Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2009/09/14
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
|
|
Too blurry to be of reasonable use; also we have lots of images (mostly better) of this already. Tabercil (talk) 03:37, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
Delete - Per COM:NUDE. Tiptoety talk 03:44, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. MBisanz talk 03:50, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
File:OgAAAJvcOfVKq1inbK8SPZ6q3pCAbC4qDN0o3GRj4XcswzK3sv-JNw1J_SYT79OBiLRlyCwf7dj-nbLdnwZZJIUBHAgAm1T1UA0ZEmy19OADAv15Ui4YDkIuamZs.jpg
[edit]
Outside of project scope ■ MMXXtalk 03:45, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
Keep Image appears to be in use on author's personal wikipedia page - [[1]]. Assuming the underlying image is not copyrighted, I don't see why it should be deleted. Tabercil (talk) 12:06, 14 September 2009 (UTC)- Delete out of scope. Lycaon (talk) 16:48, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
- Keep why not allow a user just one user image? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 17:13, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
Outside of project scope ■ MMXXtalk 04:03, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
- Strong delete No encyclopedic value whatsoever. --Leoboudv (talk) 04:06, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
- Delete Not in use. Tabercil (talk) 12:04, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Lycaon (talk) 16:49, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Mardetanha talk 01:59, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
Sculptor (Heikki Varja) died in 1986; statue not in Public Domain yet. No FOP in Finland. Apalsola t • c 08:37, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
- Delete Unfortunately De Minimis cannot apply here. --Leoboudv (talk) 09:27, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Mardetanha talk 02:00, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
this picture is not mentioned in the permission link A333 (talk) 13:18, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
Permission added under permission link [2]. --Jturkkil 16. September 2009 (EEST)
Kept. Also, I confirm that permission is granted under GFDL, CC-BY-SA-3.0 dual license. Kwj2772 (msg) 13:17, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
Image doesn't seem to be cc-by as written on flickr but copyrigheted, see here or here. --Simo82 (talk) 14:12, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
Delete as a copyvio. Killiondude (talk) 04:56, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
"The 2006 Acura Classic, Kim Clijsters http://www.pbase.com/ahuse/image/64785277 by Andrew Huse" cannot be licensed with PD-Self.I can't find a license at PBase. Andrew Huse's new website (http://www.andrewhuse.com/) has all rights reserved on it. -- Deadstar (msg) 14:34, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
- For a previous request, it appears that uploader is in fact Andrew Huse - (see User talk:1DmkIIN). Closing request, but OTRS would be good. -- Deadstar (msg) 14:37, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
Advertising Backslash Forwardslash (talk) 14:24, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
- Delete not in project scope. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 17:20, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Kwj2772 (msg) 13:20, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
Reason for upload: Deletion of this file is possible --El-Bardo (talk) 15:57, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
- Delete Uploader's request, not in use, not likely to be used. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:45, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. User:Raso mk was preparing an upload using the Flickr upload bot, but apparently has noticed that the image was already at Commons, and requested deletion. El-Bardo uploaded an image to help with deletion (something like {{Speedydelete}} would be better in this case). AVRS (talk) 16:55, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
Keine weitere Verwendung/No more use. C0jack (Diskussion) 13:57, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
(I am installing the Deletion requests page to repair the deletion-procedure)--El-Bardo (talk) 16:34, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
- It would be better to have a version without the demo-version watermarks, and also PbCl4 would be a better name, but still, I would say
For information: there are several higher quality images of PbCl4 at Category:Lead(IV) chloride. Ben (talk) 18:26, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
- Ok, Delete; File:PbCl4 struct 150 K.png does not have this file's problems; there may also be a problem with the software permissions. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:57, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
- Delete. The demo-version marks make this image nearly useless, especially considering that there are superior versions available. Edgar181 (talk) 16:09, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. NEURO ⇌ 19:54, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Lycaon (talk) 16:47, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
- Keep not a reason to delete. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:49, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
- Delete The size and quality of the image very poor. It is impossible to identify this animal. We can hope only that the description represents the facts. However I am grateful for this contribution in 2004. Now it is not so necessary. --George Chernilevsky (talk) 12:52, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
- Proforiga argumento: la krabo estas en la konko, kiu iam apartenis al alia estaĵo, do tre malgranda parto de la bildo prezentas la krabon mem.
- Kontraŭforigaj argumentoj: la kategorio havas malmulte da bildoj; tiu ĉi bildo povas esti uzebla, eĉ la parto kun la krabo sen la cetero (sed nur kiel piktogramo aŭ io simila).
- --AVRS (talk) 17:28, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
- An argument for deletion: the crab is in the shell, which belonged to another creature before, so a very small part of the picture depicts the crab itself.
- Arguments against deletion: the category has few pictures; this picture can be useful, even the part with the crab without the rest (though only as an icon or something).
- --AVRS (talk) 17:28, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
Deleted; Pieter Kuiper may be mistaken regarding Commons deletion policy. Deletion criteria include "[f]iles 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." Walter Siegmund (talk) 04:39, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
Same image in the same resolution appeares on flickr under an unfree licence: "All rights reserved". No further permission is stated. High Contrast (talk) 17:28, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
(Kept. The Flickr user confirmed that it is his account AVRS (talk) 18:27, 14 September 2009 (UTC))
A deletion request has to open for at least 7 days. The reason why you have close the debate is not that clear as you are stating. I have told you on your talk page, what is missing (Commons:OTRS). As long as a written permission has not arrived at OTRS, it is a case of copyright violation. --High Contrast (talk) 07:50, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
Kept. As User:AVRS stated above. The flickr User is active on Commons with the same Username. He confirmed here, too. --High Contrast (talk) 19:14, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
bad quality, pdf and a good substitute File:Werther (Westf.) - 2009 communal elections - seating.svg. --Túrelio (talk) 19:40, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
_-_2009_communal_elections_-_seating.svg){kind=link}
- Delete Absolutely yes! Pls. delete! It's my work, I made an uploading mistake and forgot to request a speedy del. --Hagar66 (talk) 07:21, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
- Delete Uploader requests, bad quality, and replacement exists. Inductiveload (talk) 21:40, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Dferg (talk) 12:17, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
Unencyclopaedic content. Ugly, useless and unused. Inductiveload (talk) 22:11, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
- Delete threatening language /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:21, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
- Delete Commons scope --Simonxag (talk) 12:35, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
- Per nom --Dferg (talk) 13:04, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:51, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
Not useful on commons. This is some sort of home movie. Low quality and monotone. Inductiveload (talk) 22:39, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
Delete Unused personal image --Simonxag (talk) 12:39, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:52, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
Neptunedespina.jpg is copyrighted to Ted Stryk and was lifted from his blog Planetary Images From Then and Now without his permission. As such, the copyright holder has requested that the image be removed from the Wikimedia commons. --Volcanopele (talk) 23:16, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
- Delete Indeed, accordingg to http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap090903.html Can someone dig up the original NASA images? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 06:56, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
- "Original data for the Despina shadow/transit sequence: Four Voyager 2 frames, C1138023, C1138034, C1138045, C1138056, captured on August 24, 1989 from 20:00 to 20:27 through blue, orange, violet, and green filters". I've found the frames, and uploaded the first. I have to go now, but I'll finish later. Inductiveload (talk) 09:04, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
Deleted by Zirland: In category Unknown - August 2009; no source
- File:Jonathan-Gleich.jpg as well (higher quality version)
i doubt this is self created. Was uploaded for use in a deleted (but now userfied article) on enWiki Admrboltz (talk) 15:21, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
- This was self created using photographs of Jonathan as he lost weight, since the photo is of the person
who the article is about, what is the issue? 24.185.128.244 11:44, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
I have Added a link to the Jonathan Gleich article, showing this photograph being used by his lapband surgeon's website, as further validity to its authenticity
Lscappel (talk) 00:29, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
- If you truly took these photos, I imagine you are in touch with Mr. Gleich. Can you please have him send an e-mail to commons' OTRS team to verify that you took these pictures and have permission to post them? You can have the e-mail sent to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org, with the e-mail containing a link to the image so they know which image he's talking about. Rjanag (talk) 00:01, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
- Delete, no real evidence of permission. Nyttend (talk) 01:20, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
- OTRS received at OTRS:3875006. Stifle (talk) 15:23, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
- Permission now valid. Stifle (talk) 10:47, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
Kept, OTRS permission received Stifle (talk) 10:47, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
I doubt that this is pdself, has watermarking (maybe photoshopped in) Admrboltz (talk) 15:05, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
She is neither a queen nor does she belong to a royal family. She's just an actress. Somebody is misusing the site. And yes that picture is watermarked with no doubt.
Deleted. Wknight94 talk 21:51, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
Not usable Avron (talk) 18:11, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
- Delete I agree. However, it has the benefit of being able to be used in the Wikimedia logo mosaic without needing scaling, saving server power and reducing global warming. ;-) Inductiveload (talk) 22:24, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
- Keep Huh? Under "not useable" thousands of images could be deleted from commons. It could be used for thumbnail types of views. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:05, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
- Keep Though it is low resolution, it has potential use, as listed in the two posts above. Ahodges7 (talk) 23:55, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
- It is not usable in terms of commons scope. The scope of commons is not to provide images for wikimedias logo mosaic, but it is education. --Avron (talk) 12:43, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
- Delete Ridiculously small, no educational value. There are many far larger photos of the same establishment. - MPF (talk) 20:10, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
Comment Guys, I was joking! That's why I voted delete. I don't think the servers need that much help rendering a thumbnail! − Inductiveload (talk) 05:49, 8 November 2009 (UTC)- Delete Not used, not useful, similar viewpoint as in File:Usma overview.jpg; duplicate of File:USMA Aerial View Looking North.jpg. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 15:34, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
Deleted by Abigor: Dupe of Image:USMA Aerial View Looking North.jpg
I think the PD claim is erroneous. It is on a US Federal government site, but that site credits it as "Photo by Michael Zirkle Photography, courtesy of Raleigh Historic Districts Commission". Jmabel ! talk 18:53, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
- Delete When I uploaded the image last March, I thought all images on .gov sites were from the government and free to use. (the PD claim was made in good faith) But as Jmabel mentioned, the photo is by a private citizen. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 21:08, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
- User:AgnosticPreachersKid was the uploader; since he agrees with me, presumably we can just delete and close. - Jmabel ! talk 23:07, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
- Delete /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 15:54, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. --The Evil IP address (talk) 09:15, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
Copyright would be with happyhopi.com. As this is the name of the user, we need an OTRS, or else this should be deleted. Inductiveload (talk) 22:54, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
- Delete /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 15:44, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Pruneautalk 09:36, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
Copyright rests with happyhopi.com. We need an OTRS ticket, or it should be deleted. Inductiveload (talk) 22:56, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
- Delete /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 15:43, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Pruneautalk 09:36, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
Unencyclopaedic content, totally useless and unused. Inductiveload (talk) 22:09, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
Delete Unused personal image --Simonxag (talk) 12:36, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
- Delete - per COM:PS Dferg (talk) 13:06, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Killiondude (talk) 21:15, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
duplicate to File:Pleistocene Lakes and Rivers of Mojave.png emerson7 | Talk 20:55, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
- Delete. Yep, duplicate in an inferior file format. Inductiveload (talk) 22:16, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
Deleted, per nominator. Kameraad Pjotr 20:17, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
Totally useless content, unencylopaedic, poor quality, etc Inductiveload (talk) 22:25, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
Delete unused personal artwork --Simonxag (talk) 12:37, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
- Delete private artwork, not in use. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 12:16, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
Deleted, per nominator. Kameraad Pjotr 20:07, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
If the "Image may not be used or displayed without the written consent of the Orange Volunteer Fire Company" then it's out of scope. Jmabel ! talk 23:05, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
Should probably be uploaded to en-wiki, where it is used, and a fair use justification should be provided. - Jmabel ! talk 23:11, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
- Delete I've replaced the image with a PNG with a fair-use rationale at en-wiki. This one has no other uses, so it can be deleted now. Inductiveload (talk) 20:59, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
- Delete No free license. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 13:19, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
Deleted, per nominator. Kameraad Pjotr 20:02, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
Not sure of the copyright status of this, and I'd be glad to see it "rescued", but clearly the person who shot the photo of someone else's logo has no right to release it into the public domain. Jmabel ! talk 23:13, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
- Delete I've uploaded it to en-wiki. Image page is here. This one is clear to delete now. Inductiveload (talk) 21:17, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
Deleted, per nominator. Kameraad Pjotr 20:00, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
Extremely low quality with many better replacements available Lycaon (talk) 09:20, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
Delete unusable for more than a thumbnail - image File:Dynastes hercules hercules01.JPG is a decent replacement. --Simonxag (talk) 11:54, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
Deleted, per nominator. Kameraad Pjotr 19:37, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
Advertising Backslash Forwardslash (talk) 14:24, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
- Delete per COM:PS. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 17:21, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
- Delete — per nom. --Dferg (talk) 13:00, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
Deleted, out of project scope. Kameraad Pjotr 20:16, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
Los cambios se deben realizar en el original para su referenciado automático Renatux (talk) 14:58, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
Kept, unclear deletion request. Kameraad Pjotr 20:31, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
Exists updated map File:Digital broadcast standards.svg Luisfege (talk) 05:16, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 15:18, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
- Delete (c) Marc Adrian, does not seem to be free; now at http://xtalent.com.au/gallery/displayimage.php?pos=-736 /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:47, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
Deleted, copyvio. Kameraad Pjotr 20:34, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
Bad sharpness, no description, no permission, Author ?. El-Bardo (Diskussion) 12:51, 14 September 2009 (UTC) --El-Bardo (talk) 15:15, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
Deleted, per nominator. Kameraad Pjotr 20:41, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
Bad sharpness, no description, no permission, Author ?.--El-Bardo (Diskussion) 15:33, 14 September 2009 (UTC) --El-Bardo (talk) 15:35, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
- Comment Given the content of the image (Chavez and "Si") and the context of uploads - many unfree images to abuse Commons as a hotlink webhoster for http://www.plantabaja.com.ve/ - a description is imaginable, it has something to do with Venezuela, Chavez and a lifetime presidency. However, I agree with El Bardo, the quality is so poor that the image not realy has any educational value. --Martin H. (talk) 15:50, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
Deleted, per nominator. Kameraad Pjotr 20:42, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
According to the file description, the picture was made in 1928 (F. Cumon 60 y. old). So it isn't safe to suppose it's PD. 
Jonathan Groß 
15:37, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
- Keep as an anonymous photo. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:52, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
- This doesn't look like a "photo" at all, more like an artistic sketch. We have to be careful pointing it out as PD.
Jonathan Groß 
09:38, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
- This doesn't look like a "photo" at all, more like an artistic sketch. We have to be careful pointing it out as PD.
- Keep - anonymous. Sonuwe (talk) 21:29, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
Deleted, lacks suitable permission (not PD). Kameraad Pjotr 20:43, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
I entered a wrong file name and I cannot change it anymore. Hallidie1873
- Deletion request page installed: --El-Bardo (talk) 16:11, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
- Hallidie1873, can you help us sort out what's going on here? I gather that File:DLRR C.K. Holliday at New Orleans Square.jpg is the correctly named version of this, but that gives a source of someone's web site. Is that site yours or someone else's? Either way, we probably need an OTRS for that image; since you are the uploader of both, you can just use {{Badname}} to ask for deletion of the mis-named file, no need to go through this process to get it deleted. - Jmabel ! talk 20:54, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
- Delete "all rights reserved" http://www.cable-car-guy.com/ptrain/ /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:54, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
Deleted, per Pieter Kuiper. Kameraad Pjotr 20:44, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
Non sono ben distribuite le cinque terre, quella più a nord per capirci coincide con rapallo, in realtà la cartina esatta dovrebbe contenere sono una piccola porzione in basso a destra della cartina Cinque terre map.png. Almeno vedendo su google earth è senz'altro questa l'impressione Illy78 (Diskussion) 05:54, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
(I am installing the Deletion requests page to repair the deletion-procedure) --El-Bardo (talk) 16:44, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
- I'm not sure I understand your issue, but perhaps I have misunderstood (my Italian isn't great). The Cinque Terre are the first five towns shown here. It is true that La Spezia is outside the Cinque Terre region, but as the nearest major city it is worth showing for context. Certainly Rapallo is not in the Cinque Terre region.
- At most this might need something done with name or description, but presuming there is no rights issue, it should not be deleted. - Jmabel ! talk 18:59, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
Deleted, doesn't look as own work to me (more like a screen shot). Kameraad Pjotr 20:47, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
Waffen-SS Sinimäed
[edit]- File:DSCF2137.JPGWaffen-SS Sinimäed 2009 - 137.JPG (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Waffen-SS Sinimäe 2009 - 120.JPG (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Waffen-SS Sinimäed 2009 - 124.JPG (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Waffen-SS Sinimäed 2009 - 140.JPG (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Waffen-SS Sinimäed 2009 - 150.JPG (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Waffen-SS Sinimäed 2009 - 154.JPG (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Waffen-SS Sinimäed 2009 - 157.JPG (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Waffen-SS Sinimäed 2009 - 158.JPG (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Waffen-SS Sinimäed 2009 - 162.JPG (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Waffen-SS Sinimäed 2009 - 163.JPG (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Waffen-SS Sinimäed 2009 - 164.JPG (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Waffen-SS Sinimäed 2009 - 166.JPG (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Waffen-SS Sinimäed 2009 - 168.JPG (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Waffen-SS Sinimäed 2009 - 171.JPG (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Waffen-SS Sinimäed 2009 - 173.JPG (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Waffen-SS Sinimäed 2009 - 174.JPG (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Waffen-SS Sinimäed 2009 - 175.JPG (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Waffen-SS Sinimäed 2009 - 176.JPG (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Waffen-SS Sinimäed 2009 - 178.JPG (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Waffen-SS Sinimäed 2009 - 179.JPG (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Waffen-SS Sinimäed 2009 - 180.JPG (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Waffen-SS Sinimäed 2009 - 181.JPG (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Waffen-SS Sinimäed 2009 - 184.JPG (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Waffen-SS Sinimäed 2009 - 185.JPG (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Waffen-SS Sinimäed 2009 - 186.JPG (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Waffen-SS Sinimäed 2009 - 187.JPG (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
Delete pr 'Was uploaded with the intent to be used solely for personal attacks' - the image naming conventions represent defamation. There are a number of living people portrayed in a public place who get labeled with Waffen-SS due to the naming conventions of the images. I have notified the uploader about the problem on August 17,[3] ...however, as we're dealing with a disruptive editor on Wikipedia who has been banned several times, please see W:User:Petri Krohn, and W:Wikipedia:DIGWUREN#Petri_Krohn, no results have followed really since his agenda on wikipedia has always been portraying Estonia/Estonians as a Fascist country and his image naming choices in this case fit the pattern. Termer (talk) 02:34, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
- Q: Wouldn't merely renaming the photos to something like "Sinimaed Commemoration XX.jpg" and modifying the descriptions to be more neutral be a more suitable solution? The photos themselves seem neutral in that to my casual eye there's no glaring examples of any SS related imagery. Indeed, if I'm not mistaken, in #140 you can see some veterans in uniforms more resembling the Soviet style than the WW2 German style. As you said, the problem is the interpretation caused by the names and description - rename and redo. Tabercil (talk) 03:51, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
- I'm with Tabercil here: retitle appropriately and keep. Should be handled quickly because of libel potential. - Jmabel ! talk 04:59, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
- A:RE:Tabercil renaming the photos was my original suggestion to the uploader about 2 weeks ago. Please see the diff also posted above [4]. However as the uploader as seen below has no intention to comply, Listing the images for deletion was my only option. Otherwise "retitle appropriately and keep" to for example "Sinimaed Commemoration XX.jpg" would be fine by me...and hopefully it would also be fine by the people on the pictures.--Termer (talk) 03:05, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
- Keep - (as creator) - No need to delete or rename. In Estonia Waffen-SS veterans are celebrated war heroes. There in nothing shameful in being associated with the Waffen-SS, so please do not try to impose your American norms on Estonian content :-)
- This is not one of those gatherings where veterans from both sides converge to remember the horrors of war. This is a victory celebration for Waffen-SS veterans only, as clearly established by multiple reliable and independent sources. Soviet veterans of WW II or their sympathizer were definitely excluded from this event. This exclusion was enforced by a massive police and security presence.
- This gathering was not simply held in remembrance of the events 65 years ago, but specifically to celebrate the Waffen-SS and Nazi victory in the battle of the Tannenberg line. The battle as well as the preceding battle of Narva were a definite German victory over the Soviets. The "reoccupation" of Estonia only happened after the front collapsed further south and Germans were forced to retreat to avoid encirclement. According to the point of view of the organizers, as clearly expressed in the speeches and multiple other sources, the Waffen-SS in Narva and on the Sinimäed hills successfully defended Estonian independence as well as democracy and freedom in all of Europe.
- As to the Nazi symbolism; do not expect to see the swastika. What you see is symbols of the Estonian Waffen-SS legion and other Waffen-SS legions. For example in File:Waffen-SS Sinimäe 2009 - 120.JPG of the organizers in white shirts, the right hand collar of the shirt is embroiled with the collar decorations of Estonian Waffen-SS legion. The "Soviet" style uniforms are not Soviet, but Lithuanian.
- Criticism has also been pointed at individual photographs. However this set of photos should be seen as one work, a photo essay. Similar collections/essays on this event have been presented on-line by multiple Estonian newspapers. There is thus definitely a need for free content on this event.
- In the general context this deletion request reflects Estonian double standards in communication. On truth is presented for domestic consumption while another truth is presented to Estonia's western allies in the EU and NATO. My crime from the Estonian point of view is presenting Estonian domestic values to the global audience. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 13:09, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
- Can you point to English language sources that specifically states that this was to celebrate the Waffen SS victory? Also, you pointed to a shirt collar in 120 that is the Estonian Waffen-SS logo (which is a little too small to clearly identify) - can you point out the specific images in the other photos?
- Lastly, this is a general statement to all interested parties: let's keep it civil and polite. As Termer points out, there has been already been one ArbCom case on this topic, let's not bring the fight here, shall we? Tabercil (talk) 13:34, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
- It is taking me some time to find the photo essays published by Estonian newspapers on the celebration. Here is one from Postimees for starters: Galerii: Sinimägedes tähistati 1944. aasta kaitselahingute aastapäeva (translation). I will return soon with more references. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 18:33, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
- After going through a hundred pages that all say the same thing, I came across this: the original invitation to the event. It is posted on the official web site of Vaivara vald (Vaivara Parish) where the Sinimäed hills are located.
- The name of the event is “20. Eesti Relvagrenaderide Diviisi veteranide kokkutulek”– translated as reunion of the veterans of the 20th Waffen Grenadier Division of the SS (1st Estonian). The communal site also posts a copy of the poster.
- The organizers of the event, as stated in the poster and other reliable sources, are Eesti Relvagrenaderide Veteranide Ühendus and Eesti Leegioni Sõprade Klubi (Friends of the Estonian Legion) http://www.eestileegion.com/
- The same information is confirmed by Estonian newspapers reporting on the event. For example Eesti Päevaleht on 27 July 2009: Politsei pidas kinni Sinimägedes piketeerijad:
| “ | 20. Eesti relvagrenaderide diviisi veteranid kogunesid Sinimägedes Granderimäel traditsioonilisele kokkutulekule. Esmakordselt korraldas ürituse noorematest meestest koosnev Eesti leegioni sõprade klubi. |
” |
- Translation by Google:
| “ | Estonian Waffen Grenadier Division veterans gathered [at the] Sinimäe Granderimäel [hill for their] traditional reunions. For the first time |
” |
- Here are some other Estonian newspaper stories on the event: (This year the Estonian news coverage of the event was dominated by the arrest of five members of Nochnoy Dozor trying to stage a protest at the event.)
- Õhtuleht
- Postimees
- Sinimägedes tähistatakse kaitselahingute 65. aastapäeva 22.07.09 - (translation)
- Sinimägedes peeti kinni koonduslaagri riietes piketeerijad 26.07.2009 - (translation)
- Politsei Reva suhtes esialgu menetlust ei alustanud 26.07.2009 - (translation)
- Kaks Sinimägedes piketeerinud meest saadeti riigist välja 27.07.2009 - (translation)
- Vene välisministeerium taunis Sinimägede kokkutulekut 29.07.2009 - (translation)
- Postimees
- English as a source language has no special place on any Wikipedia, least yet at Commons, which is a multilingual project. But, as you asked for English language sources I will give some. However I cannot guarantee that they are as “objective” as the Estonian sources.
- Let's start with this opinion by Efraim Zuroff in the Jerusalem Post: Rewriting Shoah history in Estonia.
- Zuroff is quoted by The “Adolf Hitler Research Society” in the “Nazis in the News” section of their web site on August 26, 2009 ESTONIA BREAKS FREE. Evidently Zuroff at least got his facts right!
- More criticism comes from Russia:
- Kommersant: Official Estonia, Latvia Call Up Waffen SS Vets
- RIAN: Estonian former Nazi collaborators to hold reunion on Saturday 25/07/2008
- Some other foreign sources:
- Venäjä tuohtui virolaisten Waffen SS -veteraanien kokouksesta 29.07.2009, YLE - (Finnish, translation)
- Virolaiset SS-miehet juhlivat Sinimäillä 26.7.2008, Helsingin Sanomat - (Finnish, translation)
- Festnahmen bei Kundgebung gegen Waffen-SS-Treffen - (German, translation)
- Sinimäe, 26.07.09 - (German, translation)
- Estniska myndigheterna trakasserade svenska patrioter 2008 - (Swedish, translation)
- Under blå himmel i de blå bergen 2006 - (Swedish, translation)
- Some other foreign sources:
- The web also provides plenty of non-free photo material from the Waffen-SS reunions, much of it created by the participants. No one seems to ashamed of posing with the SS.
- delfi.ee: album 1 (I must admit, these photos are far better than mine!)
- delfi.ee: album 2
- Sinimäed 1944 – 2004
- -- Petri Krohn (talk) 02:58, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
- Jeez... ask for a lil' more detail and I get a firehose turned on. Given the raft of information, I'd say the description given is fine for the various images. Given that the nominator has said he'll withdraw it if it's renamed, if there are no objections from the uploader, I'll go ahead and do just that, then close this request out as withdrawn. (Hint Petri: say "no objections" <G>) Tabercil (talk) 03:42, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
- -- Petri Krohn (talk) 02:58, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
Comment please let me know anybody if this political soapboxing above needs addressing? otherwise I'd be fine with the suggestions above "retitle appropriately and keep" for example to "Sinimaed Commemoration XX.jpg", just that the uploader has refused to comply.--Termer (talk) 03:29, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
- Q to Tabercil Given the raft of information, I'd say the description given is fine for the various images. Which ones exactly? I hate to go over this all over again that has been happening on Wikipedia with similar issues, but considering your conclusion it seems that the firehose still needs to be addressed? that's fine. Please see
- An article on Economist [5] [6] citation: "READ the Russian-language internet, and you will find Estonia portrayed as a hell-hole ruled by Nazi sympathisers who organise a grotesque form of apartheid hypocritically endorsed by the European Union...What really annoys the Kremlin crowd is that Estonians (like many others in eastern Europe) regarded the arrival of the Red Army in 1944-45 not as a liberation, but as the exchange of one ghastly occupation for another".
- Estonia hits back over Putin's "Nazi" remarks
Please let me know if more sources are needed and points above need to be further addressed. Thanks!--Termer (talk) 04:31, 15 September 2009 (UTC) --Termer (talk) 04:31, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
- Oh I'm not unconversant with what occurred in Eastern Europe during World War 2 - I am aware that when German troops first entered Russia, they were treated as heroes and it wasn't until the Nazi party machinery arrived in their trail that the responses changed. Tabercil (talk) 12:40, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
- OK, let me put it this way, why does someone who got banned from Wikipedia for similar SS campaign need to say "no objections" to changing his controversial naming conventions? Are you saying it's OK to label living people with Waffen-SS tag on Commons Tabercil until the uploader who has clearly declared "No need to delete or rename" doesn't object to the rename any more? I'm not getting this why those images are not getting renamed ASAP pr Jmabel -"Should be handled quickly because of libel potential".--Termer (talk) 13:53, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
- It's called trying to achieve consensus, and also giving Petri the benefit of the doubt. As I said earlier, I want to keep this RfD civil and polite, and avoid any of the drama that EN has gotten on the topic. I'm not saying I won't jump in and act as you're suggesting, but if I can avoid ruffling feathers I will. Tabercil (talk) 16:53, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
- Sorry but I didn't get it, consensus on what? It's that simple: either it's ok to upload pictures of living people with the SS tag or it's not?--Termer (talk) 01:48, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
- Here is how this thing works: If I upload an image of George W Bush under the name File:Asshole Bush.jpg, I agree, it would be defamation. If I catch a high resolution “full frontal” of George W Bush's naked butt and upload it under the same name, it would not be defamation. (I do not know if Commons would like to keep the image though :-) -- Petri Krohn (talk) 02:55, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
- Sorry but I didn't get it, consensus on what? It's that simple: either it's ok to upload pictures of living people with the SS tag or it's not?--Termer (talk) 01:48, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
- It's called trying to achieve consensus, and also giving Petri the benefit of the doubt. As I said earlier, I want to keep this RfD civil and polite, and avoid any of the drama that EN has gotten on the topic. I'm not saying I won't jump in and act as you're suggesting, but if I can avoid ruffling feathers I will. Tabercil (talk) 16:53, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
- OK, let me put it this way, why does someone who got banned from Wikipedia for similar SS campaign need to say "no objections" to changing his controversial naming conventions? Are you saying it's OK to label living people with Waffen-SS tag on Commons Tabercil until the uploader who has clearly declared "No need to delete or rename" doesn't object to the rename any more? I'm not getting this why those images are not getting renamed ASAP pr Jmabel -"Should be handled quickly because of libel potential".--Termer (talk) 13:53, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
- Good points Petri Krohn, so in case you'll "catch a high resolution" of someone wearing a T shirt etc. saying "I'm with the Waffen-SS" feel free to upload it under the same name.--Termer (talk) 03:02, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
- Oh I'm not unconversant with what occurred in Eastern Europe during World War 2 - I am aware that when German troops first entered Russia, they were treated as heroes and it wasn't until the Nazi party machinery arrived in their trail that the responses changed. Tabercil (talk) 12:40, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
Easy folks... as I said, I do not want any of the tussling from EN brought here. And I've gotten an email from Petri indicating that he is not consenting to the rename. Tabercil (talk) 03:24, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
- I don't know what exactly are you saying Tabercil? The fact that the uploader is not willing to go for a rename has been clear for me from the beginning, that's why I opened this deletion request in the first place.--Termer (talk) 03:52, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
- Keep, keeping the file name. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 06:17, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
- Well, there's no cause for deletion as I see it. We have individuals present at the ceremony who were indeed Waffen-SS so the name and descriptions are both technically accurate so the charge of defamation is not totally accurate. What needs to be done is to expand the description to make it clear that they were only part of the overall group of people present. Tabercil (talk) 12:14, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
- RE:We have individuals present at the ceremony who were indeed Waffen-SS?
- Please point out who exactly on the images were indeed the Waffen-SS? And how do you know that? Please note that the Waffen-SS has been declared a criminal organization (except conscripts) pr Nuremberg trials, therefore I think it would be important to point out who exactly is considered to be part of this criminal organization on those images once you think that "defamation is not totally accurate".--Termer (talk) 01:06, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
- That's why I said the description has to be expanded - to make clear that while some of the individuals present were Waffen SS vets, not all are. Tabercil (talk) 02:07, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
- According to the organizers, by tradition, food from the field kichen is only served to Waffen-SS veterans. We can thus induce, that those eating or waiting in line for food are indeed Waffen-SS veterans or family members. It is also clear, that anyone under 80 years is not a veteran. Many of these people are public figures in Estonia. I do not think we need to start listing names though. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 21:50, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
- That's why I said the description has to be expanded - to make clear that while some of the individuals present were Waffen SS vets, not all are. Tabercil (talk) 02:07, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
It seems I wasn't clear: who out of the individuals present on the images were the Waffen SS vets exactly and how do we know that? And again, vets of the Waffen SS as a criminal organization declared so by the Nuremberg trials. And the bottom line: does the Waffen SS as a criminal organization apply to any of the possible vets on the images in the first place? --Termer (talk) 02:18, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
- If I'm not mistaken, the bulk of the individuals present were part of the Estonian SS division, right? That specific group was singled out by the U.S. goverment:
- The Baltic Waffen-SS Units (Baltic Legions) are to be considered as separate and distinct in purpose, ideology, activities, and qualifications for membership from the German SS, and therefore the Commission holds them not to be a movement hostile to the Government of the United States.
- As for the others that were from different countries (e.g., French, Belgian, etc.), I would presume that by now, any punishments that were to be dealt out by their national governments would have been dealt with by now. If by some chance a specific individual somehow avoided it, it's not Wikmedia's responsibility to deal with it.
- Lastly, I've reread COM:D. The section that applies in this case states:
- "The file is not realistically useful for an educational purpose. Examples of files that are not realistically useful include... files apparently created and/or uploaded for the purpose of vandalism or attack. Pre-existing designs and symbols that are or have been associated with nationalistic 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."
- In this instance, the images do fall into Commons scope in that they can conceivably be used to illustrate Wikipedia articles. Tabercil (talk) 04:03, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
- Again, who exactly on those images is from the SS division? For the rest sorry but I didn't get it what has your last post to do with anything what is undre the discussion. The reason I have brought this case to communities attention can be found in COM:PEOPLE You should bear in mind that defamation may arise not only from the content of the image itself but also from its description and title when uploaded. An image of an identified unknown individual may be unexceptional on its own, but with the title "A drug-dealer" (read -Waffen SS) there may be potential defamation issues in at least some countries. And last but not least: Zero information is preferred to misleading or false information by Jimmy Wales: Spelled out at W:Living persons: Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.
- Finally, I can't believe it that the user who has been banned from Wikipedia for his ss and nazi obsessions can just bring his agenda freely to Commons instead and we're haveing a discussion about it.--Termer (talk) 05:33, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
- PS. they could for example be used to illustrate a Wikipedia article on a hate group? wait a second please, are you saying that those images represent a hate group? Who says so? That was a very serious remark because it's going further than a label 'SS' or for example a 'drug dealer'.--Termer (talk) 05:54, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
No vote. Have fun - I'm walking away from this request. A lil' reasonableness from either side and I could've closed this out easily. As it is, both of you are entrenched and I don't care to handle this anymore. Tabercil (talk) 05:56, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
- Perhaps it's me but there has been zero communication going on in here. I do not understand your reactions, you comments and your reasons and what is here to vote over. The only thing: yes, you could've closed this out easily by simply renaming the images.--Termer (talk) 06:27, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
- Sorry, but I got an earful from the uploader via email indicating his firm refusal to entertain renaming, among other things. He also states that he felt some of the comments made were personal attacks and asked that they be removed. I've not done that since I felt that, while you've been rather aggressive on this topic, your statements haven't quite gone into the personal attack area. So far we have only 4 voices: you calling for deletion initially, then acceeding to renaming, the uploader firmly saying keep as is with no renaming, a neutral Wikipedian (Pieter Kuiper) saying keep as is with no renaming, and me trying to find a middle ground in all this. Having read through the battleground that was EN on this topic while reading up on W:Wikipedia:DIGWUREN and W:User:Petri Krohn, I do not wish to get sucked into a similar tussle here on Commons all by myself, so I'm stepping back. Tabercil (talk) 15:27, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
Reality check - Before anyone says anything stupid, I suggest you view this set of photos by DelfiPressifoto in slideshow mode. Click on the first photo, then on the magnifying glass icon on the the top part of the image. Click Järgmine to view the next image. As I said earlier, these photos are far better than mine. However, they are unfree! -- Petri Krohn (talk) 22:28, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
- What's your point? The only thing I can say, agree with you: these photos are far better than yours, and this is only because no living persons on those images have been labeled with the Waffen SS tag either in the file naming conventions or by the image descriptions.--Termer (talk) 06:04, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
Delete and/or rename, they seem like boring holiday snaps of young and old people standing around, and given inappropriate picture names and descriptions, we don't even know where and when these pictures were taken, could even be some tourist group/s on different days for all we know. For example, picture Nbr 175 - picture of a young couple sitting on the grass, description:"Estonian Waffen-SS veterans celebrating the 65th anniversary of the battles on the Sinimäed hills in 1944". They look a bit young to be veterans from 1944, was it even taken at the same location, lol. I can only wonder at their horror on discovering their picture posted here with that caption. There are many other similar pictures that should be deleted, while others should be renamed. --Martintg (talk) 01:54, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
Right. Time to put this sucker to bed. I've been trading emails with others on this and I've come to the conclusion that renaming is the only way to go on this. As a result, all will be renamed to "Sinimäed Memorial 2009 - XXX.jpg", where XXX is the original file number. Also, some of the photos can be trimmed away as they seem too tangential to the original purpose of the photo set. As a result, I've deleted 137, 164 & 175. Lastly, the description has been edited to state "Memorial service on the 65th anniversary of the battles on the Sinimäed hills in 1944, where a number of veterans attended including Estonian Waffen-SS members.". And with that, this is closed. Tabercil (talk) 22:33, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
Images of Klein.enot
[edit]- File:Bondero.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:I am Angel.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:I am Angel 1.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Technoutopia 1.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Свободный радикал.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
All images are a portrait and works of a non-notable artist. The article has just been deleted in ruwiki. So all the files are clearly out of project scope. Blacklake (talk) 09:12, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Mardetanha talk 02:01, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
Files by Pucasso (Mahir Sayar) from Flickr
[edit]I transferred two files from this Flickr user (http://www.flickr.com/photos/mahir/) to Commons and found myself uploading "Flickrvios" (Images that are licensed on Flickr by someone violating someone else copyright).
- File:Mosque in Bobo Dioulasso, Burkina Faso - by Mahir Sayar.jpg is from Pucasso but originally it is from somewhere else
- File:Mosque in Porto Novo, Benin - by Mahir Sayar.jpg is from Pucasso but originally comes from somewhere else
- I wanted to transfer this file but I found that it comes from this page and that we already have it as File:LamidoGrandMosque.jpg
Summarizing Pucasso uses files in his Flickr account he grabbed from other Flickr users without attributing them and in total ignorance of the license. Taking other samples from his photostream you will find more examples. I already added him to COM:QFI, the search turned out more images I hereby nominate for deletion because of some doubt in Pucassos trustworthiness --Martin H. (talk) 13:43, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
- File:17290454 55bfea96c8 o.jpg
- File:Eilann Donan Castle.jpg - with larger file size (fewer pixels) here
- File:Eilan Donan castle.jpg
- File:166770949 ca330a4ce3 o.jpg
- File:Lochan Stones, Rannoch Moor.jpg
*File:Blue Mosque in Yerevan - Armenia.jpg
- Deleted File:Blue Mosque in Yerevan - Armenia.jpg, the new mosque/islamic architecture images by pucasso are obviously stolen from other flickr uses - all. No need to review this. See COM:QFI/Pucasso. --Martin H. (talk) 16:07, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
- Delete all of these (I added a link to the Eilann Donan castle). /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 10:03, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
All deleted, per nominator. Kameraad Pjotr 20:04, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
Appears to be a poor copy of a video cover or book. Admrboltz (talk) 14:56, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
Comment This seems to be a cover of a book given to young people by the East German state during it's last years. See en:Jugendweihe. Whether this qualifies the book as an official work I don't know, though it does seem to have been for public information. See Commons:Licensing#Germany. German Wikimedians' views would be useful. --Simonxag (talk) 12:24, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
Please don´t delate the File:Jugendweihe_DDR.JPG
[edit]
HI Admrboltz,
I don´t know why do you want to delate my pic! I have use it on the following sites:
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jugendweihe
This file was used in German, English and Norsk. Please don´t delate this file. Thank you very much!
Greetings, --Vwpolonia75 (talk) 19:53, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
(Certainly, this is a cover of a book, but it is not realy a problem.)
- Vwpolonia75, the problem is the photo on the cover of the book. Perhaps, though we could do a version imposing a moderate Gaussian blur on the photo? What do others think? In any case, could be uploaded to en-wiki with fair use justification. I known that won't fly in de-wiki, no idea what the rules are no no-wiki. - Jmabel ! talk 20:49, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
- that may work, maybe make a mock up and see if it detracts too much? --Admrboltz (talk) 21:53, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
Deleted, lacks suitable permission/copyvio. Kameraad Pjotr 20:24, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
COM:DW, no artist mentioned, does not look old. Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:20, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
- permenantly hung in a public place - a mural on the wall of the church. Free according to Israeli copyright Law. This is the forth personal harasment against my uplaod by Pieter Kuiper in the past month. Deror avi (talk) 16:27, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
- This painting is probably similar to what was deleted in Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Ethiopean Church, Jerusalem 10.JPG. Same church, it seems. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:38, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
- Then that deletion was incorrect as well and shows basic lack of understanding of Israeli Law (assuming that the picture was taken in Israel and it is of a work of art permenantly hung in a public place). 16:41, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
- Ah well, was deleted as a duplicate; this is the same painting as File:Ethiopian Abyssinian Church, Jerusalem 09.jpg, dated 1999. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 17:49, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
- This painting is probably similar to what was deleted in Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Ethiopean Church, Jerusalem 10.JPG. Same church, it seems. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:38, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
- I have to put in my 2 cents. I don't understand how a church can be considered a "public place"; when the church is obviously private property (and does not guarantee access to anyone at any time. ). I will have to agree with Pieter Kuiper in this; in most Western countries, this photograph would not have an original copyright over the painter's rights, and would not be allowed on Commons. I cannot speak to Israel's law regarding whether installation in a church constitutes a public place but I do question it, and am not at all comfortable with the rationale for keeping this image without a release from the artist. We would not consider a church a public place in other western countries, and I don't understand why Israel would. I would open this up to more discussion before we establish a precedence. --Bastique demandez 17:46, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
- The Israeli Supreme Court has rulled with regards to churches in Israel that they are "public place" for the purpose of the Law - for example - CP 388/07 Hami Habibi v. The state of Israel - and speciificaly in that case the Church of the annunciation in Nazareth is a public place.Deror avi (talk) 18:42, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
- What is the context of that ruling? Does the ruling actually pertain to all churches (and synagogues, mosques and temples) or just church (which I am assuming is the destination of piglrims, and makes it different from ordinary churches). Bastique demandez 18:32, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
- The question was whether a riot in the Church of Annonciation is a riot in a "public place" for the purpose of the Law (the criminal Law in that matter). In Israel - all religious establishments are public - whether synagoges, mosques or churches (there are many legal aspects to this). Deror avi (talk) 18:39, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
- What is the context of that ruling? Does the ruling actually pertain to all churches (and synagogues, mosques and temples) or just church (which I am assuming is the destination of piglrims, and makes it different from ordinary churches). Bastique demandez 18:32, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
- Also in the UK and in most Commonwealth countries, in the context of copyright, a church would be expected to be "a public place or premises open to the public", according to COM:FOP#United Kingdom. So one could make free photos of statues of saints, etcetera. Maybe even of a stained-glass window, but not a painting like this one here. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:02, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
- One can in Israel. As mentioned - the leading expert on the subject, Dr. Presenti, in here book stated that a person who takes a derivative photo of a drowing in a museum is not breaching copyright Law if the work of art is peremenantly placed there. Deror avi (talk) 20:33, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
- Presenti did not mention drawings in the quote that Okedem translated here. You are overinterpreting her, there is no basis in law or in court decisions for your interpretation of freedom of panorama. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 13:31, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
- In Deror's defense, I interpret "works" to be inclusive of drawings or paintings. Bastique demandez 16:41, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
- In Israel, which is a democratic country of free people, Everything which is not forbidden is allowed. According to this rule, Pieter Kuiper has to prove that his strict interpretation is right, by supplying a "basis in law or in court decisions". Without such a proof, Deror avi is right. דוד שי (talk) 17:36, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
- Section 11 of the 2007 copyright law says that copyright is the exclusive right to reproduce, publish, make derivatives, etcetera of a work. That is the basis. Making copies of someone else's work is not allowed. Then there are some exceptions to this rule, where making copies is allowed. Article 23 allows such exceptions for sculptures, architecture, and applied art permanently situated in a public place. The law makes no such exception for drawings, paintings, engravings, lithography, maps, charts, or photographic works. If Deror avi wants to claim that such exceptions do exist, he will need to present a court decision. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 17:52, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
- "drawings, paintings, engravings, lithography, maps, charts, or photographic works" permanently situated in a public place are included in "applied art", until you present a court decision that claims the contrary. דוד שי (talk) 03:41, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
- Section 11 of the 2007 copyright law says that copyright is the exclusive right to reproduce, publish, make derivatives, etcetera of a work. That is the basis. Making copies of someone else's work is not allowed. Then there are some exceptions to this rule, where making copies is allowed. Article 23 allows such exceptions for sculptures, architecture, and applied art permanently situated in a public place. The law makes no such exception for drawings, paintings, engravings, lithography, maps, charts, or photographic works. If Deror avi wants to claim that such exceptions do exist, he will need to present a court decision. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 17:52, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
- In Israel, which is a democratic country of free people, Everything which is not forbidden is allowed. According to this rule, Pieter Kuiper has to prove that his strict interpretation is right, by supplying a "basis in law or in court decisions". Without such a proof, Deror avi is right. דוד שי (talk) 17:36, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
- In Deror's defense, I interpret "works" to be inclusive of drawings or paintings. Bastique demandez 16:41, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
- Presenti did not mention drawings in the quote that Okedem translated here. You are overinterpreting her, there is no basis in law or in court decisions for your interpretation of freedom of panorama. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 13:31, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
- One can in Israel. As mentioned - the leading expert on the subject, Dr. Presenti, in here book stated that a person who takes a derivative photo of a drowing in a museum is not breaching copyright Law if the work of art is peremenantly placed there. Deror avi (talk) 20:33, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
- The Israeli Supreme Court has rulled with regards to churches in Israel that they are "public place" for the purpose of the Law - for example - CP 388/07 Hami Habibi v. The state of Israel - and speciificaly in that case the Church of the annunciation in Nazareth is a public place.Deror avi (talk) 18:42, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
- Keep I believe Deror avi knows more about Israeli copyrights low than mr. kuiper ever will, and I agree with post on AN/U that according to mr. kuiper prior history he should leave handling of all images from Israel to somebody less involved.--Mbz1 (talk) 13:21, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
- Keep per Deror, David Shay and Mbz1, and after reading the law in Hebrew (which is my first language, BTW). ברוקולי (talk) 00:03, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
- Tamir Afori (the civil servant in the Israeli Ministry of Justice who drafted the 2007 law texts) told a Knesset committee that paintings are not included in article 23 about FoP:
בסעיף 23 יש רשימה מאוד מוגדרת של יצירות שזה חל עליהן: יצירה אדריכלית, יצירת פיסול ויצירת אמנות שימושית, לא ציור ולא צילום, למשל.
- /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 00:22, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
- And since he is not a Judge that made any decision, his opinion isn't better than anyone else. Please provide a reference in the law or in any court decision. ברוקולי (talk) 00:42, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
- So why did the Knesset committee not invite you or Deror avi to ask for Enlightenment? The law (art. 23) is clear. As Afori told the committee, this agrees with the Anglo-Saxon copyright tradition. Compare with the countries in COM:FOP#Commonwealth. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 00:57, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
- They have the right to discuss the law (Its their job if you didn't know). Afori has his opinion (FOS after all), but as long it is not applied into the law (by the Knesset) or court decision it doesn't have any legal/formal/etc. meaning whatsoever. BTW, the situation in other countries is completely irrelevant, since it is Israel (perhaps you missed that word) we are talking about and what matters is the current Israeli law and nothing else. Since you don't understand Hebrew I suggest you do not try to teach me (or Deror, for that matter) this language. ברוקולי (talk) 01:51, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
- So why did the Knesset committee not invite you or Deror avi to ask for Enlightenment? The law (art. 23) is clear. As Afori told the committee, this agrees with the Anglo-Saxon copyright tradition. Compare with the countries in COM:FOP#Commonwealth. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 00:57, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
- And since he is not a Judge that made any decision, his opinion isn't better than anyone else. Please provide a reference in the law or in any court decision. ברוקולי (talk) 00:42, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
- /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 00:22, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
Delete I don't believe we need to resort to arcane interpretations of Israeli copyright law to settle this issue. I see two arguments that have not been addressed at all above:
- Per Commons policy at Commons:Licensing, the Commons accepts only media that satisfy either of two conditions: (a) the media are explicitly freely licensed, or (b) the media are in the public domain in the source country of the work and in the United States. This image does not meet either of these conditions. No one has asserted that the artist (or other copyright holder) of the painting depicted has granted any sort of license, much less a free license. And while this derivative work may be a permissible exercise of freedom of panorama in Israel, it is not in the United States. In the United States, freedom of panorama applies only to architectural works, not to 2D or 3D works of art that happen to be exhibited at or on the building. (Of course, if the painting is old enough, then freedom of panorama is beside the point. But no one has provided a date for the painting, and I'm assuming that everyone has conceded that the painting simply is not that old.)
- As a photograph of the three-young-men painting, this image is distinctly inferior to File:Ethiopian Abyssinian Church, Jerusalem 09.jpg, and provides no educational content that the other photo does not. As such, this photo is out of scope for the Commons.
Of course, the first of my two arguments suggests that File:Ethiopian Abyssinian Church, Jerusalem 09.jpg should also be deleted, but I'll leave it for another user to nominate that one for deletion if they feel strongly enough about it. Meanwhile, this particular discussion has been open for half a year, two-thirds of which time no one except me has added any observations or opinions at all; it needs to be closed one way or another. —Werewombat (talk) 20:02, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
- For Israeli FOP copyright, see User:Pieter_Kuiper/Freedom of Panorama in Israel#The new law - it is not that arcane. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:18, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, per WereWombat: out of project scope. Kameraad Pjotr 10:52, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
