Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2010/09/18
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
|
|
.png){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
unused private image - out of scope Santosga (talk) 13:59, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
Delete OoS Michelet-密是力 (talk) 19:17, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 09:55, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
unused photo of a non-notable student from Québèc; related article was deleted here fr:Jaouad Laaroussi/Suppression for no notability Santosga (talk) 05:26, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Agree. Personal photo. This file is not "realistically useful for an educational purpose," per deletion standards. Out of scope. Commons is not a photo album! Missvain (talk) 07:10, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
Keep We don't have to react to every deletion decision in national wikis. --Mbdortmund (talk) 10:28, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
True, but we don't have to keep small, out of focus images either. If this were a high quality image, the debate would have gone the other way. Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:55, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
out of scope, no permission from subject Yann (talk) 08:22, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
- Delete: either attack image (given the name) or a personal image not useful for the project. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 10:30, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. as per Jacklee. Yann (talk) 10:35, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
This is a copyvio of this photo — Habib M'HENNI [¿tell me?] 14:48, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted by Túrelio: Copyright violation: http://www.camfoot.com/IMG/jpg/chiboub.jpg
This is a broken redirect. 84.61.172.89 15:28, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
'Deleted by Túrelio: Empty gallery: content was: '{{delete|reason=This is a broken redirect.|subpage=Damas_Towers|year=2010|month=September|day=18}} #REDIRECT Angsana Hotel & Suites
COM:FOP#Lithuania does not allow commercial use. Lycaon (talk) 14:26, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Everybody who places the monument or the sculpture in public place, wants that everybody be able to view this and to photograph. This monument is not even inside of building. The jus naturalis, permits to keep. --Starscream (talk) 08:23, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
Comment Here the sculpture is the main subject of the photograph. The Lithuanian law allows a photographer to make and publish pictures of sculptures and works of architecture that are permanently located in public places (excluding works presented in museums and exhibitions), but they cannot be used commercially in any form. That seems incompatible with acceptable licenses in Commons, see Commons:Licensing#Acceptable licenses: commercial use of the work must be allowed. --Myrabella (talk) 10:50, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Per above. Lithuanian law clearly doesn't allow commercial re-useof such pictures, therefore this picture cannot be claimed to be CC. This rules are known and should be accepted. Masur (talk) 14:08, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
I am fully agree with arguments for the deletion of the file and I approve it. Martin Baran (talk) 22:11, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
- Of course you are, because you are the person who flag this file for deletion. :-) -- Jonesy talk 07:44, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
- And also the the only author and the only uploader of the photo, if you have forgotten. Moreover, do not forget to add that you are one of two registered users and one anonymous user who who are repeatedly damaging my work by political comments in Slovak Wikipedia. Are you really not able to stop even if I requested deletion of my photo? You have so many discussion forums on this topic on the Internet. My photo was deleted also from German Wikipedia though it had a neutral comment there because of you. Are satisfied now? Why have you chosen my work for your attacks? I am not interested in politics. All my contribution to Wikipedia and Wikimedia is politically neutral. Please stop damaging my work. I will continue to add to Wikimendia only flowers from High Tatras. I hope that people like you will not find an aggressive political context in connection with them. Martin Baran (talk) 09:50, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
- ??? What the frak are you talking about? I only add some information which from my point of view is important in the context of unveiling of that statue. I don't understand why you are become such hysterical and flag this picture for deletion, but it's your right to do so. So be it.-- Jonesy talk 10:12, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
- May be that is the problem. I think that Wikpedia is not only about your point of view but about impartial and balanced points of view. Martin Baran (talk) 12:32, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
- Whatever. -- Jonesy talk 16:34, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
- May be that is the problem. I think that Wikpedia is not only about your point of view but about impartial and balanced points of view. Martin Baran (talk) 12:32, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
- ??? What the frak are you talking about? I only add some information which from my point of view is important in the context of unveiling of that statue. I don't understand why you are become such hysterical and flag this picture for deletion, but it's your right to do so. So be it.-- Jonesy talk 10:12, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
- And also the the only author and the only uploader of the photo, if you have forgotten. Moreover, do not forget to add that you are one of two registered users and one anonymous user who who are repeatedly damaging my work by political comments in Slovak Wikipedia. Are you really not able to stop even if I requested deletion of my photo? You have so many discussion forums on this topic on the Internet. My photo was deleted also from German Wikipedia though it had a neutral comment there because of you. Are satisfied now? Why have you chosen my work for your attacks? I am not interested in politics. All my contribution to Wikipedia and Wikimedia is politically neutral. Please stop damaging my work. I will continue to add to Wikimendia only flowers from High Tatras. I hope that people like you will not find an aggressive political context in connection with them. Martin Baran (talk) 09:50, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
- Delete The statue depicts a historical situation of which verisimilitude is very fickle. Hardly surpisingly, the statue erection was strongly influenced by nationalismus and our work can also be easily destroyed or damaged by a couple of nationalists who use Wikipedia as a propaganda vehicle.
Given the facts that:
- 1 Slovaks do not belong to the indigenous population of this city.
- 2 It is not even certain if Svatopluk ever existed.
--Nmate (talk) 10:14, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
- I am afraid that the description given by Nmate is unfortunately not based on facts and references but on a doubtful subjective opinion. The statue in my opinion do not depicts any historical situation. Please try have a look on it. Can you see a historical situation? Me not. The presence of Slavs at the current territory of the Slovak Republic in the 8th Century as well as the existence of Svatopluk I is sufficiently proved by historical documents and archaeological finds including Industriae Tuae addressed to Svatopluk I available at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svatopluk_I. Using of a therm indigenous population of a city in connection with 8th century in the Central Europe is in my opinion propaganda itself. I am sad that my photo permitted a start of these chauvinism and propaganda contributions. I think that this discussion page should be about searching a response whether to delete the photo and not about spreading hate between nations. --Martin Baran (talk) 13:27, 2 July 2010
- Of course I am not convinced by you. But it is O.K. I also think so that the Slovaks' origin is not an egregiously relevant thread at this photo deletion and it would be a barren debate otherwise.--Nmate (talk) 12:46, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
Keep - Nice photo that can be used by many projects not only by Slovak Wikipedia that is known for political bias and ownership of articles by small group of editors. --Dezidor (talk) 11:04, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
Keep - I do find it strange, if not puzzling, that the author wants to delete this photo because of political disputes in ONE wiki (with the political situation in Slovakia until recently, unfortunately, but that should not have been a topic here at all). I think it's a useful photograph for all projects, but especially for modern reception and (carefully sourced) criticism. Quality and licensing are OK, however, if the author does not want to change his mind or cannot respond to latest comments, I think it's time for one of the administrators to decide (it's been here for almost 3 weeks now). Just my 2 cents worth, 178.41.68.114 13:16, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
Delete Thank you very much for evaluation of my work. I am agree with the with the opinion that the photo could be useful in Wikipedia. I just don't want to see my name connected with political wars and distasteful comments. I am afraid that the user Jonesy unfortunately will never stop his vandal attacks against this photo and I don't want to spend my time by everyday verifying what new is thought up by him. I promise I will contribute to Wikimedia by other photos. I thank administrators in advance for their fast decision and I thank to everybody for understanding --Martin B (talk) 19:53, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
- A co se takhle, pokud je v tomhle s nima je nějaká řeč, domluvit s tamníma adminama na lokálním blacklistingu zde: http://sk.wikipedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki:Bad_image_list ? Pak by to šlo používat všude jinde než na sk.wiki. --Dezidor (talk) 21:31, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
- I think it's a good idea. I'll try to do so. --Martin B (talk) 04:02, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
Keep As the user Jonesy from the Slovak Wikipedia declared that he would not use this photo in pejorative context, in assistance of one of Slovak Wikipedia administrators, I hereby withdraw my original deletion request. I am agree with the further use of this photo in all Wikipedia projects on condition that it will not be used in a context promoting intolerance and hate. I modified the permission accordingly. I thank all for their patience. --Martin B (talk) 10:33, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
Modern fake with no informative value. 83.153.44.141 13:53, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
- Keep - Higher resolution then the "original" File:Lenin-Trotsky Red Square.jpg, is still useful in making cropped versions like File:Lenin with speech to army in Moscow 1920 by Goldshtein G.jpg. More importantly the picture was created in order to show how easy it is to manipulate images. In this case it is also a clear example of how easy it is to fool the Western public or the Wikipedia community. I plan to use the photo on a Wikipedia policy page to emphasize the importance of source criticism. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 20:27, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
Interestingly enough there is a painting by Isaak Brodsky showing the situation http://history.sgu.ru/?wid=931. Most likely it is on display at the Lenin Museum Moscow. The website here says it is from 1933 http://www.sovietsite.org/photo/4-0-6 Search term is "ыступление В.И.Ленина"
unused art from a non-notable artist, unusable in any article relating with star showers - no foreseeable use, out of scope Santosga (talk) 04:08, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
- Delete - pretty, but out of scope. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 07:27, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 14:40, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
not categorized, not used, probably violation of personal rights 4028mdk09 (talk) 04:18, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
- Delete: also too small to be of much use. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 10:27, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 14:41, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
Libel, under U.S. state law, especially as a per se libel (per se meaning that it's not necessary to prove that the factual claim is damaging because it's presumed to be). The person is apparently recognizable and is described as a prostitute, and prostitution is illegal conduct, so, if the description is false, she is likely being libeled. While prostitution may be lawful in Germany, it's not in most of the U.S., and Wikimedia servers are in Florida, so she may be able to sue there. If she was not allowed to be in prostitution due to age or other circumstances (e.g., duress), then the occupation generally being lawful in Germany is irrelevant. If the personal name given in the filename is wrong, that may be irrelevant to personally identifying her, e.g., from her face. Answering a point raised elsewhere, the lack of additional evidence of prostitution is irrelevant since the caption's label of prostitution is already unequivocal. If it's said that a picture is needed, the solution is one in which a woman is not personally identifiable, such as a picture from another angle. Thank you. ~ Nick Levinson (talk) 04:26, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
- I feel bound to tell you that I'm not an attorney, although I don't think that affects the issue. Nor have I studied Florida law, but have looked in the past at New York law on point. She may be able to sue in any state in which she is present or working, regardless of where Wikimedia Foundation has its servers, in addition to an option of suing in Florida. Nick Levinson (talk) 04:42, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
- The picture is uploaded with permission of the woman on the picture.
- She is a confessing and now former sex worker.
- Prostitution is legal in Germany.
- By the way, is Nick Levinson a single purpose account for this deletion request?
- However I think the photo is correctly deposed on Commons. -- Simplicius (talk) 22:02, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
- It wouldn't make any difference if my account were an SPA, since the issue is equally valid either way. And you knew it wasn't an SPA just from your own investigation, represented by your link. Nonetheless, for your information in response to your apparent distaste for my telling Wikimedia of its possible legal liability, I've done over a thousand edits and created about a dozen articles. In the course of that work, I saw the image.
- Do you have documentation that would permit Wikimedia Foundation to defend itself? Under U.S. law, either evidence that she could not rebut or have ruled inadmissible or an affirmative affidavit from her is probably what would be needed, along with your affidavit about the photography and any consents obtained. A Wikimedia attorney can answer that better than I can. Filing that evidence with the Foundation may be helpful and necessary.
- In my comment, I noted the possible lawfulness of prostitution in Germany but raised questions based on some prostitution probably being unlawful under some circumstances, and the lack of circumstances criminalizing the conduct at the time and place represented by the facts of the photograph cannot be determined from the information supplied with the image. In this legal environment, I think it may be necessary to show that no negative circumstances are applicable to her case. At any rate, the lawfulness in Germany may not affect her claim in the U.S., where the image is available and being served and where prostitution is unlawful almost everywhere.
- It is of course possible that she has no objection and won't during the time when she could have the right to sue. You say "confessing", from which one may infer that you or she believed she was doing something wrong, raising some doubt that she won't have a complaint. If she is publicly speaking as a former sex worker and keeping her full name private, that last might strengthen her right to sue the Foundation, increasing the need for the Foundation to be able to defend itself if the image and information potentially identifying her, such as her facial likeness, is to be kept available on its servers.
- You may be familiar with a policy on biographies of living people, under which contentious content, not merely libelous content, is to be excluded. While an image is not an article, that may be irrelevant to a libel suit. The legal issue underlying the policy probably is the same for the image and for an article.
- I've indented your reply one more step, since replies should be separated that way.
- Thank you. Nick Levinson (talk) 00:47, 19 September 2010 (UTC) (Minor correction: spacing. 00:58, 19 September 2010 (UTC))
- Keep - see talk page. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 07:36, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
- The talk page is generally about issues other than libel, but it does raise a possibility of the person in the picture having uploaded it. If true, that's a defense for the Foundation, possibly a complete defense, although I can't tell that for sure. It's possible, and technically not very difficult, to take a picture of oneself. I didn't try to confirm that the photographer and the uploader are one and the same. But I tried to confirm that the uploader is the person in the subject image and could not. The personal name is different, besides being incomplete. The face, compared to that in de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benutzer:Cascari, is not clearly the same (and a clear picture may not be enough to establish that anyway). And a talk page query, if referring to the same image, is unanswered. Nick Levinson (talk) 09:01, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
I will delete it immidiately if the woman in the photo wants me to do so. Kept. Mbdortmund (talk) 14:48, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
The formal procedure for review of a decision to keep an image file in Commons is to renominate for deletion. Otherwise, it would not be my intention to keep reapplying to the same decision-makers. However, this being the established procedure, I am using it once before invoking another procedure.
Pursuant to existing appellate procedure, I asked the keeping admin on their talk page to reconsider, and the admin implicitly opted to stay with the decision to keep.
The previous decision to keep was by an administrator. I recommend that an attorney admitted to a U.S. court review this deletion request, although I understand that the Foundation has a shortage of attorneys available for these reviews.
The Commons image File:0405.Annabell_002.jpg should be deleted. The reason is that the image presents a substantial legal risk for the Wikimedia Foundation because the image is of a female individual described in the caption as a "German Prostitute", because of substantial risks that the image is libelous and/or defamatory, because it cannot be determined whether the female in the image was of the age of consent when the image was created (e.g., photographed), because the Foundation has no way to determine the age of the person as of the time of image creation even if adulthood at the time is asserted and evidence of it were to be offered, because the female appears to be personally recognizable, because there is no clear public record of who the female is (including full name and other identifying information) and there is no evidence that the Foundation privately knows who the female is and that it has received the female's written consent for the image and its caption, and because, with respect to Wikipedia and possibly other Wikimedia properties, by presenting the individual as identifiable and stating a contentious allegation (prostitution), the image with its caption violates WP:BLP, the policy on biographies of living persons, assuming she is alive (many prostituted females reputedly die young).
The applicable law is the strictest of U.S. Federal, Florida, and German law on each point. That is, keeping the image must conform both to the law applicable in Florida, U.S.A., where servers are located, to the law applicable in Germany, if she is subject to German law, or the law applicable wherever else that subjects her to its law, and to the law applicable in Holland, where more Wikimedia Foundation servers are located.
Prostitution may be lawful in Germany. That may be irrelevant to the risk of damage to her because servers are in the U.S. and prostitution is unlawful in most of the U.S. and it may not be necessary for her to prove specific damage from being described as a prostitute in order to be compensated for damages pursuant to a judicial judgment against the Foundation in the event that she sues for any damage occurring prior to any request from her for deletion.
It is not necessary that she give up her privacy (2d post) from the public. However, it is necessary that she give up her privacy from the Foundation. It is sufficient that the Foundation be satisfied that it privately knows who she is and that the Foundation has her consent. I am not asking that she give up her privacy to anyone, including the Foundation. However, if she does not do so, the Foundation has a duty to delete the image.
There are posts from people stating that she is known and has consented (2d and 3d posts, latter unsigned) (2d post), but none of those posts appear to come from the female or from anyone known to be her agent. Therefore, there is no certainty that she even knows of the image. Therefore, she can be damaged even before she requests its deletion, she may be exempt from any duty to mitigate damage, and the Foundation can be held liable for that damage.
There is at least one offer to delete her image immediately upon her request or within seconds (2d post). That, however, fails to protect her right against damage prior to her request. The Foundation now needs her affirmative consent or, if she is not able to consent under the law applicable to her, e.g., if she is still a minor, the affirmative consent of whomever may consent for her, such as one or both of her parents or legal guardians.
There is one post stating that she is old enough to consent but that only refers to her present age and not her age when the image was created and the Foundation does not determine being of the age of consent (last post), partly because it cannot verify that an offered proof of age is not forged, and therefore the Foundation cannot take the word of an editor that she is of age.
There is one post stating that she took the image herself, of herself. This is possible. But the post saying it most unequivocally is unsigned. And, because the Foundation does not know who she is, there is no certainty that she took the image herself.
There is one post implying that she uploaded the image herself. This, too, is possible. It is known who uploaded the image (Cascari, redirecting to Juliana). However, the name of the uploading editor, the name of the image's author (Julica da Costa or Juhu), and the name given in the name of the image file (Annabell) do not match. Thus, absent other information, the Foundation does not know whether the female in the image is the same person as the one who uploaded it. There is thus no certainty that the female in the image uploaded the image herself.
There is a separate image that is apparently (to a non-German reader) of the face of the uploader. Comparing it to the image that should be deleted does not establish that both images are of the same individual.
There is a post asking who is the female in the image that should be deleted. No one replied to that question, and, since then, over four years have passed.
It is possible the female in the image wishes the image to be published as art or for another good purpose. However, because she is not known to the Foundation, any such wish is irrelevant.
The offer to delete the image upon notice from her that she wishes its deletion may be interpreted by a U.S. jury as the Foundation agreeing to damage her until she gives that notice. That conditional offer is unlawful.
She may be estopped from asserting damage if, for example, she asserted something contradicting damage. She may also have failed to mitigate damages. For example, if she published a book about her life in prostitution (assuming she had such a life) and publicly identified herself as a prostituted female or as a prostitute in a way that associates her with the image in Commons, it is possible that if she claims damage her claim will be subject to estoppel. However, there is no evidence of any such contradiction that includes personal identifications relevant to Commons.
There is one post, unsigned, suggesting that the image is needed to illustrate prostitution. That is insufficient ground for retention. At any rate, an illustration of another individual rendered so the individual is not personally identifiable may serve the purpose of illustrating prostitution without damaging anyone or posing a risk to the Foundation.
As the caption is what creates the problem warranting image deletion, possibly editing the caption would be a solution, but I assume that's been objected to by the uploader or that would have been done.
I am not fluent in any natural language except English, so I cannot evaluate what may be said in German.
The image should be deleted. Thank you. ~ Nick Levinson (talk) 08:01, 4 October 2010 (UTC) (I reformatted for readability, by dividing into paragraphs as originally intended except for the automatic input system. 08:38, 4 October 2010 (UTC))
- Keep If so, a bunch of the images without any problem should be deleted too. This image should be kept unless the original author, Juliana/Cascari, who is also the model in the image, shows up and claims the deletion. --TX55TALK 12:32, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
- Images without problems can be kept, but this one already has the problems stated. If others do, too, they also need to be identified and either repaired or deleted, and your assistance in identifying such images would be appreciated. If you have information that the Foundation already knows that in this case the uploader is the female in the image, please state how the Foundation knows, since that almost certainly requires that she have sent an affidavit or comparable legal proof (with the consent) to that effect, and no one has mentioned such an occurrence. She doesn't have to send it or identify herself but then the image can't be kept, given law and policy. Nick Levinson (talk) 16:40, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
- I think it can be assumed the uploader knew what she did. User:Juhu identifies herself as erotic photographer, so she most likely knew the impact of such photos. Also, according to this german user page, she is leader of wikimedia in serbia (and an active user), so a) she can be assumed to be a thrustworthy user and b) she should be asked for her oppinion before starting such lengthy DRs on a poor basis. --PaterMcFly (talk) 06:22, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
Nick Levinson is insisting although some of his points are definitely wrong and I already told him that the woman on the picture knows about the photo and is absolutely capable to inform us if she wants us to delete it. The image was part of her userpage some years ago.[1] Should be kept. --Mbdortmund (talk) 10:35, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
- Hi Nick, about the Foundation... shall i upload a picture of Jimbo Wales with the woman to proof? It is one of a public event. Simplicius (talk) 22:36, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
- I don't know how to read German and don't trust automated translation services for anything critical.
- The presence of the image on an editor's old page does not mean that the female in the image is the editor whose page it was. The personal names are different. And that the image was not carried forward to the latest revision of the user page may mean that even if the old page said it's the same person the removal may be a correction to the effect that they are not the same person.
- That any editor is trusted is not the same thing as consent.
- An editor being an erotic photographer is not the same thing as a subject being known to the Foundation and having consented to the use. And the photographer, if residing in a nation where prostitution is generally lawful, may not have known of the impact in the U.S., where it is mostly unlawful. Most people have no responsibility to know the laws of any nation in which they are not nationals or visitors.
- The photo with the founder is irrelevant. A meeting is not consent.
- I can't ask the image subject's opinion before starting a deletion request, lengthy or not, because all I know of her is her first name, Annabell, who is not clearly identified as an editor under any name in Wikimedia.
- Starting a deletion request automatically notifies at least one editor, but I don't know if that editor is the subject in the image.
- The deletion request is well founded, not poorly based. If you have any disagreement with it other than on whether the image subject's identity is known (that disagreement has been stated), please state those other disagreements.
- If you believe that any legal liability can be remedied by deletion after the subject requests deletion, if the subject is not an editor, that is error, because damage can occur and be compensable before deletion is requested, even if the deletion is immediate.
- Thank you. Nick Levinson (talk) 12:33, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
- Keep. The deletion request may have come from a good intention. But after looking at many photos of that user that she published through the years on the projects (including some deleted ones that can be found elsewhere), it is clear to me that the model seen on this photo is the uploader. If the nominator still has a doubt about it, the simplest solution would be for him to ask the question directly (in English) to the user and get an answer directly from her. Although she has not contributed to Commons in recent years, she has contributed to the German-language Wikipedia (where her last contribution is currently from September 2010), so that is probably a better place to ask. As for the nominator's argument that the file title is not the person's real name, I can't see the point. That is just a file title. If I uploaded a freely reusable photo of myself to illustrate prostitution (the uploader placed it in the de-WP article "prostitution" in 2005), I too would certainly consider it a poor idea to title the file with my real name. (My concerns about this photo are different and relatively minor. Perhaps I only wish that on Commons the description page would make clearer the context of its making. Also, instead of being concerned about this photo of the uploder by herself, maybe I would be more concerned about the photos where she photographed other persons who the descriptions identify as prostitutes.) -- Asclepias (talk) 02:04, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
- This image should probably be treated the same way. Rocket000 (talk) 06:01, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
- Thank you.
- Asking the pictured female is a great idea that I would have tried had I been sure that I was reaching her or her agent. All I know of her is that she's Annabell, that might be a pseudonym and for good reason (i.e., we agree), and no Wikimedia or Wikipedia user has that exact name. The author, Juhu, was asked years ago who's in the picture but didn't answer. Asking the uploader only works if we know that the uploader is the pictured female and I don't know that; I haven't seen a list of other pictures of her and what I found was inadequate to tell (I think it was only one image, with eyeglasses). Everything else suggesting she's known is inadequate. And I don't need to know who she is; only the Foundation does. No one on behalf of the Foundation has posted saying that the Foundation has her consent.
- I agree about other photos of identifiable individuals described as being in prostitution. I plan to get to those soon, regardless of who the photographer or uploader is in each case. I only recently noticed several of those images.
- However, pictures of unidentifiable individuals are not a concern. For example, one showed a female whose face was not visible next to a car whose occupant/s were not visible, and that does not present legal problems, so I have no intention of requesting its deletion.
- Nick Levinson (talk) 00:38, 10 October 2010 (UTC) (Corrected syntax (cut one excess word): 00:47, 10 October 2010 (UTC))
- Keep This is an image of a longstanding and even fairly famous (in Germany) Wikipedian. She is completely open about her life history, has been interviewed in the national press about it (complete with similar images), and couldn't give a toss. And if she did, she could ask for the image to be deleted just like that and I trust we would instantly comply. --JN466 16:32, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
- Nick, I understand you made the request with the best intentions, and for all the right reasons. --JN466 16:42, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
- Keep For JN466. Jacopo Werther (talk) 17:04, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Wenn Julica das weghaben will, wird sie das schon sagen. Lupenreine BNS-Aktion, gerne auch extreme zeitraubing genannt. Antragsteller angemessene Zeit sperren, damit er Gelegenheit hat, viele schöne neue Fotos für commons zu machen. 2cents -- smial (talk) 23:01, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
Kept. Per JN466 and the “kept reasoning” in the DR above. --Leyo 23:13, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
I am creating this in order for the potential of a respect issue to be put on record for a photograph of a prostitute, and for the context of the image to correct this, or for the image to be deleted if there remains significant doubt as to the personality rights of the model in the absence of a specific model consent statement.
Ticket:2014020910009212 raises doubts about about this image and highlights a potential discrepancy in the past discussion here on de.wp as the photographer claims this was a self-photo on a cheap camera with the uploaded image being a scan of the original, however this does not match the evidence of the EXIF data and needs explanation.
There were 2 DRs in 2010 resulting in keep decisions, and the image is widely used on Wikimedia projects. Considering both the Commons:Photographs of identifiable people guideline has changed significantly in that time, and the community's understanding and implementation of it, this alone seems good reason to assess how this image and its background complies with policy and that sufficient records of a release and verification are available and if necessary retained on OTRS. Fæ (talk) 02:47, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
- Keep What is unclear concerning this statement of the depicted person? --Leyo 20:38, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
- Delete Exif data in a scanned photo might be right or wrong (mostly they are wrong) The jumping point is, that the model said, this is a self-photo with a cheap camera. But the flash unit is most probably the flash of a semiprofessional camera [2] and this [3] is most probably not a self-photo (both photos belongs to the same series, as you can see the green bag in the background is placed exactly in the same way. This is not a cheap camera (as the account claims) this is not a self-photo (as the account claims). Why does the account don't know this, if she is the prostitute shown on this picture? -- Commadpe (talk) 00:32, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
![[2]](https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Datei:0405.Annabell_002.jpg){kind=link}
![[3]](https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Datei:Cascari1.jpg){kind=link}
- Keep The person shown on the photography is quite known, she knows about this photo and she is giving her permission. Don't disturb. Simplicius (talk) 13:18, 16 February 2014 (UTC) PS Commadpe seems to be identical with the blocked stalker EmaAuf.
- Hello, The picture is original, I am the author and gave all permissions to use it for free knowledge a long time ago. I am the model on the photograph and the Commadpe and his argumentation looks very close to the user de:Benutzer_Diskussion:EmaAuf who was blocked in de:Wikipedia because he said he is working in red-light-business and started to stalk me. You can have more information from the blocking administrators https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benutzer:Koenraad and https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benutzer:Gripweed. I do not work in this business anymore. I think this is the real background for this deletion request. --Juliana (talk) 23:06, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
Kept: There are no serious doubts about the identity of the model and author. If there are discrepancies between Exif data and a statement on some talk page, that is not a reason for deletion, as it may just as well be simply a case of misremembering details which do not change the more important facts. --Rosenzweig τ 23:18, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
Clear copyright violation from http://traverse.npolar.no/historical-traverses/plateau-station.
- File:Tipi di Eruzioni vulacniche.jpg - cannot be own work
- File:Caldera del vesuvio.jpg - aerial photos of the Vesusvius
I tagged a few more contributions by chicco2 (talk · contribs) as copyvios, and I recommend that all his uploads be nuked. Pieter Kuiper (talk) 07:05, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
One of the aerial view has been taken by geologist Carlo Tripodi, no copyright information: http://www.swisseduc.ch/stromboli/about/visitors/vesuvio.html --Giorgiogp2 (talk) 09:36, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
- Thank you, I now tagged that one with {{Copyvio}}. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 09:42, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
Also File:Faglie.jpg is not own work, one of the images(bottom left) is here: http://www.regione.emilia-romagna.it/geologia/divulgazione/pianeta_terra/03_formazione/app/a02_pieghe_faglie.htm
Some of the volcano icons: http://avereoessere.virtuale.org/tipologia_eruzioni.htm --Giorgiogp2 (talk) 10:43, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
File:Formazione_di_una_caldera.jpg bottom right image is here: http://www.geonet.org.nz/volcano/our-volcanoes/mayor-island.html --Giorgiogp2 (talk) 18:23, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
- I tagged some more with {{Copyvio}} - many of Chicco2's uploads have already been deleted. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:32, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 14:51, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
no source, scan, see EXIF Yann (talk) 08:24, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
- Delete unless OTRS confirmation is forthcoming. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 10:31, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
- Delete I should've noticed that before cropping from File:Mark Jeri 2.jpg. If I get this right, the suggestion is that this is a scan of a pic taken by a pro photographer at a "Have your picture taken with Jeri Ryan" booth? —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 16:24, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 09:42, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
no source, scan, see EXIF Yann (talk) 08:24, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
- Delete unless OTRS confirmation is forthcoming. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 10:32, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
- Delete I should've noticed that before cropping to File:Jeri Ryan cropped photo op image.jpg. If I get this right, the suggestion is that this is a scan of a pic taken by a pro photographer at a "Have your picture taken with Jeri Ryan" booth? —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 16:25, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
I had asked if it was approved to have posted on the web before I bought this photo and I was told yes. I posted it as an example of a picture at a con and did not want to see it cropped. - Mark Mittelstaedt
- Verbal approval to "post on the web" does not mean you were given the copyright to the image. As to cropping, I was acting under the presumption that the free license on the image uploaded was valid, which permits derivative works. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 22:33, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
- Comment Uploader=subject may well have been given the right to do whatever he wants to do with this photo, but if he does not want to have himself cropped out of it, he should not have allowed derivatives; his license (if valid) is irrevocable. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 08:12, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
- Delete, unfortunately: taking what Mittelstaedt says in good faith, I think we will still have to delete the image because (1) a verbal statement by the photographer at the convention booth that Mittelstaedt may post the image on the web is not a sufficient indication that the image may be used for commercial purposes or that derivatives may be made of it; and (2) even if the photographer's verbal statement did cause Mittelstaedt to acquire full copyright to the image, it seems we will not be able to obtain OTRS confirmation of this since he does not wish the photograph to be cropped. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 17:51, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 09:43, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
This looks for me like a private portrait photo of which there is no articel on Wikipedias or Commons. In addition I think that the person that is to show on the photo must agree with the publications of this photo (which he can be seen and recognized in an easy way). Is there a guideline on Commons or Wikipedias that permitts uploads of private photos? All in all I think private portraits should be allowed on Commons. I am active on flickr too, and there, such photos are widely spread, so the user that uploaded this photo can upload it on flickr. A.Ceta (talk) 08:37, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
- Delete: Commons is not a personal image server. Image is of dubious quality and thus not useful for any project. However, there is no general law or policy that says permission is required from a person before his or her image in a photograph can be uploaded to the Commons. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 10:34, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 09:43, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Unfortunately, this is a derivative version of the map on the website of the Singapore Mass Rapid Transit Corporation. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 09:31, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 15:50, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
Outside of Commons:Project scope. Missing verifiable source. Uploaded by a user who has been known to upload copyright violations. —LX (talk, contribs) 09:35, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
- Delete: seems like a personal photograph. Not useful for project. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 10:35, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
- Delete - source "Google". /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 08:54, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 09:44, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
unused, no encylopedic value, unidentified logo, no cat, etc.. Frédéric (talk) 09:59, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
- Delete for nominator's reasons. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 10:35, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 09:44, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
unused, useless, no encylopedic value, no cat, etc Frédéric (talk) 10:14, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
- Absolutely. Delete. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 10:37, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
- Delete duplicate of File:ZimCrewhands.jpg - no need to bring it here. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 08:58, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 09:45, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
this is a screenshot of copyrighted software. It's not own work and it's not in in the public domain Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 10:43, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
- Delete - false license. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 11:05, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 09:46, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
Original research Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 10:47, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
- What should we do with this file. These seem to be some sort of composition lines, but they seem to be drawn more or less randomly, probably using PhiMatrix. I seriously doubt whether an specialist in art would agree with these lines drawn over here? Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 10:58, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
- Keep, I think. Image is in use at the Czech Wikipedia and Wikiversity in articles about the history of painting composition. I don't know enough to comment on the accuracy of the lines, but judging from the Czech Wikipedia article I'm not sure the lines are random. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 17:52, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
- Keep - in use. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 10:05, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
Comment The only reason why I nominated it, is this: The lines should reveal the composition. But the question is, did the artist Monet use these lines to create the composition? Or did the user draw these lines as it seemed him right? Or did he use an authoritative source to draw these lines? No, he probably used this program File:ProgramPM.jpg, which does not seem to have any credibility in the art world. Just drawing lines in a painting afterwards, is like drawing lines between some stars and claim they show a coherent constellation. Anyone who wants to re-use this image is unaware of the fact that this interpretation is not based on a professional and generally accepted analysis but rather on the opinion of a Wiki-user who arbitrarily added some lines to this image. The description says "Own work", so this is Original Research and Point of View. Could we reflect on that? Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 09:57, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
- It is in use on wikiversity, which is a place meant for original research (teeming with courses like "cold fusion 101", etcetera). Jimbo wanted to close the place down, I think, which might have been a good thing. You can try to propose that Commons exclude them from its scope. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 11:01, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
- Keep In use -> in scope. Multichill (talk) 16:38, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Per COM:NPOV, Original Research and Point of View are expressly not criteriums for exclusion on Commons. Use of the image is subject to policies of the various projects where they are used. It is not a valid criterium for deletion on Commons. — Edokter • Talk • 16:49, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
- Keep I'm all for nominating random creations for deletion--a lot of original research fails the education use requirements--but anything that's in use is automatically in scope.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:07, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Original research not a criteria for deletion, neither is point of view. Rather, they are often necessary to *illustrate* a particular point of view. Image descriptions should be neutral and not contain original research probably, but that can generally be fixed by changing the description rather than deletion. It may be good to note that the composition lines are speculative, and where they came from, but again, a matter for a more accurate description. Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:19, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
Image is of an unknown person, and the only uses of it were vandalism on Wikipedia Mktyscn (talk) 16:15, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
- Delete: Commons is not a personal file server. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 18:06, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 15:51, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
This is a scan from publicity materials (see the text on the left side) and the artefacts that were done while scanning Skier Dude (talk) 17:06, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
- Delete for nominator's reasons. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 18:06, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 09:47, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
Non free photo of a PD statue. Term of use states "tous les droits de reproduction sont réservés". Coyau (talk) 22:46, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 15:13, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
Unused personal picture, out of scope. Trycatch (talk) 22:51, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Martin H. (talk) 19:13, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 15:13, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
Unused personal picture, out of scope. Trycatch (talk) 22:56, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 15:12, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
Out of scope (unused image, with apparently no connection with the category Star Trek). Marcok (talk) 22:59, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
- Delete: unclear from description who is pictured, and image is unused. Not useful for any project. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 18:02, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 15:14, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
I don't know what this logo is -- copyvio? unused out of scope picture? flickrwashing? Or maybe a perfectly legit picture? Article about this show have been deleted in fi.wiki twice: [4]. Trycatch (talk) 11:36, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
- Delete: probably simple enough for {{PD-textlogo}}, but image is unused, most likely not notable, and thus not useful for any project. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 18:01, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
- IMO it's clearly not simple enough. Number of elements is huge, and the arrangement is not so trivial. Trycatch (talk) 18:07, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 15:15, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
copyrighted logo Frédéric (talk) 19:25, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
- Delete It's a protected trademark. Mktyscn (talk) 02:43, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
- Keep {{Textlogo}}. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 11:15, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
Kept. per Pieter Kuiper, see also Category:Google logos that also use {{Textlogo}}. ZooFari 21:46, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
Outside project scope, no educational value. Mormegil (talk) 15:45, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
Deleted - Jcb (talk) 10:13, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
There's already this one Teoamez (talk) 12:58, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: unused poor duplicate. --George Chernilevsky talk 08:34, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
No FoP in the UAE. 84.61.172.89 19:28, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. ZooFari 21:45, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
This is not own work. License not OK in my opinion. Identical to http://galeriegraal.com/galerie-art-contemporain-peinture-gerard-di-maccio-102-a Wouter (talk) 19:27, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. DieBuche (talk) 09:00, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
Needs to be posted as a newer revision to the original file. Jozeppy26 (talk) 20:57, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
Kept. The original file should be kept as is. It is better to have the alternative version in a separate file. Leyo 14:59, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
De facto duplicate of Methane-CRC-MW-dimensions-2D.png. Unused. Yikrazuul (talk) 16:17, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
- Keep Two different images. And the deletion request a de facto duplicate of the first one. --Cwbm (commons) (talk) 18:40, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
- Delete The only difference I see is that this one has an incorrectly drawn bond (direction of the hashed shape), whereas the in-use replacement has this mistake corrected. DMacks (talk) 16:07, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
- True, according to IUPAC the small end have to point to the stereo center, in that case the carbon atom. --Yikrazuul (talk) 17:01, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
Kept. No consensus to delete. Ed (Edgar181) 13:37, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
No FoP in the UAE. 84.61.172.89 15:58, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
- Keep The building can be considered de minimis. ZooFari 00:14, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
- Keep - Classic application of de minimis here, since the image clearly isn't of the building. CT Cooper · talk 10:57, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
unused logo of unidentified subject, article was deleted here es:Larraskito - out of scope Santosga (talk) 18:58, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. --Màñü飆¹5 talk 10:33, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
unused, useless, no encyclopedic value, no description, no cat, etc Frédéric (talk) 19:13, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
- Delete It's an unused photo of an unknown person. Mktyscn (talk) 02:41, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. --Màñü飆¹5 talk 10:34, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
unused private image - out of scope Santosga (talk) 20:16, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. --Màñü飆¹5 talk 10:35, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
Low res publicity photo uploaded to English Wiki by user with history of uploading copyrighted publicity/news photos. Ytoyoda (talk) 03:27, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
- Delete per all the red links on en:User talk:JasonNixon. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 07:24, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:25, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
unused photo of punk rock band with no notability as decided here es:La Peste Negra(Band) - out of scope Santosga (talk) 05:08, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
- Keep - illustrative. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 07:44, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. We have hundreds of punk rock photos. We don't need low quality, non notable additions. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:26, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
unused photo of an Italian rock band with no notability as decided here it:Moebius brain - out of scope Santosga (talk) 05:11, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
- Keep - atmospheric photo of amateur musicians. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 07:46, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:27, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
Appears to be news photo, no details or other info to support PD-self claim. Ytoyoda (talk) 05:45, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
- Delete as per nomination. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 10:28, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Only three uploads from this user, one clear copyvio, one probable, and this. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:35, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
low quality copy of Banknote 5 rubles (1997) front.jpg Serjio-pt (talk) 11:26, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. File:Banknote 5 rubles (1997) front.jpg -- Common Good (talk) 19:17, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
_front.jpg){kind=link}
the image is not displayed as accepted Alpha-Link (talk) 12:50, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Common Good (talk) 19:27, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
image of a Brazilian product with no notability, deleted here pt:No-Sag as spam - advertising, out of scope Santosga (talk) 19:18, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Common Good (talk) 19:18, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
unused logo of a musical band/website [5] with no notability or article in any wiki project - advertising, out of scope Santosga (talk) 19:22, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Common Good (talk) 19:24, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
Incorrect file type uploaded, please delete Floydian (talk) 14:10, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
If there is an insistance to keep this because jpegs are (supposedly) good for photos, then please disassociate this file with my username entirely. I upload in png, jpegs have wonky compression algorithms that leads to pixellation of gradients (ie if you've got a sky in the photo, it'll fuck it up). I will be using the png equivalent on wikipedia, so this will remain an orphan. - Floydian (talk) 14:12, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
- Comment: if you upload the PNG version of this file to the Commons, this file can be deleted as redundant. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 18:00, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
- The PNG is already up, file:Hwy 27 in Schomberg.png. Cheers, Floydian (talk) 02:55, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
- Comment I restored the information, particularly to remove it from the no license categories. ZooFari 23:34, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted as duplicate. Amada44 talk to me 08:14, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
No confirmation for {{Copyrighted free use}}. The image is either from [6] or [7] (the latter has exactly the same file published 2 years earlier). Neither site specifies a free license. The source specified by the uploader is a car workshop. --Sergei (talk) 15:59, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted by Polarlys: copyright violation, see Commons:Licensing
low quality review of File:Banknote 5 rubles (1997) back.jpg Serjio-pt (talk) 11:28, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
_back.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:34, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
- Linked to alternate image and removed prior.
Low res, high quality image from user w/history of copyvios. Ytoyoda (talk) 06:02, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
- Delete. Image was probably copied from this source, both of which are likely copyright violations. — ξxplicit 08:24, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Wknight94 talk 05:24, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
probably not own work Yann (talk) 08:30, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
- You had also tagged File:Acrocanthosaurus atokensis.jpg as a copyvio, with a link here; I removed that tag to discuss it here. It seems to me that this is work by the sculptor Ademar Pereira; might need OTRS. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 08:24, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
- Well, the second one is available elsewhere on the Internet, so the suspicion of copyright violation is stronger. Regards, Yann (talk) 08:56, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
- Ok, uploader put (his?) dinosaur in a background from a wallpaper, probably from http://tangledwing.wordpress.com/ , who publishes hi-res nature photo taken from other image sites; COM:DW of something that is not likely to be free -> Delete. (However, it is possible that uploader bought the rights for this use, but that would need some evidence.) /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 09:20, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
- Ok, uploader put (his?) dinosaur in a background from a wallpaper, probably from http://tangledwing.wordpress.com/ , who publishes hi-res nature photo taken from other image sites; COM:DW of something that is not likely to be free ->
- Well, the second one is available elsewhere on the Internet, so the suspicion of copyright violation is stronger. Regards, Yann (talk) 08:56, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Wknight94 talk 15:20, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Superceded by File:SeaWinds.png Mattgirling (talk) 17:01, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Uploader request. Wknight94 talk 15:24, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
look like a scan from something printed (eg newspaper or book). Micholopro, how did you make the picture? Saibo (Δ) 18:07, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
- Delete for nominator's reasons. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 17:58, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Unused anyway. Wknight94 talk 15:25, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
unidentified logo, unused, no encyclopedic value, no cat, etc Frédéric (talk) 18:30, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
- Delete If it really is a school logo as the description claims, then it's probably a protected trademark that isn't licensed for free use and must be removed. Mktyscn (talk) 02:34, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
- Delete: trademark laws are not relevant here as they are non-copyright restrictions, but I agree that the image is unidentified, unused and thus not useful for any project. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 17:57, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Wknight94 talk 15:25, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Looks like a commercially available sculpture. FunkMonk (talk) 20:28, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
- Same situation as Commons:Deletion requests/File:Tyrannosaurus Rex hatching from egg.jpg -- Asclepias (talk) 16:01, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. COM:DW. Wknight94 talk 15:33, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Looks like a commercially available sculpture. FunkMonk (talk) 20:28, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
- Ãfter looking closer, appears all in this category should be deleted: [8] Flickr description says "A loimited-edition set I picked up some years back, when West Oaks Mall had a pewter store." FunkMonk (talk) 20:31, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Plus the rest of Category:Dinosaurs in pewter. Wknight94 talk 15:35, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Author's request: Forgot to give this file a useful name. Replaced with Results_of_vaginal_lengthening_by_pressure_dilation_methods.jpg --Jonathan.Marcus (talk) 20:33, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Wknight94 talk 15:32, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
a mirror image picture does not accuratly display the person involved Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 11:20, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
- Without going into the utter absurdity of such nitpicking, I will point out that the image is public domain. I would really like to see the policy which prohibits uploading slightly modified free images. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 13:29, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
- Comment: I think it generally makes sense not to laterally invert portraits of people. Human beings are not symmetrical, so a laterally inverted image may not show the person as he or she actually appears. But where is the evidence that this image has been laterally inverted from an original? — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 17:57, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
- Either this one or the source is mirror imaged, but looking at the response of uploader, we can safely conclude that it is this one.Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 18:12, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
- Comment - in use, but en:WP:MOS#Images says: "Images should not be reversed simply to resolve a conflict between these guidelines; doing so misinforms the reader for the sake of our layout preferences." Upload correctly oriented version. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 10:16, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
- I would really like to see which policy proscribes deletion of the image based on the direction in which it is (currently) flipped. Isn't this an issue for the image talkpage, or even the article talkpage of a particular project, not a commons deletion request? --DIREKTOR (TALK) 11:38, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
Kept, file is in use and thus within project scope. Kameraad Pjotr 19:22, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
See http://www.bruno-gasperini.book.fr/galeries/portraits-beaute/769624 - this could have been speedied as a copyvio, but as it has an OTRS tag, I bring it up here. The original file is a bit smaller in pixels, but has better resolution and a larger file size than the image on Commons. Pieter Kuiper (talk) 08:38, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
- Comment: I'm not clear on what grounds you saying that the OTRS tag is incorrect. Doesn't the tag show that the copyright holder of the photograph or someone authorized by him or her has released a version of the photograph (it doesn't have to be the original) to the Commons, and that this consent has been verified? — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 10:42, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
- This OTRS tag 2135722 is used indiscriminately: for photos by many different photographers as well as for PD-old stuff that is scanned. And also for images made by others (see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Gustavus Partnership JTD.jpg), and for stuff that was grabbed from the web, see Commons:Deletion requests/File:LillianSwedenBertilGrave.jpg. This is a portrait by a professional photographer, and it should need permission coming from him. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 11:05, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
The claim that the OTRS is being "used indiscriminately" is just a part of the stalking Kuiper is doing now as a part of this discussion which seems to have made it important to him to flex his huge Commons muscles and show everyone how much power he has here, unlimited by any warnings, recent blocks or basic limits of ethical behavior.
As Kuiper actually is well aware, an agreement was made by an authorized representative of the Southerly Clubs with Mr Howard Cheng in 2008 enabling that OTRS to be established for the Southerly Clubs. In that agreement it is guaranteed that any and all photographs uploaded to Commons are free. A total of two (2) mistakes (out of over 1000 images) have been made and both were corrected immediately, with apologies. This and the Gustavus Adolphus College one (as anyone can see there) are not those two.
Please advise me to whom the Southerly Clubs should send an email showing that the agreement with Mr Cheng has been honored in this case, including emailed release from the photographer, as in over 998 other cases. SergeWoodzing (talk) 17:21, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
PS I am sorry that this lovely and principally justified text on the deletion warning template on my user talk - "In all cases, please do not take the deletion request personally. It is never intended as such." - does not apply in this case. I sincerely wish it did. SergeWoodzing (talk) 18:35, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
- Delete - http://www.bruno-gasperini.book.fr/ says "Copyright 2010 Tous droits réservés." This file can be undeleted in the unlikely case that a sufficient permission can be obtained; see COM:OTRS for the procedure. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 08:47, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
I repeat: To whom shall the Southerly Clubs email permission already on file now, to avoid unnecessary work as per Kuiper's persistent demand here (for antagonistic personal reasons - "unlikely case")? SergeWoodzing (talk) 13:27, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
- Bruno Gasperini should send permission to permissions-commons
wikimedia.org, as described at COM:OTRS. –Tryphon☂ 14:20, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
- I read the OTRS ticket. Quoting as much as I can: "I have the rights to all file material owned by Lars Jacob Prod...I am specifying herewith that all of these photos are released through their publication in Wikipedia to Public Domain." That seems a bit iffy to me as a release. IANAL, but I think that the Club specifically wishes to decide which photos they want to release to the public domain. Would appreciate another set of eyes on this. NW (Talk) 15:07, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
- It seems that SergeWoodzing has been granted the rights EmilEik/EmilEikS had before per User_talk:SergeWoodzing#Turned_over_to_you (depending on how that message is to be read - is it a full permission or just a "please watch our images"). A mail to OTRS would be to prefer. --MGA73 (talk) 15:19, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
- That sounds dangerous to me. Subsequent uploads from EmilEik/EmilEikS with a permissionOTRS ticket that does not pertain to it (that is, files not from Lars Jacob Prod) should not be done. The ticket does not satisfy this either way and individual OTRS emails should be done. Turning it to someone else doesn't make it different. ZooFari 15:27, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
- You are right. I can not see that this photo is from Lars Jacob Prod and therefor the excisting OTRS does not clearly cover this image. --MGA73 (talk) 15:53, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
- That sounds dangerous to me. Subsequent uploads from EmilEik/EmilEikS with a permissionOTRS ticket that does not pertain to it (that is, files not from Lars Jacob Prod) should not be done. The ticket does not satisfy this either way and individual OTRS emails should be done. Turning it to someone else doesn't make it different. ZooFari 15:27, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
- It seems that SergeWoodzing has been granted the rights EmilEik/EmilEikS had before per User_talk:SergeWoodzing#Turned_over_to_you (depending on how that message is to be read - is it a full permission or just a "please watch our images"). A mail to OTRS would be to prefer. --MGA73 (talk) 15:19, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
- Delete (edit conflict) According to the ticket, the declaration line states "I own the copyright on all these the photos and any other photos that will be submitted under my user names". The permission was given from Lars Jacob Prod, not Bruno Gasperini. The sender gave a list, which does not include this image. Therefore the ticket is invalid for it and permission is required by the real author. Note that using {{User:EmilEikS/Template:Southerly Clubs}} does not automatically make the permission correct. ZooFari 15:18, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
- The permission covered by the OTRS ticket is detailed in the template for it which appears on each and every image donated to Wikimedia Commons by the Southerly Clubs. That includes all the organizations under the Southerly Clubs, including CabarEng which has been given specific permission by Mr Gasperini to donate this image to the Public Domain though Commons. The photographer's release on file will be emailed now to permissions-commons-at-wikimedia.org as I now have been advised above. SergeWoodzing (talk) 02:24, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
- Comment The pictures seem important enough to invest some time to save them. Any idea? --Mbdortmund (talk) 15:49, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
- Emails are being exchanged between permissions and the photographer in Paris. SergeWoodzing (talk) 20:19, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
- From which one may conclude that there was no permission for a free license, and that the photographer is not very willing to grant one for free. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 08:51, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
Permissions: have you received the email showing that the photographer granted unlimited free use of the image to SC before it was uploaded to Commons? I have seen it and it has been forwarded to you. SergeWoodzing (talk) 08:44, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, lacks suitable permission. Kameraad Pjotr 19:56, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
- I restored the image, because in the meantime (2010-11-22) another OTRS ticket number has been added to the template, contained valid permission. Jcb (talk) 22:05, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
Renominating; Jcb added an OTRS ticket to the Southerly Clubs template User:EmilEikS/Template:Southerly Clubs (which I find a weird way of granting blanket permission), but this image needs permission from the photographer; I see no evidence for that. See http://www.bruno-gasperini.book.fr/galeries/portraits-beaute/769624 which carries a copyright sign. Pieter Kuiper (talk) 23:38, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
- Keep - you don't see the evidence, because you cannot access the ticket. The ticket contains a personal permission from the photographer - Jcb (talk) 12:09, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
- Oh yeah, why do you find it a "weird way of granting blanket permission" while the history of the template clearly shows that you, Pieter Kuiper created this very template? Jcb (talk) 12:13, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
- I guess the weird thing is, if this ticket contains permission from this specific photographer, why is it applied (through the template) to all the images from the Southerly Clubs (most of which have probably nothing to do with this particular photographer). –Tryphon☂ 13:37, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
- This ticket contains 35 entries from 4 months ago till now. Jcb (talk) 13:44, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
- The photographer Bruno Gasperini (France) is not a member of this Swedish club. These OTRS tickets is already seriously lacking in transparency, but by mixing up his permission in 35 entries (covering hundreds of uploads), you are making this absolutely intractable. From now on, this club can upload any image they find, and nobody will bother about making a DR. Just trust them. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:48, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
- If someone has any doubt about the validity of a ticket for a particular image, we have Commons:OTRS/Noticeboard. About this particular case: the ticket DOES contain a message from Bruno Gasperini. Jcb (talk) 17:22, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
- Does that message justify the {{PD-self}} licence by SergeWoodzing? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:45, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
- No, that's wrong. I corrected it. Jcb (talk) 23:02, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
- Does that message justify the {{PD-self}} licence by SergeWoodzing? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:45, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
- If someone has any doubt about the validity of a ticket for a particular image, we have Commons:OTRS/Noticeboard. About this particular case: the ticket DOES contain a message from Bruno Gasperini. Jcb (talk) 17:22, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
- The photographer Bruno Gasperini (France) is not a member of this Swedish club. These OTRS tickets is already seriously lacking in transparency, but by mixing up his permission in 35 entries (covering hundreds of uploads), you are making this absolutely intractable. From now on, this club can upload any image they find, and nobody will bother about making a DR. Just trust them. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:48, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
- This ticket contains 35 entries from 4 months ago till now. Jcb (talk) 13:44, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
- I guess the weird thing is, if this ticket contains permission from this specific photographer, why is it applied (through the template) to all the images from the Southerly Clubs (most of which have probably nothing to do with this particular photographer). –Tryphon☂ 13:37, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
- Oh yeah, why do you find it a "weird way of granting blanket permission" while the history of the template clearly shows that you, Pieter Kuiper created this very template? Jcb (talk) 12:13, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
- Deletion request withdrawn. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 23:06, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks. Jcb (talk) 00:14, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
Kept. - withdrawn by nominator - Jcb (talk) 00:14, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
No COM:FOP#Belarus. Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:16, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, no freedom of panorama in Belarus. Kameraad Pjotr 20:30, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
This file is Non-free lisence.Copyrights image of the Japanese Ministry of Defence.Not allows to use it for any purpose.Lisence is here [9](in japanse).無断改変・転載の禁止。Image source [10]&[11]-Los688 (talk) 07:27, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
- Delete for nominator's reasons. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 10:29, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, copyright violation. Kameraad Pjotr 21:18, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
No FoP in the UAE. 84.61.172.89 15:56, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, derivative work of a copyrighted design. Kameraad Pjotr 21:08, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
No FoP in the UAE. 84.61.172.89 15:57, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, no freedom of panorama in the United Arab Emirates. Kameraad Pjotr 20:59, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
93.16.173.177
I translate this French IP comment : "free picture of a non-free work". The IP proposed a speedy deletion but I proposed a DR instead. What is the problem ? The original work by Duchamp has disappeared but we have several replicas. Therefore, there are 2 problems :
- Are the replicas copyrighted ? When did their creators make them ?
- Which replica is it on this picture ? If it's the replica displayed in Paris (someone claimed it on the French Wikipedia article), the "PD-US" template is wrong.
--TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 06:53, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
- Keep: we've had this discussion before concerning a similar image – "Commons:Deletion requests/File:Fontaine-Duchamp.jpg". The consensus then was that Duchamp's Fountain is essentially a utilitarian object (a urinal) and therefore not copyrightable. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 17:45, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
- Comment Commons:Deletion requests/File:Duchamp wheel.jpg was closed as delete. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 07:48, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
Kept, per Commons:Deletion requests/File:Fontaine-Duchamp.jpg. Kameraad Pjotr 20:28, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
Said to be own work, but the author is Anonymous at the same time. It's unclear who is releasing it in the public domain. –Tryphon☂ 13:37, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
- Comment - which is very often the case with uploads here; would it have been less anonymous if uploader had written "Author: Jonglee"? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 10:24, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
- Keep As Pieter Kuiper said. --Phyrexian (talk) 05:55, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
Kept, genuine own work. Kameraad Pjotr 20:51, 27 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)
Flag dont have anything common with fascim. Symbol in flag is from XIV age. Bearas (talk) 07:53, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
- Keep if this was the flag of the 1941 government. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 08:04, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
- At 1941 Lithuania didn't even exist and there are no sources or something that this flag is real. Bearas (talk) 10:39, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
- According to en:Occupation of Lithuania by Nazi Germany#Administration, a provisional government tried to establish itself in 1941; my guess is that this was their flag. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 10:44, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
- First of all at that paragraph there are no at least one reference. Also that's just guessing and author do not even give any sources. Plus, why fascists should use columns of Gediminas? It is symbol used at XIV century of Grand dukes Gediminaičiai family. And also that symbol was banned after Soviet Union occupation of Lithuania, so they do not even could try use it, or they destiny would be the same as mostly of freedom or anti-sovietic activists... Bearas (talk) 11:11, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
- Well, what was the flag of the en:Provisional Government of Lithuania? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 11:41, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
- I don't even really believe that they had special flag. Probably they used 1918-1939 flag or do not use at all. I don't found any sources of special Lithuanian flag. And during German occupation it was used traditionall Nazi flag en:List of flags of Lithuania Bearas (talk) 12:01, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
- Well, what was the flag of the en:Provisional Government of Lithuania? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 11:41, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
- First of all at that paragraph there are no at least one reference. Also that's just guessing and author do not even give any sources. Plus, why fascists should use columns of Gediminas? It is symbol used at XIV century of Grand dukes Gediminaičiai family. And also that symbol was banned after Soviet Union occupation of Lithuania, so they do not even could try use it, or they destiny would be the same as mostly of freedom or anti-sovietic activists... Bearas (talk) 11:11, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
- According to en:Occupation of Lithuania by Nazi Germany#Administration, a provisional government tried to establish itself in 1941; my guess is that this was their flag. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 10:44, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
- At 1941 Lithuania didn't even exist and there are no sources or something that this flag is real. Bearas (talk) 10:39, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
Closed. Was deleted during Commons:Deletion requests/File:Dannebrog Royal Life Guard color flag.JPG. -- Cecil (talk) 00:11, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
The uploader is a prolific crosswiki sockpuppeteer, with a long history of uploading files on Wikipedia with false copyright info, see Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems#Cross-wiki sockpuppeteer, so AGF does not really apply here. There is no indication as to why the image was first published 1980, as the uploader claims. The image widely circulates over the internet (tineye gives over 100 hits) but the source page provided gives no information about the date the image was created and I did not find such date information elsewhere. Nsk92 (talk) 10:09, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
- Delete: clearly a scan or photograph of an existing photograph – see the left edge of the image. Given that the image is simply sourced from the Internet, more evidence is needed to show it is indeed in the public domain. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 10:37, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted: per JackLee. -- Cecil (talk) 00:13, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
The uploader is a prolific crosswiki sockpuppeteer, with a long history of uploading files on Wikipedia with false copyright info, see Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems#Cross-wiki sockpuppeteer, so AGF does not really apply here. There is no indication as to why the image was first published 1978, as the uploader claims. The specified source page has no information about the date the image was created. Nsk92 (talk) 10:22, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
- Delete: sourced from the Internet, so more evidence needed to show it really is in the public domain. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 10:38, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted: per request. -- Cecil (talk) 00:14, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
a mirror image picture does not accuratly display the person involved Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 11:09, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
- Comment: where is the evidence that this image has been laterally inverted from an original? — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 17:54, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
- It has, in fact, not been laterally inverted from the original... --DIREKTOR (TALK) 11:39, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
- A simple google search shows the opposite. [12] [13] [14] Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 12:21, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
- It has, in fact, not been laterally inverted from the original... --DIREKTOR (TALK) 11:39, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
![[12]](http://www.google.nl/imgres?imgurl=http://www.qpic.ws/images/4x611719.jpg&imgrefurl=http://istorija-jugoslavije.online-talk.net/petar-stambolic-f21/&usg=__DiNY-u0cwcfH-w_-1VxwIe8RuqE=&h=301&w=199&sz=15&hl=nl&start=0&sig2=vX8ifgFCEqTLKtaTO4QcpA&zoom=1&tbnid=eH-30ydeK1jCqM:&tbnh=158&tbnw=111&ei=5i2jTOb3Ktq5jAfQoayOAw&prev=/images%3Fq%3DPetar%2BStamboli%25C4%2587%26um%3D1%26hl%3Dnl%26safe%3Doff%26sa%3DN%26biw%3D1920%26bih%3D1099%26tbs%3Disch:1&um=1&itbs=1&iact=hc&vpx=336&vpy=69&dur=6671&hovh=240&hovw=159&tx=103&ty=128&oei=5i2jTOb3Ktq5jAfQoayOAw&esq=1&page=1&ndsp=30&ved=1t:429,r:1,s:0){kind=link}
![[13]](http://www.google.nl/imgres?imgurl=http://www.delo.si/assets/media/picture/iman/2007_09/670x420_petar.stambolic1.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.delo.si/clanek/47892&usg=__ShhaBcujuejiUWGbor0QpGJSO98=&h=420&w=670&sz=22&hl=nl&start=0&sig2=1rHQbojyuZJMFR2TT7i5Yg&zoom=1&tbnid=4X6jc0xPImktKM:&tbnh=125&tbnw=199&ei=5i2jTOb3Ktq5jAfQoayOAw&prev=/images%3Fq%3DPetar%2BStamboli%25C4%2587%26um%3D1%26hl%3Dnl%26safe%3Doff%26sa%3DN%26biw%3D1920%26bih%3D1099%26tbs%3Disch:1&um=1&itbs=1&iact=hc&vpx=1310&vpy=263&dur=230&hovh=178&hovw=284&tx=152&ty=98&oei=5i2jTOb3Ktq5jAfQoayOAw&esq=1&page=1&ndsp=30&ved=1t:429,r:17,s:0){kind=link}
![[14]](http://www.google.nl/imgres?imgurl=http://www.delo.si/assets/media/picture/iman/2007_09/sz1_petar.stambolic1.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.delo.si/clanek/47892&usg=__zjQnItPX_i7uUIzxVuZMYsLtrjo=&h=250&w=166&sz=9&hl=nl&start=0&sig2=flIvyTGjq2eHT7VSkcsXIw&zoom=0&tbnid=uVfsocDPOHOsSM:&tbnh=111&tbnw=74&ei=Ni6jTNuaJ8TKjAfNss34Ag&prev=/images%3Fq%3DPetar%2BStambolic%26um%3D1%26hl%3Dnl%26safe%3Doff%26biw%3D1920%26bih%3D1099%26tbs%3Disch:1&um=1&itbs=1&iact=hc&vpx=149&vpy=473&dur=1975&hovh=111&hovw=74&tx=64&ty=62&oei=Ni6jTNuaJ8TKjAfNss34Ag&esq=1&page=1&ndsp=32&ved=1t:429,r:21,s:0){kind=link}
Deleted: Mirrored. DIREKTOR even uploaded the other version too (File:Petar Stambolic.jpg), so he must have been aware of it. -- Cecil (talk) 00:18, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
a mirror image picture does not accuratly display the person involved Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 11:14, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
- Is it illegal to flip images? --DIREKTOR (TALK) 13:26, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
- Comment: no, but we try not to do so, especially for portraits of people. Human beings are not symmetrical, so a laterally inverted image may not show the person as he or she actually appears. But where is the evidence that this image has been laterally inverted from an original? — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 17:56, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
- As a medical student, I'll just say that (regardless of what Wikimedia has to say) the above goes against some of the basic facts on human anatomy. The human form is, in fact, an example of reflectional symmetry along the en:median plane (planum medianum, one of the sagittal planes or plana sagittalia, also known in anatomy as the "plane of symmetry").
- That aside, I would really like to see which policy proscribes deletion of the image based on the direction in which it is (currently) flipped. Isn't this an issue for the image talkpage, or even the article talkpage of a particular project, not a commons deletion request? --DIREKTOR (TALK) 11:49, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
- No one is exactly symmetrical. Some are so much a a-symmetrical that a mirror-image would not be identifiable. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 12:27, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted: Mirrored (see original: File:Mladen Milovanovic.jpg). -- Cecil (talk) 00:23, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
a mirror image picture does not accuratly display the person involved Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 11:15, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
- Without going into the utter absurdity of such nitpicking, I will point out that I did not alter the original image, but uploaded a new one. Unless it is illegal to flip images, or somehow against policy to upload modified versions of images, I would like to see this image stay. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 13:31, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
- I certainly didn't want to stirr your emotions. I nominated it because I would like to have the opionion of the others about this. Flipping the image make people look different, and making people look different is diverting from the truth, from reality, and that borders on Original research or Point of view, two things that are forbidden on Wikipedia. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 17:52, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
- Comment: I think it generally makes sense not to laterally invert portraits of people. Human beings are not symmetrical, so a laterally inverted image may not show the person as he or she actually appears. But where is the evidence that this image has been laterally inverted from an original? — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 17:57, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
- I certainly didn't want to stirr your emotions. I nominated it because I would like to have the opionion of the others about this. Flipping the image make people look different, and making people look different is diverting from the truth, from reality, and that borders on Original research or Point of view, two things that are forbidden on Wikipedia. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 17:52, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
- Without going into the utter absurdity of such nitpicking, I will point out that I did not alter the original image, but uploaded a new one. Unless it is illegal to flip images, or somehow against policy to upload modified versions of images, I would like to see this image stay. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 13:31, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
- Comment - in use, but en:WP:MOS#Images says: "Images should not be reversed simply to resolve a conflict between these guidelines; doing so misinforms the reader for the sake of our layout preferences." Upload correctly oriented version. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 10:16, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
- As a medical student, I'll just say that (regardless of what Wikimedia has to say) the above goes against some of the basic facts on human anatomy. The human form is, in fact, an example of reflectional symmetry along the en:median plane (planum medianum, one of the sagittal planes or plana sagittalia, also known in anatomy as the "plane of symmetry").
- That aside, I would really like to see which policy proscribes deletion of the image based on the direction in which it is (currently) flipped. Isn't this an issue for the image talkpage, or even the article talkpage of a particular project, not a commons deletion request? --DIREKTOR (TALK) 11:49, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
- No one is exactly symmetrical. Some are so much a a-symmetrical that a mirror-image would not be identifiable. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 12:26, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted: Mirrored (see original: 
). -- Cecil (talk) 00:28, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
unused photo of Dutch musical group with no notability as deleted here nl:M-Jard - out of scope Santosga (talk) 19:29, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
- Keep ok photo, seems to be a concert in a church. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 11:38, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
- Delete We likely have thousands of concert photographs here. This being in a church is not particularly interesting (or evident). At least not interesting enough to warrant a photo of such low and useless resolution. Wknight94 talk 15:32, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Per Wknight94. -- Cecil (talk) 00:30, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
Derivative work, no freedom of panorama inside the museum D.W. (talk) 20:58, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
- Delete for nominator's reasons. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 17:59, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted: per request. -- Cecil (talk) 00:38, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
No freedom of landscape in France... 86.196.46.212 22:08, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Keep If this photograph must be deleted, also enormous number of photograph under Category:Versailles must be deleted. --Chime (talk) 01:30, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
Delete No, this is not true, the other Versailles photographs don't incorporate the works of a living artist. The problem is indeed the Murakami statue. Hektor (talk) 16:07, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
- Comment Your reason seems to be not match with the request. By the way, if it's needed, we can request COM:OTRS to the living artist, may be ... --Chime (talk) 16:52, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted: No FOP inside of buildings in France and this is to modern for anything else, sorry. -- Cecil (talk) 00:40, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
No freedom of panorama in France 86.196.46.212 22:09, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Keep If this photograph must be deleted, also enormous number of photograph under Category:Versailles must be deleted. --Chime (talk) 01:31, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
Delete No, this is not true, the other Versailles photographs don't incorporate the works of a living artist. The problem is the Murakami statue. Hektor (talk) 16:07, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
- Comment Your reason seems to be not match with the request. By the way, if it's needed, we can request COM:OTRS to the living artist, may be ... --Chime (talk) 16:51, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Direct descendants of the Sun King (Louis XIV) himself have requested that Murakami's art be removed from the Palace of Versailles. As such it politicizes any decision to remove these photographs. This should be taken into consideration.
Deleted: No FOP inside of buildings in France and this is to modern for anything else, sorry. -- Cecil (talk) 00:41, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
No freedom of panorama in France 86.196.46.212 22:09, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Keep If this photograph must be deleted, also enormous number of photograph under Category:Versailles must be deleted. --Chime (talk) 01:31, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
Delete No, this is not true, the other Versailles photographs don't incorporate the works of a living artist. The problem is the Murakami statue. Hektor (talk) 16:07, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
- Comment Your reason seems to be not match with the request. By the way, if it's needed, we can request COM:OTRS to the living artist, may be ... --Chime (talk) 16:52, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted: No FOP inside of buildings in France and this is to modern for anything else, sorry. -- Cecil (talk) 00:41, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
No freedom of panorama in France 86.196.46.212 22:10, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Keep If this photograph must be deleted, also enormous number of photograph under Category:Versailles must be deleted. --Chime (talk) 01:31, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
Delete No, this is not true, the other Versailles photographs don't incorporate the works of a living artist. The problem is the Murakami statue. Hektor (talk) 16:07, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
- Comment Your reason seems to be not match with the request. By the way, if it's needed, we can request COM:OTRS to the living artist, may be ... --Chime (talk) 16:51, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Seriously there is no need to worry about french law, since wiki is servered in in the US, and the US has the "fair use" law.
76.104.145.19 08:33, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: No FOP inside of buildings in France and this is to modern for anything else, sorry. -- Cecil (talk) 00:41, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
No freedom of panorama in France. A significant portion of the work by Murakami is visible on the picture. 86.196.46.212 22:11, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- Crop and Keep. Trycatch (talk) 22:18, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
- Keep If this photograph must be deleted, also enormous number of photograph under Category:Versailles must be deleted. --Chime (talk) 01:31, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
Kept: Made a crop to remove the copyrighted part (and deleted the original version). -- Cecil (talk) 00:45, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
No freedom of panorama in France. A significant portion of the work by Murakami is visible on the picture. 86.196.46.212 22:11, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
- Keep If this photograph must be deleted, also enormous number of photograph under Category:Versailles must be deleted. --Chime (talk) 01:32, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
- Delete No, this is not true, the other Versailles photographs don't incorporate the works of a living artist. The problem is the Murakami statue. Hektor (talk) 16:07, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
- Comment Your reason seems to be not match with the request. By the way, if it's needed, we can request COM:OTRS to the living artist, may be ... --Chime (talk) 16:52, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted: No FOP inside of buildings in France and this is to modern for anything else, sorry. -- Cecil (talk) 00:40, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
Uploader not identified as copyright holder eistreter → 00:01, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
- Delete: and too complex for {{PD-textlogo}}. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 18:01, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
- Comment "Friki" for Friedenskirche ist nett, klingt wie ne Tiefkühlpommesmarke. --Mbdortmund (talk) 15:16, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted: Per eistreteer and JackLee. -- Cecil (talk) 00:48, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
Not sure but the quality is bad and a PNG version is uploaded all by the same User:Thcollet, look here User_talk:Thcollet#File:JOC_Avenir_Pro.png --Perhelion (talk) 09:03, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, out of project scope: quality insufficient. Kameraad Pjotr 21:48, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
The billboard as a whole is most likely copyrighted. The pictures of the machinery on the left and of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad could be copyrighted as well. --Rockfang (talk) 16:15, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
- Don't understand. The picture is open for public re-use on the Flickr page of the organization. Plot Spoiler (talk) 17:05, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
- Delete: the billboard contains two images (one of a digger, the other of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad) that appear to be derivative works. We'll need OTRS confirmation that UANI obtained permission of the copyright holders to use the photographs on the billboard. I don't think the photographs are small enough for the de minimis principle to apply. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 18:05, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
- I've struck the first part of my post. I am sorry for not noticing that the Flickr account apparently is used by the maker of the billboard. I think the 2nd part of initial post still applies though.--Rockfang (talk) 02:46, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
- If the image is taken from an Iranian source it would fall under Public domain. Refer to Circular 38a of U.S. Copyright Office and Article 7 & 8 of Iran copyright law. .--Umbralspace 10:55, 23 September 2010
- Going by this website, Article 7 of Iranian Copyright seems irrelevant since nothing is being quoted. Article 8 doesn't seem to apply either. It says "Public libraries, documentation centers, scientific institutions and educational establishments,..." UANI appears to be none of these. Also keep in mind public domain status in Iran. Works there are in the public domain if the author(s) have been dead for 30 years. I doubt that is the case here.--Rockfang (talk) 19:31, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:29, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
Made up flag. Does not exist. --— Preceding unsigned comment added by ماني (talk • contribs) 14:05, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
- Comment - See also File:Flag of the Khorasan-Turks.svg and Commons:Deletion requests/File:Flag of the Khorasan-Turks.svg. –Krinkletalk 11:42, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
- Comment - I found this article as probable source, do you think it is a reliable source? The White Lion (talk) 19:57, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, out of project scope: no evidence this flag does exist. Kameraad Pjotr 12:14, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
Image is incorrect. Correct image is File:M40.svg and it is clearly visible of the photographs like this that black outline on crowns is indeed there. --Kwasura (talk) 15:04, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
- No, correct this file if it's wrong, the other one should be deleted as it has a very ambiguous name. KEEP 20:18, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
- The image now have the border that's in the original logo. Keep. // Sertion 20:07, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
Kept, file is in use and thus within project scope. Kameraad Pjotr 20:24, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
We don't need 3 SVGs of the exact same flag, and this one is faulty anyways. Therefore it should be deleted. Fry1989 (talk) 20:21, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, out of project scope. Kameraad Pjotr 22:12, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
File:Ipod sales graph.png, File:Ipod sales.svg, File:iPod sales quarterly.png & File:Ipod sales total.svg
[edit]
outdated versions of File:TotaliPodsSales 2008Q3.svg --DieBuche (talk) 10:07, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
- Keep at least File:iPod sales quarterly.png, which is in use; I see no compelling reason to delete the other ones either, but it's more debatable. –Tryphon☂ 13:24, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
- weak Keep As a general rule, I'm opposed to deleting time series graphs just because there are more recent versions available -- principally because they may be a book or article such as History of X in the 20th Century for which a graph running to 2000 would be more useful than one running to 2010. With that said, though, it's a little far fetched here, so it's only a very weak keep. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:03, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
Kept. DieBuche (talk) 16:34, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
Files of User:ElBettia
[edit]- File:Las 3 Caras de la Moneda Texto.jpg
- File:Logo Las 3 Caras de la Moneda micro.jpg
- File:Banner las 3 caras de la moneda.jpg
- File:Logo Las 3 Caras de la Moneda mini.jpg
- File:Logo Las 3 Caras de la Moneda.png
All files are photos and logos (some duplicates) of a Spanish rock band with no notability, whose article was deleted here es:Las 3 Caras de la Moneda - no foreseeable use, out of scope. --Santosga (talk) 19:06, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
Delete - advertisement for a not notable band Cholo Aleman (talk) 04:22, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Wknight94 talk 15:27, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Monobook test DieBuche (talk) 11:13, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
Final test DieBuche (talk) 11:37, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
Hopefully I won't break anything --DieBuche (talk) 21:45, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
As usually --DieBuche (talk) 22:12, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
finished DieBuche (talk) 22:57, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
why not? DieBuche (talk) 10:59, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
one last test DieBuche (talk) 20:48, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
Test3 DieBuche (talk) 21:37, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
nono DieBuche (talk) 08:50, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 15:11, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
Files by Arthur Meyer
[edit]85.4.119.102 has been 'correcting' files uploaded by Arthur Meyer which Arthur Meyer sourced as "Own work". The (German) IP edited these files and replaced that with "Scann aus Eisenbahnbuch" (Scan from railroad book). The IP also removed the license on some of these cases. If this is correct that means those files are derivatives of the book, and thuss can't be released under the free license by him, since he isn't the (sole) copyright holder. Though they may fall under a PD-rule, as of now the status is unknown and if no information comes to light, they should be deleted as derivative works of that copyrighted railroad book.
- File:BFD HG3-4 1 SLM 1913.jpg
- File:CSD M132.001 a.jpg
- File:DFB HG4-4 ex-Indochina 701 SLM 1920.jpg
- File:GB A3-5 931-938 1908.jpg
- File:LD-RhB Mallet G2x2-2 21-22 1891.jpg
- File:RhB G2-2++2-3 Nr21+22 1896.jpg
- File:RhB G2-3+2-2 Nr25-32 1902.jpg
- File:RhB G4-5.jpg
- File:SBB-CFF Ce2-4 701 Jurapfeil 1938.jpg
- File:SBB A3-5.jpg
- File:SBB Ae3-5.jpg
- File:SBB B3-4 1301-1369 SBZ Vol.50-1970.jpg
- File:SBB Be4-6 11302 BBC.jpg
- File:SBB Be4-6 12303-12342.jpg
- File:SBB Be4-6-I 12301 ex11301.jpg
- File:SBB Ee3-3-IV 16551-16560.jpg
- File:SBB_Be4-7 12501-12506 1921.jpg
- File:SCB Ed2x2-2 183.jpg
- File:SCB Ed2x2-2 195.jpg
- File:SCB Ed2x2-2 Mallet.jpg
- File:VZ HG2-3 Nr.6 1902.jpg
--–Krinkletalk 02:11, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
- Keep with {{PD-EU-no author disclosure}} for several of these; Delete the recent ones. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 07:17, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
- Delete I agree with Krinkle. Per COM:L the Source, Author and Date are required, which 85.4.119.102 failed to do so.--ARTEST4ECHO talk 20:13, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jcb (talk) 19:25, 14 March 2011 (UTC)