Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2010/08/24
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
|
|
.PNG){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
,_No._7.jpg){kind=link}
![55 File:Moscow State University 02-2006.jpg (former title "File:Moscow State University.jpg")](#File:Moscow_State_University_02-2006.jpg_(former_title_"File:Moscow_State_University.jpg")){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
No file by this name exists. 116.71.50.54 03:16, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. --Màñü飆¹5 talk 09:17, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
No file by this name exists. 116.71.50.54 03:18, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
- This is the talk page of a user who blanked it and then moved it all over the place. KoOltaseen needs to be moved back to User talk:KoOltaseen (warning: the user has done enough moves that who knows where he move it after this post) and the user at least warned.--Prosfilaes (talk) 06:24, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
Moved. --Màñü飆¹5 talk 09:18, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
this Gallery is empty 116.71.50.54 03:21, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. --Màñü飆¹5 talk 09:15, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
.PNG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.PNG&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Nominating for deletion because a no-permission tag was removed by Adam Cuerden without any evidence of any CC license. Pieter Kuiper (talk) 07:32, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
.PNG){kind=link}
Delete I agree as uploader --Havang(nl) (talk) 10:44, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
Speedily deleted as a permission for commercial use is missing and the uploader consents to it. The permission which was seen by Adam Cuerden is restricted to non-commercial usage: De inhoud van deze site is bedoeld voor persoonlijk, niet-commercieel gebruik. Hence, we would need a OTRS permission for this file. --AFBorchert (talk) 11:48, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
.PNG){kind=link}
- Did anyone actually look at the links I provided that appeared to show permission? Adam Cuerden (talk) 13:32, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
- Adam you are right for the general part of the permission, but there is a slight contradiction between the older permission for commercial use, and the later additions which say that permission of the director of the BHIC is needed for commercial use; also there is an notice added on the site after the date of my upload concerning aerial photographs and after the permission given by the webmaster to me. I think, best is to delete this file/keep this file deleted. But thanks for having studied the case. --Havang(nl) (talk) 14:20, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
- If I understand correctly, the license there was changed after you uploaded here? If so, too bad for them. We do the same with Flickr - people cannot revoke a license once it is given. Wknight94 talk 14:47, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
- Adam you are right for the general part of the permission, but there is a slight contradiction between the older permission for commercial use, and the later additions which say that permission of the director of the BHIC is needed for commercial use; also there is an notice added on the site after the date of my upload concerning aerial photographs and after the permission given by the webmaster to me. I think, best is to delete this file/keep this file deleted. But thanks for having studied the case. --Havang(nl) (talk) 14:20, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
- Did anyone actually look at the links I provided that appeared to show permission? Adam Cuerden (talk) 13:32, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
Please don't continue the discussion after it's closed. We have COM:UNDEL. You're messing up the archives! Rocket000 (talk) 05:37, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
.PNG){kind=link}
Duplicat of File:Vikingtårnet.jpg Raats (talk) 13:00, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
Speedy deleted - No need to nominate duplicates, simple use {{Duplicate}} instead of {{Delete}}. –Krinkletalk 13:06, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
Bad upload, sorry Lamediasource (talk) 00:54, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Exact or scaled-down duplicate: File:Lauren Abraham backcountry.jpg -- Common Good (talk) 19:23, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
low resolution of LP cover to Anisio Silva André Koehne TALK TO ME 11:58, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
- Move to WP as non-free cover - Theornamentalist (talk) 16:46, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Copyright violation. -- Common Good (talk) 19:33, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
low resolution of CD cover to Anisio Silva André Koehne TALK TO ME 12:00, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
- Move to WP as non-free cover - Theornamentalist (talk) 16:46, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Copyright violation. -- Common Good (talk) 19:34, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
probable copyvio Jack Merridew 22:38, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
- nb: uploader blanked this page. Cheers, Jack Merridew 01:16, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. -mattbuck (Talk) 01:35, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
probable copyvio Jack Merridew 22:39, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. -mattbuck (Talk) 01:35, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
probable copyvio Jack Merridew 22:39, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. -mattbuck (Talk) 01:35, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
duplicate 4028mdk09 (talk) 09:46, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
- Delete out of project scope. File:The King Before The Show.jpg deleted (Exact duplicate) -- Common Good (talk) 19:31, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Julo (talk) 11:38, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
freedom of panorama (viole le droit d'auteur) Thargos (talk) 14:39, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted by Zirland: In category Copyright violations; no license
- Also adding duplicate File:Headshot1.jpg
Orphaned file, was used in an article on the English Wikipedia of a non-notable person that was speedily deleted over a year and a half ago. Falls outside of the scope of Wikipedia and Commons — ξxplicit 22:52, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Speedy as "out of scope" then Herby talk thyme 12:42, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
Bad upload, sorry Lamediasource (talk) 00:55, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. --Dferg (talk · meta) 14:40, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
empty User Talk 116.71.50.54 03:23, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
- It's empty because someone blanked it and then moved it all over the place. KoOltaseen needs to be moved back to User talk:KoOltaseen (warning: the user has done enough moves that who knows where he move it after this post) and the user at least warned.--Prosfilaes (talk) 06:24, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
Kept. --Màñü飆¹5 talk 06:08, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
Blank User talk 119.155.36.149 08:54, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
- Speedy
Keep we don't delete User talk pages, especially not those with histories.--Prosfilaes (talk) 09:14, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
Kept Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:38, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
adrese 188.26.37.86 04:52, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
- What?! --Alex:D (talk) 18:23, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
Kept. No clear reasons given for deletion. --Dferg (talk · meta) 14:41, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
out of project scope, bad quality, uncategorized and not used since Juli 2009 4028mdk09 (talk) 07:55, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. --Màñü飆¹5 talk 06:08, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
out of project scope, bad quality, not categorized or used since July 2009 4028mdk09 (talk) 08:06, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. --Màñü飆¹5 talk 06:09, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
bad quality, uncategorized and not used since February 2009 4028mdk09 (talk) 09:38, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. --Màñü飆¹5 talk 06:11, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
bad quality, not categorized or used since May 2009 4028mdk09 (talk) 09:49, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
- Delete forgot why I bothered to transfer this file. Multichill (talk) 10:05, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. --Màñü飆¹5 talk 06:11, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
screenshot of a video, unsharp, not categorized or used since July 2009 4028mdk09 (talk) 11:25, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. --Màñü飆¹5 talk 06:12, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
listas.20minutos.es is user generated content. This file was not created by 20minutos nor by a user, this is a press photo taken by some person from a random website and uploaded to 20minutos. In reality the copyright belongs to A. ARRIZURIETA/Agence France-Presse. Blatant copyright violation on the 20minutos servers. Martin H. (talk) 17:13, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
- Speedy delete, {{Copyvio}}. —LX (talk, contribs) 17:33, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. --Dferg (talk · meta) 14:46, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
totally unsharp, not categorized or used since July 2009 4028mdk09 (talk) 11:36, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Coyau (talk) 03:54, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
very small, unsharp, not categorized or used since July 2009 4028mdk09 (talk) 11:37, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. out of COM:SCOPE. Coyau (talk) 03:56, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
out of project scope, bad quality, not used or categorized since July 2009 4028mdk09 (talk) 11:54, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. ZooFari 22:41, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
bad quality, not used or categorized since August 2009 4028mdk09 (talk) 12:30, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
- Delete delete - per nomination. - Theornamentalist (talk) 16:43, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. ZooFari 22:42, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
art by user, out of scope --DieBuche (talk) 16:07, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
- Keep As long as it is validly freely licensed I see no reason why this should go. --Herby talk thyme 16:10, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Ditto --Giorgiomonteforti (talk) 23:03, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Personally I have nothing against collecting art. But the we would have to change the scope (3.4.4): "Examples of files that are not realistically useful for an educational purpose: … Self-created artwork without obvious educational use." The educational use is not obvious to me . --Jahobr (talk) 09:42, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete per Jahobr. Amada44 talk to me 11:28, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
- Delete self created art, not realistically useful for educational purposes. --Dschwen (talk) 14:34, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
- Delete self created art (and I am still believing that my request at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Creative independence.jpg should have resulted into a deletion). Teofilo (talk) 21:08, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. ZooFari 22:45, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
art by user, out of scope --DieBuche (talk) 16:07, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
- Keep As long as it is validly freely licensed I see no reason why this should go. --Herby talk thyme 16:09, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Ditto --Giorgiomonteforti (talk) 23:02, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Personally I have nothing against collecting art. But the we would have to change the scope (3.4.4): "Examples of files that are not realistically useful for an educational purpose: … Self-created artwork without obvious educational use." The educational use is not obvious to me . --Jahobr (talk) 09:41, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete per Jahobr. Amada44 talk to me 11:29, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
- Delete and there is a whole lot more like this to toss out. --Dschwen (talk) 14:21, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. ZooFari 22:46, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
Low resolution, no clear identification of the subject beyond a generic first name Tabercil (talk) 18:20, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted by ZooFari: No license as of 24 August 2010
upload error Gaujmalnieks (talk) 00:55, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 21:42, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
- Renomination #1
made a mistake while uploading using the "Flinfo"-tool; this useless page is that mistake.... — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 18:32, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
- Speedy delete per nom. VolodyA! V Anarhist (converse) 08:58, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 01:25, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Página en blanco Edubucher (talk) 22:32, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
Deleted, againYmblanter (talk) 20:19, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
bad quality, not categorized or used since July 2009 4028mdk09 (talk) 07:45, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Rocket000 (talk) 19:07, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
to small, uncategorized and unused since July 2009 4028mdk09 (talk) 08:18, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
Politische Agitation; der Benutzer kümmert sich zum wiederholten mal nicht um das Recht am eigenen Bild (vergl. [http://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Benutzer_Diskussion:Antiachtundsechziger&diff=77434828&oldid=77432015 ): das Vehikel ist identifizierbar aufgrund Bemalung, Nummernschild, Ort und Zeit der Aufnahme, offenbar ein Platz in Paris Mitte des 2000er Jahrzehntes. Political agitation; the author once again does not care for the right to one's own image (compare (vergl. [http://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Benutzer_Diskussion:Antiachtundsechziger&diff=77434828&oldid=77432015): the vehicle is clearly identifiable by paintings, registration plate, place and time of the shot, obvioulsy a place in Paris in the middle of the 2000's decade, --Rosenkohl (talk) 10:09, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
- Zur Sache: Das Bild ist keine Agitation, sondern eine harmlose Satire bezogen auf die 68er-Bewegung. Niemand wird persönlich angegriffen, keine falsche Tatsache verbreitet.
- Zum Hintergrund: Dieser Löschantrag ist Teil eines einsamen Feldzuges, den Benutzer:Rosenkohl gegen mich und meine Mitarbeit hier führt. Bisherige Stationen:
- R. löscht ein ebenfalls satirisches Bild aus meinem BNR [1], mit Begründung "Rechte der abgebildeten Personen am eigenen Bild und KPA beachten". Das Bild File:Woodstock redmond hair.JPG hatte ich nur eingebunden, aber nicht hochgeladen, für Bildrechte bin ich also der falsche Gegner. Ein persönlicher Angriff durch den Bildtext (ist übrigens aus Werner - Beinhart) würde mindestens voraussetzen, dass jemand die Personen auf dem Bild tatsächlich identifizieren kann.
- Um das vermeintliche Restrisiko auszuschalten und R. diese rührende Sorge zu nehmen, die sicher nichts mit seiner eigenen politischen Haltung zu tun hat, habe ich ein verändertes Bild File:Woodstock redmond hair faces covered.jpg eingestellt und eingebunden, auf dem alle Gesichter verdeckt sind.[2] Das dürfte ihm nach seiner vorherigen Aktion kaum entgangen sein, die Aussage "kümmert sich zum wiederholten mal nicht um das Recht am eigenen Bild" ist also glatt gelogen.
- Dieser Löschantrag folgt dem gleichen Muster. Diesmal allerdings, ohne mich zu informieren, womöglich in der Hoffnung, dass niemand die Versionsgeschichte von R.'s Link nachprüft.
- Ich habe File:Flower-Power Bus.jpg nicht hochgeladen, bin also für dessen Bild- und Personenrechte nicht zuständig (GNU- und CC-Lizenz waren angegeben). Dass jemand das Vehikel in meinem satirischen Derivat identifiziert, um das Ganze dann als PA interpretieren zu können ... weil ein Strichmännchen das Auto in eine Tonne drückt (au weiah!)... ist mindestens genauso weit hergeholt wie oben. Sollte jemand außer Rosenkohl dieses Argument tatsächlich ernst nehmen, kann ich aber gerne eine neue Grafik mit verdecktem Kennzeichen erstellen.
- PS: "Politische Agitation"? Bitte File:Anti68.jpg auch mal mit dieser Liste ungelöschter Anti-Logos vergleichen, und dann die Kirche im Dorf lassen ...
- English summary: This picture is not a political agitation, but harmless satire about the 1968 movements. No one is personally attacked or defamed. This deletion request is part of a lonesome campaign that User:Rosenkohl is executing against me and my contributions. Only two weeks ago, he has deleted a picture from my user page [3], reproaching that I had violated picture rights (picture had not been uploaded by me) and that a popular verse about lazy people below the picture were a personal attack on the unknown persons on this more than 40 years old picture. I then reloaded this picture with all faces covered with boxes [4], so "the author once again does not care for the right to one's own image" is a simple lie. This deletion request follows the same pattern, but this time without informing me ...
- I have not uploaded File:Flower-Power Bus.jpg (part of File:Anti68.jpg), so I am not in charge of copy or personal rights on this picture. It has a GNU and a Creative Commons License, so it may be copied, modified, remixed etc. I doubt that anyone can or wants to identify the vehicle on my picture, and even if, would understand it being dropped into a trashcan by a stick figure as a personal (!) attack. If required I would reload another version with a covered regitration plate ...
- --Antiachtundsechziger (talk) 12:15, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
- PS: "Political agitation"? Please compare File:Anti68.jpg to this list of undeleted Anti logos ...
Nebenbei wird in File:Anti68.jpg ein Bezug zur 68er Bewegung nur über den Bildtitel, hergestellt. Das Bild des Busses stammt nachweislich nicht aus dem Jahre 1968, sondern den 2000er Jahren, vergl. z.B. nur die Aufschrift "Chavez" auf dem Bus. Unabhängig davon, wer mit Anti68.jpg gemeint ist geht die Darstellung auf Kosten der realen Personen, die den Bus besitzen, bemalt haben und verwenden. Solche polemisch, agitatorisch oder satirisch gemeinten Darstellungen mit Bildern realer Personen oder auch von Gegenständen, die diesen Personen eindeutig als Eigentum zuordbar sind verletzen das Recht am eigenen Bild der Personen.
Weder führe ich einen Feldzug, noch fühle ich mich bei dem Löschantrag besonders einsam. Ich habe die Verwendung des Bildes File:Woodstock redmond hair.JPG im Zusammenhang mit einer Strophe eines halbvergessenen Liedes aus einer deutschen Filmkomödie für eine Herabwürdigung der im Bild dargestellten Personen gehalten und somit für eine Verletzung des Rechtes am eigenen Bild dieser Personen. Die gleiche Herabwürdigung und Verletzung findet meines Erachtens statt, wenn nun stattdessen das Bild File:Woodstock redmond hair faces covered.jpg verwendet wird. Die Herkunft des retuschierten einen Bildes aus dem ursprünglichen ist über die Bildbeschreibung und die Commons-Datenbank im nu nachvollziehbar. Die Retouschierung der Gesichter mit unterschiedlichen, der Hautfarbe angepassten Rechtecken kann in diesem Zusammenhang einer beabsichtigten Satire wie eine zusätzliche Ausgrenzung der schwarzen Person wirken. Aus diesen Gründen sollte m.E. auch File:Woodstock redmond hair faces covered.jpg gelöscht, oder es zumindest nicht in dieser Form verwendet werden.
User:DieBuche hatte Dich (unmittelbar, während ich noch die weitere Schritte des Löschantrag ausführen wollte) bereits benachrichtigt. Da Du Dich im Folgenden auf der Diskussionsseite von DieBuche geäußert mußt Du auch wissen, daß ich von dieser Benachrichtigung an Dich wußte, und DieBuche auf seine Aktionen angesprochen habe. Daher ist der Vorwurf falsch, ich hätte Dich nicht benachrichtigt.
Eine neue Version mit einem verdeckten Nummernschild würde das Auto nicht weniger leicht identifizierbar machen. Zum einen ist wie im Fall von Woodstock redmond hair.JPG die Originalversion über die Bildbeschreibung nach wie vor unmittelbar auf Commons auffindbar. Zum anderen ist das Auto wie oben erklärt nicht nur über das Nummernschild, sondern auch über die auffällige Bemalung, sowie Ort und Zeitpunkt der Aufnahme identifizierbar.
Bilddateien auf Commons sollen ausschließlich dem Zweck der enzyklopädischen Bildung, oder der konstruktiven Gestaltung der Enzyklopädiprojekte dienen. Satirische oder polemische Darstellung dürfen aber keinesfalls auf Kosten der Persönlichkeitsrechte Dritter gehen. --Rosenkohl (talk) 20:51, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
Besides, File:Anti68.jpg refers to the movement of '68 only by its title. The picture of the bus itself evidently does not origin from 1968, but has been taken after the year 2000, if you compare the inscript "Chavez" on the bus.
Independent from who is target of Anti68.jpg, the presentation goes on expense of the real people who own the bus, have painted and use it. Polemical, agitating oder satirical meant presentation using pictures of real persons, or also things, which unanimoulsy can be attributed to these persons as there possession violate the right to the own image of the persons.
Neither do I execute a campaign, nor do I feel extraordinary lonesome with this request for deletion. I have considered the use of File:Woodstock redmond hair.JPG in connection with a verse from a half-forgotten song from a German movie comedy as a degradation of the depicted persons, and as such a violation of the right in their own picture of these persons. In my opinion, the same degradation and violation takes place by now using File:Woodstock redmond hair faces covered.jpg instead. The retouched picture can be traced back to the original version immediately through the file description page and the Commons database. To retouche the faces with rectangels adjusted to the skin's colour can, in the context of the intended satyre make the impression of an additional segregation of the black person. So File:Woodstock redmond hair faces covered.jpg should also be deleted, or at least not used in this way.
User:DieBuche had notified you already (and immedidately, while I still was intending to fill in the further steps of the request). Since you had written on DieBuche's talk page in the sequel, you must also know that I knew of this notification, and that I had talked to DieBuche about his actions. Therefore, the accusation is wrong that I had not notified you.
I new version with the registration plate covered would not make the vehicle less identifiable. Firstly, as in the case of Woodstock redmond hair.JPG the original can immediately be retrieved on Commons. Secondly, the vehicle is identifiable not only through the registration plate, but also the outstanding paintings, and place and time of the shot.
Picture files on Commons only should serve encyclopaedic educational purposes, or the constructive design of the encyclopaedia projects. Satiric or polemic presentations should in no case go in expense of the personality rights of others, --Rosenkohl (talk) 20:51, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
- Obwohl diese Bedenken bereits in meinem vorigen Beitrag entkräftet wurden, noch ein paar kurze Bemerkungen:
- Werden im öffentlich-rechtlichen (!) Fernsehen Aufnahmen von Personen ohne deren Einwilligung gezeigt, wird nur deren Gesicht verfremdet und fertig. Auch wenn dabei schwerwiegende Vorwürfe erhoben werden. Bei Aufnahmen von PKWs wird das Nummernschild verdeckt und fertig. Entweder machen die Senderverantwortlichen sich laufend strafbar, oder es spielt rechtlich eben keine Rolle, ob rein theoretisch jemand über Lackierung, Ort und Zeitpunkt der Aufnahmen den Halter ermitteln könnte. Ich vermute letzteres.
- Die Retusche bei File:Woodstock redmond hair faces covered.jpg macht die Personen nicht nur unkenntlich. Sie stellt auch die Intention des Autors klar, hier eben keinen Angriff gegen die abgebildeten Personen zu führen, sondern Ereignisse und Ideen der Geschichte satirisch aufzubereiten. Das gilt auch für den höchst unwahrscheinlichen Fall, dass jemand über Bilddatenbank und aufwändige Recherchen tatsächlich die Identität der Personen feststellt.
- Retusche wird immer an die Farbe des Bildhintergrundes angepasst. Der Vorwurf, das könne "wie eine zusätzliche Ausgrenzung der schwarzen Person wirken", ist pure Polemik und zeigt einmal mehr den wahren Geist dieses Antrages.
- Nochmal: Das (kaum erkennbare) Nummernschild kann ich gerne noch verfremden. Ansonsten: Viel Lärm um nichts!
- --Antiachtundsechziger (talk) 15:36, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
- Although these concerns have already been disproved in my last edit, some additional remarks:
- When TV (subject to public law) shows pictures of persons without their acceptance, only their faces are made unidentifiable, and that's it. Even if severe accusations are raised against them. On pictures of cars, only registration plates are covered and that's it. So, either these journalists are liable to legal prosecution all the time, or it is not relevant whether a car keeper could theoretically be identified by the car's painting or time and place of the filming. I assume the latter.
- The retouching of File:Woodstock redmond hair faces covered.jpg does not only make persons unidentifiable. It also clarifies that the author does not intend to personally attack the persons revealed, but to show historical events and ideas in a satiric way. This is also in the improbable case someone should really find out about the persons' real identities by tracing back through file description page.
- Retouching is always adapted to the background color. The reproach that adjusting retouche to "the skin's colour can, in the context of the intended satyre make the impression of an additional segregation of the black person" is pure polemic, and it shows once again the real intention of this request.
- Again: If required I would reload another version with a covered regitration plate, although it can hardly be read now. All in all: Much ado about nothing.
- --Antiachtundsechziger (talk) 15:36, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
Kept. If you have a problem with File:Flower-Power Bus.jpg put a DR to that, not here. Amada44 talk to me 19:57, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
no description, source, author, uncategorized and unused since August 2009 4028mdk09 (talk) 11:58, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
totally unsharp, not used or categorized since August 2009 4028mdk09 (talk) 12:36, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 21:57, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
bad quality, not useful - sorry! 4028mdk09 (talk) 14:48, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
Youre right. I loaded it up, because another user expected an undocumented animal-race on this picture. But the insects and also the bird-race are well-documented. The pic can be deleted. --Traubenberger (talk) 23:46, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
no source, no description, no author, not categorized or used 4028mdk09 (talk) 14:53, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 21:58, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
Missing description, author, not used or categorized 4028mdk09 (talk) 15:04, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
Orphaned photo of user, not in scope of Commons Martin H. (talk) 16:37, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Maybe one day you will, Janisel. Out of scope, and unused. - Theornamentalist (talk) 16:39, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
Photoshopped hoax, perpetrated by a forum user: http://www.audizine.com/forum/showthread.php/382918-Jason-Statham-in-2011-LeMans?p=5604038#post5604038 The359 (talk) 18:57, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
Whatever mate, do as you please.. I made it, delete it if u want :)
out of project scope, not used, not categorized 4028mdk09 (talk) 19:05, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
File 1: File:1stLordStanmore.jpg, File 2: File:Fdrpics.gif.
The artist's (en:Frank O. Salisbury) date of death is 1962. PD-Old is given for the first file, PD-USGov for the second. But I cannot find any evidence (for the second) he was employee of the US government. It is probably just an paid painting on order. Saibo (Δ) 01:50, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
"© Estate of Frank O Salisbury/DACS 2009" at the source of file 1. --Saibo (Δ) 02:13, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Salisbury was a British artist who painted many famous people and visited the USA from time to time. There is no reason to believe that he was ever an employee of the US Federal Government. There is also no reason to give the Lord Stanmore painting less than the usual UK copyright. This varies depending on when it was first published, but is still in force in any event. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:29, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
No freedom of landscape in France. Architect died in 1946. Hektor (talk) 08:31, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
.JPG){kind=link}
- Delete per nomination, the image appears on fr. wiki here with the proper license. - Theornamentalist (talk) 16:52, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:36, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
.JPG){kind=link}
- Undeleted per UDR, now free. Jcb (talk) 18:12, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
Given the uploader's track record of uploading copyright violations and adding non-free copyrighted text to Wikipedia, and given the professional appearance and relatively low resolution of this image, I'm inclined to think that this one is also a copyright violation. —LX (talk, contribs) 09:03, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:43, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
Licence is wrong. Stamp copyright Govt Rwanda 1970. Maidonian (talk) 09:18, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:43, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
Film's director en:Rza Tahmasib died in 1980. The film is not in PD yet under Azerbaijan law. Blacklake (talk) 10:49, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:46, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
,_No._7.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
,_No._7.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
no description, bad quality, not categorized or used since July 2009 4028mdk09 (talk) 11:14, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
,_No._7.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted. also probable copyvio Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:54, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
,_No._7.jpg){kind=link}
No COM:FOP#Australia for 2D. Pieter Kuiper (talk) 11:32, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
- Delete: As the photographer and uploader of the photo, this was uploaded before the days I had an understanding of COM:FOP. Bidgee (talk) 12:46, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:05, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
low resolution scan of cover to LP André Koehne TALK TO ME 11:54, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:06, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
Out of scope Jarekt (talk) 13:43, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:08, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
PHOTO EN DOUBLE Jacquesencyclo (talk) 15:01, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
File:Plaque sur la maison d'Auguste Leroux.jpeg is 152 Kilobytes. File:Auguste_Leroux_-_Maison_ou_il_vecut.jpeg.JPG is only 96 Kilobytes. So that they are not exact duplicates.
Anyway Auguste Leroux died in 1954 so the sculpted relief is not old enough to be in the public domain. There is no Freedom of Panorama in France so Delete both versions of the picture. Teofilo (talk) 20:59, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:14, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
Copyright notice in upper left corner makes picture unsuited for use. Contradicting the license information posted. Zenwort (talk) 16:03, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
- Delete --Dferg (talk · meta) 14:44, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:14, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
File:Moscow State University 02-2006.jpg (former title "File:Moscow State University.jpg")
[edit]
No FoP in Russia. 84.61.151.63 16:23, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:14, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
No COM:FOP#Russia. Sad to see such a great picture go. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:41, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
Delete Agreed. Not the same image as the previous action, but the same rules apply. . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:16, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted
No FoP in Russia. 84.61.151.63 16:23, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
Delete Derivative work, useless image, no FOP in Russia. Luispihormiguero (talk) 19:41, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:15, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
Also File:PGEPark-NEentry.jpg. 2001 statue in Oregon. No COM:FOP for artwork in the United States and not nearly in the public domain. Wknight94 talk 16:51, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:16, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
Statue in Oregon apparently by living sculptor Stanley Wanlass. No COM:FOP for artwork in the United States and not in the public domain. Wknight94 talk 17:03, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:16, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
Also File:Portland psb.jpg. Statue Portlandia in Oregon by a living artist. No COM:FOP for statues in the United States and according to the en.wp article, this sculptor in particular closely guards his copyright. Wknight94 talk 17:18, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:21, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
See Commons:Deletion requests/File:Portlandia1.jpg. The statue towards the bottom-right is a copyrighted statue and is also nominated for deletion elsewhere. Wknight94 talk 17:21, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
Comment Uploader has now uploaded a new revision where the statue probably qualifies for COM:DM, but the old revision needs to be deleted. Wknight94 talk 11:35, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
Kept. Deleted original version per Wknight94 suggestion. Replacement is DM. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:24, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
One of the constituents has been deleted for lack of FOP, therefore this needs a replacement for it, or must be deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 10:24, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 20:13, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
uploader made a pretty basic mistake that makes this file impossible to use: wanting to show that es wikipedia needed to also grow in quality and not only in quantity, he mistakenly switched "española" with "inglesa", therefore defeating his whole point by not making sense, and turning this file into one with no foreseeable use ever, so I am nominating it as out of scope. Santosga (talk) 18:40, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
- I only read sadsadsadsadsa... and so on. Simple table, if there is a use he should create a table in wiki text and not in a fixed image form. See es:Ayuda:Tablas. --Martin H. (talk) 21:32, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:28, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
Looks to me as this image comes from http://www.gobernacionhuila.gov.co/cms/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=8066:debemos-trabajar-por-la-sostenibilidad-del-embalse-de-betania-secre-agricultura&catid=59:secretarisa-de-agricultura-y-minerisa&Itemid=419 ALE! ¿…? 19:39, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:31, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
This image comes from here: http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?p=16796697 The uploader (blocked) was not the poster in that forum. ALE! ¿…? 19:45, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:37, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
Image is only free for non-commercial use until 70 years following the artist's death per COM:FOP#Iceland. The Artist was Þorbjörg Guðrún Pálsdóttir. She died 11.11.2009.Fingalo (talk) 20:05, 24 August 2010 (UTC) --Fingalo (talk) 20:06, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:38, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
Image is only free for non-commercial use until 70 years following the artist's death per COM:FOP#Iceland. The Artist was Þorbjörg Guðrún Pálsdóttir. She died 11.11.2009.Fingalo (talk) 20:05, 24 August 2010 (UTC) --Fingalo (talk) 20:07, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:38, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
no freedo, of panorama in france for architect died less than 70 yrs ago 83.163.5.82 20:27, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
.JPG){kind=link}
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:39, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
.JPG){kind=link}
out of project scope, not used or categorized since January 2009 4028mdk09 (talk) 20:45, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:42, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
This is cropped from exsum6.jpg which happens to be similar with 935.gif inserted into 1977...aetate_addresses.cfm marked as "©2010 - SACRED HEART UNIVERSITY". (The main page for this 1998 event is this page) --Teofilo (talk) 20:48, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
- Delete per nominator. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:14, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:43, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
The picture is out-of-date and contains people who are no longer members of the group. Mattsullivan89 (talk) 21:45, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
- First, to Mattsullivan89-- Welcome to Wikimedia Commons! It's a place I don't try to understand, other than to upload all the photos we've needed in a few different language Wikipedias that I edit for musicians' biographies (my area of interest in the Wikipedias). I mostly edit en.Wikipedia- I keep a list of the photos I've uploaded and placed of musicians on my user page there. I uploaded the photo for User:BeanMunster. I have to say I was really shocked though at proposing to drop the photo. No! Normally in this situation, when a photo becomes old, or, as you say, the people aren't in the band now, we leave a note on the talk page for that Wikipedia article and move the photo down in the text chronologically, making certain the text explains who they were. Would you suggest that we delete photos of Mick Taylor taken in 1972, because he is no longer in The Rolling Stones? I know you only want what's best, but, a biography is a history of a person's life, and so for bands they are histories of that band, remembering how they began playing together; in many cases those who leave have contributed songs they continue to play. Keep the photo! I've never heard of asking to delete one about an active band and it's story before from Commons. You never know what will become useful. I'll move the photo down or remove it, just don't delete it altogether! --Leahtwosaints (talk) 20:48, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
Kept. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:47, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
- Thank you. :) --Leahtwosaints (talk) 00:58, 27 September 2010 (UTC)This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
- Thank you. :) --Leahtwosaints (talk) 00:58, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
writer (all the writers?) may have given permission, but what about the photographs? Prosfilaes (talk) 22:01, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
- Comment Personally I think it highly unlikely that any publication will freely license the image. --Herby talk thyme 11:42, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
- Delete: Please delete as I only wanted image to act as a reference as the actual story not on internet. I din't want to cause any fuss. It's just not worth it.--Itshayfevertime (talk) 13:09, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
Would this be OK instead?
- Only if you can get the "Sunderland Echo" to freely license it which is extremely unlikely. Please do not use OTRS pending tags for such images - it is just so improbable. --Herby talk thyme 15:46, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
- Herby - the writer of this has ALREADY agreed to let us use it and sent permission to OTRS at Wikipedia. I therefore use the OTRS pending tag for that reason - and not for fun. If you take a closer look, the Sunderland Echo has agreed to freely licence several old photos etc for Wikipedia - and has even been a featured front page article - complete with these photos. So.... perhaps releasing this story for Wikipedia is not so "highly unlikely" as you claim.--Itshayfevertime (talk) 19:22, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
- Great - I stand corrected - not come across a newspaper who would do that. --Herby talk thyme 07:42, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted by Rocket000: copyvio
Personality rights problems. Pictured subject kindly ask to courtesy delete, see ticket:2010080710008615 DieBuche (talk) 21:32, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
- Behalten! Personen auf Demonstrationen können nach deutschem Recht ohne Einwilligung fotografiert und die Aufnahmen veröffentlicht werden, sofern das Bild die abgebildeten Personen im Umfeld der Demo zeigt. Leidglich portraitartige Aufnahmen von Personen wären unzulässig. Auf diesem Bild, das nicht von mir stammt, sondern von VisualBeo (ich habe es lediglich von de:wp nach commons transferiert), ist aber die Demo als Ganzes fotografiert worden. Das Bild dürfte also nicht gegen deutsches Recht verstossen. --Mogelzahn (talk) 08:50, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
- Löschen oder (besser) verpixeln, bitte. Obwohl es wohl stimmt, dass das Bild nach deutscem Recht zulässig ist, gilt für Wikimedia Commons sowieso amerikanisches Recht, da die Server sich in Florida befinden. Aber juristisches zur Seite, das Problem hier ist das Aussteiger aus der rechten Szene durch so ein Bild "für immer" mit extremen Haltungen verbunden werden, was ganz einfach nicht rechtfertig ist. Eine Verpixelung mindert den Informationsgehalt des Bildes keineswegs. Natürlich müsste man dann das Original entfernen. Asav (talk) 02:51, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
kept, Gesichter sind jetzt unkenntlich gemacht und die persönlichkeitsrechtsverletzende Version gelöscht. -- Ra'ike T C 19:51, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
Bad crop wrong size provides a new Stovelsten (talk) 16:43, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted by Túrelio: Uploader request (bad crop).
The commons uploader changed the license. The license of the source file (de:Datei:Coats of arms of Saint Kitts and Nevis.png is not compatible with commons because this coat of arms is no german one. JuTa (talk) 02:52, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
- No one is claiming this is a German coat of arms. The image itself was gotten there, and modified here.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 04:41, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
- But only the author could put it under GFDL, not you. --JuTa (talk) 12:00, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Images from Vector-Images.com are copyrighted and not free Justass (talk) 22:03, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
it's out of scope; it's an idiosyncratic personal political statement Prosfilaes (talk) 22:52, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Unused, but advertized in about 50 categories. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:55, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
- Keep It is in the scope, much more than many images used on Commons are. 3/4 of Commons images are not used.It is not "advertised" in 50 categories. I used upload option "It is a derivative work of a file from Commons", and it added categories itself. I added only one "Anti-Zionism". It is not a political statement, it is a very useful photo-montage.--Mbz1 (talk) 23:10, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
- Photo-montages are rarely useful in an educational sense. The fact that the upload option produced such a worthless description and excessive inappropriate categorization is lamentable, but ultimately it is the human user that is required to produce a useful description and properly categorize the image.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:45, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
- The categories need cleaning up by hand because the automated tool created a mess... AnonMoos (talk) 01:34, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
- Delete - In scope in a way, in that the individual elemnts are in scope, but I don't think the collage as a whole is - it's user-created artwork/political statement. -mattbuck (Talk) 23:12, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
- I actually had you in mind, when I was making this collage. Remember, when you said "I do know the difference between judaism and israel, it's like the difference between stupidity and america" I realized that some basic education will be good for you. This image is very educational. --Mbz1 (talk) 23:18, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
- I think I meant that it's prevalent, but not the be-all and end-all, although it may appear to be. I'm flattered. Truly. -mattbuck (Talk) 23:45, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
- Also, while I of course appreciate the gift of your collage, could you maybe do me a mix tape? -mattbuck (Talk) 23:45, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
- After you unblocked me, I would do anything for you
, but what in the world "a mix tape" means?--Mbz1 (talk) 01:24, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
- After you unblocked me, I would do anything for you
- I actually had you in mind, when I was making this collage. Remember, when you said "I do know the difference between judaism and israel, it's like the difference between stupidity and america" I realized that some basic education will be good for you. This image is very educational. --Mbz1 (talk) 23:18, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
- Keep - Unless I can see a valid justification for deletion. Up to now all I see is WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT. - Malcolm Schosha (talk) 01:02, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
- Unused and out of scope (as a personal political statement with, frankly, no possible use). Is that not a reason? -mattbuck (Talk) 01:09, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
- I'm not wholeheartedly in favor of keeping the image, but I bet I'm not the only one who wonders why images like this get the immediate bum's rush here, while bigoted racist anti-Jewish images like Carlos Latuff hate cartoons or (in many of its uses on Wikipedia user pages) File:No Israel.svg have a cadre of loud defenders and are perpetually undeletable... AnonMoos (talk) 01:34, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
- Because those Latuff ones are at least by a notable artist, not mere collages created in MSPaint by disgruntled commons users? -mattbuck (Talk) 01:38, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
- Matt, you are wrong. When I google on my name I get 56,600 hits. When I google on that [....] name I get 2,000 hits less. I am notable --Mbz1 (talk) 01:56, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
- Matt, you are wrong. When I google on my name I get 56,600 hits. When I google on that [....] name I get 2,000 hits less. I am notable
- Because I was going through new uploads, and gave five of them "the immediate bum's rush". Images in use do tend to be perpetually undeletable.--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:17, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
- Would you like to delete this image File:Flag of Eurabia.png? It was uploaded by someone who claims it is the Islamopohbic flag of Eurabia, but a Google image search for flags of Eurabia does not show it [5]. It is the same as File:Flag of the Islamic Republic of Turkestan.svg, but with a blue instead of a green background. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 11:13, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
- File:Flag_of_Eurabia.png/.svg is a semi-stupid image, but Wikimedia Commons has traditionally been rather tolerant of "special and fictional flag" images, unless they're deliberately hoaxing or blatantly hatemongering... AnonMoos (talk) 12:21, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
- Excuse, other things exist is not a valid argument.--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:29, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
- Would you like to delete this image File:Flag of Eurabia.png? It was uploaded by someone who claims it is the Islamopohbic flag of Eurabia, but a Google image search for flags of Eurabia does not show it [5]. It is the same as File:Flag of the Islamic Republic of Turkestan.svg, but with a blue instead of a green background. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 11:13, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
- Because those Latuff ones are at least by a notable artist, not mere collages created in MSPaint by disgruntled commons users? -mattbuck (Talk) 01:38, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
- Comment Okay, I would like to explain why I believe the image has an educational value. My big sister told me a story about one lesson in her high school. The soviet teacher told kids about Israel, and what an aggressor Israel is. Then the teacher called a boy, a student, and asked him to show Israel on the world map. The boy spent 10 minutes looking at the map, but could not point out Israel. The teacher lost patience, and pointed Israel out herself. The boy got closer to the map, asked the teacher to point it out again, and when the teacher did, a naive boy asked: "Such small country and aggressor?" I am sure that many readers do not realize how small Israel is, and I am sure that many of them do not know that there was continues presence of Jews, who have lived in Palestine for more than 3,300 years. That's why I believe the image has educational value. If I am to remove the writings and to leave only images, would this be OK?--Mbz1 (talk) 01:53, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
- That's why we have w:Israel to tell us neutrally that Israel is a little over twenty thousand square kilometers.--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:17, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
- Could you not just use a highlighted map without all the images? -mattbuck (Talk) 02:18, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
- Well, if this image will get deleted, I will try upload the map image only. The thing is that there's clear anti-Israeli bias on Wikipedia. Jimbo admitted it: "we have a problem with anti-Israeli bias, not the other way around."
- I'd like to put in a long quote not to troll, and not to make a point, but simply to demonstrate what I mean, when I say Israel does not get a fair treatment. Here's what a famous American philosopher w:Eric Hoffer(not a Jew) said on the issue
- "The Jews are a peculiar people: things permitted to other nations are forbidden to the Jews.Other nations drive out thousands, even millions of people and there is no refugee problem. Russia did it, Poland and Czechoslovakia did it, Turkey threw out a million Greeks, and Algeria a million Frenchman. Indonesia threw out heaven knows how many Chinese-and no one says a word about refugees.But in the case of Israel the displaced Arabs have become eternal refugees. Everyone insists that Israel must take back every single Arab. Arnold Toynbee calls the displacement of the Arabs an atrocity greater than any committed by the Nazis. Other nations when victorious on the battlefield dictate peace terms. But when Israel is victorious it must sue for peace. Everyone expects the Jews to be the only real Christians in this world. Other nations when they are defeated survive and recover but should Israel be defeated it would be destroyed. Had Nasser triumphed last June 1967 he would have wiped Israel off the map, and no one would have lifted a finger to save the Jews. No commitment to the Jews by any government, including our own, is worth the paper it is written on.There is a cry of outrage all over the world when people die in Vietnam or when two Blacks are executed in Rhodesia. But when Hitler slaughtered Jews no one remonstrated with him. The Swedes, who are ready to break off diplomatic relations with America because of what we do in Vietnam, did not let out a peep when Hitler was slaughtering Jews.They sent Hitler choice iron ore, and ball bearings, and serviced his troop trains to Norway.The Jews are alone in the world. If Israel survives, it will be solely because of Jewish efforts. And Jewish resources. Yet at this moment Israel is our only reliable and unconditional ally. We can rely more on Israel than Israel can rely on us. And one has only to imagine what would have happened last summer 1967 had the Arabs and their Russian backers won the war to realize how vital the survival of Israel is to America and the West in general.I have a premonition that will not leave me; as it goes with Israel so will it go with all of us.Should Israel perish the holocaust will be upon us."
- Could you not just use a highlighted map without all the images? -mattbuck (Talk) 02:18, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
- That's why we have w:Israel to tell us neutrally that Israel is a little over twenty thousand square kilometers.--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:17, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
- If the image is to stay, it will be good for Wikipedia!--Mbz1 (talk) 02:44, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
- Comment I added notes to explain each individual image used. This adds to the educational value of the image.--Mbz1 (talk) 03:59, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
- Delete as it's not realistically useful for an educational purpose (for pointing out the location we have File:LocationIsrael.svg) and as it is a self-created artwork without obvious educational use. // Liftarn (talk) 08:21, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
- Delete self-created artwork, not realistically useful for educational purposes. Seems the intent of the uploader is just to promote their personal opinion. It isn't the first time this user has uploaded similarly questionable images apparently more to do with promoting their views rather than improving Commons. File:No to hate propaganda by latuff It kills.jpg, File:It is easy to make a homicide bomber2.jpg and File:Hate by latuff kills.jpg were all created and uploaded by Mbz1 to protest about Latuff images and she isn't even able now to actually mention Latuff. This all illustrates that Mbz1 is unable to keep her personal opinions from disrupting Commons and this, and any other similar images which may be uploaded should be promptly deleted. Adambro (talk) 09:42, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
- It's a funny thing how images filled with bigoted hatemongering against almost any other ethnic/religious grouping would be deleted off of Wikimedia Commons so fast it would make your head spin (with limited exceptions for clearly valuable historical images), but images filled with bigoted hatemongering against Jews always seem to have many strong supporters, isn't it... AnonMoos (talk) 12:21, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
- I'm a little pissed that a simple DR immediately disintegrates into pro- and anti-Israel arguing. Can't you analyze this DR on its merits without bringing up irrelevant crap?--Prosfilaes (talk) 16:44, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
- I'm sorry if you feel a little annoyed to have come in at chapter 43½ of an ongoing saga, but it has become become clear for several years now that images expressing bigoted hatemongering against Jews enjoy a magical exemption against deletion, and have a vocal cadre of supporters -- an exemption which is conspicuously not shared by images expressing bigoted hatemongering against any other ethnic or religious group. Furthermore, there have been several abrupt and semi-arbitrary seeming actions to enforce this distinction between anti-Jewish images and anti-other-group images which have left a residue of bad feelings among some. (One rather minor example, which I mention only because it affected me personally, and is somewhat relevant to the case at hand, was when Adambro was falling all over himself in his panting anxious eagerness to deny me an opportunity to express my views at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Fighting Israel for dummies.png...) AnonMoos (talk) 19:42, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
- I'm a little pissed that a simple DR immediately disintegrates into pro- and anti-Israel arguing. Can't you analyze this DR on its merits without bringing up irrelevant crap?--Prosfilaes (talk) 16:44, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
- It's a funny thing how images filled with bigoted hatemongering against almost any other ethnic/religious grouping would be deleted off of Wikimedia Commons so fast it would make your head spin (with limited exceptions for clearly valuable historical images), but images filled with bigoted hatemongering against Jews always seem to have many strong supporters, isn't it... AnonMoos (talk) 12:21, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
- @adambro, why I cannot mention latuff? I can, I simply do not want to because every time I do, I need to take a rather long shower because it feels as I touched something really, really dirty. It is interesting that the same users, who were the most vocal in keeping antisemitic garbage by latuff are the most vocal now in their voting to delete this image. It is of course not art work. I simply combined the public domain images together in one image, and made the signs. It is actually a great image to illustrate anti-Zionism because I am sure that many so called "anti-Zionists" have no idea what they are "anti" against.--Mbz1 (talk) 12:30, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
- That's the way to go, muddy the waters and attack the other users.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:44, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
- @adambro, why I cannot mention latuff? I can, I simply do not want to because every time I do, I need to take a rather long shower because it feels as I touched something really, really dirty. It is interesting that the same users, who were the most vocal in keeping antisemitic garbage by latuff are the most vocal now in their voting to delete this image. It is of course not art work. I simply combined the public domain images together in one image, and made the signs. It is actually a great image to illustrate anti-Zionism because I am sure that many so called "anti-Zionists" have no idea what they are "anti" against.--Mbz1 (talk) 12:30, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
- Delete user-created file which can be used only a propaganda/PR against the state of Israel. Therefore not in the scope of this project. --88.102.101.245 11:44, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
- Keep No reason to delete. If Lattuf's images are fine, so is this. Kooritza (talk) 12:42, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
- Actually there is a difference between internationally known artists and user created art. // Liftarn (talk) 14:37, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
- Liftarn, perhaps you would be willing to explain here why it is so important to you that Mbz1's image be deleted, but when I pointed out this, File:Motivator Eurabia.jpg, you felt no need to act Malcolm Schosha (talk) 17:02, 25 August 2010 (UTC)?
- Oh my God! A correctly categorised image. What should we do!? // Liftarn (talk) 17:21, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
- However, it's "user-created" just as much as the image under discussion is (which you seemed to think was all-important back at "14:37, 25 August 2010", if you can remember back to those bygone days of yesteryear). AnonMoos (talk) 19:21, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
- Who created it is not as important as if it is within scope. As for the motovator poster I recently put it up for deletion. The flags are probably within scope as they are useful to illustrate that form of racism. // Liftarn (talk) 19:43, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
- However, it's "user-created" just as much as the image under discussion is (which you seemed to think was all-important back at "14:37, 25 August 2010", if you can remember back to those bygone days of yesteryear). AnonMoos (talk) 19:21, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
- Oh my God! A correctly categorised image. What should we do!? // Liftarn (talk) 17:21, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
- Liftarn, perhaps you would be willing to explain here why it is so important to you that Mbz1's image be deleted, but when I pointed out this, File:Motivator Eurabia.jpg, you felt no need to act Malcolm Schosha (talk) 17:02, 25 August 2010 (UTC)?
- Keep, this seems to be a “WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT” nomination. The collage is by the way somewhat similar to this t-shirt. --Kjetil_r 18:05, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
- Keep, nothing controversial or offending here. Nom has not even proposed a policy violation to warrant deletion. --Shuki (talk) 10:49, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
- Out of scope as personal political opinion is a policy reason. -mattbuck (Talk) 10:54, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. This should have really just been speedy deleted. Unused, beyond project scope and not realistically useful for educational purposes and bordering on protesting/trolling by a disgruntled user. Adambro (talk) 13:50, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
- File:Lambertuskerkcromvoirt.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
The source site does not give a free license. Pieter Kuiper (talk) 23:34, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
- I am withdrawing my nomination. These files come from http://beeldbank.bhic.nl/ which has a somewhat unclear permissions page, where it says they only require attriburion on the images of which they own copyright. Unfortunately, the individual images have no information about why the copyright owner is. But I am convinced that these two come from the photos of the Cromvoirt Municipality, so that they are free according to {{PD-NL-Gov}}. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 09:11, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
Kept. DR Withdrawed. Esby (talk) 12:51, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
redundant (though smaller in file size) to File:Dorfchemnitz Eisenhammer 01.JPG Miebner (talk) 05:37, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
- Is there anybody out there? --Miebner (talk) 23:05, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, out of project scope. Kameraad Pjotr 21:15, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
the body has the wrong shape. Conty (talk) 06:31, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
- This is a uploader request, however it is in use. Maybe if it's replaced, then it could be deleted. Rocket000 (talk) 19:08, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
Kept, file is in use. Kameraad Pjotr 19:40, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
Kept, file is in use. Kameraad Pjotr 19:40, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
it looks like a scan from a magazine, so likely to be a copyvio --Cruccone (talk) 08:42, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Kept, AGF on uploaders behalf. Kameraad Pjotr 20:07, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
No COM:FOP#Israel for this framed painting; see also Commons:Deletion requests/File:Ethiopian Abyssinian Church, Jerusalem 09.jpg. Pieter Kuiper (talk) 09:39, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, per Commons:Deletion requests/File:Ethiopian Abyssinian Church, Jerusalem 09.jpg. Kameraad Pjotr 22:06, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
low resolution scan of LP cover to Anisio Silva André Koehne TALK TO ME 11:56, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
- Move to WP as non free cover - Theornamentalist (talk) 16:44, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
- And... so? André Koehne TALK TO ME 19:55, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, derivative work of a copyrighted album cover. Kameraad Pjotr 19:18, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
low resolution of scan to LP cover of Anisio Silva André Koehne TALK TO ME 11:57, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
- Move to WP as non-free cover - Theornamentalist (talk) 16:45, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, derivative work of a copyrighted album cover. Kameraad Pjotr 19:19, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
Its a scennshot of an "non-free" program - see currently here. It needs an OTRS verification. JuTa (talk) 13:33, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
- PS: Maybe Template:PD-ineligible could fit here? --JuTa (talk) 13:35, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
- I agree, nothing copyrightable in the image. The simple screen layout is not enough to grant any copyrights IMO. --PaterMcFly (talk) 20:48, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
Kept, {{PD-ineligible}} applies. Kameraad Pjotr 18:57, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
Likely copyvio IMO... emmedifoto is previously published on a website, and we have no OTRS that Soapycat=emmedifoto 99of9 (talk) 13:42, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, lacks suitable permission. Kameraad Pjotr 19:08, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
Copyright violation. Not trivial. Daryona (talk) 19:44, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
- Tell us what it is a copyvio of, please. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:33, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, wrong licence, likely copyright violation. Kameraad Pjotr 20:22, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
Everyone one of this user's uploads at en.wiki has just been deleted as a copyright violation: [6]. S/he was simply uploading files from the internet and putting a self-created tag on them. To be succinct, I don't believe this user created this image. Magog the Ogre (talk) 20:53, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Delete... Can not trust original uploader then. --MGA73 (talk) 21:06, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
What is wrong, if I upload this image on behalf of somebody else?,It is snap taken by a camera. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ravi jrf (talk • contribs) 03:36, 25 August 2010 (UTC) (UTC)
- The problem is that every other image you uploaded to Wikipedia you have claimed was shot by you, but we've been able to trace to another site on the internet. To be succinct, we don't believe you. I know this sounds bad, do you absolutely swear you are the one that took this photograph? Magog the Ogre (talk) 22:05, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
- Comment - Ravi has emailed me and been very specific that he knows the website owner who is OK with the said license. I've placed a notation on his en.wp page asking for clarification. Will strongly suggest he post the URL so we can verify. Magog the Ogre (talk) 06:34, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, lacks suitable permission. Kameraad Pjotr 19:55, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
This originally uploaded as "fair-use" photo probably is in the PD due to age, however it is of an unknown author, the author's death date is unknown, and the first the publication date is unknown. Addationally is was However, I found this image has the required Authorship name and death dates information. I replaced the few usage of this image and there is now no need for this image that doesn’t conation this required information ----ARTEST4ECHO talk 20:58, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, no date/country of first publication and no author, no way to determine public domain status. Kameraad Pjotr 21:44, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
The sculpturer is not the photographer, since the son of the sculpturer is not the son of the photographer and not the legal owner of the copyright. This file is missing some important source information on who really created it. Also File:Juniper Serra.JPG Martin H. (talk) 21:47, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Photo made and uploaded by the sculptor's son. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:01, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
- And uploaded?? Thats a bold claim. However, this are already the second upload attempts, with the first upload he claimed "Horacio de Eguia" beeing the author himself. Any fictional idea that this is "own work" is a white lie by the uploader but however not acceptable and not sufficient in any way. --Martin H. (talk) 22:07, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, lacks suitable permission. Kameraad Pjotr 19:36, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
Duplicate of File:George-rennie-statue-cupid-rekindling-the-torch-of-hymen-2008.jpg Rodhullandemu (talk) 22:39, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
- Keep taken from a different angle, not duplicate. MKFI (talk) 22:18, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
Kept, file is within project scope. Kameraad Pjotr 21:57, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
Unused PNG image, replaced by the official File:Coat of Arms of Lithuania.svg User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 17:44, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, out of project scope. Kameraad Pjotr 19:48, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
probable copyvio from en:toxic wiki Jack Merridew 17:42, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, copyright violation. Kameraad Pjotr 20:59, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
.svg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.svg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
This is my own image. The only article using this image will be removed. This file needs to be removed too. Janeway666 (talk) 19:21, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
.svg){kind=link}
Deleted, out of project scope. Kameraad Pjotr 19:02, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
.svg){kind=link}
Absolutely no source information given with this upload. What eveidence is given that the (unknown) author died 70 years ago? Martin H. (talk) 20:01, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
- Keep date given as 1849, fr:Barthélémy Durand Valantin died 1864, most unlikely that the author would have been alive in 1940. MKFI (talk) 09:06, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
- Keep - 1849 deputé; same insignia as File:Emile Dollfus.JPG. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 11:14, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
Kept, very unlikely that the author lived beyond 1940. Kameraad Pjotr 19:29, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
This is a photo or scan of a panting of Joseph F. SMITH. Making a photo or scanning an image doesn’t make this MTPICHON "(own work)". A PD image of with more accurate copyright information is available is available here, so I replaced the only usage of this image and there is now no need for this questionability tagged image ----ARTEST4ECHO talk 20:37, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
Keep Having two images of a notable figure such as this is not a bad thing. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:41, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, improperly sourced (author, source, date). Kameraad Pjotr 20:13, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
We can delete this, as we have a modified version of this uploaded. It is more accurate than this, so we can delete this version. Conty (talk) 08:38, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
- Link? --Mbdortmund (talk) 21:44, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
Kept, file is in use. Kameraad Pjotr 21:31, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
This image have some inaccuracies. I have made a more accurate version. Conty (talk) 06:47, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
Kept. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:57, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
We have an edited and more accurate version of this restoration, so we ca delete this. Conty (talk) 08:40, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
Kept, file is in use. Kameraad Pjotr 21:33, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
This image have some inaccuracies. I have made a more accurate version. Conty (talk) 06:47, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
Kept, in use. Please do not nominate in-use files for deletion unless they are copyright infringements. If they are in use, they may not be deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:55, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
File:Richtlinien der Vereinigung der Landesdenkmalpfleger in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland zur Erstellung einer Denkmaltopographie Bundesrepublik Deutschland.jpg
[edit]
Not in the public domain. The publishing "Vereinigung der Landesdenkmalpfleger in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland" (VD) is a private association and no gouvernment agency. Even if the VLD were a gouvernment agency, this "Richtlinie" is not covered by "amliches Werk" since it contains only recommendations for internal procedures concerning the publication of books. --Jergen (talk) 13:12, 24 August 2010 (UTC) --Jergen (talk) 13:14, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
- Vielleicht kann man es heilen, indem man den Autor bittet, den Text freizugeben? Einfach mal das entsprechende "Formular" an den Verein mailen? --Kürschner (talk) 14:12, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
- I will try to clear that next week directly in the Niedersächsisches Landesamt für Denkmalpflege--Bernd Schwabe in Hannover (talk) 09:56, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
The arguments of Jergen are wrong in its both points of view (I am explaining by a nearly 1:1 translation of a german webside of the "VLD"):
- Of course the "VLD" is an official union. On its german written self-portrayal there is declared that all the - naturally not private - german "Agencies for the Preservation of Monuments" of all federal states of the Federal Republic of Germany are associated. This association is founded in 1951 and consolidated under the Kultusministerkonferenz. The "VLD" is concerning affairs of comprehensive importance and provides nationwide professional coordination. The "VLD" executes instructions of the Kultusministerkonferenz.
- This file "Richtlinie" (translation: "guide line" but also "directive") is not just an internal recommendation but first published in 1981 (please see "literature" and "references" in the german article Denkmaltopographie Bundesrepublik Deutschland) and furthermore officially published in one of the first books in that great row of books "Denkmaltopographie der Bundesrepublik Deutschland". This printed and more than one times published "Richtlinie" shows the must for the row of books as it is explained in "content" in the article Denkmaltopographie....--Bernd Schwabe in Hannover (talk) 07:15, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
- Comment: User:Bernd Schwabe in Hannover's understanding of de:Amtliches Werk#Deutschland is not covered by the de:Urheberrechtsgesetz. I quote from de:Amtliches Werk#Deutschland: "Auch interne Verwaltungsvorschriften, soweit sie eine Außenwirkung entfalten, zählen zu den nicht geschützten amtlichen Rechtsnormen" [Approximative translation: Even internal regulations of the adminstration, which cause external effects, are not part of the protected official regulations.]. This "Richtlinie" is certainly only an internal regulation, since it describes the necessary steps in the preparation of a standarized publication. --Jergen (talk) 09:33, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, not an Amtliches Werk and out of project scope. Kameraad Pjotr 19:53, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
Out of scope Jarekt (talk) 14:08, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Seems to be proper license of the author (or his heir). Existing object, it is not out of scope. Julo (talk) 11:43, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
- Keep no reason to delete. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:47, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
Kept, object is not out of project scope. Kameraad Pjotr 21:55, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
The object in photo is marked as a property of the author but it's not clearly stated that he is the author of the object. Plushy (talk) 00:13, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted, Wizardman 03:29, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
probable copyvio from en:toxic wiki Jack Merridew 17:42, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
Kept, AGF on uploaders behalf. Kameraad Pjotr 21:10, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
probable copyvio from en:toxic wiki Jack Merridew 17:43, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, likely copyright violation. Kameraad Pjotr 21:14, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
probable copyvio from en:toxic wiki Jack Merridew 17:43, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
Kept, AGF on uploaders behalf. Kameraad Pjotr 20:16, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
This is an unauthorized derivative work. Freedom of panorama does not apply as it is a two-dimensional work. See the discussion at "Commons talk:Licensing#Chalk sidewalk portrait". — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 12:24, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
- Delete The street painting is a derivative work of the original (public domain) painting and likely eligible for copyright on its own. Therefore a derivative work of the street painting cannot be freely licensed. Jafeluv (talk) 12:50, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
- Delete The photograph is a derivative copy of an original (and copyrighted) work (the sidewalk art), as per the above-noted discussion at Commons:Licensing. Not saved by FOP, as Canadian FOP does not apply to 2D works such as this. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 15:20, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Simple technical reproduction of the painting File:Jan Vermeer van Delft 007.jpg without any own idea. --Mbdortmund (talk) 21:56, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
- Comment: the consensus at "Commons talk:Licensing#Chalk sidewalk portrait" was that because this was not a mechanical reproduction of the painting (for example, a photograph or a scan) but the work of a street artist, there was enough creativity in the creation of the work for it to have an independent copyright. The work would inevitably not have been identical to the original, though perhaps very similar. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 06:38, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
- Comment There are simple mechanical techniques to copy or enlarge paintings without scanner oder camera, many children learn that in school. A simple way is to divide a scan of the original painting into small squares and copy them part by part into the new painting. That's the way the most street art paintings are produced. Such "works" shurely don't reach the treshhold of originality and could never get an own copyright of their reproductions of Vermeer & Co. --Mbdortmund (talk) 16:16, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
- I'm afraid I don't know enough about street art to comment further on this. However, I would point out that as there is no information as to how this particular piece of street art came to be produced, we cannot assume that it was made using the method you described. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 16:46, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
- It's not a precise copy either. The face, the jacket and the scarf are all similar, but different. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 16:57, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
- Comment@ Jack Lee : Yes, we can. *g* To gain an own copyright by reproducing the painting of an old master there must be changes, some kind of own idea, not only the try to reproduce it as exactly as possible by any technical mesure. Concerning this picture you can see the try to reproduce it as exactly as possible. I can find no own idea, point of view or originality. I can see no reason why should treat it as original artwork. --Mbdortmund (talk) 17:03, 5 September 2010 (UTC) @ Skeezix : Faughts don't produce copyright. The painter would have no success if he would try to reclaim rights of this streetwork. --Mbdortmund (talk) 17:04, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
- Comment: My difficulty is that this is extending Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp. beyond what the New York District Court discussed. Bridgeman held that "a photograph which is no more than a copy of a work of another as exact as science and technology permits lacks originality": see "Commons:When to use the PD-Art tag". However, we are not talking about a photograph or scan here, but an work by a human artist. As Skeezix1000 pointed out, the sample of street art here is not identical to Vermeer's original painting. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 17:22, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
- Comment OK. What exactly justifies the own copyright of the painting? The faults in reproduction? So a bad photograph of a Vermeer would produce a copyright of its own? By distortion? Faulty colours? No copy is absolutely identical to the original painting. --Mbdortmund (talk) 19:51, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
- You're making a big assumption that the differences are faults, not deliberate choices by the sidewalk artist. And, agreed that no copy is absolutely identical, but I think what we're telling you, and what seemed to be the consensus at Commons talk:Licensing#Chalk sidewalk portrait, is that the changes here go beyond those of the trivial sort that one would ignore in assessing whether something is a mere technical copy or contains some originality. You're entitled to disagree, of course. And, as for "bad photographs", at some point, yes, distortions and other changes will at some point give rise to an original piece, as it ceases to be merely a derivate piece. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 20:52, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
- I had a look at the picture again and can see nothing but a reproduction of a masterpiece and not a single new idea, others may decide, for me EOD. thx --Mbdortmund (talk) 21:48, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
- I added some annotations of the major differences (there are more) to File:Toronto Street Art.JPG. -84user (talk) 15:38, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
- I had a look at the picture again and can see nothing but a reproduction of a masterpiece and not a single new idea, others may decide, for me EOD. thx --Mbdortmund (talk) 21:48, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
- You're making a big assumption that the differences are faults, not deliberate choices by the sidewalk artist. And, agreed that no copy is absolutely identical, but I think what we're telling you, and what seemed to be the consensus at Commons talk:Licensing#Chalk sidewalk portrait, is that the changes here go beyond those of the trivial sort that one would ignore in assessing whether something is a mere technical copy or contains some originality. You're entitled to disagree, of course. And, as for "bad photographs", at some point, yes, distortions and other changes will at some point give rise to an original piece, as it ceases to be merely a derivate piece. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 20:52, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
- It's not a precise copy either. The face, the jacket and the scarf are all similar, but different. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 16:57, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
- I'm afraid I don't know enough about street art to comment further on this. However, I would point out that as there is no information as to how this particular piece of street art came to be produced, we cannot assume that it was made using the method you described. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 16:46, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
- Keep - the pavement reproduction is not an original artistic work. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:44, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted, this is not a mechanical reproduction and is thus protected by copyright, which makes this a derivative work. Kameraad Pjotr 22:29, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
Some more near duplicate Images of Fale 3
[edit]Giardini Botanici Hanbury 1
[edit]- File:Fale_-_Giardini_Botanici_Hanbury_in_Ventimiglia_-_3.jpg
- File:Fale_-_Giardini_Botanici_Hanbury_in_Ventimiglia_-_4.jpg
- File:Fale_-_Giardini_Botanici_Hanbury_in_Ventimiglia_-_5.jpg
- File:Fale_-_Giardini_Botanici_Hanbury_in_Ventimiglia_-_6.jpg
- File:Fale_-_Giardini_Botanici_Hanbury_in_Ventimiglia_-_7.jpg
Near duplicate files. This one could stay:
Giardini Botanici Hanbury 2
[edit]- File:Fale_-_Giardini_Botanici_Hanbury_in_Ventimiglia_-_8.jpg
- File:Fale_-_Giardini_Botanici_Hanbury_in_Ventimiglia_-_15.jpg
Near duplicate files. This one could stay:
Giardini Botanici Hanbury 3
[edit]
Near duplicate files. This one could stay:
Giardini Botanici Hanbury 4
[edit]- File:Fale_-_Giardini_Botanici_Hanbury_in_Ventimiglia_-_24.jpg
- File:Fale_-_Giardini_Botanici_Hanbury_in_Ventimiglia_-_28.jpg
- File:Fale_-_Giardini_Botanici_Hanbury_in_Ventimiglia_-_30.jpg
Near duplicate files. This one could stay:
Giardini Botanici Hanbury 5
[edit]- File:Fale_-_Giardini_Botanici_Hanbury_in_Ventimiglia_-_31.jpg
- File:Fale_-_Giardini_Botanici_Hanbury_in_Ventimiglia_-_32.jpg
Near duplicate files. This one could stay:
Giardini Botanici Hanbury 6
[edit]- File:Fale_-_Giardini_Botanici_Hanbury_in_Ventimiglia_-_57.jpg
- File:Fale_-_Giardini_Botanici_Hanbury_in_Ventimiglia_-_58.jpg
- File:Fale_-_Giardini_Botanici_Hanbury_in_Ventimiglia_-_59.jpg
Near duplicate files. This one could stay:
Giardini Botanici Hanbury 7
[edit]- File:Fale_-_Giardini_Botanici_Hanbury_in_Ventimiglia_-_64.jpg
- File:Fale_-_Giardini_Botanici_Hanbury_in_Ventimiglia_-_71.jpg
Near duplicate files. This one could stay:
Giardini Botanici Hanbury 8
[edit]
Near duplicate files. This one could stay:
Giardini Botanici Hanbury 9
[edit]
Near duplicate files. This one could stay:
Giardini Botanici Hanbury 10
[edit]
Near duplicate files. This one could stay:
Giardini Botanici Hanbury 11
[edit]- File:Fale_-_Giardini_Botanici_Hanbury_in_Ventimiglia_-_300.jpg
- File:Fale_-_Giardini_Botanici_Hanbury_in_Ventimiglia_-_303.jpg
Near duplicate files. This one could stay:
Giardini Botanici Hanbury 12
[edit]- File:Fale_-_Giardini_Botanici_Hanbury_in_Ventimiglia_-_305.jpg
- File:Fale_-_Giardini_Botanici_Hanbury_in_Ventimiglia_-_306.jpg
Near duplicate files. This one could stay:
Giardini Botanici Hanbury 13
[edit]- File:Fale_-_Giardini_Botanici_Hanbury_in_Ventimiglia_-_307.jpg
- File:Fale_-_Giardini_Botanici_Hanbury_in_Ventimiglia_-_309.jpg
Near duplicate files. This one could stay:
Giardini Botanici Hanbury 14
[edit]
Near duplicate files. This one could stay:
Giardini Botanici Hanbury 15
[edit]
Near duplicate files. This one could stay:
Giardini Botanici Hanbury 16
[edit]
Near duplicate files. This one could stay:
User:Fale uploaded all the files of the camera without doing a selection. Lots of User:Fale's images have been delete before. see: here, here and here. you can see a gallery view of all the images here with 500px and one here with 100px. Non of the files are used (except on userpage gallery). None of the images have been tagged with delete. If this should happen, we should get a bot to do this. User has been informed. Amada44 talk to me 07:57, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
- Weak keep. While it probably wasn't advisable to upload these near-duplicates, they strike me as totally harmless, and I can't see any advantage of wasting further time and effort sorting through this. - Jmabel ! talk 15:55, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Same reason as Commons:Deletion_requests/Some_more_near_duplicate_Images_of_Fale. Fale is known for indiscriminate uploading. Thanks again to Amada44 for sorting through these. Rocket000 (talk) 19:11, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
Castle of Popov
[edit]- File:Castle of Popov in Vasylivka.JPG
- File:Model of Castle of Popov.jpg
- File:Wing in Popov's residence in Vasylivka.JPG
Castle of Popov
[edit]Copied from other cite. Wrong license. --Ink (talk) 10:46, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
These images were all uploaded by User:Loportek. I believe they should be deleted because they were copied from this cite. Article en:Popov Castle will be nominated for deletion too. Ink (talk) 10:38, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Copyright violations. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 14:00, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
- Keep http://partners.academic.ru/dic.nsf/ruwiki/ is just a mirror of ru-wiki. Trycatch (talk) 14:12, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
Kept. per Trycatch -- good catch! Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:51, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
Chechulin
[edit]- Kievskaya subway station in Moscow (en:Kievskaya (Filyovskaya Line))
- File:Kievskaya Filevskaya Line interior.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Kievskaya Filevskaya Line entrance.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log) - duplicate of one of the files listed below; not undeleted
- File:Kievskaya Filevskaya Line columns.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Kievskaya Filevskaya Line ceiling.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Kievskaya FL.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Kievskaya Filevskaya Line.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:KievskayaFL-mm.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Kievskaya-Radialnaya Filevskaya Line entrance.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:KievskayaFL-mm.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Tableau-mm.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Kievskaya STFL.JPG (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- Komsomolskaya subway station in Moscow (en:Komsomolskaya (Sokolnicheskaya Line))
- File:KomsomolskayaSL-mm01.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Komsomolskaya5.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Komsomol'skaya sokol'nicheskaya line.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Komsomolskaya 2.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log) - possible copyvio, not undeleted
- File:SL Komsomolskaya 08.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log) - shows mosaics, not undeleted
- File:SL Komsomolskaya 07.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log) - ditto
- File:Komsomolskaya4.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Комсомольская-радиальная. Решетка вытяжки..jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log) - shows applied art, not undeleted
- File:Komsomolskaya1.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:SL Komsomolskaya 06.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:SL Komsomolskaya 05.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:KomsomolskayaSL-mm02.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:SL Komsomolskaya 09.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:SL Komsomolskaya 10.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:SS101029.JPG (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Sl komsomolskaya 4.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log) - possible copyvio, not undeleted
- File:Комс.-радиал. Оформление балконных решеток-перил.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log) - shows applied art, not undeleted
- File:Комсом. Переход к 2 вокзалам Светильник в фойе эскалаторов.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log) - ditto
- File:Комсом. Радиал. Оформление колонны.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log) - ditto
- Hotel Beijing in Moscow (ru:Пекин (гостиница, Москва))
- File:Peking moscow chechulin tower.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Moscow Beijing Hotel.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Peking moscow chechulin mayakovsky.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log) - shows modern sculpture, not undeleted
These are images of architecturial works of en:Dmitry Chechulin, who died in 1981. There is no FOP in Russia ([7]), and Russian law is applied retroactively to Soviet works ([8]). Should be in category "Undelete in 2052/56". --Fernrohr (talk) 10:43, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
- Keep File:Komsomolskaya1.jpg -- what's copyrightable here? Trycatch (talk) 19:03, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
- Keep all. Absolutely every square inch of these stations are copied and photographed thouasnds times a day. Actually, it's just an interior of Moscow Underground , which is in list of State Objects of Cultural Heritage. 44 stations, including all these three is a cultural property site of Russian Federation. I don't think we should delete it, because Russian Federation doesn't forbid to anyone use the images of metro. - Zac allan (talk) 20:30, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
- On Pekin Hotel. Isn't it a free panoramic view? Mayakovsky monument is a main detail, as far as i get, and it's not about Russian Federation copyright. - Zac allan (talk) 20:33, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
- If your argument for File:Peking moscow chechulin mayakovsky.jpg is that the statue is the main item, not the hotel, then it should be deleted because the sculptor is Alexander Kibalnikov ([9]), who died in 1987 ([10]). --Fernrohr (talk) 13:11, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
- On Pekin Hotel. Isn't it a free panoramic view? Mayakovsky monument is a main detail, as far as i get, and it's not about Russian Federation copyright. - Zac allan (talk) 20:33, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
![[9]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Vladimir_Mayakovsky_monument_in_Moscow_%28closeup%29.jpg){kind=link}
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) 07:12, 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) 08:22, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
Keep --Steindy (talk) 15:14, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
Delete No FoP in Russia, architect died in 1981. Seems pretty clear-cut. Hekerui (talk) 19:50, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, no freedom of panorama in the former Soviet Union. Kept those that were de minimis or {{PD-ineligible}}. Kameraad Pjotr 20:16, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
Out of scope, selfcreated artwork by user, not realistically usefull for educational purposes. All those images are basically blurred (photoshop filtered) copies of Vermeer paintings, uploaded at ridiculously high resolutions. They set a bad precedent and should go. --Dschwen (talk) 14:38, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
- File:001_Vermeer_La_contable_B.jpg
- File:001_Maja_desnuda.jpg
- File:002_Vermeer_Escribiendo_una_carta_A.jpg
- File:002_Vermeer_Escribiendo_una_carta_D.jpg
- File:003_Vermeer_Mujer_con_Aguamanil_B.jpg
- File:003_Vermeer_Mujer_con_Aguamanil_D.jpg
- File:003_Vermeer_Mujer_con_Aguamanil_E.jpg
- File:003_Vermeer_Mujer_con_Aguamanil_F.jpg
- File:004_Vermeer_Muchacha_de_la_perla_A.jpg
- File:004_Vermeer_Muchacha_de_la_perla_B.jpg
- File:005_Vermeer_La_lechera_A.jpg
- File:005_Vermeer_La_lechera_C.jpg
- File:005_Vermeer_La_lechera_D.jpg
- File:06_Vermeer_-_Mujer_y_niño_A.jpg
- File:06_Vermeer_-_Mujer_y_niño_B.jpg
- File:07_Vermeer_A.jpg
- File:07_Vermeer_B.jpg
- File:08_Vermeer_A.jpg
- File:09_La_Guitarrista_-_Vemeer_A.jpg
- File:10_Vermeer_-_Mujer_con_una_balanza_A.jpg
- File:11_Vermeer_-_Mujer_en_azul_B.jpg
- File:12_Vermeer_-_Lectora_en_la_ventana.jpg
Delete Per nom! --Yikrazuul (talk) 17:13, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:12, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
Some template files of User:Faelomx
[edit]- File:UI BTN FMX Div.GIF
- File:Es pestanya fmx003.PNG
- File:Es pestanya fmx002.PNG
- File:Es pestanya fmx001.PNG
- File:FAECOCPagina2.jpg
- File:FAECOCPagina1.jpg
- File:Faelomx arte n la cocinab.PNG
- File:Faelomx arte n la cocina.PNG
- File:Tp elemento n600.png
- File:Tp elemento a600.png
- File:UI BTN FMX Div.GIF
- File:UI BTN FMX Div.GIF
All these (there may be more) are template graphic components probably used in the past in es wikipedia (these are 2006 uploads) but now unused and obsolete. I see no foreseeable use so I am nominating them as out of scope. --Santosga (talk) 18:27, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:27, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
No freedom of panorama in France. The architect died in 1946. 83.163.5.82 20:07, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
No freedom of panorama in France. The architect died in 1946. 83.163.5.82 20:08, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:38, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
No freedom of panorama in France. The architect died in 1946. 83.163.5.82 20:07, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
No freedom of panorama in France. The architect died in 1946. 83.163.5.82 20:08, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:38, 5 September 2010 (UTC)