Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2009/02/12
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
|
|
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
image uploaded twice Bleuilly (talk) 02:26, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Speedy deleted. False "own work" claim; clearly watermarked "xpert"; non-commercial stock not free for Commons -- Infrogmation (talk) 03:11, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
from 苹果日报，NOT GFDL,copyvio shizhao (talk) 01:43, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
- PS: from [1]--shizhao (talk) 01:46, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Deleted by Túrelio: Copyright violation: http://www.sun0769.com/ent/star/bagua/t20080507_370190_37.html
scanned from a book, so unlikely to be free Meneldur (talk) 00:43, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Deleted by VIGNERON: Copyright violation: scan from the book
Scanned from a book, so unlikely to be free. (Same as File:Carte Alagaësia Eragon Fr petit.jpg Meneldur (talk) 00:44, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Deleted by VIGNERON: Copyright violation: scan from the book
Scanned from a book, so unlikely to be free. (Same as File:Carte Alagaësia Eragon Fr petit.jpg.) Meneldur (talk) 00:46, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Deleted by VIGNERON: Copyright violation: scan from the book
a mistake Babaknb (talk) 01:05, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Deleted by Túrelio: User request
out of COM:SCOPE; obviously a personal image, in low technical quality; of no use. Túrelio (talk) 08:24, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
- It is in use on a soon-to-be-deleted article, so this image should be deleted along with it. And this one too. --Tryphon (talk) 08:51, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Out of COM:SCOPE. Yann (talk) 18:27, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Image's name is a camera numeration: IMG_0349. The image was re-uploaded with a correct name. AlexDuarte (talk) 09:35, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
The other image is Image:Peacock_feathers_closeup.jpg --AlexDuarte (talk) 09:40, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Yann (talk) 18:20, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
out of COM:SCOPE; personal photo a non-notable schoolboy, used for vanity article en:Mikhael Louis Abalajon Túrelio (talk) 09:42, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. out of COM:SCOPE Yann (talk) 18:20, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
out of COM:SCOPE, probably a derivative and violating personality rights. Túrelio (talk) 10:00, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Copyvio: watermark, and probable out of COM:SCOPE. Yann (talk) 18:19, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
out of COM:SCOPE; image doesn't really show "Regional Science High School III" but the back of a woman, no educational value and low quality. Túrelio (talk) 10:50, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted. out of COM:SCOPE Yann (talk) 18:17, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
out of COM:SCOPE; has some potential for attack pages. Túrelio (talk) 10:53, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. out of COM:SCOPE Yann (talk) 18:16, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Fair use is not the same as public domain. Copyrighted works are not permitted on commons. Dual Freq (talk) 12:15, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. No fair use at Commons. Yann (talk) 18:16, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Copyrighted Associated Press image. Dual Freq (talk) 12:16, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Copyvio. Yann (talk) 18:14, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Copyrighted Associated Press image. Dual Freq (talk) 12:17, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Copyvio. Yann (talk) 18:14, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Source is, according to the uploader: www.clickstarrett.com; Most likely not public domain High Contrast (talk) 14:18, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Broken file. Yann (talk) 18:13, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
This is NOT a uspd - this is a copyrighted image from a school district http://ferguson.dadeschools.net/images/jaf_school.jpg --WhisperToMe (talk) 17:21, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 18:30, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
better pic: File:Peking University.svg --Dingruogu (talk) 07:41, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Keep, we usually don't delete raster images just because there is a vector image. In this particular case, the SVG is not even a faithful reproduction of the JPEG, and quite frankly, a rather bad vectorization (see the shaky contours), so people are likely to use the JPEG instead. --Tryphon (talk) 08:25, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Kept - totally not superseded. Obviously. — Mike.lifeguard 03:01, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
The SVG is NOT A REPRODUCTION of the JPEG. See the history and usage of SVG. For most pages and most of the time, SVG is used. The only change I have made to SVG is the color. The official color (北大红) in CMYK is c0m100y100k45[1][2][3]. If anyone could help, please revise my edition in SVG and change the color of User:Shizhao edition. Surely enough, you could contribute to this JPEG too, and I would not insist on deletion of JPEG with correct color.
BTW, I seldom visit commons.wikimedia.org, thus please contact me at zh:User:Dingruogu and zh:User talk:Dingruogu. Thanks.
BTW2, I did not notice this page was archived, so I edited but later revised. What about raising another deletion request? Sorry to trouble you again. --Dingruogu (talk) 07:17, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
- Again, if the JPEG is different from the SVG, there is absolutely no reason to delete it, even if no one uses it at the moment. The JPEG comes directly from the university's website, so it can be used as a reference if someone wishes to make another SVG, for example. As of the color, if it's wrong you or anyone else can change it, there is no need to delete either. You can raise those concerns on the image talk page, if you want potential users to be aware of this issue. --Tryphon (talk) 09:46, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
Was tagged as "no permission", but has been reverted. Derivative work of copyrighted video game. ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 20:30, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. The screen images are not de minimis MichaelMaggs (talk) 07:12, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
it's worthless Jonjames1986 (talk) 20:35, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Out of scope. Yann (talk) 16:48, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
The original (Image:Alexander Ioan Cuza.jpg) is in public domain, but this photoshoped image may be not, because it's not known the author of the derived work Alex:D (talk) 01:01, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
I am the author (since an old lithographic image of Iancu Grigorescu's private library & since a public official image of Al. Ioan Cuza), and I give this image for the file Franc-maçonnerie en Roumanie (Fr, En & Ro).
Best wishes, --Spiridon MANOLIU (talk) 11:03, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
This is a very speculative photoshop alteration. Even though Cuza might have been a mason, such a fake image doesn't bring historical accuracy Codrin.B (talk) 19:04, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
- Asa este. Dar prietenii nostri din Israel vor regreta stergerea, ei care o folosesc de trei ori... ;-) --86.219.157.158 19:26, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
- Delete - the fanciful interpretations of Wikipedia editors have no place masquerading as historical depictions on Commons. - Biruitorul (talk) 03:41, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted terrible photomanipulation of a historic image. I've replaced usage on he-wiki. --99of9 (talk) 11:04, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
Dubious info. Either the source or the copyright tag if not both would seem to be wrong. I doubt this is by User SElephant on zh.wikipedia, and if it is the copyright tag is questionable. --Infrogmation (talk) 02:56, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
- According to the EXIF data, it's an US Air Force photo. It can also found on this Air Force site. So it's PD, I edited the description accordingly. --Kam Solusar (talk) 17:25, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
Kept. Thanks for sorting that out Kam Solusar Finn Rindahl (talk) 15:59, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Almost same like File:Srní vrch, polom.jpg. Low quality and overexposure. One picture is enough... --Chmee2 (talk) 09:26, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- Keep The images are not identical, File:Srní vrch, polom (01).jpg has a better composition. There are generally few images of forest windfalls here. --ŠJů (talk) 09:42, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
- Keep Reason not sufficient for deletion. --Foroa (talk) 10:02, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Delete Duplicate, low quality and overexposed. --Tlusťa (talk) 10:10, 12 February 2009 (UTC)- Delete The main reason is no other information value. The quality of the second version is not so bad --Packa (talk) 11:01, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
- Keep I agree with ŠJů. No reason for deletion. --Nolanus ✉ (C | E) 11:31, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
- Keep Obviously not the same photo. In scope, categorized, described, with location, with a free license and a clear copyright status. No valid reason for deletion. --Dezidor (talk) 13:24, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
- Delete lower quality duplicate.--Juan de Vojníkov (talk) 14:22, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
- Delete--Mirek 14:45, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
- Delete very bad quality duplicate -- Mercy (☎|✍) 15:21, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
- Delete Duplicate whith miserble quality.--Jagro (talk) 15:26, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
- Delete Really low quality. --Ragimiri (talk) 15:28, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
- Keep Not the same image. Can have an encyclopedic value. Yann (talk) 18:23, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Kept. Not a duplicate- Finn Rindahl (talk) 16:06, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Almost same like File:RT6N1 v Brně - 1802.jpg, worst resolution. No quality!! --Chmee2 (talk) 09:52, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
- Delete Duplicate and overexposed. --Tlusťa (talk) 10:14, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
- Delete Suppose Tlusťa --Packa (talk) 14:37, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Neutral --Dezidor (talk) 14:41, 12 February 2009 (UTC)- Delete--Mirek 14:46, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
- Delete bad quality duplicate -- Mercy (☎|✍) 15:20, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
- Delete --Ragimiri (talk) 15:26, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
- Keep, in scope, categorized, described, with a free license and a clear copyright status. I wish we had more of those. As of the photographic qualities... well, this is not COM:FPC, so I don't think that's really relevant here. --Tryphon (talk) 15:42, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
- Keep As above. "Almost the same" is not the same. It seems that we spend more energy on deleting images than on uploading and organising them. --Foroa (talk) 15:47, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, You are right. We do it because a lot of users constantly uploads a lot of bad quality duplicates so is necessary to delete them. --Martin Kozák (talk) 22:14, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
- Keep The same reason as [2] --Harold (talk) 21:12, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
- Keep It is no reason to delete. It's no an exact duplicate, each of the two photos has its own qualities. --ŠJů (talk) 23:58, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
- Delete --Martin Kozák (talk) 22:14, 15 February 2009 (UTC) — Duplicate.
- Delete --P.matel (talk) 18:39, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
- Keep per Tryphon, Finn Rindahl (talk) 23:35, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
![[2]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/File:RT6N1_-_Vozovna_Medl%C3%A1nky.jpg&diff=18397058&oldid=18391918){kind=link}
Recent stamp => copyright violation Peter17 (talk) 06:21, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
- See Commons:Deletion requests/Images of French stamps. --Tryphon (talk) 12:40, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
Deleted by Tryphon: Per Commons:Deletion_requests/Images_of_French_stamps
Not own work, copyright violation of La Poste work Peter17 (talk) 06:22, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
- See Commons:Deletion requests/Images of French stamps. --Tryphon (talk) 12:41, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
Deleted by Tryphon: Per Commons:Deletion_requests/Images_of_French_stamps
Recent stamp => copyright violation Peter17 (talk) 06:24, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
- See Commons:Deletion requests/Images of French stamps. --Tryphon (talk) 12:42, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
Deleted by Tryphon: Per Commons:Deletion_requests/Images_of_French_stamps
Recent stamp => copyright violation Peter17 (talk) 06:25, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
- See Commons:Deletion requests/Images of French stamps. --Tryphon (talk) 12:43, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
Deleted by Tryphon: Per Commons:Deletion_requests/Images_of_French_stamps
Recent stamp => copyright violation Peter17 (talk) 06:26, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
- See Commons:Deletion requests/Images of French stamps. --Tryphon (talk) 12:43, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
Deleted by Tryphon: Per Commons:Deletion_requests/Images_of_French_stamps
Recent stamp (1976) => copyright violation Peter17 (talk) 06:27, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
- See Commons:Deletion requests/Images of French stamps. --Tryphon (talk) 12:44, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
Deleted by Tryphon: Per Commons:Deletion_requests/Images_of_French_stamps
Copyright violation. Used on several other homepages: [3], [4], [5] High Contrast (talk) 22:36, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Delete per nom --Simonxag (talk) 11:47, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
Deleted by EugeneZelenko: Missing essential information: source, license and/or permission: since February 12, 2009
It shouldn't be here. 71.101.43.118 16:27, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
- Keep, in use. --Tryphon (talk) 17:43, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
- Keep, there are no copyright issues (I created and uploaded the image) and it portrays just what it says it does. Wikimedia is not censored. Rob T Firefly (talk) 17:22, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
- Keep If you find it offensive and unsettling, that's the pointof the action, which this file illustrates.KTo288 (talk) 10:07, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
Kept. Tryphon (talk) 10:31, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
No encyclopedic value. Photo is seriously horrible. The tram is fuzzy. Picture is overexposured and almost same like (also horrible) File:RT6N1 v Brně - 1802.jpg --Chmee2 (talk) 09:58, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
- Delete Fuzzy, bad composition (what is the main object of this snap: the lantern?), low quality --Packa (talk) 11:01, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
- Keep Not duplicate. This is tram Tatra RT6N1 number 1804, not 1802. --Dezidor (talk) 13:21, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
- aha, and this picture is better than some of Category:Tatra RT6N... I see... Tram behind trees... yes :] nice details... co takle trošku soudnosti u toho uploadu? --Chmee2 (talk) 14:09, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
- Ilustruje fakt, že vůz evidenční číslo 1804 je trvale odstaven u Vozovny Medlánky (stejně jako 1802, čímž se liší od 1801 a 1803, které jsou v interiéru a Brno s nimi počítá pro pravidelný provoz), že oba mají jednotný brněnský nátěr a vůz 1804 má odchlípnou část u střechy. Vzhledem k informacím, že je 1804 rozebírán na náhradní díly je vidět, i přes značnou neostrost, že mu základní vnější části zůstali. U 1802 jsou dvě podobné fotografie, takže tam na smazání nemám vyhraněný názor, u 1804 je čelní a zezadu z boku, takže tam je to na jasné ponechání. Samozřejmě pokud nehraješ fotku téhož objektu ve vyšší kvalitě a z podobné doby, nebudu mít se smazáním problém. Takže trochu soudnosti při navrhování na smazání. --Dezidor (talk) 14:26, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
- Ano Dezidore, máš zřejmě pravdu, ale prosím tě, pro který článek nebo projekt na Wikipedii je toto důležité? (en: But this fact is not important for any Wikimedia project) --Packa (talk) 14:34, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
- Ilustruje fakt, že vůz evidenční číslo 1804 je trvale odstaven u Vozovny Medlánky (stejně jako 1802, čímž se liší od 1801 a 1803, které jsou v interiéru a Brno s nimi počítá pro pravidelný provoz), že oba mají jednotný brněnský nátěr a vůz 1804 má odchlípnou část u střechy. Vzhledem k informacím, že je 1804 rozebírán na náhradní díly je vidět, i přes značnou neostrost, že mu základní vnější části zůstali. U 1802 jsou dvě podobné fotografie, takže tam na smazání nemám vyhraněný názor, u 1804 je čelní a zezadu z boku, takže tam je to na jasné ponechání. Samozřejmě pokud nehraješ fotku téhož objektu ve vyšší kvalitě a z podobné doby, nebudu mít se smazáním problém. Takže trochu soudnosti při navrhování na smazání. --Dezidor (talk) 14:26, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
- aha, and this picture is better than some of Category:Tatra RT6N... I see... Tram behind trees... yes :] nice details... co takle trošku soudnosti u toho uploadu? --Chmee2 (talk) 14:09, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
- Vždyť je to stejný typ tramvají, není třeba tu mít třeba 2x Trabanta s tím, že bude mít SPZ o dvě vyšší. --Tlusťa (talk) 14:45, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
- @Packa: Tatra RT6N1 a případně i Tatra RT6N1 v Brně. --Dezidor (talk) 14:55, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
- Vždyť je to stejný typ tramvají, není třeba tu mít třeba 2x Trabanta s tím, že bude mít SPZ o dvě vyšší. --Tlusťa (talk) 14:45, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
- Delete Yes, Dezidor. It is all very important. Very. Absolutely -- in each case. But duplicates, even what in this quality, should be deleted quickly. Argument, there are two trams of numbers 1802 and 1804 instead of one number 1802 in the photo is, although all good will, a little foolish. --Martin Kozák (talk) 14:41, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
- Duplikát? Promiň, ale tohle je duplikát nesčíslněkrát míň než fotka Petra Macha z dvanácti úhlů (viz Category:Petr Mach). --Dezidor (talk) 15:00, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
- Very good demagogy. Should be noticed, twelwe angels are very different thing in comparing to two almost identical photos and arguing, there is on the first one one half meter of another tram so it is important. It probably is important, but for different project. Please, read what Wikimedia Commons is. Thanks. --Martin Kozák (talk) 22:10, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
- Angels? I wrote that this photo is less duplicate (it is different tram - number 1804, not 1802) than your 12 (or more) photos of one politician. --Dezidor (talk) 22:27, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
- Very good demagogy. Should be noticed, twelwe angels are very different thing in comparing to two almost identical photos and arguing, there is on the first one one half meter of another tram so it is important. It probably is important, but for different project. Please, read what Wikimedia Commons is. Thanks. --Martin Kozák (talk) 22:10, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
- Duplikát? Promiň, ale tohle je duplikát nesčíslněkrát míň než fotka Petra Macha z dvanácti úhlů (viz Category:Petr Mach). --Dezidor (talk) 15:00, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
- Delete--Mirek 14:44, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
- Delete dtto Chmee2, Packa, Martin Kozák --Tlusťa (talk) 14:45, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
- DeletePicture is totaly for nothing, very bad quality etc.--Jagro (talk) 15:00, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
- Delete per Packa -- Mercy (☎|✍) 15:22, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
- Delete --Ragimiri (talk) 15:25, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
- Keep, for the same reasons as above. --Tryphon (talk) 15:45, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
- Delete The picture is totally bad. --Aktron (talk) 17:44, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
- Keep This picture has poor quality, but I think it has encyclopedic value. Four trams RT6N1 was delivered to Brno in 1996 and most of the time they were staying in depot. This is known event in the Czech Republic, the same became in Prague... Pro ostatní, chystám se výrazně přepracovat a doplnit článek cs:Tatra RT6N1, kde se jedna z těchto Dezidorových fotek bude hodit. Já bych ji nemazal, dokud by nebyla k dispozici kvalitnější fotka odstavených a vybrakovaných brněnských "ertéšestek". --Harold (talk) 21:08, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
- Keep One of the few photos of this streetlamp type. One of few photos, which shows the Vozovna Medlánky in architectural context of sourroudings. --ŠJů (talk) 00:16, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
- Keep Duplicate means identical photo, not just identical (or similar) motive. We're not evaluating quality for Featured Picture here - not agreat picture but a clear keep. Finn Rindahl (talk) 11:24, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
- Delete --P.matel (talk) 18:41, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
- Keep Poor quality is not a reason to delete someones image.--Ltshears (talk) 00:32, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
- Delete Useless image with poor quality. --Milda (talk) 22:46, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
Comment If we look who vote, all Wikipedians who aren´t from Czech Wikipedia (Tryphon, Finn Rindahl and Ltshears) wanted to keep it. Harold wrote good argument with notable event and ŠJů strong arguemnt with streetlamp type. --Dezidor (talk) 21:23, 13 March 2009 (UTC)- Comment Similar request was kept, and what is more, this image is photo of diffetent tram. Legitimate expectation is that this image should be kept. --Dezidor (talk) 21:23, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
Kept. Though the image has poor quality but we don't delete them more over the image is not duplicate and it has encyclopedic values. Mardetanha talk 21:46, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
Should be ineligible for copyright, please approve. →Na·gy 20:50, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
- Nice way to put it :-) I was the one who considered this eligible for copyright, and put {{Logo}} on it, because of the way the text is stylized. So delete in my opinion. --Tryphon (talk) 21:08, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Kept. I surrender to Nagy's arguments. Also, it is just text, the style is nothing else than a typeface; and typefaces are not eligible for copyright. –Tryphon☂ 18:17, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
Very bad quality, no encyclopedic value, unusable, someting in bottom right-hand corner Jagro (talk) 15:30, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
- Keep No valid reason for deletion, part of campain at Czech Wikipedia. --Dezidor (talk) 15:32, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, something seems definitely wrong here, it's the third DR against you with the same bad quality argument. You should probably give some links/diffs to the "campain" on cz.wp, if you want an admin to look into it. --Tryphon (talk) 15:54, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
- Delete No encyclopedic value. Low resolution... This pictures in some article? Which? Next bad image... --Chmee2 (talk) 15:49, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
- Keep No reason for deletion. This image isn't suitable as a title image of any article, but it is neither fatally horrible nor inutile. --ŠJů (talk) 02:27, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
- Delete really bad quality, useless --Daniel Baránek (talk) 08:59, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
- Delete --P.matel (talk) 08:33, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
- Delete bad quality (composition: no main object) --Packa (talk) 20:03, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
- KeepPoor quality is not a reason to delete someones image.--Ltshears (talk) 00:32, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
- Weak keep. It is poorly lit and poorly composed, but a close crop of the flowers/catkins/seedheads may be useful to some educational project. --InfantGorilla (talk) 08:16, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
- Delete just another crap -- Mercy (☎|✍) 09:18, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
- Delete Useless image with poor quality. --Milda (talk) 22:47, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
- Comment New version of image was uploaded. Deletion request is not actual and it should be closed or restarted. --Dezidor (talk) 22:05, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
Comments
[edit]
Link is here what he thoug. But it is not campain against him, it is campain against horrible pictures on Commons. Just the problem that some of Dezidor's photos are bad... --Chmee2 (talk) 16:00, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for the link, I cannot understand the discussion there, but now someone who can would now be able to follow the whole story.
As of your campaign against horrible pictures, I'm not sure it is the best way to handle it. In most cases, images can be improved (like cropping for this one) instead of deleted. Also note that DRs are not votes: voting ten times delete with the same low quality reason will be regarded as just one argument when closing the request. --Tryphon (talk) 16:37, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
The campain is about a competition in number of uploads. Chmee2 created such a competition at cs:, but he is injured that he isn't the first. That is why he unleashed this queer fight "for quality". --ŠJů (talk) 02:27, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
- Chmee2 is nor injured, ŠJů. --Packa (talk) 20:06, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
Kept. It may not be the best photo on Commons but I see no reason to delete on the argument that the photo is poor quality and that is has no encyclopedic value. This image can be used (It is categorised) and it can be improved with Photoshop, IrfanView or any other photo editing software. Also please keep disagreements on other Wiki's at those Wiki's and not here on Commons. Bidgee (talk) 06:59, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
The printed design is a copyright work. MichaelMaggs (talk) 21:40, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
- Still it's just a pic done by me. I just did as all the other voucher photographers did here. Just search for voucher, gutschein, coupon or whatever. I thoughts it's legal then, and for the time they're here on commons, it seems to be. 快樂龍contentquestionconsequence (on de.wiki) 22:46, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
- Delete If you photograph a plant, the only copyright is yours. If you photograph a picture of a plant, the painter of the original picture has a copyright. --Simonxag (talk) 11:40, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
- So why this doesn't count as a photograph of a plant? The plant is the coupon. 快樂龍contentquestionconsequence (on de.wiki) 13:40, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
- It's a photo of some artwork. The artwork is already copyrighted. --Simonxag (talk) 19:44, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
- But you just said, if I photograph a plant, then the copyright is mine. That's what I did, I just made a pic of an artwork. 快樂龍contentquestionconsequence (on de.wiki) 18:40, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
- Yes the new copyright is yours. The original artwork you are photographing also has a copyright, that's copy right or right to copy. This right to copy belongs to the creator of the original artwork. So if you want to copy (or photograph) the original artwork, you must have permission from the original artist. If you do not have permission, the photograph is a copyright violation. --Simonxag (talk) 12:55, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
- It's a photo of some artwork. The artwork is already copyrighted. --Simonxag (talk) 19:44, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
- So why this doesn't count as a photograph of a plant? The plant is the coupon. 快樂龍contentquestionconsequence (on de.wiki) 13:40, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. The printed design is copyrighted. By taking a photo of a copyrighted work (Whether it's of a photograph, art work, design ect) doesn't mean you own the copyright of that work. Bidgee (talk) 07:09, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
A little help for newbie User:Dvdplr: He writes: Copyvio.There is no proof that its copyright was not renewed. It's a promotional photograph taken during movie production (or purely for marketing after production), not pre-1964 movie trailer. Source--78.51.155.137 21:23, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Keep This is a collection of some good reasons to keep it (unless someone finds a proof, that 20th Century Fox has renewed their copyright until 1963 (1935+28), according to the then American law) 78.51.29.117 12:53, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
- Comment That movie Show Them No Mercy! (1935) isn't listed as public domain anywhere (check [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12]). Such cases should not be allowed in future. --Dvdplr (talk) 19:50, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
Deleted by Bapti: in Category:Unknown as of 12 February 2009
out of COM:SCOPE; heavily retouched image of no educational value; plus probably violating personality rights. Túrelio (talk) 09:01, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
- It is in use on two other projects, but was added only recently by the uploader himself, and as it doesn't seem to improve the articles, it will probably be removed soon. But let's keep it for now, and see how it plays out. --Tryphon (talk) 09:43, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
- Delete Heavily retouched --Daniel Baránek (talk) 08:53, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
- You removed it from cs.wp, but it is still in use on nl.wp. I don't think we should delete images that are in use on other projects, except for copyvios. If nl.wp decides they don't want to use it anymore, then we can reconsider. --Tryphon (talk) 09:05, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
- Keep Used at nl.wikipedia.org, probably has some value for this project and is in scope. I don't like this image but I have no intention to dictate them my liking. --Dezidor (talk) 09:06, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
- Keep Used --Simonxag (talk) 12:25, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
Kept. In use. MichaelMaggs (talk) 19:05, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
This image is used to illustrate "Halloween" on nl: wiki, but as it is included in the article by uploader, it is a bit biased. I do not think this illustrates Halloween or anything else. It is two lads having a laugh and then someone took a paintbrush to the image and blacking stuff out. Is this in scope? -- Deadstar (msg) 11:34, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Kept Apparently closed case before I even started. -- Deadstar (msg) 11:36, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Vonvikken as Speedy (SpeedyDelete) and the most recent rationale was: Not educationally useful INeverCry 18:42, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
- Delete Out of scope - unused. INeverCry 18:44, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
- Delete I already requested the speedy deletion of this photo, because, like most of the other uploads from this user, it's useless and childish. -- Vonvikken (talk) 12:49, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
- Delete per above. -- Amada44 talk to me 09:38, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:31, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
Permission from the creator (see last page of the pdf) is probably given, but another concern on copyright: The publication contains a lot of images that are not free for every purpose (commercial use and derivative works) because the creator of the pdf is not the creator of the photos. Martin H. (talk) 07:36, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. MBisanz talk 08:59, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Out of scope: logo for a non-notable sport, only used on one wikipedia article proposed for deletion. Should be deleted along with the article. Tryphon (talk) 09:31, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. MBisanz talk 08:58, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Copyvio from http://www.deagel.com/library/Hsiung-Feng-III-at-2007-Taiwan-National-Day-celebrations_m02008032400001.aspx . High Contrast (talk) 13:22, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. MBisanz talk 09:06, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
It isn't used, has no apparent usefulness Jonjames1986 (talk) 20:33, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. MBisanz talk 09:07, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
this so much resembles the Obama Hope poster[13] that it probably violates the copyright of Shepard Fairey. Túrelio (talk) 08:40, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
![[13]](http://realitology.com/wp-content/uploads/image/obama-hope.gif){kind=link}
Keep Clearly falls under parody exemption. AnonMoos (talk) 10:14, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Delete What encyclopedic value does this have? Not to mention that it is a copyright violation because of its resemblance to the Obama HOPE picture. Happyme22 (talk) 08:06, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
- No, it's not a violation under U.S. law dealing with copyrights and parody. Technically, parody falls under "fair use" in U.S. law, but it's a kind of fair use which allows unrestricted commercial profit (unlike any other kind of fair use), so I don't see any reason why it wouldn't be allowed on Commons. See en:Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc. etc. AnonMoos (talk) 18:46, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Keep I've just removed it from w:Barack Obama "Hope" poster, but as long as the Bush photo is free, this does not even require the parody exemption. Doing something in the same style but with a different subject not a violation of copyright.--ragesoss (talk) 16:21, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
- Hrrm. Definitely not a copyright violation, as mentioned (style is not copyrightable; only the actual expression is). Unsure about project scope though. How could it be used? Carl Lindberg (talk) 05:05, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
- For one, it could be used as an illustration of Fairey's style and how to recreate it (say, in a Wikibook on graphic design).--ragesoss (talk) 05:53, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
- It would probably be inappropriate for that given the overt political statement. Carl Lindberg (talk) 05:17, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
- For one, it could be used as an illustration of Fairey's style and how to recreate it (say, in a Wikibook on graphic design).--ragesoss (talk) 05:53, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
- Keep It uses the style of Shepard Fairey, but not a whit of his actual work. If just using the distinctive style of another artist were a copyright violation, no one would ever be able to paint in Cubism, or Pointillism, or Impressionism or... --GRuban (talk) 13:39, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
Kept. No copyright in the "style of a work of art". WJBscribe (talk) 20:24, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
This version does not work. See File:Unemploymenticeland91-07.png for functioning version. --Jabbi (talk) 20:08, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. WJBscribe (talk) 20:29, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
I'd like to see a proof that images made by the Military of Serbia are cc-by-sa-3.0. And I'd like to see a proof that this image is made by the military of Serbia and not by the manufacturer Yugoimport. --NoCitNeed (talk) 09:32, 12 February 2009 (UTC) --NoCitNeed (talk) 09:33, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
The author give me permission to publish images and text without the copyright,please contact the author on email:slobodankrstic@ecdlcentar.com or if you wish phone maybe +381637833289 Slobodan Krstic --Boksi (talk) 09:47, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
- OTRS-Ticket? Then everything is ok. --High Contrast (talk) 10:04, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Still no ticket, and considering some of the actions by the uploader (taking a PD-upload by another user, uploading it with himself as author under gfdl and marking the other PD one for speedy deletion) he is not really trustworthy. -- Cecil (talk) 05:12, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Does not actually show the typical profile of a blackout, contrary to the heading. The axis and label for the graph conflict with each other. A power blackout/voltage slide in a power system actually has a very complicated curve, completely unlike what is shown in this graph. It has been de-linked from en:Rolling blackout, which is the only article it was linked from. Zunaid (talk) 09:17, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
- I must say, as a physicist, that seeing a voltage being referred to as power is really saddening. However, I don't think this calls for deletion. The graphic being SVG, it can easily be improved. --Tryphon (talk) 09:38, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
- Keep Improve, don't delete. // Liftarn (talk) 22:43, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Kept. shizhao (talk) 13:38, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
not PD 78.157.187.221 19:46, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Lack of source reasoning given license. Masur (talk) 03:23, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
not PD 78.157.187.221 19:48, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Lack of source reasoning given license Masur (talk) 03:26, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
COM:DW Church was build in the 1950ths, no FOP inside of buildings in Germany. The author of the crucifix-group (center) Maria Elisabeth Stapp died in 1996 (see http://www.gkg-rv.de/index.php?id=41 ). sугсго 11:03, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
- To me, this is copyright paranoia. Church interiors that are not of major architectural interest have never aroused any problem anywhere. --AndreasPraefcke (talk) 09:34, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 21:46, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
COM:DW Church was build in the 1950ths, no FOP inside of buildings in Germany. The author of the Madonnenfigur - Maria Elisabeth Stapp died in 1996 (see http://www.gkg-rv.de/index.php?id=41 ). sугсго 11:05, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 21:46, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Someone is trying to blackmail me by using this photo. I also do not wish to have my name attached to it. Flag123 (talk) 16:05, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
- There does not appear to be a name attached to this. However, there is an OTRS ticket (purportedly) from the photographer at OTRS:2445347. Keep as the image is used in several projects. Stifle (talk) 16:51, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
- Comment The description mentions a name. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:15, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
- There are lots of people in the world with that same forename, it's hardly an identifier. It was taken from the original Flickr tags, as was the (US) location. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:23, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
- Of course a name is an identifier. I would propse to remove the name and the city by oversight. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:06, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
- There are lots of people in the world with that same forename, it's hardly an identifier. It was taken from the original Flickr tags, as was the (US) location. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:23, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
- See en:Talk:Flag_desecration#The_guy_in_the_picture - it seems it's subject, as well as the photographer, who'd like it removed. I've uploaded File:US flag burning.jpg as a potential replacement. --dave pape (talk) 19:47, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
- Thank you. That's a perfect replacement for all articles that use it. After all the person in the picture is not important for any of the articles; it's that flag that should be the focus. There is no reason to keep it unless you just want to spite the person in the picture, which appears to be the case in many of the comments.
- Delete There are enough free licensed pictures and notable incidents of burning flags that we don't have to pick a non-notable picture with an unwilling subject. --GRuban (talk) 13:45, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
- Delete There may be a personality right issue with this photo. Better not to chance it, and delete. RayAYang (talk) 23:22, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
- Delete What GRuban said. --Pmsyyz (talk) 03:54, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Rjd0060 (talk) 15:51, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
PNG version of File:PowerOutageBlackout.svg which is also nominated. see above Zunaid (talk) 09:20, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Kept per Commons:Deletion requests/File:PowerOutageBlackout.svg Pruneautalk 10:19, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
I think that the 3D effect on the text, and the special font used are enough for this image to be protected by copyrights. Tryphon (talk) 12:09, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
- I don't. Matthewedwards (talk) 06:56, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
Deleted, per nominator. Kameraad Pjotr 14:09, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
Since this image can't be used commercially without requesting further permission, it is not free enough for Commons. Stifle (talk) 20:20, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
- If you prevail in this deletion, then all of the US Government images anywhere on Wikimedia would have to be deleted as well, as the commercial requirement applies to ALL of them. This includes those acquired directly from the US Government, as well as those acquired from other sources who acquired them from the US Government, either directly or indirectly. In addition, those that have been copied by others, or else produced from memory, are still property of the US Government, and are subject to the same commercial prohibition, not to mention that those who have produced them cannot copyright them since they are in the public domain. In the meantime, they are in the absolute Public Domain for ALL other purposes. - SSG Cornelius Seon (Retired) (talk) 21:07, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
- Can you explain how the commercial requirement applies to all other US Government images? Military medals and decorations are specifically restricted by 18 USC § 704. That restriction doesn't apply to other US Government works. Stifle (talk) 10:35, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
For a start, look here at US Army Institute of Heraldry's History Fact Sheet, which explains how this restriction applies to the images of other departments.
http://www.tioh.hqda.pentagon.mil/TIOH_Extras/TIOHHistoryFactSheet.htm -SSG Cornelius Seon (Retired) (talk) 23:15, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose deletion. That link doesn't work. It's a federal work and PD. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:49, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
I agree against deletion. Try this link and have a look around: US Army Institute Of Heraldry - SSG Cornelius Seon (Retired) (talk) 12:47, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
Oppose deletion. This is no different than all the other non-copyrightable logos that are on the commons because they are not original enough for copyright, yet they are trademarked so they cannot be re-used for any commercial use. This image is non-copyrightable as a function of U.S. law, but its commercial use is still restricted. If other non-copyrightable logos are allowed on the commons then this sort of image should be as well. You might want to take a look at the Commons policy. Bluepjs23 (talk) 16:56, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Keep per Bluepjs23. Subject to the same restrictions as the hundreds of {{PD-textlogo}} + {{trademark}} logos on Commons; the copyright status is independent of the commercial restrictions. - Gump Stump (talk) 19:53, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
- Followup to my vote: the page en:Copyright status of work by the U.S. government has information about this--the case of the CIA's logo is similar. "Also, certain works, particularly logos of government agencies, while not copyrightable, are still protected by other laws similar in effect to trademark laws." - Gump Stump (talk) 07:14, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Kept, per Bluepjs23. Kameraad Pjotr 18:33, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
Images of Nvargaspicapau (talk · contribs)
[edit]Images are arranged by location or type, and the camera model (if EXIF data is present) is shown between parenthesis.
Santa Maria
[edit]- File:Santamarianavista.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Santamarianaimagem.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log) (Olympus C860L,D360L)
- File:Santamarianaprefeitura.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
Estadopr
[edit]- File:Fotocongonhinhas03.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Fotocongonhinhas02.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Fotocongonhinhas01.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
Cornelio
[edit]- File:Estanciaguaicurus.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Cornelio-igreja-matriz.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log) (Sony DSC-P52)
- File:Mata-sao-francisco-parana.JPG (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log) (Sony DSC-P72)
- File:Santuario-cornelio-procopio.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Bosque-cornelio-procopio.gif (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Cornelio0.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Hotelmidas.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:CornelioTrigo.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Cornelio6.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Cornelio5.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Cornelio3.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log) (Fujifilm FinePix S6000fd)
- File:Cornelio2.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log) (Fujifilm FinePix S6000fd)
- File:Cornelio1.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log) (Fujifilm FinePix S6000fd)
UTFPR
[edit]- File:Utfprcp05.JPG (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log) (CAMERA copyright)
- File:Utfprcp04.JPG (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Utfprcp03.JPG (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log) (CAMERA copyright)
- File:Utfprcp02.JPG (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log) (Olympus FE170,X760)
- File:Utfprcp01.JPG (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log) (CAMERA copyright)
- File:Utfprdoisvizinhos.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log) (Olympus X450,D535Z,C370Z)
- File:Utfprecoville.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Utfprpontagrossa.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Utfprtoledo2.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log) (Sony DSC-V1)
- File:Utfprfranciscobeltrao.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Utfprlondrina.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log) (Sony DSC-S600)
- File:Utfprcampomourao.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log) (Olympus FE115,X715)
- File:Utfprapucarana.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Utfprcampuscornelio.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Utfpr curitiba 01.JPG (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log) (Sony DSC-S650)
Logos
[edit]File:Utfpr.gif (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)- File:Logo centenario cor.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
Flags
[edit]- File:Santamarianabrasao.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Santamarianabandeira.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
Maps
[edit]- File:Santamarianarodoviariopr.JPG (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Mapacongonhihaspr.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- CV from here. --Amarvudol (talk) 12:00, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
All the images uploaded by this user lack source and author name, and I doubt they are own work since (as shown above) most of them don't have EXIF data, and those who have come from a large variety of camera models. I think the only image that can be kept is a logo (stroked) which is {{PD-textlogo}}; as of the rest, they are probably copyvios. --Tryphon (talk) 14:53, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Deleted, per nominator. Kameraad Pjotr 14:50, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
There is a better image already uploaded
- Which one would that be? Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 09:19, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
Deleted, better version probably this one, image not used. Kameraad Pjotr 19:27, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
