Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2010/09/16
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
|
|
_1000x920.png){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
,_one_German_Pfennig_for_each_skin.jpg){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
Also found at http://www.cinesouth.com/masala/hotnews/new/10092007-4.shtml Sreejith K (talk) 09:10, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Copyvio. --Martin H. (talk) 11:12, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
Non-free movie poster Sreejith K (talk) 09:12, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
Delete, but it was already tagged (twice!) with {{Npd}}, I don't think it was necessary to nominate it for deletion on top of that. It won't get "more deleted". –Tryphon☂ 10:36, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Copyvio, the uploader obviously not knows or understands what he is doing. Martin H. (talk) 11:12, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
Also found at http://newshopper.sulekha.com/sarath-kumar-rajnikanth_photo_513070.htm Sreejith K (talk) 09:14, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Balatant copyvio, Associated Press photo. --Martin H. (talk) 11:11, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
I made a mistake. The file is useles. KentronHayastan (talk) 15:32, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Common Good (talk) 19:21, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
I made a mistake. The file is useless. KentronHayastan (talk) 15:33, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Common Good (talk) 19:22, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
Image created by a user blocked for disruptive editing (English Wikipedia) Alpha Quadrant (talk) 18:42, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. DieBuche (talk) 19:55, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
Picture doubles: File:Grenzübergang Elten Niederlande.JPG --Gast32 (talk) 17:35, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
Kept. Not exact dupes DieBuche (talk) 19:07, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
Derivative work: photograph of an existing work. Who is the author of the drawing? Eusebius (talk) 11:53, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted by Túrelio: Uploader request: not used in article anymore
Not own work, see the inscription in the bottom-right corner. Eusebius (talk) 11:54, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted by Túrelio: Uploader request: not used in article anymore
COM:FOP; recent building Otourly (talk) 16:57, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Move to Wp:fr Kyro (talk) 17:03, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Moved to Wp:fr. Coyau (talk) 06:21, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
Edmund Dulac, france, died 1953, a mere 56 years ago Magog the Ogre (talk) 16:59, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
- When I uploaded it I was under the impression this was an American magazine, but a closer look shows this is probably a British magazine, so please delete. Hekerui (talk) 17:18, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted by Túrelio: Copyright violation: the British The Outlook magazine, so it'll be free in 2024 only, request by uploader
From WMC on the the enwiki talk page: "I doubt that this image license is correct: it doesn't look like a user-created image but an user-pasted-from-non-free-sources image. Also, the Loehle bit means it isn't suitable for "general use" William M. Connolley (talk) 09:09, 16 September 2010 (UTC)" NW (Talk) 16:48, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
- Is there any evidence to confirm these suppositions? --GoRight (talk) 19:36, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
- The strange combination of Italian and English legends does raise an eyebrow or two as to the provenance of the supposedly "original" figure. 173.20.51.14 02:15, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
- I hear doubts and suppositions only. The statement that it "doesn't look like" a PD image is rather specious. If WMC believes this was cut and pasted from a copyrighted source, then simply provide the source to prove your claim. Otherwise it's just a smoke screen. 50.10.84.67 02:47, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Clearly an attempt of censorship by William Connolley. --Þadius (talk) 03:26, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
The first image looks like a reversed version(plus some changes) of this one(copyrighted): http://portale.ingv.it/temi-ricerca/clima-oceani-ambiente/figura2_italiano.png --Giorgiogp2 (talk) 05:57, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
The "2000 y" pic is fairly clearly a copy of this one or a similar. Notice that on the figure it is sourced to Spencer 2007, which is a bit of a giveaway. Also the title is the same, and half-in-half-out, so there is no doubt it is a copy William M. Connolley (talk) 09:00, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Clearly not own work by uploader. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 09:23, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
- Delete per PK Finn Rindahl (talk) 10:40, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
- Keep. I spended a long time to do it well !!!--23Simon (talk) 11:37, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
- This image is my creation (based on other popular graphics like Vostok or Spencer,...). It isn't a simple user-pasted-from-non-free-sources image but it is a my own creation and I spended a long time to do it well. First I posted this image in italian wikipedia, then I traslated all to English and I posted here. But it is all my work! I think it is simple, ordinary and the thing most important, we can see the relationships between different times. There isn't other image like this. So I would appreciate it if you keep. thanks--23Simon (talk) 11:52, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
- Perhaps you have a different idea of what "my own creation" means. Do you accept that the 2000 year graph is from [1] or similar? And that you've directly copied it, then re-coloured and added annotation? William M. Connolley (talk) 11:56, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
- Spencer says: "All rights reserved" (see here). The graph was not yours to take and give away for free. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 11:57, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
- The graphs aren't mine, it is all based in popular graph. But the image and the recostruction is entire my work. (if the licence is wrong, What licence shoud I put?). I just think the image is important for a good view of the relationships between different times.--23Simon (talk) 12:12, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
- This image is my creation (based on other popular graphics like Vostok or Spencer,...). It isn't a simple user-pasted-from-non-free-sources image but it is a my own creation and I spended a long time to do it well. First I posted this image in italian wikipedia, then I traslated all to English and I posted here. But it is all my work! I think it is simple, ordinary and the thing most important, we can see the relationships between different times. There isn't other image like this. So I would appreciate it if you keep. thanks--23Simon (talk) 11:52, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
- Keep. But I have to change the licence. ok? What licence shoud I put?--23Simon (talk) 12:15, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
- Delete - some parts (at a minimum) are clearly not the authors original work. --Sphilbrick (talk) 13:40, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
- Keep. No one has given the slightest bit of evidence that this isn't original work. The objections appear to be based solely on WP:IDONTLIKEIT 50.10.84.67 13:48, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
- Oh please. You think someone created a graphic from scratch and included "R. W. Spencer, 2007"? Please don't assume we are idiots.--Sphilbrick (talk) 14:22, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
- On on hand you argue the image isn't sourced. Then you argue it can't be original because it has a source reference on it? I'm trying to assume you're not an idiot, so please help me out here. 50.10.84.67 16:55, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
- Oh please. You think someone created a graphic from scratch and included "R. W. Spencer, 2007"? Please don't assume we are idiots.--Sphilbrick (talk) 14:22, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
NEWS: I update the image, I replaced the 2000 graph and I change the licence.--23Simon (talk) 13:56, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Now it's ok.--188.152.134.2 13:58, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
23S has indeed updated the image. But the source problems remain: these are not graphs that you have drawn: these are graphs that you have copied from elsewhere, yes? So can you please give the sources. Until this is done we can't know if they are copied from somewhere free or not William M. Connolley (talk) 14:24, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
Aaaaalso: the image is near-meaningless at the moment because it lacks data sources. If you're asserting that you drew these pix yourself from raw data, please provide refs to the data William M. Connolley (talk) 14:31, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
- I wonder if 23Simon is unaware of what is required to call something one's own work. If the underlying temperature points are in the public domain, and you enter them into a graphing program, select the colors and axes, and other presentation details, you can probably call it your own (even there, it is possible to run afoul if you recreate someone's proprietary design), but if you start with someone else's graph, even if you do a lot of work to change the look, it is not your own.--Sphilbrick (talk) 15:27, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
- I already said I change the licence. About the sources: The first graph (ice age -interglacial age) is entirely my work (based on the common paleoclimatic reconstruction ), the second is based in vostok graph (and similar) ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vostok_Station), the other are the popular climatic reconstructions (for example you can take the source here: http://muller.lbl.gov/pages/iceagebook/history_of_climate.html ) or are already loaded in wikipedia (see: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Climatology )--23Simon (talk) 15:39, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
- Keep. In my opinion it is an interesting item.--93.151.236.243 16:46, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
- I already said I change the licence: no, you haven't changed the licence. You are still asserting that you own the copyright and can release it into the PD. Source: http://muller.lbl.gov/pages/iceagebook/history_of_climate.html: I don't see any of the figs there. I think it would be best if you said exactly where each pane is sourced to William M. Connolley (talk) 16:49, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
Here is the 400 years global temperatures graph(that looks rather wrong): http://www.john-daly.com/solar.htm The ice age cycles graph is copyrighted by the italian "National Institute of Geophysics and Volcanology"(INGV) : http://portale.ingv.it/temi-ricerca/clima-oceani-ambiente/ricostruzione-delle-variazioni-paleoclimatiche
There is also another version of the same file: File:Evoluzione_temperatura_terrestre.jpg. Also, other files have possibly the same problems: File:Sunspot_vs_Global_Temperature.jpg File:Anidride_carbonica_vs_Temperature terrestri vs Macchie soalri.jpg. --Giorgiogp2 (talk) 19:23, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
- Uploads by User:Chicco2 - same person? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 07:17, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
- Err yes certainly true. So the 900 kys is definitely a copy, and is the 400 y one (and Daly doesn't say where he got the data from, either) William M. Connolley (talk) 21:04, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
- Delete For all the above reasons. Also, note File:Iceage time-slice hg.png exists. That is very much the same idea as this pic (and it has some of the same probs, too) but it is very clearly sourced William M. Connolley (talk) 21:04, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
- Delete This is a clear copyright violation from at least one source which expressly claims a copyright. I have nominated the it for speedy deletion. --TeaDrinker (talk) 03:42, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted by Yann: Copyright violation
I think this file should be deleted as a derivative work. ALE! ¿…? 09:35, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
- Delete, per nom. –Tryphon☂ 09:53, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
- Delete - COM:DW. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 17:16, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. ZooFari 00:11, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
(This was a mistake since the logo is copyrighted. So I uploaded it onto Wikipedia.fr) --Monsieur f (talk) 00:40, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
Kept. {{PD-textlogo}} --Màñü飆¹5 talk 19:29, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
I don't think it's {{Free screenshot}}. Description suggests it may not be PD-old. ZooFari 00:45, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
- Delete, wrong license, and not enough source information to assert the copyright status. –Tryphon☂ 10:02, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. --Màñü飆¹5 talk 19:32, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
To quote Elcobbola here- "Appears to be a copyvio. Source is a dead-link, but archive.org version says "Courtesy J. Jeffrey Photography©". Note that the biology.usgs.gov policy page says "While the content of most USGS Web pages is in the U.S. public domain, not all information, illustrations, or photographs on our site are. Some non USGS photographs, images, and/or graphics that appear on USGS Web sites are used by the USGS with permission from the copyright holder. These materials are generally marked as being copyrighted. To use these copyrighted materials, you must obtain permission from the copyright holder under the copyright law." (emphasis mine). This image is marked as copyrighted." J Milburn (talk) 00:56, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
- Delete, clearly copyrighted. Stifle (talk) 12:33, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
- Delete - needs permission by Jeffrey. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 15:51, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
- Delete I didn't notice that, when I uploadet the photo. Kersti (talk) 07:57, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 20:27, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
Useless image, only ever used to illustrate a now-indefinitely-blocked user talk page at the English Wikipedia. No informative or educational purpose is likely to be found for this image. Nyttend (talk) 01:23, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
Delete Usage on enwiki was borderline vandalism, and usage elsewhere could not fulfill any purpose within Commons scope. Gavia immer (talk) 04:03, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
Delete I blocked the user on enwiki, after coming to the conclusion that everything this user touched was vandalism, and deleting a vandalism image uploaded locally. The image has no useful purpose- nor did it ever really have such. Courcelles (talk) 08:56, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
Delete Serves no function, and never did. Ged UK (talk) 08:59, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
Delete No potential for meaningful use - Begoon (Talk) 12:30, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. --Màñü飆¹5 talk 19:37, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
delete United Jetset Frequency (talk) 03:19, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
Kept. No reason to delete. --Màñü飆¹5 talk 19:39, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
unused logo of a punk rock band with no notability, speedydeleted here es:La Perra Pulga - out of scope Santosga (talk) 03:56, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
- Delete, per nom. –Tryphon☂ 10:08, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. --Màñü飆¹5 talk 19:44, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
unused photo of musical group with no notability as decided here fr:Ladies Maid - out of scope Santosga (talk) 04:02, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. --Màñü飆¹5 talk 19:44, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
Looks kinda official photo. No information about the image is given, no EXIF file, so I presume that the user who send it doesn't understand meaning of copyright. -- Bojan Talk 06:03, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Probable copyvio. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:15, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. --Màñü飆¹5 talk 19:45, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
out of scope 78.55.153.30 06:03, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
- Delete, given the filename, it's a copyright violation from Facebook too. –Tryphon☂ 10:10, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. --Màñü飆¹5 talk 19:45, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
Unused private image, no educational value, → out of scope. Jahobr (talk) 08:46, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 20:30, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
see File:Wakefield Mill Dusk.jpg: two identical pictures with different authors and sources leads to suspicion that this is a copyvio. Yann (talk) 09:55, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 20:30, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
Duplicate of File:USVA headstone emb-23.svg - no longer needed - Begoon (Talk) 10:37, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 20:31, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
I think the contents of this poster is eligible for copyright. ALE! ¿…? 15:12, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
- Sollte man zu der Ansicht gelangen, dass bereits der Text ein Copyrightverstoß ist, würde ich die Freigabe nachreichen.--Kürschner (talk) 16:37, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
- Delete - copyrighted text. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:00, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
- Strong
Keep: OTRS permission has been sent in, Text has been cleared under CC-by-sa by a privileged member of the "Vereinigung Initiative Pelzgestaltung". --Guandalug (talk) 07:45, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
- A "normal" keep would have been sufficient ;-). Well it's nice to have a permission now. So we can close the request. --ALE! ¿…? 08:55, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
Out of scope --Banfield - Amenazas aquí 12:59, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted by EugeneZelenko: Copyright violation: Logo. Not text only
same as File:Man in Oriental Costume.jpg Sanblatt (talk) 08:01, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
- Keep, this one has a higher resolution! –Tryphon☂ 10:34, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
- Delete irreführende Bezeichnung: Samuel Pallache (1550-1616) war zum Zeitpunkt der Entstehung des Bildes schon lange tot. Korrekte Bezeichnung: Man in Oriental Costume (ca. 1635) --Sanblatt (talk) 10:57, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
- Machine Translation:
- "Misleading label: Samuel Pallache (1550-1616) was at the time of the origin of the picture already long dead. Correct label: One in Oriental Costume (ca. 1635)"
Kept. A bad name is not a reason to delete. I have moved it to File:Man in Oriental Costume (2).jpg, that being its name according to the National Gallery of Art, its owner. I'm going to keep both versions, because while this has higher resolution, the other may be a slightly better image when both are examined at the same size side-by-side. We often have several images of works by notable artists. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:12, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
This image is useless because of its format. There is a SVG version of the file: File:Classification_phylogénétique2.svg 67wkii (talk) 10:40, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
 This file is part of a group of ten files which have been uploaded in Open Office Draw document format. These files consist mainly of a scheme successively modified to classify the elements in the right of the scheme. Because these files are unreadable in Commons (included in Category:Files with contradictory filetypes and extensions) and there is a SVG version (also easy to edit) of each one, they should be deleted. Files: File:Classification_phylogénétique1.sxd, File:Classification_phylogénétique2.sxd, File:Classification_phylogénétique3.sxd, File:Classification_phylogénétique4.sxd, File:Classification_phylogénétique5.sxd, File:Classification_phylogénétique6.sxd, File:Classification_phylogénétique7.sxd, File:Classification_phylogénétique8.sxd, File:Classification_phylogénétique9.sxd, File:Classification_phylogénétique10.sxd. |
--67wkii (talk) 11:11, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:18, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
1920 picture, a bit too recent to assume the author died more than 70 years ago. Might be {{PD-EU-no author disclosure}}, but it would require some research to prove it. –Tryphon☂ 10:54, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
- I changed the licence. You could be right that this is better so.--Gloecknerd (talk) 11:02, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
- But was it written in that book that the author has always been unknown, or was it just not mentioned? –Tryphon☂ 11:06, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
- It is mentioned that authors of pictures are named if possible. In this case there is no author mentioned. So I'm sure that the authors of the book didn't know picture's author. (Sorry for english language problems...) --Gloecknerd (talk) 14:10, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
- OK, thanks for your answer. I think we can keep it with the current license, but we should let the DR run for a week in case other people want to comment. –Tryphon☂ 14:25, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
- OK, thanks for your answer. I think we can
- It is mentioned that authors of pictures are named if possible. In this case there is no author mentioned. So I'm sure that the authors of the book didn't know picture's author. (Sorry for english language problems...) --Gloecknerd (talk) 14:10, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
- But was it written in that book that the author has always been unknown, or was it just not mentioned? –Tryphon☂ 11:06, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
- Keep - {{PD-EU-no author disclosure}} applies. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 17:19, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
Kept. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:20, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
Derivative work, no FOP in France. –Tryphon☂ 11:21, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:42, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
No information about the original photographer. Unlikely he died more than 70 years ago. GeorgHH • talk 11:36, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
- The portrait is owned by Adrian Kutter (son of Anton Kutter) and official part of the Kinomuseum Biberach. The Picture of this part of the exhibition was done by agreement of the Adrian Kutter by Uli Stöckle (childofman). The original photographer is not known. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.222.160.113 (talk • contribs) 17:45, 16. Sep. 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Since the uploader has not bothered to give us the text at a reasonable size, we cannot read when the photo in this image was taken. Therefore, we must delete it per nom. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:48, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
Who is the original photographer? Eusebius (talk) 11:38, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
- The original photographer is the same as the uploader: de:Gerhard Hund, resp. user:GFHund. --Gereon K. (talk) 12:37, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
- Unless I'm mistaken (I don't really speak German), he seems to be the subject of the photograph, not (or doubtfully) the photographer. --Eusebius (talk) 15:20, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
- This is my property since 50 years.--GFHund (talk) 16:05, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
- Then please tell us who took this photograph? Owning a picture has nothing to do with holding copyright over it. --Eusebius (talk) 19:11, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
- Ein guter Schachfreund von mir nahm das Foto auf und trat es an mich ab (inklusive der Rechte). Es ist ein Unikat, das vor mehr als 50 Jahren entstand. So wie bei einem Passbild, wo das beauftragte Fotolabor ebenfalls die Rechte an die abgebildete Person übergibt. Den Namen des Freundes weiß ich (nach 50 Jahren) nicht mehr, so wie ich mir auch nicht die Namen der vielen Passbild-Fotografen merkte. Auf der Rückseite des Fotos, was sich seit mehr als 50 Jahren in einem meiner privaten Fotoalben befindet, notierte ich mir seinerzeit nur die Namen und das Datum. Es wäre schade, wenn es entfernt wird, weil es das einzige Foto weltweit ist, auf dem Rautenberg abgebildet ist.--GFHund (talk) 15:21, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
- This is my property since 50 years.--GFHund (talk) 16:05, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
- Unless I'm mistaken (I don't really speak German), he seems to be the subject of the photograph, not (or doubtfully) the photographer. --Eusebius (talk) 15:20, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. I, also, do not read German, but the gist of a machine translation of GFHund's remarks is that he does not remember who took the photo. The name is probably on the back of the photo, but it cannot be removed from the album without damage. Two arguments are possible:
- We have a known photographer -- not one who chose to be anonymous -- so it has a copyright at least 70 years after whenever his death was, so (for a 1960 photo) at least until January 1, 2031, or
- We have an unknown photographer, in which case the copyright period begins on publication, which is probably the date of the upload.
Neither of these makes it possible to have it here. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:00, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
This image is useless because of its format. There is a SVG version of the file: File:Classification phylogénétique3.svg 67wkii (talk) 12:40, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
This file is part of a group of ten files which have been uploaded in Open Office Draw document format. These files consist mainly of a scheme successively modified to classify the elements in the right of the scheme. Because these files are unreadable in Commons (included in Category:Files with contradictory filetypes and extensions) and there is a SVG version (also easy to edit) of each one, they should be deleted. Files: File:Classification_phylogénétique1.sxd, File:Classification_phylogénétique2.sxd, File:Classification_phylogénétique3.sxd, File:Classification_phylogénétique4.sxd, File:Classification_phylogénétique5.sxd, File:Classification_phylogénétique6.sxd, File:Classification_phylogénétique7.sxd, File:Classification_phylogénétique8.sxd, File:Classification_phylogénétique9.sxd, File:Classification_phylogénétique10.sxd. |
--67wkii (talk) 11:11, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted by Jameslwoodward: Per Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Classification_phylogénétique2.sxd
This image is useless because of its format. There is a SVG version of the file: File:Classification phylogénétique4.svg 67wkii (talk) 12:59, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
This file is part of a group of ten files which have been uploaded in Open Office Draw document format. These files consist mainly of a scheme successively modified to classify the elements in the right of the scheme. Because these files are unreadable in Commons (included in Category:Files with contradictory filetypes and extensions) and there is a SVG version (also easy to edit) of each one, they should be deleted. Files: File:Classification_phylogénétique1.sxd, File:Classification_phylogénétique2.sxd, File:Classification_phylogénétique3.sxd, File:Classification_phylogénétique4.sxd, File:Classification_phylogénétique5.sxd, File:Classification_phylogénétique6.sxd, File:Classification_phylogénétique7.sxd, File:Classification_phylogénétique8.sxd, File:Classification_phylogénétique9.sxd, File:Classification_phylogénétique10.sxd. |
--67wkii (talk) 11:11, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted by Jameslwoodward: Per Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Classification_phylogénétique2.sxd
This image is useless because of its format. There is a SVG version of the file: File:Classification phylogénétique5.svg. 67wkii (talk) 13:28, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
This file is part of a group of ten files which have been uploaded in Open Office Draw document format. These files consist mainly of a scheme successively modified to classify the elements in the right of the scheme. Because these files are unreadable in Commons (included in Category:Files with contradictory filetypes and extensions) and there is a SVG version (also easy to edit) of each one, they should be deleted. Files: File:Classification_phylogénétique1.sxd, File:Classification_phylogénétique2.sxd, File:Classification_phylogénétique3.sxd, File:Classification_phylogénétique4.sxd, File:Classification_phylogénétique5.sxd, File:Classification_phylogénétique6.sxd, File:Classification_phylogénétique7.sxd, File:Classification_phylogénétique8.sxd, File:Classification_phylogénétique9.sxd, File:Classification_phylogénétique10.sxd. |
--67wkii (talk) 11:11, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted by Jameslwoodward: Per Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Classification_phylogénétique2.sxd
no source or proof of copyright given Stickpen (talk) 14:23, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:01, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
a diagram taken from a published paper, no proof that it is 3.0 Stickpen (talk) 14:27, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:01, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
No permission of a free file. The stated restrictions are not free nor compatible with the CC-BY license. GeorgHH • talk 19:03, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:06, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
The description page lacks any source information. The low resolution of the image and the "caption provided" statement lead to strong suspicion that the image was obtained from another web site somewhere. If so, we have no evidence that the original Wikipedia uploader was authorized to release it into the public domain. Werewombat (talk) 20:12, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:08, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
Error in the orientation of COOH group (see http://www.chemdrug.com/databases/8_0_opebgaamdxtxxprl.html). Furthermore, correct SVG image is available now (File:Enalapril synthesis.svg) --DENker (talk) 20:44, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
- Delete The chemical structure is wrong, and the file has been replaced by a corrected version. Edgar181 (talk) 21:07, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:09, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
_1000x920.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_1000x920.png&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
No references are provided, so the "connections" shown are essentially the opinion of the oriignal uploader on en.wp. This file should be deleted as OR and POV. - Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:44, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
_1000x920.png){kind=link}
- Keep In use. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:24, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
- Not any longer, I have removed it from the article and talk page it was on at en.WP. The diagram represented a single editor's opinions about the connections between the founding schools of thermodynamics, for which he did not present any supporting citations. Discussion on the article talk page was mixed as to its appropriateness or correctness. The editor in question has now been community banned from en.WP, yet another reason for the removal of the image.
We'll see if other editors concur in the image's removal. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:22, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
- Not any longer, I have removed it from the article and talk page it was on at en.WP. The diagram represented a single editor's opinions about the connections between the founding schools of thermodynamics, for which he did not present any supporting citations. Discussion on the article talk page was mixed as to its appropriateness or correctness. The editor in question has now been community banned from en.WP, yet another reason for the removal of the image.
- Delete CPvio (?), TF and in that form useless anyway. --Yikrazuul (talk) 09:17, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:12, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
_1000x920.png){kind=link}
CC license not applicable. ALE! ¿…? 15:20, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. CC is pretty clear copyfraud, and no date or other detail indicates why this could be in the Public Domain. AndreasPraefcke (talk) 09:25, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
On Wikipedia there was no clear indication of who the photographer was as the user who uploaded this only uploaded this one image (upload log) "onstage with the Pointer Sisters" was a vague summary. Soundvisions1 (talk) 02:59, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
- Delete, missing essential source information; we cannot comply with the attribution requirement. –Tryphon☂ 10:04, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Wknight94 talk 17:20, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
and other images of domestic cats and dogs from おれ (talk · contribs). Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photoalbum. Low quality. There are many images of domestic cats and dogs on Commons already. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:36, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
I can only second this deletion request. 84.165.185.105 19:26, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, out of project scope. Kameraad Pjotr 20:33, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
Possible copyright violation. Author cited is (in spanish) Official creator Savh, Any questions? 17:22, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
Kept, {{PD-ineligible}}. Kameraad Pjotr 16:53, 20 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)
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Author is not known. Image is too young to safely assume author's date of death is at least 70 years ago. Not even the Date is known. Saibo (Δ) 00:00, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
.JPG){kind=link}
- Keep Properly sourced to an archive; change template to {{PD-EU-no author disclosure}}. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 15:37, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
Oppose The condition given at the template „Reasonable evidence must be presented that the author's name (e.g., the original photographer, portrait painter) was not published with a claim of copyright in conjunction with the image within 70 years of its original publication.“ is not met, so this license isn't usable. --Quedel (talk) 21:18, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
- Please wait a little - I just orderd a book from 1950 where the author is written inside - so I think. --Groth-Pfeifer (talk) 17:33, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
Info This picture was already deleted at de.wikipedia.org (Datei:Oskar Kohnstamm.jpg), because of missing information of author and publishing-year. --Quedel (talk) 22:34, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
.JPG){kind=link}
Info Now, as another version at File:Dr. Oscar Kohnstamm bei H. Sturm-Godramstein 1990.JPG --Saibo (Δ) 22:37, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
.JPG){kind=link}
Deleted, no evidence that this image is in the public domain. Kameraad Pjotr 19:35, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
.JPG){kind=link}
I think Anonymous-EU could be used instead of the current license but I am not sure. ALE! ¿…? 15:02, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
- Keep - collective work, {{PD-EU-anonymous}}. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 17:57, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
Kept, {{PD-EU-Anonymous}}. Kameraad Pjotr 18:58, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
,_one_German_Pfennig_for_each_skin.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
,_one_German_Pfennig_for_each_skin.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
I am not sure wthether this stamp passes the threshold of originality. ALE! ¿…? 14:49, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
,_one_German_Pfennig_for_each_skin.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted, for the CoA, if that's free, this image is {{PD-ineligible}}. Kameraad Pjotr 19:42, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
,_one_German_Pfennig_for_each_skin.jpg){kind=link}
I think PD-ineligible can be used but I am not sure. ALE! ¿…? 15:04, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
- Keep PD-ineligible. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 17:59, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
Kept, {{PD-ineligible}}. Kameraad Pjotr 21:12, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
No mention of the artist-sculptor/invalid license. alpinus5 (talk) 11:55, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
- First: I know that there is no (at least so far) proof for my Keep-vote
- However, I think that this sculpture is pretty old. It looks old enough to be {{Pd-old}}
- I sent a Mail to the church-community and asked how old the sculpture is. So let's wait for the answer...
- --D-Kuru (talk) 17:58, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
- I agree, looks PD-Old. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:03, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
- IMHO the sculpture could be made between 1920 and 1940 which means that the sculptor could have died in the fifties; I appreciate that you wrote to the church but I think age is far less important than the name of the artist. --alpinus5 (talk) 21:37, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
Comment impossible to find the information on the net, let's wait for Kurus mail. --Mbdortmund (talk) 14:21, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
- The person/church finaly responded and told me that they don't know when the sculpture was made but they gave me another mail adress to which I send a mail today. So let's see if they no more than the last guys...
- --D-Kuru (talk) 18:16, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, no evidence that this sculpture is in the public domain due to age. Kameraad Pjotr 21:36, 6 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)
incorrectly tagged as PD-ineligible 08-15 (talk) 20:56, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
- I got the permission by the author of the picture. On what basis does someone question the PD-ineligibility? The picture should not be deleted without serious consideration.06:31, 17 September 2010 (UTC)Schultz.lilith (talk)
- Could you ask the author to mail his permission (see Emailvorlage) to permissions-commons-de@wikimedia.org? The image will not be deleted then. PD-ineligible is only for very simple images where you don't need permission from the author. --08-15 (talk) 15:35, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
- Keep In use. / )Schultz.lilith I will do my best to come to an appropriate category. By the way: Why are you personally interested about categories. It`s qiute unusual in Wiki Comomons.--Schultz.lilith (talk) 02:40, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
- Commons only accepts media that are available under a free license. That is not unsual, in fact it is one of the fundamental principles. See Commons:Licensing for details. --08-15 (talk) 11:58, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted: Definitely not ineligible (it's a photo). No proof of release by the author. -- Cecil (talk) 23:47, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
PD-textlogo can not be used for this image. However, it could be that this image is in the PD in the US. Could somebody check? ALE! ¿…? 14:53, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
- Comment the journal registered copyright, but quite possibly this is {{PD-US-no renewal}}. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 17:52, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted: useless with most of blanked off Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 23:36, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Was tagged as missing permission, but the tag was removed. Uploaded in 2009, there's no reason why permission couldn't be sent to OTRS at the time. –Tryphon☂ 06:27, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
.JPG&diff=43809456&oldid=43804154){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
- There are probably more files like this one from this user. I quote from my talk page:
"Salut Lycaon, je me suis permis d'enlever la demande de permission sur cette image, qui m'a été cédée par son auteur sans conditions. Il y a plus de deux ans que je n'ai pas été en contact avec cette personne, donc je me vois mal la recontacter uniquement pour lui dire : "tu sais les dizaines d'images que tu m'as données, il me faut un mail d'autorisation, etc." J'assume la pleine et entière responsabilité juridique de leur téléchargement en cas de litige, ce qui a fort peu de chances de se produire. En tous cas merci pour ta vigilance. Pour info, au cas où tu serais plus souvent sur Commons que sur Wikipédia en français, je suis administrateur là-bas depuis un bon moment et ai justement pris en charge la gestion des images problématiques il y a environ trois ans. Je ne te demande pas forcément de me croire sur parole, mais disons que mon ancienneté et mon implication sur le projet sauront peut-être te convaincre de ma bonne foi. Cordialement, Alchemica (talk) 12:11, 12 September 2010 (UTC)".
An adminstrator (here on fr:wiki) should know better IMO. — Lycaon (talk) 06:55, 16 September 2010 (UTC)- A search on Marylou Jean turned up these files:
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
- Considering this kind of edits, there might be more. –Tryphon☂ 09:50, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
- Alright, I'll get you a global permission for these files. And, no, this is the only file I edited this way. And yes, I did this once because I'm fed up with Commons and the way it's managed : everyone being suspected of copyright violation all the time, and real, damn obvious copyvios staying for ages. Now my uploads will go to FR:WP, if you want them, DIY. Alchemica (talk) 10:17, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
- Considering this kind of edits, there might be more. –Tryphon☂ 09:50, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted: still no permission Jcb (talk) 21:55, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
.JPG){kind=link}
Files by User:SerdechnyG
[edit]- File:Десантники готовятся к погрузке (Днепр-67).jpg
- File:Боец-десантник (Днепр-67).jpg
- File:Десантник, участник учений Днепр-67.jpg
- File:Прохождение бронетранспортеров (Днепр-67).jpg
- File:Прохождение ГАЗ-66 с десантом (Днепр-67).jpg
- File:Радист на учениях Щит-83.jpg
- File:Дежурный по роте в ружпарке (Щит-83).jpg
- File:Десантники идут к самолетам (Щит-83).jpg
- File:Десантирование многокупольной системы (Щит-83).jpg
- File:Прохождение ракетных комплексов (Днепр-67).jpg
- File:Схема действий 114 пдп (Щит-83).jpg
- File:Погрузка десантников в самолет (Днепр-67).jpg
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
User:SerdechnyG constantly removes problem tags, so I'm forced to start this DR. SerdechnyG is not the author of all these files uploaded from his own flickr photostream, and there is no evidence of permission from the author (and SerdechnyG is not trying to provide it, see discussion). All these files have been previously uploaded to ru-wiki, and soon likely will be deleted because of the very same reason -- lack of permission. The user has very original views on copyright, e.g. he created two pure nonsense license templates in ru-wiki (both now deleted & userfied: PD-USSR-Military, PD-investigation), and now likely he thinks that flickrwashing is a good method to keep these files. So here we are. --Trycatch (talk) 07:41, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- Delete, per nom. –Tryphon☂ 10:12, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
- Delete, thanks Trycatch. Obvious flickrwashing attempt. Geagea (talk) 12:24, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
At first let me cite Flickr:
Your safety level:
Your account has been reviewed as safe by Flickr staff. What does that mean? Having a "safe" account means that you are good at moderating your own content.
Then let me cite Commons:Flickr washing:
Flickr washing means that someone uploads unfree images to Flickr from various web sites
Dear folks, would you tell me: From what web sites I uploaded unfree images to Flickr?
And the last. The worst thing, I can not tolerate is dilettantism. I suggest, User:Geagea and User:Trycatch to read the rules and regulations of Wikimedia Commons more carefully, and if they are disagree, they could propose few amendments to the rules or to Come work at Flickr! or... welcome to the elsewhere. Regards -- George Serdechny 13:30, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
- We're not saying that you took these images from another website. But you're claiming (here and on flickr) that you're the author of those pictures, and that's obviously not true (you did not press the button on the camera back then, did you?). And if you're not the copyright holder of an image, you cannot release it under a free license; neither here nor on flickr. It's as simple as that. –Tryphon☂ 13:53, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
- Falsehood. I never claimed that I am the author of these photos. And please don't mix up together autorship with holding the copyright (look above — I do not tolerate dilettantism). Flickr do not ask for authorship, generally speaking it requires only the good faith, that's all. Besides, the information about authors and copyright holders of these photos, with which I provided Flickr, does not concern you, User:Geagea and User:Trycatch or anyone else, in any way. -- George Serdechny 14:05, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
- Random sample: File:Десантники готовятся к погрузке (Днепр-67).jpg; what is written in the Author field? –Tryphon☂ 14:13, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
- File was uploaded automatically by Flinfo tool. -- George Serdechny 15:04, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
- Random sample: File:Десантники готовятся к погрузке (Днепр-67).jpg; what is written in the Author field? –Tryphon☂ 14:13, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
- Falsehood. I never claimed that I am the author of these photos. And please don't mix up together autorship with holding the copyright (look above — I do not tolerate dilettantism). Flickr do not ask for authorship, generally speaking it requires only the good faith, that's all. Besides, the information about authors and copyright holders of these photos, with which I provided Flickr, does not concern you, User:Geagea and User:Trycatch or anyone else, in any way. -- George Serdechny 14:05, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
- Well, there are two ways:
- 1) you can continue to post various Serious Arguments that flickrwashing in fact is a great technique to obtain free pictures. In this case the files will be deleted.
- 2) you can provide evidence of permission (if you really have this permission) from the author (authors) to COM:OTRS. In this case the files will be kept.
- It's completely your choice. Trycatch (talk) 14:00, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
- You forgot just one little thing. Grounds, please. -- George Serdechny 14:06, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
- It's very simple. You are not the author, so you should provide evidence of the permission from the author. It will be very easy for you, if you are in fact have this permission. Trycatch (talk) 11:55, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
- Maybe I should, maybe I shouldn't. G. R. O. U. N. D. S. -- George Serdechny 15:04, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, you should (if you want to keep the pictures, of course). The burden of proof lies on the uploader. Trycatch (talk) 15:13, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
- Prove what? -- George Serdechny 15:33, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
- Proof of existence of permission from the author to publish these pictures under CC-BY-2.0 license. Trycatch (talk) 15:38, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
- Written above. Files compliance with their licenses and authorship were checked by Flickr staff and confirmed as "Safe content". Flickr does not use OTRS. Sorry. -- George Serdechny 15:43, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
- Okay, you've selected the first way -- to try to prove that flickrwashing is great. It's your choice, as I've already said. Trycatch (talk) 15:52, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
- No, dear friend. I did not selected it, I'm just following once choosen direction. I see you have selected many ways, trying to distort the facts and misinterprete the rules. Still no signs, which indicate uploaded files as flickrwashing. -- George Serdechny 16:03, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
- Okay, you've selected the first way -- to try to prove that flickrwashing is great. It's your choice, as I've already said. Trycatch (talk) 15:52, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
- Written above. Files compliance with their licenses and authorship were checked by Flickr staff and confirmed as "Safe content". Flickr does not use OTRS. Sorry. -- George Serdechny 15:43, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
- Proof of existence of permission from the author to publish these pictures under CC-BY-2.0 license. Trycatch (talk) 15:38, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
- Prove what? -- George Serdechny 15:33, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, you should (if you want to keep the pictures, of course). The burden of proof lies on the uploader. Trycatch (talk) 15:13, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
- Maybe I should, maybe I shouldn't. G. R. O. U. N. D. S. -- George Serdechny 15:04, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
- It's very simple. You are not the author, so you should provide evidence of the permission from the author. It will be very easy for you, if you are in fact have this permission. Trycatch (talk) 11:55, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
Overlook
[edit]User:Trycatch constantly talking about OTRS. I need competent overlook by some experienced administrator: What procedure customized for Flickr images. Do they require any special permissions, and the main thing: How does this corresponding with Commons:OTRS? Examples accepted. -- George Serdechny 08:50, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
- What kind of evidence of permission you have? Paper permission signed by the author? Send scan of it to OTRS. E-mail from the author? Forward it to OTRS. You can ask questions related to OTRS on Commons:OTRS/Noticeboard and w:ru:Википедия:Запросы, связанные с OTRS. Trycatch (talk) 09:14, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
- No, you can ask questions related to OTRS on Commons:OTRS/Noticeboard. And please note, that I didn't ask you, cause you're not experienced administrator. -- George Serdechny 09:24, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
- There is no need of admin flag to answer this simple question. BTW Flickr has nothing to do with these pictures -- the author is not a Flickr user. You need permission from the author, not from somebody Flickr-related. Trycatch (talk) 11:25, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
- It's not the answer on my question. Would you please let somebody competent to answer. Thank you. -- George Serdechny 15:45, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
- Actually, it is the answer. These pictures are NOT "Flickr images", they are NOT originated from Flickr. Forget about all flickrwashing-like methods to keep these photographs -- such methods simply don't work. All you need is an ordinary, banal permission from the author. BTW -- who is the real author? what is the real source? what kind of permission you are talking about? These key questions are still unanswered. Trycatch (talk) 16:56, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
- Would you please? -- George Serdechny 17:07, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
- Well, the silence speaks for itself. Trycatch (talk) 17:48, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
- Would you please? -- George Serdechny 17:07, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
- Actually, it is the answer. These pictures are NOT "Flickr images", they are NOT originated from Flickr. Forget about all flickrwashing-like methods to keep these photographs -- such methods simply don't work. All you need is an ordinary, banal permission from the author. BTW -- who is the real author? what is the real source? what kind of permission you are talking about? These key questions are still unanswered. Trycatch (talk) 16:56, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
- It's not the answer on my question. Would you please let somebody competent to answer. Thank you. -- George Serdechny 15:45, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
- There is no need of admin flag to answer this simple question. BTW Flickr has nothing to do with these pictures -- the author is not a Flickr user. You need permission from the author, not from somebody Flickr-related. Trycatch (talk) 11:25, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
- No, you can ask questions related to OTRS on Commons:OTRS/Noticeboard. And please note, that I didn't ask you, cause you're not experienced administrator. -- George Serdechny 09:24, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
- Comment. waste of time. The images are clearly copyvio per uploaders last request.
- @George Serdechny. Flickrwashing is a waste of time, because sooner or later the photos will be deleted. Geagea (talk) 23:02, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
- Comment. I need some time to clear the situation. -- deerstop. 23:43, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
- Unless you are going to provide author infornation and permission from him it is better not to support flickrwashing. If you intend to ask for OTRS permission, it is better to delete and reupload until you have details about the author (or his descendant) name and mail. Geagea (talk) 00:36, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks, I see your point. Sincerly, -- deerstop. 01:48, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. There has been enough time wasted here. Trycatch and others above are absolutely correct -- the fact that these appeared on Flickr is not relevant to the question of whether User:SerdechnyG has permission for them that is satisfactory for Commons. Since he or she appears to be unwilling or unable to understand that, they must be deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 10:49, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
Flickr washing 001
[edit]- File:Pink Boyshorts and Crop Top.jpg
- File:Bikini tie.jpg
- File:Waiting all day for you to come home.jpg link1
- File:Cradled Pussy.jpg
- File:Pink Boyshorts.jpg link2
- File:Leaf our backsides alone.jpg
- File:Volume 17.jpg
- File:Lacy Gaze.jpg link3
All of those images are from the same flickr account. Most images are lacking exif data and lots of images of that flickr user are copyvios. Some from getty, some adds and other stuff. Those images should never have been uploaded! --Amada44 talk to me 09:30, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
- Could you be more specific which of the files you listed are from Gettys, advertisements or otherwise? Max Rebo Band"almost suspiciously excellent" 14:46, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Its obvious that this is an account created to just upload random images, not self created works. This includes ALL images from that photostream. Even those photos one can think they are simple holiday photos ([2]) are not ([3]) own work by the flickr user daily sunny. Not to mention files like File:Cradled Pussy.jpg - well known photo all around the internet. An obvious case for COM:QFI, please remember to critically evaluate Flickr licenses to prevent such 'flickrvios'. --Martin H. (talk) 16:43, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
- I added link1-link3 to give some examples where the copyright holder/author is known. This can easily be done with TinEye, also the others have TinEye hits en masse, but it doesnt bring anything here to show random websources, thats something the uploader can - and should - do himself easily. --Martin H. (talk) 16:56, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
- Delete all! Looks like a best-of-the-web flickr photo stream. Not convincing at all that this is a user posting own pictures for several reasons which I do not tell here for obvious reasons. Some pictures even do still have watermarks from the source: [4], [5]. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 19:54, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Masur (talk) 17:17, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
PD-AR-Photo not applicable. However, it might be in the PD. ALE! ¿…? 15:16, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted Jcb (talk) 23:50, 28 February 2011 (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)
User Requested - it's a copyright violation of Star Trek's Logos, etc. Despite it may be a geometric symbol. It looks too close to any images made by st and can more-so be used as such. Any fan made image resembling anything star trek is copyvio - because of the close similarites. Only way this can be avoided is by getting Cbs/Paramount's permission, etc.. Thank you. --Ariyen (talk) 17:21, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
Kept: too simple to be eligible for copyright Jcb (talk) 23:52, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
File:Starfleet-logo2.png
[edit]
Star Trek Logo in image. Copyright violation of the Terms of Cbs-Paramount (source startrek dot com
Deleted. DieBuche (talk) 23:46, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
File:Starfleet-logo2.png
[edit]Star Trek Logo in image. Copyright violation of the Terms of Cbs-Paramount (source startrek dot com
Deleted. DieBuche (talk) 23:46, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
Procedural nomination. The image was speedy deleted as a copyright violation, but there are unresolved questions of de minimis, PD-textlogo, and the like. Please discuss. Powers (talk) 18:04, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
- I'd say keep, strictly from a copyright point of view; it doesn't seem to pass the threshold of originality. I wonder how useful this image really is though. –Tryphon☂ 16:44, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
I say keep, strictly from the copyright point of view; it does not seem to pass the threshold of originality. I declare that usefulness of this image really is in using it as proof of cooperation between w:fr:Cyfra + and w:fr:Telekomunikacja Polska in articles about these companies. Load (talk) 19:00, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
Obvious keep, nothing original here. Archer888 (talk) 11:13, 26 September 2010 (UTC)- Note: votes by sockpuppets of banned user "Wikinger" struck out. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:08, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
- delete, no discernible educational function. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:43, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
Kept: PD-textlogo is OK for this Jcb (talk) 23:57, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
