Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2010/05/19
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
|
|
.jpg){kind=link}
_(3945100925).jpg){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
_(1929).jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
unused text with a biography - out of scope, misunderstanding of the commons Cholo Aleman (talk) 05:46, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
Delete Good for him that he has a lot of women (so he says).--Giorgiomonteforti (talk) 08:35, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 00:20, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
Photo is out of date --Delancey1 (talk) 00:22, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
?? - no reason for deletion given Cholo Aleman (talk) 05:47, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
Keep Notability has its price.--Giorgiomonteforti (talk) 08:32, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
Comment no it is a speedy deletion request - curiouser and curiouser Cholo Aleman (talk) 07:08, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
Kept. Mbdortmund (talk) 11:11, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
I don't think this logo qualifies as pd-text logo. (http://www.nata.org/) -- Deadstar (msg) 09:02, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
- Me neither. Delete. –Tryphon☂ 09:23, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 11:12, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
Joke image, apparently. Low quality. Difficult to define "usable". Giorgiomonteforti (talk) 10:45, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 11:13, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
At best this is an incorrect license tag, but more probably this is an infringement of RAGS's copyright on the poster. --. . . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 12:38, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
- RAGS International is the previous name for MFI. This is the image of a billboard from MFI (then RAGS International). - MFI Media/Correspond 22:52, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
- Withdrawn by nom. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:11, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
cannot imagine educational use, unused, blurred and unsuitable description Herzi Pinki (talk) 19:08, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Actually, it could be a picture of the ukranian president (as the description states) posing some kind of wreath of flowers in some kind of ceremony. But who can tell it? --Giorgiomonteforti (talk) 02:13, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
- Comment, I found the evidence, see picture. --Herzi Pinki (talk) 17:12, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 11:19, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
"prototype of something" (a toy ?!) - private unused image - out of scope Cholo Aleman (talk) 19:30, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 11:19, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
unused promotional image for a company - out of scope Cholo Aleman (talk) 19:36, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Very private, very promotional. Try to upload it in 50 years. --Giorgiomonteforti (talk) 02:14, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 11:20, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
unused private image - out of scope Cholo Aleman (talk) 19:47, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete The attorney who won the award. And that's the best picture documenting why I won the award? --Giorgiomonteforti (talk) 02:16, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
- Comment Which award, for instance?--Giorgiomonteforti (talk) 02:30, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 11:20, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
unused private image - out of scope Cholo Aleman (talk) 19:48, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete We are happy you have enjoyed your chats. Even if the picture shows a slight of falsity. At least, you could add the topic of them on the description grid. We like gossips.--Giorgiomonteforti (talk) 02:20, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 11:21, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
Requested by uploader --Lazdynas (talk · contribs) Correct malformed DR. --Captain-tucker (talk) 16:32, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted by ABF: In category Media without a license as of 19 May 2010; no license
COM:DW of artwork on bottle. sугсго 10:39, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete can be speedied. Commercial packaging. -- Deadstar (msg) 10:42, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted per discussion. abf «Cabale!» 11:46, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
I don't think this logo for a school is ineligible for copyright (PD-Ineligible) -- Deadstar (msg) 10:47, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted per nomination. abf «Cabale!» 11:47, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
personal and unused image --Santosga (talk) 10:52, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted per nomination. abf «Cabale!» 11:48, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
unused promotional image - out of scope, only edit of this user Cholo Aleman (talk) 19:49, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Among all other bands we review here on deletion, this one it's a bit less aggressive. People are smiling. And look at the blondie. I would save it just for that. And for the singer's hairs. --Giorgiomonteforti (talk) 02:22, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete press photo -- malo (talk) 19:12, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted COM:SCOPE... ;) abf «Cabale!» 11:49, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
unused strange logo / drawing of something - out of scope Cholo Aleman (talk) 20:03, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Do I need to translate? Title and description are a bit ... rude urban slang, let's say. Tasteless as well. Mexican, probably.--Giorgiomonteforti (talk) 02:27, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted per discussion. abf «Cabale!» 11:49, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
{{mtc}} should not redirect to {{moved to commons}}, since it is used on en.wiki as an redirect for move to commons, but is not removed by commonshelper. Thus nearly all uses of mtc are of images recently moved by commonshelper --DieBuche (talk) 22:29, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
- (I recently ran my bot over the template: Out of 272 transclusion, only 16 were meant as a redirect to {{moved to commons}})--DieBuche (talk) 22:36, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
- Deleted for now to stop CommonsHelper adding even more of them. --DieBuche (talk) 22:13, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted by DieBuche: Template added by CommonsDelinker out of a different context. All usages are being removed
Image looks like it was taken from a website - uploader claims own work -- Deadstar (msg) 08:08, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:16, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
No source/date given for the original image, no way to verify PD-Art is correct. -- Deadstar (msg) 10:12, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:18, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
Gothicmed screenshot: Hidden Gothic vault above a baroque ceiling in Trinity Monastery (Valencia ES). Not self made. (http://www.gothicmed.com but site doesn't load for me at the moment) -- Deadstar (msg) 10:40, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:19, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
COM:DW. sугсго 10:45, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:20, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
I don't think this logo qualifies as PD-text logo. -- Deadstar (msg) 11:15, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:23, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
Unused. Personal image. Playing with photoshop. Giorgiomonteforti (talk) 11:25, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:23, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
Credited to "s.e." here. Who took the photograph? Eusebius (talk) 13:17, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:25, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
COM:DW. sугсго 14:23, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:26, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Unused, sort of crest. The duplicate says is the crest of the Fallen Angels (Angeles Caidos). But, with such a shield, fallen where? Giorgiomonteforti (talk) 16:49, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:29, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
Claimed as public domain being a work of teh US government but source is a university web site Whpq (talk) 17:13, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:33, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
Unused promotional picture of some kind of band. Low resolution, blurred apparently. Giorgiomonteforti (talk) 17:16, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:33, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
Reason: Copyvio from http://www.artsalud.es/ Bestiasonica (talk) 18:49, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:35, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
According to http://www.bdgqt.org.cn/wstx014.asp, the flag is not drawn correctly. This image was replaced by an SVG drawing that matches current CYL regulations. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 23:38, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Agreed, see this file from afore mentioned page:[1] --DieBuche (talk) 23:55, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
![[1]](http://www.bdgqt.org.cn/img/wstx012.gif){kind=link}
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:37, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
This could be a copyvio but perhaps a little discussion is warranted. This letter has a Crown Copyright --. . . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 12:27, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete It would seem like that to me. --Herby talk thyme 15:54, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
- Comment
If it's not a fake, it's a letter sent to the Prime Minister Office to someone, the uploader I guess. So, it's a public document. What about public documents in England? What's their copyright status? Furthermore, a simple thanksgiving standard letter sent by a secretary cannot claims authorship.--Giorgiomonteforti (talk) 16:56, 19 May 2010 (UTC) - Comment I reformulate, after a review to the Crown Copyright. And I have a question. Does the Copyright Crown applies even to official letters sent to private institutions or private people? In fact there are many classes of documents, according to the queen's will, and all of them have different copyright rules to be applied. Is this letter entering in a restrictive category? It cannot be considered as a public award? The receiver it's entitled to publish it or to made it public? Just asking for better understanding. --Giorgiomonteforti (talk) 17:06, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
Comment - no idea of crown copyrights for these short texts - but the use of the file is very strange : in an article that consists to 90 percent of advertising images. This is by far not a letter of "appreciation" , but merely politeness. Very strange Cholo Aleman (talk) 19:55, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
- Comment I agree with you, Cholo. It's just a routine polite letter. Anyway, they succeeded to reach Downing Street. It's something. But, is it truly copyrighted? The Queen has such restrictive enforcements? I won't remain surprised, anyway. --Giorgiomonteforti (talk) 02:35, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
- Comment I asserted above that this has a Crown Copyright. As my colleagues above have noted, that may have been premature without further research. Crown Copyright is on a "everything is subject to copyright except" basis. A review of the list of exceptions suggests that my assertion was correct. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:10, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete This seems to be Crown Copyright, I can't see why this would be an exception. TheGrappler (talk) 15:53, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. I don't usually close DRs that I opened, but this one's time has come. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:18, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Files of Angiejgray
[edit]- File:Discover washington.jpg
- File:Detroit red doors.jpg
- File:Washington DC Metrostop.jpg
- File:Union Station DC.jpg
- File:Getting starbucks coffee.jpg
- File:Wool scarf.jpg
- File:American male.jpg
- File:Waiting for work.jpg
- File:Visit to the Capitol.jpg
- File:Artist creates art.jpg
- File:Wendys overseas American male.jpg
- File:Artist at work.jpg
Commons is not personal image hosting service. Really can't imagine any educational useful purpose of those images --Justass (talk) 18:25, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
Delete - private images Cholo Aleman (talk) 19:32, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete I'm with Cholo --Giorgiomonteforti (talk) 02:08, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 11:16, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
Likely copyvio, see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Cretu2.jpg for an earlier nomination of a similar image by the same uploader. Ilmari Karonen (talk) 15:26, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Likely copyvio, eg this image is of August 2008 and the image in question was uploaded in October 2008. Blacklake (talk) 15:56, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
Unused lost image superseded by File:Indene.png. Original could be recovered from zh:Special:Undelete/File:Indene.png, but given the low file size, I doubt it's worth it. Would be nice if a zhwiki admin could check, though. Ilmari Karonen (talk) 13:35, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete. It's not worth the effort to recover an unused low-quality image that wouldn't be used anyway because of the high resolution equivalent. Edgar181 (talk) 20:17, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Per Ed. --Yikrazuul (talk) 09:13, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Leyo 09:21, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
_(3945100925).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(3945100925).jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Big part of the image contains Windows Vista screenshot which is copyrighted. Allowed or not ? --–Krinkletalk 09:58, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
_(3945100925).jpg){kind=link}
- ((vd}} I would say that the Vista is de minimus since it's illegible. But I think the image is out of scope -- even with a rotation, what do we have -- an image showing a mostly blank screen and half a keyboard? Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:57, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, the screenshot is not de minimis, as it is a central part of the image. Kameraad Pjotr 12:19, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
_(3945100925).jpg){kind=link}
Taken in Moscow, but not PD in Russia. sугсго 14:32, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
- The file is PD in the Ukraine, a successor state of the Soviet Union. ("This file is a Ukrainian or Soviet work and it is presently in the public domain in Ukraine [...]: It was published before January 1, 1951, and the creator (if known) died before that date. (This is the effect of the retroactive Ukrainian copyright law of 1993 and the copyright from 50 to 70 years in 2001.)). This file is definitely Soviet work, so it is PD. --Kl833x9 (talk) 15:41, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete If the photographer is Ukrainian or the photograph was taken in the Ukraine, I can see why this PD tag would be used. However, there is no evidence that either exists. Plus, the photo was taken in Moscow, so the source country will be the Russian Federation and this is not out of copyright there. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 23:43, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
- Keep The photographer was a Soviet photographer. The text of the copyright notice does not require that the photographer has to be a "Ukrainian", for example a soviet citizen registered in the Ukrainian SSR, if this photo has been taken before 1991. It also does not require that the image has to be taken in the area of the present Ukrainian state. The photo has been taken under Soviet jurisdiction and the present Ukrainian State has been a part of the Soviet Union in 1944. The Ukraine is like the Russian Federation a successor state of the Soviet Union, so it is feasible to apply the Ukrainian copyright on this photo. --Kl833x9 (talk) 07:12, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete - Since when is Moscow in the Ukraine? Moreover, there's no evidence the photo actually is PD in the Ukraine; where's the date of publication? Where's the date of the author's death? Without either of those it cannot be established when the image will enter PD in the Ukraine. More importantly, the image is still copyrighted in the US, which is where our servers are located. Parsecboy (talk) 16:35, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
- Once again: The Ukraine was part of the soviet union in 1944, so the unkrainian copyright includes every soviet work until 1991. The photo has been published for the first time in the Iswestia on 18th July 1944. The photographer is unknown. --Kl833x9 (talk) 17:27, 11 July 2010 (UTC) 17:26, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
- Assuming, for the sake of argument, that you are correct about the status in the Ukraine, how exactly does that make the image public domain in the United States? You have not addressed that crucial detail, and whether this image remains on Commons or has to be moved to the Ukrainian Wiki depends on whether you or anyone else can prove that this image is PD in the United States. Parsecboy (talk) 02:32, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
- In addition, Isvestia is located in St. Petersburg, so the location of publication would be Russia. Ukrainian copyright is therefore irrelevant. Parsecboy (talk) 11:18, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
- There is no possibility to differ between ukrainian and russian copyright in the period from 1919 until 1991.
The russian federation and the ukraine are both sucessor states of the soviet union. And both copyrights are including the whole soviet intellectual property. Therefore it is feasible to apply both copyright terms on soviet work no matter where this work has been created and no matter if the Soviet citizen was an Ukrainian or a Russian .
A more demonstrative example for this: Sergey Pavlovich Korolyov has been born and educated in the Ukraine (Ukrainian SSR exactly) and is therefore an Ukrainian. He constructed as chief of the OKB-1 nearly every soviet rocket vehicle from 1946 until 1966. Are these rockets (The Soyus is still used recently) now Ukrainian or Russian technology ? No, they are Soviet technology, therefore both states have the possibility (but not ability) to use Korolyovs inventions. --Kl833x9 (talk) 20:02, 12 July 2010 (UTC) - In addition: The Isvestia was/is located in (St. Petersburg/Petrograd/Leningrad ->three names for the same city) until 1918 and from 1991 until now. From 1918 until 1991 it was located in Moskow. See Izvestia --Kl833x9 (talk) 20:02, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
- Second addition: The copyright of the United States is by definition irrelevant due to the fact that we have to apply Russian or Ukrainian copyright on this Soviet work. --Kl833x9 (talk) 20:02, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
- It is relevant. Under our licensing policies, images must be public domain in the USA and their home country in order to it be hosted here under the public domain. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 20:13, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
- Lets see (after [2]):
a) It is a work of a foreigner or a US citizen abroad.
b) The period is from 1923 through 1977.
c) The image has been published without compliance with US formalities, and was in the public domain in its source country as of 1 January 1996: The russian federation has joined the Berne Treaty on March 13, 1995, so the 1 January 1996 is relevant. In 1996 the image was public domain in the Russian Federation. Cite of the old russian copyright tag: It was published before January 1, 1954, and the creator (if known) died before that date (For veterans of the Great Patriotic War, the critical date is January 1, 1950). The russian copyright changed in 2008, but this is not relevant. The Ukraine has joined the Berne Treaty in 1996. It was also public domain the Ukraine, because 'it was published before January 1, 1951, and the creator (if known) died before that date. (This is the effect of the retroactive Ukrainian copyright law of 1993 and the copyright from 50 to 70 years in 2001.)
So as far as I see is the image after the US copright law in public domain.--Kl833x9 (talk) 20:57, 12 July 2010 (UTC)- You're wrong; the 2008 Russian copyright law is the one that matters. This photograph is apparently from the Russian State Archives, which means the Russian copyright law is the applicable law—the Russian archives holds the photo and therefore the rights to it, not the Ukrainian archives. Because the Russian law is retroactive, the image is still under copyright protection in Russia. Parsecboy (talk) 10:42, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
- Since when is a law from the year 2008 relevant, if the protection date is the 1. January 1996 and the image was not copyrighted in russia at that time ? You are discussing unobjectively do you ? --Kl833x9 17:41, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
- Because copyright is retroactive and items can be placed back under copyright protection. I personally disagree with it, but it happens and we have to follow it. We lost a lot of GPW images due to the 2008 revision of the copyright law, even the raising of the Soviet flag in Berlin. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 17:52, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
- The appointed date for the US-Copyright Law was the January 1st 1996. Every file which was public domain on that date, is after the US-copyright Law still in public domain in the US regardless if there have been retroactive law changes or not. --Kl833x9 (talk) 18:21, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
- But it won't be public domain in the source country, which makes the files no-go for the Commons. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 18:24, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
- The source country was the Soviet union and the Ukraine was a part of the soviet union ... --Kl833x9 (talk) 18:29, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
- But the photograph was taken in Moscow, Russia SFSR, not the Ukraine. Unless you can show a publication date INSIDE the Ukraine, then we cannot have this photo on here. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 18:34, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
- Assuming, for the sake of argument, that you are correct about the status in the Ukraine, how exactly does that make the image public domain in the United States? You have not addressed that crucial detail, and whether this image remains on Commons or has to be moved to the Ukrainian Wiki depends on whether you or anyone else can prove that this image is PD in the United States. Parsecboy (talk) 02:32, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
- We are going in circles: I have allready mentioned that neither the russian nor the ukrainian copyright mention that they are protecting only a ukrainian or a russian part of the intellectual property of the soviet union. They are protecting the whole intellectual property ... --Kl833x9 (talk) 20:14, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
- Once again: The Ukraine was part of the soviet union in 1944, so the unkrainian copyright includes every soviet work until 1991. The photo has been published for the first time in the Iswestia on 18th July 1944. The photographer is unknown. --Kl833x9 (talk) 17:27, 11 July 2010 (UTC) 17:26, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
Keep There is no need to delete this photo. As Kl833x9 said, the photograph was taken in the Soviet Union. Hence it is possible to apply the Ukrainian copyright. It doesn't matter in which Federative Republic of the Soviet Union the photo was taken. Also the photographer had the Soviet citizenship (not the Russian, Ukrainian, Kazakh...). --Paramecium (talk) 09:19, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
- Kl833x9's states "Therefore it is feasible to apply both copyright terms on soviet work." According to that logic, the image must be deleted, because it is unquestionably still under copyright protection in Russia. The 2008 law retroactively placed this image back under copyright protection in Russia, so it's not in the public domain in one of the countries of origin. Parsecboy (talk) 16:40, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, {{PD-Ukraine}} does not apply; not in the public domain in Russia (where the picture was taken), but in the public domain in the U.S. Commons policies require that the image is free both in the source country and the U.S. Kameraad Pjotr 19:03, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
Taken in Vilnius, but not PD in Lithuania. sугсго 14:36, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
- The file has been taken under Soviet jurisdiction and is therefore a Soviet work. So PD-Ukraine is applicable. --Kl833x9 (talk) 16:00, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
- Comment {{PD-Ukraine}} requires some proof that the image was published before January 1, 1951 and the creator (if known) died before that date. --Kam Solusar (talk) 05:09, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
Delete Not public domain in the source country (Lithuania requires 70 years PMA and it has not been 70 years even since the end of WW2. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 23:46, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
keep! author it unknow, and file it was PUBLISHED in soviet rule part of Europe, and in Soviet media {soviet enczklopedia} too. --195.113.197.35 10:54, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, {{PD-Ukraine}} does not apply, as this image has nothing to do with Ukraine. The image is not in the public domain in Russia (the de facto successor state) or in Lithuania (where the picture was taken), and cannot be used at commons. Kameraad Pjotr 18:57, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
not a work by the uploder but a screenshot of a movie. sугсго 11:10, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Angel and the Badman is a movie that's fallen into the public domain.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:37, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
Kept, as {{PD-US-not renewed}} per the other files in the category. Kameraad Pjotr 21:15, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
Author (en:Yevgeny Khaldei) died in the 1990s. Not PD. sугсго 14:44, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Per nom, note the bogus license claim {{PD-Ukraine}} by 68.155.183.233. Martin H. (talk) 03:03, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
Author (en:Yevgeny Khaldei) died in the 1990s. Not PD. sугсго 14:45, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Per nom, note the bogus license claim {{PD-Ukraine}} by 68.155.183.233. Martin H. (talk) 03:04, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
Author (en:Yevgeny Khaldei) died in the 1990s. Not PD. sугсго 14:48, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Per nom, note the bogus license claim {{PD-Ukraine}} by 68.155.183.233. --Martin H. (talk) 03:03, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
Images from Beeldbank Nationaal Archief are only free for non-commercial use. This one is not in the Flickr Commons Project --Clausule (talk) 23:26, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. *sigh* --Martin H. (talk) 03:14, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
Author (en:Yevgeny Khaldei) died in the 1990s. Not PD. sугсго 14:50, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Martin H. (talk) 21:55, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
Taken in Moscow, not PD in Russia. sугсго 14:53, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
- Keep In Soviet Union no existed copyrights. --Starscream (talk) 20:26, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
- SU did have copyright laws. See en:Copyright law of the Soviet Union and en:International copyright relations of Russia#Copyright on Soviet and Russian works in other countries. sугсго 08:14, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Yes, agree with starscream... and, nextime, read template carefully - "This file is a Ukrainian or Soviet work".
- Moscow is the captial of Russia, not of the Ukraine. Even if this photo would be a Ukrainian work, it has to 1st: been published before 1953 and it's author died before 1953. Both is even not claimed. sугсго 08:14, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Public domain, no reason to deletion... --195.113.197.35 06:53, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Comment comments but no arguments - trolling? The NYPL gives the source Blagosostoianie detei Sovetskogo Soiuza. In Russian that is благосостояние детей Советского Союза, translated Prosperity for the children of the Soviet Union, I thought maybe its a book title, but apparently the collection is only a captioned photo album. Its unclear if it - photo album or individual photos - was ever published. It is unclear - book or individual photos - if it was published only locally or across the soviet union including Ukraine. If this connection to the Ukraine not exists it cant be licensed as pd-ukraine and must go. --Martin H. (talk) 21:49, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, no evidence that this image was taken by an Ukrainian, taken in Ukraine or first published in Ukraine, thus {{PD-Ukraine}} does not apply. Kameraad Pjotr 18:18, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Unused small GIF image, appears to lack educational use. Description insufficient to even tell what it is. Also seems likely to be copyvio based on uploader's other contribs and the fact that it seems to be designed for display on a dark background (which would make little sense if it was actually own work made for use on Wikimedia sites). Ilmari Karonen (talk) 15:31, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. --JN466 18:55, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, out of project scope. Kameraad Pjotr 20:21, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Does not meet criterias for freedom of panorama (copyrighted object (the photo) has to be at one place over a long time or ever). ← Körnerbrötchen » ✉ 19:55, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
.JPG){kind=link}
By your logic, this would mean that the Category:Election posters in the United Kingdom (with 24 pics) and the Category:Election posters by country (with 15 countries) would also have to be deleted. If you delete my entries you have to delete all of these categories too. I don't think so. Ardfern (talk) 20:02, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
.JPG){kind=link}
- You will also notice that it is categorised as a picture of a road sign in Belfast - another reason not to delete it. Ardfern (talk) 20:07, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
- I agree with Ardfern. These things are purposely plastered all over the place especially so the public can see them. Arriva436talk/contribs 20:13, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
- Okay, okay! :D It seems to be that I have transferred German right to international right. ← Körnerbrötchen » ✉ 00:30, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
This is freedom of panorama and just common sense, you can't display something publicly in the hope that it will not be photographed in any way. If we go down this route we'll have to start deleting pictures with graffiti or a billboard in them. In any case I've always thought all of this copyright criteria is something we should only pay lip service to at best.Mtaylor848 (talk) 11:50, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
.JPG){kind=link}
- No chance it is not allowed in Germany to photograph and publish those things. Best example is de:Verhüllter_Reichstag#Bildrechte. ← Körnerbrötchen » ✉ 13:10, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
These posters were not displayed in Germany, now were they published in Germany, the images were neither created nor published in Germany. Freedom of panorama applies here. These tags are being placed on other similar election images.Mtaylor848 (talk) 19:46, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
.JPG){kind=link}
- Delete, not permanently located in a public place, and not even a work of artistic craftsmanship, so definitely not covered by COM:FOP#United Kingdom. –Tryphon☂ 19:56, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
- Keep, these posters do not convey enough artistic merit to exempt them from freedom of panorama. In any case the image in question is not solely of the work.Mtaylor848 (talk) 14:39, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, no freedom of panorama in the United Kingdom for posters. (Deleted some more in the same category). Kameraad Pjotr 21:13, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
.JPG){kind=link}
Passed flickr review, but the credit line states http://www.acumenimages.com, which is copyrighted. (all images and content © Sam Friedrich) -- Deadstar (msg) 11:01, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
- DeleteAlso File:Jackie Ashley, September 2009 rotated and cropped.jpg which is derivative. Looks like copyvio to me. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:55, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, copyright violation (Flickrwashing). Kameraad Pjotr 18:55, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
_(1929).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(1929).jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
According to the category of this painter, this was done in Germany and still in copyright there. The use of this Ukrainian tag is false since the painter did not live in the Ukraine and is not ethnically Ukrainian. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 23:58, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
_(1929).jpg){kind=link}
- Delete Agreed that it is still in copyright. As for the tag, he was born in Moscow and lived in Russia for several periods, so the rules summarized in the Ukrainian tag would have applied if the painting had been done while he was there. It wasn't. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:05, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, {{PD-Ukraine}} simply does not apply, as this painting has no link with Ukraine whatsoever. Kameraad Pjotr 18:40, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
_(1929).jpg){kind=link}
Screencap of a film. On the talkpage it says
- I'm the copyright owner of this image. It's a screencap from a short film I directed. Trapezoid (talk) 23:42, 2 October 2008 (UTC).
- O.k., that wasn't clear from the initial description. But is the publication here also o.k. for "Plymouth Rock Studios", as you were paid to make that film for them?[3] --Túrelio (talk) 07:25, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
We will need OTRS permission if this is to stay. (I realise that I could have put an OTRS pending note on the file, but if someone thinks it's ok to stay as it is, please close request.) -- Deadstar (msg) 07:53, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
- Comment No, I agree that it needs permission. It's very likely the rights are owned by Plymouth Rock as that would be usual in the USA. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:51, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:57, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
This is actually not a Hubble image, and it isn't attributed to NASA [4]. Probably not PD. –Tryphon☂ 09:22, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete NASA-Images would have a credit of Credit: NASA, ESA, and The Hubble Heritage Team (STScI/AURA) or alike. This image has T.A. Rector/University of Alaska Anchorage and WIYN/AURA/NSF . Needs explicit permission via OTRS or deletion. --Guandalug (talk) 08:59, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
- Too bad this was uploaded before hubblesite clarified its copyright policy in 2008 to require third parties to specify if they wished to reserve copyright. -Nard (Hablemonos)(Let's talk) 03:55, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:59, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
http://www.flickr.com/photos/yokoonoofficial/2893756308/ has this photo listed with All rights reserved, and Photo courtesy Ronnie Hawkins Promotions. It could however be that uploader Ritchiy (talk · contribs) is in fact en:Richie Yorke as the only contributions seem to be around him (see en: too). He also uploaded File:Ritchie yorke.jpg, which is used on other sites (but Commons could be the source). However, if he is in the photo, he did not take it. -- Deadstar (msg) 10:23, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:00, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
It is unlikely this promotional picture of The Regents (a doo-wop vocal group from New York in the late 1950s and early 1960s) is self made. -- Deadstar (msg) 10:44, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
- Comment Ok, badly described. But we cannot pretend that users, at first attempt, knew attentively all the rules of Commons. Or copyright. I'm still ignorant and puzzled myself. Anyway, if it's just a promotional picture, so the authorship is irrelevant, why not {{PD-US-no notice}}?--Giorgiomonteforti (talk) 11:06, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete We don't pretend that first time users know our rules -- that's why we have this {{Delete}} process which notifies the uploader and takes a week or more to consider the matter. It's unlikely that this is {{PD-US-no notice}} -- back then, professional photographers were generally very careful about notice, with a rubber stamped notice on the back of every image that left their shop. It might be {{PD-US-not renewed}}, but that's not up to us to investigate. The burden of proof is on the uploader for the very good reason that there are very few volunteers actually doing this work and thousands of uploaders. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:50, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:01, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Copyright violation of the copyright in the banners behind the table. --. . . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 12:41, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:02, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
http://www.oulu.fi/ has no license on it that I could find to verify the logo of the university is released with a cc-by license. -- Deadstar (msg) 12:44, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:02, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
Der Maler des Bildes ist noch keine 70 Jahre tot und eine Freigabe liegt nicht vor. anghy (talk) 14:03, 19 May 2010 (UTC) --anghy (talk) 14:11, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
- Also File:Dodenhof2.jpg and File:Dodenhof4.jpg which are listed below.
- Comment Our rendering of the German FOP rule at {{FoP-Germany}} is ambiguous. It says that FOP applies to "... public ways, streets, or places... "[emphasis added]. Does "places" include museums? I have asked for a clarification at the German Forum (Village Pump) Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:30, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
- The Pictures wasnt taken in an museum ... the photograph has buyed the pictures and then make a photo (sorry for my bad english)--anghy (talk) 18:03, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
- DeleteThe German FOP law doesn't apply even in a museum. The copyright belongs to the artist, not the owner of the painting, so this is a delete. And don't worry about your English -- it's much better than Google's German, which what I would have to use. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 18:22, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:04, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
Hallo Leute, ich bin der, der die Fotos zur Verfügung gestellt hat. Mir gehören die fotografierten Gemälde. Die Fotos habe ich selbst gemacht. Ich weiß, dass dieser Umstand nichts am Urheberrecht ändert. Aber: Ihr seid ja dermaßen abgedriftet in eine Welt der Vorschriften und potentieller Probleme mit Gesetzen, dass Ihr die tatsächlichen Zusammenhänge nicht mehr seht. Vielleicht kennt Ihr die Diskussion im Film "Das Leben des Brian" darum, ob Loretta ein Kind austragen darf, obwohl sie ja keine mumu hat. Genauso diskutiert Ihr. Alle unsere Gesetze sind irgendwann vor dem Hintergrund einer gewissen Sinnhaftogkeit erlassen worden. Der Sinn der Urheberrechts ist es, die Rechte des Eigentümres, und ggfls. seiner Erbe zu schützen. Durch die Veröffentlichung der drei Fotos auf der Seite Dodenhoff entsteht weder dem Künstler noch seinen Erben ein Schaden. Es wird auch von niemandem ein Gewinn dadurch erzielt. Es wird ein gemeinnütziger Zweck erfüll dadurch, dass gezeigt wird, wie Dodenhoff in verschiedenen Phasen gemalt hat. Ich, als derjenige, der die Fotos veröffentlicht, mache das nicht aus dem Grund der Gewinnerzielung. Es ist keine gewerbliche Veröffentlichung. Leute, es wird keine Probleme geben. Andererseits kann es immer Probleme geben in der großen weiten Welt und im großen Wikipedia, und daran ändert Ihr auch nichts. Würde ich nach Eurer Einstellung leben, könnte ich in den Kindergarten zurück gehen und auf nächste Anweisungen warten, damit mir nichts geschieht. Ich wirke hier mit, weil es mir eigentlich "Spaß" machen sollte. Natürlich muss so ein großes Werk auch mit Regeln verbunden sein. Obwohl ich erst an etwas über 200 Artikeln mitgewirkt habe, habe ich jetzt schon drei oder vier Mal den Fall gehabt, dass andere Leute meine Artikel oder Teile davon wieder streichen lassen wollten oder gestrichen haben. Teilweise dann hinterher wieder zurück genommen. Dieser Ort scheint mir stark bevölkert von Besserwissern, die nur nach Fehlern anderer suchen, um sich endlich selbst zu behaupten. Solchen Lueten, die dann sofort mit der Löschung der Arbeit anderer dabi sind, muss ein Riegel vorgeschoben werden, denn sonst ziehen sich Leute wie ich, die ansosnten nicht so leicht einzuschüchtern sind, von hier zurück; - und Ihr seid auf uns angewiesen, wenn sich das hier weiter entwickeln soll. Also, macht was Ihr wollt, macht Ihr ja sowieso. Grüße--var (talk) 12:41, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
Der Maler des Bildes ist noch keine 70 Jahre tot und eine Freigabe liegt nicht vor. anghy (talk) 14:05, 19 May 2010 (UTC) --anghy (talk) 14:11, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:04, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
Hallo Leute, ich bin der, der die Fotos zur Verfügung gestellt hat. Mir gehören die fotografierten Gemälde. Die Fotos habe ich selbst gemacht. Ich weiß, dass dieser Umstand nichts am Urheberrecht ändert. Aber: Ihr seid ja dermaßen abgedriftet in eine Welt der Vorschriften und potentieller Probleme mit Gesetzen, dass Ihr die tatsächlichen Zusammenhänge nicht mehr seht. Vielleicht kennt Ihr die Diskussion im Film "Das Leben des Brian" darum, ob Loretta ein Kind austragen darf, obwohl sie ja keine mumu hat. Genauso diskutiert Ihr. Alle unsere Gesetze sind irgendwann vor dem Hintergrund einer gewissen Sinnhaftogkeit erlassen worden. Der Sinn der Urheberrechts ist es, die Rechte des Eigentümres, und ggfls. seiner Erbe zu schützen. Durch die Veröffentlichung der drei Fotos auf der Seite Dodenhoff entsteht weder dem Künstler noch seinen Erben ein Schaden. Es wird auch von niemandem ein Gewinn dadurch erzielt. Es wird ein gemeinnütziger Zweck erfüll dadurch, dass gezeigt wird, wie Dodenhoff in verschiedenen Phasen gemalt hat. Ich, als derjenige, der die Fotos veröffentlicht, mache das nicht aus dem Grund der Gewinnerzielung. Es ist keine gewerbliche Veröffentlichung. Leute, es wird keine Probleme geben. Andererseits kann es immer Probleme geben in der großen weiten Welt und im großen Wikipedia, und daran ändert Ihr auch nichts. Würde ich nach Eurer Einstellung leben, könnte ich in den Kindergarten zurück gehen und auf nächste Anweisungen warten, damit mir nichts geschieht. Ich wirke hier mit, weil es mir eigentlich "Spaß" machen sollte. Natürlich muss so ein großes Werk auch mit Regeln verbunden sein. Obwohl ich erst an etwas über 200 Artikeln mitgewirkt habe, habe ich jetzt schon drei oder vier Mal den Fall gehabt, dass andere Leute meine Artikel oder Teile davon wieder streichen lassen wollten oder gestrichen haben. Teilweise dann hinterher wieder zurück genommen. Dieser Ort scheint mir stark bevölkert von Besserwissern, die nur nach Fehlern anderer suchen, um sich endlich selbst zu behaupten. Solchen Lueten, die dann sofort mit der Löschung der Arbeit anderer dabi sind, muss ein Riegel vorgeschoben werden, denn sonst ziehen sich Leute wie ich, die ansosnten nicht so leicht einzuschüchtern sind, von hier zurück; - und Ihr seid auf uns angewiesen, wenn sich das hier weiter entwickeln soll. Also, macht was Ihr wollt, macht Ihr ja sowieso. Grüße--var (talk) 12:44, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
Der Maler des Bildes ist noch keine 70 Jahre tot und eine Freigabe liegt nicht vor. anghy (talk) 14:04, 19 May 2010 (UTC) --anghy (talk) 14:11, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:05, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
Hallo Leute, ich bin der, der die Fotos zur Verfügung gestellt hat. Mir gehören die fotografierten Gemälde. Die Fotos habe ich selbst gemacht. Ich weiß, dass dieser Umstand nichts am Urheberrecht ändert. Aber: Ihr seid ja dermaßen abgedriftet in eine Welt der Vorschriften und potentieller Probleme mit Gesetzen, dass Ihr die tatsächlichen Zusammenhänge nicht mehr seht. Vielleicht kennt Ihr die Diskussion im Film "Das Leben des Brian" darum, ob Loretta ein Kind austragen darf, obwohl sie ja keine mumu hat. Genauso diskutiert Ihr. Alle unsere Gesetze sind irgendwann vor dem Hintergrund einer gewissen Sinnhaftogkeit erlassen worden. Der Sinn der Urheberrechts ist es, die Rechte des Eigentümres, und ggfls. seiner Erbe zu schützen. Durch die Veröffentlichung der drei Fotos auf der Seite Dodenhoff entsteht weder dem Künstler noch seinen Erben ein Schaden. Es wird auch von niemandem ein Gewinn dadurch erzielt. Es wird ein gemeinnütziger Zweck erfüll dadurch, dass gezeigt wird, wie Dodenhoff in verschiedenen Phasen gemalt hat. Ich, als derjenige, der die Fotos veröffentlicht, mache das nicht aus dem Grund der Gewinnerzielung. Es ist keine gewerbliche Veröffentlichung. Leute, es wird keine Probleme geben. Andererseits kann es immer Probleme geben in der großen weiten Welt und im großen Wikipedia, und daran ändert Ihr auch nichts. Würde ich nach Eurer Einstellung leben, könnte ich in den Kindergarten zurück gehen und auf nächste Anweisungen warten, damit mir nichts geschieht. Ich wirke hier mit, weil es mir eigentlich "Spaß" machen sollte. Natürlich muss so ein großes Werk auch mit Regeln verbunden sein. Obwohl ich erst an etwas über 200 Artikeln mitgewirkt habe, habe ich jetzt schon drei oder vier Mal den Fall gehabt, dass andere Leute meine Artikel oder Teile davon wieder streichen lassen wollten oder gestrichen haben. Teilweise dann hinterher wieder zurück genommen. Dieser Ort scheint mir stark bevölkert von Besserwissern, die nur nach Fehlern anderer suchen, um sich endlich selbst zu behaupten. Solchen Lueten, die dann sofort mit der Löschung der Arbeit anderer dabi sind, muss ein Riegel vorgeschoben werden, denn sonst ziehen sich Leute wie ich, die ansosnten nicht so leicht einzuschüchtern sind, von hier zurück; - und Ihr seid auf uns angewiesen, wenn sich das hier weiter entwickeln soll. Also, macht was Ihr wollt, macht Ihr ja sowieso. Grüße--var (talk) 12:45, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
One of the architects of Hotel Ukrayna (:en:Arkady Mordvinov) died in the 1960s. Neither PD in Russia, nor in the Ukraine. sугсго 15:01, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:05, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
One of the architects of Hotel Ukrayna (:en:Arkady Mordvinov) died in the 1960s. Neither PD in Russia, nor in the Ukraine. sугсго 15:01, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:06, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
I uploaded this file for use in transcription at Wikisource. But I've since obtained a scanned copy of the same work directly from the Government Gazette, which is uploaded at File:Constitution of the Western Cape 1997 from Government Gazette.djvu, and we'll be using that one instead at Wikisource. This document is basically a duplicate of pages 33-61 of that one; they differ only in formatting. --Htonl (talk) 15:10, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete New versions has the text in more languages than just english--DieBuche (talk) 23:53, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:07, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
See en:User_talk:Francisco_de_Almeida#Possibly_unfree_glider_images, the user uploaded files from various authors but failed to provide required permission evidences. Martin H. (talk) 16:01, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:08, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
Convert to DR from speedy by User:DieBuche which read "this is a bad edit on a low resolution thumb of my Image File:MaskeAgamemnon.JPG. I have repeated the color corrections on the full res original here" --KTo288 (talk) 17:58, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
- Comment I honestly cannot say which one is better, but dozens of articles seem to prefer this version. It would be easy if one was a reduced resolution version of the other but that does not seem to be the case, both are "corrections" from the same source. There are about a dozen images on the same subject matter in the parent category, most to my of much the likeness to the others, one more should not make much difference. have them all and allow article writers to chose. KTo288 (talk) 18:05, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
- That was my point. This one is 564 × 572 pixels, while original and the other edit are 1,457 × 1,472 --DieBuche (talk) 23:50, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
- I don't understand what matter, but when I produce this file in low dimention and bright colors it was only for utilising it as icône on french wikipedia. Deletion will create a lot of work to change in the place it is used now - Siren-Com (talk) 14:03, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
Kept. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:09, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
Photo of image, located in the modern book. We can't use CC-BY-SA-3.0 for such images. Dinamik (talk) 22:00, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:11, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
Photo of image, located in the modern book. We can't use CC-BY-SA-3.0 for such images. Dinamik (talk) 22:01, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:11, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
Photo of image, located in the modern book. We can't use CC-BY-SA-3.0 for such images. Dinamik (talk) 22:01, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:11, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
Photo of image, located in the modern book. We can't use CC-BY-SA-3.0 for such images. Dinamik (talk) 22:02, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:12, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
Photo of image, located in the modern book. We can't use CC-BY-SA-3.0 for such images. Dinamik (talk) 22:03, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:12, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Photo of image, located in the modern book. We can't use CC-BY-SA-3.0 for such images. Dinamik (talk) 22:03, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:12, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
Photo of image, located in the modern book. We can't use CC-BY-SA-3.0 for such images. Dinamik (talk) 22:04, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:13, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
Photo of image, located in the modern book. We can't use CC-BY-SA-3.0 for such images. Dinamik (talk) 22:05, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:13, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
Photo of image, located in the modern book. We can't use CC-BY-SA-3.0 for such images. Dinamik (talk) 22:12, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:14, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
Photo of image, located in the modern booklet. We can't use CC-BY-SA-3.0 for such images. Dinamik (talk) 22:19, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete. Non free image. --Hayk (talk) 07:37, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:13, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
Photo of image, located in the modern booklet. We can't use CC-BY-SA-3.0 for such images. Dinamik (talk) 22:21, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete. Non free image. --Hayk (talk) 07:37, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:14, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
Photo of image, located in the modern booklet. We can't use CC-BY-SA-3.0 for such images. Dinamik (talk) 22:22, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete. Non free image. --Hayk (talk) 07:37, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:15, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
Photo of image, located in the modern booklet. We can't use CC-BY-SA-3.0 for such images. Dinamik (talk) 22:23, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete. Non free image. --Hayk (talk) 07:38, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:15, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
Photo of image, located in the modern booklet. We can't use CC-BY-SA-3.0 for such images. Dinamik (talk) 22:23, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete. Non free image. --Hayk (talk) 07:37, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:15, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
This map is not based on valid or reliable sources and is probably an original research of Romanian user Anonimu from English Wikipedia who was original author of this map. Map is supposedly based on this source: http://pntcd.ro-usa.com/romintimoc.htm however, this link is dead (and I doubt that it ever worked). Basic problem with this map is that it present false Vlach-majority territory. If this map is compared with some other ethnic maps, it is clear that Vlach are not inhabiting such large territory. Here are examples: 2002 census ethnic map, 1981 census ethnic map, 1953 census ethnic map, and 1931 census ethnic map (the last one is from Romanian Wikipedia and even in that map some supposedly Vlach majority settlements from File:Timvlach.png were inhabited by Serbs). 194.106.188.101 21:21, 19 May 2010 (UTC) 194.106.188.101 21:21, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
- Comment: This is how the site looked when I created the map: archived version (wait a bit to load). The source doesn't fit the current reliability standards (when I first uploaded it, the standards where more lax), as it seems it's the page of a Romania political party authored by a guy (Viorel Dolha) with a slightly (Romanian) nationalist discourse, and there's no sign of peer review. I'm unable to assert the relation between this map and the real life situation on those territories. At the time when I uploaded it, no detailed ethnic data was readily available, however nowadays, with the increased Internet penetration in Eastern Europe, I think more adequate maps can be created. In short, this was the best data available 4 years ago, and, as all pioneering works, it may have imperfections. I don't oppose this file's deletion if someone can come with a more accurate version. Also, it would be nice if, when proposing deletion, users assumed good faith.Anonimu (talk) 19:06, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
- Ok, I apologize for not assuming good faith in your case, but due to recent problems with user Olahus in Serbian Wikipedia and in Wikimedia Commons, this issue became problematic and crossed limits of good faith. It is logical that someone is concerned for map accuracy and good faith when link that was described as a source for this controversial map did not worked. Of course, you now explained that link simply expired, so doubts about good/bad faith should not be raised any more. However, I checked the archived version of the source page, and there are still problems with this source: although this source contains a list of supposedly Vlach-populated villages, it also contains a sentence that claim that this village list was created on the basis that „in these places you (i.e. if you are an Romanian) do not need translators in oral communication with local Serb“. This is an subjective view of ethnic situation in these villages and since we know that many of such settlements are mixed (this map is very good illustration of that ethnic mix), the fact that an Romanian can speak with some inhabitants of one village does not mean that all (or majority) of village inhabitants are Vlachs. I will also give some examples: in this map's source there is description that settlements Miroč, Nerešnica, Brza Palanka, etc are populated exclusively with Vlachs, while this 1931 census-based map show that these settlements were either majority Serb either mixed. Clearly, this source does not reflect data from any census or any serious ethnographic research. Data given in this source that 1953 census recorded in this region 198,728 Serbs who spoke Vlach language can't be used with interpretation that all Serbs in these settlements are in fact Vlachs. There are certain issues that should be taken into consideration when this issue is in question: 1. this 1931 census-based map clearly show where these Vlach speakers lived since this census did not recorded ethnicity of people – it recorded only language. So, it is obvious that speakers of Serbian language from this 1931 map are not Vlachs, but „real“ Serbs. 2. There are certain demographic processes that influenced demographic situation in this region such is decrease of Vlach population because of low birth rate, immigration of Serbs from other parts of Yugoslavia and assimilation through mixed marriages. 3. Interpretation of 1953 data that 198,728 Serbs who spoke Vlach language were in fact Vlachs can be used in relation to year 1953, but not to year 2010 since last Serbian census in 2002 recorded in Serbia 54,818 speakers of Vlach language and 40,054 ethnic Vlachs, meaning that there could be no more than some 14,000 Vlach-speaking Serbs. Speaking about question whether this issue is already covered with other maps, 2002 ethnic situation is already covered by this map whose author is demographer Varjačić Vladimir, while historical situation is very good covered with this map (I would also suggest that somebody move this 1931 census map from Romanian Wikipedia to Wikimedia Commons so that it can be used in other Wikipedias). 194.106.189.152 12:36, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
- Comment: They are no problems with me, they are only problems with Serbian POV-pushers like you who love to modify the description of images and interpret an image on baseless argumentations. You seem to have a problem with the term "Romanian" since you insist to replace it with "Vlach". You are edit-warring with me on the Atlas of Serbia from this reason. And it is also strange that you "forgot" to mention the 1921-census http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Rumani_dunareni_1920_1921.jpg well well ... --Olahus (talk) 13:56, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
- Administrators in Serbian Wikipedia can confirm that there are problems with you and they had to protect some articles there because of your vandalism. If descriptions in some files are not accurate all good-faith users can correct them. Problem with this file is presentation of false area with Vlach majority, so issues related to other files and articles should not be discussed here. Also, the file that supposedly refer to 1921 census does not show Serb-speaking population in the area and hence it is tendentios – data in that file should be confirmed by independent sources. 194.106.189.228 23:34, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
- Administrators in Serbian Wikipedia can confirm nothing. Absolutely NOTHING. False presentation? Read better this article before writing wrinting ridiculous things here. --Olahus (talk) 10:47, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
- well, I can prove that you had confrontation with administrators in serbian wikipedia: here an administrator in serbian wikipedia protected article because of you and here you accused one ethnic hungarian administrator in serbian wikipedia for abusive behaviour (how one ethnic hungarian can be Serbian POV-pusher as you wrote here?) It is clear that administrators of different ethnic backgrounds recognized your edits as abusive. I also do not see reason to read article in english wikipedia since wikipedia article itself is not reference for anything. If you have any specific references included into that article and that are related to this subject, please present such references on this page. 194.106.188.103 15:01, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
- Read what a Serbian administrator said to me: Sorry for the inconvenience. It is indeed true that you haven't broken the 3RR rule. So let it be! --Olahus (talk) 09:22, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
- So what if you did not broke 3RR? You was engaged in disruptive revert war with nationalistic attitude and article that you vandalized is still protected. There are other ways of abusive behaviour, not only 3RR. 194.106.188.10 11:00, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
- I inserted reliable sources (from independent authors) and you simply deleted them everythime without any reason. So who is the one disrupted the article? Besides, wikipedia is not a forum. So, if you have to say something about this image, do it. If not, don't bother us anymore! --Olahus (talk) 08:18, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
- My point was that administrators there reacted against your actions, not against actions of any other user, so it is clear that your behaviour is problematic. 194.106.189.244 10:42, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
- I inserted reliable sources (from independent authors) and you simply deleted them everythime without any reason. So who is the one disrupted the article? Besides, wikipedia is not a forum. So, if you have to say something about this image, do it. If not, don't bother us anymore! --Olahus (talk) 08:18, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
- So what if you did not broke 3RR? You was engaged in disruptive revert war with nationalistic attitude and article that you vandalized is still protected. There are other ways of abusive behaviour, not only 3RR. 194.106.188.10 11:00, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
- Administrators in Serbian Wikipedia can confirm nothing. Absolutely NOTHING. False presentation? Read better this article before writing wrinting ridiculous things here. --Olahus (talk) 10:47, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
- Administrators in Serbian Wikipedia can confirm that there are problems with you and they had to protect some articles there because of your vandalism. If descriptions in some files are not accurate all good-faith users can correct them. Problem with this file is presentation of false area with Vlach majority, so issues related to other files and articles should not be discussed here. Also, the file that supposedly refer to 1921 census does not show Serb-speaking population in the area and hence it is tendentios – data in that file should be confirmed by independent sources. 194.106.189.228 23:34, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
- Comment: They are no problems with me, they are only problems with Serbian POV-pushers like you who love to modify the description of images and interpret an image on baseless argumentations. You seem to have a problem with the term "Romanian" since you insist to replace it with "Vlach". You are edit-warring with me on the Atlas of Serbia from this reason. And it is also strange that you "forgot" to mention the 1921-census http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Rumani_dunareni_1920_1921.jpg well well ... --Olahus (talk) 13:56, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
- Ok, I apologize for not assuming good faith in your case, but due to recent problems with user Olahus in Serbian Wikipedia and in Wikimedia Commons, this issue became problematic and crossed limits of good faith. It is logical that someone is concerned for map accuracy and good faith when link that was described as a source for this controversial map did not worked. Of course, you now explained that link simply expired, so doubts about good/bad faith should not be raised any more. However, I checked the archived version of the source page, and there are still problems with this source: although this source contains a list of supposedly Vlach-populated villages, it also contains a sentence that claim that this village list was created on the basis that „in these places you (i.e. if you are an Romanian) do not need translators in oral communication with local Serb“. This is an subjective view of ethnic situation in these villages and since we know that many of such settlements are mixed (this map is very good illustration of that ethnic mix), the fact that an Romanian can speak with some inhabitants of one village does not mean that all (or majority) of village inhabitants are Vlachs. I will also give some examples: in this map's source there is description that settlements Miroč, Nerešnica, Brza Palanka, etc are populated exclusively with Vlachs, while this 1931 census-based map show that these settlements were either majority Serb either mixed. Clearly, this source does not reflect data from any census or any serious ethnographic research. Data given in this source that 1953 census recorded in this region 198,728 Serbs who spoke Vlach language can't be used with interpretation that all Serbs in these settlements are in fact Vlachs. There are certain issues that should be taken into consideration when this issue is in question: 1. this 1931 census-based map clearly show where these Vlach speakers lived since this census did not recorded ethnicity of people – it recorded only language. So, it is obvious that speakers of Serbian language from this 1931 map are not Vlachs, but „real“ Serbs. 2. There are certain demographic processes that influenced demographic situation in this region such is decrease of Vlach population because of low birth rate, immigration of Serbs from other parts of Yugoslavia and assimilation through mixed marriages. 3. Interpretation of 1953 data that 198,728 Serbs who spoke Vlach language were in fact Vlachs can be used in relation to year 1953, but not to year 2010 since last Serbian census in 2002 recorded in Serbia 54,818 speakers of Vlach language and 40,054 ethnic Vlachs, meaning that there could be no more than some 14,000 Vlach-speaking Serbs. Speaking about question whether this issue is already covered with other maps, 2002 ethnic situation is already covered by this map whose author is demographer Varjačić Vladimir, while historical situation is very good covered with this map (I would also suggest that somebody move this 1931 census map from Romanian Wikipedia to Wikimedia Commons so that it can be used in other Wikipedias). 194.106.189.152 12:36, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
- Keep My tendency with this sort of thing is to keep the image with {{Inaccurate-map-disputed}} on it. While I have no idea whether it is accurate or not -- the issue here is whether it might be useful in illustrating ethnic tensions or propaganda (if it is propaganda -- I don't know). The fact that the map was created, correct or not, is interesting historically and potentially educational. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:47, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
- Well, in such case, it should be clearly described that file is not accurate and that it only represent Greater Romanian propaganda and their territorial pretensions towards Serbia. However, I still fail to see why we need file that reflect nationalistic propaganda when we already have good and accurate census-based ethnic maps of serbia. This file will only make delusion and will not inform readers about accurate situation, which is main purpose of files and articles in wikipedia (or in wikimedia). 194.106.189.228 23:34, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
- "Greater Romanian propaganda and their territorial pretensions towards Serbia" ... get away with your ridiculous paranoic Milosevic-mentality... And log on, please. --Olahus (talk) 10:47, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
- Milošević? How about Chaushesku? Tell me, if your edits are not nationalistic and insulting for citizens of serbia, why would I object to them? I have no reason to object frendly and good faith edits of any user. Your edits, however, are not examples of frendship and good faith, and that apply to source that was used for this map as well. 194.106.188.103 15:01, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
- No, my edits are not nationalistic. They are based on reliable sources and with good faith. --Olahus (talk) 09:23, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
- I can present many evidences against your good-faith behaviour claims, but here we discuss about map created by other user, so I will not spend more of my free time to discuss about issue unrelated to this deletion request. 194.106.188.10 11:00, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
- No, my edits are not nationalistic. They are based on reliable sources and with good faith. --Olahus (talk) 09:23, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
- Milošević? How about Chaushesku? Tell me, if your edits are not nationalistic and insulting for citizens of serbia, why would I object to them? I have no reason to object frendly and good faith edits of any user. Your edits, however, are not examples of frendship and good faith, and that apply to source that was used for this map as well. 194.106.188.103 15:01, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
- "Greater Romanian propaganda and their territorial pretensions towards Serbia" ... get away with your ridiculous paranoic Milosevic-mentality... And log on, please. --Olahus (talk) 10:47, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
- Well, in such case, it should be clearly described that file is not accurate and that it only represent Greater Romanian propaganda and their territorial pretensions towards Serbia. However, I still fail to see why we need file that reflect nationalistic propaganda when we already have good and accurate census-based ethnic maps of serbia. This file will only make delusion and will not inform readers about accurate situation, which is main purpose of files and articles in wikipedia (or in wikimedia). 194.106.189.228 23:34, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
- KeepThis map also represent the point of view of the NATIONAL COUNCIL OF VLACH (ROUMANIAN) NATIONAL MINORITY. --Olahus (talk) 08:37, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
- That is not their view. They took this map from Serbian Wikipedia, but that Serbian-language version of this map is also proposed for deletion there. 194.106.189.244 10:42, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
- It is their point of view too since they accept it.--Olahus (talk) 15:03, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
- they did not „accepted“ anything – they simply found that map in wikipedia and thought that it is correct one. Or you deny that map used on that web page originating from wikipedia? 194.106.189.117 22:34, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
- Who cares about your POV? --Olahus (talk) 22:58, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
- what POV? There is no doubt that map on that web site originating from serbian wikipedia, see: http://sr.wikipedia.org/sr/%D0%A1%D0%BB%D0%B8%D0%BA%D0%B0:Timvlach.png – is that same map or not? 194.106.189.100 07:01, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
- I am talking about your POV concerning the accuracy of this map.--Olahus (talk) 22:10, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
- well, I am talking about that too. people that download files from wikipedia do not always posess knowledge are such files accurate or not. the fact that somebody is using file from wikipedia would only mean that he trust to wikipedia and that he think that files found in wikipedia are correct (unfortunately, this is not always the case). 194.106.189.149 19:58, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
- Even such maps, based on estimated instead of census results are built on an etimation which is based on older census results who revealed a higher number of Vlach-Romanian population and by far more localities with a Vlach-Romanian majority. Just take into account that the 1895-census counted 159,000 "Romanians". The 1961-census only 1,330 "Vlachs" and the 2002-census 40,054 "Vlachs". As you can see the census results on this population show high deviations. The reasons for such results might be varius: forgery by the Serbian statistics, non-declaration of the Vlach/Romanian indentity beacause many members of this community feared of discrimination and marginalization, or, simply because they have a fluctuating national counscience due to an assimilation by the Serbs. However, the Vlach organizations from this area must act in pursuance with estimations. And the information from Timvlach.png is accepted by the Vlach organization. Weather You or I like it or not, this map is accepted by this organization and there is nothing more to say about it. I repeat: everything else is POV.--Olahus (talk) 11:45, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
- well, I am talking about that too. people that download files from wikipedia do not always posess knowledge are such files accurate or not. the fact that somebody is using file from wikipedia would only mean that he trust to wikipedia and that he think that files found in wikipedia are correct (unfortunately, this is not always the case). 194.106.189.149 19:58, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
- I am talking about your POV concerning the accuracy of this map.--Olahus (talk) 22:10, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
- what POV? There is no doubt that map on that web site originating from serbian wikipedia, see: http://sr.wikipedia.org/sr/%D0%A1%D0%BB%D0%B8%D0%BA%D0%B0:Timvlach.png – is that same map or not? 194.106.189.100 07:01, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
- Who cares about your POV? --Olahus (talk) 22:58, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
- they did not „accepted“ anything – they simply found that map in wikipedia and thought that it is correct one. Or you deny that map used on that web page originating from wikipedia? 194.106.189.117 22:34, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
- It is their point of view too since they accept it.--Olahus (talk) 15:03, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
- That is not their view. They took this map from Serbian Wikipedia, but that Serbian-language version of this map is also proposed for deletion there. 194.106.189.244 10:42, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
Kept, bogus deletion request; please do not take nationalistic disputes to Wikipedia. Kameraad Pjotr 19:58, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
