Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2010/11/15
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
|
|
This is a video clip, which cannot sure the uploader is the copyright holder Mys 721tx (talk) 05:26, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Copyvio as with other contribs Herby talk thyme 15:20, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
This is a video clip, which cannot sure the uploader is the copyright holder Mys 721tx (talk) 05:27, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Copyvio as with other contribs Herby talk thyme 15:20, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
Copyright concerns. The image is small and lacks metadata. The contributor has a history of copyright problems ([1]). There is a TinEye result that suggests that this is cropped from a larger image: [2] ([3]). This was drawn to my attention after its usage on the Main Page of Wikipedia was questioned here. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:34, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
- Comment File:Sebastianvettel2010 (cropped).jpg should also be given the same consideration. I cannot nominate it for deletion myself as it is protected from editing. Mjroots (talk) 13:21, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
- Me, either. I'll see if somebody can add it. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:52, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. clearly a crop from another (likely copyrighted) image. TheDJ (talk) 14:05, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
because Kit_Body_ is missing form the file name Mauritian1 (talk) 09:37, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Exact or scaled-down duplicate: File:Kit Body pample0910a.png Common Good (talk) 22:15, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
Image from here: http://collegefootballperformance.com/multimedia/photos/ Source information incomplete. Uploaded by a sockpuppet of another user with similar images with unclear copyright. 12.233.148.58 15:06, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
Comment source is clear: "Own work". I could not find an exact match on the link given above. If there was 10.000 persons there when the award was given and 500 took photos then it is not unlikely that some of them look similar.
- What bothers me most is the fact that the original uploader was blocked. Therefore we could perhaps not trust uploader (own work). Lets see what happens on enwiki where a few of the files are discussed (en:Wikipedia:Possibly_unfree_files/2010_November_15#File:Keenum_with_crystal.JPG). --MGA73 (talk) 16:21, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
Withdrawing request: I am the original nominator (I'd forgotten to log in when I made the deletion request). Based on discussions here and here on English Wiki, I think there is general agreement that the uploader is affiliated with the organization that presented the award, so the PD-self claim is actually valid. Sorry to bother you with this. Ytoyoda (talk) 14:58, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
Withdrawn by nominator and also to be kept on base of the discussions at en-wp. At en-wp, the uploader was accused of advertising this award, not of uploading unfree files. --AFBorchert (talk) 23:37, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
no valid permission of the author like declared by the uploader, OTRS ticket #2010111110016324 -- per Stepro FunkMonk (talk) 16:07, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted by Herbythyme: Copyright violation
Taken from http://www.hinduonnet.com/thehindu/fr/2006/04/28/images/2006042802330101.jpg Sreejith K (talk) 19:12, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Straightforward copyvio from serial offender. For future information these can be tagged as speedy. Thanks Herby talk thyme 13:11, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
Taken from http://popcorn.oneindia.in/artist-fanclub/18263/3/k-g-george.html Sreejith K (talk) 19:13, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Straightforward copyvio from serial offender. For future information these can be tagged as speedy. Thanks Herby talk thyme 13:11, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
speedy deletion Hockenjos (talk) 21:50, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. per uploader request and probably copyvio George Chernilevsky talk 07:09, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
low resolution can copy Erick1984 (talk) 22:02, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
Delete Source? copyright? --Yikrazuul (talk) 23:22, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Grabbed from http://www.cuscoinca.net/2010/08/24/fotos-de-la-miss-universo-2010-jimena-navarrete/. --Martin H. (talk) 22:08, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
resolution too low; description insufficient Tvabutzku1234 (talk) 21:02, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Unusable too small George Chernilevsky talk 14:46, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
The "permission" cited on the image description page states that the file can only be used non-commercially (and is therefore uncompatible with Commons). This photograph is now at http://www.staff.uni-mainz.de/merker/images1998_2001/pages/Tarsius%20bancanus.htm, which clearly indicates a copyright notice. The disclaimer at http://www.staff.uni-mainz.de/merker/ states that all rights are reserved. Ucucha (talk) 00:47, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
- Delete - not free enough for Commons until this place changes its rules. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 07:06, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. 99of9 (talk) 11:06, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
Not own work. Watermark: Ian Wilson 92.225.226.35 07:11, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
- Delete - no evidence of permission. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 07:19, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
- Delete no permission given --High Contrast (talk) 09:14, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. 99of9 (talk) 11:09, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
This is not an original drawing (with a pencil) but a "paint like" retouched - or better: automatically and without human or creative input edited by photoshop - photograph, e.g. http://football.uk.msn.com/world-cup-2010/photos/photos.aspx?cp-documentid=154013708&page=23 cropped and mirrored. Not entirely own work, derivative work based on a non-free photograph. If it even is a derivative work and not just a malformed copy, I can not see any original authorship in the editing. --Martin H. (talk) 13:48, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
- Hei Martin H., take it easy pal... First of all see who uploaded it and then try to analyse the situation. Just take this image as suggestion how to solve the big problem of Wikipedia and more exactly the shortage of photos of the famous people. You know, an article without some illustration is half an article. If the way I suggest will not start working then I'm going to suggest founding of some committee with “hard photos supply mission”. As for this image, if I upload three more versions with strengthen retouch so that to intensify the authorship that you cannot see, will this be ok? ;)--MrPanyGoff (talk) 16:53, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
- No, it is a derivative work of someone else work, the photographer of the original did not agree to the license, so your are not allowed to upload it. See Commons:First steps/License selection, this one is not free of third party copyrights and no matter how much you will edit it, it will never be a free image. So dont upload any other versions of this. And why should I care abiout who is the uploader? I never care about that. Here I can only see that the original source is not even provided but that the upload is claimed as beeing 'entirely own work'. Thats a disrespect to copyrights and a disrespect to the fact that without someone else work this "work" will not even exist. Does it make any difference what user uploaded it? No. --Martin H. (talk) 19:47, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
- Delete, per Martin. →Spiritia 21:20, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. 99of9 (talk) 11:20, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
Source = google Mercy (talk) 22:09, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
- Care to be more specific? — Jeff G. ツ 02:48, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
- The uploader simply downloaded the image from somewhere on web... I guess I should have used the Speedydelete template instead... --Mercy (talk) 12:07, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted by Shizhao: In category Media without a license as of 15 November 2010; no license
Do we need to keep this unrotated version of File:ThreetoedWoodpecker24.jpg? Leyo 23:34, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
- yes, file 23 should be deleted, because it is rotated. Number 24 is the correct file, the woodpecker is supported by its tail to become stabilized. Please let me know, when the file is deleted. Thank you very much, DocTaxon (talk) 16:48, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
- Delete ...since it is misleading. --Yikrazuul (talk) 19:19, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Common Good (talk) 19:31, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
unused private image - out of scope Santosga (talk) 14:43, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Leyo 15:17, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
Text is rubbish, image is a copyvio Andy Dingley (talk) 23:41, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
- Got any evidence it's a copyvio? // Liftarn (talk)
- User talk:KVDP. This editor has an incredibly long history of duff images. Some are drawn originally in a "folksy" style, others are book scans where he often claims OTRS will be forthcoming, but it never happens. This is clearly a scan from elsewhere, maybe with the boxes added. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:07, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
- The uploader has a fairly distinctive drawing style. This is not drawn in it. Instead, it looks like a scan of an nth-generation photocopy of something, with labels added in a drawing program. --Carnildo (talk) 23:19, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. — Jeff G. ツ 02:13, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Leyo 15:21, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
resolution too low Tvabutzku1234 (talk) 21:15, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted - resolution too low, encyclopedic good not clear. --Jcornelius (talk) 21:59, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
Is it unknown if the author died at least 70 years ago. Leyo 08:48, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
Keep - how can people manage to worry about photos that are over 100 years old? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 17:06, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
- The file cannot be kept with the currently used license. --Leyo 17:08, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
- I think there have to be to find a solution to use pictures like this in commons. In Germany it is legal to use it: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anonymes_Werk And it was take in German! Is there no official way to use it around the world? I can't belive! HBR (talk) 22:22, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
- There is no solution as long as copyright fundamentalists reign. See for example Commons:Undeletion requests#File:Karrer.jpg - let your voice be heard there! Before they also delete File:Paul Ehrlichs Studiertzimmer in Frankfurta M.jpg and the rest of the category. They do not care that http://www.georg-speyer-haus.de/aboutus_museum.php that these images are free. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 11:15, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
- I think there have to be to find a solution to use pictures like this in commons. In Germany it is legal to use it: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anonymes_Werk And it was take in German! Is there no official way to use it around the world? I can't belive! HBR (talk) 22:22, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
- It will be used on wikipedia:de:Datei:Paul Ehrlich Arbeitszimmer.jpg, but it should not be transferred to Commons as Commons:Licensing says it has to be public-domain in the the source country and the USA. Matt (talk) 10:50, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
- Keep. This is a repeated request, Image:Paul_Ehrlich_Arbeitszimmer.jpg. Its however also an very sad example of what happens if people assume that "I dont know the author"="The author is unknown". The author is not unknown, as a part of a series showing Ehrlich in the institute this photograph was created by Waldemar Titzenthaler. The sollution for picture like this on Commons is: make your homeworks before uploading them or simply let it be. The image will not run away and no one will lose something if it is not yet on Commons but maybe later. There is however much to loose with such false (or falsified) information like "unknown author". --Martin H. (talk) 00:00, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
Withdrawn. Thank you Martin. Leyo 00:22, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
Inferior duplicate of File:US 20 (IA) map.svg –Fredddie™ 00:28, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
- Agreed. Newer map is formatted better than old duplicate, and is named using standards. Go ahead. 25or6to4 (talk) 12:46, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 11:18, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
Duplicate of File:Iowa032 inset.svg –Fredddie™ 01:03, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
- Yeah, new map is much better than old map. Dupicate. Go ahead and remove. 25or6to4 (talk) 12:47, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 11:19, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
The watermark on this file shows that National Taiwan University holds the copyright of this file. Mys 721tx (talk) 01:53, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
- Comment - photo of a piece of paper, which may be PD. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 07:09, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
- Is that means that this file is not orginal enough to have a extra copyright-protectionp period?-Mys 721tx (talk) 11:28, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Slavish photo or scan of a 1905 book cover (Crime Statistics, produced by or for the Office of the Governor-General during Japanese rule). Bridgeman would seem to apply, the watermark notwithstanding. I don't think the stains or tears qualify as creative elements; the image creator was pretty clearly just trying to photograph/scan the cover of this rather old book to demonstrate the cover, or as part of digitizing the whole document. It is unclear to me whether Japanese or ROC copyright law applies given the situation in 1905, but copyright for corporate/organizational works expires after 50 years for either, so it's essentially moot (see COM:L#Japan and COM:L#Republic of China). —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 01:45, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
Kept. Jcb (talk) 11:20, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
Source page says, available for non commercial use. and also ARR. — Tanvir • 02:47, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
- I changed the source page. Is now ok? Please, this is the first time I send a file. You can help me? --Barbara Tavora (talk) 14:38, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
- I have a question. As you said, page says, available for non commercial use. and also ARR.
But the image not being used commercially, correct? Why the image can not stay? --Barbara Tavora (talk) 22:08, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
- Non commercial means, it is within CC-BY-NC or CC-BY-NC-ND license, and both of them are not allowed in Commons. See Commons:Licensing for list of approved license in Commons.. — Tanvir • 04:20, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
- Delete I don't even see "available for non-commercial use" on the current source page... just "All Rights Reserved". See also §11 of their TOS discussing IP and plainly stating, "All Rights Reserved". That kind of makes this a copyvio. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 01:50, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 11:21, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
Template:PD-German stamps, Template:PD-Deutsche Bundespost stamps, Category:Deutsche Post stamps, Category:Deutsche Bundespost stamps, their subcategories, and all they tag
[edit]Delete because these files are not really free enough for Commons due to the restriction on derivative works. See also Commons:Deletion requests/Template:PD-German stamps and all it tags (kept three years ago), Commons:Deletion requests/Image:George Grosz, Café.jpg (deleted almost two years ago and restored five days later), Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Curd Juergens 2.jpg (deleted almost two years ago), and Commons:Deletion requests/File:German stamp- Marlene Dietrich crop.PNG (deleted yesterday). — Jeff G. ツ 03:26, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
I have notified (everyone who contributed to those discussions of Deletion requests) of this discussion and tagged all of the named templates and categories. — Jeff G. ツ 04:37, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Some restrictions on derivative works don't really make the files non-free. We have a lot of such restrictions -- you can't make crop of de minimis photo, you can't recreate a building or sculpture from a FOP-photo in 3D, you can't create a DW from different non-compatible share-alike free pictures (GFDL and CC-BY-SA), and so on. Trycatch (talk) 04:58, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
- Keep per Trycatch (and there is no need to notify me of DRs). /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 07:10, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Trycatch has given more reasons then needed, I think NobbiP talk 07:54, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
- Keep The license is perfectly ok. Of course there can always be additional restrictions like trademarks, derivative works, etc.. But still the license is ok and can be used. Please speedy keep. --ALE! ¿…? 11:13, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
- Delete ALE!, there can't be restrictions against derivative works. That's what Free Content means. And there's no meaningful derivative works that can be done with these stamps, so they aren't by the remotest stretch free.--Prosfilaes (talk) 13:19, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
- Keep see Trycatch and ALE! (My English is not so good unfortunately that I can supply a reason here) kandschwar (talk) 16:09, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
- Keep The reason for deletion is not sufficiant. German stamps are official works which should not be changed. For instance: If someone changes a document of a century ago that will be a fake. --Gudrun Meyer (talk) 17:12, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
- Keep per Trycatch, and I note that bringing up the same issue over and over starts to look more like troublemaking than a good-faith effort. Stan Shebs (talk) 18:49, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
- I started Commons:Deletion requests/Template:PD-German stamps and all it tags. When I felt the result of that request was not in the best interests of the WMF, I created File:German stamp- Marlene Dietrich crop.PNG as a test case (and because I believed that file would find lasting use in our encyclopedic projects). When I found out that file was deleted in Commons:Deletion requests/File:German stamp- Marlene Dietrich crop.PNG, I started this request, basically to reconsider Commons:Deletion requests/Template:PD-German stamps and all it tags. I believe it is naive to assume that we can ignore the insufficient freedom of these German stamp works under German law, and that if we do so, it will be to the detriment of the WMF, so I have requested that the WMF Legal Team comment. — Jeff G. ツ 05:49, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
- Don't be ridiculous. There is no legal problem for the WMF. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 07:14, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
- I started Commons:Deletion requests/Template:PD-German stamps and all it tags. When I felt the result of that request was not in the best interests of the WMF, I created File:German stamp- Marlene Dietrich crop.PNG as a test case (and because I believed that file would find lasting use in our encyclopedic projects). When I found out that file was deleted in Commons:Deletion requests/File:German stamp- Marlene Dietrich crop.PNG, I started this request, basically to reconsider Commons:Deletion requests/Template:PD-German stamps and all it tags. I believe it is naive to assume that we can ignore the insufficient freedom of these German stamp works under German law, and that if we do so, it will be to the detriment of the WMF, so I have requested that the WMF Legal Team comment. — Jeff G. ツ 05:49, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
- Keep per Trycatch, why would you need to crop a stamp image? If you need it, then look for another free image.--Steveurkel (talk) 19:21, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
- Keep per ALE!, Trycatch and Gudrun Meyer. There is no reason for deleting all the german stamps. --Mogelzahn (talk) 22:08, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Government work, therefore not copyrightable. However it's in the nature of the thing that you can't make derivative works... whoelse than the state-owned post can sell stamps? --Matthiasb (talk) 23:08, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
- Keep No reason for deletion - the only use that is not allowed is as stamps. --Eingangskontrolle (talk) 23:42, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Alle Jahre wieder wird die selbe Sau durch den Ort getrieben. Ist das hier eine Arbeitsbeschaffungsmaßnahme? --ST ○ 00:01, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
- Translation: Over and over again the the same story. Is this a Job creation program? --Eingangskontrolle (talk) 07:34, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Works with ND restrictions are NOT ALLOWED ON COMMONS, per Commons:Licensing. To argue this is a free work is absurd. If I understand the arguments at places like [4] correctly, the natural author retains his copyright interest in the artwork, but there exists a license to publish the work if the stamp border remains. So you end up with a supposedly "free" work that consists of 90% or more of an All Rights Reserved copyrighted work, and a license to publish said work if you don't change anything. Not free enough for Commons. -Nard (Hablemonos)(Let's talk) 01:40, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
- It's not an ND restriction, you can create DWs from the stamps, though with some limitations. Trycatch (talk) 02:35, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
- Keep, till next time :-) -jkb- (talk) 08:36, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
- Delete the reasoning for these have always been dubious; they should not be allowed on commons, nor on wikipedias. It essentially comes down to fair use. --rtc (talk) 11:09, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
- Keep bis zum nächsten Mal. ND ist auch in anderen Fällen (z. B. Porträts) gegeben. --Ralf Roletschek (talk) 11:47, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
- Keep see Trycatch and ALE! --Laibwächter (talk) 14:46, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
- Keep per Trycatch. --Ekki01 (talk) 17:49, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
- KeepIt is free enough for Wikipedia, see Trycatch and ALE, with the same Discussion it would be prohibited to show money on Wikipedia, since it is not allowed to Print it out! Neozoon (talk) 20:07, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
- Keep I dodn't see any problems. Gruss --Nightflyer (talk) 20:24, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Derivative works are not prohibited in this case. It is just undesirable to change the image of a postage stamp to the extent that it would cease to appear as a stamp (which is in PD as an official work of the German Government) and would be easily taken for a stamp essay or a drawing by the artist (stamp designer). Why so? Only because it would be difficult to prove in the courts (should the need arise) that we have used the actual uncopyrightable postage stamp, and not the copyrighted original artist's painting. So, yes, you can make a derivative work, no problems, if you are confident that you are able to prove the point in the courts. Now, what are main appearances of a postage stamp? Perforation, inscriptions and borders are sure marks, of course. And that's it! That's the logic. --Leonid Dzhepko (talk) 16:43, 18 November 2010 (UTC) To sum up, you can make any DW, if you can demonstrate that it is based on a free image of a stamp, and not on some other image which is copyrighted. That's true for all DWs. --Leonid Dzhepko (talk) 16:57, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
- That's not true; it is desirable to crop a postage stamp to get to the image it's displaying in many cases. And it's trivial to prove that we took a particular image file and cropped off parts of it. But still, Commons:Deletion requests/File:German stamp- Marlene Dietrich crop.PNG was deleted, even though it's obvious that came from a cropping of the stamp.--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:56, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Trycatch already gave the most important reasons. Additionally I dont't believe in radical ideas that every file we present has to be absolutely free in every context and every country of this planet, free to be changed in any way you want. There are many restrictions concerning personal rights, political censorship, trademarks, specific laws of different countries and so on. --Mbdortmund (talk) 19:25, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
- I fail to see how we change this image at all, in any country in the world.--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:56, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
- Keep everything has been said. --Jodo (talk) 22:15, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
Kept per Trycatch. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 22:56, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Chronology
[edit]Discussions
[edit]- Commons:Deletion requests/Template:PD-German stamps and all it tags (kept 14:14, 28 September 2007 (UTC))
- Commons:Deletion requests/File:German stamp- Marlene Dietrich crop.PNG (deleted 20:25, 13 November 2010 (UTC))
- Commons:Deletion requests/Template:PD-German stamps and all it tags 2 (kept 22:56, 7 December 2010 (UTC))
- Commons:Deletion requests/Template:PD-German stamps (initiated 19:14, 12 April 2012 (UTC))
Notifications
[edit]- Template talk:PD-German stamps (notified 18:11, 15 July 2010 (UTC) and 23:09, 7 December 2010 (UTC))
- Commons talk:Stamps/Public domain (notified 02:03, 16 July 2010 (UTC) and 18:18, 15 November 2010 (UTC))
photographs on posters shown. They are probably not the uploaders own work. So the permission of the other photographers is missing. Or is this a photo made from the street (squares or other public thoroughfares) - then FOP could apply. Saibo (Δ) 03:38, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
No entiendo qué problema hay en editar esta foto que tomé hace pocos años en Estepona, es del interior del museo, donde estaba permitido sacar fotos. Me lo podéis explicar con más claridad? Panarria
(bad, automatic g.translation inserted by Saibo (Δ) 23:47, 21 November 2010 (UTC)): I do not understand what the problem is to edit this photo I took a few years ago in Estepona, is inside the museum, where he was allowed to take pictures. I can explain it more clearly? Panarria
- Thanks for your question! I will try to explain and I hope you understand English: The problem is that you photographed posters/banners. On the posters there are photographs. Unless these photographs occupy only a small, irrelevant part of your photograph you are not allowed to upload your photo here. Because you show works of other people (the photographs on the posters). Specially this is the photograph of Luis Berlanga.
- If you just want to show the yellow walls in the room we can crop the picture to remove the photographs of other people.
- Is this clearer now? Some information is here: Commons:Trabajos derivados Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 23:47, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 11:27, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
This image would be under USPS copyright. If public domain status not already vested, it cannot be granted by the person who uploaded the scan. Agricolae (talk) 05:02, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
- Keep So change the license to what is used for the rest of Category:Stamps of the United States 1961-1970. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 07:14, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
- Keep -- Preserving the good faith contributions of others is better than having them removed, so I (very simply) changed the license tag to the correct one. 'PD-USGov' Public Domain.
Gwillhickers (talk) 01:35, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
- Keep US postage stamps issued prior to 1978-01-01 are PD-USGov (Stamps of the United States#Copyright-Note up to 1978). —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 01:53, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
Kept. Jcb (talk) 11:28, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
This image depicts a wrong sign. It is confound with File:Tauchzeichen-Lampensignal-Okay-Diving-Sign-Light-Okay.png.Both images should exchange their names to avoid confusion NicP (talk) 05:26, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
- Keep You are the uploader; just upload the correct versions over the old ones. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 07:17, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
Kept. Jcb (talk) 11:29, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
Probable copyvio, but I can't find a definate source so I can't say for sure. See http://www.westcomeup.com/2010/05/noni-spitz-club-sex-remix.html where a reduced and cropped version of the same image was posted in May 2010. Add to this that the image itself is attributed to the subject (kind of an impossibility unless it's a self-portrait) and the uploader's track record of copyvio uploads. May be out of scope: the enwiki article's subject is a non-notable member of a band whose article was deleted via AFD. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 07:01, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 11:30, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
Possible copyvio, though I can't say for certain. The web resolution, watermark (with obliterated detail due to the web resoultion), subject named as author in a non-self portrait, and uploader's track record with copyvios and strange "own work" claims all suggest there's something wrong here. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 07:33, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 11:31, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
Facts are very, very wrong. Map is created with strong political, nationalistic agenda which is having nothing with camps, but only with Balkan War ideology Rjecina2 (talk) 09:00, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
- delete - I do not want to start long discussion about this because only important things are facts. In line with this I am giving link to one of official concentration camps map on Yugoslav territory which is showing only NDH but difference is very, very clear. For example map on commons is having 13 camps in today central and eastern Bosnia (numbers 27 - 40), but offical map is having "only" 2 camps and only 1 of this 2 is on PANOANIAN map--Rjecina2 (talk) 09:09, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
- Keep - map is based on reliable sources - there was 70 fascist concentration camps in Yugoslavia (by some sources even more). This map show only some of the main camps and this is certainly not "official concentration camps map". In fact, I will prove this: unlike in my map, map presented by user:Rjecina2, does not show concentration camp Caprag, while many sources could show that this camp existed: http://www.google.com/search?hl=sr&source=hp&q=concentration+camp+caprag&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai= (this is only one example, but since my map show location of 70 concentration camps, user:Rjecina2 should clarify which of the camps he consider disputed and I will present sources that such camp existed). Also, where is proof that I created this map with "political, nationalistic agenda related to Balkan War ideology"? I am not nationalist and I am an pacifist who oppose any war, so how I can be influenced by "Balkan War ideology"? My map is clearly an anti-war map and only way in which we could stop that these war crimes happen again is to speak about them. Also, not to mention that user:Rjecina2 who proposed this map for deletion is an Croatian ultra-nationalist whose political views are much similar to WW2 ustaša ideology and therefore he has a personal political agenda to hide war crimes of fascist ustaša regime, which is nothing else but sneaky holocaust denial attempt. This user was also permanently blocked on English Wikipedia because of his nationalism and vandalism: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?limit=50&tagfilter=&title=Special%3AContributions&contribs=user&target=Rjecina&namespace=&tagfilter=&year=&month=-1 PANONIAN (talk) 11:33, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
- Yes I am blocked on english wiki, but I am administrator on other wiki and I do not use puppets to write my propaganda (IP editing after milion of warnings).
- Do you want to say that concentration camps map from site of must important Croatian Holocaust institution is part of holocaust denial ??
- Please if you are right and I am wrong can you please give us link to map of concentration camps on Yugoslav territory from any other internationaly accepted holocaust institution (Serbian, Israel, American ... Holocaust museum). If any of map from holocaust sites is similar to your map I will support your map in case of future Deletion requests--Rjecina2 (talk) 14:11, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
- I very well know how administration policy in Croatian Wikipedia works, so the fact that you are an administrator there does not deny that you are blocked in en wiki because of your disruptive behavior and nationalistic agenda (in Croatian Wikipedia such nationalistic agenda is welcomed to a high degree). As for data presented in my map, I told you: please say which of the camps presented in my map you disputing and I will show you sources that such camps existed. I already mentioned example of Caprag camp that is not presented in map from your external link, but I will mention few more like Mlaka, Jablanac, Sisak, etc, etc. How you explain the fact that map from your source does not show these concentration camps no matter that these links are proof that they existed? Furthermore, your source is not an general data about concentration camps in Croatia, but an web site that speaks about concentration camp Jasenovac. And another page from your source say that there was "about 30" concentration camps in NDH, while my map show 41 (due to data from my original source), but these numbers do not contradict one to another: for example Jasenovac is sometimes seen as complex composed of several concentration camps (Quote: "Јасеновац је заправо чинио комплекс од неколико подлогора, у непосредној близини, на обали реке Саве...Логор за жене, Стара Градишка, који се налазио мало даље, такође је припадао овом комплексу" - or in English: "Jasenovac in fact was a complex of several sub-camps on the bank of river Sava...Female camp Stara Gradiška, also belonged to this complex"). My map simply show locations of all these sub-camps that belonged to Jasenovac complex, but if all of them are seen as parts of Jasenovac concentration camp then number of camps in NDH would be exactly "about 30", as your own source claim: http://www.jusp-jasenovac.hr/Default.aspx?sid=5320 (it is very silly that your own source disapproves you). PANONIAN (talk) 15:15, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
- My source is on internet site of Jasenovac concentration camp Museum (greatest Holocaust memorial in Croatia) and this map is created with help of Croatian Jews organization. I am still waiting to see link from site of any internationally recognized Holocaust organizations which is similar to you map ?
- I am not on croatian wiki
- Can I ask blocking when user is speaking and speaking so that all other users are afraid to read deletion request and make final decision ?--Rjecina2 (talk) 16:00, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
- You can ask that admins block you like they done in en wiki, that is sure. Speaking about sources, I do not see a rule that say that reliable Internet source should be "a map similar to my own". Texts that mention that concentration camps with such names existed are valuable as much as maps are (the only advantage of a map would be the fact that map could be read in more easy way than a text). I provided for you links to few texts and you fail to explain how can be that map from your source does not show these concentration camps no matter that these links are claiming that such camps existed. Besides that www.jusp-jasenovac.hr is a web site related to memorial complex Jasenovac and is not something that tend to be authoritative list of all concentration camps in NDH. I, however, already showed that even that web site claim that there was "about 30" concentration camps in NDH, which, if sub-camps are not counted, does not contradict to number of 41 camps, as it is presented in my map. Also, if you accept data from your own source then you certainly accept that at least 30 of 41 camps from my map were actually there and therefore you disputing the existence of only 11 camps, right? So, please tell me names of these 11 camps whose existence you disputing and I will be happy to provide sources that these camps existed. Finally, we come to the question why you proposed this map for deletion: if you disputing existence of only 11 camps in NDH but recognizing existence of 30 other, then you clearly agree that at least 3/4 of info in my map is correct and that only 1/4 is wrong according to you (not speaking about sub-camps issue for the moment). So, why you did not mentioned this issue on map's talk page instead and why you did not presented there some sources that would claim that these 11 camps did not existed? I would always change my maps if other users convince me that there is some wrong info in them. Of course, the answer to the question why you did not used map's talk page instead deletion proposal is again related to holocaust denial: obviously, you want to conduct censorship and to move from the eyes of the public any info that any concentration camp existed in NDH. Sorry, but your own source claim that at lest 30 of 41 camps were there, so again: I am asking you to say the names of 11 camps whose existence you disputing and I will provide sources that they existed (I do not know which these 11 camps are if you do not mention their names here). PANONIAN (talk) 00:20, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Commons doesn't get into these battles. It's in use, that's all we need to know.--Prosfilaes (talk) 16:45, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
- Keep - in use. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 17:07, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
Kept. In use. MGA73 (talk) 20:33, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
Sculpture from 2001; no FOP in the U.S.; no permission by sculptor. Lupo 09:11, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
- Delete /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 17:10, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. MGA73 (talk) 20:34, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
No response to OTRS clarification requests within 3 months Strainu (talk) 09:22, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 11:36, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
No response to OTRS clarification requests within 3 months Strainu (talk) 09:21, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
Kept. - you sent a confirmation 2010-08-19, if that was a mistake, you should send a new message over OTRS and give it some time again - Jcb (talk) 11:40, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
Ticket 2008061210010806 does not release it under a free license. Jcb (talk) 11:29, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
Question Why are we even here if the ticket doesn't do a free license release? It's just plain copyvio, right? —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 01:57, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 11:40, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
error on file , replace by Fr-française-2 Joriola (talk) 11:40, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 11:41, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
Estive contribuindo com imagens feitas por mim durante muito tempo, porém tenho sido acusado em um artigo, por umc erto usuário de ter problemas com minhas lincensas (ninguém, em anos, nunca me informou disso) para carregar as fotos (estão me acusando de estar carregando fotos que não foram feitas por mim, ou seja violando direito autoral, o que é uma calúnia absurda), para minha surpresa tive meu último carregamento eliminado, porém não obtive nenhuma explicação do por que várias outras imagens feitas e carregadas por mim continuam a estar diponíveis, se for pra eliminar, que eliminem todos, sem excessão, (até por que, se há problema em um há em todos), já que todos foram carregados por mim extamente da mesma forma. Asdrubol (talk) 11:58, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
- Keep - I understand why Felipe Mostarda is angry, but these photos are worth keeping. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 17:19, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
Kept. I see no reason to doubt that this was own work so no need to delete. MGA73 (talk) 20:39, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
Estive contribuindo com imagens feitas por mim durante muito tempo, porém tenho sido acusado em um artigo, por umc erto usuário de ter problemas com minhas lincensas (ninguém, em anos, nunca me informou disso) para carregar as fotos (estão me acusando de estar carregando fotos que não foram feitas por mim, ou seja violando direito autoral, o que é uma calúnia absurda), para minha surpresa tive meu último carregamento eliminado, porém não obtive nenhuma explicação do por que várias outras imagens feitas e carregadas por mim continuam a estar diponíveis, se for pra eliminar, que eliminem todos, sem excessão, (até por que, se há problema em um há em todos), já que todos foram carregados por mim extamente da mesma forma. Asdrubol (talk) 12:04, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
- Keep - I understand why Felipe Mostarda is angry, but these photos are worth keeping. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 17:26, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
Kept. I see no reason to doubt that this was own work so no need to delete. MGA73 (talk) 20:40, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
Estive contribuindo com imagens feitas por mim durante muito tempo, porém tenho sido acusado em um artigo, por um certo usuário de ter problemas com minhas lincensas (ninguém, em anos, nunca me informou disso) para carregar as fotos (estão me acusando de estar carregando fotos que não foram feitas por mim, ou seja violando direito autoral, o que é uma calúnia absurda), para minha surpresa tive meu último carregamento eliminado, porém não obtive nenhuma explicação do por que várias outras imagens feitas e carregadas por mim continuam a estar diponíveis, se for pra eliminar, que eliminem todos, sem excessão, (até por que, se há problema em um há em todos), já que todos foram carregados por mim extamente da mesma forma. Asdrubol (talk) 12:07, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
- Keep - I understand why Felipe Mostarda is angry, but these photos are worth keeping. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 17:20, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
Kept. I see no reason to doubt that this was own work so no need to delete. MGA73 (talk) 20:41, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
Estive contribuindo com imagens feitas por mim durante muito tempo, porém tenho sido acusado em um artigo, por um certo usuário de ter problemas com minhas lincensas (ninguém, em anos, nunca me informou disso) para carregar as fotos (estão me acusando de estar carregando fotos que não foram feitas por mim, ou seja violando direito autoral, o que é uma calúnia absurda), para minha surpresa tive meu último carregamento eliminado, porém não obtive nenhuma explicação do por que várias outras imagens feitas e carregadas por mim continuam a estar diponíveis, se for pra eliminar, que eliminem todos, sem excessão, (até por que, se há problema em um há em todos), já que todos foram carregados por mim extamente da mesma forma. Asdrubol (talk) 12:08, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
- Keep - I understand why Felipe Mostarda is angry, but these photos are worth keeping. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 17:23, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
Kept. I see no reason to doubt that this was own work so no need to delete. MGA73 (talk) 20:41, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
Estive contribuindo com imagens feitas por mim durante muito tempo, porém tenho sido acusado em um artigo, por um certo usuário de ter problemas com minhas lincensas (ninguém, em anos, nunca me informou disso) para carregar as fotos (estão me acusando de estar carregando fotos que não foram feitas por mim, ou seja violando direito autoral, o que é uma calúnia absurda), para minha surpresa tive meu último carregamento eliminado, porém não obtive nenhuma explicação do por que várias outras imagens feitas e carregadas por mim continuam a estar diponíveis, se for pra eliminar, que eliminem todos, sem excessão, (até por que, se há problema em um há em todos), já que todos foram carregados por mim extamente da mesma forma. Asdrubol (talk) 12:08, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
- Keep - I understand why Felipe Mostarda is angry, but these photos are worth keeping. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 17:23, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
Kept. I see no reason to doubt that this was own work so no need to delete. MGA73 (talk) 20:42, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
Estive contribuindo com imagens feitas por mim durante muito tempo, porém tenho sido acusado em um artigo, por um certo usuário de ter problemas com minhas lincensas (ninguém, em anos, nunca me informou disso) para carregar as fotos (estão me acusando de estar carregando fotos que não foram feitas por mim, ou seja violando direito autoral, o que é uma calúnia absurda), para minha surpresa tive meu último carregamento eliminado, porém não obtive nenhuma explicação do por que várias outras imagens feitas e carregadas por mim continuam a estar diponíveis, se for pra eliminar, que eliminem todos, sem excessão, (até por que, se há problema em um há em todos), já que todos foram carregados por mim extamente da mesma forma. Asdrubol (talk) 12:09, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
- Keep - I understand why Felipe Mostarda is angry, but these photos are worth keeping. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 17:22, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
Kept. I see no reason to doubt that this was own work so no need to delete. MGA73 (talk) 20:43, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
Estive contribuindo com imagens feitas por mim durante muito tempo, porém tenho sido acusado em um artigo, por um certo usuário de ter problemas com minhas lincensas (ninguém, em anos, nunca me informou disso) para carregar as fotos (estão me acusando de estar carregando fotos que não foram feitas por mim, ou seja violando direito autoral, o que é uma calúnia absurda), para minha surpresa tive meu último carregamento eliminado, porém não obtive nenhuma explicação do por que várias outras imagens feitas e carregadas por mim continuam a estar diponíveis, se for pra eliminar, que eliminem todos, sem excessão, (até por que, se há problema em um há em todos), já que todos foram carregados por mim extamente da mesma forma. Asdrubol (talk) 12:10, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
- Keep - the file is in use and GFDL/CC licenses are irrevocable. The uploader appears to be claiming that he made the photo. COM:FOP#Brazil says FOP in São Paulo is OK. — Jeff G. ツ 22:35, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
Kept. I see no reason to doubt that this was own work so no need to delete. MGA73 (talk) 20:43, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
Estive contribuindo com imagens feitas por mim durante muito tempo, porém tenho sido acusado em um artigo, por um certo usuário de ter problemas com minhas lincensas (ninguém, em anos, nunca me informou disso) para carregar as fotos (estão me acusando de estar carregando fotos que não foram feitas por mim, ou seja violando direito autoral, o que é uma calúnia absurda), para minha surpresa tive meu último carregamento eliminado, porém não obtive nenhuma explicação do por que várias outras imagens feitas e carregadas por mim continuam a estar diponíveis, se for pra eliminar, que eliminem todos, sem excessão, (até por que, se há problema em um há em todos), já que todos foram carregados por mim extamente da mesma forma. Asdrubol (talk) 12:10, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
- Keep - I understand why Felipe Mostarda is angry, but these photos are worth keeping. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 17:21, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
Kept. I see no reason to doubt that this was own work so no need to delete. MGA73 (talk) 20:44, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
Estive contribuindo com imagens feitas por mim durante muito tempo, porém tenho sido acusado em um artigo, por um certo usuário de ter problemas com minhas lincensas (ninguém, em anos, nunca me informou disso) para carregar as fotos (estão me acusando de estar carregando fotos que não foram feitas por mim, ou seja violando direito autoral, o que é uma calúnia absurda), para minha surpresa tive meu último carregamento eliminado, porém não obtive nenhuma explicação do por que várias outras imagens feitas e carregadas por mim continuam a estar diponíveis, se for pra eliminar, que eliminem todos, sem excessão, (até por que, se há problema em um há em todos), já que todos foram carregados por mim extamente da mesma forma.(possuo duas contas de usuário, seja como Asdrubol, seja como Felipe Mostarda, para que não restem dúvidas) Felipe Mostarda (talk) 12:13, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
- Keep - the file is in use and GFDL/CC licenses are irrevocable. The uploader appears to be claiming that he made the photo. COM:FOP#Brazil says FOP in São Paulo is OK. — Jeff G. ツ 00:59, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
- Keep - I understand why Felipe Mostarda is angry, but these photos are worth keeping. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 17:25, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
Kept. I see no reason to doubt that this was own work so no need to delete. MGA73 (talk) 20:44, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
Estive contribuindo com imagens feitas por mim durante muito tempo, porém tenho sido acusado em um artigo, por um certo usuário de ter problemas com minhas lincensas (ninguém, em anos, nunca me informou disso) para carregar as fotos (estão me acusando de estar carregando fotos que não foram feitas por mim, ou seja violando direito autoral, o que é uma calúnia absurda), para minha surpresa tive meu último carregamento eliminado, porém não obtive nenhuma explicação do por que várias outras imagens feitas e carregadas por mim continuam a estar diponíveis, se for pra eliminar, que eliminem todos, sem excessão, (até por que, se há problema em um há em todos), já que todos foram carregados por mim extamente da mesma forma.(possuo duas contas de usuário, seja como Asdrubol, seja como Felipe Mostarda, para que não restem dúvidas) Felipe Mostarda (talk) 12:14, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
- Keep - the file is in use and GFDL/CC licenses are irrevocable. The uploader appears to be claiming that he made the photo. COM:FOP#Brazil says FOP in São Paulo is OK. — Jeff G. ツ 00:36, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
- Keep - properly licensed and useful. --Elekhh (talk) 00:30, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
Kept. I see no reason to doubt that this was own work so no need to delete. MGA73 (talk) 20:45, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
Estive contribuindo com imagens feitas por mim durante muito tempo, porém tenho sido acusado em um artigo, por um certo usuário de ter problemas com minhas lincensas (ninguém, em anos, nunca me informou disso) para carregar as fotos (estão me acusando de estar carregando fotos que não foram feitas por mim, ou seja violando direito autoral, o que é uma calúnia absurda), para minha surpresa tive meu último carregamento eliminado, porém não obtive nenhuma explicação do por que várias outras imagens feitas e carregadas por mim continuam a estar diponíveis, se for pra eliminar, que eliminem todos, sem excessão, (até por que, se há problema em um há em todos), já que todos foram carregados por mim extamente da mesma forma.(possuo duas contas de usuário, seja como Asdrubol, seja como Felipe Mostarda, para que não restem dúvidas) Felipe Mostarda (talk) 12:14, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
- Keep - GFDL/CC licenses are irrevocable. The uploader appears to be claiming that he made the photo. COM:FOP#Brazil says FOP in São Paulo is OK. — Jeff G. ツ 00:33, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
- Keep - I understand why Felipe Mostarda is angry, but these photos are worth keeping. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 17:16, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
Kept. I see no reason to doubt that this was own work so no need to delete. MGA73 (talk) 20:46, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
Estive contribuindo com imagens feitas por mim durante muito tempo, porém tenho sido acusado em um artigo, por um certo usuário de ter problemas com minhas lincensas (ninguém, em anos, nunca me informou disso) para carregar as fotos (estão me acusando de estar carregando fotos que não foram feitas por mim, ou seja violando direito autoral, o que é uma calúnia absurda), para minha surpresa tive meu último carregamento eliminado, porém não obtive nenhuma explicação do por que várias outras imagens feitas e carregadas por mim continuam a estar diponíveis, se for pra eliminar, que eliminem todos, sem excessão, (até por que, se há problema em um há em todos), já que todos foram carregados por mim extamente da mesma forma.(possuo duas contas de usuário, seja como Asdrubol, seja como Felipe Mostarda, para que não restem dúvidas) Felipe Mostarda (talk) 12:14, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
- Keep - GFDL/CC licenses are irrevocable. The uploader appears to be claiming that he made the photo. COM:FOP#Brazil says FOP in São Paulo is OK. — Jeff G. ツ 00:33, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
- Keep - I understand why Felipe Mostarda is angry, but these photos are worth keeping. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 17:16, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
Kept. I see no reason to doubt that this was own work so no need to delete. MGA73 (talk) 20:46, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
Estive contribuindo com imagens feitas por mim durante muito tempo, porém tenho sido acusado em um artigo, por um certo usuário de ter problemas com minhas lincensas (ninguém, em anos, nunca me informou disso) para carregar as fotos (estão me acusando de estar carregando fotos que não foram feitas por mim, ou seja violando direito autoral, o que é uma calúnia absurda), para minha surpresa tive meu último carregamento eliminado, porém não obtive nenhuma explicação do por que várias outras imagens feitas e carregadas por mim continuam a estar diponíveis, se for pra eliminar, que eliminem todos, sem excessão, (até por que, se há problema em um há em todos), já que todos foram carregados por mim extamente da mesma forma.(possuo duas contas de usuário, seja como Asdrubol, seja como Felipe Mostarda, para que não restem dúvidas) Felipe Mostarda (talk) 12:16, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
- Keep - the file is in use and GFDL/CC licenses are irrevocable. The uploader appears to be claiming that he made the photo. COM:FOP#Brazil says FOP in São Paulo is OK. — Jeff G. ツ 00:32, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
Kept. I see no reason to doubt that this was own work so no need to delete. MGA73 (talk) 20:48, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
Estive contribuindo com imagens feitas por mim durante muito tempo, porém tenho sido acusado em um artigo, por um certo usuário de ter problemas com minhas lincensas (ninguém, em anos, nunca me informou disso) para carregar as fotos (estão me acusando de estar carregando fotos que não foram feitas por mim, ou seja violando direito autoral, o que é uma calúnia absurda), para minha surpresa tive meu último carregamento eliminado, porém não obtive nenhuma explicação do por que várias outras imagens feitas e carregadas por mim continuam a estar diponíveis, se for pra eliminar, que eliminem todos, sem excessão, (até por que, se há problema em um há em todos), já que todos foram carregados por mim extamente da mesma forma.(possuo duas contas de usuário, seja como Asdrubol, seja como Felipe Mostarda, para que não restem dúvidas) Felipe Mostarda (talk) 12:17, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
- Keep - the file is in use and GFDL/CC licenses are irrevocable. The uploader appears to be claiming that he made the photo. COM:FOP#Brazil says FOP in São Paulo is OK. — Jeff G. ツ 00:31, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
- Keep - I understand why Felipe Mostarda is angry, but these photos are worth keeping. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 17:22, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
- Keep - valid and irrevocable license, useful. --Elekhh (talk) 00:21, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
Kept. I see no reason to doubt that this was own work so no need to delete. MGA73 (talk) 20:48, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
Estive contribuindo com imagens feitas por mim durante muito tempo, porém tenho sido acusado em um artigo, por um certo usuário de ter problemas com minhas lincensas (ninguém, em anos, nunca me informou disso) para carregar as fotos (estão me acusando de estar carregando fotos que não foram feitas por mim, ou seja violando direito autoral, o que é uma calúnia absurda), para minha surpresa tive meu último carregamento eliminado, porém não obtive nenhuma explicação do por que várias outras imagens feitas e carregadas por mim continuam a estar diponíveis, se for pra eliminar, que eliminem todos, sem excessão, (até por que, se há problema em um há em todos), já que todos foram carregados por mim extamente da mesma forma.(possuo duas contas de usuário, seja como Asdrubol, seja como Felipe Mostarda, para que não restem dúvidas) Felipe Mostarda (talk) 12:17, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
- Keep - the file is in use and GFDL/CC licenses are irrevocable. The uploader appears to be claiming that he made the photo. COM:FOP#Brazil says FOP in São Paulo is OK. — Jeff G. ツ 00:31, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
- Keep - I understand why Felipe Mostarda is angry, but these photos are worth keeping. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 17:19, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
Kept. I see no reason to doubt that this was own work so no need to delete. MGA73 (talk) 20:49, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
Estive contribuindo com imagens feitas por mim durante muito tempo, porém tenho sido acusado em um artigo, por um certo usuário de ter problemas com minhas lincensas (ninguém, em anos, nunca me informou disso) para carregar as fotos (estão me acusando de estar carregando fotos que não foram feitas por mim, ou seja violando direito autoral, o que é uma calúnia absurda), para minha surpresa tive meu último carregamento eliminado, porém não obtive nenhuma explicação do por que várias outras imagens feitas e carregadas por mim continuam a estar diponíveis, se for pra eliminar, que eliminem todos, sem excessão, (até por que, se há problema em um há em todos), já que todos foram carregados por mim extamente da mesma forma.(possuo duas contas de usuário, seja como Asdrubol, seja como Felipe Mostarda, para que não restem dúvidas) Felipe Mostarda (talk) 12:18, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
- Keep - the file is in use and GFDL/CC licenses are irrevocable. The uploader appears to be claiming that he made the photo. COM:FOP#Brazil says FOP in São Paulo is OK. — Jeff G. ツ 00:30, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
Kept. I see no reason to doubt that this was own work so no need to delete. MGA73 (talk) 20:49, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
Estive contribuindo com imagens feitas por mim durante muito tempo, porém tenho sido acusado em um artigo, por um certo usuário de ter problemas com minhas lincensas (ninguém, em anos, nunca me informou disso) para carregar as fotos (estão me acusando de estar carregando fotos que não foram feitas por mim, ou seja violando direito autoral, o que é uma calúnia absurda), para minha surpresa tive meu último carregamento eliminado, porém não obtive nenhuma explicação do por que várias outras imagens feitas e carregadas por mim continuam a estar diponíveis, se for pra eliminar, que eliminem todos, sem excessão, (até por que, se há problema em um há em todos), já que todos foram carregados por mim extamente da mesma forma.(possuo duas contas de usuário, seja como Asdrubol, seja como Felipe Mostarda, para que não restem dúvidas) Felipe Mostarda (talk) 12:18, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
- Keep - the file is in use and GFDL/CC licenses are irrevocable. The uploader appears to be claiming that he made the photo. COM:FOP#Brazil says FOP in São Paulo is OK. — Jeff G. ツ 00:29, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
- Keep - I understand why Felipe Mostarda is angry, but these photos are worth keeping. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 17:18, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
Kept. I see no reason to doubt that this was own work so no need to delete. MGA73 (talk) 20:50, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
Estive contribuindo com imagens feitas por mim durante muito tempo, porém tenho sido acusado em um artigo, por um certo usuário de ter problemas com minhas lincensas (ninguém, em anos, nunca me informou disso) para carregar as fotos (estão me acusando de estar carregando fotos que não foram feitas por mim, ou seja violando direito autoral, o que é uma calúnia absurda), para minha surpresa tive meu último carregamento eliminado, porém não obtive nenhuma explicação do por que várias outras imagens feitas e carregadas por mim continuam a estar diponíveis, se for pra eliminar, que eliminem todos, sem excessão, (até por que, se há problema em um há em todos), já que todos foram carregados por mim extamente da mesma forma.(possuo duas contas de usuário, seja como Asdrubol, seja como Felipe Mostarda, para que não restem dúvidas) Felipe Mostarda (talk) 12:19, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
- Keep - the file is in use and GFDL/CC licenses are irrevocable. The uploader appears to be claiming that he made the photo. COM:FOP#Brazil says FOP in São Paulo is OK. — Jeff G. ツ 00:28, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
- Keep - I understand why Felipe Mostarda is angry, but these photos are worth keeping. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 17:17, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
Kept. I see no reason to doubt that this was own work so no need to delete. MGA73 (talk) 20:51, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
Estive contribuindo com imagens feitas por mim durante muito tempo, porém tenho sido acusado em um artigo, por um certo usuário de ter problemas com minhas lincensas (ninguém, em anos, nunca me informou disso) para carregar as fotos (estão me acusando de estar carregando fotos que não foram feitas por mim, ou seja violando direito autoral, o que é uma calúnia absurda), para minha surpresa tive meu último carregamento eliminado, porém não obtive nenhuma explicação do por que várias outras imagens feitas e carregadas por mim continuam a estar diponíveis, se for pra eliminar, que eliminem todos, sem excessão, (até por que, se há problema em um há em todos), já que todos foram carregados por mim extamente da mesma forma.(possuo duas contas de usuário, seja como Asdrubol, seja como Felipe Mostarda, para que não restem dúvidas) Felipe Mostarda (talk) 12:20, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
- Keep - the file is in use and GFDL/CC licenses are irrevocable. The uploader appears to be claiming that he made the photo. COM:FOP#Brazil says FOP in São Paulo is OK. — Jeff G. ツ 00:27, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
Kept. I see no reason to doubt that this was own work so no need to delete. MGA73 (talk) 20:51, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
Estive contribuindo com imagens feitas por mim durante muito tempo, porém tenho sido acusado em um artigo, por um certo usuário de ter problemas com minhas lincensas (ninguém, em anos, nunca me informou disso) para carregar as fotos (estão me acusando de estar carregando fotos que não foram feitas por mim, ou seja violando direito autoral, o que é uma calúnia absurda), para minha surpresa tive meu último carregamento eliminado, porém não obtive nenhuma explicação do por que várias outras imagens feitas e carregadas por mim continuam a estar diponíveis, se for pra eliminar, que eliminem todos, sem excessão, (até por que, se há problema em um há em todos), já que todos foram carregados por mim extamente da mesma forma.(possuo duas contas de usuário, seja como Asdrubol, seja como Felipe Mostarda, para que não restem dúvidas) Felipe Mostarda (talk) 12:20, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
- Keep - the file is in use and GFDL/CC licenses are irrevocable. The uploader appears to be claiming that he made the photo. COM:FOP#Brazil says FOP in São Paulo is OK. — Jeff G. ツ 00:27, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
- Keep - valid and irrevocable license. --Elekhh (talk) 00:20, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
Kept. I see no reason to doubt that this was own work so no need to delete. MGA73 (talk) 20:52, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
Estive contribuindo com imagens feitas por mim durante muito tempo, porém tenho sido acusado em um artigo, por um certo usuário de ter problemas com minhas lincensas (ninguém, em anos, nunca me informou disso) para carregar as fotos (estão me acusando de estar carregando fotos que não foram feitas por mim, ou seja violando direito autoral, o que é uma calúnia absurda), para minha surpresa tive meu último carregamento eliminado, porém não obtive nenhuma explicação do por que várias outras imagens feitas e carregadas por mim continuam a estar diponíveis, se for pra eliminar, que eliminem todos, sem excessão, (até por que, se há problema em um há em todos), já que todos foram carregados por mim extamente da mesma forma.(possuo duas contas de usuário, seja como Asdrubol, seja como Felipe Mostarda, para que não restem dúvidas) Felipe Mostarda (talk) 12:21, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
Estive contribuindo com imagens feitas por mim durante muito tempo, porém tenho sido acusado em um artigo, por umc erto usuário de ter problemas com minhas lincensas (ninguém, em anos, nunca me informou disso) para carregar as fotos (estão me acusando de estar carregando fotos que não foram feitas por mim, ou seja violando direito autoral, o que é uma calúnia absurda), para minha surpresa tive meu último carregamento eliminado, porém não obtive nenhuma explicação do por que várias outras imagens feitas e carregadas por mim continuam a estar diponíveis, se for pra eliminar, que eliminem todos, sem excessão, (até por que, se há problema em um há em todos), já que todos foram carregados por mim extamente da mesma forma.(TODAS as fotos contidas nessa montagem são de minha única e exclusiva autoria)obs: tenho duas contas de usuário, tanto como Asdrubol como Felipe Mostarda. Felipe Mostarda (talk) 12:40, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
- Keep - the file is in use and GFDL/CC licenses are irrevocable. The uploader appears to be claiming that he made the photo. COM:FOP#Brazil says FOP in São Paulo is OK. — Jeff G. ツ 00:07, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
Kept. I see no reason to doubt that this was own work so no need to delete. MGA73 (talk) 20:55, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
Estive contribuindo com imagens feitas por mim durante muito tempo, porém tenho sido acusado em um artigo, por um certo usuário de ter problemas com minhas lincensas (ninguém, em anos, nunca me informou disso) para carregar as fotos (estão me acusando de estar carregando fotos que não foram feitas por mim, ou seja violando direito autoral, o que é uma calúnia absurda), para minha surpresa tive meu último carregamento eliminado, porém não obtive nenhuma explicação do por que várias outras imagens feitas e carregadas por mim continuam a estar diponíveis, se for pra eliminar, que eliminem todos, sem excessão, (até por que, se há problema em um há em todos), já que todos foram carregados por mim extamente da mesma forma.(possuo duas contas de usuário, seja como Asdrubol, seja como Felipe Mostarda, para que não restem dúvidas) Felipe Mostarda (talk) 12:21, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
- Keep - the file is in use and GFDL/CC licenses are irrevocable. The uploader appears to be claiming that he made the photo. COM:FOP#Brazil says FOP in São Paulo is OK. — Jeff G. ツ 00:10, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
- Keep - I understand why Felipe Mustarda is angry, but these photos are worth keeping. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 17:15, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
Kept. I see no reason to doubt that this was own work so no need to delete. MGA73 (talk) 20:56, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
Logotipo de empresa que posee derechos de autor bajo la misma Superzerocool (talk) 12:21, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
Kept. - PD-textlogo - Jcb (talk) 11:42, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
Estive contribuindo com imagens feitas por mim durante muito tempo, porém tenho sido acusado em um artigo, por um certo usuário de ter problemas com minhas lincensas (ninguém, em anos, nunca me informou disso) para carregar as fotos (estão me acusando de estar carregando fotos que não foram feitas por mim, ou seja violando direito autoral, o que é uma calúnia absurda), para minha surpresa tive meu último carregamento eliminado, porém não obtive nenhuma explicação do por que várias outras imagens feitas e carregadas por mim continuam a estar diponíveis, se for pra eliminar, que eliminem todos, sem excessão, (até por que, se há problema em um há em todos), já que todos foram carregados por mim extamente da mesma forma.(possuo duas contas de usuário, seja como Asdrubol, seja como Felipe Mostarda, para que não restem dúvidas) Felipe Mostarda (talk) 12:22, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
- Keep - the file is in use and GFDL/CC licenses are irrevocable. The uploader appears to be claiming that he made the photo. COM:FOP#Brazil says FOP in São Paulo is OK. — Jeff G. ツ 22:48, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
Kept. I see no reason to doubt that this was own work so no need to delete. MGA73 (talk) 20:57, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
Estive contribuindo com imagens feitas por mim durante muito tempo, porém tenho sido acusado em um artigo, por um certo usuário de ter problemas com minhas lincensas (ninguém, em anos, nunca me informou disso) para carregar as fotos (estão me acusando de estar carregando fotos que não foram feitas por mim, ou seja violando direito autoral, o que é uma calúnia absurda), para minha surpresa tive meu último carregamento eliminado, porém não obtive nenhuma explicação do por que várias outras imagens feitas e carregadas por mim continuam a estar diponíveis, se for pra eliminar, que eliminem todos, sem excessão, (até por que, se há problema em um há em todos), já que todos foram carregados por mim extamente da mesma forma.(possuo duas contas de usuário, seja como Asdrubol, seja como Felipe Mostarda, para que não restem dúvidas) Felipe Mostarda (talk) 12:23, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
- Keep - the file is in use and GFDL/CC licenses are irrevocable. The uploader appears to be claiming that he made the photo. COM:FOP#Brazil says FOP in São Paulo is OK. — Jeff G. ツ 00:26, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
- Keep - I understand why Felipe Mostarda is angry, but these photos are worth keeping. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 17:33, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
Kept. I see no reason to doubt that this was own work so no need to delete. MGA73 (talk) 20:58, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
Estive contribuindo com imagens feitas por mim durante muito tempo, porém tenho sido acusado em um artigo, por um certo usuário de ter problemas com minhas lincensas (ninguém, em anos, nunca me informou disso) para carregar as fotos (estão me acusando de estar carregando fotos que não foram feitas por mim, ou seja violando direito autoral, o que é uma calúnia absurda), para minha surpresa tive meu último carregamento eliminado, porém não obtive nenhuma explicação do por que várias outras imagens feitas e carregadas por mim continuam a estar diponíveis, se for pra eliminar, que eliminem todos, sem excessão, (até por que, se há problema em um há em todos), já que todos foram carregados por mim extamente da mesma forma.(possuo duas contas de usuário, seja como Asdrubol, seja como Felipe Mostarda, para que não restem dúvidas) Felipe Mostarda (talk) 12:23, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
Estive contribuindo com imagens feitas por mim durante muito tempo, porém tenho sido acusado em um artigo, por umc erto usuário de ter problemas com minhas lincensas (ninguém, em anos, nunca me informou disso) para carregar as fotos (estão me acusando de estar carregando fotos que não foram feitas por mim, ou seja violando direito autoral, o que é uma calúnia absurda), para minha surpresa tive meu último carregamento eliminado, porém não obtive nenhuma explicação do por que várias outras imagens feitas e carregadas por mim continuam a estar diponíveis, se for pra eliminar, que eliminem todos, sem excessão, (até por que, se há problema em um há em todos), já que todos foram carregados por mim extamente da mesma forma.(TODAS as fotos contidas nessa montagem são de minha única e exclusiva autoria)obs: tenho duas contas de usuário, tanto como Asdrubol como Felipe Mostarda. Felipe Mostarda (talk) 12:38, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
- Keep - the file is in use and GFDL/CC licenses are irrevocable. The uploader appears to be claiming that he made the photo. COM:FOP#Brazil says FOP in São Paulo is OK. — Jeff G. ツ 00:09, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
- Keep - properly licensed. --Elekhh (talk) 00:10, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
Kept. I see no reason to doubt that this was own work so no need to delete. MGA73 (talk) 20:59, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
Estive contribuindo com imagens feitas por mim durante muito tempo, porém tenho sido acusado em um artigo, por umc erto usuário de ter problemas com minhas lincensas (ninguém, em anos, nunca me informou disso) para carregar as fotos (estão me acusando de estar carregando fotos que não foram feitas por mim, ou seja violando direito autoral, o que é uma calúnia absurda), para minha surpresa tive meu último carregamento eliminado, porém não obtive nenhuma explicação do por que várias outras imagens feitas e carregadas por mim continuam a estar diponíveis, se for pra eliminar, que eliminem todos, sem excessão, (até por que, se há problema em um há em todos), já que todos foram carregados por mim extamente da mesma forma. Felipe Mostarda (talk) 12:26, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
- Keep - the file is in use and GFDL/CC licenses are irrevocable. The uploader appears to be claiming that he made the photo. COM:FOP#Brazil says FOP in São Paulo is OK. — Jeff G. ツ 00:04, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
- Keep - I understand why Felipe Mostarda is angry, but these photos are worth keeping. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 17:32, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
- Keep - properly licensed. --Elekhh (talk) 00:09, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
Kept. I see no reason to doubt that this was own work so no need to delete. MGA73 (talk) 21:00, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
Estive contribuindo com imagens feitas por mim durante muito tempo, porém tenho sido acusado em um artigo, por umc erto usuário de ter problemas com minhas lincensas (ninguém, em anos, nunca me informou disso) para carregar as fotos (estão me acusando de estar carregando fotos que não foram feitas por mim, ou seja violando direito autoral, o que é uma calúnia absurda), para minha surpresa tive meu último carregamento eliminado, porém não obtive nenhuma explicação do por que várias outras imagens feitas e carregadas por mim continuam a estar diponíveis, se for pra eliminar, que eliminem todos, sem excessão, (até por que, se há problema em um há em todos), já que todos foram carregados por mim extamente da mesma forma. Felipe Mostarda (talk) 12:27, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
Automated translation from Portuguese Language to English Language:- Keep - the file is in use and GFDL/CC licenses are irrevocable. The uploader appears to be claiming that he made the photo. COM:FOP#Brazil says FOP in São Paulo is OK. — Jeff G. ツ 22:33, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
Kept. I see no reason to doubt that this was own work so no need to delete. MGA73 (talk) 21:01, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
Estive contribuindo com imagens feitas por mim durante muito tempo, porém tenho sido acusado em um artigo, por umc erto usuário de ter problemas com minhas lincensas (ninguém, em anos, nunca me informou disso) para carregar as fotos (estão me acusando de estar carregando fotos que não foram feitas por mim, ou seja violando direito autoral, o que é uma calúnia absurda), para minha surpresa tive meu último carregamento eliminado, porém não obtive nenhuma explicação do por que várias outras imagens feitas e carregadas por mim continuam a estar diponíveis, se for pra eliminar, que eliminem todos, sem excessão, (até por que, se há problema em um há em todos), já que todos foram carregados por mim extamente da mesma forma. Felipe Mostarda (talk) 12:27, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
- Keep - the file is in use and GFDL/CC licenses are irrevocable. The uploader appears to be claiming that he made the photo. COM:FOP#Brazil says FOP in São Paulo is OK. — Jeff G. ツ 00:25, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
- Keep properly licensed and useful. --Elekhh (talk) 00:28, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
Kept. I see no reason to doubt that this was own work so no need to delete. MGA73 (talk) 21:02, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
Estive contribuindo com imagens feitas por mim durante muito tempo, porém tenho sido acusado em um artigo, por umc erto usuário de ter problemas com minhas lincensas (ninguém, em anos, nunca me informou disso) para carregar as fotos (estão me acusando de estar carregando fotos que não foram feitas por mim, ou seja violando direito autoral, o que é uma calúnia absurda), para minha surpresa tive meu último carregamento eliminado, porém não obtive nenhuma explicação do por que várias outras imagens feitas e carregadas por mim continuam a estar diponíveis, se for pra eliminar, que eliminem todos, sem excessão, (até por que, se há problema em um há em todos), já que todos foram carregados por mim extamente da mesma forma. Felipe Mostarda (talk) 12:28, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
- Keep - GFDL/CC licenses are irrevocable. The uploader appears to be claiming that he made the photo. COM:FOP#Brazil says FOP in São Paulo is OK. — Jeff G. ツ 00:24, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
- Keep - I understand why Felipe Mostarda is angry, but these photos are worth keeping. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 17:26, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
Kept. I see no reason to doubt that this was own work so no need to delete. MGA73 (talk) 21:02, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
Estive contribuindo com imagens feitas por mim durante muito tempo, porém tenho sido acusado em um artigo, por umc erto usuário de ter problemas com minhas lincensas (ninguém, em anos, nunca me informou disso) para carregar as fotos (estão me acusando de estar carregando fotos que não foram feitas por mim, ou seja violando direito autoral, o que é uma calúnia absurda), para minha surpresa tive meu último carregamento eliminado, porém não obtive nenhuma explicação do por que várias outras imagens feitas e carregadas por mim continuam a estar diponíveis, se for pra eliminar, que eliminem todos, sem excessão, (até por que, se há problema em um há em todos), já que todos foram carregados por mim extamente da mesma forma. Felipe Mostarda (talk) 12:28, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
Estive contribuindo com imagens feitas por mim durante muito tempo, porém tenho sido acusado em um artigo, por umc erto usuário de ter problemas com minhas lincensas (ninguém, em anos, nunca me informou disso) para carregar as fotos (estão me acusando de estar carregando fotos que não foram feitas por mim, ou seja violando direito autoral, o que é uma calúnia absurda), para minha surpresa tive meu último carregamento eliminado, porém não obtive nenhuma explicação do por que várias outras imagens feitas e carregadas por mim continuam a estar diponíveis, se for pra eliminar, que eliminem todos, sem excessão, (até por que, se há problema em um há em todos), já que todos foram carregados por mim extamente da mesma forma.(TODAS as fotos contidas nessa montagem são de minha única e exclusiva autoria)obs: tenho duas contas de usuário, tanto como Asdrubol como Felipe Mostarda. Felipe Mostarda (talk) 12:39, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
- Keep - the file is in use and GFDL/CC licenses are irrevocable. The uploader appears to be claiming that he made the photo. COM:FOP#Brazil says FOP in São Paulo is OK. — Jeff G. ツ 00:09, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
Kept. I see no reason to doubt that this was own work so no need to delete. MGA73 (talk) 21:03, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
Estive contribuindo com imagens feitas por mim durante muito tempo, porém tenho sido acusado em um artigo, por umc erto usuário de ter problemas com minhas lincensas (ninguém, em anos, nunca me informou disso) para carregar as fotos (estão me acusando de estar carregando fotos que não foram feitas por mim, ou seja violando direito autoral, o que é uma calúnia absurda), para minha surpresa tive meu último carregamento eliminado, porém não obtive nenhuma explicação do por que várias outras imagens feitas e carregadas por mim continuam a estar diponíveis, se for pra eliminar, que eliminem todos, sem excessão, (até por que, se há problema em um há em todos), já que todos foram carregados por mim extamente da mesma forma. Felipe Mostarda (talk) 12:29, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
- Keep - the file is in use and GFDL/CC licenses are irrevocable. The uploader appears to be claiming that he made the photo. COM:FOP#Brazil says FOP in São Paulo is OK. — Jeff G. ツ 00:23, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
Kept. I see no reason to doubt that this was own work so no need to delete. MGA73 (talk) 21:04, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
Estive contribuindo com imagens feitas por mim durante muito tempo, porém tenho sido acusado em um artigo, por umc erto usuário de ter problemas com minhas lincensas (ninguém, em anos, nunca me informou disso) para carregar as fotos (estão me acusando de estar carregando fotos que não foram feitas por mim, ou seja violando direito autoral, o que é uma calúnia absurda), para minha surpresa tive meu último carregamento eliminado, porém não obtive nenhuma explicação do por que várias outras imagens feitas e carregadas por mim continuam a estar diponíveis, se for pra eliminar, que eliminem todos, sem excessão, (até por que, se há problema em um há em todos), já que todos foram carregados por mim extamente da mesma forma. Felipe Mostarda (talk) 12:29, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
- Keep - GFDL/CC licenses are irrevocable. The uploader appears to be claiming that he made the photo. COM:FOP#Brazil says FOP in São Paulo is OK. — Jeff G. ツ 00:22, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
- Keep - I understand why Felipe Mostarda is angry, but these photos are worth keeping. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 17:27, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
Kept. I see no reason to doubt that this was own work so no need to delete. MGA73 (talk) 21:04, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
Estive contribuindo com imagens feitas por mim durante muito tempo, porém tenho sido acusado em um artigo, por umc erto usuário de ter problemas com minhas lincensas (ninguém, em anos, nunca me informou disso) para carregar as fotos (estão me acusando de estar carregando fotos que não foram feitas por mim, ou seja violando direito autoral, o que é uma calúnia absurda), para minha surpresa tive meu último carregamento eliminado, porém não obtive nenhuma explicação do por que várias outras imagens feitas e carregadas por mim continuam a estar diponíveis, se for pra eliminar, que eliminem todos, sem excessão, (até por que, se há problema em um há em todos), já que todos foram carregados por mim extamente da mesma forma. Felipe Mostarda (talk) 12:29, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
- Keep - GFDL/CC licenses are irrevocable. The uploader appears to be claiming that he made the photo. COM:FOP#Brazil says FOP in São Paulo is OK. — Jeff G. ツ 00:21, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
Kept. I see no reason to doubt that this was own work so no need to delete. MGA73 (talk) 21:05, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
Estive contribuindo com imagens feitas por mim durante muito tempo, porém tenho sido acusado em um artigo, por umc erto usuário de ter problemas com minhas lincensas (ninguém, em anos, nunca me informou disso) para carregar as fotos (estão me acusando de estar carregando fotos que não foram feitas por mim, ou seja violando direito autoral, o que é uma calúnia absurda), para minha surpresa tive meu último carregamento eliminado, porém não obtive nenhuma explicação do por que várias outras imagens feitas e carregadas por mim continuam a estar diponíveis, se for pra eliminar, que eliminem todos, sem excessão, (até por que, se há problema em um há em todos), já que todos foram carregados por mim extamente da mesma forma. (esta foto foi escaneada a partir de uma revelação feita em papel, porém também sou o autor dela, pois foi tirada por mim mesmo) obs: tenho duas contas de usuário, tanto como Asdrubol como Felipe Mostarda. Felipe Mostarda (talk) 12:33, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
- Keep - the file is in use and GFDL/CC licenses are irrevocable. The uploader appears to be claiming that he made the photo. COM:FOP#Brazil says FOP in São Paulo is OK. — Jeff G. ツ 00:20, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
- Keep - I understand why Felipe Mostarda is angry, but these photos are worth keeping. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 17:24, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
Kept. I see no reason to doubt that this was own work so no need to delete. MGA73 (talk) 21:06, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
Estive contribuindo com imagens feitas por mim durante muito tempo, porém tenho sido acusado em um artigo, por umc erto usuário de ter problemas com minhas lincensas (ninguém, em anos, nunca me informou disso) para carregar as fotos (estão me acusando de estar carregando fotos que não foram feitas por mim, ou seja violando direito autoral, o que é uma calúnia absurda), para minha surpresa tive meu último carregamento eliminado, porém não obtive nenhuma explicação do por que várias outras imagens feitas e carregadas por mim continuam a estar diponíveis, se for pra eliminar, que eliminem todos, sem excessão, (até por que, se há problema em um há em todos), já que todos foram carregados por mim extamente da mesma forma.obs: tenho duas contas de usuário, tanto como Asdrubol como Felipe Mostarda. Felipe Mostarda (talk) 12:33, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
- Keep - GFDL/CC licenses are irrevocable. The uploader appears to be claiming that he made the photo. COM:FOP#Brazil says FOP in São Paulo is OK. — Jeff G. ツ 00:19, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
- Keep - I understand why Felipe Mostarda is angry, but these photos are worth keeping. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 17:28, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
Kept. I see no reason to doubt that this was own work so no need to delete. MGA73 (talk) 21:06, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
Estive contribuindo com imagens feitas por mim durante muito tempo, porém tenho sido acusado em um artigo, por umc erto usuário de ter problemas com minhas lincensas (ninguém, em anos, nunca me informou disso) para carregar as fotos (estão me acusando de estar carregando fotos que não foram feitas por mim, ou seja violando direito autoral, o que é uma calúnia absurda), para minha surpresa tive meu último carregamento eliminado, porém não obtive nenhuma explicação do por que várias outras imagens feitas e carregadas por mim continuam a estar diponíveis, se for pra eliminar, que eliminem todos, sem excessão, (até por que, se há problema em um há em todos), já que todos foram carregados por mim extamente da mesma forma.obs: tenho duas contas de usuário, tanto como Asdrubol como Felipe Mostarda. Felipe Mostarda (talk) 12:34, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
- Keep - the file is in use and GFDL/CC licenses are irrevocable. The uploader appears to be claiming that he made the photo. COM:FOP#Brazil says FOP in São Paulo is OK. — Jeff G. ツ 00:18, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
Kept. I see no reason to doubt that this was own work so no need to delete. MGA73 (talk) 21:08, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
Estive contribuindo com imagens feitas por mim durante muito tempo, porém tenho sido acusado em um artigo, por umc erto usuário de ter problemas com minhas lincensas (ninguém, em anos, nunca me informou disso) para carregar as fotos (estão me acusando de estar carregando fotos que não foram feitas por mim, ou seja violando direito autoral, o que é uma calúnia absurda), para minha surpresa tive meu último carregamento eliminado, porém não obtive nenhuma explicação do por que várias outras imagens feitas e carregadas por mim continuam a estar diponíveis, se for pra eliminar, que eliminem todos, sem excessão, (até por que, se há problema em um há em todos), já que todos foram carregados por mim extamente da mesma forma.(TODAS as fotos contidas nessa montagem são de minha única e exclusiva autoria) obs: tenho duas contas de usuário, tanto como Asdrubol como Felipe Mostarda. Felipe Mostarda (talk) 12:35, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
- Keep - GFDL/CC licenses are irrevocable. The uploader appears to be claiming that he made the photo. COM:FOP#Brazil says FOP in São Paulo is OK. — Jeff G. ツ 00:16, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
- Comment Heitor C. Jorge had first tagged this a "no permission", although there was permission. When that tag was removed, he escaleted with a {{Copyvio}} tag, without any pointer to what this would infringe on. I see no reason to doubt that this is own work, but it would be nice if Asdrubol could upload some originals too. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 17:04, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
Kept. I see no reason to doubt that this was own work so no need to delete. MGA73 (talk) 21:09, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
no provenance supplied for components of montage DS (talk) 21:09, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
- Keep - renomination without addressing previous DRs is just a waste of everybody's time. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:16, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
- I had no idea that this had been previously nominated. I tagged it because it's a collage with no indications as to the provenance of its individual parts. We have no idea whether "own work" means that the uploader took the photos, or whether it means he pasted them together. Where do these photos come from? DS (talk) 01:05, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
- A hint to a newbie: if the "discussion" tab is blue, you should look at it before nominating. The photos are own work, as he uploader wrote above. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 06:35, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
- I had no idea that this had been previously nominated. I tagged it because it's a collage with no indications as to the provenance of its individual parts. We have no idea whether "own work" means that the uploader took the photos, or whether it means he pasted them together. Where do these photos come from? DS (talk) 01:05, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
Comment You shot those images? Was it "Felipe Mostarda" or was it User:Asdrubol? --High Contrast (talk) 10:31, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
- They are the same person. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 11:46, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
Kept. See Commons:Deletion requests/File:São paulo 2.jpg . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:54, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
Estive contribuindo com imagens feitas por mim durante muito tempo, porém tenho sido acusado em um artigo, por umc erto usuário de ter problemas com minhas lincensas (ninguém, em anos, nunca me informou disso) para carregar as fotos (estão me acusando de estar carregando fotos que não foram feitas por mim, ou seja violando direito autoral, o que é uma calúnia absurda), para minha surpresa tive meu último carregamento eliminado, porém não obtive nenhuma explicação do por que várias outras imagens feitas e carregadas por mim continuam a estar diponíveis, se for pra eliminar, que eliminem todos, sem excessão, (até por que, se há problema em um há em todos), já que todos foram carregados por mim extamente da mesma forma.(TODAS as fotos contidas nessa montagem são de minha única e exclusiva autoria)obs: tenho duas contas de usuário, tanto como Asdrubol como Felipe Mostarda. Felipe Mostarda (talk) 12:36, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
- Keep - the file is in use and GFDL/CC licenses are irrevocable. The uploader appears to be claiming that he made the photo. COM:FOP#Brazil says FOP in São Paulo is OK. I have trouble believing the uploader's claim of copyvio. — Jeff G. ツ 00:13, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
- The user Felipe Mostarda can even claim to be the author of the images, but he can not prove it. No links or source has been presented so far to prove that the photographs on this collage were taken by him. It is wise to remove all images that user, at least until he proves to be the real author. Heitor C. Jorge (talk) 18:36, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
- You had first tagged this as "no source", although this was given as own work. You then escaleted with a {{Copyvio}} tag, without any pointer to what this would infringe on. I see no reason to doubt that this is own work, but it would be nice if Asdrubol could upload some originals too. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 17:04, 22 November 2010 (UTC).
- The user Felipe Mostarda can even claim to be the author of the images, but he can not prove it. No links or source has been presented so far to prove that the photographs on this collage were taken by him. It is wise to remove all images that user, at least until he proves to be the real author. Heitor C. Jorge (talk) 18:36, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
If anyone challenges his ownership of the images, they need to prove who the rightful copyright holder is. It is not the responsibility of the owner to prove that they are the owner, nor is it practical to be required to do so. KDBerg
Kept. I see no reason to doubt that this was own work so no need to delete. MGA73 (talk) 21:11, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
no provenance supplied for components of montage DS (talk) 21:08, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
- Keep - as last time; such nominations that just disregard previous DRs are such a waste of time. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:14, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
- I had no idea that this had been nominated before. And it's still flawed: there is no indication of provenance. Where do these photos come from? DS (talk) 01:06, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
- A hint to a newbie: if the "discussion" tab is blue, you should look at it before nominating. The photos are own work, as he uploader wrote above. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 06:36, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
- Pieter Kuiper, I'd take it as a personal favor if you didn't abuse my friends like that. DragonflySixtyseven had a legitimate concern, and making dismissive/degrading comments in a harsh voice isn't the proper way to dispel such a concern. Sven Manguard Wha? 01:48, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
- And DS is abusing the Brazilian uploader. Concerns had been addressed before. Yet he won't withdraw the DR. Such a waste of everybody's time. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 07:20, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
- Pieter Kuiper, I'd take it as a personal favor if you didn't abuse my friends like that. DragonflySixtyseven had a legitimate concern, and making dismissive/degrading comments in a harsh voice isn't the proper way to dispel such a concern. Sven Manguard Wha? 01:48, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
- A hint to a newbie: if the "discussion" tab is blue, you should look at it before nominating. The photos are own work, as he uploader wrote above. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 06:36, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
- I had no idea that this had been nominated before. And it's still flawed: there is no indication of provenance. Where do these photos come from? DS (talk) 01:06, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
- Delete Until the list of images that was used to create the collage is added to the file description page, we can't just 'assume' that they're all fine. Sven Manguard Wha? 02:53, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
Kept In the first DR, the uploader says, among other things:
- "TODAS as fotos contidas nessa montagem são de minha única e exclusiva autoria"
I see no reason to doubt that clear statement. . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:52, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
Estive contribuindo com imagens feitas por mim durante muito tempo, porém tenho sido acusado em um artigo, por um certo usuário de ter problemas com minhas lincensas (ninguém, em anos, nunca me informou disso) para carregar as fotos (estão me acusando de estar carregando fotos que não foram feitas por mim, ou seja violando direito autoral, o que é uma calúnia absurda), para minha surpresa tive meu último carregamento eliminado, porém não obtive nenhuma explicação do por que várias outras imagens feitas e carregadas por mim continuam a estar diponíveis, se for pra eliminar, que eliminem todos, sem excessão, (até por que, se há problema em um há em todos), já que todos foram carregados por mim extamente da mesma forma.(possuo duas contas de usuário, seja como Asdrubol, seja como Felipe Mostarda, para que não restem dúvidas) Felipe Mostarda (talk) 12:21, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
- Keep - the file is in use and GFDL/CC licenses are irrevocable. The uploader appears to be claiming that he made the photo. COM:FOP#Brazil says FOP in São Paulo is OK. — Jeff G. ツ 00:10, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
- Keep - I understand why Felipe Mustarda is angry, but these photos are worth keeping. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 17:15, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
Kept. I see no reason to doubt that this was own work so no need to delete. MGA73 (talk) 20:56, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
Estive contribuindo com imagens feitas por mim durante muito tempo, porém tenho sido acusado em um artigo, por um certo usuário de ter problemas com minhas lincensas (ninguém, em anos, nunca me informou disso) para carregar as fotos (estão me acusando de estar carregando fotos que não foram feitas por mim, ou seja violando direito autoral, o que é uma calúnia absurda), para minha surpresa tive meu último carregamento eliminado, porém não obtive nenhuma explicação do por que várias outras imagens feitas e carregadas por mim continuam a estar diponíveis, se for pra eliminar, que eliminem todos, sem excessão, (até por que, se há problema em um há em todos), já que todos foram carregados por mim extamente da mesma forma.(possuo duas contas de usuário, seja como Asdrubol, seja como Felipe Mostarda, para que não restem dúvidas) Felipe Mostarda (talk) 12:23, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
Estive contribuindo com imagens feitas por mim durante muito tempo, porém tenho sido acusado em um artigo, por umc erto usuário de ter problemas com minhas lincensas (ninguém, em anos, nunca me informou disso) para carregar as fotos (estão me acusando de estar carregando fotos que não foram feitas por mim, ou seja violando direito autoral, o que é uma calúnia absurda), para minha surpresa tive meu último carregamento eliminado, porém não obtive nenhuma explicação do por que várias outras imagens feitas e carregadas por mim continuam a estar diponíveis, se for pra eliminar, que eliminem todos, sem excessão, (até por que, se há problema em um há em todos), já que todos foram carregados por mim extamente da mesma forma.(TODAS as fotos contidas nessa montagem são de minha única e exclusiva autoria)obs: tenho duas contas de usuário, tanto como Asdrubol como Felipe Mostarda. Felipe Mostarda (talk) 12:38, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
- Keep - the file is in use and GFDL/CC licenses are irrevocable. The uploader appears to be claiming that he made the photo. COM:FOP#Brazil says FOP in São Paulo is OK. — Jeff G. ツ 00:09, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
- Keep - properly licensed. --Elekhh (talk) 00:10, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
Kept. I see no reason to doubt that this was own work so no need to delete. MGA73 (talk) 20:59, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
Out of scope; doesn't apply to any image on Commons or the sister projects. –Tryphon☂ 12:38, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
- Why that ? AteshCommons (talk) 12:41, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
- Because we require that all the images we host can be modified, shared and used by anyone, otherwise we delete them. See COM:L. –Tryphon☂ 12:44, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
- This message is only for use EXTERNAL to Wikipedia. AteshCommons (talk) 12:53, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
- Read what I just said (and COM:L). –Tryphon☂ 13:05, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
- This message is only for use EXTERNAL to Wikipedia. AteshCommons (talk) 12:53, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
- Because we require that all the images we host can be modified, shared and used by anyone, otherwise we delete them. See COM:L. –Tryphon☂ 12:44, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Decidedly out of COM:SCOPE. Please take note of my rationale for the files including this image as a permissions banner (Commons:Deletion requests/File:AYDeezypermission.PNG). —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 02:38, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 11:43, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
Estive contribuindo com imagens feitas por mim durante muito tempo, porém tenho sido acusado em um artigo, por umc erto usuário de ter problemas com minhas lincensas (ninguém, em anos, nunca me informou disso) para carregar as fotos (estão me acusando de estar carregando fotos que não foram feitas por mim, ou seja violando direito autoral, o que é uma calúnia absurda), para minha surpresa tive meu último carregamento eliminado, porém não obtive nenhuma explicação do por que várias outras imagens feitas e carregadas por mim continuam a estar diponíveis, se for pra eliminar, que eliminem todos, sem excessão, (até por que, se há problema em um há em todos), já que todos foram carregados por mim extamente da mesma forma. Felipe Mostarda (talk) 12:28, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
Estive contribuindo com imagens feitas por mim durante muito tempo, porém tenho sido acusado em um artigo, por umc erto usuário de ter problemas com minhas lincensas (ninguém, em anos, nunca me informou disso) para carregar as fotos (estão me acusando de estar carregando fotos que não foram feitas por mim, ou seja violando direito autoral, o que é uma calúnia absurda), para minha surpresa tive meu último carregamento eliminado, porém não obtive nenhuma explicação do por que várias outras imagens feitas e carregadas por mim continuam a estar diponíveis, se for pra eliminar, que eliminem todos, sem excessão, (até por que, se há problema em um há em todos), já que todos foram carregados por mim extamente da mesma forma.(TODAS as fotos contidas nessa montagem são de minha única e exclusiva autoria)obs: tenho duas contas de usuário, tanto como Asdrubol como Felipe Mostarda. Felipe Mostarda (talk) 12:39, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
- Keep - the file is in use and GFDL/CC licenses are irrevocable. The uploader appears to be claiming that he made the photo. COM:FOP#Brazil says FOP in São Paulo is OK. — Jeff G. ツ 00:09, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
Kept. I see no reason to doubt that this was own work so no need to delete. MGA73 (talk) 21:03, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
Estive contribuindo com imagens feitas por mim durante muito tempo, porém tenho sido acusado em um artigo, por um certo usuário de ter problemas com minhas lincensas (ninguém, em anos, nunca me informou disso) para carregar as fotos (estão me acusando de estar carregando fotos que não foram feitas por mim, ou seja violando direito autoral, o que é uma calúnia absurda), para minha surpresa tive meu último carregamento eliminado, porém não obtive nenhuma explicação do por que várias outras imagens feitas e carregadas por mim continuam a estar diponíveis, se for pra eliminar, que eliminem todos, sem excessão, (até por que, se há problema em um há em todos), já que todos foram carregados por mim extamente da mesma forma.(possuo duas contas de usuário, seja como Asdrubol, seja como Felipe Mostarda, para que não restem dúvidas) Felipe Mostarda (talk) 12:21, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
Estive contribuindo com imagens feitas por mim durante muito tempo, porém tenho sido acusado em um artigo, por umc erto usuário de ter problemas com minhas lincensas (ninguém, em anos, nunca me informou disso) para carregar as fotos (estão me acusando de estar carregando fotos que não foram feitas por mim, ou seja violando direito autoral, o que é uma calúnia absurda), para minha surpresa tive meu último carregamento eliminado, porém não obtive nenhuma explicação do por que várias outras imagens feitas e carregadas por mim continuam a estar diponíveis, se for pra eliminar, que eliminem todos, sem excessão, (até por que, se há problema em um há em todos), já que todos foram carregados por mim extamente da mesma forma.(TODAS as fotos contidas nessa montagem são de minha única e exclusiva autoria)obs: tenho duas contas de usuário, tanto como Asdrubol como Felipe Mostarda. Felipe Mostarda (talk) 12:40, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
- Keep - the file is in use and GFDL/CC licenses are irrevocable. The uploader appears to be claiming that he made the photo. COM:FOP#Brazil says FOP in São Paulo is OK. — Jeff G. ツ 00:07, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
Kept. I see no reason to doubt that this was own work so no need to delete. MGA73 (talk) 20:55, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
Very misleading, as it suggests it is required to contact the author prior to use. It is also applied to a lot of images that are trivial derivatives of other people's work, where this big logo kind of misappropriates the credit of the work. –Tryphon☂ 12:42, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
- All maps have been redone, reworked or are entirely made by me. The purpose of this "permission" is a use EXTERNAL to Wikipedia and not use INTERNAL. AteshCommons (talk) 12:44, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
- Even for external re-use, you cannot require people to contact you (and that distinction is not at all clear on this image). If you want people to drop you a note when they use your images outside wikimedia, you can ask nicely (and text is better than an image, think of people with disabilities). But you cannot say they need your permission. –Tryphon☂ 12:48, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
- They need to contact me for a commercial use. I'm doing this after I received an email three days ago an author and writer who wanted to use my card to illustrate his book. I have the right to ask "permission" before the publication of my property. AteshCommons (talk) 12:52, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
- No they don't, even for commercial use (and why do you write "for free use" when you mean "for commercial use"?). What you probably want, is something inviting people to contact you if they want to negotiate other license terms than what you already granted. If that't the case, then the best thing to do is create a template in your user space, and apply it to images you are allowed to relicense; you cannot relicense a derivative work of a cc-by-sa image for example, nor can you put restrictions on trivial derivatives such as File:Turkey-eu.svg (which is missing a source by the way). But make it clear that it is not a restriction on the free license, but simply an alternative for those who do not want to follow these license terms. –Tryphon☂ 13:03, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
- They need to contact me for a commercial use. I'm doing this after I received an email three days ago an author and writer who wanted to use my card to illustrate his book. I have the right to ask "permission" before the publication of my property. AteshCommons (talk) 12:52, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
- Even for external re-use, you cannot require people to contact you (and that distinction is not at all clear on this image). If you want people to drop you a note when they use your images outside wikimedia, you can ask nicely (and text is better than an image, think of people with disabilities). But you cannot say they need your permission. –Tryphon☂ 12:48, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
Delete per nom. — Jeff G. ツ 02:07, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
Delete AteshCommons needs to understand that all images on Commons must be licensed so that they are free for any use -- a credit line (attribution) may be required, but nothing else. A book author may use an image from Commons without asking permission or even telling the author about the use. (The uploader may ask for such notice, but not require it.)
Also, in cases such as File:HalkoyunlariYoreler.PNG, which is a derivative of another work licensed under CC-BY-SA, it is a violation of that license to put more restrictive terms on a derivative work. Therefore File:HalkoyunlariYoreler.PNG and cases like it that have this template on them are copyright violations.
Since all of the images below have this template, which violates our policy, they must all be deleted.
- File:HalkoyunlariYoreler.PNG
- File:Baku pipelines.svg
- File:Turkish map-flag.PNG
- File:Turkish Cyprus stub.PNG
- File:Turkicworldmap.svg
- File:Conseilturcique.svg
- File:Ossetiedunord.svg
- File:Northsouthossetiamap.svg
- File:Anatoliabeforecrusade.svg
- File:Akdeniz.svg
- File:Doguanadolu.svg
- File:Ege.svg
- File:Icanadolu.svg
- File:Karadeniz.svg
- File:Marmara.svg
- File:Guneydoguanadolu.svg
- File:TurkishCyprusStub.svg
- File:NCyprus location.svg
- File:FlagofTurkishCommunityofGermany.PNG
- File:FlagofTurkish-PalestinianResistance.PNG
- File:GokTurkFlag.PNG
- File:Turok words copie.png
- File:TrabzonsporShirt.jpg
- File:TrabzonsporShirt2.jpg
- File:Blasonturk.svg
- File:Turkey-eu.svg
- File:Turkey-armenia.svg
- File:Turkey-iran.svg
- File:Turkey-azerbaijan.svg
- File:Turkey-iraq.svg
- File:Turkey-syria.svg
- File:Turkey-greece.svg
- File:Turkey-bulgaria.svg
- File:Turkey-georgia.svg
- File:Turkey-pakistan.svg
- File:Turkey-israel.svg
- File:Turkey-regions.svg
- File:Greece-regions.svg
- File:Francie.svg
- File:AYDeezyBAN.PNG
Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:30, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
- Delete all of them; this is not a Free license.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:32, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
- Keep All except the banners, which should be deleted per COM:SCOPE. My rationale follows:
- AteshCommons uploaded all of these images under free licenses initially and came back months later, adding these banners (for most; in some instances he/she came back an hour or two later and did it). PD releases and GFDL/CC-BY-SA are irrevocable, and AteshCommons cannot change that license after the fact. See, for instance, the history of File:Turkey-pakistan.svg, specifically the original description at upload. No banner, just GFDL/CC-BY-SA. It wasn't until months later that AteshCommons added the banner.
- But wait, there's more! Look at File:Baku pipelines.svg; this file was originally uploaded by Thomas Blomberg. AteshCommons uploaded a new version, which pretty clearly appears to be a derivative work, removing the original author's credit and substituting his/her own, and then months later coming by and throwing up the banner. Look at File:Anatoliabeforecrusade.svg too; AteshCommons originally uploaded this image under PD-self, but came back months later and changed the license to GFDL/CC-BY-SA and threw up the banner. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 02:18, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 14:15, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
Misleading picture: there is no Moxon village. Can' t be seen from the Moxon's plant. Further discussed here Racconish (talk) 14:05, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
Kept. - if the name is missleading, please request renaming - Jcb (talk) 14:19, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, but there is no FoP in France. Dura lex, sed lex. 84.61.153.119 14:23, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
Comment Are you saying that FOP in France applies even in the case of anonymous street graffiti? C'est vraiment bizarre! Anatiomaros (talk) 21:05, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Amga confirms my suspicion. It's become far too easy for Anon IP to hit the DR button - I'll cite this as a further example of why it should only be available to established user accounts. Anatiomaros (talk) 17:21, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
Keep. See this for a discussion about 84.61.153.119 who has been blocked recently for trolling on en: and de:. --Amga (talk) 08:57, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
Kept. Jcb (talk) 14:32, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
- File:DB grand canyon.jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
- File:Davidblaine vertigo.jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
- File:Davidblaine.jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
- File:Dbspherenight.jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
- File:Dbfrozen.jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
- File:Dbatbday.jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
copyvio on flickr... other works by author include a copyleft work that he wrote @Corbis Magog the Ogre (talk) 15:07, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
Kept. - absence of explanation why they're copyvio's - Jcb (talk) 14:36, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
Missing evidence of permission since August 1st. Mbinebri (talk) 16:30, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 14:39, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
and other uploads by Elsie 928 (talk · contribs). Likely to be advertisement. No evidence of permission. EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:32, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 14:44, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
and other uploads by Bebo89 (talk · contribs). Unlikely to be own work. May be scans from book. EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:36, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
Kept. - re-licensed as PD-old - Jcb (talk) 14:50, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
Also File:Coverart.jpg. Out of COM:SCOPE and unused. Appears to be images from a non-notable band uploaded just for self-promotion. Wknight94 talk 16:52, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. The band 10zero's fledgling article w:User:Dianedalmasy/10zero has no indications of notability (nor does its myspace page or website), and the uploader appears to have the same last name as the band's singer. — Jeff G. ツ 22:46, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 14:51, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
It's not license tag. So we needn't this template.--Kwj2772 Disc. kowiki. 09:03, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
- Keep, clearly useful to the project. --Kjetil_r 11:35, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
- Keep, This template actually is a useful license template because if you add {{PD-magic|Self}} to an Image Page, it produces an actual license tag, which can be illustrated here. All the Best,--Mifter (talk) 12:03, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
Comment It's replacable to {{PD-self}} or {{PD-old}}.--Kwj2772 Disc. kowiki. 13:56, 14 June 2008 (UTC)- Keep No reason to delete. It is a license tag. Is it the humor that makes it seem less valid? Rocket000 (talk)
.svg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
![26.24 File:"_in_São_Paulo_(By_Felipe_Mostarda).jpg](#File:"_in_São_Paulo_(By_Felipe_Mostarda).jpg){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
![26.34 File:03-11-2008_005"Barão_de_Iguape_Building"(_By_Felipe_Mostarda_).JPG](#File:03-11-2008_005"Barão_de_Iguape_Building"(_By_Felipe_Mostarda_).JPG){kind=link}
_(By_Felipe_Mostarda)2008.jpg){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
![[3]](http://f1-gate.com/media/1/20100611-vettel.jpg){kind=link}
.svg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.svg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_map.svg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
_1974,_MiNr_1946.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
![12:14, 15 November 2010 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2010/11/15#c-Felipe_Mostarda-2010-11-15T12:14:00.000Z-File:"_in_São_Paulo_(By_Felipe_Mostarda).jpg){kind=link}
![20:46, 25 December 2010 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2010/11/15#c-MGA73-2010-12-25T20:46:00.000Z-File:"_in_São_Paulo_(By_Felipe_Mostarda).jpg){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
![12:21, 15 November 2010 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2010/11/15#c-Felipe_Mostarda-2010-11-15T12:21:00.000Z-File:03-11-2008_005"Barão_de_Iguape_Building"(_By_Felipe_Mostarda_).JPG){kind=link}
![12:40, 15 November 2010 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2010/11/15#c-Felipe_Mostarda-2010-11-15T12:40:00.000Z-File:03-11-2008_005"Barão_de_Iguape_Building"(_By_Felipe_Mostarda_).JPG){kind=link}
![20:55, 25 December 2010 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2010/11/15#c-MGA73-2010-12-25T20:55:00.000Z-File:03-11-2008_005"Barão_de_Iguape_Building"(_By_Felipe_Mostarda_).JPG){kind=link}
_(By_Felipe_Mostarda)2008.jpg){kind=link}
_(By_Felipe_Mostarda)2008.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_(By_Felipe_Mostarda)2008.jpg){kind=link}
_(By_Felipe_Mostarda)2008.jpg){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
- BTW, I hope you tried transcluding it without any parameters. Rocket000 (talk) 18:58, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
, RfD Canceled. The consensus is Keeping.--Kwj2772 Disc. kowiki. 07:58, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
I see no purpose for this template. It looks like a license and people use it as a license template, but as such it has no legal bases. I assume it is a joke but if so than we should make sure it is not used as a license. The easiest way is to lough now and delete. Jarekt (talk) 17:02, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
- I found this template by looking at File:Nathu La-Nehru Visit.JPG which uses it as a main license, and there are other such files. --Jarekt (talk) 17:06, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
- Keep; not all that different from {{WTFPL}}, really. Powers (talk) 17:56, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
- Keep but reword to make absolutely clear that this shall not be used as a standalone license. Alternatively (and my preference), turn this into a wrapper, similar to {{Self}}, to which a more appropriate license could be included. (I would volunteer to mock up an example, though I'm busy with real life at the moment. If desired, I'll work on it when I have some time.) At the very least, examine existing uses and add PD-author or whatever is necessary in addition to this template. — Huntster (t @ c) 07:41, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
- Comment As a wrapper this template would be fine. That would guarantee that there is a proper license to each file. --Jarekt (talk) 13:11, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
Keep Please note the previous deletion debate and what happens if you include {{PD-magic}} directly onto an image, by itself, with no parameter. If a parameter is specified, it comes along with text (basically) equivalent to the standard PD template - for example the tag on File:Nathu La-Nehru Visit.JPG states "This image really is in the public domain as its author has released it into the public domain. If this is not possible, the author grants anyone the right to use this work for any purpose, without any conditions, unless such conditions are required by law.", so this is a valid (if esoteric) license.
That said the template could do with a tweak to make a non-valid parameter return {{No license since}}. Personally I think it shouldn't be used for "routine" photographs, just internal humourous stuff but that's just me.--Nilfanion (talk) 19:13, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Humorous, and actually nominates files for speedy deletion when used without a valid parameter. -Nard (Hablemonos)(Let's talk) 00:44, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
Kept, Jcb (talk) 14:56, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
The photograph is highly likely not the own work of the uploader. There is no permission given that would allow the uploader to publish this file under a free licence. High Contrast (talk) 17:20, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
11-17-2010 HEYDRIC10 ME ,The above apparent copyright holder declares this image free for "noncommercial, educational use only." However because the image is illustrating an important historical biographical article, because there are no known freer images available, because the image is no larger than it needs to be for web use, and because we have tried in a good faith manner to provide the original copyright information above so that those who wish to use this image in the future may locate it for licensing, I am going to assert that its use for the article on (THE ABOVE PHOTO) on the non-profit, U.S.-based English Wikipedia, falls under the "fair use" provisions of U.S. copyright law. Such criteria may not apply in other uses of this image, even in other pages on this same encyclopedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.9.10.7 (talk • contribs) 21:25, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
- Even if all that were true, it would be fair use. English Wikipedia allows fair use via its Exemption Doctrine Policy (EDP) w:en:Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria. Sorry, Commons does not allow fair use (it has no Exemption Doctrine Policy (EDP)) per Foundation:Resolution:Licensing policy. — Jeff G. ツ 05:25, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
12/12/2010 This photo would have obviously been taken by the United States Army and would in then effect be Public Domain. This image should not be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.240.156.65 (talk • contribs)
- obviously been taken by the United States Army - really? How do you come to this? The possibilty is definately given that this photo was taken by some journalist or some other photographer that is not working for a US governmental service. --High Contrast (talk) 11:20, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
Neutral for now. Needs more convincing evidence that it's {{PD-USArmy}}. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 02:28, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
- "Own work" is highly likely not true. For PD-USArmy we have no evidence. The uploader did not help by now to solve this problem. Only with his/her help we can clarify this issue. --High Contrast (talk) 11:20, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 15:05, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
The photograph is highly likely not the own work by the uploader. There is no permission given that would allow the uploader to publish this file under a free licence. High Contrast (talk) 17:21, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
11-17-2010 (THE ABOVE PHOTO) IS MY OWN COLLECTION HEYDRICH10 ;The above apparent copyright holder declares this image free for "noncommercial, educational use only." However because the image is illustrating an important historical biographical article, because there are no known freer images available, because the image is no larger than it needs to be for web use, and because we have tried in a good faith manner to provide the original copyright information above so that those who wish to use this image in the future may locate it for licensing, I am going to assert that its use for the article on (THE ABOVE PHOTO) on the non-profit, U.S.-based English Wikipedia, falls under the "fair use" provisions of U.S. copyright law.
- Delete Fair use is not allowed, see Commons:Fair use. MKFI (talk) 22:25, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 15:08, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
The photograph is highly likely not the own work by the uploader. There is no permission given that would allow the uploader to publish this file under a free licence. High Contrast (talk) 17:21, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 15:09, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
The photograph is highly likely not the own work by the uploader. There is no permission given that would allow the uploader to publish this file under a free licence. High Contrast (talk) 17:21, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 15:10, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
The photograph is highly likely not the own work by the uploader. There is no permission given that would allow the uploader to publish this file under a free licence. High Contrast (talk) 17:21, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 15:10, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
The photograph is highly likely not the own work by the uploader. There is no permission given that would allow the uploader to publish this file under a free licence. High Contrast (talk) 17:24, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 15:10, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
The photograph is highly likely not the own work by the uploader. There is no permission given that would allow the uploader to publish this file under a free licence. High Contrast (talk) 17:24, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 15:10, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
The photograph is highly likely not the own work by the uploader. There is no permission given that would allow the uploader to publish this file under a free licence. High Contrast (talk) 17:24, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 15:10, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
The photograph is highly likely not the own work by the uploader. Seems to be a television screenshot. There is no permission given that would allow the uploader to publish this file under a free licence. High Contrast (talk) 17:24, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 15:11, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
The photograph is highly likely not the own work by the uploader. Seems to be a television screenshot. There is no permission given that would allow the uploader to publish this file under a free licence. High Contrast (talk) 17:24, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 15:11, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
The photograph is highly likely not the own work by the uploader. There is no permission given that would allow the uploader to publish this file under a free licence. High Contrast (talk) 17:24, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 15:11, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
The image originates from a poster. I seriously doubt that the uploader took this photo 18 years ago. Nasko (talk) 17:40, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 15:53, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
I don't like it anymore and I want to upload more important files. L Bosch (talk) 18:08, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
- Comment You can just upload over the old image if you have a better version. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 02:30, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
Kept. Jcb (talk) 15:54, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
I don't like it anymore and I want to upload more important files. L Bosch (talk) 18:08, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
- Comment You can just upload over the old image if you have a better version. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 02:31, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
Kept. Jcb (talk) 15:54, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
I don't like it anymore and I want to upload more important files. L Bosch (talk) 18:09, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted per uploader request as it is unused and not very likely to be used. --AFBorchert (talk) 01:05, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
Site (wholewheatradio.org) inactive. Audio material no longer relevant. Author requests deletion. Jimkloss (talk) 18:10, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
- Keep In use, it would seem. I skimmed over the content; why is it not relevant to the WP article on WholeWheatRadio? —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 02:33, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
Kept. Jcb (talk) 15:56, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
I don't like it anymore and I want to upload more important files. L Bosch (talk) 18:13, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
- Keep No reason to delete. In use. -- Common Good (talk) 20:07, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
Kept. Jcb (talk) 15:56, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
The so called Bettinelli's portrait is wrong: it's Ludovico Ariosto's portrait! Giovanni Catalani (talk) 18:13, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
- {{Rename}}. No delete. --Micione (talk) 00:54, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
Kept. Jcb (talk) 15:56, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
Incorrectly tagged as {{PD-Ineligible}}. The permission statement appears to imply {{PD-Italy}}, but that does not seem to apply either, since it was taken in Germany (and there is no indication that the first publication was in Italy, either). —LX (talk, contribs) 18:19, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
- According to italian law simple photos (it means without artistical value) are inelegible for copyright after 20 years their first publication on italian books. In the source of the file I specified that it is from a 1985 book, so it's 25 years ago. Le fotografie generiche e prive di carattere artistico e le riproduzioni di opere dell'arte figurativa divengono di pubblico dominio a partire dall'inizio dell'anno solare seguente al compimento del ventesimo anno dalla data di produzione - Articolo 87 (phots without artistical value or reproductions of figurative art, are in the public domain from the 21st year after their publishment - Article 87). So there is no violation. Digioman 20:18, 15 November 2010 (CEST)
- The way {{PD-Italy}} is worded, it applies only to works which were created in Italy. I'm not sure that's actually true; according to the Berne convention, it's the country of first publication which is relevant. In any case, there is no indication that the first publication was in Italy. It seems equally likely, perhaps even more likely, that it was published somewhere else before. In particular, it seems very unlikely that the cited book would be the first publication – 31 years after it was taken. —LX (talk, contribs) 18:37, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
- I found a new photo of this car taken in Siracusa (Italy) so eligible for italian PD. If you delete this one I'll upload the new one. Digioman 13:35, 17 November 2010 (CEST)
- Per evitare conflitti con altre legislazioni credo sia opportuno limitare il PD-Italy-Commons a immagini fotografiche non artistiche di oltre venti anni, realizzate e pubblicate in Italia, da fotografi italiani o anonimi. Questo perché solo i fotografi, gli editori e il territorio italiani sono soggetti alle Leggi italiane. --Ligabo (talk) 08:53, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
- [To avoid conflicts with other laws I think it is appropriate to limit the PD-Italy-Commons for a non-artistic photographs of more than twenty years, produced and published in Italy by Italian photographers and anonymous. This is because only the photographers, publishers and the Italian territory are subject to Italian laws.]
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 15:59, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
Bogus claims of the uploader being the copyright holder and bogus {{Cc-zero}} license. The permission statement appears to imply {{PD-Italy}}, but there is no verifiable information to show it was created or first published in Italy. —LX (talk, contribs) 18:22, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
- According to italian law simple photos (it means without artistical value) are inelegible for copyright after 20 years their first publication on italian books. In the source of the file I specified that it is from a 1985 book, so it's 25 years ago. Le fotografie generiche e prive di carattere artistico e le riproduzioni di opere dell'arte figurativa divengono di pubblico dominio a partire dall'inizio dell'anno solare seguente al compimento del ventesimo anno dalla data di produzione - Articolo 87 (phots without artistical value or reproductions of figurative art, are in the public domain from the 21st year after their publishment - Article 87). So there is no violation. Furthermore the photo was taken in Maranello, so in Italy Digioman 20:18, 15 November 2010 (CEST)
- The way {{PD-Italy}} is worded, it applies only to works which were created in Italy. I'm not sure that's actually true; according to the Berne convention, it's the country of first publication which is relevant. In any case, there is no indication that the first publication was in Italy. It seems equally likely, perhaps even more likely, that it was published somewhere else before. In particular, it seems very unlikely that the cited book would be the first publication – 30 years after it was taken. —LX (talk, contribs) 18:35, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
- I swear this one was taken in Maranello, because the caption says: .....the aerodinamic version of the 625 in the Ferrari's Factory before it was brought to Argentina..... Digioman 21:01, 16 November 2010 (CEST)
- La foto è certamente stata scattata sul camminamento esterno in porfido a coda di pavone, limitrofo agli uffici Ferrari di Maranello ed esistente fino agli anni '70. In particolare, lo sfondo è costituito dal muro perimetrale della vecchia palazzina uffici (a sx del canale di gronda) e dal muro perimetrale del vecchio reparto corse (a dx del canale di gronda). --Ligabo (talk) 09:50, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
- [The picture was certainly taken on the exterior walkway in porphyry peacock's tail, adjacent to the offices of the Ferrari Maranello and exists until the '70s. In particular, the background is the outer wall of the old office building (on the left of the gutter) and the perimeter wall of the old racing division (on the right of the gutter).]
Kept. Jcb (talk) 16:01, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
Incorrectly tagged as {{PD-Ineligible}}. The permission statement appears to imply {{PD-Italy}}, but that does not seem to apply either, since it was taken in Argentina (and there is no indication that the first publication was in Italy, either). —LX (talk, contribs) 18:24, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
- The photo was taken, created and registered in Argentina. The PD-Argentina says that photos for which both at least 25 years have passed after the photograph was created, and it was first published at least 20 years ago are in the public domain. I think this could be eligible for that license. Let me know. Digioman 13:35, 17 November 2010 (CEST)
- It sounds like you have found more information about where this photo comes from. It would be great if you could provide those details. Specifically, {{PD-Argentina}} requires the date and source of the first publication to be provided. —LX (talk, contribs) 19:54, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 16:03, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
Incorrectly tagged as {{PD-Ineligible}}. The permission statement appears to imply {{PD-Italy}}, but that does not seem to apply either, since it was taken in the United States (and there is no indication that the first publication was in Italy, either). —LX (talk, contribs) 18:25, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
- According to italian law simple photos (it means without artistical value) are inelegible for copyright after 20 years their first publication on italian books. In the source of the file I specified that it is from a 1985 book, so it's 25 years ago. Le fotografie generiche e prive di carattere artistico e le riproduzioni di opere dell'arte figurativa divengono di pubblico dominio a partire dall'inizio dell'anno solare seguente al compimento del ventesimo anno dalla data di produzione - Articolo 87 (phots without artistical value or reproductions of figurative art, are in the public domain from the 21st year after their publishment - Article 87). So there is no violation. Digioman 20:18, 15 November 2010 (CEST)
- The way {{PD-Italy}} is worded, it applies only to works which were created in Italy. I'm not sure that's actually true; according to the Berne convention, it's the country of first publication which is relevant. In any case, there is no indication that the first publication was in Italy. It seems equally likely, perhaps even more likely, that it was published somewhere else before. In particular, it seems very unlikely that the cited book would be the first publication – 33 years after it was taken. —LX (talk, contribs) 18:33, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
- Well, in this case delete this photo. The quality is also very bad and I don't use this one anymore in the page I was writing Digioman 13:35, 17 November 2010 (CEST)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 16:03, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
Incorrectly tagged as {{PD-Ineligible}}. The permission statement appears to imply {{PD-Italy}}, but that does not seem to apply either, since it was taken in the United Kingdom (and there is no indication that the first publication was in Italy, either). —LX (talk, contribs) 18:29, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
- According to italian law simple photos (it means without artistical value) are inelegible for copyright after 20 years their first publication on italian books. In the source of the file I specified that it is from a 1985 book, so it's 25 years ago. Le fotografie generiche e prive di carattere artistico e le riproduzioni di opere dell'arte figurativa divengono di pubblico dominio a partire dall'inizio dell'anno solare seguente al compimento del ventesimo anno dalla data di produzione - Articolo 87 (phots without artistical value or reproductions of figurative art, are in the public domain from the 21st year after their publishment - Article 87). So there is no violation. Digioman 20:18, 15 November 2010 (CEST)
- The way {{PD-Italy}} is worded, it applies only to works which were created in Italy. I'm not sure that's actually true; according to the Berne convention, it's the country of first publication which is relevant. In any case, there is no indication that the first publication was in Italy. It seems equally likely, perhaps even more likely, that it was published somewhere else before. In particular, it seems very unlikely that the cited book would be the first publication – 34 years after it was taken.
- For this one I have to make a deeper research Digioman 21:01, 16 November 2010 (CEST)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 16:04, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
Incorrectly tagged as {{PD-Ineligible}}. The permission statement appears to imply {{PD-Italy}}, but that does not seem to apply either, since it was taken in Spain (and there is no indication that the first publication was in Italy, either). —LX (talk, contribs) 18:30, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
- This photo was first taken in Spain, but, as the credits of the source say for this one because it was the cover of the book, it was taken by an italian photographer for the archive of the italian magazine Quattroruote. If you want I'll show you the credit. My fault to not have checked this before. Digioman 21:01, 16 November 2010 (CEST)
- I found a new photo of the same car which was taken for sure in Italy. If you delete this one I'll upload the new one Digioman13:28 17 November 2010 (CEST)
- This photo was first taken in Spain, but, as the credits of the source say for this one because it was the cover of the book, it was taken by an italian photographer for the archive of the italian magazine Quattroruote. If you want I'll show you the credit. My fault to not have checked this before. Digioman 21:01, 16 November 2010 (CEST)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 16:05, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
Incorrectly tagged as {{PD-Ineligible}}. The permission statement appears to imply {{PD-Italy}}, but that does not seem to apply either, since it was taken in Switzerland (and there is no indication that the first publication was in Italy, either). —LX (talk, contribs) 18:31, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
- According to italian law simple photos (it means without artistical value) are inelegible for copyright after 20 years their first publication on italian books. In the source of the file I specified that it is from a 1985 book, so it's 25 years ago. Le fotografie generiche e prive di carattere artistico e le riproduzioni di opere dell'arte figurativa divengono di pubblico dominio a partire dall'inizio dell'anno solare seguente al compimento del ventesimo anno dalla data di produzione - Articolo 87 (phots without artistical value or reproductions of figurative art, are in the public domain from the 21st year after their publishment - Article 87). So there is no violation. Digioman 20:18, 15 November 2010 (CEST)
- The way {{PD-Italy}} is worded, it applies only to works which were created in Italy. I'm not sure that's actually true; according to the Berne convention, it's the country of first publication which is relevant. In any case, there is no indication that the first publication was in Italy. It seems equally likely, perhaps even more likely, that it was published somewhere else before. In particular, it seems very unlikely that the cited book would be the first publication – 35 years after it was taken. —LX (talk, contribs) 18:32, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
- As I already told you, in this case we probably can apply Swiss PD, but I'm still trying to transalte what the law says Digioman 21:01, 16 November 2010 (CEST)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 16:06, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
Incorrectly tagged as {{PD-Ineligible}}. The permission statement appears to imply {{PD-Italy}}, but there is no verifiable information to show it was created or first published in Italy. —LX (talk, contribs) 18:33, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
- According to italian law simple photos (it means without artistical value) are inelegible for copyright after 20 years their first publication on italian books. In the source of the file I specified that it is from a 1985 book, so it's 25 years ago. Le fotografie generiche e prive di carattere artistico e le riproduzioni di opere dell'arte figurativa divengono di pubblico dominio a partire dall'inizio dell'anno solare seguente al compimento del ventesimo anno dalla data di produzione - Articolo 87 (phots without artistical value or reproductions of figurative art, are in the public domain from the 21st year after their publishment - Article 87). So there is no violation. Digioman 20:18, 15 November 2010 (CEST)
- The way {{PD-Italy}} is worded, it applies only to works which were created in Italy. I'm not sure that's actually true; according to the Berne convention, it's the country of first publication which is relevant. In any case, there is no indication that the first publication was in Italy. It seems equally likely, perhaps even more likely, that it was published somewhere else before. In particular, it seems very unlikely that the cited book would be the first publication – 35 years after it was taken. —LX (talk, contribs) 18:37, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
- I was reading the caption of the photo in the book and it doesn't say were it was taken, however there are these options: France, Italy, Switzerland and Great Britain that were the countries in which he used that car in 1950 and 1951. These are the only informations I can provide to be more precise. Digioman 21:01, 16 November 2010 (CEST)
- Negli anni '50 i cartelloni pubblicitari limitrofi ai circuiti venivano generalmente scritti nella lingua del paese ospitante. È assai probabile che questa foto sia stata scattata in Gran Bretagna. Meglio sostituirla. --Ligabo (talk) 10:33, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
- [In the 50s billboards adjacent to the circuits were generally written in the language of the host country. Is very likely that this photo was taken in Great Britain. Better to replace it.]
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 16:07, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
Wikimedia and Inkscape seem to interpret the svg format differently, for this diagram is not what I created. Exrollog (talk) 18:34, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
- Comment the black squares are caused by "flowRoot" statements in the Inkscape code, that is not defined in SVG 1.1; it is not a Wikimedia problem - you can test Inkscape output also by loading the SVG file in Firefox. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:23, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 16:08, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
Derivative work of copyrighted statue. ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 19:48, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 16:11, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
As noted on the talk page it is not certain the identification is correct. I have removed usage on wiki, and would rather see it go than being questionable identified. Moreover, the technical quality is rather bad. I am the creator of the original photo. Slaunger (talk) 21:21, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 16:13, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
error from the user Hockenjos (talk) 21:45, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
speedy deletion / bad name / error from the user Hockenjos (talk) 21:24, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. per uploader request George Chernilevsky talk 07:07, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
- File:RathausbonnWM2010.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
No FOP for works that are not permanently located. Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:39, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
- I can't see a problem here. -- Badener 22:17, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
- Compare de:Panoramafreiheit#Das_Kriterium_.E2.80.9Ebleibend.E2.80.9C: Wird das Straßenbild von überdimensionierten Reklametafeln geprägt (etwa am Broadway), so erfordert der Sinn der ja auch als Straßenbildfreiheit bezeichneten Panoramafreiheit, dass eine Abbildung zulässig ist, da es sonst nicht möglich wäre, den bildlichen Eindruck des Straßenbildes wiederzugeben. -- Badener 22:20, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
Kept. Jcb (talk) 16:15, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
No evidence it's a photo taken by his grandfather, no evidence it's out of copyright Secret (talk) 22:10, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 16:16, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
Copyright not expired, the photograph is not "national heritage". Martin H. (talk) 22:29, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 16:16, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
