Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2010/10/16
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
|
|
boring Jilibobais (talk) 06:41, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
Kept. Invalid deletion reason. ZooFari 06:48, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
urbana mode Red10 04 (talk) 04:40, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
Kept. Incomprehensible reason for deletion: "urbana mode" — Jeff G. ツ 04:48, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
Kept nonsense. abf «Cabale!» 18:14, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
Quiero borrar esta foto y todos los archivos que subí a la Wikipedia
"Quiero borrar esta foto y todos los archivos que subí a la Wikipedia" per uploader's other actions the day he filed an incomplete deletion request for this file — Jeff G. ツ 18:39, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
Keep per Commons:Deletion requests/File:S31ARASalta.jpg and Commons:Deletion_requests/File:BNMP.jpg. — Jeff G. ツ 02:57, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
Kept. Author requested deletions are granted on specific cases, such as mistakes or test edits. Once uploaded and in use in articles, files are not deleted just by the author's will. The rigth to control the use of one's work and forbid others from using it is precisely one of the rights that are given up when uploading files under a free licence and not under a "all rigths reserved" somewhere else Belgrano (talk) 03:01, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
Quiero borrar esta foto y todos los archivos que subí a la Wikipedia
"Quiero borrar esta foto y todos los archivos que subí a la Wikipedia" per uploader's other actions the day he filed an incomplete deletion request for this file; keep per Commons:Deletion requests/File:S31ARASalta.jpg — Jeff G. ツ 18:43, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
Kept. Author requested deletions are granted on specific cases, such as mistakes or test edits. Once uploaded and in use in articles, files are not deleted just by the author's will. The rigth to control the use of one's work and forbid others from using it is precisely one of the rights that are given up when uploading files under a free licence and not under a "all rigths reserved" somewhere else Belgrano (talk) 03:02, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
Quiero borrar esta foto y todos los archivos que he subido a la Wikipedia
"Quiero borrar esta foto y todos los archivos que subí a la Wikipedia" per uploader's other actions the day he filed an incomplete deletion request for this file; keep per Commons:Deletion requests/File:S31ARASalta.jpg — Jeff G. ツ 18:48, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
Kept. Author requested deletions are granted on specific cases, such as mistakes or test edits. Once uploaded and in use in articles, files are not deleted just by the author's will. The rigth to control the use of one's work and forbid others from using it is precisely one of the rights that are given up when uploading files under a free licence and not under a "all rigths reserved" somewhere else Belgrano (talk) 03:03, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
Quiero borrar esta foto y todos los archivos que subí a la Wikipedia
"Quiero borrar esta foto y todos los archivos que subí a la Wikipedia" per uploader's other actions the day he filed an incomplete deletion request for this file; keep per Commons:Deletion requests/File:S31ARASalta.jpg and Commons:Deletion_requests/File:BNMP.jpg — Jeff G. ツ 18:54, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
Kept. Author requested deletions are granted on specific cases, such as mistakes or test edits. Once uploaded and in use in articles, files are not deleted just by the author's will. The rigth to control the use of one's work and forbid others from using it is precisely one of the rights that are given up when uploading files under a free licence and not under a "all rigths reserved" somewhere else Belgrano (talk) 03:03, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
Quiero borrar esta foto y todos los archivos que subí, oportunamente, a la Wikipedia.
"Quiero borrar esta foto y todos los archivos que subí a la Wikipedia" per uploader's other actions the day he filed an incomplete deletion request for this file; keep per Commons:Deletion requests/File:S31ARASalta.jpg and Commons:Deletion_requests/File:BNMP.jpg — Jeff G. ツ 18:57, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
Kept. Author requested deletions are granted on specific cases, such as mistakes or test edits. Once uploaded and in use in articles, files are not deleted just by the author's will. The rigth to control the use of one's work and forbid others from using it is precisely one of the rights that are given up when uploading files under a free licence and not under a "all rigths reserved" somewhere else Belgrano (talk) 22:42, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
Personal rights. XenonX3 (talk) 21:08, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
Delete per Xenon. --ireas :talk: 21:10, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Image not taken in a public environment. Needs consent by parents of depicted person. ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 21:14, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
Copyright© 2001-08 Egyptianplayers.com - all rights reserved Denniss (talk) 22:10, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted by Martin H.: Copyright violation
I uploaded the wrong file SOlodatswho (talk) 03:02, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Common Good (talk) 19:50, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
Duplicate copy of File:Alpinia calacarata Rox.jpg. Moved to commons twice from Ml wiki by mistake. -- Sreejith K (talk) 08:11, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
- Delete - --KALARICKAN | My Interactions 12:43, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. — Tanvir • 04:42, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Common Good (talk) 19:59, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
duplicate at File:Dinu Hervian1.jpg Ionutzmovie (talk) 09:32, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Common Good (talk) 19:52, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
duplicate at File:Linda Maria Baros.jpg Ionutzmovie (talk) 11:26, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
Kept. Moved to File:Linda Maria Baros.jpg -- Common Good (talk) 20:06, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
laojd 190.186.73.135 02:03, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
- I suppose this DR can just be deleted? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 08:10, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
Kept / no dr reason--Fanghong (talk) 07:21, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
User request[1] Prosfilaes (talk) 02:38, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
- Keep It's been a year and a half, it's currently in use at w:da:Egmont Studentergaard and there's no privacy or copyright issues.--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:41, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
- Delete I am the uploader of the picture. I am not completely sure, that I had the right to upload the picture. To be sure to keep the contain of Commons legal, it must be deleted. --Fanoftheworld (talk) 15:24, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
- So did you make this photo or not? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:25, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted / Uploader request.--Fanghong (talk) 07:12, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
- Also derivative file File:Empire State Plaza symbol.svg
Some copyright (derivative concerns) were brought up regarding the depicted graphics. It may or may not be as such but I and the uploader have found a replacement anyways: File:Empire State Plaza symbol 2.svg ZooFari 05:21, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
- Delete as redundant. ZooFari 05:25, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
- Delete as redundant. For reference, the original copyvio issue is documented at the end of this page. upstateNYer 14:41, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted / Redundant--Fanghong (talk) 07:17, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
The author requests that this be removed as he says it was only in use for a short while on his userpage 99of9 (talk) 09:13, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
- I am converting a speedy request into a regular deletion for him. 99of9 (talk) 09:14, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
- Delete. Serves no purpose anymore. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 17:34, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
- Delete. Unused {{Userpageimage}}s are outside of COM:PS. —LX (talk, contribs) 08:37, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Geagea (talk) 14:32, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
No evidence that this user (who has only one upload) can authorize this image from Esquire magazine. Fixer23 (talk) 09:51, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
- Delete /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:31, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
- Delete, {{Copyvio}}. —LX (talk, contribs) 08:38, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:10, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
old image and page connected to no longer active Ea3140 (talk) 10:01, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
- Delete, uploaded solely for use in the vanity article en:Gareth Hussey, which has been deleted four times (last time per en:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gareth Hussey (2nd nomination). Outside of COM:PS. —LX (talk, contribs) 08:42, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:10, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
unused, just a text, useless Frédéric (talk) 12:11, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
- Delete. Outside of COM:PS. Does not appear to have been used at any time. —LX (talk, contribs) 08:44, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:10, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
According to its description page at en:wp, this image is taken from this webpage; while I can't find that image on that site now, it's obvious that the uploader here at Commons is not the copyright holder. Note that the en:wp image is marked as PD-author, but I can't find any evidence that the en:wp image is free at all. Nyttend (talk) 12:46, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:11, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
back side of postcard, completely empty.... Frédéric (talk) 12:59, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
- Keep don't really see a reason for deletion... Scan of the postcard's backside is the part of a good digitising in the same way as, for example, scanning of all book pages, including empty. And it's not really empty, it contains information about postcard's paper, state, and so on. --Trycatch (talk) 00:28, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
proves that there is no authorship or claim for copyright Kept. Mbdortmund (talk) 13:51, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
File:Diorite_statue_of_King_Khafre,_builder_of_the_Second_Pyramid_at_Gizeh,_Cairo,_Egypt.(10)_(1904)_-_back_-_TIMEA.jpg
[edit]empty, useless Frédéric (talk) 13:12, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
- Keep as well as in Commons:Deletion requests/File:Cairo (n.d.) - back - TIMEA.jpg, I don't think it's useless. --Trycatch (talk) 00:30, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
Comment I do not understand the use of having this empty backside of File:Diorite statue of King Khafre, builder of the Second Pyramid at Gizeh, Cairo, Egypt.(10) (1904) - front - TIMEA.jpg. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:40, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
No evidence of permission. Andrew Steinborn (talk) 13:28, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:19, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
Image with false (C) info, used to create bogus vandalic articles on es.wiki Richy (talk) 14:33, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:20, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
Image with false (C) info, used to create bogus vandalic articles on es.wiki Richy (talk) 14:33, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:20, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
PD-USGov license does not apply; description says "Courtesy of Soviet Military Power". Pieter Kuiper (talk) 14:46, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
Keep It is part of the "Soviet Military Power"-report that is a publication of the US Departmen of Defense. All in all this particularly image is in the public domain: The Security and Privacy Notice (2.) says "Information presented on DefenseImagery.mil is considered public information and may be distributed or copied unless otherwise specified." The Terms of Use (3.) says "Copyright information can be found in the XMP data area in the data field labeled 'Rights'. The have a final clarification we must contact the US DoD or www.defenseimagery.mil. --High Contrast (talk) 14:53, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
- You tried to argue the same thing in Commons:Deletion requests/File:Soviet SS-20 IRBM System (SMP 1988).JPEG... /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 14:56, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
- This is a different situation. Please read, then think, then act. --High Contrast (talk) 14:59, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
- Clearly PD-US but copyright situation in Russia unknown. Best to transwiki to English Wikipedia. -Nard (Hablemonos)(Let's talk) 15:15, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
- Why would an image that was published with credit to the Soviets become PD-US? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:36, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
- Where is this image credited to the "Soviets"? --High Contrast (talk) 18:40, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
- Comment The "original link" (http://www.dodmedia.osd.mil/DVIC_View/Still_Details.cfm?SDAN=DDST8407755&JPGPath=/Assets/Still/1984/DoD/DD-ST-84-07755.JPG) says "Released to Public". Moreover the original source is (or was until it got superseded by http://www.defenseimagery.mil/index.html) a well known military webside AND an official one nonetheless. In other words: It's not very likely that this image is some not well licenced random image found on the web somewhere by some guy who is interested in something. The script text of this file says about this page "DATE MODIFIED: 10 Apr 2007"
There are some possibilities for me: The image was made by a US spy -> PD-USGov. The image was made by a russian spy -> PD (because even the spy was not offially part of the US army but worked for this organisation). The image was made by russians and handed over for some reason during or after the cold war -> ? However, there are even images made by civilians on http://www.defenseimagery.mil/ which are also released into the public domain. So may this applies to this image as well. The rights field of this image says "RELEASED". So it's another image where you can't say for sure if it's a copyvio or not. But because it's an official military webside and because there is no other copyright information neither on the webpage nor in the files metadata or on the image itself I would go with a PD licence. Maybe a PD-USGov licence is not the best in this case.
--D-Kuru (talk) 17:06, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. The key here is "Courtesy of Soviet Military Power" - in US usage, that means that the Soviets supplied the image. The words "released" or "released to the public", in this context, simply mean that the image does not have a security classification -- that it is not "Confidential", "Secret", or some other category. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:27, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
The following is copied from User talk:Jameslwoodward [begins]
Hello!
As the deleting description you wrote: "that means that the Soviets supplied the image": where is the proof that the soviets supplied the image? Thing like "released" or "released to the public" in this case were never the core of this discussion. The problem was the question if this image can be distributed under a US-Gov licence or not. To overcome this something must be stated that clearly shows that the copyright holder of this image is the soviet union and some US governmental organisation. --High Contrast (talk) 15:12, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
- Please! You're an Admin -- you know that the burden of proof is on the uploader, not the Admins. I don't have to prove that the Soviets supplied the image; people wanting to keep it must prove that it is properly licensed.
- In American usage, the words "Courtesy of X" almost always mean that X supplied the image for use where found-- it does not say anything at all about the license except that one can assume that X gave permission to use it in that place. So, unless it can be shown that the Soviets gave the US government rights to re-license the image, it is a delete. Remember that the US government publishes many things that have copyrights because they belong to someone else -- the NASA site is full of them. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:31, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
Oh yes, it seems several things have been understood wrongly. It is right that the person that deletes the image must not prove anything, but if you say this image is "supplied" by the soviets and you use this for your deletion notice, then you have to explain where you have this information from. Because there is no proof for that and you didn't provide any, too. First, the uploader, in this case me, can and has proved that this image is in the public domain (see this argument: ...image is in the public domain: The Security and Privacy Notice (2.) says "Information presented on DefenseImagery.mil is considered public information and may be distributed or copied unless otherwise specified." The Terms of Use (3.) says "Copyright information can be found in the XMP data area in the data field labeled 'Rights'. The have a final clarification we must contact the US DoD or www.defenseimagery.mil.). Secondly, you are right with your argumentetation of what "Courtesy of X" means, but using this argumentation would mean that this image must be kept, because this book called "Soviet Military Power" is a official publication of the US military and it is in the public domain with all its illustrations (can be seen in this pdf file of this publication [on the top of page 2]). I see, that you have confounded "Courtesy of Soviet Military Power" with "a work by the soviets" but it is a work by some US Gov source. --High Contrast (talk) 15:48, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
- Aha. You are correct -- I did not understand the reference to Soviet Military Power. I have looked through the book briefly and I do not find any indication that it is PD -- I remind you again that the US Federal Government, particularly the military, publishes much material that is not PD because it comes from a source outside the government. The NASA web site is the best example we have on the Web. The best example I know on paper is almost all nautical charts published by NIMA (formerly the Defense Mapping Agency), because they are based in part on information from foreign government charts.
- I note that the referenced copy of Soviet Military Power is the 1988 edition. The photograph is from the 1984 edition and is not in the illustration list for the 1988 edition -- I cannot find any reference to the SS-14 in the 1988 edition. I also see that a variety of illustrations in the 1988 edition are noted as copyrighted.
- I think that another problem we have here is that there is a confusion between copyright status and secrecy status. These words:
- "Information presented on DefenseImagery.mil is considered public information and may be distributed or copied unless otherwise specified"
- for me, speak to secrecy status, not copyright status.
- So, I think we have a case of "not proven". If you still think you can prove it, please lead me through it, step by step, as I am obviously missing something. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:51, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
- I am aware of everything you were talking about above. Forget about the defenseimagery.mil source, it is only the page where the best quality of this file can be found. Sorry for stating the "SMP 1988"-link: here is the correct one, first read page 3 of the pdf-file [lower tenth of side 3] and then page 27 of that page. The image caption refers to no other source, so PD-USGov applies because the remark on page 3 applies then and this means that the SS-14 image comes from any US-source. This is certainly an evidence for this file being in the public domain. --High Contrast (talk) 14:38, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
- OK, now I agree. It is too bad that the 1984 edition does not have the same kind of list illustrations as the 1988 edition, with individual copyrights called out, but I think your evidence, together with the copyright acknowledgment at the very end of the document (which shows three individuals, none of them obviously a Soviet source) makes it reasonably clear that this is a PD image. I have to wonder, though, where the DoD got it? Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:10, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
- I am aware of everything you were talking about above. Forget about the defenseimagery.mil source, it is only the page where the best quality of this file can be found. Sorry for stating the "SMP 1988"-link: here is the correct one, first read page 3 of the pdf-file [lower tenth of side 3] and then page 27 of that page. The image caption refers to no other source, so PD-USGov applies because the remark on page 3 applies then and this means that the SS-14 image comes from any US-source. This is certainly an evidence for this file being in the public domain. --High Contrast (talk) 14:38, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
[copy ends]
Kept. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:15, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
because I cannot generate thumbnail from it: I will reload with less pixels Pastore Italy (talk) 14:52, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Just upload a smaller version on top of this one. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:40, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
bo nie jest moj Majowypl (talk) 15:52, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
- Keep of course, nonsense nomination. —LX (talk, contribs) 08:51, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
Kept. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:27, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
- File:Chains, Sukbaatar Square, Ulan Bator, Mongolia.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Damdin Sühbaatar statue.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:MNUBSukhbaatar.JPG (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Parliament Ulan Bator 3102689493 a76be2b357 b.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Sukbaatar Square, Ulan Bator, Mongolia.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Sukhbaatar statue.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:UB-SzuheBator.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Ulaan Bataar - Place principale.JPG (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Ulan Bator 17.JPG (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
No COM:FOP in Mongolia, according to Mongolian law on Copyright - statue from 1946. Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:04, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
- Sculpted by Sonomyn Choimbol, born 1907. Studied 1943-46 in Moscow, last sculpture mentioned in that extlink dates to 1958. When did he die? Copyright term in Mongolia is 50 years p.m.a, so if he died before 1960 (unlikely, I know), the statue would be PD. If not, there's a whole category of images of this statue to consider. Lupo 16:19, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
- He died 1970 (source). I will add the rest to this DR. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:26, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
- Pieter, would you mind adding Mongolia to the list at COM:FOP? howcheng {chat} 19:15, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
- He died 1970 (source). I will add the rest to this DR. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:26, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
_-_back_-_TIMEA.jpg){kind=link}
_(1904)_-_back_-_TIMEA.jpg){kind=link}
.JPEG){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_-_back_-_TIMEA.jpg){kind=link}
_-_back_-_TIMEA.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_-_back_-_TIMEA.jpg){kind=link}
_-_back_-_TIMEA.jpg){kind=link}
_(1904)_-_back_-_TIMEA.jpg){kind=link}
_(1904)_-_back_-_TIMEA.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_-_back_-_TIMEA.jpg){kind=link}
_(1904)_-_front_-_TIMEA.jpg){kind=link}
.JPEG){kind=link}
.JPEG&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.JPEG){kind=link}
.JPEG){kind=link}
.JPEG){kind=link}
.JPEG){kind=link}
.JPEG){kind=link}
.JPEG){kind=link}
.JPEG){kind=link}
Then all of those images must get deleted. The whole category can be removed because it cannot be filled the next years. LARS 19:19, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
- Delete the files and either delete Category:Statue of Damdin Sükhbaatar, Ulan Bator or add a notice like in Category:Statue of the Little Mermaid (Copenhagen). —LX (talk, contribs) 09:05, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted by Jameslwoodward: Per Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Damdin_Sükhbaatar_statue.jpg
Original research - no source quoted. The author is well known for his non-sourced contributions Dover777 (talk) 16:08, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:34, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
Reopened. The nominator has subsequently been blocked indefinitely for similar bad actions, so these needs more review. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:11, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
- Keep - Nothing wrong with this file. It's one of several Finnish translations from other Wikipedia maps that this user has created. The original German version does not provide any source either and is used in numerous articles; the contents reflect the generally accepted level of knowledge about the early Germanic tribes.
- NB: The nominating user who commented that "(t)he author is well known for his non-sourced contributions" was one of many socks active in one of the most impressive instances of sockpuppetry I've seen so far. The accusation against User:Cuprum is entirely without basis. I assume the nomination was an act of bad faith, spite or retaliation on his part; and I wouldn't be surprised if another sock soon were to become active and carry on the torch of idiocy. Trigaranus (talk) 16:49, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
- Keep per Trigaranus and w:Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Erfurt150. — Jeff G. ツ 12:23, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
Kept is long overdue, thank you JeffG for reminding us. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:50, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
Delete - Complete original research - no source quoted - This user is well known for his unorthodox material Dover777 (talk) 16:10, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
Delete : I agree, original research with personal fantasy. And I have seen this map on a blog (I don't remember which one)= copyright problems.Tropical snow (talk) 21:10, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:35, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
Reopened at request of uploader. Nomination and comment above are both from one user who is now blocked. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:06, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
Neutral - Thanks for re-opening, Jim. It wasn't really about that, though. The map isn't particularly good: it's not vectorised, and I didn't bother to add references / quote my sources. It's just that the "two" users in common were socks of a chap who had been messing about with the English WP article on the Celts and apparently felt resentful toward contributors who disagreed with his edits; and I just couldn't really agree with the undertones of "personal fantasy" and "well known for his unorthodox material". The map is medium quality for sure. If it ends up being deleted, I'm not going to object. I simply do not have the time to improve it. Trigaranus (talk) 11:15, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
Keep Used in four sister projects. In COM:SCOPE. Walter Siegmund (talk) 18:53, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
Kept. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:24, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
nie jest dobrze wykadrowane Majowypl (talk) 16:11, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
Kept.
Machine translation: "is not well-cropped". Majowypl is the nom and the uploader.
This is not a reason for deletion.
You may upload a new crop over this image easily -- use this link on the file page:
- Upload a new version of this file
Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:43, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
Problems of copyright Dover777 (talk) 16:12, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
- Keep. Appears to be a retaliatory bad-faith nomination by an English Wikipedia sockpuppeteer. I see no "problems of copyright" whatsoever. The photo is taken using the same camera phone as most of the uploader's photos. —LX (talk, contribs) 09:23, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
Kept. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:43, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
User Nousernamesleft uploaded this as a non-free image on en.wiki. There was no cliam by the uploader to own copyright of the image. After Midnight (talk) 17:04, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:45, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
CC-BY-NC-SA-2.0, not allowed in Commons. — Tanvir • 17:05, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:51, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
unused, useless. IMO, should be deleted for privacy reasons Frédéric (talk) 17:23, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:18, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
Self promotion Jorge Barrios (talk) 17:53, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:18, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
Self promotion Jorge Barrios (talk) 18:02, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:18, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
Self promotion - Out of scope Jorge Barrios (talk) 18:04, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:19, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
- File:Hertogswetering, panneau explicatif.JPG (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Le Peelhorst, le Peelrandbreuk (faille) et le Slenk Central.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
_et_le_Slenk_Central.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_et_le_Slenk_Central.jpg&action=edit){kind=link}
_et_le_Slenk_Central.jpg&diff=0){kind=link}
_et_le_Slenk_Central.jpg&action=history){kind=link}
_et_le_Slenk_Central.jpg&action=watch){kind=link}
_et_le_Slenk_Central.jpg&action=unwatch){kind=link}
_et_le_Slenk_Central.jpg){kind=link}
_et_le_Slenk_Central.jpg&action=purge){kind=link}
_et_le_Slenk_Central.jpg){kind=link}
_et_le_Slenk_Central.jpg){kind=link}
_et_le_Slenk_Central.jpg){kind=link}
_et_le_Slenk_Central.jpg&action=edit&preload=Commons:Deletion_requests/preload){kind=link}
_et_le_Slenk_Central.jpg&action=delete){kind=link}
_et_le_Slenk_Central.jpg){kind=link}
_et_le_Slenk_Central.jpg){kind=link}
Maps are not exempted by COM:FOP#The Netherlands, as they are not works in article 10 under 6° or 8°, but under 7°. Nominated per uploader's request. Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:08, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:19, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
Sourced to Skyscraper with Author Into_Salem - no evidence that either have released the image into the public domain MilborneOne (talk) 18:20, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:20, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
Sourced to Skyscraper with Author Into_Salem - no evidence that either have released the image into the public domain MilborneOne (talk) 18:20, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:20, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
Uncropped version at http://www.mycityin.com/gallery_list.php and other uploads from user indicate that this may not be the work of the uploader MilborneOne (talk) 18:24, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:21, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
"Quiero borrar esta foto y todos los archivos que subí a la Wikipedia" per uploader's other actions the day he filed an incomplete deletion request for this file — Jeff G. ツ 18:29, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
- Keep in use, I see no good reason for deletion. BTW it was pretty easy to file a mass deletion request. Trycatch (talk) 19:14, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
- Keep per Commons:Deletion requests/File:S31ARASalta.jpg and Commons:Deletion_requests/File:BNMP.jpg. Sorry about all the deletion requests, most of the individual deletion request pages were created by the uploader. — Jeff G. ツ 03:02, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
Kept. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:26, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
Quiero borrar esta foto y todos los archivos que subí a la Wikipedia
no source; "Quiero borrar esta foto y todos los archivos que subí a la Wikipedia" per uploader's other actions the day he filed an incomplete deletion request for this file — Jeff G. ツ 18:31, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
- Keep per Commons:Deletion requests/File:S31ARASalta.jpg and Commons:Deletion_requests/File:BNMP.jpg. Source is the uploader, apparently a Colonel with the Argentinian Armada. — Jeff G. ツ 03:01, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
Kept. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:26, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
Quiero borrar esta foto y todos los archivos que subí a la Wikipedia
"Quiero borrar esta foto y todos los archivos que subí a la Wikipedia" per uploader's other actions the day he filed an incomplete deletion request for this file — Jeff G. ツ 18:33, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
- Keep per Commons:Deletion requests/File:S31ARASalta.jpg and Commons:Deletion_requests/File:BNMP.jpg. — Jeff G. ツ 02:59, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
- Keep. The images once released are released forever. When uploading the files the uploader has agreed to license them under the Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 Generic (CC-BY-2.5) license. This license is irrevocable--Gaetano56 (talk) 06:24, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
Kept. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:27, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
Quiero borrar esta foto y todos los archivos que subí a la Wikipedia
"Quiero borrar esta foto y todos los archivos que subí a la Wikipedia" per uploader's other actions the day he filed an incomplete deletion request for this file — Jeff G. ツ 18:34, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
- Keep per Commons:Deletion requests/File:S31ARASalta.jpg and Commons:Deletion_requests/File:BNMP.jpg. — Jeff G. ツ 03:08, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
Kept. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:27, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
Quiero borrar esta foto y todos los archivos que subí a la Wikipedia
"Quiero borrar esta foto y todos los archivos que subí a la Wikipedia" per uploader's other actions the day he filed an incomplete deletion request for this file — Jeff G. ツ 18:36, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Not reasons in English language. --Starscream (talk) 21:53, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
- Keep per Commons:Deletion requests/File:S31ARASalta.jpg and Commons:Deletion_requests/File:BNMP.jpg. — Jeff G. ツ 02:58, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
- Comment Can somone translate? thx--Sanandros (talk) 19:52, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
- The uploader wants to delete everything he has uploaded to Commons, and appears not to understand that the use licenses he granted (Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 Generic and GFDL) are not revokable. — Jeff G. ツ 14:22, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
- It seems that uploader is a colonel in the Argentinian military. The oldest photo that I have seen is from 1972. I am not absolutely certain that he made all those photos himself. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 14:28, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
- If he would reveal more about the source of those photos (who took them, when, where, whether or not the photographer was acting in his or her official capacity when the photos were taken, and whether or not he was acting in his official capacity when he uploaded them), we would be able to make a more informed decision. — Jeff G. ツ 14:45, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
- It seems that uploader is a colonel in the Argentinian military. The oldest photo that I have seen is from 1972. I am not absolutely certain that he made all those photos himself. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 14:28, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
- The uploader wants to delete everything he has uploaded to Commons, and appears not to understand that the use licenses he granted (Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 Generic and GFDL) are not revokable. — Jeff G. ツ 14:22, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Kept. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:28, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
Quiero borrar esta foto y todos los archivos que subí a la Wikipedia
"Quiero borrar esta foto y todos los archivos que subí a la Wikipedia" per uploader's other actions the day he filed an incomplete deletion request for this file — Jeff G. ツ 18:38, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
- Keep per Commons:Deletion requests/File:S31ARASalta.jpg and Commons:Deletion_requests/File:BNMP.jpg. — Jeff G. ツ 02:58, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
Kept. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:28, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
Quiero borrar esta foto y todos los archivos que subí a la Wikipedia
"Quiero borrar esta foto y todos los archivos que subí a la Wikipedia" per uploader's other actions the day he filed an incomplete deletion request for this file — Jeff G. ツ 18:40, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
- Keep per Commons:Deletion requests/File:S31ARASalta.jpg and Commons:Deletion_requests/File:BNMP.jpg. — Jeff G. ツ 02:57, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
Kept. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:29, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
Quiero borrar esta foto y todos los archivos que he subido a la Wikipedia
"Quiero borrar esta foto y todos los archivos que subí a la Wikipedia" per uploader's other actions the day he filed an incomplete deletion request for this file; keep per Commons:Deletion requests/File:S31ARASalta.jpg — Jeff G. ツ 18:50, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
- Keep per Commons:Deletion requests/File:S31ARASalta.jpg and Commons:Deletion_requests/File:BNMP.jpg. — Jeff G. ツ 03:09, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
Kept. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:29, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
Quiero borrar esta foto y todos los archivos que he subido a la Wikipedia
"Quiero borrar esta foto y todos los archivos que subí a la Wikipedia" per uploader's other actions the day he filed an incomplete deletion request for this file; keep per Commons:Deletion requests/File:S31ARASalta.jpg — Jeff G. ツ 18:51, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
- Keep per Commons:Deletion requests/File:S31ARASalta.jpg and Commons:Deletion_requests/File:BNMP.jpg. — Jeff G. ツ 03:09, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
Kept. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:30, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
Quiero borrar esta foto y todos los archivos que subí a la Wikipedia
"Quiero borrar esta foto y todos los archivos que subí a la Wikipedia" per uploader's other actions the day he filed an incomplete deletion request for this file; keep per Commons:Deletion requests/File:S31ARASalta.jpg and Commons:Deletion_requests/File:BNMP.jpg — Jeff G. ツ 18:52, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
Kept. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:30, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
Quiero borrar esta foto y todos los archivos que subí a la Wikipedia
"Quiero borrar esta foto y todos los archivos que subí a la Wikipedia" per uploader's other actions the day he filed an incomplete deletion request for this file; keep per Commons:Deletion requests/File:S31ARASalta.jpg and Commons:Deletion_requests/File:BNMP.jpg — Jeff G. ツ 18:55, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
Keep Licensed under the CC-BY-2.5. Creative Commons licenses are irrevokable. No reason to delete.
- Bajo la licencia CC-BY-2.5. Las licencias Creative Commons son irrevocable. No hay razón para eliminarlo. Traducción por Google Translate
--IngerAlHaosului (talk) 09:38, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
Kept. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:31, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
Quiero borrar esta foto y todos los archivos que subí, oportunamente, a la Wikipedia.
"Quiero borrar esta foto y todos los archivos que subí a la Wikipedia" per uploader's other actions the day he filed an incomplete deletion request for this file; keep per Commons:Deletion requests/File:S31ARASalta.jpg and Commons:Deletion_requests/File:BNMP.jpg — Jeff G. ツ 18:56, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
Kept. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:31, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
Quiero borrar esta foto y todos los archivos que subí, oportunamente, a la Wikipedia.
"Quiero borrar esta foto y todos los archivos que subí a la Wikipedia" per uploader's other actions the day he filed an incomplete deletion request for this file;
- Keep. per Commons:Deletion requests/File:S31ARASalta.jpg and Commons:Deletion_requests/File:BNMP.jpg — Jeff G. ツ 18:57, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
- Keep. The images once released are released forever. When uploading the files the uploader has agreed to license them under the Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 Generic (CC-BY-2.5) license. This license is irrevocable--Gaetano56 (talk) 06:26, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
Kept. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:32, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
Quiero borrar esta foto y todos los archivos que subí, oportunamente, a la Wikipedia.
"Quiero borrar esta foto y todos los archivos que subí a la Wikipedia" per uploader's other actions the day he filed an incomplete deletion request for this file; keep per Commons:Deletion requests/File:S31ARASalta.jpg and Commons:Deletion_requests/File:BNMP.jpg — Jeff G. ツ 18:58, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
Kept. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:32, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
Quiero borrar esta foto y todos los archivos que subí, oportunamente, a la Wikipedia.
"Quiero borrar esta foto y todos los archivos que subí a la Wikipedia" per uploader's other actions the day he filed an incomplete deletion request for this file; keep per Commons:Deletion requests/File:S31ARASalta.jpg and Commons:Deletion_requests/File:BNMP.jpg — Jeff G. ツ 18:59, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Not reasons in English language. --Starscream (talk) 21:52, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
Kept. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:32, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
Quiero borrar esta foto y todos los archivos que subí, oportunamente, a la Wikipedia.
"Quiero borrar esta foto y todos los archivos que subí a la Wikipedia" per uploader's other actions the day he filed an incomplete deletion request for this file; keep per Commons:Deletion requests/File:S31ARASalta.jpg and Commons:Deletion_requests/File:BNMP.jpg (more later) — Jeff G. ツ 19:00, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Not reasons in English language. --Starscream (talk) 21:54, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
- Learn some languages. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:33, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
Kept. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:33, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
There is no permission that allows this image to get distributed freely 93.211.87.208 19:19, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
- I mean the distribution may be free, but the licensing cannot be proceeded under a free source. LARS 19:20, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. This is the cover of the French edition of a book whose English edition was published in 2001 and whose French edition, I think, was published in 2000. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:41, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
No FoP in the UAE. 84.61.131.141 19:19, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Clear case. This model is a copyrighted work of art. — Xavier, 20:35, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:41, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
No FoP in the UAE. 84.61.131.141 19:22, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Clear case. This model is a copyrighted work of art. — Xavier, 20:35, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:41, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
Private picture without educational use, not in scope of Commons Martin H. (talk) 19:23, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:42, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
unused, no description no cat, useless, no encyclopedic value, etc Frédéric (talk) 19:38, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:42, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
No encyclopedic usage possible. XenonX3 (talk) 21:13, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:47, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
No FOP in the United States. BrokenSphere (Talk) 21:30, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:48, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
incorrect categorization SM14 (talk) 21:48, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Category fixed. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:51, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
Kept. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:48, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
convert speedy to a nominate for deletion because this might count as text-ineligible together with de minimis, or may only need blurring of the pictorial parts; nominator votes for neutral 84user (talk) 23:26, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
Info The image on the ticket is of the church inside the Arkadi Monastery enclosure. File:Arkadi Pashley 1837.jpg is an illustration from the 1830s (thumbnail at right). My opinion is now tending to keep due to the low level of creativity of the ticket image. -84user (talk) 00:16, 17 October 2010 (UTC)- Delete: I think the text is ineligible for copyright, but unfortunately the drawing of the church (and possibly also the logo in the stamp in the bottom left-hand corner, although it is somewhat indistinct) cannot be regarded in the same way. It is certainly not simple enough for {{PD-textlogo}}. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 15:17, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
- Comment - if the drawing of the church were blurred or erased, I would say keep. Otherwise delete. Jonathunder (talk) 02:12, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. I see little point in keeping it if the church and the stamp are blurred, which would be required, per Jacklee. I have nominated several of the images listed by Wouter for deletion,as his/her comment is correct. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:04, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
Derivative work of that sculpture. No information is given to determine whether it is PD or freely licensed. Author? Date? Impetus is on uploader to provide this. GrapedApe (talk) 05:44, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
- Keep The art work is de minimis. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:29, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
- Keep PD-self by the original uploader bg:User:Shushik. --DStoykov (talk) 19:42, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
- The deletion is about the statue, not the photo. COM:DW.--GrapedApe (talk) 20:36, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
Kept. De minimis. Trycatch (talk) 23:08, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
This is not the "own" work of the uploader High Contrast (talk) 16:21, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Trycatch (talk) 23:09, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
This is not the "own" work of the uploader High Contrast (talk) 16:21, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Trycatch (talk) 23:10, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
This is not the "own" work of the uploader High Contrast (talk) 16:22, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Trycatch (talk) 23:10, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
duplicate of File:Milos cristea.jpg Ionutzmovie (talk) 09:13, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
- Keep. The TIFF version is the original version in losslessly LZW-compressed archival format. See Commons:File types#TIFF. —LX (talk, contribs) 08:32, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
- Then delete the .jpg duplicate.Ionutzmovie (talk) 19:32, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
- Did you read Commons:File types#TIFF? The second sentence reads "[TIFF is] an archival format, and should never be used for images intended to be displayed." The JPEG is the display version. See also Commons:File types#JPEG. These files are not duplicates, and I fail to see what you wish to achieve by deleting one of them. —LX (talk, contribs) 05:24, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
- I understand, can someone close this deletion proposal? Thanks.Ionutzmovie (talk) 14:11, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
- Did you read Commons:File types#TIFF? The second sentence reads "[TIFF is] an archival format, and should never be used for images intended to be displayed." The JPEG is the display version. See also Commons:File types#JPEG. These files are not duplicates, and I fail to see what you wish to achieve by deleting one of them. —LX (talk, contribs) 05:24, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
- No problem. According to COM:DEL#Instructions for administrators, non-admins may close a deletion request as keep if they have a good understanding of the process, and provided the closure is not controversial. Since that seems to apply, I'll close it. —LX (talk, contribs) 15:25, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
Kept. —LX (talk, contribs) 15:25, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
- user request
- Español: "yo era el usuario y kiero borrar esa cuanta"
- English: "I am the user and I want to delete this page"
- (all per Cesarabad)
- Delete per request. — Jeff G. ツ 18:24, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. --Dferg (talk · meta) 10:10, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
Copyrighted logo of an organization - no explanation of how the uploader owns the rights to the image. Ytoyoda (talk) 03:01, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. — Tanvir • 04:39, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
- Keep and change to {{PD-textlogo}}. Those arches don't seem sufficient to afford copyright protection. —LX (talk, contribs) 08:13, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
per LX Kept. Mbdortmund (talk) 21:08, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
This category is an advitisement for a private company(AkihabaraMap Corporation). See akibamap.net. -Hohoho (talk) 06:23, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 23:28, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
This category is an advitisement for a private company(AkihabaraMap Corporation). See akibamap.net and category:Akibamap. -Hohoho (talk) 06:31, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
Keep Your point seems superficial and irrelevant. First of all, this media/category itself doesn't contain any advertisement. Second, the intention of introducing Akibamap is not the advertisement. To categorize hundreds of disordered media under Category:Akihabara, Akibamap was introduced as one of sub-categorization system based on location.
As you know, administrative area definition of Akihabara neighborhood is too complicated and not well fit to real towns (for example, "Akihabara, Taito" is not the electric town, etc), and street name in Japan is unreliable. Therefore we need more reliable area definition.
If you want to delete Akibamap, you should propose alternative sub-area definition. It may be reasonable request. --Chime (talk) 06:19, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
DeleteThank you for writing comment for me.
- First, you said that I should propose alternative definition. I would propose that we can use administrative area difinition of Akihabara neighborhood to categorize Akihabara area, for these are defined by major street, same as Akibamap.
- Category:Akibamap area A - Sotokanda 2, and Sotokanda 3
- Category:Akibamap area B - Sotokanda 4
- Category:Akibamap area C - Akihabara (Taito), Kanda-neribeicho, Kanda-Matsunagacho, Kanda-Aioicho(by Showa street)
- Category:Akibamap area D - part of Sotokanda 1, part of Kanda-awajicho 2, and part of Kanda-sudacho 2
- Category:Akibamap area E - part of Sotokanda 1, part of Kanda-sudacho 2
- Category:Akibamap area F - Kanda-hahaokacho, kanda-sakumacho1 , and part of Kanda-sudacho 2(by showa street)
This categorization is very neutral. And I (native Japanese) think that this categorization is not complicated, unlike you.
- Second, I don't agree your opinion, "this category is not advitisement.", for there are many kinds of maps on internet like "Akibamap".
ex.)
Why should we use a maps of AkihabarabaMap corporation among these maps? I think this categorization is not neutral.
Sorry for my poor English.--Hohoho (talk) 16:32, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
- Comment I've checked other maps provided by you, but I couldn't find any "area definitions" on these maps, except for "equal interval block" notation on the Otamap. For example, "A-1" on the Otamap means most northwest area on their map, but it doesn't fit to real town blocks. I think such block definition is not useful, because it's hard enough to categorize arbitrary media without GPS tag, and hard to find media by block.
- Therefore, I feel the needs for more clear "area definitions" which closely fit to real situations. Following is my proposal:
- Akihabara north-west blocks : Akibamap A & B areas, a heart of Akihabara culture (may be).
- definition: area located in the north of Kanda-Myojin Street and the west of JR Yamanote Line.
- Akihabara south-west blocks : Akibamap D & E areas, old good Akihabara electric town.
- definition: area located in the south of Kanda-Myojin Street and the west of JR Yamanote Line.
- Akihabara north-east blocks : Akibamap C area, including Akihabara (Taito).
- definition: area located in the north of Kanda-Myojin Street and the east of JR Yamanote Line.
- Akihabara south-east blocks : Akibamap F area, including newly re-developed area near TX and Yodobashi.
- definition: area located in the south of Kanda-Myojin Street and the east of JR Yamanote Line.
- --Chime (talk) 11:03, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
P.S. After a week, if any objection won't be submitted by other users, I'll put my proposal into practice. --Chime (talk) 05:33, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
- Comment Thank you for youre reply. Your new new proposal (north-east area...) is much more neutral and much better than old one (using Akibamap).
- But I still believe that we should use administrative area. These are officialy created (created by local government) and used widely.
- If I create new categories like
- and categorise many countries like
- Category:Germany is a subcategory of Category:Countries west to Ural mountains and Category:Countries north to Alps.
- Category:Spain is a subcategory of Category:Countries west to Ural mountains, but NOT a subcategory of Category:Countries north to Alps.
- Category:South Korea is NOT a subcategory of Category:Countries west to Ural mountains nor Category:Countries north to Alps.
- These (self-made) categorization would be accepted.
- You said,
''I think such block definition is not useful, because it's hard enough to categorize arbitrary media without GPS tag, and hard to find media by block.''
- ,but I think this problem will not be solved if you categorise photos using your new-proposed category, it is also difficult without GPS tag even if using your new-proposed categories.
- and you said,
''but it doesn't fit to real town blocks.''
- I(native-Japanese, living in Tokyo) don't think that real towns in Tokyo are divided by street.
- --Hohoho (talk) 09:47, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
- (added indent by Chime (talk) 16:10, 30 October 2010 (UTC)), (corrected quotations by Chime (talk) 16:24, 30 October 2010 (UTC))
- Your comment contains some misunderstandings.
- The aim of my new proposal is a sub-categorization by location under "Akihabara neighborhood" category. "Neighborhood" and "administrative area" are different thing. If you think administrative area is important, you can always categorize by yourself. But, don't interfere the neighborhood category, please.
- On my new proposal based on the Akibamap, GPS-tag are not always need to categorize media. In my experience, most photographs under Akihabara category contain always some hint to determine the location (i.e. signs, shops, exterior or interior of building, etc). If some media don't contain any location hints, these should be just left alone.
- --Chime (talk) 16:10, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. - category tree is completely empty - Jcb (talk) 23:28, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
This category is an advitisement for a private company(AkihabaraMap Corporation). See akibamap.net and category:Akibamap. -Hohoho (talk) 06:32, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
Keep Your point seems superficial and irrelevant. First of all, this media/category itself doesn't contain any advertisement. Second, the intention of introducing Akibamap is not the advertisement. To categorize hundreds of disordered media under Category:Akihabara, Akibamap was introduced as one of sub-categorization system based on location.
As you know, administrative area definition of Akihabara neighborhood is too complicated and not well fit to real towns (for example, "Akihabara, Taito" is not the electric town, etc), and street name in Japan is unreliable. Therefore we need more reliable area definition.
If you want to delete Akibamap, you should propose alternative sub-area definition. It may be reasonable request. --Chime (talk) 06:19, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
Delete Please see, Commons:Deletion_requests/2010/10/16#Category:Akibamap_area_A--Hohoho (talk) 16:33, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
Comment The rest of related discussions about Akibamap will be continued on Commons:Deletion_requests/Category:Akibamap_area_A. --Chime (talk) 11:33, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 23:28, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
This category is an advitisement for a private company(AkihabaraMap Corporation). See akibamap.net and category:Akibamap. -Hohoho (talk) 06:32, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
Keep Your point seems superficial and irrelevant. First of all, this media/category itself doesn't contain any advertisement. Second, the intention of introducing Akibamap is not the advertisement. To categorize hundreds of disordered media under Category:Akihabara, Akibamap was introduced as one of sub-categorization system based on location.
As you know, administrative area definition of Akihabara neighborhood is too complicated and not well fit to real towns (for example, "Akihabara, Taito" is not the electric town, etc), and street name in Japan is unreliable. Therefore we need more reliable area definition.
If you want to delete Akibamap, you should propose alternative sub-area definition. It may be reasonable request. --Chime (talk) 06:20, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
Delete Please see, Commons:Deletion_requests/2010/10/16#Category:Akibamap_area_A--Hohoho (talk) 16:34, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
Comment The rest of related discussions about Akibamap will be continued on Commons:Deletion_requests/Category:Akibamap_area_A. --Chime (talk) 11:34, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 23:29, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
This category is an advitisement for a private company(AkihabaraMap Corporation). See akibamap.net and category:Akibamap. -Hohoho (talk) 06:32, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
Keep Your point seems superficial and irrelevant. First of all, this media/category itself doesn't contain any advertisement. Second, the intention of introducing Akibamap is not the advertisement. To categorize hundreds of disordered media under Category:Akihabara, Akibamap was introduced as one of sub-categorization system based on location.
As you know, administrative area definition of Akihabara neighborhood is too complicated and not well fit to real towns (for example, "Akihabara, Taito" is not the electric town, etc), and street name in Japan is unreliable. Therefore we need more reliable area definition.
If you want to delete Akibamap, you should propose alternative sub-area definition. It may be reasonable request. --Chime (talk) 06:20, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
Delete Please see, Commons:Deletion_requests/2010/10/16#Category:Akibamap_area_A--Hohoho (talk) 16:34, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
Comment The rest of related discussions about Akibamap will be continued on Commons:Deletion_requests/Category:Akibamap_area_A. --Chime (talk) 11:34, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 23:29, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
This category is an advitisement for a private company(AkihabaraMap Corporation). See akibamap.net and category:Akibamap. -Hohoho (talk) 06:32, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
Keep Your point seems superficial and irrelevant. First of all, this media/category itself doesn't contain any advertisement. Second, the intention of introducing Akibamap is not the advertisement. To categorize hundreds of disordered media under Category:Akihabara, Akibamap was introduced as one of sub-categorization system based on location.
As you know, administrative area definition of Akihabara neighborhood is too complicated and not well fit to real towns (for example, "Akihabara, Taito" is not the electric town, etc), and street name in Japan is unreliable. Therefore we need more reliable area definition.
If you want to delete Akibamap, you should propose alternative sub-area definition. It may be reasonable request. --Chime (talk) 06:20, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
Delete Please see, Commons:Deletion_requests/2010/10/16#Category:Akibamap_area_A--Hohoho (talk) 16:34, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
Comment The rest of related discussions about Akibamap will be continued on Commons:Deletion_requests/Category:Akibamap_area_A. --Chime (talk) 11:35, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 23:29, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
This category is an advitisement for a private company(AkihabaraMap Corporation). See akibamap.net and category:Akibamap. -Hohoho (talk) 06:33, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
Keep Your point seems superficial and irrelevant. First of all, this media/category itself doesn't contain any advertisement. Second, the intention of introducing Akibamap is not the advertisement. To categorize hundreds of disordered media under Category:Akihabara, Akibamap was introduced as one of sub-categorization system based on location.
As you know, administrative area definition of Akihabara neighborhood is too complicated and not well fit to real towns (for example, "Akihabara, Taito" is not the electric town, etc), and street name in Japan is unreliable. Therefore we need more reliable area definition.
If you want to delete Akibamap, you should propose alternative sub-area definition. It may be reasonable request. --Chime (talk) 06:18, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
Delete Please see, Commons:Deletion_requests/2010/10/16#Category:Akibamap_area_A--Hohoho (talk) 16:34, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
Comment The rest of related discussions about Akibamap will be continued on Commons:Deletion_requests/Category:Akibamap_area_A. --Chime (talk) 11:35, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 23:29, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
better duplicate at File:Grigore Vasiliu Birlic.jpg Ionutzmovie (talk) 08:53, 16 October 2010 (UTC) Nevermind, the duplicate seems to be from other site.Ionutzmovie (talk) 10:57, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 23:32, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
This logo is the "coat of arms" of a character from works of J.R. R. Tolkien (The Lord of the Rings, the Silmarilion or some other). Those are literary works, and a work based on a literary description may not be copyrigthable (see Commons:Fan art). However, I'm not sure whenever that's actually the case, or if the coat of arms has actually been drawn somewhere, as the famous maps of middle earth Belgrano (talk) 13:20, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
- If the image is based on a verbal description, or based on a textual "blazon" according to the rules of traditional European heraldry, then there would be no copyright violation. However, if the image was closely based on a graphic by Tolkien, or on a graphic published in an edition of Tolkien's works, then there might be a problem... AnonMoos (talk) 14:48, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
Kept. - I found quite different coats, but no duplicate of this one - Jcb (talk) 23:38, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
I've more information from Harmonia Amanda. This logo is the "coat of arms" of a character from works of J.R. R. Tolkien. The coat of arms has actually been drawn in
- Pictures by J. R. R.Tolkien, Houghton Mifflin, octobre 1992, isbn 9780395606483,
- J. R. R. Tolkien: Artiste & Illustrateur, Wayne G. Hammond & Christina Scull, 1995, Christian Bourgeois
~Pyb (talk) 14:26, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
- Comment And? Is it a copy of an illustration, or is it a new rendition based off the book, in which case it's okay?--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:26, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
- It's a copy of a coat of arms drawn by Tolkien. The drawing is strictly identical. Sorry for my bad english. --Harmonia Amanda (talk) 22:46, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: per information provided. Copyvio. --Coyau (talk) 16:16, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
I'm not sure if this is the kind of screenshots we're willing to host. It contains non-free logos and the non-free Internet Explorer (though I don't know what 'Wine Internet Explorer' is) and it's for a personal desktop which can be replaced by a new user (e.g. guest) screenshot. OsamaK 16:20, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
- Wine Internet Explorer is part of Wine and thus free software. The HP and Google logo, and the username are indeed problems. I have replaced the screenshot with my version, which I suppose would be appropriate. --Xiaq (talk) 13:10, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
- I have only replaced the screenshot on Wikipedia so this request can live on... --Xiaq (talk) 13:13, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. - logos of HP and Google are ineligible for copyright, but some of the desktop icons may be copyrighted - Jcb (talk) 23:41, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
This is not the "own" work of the uploader High Contrast (talk) 16:21, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
- Indeed, the file description is incorrect. It appears to be a cropped version of http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/intersection/files/upload/2007/06/Yeymin.jpg by the United States Naval Research Laboratory, so it should be {{PD-USGov-Military-Navy}}, right? —LX (talk, contribs) 10:09, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
Kept. - per LX - Jcb (talk) 23:45, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
Multiple users are claiming this is a useless "exact duplicate". I would like a wider discussion, as I think it should be kept because it is in free format PNG, it is currently used over 288 times on many projects[6], it is helpful as a "lossless PNG of a photo for editing and archival" per COM:FT, it is not an "exact duplicate" (being in a different format and larger number of megabytes than the JPEG version), and it appears to be the largest square picture of the whole Earth available in free format PNG. — Jeff G. ツ 17:19, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
![[6]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:GlobalUsage&limit=288&target=The+Earth+seen+from+Apollo+17.png){kind=link}
- Delete - utterly useless, probable self-promotion of Jeff G, see File talk:The_Earth_seen_from_Apollo_17.png. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 17:27, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
- Kuipered again. For history, please see Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Archives/User problems 14#Pieter_Kuiper and Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Archives/Blocks & protections 6#Pieter_Kuiper_blocked_for_a_week. :( — Jeff G. ツ 17:51, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
- Delete - Inferior version of a featured picture. I don't see any reason to keep it. Please don't misquote people: no one is saying that its an "exact duplicate." The {{Duplicate}} tag also applies to a "scaled-down version" of another image. And this applies to this situation, because this image is an inferior version of File:The Earth seen from Apollo 17.jpg. Even if this PNG version has more MB, it is still a lot fuzzier. Since this image is in use, it should be bot-replaced with the jpg version.--GrapedApe (talk) 18:30, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
- Keep - lossless file converted from the original TIFF has inferior quality to the lossy? what a nonsense. This file should be kept for archival purposes, as usual in such cases. Trycatch (talk) 19:22, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
- No, the current version was converted from the jpg, according to file info. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:27, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
- Sorry, shame on me, I've already realised it, Delete, of course. Trycatch (talk) 19:34, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
- Sorry, shame on me, I've already realised it,
- No, the current version was converted from the jpg, according to file info. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:27, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
- Delete. There is no reason to prefer a bloated and inferior quality PNG when the original JPG exists. Bot replace, please. — Huntster (t @ c) 20:20, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
- Delete - A PNG made from a JPEG never brought back lost details neither improved quality. Sting (talk) 01:00, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
- I am asking NASA for the original TIFF (or a lossless PNG copy of it) in order to make this file better than the JPEG version. — Jeff G. ツ 03:06, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
- Delete - There is no reason to convert JPEG to PNG just because the latter is lossless. The "loss" has already been done in first JPEG creation. The other TIFF image from NASA simply looks worse, background is not even black. --Wanted (talk) 07:31, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
New image
[edit]
I have uploaded a new, higher-quality and higher-resolution image: apollo17_earth.tiff as contained by ftp://nssdcftp.gsfc.nasa.gov/photo_gallery/hi-res/planetary/earth/apollo17_earth.tiff.gz and losslessly converted to PNG using Paint.NET v3.5.5. None of the above votes apply to it (except for my keep, with most of the same reasons). I have also uploaded a higher-quality and higher-resolution JPEG image. — Jeff G. ツ 06:20, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
- Oh my, now one cannot see anything! And you wasted still more server space. Just leave the tiff the tiff. Delete this png. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 06:47, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
- And as this is used in so many projects, I will revert it. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 07:20, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
- Just because an image is higher resolution, does not automatically make it a better picture. Your new JPG may be from the original source, but it is poorly coloured and not really higher resolution...it just has more pixels and is thus fuzzier in appearance at full size. I'm strongly inclined to revert, as Tom's upload has much better processing, colour, and spot removal. Is anyone else strongly against such a reversion? — Huntster (t @ c) 07:37, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
- Actually, scratch that. I'm going ahead and reverting, as this is *not* the featured picture that was voted upon, and in my opinion is technically inferior. — Huntster (t @ c) 07:42, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
- On second thought, the folks at NASA must have done a lot of digital airbrushing in Photoshop to produce the image Tom uploaded (3,000 × 3,002 pixels, file size: 6.21 MB, MIME type: image/jpeg), but I do wonder about how/why they added the green dot. — Jeff G. ツ 14:36, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
- Go ahead, replace all the 288+ instances with File:The Earth seen from Apollo 17.jpg on all those projects. I wish you luck. — Jeff G. ツ 15:09, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
- That is what a bot will do; I will restore the {{Duplicate}} tag. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 15:12, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
- Given the time that has passed and no change in consensus, I've requested universal replacement of the PNG file by CommonsDelinker. — Huntster (t @ c) 18:02, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
- That is what a bot will do; I will restore the {{Duplicate}} tag. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 15:12, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
- Actually, scratch that. I'm going ahead and reverting, as this is *not* the featured picture that was voted upon, and in my opinion is technically inferior. — Huntster (t @ c) 07:42, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
- I still vote Delete. Delete this as being a duplicate of the featured jpg. Maybe upload the tiff, which has historical/archival value.--GrapedApe (talk) 13:48, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
- CommentI have examined the png and the jpg side by side at the pixel level and they appear very close to identical in the three places I examined. Since the jpg is one third the file size of the png, I suspect that it will be the image of choice for most people. It should certainly be the image in use on WMF projects, since bandwidth is an issue. I'm not sure, however, that I would bother to delete the png -- since we don't actually delete files, it saves nothing, and some users might prefer the format. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:17, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
Newer image
[edit]
I submit File:The Blue Marble 4463x4163.jpg for your consideration as a replacement for File:The Earth seen from Apollo 17.jpg. This is now the highest resolution good scan of this photograph that I've seen, better than any at http://eol.jsc.nasa.gov/scripts/sseop/photo.pl?mission=AS17&roll=148&frame=22727. — Jeff G. ツ 16:11, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
- Seems like a good "original" version to keep, but I still believe File:The Earth seen from Apollo 17.jpg is of higher quality and remains the more preferable version. The green limb of Earth in the new image is rather distracting, and at full resolution, the new image is quite a bit more grainy than the older jpg. The new image certainly has educational value, but for general purposes, I believe the jpg remains superior. Like I said before, higher resolution does not always equate to better quality. — Huntster (t @ c) 17:50, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
Too confusing
[edit]
This deletion nomination is simply too confusing, and I suggest it be withdrawn. A 25 MB PNG was uploaded over an existing 18 MB one and shortly after the uploader nominates it for deletion? The 25 MB image is then reverted to the 18 MB because wikimedia would not display the thumbnail. I repeat my plea that users try hard not to upload over existing images. Use a separate file name, as has been suggested. Otherwise I would probably "!vote" keep if there was a PNG converted from a TIFF. I generally favour keeping all NASA images regardless of quality because I have seen historical images disappear or get photoshopped on the NASA site. But converting a JPEG to a PNG seems pointless unless the PNG is then modified in some way before uploading. -84user (talk) 12:08, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
- This situation is relatively simple: the original NASA TIFF file is over-inflated and definitely not of extremely high quality, so the (minorly) lossy transfer to JPG is not a problem, and makes the file much easier to use downstream. To that extent, the PNG file here is redundant. It has no technical superiority over the JPG, and as Jeff G points out, he has hand-massaged the file to make it look better, so it isn't even the original archive version of the image. At the very least, I would suggest the Jeff G. version be deleted, reverting it back to the original version by Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason, which was what was nominated, and passed, as "Image of the Day" on two wikis. At most, and preferrably (in my opinion), it should be entirely deleted as superfluous to the JPG, which a redirect to the JPG inserted in its place so that the existing users of the image don't get a redlink. The original NASA archive version can then be uploaded under a separate filename in the name of preservation. In any case, consensus here seems very clear, and something should be done. — Huntster (t @ c) 22:10, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
- I followed proper escalation procedures:
- 15:14, 16 October 2010 (UTC) I uploaded a new version, then did some work on the image description page.
- 16:25, 16 October 2010 (UTC) GrapedApe (talk | contribs) tagged it as "{{duplicate|File:The Earth seen from Apollo 17.jpg}}".
- 16:49, 16 October 2010 (UTC) I undid the previous edit, including 'not an "exact duplicate"; only inferior for some uses' in my Edit Summary. In retrospect, I should have escalated to a DR as a disputed speedy instead. I'm sorry I didn't.
- 16:52, 16 October 2010 (UTC) Pieter Kuiper (talk | contribs) undid the previous edit, including 'useless duplicate' in the Edit Summary. In retrospect, Pieter should have escalated to a DR as a disputed speedy instead.
- 17:19, 16 October 2010 (UTC) I started this DR because I was disputing the speedy deletion attempts.
- — Jeff G. ツ 17:31, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 01:18, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
Totally out of COM:SCOPE 79.223.158.185 10:17, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
- Delete I agree.--Giorgiomonteforti (talk) 17:47, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
Oppose. I not. ☼alofok☼ 20:02, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
Kept. In use in dewiki on a userpage and on a humorous page. . Blacklake (talk) 10:09, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
No encyclopedic usage possible. XenonX3 (talk) 21:12, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
Kept, for the second time. It's in use, therefore encyclopedic use is possible. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:46, 23 October 2010 (UTC)