Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2010/10/09
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
|
|
stated source is a commercial site that doesn't release anything The-Pope (talk) 05:58, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Copyright violation. --High Contrast (talk) 06:48, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
The licence tag does not fit. Proof is missing ... 93.211.73.56 13:08, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
Delete: uploader indicates source as http://www.nataliaoreiro.com but there is nothing on that website indicating that all images on it are released into the public domain or under the Free Art License. Insufficient evidence to show that uploader was authorized to upload the image. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 18:01, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
- Delete I agree with JackLee, the image must be eliminated. From what seen the user is accustomed to use copyrighted images. Truu (talk) 19:31, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Copyright violation: [1] --High Contrast (talk) 21:53, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
if the picture is scanned and refined from newspaper cutout as the uploader says, it's a copyright violation unless it is a very old newspaper clip or a two-dimensional work of art whose copyright has expired (but this is unrealistic because the weapon was introduced in 1987) 92.227.116.203 21:54, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
The problem is that the newspaper it was cut out from is not known. I had the cutout, but not the newspaper.Simon K. Templar (talk) 00:59, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
- Delete: sorry, but it is the duty of the uploader to ensure that images uploaded are in the public domain or have been freely licensed to the Commons. If you cannot ensure this because you are unsure of the source of the image, then I'm afraid we can't have the image here. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 17:38, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jafeluv (talk) 11:43, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
FDAAS N DWSS WQWQW 99.33.39.121 16:42, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
Keep speedily: nonsense nomination of a {{PD-USGov-Military-Navy}} image. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 17:40, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
Kept. Duplicate. One file deleted -- Common Good (talk) 19:57, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
kellynishikawa.jpg Antonio Nishikawa (talk) 02:15, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
- Keep: there are messages on the talk page. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 11:32, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
Non-notable persons featured in image, so image not useful for any project. Commons is not a personal file server. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 11:32, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 10:01, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
unused private image - out of scope Santosga (talk) 04:43, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
- Delete for nominator's reason. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 11:34, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 10:03, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
unused private image - out of scope Santosga (talk) 04:47, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
- Delete for nominator's reason. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 11:34, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:19, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
unused private image - out of scope Santosga (talk) 05:03, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
- Delete for nominator's reason. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 11:35, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:20, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
redirect not used any more --Trofobi (talk) 05:38, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
- Delete for nominator's reason. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 11:35, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 10:04, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
because 68.118.54.158 05:55, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
Keep and trolls are not welcome here--Sanandros (talk) 11:29, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
The United States didn't require any copyright formalities in 1992. See en:WP:Non-U.S. copyrights#Subsisting copyrights. Stefan4 (talk) 22:48, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
Keep Yes but it was until 1994 PD in Poland and so doesn't fall under URAA--Sanandros (talk) 10:41, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
- URAA only re-copyrighted works which had already entered the public domain for some reason. This photo never entered the public domain in the United States and is still copyrighted there. See the link I gave in my initial post and read the template {{PD-1996}} and you'll see that this photo isn't compatible with that template. A requirement for {{PD-1996}} is publication before 1 March 1989 without copyright notice. This has not been published before 1 March 1989. --Stefan4 (talk) 10:54, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Kept Meets requirements of both {{PD-Polish}} and {{PD-1996}}, which are essentially the same:
- First published outside USA
- First published after 1978 without copyright notice (published 1992)
- PD in home country on 1/1/1996
Please note that
- "A requirement for {{PD-1996}} is publication before 1 March 1989 without copyright notice"
is not in the template. . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:43, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
потерян интерес 37.186.126.89 04:00, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
Kept Not a reason to delete. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:42, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
Photohraph is a derivative work of those sculptures. GrapedApe (talk) 06:05, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
- Delete: no freedom of panorama for artworks in the US. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 11:36, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:25, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
Photograph is a derivative work of that statute. No evidence that its in the PD or freely licensed. GrapedApe (talk) 06:09, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
- Delete: no freedom of panorama for artworks in the US. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 11:37, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:26, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
Photograph is a derivative work of that statute. No evidence that its in the PD or freely licensed. GrapedApe (talk) 06:13, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
- Delete: no freedom of panorama for artworks in the US. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 11:37, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:26, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
I created this image to correct problems with the original, File:Coat of arms of John Kennedy by Alexander Liptak.png, but the author of that image has fixed the problems, removing the elements of that image which are original research, so this image is no longer needed, as the images are now essentially duplicates Should the author revert those changes, re-intorducing the elements of original research, I will re-upload this image again so that it may be used in the appropriate articles on en.wiki. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:25, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
- Delete: redundant duplicate. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 11:38, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:27, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
wikipedia.fr 62.201.142.27 06:53, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
- Keep. --Kresspahl (talk) 09:10, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
- Keep: bad faith nomination – no proper reason given for deletion request. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 11:38, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
- The IP user gives us no hint why the page should be deleted. I propose to stop this and to keep the page immediately. --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 20:41, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
- Speedy keep. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 14:49, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
Kept. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:28, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
It's copyrighted logo. 99kerob (talk) 07:28, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
- Delete: too complex for {{PD-textlogo}}. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 11:39, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:31, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
Private image (not for Wikipedia), without any usage. 99kerob (talk) 07:29, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
- Delete for nominator's reason. In any case, tables should be rendered using wikitext. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 11:40, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:31, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
It's copyrighted logo. 99kerob (talk) 07:32, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
- Delete: too complex for {{PD-textlogo}}. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 11:54, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
- Looks like too simple to me. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 14:51, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:31, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
It's copyrighted logo. 99kerob (talk) 07:32, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
- Delete: too complex for {{PD-textlogo}}. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 11:40, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:32, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
It's copyrighted logo at low resolution. 99kerob (talk) 07:34, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
- Delete: too complex for {{PD-textlogo}}. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 11:41, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:33, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
It's copyrighted logo. 99kerob (talk) 07:36, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
- Delete: too complex for {{PD-textlogo}}. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 11:41, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
- Probably too simple for copyright protection. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 14:53, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:34, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
It's copyrighted logo. 99kerob (talk) 07:36, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
- Delete: too complex for {{PD-textlogo}}. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 11:42, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
- Could be too simple for copyright protection. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 14:54, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:34, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
It's copyrighted logo. 99kerob (talk) 07:36, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
- Delete: too complex for {{PD-textlogo}}. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 11:42, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:34, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
It's copyrighted logo. 99kerob (talk) 07:36, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
- Keep: simple enough for {{PD-textlogo}}. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 11:44, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
Kept. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:36, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
It's copyrighted logo. 99kerob (talk) 07:39, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
- Delete: too complex for {{PD-textlogo}}. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 11:44, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
- Delete - this seems copyrightable. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 14:59, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:36, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
It's copyrighted logo. 99kerob (talk) 07:39, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
- Delete: too complex for {{PD-textlogo}}. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 11:44, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:37, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
It's copyrighted logo. 99kerob (talk) 07:39, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
- Delete: too complex for {{PD-textlogo}}. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 11:45, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:38, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
I think this image does meet the threshold for originality, and as such should be on enwiki under a fair use rationale. Acather96 (talk) 09:54, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
- Keep: consists only of text in a red circle. Simple enough for {{PD-textlogo}}. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 11:46, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
- Keep, as uploader, per above. What precisely would be original about it? It was so unoriginal the store went bankrupt. Daniel Case (talk) 16:05, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
Kept. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:39, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
Out of scope --Dferg (talk · meta) 10:50, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
Info Also nominated File:IMAG0042-2.JPG. --Dferg (talk · meta) 10:53, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
- Delete: Commons is not a personal file server. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 11:47, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:43, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
Logo that was only used in an article deleted twice in fr.wikipedia for autopromotion and not being encyclopedic. I don't think that is in the scope of Commons. Ö 12:30, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
- Also duplicates:
- File:Logo-ytest 071212-small-2.jpg
- File:Logo-ytest 72dpi.jpg
- File:Logo-ytest 071212-small.jpg
- File:Logo-ytest 071212.jpg
- And logos for the same article:
- And possibly related:
Delete Seems out of scope. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 15:30, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:55, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
Derivative work. The (terse) description only mentions the photographer, not the artist who created the banner, who most likely did not license the banner under a free license. Uploader is probably not the banner artist. Dcoetzee (talk) 12:36, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
- Delete: for nominator's reason. Also not covered by freedom of panorama in the US. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 17:27, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
- Delete /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 15:31, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:57, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
another file from flickr user xcaballe: "Avui m'he creuat amb ella a la Rambla Catalunya :)" Sure. 78.55.106.133 14:02, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
- Keep I don't see a reason for deletion. Moreover in case when is deletion suggested by IP adress. --Ladislav Faigl (talk) 17:09, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
- Delete: Forbes.com indicates that the image is "© Julian Martin/epa/Corbis". — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 17:35, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
- Delete per Jacklee. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 15:42, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:00, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
unused private image - out of scope Santosga (talk) 15:25, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
- Delete for nominator's reason. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 18:15, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:00, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
unused private image - out of scope Santosga (talk) 15:25, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
- Delete for nominator's reason. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 18:15, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:00, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
unused private image - out of scope Santosga (talk) 15:25, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
- Delete for nominator's reason. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 18:16, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:00, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
Copyvio from this image. 79.217.185.153 16:33, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
- Obviously a fake. The photo is from the 1980s, Duchamps copied image maybe from the 1930s. Please delete asap. Thx. --Gereon K. (talk) 16:57, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
- Delete for reasons stated by nominator and Gereon K. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 18:19, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
- Delete - but this is based on a 1997 photo. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 15:55, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:01, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
unused equation, its content can be better inserted into wiki pages by using wiki code - unused and unnecessary Santosga (talk) 15:56, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
- Delete, {{Use TeX}}. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:56, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
- Delete, per PK. Obelix (talk) 21:05, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:01, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
unused private image - out of scope Santosga (talk) 15:58, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
- Delete per nom Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:39, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
- Delete per uploader (Ed Fitzgerald / Beyond My Ken). -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 01:59, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:01, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
unused private image - out of scope Santosga (talk) 15:59, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
- Delete per nom Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:40, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:02, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
unused private image - out of scope Santosga (talk) 15:59, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:02, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
At first glance, this image appears to me to come from a television broadcast. If this is the case, I think it decreases the odds that the user on flickr owns the right to the image. Looking at the user's other flickr images, they appear to come from a wide range of time frames and also appear to include other television broadcasts. All of these circumstances make me think this image is most likely non-free and should be deleted. --Rockfang (talk) 16:05, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:07, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
if the picture is scanned and refined from newspaper cutout as the uploader says, it's a copyright violation unless it is a very old newspaper clip or a two-dimensional work of art whose copyright has expired (but this is unrealistic because the weapon was introduced in 1989) 92.229.210.223 16:52, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
- Delete: it is the duty of the uploader to ensure that images uploaded are in the public domain or have been freely licensed to the Commons. If the uploader cannot ensure this because he or she is unsure of the source of the image, then I'm afraid we can't have the image here. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 17:39, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:08, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
if the picture is scanned and refined from newspaper cutout as the uploader says, it's a copyright violation unless it is a very old newspaper clip or a two-dimensional work of art whose copyright has expired (but this is unrealistic because the weapon was introduced in 2007) 92.229.210.223 16:54, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
- Delete: it is the duty of the uploader to ensure that images uploaded are in the public domain or have been freely licensed to the Commons. If the uploader cannot ensure this because he or she is unsure of the source of the image, then I'm afraid we can't have the image here. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 17:39, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:08, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
Although this is a good example of PD-textlogo, this image has only been in use at a deleted en:wp article. I don't see how it could possibly be used properly, so I believe that it's out of scope. Nyttend (talk) 16:54, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:08, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
Appears to be a corporate logo, not the own work of a creator; not in use anywhere, and not likely to be, so out of scope as well. Nyttend (talk) 16:58, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:09, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
Appears to be a corporate logo, not the own work of a creator; not in use anywhere, and not likely to be, so out of scope as well. Nyttend (talk) 16:58, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:09, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
Derivate work, being a copy from Pablo Picasso, whose work is not in the PD yet. --User:G.dallorto (talk) 18:52, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:10, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
Ripped from tekmen.eu Seb az86556 (talk) 21:51, 9 October 2010 (UTC) Seb az86556 (talk) 21:51, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
- Delete: appears to be a scan of a postcard. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 10:23, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:22, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
I cannot see any potential value for this file, because, in its current condition, it is so white it might as well be classified as "corrupt or empty file" (completely blank). :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 23:37, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
- Keep: no, it is for use on coloured backgrounds. Just click on any of the pages that it is in use on. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 10:24, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
- Keep In use. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:08, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
Kept. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:24, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
porn Jordaneasle (talk) 08:58, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
- Delete: request by uploader to delete own upload, and we have plenty of other such images (COM:PORN). — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 12:03, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Agreed, this is really COM:PORN (but the boobs are nice). --Yikrazuul (talk) 20:32, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
- Delete This is not porn, but delete per COM:PEOPLE#Photographs taken in a private place. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 15:06, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Common Good (talk) 19:30, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
porn Jordaneasle (talk) 09:01, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
- Delete: request by uploader to delete own upload, and we have plenty of other such images (COM:PORN). — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 12:03, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Agreed, this is really COM:PORN. --Yikrazuul (talk) 20:31, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
- Delete - uploader seems to have changed his mind. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 15:08, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Common Good (talk) 19:31, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
porn Jordaneasle (talk) 09:07, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
- Delete: request by uploader to delete own upload, and we have plenty of other such images (COM:PORN). — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 12:03, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Agreed, this is really COM:PORN. --Yikrazuul (talk) 20:32, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Common Good (talk) 19:30, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
It's copyrighted logo. 99kerob (talk) 07:39, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
- Delete: too complex for {{PD-textlogo}}. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 11:45, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
- Keep. Author write to me and he will send agreement for use to OTRS system. 99kerob (talk) 13:40, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted by EugeneZelenko: Copyright violation: Sport club logo. Not text only
flickr washing. See also File:Robot asimo cropped.jpg and File:Wikibot Logo.png. 78.55.106.133 13:56, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
- Delete for nominator's reason. Even if the Flickr user photographed the robot himself (which is unlikely, given the prevalence of the same image on the Internet), it amounts to an unauthorized derivative work of the original robot, which Honda owns the copyright to. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 18:12, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
- DeleteI´m the one who cropped the image, but I did it because I thought It was a Commons (I mean, copyright free). If is not, I suppose the best is deletion, no questions. Andrea (talk) 21:07, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
- But we really need to know if the image has or not CR. Is too crazy think about ask Honda about it? Maybe is a promotional photo without CR!. Andrea (talk) 14:31, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
- No, feel free to get in touch with Honda. If you can obtain confirmation from them that the image is in the public domain or they are willing to license it to us under a free licence such as CC-BY-SA-3.0, please send the e-mail to permissions-commons
wikimedia.org and tag the image with {{OTRS pending}}: see "Commons:OTRS" for more information. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 19:48, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
- No, feel free to get in touch with Honda. If you can obtain confirmation from them that the image is in the public domain or they are willing to license it to us under a free licence such as CC-BY-SA-3.0, please send the e-mail to permissions-commons
- I´m not sure if cry or laugh. Aparently there is no way to communicate with HONDA electronically, only by mail or phone. I tried talking with a regional dealer, who actually has no idea what I was talking about, and the Asimo page at HONDA site has no contact information. So, I think this point is solve. There are some others images at Commons about Asimo, so I think there is no problem to say... Bye, bye! If someone gets something better, please share with us. --Andrea (talk) 07:30, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, I've uploaded the photo in wrong size. Please delete it, I'll replace it with the proper one. Szy (talk) 12:17, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
Comment: just upload the correct-sized image over the old one. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 17:25, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
- No, Commons prefers to have the larger size. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 15:28, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
Question The uploader first uploaded the image at 1,600 x 1,067 pixels. Then, later, uploaded 990 x 660 pixels over it. My inclination is to agree with Pieter, that we prefer the larger original and should delete the later one, but I'd like to see a little discussion here. This image and the related DR are the only edits for this user. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:55, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
Kept. Well, there is no response (or other edits) from the user for two months, so I've reverted picture to the original size and closed this DR. User:Szy is free to nominate this file again with better explanations. Trycatch (talk) 08:39, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
This is not a picture of Victoria Andrews, it's someone else 97.103.5.162 21:10, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
- Keep This is a picture of Victoria Andrews. [2] --Klodl (talk) 06:15, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
Kept. Valid OTRS ticket Captain-tucker (talk) 12:08, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
The copyright information can not be verified, because the flickr-user does not exist. Besides, it depicts minors engaged in pornographic act, which makes it illegal. 84.179.2.20 23:03, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
- Keep: this image was uploaded in 2008 and verified at that time to have been properly licensed on Flickr. It does not matter that the user is now inactive and that the original Flickr image page cannot be accessed. The image is in use in numerous projects. And when did kissing amount to pornography? — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 10:17, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
- It most certainly does match the definition of soft pornography. 84.179.36.97 12:17, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
- Keep:As JackLee described - license does fit here. --Sir James (talk) 15:45, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
- Keep: Licensing was obviously reviewed and adequately verified in 2008. The requesting IP also urgently needs to review the definition of pornography. Lastly, there is no objective indication, that either of the persons involved was in fact a minor at the time. --xGCU NervousEnergy 18:46, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
- It most certainly does match the definition of soft pornography. 84.179.36.97 12:17, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
- Keep: For reasons so perfectly stated by NervousEnergy. Also, this is not the first time that this picture has been gone after. One wonders if the offense taken is because of the fact that the photo depicts two males. SpikeToronto 04:42, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
It is also not clear if the depicted individuals have given permission for their likeness to be used on Wikipedia. 84.179.6.115 21:43, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
- I do not think their express permission is required in this case. As the two individuals were photographed outdoors, they could not have had any expectation of privacy. More importantly, the fact that this is a close-up photograph most likely indicates that the individuals posed for the photograph, which means that they were naturally aware of and consented to the photographer's presence. See "Commons:Photographs of identifiable people#Photographs taken in a public place". — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 19:56, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
Delete The problem is, that we can not verify if this was a flickwashing account or not and looking at the other image from the account here on commons, I would say that the probability of copyvio is at around 70%. Both images are missing exif and also have a small resolution. What we also don't know, if the two people agreed to the publication (they obviously agreed to the photograph). Its a shame that flickr does not give a reaso to why the account was removed. eg. 'This account was deleted because of copyright violations' Amada44 talk to me 11:02, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
- Comment: whether the persons featured in the image consented to the image being published is, I think, not relevant here: see "Commons:Photographs of identifiable people#Photographs taken in a public place". I take your point about the photographs lacking EXIF and being of relatively low resolution. On the other hand, the Flickr user may have decided to upload a lower resolution image to Flickr (as he is entitled to do), and some image editing software removes EXIF from images. A Tineye search turned up nothing significant. (The image does appear on one other website, but the owner of the website could have obtained the image from here.) Since it is no longer possible to contact the Flickr user, I think we have to assume in good faith that he does possess the copyright to the image, particularly as the image is now in use in quite a number of projects. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 19:01, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
- That it is 'in use' would make it even worst if it is a copyvio and is IMHO not an argument for keep. And to me it looks much like a still from a movie (small resolution and blurred). Please don't get me wrong though, I think the image is good and has an educational value. I just think that the copyright (and personal rights) situation is way not solid enough. Amada44 talk to me 08:32, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
- Delete this image was uploaded in 2008 and verified at that time is NO valid argument. More probalbe the author hasn't had the right to upload the pic and was forced to delete it. We need to protect personal rights. --Yikrazuul (talk) 13:51, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
- Comment I think we should go round checking for possible copyvios!! and the robot confirmation that the image had that license on flickr is no proof for nothing. No, we don't have any evidence but those two images smell like copyvios. My personal opinion is, that we should not host images with unclear sources especially if there are identifiable people involved. It's really a shame that the account is inactive because then it would be easy to check for copyvios. Just to repeat: small size, no exif, one of them looking a bit blurred (possible screenshot of a video) an other image which is completely unrelated, different camera (possible scan of pos/neg film (grainy)) make copyvio very likely. Amada44 talk to me 10:48, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
- and it is not the first time of FlickRwashing...--Yikrazuul (talk) 23:29, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
- It also wouldn't be the first time censors got files deleted on Flikr and then other people used that as a reason to delete them from Commons.--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:06, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
- Yeah, the bot fetch not enough information from flickr. Trycatch (talk) 04:54, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
- and it is not the first time of FlickRwashing...--Yikrazuul (talk) 23:29, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
- Delete now we have evidence that it's copyvio.--Prosfilaes (talk) 17:49, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
- Delete. I think deletion is safer option. Suspicious source and it not clear enough that the photo taken in a public place. Geagea (talk) 21:02, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
- Keep. A kiss is pornographic??? That's ridiculous. I cannot comment on the rest, I am not a lawyer. Tragicfigure (talk) 11:45, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
---
Since 9th of October -> would someone be so kind to decide this case? Thanks --Sir James (talk) 12:45, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
- Comment There were several files from the same flickr user deleted as copyvio:
- These files were deleted per otrs:2010032210004411. I think we should check this OTRS before DR closure. I think it's very likely that the deleted content was indeed copyvio. Those photos looks professional, but "James Wielson" is not googleable, maybe it's just a distorted name of the popular character from House M.D. Trycatch (talk) 04:54, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Due to the fact, that at least 3 other files from the same user have been deleted, I tend to think this content is suspicious too. Kreuzkümmel (talk) 14:00, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
- Delete The image looks too blurred, as if it is copyvio. Majoran (talk) 14:12, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
- Huh? Most likely if it is copyvio, it's an exact copy of the digital original. Any blurring in the pictures looks like the natural result of photography, not the result of scanning this from an analog copy.--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:07, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
- Now that's ridiculous. Majoran (talk) 21:25, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
- Care to explain what connection you see between blurring and copyvio?--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:45, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
- That's not the point, stop trolling. Majoran (talk) 22:36, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
- Care to explain what connection you see between blurring and copyvio?--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:45, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
- Now that's ridiculous. Majoran (talk) 21:25, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
- Huh? Most likely if it is copyvio, it's an exact copy of the digital original. Any blurring in the pictures looks like the natural result of photography, not the result of scanning this from an analog copy.--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:07, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
@Majoran. I don't think that Prosfilaes is trying to troll you. Could you explain your point again as I think that it was a little unclear. cheers, Amada44 talk to me 08:42, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
- The same as you: "And to me it looks much like a still from a movie (small resolution and blurred).", Amada44.78.83.195.137 20:18, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
Delete, This picture is definetly copyrighted, because it's a screenshot of the porn movie Legionboy taken out of this scene. --Nicor (talk) 14:55, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Great work, Nicor! Trycatch (talk) 18:18, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
Author requests deletion, the map has several problems that have to be rectified. As I don't yet have time to do so, and as it is used in many articles, it is best that it be deleted Constantine ✍ 03:34, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
- Unsure but suggest the problems be noted on the image page. There are some problems listed at Wikipedia:Talk:Byzantine–Arab Wars#Map, but it seems that it might be better for the editors of the various wikipedias to remove the image themselves. This one can remain because someone may wish to make an improved version from it. When a better version exists we can add links to it, maybe with {{Superceded}}, so that reusers will be encouraged to use the better one. As a start I have added a note on the image page. -84user (talk) 15:18, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
- The reason I am asking for deletion is that the map has several problems that can only be overcome by a wholesale redesign. I've been working on a new version, but can't say when I'll be able finish it. Suffice to say it is a work from scratch... Since Wikipedia images are widely linked and used in the web, I strongly prefer deletion. Constantine ✍ 16:19, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Problems seem minor (but may be gigantic for Balkan nationalists). /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 14:46, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
- Actually, the major problem is in the East, not in the Balkans. The base map I used there is totally wrong, and as a result there are some major errors. I really don't see why it is so difficult to have a work of mine deleted... Constantine ✍ 10:57, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
- The reason I am asking for deletion is that the map has several problems that can only be overcome by a wholesale redesign. I've been working on a new version, but can't say when I'll be able finish it. Suffice to say it is a work from scratch... Since Wikipedia images are widely linked and used in the web, I strongly prefer deletion. Constantine ✍ 16:19, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
Because its heavily in use. --Mbdortmund (talk) 23:56, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
- All the more reason, if it is factually wrong. Constantine ✍ 10:32, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
- It is good enough to be useful. You will never be able to get it perfect. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 10:36, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
- I agree with Pieter Kuiper. Map will never be correct and it has great utility for military historians. /User:Ethan
- Keep I understand your concern, but we shouldn't just delete an image that's heavily in use, any more than we'd rip text out of a Wikipedia article if the original author didn't feel it was accurate anymore but didn't have the time to fix it.--Prosfilaes (talk) 04:33, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
- Keep If there are "several problems" with this work such problems could be solved simply by upload of new corrected map version over this one. Author of this work or any other user could change any possible mistake in this map and could upload new version over the existing one, so there is no reason for deletion. By the way, what problems exactly we speak about when this map is in question? PANONIAN (talk) 16:05, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
Kept. Jcb (talk) 13:01, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
It's copyrighted logo. 99kerob (talk) 07:36, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
- Keep: consists entirely of text in uncopyrightable typefaces. {{PD-text}} applicable. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 11:43, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
- Sorry, but it isn't simple geometric shapes or simple text... This image is coprighted like other logos and {{PD-text}} isn't good (it's only for non-logo images)! 99kerob (talk) 11:49, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
- Why is this not simple? It consists entirely of two words in a fancy typeface, but typefaces are not copyrightable in the US. The words are in a red oval, which is a simple geometric shape. There are no other elements. If {{PD-text}} is not applicable because of the oval, then {{PD-textlogo}} applies. It is not true that PD-text and PD-textlogo apply only to "non-logo" images. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 11:57, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
- Sorry, but it isn't simple geometric shapes or simple text... This image is coprighted like other logos and {{PD-text}} isn't good (it's only for non-logo images)! 99kerob (talk) 11:49, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
- Keep see threshold of originality, but I do not know about standards in Poland. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 14:56, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
- Keep It's a clear case for PD-Text.--Prosfilaes (talk) 04:25, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
Kept. Jcb (talk) 15:02, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
High-resolution reproduction of copyrighted logo thumperward (talk) 10:14, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
- Delete: too complex for {{PD-textlogo}}. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 11:46, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
- I can't find this image on the cityrail website. How can it be a high-resolution reproduction? Is there a source that actually shows this to be a reproduction? --AussieLegend (talk) 12:22, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
- It doesn't have to be from the website. The logo is complex and so is capable of being copyrighted, so even if the uploader redrew his own version of it, that would be an unauthorized derivative of the original work. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 17:21, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
- KeepThe original work was en:File:Cityrailsign.jpg, which was uploaded to the English Wikipedia on 30 April 2006. This image, which appears to be an authorised derivative of that based on the license, was uploaded to Wikipedia on 22 January 2008, released into the public domain by its author. When it was uploaded here, it was uploaded as {{PD-user-w}}, not {{PD-textlogo}}. It, as well as a number of others, was listed at en:Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2010 October 9. The nominator claimed that the image, which is used on Sydney articles, was at the Adelaide Metro website. A search of archive.org indicated that Adelaide Metro doesn't show any icons on its website before 4 October 2006,[3] two years after the original work was uploaded to Wikipedia. There's no evidence that I can find that even suggests that the image might be a reproduction of a copyrighted logo. --AussieLegend (talk) 04:48, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
- Keep per AussieLegend. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 15:10, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
- Keep --ARTEST4ECHO talk 17:03, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
- Comment - I marked the same discussion at en.wp as no consensus. Magog the Ogre (talk) 16:18, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
Kept. Jcb (talk) 15:06, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
Corrupted file, can't see nothing. --Dferg (talk · meta) 10:16, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
- Keep: the file is not corrupt – see http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d0/Provincias_de_Espa%C3%B1a_sin_nombre.gif. Thumbnail cannot display due to a technical limitation. I suggest that a lower resolution JPEG version be uploaded also, and a link to this file be placed on the image description page of the above file. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 12:05, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
- OIC, thank you & sorry. --Dferg (talk · meta) 22:32, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
- Comment I uploaded a new version, demagnified by a factor 0.5. But... this does not have a source! /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 15:17, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
- Thank you for the reupload and for noting that serious problem. --Dferg (talk · meta) 22:32, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
- Comment Has insufficient source information ("Wikipedia" is not considered to be a valid source, according to COM:L). Please fix that. --High Contrast (talk) 15:12, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
- Delete unless a proper source & author information can be provided. --Dferg (talk · meta) 22:32, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
- Delete unless a proper source & author information can be provided. — Jeff G. ツ 15:21, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
Kept. - source found - Jcb (talk) 20:53, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
This picture is related to the file Someren-Downer, Haya van - SFA002010540.jpg which was released by Spaarnestad under a CC-license. The uploader however confirmed ( [4] ) that he used the picture on the Spaarnestad in a higher resolution (which is NOT released under a CC-license) to create this file of that detail. The claim this picture is released under a CC-license is therefor incorrect. Robotje (talk) 10:57, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
- KeepI think this is a fundamental issue. Does CC Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 say anything about the scale of the image? They did release the image. Why wouldn't I be allowed to go their website and use that image? Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 11:46, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
- Comment: OTRS confirmation needed as to whether copyright holder released only the low-resolution version of the image ("File:Someren-Downer, Haya van - SFA002010540.jpg") or any version, including the current high-resolution version. Nominator should post a query at "Commons:OTRS/Noticeboard". — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 11:51, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
- If you mean User:Robotje as nominator, I leave that up to him. If you meant me, uploader User:Jan Arkesteijn, my answer is, I will not start a OTRS procedure. Not that I don't want to, but I simply want to know what actually is released. In my view owner Spaarnestad Photo released the image under the Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Netherlands license. As a result of this release a copy File:Someren-Downer, Haya van - SFA002010540.jpg was transferred to Commons. As a result of this release I also transferred this crop File:File-Someren-Downer,_Haya_van_-_SFA002010540_copy.jpg to Commons. I would like to know whether I am correct in my assumption that Spaarnestad Photo released the image (period), or nominator is correct in his assumption that Spaarnestad Photo released this image in the pixelsize of File:Someren-Downer, Haya van - SFA002010540.jpg. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 12:11, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
- To clarify my last remark: I suppose we already have all the information we need. This is a project between two partners, Commons and Nationaal Archief. I suppose there are contracts, agreements etc. that contain the answer. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 12:32, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
- I meant that the nominator Robotje might want to post a message on the OTRS noticeboard. Examining the agreement between the Commons and the Nationaal Archief/Spaarnestad Photo might also shed some light on the matter. But on thinking about the matter further, I think it is quite clear that NA/SP has only licensed the particular version of the image that it provided to the Commons, and we cannot treat this as permission to upload a higher resolution version of the same image that has been found elsewhere. For example, photographer Erling Mandelmann recently released all the photographs on his website to the Commons (see "Category:Photographs by Erling Mandelmann"). It is obvious that he did not intend to release the original high-resolution images. Thus, it would not be right to assume that by releasing low-resolution versions of the photographs, anyone can now take high-quality scans of the same photographs from, say, a book and upload them. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 17:50, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
- By italizing the phrase "particular version of the image that it provided to the Commons" you suggest that you read the agreement and that this phrase is litterally in there. But you also use the contradictive words "I think it is quite clear" showing that you did not read the agreement. Could you please be more specific. What does the agreement say? Comparing this case with Erling Mandelmann is misleading. He owns the commercial rights and released some of his pictures as Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0. (But I even doubt in this case, whether Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 does gives him some rights on a limiting pixelsize of the image). The set of photographs that is maintained by Nationaal Archief was made by a variety of journalists, who did not own the copyright. Like I said, it all boils down to the agreement between Nationaal Archief and Commons. Before deleting this image, someone better look it up in our archive. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 10:00, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
- I meant that the nominator Robotje might want to post a message on the OTRS noticeboard. Examining the agreement between the Commons and the Nationaal Archief/Spaarnestad Photo might also shed some light on the matter. But on thinking about the matter further, I think it is quite clear that NA/SP has only licensed the particular version of the image that it provided to the Commons, and we cannot treat this as permission to upload a higher resolution version of the same image that has been found elsewhere. For example, photographer Erling Mandelmann recently released all the photographs on his website to the Commons (see "Category:Photographs by Erling Mandelmann"). It is obvious that he did not intend to release the original high-resolution images. Thus, it would not be right to assume that by releasing low-resolution versions of the photographs, anyone can now take high-quality scans of the same photographs from, say, a book and upload them. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 17:50, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
Kept. - Commons:Nationaal Archief states: "The images are made available under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 NL license.", limited resolution is not mentioned - Jcb (talk) 21:04, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
I doubt that this image is in the public domain. There is NO proof given in the description that could show the "life of the author plus 70 years"-thesis. 93.211.73.56 13:07, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
- Delete for nominator's reason. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 17:28, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
- Keep with {{PD-EU-no author disclosure}}. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 15:34, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. - I see no conversation with the source website to ask if they know the author - Jcb (talk) 21:07, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
The photograph is a derivative work of the sign, and hence, the sign's own copyright must be considered. The wave is a nontrivial design element. The copyright status of a similar image was questioned at en:Wikipedia:Peer review/Mount Rainier/archive1 and has a separate deletion request. Walter Siegmund (talk) 18:35, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
- Keep per Commons:Deletion requests/File:Croton Dam Muskegon River Dscn1100 cropped.jpg. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:00, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
- Keep per Pieter Kuiper. Obelix (talk) 21:06, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
Kept. Jcb (talk) 21:15, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
The photograph is a derivative work of the sign, and hence, the sign's own copyright must be considered. The mountain is a nontrivial design element. The copyright status of this image was questioned at en:Wikipedia:Peer review/Mount Rainier/archive1. Walter Siegmund (talk) 18:36, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
- Keep per Commons:Deletion requests/File:Croton Dam Muskegon River Dscn1100 cropped.jpg. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:59, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
- Keep, per Pieter Kuiper. Obelix (talk) 21:06, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
Kept. Jcb (talk) 21:15, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
Derivate work, being a copy from Pablo Picasso, whose work is not in the PD yet. --User:G.dallorto (talk) 18:51, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 21:17, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Steschke#File:Acarodermatitis_Finger.jpg Uploader agrees to deletion... Elvey (talk) 18:57, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
- Ja, die Datei kann gelöscht werden. --ST ○ 22:17, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
- Keep In use in over a dozen wikipedias. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 08:48, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
- Question I don't understand. The reason given is a link to the DR notice on the uploader's talk page. There is no discussion there. The uploader agrees above to deletion, but there's no reason. As Pieter says, it's widely in use. So why delete? Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:20, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
- ??? I reproduce it here:
- Your image, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Acarodermatitis_Finger.jpg is very blurry. Can't really see anything. Do you think it is worth keeping and using? Maybe we are better off just with the other photos, which are good. --Elvey (talk) 19:27, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
- You're right. --ST (the uploader of the image) ○ 06:02, 15 August 2010 (UTC)''
- So that counts as a deletion discussion.--Elvey (talk) 19:19, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
- I was quite aware when I nominated it that it's in use in over a dozen wikipedias. That doesn't matter IMO, as others are there too, that are useful. Perhaps you didn't notice. And you didn't address the reason for deletion: It is very blurry; you can't really see anything.--Elvey (talk) 19:19, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
Author request; see last nom. Elvey (talk) 21:35, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
Our policy is that if an image is in use, then we do not delete it for quality reasons. This one is in use in many places, apparently the various WP editors think that this is better than the alternatives or nothing. Kept. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:48, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
So the dog happens to stand there all the time? Seb az86556 (talk) 21:47, 9 October 2010 (UTC) Seb az86556 (talk) 21:47, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
- Comment: the image was uploaded by Ckoroglu, who appears to be the photographer Coşkun Köroğlu who also uploaded the image to Tekmen.eu. Post a message on Ckoroglu's talk page first and clarify whether he is the photographer. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 10:21, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
- Was notified. Seb az86556 (talk) 02:24, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
- I didn't see a message as proposed. Jcb (talk) 21:22, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
- Was notified. Seb az86556 (talk) 02:24, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
Kept. - uploader seems author, let's AGF - Jcb (talk) 21:22, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
