Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2009/09/28
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
|
|
No way this is GFDL. -Nard the Bard 06:53, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
Deleted, obvious copyright violation; Disney film poster. Infrogmation (talk) 00:57, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
uploaded in error Graphicjer (talk) 06:59, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
Speedy deleted. Mistakenly uploaded, deletion requested by the uploader shortly afterwards. –Tryphon☂ 12:36, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
It is of me :( I am no longer a student and hold a job of responsibility and do not wish this to hinder me. Please! --Grimwemm (talk) 18:13, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
Delete Not in use. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:26, 28 September 2009 (UTC)- Delete per above -- Deadstar (msg) 19:19, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Also requested via OTRS, so I'm closing this early. PeterSymonds (talk) 00:18, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
low-quality penis self pic with no educational use Denniss (talk) 21:08, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 22:58, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
low-quality and low-res penis self pic with no educational use Denniss (talk) 21:07, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
Please delete , this was posted in error. in fact delete everything I posting in this section.
they should make it easier to delete things , I would remove this whole thing myself if I could
Deleted by D-Kuru: Uploader request: del request by author and uploader
in that res and quality out of project scope. --Yikrazuul (talk) 11:52, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
- Delete A few better quality images of this chemical structure available. -- Deadstar (msg) 19:07, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
Deleted by D-Kuru: duplicate - Benzene ring.png and PNG and Benzene bonds.svg and SVG versions are available
(reason for deletion)
(Adjustment: I am not the nominator of delete procedure. I´m installing this missing deletion requests page to reach a decision. ) --El-Bardo (talk) 14:23, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
- Delete Looks like copyvio, the links given in the history for the source of this file don't seem to have the image on them (& are both blogs) -- Deadstar (msg) 19:09, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
Deleted by Martin H.: Copyright violation
Derivative work and ridiculously blurry anyway. Wknight94 talk 15:02, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
- Delete, together with File:IDog bk.jpg and File:Idog PUP.jpg. Could IMHO be speedied as this user has uploaded such images before and has been playing around since he came here. Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 18:09, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, I considered speedy. I might soon. Wknight94 talk 18:57, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
Deleted by D-Kuru: copyvio - derivative work
user request: cannot be display, pls delete it --Common Good (talk) 19:12, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
Deleted by D-Kuru: Uploader request: del request by author and uploader
low-quality and low-res penis self pic with no educational use Denniss (talk) 21:07, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
Please delete , this was posted in error. in fact delete everything I posting in this section.
they should make it easier to delete things , I would remove this whole thing myself if I could
Deleted by D-Kuru: Uploader request: del request by author and uploader
Not used anywhere, outside of project scope. ■ MMXXtalk 05:09, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
- Delete per nom -- malo (talk) 21:43, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
Deleted by D-Kuru: out of scope (unused)
Not used anywhere, outside of project scope. ■ MMXXtalk 05:10, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
- Delete per nom -- malo (talk) 21:45, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
Deleted by D-Kuru: out of scope (unused)
Outside of project scope ■ MMXXtalk 05:36, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
- Delete per nom -- malo (talk) 21:50, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
Deleted by D-Kuru: out of scope (unused)
Outside of project scope. ■ MMXXtalk 06:09, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
- Delete per nom -- malo (talk) 21:50, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
Deleted by D-Kuru: out of scope (unused)
used image outside project scope. malo (talk) 21:51, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
Deleted by D-Kuru: out of scope (unused)
This image is not "Public Domain". Because the U.S. Department of State say "This official photograph is being made available only for publication by news organizations and/or for personal use printing by the subject(s) of the photograph." in the source of this image.
But the U.S. Department of State don't say "The all of the official White House photograph isn't public domain". For example, the U.S. Department of State say "State Department photo / Public Domain" in the source of other image. -114.48.158.110 07:58, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
- Delete I think this image is not public domain. --114.48.158.110 08:16, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
- Comment - All work created by the United States federal government is in the public domain. Both images were taken by White House photographer, Lawrence Jackson, a government employee. All images uploaded by the White House, and all of its branches use that message by default in the metadata. It does not restrict its use here on the Commons in any way. Gage (talk) 05:57, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
Comment Gage said "All work created by the United States federal government is in the public domain." But Wikimedia Commons say "Images on government or government agency websites are not necessarily public domain; always look for copyright notices or similar." The U.S. Department of State says that this image is "CC-BY-ND-2.0". --114.49.46.51 02:02, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
- Except that this image was created by the United States federal government. The note to check notices is for works created by others; the copyright claim in this case is spurious. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:49, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
- Comment - All work created by the United States federal government is in the public domain. Both images were taken by White House photographer, Lawrence Jackson, a government employee. All images uploaded by the White House, and all of its branches use that message by default in the metadata. It does not restrict its use here on the Commons in any way. Gage (talk) 05:57, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
Keep. The images are public domain no matter what the State Department claims. See http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2009/05/white-house-photos Kaldari (talk) 23:36, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
- Keep as {{PD-USGov-POTUS}}. This was taken by an White House photographer, and is an "official" photograph, and is therefore public domain. The State Department cannot claim copyright (i.e. a cc-by-nd license) because there is no copyright. Personality rights apply as always, but those are Commons:Non-copyright restrictions. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:49, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Kept. Commons:Deletion requests/File:Miyuki Hatoyama Michelle Obama Yukio Hatoyama and Barack Obama 20090923.jpg, exactly per Clindberg says. --Martin H. (talk) 18:05, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
This image is not "Public Domain". Because the U.S. Department of State say "This official White House photograph is being made available only for publication by news organizations and/or for personal use printing by the subject(s) of the photograph." in the source of this image.
But the U.S. Department of State don't say "The all of the official photograph isn't public domain". For example, the U.S. Department of State say "State Department photo / Public Domain" in the source of other image. -114.48.158.110 08:00, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
- Delete I think this image is not public domain. --114.48.158.110 08:16, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
- Comment - All work created by the United States federal government is in the public domain. Both images were taken by White House photographer, Lawrence Jackson, a government employee. All images uploaded by the White House, and all of its branches use that message by default in the metadata. It does not restrict its use here on the Commons in any way. Gage (talk) 05:51, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
- Comment Gage said "All work created by the United States federal government is in the public domain." But Wikimedia Commons say "Images on government or government agency websites are not necessarily public domain; always look for copyright notices or similar." The U.S. Department of State says that this image is "CC-BY-ND-2.0". --114.49.46.51 02:05, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
- Comment - All work created by the United States federal government is in the public domain. Both images were taken by White House photographer, Lawrence Jackson, a government employee. All images uploaded by the White House, and all of its branches use that message by default in the metadata. It does not restrict its use here on the Commons in any way. Gage (talk) 05:51, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
- Keep. The images are public domain no matter what the State Department claims. See http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2009/05/white-house-photos Kaldari (talk) 23:36, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
- Keep as {{PD-USGov-POTUS}}. This was taken by an White House photographer, and is an "official" photograph, and is therefore public domain. The State Department cannot claim copyright (i.e. a cc-by-nd license) because there is no copyright. Personality rights apply as always, but those are Commons:Non-copyright restrictions. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:50, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Kept. Commons:Deletion requests/File:Miyuki Hatoyama Michelle Obama Yukio Hatoyama and Barack Obama 20090923.jpg. --Martin H. (talk) 18:03, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
(reason for deletion) -- 21:36, 19 September 2009 User:Ori~
(Adjustment: I am not the nominator of delete procedure. I´m installing this missing deletion requests page to reach a decision. ) --El-Bardo (talk) 15:20, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
- Comment Uploader nominated File:Phoenicia map-HE2.svg and File:Phoenicia map-HE3.svg for deletion, but I can't find the correct version of this file. -- Deadstar (msg) 20:08, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
Deleted by MGA73: Uploader request
Prominently features copyrighted lyrics. This needs blurring. Also, this is certainly not GFDL, probably GPL. ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 00:07, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Infrogmation (talk) 00:54, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
- Delete copyrighted text. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 06:14, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Eusebius (talk) 07:35, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Questionable/unexplained license claim. The uploader put no license claim on the image. An anon editor added "PD-FDA" and "GFDL". Questionable why either one would apply. Image shows a box of a commercial product apparently copyrighted, [1] with added inscription; image taken from auction site, no evidence of such licenses at either site. --Infrogmation (talk) 00:10, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
- Delete per nominator. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 06:16, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Eusebius (talk) 07:35, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
No date given for the work. Uploader admits that the "original work is not by uploader" but has released the image into the public domain BarretBonden (talk) 14:34, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
Delete per nom --Simonxag (talk) 19:52, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. No source. Eusebius (talk) 07:37, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Derivative work, no FOP in the U.S. for sculptures. –Tryphon☂ 05:19, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
Delete per nom --Simonxag (talk) 19:54, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Delete, per nomination. –blurpeace (talk) 01:41, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Eusebius (talk) 07:38, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
No information provided whatsoever; this sure looks like a copyvio! Erik1980 (talk) 08:43, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
- Delete Agreed, looks like official band photograph. -- Deadstar (msg) 19:05, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
- Delete per nom --Simonxag (talk) 19:55, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. No source. Eusebius (talk) 07:38, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Not a free license. Pieter Kuiper (talk) 09:25, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
- Delete per nom -- malo (talk) 22:13, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Eusebius (talk) 07:39, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Derivative work --Gryffindor (talk) 12:07, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
Delete Does look like an official poster or leaflet --Simonxag (talk) 19:57, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Keep, it's located on a public street in Port de Sóller (located: red arrow „Sou Aquí“ on the map), so COM:FOP#Spain applies. --Oltau (talk) 15:43, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
Kept. Per COM:FOP#Spain. Eusebius (talk) 07:41, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Derivative work --Gryffindor (talk) 12:08, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
- Keep, looks like it's located on a public street, so COM:FOP#Spain applies. –Tryphon☂ 12:40, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
- Keep, it's located between Sóller and Port de Sóller on a public street, standing by the red 3 on the map. --Oltau (talk) 16:07, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
Kept. Per COM:FOP#Spain. Eusebius (talk) 07:41, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Derivative work --Gryffindor (talk) 12:26, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
Delete Photo of commercially produced map. --Simonxag (talk) 19:59, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Keep, the map is a part from a Information-table (look here), it's located on a public street between Sóller and Port de Sóller (red number 3 on the map), so COM:FOP#Spain applies. --Oltau (talk) 15:51, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
Kept. Per COM:FOP#Spain. Eusebius (talk) 07:42, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Incorrectly named version of File:Yuny Strait-nl.svg (image replaced) --16:06, 20 September 2009 User:Hardscarf
- (Adjustment: I am not the nominator of delete procedure. I´m installing this missing deletion requests page to reach a decision. ) --El-Bardo (talk) 14:26, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
- Delete Duplicate -- Deadstar (msg) 19:11, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Quasi-dupe, unused. Eusebius (talk) 07:52, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
(reason for deletion)
(Adjustment: I am not the nominator of delete procedure. I´m installing this missing deletion requests page to reach a decision. ) --El-Bardo (talk) 14:33, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
- Delete no source. Uploader changed tag from "no source" to "delete" to "source" probably because there is no valid license. I fixed request back to "delete". -- Deadstar (msg) 19:59, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Missing source and/or permission. Eusebius (talk) 07:57, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
(reason for deletion)
(Adjustment: I am not the nominator of delete procedure. I´m installing this missing deletion requests page to reach a decision. ) --El-Bardo (talk) 14:35, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
- Delete no source. Uploader changed tag from "no source" to "delete" probably because there is no valid license -- Deadstar (msg) 19:58, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Missing proper source. Eusebius (talk) 07:59, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Image has a large copyright water mark on it for the website http://www.vlaanderenvanuitdelucht.be, which is copyrighted. I don't think it is free to be on commons -- Deadstar (msg) 15:00, 28 September 2009 (UTC) Also all other uploads by same user:
- File:Luchtfoto rock werchter -G9WL3551-010707.jpg
- File:Luchtfoto rock werchter.jpg
- File:Luchtfoto grote markt leuven.JPG (although no watermark, it's from the same website)
- File:Luchtfoto brouwerij Haacht.JPG
- File:Luchtfoto basiliek scherpenheuvel.JPG
Deleted. All very probable copyvios. Eusebius (talk) 08:06, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
I don't see anything here that the other versions field of {{Information}} can't do. Only in use on one user's subpage, which isn't a reason to keep a template. --The Evil IP address (talk) 17:23, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
Kept. Keeping the template does no harm, no clear reason for deletion. Eusebius (talk) 08:32, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
not in COM:SCOPE --Cwbm (commons) (talk) 18:58, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
If this is meant to be http://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/summary/summary.cgi?cid=19938794&loc=ec_rcs than the image is unusable. If not I can't see any use either. --Cwbm (commons) (talk) 06:50, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
- Delete Not in scope. --Leyo 07:29, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
- Delete Per Cwbm and Leyo. --NEUROtiker ⇌ 20:00, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
- It is a (not so good) depiction of an identified compound (I improved description, categorization should be done by somebody else...). Do we have a replacement for this picture? If not, Keep. --Eusebius (talk) 09:49, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
- Now, we have: File:4-hex-5-enyl-1,2-dimethylbenzene.svg --Leyo 10:04, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Bad quality, nicely replaced, unused. Eusebius (talk) 10:11, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Нет данных об авторстве (или есть обоснованные подозрения в плагиате). Лицензия, авторство или источник под сомнением. Нет подтверждения заявленной свободной лицензии. Фотография сделана штатным фотографом в студии на съемках телепередачи. Такие работы принадлежат студиям. --Agent001 (talk) 14:27, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
- Comment translates as "No data on authorship (or a reasonable suspicion of plagiarism). License, authorship, or source in doubt. There is no confirmation of claims by the free license. The photo was made a staff photographer at the studio. Such works belong to the studios." -- Deadstar (msg) 19:15, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
- I do not agree with Agent001. This photo was not copied from a web-site or scanned from a magazine. It is high quality original full resolution JPEG with EXIF. That means it was submitted by person who either created it, i.e. photographer, or had access to original. Most likely he has rights to distribute it. --RedAndr (talk) 15:59, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
Kept. No sign of copyvio. Looks like an original image, with EXIF and own work claim, for which we should assume good faith in the absence of any evidence of fraud. Eusebius (talk) 09:51, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Missing permission from source site. Maybe this is ineligible? ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 19:21, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
Kept. {{PD-ineligible}}. Eusebius (talk) 09:53, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Missing permission from source site. Maybe this is ineligible? ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 19:21, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
Kept. {{PD-ineligible}}. Eusebius (talk) 09:54, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
misspled name of village Pmatlock (talk) 21:36, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Original deletion request unsound, but missing permission from LetsGoToRomania.com. Eusebius (talk) 10:00, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
misspled name of village Pmatlock (talk) 21:37, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Original deletion request unsound, but missing permission from LetsGoToRomania.com. Eusebius (talk) 10:01, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
misspled name of village Pmatlock (talk) 21:35, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Original deletion request unsound, but missing permission from LetsGoToRomania.com. Eusebius (talk) 10:01, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
According to the template content published by the Indonesian government without a copyright notice are public domain. The image maybe comes from the government (maybe... the author is unknown) and is stored in a library - that does not make it published by the government in an official publication without a copyright notice. Martin H. (talk) 01:55, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
- As the uploader, I would not mind seeing this deleted. The image has been deprecated by a new photo File:Habibie presidential oath.jpg, which was published into a government book without a copyright notice. Arsonal (talk) 02:14, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
- Delete, per nom. –Tryphon☂ 06:00, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Huib talk 18:17, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
(reason for deletion)
(Adjustment: I am not the nominator of delete procedure. I´m installing this missing deletion requests page to reach a decision. ) --El-Bardo (talk) 14:56, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
- Delete Probably nominated as it is a logo (copyvio) -- Deadstar (msg) 19:25, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
- Delete It is a logo.--MARKELLOSLeave me a message 17:06, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
- Keep - {{PD-simple}} Huib talk 12:27, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
- Keep, the original request for deletion was, "uploder requested". The file is used on more than one language Wikipedia, and we do not delete files on the basis of user request, within reason. As for other !votes here, how is, "It is a logo." a valid reason for deletion? Tag the image as {{PD-textlogo}}, and close the request. –blurpeace (talk) 23:34, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Kept. No one feels like arguing out the merrits of PD-Geometic for that little F thing off to the right... and it's too close for in my book to decide... so we keep it for now until someone feels like having a proper argument ShakataGaNai ^_^ 23:51, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
(reason for deletion)
(Adjustment: I am not the nominator of delete procedure. I´m installing this missing deletion requests page to reach a decision. ) --El-Bardo (talk) 14:58, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
- Delete no source. Uploader changed tag from "no source" to "delete" probably because there is no valid license -- Deadstar (msg) 19:21, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Huib talk 18:17, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
(reason for deletion)
(Adjustment: I am not the nominator of delete procedure. I´m installing this missing deletion requests page to reach a decision. ) --El-Bardo (talk) 15:00, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
- Delete no source. Uploader changed tag from "no source" to "delete" probably because there is no valid license -- Deadstar (msg) 19:21, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Huib talk 18:17, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
(reason for deletion)
(Adjustment: I am not the nominator of delete procedure. I´m installing this missing deletion requests page to reach a decision. ) --El-Bardo (talk) 15:02, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
- Delete no source. Uploader changed tag from "no source" to "delete" probably because there is no valid license -- Deadstar (msg) 19:21, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Huib talk 18:17, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
unacceptable manipulation (building cloned into the skyline, plane pasted into the sky, who knows what else...) unsuitable for wiki use, removed from en:Spain article (see brief discussion there) as misleading and false. mixpix (talk) 06:08, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
Delete per nom --Simonxag (talk) 20:15, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Huib talk 18:17, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
(reason for deletion)
(Adjustment: I am not the nominator of delete procedure. I´m installing this missing deletion requests page to reach a decision. ) --El-Bardo (talk) 14:49, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
- Keep File is a duplicate of the (smaller) File:Sinal hardrock2.jpg. -- Deadstar (msg) 19:44, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
Kept. Smaller file deleted, bigger one kept. Yann (talk) 10:43, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
This file is not being used at all and is factually inaccurate. File:Spanish America XVIII Century (Most Expansion).png is closer to accuracy. -- 00:42, 17 August 2009 User:99.226.115.
.png){kind=link}
- (Adjustment: I am not the nominator of delete procedure. I´m installing this missing deletion requests page to reach a decision. ) --El-Bardo (talk) 14:44, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
Keep For a file that's "not being used at all" this is being used in a lot of places. --Simonxag (talk) 20:02, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Kept. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:08, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
This file is very simular to File:Spanish Empire color.png, but this one has mistakes as follows: Oregon Territory was not part of the Spanish Empire, The Louisiana Territory went into Canada in the same way as the rest of the territory existed and it did not reach as far north in Canada as it dipicts here. File:Spanish Empire color is correct! -- 23:44, 16 August 2009 User:99.226.115.81
- (Adjustment: I am not the nominator of delete procedure. I´m installing this missing deletion requests page to reach a decision. )--El-Bardo (talk) 14:46, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
Keep Used --Simonxag (talk) 20:03, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Kept. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:08, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
Redundant image of total Spanish territorial claims. Two other versions of this image exist: one with Portugese claims in GREEN and the other in YELLOW. This version is not being used! --Maps & Lucy (talk) 20:01, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
- Keep. Redundant to what? Not in use doesn't mean it should be deleted. feydey (talk) 22:15, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
- inaccurate version of File:Spanish Empire color.png which is the one being used! Maps & Lucy (talk) 19:00, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
Delete All these maps were just an attempt by User:EuroHistoryTeacher to enhance his POV, wich was refused in a huge number of discussions (namely en:Spanish Empire). Please see discussion at Commons:Deletion requests/File:SpanishEmpireanachronic.png. The Ogre (talk) 20:23, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
Close. Somehow archived a long time ago. Rocket000 (talk) 03:02, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
Linked permission only talks about source code, not about images. ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 19:13, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
- Keep Looks {{PD-shape}} to me. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:13, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
Kept. –Juliancolton | Talk 02:11, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Out of scope, just some guy Tekstman (talk) 16:15, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
- Comment Can we cut out the shot of the bicycles on the hill, I think it could be used. -- Deadstar (msg) 20:11, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
Info For what it's worth I've cropped to the cyclists only, a bit small though, but perhaps useful. --Tony Wills (talk) 11:06, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Kept - after cropping (non-admin closure). /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:19, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
autor application 07:43, 12 September 2009 User:SZOM
(Adjustment: I am not the nominator of delete procedure. I´m installing this missing deletion requests page to reach a decision. ) --El-Bardo (talk) 14:51, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
- Keep No reason given. -- Deadstar (msg) 19:41, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
- Delete Unused. No description. Can't tell if it's a sunrise, sunset, or just the sun up through a gap in the trees. Quality, whatever it is, is not awesome. --Simonxag (talk) 20:08, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
- Delete Uploader request, not in use, reason is obvious. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:18, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Nilfanion (talk) 23:51, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
Of date content -- 14:41, 19 September 2009 User:Reality006
- (Adjustment: I am not the nominator of delete procedure. I´m installing this missing deletion requests page to reach a decision. )--El-Bardo (talk) 14:30, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
- Comment Could it be used as historical data? -- Deadstar (msg) 20:01, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, I'd favor a keep with a mention of the validity date in the image description. --Eusebius (talk) 07:53, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
- Delete Very uncleae what it shows (no legend), not in use, not useful. There is also File:Turkey (Visa Coutries).png. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 01:40, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
- The following File:Türkiye vatandaşlarının tabi olduğu vize uygulamaları.svg is loaded. Did not need this anymore.--Reality006 (talk) 17:51, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Mardetanha talk 20:54, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
Does not link to any page 24.20.220.204 17:34, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
Keep This applies to an untold number of Commons images and is hardly a valid rationale for deletion. A request has been made at COM:AN to comply with the original uploader's requests re. history purges of his real name from the image logs for this and other images. --BrokenSphere 16:39, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
Keep Self-authored images do not require a source link. I fixed up the attribution based on the original en-wiki image which has the full authorship claim. Carl Lindberg (talk) 07:12, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
All of this user's contributions on en.wiki have been deleted as copyright violations. -Nard the Bard 06:54, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Missing permission from http://www.mybearterritory.com. --Eusebius (talk) 07:33, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
FOP dubious: not from public area (house or something) [[ Forrester ]] 09:10, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
- Comment I don't think that COM:FOP has anything to do with this image since its not a permanent display.--Captain-tucker (talk) 11:30, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
- I do not know more than this, might look up in a comment on the law [[ Forrester ]] 21:25, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
- Keep - It's obviously in a public place, but not a permanent installation. Forrester's link says that application of FOP for vehicles is not entirely clear, but legal opinions tend to accept it. Current Commons practise is to keep such images, if they show the vehicle as a complete vehicle, and not just a cropped out paintwork detail. --Latebird (talk) 20:48, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
based on Forresters argument and like Latebird Kept. Mbdortmund (talk) 20:16, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
I don't understand why this was kept. FOP doesn't apply, and the artwork is far from accessory. If the point is to illustrate this type of truck, it's surely not that hard to find one without copyrighted graphics. –Tryphon☂ 20:41, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
Delete I think the subject of the picture is the artwork. --Simonxag (talk) 20:12, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. DW, FOP does not apply. --Eusebius (talk) 09:58, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Content of Aliança Marcial
[edit]- User:Aliança Marcial
- File:Am2.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Am3.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
Promotional content. Serves no purpose other than to advertise the entity's business ventures. –blurpeace (talk) 21:53, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
Deleted, the userpage can be recreated anytime provided it's no longer promotional. --The Evil IP address (talk) 17:24, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
And we go into the next round:
This image is made of poor quality which can hardly be used in any article. I would suggest to delete Mens IPL1.jpg, Mens IPL2.jpg and Mens IPL3.jpg as well. All four images are blurred and wiggly. All images can partly be replaced by Haarentfernung IPL ONLYSKIN.jpg. Even these images can't be replaced in every purpose overall we have enough good images of the male genitalia and that lamp does not make it in scope if the quality is not good enough. Moreover the author of Mens IPL3.jpg and Mens IPL4.jpg is "[private person]" which makes me assume that Marc.zuhause is not the author and is furthermore maybe not allowed to publish these images under a free licence.
Even Mens IPL1.jpg, Mens IPL2.jpg and Mens IPL3.jpg are kept I would would delete Mens IPL4.jpg in every case because it's the most blurred and wiggly image of all and can easily replaced by every one of the three other images
--D-Kuru (talk) 20:53, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
Delete Poor quality --Simonxag (talk) 20:20, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Nilfanion (talk) 23:50, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
Simple enough to be ineligible? This is IMHO not a simple typeface and not a simple geometric shape. ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 19:15, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
- Ack, tough call. I can't decide. My input is useless! Kaldari (talk) 01:39, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
- 削除の意味がわかりません。ライセンスも適当なものをはめており、著作権違反など削除されるようなことはしていません。何か悪いところがあれば訂正します。できれば日本語で対応をお願いします。--Hakatanoshio117117 (talk) 09:37, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
- :S English please... Chaddy (talk) 23:42, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
Keep This logo is PD-ineligible. Chaddy (talk) 23:42, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
Kept. I'm going {{PD-text}} on this one. There's nothing remarkable about this typeface. Rocket000 (talk) 18:19, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
account renamed. Can you delete this... --II...Richard...II (talk) 13:56, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
- Should we move it instead? -- Deadstar (msg) 19:06, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
- Only my native account and some wiki are renamed... It will be done, when my commons account will be renamed....
- There is not so much things or important discussion... I think it can be removed --II...Richard...II (talk) 23:32, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
- Delete Not sure what policy says about moving talk pages etc, but from what I can see, user is/we are not losing much. -- Deadstar (msg) 07:52, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
- History of the talk page should be kept. To which account has this user name been moved? --Eusebius (talk) 07:43, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
- Agree with Eusebius. Yann (talk) 10:32, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
- Just visited that talk page in order to inform user that they have made a lot of incorrect DR's, see Special:Contributions/II...Richard...II. As long as the user is still active on Commons uner this username, the rationale for deletion based on account-renaming isn't relevant. So keep it. Finn Rindahl (talk) 21:14, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
Kept, user is still active. Kameraad Pjotr 19:43, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
wrong name and duplicate see: File:Grb-resen.png
(Adjustment: I am not the nominator of delete procedure. I´m installing this missing deletion requests page to reach a decision. )--El-Bardo (talk) 14:54, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
- Comment The two versions are not identical in colour. -- Deadstar (msg) 19:39, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
Deleted, png-version is bigger & better. Kameraad Pjotr 19:46, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
"Modern interpretation" indicates that someone interpreted this, so he will have copyright. Also "CSK has given permission to use their symbols" is very blurry, doesn't sound like a free license. ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 19:25, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
- I have created this image. It is with different lion than the original one so it can say black lion with circle around it. --Scroch (talk) 12:34, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
- I suppose that this request duplicates Commons:Deletion requests/Template:CSKA? --Спас Колев (talk) 15:59, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
- I am not sure about that. This image says "own work", yet it still uses the CSKA template. One of those two seems to be incorrect. Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 17:41, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, you are right. I'm not sure what should we do. If I understand well Scroch just draw it starting from a text description so it's not covered by the permission of CSKA (neither by their copyright). --Спас Колев (talk) 11:39, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
- If it was drawn according to a text description, then it is a derivative work of that description. The question is whether the description is old enough to be in the Public Domain. In that case, Scroch would be entitled to release this under a free license. Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 14:16, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
- It is drawn after some blurish photos from 1923 --Scroch (talk) 18:59, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
- If it was drawn according to a text description, then it is a derivative work of that description. The question is whether the description is old enough to be in the Public Domain. In that case, Scroch would be entitled to release this under a free license. Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 14:16, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, you are right. I'm not sure what should we do. If I understand well Scroch just draw it starting from a text description so it's not covered by the permission of CSKA (neither by their copyright). --Спас Колев (talk) 11:39, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
- I am not sure about that. This image says "own work", yet it still uses the CSKA template. One of those two seems to be incorrect. Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 17:41, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
Deleted, derivative work of the photos from 1923. Kameraad Pjotr 09:47, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
Template:CSKA and all images tagged with it
[edit]The template cites a "permission" which is basically a very bad example how not to do it: See bg:Потребител:Scroch/Разрешение_CSKA.BG#In_English.
- It does not mention a license.
- It does not explicitly allow for derivative works and commercial reuse.
- It does not even explicitly allow use outside of Wikipedia.
If such a permission would have been sent to OTRS, it would definitely have been rejected. Unless we get a clear statement from that site (preferably using the OTRS e-mail template), those images will have to go. -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 01:20, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
We would be able to use your materials only if you agree to permit their usage under the terms of GNU Free Documentation License. This means that everybody is given the right to use and update the information, for instance add new one. You may read the full text of the license from: http://bg.wikipedia.org/wiki/Уикипедия:GFDL (note: for the sake of simplicity, we do not use Invariant Sections, Front-Cover Texts или Back-Cover Texts).
- And after reading that they agreed to provide the images under the above license. I suggest you'd better go and do some constructive work on Commons instead of thinking how to destroy free content. --Chech Explorer (talk) 19:59, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
- After reading that they said that we can upload the images as long as we credit the source, which basically indicates, that they did not understand a word of what you told them about free licenses. As long as we don't have a clear permission saying "You can use those under the GFDL", this permission is invalid. Copyright is not a simple matter, so they need to be clear when giving permissions. If they don't give you a direct answer to your question, ask again. We have loads of e-mails in OTRS where the user asked for a free license and the copyright holder evaded the question and responded similar to this request. Often OTRS asks the copyright holder again and clarify what the free license means and the copyright holders do not agree to it. This permission is way to vague to assume with certainty that they wanted to give a free license. Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 20:20, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
- ChrisiPK, could you be that nice, from your higher position of an OTRS member, to personally contact the mentioned Alina and validate the permission. I doubt that it would take you more time or effort than those spent above. :) →Spiritia 16:16, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
- I have thought about that, but it seems the original permission has been obtained in Bulgarian, a language I do not speak. IMHO a person with Bulgarian language skills should do this, of course preferably someone who is familiar with permissions. I'm afraid we don't have native Bulgarian speakers in OTRS. Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 17:46, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
- Well, suppose that the lady knows English and give her a try. I myself would do the job if I saw a delicate way to ask, without making the respondent feel awkward or compromising my colleague's efforts to take the permission three years ago. I do respect and consider these efforts important, having in mind that in BG WP we have already sacrificed fairuse, which led to some editors (from our tiny community) quitting the project... If you do not wish to handle the case, I'd appreciate if you send me some well written template letter for these cases or simply share with me your approach.
- In the meanwhile, could you please check OTRS ticket 2008123010013848 (see User:Spiritia/Permissions/Vulko Tzenov). This is another case when the given permission was not explicitly articulated by the copyright holder in the manner you insist for, yet it obviously passed the OTRS sifter. Who was wrong then? →Spiritia 12:27, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
- E-Mail templates are on Commons:Email templates and Commons:OTRS. About the ticket you are citing: This is indeed a problematic one, especially as it does not mention a license. The copyright holder has, however, at least agree to the commercial reuser of the images for anyone and any purpose, so he will not be surprised when he sees the images e.g. on a poster. The permission we are talking about in this deletion request was given without informing the copyright holder what we would actually do with the images. We asked him for GFDL, but didn't tell him what it meant, so all the person read was "images on Wikipedia" and agreed. This is not an informed choice, such as the one made in the other ticket. BTW, it seems that you obtained that permission. Would you mind writing back to Mr Tzenov and asking him whether he agrees to a CC-by-sa license for the given images or whether he agrees to that license for all images of his works or whether he agrees to any free license (according to freedomdefined.org) for any image of his works. This situation is indeed a bit complicated, because we need the photographer and the artist to choose the same license for us to be able to use the image. Als note: Some of the images are currently licensed as PD. I am not sure whether this is okay with the sculptor as that means that he will not have to be attributed when the images are reused. Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 13:01, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
- This woman (Alina) no wonger works in PFC CSKA Sofia. I will try to contact with somebody other in the club about this issue --Scroch (talk) 15:43, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
- Chrisi, thank you for your templet answer, but none of the the samples in Commons:Email templates and en:Wikipedia:Example requests for permission qualifies for our case (reasking again and again for something already permitted). That is why I kindly asked you to share your personal approach or take the initiative from your higher position of an OTRS member. Apart of that, among your references there are email templates that are also very elusive, like en:Wikipedia:Example requests for permission#FT2's email to Transocean and en:Wikipedia:Example requests for permission#Formal request for high-quality publicity image, which state "choose gfdl OR cc-by-sa". Maybe you'd like to consider rewording them. And, yes, like Nk says below, qualifying our donors in the way you do, having in mind that they've been donating images for three years without making us any problems (afaik), doesnt show much of your good faith. :) →Spiritia 06:32, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
- Okay, here is an attempt for a letter: User_talk:Scroch#Letter_to_CSKA. Please, comment it, before Scroch sends it again. →Spiritia 10:49, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
- The letter looks good, but I still recommend to have them send the template from Commons:Email templates to OTRS. If we do get a reply to this mail, please ask them to at least CC OTRS. Thanks and regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 18:43, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
- E-Mail templates are on Commons:Email templates and Commons:OTRS. About the ticket you are citing: This is indeed a problematic one, especially as it does not mention a license. The copyright holder has, however, at least agree to the commercial reuser of the images for anyone and any purpose, so he will not be surprised when he sees the images e.g. on a poster. The permission we are talking about in this deletion request was given without informing the copyright holder what we would actually do with the images. We asked him for GFDL, but didn't tell him what it meant, so all the person read was "images on Wikipedia" and agreed. This is not an informed choice, such as the one made in the other ticket. BTW, it seems that you obtained that permission. Would you mind writing back to Mr Tzenov and asking him whether he agrees to a CC-by-sa license for the given images or whether he agrees to that license for all images of his works or whether he agrees to any free license (according to freedomdefined.org) for any image of his works. This situation is indeed a bit complicated, because we need the photographer and the artist to choose the same license for us to be able to use the image. Als note: Some of the images are currently licensed as PD. I am not sure whether this is okay with the sculptor as that means that he will not have to be attributed when the images are reused. Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 13:01, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
- I have thought about that, but it seems the original permission has been obtained in Bulgarian, a language I do not speak. IMHO a person with Bulgarian language skills should do this, of course preferably someone who is familiar with permissions. I'm afraid we don't have native Bulgarian speakers in OTRS. Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 17:46, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
- ChrisiPK, could you be that nice, from your higher position of an OTRS member, to personally contact the mentioned Alina and validate the permission. I doubt that it would take you more time or effort than those spent above. :) →Spiritia 16:16, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
- Keep because:
- The request mentions a license - GFDL.
- It explicitly says that GFDL allows for derivative works and any reuse.
- It explicitly says that GFDL allows reuse by anyone.
- It includes a link to the full text of GFDL.
- To ask someone to repeat mot à mot your request while you are asking him to relase some rights to you is impudent.
- And to say the same people that probably "they did not understand a word of what you told them" is realy uncivil.
- Thak you, Спас Колев (talk) 16:09, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
- Keep, I agree in all points that Спас Колев have mentioned.
- In the request we see that the materials should be published under GFDL and a clear link is given. To allow someone to publish your materials you will at least click on the link. And to ask that person to read it again, because probably it wasn't clear is impudent I agree.
- I see a text saying "This means that everybody is given the right to use and update the information, for instance add new one" both in english and bulgarian (language that I am native in). Respectively the answer is positive. BloodIce (talk) 10:41, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Kept, per Спас Колев. Kameraad Pjotr 19:42, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
Actual copyright holder?
[edit]
Question Can we safely assume that the site www.cska.bg is the actual copyright holder of all pictures it contains? That all individual photographers have actually released their copyrights to the website? The site doesn't seem to provide any information about the photographer of any picture. Because even if the pictures are actually released under a free license (contrary to what is written on every page of the website - "Copyright © 2001-2008, all rights reserved"), according to BG law, the authors have the moral rights to be mentioned. Using unfree media harms the "free" encyclopedia more than having less images in the articles -- which will not be the case here, if the copyright holder releases the media as free content. --5ko (talk) 14:49, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
Kept, that would be their problem. Kameraad Pjotr 19:42, 9 April 2010 (UTC)