Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2009/12/05
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
|
|
_in_Relativity_-_07_-_page_01.png){kind=link}
Has no links --94.37.191.192 01:42, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
Keep In scope. -Nard the Bard 02:41, 5 December 2009 (UTC)- Keep Certainly in Common's scope. --Leoboudv (talk) 04:55, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
- Keep Certainly in scope. No requirement for photos to have links, in or out. - Jmabel ! talk 05:19, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
Kept. Also, it is actually used in it:Grotteria. AVRS (talk) 13:17, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
There are no pages that link to this file --94.37.191.192 01:47, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
- Keep In scope. -Nard the Bard 02:41, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
- Keep Absolutely in scope. Most images on Commons have no incoming links, that's fine. - Jmabel ! talk 05:20, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
Kept. Not a reason for deletion. Even if it was one, the file is used in it:Palermo di Santa Margherita. AVRS (talk) 13:21, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
Looks like an official portrait. Probable copyright violation WikiLaurent (talk) 01:48, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
- Same image, with same uploader, was previously at File:Ma Ying-jeou 1.JPG, deleted as a copyvio. Suggest speedy close and delete. - Jmabel ! talk 05:24, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
Delete per Jmabel. Its a very professional photo. --Leoboudv (talk) 06:48, 5 December 2009 (UTC)- Delete already deleted, no proof of "own work" from previous DR --Justass (talk) 19:03, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. –Juliancolton | Talk 01:52, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Converted from a "no permission". I believe this is own work. -Nard the Bard 03:57, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
Comment: This looks like it is own work at first glance but I can't be sure as this is the uploader's only image here. --Leoboudv (talk) 04:54, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
- See his talk page, he had other images deleted as copyvios but protested they were own work. -Nard the Bard 05:52, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
- Delete Yes you're right here. Its most probably a copyright violation. It may be time to consider suspending the uploader for a while. --Leoboudv (talk) 06:54, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. –Juliancolton | Talk 01:53, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Sadly, with no freedom of panorama for buildings in France, I don't think we can host this image. Jmabel ! talk 05:18, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
- Ok. Didn't know about that ban. I should have known something similar is in effect that no good picture of the Center is in the Commons. Thanks for the note. Aliparsa (talk) 06:28, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
- Delete already deleted numerous times --Justass (talk) 19:07, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Clear FOP issue. - Jmabel ! talk 23:30, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
the photo (cover) is probably copyrighted. 78.55.251.182 07:18, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
- Delete Yes. It is a derivative image. In this case, the picture is the predominant feature and not the album. If not, it could be kept. --Leoboudv (talk) 09:00, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. MBisanz talk 07:33, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
This image came from a defunct blog site and I doubt it was free. He has uploaded a few images that were licensed as 'All Righst Reserved' in the past. (see talk page) Leoboudv (talk) 08:59, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
- Comment: One should look at the uploader's talkpage for copyvio notices. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 23:15, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. MBisanz talk 06:18, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
No FOP in France (I believe that this photo was took in France), but I don't know if it should be consider an artistic work or a dummy. Trixt (talk) 09:04, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
Delete per nom --Simonxag (talk) 23:47, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 23:47, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
Ok, made by uploader, but the logo is not under free licence Manu (talk) 09:16, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
- I've removed the logo now. --Chumwa (talk) 10:05, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, thank you. But the no-free logo is still on old version : it is the reason I already ask to delete the file, you can upload an new file without logo with another name. --Manu (talk) 12:27, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
- It is possible to delete the old version alone. --AVRS (talk) 14:26, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
- Ok. I trust you. --Manu (talk) 14:51, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
- It is possible to delete the old version alone. --AVRS (talk) 14:26, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, thank you. But the no-free logo is still on old version : it is the reason I already ask to delete the file, you can upload an new file without logo with another name. --Manu (talk) 12:27, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
- Keep delete first version, keep --Justass (talk) 19:15, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
Kept. Old versiond deleted by Fanghong (talk · contribs). Sv1xv (talk) 14:06, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
no educational purpose; questionable copyright (derivative of "This is Sparta" sign all over the web) Closeapple (talk) 09:36, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
- Delete out of scope -Justass (talk) 19:17, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. —Dferg (disputatio) 14:41, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
text JPEG with no educational purpose; was being used as a placeholder "logo" in two places, but I fixed both Closeapple (talk) 09:57, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
Delete In use but just a simple piece of text. --Simonxag (talk) 00:31, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. —Dferg (disputatio) 14:41, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Private compilation of correspondations, legal decisions, interviews, etc. In any case excluded educational content, see COM:SCOPE Avron (talk) 12:00, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
__________________________________
Deleted / Out of scope.--Fanghong (talk) 04:22, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
just a book, nothing written, useless Frédéric (talk) 17:25, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
Keep it's a picture of a historical object and form of functional art. You've nominated three such pictures, and all three are distinct elegant works of art that together demonstrate some of the range of this practice.--Prosfilaes (talk) 16:37, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
This is a typical private book cover (leather, gold imprint on book-back) from second part of 19th century - here around 1860. Needed for lists about books of German author Marie Nathusius - used in many categories. --Wistula (talk) 13:16, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
- Keep No reason to delete. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 23:05, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
This is a magazine scan sourced to a Flickr account that uploads copyright images from a variety of sources ([1]). This photo is by Jeff Riedel and was published by Harper's (source). There is no indication that Riedel or Harper's have any association with the source Flickr account. The image has been tagged to claim OTRS permission is submitted and pending, but in the absence of some plausible evidence that the Flickr account / uploader have received permission from Harper's or Riedel to use this image I suggest deletion as unverifiable, probable copyright violation. --Muchness (talk) 13:56, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
- Delete No evidence of permission. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:25, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 23:48, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
just a book, nothing to see, useless Frédéric (talk) 17:27, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
Keep it's a picture of a historical object and form of functional art. You've nominated three such pictures, and all three are distinct elegant works of art that together demonstrate some of the range of this practice.--Prosfilaes (talk) 16:37, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Pls keep, typical mid 19th century collection cover. Here: Marie Nathusius, very popular German author, ca 1860 with approx 8 novels (categorized !) --Wistula (talk) 13:47, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
- Keep No reason to delete. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 23:07, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
superseded by vector version SkyBonTalk\Contributions 14:13, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
- Keep and close ASAP: We do not delete superseded images. Furthermore this image is licensed under a copyleft license, which requires the original image to be maintained. ViperSnake151 (talk) 20:38, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
Superceded by File:$100-school-server-_NetworkView.svg. Not needed for attribution, since the SVG can be attributed directly to the OLPC project. Demmo (talk) 05:49, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
Speedy kept - per above DR, clear case - normally I would have told you after a week, but this was already mentioned in the previous DR - Jcb (talk) 10:15, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
just a book cover, useless Frédéric (talk) 20:10, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
- .. a bit boring bookcover, I agree. But is is a book by German novelist Marie Nathusius, description of her trip to Italy. Relatively rare. Might be a private cover, I don't know yet. Anyway, quite old, around 150 yrs. Need it for a list. --Wistula (talk) 00:06, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
- Keep and why not sign with you username...? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 23:11, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
This image is not public domain. Picasso is dead in 1973 ferbr1 (talk) 17:01, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
- Keep Author Juan Gris (1887 - 1927) --Justass (talk) 19:47, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
Oh, yes! I'm sorry! ferbr1 (talk) 20:28, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
- Keep Creator (Juan Gris) died in 1927, so copyright expired at the end of 1997 in the European Union (which includes artist's birthplace and work locations) and United States. Nominator seems to have withdrawn nomination. --Closeapple (talk) 10:34, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
Kept. —Dferg (disputatio) 14:45, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
This file has been tagged as missing a source, apparently as a doubt about the "own work" statement. I have removed the tag and transformed it in a regular DR because it is not obvious to me that it is not own work: small size, but EXIF present and the image doesn't seem to show in a quick search over the internet. Eusebius (talk) 17:33, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
- Delete cropped photo from Randevyn Pierre's myspace account[2], and no evidence that uploader is the same person --Justass (talk) 20:47, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
- Delete then, missing a permission. --Eusebius (talk) 09:06, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 23:48, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
No need for images with such an intrusive marking Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 20:02, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
- Delete Seems unuseable - out of scope. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 23:22, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. –Juliancolton | Talk 01:56, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
unlekely "Own work" of uploader, all other contributions of this user were copyright violations Justass (talk) 20:17, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Martin H. (talk) 08:58, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
Author Emery Bopp died in 2007 Justass (talk) 23:39, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
- Delete it is a recent painting in the USA. Teofilo (talk) 01:58, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. -- Deadstar (msg) 10:05, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Per nom. Podzemnik (talk) 14:34, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
Unused and superseded by vector version. SkyBonTalk\Contributions 12:37, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
- Comment I am not a chemist but is CH3 same as H3C as in vector image --Justass (talk) 19:43, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
- Keep Category:1,2-dichloropropane is not overpopulated; alternative representations can have uses. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:05, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
- Keep Agree with User:Pieter Kuiper. --Havang(nl) (talk) 11:55, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
Kept. I uploaded the structure in a higher resolution. --Leyo 09:04, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
Yet another poor quality photo of a penis. At least he could have not blown the highlights! Anyway, delete because we have quite enough photos of peoples penises. Inductiveload (talk) 20:17, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
- Delete We don't need more LQ penises. Herr Kriss (talk) 19:53, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
- Delete per Inductiveload and Herr Kriss --D-Kuru (talk) 14:12, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Killiondude (talk) 04:09, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
copyvio from http://www.francois-brousse.fr/ . Nobody knows the photografer. Manu (talk) 20:27, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
- Delete recent photograph (Brousse died in 1995). No permission from photographer. Teofilo (talk) 02:05, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Killiondude (talk) 04:09, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
just a boook, useless Frédéric (talk) 20:08, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
- again, yes, you are right. It is a "private edition cover", means the original cover has been or destroyed or the owner has had all his books "re-packed". It is a historical piece belonging to a series of books by Marie Nathusius and will find place in a ref listing. --Wistula (talk) 11:47, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
- Keep Ever heard of COM:MASSDEL? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 23:09, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
Probable copyright violation. Who is the copyright owner? Víctor Salazar or User:Lalolafuente? Blow up reveals that this is a scan from a print. Apparently Lalolafuente did not have access to the original. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 11:35, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
You are completely right, the original photography is from Víctor Salazar, that's why I wrote his name on the copyright, I scan the image from the book, that belongs to the Instituto Coahuilense de Cultura del Gobierno del Estado de Coahuila. Hope this is useful, and keep the image, please don't erase it. Víctor Salazar doesn't have any wiki account.
- Delete Still, you have to respect the rights of the owners. Looking at the picture it is not old enough to be in the public domain, per se. So only if the author released all rights on the book and picture, the image could apply for PD, but I doubt whether that is the case. But if so, let the author send his permission to Wikimedia, following this Commons:OTRS procedure. You said that you wrote his name on the copyright. That is not correct, you wrote it is own work, you wrote you are the author and the license statement now says I, the copyright holder of this work .... But you are not the copyrightholder, author or source of the work. It is best to look for an image that really is free to use. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 23:22, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, lacks suitable permission. Kameraad Pjotr 20:34, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
Same image has appeared on a different site months before the upload: http://saintsofneworleans.wordpress.com/2009/01/07/reggie-bush-injury-update-bush-will-be-ready-for-minicamp/. Given the incomplete source information and another upload by the same user that is clearly copyrighted, there's not enough information to assume that this image is the user's original work. --Ytoyoda (talk) 13:52, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
Deleted, copyright violation. Kameraad Pjotr 20:34, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
Unknown artist? There's a signature: "Voila-Heim" 78.55.111.4 21:05, 5 December 2009 (UTC) --78.55.111.4 21:06, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
- It's hardly an author's signature :-) It's probably a sign of the publisher of this periodical. It's sure that the author is unknown for us. But every unknown authorship can become a known authorship, when somebody discovers the author. "Unknown" is always a relative attribute. --ŠJů (talk) 23:40, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
- It might be an author signature. Voila is the magazine name, Heim is an existing surename, given that the photo might be taken in Berlin its even likely that Heim is the photographer name. --Martin H. (talk) 01:58, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, per Martin H. (lacks suitable permission). Kameraad Pjotr 20:44, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
_in_Relativity_-_07_-_page_01.png){kind=link}
_in_Relativity_-_07_-_page_01.png&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/e1/Operating_system_placement.svg/250px-Operating_system_placement.svg.png 84.183.0.46 18:18, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
- Keep What's this, deletion vandalism?!? Paradoctor (talk) 18:50, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
- Comment: could be the result of an accidental click of the Nominate for deletion button. --AVRS (talk) 22:03, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
- Delete not in scope. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:18, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
- Care to explain that? Paradoctor (talk) 22:59, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
- This looks like COM:PS#Excluded educational content to me. Now I see that this is a page from an NRL internal report. That does not really change my opinion - the other pages are similar to this one: quotes from scientific papers. Those quotes are of course fair use in the NRL report. But those quotes would often still be coprighted. Maybe de minimis, but it could also be a reason to delete this. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 23:14, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
- Care to explain that? Paradoctor (talk) 22:59, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
- "scanned copies of existing texts that are useful to other WMF projects - eg to serve as the basis of a reliable, verifiable source - are in scope": Wikisource:Scriptorium#Bibliographies.3F
- "internal": Nope. Technical, not internal.
- "the other pages are similar to this one: quotes from scientific papers": Neither. Seven entries contain quotes from Science Abstracts, the others are all Benton's work. If anyone insists that this is not de minimis, they can be censored. Paradoctor (talk) 00:00, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
- Keep a work published for use on Wikisource is fair game. The quotes are de minimis.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:31, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
- Comment de minimis: We're talking about a faithful reproduction of a PD work ☭:PDART. One might argue that single pages are like crops in that they establish a new context for de minimis content. I think the fact that the pages form a collection, and are connected by a navigation template, would say otherwise. If you do follow that line of reasoning, though, you'd have to delete the entire page set. In that case, we'd have to content ourselves with the DjVu file. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paradoctor (talk • contribs) 16:43, 20. Dec 2009 (UTC)
Kept. Nomination does not argue for deletion. –Juliancolton | Talk 14:45, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
Copyright violation. A photo seemingly made in the USA during the 1960s. Source: http://www.mprove.de/diplom/text/3.1.2_sketchpad.html says it was published in Medien – Kunst – Geschichte by Hans-Peter Schwarz on page 61, with the caption "Ivan Sutherland, Sketchpad-Programm, 1962" (though Ivan Sutherland said it wasn't him). The source article also mentions: "[Kay/Goldberg 77] Kay, Alan Curtis / Goldberg, Adele: Personal Dynamic Media. In: Computer 10(3) p. 31-41, 1977. Reprinted in [Goldberg 88 , p. 254-263]" AVRS (talk) 10:47, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
- Comment they are talking about who is the person in photo, but it's unclear who is actual author and is the license valid --Justass (talk) 19:35, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
Deleted, per Justass. Kameraad Pjotr 20:54, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
Original author has not been provided and cannot be accurately determined. Image may not be in the public domain. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.163.130.35 (talk • contribs) 16:44, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
Deleted, per nominator. Kameraad Pjotr 20:56, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Possibly_unfree_files/2009_September_26#File:SimonDubnow.jpg Magog the Ogre (talk) 16:39, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
- Keep Subject born 1860, photographer seems anonymous. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 23:15, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
- Keep Not copyvio Gwynhaden (talk) 00:04, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
Kept, very likely PD-old. Kameraad Pjotr 20:26, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
its a Fake, see also http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Kujau-archiv_de_001.jpg 90.186.70.212 20:15, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
- Delete In this case the uploader, as he told himself, fixed one of the works by Kujau into his portrait shot of Kujau which included originally another work by Kujau (admins can have a look at the original shot here). This means that this upload is a derived work of a work by Kujau for which the consent of the copyright holders (i.e. the heirs of Kujau) is apparently missing. --AFBorchert (talk) 22:41, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
- Comment Haha! /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 23:24, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
- Comment I am the uploader of this photo assemblie and I am also owner of a steadily license agreement with in the jear 2000 deceased artist Konrad Kujau to manufacture and publish photo assemblies in connection with its works and its person [Link]. I act in knowledge of the heir of Konrad Kujau. The motive I inserted into the frame is a work, which was created by Konrad Kujau [Link].--Telephil (talk) 13:12, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
- Hi Telephil, the main question is: Do you still uphold your statement that the artwork originally depicted in this photograph is by Kujau even if it has been executed in Miro's style and that this artwork was no reproduction of a work by Miro? If yes, why did you upload this image? And did you consider COM:SCOPE, i.e. how does such a fabricated photograph fit into our project? --AFBorchert (talk) 14:47, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
- Hi AFBorchert ! sorry, aber mich an dieser Stelle lediglich in Englisch rechtfertigen zu wollen, birgt für mich die Gefahr, missverstanden zu werden. Wie mir bekannt ist, sprichst Du sowohl Deutsch als auch Englisch. Ich werde mir daher erlauben zunächst in deutscher Sprache Stellung zu nehmen. Bemühe mich nachfolgend jedoch auch um eine Übersetzung. Wie's gelingt...schaun wir mal.
- Ja, ich halte dieses Statement auch weiterhin aufrecht Statement. Nach Deinem Hinweis auf COM:SCOPE muss ich allerdings ergänzen, dass mir bekannt ist, dass sich die Erben nicht der Öffentlichkeit preisgeben möchten. Es ist mir unter diesen Umständen bewusst, dass nach den Rahmenbedinungen der Commons zumindest das Bild Kujau-archiv_de_001 wieder gelöscht werden muss. Für das an dieser Stelle zu beurteilende Bild Kujau-Archiv_de_Franz_Marc ist nach meiner Ansicht zu prüfen, ob durch die von mir autorisiert vorgenommenen Änderungen ein neues Werk entstanden ist, dessen Urheberrechte alleinig bei mir liegen. Für den Fall, dass sich dies nicht bestätigen sollte, bin ich bereit das Bild Kujau_wiki als sog. Brustbild in einer höheren Auflösung hochzuladen, das in Zukunft sicherlich keine Ansätze für Diskussionen mehr bieten kann.
- Hi AFBorchert ! sorry, aber mich an dieser Stelle lediglich in Englisch rechtfertigen zu wollen, birgt für mich die Gefahr, missverstanden zu werden. Wie mir bekannt ist, sprichst Du sowohl Deutsch als auch Englisch. Ich werde mir daher erlauben zunächst in deutscher Sprache Stellung zu nehmen. Bemühe mich nachfolgend jedoch auch um eine Übersetzung. Wie's gelingt...schaun wir mal.
- Hi Telephil, the main question is: Do you still uphold your statement that the artwork originally depicted in this photograph is by Kujau even if it has been executed in Miro's style and that this artwork was no reproduction of a work by Miro? If yes, why did you upload this image? And did you consider COM:SCOPE, i.e. how does such a fabricated photograph fit into our project? --AFBorchert (talk) 14:47, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, I still uphold this statement my statement. After your reference to COM:SCOPE I have usually to complete, that I know, that the hire of Konrad Kujau will not go public. I understand, that in this case the picture Kujau-archiv_de_001 must be deleted. My meaning is, that the picture Kujau-Archiv_de_Franz_Marc has to be proved if it shows an new work which rights belong to me. In case this not confirms, I can upload a new version of the picture Kujau_wiki in a higher resolution which does not start any more discussions.
- Ich bitte von einer Benotung der Übersetzung abzusehen. Please do not grade this translation. ;-) --Telephil (talk) 10:50, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
- Hallo Theophil, vielen Dank für die weitere Stellungnahme. (Ich darf hier empfehlen, diese wirklich nur auf Deutsch abzugeben. Bei Bedarf übersetze ich gerne die Passagen, auf die es ankommt.) Zur Klärung der Rechtslage wäre prinzipiell der Weg über unser Support-Team anzuraten. Hier könnten nicht-öffentlich alle Details geklärt werden und hierüber bestünde auch für die Erben von Kujau die Gelegenheit per privater E-Mail ihr Einverständnis zu geben. Sobald dort eine uns ausreichende Erklärung vorliegt, wird nur die Existenz einer solchen dokumentiert ohne den Inhalt derselben zu veröffentlichen. Bei der zu Lebzeiten Kujaus entstandenen Fotografie erschien das Einverständnis von Kujau plausibel, da er sich und das Bild dem Fotografen präsentiert. In diesem Fall jedoch haben wir ein anderes Werk von Kujau vorliegen, wofür zunächst kein implizites Einverständnis angenommen werden kann, da das Bild nachträglich eingesetzt wurde. Die Annahme, dass hier das Urheberrecht ausschließlich bei Dir liegt, ist unzutreffend. Hier würden wir daher, ebenfalls über OTRS, das Einverständnis der Erben Kujaus benötigen. Abgesehen davon, stellt sich die Frage, inwiefern es im Rahmen unseres Projekts sinnvoll erscheint, so manipulierte Aufnahmen zu behalten. Wo liegt hier der Wert? Beim ursprünglichen Bild ist der Wert offensichtlich, hier nicht. Darauf bezog sich mein Verweis auf COM:SCOPE. Grüße, AFBorchert (talk) 12:56, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
- Ich bitte von einer Benotung der Übersetzung abzusehen. Please do not grade this translation. ;-) --Telephil (talk) 10:50, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
per AFBorchert's last statement Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 13:36, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
this graph seems intrinsically biased since it does not provide its contextual information, being exerpt from a controversial book 68.175.77.243 04:05, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
Many books, now generally accepted, were controversial when first published. Since when is this grounds for censorship, which is essentially what is proposed here? Would you have marked the theories of Galileo and Copernicus for deletion simply because their ideas were controversial at the time? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.7.120.2 (talk • contribs) 20:51, 22. Dec 2009 (UTC)
---
The graphic seems to exhibit a strong racial bias as interpreting the coloring of the map against the given scale suggests that some 80% of African inhabitants have an IQ score of less than 60.
Considering that an Intelligence Quotient score is actually a ratio of a measurement of cognitive ability against an established norm, measuring an individual's deviation from the group's average in other words, it seems highly unlikely that 80% of a group could be 40% or more below average. Instead, it suggests there's a problem with how the average is being derived, and how the deviation is being calculated.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Snertly (talk • contribs) 18:30, 28. Dec 2009 (UTC)
---
Or it could be a reason why Africa is in the state that it's in today. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.49.91.68 (talk • contribs) 05:45, 29. Dec 2009 (UTC)
---
It would be interesting to see what the mean values are for running 100m flat, 3000m and marathon per country —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.227.178.36 (talk • contribs) 23:11, 9. Jan 2010 (UTC)
---
Perhaps the skin color is inversely proportionate to 100m speed? Black people are offended by this, that doesn't make for a good justification to have it removed. Just because a book is considered "controversial" by the above commentor doesn't mean we should censor anything from it. Also, 80% of the African continent may fall in median below 60, this means that mathematically HALF of those individuals fall above or on the 60 line and the other half lie on the other. You could say 40% of all people in Africa have an IQ below 60 and the other 60% are above that.
Controversial facts are still facts. Stereotypes become stereotypes because they fit a large percentage of a given group. Stop trying to be politically correct. This is clear, nobody wants to be in Africa, and anyone who's smart gets the hell out. Would you expect any other trend? The general centers for science development are in NA, Europe, eastern Asia, and Australia. We know this based on historical precedence of invention, scientific innovation, etc, so why is this map taken as so offensive? Stop whining and shut the fuck up. If you don't like something on the internet, get off the internet.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.197.190.240 (talk • contribs) 05:38, 11. Jan 2010 (UTC)
---
An important thing to remember when flagging is: is it an opinion, or is it a factual figure? In this case, it is a factual figure. An important thing is not to deny such facts as represented in this map, but to understand why they are the way they are in the places which you are interested in, not to deny a fact and in doing so, impair all and any understanding or coming to terms with something that is or was happening. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.227.79.62 (talk • contribs) 06:47, 11. Jan 2010 (UTC)
shut the fuck up you people up there!!! The most intelligent people were in Ancient India where the Lord Buddha was born.
Today every people are all fool so stop using average IQ to boost someone arse. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.105.125.21 (talk • contribs) 01:37, 18. Jan 2010 (UTC) hi LiC!! *waves hand*
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.105.125.21 (talk • contribs) 02:38, 18. Jan 2010 (UTC)
---
I don't think a controversial figure should be removed only for being controversial. I do believe this encyclopedia should the fact it is. I haven't red the book, but I find some sense in the figure, there could be a partially coupled correlation, given by causality in both directions: A higher intelligence probably allows a better access to education and resources, which would in turn foster smarter children. That's probably not as related with genes of the population of different countries, as with the conditions on which they live. --Fdduran (talk) 00:19, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
- Keep. The picture is visual complement for the table in article and the context is present in the article. Being controversial for some people or ideologies is, AFAIK, not reason to delete information from Wikipedia. Pavel Vozenilek (talk) 08:58, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
- Keep. Facts or lies, it is an illustration for an article on the book, and gives a quick overview of something in the book (if you think such opinions must not be cited, try getting them removed from the article first). As long as it conforms to the book, non-neutrality is not a reason to delete it (see Commons:Project scope/Neutral point of view).
The description, however, should be neutral. The graph, having no contextual information but "IQ by Country" in its file name, doesn't seem to give the reader any reason to trust it, so the context needs to only be clarified by the description and the Wikipedia article (or wherever it is used).
I have changed the description to something that is, I hope, neutral enough. The file name should probably also be changed to a more detailed one.
--AVRS (talk) 13:32, 24 January 2010 (UTC), 13:45, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
per AVRS's last statement Kept. Mbdortmund (talk) 13:39, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
