Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2010/08/23
 |
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}
,_September_2009.JPG){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
I think this is not a company logo. This is a not free licensed mascot. Beroesz (talk) 08:48, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
Uploader was asked for OTRS, otherwise it will be deleted in seven days. DieBuche (talk) 15:01, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
This image shows persons who have not been asked or informed about the publication of this image 92.192.88.246 19:53, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
Keep Public performance. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:13, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
Kept. DieBuche (talk) 15:13, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
ich habe eine neue version hochgeladen, siehe File:Baltic_Dry_Index_1985-2010.png (talk) 16:17, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
Bitte nächstesmal {{Duplicate}} benutzen. DieBuche (talk) 15:21, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
Copyright violation, edited screencap of Bluebell character from "Reborn!" ˉanetode╦╩ 09:32, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. DieBuche (talk) 15:17, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
- File:Buenos Aires - Floralis generica (2).jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Buenos Aires - Floralis generica (3).jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Buenos Aires - Floralis generica (4).jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Buenos Aires - Floralis generica (5).jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Buenos Aires - Floralis generica (6).jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Buenos Aires'in en pahalı ve en görkemli sanat eserlerinden biri .JPG (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Buenos Aires-Recoleta-P2090056.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Flor Recoleta.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Floralis Genérica With The Skyline Behind.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Floralis ROM.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:FloralisGenericaByNight.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Plaza de las Naciones Unidas.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:阿根廷钢花.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:阿根廷钢花2.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit){kind=link}
.jpg&diff=0){kind=link}
.jpg&action=history){kind=link}
.jpg&action=watch){kind=link}
.jpg&action=unwatch){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=purge){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&preload=Commons:Deletion_requests/preload){kind=link}
.jpg&action=delete){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit){kind=link}
.jpg&diff=0){kind=link}
.jpg&action=history){kind=link}
.jpg&action=watch){kind=link}
.jpg&action=unwatch){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=purge){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&preload=Commons:Deletion_requests/preload){kind=link}
.jpg&action=delete){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit){kind=link}
.jpg&diff=0){kind=link}
.jpg&action=history){kind=link}
.jpg&action=watch){kind=link}
.jpg&action=unwatch){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=purge){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&preload=Commons:Deletion_requests/preload){kind=link}
.jpg&action=delete){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit){kind=link}
.jpg&diff=0){kind=link}
.jpg&action=history){kind=link}
.jpg&action=watch){kind=link}
.jpg&action=unwatch){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=purge){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&preload=Commons:Deletion_requests/preload){kind=link}
.jpg&action=delete){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit){kind=link}
.jpg&diff=0){kind=link}
.jpg&action=history){kind=link}
.jpg&action=watch){kind=link}
.jpg&action=unwatch){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=purge){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&preload=Commons:Deletion_requests/preload){kind=link}
.jpg&action=delete){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
No COM:FOP#Argentina; the sculptor died this year. (Undelete in 2081?) Pieter Kuiper (talk) 08:17, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- See also Commons:Deletion requests/File:Buenos Aires-Recoleta-P2090056.jpg. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 08:25, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Inconclusive closing There's already a mass deletion request about those images at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Buenos Aires-Recoleta-P2090056.jpg, as pointed. It's unneeded to have two. All images have been listed there, so the discusion is kept at a single place. Belgrano (talk) 21:05, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Photo mislabeled; this is a picture of D.R.E.S. tha Beatnik, from Atlanta, not Dres from the Black Sheep. I worked with Dres for years as an engineer. It's easy to search the two and see the difference. But I see why the poster made an honest mistake. --LisleSinger (talk) 18:11, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
Delete per nominator. This being the case, I would like to add File:Dres performing in Atlanta, Georgia.jpg for deletion. --Karppinen (talk) 19:06, 11 July 2009 (UTC)- Keep I will change the description. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 23:23, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
Kept - no reason to delete, use {{Rename}} if still necessary (non-admin closure). /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:50, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
This image and File:Dres performing in Atlanta, Georgia 2.jpg are both redundant and out of project scope as they will not be used. Therefore they both should be deleted. --Karppinen (talk) 20:51, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Not a reason to delete - many files on commons are not in use in a wikipedia article right now. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:32, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
- But this is a namesake, I think, see previous DR. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:24, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
- Ah, my mistake. In general, I don't think we need pictures of people if they don't have a page in Wikipedia, Wikisource, Wikiquote or Commons that it goes on. But I clearly don't know enough about this field to judge this particular artist.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:46, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
- But this is a namesake, I think, see previous DR. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:24, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
Comment Ok, let me clarify this. I, the uploader of these, misidentified the persons in these two pictures and in this. The purpose of these uploads was to use them in Wikipedia, but as the rappers in images are quite unknown (they do not have a Wikipedia article), the photos are utterly useless. If they ever have enough notability, the photos can be reuploaded. Karppinen (talk) 18:30, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
- Delete. Out of scope and unused. Apparently not useful for anything else. -- Asclepias (talk) 00:29, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
- It is in use. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 06:29, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
- No, it is not. Karppinen (talk) 13:21, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
Kept. in useDieBuche (talk) 09:02, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
derivative work violatio, the source of the two images is not provided and there is no evidence of permission to use them 66.44.229.49 11:15, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. DieBuche (talk) 21:29, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
Bad name Tkrempser (talk) 11:15, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
- Keep a bad filename is not a reason to delete, {{Rename}} it. — raeky (talk | edits) 00:00, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
Kept. DieBuche (talk) 21:23, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
Copyright Tkrempser (talk) 22:21, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
Not elligible for protection --DieBuche (talk) 00:36, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
Wrong name Tkrempser (talk) 16:49, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
Copyright Tkrempser (talk) 20:21, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
* (show/hide) 19:34, 12 November 2010 Belgrano (talk | contribs | block) deleted "File:Botafogo Escudo.png" (Fair use material is not allowed on Commons) (view/restore) (global usage; delinker log) abf «Cabale!» 07:37, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
wrong form, obsolete and can be safely deleted Wiebevl (talk) 18:06, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. DieBuche (talk) 21:26, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
I am dissapointed with my work here, and do not want top make a new. Conty (talk) 15:25, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
.JPG){kind=link}
Kept. Unsourced mass request for deletion by uploader (?). DieBuche (talk) 21:29, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
.JPG){kind=link}
Eyes too large, the hands shall not be pronated, and the tail are too long. Conty (talk) 15:27, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
Kept. Unsourced mass request for deletion by uploader (?). DieBuche (talk) 21:29, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
As per previous deletion request by uploader, the image is not in use, is highly inaccurate (snout too thin, eye and nostril too long, tail too long, lower arms to long, incorrect feathers, hands are pronated, shouldn't have kneecaps, and legs too long) and has better images available to use instead (eg. File:Buitreraptor ( with feathers ).JPG, File:Buitreraptor NT.jpg). The text is redundant as it is in the article or original research. This makes the image out of the project scope, so it should be deleted. IJReid (talk) 02:02, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 16:16, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
There are better restorations of this dinosaur on Wikimedia. Conty (talk) 15:41, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
Kept. Unsourced mass request for deletion by uploader (?). DieBuche (talk) 21:16, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
This user wrote my name into his update of this file. When I changed my name to a pseudonym, the description was not updated. I did not at the time of update, and do not presently want to be associated with this image. While the image itself is unused anywhere, I ask only that the uploader's description be changed. If that isn't possible and the image is deemed encyclopedic, I can reupload it after deletion. I appreciate your help! Alexdi (talk) 02:54, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
- Please sort out the politics and retain these images in the public domain. I teach sex edcucation to girls aged 14 to 16 years and it is extremely useful to be able to show them to the girls during the lessons. They are a fine example of the male sex organ in it's two states in a factual and non-offensive manner. (Peggy Branchflower [p.brnchflwr@yahoo.co.uk])
Kept. Your name was hidden DieBuche (talk) 21:13, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
Falscher Titel Nlkalwien (talk) 15:38, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Composer died 1987. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:30, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. DieBuche (talk) 21:33, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
more or less strange unused drawing - out of scope Cholo Aleman (talk) 12:22, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Support deletion. I don't see any reason for keeping it, unless the uploader can explain what it is. TFCforever (talk) 23:14, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. DieBuche (talk) 21:21, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
copyvio -- Bojan Talk 16:26, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
Higher-resolution original can be found here -- Bojan Talk 16:26, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
Retracted. DieBuche (talk) 21:36, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
unused and useless Amada44 (talk) 13:44, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. DieBuche (talk) 22:23, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
copyvio from http://portal.krefeld-pinguine.de/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=125&Itemid=135&lang=de Xgeorg (talk) 06:30, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, please delete it. --188.60.89.36 12:34, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted by DieBuche: copyvio from http://portal.krefeld-pinguine.de/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=125&Itemid=135&lang=de
Decided to not use in Wikipedia, unnecessary Dimtet (talk) 12:57, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted by DieBuche: No license since 22 August 2010
error from me Reinhardhauke (talk) 10:43, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Exact or scaled-down duplicate: File:Paris cimetière Montparnasse882.JPG -- Common Good (talk) 19:46, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
Out of project scope. Person shown on the photograph seems not to be notable - I suppose self promotion. The image is not used High Contrast (talk) 14:02, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Exact or scaled-down duplicate: File:Maxreader.jpg -- Common Good (talk) 19:43, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
bad name, new file at Image:TW THWtp-cty24.png -- Paidamu (talk) 14:06, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Exact or scaled-down duplicate: File:TW THWtp-cty24.png -- Common Good (talk) 19:41, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
bad name, new file at Image:TW THWtp-cty26.png -- Paidamu (talk) 14:07, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Exact or scaled-down duplicate: File:TW THWtp-cty26.png -- Common Good (talk) 19:40, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
weil Dateiname falsch war, wurde das Bild unter dem richtigen Namen neu hochgeladen Dinggedicht (talk) 14:34, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
Erledigt. Nächstes mal einfach umbennen lassen mit {{Rename}}. DieBuche (talk) 18:03, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
This is a broken redirect. 84.61.183.9 15:56, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. DieBuche (talk) 18:01, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
Category:Images from the Deutsche Fotothek, series Kindergarten des VEB Wollgarnspinnerei Leipzig
[edit]empty category. --Mef.ellingen (talk) 20:31, 23 August 2010 (UTC) --Mef.ellingen (talk) 20:31, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
'Deleted by Multichill: Empty category: content was: '{{delete|empty category. --Mef.ellingen (talk) 20:31, 23 August 2010 (UTC)}}
empty category. --Mef.ellingen (talk) 20:36, 23 August 2010 (UTC) --Mef.ellingen (talk) 20:38, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
- Speedy deleted empty temporary category. Multichill (talk) 21:01, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
empty category. --Mef.ellingen (talk) 20:38, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
'Deleted by Multichill: Empty category: content was: '{{delete|empty category. --Mef.ellingen (talk) 20:37, 23 August 2010 (UTC)}}
empty category. --Mef.ellingen (talk) 20:37, 23 August 2010 (UTC) --Mef.ellingen (talk) 20:38, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
'Deleted by Multichill: Empty category: content was: '{{delete|empty category. --Mef.ellingen (talk) 20:37, 23 August 2010 (UTC)}}
The file violates the copyright, the image seems to be removed from a website because these images contain copyright. Photo was taken from polish official gov website. According to polish law every image on gov. www is copyrighted and so NOT in PD or free licence --Pl2241 (talk) 22:08, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Masur (talk) 06:45, 24 August 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) 00:25, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
Kept. Certainly, but this is no reason for deletion, or am I misunderstanding something? DieBuche (talk) 10:25, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
duplicate category for "Category:Volcán San Pedro" Arjuno3 (talk) 19:12, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Category:Volcán San Pedro -- Common Good (talk) 19:21, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
Copyvio of: http://benasque.aragob.es:443/cgi-bin/EBOA/BRSCGI?CMD=VEROBJ&MLKOB=523783721818 Miguel Ángel "fotógrafo" (talk) 21:11, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted by Zirland: In category Copyright violations; no license
There are multiple copies of this image (182 according to TinEye.com), and this is the uploader's only contribution, lacking metadata or details of where and when taken. Looks like a copyvio. Rodhullandemu (talk) 14:52, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. No question, not uploaders own work. --Martin H. (talk) 17:48, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
Copyright violation Malpass93 (talk) 20:04, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete As above. Kyro (talk) 08:41, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. --Màñü飆¹5 talk 02:01, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
Arabic text not displaying properly in SVG format. Will replace with PNG. وسام البهنسي (talk) 20:16, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
Kept. Fixed. Changed text to path (which is better than PNG). ZooFari 01:03, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
COM:DW, Scan of a book cover. Kragenfaultier (talk) 09:20, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- Delete, {{Flickrvio}}. —LX (talk, contribs) 08:57, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
- Delete As above Kyro (talk) 08:46, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. --Màñü飆¹5 talk 02:09, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
unused, not notable Amada44 talk to me 10:35, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. --Màñü飆¹5 talk 02:10, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
Out of project scope. Person shown on the photograph seems not to be notable - I suppose self promotion. The image is not used High Contrast (talk) 13:59, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. --Màñü飆¹5 talk 02:15, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
Out of project scope. Person shown on the photograph seems not to be notable - I suppose self promotion. The image is not used High Contrast (talk) 14:00, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. --Màñü飆¹5 talk 02:15, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
Out of project scope. Person shown on the photograph seems not to be notable - I suppose self promotion. The image is not used High Contrast (talk) 14:03, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. --Màñü飆¹5 talk 02:19, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
Out of COM:SCOPE. Unused personal photo. Wknight94 talk 14:06, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. --Màñü飆¹5 talk 02:26, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
unused photo of Brazilian music band with no notability as voted here pt:Wikipedia:Páginas para eliminar/U2 Connection - out of scope Santosga (talk) 14:46, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. --Màñü飆¹5 talk 02:36, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
unused photo of Brazilian music band with no notability as voted here pt:Wikipedia:Páginas para eliminar/U2 Connection - out of scope Santosga (talk) 14:46, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. --Màñü飆¹5 talk 02:36, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
While the lettering does not meet threshold of originality, the design which forms the "O" definitely goes beyond that threshold and is not a simple geometric shape. — Huntster (t @ c) 22:16, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Does not meet threshold of originality. ZooFari 00:50, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
black and white scan of File:El descanso de la modelo..jpg but with inferior quality - unused and unnecessary, no foreseeable use Santosga (talk) 22:23, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
- Delete agree. --Elekhh (talk) 04:22, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. ZooFari 00:49, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
copyvio Gaujmalnieks (talk) 00:07, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
- Keep It was CC-by-2.0 on flickr when the file was uploaded (See the bot review). Kyro (talk) 08:40, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
Kept. Image was reviewed as CC-by-2.0 and license not revocable. ZooFari 00:48, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
unused logo of organization with no notability as decided here fr:XCT - out of scope Santosga (talk) 13:06, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. --Màñü飆¹5 talk 16:14, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
unused logo of organization with no notability as decided here fr:XCT - out of scope Santosga (talk) 13:06, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. --Màñü飆¹5 talk 16:14, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
Invalid license. Source is copyrighted Vssun (talk) 13:36, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. --Màñü飆¹5 talk 16:15, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
Vandal upload (note the comment below the information template), I see no reason to assume that this is the uploaders own work. Martin H. (talk) 15:10, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Per nom. --Yikrazuul (talk) 17:15, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. --Màñü飆¹5 talk 16:16, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
Out of COM:SCOPE. Unused promotional image. Uploader's only contribution. Wknight94 talk 17:31, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. --Màñü飆¹5 talk 16:41, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
Out of COM:SCOPE. Unused fuzzy partial picture of some non-notable band. Uploader's only contribution. Wknight94 talk 17:39, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. --Màñü飆¹5 talk 16:41, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
Also File:FearsOfzaerak2.JPG. Out of COM:SCOPE. Unused promotional picture of some non-notable band. Uploader's only contribution. Wknight94 talk 17:47, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. --Màñü飆¹5 talk 16:42, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
unused frame/screenshot of non-notable amateur movie as voted here en:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UCF: Toronto Cybercide (film) - out of scope, also possible copyvio Santosga (talk) 20:07, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. --Màñü飆¹5 talk 16:45, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
Category:Images from the Deutsche Fotothek, series Werkfotos aus dem VEB Leipziger Großbuchbinderei
[edit]empty category. --Mef.ellingen (talk) 20:25, 23 August 2010 (UTC) --Mef.ellingen (talk) 20:25, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. --Màñü飆¹5 talk 16:46, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
this is an empty sibling of Category:Catedral de Jerez de la Frontera Herzi Pinki (talk) 22:05, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. --Màñü飆¹5 talk 16:48, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
fully copyrighted image originating from http://www.alexisdubus.com/Images/highres/Alexis01copy.jpg 74.198.28.32 05:49, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
- Comment It should be tagged with {{No permission since}} since there is no evidence AlexisDubus is not Alexis Dubus and the copyright holder and give the uploader a chance to go though OTRS. — raeky (talk | edits) 23:35, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
Kept. Doing what Raeky suggested on the other hand. --Dferg (talk · meta) 14:52, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
Produced by CSPAN TV[1], so not PD as far as I know. FunkMonk (talk) 16:47, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
- Keep the file already survived my wrong conclusion that it is non-commercial. Per http://www.c-span.org/About/Copyright.aspx it is indeed non-commercial, but Video coverage of the debates originating from the chambers of the U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate is in the public domain[...]. If this is from such a debate - a verifiable source is missing anyhow - it is in the public domain. --Martin H. (talk) 20:22, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
- Oooh, see that was kind of why I nominated it, because I wanted to see if the footage was PD, and concluded that it probably wasn't. But if it is, that means we could actually upload it all to Commons, right? Then we would have a lot of potential footage and images of different rock musicians ad politicans at our disposal. Do you have any more info on the status of the footage? FunkMonk (talk) 20:48, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
- I missed your question: No, I have no information but also no reason to doubt that the copyright information is correct. --Martin H. (talk) 18:02, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
- Oooh, see that was kind of why I nominated it, because I wanted to see if the footage was PD, and concluded that it probably wasn't. But if it is, that means we could actually upload it all to Commons, right? Then we would have a lot of potential footage and images of different rock musicians ad politicans at our disposal. Do you have any more info on the status of the footage? FunkMonk (talk) 20:48, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
Kept. FunkMonk (talk) 17:20, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
for some reason this file doesn't open up, please delete it, i'll upload another version tetraktys (talk) 09:56, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. File:Canova - perseu - 39b.jpg -- Common Good (talk) 19:47, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
It is derivative work as it shows a copyright beer bottle. Guinnog (talk) 22:22, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
- Keep What would be copyrightable here? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 14:36, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
- Keep I agree, what part is copyrightable? — raeky (talk | edits) 00:11, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
- Delete - The label and logo are clearly copyrighted, and those are not just incidental elements in the picture. The shape of the bottle actually might be copyrighted as well (but doesn't have to for this to qualify as a derivative work). --Latebird (talk) 11:09, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
- Keep I doubt this. The logos on the bottle are most likely old enough to be PD anyway, and the rest is just text. It's a very simple label. --PaterMcFly (talk) 11:27, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
- I agree, see these old Carlsberg ads for comparison. Trycatch (talk) 13:13, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
- Hey, some of those old posters seem to be PD of age as a whole. Unfortunatelly, I can't read russian and so I don't know which date labels correspond to which poster. --PaterMcFly (talk) 08:04, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
- Looks like (also [2], [3]) the original Carlsberg Pilsner label (very similar to the current one) was designed by w:da:Thorvald Bindesbøll (1846-1908) in 1904, so it's PD-old now. Trycatch (talk) 09:23, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
- Yea, except for the type of font, the label looks very much the same as 1904. --PaterMcFly (talk) 20:35, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
Kept. Jafeluv (talk) 07:25, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
Uploaded this file today, but found out later that since it is only temporarily placed at its current position it is copyrighted. So file should be removed again Willemnabuurs (talk) 17:40, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
- Fop-nl not applicable.--Gerardus (talk) 08:14, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 17:07, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
Advert photo Waihorace (talk) 07:16, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted by Yann: Copyright violation
obsolete icon, wrong name, wrong form, can be safely deleted Wiebevl (talk) 20:02, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
- Такая форма была создана для того, чтобы сделать ССВ между двумя линиями, а жёлтый по моему мнению плохо виден.195.239.125.50 08:19, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
- Sorry, this is commons, please write in english if you want to be heard!
deleted unused, incompatible with standard BSicons axpdeHello! 13:21, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
Small image resolution, No EXIF data, Only contribution by the uploader => highly likely taken somewhere from the web by the uploader High Contrast (talk) 14:01, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Likely copyvio from [4]. Trycatch (talk) 22:22, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
This is a duplicate of File:Anal_piercing.jpg Dannys9 (talk) 09:50, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
- Keep File:Anal_piercing.jpg is a derivative work of File:Anuspiercing.jpg. Tm (talk) 17:09, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
- Keep per Tm, this is the original. Delete File:Anal_piercing.jpg. Trycatch (talk) 21:17, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
Kept, per Trycatch cs. Kameraad Pjotr 21:31, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
The shape of bones are wrong, and we have better version of this Conty (talk) 04:15, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, per nominator. Kameraad Pjotr 21:34, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
Image is only free for non-commercial use until 70 years following the architect's death per COM:FOP#Iceland. Architect was Guðni Pálsson. He lives. Fingalo (talk) 16:49, 23 August 2010 (UTC) --Fingalo (talk) 16:49, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:39, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
Image is only free for non-commercial use until 70 years following the architect's death per COM:FOP#Iceland. Architect was Björn Guðbrandsson. He lives. Fingalo (talk) 18:38, 23 August 2010 (UTC) --Fingalo (talk) 18:38, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Sorry for interfering again, but this is really no special piece of architecture. Just an ordinary hotel in the style of the 1970ties. --PaterMcFly (talk) 11:54, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Again, there is no requirement that a building be special or artistic to have a copyright. All original works have a copyright, even my grandson's scribbled art. Unless this is a copy of another building, it has a copyright of its own and this photo is a DW. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:38, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
Image is only free for non-commercial use until 70 years following the architect's death per COM:FOP#Iceland. Architect was Björn Guðbrandsson. He lives. Fingalo (talk) 19:00, 23 August 2010 (UTC) --Fingalo (talk) 19:00, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
- Keep I think this building is rather normal. No special architecture here. --PaterMcFly (talk) 20:41, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
Was is a "special architecture"? See here the same hotel. Is this rather normal? Fingalo (talk) 19:31, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
- Yea, I think so. There's no architectural art involved in this building IMO. --PaterMcFly (talk) 14:45, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
Art is not essantial. A certain originality is sufficient. Fingalo (talk) 18:56, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
- I don't see that here, sorry. There's nothing visible that is specifically original about this hotel. --PaterMcFly (talk) 08:15, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
It's a matter of taste. Fingalo (talk) 09:08, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
- Who is the architect? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:32, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted.
See my comments at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Iceland-Reykjavik-Skolavordustigur-SPRON.jpg. Also read the Icelandic Copyright Act]. There is no requirement that a building be artistic. It must only not be a copy. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:13, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
not public domain: the author J.G.C.J. Hezemans was still alive after 1941 Gouwenaar (talk) 12:02, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Martin H. (talk) 00:55, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
not public domain: the author J.G.C.J. Hezemans was still alive after 1941 Gouwenaar (talk) 12:04, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted. Martin H. (talk) 00:54, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
File:Atari Games Logo.svg exists -- glglgl ✉ 13:32, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
- The only reason to delete a dupe is if it's a bad resolution one. Mizunoryu (talk) 13:48, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Kept, per Mizunoryu. Kameraad Pjotr 19:38, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
No source, author, or date information. —innotata 00:02, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Martin H. (talk) 03:01, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
Its only purpose is to illustrate a heavily biased book on Wikibooks, which appears to have been deleted before but was re-created, and I have tagged it for CSD on Wikibooks. Kayau (talk) 09:41, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted by EugeneZelenko: Copyright violation: Logo. Not text only
,_September_2009.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
,_September_2009.JPG&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
No general FOP in UK h-stt !? 15:29, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
,_September_2009.JPG){kind=link}
Deleted, 2D-works are not covered by FOP in the UK. Kameraad Pjotr 17:23, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
,_September_2009.JPG){kind=link}
no information about source, date, or author; no evidence this is in the public domain —innotata 20:30, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, lacks source information. Kameraad Pjotr 17:25, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
I am uploader of this Image to Commons, but I just redrawed previous image from cs.wikipedia. Searching in tha deletion archives I just realized it was unsourced then. Probably original research. The image is essential information (source). --Zirland (talk) 07:47, 14 May 2010 (UTC) Zirland (talk) 07:47, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, per nominator. Kameraad Pjotr 17:26, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
No source, author or date information; no evidence this is public domain in the US and where published. —innotata 23:24, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, per nominator. Kameraad Pjotr 17:37, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
Contains a copyrighted Canadian coin design. 84.62.209.203 21:04, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Hardly visible. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:02, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
- If needed, someone can black the coin out and put "22 mm dia" in its place. That would probably be better since we could ditch {{NoCoins}} then. 76.117.247.55 11:47, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
- Also note the existence of Image:Ramphotyphlops braminus.jpg 76.117.247.55 11:48, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
Kept, coin is de minimis. Kameraad Pjotr 18:02, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Insufficient source information to ascertain if this is public domain in its country of publication and the US; not {{PD-US}} for certain. —innotata 00:06, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- Keep What is your problem with the source information? It says that this is from the 1924 edition of Murray's Handbook for travelers to India. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:10, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
- Information about where this was published is not givan, and there is no evidence this is PD in it source country and the US (the countries of publication given are India and the US, but I think this is British). —innotata 00:41, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, published in London. No reason to delete, just change the license tags. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 06:06, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
- But we need detailed information—the author for instance—and explaination of how this is PD in the US. —innotata 19:11, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, published in London. No reason to delete, just change the license tags. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 06:06, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
- Information about where this was published is not givan, and there is no evidence this is PD in it source country and the US (the countries of publication given are India and the US, but I think this is British). —innotata 00:41, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
let it be.. its one of the rare maps of old mumbai.
Kept, PD-Old as a "work of corporate authorship". Kameraad Pjotr 18:16, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Still not shown where it was published and how it is PD in its source country, and the US. —innotata 14:39, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- Speedy keep What is clearly shown is that you are unable or unwilling to understand. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 15:22, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
- Besides it not being fully clear on author, etc., there is no explanation of how this is PD in the US. —innotata 17:03, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
Kept. Jcb (talk) 23:10, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Clear copyright violation - a cropped version of http://www.burtwolf.com/images/Burt_Wolf.jpg Biker Biker (talk) 17:53, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, clear copyright violation. Kameraad Pjotr 18:59, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
No proof that images found on the source website are free use. All are also clearly watermarked. BrokenSphere 05:47, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Polarlys (talk) 20:44, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
out of scope - commons is no private webhoster axpdeHello! 07:01, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
- Keep, part of the grave of the notable person. Trycatch (talk) 10:59, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
- Delete, no source. ZooFari 01:30, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
Kept, in scope and looks like own work. Kameraad Pjotr 19:35, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
out of scope - commons is no private webhoster axpdeHello! 06:59, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
- Keep, part of the grave of the notable person. Trycatch (talk) 10:59, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
- Delete, no source. ZooFari 01:30, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
Kept, per Commons:Deletion requests/File:Eddie August Schneider, family grave at Fairview Cemetery 100 0914.JPG. Kameraad Pjotr 19:55, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
out of scope - commons is no private webhoster axpdeHello! 07:02, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
- Keep, part of the grave of the notable person. Btw, the uploader wasn't notified. Trycatch (talk) 11:00, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
- Delete, no source. ZooFari 01:31, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
- I've notified the uploader. Really, it's not a very good idea to discuss "no source" problem w/o notification of the uploader. Trycatch (talk) 21:11, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
Kept, per Commons:Deletion requests/File:Eddie August Schneider, family grave at Fairview Cemetery 100 0914.JPG. Kameraad Pjotr 19:55, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Artwork of a still living artist. View from inside the church. Freedom of Panorama not applicable Raymond 15:44, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
Who said that artwork of a living artist should not be shown here? Shall we also delete all entries about still living persons?
Deleted, no freedom of panorama in Germany for the inside of buildings. Kameraad Pjotr 18:57, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
superseded bij File:Spoorlijn55.png Wiebevl (talk) 12:08, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Very different image. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 13:01, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
Kept, files are too different. Kameraad Pjotr 19:20, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Valid source is missing. The uploader states in fact that US Embassy staff is the author of this photograph with the proof "acknowledged in photo caption" - but there is no caption shown. And just stating "US Embassy staff in commission of duties (acknowledged in photo caption)" is not enough - anybody could say that. The uploader must give more details on the source (book/magazine title, etc.). 80.187.106.77 12:42, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
- Keep -- The uploader is citing a book, as this google search shows. I believe a scan of an image from a book, where the book attributes the image to a public domain source is perfectly acceptable for use here. It is possible for a deceitful newcomer to falsely claim an image scanned from a book is in the public domain, when it is not, in fact, in the public domain? Sure. But Sherurcij has, over the last five years, uploaded thousands of valid, compliant images. So I am prepared to take his assertion that the image was credited to a public domain source at face value. Geo Swan (talk) 23:23, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
- Comment -- Nominator cut and paste identical nomination here: [5], [6], [7], [8], [9]. Geo Swan (talk) 23:36, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
![[5]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:1993_Bombing_Aftermath_in_WTC_by_DSS_Agent.png&diff=prev&oldid=39250466){kind=link}
![[6]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:DSS_Photo_of_Ramzi_Yousef_in_ISI_Custody_Immediately_Upon_Capture.png&diff=prev&oldid=39250420){kind=link}
![[7]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:DSS_Photo_of_Odeh_on_Plane_to_United_States.png&diff=prev&oldid=39250391){kind=link}
![[8]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:House_Where_Ramzi_Yousef_Captured_-_Photographed_by_US_Embassy_Staff.png&diff=prev&oldid=39250324){kind=link}
![[9]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Phillipine_Airlines_Bombing_Aftermath.png&diff=prev&oldid=39250296){kind=link}
Deleted - Has been deleted by User:AFB because of "no license since 4 May 2010;" –Krinkletalk 23:31, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
Restored - It seems we missed the fact that the uploader addded {{PD-USGov}} in the mean-time. Re-opening this request. –Krinkletalk 18:03, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
Kept, AGF on uploaders behalf. Kameraad Pjotr 19:05, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Archive photo and still copyrightable (judging by the file name), fake "PD-self". --Blacklake (talk) 15:59, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Insufficient sourcing and unlikely free anyway. Trycatch (talk) 22:25, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
Unfree Flickr license. Has a permission that does not live up to the standard we need today but it was uploaded in 2007. I changed a speedy tag to a DR because I would like more opinions on this one. We have kept images like this because we did not demand better proof of permission back then. MGA73 (talk) 11:59, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
- Delete: I had flickrmailed the copyright owner for a license change or whether he gave permission for this image to be on Commons in 2008 or early 2009....but he never replied to my message. I don't know if this vague permission is OK for Commons. The problem is it is not on the url link itself. --Leoboudv (talk) 19:50, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Trycatch (talk) 22:29, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
Orphaned, used in a now deleted advert on en.wikipedia, so possible copyvio. Also low Quality and no foreseeable use. FASTILY (TALK) 19:12, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Trycatch (talk) 22:17, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
2D artwork of some sort. Likely copyrighted. No reason given to suggest that uploader is copyright holder. FASTILY (TALK) 19:14, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. No evidence of permission from the painter. Trycatch (talk) 21:13, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
2D artwork of some sort. Likely copyrighted. No reason given to suggest that uploader is copyright holder. FASTILY (TALK) 19:15, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. No evidence of permission from the painter. Trycatch (talk) 21:14, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
Looks like a publicity photo rather than one taken by the user who uploaded it 78.86.72.138 19:38, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Trycatch (talk) 21:09, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
There is no proof that this shunga print is by Chikanobu 67.22.254.83 20:21, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
- You have proofs that this shunga print is not by Chikanobu? --Màñü飆¹5 talk 02:14, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
- [10] states: Chikanobu (attrib.) (1832-1912). -- deerstop. 21:11, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
Keep - even without the attribution (which is convincing/credible), the artwork is clearly PD-old/art. the point under debate is whether the attribution to chikanobu is correct, or not; that should be discussed @ the file's talk page not via a deletion nom. Lx 121 (talk) 15:28, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
Kept. Trycatch (talk) 21:01, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, bad quality photograph, not in use. Kameraad Pjotr 17:07, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
http://picasaweb.google.com/lh/view?q=highway+401&uname=110447245549669417750&psc=G&filter=1#5279741483162913122 No derivatives Floydian (talk) 05:12, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
Probably copyrighted. "Leonard" could be the copyrightholder. In the link above 'Leonard' states "This was taken by my Grandfather." If that is so "Leonard" could have inherited the rights to the pictures. For how long depends on canadian copyright law. Photograpers name (and date of death? +50 +70?) is then needed to find copyright-holder. (Dont know Canadian law, but) belive photograpers name is also needed for atribution. "This was taken by my Grandfather." will not do.. Nice picture. --Andrez1 (talk) 15:51, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
- I'd take the authors word on it since I don't have the time, energy or ability to track down his Gramps. The picture is labeled as Attribution - No derivatives, which as far as I know we do not host "no derivatives" files. I really wish it wasn't, because the contrast of this photo to today is absolutely breathtaking. (this is the same view today). For some reason I have a feeling it's actually from the Toronto/Ontario archives (in which case a 1950s photo is PD when taken by the government). - Floydian (talk) 17:01, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
- Point taken. But as uploader "Leonard" on picasa is to be taken on his words, he is not the author, he might or not posess the copyright to the image; if he dont, he have no right to issue a cc-by-nd; if he does he have no right to claim attribution to himself. Owner is not author. I belive he is in best of faith, but this is the kind of licensing mess picasa and flickr leads to. (nothing on tineye) --Andrez1 (talk) 20:28, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, no-derivs is not allowed or copyright violation by the uploader on picasa. Kameraad Pjotr 17:14, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
People in the photo are demanding these be taken down. Manminhhoang (talk) 23:43, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
- Keep. Subject seems notable, as it has an article on enwiki (where the nominator removed the image himself). No reason to delete an image of a notable subject. --PaterMcFly (talk) 11:18, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
- Keep per PaterMcFly. If subject doesn't want this picture to appear, he can provide a replacement. Wknight94 talk 16:17, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
Kept, file is in use, no reason for deletion. Kameraad Pjotr 19:36, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
- File deleted as copyright violation. Yann (talk) 05:30, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
As per COM:FOP#Belgium and COM:PRP. It should be moved to all Wikipedias where it is in use. 84.61.185.114 09:08, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, no freedom of panorama in Belgium. Kameraad Pjotr 19:51, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
As per COM:FOP#Belgium and COM:PRP. It should be moved to all Wikipedias where it is in use. 84.61.185.114 12:49, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, no freedom of panorama in Belgium. Kameraad Pjotr 19:49, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
People in the photo are demanding these be taken down. Manminhhoang (talk) 23:44, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
Keep File is in use now. Notable person on en.wp. Wknight94 talk 16:23, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
Kept, file is in use, no other reason for deletion. Kameraad Pjotr 19:52, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
Probably copyvio Kocio (talk) 15:06, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, likely copyright violation. Kameraad Pjotr 20:53, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
As per COM:FOP#Belgium and COM:PRP. It should be moved to all Wikipedias where it is in use. 84.61.185.114 09:07, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, no freedom of panorama in Belgium. Kameraad Pjotr 21:00, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Since it lacks feathers, it can't be accepted as accurate. Conty (talk) 05:17, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
.JPG){kind=link}
- Neither the English nor the German Wikipedia article about it mention any feathers, so what's the problem? --Latebird (talk) 11:02, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
- It does mention it. -- Asclepias (talk) 19:05, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
- Didn't you get it yet? Stop nominating all your dino pictures with stupid rationales no one can follow. If you have a better image of it, name it, before nominating something for deletion. --PaterMcFly (talk) 11:22, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
- Better images are already used in the articles, because they are pictures of the actual skeletons pieced together by specialists, not imaginative drawings from speculation. -- Asclepias (talk) 19:05, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
- Delete. Unused, hardly usable, probably out of scope (speculative personal vision, probably inaccurate). -- Asclepias (talk) 19:05, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, uploader request, due to errors the file is out of project scope. Kameraad Pjotr 21:01, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
.JPG){kind=link}
no la puedo enlazar Agrestatf (talk) 17:30, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, uploader request, file is not in use. Kameraad Pjotr 21:03, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
derivative work Polarlys (talk) 17:59, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, derivative work of a copyrighted design. Kameraad Pjotr 20:42, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Superseded by a PNG Finemann (talk) 09:30, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
New File - File:Clarinet.jpg. PS: I haven't modified the pages which uses the original. Finemann (talk) 09:33, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
Kept, would break the attribution path. Kameraad Pjotr 20:54, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Falscher Titel Nlkalwien (talk) 15:39, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Composer died 1987. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:31, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Three notes are not really eligible for protection--DieBuche (talk) 21:34, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
Kept, {{PD-ineligible}}; if it has a wrong name, rename it. Kameraad Pjotr 20:55, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Contains copyrighted British and Canadian coin designs. 84.62.209.203 07:29, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, copyright violations. Kameraad Pjotr 21:12, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
This illustration have many inaccurate features (the legs, feathers, wings etc.). Conty (talk) 06:41, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
- Keep In use, even if only on a talk page. Is there a better image available? --PaterMcFly (talk) 11:28, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
Kept, file is in use. Kameraad Pjotr 21:40, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
The metatarsals are too long. The eyes miht be too large. Conty (talk) 15:56, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
Kept. - in use - Jcb (talk) 18:46, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
I did very much wrong when I uploaded it. Moreover, it is inaccurate. Conty (talk) 12:30, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, uploader request. Kameraad Pjotr 21:37, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
a flag stop in use on an elevated track OFF USE?!? Wiebevl (talk) 10:33, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
- Keep It's not our place to judge the wisdom of designing railways. Besides which, I've personally used these "railway icons" for all sorts of workflow diagrams on Mediawiki, and so a complete set of them is useful, whether I'm using them "as intended" or not. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:47, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
- I plea guilty. Indeed an open station/stop on a closed line is usually senseless, but I created this (and probably some others) when I was on a roll, creating all possible color combinations for a given vector set. That accounts surely for many of these open stations on closed lines — the use Any mentions above, though, is a good reason not to delete them, though. Tuvalkin (talk) 03:57, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
deleted Those icons are mainly designed for rail/road/etc. diagramme templates, not every thinkable color combination needs to be created, esp. when this forms a paradoxon. Btw. this icon isn't used for months ... and looks a bit sexual offending ;-)) axpdeHello! 14:49, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
We have 2 of this image. We only need 1. Conty (talk) 05:32, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Second image is the edit (derivative work) of this one. Trycatch (talk) 21:14, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
Kept, would break the attirbution path. Kameraad Pjotr 19:17, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
The eyes are too large, and the front feet have to many claws. Conty (talk) 11:25, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, uploader request. Kameraad Pjotr 19:17, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
Inaccurate in shape. Moreover, we have better skull sketches Conty (talk) 11:27, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, uploader request. Kameraad Pjotr 19:19, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
The eyes are too large. Conty (talk) 18:38, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, uploader request. Kameraad Pjotr 19:30, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
possible copyvio Chaosdruid (talk) 16:40, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
- Comment - I was doing a copyedit of the work and checking some of the refs and images. I found this site [11] which seems to have the exact same picture. I appreciate that it may be that the person who took it is the person who uploaded it but I think this should be checked.
Delete unless COM:OTRS permission is given. Wknight94 talk 18:19, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted by Túrelio: Copyright violation: http://www.bvrice.in/prin.htm the image is copied from that site, the deletion request has been open for five months, so I'm just nominating as a copyvio
Derivate work —Wuzur 12:29, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
- Was ist denn das für eine Löschbegründung? --> Bei meinem Besuch in der Kirche und dem Gespräch mit dem Pfarrer wurde einer Veröffentlichung des Fotos mit dem Altarbild ausdrücklich zugestimmt. Es ist mit Spendengeldern und ehrenamtlicher Arbeit entstanden und kein Künstler erhebt einen Lizenzanspruch. --44penguins (talk) 12:35, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
PS. Das Foto ist auch nirgends "abgeleitet", sondern ein selbst erstelltes.- Per COM:DW ist das Foto ja eines, das größtenteils ein geschütztes Werk zeigt. "Abgleitet" ist also das entstehende Werk (Foto eines Bildes). Die pauschale Aussage, der Veröffentlichung wird zugestimmt hilft leider nicht weiter, da zum einen, die Bilder auch kommerziell genutzt werden können (was häufig nicht klar ist), zum anderen dies nicht dokumentiert ist. Alle Künstler, die erheblich zur Entstehung beigetragen haben (deren Werke mindestens Schöpfungshöhe nach US-Recht erreichen, also wohl fast alle), müssen ausdrücklich und dokumentiert zustimmen. —Wuzur 13:23, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
- Habe dies hier jetzt erst gelesen. Und eine e-mail an den Pfarrer gesendet. Der Antworttext erscheint demnächst hier. --44penguins (talk) 17:16, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
- Der Altarteppich wurde von einer lebenden Künstlerin erstellt. Bitte das Bild aber noch nicht löschen, ich habe Kontakt mit der Dame aufgenommen und hoffe auf deren Zustimmung zur Veröffentlichung. (T:Ende November 2010) --44penguins (Diskussion) 08:06, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
- Habe dies hier jetzt erst gelesen. Und eine e-mail an den Pfarrer gesendet. Der Antworttext erscheint demnächst hier. --44penguins (talk) 17:16, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
- Per COM:DW ist das Foto ja eines, das größtenteils ein geschütztes Werk zeigt. "Abgleitet" ist also das entstehende Werk (Foto eines Bildes). Die pauschale Aussage, der Veröffentlichung wird zugestimmt hilft leider nicht weiter, da zum einen, die Bilder auch kommerziell genutzt werden können (was häufig nicht klar ist), zum anderen dies nicht dokumentiert ist. Alle Künstler, die erheblich zur Entstehung beigetragen haben (deren Werke mindestens Schöpfungshöhe nach US-Recht erreichen, also wohl fast alle), müssen ausdrücklich und dokumentiert zustimmen. —Wuzur 13:23, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, lacks suitable permission; derivative work of copyrighted design. Kameraad Pjotr 11:50, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
Incorrect statistics, not used any more in sv:Sundsvall --Mange01 (talk) 11:03, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, out of project scope. Kameraad Pjotr 15:38, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
As per COM:FOP#Belgium and COM:PRP. It should be moved to all Wikipedias where it is in use. 84.61.131.18 07:30, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, no freedom of panorama in Belgium. Kameraad Pjotr 15:41, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
As per COM:FOP#Belgium and COM:PRP. It should be moved to all Wikipedias where it is in use. 84.61.154.154 09:35, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, no freedom of panorama in Belgium. Kameraad Pjotr 15:42, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
There would be better with a photo of an actual skull. This sketch is not to any help. Conty (talk) 04:45, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, uploader request. Kameraad Pjotr 15:46, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
Copyright violation Erik1980 (talk) 11:38, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
- Could be PD-text. Surely out of scope though..--DieBuche (talk) 21:26, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, out of project scope. Kameraad Pjotr 15:47, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
gezeigte Werke: der Freundeskreis hat kaum alle Rechte an allen Fotos Ralf Roletschek (talk) 15:27, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
Ich denke auch das das einstellen dieses Fotos illegal ist! es fehlt die Erlaubnis dessen der es Hergestellt hat und die Erlaubnis des Fotografen. Grüße aus der Eifel Caronna (talk) 10:19, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, copyright violation. Kameraad Pjotr 15:48, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
Enthält den urheberrechtlich geschützten Bundestagsadler. 84.62.196.205 18:47, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
- Keep see Category:Bundesadler. However, there is a problem that source images have not been specified. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 09:55, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, the eagle is free, File:Plenarsaal des Deutschen Bundestags Aug 2009.jpg is free, but I couldn't find the other image. Kameraad Pjotr 15:57, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
Are the skyscrapers really de minimis? There is no FoP in the UAE. 84.61.131.18 16:42, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
- Keep In my opinion this is de minimis it's a wide angle shot of a skyline with multiple buildings in it, not directly focusing on any one building. — raeky (talk | edits) 00:05, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
Comment 5 Buildings are showing its exterior designs...and the Burj Khalifa also. Dusit Dubai(Dusit Thani) is focused..How we will apply de minimis. --KALARICKAN | My Interactions 15:38, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
- Delete. Though it's superb image, the modern buildings are clearly prominent, de minimis not applicable. --Túrelio (talk) 19:03, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
- Delete - No de minimis can be applied..--KALARICKAN | My Interactions 06:43, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, unfortunately de minimis cannot be applied. Kameraad Pjotr 15:58, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
This is a low resolution sketch. It would be better if we had a photo of a skull. Conty (talk) 04:52, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, uploader request. Kameraad Pjotr 16:09, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
No FoP in France. 84.61.131.18 09:07, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, no freedom of panorama in France. Kameraad Pjotr 19:50, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
This image is inaccurate in some ways (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Dinosaurs/Image_review#Deinonychus_antirrhopus for information about this). Conty (talk) 05:20, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, uploader request. Kameraad Pjotr 21:11, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
Non-free image, is derivative of a copyrighted image and does not belong on Commons as it is non-free since freedom of panorama does not apply in the USA Rodhullandemu (talk) 00:49, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, derivative work of a copyrighted design. Kameraad Pjotr 20:02, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
This is an obvious copyvio; the uploader can't be the creator of this work since the photograph was taken around the 1930s (this is based on the age of Princess Durru Shehvar as she appears in the photograph). BomBom (talk) 19:55, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, likely copyright violation. Kameraad Pjotr 20:26, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
No Freedom of Panorama in France Triwbe (talk) 20:19, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
- Keep You see more of the trees and the road than of the actual building, so there is no way to call it a panorama. See also this picture: File:Piece of Berlin Wall in front of the European Court of Human Rights, Strasbourg.jpg, the building is half hidden as well.--Edelseider (talk) 21:12, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
Kept, as de minimis. Kameraad Pjotr 20:31, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
- Keep coverting from a speedy; disagree with deletion. it was on a us forest service site, benefit of the doubt should go to it being pd-usgov — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lx 121 (talk • contribs)
Deleted, caption of the photo clearly states that it was taken by an employee of the San Diego county, and thus is not a work of US federal government. Kameraad Pjotr 19:04, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
- The file is not realistically useful for any educational purpose.There is no such thing as a Macedonian empire other than in modern Balkan ultranationalist propaganda from Republic of Macedonia.Megistias (talk) 12:02, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
- Republic of Macedonia is a free and democratic country and a candidate for European Union and there is no proof that sources from this country are "ultranationalist propaganda". User:Megistias has personal POV political agenda against that country as he showed here. Official point of view of historians from the Republic of Macedonia is that medieval empire of Samuil was a medieval Macedonian state or Macedonian empire, as these sources would show: [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17] as well as official web site of the Macedonian government. In my map, I used NPOV presentation and showed both views about character of the empire of Samuil (Bulgarian and Macedonian one) since both views are valid and used by the historians. There is no reason that we conduct a censorship that would be based only on nationalistic prejudices about Macedonian state and historians from that state. This is 21st century in which respect of opposite opinion is one of basic values of the society. PANONIAN (talk) 16:10, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
- Comment., No historian on a global scale does not consider the claims of that state nothing other then ultranationalistic-trashMegistias (talk) 16:22, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
- The file is not realistically useful for any educational purpose.There is no such thing as a Macedonian empire other than in modern Balkan ultranationalist propaganda from Republic of Macedonia.Megistias (talk) 12:02, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Image is in use. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 12:22, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Proposal for the deletion is based only on nationalistic prejudices against Macedonian state and historians from that state, while usage of description "Macedonian" is backed by sources on map discussion page. PANONIAN (talk) 16:10, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
- Comment.Read wikipedia, your claims are all considered pseudo-science and are nowhere supported.Megistias (talk) 16:22, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
- Wikipedia? Wiki articles written by anti-Macedonian Bulgarian and Greek nationalists are certainly less reliable source than any tourist site whose reliability you disputing. Do not be a hypocrite... PANONIAN (talk) 20:20, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
- Comment.Read wikipedia, your claims are all considered pseudo-science and are nowhere supported.Megistias (talk) 16:22, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
- Delete The original have been vandalized by PANONIAN adding "(Macedonian)". Minority view point pushing. --StanProg (talk) 18:50, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
- I am author of the original file as well. I just improved that original map due to data from other sources. And version to which you reverted already exist as separate file: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Realms_of_Ahtum_and_Sermon_in_the_11th_century.png PANONIAN (talk) 20:17, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
- StanProg has now changed the image file again - this is extremely disruptive. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:24, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
- Well, since he changed it, for deletion of which map version we vote here? I mean, did StanProg voted to delete my version or version made by user:Pakko? PANONIAN (talk) 20:41, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
- I think I was pretty clear which map requires deletion. Since Pieter Kuiper reverted the map with the explanaiton "do not upload different maps on the same filename" I reverted it to the original one (the PANONIAN's version is something different i tems). Anyway, this image is duplicate with the original one, so it should be removed. The "Macedonian Kingdom" of Samuel is a fringe theory supported generally by ex-yugo historians and present historians from Republic of Macedonia. It is not widely accepted, hence no place in wikipedia and especially for maps. Please read the articles about "Samuel of Bulgaria" and see what "Empire" he ruled. The "Macedonian Empire" is something completely different (as a term, region and timing). Regards! --StanProg (talk) 02:26, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
- You reverted file to original one??? Would you please look map page again: you reverted to plagiate made by user:Pakko (he basicaly used map created by me and then changed some colours and descriptions and uploaded it over my work). You realy do not understand the difference between original work and derivative work (or plagiate), do you? However, since you reverted map to version uploaded by Pakko then this voting is now about that version since people who come here to vote will see that map version, not the one created by me, in which case I will change my own vote into Delete as well since it is only a duplicate of this file (and both are plagiates created from my work): http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Realms_of_Ahtum_and_Sermon_in_the_11th_century.png Also, you cannot point to Wikipedia article written by your or your comrades as to a reliable source - Wikipedia itself is not a source, but a collection of data from various sources (at least that is what it is created to be). As for the POV issue about character of the empire of Samuil, things are clear: center of that empire was in the territory of modern-day Republic of Macedonia and it is much more important for the history of Macedonia than for the history of Bulgaria. It is well known that Greater Bulgarian nationalists claim that Macedonian nation should not exist and that, according to them, Macedonia should become a part of Greater Bulgaria and that Macedonians should be assimilated into Bulgarians. Therefore, Bulgarian nationalists have a wide anti-Macedonian propaganda which tend to twist basic events from Macedonian history (empire of Samuil, Ilinden uprising, etc, etc) and to present that everything from Macedonian history was in fact Bulgarian. Greek nationalists have another propaganda: they have completelly irrational idea that they have exclusive right to use name "Macedonia" (no matter than ancient Macedonians were not Greeks but a nation of Illyro-Thracian origin), so they say that modern Macedonians have no right to call themselves with that name (no matter that genetics have proved that modern Macedonians do have a genes of ancient ones) and therefore Greek nationalists saw that their support for Bulgarian view about Bulgarian character of the Republic of Macedonia will also be in favor of their idea that name Macedonia should not be used for that country. So, what we have here is an aggressive propaganda of two joint nationalistic (or to say racist) movements, so the fact that English and other foreign sources reflect Bulgarian-Greek claims is a consequence of such aggressive propaganda, not a consequence of seriuos historical consensus among historians. In fact, historians from former Yugoslavia in general (including Macedonian, Serbian and Croatian ones) are having stance that empire of Samuil was Macedonian empire or Macedonian state. However, Serbian and Croatian historians were never much interested in this question, while Macedonian historians due to be less numerous in number were not able to contest aggressive Bulgarian-Greek propaganda in proper way, so the absence of their standpoint into foreign sources is a consequences of the fact that Bulgarian-Greek nationalists were able to shut them up with their aggressive approach. PANONIAN (talk) 10:31, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
- You reverted file to original one??? Would you please look map page again: you reverted to plagiate made by user:Pakko (he basicaly used map created by me and then changed some colours and descriptions and uploaded it over my work). You realy do not understand the difference between original work and derivative work (or plagiate), do you? However, since you reverted map to version uploaded by Pakko then this voting is now about that version since people who come here to vote will see that map version, not the one created by me, in which case I will change my own vote into
- I think I was pretty clear which map requires deletion. Since Pieter Kuiper reverted the map with the explanaiton "do not upload different maps on the same filename" I reverted it to the original one (the PANONIAN's version is something different i tems). Anyway, this image is duplicate with the original one, so it should be removed. The "Macedonian Kingdom" of Samuel is a fringe theory supported generally by ex-yugo historians and present historians from Republic of Macedonia. It is not widely accepted, hence no place in wikipedia and especially for maps. Please read the articles about "Samuel of Bulgaria" and see what "Empire" he ruled. The "Macedonian Empire" is something completely different (as a term, region and timing). Regards! --StanProg (talk) 02:26, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
- Well, since he changed it, for deletion of which map version we vote here? I mean, did StanProg voted to delete my version or version made by user:Pakko? PANONIAN (talk) 20:41, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
- I would like to advice you, very carefully to take a look at the initial version of the map form "18:56, 28 December 2006" which you deliberately changed adding the ex-yougo and macedonism view point that this was actually a "Macedonian Empire" (a local view point in RoM, not widely accepted). Also, take a look at wikipedia what actually was the "Macedonian Empire" and how is the country that Samuel of Bulgaria ruled called. Macedonism view point does not have place on map - it can be mentioned in the article that there's a minority view point of macedonian historians, but have no place on map. "Macedonian" on the map is not "an additional explanation", but macedonism minority view point forced in Yougoslavia during the communist rule and widely spread only in the present "Republic of Macedonia". Let's leave the local viewpoints for the local wikpedias. The map is done to illustrate the article, not to confuse the readers with the local viewpoint of Republic of Macedonia with mixed geographical/ethnical/naming terms. --StanProg (talk) 12:36, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
- Ok, what exactly you do not understand? I explained that I am author of that initial map version as well and that I simply improved my own work with more NPOV map version. Also, please do not point to Wikipedia article written by you (or your propaganda-war comrades) as to a source for anything. Also if Macedonian historians are in minority compared to Bulgarian or Greek ones in this question that does not mean that they are wrong. You cannot completelly ignore point of view of entire historiography from one country about a question that speak about a history of that same country. So, the only reason why you object that point of view of Macedonian historians is presented is your own Greater Bulgarian nationalism (it is clear that all objections to my map on this page came from Bulgarian and Greek nationalists and there was no single person from any other country that expressed its objection here). Furthermore, if point of view of Macedonian historians "can be mentioned in the article" as you say, then I do not see why it cannot be indicated in the map itself (you contradicting to yourself in this case, you know...). And I also do not see how any reader could be "confused" if various points of view about something are presented to him. On the contrary, everybody will be confused if they read your nationalistic story about "Bulgarian character Macedonia" and then visit that coutry and see that you lied and that things in Macedonia are completelly different. Finally, do you sincerelly believe that spread of anti-Macedonian propaganda in web sites such is Wikipedia will result into future event in which Macedonia will cease to exist as independent country and will become part of Greater Bulgaria? If you believe in that then something is very wrong with your inteligence level. PANONIAN (talk) 22:18, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
- What NPOV? We have a majority view point (First Bulgarian Empire, russian historians call it Western Bulgarian Kingdom) and fringe theory (Macedonian Empire) supported by historians in Republic of Macedonia (and some from ex-Yougoslavia). It cannot be "indicated" in the map, because it's fringe theory. In the reliable historical sources the term "Macedonian Empire" is used only in the context of the Ancient Macedon. Please, stick to the topic and provide reliable sources that the term "Macedonian Empire" is used in the context of the First Bulgairan Empire/Kingdom and that it's the majority, widely accepted view point. Regards! --StanProg (talk) 00:14, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
- This is not a voting for a president where we count majority vs minority. History professors and academicians from Macedonia are valid scientific workers, so their opinion has to be respected, like opinion of all other professors. It is not any "fringe theory", but official viewpoint of official historians ("fringe theories" usually do not come from official historians). As for indication in a map, everything can be indicated in a map, and I do not see who appointed you to judge what can be indicated in a map. As for reliable sources, I already provided official web site of Macedonian government and there is no source more reliable than that one to show that term "Macedonian" is used to describe empire of Samuil. PANONIAN (talk) 20:55, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
- What NPOV? We have a majority view point (First Bulgarian Empire, russian historians call it Western Bulgarian Kingdom) and fringe theory (Macedonian Empire) supported by historians in Republic of Macedonia (and some from ex-Yougoslavia). It cannot be "indicated" in the map, because it's fringe theory. In the reliable historical sources the term "Macedonian Empire" is used only in the context of the Ancient Macedon. Please, stick to the topic and provide reliable sources that the term "Macedonian Empire" is used in the context of the First Bulgairan Empire/Kingdom and that it's the majority, widely accepted view point. Regards! --StanProg (talk) 00:14, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
- Ok, what exactly you do not understand? I explained that I am author of that initial map version as well and that I simply improved my own work with more NPOV map version. Also, please do not point to Wikipedia article written by you (or your propaganda-war comrades) as to a source for anything. Also if Macedonian historians are in minority compared to Bulgarian or Greek ones in this question that does not mean that they are wrong. You cannot completelly ignore point of view of entire historiography from one country about a question that speak about a history of that same country. So, the only reason why you object that point of view of Macedonian historians is presented is your own Greater Bulgarian nationalism (it is clear that all objections to my map on this page came from Bulgarian and Greek nationalists and there was no single person from any other country that expressed its objection here). Furthermore, if point of view of Macedonian historians "can be mentioned in the article" as you say, then I do not see why it cannot be indicated in the map itself (you contradicting to yourself in this case, you know...). And I also do not see how any reader could be "confused" if various points of view about something are presented to him. On the contrary, everybody will be confused if they read your nationalistic story about "Bulgarian character Macedonia" and then visit that coutry and see that you lied and that things in Macedonia are completelly different. Finally, do you sincerelly believe that spread of anti-Macedonian propaganda in web sites such is Wikipedia will result into future event in which Macedonia will cease to exist as independent country and will become part of Greater Bulgaria? If you believe in that then something is very wrong with your inteligence level. PANONIAN (talk) 22:18, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
- Before you continue this conversation, please take a look at the article Samuel of Bulgaria and especially the section "Nomenclature". Regards! --StanProg (talk) 20:24, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
- Why would I read article written by you (or some other Bulgarian nationalist) and since when an article written by you is a source for anything? Things about entire history of Macedonia are very clear to me: Bulgarians and Greeks have very agressive propaganda against Macedonia, stealing its history and claiming that historical Macedonian empires (both, of Samuil and Alexander) were in fact Bulgarian and Greek. That is just example of an outrage nationalism and nothing more. PANONIAN (talk) 20:55, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
- Before you continue this conversation, please take a look at the article Samuel of Bulgaria and especially the section "Nomenclature". Regards! --StanProg (talk) 20:24, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
Let's summarize. The problem here is not the existence of a fringe theory name on the map. The problem is, that when changing the name of the Bulgarian Empire with the name from the fringe theory this affects all the articles, not only the one on the Macedonian Wikipedia. This way you're forcing a fringe theory on all Wikipedia articles that initially have used the map with the original (facts proven, majority viewpoint, etc.) name. What you should do is, to upload the map under other name, pointing that this is strictly "Macedonian points of view", both as image name and "Legend" on the image. The minority view points (although, this is more fringe theory than minority VP), should be indicated as such. --StanProg (talk) 20:24, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
- The problem here is that there is no "fringe theory", but official theory from official historians (and by the way, these historians are speaking about history of their own country). As for this map, you removed it from all articles, so I do not see how it "affects all the articles", but speaking about articles themselves they are based on single POV and all of them should be rewritten to reflect Macedonian views as well. Also, I am not forcing anything, my work was made in very good faith and in NPOV way (not to mention that I am even not an Macedonian), but it is you who forcing an outrage ethnic nationalism and hate against Macedonians in the way that every decent man (or woman) would have to puke when see what you doing. As for your proposal what I should do, I uploaded another map reflecting only Macedonian view, but you proposed that map for deletion as well (how nice from your side, dont you think?). PANONIAN (talk) 20:55, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
- The problem is not the uploaded a map with the local Macedonian view point, which is considered fringe theory. The problem is that the original map have been replaced with a new one, promoting a fringe theory. That's why asked to be uploaded as a separate map, not replacing the original map. This is the also the reason why I cleaned this map from the articles - because it's not the same. Also, in the map is not indicated that this is a map based on a fringe theory. This should be mentioned, else, it's for deletion - bad/misleading naming. --StanProg (talk) 22:52, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
- The problem is that there is no "fringe theory" here - official point of view of historians from one country is not a "fringe theory". As for original map, I am author of original map as well, so new map version was simply uploaded as an improvement that would not reflect only Bulgarian POV about the subject. I also do not see why would I indicate in a map that it represent "fringe theory" when there is no any proof for your claims that it is a "fringe theory". PANONIAN (talk) 21:29, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
- The problem is not the uploaded a map with the local Macedonian view point, which is considered fringe theory. The problem is that the original map have been replaced with a new one, promoting a fringe theory. That's why asked to be uploaded as a separate map, not replacing the original map. This is the also the reason why I cleaned this map from the articles - because it's not the same. Also, in the map is not indicated that this is a map based on a fringe theory. This should be mentioned, else, it's for deletion - bad/misleading naming. --StanProg (talk) 22:52, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
- The problem here is that there is no "fringe theory", but official theory from official historians (and by the way, these historians are speaking about history of their own country). As for this map, you removed it from all articles, so I do not see how it "affects all the articles", but speaking about articles themselves they are based on single POV and all of them should be rewritten to reflect Macedonian views as well. Also, I am not forcing anything, my work was made in very good faith and in NPOV way (not to mention that I am even not an Macedonian), but it is you who forcing an outrage ethnic nationalism and hate against Macedonians in the way that every decent man (or woman) would have to puke when see what you doing. As for your proposal what I should do, I uploaded another map reflecting only Macedonian view, but you proposed that map for deletion as well (how nice from your side, dont you think?). PANONIAN (talk) 20:55, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
Kept, image is within project scope. Kameraad Pjotr 19:05, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
Unused. Exact copy of File:Ahtum_sermon03_01.png. Zoupan (talk) 21:09, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
- Keep - it is not correct that "File:Ahtum_sermon03_01.png" is "an exact copy" of this file. There is substantial difference in point of view in two files: one have description "Bulgarian Empire" and another one have description "Bulgarian (Macedonian) Empire" reflecting different points of view of historians from Bulgaria and Macedonia. Also, the file was used, but looks that somebody removed it from some pages. However, this does not mean that file will not be used somewhere in the future. It is important that other point of view about national character of empire of Samuil is presented somewhere. PANONIAN (talk) 16:13, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
Kept INeverCry 18:30, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
Nearly the same as File:Contribs icon.svg, unused, likely to violate 18 USC § 706. A black version would be preferable. SaMi ✉ 19:20, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
- I don't care, not using it anymore anyways. I was planning to... bout not anymore. Also, remember to post copies of warnings to my Wikipedia Talk Page lease. :) 15:18, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
- I did post it for you: [18]. Please don't take this too seriously. --SaMi ✉ 20:25, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
Kept, file is within project scope; see no legal problems. Kameraad Pjotr 21:03, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
- very Low quality, subject is already covered(i made this file), not in usageMegistias (talk) 23:24, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
Kept, file seems within project scope. Kameraad Pjotr 21:12, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
Judging by uploader's other contributions, no reason to believe free license is valid. IMage found here: http://www.laschivasrayadas.com.mx/media/galeria/325/2/0/6/6/o_chivas_guadalajara_javier_hernandez_balcazar-1346602.jpg Ytoyoda (talk) 03:48, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
- Speedy deletion Copyvio. Tbhotch (talk) 06:59, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, copyright violation. Kameraad Pjotr 20:21, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Building was designed by Lev Rudnev who died in 1956. There is no FOP in Russia. Fernrohr (talk) 04:19, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
.JPG){kind=link}
Deleted, no freedom of panorama in the former Soviet Union. Kameraad Pjotr 20:05, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
.JPG){kind=link}
Building was designed by Lev Rudnev who died in 1956. There is no FOP in Russia. Fernrohr (talk) 04:23, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
- Keep А разве изображения зданий подпадают под «запрет свободной панорамы»? Получается, если мой дом построен в 2007, то я не смогу его сфотографировать и разместить под свободной лицензией еще лет 100?
- Are images of building rules by «NO FOP in Russia»? it is rule for sculptures but nut buildings.--Anatoliy (talk) 18:06, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
- There is no FOP in Russia ([19]), and Russian law is applied retroactively to Soviet works ([20]). --Fernrohr (talk) 18:10, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
- No FOP spreads on sculptures, but not architecture.--Anatoliy (talk) 18:13, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
- There is some FOP in Russia, see w:Russian_copyright_law#Extent_of_copyrights:
- Another free use concerns the freedom of panorama: works of the visual arts, photography, or architecture that are permanently installed in publicly accessible places (which includes museums or exhibition halls) may be reproduced if the work is not the main subject of the reproduction and if the reproduction is used only non-commercially.
- Compare Commons:Deletion requests/File:Moskau Uni.jpg.
- If you delete these pictures of Category:Main building of Moscow State University, wiki-page couldn't illustrate any Russian building. -- Juetho (talk) 14:28, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
- There is no FOP in Russia ([19]), and Russian law is applied retroactively to Soviet works ([20]). --Fernrohr (talk) 18:10, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, no freedom of panorama in the former Soviet Union. Kameraad Pjotr 19:43, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
I see no permission by the copyright holder Annies, only by the fotographer 88.215.98.48 08:40, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, no permission by the artist. Kameraad Pjotr 19:21, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
I serverelly doubt this license {{PD-ineligible}} can apply to an image such as this one. Some legislatures might accept such snappshots as being inelligible, but that is hard to decide. PaterMcFly (talk) 11:12, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
- Deleteclear case--DieBuche (talk) 13:08, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
- Delete This is a photo from 20minutos.es, free CC-BY-SA-2.1-es newspaper: [21]. But I don't really like uncredited photos from 20minutos.es, there are a lot of copyvios from photo agencies among them. Trycatch (talk) 22:31, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, clear copyright violation. Kameraad Pjotr 19:42, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Sadly not free licensed, on EnWiki it was tagged with a custom tag that that indicated attribution use on Wikimedia projects only, and here the user further clearify that he does not intend to allow commercial use or the creation of derivatives. Sherool (talk) 12:00, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted, per Commons:Deletion requests/File:HMS Dumbarton Castle (P265).jpg. Kameraad Pjotr 19:47, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Sadly not free licensed, the original used a custom template, not the CC attribution one. Uploader have clearified that his images where not intended for use outside of Wikimedia sites and that commercial and derivative user are not allowed. Sherool (talk) 12:39, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted, licence is not free enough for commons. Kameraad Pjotr 19:45, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
tif format difficult to use. file was changed to png format Dimtet (talk) 12:49, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, uploader request and replaced with File:HaptiHug structure.png. Kameraad Pjotr 20:03, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
Not a real png2svg conversion // Sertion 15:06, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
Delete Yep. And 75KB vs. 1,73MB? Doesn't look like an improvement... --Mouagip (talk) 18:37, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, out of project scope. Kameraad Pjotr 20:25, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
Image is only free for non-commercial use until 70 years following the architect's death per COM:FOP#Iceland. Architect was Björn Guðbrandsson. He lives. Fingalo (talk) 18:59, 23 August 2010 (UTC) --Fingalo (talk) 19:02, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
- Keep. Dito, looks like lots of other hotels in the world. --PaterMcFly (talk) 20:41, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
Somehow looks all hotels a little similiar. See also File:HotelSaga1.jpg The law is clear. Fingalo (talk) 16:56, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, no freedom of panorama in Iceland. Kameraad Pjotr 20:34, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
Mrs. Sammüller don't want to be published in this way. You can shoot an other foto, but please delete this one. Gradl (talk) 19:07, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
Kept, public occasion, so no privacy concerns. Kameraad Pjotr 20:02, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
2ème image modifiée mis en ligne Test89 (talk) 19:32, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
Kept, unclear deletion request. Kameraad Pjotr 21:55, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
Converted from copyvio: French ceramics from the 50's, still copyrighted. Tagged by Bibi Saint-Pol. ZooFari 19:56, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, could be {{PD-ineligible}} if the threshold of originality in France is sufficiently low. Kameraad Pjotr 20:11, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
Converted from copyvio: We can see that was a scan from a brochure. Tagged by Dédélembrouille ZooFari 19:58, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
- Delete obviously, look at the wheels. Trycatch (talk) 22:14, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, clear copyright violation. Kameraad Pjotr 21:11, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
Converted from copyvio: French ceramics from the 60's, still copyrighted. Tagged by User:Bibi Saint-Pol. ZooFari 20:00, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
Kept, writings are {{PD-ineligible}}. Kameraad Pjotr 19:53, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
This picture was added by an user who is notorius for his attemps to bring his own original research views to (Finnish) Wikipedia. The Eastern European region described here is sourceless and probably his own idea. ML (talk) 20:24, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
Kept, without reliable sources to the contrary, I see no reason why this should be out of project scope. Kameraad Pjotr 21:22, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
This picture was added by an user who is notorius for his attemps to bring his own original research views to (Finnish) Wikipedia. The Central European region described here is sourceless and probably his own idea. ML (talk) 20:27, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
Kept, without reliable source information, I see no reason why this image should be out of project scope. Kameraad Pjotr 20:19, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
This is a derivative work; it is clearly a photo if a TV screen rtc (talk) 21:51, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
- CommentIn fact, I took this picture at the scene of the incident by myself camera from a 5tv reporter's video camera screen under his permission and he declared the still image I took is not copyright protected. Is it OK for commons?Sakuradate (talk) 22:38, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
- Unfortunately not. The camera guy has contracts with his employer that say that he signs away the copyright of his video camera shoots. He thus cannot give you permission. The claim that the image is not copyrighted is incorrect. I'm sorry that the picture cannot be kept for legal reasons, it's a good one. Next time, be sure to have a telephoto lens with you. --rtc (talk) 00:32, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
- Comment Depending on the situation, it could be argued that the reporter was simply violating a non-copyright-related provision of his contract by using the video camera for a non-job-related purpose, especially if rtc had his hand on the video camera and was sort of controlling it. If a software company lets you use their resources to write a code and you go and draw an anime cartoon, they don't own the copyright to your cartoon, but you'll probably get fired. -- King of Hearts (talk) 20:51, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
- You mean Sakuradate has his hand on the video camera and was sort of controlling it. I seriously doubt that: The camera was live on international TV and the standard assumption that it was the reporter who was filming cannot be refuted. Reporters are strictly advised not to let any other guy use the camera, for obvious reasons. This guy could do all sorts of silly stuff and he would also own copyright (since in contrast to the reporter he has no such contract with the TV network), causing an international TV broadcast to be done without sufficient copyright clearance, potentially causing huge claims for compensation (millions of $$) for the copyright violation. --rtc (talk) 21:48, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
- It is possible (and quite likely) that he allowed Sakuradate to do his shot while he wasn't even filming (thus what Sakuradate captured was in w:live view, but not recording). Otherwise, their conversation would have been captured and broadcast, which would have sounded ridiculous. -- King of Hearts (talk) 23:37, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
- We cannot speculate about such things and have to make the standard assumption that it was the reporter who held the camera. --rtc (talk) 08:33, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
- It is possible (and quite likely) that he allowed Sakuradate to do his shot while he wasn't even filming (thus what Sakuradate captured was in w:live view, but not recording). Otherwise, their conversation would have been captured and broadcast, which would have sounded ridiculous. -- King of Hearts (talk) 23:37, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
- You mean Sakuradate has his hand on the video camera and was sort of controlling it. I seriously doubt that: The camera was live on international TV and the standard assumption that it was the reporter who was filming cannot be refuted. Reporters are strictly advised not to let any other guy use the camera, for obvious reasons. This guy could do all sorts of silly stuff and he would also own copyright (since in contrast to the reporter he has no such contract with the TV network), causing an international TV broadcast to be done without sufficient copyright clearance, potentially causing huge claims for compensation (millions of $$) for the copyright violation. --rtc (talk) 21:48, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
- Comment Here is the original photo[22], the video camera screen where I took the picture[23] and the cameraman[24].... for reference, will be deleted after this discuss.Sakuradate (talk) 19:49, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
- It has not been disputed that you took the picture. --rtc (talk) 21:15, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
- Btw, other pictures are very interesting, too. Trycatch (talk) 20:50, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
- Comment ><, I may put that picture on my own server later.Sakuradate (talk) 13:11, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
![[22]](http://www.cathayglory.org/storage/DSCF7278_resize.JPG){kind=link}
![[23]](http://www.cathayglory.org/storage/DSCF7274_resize.JPG){kind=link}
![[24]](http://www.cathayglory.org/storage/DSCF7269_resize.JPG){kind=link}
Deleted, unfortunately, copyright is held by the reporter/TV network, and this is derivative work. Kameraad Pjotr 19:44, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
No Commons:Freedom of panorama#Japan and copyvio as literary work. --Vantey (talk) 23:13, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, no freedom of panorama in Japan. Kameraad Pjotr 19:25, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
Derivate work from this character ([25]), copyrighted by Akira Toriyama, Shueisha and Toei Animation. Nominated by Grizzly Sigma --Màñü飆¹5 talk 11:16, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
![[25]](http://www.universosaiyajin.com/imagenes_biografias/krillin.jpg){kind=link}
- Delete - this one's iffy, but I'm tending towards deletion on the grounds of copyright paranoia and that it's generally crap. -mattbuck (Talk) 11:21, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
- I disagree. I think the file shouldn't be deleted, cause it's different from the Akira's work. --MisterSanderson (talk) 21:57, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
Kept, very low quality, but used and thus within project scope; different enough from the original not to be a derivative work. Kameraad Pjotr 19:41, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
useless or derivative work grillo (talk) 21:22, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
- Comment I didn't see that there had already been a deletion debate when I clicked nominate for deletion on this image... If this is ok, then speedy keep. /grillo (talk) 21:34, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
Derivateive work contains several copyrighted designs and freedom of panorama cannot apply since not part of a public display; would require a Fair-Use rationale. Hence inappropriate for Commons. Rodhullandemu (talk) 21:11, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
- Delete A straight on image of a copywritten 2-dimensional object is clearly a derivative work with no other plausible purpose than illustrating said copwritten object. Solid State Survivor (talk) 06:50, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, derivative work of a copyrighted design. Kameraad Pjotr 18:27, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
error in file uploads! ~ Ciar ~ (Talk to me!) 05:16, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
Question Are you propose for deletion the whole file, or only the first revision? Trycatch (talk) 19:03, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
- The whole thing please, and thanks! ~ Ciar ~ (Talk to me!) 19:27, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
- Could you explain, why you want to delete this file? It seems to be everything fine with it. Trycatch (talk) 19:40, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
- I completely uploaded the wrong file, twice. It was a mess, so I started over and reuploaded the correct images under more appropriate file names. This file thus is a duplicate of corrected files. ~ Ciar ~ (Talk to me!) 19:42, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
- Could you explain, why you want to delete this file? It seems to be everything fine with it. Trycatch (talk) 19:40, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
- The whole thing please, and thanks! ~ Ciar ~ (Talk to me!) 19:27, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
Delete If the uploader want it, we have to delete his/her image. Luispihormiguero (talk) 19:39, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, uploader request. File is not in use. Kameraad Pjotr 19:13, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Inferior version of File:Q_Train_(1988-2001).svg. Train2104 (talk) 14:07, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
.svg){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
- What's the difference? Nyttend (talk) 16:54, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
- png vs svg. Delete--DieBuche (talk) 17:59, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
- Ahh, okay; I'd missed that. Nyttend (talk) 19:20, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
- Slightly OT, I'm trying to make a file using four of these bullets, but my PC won't let me read *.svg files unless they're already attached to a page. How can I fix this? ----DanTD (talk) 02:14, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
- Ahh, okay; I'd missed that. Nyttend (talk) 19:20, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
- png vs svg.
Deleted, out of project scope (inferior quality). Kameraad Pjotr 20:36, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
Building was designed by Lev Rudnev who died in 1956. There is no FOP in Russia. Fernrohr (talk) 04:22, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
- Delete no FOP in Russia. Pity though, this is a good picture. MKFI (talk) 18:35, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, no freedom of panorama in Russia. Kameraad Pjotr 19:02, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
duble file - error from me GFreihalter (talk) 12:58, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, uploader request. Kameraad Pjotr 20:33, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
This picture was added by an user who is notorius for his attemps to bring his own original research views to (Finnish) Wikipedia. The Northern European region described here is sourceless and probably his own idea. ML (talk) 20:25, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, out of project scope. Kameraad Pjotr 19:12, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
poor quality, not used on any Wiki project CLI (talk) 20:40, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, out of project scope: quality is too low. Kameraad Pjotr 19:05, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
Duplicate of Telemark-1945_Nynorsk.png --Eivindgh (talk) 12:27, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
- Different percentages?--DieBuche (talk) 15:10, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
Kept, both files are different. Kameraad Pjotr 22:21, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
Do not want this image listed Robbierowlands (talk) 08:18, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, uploader request, file is not in use. Kameraad Pjotr 19:54, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
Unauthorised usage of the picture from the SadarVuga buroeau website, it is THEIR picture, therefore copyright breakage. --Prunk (talk) 11:55, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
- Delete /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:01, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted, copyright violation. Kameraad Pjotr 22:08, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
Unauthorised usage of the picture from the SadarVuga ( http://www.sadarvuga.com/php/project.php?id=59 ) buroeau website - non-free copyright break -- Prunk (talk) 12:28, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
- Delete - seems unlikely to be own work. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:04, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted, copyright violation. Kameraad Pjotr 22:07, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
Not used (better version available http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Nl-luchtmacht-soldaat_der_2e_klasse.svg) Huhbakker (talk) 15:09, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
- "Not used" is not a reason for deletion (we never know who's pointing to it from outside WMF), and they are in different formats. That said, in this case the image is so simple I don't care. If it were up to me, I'd keep but if there is consensus the other way, no problem. - Jmabel ! talk 22:59, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
Kept, per Jmabel. Kameraad Pjotr 21:40, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
The photographer has been contacted by the model asking that the photo be removed. He in turn contacted me. Tabercil (talk) 18:02, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, uploader request & file is not in use. Kameraad Pjotr 19:50, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
Company logo of some sort. Likely copyrighted. No reason given to suggest that uploader is copyright holder. FASTILY (TALK) 19:13, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
- On second thought, pd-ineligible may apply. Hmmm. -FASTILY (TALK) 19:14, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
- Keep I'd say so. 3D-Text doesn't make a logo special nowadays. --PaterMcFly (talk) 20:43, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
- Comment PD-ineligible, but this is not in use anyway. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:09, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted, out of project scope (promotional). Kameraad Pjotr 22:11, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
This picture was added by an user who is notorius for his attemps to bring his own original research views to (Finnish) Wikipedia. The Southern European region described here is sourceless and probably his own idea. ML (talk) 20:28, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
Kept, this "Southern Europe" seems quite valid. Kameraad Pjotr 21:47, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
OUt of focus, unused anywhere and insufficiently detailed to illustrate its subject Rodhullandemu (talk) 21:35, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, out of project scope. Kameraad Pjotr 22:32, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
I'm not convinced this logo is ineligible for copyright. The gradient and coloration of the letters (especially the effect on unlimited) seems original enough to me. –Tryphon☂ 11:06, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
- There's a previous DR; apparently, I was more liberal in the past ;) –Tryphon☂ 11:08, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
- Delete copyvio, variant of http://www.vanguardunlimited.com/images/logo.gif and see also Commons:Deletion requests/Image:VGUlogo3.JPG — Jeff G. ツ 21:43, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
- Comment - does not pass Threshold of originality#United States; however, this is not in use. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 17:59, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted, out of project scope. Kameraad Pjotr 19:36, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
Promotional photo of a notable individual. Likely copyrighted. No reason given to suggest that uploader is copyright holder. FASTILY (TALK) 19:14, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Promotional photo? Unlikely. Promotional photos are rarely created using cheap compact point-and-shoot cams. Take a look at the full resolution version, and you'll see that the quality in fact is far from great. I can't find this photo in the web, so I tend to believe the user. Trycatch (talk) 22:09, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
- Keep pretty good for that camera. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:27, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
Kept, AGF on uploaders behalf. Kameraad Pjotr 19:51, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
Convert from copyvio: French ceramics from the 60's, still copyrighted. Tagged by User:Bibi Saint-Pol. ZooFari 20:13, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
- Keep - I see nothing copyrightable here. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:29, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
Kept, there is nothing copyrightable in the image. Kameraad Pjotr 19:22, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
FoP in UAE
[edit]
- File:2006-11-17 Emirates Towers 3.jpg
- File:2006-11-17 Emirates Towers 2.jpg
- File:2006-11-17 Emirates Towers 5.jpg
- File:Al Kazim Towers on 15 December 2007.jpg
- File:Al Kazim Towers on 19 January 2008.jpg
- File:Al Kazim Towers on 28 October 2007.jpg
- File:Al Kazim Towers Under Construction on 24 August 2007.jpg
- File:Al Kazim Towers Under Construction on 28 June 2007.jpg
- File:AlKazimTowers.jpg
- File:Angsana Hotel & Suites on 25 January 2008.jpg
No FoP in the UAE. 84.61.154.154 08:43, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
- I think all pictures of the UAE where a house is fully visible should be deleted. FoP is FoP and I do not believe that the way this regulation is handled on Commons leaves any space for considerations. Therefore delete this picture along with all others which might fall under the FoP of the UAE! Simisa (talk) 10:24, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
- Delete per nom--DieBuche (talk) 14:38, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
Stop being such a fucking photo nazi. 72.208.97.129 16:35, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Construction images deleted as well, as they were already showing permanent exterior design. ZooFari 00:55, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
unused private image - out of scope Cholo Aleman (talk) 09:14, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
unused private image - out of scope Cholo Aleman (talk) 09:14, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. ZooFari 00:59, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
Will not be needed for any article anymore Xarquis (talk) 18:57, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
No usage 63.87.170.71 22:56, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, out of project scope. Kameraad Pjotr 21:13, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
The front feet have too many claws, and the body is too big. Conty (talk) 12:45, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
Head to small. The frontfeet have too many claws. Conty (talk) 18:41, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
Kept, file is in use and thus within project scope. Kameraad Pjotr 19:15, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
Head disproportionarly small for a ceratopsid/legs with kneecaps/frontfeet have too many claws. Conty (talk) 19:33, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
Kept, file is in use and thus with project scope. -- Infrogmation (talk) 11:38, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
It seems this image is from google earth, so NASA isn't the copyright owner. Avron (talk) 16:13, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
- I think this image can be classified as a non-free screenshot. I will replace the deletion template with the Non-free software screenshot template (on Wikipedia). This screenshot should have been uploaded on Wikipedia. --Trickymaster (talk) 01:55, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
- Google earth's images dating from 1950 are free because it comes from NASA, it is written below. Have you got Google Earth ?
- Cody escadron delta (talk) 08:04, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
- Then who put if for deletion? I see nothing wrong with it.--Trickymaster (talk) 06:56, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
- There is nothing like a "non-free screenshot"-license on Wikipedia. Maybe the raw-data comes from NASA but google earth combines the data to a new image. Is there a statement of google that this image is free?--Avron (talk) 16:53, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
- I'm sorry. I meant Non-free software screenshot. However, it can't be used for Wikimedia content.--Trickymaster (talk) 06:14, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
- images which dates from 1930 are free because underneath, it's marked "NASA's image" Cody escadron delta (talk) 13:26, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
- 1930? What "image" do you mean? The file "Earth_1950" is a CGI (computer generated image) and it istn't from NASA. --Avron (talk) 15:37, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
- Have you got Earth Google? No because otherwise, you would know it
- Cody escadron delta (talk) 18:17, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
- If you can't prove a free license, so this image has do be deleted. See also [26] --Avron (talk) 19:34, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
- "image " is "picture" in english. Cody escadron delta (talk) 14:50, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
- There is marked that the pictures are free. Cody escadron delta (talk) 14:55, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
- "image " is "picture" in english. Cody escadron delta (talk) 14:50, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
- If you can't prove a free license, so this image has do be deleted. See also [26] --Avron (talk) 19:34, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
- 1930? What "image" do you mean? The file "Earth_1950" is a CGI (computer generated image) and it istn't from NASA. --Avron (talk) 15:37, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
- images which dates from 1930 are free because underneath, it's marked "NASA's image" Cody escadron delta (talk) 13:26, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
Other file, the same copyright-issue: File:Europe 1930.jpg --Avron (talk) 19:36, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Huib talk 18:11, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
This image is computer generated from Google Earth, not from NASA, and so cannot be used. Cpl Syx (talk) 00:43, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
- Going by the above discussion, it would appear that the same image has been uploaded again in spite of previous deletion. Cpl Syx (talk) 00:44, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Yea, but I don't really undestand the deletion above. If the data being displayed is from NASA, it is free, regardless of which program was used to render it. Whether you're using gimp or photoshop for image enhancements has no impact on the license of the final image. Using a computer program to process data does not add the copyright of the software manufacturer to the image. --PaterMcFly (talk) 11:36, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Per PaterMcFly Cody escadron delta (talk) 14:48, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
Delete Images from Google Earth are not free. Luispihormiguero (talk) 20:25, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, image was and still is protected by copyright. Kameraad Pjotr 21:19, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
Files of User:Initialge
[edit]Spam -- only use of these files and only edits by this user (on Commons and WP:EN) are his WP:EN User page which is pure self promotion, see:
and the files
Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:46, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
Komsomolskaya subway
[edit]- Komsomolskaya-Koltsevaya subway station in Moscow (en:Komsomolskaya (Koltsevaya Line))
These are images of architecturial works of en:Alexey Shchusev, who died in 1949. There is no FOP in Russia ([27]), and Russian law is applied retroactively to Soviet works ([28]). Should be category "Undelete in 2020/24". --Fernrohr (talk) 15:36, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
- Keep. See also Commons:Deletion requests/Aleshina. VanHelsing.16 (talk) 08:46, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, no freedom of panorama in the former Soviet Union. Kameraad Pjotr 20:51, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
Lenin Mausoleum
[edit]- Mausoleum of Vladimir Lenin in Moscow (en:Lenin's Mausoleum)
These are images of architecturial works of en:Alexey Shchusev, who died in 1949. There is no FOP in Russia ([29]), and Russian law is applied retroactively to Soviet works ([30]). Should be category "Undelete in 2020". --Fernrohr (talk) 15:31, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
- Not in 2020, but in 2024 -- Russia has 4-year copyright extension for those who worked during the Great Patriotic War. Of course this law can be changed in the future. Trycatch (talk) 16:21, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
- I wonder a little at why only one of the fourteen photographs is marked for deletion, plus which the seven stamps are under suspicion as well, unless someone can produce documentation that Schchusev signed over his rights as part of the stamp production process. Stan Shebs (talk) 16:30, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
- I have nominated the other images previously. --Fernrohr (talk) 17:37, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
- I wonder a little at why only one of the fourteen photographs is marked for deletion, plus which the seven stamps are under suspicion as well, unless someone can produce documentation that Schchusev signed over his rights as part of the stamp production process. Stan Shebs (talk) 16:30, 23 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) 07:15, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
Keep. We must preserve this photos despite what the law says, Think about the children for god-sake? Preserve these photos, don't let some dumb law stop us. Our kids need to be able to view these photos.
- I consider the argument "deletion is inconvenient and nobody will sue WMF based on this legalese crap, so let's ignore it" particularly inadequate. Nothing needs to be clarified, it is all pretty clear. Dura lex, sed lex, since you like Latin. --Fernrohr (talk) 08:21, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
- Delete We're not here to things "despite what the law says". Sadly it's pretty clear this has to go. Undeletion in 2020(24?). Hekerui (talk) 20:35, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
- I hope much more soon. It's possible that the law will be amended in early 2012, see Commons talk:Freedom of panorama#Possible FOP in Russia in the near future. Trycatch (talk) 20:44, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
Keep This is insanity, anybody remember the Ministry of Truth in "1984", erasing history? 72.208.97.129 04:53, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, no freedom of panorama in Russia. Kameraad Pjotr 20:19, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Images of User:M1keRTM
[edit]Convert from speedy by User:M1keRTM, reason given:
- "Veux supprimer l'ensemble de son compte svp"
Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:03, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
This DR (really a "keep request" after removing inappropriate {{Speedy delete}} from them all) applies to all of the following:
- File:GX127 RTM.jpg
- File:GX113 RTM.jpg
- File:GX327 RTM.jpg
- File:MetroRTM.jpg
- File:M1keGX327RTM.jpg
- File:O405N3 RTM.jpg
- File:RTM metro LOREIV.jpg
- File:RTM poteau LOREIV.jpg
- File:TramRTM.jpg
- File:TramwayRTM.jpg
- File:Valideurs rtm.jpg
- File:CitaroV RTM.jpg
- File:Cito RTM.jpg
Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:31, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
Keep I see no reason to delete these files. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:04, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
Keep There is no reason to delete this file. (MikeRTM is upset because of an edit fight on the French wikipedia.) --Rudloff (talk) 16:07, 23 August 2010 (UTC) (I copied this comment from an individual DR for one of these files while creating the mass dr -- JLW)
Keep Same reason as Rudloff --Kyah117 (talk) 20:10, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
Keep As above, I see no reason why the file should be deleted and don't understand why it was nominated. If the nominator can offer an explanation I'll review my vote. Editor5807speak 20:45, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
Keep If I demande to delete my picture, I think it's just my right. --M1keRTM
- So, you want to keep it too ? :D --Kyah117 (talk) 08:57, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
Keep. You have licensed the images under GFDL and CC-BY-SA licenses. Both licenses are non-revokable. No reason to delete. --Apalsola t • c 09:32, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
Information : m1keRTM has made a new request of deletion... And he wants to ask to CNIL if Wikimedia refuses. Deletion requests/m1keRTM--Kyah117 (talk) 10:26, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
Kept per above. You released your images under GFDL/CC-BY-SA, both irrevocable. --Màñü飆¹5 talk 16:36, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
Whitehouse Moscow
[edit]- Whitehouse building in Moscow (en:White House, Moscow)
.jpg){kind=link}
These are images of architecturial works of en:Dmitry Chechulin, who died in 1981. There is no FOP in Russia ([31]), and Russian law is applied retroactively to Soviet works ([32]). Should be category "Undelete in 2052/56". --Fernrohr (talk) 16:07, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
- The freedom of panorama is basically given, so saying "there is no FOP in russia" is simply wrong (Article 1276): "Reproduction, broadcasting to the air or via cable shall be allowed, without the author's or other copyrightholder consent or payment of royalties, of photographic work, work of architecture or visual art, that permanently standed in places of public resort..."
- The interpretation from "except where .. the work is used in commercial purposes", that because of a CC licence all pics of russian buildings have to be removed from Commons, is very special and IMO questionable. --Bernd.Brincken (talk) 19:55, 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) 07:16, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
- I consider the argument "deletion is inconvenient and nobody will sue WMF based on this legalese crap, so let's ignore it" particularly inadequate. Nothing needs to be clarified, it is all pretty clear. Dura lex, sed lex, since you like Latin. --Fernrohr (talk) 08:20, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
- Keep. Your interpretation is based on an automatic (babelfish) translation of the russian law, right? And you come here and try to teach us (latin) lessons in law? Did someone ever tell you that law is not a mathematical algorithm?
- See also: User_talk:Fernrohr#Erst_Bild_ansehen.2C_dann_LA_bitte --Bernd.Brincken (talk) 12:58, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
- No, my interpretaton is based on the two references mentioned in my nomination. The answer to your third question is yes. I happen to be a lawyer. --Fernrohr (talk) 19:15, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
- Lawyer seeking to broaden his perspective on international law ... fascinating. --Bernd.Brincken (talk) 22:46, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
- No, my interpretaton is based on the two references mentioned in my nomination. The answer to your third question is yes. I happen to be a lawyer. --Fernrohr (talk) 19:15, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
Keep The user Fernrohr is nothing but a menace to Wikimedia. This is incredibly absurd and action needs to be taken to stop the abuse of Deletion Requests. Administrator Jameslwoodward is also complicit in enabling these abuses and DOING THE ACTUAL DELETIONS. Deleted files include pictures of Lenin's Mausoleum, The Kremlin, and other PUBLIC buildings in the Russian Federation.
This kind of near robotic, bureaucratic lunacy is not only counter-intuitive and counter-productive, but defies common sense completely! 72.208.97.129 05:20, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
Delete All complain should be addressed to parlament of Russian Federation. Or ask permissions from architect heirs. Until law is changed, Commons should follow it. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 19:10, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
Keep. Are we going to illustrate Russia or not? Artem Karimov (talk) 15:26, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
Keep. Before submitting and executing this and other deletions, you must read Russian Civil Code. And please do not mix two different rights - for photo/panorama and for piece of architecture.
RCC 1276 Public accessible product usage freedom 1) the photo is not sold 2) the main purpose is to illustrate the article. Jeshev (talk) 15:26, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
- Please read COM:L and understand that the restriction “the photo is not sold” is the problem, i.e. we accept only media where commercial use is permitted. --AFBorchert (talk) 08:07, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
- You are absolutely right, so there's no images that could be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons in Russia unless its author granted full permission. Maybe anyone should state that those images shall be located outside Wikimedia Commons? Jeshev
- We'd better change Commons' policy regarding commercial use... Why should the majority of users that only read Wikipedia, or use it for educational, or other private purposes care about a few people's "need" to use those pics commercially?! --Amga (talk) 23:07, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
- You are absolutely right, so there's no images that could be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons in Russia unless its author granted full permission. Maybe anyone should state that those images shall be located outside Wikimedia Commons? Jeshev
Delete Not permitted on Commons, yet. Hekerui (talk) 20:39, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
- What exactly do you consider "not permitted", and why? --Bernd.Brincken (talk) 19:18, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
- Content that does not conform with our requirements for free content including the possibility of commercial use (which I realize you questioned above). Hekerui (talk) 23:05, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
- Ok, based on which sources do you derive this conclusion? --Bernd.Brincken (talk) 23:23, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
- Commons:Licensing. Are you trying to make a point or are you sincere? Hekerui (talk) 00:51, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
- I am really interested to know where you found a qualified translation of the russian law in question - or maybe you are savvy in russian legal language yourself? --Bernd.Brincken (talk) 01:01, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
- I trusted the translation at COM:FOP. If you think it's incorrectly translated, please raise that as an issue. Thanks Hekerui (talk) 09:36, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
- This is only a translation of a part of the law, not the court cases, not the russian legal comments. Thin ice IMHO to wash all pictures of public places or buildings out of Commons. --Bernd.Brincken (talk) 10:31, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
- I trusted the translation at COM:FOP. If you think it's incorrectly translated, please raise that as an issue. Thanks Hekerui (talk) 09:36, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
- I am really interested to know where you found a qualified translation of the russian law in question - or maybe you are savvy in russian legal language yourself? --Bernd.Brincken (talk) 01:01, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
- Commons:Licensing. Are you trying to make a point or are you sincere? Hekerui (talk) 00:51, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
- Ok, based on which sources do you derive this conclusion? --Bernd.Brincken (talk) 23:23, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
- Content that does not conform with our requirements for free content including the possibility of commercial use (which I realize you questioned above). Hekerui (talk) 23:05, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, no freedom of panorama in the former Soviet Union. Kameraad Pjotr 20:50, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
Polyakov
[edit]- Pushkinskaya subway station in St. Petersburg (ru:Пушкинская (станция метро, Санкт-Петербург))
- File:Pushkinskaya metrostation EX.jpg - depicts nearly nothing, not undeleted
- File:Puschkinskaja.jpg - depicts statue, not undeleted
- File:Pushkinskaya metrostation.jpg - exact dupe of File:Pushkinskaya metrostation EX.jpg, not undeleted
- File:Cross-walk Pushkinskaya - Zvenigorodskaya Bilding.jpg
- File:PushkinskayaToZvenigorodskayaCrossing2008-12-20j.jpg
- File:PushkinskayaToZvenigorodskayaCrossing2008-12-20h.jpg
- File:Pushkinskaya metrostation Floor-lamp.jpg - depicts nearly nothing, not undeleted
- File:Pushkinskaya metrostation luster.jpg
- File:Pushkinskaya metrostation inlaid floor.jpg
- File:Pushkinskaya metrostation wagon fretted ceiling.jpg - depicts reliefs, not undeleted
- File:Cross-walk Pushkinskaya - Zvenigorodskaya Bilding 0.jpg
- File:Cross-walk Pushkinskaya - Zvenigorodskaya 1.jpg
- File:PushkinskayaToZvenigorodskayaCrossing2009-03-07b.jpg
- File:Zvenigorodskaya2008-12-20-41.jpg
- File:Zvenigorodskaya2008-12-20-42.jpg
- File:PushkinskayaToZvenigorodskayaCrossing2008-12-20f.jpg
- File:PushkinskayaToZvenigorodskayaCrossing2008-12-20e.jpg
- File:PushkinskayaToZvenigorodskayaCrossing2008-12-20d.jpg
- File:PushkinskayaToZvenigorodskayaCrossing2008-12-20c.jpg
- File:PushkinskayaToZvenigorodskayaCrossing2008-12-20b.jpg
- File:PushkinskayaToZvenigorodskayaCrossing2008-12-20a.jpg
- Arbatskaya subway station in Moscow (en:Arbatskaya (Arbatsko-Pokrovskaya Line))
- File:Arbatskaya APL.JPG
- File:Moscow Arbatskaya Station.jpg
- File:Moscow Metro Arbatskaja.jpg
- File:Moscow Metro Station 1.jpg
- File:Arbatskaya Pokrovskaya Line Moscow Metro lamps.jpg - shows non-architectural artwork, not undeleted
- File:Arbatskaya Pokrovskaya Line Moscow Metro lamp.jpg - ditto
- File:Moscow Metro Arbatskaja-2.jpg
- File:Arbatskaya Moscow Metro plaque.jpg
- File:Arbatskaya APL side.JPG
- File:Arbatskaja arbpokr Barry Kent2.jpg
- File:Arbatskaja arbpokr Barry Kent.jpg
- File:Train in Moscow metro.jpg
- Kurskaya subway station in Moscow (en:Kurskaya (Arbatsko-Pokrovskaya Line))
- Oktyabrskaya subway station in Moscow (en:Oktyabrskaya (Koltsevaya Line))
- File:Oktyabrskaya KL 2010.jpg
- File:Oktyabrskaya-Koltsevaya.jpg
- File:Oktyabrskaya1.jpg
- File:Oktyabrskaya-Koltsevaya Old 3.jpg - possible copyvio, not undeleted
- File:Oktyabrskaya-Koltsevaya Old 2.jpg - ditto
- File:Oktyabrskaya-Koltsevaya Old 1.jpg - ditto
- File:Oktyabrskaya2.jpg - shows reliefs, not undeleted
These are images of architecturial works of Leonid Polyakov, who died in 1965 ([33]). There is no FOP in Russia ([34]), and Russian law is applied retroactively to Soviet works ([35]). Should be in category "Undelete in 2036/40". --Fernrohr (talk) 20:23, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
- If the current Commons policy forces to such mass deletions, the policy should be urgently revised. --ŠJů (talk) 22:07, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
- Btw, in Russia there is freedom of panorama (but limited to non-commercional use) but isn't freedom of portraying of architectural or sculptural works. The sentence "there is no FOP in Russia" is misguided. FOP is generally a very inaccurate abbrev for many countries: in some countries there are some released rights related to public places but have nothing to do with a "panorama".--ŠJů (talk) 22:13, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
- Keep File:Pushkinskaya metrostation inlaid floor.jpg -- nothing copyrightable here. Trycatch (talk) 18:55, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
- Keep - the architectural design as a whole is protected by copyright, but plain walls or ceilings aren't! --Barry Kent (talk) 20:10, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
- Keep. See also Commons:Deletion requests/Aleshina. VanHelsing.16 (talk) 08:45, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
Keep --Steindy (talk) 15:15, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Most images contain elaborate structures. Architect died in 1965, and without FoP (or proficient FoP for Commons, if that formulation is needed) we have to delete. Hekerui (talk) 19:55, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
Kept those that did not contain anything copyrightable, deleted the others as there is no freedom of panorama in the former Soviet Union. Kameraad Pjotr 20:47, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
Anikushin
[edit]- Pushkin statue in subway of St. Petersburg (ru:Пушкинская (станция метро, Санкт-Петербург))
- Outside sculptures and architecture in St. Petersburg
These are images of architecturial works of en:Mikhail Anikushin, who died in 1997. There is no FOP in Russia ([36]), and Russian law is applied retroactively to Soviet works ([37]). Should be in category "Undelete in 2068/72". --Fernrohr (talk) 21:15, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
- If the current Commons policy forces to such mass deletions, the policy should be urgently revised. --ŠJů (talk) 22:08, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
- This is not something we can change at Commons because it would otherwise conflict with this WMF resolution (look at point 2). --AFBorchert (talk) 06:06, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, this is stupid policy that could lead in case of uncompromising application to deletion about 70% of images from former Soviet Union. --Dezidor (talk) 08:12, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
- @AFBorchert: When I said "the policy should be urgently revised", I mean that he who prescribed such policy should revise whether these consequences and application are really in accordance with his intent. --ŠJů (talk) 09:26, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
- И где тут "основное изображение фотографии? Половина фотографий - скульптура занимает процентов 15 кадра, не больше. А в законе, между прочим, явным текстом написано, что МОЖЕТ воспроизводиться, если не является основным объектом изображения. #!95.161.2.76 04:31, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
- File:Sankt-Petěrburg 039.jpg and File:Moscplosh vid na mosk i len.jpg ---> Commons:De minimis. --Dezidor (talk) 08:12, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
- The problem is that Russian De minimis applies only to non-commercial use. «Допускается ... воспроизведение ..., за исключением случаев, когда (when it isn't "de minimis") ... либо когда изображение произведения используется в коммерческих целях.» The fatal problem is that Commons policy is "rather no image than a non-commercially limited image". The real effect is that we can delete almost all photos from countries where is not an absolute FOP. Every building, every park, every street and forest can be understood to be an architectural work, when we want be copyright-fundamentalists. --ŠJů (talk) 09:26, 24 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) 07:31, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
- I consider the argument "deletion is inconvenient and nobody will sue WMF based on this legalese crap, so let's ignore it" particularly inadequate. Nothing needs to be clarified, it is all pretty clear. Dura lex, sed lex, since you like Latin. --Fernrohr (talk) 08:19, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
- Delete No FOP for sculpture in Russia; those that disagree should work on changing the rules on Commons. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 13:47, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
- Delete No FOP for sculptures in Russia. Photographs of copyrighted sculptures are routinely deleted from Commons. This issue affects all countries where FOP does not exist or does not include statues. MKFI (talk) 16:03, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, no freedom of panorama in the former Soviet Union. Kept one that was de minimis. Kameraad Pjotr 20:29, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
Credited to United Press, a non-governmental news agency. As such, this has a normal copyright term. Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:17, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
- Where does it say that? And weren't they bought by the library on congress or something? G-Man (talk) 17:57, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
- Says that right here. "Notes: United Press photo.". The description page does not have "no known restrictions", nor is a full size image available for download. For the LOC, this generally means they don't own the copyright. Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:45, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:01, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
Not based on any genus. It should be. Conty (talk) 05:21, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
- Keep I suppose that reason amounts to "out of scope", but it is used on a wiki, which by definition makes it within scope. So whatever we think of its quality etc, keep. --Tony Wills (talk) 07:46, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
Kept: Sorry, the reason for the request in not really understandable. As the image is used, it is kept. -- Cecil (talk) 20:22, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
No reference to a particular fossil specimen it could be based upon + low quality Conty (talk) 14:21, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
Kept. It is still used and per COM:INUSE in our project scope. Taivo (talk) 12:22, 31 March 2021 (UTC)