Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2010/09/15
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
|
|
empty Tonka (talk) 02:37, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted by Otourly: Author requested deletion or blanked page: content was: '{{delete|reason=empty|subpage=Bosnian_War_in_Banja_Luka|year=2010|month=September|day=15}}' (and the only contributor was 'Tonka')
empty Tonka (talk) 02:37, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted by Otourly: Author requested deletion or blanked page: content was: '{{delete|reason=empty|subpage=Bosnian_War_in_Banja_Luka|year=2010|month=September|day=15}}' (and the only contributor was 'Tonka')
unused personal image - out of scope Santosga (talk) 00:46, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
Delete for nominator's reason. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 07:39, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. rotated version: File:Onezebra1b.JPG -- Common Good (talk) 19:16, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
non free, uploader states own work but file is found here http://www.techscreens.com/ultra-high-speed-cameras-casio-fc150-and-fh25-capture-40-fps.html Sandahl (talk) 02:08, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
- Delete: copyright violation. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 07:25, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Common Good (talk) 19:27, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
Duplicate. Picture of the Great Muta, not Rellik. TheFBH (talk) 08:58, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Exact or scaled-down duplicate: File:Great Muta.jpg -- Common Good (talk) 20:25, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
Created with wrong title (should be without ".jpg" extension; sorry, my mistake) Robotje (talk) 09:30, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Common Good (talk) 20:25, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
Same as File:PUaminepolymerization.png, but missing top left arrow. Leyo 22:00, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
I actually wanted to delete this as its creator (and of the improved version) but could find no way to do so. I also do not know if this is the proper way to respond to this deletion request. The proper protocols around here are a little confusing! TenzilKem 22:30, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Common Good (talk) 19:08, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
Same as File:PUaminepolymerization.png, but missing top left arrow. Not used. Leyo 22:02, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
I actually wanted to delete this as its creator (and of the improved version) but could find no way to do so. I also do not know if this is the proper way to respond to this deletion request. The proper protocols around here are a little confusing! TenzilKem 22:31, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Common Good (talk) 19:07, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
No FOP in UAE, see also Commons:Deletion requests/Images of Burj Khalifa --Màñü飆¹5 talk 17:44, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted by DieBuche: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Rose_Rotana_Tower_and_21st_Century_Tower_on_14_September_2007.jpg: No FOP in UAE, see also Commons:Deletion requests/Images of Burj Khalifa
Non free book cover and the text of page is out of project scope too. Sandahl (talk) 02:19, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
- Delete: copyright violation. Uploader appears to have used image description page as an article page for a school project of some kind – not appropriate for Commons. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 07:37, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted by Yann: Copyright violation
Uploaded only 12hrs ago and already appears on something like 1000 projects? I smell spam. Also, not entirely sure wtf it is meant to be about, except Japan obviously, -mattbuck (Talk) 16:02, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
- My first guess, could be wrong, is that the 'two witnesses' somehow referred to Hiroshima and Nagasaki? 96.228.15.212 19:46, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
Didn't you hear a news about two stones recently? Please do not be afraid.
- No I didn't, but I'll be happy to take a look, if you have a link or something that could explain this. 96.228.15.212 20:16, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
I am in the process. The information is my life. The towns which mean 'Two witnesses and Skewer' in English exist in Japan. You can also confirm the positions by any map services. Revealing it is a spam?
- Not necessarily spam - it's just hard to understand what this is for. Are these towns usually known in English by their Japanese names? What are they called in Japanese? We usually don't translate the meanings of places, other than to transliterate them to our alphabet. 96.228.15.212 21:37, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
I understand. But sharing information is a natural process. Deleting is unfair. Please consider why wiki includes many languages versions closely.
- Okay. It's not up to me to delete, I am just one editor who is curious to see what actual information is here. If there is some information, maybe we could find the appropriate way to include it in English wikipedia. For example, if the article for one of the towns was called "Xyz", then we could write in that article something like "The name Xyz translates into English as 'Two witnesses harbor'... " I had to write "Xyz", because I still have no idea what the actual name of the town is... 96.228.15.212 23:11, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
Thank you. But someone is trying the same thing again. You are being witnessed. Please stop it.
- I really have no clue what you're on about. What is being witnessed? Oh, and please remember to sign your posts with four tildes (~~~~). -mattbuck (Talk) 02:00, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
I guess the uploader tried to translate japanese names literally; "二見浦" is 二(this kanji means "two")見("to see")浦("bay" or "cove") and "串本町" is 串("stick" or "skewer")本("book", or might-be "base")町("town"). Though I can't guess the uploade was serious or just tried to be a valdal, we'd better delete it, for he/she wouldn't add the explanation .--miya (talk) 13:34, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
- I had been trying in vain to find out what article, if any, any of this might possibly pertain to... But there wasn't anything to go on... Now that you have at least typed the Kanji out, it gave me something to do a search for... So now I can report: the first town is apparently en:Futami, Mie, the other seems to be en:Kushimoto, Wakayama... the "Two stones" is apparently covered at en:Meoto Iwa, but I don't find any recent news stories mentioning it.
- The text on the image "42 months" is also enigmatic; it seems possibly to suggest some sort of connection with the "Two witnesses" of the New Testament Book of Revelation, though. It would be nice to have a better explanation from User:Ywtnss22, instead of these vague clues, if he doesn't want it to be summarily deleted. 96.228.15.212 17:57, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
- Now here is another version, File:Japan satellite 20100918 01.png, spammed around.--miya (talk) 13:53, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted.because of this talk and last events with Whtisee in other wikis Otourly (talk) 15:25, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
unused photo of Argentinean band with no notability, deleted multiple times here es:La Finca de Laurento - out of scope Santosga (talk) 21:26, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Polarlys (talk) 09:33, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
User is not the author, author isn't dead for 70 years. Apparently no permission for use. Ronn (talk) 21:22, 15 September 2010 (UTC) This picture can be a problem I am not sure who has taken this picture Joosttib (talk) 08:57, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted by Túrelio: Uploader request: Copyright violation:
unused personal image - out of scope Santosga (talk) 00:46, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
- Delete for nominator's reason. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 07:39, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 02:07, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
unused personal image - out of scope Santosga (talk) 00:46, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
- Delete for nominator's reason. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 07:40, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 02:07, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
luis 190.69.1.62 01:23, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
Keep speedily: no proper reason given for deletion. Image is in use on a user page. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 07:23, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
copyvio 94.254.188.225 00:36, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
- Delete: image was taken from a website, and there is no indication that it was released into the public domain or under a free licence. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 07:39, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. ZooFari 23:52, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Owner wants to take it down. JenniferTK (talk) 19:07, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
- Delete no reason to keep. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:16, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. ZooFari 00:41, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
owner wants to delete this JenniferTK (talk) 21:31, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. ZooFari 00:41, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
- File:Shay Laren.jpg
- File:Shay Laren 2.jpg
- File:Shay Laren face.jpg
- File:Shay Laren. September 2006.JPG
- File:Shay Laren at the Penthouse Pets Playoff.jpg
- File:Shay Laren at Penthouse Pet Playoff 2.jpg
- File:Shay Laren at Penthouse Pet Playoff 1.jpg
- File:Shay Laren at Luke Ford's 40th birthday party.jpg
- File:Shay Laren at Luke Ford's 40th birthday party 7.jpg
- File:Shay Laren at Luke Ford's 40th birthday party 6.jpg
- File:Shay Laren at Luke Ford's 40th birthday party 4.jpg
- File:Shay Laren at Luke Ford's 40th birthday party 3.jpg
- File:Shay Laren at Luke Ford's 40th birthday party 10.jpg
- File:Shay Laren at Luke Ford's 40th birthday party 13.jpg
- File:Shay Laren at Luke Ford's 40th birthday party 5.jpg
- File:Shay Laren at Luke Ford's 40th birthday party 2.jpg
- File:Shay Laren at Luke Ford's 40th birthday party 8.jpg
- File:Shay Laren at Luke Ford's 40th birthday party 15.jpg
- File:Shay Laren at Luke Ford's 40th birthday party 11.jpg
- File:Shay Laren at Luke Ford's 40th birthday party 14.jpg
- File:Shay Laren at Luke Ford's 40th birthday party 9.jpg
- File:Shay Laren at Luke Ford's 40th birthday party 12.jpg
- File:Shay Laren at Luke Ford's 40th birthday party 18.jpg
- File:Shay Laren at Luke Ford's 40th birthday party 17.jpg
- File:Shay Laren at Luke Ford's 40th birthday party 16.jpg
- File:Shay Laren at Luke Ford's 40th birthday party 2.jpg
- File:Shay Laren at Luke Ford's 40th birthday party 3.jpg
- File:Shay Laren, Crystal Klein at Luke Ford's 40th birthday party 2.jpg
- File:Crystal Klein, Shay Laren at Luke Ford's 40th birthday party 3.jpg
- File:Crystal Klein, Shay Laren at Luke Ford's 40th birthday party 1.jpg
- File:Crystal Klein, Shay Laren at Luke Ford's 40th birthday party 10.jpg
- File:Crystal Klein, Shay Laren at Luke Ford's 40th birthday party 9.jpg
- File:Crystal Klein, Shay Laren at Luke Ford's 40th birthday party 8.jpg
- File:Crystal Klein, Shay Laren at Luke Ford's 40th birthday party 7.jpg
- File:Crystal Klein, Shay Laren at Luke Ford's 40th birthday party 6.jpg
- File:Crystal Klein, Shay Laren at Luke Ford's 40th birthday party 5.jpg
- File:Crystal Klein, Shay Laren at Luke Ford's 40th birthday party 4.jpg
- File:Martina Warren, Lisa, Shay Laren, Crystal Klein at Luke Ford's 40th birthday party.jpg
- File:Penthouse girls at Luke Ford's 40th birthday party 2.jpg
- File:Penthouse girls at Luke Ford's 40th birthday party 1.jpg
- File:Penthouse girls at Luke Ford's 40th birthday party 4.jpg
- File:Penthouse girls at Luke Ford's 40th birthday party 3.jpg
Advertising and self-promotion. Not realistically useful for an educational purpose.No subject agreement.Used for personal photo album.72.37.244.60 21:46, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
- Delete for nominator's reasons. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 07:35, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
- Keep ?? w:es:Shay Laren has her own article in 4 WPs. Trycatch (talk) 10:44, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Shay Laren is not notable enough to be on US wikipedia. Her US wikipedia entry has been deleted. I don't see any evidence of her permission to use photo. It looks like someone's photo album — Jtech –talk– 19:14, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
- ^ first edit in WMF-projects. There is no need for her permission, see COM:PEOPLE#Normally OK. Trycatch (talk) 08:30, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
- Keep. Some of these files are in use, and she's notable enough to have an article on several Wikipedias (not on the US Wikipedia, because there's no such thing, but on existing projects, yes). –Tryphon☂ 09:10, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Image(s) in use on several articles and pages on the Wikimedia projects which makes it automatically within our projects scope. That the subject no longer has an article on the English language Wikipedia doesn't mean anything and could be temporary (but even if it's not, it doesn't matter). Please note though that (except for a few edge cases) by no means are wiki projects connected to a country, rather to a language spoken. –Krinkletalk 14:28, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
- Delete One of the main scopes of Wikicommons is to use media that is "realistically useful for an educational purpose." I don't see an educational purpose here, unless you are educating about girls whose primary achievement is that they were featured once in Penthouse magazine almost five years ago— Jtech –talk– 19:14, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
- Keep In scope. Uploaders not notified. --Svnnsmsn (talk) 13:20, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
- Keep "out of scope" is no argument, when we have articles in four projects. --Mbdortmund (talk) 02:10, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Derivative work. Masks (unlike clothes) are protected by copyrights. –Tryphon☂ 14:29, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
- Delete - not used, low quality, does not seem in scope. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:59, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Common Good (talk) 19:15, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
replaced by Category:Jesus among the Doctors GFreihalter (talk) 12:30, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
- Keep - make into a category redirect. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:55, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
Kept. Cat redirect, per Pieter. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:21, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
This image is not "simple geometry" or "simple geometric shapes and/or text" Ferbr1 (talk) 12:38, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
Vk? why? This image is "simple geometry" (!) Ferbr1 (talk) 21:16, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
- It is not eligible for copyright and it is in use. If you want to change the license, go ahead. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:20, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
Why it "is not eligible for copyright"? It's a cercle or a cube? These letters are ad hoc creations Ferbr1 (talk) 11:41, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
- Text. As it says in the template. Please have a look at Threshold of originality. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 11:45, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
Kept. It is our policy that the typeface itself can have a copyright, but words written in a specific typeface, even a new one, do not, unless, of course, there are enough of them so that they cross the threshold of originality as text. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:24, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
Unclear case. I wonder if there is any FOP in India, and if it applies here. Yann (talk) 14:45, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
- There's freedom of panorama in India, but how would it apply here? It's clearly not a building, statue or even a mural and we really have no clue as to where the "hanging" it's supposed to be based on is located. Judging by the lack of metadata and the digital manipulation, it doesn't even seem to be a photograph.
- Peter Isotalo 16:29, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
- From description and talk page
- Forgot to put the image through TinEye. The information supplied by uploade is incorrect. The artist is American painter Robert Thom (1915-79), not Demerla Rama Rao. See here for an example the original on sale as a poster. Peter Isotalo 13:37, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
- Appeal Deletion request Sep. 12, 2010
It's a fair copy of 2D art in a public gallery in Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh, India (acc. to uploader) which is also the region of the author Damerla Rama Rao who died 1925 of smallpox at age 25 and thus most likely created the painting before 1923. PDA-Old applies.
Since there's no facts in the deletion request and the uploader wasn't notified I say it's well safe to remove the tag from the file page. Said and done. --Mercurial (talk) 15:36, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
- I guess I simply forgot to notify the user. What strikes me as problematic is the extremely low quality of the image, that it's very recent and is made by an artist who doesn't seem particularly notable. The only example of actual usage is the Swedish Wikipedia article on bipolar disorder, which is rather questionable.
- Peter Isotalo 15:53, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
- Well it has been used before and given the motive and lesser quality, I don't expect it to be used very much but that's no reason (to me) for being suspicious; neither is which article it happens to illustrate today. If we stick to facts, we have no information suggesting that the information from the uploader is wrong. "Doesn't seem notable" is not an argument but either way it's just not true, the artist is reputated but obviously not in all parts of the world. Anyway, the issue here is the claimed copyvio and nothing of the above supports that suggestion.--Mercurial (talk) 20:12, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
- What about the extremely low quality of the image and the fact that the image has been digitally altered by adding pixly stars and an irregular baby blue background? This amounts to heavy alteration of the original image that lowers is encyclopedic quality extremely. Does none of that bother you at all?
- Peter Isotalo 08:09, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. FOP in India applies only to architectural works and "sculpture, or other artistic work failing under sub-clause (iii) of clause (c) of section 2". The cited sub-clause does not include paintings, drawings, or photographs, as they are in sub-clause (i) of the cited paragraph. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:40, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
No FoP in UAE. --Màñü飆¹5 talk 17:47, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
STOP No entiendo porqué se tiene que borrar la imagen, debido a que se encuentra en flickr con licencia para copiar, distribuir y comunicar públicamente la obra, además la foto fue tomada en 2009 con una camara AG M9, cual es el problema entonces ? no entiendo.
Nanovapor9 (talk) 00:33, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
- Que todos los edificios de los Emiratos Árabes Unidos se encuentran bajo derechos de autor y por tanto, toda fotografía sobre ellos hereda la misma restricción, es decir, no se pueden fotografiar. Aunque en Flickr esté bajo una licencia libre, el usuario de Flickr no tiene poder para liberar esta imagen, solo el arquitecto de la torre. --Màñü飆¹5 talk 01:19, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
- Delete per Commons:Deletion requests/Images of Category:Burj Khalifa. ZooFari 00:28, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:45, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
No FoP in UAE. --Màñü飆¹5 talk 17:49, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:45, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
No FoP in UAE. --Màñü飆¹5 talk 17:51, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:46, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
No FoP in UAE. --Màñü飆¹5 talk 17:53, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:46, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
No FoP in UAE. --Màñü飆¹5 talk 17:54, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:46, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
No FoP in UAE. --Màñü飆¹5 talk 17:59, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:47, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
No FoP in UAE. --Màñü飆¹5 talk 17:59, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:47, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
No FoP in UAE. --Màñü飆¹5 talk 18:00, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:47, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
No FoP in UAE. --Màñü飆¹5 talk 18:00, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:47, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
No FoP in UAE. --Màñü飆¹5 talk 18:00, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:48, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
No FoP in UAE. --Màñü飆¹5 talk 18:01, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:48, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
No FoP in UAE. --Màñü飆¹5 talk 18:01, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:48, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
COM:DW of recent sculpture. Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:07, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
- Keep as of Commons:Licensing#Sweden: "Works of art permanently exhibited in public spaces can be used without consideration to the creator of the work of art, e.g. freedom of panorama". --|EPO| da: 17:08, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
- This is fails "outdoors", and these are not really permanently located, I think; see COM:FOP#Sweden. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 17:18, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
- The location is private property where the movies were recorded. The owner of the property is keeping the place as a permanent exhibition, which includes the location in question. However there could be a problem with på eller vid allmän plats utomhus as this is a inside a workshop/barn. --|EPO| da: 15:07, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
- This is fails "outdoors", and these are not really permanently located, I think; see COM:FOP#Sweden. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 17:18, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted.
- Private property is not a public space.
- These are not outdoors as is, I understand, required.
Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:41, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
Description states that permission was given by the author of the book but no ORTS is filed. This user has previously not been able to prove the provided permission as shown at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Hot profile rolling.JPG, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Siemens-Martin furnace.JPG and Commons:Deletion requests/File:LD-process.PNG. ~ Wizard191 (talk) 20:47, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:42, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
Description states that permission was given by the author of the book but no ORTS is filed. This user has previously not been able to prove the provided permission as shown at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Hot profile rolling.JPG, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Siemens-Martin furnace.JPG and Commons:Deletion requests/File:LD-process.PNG. Wizard191 (talk) 20:49, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:42, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
Description states that permission was given by the author of the book but no ORTS is filed. This user has previously not been able to prove the provided permission as shown at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Hot profile rolling.JPG, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Siemens-Martin furnace.JPG and Commons:Deletion requests/File:LD-process.PNG. Wizard191 (talk) 20:50, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:42, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
no FOP Ronn (talk) 21:05, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
- I have made this picture myself with permission of the owner. Joosttib (talk) 08:50, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
- You don't have permission from the artist. According to Dutch copyright laws there's no freedom of panorama in this case. Ronn (talk) 15:06, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:43, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
according to Dutch copyright laws there's no FOP inside a school Ronn (talk) 21:20, 15 September 2010 (UTC) The collectie regionaal archief (owner of the picturen said this about it: L.S.,
Ik verklaar hierbij dat ik de auteur en/of de enige eigenaar van de exclusieve auteursrechten ben op Meisje met paraplu Bart Welten foto Collectie Regionaal Archief Nijmegen, GN5077.1961
Ik verklaar hierbij dit werk te publiceren onder de [CC-BY-SA en GFDL-licentie] en ik verklaar dat ik eenieder het recht geef om het werk te gebruiken in een commercieel product en het te wijzigen naar behoefte, zoals de [CC-BY-SA en GFDL] voorschrijven.
Ik ben me ervan bewust dat ik altijd de rechten van mijn werk behoud en het recht behoud om met mijn naam vermeld te worden volgens de [CC-BY-SA of GFDL].
Ik ben me ervan bewust dat ik deze verklaring niet in kan trekken, en dat de tekst of afbeelding permanent kan worden bewaard op een Wikimedia-project.
Namens het Regionaal Archief Nijmegen:
Henk Trapman Coördinator audiovisuele collecties Regionaal Archief Nijmegen Mariënburg 27 Postbus 9105 6500 HG Nijmegen Tel. (024) 329 23 94
16-9-2010 Nijmegen
Joosttib (talk) 08:45, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
- It doesn't matter if you have permission from the photographer. As said, according to Dutch copyright laws there's no freedom of panorama inside a school. 14:31, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:43, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
No FOP according to Dutch copyright laws Ronn (talk) 21:24, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
- I have made this picture myself with permission of the owner.Joosttib (talk) 08:52, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
- It doesn't matter if you have permission from the owner. There's no freedom of panorama in this case. Ronn (talk) 14:46, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:44, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
Out of scope, and quite possibly a copyright violation. –Tryphon☂ 21:47, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:44, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
Picture from 20minutos.es bylined "ARCHIVO". As the most of pictures from 20minutos with this byline, it wasn't created by 20minutos, it's just a crop from this photograph by ULY MARTÍN. Trycatch (talk) 22:14, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:45, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
Logo of unnotable/unknown organization and unused. ZooFari 22:28, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:45, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
Not sure about the Heisman itself, but that image in the background is very likely copyrighted. I don't think this is a situation where FOP kicks in either. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 22:30, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:46, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
No indication that this is a free image; uploader states "I found it on Google"; format suggests non-free promotional image, and we cannot assume it's free. Rodhullandemu (talk) 22:44, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:47, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
permission is given to the FAA, but the source gives the permission for the photo to the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, which is copyright not PD. Atmoz (talk) 23:14, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:48, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
Advertising and self-promotion. Not realistically useful for an educational purpose --72.37.244.60 21:03, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
- Delete for nominator's reasons. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 07:27, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Shay Laren is notable enough. "Advertising and self-promotion" reason is nonsense -- Shay Laren is very unlikely connected in some way with User:Klodl. Trycatch (talk) 10:52, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Shay Laren is not even notable enough to be on US wikipedia. Her US wikipedia entry has been deleted. I don't see any evidence of her permission to use photo. It looks like someone's photo album — Jtech' –talk– 19:14, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
Kept. Per Commons:Deletion requests/Category:Shay Laren --Màñü飆¹5 talk 04:36, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
author requests the deletion of this image Seerig (talk) 15:58, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
Kept. per Commons:Deletion requests/User:Seerig/license. --Martin H. (talk) 22:07, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
Uploader requested MGA73 (talk) 19:25, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
Uploader revoked license [1] and marked a lot of files for speedy deletion with {{Copyvio}}:
- File:Aerial work platform.JPG
- File:Aerial work platforms.JPG
- File:Angora goat.jpg
- File:Angoragoat.JPG
- File:Appaloosa horse.JPG
- File:Arthur Herbert Lindsay Richardson .JPG
- File:Ayrshire cattle.JPG
- File:Ayrshire cow head.JPG
- File:Beer tap.JPG
- File:Belgian (horse).JPG
- File:Belgianhorse.JPG
- File:Belgianhorse5.JPG
- File:Bicycle stand.JPG
- File:Black Belgian horse.JPG
- File:Blacksmith.JPG
- File:Blacksmiths.JPG
- File:BMO Centre Corral Stampede Park, Calgary, Alberta.jpg
- File:BMO Centre.JPG
- File:Budweiser Anheuser-Busch.JPG
- File:CalgaryTower.JPG
- File:Caligo eurilochus.jpg
- File:Canadian Speckle Park.JPG
- File:Canola meal.JPG
- File:Canola plant.JPG
- File:Canola seeds.JPG
- File:Chestnut Belgian horse.JPG
- File:Chuckwagon racing.jpg
- File:Cinder block.jpg
- File:CJAY-FM.jpg
- File:Climbingwall.jpg
- File:Coca-Cola Stage.jpg
- File:Concrete block.jpg
- File:Dalmatian.JPG
- File:Dorset sheep.jpg
- File:Downspout seepage.jpg
- File:Dumpsters.jpg
- File:Ganesh statue.jpg
- File:Ganesh.jpg
- File:Go-karts.jpg
- File:Grass hay.jpg
- File:Gravel.jpg
- File:Hand sanitizer.jpg
- File:Hand sanitizing station.jpg
- File:Home Outfitters.JPG
- File:House Sparrow at Calgary.jpg
- File:House Sparrow Calgary.JPG
- File:Jacob sheep.jpg
- File:John Deere 2305.jpg
- File:John Deere.jpg
- File:Keychain.jpg
- File:Leopard C2.jpg
- File:Leopard-spotted appaloosa.JPG
- File:Snowy Owl.JPG
- File:Straw bale.JPG
- File:Walking sandal.jpg
- File:WestJet chuckwagon.jpg
- File:Windowbox.jpg
Licenses are not revokable so I changed to a regular DR. --MGA73 (talk) 19:27, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Giving the long license template written by the user, I don't believe that (s)he don't understand basics of the CC-licenses. Just 4 pictures are in use, but I don't like idea of deletion as courtesy, because the request sounds more like threat for me. Trycatch (talk) 21:21, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
- Keep As said, licences are not revokable. Therefore the user is de facto requesting the removal of these files "just because", and IMO they are very "keepable" (many are unique or at least educative and of good quality), so there is no reason to delete them. Pitke (talk) 07:01, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
Keep I agree whole-heartedly with my two colleagues above that we should keep these, both on principle and because some of them (seven, now, I think) are in use. However, it isn't quite so simple. I haven't looked at all of them, but all that I did look at showed that the original upload had three licenses:
- CC-BY-SA-3.0
- GFDL
- Seerig's own license template, User:Seerig/license, which contained (from the beginning) the following:
- "If you are a (commercial) publisher and want to relicense my pictures or purchase a print, please first contact me on my talk page."
That looks to me like it limits commercial use and should not have been permitted on Commons at all. I am prepared to say that CC-BY-SA-3.0 and GFDL made the offending sentence in the license template moot, but I would be interested in hearing more comment. I certainly don't want a bully to end up succeeding in his attempt to revoke the irrevocable licenses on these. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:36, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
- That's just saying that he may be willing to relicense the files (in context where sharealike licenses are not usable)--DieBuche (talk) 20:49, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
Kept. CC and GFDL licenses are not revocableDieBuche (talk) 20:50, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
Advertising and self-promotion. Not realistically useful for an educational purpose --209.33.45.123 03:05, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
- Delete for nominator's reasons. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 07:27, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Shay Laren is notable enough. Trycatch (talk) 10:45, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Shay Laren is not notable enough to be on US wikipedia. Her US wikipedia entry has been deleted. I don't see any evidence of her permission to use photo. It looks like someone's photo album — Jtech' –talk– 19:14, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
This image is not "simple geometry" or "simple geometric shapes and/or text" Ferbr1 (talk) 12:41, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
- Keep. A speech balloon is not eligible for copyright, neither are pie charts. The rest is just text. –Tryphon☂ 13:14, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
LoC source was not found (see File talk:Leadbelly sitting.jpg) ZooFari 22:45, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted by Rastrojo: Missing essential information: source and/or license: No license since 17 August 2010
Out of scope. I was trying to improve the description and categories (which are all very broad), to emphasize its educational value, but I have to admit I don't see any. –Tryphon☂ 14:27, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
- Keep It can illustrate human hands and art you can do with hands (theatre of shadows). Now the photo is in such categories as: Arms • Fingers • Hands in art • Love in art • Hearts in art • Sun so you can't say that there is a problem to categorise it. Commons is not only a store for wikipedias but for other projects as well. I am planing to use it for illustrate a poem about love on Wikisource. Electron
<Talk?> 15:08, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
- Well if you're going to use it, keep I guess. But I really wish you could try and give the files you transfer from flickr better names and description than what the flickr user wrote (see File:Two left hands forming a heart shape.jpg for example). As for the categories, my issue was not that it's impossible to put it in categories, but that without knowing the purpose of this image, it's hard to find relevant (or precise) categories. Sure you can see fingers, arms and the sun in this image, but is it really what it's about? If it was, I'd say it's a rather poor illustration of those things, hence out of scope; if it's not about that, it'd be nice to have it categorized accordingly (that's what I was unable to do, and led me to believe there's no real educational value there; but again, if you really think it's useful...) –Tryphon☂ 17:15, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
- My intention is to use it in the future. File on commons are gathered not only for now but for the futere use, as well. For time to time I have problem to find a good illustration for poems on wikisource because there are no one useful. So I search flickr and sometimes I find someting good, sometimes not. It takes my time... If I see something what can be useful I upload it for the future use. The file that can illustrate poems are rather "poetic" and have "unclear" subject usually (they are usually "about all and about nothing" ). So it is only matter of time when one of "deletionists" try to delete them. To say the truth it is very sad and annoing... I am of the opinion that if you don't undersdant someting it would be better if you don't interfere. Live and let live others. It is a good device. Regards Electron <Talk?> 20:32, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
- BTW. Now file is used on pl-wiki ->pl:Serce (symbol) to illustrate a symbol of hot love. Electron <Talk?> 20:52, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
- My intention is to use it in the future. File on commons are gathered not only for now but for the futere use, as well. For time to time I have problem to find a good illustration for poems on wikisource because there are no one useful. So I search flickr and sometimes I find someting good, sometimes not. It takes my time... If I see something what can be useful I upload it for the future use. The file that can illustrate poems are rather "poetic" and have "unclear" subject usually (they are usually "about all and about nothing" ). So it is only matter of time when one of "deletionists" try to delete them. To say the truth it is very sad and annoing... I am of the opinion that if you don't undersdant someting it would be better if you don't interfere. Live and let live others. It is a good device. Regards Electron
- Well if you're going to use it, keep I guess. But I really wish you could try and give the files you transfer from flickr better names and description than what the flickr user wrote (see File:Two left hands forming a heart shape.jpg for example). As for the categories, my issue was not that it's impossible to put it in categories, but that without knowing the purpose of this image, it's hard to find relevant (or precise) categories. Sure you can see fingers, arms and the sun in this image, but is it really what it's about? If it was, I'd say it's a rather poor illustration of those things, hence out of scope; if it's not about that, it'd be nice to have it categorized accordingly (that's what I was unable to do, and led me to believe there's no real educational value there; but again, if you really think it's useful...) –Tryphon☂ 17:15, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
Kept. In use. (non-admin closure) –Tryphon☂ 07:58, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
Same image available on the web (at lower resolution), no EXIF on this one, I doubt it's own work. –Tryphon☂ 07:46, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
There is no evidence that the author of any of these photos died over 70 years ago- there isn't even any author information. J Milburn (talk) 23:11, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
- Comment The photographs might qualify for {{Anonymous-EU}}. The source is the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum where more information might be found, but links given did not work for me. MKFI (talk) 11:42, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
- Possible, but that does assume that they were published straight away. J Milburn (talk) 14:29, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
- Keep given as "courtesy Instytut Pamieci Narodowej". /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:20, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
- And why does the copyright belong to them? And where's your evidence that they were? J Milburn (talk) 02:44, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
- These photos should be {{PD-Polish}}. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 17:36, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
- Yeah, if you have any evidence of early publication which lacks a copyright notice. J Milburn (talk) 19:31, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
- These photos should be {{PD-Polish}}. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 17:36, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
- And why does the copyright belong to them? And where's your evidence that they were? J Milburn (talk) 02:44, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
- Keep with {{Anonymous-EU}}. I hardly think we would see a DMCA takedown notice for these anytime soon. Wknight94 talk 16:08, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
- Do you have any evidence of when these were first published? And we don't assume content is public domain just because we think we're unlikely to get into legal trouble... J Milburn (talk) 16:40, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
- Some of us do. Deleting apparently anonymous photographs from the 1930s seems awfully paranoid. Wknight94 talk 17:10, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
- And just assuming content is public domain until someone threatens legal action seems awfully lazy. Would a featured article contain images licensed so sloppily? It wouldn't have a chance of passing. J Milburn (talk) 19:30, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
- Some of us do. Deleting apparently anonymous photographs from the 1930s seems awfully paranoid. Wknight94 talk 17:10, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
- Do you have any evidence of when these were first published? And we don't assume content is public domain just because we think we're unlikely to get into legal trouble... J Milburn (talk) 16:40, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
- Comment: I'm taking this off my watchlist, as this nonsense really blows my mind. Anyway, I hope, whichever way this is closed, the closing administrator reviews this on whether these images have been demonstrated to be in the public domain (in both Poland and the US...), not on whether it would be nice to keep them or whether they think we're going to get sued. J Milburn (talk) 19:38, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
- Featured page argument is weak at best. Quick scan for sloppy images on featured pages: w:File:Austrianbattleship Radetzky.jpg (not even clear enough to be transferred here), File:Tiger O'Reilly.jpg (no author, no information on publish date), File:Witold Pilecki 1.JPG (I can't tell if this was from a Polish photographer or if there was a copyright mark on it). I even nominated File:Norodom palace.jpg for deletion. Wknight94 talk 20:17, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted, without author and/or date and country of first publication, it is impossible to confirm that these images are in the public domain. Kameraad Pjotr 20:03, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
Now available in higher quality and correct format: File:Ovechkin cropped.jpg. Ytoyoda (talk) 12:49, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
Kept, file is in use. Kameraad Pjotr 19:24, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
I doubt that this file is the complete own work of user:Murderdoll1122. user:murderdoll must give the source of all images of this collage wether they are all his own work or not 80.187.102.97 19:53, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
Kept, AGF on uploaders behalf. Kameraad Pjotr 17:37, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
uncertain and unverified copyright justification, taken from copyrighted website --E3122 (talk) 10:28, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, likely copyright violation. Kameraad Pjotr 21:22, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
uncertain and unverified copyright justification, taken from copyrighted website, superior replaceable alternatives have been uploaded to commons with clear copyright --E3122 (talk) 02:03, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, likely copyright violation. Kameraad Pjotr 21:19, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
I don't want no more free license for this picture --Mike Tolleb (talk) 16:31, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Licenses are irrevocable. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:31, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
Kept, free licenses are irrevocable. Kameraad Pjotr 21:36, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
Suspected copyright violation. Anatiomaros (talk) 19:18, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
It seems that all the other files uploaded by Bdubosso in January 2009 - his/her sole contributions - and claimed as "own work" are all scanned from this Swiss archaeological journal and a guide published by the same archaeological school (File:Eretria guide.jpg). This includes aerial photographs, e.g. File:Apollo aerial.jpg. Anatiomaros (talk) 19:25, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
Actually, they are not actually scanned but downloaded from the site of the Ecole suisse d'archéologie en Grèce which states "Any public use of these images must explicitly acknowledge the courtesy of the Swiss School of Archaeology in Greece." [2]. This does not make them PD images. And in any case the uploader claims them as his/her own work and releases them as such. Perhaps somebody with knowledge of Swiss copyright law can look into this? Anatiomaros (talk) 19:38, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
- At least this file contains a 3D photo and so has to be deleted. —DerHexer (Talk) 10:08, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, copyright violation. Kameraad Pjotr 20:41, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
Picture from 20minutos.es bylined "20MINUTOS/ARCHIVO". Unlikely created by 20minutos.es - photo was published on elobservatodo.cl year before the upload to 20minutos.es. I don't know, maybe it's time for large mass DR of all photos from 20minutos.es with "ARCHIVO" byline? Trycatch (talk) 22:52, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
Delete Copyvio. Luispihormiguero Any problem? 14:36, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, copyright violation. Kameraad Pjotr 20:35, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
Image has been used unfairly for profit. I would like to delete it. Apsk121 (talk) 04:03, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
Comment: you licensed this image CC-BY-SA-3.0, which means you permitted other people to reuse the image for profit. Creative Commons licences cannot be revoked. Please provide some evidence to show that the reuse of the image for profit has been "unfair", for example, you were not properly attributed or the image was modified and not relicensed under the same licence. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 07:30, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
- Why do we need evidence about the unfairness of the reuse? There's nothing we can do about it anyway, and it wouldn't make a case to delete the file here. –Tryphon☂ 08:38, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
- Keep - irrevocable license. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:29, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
- Comment The nom's stated reason is an irrelevance, for two reasons. Firstly I doubt if the "unfair users for profit" are using Commons for their ongoing hosting, so deleting it from here wouldn't stop them. Secondly, any Commons licence will permit this anyway and CC is irrevocable.
- However what's the Commons position on what Wikipedia would describe as WP:CSD#U1, i.e. simple user request?
- Finally I hope the photographer and nominator reconsiders their position in the light of the first. It's a nice image, I'd hate to lose it from here for no real purpose. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:43, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
Kept, free licences are irrevocable. Kameraad Pjotr 22:18, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
giving the uploader contributions [3], I don't believe (s)he is the author of this photograph (web resolution, no EXIF). Trycatch (talk) 10:38, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
Keep Don't have valid reasons to delete. MetalBrasil (talk) 05:48, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted, likely copyright violation. Kameraad Pjotr 19:37, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
Photograph from 20minutos.es bylined "ARCHIVO". It's obvious that 20minutos.es is not the author of this photograph, the author is EFE. Trycatch (talk) 23:41, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
- Delete, the EXIF also says "EFE/Alejandro Ernesto". Another example of 20minutos forgetting where they got the photos from, attributing them to their 'archive' and thereby doing a copyfraud with a free license :( --Martin H. (talk) 15:35, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
- Delete but before deleting someone should upload it to Wikipedia with FUR for some articles.--Neo139 (talk) 02:41, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, copyright violation. Kameraad Pjotr 19:33, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
out of project scope, probably violating personal rights 4028mdk09 (talk) 08:46, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:57, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: per del.req. Not in use. -- Cecil (talk) 20:53, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
Needs more information about the source. Yann (talk) 14:36, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted: Didn't get anymore information about the source. Is unused too. -- Cecil (talk) 23:20, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
According to the dates of birth and death in uk:Ленкавський Степан this photo is likely not even 70 years old, so how is it possible that the author died 70 years ago as claimed on the image description? Martin H. (talk) 15:32, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
- The license tag was changed since. The new license tag claims that the file was published before January 1, 1951, and the creator (if known) died before that date. A source confirming this publication is however missing. Looks like license template roulette. --Martin H. (talk) 11:20, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted: No proof for licence (either one). -- Cecil (talk) 23:21, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
According to the date of birth and death in uk:Лебідь Микола this photo is likely not 70 years old, so how is it possible that the author died 70 years ago as claimed on the image description? Martin H. (talk) 15:33, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
- The license tag was changed since. The new license tag claims that the file was published before January 1, 1951, and the creator (if known) died before that date. A source confirming this publication is however missing. Looks like license template roulette. --Martin H. (talk) 11:20, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted: No proof for licence (either one). -- Cecil (talk) 23:21, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
Probably not own work: small thumbnail, no EXIF data. Yann (talk) 15:37, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
I am working on getting the original file which includes all the metadata necessary to show when I took the picture. Jennag8122 (talk) 10:39, 16 September 2010
Deleted: 5 month gone. Seems, user Jennag8122 has no access to the original file so it can't be the users. -- Cecil (talk) 20:46, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
I don't want no more free license for this picture --Mike Tolleb (talk) 16:39, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Licenses are irrevocable. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:32, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
- Keep He implicitly acknowledges that these images are freely licensed, and even continues to use one on his French user page fr:Utilisateur:Mike Tolleb, which is only possible if it retains a free license! --Tony Wills (talk) 03:19, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
Kept: Licences are not retractable. Once released under free licence, always free licence. -- Cecil (talk) 23:24, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
Is the stated author "jerry" identical with the uploader? Considering that the other image uploaded by this user is a copyvio, the answer is probably "no", which would make THIS image another copyvio. If the author really IS the uploader, this should be properly documented. The source "camara digi8tal" should also be clarified. Rosenzweig δ 19:12, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
- Delete. Photography is from 2005, and I do not think it is authored by the uploader. See: [4]--. HombreDHojalata.conversa 15:12, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted: Most likely Copyvio. -- Cecil (talk) 23:27, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
Wrong title ; replaced by File:Nietzsche - Le Cas Wagner (trad. Halévy et Dreyfus).djvu --Marc (talk) 20:09, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
Kept: The other one was deleted month ago. If the title is wrong ask somebody with mover-rights to move this one to the correct name. -- Cecil (talk) 23:29, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
"MPThirdThurs.jpg fair use, Marcy Playground, Scottsdale, Arizona, Edge 102.9" - deleted on en.wp Magog the Ogre (talk) 22:36, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
- Comment Badly moved. So move it back then, anyone able to undelete it there before deleting it here? --Tony Wills (talk) 03:35, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
- It does not qualify for fair use on English Wikipedia, or I would. Magog the Ogre (talk) 21:47, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Ah, I thought it was just deleted because it was moved here, but I see from [5] that they didn't like the claim of CC license and "fair use" at the same time! Ok, I went and looked at all his uploads. Maybe he should have just plastered {{DeleteMe}} on all his uploads instead of "fair use". Most images with EXIF data appear to come from completely different cameras, and his sources, where listed, show that he indeed doesn't claim to own the rights to any of the images. So he really is just claiming "fair use" and his "licenses" are a mistake: pity, another contributor who has done a lot of work, in good faith, but no one put him right early on. --Tony Wills (talk) 01:12, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
- It does not qualify for fair use on English Wikipedia, or I would. Magog the Ogre (talk) 21:47, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
![[5]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Possibly_unfree_files/2010_September_1#File:MPThirdThurs.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: No fair use on Commons. -- Cecil (talk) 23:30, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
artwork of Italian painter with no notability as voted here it:Wikipedia:Pagine da cancellare/Alberto Borgese - promotional/out of scope Santosga (talk) 01:12, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Question - when was the work created? This certainly doesn't seem likely to be {{Self}}. -mattbuck (Talk) 01:21, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
- Agree, IMHO the problem is not scope, but license/copyright status. The original uploader (I've only removed the CMYK color coding to enable display in IE browsers) had uploader more images by the same artist (A. Borgese), all of which have been deleted. --Túrelio (talk) 06:06, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 23:30, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Photos taken 1945 in Moscow are protected by copyright at least untill 2015 sугсго 07:59, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
- (Uploader) I don't object to the proposed deletion of this photo. I don't remember why I thought that it was public domain. Bukvoed (talk) 19:11, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
- Keep A rationale may be needed if a free image can't be found. Ronk01 (talk) 04:11, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
No deletion, please... Why You think that are there some rights for it? It is public domain work now - according to fact that CCCP no longer exists. They have never introduced - strict deny rights. Unless someone go to court, or have a patent for it, all government work is free. It was like in many soviet satellite countries. If You don't believe - just check the rights and constitution of CCCP.
It is just why, the historians or tv makers can use their data for free/or archive credit. Even the Kalaschnikov or Tetris author had problems with their rights and make the patents after 50 years...
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 23:31, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
Photos taken 1945 in Moscow are protected by Russian copyright at least untill 2015 sугсго 08:00, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
- Keep See here -> Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Polish Mil Victory Parade 1945.jpg. I have nothing more to add... Electron <Talk?> 22:28, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 23:33, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
Photos taken 1945 in Moscow are protected by Russian copyright at least untill 2015 sугсго 08:00, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
KEEP - not, photo taken in CCCP, becausue are under Soviet copyright. PD-Ukraine cover soviet work too! --77.48.153.172 18:02, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 23:33, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
This photo is NOT under PD-RU-exempt. PD-RU-exempt does not cover government-agency owned photos (like this one). Labeling this PD-RU-exempt goes against all Commons precedents. PlanespotterA320 (talk) 19:05, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
Kept: per Commons:Undeletion_requests/Archive/2020-02#File:Parad_pobedy_1945.jpg. --rubin16 (talk) 07:24, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
unused logo of a local French sports association with no notability as voted here fr:Discussion:ASCCL/Suppression - out of scope Santosga (talk) 09:23, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
Delete - out of scope (notability) Cholo Aleman (talk) 07:31, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 23:34, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
Was tagged for speedy deletion, but it's not entirely obvious to me that it passes the threshold of originality. The only original thing about this logo is that the letters are a bit "dirty" and the outline looks like it was drawn in ink; but I'm not convinced it makes it copyrightable. –Tryphon☂ 09:49, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
- Delete This image is not "simple geometry" or "simple geometric shapes and/or text" Ferbr1 (talk) 12:42, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
- Keep just text. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:58, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
- Keep I agree with Pieter. --Rowley (talk) 20:51 19 January 2011 (UTC)
Kept Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 23:34, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
It is wrong license. Alternate image available File:Pritilata-waddedar.jpg. It should not his own work. Jayanta Nath (talk) 07:00, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
- Delete: the image is a derivative work, and there is insufficient evidence to show that the underlying photograph that appears to have been modified by the uploader was in the public domain or freely licensed to the Commons. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 07:35, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
I'm new to wikimedia. This picture has never been licensed under any law by the actual creator (died in 1971). This picture has been freely modified by different organizations and persons several times since. I have also credited the original creator in the description of the image File:Pritilata.png in Bangla Language. I don't know where did I go wrong. It is also not a touch up image from the existing alternate File:Pritilata-waddedar.jpg. -- Amran.haroon (talk) 08:44, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
- Keep I've add an online source at the photo from which the photo has been derived. And change other information. The photograph taken of subject deceased in 1932. Under Indian and Bangladeshi copyright law, the photograph is in public domain.--Bellayet (talk) 04:19, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
- Comments: I just want to say Bellayet, why we need create derived work? If we use original old image remain old flavor. I also upload original image File:Pritilata waddedar.jpg. If Amran.haroon said that he made it from "বীরকন্যা প্রীতিলতা - পূর্ণেন্দু দস্তিদার, লেখকের কথা, ২০০৮, অনুপম প্রকাশনী,ঢাকা" ( Birkonya Pritilata author Purnendu Dastidar 2008 , Anupam Publication ,Dhaka, Bangladesh ),please upload original image (scan copy). Thanks. Jayanta Nath (talk) 05:46, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
- Comments: Since the photo was tagged only for the license and some information, I just adjust the information so that it can survive. If we have better image then that, we should use the better image. Since the original photo (uploaded by Jayanta Da) is better than the derived one, now we should use that and ignore the derived one.--Bellayet (talk) 06:59, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
- Comments: I just want to say Bellayet, why we need create derived work? If we use original old image remain old flavor. I also upload original image File:Pritilata waddedar.jpg. If Amran.haroon said that he made it from "বীরকন্যা প্রীতিলতা - পূর্ণেন্দু দস্তিদার, লেখকের কথা, ২০০৮, অনুপম প্রকাশনী,ঢাকা" ( Birkonya Pritilata author Purnendu Dastidar 2008 , Anupam Publication ,Dhaka, Bangladesh ),please upload original image (scan copy). Thanks. Jayanta Nath (talk) 05:46, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
- Comment File:Pritilata-waddedar.jpg is better and she has a more natural look so it should be the one used. I see no reason not to keep File:Pritilata.png since it appears to be properly licensed and used here .--Sandahl (talk) 18:42, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
- Delete per discussion. — Tanvir • 05:31, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted Jcb (talk) 20:23, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
uncertain and unverified copyright justification, taken from copyrighted website --E3122 (talk) 10:27, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
Closed. Was deleted during Commons:Deletion requests/File:Blsoldclassroom1.jpg. -- Cecil (talk) 20:55, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
Needs more information about the source. Yann (talk) 14:33, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted Jcb (talk) 20:24, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
1) No source. 2) the author is not unknown, this image is grabbed from the web, on other websites such is http://www.pogledi.rs/dm/img/8V.jpg the author is even written directly on the image. No evidence that the author is dead for 70 years - the opposite. If the photo is of 1937 the uploaders claim that the author died 70 years ago is extremly unlikely. Martin H. (talk) 15:22, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
- Comment Does it say "William J. Pritz"? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:06, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
The now made claim for this image that "it is a law, decree, regulation or official material" is not supported by a source. Public domain status for the given reason is very questionable. Martin H. (talk) 16:06, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 01:13, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
Discendenza Sebastiano Gulli
[edit]
Ecco un esempio di quanto dicevo...
_KUNG FU_ Discendenza Festival TaiChi PWKA Martial Arts (secondo post) Chi ha fatto la storia del Kung Fu in Italia?
_KABBALAH_
Traduttore per il centro kabbalistico più famoso al mondo
riconosciuto come cabalista
Parte di uno dei testi
Libro del 1989
Libri ATTUALMENTE in commercio
Se cercate Sebastiano Gulli vedrete che è presente e rappresenta un indubbio tesoro italiano.
Poi, se vogliamo fare sarcasmo e ironia....
(avevo detto espressamente che avrei mandato le fonti nel giro di qualche giorno perchè sono impegnato col lavoro, ma dato che passare per un fake proprio non mi va...).
Not useful, promotional. The image was used in an article on it.wiki, deleted as promo, see it:Wikipedia:Pagine da cancellare/Sebastiano Gulli Marcok (talk) 15:33, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
It's probably a fake. I asked to the author of the deleted article on it.wiki (the uploader) what are the sources of his claimings, but I still didn't receive an answer. --Marcok (talk) 10:55, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Not in use, does not seem in scope. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:10, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, out of project scope. Kameraad Pjotr 19:14, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
Files of User:Edejuco
[edit]- File:La costumbre de contaminar7.jpg
- File:Africa sufre grietas dia tras dia de su humanidad17.jpg
- File:El movil no nos deja caminar12.jpg
- File:El que a buen techo se arrima buena sombra le cobija.jpg
- File:Estela de bicicleta10.jpg
- File:Fiebre Aviar9.jpg
- File:Fruta de frutas8.jpg
- File:Las autoridades sanitarias te advierten que fumar no te puede matar6.jpg
- File:Mis manos no estan paradas sino desempleadas4.jpg
- File:No te echen cables3.jpg
- File:Pasar la Alambrada2.jpg
- File:Petroleo marino no1.jpg
All uploads from this user are unused, uncategorized personal works or art, many have already been deleted for no foreseeable use - out of scope. I'm nominating the rest of them. --Santosga (talk) 16:18, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:42, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
same file multiple uploads Bklanting (talk) 17:30, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
No action needed. No file under that name seems to exist. --Màñü飆¹5 talk 10:17, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
I don't want no more free license for this picture Mike Tolleb (talk) 18:57, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
No more free license --Mike Tolleb (talk) 16:34, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
Kept: Licences are not retractable. Once released under free licence, always free licence. -- Cecil (talk) 23:22, 25 February 2011 (UTC)