Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2010/06/04
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
|
|
A larger crop exists at http://www.classicalsource.com/images/upload/4971_1.jpg on http://www.classicalsource.com/db_control/db_concert_review.php?id=4971 from 2007 (written to coincide with the 80th birthday of Colin Davis), while this image is a smaller crop and was uploaded 2008 with no info. Hekerui (talk) 15:10, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Polarlys (talk) 19:21, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
No proper source. If year is correct, it doesn't quite fall in the Canada license range anyway. Wknight94 talk 22:02, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Uploader requested. Wknight94 talk 11:34, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
Unused personal photo. Out of COM:SCOPE. Wknight94 talk 03:57, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Amada44 (talk) 11:26, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Privy.--Giorgiomonteforti (talk) 19:34, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Would be okay if in use, but it's not. Jujutacular T · C 21:23, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted per above, and COM:PEOPLE 99of9 (talk) 13:25, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
No educational purpose: the pump depicted here cannot work. Carnildo (talk) 00:33, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
I'll update the image where needed and upload a new version. Why can't it work ?
- See Commons:Deletion requests/File:Piston pump.png Same problems. Andy Dingley (talk) 08:38, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
- Also related Commons:Deletion requests/File:Plunger pump.png Andy Dingley (talk) 08:39, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
- Why can't it work? Because it's just Commons:Deletion requests/File:Piston pump.png, re-drawn in a hut.
- Why isn't it useful? Because it fails to be educational. This is not how engineering or plumbing is done. Your diagrams are confused by too many pointless little snippets all over them, yet the core principles are abused to the point of being misleading.
- Let's suppose that you're drawing a pump-house, which is assumed to be electrically-driven, yet uses a plunger pump (obscure, but not demonstrably wrong). Your diagram is filled with details that are wrong
- "electrical engine"? Amongst those who care to make the distinction, electrical machines are called "motors" and not "engines". There is a distinction, and this is getting it wrong.
- "electrical gear selector" What?
- "drive shaft and gearbox". OK, so you're taking a rotating shaft and turning it into a reciprocating drive, reasonable enough to need a gearbox. So why not draw this as a crank mechanism, so that it might actually communicate something useful to the reader? It's not helpful to draw a list of Lego bricks, linked by lines. They look like boxes, not mechanisms. This is especially true when their labelled functions are wrong, fictions, or bizarre.
- Why are the valves electrically powered? If they are electrically powered, are they synchronised with the pump ram? Not here, they're drawn as linked to the engine, not the gearbox. More to the point, generic pumps like this use automatic one-way valves, not powered or controlled valves.
- "water pressure sensor" - with convenient bypass pipe.
- Foundations. Bearing no relation to reality, and to be honest, we don't care about these to the level of multiple labelled components. We're doing mechanical engineering here, not civil engineering.
- Then the pump itself. Same as File:Piston pump.png, the bizarre double-acting cylinder-ported piston pump that you've invented.
- Delete Completely useless. And even if it contained workable ideas, Commons is not a personal web space for publishing our 'inventions', which is what the description shows this is. What is more, it is a vexatious waste of a lot of other editors' and admins' time having to review and dispose all this stuff. Globbet (talk) 16:09, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
- Delete OK... you asked "Why can't it work ?" - let's consider that the piston (7) has just finished moving to the left. In doing so, it has pushed water past the one-way valve #2 (9). Now, the piston wants to move to the right... but valve #2 won't let water back into the space between it and the piston. Water is an incompressible fluid - this also means that it can't be stretched (this is one of the core principles of hydraulics). The piston therefore cannot move to the right: the pump won't work. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:42, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
- Delete - Redrose explained the problem well.--E8 (talk) 11:28, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:39, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
Useless orphaned music cover apparently. COM:SCOPE problem at best, copyvio at worst. Uploader's only contribution. Wknight94 talk 03:07, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
- He wrote also this [1], The fine lines give nice affects on my screen. --Fg68at de:Disk 05:58, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
- That makes it more likely to be a published album cover - and therefore copyvio. Wknight94 talk 11:41, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Jujutacular T · C 21:18, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 09:27, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
Orphaned useless image out of COM:SCOPE. Uploader's only contribution. Wknight94 talk 03:12, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
Delete unusable Cholo Aleman (talk) 08:26, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Out of scope. Jujutacular T · C 21:20, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 09:32, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
wrong license --Yuriy Kolodin (talk) 06:03, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
Wrong license. This file should be deleted because there is no evidence that copyright holder of this work allows anyone to use it for any purpose including unrestricted redistribution, commercial use, and modification. There is no evidence that copyright holder allows its modification, for example watermark deletion, on the source site. --Yuriy Kolodin (talk) 06:01, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
- I know the author of this photo (he's ru:User:Yustas, in fact), and I believe he is OK to allow usage of this photo under free license. Give me two days or so to obtain formal permission, please. Ilya Voyager (talk) 19:55, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
- Sorry. I discussed this photo with the author, and it seems that he does not have enough rights now to publish it under the free license. So the photo should be deleted. Ilya Voyager (talk) 20:54, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:43, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
Locomotive was built 1940. Therefore, photo was not taken before 1923 and {{PD-US}} is not a valid tag. -- Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:11, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
- Delete. And worse, the uploader is apparently related to w:User:HarveyHenkelmann/images - and I see a whole bunch of images not marked with an X that look very suspect. When I get more time (later today probably), I will start going through them. Wknight94 talk 15:03, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
- Comment - I got a notice on my talk page about this photo, but I had nothing to do with this image. Slambo (talk) 15:19, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:46, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
Blurred, very low quality, unused, musical group with no article or notability. Santosga (talk) 13:11, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Unusable.--Giorgiomonteforti (talk) 19:35, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 09:41, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
Low Quality Image: Is that really Kate Middleton? No, seriously! Is that really Kate Middleton? Hard to tell when half of that person's face is being obscured by her hat. It's not very "educational" when you only can see her nose and teeth. Zzyzx11 (talk) 14:21, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
Keep The image is in use in numerous places. It is clearly high enough quality to satisfy Commons:Scope. --99of9 (talk) 03:25, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
Kept. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:48, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
out of scope? DieBuche (talk) 14:28, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
Why?It's the main title of a 2008 movie: Mulligans
- Sorry, I forgot to sign yesterday at 20:23 --Diecizerouno (talk) 10:10, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
- Delete.--B3t (talk) 11:10, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
- Speedy keep. Actually used on it.wiki (it:Mulligans).--Trixt (talk) 20:05, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
Kept. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:49, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
by John Heartfield, died in 1968. http://www.gettyimages.com/detail/84657858/Hulton-Archive Polarlys (talk) 18:13, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Jujutacular T · C 21:29, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:55, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
of non-free software; dubious license; only used in one place so can be transwikied OpenTheWindows (talk) 18:33, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Jujutacular T · C 21:32, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:55, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
Self promotion. --Jorge Barrios (talk) 20:31, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
- Delete As usual, the guy, if he is what he claims to be, could have done better than that in sharing his creative experience.--Giorgiomonteforti (talk) 19:36, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:56, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
There is a new version of this file Sixas (talk) 13:09, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
- Where? And why should this be a deletion rationale? --PaterMcFly (talk) 18:03, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
Kept. Mbdortmund (talk) 15:50, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
There is a new version of this file Sixas (talk) 13:09, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
- Where? And why should this be a deletion rationale? --PaterMcFly (talk) 18:03, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
Kept. Mbdortmund (talk) 15:50, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
There is a new recent version of this file— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sixas (talk • contribs) Broken DR fixed
- That is not a valid deletion rationale, expecially if you don't even tell us, where the new version is. --PaterMcFly (talk) 18:07, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
Kept. Mbdortmund (talk) 15:50, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
Kept. Mbdortmund (talk) 15:51, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
There is a new recent version of this file— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sixas (talk • contribs) Broken DR fixed
- That is not a valid deletion rationale, expecially if you don't even tell us, where the new version is. --PaterMcFly (talk) 18:07, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
Kept. Mbdortmund (talk) 15:50, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
Kept. Mbdortmund (talk) 15:51, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
No need for this anymore as I have uploaded File:Wikipedia_Geothermal_PowerStation.svg without any text --Magasjukur2 (talk) 16:16, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
- (I did also upload the image I now reguest deleted) Magasjukur2 (talk) 16:33, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 15:54, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
Copy of a photo published elsewhere (in various versions, e.g. here), lacking evidence for permission. An offer to contact the (presumed) copyright owner for permission at the given email address (julian@sunshinepress.org) is not sufficient and the linked talk page does not exist. The claim that the photo was taken in 2007 is demonstrably false, see Internet Archive. Another version of the same photo was recently deleted as lacking permission. --High on a tree (talk) 03:39, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
- Who exactly is it who is claiming to be the copyright holder? There is no reason to delete it unless someone else in particular holds the copyright. Gregcaletta (talk) 05:32, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
- You could have found the answer to your question on the image description page: "Source: Own work / Author: Martinaharis / .... I, the copyright holder of this work, hereby publish it under the following license: .... Martinaharis".
- If an uploaded image turns out to have been published previously elsewhere on the web, it is standard practice on Commons to demand evidence that the uploader is identical to the copyright holder (or at least has obtained permission from them), see Commons:Project scope/Evidence. In fact, cases like this one are usually handled by speedy deletion.
- Regards, High on a tree (talk) 08:17, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Someone owns the copyright, and it's good policy and the law to get permission first before using it. Especially as we're claiming to be a Free image collection, that others can use safely.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:52, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
Right, what I meant was "who else is claiming to have copyright". When you say "if an uploaded image turns out to have been published previously elsewhere on the web, it is standard practice on Commons to demand evidence that the uploader is identical to the copyright holder", surely this is only if it have been published elsewhere on the web under copyright. As far as I know, the only person on the entire internet to have claimed copyright on the photo is this Martinaharris character. Until someone else claims to have copyright, there is absolutely no legal danger to Wikipedia in using this photo. Gregcaletta (talk) 02:21, 6 June 2010 (UTC). Sorry, correct me if I am wrong on someone else holding the copyright, as Prosfilaes claims. If so I retract my opposal. Gregcaletta (talk) 02:27, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
- Until someone else claims to have copyright, there is absolutely no legal danger ... - that is number 1 on the list of "10 big myths about copyright". It is wrong to assume that a photo published on a web page is not under copyright just because a copyright notice is missing, see also en:Copyright#Obtaining_copyright - copyright is assigned automatically, it does not have to be claimed.
- Regards, High on a tree (talk) 11:28, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
- I didn't mean to imply it wasn't under copyright. In fact, I am fairly certain that it is under copyright. It is likely that someone who works for Wikileaks or knows Julian Assange holds the copyright. "Martinaharris" is claiming to be this person. It is possible she is the photographer, and that Assange contacted her in order to request that she give permission to use her photo. The photo is much better than the current one. But my point was this: if she is not the copyright holder (quite possible), and the actual copyright holder came forward to object to the use of the photo (highly unlikely in itself, but possible), all they would be able to do is request that the photo be taken down, and it would be Martinaharris who would be the target of any legal action, not Wikipedia itself. Gregcaletta (talk) 04:23, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
- Martinaharis has already made a demonstrably false claim (about the date the photo was taken). On Commons, likely copyright violations are not kept until the Wikimedia Foundation receives a formal takedown notice, they are deleted proactively. Regards, High on a tree (talk) 09:56, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
- My confusion here may arise due to being unfamiliar with Commons policy on this, however, the particular policy statement that you cited does not explain what to do when a copyright holder wants to release their work here under Commons. It instead discusses what to do if the uploader is not the copyright holder (they either have to show that it has been released elsewhere under Creative Commons, or that they have obtained permission from the copyright holder {for which the copyrighter would have to be already know to be someone other than the uploader}). You say "it is standard practice on Commons to demand evidence that the uploader is identical to the copyright holder". But how can someone prove that they are identical to themselves? And more important, why should that be necessary? Gregcaletta (talk) 04:54, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
- Why should it be necessary that we have some system so that when random people upload files from the Internet or scans from books and falsely claim that they are the copyright holder, we do the right thing and delete them promptly, instead of becoming filled with illegal material? Seems pretty obvious to me.--Prosfilaes (talk) 05:02, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
- I didn't mean to imply it wasn't under copyright. In fact, I am fairly certain that it is under copyright. It is likely that someone who works for Wikileaks or knows Julian Assange holds the copyright. "Martinaharris" is claiming to be this person. It is possible she is the photographer, and that Assange contacted her in order to request that she give permission to use her photo. The photo is much better than the current one. But my point was this: if she is not the copyright holder (quite possible), and the actual copyright holder came forward to object to the use of the photo (highly unlikely in itself, but possible), all they would be able to do is request that the photo be taken down, and it would be Martinaharris who would be the target of any legal action, not Wikipedia itself. Gregcaletta (talk) 04:23, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
- Well you are already assuming that this person is not the true copyright holder. If I took a photo, and uploaded it here, releasing it under the Creative Commons licence, how could i then prove that I am "identical to myself"? Gregcaletta (talk) 05:06, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
- In the case of when "random people upload files from the Internet or scans from books and falsely claim that they are the copyright holder", their copyright claim would be checkable against some alternative copyright claim. In this case there is no alternative copyright claim. Gregcaletta (talk) 05:19, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
- Apparently you forgot that the photo was indeed available elsewhere on the Internet. Regards, High on a tree (talk) 16:46, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
Keep Martinaharris is claiming to be the copyright holder. It is likely that she is, and we have no evidence to believe she is not; there are no alternative claims. Under the logic being used here, any picture uploaded under "own work" and appearing elsewhere on the internet would not be allowed, even when the uploader is the real copyright holder, as no one can provide evidence that they are identical to themselves. Gregcaletta (talk) 01:41, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
- You are wrong, there are of course ways to provide evidence that one is the owner of a website, for example. On en:Talk:Julian Assange I already pointed to one such way back in April (sending an email to permissions-commons at wikimedia.org - Common has set up a whole system to process these, see Commons:OTRS). Another possibility is to put a notice on the original web page releasing the photo under a free license.
- Once again, it is standard practice on Commons to demand such evidence for permission if it is discovered that an image has been published elsewhere previously. If you want to change the ways that Commons has been operating under for many years, and to suggest that dubious images should stay up until a formal takedown notice or legal action arrives, you have of course a right to try that, but please start elsewhere, at Commons:Village pump for example. In this deletion discussion, you should respect Commons policies and practices as they are today. This is not the place to explain the reason for their existence to you (just as it is not the right place to debunk your wildly inaccurate claims about copyright law, although admittedly I have been goaded into doing so above).
- Regards, High on a tree (talk) 16:46, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
- What I am saying is not in conflict with standard practice on Commons. It is standard practice on Commons to demand evidence for permission if it is discovered that an image has been published elsewhere previously under copyright. Martinaharris does not need to gain permission from someone who has not even claimed to have to copyright. She is claiming to be the copyright holder, and there are no counter claims that I know of, so who do you expect her to get "permission" from? Gregcaletta (talk) 04:45, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
- For example this picture of the year was released here on Commons by the copyright holder. What you are claiming is that if this picture had appeared elsewhere on the internet beforehand, with his permission or not, he would have had to ask "permission" to release his own work from such a website or proved that he is the owner of the the website. This is clearly not "standard practice on Commons". The problem comes because you have already assumed that Martinaharris is not the copyright holder, and we have no evidence to make this assumption. Gregcaletta (talk) 04:58, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
- Of course this would be standard practice on Commons. Do you know of a case where it was not handled that way? Regards, High on a tree (talk) 09:56, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
- You are still assuming that there is a distinction between publishing something "under copyright" and not "under copyright", even though it was explained to you that this is based on an ignorance of copyright law. Read [2] again.
- But in any case, in this 2008 article Wired attributed the photo (in bit-identical form, with the exact same filename) to WikiLeaks. So even by your logic we have conflicting copyright claims. Regards, High on a tree (talk) 09:56, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
- For example this picture of the year was released here on Commons by the copyright holder. What you are claiming is that if this picture had appeared elsewhere on the internet beforehand, with his permission or not, he would have had to ask "permission" to release his own work from such a website or proved that he is the owner of the the website. This is clearly not "standard practice on Commons". The problem comes because you have already assumed that Martinaharris is not the copyright holder, and we have no evidence to make this assumption. Gregcaletta (talk) 04:58, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
- What I am saying is not in conflict with standard practice on Commons. It is standard practice on Commons to demand evidence for permission if it is discovered that an image has been published elsewhere previously under copyright. Martinaharris does not need to gain permission from someone who has not even claimed to have to copyright. She is claiming to be the copyright holder, and there are no counter claims that I know of, so who do you expect her to get "permission" from? Gregcaletta (talk) 04:45, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
Keep The photo is in the public domain. There are no competing claims. End of story. From the Julian's site: http://iq.org/j-big.txt — Preceding unsigned comment added by Annedancer (talk • contribs) 06:24, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
- http://iq.org/j-big.txt consists of the following text:
- Not Found
- The requested URL /j-big.txt was not found on this server.
- Additionally, a 404 Not Found error was encountered while trying to use an ErrorDocument to handle the request.
- This is obviously not the long-awaited evidence for permission - quite the contrary actually.
- Regards, High on a tree (talk) 09:56, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
- Yeah, I don't really know what was intended by this. But "Annedancer" makes a good point when she says "there are no competing claims", which explains why this "long-awaited permission" has not arrived. Long-awaited awaited permission from whom if there are no competing claims? Gregcaletta (talk) 10:57, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted by Bidgee: Copyright violation: a previously published bit-identical version, with the same filename, has now been found (in addition to demonstrably false claims by the uploader about the photo's origin, see deletion discussion).
Focus of the image is a copyrighted logo. fetchcomms☛ 01:24, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Are you joking? A logo from 1664? Even if the logo itself wasn't that old, the Coa in it surelly is, and the rest is ineligible for copyright. --PaterMcFly (talk) 08:44, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
Kept. –Juliancolton | Talk 16:29, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
I know it is "only text" but I'm afraid Disney are very jealous of their copyrighted font. A more expert opinion would be welcome. Eusebius (talk) 09:18, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
Same here:
- File:Disney Store.png (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
--Eusebius (talk) 09:23, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
- According to Commons:Licensing#Fonts the writting done with a font is not copyrightable, only the font file itself. As this is a pixel image, it is not copyrightable according to that rule. --PaterMcFly (talk) 11:12, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
- Keep typography is not copyrightable. TTFs and other vector fonts are as computer programs, but the bitmaps of their output aren't.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:06, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
- Delete while understanding Prosfilaes's point Disney are more than a little strict on copyrights --Herby talk thyme 12:24, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
- We didn't delete files we had a right to host when the National Portrait Society threatened to sue one of contributors. If we have a right to host it, then we have a right to host it. If Disney wants to saber-rattle, then we'll figure out what to do about it.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:22, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
Kept. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 19:48, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
Replaced by a vector file: File:Disneynature logo.svg Carniolus (talk) 13:14, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
- Keep: We don't usually delete images that have been superseded by vectors. ViperSnake151 (talk) 23:17, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
- Keep; (tagged). Jee 04:46, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
Kept: No consensus for deletion. Natuur12 (talk) 16:20, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
File:Dizzy_Gillespie_at_the_Nambassa_3_day_Music_and_Alternatives_festival,_New_Zealand_1981._Photographer_Heather_Bryce.jpg
[edit]
I'm afraid the quoted terms don't specifically allow derivative works and commercial use. Eusebius (talk) 09:21, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 19:49, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
A poor quality scanned sketch of the uploader's own ideas with no educational value. Globbet (talk) 22:11, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Not used, not useful. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 09:31, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
- Keep own work is allowed at wikimedia commons. Would refine the images further depending on user suggestions. Please check
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Project_scope and http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:What_Commons_is_not#Commons_is_not_Wikipedia these prove my point here KVDP (talk) 12:56, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Comment Own work is allowed, but you are not allowed to use Commons as a personal web-space to promote your own ideas. This file has no realistic educational purpose. Improving the image is not the issue. See Commons:What_Commons_is_not#Commons_is_not_your_personal_free_web_host. Globbet (talk) 13:52, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
- Keep In my opinion the file is educational, illustrative and in scope. It's a very simple explanation about catamarans functioning. The blueprint is homemade but with no consistent difference than other boat blueprints, more professional look-like indeed, I have found on Commons. I'm for keeping it.--Giorgiomonteforti (talk) 18:37, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
- But the point seems to be the hollow tree logs, and that would not be very practical. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:39, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
- It is not illustrative of catamarans in general, but of KVDP's own imaginings, unfettered by considerations of practicality. Globbet (talk) 00:25, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 19:57, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
A poor quality scanned sketch of the uploader's own ideas which has no educational value. Globbet (talk) 22:06, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
- Keep own work is allowed at wikimedia commons. Would refine the images further depending on user suggestions. Please check
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Project_scope and http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:What_Commons_is_not#Commons_is_not_Wikipedia these prove my point here KVDP (talk) 12:59, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
- Comment Own work is allowed, but you are not allowed to use Commons as a personal web-space to promote your own ideas. This file has no realistic educational purpose. Improving the image is not the issue. See Commons:What_Commons_is_not#Commons_is_not_your_personal_free_web_host. Globbet (talk) 22:56, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Ditto.--Giorgiomonteforti (talk) 18:38, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 19:58, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
This picture violates the rules panorama in russia. The same case with the other pictures of the same user. --A.Ceta (talk) 14:02, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
I confess with repentance, that this photo really violate Russian FoP laws, like almost all the photos from that category (there are several portraits in it). Now in Russia there is a very active promotion of changes in legislation (by the way, as far as I know, FoP law is not respected by anyone), but it isn't completed, so, indeed, regarding the rules of Commons this photos should be deleted. However, I would be happy and be law-abiding, and with photos: I imagine how to find the contacts of the architect of the building or his heirs, I can start to do this on Monday. And how should look like text with permission from them in OTRS? A notarized transfer of the building in Creative Commons? I do not know whether this will notaries, because CC is contrary to current legislation. Or, this permission should be look like certified by a notary authorization from architect to me to make photos of this building? Or what? Анастасия Львоваru (ru-n, en-2) 18:06, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
- Comment Dear Anastasia, you have perfectly centered the FOP absurdity issue. Not only at legislative level. In my opinion, here on Commons, we play too much the sheriffs on nonsense copyright claims sometimes. Copyrighting, in the end, it's just an interpretation of existing laws and rules and, here on Commons, we apply the most strict interpretation as possible. Cause we are the most aware and influential community in copyright expertise, I'm afraid that others, even public officers, just follow us. That's why I think that we should find a different way to promote more actively our cause on freedom of expression. Taking responsibilities, for example, and sometimes forcing the anyway blurred edge of laws approved, most of time, by people unaware of the stupid and grotesque consequences that their laws have. As FOP. --Giorgiomonteforti (talk) 19:30, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
+ Proposals to improve the fourth part of the Civil Code (FOP is number II in this text) Анастасия Львоваru (ru-n, en-2) 07:03, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted per COM:FOP#Russia. I understand the frustration but at Commons we have consensus to respect the laws regarding the (missing) freedom of panorama. It would be helpful, BTW, to research the sculptor of this statue (who was not named in the description) such that we can possibly restore it when 70 pma passes. Regarding OTRS: If you get a permission of the copyright holder for this photograph, please forward it to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org. If the copyright holder has no access to email and/or does not want to send an email him- or herself, just print out the declaration, get it signed, scan it, and send it by email. A notar is not required. Finally, if there is justified hope that the Civil Code will be changed as proposed, feel free to set up a category below Category:Undeletion requests for Russian FOP cases and put this DR into it. Then we can easily find and restore all such cases when eventually the law gets changed to support FOP in Russia. --AFBorchert (talk) 11:39, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
- The first part of your advice will not work because of many reasons. It's work for the state, for example, so sculptor has author's rights but hasn't property rights... But it's okay, I'll be waiting for russian FOP :) Анастасия Львоваru (ru-n, en-2) 12:47, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
Please note that the following files link to this DR: File:MGTU statue 4.JPG, File:MGTU statue 3.JPG, File:MGTU statue 2.JPG --DieBuche (talk) 19:00, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks for the pointer. But you have already taken care of that. Thanks, AFBorchert (talk) 18:25, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
Very similar to File:Council offices, Plymouth.jpg. No need to have both. I feel the colour levels on the other one are better, so that version should stay. Jolly Janner (talk) 15:49, 4 June 2010 (UTC) Jolly Janner (talk) 15:49, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Potentially educational for color levels. Jujutacular T · C 21:26, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
- Hm... I would tend to keep this one as this is the original file at geograph.org.uk. The other one seems to be a derivative with an higher compression level at it seems. --AFBorchert (talk) 11:52, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
Kept. If one contributor wants to keep the first version and a second one the other, it's the proof both versions are valuable. See File:Polarlicht_2.jpg. Dereckson (talk) 17:46, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
Video footage was not created by VOA employees. Martin H. (talk) 18:37, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
- Keep I looked at the video and I did not see any evidence that the VOA did not make this video. Plus, this image is a crop of File:Aso Taro 2009830.png, which is from the same video. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 08:44, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
- Comment Martin H., how do you know that this video footage was not created by VOA employees? I haven't found any hint within the video stating the opposite. The report ends with "Kurt Achin VOA News Tokyo". Kurt Achin is the VOA correspondent in Seoul which covers Korea and Japan. --AFBorchert (talk) 12:30, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
- I compared it to similar footage, it is taken from the center of the audience of the press conference, VOA isn't important enough to has the center position for theire cameras. Additionally this is not from raw material but from an edited reportage, the VOA author is the editor but not the creator of the raw material. --Martin H. (talk) 12:49, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
Kept, no evidence that this video is not from VOA. Kameraad Pjotr 19:19, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
Image uploader claimed PD status, but image appears to be a cropped version of the image at <http://www.iweek.ualberta.ca/nav03.cfm?nav03=86790&nav02=81740&nav01=73447>. --LadyofShalott (talk) 21:07, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
The image is not the property of the ualberta website, but of user JoseyMan. JoseyMan sent a copy to the ualberta website. The original is in his possession. He has willfully donated his image to wikipedia. I contest this deletion User:Joseyman — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.111.174.217 (talk • contribs) 08:50, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
- Then you should have the full resolution, not just the crop of the low resolution photo. The page claims in its footer "Copyright © 2002-2010, University of Alberta". If you are indeed the copyright holder, you can proof it by having the high resolution photograph (including EXIF data), or by getting the photograph on the refered to page attributed to you, or by confirming this through OTRS. --AFBorchert (talk) 12:36, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
- Sent this evening a mail to Josey man, where I invited him to review the debate and wheter upload the picture, wheter send the permission. --Dereckson (talk) 18:14, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, either copyright violation or no permission. Kameraad Pjotr 20:14, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
