USSR does not exist any more, i.e. this symbol is not manipulation of official state flag Julo (talk) 10:50, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
- Keep - potential usage is not a reason to delete them. It seems to me they, mostly, have some sort of value within scope. -mattbuck (Talk) 03:09, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This is a renomination due to the diversity of comments at the undeletion request (and perhaps above as well). Please note that I do not care about the fate of this image. --O (谈 • висчвын) 00:40, 05 June 2008 (GMT)
- Hooray! Here we go again! Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 03:56, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
- Delete The model has not provided any permission to OTRS per Commons:Photographs of identifiable people. There can be no question that this is a private place, and her consent cannot be assumed. Don't bother with the usual argument that "she gave permission for the photo as she knew it was being taken": that's not the point. The point is whether she gave consent for the image to be publicly released under cc-by-sa-2.0 and posted here. Where is the evidence for that? --MichaelMaggs 05:56, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
- Keep we refused Ribi's DR about Klashorst's pictures as for the "privacy" argument. So I wonder if that rule makes sense! Plus it had been posted on Flickr so I would assume that she gave her consent to be published there, so why not here? The rest is no subject of discussion: even if the picture is not artistic, there's no reason to delete this "erotic" nude and not all the other nudes we have. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 06:05, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
- Well, it is not good rely on the precedent of one wrong decision to make another. The requirement for consent in such cases is clear from Commons:Photographs of identifiable people, and we have no evidence at all that she consented either to the publication under cc-by-sa-2.0 or to the uploading here or to Flikr. --MichaelMaggs 06:13, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
- Delete That is too rude to be on here. Tharnton345 06:29, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
- This is not a valid reason. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 07:28, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
- Delete No model release. Lupo 07:11, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
- YEP, that seems to be fair. Who has an fickr-adult-account to ask her for the permission? Mutter Erde 07:35, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Comment Do you really think she didn't gave her consent? On her Flickr profile, there's this link (caution, porn and erotic content). So? Isn't it possible sometimes to assume good faith about the consent? It's actually because of an equivalent reason that we kept Klashorst's pictures even if some look private: because he's a known artist/photographer so we assumed that he asked consent from his models. Well, since there's a website of this lady, I think we may assume that she gave consent. A bit like Image:Keeani Lei 6.jpg, which is a photograph of a porn actress on a bed (intimacy, right?) --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 08:01, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
- Hi, I have no flickr-ID. But if this permission is necessary to end this discussion, so give her a note. She might be interested too, what some young guys are thinking about an "old" woman. @ Susan: For me, you are looking very good. And I love your pose. Greetings from good old Germany. Mutter Erde 10:00, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
- It has nothing to do with her age; quit raising this red herring. As Rama put it, "the photograph is technically naive and crude [and] the model assumes a vulgar position akin to pornographic clichés [...] I see very well why we would distinguish between the numerous nudes we have in store and this one." With that said, if Mutter Erde wants to keep this around so badly (and the crusade he's gone on to keep this is quite startling; one can only presume he needs a little "happy time" every now and then and Commons is the only site with "MILF" pictures that gets past parental filtering ;)), then Keep it. If only because I want to see this discussion killed for good. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 10:37, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you. Our western world gets elder and elder and on the other hand the male part is more and more bored by these young chicks with and without their fake tits. The MILFs are comming, but a repository as commons has no pics (and currently no Category:MILFs for them). This is really bad. Regards Mutter Erde 09:32, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
- It has nothing to do with her age; quit raising this red herring. As Rama put it, "the photograph is technically naive and crude [and] the model assumes a vulgar position akin to pornographic clichés [...] I see very well why we would distinguish between the numerous nudes we have in store and this one." With that said, if Mutter Erde wants to keep this around so badly (and the crusade he's gone on to keep this is quite startling; one can only presume he needs a little "happy time" every now and then and Commons is the only site with "MILF" pictures that gets past parental filtering ;)), then
- Hi, I have no flickr-ID. But if this permission is necessary to end this discussion, so give her a note. She might be interested too, what some young guys are thinking about an "old" woman. @ Susan: For me, you are looking very good. And I love your pose. Greetings from good old Germany. Mutter Erde 10:00, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per comments in the previous deletion request. Despite assertions at the undeletion request, this is a matter of scope. Commons is here to host images that may be useful for some project. Both pornographic and anatomical aspects have representation in alternative, technically superior (composition, lighting, etc) images. There is no reasonably expected present or future use. The issue of personality rights is also a concern. We should not be assuming or speculating on the model’s permission. The quality of this image is decidedly unprofessional and AGF, by definition, does not apply and is not extended outside of Wiki. What has happened with past images up for deletion is irrelevant; we’re reviewing/discussing this image against policies/guidelines; it needs to stand or fall on its own merit, or lack thereof. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 12:23, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
- Both pornographic and anatomical aspects have representation in alternative, technically superior (composition, lighting, etc) images > do we have other MILF erotic nudes? I don't think so. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 15:06, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
- Age has nothing to do with it. This is a nude woman, nothing more. Go ahead and add this image to a MILF article on any Wiki project and see how long it stays. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 15:11, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
- Both pornographic and anatomical aspects have representation in alternative, technically superior (composition, lighting, etc) images > do we have other MILF erotic nudes? I don't think so. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 15:06, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
- Delete No model release. Personality and privacy rights issues. Questionable usefulness and what I subjectively consider outside our scope. Rocket000 18:44, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
- Delete why the second bite at the apple in such a short time. The first DR was perfectly fine and consensus seems clear. Please close this as "remain deleted" or explain satisfactorily why this matter was brought up again. For the record I think we improperly closed some of the Klashorst images. ++Lar: t/c 11:20, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
- Comment I think some may misunderstant what I write. I personally don't care about that picture. I'm trying to be the most objective I can and I'm also trying to find any coherence about nude pictures on Commons - which I don't see at all! Delete it (or keep it deleted, may I say?) if you think it's better, I won't be mad about it. But it may be time to have a better and more general discussion about nudity and sexuality on Commons. Because we might all be able to see there's a big problem of coherence! I would understand arguments like those used here when we'd find a better coherence. That's my main concern. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 12:32, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Lets be absolutely clear: nudity is no reason to delete from the Commons. We have to obey US criminal law, but that doesn't seem at all relevant here. However we have our own rule that a photo of a person in a private situation (especially if intimate or embarrassing) must be consented to by that person. We are accepting photos by recognized artists like Klashorst because these are posed with models, not private shots. I would have voted to delete this picture but [5] (found by following the link to Flickr) shows that it is no private moment but this woman's hobby. --Simonxag 13:15, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
- Well that's exaclty what I said: privacy is not concerned here so if we're coherent we may not delete it. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 13:27, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks to Simonxag for this nice site. Probably she would donate some more of her pics? As this, a soft one, or this, with a contented smile, or this , following Marilyn's example Mutter Erde 14:18, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
- Mutter Erde, that kind of comment won't help your cause! Try to be less provocative and more constructive if you want your opinion to be more respected. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 14:23, 6 June 2008 (UTC) (BTW I gave the same link before Simonxag!)
- Cool it. There's only one good argument in the air - she's lying on her private bed - so ask her for a permission and close the debate. No reason to get exited.
- Btw:I just have noticed, that the links I have chosen are not working. That really was not my intention. Shame on me. Sorry Mutter Erde 19:44, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per Elcobbola's comments and per existing consensus of the previous deletion discussion and the undeletion discussion. The keep arguments, in the instances where there actually are arguments, appear to ignore the concerns raised (missing model consent form and what use in a Wikimedia project the image is supposed to serve), instead responding with with counter-arguments to arguments which have not actually been made, or with other stuff exists-based arguments. —LX (talk, contribs) 13:45, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Per personality rights. If the person would like to release this image to commons, it would be best if she contact OTRS due to legal issues. miranda 21:50, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
- Delete - Per Lar, this was plenty clear previously. Delete again. – Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 17:59, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
- Keep We should be very careful about such images, but per Simonxag's reasoning it is quite clear that this woman has given consent to put this on the web. And she is definitely adult. -- Bryan (talk to me) 18:04, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
- Delete I stand by my word as on the other DR about this image. I've also read this DR and see other issues raised here about this image. Lar and Rocket pretty much said it too. --Kanonkas(talk) 18:11, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
comment For a best definition I propose that subjective details like beauty,including utility,that "I think" can be a personal concept,are not neutral.The problem is now,exactly, what is missing on this image to be here on commons.An OTRS permission?or meaby something more easy to find?Confidentially,I want to say that I like this image that I think ЭLСОВВОLД can't be find any other like this on commons.Do you know another one here? Vicond
- There's no impetus on me to provide anything; I trust you know how categories work. Scope requires images be useful for a project; what article in what project would you expect this to be useful now or in the future? MILF has been suggested, but no consideration appears to have been given to the fact that, although Wiki is not censored, projects generally do not use images which are more explicit than absolutely necessary. As I said above, go ahead and add this image to a MILF article and see whether it sticks. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 15:41, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
I can understand your wievpoint but I want to say that commons have a lot of images that seemingly don't have any utility, but maybe can help to complement the main information of an specific article.I'm propposed ,in the other DR,a new category for old womens.So,I believe that it can be a commons's objective too.
PD:I don't know what means MILF.Could you explain me,please? Vicond
- @Vicond: 8 MILF-interwikis: da:Milf, de:Mom I’d Like to Fuck, es:MILF, fr:MILF, it:MILF, no:MILF, sv:Milf + en:MILF with other meanings :-)
- There seems to be a little misunderstanding of the function of commons. Commons is not only a repository for around 750 wikipedia projects, but especially a gallery for print houses. Otherwise this policy would make no sense: "Generally speaking, image quality and resolution should be as high as possible so images can be used in high-quality printouts, for example" (Source: Commons:First_steps/Quality_and_description#Images) Mutter Erde 22:02, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
- Commons having a lot of images with seemingly no utility is not a reason to keep any particular one that has no utility... see w:WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS... that's from en:wp but the principle applies here. ++Lar: t/c 14:44, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
- Just for the record: Something like this ("This is an essay; it contains the advice and/or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. It is not a policy or guideline, and editors are not obliged to follow it...", no interwikis) would be deleted on German wikipedia within 5 minutes. Mutter Erde (talk) 10:21, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
- Commons having a lot of images with seemingly no utility is not a reason to keep any particular one that has no utility... see w:WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS... that's from en:wp but the principle applies here. ++Lar: t/c 14:44, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Pr ADs previous close and a lot of comments in this and the previous DR. Finn Rindahl (talk) 09:27, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. For real. Please ask me if you want some reasoning. --O (谈 • висчвын) 17:37, 18 June 2008 (GMT)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Really poor quality picture. It isn't used in any project. Very light description. For me, it's out of scope. Pymouss Tchatcher - 18:32, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
- Comment I didn't see that it was the 3rd that this image is nominated for deletion. But, perhaps, it was not the same before. --Pymouss Tchatcher - 18:37, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, this is not the same image. Эlcobbola talk 19:10, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
- Keep them both Mutter Erde (talk) 19:15, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
- Delete unless some use is found. -Nard the Bard 21:09, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Out of scope. Yann (talk) 21:49, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Uploads by Tecnocrata
[edit]Images of Tecnocrata (talk · contribs) are suspected to be copyright violations.
Police Images by Technocrata are highly suspicious, there are some uploads using {{PD-BrazilGov}} with a proper source, this images are not nominated here, only the own-work images:
- File:GRT.jpg
- File:Asa Branca.jpg
- File:ANPol.jpg
- File:Notebook.jpg
- File:Denarc.jpg
- File:Policehelicopterone.jpg
- File:Female police officer..jpg
- File:Blindadopoliciacivil.jpg
Old image without a correct source, former claiming authorship:
"various" images, highly suspicious:
maybe self-made images, not suspicious, made by the same camera modell:
- File:Palacete Modesto Leal.jpg
- File:GuardaMunicipal.jpg
- File:PalacioGuanabara.jpg
- File:Papeldeembrulho.jpg
--Martin H. (talk) 22:51, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Deleted per Martin H. The first image has apparently been taken from here. Even the "maybe self-made images" seem to have been copied from Flickr. I found Palacete Modesto Leal.jpg in the Google image preview which pointed to this page which is meanwhile deleted. In summary, I do not trust any of the uploader's claims. --AFBorchert (talk) 17:54, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Uploads by EUDOXIO
[edit]Images uploaded by EUDOXIO (talk · contribs) are suspected copyright violations, the images are firs looking suspicious to me, beacuse the are various in stile and metadata, i nominated per Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Helicopter-MG.jpg a few images that are sourced to brasilian police/gov, but after this edit to one of his nominated images i belive that all his contributions are copyright violations.
self-made Police and firefighter images are very suspicious to be copyright violations because of the resourcing (see above):
- File:CJSPDH 2 001.jpg
- File:Astra.jpg
- File:RJ police car.jpg
- File:Cópia de 080827 145427.jpg
- File:CasaMarquesLavradio.jpg - same image like above, but: different date, very confusing.
- File:PCBahia2.jpg
- File:PCBahia1.jpg
- File:Bicentenário.jpg (200 years)
- File:Museu-bombeiros Joinville.jpg
- File:Viaturas-bombeiros Joinville.jpg
- File:Flag-bombeiros Joinville.jpg (unclear: PD-BrazilGov ?)
- File:Policiamento.jpg
- File:SUAT - Perú.jpg
- File:Patrol3.jpg
- File:Aeroperu.jpg
- File:PCESpolicecar.jpg
- File:PCES1.jpg
- File:CORE helicopter.jpg
- File:Astra da Polícia - Prédio Chefia.jpg
- File:GM-RIO.jpg
- File:Milice77.jpg
Police from Canada images, missing licence, copied from a websource
Images from various objects and cameras
- File:AvChile.jpg
- File:Cadeia Pública.jpg
- File:Museu Senador Pinheiro Machado.jpg
- File:Certidão de Batismo - Senador Pinheiro Machado 2.jpg
- File:Medaillon.jpg (Medaillon, 3D object)
- File:Monumento Pinheiro Machado 013.jpg
- File:Domingosmartins.jpg
- File:Old police headquarter - RJ.jpg
Old images without a correct source
Stamps
--Martin H. (talk) 23:34, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
The uplader left a comment at Martin's talk page regarding this DR. Among some misconceptions regarding the copyright of some of his uploads I found following statement:
- Existem dois tipos de imagens:
- 1. as que eu fotografei com as minhas câmeras fotográficas;
- 2. as fotos reproduzidas dos sites policiais citados, já que os artigos que escrevo são sobre as polícias.
In my rough translation: There exist two types of images: 1. those I've photographed with my own cameras; 2. photos copied from cited police sites as the articles I am writing are about the police. The rest of his arguments, as far as I am able to understand it, try to make the point that these photographs support the work of the government. This sounds to me as if he is thinking in direction of a "fair use" but he does not seem to be aware that photographs at Commons must be free in conformance to COM:L.
Because of this distinction I started to take a look at those photographs that are claimed as own work. Here I found quite a significant number of different cameras or utilities:
- Roxio PhotoSuite (File:Milice77.jpg, File:Policiamento.jpg, File:PCBahia1.jpg, File:PCBahia2.jpg, File:CJSPDH 2 001.jpg)
- LG Electronics KF510 (File:GM-RIO.jpg, File:CasaMarquesLavradio.jpg, File:Cópia de 080827 145427.jpg, File:RJ police car.jpg, File:Astra.jpg, File:AvChile.jpg, File:Medaillon.jpg) (one of them appears to be a dupe)
- PENTAX K10D (File:Astra da Polícia - Prédio Chefia.jpg)
- Samsung S630 (File:PCES1.jpg, File:PCESpolicecar.jpg)
- Canon PowerShot S3 (File:Aeroperu.jpg, File:SUAT - Perú.jpg, File:Old police headquarter - RJ.jpg, File:Cadeia Pública.jpg) (the first two seem to be photographs taken from a newspaper or illustrated journal and by this derived work)
- Canon EOS DIGITAL REBEL XT (File:Viaturas-bombeiros Joinville.jpg)
- Sony Ericsson K790i (File:Domingosmartins.jpg)
- Vivicam3915 (File:Monumento Pinheiro Machado 013.jpg)
- No EXIF data (File:Patrol3.jpg, File:Museu-bombeiros Joinville.jpg, File:Bicentenário.jpg (logo/poster), File:Museu Senador Pinheiro Machado.jpg)
- Adobe Photoshop 7.0 (File:Flag-bombeiros Joinville.jpg) (is not a photograph but a flag)
These are, in summary, seven different cameras and two different photo suites. It may be very well the case that some of these were indeed photographed by the uploader but the whole lot does not inspire trust.
I have no indication found that Brazil stamps are PD, see Commons:Stamps/Public domain. If they are indeed free, this should be verified.
Quite a number of images uses {{PD-BrazilGov}} for photographs despite the point that this tag covers Brazilian official symbols only.
Some images use {{PD-Canada/Gov}}, a template which never existed.
In conclusion I've decided to follow Martin H. and to delete the whole nominated lot. EUDOXIO is free to file an undeletion request for those images which were actually his work and which are not derived from someone's else work, if there are any. --AFBorchert (talk) 00:57, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
As the English Wikipedia article on Oswald states, this photo was taken by Marina Oswald, therefore she owns the copyright, not the federal government, even though it is available in the Library of Congress Hux (talk) 17:51, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
- Yes but did she ever register the copyright with the U.S. copyright office before allowing it to be published? Highly doubtful. Therefore this image is {{PD-US-no notice}} and the tagging should be changed. -Nard the Bard 17:58, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
- Comment I suspect Nard the Bard is correct here. What was the original publication of this? I know it was published fairly soon after the Kennedy assasination. Was TIME magazine the first to pubish it, a government report, or elsewhere? -- Infrogmation (talk) 16:08, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
- Image appears to have first been published by Life in February, 1964 with a copyright notice[6] (I searched the copyright archives and Life is totally on point with their registrations, unlike, say, Time). The Warren Commission report did not come out until November, 1964. Now, published with notice does not necessarily mean this is copyrighted. If you search the archives for periodical registrations, you'll find authors separately registered their articles for copyright, on top of the base magazine copyright. (ie the magazine notice got you notice, but you still needed registration)[7]. The LOC entry for this image[8] says they have no information on copyright registration for it. While not proof this image is PD, it is highly suggestive. -Nard the Bard 19:04, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
- The photos were submitted as evidence to the police, at which point, they became property of the government. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.160.131.245 (talk • contribs)
- Is there any indication that when physical photos originating elsewhere held as evidence the copyright is somehow transfered to the government at the same time? -- Infrogmation (talk) 16:39, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
- I think that last comment can safely be ignored. Hollywood would probably have kicked up a fuss if they lost copyright every time someone got charged for stealing a DVD and it was supplied as evidence. /Lokal_Profil 19:08, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
- Delete Due to legal uncertainty of the copyright status of this image. It may be PD, but it was also published with copyright notice, and it would take a court case to definitively say if the rights were lost. As Commons:Licensing says, it doesn't matter if the copyright owner cannot be found or does not care, as long as no proper license or public domain status exists, then we cannot accept it as free. File:Lho-133A.jpg, an alternate version of this image, should also be deleted. -Nard the Bard 03:08, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
Deleted per Nard arguments. MichaelMaggs (talk) 08:36, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
