Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2010/01/11
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
|
|
It's just spam as you can see in the text! ← Körnerbrötchen » ✉ 17:43, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
- Reserved
Keep (non-admin); if the copyright status is ok, and even if the picture is low resolution, it's still notable in that all the other female breasts here seem to have tiny tiny areolas, so this would do nicely to widen the range for the sake of educativeness. Pitke (talk) 10:29, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
Kept. –Juliancolton | Talk 01:09, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
cambio de imagen --186.42.6.104 05:05, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Julo (talk) 13:03, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
nonsense image ■ MMXX talk 05:56, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. –Juliancolton | Talk 01:10, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
nonsense image ■ MMXX talk 05:59, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. –Juliancolton | Talk 01:10, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
Copy Vio. I'm unfortunately unable to find the direct link, but it's from news agency Review Star (http://web.reviewstar.net). SKS2K6 (talk) 07:23, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Julo (talk) 13:10, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
Raster graphic in a JPEG file, we already have a PNG file and SVG file of this flag. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 06:44, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
- It is not reason to delete. Somebody would prefer JPEG's. Keep. Julo (talk) 13:05, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
- The rule of thumb I was always told that JPEG should be used for actual photographs, PNG and SVG for stuff like this and GIF for animated images. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 18:50, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
Done deleted as duplicate. Michelet-密是力 (talk) 08:04, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
Deleted by Micheletb (talk · contribs). –blurpeace (talk) 09:55, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
unused personal fotograph of bad quality --Amada44 (talk) 08:18, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Julo (talk) 13:07, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
unused self promotion --Amada44 (talk) 08:40, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
Delete per nom. ■ MMXX talk 23:09, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. –Juliancolton | Talk 01:10, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
unused personal picture of bad quality --Amada44 (talk) 08:41, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Julo (talk) 13:07, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
Copyright violation of art(No freedom of panorama).
- Artist:Tarō Okamoto(1911-1996).
- Place:Suita, Osaka,Japan.
- Note:Freedom_of_panorama#Japan--KENPEI (talk) 10:31, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Violates FOP. --Vantey (talk) 16:41, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. No freedom of panorama in the source country. Joku Janne(Fi) (Wikiwiki) 13:26, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
I doubt own work. Looks more like a scan out of a magazine. High Contrast (talk) 18:05, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
- Delete I am not sure what is it, a magazine scan or movie cover, anyway doesn't look free image too me, (Description is about this TV series) ■ MMXX talk 23:06, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Copyright violation; obviously not own work. Joku Janne(Fi) (Wikiwiki) 13:28, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
I put this picture into Wikimedia Commons some time ago, I have all right to this picture and I don't want it to be avaible for all users. --Piotr Kononowicz (talk) 19:32, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
- Free licensing is irrevokable! You are not free to change your mind today, next month or next ten years. Keep Julo (talk) 13:26, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
- Keep In use. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:10, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
This is my picture. My grandfather made it and I don't agree it to be here! Throw it away!!! Piotr Kononowicz (talk) 12:12, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
Kept. Free licenses are in general irrevocable, so per Commons' policy the photograph will be kept in Commons. Be more careful next time. --Joku Janne(Fi) (Wikiwiki) 13:42, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
I put this picture into Wikimedia Commons some time ago, I have all right to this picture and I don't want it to be avaible for all users. --Piotr Kononowicz (talk) 19:37, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
- Free licensing is irrevokable! You are not free to change your mind today, next month or next ten years. Keep Julo (talk) 13:27, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
- Keep In use. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:10, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
I can change my mind whenether I want. These are my pictures and everyone is using them!!! Throw them away from Wikipedia!!! I was so studid. Why I put them here? I regret it so much. I would never do that again. I don't give any permission for these pictures to be here. Did you here me? Piotr Kononowicz (talk) 12:07, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
Kept. Free licenses are in general irrevocable, so per Commons' policy the photograph will be kept in Commons. Be more careful next time. --Joku Janne(Fi) (Wikiwiki) 13:43, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
I put this picture into Wikimedia Commons some time ago, I have all right to this picture and I don't want it to be avaible for all users. --Piotr Kononowicz (talk) 19:39, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
- Free licensing is irrevokable! You are not free to change your mind today, next month or next ten years. Keep Julo (talk) 13:27, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
I don't give any permission for these pictures to be here. Piotr Kononowicz (talk) 12:10, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
Kept. Free licenses are in general irrevocable, so per Commons' policy the photograph will be kept in Commons. Be more careful next time. --Joku Janne(Fi) (Wikiwiki) 13:43, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
I put this picture into Wikimedia Commons some time ago, I have all right to this picture and I don't want it to be avaible for all users. --Piotr Kononowicz (talk) 19:41, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
- Free licensing is irrevokable! You are not free to change your mind today, next month or next ten years. Keep Julo (talk) 13:28, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
Throw it away now!!! I don't give any permission for these pictures to be here. Piotr Kononowicz (talk) 12:10, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
Kept. Free licenses are in general irrevocable, so per Commons' policy the photograph will be kept in Commons. Be more careful next time. --Joku Janne(Fi) (Wikiwiki) 13:44, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
I put this picture into Wikimedia Commons some time ago, I have all right to this picture and I don't want it to be avaible for all users. --Piotr Kononowicz (talk) 19:42, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
- Free licensing is irrevokable! You are not free to change your mind today, next month or next ten years. Keep Julo (talk) 13:27, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
- Keep In use. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:08, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
This is my picture. I own it. I don't agree this picture to be here! Piotr Kononowicz (talk) 12:13, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
Kept. Free licenses are in general irrevocable, so per Commons' policy the photograph will be kept in Commons. Be more careful next time. --Joku Janne(Fi) (Wikiwiki) 13:44, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
Out of project scope. Advertisement. ALE! ¿…? 20:42, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. ■ MMXX talk 22:55, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. –blurpeace (talk) 10:02, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
no evidence it's actualy public domain Secretlondon (talk) 20:58, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
- Delete IMO it should been marked "no source" since April 2007. ■ MMXX talk 22:54, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. –blurpeace (talk) 10:03, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
advertisement, source: www.theschooluniformwarehouse.com ■ MMXX talk 21:13, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Spam. --Joku Janne(Fi) (Wikiwiki) 13:31, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
No source, advertising ■ MMXX talk 21:18, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Copyright violation, if uploaded for informative purposes. Spam, if uploaded by a company. --Joku Janne(Fi) (Wikiwiki) 13:49, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
Not released under a free license. This is what the terms of use say: "He/She is entitled to reproduce the products for the own personal use. However, he/she is not entitled to make products available online via Internet, whether for consideration or free of charge.". J.smith (talk) 21:36, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. ■ MMXX talk 22:48, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Only personal use allowed. Joku Janne(Fi) (Wikiwiki) 13:50, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
i don't want it Gludwiczak (talk) 19:27, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
- Delete per uploader request. (not used) ■ MMXX talk 05:59, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Julo (talk) 13:19, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
Own work by NikolajUralsk (it:wikipedia) is surely not the case. The image appears on several other websites [1], [2], [3], [4] - in higher resolutions, too. On Lenta.Ru, a reliable Moscow-based news website in Russian language, the image is stated with a source to the Strategic Rocket Forces of Russia (Ракетные войска стратегического назначения России; in short РВСН). That is inherently appropriate because this vehicle exists only in small numbers and was not shown to the public, like on any military parade in Russia. So, a possible photographer of this vehicle can only be somebody attached to the Strategic Rocket Forces of Russia. High Contrast (talk) 23:18, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. ■ MMXX talk 06:02, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
- Speedy Delete as per nom., despite uploader's explicity statement on it.wiki upload (Io (NikolajUralsk (talk)) ho creato e caricato il file, that is: "I, NikolajUralsk, created and uploaded the file"). I notified this RFD on uploader's it.wiki talk page.--Trixt (talk) 18:23, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Copyright violation; obviously not uploader's own work. --Joku Janne(Fi) (Wikiwiki) 13:35, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
Derivative work High Contrast (talk) 23:20, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Derivative work of copyrighted non-free poster. --Joku Janne(Fi) (Wikiwiki) 13:33, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
Deprecated and orphaned template. Should be replaced with a template that does categorisation to Unidentified<species> automatically.. --Sfan00 IMG (talk) 00:51, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. The Evil IP address (talk) 13:17, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
It's not a work of art as per the licensing. Most likely from the show/network's promotional page. SKS2K6 (talk) 06:35, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Uploader is obviously not the author of the picture, according to the source and author information on the description page. Yellowcard (talk) 21:18, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Pruneautalk 13:21, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
An obvious copyright violation. A low-res photo of the person that died in 1990 claimed to be made by a 18-year old user. Tin eye finds a number of this photo on websites, in collections like this. Uploader can not even specify the date and place. --Beaumain (talk) 09:00, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Typical copyvio. Yellowcard (talk) 21:23, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
Delete--Ex13 (talk) 17:12, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
per nom Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 12:19, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
"all rights reserved" in the source, who is linked: http://www.flickr.com/photos/42680026@N08/4132858839/ Ralf Roletschek (talk) 19:02, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
Comment: I raised a similar question on Commons:Deletion requests/File:Ivo Josipović, Hypo centar.jpg, the difference there was that the high res image from flickr was uploaded with the license information of http://josipovic.net/fotoalbum/ which is clearly not possible. However, I replaced the All rights reserved image from the non-free flickr source with the 500px version from the free website. But still some doubt: The website is licensed under CC, can this license apply to embeded content? If I create my own website I can license it under CC but this will clearly not apply to e.g. videos embeded from Youtube. I dont think it matters that the flickr account and the website is operated by the same person or organization, the website hotlinks non-free content, the license can not apply. --Martin H. (talk) 19:25, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
- I downloaded this image from josipovic.net, not from flickr and it says at the bottom of his website that it is protected by the CC 3.0 copyright, so I don't see what the problem is.--> --Whoami1999 (talk)
- Oh dear.. The website is protected under the CC 3.0, but not the picture itself. Chaddy (talk) 14:17, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
- Keep -- I think that the fact that the flickr account and the website are owned by the same person does make the difference. In effect, the act of embedding an item to show it into a webpage is actually an act of publication of that item on that website, just as if the item were hosted there or posted there by any other means. If the publisher is the copyright owner (or owns all the necessary legal rights) of the picture, this publication is legally valid. And, in the absence of any restrictive mentions, it is is covered by the conditions explicitely attributed to that website. (Of course, if the publisher were a different person from the copyright holder, he couldn't do that without clearing the rights. Also, if there were only a cold link to another site from the same owner, that would not be an act of publication of the target picture as such.) -- Asclepias (talk) 20:50, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
- Keep the website is under CC 3.0 licence--Ex13 (talk) 17:09, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
- The website but not the picture itself. This is a big difference! Chaddy (talk) 14:14, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. The images are transcluded from flickr only, read "Powered by the Flickr Photo Album plugin for WordPress." in the website gallery pages. Raymond 15:38, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
Copyrighted Matthew hk (talk) 14:38, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
- The file is stolen from the official web site of the football club. It is hard to find a link because the squad list is under maintenance, bur for sure it is Budjanskij work not the wikipedia user. Matthew hk (talk) 14:42, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
- The Italian uploader had banned from wikipedia. Matthew hk (talk) 14:45, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, copyright violation. Kameraad Pjotr 19:26, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
User has a history of uploading copyrighted images found on forums, and this one is no exception. Appears to be a network promotional release. SKS2K6 (talk) 06:35, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
- Or a Korean concert photo (Kara is a all Korean girl group). User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 06:58, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Due to the uploader's former uploads we need a permission via OTRS in the case he would really be the photographer. Yellowcard (talk) 21:20, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, copyright violation. Kameraad Pjotr 18:57, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
Low quality scan of a low quality drawing; cannot imagine educative use. [As a note the user has a load of similar if more advanced pictures uploaded, and seems to keep a personal gallery here in Commons.] --Pitke (talk) 08:40, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
- Sorry.I didn't think that they were bad drawings when I uploaded them. My apologies. Vicond (talk) 20:57, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
- They're not necessarily "bad", just personal little sketches which do not seem to have much general use beyond you displaying selections from your portfolio. Anyway, you're at least doing better than User:Labiv, who is also uploading personal sketches, except that his are unintelligible (or possibly diplay signs of mental problems)... AnonMoos (talk) 01:00, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
- {{vk} I see no rational reason to delete it. Not so bad after all. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 17:23, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
Kept, per TwoWings. Kameraad Pjotr 19:10, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
For copyright reasons, some Scout logos should not be at Commons. Ones used for Scouting WikiProjects, defunct Scout logos and Ukrainian Scout logos are free use, most others should be deleted from Commons. the en:Scouting WikiProject would like to copy the files to en:wiki before they are deleted. This image has been successfully copied. --Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 09:11, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
- Keep. No valid reason for deletion given. --Jergen (talk) 09:04, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
- Copyrighted, non-free, improperly uploaded on Commons by a great graphic artist who was not concerned with copyright and who does not hold the copyright. Which reason is invalid? --Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 13:49, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
- Date of publication in present form 1947, owned by WOSM --Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 13:55, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
- Copyrighted, non-free, improperly uploaded on Commons by a great graphic artist who was not concerned with copyright and who does not hold the copyright. Which reason is invalid? --Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 13:49, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, still protected by copyright in source coutnry (France). Kameraad Pjotr 19:12, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
Picture is a duplicate with higher resulution but much much worse compression of this file: File:DirkvdM_harvested_coffee.jpg --Amada44 (talk) 09:24, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
Kept, see no 'worse' compression, file is in use. Kameraad Pjotr 19:15, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
repeat of original 98.203.253.246 21:12, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
- What original? Liftarn (talk) 22:47, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
- Delete I guess the IP is talking about the original nomination. I agree. This is a higher resolution than File:DirkvdM harvested coffee.jpg, but it was upscaled, leading to worse quality, making this image useless. Jujutacular talk 06:54, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
Kept. - in use, also author states that this is the original - Jcb (talk) 22:25, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
Derivative work of an image of the new Aktau Airport High Contrast (talk) 09:38, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
- It is already two moths since nomination for deletion, no other voices for it. I took this picture on the fence of Aktau Airport, it is not scanned from a magazine or from a website. Ds02006 (talk) 17:23, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, no FOP. Kameraad Pjotr 19:17, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
Derivative work of an image of the new Aktau Airport High Contrast (talk) 09:38, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
- It is already two moths since nomination for deletion, no other voices for it. I took this picture on the fence of Aktau Airport, it is not scanned from a magazine or from a website. Ds02006 (talk) 17:24, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, no FOP. Kameraad Pjotr 19:18, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
COM:DW, no FOP. See COM:FOP#Italy. sугсго 09:49, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, no FOP. Kameraad Pjotr 19:19, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
COM:DW, no FOP. See COM:FOP#Italy. sугсго 09:49, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Anything copyrighted here seems de minimis. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 23:51, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, no FOP. Kameraad Pjotr 19:20, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
COM:DW, no FOP. See COM:FOP#Italy. sугсго 09:50, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
Non so scrivere in inglese, per cui mi dovete scusare (je ne sais pas écrire en anglais, donc je m'excuse). Sono l'autore della foto e delle altre che ho caricate questa mattina (je suis l'auteur de la photo, et des autres que j'ai chargées ce matin): non capisco il motivo della proposta di cancellazione (je ne comprends pas le motif de cette proposition d'effacement de la photo [!?]). --Croberto68 (talk) 10:11, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
- P.S. La legislazione italiana sul copyright riguarda le opere d'arte (la législation italienne du copyright concerne l'oeuvres artistiques). La chiesa in questione è un'opera d'arte ? (l'église de la photo c'est une oeuvre artistique?)
- Keep Anything copyrighted here seems de minimis. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 23:52, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
- Comment: This seems to be only a part of the church. While the altar is important, de minimis may apply although a copyright expert like Admin Lupo should be asked to be sure if it can be kept...or deleted I think. --Leoboudv (talk) 04:44, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
- Neither the altar, nor the windows are de minimis. sугсго 06:52, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, no FOP. Kameraad Pjotr 19:21, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
No source or permission for a free use of the map given. The map seems not be own work of the uploader. High Contrast (talk) 09:52, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
- Copyvio of background map; Original Research foreground. Delete Julo (talk) 13:01, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, lacks suitable permission. Kameraad Pjotr 19:22, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
No source or permission for a free use of the map given. The map seems not be own work of the uploader. High Contrast (talk) 09:52, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
- Copyvio of background map; Original Research foreground. Delete Julo (talk) 13:02, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, lacks suitable permission. Kameraad Pjotr 19:24, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
Unclear copyright status: valid information of the map is missing. High Contrast (talk) 10:26, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
- Delete No source. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 00:10, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, lacks suitable permission. Kameraad Pjotr 19:27, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
Komme mit dem Programm nicht zurecht. Bitte alles von mir löschen.Danke Labormikro (talk) 11:04, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, uploader request, file is not in use. Kameraad Pjotr 19:28, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
For copyright reasons, some Scout logos should not be at Commons. Ones used for Scouting WikiProjects, defunct Scout logos and Ukrainian Scout logos are free use, most others should be deleted from Commons. the en:Scouting WikiProject would like to copy the files to en:wiki before they are deleted. This image has been successfully copied. --Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 11:53, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
- Keep. No valid reason for deletion given. --Jergen (talk) 09:04, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
- Copyrighted, non-free, improperly uploaded by well-intentioned uploader who does not hold the copyright. Which reason is invalid? --Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 13:49, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
- Date of publication in present form 1998 --Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 13:54, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
- Copyrighted, non-free, improperly uploaded by well-intentioned uploader who does not hold the copyright. Which reason is invalid? --Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 13:49, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, image still protected by copyright. Kameraad Pjotr 19:29, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
For copyright reasons, some Scout logos should not be at Commons. Ones used for Scouting WikiProjects, defunct Scout logos and Ukrainian Scout logos are free use, most others should be deleted from Commons. the en:Scouting WikiProject would like to copy the files to en:wiki before they are deleted. This image has been successfully copied. --Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 12:00, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
- Keep. No valid reason for deletion given. --Jergen (talk) 09:03, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
- Copyrighted, non-free, improperly uploaded on Commons by a great graphic artist who was not concerned with copyright and who does not hold the copyright. Which reason is invalid? --Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 13:49, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
- Date of publication in present form 1968 --Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 13:54, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
- Copyrighted, non-free, improperly uploaded on Commons by a great graphic artist who was not concerned with copyright and who does not hold the copyright. Which reason is invalid? --Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 13:49, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, image still protected by copyright. Kameraad Pjotr 19:30, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
For copyright reasons, some Scout logos should not be at Commons. Ones used for Scouting WikiProjects, defunct Scout logos and Ukrainian Scout logos are free use, most others should be deleted from Commons. the en:Scouting WikiProject would like to copy the files to en:wiki before they are deleted. This image has been successfully copied. --Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 12:12, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
- Keep. No valid reason for deletion given. --Jergen (talk) 09:03, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
- Copyrighted, non-free, improperly uploaded by well-intentioned uploader who does not hold the copyright. Which reason is invalid? --Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 13:48, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
- Date of publication in present form 1970 --Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 13:54, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
- Copyrighted, non-free, improperly uploaded by well-intentioned uploader who does not hold the copyright. Which reason is invalid? --Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 13:48, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, image still protected by copyright. Kameraad Pjotr 19:31, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
For copyright reasons, some Scout logos should not be at Commons. Ones used for Scouting WikiProjects, defunct Scout logos and Ukrainian Scout logos are free use, most others should be deleted from Commons. the en:Scouting WikiProject would like to copy the files to en:wiki before they are deleted. This image has been successfully copied. --Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 12:17, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
- Keep. No valid reason for deletion given. --Jergen (talk) 09:03, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
- Copyrighted, non-free, improperly uploaded by well-intentioned uploader who does not hold the copyright. Which reason is invalid? --Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 13:48, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
- Date of publication in present form 1963 --Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 13:53, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
- Copyrighted, non-free, improperly uploaded by well-intentioned uploader who does not hold the copyright. Which reason is invalid? --Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 13:48, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, image still protected by copyright. Kameraad Pjotr 19:33, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
For copyright reasons, some Scout logos should not be at Commons. Ones used for Scouting WikiProjects, defunct Scout logos and Ukrainian Scout logos are free use, most others should be deleted from Commons. the en:Scouting WikiProject would like to copy the files to en:wiki before they are deleted. This image has been successfully copied. --Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 12:28, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
- Keep. No valid reason for deletion given. --Jergen (talk) 09:02, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
- Copyrighted, non-free, improperly uploaded by well-intentioned uploader who does not hold the copyright. Which reason is invalid? --Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 13:47, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
- Date of publication in present form 1995 --Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 13:53, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
- Copyrighted, non-free, improperly uploaded by well-intentioned uploader who does not hold the copyright. Which reason is invalid? --Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 13:47, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, image sstill protected by copyright. Kameraad Pjotr 19:34, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
For copyright reasons, some Scout logos should not be at Commons. Ones used for Scouting WikiProjects, defunct Scout logos and Ukrainian Scout logos are free use, most others should be deleted from Commons. the en:Scouting WikiProject would like to copy the files to en:wiki before they are deleted. This image has been successfully copied. --Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 12:40, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
- Keep: No valid reason for deletion given. --Jergen (talk) 08:53, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
- Copyrighted, non-free, improperly uploaded by well-intentioned uploader who does not hold the copyright. Which reason is invalid? Where is the evidence that the uploader holds the copyright to an 80 year old logo? --Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 09:09, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
- Date of publication in present form 1931 --Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 13:55, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
- Copyrighted, non-free, improperly uploaded by well-intentioned uploader who does not hold the copyright. Which reason is invalid? Where is the evidence that the uploader holds the copyright to an 80 year old logo? --Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 09:09, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, derivative work of a copyrighted image. Kameraad Pjotr 19:35, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
For copyright reasons, some Scout logos should not be at Commons. Ones used for Scouting WikiProjects, defunct Scout logos and Ukrainian Scout logos are free use, most others should be deleted from Commons. the en:Scouting WikiProject would like to copy the files to en:wiki before they are deleted. This image has been successfully copied. --Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 12:47, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
- Keep. No valid reason for deletion given. --Jergen (talk) 09:01, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
- Copyrighted, non-free, improperly uploaded on Commons by a great graphic artist who was not concerned with copyright and who does not hold the copyright. Which reason is invalid? --Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 13:51, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
- When was the image first published? --Gadget850 (talk) 13:16, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
- 1992. --Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 16:11, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
- Then it is still copyrighted, thus non-free. Jergen was right in that your original reasoning was invalid. We need to determine the copyright status of each image, and the date of publication is important. --Gadget850 (talk) 16:26, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
- What is invalid? You said "Then it is still copyrighted, thus non-free." I said "For copyright reasons..." How would you say it? --Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 16:54, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, image is still protected by copyright. Kameraad Pjotr 19:36, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
It's my own work, and can't be accepted at Wikipedia. Conty (talk) 13:10, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, uploader request, file is not in use. Kameraad Pjotr 19:37, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
It think I got the size of the Eotriceratops wrong. Conty (talk) 13:12, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, uploader request, file is not in use. Kameraad Pjotr 19:38, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
The genus does not exist i real, and shall be deleted. Conty (talk) 13:14, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, uploader request, file is not in use. Kameraad Pjotr 19:38, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
Quinceratops does not exist in real. Conty (talk) 13:15, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, uploader request, file is not in use. Kameraad Pjotr 19:39, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
Invalid source is just a link back to en.wiki Damiens.rf 14:11, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
- Original source was http://www.futbolfactory.futbolweb.net/historicos/images/schiavio.jpg (now a dead link). Note that this image was used on the cover of "Cosmos" in March 1935 (see here). What the original image date is, and whether this image are questions I leave to those more knowledgeable. - Peripitus (talk) 06:30, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, lacks author/first date of publication; not PD. Kameraad Pjotr 08:35, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
see the claim on File talk:Altels_Balmhorn.jpg. If it's correct, the file should be deleted. The same image was (re-?)uploaded yesterday to flickr. -- User:Docu at 15:58, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
- Foto can stay in wiki, as long as it gives the correct author: rojosuiza — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.168.106.116 (talk • contribs) 12:41, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, lacks suitable permission. Kameraad Pjotr 08:41, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
1.It is fake, it doesnt reflect the truth. For example, Transylvania already had a lot of Hungarian settlemets. Seethis image, which is referenced with a book from the Columbia University Press (Bóna, István; Translation by Péter Szaffkó (2001). The Settlement of Transylvania in the 10th and 11th Centuries. Columbia University Press, New York,. ISBN 0-88033-479-7. http://mek.niif.hu/03400/03407/html/54.html.) in article Transylvania. 2) This map is not neutral, it reflects serb nacionalist POV. The used source for this map was written by "historian" Jovan Pejin, who is a serb nacionalist, also the member of the Serbian People's Movement. He is famous over his anti-Croatian and anti-Hungarian statements. (like: "Croatians do not exist as a nation", January 25, 2004, "accused Hungarians, Slovaks and Romanians of "occupying" Serbian territory in Vojvodina since the 10th Century", and anti minority books like "Autonomija Vojvodine" -- Košmar srpskog naroda/Autonomy of Vojvodina- Nightmare of the Serbian people. Currently, he is having a trial for this. (initiated by minister Jovan Branislav Lečić) It has 0 reliable, neutral,verifiable sources. --ЛенинВладимир (talk) 22:05, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
- It is sourced work based on the book of historian Jovan Pejin and Wiki projects are here to present all valid opinions about various subjects. Other historians might have different opinion about that subject and nobody stopping you to draw a map that will reflect such opinions, but opinion of historian Pejin is a valid opinion as well. Also note that image "MagyarsInTransylvania.PNG" that you presented is completelly unsourced (I do not see where you found info that such map is "referenced with a book from the Columbia University Press"?) and also uploaded by known Hungarian nationalist user:Fz22. But, even so, these two maps do not contradict one to another since Pejin did not showed areas were Hungarians lived but only areas where Hungarians were in majority (which does not mean that they did not lived as a minority among Slavs as well). Here you can see also another map uploaded by another Hungarian user, which also show that Slavs lived in the entire territory where Pejin presented them: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Hungary_b._10th_century.png As for historian Pejin, his political involvement is not relevant here - he is an professional historian-archivist (and he was also a director of the Archive of Serbia from 2001 to 2003: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&q=jovan+pejin+archivist&btnG=Google+Search ), so he is a relevant person to present his opinion about historical subjects. I made this map according to the map from the book "Velikomađarski kapric" writen by Pejin, which is in fact very good book about history of Greater Hungarian irredentism and it is writen in very professional way without nationalist anti-Hungarian statements. Also, "www.hhrf.org" that you posted as a source against reliability of Pejin as a historian is an nationalistic Hungarian web site and thus we cannot trust to that site regarding statements about historian who wrote a book about history of Hungarian nationalism. PANONIAN (talk) 00:47, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
- Also note that user:ЛенинВладимир that proposed this map for deletion is obviously a sockpuppet of some kind since he have only a few edits and his account was created on 8 January 2010. PANONIAN (talk) 00:53, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
- It is sourced work based on the book of historian Jovan Pejin and Wiki projects are here to present all valid opinions about various subjects. Other historians might have different opinion about that subject and nobody stopping you to draw a map that will reflect such opinions, but opinion of historian Pejin is a valid opinion as well. Also note that image "MagyarsInTransylvania.PNG" that you presented is completelly unsourced (I do not see where you found info that such map is "referenced with a book from the Columbia University Press"?) and also uploaded by known Hungarian nationalist user:Fz22. But, even so, these two maps do not contradict one to another since Pejin did not showed areas were Hungarians lived but only areas where Hungarians were in majority (which does not mean that they did not lived as a minority among Slavs as well). Here you can see also another map uploaded by another Hungarian user, which also show that Slavs lived in the entire territory where Pejin presented them: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Hungary_b._10th_century.png As for historian Pejin, his political involvement is not relevant here - he is an professional historian-archivist (and he was also a director of the Archive of Serbia from 2001 to 2003: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&q=jovan+pejin+archivist&btnG=Google+Search ), so he is a relevant person to present his opinion about historical subjects. I made this map according to the map from the book "Velikomađarski kapric" writen by Pejin, which is in fact very good book about history of Greater Hungarian irredentism and it is writen in very professional way without nationalist anti-Hungarian statements. Also, "www.hhrf.org" that you posted as a source against reliability of Pejin as a historian is an nationalistic Hungarian web site and thus we cannot trust to that site regarding statements about historian who wrote a book about history of Hungarian nationalism. PANONIAN (talk) 00:47, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Looks like nonsense, but is in use. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:58, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Per my explanation above. PANONIAN (talk) 00:47, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
Comment Commons can contain childish images like this, but should not be used in Wikipedia (except for example to illustrate anti-Hungarian hatred), as it is extremely biased (or briefly 'false'), made by a well-known anti-Hungarian historian in Serbia (a Slavic country). Qorilla (talk) 22:31, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
- Please answer these questions: 1. How exactly this image is "childish"?, 2. How exactly this image could reflect "anti-Hungarian hatred"?, 3. how exactly this image is biased or false?, 4. how exactly this historian is anti-Hungarian? (please quote any possible anti-Hungarian actions or statements that this historian might done or said and then we can analyse such actions or statements to see is he realy anti-Hungarian or Hungarian nationalists only do not like him because of historical facts that he presented and that do not support false historicist claims of Hungarian nationalism), and finaly: 5. how exactly the fact that somebody is from Serbia or Slavic country would determine is he biased or not? PANONIAN (talk) 15:29, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
- Of course, you know the answer to these questions, so I write this for the readers who don't. This is a map which tries to prove that there were not many Hungarians living there in the early times, and therefore they should shut up outside the smaller-than-ethnic borders created after World War I. The area was populated by many people beforehand, including Slavs, but I guess it is a huge lie to show this map for the 12th century. You could draw one from the 8th century and write a hundred times Slavs on it, as Hungarians moved in around 900. So I can imagine that when they started to settle in the (sparsely populated) Carpathian Basin, there was not many of them in the first years.
- I do not see why would somebody falsify a map to "prove that there were not many Hungarians living there in the 10th-12th century" when all historians agree that there were no Hungarians at all in that area in the 9th century. In another words, we do not have problem with historians who "want to prove that there were not many Hungarians", but we have a problem with Hungarian nationalists who want to prove that Hungarians "always" lived in all areas claimed by Greater Hungarian irredentist goal. Therefore, any historian that present any opinion opposite to this would be automatically attacked by Greater Hungarian nationalists. As for time period involved here, historian Pejin clearly say that it refer to 10th-12th century time period, which might not be the case for late 12th century of course, but it certainly could include beginning of that century. However, I clearly stated in the map itself that it is made according to the historian Pejin and that this map represent his opinion only, so I do not see a point of adjusting info in this map to other opinions. You can draw other maps that would reflect opinions of other historians. PANONIAN (talk) 21:22, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
- A shading according to population density would be very beneficial. Also I have seen quite a few maps, but none showed such a small extent. This is the minimal area that the Serbian nationalist historian (who is also involved in political topics as I see) was able to draw. Another childish aspect is that it puts "Slavs" on the map a dozen times, and colors uninhabited areas as Slav.
- As I said, you did not proved that Pejin is politically motived in his historical work, so until you prove that, please refrain yourself from such accusations. As for map presentation, there are external sources with maps whose authors mark all these areas as inhabited by Slavs, see this: http://www.home-edu.ru/user/uatml/00000628/rumjancev/drevnieslavjane/rasselenie.jpg or this: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0e/Slav-7-8-obrez.png or this: http://www.uncp.edu/home/rwb/slavs_map.jpg - there is nothing unique in that presentation. PANONIAN (talk) 21:22, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
- As there were no censuses that time, we can not know the exact ethnic configuration, but giving this map as fact is nonsense. You are right that the fact that one is Serbian, doesn't mean he is automatically manipulative, but this map is. I just wanted to say, it is no wonder why, if one sees where he comes from, and knows what the Serbian nationalism tries to push. Qorilla (talk) 18:44, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
- There were no censuses, but there are other ways to research population data from that time: data presented by various historians, archaeological research of graves, origin of place names, etc, etc. Of course, different historians might come to different conclusion from that data, but there is no single proof that opinion of Hungarian historians is right and oppinion of Serbian historians wrong. In fact, it is not a purpose of any Wiki project to determine who is right or wrong in any such dispute, but the true purpose of Wiki projects is to present all relevant opinions about all subjects, so let present to readers both, maps made according to Serbian and maps made according to Hungarian historians, so they will conclude for themselves who is right and who is wrong. PANONIAN (talk) 21:22, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
- Of course, you know the answer to these questions, so I write this for the readers who don't. This is a map which tries to prove that there were not many Hungarians living there in the early times, and therefore they should shut up outside the smaller-than-ethnic borders created after World War I. The area was populated by many people beforehand, including Slavs, but I guess it is a huge lie to show this map for the 12th century. You could draw one from the 8th century and write a hundred times Slavs on it, as Hungarians moved in around 900. So I can imagine that when they started to settle in the (sparsely populated) Carpathian Basin, there was not many of them in the first years.
- Please answer these questions: 1. How exactly this image is "childish"?, 2. How exactly this image could reflect "anti-Hungarian hatred"?, 3. how exactly this image is biased or false?, 4. how exactly this historian is anti-Hungarian? (please quote any possible anti-Hungarian actions or statements that this historian might done or said and then we can analyse such actions or statements to see is he realy anti-Hungarian or Hungarian nationalists only do not like him because of historical facts that he presented and that do not support false historicist claims of Hungarian nationalism), and finaly: 5. how exactly the fact that somebody is from Serbia or Slavic country would determine is he biased or not? PANONIAN (talk) 15:29, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
- This is a very heated and politically loaded topic, which does not belong to this page, so it's best to close it at this point, with the conclusion that commons can host images that are not universally accepted, as there is no NPOV criteria for media on commons. Qorilla (talk) 23:59, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
Kept, POV and nationalist deletion request. File is in project scope. Kameraad Pjotr 08:47, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
That map is an user made photoshopped map, represent a weird Serbian anti-Hungarian nationalist view, that is really nonsense that only around Budapest lived Hungarians around 1200 in that big Kingdom of Hungary. We know well that Hungary had many Hungarian settlements and Hungarian historical things in the whole kingdom. This is a hardcore abuse of Hungarian history regarding Hungary. Only Budapest is Hungarian but the full Hungarian country was a Slavic country? What a nonsense!
This is a Hungarian National Atlas about Hungarian demographic (made by many scholars during 30 years of researches and based on sources), which is total different than this photoshopped map: https://www.nemzetiatlasz.hu/MNA/National-Atlas-of-Hungary_Vol3_Ch2.pdf + https://www.mtafki.hu/konyvtar/karpat-pannon2015/en/supplementary_maps.html + https://emna.hu/en/map/Km_nyelvi_terszerk_1495/@46.6812151,21.2342624,7.00z + https://www.nemzetiatlasz.hu/MNA/3_en.html + The English version of that atlas won the most prestigious professional prize in the biennial International Cartographic Conference (ICC) was held in Tokyo between 15 and 20 July 2019 by the International Cartographic Association (ICA). I think this tell a lot what was the international feedback regarding this Hungarian atlas. https://mta.hu/english/english-edition-of-the-national-atlas-of-hungary-voted-world-number-one-109950 OrionNimrod (talk) 21:49, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
- Do you think is ok to make a fake map that in the kingdom of Hungary in 1200 only around Budapest lived Hungarians?
- Or do you think it will be ok to make another fake maps that French lived only around Paris in the Kingdom of French or Germans around only Berlin in the Holy Roman Empire, or Poles only around Warsaw in the kingdom of Poland or English people only around London… etc?
- OrionNimrod (talk) 22:10, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
- Hey @Ikan Kekek @OrionNimrod, I also think it would be worth deleting these clearly incorrect maps. There’s no point in keeping them on the wiki.
- As I can see, a prize-winning map has been presented as a counter-argument, so it’s unnecessary to keep the incorrect ones, especially since they clearly contradict the facts. And if they were indeed created to spread negative things about another ethnic group, then they definitely should be deleted. CriticKende (talk) 15:06, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
- I think it was or I thought it was in use before. I don't have expertise in this topic and don't really care what decision the closing admin makes. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:17, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per discussion. --Bastique ☎ let's talk! 15:50, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
converted by me from cv-speedy by Wsiegmund due to "all rights reserved at http://picasaweb.google.com/pelserpb/SenecioneaePhotoGallery#5033449018544630066
but also states: This material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant No. 0542238. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation.[5] what's true now?" as it seems to merit a rfd. --Túrelio (talk) 13:59, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
- PD-USGov-NSF is not verifiable or even likely because most NSF grants go to scientists who are employed by universities. PD-USGov requires that the creator be a US Gov employee. More than 100 files from this source have been uploaded. I've sent an E-mail inquiry to Dr. Pieter Pelser.[6][7] Walter Siegmund (talk) 16:52, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
- That's a good idea. Thanks. --Túrelio (talk) 17:21, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
- "Out of Office AutoReply" until January 19 from Dr. Pelser. Walter Siegmund (talk) 18:17, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
- Today I received an email from Dr. Pelser that reads in part, "I don't have a problem with my pictures being used freely on the internet. It would be nice if users would give me credit for them, but if not, so be it." I've suggested that he send an email template letter to permissions with the CC-BY license that seems to match his wishes. This affects 171 files in Category:Pieter Pelser. Walter Siegmund (talk) 18:33, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
- Great news. --Túrelio (talk) 21:25, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
- If he wants to keep them "being used freely", then might I suggest CC-by-sa instead? Andy Dingley (talk) 23:16, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
- That's a good idea. Thanks. --Túrelio (talk) 17:21, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
- I didn't notice this existing deletion discussion and rolled it in along with many others at Commons:Deletion requests/Images by Pieter Pelser. Please advise on the status of the permission there. Dcoetzee (talk) 11:46, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
Kept, OTRS permission. Kameraad Pjotr 18:33, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
Copyrighted. By Altman, Natan Isaevich died in 1970.--Torin (talk) 10:36, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Altman died in 1970, this is not PD before 2041. ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 15:12, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
