Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2010/08/22
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
.JPG){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
page blanked by user himself, out of project scope 4028mdk09 (talk) 13:31, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted by Zscout370: Missing essential information: source and/or license
Mis-named duplicate of "Location map for Benton County, Indiana.svg" uploaded in error Omnedon (talk) 03:11, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
- I've nominated the correctly-named image for speedy deletion. For some reason, that image appears to me to be corrupt, so I believe the best course is for an admin to delete the properly named file and immediately to move the improperly named file to the proper name; that will get rid of both the corrupt file and the improper name. Nyttend (talk) 12:32, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
- What makes you think the image is corrupt? Omnedon (talk) 12:53, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
- It won't display in thumbnail, and the PNG renderer won't display anything either. I could understand if it were just the thumbnail, since the server's had trouble with thumbnails recently; however, I've seen nothing about png versions of svgs failing to work properly. Nyttend (talk) 11:44, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
- It displays fine for me; but another one that I created doesn't display the thumbnail (but does display if you simply view the image). This is most likely to do with the thumbnail issue. I see no evidence that this image is corrupt. Omnedon (talk) 12:04, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
- It won't display in thumbnail, and the PNG renderer won't display anything either. I could understand if it were just the thumbnail, since the server's had trouble with thumbnails recently; however, I've seen nothing about png versions of svgs failing to work properly. Nyttend (talk) 11:44, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
- What makes you think the image is corrupt? Omnedon (talk) 12:53, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted by Common Good: Exact or scaled down duplicate: File:Location map for Benton County, Indiana.svg
incorrect name/technical mistake --Octahedron80 (talk) 03:40, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Exact or scaled-down duplicate: File:Seal Phra Nakhon.png -- Common Good (talk) 19:37, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
picture unused, no value, no quality, reproduction of copyrighted artwork, etc.: I, author of this picture, ask for its deletion --Od1n (talk) 03:44, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
Done by Otourly, thanks to him --Od1n (talk) 15:45, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted by Otourly: Uploader request
This looks like a professional quality image, with the fish-eye(?) perspective. Also, this appears to be an image taken from the press box, which makes it unlikely that the uploader Conk 9 at en.wiki, was the actual creator. Conk 9 is a persistent copyright scofflaw and is now blocked for a month because of failure to follow copyright policy) without reliable image sourcing. User was warned in January 2008 that this image's copyright status was suspicious. GrapedApe (talk) 16:27, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
Delete. Likely taken from here for example. Trycatch (talk) 17:27, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted by Yann: Copyright violation
Likely Flickrvio. Flickr uploader's profile says he's a student living in France, yet his uploads contain a great deal of widely-available-on-the-net professional photos (including this one) from U.S. events as well as magazine scans under attribution licenses. Mbinebri (talk) 03:56, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
- Delete per nominator's comments. --Leoboudv (talk) 04:32, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
- Delete and add the flickr user to Commons:Questionable Flickr images/Users. Trycatch (talk) 10:09, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
- Delete per above. Crystal Clear x3 (talk) 19:21, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Julo (talk) 11:30, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
Likely Flickrvio. Flickr uploader's profile says he's a student living in France, yet his uploads contain a great deal of widely-available-on-the-net professional photos from U.S. events as well as magazine scans under attribution licenses. Mbinebri (talk) 04:03, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Julo (talk) 11:31, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
no description, no cat, no encyclopedic value, unused, useless, etc Frédéric (talk) 07:20, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
- Delete No encyclopedic value. Royalbroil 11:51, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Julo (talk) 11:32, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
out of project scope 78.55.154.30 07:37, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Julo (talk) 11:32, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
because "Category:Category" is wrong. --Mef.ellingen (Diskussion) 21:49, 22 August 2010 (UTC) --Mef.ellingen (talk) 22:21, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted by Foroa: Incorrectly named: content was: ' === Category:Category:Railway line Leipzig-Plagwitz–Leipzig-Lindenau === because "Category:Category" is wrong. --Mef.ellingen (Diskussion) 21:49, 22 August 2010 (UTC) --User:Mef.elli
Versehentlich hochgeladen, quer! 79.238.40.206 23:10, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
Alles klar, das war ich selber, hatte vergessen, mich einzuloggen! Marschmensch (talk) 23:24, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Julo (talk) 11:34, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
PR style photo of a notable individual. Likely copyrighted. No reason given to suggest that uploader is copyright holder. FASTILY (TALK) 00:28, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. ZooFari 14:35, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
unused private logo - out of scope Santosga (talk) 01:19, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. ZooFari 14:35, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
unused colorcode maybe used in the past, unusable without context - out of scope Santosga (talk) 01:24, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. ZooFari 14:36, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
this is a corporate logo; it should be on Wikipedia with a fair use rationale, not on Commons; also the uploader should not be claiming it as his "own work" 64.185.128.202 02:37, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. ZooFari 14:41, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
The source information is not sufficient to say if the photograph was published without a copyright notice. No old enough publication named as source. Martin H. (talk) 04:12, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
I found an old source to hopefully boost this pic's usability. If it's not good enough please advise how to find final proof. It's a significant pic and worth an extra effort. --Stovelsten (talk) 15:04, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
Kept. Updates now seem sufficient. ZooFari 14:43, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
Unused Duplicate of File:Sfsdg.jpg Lida Vorig (talk) 04:30, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, delete this picture. I accidently uploaded
Keep. Image in use as File:Sfsdg.jpg was deleted as dupe. --Túrelio (talk) 23:16, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
Kept. Is in use now --Màñü飆¹5 talk 14:30, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
It is a cropped version of a Flickr photo here [1] that is listed as All Rights Reserved. The title is essentially identical to the Flickr image. Jorfer (talk) 04:41, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. ZooFari 14:44, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
Fake. See the official site of the city http://www.sumqayit-ih.gov.az/index.php?lang=en Lida Vorig (talk) 04:49, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
Kept. Wikipedias don't seem to think it's fake. ZooFari 14:46, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
Fake. No sources. See uploaders other images. Lida Vorig (talk) 04:54, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
- It's not fake. I created this. Actually Lida Vorig already banned in English Wikipedia for her false allegations.--Alakbaroff (talk) 13:35, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
Kept. Wikipedias don't seem to think it's fake. ZooFari 14:46, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
- If it is self-created, how can its current copyright status be justified? The copyright statement mentions Azerbaijan copyright law, and "The following are not subjects of copyright: State emblems and official signs". If it is a close copy of an existing design, and if that existing design is an official emblem that is or was used in Azerbaijan, then we need to see an example of the original. There would be no problem in posting the original since, if the image is what Lida Vorig states it is, it is not subject to copyright restrictions under Azerbaijani copyright law.
unused photo of myspace musician - no notability as decided here es:Knell Odyssey, out of scope Santosga (talk) 07:49, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. --Màñü飆¹5 talk 14:36, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
unused photo of myspace musician - no notability as decided here es:Knell Odyssey, out of scope Santosga (talk) 07:52, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. --Màñü飆¹5 talk 14:36, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
uncategorized since november 2009, not used anywhere, not useful for project scope 4028mdk09 (talk) 13:03, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Sole private crap. --Yikrazuul (talk) 17:17, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. --Màñü飆¹5 talk 14:41, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
out of project scope, uncategorized since november 2009, nonsense 4028mdk09 (talk) 13:05, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. --Màñü飆¹5 talk 14:42, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
not useful for projekt scope, bad quality 4028mdk09 (talk) 13:09, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. --Màñü飆¹5 talk 14:42, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
bad quality, not useful for project scope 4028mdk09 (talk) 17:00, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
.JPG){kind=link}
- Delete substandard image quality; not useful. --High Contrast (talk) 13:16, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. --Màñü飆¹5 talk 14:46, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
.JPG){kind=link}
No FOP in Russia. The monument was designed by Zurab Tsereteli who is still alive. Fernrohr (talk) 05:41, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
- The munumennt is part of the picture but the main object therin is the Island, therrefore the statue is de minims. Deror avi (talk) 21:28, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
- Look at the title of the picture, the picture itself (there is nothing relevant on it, except the monument), the file description, and the category... The small island itself ([2]) is even invisible. --Fernrohr (talk) 04:05, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
![[2]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Peter_the_Great_Statue-Moscow.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted. Blurpeace 16:33, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
Low res. Unused. Uploaded in 2007 by a persistent copyright scofflaw (Conk 9 at en.wiki, who is now blocked for a month because of failure to follow copyright policy) without reliable image sourcing. User was warned in January 2008 that this image's copyright status was suspicious. GrapedApe (talk) 06:49, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
- Delete, some time ago I was planning on nominating this user's contributions, but I never got around to it. This user has gone to the point that we shouldn't assume good faith anymore. Additionally, this is so small as to be nearly useless; File:Grant Building Pittsburgh.jpg is a far better picture. Nyttend (talk) 12:27, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Personally I think that all photographs by Conk 9 w/o EXIF should be deleted, even relatively high resolution ones like this or this, even if the source couldn't be found. Btw, thanks for good work, GrapedApe. Trycatch (talk) 18:31, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Blurpeace 16:35, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
out of project scope, bad quality 4028mdk09 (talk) 12:33, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 18:51, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
not useful for project scope, bad qulity 4028mdk09 (talk) 12:35, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 18:51, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
No conceivable educational purpose. SchuminWeb (Talk) 17:48, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
.JPG){kind=link}
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 18:53, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
.JPG){kind=link}
A photograph from FACEBOOK? With this LICENSE? Impossible that this can work 93.196.63.213 18:31, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Amada44 talk to me 06:57, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
A photograph from FACEBOOK? With this LICENSE? Impossible that this can work 93.196.63.213 18:32, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Amada44 talk to me 06:58, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
A photograph from FACEBOOK? With this LICENSE? Impossible that this can work 93.196.63.213 18:32, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Amada44 talk to me 08:17, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
Need evidence that City News releases image under the terms specified -- www.citynews.com.au says "Copyright all rights reserved" Barrylb (talk) 07:38, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:32, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
Sculpture made by the danish artist Viggo Jarl who died in 1965. Anne-Sophie Ofrim (talk) 09:06, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:33, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
Sculpture made by the danish artist Viggo Jarl who died in 1965. Anne-Sophie Ofrim (talk) 09:08, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:33, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
Sculpture made by the danish artist Viggo Jarl who died in 1965. Anne-Sophie Ofrim (talk) 09:10, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:34, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
Sculpture made by the danish artist Viggo Jarl who died in 1965. Anne-Sophie Ofrim (talk) 09:11, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:34, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
Sculpture made by the danish artist Knud Nellemose who died in 1997. Anne-Sophie Ofrim (talk) 09:17, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:35, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
Sculpture made by the danish artist Jens Ferdinand Willumsen who died in 1958. Anne-Sophie Ofrim (talk) 09:22, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:35, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
Sculpture made by the danish artist Jørgen Gudmundsen-Holmgreen who died in 1966. Anne-Sophie Ofrim (talk) 09:27, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:35, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
Sculpture made by the danish artist Johannes Bjerg who died in 1955. Anne-Sophie Ofrim (talk) 09:31, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:35, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
Image is only free for non-commercial use until 70 years following the architect's death per COM:FOP#Iceland. Architect was Helgi Hjálmarsson. He lives. Fingalo (talk) 09:45, 22 August 2010 (UTC) --Fingalo (talk) 09:46, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:35, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
Image is only free for non-commercial use until 70 years following the architect's death per COM:FOP#Iceland. Architect was Hannes Davíðsson. He lives. Fingalo (talk) 10:13, 22 August 2010 (UTC) --Fingalo (talk) 10:14, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:36, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
out of scope, whatever it should be; no use. --Don-kun (talk) 10:19, 22 August 2010 (UTC) --Don-kun (talk) 10:19, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
- It's the homuncule of the jar, in the serie Fullmetal Alchemist Brotherhood. In article of him, it's important. --MisterSanderson (talk) 14:29, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
Kept. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:37, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
Either Copyrightviolation from Fullmetal Alchemist or not usefull at all. Niabot (talk) 15:57, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
- It's not copyright violation because is too different. But is sufficient similar to be used for ilustration purpouse in Wikipedias that don't accept Fair Use, as it's being used now.--MisterSanderson (talk) 18:42, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
- If it's too different to be a derivative work, it's most definitely useless. Crude images like these just make the articles look silly and unprofessional. /grillo (talk) 21:21, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
- It's either a copyright violation or it contains missleading/wrong content. What value does the image have in this case, or which justification for use in articles? The image should be removed for the reasons:
- If it is to close to the original it would be a copyright violation.
- If it's to far away from the original, it does not make sense using the image at all, since it isn't related to the original topic anymore, is missleading and should not be used in articles.
- What is the purpose of such an image that is either wrong or illegal? --Niabot (talk) 08:52, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
- It's either a copyright violation or it contains missleading/wrong content. What value does the image have in this case, or which justification for use in articles? The image should be removed for the reasons:
- Delete The image is, aside the copyright issue, completely useless. It doesn't show more, or I would say it shows less, than a text description of the homunculus can. Why should we use a scribble if two sentences can do a better work? --Don-kun (talk) 09:27, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
- If it's too different to be a derivative work, it's most definitely useless. Crude images like these just make the articles look silly and unprofessional. /grillo (talk) 21:21, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Plrk (talk) 22:10, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
- Again, our Portuguese and Chinese colleagues are using it. Our policy forbids deleting it for any of the reasons given here as long as it is in use. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:43, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
- Not they use it, the uploader putted the image in the articles. Now the picture is no more in the articles. And which policy forbids the deletion of a unuseful image, just because the uploader spread it into some projects? --Don-kun (talk) 10:53, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
- Delete There is, of course, no such policy. Since I don't know anything about the subject and read neither Portuguese nor Chinese, it was not my place either to go to the two articles and remove the image or to directly suggest that you do it. My indirect suggestion seems to have finally done the trick. I won't close this because I am involved in it, but one of my colleagues probably will. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:21, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
- Not they use it, the uploader putted the image in the articles. Now the picture is no more in the articles. And which policy forbids the deletion of a unuseful image, just because the uploader spread it into some projects? --Don-kun (talk) 10:53, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 11:33, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Image is only free for non-commercial use until 70 years following the architect's death per COM:FOP#Iceland. Architect was Finnur Björgvinsson et al. He lives. Fingalo (talk) 10:53, 22 August 2010 (UTC) --Fingalo (talk) 10:54, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
.JPG){kind=link}
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:37, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
.JPG){kind=link}
Image is only free for non-commercial use until 70 years following the architect's death per COM:FOP#Iceland. Architect was Helgi Hjálmarsson et al. He lives. The uploader Stalfur is not the Photograph, the permission want. Fingalo (talk) 11:16, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:38, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
Image is only free for non-commercial use until 70 years following the architect's death per COM:FOP#Iceland. Architect was Halldór H. Jónsson. He died 1992. --Fingalo (talk) 11:23, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:38, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
Image is only free for non-commercial use until 70 years following the architect's death per COM:FOP#Iceland. Architect was Halldór H. Jónsson. He died 1992. Fingalo (talk) 11:29, 22 August 2010 (UTC) --Fingalo (talk) 11:29, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:39, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
Image of recent statue, no permission of sculptor, so image is copyright violation Royalbroil 11:46, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
- This is a new concept to me, so I don't know what to comment at the moment. I took this photo myself. I live in Daytona Beach, so I may be able to investigate who the sculptor is, etc. Gamweb (talk) 13:02, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
- I gave the short version about what I am talking about since uploaders rarely respond. You can read more at Commons:Derivative works. I'm saying that your photograph is a derivative the work done by the sculptor. Royalbroil 04:08, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. All works of art are copyrighted. In several countries, notably Britain and Germany, but not the USA, photographs of sculpture may be used commercially notwithstanding the sculptor's copyright. This is called Freedom of Panorama ("FOP"). Since the sculpture is in the USA, regrettably, use of your photograph would infringe the sculptor's copyright and, therefore, it cannot be hosted on Commons. If you can find the sculptor and get his/her permission, the process is outlined at Commons:OTRS. With that permission in hand, we can undelete the image.
By the way, on future uploads, please give a meaningful name to the file -- camera generated file names are a nuisance to work with. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:48, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Image is only free for non-commercial use until 70 years following the architect's death per COM:FOP#Iceland. Architect was Guðjón Magnússon from Arkform TGM ráðgjöf ehf. Reykjavík. He lives. Fingalo (talk) 12:45, 22 August 2010 (UTC) --Fingalo (talk) 12:45, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:05, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
not used oder categorized since 11/2009, out of project scope, bad quality 4028mdk09 (talk) 13:11, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:07, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
quiero borrar esta foto por que yo fui el autor y no quiero que esté disponible Only completing RFD DieBuche (talk) 14:24, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. --Dferg (talk · meta) 14:58, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
Image is only free for non-commercial use until 70 years following the architect's death per COM:FOP#Iceland. Architect was Pálmi Guðmundsson. He lives. Fingalo (talk) 12:18, 22 August 2010 (UTC) --Fingalo (talk) 12:18, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Japan has FOP for building: COM:FOP#Japan, the photograph was likely taken from the territory of the embassy. Trycatch (talk) 18:43, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
likely? Who is the japanese frontier? Fingalo (talk) 19:24, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
- Delete, I think. I'm not at all expert on this, but I don't think Trycatch is right. See Embassy#Extraterritoriality which suggests that extraterritoriality applies only to certain things. The grounds of the embassy are not "Japan" for most purposes. I'll ask User:Jacklee to take a look. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:05, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
Comment: I agree with Fingalo's sentiment. Even if we assume that Japanese law applies to the premises of the Japanese embassy in Iceland (and I don't think it does – see below), this is a photograph of the embassy building itself that appears to have been taken from the car park of the building. I'd want to see evidence that the car park is within the embassy's premises.- More importantly, I do not think that the premises of Japan's embassy in Iceland are regarded as part of Japan to which Japanese laws apply. At the end of the day, the Japanese embassy is still physically situated in Iceland. Article 22 of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations states:
- 1. The premises of the mission shall be inviolable. The agents of the receiving State may not enter them, except with the consent of the head of the mission.
- 2. The receiving State is under a special duty to take all appropriate steps to protect the premises of the mission against any intrusion or damage and to prevent any disturbance of the peace of the mission or impairment of its dignity.
- 3. The premises of the mission, their furnishings and other property thereon and the means of transport of the mission shall be immune from search, requisition, attachment or execution.
- However, there is nothing in this article or in the rest of the Convention which says that the laws of a receiving country no longer apply to the premises of a sending country's embassy. Note that a similar issue (involving a war cemetery located in France but maintained by the US) has arisen at "Commons:Deletion requests/File:Wwii normandy american cemetary.jpg". — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 15:17, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. No FOP in Iceland. --DaB. (talk) 23:12, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
File:Nawab_Safder_jung_musheer_ud_daula_Fakhar_ul_mulk_Bahadur._from.aun_mehdi's_collection.png
[edit]
Uploaders eMail address overlay makes picture unsuited for WP use. Zenwort (talk) 14:12, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. --Dferg (talk · meta) 14:57, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:07, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
File:Nawab_Safder_jung_musheer_ud_daula_Fakhar_ul_mulk_Bahadur._from.aun_mehdi's_collection..png
[edit]
Uploaders eMail address overlay makes picture unsuited for WP use. Zenwort (talk) 14:12, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:07, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
Uploaders eMail address overlay makes picture unsuited for WP use. Zenwort (talk) 14:13, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:08, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
Too grainy. Uploaders eMail address overlay makes picture unsuited for WP use. Zenwort (talk) 14:14, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:08, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
Image is only free for non-commercial use until 70 years following the architect's death per COM:FOP#Iceland. Architect was Guðjón Magnússon from Arkform TGM ráðgjöf ehf. Reykjavík. He lives. Fingalo (talk) 14:36, 22 August 2010 (UTC) --Fingalo (talk) 14:36, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:08, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
Image is only free for non-commercial use until 70 years following the architect's death per COM:FOP#Iceland. Architect was Guðjón Samúelsson. He died 1950. Fingalo (talk) 15:23, 22 August 2010 (UTC) --Fingalo (talk) 15:23, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:08, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
This is an important picture, but it has no source and no autor. Without author the CC-BY-3.0 license is invalid. Without source the license canot be verifyed. Beroesz (talk) 15:28, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
- I found a source here. There it says: ©APA . Amada44 talk to me 08:05, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
Delete See reason by Amada44: clear copyright violation. --Beroesz (talk) 14:17, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:09, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
Promotional image of some sort. Likely copyrighted. No reason given to suggest that uploader is copyright holder. FASTILY (TALK) 17:37, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks for your attention. It's my image. You can see this in one of the manufacturer's web: BioMera. Main web: Mera. It's image for free use.
Deleted. You don't need to read Russian to see the (c) at the bottom of the page. Also probably out of scope. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:11, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
Unusable without description DieBuche (talk) 17:49, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
- The missing license worries me much more,... Amada44 talk to me 08:19, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:11, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
commercial news site photo ChongDae (talk) 17:59, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
- In the image description, image source is noted as "Dong A internet News"(en:The Dong-a Ilbo). -- ChongDae (talk) 18:04, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:12, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
Image is only free for non-commercial use until 70 years following the architect's death per COM:FOP#Iceland. Architect from the rebuilt Hotel was Teiknistofan ehf. Arkitektar, Reykjavík. Fingalo (talk) 19:36, 22 August 2010 (UTC) --Fingalo (talk) 19:37, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:08, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
I strongly doubt the uploader is the author of this photograph of an actress from the 1930s. Same image seen multiple places on internet. Uploader claims to have no idea when he took the photo. Uploader has been indef blocked on en:Wikipedia. --Infrogmation (talk) 19:40, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:09, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
This photo can't have been uploaded by prof. Schmutzer, he died in 1946. License status not clear. Ronn (talk) 19:52, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:09, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
PD-Old does not seem to apply, and neither the multiple conditions of PD-Chile, as stated at Template talk:PD-Chile. Belgrano (talk) 22:04, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:15, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
empty and not correct written. --Mef.ellingen (Diskussion) 22:14, 22 August 2010 (UTC) --Mef.ellingen (talk) 22:18, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
Kept. Changed to {{category redirect|Reykjavík harbour}}. Where the question of American or British spelling (harbor or harbour) is not obvious, it seems to me best to have a redirect from the other. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:20, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
This appears to be a bunch of guys drinking and partying. As opposed to a useful picture. Elryacko (talk) 18:56, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Historic photograph of a civil war. Absolutely useful. Rama (talk) 19:50, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Keep, per Rama. It's the historical context that's valuable, not just some drinking buddies. Andy Dingley (talk) 08:29, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Keep. I believe that this stems from a discussion I had with w:User:Elryacko on the English Wikipedia. He says they are upper-middle class people having a party. Hohum (talk) 20:38, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
- Well, details like talking about "European paramilitaries", the bizarre notion that a Communist economy cannot provide t-shirts, and not taking groups of armed civilians in consideration, all lead me to suspect that the proposer has at best a fragmented picture of life during the Yugoslavian wars. Furthermore, the suggestion of the proposer leads to more unlikelihood than the present caption: if these people are not parmilitaries, what are a group of military-age men doing with a submachine gun during a civil war? Rama (talk) 08:32, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Looks like paramilitaries from the middle class drinking and partying; let's trust the OTRS tag. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 08:58, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
- Disagree Yes. A post-communist economy can provide leather jackets, and middle-class clothing. Nevermind the Yugoslav Wars were horribly destructive, and were a humanitarian crisis in it self where basic toiletries and food were scarce (I imagine alchohol, clean clothes, and shaving supplies were also a bit scarce). I severely doubt this picture is a picture of life during the Yugoslav Wars. Supposedly the picture was taken in 1992, well-into the Yugoslav Wars where hundreds of thousands become refugees. Elryacko (talk) 02:04, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
- These people are Serbians paramilitaries. They were the ones who made people flee and turned them into refugees. Your picture of the entire country becoming a wasteland in nonsense. Rama (talk) 07:00, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
One: Paramilitants generally wear military fatigues (show me a picture of a serbian militant other than this that shows otherwise), and there is no indication that those drinking buddies were in a paramilitary. Two: It was pretty close to a waste land, and the entirety of Yugoslavia was mired in a humanitarian crisis of great proportions, with hundreds of thousands of refugees (including Serbs) caused by atrocities by both sides. http://www.dtic.mil/doctrine/doctrine/research/yugoslav.pdf Furthermore Sarajevo was besieged in 1992 and was subject to heavy fighting. In a city subject to rampant sniper attacks, and urban warfare, why are these alleged paramilitants sitting on what appears to be a patio of a bar? Afterall, aren't they worried that Bosnians might start shooting at their positions? And it seems funny that a paramilitary would be fighting with one out-dated machine gun that hasn't been used by any organization since the 70s.
This picture has very flimsy evidence to support keeping it. Elryacko (talk) 23:45, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
- "show me a picture of a serbian militant other than this that shows otherwise": here you go [3]. Rama (talk) 23:57, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
Not going to argue against my three other points? Elryacko (talk) 01:56, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
- No. I do not think that you would be convinced by my whatever I could say, and I think that other users have already formed their opinions on your points. Rama (talk) 07:52, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
Changed from speedy to delete, as there seems no reason to delete this image Omnedon (talk) 12:58, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
- Nyttend claims that this image is corrupt, but I see no evidence of that, so I have changed the "speedy" tag to "delete". Omnedon (talk) 12:59, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
- Please read discussion at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Locator map for Benton County, Indiana.svg to understand my reasons. I'm not making some random nomination for no good reason; this wouldn't have happened if Omnedon had used {{Duplicate}} or {{Badname}}. Nyttend (talk) 11:45, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
- I did read the discussion. But this image is not corrupt, so there is no good reason to delete this image. Neither is corrupt; the one is just a duplicate of the other with a different name. This could have been easier if you had not done a speedy on an image because you jumped to the conclusion that the image was somehow corrupt. Omnedon (talk) 12:06, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
The thumbnails display correctly now, so presumably the issue was resolved at Commons. This image need not be deleted. Omnedon (talk) 13:43, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
Kept. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 10:00, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
bad quality, not useful for project scope 4028mdk09 (talk) 17:13, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
- Comment You can tag the file with low quality. The aim of this photo is show how crane collects the crown while in flight. --Nevit Dilmen (talk) 19:02, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
- Keep. Useful. We could always wish for better, but that's what we have. -- Asclepias (talk) 22:47, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
- Keep I recommend to be very careful deleting pictures for the reason of low quality. While this is probably not the best image, a closeup of a flying bird is something special. --Ikiwaner (talk) 11:16, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
Kept. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 09:59, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
In order to provide the most complete listing of kit patterns, new patterns should be categorized appropriately and viewed through Commons categories. This will help reduce the number of places where the patterns must be linked and generally help to keep things more orderly. --Udeezy (talk) 23:17, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
- Keep If one want to use a category, he could do it even if the gallery exists. Galleries are generally outdated and incomplete (but much better organized than cat), it's not a problem. Trycatch (talk) 21:06, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
- Keep per Trycatch + see also remarks here Commons:Deletion requests/Football kit/horizontal stripes --LimoWreck (talk) 13:18, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
Kept (non-admin closure). /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:02, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
In order to provide the most complete listing of kit patterns, new patterns should be categorized appropriately and viewed through Commons categories. This will help reduce the number of places where the patterns must be linked and generally help to keep things more orderly. --Udeezy (talk) 23:19, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
- Keep - see here Commons:Deletion requests/Football kit/diagonal drawings --LimoWreck (talk) 13:19, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
Kept (non-admin closure) /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:04, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
In order to provide the most complete listing of kit patterns, new patterns should be categorized appropriately and viewed through Commons categories. This will help reduce the number of places where the patterns must be linked and generally help to keep things more orderly. --Udeezy (talk) 23:21, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
- Keep - see here Commons:Deletion requests/Football kit/diagonal drawings --LimoWreck (talk) 13:19, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
Kept (non-admin closure) /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:09, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
In order to provide the most complete listing of kit patterns, new patterns should be categorized appropriately and viewed through Commons categories. This will help reduce the number of places where the patterns must be linked and generally help to keep things more orderly. --Udeezy (talk) 23:23, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
- Keep - see here Commons:Deletion requests/Football kit/diagonal drawings --LimoWreck (talk) 13:19, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
Kept (non-admin closure) /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:10, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
In order to provide the most complete listing of kit patterns, new patterns should be categorized appropriately and viewed through Commons categories. This will help reduce the number of places where the patterns must be linked and generally help to keep things more orderly. --Udeezy (talk) 23:24, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
- Keep - a category should be the primary means of 'categorizing' these football kits. But sometimes these galleries are handy as well. They provide more features to give more details and additional categorization that's often too fine-grained for the real categories. These galleries seem used less often, but don't exclude using categories...--LimoWreck (talk) 13:17, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
Kept (non-admin closure) /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:06, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
In order to provide the most complete listing of kit patterns, new patterns should be categorized appropriately and viewed through Commons categories. This will help reduce the number of places where the patterns must be linked and generally help to keep things more orderly. --Udeezy (talk) 23:28, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
- Keep - very bad propositions - see also Commons:Deletion requests/Football kit/diagonal drawings. This gallery provides an overview/ordering + comments, which are not at all available (or even possible) in categories !! These templates are already difficult enough to find in the categories, so quite dumb to duggest removing the galleries. --LimoWreck (talk) 21:41, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
Kept (non-admin closure) /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:30, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
Too large eyes. There are more accurate restorations avilable. Conty (talk) 13:40, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
- Please give us a reference to a better file, then. We're not going to delete this without a replacement, even if it's not perfect. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:09, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, file is not in use, uploader request. Kameraad Pjotr 20:53, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
Copyright concerns. We have insufficient evidence on the origin of this image to ascertain that it is public domain. So far as we know, it was originally published in [4]. The device may be old, but this isn't a photograph; it's a drawing with nothing to indicate that age. Early sound recording expert David Giovannoni who is credited graduated high school in 1972. This may be a PD image in his collection, or it may be his own sketch of an historical audio device. Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:16, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
- Keep C'mon - old engraving. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:33, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
- How do you know? I don't want to lose it if we don't have to, but I can't tell how to verify that it is PD. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:46, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
- Keep There is a higher resolution image in the website of the Thomas Edison National Historical Park[5]. In google cache I can see a text saying[6] "Thomas Edison National Historical Park welcomes historian David Giovannoni who will give a 75-minute illustrated presentation". I assume that Giovannoni gave the NYT a copy of an old engraving, and that he didn't draw the thing himself. --Enric Naval (talk) 23:00, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
- Fabulous! Thanks. Any protocol here allow me to withdraw a nomination, or does an admin need to do it? :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:32, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
- How do you know? I don't want to lose it if we don't have to, but I can't tell how to verify that it is PD. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:46, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
![[5]](http://www.nps.gov/edis/planyourvisit/images/phonautograph.gif){kind=link}
![[6]](http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:DyWG5ays2OoJ:www.nps.gov/edis/planyourvisit/events.htm%3Fmonth%3D3%26year%3D2010+phonautograph.gif+site:www.nps.gov&cd=1&hl=es&ct=clnk&gl=es&client=opera){kind=link}
Kept, 19th century American engraving; {{PD-1923}}. Kameraad Pjotr 21:42, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
In order to provide the most complete listing of kit patterns, new patterns should be categorized appropriately and viewed through Commons categories. This will help reduce the number of places where the patterns must be linked and generally help to keep things more orderly. --Udeezy (talk) 23:47, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
- Keep - categories are no reason to delete pages. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:58, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
Kept. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:16, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
In order to provide the most complete listing of kit patterns, new patterns should be categorized appropriately and viewed through Commons categories. This will help reduce the number of places where the patterns must be linked and generally help to keep things more orderly. --Udeezy (talk) 23:49, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
- Keep - categories are no reason to delete pages. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:00, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
- Keep - per above + these pages offer a different organisation (and it's already difficult enough to organize football kits - it's important to give clear graphical overview of them, because it's us -editors- that frequently need to find and pick body kits for use in wikipedia articles. --LimoWreck (talk) 20:23, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
Kept. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:16, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
In order to provide the most complete listing of kit patterns, new patterns should be categorized appropriately and viewed through Commons categories. This will help reduce the number of places where the patterns must be linked and generally help to keep things more orderly. --Udeezy (talk) 23:50, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
- Keep - categories are not a reason to delete pages. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:13, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
Kept. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:16, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
Goldwell Open Air Museum
[edit]Modern sculptures and artwork in Nevada. No COM:FOP for artwork in the United States. --Wknight94 talk 01:51, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
- File:GoldWell (15422055).jpg
- File:GoldWell 1 (15422386).jpg
- File:GoldWell 2 (15422612).jpg
- File:GoldWell 4 (15423356).jpg
- File:GoldWell 5 (15423501).jpg
- File:GoldWell 6 (15423793).jpg
- File:GoldWell 7 (15424102).jpg
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Deleted. Sculptures were created after 1984 according to article page. ZooFari 14:39, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
Aleshina
[edit]- Shchukinskaya subway station in Moscow (en:Shchukinskaya)
- Varshavskaya subway station in Moscow (en:Varshavskaya)
- Vorobievy Gory subway station in Moscow (en:Vorobyovy Gory (Moscow Metro))
- File:Vorobievy gory3.jpg
- File:Vorobievy gory2.jpg
- File:Vorobyovy Gory 02.jpg
- File:Sparrow mountains.JPG
- File:Vorobyovy Gory 03.jpg
- File:Vorobyovy Gory 04.jpg
- File:Vorobyovy Gory 05.jpg
- File:Vorobyovy Gory 06.jpg
- File:Vorobyovy Gory Metro Station in Moscow.jpg
- File:Vorobyovy Gory metro station in Moscow (09-05-2006 at night).jpg
- File:Vorobyovy Gory subway 1.jpg
- Vorobyovy Gory subway 2.jpg
- Vorobyovy Gory subway 3.jpg
- Vorobyovy Gory subway 4.jpg
- Vorobiowy gory entrance Barry Kent.jpg
- Vorobyovy Gory 01.jpg
- SS100723.JPG
- SS100701.JPG
- Metromost.jpg
- Лужнецкий-метромост-01.jpg
- Domodedovskaya subway station in Moscow (en:Domodedovskaya (Moscow Metro))
- Kuznetsky Most subway station in Moscow (en:Kuznetsky Most (Moscow Metro))
- Marksistskaya subway station in Moscow (en:Marksistskaya (Moscow Metro))
- Leninsky Prospekt subway station in Moscow (en:Leninsky Prospekt (Moscow Metro))
- Medvedkovo subway station in Moscow (en:Medvedkovo (Moscow Metro))
- Mendeleyevskaya subway station in Moscow (en:Mendeleyevskaya)
- File:Mendeleevskaya 08.jpg
- File:Mendeleevskaya 09.jpg
- File:Mendeleevskaya 10.jpg
- File:Mendeleyevskaya 01.JPG
- File:Mendeleyevskaya 02.JPG
- File:Mendeleyevskaya 08.JPG
- File:Mendeleyevskaya 07.JPG
- File:Mendeleyevskaya 06.JPG
- File:Mendeleyevskaya 05.JPG
- File:Mendeleyevskaya 04.JPG
- File:Mendeleyevskaya 03.JPG
- Oktyabrskoye Pole subway station in Moscow (en:Oktyabrskoye Pole)
- Perovo subway station in Moscow (en:Perovo (Moscow Metro))
- Ryazansky Prospekt subway station in Moscow (en:Ryazansky Prospekt)
- Sevastopolskaya subway station in Moscow (en:Sevastopolskaya (Metro))
- Serpukhovskaya subway station in Moscow (en:Serpukhovskaya)
- Taganskaya subway station in Moscow (en:Taganskaya (Tagansko-Krasnopresnenskaya Line))
- Ulitsa Podbelskogo subway station in Moscow (en:Ulitsa Podbelskogo)
- Chertanovskaya subway station in Moscow (en:Chertanovskaya)
- Chkalovskaya subway station in Moscow (en:Chkalovskaya (Moscow Metro))
.jpg){kind=link}
_-_Hall.JPG){kind=link}
_-_Platform.JPG){kind=link}
These are images of architecturial works of Nina Aleshina, who is still alive ([7]). There is no FOP in Russia ([8]), and Russian law is applied retroactively to Soviet works ([9]). --Fernrohr (talk) 06:36, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
- Keep. This is not Aleshina's property, but the one of the state-owned Moskovsky Metropoliten company. Artem Karimov (talk | edits) 08:15, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
Delete No FOP in Russia. Luispihormiguero (talk) 19:32, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
Keep - the architectural design as a whole is protected by copyright, but plain walls or ceilings are not! --Barry Kent (talk) 20:11, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
Keep. As NVO wrote on Fernrohr's talk page: A policy is in place but there's no commitment. None. [...] practically anything built in the Union fails COM:FOP in this or that way. It's a five-digit mass of photos. Current "consensus" is to disregard COM:FOP in this case: no one really cares about legalese crap fabricated in Russia or North Korea. [...] Can this simple statement lead to a summary deletion of all photography in the Union-related categories? (accentuation by me) - yes, it can, if you go ahead deleting stuff like this, resulting in Wikimedia Commons becoming virtually useless for illustrating articles about Russia and/or or the Soviet Union (which occupied 1/6 of the Earth's land area). Change this policy right now because of common sense and the nullo actore, nullus iudex principle, and stop deletions at least until this point is clarified! And BTW, we do not need administrators implementing "commons policies" acting like robots not considering any issues around, like the mentioned above... --SibFreak (talk) 07:38, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
- I consider the argument "deletion is inconvenient and nobody dares to sue WMF based on this legalese crap, so let's ignore it" particularly inadequate, even if Aleshina is probably too old to fight for her rights herself. Nothing needs to be clarified, it is all pretty clear. Dura lex, sed lex, since you like Latin. --Fernrohr (talk) 08:04, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
- Her rights? Having photos of her works at Wikimedia:Commons or anywhere is OK by Russian law. Forbid commercial use for there Russia pictures (+ change the policy in order to have the possibility to do so) and everything is fine. Much finer then deleting. --SibFreak (talk) 22:14, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
Anyhow, Keep these, at least:
- File:Vorobievy gory3.jpg
- File:Vorobievy gory2.jpg
- File:Sparrow mountains.JPG
- File:Vorobyovy Gory 03.jpg
- File:Vorobyovy Gory 04.jpg
- File:Vorobyovy Gory Metro Station in Moscow.jpg
- File:Vorobyovy Gory metro station in Moscow (09-05-2006 at night).jpg
- Vorobyovy Gory subway 3.jpg
- Vorobyovy Gory subway 4.jpg
- Vorobyovy Gory 01.jpg
- Metromost.jpg
- Лужнецкий-метромост-01.jpg
as they are not depicting the entrance halls of Vorobievy Gory station. Only the entrance halls are Aleshina's works. --SibFreak (talk) 22:30, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
- Whoever might have created the rest (you see the names here), construction was in 1957-59, so the IP rights have not yet expired. --Fernrohr (talk) 06:02, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
- Taking any kind of photo is legal in the Moscow metro, and neither amateur nor professional photographers are asked by the metro administration to negotiate about the rights with architects. There are thousands of photos from metro not only on the Internet but also in the media etc, and the question of FOP has never been raised before. FOP is not formalized in Russia (I guess), yet it exists when evidently needed. I think this is more of a common sense question. Moreover, I've never heard of any legal cases involving FOP in general, not to speak of metro stations. Keep VanHelsing.16 (talk) 08:42, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
- Keep. The format of the Russian law seems to be one of "permitted except where prohibited"; thus there is FOP unless prohibited. The law appears to presume that the work is permitted unless shown to be used for commercial purposes, such as the sale of postcards. Wikipedia is easily recognized as non-commercial. The conclusion that there is no FOP seems contrary to the apparent intent as well as the literal meaning of the law.
- Moreover, the purpose here is not to portray this particular artist's work, but to portray what (at least part of) the Metro Station looks like. To interpret it as some have done elsewhere saying it is "clear" this kind of photograph is prohibited because the artwork isn't some incidental, small part of the photograph is to render the words of the law meaningless. Practically every reproduction, either for commercial or non-commercial use is forbidden by this interpretation. It defies logic that a law with a clearly expressed general permission only allows a few rare cases.
- Moreover, has anyone holding a copyright over a publicly displayed work of art in Russia asked us or any similar entity to take down photographs of that work? If not, then this rash of expurgations because someone thinks it might violate copyrights seems rash and unnecessary. If no Russian artist gives the law this tortured reading, why should we? The conclusion that there is no FOP at all contradicts the language of the law. IleanaDU (talk) 17:37, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
Fair use exception may apply?
[edit]Article 1274. Free use of the work in the informational, scientific, educational or cultural purposes 1. Allowed without the consent of the author or copyright holder and without remuneration, but provided that the author's name, the product is used and the source of borrowing: 1) quotation in the original or in translation, scientific, polemical, critical or informational purposes only lawfully published works to the extent justified by the intended purpose, including reproduction of excerpts from newspaper and magazine articles in press reviews; 2) the use of lawfully disclosed works or fragments of them as illustrations in publications, radio and television broadcasts, audio and video recordings of educational nature to the extent justified by the purpose; ...
http://copyright.ru/ru/library/zakonodatelstvo/gk_rf_obschee_zakonodatel/grazhdanskii_kodeks_RF_4_chast/glava_70__avtorskoe_pravo/1274_svobodnoe_ispolzovanie_proezvidenia/ IleanaDU (talk) 18:17, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
Kept those where the interior did not meet the threshold of originality; deleted the others as no freedom of panorama exists in Russia and the creators have not died 70+ years ago. The argument "they will not sue", "they are widely used" etc. are null and void. Kameraad Pjotr 20:58, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
This is my own work. I would like to have it removed from all Wiki sites. 72.174.36.75 18:06, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
- Please log in to prove that you are the uploader, and give us a reason for deletion. --Mbdortmund (talk) 18:55, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
This is my own photo, I would like to have it removed. I had several other piercing pics removed earlier this year, so I'm hoping it won't be a problem to remove this one as well. Stealer1 (talk) 07:18, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, out of project scope. Kameraad Pjotr 19:40, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
In order to provide the most complete listing of kit patterns, new patterns should be categorized appropriately and viewed through Commons categories. This will help reduce the number of places where the patterns must be linked and generally help to keep things more orderly. --Udeezy (talk) 23:53, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
- Not my bailiwick, so do whatever it takes to harmonise with established practise, this template was created to replace as mishappen and garbled one (because of language I think-check the what links here) by another user, and they seemed to have a use for it, at least at the time. If this template is deleted, efforts should be made to reconcile their needs with practise. Sorry for not getting back to you on this earlier, but I've been on a forced wiki-break. KTo288 (talk) 11:29, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted: defective and unused Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 23:23, 26 February 2011 (UTC)