Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2010/02/28

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Commons logo
Commons logo

This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests.

You can visit the most recent archive here.

Archive
Archive
Archive February 28th, 2010
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Dawna Polska na starym papierze 1.jpg

[edit]

Small, unsharp, noisy file with very low contrast --PawełMM (talk) 17:17, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kept. Polarlys (talk) 20:14, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
File:Dawna Polska na starym papierze 1.jpg

very poor quality image of no value to project Mercurywoodrose (talk) 04:48, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kept until there's a better one. -- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 08:52, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Gangnammediapolls.jpg

[edit]

Likely copyright violation, with no source information. Its use on en-wiki was contested by someone claiming to be the original photographer. In any case, there have already been numerous problems with Korean editors (or sockpuppets of one editor, who knows) uploading copyvio photos, claiming them as their own work, with metadata showing only "Microsoft Windows Photo Gallery" or similar editing software. And there are enough other similar images that deleting this one, which is probably copyvio, is not a detriment to the project. --rjanag (talk) (contact me on en-wiki) 16:43, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the enWiki diff as indicating that the editor claims to be the original photographer, and I don't see it as probable copyvio, but only possible. Still, there's not much benefit to the image. Arthur Rubin (talk) (contact me on en-wiki) 16:51, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The editor is most likely not a native English speaker, and I interpret his edit summary as saying "I (the person making this edit) am the original photographer and never authorized this photo to be used". Given the large number of similar copyright violations—photos of similar subjects, with similar information and metadata, see for example the contributions of User:Alohahell—I think it's quite likely that this photo is copyvio. rjanag (talk) (contact me on en-wiki) 20:51, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Polarlys (talk) 18:11, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Logo SG.jpg

[edit]

No OTRS, please send an email with the confirmation --Esteban (talk) 13:56, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Polarlys (talk) 20:14, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Credentialspic.jpg

[edit]

source link is dead, UN doesn't generally freely license photos 24.61.130.33 04:12, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

According to the photo was not made by the UN. So,  Delete User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 17:46, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Polarlys (talk) 20:14, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Chavez141610_M-cropped.jpg

[edit]

The cropping from the original file, File:Chavez141610.jpg, is minimal. Images are duplicates, even if not exact duplicates. I suggest we replace all usages of this file with the original one, and delete this one. Belgrano (talk) 01:53, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kept. Polarlys (talk) 18:12, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Dinma.jpg

[edit]

High quality/low resolution image appears to be a media photo. The team pictured, Illinois State Redbirds, did not have a game on the date indicated. No other indication of time, place or circumstance. --Ytoyoda (talk) 01:57, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Polarlys (talk) 20:15, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Awb Banner.gif

[edit]

This one a slightly older version of File:AWB Banner2.gif (probably bad convert). right now serves no purpose --Magioladitis (talk) 01:58, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Polarlys (talk) 20:15, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Nasrani Evolution.PNG

[edit]

Very biased image. It inaccurately portrays the Syro-Malabar Catholics as the only direct and linear descendant of Nasrani Christians. It shows all other churches as "offshoots" via color and branching. Catholicism is a European import to Indian Christianity; part of the one unified Indian church (Nasranis) joined with the Catholics to create the Syro-Malabar Catholics, the other part refused Catholic domination-- so these two branches at the very least should both branch off the main Nasrani line equally, and not as the picture shows where only the non-Catholic side branches off. Also the main Nasrani branch is red, and in the picture the Syro Malabar branch is also red. The linearity and same color scheme of the Syro-Malabar Catholics with the main Nasrani line clearly and falsely gives the reader the impression that Syro-Malabar Catholics are the only true and most direct descendant of the ancient unified Nsarani church. Also, this image has been improperly plastered in many articles that are at best only loosely concerned with this topic. Please remove immediately. --Joehoya3 (talk) 11:00, 9 February 2010 --Joehoya3 (talk) 16:51, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: These are reasons to fix the image and improve it, not reasons to delete it. I wish those who dislike the image would do some leg work to help work out a better one, rather than simply complaining. 174.127.47.2 19:15, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is a work in progress. While it is graphic now, we hope to eventually convert it to something editable by anyone. But first, we need to decide on some details. Without some structure, the history of Saint Thomas Chrisitians is nearly unfathomable to an outsider. This structure, right now, is better than nothing. Each version has contained improvements which I hope will continue.(Student7) 68.204.2.60 22:45, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Having said that, we are beginning to agree (by consensus) that straight-lining any church is hurtful to the ones not straight lined. My personal opinion is otherwise, but I will go along in favor of that change. It is not exactly the end of the world, however. If I drew the Judeo-Christian church, I would draw the Jewish religion as a straight line, though I am Christian. So my preference would be strict honesty, but I would rather aim towards something everyone can agree on.(Student7)68.204.2.60 22:50, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If this is a "work in progress" then it is not yet fit for publication on over 15 articles on Wikipedia. Inaccuracies are not "better than nothing." This graphic is displaying patently false and biased information and misleading many, many readers. That is reason enough to remove it until something valid is posted. This is not merely about 'hurt feelings'; this is about truthful representations of history. I understand creating a graphic takes time and effort, but by publishing it on Wikipedia in a multitude of articles you agree to have it under the scrutiny of others. That is how Wikipedia works. This is not about 'ego or hurt feelings' on my end, and neither should it be about that on proponents of leaving this up while it is still 'a work in progress'. This is about accuracy. Inaccurate and biased graphics should be removed. Will deleting this inaccurate chart prevent anyone from reposting a new chart when it is fixed? No. It is as if you are stating that removing this chart will remove it from existence and eliminate the creator's hard work and effort. No, the original chart remains on the hard drive of the creator. When it is fixed, it can be reposted. In the meantime, it should be eliminated in its current form from all pages. Hundreds of people visit these pages and it is not right for them to leave with false impressions regarding the community. That is why I propose deletion. (Joehoya3--129.85.134.155 15:32, 10 February 2010 (UTC))[reply]
  • Keep. We don't usually delete images from Commons because they present only one view of a matter on which there are multiple views. We host a multiplicity of images, often displaying different, conflicting views. For example, we have maps that show quite conflicting views of European history. - Jmabel ! talk 18:09, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Response. This is not a matter of multiple opinions or viewpoints but a matter of fact and I have clearly stated my reasons in my request for deletion. And just because some incorrect map is placed in other places does not validate misleading, biased, and incorrect history being plastered here. I would like to see proponents of this image remaining argue with historical facts instead of emotional rebuttals. It is historical fact that the fracturing of our community was a direct result of European colonialism and caused several schisms of our people; and no reasonable or respected historian, would ever say that Catholicism was present in Kerala before the arrival of the Portuguese. Claiming otherwise would be clear historical revisionism or what would obviously be the biased view of Syro-Malabar Catholic apologists. Please argue your 'viewpoint' with facts. This chart more than erroneously implying that Syro-Malabar Catholics are the only true descendants of the ancients Nasranis also very incorrectly implies that the ancient Nasranis were Catholics. It is a historical fact, not a 'viewpoint,' that Catholicism was NOT present in Kerala prior to Portuguese arrival. See theWikipedia article on Syro-Malabar Church. It clearly states with footnotes: They (European Catholics) suspected the Indian Christians of heresy and schism and wanted to introduce the Latin customs and Latin manner of ecclesiastical administration, severing the East Syrian connection. There was also an Inquisition (see last paragraph) in which the European Catholics sanctioned attempted assassinations of Nasrani Archdeacons, blocked bishops from the East from assisting in Nasrani indepndence, burned all of the ancient Nasrani prayer books and literature, and attempted to eliminate Nasrani identity and thoroughly Latinise it. And this chart claims the Syro-Malabar Catholics are the true heirs of Nasrani identity??? How can this position in any objecvtive, logical, reasonable, or historical/factual way be defended? It can't and that's why this factually erroneous and clearly biased image needs to come down as soon as possible. (Joehoya3)--69.121.45.205 22:32, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete.The Malankara Jacobite Syrian and Malankara Orthodox Syrian split in 1975 - not as shown in the chart predating to the split of Syro-Malankara (1930). The chart in incorrect in more ways than one, and should be deleted. Keeping incorrect material in a reference document would be harmful.
  • Delete.Would request to remove this Chart, because of the misleading Straight Line, the colors used and the labels provided. By now this Chart is pasted so many needless places that, many wiki visitors are led to believe this misleading chart. To give that in figures, a whopping 80405 wiki visitors, have visited the pages were this chart is located, from Dec 2009 till today. And to my utter dismay, 20787, visitors saw this in Oriental Orthodox wiki page, where this Chart by now way is related. Kindly delete this. Fyodor7 (talk) 19:07, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Those who dislike the image can take part in the discussion and say their views. Changes can be done once consensus is made. There is no reason to delete this file. And Syro-Malabar Church has been shown as the linear descendant of Nasrani Christians because they follow East Syrian liturgy which was the original liturgy of the Saint Thomas Christians. Others switched to West Syrian. And there are documentery evideces that they were called as Pazhaya Kuttar for Catholics and Puthiya Kuttar for Jacobites.User:Rahuljohnson4u (User talk:Rahuljohnson4u) 17:00, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Response. First of all, the Syro-Malabar Church follows a Latinised version the East Syrian liturgy. The Syro-Malabar Catholics were under the yoke of European Latin Rite bishops from 1557 to 1887, and only received their own diocese with indigineous bishops in 1887. And Pope Pius XII only approved a restored and more Eastern liturgy in 1957. Granted, the Catholics were referred to as Pazhaya Kuttar and the Puthiya Kuttar were those who sought help from West Syrian bishops. But you cleverly leave out the context of those naming conventions. From the Synod of Diamper in 1599, when the entire Nasrani church under duress signed away it's independence under Archdeacon George and came under Roman jurisdiction until 1665 when a West Syrian Rite bishop arrived and the church split, the entire Nasrani people were under Catholic control. The Synod has since been nullified by Catholic scholars and the Catholic Church has affirmed that it forcibly pushed all the Nasranis under it's rule. From that Synod of Diamper article linked above: A number of studies has questioned the invalidity of the Synod of Diamper starting with the studies of Bishop Jonas Thaliath. Thaliath in his thesis at the Pontifical Gregorian University in 1952 proved the synod as invalid on the ground that it was convoked without authority, conducted not according to the Canon of the Church and was never properly approved by Rome. Also from the Catholic Encyclopedia: The only case in which an ancient Eastern rite has been wilfully romanized is that of the Uniat Malabar Christians, where it was not Roman authority but the misguided zeal of Alexius de Menezes, Archbishop of Goa, and his Portuguese advisers at the Synod of Diamper (1599) which spoiled the old Malabar Rite. Realize that 65 years had passed before any Nasranis received help from West Syrian bishops. The term Pazhya Kuttar refers to that time period from 1599-1665 when effectively the entire church was under Catholic domination. The people who remained in that same status quo, under Catholicism, would obviously be called Pazhya Kuttar. The people who left that domination for novel West Syrian traditions were obviously called Puthya Kuttar. But this naming convention in no way connotes that the arising Syro-Malabar Catholics (which only received a diocese separate from converted Latin Rite Catholics in 1887) are the only true and linear descendants of Eastern Rite Nasrani identity. Neither of these two communities (Pazhya Kuttar vs. Puthya Kuttar)can claim sole and true linear descendancy from Nasrani culture, and more importantly this chart implies that the pre-schism Nasrani culture was Catholic. It was Catholic for only 66 years prior to the split, from the period of the Synod of Diamper to 1665, and that was admittedly due to duress, force, and something that has today been demoted by even the Catholic Church as invalid and incorrect. So please understand the history and context of the term Pazhya Kuttar and Puthya Kuttar and of the Catholic Church's impact in creating the schism in the Nasrani people. (Joehoya3)--Joehoya3 (talk) 19:21, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]


    • Response. We cant keep this and mislead people,till a consensus is reached. Already around a 100,000 have visited pages were this Chart is placed. Chart is meant to portray history and not who uses what liturgy. Fyodor7 (talk) 17:22, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I guess if it is misleading then remove the picture or preferably hide it using <!--[File:Nasrani .... -->. Discuss on your opinion on what would you prefer the image to look like rather than trying to get rid of it. Cheers 128.240.229.7 11:50, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Response.As many have discussed, Catholicism in Kerala is a product of Portuguese Colonilisation. A European church cannot have been in Kerala since AD 52. Check how Spaniards and Portuguese spread Catholicism all over the world. Read more about 'Age of Discovery'. Please read the first article, which came in a major Indian Publication called The Hindu, and also the second link.)

http://www.hinduonnet.com/mag/2001/11/04/stories/2001110400240500.htm
http://www.hindunet.com/forum/showflat.php?Cat=&Number=15576&Main=15576
http://voiceofdharma.org/books/hhce/Ch4.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_Discovery
http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/topics/The_Roman_Catholic_Church_and_Colonialism
http://www.historyworld.net/wrldhis/PlainTextHistories.asp?historyid=ab48
http://www.search.com/reference/History_of_colonialism#European_colonies_in_India
Buy this book if able (written by a Hindu Author)
http://www.flipkart.com/malabar-portuguese-k-m-panikkar/8185990433-bw23fdjoud
Portuguese aggression was not only restricted to the Syrian Christians of Kerala, but also against Hindus and Jews.
Even the tiny Jewish community was not spared. Read
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Judaism/indians.html
All of the above are from secular sources and do not belong to Christians. I am certain that more than enough evidence is available to depict that the Portuguese indulged in persecution and atrocities against all native religions of India. Hence, the chart cannot have the Syro-Malabar or just Catholics as the only heirs of Nasrani tradition. This is an obvious abuse to the thousands who suffered and got martyred under the Portuguese and to historical facts. 117.97.248.126 17:25, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Replace. I have created uploaded a new file with accurate information. If there are any factual errors in this new file, please leave a message on the new file's discussion page and I will promptly update it. Please replace the old unfactual and biased image from all pages, and replace with this image where appropriate. Thanks.

New File --Joehoya3 (talk) 21:19, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep In use. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 23:52, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Should be closed with a "Keep." This has been changed twice since its nomination. Like articles, it is never perfect. Deletion is silly in any event and future nominations should be ignored unless it has a much better reason than "being wrong" someplace. 68.204.2.60 13:26, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kept, we do not correct factual errors, whether they be true or false, through the deletion request process. Furthermore, where the illustration is used is a local project concern. All involved parties are requested to migrate their discussion to the file talk page. Blurpeace 23:02, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Nasrani_Evolution.PNG

[edit]

Obsolete version of File:St Thomas Christians divisions.png. Apparently factually incorrect and unused, therefore the diagram is outside of project scope. Blurpeace 05:32, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted by Polarlys (talk · contribs). Blurpeace 18:49, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:N510833371_880408_9777.jpg

[edit]

Personal photo uploaded for the deleted English Wikipedia article en:Megan Angela Smith; out of scope. Nyttend (talk) 05:40, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Blurpeace 10:19, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:N510833371_880407_9493.jpg

[edit]

Personal photo uploaded for the deleted English Wikipedia article en:Megan Angela Smith; out of scope. Nyttend (talk) 05:41, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Blurpeace 10:19, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:New_283.jpg

[edit]

Personal photo uploaded for the deleted English Wikipedia article en:Megan Angela Smith; out of scope. Nyttend (talk) 05:41, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. High Contrast (talk) 14:14, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Category:Categories by Albedo-ukr

[edit]

This category is for categories created by User:Albedo-ukr. Seriously. It doesn't help people find media, it's not a "user gallery" in any sense of the word (that what it's marked as), goes against COM:OWN, and serves no other meaningful purpose. Imagine if everyone starting categorizing galleries, categories, templates, etc. because they added a couple lines of text to it... I still can't believe someone thought this would be a good idea. Rocket000 (talk) 06:02, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted, time to set a precedent. Blurpeace 03:08, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Makes no sense to delete if subcats remain. --Foroa (talk) 06:33, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. I will remove them. -- User:Docu at 06:45, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Images by Pieter Pelser

[edit]

These images (derived from a search for "SenecioneaePhotoGallery") were uploaded from the Picasa album SenecioneaePhotoGallery of user pelserpb. The album's description is:

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.

Consequently the images are all tagged {{PD-USGov-NSF}} ("This image is a work of a National Science Foundation employee, taken or made during the course of the person's official duties. As a work of the U.S. federal government, the image is in the public domain."). However, multiple recent conversations have suggested that works funded by a grant by the NSF are not necessarily public domain; e.g. at Commons_talk:Licensing#National_Science_Foundation_grants, User:Prosfilaes says:

If you go back to the published Senate commentary on the passing of the 1978 law, they were pretty clear that federal grants by default do not make the works public domain and that the license on the results could be set by the government as part of the grant contract if necessary.

On December 21, 2009, the images were discussed at Commons:Village_pump/Archive/2009Dec#National_Science_Foundation_grantee:_copyvio.3F, where there was agreement that they were copyvios. The author was mailed for permission at that time and we haven't heard anything about them since. Since the images on Picasa are marked "all rights reserved", there's no basis for believing they're available under a free license, and they need to be deleted. If consensus is for deletion I can automate the process, since there are a lot of them. Dcoetzee (talk) 06:22, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I just noticed Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Packera_paupercula_8.jpg which concerns one of these images. They say:

"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."

That was 14 January, and it's over a month later now and we don't know what's going on. Might need to contact him again.

Note that if we do contact him again, I think the easiest route is to instruct him to modify the license on his Picasa album images. Since this is a taxing process that Picasa provides no way of automating, however, an alternative is to send a permission template in which we explicitly list all of the images that are affected and their URLs, or else have him explicitly release all files in the Picasa album SenecioneaePhotoGallery of user pelserpb.

Note that it's not clear that Pieter Pelser is actually the copyright holder for all of these - most list him as the author, but the following images do not:

Dcoetzee (talk) 11:48, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See also Category:Pieter Pelser. Pelser's last response (Feb 4) was "I'm running a field course in New Zealand now, but will look into the matter when I get back.... Please don't hesitate to remind me in a few weeks." His pictures (6274 of 100s of species) have recently been added to Phytoimages (http://www.phytoimages.siu.edu/) but I found no licensing information on that site either other than "For any usage that involves publication permission must first be granted by the owner of the image ..." (under the "Contribute" link). I will email another query. Walter Siegmund (talk) 16:49, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I received an email response from Dr. Pelser. He confirmed that he does not hold the copyright to the files attributed to others above. He intends to license his Picassa photographs by sending an email template letter to permissions. Walter Siegmund (talk) 17:26, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kept files by Pieter Pelser, i.e., those not attributed to others. OTRS received. Walter Siegmund (talk) 23:39, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Cornwall_Council_2009_pie_chart.jpg

[edit]

uploaded wrong file, this is from excel and probably copyrighted Joowwww (talk) 10:45, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Julo (talk) 11:19, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Texto.jpg

[edit]

unused text - out of scope Cholo Aleman (talk) 08:26, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Julo (talk) 11:18, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Yarrrr.jpg

[edit]

Why is it in scope? Eusebius (talk) 09:52, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

deleted by Polarlys Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 01:05, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Ignore.jpg

[edit]

Why is it in scope? Eusebius (talk) 09:53, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

deleted by Polarlys Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 01:06, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Southern_Sudan_COA.gif

[edit]

Bogus license. Clearly marked as fair use on English Wikipedia. —LX (talk, contribs) 10:18, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That in itself is not determinative here. Among other factors, in traditional heraldry, if you create a new depiction of a coat of arms based on a textual blazon then you own the copyright to the depiction which you have made. If this image is a copyright violation, then it should be deleted -- but the specific facts should be examined, and it should not be automatically deleted solely on the basis of tagging on en.wikipedia (which was why this is not an appropriate case for speedy). AnonMoos (talk) 10:58, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As I wrote on your user talk page (which you blanked; please read Commons:Talk page guidelines#Can I do whatever I want to my own user talk page?), the standard practice when you disagree with speedy deletion tagging is not to blank out the deletion tag without converting to regular deletion and without notifying the nominator.
The fact remains that the authorship and licensing information on the file is patently false. You addressed none of that by blanking the speedy deletion tag. —LX (talk, contribs) 11:41, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever, dude -- I generally find it very difficult to conduct user talk page discussions with people who insist on conducting them in a non-standard way, and since you seem to be even more obnoxious than most with respect to that particular issue, I didn't even bother to try. Furthermore, heraldry is partly a distinct area of its own, with its own little special legal and copyright quirks, and if you're unwilling to learn about these, then you should stay away from dealing with heraldic images. Furthermore, it's your own responsibility to cast a deletion nomination into acceptable form. I have no real opinion on whether this image should be deleted or not, but speedy was not adequate... AnonMoos (talk) 11:51, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea what you mean. I conduct discussions completely in accordance with Commons:Talk page guidelines. Blanking personal messages without replying to them, on the other hand, is "non-standard", as it is not supported by any policy, guideline or common practice. I am familiar with the principles of copyright surrounding heraldry, and I don't appreciate orders on what topics I should stay away from. I believe the speedy tag was indeed appropriate, and I'm still wondering where you got the idea that you can simply remove a deletion tag from a file with obviously false copyright tags simply because the speedy tag isn't "acceptable" to you personally. —LX (talk, contribs) 19:46, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For more history on this file, see en:File:Southern Sudan COA.gif, File:Sudan coa.gif, File:Sudan coa.png, en:File:Sudan coa.png and Commons:Deletion requests/Template:Vector-Images.com (2nd request). —LX (talk, contribs) 19:46, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Now see, if you actually had added some of that information to your "speedy" template (instead of including something which is simply inadequate to support speedy in a heraldic context), then maybe there never would have been any problem in the first place. AnonMoos (talk) 13:54, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Bidgee (talk) 10:49, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Popper_and_Hoschl.jpg

[edit]

There cannot be valid permission if the photographer is unknown and no proof of copyright assignment is given. rtc (talk) 10:22, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is a photo from private collection of Prof. Cyril Höschl, who was Dean of the 3rd Medical Faculty at the time of Sir Popper receiving the Honorary Doctor´s degree. He ís the owner of copyright assignment and he has given the permission. --Kacir (talk) 10:27, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I do not see such a copyright assignment and the fact that the name of the photographer is not known does not make it more credible that it even exists. --rtc (talk) 15:18, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is a source of snapshot [2]. --Kacir (talk) 10:40, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Hoschl collects on his website a large number of files that have only one thing in common: He is shown on all of these photos. No permission to use this photo under a free license by the author. Polarlys (talk) 20:18, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Undeleted. Authorship issue cleared up, and I was told a clarifying e-mail has been sent to OTRS. --Mormegil (talk) 21:35, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Eccles_and_Hoschl.jpg

[edit]

There cannot be valid permission if the photographer is unknown and no proof of copyright assignment is given. rtc (talk) 10:31, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is the same issue like here. In my view, there is no reason for deletion. --Kacir (talk) 13:19, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Polarlys (talk) 20:17, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Undeleted. Authorship issue cleared up, and I was told a clarifying e-mail has been sent to OTRS. --Mormegil (talk) 21:36, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Martha_Musil_1932.jpg

[edit]

No sign that the photographer (unidentified) died before 1939. Eusebius (talk) 11:19, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Polarlys (talk) 20:17, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Robert_Musil_1930.jpeg

[edit]

No sign that the photographer (unidentified) died before 1939. Eusebius (talk) 11:22, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Polarlys (talk) 20:17, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Robert_Musil_1918.jpg

[edit]

No sign that the photographer (unidentified) died before 1939. Eusebius (talk) 11:23, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Polarlys (talk) 20:17, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Tukan.JPG

[edit]

Out of scope, currently not used. Ageguessinggames (talk) 12:19, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 01:08, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:FLORIN_IORDACHE_27_Juanuary_2010.jpg

[edit]

Orphaned personal image, out of scope Martin H. (talk) 13:49, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

per nom Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 01:08, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Luis_alvarez.jpg

[edit]

Orphaned personal image, out of scope. Martin H. (talk) 13:51, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 01:09, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Il Telegrafo

[edit]

Errore nella creazione: volevo creare una categoria... --Taccolamat (talk) 13:58, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Justass (talk) 14:16, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Andra_Mari_Etxarri_Aranatz_Navarra.jpg

[edit]

image doesn't show Havang(nl) (talk) 14:25, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Polarlys (talk) 20:20, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Images by ChrisO

[edit]

PD-GermanGov does not apply here. There is no further reason mentioned why this file is in the public domain. Images from the former German Democratic Reupublic are not per se in the public domain. High Contrast (talk) 14:33, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hä? Dann müssten wir alle Bilder löschen, auf denen Soldaten aus dem Zweiten Weltkrieg erkennbar sind. --PaterMcFly (talk) 21:16, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wenn sie vor weniger als 10 Jahren verstorben sind - Ja. --Ralf Roletschek (talk) 21:20, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wo bitte steht das? Ich lese da im Gegenteil, dass Bilder der Zeitgeschichte in jedem Fall zulässig sind, und das ist hier eindeutig gegeben. --PaterMcFly (talk) 21:41, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ach ja, und im übrigen sind die Bilder (zumindest teilweise) offensichtlich in werblicher Absicht geschossen worden, denn sie wurden ja ursprünglich für Bundeswehr-Werbung verwendet. Die abgebildeten haben dazu also schon damals einwilligen müssen. --PaterMcFly (talk) 21:43, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
ZU den hiesigen Bildern: Das RaeB sah in der DDR anders aus als heute. man konnte sich im Dienst, auf Arbeit etc. kaum dagegen wehren, fotografiert zu werden. Dies hat sich mit der Wiedervereinigung geändert, jetzt gilt für die gleichen Personen bundesdeutsches Recht, die Einwilligung müßte erneuert werden. Und selbst wenn damals eine schriftliche Genehmigung vorlag (was praktisch nie gemacht wurde) dann ist diese ungültig, es liegen geänderte Lebensbedingungen vor. Und Wegpixeln des Gesichts wahrt nicht das Recht am eigenen Bild (Torwart-Urteil). --Ralf Roletschek (talk) 07:10, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Folgende Bilder zeigen keine (lebenden) Personen und sollten daher getrennt behandelt werden. Das Minenopfer ist schon mehr als 10 Jahre tot (1968).

Stellt sich die Frage, ob das Ministerium für Staatssicherheit ein Amt ist wurde in DE diskutiert ([3]). Normalerweise hat die Stasi (oder auch die NVA) solche Bilder aber nicht im amtlichen Interesse zur allgemeinen Kenntnisnahme veröffentlicht wie es § 5 Abs. 2 UrhG gefordert wird (Laien-Meinung). Wie die Bilder zu Wikipedia kamen ist leider nicht dokumentiert. Die Angabe East German Ministry of State Security archives reicht wohl nicht aus. Wenn ich das alles richtig verstehe – korrigiert mich bitte – wären die Bilder OK, wenn die Gauck/Birthler-Behörde sie veröffentlicht hätte. Nur leider wissen wir nichts darüber. Den Einsteller hatte ich angeschrieben, ohne Reaktion. --blunt. (talk) 10:37, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Auch bei diesen Bildern gibt es einen Menschen, der das jeweilige Foto angefertigt hat. Diese Menschen sind mit ziemlicher Sicherheit keine Mitglieder der Gauck-Behörde. Ob diese überhaupt als Amt anzusehen ist, wäre die nächste Frage. Auf jeden Fall sind es geschützte Lichtbildwerke mit Urhebern, die keine 70 Jahre tot sind. --Ralf Roletschek (talk) 18:31, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Und genauso sehe ich es auch. --High Contrast (talk) 20:45, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. PD-GermanGov does not apply here. Polarlys (talk) 20:22, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Akira Kurosava.jpg

[edit]

Even if the uploader is the author of the book, he is surely not the author of the picture on the cover and has probably not obtained free rights for it.--TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 15:26, 28 February 2010 (UTC) --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 15:27, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Polarlys (talk) 20:22, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:IrvineHigh1970s_architectural_model.jpg

[edit]

The file cannot be PD-Old since the photography was taken in 1976 Lucasbfr (talk) 15:38, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

per Nyttend Kept. Mbdortmund (talk) 18:32, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Screenshot Cattedrale Beauvais.png

[edit]

this is a screenshot of a Wikipedia Italia page uploaded in order to explain a problem to an administrator. If it is a not allowed use of Commons, the page can be deleted; this is my opinion. Obviously, the file is not used by any Wikipedia worldwide. --Decio Mure (talk) 17:27, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • File seems fine copyright wise, if the pictures have free licenses. But if the file is no longer in use then it should go. -Nard the Bard 04:47, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes copyright is OK, but what about using Commons as a repository of screenshots in order to discuss work-in-progress problems about pages designing? And now, the problem is solved, and we still have the screenshot on commons... to serve what purpose? --Decio Mure (talk) 14:42, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • If the file is in use in a wiki talk page then putting it on Commons is not a problem, that's Commons' job, to host images for wikis. Because it is not currently in use though it serves no further purpose. -Nard the Bard 00:56, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

no longer in use Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 18:34, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Escportal.png

[edit]

seems likely derivative work from n:File:Eurovision_Song_Contest_logo.png Otourly (talk) 18:25, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kept. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 12:49, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:F_y_fr.jpg

[edit]

unused personal photo, out of scope, long selfpromotion description, only edit Cholo Aleman (talk) 21:04, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

per nom Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 01:11, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:SOFI.JPG

[edit]

blurred double file of a strange drawing- unusable, out of scope Cholo Aleman (talk) 21:07, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

per nom Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 01:11, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:CORANK.jpg

[edit]

strange drawing - unused and unusable - out of scope, user has left the building Cholo Aleman (talk) 21:12, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

per nom Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 01:12, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Funcionamiento_DNS.svg

[edit]

more black then anything else - unusable - out of scope Cholo Aleman (talk) 21:14, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

per nom Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 01:13, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Jordan_Frizzell2.JPG

[edit]

unused, blurred personal image; out of scope; bad description; uploaded by inactive user Jahobr (talk) 21:29, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

per nom Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 01:13, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Jordan_Frizzell.jpg

[edit]

unused, blurred personal image; out of scope; bad description; uploaded by inactive user Jahobr (talk) 21:27, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

per nom Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 01:14, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Xenon_disgarge_tube.jpg

[edit]

false name. A new file is uploaded with the right name: File:Xenon_discarge_tube.jpg. Alchemist-hp (talk) 21:40, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

deleted by justass Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 01:14, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Torotosprawl.png

[edit]

Derivative of non-free Google Maps content. —LX (talk, contribs) 22:14, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Polarlys (talk) 20:23, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Canadian_Women_Hockey_Team_celebrating_at_the_2010_Winter_Olympics_-_Flickr_image_4392593365.jpg

[edit]

This uploader's photostream here has many pictures of copyvios. I submit the flickr user did a flickwash here and never took the photos by himself/herself. Leoboudv (talk) 22:15, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Polarlys (talk) 20:23, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:1950-lion-witch-wardrobe.jpg

[edit]

No indication that the book has not been renewed. Blurpeace 22:48, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Delete C. S. Lewis was not an American, and neither was Pauline Baynes. They were British, and this book was published in London by Geoffrey Bles[4]. There was a simultaneous publishing in America by Macmillan Publishing Co[5] which was renewed[6]. This will be under copyright for a very long time. -Nard the Bard 22:59, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

per Nard the bard Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 01:16, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:1971MonteCarlo.jpg

[edit]

OTRS not confirmed. -Nard the Bard 23:13, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Polarlys (talk) 20:23, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:37215_200911090028071.thumb.jpg

[edit]

OTRS not confirmed. -Nard the Bard 23:14, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Polarlys (talk) 20:23, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:789-Schale_Wertheim.JPG

[edit]

No source given for photo. -Nard the Bard 23:15, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This might be missleading (I was also being confused earlier on): The indicated box does only say that somebody was intending to send an OTRS ticket. Everyone can add such a claim to a description page. The OTRS wasn't confirmed, though, so it's worthless. --PaterMcFly (talk) 07:11, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 Delete There is something strange with this photo. It can still be found in the cache of a google search, but it is not in current versions of http://www.myheimat.de/magdeburg/kultur/nathusius-porzellan-u-steingut-fabrik-in-althaldensleben-1826-1847-d202050.html /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:20, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kept. Now has OTRS permission, if you have any doubts please raise it at the OTRS noticeboard. Bidgee (talk) 10:53, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:BW_oral_sex.png

[edit]

Private photo, no model consent. Looks like a minor, too. -Nard the Bard 23:18, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete per nominator; also, this was deleted on Flickr. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 23:29, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep, there is very clear model consent in the image description on Flickr (which, in the absence of other information, we assume to be valid) in which she says it is a photograph of herself and that she hopes others spread it around widely and re-use it. Max Rebo Band"almost suspiciously excellent" 00:29, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, I had messaged this user on Flickr to ascertain her age before uploading this image. That log is below.

25 Dec 09, 3.21AM PST

Greetings, I am sorry to bother you - but before sharing your photographs I was hoping to just get an eMail from you confirming that the age of your model Irina is at least 19 years old?

Thank you,

Max

From:


realwishword Subject:

Re: Your uploads

Who you want share me with? Yes I am more than 19 I happy you like my pix. I very want see who you share with :) luv Irina


  •  Comment 1) « An email containing details of the permission for this file has been sent in accordance with Commons:OTRS », therefore it is not acceptable to start a DR before we have a confirmation by the OTRS. 2) The argument "looks like a minor" has no validity. She actually doesn't look like a minor to me, which actually shosw that we can't determinate the age of a person by looking at her (unless it's really clear of course but that's not the case here), therefore this argument can't be used. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 07:05, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Convenient that this so authentic email turns up to be copy and pasted here. Now please provide evidence that the originator of the e-mail (if there is such an e-mail) is actually the person pictured in this photograph. She looks distinctly under-age even to these fifty year old eyes. Aren't there actual porn sites you could be spending your time filling up with pornographic images instead of just filing the contents of your hard drive porn collection to wikimdeia commons.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.43.15.203 (talk • contribs)
    Hey, try to have some respect towards other users please! You're right the mail pasted above could be fake but we don't know the content of what was sent to the OTRS system so we just have to wait for the end of the procedure. If the OTRS says it's valid, this should mean there was enough proof that the permission is OK. As for the rest of your comment, it doesn't even deserve a response since it's a deliberate (bad) attempt to discredit your opponents. My first message was an objective comment (and I actually didn't say the picture should be kept nor deleted), you should try to be objective too. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 06:29, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete - Flickr user no longer active, so no 3rd party confirmation possible. Unused, delete per COM:PRP. -mattbuck (Talk) 12:12, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • See Commons:Deletion requests/File:Birthday facial.png for similar problems with same uploader, same theme, and same flickr account. But a different girl. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 13:32, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I have to admit I had not seen that both pictures came from the same Flickr account! This indeed seems to be a problem and I'm now ready to change my vote with that information. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 13:40, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete see my comment just above. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 13:40, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, I am shocked by the bad-faith...and since I filed the OTRS ages ago, long before this DR ever surfaced, I am quite certain that the eMail sitting at permissions@ vindicates me that the model is above 19 and consented to use of the image. Max Rebo Band"almost suspiciously excellent" 16:37, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
MRB filing the OTRS... how does that prove anything? (Unless he/she is the model.) /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:46, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Do you know how OTRS works? As uploader, you can forward a copy of your correspondence with the person...however if you'd like a nude photo of me to prove I am not the model, please include your eMail address and make sure your monitor resolution is set accordingly) Max Rebo Band"almost suspiciously excellent" 16:56, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You could send me a photo of any well-endowed porn star... please don't, it would not prove anything. Nor does your email correspondence with "Irina". /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 17:08, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. per nom Polarlys (talk) 13:11, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Brett-DiBiase.jpg

[edit]

Uh-huh, sure. -Nard the Bard 23:21, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Blurpeace 03:02, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Explanatory rationale: probable copyright violation. Blurpeace 04:35, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:Jcislord.jpg

[edit]

I hate to say it, but this file is spam. And don't accuse me of anti-Christian bias before you take a look at en:User:Nard the Bard/modern Jesus. -Nard the Bard 23:40, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep File is in use on en (therefore meets scope). Also, it seems relevant to the history, motto and advertising of the organization. --99of9 (talk) 03:23, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kept, in project scope. The caption has to be removed (tagged appropriately). Blurpeace 03:04, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:Jcislord.jpg

[edit]

OTRS missing. Also still spam. -Nard (Hablemonos)(Let's talk) 05:20, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete I agree now, I was told the OTRS was coming, so applied the tag, but it's been too long. --99of9 (talk) 05:24, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:40, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Estonian_BTR-80s.jpg

[edit]

Original image on en:wiki was uploaded by User:Karabinier. There, the uploader stated that the image is SfR image (http://www.sfr.fr/). That's copyright violation. If you have a look on User:Karabinier talk page, you might see that this file is not the first copyright violation he has uploaded. 80.187.97.237 19:47, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I find it interesting than that this file wasn't removed from the English Wikipedia. Also I failed to see nay actions being taken towards doing so. As the user wasn't even informed of this image was violating someone's copyright. Do you have proof that SFR really does posses the copyright for this image? As of right now you're relying on what the uploader (whom you deem not trust worthy by challenging his claim on this picture). Also as I already said elsewhere uploading copyright violating files in the past doesn't revoke ones rights to upload pictures to Wikipedia or Wikipedia Commons and until that changes every case of a possible copyright violation should be looked at independently and not in relation to what that person may have done in the past. Regards. - SuperTank17 (talk) 20:09, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. there is no sourcing to clarify GFDL and Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike 3.0. The image was transferred from en:wiki and was deleted, too. High Contrast (talk) 12:50, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Nizza_thobi_bearbeitet.jpg

[edit]

Looks like a scan. -Nard the Bard 19:02, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • The Photo is O.K. No reason for delete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nizza Thobi (talk • contribs) 06:31, March 1, 2010 (UTC)
  •  Comment - what is the problem? - I guess: it is a selfportrait and that is by definition (unless you use a mirror or a "Selbstauslöser") not an "own work". Cholo Aleman (talk) 05:35, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Probably a scan of a glossy print, unfortunately something (a picture?) in the background was not very skilfully removed. A self portrait is always an own work, otherwise it wouldn't be a selfportrait. No proof that it was not taken with a self timer.  Keep — Preceding unsigned comment added by Herbert Ortner (talk • contribs) 20:30, March 2, 2010 (UTC)

 Keep - declaration of the uploader Cholo Aleman (talk) 13:50, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kept per disc. --DieBuche (talk) 12:16, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2010/02/28&oldid=40029443"