Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2010/10/21
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
|
|
.PNG){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
Old LCAG (talk) 08:52, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted by Reinhard Kraasch: Exact or scaled-down duplicate: File:LCAG LOGO aktuell.jpg
I can't edit the page I up-loaded it with errors,,I want to re-upload this Material.Yes I created the Material Im pigmydmm on youtube 72.95.231.4 09:43, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted by Túrelio: Uploader request: Commons:Deletion requests/File:2.White_Boy_&_Nerdy_jpeg.jpg: I can't edit the page I up-loaded it with errors,,I want to re-upload this Material.Yes I created the Material Im pigmydmm on youtube
duplicate of File:Blackhawks 2010-11 season opener - Oct 9, 2010.jpg Connormah (talk | contribs) 23:21, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
- Speedy closed: {{Duplicate}} used instead. — Huntster (t @ c) 03:16, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
fixing malformed DR, no idea for the reason of deletion. Amada44 talk to me 16:26, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
Speedy Deleted. Copyvio Amada44 talk to me 14:49, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
User:Heldergeovane
[edit]Cleaning my user page Helder 15:29, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted by Túrelio: Cleaning my user page
Unclear original author Shiningjz (talk) 19:30, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted by Herbythyme: Copyright violation
.PNG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.PNG&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
The file name is wrong. My mistake. The White Lion (talk) 20:54, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
.PNG){kind=link}
Deleted by Túrelio: (incorrectly named) duplicate of File:Italy (March 1860).PNG
.PNG){kind=link}
Out of scope --Banfield - Amenazas aquí 00:30, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
Keep In use. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 17:34, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted by Sanbec: Promotional content
The permission given at http://www.cyclingfilms.de/presse.html is IMHO not free enough for Commons, because it does not stipulate anzthing about modifications and commerical use. ALE! ¿…? 12:13, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
- Keep, it explicitly mentions CreativeCommons: Attribution-ShareAlike 2.0 Germany (top of the page [1]). –Tryphon☂ 12:48, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
- Keep: I second Tryphon: If an explicit CC-BY-SA license is given we do not need to question it. The freedom of modifications and commercial use is granted through this license. I suggest to retract this DR. --AFBorchert (talk) 13:00, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Indeed, it is difficult to understand this nomination or the earlier tagging. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 13:30, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
- Keep "CreativeCommons: Attribution-ShareAlike 2.0 Germany"; ausdrücklich hier zu ersehen. --High Contrast (talk) 19:57, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
this is a image that i used a long time ago and no need of this image anymore it an school band that broke up i put up this image a long time ago and it should not be on Wikipedia please delete this image and thank you if you delete this image i dont think the band still wants this image on here. Cameron E. Tyler (talk) 05:19, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
- Keep It's in use on the English Wikipedia. We do not do courtesy deletions of images in use.--Prosfilaes (talk) 05:04, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
Comment - Please use colons on your talk page and convince Shaun to take it off his page. Thank you. — Jeff G. ツ 06:24, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
Delete I would lean toward keep on principle, but I note that this is probably out-of-scope as the band has no notability. It was not actually in use -- it showed up that way because the file was listed twice on the user's WP:EN talk page as [[File:The_Second_Appocolypse.png]] (without the preceding colon). I've added the colons and it now shows up as unused. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:37, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 14:08, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
Untrustworthy license tag. I don't believe at all that the user has the copyright of the diploma, that was awarded to the company the user writes about in Czech Wikipedia. The purpose of upload was to provide a source for an information, and this purpose was substituted with a media article link. -Okino (talk) 01:59, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
Untrustworthy license tag. I don't believe at all that the user has the copyright of the diploma, that was awarded to the company the user writes about in Czech Wikipedia. The purpose of upload was to provide a source for an information, and this purpose was substituted with a media article link. --213.108.160.62 07:59, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:33, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
I want to change the User name to Pigmydmm Deneyes (talk) 10:25, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
- Please see Commons:Changing username. Thank you. — Jeff G. ツ 23:04, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
non-free logo Ionutzmovie (talk) 15:47, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
- Delete: far too complex for {{PD-textlogo}}. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 19:39, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. ZooFari 02:32, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
Outside the project scope. Encyclopedic use is not thinkable. High Contrast (talk) 17:53, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
- Rock on! Nope ... Delete. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 19:43, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. ZooFari 02:31, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
Uploader is attempting to use this picture on Matt Bomer (actor) article on Wikipedia - it's hard to believe that it's Bomer - no indication of how this picture was taken or where Bbb23 (talk) 00:46, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
- Comment. Apparently, the picture is Bomer, but I still question whether the uploader took the picture and therefore owns the copyright. I found the picture on this website.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:26, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
- Comment The picture was taken by Brian Bowen Smith for Houston magazine. The Houston website says "Copyright © 2010 Modern Luxury Media. All rights reserved". Superboi (talk) 12:48, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
- Delete per Superboi. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 17:36, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
We are Matt Bomer's publicist, this is the standard headshot we use for all submissions. Please stop changing it. Thank you. ViewpointPR (talk) 18:15, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
- Delete: the image is definitely of Bomer (I recognize him from White Collar!), but unless ViewpointPR sends a sufficiently convincing e-mail to OTRS indicating that they are Bomer's PR company and that they have obtained sufficient rights from Modern Luxury Media to license the image to the Commons (or that they are in fact the copyright holders of the photograph), the image has to go. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 19:30, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:27, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
i put up this image on my old account and i have no need for the image i lost the old account to this image but please delete it it sould not be on wikimedia commons it is a person from a school band a year ago that broke up thank you. Cameron E. Tyler (talk) 02:28, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. — Jeff G. ツ 06:20, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
a image i put up a while ago of an real person and i have no need of the image. The Second Appocolypse (talk) 22:01, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
- We heard you the first two times. — Jeff G. ツ 03:50, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:28, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
COM:DW. FOP does not apply. 78.55.248.101 05:36, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
.JPG){kind=link}
- Delete, also applies to this source image (unless cropped to the model only). --PaterMcFly (talk) 15:52, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
- Delete both this image and the source image. Agree with PaterMcFly about the possibility of saving the source image by cropping it so that only the model plane is shown. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 19:34, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:30, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
.JPG){kind=link}
Screen caption, no eveidence of the uploader being the holder of the movie copyright. Elekhh (talk) 06:10, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
- Delete "Captura de una telenovela." /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 17:40, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Trycatch (talk) 14:05, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
Copyrighted logo of an organisation. No sufficient evidence that the uploader represents that organisation and is entitled to release the logo as PD. OTRS confirmation required. Latebird (talk) 08:16, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
- Delete: and too complex for {{PD-textlogo}}. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 19:37, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:33, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
resolution too low, and redundant to File:Thad W. Allen.jpg, File:ThadAllen.jpg Benchill (talk) 09:54, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. --Elekhh (talk) 23:42, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:36, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
The poem was copyrighted writed by Chao_Yuen_Ren died in 1982, So any translates about this poem are infringement of copyright. Sysywjel (talk) 15:10, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
Also seeCommons:Deletion requests/File:施氏食獅史.oggSysywjel (talk) 21:53, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
- Delete I believe we've deleted this before, though I can't recall if it was here or at Wikisource. In any case, it's a modern poem and still under copyright.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:47, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:37, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
No encyclopedic usage possible. ireas :talk: 15:23, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
- Run, rabbit, run! Delete. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 19:38, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
- behalten eine schlechte Qualität ist kein löschgrund.--87.161.192.210 15:47, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
- Verfehlung des Projektrahmens jedoch schon. Oder wie willst du diese Datei „edukativ“ verwenden? --ireas :talk: 16:06, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
- behalten eine schlechte Qualität ist kein löschgrund.--87.161.192.210 15:47, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted.
Generally we do not keep low quality images when we have many others -- more than 75 in this case of the subject. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:39, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
The work is signed "E D d.j.". Without a death year, there is no basis for saying that the author died more than 70 years ago. Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:51, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
- Keep. "E.D.d.j." is Emil Doepler der Jüngere (1855–1922)[2] Lupo 09:49, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
Kept. Trycatch (talk) 14:02, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
Signed "diez" - without a death year, there is no basis for PD-Old-70. Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:53, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
- Julius Diez died 1957. And yes, that's his signature. It's not "Diez" or "IVI Diez": read the first three letters as Roman letters, and it becomes "Iul. Diez" (I-U-L; Latin had no "J"), i.e. Julius Diez. For confirmation of this signature, see e.g. [3]. Lupo 17:19, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
Delete that is good detective work Lupo. Too bad it is not PD yet. --Jarekt (talk) 03:06, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Trycatch (talk) 14:20, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
No FOP in the United States. BrokenSphere (Talk) 18:05, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. 1994 US American sculpture. Trycatch (talk) 14:28, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
High probability of being a copyright violation Resolute (talk) 23:56, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
- This image shows up in a few places across the net, eg here. Editor failed to respond to a query as to whether they are the photographer at en: [4]. Resolute (talk) 23:59, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Trycatch (talk) 14:17, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
Modern Italian stamps appear still to be under copyright Luigi Chiesa (talk) 19:41, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:43, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
Probably fair use at the wiki it was uploaded. MGA73 (talk) 21:30, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
- I can't really read the license tag in the source, but I think it says "FOP" not Fair use. --PaterMcFly (talk) 07:48, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. THere is no FOP in Lithuania. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:46, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
Cant see a educational use for this image... GeorgHH • talk 22:26, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
- Delete: Commons not a personal file server. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 19:45, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:46, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
File:50_eurocent_postage_stamp_of_Luxembourg,_2005,_motif-_Jean-Pierre_Pescatore,_assented.jpg
[edit]
No evidence modern stamps of Luxembourg are in the public domain. Maidonian (talk) 23:38, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:53, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
No evidence modern stamps of Luxembourg are in the public domain. Maidonian (talk) 23:38, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:53, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
No evidence modern stamps of Luxembourg are in the public domain. Maidonian (talk) 23:39, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:53, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
No evidence modern stamps of S. Korea are in the public domain. Maidonian (talk) 23:43, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:54, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
serial copyright violator from en.wp Magog the Ogre (talk) 22:46, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted. Trycatch (talk) 15:18, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
COM:DW, no FOP (apparently taken in France) PaterMcFly (talk) 15:51, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
- Delete. Agree with PaterMcFly about the possibility of saving the image by cropping it so that only the model plane is shown. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 19:34, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
If only the poster in the background is problematic, the version I've just uploaded should be ok; otherwise delete the picture. As there is now another one with a real XP-1 and without a deletion request, it's not that important anymore.--Seadart (talk) 08:43, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Masur (talk) 09:32, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
"Unknown woman - we´ll find out" - probably violating personal rights! 4028mdk09 (talk) 05:00, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
- Keep: see "Commons:Photographs of identifiable people#Photographs taken in a public place". Image passed Flickr review. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 19:33, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
| CommonsDelinker: Replace File:null with File:null across all Wikimedia projects. |
was replaced by svg version (File:Anti-Socialist-Symbol.svg) Thiemo Schuff (schuff.eu) (talk) 14:57, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. — Jeff G. ツ 16:46, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
- Delete better quality version exists. Reubot (talk) 05:43, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Wknight94 talk 23:15, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
it's a fake, because it's taken o a movie set with a mask Borja60 (talk) 11:40, 4 October 2010 (UTC) --Borja60 (talk) 11:41, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
- I don't understand this nomination. Please explain. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:26, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
- I,am an actor http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1672212/ this picture was taken on the set from "Robert Zimmermann wundert sich über die Liebe" that's not me, thats the role "Regiesseur Fritteur" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Borja60 (talk • contribs) 02:11, October 21, 2010 (UTC)
- OK, but I still don't understand. It is a photograph of you, Boris Naujoks, while you are in makeup for a role -- is that right? (You use the word "mask" in the first comment, but I assume that it is not a literal mask.) Why shouldn't we keep the image with a description, "Boris Naujoks in the role of Regiesseur Fritteur"? Isn't that correct? Or do I not understand? Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:23, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
ok, It will be done. "Boris Naujoks in the role of Regiesseur Fritteur in "Robert Zimmerman wundert sich über die Liebe" --Borja60 (talk) 17:13, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
Kept. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:48, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
Files of User:Neithan777
[edit]- File:Neithan 3.JPG
- File:Lucho y elis2.jpg
- File:Elis stuff happens 2.jpg
- File:Neithan cumple martin.jpg
- File:Neithan 33.JPG
- File:Pelado guitarra.JPG
- File:Trio pingocho.JPG
- File:Sutff.jpg
All pictures out of scope. Commons isn't a website to host personal photos. --Banfield - Amenazas aquí 00:36, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
Closing the DR, all files have been deleted by others. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:23, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
Likely copyright violation Svgalbertian (talk) 05:58, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
Comment The version of File:Calgary_Crest.png uploaded by User:Avala, and then used to make the derivative work File:Calgary Crest.svg, is an exact copy of the logo used by the city of Calgary. For example zoom in the top right corner of this PDF. The first version of File:Calgary_Crest.png, is actually a PNG version of File:Calgary_Crest.jpg by Tyson2k. The first version is also likely a copyright violation, due to the images poor quality and the uploaders history with non-photographic media.--Svgalbertian (talk) 06:48, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 17:28, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
Possible copyright violation Svgalbertian (talk) 07:07, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
Comment The white hat contained in the flag is highly sylized and could be copyrightable by the City of Calgary. History on the flag here.--Svgalbertian (talk) 07:14, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
Keep The official history was at The City of Calgary: Welcome%20to%20Calgary - Flag per http://web.archive.org/web/20080608191651/http://www.calgary.ca/portal/server.pt/gateway/PTARGS_0_2_104_0_0_35/http;/content.calgary.ca/CCA/City+Hall/About+Calgary/+Welcome+to+Calgary/Welcome+to+Calgary.htm#flag, but I don't see evidence that the 1983 creators of the flag, Yvonne Fritz and Gwin Clarke, contributed it to the public domain or using any sort of free license, or that (referring to COM:L#Canada) publications of the City of Calgary acquire Crown copyright. COM:L#Canada basically says 50 years pma for non-photographs when the authors are known. There is the prior art issue, however, with the white hat on the Flag of Calgary. Morris Smith (an ignorant immigration officer's name[5] for the company's creator Morris Shumiatcher, who was in business in 1919 (not w:Morris Shumiatcher, born 1917), created the white hat for Smithbilt Hats in 1926 (per Smithbilt Hats and Smithbilt Hats Ltd. custom hatter since 1919 in Calgary, Alberta Canada. - About Smithbilt Hats), which forms the basis for the stylized white hat in this file, and he died in 1958 per Smithbilt Hats and The Shumiatcher Saga, by Brian Brennan, Calgary Herald, March 8-10, 1997, so images of Calgary-related white hats per se went out of copyright at the end of 2008 because their creator, Morris Smith, died in 1958. — Jeff G. ツ 10:27, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
- Comment: A white stetson hat is not what can be copyrighted, but the highly sylized drawing of it seen on the flag could be. The city uses that drawing for other purposes, for example it is the favorite icon for calgary.ca.--Svgalbertian (talk) 17:18, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
Comment: The flag itself is also protected by trademark, application number 0900281 --Svgalbertian (talk) 17:47, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
Kept. Jcb (talk) 17:33, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
derivate work of a copyrighted lighting. This image is not de minimis: "if the photograph was taken deliberately to include the poster [the lighting, W.], there is likely to be copyright infringement, and it is no defence to say that the poster [the lighting, W.] was 'just in the background'. If the existence of the poster [the lighting, W.] was the reason the photograph was taken in the first place, copyright infringement cannot be avoided by additionally including within the frame more of the setting or the surrounding area. If the existence of the poster [the lighting, W.] makes the image more attractive, more usable, or liable to cause more than insignificant economic damage to the copyright owner, then a de minimis defence to a copyright-infringement action will probably fail." —Wuzur 12:05, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
- Comment see also previous discussion. —Wuzur 12:12, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
- Keep per en:Eiffel tower#Image copyright claims seems to give more reliable information about French law than a quote from an article about "de minimis". /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 14:57, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
Kept. Nothing new since last DR. Yann (talk) 19:46, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
This image has a warning that it is protected by copyright because it is a copyrighted image of a building in France, but that the image is allowed if it's an "accessory compared to the main represented or handled subject". In this case, the Eiffel Tower at night (see also our own page on the Eiffel Tower, which describes the copyright situation). The image is named starting with "Eiffel Tower", has the Eiffel Tower in the center, its description starts by mentioning the Eiffel Tower, and it's used in the page on the Eiffel Tower, all of which implies that the Eiffel Tower is not a minor part of the picture. Therefore the image is a copyright violation. (Worse yet, the image has annotations which frame the Eiffel Tower, something which the copyright notice specifically says we are not allowed to do.) You might be able to get away with using this as a picture of the Seine, but it can't be used as a picture of the Eiffel Tower. 208.65.89.204 08:14, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
- To clarify:I now see the old deletion discussion. The old deletion discussion ended by pointing out that the picture is okay if it's a larger area and isn't mainly a picture of the Eiffel Tower. The problem is that the name, description, usage, and one of the annotations of the picture all basically imply that it is mainly a picture of the Eiffel Tower.
- It's also probably legal as fair use (though it seems strange that we'd use EU law to decide that the picture is copyrighted and then bring in American ideas of fair use). 208.65.89.204 08:23, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
- Delete, sadly. Let's be honest, this image was shot (and is used even on :en) to show the illuminated Eiffel tower. --Túrelio (talk) 09:44, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
- Keep. This image has already survived two deletion discussions. The last one was closed with "Nothing new since last DR." There still is nothing new. -- Asclepias (talk) 20:28, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
- In the previous discussions, nobody brought up that the way the image is named, described, presented, annotated, and the articles in which the image is used all indicate that the main subject is the Eiffel Tower. Given this, the claim that the image is okay because it's not mainly about the tower is a blatant lie. 208.65.88.133 04:55, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
- Delete The Eiffel tower is in the dead center of the image and is named in the title. It's simply the main feature of this image, even composed with the Seine.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:45, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Agreed, it's the main feature of the image. Funny that the image is used to illustrate the copyright ruling on enwiki. Hekerui (talk) 12:06, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
- Keep per first time; this is the third time around now. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 12:54, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
- The second time got two mentions and I have to wonder if it was even properly listed. The only person who said either delete or keep last time was you, so it wasn't much of a discussion.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:08, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
- If you want to discuss specifically French case law, there is the decision about postcards of Category:Place des Terreaux that went against Daniel Buren. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:30, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
- And I'm having trouble finding anything copyrighted by him in our pictures of Place des Terreaux, much less his work being the main focus.--Prosfilaes (talk) 15:11, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
- The whole square: the pavement, the fountains, the stone blocks, the stone columns, and in this connection especially: the lighting. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 15:45, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
- And I'm having trouble finding anything copyrighted by him in our pictures of Place des Terreaux, much less his work being the main focus.--Prosfilaes (talk) 15:11, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
- If you want to discuss specifically French case law, there is the decision about postcards of Category:Place des Terreaux that went against Daniel Buren. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:30, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
- The second time got two mentions and I have to wonder if it was even properly listed. The only person who said either delete or keep last time was you, so it wasn't much of a discussion.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:08, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted - clearly a major part of the image. -mattbuck (Talk) 18:53, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
Restored. No copyright on ordinary light. Yann (talk) 16:03, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
(a) Uploaded for use in hoax article en:Alexander Chain on enwiki, now deleted (b) copied from http://www.antiquehelper.com/catalog.php?id=174&page=20 (item 295) JohnCD (talk) 09:51, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
- It's a 19th century painting, likely PD-old, but is it out of scope as not notable? It sold for $21,000, so someone likes it ;-) Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:35, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
Neutral It's PD in the US, but who knows about life+n countriesand {{PD-RusEmpire}}. Everything we know about it is "Russian 19th Century portrait of a young man, nobility/aristocracy?, in fur trimmed dressing gown; oil on canvas; 24" x 18 1/2"; signed in Cyrillic lower right." and I don't see where that has any sort of educational use; I don't believe we have any problem finding Russian oil portraits of nobility from the 19th century. (I wish we could get a hold of the buyer/would-be buyer--I bet they knew something about this the sellers didn't.)--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:53, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
- Change vote--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:11, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
- Comment One the one hand, it's very likely free, definitely PD in the U.S. and as a 19th century work also PD in the source country with {{PD-RusEmpire}}. However, it needs to be renamed to reflect that the name is unknown. One can definitely argue it should be deleted for having no realistic use for an educational purpose. Hekerui (talk) 12:11, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
- It is historical artwork, and that selling price (way about the listing price) screams to me that there's something here that the sellers and us are missing.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:11, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
Kept. Jcb (talk) 17:37, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
C:\Documents and Settings\pc bureau\Mes documents\Downloads\quentin gourillon\arme et moi.jpg GOURILLON (talk) 16:10, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
- Errr.... What is the deletion rationale? --PaterMcFly (talk) 07:44, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
Bonjour, comme je l'ai écrit dans ma demande de suppression : le titre n'est pas bon, etc Cordialement, Quentin
Kept. Jcb (talk) 02:18, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
Je souhaite supprimer cette photo, car j'y suis dessus et qu'elle n'est plus d'actualité. Pouvez vous la supprimer rapidement s'il vous plait? Merci d'avance. Cordialement, Quentin GOURILLON (talk) 12:20, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
- Can somone translate that? thx--Sanandros (talk) 02:55, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
- I believe he's asking that this be deleted because it is an old photo of him. The rationale for the previous deletion request was that the title was bad. The title means "a weapon and me" or "me with gun". Rybec (talk) 01:15, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY (TALK) 21:54, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
Description is self-portrait of an painter who died 1988, but source is own work and author User:Evachristina. Ö 16:26, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
- Keep At upload it said "Photo: Eva Oldinger". /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:36, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
- Delete It's still copyrighted unless the uploader is now the copyright holder, which we can't assume, and releases it - we miss evidence for that, which should be sent in via OTRS. Hekerui (talk) 13:25, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 02:19, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
- Cause Kazak borders are very strange. Place on the north of Ural river never been in Kazakstan: "Карта ложная! Земли севернее реки Яик (Урал) никогда не входили в Казахское ханство. Вообще северная граница Казахского ханства нарисована очень вольно!" thanks IlshatS (talk) 14:09, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
- Ilshat, you not correct! Ну почему? Казахи всегда кочевали по реке Жаик (в русской интерпретации Яик, потом переименован в Урал) и по Иртышу (казахское название Ертiс). К тому же первой столицей Казахской ССР был Оренбург, стоящий на северном берегу Жаика! А северная граница кочевого ханства нарисована, конечно, приблизительно до лесостепи, до земель сибирских татар, так как казахи скот пасли в степной зоне и пограничных столбов тогда не ставили:))). Но, к слову, башкир там точно никогда не было, их земли западнее Уральского хребта по реке Белой (Агидель). Поэтому непонятна твоя обида! User:MaratD
Казахское ханство.png
[edit]
Fake map --94.232.27.8 02:23, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
Kept, file is in use and thus within project scope. Kameraad Pjotr 21:10, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps, file was scanned from the magazine, etc. If not, it's must be a better quality. --const_st 19:05, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 02:22, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
