Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2010/04/29
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
|
|
_Landing_Strip_style.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
Copyright violation from http://cestyno.altervista.org/palas.htm --MondaRimini (talk), I confirm it because upload was done by myself. 09:06, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
Speedy-Deleted as copyvio from http://cestyno.altervista.org/palas.htm. --Túrelio (talk) 15:03, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
Copyright violation from http://cestyno.altervista.org/palas.htm , I confirm it because upload was done by myself. --MondaRimini (talk) 09:07, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
Speedy-Deleted as clear-cut copyvio from http://cestyno.altervista.org/palas.htm. --Túrelio (talk) 15:00, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
Copyright violation from http://cestyno.altervista.org/palas.htm , I confirm it because upload was done by myself. by User:MondaRimini. (I've just corrected the syntax of this rfd --Túrelio (talk) 08:23, 29 April 2010 (UTC))
Speedy-Deleted as copyvio from http://cestyno.altervista.org/palas.htm. --Túrelio (talk) 15:00, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
Copyright violation from http://cestyno.altervista.org/palas.htm , I confirm it because upload was done by myself. --MondaRimini (talk) 09:08, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
Speedy-Deleted as copyvio from http://cestyno.altervista.org/palas.htm. --Túrelio (talk) 15:02, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
Copyright violation from http://cestyno.altervista.org/palas.htm , I confirm it because upload was done by myself. --MondaRimini (talk) 09:11, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
Speedy-Deleted as copyvio from http://cestyno.altervista.org/palas.htm. --Túrelio (talk) 15:02, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
Copyright violation from http://cestyno.altervista.org/protagonisti.htm --MondaRimini (talk), I confirm it because upload was done by myself. 09:11, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
Speedy-Deleted as copyvio from http://cestyno.altervista.org/protagonisti.htm. --Túrelio (talk) 15:04, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
Copyright violation from http://cestyno.altervista.org/palas.htm , I confirm it because upload was done by myself. by User:MondaRimini. (I've just corrected the syntax of this rfd --Túrelio (talk) 08:23, 29 April 2010 (UTC))
Speedy-Deleted as copyvio from http://cestyno.altervista.org/palas.htm. --Túrelio (talk) 15:00, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
_Landing_Strip_style.jpg){kind=link}
_Landing_Strip_style.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
inappropriate; vulgar; obscene 151.188.18.87 13:17, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
_Landing_Strip_style.jpg){kind=link}
_Landing_Strip_style.jpg){kind=link}
inappropiate; student discovered at elementary school; will prevent our ability to use Wikimedia as a resource 151.188.18.87 13:10, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
Keep Commons is not censored. Being offensive for some people is not a valid reason for deletion. --PaterMcFly (talk) 14:28, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
Kept. Coyau (talk) 16:24, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
- Keep - In use, no further discussion needed. -mattbuck (Talk) 14:49, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
- Keep, within usage on multiple sites, utilized under an appropriate free-use license on this project. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 04:22, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
- Keep It's not low quality but low resolution. Since it is in use, I see no valid reason that supports a deletion.--FAEP (talk)
- Keep In use, so useful. No other concerns have been raised about this image. At some point in the future, as our stock of good sexuality images increases and several higher quality alternatives are available, it may be appropriate to delete it. --Simonxag (talk) 14:23, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
Kept No reason for deletion. Yann (talk) 13:18, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
inappropriate; vulgar; obscene 151.188.18.87 13:16, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Keep no reason to delete --Leyo 15:15, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Kept. Coyau (talk) 16:24, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
There is no such thing as "laser machining". There is w:laser engraving, w:laser cutting, and various laser based w:rapid prototyping processes, but I think it's a stretch to try and relate them. --Wizard191 (talk) 22:23, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
- Keep - google("laser machining"); also File:Lasermach.jpg illustrates both cutting and engraving, as does the plexiglass example. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:26, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
- Keep An article on Britannica... --GaAs11671 13:23, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
- I rescind the deletion request, but based of this not the above. I'm still going to remove the SLA image as that's not w:machining. Admins, you can close this deletion request. Wizard191 (talk) 21:56, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
Speedy keep: category probably shouldn't have been discussed on "deletion requests" in the first place (there's a "categories for discussion" page), but now even nominator seems to agree this one is valid. - Jmabel ! talk 06:14, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
Probable attack image; also appears to contain three individual images merged together to form one, but no indications present of what their sources were. Tabercil (talk) 04:48, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Oh, and I removed it from w:Mark A. Snodgrass and blocked the user who put it there. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 00:45, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
Screenshot of copyrighted video. No assertion of specific permission. Uploaded by disruptive cross-wiki spammer. Diego Grez (previously MisterWiki) let's talk 03:48, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
Deleted by Zirland: In category Other speedy deletions; no license
Image is redundant, exists at File:Kit body rkberlin.png --Calistemon (talk) 06:11, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Exact or scaled down duplicate: File:Kit body rkberlin.png -- Common Good (talk) 19:04, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
No description, no date, no permission. –BruTe Talk 17:37, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. no license, attack image/vandalism (see: en:Unken) -- Common Good (talk) 19:12, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Copyright violation; No date, no permission. –BruTe Talk 07:57, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
.JPG){kind=link}
Deleted by Túrelio: Copyright violation: http://audienciaetelevisao.wordpress.com/2009/09/13/viver-a-vida-talvez-a-ultima-de-manoel-carlos/
Possible copyvio or fake by cross-wiki spammer. --Diego Grez (previously MisterWiki) let's talk 01:34, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
from a speedy deletion request to a regular DR: User Diego Crez seems to make a crusade against cristian berrios - maybe this file is a copy violation, and the notability of Cristian berrios is unproven, but no reason for a speedy DR Cholo Aleman (talk) 17:33, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
Comment - sorry it is confusing - I overlooked the first DR - part of a crusade of User:Diego Grez against some sockets that defend a chilean poet.... part of a kind of "edit war" between some users, see [1] (not really an edit war, but a conflict) Cholo Aleman (talk) 18:55, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
- If Cristián Berríos is indeed the creator of this magazine cover, and put it on Flickr with the appropriate license, I don't see a problem, quite independently of his notability. Could someone please clarify the issue? - Jmabel ! talk 20:33, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
Support The user, whoever is he, just does Flickrwashing. See his contributions. --Diego Grez (previously MisterWiki) let's talk 20:43, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
Deleted by Bidgee: Per Commons:Deletion_requests/Images_of_Cristián_Berríos_and_sockpuppets
Fake picture. Most likely a copyvio by cross-wiki disruptive user. Diego Grez (previously MisterWiki) let's talk 03:24, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
- speedy delete I'm not sure it's fake, but the permission is bad. They took it from a video that was released an ok licence BUT the video itself was of a copyrighted telecast and so that licence was bad. Jamesofur (talk) 03:51, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
- ?? - changed from a regular DR to a speedy DR - OTRS-Ticket is there Cholo Aleman (talk) 19:14, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
Deleted by Bidgee: Per Commons:Deletion_requests/Images_of_Cristián_Berríos_and_sockpuppets
Not Chile public domain. This is from 1950. Please take a look at Template talk:PD-Chile and see how confusing it is. Diego Grez (previously MisterWiki) let's talk 03:27, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
Deleted by Bidgee: Per Commons:Deletion_requests/Images_of_Cristián_Berríos_and_sockpuppets
Not foreseeable usefulness. Diego Grez (previously MisterWiki) let's talk 03:30, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
Deleted by Bidgee: Per Commons:Deletion_requests/Images_of_Cristián_Berríos_and_sockpuppets
Not foreseeable usefulness. Diego Grez (previously MisterWiki) let's talk 03:33, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
Deleted by Bidgee: Per Commons:Deletion_requests/Images_of_Cristián_Berríos_and_sockpuppets
Er. Possible copyright violation of disruptive cross-wiki locked user. Diego Grez (previously MisterWiki) let's talk 03:35, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
Deleted by Bidgee: Per Commons:Deletion_requests/Images_of_Cristián_Berríos_and_sockpuppets
Listed on Flickr as All Rights Reserved, not the license shown on the file's page AussieLegend (talk) 14:26, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
- Keep, it's been reviewed, so presumably it used to be freely licensed. Creative Commons licenses are not revokable. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 23:55, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
- It was reviewed manually, so it's possible the reviewer made a mistake, which is why I nominated it. --AussieLegend (talk) 00:21, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Other pictures from the same photostream have been reviewed by bot. Trycatch (talk) 09:40, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
- And even the very same image (uncropped) was reviewed by bot. Trycatch (talk)
- Keep The images were once listed as under Commons which is good enough. No mistake was made because when I uploaded them, the license was such. -- Ipodnano05 (talk) 04:59, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
Kept. Uncropped version of this image was auto reviewed by a bot and a Creative Commons license is irrevocable. Bidgee (talk) 07:04, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
Uploader claims to be the author, but the logo is marked as TM. Spam? ← Körnerbrötchen » ✉ 15:19, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
This is not a spam. I work in the company Ubicast as Webmarketing Manager, and this is our logos and our pictures from our solutions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Guillaumealonso (talk • contribs) 18:09, 29. Apr. 2010 (UTC)
- Please sign next time with 4 tildes (~~~~). What you are is not important. It's important whether the image is trademarked or not. ← Körnerbrötchen » ✉ 20:37, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
- Comment: Trademark status is mostly irrelevant, see Commons:Trademarks. However, I see no evidence that the clip art used would be freely licensed. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 01:01, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Clip art used in the logo is copyrighted to the company and an COM:OTRS is required if it is going to be on Commons with a free-use license. Bidgee (talk) 06:55, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photoalbum. Not used. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:29, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Bidgee (talk) 06:59, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
Out of project scope, and unused file. Coyau (talk) 16:22, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
Delete speedily (possible privacy problems). /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 15:40, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Out of scope and privacy issues. Bidgee (talk) 06:33, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
logo, uploader is not author. No evidence of permission given. --. . . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 16:33, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Bidgee (talk) 06:39, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
nonsense image of a band - the use is a mistake - out of scope Cholo Aleman (talk) 19:10, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Out of scope. I removed the use on vi.wikt, which had been added by a bot trusting the name of the image! --GaAs11671 13:47, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Bidgee (talk) 06:40, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
modern work of art, cannot be public domain --Gryffindor (talk) 02:53, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Agreed. No FOP in USA for art. This discussion should also apply to
which are next in the log. . . . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 13:44, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Pruneautalk 16:40, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
modern work of art, cannot be public domain --Gryffindor (talk) 02:55, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Pruneautalk 16:40, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
modern work of art, cannot be public domain --Gryffindor (talk) 02:57, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Pruneautalk 16:40, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
Unused image (yet another band logo) User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 07:37, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Out of scope. Pruneautalk 16:42, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
Probably copyright violation GaAs11671 13:51, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
- This is ridiculous : all the sources have been listed in the file information box. Which one do you think would be a "probably copyright violation" ? Biem (talk) 16:51, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
- I may be mismachined. If so this file will be kept. And so insulting me is not useful. --GaAs11671 12:01, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
- Keep, sourcing seems to be in order and the licenses match. Not really sure why this was nominated in the first place. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 00:49, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
- Keep It's OK from a copyright point of view, but it surely would be a better illustration if the third source of radiation were something more graphic -- perhaps the symbol U235, a photo of an H-bomb test, or a radon gas detector. . . . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 15:24, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
Kept. Properly sourced. Pruneautalk 16:44, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
unused image of a band without proven notability - out of scope Cholo Aleman (talk) 19:06, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Pruneautalk 16:45, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
Out of Scope: Commons is no private photo album High Contrast (talk) 01:11, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 07:22, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
unused personal photo, out of scope Mjrmtg (talk) 12:00, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
Deleted. INeverCry 00:26, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
This image is a portrait, not a photo, the licence provided does not apply. Belgrano (talk) 02:29, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
- Keep The underlying portrait is probably PD since the subject died in 1841. For the portrait to still be in copyright, it would have to have been made by an artist who died after 1939 (Argentina is PMA+70). While not certain, that's very unlikely.
- I think the question the uploader is addressing is whether the photograph in the book is PD, and, based on the 25 year rule in Argentina, it is. In addition, of course, we take the position that there is no copyright in photographs of flat works of art, so it is PD in any case. . . . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 13:36, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
Have in mind that Lavalle died a century ago, but unlike photos anyone can make a portrait of him at any time, even today. Belgrano (talk) 23:35, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
- That's very true, which is why I said, "While not certain, that's very unlikely." Most post mortem paintings are made from photographs, not other paintings. We can say for certain that there are no photographs of Lavalle (the first photo of a person was in 1839, two years before his death). So, I stand by "very unlikely" and, therefore, by my vote to keep. . . . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 11:32, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
Kept. Mbdortmund (talk) 13:01, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
Out of scope; unused, no description, no categories, seems rather useless for a map. –Tryphon☂ 13:17, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
Delete Google search on "bosyin loge tutherend bank" yields zero hits, not a real place. . . . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 15:18, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 13:05, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
Uploader claims to be the author, but the logo ist marked with "TM" ← Körnerbrötchen » ✉ 15:17, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
This is a logo from our solution. The solutions is "Easycast" and the company is "Ubicast". both are TM brands. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Guillaumealonso (talk • contribs) 18:12, 29. Apr. 2010 (UTC)
- Keep, probably too simple to be copyrightable anyway. I've tagged it as {{PD-textlogo}} and {{Trademark}}. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 00:58, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
Kept. Mbdortmund (talk) 13:06, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
Almost 8 years without being used, Therefore it is OoS (out of scope); please note that this is a different DR rationale than the previous one. E4024 (talk) 09:05, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jon Kolbert (talk) 07:19, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
Copyright violation; No date, no permission. –BruTe Talk 06:53, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Even if own work, it's out of scope and too small to be useful. . . . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 14:33, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted by Krinkle: Mass removal of pages added by 정원빈 - no source and/or copyrighted and/or missing essential information over 7 days
Logo of company with copyright -91.38.169.171 16:50, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
- Do you actually mean it is trademarked or do you suggest it is really copyrighted? As it carries the year 1905, there is the question whether its creator isn't dead since long. Who created it? --Túrelio (talk) 09:07, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
- it is a trademark! but the uploader wrote, that he is the creator ("Eigene Arbeit" own work)...hard to belife... the Logo is in use look on the pge of the company here...--91.38.157.158 16:04, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
- the uploader wrote ... - honestly, when you work here for some time, you learn to take such a statement with caution. He/SHe probably meant by scanning the logo from some print, he became the author. Sometimes uploaders simply don't understand what to write into source= . --Túrelio (talk) 16:07, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
- it is a trademark! but the uploader wrote, that he is the creator ("Eigene Arbeit" own work)...hard to belife... the Logo is in use look on the pge of the company here...--91.38.157.158 16:04, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
)
- I know, but with this Licens the Logo is free for use for everybody under follwoing rules: to share – to copy, distribute and transmit the work
to remix – to adapt the work Under the following conditions: attribution – You must attribute the work in the manner specified by the author or licensor (but not in any way that suggests that they endorse you or your use of the work).share alike – If you alter, transform, or build upon this work, you may distribute the resulting work only under the same or similar license to this one.
- I'm shure the company don't want that there trademark is this way free for use!! This you would know, if you would work longer here ;-) --91.38.157.158 17:38, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
- Now you are mixing trademark- and copyright-issues. A logo may be free in regard to copyright, but at the same time under trademark-protection that would restrict or forbid its use for certain types of uses. Anyway, I've notified he uploader de:Benutzer Diskussion:Schmendrik09 on his local talkpage. --Túrelio (talk) 17:43, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
- I'm shure the company don't want that there trademark is this way free for use!! This you would know, if you would work longer here ;-) --91.38.157.158 17:38, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
Kept - License changed to {{PD-textlogo}}. If it is a trademark then the {{Trademarked}} should be added aswell. –Krinkletalk 20:31, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
Vulgare picture 90.179.194.15 12:34, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
- Delete. –BruTe Talk 13:00, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
Deleted per discussion. abf «Cabale!» 15:14, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
Flickr user Ethan Hein did not make this figure, and he does not really know where he got it from. Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:26, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. --Yikrazuul (talk) 21:31, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
- @Pieter: Did you ask him? --Leyo 14:56, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
- It said something like that at the Flickr page. Which is gone now. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:24, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Leyo 17:28, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
Unused logo to promote a wiki that has no article on any project. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 07:42, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Rocket000 (talk) 11:39, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
inappropriate category name. The subcategories are particularely not eithin the Commons categorization rules and category itself has a quite incomprehensible name: what is "Sake (01)"? Will there be a "Sake (02)"? Or what's the logic behind "(01)"? --80.187.107.222 12:44, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
- Keep interesting how this "anonymous user" has just magically appeared, out of nowhere, with full knowledge of wmc deletion procedures, & the user's (to date) first & only contribution is to nom this category for deletion. it would be be nice to know the user hiding behind the ip address.
(unindenting, because i can't be bothered indenting every line... )
as regards the category nominated, in point form:
1. the purpose of the category is to group the image scans of a specific artwork together. there will eventually be, at minimum, 4 images: 2 (front & back) @ a standard-resolution, & 2 (again front & back) @ hi-res/archival quality
- more than 4 if/when some kins user decides to create a restored version, with the damage/marking/colour/etc. cleared up Lx 121 (talk) 01:59, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
2. Sake is rice wine; the item is a gift certificate for refined sake, done as a woodblock print in traditional japanese style, technically you might consider it as an example of musha-e. since this is not the only sake gift certificate ever produced, nor is it likely to be the only one in wmc's collection, ever, & since there is a set of images of the item, it makes sense to differentiate.
2. the current title is provisional; if the mystery-guest nominator would like to suggest a logical, permanent naming-schema for organizing such material, i welcome their proposals, & look forward to debating them.
also; i'm not quite clear what the nominator means by "The subcategories are particularely not eithin the Commons categorization rules and category itself..." etc.? there are no subcategories to this; it is an end-branch on the category-tree, no further sub-categorization needed.
as to the comprehensibility of the name, i'd have thought that "Taishō era gift-certificate - Sake (01); scan-set of a specific item" was not entirely unclear.
it is a gift-certificate from the taisho era,
the gift certificate is for refined sake
of all the scan-sets of taisho-era gift certificates for sake, available at wikimedia commons, this item is provisionally designated as number (01)
when we get something figured out that makes sense as a permanent system of organization for such things, then by all means change it.
since the nominator is not offering any re-name suggestions, do they propose simply de-categorizing the image-set, & leaving it to end-users to figure out that the images are part of s group?
o__0
Lx 121 (talk) 01:45, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
- The category as it stands looks like a mess to me: poorly named; included in many non-existent categories; possibly over-specific given that there are only two items in it. Someone should look into a better way to reorganize this. - Jmabel ! talk 06:18, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
- as i said, open to better ways of doing this (note: there will be a minimum of four items in this category; likely 5 or greater, as there is another user who is interested in doing a restored version of the item). re: categories: the currently non-existent categories are ones which wmc currently lacks, & i would argue, that we need/should have: art of the taisho era, sake culture, commercial art of japan, gift certificates/vouchers, & musha-e (japanese woodblock prints of a samurai-genre). my intention was to create the cats, once i've got them somewhat populated. after i've done so, i'll be removing the higher-level cats that the sub-cats fit into Lx 121 (talk) 20:46, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
Delete Let's get rid of this Category for all the reasons noted above. Perhaps create a gallery -- naming rules aren't so rigid there -- and then see how it develops. If, eventually, there are enough images to warrant a category, then create one with a good name. . . . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 14:59, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
- respectfully disagree for the simple reason that galleries are not as efficient (& not used nearly as much). for an end-user it is much easier to access files via categorization, rather than via a galleries. commons is not a photo-album & de facto, categories win out as the primary system of organization; they are easier to work with, & to sort/search though. nobody does any serious work creating or maintaining galleries on here. as i said before, i'm open to a rename, just not inspired to suggest one. lol Lx 121 (talk) 21:32, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. I think the creator is confusing category names with file names or something. No one else shares his ideas of what categories should be. This has got to be the worst category I've ever seen. No rename; it's not a useful grouping for two images (use |other_versions= parameter). Rocket000 (talk) 11:26, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
The Reserve Bank website says[2] "no objection to education use etc" / fair use, but does not explicity release copyright as the description says. Benchill (talk) 08:05, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
- You are probably right. If deleted here, I could restore the file locally on de-WP (where no copyright problem exists). --Leyo 09:06, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
- Actually this ought to be speedy deleted per COM:MONEY#New_Zealand. Benchill (talk) 01:00, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted by Túrelio. File was restored on de.wiki. --Leyo 21:37, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
Unused image only used for promotion of a record company. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 07:38, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, out of project scope. Kameraad Pjotr 19:05, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
Nothing indicates that Ethan Hein had the authority to give a free license for his image. Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:05, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, no permission. Kameraad Pjotr 17:37, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
I believe we had DR's about this before; anyways, the statue is not out of copyright and there is no FOP in Belarus User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 18:09, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
??? 187.105.33.14 20:13, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Created in 1967 or later. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:34, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
Keep everybody who puts a monument in a public place, wants to be seen by everybody. --Starscream (talk) 20:18, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
- Right, but in the terms of copyright, this memorial is still copyrighted. Plus, according to COM:FOP#Belarus, there is no freedom of panorama in Belarus. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 20:44, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
- consequence of placing of monument in a public place. Natural law. --Starscream (talk) 20:13, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. ZooFari 23:15, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
Possible copyvio of cross-wiki disruptive user. Diego Grez (previously MisterWiki) let's talk 02:48, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
Comment incomplete deletion request Cholo Aleman (talk) 17:50, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Stifle (talk) 11:53, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
The Arche de la Défense and other images of isolated monuments used in this collage are in breach of the no Freedom of Panorama in France. Rosss (talk) Rosss (talk) 02:59, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
But there is no Freedom of Panorama in Belgium. But Brussel has a montage like Paris. Why?
The Emirr Disscussion 18:58, 01 May 2010 (UTC)
Delete The Brussels panorama and two of its constituents now have their own {{Delete}} for the same reason. . . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 14:11, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
Comment The Arche de la Défense photo is from Wikipedia and has a Fair Use tag there. The Louvre image has been through a {{Delete}} process here and, incredibly, survived on the grounds that the I. M. Pei pyramid was not important to the image as a whole. . . . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 14:31, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
Also there is no Freedom of Panorama in Italy. But Rome has a montage like Paris. And Argentine, Buenos Aires. Why?
The Emirr Disscussion 14:47, 08 May 2010 (UTC)
- File:Collage Rome.jpg does not appear to be a problem -- all of the works are old, or, in the aerial view, de minimus. I have tagged File:Expanded Buenos Aires Montage.JPG with {{Delete}} -- something you could do if you see more problems like these. . . . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 14:55, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
Why this file being used in Paris?
The Emirr Disscussion 07:15, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
- Again. You could tag it for deletion, as I have just done.... . . . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 13:56, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Stifle (talk) 11:53, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
Derivative work of copyrighted sculpture. FOP does not apply as this does not seem to be permanently situated at this location. ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 09:37, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Stifle (talk) 11:54, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
This may just be a licensing problem rather than a reason to delete, but I can't see any basis for the uploader to be the copyright holder of this 1934 image, so I don't see how he or she can release it into the public domain. Jmabel ! talk 20:26, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
- Hold on. The uploader contacted me by email. He is apparently connected to the Kohlbecker firm. I've directed him to COM:OTRS and I'm guessing we can get proper permission for this (and his other uploads, which raise similar issues). - Jmabel ! talk 17:39, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
- Uploader says (on his user talk page) that OTRS for this and other similar images was submitted today. -- Jmabel ! talk 18:53, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
- And so it was. The company said to hold the copyright (and I see no reason for disbelieve), and thus this (and 22 other) picture was tagges. Opt for close. --Guandalug (talk) 22:11, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
Kept. Stifle (talk) 11:54, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
The homepage given as source seems not zo be in the public domain nor the image is in the public domain (Copyright � 2000, 2001 KE Software.). The author is listed there as "photographer" and not as a US sailor or employee of the US Navy. But this would be essential for a Navy public domain licence 80.187.107.95 12:38, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- Comment The copyright notice is obviously for the website software, not the picture. However, you're right saying that the author is not an employee of the US Navy (Chas Fischer Spring Co is apparently company manufacturing goggles), so unless they had an explicit contract with the Navy, this image is not {{PD-USGov-Navy}}. It could be {{PD-US-no notice}}. –Tryphon☂ 13:00, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
- Where is then the proof for the public domain status of the image? Just because the US Navy was contracted with a private firm does not allow the US Navy to publish images of them in the public domain. Then Chas Fischer Spring Co had to give the US Navy an exclusive permission to take the image and to release it in the public domain. So {{PD-US-no notice}} must be proven by a OTRS permission or so. --80.187.107.65 15:05, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
Keep I think this is a mistake on the part of the source. This is an aerial photo of a US Navy ship taken during wartime -- it was almost certainly taken by a Navy photographer in a Navy plane. At that time there were no private planes -- fuel was rationed, pilots were all in the armed forces, and security was tight. I suspect that the Chas Fischer Spring Co, a maker of goggles, probably used some of the government photos illustrating the use of their goggles in their advertising, and their files ended up on this web site. (Yes, I know, you can't see the goggles in this photo, but they made the ones that the pilots of these planes wore.) . . . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 15:15, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Kept, given the subject, it is almost certain that this was an image taken by an USNavy employee. Kameraad Pjotr 19:31, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Self-created artwork without obvious educational use. Kenmayer (talk) 17:37, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
Keep Used. It would be nice to have OTRS permission, though the context suggests the uploader was indeed the copyright holder. --Simonxag (talk) 10:08, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
Kept. –Juliancolton | Talk 18:01, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
An image comprising of different logos with no permissions. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 07:30, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
- KeepOriginal uploader could well as per edit contribution have some involvement with the creativemedia company but there is no evidence of permission. Same uploader donated the other picture in the article, self portrait with extended camera details. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Oncouch.jpg could well be that the uploader is Timothy Brosnan and the founder of creative Hammers who is the likely copyright holder, I am tempted to keep Off2riorob (talk) 15:40, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
Delete The creator is unlikely to be the copyright holder of the logos. If you hire a designer to create a logo, an important part of the contract is that all the rights to the logo are assigned to you. Also, this smells like spam by Creative Hammers, which is out of scope. . . . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 14:52, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
- The uploader appears to be the digital artist Timothy Brosnan and as the creator would be also the copyright holder, we have lots of company articles why this one is more spam than any of the others is unclear. Off2riorob (talk) 00:07, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
- I do not believe this is spam at all, but my concern is that as the designer of the logo, does he actually hold the copyright for all of these logos or the specific organizers hold it. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 06:52, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
- Two points raised above:
- In USA copyright law, the creator of "a work made for hire" is not the copyright owner -- the person/company that hired him or her is. Although the work made for hire rule ought to be sufficient, as I noted above, the ownership of the copyright in a logo is almost always explicitly defined in the contract covering the purchase of the work. The creator will rarely -- never in my professional experience -- have any rights at all.
- I say "spam" because apparently the Timothy Brosnan article was created by his company, Creative Hammers. I hung both notability and COI tags on the article, because there are no external references and no indication that he is notable enough to meet Wikipedia guidelines. It therefore meets the guidelines for spam on English Wikipedia, which makes this image simply a few bytes of spam. . . . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 15:16, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
- To be honest , considering your comments you seem involved and not NPOV about this issue and it would be better if you stepped back and allowed neutral editors to opine. Off2riorob (talk) 19:26, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
- He has not dealt with this image before, nor this subject, so he is impartial. Even if not, NPOV does not apply to the Commons. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 19:35, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
- Well he seems bothered about this company, I don't any issues about this persom Brosnan, it looks to me like a good faith copyright claim. Delete it if it bothers you. Off2riorob (talk) 20:45, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
- He has not dealt with this image before, nor this subject, so he is impartial. Even if not, NPOV does not apply to the Commons. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 19:35, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
- Two points raised above:
- I do not believe this is spam at all, but my concern is that as the designer of the logo, does he actually hold the copyright for all of these logos or the specific organizers hold it. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 06:52, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
- We can speculate that the uploader is indeed Timothy Brosnan, but he never claimed to be. Even if he did, we would still need OTRS to confirm. And him being the copyright holder of all these logos would still be disputable. With that amount of uncertainty, I'd say delete. –Tryphon☂ 21:32, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, no permission from the copyright owner and out of project scope. Kameraad Pjotr 19:00, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
Images of Cristián Berríos and sockpuppets
[edit]- File:1994 Interamericana.JPG
- File:Catolica campeon Veracruz.JPG
- File:Pichilemu.JPG
- File:Badminton 1947.JPG
- File:Santo Grial.JPG
- File:Universidad Católica 1949.JPG
- File:Cristian berrios.jpg
- File:Universidad Católica 1950.JPG
- File:Number on in the competition.JPG
- File:Simbolo de copa.JPG
- File:Copa internacional amistosa.JPG
- File:Acta fundación UC 1937.JPG
- File:UC Clausura2005.JPG
- File:Catolica 1949.JPG
- File:Católica 1954.JPG
- File:Universidad Católica 2002.jpg
- File:Universidad Católica 1987.jpg
- File:Anuncio CruzadosSADP.jpg
- File:Católica sub17 2009.jpg
- File:Universidad Católica 1961.JPG
- File:Universidad Católica1937.JPG
- File:UC Intercopa94.JPG
- File:Universidad Católica Ciudad-de Palma 1984.JPG
- File:Puente de Saturno.JPG
- File:Gol Miguel Ardiman 1994.JPG
I'm sure that Cristian Berrios pictures have no usefulness for Wikimedia. Many of them are copyvios and/or promotional pictures or fakes. Also he does flickrwashing uploading copyrighted pictures from Flickr, licensing them as CC. Diego Grez (previously MisterWiki) let's talk 21:26, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
- Delete I agree, facebook's clippings from a newspaper are not free. Delete them. --Fail (talk) 22:39, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
- Keep there are many pictures of sporting and cultural interest.Cortés
- User's only contribution. Registered today.
- And the comment (except the undated signature) was actually written using a French anonymizer service. —LX (talk, contribs) 22:36, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
- User's only contribution. Registered today.
- Keep Esta es mi primera edición también. Many pics in the list are files of Public Domain. --Superior selenita (talk) 20:54, 30 April 2010 (UTC) Mi IP: --190.20.161.31 20:55, 30 April 2010 (UTC).
- Comments removed because of sockpuppetry abuse on votings by Cristián Berríos. --Diego Grez (previously MisterWiki) let's talk 02:28, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete per nom RP459 (talk) 16:45, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
- Comment these deletion requests have to be refused for formal reasons; these images cannot be treated as a unity. for instance: the reason for the deletion request for File:Pichilemu.JPG reads: "Reason for the deletion request: Images of Cristián Berríos. Most of them copyvios/fakes/promotional/flickrwashing." - this is highly tentative like "most of them are wrong in some way". The confusing actions of Diego Grez just waste the time of other users and administrators here. He was blocked here in the commons for socket puppets, and obviously he is actually blocked in the spanish Wikipedia. Obviously he does not learn. I will not waste more time with this case. Cholo Aleman (talk) 09:11, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
- Comment Wait wait wait. You mean, I tagged these files for copyvio and spam and I'm just wasting time. Well, no. Commons is for free files, not copyvios. Fakes are not useful. Flickrwashing is not allowed. And promotional pictures are most likely deleted. I thought "I'm tagging copyvios, I'll receive a barnstar", but all I get is an AN thread and these wasting-time comments. --Diego Grez let's talk 15:43, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete - This Christian Berrios nonsense has to stop. NerdyScienceDude (✉ message • changes) 19:28, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Yeah, copyvios are a no. fetchcomms☛ 04:13, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Bidgee (talk) 06:43, 6 May 2010 (UTC)