This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Deleted. Along with all others images by uploader. This particular image taken from Google Street view[1] via skyscrapercity.com Justass (talk) 12:35, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Image resolution is very poor, the bridge is not identified and we don't know where it is even located. Finally, this image is not even used anywhere. How is this image encyclopedic in this situation? The uploader left Commons 2 years ago. The text just says: "This photo was taken off by me in cimado mount" but of what bridge. Given the poor quality, I'd like to think its replacable. --Leoboudv (talk) 09:57, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If you look at the Panoramio source page, you'll see precise geographical coordinates for the bridge. On the other hand, you'll also see an "All rights reserved" notice; consequently, I've tagged this image as a copyvio. If it weren't for the licensing issue, I'd vote to keep. Nyttend (talk) 01:24, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Comment But you have no idea if this is own work. Many people on flickr contribute 1,2 or 3 images on flickr, panoramio or picasa to Commons. You fail to completely address the comment: "own work." It may be own work--we don't know. Unfortunately, I have no panoramio account. This kind of DR will certainly ensure the image gets deleted before one can contact the copyright owner. --Leoboudv (talk) 18:54, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It could be own work (and in that case license on Panoramio is not relevant) but user names are not similar so I would like confirmation before I would wote keep. I just added a note on Panoramio so perhaps user will confirm it is on work or will give a permission. --MGA73 (talk) 19:11, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the note on Panoramio, I've altered the licensing there to match that noted here. Had completely forgotten about it.
I think that the change of license to "Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike" confirms that image was uploaded to Commons by the same person that uploaded the image to Panoramio. Therefore we can keep the image. However since the user is "new" to Commons (only one upload so far sadly) I asked if commercial use is ok (just like the license on Commons say). --MGA73 (talk) 10:49, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I will withdraw this DR on Nard's behalf since the uploader has changed the license on panoramio here to CC BY SA. So, it is definitely "own work." --Leoboudv (talk) 05:06, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
If this company exists, then a public domain release from an anonymous source is not credible. Inappropriate license details. Fæ (talk) 13:30, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not very likely to be used. This is too complex to be PD-textlogo, so it's a copyvio as well; I've tagged it for speedy. Nyttend (talk) 01:20, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Delete - what it is supposed to do is to write an "a" in the "CS Avva Shenouda" font; won't work if you do not have Coptic fonts on your computer. Should be uploaded with a tracing option switched on. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 23:03, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
unused private image - out of scope (if anybody can read the description and prove that it is not private but notable I will be glad) Cholo Aleman (talk) 19:33, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Delete Instead of showing off the result, why they didn't take a series of pictures about that kind of make-up? How it looks like out of the box, how to apply it and so on. This was interesting and illustrative. The picture it's just unillustrative crap and badly shot also. Ego rules these days.--Giorgiomonteforti (talk) 22:21, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Delete Private. When I was a kid I had a friend we called Gandhi. For the same reason of this guy I suppose (but my friend, apart the physical appearance, was called Gandhi also for the facts that he didn't want to eat anything). Have I to suppose that everywhere there is, at least, one Gandhi? It could be a great PhD subject. --Giorgiomonteforti (talk) 22:26, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Photo taken from Orkut, as stated in "source" field. And it says it's "All rights reserved" ("Todos os direitos reservados", in Portuguese).. --Ednei amaral (talk) 02:37, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Hard to believe, that an author of a painting is "unknown". The uploader may please write down, what investigation he did to find out the author. Martin H. (talk) 03:51, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Keep What do you mean with "out of scope". Some time ago I tried find sth photo or picture to ilustrate a poem about happines and found nothing special on Commons. It is ridiculous that some of yours think that it is "out of scope". So please give me a better egzample to ilustrate "Happiness". I am waiting... Btw. I am an admin on pl-wikisource and I know well what is need for our project. Electron<Talk?>07:56, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment You should have in mind that Commons is not only a store for Wikipedias but also for other wikimedia projects like Wikisources, Wikibooks & etc. Some pictures that are "out of scope" for Wikipedia are very good ilustrations for poems, romanses, books and so on. Btw. I move a picture to Category:Happiness in art. Maybe now it would be more easy to understand. Electron<Talk?>07:56, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Out of scope personal image. Looks like it was a random upload from a Flickrbot. It's been photoshopped, and I can't see this being used to illustrate any project articles in the near future. Orphaned, too. Sarah (talk) 01:35, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Thank you very much for your recommendation. I noticed that the inclusion of this image in other articles and projects made no sense, however, you're right, it is best to clear nominate instead of quick removal. thank you very much :) --The Photographer (talk) 20:56, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete"Well OMG OMG OMG i am soooo soo happy"... that this file is not in use anymore. This is just another selfie upload that we should scrub from commons. --Dschwen (talk) 03:24, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't want to comment on the merits of this work. But the file description is problematic which has no relation to the media content depicted here. This is a general problem of third party uploaded contents here, especially from social media sites like Flickr. Unlike an educational website like NASA or LOC, Flickr is a casual media sharing application, (mostly) used for sharing intimate contents and to build and maintain healthy relations. So the texts that we see there may not be anyway related to the picture displayed there, and not meant for to be shared in sites like Commons. Such contents should be removed/edited by passing through an editorial review. A bot can only review the license; no such things. :(
Keep This image falls within scope as it is easy to categorize (as it has been) into a range of topics where it may be useful to re-use for illustrative purposes. As Jakadavoor has demonstrated, this is a wiki, so the descriptive text was easy to improve without deleting the image (Commons:First_steps/Quality_and_description is not a normal rationale for deletion, neither are old discussions from Jimmy Wales' English Wikipedia talk page). I have double-checked the licence, that seems fine. In terms of "scrubbing selfies" from Commons, I agree that at least 99% of uploaded selfies are so poor that they mean nothing but housekeeping work, however this image is reasonable quality, has been preserved on Commons for 5 years and has reasonable animation and composition. A comparison with others in the "Blue dresses" category shows that it is in the top 1/3 by pixel resolution. --Fæ (talk) 09:33, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Source category: Blue dresses (filter by mime 'image')
Total number of unique images in category, 4 child and 2 grandchild categories: 603
Number with pixel >= target resolution: 222 (in top 37%)
Number with file size >= target file size: 328 (in bottom 47%)
Report completed: Fri, 15 Nov 2013 09:19 (21.6s runtime)
Buy a car for a great value that does not guarantee a good engine quality. Similarly, size is relative, an image with great number of pixels not necessarily is quality, there are several factors that influence it as the term "effective pixels", composition, light level, among other things. In this case, we are seeing an image of low quality and in my opinion should be deleted immediately. However, this depends on the observer's viewpoint. It is good to know that commons is participatory and everyone can comment with your vote. --The Photographer (talk) 11:55, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So long as it can be used for educational purposes, it is in scope. The comparison with buying cars is not appropriate as we do not have to choose which images to buy in order to deliver the aim of this project; if someone pops up with 14,000 photographs of mosquitoes we can accept them gladly for their educational value, not quibble that 100 or 1000 photos of mosquitoes are already too many. There is no community consensus to delete images on quality grounds alone or because we have sufficient alternative images, apart for images featuring nudity or where the quality is so appalling that there can be no expectation of reuse. --Fæ (talk) 12:04, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Fæ; it seems you agree with my edit on file description. It is a pity that this file has been preserved on Commons for 3 1/2 years with that crappy description. We definitely need more volunteers as Jimmy has no time to do such routine jobs now. :) JKadavoorJee10:36, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
He has plenty of time to reply to distracting OMG Think Of The Children type discussions about Commons, on the English Wikipedia, so perhaps if he and others used that time to fix problems here, rather than grandstanding there, we might get more done. --Fæ (talk) 10:50, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As in previous DR. This is not a self-promotion, because I am a man and (sadly ;) have nothing to do with this pritty girl... Also in my opinion here are not many good photos with happy girls, that are have good quality and high artistic values. Electronツ➧☎11:36, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you are right. It is next useful picture of a good quality. You should remember that commons is gathering the picture not only for wikipedia use but also for others wikiprojects use, and not only fon now, but also for the future use. And many times I have found here nothing for my use on others projects because of the people that are thinking as you. So from time to time I upload the photos that can be used in the future, I suppose. Electronツ➧☎16:34, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hardly stretching. Exactly what policy based grounds are there for deleting this five-year-old image, in the light of the fact that plenty of folks view this of value for illustration rather than only a personal album shot? I agree "Commons is not Facebook", pretty obvious, so what, Commons is not the English Wikipedia either. There is no policy on this project for deleting otherwise perfectly reasonable photographs of "non-notable" people, and is not something that a closing Commons admin could ever be expected to do, as you well know, being one. I have re-run my report, this time focusing on a category this image is in of Category:Women of the United Kingdom in order to compare the size with "notable" people as well as the unknown; not much of a surprise that it still comes out in the top 1/3 by image resolution. --Fæ (talk) 17:55, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per COM:EDUSE, this provides no knowledge, is not instructional, and is not informative. It's a poorly photoshopped (see, for example, remaining orange tones between the body and dress - her skin or dress before photo manipulation?) image of a non-notable person. It was/is "used" on pl.wiki because the uploader added it (27 August 2013 - during a previous DR), not because it was deemed relevant by a disinterested third party, which would be a genuine measure. Its usage in that article is labored and without educational contribution. That it could be categorized or has been here x years (2013 - 2010 ≠ 5) are utterly irrelevant to its satisfaction of scope. Эlcobbolatalk18:29, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Minor pointers;
The norm on Commons is to be more resistant to deleting images that have been on the project for several years, compared to those only uploaded several days ago, this is in fact of quite some significance when assessing issues such as Photographs of identifiable people. This is not "utterly irrelevant" when judging scope as in that time community members have added it to several categories where they thought it might be useful, hence in-scope.
Rationales about "image of a non-notable person" are not part of policy on Commons.
Assessment of whether an image has educational, cultural, historical or social value is not dependant on an assessment by a disinterested third party. However if you wish to believe this, then I am as close to a disinterested third party as you can get in this discussion, having never seen this image before noticing this resurrected DR, having absolutely no interest in women in blue dresses, nor any connection to the uploader or subject, so your claim about "deeming" as relevant is manifestly untrue as I already "deemed" it relevant above though for some reason you are choosing to ignore that evidence.
You are an admin, so I assume you are not just being sarcastic and you are aware how experienced I am as a Commons contributor. Precisely what part of definition of Scope do you think I am mistaken or ignorant about? Thanks --Fæ (talk) 20:34, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As I commented above, I don't want comment on the quality of this work; but browsing through her photo stream leads me to several doubts.
Most of the photos in her stream are "self portraits"; but many of them are difficult to believe considering the environment in them.
In some works she clearly stated they are manipulated with Photoshop.
In some works, she stated that they were taken by her boyfriend.
Her profile page lacks any useful info; and I wonder how we handle if one of our registered user used her user page for publishing information like "5'4 tall, black hair, dark brown eyes, waist size x inches"
Keep It's in use in the article space of Wikipedia. That puts it solidly in scope. Basically any other consideration besides copyvio or invasion of privacy goes to the wayside in the face of that.--Prosfilaes (talk) 09:39, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Also, it's on Wikiquote (history) and as you can see the person who added it has nothing to do with Electron. Nor is there any evidence that it's the person pictured. It's not self promotion. I'd note that The Photographer accusing people of vandalism for adding this photo (see the history here linked) doesn't do much for his credit; there's no evidence it's vandalism, either.--Prosfilaes (talk) 09:51, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for highlighting that history. As The Photographer is the nominator here, perhaps they could explain the context? --Fæ (talk) 10:09, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The context is simple: The Photographer got pissed off because someone filed a deletion request on his racist caricature File:negrita.svg. He reacted i.a. by filing in himself a bunch of random deletion requests. This one is becoming pretty successful, as it draws in the usual {{Vd}}-prone crowds: Pure deletionists, haters of brown people, haters of women (especially happy ones), and people who genuinely think that Commons is supposed to host only Wikipedia images and/or that all depicted people should be notable. -- Tuválkin✉08:47, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment To everybody who says that it is "Self Promotion" I can declair: I am a man, I am Pole, I am much older than the girl, I have never been to the UK, I don't know the person who is on the photo, I have never met her or somebody from her family. It is clear? What about my work on Commons: I edit here from 2006, I have here more than 22.000 edits on my account and uploaded here tousands files. So, I think is not a bad score here and I can feel to be trusted. Electronツ➧☎13:24, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think The Photographer meant the subject in question, and not you. Her Flickr stream clearly seems like self promotion, with supporting page descriptions on every page. I suggest you to edit such "useless" descriptions in future uploads. BTW, The Photographer too is not a native English speaker; so some "issues/wrong tones" in his comments. I have no doubt in your intentions. JKadavoorJee
OK. I uploaded the file 3 years ago when the commons customs were different than now. In that time I think that the more orginal description, the better (and it may be usuful in the future to indetify the subject of the photo if the oryginal photo on Flickr will disapper some day). It can be easealy changed or removed (as have been done). Electronツ➧☎14:58, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
KeepBecause Commons is not Facebook. Image is in scope and is of good quality, and is in use in here and in here, even if the user that made this third DR tried to removed it by claiming (his or other person?) vandalism not in one article, but in two. Tm (talk) 09:05, 19 November 2013 (UTC) Corrected some writing errors and links. Tm (talk) 16:07, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
looking at a small sample of the images nominated for deletion I would offer the deletions are merited for exactly the reasons stated. It does seem odd we applaud people that upload through bots a flood of internet crap yet place a suspicious eye on someone that looks to stem the tide. 131.137.245.20613:21, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Making these sorts of anonymous comments from your current network is fairly unwise, doubly so if they are not your employer or without their permission. --Fæ (talk) 14:32, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ha, whoised the IP. This is quite funny! You could say he is somewhat on topic. Department of The Photographer Defence :-). Not commenting on the bot upload point (which looks like it could be directed at Fae) I have to agree with the first point though. The Photographers nominations have been largely productive. I alone must have deleted hundereds of blurry selfies from uploaded who never made a single edit except for uploading their pic. Also a stunning amount of CVs. --Dschwen (talk) 17:25, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Dschwen, I did not read the comment as specifically about me. If you have specific recommendation for my upload projects, one that falls in line with existing policies and existing community consensus rather than just your own viewpoint, and has some reasonable chance of being fixable, then please do raise it on my user talk page rather than in the middle of a DR. As for The Photographer's accuracy, in November 21% of DRs raised by them resulted in {{Vk}}, which should be compared to a starting point of choosing mostly mobile uploads or selfies, in which categories a random selection by bot of new uploads would have a hit rate of 90%+. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 18:27, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Let me explain, it is very easy to understand that by commenting on it and directing it at me, then adding a the words "not commenting" does not stop the fact that you made the comment. --Fæ (talk) 23:12, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry that the distinction between a meta-comment (my interpretation of the IPs intention, supported by both the fact that the comment was in reply to one of your comments and your thin skinned reaction) and a comment on the merits of this particular accusation (whether the IPs classification of bot uploads as flood of internet crap is accurate) is so unclear. It worries me a bit that you feel the need to reply with a certain acerbity to my comments. I hope I have not offended you. But let's close (or move) this distracting aside. Neither of us wants to derail the DR, right? --Dschwen (talk) 00:34, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It should be repeted (because it is written above, but some people don't like to read the all DR)?... : You should have in mind that Commons is not only a store for Wikipedias but also for other wikimedia projects like Wikisources, Wikibooks & etc. Some pictures that are "out of scope" for Wikipedia are very good ilustrations for poems, romanses, books and so on, and not only fon now, but also for the future use. And many times I have found here nothing for my use on others projects because of the people that are thinking as you. So from time to time I upload the photos that can be used in the future (e.g. for poems or books ilustration on Wikisource or Wikibooks), I suppose. Btw. the picture is used now in 2 projects as illustration. Electronツ➧☎16:01, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Commons has of course to be useful for much project than wikipedia, but this file is used indeed as a simply reference to blue colour, both in poland wikipedia than in in poland wikiquote (where has nothing more related to the citation); colour of photo is altered, so probably could fit the category "Colour isolated photographs", or even "joy" regard the "intention" of uploader, but very few can be seen about female hair fashion, and dress and obviously it's hard to interpret her a s a women from united kingdom. Maybe a picture like this is less categorizable in such cateories than the previous one? I conclude that the goal of commons has to be a quickly recover of files by matter, usable in all of wiki projects, and probably this way of catalogating images may "lose" part of poetic description of them. But is surely efficacious. --Ciaurlec (talk) 23:56, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep considering this item has already survived 2 PREVIOUS DRs why are we doing this again!?
The Photographer is spamming DRs with dozens of DRs per-day, all using the same short, repeated, zero-effort rationales. "non-encyclopedic" is not even a legitimate deletion rationale. this is COMMONS, not WIKIPEDIA.
it's a perfectly good isolated-colour image of a girl in a blue dress. it's been in use various places at various time, & it fits in MULTIPLE SUBJECT-CATEGORIES' @ wmc, therefore it is NOT "out of scope".
the motivations of the uploader, & their chosen range of interests & uploads are IRRELEVANT in considering whether a particular file is useful, or not. it is useful, it is used, therefore KEEP.
the fact that the nominator has also behaved improperly in stripping the image out of use on other projects, etc., just seals the case.
Delete, this image should NOT be used to illustrate any articles, or pages like the wikiquote page, for the color blue, as this is not a good representation of the color, it being a photoshopped color. the image is not a good representation of the use of photoshop, as its a crude coloring. I particularly dont like it being used at wikiquote, as "blue" is ALWAYS associated in quotes with emotions OTHER than joy. I just dont see any legitimate use of an altered image like this. i wouldnt mind it staying as a perfectly good image of a happy woman if it wasnt shopped. now, its "all about the dress", which contradicts her emotions, but not so much as to be used to demonstrate irony or cognitive dissonance. In regards to The Photographer spamming, etc. despite my feeling like i was actually a target of a few of his deletion requests, and i strongly rejected his arguments for deleting some of my uploads (which i was correct about), in this case (as in many others i suspect, as he has a good history of uploads and thus knows something about this site), The Photographer is correct, based on the merits of the image. I would myself immediately remove this image from its 2 uses, if it wasnt up for review right now. I think the argument of "its being used" can be very disingenuous, and just cause some project is using it, doesnt mean i cant go to that project, which i never edited before, and edit it now. as long as my argument is valid, those other editors dont "own" that page, even if its in a language i dont read. I WILL remove these images from those pages, if this closes as keep, and i will argue there for not using them. I must also agree with some of the flickr comments above: these images are often really badly named, really badly described, and horribly categorized at times. if the flickr uploaders put even 1/10th as much time in organizing the images as they spend uploading, we might have functional image categories instead of the mess we have now.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 18:54, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In other words you would dictate to Polish speakers what images they should use on their Wikipedia and Wikiquote pages? How would you argue, in a language you do not understand? You don't even know what quotes are being used on that Wikiquote page, so you can't say they aren't about joy. Of course there's quotes that associate blue with joy; the first line of Judith Mathieson's "Joy is Everywhere" is "Joy is in the skies of blue". The Duel says "Joy is streaming from you—a joy that's making me drunk. 'Blue joy!" Black and Blue: The Bruising Passion of Camera Lucida says "Both the meal and the children are hued, at least metaphorically, in blue joy." Charles Harvey's "anonymous men" says "There is blue joy in solitude, sweetness in the lonely soft night that drapes the bones of black men." D. H. Lawrence wrote about the "blue joy of my soul".
It would be more funny if we chose to randomly delete images off the English Wikipedia in discussions held in Chinese. Not that we haven't frustrated enough English Wikipedians over the years, but now we could add additional frustration by make it hard from them to understand the deletion discussion and virtually impossible to contribute. Wouldn't that be fun, to have to deal with an image you added to an article being proposed for deletion on the grounds of "I don't like it" in a language you don't understand?--Prosfilaes (talk) 06:58, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I see two problems: 1) This is a photoshoped image, so the shirt could be also red or green. We donna know that exactly. This leads also to the 2nd problem: 2) Out of scope. Just promotional, wikiadvertisment, private image. --Yikrazuul (talk) 13:19, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And what the problem? This photo it an egsample of piece of art a bit. What the matter what kind of tools artist has used? In old times this was a paint, nowadays they use a photoshop, as well... Maybe you haven't noted this, yet? Electronツ➧☎21:44, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I see a dress of blue color and a joyful girl in the image. These two "elements" are completely appropriate for illustrating an article or a quote about blue or joy. Do you see something else / for example a dress of red colour? --Eleassar(t/p)22:16, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I see a grey girl, should we use that picture to illustrate how grey aliens? women? are looking? Are all women in "blue" shirts grey? Besides, the quality is not very good (noisy). --Yikrazuul (talk) 14:33, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Have you ever heard of something called B&W photos? Also dont try to remove this image from its usages, and replace it with other worst (ironically this replacement image was one uploaded by me), calling this image an controversialimage. Tm (talk) 16:23, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - no good reason has been given for deletion; this sort of aggressive DR's only discourages people from contributing to the project :/ - tsca (talk) 17:53, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It reflects badly on commons to have a commons user that neither speaks the language of the local project nor has any prior edits on the project revert the edits of a local admin and veteran contributor. --Dschwen (talk) 22:30, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This photo prominently features a sculpture by a currently living artist. Freedom of panorama in Sweden only permits depiction of copyrighted works if they are permanently placed in a public location. This does not apply here, as the work was only temporarily placed in this location. According to this blog post, it has been in private possession on private property since at least 2006. —LX (talk, contribs)11:18, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, since the main point of the picture is the palace; this is de minimis. I would guess that it was impossible to get a picture of the palace from this angle in 2005 without getting the hand in the picture. Yes, there's a note about the hand in the description, but that's more appropriately seen as a "By the way," rather than trying to concentrate on the hand. Nyttend (talk) 01:21, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Since you mention it, I should point out that I was the one who added the note in the description. It was certainly possible to get a picture of the palace without the sculpture, even from the same angle. This photo could be cropped to completely exclude the sculpture and still include the same view of the Palace. To me, it seems like the sculpture is purposefully included in the frame, rather than incidentally. —LX (talk, contribs)05:29, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Delete If the uploader is the author of such an illustrative and educational picture, why he didn't upload a bigger and with better resolution one? As it is now, it seems a promotional operation for the site quoted in the description.--Giorgiomonteforti (talk) 22:05, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Just translating into English: "Source: Photo taken from Orkut". "Author: photo taken by an unknown author". "Permission: Yes, this work is mine". Except by the last one (that is contrary to the other two),this information provided by uploader is a reason for deletion. Ednei amaral (talk) 02:41, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Of course we could, but why? It's not a question of file size, but a question of accessibility. A blind user would not understand your image, but a table. If we would leave it at Commons only a small group of persons would use wiki-syntax, the others would use the easier (but not friendlier) way. ←Körnerbrötchen » ✉21:28, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteI agree that it is out of scope -- a Wikitable should be used. More important, it's "Table 15" -- from a book? -- looks like a copyvio to me. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:01, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Deleted - possible age concerns raised, and while this is not particularly explicit it isn't a good photo and is very replaceable (not in use). -mattbuck (Talk) 03:58, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
* The author of a site lib.ru is personally familiar with the person in a photo. Also given the image is present on a site of the employer of the given person (echo.msk.ru). User Yuriy Kolodin feels personal hostility to the person in a photo and does not wish, that this photo was in Wikipedia. Мастер Снов (talk) 10:23, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Discuss objects (photos, articles, etc.), not users. I confirm that on the site the is no evidence of a free license. Thus, at the present stage, the photo should be deleted. Though, it would be perhaps possible to obtain a free license by explicitly contacting the person as well as the site maintainer. Мастер Снов, as you are interested in this photo, -- would you please try to contact them, asking for the free license to be granted? (The procedure is described on the ВП:ДОБРО ruwiki page. Please, don't forget that the copyright holder is the person having made the photo, not the one on the photo.) --Burivykh (talk) 15:42, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
They maybe both are holders - person - if this is private foto (can veto publishing of foto), fotographer - if foto is valuable as an object of art (can claim the rent for usage) Carn (talk) 13:49, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Delete because we don't know what the correct license is. This is a user manual for a type of firearm that was first manufactured in 1851; the manual could be quite new indeed. Nyttend (talk) 01:17, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The exploded parts illustration is new, not contemporary to the original 1851 to 1870 Colt Navies. 1). The style of the drawing is modern; it doesn’t correspond to 19th-century illustrations. 2). I found the copy of an original Colt's instruction-sheet in "A History of the Colt Revolver", Copyright 1940 by Charles T.Haven and Frank A. Belden, no ISBN Number, page 342 “Directions for loading and managing Colt’s pistols” (circa 1851, for Cavalry or Holster, Navy or Belt and Pocket Pistols) there is only text without drawings. 3). The illustration shows a hammer spring with a hammer roller slot. Original 19th-century 51 and 61Navies, 60Armys and even an Open-Top have hammer springs without slots. First slotted springs you find in SAAs. Today, I dismounted eight revolvers, Navies, Armys and an Open-Top, no slotted hammer spring found! -- Hmaag (talk) 11:31, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Thist deletion request is bullshit (sorry) normally an explosion view is distributed when a weapon comes to the market. --Gruß Tom (talk) 11:05, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
normally We don't know if the scan is from the original manual so pd-old would apply; perhaps it is one from a current replica (Many old colt-Models are being replicated)? The uploader is not active anymore and was not very trustworthy. And we have a precautionary principle --Avron (talk) 18:27, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The diagram is spreaded in the net, showing different versions. [2][3]. As it was an official army/navy weapon it is mandatory that documentation for handling and service must have been available at its time. I could not find the originals by now. Best advise concerning Colt-revolvers should come from Hmaag at this time. --Gruß Tom (talk) 13:06, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted. This type of gun may be old, but from the illustration style and typeface used, the artwork diagram clearly is not old but recent. Not uploader's own work, false tag. No indication given of true authorship nor copyright status; no reason offered to assume free licensed status. Infrogmation (talk) 12:36, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Kept. No reason for nor support for deletion. Person shown has articles about them in multiple Wikipedias, thus is in projects scope; nothing wrong with having multiple photos of in scope subject. Infrogmation (talk) 12:24, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Deleted The standard no categories template would suffice for this purpose. And it seems most of the files on which this template is present are now categorised. --russavia (talk) 11:59, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This file is personal POV interpretation of 2002 census results in Serbia. This census used only term „Vlach“ to describe Vlach population, while term „Roumanian“ is a personal addition of uploader (user Olahus) and this term does not correspond with official census results which listed Vlachs and Romanians as separate ethnicities. It is clear that this file does not reflect 2002 census results and that it is POV original research of user Olahus and due to that, it should be deleted. File itself was created from this map (which is created by demographer Varjačić Vladimir) and since we already have that original file with accurate descriptions, this one is neither useful or accurate. 194.106.189.249 07:14, 27 May 2010 (UTC) 194.106.189.24907:14, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia article is not a source for anything. Here are official 2002 census results where vlachs and romanians are listed as two separate ethnicities. Also, for both ethnic groups, vlachs and romanians, separate national councils are established (see this). By the serbian law, one ethnic minority can have only one national council and if vlachs are romanians as you claim then they could not have their separate national council, since it would be violation of the law. 194.106.188.10315:03, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that is exact problem here. By the Serbian law, one ethnic minority can have only one council and Vlach national council was designated for Vlach minority, while Romanian national council was designated for Romanian minority. The problem is, however, the way how these councils were formed. In the time of formation of these councils, there was no direct elections for people who will lead these councils, so people that currently lead Vlach national concil came to that position because they told to Serbian government that they represent Vlach minority and due to their claims, Serbian government gave them to lead Vlach national council. That is how these guys came to that council and it is fact that members of Vlach minority NEVER ELECTED THEM. Clearly, these guys are pro-Romanian and they consider themselves Romanians, but in that case they should lead Romanian national council, not Vlach one. So, why they are in Vlach council? There is very simple answer to that question: they are Romanian nationalists who want to transform Vlachs into Romanians and therefore they found a way to took over institution of Vlach minority trying to assimilate them into Romanians. Of course, these guys know very well that Vlachs are not Romanians (why then they would seat in Vlach council if Vlachs do not exist as an ethnic group?), because if Vlachs are Romanians then Vlach national council would not (and could not) exists and Vlachs would be subject of Romanian national council, not of Vlach one. Of course, this issue will have epilogue very negative for your nationalist comrades from Vlach council, since there will be direct elections for national council next month and it is widely expected that these Romanian nationalists will lost elections for Vlach national council. Only after these elections Vlachs will have their true representatives and then we can continue this conversation with undisputed proofs on my side. 194.106.188.1010:58, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
my personal view? You wish that it is my personal view, but it is public view that could be seen in some media, for example here: http://www.novosti.rs/code/navigate.php?Id=1&status=jedna&vest=178508&title_add=Vlahe%20bi%20u%20Rumune&kword_add=bor%2C%20vlasi – there you have statement of Vlach politician Miletić Mihajlović who said this about current leaders of Vlach national council: „SAVET vlaške nacionalne manjine u Srbiji je prorumunski orijentisan i suštinski cilj njegovog delovanja je da, vremenom, Vlahe sa ovih prostora prevede u – Rumune“ (in English: „Council of Vlach national minority is pro-Romanian and supreme goal of its actions is transformation of Vlachs into Romanians“). Also: „Mora se jasno reći da ovu politiku najviše zastupa Vlaška demokratska stranka Srbije (VDSS), čiji je lider dr Predrag Balašević, koji je, istovremeno, i potpredsednik Saveta vlaške nacionalne manjine“ (in English: „It must be said that this policy is mostly advocated by Vlach democratic party of Serbia whose lider is Predrag Balašević, and who is also president of the Vlach national council“). Also: „Mihajlović je naglasio da zemlja matica Vlaha nije Rumunija, kako to tvrde VDSS i Savet vlaške nacionalne manjine, već Srbija, kao i da je maternji jezik te nacionalne manjine vlaški, a ne rumunski“ (in english: „Mihajlović also said that homeland of Vlachs is not Romania, but Serbia and that language of the Vlachs is not romanian, but vlach“). Also: „Predsednik Odbora za međunacionalne odnose je podvukao i da pretpostavlja da VDSS, koji će na izborima za Savet vlaške nacionalne manjine učestvovati pod nazivom „Zajednica Vlaha Srbije“, nastupajući pod tim imenom, zapravo, pokušava da „zamaskira svoju prorumunsku politiku“.“ (in English: „in elections, Vlach democratic party of Serbia will use name „Community of Vlachs of Serbia“ which is a cover that aim to hide their pro-Romanian policy“). It is clear that it is not my personal view, but public view, elaborated here by an ethnic Vlach politician who oppose idea that Vlachs are Romanians. Of course, I think that we went too far away from my basic point in this deletion proposal: this map should be deleted because it contains false info from 2002 census, describing Vlachs as „Roumanians“, while official census results used only term „Vlachs“. Everything is clear here and it is YOUR personal view and your ORIGINAL RESEARCH that is forced in this map and since your map does not represent public knowledge but only your personal political goals, it should be deleted. 194.106.189.24410:43, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Mihajlović is not a Vlach, but a Serbian and a member of the Serbian Socialist Party. His opinion is therefore not relevant. And he is too unillumined and ignorant to know that Romanians=Vlachs (see the definition of the term "Vlachs" in Encyclopaedia Britannica) on the same way Hungarians=Magyars. Mihajlović showed in that interview only his high level of incompetence. And what to say about the newspaper that published this interview - Večernje novosti - a Serbian ultranationalist pro-Milosevic and everyone-hating (Albanians, Bosniaks, Croats, Hungarians, Romanians) newspaper. The Vlachs do use the term "Rumani" as an ENDONYM and this is the reason why the Vlach organization use this designation. In the same way, even if a Hungarian guy says he is "Hungarian", in his own language he always use the endonym "magyar". --Olahus (talk) 14:14, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Mihajlović is not Vlach? How so? Here he claim that he is Vlach: http://www.mc.kcbor.net/2010/05/10/bezocne-neistine-vlaskog-nacionalnog-saveta-2/ - „Pripadanje bilo kojoj politčkoj opciji, pa ni Socijalističkoj partiji Srbije, kojoj svakako pripadam, ne isključuje moje pravo učestvovanja na izborima za Nacionalni savet Vlaha, ako je činjenica da pripadam vlaškom etnosu“ (in English: membership in any political party, including Socialist Party of Serbia, whose membership I posses, does not deny my right to participate in elections for Vlach national council, due to the fact that I myself belong to Vlach ethnicity“!!!) or you deny that he said that there? And who are you to judge how illumined and ignorant this man is? The fact that he is not nationalist like you does not mean that he is ignorant. Things are quite opposite in this World: nationalism is something that come with ignorance, not with illumination. And sure, I accept that Romanian nationalists are claiming that Romanians=Vlachs, but I presented evidence that there are Vlachs who do not agree with this idea and what is most important here, Serbian statistical office also do not agree with that idea, but that did not stopped you to present false results of 2002 census. In census, Vlachs and Romanians are listed as separate ethnicities and if you uploaded map with title „census 2002“ then you have to present accurate data from this census. If you want to upload map that will follow idea that Romanians=Vlachs then such map should have description „according to Romanian nationalists“, not „according to 2002 census“ since your map does not present results of this census. Speaking about „Večernje novosti“ newspaper, it was pro-Milošević newspaper before year 2000, but today it is public media in democratic Serbia and reliability of this source cant be disputed (I hope that you know that Milošević is no longer in power since 2000 or it is something new for you?). And I also explained that term used by Vlachs for themselves does not mean „Romanian“, but „Roman“. 194.106.189.11722:33, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
so? what is the point? It is one of the basic human rights that people can choose their nationality by their free will. Are you trying to deny this right to people or what? 194.106.189.10006:58, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this POV of Olahus. This isn't the first time trying to join these two ethnic groups and pushing POV that everybody who is speaking a latinnear language is a roman descendant. I can speak english but i'm not english. --Srbonis (talk) 16:19, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Comment Wrong description, ok. But the scanned page is copyrighted or not? If yes we have to delete it, if not it's just a matter of changing description.--Giorgiomonteforti (talk) 21:53, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless proper info is given promptly. 1932 newspaper may or may not be PD for some reason, but uploader is not the copyright holder and tag currently on image description is false. Infrogmation (talk) 12:27, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This file should be deleted because false licence is used for it and it is not free for use. Author of this map is Emanoil Bucuţa who died in 1946, while licence used in this file claim that it is free for use because author died 70 years ago. Since author died in 1946, 70 years after his death will be year 2016, meaning that this file is not yet free for use. 194.106.188.103 15:05, 27 May 2010 (UTC) 194.106.188.10315:05, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Don't worry. Emanoil Bucuta made only very few additions of the map on Bulgaria (7 red dots) and he is therefore only a co-author of the map. However, I removed Bucuta's contributions now. --Olahus (talk) 14:55, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
what? Please do not insult our intelligence here: first you wrote that Em. Bucuţă is author and then when map was proposed for deletion you changed name of the author? ?? How can anybody trust to your contributions here after that? I think that after this you have to provide some proofs who is real author of this map or otherwise it is candidate for deletion not only because of false licence but also because of false claims about its author. 194.106.189.11722:35, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
sure, that is very nice proof for origin of this map and validity of its licence, is it? Due to POV and nationalistic nature of this image and due to the fact that you are nationalist POV pusher by yourself, seems to me that you trying to do everything to keep this image here: first you uploaded image with false licence thinking that nobody will not notice that, but when somebody noticed and proposed this image for deletion because of the problem with year in which author of the image died, you simply replaced author with another one? I also have to point out that even with this other author there is same licence problem because licence still require that 70 years should pass after death of the author, and we have no information when exactly this other author died. And due to the fact that your usage of false licences is not limited to this file only (see other examples here, here and here), I think that there should be no doubt that you should provide proof about the issue who is real author of this map. There is very easy way for such proof to be provided: if you took this map from a book, you can simply scan page from that book in which this map is published and then you can upload your scan so that other users here can see it. Or if you took this map from an web page, you can simply provide a link to it. I do not see how hard for somebody can be to clarify source that he used. 194.106.189.10006:59, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This will gona be difficult. The indicated site is clearly not the copyright owner, it only hosts the icon libraries. In some cases, it doesn't even really host the images, but only the descriptions for them. Copyright holder would be the respective creators. Finding those creators will be difficult with this limited source information (there are hundreds of desktop themes available), however assuming a GFDL-compliant license for logos created for linux desktops is probably not completelly wrong. Also, some of the pictures are very close to the ones delivered with the Visual Studio Image Library (part of Microsoft VS2010). These are free to be used in own products. --PaterMcFly (talk) 10:47, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nevertheless it does not entitle us to use them without naming the author (if they are licensed under GPL). I have made a request on the talk page of the uploader but he has not answered yet. I'll send him an email. Maybe he can make the copyright status clear. ←Körnerbrötchen » ✉11:11, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I fear that won't help. I doubt the uploader is the author. He would need to remember exactly where from that site he downloaded the images (did you have a look at the given source website? It's very difficult to find exactly that icon there) --PaterMcFly (talk) 11:42, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Here i am. Yes Pater, i'm not author, and page where i got those images is listed in template as source. That was 4-5 years ago, and now, because of deviantart redesign, page is moved to new place, as Korner posted above (http://sa-ki.deviantart.com/art/nuoveXT-Gnome-20679788). In time when i downloaded those, licence was there, so i just copy information in template that was before on commons. So, now author or deviant art removed info from linked page and we have problem. I just contacted real author of images ~sa-ki (http://sa-ki.deviantart.com/) and ask him about licence. Maybe we should wait 2-3 more days for respond. If there is no answer in 2-3 days, you can delete this icons. Also, we should check all my uploaded icons here, because they all come this way. Best regards. --Саша Стефановић (talk) 11:52, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Assuming a" free content "license for logos created for linux desktops is probably not completelly wrong." GFDL, GPL and CC BY-SA are all different and incompatible free licenses (and, to avoid any confusion: "Creative Commons" does not refer to any particular license at all). --AVRS (talk) 12:28, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
On Commons yeah… I think icons are best licensed with GPL-CC-BY-SA-dual. Thanks for contacting the author. We should wait a few days (maybe up to 7?) until we should delete these images. ←Körnerbrötchen » ✉21:18, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Image has failed the review. ← Körnerbrötchen » ✉ 07:51, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
Comment But you have no idea if this is own work. Many people on flickr contribute 1,2 or 3 images on flickr, panoramio or picasa to Commons. You fail to completely address the comment: "own work." It may be own work--we don't know. Unfortunately, I have no panoramio account. This kind of DR will certainly ensure the image gets deleted before one can contact the copyright owner. --Leoboudv (talk) 18:54, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
Keep What do you mean with "out of scope". Some time ago I tried find sth photo or picture to ilustrate a poem about happines and found nothing special on Commons. It is ridiculous that some of yours think that it is "out of scope". So please give me a better egzample to ilustrate "Happiness". I am waiting... Btw. I am an admin on pl-wikisource and I know well what is need for our project. Electron <Talk?> 07:56, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
--Fæ (talk) 10:50, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
_.jpg){kind=link}
![[1]](http://img687.imageshack.us/i/imagen10a.jpg/){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
Info I have reverted your POV, and by the way: it is not b/w - at least partially. --Yikrazuul (talk) 18:13, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
_.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_.jpg){kind=link}
_.jpg){kind=link}
_.jpg){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
