Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2009/03/31
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
|
|
Doubtful this is own work, as it can be found in higher quality and at a larger size here Tabercil (talk) 03:21, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. –Tryphon☂ 05:09, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
nonencyclopedic Jonjames1986 (talk) 03:35, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Copyright violation [1]. –Tryphon☂ 05:13, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
No FOP in France, architect Denis Laming is still alive. --Coyau (talk) 10:17, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. NB This picture has unfortunately reached POTD on the French Wikipedia. Eusebius (talk) 10:18, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Potential personal insult. An image of unknown persons with text "Debby-macrophile". I am not sure that Commons is the place of snapshots of random people with dubious signatures. There are plenty of free photohosting websites around. SemBubenny (talk) 00:04, 31 March 2009 (UTC) --SemBubenny (talk) 00:05, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Delete Looks like some fans personal photo album. --Leoboudv (talk) 04:32, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Deleted, apparent vanity insult image. -- Infrogmation (talk) 15:05, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
No author info and no article on the organization "Gulf Coast Tide" Jonjames1986 (talk) 03:37, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
- Deleted. Sourced as from http://gctide.org/ ; website has clear copyright notice. Uploader has no authority to release under GFDL. -- Infrogmation (talk) 15:25, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Image failed Flickr review and is unfree. PS: Wish I knew more about the Flickr CV button. Leoboudv (talk) 04:31, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Deleted, reviewed as unfree license on Flickr since April 2007; no evidence of any previous free license. -- Infrogmation (talk) 15:28, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
There is AP watermark in left upper corner, so I believe it is copyvio. --BokicaK (talk) 06:57, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
- Same user uploaded another, small resolution photo. --BokicaK (talk) 06:57, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Deleted the first photo, but there is no evidence that the second one's also a copyvio. Please let me know if you got a link to the source page. Regards, →Na·gy 15:27, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
No freedom of panorama in France. PeterSymonds (talk) 10:50, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Keep The sculpture itself is PD since 1852(death of the sculptor w:Jean-Jacques Feuchère)+70 = 1922. There is no FOP issue with PD material. --Coyau (talk) 12:12, 31 March 2009 (UTC)- Keep Was the statue ever copyrighted? The sculptor died before Victor Hugo even started his campaign. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 12:44, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
- There were two conflicting dates (1854 and 1887). 1887+70 = 1957, so if it was the latter date, it would be a copyright problem. However, if it was 1852, then this can be closed. PeterSymonds (talk) 12:53, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
- Why would it be a problem if he died in 1887? Are you applying the 70 years rule twice (1887 + 70 = 1957 > 1939)? –Tryphon☂ 13:00, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
- Er, yes. Very sorry; I had some basic mathematics in my head but they were not correct. Oops. :) PeterSymonds (talk) 13:05, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
- Why would it be a problem if he died in 1887? Are you applying the 70 years rule twice (1887 + 70 = 1957 > 1939)? –Tryphon☂ 13:00, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
- There were two conflicting dates (1854 and 1887). 1887+70 = 1957, so if it was the latter date, it would be a copyright problem. However, if it was 1852, then this can be closed. PeterSymonds (talk) 12:53, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Kept. I made a blunder when working out the copyright. I was applying the 100 years rule and the 70 years rule somewhere in my working out. My apologies. PeterSymonds (talk) 13:08, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Image has never been reviewed by the claimed reviewer, tag was placed by uploader. Impossible to verify license as source uses all rights reserved Denniss (talk) 18:18, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
- Keep - other images by kimdokhac have also changed license on Flickr, like File:Château de Rambouillet 1.jpg. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:37, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
- Not relevant, images are reviewed one-by-one. Flickr uploader may have images with different license types, if a license status of a specific images has never been positively reviewed it has to go. The only option would be a crop from an already reviewed image but I couldn't find one. --Denniss (talk) 19:38, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
- I do not understand your problem. Uploader was Paris 16 (talk · contribs). Flickr Review was done by PeterSymonds. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:29, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
- Not relevant, images are reviewed one-by-one. Flickr uploader may have images with different license types, if a license status of a specific images has never been positively reviewed it has to go. The only option would be a crop from an already reviewed image but I couldn't find one. --Denniss (talk) 19:38, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
- Keep. Was reviewed as recorded in this edit. -- Asclepias (talk) 21:24, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
Kept I also do not understand this nomination. It seems clear that Peter Symonds, an Admin both here and at WP:EN, reviewed the image. I don't see any evidence that the {{Flickereview}} tag was placed by the uploader.
Denniss, if Pieter, Asclepias, and I are all missing something, please feel free to reopen this DR. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 23:56, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
This image has been copyrighted. Not for free access already.
Copyright owner: http://www.marketessence.net/ Marketessence (talk) 13:10, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Deleted; clear copyright notice on image -- Infrogmation (talk) 15:41, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
This is a fuzzy and blurry image which Failed Flickr review. This other image is so much superior and has a secure copyright: File:FourcornersMonument.jpg Perhaps this better image could be substituted to where the failed image is currently is use? Leoboudv (talk) 05:06, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Failed flickr review. –Tryphon☂ 21:05, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
French author en:Pierre Albert-Birot died in 1967, so his works are still copyrighted. -- Kam Solusar (talk) 07:21, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Deleted, not PD-Old; author's death too recent. -- Infrogmation (talk) 15:37, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
- Indeed, i did not realize the author was still alive.
Support delete. --prosopee (talk) 20:16, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
上传者提请删除 --李牧原 (talk) 15:40, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
- Delete Which means "uploader's request", nominated by the uploader; not in use. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:08, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Deleted by Zirland: User request
Looks like a VHS box cover; as a result, even if the original underlying artwork is PD due to age, the new elements render it currently copyrighted Tabercil (talk) 23:21, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
- Delete; additionally very dubious claim of authorship and licensing by uploader. Uploader has history of uploading multiple images deleted as copyvios; many of user:Sairu's remaining uploads look questionable. -- Infrogmation (talk) 02:58, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
- Deleted, uploader continues to upload obvious copyright violations with false claims of authorship and false licenses. No need to wait to delete this other copyright violation by uploader. -- Infrogmation (talk) 00:17, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Italy has no FOP for modern works of art and this image failed Flickr review Leoboudv (talk) 05:58, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
- Delete Italy has no Freedom of Panaroma and cc-by-nc-nd-2.0 is not an acceptable license for Commons.--Captain-tucker (talk) 18:53, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. MBisanz talk 04:43, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
Failed flickr review. Image was likely licensed as 'No Derivatives Creative Commons' when first uploaded to Commons given the subject's notability. However, there are many other pictures of him racing here
- This is an excellent replacement: File:Robert Kubica 2007 Canada.jpg Leoboudv (talk) 08:53, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
- Delete. Although, in my defence, the image appeared in the Flickr search request as an image appropriate for Wikipedia use at the time of uploading... --Skully Collins (talk) 18:51, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. MBisanz talk 04:43, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
It isn't used, has no categories, and a nondescriptive name Jonjames1986 (talk) 03:22, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Out of scope. Yann (talk) 19:29, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
It isn't used and poor resolution Jonjames1986 (talk) 03:29, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Copyvio. Yann (talk) 19:31, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
Don't think the Commons is a personal photo album Jonjames1986 (talk) 03:55, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
- Delete: me either, also unused. OSX (talk • contributions) 13:27, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
- Delete Nominator is right. Commons is not a personal photo album. --Korman (talk) 09:19, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
- Delete full ack -- DoomWarrior (talk) 12:29, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Out of scope. Yann (talk) 19:32, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
just private picture of two schoolboys; uploaded for the article about one of them; no notability Andrei Romanenko (talk) 11:42, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Out of scope. Yann (talk) 19:38, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
Image is licensed as Attribution - Non Commercial - ShareAlike CC and failed Flickr review within 9 weeks of upload. It is also unused on Wikipedia. Leoboudv (talk) 05:30, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
- Obviously the copyright status was changed after i had uploaded it here.. As i only search images on FlickR by CC Attribution and Atribution Share Alike;, i never search images by non commercial.... This is why i use the Flick Upoad Bot now.. 9 weeks is a very long time for a image to wait to be reviewed in my opinion.. It seems to me this has happened with more then one image that i moved here from FlickR. It does't seem right to me that someone can change the license after having it listed under another.. It makes me look like i am wronfully uploading images , which i am not.. --Ltshears (talk) 13:43, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Comment I don't doubt that the images you personally upload were free at time of upload. I came across a situation where 5 images were uploaded by a user at the same time. Two were passed by Flickr review and three later failed...because the flickr owner changed the license in the interval. But your image here is unused. It should at least be used in an important article. Since it isn't used; it doesn't make sense to keep it, I think. --Leoboudv (talk) 19:38, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
- Leoboudv, i have no problem with the deletion of this file., i am sure there are several other Welsh Terrier images available now anyways.... I am just frustrated that people change the licenses, thats all..Thank you for your response. --Ltshears (talk) 19:48, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. No reflection on Ltshears, more on the Flickr user who changed the license before verification. MBisanz talk 01:46, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
There are 32 other images of this vehicle with secure copyright. This image's copyright status was never validated by flickr. Leoboudv (talk) 09:33, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
- Comment: there is actually only one other image of this vehicle, the others are the newer generation models with the same "Lexus LX" name. OSX (talk • contributions) 13:25, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
- Comment: That is a great image of the Lexus LX-450 and the copyright is secure. --Leoboudv (talk) 00:39, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
- Leoboudv, I hope my above comment did not come out the wrong way. I was just making a comment regarding the other images within the category, I was not supporting the image's retention, in fact Delete. OSX (talk • contributions) 03:12, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
- Leoboudv, I hope my above comment did not come out the wrong way. I was just making a comment regarding the other images within the category, I was not supporting the image's retention, in fact
Deleted. MBisanz talk 01:47, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
It isn't used, and no categories Jonjames1986 (talk) 03:32, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
- Keep, in scope. –Tryphon☂ 05:11, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
- Keep Adiquate photo of a sports stadium. A quick google search of the stadium name revealed the location is in the city of Cernache do Bonjardim, Portugal. Appropriate categories added; in scope. -- Infrogmation (talk) 15:18, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Drawing by belgian artist nl:Ghislaine de Menten de Horne, who died in 1995. So his works are copyrighted until 2066 and there's no proof that we have a permission from his heirs. -- Kam Solusar (talk) 05:29, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
- Delete /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 06:21, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. –Tryphon☂ 09:42, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Drawing by belgian artist nl:Ghislaine de Menten de Horne, who died in 1995. So his works are copyrighted until 2066 and there's no proof that we have a permission from his heirs. -- Kam Solusar (talk) 05:30, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
- Delete /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 06:23, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. –Tryphon☂ 09:43, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Drawing by belgian artist nl:Ghislaine de Menten de Horne, who died in 1995. So his works are copyrighted until 2066 and there's no proof that we have a permission from his heirs. -- Kam Solusar (talk) 05:30, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
- Delete /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 06:22, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
- Delete Delete. --Korman (talk) 09:17, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. –Tryphon☂ 09:43, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Image copyright is unfree for Commons and its quality is generally poor. There are better images of Tallinn. Leoboudv (talk) 05:35, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
- Delete cc-by-nc-sa-2.0 is not acceptable for use on commons. --Captain-tucker (talk) 17:17, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Failed flickr review. –Tryphon☂ 09:44, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
This is licensed as 'Attribution No-Derivatives Creative Commons.' That's not free enough for Commons. Its failed flickr review within 3 weeks of upload and I believe the license was always 'No-Derivatives' for this kind of image. Leoboudv (talk) 05:49, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
- Delete - cc-by-nd-2.0 is not acceptable for use on Commons. --Captain-tucker (talk) 18:51, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
- Comment Commons has 3 other images of Bouma. --Leoboudv (talk) 07:01, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. MBisanz talk 07:36, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
No FOP for sculptures in Italy and De Minimis cannot apply here. Image also failed flickr review. No information is given about the artist's identity but the sculpture looks rather recent to be PD. Leoboudv (talk) 06:01, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
- Delete No Freedom of panorama in Italy and cc-by-nc-nd-2.0 is not an acceptable license for Commons.--Captain-tucker (talk) 19:16, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. –Tryphon☂ 09:44, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
No FOP for this recent relief or artistic work in Paris. Image copyright status is also uncertain Leoboudv (talk) 09:17, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
- Delete architects of the bridge are fr:Louis Arretche (1905-1991) : the bridge will not be free untill 1991+70=2061.
It would be wise to check the entire Category:Pont Charles-de-Gaulle. --Coyau (talk) 12:23, 31 March 2009 (UTC) - Keep, de minimis, relief is just pd-ineligible, bridge has utilitarian aspects. ViperSnake151 (talk) 15:32, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
- Comment How can de minimis apply here when the relief is staring you in the face? Its the predominant feature in the image, not in a secondary role. --Leoboudv (talk) 23:48, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
- Keep Where is the bridge? I just see a plaque with an inscription. Yann (talk) 19:36, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
- Comment I changed my mind as the nominator. Keep. --Leoboudv (talk) 23:46, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
![[1]](http://s161.photobucket.com/albums/t223/ifiwasagecko/the%20mind%20googles/?action=view¤t=i_chew_bollocks.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
Kept. The architectural features of the bridge are absent in this picture; as Yann said, it's just a plaque. –Tryphon☂ 09:52, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
This image is in Category:Flickr images not found since it was no longer available on Flickr when FlickreviewR checked its license. I contacted the author Hughes Léglise-Bataille via Flickrmail and he states that he licensed this image as All Rights Reserved when he uploaded it to Flickr, which is not acceptable as per COM:L#Acceptable_licenses. He also stated that all of his images are All Rights Reserved which appears to be true. Captain-tucker (talk) 19:12, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
- Delete I had nominated it for deletion before. But know we know it was licensed as ARR when it was uploaded. This could be speedied. --Leoboudv (talk) 21:37, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
I'm Hughes Léglise-Bataille, the author of the image, and wuld like it to be deleted from Wikimedia. The original file has already been removed a while ago from public access on Flickr, and all my images are licensed "all right reserved". Thanks.
Deleted by User:Abigor ("Unfree Flickr license"). Jastrow (Λέγετε) 13:19, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
and other uploads by Cvroxanne (talk · contribs): most likely images from corporate website (small resolution, missing EXIF). EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:33, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
- Comment Just as likely own work by cable-vision Roxanne; there is no reason why this artwork should have EXIF data; but this would need confirmation by OTRS. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:13, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. No permission. –Tryphon☂ 09:57, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Derivative work: http://www.raptorveloz.com.ar/carni/avimimus.jpg FunkMonk (talk) 16:50, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
- Definitely looks scanned, contrary to the licensing claim, but the image linked above is not the source. Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:57, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
- No, but the nominated image is traced after that picture. FunkMonk (talk) 14:21, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
- I don't know how you can say that at all :-) It could be the other way around, or drawn after some other version like here or here or here; the image you point to could be a copyright violation itself; was it copied from here or here, or were all of those taken from some other source? In looking for these, I have seen renderings of other dinosaurs with the exact same leg angles; the basic outlines could even be scènes à faire (especially since they would all have to basically follow the non-copyrightable bone structure). The rest of the representation is completely different. Regardless, since this seems to pretty obviously be a photograph of a printed representation (you can see the effects of the flash in the upper left), it is pretty much obviously a copy of someone else's representation, and with no source provided as to that version, this should be Deleted. Especially given that the dinosaur was first discovered in 1981, there probably aren't too many copyright-free drawings. Carl Lindberg (talk) 22:48, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
- Only thing that is different between the two are a few details on the head, the rest is completely identical (as much as that is possible with an amateurish trace job). And nope, the image I linked to is the original, it appears in several dinosaur books, one is this: http://www.amazon.com/Ultimate-Dinosaur-Book-David-Lambert/dp/156458304X# FunkMonk (talk) 13:32, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
- I don't know how you can say that at all :-) It could be the other way around, or drawn after some other version like here or here or here; the image you point to could be a copyright violation itself; was it copied from here or here, or were all of those taken from some other source? In looking for these, I have seen renderings of other dinosaurs with the exact same leg angles; the basic outlines could even be scènes à faire (especially since they would all have to basically follow the non-copyrightable bone structure). The rest of the representation is completely different. Regardless, since this seems to pretty obviously be a photograph of a printed representation (you can see the effects of the flash in the upper left), it is pretty much obviously a copy of someone else's representation, and with no source provided as to that version, this should be
- No, but the nominated image is traced after that picture. FunkMonk (talk) 14:21, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Per Carl Lindberg. –Tryphon☂ 10:01, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Likely copyvio, see http://www.imjude.lorca.es/Imagenes/banner_rutadelargar.gif ; if own work, OTRS would be required. Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:59, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
- Delete unless OTRS is sent. OSX (talk • contributions) 01:41, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. No permission. –Tryphon☂ 11:01, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
When I uploaded this image on March 20th, the credit line on the source page (http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2009/20090319_lubchenco.html said: (Credit: NOAA); now it says (Credit: Oregon State University). While I think its weird for NOAA to change this after the fact, I do think that it a good idea to delete this since it seems that NOAA didn't create this. Hoshie (talk) 03:02, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
- Delete per nom; not NOAA government work and no evidence of free license. Thanks for spotting this. Yes, unusual, but I presume someone at NOAA made a mistake in the earlier photo credit which has since been corrected. -- Infrogmation (talk) 15:09, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Cecil (talk) 19:30, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
According to the Imperial War Museum, the photo was taken by en:Heinrich Hoffmann, who died in 1957. So his works are copyrighted until 2028. Unfortunately the Bundesarchiv only released some of his photos under a free license. -- Kam Solusar (talk) 07:13, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Cecil (talk) 19:32, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Coins are never valid PD-Art. Commons:Currency has no information on the copyright status of Argentine currency. I'm not sure if it's {{PD-text}}. Dcoetzee (talk) 22:57, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. If anybody knows about the status, we could restore it. But even then we would need proper licencing and a source, which are both missing for this image. Cecil (talk) 20:18, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
PD-Art does not cover coins because of their 3D design (see Commons:When_to_use_the_PD-Art_tag#Photograph_of_an_old_coin_found_on_the_Internet). The photographer would have to give permission to use this image. Dcoetzee (talk) 22:59, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Cecil (talk) 20:20, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Files from Réseau Voltaire
[edit]The site http://www.axisforpeace.net/, where this low quality version of a high quality image comes from, says nothing about derivative works. Considering older deletion requests on Press licenses have been clearified as nonfree because they are non-derivative I opened this deletion request. The wording at the source page http://www.axisforpeace.net/rubrique13.html needs clarification if derivative works inside the legal restrictions are possible. Commercial use, and not only educational or informative use, might be ok with the wording.
| “ | Photos utilisables librement sous réserve de la mention : « Source : Réseau Voltaire ». | ” |
- Nominated files
Some Files on the French Wikipedia [2] [3] are also related.
- Notice
I refered to "older deletion requests". Consider Commons:Deletion requests/Pictures from www.imf.org for a successful and Commons:Deletion requests/Template:FrenchMinistryOfForeignAffairs for a failed request. After I posted this request on the French Bistro: The case is obvious, it just needs clarification. The refered deletion requests are long enough, so please do not start discussion about press permissions. We already had this issues, many pages of text were written, the result was always that a simple clarification is needed. --Martin H. (talk) 14:22, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
- I'll send an e-mail. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 15:22, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
- Thierry Meyssan from Réseau Voltaire/Axis for peace gave us permission under CC-BY-SA 3.0. I forwarded the e-mail to OTRS. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 07:25, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
- Update: The first permission was rejected as not explicit enough. I got a straight, unequivocal release under CC-BY 3.0 and forwarded the mail to OTRS volunteers on April, 8th. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 12:18, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
- Thierry Meyssan from Réseau Voltaire/Axis for peace gave us permission under CC-BY-SA 3.0. I forwarded the e-mail to OTRS. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 07:25, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Kept, permission was given to use all files from www.axisforpeace.net under CC-BY 3.0 (OTRS ticket #2009040110021255). Jastrow (Λέγετε) 06:53, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
File:'The_History_of_the_Virgin_and_Christ'_painting_by_Dello_di_Niccolò_Delli,_1440-45,_old_Cathedral_of_Salamanca,_Spain.jpg
[edit]
Painting is on a curved surface, so the photographer (who has apparently not given permission) has a creative input. This is not a valid PD-Art image. Dcoetzee (talk) 22:43, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. {{PD-Art}} does not apply. Rocket000 (talk) 22:45, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
Image was never passed by flickr review. More importantly, it is not used on Wikipedia. It should not be kept in these circumstances. Leoboudv (talk) 09:14, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. MBisanz talk 05:32, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
A nearly 2 year old image which never passed flickr review and is not used on any Wikipedia site. Why is it still on Commons in this case? Leoboudv (talk) 09:20, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 19:40, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Template:Location deg min
[edit]As it was mentioned in Commons_talk:Geocoding, I would like to propose to retire {{Location deg min}} and {{Object location deg min}} templates. I think templates {{Location}}, {{Location dec}} and the Object location counterparts provide enough ways to define coordinates, without need for those two. The only way for {{Location deg min}} to be precise is to store minutes as a real number with about 3 decimal digits, if that is not done than location is very imprecise. Also those 2 add to the "clutter" of multiple templates for exactly the same purpose with different conflicting parameters. Jarekt (talk) 03:38, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
- Delete reduce template clutter. Better for users and data extractors. --Dschwen (talk) 12:17, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
- Delete I fully agree with User:Dschwen. Sv1xv (talk) 10:22, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Nobody has objected during the last six weeks or so. MichaelMaggs (talk) 19:36, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Yamada TB.jpg
[edit]
- File:Yamada TB.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Taniyama TB.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
These files seems to be copied from this site ( http://www.kodoku2005.sakura.ne.jp/toll/ibusuki/ibusuki_026.JPG and http://www.kodoku2005.sakura.ne.jp/toll/ibusuki/ibusuki_007.JPG respectively), and according to this page the site forbid to copy its resources, hence these files are copyvio. --Peccafly (talk) 10:42, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 18:25, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Without any information about the original source of this image, there's no way to verify that the author is anonymous. Maybe someone can find out where and when it was published. --Kam Solusar (talk) 07:04, 31 March 2009 (UTC) Kam Solusar (talk) 07:04, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
- Keep: image taken in 1924 at the latest, therefore over 80 years old and in the public domain. OSX (talk • contributions) 13:29, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
- Keep usually "80 years old" does not mean "public domain", but this looks like a passport photo to me, and those are often anonymous. I think {{Anonymous-EU}} is the right license to use. --Jarekt (talk) 16:57, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
- According to the license tag, "This image (or other media file) is in the public domain because its copyright has expired and its author is anonymous. This applies to the European Union and those countries with a copyright term of 70 years after the work was made available to the public and the author never disclosed his identity." OSX (talk • contributions) 01:37, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
- I agree, if it really was a passport image, the photographer could be anonymous. But Hitler's life is pretty well documented, there are dozens of biographies and lots of other scientific literature about him. This photo was surely used in several books, so it shouldn't be too hard to check these sources and see if they state the author's name or call it an anoynmous work. --Kam Solusar (talk) 22:13, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
- Keep: but ask if the professor who's website the pic was copied has more information of the origins. His website--Ukas (talk) 07:10, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Kept. –Juliancolton | Talk 23:15, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
möglicherweise urv —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.248.124.8 (talk • contribs) 17:02, 11 March 2009 (UTC) (UTC)
Vielleicht kennt jemand die Urheberrechte etwas genauer. Ich habe die Grenzen von Doris der OÖ. Landesregierung entnommen und die Gebiete coloriert und beschriftet. Wenn das eine URV ist, dann bitte löschen, wenn nicht, würde ich die Grafik nach dieser Diskussion als ordnungsgemäß weiter verwenden.92.248.125.244 06:54, 13 March 2009 (UTC) (pfeifferfranz)
92.248.125.244 06:52, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
Kept, see no reason for deletion. Kameraad Pjotr 20:06, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
möglicherweise urv --88.117.120.17 19:43, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Kept, per above. Kameraad Pjotr 20:06, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
Just a joke Eingangskontrolle (talk) 08:02, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
deleted, not in use and the uploader himself said, it's a joke (de: Witz), also it's out of scope. -- Ra'ike T C 09:12, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
Just a joke Eingangskontrolle (talk) 08:03, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
deleted, not in use and the uploader himself said, it's a joke, also it's out of scope. -- Ra'ike T C 09:15, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
Just a joke Eingangskontrolle (talk) 08:03, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
deleted, not in use and the uploader himself said, it's a joke, also it's out of scope. -- Ra'ike T C 09:17, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
replaced by File:Drouwenerzand 1899.jpg Gouwenaar (talk) 14:45, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Deleted per uploader's request. (We don't usually delete PNG files replaced by JPEG versions, but in this case both seem to have been derived from a JPEG original anyway.) Ilmari Karonen (talk) 15:21, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
This image is not a horseshoe nail - the description and the name of the photo are misleading. Timmccloud (talk) 23:38, 31 March 2009 (UTC) It is also not used anywhere. Timmccloud (talk) 23:39, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- Surely all it needs is renaming? Man vyi (talk) 06:46, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
Kept, per Man vyi. If the title sucks, tag it with {{Rename}}. If the description is wrong, correct it. --The Evil IP address (talk) 16:01, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
"Kostenfreie Abbildung nur mit Hinweis" (usage free of charge when source provided) doesn't mean GFDL (and it's not PD either) Polarlys (talk) 23:35, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Rocket000 (talk) 18:35, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
pornographic 217.230.238.51 16:03, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Kept. Martin H. (talk) 21:29, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
No evidence that first publication was before 1923 in the United States. Will likely have to wait until next January, when Mucha's works are all (Life+70) public domain. grendel|khan 13:39, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
- Comment Mucha was quite well-known in the US, and he had exhibitions in New York and in Chicago in 1921. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:51, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
- Keep Mucha will be soon PD. With no evidence, it's better to keep than delete and undelete in six months ! (same for all of Category:Alfons Mucha). Cdlt, VIGNERON * discut. 10:04, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. A "will be under a valid license in the foreseeable future" argument is repugnant to the entire idea of copyright. BanyanTree 04:12, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
contains six images with no sources for any of them, and the school coat of arms, again, no source Skier Dude (talk) 03:26, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
- Comment Uploader was not notified, I will do that now. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:39, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. BanyanTree 04:13, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
