Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2010/11/09
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
|
|
No educational vlaue, out of scope. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:18, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
- Weak keep. Photos of common objects properly described and categorized can be in scope. It shows a drain, and is properly categorized that way. -- Infrogmation (talk) 19:45, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Kept. in use = in scope -- Common Good (talk) 20:01, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
"Sirene cheese" is a simple common people's name for this specific type of Bulgarian cheese. The correct professional name of the product is "White Brine Cheese". I've already precategorized the media, so this cat could be speedly deleted. Иван (talk) 11:38, 9 November 2010 (UTC) Иван (talk) 11:42, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
If it is a common name, other people may look for it under that name as well. I have turned it into a category redirect to the "correct professional name". -- Infrogmation (talk) 19:29, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
We have consistently deleted YouTube screen shots for copyvio Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:43, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, derivative of non-free content. Infrogmation (talk) 19:31, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
duplicate Reinhardhauke (talk) 16:25, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Exact or scaled-down duplicate: File:VCJohnDavidFrancisShaulGrave.jpg. Please use {{Duplicate}} next time. -- Common Good (talk) 20:04, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
English: Copyright watermark. Very low resolution. Español: Marca de agua de derechos de autor. Muy baja resolución Mecamático (talk) 23:41, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
- Copyvio: http://portafolio-fotografico.blogspot.com/2008/03/catedral-de-san-salvador.html Mecamático (talk) 08:19, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
Delete please either mark something for speedy deletion or nominate it for regular deletion, not both.--Prosfilaes (talk) 09:41, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted by Túrelio: Copyright violation: http://portafolio-fotografico.blogspot.com/2008/03/catedral-de-san-salvador.html
useless Reinhardhauke (talk) 16:53, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Keep SVG version of File:Lipid bilayer fluid.png (in use at de.wp). Simply crop surrounding white space. -- Common Good (talk) 20:14, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
- This is the vector version of the PNG file, so it is in principle a better alternative.
I'll have a look at cropping the file.I cropped the file. --olenz (talk) 21:28, 9 November 2010 (UTC) - After I have successfully cropped the image, I now use the SVG version rather than the PNG version in de:Biomembran. Therefore, I would suggest to keep this image and instead delete the PNG version File:Lipid bilayer fluid.png. --olenz (talk) 09:38, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
- This is the vector version of the PNG file, so it is in principle a better alternative.
Repeated file Leonprimer (talk) 05:38, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Speedly Kept. These are 6 various stamps of Russia. The preface and 5 cities: Belgorod, Kursk, Orel, Polarny, Rzhev. Printed as one block, has EV --George Chernilevsky talk 08:33, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
Low quality COM:PORN 92.225.234.84 06:32, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
- Delete It's hardly pornographic. In any case, it's a low quality picture from a driveby uploader, so delete.--Prosfilaes (talk) 13:22, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
- Delete First time I agree on Prosfilaes! --Yikrazuul (talk) 16:34, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
- Delete per Profilaes and Yikrazuul. Commons has enough self-penis photos that there is no need for more that are in poor focus and show no notable anatomical feature not already illustrated better in other photos. Infrogmation (talk) 19:18, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Info template {{nopenis}} is useful for this contributions --George Chernilevsky talk 08:44, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Out of scope, poor quality --George Chernilevsky talk 08:44, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
better fotos exists Reinhardhauke (talk) 15:39, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
- Keep This is a nice photo; not the greatest or most distinctive, but it shows the area in a light and at an angle those other other photos don't.--Prosfilaes (talk) 16:27, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
- Keep per Prosfilaes. Nothing wrong with this photo. Having multiple photos of notable buildings is not a problem. Infrogmation (talk) 19:34, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Kept - Lack of valid arguments against keeping it. –Krinkletalk 18:51, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
No educational vlaue, out of scope. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:20, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Per nom. --Yikrazuul (talk) 16:46, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted per nom. --George Chernilevsky talk 13:59, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
out of scope, userpage about to be deleted in MFD Secret (talk) 02:55, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 13:50, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
no source, not used or categorized since 2008, out of scope 4028mdk09 (talk) 04:47, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. out of project scope, poor quality George Chernilevsky talk 13:52, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
vandalism Reinhardhauke (talk) 15:40, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Neutral It is in no way, shape or form, vandalism. It's of questionable value, but it could be used on a user page, and so far the author has had less then two hours to put it there.--Prosfilaes (talk) 16:25, 9 November 2010 (UTC)- Delete Private purpose, poor qual...--Yikrazuul (talk) 23:13, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. out of project scope, poor quality George Chernilevsky talk 13:54, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
useless Reinhardhauke (talk) 17:11, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
- Delete useless--Symposiarch (talk) 17:21, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
- Delete There doesn't seem to be any data there.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:29, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. George Chernilevsky talk 14:06, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
useless Reinhardhauke (talk) 17:14, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
- Delete useless--Symposiarch (talk) 17:22, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
- Delete There doesn't seem to be any data there.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:29, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. George Chernilevsky talk 14:06, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
Apparently out of COM:SCOPE. Photo of no one in particular which is used nowhere. Uploader's only contribution. Wknight94 talk 18:05, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 13:59, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
unused private image - out of scope (no identification of county or whatever possible, only edit of this user) Cholo Aleman (talk) 21:12, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 14:01, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
unused private image - not really a very good quality, nearly useless - out of scope Cholo Aleman (talk) 21:18, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 14:02, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
unused private image - out of scope Cholo Aleman (talk) 21:24, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 14:03, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
unused private image - far out of scope Cholo Aleman (talk) 21:33, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 14:04, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
only black Reinhardhauke (talk) 15:34, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
- Delete It's not black; I don't know why our thumbnail is showing it as such. There's a huge chunk of non-JPEG data attached; I'm guessing some sort of Postscript. All of which is really irrelevant, because the source is Anglepoise Brochure 2010, and there's no evidence they gave permission.--Prosfilaes (talk) 16:44, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
- The picture is taken from Anglepoise brochure 2010, which is freely accessible on the internet. Doesn't it implicity mean they gave permission to use the photos? --Jeff000000 (talk) 14:37, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
- Delete - no evidence of permission, http://www.anglepoise.com/ says "©2009 Anglepoise", plus it shows as all black in any resolution below 2040 pixels wide - compare http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/thumb.php?w=2039&f=Anglepoise_Type3.jpg to http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/thumb.php?w=2040&f=Anglepoise_Type3.jpg. — Jeff G. ツ 17:37, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Common Good (talk) 20:09, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
useless Reinhardhauke (talk) 17:17, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Common Good (talk) 20:03, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
Out of COM:SCOPE and unused. No apparent use for this image of text. Replaceable by the text itself. Uploader's only contribution. Wknight94 talk 17:52, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Common Good (talk) 20:07, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
Used in selfpromotional iw-spam, together with the rest of his portraits Morten Haugen (talk) 05:43, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
- Info deletion debate on Polish Wikipedia has started, hold on or leave best quality one. A.J. (talk) 16:36, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted by Masur: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Zbigniew Wasiel.jpg: used in selfpromotional iw-spam by SPA
vandalism Reinhardhauke (talk) 16:22, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
- Delete vandalism--Symposiarch (talk) 17:16, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
- No, this is not vandalism. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:05, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted by EugeneZelenko: Missing essential information: source and/or license: since November 9, 2010
see Commons:Deletion requests/File:WB 77-Sex Pistols promo (video).jpg, still copyrighted Secret (talk) 00:55, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:11, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
see Commons:Deletion requests/File:WB 77-Sex Pistols promo (video).jpg, still copyrighted Secret (talk) 00:56, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:11, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
Just completing an incomplete deletion request, quote:
- Modern works of art, date of the artist not given either. (User:Gryffindor 2010-11-08T04:40:49)
End of Quote. --JuTa (talk) 01:55, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
- Delete This is a modern panorama painting/diorama. Work started in 2005 and was completed in 2008. See here (click "English", "About"). FOP in Turkey does not seem to apply indoors. Also delete File:1453panorama1.JPG, File:1453panorama2.JPG, and File:1453Panorama4.JPG. Lupo 10:14, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:13, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
This picture is taken from the site of Moscow Conseravtory: http://93.95.103.181/person.aspx?p_pageAlias=Person&person_id=8854 It is not proved that the uploader has a right to do so. Andrei Romanenko (talk) 04:44, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
The source page now shows a 404 error, but the site has (c) notices on its pages. Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:23, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
wrong licence, not used or categorized since 2008, description missing 4028mdk09 (talk) 05:02, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:25, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
May violate personality rights, no consent of depicted persons is evident – please verify compliance. dealer of salvation 06:49, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Comment What is the violation of personality rights? Appears to depict people walking on a public street during a notable event. Infrogmation (talk) 19:23, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
- Hi, I'm not claiming to make a legal judgement, and I don't know if it matters whether the file is legal by German and Austrian jurisdiction, but I have reasonable doubts that this file complies to German and Austrian law. It's explained in de:Recht am eigenen Bild, I unfortunately don't have an English version at hand, but the relevant points are: The depicted persons are identifiable, they are probably not "persons of contemporary history", e. g. the mayor of the flooded town, and they are probably not just incidentally on the picture, although the latter may be a question of personal judgement.
- I came across this file reviewing an edit at de.wikipedia removing it from an article[1], and I believe it does in fact not comply to de.wikipedia policy. If you decide the picture does comply to Commons policy, would it be OK to put a Template:Personality rights on it, and to create an alternative version with the faces blurred and to upload it on Commons? --dealer of salvation 05:20, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
Different laws in different countries. Commons:Photographs of identifiable people is clear that in Germany we need consent of any identifiable person who appears in an image (there may be an exception for notable people, but even if there is, these people do not fit it.) Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:29, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
no Freedom of Panorama in Belgium Esby (talk) 09:10, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:30, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
uploader created a message on the en file talk page saying "no permission for person's appearance". Processing deletion request here as a courtesy. Magog the Ogre (talk) 09:39, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
- Just blur the person and then keep. -- 92.227.148.131 05:52, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
No need to blur the person -- see Commons:Photographs of identifiable people. This image is in use, therefore, Kept. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:32, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
Minutes before this upload the uploader on en.wp uploaded a non-free picture already, see upload log. I dont believe that in the short time he suddenly found a photo that he created himself, this is not own work. Martin H. (talk) 11:11, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:33, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
It's not PD-Own; there's no real author listed, and it's only 75 years old, making it clearly in copyright in the US and no evidence that it's out of copyright in Spain Prosfilaes (talk) 11:49, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
- Agree to the nomination, Delete. Furthermore I would say that the book author has to be assumed as an author or at least an co-author (e.g. Art. 6. of Spanish copyright) unless there is a proof that he is not an (co-)author of the map. That book author is, as far as I can say from google search according to publications of other geography works in the 1940s, possibly not dead for 70 years. --Martin H. (talk) 13:20, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:34, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
see COM:PEOPLE, infringement of personality rights of depicted persons, obviously no permission to publish picture --Vanellus Foto (talk · contribs) Correct malformed DR. Captain-tucker (talk) 15:56, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
- Keep it was taken in a public place, so no permission is needed.--Prosfilaes (talk) 16:21, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
- Keep it was taken in a public place, Nora Tschirner is an actress, the boy is not very good to see.--Symposiarch (talk) 16:41, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
- Delete seems also to be some private photo, educational use hard to imagine--Antemister (talk) 19:15, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
- It's in use once on the German Wikipedia, and twice on the French. As COM:SCOPE says, we don't second-guess other projects if they claim something is in education use by using it.--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:33, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
- Keep The people shown are clearly willingly posing for the photograph. One of the people shown is notable, having articles about her in multiple language Wikipedias; this is one of only 3 free licensed photos of her we have and shows her in a different context than the others. Image is in use in multiple project pages. Infrogmation (talk) 19:37, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Kept. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:36, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
useless Reinhardhauke (talk) 16:49, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
- Delete useless--Symposiarch (talk) 17:18, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:38, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
useless Reinhardhauke (talk) 16:54, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:38, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
only white Reinhardhauke (talk) 16:55, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:39, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
useless Reinhardhauke (talk) 16:58, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
- Delete useless--Symposiarch (talk) 17:19, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:40, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
useless Reinhardhauke (talk) 16:59, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:40, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
useless Reinhardhauke (talk) 17:00, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:40, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
useless Reinhardhauke (talk) 17:05, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
(c) notice on source site. Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:41, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
It's not a free NASA photo, but a copyrighted image from Gagarin Cosmonaut Training Center Ras67 (talk) 17:08, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:42, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
useless Reinhardhauke (talk) 17:10, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Undescribed orphan since 2007; no in scope usefulness evident. Infrogmation (talk) 19:42, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:43, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
no permission Reinhardhauke (talk) 17:19, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:53, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
useless Reinhardhauke (talk) 17:21, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Some type of fall protection/climbing equipment. -- Common Good (talk) 20:24, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Good illustration of a sling. Better than the ones at that article, so it is now in use. Kept. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:59, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
useless Reinhardhauke (talk) 17:24, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:08, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
No description, no use, does this image have a purpose? Kenmayer (talk) 17:27, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:09, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
useless Reinhardhauke (talk) 17:28, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:09, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
useless Reinhardhauke (talk) 17:30, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Marshland in Divišov. There is no reason to delete this file. -- Common Good (talk) 20:43, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Kept. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:09, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
useless Reinhardhauke (talk) 17:33, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Martín Basso is clearly in scope. Poor quality, but no better image available. -- Common Good (talk) 20:33, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
In use, therefore Kept. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:11, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
duplicata Reinhardhauke (talk) 17:44, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
It is my own foto, I agree with the deletion, version 2463 is better !--GFreihalter (talk) 18:01, 9 November 2010 (UTC) --GFreihalter (talk) 18:01, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:13, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
Out of COM:SCOPE and possible copyvio. All of uploader's contributions are strange little useless doodles like this, and one is a blatant watermarked copyvio. Wknight94 talk 18:01, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:19, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
Likely copyvio. Uploader's other contribution is a blatant watermarked copyvio cartoon. Wknight94 talk 18:02, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:20, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
Looks like a screenshot copyvio. Alakasam (talk) 18:02, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:21, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
Out of COM:SCOPE and possible copyvio. Unused anywhere and no apparent use. Uploader's other contributions are strange little useless doodles, and one is a blatant watermarked copyvio. Wknight94 talk 18:03, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:20, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
Out of COM:SCOPE and unused anywhere. Apparently a personal photo of some guy outside. Wknight94 talk 18:07, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:22, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
instituto universitario de estudios mexico SERGIOHDZ2 (talk) 19:28, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
- soy el representante legal de esta institucion educativa, solicito sea eliminada esta informacion ya que perjudica en gran manera lo que realmente es nuestra univerdad, mi telefono es 019616136769
- delete - out of scope - Jcb (talk) 20:41, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:43, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
It's a scan of a copyrighted work (a stamp) — Yerpo Eh? 19:32, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
- I scanned this file for one User, who wanted file of this art only for his article. I did not know, that it shall be deleted. If must, let you delete it. --Stebunik (talk) 07:03, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:45, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
I doubt US Air Force is the author, the source says image is copyrighted Avron (talk) 20:18, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Although it does not directly bear on this DR, the source site appears to be copied, without attribution, from a version of North American B-25 Mitchell in the 11/2008-6/2009 period. See Talk:North American B-25 Mitchell#Copyyio? Use without credit? The source does not give a source for this image, so USAF is a guess. Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:55, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
This file is wrong because it has been photoshopped on the top to give a squared shape, instead of the original round shape. It is misleading, because actually the painting is NOT like that. I tried to upload a new version of the file selecting one of the best in the cetegory, such as File:Raffaello - Spozalizio - Web Gallery of Art.jpg, but the .png format (png??) doesn't allow to do it. The picture should be cancelled then replaces with the oethr one.. I don't know if it's easier to use the Duplicate template. --Sailko (talk) 20:34, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
- Keep I don't see the big deal. There's a note saying it's been modified from File:Raffael 098.jpg, and it's like any other crop of an image, up the editors to pick whether they need the whole painting or just the crop.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:11, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
- Delete If you had watched the images carefully, you had noticed it's not a crop, it's a personal, non-sense reconstruction, out of project scope. If you lok at it carefully, you'll see the author built the top of the dome, which Raphael never painted, and the sky at the sides, eliminating the round shape. Since I found it in many wikipedias, it was often misunderstood with the real painting, while it's just a personal reinterpretation, like this. --Sailko (talk) 15:52, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
-
Original painting -
Yorck project picture
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
![112 File:DB-Werbung_1980er_Jahre_"Alle_reden_vom_Wetter._Wir_nicht.".jpg](#File:DB-Werbung_1980er_Jahre_"Alle_reden_vom_Wetter._Wir_nicht.".jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
Cropping is one thing, but adding material to an old master seems to me out-of-scope. Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:02, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
logo of a professional football team. Miho (talk) 20:33, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
- Keep per COM:FOP#The Netherlands, compare File:P1000871Ingang NAC Stadion.JPG. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:39, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
FOP appears to apply here. Kept. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:05, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
Copyrighted image from www.clickresendecosta.com (see watermark in this file). André Koehne TALK TO ME 21:46, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:06, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
Derivative Work from [2] and/or [3]. --JuTa (talk) 22:38, 9 November 2010 (UTC) (I'm completing an incomplete DR without given reason of User:Hyju at 2010-11-09T10:57:58)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:12, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
A higher quality image exists (see: File:POL powiat tczewski COA.svg) CZmarlin (talk) 23:37, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:13, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
and other uploads by Harthunter (talk · contribs). Unlikely to be own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF. EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:31, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Blatant copyvio from http://www.flickr.com/photos/yasirnisar/2234874792/, will check the other uploads. --Martin H. (talk) 12:23, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
unused private image / montage - offense for both people in the image - out of scope Cholo Aleman (talk) 21:15, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
- Delete agreed.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:42, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Out of scope. Pruneautalk 18:15, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
??? Out of scope. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 10:51, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. per nom George Chernilevsky talk 11:07, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
??? Out of scope. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 10:51, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. per nom. George Chernilevsky talk 11:05, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
??? Out of scope. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 10:52, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. per nom. George Chernilevsky talk 11:05, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
Self made grafitti -- not notable artist -- educational value? Out of scope Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 10:54, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Per nom, no EV George Chernilevsky talk 11:00, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
Self made grafitti -- not notable artist -- educational value? Out of scope Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:08, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Per nom. No EV George Chernilevsky talk 10:58, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
Art? Creation? from non notable artist. No educational vlaue, out of scope. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:12, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. per nom George Chernilevsky talk 10:55, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
No educational vlaue, out of scope. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:13, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. per nom George Chernilevsky talk 10:56, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
No educational vlaue, out of scope. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:14, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. per nom. George Chernilevsky talk 10:54, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
No educational vlaue, out of scope. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:15, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. per nom. George Chernilevsky talk 10:53, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
No educational vlaue, out of scope. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:16, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. per nom. George Chernilevsky talk 10:52, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
No educational vlaue, out of scope. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:21, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. per nom.George Chernilevsky talk 10:57, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
Personal photo? NO ID of people or place. Out of scope without more information. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:45, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Agreed. COM:NOT, and moreover, given the uploader's other images (mostly now deleted), there's a possibility that he/she may not be the actual copyright holder. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 16:52, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Out of project scope.George Chernilevsky talk 12:22, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
No permission, not notable, out of scope. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:46, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Indeed. No permission and not realistically useful for educational purposes without some notability. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 16:49, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Out of project scope. George Chernilevsky talk 12:23, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
useless Reinhardhauke (talk) 16:47, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
- Delete useless--Symposiarch (talk) 17:17, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. George Chernilevsky talk 12:24, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
see COM:PEOPLE, infringement of personality rights of depicted persons, obviously no permission to publish picture --Vanellus Foto (talk · contribs) Correct malformed DR. --Symposiarch (talk) 16:54, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
- Keep I find it inconceivable that you could say there was "obviously" no permission. It's not a terribly private place, and those photographed are not doing private things.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:23, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
- Keep I'm inclined to agree with Prosfilaes, although not so strongly. It looks to me they are learning on the job. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:52, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
- Keep I'm employee of this child aid orginazation, named Aktion Tagwerk/Human Help Network. That's on of our projects in Angola. In the broadest sense you can say, thats property of that organization. Sure - that isn't our real property. But that training school was build with money of our campaign. Well, that give us the right to take photos of OUR project. No deletion. ZeitenWandel 11:35, 25. November 2010
Kept. George Chernilevsky talk 12:26, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
redundant - File:Iowa 681.svg is better for consistency purposes Bitmapped (talk) 00:07, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
- KeepThe two are different -- the fonts are different and the numbers are larger relative to the circle in this one versus the Iowa example. Before deleting we need to know if the actual signs are identical and which of these is correct. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:54, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
- The Series B font from the Iowa shields is more common, although there are are sometimes variations in actual usage. The Iowa version is what is used by the standard Jct template on en.wiki. Bitmapped (talk) 17:27, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
Kept. Jcb (talk) 17:23, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
redundant - File:Iowa 659.svg is better for consistency purposes Bitmapped (talk) 00:07, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
- KeepThe two are different -- the fonts are different and the numbers are larger relative to the circle in this one versus the Iowa example. Before deleting we need to know if the actual signs are identical and which of these is correct. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:55, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
- The Series B font from the Iowa shields is more common, although there are are sometimes variations in actual usage. The Iowa version is what is used by the standard Jct template on en.wiki. Bitmapped (talk) 17:27, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
Kept. Jcb (talk) 17:23, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
redundant - File:Iowa 635.svg is better for consistency purposes Bitmapped (talk) 00:08, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
- KeepThe two are different -- the fonts are different and the numbers are larger relative to the circle in this one versus the Iowa example. Before deleting we need to know if the actual signs are identical and which of these is correct. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:55, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
- The Series B font from the Iowa shields is more common, although there are are sometimes variations in actual usage. The Iowa version is what is used by the standard Jct template on en.wiki. Bitmapped (talk) 17:27, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
Kept. Jcb (talk) 17:23, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
looks like a promo picture, no exif data, no source, not self licenced grillo (talk) 00:17, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
- Keep It's been around since 2005, which explains some of the metadata not being present. It doesn't particularly look like a promo picture to me, and at this point, I think it better to give it the benefit of the doubt.--Prosfilaes (talk) 12:44, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
- Comment The version here is also quite large, published april 2010, no attribution to wikipedia; I don't know. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 15:44, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
- I have no doubt they stole it from us. Go back one and look at the Newton; that is clearly a copy of File:Newton-IMG 0320.JPG, uploaded by Rama. Behind that is the CD-I, and there's no question in my mind that it's a cleaned up version of File:Philips CD-i.jpg, which seems to be the source of most of the CD-i images on the net.--Prosfilaes (talk) 16:20, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
- Unless it was taken with an analog camera and scanned, there's no reason not to have exif data. All of my 2004 uploads have exif data if they were taken with my own camera (example, image first uploaded on svwp in December 2004). Do some old cameras not include exif data? /grillo (talk) 06:08, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
- Comment I take no position on this image, but in response to grillo's comment, none of my 480+ uploaded images, taken with a Nikon D1 and a Nikon CoolPix 2100, and post-processed with Corel PhotoPaint 10 have EXIF data. Neither older cameras nor older software support it. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:10, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
Kept. Jcb (talk) 17:27, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
Jose_Alfredo_Sanchez_13.jpg Eduardoalvarracin (talk) 02:06, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Uploader request, no reason given. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 15:52, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
- Por que? Ud es autor del foto? In use. Infrogmation (talk) 00:43, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
PORQUE EL NOMBRE DE LA IMAGEN NO CONCUERDA CON EL CONTENIDO Eduardoalvarracin (talk) 03:53, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
- Eso no es una razón para borrarla. Mire: Commons:Normas de borrado Commons:Renombrar un archivo. Infrogmation (talk) 05:36, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
Speedy kept. Thinking the title is not descriptive enough is not a reason for deletion; images can be renamed. Infrogmation (talk) 05:36, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
Just completing an incomplete deletion request, quote:
- Category:Bagrationi and Category:House of Bagration are the same categories. See en:Bagrationi dynasty, en:House of Bagration is redirect to the main article. (User:Geagea 2010-11-08T00:55:13)
End of quote. --JuTa (talk) 02:18, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
- The category is not empty, so this is not a housekeeping cleanup. Let's hold this until it is empty. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:16, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
Kept. - closing for now, please repeat your request after transfering the content - Jcb (talk) 01:46, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
Just completing an incomplete deletion request; quote:
- foto without sens (User:Reinhardhauke 2010-11-08T19:09:59)
End of quote. --JuTa (talk) 03:23, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
- Neutral On one hand, it looks like such a specific animation that unless it's in use, it never will be. On the other, it's in Romanian, and may be more clear and useful to someone who reads that language.--Prosfilaes (talk) 13:00, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 01:53, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
Just completing an incomplete deleteion request; quote:
- useless (User:Reinhardhauke 2010-11-08T20:30:24)
End of quote. --JuTa (talk) 03:53, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
- Neutral it's not currently in use, so it's mildly out of scope, but it strikes me as something that could be useful in the future.--Prosfilaes (talk) 13:20, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
I am the photographer of this photo & I know I did have this photo under shair alike at the time, but the person of whom owns the room does not want this image on the internet! Thank you. Frankieerose (talk) 12:46, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
- OK then, do I have some time for seaching of the similar image? In best way I'd like to have at least 20 days because of my business trip. Thank you in advance! KirNata (talk) 14:15, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
- I'd say keep, at least until a good replacement can be found, because it's in use. And since nothing in the image gives away the identity of the owner of the room, I don't see how their privacy is violated. –Tryphon☂ 15:35, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
- [this post was replaced after blanking by User:Frankieerose] Keep Keep Per Tryphon. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 18:04, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
Yes that is fine I'll wait till you can find a replacemnt, I'd just like for it to be deleted as soon as you can. Thank you. Frankieerose (talk) 12:46, 6th October 2010 (UTC) <nowiki>Insert non-formatted text here</nowiki>
I'd really appreciate if you could please delete this image now. I've waited over 20 days! Frankieerose (talk) 09:03, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
- I've put my keep above, but I'd like to make it stronger. This image was uploaded to Commons under a license that is not revocable. Occasionally, as a favor to users, we will remove such images if asked, but policy does not favor such removal and we very rarely remove an image that is in use elsewhere in the WMF project.
- User:Frankieerose has abused our process both by blanking my Keep above and by starting a second DR while the first one was still open. I've cleaned up both of those things, but I see no reason to do a favor for this user.
- User:Frankieerose has abused our process both by blanking my
- Since the owner of the room is not identified in any way -- and the original Flickr upload is gone -- there can be no special reason not to keep this. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 10:39, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
- Perhaps we should delete this simply because the uploader has problems with it and because of the promise to seek for a replacement. --Mbdortmund (talk) 23:40, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
When I google my name this is the first image that comes up & I'd really like it not to be. Can you please just remove it. Please! it invades my privacy. I know I had it under share alike, & that I gave the right for people to reuse it, really I don't mind you using the image but I'd rather my name not come up with it. I just hate that it comes up when my name is Googled. I can come up with a compromise If you could just use my flickr name 'frankie_green' rather than my real name than I'd be fine with that. Just so it doesn't come up when I/People google my name... Thank you. Frankieerose (talk) 14:03, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
- I understand your problem now. It probably comes from the Comment field in the upload history. I've re-uploaded the same image, so if an administrator can delete the first version, it should make your name disappear from the page entirely. –Tryphon☂ 07:51, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
Done The change in a Google search will not happen immediately -- it depends on when Google's web-crawler next sees the file -- but it would not happen any faster if we deleted the whole file. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:11, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
Delete Looking at the picture it does look like quite a personal picture of a private space. Though no physical person is portrayed I can see how the "subject" might feel their privacy has been invaded. I doesn't seem an irreplaceable image and I think the ,oral thing would be to delete it. --Simonxag (talk) 23:33, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
Guys, I'm very sorry - due to my production I had not chance to attend the conversation and/or find a replacement. So what is the current status? Is requester happy at this moment or the image is still to be replaced? Frankly speaking I'd prefer to Keep it, at least for a while - fast flickr search doesn't return image with the same subject, quality and licence. I've found and uploaded an image that potentially can replace current one, so at least I have temporary replacement (after it is comfirmed by flickrbot), but it is quite small-sized - so it is not the best image to be replaced with. But if User:Frankieerose insists on deletion and if community agrees with him - we have at least something for replacement. Regards, KirNata (talk) 10:18, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Kept. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:39, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
This image still comes up when my name it googled. (It has been almost a month) Could you delete it completly then re-upload under Frankie_green? Or do you really need to use this image anyway? like one person is using it. Couldn't you just delete it? It's not like it is an essential part of the persons page... Frankieerose (talk) 09:30, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Keep The problem is not with our image, it is with Google. Google does not -- can not -- update its index immediately. You will have to wait for it to clear out of their files with time. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 10:59, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Can't you just simply delete it. Frankieerose (talk) 05:35, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
- As I explained above, deleting it will not change your problem with Google at all. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:05, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
Yes it will. Because the image would no longer be available if it was deleted. It would come up blank until Google updates. I'd rather that than this image sill being linked to my name. Frankieerose (talk) 12:01, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
- No, Google caches pages. It will come up on Google until Google clears it out. We cannot help you. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:27, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
This is my photo. My rights and I want you to delete it. Its simple. If someone asked me to simply delete their image that 'they took' I'd do it no questions asked. Why do you have to be so difficult? and what you're saying is wrong. I've had someone delete my image from wiki commons previously and the image no longer came up. The link directed to wiki saying something along the lines of "the image is no longer available..." That's all I want. Could you please just delete it!! I don't believe it's taken this long just to do something so simple. Frankieerose (talk) 12:55, 12 November 2010 (UTC) Kept. - no valid reason for deletion - Jcb (talk) 02:10, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
MIsidentified - the photo is of the much more common Coenagrion puella Chuunen Baka (talk) 10:52, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
- Suggest relabelling and renaming. It is a good image. Finavon (talk) 20:17, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Kept. renamed File:Coenagrion puella 2.jpg Captain-tucker (talk) 20:21, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
Non-notable grafitti, out of scope Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 10:53, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
- With no description nor indication of location nor context, no in scope usefulness evident. Delete per nom. Infrogmation (talk) 19:25, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Captain-tucker (talk) 20:26, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
Logo of non notable company, various viloations, see, among other things http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Taj_Pharmaceuticals Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:26, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Likely wrong license, too. Edgar181 (talk) 22:56, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Nothing to tell us that uploader has permission for this web photo. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:58, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 11:51, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
questionable source, artifacts look like captured from TV/video Denniss (talk) 13:50, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
- The film company sent permissions to OTRS. Jcb (talk) 14:42, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
{{PermissionOTRS|2010110910008294}}
Kept. Jcb (talk) 17:19, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
There is no FOP for interior art work in Germany, therefore this infringes on various copyrights Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:04, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 11:53, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
There is no FOP for interior art work in Germany, therefore this infringes on various copyrights Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:05, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 11:53, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
No source at mlwiki Vssun (talk) 14:42, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
- Keep this is not a sufficient reason for deletion..as its having proper license and all the details..--Kalarickan | My Interactions 14:52, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
- The author information was not present at mlwiki (only licence was present) and the image was under the category of lacking source. Users may please verify this before moving images to commons. --Vssun (talk) 15:43, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
- Author is available as Vssun & Bluemangoa2z, so how this user problem came..??. This image is quite perfect on commons with all the informations--Kalarickan | My Interactions 19:48, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
- The export bot taken the uploader as author. --Vssun (talk) 06:49, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
Kept. - please AGF for this kind of pictures. ML.wiki didn't delete it either in the past three years - Jcb (talk) 11:56, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
and other uploads by Rv630 (talk · contribs) originated from school # 86. No evidence of permission. EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:43, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 17:54, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
Useless. Reinhardhauke (talk) 17:06, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
- It is a big size pond created by one great rishi of India, Swami Swarupananda Paramhansa Deva during the year 1916-1926 and abolish water problem in that area (Pupunki, India). A big ashram establish there. Now keep it or not it hardly matter to me. Joy Guru.minikuti
- Comment Where is this? Jharkhand? Add information and category indicating location, and I think this would be fine to keep as in project scope. Infrogmation (talk) 19:07, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 17:57, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
see COM:PEOPLE, infringement of personality rights of depicted persons, obviously no permission to publish picture --Vanellus Foto (talk · contribs) Correct malformed DR. --Symposiarch (talk) 16:51, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Is the child identifiable? Maybe by his mother, but not me. Is it a public place -- looks like a school -- is that a public place in Rwanda law? Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:48, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
- Keep I'm employee of this child aid orginazation, namen Aktion Tagwerk/Human Help Network. That's on of our projects in Rwanda. In the broadest sense you can say, thats property of that organization. Sure - that isn't our real property. But that school was build with money of our campaign. Well, that give us the right to take photos of OUR project. No deletion. ZeitenWandel 11:35, 25. November 2010
Kept. Jcb (talk) 14:10, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
error Reinhardhauke (talk) 17:18, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
- Neutral There's a bug in the Wikimedia software; what else is new? The interesting fact is once you look at the original, it's a very nice 1933 topographical map; does this fall under some exception, or do we have to delete it?--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:36, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Annoying DR, but this was probably published in Berlin, and the cartographers' names are written on this map. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:54, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
- Neutral If this were US or UK, it would certainly be produced by the government. Is that the case here? Does that help us keep it? Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:29, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Julo (talk) 08:45, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
reason 1: The painting in the back is from an living painter (born 1950) so not free; Reason 2: given the description, the person in front had explicit disagreed to the uploader of publish this picture. So, it has to be deleted. Quedel (talk) 17:44, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
- Delete the painting is problematic, as is the picture taking in a private place without permission. Does it really say that he explicitly disagreed? Google Translate seems to say that his agreement was not present, which is slightly different.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:27, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, there stands: „Professor Kopietz has disagreed with publication of this fotograph at this time.
ToIn case of a possible lawsuit from him,thereI, the wikipedian Knipser[1], will see this with calm.“ - It's not a well translation, but is as near to the original as possible [to the translator].
- The Google Translation isn't usable (I tried this for a good translation into english, but it doesn't work.) So yes, he active disagreed and is it not meaning, that there ist only a missing permission. --Quedel (talk) 09:42, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
- Amendments on translaton added in italic. [w.] 13:13, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, there stands: „Professor Kopietz has disagreed with publication of this fotograph at this time.
- Keep -- Being the photographer, I note the following:
- "Copyvio" for the background could be accepted. I meanwhile contacted the artist of the painting in the background on this issue. Unless the artist disagrees on publishing, I do not see any reasonable argument on
- some Austrian politician's personal vanity.
I took this photograph in front of the background requested by portrayed Mr. Kopietz, and IMO it should not prevent the file from being published that the portrayed politician does not appear on this shot as the sunnyboy he'd much like to seem.
Please give a reasonable delay for the painter's answer. [w.] 10:45, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
- We have to delete without the artist's permission, and ought to be filed in OTRS, too. As for his opinion, COM:PEOPLE says "The consensus on Commons (subject to any local law to the contrary) is that the subject's consent is not usually needed for a straightforward photograph of an identifiable individual taken in a public place, but is often needed for such a photograph taken in a private place."--Prosfilaes (talk) 10:48, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
- Well, I am not sure whether according to rules a public office, which in this case is Mr. Kopietz's office in en:Rathaus, Vienna is "private space", especially if the photographer was invited to shoot (as was the case).
- After the shooting, some secretary just replyed on the files which were transmitted to them on 2010-09-03, that they were "poorer than expected, therefore disliked by Mr. Kopietz."[2] up to now. On OTRS/pending, I'll set the tag, soon. (Done) [w.] 11:02, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
- Please note also that thisone artist provided the "Donauinselfest" advertisment's artwork for several years: http://www.schoellerfineart.com/gallery/gallery-special.html
[w.] 13:53, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
- Two issues: 1) The painting. It's clear, that at this point no agreement from the artist is given. Waiting till a lawsuit is opened at many other nearly situated pictures isn't that, what we will want here. That the artist made many pictures for the Donauinselfest is not a reason, because for posters he has a contract and surely became money for this - here not. 2) Mr. Kopietz not want to be the pictures published. It isn't interesting if he ask you to take the photos. As de:Recht am eigenen Bild (Right of the own picture) says: „Bildnisse dürfen nur mit Einwilligung des Abgebildeten verbreitet oder öffentlich zur Schau gestellt werden.“ (I'll try my best: „Images may only with the consent of the depicted be distributed or publicly exhibited.“) - so without an active agreement no publication. --Quedel (talk) 01:58, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
Notes
[edit]
- ↑ "Knipser" refers to someone photographing on an amateur level, with poor equipment
- ↑ In German: "Die Fotos wurden nicht so gut wie wir erwarteten, ...".
English: "Photographs are not of expected quality"
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:15, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
The used license {{PD-RO-Symbol}} does not apply to this photograph because it is no idea, theory, concept, scientific discovery, procedure, working method, or mathematical concept as such and invention, contained in a work, whatever the manner of the adoption, writing, explanation or expression thereof. It is no official text of a political, legislative, administrative or judicial nature, and official translation thereof. It is no official symbol of the State, public authority and organization, such as armorial bearings, seal, flag, emblem, shield, badge and medal. There are no means of payment. It is no news and press information. And this is not a simple fact and data. Chapter 10 Article 85 Paragraph 2 does not apply here as well. In short there is no evidence for public domain for this file. Images by the Romanian military are not automatically in the public domain. 80.187.102.111 18:29, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
- Similar image taken from forter.ro (both sites belong to the Romanian MOD):http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Laromxl6.jpg . I think the whole website is for press information, it has news and official press releases. I'll email defense.ro to ask for official permission to avoid further issues. Mircea87 (talk) 22:51, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
- There seems to be a valid OTRS ticket. Do you have the permission to upload all images from defense.ro? --High Contrast (talk) 12:55, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
- The permission is for all pictures on the defense.ro photo gallery, as long as the photographer is mentioned and the link to the website is present. I've also sent an email to mapn.ro which has hi-res pictures in comparison to defense.ro, but the confirmation email was not that clear and I've sent another email with a clear model for a response. Mircea87 (talk) 17:14, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
- There seems to be a valid OTRS ticket. Do you have the permission to upload all images from defense.ro? --High Contrast (talk) 12:55, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
- I've received an email from the Romanian MOD to use the pics from defense.ro. Once I get the OTRS number, I'll edit the info. Sorry for the trouble. Mircea87 (talk) 14:22, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
- Keep There seems to be a valid OTRS-permission now. --High Contrast (talk) 14:55, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
- Keep I confirm the validity of the OTRS ticket. As far as I'm concerned, the discussion can be closed.—Andrei S. Talk 10:08, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
Kept. Confirmed OTRS ticket Captain-tucker (talk) 21:15, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
Basel isn't in Germany, not a German amtliches Werk. sугсго 20:21, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Delete Indeed, this is clearly a non-free image, as well as the other uploads by User:Re probst with source "Bilder-Datenbank des Kantons Basel-Stadt". In my opinion, the PD-GermanGov tag used by the uploader wouldn't even apply if this were a photograph from Germany, as PD-GermanGov is only applicable to images that are "part of a statute, ordinance, official decree or judgment", not any images taken by an employee of the German government (PD-USGov applies more widely). Anyway, this is not a German image. So, the question is whether Template:PD-Switzerland-official could be applied - and the answer is no, it can't, see the template text. Furthermore, the copyright statement at the Bilder-Datenbank des Kantons Basel-Stadt where the images were taken from is not compatible with Wikimedia Commons, as it permits only non-commercial use. So, please delete this image and the numerous other "Bilder-Datenbank des Kantons Basel-Stadt" uploads by this user. Gestumblindi (talk) 20:43, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
The following request has been sent today Verwaltung des Kantons Basel-Stadt und der Einwohnergemeinde Basel (http://www.bs.ch):
Guten Tag
Ich möchte mich höflich erkundigen, ob Sie es den ehrenamtlichen Autoren der wikipedia (http://de.wikipedia.org) gestatten, dass einzelne Bilder aus der "Bilder-Datenbank des Kantons Basel-Stadt" auf commons.wikimedia (http://commons.wikimedia.org) damit diese in das wikipedia-Projekt eingebunden werden können. Selbstverständlich würde dies unter Nennung der Quelle, des jeweiligen Fotografen und Aufnahmedatum stattfinden. Auch soll das verwendete Foto in einem direkten Zusammenhang zum jeweiligen wikipedia-Artikel stehen.
Im voraus herzlichen Dank für ihre Antwort.
René Probst --Re probst (talk) 13:01, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
- So geht es leider nicht, René. Auch wenn die Verwaltung positiv antworten sollte: Wikimedia Commons akzeptiert nur Bilder unter einer freien Lizenz, d.h. solche, die von Weiternutzern auch ausserhalb der Wikipedia frei und auch kommerziell (je nach Lizenz natürlich mit Namensnennung) weiterverwendet werden dürfen. Eine Anfrage müsste also eine entsprechende Lizenz erbitten. Am besten würdest du eine Anfrage schicken, in der darum ersucht wird, dass der Rechteinhaber eine Erklärung gemäss folgender Textvorlage an die dort angegebene E-Mail-Adresse schickt: Einverständniserklärung für Bild/Foto-Freigaben. Gestumblindi (talk) 13:42, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
Keep with {{PD-Switzerland-photo}}. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 07:04, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
Delete it is a blatant copyright violation - the tag "no individual character" is nonsense. --85.4.251.15 17:00, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
- Pieter Kuiper's suggestion is interesting, as apparently many photographs that would be certainly copyrightable in other countries aren't protected in Switzerland, see en:Swiss_copyright_law#Lack_of_originality - the photo en:File:Christoph Meili 1997.jpg is in the public domain in Switzerland, the Swiss Supreme Court says, because it lacks individual character. However, it is rather unclear what constitutes enough of "individual character" for copyright protection in Switzerland, see the "Marley" example, which is copyrighted. So, we don't know how the Bundesgericht would judge in the cases discussed here - maybe the choice of lighting, taking of the photo at a certain time of day which produces certain shadows etc. would be "individual character" enough, as opposed to the bland Meili image. Gestumblindi (talk) 20:21, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
- IMHO, the photo has surely enough "individual character". --Túrelio (talk) 22:15, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
- How can you say "surely" when according to Swiss legal precedent en:File:Christoph Meili 1997.jpg is not eligible for copyright? This is just a photo of a building, that anyone can make, any time. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:21, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
- This photo could only have been shot at this time of the day (angle of light, shadows, etc.). This is not true for the Meili-photo. Nevertheless I find the Swiss high court decision insane. --Túrelio (talk) 00:18, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
- That is it! Your "humble opinion" is not so humble... I think the Swiss courts deserve more respect. And it is a good decision, which should certainly apply to this very common photo. The only "insanity" in Switzerland is that there is no law protecting simple photographs for a limited time. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 00:27, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
- Hmm, is this mis-association deliberate? As everybody can see, my "IMHO" is related to my assessment of the image's individual character. Anyway, I think I'm quite able to separate my technical image assessment from my opinion about the copyright legal position of Switzerland, if it was that what you wanted to hint to. --Túrelio (talk) 08:40, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
- The image in question here results from the choice of a certain angle, a certain (sunny) day and time of day. Mind you, this is at least as much "individual character" as the Marley photo (the counter-example to the Meili photo), which is purely a snapshot. It is a dissatisfactory state of affairs: The precedents Meili (not copyrighted) and Marley (copyrighted) combined let us rather in the dark regarding whether a particular other photo would be deemed copyrightable by the Bundesgericht. Probably there went more deliberate arranging into the Meili photo, the Marley one is just capturing a moment, it's a snapshot - but it *looks* more artistic, of course. So, is the photograph hier artistic, individual enough? Nice shadows! Nice enough for the court? I don't know. And I believe that nobody can really say that they know. So, in doubt, I'm still for deleting. Gestumblindi (talk) 03:01, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
- That is it! Your "humble opinion" is not so humble... I think the Swiss courts deserve more respect. And it is a good decision, which should certainly apply to this very common photo. The only "insanity" in Switzerland is that there is no law protecting simple photographs for a limited time. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 00:27, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
- This photo could only have been shot at this time of the day (angle of light, shadows, etc.). This is not true for the Meili-photo. Nevertheless I find the Swiss high court decision insane. --Túrelio (talk) 00:18, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
- How can you say "surely" when according to Swiss legal precedent en:File:Christoph Meili 1997.jpg is not eligible for copyright? This is just a photo of a building, that anyone can make, any time. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:21, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
- IMHO, the photo has surely enough "individual character". --Túrelio (talk) 22:15, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 00:40, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
No reason given by User:Hyju at 2010-11-09T10:57:06
I'd gladly see to reason to delete this file. The original deletion suggester failed to give one.
Some projects, like my homewiki cannot follow the "fair use" rule and therefore cannot use original art, hence the need for fancreated art.
Anyway, I'd like to know the reason why should this particular file be deleted.
--Godai (talk) 13:31, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- Comment I'm not sure I understand--or even believe--everything Commons:Fan art says, but I think at best this is skirting real close to the line of copyright violation.--Prosfilaes (talk) 09:50, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
Comment:Now, that IS a reason. This is why I tried to come within constraints, presenting a non-specific image (eg. no movie- or author-specific depiction). Well, the decision is beyond me anyway, so I'll just have it as it goes. Wonder who'll decide, though? --Godai (talk) 12:31, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Kept. Jcb (talk) 00:43, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Not a amtliches Werk. sугсго 20:28, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
![20:28, 9 November 2010 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2010/11/09#c-Syrcro-2010-11-09T20:28:00.000Z-File:DB-Werbung_1980er_Jahre_"Alle_reden_vom_Wetter._Wir_nicht.".jpg){kind=link}
- Wer ist der Urheberrechtsinhaber? Die Deutsche Eisenbahnreklame? Ich sehe jetzt erst links unten eine Grafik, weiß aber nichts damit anzufangen. Erkennen kann ich sie auch nicht richtig. Kann man das Bild notfalls auf de.Wikip. hochladen (mit welcher Lizenz)? --Mattes (talk) 18:32, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
- Nein, das Bild ist einfach noch mindestens 40-50 Jahre vom Urheberrecht geschützt. sугсго 22:42, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
- In den 80ern war die DB aber definitiv noch eine staatliche Behörde. Hat damals die Deutsche Eisenbahnreklame GmbH überhaupt schon existiert? 188.97.157.118 12:34, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
- Nein, das Bild ist einfach noch mindestens 40-50 Jahre vom Urheberrecht geschützt. sугсго 22:42, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
Insbesondere ist die DAtierung auf die 80er Jahre falsch. Das Plakat kommt aus der zweiten Hälfte der 60er Jahre, denn es wurde um 1968 vom SDS persifliert durch eine Darstellung von Marx, Engels und Lenin, umrahmt von demselben Slogan.
- dann ist es trotzdem noch mindestens bis 1960 + 70 = Ende 2030 geschützt. Wobei ich vermute, dass irgendwann mal der Werbefutzi, der das Plakat gebaut hat, sich zu ihm bekannt hat. sугсго 08:18, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
![08:18, 9 December 2010 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2010/11/09#c-Syrcro-2010-12-09T08:18:00.000Z-File:DB-Werbung_1980er_Jahre_"Alle_reden_vom_Wetter._Wir_nicht.".jpg){kind=link}
schaut mal hier: http://einestages.spiegel.de/static/entry/politik_pop_und_afri_cola/7735/fahr_lieber_mit_der_bundesbahn.html?s=0&r=5&a=1321&of=1&c=1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:|]] ([[User talk:|talk]] • contribs)
- Hier meine Anfrage an die Deutsche Bahn AG (an
@[4]:
- Hier meine Anfrage an die Deutsche Bahn AG (an
Sehr geehrte Damen und Herren, ich erbitte hiermit eine urheberrechtliche Auskunft zu dem Plakat "Alle reden vom Wetter. Wir nicht.", das die Deutsche Bundesbahn in den 1960er bis 1980er Jahren zu Werbezwecken herausgegeben hat (Abb.: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:DB-Werbung_1980er_Jahre_%22Alle_reden_vom_Wetter._Wir_nicht.%22.jpg). Derzeit wird unter den Mitarbeiten der freien Datenbank http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Hauptseite (7,9 Mio. Datensätze) diskutiert (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:DB-Werbung_1980er_Jahre_%22Alle_reden_vom_Wetter._Wir_nicht.%22.jpg), ob die Abbildung des Plakates frei lizenziert verwendbar ist. Wikimedia Commons existiert aufgrund von Spenden und gewährleistet u.a. ein Repositorium für die Einbindung von Mediendateien für die Wikipedia-Ausgaben; deren Mediendateien dürfen nicht urheberrechtlich geschützt sein (es sei denn, dass eine individuelle Freigabe per schriftlicher Einwilligung erfolgt ist). Das vorliegende Werbeplakat dient u.a. dazu, den deutschen Wikipediaartikel "http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alle_reden_vom_Wetter._Wir_nicht." zu illustrieren.
Ich würde mich freuen, wenn Sie zu der Frage eine schrifliche Stellungnahme abgeben könnten, insbesondere zum evtl. Inhaber des Urheberrechtes und dessen Vervielfältigungs-/Veröffentlichungsbedingungen. Handelt es sich hierbei um ein amtliches Werk (§ 5 Abs. 1 Urheberrechtsgesetz)? Das Plakat habe ich im Mai 2010 selbst im Deutsche Bahn Museum aufgenommen.
Bitte teilen Sie uns ferner mit, ob Ihr Antwortschreiben bei Wikimedia Commons veröffentlicht werden kann (sinngemäß oder im Wortlaut).
Vielen Dank für Ihre Kooperation.
Mit freundlichen Grüßen
Schriftsatz vom 19. Dezember 2010.
- Wenn keine Antwort eingeht, müsste man sich um ein OTRS-Ticket kümmern, aber warten wir mal ab. -Mattes (talk) 12:01, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
![12:01, 19 December 2010 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2010/11/09#c-Mattes-2010-12-19T12:01:00.000Z-File:DB-Werbung_1980er_Jahre_"Alle_reden_vom_Wetter._Wir_nicht.".jpg){kind=link}
- Zwischennachricht, Leiterin Kundendialog: Der Vorgang wird unter Gz. 1-5252987581 geführt. --Mattes (talk) 15:37, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, lacks suitable permission. Kameraad Pjotr 19:53, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
![19:53, 13 March 2011 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2010/11/09#c-Kameraad_Pjotr-2011-03-13T19:53:00.000Z-File:DB-Werbung_1980er_Jahre_"Alle_reden_vom_Wetter._Wir_nicht.".jpg){kind=link}