Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2009/08/14

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Commons logo
Commons logo

This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests.

You can visit the most recent archive here.

Archive
Archive
Archive August 14th, 2009
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Magic_en_Staples.jpg

[edit]

No freedom of panorama for statues in the United States. This image has to be considered a non-free derivative work. J Milburn (talk) 00:56, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I was wary when I saw this image added to the article on the English Wikipedia, but wasn't quite sure of the copyright status. Having seen the above, I agree that this should be deleted. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:03, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Kwj2772 (msg) 08:11, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Europe 1918.PNG

[edit]

This image is extremely sloppy: Germany, Poland, Lithuania, Finland and USSR, not to mention in accurate information: Saudia Arabia, Ireland --99.226.115.81 01:59, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Keep The map of Finland looks slightly inaccurate since Finland controlled Viipuri and the Artic port of Petsamo at independence while Saudi Arabia was not part of the British mandate. But these errors don't negate its value. The map should be dated to 1919 or 1920 (after Versailles) but kept in my view. Its boundaries of Germany, Poland, etc look accurate enough to me. --Leoboudv (talk) 06:14, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep It is not 100% accurate but it is almost there. Ijanderson (talk) 14:13, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kept. Rocket000 (talk) 05:56, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:NSRoute307.png

[edit]

Filename error on my part - has been since uploaded with capitalized extension Gordalmighty (talk) 02:09, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Coyau (talk) 06:10, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Suite_francaise.jpg

[edit]

No explanation as to why the image is in the public domain. The uploader is clearly not the copyright holder, so the PD-self tag is not applicable. —LX (talk, contribs) 07:22, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Coyau (talk) 06:13, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Category:Paint.net

[edit]

Paint.NET Screenshots are non-free: http://getpaint.net/license.html and there is already Category:Made with Paint.NET --Matt (talk) 09:07, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Rocket000 (talk) 22:06, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Wieża_montparnasse.JPG

[edit]

No FOP in France, sorry. Nominated for deletion because the picture was about to gain more visibility through the VI project. Eusebius (talk) 09:39, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Coyau (talk) 06:14, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Tolerances_braunecker_pgm.jpg

[edit]

This is a scan from a copyrighted book. It is used in article w:en:Precision glass moulding on en-wiki, so it must be replaced in own format in the article and deleted. Same applies for the following images:

Sv1xv (talk) 11:06, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. The images were removed from the article and the data is now part of the text. Sv1xv (talk) 17:55, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Hansika_wiki.jpg

[edit]

Not own work, no source and author information. Sv1xv (talk) 11:11, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

'Deleted by User:Eusebius Sv1xv (talk) 11:26, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Isabel_Ingram_reading.jpg

[edit]

The Flickr account owner doesn't know the picture date but note it's about 1924. Dereckson (talk) 13:05, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. –Juliancolton | Talk 20:38, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Palestine_Jerusalem-Geopoint_Right_of_Return_Dome_Of_The_NK20152.jpg

[edit]

Unknown photographer or precise source, as the Flickr account owner notifies "This photo has been released to the Public Domain, or it is licensed under Creative Commons, or it falls under the doctrine of Fair Use as of United States copyright law, or I have received written consent by the author, rights owner, licensed source, or otherwise authorized by source to republish photos without any limitations. In any case it is widely posted in the Internet at large. Therefore, anyone can republish this photo anywhere else in the Internet or any other publication in accordance to the legal copyright status of the photo. This photo has been published exclusively for non-commercial didactical and historical purposes to illustrate the inalienable Right of Return of the Palestinians to their 1,948 lands and homes in Palestine. Disemination of such didactical illustration is not only allowed, but also encouraged. At the very least, you are free to copy/link this photo as long as you recognize the source. Please contact me through flickrmail should you feel you retain legal copyright rights to this photo to accommodate all your requirements. Source: www.palestineremembered.com" Dereckson (talk) 13:45, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. shizhao (talk) 12:06, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Monarchies of the world.png

[edit]

This image is a COPY of an image already on the commons and this version is inaccurate unlike the orgininal one which is accurate. Original image is file:World Monarchies.png --99.226.115.81 15:29, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment Not used. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:59, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Pruneautalk 14:23, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:800px-Spanish Empire - 1824.jpg

[edit]

The Spanish Empire was almost completely disolved by 1824 having lost North American claims to Mexico and South American claims to Grand Columbia. --99.226.115.81 01:30, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kept. There is explanation of these historical facts in the image description field. Sv1xv (talk) 14:20, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Castello gorzone dezzo.jpg

[edit]

File:Gorzone.jpg 11:15, 13 August 2009 Lord Hidelan

 Keep Nice to compare with a 1920 photo. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 23:30, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kept. –Juliancolton | Talk 20:38, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Anti-tank missiles of Israel

[edit]

(reason for deletion) --NatanFlayer (talk) 15:45, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted, empty category, next time just tag with {{speedy|empty category}}. --The Evil IP address (talk) 10:46, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Juhannus-helsinki-2007-061.jpg

[edit]

Sculptor died in 1979; not in the Public Domain yet Apalsola t • c 15:56, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Request of uploader to remove speedily. He was running around making pictures and did not really think about it. There are probably more uploads of that kind in the upload-batch (a few I already deleted immediately after uplaod). Cecil (talk) 23:39, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]


This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Luftbild_Dresden_Theaterplatz_um_1900.jpg

[edit]

+ File:Luftbild Dresden Heizwerk, Semperoper um 1900.jpg -- Common Good (talk) 17:45, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Author died in 1969, therefore license is not usable, also see [1] KilianPaulUlrich (talk) 07:15, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. –Juliancolton | Talk 20:37, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Moi-lau.JPG

[edit]

unused low-quality userpageimage of a user who is no longer active since >2 years. Túrelio (talk) 18:06, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Coyau (talk) 06:21, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Control_room_of_Supernatural_Sound_(1).jpg

[edit]

Duplicate with File:Control room of Supernatural Sound.jpg (miss operation) Shoulder-synth (talk) 19:11, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Next time, use {{Duplicate}} --Yuval Y § Chat § 19:30, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:VarsityConcertSqure.JPG

[edit]

Cannot distinguish anything in this picture. Should be deleted or replaced by a higher quality picture

 Delete Poor quality > useless. --Daniel Baránek (talk) 07:23, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. –Juliancolton | Talk 20:37, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Juhannus-helsinki-2007-046.jpg

[edit]

Sculptor died in 1952; not in the Public Domain yet Apalsola t • c 22:30, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Request of uploader to remove speedily. He was running around making pictures and did not really think about it. There are probably more uploads of that kind in the upload-batch (a few I already deleted immediately after uplaod). Cecil (talk) 23:40, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:AboutOpti6.jpg

[edit]

Very likely not own work. Sv1xv (talk) 10:58, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted by EugeneZelenko: Missing essential information: source, license and/or permission: since August 14, 2009

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:AboutOpti7.jpg

[edit]

Not own work. Sv1xv (talk) 10:59, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted by EugeneZelenko: Missing essential information: source, license and/or permission: since August 14, 2009

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Dave_Babcock.jpg

[edit]

No evidence for the claim that the uploader is the copyright holder. The source web site's terms of service say "The use or misuse of any of these materials is strictly prohibited. Rawlco, its licensors or associates retain exclusive ownership of all data, material [etc.]" High on a tree (talk) 03:19, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete No evidence for permission --Simonxag (talk) 09:45, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Wknight94 talk 16:01, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Sepolcro isonno federici.jpg

[edit]

(author) 11:12, 13 August 2009 Lord Hidelan

Deleted by Polarlys: copyright violation, see Commons:Licensing

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Out of scope images by Joymaster

[edit]
Kept per "3 or 4 are definitely enough" --Leafnode✉ 14:32, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Kept per "3 or 4 are definitely enough" --Leafnode✉ 14:32, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Kept per "3 or 4 are definitely enough" --Leafnode✉ 14:32, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Kept per "3 or 4 are definitely enough" --Leafnode✉ 14:32, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK --Jarekt (talk) 17:12, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Keep File:Szymon i Krystian 003.JPG, as it is used on two enwiki articles. No opinion on the rest. Stifle (talk) 12:23, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK --Jarekt (talk) 17:50, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Might be of use; I've added a more meaningful cat. --Túrelio (talk) 14:56, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree --Jarekt (talk) 15:05, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Might be of use; I've added a more meaningful cat. --Túrelio (talk) 14:56, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree --Jarekt (talk) 15:05, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
View

[edit]

I believe that the above images of User:Joymaster are out of scope on Commons. Those include:

  • Many on-street and beach pictures of people's backs and bottoms
  • Up-skirt and down-blouse images some indoor and some outdoor
  • Family photos, like kids birthday parties, etc.

User:Joymaster contributed large number of images. Many valuable ones, some borderline useful, and the list above which I believe is low-quality and does not meet "Must be realistically useful for an educational purpose" criteria. Gallery of above images can be found here. --Jarekt (talk) 04:01, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Not sure how some of the random beach snapshots (such as File:Plaża_w_Śródmieściu_(dzielnica_Gdyni)_-_042.JPG) are any worse than the typical random beach snapshots already on Commons -- but as a whole most of these images seem to add little value... AnonMoos (talk) 06:38, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment I did not compared this set to "typical random beach snapshots" - they might be out of scope too. I also did not include other numerous beach images by User:Joymaster that show some details of the places instead of trying to catch the most embarrassing pose of the subjects. If I lived in Gdynia and saw Plaża w Śródmieściu gallery, I might prefer to avoid that beach for fear of running into commons photographer. Overall low quality, time watermarks lack of geocoding and frequent lack of useful categories do not help the matters. --Jarekt (talk) 12:39, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Delete Much of them really useless, without an educational purpose. --Daniel Baránek (talk) 08:52, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Keep Many of them are useless but some photos (for example that ilustrate Plaża w Śródmieściu) are usable. It need better request or separate requests. --Dezidor (talk) 23:49, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment Not all pictures from Plaża w Śródmieściu ended up here just the most voyeuristic ones. If yo think some images above are in scope, than mark them the way User:Túrelio did and tell us why.--Jarekt (talk) 12:55, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment Some of the family photographs could be left, for personal use, since uploading of small numbers of images for use on a personal user page is allowed, see COM:SCOPE#File in use in another Wikimedia project. But probably not all 60 used on User:Joymaster/Template:Images page. See also some other out of scope DR's:

--Jarekt (talk) 20:36, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: Closing stale thread now w/o object: most files already deleted or nomination withdrawn: remaining ones kept. -- User:Docu at 16:01, 16 November 2009 (UTC), edited 03:01, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:April,_With_Intriguing_Books_and_Suffering_Withdrawal.jpg

[edit]

Out of project scope. ALE! ¿…? 08:32, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment Uploader contributed many images of homeless people today, see Category:Canada Vancouver Poverty. What in this image triggered a deletion request? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 08:49, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is simply a normal woman looking sadely into the camera. She does not look like homeless person and I really do not see any use this image could have on the Wikipedia projects. Where is the educational value? --ALE! ¿…? 10:55, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, WikiPeople. Here's my response so far. This site is badly designed, convoluted, and confusing, and it's difficult to submit material. I submitted about 60 images and about half of them appeared on this site; where are the rest? I hereby abandon this account, and will not donate stuff to Wikipedia or Wiki Commons until such time as the site has been cleaned up and made much more simple and easy to use. Of course, I'm happy to continue reading Wikipedia, but it's too much of a hassle to submit things. At least Flickr and SXC.hu are easier to post material to.

My other totally-free and public domain content is found (currently, and temporarily) at:

flickr.com/photos/publicdomainarts

flickr.com/photos/publicdomainarts02

youtube.com/user/publicdomainarts

youtube.com/user/urbansociopathology

picasaweb.google.com/vancouver.pix/VancouverPovertyPublicDomain#

Anyone is authorized to do anything they want with my Wiki login account and content. Or course, anyone may freely download my material from those other sites, to do with as they wish. Someone could even upload the material to this group of sites, and I wouldn't mind at all. I just cannot be bothered to do it myself, at this moment in time.

My Wiki user name is: name_invalid.

The Wiki account password is: password.

For years, I've published material under the public domain category. Each image contains the term "public domain" in metadata. I've already given my imagery away in advance, and I don't really care what happens here at this point. It seems to much trouble to submit to Wiki, so I will leave it to those who are more knowledgeable and dedicated than I.

This individual image, described as of a normal woman looking into the camera, is anything but normal. Do you not notice her diseased skin, the ironic titles of books with her, and the drug paraphernalia in the sidewalk in front of her? Look at this image in context with the others submitted, and perhaps you'll conclude that it is not ordinary, or maybe all my images submitted are simply ordinary. After all, of what educational or social value is graffiti? How can any picture of someone sleeping in public be socially valuable? There are billions of souls suffering on this planet, so why are my images of people any different or special?

Are there any Wiki officials living in Vancouver BC Canada? Ask them what their opinion is of the downtown eastside (DTES) of Vancouver. There are very many images of the DTES, so mine would certainly not be missed. The only difference may be that I've lost friends into that dark area with only one or two individuals making it back into "ordinary" life; I formerly lived in the area for a short time, and am well-familiar with this, the last ghetto in Canada, or maybe the last ghetto in North America. People in this area have a very strong sense of community, and will fight back against any attempts to diminish their already impoverished lives, just because they have nowhere else to go, and their only option is to fight or to die.

I enjoy showing contrasts, and I enjoy showing the lie in what is said to be a lovely and compassionate city. In my opinion, Vancouver BC is not entirely lovely and is rather incompassionate too. I myself barely manage to live on a small pittance of a disability pension (every taxpayer in this province gives me less than one cent per year, and it is not enough to adequately clothe and feed myself), and am personally familiar with many challenges and difficulties in a poor person's life. My personal opinion is that this province of British Columbia and this country Canada, do not meet their international obligations regarding sick and disabled people, young single mothers, and others who have "fallen through the cracks" in our social support net; it often seems to me that the cracks and spaces are more common than the actual social network itself.

So, thank you very much, Wiki; I enjoy the resource, but cannot submit more until I either grit my teeth and change my mind, or until you make this site much easier to use.

- Name invalid, in Vancouver BC Canada.

Of your uploads, 30 are in Category:Canada Vancouver Poverty. The rest of your uploads did not have a category (or maybe different categories). You can see that there are about 60 images in your gallery. I think you submitted very good and very important work, but your images are safer at flickr. Here they risk random proposals for deletion. This image was probably selected because it is one of the more powerfull ones in the series. Of course it should be a  Keep. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 17:52, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever. It's too difficult, within this byzantine and overly complicated site, to edit, to add categories, to upload in a reasonable amount of time, etc etc. I'm going to request deletion of my own images. If the Wiki group of sites wants more input from people, perhaps you could make the place easier to use. My offer of someone taking over this account is still open - maybe ALE! or Pieter Kuiper wouldn't mind controlling these images, or maybe they'd like to delete the entire lot. It's all good. Do whatever you want; I'm getting bored, frustrated, and tired trying to figure out how to keep WikiCommonsMediaMegaCorp happy. I just enjoy contributing to the public domain content of this world, and if it gets too difficult to share, then I guess I won't share my amateur junk with. Bye

I agree that this site is not easy for new contributers. You are probably better off at flickr or at picasaweb - free images on flickr could then be easily transferred to commons. I have now added your uncategorized images to category:Canada Vancouver Poverty, but I cannot "controll" them. Someone might propose deletion of graffity because it infringes the writer's copyright. Or someone will propse to delete a portrait of a homeless person because it is an infringement on that person's privacy. That is just how this site works. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 08:31, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thnx for info. However, all images which I labouriously uploaded (and incorrectly classified) are fully legal in Canada. This photography was done for a non-commercial purpose, for social or community interest, and all photographs of individuals (and their chattels, and their public graffiti) are totally legal in Canada. Under current Canadian law, even if an individual does NOT give permission to be photographed in a public place, a photographer DOES have the right to photograph them, no matter how strenuously they may protest. Any police officer could tell you that, and it's easily confirmed online. If some Wiki user files a protest and proposes an image deletion for the sake of a pictured person's feelings or privacy considerations, you may as well take down all controversial images, and retain the pictures wherein we all look like perfect plastic Kens and Barbies. My stuff is already on Flickr and Picasaweb and YouTube, and despite the occasional complaint, site management protects my proprietary rights (even under the public domain category), and allows me to leave the images and videos on the respective sites. Any original music, art (including graffiti or public murals), personal appearance, etc are fully legal to record or otherwise document in Canada, no matter what such an individual may want. Usually, there is no presumption of privacy in public, at least here in Canada. Common newspapers publish worse imagery every day, but of lower quality and proprietary copyright. My stuff is ALL LEGAL, and I feel it should be viewed and judged in context, and as a whole body of work. It was not easy gaining many of my images of this ugly and diseased area of Vancouver, which certainly has some social interest value, and should be seen by the world public. If anyone wants to take my material from any other site and submit it to the Wiki group(s), it's OK with me. It would certainly save me a lot of time and frustration. I still think this group of sites should be much easier to use, and could use the services of a competent website designer. Thank you for cleaning up my errors and omissions. I will think very carefully before I upload any more material to the Wiki/Commons groups. It's just too much hassle, with any of it subject to attack and deletion. Well, I can request deletions too, and I'm almost disgusted enough to change my password to some long random string which I will never remember, and thus grant myself the "right to vanish" if it ever came to that. Thanks for your help, patience and information, everybody, but I'm not entirely impressed. --- Some old jerk in Vancouver.

File:April,_With_Intriguing_Books_and_Suffering_Withdrawal.jpg

[edit]

too difficult to edit, add categories, etc; site is too complicated for easy usage. Name invalid (talk) 07:18, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kept. Not a valid reason for deletion. Image can be used within Wikimedia's projects and if there is any personal rights issues arise we have a template for that (({{Personality rights}}). While you may find the site hard to use you can all ways request some help and I'm sure there would be a few people willing to help. Bidgee (talk) 11:59, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Images of UserWmkerr

[edit]

User:Wmkerr's images are all (supposedly used in an en-wiki article (now deleted)) which denotes the (non-notable) subject himself and few of his friends E Wing (talk) 13:44, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete out of scope --Jarekt (talk) 18:04, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep File:The Red Rooster Car.jpg,  Delete another images. --Dezidor (talk) 23:33, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Except File:The Red Rooster Car.jpg. Coyau (talk) 06:20, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Montecchio rocca.jpg

[edit]

(author) 17:00, 13 August 2009 Lord Hidelan

Deleted by Polarlys: copyright violation, see Commons:Licensing

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:DolphinLobby.jpg

[edit]

Derivative work of a sculpture that is presumably copyrighted. Powers (talk) 02:16, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted, per nominator. Kameraad Pjotr 12:38, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:LuisEcheverria.jpg

[edit]

possible violation of copyright. Does not specify whether the original content can freely distribute the image. 189.145.9.139 03:08, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted, per Esteban Zissou. Kameraad Pjotr 12:38, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Antonio_arzak.jpg

[edit]

The source and licensing tag contradict the description. Antonio Valverde died in 1970. —LX (talk, contribs) 07:26, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted, per nominator. Kameraad Pjotr 12:39, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Kajuraho homoerotic sculpture - India - Danielou - auparashtika.jpg

[edit]

Raymond Burnier died in 1968 --Filip em (talk) 10:50, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment I notified the original uploader on enwp. That should always be done in cases like these. It seems to me that Burnier gave the photo and the copyright to his partner, whose heir gave permission to upload it to commons. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 11:01, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Is there an OTRS ticket for the PD permission?Yobmod (talk) 13:42, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted, no permission (OTRS). Kameraad Pjotr 12:40, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Palestine_Jerusalem_Sataf_NK28246.jpg

[edit]

1948-1960 unknown photographer picture Dereckson (talk) 13:38, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment I see no copyright problem, but this is just an unknown bloke; I see no educational use. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:33, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted, out of project scope. Kameraad Pjotr 12:40, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Unactivated_iphone.jpg

[edit]
The picture given by Manutaust as comparaison.

Non free user interface Dereckson (talk) 14:08, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is this one free-er ? I'd love to know why. Manutaust (talk) 14:24, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This picture, File:IPhone Image Viewer.jpg, haven't the iTunes logo as main screen item, but a free image. --Dereckson (talk) 15:04, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete Copyrighted Apple graphic. --Simonxag (talk) 10:59, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted, screenshot of a copyrighted program. Kameraad Pjotr 12:42, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Iphone_os3_install.jpg

[edit]

Non free software screenshot: iPhone OS interface. Or is the interface considered too simple to meet threshold of originality + Apple logo de minimis (despise the image is focus on those objects, especially in conjunction with Wikipedia iPhone OS context and legend)? Dereckson (talk) 14:13, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As I said (very briefly, I apologise, due to time issues) on the other file deletion talk (unactivated iPhone), there are a lot of other parts of the iPhone OS interface out there on Wikimedia Commons, which are also quite simple. They are even validated as free pictures, so I thought these twow were not less free. Sincerely Yours, Manutaust (talk) 14:43, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, if (and only if) de minimis applies, we can license them free pictures without problem. --Dereckson (talk) 15:02, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
All right, thank you for your precision. Now, if de minimis doesn't apply, I guess I can still upload them directly to Wikipedia, since they are considered as logos, right ? If not, would me blurring those parts of the images help in any way ? Thanks again in advance for your answers ! Manutaust (talk) 16:57, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I said before that I could for example blur the Apple logo.Manutaust (talk) 16:27, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Then delete because there's nothing else clear in the picture. --Simonxag (talk) 21:17, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
After that can I still re-upload it directly to Wikipedia ?Manutaust (talk) 11:25, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
On en. maybe, see w:Wikipedia:Non-free content, but not in fr., according w:fr:Wikipédia:Exceptions au droit d'auteur. --Dereckson (talk) 17:12, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the french WP rules mention clearly that logos are authorized as an exception to the copyrights... Manutaust (talk) 12:58, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Only on the main article of the relevant product or corporate. It's why I used your Xxode logo on the Xcode French article. --Dereckson (talk) 17:40, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I definitely hate fair use prohibition. Manutaust (talk) 23:47, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmmm ... you can also contribute to en. to be able to illustrate articles a little bit ;) --Dereckson (talk) 16:33, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There's nothing to contribute to in EN WP, it's already contributers-crowded on the topics I could contribute to. The only other WP I can contribute to is the french one, but the fair use prohibition males it a huge pain in the back to illustrate the articles.Manutaust (talk) 17:30, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted, non-free logo (but picture would be fine with the logo blurred). Kameraad Pjotr 12:44, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:BredaKMA.jpg

[edit]

watermark prominent on the picture. Also there are better alternatives for this picture. 13:07, 14 August 2009 171.21.80.126

 Keep watermark is not a good reason for deletion. As for alternatives they are not the same. --Jarekt (talk) 18:08, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Comment This work appears to be PD from the description and watermarks are not always legitimate reasons for deletion. The question is only whether Ed Stevenhagen died 70+ years ago or released it on a PD license --Leoboudv (talk) 01:41, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete It is a work of A.J. Bogaerts (1813-1891). Ed Stevenhagen only did some coloring, not really creative work on its own. I cropped the cutout file:BredaKMAc.jpg for future use. The watermark is intrusive and the image can be replaced: therefore delete. Tekstman (talk) 08:52, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Delete Interesting. This image is used on Ed Stevenhagen's userpage, I notice, and not in any major articles. Its likely a derivative then and the map looks easily replacable. --Leoboudv (talk) 20:04, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep "It could be replaced" isn't a good reason for deletion. When a better version is uploaded, we can delete this one. Until then, this is realistically useful for educational purposes and is in use in what seems to be a draft article (nl:User:Hsf-toshiba/Breda stad). The licensing should make clear that the original author died more than 100 years ago, though. Pruneautalk 13:50, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kept, changed the license and author information accordingly. Kameraad Pjotr 12:46, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Uck Nla Logo.svg

[edit]

non-free logo 09:39, 13 August 2009 68.230.44.117

Keep. US federal government work.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.49.20.207 (talk • contribs)
If it's a CIA work, can you give the web page where it can be found ? Sémhur (talk) 19:28, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted, per Sémhur. Kameraad Pjotr 20:38, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Wbw.jpg

[edit]

Use of (copyrighted) WP logo as watermark. This file isn't used on WP NL and is created by a notorious WP watermark user. Koektrommel (talk) 15:39, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tried to remove it, let others judge it is satisfying. Tekstman (talk) 18:41, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fine for me after changes made by Tekstman. Nomination witdrawn. Koektrommel (talk) 18:11, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kept, per Koektrommel. Kameraad Pjotr 20:49, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:GroeveRooth.jpg

[edit]

watermarks galore, removed a few, but now see many more. Tekstman (talk) 18:58, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted, overwatermarked and thus not useful for commons. Kameraad Pjotr 20:53, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:FK_Ústí_nad_Labem.png

[edit]

probably copyrighted logo 83.240.87.194 23:28, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted, copyright violation. Kameraad Pjotr 20:54, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Serbian_children_from_KZ_camp_Jasenovac.jpg

[edit]

Also:

All failed PD review MGA73 (talk) 15:17, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Copied from image talkpage:

4 Yugoslav images

(copied from PD review talk page) Anyone familiar with Yugoslav PD? There are 4 from World War II in "Category:PD files for review" right now. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:32, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also see Commons_talk:PD_files#Category / template for verification. --MGA73 (talk) 04:47, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am of a mind to fail them all. What is this 1998 law the uploaders are claiming of? Even if believed, "published in all school books" in which year is a boggling question. If published in 1970, then that photo's copyright is extended to 2020. Regardless, the verifiable piece of law comes with the Succession agreement. In that event, only documents of Yugoslavian laws and official rulings are in public domain. Rest of the works have to abide with the successor state laws. Since we are given no authors, let us treat it as anonymous and since no verifiable date of first legal publishing is given, then the pictures have not been published. Circulation of the photos on the web by the copyright holders in this case can be treated as first publishing (but the uploaders fail to even state the official site), which in this case can make the year from 1990 to now, certainly qualifying the anonymous photos as still in copyright. Jappalang (talk) 01:32, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Makes sense to me. Suggest copy this to their talk pages. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:05, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done, tagged as failed with this to the talk page. Ditto with other WWII Yugoslav pics that were tagged for review. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:37, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See also old DR of image with similar license Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2005/11#Image:Funeral_of_President_Tito_on_08_05_1980.jpg --MGA73 (talk) 15:27, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please delete the picture. We don't know copyright status and the children are not Serbian children. There is no proof that children in those pics are Serbian. They could be Jewish, Muslim, Roma... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.82.187.116 (talk • contribs) 00:45, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use - as per US Code - TITLE 17 > CHAPTER 1 > § 107

§ 107. Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use

Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include—

(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;

(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;

(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and

(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work. The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.88.105.131 (talk • contribs) 00:09, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please sign your entries. Fair use is not permitted on Commons. —LX (talk, contribs) 00:14, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted, fair use is not permitted at commons. Kameraad Pjotr 20:58, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Erreur Blason de la Province Luxembourg de Belgique.jpg

[edit]

REASON FOR DELETION : DOES NOTHING MORE ! the error has been corrected ! and it is used correctly by users !--Bernard Piette (talk) 07:47, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

 Delete valid request by uploader --Jarekt (talk) 18:10, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment Well. It is used on 13 pages in 5 projects. I have not checked if it will make pages look wierd. --MGA73 (talk) 18:57, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted, uploader request (only used on talk pages). Kameraad Pjotr 20:47, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:HN-Canon-de-65-M-M1906-2.jpg

[edit]

the author doesn't want me to upload the file to wikicommons --NatanFlayer (talk) 17:01, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep author released the image under GNU license. It is not his call what people do with his image as long as they follow the license. --Jarekt (talk) 18:13, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kept, per Jarekt. Kameraad Pjotr 20:52, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Macedonia-borders_mk.png

[edit]

Also File:Ethnicmacedonia.jpg


This map shows a country that does not exist - its borders are wrong, taking land from Greece, Bulgaria, Serbia and Albania. Looks like propaganda. 93.42.67.81 18:20, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Comment: Image is heavily used on Wikipedia. It looks like a 'Greater Macedonia' map where the Macedonians place claims on Greece and even southwest Bulgaria. It is historically inaccurate and is likely propaganda....but this is not a legitimate reason for deletion. It is a derivative image from a map with OK copyright. I don't know if it should be deleted but it doesn't pass the 'smell' test and would be like a map showing China with Taiwan within its borders...or Argentina with the Falklands in its borders. I will ask a few Admins on this map...as I don't know how to vote. --Leoboudv (talk) 01:49, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete No problem with copyright, but it is out of scope. Commons can't be a vehicle for contemporary political propaganda projects. M.Lahanas (talk) 05:13, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep It shows Macedonia as a geographical region, in its conventional modern definition, a legitimate encyclopedic topic covered by separate articles and similar maps in all projects. While it is certainly true that this geographical unit is associated with political irridentist ideologies, and I have no doubt its coverage on the mk-wiki will not be free from such POVs, that is not a reason for deletion. I don't particularly like the design of the map – the garish choice of colours does indeed highlight the geographical delimitation of the supposed region, at the expense of the political borders, to an extent that it may suggest it shows a country of its own, but ostensibly the scope of the map is a legitimate one, showing the geographical delimitation in relation to the existing borders. Factually I have not seen any serious inaccuracies. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:35, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete There are many maps of the "geographical region" to be found over the commons... but that ain't one of them. Since it bears the colours of the coat of arms of FYROM, uses slavo-macedonian alphabet and was uploaded by a user named "macedonianboy" it can be easily described as a propaganda-masterpiece. --Knop92 (talk) 09:18, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: the name of the uploader is no argument whatsoever, and the use of Macedonian Cyrillic is simply due to the fact it's designed for use on the Macedonian Wikipedia. How else would you want them to write things there? Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:35, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment:This argument works either way: how else would I expect it to be written since it's propaganda? Things found in the commons are translated and then uploaded in other wikipedias. By the way, wouldn't I be subjective in case I was using a nickname like "kill all jews" and then get involved with articles concerning the holocaust? Just a making a point there ... --Knop92 (talk) 14:03, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also the labels on the map (Вардарска Македоија / Пиринска Македоија / Езеска Македоија) are the usual propaganda terms and do not correspond to historical subdivisions of the area. M.Lahanas (talk) 14:23, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment: It is clearly propaganda. Keeping it or not depends on whether it's useful to have propaganda pictures. Such as having Swastika pictures. It can be useful occasionally. --AaThinker (talk) 18:32, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep Very much in use, therefore useful, therefore in scope. The only issue that could justify its removal would be whether it was a fake: as it's claims are clearly attributed to a POV (its clearly a propaganda image) there's no problem there. The Wikipedias need to illustrate different points of view. If the suitabitlty of one image or another is a point of debate in the Wikipedia, its not up to us to decide the matter by deleting the image. --Simonxag (talk) 10:53, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  DeleteNo use whatsoever.--Dimorsitanos (talk) 17:19, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment There is a Commons policy which I believe applies:- Commons:Project scope/Neutral point of view --Simonxag (talk) 22:22, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Indeed, thanks for the pointer. "Images having particular national, political or religious significance including flags, emblems and maps can arouse strong passions, but Commons is not the place to decide which of various competing versions is the correct or official version. If you feel strongly that a map, emblem, flag or other file hosted here is “wrong” in some way please try to persuade your local wiki community to make use of the version you prefer instead." – But anyway, how would this map violate neutrality in the first place? People still seem to be uncritically falling for the Greek national posture of offendedness here. Can somebody explain what's wrong about the map? Several Greek authors have seriously suggested it's wrong because it uses Macedonian names and writing for placenames in Greece and Bulgaria? I mean, come on, d'oh. I do hope everybody else can see that argument for the nonsense it is. What else should it use, Chinese? Apart from that, what else is wrong? It presents the geographical boundaries of a geographical region. The existence of that region, under the name name Macedonia and in these boundaries, is not in doubt. If this map is illegitimate, then so is en:File:Macedonia (disambiguation).png, File:Macedonia overview.svg, File:Greater Macedonia.png, File:Europe Balkans Macedonia geo.jpg. Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:30, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think the point is that these arguments are not for the Commons, which is why they should not be settled by image deletion. --Simonxag (talk) 13:00, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete Come on guys this map is totaly wrong and it's a bad propaganda. As you can see most of Macedonia is Greek ! So why not to write them in Greek ? Or at least write the name of every city and area at the language of the country it lies in . When macedonia was a real country with Alexander the Great before thousands of years they used the Greek language . If you want a useful and historically good map write them in Greek ! ! ! Now it's a propaganda ... GreekAlexander (talk) 14:59, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • strong deletion Though I'm very carefull when dealing with greek agenda or propaganda, I must say that this map is the worst kind of FYROM propaganda. Map mania has always been politics. Do not adopt it here pls. The same for the following file--ΗΠΣΤΓ (talk) 15:16, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for uploading this one. It is now possible to show in the English version that is is full with weasel words. Namely the words "ethinc", "Pirin Macedonia", "Aegean Macedonia" and "Vardar Macedonia" have no actual historical or geographical significance, they are propaganda terms. I indicated these words in the Bulgarian language map earlier. M.Lahanas (talk) 19:43, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is propaganda , as it was told earlier by another user. --Lemur12 (talk) 23:15, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment: There is unfortunately some canvassing going on at the Greek wikipedia (here), which explains the sudden influx of voters from that wiki, who are evidently following a national agenda here. Note that every single "delete" contribution so far has been from an el-wiki contributor, most of them with little to know experience with Commons policies. Not surprisingly, none of them addresses the policy issue rightly pointed out by Simonxag above. Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:33, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Don't worry, it's more than obvious. (The usernames themselves give them away.) Anyway, we don't count votes. Every admin already knows the outcome of this, we just like to give people their say otherwise they'll feel like they didn't get a chance to explain their side. The image is in use, has no copyright problems, and is lawful for us to host, why would we ever delete it? Rocket000 (talk) 05:46, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I am afraid Rocket000 tries to intimidate admins and prevent them from deleting this image. M.Lahanas (talk) 06:43, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    :-) Then scratch everything I've said. I don't want to give the wrong impression. Policy speaks for itself. Rocket000 (talk) 07:11, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You must worry especially when you are becoming instruments of any national agenda including Greek. And ofcource you are manipulating content when you leave the following aside: However, neutrality of description should be aimed at wherever possible, and in any event neither filenames nor text may be phrased in such a way as to constitute vandalism, attack or deliberate provocation. And a piece of advice. Learn Greek before talking about deliberate canvassing--ΗΠΣΤΓ (talk) 10:19, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Every admin already knows the outcome of this, we just like to give people their say otherwise they'll feel like they didn't get a chance to explain their side. Then we must suppose that here, in commons, since every admin knows the outcome, the whole situation is a simple joke against wikipedians--ΗΠΣΤΓ (talk) 07:50, 20 August 2009 (UTC).[reply]

It says "neutrality of description" So fix the description if it's wrong. We don't delete files because someone incorrectly described it. Do you delete articles because they contain wrong info? No, you fix it. It's not a joke against Wikipedians, they are the reason we're keeping this image. If they didn't want to use it, we could delete based on the simple fact that we don't like it (consensus). (BTW, manipulating content is perfectly ok; this is a wiki.) As for the neutrality we strive for here on Commons, it's a little different than what you might be used to. For example, your comment implies there's something wrong with propaganda. Sure most people would agree, but that is taking a non-neutral POV. We have tons of images that could and have been used for propaganda. It's all about how you use it, not that it exists. An image by itself is just an image. It's the context you give it that makes you right or wrong. I don't need to know Greek, to know that many of these voters are being influenced by something... they're not Commons regulars and obviously are involving politics / personal beliefs. Rocket000 (talk) 00:07, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment Why the author of this picture is not announced about this request? And also, there is another version of this picture. --R ašo 23:08, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment: Μost of them with little to know experience with Commons policies: And some others should be more careful when characterize people. I believe that Commons is not a means for propaganda and a map that deceives the entire world - thus it is offensive-, as this is the internationally-recognized border:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Macedonia_greece_overview.png

(this map) has nothing to do with geographical and encyclopaedical content. It serves nothing regarding the aims of Commons and it should have been deleted even without request. --Lemur12 (talk) 01:40, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Delete The map does not show Macedonia as a geographical region, this is clearly propaganda. If it was a geographical region, why changing all the names into cyrillic? Wikipedia and Commons are not blogs, neither State-controlled organisms of post-communist countries. It is not NPOV.--The daydreamer (talk) 06:34, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment: I am not familiar with Commons policies but, the more I read, the more I see that Commons does not require npov. This is NOT wikipedia, that is plain clear. Fellow Greek editors should care for the unfair usage of this map in WP, not for its mere existence. I would even vote for keeping if a) vote would mean anything here, b) some aesthetic improvement would be made (such as the irritating red color)--194.24.171.196 11:40, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep Although it may be used as propaganda, it presents an objective concept: the geographic region of Macedonia. Commons is used by all Wikipedias, not just by the ones using Latin script. Deleting this would make it harder for the readers whose native language uses Cyrillics (the file is currently used for the WP in Ukrainian, Serbian, and Macedonian) to understand the articles discussing the concept.Anonimu (talk) 23:43, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete The map is fraught with political propaganda and although it claims to represent current state of affairs, it uses intentionally the obsolete Turkish name of modern Blagoevgrad. It has not been used since 1950. Bogorm (talk) 07:25, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete Skopje never was in Macedonia. Skopje was Dardanian city in ancient times. During Ottoman times it was in Kossovo's vilaet. Then it was in Vardarska Banovina and, ONLY after Tito renamed that region in "Socialista Federativa Republika Makedonija", Skopje was in some "Macedonia". Similarly, Veles (ancient Vylazora) was capital of Peonia, that is out of Macedonia. Only Pelagonia, the southern part of modern FYROM was part of historic and geographic Macedonia. Istoor

Kept, if the image is "wrong", use reliable sources to prove it, not canvassing tactics. Kameraad Pjotr 19:36, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2009/08/14&oldid=33826171"