Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2010/11/18
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
|
|
it's the wrong logo, colours are missing Sneakerfan (talk) 11:15, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Common Good (talk) 20:21, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
I see no verification that the uploader actually took this picture. When? Where? Uploader inserted it in Wikipedia article clearly to make fun of Wales and the current fund raiser. Bbb23 (talk) 17:00, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
Delete image stolen from the internet and uploaded to vandalize en.wp, es.wp and ja.wp. Thats stupid vandalism (and blatant copyright infringement), fool of the day award awarded hereby. --Martin H. (talk) 17:14, 18 November 2010 (UTC)- But he is him!, whats the problem?
--Victormoz (talk) 17:30, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
- It is not your photo although you claim "Me" as author and source. You abuse the stolen photo with the false photographer credit for discrediting someone else... Well, thats the problem. --Martin H. (talk) 17:31, 18 November 2010 (UTC) And besides stealing, lying and vandalizing you insult me on my wikipedia talkpage... Well, I regret that I not followed my first intention and indefinite blocked your 'vandalism only account', its pretty obvious. --Martin H. (talk) 17:33, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
You are a bitter boring hahaha!--Victormoz (talk) 17:53, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Martin H. (talk) 17:53, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
and File:Blogs.jpg. Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photoalbum. Not used. EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:14, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Both far out of scope and has poor quality George Chernilevsky talk 13:20, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
Seems to be a screenshot from a television broadcast and/or taken from a website (see logo in bottom right corner) - Cavie78 (talk) 16:39, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Probably copied from a website or a screenshot, no evidence of permission. Royalbroil 03:49, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
- Delete. Image even carries a watermark in the right lower corner. --Túrelio (talk) 07:15, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted by Herbythyme: Copyright violation
Personal photo, sole upload of contributor; unused and uncategorized since April 2009. No educational value. Anatiomaros (talk) 22:19, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. out of scope George Chernilevsky talk 09:03, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
Personal photograph of, sole contribution og uploader; unused and uncategorized since April 2009. Out of project Scope. Anatiomaros (talk) 22:26, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. out of scope George Chernilevsky talk 09:04, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
wrong image Zuby (talk) 22:33, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Per uploader request, also out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 09:08, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
Out of project Scope. Small personal photo, unused and uncategorized since May 2009. Anatiomaros (talk) 22:37, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 09:05, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
Out of project Scope. Personal photo, unused and uncategorized since May 2009. Anatiomaros (talk) 22:39, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 09:07, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
Out of project Scope. Small personal photo, unused and uncategorized since May 2009. Anatiomaros (talk) 22:40, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 09:07, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
This is a double of creator:Jakob Alt 193.176.235.94 12:44, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted by Foroa: Commons:Deletion requests/Creator:Jacob_Alt: This is a double of creator:Jakob Alt
Flickrwashed copyvio, see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Barakhambaroad.jpg Guy 18:54, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted by Jameslwoodward: Per Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Barakhambaroad.jpg
Flickrwashed copyvio, see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Barakhambaroad.jpg Guy 18:55, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Flickrwashing by Manaspunhani (talk · contribs) calling himself Enthusiast1 and having serious problems to understand the basics of copyrights - he finally found flickrwashing a good idea to upload inappropriate images. --Martin H. (talk) 19:17, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted by Jameslwoodward: Per Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Barakhambaroad.jpg
There's a better resolution photo here: File:S.Stan.jpg. Vearthy (talk) 00:26, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted by Túrelio: Exact or scaled down duplicate: File:S.Stan.jpg
Low quality: Low resolution and plenty of noise 134.96.231.112 08:55, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. unusable poor qualityGeorge Chernilevsky talk 08:25, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
Advertisement, out of scope. Jafeluv (talk) 13:39, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
- In addition, it's a mere text document. --Túrelio (talk) 17:20, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. out of scope George Chernilevsky talk 08:28, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
Has no valid source. In addition I doubt that image from facebook are in the public domain 80.187.102.79 17:37, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Out of scope, probably has copyright problem, too small George Chernilevsky talk 08:31, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
I don't think we need to keep this JPG with compression artifacts. It was replaced by File:Büchnerfilter.PNG. Leyo 11:04, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Per nom. --Yikrazuul (talk) 19:13, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. as poor duplicate George Chernilevsky talk 15:25, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
Not encyclopedic, not used in personal pages Ciaurlec (talk) 11:06, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. out of project scope. George Chernilevsky talk 15:26, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
very poor quality, alternatives (e. g. file:PBR322.svg) do exist. Yikrazuul (talk) 19:43, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Poor duplicate George Chernilevsky talk 15:29, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
It's a brochure of a mining company Ciaurlec (talk) 22:33, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. No permission. Common Good (talk) 20:55, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
On uploaders request, OTRS is not going to be OK. Jcb (talk) 20:06, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. ZooFari 19:19, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
Copyvio. Waiting for OTRS for more than six months. Even by boat the permission could have been arrived in six months. Jcb (talk) 18:23, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
- Yes copyvio, in sourcepage will be read Copyright 2004-2009 VMC Infotech. All rights reserved. Parinda is a registered trademark. Delete--Motopark (talk) 19:03, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
- Delete and probably speedily to me. --Herby talk thyme 19:04, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Wknight94 talk 12:13, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
Duplikate to File:Sepp_Leitner.jpg HellasX (talk) 20:45, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. per nom. George Chernilevsky talk 12:25, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
Erro El Tobias 02 (talk) 00:14, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
Kept. Deletion request by uploader (probably by mistake), later removed by uploader. AndreasPraefcke (talk) 20:53, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
copyvio taken from random webpage Calliopejen1 (talk) 00:19, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. AndreasPraefcke (talk) 20:54, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
It's copyrighted logo without any usage. — Jeff G. ツ 01:21, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Not necessarily copyrighted in all jurisdictions (still very simple design), but probably in some; also unused. AndreasPraefcke (talk) 20:55, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
File:ARC.jpg 2
[edit]
@Gbawden: , This photo is not the claiming author's own work, it was downloaded from google search, most probably it was downloaded from en.prothomalo.com or bdnews24.com (popular Bangladeshi English newspapers). RoksanaM (talk) 11:37, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
- Delete. This photo is not the claiming author's own work. — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 116.58.203.56 (talk) 13:11, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
- Delete. Not author's own work. — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 116.58.203.186 (talk) 13:21, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
- Delete per nom & prp as dw of a drawing and a careless reuse of a filename. — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 14:59, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
- Delete. Not author's own work. — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 116.58.203.92 (talk) 12:39, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
- @Gbawden: , Delete, Delete this photo as this is not the author's own work. — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 43.245.120.61 (talk) 12:43, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
- @Gbawden: , Delete, Delete this photo. 139.5.134.122 12:23, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
- @Gbawden: , Delete, Delete, not author's own work. Enthira Logathu (talk) 12:26, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
- Delete If this actually is a self-portrait of Ahmedur Rashid Chowdhury, we'll need OTRS permission. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 13:14, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 07:35, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
It's copyrighted logo without any usage. — Jeff G. ツ 01:26, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Clearly copyrighted. AndreasPraefcke (talk) 20:56, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
It's a copyrighted logo without any usage. — Jeff G. ツ 01:35, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. No description, no usage, porbably copyvio. AndreasPraefcke (talk) 20:56, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
copyright violetion
According to a references on the picture in the article nl:Steenbergen this aquarelle was from the book "Steenbergen in de Middeleeuwen", published in 1972. Under no circumstance it will be free of rights in The Netherlands. Eddylandzaat (talk) 02:16, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
- Apart from being a bad faith nomination by Eddy Landzaad (a frequent opponent of mine on the Dutch wikipedia and 'convicted' sockpuppeteer -Just f.y.i, I'm aware this has little value on other Wikipedia projects) there is nothing wrong with these watercolors, which are not taken from the book mentioned above.
- This book, Steenbergen in de Middeleeuwen, is a historical work which doesn' t contain the pictures in question. This quite to the contrary of Eddy Landzaats claims. What it does contain, is three highly detailed (black and white) 'archeological maps' on which I have based these simplefied water colors, which are (again) not copies but my own creations with the aforementioned maps as a 'source'. Westbrabander (talk) 16:30, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
- Instead of throwing mud back (the sockpuppetry is true but in Januari 2009) I like to state that that user Westbrabander has a history of being very creative with sources.
- Originaly these pictures were put down without any notice ([1]) and presented as own work. Fair. When the pictures were disputed on the talkpage they were at first from the book "Steenbergen in de Middeleeuwen" from the authors P.C. Vos and R.M. van Heeringen, then from P.C. Vos et. al. When contested, the authors changed again. Now this book was written by "A. Delahaye, J. Vervloet and G. van Bree". And suddenly the pictures are "Aquarel van de kaart te vinden in de hoofdstukomslag van "Steenbergen in de Middeleeuwen". (= Aquarelle of the map found in the chapter cover of "Steenbergen in de Middeleeuwen".)[2] Strange enough after my nomination for deletion it changes to "Aquarel op basis van de kaart te vinden in de hoofdstukomslag van "Steenbergen in de Middeleeuwen". (= Aquarelle based on the map found in the chapter cover of "Steenbergen in de Middeleeuwen")[3]. Aquarelle or watercolor is the same. So he made a watercolor (his words) from a watercolor....
- With so many changes in the sources I can't say what the truth is. Knowing he had been cheryy picking and falsefying sources earlier (and the mud throwing), my AGF has ended. Eddylandzaat (talk) 23:24, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
Falsefying sources? I do beg your pardon, because mistakingly adding the wrong authors to a book title, a mistake which can be easily spotted (IIb 3001) just about everywhere online, is not falsefying sources. Falsefying sources is a serious accusation, not to mention punished by the administrators of any Wikipedia project, I suggest you stick to the facts. Something you did not do from the start, as you claimed that the images given (my own work) are supposedly taken from the book in question. A blatant lie which you still appear to spread.
I give you the facts and all you have to shoot back at me is a string of slander and libel. Pretty strong case you have there.
To the reviewing admin(s), I've said all I can say on the matter. The water colors are my own work. Works, which I based on a series of different black-and-white-maps, containing vastly more details, text and markings and which can be found in 'Steenbergen in de Middeleeuwen' by A. Delahaye, J. Vervloet and G. van Bree. Neither did I copy (a false claim by Eddy Landzaad) the drawings nor is their any kind of copyright violation. Westbrabander (talk) 14:59, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
- You have been falsefying sources at nl:Maandblad Groningen, nl:Strenius and nl:Slag om Steenbergen en Welberg, nl:Stadsstaat en nl:Groningen (stad). Why should I believe you speak the truth this time? Eddylandzaat (talk) 19:27, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
- Show me where I've been blocked for falsification Eddy Landzaad, show me. You've got nothing but slanderous accusations. It's become crystal clear that your ridiculous personal vendetta has taken on grotesque forms. It's pathetic. I've given my sources, for all to see, and all you've tried to do here is to try to make me look bad with your made up claims. What are you doing here? Besides wasting people's time with such nonsense?
- Furthermore, try to contain your ego. I don't need to 'convince you' at all. You're not some high court judge who decides what stay or goes.
- I gave my sources here, in great detail I might add, and that's that. I don't care if you're convinced or not; that totally irrelevant here. Want to convince yourself 100%? Buy the book, who knows you might learn something from it.Westbrabander (talk) 22:22, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
true, you were not blocked for falsefying sources. But you were shouting and roaring every time another source was shot down and started editwars over it. And that gave you a long list of blocks in the few months you are around. Have a nice day! Eddylandzaat (talk) 05:34, 20 November 2010 (UTC) And one of his annoying pity jokes is spelling my name wrong delibarately. In fact, he isn't taking to me.- And also true is that you don't have to convince me here. They have sysops who decide if they believe you or me, and maybe they start asking around on nl-wp if I speak the truth here :-) Eddylandzaat (talk) 05:38, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
- Seriously, look at yourself. What are you doing here? You nominate my three water colors for deletion. That means that you're supposed to present proof proving that they're copyright violations, but all you do is spread unrelated lies and make a lot of noise ... You're childishly posting ""-smileys with rude comments and "have-a-nice-day"-'s while you're expected to provide conclusive evidence.
- Seriously, look at yourself. What are you doing here? You nominate my three water colors for deletion. That means that you're supposed to present proof proving that they're copyright violations, but all you do is spread unrelated lies and make a lot of noise ... You're childishly posting "
- I gave my sources here, in great detail I might add, and that's that. I don't care if you're convinced or not; that totally irrelevant here. Want to convince yourself 100%? Buy the book, who knows you might learn something from it.Westbrabander (talk) 22:22, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
- I give my sources and instead of making a single factual remark you resort to vile and untrue accusations ...
- If you want to be rude towards me or convince others of me being evil so much, just open up a weblog and go mental and knock yourself out. But seriously, what are you doing here? Why are you wasting my (and anyone else who's 'forced' to read your nonsense) time? Westbrabander (talk) 17:23, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
Kept. The information in such simple maps is ineligible for copyright, and the design is clearly not that of a professional, printed map, but the uploader's own. There is no reason not to believe him that his sources are vastly more detailed. I cannot see why this should be a copyritght violation. AndreasPraefcke (talk) 21:00, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
copyright violetion
According to a references on the picture in the article nl:Steenbergen this aquarelle was from the book "Steenbergen in de Middeleeuwen", published in 1972. Under no circumstance it will be free of rights in The Netherlands. Eddylandzaat (talk) 02:27, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
- Apart from being a bad faith nomination by Eddy Landzaad (a frequent opponent of mine on the Dutch wikipedia and 'convicted' sockpuppeteer -Just f.y.i, I'm aware this has little value on other Wikipedia projects) there is nothing wrong with these watercolors, which are not taken from the book mentioned above.
- This book, Steenbergen in de Middeleeuwen, is a historical work which doesn' t contain the pictures in question. This quite to the contrary of Eddy Landzaats claims. What it does contain, is three highly detailed (black and white) 'archeological maps' on which I have based these simplefied water colors, which are (again) not copies but my own creations with the aforementioned maps as a 'source'. Westbrabander (talk) 16:32, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
- Instead of throwing mud back (the sockpuppetry is true but in Januari 2009) I like to state that that user Westbrabander has a history of being very creative with sources.
- Originaly these pictures were put down without any notice ([4]) and presented as own work. Fair. When the pictures were disputed on the talkpage they were at first from the book "Steenbergen in de Middeleeuwen" from the authors P.C. Vos and R.M. van Heeringen, then from P.C. Vos et. al. When contested, the authors changed again. Now this book was written by "A. Delahaye, J. Vervloet and G. van Bree". And suddenly the pictures are "Aquarel van de kaart te vinden in de hoofdstukomslag van "Steenbergen in de Middeleeuwen". (= Aquarelle of the map found in the chapter cover of "Steenbergen in de Middeleeuwen".)[5] Strange enough after my nomination for deletion it changes to "Aquarel op basis van de kaart te vinden in de hoofdstukomslag van "Steenbergen in de Middeleeuwen". (= Aquarelle based on the map found in the chapter cover of "Steenbergen in de Middeleeuwen")[6]. Aquarelle or watercolor is the same. So he made a watercolor (his words) from a watercolor....
- With so many changes in the sources I can't say what the truth is. Knowing he had been cheryy picking and falsefying sources earlier (and the mud throwing), my AGF has ended. Eddylandzaat (talk) 23:23, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
Falsefying sources? I do beg your pardon, because mistakingly adding the wrong authors to a book title, a mistake which can be easily spotted (IIb 3001) just about everywhere online, is not falsefying sources. Falsefying sources is a serious accusation, not to mention punished by the administrators of any Wikipedia project, I suggest you stick to the facts. Something you did not do from the start, as you claimed that the images given (my own work) are supposedly taken from the book in question. A blatant lie which you still appear to spread.
I give you the facts and all you have to shoot back at me is a string of slander and libel. Pretty strong case you have there.
To the reviewing admin(s), I've said all I can say on the matter. The water colors are my own work. Works, which I based on a series of different black-and-white-maps, containing vastly more details, text and markings and which can be found in 'Steenbergen in de Middeleeuwen' by A. Delahaye, J. Vervloet and G. van Bree. Neither did I copy (a false claim by Eddy Landzaad) the drawings nor is their any kind of copyright violation. Westbrabander (talk) 14:57, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
- You have been falsefying sources at nl:Maandblad Groningen, nl:Strenius and nl:Slag om Steenbergen en Welberg, nl:Stadsstaat en nl:Groningen (stad). Why should I believe you speak the truth this time? Eddylandzaat (talk) 19:27, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
- Show me where I've been blocked for falsification Eddy Landzaad, show me. You've got nothing but slanderous accusations. It's become crystal clear that your ridiculous personal vendetta has taken on grotesque forms. It's pathetic. I've given my sources, for all to see, and all you've tried to do here is to try to make me look bad with your made up claims. What are you doing here? Besides wasting people's time with such nonsense?
- Furthermore, try to contain your ego. I don't need to 'convince you' at all. You're not some high court judge who decides what stay or goes.
- I gave my sources here, in great detail I might add, and that's that. I don't care if you're convinced or not; that totally irrelevant here. Want to convince yourself 100%? Buy the book, who knows you might learn something from it.Westbrabander (talk) 22:22, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
- true, you were not blocked for falsefying sources. But you were shouting and roaring every time another source was shot down and started editwars over it. And that gave you a long list of blocks in the few months you are around. Have a nice day! Eddylandzaat (talk) 05:34, 20 November 2010 (UTC) And one of his annoying pity jokes is spelling my name wrong delibarately. In fact, he isn't taking to me.
- And also true is that you don't have to convince me here. They have sysops who decide if they believe you or me, and maybe they start asking around on nl-wp if I speak the truth here :-) Eddylandzaat (talk) 05:38, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
- Seriously, look at yourself. What are you doing here? You nominate my three water colors for deletion. That means that you're supposed to present proof proving that they're copyright violations, but all you do is spread unrelated lies and make a lot of noise ... You're childishly posting ""-smileys with rude comments and "have-a-nice-day"-'s while you're expected to provide conclusive evidence.
- Seriously, look at yourself. What are you doing here? You nominate my three water colors for deletion. That means that you're supposed to present proof proving that they're copyright violations, but all you do is spread unrelated lies and make a lot of noise ... You're childishly posting "
- I gave my sources here, in great detail I might add, and that's that. I don't care if you're convinced or not; that totally irrelevant here. Want to convince yourself 100%? Buy the book, who knows you might learn something from it.Westbrabander (talk) 22:22, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
- I give my sources and instead of making a single factual remark you resort to vile and untrue accusations ...
- If you want to be rude towards me or convince others of me being evil so much, just open up a weblog and go mental and knock yourself out. But seriously, what are you doing here? Why are you wasting my (and anyone else who's 'forced' to read your nonsense) time? Westbrabander (talk) 17:22, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
- No, mr. Westbrabander. It is not me who has to provide the evidence. You have put the pictures on Commons, so you prove that the challenged license is the truth. If the sysops doubt about that, they are entiteled to remove the challenged pictures. Eddylandzaat (talk) 21:04, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
- Let's analyse that last little gem. I said I've already provided my sources and that all you have in return are ridiculous accusations ... and what is your rebuttle? "No, mr. Westbrabander. It is not me who has to provide the evidence. You have put the pictures on Commons, so you prove that the challenged license is the truth" --
- No, mr. Westbrabander. It is not me who has to provide the evidence. You have put the pictures on Commons, so you prove that the challenged license is the truth. If the sysops doubt about that, they are entiteled to remove the challenged pictures. Eddylandzaat (talk) 21:04, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
- If you want to be rude towards me or convince others of me being evil so much, just open up a weblog and go mental and knock yourself out. But seriously, what are you doing here? Why are you wasting my (and anyone else who's 'forced' to read your nonsense) time? Westbrabander (talk) 17:22, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
- Who were you talking to? Do I even have to post my remarks here? Seems I don't because you're just as happy replying to stuff I never even said or claimed. Do you (honestly) think people are going to fall for these kinds of pathetic manipulation attempts? Westbrabander (talk) 21:29, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
- we will see that. mr. Westbrabander. Until now you only have said "believe me, it's not a copyright violation". No proof or conclusive evidence that is is the truth. Eddylandzaat (talk) 23:51, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
- The truth, is that I have provided detailed information on where the water colors I made are based on and that you have done nothing (absolutely nothing) other than provide false rationales and thrown around ridiculous and slanderous accusations.
- we will see that. mr. Westbrabander. Until now you only have said "believe me, it's not a copyright violation". No proof or conclusive evidence that is is the truth. Eddylandzaat (talk) 23:51, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
- Who were you talking to? Do I even have to post my remarks here? Seems I don't because you're just as happy replying to stuff I never even said or claimed. Do you (honestly) think people are going to fall for these kinds of pathetic manipulation attempts? Westbrabander (talk) 21:29, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
- The truth as well, is that even if these images are removed, I'll reupload them till kingdom come and take this case all the way up to Jimmy Wales himself if I have to. Because I'll be damned if I'll let myself be called a liar by a sockpuppeteer as yourself and see these perfectly fine images be removed for the sick personal pleasure of the likes of you.Westbrabander (talk) 20:03, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
Kept. The information in such simple maps is ineligible for copyright, and the design is clearly not that of a professional, printed map, but the uploader's own. There is no reason not to believe him that his sources are vastly more detailed. I cannot see why this should be a copyritght violation. AndreasPraefcke (talk) 21:01, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
copyright violetion
According to a references on the picture in the article nl:Steenbergen this aquarelle was from the book "Steenbergen in de Middeleeuwen", published in 1972. Under no circumstance it will be free of rights in The Netherlands. Eddylandzaat (talk) 02:30, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
- Apart from being a bad faith nomination by Eddy Landzaad (a frequent opponent of mine on the Dutch wikipedia and 'convicted' sockpuppeteer -Just f.y.i, I'm aware this has little value on other Wikipedia projects) there is nothing wrong with these watercolors, which are not taken from the book mentioned above.
- This book, Steenbergen in de Middeleeuwen, is a historical work which doesn' t contain the pictures in question. This quite to the contrary of Eddy Landzaats claims. What it does contain, is three highly detailed (black and white) 'archeological maps' on which I have based these simplefied water colors, which are (again) not copies but my own creations with the aforementioned maps as a 'source'. Westbrabander (talk) 16:31, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
- Instead of throwing mud back (the sockpuppetry is true but in Januari 2009) I like to state that that user Westbrabander has a history of being very creative with sources.
- Originaly these pictures were put down without any notice ([7]) and presented as own work. Fair. When the pictures were disputed on the talkpage they were at first from the book "Steenbergen in de Middeleeuwen" from the authors P.C. Vos and R.M. van Heeringen, then from P.C. Vos et. al. When contested, the authors changed again. Now this book was written by "A. Delahaye, J. Vervloet and G. van Bree". And suddenly the pictures are "Aquarel van de kaart te vinden in de hoofdstukomslag van "Steenbergen in de Middeleeuwen". (= Aquarelle of the map found in the chapter cover of "Steenbergen in de Middeleeuwen".)[8] Strange enough after my nomination for deletion it changes to "Aquarel op basis van de kaart te vinden in de hoofdstukomslag van "Steenbergen in de Middeleeuwen". (= Aquarelle based on the map found in the chapter cover of "Steenbergen in de Middeleeuwen")[9]. Aquarelle or watercolor is the same. So he made a watercolor (his words) from a watercolor....
- With so many changes in the sources I can't say what the truth is. Knowing he had been cheryy picking and falsefying sources earlier (and the mud throwing), my AGF has ended. Eddylandzaat (talk) 23:23, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
Falsefying sources? I do beg your pardon, because mistakingly adding the wrong authors to a book title, a mistake which can be easily spotted (IIb 3001) just about everywhere online, is not falsefying sources. Falsefying sources is a serious accusation, not to mention punished by the administrators of any Wikipedia project, I suggest you stick to the facts. Something you did not do from the start, as you claimed that the images given (my own work) are supposedly taken from the book in question. A blatant lie which you still appear to spread.
I give you the facts and all you have to shoot back at me is a string of slander and libel. Pretty strong case you have there.
To the reviewing admin(s), I've said all I can say on the matter. The water colors are my own work. Works, which I based on a series of different black-and-white-maps, containing vastly more details, text and markings and which can be found in 'Steenbergen in de Middeleeuwen' by A. Delahaye, J. Vervloet and G. van Bree. Neither did I copy (a false claim by Eddy Landzaad) the drawings nor is their any kind of copyright violation. Westbrabander (talk) 14:59, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
- You have been falsefying sources at nl:Maandblad Groningen, nl:Strenius and nl:Slag om Steenbergen en Welberg, nl:Stadsstaat en nl:Groningen (stad). Why should I believe you speak the truth this time? Eddylandzaat (talk) 19:33, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
- Show me where I've been blocked for falsification Eddy Landzaad, show me. You've got nothing but slanderous accusations. It's become crystal clear that your ridiculous personal vendetta has taken on grotesque forms. It's pathetic. I've given my sources, for all to see, and all you've tried to do here is to try to make me look bad with your made up claims. What are you doing here? Besides wasting people's time with such nonsense?
- Furthermore, try to contain your ego. I don't need to 'convince you' at all. You're not some high court judge who decides what stay or goes.
- I gave my sources here, in great detail I might add, and that's that. I don't care if you're convinced or not; that totally irrelevant here. Want to convince yourself 100%? Buy the book, who knows you might learn something from it.Westbrabander (talk) 22:23, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
- true, you were not blocked for falsefying sources. But you were shouting and roaring every time another source was shot down and started editwars over it. And that gave you a long list of blocks in the few months you are around. Have a nice day! Eddylandzaat (talk) 05:34, 20 November 2010 (UTC) And one of his annoying pity jokes is spelling my name wrong delibarately. In fact, he isn't taking to me.
- And also true is that you don't have to convince me here. They have sysops who decide if they believe you or me, and maybe they start asking around on nl-wp if I speak the truth here :-) Eddylandzaat (talk) 05:37, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
- Seriously, look at yourself. What are you doing here? You nominate my three water colors for deletion. That means that you're supposed to present proof proving that they're copyright violations, but all you do is spread unrelated lies and make a lot of noise ... You're childishly posting ""-smileys with rude comments and "have-a-nice-day"-'s while you're expected to provide conclusive evidence.
- Seriously, look at yourself. What are you doing here? You nominate my three water colors for deletion. That means that you're supposed to present proof proving that they're copyright violations, but all you do is spread unrelated lies and make a lot of noise ... You're childishly posting "
- I gave my sources here, in great detail I might add, and that's that. I don't care if you're convinced or not; that totally irrelevant here. Want to convince yourself 100%? Buy the book, who knows you might learn something from it.Westbrabander (talk) 22:23, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
- I give my sources and instead of making a single factual remark you resort to vile and untrue accusations ...
- If you want to be rude towards me or convince others of me being evil so much, just open up a weblog and go mental and knock yourself out. But seriously, what are you doing here? Why are you wasting my (and anyone else who's 'forced' to read your nonsense) time? Westbrabander (talk) 17:23, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
Kept. The information in such simple maps is ineligible for copyright, and the design is clearly not that of a professional, printed map, but the uploader's own. There is no reason not to believe him that his sources are vastly more detailed. I cannot see why this should be a copyritght violation. AndreasPraefcke (talk) 21:01, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
Very bad source and no permission by the town (of which this heraldry is) 80.187.103.247 18:26, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
- Please see the note below the image: „This file depicts the coat of arms of a German Körperschaft des öffentlichen Rechts (corporation governed by public law). According to § 5 Abs. 1 of the German Copyright law, official works like coats of arms are in the public domain.“ Since Bad Kleinen ist a Körperschaft des öffentlichen Rechts this is public domain. That's why there is no reason to delete it. --Oli (talk) 13:44, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
Keep, see 1 above -- Niteshift (talk) 09:49, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
Kept. Bitte mit den Urheberechten an Wappen und dem Unterschied zum Wappenrecht vertraut machen, sonst müssen wir hier jetzt zigtausend Löschanträge bearbeiten. AndreasPraefcke (talk) 21:09, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
Photo of a logo. Is this in accordance with FOP and/or PD-ineligible ? –Krinkletalk 04:46, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
FOP in Taiwan extends only to buildings, not artistic works, etc.Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:57, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
Photo of Logo. Is this in accordance with FOP and/or PD-ineligible ? –Krinkletalk 04:47, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:58, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
Possibly copyright violation due to Commons:De minimis –Krinkletalk 04:49, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:58, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
Derivative work (direct photo without DM) of copyrighted design –Krinkletalk 04:51, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:59, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
Derivative work of copyrighted label –Krinkletalk 05:01, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
this is a simple bottle of olive oil, not a art work protected, I don't see where is the problem! Véronique PAGNIER (talk) 06:23, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
I don't see a real copyright problem, but one of scope. What does the image want to tell us? Also, it is very blurred. --AndreasPraefcke (talk) 21:06, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
Copyvio and out of scope. Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:01, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
Derivative work (does not fall under DM) of copyrighted package –Krinkletalk 05:01, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
this is a simple bottle of olive oil, not a art work protected, I don't see where is the problem! Véronique PAGNIER (talk) 06:23, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
- Delete The bottle of olive oil has a label that has a drawing on it that is copyrighted. Most copyrights aren't over oil paintings; they cover things we use in day-to-day life, too.--Prosfilaes (talk) 06:39, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:02, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
Once hosted on the NASA website, but clearly credited to "A.T. Sinclair" ("Espenak's Eclipse Home Page"), not to the NASA. Therefore missing a permission. Eusebius (talk) 07:56, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:04, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
maliarrn 41.210.8.235 09:43, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
No reason given for deletion, country galleries are very common, therefore, Kept. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:06, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
Copyrighted logo used only for advertising. Jafeluv (talk) 13:37, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:07, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
I doubt that it is free: http://www.indiamart.com/yands-creators/ Catfisheye (talk) 15:35, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
Watermark (C), No evidence of permssion. Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:28, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
picture shows work by another person. no FOP in Italy (COM:FOP#Italy) no death date of architect or contruction date of building given both architects died 1979. So PD-old does not apply to the building. Saibo (Δ) 17:10, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
- Why this file should be deleted because of missing FOP in Italy, if there is a whole category with images for the building in commons (with info about architect, building, ...) and btw some other pics? --Arch2all (talk) 17:15, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
- The problem is that the photo shows a work by another person: the building! You can only photograph works by other Persons if PD-old or a FOP exception applies or the building is only a minor, irrelevant part of the image.
- en:Pirelli Tower: both architects died 1979. So PD-old does not apply to the building.
- Yes, we can delete the whole cat Category:Grattacielo Pirelli (Milan). Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 17:21, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
- "The building was later sold to the Lombardy region, of which it's now the head office." (en-wp) The building is a government building -> according Italian law (COM:FOP#Italy) that is cultural heritage -> publication is allowed --Arch2all (talk) 17:40, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
- The opposite is true: even if it was a cultural heritage (what would neede to be sourced/proofed) only fair use would be allowed. We do not accept fair use images here. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 17:54, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
- ok, delete all newer italian architecture from commons, enjoy it! --Arch2all (talk) 17:58, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
- Sorry for this - please ask the Italian government for FOP rules ... Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 18:46, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
- ok, delete all newer italian architecture from commons, enjoy it! --Arch2all (talk) 17:58, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
- The opposite is true: even if it was a cultural heritage (what would neede to be sourced/proofed) only fair use would be allowed. We do not accept fair use images here. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 17:54, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
- "The building was later sold to the Lombardy region, of which it's now the head office." (en-wp) The building is a government building -> according Italian law (COM:FOP#Italy) that is cultural heritage -> publication is allowed --Arch2all (talk) 17:40, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
- Why this file should be deleted because of missing FOP in Italy, if there is a whole category with images for the building in commons (with info about architect, building, ...) and btw some other pics? --Arch2all (talk) 17:15, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:29, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
Patently a TV screen capture — iridescent 17:30, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:29, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure that this image, which according to the description was "made in about 10 min", is within the scope of the project. Moreover, it's not even clear what it is intended to be. I also wonder about the copyright status of the cartoon turkeys, which if the file did take 10 minutes to create, were clearly taken from somewhere else (clip art?) Skeezix1000 (talk) 17:47, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
- Delete, for the reasons listed above. –BMRR (talk) 13:04, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:31, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
While I haven't been able to find an exact match, I've found the same image in a lower res at the website of a newspaper (here) dated two years prior to local upload. SpacemanSpiff (talk) 18:02, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:31, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
Flickrwashed copyvio, see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Barakhambaroad.jpg Guy 18:54, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:49, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
Flickrwashed copyvio, see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Barakhambaroad.jpg Guy 18:55, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
- Delete copyvio, cropped version from here (2nd of the 4 images). --Elekhh (talk) 00:01, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:49, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
Flickrwashed copyvio, see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Barakhambaroad.jpg Guy 18:55, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:49, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
no freedom of Panorama in France and sculptor death in 1951 Frédéric (talk) 20:56, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
I just transferred it from fr.wiki. In that case, it should be deleted there, too. -- Bojan Talk 03:23, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:50, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
Statue by Firmin Michelet, died in 1951. Not in Public domain, copyrighted. No FoP in France. Sorry. Jebulon (talk) 20:58, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 23:59, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
- File:La Recoleta Cemetery by Mardetanha 1890.JPG (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
No COM:FOP#Argentina; 1970 statue. Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:01, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:51, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
possible copyright violation This is not own work, but a scan of a photograph or postcard. In such cases the copyright is with the photographer and protected till 75 years after his or her death. Non-commercial photography was still rare in 1910 so it is unlikely that is was just a family-picture. And I don't believe the one who plece the picture here is the same as the photographer. Eddylandzaat (talk) 02:33, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
- This is (apart from obviously being a scan; this is a digital project after all) family picture, taken by my great-grandfather; who apart from having no commercial interest with the picture (rest a sure) died well over 75 years ago.Westbrabander (talk) 16:36, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
- Still your claim "own work" is false. I tend to deletion if no further proof of your rights appears (a first try to prove it would be a much larger scan of the photo in a decent resolution). --AndreasPraefcke (talk) 21:03, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
- I agree with my colleagues -- the best thing here would be to upload a better scan. This one has at least one artifact (the three pixel strip on the right side) that makes the image look like it was cropped from some Web source. If you actually have an original print in front of you, give us a much higher resolution scan, otherwise this is a delete. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:55, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
- I haven't got the original photo on me at the moment, and getting it could take a while. All I have at the moment is the uncropped version, which isn't much bigger. (It's a pretty small picture as I remember it). Westbrabander (talk) 08:39, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
- I agree with my colleagues -- the best thing here would be to upload a better scan. This one has at least one artifact (the three pixel strip on the right side) that makes the image look like it was cropped from some Web source. If you actually have an original print in front of you, give us a much higher resolution scan, otherwise this is a delete. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:55, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
- Still your claim "own work" is false. I tend to deletion if no further proof of your rights appears (a first try to prove it would be a much larger scan of the photo in a decent resolution). --AndreasPraefcke (talk) 21:03, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
- Link Mvg, Basvb (talk) 20:20, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
- Thank you, Basvb. It seems clear that this was cropped from a commercial post card, therefore Delete. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:24, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
- Thank you, Basvb. It seems clear that this was cropped from a commercial post card, therefore
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 00:51, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
Very low quality picture Abujoy (talk) 14:51, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
- Keep I think its still interesting. Not so bad its unusable Andyzweb (talk) 17:43, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
Kept. –Juliancolton | Talk 02:25, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
Low quality, the pictured cat is out of focus and very blurred 134.96.231.112 08:39, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
- Keep I can see contexts where it's usable.--Prosfilaes (talk) 06:41, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
Kept. Jcb (talk) 00:53, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
Low quality: low resolution and the cat is out of focus 134.96.231.112 09:02, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
Kept. Jcb (talk) 00:54, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
unused private foto Reinhardhauke (talk) 16:40, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
- Keep - now in use. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 00:41, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
Chances that this is a copyvio are extremely high. See here: http://www.realtid.se/ArticlePages/200704/11/20070411155850_Realtid205/20070411155850_Realtid205.dbp.asp . This is from the same shooting and it says: 'Niklas Svensson. Foto: Pressbild från Politikerbloggen' on politikerbloggen.se there is an other image from the same shooting: http://www.politikerbloggen.se/2008/12/12/12514/ and here is one with the same black frame: http://www.fgj.se/kursledare.asp?OmrID=2&SubID=3&SubSubID=0&pid=12 . We could ask politikerbloggen.se for permission but without that it needs to be deleted. Amada44 talk to me 11:17, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Politikerbloggen related: http://www.journalisten.se/artikel/16527/politikerbloggen-blir-tv-program Foto: Johan Adelstedt. OTRS needed. -- Common Good (talk) 20:09, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Masur (talk) 13:15, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
The filename is wrong! Hetismij (talk) 11:49, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
- That's no reason to delete. You can request renaming by placing a {{Rename}} template on the page. Jafeluv (talk) 13:42, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
- Renamed it. Mvg, Basvb (talk) 22:40, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
Kept. Jcb (talk) 00:55, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
Copyrighted logo used only for advertisement. Jafeluv (talk) 13:35, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 01:00, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
no FOP for statues in the United States Secret (talk) 15:15, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
Neutral It was considered published and therefore needed a copyright notice; can someone check to see if the statue has a copyright notice?--Prosfilaes (talk) 06:49, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 01:06, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
medal is considered artwork, no FOP of artwork in the United States Secret (talk) 15:17, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
- Keep - does not have a copyright notice, 1969 work. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:55, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
- Delete No evidence it's a 1969 work; it could still be considered unpublished.--Prosfilaes (talk) 06:47, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
- That is just ridiculous. I could counter that maybe this was made an century in advance, in 1869. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 08:48, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
- Not that ridiculous. An award distributed between some winners easily can be unpublished. Example -- Oscar. Trycatch (talk) 10:36, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
- That is just ridiculous. I could counter that maybe this was made an century in advance, in 1869. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 08:48, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
- When was it made? I think it's pretty clear it was made in 1969 -- it has "Centennial 1869-1969" on its face. It has no (C) on this side, but it might be on the reverse.
- Was it published? The Oscar case rests on the very limited distribution of Oscar statues, without charge, and with a right of first refusal of the Academy to buy them back. I suspect that this medal was distributed more widely, perhaps sold, and certainly with no right of first refusal. If any of those is true, then it was published. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:27, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
- The right of first refusal was hardly relevant in the Oscar case, because the Academy began to require recipients to give the Academy a right of first refusal only in 1941, after the copyright registration. Trycatch (talk) 16:17, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
Comment Interesting that the photo seems to be identical to this one. Trycatch (talk) 16:17, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
- Changed to Delete. Another good find by User:Trycatch. Same size image, same lighting. Since a copyright does come with a photograph of coins and medals, the photo is apparently a copyvio, regardless of the status of the medal itself.
- BTW on the Oscar first refusal issue, the court found,
- "Although no express restrictions on recipients' use or distribution of the Oscar existed before 1941, we conclude that restrictions on further distribution were implied",
- so it was relevant to that discussion. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 20:25, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 01:06, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
I doubt that this image is the own work of the uplaoder: Low image resolution and no EXIF data may underline this. 80.187.102.79 17:37, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
- This is indeed my own work. I am Sonia Dane's husband. I am her only photographer. And this picture was shot in our backyard on 8/31/2010 and first used on SoniaDane.com on 10/19/2010. The original image was at much higher resolution. But I'm using a cropped image in order to provide a headshot for this article. I did a screen capture of the original image overlayed with the meta-data from the original image, which you can find at http://www.soniadane.com/wiki/Capture11-18-2010-9.56.32-AM.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gravesb (talk • contribs) 18:03, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
- Keep (same for File:Layersofvintagebeauty218 crop.jpg) Maybe the ticket otrs:2010111710002024 is valid for these two files. Otherwise the Copyright holder can send a new permission to OTRS. -- Common Good (talk) 20:27, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. - no evidence of permission - Jcb (talk) 11:25, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
Reasons for deletion request: It's logo of University of Wrocław. Unless User:Uniwersytet Wrocławski is University's legal representative, can prove and release this image under free licence it should not be at commons as a fair use. -Magul (talk) 18:19, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
Account "Uniwersytet Wrocławski" is managed by Promotion and Information Bureau of University of Wrocław which is University legal representative and have copyrights to the University brand mark. Please visit our webpage or contact us (promocja@uni.wroc.pl) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Uniwersytet Wrocławski (talk • contribs) 01:44, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
- Two things, please:
- Send an e-mail as shown at Commons:OTRS from an official University address authorizing the use of the logo. Without such permission confirmed by OTRS, this is a delete. Although this is a nuisance, I hope you will see it is for your protection -- we have no way of knowing that the statement you make above is true, as anyone could chose that username.
- Please sign your posts, using four tildes ~~~~
Also, the use of group accounts is against policy. I suggest you read Commons:Username_policy#Inappropriate_usernamesand consider changing the username. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:46, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 11:26, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
82.17.74.221 20:57, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
Question What is the reason to delete this image? Sdrtirs (talk) 05:12, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
Closed, no reason given. Martin H. (talk) 09:00, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
out of COM:SCOPE plus likely violates personality rights of Mr. Wales. --Túrelio (talk) 21:28, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
- Is there a criteria for blatant stupidity with no legitimate uses? Sven Manguard (talk) 21:32, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
- Keep We don't normally delete images on the basis of perceived personality rights issues (though you could add the {{Personality rights}} notice). As for the scope argument, this could set a difficult precedent as on that basis all the other Jimbo image variations (teddybear, dog, angel, medallion) would be candidates for deletion as in practice they have less educational value than this one which does, in comparison, have an appropriate historical and political context as a caricature in the form of the Tony Blair demon eyes Conservative party poster. Fæ (talk) 21:41, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
- I wonder in what position you are to claim "We don't normally ...", when you even don't seem to understand the function of the {{Personality rights}} tag. (Its function is actually to prevent such things as you did, by informing users (primarily re-users) about the personality rights of living people.) Apart from that, ever came across the WMF resolution about living people: "Taking human dignity ... into account ..."? --Túrelio (talk) 22:07, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
- You appear to be in a rush to call me ignorant. Please try and avoid ad hominem arguments or making assumptions about what I might have read or what I might understand. This image is not an attack on Jimbo's dignity, it is in the form of a classic caricature. It seems rather less of an attack on his dignity than sticking his head on the body of a dog as in File:Jimdog.jpg which has been here for 4 years without being seen as an attack on his dignity, though you may want to note the outcome of the brief Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Jimdog.jpg was a straight-forward keep. Throwing fundamental policy around because you do not like an image does not make your personal interpretation of guidelines the "truth". Thanks, Fæ (talk) 22:29, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Two problems: 1) falls outside the project scope "Must be realistically useful for an educational purpose" (how is this useful? like Sven asked) 2) Per Commons:Photographs_of_identifiable_people#Moral_issues, it was "unfairly obtained" since it has little semblance of the original and because it "unfairly demean or ridicule the subject". If you can get Jimbo's permission to keep this image, this discussion will be over. Royalbroil 04:06, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
- I have no intention of arguing strongly for this image and I have already covered educational use as caricatures of public figures are useful illustrations of concepts or humour in the same way as the Jimbo's head on a dog image. However I believe your interpretation of "unfairly obtained" is incorrect as it was obtained from Commons and under the license derived images are a valid use, and "unfairly demean" is also misinterpreting our policy as public figures expect to be subject to reasonable ridicule or humour and so "unfair" does not apply in the same way as might to non-public figures. As for writing to Jimbo to get his permission, no, that is also a poor precedent to set here. We would never insist that an uploader get David Cameron's permission before including artwork or derived images based on free license photographs of him and I fail to see why Jimbo should be a special exception here. Note that we should be consistent, if the census is to interpret COM:IDENT in the way suggested, we should raise the other derived images (with non-trivial changes) of Jimbo for deletion along with those of every other public figure we hold (for example File:Barack_Obama_Catalonia_Supporters.jpg and File:BarackObama.jpg). --Fæ (talk) 08:03, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
- Delete I Agree with Royal. Alakasam (talk) 17:28, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 11:29, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
Photos of Peru.info
[edit]
- File:Isla_de_Uros_Puno_Perú.PNG
- File:Isla flotante de los uros Puno Peru.JPG
- File:Fiesta de la candelaria comparsa diablada Puno Peru.JPG
- File:Fiesta de la candelaria diablos Puno Peru.JPG
- File:Casonas trujillo.PNG
- File:Catedral Huamanga Ayacucho.PNG
- File:Cathedral cusco.PNG
- File:Eco-lodge in Loreto, Peru.PNG
- File:Fortaleza Kuélap Amazonas Perú.PNG
- File:Fortress kuelap Peru.PNG
- File:Huaca huallamarca.JPG
- File:Iglesia jalca Amazonas Perú.PNG
- File:Victoria regia en Loreto Perú.PNG
Advertisement photos of Peru.info, the site from where those photos were taken states clearly at the top that the Creative Commons license used only allows the use with attribution but not commercial use or derivative work (Creative Commons Reconocimiento-No comercial-Sin obras derivadas 2.5 Perú License) which means is not free, and in the letter sent to the spanish wikipedia they are only talking about www.peru.org.pe but the site peru.info is never mentioned in the email.
P.S. I added all the photos of this site that I could find in one thread hope that is ok.
200.87.159.7 22:13, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:57, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
The uploader claims the work is PD-ineligible; I have little idea how military copyright in South Africa works or what historical elements this work may be constructed from, so it might be public domain, but I haven't seen evidence to that effect. It's certainly not just basic geometric shapes. Dcoetzee (talk) 23:34, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 11:31, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
