Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2010/07/06
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
|
|
![32 [[:Fil--176.71.79.84 12:42, 31 August 2014 (UTC)e:Itunes_staff_favs-1.png]]](#[[:Fil--176.71.79.84_12:42,_31_August_2014_(UTC)e:Itunes_staff_favs-1.png]]){kind=link}
_1.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
low quality, unused, we already have a featured version of that image here --by Màñü飆¹5 talk 03:09, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Delete Does not add anything to Category:The Great Wave off Kanagawa. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 11:29, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Speedy deleted - Scaled-down or cropped duplicate. –Krinkletalk 16:02, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
No proper source. The file is originally taken from the FAQ of a usenet group (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File_talk:Fem_isa_2.gif). Still this is scanned from somewhere (like all the low resolution pictures on this site are taken from SOMEWHERE without attribution.) Who created this? Does anyone know the textbook this image is scanned from? The colors look like from the Netter’s Anatomy Atlas. Polarlys (talk) 23:59, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
- Gotcha: http://faculty.southwest.tn.edu/rburkett/A&P2_reproductive_system_lab.htm (C) McGraw-Hill. Please delete all the files based upon this one. (e.g. https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/wiki/Special:WhatLinksHere/File:Female_anatomy.png) --Polarlys (talk) 00:07, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
- Please pay also attention to File:Male anatomy.png and File:Male reproductive system lateral nolabel.png. (Other files here) Same source. --Polarlys (talk) 00:11, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Copyright McGraw-Hill. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 12:14, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
- Delete
Should the SVGs go as well?After comparing them, I see they'll have to go too. Rocket000 (talk) 00:48, 10 March 2010 (UTC) - Delete Blatant copyright violation - Alison ❤ 08:19, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, copyright violation. Infrogmation (talk) 01:55, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
Per COM:FOP#Canada. Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:41, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. I hope you wasted as much time as possible finding that. Wknight94 talk 21:50, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
No COM:FOP#Ireland for maps. Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:53, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Wknight94 talk 21:55, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Country of origin is not given so license validity cannot be determined. Wknight94 talk 22:10, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Keep Anonymous photo made around 1930, license hardly matters. But it is hard to imagine that this would not be a Swedish photograph. Revenge nomination. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:27, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
- So here we can speculate and keep but on other noms you can not speculate and vote delete? VERY interesting. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:46, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
- Their mother was the granddaughter of Queen Victoria of the UK, so how are you so sure this was taken in Sweden?! Also, how can you tell this was from 1930? The youngest of the three was born in 1912 and I can see where he might be in his 20s when this was taken. Maybe even 29 which would put this out of range of PD-UK. Better to be safe. Wknight94 talk 01:00, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
- So here we can speculate and keep but on other noms you can not speculate and vote delete? VERY interesting. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:46, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
- Keep It is clearly Sweden as wee can see Stockholms slott... Definetely this foto is taken before 1969, which is the interesting date with PD-Sweden. Palmerston (talk) 12:18, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Definitely fulfilling the requirements for PD-Sweden-photo. This photo has also been published in several Swedish books on the royal family at least as far back as the 1940s. /FredrikT (talk) 14:12, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
Kept. Thank you for pointing out the Royal Palace. Now I see the window resemblance to File:Fanfara Bersaglieri di Bedizzole.jpg. Maybe uploader can provide such details in the future. Wknight94 talk 14:34, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
I uploaded it with bad names. I am uploading another one with correct name. Fredhsu (talk) 23:58, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
This is a duplicate of another better named image Fred Hsu (talk) 03:57, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Exact or scaled down duplicate: File:Wolfs Mona Monkey Cercopithecus wolfi Bronx Zoo 4 cropped.jpg -- Common Good (talk) 20:53, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
Country of origin is not given so license validity cannot be determined. Wknight94 talk 22:08, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Seems to be a private photo released by subject to Svensk Damtidning, first published last year. Revenge nomination without cause. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:34, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
- What is your evidence for this? "Seems to be..." isn't very convincing. I seem to remember seeing this photograph elsewhere before last year. Besides, if it were only published recently, wouldn't that mean copyright has not expired? Wknight94 talk 00:39, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
- Not for photographic pictures, where only the creation date is relevant. –Tryphon☂ 08:06, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
- What is your evidence for this? "Seems to be..." isn't very convincing. I seem to remember seeing this photograph elsewhere before last year. Besides, if it were only published recently, wouldn't that mean copyright has not expired? Wknight94 talk 00:39, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
- Keep I see no reasonable dobuts that this photo should not fulfill the requirements for PD-Sweden-photo. /FredrikT (talk) 14:21, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
Kept. Withdrawn. Wknight94 talk 14:54, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
Country of origin is not given so license validity cannot be determined. Wknight94 talk 22:09, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Norwegian poet, source is given as a Norwegian newspaper, caption says "NTBs arkiv", {{PD-Norway50}} applies. But if this is deleted, also File:Olaf bull.jpg will have to go. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:16, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
- But is that where it was first published? The only source is a web site which is obviously not from his life time. Wknight94 talk 22:20, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Kept. Withdrawn. Wknight94 talk 14:54, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
unused figure from a video game (or similar) - out of scope Cholo Aleman (talk) 04:21, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Similar to Commons:Deletion requests/File:Hodo02.jpg. --Martin H. (talk) 21:10, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
unused figure from a video game - out of scope Cholo Aleman (talk) 04:23, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Apparently a copyright violation, so deleted. --Martin H. (talk) 21:09, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
Duplicate of File:20080406165033!V-22 Osprey refueling edit1.jpg Palm dogg (talk) 18:49, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
- Keep this one is higher resolution and the other one is a FP, just keep both. Multichill (talk) 20:29, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
- Keep per Multichill, the other is an FP (edited), this one is original and bigger. fetchcomms☛ 20:21, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
Kept. Mbdortmund (talk) 21:14, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
unused personal image - out of scope Cholo Aleman (talk) 04:20, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
- Delete. --Martin H. (talk) 21:09, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 21:15, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
Identifiable copyrighted character. deerstop. 20:01, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
Disagree it is the photograph of a toy. --Tonyjeff (talk) 03:01, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
- True, but the depiction of Son Goku is pretty obvious. I mean, he is copyrighted, isn't he? -- deerstop. 21:26, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
Delete Obvious derivative work. BrokenSphere 23:30, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Blacklake (talk) 15:35, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
unused private image Santosga (talk) 20:16, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Delete per nom - nonsense Cholo Aleman (talk) 06:33, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Blacklake (talk) 15:31, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
Not notable musical group: out of scope. Image is not used on any wikimedia project High Contrast (talk) 20:49, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Blacklake (talk) 15:30, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
Don't we have enough of these? How many images of a woman sucking penis do we need to illustrate a concept? IMO, this low quality (and resolution) image does not sufficiently meet our guidelines of being a serious database of free knowledge to warrant inclusion. Blurpeace 19:33, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Low res and just another pornographic image. fetchcomms☛ 19:36, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
- Keep, in answer to the (seemingly rhetorical) question of "Don't we have enough of these images", we seem to have a total of five photographs of fellatio, of which there are three that are useful and illustrate unique positions/situations. This one illustrates oral sex, but without the whole passive object (penis) hidden by the active object (mouth) - so it seems it does fit a useful niche. Max Rebo Band"almost suspiciously excellent" 04:02, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Not the most brilliant of photographs perhaps, but it's being used on two sister projects (da., eo.) and therefore is within project scope. Anatiomaros (talk) 23:06, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
Comment, Max Rebo Band just added those images – check the pages' histories. I could easily revert and use a higher quality photo available. Blurpeace 18:34, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks for that information Blurpeace; I'll remember to do so next time. Have you a particular image in mind? Regarding the retention of this image, I feel it's becoming increasingly difficult in the current climate for editors to support our hosting "pornographic" images of any description, regardless of quality, without being accused of wanting to see Commons becoming a "porn host". That is sad and a bit scary. If we had a decent and varied selection of images in this category I'd have no problem with deleting an image of borderline quality, but I don't think that is the case here. I certainly don't want to see Commons "flooded with porn" though. Problem is we have no clear guidelines as to what constitutes an acceptable range of images and probably never will have: I usually categorise such exciting things as fields, buildings and roads (e.g. GeographPtoject) and nobody has ever argued for deleting our thousands of files of farm gates in Britain, even though the image quality of many of them is poor and they illustrate pretty much the same thing. But hey, that's life... Anatiomaros (talk) 22:56, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
- Siilar to what Anatiomaros is saying, I am not sure which "higher quality photograph" you could replace the image with - as mentioned, it seems to be the only illustration of fellatio that doesn't obscure the penis. Max Rebo Band"almost suspiciously excellent" 03:17, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
- Delete. Not again ... --JN466 20:59, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
- Could you be more specific, other than "it depicts something I find sexually arousing"? Because we have 250 photographs of bare feet, which I find sexually arousing, and this is the only clear photograph of fellatio, as mentioned above. Max Rebo Band"almost suspiciously excellent" 01:50, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
- It's a poor image in many respects. Most of the penis is in fact obscured, by the woman's hand. In fact, nothing of the man can be seen, except for one half-inch of his penis. The woman herself has been clumsily "cut out", as though with scissors, and dropped onto a white background -- presumably because the original background was distracting. This is an amateur porn shot (Description: "sucking last drops"), and I resent the po-faced argument that this should in fact be an image created for an educational purpose, or one that would really be suited for fulfilling one. The argument that images of fellatio are just like images of farm gates is remote from real world attitudes. By all means, let's have images of fellatio, images that are technically accomplished and have an educational and aesthetic value, but let's not collect tacky images of the act which do the whole idea of illustrating such subjects for an educational purpose a disservice. Okay? --JN466 05:52, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
- Could you be more specific, other than "it depicts something I find sexually arousing"? Because we have 250 photographs of bare feet, which I find sexually arousing, and this is the only clear photograph of fellatio, as mentioned above. Max Rebo Band"almost suspiciously excellent" 01:50, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
- Keep In new version of this file is better quality now -I found an original picture. By the way, I agree with Max Rebo Band and Anatiomaros. Remas6 22:19, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
- Where exactly did you find it? If it is no longer the Flick image, the source needs to be updated. --JN466 05:57, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
- You have right, now is correct source and it is the Flick image. Remas6 15:00, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
- Keep It's in use now; whatever you might way about how it was put there, it's been in use for a couple weeks on some of these WPs and no one has removed it from the page. And we have six photos of fellatio and this is from a different angle from any of the other ones.--Prosfilaes (talk) 13:25, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
- The principle of "silence is consensus" on smaller projects is moot. I could easily go in, switch the photos, and nobody on the local project would know. They probably don't even know this deletion request is happening. Blurpeace 07:31, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
- Images get deleted from en.Wiki all the time without anyone knowing the deletion request is happening. In this case, we have images on multiple WPs being changed for weeks, and not on tiny WPs; if it is at all possible for them to deal with vandalism, then at the very least some patroller has looked at it.--Prosfilaes (talk) 10:37, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Fellation-spam makes it not better in any respect. I think more and more people realize that you can abouse commons as data storage for private pics and crap. --Yikrazuul (talk) 11:42, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
- Says someone spamming Commons with stuff like File:Kadethrin.svg, which looks practically the same as File:Imidacloprid.svg; do we really need 100 chemical diagrams for insecticides alone? And if we do, how can you complain about six pictures of fellatio?--Prosfilaes (talk) 14:25, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
- The truth is that some people find that even one picture is one too many. I was going to ignore JN466's comment (above) - "The argument that images of fellatio are just like images of farm gates is remote from real world attitudes" - as I was not implying anything of the sort, pretty obviously, but I'll bring it in here now as it in itself sums up a certain attitude where "real world attitudes" actually means "my point of view". We do not have an effective "cap" or limit on the images in any particular category and nobody ever complains that we have too many images unless the subject is related to sex and sexuality. As Prosfilaes notes, we only have 6 images here not thousands. And just where are we supposed to get the "images that are technically accomplished and have an educational and aesthetic value"? It would be great to have them but where are they? Are we supposed to get rid of every image that does not meet those requirements - which are themselves open to debate, of course - in the meantime? If amateur sexual images by private individuals are "spam" how are we supposed to find professional ones that are not copright violations? With respect, this whole line of argument is disingenuous and unhelpful. Anatiomaros (talk) 15:37, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
- Says someone spamming Commons with stuff like File:Kadethrin.svg, which looks practically the same as File:Imidacloprid.svg; do we really need 100 chemical diagrams for insecticides alone? And if we do, how can you complain about six pictures of fellatio?--Prosfilaes (talk) 14:25, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. COM:PORN High Contrast (talk) 11:39, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
- Keep This file was condidate for speedy deletion [1] by High Contrast as Out of scope: COM:PORN because (in High Contrast opinion) it is copyrighted and not published under a free license, but the original file is published under a free license, please have a look to http://www.flickr.com/photos/47114695@N06/4332217348 Jacopo Werther (talk) 12:45, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
- Keep No good reason for deletion. --Dezidor (talk) 15:24, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
- Keep This file was restored JUST ONE WEEK AGO as a result of an undeletion request. I'm adding the undeletion debate below as it is now archived:
![[1]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File%3AGlans_Stimulation.png&action=historysubmit&diff=42612034&oldid=42361998){kind=link}
Commons:Undeletion requests/Archive/2010-08#File:Glans Stimulation.png (replaced text with link to archive: Prosfilaes.)
I'd like to know what has changed since the 8th of August, or is this simply part of a campaign to "clean" Commons of all sexuality-related material for whatever excuse happens to be convenient? Anatiomaros (talk) 15:31, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
- Keep It can't be out of scope. It's in use.--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:16, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
Kept. In use. ZooFari 00:59, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
Eyes closed = dominating behaviour. Best alternatives uploaded. Unused. ~ FAP (talk) 19:12, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
- Keep Dominating behavior = usable on pages about domination in human sexuality. Do we really need to go over and over the same pictures? The fact that it was in use is good evidence it is usable in an educational context.--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:39, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
Kept - Having your eyes closed is not dominating behaviour, sometimes you just want to be able to concentrate on what's in your mouth, not watching pubic hair fly at your eyes. -mattbuck (Talk) 13:52, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
This member is no longer active on Flickr - permission no longer given Hold and wave (talk) 21:41, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
- Keep That's what {{Flickrreview}} is for. Anytime the image source goes absent, we know that the image had been reviewed under a free license. --ZooFari 22:04, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
- Keep Permission is irrevocable, otherwise we couldn't use Flickr.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:22, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
Question Do we have evidence of the subject's consent to distribute this? (Flickr-review is about a different issue, licensing status.) If we don't, this now fails COM:PEOPLE (per recent WMF resolutions). --99of9 (talk) 14:08, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
Kept Creative Commons licences are irrevocable. It is not of interest whether the flickr user is still active or not. --High Contrast (talk) 14:01, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
No EXIF data, possible flickrwashing - account no longer exists. Poor description, while that is not a reason for deletion, it is not educational in any manner. No Flickr also means lack of model release, identifiable person. Other images of better quality of this topic exist. (And I had no clue this was nominated so many times in the past..sorry to beat a dead horse, ha!) Missvain (talk) 13:02, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Please note that the closing admin on the latest discussion was unaware of the latest WMF resolutions on identifiable subject consent to publish, and agrees they mean deletion here. We now require evidence of consent, usually at least a statement by the uploader. --99of9 (talk) 13:18, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
- Delete - As per 99of9.--Hold and wave (talk) 15:50, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
- Comment - on the closer's talkpage, it was suggested that COM:PEOPLE be updated to include this WMF resolution before renominating - this has not been done. Can somebody please do this so we're all singing from the same hymn sheet? -mattbuck (Talk) 16:30, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
- Among other mentions of requirements for evidence of consent, we now have: "an identifiable individual with no evidence of consent given... normally not OK: Nudes, underwear or swimsuit shots, unless obviously taken in a public place (unreasonable intrusion without consent)". Although there may be further tweaks, this is one of our most obvious cases IMO. --99of9 (talk) 11:14, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted - Jcb (talk) 16:56, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
Looks similar to MSN icons / logo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.61.111.53 (talk • contribs) 14:12, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
- Comment I assume you mean icons like this? Generally, I would say that it's rather inevitable that two such abstract representations of a person's head and torso would look quite similar, but I have to agree that in this case the resemblance is indeed quite remarkable, even down to the specific shape and placement of highlights. Then again, one could argue that it's just a standard and widely used manner of creating a "glassy" effect in a vector image. (Ps. If this image is deleted, presumably File:Fairytale kdmconfig2.png should go too.) —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 08:32, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Kept, fairytale icon is sufficiently different from the MSN icon. Kameraad Pjotr 19:41, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
Source says: "No part of this work may be used for commercial purposes without the written permission of the authors." Jay32183 (talk) 05:23, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, released for non-commercial use only. Kameraad Pjotr 19:40, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
The uploader does not seem to have the copyright Ecemaml talk to me/habla conmigo 11:14, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
- Hola Ecemaml, la imagen propuesta para ser borrada es una obra realizada por mi. La imagen que he subido es el archivo original en formato PNG con un peso de 2.61 MB. Si buscas en Google solo encontrarás una copia de la imagen que cedí a la asociación Furmientu (en formato JPG y con un peso de 449 KB). De hecho también he realizado los carteles de otras ediciones de este festival... ¿Cómo puedo demostrar que yo soy el autor?. Un saludo.--Karkeixa (talk) 12:51, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, likely copyright violation; no permission. Kameraad Pjotr 19:21, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
No proof that author of the photo has released it under this license despite the existence of multiple versions of this image online, as can be seen with a Google search of "hello kitty exhaust pipe". BrokenSphere 04:11, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, no suitable permission. Kameraad Pjotr 19:16, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
The feathers have the wrong shape. The head are to small, and the crest goes to long behind the eyes. Conty (talk) 09:18, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
Kept, the file is in use and thus within project scope. Kameraad Pjotr 19:28, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
Photo taken 1913, Creator unknown. (1913 entstanden, Urheber unbekannt) Emkaer (talk) 19:34, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
- The picture has been published in Kischs autobiography Der Lebensweg eines Rechtshistorikers, 1975. That means, the picture, taken in 1913, is not "published over 70 years ago". This Licence-tag cannot be applied. --Emkaer (talk) 17:09, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
- See http://www.catalogus-professorum-halensis.de/indexb1918.html --Emkaer (talk) 17:09, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
- It does not need to have been published 70 years ago. There might be publication rights for the author of the book but those rights expire much sooner than that (25 years, if I remember correctly). /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:46, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
- You are right concerning book-author-rights (25 years, I think). But the {{PD-EU-no author disclosure}}-tag says published over 70 years ago. Greetings --Emkaer (talk) 21:05, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
- Anonymous unpublished works are free after 70 years. But it seems that you are right, the clock started ticking in 1975, according to German law. (Another weird copyright anomaly.) /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:20, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
- You are right concerning book-author-rights (25 years, I think). But the {{PD-EU-no author disclosure}}-tag says published over 70 years ago. Greetings --Emkaer (talk) 21:05, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
- It does not need to have been published 70 years ago. There might be publication rights for the author of the book but those rights expire much sooner than that (25 years, if I remember correctly). /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:46, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Mr Kisch is not the author of the picture so, in my opinion, it doesn't matter when he published it and where. The picture was taken in 1913 by an unknown-anonymous photographer on behalf of the institution where Kisch get his diploma or whatever he was awarded for. In other words the picture was made available to the public when it was shot, or better, when it was given to him by the photographer. In 1913 very probably or, maximum, on 1914. According to my point of view the picture is in Public Domain, should be kept, and the correct license to tag it is {{Anonymous-EU}}. But I can be wrong.--Giorgiomonteforti (talk) 18:56, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, anonymous work published in 1975 (per Pieter Kuiper) and thus {{PD-EU-no author disclosure}} or similar do not apply. Kameraad Pjotr 19:27, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
Image is out of focus; low resolution; image is replacable Rehman(+) 10:35, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
- Delete - very low quality - unusable.--E8 (talk) 05:13, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
- Comment Agree image is low quality. It is also in use in 3 Wikipedia pages. "Replacable" -- are there any other free images of this particular wind farm, refered to in the articles where it is used? Infrogmation (talk) 02:00, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
- Comment - the "replaceable" comment is fitting. One could take just about wind turbine photo, distort this image in a similar fashion, and claim it to be from this location. If there was something novel or distinctive about this particular wind farm that was captured in the image, the quality wouldn't be an issue.--E8 (talk) 22:05, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, out of project scope. Kameraad Pjotr 19:26, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
own work to much OR for WP article, not used anywhere! Leevanjackson (talk) 02:05, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, out of project scope. Kameraad Pjotr 19:59, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
Not a real spider. Neptunerover
คุยกับผู้ใช้ 05:15, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
- Perfectly possible that it is not a real spider, but it is certainly part of Don Ehlen's collection. The EXIF information on the photo clearly shows that I took this picture in the midst of photographing the collection. - Jmabel ! talk 07:27, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
Kept, within project scope and object seems trivial enough not to pass the threshold of originality. Kameraad Pjotr 19:50, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
Not a real spider. No evidence it is actually a part of the claimed collection. Neptuneroverคุยกับผู้ใช้ 05:10, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
- Perfectly possible that it is not a real spider, but it is certainly part of Don Ehlen's collection, and displayed with it. I suppose that the best evidence I can provide (if there is some reason to doubt my word, and I can't really think what reason there would be) is that the EXIF information on the photo clearly shows that I took this picture in the midst of photographing the collection. I have to say, of the 20,000+ images I've uploaded to Commons, this is the first time someone has effectively accused me of misrepresenting when and where I took a photo. - Jmabel ! talk 07:27, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
- Comment OK, so Don Ehlen has a plastic (or is it glass? looks more like glass to me) spider in his collection. Fair enough, it's his collection and I can see how he might find it cute or amusing. I suppose the real question then is, who owns the copyright to this little arachnid sculpture? —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 08:42, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
- I talked to Don. It is, indeed, not a real spider. I have no idea who made it and whether this object rises to the level of being eligible for copyright. - Jmabel ! talk 16:04, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Kept, within project scope and object seems trivial enough not to pass the threshold of originality. Kameraad Pjotr 19:49, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
Likely copyrighted logo of an organization Mikemoral♪♫ 05:05, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
- The organisation IFV BAHNTECHNIK e.V. allows to use this logo on WIKIPEDIA under Creative Commons-License. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Consulting-competence (talk • contribs) 08:29, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
Kept, {{PD-ineligible}}. Kameraad Pjotr 19:53, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
[[:Fil--176.71.79.84 12:42, 31 August 2014 (UTC)e:Itunes_staff_favs-1.png]]
[edit]
This file contains iTunes interface. This is not PD-self. – Kwj2772 (msg) 14:10, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
e:Itunes_staff_favs-1.png]]){kind=link}
Anything I can do to list it accurately? I can update the permissions. Thanks
- Delete Copyrighted software. cflm (talk) 14:27, 22 July 2010 (UTC)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.
e:Itunes_staff_favs-1.png]]){kind=link}
I accidently uploaded it.I meant for it to be a another file with the same name. DColt (talk) 10:34, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
Kept, upload a correct version over this one. Kameraad Pjotr 18:23, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
copyvio from http://www.harmdijkman.nl/files/jpg/KNVB%20Beker.jpg Posted on that site in April 2009 Miho (talk) 22:45, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, likely copyright violation. Kameraad Pjotr 18:27, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
photo of a photo 91.20.25.112 00:41, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, no evidence this photo was taken from a public space (per FOP). Kameraad Pjotr 18:45, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
photo of a photo 91.20.25.112 00:40, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, no evidence this photo was taken from a public space (per FOP). Kameraad Pjotr 18:46, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
photo of a photo 91.20.25.112 00:40, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, no evidence this photo was taken from a public space (per FOP). Kameraad Pjotr 18:46, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
photo of a photo 91.20.25.112 00:41, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, no evidence this photo was taken from a public space (per FOP). Kameraad Pjotr 18:46, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
unused private drawing with unknown notability, no description, impossible to find in the net = out of scope Cholo Aleman (talk) 21:38, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, out of project scope. Kameraad Pjotr 18:47, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
No FoP for sculptures in Denmark. 88.76.18.70 12:20, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, no FOP in Denmark. Kameraad Pjotr 19:14, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
The typography on the map is distorted. Rocketsee (talk) 16:31, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
- Comment, it can be corrected, no ? No need to delete for me. Cdlt, VIGNERON * discut. 22:08, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
- Comment Indeed. We've been having these text rendering problems in SVG files lately, and I suspect the actual cause is a bug in the rsvg renderer we use. The file does render correctly when viewed directly in Firefox. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 08:47, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Kept, uploading a better version over this one is preferred. Kameraad Pjotr 19:07, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
It isn't just like the iPhone icon, it is an exact duplicate. 144.189.100.25 22:27, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
- Keep It's not exactly the same. I'd say PD-shape applies --DieBuche (talk) 09:19, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
Kept, {{PD-ineligible}}. Kameraad Pjotr 19:01, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
Iphone map icon Secretlondon (talk) 23:58, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
Already deleted --Denniss (talk) 20:56, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
I suspect, that the map is not own work, but copyright violation. Also probably the filename should be protected as too generic. Taivo (talk) 15:33, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: clearly an extract from somewhere else, derivative, not own work. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:53, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
Unrecognizable 82.83.176.21 15:16, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
- Keep See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Medio-lateral-episiotomy.gif /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 10:22, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
Kept, bogus deletion request. Kameraad Pjotr 18:47, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
Not used anymore Pakito2009 (talk) 21:52, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Not a reason to delete. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 10:28, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Why should Commons keep this image anyway? We don't even know what the low resolution image describes other than being a paddle. This is likely a good faith uploader request which should be honoured. --Leoboudv (talk) 04:46, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
- Delete per uploader request.--E8 (talk) 05:17, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, out of project scope. Kameraad Pjotr 18:40, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
contains part of an image I have already uploaded to wikimedia commons Pontiacsunfire08 (talk) 05:09, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, unclear deletion request, but out of project scope. Kameraad Pjotr 18:38, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
no evidence of permission, pic is from the web, likely copyright violation Off2riorob (talk) 01:14, 27 March 2010 (UTC) It appears to be from Nartube.com , here you can see it on google pic search. Off2riorob (talk) 01:19, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, copyright violation. Kameraad Pjotr 18:55, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
_1.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_1.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Copyright infringment, claimed as own work, but taken from zuidas.webcam.nl. The remains copyright notice can still be seen at the top of the picture, there is a small black line at the top, this used to be the copyright notice. MichaBen (talk) 19:54, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
_1.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted, copyright violation. Kameraad Pjotr 18:53, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
_1.jpg){kind=link}
Paneláky ze předu parking.JPG Magister Dei Gratia (talk) 17:56, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
Yes, delete it: unidentified locations. BTW, a bad name too: not "ze předu", but "zepředu" :) --Packa (talk) 18:51, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, out of project scope. Kameraad Pjotr 19:09, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
copyrighted material (album cover) 190.21.116.227 22:38, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
- Delete copyrighted Алый Король (talk) 19:28, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, copyright violation. Kameraad Pjotr 19:08, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
File:Pauline_Johnson_Canada_Canadian_commerative_stamp_issued_1961-03-10_celebrating_centennary_of_her_birth_original_file_name_s000442k.jpg
[edit]
Notes on the image description page indicate that Canada Post will not allow commercial uses nor does it allow derivatives. Copyright will not expire in Canada until 2011. Even then, it will be sometime before copyright has expired in the U.S. Skeezix1000 (talk) 01:28, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
- Why your dont can wait ONE year? Plus, Stamps of Canada are in Public domain (after 50 years) wordwide, like ALL others Crown copyright materials (http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/2005-May/022055.html) --Radek Rassel (talk) 08:20, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, allows for non-commercial use only. Image will be in the public domain from January 1st, 2012 (not 2011). Kameraad Pjotr 19:04, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
- (1) Architectural work, not covered by freedom of panorama COM:FOP#France, see previous deletion requests on Millau Viaduct.
- (2) Likely not own photo, I dont know where it exactly is from but it was available online already before, see e.g. http://www.flickr.com/photos/rolsol/3930364407/. I write this in support of Commons:Deletion requests/Files by Andres Rojas, this looks very fishy. Martin H. (talk) 09:58, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
- Ah, I was to focused on flickr. A simple search brings http://abelgalois.wordpress.com/2008/08/23/viaducto-de-millau-un-proyecto-de-norman-foster/ - that says it is from panoramio, and yes, there it is: http://www.panoramio.com/photo/1592167 of April 1 2007. This upload with the author "Andres Rojas" is not fishy but a blatant copyright violation. --Martin H. (talk) 10:03, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Real author is William Stephens. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 10:19, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Deleted.
18:38, 10 August 2010 Havang(nl) deleted "File:Viaducto de Millau.jpg"
Shockingly poor scan. Maidonian (talk) 00:21, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
- Delete The resolution is extremely poor for this free image. --Leoboudv (talk) 04:43, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Don't exaggerate, I've seen worse... There are not many files in Category:Revenue stamps of the United Kingdom so keep if there woudn't better scan of this mark. BTW. The picture is used on pl-wiki -> pl:Znaczek paszportowy. I think that propose file to deletation if it is used already it is not a good idea (to be polite - I don't want say harder what it is...). Electron <Talk?> 07:12, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
- Keep In use. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 09:48, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
- Keep In use, no alternative better version of this object. Julo (talk) 13:11, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
- Keep In use, bad quality is no reason to delete if it's in use and nothing better exists. — raeky (talk | edits) 00:02, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
Kept. In use, no better version.
Lasita. Ĝi estas uzata, kaj pli bona versio malhavatas.
AVRS (talk) 13:40, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
A very sexy woman. Anyway it's a suspicious file and it seems a porno photoshot of some kind of sex-at-school set. The watermark on picture link to a blog that is not the original source of the picture. There, this pic, it's even photoshopped. There is an author but the name doesn't fit with the uploader. Metadata show only that the pic was photoshopped. No proof that the uploader is the author, and if he is, why to upload the watermarked version and not the original? Giorgiomonteforti (talk) 18:38, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
- Delete. Obvious photoshop work, unsuitable for an encyclopedia. Binksternet (talk) 16:15, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Besides, what is the purpose? --Yikrazuul (talk) 11:44, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Watermarked copyvio. http://www.whiterabbitcult.com/sarah-palin-to-openfor-jonas-brothers-in-anchorage-alaska/ -- Common Good (talk) 19:37, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
Out of scope. Low quality (deliberately blurred?) image of unidentified group. -- Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:32, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Amada44 talk to me 13:15, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
unused private logo/avatar [2] Santosga (talk) 20:13, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Delete per nom Cholo Aleman (talk) 06:37, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Amada44 talk to me 13:16, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
Urheberschaft zweifelhaft, Frinck51 (talk) 07:54, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
Je suis opposé à la suppression
[edit]
L'auteur de la demande de suppression (Frinck51) n'explique pas les raisons de sa demande de suppression pour "Paternité douteuse".
La mauvaise qualité de la photo originale, ainsi que les conditions de prise de vue sont des arguments pour une photo d'amateur, et on ne comprend pas pour quelles raisons ce cliché aurait été volé ou piraté !
Gilles (talk) 22:12, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
Opposed
[edit]
I agree with Gilles. Jdsteakley (talk) 13:45, 28 May 2010 (UTC) Je n'avais pas bien perçu le système de réponse dans les "deletions requests"...je peux garantir que cette pic est la mienne et faite dans de mauvaises conditions, très éloigné du sujet au 200mm Canon20D, la nuit et sans trépied,au milieu de la foule.Par ailleurs,j'ai qqes dizaines de pics de JVD, 50 ou 60, prises toutes dans de mauvaises conditions,au cirque royal et à la monnaie dans les 80ies, et à l'abbaye de la cambre comme cette pic contestée
Kept, AGF on uploaders behalf. Kameraad Pjotr 18:31, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
Low-quality image with no use. Requested by author.
Deleted, uploader request. File is not in use. Kameraad Pjotr 19:31, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
choose the wrong lisence 180degreebenefits (talk) 20:31, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
choose the wrong lisence --180degreebenefits (talk) 20:38, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, likely copyright violation. Kameraad Pjotr 19:02, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
Low-quality image with no use. Requested by author.
Deleted, uploader request. File is not in use. Kameraad Pjotr 19:31, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
This map is presenting false information, it's made from a falsified map which was deleted. The person who originally created it has cleansed ethnic groups from Afghanistan, which includes Aimak, Kirghis, Brahui, Qizilbash, and etc. There are official CIA maps showing accurate information. See File:Afghanistan Ethnolinguistic Groups 1997.jpg, File:Afghanistan Ethnolinguistic Groups 1982.jpg, File:Afghanistan Ethnolinguistic Groups 1972.jpg. Article 20 of the Constitution of Afghanistan states that the national anthem of the country "shall mention these ethnic groups" that were cleansed off from this map. See the "Third stanza" at Milli Tarāna. Also, the 1985 map used as a reference is from a site (Hazara.net) that represents only one ethnic group, the Hazara people, which is very unreliable. Notice that in 1985 about half of the total 15 million population of Afghanistan fled the country as a result of the Soviet war. See Afghan refugees.
- Changed this from a speedy to a normal deletion request originally posted by Officer./ Lokal_Profil 00:47, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
Delete - I don't see any reason to discuss. User:Lokal Profil, are you denying my facts? Do you believe Aimaks, Kirghis, Brahuis and Qizilbash ethnic groups should not be in Afghanistan?--Officer (talk) 01:17, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
- Keep In use. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 10:11, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
- Keep We have Nazi propaganda as well, although the map may be biased, that is to be worked out in its useages, it still belongs here as a free file. Sherurcij (talk) 12:53, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
- Keep, per COM:NPOV; in use. –Tryphon☂ 12:29, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
- Comment - We can replace it with this official CIA map, File:Afghanistan Ethnolinguistic Groups 1997.jpg. All the online ethnic maps on Afghanistan uses information from this one.--Officer (talk) 15:04, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
- Comment - Changed this to a normal delete since speedy isn't suitable for this case. If the decision is to keeo this then File:Map of Ethnic Groups (in Districts) in Afghanistan.jpg which it is based upon should be undeleted. /Lokal_Profil 23:34, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
- Comment - COM:NPOV doesn't mention anything relating to the removal of ethnic groups from maps that are intended to show ethnic groups (ethnic cleansing). According to COM:NPOV: "Of course, if the author has made a factual mistake that is not seriously disputed, the image (if not in use) may fail the test of being useful for an educational purpose, and can be deleted on that basis." Nobody has disputed my findings of missing ethnic groups.--Officer (talk) 02:09, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
- The important part is if not in use, because we don't want to make the decision for all the projects using the file; we have to assume they know what they're doing. –Tryphon☂ 16:43, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
- Here's the problem, the original uploader (User:Le_Behnam, an ethnic Tajik) decided to create this falsified ethnic map for his own personal satisfaction, to make Tajiks more in Afghanistan by removing some ethnic groups so that way Tajiks may get more voice. I've gotten to know him, he's in many online sites (Tajikam.com, Youtube, Facebook, Blogs, Chatrooms, etc.) where he and his other Tajik buddies are constantly insulting non-Tajiks (mainly the Pashtuns). They talk mostly about ethnic cleansings and in Wikipedia all they edit is people's ethnicity, nothing else. He (a.k.a. Beh-nam) got banned in Wikipedia for the same behaviour, calling Pashtun founding fathers as homosexuals in their articles, vandalizing Pashtun articles, spreading Tajik pride or Tajik nationalism, etc. There's just too much to say about him and his Tajik buddies. Anyway, it is he and his buddies that have these false maps in use in Wikipedia and if you try to replace it with the CIA one, they will revert it. To end all this we just delete this map which has missing ethnic groups and place the official CIA map. Remember this map is based on a 1985 and the CIA one is more current 1997. As for me, I'm too old to play around like kids. I respect everyone's race, color, religion, non-religious, sex, gender, political view, etc.--Officer (talk) 18:55, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
- Easier to just mark (on the image page) that the factual content is disputed. if I remember something similar was done to the Gibraltar map where Gibraltar was marked as belonging to Spain. Had the map been a creation by Le Behnam then I would agree that deletion might be warrented, but unless I missremember the map is based on official data. Although this doesn't mean it reflects reality it at least reflects/reflected an official viewpoint and might be interesting from that point of view./Lokal_Profil 01:14, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
- The map is not based on official data, it's based on a 1982 Communist map printed in Poland. PBS is another very reliable source and their map goes against this map. The north-western territory is not Tajik, it's Aimak (Turkic). Tajik means a Persian-speaking person who is "non-Turk", they live inside the western "city" of Herat. Le_Behnam is Tajik, he removed the Aimaks from the map. Here is another map by National Geographic and it also goes against Le-Behnam.--Officer (talk) 02:25, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
- After my last message, w:User:Inuit18 (part of their group) removed Aimaks.[3]--Officer (talk) 01:57, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
- Easier to just mark (on the image page) that the factual content is disputed. if I remember something similar was done to the Gibraltar map where Gibraltar was marked as belonging to Spain. Had the map been a creation by Le Behnam then I would agree that deletion might be warrented, but unless I missremember the map is based on official data. Although this doesn't mean it reflects reality it at least reflects/reflected an official viewpoint and might be interesting from that point of view./Lokal_Profil 01:14, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
- Here's the problem, the original uploader (User:Le_Behnam, an ethnic Tajik) decided to create this falsified ethnic map for his own personal satisfaction, to make Tajiks more in Afghanistan by removing some ethnic groups so that way Tajiks may get more voice. I've gotten to know him, he's in many online sites (Tajikam.com, Youtube, Facebook, Blogs, Chatrooms, etc.) where he and his other Tajik buddies are constantly insulting non-Tajiks (mainly the Pashtuns). They talk mostly about ethnic cleansings and in Wikipedia all they edit is people's ethnicity, nothing else. He (a.k.a. Beh-nam) got banned in Wikipedia for the same behaviour, calling Pashtun founding fathers as homosexuals in their articles, vandalizing Pashtun articles, spreading Tajik pride or Tajik nationalism, etc. There's just too much to say about him and his Tajik buddies. Anyway, it is he and his buddies that have these false maps in use in Wikipedia and if you try to replace it with the CIA one, they will revert it. To end all this we just delete this map which has missing ethnic groups and place the official CIA map. Remember this map is based on a 1985 and the CIA one is more current 1997. As for me, I'm too old to play around like kids. I respect everyone's race, color, religion, non-religious, sex, gender, political view, etc.--Officer (talk) 18:55, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
- The important part is if not in use, because we don't want to make the decision for all the projects using the file; we have to assume they know what they're doing. –Tryphon☂ 16:43, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
_in_Afghanistan.jpg){kind=link}
Keep Bad things may or may not be being done by this person or that, but we have a clear policy of not settling Wikipedia disputes by removing offending maps etc. --Simonxag (talk) 11:52, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
Kept. Huib talk 15:04, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
- Delete - This map contains falsified information and cannot be modified by other users. This map was made by ethnic Tajiks [4] with intention to falsify and make their group larger than it suppose to be. The area in the northwestern should not be green because that is the historical land of Aimaks, Kyrgys, Qizilbash, who are different groups mentioned by names in the Constitution of Afghanistan (chapter 1, article 4), the Afghan National Anthem, in all the encyclopedias including Encyclopedia Britannica and Encyclopedia Iranica, Library of Congress Country Studies as well as in the CIA Factbook and on all the official ethnolinguistic maps of Afghanistan that you see in the media. See the official CIA maps below in the gallery, which are professionally made and includes all the ethnic groups of Afghanistan. Last time it was kept because it was in use but now it's not other than on the uploader's personal page.--Officer (talk) 03:20, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Comment This map is not helpful but instead creating huge problems. Someone with political agenda created this map which washes away some ethnic groups and makes another group smaller and this leads to uprisings by some ethnic groups in Afghanistan when their leaders see this online. This is why deadly attacks on western forces in Afghanistan are on the rise because some of those Afghans think that they are being ethnic cleansed by the western armies. If you are a westerner, you are putting your own soldiers at risk. Another problem with this map is that other users cannot modify it easily because it requires special softwares that must be purchased and downloaded.--Officer (talk) 16:24, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
- Keep. Not in use anymore, but doesn't seem out of scope either. Of course it can be modified, using inkscape for instance (which is open-source and free). And what about JPEGs? You also need to purchase or download "special softwares" in order to edit them. –Tryphon☂ 16:39, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Comment The image is not in a JPEG format. Show me how to modify this image so I can go ahead and add the Aimaks, Kyrgys and other groups that are missing. When I download the file it doesn't open up, and I have Windows Vista with all latest pre-installed softwares.--Officer (talk) 19:53, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
- As I said, you can use inkscape. –Tryphon☂ 20:16, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
- That's too much of a hassle for fixing one map. This politically modivated map should just be deleted because there are already 4 CIA maps for Afghanistan's ethnic groups. The people behind creating this crazy map are very clever, they know that Afghans don't read much but rather look at maps for information. Imagine you were an Afghan from the Aimak group and you saw this map which doesn't show your group. Afghans get very violent when you make them see a map without their ethnic group being mentioned.--Officer (talk) 20:40, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
- Comment I understand the nominator's concern, as the map generates a very distorted representation of Afganistan's ethnical composition by choosing a representation which is missleading and discriminates small ethnic groups. It would only have any relevance if the electoral system would have been based on district level simple majority. The name of the file is clearly missleading as well. Furthernore it appears to be based on original research which would make it incompatible with Wikipedia guidelines. I doubt it has educational value and I am concerned of its anti-educational effect. --Elekhh (talk) 06:00, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
Delete. As all seem to agree that the map is actually a misrepresentation of the facts, IMHO there is no reason to keep it. Though we have no formal NPOV and NOR policy on Commons, we have to take into account that by hosting such material (which is totally different from a political cartoon) we are giving it some credibility in the eyes of outside users, whether we like it or not. --Túrelio (talk) 06:18, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
- Well "all" is actually two persons, nominator included. And from his own admission, the map could be corrected, he simply doesn't want to do it. So I'd suggest keeping it and tagging it as inaccurate (with a good description of what exactly is missing) so that someone else can eventually correct it. You will always find someone who thinks a map is inaccurate, misleading or plain wrong, but it doesn't mean the map is worthless. –Tryphon☂ 11:32, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
- I'm an expert on Afghanistan and its people. The nation's ethnolinguistics are not determined by districts as what this map is trying to tell us. The country has about 400 districts which is too time consuming for me to research each district and find out the exact ethnic make over. What if some districts are 55% Tajiks and 45% Hazaras or 50% Pashtuns and 50% Tajiks... what color should we use for that? And even if I find a way for that the results will most likely be as the 4 CIA maps.
- This map creates too much controversy, especially for Afghans, and possibly even a security threat to the men and women helping that nation today (i.e. the NATO troops). I'm sure there is a limit to what kind of nation maps users can upload here and what they can't, and if there isn't any there needs to be some kind of limit set to prevent propaganda maps. For example, nations' maps such as this one should be deleted once someone who is an expert clearly points out the convincing errors. I'm not trying to be a pain or do something for my own benefit. Notice I didn't complain about the language maps that are made by the same person, which are ok because there is no government maps for the languages so in that case those are useful. And, notice that the uploader hasn't opposed this deletion as of yet.--Officer (talk) 20:11, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
- Keep -- Our nominator has claimed to be an expert before. As I recall, when asked to clarify what made them consider themselves an expert, they were unable to do so. Nothing written here convinces me that this image is inaccurate, let alone uploaded with an intent to deceive. Geo Swan (talk) 16:00, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
- So representing an area with a population composed of 51% ethnic group A and 49% ethnic group B as 100% ethnic group A is not potentially missleading in your opinion? --Elekhh (talk) 02:22, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
- This is an inherent limit of this kind of map -- apparent to every intelligent reader. IMO we need to respect the intelligence of our readers. So, no, I don't consider this misleading. For the record the 51 % and 49 % figures you used -- you are not citing particular districts, are you? Geo Swan (talk) 08:46, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
- No, just an example. Another likely possibility would be group A 40%, B 30%, C 30% represented as 100% A. Given the "inherent limitation" of this kind of representation, which in this case it can be argued to be severe, I think is legitimate to question its usefulness given that (a) it was created through original research; (b) relevance of ethnical simple majority by district has not been demonstrated, (c) no use in any article, (d) less distorted representations of the topic from more reliable sources are available. Elekhh (talk) 09:46, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
- (a) COM:NPOV; (b) How do you "demonstrate" that a map is relevant? Why don't you let re-users decide whether this map is relevant for their purpose or not?; (c) It was in use shortly before this DR, and could be again in the future or on another project; (d) Always good to have a choice, but why should you decide for others which sources are more reliable? As Geo Swan said, people are intelligent, and as long as it's properly documented that only the majority is represented on this map, I don't see why we should remove it. –Tryphon☂ 10:53, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
- @Geo Swan, don't get personal with me. The map is not showing the Aimaks, Kyrgys, Qizilbash, who are separate ethnic groups mentioned by names in the Constitution of Afghanistan (chapter 1, article 4), the Afghan National Anthem, in all the encyclopedias including Encyclopedia Britannica and Encyclopedia Iranica, Library of Congress Country Studies as well as in the CIA Factbook and on all the official ethnolinguistic maps of Afghanistan that you see in the media. See the official CIA maps for details. And you still say "Nothing written here convinces me that this image is inaccurate". Why can't you see this inaccuracy? Why would the uploader, who is expert at making maps, misses these ethnic groups when making a controversial ethnic map? And, why is the uploader not volunteering here to explain his errors? I'm sure he/she is aware of what's going on. The more this debate goes on with those wanting to keep the map the more I begin to feel that somebody is trying to erace several ethnic groups in Afghanistan.--Officer (talk) 01:18, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
- @Tryphon, if you study the history and people of Afghanistan as much as I've done then you'll learn that each of these ethnic groups lived in that specific area for over 1,000 years. It's for the first time this map totally whipes out some of these indigenous people and replaces them with another ethnic group. It's like someone is trying to tell us with this map that Aimaks and the other missing groups were all ethnic cleansed by the ethnic Tajiks or by US bombings during the recent wars in Afghanistan. This could spark controversy and lead to uprisings inside Afghanistan because the Afghans have a different way of thinking when it comes to this, and we should respect people from all over the world. To do so, we don't wash away people from maps when we know that they live there. Leaving this map here would indicate that (Commons) supports the removal of Aimaks from Afghanistan and the Tajik take over of their ancestoral land. Commons is not an arena for politicians to spread their ideas or messages so therefore we shouldn't support politically modivated maps like this one.--Officer (talk) 01:45, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
- (a) COM:NPOV; (b) How do you "demonstrate" that a map is relevant? Why don't you let re-users decide whether this map is relevant for their purpose or not?; (c) It was in use shortly before this DR, and could be again in the future or on another project; (d) Always good to have a choice, but why should you decide for others which sources are more reliable? As Geo Swan said, people are intelligent, and as long as it's properly documented that only the majority is represented on this map, I don't see why we should remove it. –Tryphon☂ 10:53, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
- No, just an example. Another likely possibility would be group A 40%, B 30%, C 30% represented as 100% A. Given the "inherent limitation" of this kind of representation, which in this case it can be argued to be severe, I think is legitimate to question its usefulness given that (a) it was created through original research; (b) relevance of ethnical simple majority by district has not been demonstrated, (c) no use in any article, (d) less distorted representations of the topic from more reliable sources are available. Elekhh (talk) 09:46, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
- This is an inherent limit of this kind of map -- apparent to every intelligent reader. IMO we need to respect the intelligence of our readers. So, no, I don't consider this misleading. For the record the 51 % and 49 % figures you used -- you are not citing particular districts, are you? Geo Swan (talk) 08:46, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
- So representing an area with a population composed of 51% ethnic group A and 49% ethnic group B as 100% ethnic group A is not potentially missleading in your opinion? --Elekhh (talk) 02:22, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
- Comment -- It seems obvious that this kind of simple coropleth representation, in which only the largest classes are considered in each spatial unit (districts), is not appropriate for depicting the complex geographical distribution of the ethnic groups. This is true even if the original data are perfectly accurate, which we don't know, As Mark Monmonier has shown in his well-known book How to Lie with Maps ([5]), almost everything can be proved to a common reader by carefully choosing the classes, the type of representation, the colors, etc, in a map. I don’t know (and am not interested to) if this particular map was created to make some political point or not, but it is clear that the visual message it passes can be strongly misleading. If this were an article it could be reviewed by the community in detail and brought as close as possible to "reality". In the end, maybe nothing would be left of the original writing and structure. But it is not an article, and modifying the type of representation would be, in practical terms, the same as replacing the map with another one. Eventually the modified version would be redundant with the existing representations e.g., the CIA’s maps shown in the image file. Is this reason strong enough for deleting the map as irrelevant while remaining coherent with Commons’ usual procedure? Hardly, if we consider the trash that is uploaded every day to our galleries. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 11:11, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
- This map was originally made by an ethnic Tajik (User:Le Behnam) who wanted his group to be represented more and to do so he decided to totally wash away several ethnic groups. That user (Beh-nam) is banned from Wikipedia. I could understand if this map represented those washed away people in a smaller area but to have them eraced completely is morally evil, something that Adolf Hitler would do, and we shouldn't allow such kind of users to be doing this morally evil things here in Commons. Another user by the name of Tajik is waiting to place this controversial and misleading map back into the Afghanistan articles in Wikipedia, and that will create edit-warring. [6] --Officer (talk) 01:18, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
- Officer, while I understand your concerns, I think your apparently emotional approach to the debate might be counterproductive. You made your points clear already and we should continue to conduct a calm discussion. --Elekhh (talk) 03:49, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, I do go out of line sometimes and I don't mind being hit with a tomato for that. I just wanted to point-out that this map was not intended for educational purpose but just to play around.--Officer (talk) 07:17, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
- Officer, while I understand your concerns, I think your apparently emotional approach to the debate might be counterproductive. You made your points clear already and we should continue to conduct a calm discussion. --Elekhh (talk) 03:49, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Considering all arguments above, my conclusion is that the map is not appropriate for depicting the geographical distribution of the ethnic groups in Afganistan. This is also what I perceive to be the underlying reason for Officer's concerns regarding ethnic discrimination. Given the choice of all Wikipedias for the alternative maps available on Commons, this seems to be also the conclusion of the community at large. Therefore IMHO is not "realistically useful for an educational purpose". --Elekhh (talk) 03:49, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Based on the arguments provided. The most important point is that AIMS does not provide information on all provinces/districts of Afghanistan. It only covers 24 of the 34 provinces. Among those 24 provinces, many of their districts are not covered (do not have a district profile at all). And among those districts that do have a profile, there are many district profiles which do not have any information on ethnic groups and their percentages. There for, how can it be based on information from AIMS? And, there are other credible maps available on the net and here in Wikipedia, so there is no need to keep such incorrect maps. (Ketabtoon (talk) 04:12, 14 July 2010 (UTC))
- CommentI have added my reasons on why that map should be deleted. The map cannot be modified, as we do not have enough information on the demographics of each district. The creator of the map claims that he has used aims.org.af. Like I mentioned, AIMS has only covered 24 of the 34 Provinces. Among those 24 Provinces that are covered, several of the districts do not even have a district profile. And among those that do have a district profile, several of them do not have any information on the ethno-demography of the district. For example, Paktia Province has 13 districts. Eventhough they do have a district profile under Pakita Province, the district is not even part of the province any more. In other words, they have only covered 23 of the 34 provinces only. While Balkh Province has 15 districts, AIMS has a district profile for only 3 of them. I hope it is convincing enough. Thank you. (Ketabtoon (talk) 05:14, 14 July 2010 (UTC))
- KeepIt's still based on official data (there is no such thing as truly neutral data). Just tag the image as disputed, if nothing else it serves to illustrate the particular POV/agenda of AIMS. /Lokal_Profil 17:55, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
- No it's not and sorry but that's not helpful explanation. AIMS' maps and information includes Aimaks, Kyrgys, and Qizilbash ethnic groups but the map you created doesn't. Now why is that? As Ketabtoon pointed out that AIMS doesn't have ethnic data on many districts so obviously your map is not based on AIMS as you claim. It is based on information from some one who has no idea about Afghanistan or its people.--Officer (talk) 02:09, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
- Comment: @ Lokal Profil - Did you even read the arguments provided by me? How is it based on official data? Are you talking about AIMS? If AIMS is your official source, then it would be a good idea for you to read my comments first. (Ketabtoon (talk) 03:15, 10 September 2010 (UTC))
- Comment: The map is in use again, so that's a definite keep, per COM:NPOV. –Tryphon☂ 07:13, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
- Comment: You have already voted once at the top, and where is it used?--Officer (talk) 02:07, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
- Comment: @ Tryphon - Just because the image is still in use in some articles isn't a good reason to keep the image. We delete a lot of in-use images from wikimedia. However, did you read my comments? Based on the arguments I have presented, what do you think? Thank you. (Ketabtoon (talk) 15:05, 19 September 2010 (UTC))
There is almost 4,000 words of discussion above -- time which could have been much better spent on constructive activities on Commons instead of hassling over a map.
Let me say it again -- it is not the job of Commons editors or Admins to be experts on disputes like this. It is our policy to keep the map, put {{Fact}} or {{Inaccurate-map-disputed}} on it and then let others determine whether it is useful or not. Therefore it is kept. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:38, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
no proof of free licence; publicity material also used at http://www.fashiontelevision.com/infashion/askjeanne/askjeanne_2449.aspx (person hosts the programme ident by website) Dl2000 (talk) 03:22, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
- Delete No evidence given. Tabercil (talk) 23:35, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Avi (talk) 04:51, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
How do we know that the copyright owner tooks this photo? This looks like it was scanned from a book with the reference to a figure number. So, it will be a derivative work which is copyrighted. In the previous flickr photo, did the author's (mauro's) grandparents really take this photo too? Leoboudv (talk) 05:03, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Avi (talk) 04:52, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
Pretty unsure about the license of this image. Uploaders only contribution, no indication that uploader is owner (see watermark) Amada44 talk to me 07:53, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Avi (talk) 04:52, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
COM:DW Pieter Kuiper (talk) 10:13, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
- How on earth is this a DW? — Rlevse • Talk • 10:20, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
- See particularly COM:DW#I know that I can't upload photos of copyrighted art (like paintings and statues), but what about toys? Toys are not art!. The Valentine teddy would seem to be copyrightable; File:Dog and Skip with Santa.jpg has the same problem. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 10:28, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
- "seem to" doesn't cut it. Santa and Valentine Teddy are generic with nothing special about them. They're not named charatcters, such as Mickey Mouse which is used in your link, nor Mr.Bob, nor Scooby Doo, nor etc, hence not copyrightable. By your logic every toy on Commons would have to go, including teddys. — Rlevse • Talk • 12:44, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
- See particularly COM:DW#I know that I can't upload photos of copyrighted art (like paintings and statues), but what about toys? Toys are not art!. The Valentine teddy would seem to be copyrightable; File:Dog and Skip with Santa.jpg has the same problem. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 10:28, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
- Keep It is not within policy to delete this image. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:43, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
- Keep. Convention here is to keep such images. Nominate all or none, not just one or two connected to someone you disagree with (or as I like to call it, "being Kuipered"). Wknight94 talk 20:12, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
- Here here! Bravo! — Rlevse • Talk • 22:12, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
- Convention is to delete such images: Commons:Deletion requests/Image:ValentinDogJMK.JPG, Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Toy mammoth.jpg, etcetera. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:36, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
- Hogwash. If convention is to delete why are there HUNDREDS (by PK's interpretation) of such images in Category:Toy animals? What's the deal here, or has Wknight94 hit it spot on? — Rlevse • Talk • 22:12, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
- From the policy used to justify those deletions: "They can be copyrighted, perhaps, if they were given a very special form by a designer and presented as art (and not a spoon), but the ones you use at home are probably not." - As argued by Rlevse, there is nothing distinguishing these animals from thousands of others, many of which have been around long enough to be PD. That means that the image cannot fall within a specific enough pattern to be copyrightable to prohibit photography. If the animals had a more unique look, sure. But this is the same concept used to justify thousands of train images and car images, or everything else that is "generic", which you've used before. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:40, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
- It is a 2007 Valentine teddy bear, unlike any other Valentine bear that I have seen. Ottava Rima seems to be saying that a painting of flowers in a vase cannot be copyrighted, because it has been a standard theme since at least the old masters. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:46, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
- I've seen thousands of red teddy bears just like that from hundreds of companies. It has the classic look and is dyed red, which has been happening for a very long time. A painting of a flower would not allow someone else to not paint that same flower, and the individual paint strokes of it make it a work of art, whereas this has no unique properties that could make it considered such. Then, there is the fact that we have images of cars and trains that you have not addressed. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:10, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
- See COM:DW#Isn't every product copyrighted by someone? What about cars? Or kitchen chairs? My computer case? Please read COM:DW. Sigh. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:25, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
- By that gaping interpretation EVERYTHING on commons that is a photo of something produced by someone else should be deleted, so geez, that's millions of images, so PK has A LOT of work to do now. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:12, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
- See COM:DW#Isn't every product copyrighted by someone? What about cars? Or kitchen chairs? My computer case? Please read COM:DW. Sigh. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:25, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
- I've seen thousands of red teddy bears just like that from hundreds of companies. It has the classic look and is dyed red, which has been happening for a very long time. A painting of a flower would not allow someone else to not paint that same flower, and the individual paint strokes of it make it a work of art, whereas this has no unique properties that could make it considered such. Then, there is the fact that we have images of cars and trains that you have not addressed. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:10, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
- It is a 2007 Valentine teddy bear, unlike any other Valentine bear that I have seen. Ottava Rima seems to be saying that a painting of flowers in a vase cannot be copyrighted, because it has been a standard theme since at least the old masters. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:46, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
- Delete I've got one of his sisters still with her original tags, and her tags have a copyright notice on them: © DanDee International Limited. A distant ancestor is registered at the copyright office, VA0000702110, as soft sculpture. I'm fine with most teddy bears being copies of now public domain bears, but in this case the pillow alone would be copyrightable, IMO.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:39, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
- Invalid rationale. You have no idea if my red bear was made by the same company as yours. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:43, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
- First, it shows that the copyright office will register bears not dissimilar from these for copyright. Secondly, the label is very clearly visible in the picture and says Sweetheart Teddy®. Lo and behold, DanDee International Limited holds a registered trademark, registration number 2023916, in the word mark SWEETHEART TEDDY.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:13, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
- And if this is yours, then why don't you look at the tags and tell us what they say?--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:14, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
- It is the same red bear after all, eh. I still want to know about Pieter's selective tagging. See User_talk:Pieter_Kuiper#Teddy_Bears. I'm calling this a bad faith IFD. Also note via Pieter and Wknight94 have started tagging each other's images over this. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:35, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
- Invalid rationale. You have no idea if my red bear was made by the same company as yours. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:43, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
- Comment MGA73 makes some good points at similar Commons:Deletion requests/File:Tischkante.jpg. Wknight94 talk 12:23, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
- I agree generic toys should not be copy protected on Commons. Now if we're talking about a Mickey Mouse, Donald Duck, etc toy, yes, but not some any old toy that is not unique, those are just toys. — Rlevse • Talk • 13:49, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Generic. The copyright on the tag probably applies only to the text on the tag. "Happy Valentine's Day" isn't copyrightable. ++Lar: t/c 23:22, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
- I think the copyright on the tag is certainly meant to apply to the entire bear. As for whether or not it's valid, again, I think the design of the pillow (which does not say Happy Valentine's Day), especially with the roses, is on its own copyrightable, much less in the larger context.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:31, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
- Keep. WTF, teh toxic wiki infecting this place? Jack Merridew 09:46, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
Kept. Having the name "Sweetheart Teddy" trademarked does not make the bear itself copyrighted. -- Avi (talk) 04:55, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
Derivative work. The previous DR was closed based on the assumption that the three plushes are not copyrighted, but no argument was presented as to why it would be so. –Tryphon☂ 13:58, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
- Keep. Generic dolls do not pass threshold of originality. There are hundreds of similar images under Category:Dolls, Category:Toy_animals etc. Marokwitz (talk) 14:11, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
- How do you define "generic doll"? A work is ineligible for copyright if it contains no original authorship. That's really not the case here. –Tryphon☂ 14:38, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
- As I said, in my opinion, these dolls do not pass the threshold of originality. They are virtually identical to zillions of other generic teddybears and therefore are not protectable under the U.S copyright law. Marokwitz (talk) 14:55, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
- Being "virtually identical to zillions of other generic teddybears" doesn't make it ineligible for copyright. Again, the criteria is original authorship, and there can be a lot of original authorship in what you consider small differences. Consider bronze sculptures for example: one could say that they are all "virtually identical to zillions of other generic sculptures", and yet they are widely considered eligible for copyright, in the U.S. and in many other countries. –Tryphon☂ 15:24, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
- This is the meaning of the concept "Threshold of originality". Generic toys are not copyrighted. Minor differences are not considered sufficiently original to justify copyright protection. Marokwitz (talk) 15:41, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
- Comment the reason I am insisting on keeping this not-so-great image is that deletion would cause a precedent that would force us to delete a huge number of free images and could potentially cause huge damage to our project. Your interpretation of the copyright law is too strict, and incorrect, IMHO. Marokwitz (talk) 15:46, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
- response Deletion activists count on a simple fact that very few users will actually follow their "advice" - mass deletion request means pissing off a lot of others and earning a lot of disrespect, or maybe a block for so-called "making a point". So each day they sneak in a new deletion "law" against hosting different things - this is now "copyrighted", and this too, and that etc. No mass deletions, just individual judgements. Oh yes, you can upload 17th century portraits - the NPG lawyers will take care of it... NVO (talk) 17:37, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
- As I said, in my opinion, these dolls do not pass the threshold of originality. They are virtually identical to zillions of other generic teddybears and therefore are not protectable under the U.S copyright law. Marokwitz (talk) 14:55, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
- How do you define "generic doll"? A work is ineligible for copyright if it contains no original authorship. That's really not the case here. –Tryphon☂ 14:38, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
- Delete was kept because uploader was a member of ArbCom on enwp; has since resigned and disappeared because of copyright violations in his textual contributions. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 15:14, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
- Please assume good faith. It was kept because most of the editors above said "Keep" and gave valid arguments.Marokwitz (talk) 15:41, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
- Delete. After reviewing the first deletion discussion I am somewhat surprised as well this wasn't deleted. Sure the "votes" would indicated a "keep" but the information Prosfilaes supplied indicates a clear, and valid, reason why this is not an image suitable for Wikimedia Commons. Soundvisions1 (talk) 15:51, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
- reluctant keep. Are you willing and really going to delete all of similar pics? All this Disney-Hallmark-WWF-Cocacola crap? No? Then what's the point? Raise an all-out mass deletion request, and I might join the party. But picking one drop out of a sea leads to nowhere. NVO (talk) 17:22, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
- Delete The copyright isn't speculation; there's a copyright notice, and related items have been registered at the copyright office.--Prosfilaes (talk) 18:14, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
- Keep per decision above. --Eva K. is evil 12:28, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
- Keep as a generic image. Don't pick at departed users' images. Jack Merridew 06:23, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
- Question: What does Don't pick at departed users' images have to do with anything being discussed here in relation to copyright, derivatives or trademarks? Soundvisions1 (talk) 17:50, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Derivative work. Kelly (talk) 14:17, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
- Delete There is sufficient original authorship in the bears for them to be copyrightable and this is thus a derivative work. --UserB (talk) 00:45, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. - Jcb (talk) 19:38, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
Anonymous source and lack of EXIF data makes this appear unlikely to be an original image. The same image is used at http://www.edgeboston.com/display/viewimage_story.php?id=99058 as well as several other websites but not released as public domain. Fæ (talk) 13:53, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Avi (talk) 04:57, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
The source of this image was deleted as not being PD-70. However {{PD-Finland50}} applies if this was published before 1966. If this image is PD the source image should be undeleted. A333 (talk) 14:56, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
- Comment. The old Puijo Tower (the lower tower) can be seen in the picture. According to fi:Puijo and [7], the old Puijo tower was demolished in 1963, the same year the new Puijo Tower was completed. Thus, this photograph was probably taken in 1963. --Apalsola t • c 21:20, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Kept. {{PD-Finland50}} is appropriate as picture must have been taken and in 1963. -- Avi (talk) 05:02, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
Older file also restored. -- Avi (talk) 05:03, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
Not a gallery, just pasted from Wikipedia. Nominated for deletion by Adabow (talk · contribs). - Mike Rosoft (talk) 07:18, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
- Perhaps it was meant as a how-to guide for using signatures? In that case it should be moved to the project namespace and rewritten. Otherwise, speedy delete as an editing experiment. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 07:21, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
- Strange. It looks like the page was imported (with history) from WP, from this 2006 version and page. Import log entries do not seem to go back to earlier than 2008. I suppose it can be deleted. -- Asclepias (talk) 01:19, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. For a second, I thought we had this since 2006 and no one even noticed! Rocket000 (talk) 02:35, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
Non-free logo, probably meets the threshold of originality - Mike Rosoft (talk) 07:15, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
- I am going to contact the uploader and ask him if he is actually in position to release the file into public domain, and if so, then to confirm it at the Wikimedia mailing list. I am withdrawing the nomination, for now. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 07:30, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Deleted by Herbythyme: No OTRS permission
no permission received, tag removed Docu at 12:04, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Same image as on http://www.adrianpiper.com/vs/sound_conwill.shtml but with better resolution. Seems legitimate to me, but I also left a note of this DR at en:User talk:New apra wiki master. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 12:14, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
- Even if the uploader is her (or authorized by her), it still needs an OTRS tag (it's a fairly recent upload). Docu at 12:20, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
- I am the uploader and i am authorized by Adrian Piper herself to upload this image and use it in her personal article. That is true for all images used in the article Adrian Piper. If i have made a mistake or forgot something (like the OTSR tag (i don't know what it is)) let me know what to do, so that there are no further problems with the images. Thanks for your help. New apra wiki master (talk) 13:16, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
- It should not be really necessary, but this image will be safer on Commons if you could send permission of a valid license to COM:OTRS from an email in the adrianpiper.com domain. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 06:09, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
- I am the uploader and i am authorized by Adrian Piper herself to upload this image and use it in her personal article. That is true for all images used in the article Adrian Piper. If i have made a mistake or forgot something (like the OTSR tag (i don't know what it is)) let me know what to do, so that there are no further problems with the images. Thanks for your help. New apra wiki master (talk) 13:16, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
Kept, AGF on uploaders behalf, added {{OTRS pending}}. Kameraad Pjotr 12:05, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
Copyrighted painting, cannot be released under CC by anonymous editor. Randykitty (talk) 18:35, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry (talk) 02:05, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
I, Adrian Piper, am the owner of this image, and wish to withdraw it from Wikimedia Commons. 77.191.90.73 16:42, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
- Comment The image is in use on several other projects and has a valid OTRS ticket. No valid reason for deletion stated. Speedy keep. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 18:16, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
- Comment Agree with above. If an OTRS agent sees a problem with the ticket, they should bring it up here; in the absence of that, I see no reason for deletion. -Pete Forsyth (talk) 02:41, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --DaB. (talk) 15:13, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Adam Kimberley as Copyvio (Copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: Image is the sole property of Adrian Piper, who has not given permission for it to be used on Wikimedia Commons and niether has she given permission to any OTRS agent to use the image. OTRS ticket appears valid, Keep unless OTRS says otherwise. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 18:13, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
- I asked if a OTRS-volunteer can check the permission, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:OTRS/Noticeboard&oldid=571128956#Deletion_request_work_by_Adrian_Piper . Elly (talk) 21:17, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
Kept: has been kept by another admin. --JuTa 15:05, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
- File:Model of Villa Adriana 2.jpg
- File:Model of Villa Adriana 3.jpg
- File:Le poecile reconstitution.JPG
- File:Plastico 1.JPG
- File:Plastico 2.JPG
- File:Plastico 3.JPG
- File:V Adriana - plastico 1050602.JPG
- File:V Adriana - plastico.jpg
- File:V Adriana - plastico1 1050602.JPG
No COM:FOP#Italy. Pieter Kuiper (talk) 23:10, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
- I trust you will include others from Category:Models of temples as well? Otherwise, a precedent is being set to keep such photos of models with no apparent copyright. For all you know, the model was assembled by someone who works for a park service and possibly for a government agency. Wknight94 talk 04:02, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
All deleted, no freedom of panorama in Italy, the models are a work of art themselves. Kameraad Pjotr 19:54, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
This file is used on some website that accidentially is licensed under a CC license. However, the owner of that website isnt the creator of this enthronement photo - or video. Martin H. (talk) 18:11, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- Also File:Enthronement of Catholicos-Patriarch of All Georgia Ilia.jpg and File:Enthronement of Catholicos-Patriarch of All Georgia Ilia (3).jpg. --Martin H. (talk) 18:14, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
- Why are you so sure? Nino Bidzinashvili is a well known person, thus I have no doubt that she is honest. Keep.--George Mel (talk) 18:32, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
- Why are you so sure? Nino Bidzinashvili is a well known person, thus I have no doubt that she is honest.
- Shes stated as the author... The enthronisation was in 1977. I can only see her photo and dont know her age, but I would say: the author claim is unlikely correct if not impossible - biologically. --Martin H. (talk) 03:37, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, likely copyright violation. Kameraad Pjotr 21:44, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
I fear that this image and the edited version File:Pampulha-2.jpg is taken from www.belobrasil.ch since the descriptions just say "www.belobrasil.ch". I would like to hear what other users think. MGA73 (talk) 20:59, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, likely copyright violation. Kameraad Pjotr 21:31, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
- File:Gregory the Illuminator statue.jpg
- File:Gregory the Illuminator statue 2.jpg
- File:Saint Gregoire.jpg
- File:San gregorio el Iluminador san pedro.jpg
- File:Armenians.jpg
- File:Armenian infobox.jpg
Statue installed January 19, 2004. Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:45, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
- The establisher of Christianity in Anatolia king Tiridates the 3:d — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.89.27.245 (talk • contribs) 21:48, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
- Two montages using this photos deleted independently for the reason that the photographic work was not own work nor free as claimed by the uploading user. --Martin H. (talk) 13:14, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, no freedom of panorama in Italy. Kameraad Pjotr 21:29, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
looks like promo/catalogue photo from manufacturer. Small size, no EXIF data, clean background. Uploaders other "own" photos are way different Saibo (Δ) 01:51, 6 July 2010 (UTC) This one looks like a real "own" photo: File:Wieprza river in waldowo by betelgeuse.JPG --Saibo (Δ) 01:59, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
This does also apply to (so separate DR):
- File:Fofo00 4aa62b6488ace.jpg
- File:Fofo40 4aa62b6494515.jpg
- File:Fofo20 4aa62b648e0c5.jpg
- File:Bmax czerwony.jpg
Unsure:
- File:Środek przed FL.jpg (not very professional photo, but also no EXIF)
--Saibo (Δ) 01:59, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, all likely copyright violations. Kameraad Pjotr 21:16, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
possible copyvio, image from a RTL television program; please check if the licensing used can be applied Santosga (talk) 18:01, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, clear copyright violation: screenshot from a copyrighted tv program. Kameraad Pjotr 21:11, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
Private image of en:User:Smelliee, blocked for indefinite time in that project - since 2008 - for vandalism-only account. Santosga (talk) 19:53, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, out of project scope. Kameraad Pjotr 21:17, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
This is not a real vector image, but just a JPEG raster image (specifically File:Kennedy Graham signature.jpg) embedded in an SVG wrapper. --Ilmari Karonen (talk) 07:51, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Ditto for all of the pseudo-SVG signature images by User:Adabow:
- File:Thomas Henry Huxley Signature.svg
- File:BY signature.svg
- File:Howard Dean's Signature.svg
- File:Russell Norman signature.svg
- File:Kennedy Graham signature.svg
File:Sue Kedgley signature.svg- File:David Clendon signature.svg
File:Catherine Delahunty signature.svgFile:Dick Hubbard signature.svg- File:Anne Salmond signature.svg
- File:Bishop Patrick Dunn signature.svg
File:Gareth Hughes signature.svgFile:Phil Goff Signature.svgFile:Jim Anderton signature.svg- File:John Evans Brown signature.svg
- File:Signature Helen Clark.svg
File:John Key sig.svg
None of these are actual vector images. Basically they're just redundant and inferior duplicates of the original raster images embedded in them. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 08:00, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
PS. before deleting any of these images, they should of course be globally replaced by the corresponding original raster images. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 08:07, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
- Most of the images are now converted into proper vector images. A few I was unable to convert due to my mediocre skills of vector graphics, which leaves them to face either deletion or conversion by someone else. The images yet to be converted are File:Signature Helen Clark.svg, File:Russell Norman signature.svg, File:Kennedy Graham signature.svg, File:John Evans Brown signature.svg, File:David Clendon signature.svg, File:Bishop Patrick Dunn signature.svg, File:Anne Salmond signature.svg, File:Howard Dean's Signature.svg, File:BY signature.svg, and File:Thomas Henry Huxley Signature.svg. –George EsayasTM 13:03, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
Info I've struck the images vectorized by George Esayas out of the list above. Thanks! —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 13:46, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, out of project scope; too low quality to be useful. Kameraad Pjotr 18:48, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
- File:Language Love Grp & LJ1.JPG (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
COM:DW, photos of an old video recording of a television program. Pieter Kuiper (talk) 08:08, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
- To my knowledge, a photograph taken in somebody's residence by someone visiting that person belongs to that person, whether ot not a television set happens to be on. In this case, the photo can not reasonably be considered a derivitave work of the video on the TV screen.
- It would be interesing to have the neutral opinion here of someone other than Mr. Kuiper, who has a long history of persecuting and hounding me and several associates and of personal mud-slinging against Jacob Truedson Demitz (Lars Jacob), the man in the photo. SergeWoodzing (talk) 09:41, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
- Image on the screen can IMO even be considered de minimis, especially since the quality is very bad and unusable for reuse on its own. Also, image has an OTRS permission. Since the person in the image seems to be the creator of the work on the screen, permission to take this picture and use it can probably be assumed. --PaterMcFly (talk) 14:06, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
- This is not de minimis - the only point of this image is the frame from the television program. And one cannot assume that uploader has permission from the copyright holders of the film. Uploader is using the OTRS ticket indiscriminately, there have been previous DRs, for example here. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 14:14, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
- Uploader is using the OTRS ticket indiscriminately is a false statement made out of personal malice. There is no evidence whatsoever of that. Uploader has contributed well over 1000 images, so of course there have been a handful of mistakes, all of which have been corrected. No permission from the copyright holders of the film is required in this case. SergeWoodzing (talk) 14:38, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
- This is not de minimis - the only point of this image is the frame from the television program. And one cannot assume that uploader has permission from the copyright holders of the film. Uploader is using the OTRS ticket indiscriminately, there have been previous DRs, for example here. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 14:14, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
- Given that the releaser of the image is "a non-profit society which owns image publication rights to the archives of Lars Jacob Prod", one would wonder if there's even a copyright issue regarding the film by Lars Jacob which he's looking at. Adam Cuerden (talk) 04:35, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
- The television program was not produced by Lars Jacob. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 14:38, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
- The television program is in no substantial way a part of the image or a reasonable discussion about the rights to it. SergeWoodzing (talk) 02:11, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
- The television program was not produced by Lars Jacob. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 14:38, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, very clear derivative work of a copyrighted work. Kameraad Pjotr 19:33, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
very bad image of an american writer - unusable - out of scope Cholo Aleman (talk) 19:38, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Comment article her about was deleted in English WP, but is still existing in German WP Cholo Aleman (talk) 19:40, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Comment OTRS ticket suggests this photo was contributed by the subject; if that's the case, the photo would seem to have an implied approval from the subject and we should be reluctant to delete (free stuff is good, even if some consider it "unusable"). But..... the article was deleted due to other OTRS tickets. Someone with access to the secret chamber of tickets should review all of this to determine if the article deletion tickets reveal any conflict with the image's ticket. Dl2000 (talk) 02:37, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, out of project scope; too low quality to be useful. Kameraad Pjotr 18:54, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
Orphaned personal picture, out of project scope. Martin H. (talk) 22:15, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, out of project scope. Kameraad Pjotr 19:30, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
This photo is from the Minnesota Legislature website. The uploader asserts that it is in the public domain. However, Minnesota Attorney General Opinion 852 concludes: "State agency data constituting original works of authorship are protected by federal copyright law. Certain restrictions may be placed upon use of public data." (December 4, 1995) The photo is freely available to the public, but not free of copyright. Further, this is clearly a studio portrait and no information about the photographer is given. The upload says "Author Unknown". So it is not clear that this is state agency data, even if that is in the public domain, or merely a photo hosted on a legislative website. Jonathunder (talk) 21:18, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
The objections to this file really are pretty weak, given that this is Kelliher's official portrait hosted on her state legislative website, and given the already cited statutory information under Minnesota law. By this logic, all federal portraits, like the one on Barack Obama's page, could be problematic because that too is "clearly a studio portrait." It beggars credulity to believe that a portrait commissioned by the State of Minnesota is not a work of the State of Minnesota. And by Minnesota law, that means it's uncopyrighted. Mrfeek (talk) 16:33, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
- The portrait of Obama is a work of the federal government. Works of state governments, unlike the federal, are generally not public domain. For Minnesota specifically, we have the official opinion of the state attorney general that copyright does apply. Jonathunder (talk) 12:42, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, not a work of the federal government, thus copyright violation. Kameraad Pjotr 19:34, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
- Keep - no other similar night photo of this type of bus. The subject is clearly visible, its educational value is pertinent. --ŠJů (talk) 11:32, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
- QuestionThe educational value is based on what?--Juan de Vojníkov (talk) 12:32, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
- The educational value is just similar as if the photo wouldn't be blurry. The educational value of most of photos is based on the fact that they depict and document somethink. --ŠJů (talk) 13:23, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
- Well, thats not the educational value, that is documentary value. What I should study from this image? That busses has a lights on at night. I can se only one educational value: what happens if you dont do something it results into blurry image. But I dont know what si wrong, so there is no educational value at all.--Juan de Vojníkov (talk) 09:12, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
- The educational value of any photo consists generally in the fact that the photo documents the depicted subject (e. g. certain type of vehicle with working lighting and certain situation). The fact that there could exist, hypothetically, some better focused or more faultless image of the same subject don't implicate that the less excellent photo has no value. --ŠJů (talk) 13:33, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
- Well, thats not the educational value, that is documentary value. What I should study from this image? That busses has a lights on at night. I can se only one educational value: what happens if you dont do something it results into blurry image. But I dont know what si wrong, so there is no educational value at all.--Juan de Vojníkov (talk) 09:12, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
- The educational value is just similar as if the photo wouldn't be blurry. The educational value of most of photos is based on the fact that they depict and document somethink. --ŠJů (talk) 13:23, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
- Yes. Sure. Please make other photos like "9 o'clock in the morning photo of the Citybus", "highnoon photo of theCitybus", "five o'clock tee photo of the Citybus", "early in the evening photo of the Citybus", "dinner time photo of the Citybus" ... We need them. Andf try to make all of them shortly after the bus has been cleaned, when finished the job ... taken from the north, south, east, west ... Cheers and good photographing, Aero.mix (talk) 16:19, 6 July 2010 (UTC) Comment: Then you should like this Category:Buses in Northern Ireland photographed in 2010
- Delete – blurry, low quality. --Ragimiri (talk) 16:20, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
- Keep No another image of working internal lighting of this type. / Žádná jiná fotka tohoto typu autobusu zachycují jeho zapnuté vnitřní osvětlení (teda v kategorii, jinde těžko říct). Documentary value is kind of educational value. --Dezidor (talk) 16:25, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
NeutralDont know if there is a documentor value as mentioned by Dezidor, but as I stated above, there is no educational value at the moment. Could anybody dicribe what was done wrong, that well get a feedbeck and picture will get "educational value"?--Juan de Vojníkov (talk) 09:12, 11 July 2010 (UTC)- Delete – very low quality (effective resolution about 250×150 px). I'll take this bus again. --Packa (talk) 00:00, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Unusable, blurry, very low quality. Registration number 3308 is normal Irisbus Citybus 12M, so it isn't any special photo – we have in Prague about 300 these buses. And if Packa will take another photo, we can delete this terrible one. — Jagro (talk) 00:10, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
- The fact that somebody (perhaps) "will take" an another photo is an unusable and poor argument to delete any existing photo. Btw., are you able to read and understand the above-mentioned reasons for retaining of this photo? Its value does consist in the fact that it is the only (and hence to date the best) photo of the night lighting of this bus type. If Packa want attend to taken some more quality photos of vehicle lighting (or other similar night photos), his intention and contributions are surely welcomed - but it is no valid reason to a "preventive" ransacking of existing photos. Generally, let us rather to contribute and collaborate in the constructive way than to initialize such utterly useless periodic demonstrative hunts for individual photos. It's not beneficial for the project that a group of priggish photographers builds their self-confidence on the basis of repeated excessive defamation of less excellent (but useful) photos. --ŠJů (talk) 21:34, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
- Delete As Aktron. Very blurry, not value. Commons a lot of value pictures of buses in Prague. --Starscream (talk) 00:14, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
- Keep There are arguments for deletion, but none of them are valid as arguments against keeping. --Havang(nl) (talk) 21:21, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, out of project scope: quality is too low to be usefull. Kameraad Pjotr 20:28, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
I don't agree that this image is simple enough for PD-textlogo. Powers (talk) 15:50, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
- Keep per Commons:Deletion requests/File:Croton Dam Muskegon River Dscn1100 cropped.jpg. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:16, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
- I would have voted delete on that one too. Powers (talk) 12:23, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
Kept, does not pass the threshold of originality. Kameraad Pjotr 21:26, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
I still think this passes above the threshold for originality, and have been backed up on this opinion by a tangential discussion at Commons talk:Licensing#Copyright status of Wingdings?. I don't understand how anyone can say there was no real creative input into the design of this logo. Powers (talk) 16:46, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
- Delete I didn't see this one before. This is far above the threshold of originality for the U.S., in my opinion. The arrangement of the stars alone would be enough to qualify, and the rest is certainly more than common symbols. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:01, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Quite a bit above the threshold, IMO.--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:05, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Seems to be well above the threshold for original copyrightable work. Kaldari (talk) 21:04, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
- Delete This is far above threshold for originality. — Huntster (t @ c) 01:46, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
- Delete: too complex for {{PD-textlogo}}. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 08:55, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted by User:Mbdortmund.
Quasium is not owner of the game and therefor can't be the owner of this picture (copyright) --Sumurai8 (talk) 10:17, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Quasium has a right to upload this image. He has been authorized by the co-founder of JohnnyTwoShoes to use any images of JTS to create a Wiki page. http://www.johnnytwoshoes.com/forum/topic/3377. StealthEnigma (talk) 12:55, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Kept. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:07, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
Images of User:Cypherinf
[edit]Unlikely own source from Cypherinf (talk · contribs). Nine uploads (and one derivative) include three different cameras - and many with no EXIF - and professional looking sports actions pictures. File:De miranda palomita.JPG includes a little caption at the bottom-right - the only one like that. File:Pablo de miranda colon.jpg is where the uploader supposedly got a pro soccer player to pose for a low-res picture on the beach. Looks more like typical grabbing off the internet. Wknight94 talk 11:48, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
The pro soccer player in these pictures is my own cousin, and I was campaining for him to become better know by general public. I do recognize that a couple of the uploaded pictures were not my own, but the rest, I own the original files. The picture with the caption is a scan photo from a newspaper. Cypherinf 12:35, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
- File:De miranda blue shirt.jpg
- File:De miranda full body.JPG
- File:De Miranda white shirt.JPG
- File:De miranda Ortega.jpg
- File:De Miranda primer plano.JPG
- File:De miranda palomita.JPG
- File:De miranda primer plano2.jpg
- File:Pablo de miranda colon.jpg
- File:Pablo de miranda colon uniform.JPG
- File:Demiranda debut colon.jpg
Deleted. Jafeluv (talk) 20:42, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
Uploader has a history of copyvio. EXIF shows William Rogers as author. -- Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:25, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, likely copyright violation. Kameraad Pjotr 19:35, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
Uploader has a history of copyvio, EXIF shows author is "Benny Chan / Fotoworks" -- Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:28, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
- Don't see anything wrong with picture. Was it copied from a source? Bband11th (talk) 18:02, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, likely copyright violation. Kameraad Pjotr 19:02, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
Files of User:Beestje
[edit]
Unused, uncategorized and unnecessary files, all contain only text fragments that can be best inserted in the various wiki projects by using quoting predefinitions --Santosga (talk) 17:52, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, out of project scope. Kameraad Pjotr 20:07, 11 December 2010 (UTC)