Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2009/06/15
 |
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}
Copyright Violation JEN9841 (talk) 06:48, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
- Also, same image as File:Uastadium2.jpg
Deleted. by High Contrast Yann (talk) 17:11, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
Promotional photo, can be found all over using Tineye or Google images Rat at WikiFur (talk) 04:02, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Wknight94 talk 02:31, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
Questionable licensing info; user claims ownership of the image yet provided an outside website as its source. Andrea (talk) 21:29, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Blatant violation of copyrights, see EXIF data. --Martin H. (talk) 22:54, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
Copyvio Sofree 02:57, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Obvious copyvio. –Juliancolton | Talk 03:01, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
(Meant to create a Category for MD 488, not 448.) --Kumba42 (talk) 03:02, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Author request. –Juliancolton | Talk 03:05, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
Copyvio Sofree 02:28, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Copyvio. Yann (talk) 11:38, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
Copyvio Sofree 02:37, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Copyvio. Yann (talk) 11:37, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
COpyvio Sofree 02:44, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
Kept. License OK Yann (talk) 11:37, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
Copyvio Sofree 03:02, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
Kept. License OK Yann (talk) 11:34, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
Copyright Violation JEN9841 (talk) 06:15, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
Deleted by High Contrast: Copyright violation
Copyright Violation --JEN9841 (talk) 06:46, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
- See http://www3.uakron.edu/honors/index_news.html and its URL at http://www3.uakron.edu/honors/img/sect_home/prof.hcomplexfrontsm.jpg
Deleted by High Contrast: Copyright violation: copyrighted image: http://www3.uakron.edu/honors/index_news.html
Wrong License - original is not free. --Pauk (talk) 09:34, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
- Deleted as copyright violation --Butko (talk) 12:39, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
Deleted by Butko: Copyright violation: see http://www.theanimalworld.ru/insect/bombardir_treskuchij.html
Sigh... yet another penis-related photo, which doesn't seem to offer anything we don't already have. Tabercil (talk) 03:35, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Out of scope. Yann (talk) 17:09, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
Yet another penis-related photo, which doesn't seem to offer anything we don't already have. Tabercil (talk) 03:35, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Out of scope. Yann (talk) 17:08, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
COM:SCOPE and COM:PENIS LeoDE (talk) 14:34, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 23:05, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
Outside of project scope, see w:Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:TRMFT MER-C 04:18, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Out of scope. Yann (talk) 17:09, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
Looks like photographed from a magazine/newsaper. 92.226.238.79 05:24, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
This picture is my personal photo. and I have the rights to put pictures of me where ever I want. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.122.46.234 (talk • contribs)
- How so? Please explain where the photo is from. Are you the photographer, or copyright holder, or what? Infrogmation (talk) 10:46, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. No permission. Yann (talk) 17:10, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
Looks like photographed from a magazine/newsaper. 92.226.238.79 05:24, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
This is also a photo of my personal collection. I can place my photos where ever since it is mine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.122.46.234 (talk • contribs)
- Please clarify "photo of my personal collection". Did you take the photo, or buy the photo, or find the photo, or what? -- Infrogmation (talk) 10:44, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. No permission. Yann (talk) 17:10, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
Copyright Violation --JEN9841 (talk) 06:44, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
Deleted by High Contrast: Copyright violation: http://www.ci.akron.oh.us/tour/EJThomas.htm
Poor-quality image with added text and photoshopped elements - not in use anywhere, not realistically useful in an educational context. Delete as out-of-scope. There are also many images of Blue-and-yellow Macaws on Commons. Commons Shaped Box (talk) 23:09, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Out of scope. Yann (talk) 17:13, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
its great Contributions/81.165.30.27 10:16, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
Comment So what? Anything wrong with it? Sv1xv (talk) 10:18, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
Speedy kept, no reason to delete suggested. Anon at 81.165.30.27, please edit responsibly. -- Infrogmation (talk) 00:06, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
no allowance to take photos; secret content Sebastian Wallroth (talk) 17:27, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Not in use, per authors request. --Martin H. (talk) 21:09, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Very doubtful copyright licensing. User claims the image is their own, but it is clearly a professional picture. User even provided a website as their source for the image. Sergay (talk) 02:59, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted. Blatant violation of copyrights, weblink see version history of this deletion request. --Martin H. (talk) 22:51, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Duplicate of File:Sagitta-Vulpecula charta.png with a wrong name --Roberto Segnali all'Indiano 04:09, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
Delete & 
Info — Next time use {{Bad name}} :) —df 10:56, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Coyau (talk) 15:29, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
DeleteIt's very unlikely that the depicted person and the image author are identical (except self timer). However, this looks like a professional image. -- Wo st 01 (Diskussion) 12:28, 15 June 2009 (UTC) --Wo st 01 (talk) 12:31, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
- Update: This file is a copyvio. now in "speedy". -- Wo st 01 (talk) 18:56, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
Deleted by Bidgee: Copyright violation: http://www.norbertgoettler.de/pics/photos/Goettler10_kl.jpg
Hmm, the uploader wrote already that "Dr. Norbert Göttler" is the source, so no surprise that it's on this website. Suggest to ask for permission.
It's very unlikely that the depicted person and the image author are identical (except self timer). However, this looks like a professional image. -- Wo st 01 (Diskussion) 12:28, 15 June 2009 (UTC) --Wo st 01 (talk) 12:36, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
- Comment Does not look obviously professional. Same problem with authorship as here... /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:36, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
- I know, you refer to AGF. However, experience shows they usally do not live up to it. And in this specific case it's a copyvio from here. -- Wo st 01 (talk) 16:49, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
- Delete Ok, no obvious connection between uploader and subject. Probable copyvio of professional photos. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 17:15, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
- I know, you refer to AGF. However, experience shows they usally do not live up to it. And in this specific case it's a copyvio from here. -- Wo st 01 (talk) 16:49, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted by Bidgee: Copyright violation: http://www.norbertgoettler.de/pics/photos/Goettler15_2.jpg
misuse of an image page for self-promotion, linking to own myspace sites etc. Denniss (talk) 00:26, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
Delete Per Deniss, don't like the file name either. Jolly Janner (talk) 01:20, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
- Speedy delete — Out of project scope. The description given and the image are totally promotional/spam. —df 10:52, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Spam MichaelMaggs (talk) 17:49, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
No COM:FOP in France, architect w:Hector Guimard died in 1942. Coyau (talk) 05:10, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
- Delete - and don't forget to undelete again in three years. --Latebird (talk) 22:05, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
- No problem. I'll remember. --Coyau (talk) 22:57, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Coyau (talk) 00:49, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Info Files restored, because the building is now PD. --Coyau (talk) 02:00, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
Flickr license looks ok, but the logo could be a problem. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:06, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
Keep the logo looks to me to be text and simple geometric shapes, so I believe not a copyright problem. I have added a {{Trademark}} notice to the image description page. -- Infrogmation (talk) 01:15, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
Weak Keep Not particularly artistic. Just a few mishaped circles fo' sure? Jolly Janner (talk) 01:17, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
- Keep — I think that the drops and circles are too simple and therefore I think that this picture is OK. —df 10:47, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
Kept. Coyau (talk) 16:40, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Dubious source & license. I doubt this registered trademark was created by the uploader and is GFDL license. --Infrogmation (talk) 02:47, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
- Delete — Own work claimed but there is no proof that in fact this image is licensed appropiatelly. —df 10:54, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Coyau (talk) 16:40, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
no permission by Adecco documented --Kolja21 (talk) 16:52, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Coyau (talk) 16:42, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Unclear copyright situation.The flickr-uploader is not the author of this file. He is not allowed to publish this file under a CC-licence. High Contrast (talk) 07:25, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Unlikely to have been taken by the Flickr user, and ownership of the physical slide does not confer copyright. MichaelMaggs (talk) 18:43, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
I uploaded this file and now want to remove it from Wikmedia - no category Kronenburg1991 (talk) 10:22, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
Deleted by Yann: User request: not used
The image description says "This is an image of the Mangler miniature, from the Warmachine line produced by Privateer Press, and painted and photographed by myself. It is a derivative work, but I believe its use to illustrate articles about Warmachine constitutes fair use". But Commons does not allow fair use. Ö 17:35, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 18:45, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Таков личный взгляд из глубины практического постижения истории священных текстов и применения тайных мест Священных Книг от Автора жизни у одного из исследователей Библии – филантропа доктора Бааза Это графический и фотографический подарок, после многих лет работы с текстами Священного Писания Библии. Составлена эта таблица в строгом соответствии с историческими фактами, изложенными в Библии, чтобы люди 21 века по Рождеству Любви, учились знать времена и сроки своего бытия сейчас и здесь, ради верной ориентации во времени и в пространстве и в разуме своём. https://www.evernote.com/Home.action?passwordChanged=true&__fsk=1405400158#st=p&n=bf2cdeae-2554-4015-a1f6-9da9f3c8377f Главное же в том, о чем говорим, есть то: мы имеем Такого Первосвященника, Который воссел одесную престола величия на небесах (это Христос Иисус Сын Бога Живаго) и есть священнодействователь (это человек из 144000 сынов Сына Человеческого и все с ними, - соработники Христу, - Первому Апостолу из 153х посланных Богом, исполнить предназначенное, живущий делами веры в Единой Святой Соборной Апостольской Церкви) святилища и скинии истинной, которую воздвиг Господь, а не человек. (Евр.8:1-2) с пояснением о знаниях из семи печатей времен последней половины последней седмины открытых Богом для ведения посвященным о целях и задачах Апокалипсиса в период снятия семи печатей знания с1993г. по 1999г. Аминь. (см. пояснение таблицы ниже) Пояснение к таблице Апокалипсиса3000 1. Круг и объёмы времени (А;Б;В;Г;Д;), времён(АБ;Б;БВ;ВГ;Д:Е;) и полувремён(И;Ж;). 2. Рождество Иисуса Христа 3. Времена Нового Завета 4. Линия перекрёстков времени 5. Времена потопа 6. Времена Нового Неба и Новой Земли 7. Пространственно временные континуумы, параллели и векторы 8. Времена снятия семи печатей 9. Перекрёсток трёх времён: 1-допотопное; 2-время Ветхого Завета; 3- время Нового Завета 10. Времена не принявших веру Авраама 11. Времена Нового Завета 12. Времена Судов Божиих в начале 3го тысячелетия 13. Времена воскресения в жизнь Судов Божиих в конце 3го тысячелетия по Рождеству Христову 14. Времена народа Израилева 15. Времена воскресения в смерть Судов Божиих в конце 3го тысячелетия по Рождеству Христову 16. времена иудеев и язычников, осудивших последователей Иисуса Христа на распятие и убиение. 17. времена иудеев и язычников, осудивших Иисуса Христа на смерть. 18. времена современных евреев и язычников отвергающих Иисуса Христа Сына Божия. 19. Времена конца времени и времён и полувремени двутысячелетия Иисуса Христа исполнения последней половины последней семидесятой седмины по Даниилу и Иоанну Богослову 20. Синий, красный, зелёный цвета времени Божественного творения вселенной. 21. светлый коричневый цвет времени человеческого бытия. Таблица Апокалипсиса 3000 составлена исключительно по Священному Писанию на основании Откровения от 21.02.98. и семи печатей Книги Жизни, открываемой Иисусом Христом в конце времени и времён и полувремени; по решению Отца Небесного для 144000 народа святого, по Божественному плану Домостроительства Божия Нового Неба и Новой Земли через уста и апостольское служение вашего современника, пишущего сии строки, покорного слуги и раба и брата Анатолия Бааза Параклета, Иисуса Христа ради, по воле Отца Небесного; во Славу Божию, во исполнение плана домостроительства Божия и во Имя Отца и Сына и Святаго Духа. (Ин.21:8)(Евр.2:3)Аминь. С почтением в дар человечеству от доктора Бааза --доктор Бааз 21:35, 2 November 2013 (UTC)--доктор Бааз 21:35, 2 November 2013 (UTC)--доктор Бааз 21:35, 2 November 2013 (UTC)--доктор Бааз 21:35, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
no notability, no usage Andrei Romanenko (talk) 19:08, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
- Delete. The file is original research of the uploader and will not be used. Clarissy. 21:21, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
- Delete. Per Clarissy. --Testus (talk) 13:01, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. as per above Yann (talk) 20:29, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
no notability, no usage (copy of file:ТАБЛИЦА АПОКАЛИПСИС 3000.jpg) Andrei Romanenko (talk) 19:09, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
- Delete. The file is original research of the uploader and will not be used. Clarissy. 21:23, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. as per above Yann (talk) 20:30, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Copyright violation of art.
- Artist:Yayoi Kusama(1929-).
- Place:Kagawa,Japan.
- Note:Freedom_of_panorama#Japan--KENPEI (talk) 21:25, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 18:49, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
The file is original research of the uploader and will not be used Clarissy. 21:25, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. as per above Yann (talk) 20:35, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Fake copyright info. taken from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Workingterrier1.jpg. I uploaded a copy with correct info to File:Jack Russell Terrier exits den pipe.jpg--Dodo bird (talk) 00:00, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
- Delete duplicate of another image - someone keeps on reinserting this instead of the appropriately named version back into articles. Smartse (talk) 13:41, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
- Keep You can not prove that this image is not my own work, how it is.--Aleksa Lukic (talk) 19:09, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
- Delete per Smartse. MikeHobday (talk) 22:13, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
- Keep Agree with Aleksa.--Masha Ashner (talk) 11:47, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Oh please. This picture is on en: since 2006, you have to prove it's yours. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 07:44, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Out of scope, I can't imagine any article to use this image in. The Evil IP address (talk) 07:29, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
- Perhaps in a place that talks about color animation. Lijealso (talk) 11:25, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. No permission, wrong author, not used, probably out of scope. Yann (talk) 17:25, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
so halt Jannis (talk) 20:11, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
- What is the objection to this image? --MichaelMaggs (talk) 18:48, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Kept. No reason for deletion. Yann (talk) 17:31, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
en:Double with File:Panorama Saintes-b.JPG, as big and not as sharp; fr:en double avec File:Panorama Saintes-b.JPG, aussi grosse, plus floue et plus sombre --Jack ma (talk) 05:50, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
Kept. Can't find a duplicate, no reason for deletion. Yann (talk) 17:27, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, the good one to keep is File:File-Panorama Saintes-b.JPG... Jack ma (talk) 06:12, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
- Well, it's not really a duplicate; File:Panorama Saintes.JPG is the original picture, and File:File-Panorama Saintes-b.JPG is the improved version. The original is still useful for attribution and as the basis for other modifications. What could be done is uploading File:File-Panorama Saintes-b.JPG over the original, and then deleting File:File-Panorama Saintes-b.JPG as a duplicate. Or just keep both like that, there's nothing wrong with the present situation. –Tryphon☂ 09:50, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
Incorrect licence and author: this is a Patent of Russian Federation, clearly not GFDL. Abanima (talk) 14:21, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Deleted as per nom.--Trixt (talk) 18:47, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
Map is clearly based on someone else's work, likely a government survey. A source reference must be given to ensure that this work is indeed the public domain, e.g. a US government created map, as has been suggested at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File_talk:CGR_en.jpg. Passportguy (talk) 12:35, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
On hold The issue is discussed on en-wiki, wait for the result there. I believe the background map is US DoD Tactical Pilotage Chart (TPC) G-4D, scale 1:500000, unknown year of issue, not to be confused with UK MOD chart G-4D. It's up to the uploader to provide a complete reference and correct the license tag. Sv1xv (talk) 16:55, 15 June 2009 (UTC)- Delete I contacted the uploader on el-wiki and he stated as source map the following: "Producer: DGIA, Ministry of Defence, United Kingdom 2001 Map name: Joint Operations Graphic (Air) Series: 1501 Air Sheet: NI 36-3 Edition: 7-GSGS Year of publication: 2001". Unfortunately this is Crown Copyright for 50 years, so the map is not free. Sv1xv (talk) 06:11, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
Deleted Derivative work: Base map is Crown Copyright 2001. Sv1xv (talk) 08:32, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
copyvio - Photo is by Stanley Tretick, not White House photographer - not PD Mangostar (talk) 03:06, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
- Delete: If you go to the galleries, the photos are copyrighted by his estate. miranda 18:25, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
- Delete: At first I'd say keep, because the Allposters.com description calls him "White House photographer", but based on his homepage, it seems he was working for LOOK magazine while Kennedy was in office. Sigh. wadester16 01:26, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
- I have a question. It may help my understanding of this discussion if I knew who owns the picture now. The photographer died ten years ago and Look Magazine folded in 1972. Is it the photographer's family? Who exactly controls the rights to the photo?--200.76.242.25 12:34, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
- It could be either whoever bought/received Look's assets or Tretick's heirs, depending on what the contractual agreement was between Look and Tretick. Mangostar (talk) 01:51, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
- Again, not to be overly skepticle, but shouldn't we be sure who the owner is, if any, before the photo is deleted?--200.76.242.25 04:00, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
- The fact that we don't know makes it even more of a reason to delete. How else can we verify the copyright status? Although the linked page does say he was a "White House photographer". Still a link to the source should have been provided. Rocket000 (talk) 18:22, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
- Which is wrong according to [1], which says "When Kennedy took office, Tretick was given extensive access to the White House and the picture magazine LOOK hired him to cover the President and his family." and "The agency, soon known as United Press International, sent Tretick on the road with Kennedy in 1960". So he was not hired by the government (at least not for Kennedy but maybe previously for the war). Rocket000 (talk) 18:27, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
- Again, not to be overly skepticle, but shouldn't we be sure who the owner is, if any, before the photo is deleted?--200.76.242.25 04:00, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
- It could be either whoever bought/received Look's assets or Tretick's heirs, depending on what the contractual agreement was between Look and Tretick. Mangostar (talk) 01:51, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
- I have a question. It may help my understanding of this discussion if I knew who owns the picture now. The photographer died ten years ago and Look Magazine folded in 1972. Is it the photographer's family? Who exactly controls the rights to the photo?--200.76.242.25 12:34, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
- Delete While some LOOK photos have been deeded to the pulic domain after the magazine folded, Tretick's seem not to be among them. Library of Congress on Tretick's LOOK photos. Unless some specific evidence is presented that this photo was either produced as an official White House work or is free licensed for some other reason, sorry, I think we need to delete. -- Infrogmation (talk) 15:38, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Pruneautalk 14:24, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
This is a COPY of an image posted several times on the commons and on wikipedia with different file names. Furthermore this file name does not make any sense! 19:27, 14 June 2009 99.226.115.81 (completed incomplete request --MGA73 (talk) 18:49, 23 June 2009 (UTC))
- Comment Where is the correct file? This image is in use by the way. --MGA73 (talk) 18:49, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Kept. In use. Pruneautalk 14:27, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
One of many redundant Spanish Empire maps uploaded by EuroHistoryTeacher. Two others that are the same as this one include: File:Spanish Empire1975.png and File:Spanish Empire (total expantion).png.
Delete Not in use anymore! --Maps & Lucy (talk) 15:37, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
- 1. File:666999.PNG
- 2. File:666333.PNG
- 3. File:SpanishEmpire1975.PNG
- 4. File:SpanishEmpire1492.png
- 5. File:Imperioespañol1402.PNG
- 6. File:HispaniaRegnum-World.png
- 7. File:SpanishEmpireHRE.PNG
- 8. File:CorrectoImperioEspañol.png
- 9. File:SpanishEmpireanachronic.png — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maps & Lucy (talk • contribs) 15:58, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
Hey, watch your step! These images have different territories highlighted... They are NOT all the same!--92.194.138.82 17:20, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
Closed. All these maps were nominated or listed in multiple requests and the same comments were spammed to all of them. I am simply closing them since Blurpeace already deleted the files "per Commons:Deletion_requests/File:666333.PNG". Rocket000 (talk) 05:42, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
- File:Rue_Abbeville_14-16.JPG
- File:Rue Abbeville 14-a.JPG
- File:Rue Abbeville 14-b.JPG
- File:Rue Abbeville 14-c.JPG
- File:Rue Abbeville 14-d.JPG
- File:Rue Abbeville 14.JPG
No COM:FOP in France, architect of the 14, rue d'Abbeville, Édouard Autant died in 1964. Coyau (talk) 17:40, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. by Okki (talk · contribs). --Coyau (talk) 12:43, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
pomyłka w nazwie...wykonano kopię keriM (talk) 09:55, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
Deleted by Abigor: Redeleting after temp undeletion
No COM:FOP in France, architect w:Hector Guimard died in 1942. Coyau (talk) 11:00, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. –blurpeace (talk) 07:25, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
No COM:FOP in France, architect w:Hector Guimard died in 1942. Coyau (talk) 11:01, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
- Not sure whether this has really enough originality (from standpoint of copyright). --Túrelio (talk) 12:00, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. –blurpeace (talk) 07:25, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
"für Wikipedia Nutzung" (= for Wikipedia use) is not an adequate permission. In addition the author note "Redaktion" (=editorial staff) seems to be a bit "strange"...) --Chaddy (talk) 16:06, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
- Keep It was uploaded with a GFDL license. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:32, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
- You´re right, but the text in the "Permission" field and the lisence tag are contradictory... Chaddy (talk) 17:01, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
- Delete: Even with AGF the German text in the field "permission" must be considered as "for exclusive use within wikipedia". This is a contradiction to GFDL. -- Wo st 01 (talk) 08:55, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Deleted, permission for Wikipedia use only. Kameraad Pjotr 21:36, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
Copyvio from http://www.rbardalzo.narod.ru/4/oberi.html RedAndr (talk) 02:08, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
- Can you copyright letters? Jolly Janner (talk) 02:32, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
- Sorry for bad English. It's not copyvio. I has correct some mistakes in file from this site and I think so now it is my own work.--Ole Førsten (talk) 11:43, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
- So what the hell copyright can be reserved by the alphabet image?--Ole Førsten (talk) 11:45, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
- Why you can not copyright letters? If you created an alphabet it is your copyrighted artwork. Note that even fonts are copyrighted. --RedAndr (talk) 14:06, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
- If the letters were created over 100 years ago then copyright would've expired. Just to clarify for latin-alphabet users like myself, what is the image of? What are these letters? When were they invented? Jolly Janner (talk) 14:16, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
- Oberi Okaime has been created in 1928—1931 years in Nigeria, and descripted in 1947. I think so no copyright reserved by this writing.--Ole Førsten (talk) 15:07, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
- It was created less than 100 years ago, about 80 years. Author or authors of the letters most likely lived at least 10 years after that, so we do not have 70 years after death of the last one. You can read about these letter for example here: [2] --RedAndr (talk) 17:57, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
- Life in Africa was very short, and author can die before 1939.--Ole Førsten (talk) 18:51, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
- We can't be certain of that. If you cannot prove the author's death was before 1939 then the file should be deleted. Jolly Janner (talk) 18:54, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
- Nobody knows name of author!--Ole Førsten (talk) 19:14, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
- Not the author of the photo as such, but who or more importantly when was this alphabet created? Jolly Janner (talk) 20:20, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
- Adams in «African Journal» not said it. he wrote, so this alphabet was created by Oberi Okaime Christian Mission, but after Adams haven't new information about this script.--Ole Førsten (talk) 20:54, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
- Anyway, it could not be created before 1926, when this religious group was founded. --RedAndr (talk) 20:58, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
- This alphabet is in Public Domain because it has been created before 1939 and author is unknown.--Ole Førsten (talk) 16:28, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
- You should write this on the file's description page. Jolly Janner (talk) 21:44, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
- OK. I Wrote!--Ole Førsten (talk) 13:11, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
- You should write this on the file's description page. Jolly Janner (talk) 21:44, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
- This alphabet is in Public Domain because it has been created before 1939 and author is unknown.--Ole Førsten (talk) 16:28, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
- Anyway, it could not be created before 1926, when this religious group was founded. --RedAndr (talk) 20:58, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
- Adams in «African Journal» not said it. he wrote, so this alphabet was created by Oberi Okaime Christian Mission, but after Adams haven't new information about this script.--Ole Førsten (talk) 20:54, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
- Not the author of the photo as such, but who or more importantly when was this alphabet created? Jolly Janner (talk) 20:20, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
- Nobody knows name of author!--Ole Førsten (talk) 19:14, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
- We can't be certain of that. If you cannot prove the author's death was before 1939 then the file should be deleted. Jolly Janner (talk) 18:54, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
- Life in Africa was very short, and author can die before 1939.--Ole Førsten (talk) 18:51, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
- It was created less than 100 years ago, about 80 years. Author or authors of the letters most likely lived at least 10 years after that, so we do not have 70 years after death of the last one. You can read about these letter for example here: [2] --RedAndr (talk) 17:57, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
- Sorry for bad English. It's not copyvio. I has correct some mistakes in file from this site and I think so now it is my own work.--Ole Førsten (talk) 11:43, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
- Ok, it's better now. Just two suggestions. Firstly, write source, the link I cited above with the picture you used to created yours. Secondly, could you redraw image in vector or, at least, png format for better representation? --RedAndr (talk) 15:38, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
- Then delete the .jpg after? Jolly Janner (talk) 15:45, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
- Yes. --RedAndr (talk) 21:12, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
- Converted to PNG: File:Oberi Okaime.png. Now this file can be deleted.--Ole Førsten (talk) 19:29, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
- Keep It's PD-Text; note that fonts aren't copyrighted in the US, unless they're computer programs like TTF fonts.--Prosfilaes (talk) 16:18, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Deleted, replaced by File:Oberi Okaime.png. Kameraad Pjotr 13:53, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
The author — Alexander Novikov («Russkoe Zarubeshe»), the file has not EXIF, the resolution is low.
Site «Russkoe Zarubeshe»: «Все материалы представленные на данном сайте принадлежат Библиотеке-фонду "Русское Зарубежье". Их использование без согласия владельца Запрещено!» («All materials, appearing on this site, belong to the Library-Foundation «Russkoe Zarubeshe». Their use without the consent of the owner is prohibited!»).
See also. Clarissy. 19:02, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
Deleted, lacks suitable permission (if you have permission, please forward it to OTRS. Kameraad Pjotr 13:55, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
No information about the source and the author of the image 07:34, 19 June 2009 Alexikoua
- This map wrongfully includes non illyrian areas to illyria.Also Taken from a website site
- Parts of Thrace
- Paeonia
- Corfu
- Epirus
- Part of Thessaly
- Part of Macedon
- Part of Aetolia
- Part of Acarnania
- Almost reaches Boetia
Megistias (talk) 16:25, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
- Keep (if the proper source and licence are provided), otherwise Delete (but only because of licence problem) - Regarding the image accuracy issue, these parts of Greece mentioned by Megistias were inhabited by ancient Pelasgians and theory that connects Pelasgians with Illyrians is well known. In another words, map reflects theory that Pelasgians also were Illyrians and that is valid historical view for presentation in Wikipedia. PANONIAN (talk) 08:16, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
- However, I think that source and author of the image should be further clarified, but there is no reason to delete this image only because of historical view that is represented in it. PANONIAN (talk) 08:19, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
- Thats Albanian nationalism and revisionism.There is no such thing out of utra-nationalist theorists.In Pelasgians article this is what is noted,nothing else.
The article Pelasgians,Albanian nationalists states "In 1854, an Austrian diplomat and Albanian language specialist, Johann Georg von Hahn, identified the Pelasgian language with "Ur-Albanian". This theory is rejected by modern archaeological and historical circles, however it has retained staunch supporters among Albanian nationalists.[62]". Megistias (talk) 10:03, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
- now we going somewhere: 1. it is nice that you agreed that theory exist, 2. I would not agree that theory is rejected - theory is only not proved (but it is not dissaproved as well) since modern science do not know much about Pelasgian language, and 3. do we really talk about Albanian nationalism or about Greek nationalism? - i.e. is the fact that Epirus is currently administered by the Greek state a valid reason that any proved or theoretical history of Albanians or Illyrians from that region should be deleted? I am neither Albanian or Greek and, thus, I really do not care about modern Albanian-Greek political disputes, but I really do not support any kind of censorship - Wiki projects are here for all theories to be presented and it is not up to any Wiki user to decide which theory should be presented and which should not, especially in Wikimedia Commons. PANONIAN (talk) 19:05, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
- This is like making a map showing that the French conquered England during the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/100_Year_War 100 year war.Its not supporting anything,its just propaganda.
- Uploader did not make it
- No sources accept this
- This is copied from an albanian nationalist site.Megistias (talk) 20:35, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
- Well, as I said, problem with the source of this specific image is a valid issue, but regarding question whether other sources support info in that map or not, I have a source published in Belgrade in 1970 (thus, certainly not an Albanian nationalist source) in which entire Epirus and most of Macedonia are presented as territories inhabited by Illyro-Thracian peoples. PANONIAN (talk) 15:12, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
- You seem to be talkin to yourself and ignoring me.Also Communist historians had an eye for northen Greece since the dawn of Communism.Lets not waste anymore time here.This is rejectable and nationalisticMegistias (talk) 15:18, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
- Well, you can also find similar maps on Internet, for example this one: http://www.ou.edu/finearts/art/ahi4913/mapsandcharts/aeg-map2.jpg or this one: http://www.ou.edu/finearts/art/ahi4913/mapsandcharts/aeg-map1.jpg - you can see that these maps correspond with our map of Illyria and it is certainly not from nationalist Albanian or Communist Serbian web site. What territorial pretensions towards Greece owners of that web site might have? PANONIAN (talk) 15:24, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
- Those are maps of Ancient Greece and do not claim to be Illyrian=Ancient Greece or any of the sort.Megistias (talk) 15:26, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
- Repeating you denials changing nothing, the image is illegal.Why are you advocating this? No such theories are acceptable, check the WIKIPEDIA articles on Illyrians.Megistias (talk) 15:29, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
- what I am advocating is a freedom of speech and freedom of presentation of opinions and ideas. as for Wikipedia articles written by you, they certainly cannot be used as original reference in this case. however, since this Illyria image has a problem with description of its source it will be probably deleted because of that, so I will not waste my free time here any more. PANONIAN (talk) 15:41, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
- I think you should familiarize yourself with Wikipedia rules a bit better.Articles that are referenced are thus reliable.The map is made wrong against all modern historical and archeological finds and is based on Nationalistic theories(the only intention the map creation had is nationalistic the uploader probably knew nothing of it) that are rejectable and go against archeological work of thousands of scientists from all over the planet for decades.Megistias (talk) 15:45, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
- The myth of Pelasgians include all ancient Greeks to even Crete to Minor Asia and everywhere they were at.According to your "logic" this map should include all of ancient Greece and Illyria(but they were not Pelasgians not even in myth) and Rome since the Romans are connected in myth and Etruscans and perhaps more.And all those would be baptized Albanians.WOW.Megistias (talk) 11:16, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
- Delete All the above debate pro and contra the factual correctness of the map is quite irrelevant here; the only relevant issue for Commons is the copyright status. The base map from which this is derived has been uploaded here or on other Wiki projects various times, and its ultimate source and copyright status have always remained unclear. (It is, of course, most certainly not self-made. It might be PD-old, but we don't know.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:49, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
- Delete Dubious base image. --98.248.157.165 02:20, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
Deleted, copyright violation. Whether the map is accurate or not is irrelevant to this DR. Please discuss its accuracy using reliable sources. Kameraad Pjotr 13:59, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
I'm from English Wikipedia, where this is the lead image for the mammal article, and I've posted editorial reasons for the image's replacement there. The issues, however, go deeper than that, and I realize the editorial reasons are inapplicable here. The four constituent images are:
- File:Giraffa_camelopardalis_angolensis_(head).jpg
- File:Golden_crowned_fruit_bat.jpg
- File:Hedgehog-en.jpg
- File:Lion waiting in Nambia.jpg
.jpg){kind=link}
Of these, the lion and the hedgehog pose no issue, because the terms of their licenses are permissive to the extent that combining them does not pose an issue. However, the giraffe is only under Creative Commons Attribution Share-Alike 2.5 and the bat is only under GFDL 1.2 or later. These are both "GPL-style" licenses that require derivative works to be licensed under that license only. The goal of making sure that derivatives have the same permissions would be thwarted if one could license a derivative under the "GPL-style" license or another license, whichever you choose. One would need only to make a trivial derivation, place the derivative under the disjunction of the "GPL-style" license and a permissive license, then use the permissive license to bypass the "copyleft" restriction. In essence, this composite violates both the GFDL and the CC-BY-SA terms, because each requires that the derivative be licensed only under its terms, making them incompatible. Barring a relicensing, this issue is intractable and fatal. I realize license compatibility can be thorny, but we can't leave something alone that blatantly violates the licenses. deranged bulbasaur 17:28, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
Kept. GFDL relicensing means cc-by-sa-3.0 is (only) valid license.Nilfanion (talk) 08:23, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
The uploader claimed the file is the work of the uploader on this page, but on the english wikipedia the uploader acknowledges that someone else created the picture. I asked at the Village pump and was advised to nominate for deletion. -- User:A new name 2008 Completing incomplete deletion request on behalf of another user. p.p.KTo288 (talk) 16:53, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
- Comment Further information with regards this file can be found at en:User talk:CrayZatseA. The file is of an image taken by the uploader's uncle, although attribution is not presently strictly correct, this is it not something that cannot be quickly and easily corrected.KTo288 (talk) 17:02, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
- Keep Current source as "Own work by uploader" is incorrect for those pictures and needs to be corrected. Assuming the uncle is the photographer, I would use:
* source: Photograph from collection of Richard Bailey (CrayZatseA's uncle)
* author: Richard Bailey
* permission: {{tlx|PD-author|Richard Bailey}} or {{PD-heirs}}
- But, if possible OTRS might be needed. --Jarekt (talk) 17:43, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
- Just Delete the god dam thing. This Photo is my personal photo given to me by my Uncle Richard Bailey. I have no idea who took it or what copyrights some one has on it. CrayZatseA (talk) 22:02, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
- Comment It might be also safe to say that the author was {{PD-USGov-Military-Air Force}}. --Jarekt (talk) 18:37, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
- Comment That would not be correct, since in 1944 when this aircraft was shot down there was no US Air Force. This {{PD-USGov-Military-Army}} would be the correct one, if we knew the photographer was operating in an official capacity when the picture was taken. If the photographer was using own personal camera and it was not his job to take pictures that would not be correct. We have no idea who took the picture or in what capacity it was taken. A new name 2008 (talk) 00:21, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
Deleted per CrayZatseA.--Trixt (talk) 23:55, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
The uploader said on this page that this is the work of the uploader, but on the editor's english wikipedia talk page the editor acknowledges that the work was created by someone else. I asked at the Village pump and was advised to nominate for deletion. A new name 2008 (talk) 21:27, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
- Comment Further information with regards this file can be found at en:User talk:CrayZatseA. The file is of an image taken by the uploader's uncle, although attribution is not presently strictly correct, this is it not something that cannot be quickly and easily corrected.KTo288 (talk) 17:01, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
- Comment see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Big Red B-17 Photo.jpg for the discussion about those images. --Jarekt (talk) 17:45, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
Deleted per Commons:Deletion requests/File:Big Red B-17 Photo.jpg.--Trixt (talk) 23:56, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
