Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2009/02/03
 |
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}
I don't think the serie Trapped in the Closet or the cover are free. --Okki (talk) 07:57, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Copyvio. Yann (talk) 13:57, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
out of scope Lycaon (talk) 12:53, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Out of scope. Yann (talk) 13:56, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
I uploaded this selfmade photography using this wikipedia account years ago. Now, I would like to have this photography deleted. It's not of encyclopaedic value and furthermore not used in an article anyways. Beginnerfuchs (talk) 15:39, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
- Not used, user request. Lycaon (talk) 15:46, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Lycaon (talk) 15:46, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Replaced by vector File:Fabrique_Nationale_5.7_x_28mm.svg Morgan Phoenix (talk) 16:08, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Oppose deletion, see discussion page.--Francis Flinch (talk) 17:07, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Support deletion see discussion page. Morgan Phoenix (talk) 18:07, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Keep In use. Just tag it with {{NowSVG}}. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:22, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
- Kept please see Commons:Deletion requests/Superseded. Multichill (talk) 23:30, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Replaced by vector File:001ID-CSIB.svg Morgan Phoenix (talk) 16:19, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
support deletion: The vector of this graphic takes an 80th of the space of the raster without any degradation of quality; in fact, the quality is enhanced by making it resolution independent.Morgan Phoenix (talk) 19:16, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
- Kept please see Commons:Deletion requests/Superseded. Multichill (talk) 23:25, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Replaced by vector File:Toua Yuai Jigyo Kumiai.svg Morgan Phoenix (talk) 16:27, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
- Keep In use. Just tag it with {{NowSVG}}. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:18, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
- Kept please see Commons:Deletion requests/Superseded. Multichill (talk) 23:36, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
out of COM:SCOPE; very blurry image, inside an office, probably violating privacy, and used for nonsense article (Three faze) on :en. Túrelio (talk) 19:58, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Uploaded only to be used in an attack article on English Wikipedia. Edgar181 (talk) 20:28, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Duplicate of new image with different file type: File:Col levin crandall 125th ny vol.jpg ---- btphelps (talk) (contribs) 07:16, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Lycaon (talk) 08:01, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
Personal photo, outside project scope Stifle (talk) 16:23, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
- Duplicate of File:Tameko Wood.jpg Evrik (talk) 16:33, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Lycaon (talk) 08:54, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
Screenshot of copyrighted software. Tabercil (talk) 22:36, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Deleted, jZip is a proprietary software. Programs based on LGPL softwares are not necessarily free (the same applies to File:JZipmynd1.JPG). →Diti the penguin — 10:56, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
Screenshot of copyrighted software. Tabercil (talk) 22:36, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Deleted, jZip is a proprietary software. Programs based on LGPL softwares are not necessarily free (the same applies to File:JZipmynd1.JPG). →Diti the penguin — 10:56, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
cancel 220.104.249.108 13:25, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
- Keep, no valid reasons given to delete, and no good reason to delete the file exists anyway. Nyttend (talk) 16:44, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
- Note to admin — when this was filed, it was never posted on the log; I've added it to the log so that it doesn't remain forgotten forever. Nyttend (talk) 16:48, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
kept Julo (talk) 15:04, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
Looks like a screencap, and the black box on the image makes me think that was where a screen bug was. Tabercil (talk) 05:37, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Delete all uploads by Punkyxpatin (talk · contribs), they all look like copyvios. Lupo 15:38, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. — Mike.lifeguard 03:39, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
1. uploader's error. 2. TW-cc-by-nc-nd-2.0. Zanhsieh (talk) 03:27, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Deleted by Túrelio: Does not allow for commercial use and/or derivative works
out of COM:SCOPE; personal photo of obviously non-notable person, image of no use. Túrelio (talk) 19:55, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
- Delete Agree. WayneRay (talk) 20:26, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Out of scope. --Leoboudv (talk) 01:35, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
deleted
low res jpeg, no info, no cat 84.98.21.18 00:11, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
- Keep, in use. --Tryphon (talk) 00:51, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
- Keep I was going to say "not sure what you'd use this for", but if it's in use, I guess there's something...At any rate: why delete something like this, even if it weren't in use? Although I can't immediately think of a use for it, there's surely something out there for which to use it, and there's absolutely nothing wrong with the image itself. Nyttend (talk) 16:50, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Kept. In use for an educational purpose, thus in scope. ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 23:09, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
low res jpeg, no info, no cat 84.98.21.18 01:09, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
- Keep Please do not nominate this kind of images when they are in use. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 07:12, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
- Keep I was going to say "not sure what you'd use this for", but if it's in use, I guess there's something...At any rate: why delete something like this, even if it weren't in use? Although I can't immediately think of a use for it, there's surely something out there for which to use it, and there's absolutely nothing wrong with the image itself. Nyttend (talk) 16:50, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Pieter Kuiper: sorry, there must be something I don't understand here. I often get this answer, 'in use', but I don't see where!
Nothing links to this page, as far as I can see.
Nyttend: supposing it is not used, it looks out of COM:SCOPE to me ('Must_be_realistically_useful_for_an_educational_purpose') since it is not only impossible to guess what it is (because of no description / category), AND also impossible to find by anyone who might know and need it (because of the same)!
Additionally it is contrary to recommendations about graphics quality and format: it is a really very low res and highly compressed jpg, instead of either png or svg.
Anyway, I'll stop requesting deletions now.
I am just going through un-descripted files, trying to fix a few as I can, but 9/10 of them (20000 +) are in my opinion ;-) hopelessly useless, either in terms of quality, size, scope, filename, information, copyright, privacy, and anything you care to mention.
This would not happen if it was made compulsory to fill all the requested information fields when uploading.
Thanks anyway for the feedback!
84.97.149.205 23:57, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
- At the top of the image page (File:G4.JPG) there is a tab "check usage" (next to "edit", "history", "watch"). Often usage and captions can provide descriptions and categories. It is a rather hopeless task, but there is a categorization robot that helps. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 07:07, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
- Got it, thanks! 84.98.21.145 14:58, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
Kept. In use for an educational purpose, thus in scope. ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 23:09, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Duplicate: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:GIPE25_-_Eclair_(by).jpg 84.98.21.18 01:19, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted. Avi (talk) 17:18, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Out of focus Erik Baas (talk) 01:34, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
- Delete Image is almost useless sadly. --Leoboudv (talk) 06:09, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Avi (talk) 17:19, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
Wrong tag. This is not an "official congressional portrait", and we have no reason to believe this is pre-1923 (LOC site says "after 1933"). A really free image of this man is available. Damiens.rf 04:45, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
- Pre-1930, according to this. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 07:06, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
- Still, it should be pre-1923 to be PD. --Damiens.rf 16:53, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
en:Henry Ossawa Tanner died in 1937, pre-1930 but no reason to believe it's published pre-1923. delete unless pre-1923 is proven. sугсго 08:22, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. As possible as it is this was published pre-1923, I cannot find anything more clear (online) than the pre-1930 statement in the captions, which, worse case scenario (published with notice and renewal), would have this under copyright until 2024. If clear evidence of either pre-1923 publishing or no renewal of copyright, can be found, this should be undeleted. -- Avi (talk) 17:37, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
Both licences don't apply here Multichill (talk) 05:27, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Unknown licensing. ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 23:12, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
Not sure where this image is from, but a higher quality version can be found at here and there's no evidence that the uploader actually owns the copyright. Ytoyoda (talk) 06:00, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Avi (talk) 17:39, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
Low quality. OH seems a bitmap which scales poorly. Alternatives available: File:Isobutanol-2D-skeletal.png Rifleman 82 (talk) 06:23, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
- Keep It is in use.
Improve the svg and upload a new version./Pieter Kuiper (talk) 07:00, 3 February 2009 (UTC)- If we agree to delete, we can replace it with file:Isobutanol-2D-skeletal.png on the other wikis before deleting? --Rifleman 82 (talk) 07:24, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
- Keep, nothing wrong with this SVG, OH is not a bitmap:
<text fill="#000000" font-family="helvetica" font-size="12pt" x="264.3" y="133.248818898">OH</text>- The default size is really small, so rendering is a bit strange, but it renders fine at higher resolutions. --Tryphon (talk) 08:55, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
- Strange... at 200px it looks odd [1]. 200 px is the default for the en-wp's en:Template:Chembox, which is why I originally brought this to deletion requests. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 14:00, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
- Sometimes fonts are not rendered properly by the wikimedia SVG engine, and converting fonts to paths might help (especially when the font is not standard, which should not be the case here, although it is possible that it doesn't find an exact match). --Tryphon (talk) 15:04, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
- I just uploaded a new version, and it works fine (you need to force a reload to get rid of the cached version, or try 201px). Now the file I uploaded might not be exactly accurate, because I don't have helvetica fonts installed on this computer; but feel free to reupload an improved version. --Tryphon (talk) 15:17, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
- Strange... at 200px it looks odd [1]. 200 px is the default for the en-wp's en:Template:Chembox, which is why I originally brought this to deletion requests. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 14:00, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
![[1]](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/05/Isobutanol.svg/200px-Isobutanol.svg.png){kind=link}
- Keep how svg could be "low quality" ? The new version is fine. VIGNERON * discut. 15:31, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
- Comment Thanks, Tryphon. Looks perfect now. I have no further objections to this image. Vigneron: You'll be surprised. Many low quality chem images are SVGs, while many publication-quality chem images are PNGs. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 16:40, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
Kept. Avi (talk) 17:40, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
Derivative of copyrighted work Peter17 (talk) 06:23, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Derivative work of copyrighted movie ad. ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 23:14, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
Converted from speedy. Was claimed copyvio from http://www.josephcaoforcongress.com/pg-80-11-about.aspx. Uploader makes sockpuppetry accusations and claims "paperwork on file with the Wikipedia Foundation to refute the [copyvio] claim".
- Delete unless a OTRS release from one of the two e-mail addresses given here is received. I highly doubt that this is a U.S. governmental work. Lupo 08:47, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
- DeleteHello, I am from the congressman's office. We respectfully request that you remove this picture and it's false copyright claims. This picture is copyrighted, all rights reserved. Thanks-Showwould40q (talk) 01:39, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
Kept. OTRS permission on file. I will tag the image accordingly. -- Avi (talk) 17:49, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
source [2] claims (c) for this photo 67.180.108.22 09:04, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Avi (talk) 17:55, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
duplicate of File:Kathakali of kerala.jpg, which is in better resolution Dobromila (talk) 09:49, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Scaled-down version of File:Kathakali of kerala.jpg. ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 23:17, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
The source states that it is a NATO Photo => copyvio High Contrast (talk) 14:17, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. This is [3] and NATO claims sole copyright over all photos in their library. See [4]. Permission for viewing does not equal free use. This could be used, unaltered, on a fair-use project, perhaps, but this is not free use as commons requires. Mr. Cooke's statement of "To the best of my knowledge all military data and images presented in these pages are UNCLASSIFIED, NON-SENSITIVE, and approved for public release" does not address free use either, just permission for display. -- Avi (talk) 18:08, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
![[3]](http://www.nato.int/pictures/database/large/b00379.jpg){kind=link}
unclarity about licensing: Image taken from http://www.rotary.belux.org/nl/download/graphics.shtml.
The disclaimer there [5] states that photos specifically meant to be downloaded (from the "download center" like this image) can be used privately and publicly without needing further permission. But the user has to realise that the files available on www.rotary.belux.org are copyrighted by Rotary International (rotary.org).
They then state that they have full copyright on what's on their site etc.
Whichever way it should be licensed "PD-Self" is incorrect. It might be PD-Old, but we don't know when it was taken / who was the photographer. -- Deadstar (msg) 14:44, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Unknown photographer, image was probably taken between 1900 and 1920, thus not old enough for PD-old. ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 23:21, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
Web resolution, looks to be scanned, obviously posed. I don't really believe this is own work. -mattbuck (Talk) 17:35, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
- Delete I concur with Mattbuck. No description is given. --Leoboudv (talk) 01:36, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Implausible own work claim. ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 23:25, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
Web resolution, looks to be scanned, obviously posed. I don't really believe this is own work. -mattbuck (Talk) 17:35, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Implausible own work claim. ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 23:25, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
No proof of copyright expiration. Copied from somone's blog, no evidence of permission either. TenPoundHammer (talk) 19:45, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Image from the 70s/80s. No reason given why this should be PD. ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 23:28, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
Not PD-textlogo, no permission Multichill (talk) 21:26, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
(oppose deletion): This is not simple geometric shapes and text; this logo includes a crown which is by no meanss a "simple geometric shape." Furthermore, crests such as these take a measure of research and knowledge; in countries where a "sweat of the brow" standard is kept, this is sufficient to defeat the aforementioned argument. In countries where a "work of authorship" (as in the United States) or applied art or "brand identification" (e.g. Germany) standard is required, this graphic also meets such standards. Crests of Heraldry such as as these are very personal, incorporating family or organization history on their creation; they almost meet these standards without a second glance.
However, there is a good argument for Fair Use; it is linked in an article about St. Margaret's Episcopal School (meeting the >=1 article guideline), no free analogue exists, it's of sufficiently low resolution as to prevent use in a commercial situation and also meets minimum extent of use guideline, it's the only non-free content on the page (meeting minimum use guidelines), it is displayed here (previously published guideline), and is a depiction of the school's logo and identifies the article as being about this specific school (encyclopedic value and significance). The final two requirements (limitation of location and image info page) would be satisfied on changing the licensing tag and adding the NOGALLERY tag to the image category.
Discuss. Morgan Phoenix (talk) 23:11, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
- Did you read Commons:Licencing#Material under the fair use clause is not allowed on Commons? Multichill (talk) 23:27, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
- I did not. In light of this, I must then support deletion. Morgan Phoenix (talk) 23:41, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
- You already suplied the fair use rationale, so probably best to move this image to enwp. Multichill (talk) 23:43, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
- An even better solution. Though I wouldn't know how to do that without a step-by-step manual in front of me. I'm just a Wikigraphist who has been trying to specialize in raster-to-vector conversions. Morgan Phoenix (talk) 23:54, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
- You already suplied the fair use rationale, so probably best to move this image to enwp. Multichill (talk) 23:43, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
- I did not. In light of this, I must then support deletion. Morgan Phoenix (talk) 23:41, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Copyrighted logo. ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 23:40, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
copyright info of source:[6] "The copyright for any material created by the author is reserved. Any duplication or use of objects such as images, diagrams, sounds or texts in other electronic or printed publications is not permitted without the author's agreement. " not CC--shizhao (talk) 09:14, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
- The picture is published under Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike 2.5 License. In short: you are free to share and make derivative works of the file under the conditions that you appropriately attribute it, and that you distribute it only under a license identical to this one. There is no need for an agreement of the author, you just have to name him. So what's the problem?--Spolloman (talk) 07:56, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. The uploader is not necessarily Mr. Spalt and cannot license the picture if the source website is claiming full copyright (as it does). If Mr. Spalt sends an e-mail confirming proper licensure to OTRS, the picture can be undeleted. -- Avi (talk) 17:58, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
Kept. Mr. Spalt is sending permission to OTRS. Restored as {{OTRS-pending}} in anticipation of permission. -- Avi (talk) 04:36, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
NATO Photo => not public domain High Contrast (talk) 14:22, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
- It is not exact "NATO photo"; on the website http://www.inetres.com/gp/military/cv/tank/T-72.html we read this photo comes from Multi-National Force-Iraq, Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF) website, and on http://www.mnf-iraq.com/index.php?option=com_frontpage&Itemid=1 we read: All content on MNF-Iraq.com is public domain and may be used freely. Keep Julo (talk) 14:02, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
The image description gives us as source: http://www.inetres.com/gp/military/cv/tank/T-72.html. There is written besides the photo NATO Photo by Major Borkur Gunnarson. This is [7] and NATO claims sole copyright over all photos in their library. See [8]. Permission for viewing does not equal free use. --High Contrast (talk) 17:11, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. The above paragraph is not necessarily correct. Unlike the "b00379.jpg" image from which the above was copied, I cannot find any such T-72 image on NATO's website for 2005. See http://www.nato.int/multi/photos/2005/home.htm. As such, the fact that the image was taken by a NATO officer does not make it ipso facto a NATO image. Nevertheless, "approved for view" is NOT a free use image, and this is deleted until proper permissions can be obtained. -- Avi (talk) 18:15, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
NATO Photo => not public domain High Contrast (talk) 14:22, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
- It is not exact "NATO photo"; on the website http://www.inetres.com/gp/military/cv/tank/T-72.html we read this photo comes from Multi-National Force-Iraq, Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF) website, and on http://www.mnf-iraq.com/index.php?option=com_frontpage&Itemid=1 we read: All content on MNF-Iraq.com is public domain and may be used freely. Keep
Julo (talk) 14:03, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
The image description gives us as source: http://www.inetres.com/gp/military/cv/tank/T-72.html. There is written besides the photo NATO Photo by Major Borkur Gunnarson. This is [9] and NATO claims sole copyright over all photos in their library. See [10]. Permission for viewing does not equal free use. --High Contrast (talk) 17:11, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. The above paragraph is not necessarily correct. Unlike the "b00379.jpg" image from which the above was copied, I cannot find any such T-72 image on NATO's website for 2005. See http://www.nato.int/multi/photos/2005/home.htm. As such, the fact that the image was taken by a NATO officer does not make it ipso facto a NATO image. Nevertheless, "approved for view" is NOT a free use image, and this is deleted until proper permissions can be obtained. -- Avi (talk) 18:17, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
Low quality, obsoleted by File:Isobutanol-2D-skeletal.png Rifleman 82 (talk) 06:21, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 22:26, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
out of COM:SCOPE due to extremely low quality of image. Túrelio (talk) 14:49, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
- Delete. The user confessed on my talk page on pt.wiki (here) that he isn't the author of the pictures uploaded. --Whooligan (talk) 15:15, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
- Delete the user isn't the author of the picture Béria Lima Msg 17:57, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
- Delete Awful. How can we make sure this image is a highway? Filipe RibeiroMsg 18:01, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
- Delete per nom --Jklamo (talk) 04:27, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Out of scope. Yann (talk) 15:20, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
I strongly doubt that this was taken by the uploader himself, who has a history of copyvios. Túrelio (talk) 14:51, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
- Delete. The user confessed on my talk page on pt.wiki (here) that he isn't the author of the pictures uploaded. --Whooligan (talk) 15:15, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Copyvio. Yann (talk) 15:21, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
I uploaded this selfmade photography using this wikipedia account years ago. Now, I would like to have this photography deleted. It's not of encyclopaedic value and furthermore not used in an article anyways. Beginnerfuchs (talk) 15:38, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. User request, poor quality, not used. Yann (talk) 15:24, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
Either it's a company/band logo, in which case copyvio, or it's some sort of personal logo, in which case out of scope. -mattbuck (Talk) 17:47, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
- It's a rock band's logo, according to wikipedia. Could it be {{PD-ineligible}}? Probably borderline, and I don't think it is essential to this article anyway. --Tryphon (talk) 20:00, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Deleted by EugeneZelenko: Copyright violation: Music group logo. Not text only
I'm not sure I believe this is own work, and even if it were, it is such low resolution as to be useless anyway. -mattbuck (Talk) 17:57, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:29, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This category: Iberian Federalismo is not realistically useful for an educational purpose. In the other hand it is true that Portugal remains in the European Union. The full purpose is obvisouly of vandalism or attack against a EU state. Not apropriated to the Politics of Portugal --Miguels
- Iberian federalism or confederalism is a minimal political view and still a current political interest by few people. Check [11] and articles in other wikipedias. Attack against a EU state? Just victimism, that is not an educational purpose, it is not about conquest... U_U' --HansenBCN (talk) 09:55, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Keep minority view but with educational purpose Tm (talk) 01:11, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
I am keeping not understanding why giving place to these subjects in Wikipedia. It is a question of respect for the politics of a country. There is no Iberian Federalism and there was never. Maybe there are separatisms in spain, I think about Catalunya and Basque country. I don't see a logical issue on that Iberian Federalism, meanwhile Portugal is a EU member state, our federation - Europe. It is not rational or reasonable to include personal creations or of thinkers, authors that never had been taught in school, or painters or philosophers... Maybe because there has been always, speaking about Portugal, a country state nation since 1139. So that idea, is just inagination of some that dont't like the picture or the Iberian Peninsula "incomplete". By the way, what would they do about Gibraltar and Andorra? Miguels (talk) 00:01, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
Kept. There are files in this category, so it is obviously useful. --Tryphon (talk) 19:48, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
author is Ray Strong， 2006 death. see [12]. Not PD. --shizhao (talk) 08:59, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
- Note - This image is part of en:Wikipedia:Wikipedia Loves Art. User:Swatjester is the contact for this, and is working on sorting out the permissions. -Aude (talk | contribs) 19:04, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Still no permission; can be undeleted if we ever get one. --Tryphon (talk) 19:53, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
not PD-old: stamp issued 2004, per source 65.96.164.13 15:28, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. (for archival purposes, the source is [13]) Lugusto • ※ 16:10, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
photo of Japanese cruiser with fake Russian flag, from a joke article Deerhunter (talk) 14:32, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Out of scope. Yann (talk) 22:14, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
This image come from this site. Where we can read : Copyright (C) 1996-2004 Michio Sugahara (File:Bee wings comparison.svg is a svg version of the same file). Cdlt, VIGNERON * discut. 14:21, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Obviously copied from given website. ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 23:18, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
I'm the author. Not in use, better duplicate exists as .PNG. --Hellwach (talk) 14:29, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
- Could you please provide the link to the PNG image? --Tryphon (talk) 15:49, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
I'm the author of the original upload. File is unused, better duplicate exists as .PNG. --Hellwach (talk) 14:31, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
existence of a better version as .png. this one is unused --Hellwach (talk) 14:34, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
- Try using {{superseded}}. --Tony Wills (talk) 11:26, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
better version exists as .png. this one is unused. i am the author --Hellwach (talk) 14:36, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
- Try using {{superseded}}. --Tony Wills (talk) 11:26, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
I'm just a bit suspicious of this. JPEG for a map seems strange... maybe it's just me, I just have a feeling. -mattbuck (Talk) 18:18, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. MBisanz talk 08:39, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
The image seems to be scanned from a map, and there are no information about the original map's licensing. --KRISTAGAα-ω 18:05, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. MBisanz talk 08:39, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
copied from nonfree source --Kwj2772 (d) 04:08, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
- I made this file from the free source, but I can't find proper Category about Korea Economy Index.BK Kang (talk) 15:18, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
- Keep For some reason I can't see the original source; but unless it's a copy of the actual graph colors, line thicknesses, and everything else, this is just data, 11 numbers. You can't copyright a series of 11 numbers between +10 and -10. --GRuban (talk) 01:47, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
Kept, per GRuban. Kameraad Pjotr 20:24, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
1943 + 70 > 2009. Too young for PD-TR. sугсго 07:45, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
- Bad news, good news. Which do you want first? :-) The bad news is that the source seems to be this page http://www.byegm.gov.tr/YAYINLARIMIZ/kitaplar/isteturkiye/english/history128.htm which is part of this exhei bit http://www.byegm.gov.tr/YAYINLARIMIZ/kitaplar/isteturkiye/english/english.htm which says clearly "The copyright of this publication belongs to the Turkish News Agency. The text and photographs cannot be quoted or used without permission."
However, the good news is that the image here http://photos.state.gov/galleries/ankara/9104/dostlar_arasinda_foto_sergisi/3.html seems just as good, if not better, for all conceivable purposes, and the text there says (Google translate): "Photo used with permission of Franklin Delano Roosevelt Presidential Library." which seems like PD-USGov (and seems reasonable - this is a major propaganda event, surely there will have been Turkish, British, and American govt photogs all snapping away). So replace that photo with this photo, and everyone should be happy. --GRuban (talk) 02:11, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
Kept (uploaded this picture instead of this one), per GRuban. Kameraad Pjotr 20:31, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
The internetsource http://www.inetres.com/gp/military/cv/inf/BMD-1.html states that the image was taken by an US Army employee but most likely this is not true. More file information on official US military sources could not be found. Most likely copyright violation High Contrast (talk) 14:19, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
- Keep Why do you think it's not true? Because you couldn't find it? That's hardly conclusive; just over the last few months the army.mil web site lost all of its images entirely. The source says it got it from the army, and the source seems fairly technically savvy. Unless you have better evidence than that you couldn't find it, we should take the source's word for it. --GRuban (talk) 03:17, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
- Well, images from http://www.inetres.com are often tagged as US-Army image although they were not taken by an US-Army-emplyee. Images of quite modern russian vehicles are extremely rare to be found on US-Army-sites. The evidence is not, that I could not found it, but there several other aspects that make the source doubtful. According to COMMONS:Licencing primary source should be provided, this is especially in this case important. Moreover whatever you mean by technically savvy but technical features like EXIF-data, author, date and of course as already stated a primary US-Gov source. --High Contrast (talk) 21:10, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Deleted, per High Contrast; seems unlikely this was taken by an US Army employee. Kameraad Pjotr 20:34, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
I don't believe this qualifies for PD-ART - this is a portrait photograph, not a work of art. No proof of PD-OLD. -mattbuck (Talk) 17:40, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
- Keep Photo made in the 1880's. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:14, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
- Keep This is an 1888 photo! Louise Michel, the woman in the photo, died in 1905. The autor, J.E. Bulloz, is dead and buried a long time ago. This discussion is senseless.AltCtrlDel (talk) 21:21, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
- delete - Jacques Ernest Bulloz died in 1942 see artnet. sугсго 08:29, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
- Which, unless we get a date of publication, would mean it's not PD for another 3 years or so. -mattbuck (Talk) 13:38, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
- Even a date of publication wouldn't matter, Bulloz is French, Michel too. And French copyright law got 70 pma. sугсго 14:06, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
- I doubt there was 70 pma copyright on photography in France in the 1880's. If there was any copyright-like protection for photography, it probably only lasted for 10 or 20 years, so that it expired way before present legislation was introduced. My French is not good enough to search for legal history, but applying present rules to the old stuff is likely to be an anachronism. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 15:13, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
- Directive 2006/116/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and Council Directive 93/98/EEC are both retroactive, if the work was protected on 1 July 1995 in any EU member. German law protect works by French authors like German works. German copyright law is retroactive and knows the 70 pma rule since 1965. This photo ist protected in every member of the EU. sугсго 19:43, 18 February 2009 (UTC) btw: You are not believing in retroactive copyright law, do you?
- It was public domain in 1995 (1942 + 50 = 1992), before the copyright restoration, so I am not sure that these directive apply. Yann (talk) 22:18, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
- You missed the French war time extensions (about 15 years for WW 1 & 2), in fact they had 64,9 pma and the copyright law of Spain - 80 pma since 1879; the copyright restoration applied if the work was copyrighted in any EC-member on 01.01.9.84.44.176.79 08:49, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
- There are no war time extensions any more, these were removed by the Cour de Cassation (French Supreme Court). Yann (talk) 13:08, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
- You missed the French war time extensions (about 15 years for WW 1 & 2), in fact they had 64,9 pma and the copyright law of Spain - 80 pma since 1879; the copyright restoration applied if the work was copyrighted in any EC-member on 01.01.9.84.44.176.79 08:49, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
- It was public domain in 1995 (1942 + 50 = 1992), before the copyright restoration, so I am not sure that these directive apply. Yann (talk) 22:18, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
- Directive 2006/116/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and Council Directive 93/98/EEC are both retroactive, if the work was protected on 1 July 1995 in any EU member. German law protect works by French authors like German works. German copyright law is retroactive and knows the 70 pma rule since 1965. This photo ist protected in every member of the EU. sугсго 19:43, 18 February 2009 (UTC) btw: You are not believing in retroactive copyright law, do you?
- I doubt there was 70 pma copyright on photography in France in the 1880's. If there was any copyright-like protection for photography, it probably only lasted for 10 or 20 years, so that it expired way before present legislation was introduced. My French is not good enough to search for legal history, but applying present rules to the old stuff is likely to be an anachronism. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 15:13, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
- Even a date of publication wouldn't matter, Bulloz is French, Michel too. And French copyright law got 70 pma. sугсго 14:06, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
Kept, per Yann. Kameraad Pjotr 20:36, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
Taken by Jacques Ernest Bulloz (died 1942); in 1995 France changed it copyright law retrocativly to 70 pma. Will be PD 2013, but not now. sугсго 14:19, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
- Delete Unfortunately, the 70 years apply within the EU for basically all images, regardless of whether a previous copyright term had already expired. EU directive 93/98/EEC re-copyrighted such works if they were copyrighted in at least one EU member on 1995-07-01. The problem is that Spain (an EU member) was a member of the Berne Convention since 1887, had a copyright term of 80 years p.m.a. from 1879 until 1987 (still active for pre-1987 works), had a very low threshold of originality, and additionally the rule of the shorter term must not be applied between EU countries (see en:Rule of the shorter term#EU case law, the Phil Collins case). As a result, virtually all such works must be considered copyrighted in Spain on 1995-07-01, and thus they are protected for 70 years after the author's death throughout the EU. Even in France. Lupo 08:05, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
- Delete I can confirm Lupo's point. The OLG Hamburg came to the same conclusion --Isderion (talk) 12:39, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
I was wrong! This photo is more old than I was thinking. This is an 1871 photo![14] Please don't delete it. saludos AltCtrlDel (talk) 23:38, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
- Which means that this cannot be by Bulloz (born 1858) - Keep. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 23:43, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
Kept - 1871 photo by Eugene Appert, who was active already in 1853 (non-admin closure). /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:43, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Copyright violation of [15] Fram (talk) 15:15, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
- To elaborate: both the shapes and colours are exactly identical, which seems to be too much of a coincidence. The author has only changed the labels (translated them from English to Dutch), which does not make this his own work but a derivative of a copyrighted work. He has also changed "eigenvector" to "vector", which has a different meaning, but that's a content issue, not a copyright issue. Fram (talk) 15:19, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
- Keep The uploader used published data. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:32, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
- Delete. The use of the country shape in the eigenvector plot is an exact copy of the New York times artwork. That representation does not follow logically from the published data and is likely an artist representation, hence not public domain. I do however think this is not a very clear case, so if people with more expertise on copyright laws disagree, I would have no problems with it. Arnoutf (talk) 21:49, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
- Keep. Public data.HP1740-B (talk) 15:05, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
- Hello, creator of the file. The argument is not that the data are public or not, the argument is that the presentation of the data in this particular form is a copyright violation. Fram (talk) 11:37, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
- It's a form of a graph in which the genetic ranges are presented in the form of demarcated areas. I doubt it's a specifics artists choice;I can't think of any other way to represent the data visually really ...HP1740-B (talk) 23:24, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
- Delete. As per nomination. Besides, User:HP1740-B has uploaded 3 files, which are all nominated for deletion now, while he himself nominated an older file for deletion. Something's going on here. As for the deletion of "eigen" from eigenvector, that may be because it is a German word, and certain editors dislike anything German. --Matthead (talk) 23:01, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
- Might be relevant to note that you nominated 2 of those 3 images minutes ago. The problem being a missing source, which I just added. As for this image; the map I based it on was from a Dutch university; and it was in Dutch; well the two words that were in that at all. I'm pretty indifferent to German.HP1740-B (talk) 23:24, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
Deleted per nomination. MichaelMaggs (talk) 13:53, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
