Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2010/12/07
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
|
|
![47 File:Everybody_Draw_Mohammed_Day_-_Depiction_of_The_"Prophet"_Muhammad_by_Napalm_filled_tires.jpg](#File:Everybody_Draw_Mohammed_Day_-_Depiction_of_The_"Prophet"_Muhammad_by_Napalm_filled_tires.jpg){kind=link}
_-_Kopie.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
_Crop.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
Image is too small to be usable Tabercil (talk) 02:24, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. useless poor photo of penis George Chernilevsky talk 07:14, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
out of scope 4028mdk09 (talk) 06:09, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Far out of project scope. George Chernilevsky talk 07:20, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
It's a non-free logo. Y4PT (talk) 01:13, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted by Túrelio: Uploader request: Fair use is not allowed on Commons
Clearly not an own work. Time photo for a team hockey card. Likely ownership belongs to the photographer. Djsasso (talk) 16:29, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 21:44, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 22:28, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
It's a non-free logo. Y4PT (talk) 01:13, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted by Túrelio: Uploader request: Fair use is not allowed on Commons
- Flickrwashing. According to the uploader's profile, he is a dude with a huge crush on the subject [1]. Another photo [2] is identified as being by Karolina Turek (not the Flickr uploader), and the subject has the same top and earrings, so I'd say they're from the same photoshoot and Ms. Turek shot them all. Chaser (talk) 04:10, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Just because Ms Turek shot them doesnt mean she owns the copyright, that could have been passed up, which I have personally witness several times. You can own a photo and the rights to the photo, even if you where not the photographer. RioDej(talk) 11:43, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
- That is true, but there is no evidence it happened in this case.--Chaser (talk) 20:07, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
But what evidence do you have that it didn't? Only a theory that you think its flickrwashing, you don't have any actual proof. So unless there is proof, you need to go by what the flicker license said. You cant just decide that because you think its flickr washing it should be deleted with no proof either. --RioDej (talk) 22:47, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
per Chaser, photo seems to be from the same session Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 21:48, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
bad quality, not useful for project scope 4028mdk09 (talk) 06:19, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. poor quality photo of a penis George Chernilevsky talk 14:50, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
bad quality, not useful for project scope 4028mdk09 (talk) 06:19, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
- Probably in scope now. Category:Fungal diseases. Tinea cruris --George Chernilevsky talk 14:55, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
out of project scope personal picture George Chernilevsky talk 07:36, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 21:51, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
Far out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 07:40, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 21:51, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
out of project scope and has poor quality George Chernilevsky talk 07:48, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 21:51, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
out of project scope. Promotional George Chernilevsky talk 08:12, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 21:54, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
out of project scope and probably copyvio George Chernilevsky talk 08:16, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 21:54, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
out of project scope. Self-portait of non-notable guy. George Chernilevsky talk 08:21, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Delete--Kiran Gopi (talk) 12:20, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 21:55, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
out of project scope. Self-portait of non-notable guy. George Chernilevsky talk 08:22, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
- Delete--Kiran Gopi (talk) 12:19, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 21:55, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
out of project scope. Self-portait of non-notable person. Uploader only contribution George Chernilevsky talk 08:25, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 21:55, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
Corrupt or empty file. Black only George Chernilevsky talk 08:29, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
- Delete advertises a private website--Antemister (talk) 19:05, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 21:56, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
out of project scope. Self-portait of non-notable guy. Uploader only contribution George Chernilevsky talk 08:31, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 21:56, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
out of project scope. Portait of non-notable person George Chernilevsky talk 08:33, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Keep en-wiki thinks he is notable: w:Ryan M. Place. Trycatch (talk) 00:24, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
out of project scope. Self-portait of non-notable guy. Uploader only contribution George Chernilevsky talk 08:34, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
- Keep in use on the user page. Trycatch (talk) 00:25, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
Far out of project scope. George Chernilevsky talk 08:39, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 21:58, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
out of project scope. Uploader only contribution George Chernilevsky talk 08:40, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 21:58, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
out of project scope. Unusable small self-portait of non-notable guy. Uploader only contribution George Chernilevsky talk 08:42, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 21:58, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
out of project scope. Portait of non-notable guy. Uploader only contribution George Chernilevsky talk 08:43, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 21:59, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
out of project scope. Unusable poor drawing. Uploader only contribution George Chernilevsky talk 08:49, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Crap. --Yikrazuul (talk) 22:48, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 21:59, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
and
out of project scope. Self-portait of non-notable person. Uploader only contribution George Chernilevsky talk 08:54, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
- Keep es-wiki has an article about him: w:es:Alexander Melgarejo M. Do you google people before your "non-notable person" claim? Trycatch (talk) 00:32, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
- OK, categorized now as Writers from Colombia. Thanks for info --George Chernilevsky talk 19:59, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
out of project scope. Self-portait of non-notable guy. Poor quality too George Chernilevsky talk 08:58, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 21:59, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
out of project scope. Self-portait of non-notable person. Uploader only contribution George Chernilevsky talk 09:04, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 22:00, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
out of project scope. Self-portait of non-notable guy. Uploader only contribution, poor quality too George Chernilevsky talk 09:06, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 22:00, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
out of project scope. Self-portait of non-notable guy. Uploader only contribution George Chernilevsky talk 09:10, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 22:00, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
out of project scope private photo. Very poor quality George Chernilevsky talk 09:18, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 22:01, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
out of project scope private photo. Very poor quality George Chernilevsky talk 09:20, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 22:01, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
Unusable poor and probably out of project scope. George Chernilevsky talk 09:23, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 22:02, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
out of project scope. Bad framing too George Chernilevsky talk 09:26, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 22:02, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
out of project scope. Self-portait of non-notable girl. Uploader only contribution George Chernilevsky talk 09:28, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 22:02, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
out of project scope. Self-portait of non-notable guy. Uploader only contribution George Chernilevsky talk 09:29, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 22:03, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
out of project scope. Too much promotional watermarked, unusable George Chernilevsky talk 09:33, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Comment Magazine cover, why it's out of scope? Need the COM:OTRS permission though. Trycatch (talk) 00:44, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
OTRS needed Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 22:03, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
out of project scope. Too much promotional watermarked, unusable George Chernilevsky talk 09:34, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
- Comment Magazine cover, of course it's usable. Need the COM:OTRS permission though. Trycatch (talk) 00:45, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 22:04, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
out of project scope. self-promotional text only George Chernilevsky talk 09:40, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 22:04, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
out of project scope. Self-portait of non-notable guy. George Chernilevsky talk 09:41, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 22:04, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
out of project scope. Unused portrait with strong manipulation and poor quality George Chernilevsky talk 09:45, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Screenshot from PES 2010. Trycatch (talk) 00:53, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
out of project scope private photo. George Chernilevsky talk 09:46, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 22:05, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
out of project scope. Portait of non-notable guy. George Chernilevsky talk 09:50, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
active in German charity projects Kept. Mbdortmund (talk) 22:06, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
unused personal photo Chesdovi (talk) 14:45, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted It may be in scope, but it is copyvio as the author is not the uploader. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:26, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
not allowed Azizfaisalaziz (talk) 10:16, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
- Keep. It's in the public domain and within project scope, so yes, it is allowed. —LX (talk, contribs) 11:08, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Speedy kept, Historic Islamic art is allowed. -- Infrogmation (talk) 20:46, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Low-resolution duplicate of File:Ali Beheading Nadr ibn al-Harith in the Presence of the Prophet Muhammad. Miniature from volume 4 of a copy of Mustafa al-Darir’s Siyar-i-Nabi. Istanbul; c. 1594 The David Col..jpg with colors that seem to be very off. HyperGaruda (talk) 09:32, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
- Delete and redirect, per nomination. —LX (talk, contribs) 09:34, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
- Also adding File:Muhammad 12.jpg to the DR as it is identical to the nominated file (actually the other way around: the nominated file is a downscaled duplicate of the added file). --HyperGaruda (talk) 09:40, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, redirection to high res version. --Wdwd (talk) 12:02, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
File:Everybody_Draw_Mohammed_Day_-_Depiction_of_The_"Prophet"_Muhammad_by_Napalm_filled_tires.jpg
[edit]
It hurt the religious feeling of Islam Azizfaisalaziz (talk) 10:19, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
- That's not a valid reason for deletion. Commons is not censored. If it offends you, don't look at it. —LX (talk, contribs) 11:07, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Pls delete it rightnow Azizfaisalaziz (talk) 10:20, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
- Sorry, nagging isn't going to work. —LX (talk, contribs) 11:07, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
either a new cartoon war will be start on internet Azizfaisalaziz (talk) 10:21, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
- That's not a valid reason for deletion either. If you don't like war, don't wage it. And again, one request would have been plenty. —LX (talk, contribs) 11:07, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Speedy Kept. As no valid reason for deletion within the deletion policy has been provided. --Dferg (talk · meta) 07:48, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
Attacks Islamic Religious Thoughts Kmniyas (talk) 16:15, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
- Speedy keep. Purely disruptive re-nomination with no new arguments. —LX (talk, contribs) 16:41, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
- Speedy keep. Agree with prior analysis given. -- Cirt (talk) 22:16, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
Closed as Keep. INeverCry 18:43, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
File:Everybody Draw Mohammed Day - Depiction of The "Prophet" Muhammad by Napalm filled tires.jpg
[edit]
Under "Photographs of identifiable people" section of "Commons:Deletion policy" this image has an unethical objective, i.e., to pervert freedom of expression. This image is unacceptable as it mocks the prophet, whose no real photograph is available till date. Further, the author of this image has no consent to draw this picture from the prophet's heirs (i.e. his descendants, the people of Quraish). Chintu6 (talk) 18:34, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
- Keep: Per my comment on the IP's nomination below. DLindsley Need something? 18:51, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
- Commons:Photographs of identifiable people deals with photographs of identifiable, living people. This is not a photograph, and Muhammad is not alive. He died nearly 1200 years before the creation of the earliest surviving camera photograph and 1378 years before this drawing was created. None of your other points have any basis in Commons' policy or applicable laws or bring up anything that wasn't already addressed in the numerous deletion discussions that you were told to read before starting yet another round of this. —LX (talk, contribs) 19:53, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
Kept, Speedily kept as no valid reason within Commons policy has been advanced. NPOV, Verifiability and OR do not apply to Commons; "unethical, mischievous and provocative" are opinions not based in policy and so irrelevant here. Rodhullandemu (talk) 20:22, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
File:Everybody Draw Mohammed Day - Depiction of The "Prophet" Muhammad by Napalm filled tires.jpg
[edit]
This image just kills Wikipedia's "neutral point of view". In addition it lacks "verifiability" and has "no original research" 14.139.234.86 18:40, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
- Keep: Please understand that Commons is not Wikipedia, which means that here at Commons, we don't have to rely on Wikipedia rules such as the rules you mentioned, which are "neutral point of view" and "no original research". I'm also going for a Keep vote per the above arguments in the archived debates. DLindsley Need something? 18:46, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
Kept, because whoever our anonymous friend one four dot one three nine dot two three four dot eight six is, he or she failed to cite any relevant Commons policies, and there is already an ongoing deletion discussion. As the very first sentence of Commons:Project scope/Neutral point of view states, "Commons is not Wikipedia, and files uploaded here do not necessarily need to comply with the Neutral point of view and No original research requirements imposed by many of the Wikipedia sites." At this point, repeated deletion nominations of the same file without bringing up any new, relevant arguments is entirely unhelpful, and piling on multiple concurrent deletion discussions is particularly disruptive. Speedy non-admin closure, because there is plenty of precedent here as well as another open discussion. —LX (talk, contribs) 19:35, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
File:Everybody Draw Mohammed Day - Depiction of The "Prophet" Muhammad by Napalm filled tires.jpg
[edit]
These images lack neutral point of view, verifiability and original research besides being unethical, mischievous and provocative (see Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons) Chintu6 (talk) 20:07, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
Kept, Speedily kept as no valid reason within Commons policy has been advanced. NPOV, Verifiability and OR do not apply to Commons; "unethical, mischievous and provocative" are opinions not based in policy and so irrelevant here. Rodhullandemu (talk) 20:22, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
File:Everybody Draw Mohammed Day - Depiction of The "Prophet" Muhammad by Napalm filled tires.jpg
[edit]
Per COM:D: Files apparently created and/or uploaded for the purpose of vandalism or attack. Also for COM:SCOPE as it can not be used for education. EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 02:01, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
Kept, Withdrawn by nominator (me)
delete all these cartoons Azizfaisalaziz (talk) 10:33, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
- Keep. No reason for deletion given. —LX (talk, contribs) 11:10, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Kept speedily. No reason for deletion was given. Trycatch (talk) 00:59, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
{{delete|reason=out of project scope. Self-portait of non-notable guy. Uploader only contribution George Chernilevsky talk 11:55, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 22:08, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
Copyright problem (a TV screenshot) and poor quality George Chernilevsky talk 11:57, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 22:09, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
Out of project scope. Portait of several non-notable guys. Uploader only contribution George Chernilevsky talk 12:00, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 22:09, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
Out of project scope. Portait of non-notable guy. Uploader only contribution George Chernilevsky talk 12:02, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 22:09, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
Oout of project scope. Unused private logo. Uploader only contribution George Chernilevsky talk 12:04, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 22:10, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
Corrupt or empty file George Chernilevsky talk 12:06, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 22:10, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
Corrupt or empty file George Chernilevsky talk 12:07, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
- librsvg-ERROR **: _rsvg_acquire_xlink_href_resource called for external resource: File:SuperDisk voice coil and eject.jpg base: (null) --Dschwen (talk) 15:16, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Speedied. --Dschwen (talk) 15:17, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
out of project scope. Self-portait of non-notable guy. Uploader only contribution George Chernilevsky talk 12:13, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 22:11, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
out of project scope. Self-portait of non-notable girl. George Chernilevsky talk 12:14, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 22:13, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
out of project scope. Self-portait of non-notable girl. George Chernilevsky talk 12:15, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 22:14, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
out of project scope. Small poor portait of non-notable guy. Uploader only contribution George Chernilevsky talk 12:21, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 22:14, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
out of project scope. Self-portait of non-notable guy. Uploader only contribution George Chernilevsky talk 12:21, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 22:14, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
Out of COM:SCOPE and unused. Uploader's contributions are exclusively self-promotion. Wknight94 talk 12:25, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. advertisement George Chernilevsky talk 18:15, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
out of scope, not used or categorized since 2008 4028mdk09 (talk) 13:32, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. George Chernilevsky talk 18:12, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
Out of scope. Deleted once for that reason and reloaded Flickrworker (talk) 17:24, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
- Delete as COM:DW of COM:COPYVIO: cropped newspaper photo. EXIF data from jaime.jpg via http://atodocalor.blogspot.com/2013/02/personajes-de-la-ciudad.html:
- filenames: ACBgaitero.jpg (1).JPG / b6ACBjaimeindriago.jpg (1).JPG
- caption: "Maracaibo, Zulia, Venezuela: Jaime Indriago visita a La Verdad para promocionar su nueva producción El Apretón."
- photographer: Argemary Bernal
- date: 27 November 2009
- copyright: Diario la Verdad, C.A. (so copyrighted in Venezuela until at least 2070)
Deleted by Ellin Beltz.
out of scope, not used or categorized since 2008 4028mdk09 (talk) 13:33, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. George Chernilevsky talk 18:11, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
out of scope, not used or categorized since 2008 4028mdk09 (talk) 13:34, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. George Chernilevsky talk 18:10, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
out of scope, not used or categorized since 2008, very small 4028mdk09 (talk) 13:36, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. poor quality private picture, Uploader only contribution George Chernilevsky talk 15:24, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
wrong source, not used or categorized since 2008, bad quality 4028mdk09 (talk) 13:37, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. useless George Chernilevsky talk 15:26, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
out of scope, not used or categorized since 2008, bad quality 4028mdk09 (talk) 13:39, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 22:18, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
wrong source, out of scope, not used or categorized since 2008 4028mdk09 (talk) 13:41, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. out of scope poor private photo George Chernilevsky talk 07:01, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
out of scope, not used or categorized since 2008 4028mdk09 (talk) 13:41, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 22:19, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
out of scope, not used or categorized since 2008 4028mdk09 (talk) 13:46, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. out of scope George Chernilevsky talk 15:30, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
out of scope, not used or categorized since 2008 4028mdk09 (talk) 13:48, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
- Delete "not used or categorized since 2008" is not a reason for deletion, and "out of scope" claim without any research is meaningless. This file is in scope, but it seems to be identical to File:JorgeGalvan2007.jpg. Trycatch (talk) 01:23, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Duplicate with same resolution and a bit much compression, other copy in use George Chernilevsky talk 09:14, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
out of scope, not used or categorized since 2008 4028mdk09 (talk) 13:50, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. out of scope private photo. Poor quality too George Chernilevsky talk 07:04, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
out of scope, not used or categorized since 2009 4028mdk09 (talk) 13:54, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. out of scope private photo. George Chernilevsky talk 07:05, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
out of scope, not used or categorized since 2009 4028mdk09 (talk) 13:57, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. out of scope private photo. George Chernilevsky talk 13:43, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
out of scope, not used or categorized since 2009 4028mdk09 (talk) 14:00, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Small self-portrait with very poor quality. Out of scope George Chernilevsky talk 13:54, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
unused personal foto Reinhardhauke (talk) 14:22, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
- Also, File:Jm.jpg is tagged as a dup of this one (uploaded by same editor). Also also, File:2599287D.jpg is claimed as "own work" but appears to have watermark or caption suggesting it's copied from an unknown printed source (presumably copyrighted, no evidence of copyright permission). And Jm.jpg is tagged as source="In net" author="I don't know", casting further doubt on this image being valid on commons. DMacks (talk) 17:15, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
- delete--Motopark (talk) 18:17, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Martin H. (talk) 19:58, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
out of scope Reinhardhauke (talk) 14:31, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Scaled-down duplicate of File:Betray The Moment.jpg George Chernilevsky talk 15:12, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
useless Reinhardhauke (talk) 14:32, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 22:22, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
useless Reinhardhauke (talk) 14:33, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Out of scope promotional logo George Chernilevsky talk 15:49, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
unused image of wiki-page Reinhardhauke (talk) 14:34, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 22:22, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
spam Reinhardhauke (talk) 14:35, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Out of scope promotional logo George Chernilevsky talk 15:47, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
out of scope Reinhardhauke (talk) 14:46, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 22:23, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
useless Reinhardhauke (talk) 14:49, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Useless advertisement / restaurant menu. Poor quality photo George Chernilevsky talk 09:13, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
useless Reinhardhauke (talk) 14:51, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Out of scope George Chernilevsky talk 15:44, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
unused private foto Reinhardhauke (talk) 14:52, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
- Keep nomination reason is invalid, clearly it's not a private photo, the person has some notoriety (see google). Trycatch (talk) 01:42, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
out of scope Reinhardhauke (talk) 14:57, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Out of project scope logo George Chernilevsky talk 15:41, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
useless Reinhardhauke (talk) 15:02, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Far out of project scope poor drawing George Chernilevsky talk 15:38, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
book covers from 1998 and 2003. I see no permission by the publisher/artist Saibo (Δ) 15:03, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 22:25, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
out of scope Reinhardhauke (talk) 15:11, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Scaled-down duplicate of File:Suffering Sight Live.jpg George Chernilevsky talk 15:21, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
not my photo Heyitssashia (talk) 15:11, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. --High Contrast (talk) 21:07, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
unused personal foto Reinhardhauke (talk) 15:21, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. per nom. Also very poor quality George Chernilevsky talk 07:30, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
unused personal foto Reinhardhauke (talk) 15:22, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
unused personal foto Reinhardhauke (talk) 15:24, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Out of project scope. Uploader only contribution George Chernilevsky talk 15:36, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
unused personal foto Reinhardhauke (talk) 15:22, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
unused personal foto Reinhardhauke (talk) 15:24, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Out of project scope. Uploader only contribution George Chernilevsky talk 15:36, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
out of scope Reinhardhauke (talk) 15:26, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Copyvio screenshot and out of scope George Chernilevsky talk 15:34, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Useless poor picture. Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 15:31, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 22:26, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
and other uploads by Fareez Shah (talk · contribs). No evidence of permission. Source site said All rights reserved. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:51, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 22:27, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
Clearly not an own work. Time photo for a team hockey card. Likely ownership belongs to the photographer. Djsasso (talk) 16:29, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 21:44, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 22:28, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
out of project scope useless personal picture. Very poor quality. Uploader only contribution. George Chernilevsky talk 16:33, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 22:29, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
very poor and small picture, useless George Chernilevsky talk 16:36, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
- Delete agree. --Elekhh (talk) 10:14, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 22:29, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
out of project scope useless personal picture. Poor quality. Uploader only contribution George Chernilevsky talk 16:37, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 22:29, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
Poor and useless photo. Not in scope George Chernilevsky talk 16:38, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
- Delete agree. --Elekhh (talk) 20:14, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 22:29, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
The image is used to support the fringe theory that the en:Katyn massacre (1940) was perpetrated by the Germans in 1941. The source image is of Nazi soldiers executing civilians, however, the image's description is entirely sourceless. Indeed, the provided source says that these are Polish and and Soviet Jews being executed. Illythr (talk) 16:41, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
- Dear Wiki,
- Can it be true, that this drawing is not fake:
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Les_mrtvych_v_Katyne.jpg
- And the documentary photography from 1941 from Poland is fake?
- Why that civillians is dressed in military greatcoat?
- In Nurenberg the date of Katyn Massacre is fixed on the last months of 1941.
- Do Wikipedia trust with Nurenberg trial or with Josef Goebbels theory? This is your text:
- At the London conference that drew up the indictments of German war crimes before the Nuremberg trials, the Soviet negotiators put :forward the allegation, "In September 1941, 925 Polish officers who were prisoners of war were killed in the Katyn Forest near Smolensk." ?
- I please you to say your name and I will bring the question to the higer level in wiki site.
- Best regards,
- Santimento
- Using a real photo of a different execution (of Jews, judging by the provided description) to try and "prove" a fringe version of another event is not a good idea. Bonus negative points for mentioning Goebbels. --Illythr (talk) 20:38, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
- Delete. Seems like a hoax - some random Nazi crime image with a hoax caption. Anyway, insufficient author/source information, that's enough grounds for deletion. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 22:05, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
- Delete. Obvious hoax. Narking (talk) 22:07, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Discussion
[edit]
- Comment I am glad that you trust that the photo is very real. This place is Poland and the year is 1941.
- The victims are dressed in greatcoat. You must accept, that this is not the fake.
- The word "Katyn" is byword. All the murdered military in Poland in this period are to do with the Katyn massacre.
- If you do not see the to do with massacre of prisoners of war in Poland however, I entreat you to gave me answer of this simple questions:
- 1. Are the Nurenberg trial decisions is the fringe theory?!
- 2. Are the Nazi soldiers executing civilians on this foto?
- 3. Are the image's description is entirely sourceless?
- 4. Are in the number of murdered militaries in Katyn not have Polish and Soviet Jews?
- 5. Why the Wikipedia's opinion for the Katyn massacre is so firmly? (The national coat of arms in the document "decision of massacre" is in use from 1946).
- 6. Why so many times you change the reason for deletion of this foto?
- Best regards,
- santimento 22:24, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
- Katyn is not located in Poland. It's a village in Russia, you know. --Illythr (talk) 23:20, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
- Comment The image File:KatynGerb.JPG should probably be deleted as well, being part of the same original research. Not sure if there are any applicable Commons policies for that, though. --Illythr (talk) 23:31, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
- Note - from a purely technical view point, the file is a derivative of some other image, because the uploader modified it to include the (hoax) caption. Hence, the licensing is incorrect. Even ignoring that, because the nature of the file is being misrepresented that means that the license for the image is also incorrect. If somebody can track down the original image and find the true source of the file (it might be from the Babi Yar massacre though I'm not sure) the image itself may be re-uploaded, provided it has a satisfactory copyright status, under a correct title.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:44, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
- I tried that before going here. Can you make out the caption text on this image? --Illythr (talk) 00:01, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
- The second caption is the relevant one: "Right. Execution..." then my eyes start to bleed :( The quality is too poor, I am afraid. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 00:50, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
- Yeah, I can also make out "Nazi indoctrination ... for the younger officers", but not much else. It's from this book if anyone's interested. --Illythr (talk) 02:14, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
- First line is "Execution. A shot to the back of the head carried out with a
(small gun - i think)". I can't make out the rest of it except for bits and pieces about "German officers" "German officers and men"... but I'm pretty sure there's no info as to the origins of that photo in the caption.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:48, 8 December 2010 (UTC) - Actually the book is available for the "Search Inside" feature on Amazon [3] (if it doesn't show up correctly, search for "Right. Execution" and pick the second link. I don't see any info on the origins of the image, but the bottom of the Amazon view does say "Copyrighted material".Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:54, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
- First line is "Execution. A shot to the back of the head carried out with a
- Yeah, I can also make out "Nazi indoctrination ... for the younger officers", but not much else. It's from this book if anyone's interested. --Illythr (talk) 02:14, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
- The second caption is the relevant one: "Right. Execution..." then my eyes start to bleed :( The quality is too poor, I am afraid. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 00:50, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
- I tried that before going here. Can you make out the caption text on this image? --Illythr (talk) 00:01, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
- In the Acknowledgments of the book (search for "Sources", pick second link) it credits the photo on page "67, bottom" to the Imperial War Museum, used by permission. However, I think this photo would be "67, top". All photos not specifically enumerated are from "Rodina Archive in Moscow and the Leonid Pitersky Collection in St. Petersburg". It then lists the photographers - this is actually the part which is a little strange since I would've guessed that the photo in question was taken by a German, rather than a Russian.Volunteer Marek (talk) 09:02, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
- I found it by other means. The caption text reads: "Execution: a shot in the back of the head, carried out with a certain grim intensity, even relish. Nazi indoctrination was widely held accountable for the younger officers' obeying of criminal orders, while there was a general feeling that German soldiers were culturally superior. German officers felt a contempt for the Untermensch, the "sub-human" Slav, coupled with a disposition towards anti-Semitism and militant anti-Bolshevism. German officers and men were constantly reminded that this was "a war of ideological extermination"." - In other words, not helpful.
- Apparently, the original image was once uploaded to enwiki under the name "Nazi_german_atrocities.jpg", but was deleted due to no evidence of permission. That provides ample rationale for deletion here as well, if any more was needed.
- As for the credits, it's possible that the photographer and/or his photos were captured by the Soviets and ended up in a Russian archive instead of the German one (couldn't find it in the internet portion of the Bundesarchiv). I guess we'll never find out... --Illythr (talk) 11:35, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
- In the Acknowledgments of the book (search for "Sources", pick second link) it credits the photo on page "67, bottom" to the Imperial War Museum, used by permission. However, I think this photo would be "67, top". All photos not specifically enumerated are from "Rodina Archive in Moscow and the Leonid Pitersky Collection in St. Petersburg". It then lists the photographers - this is actually the part which is a little strange since I would've guessed that the photo in question was taken by a German, rather than a Russian.Volunteer Marek (talk) 09:02, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
Volunteer Marek, the execution in Baby Yar is by machine-gun; santimento 09:04, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
- Well, then it isn't Babi Yar. But it also sure as hey isn't Katyn. And license is incorrect.Volunteer Marek (talk) 11:27, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
Dear Illythr,
You say that this is not Katyn. Well tell me then where is this mass grave? Where except in Katyn is dressed in greatcoats, shot behind scull corpses and tied back with his hands? Give me the exact name of this massacre? In Babi Yar the execution is by machine-gun. Site rules do not exclude the photo to speak for itself. Importantly, it is not fake. Recognizing that the photo is authentic, you acknowledge that it has to do with the Katyn massacre. The source indicates that these are the Poles and that it happened in 1941. The opinion of legal experts at the Nuremberg trial is shown the last quarter of 1941. In criminology, there is the concept of "handwriting of the killer", which is accepted by any court as evidence. Even if not 100% proof that it's Katyn, you may not delete the photo and I will notify the owners of Wikipedia. This is the site of people and you have to expose all perspectives. People have a right to know. You can not disable them so. It is possible that part of the officers have been killed by the SS. This does not conflict with other photos (and paintings). We can reach agreement without having to get help of the highest instances of Wikipedia. Tell me how we can reach this agreement. The rest are political considerations. santimento 09:23, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
- Since you are the one who uploaded this image, it is up to you to provide a reliable source indicating where and when this image was made. This is first and foremost necessary in order to determine the copyright status of the image. Otherwise this image is bound for deletion. --Illythr (talk) 11:35, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
I think, then this is the final reason for deletion of this image? May I count that if I determine the copyright status of the image, it will not be deleted? santimento 12:24, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
- If its status is compatible with the Commons copyright policy, then yes, the original image (without the bogus caption) can be kept. --Illythr (talk) 12:32, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted regarding minimum three reasons: wrong license, no original source, hoax. Julo (talk) 07:21, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
out of project scope useless tiny personal picture. Uploader only contribution George Chernilevsky talk 16:47, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 22:30, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
out of project scope useless personal picture. Poor quality. Uploader only contribution. George Chernilevsky talk 16:49, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 22:30, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
out of project scope useless personal picture. Poor quality. Uploader only contribution George Chernilevsky talk 16:50, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 22:31, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
out of project scope useless personal picture. Uploader only contribution George Chernilevsky talk 16:51, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 22:31, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
No evidence of valid license: unknown author or source, and embedded watermark/caption-text suggests it's taken from a print source not uploader's personal camera. DMacks (talk) 17:16, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
- Delete--Motopark (talk) 18:16, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Martin H. (talk) 19:55, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
unused personal file 2003:45:5C6F:1201:C4AC:4746:9D5C:A335 17:29, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted, also the uploader's only contribution. Taivo (talk) 12:05, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
out of scope, not used or categorized since 2009 4028mdk09 (talk) 18:14, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Poor quality useless private photo George Chernilevsky talk 13:48, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
out of scope, not used or categorized since 2009 4028mdk09 (talk) 18:17, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. unused private photo George Chernilevsky talk 08:34, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
out of scope, not used or categorized since 2009 4028mdk09 (talk) 18:21, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Per nom, useless private photo George Chernilevsky talk 09:04, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
out of scope, not used or categorized since 2009 4028mdk09 (talk) 18:22, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. per nom, private photo George Chernilevsky talk 09:03, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
out of scope, violating personal rights, not used or categorized since 2009 4028mdk09 (talk) 18:25, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Per nom George Chernilevsky talk 13:54, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
out of scope, not used or categorized since 2009 4028mdk09 (talk) 18:27, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Poor quality unused private photo George Chernilevsky talk 08:38, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
This image does meet the treshold of originality as it consists of more than just simple geometric shapes and/or text. Mathonius (talk) 23:19, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
- Keep just "ah". /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 23:33, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
- Keep PD-textlogo applies here. --Leyo 08:48, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
I doubt this really meets the criteria of "Threshold of originality". Might be inspired by 2 letters, but are not used in a common typeface (bound). Narayan (talk) 18:43, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Kept. - PD-textlogo - Jcb (talk) 02:17, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
out of scope 4028mdk09 (talk) 18:55, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Irrelevant: Article in es.wiki marked for speedy deletion. Useless image, out of project scope. Savh, Any questions? 18:58, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. George Chernilevsky talk 06:52, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
Seems to be some advertising or private artwork, no educational porpose Antemister (talk) 19:01, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. per nom George Chernilevsky talk 09:00, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, but there is no FoP in South Korea. Dura lex, sed lex. 84.61.148.133 19:03, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
- Keep This photo is not about the buildings in the background. Some people here like to make the law harder than it is. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:11, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
- Keep The main subject of the image is not the building but the people on horses. --High Contrast (talk) 22:46, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
out of scope, not used or categorized since 2009 4028mdk09 (talk) 19:11, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. out of scope private photo. George Chernilevsky talk 07:14, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
out of scope, bad quality, not used or categorized since 2009 4028mdk09 (talk) 19:13, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. per nom George Chernilevsky talk 08:57, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
out of scope, not used or categorized since 2009 4028mdk09 (talk) 19:14, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. unused private photo, out of scope George Chernilevsky talk 07:19, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
out of scope, not used or categorized since 2009 4028mdk09 (talk) 19:27, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Per nom. Poor quality unused self-portrait George Chernilevsky talk 08:44, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
out of scope, not used or categorized since 2008 4028mdk09 (talk) 20:08, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Far out of scope private photo of guys George Chernilevsky talk 07:21, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
out of scope, violating personal rights 4028mdk09 (talk) 20:34, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Per nom. George Chernilevsky talk 08:46, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
Diagram in low resolution, without description Traumrune (talk) 21:48, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Out of scope. Useless private drawing George Chernilevsky talk 07:26, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
DELETE .PhoenixWright (talk) 22:07, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted by Túrelio: Uploader request: Speedydelete
out of scope 4028mdk09 (talk) 22:15, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. out of project scope, like to personal attack or personal rights violation George Chernilevsky talk 08:53, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
Out of COM:SCOPE and unused. Uploader's contributions are exclusively self-promotion. Wknight94 talk 12:24, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
This picture is correct for Mr. Edwin Lugo Walker — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.215.165.65 (talk • contribs)
- Okay, I'm not sure how that is relevant. This is not Myspace or Facebook. Wknight94 talk 16:40, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mormegil (talk) 09:54, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
Out of COM:SCOPE and unused. Uploader's contributions are exclusively self-promotion. Wknight94 talk 12:24, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mormegil (talk) 09:54, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
Out of COM:SCOPE and unused. Uploader's contributions are exclusively self-promotion. Wknight94 talk 12:25, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mormegil (talk) 09:53, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
La Licencia no es la correcta esta foto no es ni de agencia brasil ni de la presidencia de Brasil por lo tanto tiene copyright --Angel paez (talk) 07:32, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Delete Per Angel Paez. The image was not taken by the Presidency of Brazil. It was randomly taken from the internet and the uploader used wrongly the Brazilian template. It's a blatant copyvio! --Amnesico29 (talk) 21:37, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
Keep The picture was not "taken at random from any website" as you say. Maybe the link I entered it no longer serves, as these state websites are constantly renewing their content. Demonstrate with true facts that this image was taken "at random". --Coronades (talk) 21:21, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Delete, I reviewed the image directly after upload and tagged it 4 days after upload - and be sure: I searched the agencia brasil website (your first source claim) as well as the info.planalto website (your latest source claim). The image never was there, dont tell us stories. --Martin H. (talk) 21:33, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
- Deleted The user has not given the correct source for a month. Anna (Cookie) (talk) 00:28, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
_-_Kopie.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_-_Kopie.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
unimportant person Reinhardhauke (talk) 15:04, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
_-_Kopie.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted. Common Good (talk) 19:32, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
_-_Kopie.jpg){kind=link}
out of scope Reinhardhauke (talk) 15:17, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Photo of "CEO coffee bar". -- Docu at 11:51, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
Is not covered by {{PD-MD-exempt}} Martin H. (talk) 22:17, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
- Deleted Anna (Cookie) (talk) 00:00, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
This is a derivative work of iTunes and NRK. Chaser (talk) 04:04, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 22:49, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
photoshop'd picture - note blur, white area between right arm and body, and stray leg visible between his legs 7 (talk) 07:15, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 22:52, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
Following the source information on this image, I ended up at this page. There, the page indicates "©UCRL-WEB-229972" as a clue to the image's origination. UCRL, from what I can tell, is most likely the University of California Radiation Laboratory, which, if it's their image, would make it non-free (they're not a federal agency), and thus ineligible for inclusion on Commons. SchuminWeb (Talk) 07:28, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
- Keep It was me that transferred this image from enwiki. According to w:en:Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, UCRL (the Radiation Laboratory of the University of California) is now called as "The Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory"(LBL/LBNL) and "is a U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) national laboratory" since 1995, although "many continued to call it the "Rad Lab."" (please also see LBL website) UCRL=LBNL being a part of DOE since 1995 and the image being dated 2007, should {{PD-USGov-DOE}} be applicable for this image? --Igitur (talk) 13:32, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
- Keep I think there is no problems with this picture , If het "The Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory"(LBL/LBNL) "is a U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) national laboratory", this picture can be loaded on Commons.--F. Lamiot (talk) 13:56, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
Kept. Jcb (talk) 23:30, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
out of project scope. Promotional picture of non-notable person George Chernilevsky talk 07:51, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 23:31, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
out of project scope. Self-portait. Uploader only contribution George Chernilevsky talk 07:58, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
- Comment
seems to be an emerginghip-hop singer Description states that the images are provided for an article. Notability uncertain. --Elekhh (talk) 10:06, 9 December 2010 (UTC) - Delete "Seems to be" is no proof for anything. Per nom. --Yikrazuul (talk) 22:48, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. - according to the first description page they were meant for his "perfil" (=profile) at Wikipedia, probably thinking that Wikipedia is a social network site - Jcb (talk) 00:31, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Poor drawing. SVG-version exist George Chernilevsky talk 08:06, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
- Keep SVG version based on this file. Trycatch (talk) 00:23, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
- Delete too trivial and poor, PD-ineligible. Also poor duplicate --George Chernilevsky talk 09:22, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
- Nevertheless, the SVG is still based on this picture. Trycatch (talk) 18:50, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
- Perhaps delete both? --Mbdortmund (talk) 21:53, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
- Nevertheless, the SVG is still based on this picture. Trycatch (talk) 18:50, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. - both deleted, the SVG version is even worse - Jcb (talk) 00:35, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
SVG-version exist. Unused poor duplicate George Chernilevsky talk 08:08, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 00:38, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
out of project scope. Self-portait of non-notable guy. Uploader only contribution George Chernilevsky talk 09:08, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 00:38, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
and
out of project scope. Self-portait of non-notable guy. Uploader only contribution George Chernilevsky talk 09:13, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 00:39, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Wrong picture uploaded, not taken by S.J. de Waard Stunteltje (talk) 11:45, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
.JPG){kind=link}
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 22:47, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Wrong picture uploaded, not taken by S.J. de Waard --Stunteltje (talk · contribs) Correct malformed DR. Captain-tucker (talk) 20:14, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
.JPG){kind=link}
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 22:47, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Wrong picture uploaded, not taken by S.J. de Waard --Stunteltje (talk · contribs) Correct malformed DR. Captain-tucker (talk) 20:16, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
.JPG){kind=link}
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 22:47, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
.JPG){kind=link}
and
out of project scope useless personal pictures. Uploader only contribution. George Chernilevsky talk 16:26, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 22:48, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
out of scope, not used or categorized since 2009 4028mdk09 (talk) 18:20, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 22:48, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Derivative work of unfree image. Art-top (talk) 09:26, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
.JPG){kind=link}
Deleted. - no FOP in Russia - Jcb (talk) 12:48, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
.JPG){kind=link}
out of project scope. Portait of non-notable guy. Promotional watermarked too George Chernilevsky talk 09:51, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 12:48, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
wrong license ShinePhantom (talk) 09:57, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Permission from the copyright holder is required. Please use Commons:Email templates for permission and send it to Commons:OTRS. Walter Siegmund (talk) 16:08, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 12:50, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
out of project scope. Portait of non-notable guy. George Chernilevsky talk 10:56, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 12:51, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
out of project scope. Portait of non-notable guy. George Chernilevsky talk 10:56, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 12:51, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
out of project scope. Unused personal logo George Chernilevsky talk 11:54, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 12:52, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Unused personal logo. Out of project scope. George Chernilevsky talk 11:58, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 12:52, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Copyright problem (DW) and out of scope George Chernilevsky talk 12:10, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 12:54, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
out of project scope. Self-promotional portrait George Chernilevsky talk 12:17, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 12:54, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
out of project scope. Self-promotional portrait George Chernilevsky talk 12:17, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 12:54, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Reasons for deletion request - The source clearly indicates it is a copyrighted unfree file[4]. The Danish website even sells the image, and it is virtually impossible this is public domain in the U.S. or Denmark. The source further indicates: "... you may not use the material commercially, and you may not transmit digital copies to friends and acquaintances or other people outside your household or spread material in multiple copies for multiple users." There is no evidence of permission for its use from the copyright holder, and the image does not belong as "free" on the Commons. Furthermore, this photograph does have artistic merit, and it has been less than 50 years since it was taken. Doc9871 (talk) 08:30, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
- According to the template: "According to the transitional regulations of 1995, photographic images without artistic merit are exempt from copyright protection provided that they were created before 1 January 1970 (§91, 5)." This image does not have artistic merit. That would be an insult for all work that do have artistic merit :-). The website cannot claim copyright on this individual image, as it is in PD. The indication however applies to most of the images in Den Store Danske. Clausule (talk) 18:33, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
This posting was quite contradictory as are many images on this site. One assumes that the category of Public Domain did not appear there on its own. One must ask: Who is Jan Persson? Was he working under the auspices of the Danish Broadcasting company when he, listed as the author, took this photograph? It doesn't matter if people are selling it as is mentioned. In the Danish Consolidated Act on Copyright of 2003 section (§70, 2, available in English on line, no words about "all photographic images not considered to be "works of art" become public domain 50 years after they were created," appear. As a result, the Danish Minister of Culture has been contacted; perhaps he can best settle this. Let's see. — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 76.118.8.92 (talk)
Kept. - images are OK according to the license template - Jcb (talk) 13:01, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Out of COM:SCOPE and unused. Apparently self-promotion. Uploader's only contribution. Wknight94 talk 12:54, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 13:03, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
out of scope, not used or cateogirzed since 2008, bad quality 4028mdk09 (talk) 13:38, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 13:04, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
maybe a copyvio (see facebook link - but content is hidden for me) and personality rights violation (name(?) at facebook and photo). Uploader did only upload this pic and nothing else here. Made edits to nlwp (according to SUL) but are not visible anymore in nlwp - so they have been on deleted pages. Maybe this pic was just used for vandalism. Saibo (Δ) 13:41, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
- Delete, all facebook pictures are copyrighted Facebook © 2010--Motopark (talk) 07:58, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. - reading the Dutch text and title it becomes clear this is cyberstalking - Jcb (talk) 13:10, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
out of scope, not used or categorized since 2008, bad quality 4028mdk09 (talk) 13:43, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 13:12, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
bad quality, doubtful source, not used or categorized since 2008 4028mdk09 (talk) 13:49, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 13:12, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Was a speedy deletion candidate, but the copyvio is not so obvious, considering Commons:de minimis or the like. The sole picture element that I see as copyrightable is the logo that could be easily removed because it's not a key element of the photo. Fonts and the name aren't relevant in my opinion. Grand-Duc (talk) 13:52, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
- There is nothing copyrighted in that picture, just plain text and typefaces. The Pfizer logo is just plain typefaces, thus not eligible for copyright. It's trademarked, but thats a whole different ball of wax. For example: File:Pfizer_logo.svg — raeky (talk | edits) 15:16, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
- Yeah, that's my opinion too (so to make it clear: Keep), I solely changed the kind of the deletion nomination. Grand-Duc (talk) 15:32, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
- Yeah, that's my opinion too (so to make it clear:
- Keep This wouldn't be the first time this user went and tagged other people's images for speedy deletion without a valid reason. (and 204.74.221.50 (talk · contribs) looks a little suspicious in that regard as well. Ytoyoda (talk) 18:17, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
- Keep I don't see anything copyrightable there, other than the photo itself. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:59, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
Kept. Jcb (talk) 13:16, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
_Crop.jpg){kind=link}
_Crop.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Was a speedy deletion candidate, but the copyvio is not so obvious, considering Commons:de minimis or the like. The sole picture element that I see as copyrightable is the logo that could be easily removed because it's not a key element of the photo. Fonts and the name aren't relevant in my opinion. Grand-Duc (talk) 14:29, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
_Crop.jpg){kind=link}
- There is nothing copyrighted in that picture, just plain text and typefaces. The Pfizer logo is just plain typefaces, thus not eligible for copyright. It's trademarked, but thats a whole different ball of wax. For example: File:Pfizer_logo.svg — raeky (talk | edits) 15:16, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
- Yeah, that's my opinion too (so to make it clear: Keep), I solely changed the kind of the deletion nomination. Grand-Duc (talk) 15:30, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
- Yeah, that's my opinion too (so to make it clear:
- Keep This wouldn't be the first time this user went and tagged other people's images for speedy deletion without a valid reason. (and Template:Ipvandal looks a little suspicious in that regard as well. Ytoyoda (talk) 18:17, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Kept. Jcb (talk) 13:16, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
_Crop.jpg){kind=link}
out of scope Reinhardhauke (talk) 14:30, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
- Keep an image of a concert. Why would it be out of scope? MKFI (talk) 16:05, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
Kept. Jcb (talk) 13:28, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
It's the same file as File:East Roman army command structure.svg Filipo (talk) 14:31, 7 December 2010 (UTC) Correct malformed DR. Captain-tucker (talk) 20:46, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Kept. - not the same file - Jcb (talk) 13:31, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
spam Reinhardhauke (talk) 14:41, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
- Keep. I agree you are spamming DRs. -- Docu at 11:47, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
Kept. - notable band - Jcb (talk) 13:35, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
foto without explication/out of scope Reinhardhauke (talk) 14:47, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
- Keep. Night view of an event in a yard. -- Docu at 11:45, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. - not useful without explanation (could e.g. be a birthday party) - Jcb (talk) 13:39, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
unused personal foto Reinhardhauke (talk) 14:48, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
- Keep for "Women cooperative". -- Docu at 11:44, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. - it isn't even clear if 'women cooperative' has anything to do with this snack bar (?) or that it's just pasted there - Jcb (talk) 13:44, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
unused private foto Reinhardhauke (talk) 14:51, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 14:03, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
out of scope Reinhardhauke (talk) 14:53, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 14:03, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
useless Reinhardhauke (talk) 14:54, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 14:03, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
spam Reinhardhauke (talk) 15:07, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 14:03, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
useless Reinhardhauke (talk) 15:13, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 14:03, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
useless Reinhardhauke (talk) 15:15, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 14:03, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
useless Reinhardhauke (talk) 15:16, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 14:04, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
spam Reinhardhauke (talk) 15:19, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Neutral typical DR by Reinhardhauke. w:AMIN Worldwide is notable, but I'm not sure, if this can be considered PD-trivial. Trycatch (talk) 01:46, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
Kept. - this must be PD-textlogo, just text, one line and one dotted circle - this might be a typical Reinhardhauke DR, but those DRs are not always that strange, I think more than half of his DRs regard real useless pictures, reason enough to take them serious one by one - Jcb (talk) 14:11, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
See w:Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2010 December 7#File:TB LRT.jpg Magog the Ogre (talk) 15:31, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 14:15, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Copyright status unclear. Source Amazon.com. See http://www.amazon.com/gp/help/customer/display.html/ref=footer_cou?ie=UTF8&nodeId=508088 ErikvanB (talk) 16:22, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 16:40, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
and File:Ibaiti-VentaniaBR153.jpg. Unlikely to by own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF. EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:30, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
- Delete both. The uploader has a pattern of uploading copyright violations. —LX (talk, contribs) 21:28, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 16:41, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
and scaled-down duplicate of same photo:
out of project scope useless personal picture. Poor quality. Uploader only contribution George Chernilevsky talk 16:40, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 16:44, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
unnecessary, there has never been Scouting in the Myanmar period, there was during Burma, anachronism, moving editor was banned at the English Wikipedia. Please also see en:User:Elockid/Long-term abuse/23prootie for more information.-Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 17:59, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Keeping both categories is the only neutral solution (unless you want Category talk:Scouting in Burma to be redirected here). We have enough divisiveness present in Category talk:Myanmar so would we want to add some more here?--23prootie (talk) 19:25, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
- Your edit history is rife with divisiveness, there was no issue here until you created one.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 02:50, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. - if a country changes its name, the old name is still valid for the period before the change - Jcb (talk) 17:05, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
out of scope, not used or categorized since 2009 4028mdk09 (talk) 18:06, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 17:08, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
out of scope, not used or categorized since 2009 4028mdk09 (talk) 18:07, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
- Keep got category, was in use, in scope. Multichill (talk) 18:11, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Kept. - this is the most important railway station in the Netherlands - Jcb (talk) 17:10, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
out of scope, not used or categorized since 2009 4028mdk09 (talk) 18:08, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 17:14, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Uploader is a serial copyvio offender. This is likely another, just tagged as own work to avoid deletion. Mbinebri (talk) 18:11, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 17:25, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Uploader is a serial copyvio offender. This is likely another, just tagged as own work to avoid deletion. Mbinebri (talk) 18:12, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 17:25, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
out of scope, not used or categorized since 2009 4028mdk09 (talk) 18:12, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
- Keep. Non standard portrait. -- Docu at 12:04, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 17:26, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Uploader is a serial copyvio offender. This is likely another, just tagged as own work to avoid deletion. Mbinebri (talk) 18:13, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 17:26, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Uploader is a serial copyvio offender. This is likely another, just tagged as own work to avoid deletion. Mbinebri (talk) 18:13, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 17:26, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Uploader is a serial copyvio offender. This is likely another, just tagged as own work to avoid deletion. Mbinebri (talk) 18:13, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 17:26, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
out of scope, not used or categorized since 2009 4028mdk09 (talk) 18:14, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 17:28, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
out of scope, not used or categorized since 2009 4028mdk09 (talk) 18:17, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 17:28, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
out of scope, not used or categorized since 2009 4028mdk09 (talk) 18:18, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 17:28, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Unclear copyright information 90.195.137.130 18:36, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Kept. - Flickr-check was OK - Jcb (talk) 17:31, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Quelle fehlt / no authorship and source information 80.187.107.19 18:56, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Delete - yep, and uploader has only 2 edits in all commons (both at this file). No need to struggle for this bad quality image. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 19:44, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 17:34, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
out of scope, not used or categorized since 2009 4028mdk09 (talk) 19:12, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 17:35, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
out of scope, not used or categorized since 2009 4028mdk09 (talk) 19:15, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
- Keep. categorized. -- Docu at 12:08, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
- Yeah right, as "men" - Jcb (talk) 17:35, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 17:35, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
wrong source, out of scope, not used or categorized since 2009 4028mdk09 (talk) 19:19, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 17:38, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
out of scope, not used or categorized since 2009 4028mdk09 (talk) 19:21, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 17:38, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
out of scope, not used or categorized since 2009 4028mdk09 (talk) 19:24, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 17:38, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
out of scope, not used or categorized since 2009 4028mdk09 (talk) 19:25, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 17:39, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
no source, out of scope, not used or categorized since 2009 4028mdk09 (talk) 19:26, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 17:39, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
out of scope, not used or categorized since 2008 4028mdk09 (talk) 20:10, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 17:39, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
out of scope, not used or categorized since 2008 4028mdk09 (talk) 20:11, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 17:42, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
out of scope, not used or categorized since 2009 4028mdk09 (talk) 20:18, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
- Keep categorized. Illustrates water quality. -- Docu at 12:14, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
Kept. Jcb (talk) 17:42, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
out of scope, not used or categorized since 2009 4028mdk09 (talk) 20:20, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 17:42, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
out of scope, not used or categorized since 2009 4028mdk09 (talk) 20:21, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
- Keep categorized. -- Docu at 12:12, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 17:42, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Not an official German stamp, it is a stamp of the plusbrief-individuell - everyone can designe its own stamp (see German page. Therefore it is not an official German stamp and not pd. --~ Paulae (talk) 21:30, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- I discovered this file which is licensed as pd and thought my stamp (which i actually bought from a comic shop) would be pd as well. Btw, are you sure that these individually designed letters are excluded from pd even if sold by the German postal service? -- Toblu (talk) 23:34, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
- The stamp you discovered has no Schöpfungshöhe and is pd (look at the last license on this page). The stamp sold by the German postal service ist the black&white basis. The FAQ on those individually designed stamps says Die DP Com ist nicht verpflichtet, die Grafiken, Motive, Logos und Texte auf ihre rechtliche, insbesondere wettbewerbs-, marken-, urheber- oder namensrechtliche Zulässigkeit hin zu überprüfen. Der Auftraggeber bestätigt mit der Auftragserteilung, dass er über sämtliche für die Nutzung und Verbreitung der Grafiken, Motive, Logos und Texte erforderlichen Urheber-, Leistungsschutz- und sonstigen Rechte verfügt, die für die von ihm gestellten geistigen Werke bestehen. AND Der Auftraggeber ist für die Gestaltung und den Inhalt der zur Verfügung gestellten Formate (Logos, Grafiken, Bilder, Texte, Motive etc.) allein verantwortlich. Es ist ausschließlich Sache des Auftraggebers, rechtliche, insbesondere wettbewerbs-, marken-, urheber- oder namensrechtliche Fragen sowie Rechte Dritter vor der Auftragsersteilung zu klären. Der Auftraggeber wird die DP Com von diesbezüglichen Ansprüchen Dritter freistellen. This makes clear that the motives are not official stamps: In that case, the German postal service would own the rights and have the permission to publish those works. In this case, it is the person uploading the stamps that must own the rights. Therefore it is not an official stamp, not an amtliches Werk or anything like that and it is not pd. Greetings, --Paulae (talk) 14:59, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
- Delete The Scrooge McDuck figure is copyrighted in the U.S. and Germany, making this a derivative work - also because it was drawn by a comics artist working for Disney. Hekerui (talk) 08:35, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
- Delete per Paulae. --Rosenzweig δ 21:36, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 17:45, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
The medal was created 1978, author could not die 70 years ago. Martina Nolte (talk) 21:34, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
- copied from the file talk: I'm contesting speedy deletion of this medal. It was apparently issued on the occasion of the 4th numismatic exposition by the w:Cultural Association of the GDR (see this). Copyright does not necessarily belong to the creator of the art work, it could have belonged to the GDR government. I don't know what the situation is like today, but as long as we don't know if it's public domain or not, it shouldn't be speedied. Alfons Åberg (Diskussion) 20:50, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
- CommentEven if rights would have been owned by the GDR, today it falls under joint German law. It is not an official coin but a commemorative medal which is regularily copyright protected. --Martina Nolte (talk) 12:16, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
- Vorlage ist zweifelsfrei eine zeitgenössische Darstellung. Die Umsetzung in Reliefdarstellung besitzt jedoch Schöpfungshöhe. Die Medaille wurde meines Wissens von Gerrit Friese gestaltet. Gemeinfrei kann sie nicht sein, weil es keine Münze ist. --> löschen. --Ralf Roletschek (talk) 07:27, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 22:48, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
out of scope 4028mdk09 (talk) 22:09, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 22:49, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
uploader is not author, licence is wrong (spreeblick.com: cc-by-nc-nd). just not a free picture. 87.176.89.162 22:34, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 22:56, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
No evidence uploader is author of professional shot. Compare this picture with his other upload: File:Rebecca.Lord.jpg Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:40, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 22:57, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Uploader may not be author of this work based on his other upload, File:Rebecca.Lord1.jpg, which is a professional shot of the same subject. Compare it to this amateur shot. Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:43, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
- Delete copyrighted. --Elekhh (talk) 20:30, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 22:57, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Assuming this is the official portrait, there is no evidence that the government of Puerto Rico released the copyright of the image to the website or the uploader. Jmundo (talk) 18:33, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
- Update:The uploader change the permission and claims the image as PD based on this file on en.wikipedia. --Jmundo (talk) 03:13, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
- Nomination withdrawn --Jmundo (talk) 13:43, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
No one can tell me that this is an portrait painting located in the captiol of Puerto Rico. The uploder copy&pasted the rational of en:Template:PD-PRGov-OfficialPortraits and applied it to a random image he found on a random website, the rational is for portraits in the captiol, not for other stuff. Martin H. (talk) 22:47, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
+ File:Smcalderon.jpg + File:Luis Guillermo Fortuño.JPG
I not saw the above deletion request, but well, the template clearly speaks of paintings located in that building, not of any other content. --Martin H. (talk) 22:49, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
- The source of File:Luis Guillermo Fortuño.JPG is the executive branch of the government of Puerto Rico. The en:Template:PD-PRGov-OfficialPortraits has OTRS ticket confirming the permission from the "Government of Puerto Rico, Honorable Kenneth D. McClintock; Secretary of State". Fortuño is the current governor and it makes sense to remove the photos of past governors from the executive branch website. The question still remain if the OTRS permission applies to these files. I agree with Martin that the template is about paintings located in the Capitol. This confusing template is the result of a politician that wanted his portrait in his Wikipedia article. I wonder if a secretary of state can release government property to public domain without the approval of the governor and the legislature.--Jmundo (talk) 04:17, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. - kept Fortuño, because it corresponds with the license template, its source (where I still found it) is an official government site - Jcb (talk) 23:07, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
- Update: Third image also deleted, because the template was fake. Jcb (talk) 23:55, 8 January 2011 (UTC)