.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
 |
This page is currently protected from editing because it is transcluded in the following pages, which are protected with the "cascading" option enabled: |
Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2009/09/07
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
|
|
Archive September 7th, 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.
Can't find evidence on the website that they A. hold the copyright to this image and B. allow its use 76.124.36.242 13:25, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
Delete Website listed as source is unlikely to hold copyright. It looks like an official promo image of the actor. -- Deadstar (msg) 21:11, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. –Tryphon☂ 12:29, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
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.
Reasons for deletion request {{copyvio|1=Subject of photograph Helen Barradell is copyright owner of photograph, not myself as previously specified}}{{speedydelete|orphan}}. -Rhett Willowdean (talk) 13:08, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Ilmari Karonen (talk) 13:28, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
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.
Unexplained unused uncategorized image uploaded a year ago; description "dda", small size low res. --Infrogmation (talk) 04:11, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
- Delete Ultra-low resolution image with no useful description. --Leoboudv (talk) 07:04, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. –Tryphon☂ 12:29, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
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.
Why is it in scope? What is it related to? Eusebius (talk) 05:23, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
- Delete No proper description as to its meaning. --Leoboudv (talk) 00:04, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. –Tryphon☂ 12:29, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
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.
Newer version exists (with updated data and in vector format): File:OPEC declared reserves 1980-now BP.svg Iorsh (talk) 06:41, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
Keep Do not delete while this one is in use.- Are you sure it is still in use? I checked and replaced it everywhere. Could you please show where it is still used? Iorsh (talk) 09:45, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
- It is ok now. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 10:53, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
- Are you sure it is still in use? I checked and replaced it everywhere. Could you please show where it is still used? Iorsh (talk) 09:45, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
- Delete The new one is much better. /Clambert (talk) 19:51, 10 September 2009 (GMT+2)
Deleted. Unused, completely redundant with File:OPEC declared reserves 1980-now BP.svg. –Tryphon☂ 12:32, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
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.
Incorret category; the right name is Teófilo Puebla --Macarrones (talk) 07:04, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
Comment Correct cat at Category:Dióscoro Puebla. I've created a redirect. -- Deadstar (msg) 10:18, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
Redirected -- Deadstar (msg) 10:18, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
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.
Per COM:NUDE, we already have an assortment of human genitalia. I think this can be safely deleted. This is NSFW, just to warn you. Killiondude (talk) 07:34, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
- Delete: Good grief. --MZMcBride (talk) 08:18, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
- Delete. Blurry penis photo, unused, no educational use not already better served by our many other penis images. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 13:34, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Rjd0060 (talk) 15:01, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
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.
Copyvio. This is unlikely to be the author's own work. It looks more like a cover of an industrial catalogue. Inductiveload (talk) 08:58, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
- Speedy delete its a clear cut copyvio. --Leoboudv (talk) 23:53, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. –Tryphon☂ 12:33, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
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.
Bookcover, converted from speedy as apparently not an obvious case: This might be a PD-Text cover? -- Deadstar (msg) 10:12, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
Kept as {{PD-text}}. –Tryphon☂ 12:35, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
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.
Although licensed with a PD-self, it states "The photo is available as promotional use for Ian Levine with full consent" .That's not enough for commons, it needs to be freely useable.. -- Deadstar (msg) 11:28, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
- Delete If you are using an article about this person, you could be indirectly promoting his notability. But if you use the image to criticise him or his work, you are violating the terms of the image use. This is not freely usable. --Leoboudv (talk) 23:57, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Non-free license requirements. –Tryphon☂ 12:37, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
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.
This image is attributed to Associated Press; uploader has no authority to tag it as "own work". Refer to this link: [1]. Metadata also indicates that image was released by Philippine Navy. - Kguirnela (talk) 12:16, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
- strong delete Xinhua news agency is the copyright owner according to the metadata. --Leoboudv (talk) 23:47, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
Neutral Image was released by the Philippine Navy. I looked over copyright law of the Philippines (I'm no expert) and I don't think that government agency images can be copyrighted Philippine copyright law from English Wikipedia. Also, the same image has Reuters as the copyright holder at [2]. However, that being said,the image is definitely mistagged. Shinerunner (talk) 01:33, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Even if it's a work of the Philippine government, it cannot be used commercially without authorization. –Tryphon☂ 12:41, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
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.
Depicts a copyrighted model (see COM:DW). FOP is not applicable since the artwork was part of a temporary exhibition. Stifle (talk) 12:29, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
- To expand on this, the model is a work of artistic craftsmanship within the meaning of the Copyright, Designs, and Patents Act, 1988. The FOP exemption in the UK is in section 62 of that act, and applies to "sculptures, models for buildings and works of artistic craftsmanship, if permanently situated in a public place or in premises open to the public". From what I can see, the model was not permanently situated in the Earl's Court Exhibition Centre. There could also be a question of whether the exhibition was a public place or a premises open to the public, given that it was only accessible on payment of a fee, but I don't intend to rely on that. Stifle (talk) 12:35, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
- I'm no legal expert, but would citing Fair Use help at all? It's removed from the wikipedia:Jack Harkness article for the meantime.Zythe (talk) 13:37, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
- It could perhaps be used as fair use, but Commons doesn't accept fair use so you'd need to upload it to your local project. It may or may not pass the non-free content criteria. Stifle (talk) 15:32, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
- Alright, fair enough. I'll try and hunt down someone on Wikipedia with the relevant expertise. Thanks.Zythe (talk) 17:19, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
- It could perhaps be used as fair use, but Commons doesn't accept fair use so you'd need to upload it to your local project. It may or may not pass the non-free content criteria. Stifle (talk) 15:32, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
- I'm no legal expert, but would citing Fair Use help at all? It's removed from the wikipedia:Jack Harkness article for the meantime.Zythe (talk) 13:37, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Derivative work. –Tryphon☂ 12:42, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
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.
Copyrighted/no permisson: Getty Images: Ryan Pierse, file photo; http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/06/20/2281569.htm High Contrast (talk) 13:14, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
- strong delete per clear copyright violation. --Leoboudv (talk) 00:05, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. –Tryphon☂ 12:43, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
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.
Insufficient source information: sourced to www.sajed.ir, which is a GFDL site, but it seems unlikely to be the original source and provides no further source information. Ilmari Karonen (talk) 13:20, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
THIS sourse is only official website for «IRAN IRAQ WAR» in iran. and refrences of it photos usually are exclusive from itself. this institute is undercover «بنیاد حفظ آثار و نشر ارزشهای دفاع مقدس».Gire 3pich2005 (talk) 12:23, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Mardetanha talk 02:22, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
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.
Insufficient source information: sourced to www.sajed.ir, which is a GFDL site, but it seems unlikely to be the original source and provides no further source information. Ilmari Karonen (talk) 13:21, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
- Delete per nominator. --Leoboudv (talk) 23:48, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
- Comment This is quite a valuable diagram to loose. I will make a free-license SVG version based on it. Please hold the deletion until then. Hydrox (talk) 00:03, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
- Take care if you do. While the mere dimensions and placement of the buildings are unlikely to be eligible for copyright, things such as color choices, text placement and the details of the profile view most likely are. If you copy any of those from this image into yours, it will become a derivative work. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 00:41, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Mardetanha talk 02:24, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
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.
Logo of this agency. Wrong licence information. It can be used only with "Fair use" · fcn × talk · 13:26 · 7 September 2009 13:26, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. –Tryphon☂ 12:44, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
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.
Photo incorrectly uploaded as illegible for copyright with a template intended for logos. No evidence of permission has been given. Camaron · Christopher · talk 13:46, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. –Tryphon☂ 12:45, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
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.
Logo uploaded under a claim that it is illegible for copyright. This is the logo for Jamaica College with versions of the logo found at the official website. There is not a claim of copyright there but I think this logo is too complex to be considered illegible for copyright. Camaron · Christopher · talk 13:52, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. –Tryphon☂ 12:45, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
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.
As much as it pains me to delete this image, it is a copyright-orphan work, and as such not confirmed to be in the public domain. A law is in the works to allow for this type of use for orphaned copyright works, but as of this time, I don't think we can use it. TheDJ (talk) 14:05, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
- Correction, this one can be closed. Per New York World Telegram & Sun Newspaper Photograph Collection images of this collection are public domain. Perhaps we should create a seperate PD-NYWT-SundayNewspaper TheDJ (talk) 01:08, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
Kept. as per TheDJ. Yann (talk) 00:25, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
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.
Probable copyvio which the user has no right to licence to others pne (talk) 14:35, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Copyvio. Yann (talk) 00:28, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
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 COM:SCOPE. Is rather promotional, besides possibly being a hoax, when considering the description: ..."I was told about Wickedpedia and jus tnever had the time to bother with it."... Túrelio (talk) 15:28, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
- Delete I have also removed an email address from the note on the image. And the ridiculous cats. -- Deadstar (msg) 21:14, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Out of scope. Yann (talk) 00:27, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
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.
erreur de la localité pas Pakistan mais Portugal Parent Géry (talk) 15:35, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
kept, picture is marked with template:rename. -- Ra'ike T C 19:58, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
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.
erreur de localité : pas Pakistan mais Portugal Parent Géry (talk) 15:36, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
- Keep In use. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:17, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
kept, picture is marked with template:rename. -- Ra'ike T C 20:01, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
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.
Permission ~Lukas talk 17:42, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
- Delete Duplicate of the next DR. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:16, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
Deleted duplicate. -- Deadstar (msg) 08:10, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
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.
linked site (http://www.e-local.gob.mx/work/templates/enciclo/hidalgo/municipios/13003a.htm) has a copyright notice on it: © 2005. Instituto Nacional para el Federalismo y el Desarrollo Municipal, -- Deadstar (msg) 15:36, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
- Delete per copyright violation. --Leoboudv (talk) 00:03, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. No permission. Yann (talk) 00:30, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
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.
All these pages can be protected way easier with the MediaWiki software. The problem with this is that a cascading protection gives people who want to create one of these pages a useless message:
Furthermore, people can't see when, by whom and for what reasons the pages were protected. If they want to fight one page's protection (which is more than ok), then they have no idea where to ask. If there's a log shown with username, time and reason, they either might reconsider and think that the admin is actually right, or go to the admin and talking to him. Furthermore, using the MediaWiki software for these things seems to be kind of a standard recently, as there have been no more edits since about one year. Thus, I'm proposing to give all those pages proper protections (unless those who are already in the Titleblacklist) and to delete the page afterward. If there's a better way, please let me know. --The Evil IP address (talk) 20:03, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
- Delete - In full agreement with the nominator. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:01, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
- Delete after all the listed titles have been directly protected. (Or perhaps just remove the cascading protection, but keep the page itself as a {{Historical}} reference.) —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 14:55, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
- Comment Sorry, how exactly do you protect "way easier" than cascading protection? I think you need to explain it a bit better for those not familiar with the ins and outs of the deletion mechanism instead of just saying so. (I know how but not everyone else necessarily does, especially newer or non admins) ++Lar: t/c 21:25, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
- I was going to post a long historical explanation here, but instead I think I'll just point anyone curious to COM:P#Types of protection and especially to the "cascading protection" entry there. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 22:59, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
- Keep - historical. Even if all the titles are removed, the page itself should remain (perhaps with an explanation not to use it and what to do instead) for historical reasons. ++Lar: t/c 21:25, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
Kept.
- Removed the cascading protection
- Protected all links on the page (took me a hour)
- Marked as historical.
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.
No reason to think uploader had the rights to this. Jmabel ! talk 21:14, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
- Delete agree with nominator. --Leoboudv (talk) 21:19, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. No permission. Yann (talk) 00:32, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
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.
A corporate logo is not a free image. Inductiveload (talk) 15:29, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
- Delete The copyright is owned by MDG. It is a non-free fair use image. --Leoboudv (talk) 23:51, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
- Delete should be speedied {{logo}} -- Deadstar (msg) 08:06, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. No permission. Yann (talk) 00:34, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
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.
User request http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benutzer_Diskussion:Billyhill#Probleme_mit_deinen_Dateien ~Lukas talk 23:40, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
Deleted by Abigor: Missing essential information: source, license and/or permission
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.
This file is Ubisoft press material, taken from their own website (as stated). Per Commons:Deletion requests/File:El Guerrero.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/Image:PoP2008 Environment Bright.jpg and Commons talk:Licensing/Archive 17#Ubisoft, this does not fall under {{Attribution-Ubisoft}} which only grants usermade screenshots. Nevertheless, as this matter is quite controversial, I open a deletion request rather than tagging for copyright violation. Jean-Fred (talk) 19:17, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
- Delete per Commons:Deletion requests/Template:Attribution-Ubisoft 3. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 23:48, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Nothing about Commons:Deletion requests/Template:Attribution-Ubisoft 3, but because we already have deleted every thing come from Ubisoft website. ~ bayo or talk 14:03, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
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.
Looks like a permissions mess. PD claimed, but no clear basis. Source cited is en-wiki (!) and a Swedish library. Looks like someone was just confused. Jmabel ! talk 21:23, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
- Might be OK under {{PD-Sweden-photo}}, but that is not the license it currently claims. - Jmabel ! talk 21:29, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
- Comment: Suggest it be retagged with the Swedish license. This is a reasonable solution given the evidence. --Leoboudv (talk) 03:56, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
Kept with license change to {{PD-Sweden-photo}} (non-admin closure). /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:16, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
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.
Petarock10 images
[edit]- File:Gold disco.JPG (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Lauren conrad black spandex legging.JPG (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Vintage.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Teal color.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Flashy gold disco pants.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Midnight navy.JPG (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Red disco pant.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Blue spandex disco jeans.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Black disco jeans.JPG (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Purple disco pants.JPG (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
I've deleted nine uploads by the user as confirmed copyvios. These remaining images are generic enough to make finding sources difficult, but I feel they are probably copyvios as well and should be purged on those grounds. Tabercil (talk) 15:30, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
- Delete as suspected copyright violations. Some of the images here like this are surely not his own work but derived from magazines, books or web sites. --Leoboudv (talk) 23:59, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
- Delete Per nom. - AKeen (talk) 14:29, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Wknight94 talk 03:16, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
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.
This image is no longer a under CC Copyright and should be removed. Samuel.binette (talk) 02:15, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
- Comment: Well you did upload it on a cc by sa license originally? Why did you 1. upload an inferior image over your original image and 2. want the entire image file deleted now? This is just a standard question that most people wonder, I think. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 02:49, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
- Keep I reverted to the first version. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 05:24, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
- Keep Creative Commons free licenses are irrevocable. Sv1xv (talk) 08:04, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
This was a second discussion on the same image. I've merged them here. - Jmabel ! talk 22:33, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
Request from Author --Samuel.binette (talk) 00:08, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
- Keep You are the author and you re-request this image to be deleted twice already in 1 week here CC licenses are not usually revocable. You also never said why you wanted the image deleted? Its a good photo and is in scope. --Leoboudv (talk) 00:18, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
- Keep per above. It's a good photo and in scope and you cannot revoke a license. -- Deadstar (msg) 09:22, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
- Keep but if uploader will explain why they want it deleted, we will be reasonable and consider it. --Simonxag (talk) 20:08, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
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.
I am currently working on an exhibition project and I have receive numerous request to make this image part of the exhibition and possibly available for purchase. I understand that I uploaded the file under the CC licensing but being a new user of wiki commons, I was unaware that the upload files could not be removed on the demand of the image author. At this time. this image is not in use by any article and I don't believe it would have any negative impact but to remove it from the Wiki Commons image bank. Samuel.binette (talk) 02:42, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
- Keep Numerous requests to buy this image when it is here for free? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 08:05, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
- Comment Please consider that everyone who has downloaded this image before, has the right to reupload it under the same license as long as he obeys the terms of the CC license! BTW, you still can sell prints of this image. Theres no need to tell your customers where to download it for free and even plain printing is a service you can charge them! -- 188.23.76.62 15:44, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
- Keep The image has been here for some time, so the upload can't be considered a mistake. The Commons is very clear about the nature of copyright and of Commons licences (which are not revocable). The same actually does apply to other sites (like Flickr), where you can delete your image: if you've given a copyleft license they (and anyone else) can and perhaps do hang on to the image in their own storage. --Simonxag (talk) 09:05, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
- Comment This picture is in low resolution (72 dpi, less than 1 Mb) and cannot be used for print. As the anonymous user noted before me, you can keep this file here under CC-BY-SA *and* sell the high-resolution file. That way, your picture can gain exposure through its presence on Commons and you can still be paid for your work. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 18:56, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
- Comment Well, it seems like everyone agreed that the image is here to stay so I guess i'll have to do with that. I find it unfortunate that it's impossible for the creator of the work to have the final say on a delation request. This is certainly not encouraging me to contribute to this bank of image in the future.--Samuel.binette (talk) 05:26, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
Kept. No new arguments were presented from previous deletion request. Licenses are not revocable --Justass (talk) 21:32, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
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.
Picture not coming out the way required. Wasted effort. --Amog |Talk 14:29, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
- Delete per uploader request. --Leoboudv (talk) 00:01, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
- Delete Uploader'srequest, not in use. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 15:34, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. —Dferg (disputatio) 15:38, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
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.
The given information text does not state any CC licence, it is just a interpretation by the uploader. Licence status is unclear with the text (derivation allowed? Commercial use?) D.W. (talk) 17:00, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
- It's not an interpretation of the uploader. All text and images on the KNMI site are free to use, for commercial and non commercial use. That's why a lot of text from the KNMI site is used on the Dutch Wikipedia for a long time. The same can be applied to images. If you don't understand this, that's your problem. I cancel this amateurish deletion request. --.....jeroencommons..... 17:10, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
- Give any link where I can read CC licence, a CC licence is more than the short deed, see this. You don´t know if they agree to this, even if the meaning of freedom is very similar.--D.W. (talk) 17:33, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
- It's not originally CC, it's public domain, with the question to provide a back-link to the KNMI. Public domain can be re-licensed to an appropriate license, like I and many others on the Dutch Wikipedia did. Is this do difficult to understand? I'm not going to argue about this again and again. --.....jeroencommons..... 18:43, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
- Because of the the short text on description page you consider it public domain or what? Your idea of "relicencing" makes no sense for me. Without any better reference as "dutch wikipedia folks" I couldn´t believe you... again and again...--D.W. (talk) 19:25, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
- You can compare this with NASA material. If you like to question this I welcome you to start a discussion on the Dutch Wikipedia. BTW: It's actually not relicencing, becauyse PD is not a license. --.....jeroencommons..... 20:01, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
- Because of the the short text on description page you consider it public domain or what? Your idea of "relicencing" makes no sense for me. Without any better reference as "dutch wikipedia folks" I couldn´t believe you... again and again...--D.W. (talk) 19:25, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
- It's not originally CC, it's public domain, with the question to provide a back-link to the KNMI. Public domain can be re-licensed to an appropriate license, like I and many others on the Dutch Wikipedia did. Is this do difficult to understand? I'm not going to argue about this again and again. --.....jeroencommons..... 18:43, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
- Give any link where I can read CC licence, a CC licence is more than the short deed, see this. You don´t know if they agree to this, even if the meaning of freedom is very similar.--D.W. (talk) 17:33, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
- In the past it was clear that the information from KNMI is free to use and many users have used this information. At the moment looking at the website of the KNMI they state that every information of the site may be copied and used freely if the source (KNMI) is mentioned. That is current, in the past the website was changed. Romaine (talk) 20:19, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
- Forrestjunky is going to contact the knmi to clear this up. We should wait for the response.Multichill (talk) 20:28, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
- Under any case, the CC license for this particular image is incorrect. It should be using the license Template:Attribution. TheDJ (talk) 11:19, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, this is correct. The photo is licensed under a clause for {{Attribution}} to KNMI. Sv1xv (talk) 11:32, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
- Under any case, the CC license for this particular image is incorrect. It should be using the license Template:Attribution. TheDJ (talk) 11:19, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
- Forrestjunky is going to contact the knmi to clear this up. We should wait for the response.Multichill (talk) 20:28, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Still no ticket for this image confirming that commercial use and derivative works are okay. –Tryphon☂ 16:07, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
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.
Permission ~Lukas talk 17:43, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
Kept, per Pieter Kuiper. Kameraad Pjotr 19:14, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
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.
This image seems to have been copied from this website:http://www.bettertransport.org.uk/system/files/09.01.16.brent_cross_presentation.pdf Grim23 (talk) 17:59, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
Well, this version is not in that file (which is a PowerPoint file saved as a PDF), or on that web site, or on any other web site.
It is a fresh PDF file, generated from the original in Microsoft Publisher specifically for Wikipedia, and it was drawn from scratch in early 2008, and added to since.
There are various slightly different versions, used for campaigning by individuals in various parts of Barnet, in other London boroughs (Brent, Harrow, Ealing, Hllingdon, Enfield, Haringey and Camden), and at meetings such as a 'Mayor-Boris-Johnson-Meets-the-People' event in Westminster Conference Centre. — Preceding unsigned comment added by User:Jdudding (talk • contribs) 01:21, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
The file only exists on one computer, and it has been printed directly to a connected colour (color) laser printer hundreds of times. The 'London Group of the Campaign for Better Transport' is a voluntary group of individuals in London, that owns no premises, property, computers, computer files, designs, or copyright. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.194.151.102 (talk • contribs) 11:58, 9 September 2009 (UTC) (first IP edited the posting of User:Jdudding) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.6.212.40 (talk • contribs) 23:29, 9 September 2009 (UTC) (second IP edited the posting of the first IP)
The websites terms and conditions[[3]] reads "This site is owned and operated by Campaign for Better Transport. The material on this site is protected by international copyright and trademark laws. You may not modify, copy, reproduce, republish, upload, post, transmit, or distribute in any way any material from this site including code, software and the Campaign for Better Transport logo except as otherwise detailed. You may download material from this site for your personal, non-commercial use only, provided you keep intact all copyright and other proprietary notices. " btw to sign and date your comments type ~~~~ Grim23 (talk) 04:07, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
Sorry - I hadn't noticed that. Anyway, since the graphic is not on the web site, I assume you agree that nothing has been downloaded from the web site, and that it therefore doesn't apply. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.194.151.102 (talk • contribs) 14:52, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
cAN'T THE FILE GO BACK TO NORMAL? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.2.115.158 (talk • contribs) 23:37, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
- Confusing. I have added {{Unsigned}} to this discussion to help understand who wrote what. The route part of File:Possible NWLLR routes.jpg above appears to match the image in document Brent Cross railway: maps linked from [4]. That PDF document has timestamps created: and modified and contains the image in what appears to be a vetorised format - it is sharp at all zoom levels. The image in [5] appears to be a rasterised and lossily converted derivative of the 2008 February image. The image in Commons contains a higher quality rasterised version of the route map with additional elements. User:Jdudding, are you claiming to have created all elements of the image, both the route map and inset images? If yes, you can send a email as described in Commons:OTRS#Declaration of consent for all enquiries to permissions-commons-at-wikimedia.org, and then place {{Otrs pending}} on the image page. If not, is there a free license or permission available from the creators of those elements? -84user (talk) 21:01, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
Deleted, lacks suitable permission (OTRS). Kameraad Pjotr 19:28, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
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.
Personal photo - out of project scope. –Juliancolton | Talk 22:39, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
- Keep Good image in Category:Serra da Canastra. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 23:09, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
- Delete Its the only image by the uploader and it is a personal photo. How can we trust the uploader is the copyright owner in this situation? There should be a few more photos at least. --Leoboudv (talk) 23:50, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
NeutralCopyright concerns are copyright paranoia: there is no actual evidence at all that this is a copyvio. However the scenery (which is the useful part of the picture) is all blurred. Only the photographer's friends are in focus. --Simonxag (talk) 20:44, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
Deleted, out of project scope. Kameraad Pjotr 19:32, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
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.
User request http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benutzer_Diskussion:Billyhill#Probleme_mit_deinen_Dateien ~Lukas talk 23:40, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
Deleted, per nominator. Kameraad Pjotr 19:49, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
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.
User request http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benutzer_Diskussion:Billyhill#Probleme_mit_deinen_Dateien ~Lukas talk 23:44, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
- Delete creator unkown--MartinS (talk) 17:54, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
Deleted, per nominator. Kameraad Pjotr 20:01, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
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.
User request http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benutzer_Diskussion:Billyhill#Probleme_mit_deinen_Dateien ~Lukas talk 23:45, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
- Delete in this case. --Leoboudv (talk) 23:52, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
Deleted, per nominator. Kameraad Pjotr 20:01, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
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.
Several photos of PK1913
[edit]I had to move these from Commons:Deletion requests/2009/09/06, so look there for older history.--Prosfilaes (talk) 16:56, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
Please delete theis files:
- File:FJU ART01.jpg
- File:FJU FL01.jpg
- File:FJU HE01.jpg
- File:FJU HE02.jpg
- File:FJU LA02.jpg
- File:FJU LA08.jpg
- File:FJU LA03.jpg
- File:FJU MD07.jpg
- File:FJU Religion04.jpg
- File:FJU SE04.jpg
- File:FJU YP03.jpg
- File:NSYSU begins 00.JPG
- File:NSYSU traffic01.JPG
- File:NSYSU campus day02.JPG
- File:NSYSU campus day04.JPG
I will take the photographs for same but batter than now.PK1913 (talk) 23:37, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
- Keep You can upload new versions on the same file page. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 07:30, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
- He's done that on File:FJU LA08.jpg and File:FJU MD07.jpg and was reverted.--Prosfilaes (talk) 13:37, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
- I know that, but I hope delete now.PK1913 (talk) 12:19, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
- Keep it's easier not to delete. I'm not even sure they would be uploaded with new versions, as many of them aren't static images. There's no way to replicate File:NSYSU begins 00.JPG, for example. Once there are new pictures, it's possible these could be deleted, and several of them it wouldn't be Lastly, the fact that you uploaded a much smaller version of that image over it doesn't inspire me with confidence, nor does the fact that you uploaded completely dissimilar images over old ones a couple times.--Prosfilaes (talk) 13:37, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
- Why? I'm thesis files uploader, why can not delete?140.117.193.179 16:55, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
- They may give you a courtesy deletion, but there's no right to be deleted from the commons; you gave us a free license to host the file, and we accepted. I think you do much better had you found someone who spoke Chinese and English as a mediator; we would respond better if you were clear about why you want these images deleted, and why you don't feel it can wait until there's replacements. They could have helped you do a correct deletion request, too.
- There's certain of these that could be deleted; File:NSYSU traffic01.JPG is a picture of a poster (I don't know about FOP in China, but it would have to be pretty broad to include this), without specific context or a botanical claim, File:FJU LA03.jpg probably falls outside of the educational goals of Wikimedia Commons, File:FJU Religion04.jpg is pretty fuzzy to stand without a clear justification, File:FJU YP03.jpg has a better FOP claim then traffic01, but still has painting and writing in the picture, and File:NSYSU campus day04.JPG also probably fails the educational goals.
- I love File:FJU MD07.jpg however, as it reminds how homogenous our world is in some ways nowadays, as I could walk down that corridor in an American university without blinking. File:FJU LA08.jpg is a decent wide-spread shot of a university/city, and File:NSYSU begins 00.JPG is a good (and basically irreplacable) shot of an opening day, though it could use for better description.--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:38, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
Deleted the copyright violations, kept the others. Better versions of the images can be uploaded over this version. Kameraad Pjotr 19:26, 17 January 2010 (UTC)