Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2009/05/08
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
|
|
Previously uploaded by Liftarn as File:Stone_ship.JPG. This was deleted due to licence of GFDL-presumed, ascribed to someone called Petaholmes. It had been transwikied from en.wp, originally uploaded by one Wiglaf. Now, we have this, which is said to be sourced to Berig, but was uploaded by Koyos. Someone, somewhere, probably several someones, are improperly claiming ownership of this picture, and I'm quite interested to know whose it actually is. -mattbuck (Talk) 01:19, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
- Wiglaf and Berig are the same person. Berig / Wiglaf is a huge contributor to wikipedia / commons, he took the picture, and has assigned this picture GFDL, please see the original on enWiki and this discussion. I uploaded the picture to commons so that all wikis can use it, not just enWiki. Please remove this deletion request. Koyos (talk) 01:35, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Denominated. Thanks for the info. -mattbuck (Talk) 06:37, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
out of COM:SCOPE; not a document of racism, as only user-created. Túrelio (talk) 12:50, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Keep, it is heavily in use in various projects, as part of various templates (example). It has indeed nothing to do with racism. –Tryphon☂ 16:04, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
- Funny to provide an example in cyrillic, of which I don't understand a word. After finding it on Stop#Icons and comparing its caption with the caption of the icon to the left, I'm still puzzled what's the meaning of that icon. --Túrelio (talk) 17:28, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
- Well, I just meant to show that projects use it legitimately (not just in user namespace, and quite a lot). I thought that the page title would be enough to understand the template (it's one of those your IP has been blocked templates). –Tryphon☂ 18:44, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
- Keep per Tryphoon.--Kwj2772 (msg) 16:53, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
- Though I don't understand the example provided by Tryphon, I believe him. However, it might be wise to choose a description that is less prone to be misunderstood.--Túrelio (talk) 17:28, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Kept. I will ask for it to be renamed MichaelMaggs (talk) 19:29, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
wrong data and name --Cyclotour09 (talk) 12:53, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Uploader request. Badseed talk 21:09, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
not in scope Avron (talk) 14:40, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. — Mike.lifeguard 02:10, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
not in scope Avron (talk) 14:41, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. — Mike.lifeguard 02:10, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Wouldn't this fall under doctor-patient confidentiality? –Tryphon☂ 16:32, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
- Keep There is no copyright problem. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:37, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
- Sure, but we also have a policy about photographs of identifiable people. And I think a doctor's office is one of those places where one has a reasonable expectation of privacy. –Tryphon☂ 18:52, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Clearly fails photographs of identifiable people without the explicit consent of the subject. MichaelMaggs (talk) 19:38, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Comment The uploader seems to be a medical doctor uploading photos of patients with illustrative medical conditions. While I agree with the application of Commons policies in this deletion request, I might have given more time for the uploader to respond and perhaps confirm permission rather than close and delete so quickly. I would support undeletion if the uploader can show consent of the suject. -- Infrogmation (talk) 19:20, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
I don't think we have a precise policy about image size, but fail to see how such a microscopic image can be realistically useful. –Tryphon☂ 17:45, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Deleted, as out of COM:SCOPE due to being too small (120 x 80 pix) to be useful, and de facto unused.--Túrelio (talk) 15:28, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
"BRAVO" is a german youth magazine. work definitely NOT "own work" of uploader. JD {æ} 18:02, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Deleted, copyright violation -- Infrogmation (talk) 19:28, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
not PD, not "own work". JD {æ} 18:03, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. by Infrogmation Kwj2772 (msg) 05:41, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
Copyrighted symbol, not textlogo. It was created in 1973. -Vantey (talk) 19:22, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:43, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
Out of scope: Commons is not a private photo album High Contrast (talk) 19:36, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Delete User is uploading photos and making edits that are for a solely promotional aim, image is not within project scope -- Editor at Large • talk 19:45, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Much better Version availabale: File:Coat of arms Wilhelmshaven 1948.png Eingangskontrolle (talk) 09:10, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Replacement image is of better quality and slightly better sourced. One use for the picture on en.WP, but apparently it would be meaningless to replace. Eusebius (talk) 21:23, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
The en:Battle of Monte Cassino were in 1944. To young for PD in Germany. sугсго 11:41, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
- Does PD in Germany apply here? It seems the poster has been "published" in Italy first...--Avron (talk) 16:46, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
- COM:PD#Italy: Generally, 70 years after the author's death, but with a few exceptions: but only EU-anonymous may fit: 70 years after publication. 1944 + 70 = 2014, but not now PD. sугсго 09:01, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Eusebius (talk) 21:23, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Appears to be the logo of a company, no proof that it's really public domain Nyttend (talk) 12:16, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
- Delete. Not used in Wikimedia. No info on "Mitchellsoft Corporation" found in google search. If this is really uploader's own work public domain, out of scope as no evidence of notability. -- Infrogmation (talk) 04:44, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Out of scope and copyvio. Yann (talk) 16:42, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
No evidence that this was first published before 1923. I doubt it was. 129.137.219.162 13:02, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
- Keep There are several ways something can be public domain in the US. One is publication pre-1923. Another is publication after that but without being properly registered (up until the time when that was no longer a requirement, which was decades later) and proper copyright notice and owner's name affixed. Another is to have a copyright during that same early period and not renew it. I don't know that this was made pre-1923 (and doubt it myself), but based upon being underground pornography it's inconceivable that it would have been properly legally registered as was required at the time. Better sourcing would be helpful, but I can't imagine any situation where this particular piece would be anything but public domain. DreamGuy (talk) 13:17, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
- Keep per DreamGuy. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 14:32, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
- Delete There are two other concerns (beyond the year thing) I have about such an image:
- Even though it's being used in an article about pornography, there's no proof that this image was from such a work (for all we know, it's just something normal published with Wimpy, a copyrighted character associated with Popeye comics and cartoons).
- As mentioned, even if one assumes that it is what it's claimed to be, would that mean we have the legal right to declare a copyrighted character 'public domain' just because someone else ripped it off? For example, if I produce a work which relies solely on reproducing Mickey Mouse, and call it "Mickey Mouse", can I then claim that it (and Mickey Mouse) is public domain?
- With no knowledge of the source (from a tijuana bible, or simply an old Thimble Theater/Popeye booklet), or when it was made, and considering that a third party likely doesn't have the legal right to make someone else's copyrighted characters public domain anyways, I'd have to suggest deletion. 72.88.46.132 01:18, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
- Comment To clarify, copyrights are for specific images (and text, etc.), not characters. This image being public domain would in no way make the character public domain, nor would it make the original copyrighted image public domain, just this rip off. Frankly I wonder if the original image this would have been drawn from would be under any copyright this late in the game: a lot of early cartoons are public domain, though there may be active trademarks, which are different. Mickey Mouse is a trademark, but there are, for example, early images of him that are now public domain. DreamGuy (talk) 22:34, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
- Comment I believe this is indeed from a period "Tiajuana Bible", which generally qualify as PD-US-no notice, as dispite the name they were generally printed in the USA quasi-legally or illegally. However the image of the character "Wimpy" was clearly an unauthorized usage of a copyrighted character back in the 1930s. I'm not sure what legal status this winds up as. -- Infrogmation (talk) 04:51, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
- Comment -- Nobody contacted the original uploader. I did so just now. Hopefully more information on the source and year will be forthcoming soon. DreamGuy (talk) 22:34, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
- Uploader here. The image is a scanned cover of a Tiajuana bible. The booklet it came from is undated. It IS presumably from post 1923 because Popeye was created in 1929 (according to our article). I don't now these copyright issues well, but isn't there a justification that can be used to that will allow the use of a low resolution scan of a cover? I'd say let's find a way to correct the justification for using the image rather than deleting it. Ike9898 (talk) 01:46, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
- en:Wikipedia allows fair use, Commons does not. If this is judged unacceptable for Commons, it can be copied back to en:Wikipedia for a fair use rationale to be added. -- Infrogmation (talk) 13:26, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
- Keep Okay looking into this a bit more, I think this can be kept. There seem to be two issues: 1)Publication copyright. As I suggested, probably 1930s, but even if it is any time 30 years later it would still be public domain per US law Template:PD-US-no notice. No problem here 2)Character copyright. The use of the "Wimpy" character was clearly not authorized. This is why I didn't vote "Keep" earlier, as the "Wimpy" character was likely copyrighted by cartoonist E.C. Seeger or his publisher Hearst/King Features Syndicate. However checking a bit, the copyright of Seeger's characters seems to have just expired; see [1]. I presume a trademark is likely still be held on the character; I have added a trademark notice to the image description. -- Infrogmation (talk) 13:24, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
- That's probably good enough (though, I still doubt we'd be having this discussion if I tried to make my own Mickey Mouse comics, even calling it Mickey Mouse, and then releasing 'my own' workr into the PD). Could you please edit the wikipedia version to reflect the trademark notice as well? (or will that eventually happen automatically?) 72.88.114.52 15:02, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
Kept. Per Infrogmation. –Tryphon☂ 09:15, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
Picture of average-looking white dog, not in use anywhere, and without a description not likely to be; uploader absent, so can't ask for description Nyttend (talk) 13:44, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
- Keep i don't feel that not knowing the breed is a valid reason for deletion of this photo,..--Ltshears (talk) 19:25, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Kept. No solid reason for deletion. The breed might be identified later. Eusebius (talk) 21:27, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
permission questionable Avron (talk) 14:47, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
- Agreed; image description edited and uploader notified of confirmation of permission requested. In such cases Template:npd may take care of the situation without opening a deletion request discussion. -- Infrogmation (talk) 04:57, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Would need OTRS authorization. DRs may be used to question problem tags, but applying problem tags while a DR is active is less useful, I think. Eusebius (talk) 21:29, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Images uploaded by Lukka.b
[edit]File:Mkm logo.gif ()
File:Mm pk vinohradnicke nacinie.jpg ()
File:Pres.jpg ()
File:Mm-exponaty.jpg ()
File:Expozícia pivnicná.jpg ()
File:Sudy.jpg ()
File:Mmpk.jpg ()
and Category:Malokarpatské múzeum v Pezinku
All sourced to some museum, all web resolution. Looks like press material; we need OTRS confirmation to keep these. -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 15:03, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
- Agree, OTRS permission or similar confirmation of license needed. -- Infrogmation (talk) 19:15, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Would need OTRS permission. Eusebius (talk) 21:29, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
no source, no author, license questionable Avron (talk) 16:47, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
- Agree, tagged as nsd (no source). -- Infrogmation (talk) 19:25, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Eusebius (talk) 21:31, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
File:DSC 0164-Edit.jpg
File:KathleenHennesseyasElphaba2.jpg
I doubt the author took these photos Guy0307 (talk) 11:55, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
- Delete Need permission/source. Hekerui (talk) 18:22, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
- Keep File:DSC 0164-Edit.jpg has a filename typical of own work; it also has EXIF data. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:32, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
- Comment: It does, but inside EXIF data there are the following notes: Author: Kathleen Hennessey and Copyright holder: (C) 2008 Kat Hennessey Photography. Sv1xv (talk) 19:34, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
- Delete File:DSC 0164-Edit.jpg is a definite delete based on the EXIF data. And now deleted as such. I have severe doubts that the remaining one is "own work". --Herby talk thyme 08:56, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. More than doubtful "own work". Eusebius (talk) 08:27, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
A person edited the picture in question using ACD Systems Digital Imaging on 17:13, 7 October 2006 yet the picture was only created 21 November 2007 according to the "license". Further, ACD Systems Digital Imaging's Section 2.7 of its EULA ("Use Restrictions"), forbids the use of the software to use, display or distribute material that is pornographic, racist, vulgar, obscene, defamatory, libelous, abusive, promoting hatred, discriminating or displaying prejudice based on religion, ethnic heritage, race, sexual orientation or age, stating to do so with this software is "strictly prohibited". - ALLST✰R▼echo wuz here @ 20:22, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
- Additionally, the uploader's only other contributions are questionable as to the uploader actually owning the images. See File:Genitaila-142736-52Y9s.jpg (which TinEye has 1 hit for on another web site) and File:59 903.jpg - both orphaned. I believe they should be deleted as well. - ALLST✰R▼echo wuz here @ 20:25, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
- Delete - All 3 images, as nom. Interesting to note how "artful" this image is and how obviously ridiculous the camel toe image is. - ALLST✰R▼echo wuz here @ 20:28, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
- Support thanks for bringing this over here. TharsHammar (talk) 20:29, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
- You support keeping or deleting? - ALLST✰R▼echo wuz here @ 20:32, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
- Support deletion, I was the one who first raised the issue over at wikipedia. TharsHammar (talk) 20:34, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, but over here, you gotta be specific. ;] - ALLST✰R▼echo wuz here @ 20:34, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
- Support deletion, I was the one who first raised the issue over at wikipedia. TharsHammar (talk) 20:34, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
- Delete all 3 as copyvios. Xavexgoem (talk) 20:41, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
- Comment I do not think we care about EULAs, but what in the image is going against its terms? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:53, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
- That there are breasts obviously - that autonatically checks the vulgar, obscene and pornographic boxes. I have to agree, EULA is not AFAIK a copyright restriction and thus irrelevant. -mattbuck (Talk) 20:57, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
- (ec) The fact that the image was software edited in 2006, uploader claims to have taken the image in 2007, on November 21 and uploaded on November 27. No camera info in the metadata either. - ALLST✰R▼echo wuz here @ 20:57, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
- We don't care about software restrictions here. That's the same as usage restrictions or behavior restrictions. It's not Commons job to police its users for how they acquired the images. It is our job to ensure the images themselves are free from copyright or allow a usable copyright, and as I stated below, I doubt these do.Bastique demandez 21:05, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
- Delete, based on the mismatch between the metadata and the licensing info, and (to a lesser extent) the user's lack of communication since uploading. (Comment: I don't regard the EULA as relevant to commons; it's a matter for ACD Systems Digital Imaging). Cheers, This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 21:01, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
- Clarify: delete all 3 images; they all seem equally dubious. This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 19:02, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
- Setting aside the whole interesting and compelling EULA rationale for removing the image, I find the likelihood that the SPA account who uploaded these photographs actually owns the copyright highly dubious. Source unknown, delete images. (BTW, Nice sig Allstar). Bastique demandez 21:03, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks! ;] - ALLST✰R▼echo wuz here @ 21:06, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
- Keep For one thing, this image isn't pornographic in any real sense - it is tasteful and artistic. Second, the company is question has apparently faced criticism over their ridiculous EULA, which would probably be overturned if it ever went to court due to Constitutional issues. Third, probably due to this criticism, their later (its an rtf file) EULAs don't contain that language. Fourth, there is no way of telling which EULA the user was operating under when the file was created - and last time I checked innocence is presumed, not guilt. Finally, this is just a bunch of PC silliness. 71.220.226.73 21:04, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
- Aside from the EULA, the copyright issue still stands and as such, the image should be deleted because the metadata proves otherwise in terms of the user's claims that he took this photo. - ALLST✰R▼echo wuz here @ 21:06, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
How does the metadata prove that? Just because the dates are off? Maybe he didn't know when he took it and just clicked the something conveinent - a quick way to tell would be to see when it was uploaded and when he created his account. Hell, I suppose I should start trolling for photos of gay people kissing and try to get them deleted since I don't like looking at them. 71.220.226.73 21:23, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
- Are you insinuating that I nommed the image because I'm gay and as such have some sort of aversion to female anatomy? You didn't get the memo that all gay men like tits, even if we don't want to touch them, apparently. Seriously, grow up. The image was being used inappropriately on a Wikipedia user talk page which brought further attention to the fact that the image is an obvious copyvio. Nothing more, nothing less, no agenda against tits. - ALLST✰R▼echo wuz here @ 22:59, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
- Allstar, can you turn this into an omnibus, or at any rate make it clearer that all three uploaded images are copyvios? Xavexgoem (talk) 21:10, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
- Well, admittedly, I don't have any proof about the other 2 images. Just going off the obvious that all 3 are the user's only contributions to Commons and as 1 is in no doubt in question, the other 2 are too. The 1 other image with a TinEye hit.. I went to the web page where TinEye says it is, but that page is 404. - ALLST✰R▼echo wuz here @ 21:12, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
- Delete. All three images lack camera metadata. Uploader has never responded to requests for more information. The overriding issue is copyright, and these probably violate it. Durova (talk) 21:18, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
- Delete No real value to the project (they are hardly unique) and dubious licensing (the other two images as well). --Herby talk thyme 08:48, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
- Delete, unverifable and dubious copyright status. TimVickers (talk) 18:47, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
- Delete all. Doubtful this indivdiual took all three photos, so the most likely explanation is that he took none of them. –xeno talk 03:32, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
- Delete all three. I think the likelihood of copyright violation is high, and it's not like we can't get other images of the same nature easily as replacements. And I'm glad the EULA rationale was stricken, that was wrong on multiple levels (not our concern, and not obscene -- "breasts obviously - that autonatically checks the vulgar, obscene and pornographic boxes" is just a bizarre statement). DreamGuy (talk) 15:28, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
- That is called sarcasm. -mattbuck (Talk) 16:52, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Deleted all. PeterSymonds (talk) 22:46, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Source site for this image is a content aggregator for Lady Gaga and does not hold the license for the image. This page clearly says at the bottom: "If you own an image on this site, and would like for it to be removed, then please contact us and we will do so immediately." Tabercil (talk) 22:56, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
- Comment Original uploader uploaded this exact same image as File:Gagahouseofblues.jpg, which was also nominated for deletion at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Gagahouseofblues.jpg. I have deleted the duplicate and closed the attendant deletion request on that grounds. The only thing I wish to point out is that the deletion request for Gagahouseofblues.jpg also had this request present: "Please also block the Flickrwashing account (add to untrusted user list)" Tabercil (talk) 12:08, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. No sign of authorization anywhere. Eusebius (talk) 08:30, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
According to the source the images that are listed there are "free" (german: zur Verwendung frei). This is quite vague because this declaration does not contain that the copyright holder of this work allows anyone to use it for any purpose including unrestricted redistribution, commercial use, and/or modification. High Contrast (talk) 17:55, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
- Delete "Sie können Sie unter Angabe der Quelle ("Foto: BMFSFJ") für Ihre Pressearbeit nutzen." = press license. Not free enough. --Kam Solusar (talk) 09:58, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
- Keep "Die Porträtfotos sind zur Verwendung frei." = "The portrait pictures are free for usage." The followed sentence (quoted in the voting above) is in my comprehension an additional clarification. --Stepro (talk) 11:51, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
- It's a typical press license, intended for use in press articles. "Free for usage" doesn't necessarily mean that derivative works or free commercial use are permitted. Best solution would probably be to send an email to the Familienministerium or her office and ask. --Kam Solusar (talk) 13:30, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
- Delete. No clear release that the image is OK to use for commercial or derivative works. RMHED (talk) 23:00, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Eusebius (talk) 08:25, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
duplicate to "Sophia Albertina of Sweden" created by mistake --EmilEikS (talk) 23:23, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Taken care of. You can just tag those for speedy deletion. Eusebius (talk) 09:25, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
no permission from http://www.willard.lib.mi.us/historical/bcphotos/museums/h43_4247.htm 85.179.168.163 05:34, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Eusebius (talk) 21:20, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Croatian Football Federation photos
[edit]- File:Dario šimić.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Prosinečki.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Ćorluka.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Dražen Ladić.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Dražen Ladić-hns.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Dario Srna.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Vedran Ćorluka.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
These images should be deleted, since the permission is for non-commercial use. They are from the Croatian Football Federation, and the original uploader at the Croatian Wikipedia has received permission from the federation. However, if Google Translate is to be trusted, it says "feel free to use, knowing that this is not a commercial project". It appears the permission was given with the assumption that the images would not be used for commercial purposes, which would not be eligible for Commons (or elsewhere in Wikipedia. --Ytoyoda (talk) 17:18, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
- I can attest the Google translation. Seems like the licensor didn't fully grasp Wikimedia licensing issue. --Filip (§) 20:37, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Non-commercial restrictions. Eusebius (talk) 08:21, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
No license. TenPoundHammer (talk) 13:08, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
- Yes there is. It was uploaded by Mr. Brickman's publicist, who gave me permission to add the GNU license, but I will gain formal written permission and gain an OTRS #. Cricket02 (talk) 16:02, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
- Update. Permission with appropriate license has been forwarded to permissions@wikimedia.org. Cricket02 (talk) 20:53, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
- Permission validated at OTRS:2947909. Stifle (talk) 15:13, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
Kept. Eusebius (talk) 21:19, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Kept. Eusebius (talk) 21:19, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Doesn't look like own work (low resolution, no exif). –Tryphon☂ 12:42, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
- Also File:Wiki II.jpg and File:Wiki III.jpg. –Tryphon☂ 12:43, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
- Delete - look like they're taken from an online catalogue to me. -mattbuck (Talk) 12:57, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
- Dear Tryphon, i'm who took that pictures whit my own cam and i prepare this picture. That old products are in ower museum. If you have any question please feel free to askme. Best Regard — Preceding unsigned comment added by Surecom (talk • contribs) 15:41, 2009 May 8 (UTC)
- In that case, would you consider uploading the original images? It would be much more useful (better resolution, individual objects, ...) and would dissipate any doubts about copyright. Thanks. –Tryphon☂ 15:56, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
- I've realy appreciated you'r opinion but i dont wanna make a promotion of this old products (discontinuous). Only show a simple sample of ones of them. Best regards.
- In that case, would you consider uploading the original images? It would be much more useful (better resolution, individual objects, ...) and would dissipate any doubts about copyright. Thanks. –Tryphon☂ 15:56, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
- What is the purpose of your uploads then? The images are barely usable.--Avron (talk) 16:38, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
- I also cannot see a realistic use for them at this resolution. -mattbuck (Talk) 20:53, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
- What is the purpose of your uploads then? The images are barely usable.--Avron (talk) 16:38, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Nilfanion (talk) 23:01, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
Unlikely own work as claimed by the user on cs.wp. This looks very much like a screengrab. ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 22:47, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Unlikely own work. --High Contrast (talk) 15:18, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Nilfanion (talk) 23:02, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
The source is doubtful. Originally from the hungarian WP, a screengrab from a private video. A hungarian was allowed to create such a one there? Antemister (talk) 12:58, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
- Delete Image is basically identical with the image I nominated for deletion in 2009. --ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 12:59, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
- Keep The Russians make all for money. You can fly to the ISS or fly with a MiG-29 fighter aircraft. Why not a sightseeing tour through the Chernobyl nuclear power plant for hungarian tourists? --Ras67 (talk) 00:14, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
- Here is the uploader's confirmation. I have no doubt that the statement is true. --Ras67 (talk) 00:41, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
- Ras67, "Russians make all for money"??? The Chernobyl power plant is in Ukraine. --High Contrast (talk) 18:46, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
- That's right, but the power plant was built from the Soviet Union and IMHO the old spirit has survived out there. --Ras67 (talk) 13:40, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
- Ras67, "Russians make all for money"??? The Chernobyl power plant is in Ukraine. --High Contrast (talk) 18:46, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
Kept: as per Ras67. AGF. I know people who have been there. Yann (talk) 18:46, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
Yet another penis image... don't see anything in this one that's different from what we already have. Same can be said for the following photos:
- File:Penis erection glans 3.jpg
- File:Penis erection glans 3.jpg
- File:Penis erection glans 1.jpg
- File:Penis erection forskin.jpg
- File:My penis 3.jpg
- File:My penis 2.jpg
- File:My penis 1.jpg
Kill one, kill 'em all. Tabercil (talk) 23:01, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
- I'm ambivalent - the first couple of photos seem pretty good quality to me. -mattbuck (Talk) 00:02, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
- Comment Seems some actual decent photographic quality, unlike most drive-by self-penis pic uploaders. No particular opinion on these, though I think Commons could save a lot of trouble with a policy of not accepting genitalia photos unless the user has also uploaded useful images of other in-project-scope subjects. -- Infrogmation (talk) 17:50, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
- I kinda agree with both of you: the images do seem better than most of what gets uploaded, and we should limit new photos of male & female genitalia. Dunno about the "other in-project-scope photos" limitation... maybe a simple "no new photos unless already in use in an article?" In any case, what I'm doing here is challenging whether these pics should be here to begin with. After all, if I felt it was a clear-cut case that they served zero purpose at all, I'd've canned them outright on first sight as out of scope. Tabercil (talk) 00:00, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
I agree with you. File:Penis_erection_glans_2.jpg This foto can be deleted as it is comparable with others. I also think that bad, older and not used fotos could be deleted.
Thanks for your oppinion.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ellington (talk • contribs) 07:30, May 10, 2009 (UTC)
Keep yet another deletionist, with a mass-deletion list, trying to "clean up wmc"; lacking any real rationale for deletion. here's an idea: how about working on properly categorizing this stuff, instead of sticking delete tags on everything? or, better yet, if you don't like looking at penis pics, don't go looking for them:P
if your "reason for deletion" is valid, it would apply to half the images on wmc. it's just an excuse/rationalization.
Lx 121 (talk) 01:51, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
comment x 2:
1. i note that 2 of the "other images" you cite have already been deleted.
2. WMC IS A MEDIA ARCHIVE!!!! what part of that concept do you not understand!?
variety is a good thing
wmc is supposed to have lots of images; this isn't a club, it's not a photo-album, & it's not a private collection of "one of everything".
no serious, professional media archive would operate on the rationale of: well we have too much of this stuff, so lets get rid of it! ^__^
this is why no-one outside of wikimedia takes wmc seriously as a media resource.
Lx 121 (talk) 01:57, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
the image is also part of a photo-series, in case you hadn't noticed. Lx 121 (talk) 01:59, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Kept. No convincing rationales for deletion have been given. The images are decent quality, not people saying "lol my penis is on wikipedia i'm sexy and rebellious". Easily used for educational purposes, not identifiable so no COM:PEOPLE issues... -mattbuck (Talk) 02:10, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
This map has been published in a soviet book made in 1970ies. Publishing violates the russian copyright law. I have made my own maps due to that reason, otherwise I would have uploaded the contents of this page: http://rkkaww2.armchairgeneral.com/index.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kl833x9 (talk • contribs) 19:31, 2009 May 8 (UTC)
- Can you precise the source? --Eusebius (talk) 08:28, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Assuming Copyvio Captain-tucker (talk) 13:17, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
and File:Mnara.JPG. Web resolution, no EXIF, very unlikely to be own work. –Tryphon☂ 17:51, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
- Don't delete this image as it is mine. See my other pictures in my personal blog: http://mogadishumemories.blogspot.com/ or on my flickr account: http://www.flickr.com/photos/theadvocate/page10/ Share them please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paragon (talk • contribs) 20:09, 2009 May 8 (UTC)
- All the images in your flickr account are All rights reserved, so you need to send permission to OTRS, or change the license directly on flickr to something acceptable on Commons (cc-by or cc-by-sa). I still find troublesome that both these images have low resolution and no EXIF, whereas most of the images in the flickr stream have a decent resolution and camera metadata. –Tryphon☂ 20:19, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
- Keep If the images are Paragon's own ones from his Flickr account and blog as he indicates, then I don't see why his uploading them should be a problem. Indeed, the blog which features the File:Mnara.JPG image indicates in a post dated Wednesday, 22 November 2006 that all of the pictures featured on it are from a private collection: "The begining of series of pre-War Somalia (private collection)". Paragon: I would be willing to personally assist you in any way I can to properly upload your images. Middayexpress (talk) 16:56, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
- All the images in your flickr account are All rights reserved, so you need to send permission to OTRS, or change the license directly on flickr to something acceptable on Commons (cc-by or cc-by-sa). I still find troublesome that both these images have low resolution and no EXIF, whereas most of the images in the flickr stream have a decent resolution and camera metadata. –Tryphon☂ 20:19, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Paragon: Just for clarification, by "it is mine", you mean that you have taken the pictures yourself, right? --Eusebius (talk) 08:24, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
- Let the images stay, you Tryphon really need to get a life, you have nothing better to do then sit on here and remove images because you think they are taken from someones website, who the **** cares if its copied! no one sues over a photo of tower taken with a digital camera, why do you need to get invloved in this? if some @$$ really wanted to sue over a photo, your not going to get in trouble, so why get involved? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.231.245.245 (talk • contribs) 20:43, 7 June 2009 (UTC) (UTC)
- Hi, this is a freely licensed media repositories. People here are just working to keep this assertion as true as possible. There are a lot of non-freely licensed or who-cares licensed media repository you may want to contribute to, if you think that the aim of Commons doesn't suit you. Regards, --Eusebius (talk) 13:12, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. The above comment makes it very likely that this is in fact copied from some place. –Juliancolton | Talk 03:32, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
Images of Nasoeph
[edit]
I doubt the uploader took these. All of Nasoeph (talk · contributions · Statistics)'s images on Commons were deleted by copyvio, so did on jawp (ja:User talk:Nasoeph, His all logs on ja). --Vantey (talk) 20:01, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. PeterSymonds (talk) 15:56, 8 October 2009 (UTC)