Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2009/11/19
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
|
|
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
Copied from http://www.tedxdubai.com/ so clearly not the uploader's own work. -Astronaut (talk) 01:34, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
Keep I couldn't find any statement that content of website is distributed under CC-SA 1.0, but logo is {{PD-textlogo}} anyway, so change license and keep --Justass (talk) 19:12, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
Kept, relicensed as {{PD-textlogo}}. –blurpeace (talk) 18:51, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
Image mockup created by NASA to show what Ares I-X looks like; now unused and superfluous to File:Ares I-X on LC 39B.jpg, which depicts the actual craft. No real educational value present in image. — Huntster (t @ c) 05:48, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
- Keep educational value is concept model comparison with actual working rocket. Description states it's a artist concept so no misunderstanding here --Justass (talk) 19:17, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
- Keep As Justass says, it still has educational value. − Inductiveload (talk) 00:35, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
A Question: How do we know that the flickr owner Leriel owns the copyright to this old photo of Le Corbusier who died in 1965? 96.48.145.212 06:21, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
- Aint the picture a public domain in fact?--128.131.119.152 14:45, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
Delete Flickr account with photos of 4 architects and few buildings created by them --Justass (talk) 19:22, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
- Delete ~Per Justass and also because of this deletion requests that i opened and the rational that i make there.
- Also uploaded from this account were this files of architects, all by the same user:
- File:Le_Corbusier.jpg
- File:Pedro_Ramírez_Vázquez.jpg
- File:Luis_Barragán.jpg
- File:Foto_Mario_Pani.jpg Tm (talk) 20:37, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
Comment I would say delete them all. I was the nominator here but forgot to sign in. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 09:39, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
Well, I see now that the flickr user who uploaded this chooses the licence pretty much at random. But what is the policy of pictures of dead people? If there are no free images of such people, should I use a fair use images at the Wikipedia??--Lykantrop (talk) 17:24, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
- Comment Yes, its a non-free fair use image on wikipedia. --Leoboudv (talk) 20:27, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
- Comment every reasonable effort should be made to contact the administrators and reviewers who reviewed these images before deleting them. If nothing else, bringing them into this discussion will help them improve their bogus-flickr-picture detectors. Davidwr (talk) 02:25, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
- Comment: We can tell the flickrowner to change the license to ARR but they can ignore us. The important thing is to delete all the 5 photos ASAP...because every second it remains here, it infringes on the photographer or his/her estate's rights. --Leoboudv (talk) 09:24, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
I've found File:Le_Corbusier.jpg in more than twice the Flickr resolution and in better quality here (a blog) and here. That strongly suggests, Flickr is not original and likelys a copyvio.
Additional hits [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7] and here. Though I didn't find it on the website of the Le Corbusier foundation.--Túrelio (talk) 14:10, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
Target finally hit, after a half-hour research: File:Le_Corbusier.jpg is a low-quality crop of this 1965-photo by Nina Leen/Time & Life Pictures/Getty Images. The re-users of this image probably didn't get sued by Getty due to the awful bad quality in comparison to the original image. --Túrelio (talk) 14:18, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
- Comment: But this would suggest that the remaining 4 images in the DR still be deleted since the flickrowner is not the copyright owner. I leave this decision up to you. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 01:09, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
- True, but currently I don't have the time for that (the first one cost me 1/2 hour of work). As all images in this RFD seem to comne from the same Flickr account, now it would be rather justified to delete them summarily. --Túrelio (talk) 08:18, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Per nominator and Túrelio. MGA73 (talk) 18:01, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
converted by me to rfd from a speedy by uploader for "User request", as image used on two projects. --Túrelio (talk) 07:30, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
- Maybe Canadaolympic989 could explain reasons? -Justass (talk) 19:26, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
- Delete Good faith uploader request. The map is quite generic and easily replacable anyway. --Leoboudv (talk) 09:40, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
- Delete There has been more detailed maps created. This one is no longer needed. --Canadaolympic989 (talk)
__________________________________
Deleted/ Uploader reqested--Fanghong (talk) 09:03, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
Due to modification restriction, this is a non-free image. Unless I'm mistaken, images on Commons need to be completely modifiable. Rockfang (talk) 07:30, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
- I've contacted and asked the original uploader[8]. --Túrelio (talk) 07:38, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
![[8]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Twthmoses#File:UR_17_01_2004_004.jpg){kind=link}
- Keep Just change the wording of the sentence to remove the non-free section and then notify the uploader on wikipedia. If Lasse objects, only then delete the image. This is an important photo and should not be deleted, I think because of 1 phrase. Think outside the box here. --Leoboudv (talk) 09:50, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
- Comment - In this situation, I think changing the wording of the license and waiting to see if the uploader objects would be the wrong thing to do. Whether or not this image is "important" is, I think, irrelevant. We cant just go around changing licenses to suit our needs.--Rockfang (talk) 21:07, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
Delete Never freely licensed. --Simonxag (talk) 21:36, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. –Tryphon☂ 09:24, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
Due to modification restrictions placed on this image, it is non-free and should not be on Commons. Rockfang (talk) 07:43, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
Delete never freely licensed. --Simonxag (talk) 21:37, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. –Tryphon☂ 09:20, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
Almost an exact replica of File:862799750 parlamentariergruppe1.jpg which seems to be the best of the 3. --Silversmith Hewwo 08:09, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
- I agree that it's not terribly useful, but it's probably harmless. If the uploader wants to upload minor variants on the shot, is it really worth our time (and possible unnecessary offense to the uploader) to override that? - Jmabel ! talk 22:07, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
- I would argue that Commons isn't Flickr. I'm not sure if this is a personal picture or not, but surely people should be able to choose the best version of an image and upload that. I've notified the uploader of the deletion request, hopefully they can let us know how they feel. --Silversmith Hewwo 06:50, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
These pictures are the sources of [9], [10], [11], [12], [13] and possibly more. If you think it is necessary to delete them, do so. Then please also correct the source text of the portraits. Bye -- Sozi (talk) 17:38, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
![[9]](https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Datei:862799750_joh_pflug.jpg){kind=link}
![[10]](https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Datei:862799750_hp_uhl.jpg){kind=link}
![[11]](https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Datei:862798082_stinner.jpg){kind=link}
![[12]](https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Datei:Hans-Josef_Fell.jpg){kind=link}
![[13]](https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Datei:861936759_schulte_dr%C3%BCggelte.jpg){kind=link}
Kept. Multiple versions of the same thing is not a reason for deletion. The decision which of the three is the best version is very subjective. --NEURO ⇌ 18:57, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
Almost an exact replica of File:862799750 parlamentariergruppe1.jpg which seems to be the best of the 3. --Silversmith Hewwo 08:09, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
- I agree that it's not terribly useful, but it's probably harmless. If the uploader wants to upload minor variants on the shot, is it really worth our time (and possible unnecessary offense to the uploader) to override that? - Jmabel ! talk 22:07, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
These pictures are the sources of [14], [15], [16], [17], [18] and possibly more. If you think it is necessary to delete them, do so. Then please also correct the source text of the portraits. Bye -- Sozi (talk) 17:38, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
Kept. Multiple versions of the same thing is not a reason for deletion. The decision which of the three is the best version is very subjective. --NEURO ⇌ 18:57, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
derivative work --Kungfuman (talk) 08:51, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
See image talk page. The image is called and described as Fozzie Bear from The Muppets and categorized there. It looks close to the original [19] and supposed to look like that. Note the same accessories and colors (hat, scarf, nose). My prior copyvio had been reverted by the uploader. Other franchise products also don't exactly look like the original. It's also derivative work although it's made by the (original) uploader. --Kungfuman (talk) 08:51, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
- Delete per nom --Justass (talk) 19:33, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
- Doesn't really look like Fozzie the Bear. It's a generic brownish-yellow bear with a hat and tie. Keep. Thuresson (talk) 18:32, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
- It's clear that the uploader Thuresson has a different opinion. Without the same accessories (and the same colors of that) it would be OK. But it's obvious that this in combination should look like or close to Fozzie and arranged like that. Therefore the name, description and category. It's clearly derivative work and don't have to be exact looking. That would also apply to rough fan art sketches or that alike. File:Sleutelhanger Bert en Ernie.JPG also don't exactly look like the original puppets (also deletion request by another user). --Kungfuman (talk) 11:17, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
Delete per nom - character copyright. --Simonxag (talk) 21:40, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
Has been deleted by User:Polarlys: copyright violation, it depicts a copyrighted work which is not published under a free license. --NEURO ⇌ 18:59, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
Private artwork (for private teories about science and religion, it seems); not in use, not educationally useful. --Pieter Kuiper (talk) 10:00, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
- Delete unused, couldn't find anything else about "Arthur's Fifth Dimension Theory" --Justass (talk) 19:37, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
- Delete per nom --Simonxag (talk) 21:42, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. NEURO ⇌ 19:02, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Image has NC and ND restrictions on ipernity. It is not free Leoboudv (talk) 10:42, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- The author has changed the license. --ComputerHotline (talk) 17:57, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
- For me it's still tagged as by-nc-nd on source page --Justass (talk) 19:38, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
- Comment The author has it licensed with NC and ND restrictions regretabbly. If not, it could be marked with License Review as Lupo marked this ipernity photo: File:Honey kurtsik.jpg Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 20:56, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Can we be sure ComputerHotline didn't just make a mistake? Would we like to go to court with that level of certainty. A review procedure, similar to Flickr review for images sourced elsewhere on the web, would be a very good idea. --Simonxag (talk) 21:50, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted. Regrettably. --NEURO ⇌ 19:07, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
This panel might be permanently located in a public place, but it is only a derivative work (DW) of a work (the logo) which is not. Putting a DW in a public place does not make the original work free, therefore this image is also a DW of a (supposedly non-free) logo non covered by FOP. Eusebius (talk) 15:50, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
- Keep It falls under the freedom of panorama in Poland. And it's not a logo of any kind but an name of a town presented in an artistic fashion. The official webpage of gmina Łazy doesn't display this "logo", neither the official information bulettin, therefore it is rather impropable that it is a logo at all. Masur (talk) 16:19, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
- OK, why not then. --Eusebius (talk) 16:42, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
Kept. After discussion and small research. Masur (talk) 17:41, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
There is no proof for this image being from the "US Army Center for Military history". Neither a weblink nor an image-ID is stated. High Contrast (talk) 16:33, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
- Don't be silly - it takes 10 seconds to find http://www.history.army.mil/books/wwii/7-8/7-8_6.htm /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:46, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
- As silly as you are? :) --High Contrast (talk) 22:04, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
Keep I have added the link to the page. Hohum (talk) 21:44, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
Commons:Project scope#Excluded educational content; file is not in use. Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:55, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. –Tryphon☂ 09:39, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
Logo with(c) (R) in Spain --Superzerocool (talk) 18:09, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. –Tryphon☂ 09:39, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
Why is it pushed in dwarfism? Why can't we insert Lautrec instead? Pgreco8 (talk) 18:17, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
- This sounds like something you should be discussing at en:Talk:Dwarfism. It's not a reason to delete the file. --dave pape (talk) 18:20, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
- Keep No reason to delete. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:34, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
Keep Much used - no problem with image. --Simonxag (talk) 22:38, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
Doesn't seem PD-textlogo to me. Eusebius (talk) 18:44, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
Info I'm in touch with the uploader via e-mail. He may be the copyright holder and wanting to send permission. --Eusebius (talk) 21:50, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
- Added by the uploader to the image talk page: I wasn't sure what to put on this logo. It is the logo of my radio station, commissioned by us to Greg Vickers Design. The logo is legit and we want it to appear on our Wiki page. --Eusebius (talk) 21:57, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
- Should probably submit OTRS. If it was work-for-hire for his station, he owns the rights, but he should be explicitly releasing a free license, not saying it is not copyrightable. - Jmabel ! talk 22:11, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
- I have oriented him towards OTRS of course. --Eusebius (talk) 22:19, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
- Should probably submit OTRS. If it was work-for-hire for his station, he owns the rights, but he should be explicitly releasing a free license, not saying it is not copyrightable. - Jmabel ! talk 22:11, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. The uploader (and copyright owner) has contacted me via e-mail and prefers, for his logo, a fair-use upload on en.WP rather than a free license here on Commons. Eusebius (talk) 20:19, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
COM:SCOPE#Excluded educational content; in use only on a user page. Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:32, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
- Comment Uploader agreed on his talk page. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 09:30, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Podzemnik (talk) 12:35, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
This image is a copyvio of this file, first uploaded to flickr in September 23 2007 and this file was uploaded to flickr in June 15 2008. Tm (talk) 20:15, 19 November 2009 (UTC) --Tm (talk) 20:16, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
- Also the author of the first file complained on the second image page on flickr of (in spanish) two months ago of this copyvio as the file is marked originally as "All Rights Reserved" "I took this photo on 22 September 2007 ... you are violating the copyright here's proof it's better that you ask permission to use a photo for dissemination noncommercial getting into trouble ... I found it on Wikipedia (emphasis mine)". There is also a deletion request decorring about another file upload in here. So i say delete this file, and others that might be found in here sourced from this acount. Tm (talk) 20:25, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
- The same author complains that this image, taken from here is also a copyvio from his work that he links here (the image is now unavailable as it is set to private). Tm (talk) 01:53, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
- I´ve left a message on the flickr page of this file, (the first one) asking the author to open to the public, on a temporary basis, the image that is set to private, so it can be observed. Tm (talk) 03:04, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
Comment There is two other images one here atributed to the uploader (User:Susleriel), but sourced from flickr, and another one here and atributed to Flickr, both uploaded there by the same person that uploaded the file that i requested that be deleted and the other linked above. Tm (talk) 03:10, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
- Delete as per Le Corbusier 2.jpg deletion request looks like flickr user have collected images from various sources about some architects and buildings and claim copyrights over not own images --Justass (talk) 20:44, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
I Upload a new picture take by me. --Leriel (talk) 00:44, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
- English: It is funny but that user above (Susleriel) signed his text with the same name (Leriel) that the flickr user (Leriel) from were this image was uploaded to here. Also there is a image here (avaible in higher resolution than in fickr),that this user claims to be taken by him but that is also avaible on Leriel flickr stream here.So i´ve got to ask to Susleriel if his the same person as the flickr user Leriel?
- Español: Es curioso, pero que el usuario anterior (Susleriel) firmó su texto con el mismo nombre (Leriel) que el usuario de Flickr (Leriel) donde imagen se fue subido a aquí. También hay una imagen aquí (en resolución más alta que en Fickr), que este usuario afirma ser tomada por él, sino que también está sito en funcionamiento flickr stream del usuario Leriel aquí. Así que tengo que pedir a Susleriel si el es la misma persona que el usuario de Flickr Leriel?Tm (talk) 03:32, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
Has been deleted by User:Túrelio: Flickr washing: Copyright violation: http://www.flickr.com/photos/belmoniaco/1428558436/in/set-72157594583375737 is older than the Flickr account from where it was uploaded. --NEURO ⇌ 19:14, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
The given permission says cc-by-sa-2.5-es, while the source releases this image under cc-by-nc-sa-2.5-es, which is not allowed on commons. Lymantria (talk) 20:27, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
Deleted (Does not allow for commercial use and/or derivative works) by User:Túrelio -- Common Good (talk) 21:10, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
Out of scope Jarekt (talk) 20:31, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. -mattbuck (Talk) 21:40, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
Out of scope Jarekt (talk) 20:32, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. -mattbuck (Talk) 21:40, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
I contacted the uploader, Mr. Brooks and he said that he would not relicense this image for non-Commercial use as Wikimedia Commons requires. Therefore, I think it is best to delete this image so we don't infringe upon his rights over the image. Thank You Leoboudv (talk) 20:33, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
Delete failed Flickr reviews show this was never freely licensed. --Simonxag (talk) 22:44, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
Deleted as license on source (NC) incompatible to Commons. Thanks to Leoboudv for contacting the photographer. --Túrelio (talk) 22:52, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
The flickr uploader is not the photographer nor the copyright holder. Just see the TinEye results for that image, just see the comment of the flickr uploader (Maybe you have seen this already, I just did and I'm without words) saying that it was taken from somewhere else, otherwise the uploader would have seen it already at the moment he created the photograph. Maybe taken from some website like http://www.millionface.com/l/whaling-in-the-faroe-islands-shameful-act-on-the-face-of-humanity/. Martin H. (talk) 20:52, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
- You seem to be right - I, as the uploader here wasn't careful enough. Sorry. --Antissimo (talk) 20:56, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
- Delete This license cannot be verified. − Inductiveload (talk) 00:39, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
___________________________________________
Deleted / Missing original license.--Fanghong (talk) 09:23, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
The uploader listed a website as the author and source of this picture, but there is no indication that the author consented to either its use or the licensing it was tagged with. TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 21:42, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
- I am the author and source of this picture. I state on my home page "If you would like to use any photo on this website, you may provided I am the photographer, but please give credit, and if applicable, please link to my site or at least the page from which you took the image." If this image's attributions include my name, I will consent to leave it on Wikipedia. EDIT: I have changed the Author attribution to include my name. Please close the deletion request; I consent to the photo as per my quoted statement.
- SECOND EDIT: I see this issue has come up before with my site and photos. I have modified the statement on my front page to explicitly allow use by Wikipedia "so long as proper attribution is given." I do not wish to associate my material with specific licenses, but I believe that the CC 3.0 license allows for statements meaning "substantially the same". If my current statement is still not satisfactory, please contact me to discuss what I should add. Hopefully, though, this clears up any current and future misunderstandings. I will continue to be on the lookout for any of my photos that are not properly attributed.
- Withdrawing deletion request for the reasons above. I have spoken with the author, and as he posted above, he has changed his home page to be more clear about the licensing and reuse of images. To the closing admin/party: see [20] for verification of the change. Thanks. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 00:21, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
NE individual /out of scope Tekstman (talk) 21:44, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- Delete Unused personal image, not encyclopaedic, therefore out of COM:SCOPE --Inductiveload (talk) 00:31, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. –blurpeace (talk) 00:58, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
No Freedom of panorama in Ghana. Jmabel ! talk 22:02, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Institution only founded in 1952 so statue likely to be very modern. --Simonxag (talk) 22:55, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. –Tryphon☂ 10:58, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
This work was not created in Cuba, as stated on the licensing tag. Damiens.rf 01:17, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
- Although the picture was taken in China by Che's personal photographer, it was developed (i.e. created) in Cuba upon their return from the country. Thus I would disagree with your contention. Redthoreau (talk) 01:41, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
-Is it an accurate photo of Mao and Che? If it is keep it. Who cares where it was created? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Luke1025 (talk • contribs) 14 October 2009 (UTC)
- dont delete it.. i dont see anything bad in it — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.15.206.12 (talk • contribs) 04:50, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
-Keep it — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.98.130.210 (talk • contribs) 00:23, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
- Hello new users and IP addresses! Please sign your entries and please give reasons (this is not a vote). The place of creation is relevant to determine whether the image is free or not. Commons only accepts free images. Hence the caring. —LX (talk, contribs) 00:32, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
Delete The artist did their creative work and affixed their artwork in a physical medium in China. The author's copyright stems from that point. If the first publication was in Cuba, that might be used to argue that Chinese copyright didn't count: I don't know, you'll have to ask a lawyer. --Simonxag (talk) 23:07, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
You should never delete this photo... It is an important segment of Modern History.
Deleted. No indication that Cuban law applies. –Tryphon☂ 10:14, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
NE individual /out of scope Tekstman (talk) 21:55, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
- Delete Unused personal image, not encyclopaedic, therfore out of COM:SCOPE --Inductiveload (talk) 00:31, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
- Comment I dunno. I can't think of a use, but I don't want to say flat out that it is out of scope. Needs a rename though, if it gets kept. --ShakataGaNai ^_^ 03:24, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
- Keep, though it may be unused, it illustrates the attire, and events of a party. It has a realistic educational use. –blurpeace (talk) 03:36, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
- Nice pic Keep 78.55.107.61 16:52, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 14:26, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
File is redundant and not used anywhere. Replaced by better vector version. SkyBonTalk\Contributions 17:40, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
Deleted, replaced with an SVG & not used. Kameraad Pjotr 20:25, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
Completely redundant SkyBonTalk\Contributions 17:45, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
Deleted, replaced with an SVG & not used. Kameraad Pjotr 20:27, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
Clearly redundant. Superseded and not used anywhere. SkyBonTalk\Contributions 19:37, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
Deleted, replaced with an SVG & not used. Kameraad Pjotr 20:28, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
Clearly redundant. SkyBonTalk\Contributions 19:45, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
Deleted, replaced with an SVG & not used. Kameraad Pjotr 20:31, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
Clearly redundant. SkyBonTalk\Contributions 19:58, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
Deleted, replaced by an SVG-version & not used. Kameraad Pjotr 20:22, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
The source is incorrect, therefore the license cannot be verified Lymantria (talk) 20:39, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
- + source, moddify the license. Carlosblh
Delete Source gives a free license for another image, but none for that one. --Simonxag (talk) 22:51, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
Deleted, lacks suitable permission. Kameraad Pjotr 20:18, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
PostModern ist ein privater Briefdienst aus Sachsen - Briefmarken von einem privaten Briefdienst fallen sicher nicht unter § 5 Abs. 1 UrhG für Briefmarken sondern nur Briefmarken die durch die Post im Namen des Finanzministeriums herausgegeben werden. Martin H. (talk) 21:33, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
- Delete - Jmabel ! talk 22:14, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
Deleted, per Martin H. Kameraad Pjotr 20:16, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
RAF picture taken by the U.S. Navy - the image is missing a correct and reliable source. Might be ok under crown copyright. Also File:RAF picture after bombing Ilgenkampfbahn Dresden 2.jpg, File:RAF picture after bombing Ilgenkampfbahn Dresden 1.jpg. The license templates are randomly selected and not fitting the file name. @Uploader: Do not select random license templates, select the correct ones according to Commons:Licensing. --Martin H. (talk) 22:13, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
- I only found http://www.spiegel.de/politik/deutschland/0,1518,grossbild-434418-341523,00.html, maybe someone knows the meaning of the record number at the top? --Martin H. (talk) 22:41, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
- Look at the credits at the bottom of image - TARA stands for Scotland's national collection of aerial photography, in particular it's worldwide images section [21] --Justass (talk) 23:30, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
Delete No usable source to establish these are PD. If they could be established as the work of the RAF (which is not part of the US government, though some might think otherwise) they would be crown copyright which only lasts 50 years and so PD. --Simonxag (talk) 23:00, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
- Keep with {{PD-UKGov}}; the No. 540 Squadron belonged to the Royal Air Force. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:51, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
Kept, per Pieter Kuiper. Kameraad Pjotr 20:14, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
Superseeded and not used anywhere. SkyBonTalk\Contributions 20:28, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
- Keep. Not used anymore because you removed it from all the articles. I still think the maps are different enough to justify keeping both, and we should let the possibility for the various projects to revert your actions if they're unsatisfied with the new map. –Tryphon☂ 15:16, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
- Note: still no one has reverted my actions. Everyone except, perhaps, you seems to be satisfied with the SVG map. SkyBonTalk\Contributions 17:11, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
Kept, should a project want an PNG-version, it's available. Kameraad Pjotr 20:32, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
Appears to be a derivative work, with scanned/photoshoped elements put together by the uploader. As such, it doesn't qualify as own work. –Tryphon☂ 11:08, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
File:Escudo de alberca de las torres.jpg (same uploader) seems to be scanned too. –Tryphon☂ 11:13, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
Soy el autor del archivo: Escudo Dávalos.jpg, y he de decirles que lo he confeccionado siguiendo la descripción del mismo que hace el Licenciado Francisco Cascales, fallecido hace más de 100 años, en su obra "Discursos históricos del reino de Murcia". En cualquier caso sí que me gustaría que este archivo fuera eliminado, ya que he subido otro (Escudo Dávalos(gules)), que es un duplicado de éste, pero está mejor explicado. --FdeAvalos (talk) 09:24, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
Both deleted, files are a DW of different works. Kameraad Pjotr 18:58, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
