Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2009/09/01
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
|
|
"source: google" 85.230.246.101 02:37, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
- Delete copyvio. --Leoboudv (talk) 03:00, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
Speedy deleted as a copyright violation -- Editor at Large • talk 04:08, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
http://tickets2.burningman.com/info.php?i=2386 Burning Man prohibits public posting of images. Furthermore, I am identifiable in this photo, and I did NOT give consent for its public use. --Stagefrog2 (talk) 04:32, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
- Comment This image has good metadata which implies the person who took the photo is the copyright owner. The image is also licensed freely without a Non-Commercial restriction on flickr. So, its non-revocable if Ruthless Logic took it with her own camera and did not sign a contract with Burning Man. But if the Commons organisation thinks it is in its best interest to delete the photo---since it is unused on Wikipedia--then please do so. There is an interesting discussion here on other pictures from the same place. But until the flickr license is changed, someone else could upload it here again. --Leoboudv (talk) 05:16, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
- Delete, we should honor COM:PEOPLE in this case, and in addition - we're sorta informally trying to push a consensus not to allow any Burning Man images on Commons because of their contractual copyright transfers. ViperSnake151 (talk) 20:39, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
- Delete: Seems to me that we should delete a nude photo taken in a place where images for public posting are overtly discouraged. - Jmabel ! talk 23:37, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
- Delete in this special case where Burning Man bans photo taking...and the flickr account owner broke the legal rules. So, Commons shouldn't keep it in this case. It seems the flickr owner is attracted to this place as she has many Burning Man sets on her account....all of which are licensed freely. --Leoboudv (talk) 04:08, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
- It's not used on any project (other than personal pages here), and it was taken in a place where people enjoy a reasonable expectation of privacy. Therefore, per COM:PEOPLE, I vote Delete. However, the matter of releasing the image under a commercial license is not something we should care about; that is between the Burning Man participant and its organizers. Stifle (talk) 10:48, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
- No, see the actual discussion, the contract contains a copyright transfer, "I further agree that, in the event any third party displays or disseminates any of my images in a manner not authorized by this agreement, I assign to Burning Man the copyright so that Burning Man can enforce against the third party any restrictions concerning use of the images, and I appoint Burning Man as my attorney-in-fact to execute any documents necessary to effectuate such assignment." And their term also restricts your own use of the images too. This, does not grant the authority to freely license the image. ViperSnake151 (talk) 14:02, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
Deleted /None free flickr img--Fanghong (talk) 01:49, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
- Re-opened, per Commons:Undeletion requests/Current requests#File:Burning Man 228 (241613953).jpg. The image has been flickr-reviewed, so there is no problem regarding the license. –Tryphon☂ 12:21, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
- Added to discussion at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Burning Man 228 (241613953) crop.jpg
Evrik (talk) 15:04, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
Same as for cropped version I just nominated. Elvey (talk) 02:38, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
Kept see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Burning Man 228 (241613953) crop.jpg. Multichill (talk) 11:26, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
out of COM:SCOPE : artwork created by uploader without obvious educational purpose Teofilo (talk) 13:59, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
- Delete No encyclopedic value. --Leoboudv (talk) 04:15, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
- Delete Does this really belong on Wikemedia?72.213.212.200 02:01, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:51, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
Blatantly a photograph of a photograph. I doubt the uploader owns the rights to the original photograph. J Milburn (talk) 17:10, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
- Delete No COM:FOP#India (I suppose this is in India) for photos. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:32, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:49, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
Out of scope. Used only for vandalism on en-wiki Multixfer (talk) 22:56, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
- Delete or rename: The picture, which is a Portrait of the merchant Georg Gisze by Hans Holbein the Younger is certainly in scope. However, this is not an appropriate name, and the claim of "own work" is absurd. - Jmabel ! talk 23:53, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
Delete poor quality & unused. We have better images of the subject. --Simonxag (talk) 12:12, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:48, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
Likely copyvio; user was banned on en-wiki for "Blatant copyright infringement". See en:User:Mohan8485 Jmabel ! talk 23:32, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
- Delete Only image by uploader here. --Leoboudv (talk) 04:04, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:48, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
Not in use, and photo lacks any obvious educational use Tabercil (talk) 22:49, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
- Delete: It looks like a personal image but if it is not of a notable person, then it has little encyclopedic value. Commons should not be a random collection of 'fan' images unlike say flickr. --Leoboudv (talk) 04:17, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
Delete per nom --Simonxag (talk) 11:59, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. –Juliancolton | Talk 12:22, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
copyvio. http://tineye.com/search/ca7a3ece5f05675118e3e573066dd93856a15db1 百楽兎 (talk) 01:05, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
- Delete Uploader's only image here. Likely copyvio. --Leoboudv (talk) 03:02, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 14:54, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
Very beautiful art work. But I am afraid this is out of COM:SCOPE (art created by uploader without obvious educational purpose) Teofilo (talk) 12:02, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
Keep It's in use on a user page (which is enough to have it kept). But also it is a useful illustration of an abstraction: a painting of freedom will be at least as useful an illustration as a painting of a building; any illustration of something abstract will have to be "arty" as you can't just fit these things into you viewfinder. --Simonxag (talk) 11:42, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
Kept. – no reason out of scope. Could be used to demonstrate any number of art-based phenomena. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 14:52, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
Source=Fratria.org, which does not state anything about it releasing images. Also if it is from that website, it cannot be licensed with PD-Self. -- Deadstar (msg) 19:38, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
- Delete probably from fratria.ru = fratria.org but I could not find it. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:06, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 14:49, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This image seems to exist for the sole or principal purpose of attacking or intimidating other users and is of a nature apparently intended to shock or give offense to some, and appears to have no encyclopedic or other Wikimedia related use. Attack images should be considered a form of vandalism. Thuresson 18:21, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
- This is a candidate for a {{speedydelete}}. Mutter Erde 18:48, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep. I was thinking that it's the same of Image:Non aux religions.png, Image:No god.PNG, Image:No music.svg or Image:Anti-soccer.png, isn't it?--OsamaK 10:53, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep We have a large number of such images aimed at activities, ideologies and religions. --Simonxag 21:35, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete sorry, but I am not seeing any encyclopedic sense. __ ABF __ ϑ 11:00, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
- We have too many images that's unencyclopedic (e.g. Personal photos or above ones..)--OsamaK 13:03, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete This picture is only in use by OsamaK [1] and I don't think, that you can use this picture in any Wikipedia-Article -- Ra'ike Diskussion 11:14, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
- All these images (Image:Non aux religions.png, Image:No god.PNG, Image:No music.svg or Image:Anti-soccer.png) not in used but in users pages, I can't see the different--OsamaK 13:03, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete ack ABF and Ra'ike Ireas talk•de•en 17:14, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. /Slarre 17:27, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
- Any answer for my questions? Remember that "Polling is not a substitute for discussion"--OsamaK 18:11, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete doesn't this fall under "The file/page is not potentially usable by any current or future Wikimedia project" not necessarily suitable for a speedy, but the fact that other similar but not the same images haven't been deleted isn't any sort of explanation of why this one shouldn't be, right? Jessamyn 04:11, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
- What about usera pages, aren't these one of Wikimedia's project pages? there are too many images that don't use but in a user page (e.g. Personal photos..).--OsamaK 10:39, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Delete The "everybody else is doing it" defense is hardly sufficient for something that many consider hate speech Misterbisson 04:13, 16 January 2008 (UTC)No edits, but there--OsamaK 10:39, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
- BTW, if it will be deleted, I'll request all these images above (and othere) ;) (can't see the different).--OsamaK 10:39, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
- I will tell you the difference. Flags/coats of arms/seals are symbols of countries. When you put a cross on a flag of a country, you are insulting that country's nation. No-one will be offended if you dislike, hate or even disrespect music or football which is not the case for flags. --Meno25 04:48, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete. --Kjetil r 10:47, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
- Anyone here who would support to ban this Osama troll? see [2], [3] and many more of obvious PD art (most of them deleted by others, sigh) Mutter Erde 11:14, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
- Troll? Many users don't agree with that, you can see this link :).--OsamaK 11:16, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
- It would be very useful to see this request too.--OsamaK 11:25, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
- OK, let´s do 2 votes: One for these people, who want to install you as admin and the other for these who want to ban you. I´m very curious. Mutter Erde 11:57, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
- Mutter Erde, please try to stay calm and civil. Calling people names in a discussion remotely connected to Israel is like smoking in a petrol station. Rama 11:43, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
- It would be very useful to see this request too.--OsamaK 11:25, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
- Troll? Many users don't agree with that, you can see this link :).--OsamaK 11:16, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep No reason to delete:
- We do have numerous images which are not a direct encyclopedic nature. Remember that we feed images to all Wikimedia projects, like Wikinews for instance
- That the image is not of an encyclopedic nature remains to be proved
- We do host images for the benefit of users' pages
- We do host images which are scarcely used, if at all.
- Keep I agree with Rama. --Maderibeyza 12:41, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Wikipedfa is no place for antisemitic racist propaganda. Someone ban this troll. /Jebur 22:52, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
- This is not Wikipedia. This is Wikimedia Commons. I would be grateful if you could refrain from insulting people. There is nothing antisemitic or racist in this image, your usage of the term "troll" in unwarranted. Rama 22:58, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete This image is an insult to Israel. Flags are symbols of countries. All flags should be treated with respect. Today someone puts a cross on Israeli flag, tomorrow someone will put a cross on the Saudi flag saying that Saudi are terrorists (because OsamaK is Saudi) then the American/Chinese/Russian etc flags. This will cause unnecessary site-wide drama. Remember that Commons is politically neutral as pointed out by Erik, a former member of the Board of trustees. Commons is not the place for solving the Arab Israeli conflict. --Meno25 04:41, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
- {{ar|ما رأيك بصورة [[:Image:No god.PNG| كهذه[[ ألا تستطيع أن ترى فيها أسوأ أنواع الإهانة، احترام المعتقدات أهم بكثير من احترام أعلام الدول والشعارات، وبالمناسبة لست أهتم إذا قام أحد المستخدمين بوضع إشارة "خطأ" على علم السعودية، ويكيميديا كومنز هي مكتبة عامة؛ يوجد صور "أسوأ" بكثير من هذه، ستجدها في الأعلى. لست أبالي، لنحذف هذه الصورة، بشرط أن نعامل بقية الصور بنفس المنطلق. ويكيميديا ليست مؤسسة إلحادية إسرائيلة، ويكيميديا مؤسسة للجميع.}}
--OsamaK 08:51, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
- English: What do you think about this image can't be seen the worst kind of insult, respect for religions is much more important than respect for the states and logos, I do not care if a user has upload an image includes a "cross" to Saudi flag. Wikimedia Commons is a public library; there are many pictures "worse" much than this (see them above) I don't care to delete this image, but we must delete other images. Wikimedia is not Israelis and atheists foundation, Wikimedia Foundation is for all.
--OsamaK 09:03, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
- All theses images will be deleted, I guess!--OsamaK 09:10, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
- I agree. ~ bayo or talk 12:37, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
- All theses images will be deleted, I guess!--OsamaK 09:10, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
- Altough the discussion is closed already, here my opinion:
- A real use in Wikipedia or real life should be given. Commons should not be depository for selfmade symbols waiting to be used somewhere some day.
- Not very no-sign is a problem. If you dont want icecream eaten by children in your library you have a sign. This ok.
- A sign in a certain way calling for war against a state is not ok.
- So far for now Simplicius 13:36, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted --Zirland 12:33, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
- Note: the results of this DR were overturned by subsequent UDEL requests. Please see the image's talk page for details. -mattbuck (Talk) 12:24, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
File:No Israel.svg (September 2009)
[edit]Used solely for the purposes of hate by selected users. Unlike other anti-X files, this one is A) not a common graphic; B)aimed towards one country/culture; C) not used as a political statement against the government, but rather as a hate tool towards the people with an affinity towards that government. --TheXen (talk) 08:47, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
- We've agreed to keep this photo. I don't have so much time to lose there. Please re-read the old discussions.--OsamaK 11:11, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
Speedy kept. No, we're not going to do this again. See all the past discussions on File talk:No Israel.svg. Rocket000 (talk) 11:36, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
- No, I refuse to let you do that on the ground of a discussion that took place 3/4 of a year ago. It clearly missed the entire point that this image (As well as any flag with a big prohibitionary symbol, including File:Anti-Israel.jpg) are clearly meant to show hatred towards another race or culture. This is simply not the case with most of the other anti-whatever images, which are not used to preserve an age old quarrel between two cultures that can't give it a rest. This image is MEANT to portray hatred. Images, such as the anti-god image, are primarily used to show an affinity, and not as an attack on a single group or culture. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheXen (talk) 16:33, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
- From looking at the 6 userpages containing the image (User:Waraqa, User:Radwan.salhi, User:Abdelrhman_1990, User:Yamanam/My_Political_View, User:Aboalbiss, and User:OsamaK) It is quite clear this image is being used by users with a political agenda. I would be just as upset to see a bunch of Israeli users with a Palestine flag with a prohibitionary symbol, as I imagine these 6 users would be. Wiki is not the place to further these situations, especially when neither side is in the right in the first place. - TheXen (talk) 19:04, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
- That doesn't mean we should delete the file. It's another issue, where DR isn't the right place. Commons:Project scope/Pages, galleries and categories. — Kanonkas // talk // e-mail // 20:25, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
- See Commons:Project_scope#Must_be_realistically_useful_for_an_educational_purpose, something this image clearly violates many points of. - TheXen (talk)
- This was brought up in the previous DRs too. The end result of those debates were, pretty much, that this file was (still is) realistically useful for educational purposes, and fits our project scope. — Kanonkas // talk // e-mail // 20:40, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
- See Commons:Project_scope#Must_be_realistically_useful_for_an_educational_purpose, something this image clearly violates many points of. - TheXen (talk)
- That doesn't mean we should delete the file. It's another issue, where DR isn't the right place. Commons:Project scope/Pages, galleries and categories. — Kanonkas // talk // e-mail // 20:25, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
- From looking at the 6 userpages containing the image (User:Waraqa, User:Radwan.salhi, User:Abdelrhman_1990, User:Yamanam/My_Political_View, User:Aboalbiss, and User:OsamaK) It is quite clear this image is being used by users with a political agenda. I would be just as upset to see a bunch of Israeli users with a Palestine flag with a prohibitionary symbol, as I imagine these 6 users would be. Wiki is not the place to further these situations, especially when neither side is in the right in the first place. - TheXen (talk) 19:04, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
- Strong delete – clearly a hate image. (NB: I'm not a troll, I saw this discussion at EnWiki, where I am active. TreasuryTag (talk) 19:45, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
- If we're going through this again I would hope to see new, and stronger arguments, as to why this should be deleted. We don't have a NPOV policy on Commons. Participants may want to read through the previous DRs. — Kanonkas // talk // e-mail // 20:15, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
- I fail to see what is not strong about the point that its sole purpose is to continue perpetuating a violent conflict, and that something such as that is inherently counter to the peaceful goals of wikimedia, including commons. - TheXen (talk) 20:28, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
- That's more of a personal interpretation of the file. This can very well be used in articles such as Anti-Zionism. — Kanonkas // talk // e-mail // 20:43, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
- This is true, the image does not have "GO TO HELL JEWS" written on it. However, if this is my interpretation as a Canadian athiest, I imagine a lot of people (Esp those involved with these conflicts) will make much more serious interpretations. If that is the case, I would still like to see the image removed from userpages, as it is certainly not being used for an educational purpose there. - TheXen (talk) 21:07, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
- That's more of a personal interpretation of the file. This can very well be used in articles such as Anti-Zionism. — Kanonkas // talk // e-mail // 20:43, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
- I fail to see what is not strong about the point that its sole purpose is to continue perpetuating a violent conflict, and that something such as that is inherently counter to the peaceful goals of wikimedia, including commons. - TheXen (talk) 20:28, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
- Keep per previous discussions –Juliancolton | Talk 20:17, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
- Please specify what point in the previous discussion and not simply "It was kept before" so that we can counter. - TheXen (talk) 20:28, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
- I'd first need a valid reason for deletion. Commons is neither neutral nor censored. –Juliancolton | Talk 23:57, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
- I've given a couple of policies that plainly state that commons is not the place to propagate hate. I subjectively feel that this image portrays the hatred between Palestine and Israel and serves no educational purpose. "Commons/Wikipedia is not censored" is a redundant argument, as it holds the same weight as Ignore All Rules. - TheXen (talk) 00:15, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
- How is IAR relevant here? –Juliancolton | Talk 02:33, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
- It's not, just like "commons is not censored" isn't relevant. - 70.53.44.37 04:04, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
- What? You're proposing this image for deletion because it is used for "purposes of hate", and you say the fact that Commons is not censored is irrelevant? –Juliancolton | Talk 13:16, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
- Well... yea. You can apply that argument to every image that's up for deletion. - 99.227.74.32 14:49, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
- What? You're proposing this image for deletion because it is used for "purposes of hate", and you say the fact that Commons is not censored is irrelevant? –Juliancolton | Talk 13:16, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
- It's not, just like "commons is not censored" isn't relevant. - 70.53.44.37 04:04, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
- How is IAR relevant here? –Juliancolton | Talk 02:33, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
- I've given a couple of policies that plainly state that commons is not the place to propagate hate. I subjectively feel that this image portrays the hatred between Palestine and Israel and serves no educational purpose. "Commons/Wikipedia is not censored" is a redundant argument, as it holds the same weight as Ignore All Rules. - TheXen (talk) 00:15, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
- I'd first need a valid reason for deletion. Commons is neither neutral nor censored. –Juliancolton | Talk 23:57, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
- Please specify what point in the previous discussion and not simply "It was kept before" so that we can counter. - TheXen (talk) 20:28, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
- This is tough for me to say anywhere but, Speedy delete based on whatever the equivalent to w:Wikipedia:Attack page is, here. (Note that I'm hardly ever here on commons, so trying to engage me personally in a debate on this is going to be somewhat pointless. I just wanted to voice my support against allowing attack images.)Ohms law (talk) 01:47, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
I starting thinking about why things like this comes up again and again. Even when you have policies that make it as clear as possible, they still don't see it. It's not the we're disagreeing about anything really. No one's arguing that this isn't offensive to some people. No one's arguing that this isn't "hate propaganda". No one's arguing that hate is a bad thing. We might as well be talking about two completely different things.
One side is looking at the gun, they other side is looking at the person holding it. You know the saying, "guns don't kill people, people kill people". An image out of context is just an image. It's how it is used that makes it right or wrong, or rather, an instrument for right or wrong (and that's when personal beliefs come into play). Unlike guns where, good or bad, they have an obvious and intentional violent/destructive aspect (regardless of what you shoot at), images are a lot more flexible. This image is being used in the mainspace of at least one Wikipedia (there were more before). And it's being used in a legitimate way: to illustrate a real issue in the world. (Actually, guns can be used to teach people what a gun is too, but usually a picture works just fine.) Regardless, Commons is not the place to decide if it should be used in a certain article or not. The fact that it is or can be (not counting those very temporary situations, like vandalism). That's an editorial decision and should be made locally. If we started deleting whatever we didn't like, well, I know I wouldn't upload to Commons anymore if uploading locally meant I wouldn't have to worry about it getting deleted because some group of people over at Commons think they knew better and had the right/authority to remove things they don't approve of. Some sites have local uploads turned of so they don't even have this choice.
Using the word "hate" doesn't change the fact that it's still a POV. As long as there is more than one side, nothing is absolute. Claiming otherwise makes it impossible to compromise. Two different absolutes can not logically coexist. Why would you even consider trying to see things their way? That would be absurd if things weren't relative and you knew that... (I had a lot more typed out here before saving, but turning a deletion request into a debate on metaphysics isn't going to get us anywhere. lol.)
I personally dislike when users put anything to do with politics, race, religion, etc. on their userpage. Not only is it completely irrelevant, but injecting real-life drama into a multicultural environment like this only compounds the naturally-forming wikidrama and makes everything a lot less enjoyable for everyone. I would much rather talk about creating a userpage policy banning images like rather than banning it completely for both good and bad uses. Rocket000 (talk) 05:45, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
- I agree. I would be happier to see this image (And others used in a similar manner) forbidden in the userspace, for the sole reason that it creates unnecessary drama. - 99.227.74.32 14:49, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
Strong keep The fact of the matter, which you can observe from other deletion discussions, is that it is not this type of image that is the problem, but any image potentially harmful to the state of Israel. Deleting this image is not going to defuse controversy but rather give encouragement to those who want to censor the commons. --Simonxag (talk) 11:16, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
- It has nothing to do with harm to the state of Israel, but rather advertising your hatred for the people of Israel because you have a problem with the state of Israel. Again, if the picture is keepable, its use on userpages is not. - 70.53.44.37 18:11, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
- DR isn't the place for that. I would say notifying the user(s) is the approach to go. — Kanonkas // talk // e-mail // 20:02, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
- Or write up a userpage policy on it and try getting consensus. (Note that it would only apply to Commons' userpages; we can't control other projects but they can have their own policies on the matter.) I personally don't have issues with people expressing their views so I wouldn't necessarily support it, but I wouldn't oppose either because this isn't MySpace/Facebook. All that crap is irrelevant and doesn't make Commons better. Actually, I would support if it meant we wouldn't have to keep wasting time on deletion requests like this.. yet, I know it won't stop them. People will always find things to get offended over. Some people are more interested in suppressing than expressing. That's why they're here. Rocket000 (talk) 21:37, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
- It has nothing to do with harm to the state of Israel, but rather advertising your hatred for the people of Israel because you have a problem with the state of Israel. Again, if the picture is keepable, its use on userpages is not. - 70.53.44.37 18:11, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
Keep, it is used. Those uses are debatable, but commons should not delete files if most (or even all) uses are debatable. If commons can't be trusted to keep files which are used and which have a "free" license, people may stop uploading to commons (the interpretations of "free" cause enough heat already). Erik Warmelink (talk) 19:56, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
- Strong keep. Please stop being silly and find something useful you can do for Wikimedia projects or the free software movement. Commons community understands that the users are free to write their political opinions on their userpages. It understands that there is no 'promised land' in case of judging photos. It has so much work to be done other than stupid endless discussions. Commons is all about hosting photos, it's not about what's right and what's wrong in the Arab/Muslim-Israeli conflict. So I'm not really interested in repeating the old talks, they're still in the archive.--OsamaK 21:05, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
Keep I can see how this image is made to provoke anger anywhere, within and outside the Arab–Israeli conflict participants, on either side of the fence. The image is born of hatred, mistrust and non-equality; and even if removed, will only be duplicated, since it gives a possible depiction of a disagreement, which is real and genuine, has been for decades, and will continue for some time -- and is thankfully covered by several fine articles in Wikipedia.
As Wikimedia does concern with topics which are real - I can see how this image is within the scope of any project. The fact that a user chooses, and is allowed, to express things he feels strongly about (be it due to hate, feelings of distress, or any other reason), is topic for discussion on user pages do's and don'ts, from Wikimedia's standpoint, and from the users'.
Any way, I don’t think that placing a symbol (be it pro or anti any given subject) on a user page serves anyone with an actual vehicle of propaganda. I am speculating here - but I can guess that most readers are probably either unaware of, or don't really mind, user pages.
On a personal note, as an Israeli I do find it offensive for people to use this specific image as a way of expressing their identity. But, if I were anti-gay, I would probably feel the same towards people using the Rainbow flag on their user pages. Perhaps this is why "not censored" is, in fact, relevant. 93.172.134.232 23:57, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
- Delete. This (and most probably all other no-x flag images) do not fall within the Commons:Project scope. They are obviously not meant to be used for educational purposes, which is also indicated by their sole use on Wikipedia user pages for hate statements. It would be different if they would be used for legit purposes on Wikipedia articles. 76.182.102.23 22:38, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
- Actually, they most certainly ARE in scope if they're used. -mattbuck (Talk) 23:09, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
- Keep - I objected last time these images were up for deletion, and I haven't changed my mind. This image is not a call for a new holocaust, it is against the state of Israel (a subtle distinction from the jewish people, I grant you). Maybe the image is offensive, but so are a lot of our images, and we keep them. We do not delete images which are racist, sexist, ageist, etc, if they have a reasonable use, and their description/name is not offensive. The name here is "No israel", which is not offensive, unlike say "Israel should burn in hell". The description is to the point. Moreover, it is within scope because it is in use on other projects. We do not censor commons, nor should we try. -mattbuck (Talk) 23:09, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
- Keep - This file can be used in userboxes as well as articles, there for it is within Commons scope.--محمد أحمد عبد الفتاح (talk) 12:26, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
- It should be restricted to articles only. It's use on userpages, while certainly possible to do in a non-hateful way, is now limited almost exclusively to a message of hate. That does not fall within the project scope. - Floydian (talk) 17:30, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
Kept. No valid argument presented. Commons is not wikipedia. Commons can not dictate file use within other project. Projects set its own image standards. Ar.wikipedia uses the file within Neturei Karta article . File is used in 4 wikis and commons. Tarawneh (talk) 00:57, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
File:No_Israel.svg (May 2010)
[edit]This image is clearly discriminatory. Its use in user pages is a terrible violation of a Pillar of Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:EQ Ferbr1 (talk) 20:36, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
- Keep - per last DR, Commons is not wikipedia. Commons can not dictate file use within other project. Projects set its own image standards. We shouldn't delete this image when it is in legitimate use on other projects. I just want to get rid of it as a political statement from commons userpages. -mattbuck (Talk) 20:49, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
- In http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Project_scope You can read this:
Must be realistically useful for an educational purpose.
This image is "realistically useful for an educational purpose"? I think that not: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:GlobalUsage/No_Israel.svg
- In http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Project_scope#Examples you can read this:
Examples
Examples of files that are not realistically useful for an educational purpose:
- Private image collections, e.g. private party photos, photos of yourself and your friends, your collection of holiday snaps and so on. There are plenty of other projects on the Internet you can use for such a purpose, such as Flickr. Such private image collections do not become educational even if displayed as a gallery on a user page on Commons or elsewhere.
- Self-created artwork without obvious educational use.
- Files apparently created and/or uploaded for the purpose of vandalism or attack. Preexisting designs and symbols that are or have been associated with nationalistic, religious or racist causes are not out of scope solely because they may cause offence. Provided they are legal to host and otherwise fall within Commons scope (e.g. if they could for example be used to illustrate a Wikipedia article on a hate group) they should be kept.
- Advertising or self-promotion.
- Files that add nothing educationally distinct to the collection of images we already hold covering the same subject, especially if they are of poor or mediocre quality.
This image is used for the most part in user's pages, with an aim of attack... Ferbr1 (talk) 21:30, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
- To quote your quote, Preexisting designs and symbols that are or have been associated with nationalistic, religious or racist causes are not out of scope solely because they may cause offence. Provided they are legal to host and otherwise fall within Commons scope (e.g. if they could for example be used to illustrate a Wikipedia article on a hate group) they should be kept. Could easily be used in an article on anti-Israeli sentiments. -mattbuck (Talk) 22:03, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
- Neutral Killing it here isn't going to deal with the fact that it's used on many, many user pages, mostly on the Arabic Wikipedia. And we generally do host images that are in heavy use on other Wikimedia projects, even if only on user pages. On the other hand, killing it here may stop it from spreading. --Prosfilaes (talk) 00:19, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete: If you knew why it was made & why is it used, you would want to remove it immediately. It provokes racism & hatred for no reason, when I'm sure that a similar flag for Saudi Arabian or other Pan-Arabist/Islamist country won't be tolerated by the ones who are using the picture in the templates in their pages. Delete it quickly, because it is unfair. Wikipedia is not a place for hate & discrimination. --Mahmudmasri (talk) 03:59, 21 May 2010 (UTC) While reviewing who is using it, I was shocked to see a user called Good Muslim using it! Can't a person be a good Muslim without being anti-Israeli! --Mahmudmasri (talk) 04:03, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
- Keep. Mahmudmasri wrote -- "If you knew why it was made & why is it used..." -- Isn't the important point simply that images like this are made and do get used? Therefore, this picture exemplifies (and can educate people about) a real and notable genre of symbols. Just as Wikimedia Commons has pictures of flags being burned, which has nothing to do with whether or not we approve of flag-burning. It simply illustrates (and can educate people about) the reality that flag-burning happens. Kalidasa 777 (talk) 05:27, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Used by many people and in a Wikipedia article..--OsamaK 05:58, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Commons is a media server that has to contain a neutral picture of our world: the good and the bad things. If we remove it, it will pop up elsewhere anyway. --Foroa (talk) 06:39, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Deleting a file because it "insights hatred" is like shooting the messenger to make the problem go away. Anti-semitism and similar sentiments are a form of mental retardation that lives in the minds of the people who hate, not in the image that they use to express themselves. Besides, deleting the image is giving in to the fear that these people are trying to evoke.
That aside, as has been pointed out earlier by others, an image without a context cannot rightfully be said to insight, invoke or call for anything — context determines full meaning. And Commons, being a storage facility, by definition lacks the context to make any image offensive. Simply put, if this image were to be banned from Commons for being offensive, then Commons can also not have any business storing Media:Nazi Swastika.svg. -- BenTels (talk) 12:02, 21 May 2010 (UTC) - Comment Sorry, I don't understand why this No-something file was requested for deletion in isolation. There are plenty of them on Commons. I think best solution is policy on No-something files, not isolated deletion requests which may be closed depending on view of particular person. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:55, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
- Because this isn't the same. There are a lot of no symbols that have limited scope; no smoking generally means you can't smoke where the sign is displayed. This one even in a limited interpretation calls for the destruction of a nation, and ties into the destruction and subjugation of the ethnicity that calls that nation home. To lump this in with all no-something files is to over- and mis-categorize.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:59, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete, I'm pro information but against hate. Use of flags and insignias in this way only promotes hate and that is not something we should promote. Especially if users on some Wikipedias use this depiction on Commons as a reason for accepting hate propaganda. The same holds for all other such hate propaganda on Commons. It is claimed that deleting this kind of hate propaganda will also lead to deletion of Nazi Swastikas, but that is not correct. It will lead to deletion of no-Nazi -types of propaganda and will not have any effect on use of Nazi Swastikas at all. Organizations using a kind of no-Nazi insignia will anyhow pass as the sign is their insignia. So perhaps there is some organization that wants to use this no-Israel depiction as their insignia, so be it - use it - but don't keep it just because someone thinks Commons should be used as a hate propaganda store. Most likely this image will end in a keep, but I would anyhow say what I think about such material on Commons. Jeblad (talk) 20:01, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
- Do you really mean "no-Nazi" propaganda (e.g. a crossed-out swastika as sometimes used by militant anti-fascists) or do you mean "neo-Nazi" propaganda? Deleting either sort of material would seem to go against the established Commons policy which says it is "not appropriate" to object to a flag being available in Commons on grounds that (for instance) it's used by terrorists.
- Quote from Commons:Project scope/Neutral point of view
- Examples of subject matter disputes that are not appropriate here include... • Flags/emblems: “That is not the official version”, “the colors are not officially-approved”, “that design is used by a terrorist group”.Kalidasa 777 (talk) 23:09, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
- Keep as hurt national pride is not a valid reason for deletion. // Liftarn (talk) 21:26, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete: I'd like to point out that Wikimedia is NOT a democracy and I hope the admins realize the motives of the people who voted "keep". This is so obvious it should be removed, I find this very discussion an insult to my intelligence. 79.180.63.73 18:14, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
- OK, how about you explain to us who are obviously at your level of mental enlightenment why exactly this should be deleted. -mattbuck (Talk) 18:48, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
- I won't be dragged into a stupid argument, so I'll say this as simply as I can: This image is a hate propaganda. No amount of cleverly crafted arguments will change that obvious-to-everyone fact. 79.180.63.73 22:51, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
- That's fine. All I wanted to know was why you wanted it deleted, as simply saying that it's obvious is obviously not obvious to the people who said keep (obviously). -mattbuck (Talk) 23:26, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
- I won't be dragged into a stupid argument, so I'll say this as simply as I can: This image is a hate propaganda. No amount of cleverly crafted arguments will change that obvious-to-everyone fact. 79.180.63.73 22:51, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
- OK, how about you explain to us who are obviously at your level of mental enlightenment why exactly this should be deleted. -mattbuck (Talk) 18:48, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
By the way, I'm sorry if I come out as obnoxious. I don't care about national pride. I'm an Israeli and this image pretty much calls out for suicide bombers to kill me. If this image was used in a header of a list of terrorist groups it would be another story. But it's only used in Wikipedia to spread hate. How would you react in my place? 79.180.63.73 00:27, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
- Comment Here is an image search which shows (on the 1st page) three different versions of the crossed-out Israeli flag, being used (outside of the Wikipedias) to express opposition to Israel...
http://www.google.com.au/images?hl=en&safe=off&gbv=2&tbs=isch%3A1&sa=1&q=boycott+Israel A question for people who want to delete this graphic -- why doesn't it fall into the following category? ... "Preexisting designs and symbols that are or have been associated with nationalistic, religious or racist causes" which according to Commons policy "are not out of scope solely because they may cause offence." http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Project_scope#Examples Kalidasa 777 (talk) 06:42, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
- Because this picture's sole purpose on Wikimedia is to be used for nationalistic, religious or racist causes. It's not a "by the way, some people might be offended". ChaosFish (talk) 13:34, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
It's been almost three weeks since the last request, and more than a year and a half since the first request, and this image is still here. Disgraceful. Hello! Someone needs to wake up and smell the coffee. ChaosFish (talk) 07:47, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
- This whole discussion makes me sick. It has no point at all.--OsamaK 20:33, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
Kept. no point in deleting the image, besides the same result could be still technically achieved with the image being deleted... so pointless DR. User:Esby/anti... Esby (talk) 14:05, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
File:No Israel.svg (October 2010)
[edit]anti-semitic campaign which raises doubt the right of exitence of Israel, probably some jew hate. And another thing: files like "anti-islam got deleted and "anti-israel"-files have a supreme prerogative of existence? So how does that work? I think, Wikimedia is not a place to promote hate, even this file is used on arabic spoken articles ONLY!!! No, i won't support and accept that. Justice for all!!! Saviour1981 19:10, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Wikimedia is not a place to promote hate, except against Arabic speakers? That was a bad place to put a comma splice, IMO. It's a freely licensed legal image that's used on over 100 pages on 4 wikis; I don't see that we should ever delete such an image, nor that deleting it would do any good but stir up further upset.--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:31, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
- Keep: As offending this anti-Israel logo might be to many people, it is within COM:SCOPE as it is used by multiple Wikipedia articles. Take اطوري كارتا as an example which is about Neturei Karta, a Jewish group that opposes Zionism and the state of Israel. As you might see from this Fox News report, this logo is actually worn by members of this group (it is to be seen by the interviewed spokesman of the Neturei Karta movement in New York, Rabbi Yisroel Weiss, at 0:20) and also during demonstrations by this group (at 0:44). This group is currently to be found in 23 Wikipedia projects and surely notable. In consequence, it is just natural to have one of the logos used by that group at Wikimedia Commons. That does not mean that Wikimedia Commons or any other Wikimedia project endorses the views of this group or that logo, it just means that we need it in the context of these articles. (That this logo is also used on some user pages here and elsewhere is something I find highly inappropriate but this is a separate problem.) --AFBorchert (talk) 19:49, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
- Comment File:Anti-Islamism.svg and File:No Sharia.svg can both be considered anti-Islamic yet neither have even been nominated for deletion. That isn't to say I am in favour of such images being used on user pages but that does somewhat draw into question Saviour1981's that anti-Islamic images aren't allowed whilst anti-Israel images are. The situation is much more complicated than some want to imply is the main point to appreciate. Whilst I have expressed my concerns about the use of images like this, looking at the previous discussions it is difficult to see how, when the reason given for deletion is pretty much the same, the outcome would be any different. I therefore wonder if we really need to waste anymore time discussing this. Adambro (talk) 22:17, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
Speedy kept per Adambro - no new reason why this should be deleted, consensus from previous DRs seems clear. -mattbuck (Talk) 22:44, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
File:No_Israel.svg (September / October 2011)
[edit]Hate propaganda, used on arab user pages for hate speech or hostility explanations to Israel only. Wikimedia Commons really shouldn't be a place for racism, fascism, religious craze or other nationalistic propaganda --Saviour1981 (talk) 21:27, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
- Speedy Keep Per the 3 past nominations. No new arguments brought to this deletion request. Tm (talk) 01:06, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
- Speedy Keep The same user reopening the same DR is contentious. No new arguments have been brought up; it's still massively in use.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:07, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
- Many of those uses should be removed per the userpage policy present on most other wikimedia sites. "you may not include in your user space material that is likely to bring the project into disrepute, or which is likely to give widespread offense...Whether serious or trolling, "Wikipedia is not a soapbox" is usually interpreted as applying to user space as well as the encyclopedia...don't be inconsiderate. Extremely offensive material may be removed on sight by any editor."
- But hey commons is just a suppository, er repository. - Floydian (talk) 00:37, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
- Delete clearly out of Common's scope. Old arguments were based on popularity and not on policy and were illegitimate. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:31, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
- Which policy are you, Ottava Rima, citing for saying this file is out of scope? Tm (talk) 18:37, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
- Commons:Scope is a policy. As the policy says, images with hateful intent can only be justified if they are used to illustrate an article, but this image is solely for user pages to make attacks on another's nationality. That makes the image not qualified for being hosted here. The image is not connected to the Neturei Karta, nor does it belong on the page. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:55, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
- Which policy are you, Ottava Rima, citing for saying this file is out of scope? Tm (talk) 18:37, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
(comment bellow added by me after this deletion request been closed) Tm (talk) 19:16, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
- I know perfectly well what Wikimedia Commons scope is. This file shows what is anti-semitism, that is scope. I beg you, please stop saying that your arguments supplants all others peoples arguments and that theirs arguments are illegitimate. By making this statement you are potencially and unfairly insulting all the persons that made "keep" arguments or the fact that this file was kepted on 3 of its 4 previous deletion request and undeleted after the first one, basing its rationales on our policies.
- But most important the policie you link says (emphasis made by me):
"File in use in another Wikimedia project A media file that is in use on one of the other projects of the Wikimedia Foundation is considered automatically to be useful for an educational purpose, as is a file in use for some operational reason such as within a template or the like. Such a file is not liable to deletion simply because it may be of poor quality: if it is in use, that is enough. An otherwise non-educational file does not acquire educational purpose solely because it is in use on a user page (the "User:" namespace) of another project, but by custom the uploading of small numbers of images (e.g. of yourself) for use on a personal user page of another project is allowed. It should be stressed that Commons does not exist to editorialise on other projects - that an image is in use on a non talk/user page is enough for it to be within scope.". This image is used in this this and this articles in the AR Wikipedia, and several userpages (more than 100) of several wikis. So this file is clearly in scope. Tm (talk) 19:16, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
- From the scope: "Provided they are legal to host and otherwise fall within Commons scope (e.g. if they could for example be used to illustrate a Wikipedia article on a hate group) they should be kept." This article in Ar.wiki is not about a "hate group" nor is this a symbol of said hate group. The image does not actually illustrate the article from what I have been told by Arabic speakers and looks not to be appropriate to the article in any manner. This is necessary under scope - you cannot just randomly add images to an article in hope to keep them. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:10, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
Kept - still in use on ar.wp in an article, therefore not out of scope. -mattbuck (Talk) 19:06, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
OTRS ticket is unlikely to provide sufficient permission. Stifle (talk) 19:04, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
- Comment Looks like a photo of a map, maybe on permanently publicly displayed sign, but there is no COM:FOP#Greece. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:11, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
Deleted by Abigor: In category Unknown - July 2009; not edited for 9 days
the source is copyrighted --Gveret Tered (talk) 11:58, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Huib talk 14:19, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
sculpture dated 1981 in the USA. No freedom of panorama in the USA. Reference : http://siris-artinventories.si.edu/ipac20/ipac.jsp?session=1G5181L8788A0.51179&profile=ariall&source=~!siartinventories&view=subscriptionsummary&uri=full=3100001~!395213~!0&ri=1&aspect=Keyword&menu=search&ipp=20&spp=20&staffonly=&term=segal+gay+liberation&index=.GW&uindex=&aspect=Keyword&menu=search&ri=1 Teofilo (talk) 13:52, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
Delete unless someone can check and confirm that there is no copyright notice or that copyright was not subsequently registered. --Simonxag (talk) 11:48, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Huib talk 14:20, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
Copyright term for paintings in India is 60 years after painter's death. Painter's name is not provided. Teofilo (talk) 13:39, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
Deleted, no info to establish free status Infrogmation (talk) 01:46, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
No valid permission in OTRS ticket, which is inactive for over a month. Stifle (talk) 19:03, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
- Delete in this case. --Leoboudv (talk) 06:37, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
Picture is coming from http://www.planepictures.net/netshow.cgi?791453. I asked through this website (cf email 17. Juli 2009 16:36) to the owner of the picture the authorization for it, knowing that he is the owner of the copyright. He kindly gave his authorization (cf email Vendredi, 17 Juillet 2009, 16h37).
OTRS Ticket#2009071710033725
Julien1A (talk) 08:28, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
- Unfortunately this authorization only gives permission to use on Wikipedia, which is no good to us. An email was sent to you yesterday saying this as well. Stifle (talk) 10:38, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
Deleted by Tiptoety: Missing essential information: source, license and/or permission
OTRS ticket stale for over a month without receiving permission. Stifle (talk) 19:02, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
- Comment Permission was given by the uploader. What is the problem? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:16, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
- The problem is that the permission given in the OTRS email is only for use on Wikipedia, not for a free licence. Stifle (talk) 10:39, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
Can you kindly offer constructive advise on how to resolve this issue as it seems somewhat convoluted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.111.192.57 (talk • contribs)
Delete No response from the copyright holder. It has been awhile now. We can always undelete or reupload if we get the permission. Killiondude (talk) 07:38, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
Deleted by Tiptoety: Missing essential information: source, license and/or permission
OTRS ticket does give sufficient permission, and permission is unlikely to be forthcoming. Stifle (talk) 18:55, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
- Comment ?? Anyway, permission was given by the uploader. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:20, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
- Sorry, that should have been "does NOT give sufficient permission". There is an email in OTRS, but it does not give any free license. Stifle (talk) 08:07, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
- Ok, that solves my question marks. But the file was uploaded with {{self|cc-by-sa-3.0|GFDL}}, and that should be enough. If OTRS support that "self" = User:Anil1956 = Anil Aggrawal, everything seems fine to me. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 08:40, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
- I can't make that assumption. It would be significantly easier if Professor Aggrawal just responded to the email. Stifle (talk) 10:39, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
- Ok, that solves my question marks. But the file was uploaded with {{self|cc-by-sa-3.0|GFDL}}, and that should be enough. If OTRS support that "self" = User:Anil1956 = Anil Aggrawal, everything seems fine to me. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 08:40, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
Deleted by Killiondude: Missing essential information: source, license and/or permission
OTRS ticket inactive for over a month; permission appears unlikely to be forthcoming. Stifle (talk) 18:57, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
Deleted by Killiondude: Missing essential information: source, license and/or permission
No valid permission in the OTRS ticket, which is over a month old, and none is likely to be forthcoming. Stifle (talk) 18:59, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
Please delete File:Jhr.Dr. O.F.A.H.vNtP.jpg as well if no permission is forthcoming. John Vandenberg (chat) 05:35, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Deleted by Killiondude: Missing essential information: source, license and/or permission
OTRS ticket is inactive for over a month with permission unlikely to be forthcoming. Stifle (talk) 19:01, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
- Comment Permission was given by the uploader. What is the problem? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:17, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
- Delete The OTRS backlog is not more than 4 weeks as an OTRS volunteer (Jmilburn) recently mentioned to someone else who is a contact of mine. If the permission is not sufficient, its better to delete...just to be safe here. --Leoboudv (talk) 06:39, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
- There is a permission ({{PD-self}}), there is a declaration "Source: Own work by uploader", and there is EXIF data. The only problem may be subject's permission, which is not required for copyright. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 07:23, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
- There is no email in from the photographer to verify the permission. Stifle (talk) 08:06, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
- There is a permission ({{PD-self}}), there is a declaration "Source: Own work by uploader", and there is EXIF data. The only problem may be subject's permission, which is not required for copyright. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 07:23, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
Deleted by Killiondude: Missing essential information: source, license and/or permission
Derivative work- photograph of copyrighted packaging. J Milburn (talk) 17:03, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
- Delete, derivative work of copyrighted packaging. –blurpeace (talk) 16:43, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Original on Flickr is "Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 2.0 Generic". MGA73 (talk) 20:09, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
A higher quality version exists at File:2005 Atlantic hurricane season map.png; this version only includes a portion of the storms, and thus lacks educational value. –Juliancolton | Talk 13:49, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. MBisanz talk 23:08, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
Temporary art where the artist could claim copyright according German law, no approval by the artist to be seen --Mazbln (talk) 18:38, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
I`am Oliver Bienkowski, the Lightartist; i uploaded it myself, go to my Homepage www.lichtkunst24.de/oliverbienkowski to the bottom of the page there you see that i write that Dr Kralle is my account. So i have the rights and the picture must not delete--Dr_Kralle (talk) 21:31, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
- Keep http://www.lichtkunst24.de/oliverbienkowski confirmes that User talk:Dr_Kralle is the author. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:25, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
Kept - uploaded by the artist (non-admin closure). /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:26, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
The dolphin and the book are sufficiently original for copyright status. Esrever (klaT) 02:26, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
- Comment Designed 1932 according to http://www.archives.upenn.edu/histy/features/vis_obj/heraldry/guide.html ; I see no indication that it was copyrighted. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 06:02, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
Kept - non-admin closure. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 15:41, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Logo/shield - Enwiki duplicate tagged as non-free. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:31, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
- So bloody what? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 09:51, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
- Keep, obviously the enwiki tagging is wrong, then. --PaterMcFly (talk) 20:22, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
- Keep agreed; that's simply not probative.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:33, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
Kept Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:00, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
Looks like a screen cap from a TV show (see bug in lower right corner) Tabercil (talk) 03:34, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
- Delete Obviously taken from TV. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 14:11, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Tiptoety talk 05:17, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
OTRS ticket only gives permission for use on Wikipedia; no proper permission appears to be forthcoming. Stifle (talk) 18:51, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Stifle (talk) 10:04, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Logo for a sports club. I doubt the uploader owns the rights to the image. Not in use. J Milburn (talk) 19:30, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
Deleted Non-free logo. --Alpertron (talk) 13:44, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
Mary Welch
[edit]- File:Piercing4 0001113.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Mary's Nipple piercing.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Piercing4 00017.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Marytopless0742.JPG (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
I don't see how the permission is noted, her own site doesn't say the images are free maybe the permission should go to OTRS Huib talk 09:59, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
- Comment: Maybe someone should ask if she license the images to remain on Wikimedia Commons...or not. A simple yes or no from M. Welch would help Commons decide to keep or delete them. I also wonder if the uploader is related to MR. Welch. Personally, I have no love for such p*rn images...but everyone has a different take on such pictures and I respect that. --Leoboudv (talk) 04:20, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
- Delete On second thought, given the lack of OTRS permission and the fact the uploader placed only 4 images here, it may be safer to delete since its uncertain if he is the copyright owner. --Leoboudv (talk) 21:53, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Deleted / Copyvio --Fanghong (talk) 01:51, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
Images of Sayano–Shushenskaya hydroelectric power station accident
[edit]- File:2009 Sayano–Shushenskaya hydroelectric power station accident-01.jpeg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:2009 Sayano–Shushenskaya hydroelectric power station accident-02.jpeg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:2009 Sayano–Shushenskaya hydroelectric power station accident-03.jpeg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:2009 Sayano–Shushenskaya hydroelectric power station accident-04.jpeg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:2009 Sayano–Shushenskaya hydroelectric power station accident-05.jpeg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
I believe that LJ user socro, who posted the images, is not the author of the photos. Here he is asked whether it is possible to get a permission to publish the photos. The answer (in Russian) may be rendered into English as "I don't know. I got them in some odd way through many hands". Blacklake (talk) 11:34, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
- Delete He is not the copyright owner. --Leoboudv (talk) 04:12, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
- Delete per Leoboudv, uploader does not own copyrights. -- Deadstar (msg) 15:59, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
- Delete. I uploaded these photo, because socro wrote hear (in Russian): «Dear friends, please take these photos and do with them what you want, consider their copyleft. Dear Wikipedia, please, take them already own at last! You don't have to pay anything. All is good with right holders and so on, if you have questions, I will personally give an answer». I don't know, that socro doesn't know the authors of these images. He doesn't - so we have to delete photos. Dinamik (talk) 10:24, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:52, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
Tineye provides 6 results, among which one uploaded in 2008 on Flickr with a copyright tag (upload on Wikimedia Commons is dated 2009) Teofilo (talk) 13:22, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. The Evil IP address (talk) 10:12, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
Source website does not clarify that this is free use. I have uploaded it locally at enwp under a non-free license. J Milburn (talk) 19:27, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Killiondude (talk) 00:18, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
New png version available --Umdiaqualquer (talk) 02:45, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
Deleted, per nominator (file is not in use). Kameraad Pjotr 18:45, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
Screenshot of a copyrighted documentary. J Milburn (talk) 08:14, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
- Delete Its copyrighted work. --Leoboudv (talk) 08:45, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
- Keep I had looked at other images from this documentary before. Ekedalen is the producer and copyright owner, and I believe the person that also wrote sv:Welcome to Hebron. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 11:51, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
- A note to that effect (or, even better, an OTRS ticket) on the image page would be great. J Milburn (talk) 17:15, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
Deleted, lacks suitable permission (OTRS). Kameraad Pjotr 18:46, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
Was in the category Speedy delete with the reason: still subject to the original copyright But I don't feel secure enough to delete it without communety consensus Huib talk 09:29, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
Comment This seems to be one of the (apparently) self made photographs uploaded by an Italian Wikipedia editor. See it:Utente:Habemusluigi/Foto. There is more than one image from this camera but at least 3 cameras in use. I think somebody should talk to this person in Italian and establish what the real status of the pictures is. --Simonxag (talk) 11:36, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
Comment I contacted the user Habemusluigi, can you please explain what is exactly the copyright problems? --Gildos (talk) 09:06, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
- Who took the photographs they have uploaded? Why is there more than 1 camera being used? --Simonxag (talk) 19:11, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
- Ok, now I sent him an Email. --Gildos (talk) 08:31, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
Dear Friends, my name's Luigi Capozzi known in wiki with the username Habemusluigi. The subject doesn't have any problem of copyright becuse every photo I uploded it's mine. The three dolls are from left to right: Neve, me and Glitz. We are in Piazza Castello, called for the Olympic games "Medals Plaza", and not in Piazza Solferino. I don't understand because you have problem if I used more cameras... my cameras aren't jealous. --Habemusluigi (talk) 11:24, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
Comment I hope you will delete the template {{delete}} from the photo now. --Gildos (talk) 09:53, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
- Keep I see no problem; apparently he asked someone to make a picture. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 14:28, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
Kept, per Gildos. Kameraad Pjotr 19:13, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
The RFA terms of use are not free enough for Commons ("requires that such material be designated as an excerpt and that the excerpt shall not alter or distort the fundamental meaning of the original content.") terms of use. If the uploader is truely the photographer : he should send an E-mail to COM:OTRS and confirm that he is not bound by an exclusivity contract with RFA. Teofilo (talk) 14:12, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
Usually a photographer remembers when and where he took a picture. Why don't we have more details ? Which month in 2006 ? In which city is the picture located ? Teofilo (talk) 14:15, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
DeleteNo new information since two months: probable copyvio. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:44, 9 November 2009 (UTC)- Keep Had been deleted and was restored, details at User talk:Túrelio/Archive4#File:Tibetan writer Woeser 210.jpg. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 13:07, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
Deleted, per nominator. Kameraad Pjotr 19:29, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
out of project scope, vandalism, and user not active (only uploaded this file and put on user page, obviously as a joke) Visionholder (talk) 14:58, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
- Keep, user image -> in scope. Multichill (talk) 16:04, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
- So let me get this straight... Anyone can post any kind of non-sense, gibberish, or even blatantly offensive images, and it is protected as long as they put it on their user page? –Visionholder (talk) 16:54, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
- It's true that this is the users only upload and he hasn't been active since >2 years. --Túrelio (talk) 19:10, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
- I guess let me state this another way: This picture is graffiti, but protected by being placed on a user page. I wouldn't care, but it shows up on searches for "lemur" images because of its name. Furthermore, it can be used in vandalism on other Wiki pages, just like File:Ringtailedlemurs121208.jpg was before I had it deleted (same reasons, but not displayed on a user page). Furthermore, why protect it? The user has only made 3 contributions (uploading that image, adding it to his/her user page, and adding a comment about it on his/her user page), and has not been active since (over a year). By not deleting it, we essentially confirm that Commons is a public garbage can... which is what it feels like I'm sifting through this site looking for images. –Visionholder (talk) 19:20, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
- Delete, look at his contribution in en-wiki -- no useful edits at all. Vandalism, childish edits... No useful contribution into any WMF project, why we should keep it? Trycatch (talk) 20:43, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
- Keep Used on user page. If that gets deleted then so should this be, but until then the user can be a silly lemur if they want to be. Any image can be used for vandalism. --Simonxag (talk) 11:54, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
- Keep all in good fun. and as long as its free media Andyzweb (talk) 04:29, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, user hasn't made any useful contribution. Kameraad Pjotr 19:23, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
Susan Osman noted as creator/Source, as this is an image of her, this is unlikely. Uploader licensed it with PD-Self, which, unless she is Susan, cannot be true either. ---- Deadstar (msg) 15:03, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
Keep We normally accept that people's photos of themselves are self made. Sometimes they do get a friend or passer by to help, but often they use the camera's timer. --Simonxag (talk) 11:56, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
Deleted, no information regarding the author. Kameraad Pjotr 19:27, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
This is an aerial photograph, and with the logo looks like it came from the college's webpages. I doubt this is self made. -- Deadstar (msg) 15:26, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
Deleted, per nominator. Kameraad Pjotr 19:33, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
Converted from a speedy by User:Padawane for "Copyvio de [4]" to rfd by me, as I have some doubts that the photos are identical. Surely they show the same item, but our image has slightly different toning and misses the watermark that the webphoto carries. --Túrelio (talk) 18:59, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
- Les images sont très superposables (en ouvrant deux onglets avec [5] et [6]. Elle existait sur l'autre site avant d'arriver sur commons (d'après webarchives) --P@d@w@ne 18:26, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
Kept, per the concerns of Túrelio. Kameraad Pjotr 19:36, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
This image was uploaded to en: wiki saying "old photo from the family album". This looks like a photograph published in a newspaper, of someone in jail. (For some context about the image from en: wiki: Khalid Ahmed Showky Al-Islambouli arranged and carried out the assassination of the Egyptian president, Anwar Sadat.) -- Deadstar (msg) 19:20, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
- Unless uploader can clarify, delete on the unlikeliness of the claim. If you put a newspaper clipping in your family album, that doesn't give you rights to the image. - Jmabel ! talk 02:02, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
- Keep looks like {{PD Egypt}}. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 23:21, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
Deleted, per nominator. Kameraad Pjotr 19:48, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
This file was nominated for Speedy deletion, the original reason:Article 34 of cited law says that movies are protected until 50 years after all these people are dead: the productor, the director and the plot author. I don't feel secure enough to delete it right away Huib talk 09:25, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
- This is the link to the current copyright law: http://infoleg.mecon.gov.ar/infolegInternet/anexos/40000-44999/42755/texact.htm
- Second paragraph of article 34 states:
- Para las obras cinematográficas el derecho de propiedad es de cincuenta años a partir del fallecimiento del último de los colaboradores enumerados en el artículo 20 de la presente.
- For movies the copyright lasts for 50 years starting from the death of the people cited on the article 20 of this law.
- Article 20 states:
- Salvo convenios especiales, los colaboradores en una obra cinematográfica tiene iguales derechos, considerándose tales al autor del argumento, al productor y al director de la película.
- Unless special agreement, the creators of a movie have equal rights, considering as such the author of the script, producer and director of the film.
- Best regards, Alpertron (talk) 11:57, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
Keep This picture is not a frame from the movie but a photograph used for the advertising of the film. There are two diferent jobs: a) the film has a lot of authors and 50 year right; b) this picture has only one author and 25 years right.--Roblespepe (talk) 13:32, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
- The pictures used for advertisements have some text for advertise (obviously) the film, which this picture lacks. Best regards, Alpertron (talk) 14:03, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
- Please provide a proof' that it was picture taken only for promotional purposes and we can keep it. As long as it can be assumed that it is a screenshot of the movie it has to be deleted. --ALE! ¿…? 08:24, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
- All the legal data is provided. It is a photograph (not a movie) taken in 1979 and it is at the Cinema Museum. So it gathers all the elements established by , Law 11.723, Article 34.--Roblespepe (talk) 16:33, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
- Legal data? The description says: Pepe Soriano, como "la nona", en la película "La Nona" de 1979, so you are asserting that this is a frame from the movie. You will need a written statement from the museum that this is not a frame, and change the description accordingly. Best regards, Alpertron (talk) 20:17, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
- All the legal data is provided. It is a photograph (not a movie) taken in 1979 and it is at the Cinema Museum. So it gathers all the elements established by , Law 11.723, Article 34.--Roblespepe (talk) 16:33, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
- Keep A publicity photo, even if it would a still from a film. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 12:24, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
Deleted, no evidence that it is not a still from a movie. Kameraad Pjotr 19:17, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
Statute of an association (see w:de:Kärntner Heimatdienst), text only and not usefull according to Commons:Project scope. --Martin H. (talk) 21:17, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
Die Statuten sind mit der Bestätigung der zuständigen Behörde (letzte Seite im PDF) beglaubigt.
Der KHD hat auch die Nutzung all seiner Texte und Bilder beim Wikipedia Projekt bereits bekannt gegeben.
- Darum geht es nicht, es geht darum, dass diese Texte nicht nützlich im Rahmen unserers Commons:Projektrahmen sind. Dieses Dokument mag gut sein auf der Webseite eines Vereins, auf Commons gehört es meiner Meinung nach nicht. --Martin H. (talk) 22:59, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
In dem von dir zitierten Artikel verweise ich auf 3.4.1 In anderen Wikimedia-Projekten verwendete Datei. Diese Datei gehört eigentlich zum Artikel über den Kärntner Heimatdienst(KHD).
- Berechtigt, ich verweise auf Commons:Projektrahmen#PDF- und DjVu-Formate, ff., genau wie z.B. Geschäftsberichte von Gesellschaften gehören Satzungen nicht auf Commons sondern, wenn vom Verein erwünscht, auf deren Webseite. Für Commons bietet sowas keinen Mehrwert, da eine Vereinssatzung in keinem Projekt als Projektinhalt (nicht als Verweis oder Quelle) aufgenommen würde. --Martin H. (talk) 11:16, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
- Scrios, de réir Cómhaoin:Scóip tionscadail. Stifle (talk) 10:41, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
Deleted, out of project scope. Kameraad Pjotr 19:18, 14 January 2010 (UTC)