Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2010/12/19
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
|
|
Seems to be a derivative work of http://www.min-kulture.hr/userdocsimages/karaman%202.jpg . User uploaded more images like this. Multichill (talk) 01:22, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
Delete per nom; also dated almost 20 years after the person died. -- Infrogmation (talk) 00:23, 20 December 2010 (UTC)- Dear colleagues
Ljubo Karaman.jpg and incriminated photo resembles, but is not the same - my file is still the original work!
- My file is an color image (It is a 50% difference at least)
- My file is a drawing (computer) for which he served as a template this incriminated photo (and this is a 50% difference at least)
This is the same procedure which was used also by Andy Warhol for his Marilyn Diptych, he took an existing Black-and-white photo of same Marilyn and made original artwork. I do not want to be so pretentious and argue that my file is a work of art, but can serve as an illustration of one's appearance.
I have in mind the fact that Wikimedia Commons it is not a trash can, and a much more significant persons have no picture, but it's not my fault.
Thank you for your attention and my regards
--Vitek (talk) 02:13, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
Oppose Sorry, I forgot to put my opinion.--
--Vitek (talk) 02:35, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
- Delete: sorry, but regardless of the artistic nature of the image, it is still an unauthorized derivative of an original copyrighted work. If Warhol were alive and uploaded his derivative images here, and he had not obtained permission from the copyright owners of the original works, we'd have to delete them too. It is arguable that Warhol was making fair use of the original works (compare the lawsuit by Shepard Fairey against the Associated Press over his campaign poster of Barack Obama: see [1]), but we don't accept fair use images here at the Commons. Images must be in the public domain or freely licensed. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 08:16, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. as per above. Yann (talk) 08:25, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
Historically incorrect and Finno-centric. An improved version is available on English Commons. Morgan Hauser (talk) 03:18, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
- Speedy
Keep; it's in use in several Wikipedias; we do not dictate to Wikipedia what picture they shall use. Feel free to correct it on your home Wikipedia(s).--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:27, 20 December 2010 (UTC) - Keep In use therefore in scope. Anatiomaros (talk) 23:25, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
No permission from seeklogo.com to publish the logo under a free license and not qualify as PD-ineligible. ~ Geagea (talk) 03:19, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
- Delete: too complex for {{PD-textlogo}}. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 18:50, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
- Delete per nom & JackLee above. -- Infrogmation (talk) 00:33, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Copyvio. Yann (talk) 21:20, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
Вот оригинал [2]. фрашкард (talk) 06:59, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
- Delete: poor-quality photographic reproduction of copyrighted work at [3]. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 18:52, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Copyvio. Yann (talk) 21:22, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
screenshot of copyrighted tv show; clearly more than pd-text. The licensing makes no sense. This is an ABC Studios show; if the uploader is in a position to license the image then it would contradict Disney's quest for perpetual copyright. Immaterial to deletion but the name of the file is somewhat misleading. delirious & lost ☯ ~hugs~ 09:20, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
- Delete: the words "Detroit 1-8-7" and red circle are simple enough for {{PD-textlogo}}, but the Detroit skyline backdrop clearly is not. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 18:56, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
People, I clipped it directly from an episode of D1-8-7. Its purpose is to show the actual title card, not just the promotional image. Just look at other TV show pages. It shows the actual titlecard for them. Why not on D1-8-7? Close enough is NOT good enough. So DON'T DELETE IT. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wave4 (talk • contribs)
- You may be able to upload the title card to the English Wikipedia and use it under a fair use justification, but you can't upload the image here at the Commons because it is not completely in the public domain as explained above. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 07:38, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, this is from a commercial broadcast tv show, not free licensed software. User:Wave4: If it is not free licesed or public domain, it does not belong on Wikimedia Commons. -- Infrogmation (talk) 00:37, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, but there is no FoP in the UAE. Dura lex, sed lex. 84.61.182.248 09:47, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
- Keep speedily: bad nomination, as no significant portion of the stadium is visible in photograph at all. Please check each photograph before nominating it for deletion. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 18:58, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
Kept. as per Jacklee. Yann (talk) 08:28, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
out of scope Andreasm 
just talk to me 10:22, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
- Delete: Commons is not a personal photo album. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 18:58, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Out of scope George Chernilevsky talk 07:37, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
Reasons for deletion request -121.95.210.115 10:24, 19 December 2010 (UTC) Y150 has the copyright of this image. Not PD.
- Delete: licence is clearly wrong. Ticket is far too complex for {{PD-textlogo}}. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 18:59, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Yann (talk) 12:11, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
out of scope Andreasm just talk to me 10:30, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
- Delete: Commons is not a personal photo album. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 19:16, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. George Chernilevsky talk 08:20, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
It has not been working. I don't know why Bernd Schwabe in Hannover (talk) 11:33, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
- Delete: unused page. Were you trying to create a gallery page or a category? If you were trying to create a category, it should have been called "Category:Bert Elias Underwood". — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 19:04, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Empty. Yann (talk) 08:30, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
rtytyrtu 79.127.47.204 11:52, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
Speedily kept as no reason for deletion was given. --AFBorchert (talk) 13:01, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
An anoymous upload is insufficient for a record cover. This image is copyright on http://betterlookingrecords.com and so an OTRS ticket would be required to verify the copyright holder's free release. Fæ (talk) 12:09, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Copyvio. Yann (talk) 08:31, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
The software may be free licensed, but the logo is explicitly covered by copyright, see the web site terms of use. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:17, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 12:52, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
The software may be free licensed, but the logo is explicitly covered by copyright, see the web site terms of use. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:18, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 12:52, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
Unused private image, no educational value, → out of scope. Jahobr (talk) 12:31, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Out of scope. Yann (talk) 21:23, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, but there is no FoP in the UAE. Dura lex, sed lex. 84.61.182.248 12:45, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Trycatch (talk) 14:22, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
- It's promotional -- of Holliday Consulting, which is possibly the uploader himself.
- It's not legible, even at our maximum resolution, therefore useless to WMF. (at 2000 pixels wide, the typeface is four pixels high)
It violates our rule against text files.- It may be copyvio as the author is "Holliday Consulting" which may or may not be our uploader. At the very least we would need an OTRS.
It is in use at WP:DE:Informationssicherheit, but only because the uploader put it there. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:51, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
- Keep We do host mind maps even if most formats available here are not ideal for these. Mind maps do include text, but are not text files. Keep as it's in use. -- Docu at 13:12, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
- Delete per nom, since it is far to small, noone can use it in such form (I use FF). --Yikrazuul (talk) 14:00, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
- OK, I've removed my third point, but that leaves three others. "In use" can't be a valid defense if it can't be read where the uploader put it. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:03, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
- Keep
DeleteI see little evidence of it being promotional, I would judge it in scope as an example mind-map of its type, and I would also doubt that that there is any copyright claim and would normally AGF, however I agree that OTRS verification would be needed due to the title used (as it is I cannot see any evidence with regard to copyright one way or the other from the document itself). As for legibility, I have no problem zooming in on detail using my standard Firefox browser. --Fæ (talk) 14:23, 19 December 2010 (UTC)- Changed to keep after verifying OTRS ticket added. --Fæ (talk) 00:08, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Well, first of all I, the author and uploader of this mind map given in the kind of a free scalable SVG diagram, wants to say thank you for the chance to argue for this diagram.
- At the beginning I like to explain my background to give you a chance to get to know me.
- I'm a free european especially german information security professional consultant working in this area for several years now. I hold a european certification as a TeleTrusT Information Security Professional (T.I.S.P.), which is similar to CISSP. The experiences I made with some of my customers have been that they underestimate the complexity and consequences of the subject information security. So I considered how can I change this at the root generally. My answer is that I worked out a mind map which at first condenses the widely spread knowledge about the subject information security. Secondly it tries to break down the complexity of this subject and bring it up into a senseful ontologic arrangement. Thirdly one important goal of this mind map is enabling to see the bigger picture behind it. The mind map can give an idea how important this subject is for the future of information socities.
- Because I'm convinced that this mind map is now in such a state really giving clearness and more precision about the subject information security I decided to hand it cause of its impact over to Wikipedia Commons in order to spread it out under fair conditions. Firstly I admit the mind map is for the most part given in german language. But because of the possible precision given - so I think - by the german language the attempt of a perception of this topic via a mind map with well-meant educational requests started now in german language.
- This mind map has the meaning as just to be a starting point being enabled to reflect this important subject on an expanded base by everyone. Secondly I admit being the initiator of this kind of approach the diagram has an advantuageous side effect for my business. But this is not the main point the main point is to give a starting signal for a well-meant educational process. Keep in mind information security is not a product, it is a process (Bruce Schneier). --ServCogni-HC (talk) 18:40, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
- If you send in a copyright release statement to permissions-commons(at)wikimedia.org then I would change my opinion above to keep as it is only the copyright status of this document that concerns me. Thanks, --Fæ (talk) 22:51, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks, I have sent a copyright release statement to permissions-commons(at)wikimedia.org now.
--ServCogni-HC (talk) 23:39, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
According Jim's hint (thank you Jim for your remarks) to compact the diagram in order to make it more legible for less capable SVG viewers I uploaded now a simplified version of the SVG diagram. I agree sometimes less is better than more;-) --ServCogni-HC (talk) 16:28, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
- Keep I renamed the file to reduce advertising. Copyright is not a problem - we even have a OTRS now. Legibility is fine. It is due to the nature of such a big mind map that you cannot read it in small preview. Jim, your points were indeed valid in part but the talk page would have been a better place to discuss. --Saibo (Δ) 21:38, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
- Next time I see a mind map, I'll know that it is an exception to our general rule against images of text. As we all know, there's a lot to learn -- thanks for being part of my learning curve. I should point out, however, in defense of the DR, that in the original version you could not read it on Commons -- even at the maximum size we offer, the text was only four pixels high. While it is true that we are a repository for users other than WMF, it seems to me that an image that is unusable on any WMF project is a delete. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:33, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:33, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
Kept. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:36, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
The license given is not acceptable: "For a free use of this work please contact author. Do not take into account this message for use on Wikipedia." -- Images hosted on Commons must be free for all users without contacting the author. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:05, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
- Aside from license issues - the current image is a poor taste and a provocation to both Cypriot communities and politically is rather a provocation, of little utility kiprosopia (talk to me) 14:34, 19 December 2010
- Delete See Commons:Deletion requests/File:AYDeezypermission.PNG; these should probably be clearly rolled into one DP and everything properly tagged.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:31, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. No appropriate license. Yann (talk) 08:32, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
unused (userbox?) icon, user-created for a specific purpose but not in use and with no foreseeable use - out of scope Santosga (talk) 14:02, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Out of scope. Yann (talk) 21:24, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
unused private user logo - out of scope Santosga (talk) 14:40, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Out of scope. Yann (talk) 21:25, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, but there is no FoP in Greece. Dura lex, sed lex. 84.61.182.248 14:50, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
- Keep. The art part is De minimis. Geagea (talk) 17:52, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
- Keep per Geagea. I presume the "art" portion is the double headed eagle emblem; I believe that emblem is centuries old and thus PD. -- Infrogmation (talk) 00:15, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
Comment what does the text say? That's copyrighted too, and we could delete it on that ground alone.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:38, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
- Written in five different languages No entrance of women... ect. Geagea (talk) 03:23, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
Kept. The text is not original enough to get a copyright. The sculpture is de minimis. Yann (talk) 08:34, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
unused icon with very low resolution - bad quality Santosga (talk) 14:53, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
- I can't think of any in scope usefulness; unless a particular purpose for this low res logo is shown Delete Infrogmation (talk) 00:16, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Out of scope. Yann (talk) 21:26, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
Possible copyright violation. Apalsola t • c 14:57, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
- Comment: This is a logo of OP-Pohjola Group, Finland. Unless the logo is considered to be a text in a general typeface or a simple geometric shape, it is copyrighted and published without a permission. -- (signature added) Apalsola t • c 16:24, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
- delete--Motopark (talk) 16:05, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
Kept. {{PD-textlogo}} Yann (talk) 08:40, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
Cannot see any indication on source website that this is released under CC-BY-SA 3.0. User claims on English Wikipedia not to be connected to any organisation so can't have permission to release it themselves. January (talk) 15:16, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Wknight94 talk 16:02, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
User's claim to be the copyright holder is not plausible since they claim on English Wikipedia not to be connected to any organisation. January (talk) 15:22, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Wknight94 talk 16:02, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
User's claim to be the copyright holder is not plausible since they claim on English Wikipedia not to be connected to any organisation. January (talk) 15:23, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Wknight94 talk 16:02, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
unused logo, near-duplicate of File:SWWiki.png, deletion requested by uploader in the tnotes section of File:SWWiki.png Santosga (talk) 15:55, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Unused duplicate, per Uploader request George Chernilevsky talk 07:21, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
and other uploads by Carlos Boszczovski (talk · contribs). Unlikely to by own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF. EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:37, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Probable copyvios as per EugeneZelenko. Yann (talk) 09:28, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
and other uploads by Artigas12 (talk · contribs). Unlikely to by own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF or no evidence of permissions. EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:49, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Probable copyvios as per EugeneZelenko. Yann (talk) 09:19, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
Unlikely to by own work: small resolution, missing EXIF. EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:55, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Probable copyvio as per EugeneZelenko. Yann (talk) 09:07, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
Unlikely to by own work: small resolution, missing EXIF. EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:56, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. as above. Yann (talk) 21:29, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
and other uploads by Danielvillalona (talk · contribs). Unlikely to by own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF. EugeneZelenko (talk) 17:02, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Probable copyvios as per EugeneZelenko. Yann (talk) 09:01, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
Category: forgotten Bernd Schwabe in Hannover (talk) 17:11, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Per uploader request, empty page George Chernilevsky talk 07:40, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
unused private image as per [:User talk:Arnomane/Archiv-4&diff=next&oldid=1694849] Santosga (talk) 17:25, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 12:56, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
http://file1.npage.de/002473/44/bilder/bischof_punnakottil_1.jpg (File addedd on 20/07/2010) ++ Web resolution difference is high, Up-loader requested to provide a photo with Exif and full resolution ...Captain......Tälk tö me 17:26, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
- Obviously, the image is taken in a time where neither exif data nor high resolution digital imaging was standard, and I assume this is a scan of an analog photograph. The resolution of the image on Commons is higher than the image at npage.de, and the statement that it's his own work seems plausible for me. I'd keep this. --Elya (talk) 18:53, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
- Elyas statemend sounds very plausible (pic is from 1998!) -> keep. --Cvf-ps (talk) 20:04, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
- Hello, I made the photo with my own camera and scanned it with my own scanner, the original is here in my room. Where is the problem? The page on n.page is my own church-page and I`m the administrator. If you search in the page, you will find more other photos of the bishop also and you will find me as the administrator here:http://salve-regina.npage.de/informationen_und_ansprechpartner_38434526.html
- Elyas statemend sounds very plausible (pic is from 1998!) -> keep. --Cvf-ps (talk) 20:04, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
--Joachim Specht (talk) 20:59, 19 December 2010 (UTC) Here you can see the original from the wedding of my sister in law. I uploaded it just 1 minute ago. The other one is only a smaller sector of this--Joachim Specht (talk) 22:14, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
- Full view File:Bischof Punnakottil Original.jpg
Kept - Uploader is the original photographer--...Captain......Tälk tö me 04:55, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
This appears to be an unsourced poorer quality version of File:Marie-thérèse Louise de Savoie-Carignan princesse de Lamballe--Joseph-Siffred Duplessis mg 9507.jpg. Fæ (talk) 18:05, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted (and replaced in one article draft). Missing source since October 1. Appears to be a duplicate. Is in bad quality and doing the necessary editing to remove the {{Non-free frame}} will realy not improve this version. --Martin H. (talk) 21:44, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
unused logo of company with no notability, advertising as decided here en:Sabrina Aircraft Manufacturing Santosga (talk) 18:19, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. George Chernilevsky talk 07:26, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
Nothing indicates the author is as statd. FunkMonk (talk) 19:30, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Copyvio. Yann (talk) 21:31, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
Copyvio http://www.vandaag.be/bizar/30302_kabouter-wesley-in-wereldwinkels-oxfam.html Kattenkruid (talk) 19:37, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
- Delete speedily for nominator's reason. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 08:57, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Copyvio. Yann (talk) 21:31, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
Low quality to the point of being useless. Very blurry picture of elevators which look almost identical to any airport elevators in the world. Wknight94 talk 19:44, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. 99of9 (talk) 10:01, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
Case of COM:FLICKRW; see en description proving non-free status at w:File:Jay Dee.jpg Magog the Ogre (talk) 20:01, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. 99of9 (talk) 09:55, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
better version to be uploaded Bpositivebhappy (talk) 20:42, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Probable copyvio. Yann (talk) 08:48, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
i have made a mistake Jade 54 (talk) 20:54, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Yann (talk) 21:32, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
and:
I cannot see a GFDL licensing at the given source → permission is missing.
http://www.ittiofauna.org/webmuseum/indexwm.htm via google translate:
"The site includes images from various sources of scientific literature and from the web. [...]
The association does not make any profit from the use of images, made solely for educational purposes.
Each image is credited as the source of origin and, where possible, the author."
That are not even own pictures - they seem to be collected from elsewhere and claiming for fair use and do not sue me. Viele Grüße --Saibo (Δ) 21:20, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Copyvios. Yann (talk) 08:57, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
Out of project scope and personal POV by the drawer. Grand-Duc (talk) 21:17, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Per nom! --Yikrazuul (talk) 21:33, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. George Chernilevsky talk 08:03, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
Out of project scope and personal POV by the drawer Grand-Duc (talk) 21:20, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Per nom! --Yikrazuul (talk) 21:33, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. George Chernilevsky talk 08:04, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
Out of project scope and personal POV by the drawer Grand-Duc (talk) 21:24, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Per nom! --Yikrazuul (talk) 21:32, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. George Chernilevsky talk 08:05, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
Our of project scope and personal POV by the drawer Grand-Duc (talk) 21:38, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. George Chernilevsky talk 08:06, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
Out of scope: Commons is no private image host 79.207.125.48 21:40, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Out of scope. Yann (talk) 21:36, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
out of project scope and püersonal POV by the drawer Grand-Duc (talk) 21:41, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. George Chernilevsky talk 08:07, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
Out of project scope and personal POV of the drawer Grand-Duc (talk) 21:43, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. George Chernilevsky talk 08:07, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
File:OgAAAMqpwmCF-BelEzxlu7B77ys21-lyxxDRkux3cTIdsmWmY6ziIinjwrpion55f7H_2Eq_0OkMzI_GQd_zBTH2L0IAm1T1UCAf1RpnbYCGpXN_xhFdEmPqAcZy.jpg
[edit]
out of scope Andreasm just talk to me 21:44, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Out of scope. Yann (talk) 21:37, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
Out of project scope and personal POV by the drawer Grand-Duc (talk) 21:44, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. George Chernilevsky talk 08:08, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
Out of project scope and personal POV by the drwaer, who seems to have defecation as his personal fetish. Grand-Duc (talk) 21:45, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. George Chernilevsky talk 08:09, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
Out of project scope and personal POV by the drawer Grand-Duc (talk) 21:48, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. George Chernilevsky talk 08:10, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
Out of project scope and personal POV by the drawer Grand-Duc (talk) 21:48, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. George Chernilevsky talk 08:11, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
Out of project scope and personal POV by the drawer Grand-Duc (talk) 21:49, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. George Chernilevsky talk 08:12, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
out of scope Andreasm just talk to me 21:50, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
Kept. A small number of personal images are allowed for the purposes of user pages. This one is in use. 99of9 (talk) 10:02, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
Out of project scope and personal POV by the drawer Grand-Duc (talk) 21:53, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Yann (talk) 21:38, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
Bad quality and personal POV by the drawer Grand-Duc (talk) 21:53, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Trycatch (talk) 14:17, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
Out of project scope and personal POV by the drawer (+duplicate from another deletion candidate) Grand-Duc (talk) 21:56, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
- Delete: unused personal artwork by non-notable artist. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 08:45, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. George Chernilevsky talk 08:14, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
Out of project scope and personal POV by the drawer (third incarnation of this drawing) Grand-Duc (talk) 22:04, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
- Delete: unused personal artwork by non-notable artist. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 08:44, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. George Chernilevsky talk 08:15, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
Out of project scope Grand-Duc (talk) 22:05, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. George Chernilevsky talk 08:15, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
Out of project scope and bad quality Grand-Duc (talk) 22:06, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. George Chernilevsky talk 08:16, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
Out of project scope and bad quality Grand-Duc (talk) 22:13, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. George Chernilevsky talk 08:16, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
The naked person on the left seems to be an infant as the image has the category "Children in action". IS THIS IMAGE LEGAL? Liberaler Humanist (talk) 22:37, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Art by a notable artist. --Leyo 23:38, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Notable artist; image is in use in multiple Wikipedias, so in scope. There are no "infants" nor is there any "naked person" in this image, a blatantly false statement in the deletion request. It shows a child urinating; one may find that distateful, but there is no law against children urinating. Infrogmation (talk) 23:52, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
- Comment If this Image does not show children, why does it have the category "children in action"? I do not want to go in detail, but the depicted persons do not show any signs of adultness. --Liberaler Humanist (talk) 10:32, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
- No one said it didn't show children. I said it does not show infants. Perhaps you are not aware of the linguistic distinction; check out en:Infant. Cheers, Infrogmation (talk) 12:57, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
- Speedy keep. Asking whether this image is legal does not warrant a deletion request. --Rosenzweig δ 19:13, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Scan of classic book of prints; clearly legal in the US.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:50, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
- Keep immediately. Liberaler Humanist seems unaware of Commons rules in terms of censorship. Abuse of DR. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 22:11, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
- Keep In scope, in use. Anatiomaros (talk) 23:18, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
- Keep La Grande Danse macabre des vifs is a notable work of art. Moreover, law in the United States allows sexual drawings of children as long as they have "serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value."[5] Dcoetzee (talk) 11:50, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
- Keep All said --Niabot (talk) 16:05, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
Does this image show the sexual abuse of a child?!? Liberaler Humanist (talk) 22:42, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Art by a notable artist. --Leyo 23:39, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
- Speedy keep, no actual reason for deletion given beyond a question. --Rosenzweig δ 19:13, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Scan of classic book of prints; clearly legal in the US.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:50, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
- Keep immediately. Liberaler Humanist seems unaware of Commons rules in terms of censorship. Abuse of DR. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 22:11, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
- Keep In scope, in use. Anatiomaros (talk) 23:20, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
- Keep La Grande Danse macabre des vifs is a notable work of art. Moreover, law in the United States allows sexual drawings of children as long as they have "serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value."[6] Dcoetzee (talk) 11:49, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
- Keep All said --Niabot (talk) 16:05, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
- Keep -jkb- (talk) 17:32, 22 December 2010 (UTC) - art, per above
- Keep - No valid or good reason for deletion. --Dezidor (talk) 17:42, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
Kept. Yann (talk) 17:55, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
Nudity in a school or soemthing like that. This picture is part of a series about "flagelation", It should be deleted due to legal reasons. Liberaler Humanist (talk) 22:51, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
- Which law are you referring to? --Leyo 23:46, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
- Speedy keep, silly prudish deletion request. Infrogmation (talk) 23:54, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
- What "legal reasons"? Speedy keep. --Rosenzweig δ 19:13, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Scan of classic book of prints; clearly legal in the US.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:51, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
- Keep immediately. Liberaler Humanist seems unaware of Commons rules in terms of censorship. Abuse of DR. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 22:10, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
- Keep In scope, in use. Nonsense DR. Anatiomaros (talk) 23:21, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
- Keep La Grande Danse macabre des vifs is a notable work of art. Moreover, law in the United States allows sexual drawings of children as long as they have "serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value."[7] Dcoetzee (talk) 11:49, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
- Keep All said --Niabot (talk) 16:04, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
- Keep -jkb- (talk) 17:29, 22 December 2010 (UTC) - art, per above
- Keep - No good or valid reason for deletion. --Dezidor (talk) 17:35, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
Kept. Yann (talk) 18:15, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
Title: "Oh old bastard, I'll give you some good sweets" Sexuality/Abuse and Infants are the main theme of this series, I will post a note in the village pump, this should be done fast. Liberaler Humanist (talk) 22:52, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Art by a notable artist. --Leyo 23:47, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
- Keep In use, work of art from a century ago. It seems to show an unpleasant topic (an attempted rape) without glorifying nor sensualizing it, but rather showing it in an appropriately frightening and unpleasant light. No genitalia nor other overt sexuality is shown. (Compare this to for example Titian's File:Tizian 094.jpg "Rape of Lucritia" which clearly invites voyerism -- but is also appropriate to keep on Commons as the work of art by a famous artist and the product of a different historical era.) Commons is not only for pleasant subjects nor just for images one would wish to hand on the wall of a kindergarden class. -- Infrogmation (talk) 00:04, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
- Comment The picture you have mentioned shows adults. Thats the difference. This picture shows a priest who tries to rape an infant. Thats the problem. The depiction of sexual acts between/against infants is illegal in most countries. Voyeurism and rapes are principally not problemous - if these pictures show adults. --Liberaler Humanist (talk) 11:00, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
- Speedy keep as art. --Rosenzweig δ 19:12, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Scan of classic book of prints; clearly legal in the US.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:51, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
- Keep immediately. Liberaler Humanist seems unaware of Commons rules in terms of censorship. Abuse of DR. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 22:08, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
- Keep In scope, in use. Anatiomaros (talk) 23:22, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
- Speedy Keep, books of these drawings are sold on Amazon.com, so they are obviously not illegal. --AerobicFox (talk) 05:18, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
- Keep La Grande Danse macabre des vifs is a notable work of art. Moreover, law in the United States allows sexual drawings of children as long as they have "serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value."[8] Dcoetzee (talk) 11:49, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
- Keep All said --Niabot (talk) 16:04, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
- Keep -jkb- (talk) 17:28, 22 December 2010 (UTC) - art, per above
- Keep - No valid or good reason for deletion. --Dezidor (talk) 17:43, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
Kept. Yann (talk) 17:57, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
clearly children, pornographic image Liberaler Humanist (talk) 22:53, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Art by a notable artist. --Leyo 23:48, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
- Speedy keep as art. --Rosenzweig δ 19:13, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Scan of classic book of prints; clearly legal in the US.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:51, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
- Keep immediately. Liberaler Humanist seems unaware of Commons rules in terms of censorship. Abuse of DR. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 22:10, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
- Keep per all the above. Anatiomaros (talk) 23:02, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
- Keep La Grande Danse macabre des vifs is a notable work of art. Moreover, law in the United States allows sexual drawings of children as long as they have "serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value."[9] Dcoetzee (talk) 11:49, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
- Keep The nomination says: "clearly children, pornographic image". Yes, this image clearly shows children. No, it is not "clearly" a pornographic image. It depicts a very common act. Children are curious about the appearance of the body parts of the opposite sex, at least they are in societies where we keep them covered. "I'll show you mine if you show me yours," is common. That is all I see depicted here. Geo Swan (talk) 15:37, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
- Keep All said --Niabot (talk) 16:04, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
- Keep -jkb- (talk) 17:28, 22 December 2010 (UTC) - art, per above
- Keep - No valid or good reason for deletion. --Dezidor (talk) 17:43, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
Kept. Yann (talk) 18:05, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
One might AGF about copyright but this appears out of scope due to a lack of any rationale on the basis of educational value. Fæ (talk) 23:18, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
- Delete: Commons is not a personal photo album. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 08:42, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
- Delete - no possible encyclopædic use for this photo. Except maybe here... Mr.choppers (talk) 10:38, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
- Nope, we've got better images which don't show the photographer holding up a camera to a mirror. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 12:36, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Out of project scope - belongs on flickr not Commons. Anatiomaros (talk) 23:13, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. George Chernilevsky talk 08:18, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
Appears out of scope as there is no explanation for any educational value. Fæ (talk) 23:21, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Orphan uncategorized image with silly "description" and no in scope usefulness apparent; dubious sourcing as well. -- Infrogmation (talk) 00:20, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
- Delete - as per Fæ & Infrogmation. Mr.choppers (talk) 10:34, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Out of project scope. Worthless low-res personal photo. Anatiomaros (talk) 23:32, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. George Chernilevsky talk 08:41, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
Not appropriate for commons. Should be on en.wikipedia. Snubcube (talk) 23:46, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
- Changed name and rationale, fine for Commons, please withdraw.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 00:20, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
- Comment If it is free licensed and useful for at least one Wikimedia project, I think it would be "appropriate" for Commons. What is the problem? -- Infrogmation (talk) 00:21, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
- {{Vd}}: where is the evidence that this image or "File:WikiProject Scouting trefoil blank.svg" on which it is based are in the public domain? Unless such evidence is shown, the images are too complex for {{PD-textlogo}}. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 08:41, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
- It is not used in that color scheme or pattern by any organization, it was chosen for the WikiProject precisely because it was not. The same rationale is applied to File:WikiProject Scouting trefoil fade.svg, which was created for the same purpose.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 10:13, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
- Sorry, I don't understand. Could you explain this again in another way? Are you saying that "File:WikiProject Scouting trefoil blank.svg" is not actually the logo of any real scouting organization? If so, then what is "File:British Virgin Islands branch of Girlguiding UK.svg" for? — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 12:40, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
- It is not used in that color scheme or pattern by any organization, it was chosen for the WikiProject precisely because it was not. The same rationale is applied to File:WikiProject Scouting trefoil fade.svg, which was created for the same purpose.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 10:13, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
- That's it, for cross-project or cross-purpose Scouting illustration, we genericize some images so as not to infringe on copyright. This one is a template showing basic shaping and layout, but is not used by any real Scout or Guide organization. The lettering can be removed and replaced, for instance, and almost all Girl Scout orgs use the trefoil shape in some form, but none like this in this combination. The badge was made specifically for that, it lends itself to modification or use as-is. It was just put under a bad name by the graphicist who helped us, hence the name correction I did.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 18:32, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
- I am the graphist who put the intermediate image in its original location in err and made the deletion request. The final image is not appropriate for commons but needed to be uploaded under the name I used for the intermediate. I made the deletion request to free up the name. Renaming the file works, too. Please withdraw the deletion request. Snubcube (talk) 01:56, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
- Keep: oh, I see. In that case, no problem. I withdraw my objection. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 08:21, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
- I am the graphist who put the intermediate image in its original location in err and made the deletion request. The final image is not appropriate for commons but needed to be uploaded under the name I used for the intermediate. I made the deletion request to free up the name. Renaming the file works, too. Please withdraw the deletion request. Snubcube (talk) 01:56, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
I hate to nominate this for deletion - it's probably public domain - but it incorrectly claims "own work" and I've twice asked the uploader to sort this out, which he has not. Jmabel ! talk 02:23, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
- Delete: insufficient source information. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 18:50, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
- Looks like a photo taken in the early 20th century taken from a website, not a photo taken by the uploader in 2009. Linked conversation suggests uploader admits that the info on the image page is inaccurate. Unless true source, date, copyright status information can be provided, Delete per nom. -- Infrogmation (talk) 00:32, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
It's a detail from File:Navyyard 1910.jpg which is sourced. Kept. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:21, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
wrong license tag (no author given and too young to assume safely 70y pma). According to Commons:Copyright_tags#Venezuela there is {{PD-Venezuela}} but it requires 60y pma except "audiovisual works, broadcast works and computer programs". Is a photo an audiovisual work?! Saibo (Δ) 21:36, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
- Delete for nominator's reason. Image is unsourced, so not possible to determine copyright status. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 08:47, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Polarlys (talk) 16:45, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Fails Flickr review (copyright all rights reserved) and despite the template that was on a previous version, there is no OTRS ticket. This is User:Küb10's only upload. Chaser (talk) 06:47, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
- Speedy delete, blatant copyright violation. Küb10 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) is yet another Xraykan sockpuppet. —LX (talk, contribs) 13:28, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
Delete, by Túrelio. Chaser (talk) 21:08, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
It should be reasonable to expect that a picture of a person in a bar identifiying their possible sexual preferences would not appear on the internet Polargeo 3 (talk) 07:24, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
- Keep: no reasonable expectation of privacy in a public place like a bar. Photograph is properly licensed. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 18:54, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
- Keep as per JackLee.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:36, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
- Delete personality rights --Mbdortmund (talk) 12:51, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
Kept. Jcb (talk) 16:27, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, but there is no FoP in the UAE. Dura lex, sed lex. 84.61.182.248 09:45, 19 December 2010 (UTC) ppppbt!
Kept. Jcb (talk) 16:28, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
No Freedom of Panorama in UAE, Its restricted for photographs and architectures...for more details see this COM:FOP#United_Arab_Emirates ...Captain......Tälk tö me.. 08:00, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Freedom of Panorama protects the copyright of this building. Pruneautalk 07:55, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, but there is no FoP in the UAE. Dura lex, sed lex. 84.61.182.248 09:45, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
Kept. Jcb (talk) 16:28, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
The stadium was completed in 1995. There is no freedom of panorama in the United Arab Emirates, permission from the architect is needed A1Cafel (talk) 16:14, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:37, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
Image was taken from there: http://call-me-jules.livejournal.com/1003565.html?thread=5532717#t5532717 . Images are not free, they are copyrighted: Copyright © 1999-2008 LiveJournal all rights reserved
- Имеется разрешение автора фотографии на размещение в Викимедии [10]. Автор не имеет отношения к разработчикам LiveJournal, приведенные авторские права относятся к платформе, на которой размещена фотография. Georg Pik (talk) 10:55, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
- Comment: I think your question to the copyright owner ("а фотографию с Falck можно загрузить в викимедию со ссылкой?" – something like "Is this photograph from Falck available for downloading for Wikimedia?") and the response ("OK") are not sufficient for the Commons. You need to ask the copyright owner to confirm that he consents to licensing the photograph under CC-BY-SA-3.0 by sending an e-mail to permissions-commons
wikimedia.org. See "Commons:OTRS" for more instructions. Responses like "OK, you can use the photograph" or "I consent to the photograph being used on Wikipedia/Wikimedia Commons" are not clear enough. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 19:21, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 22:49, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, but there is no FoP in Greece. Dura lex, sed lex. 84.61.182.248 14:49, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
- Perhaps not copyrightable as pure text. --Mbdortmund (talk) 12:53, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
Kept. Jcb (talk) 22:50, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
D100a
[edit]All files below should be removed because they are counterfeit intellectual property rights so that they adversely affect the rights of the true owner of the files.
- File:Powermill of Parantalankoski Lake of Kiimasjärvi.JPG
- File:Eating squirrel.JPG
- File:Wir Lernen Finnisch 1944.jpg
- File:Small Pike Lake of Kiimasjärvi.JPG
- File:Savage fruit cherry.JPG
- File:Finnisch Hibiscus rosa-sinensis.JPG
See the above arguments --D100a (talk) 13:18, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
- Keep. Irrevocable licenses. Some of the files already kept per Commons:Deletion requests/Files by User:D100a. --Apalsola t • c 15:10, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
Speedy Keep. The licenses are irrevocable and the issue has been debated several times. Since the user was warned not to do this again, I have blocked him or her for a week. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:12, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
Images of KUMU
[edit]- File:10. märts KUMU.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Entrance to KUMU Art Mueum.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:KUMU.JPG (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:KUMU 2006-1.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:KUMU 2006-2.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:KUMU 2006-3.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:KUMU 2006-5.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:KUMU 2006-6.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:KUMU 2006-7.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:KUMU 2006-8.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:KUMU 2006-9.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:KUMU 2006-10.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:KUMU 2006-11.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:KUMU 2006-12.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:KUMU 2006-13.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:KUMU 2006-14.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:KUMU muuseum.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:KUMU outside 1.JPG (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
Kumu Museum was built in 2003–2006. Architect Pekka Vapaavuori still living, so not in Public domain yet. No Freedom of Panorama in Estonia. --Apalsola t • c 15:42, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Trycatch (talk) 14:34, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
Files Pendeltåg BCN
[edit]- File:Pendeltåg BCN.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Pendeltåg BCN2.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Pendeltåg BCN3.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
Scan from a magazine, claimed ineligile for copyright without rationale, attributed as own work. --V.Riullop (talk) 15:57, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Copyvio. Yann (talk) 21:28, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
Low resolution to the point of being useless. How can anyone even tell that is him/her? No idea why this is linked from any WP project. Wknight94 talk 16:07, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
- Keep strange nomination, in use in two WPs. Trycatch (talk) 14:59, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
- And can you tell me why it's used? I defy anyone to prove that is even who it says it is. Wknight94 talk 15:50, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
- Perhaps they think it gives an impression of the atmosphere --Mbdortmund (talk) 00:01, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
Kept. Jcb (talk) 22:51, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
This is such a poor stitch job that it is misleading to the viewer. Should be replaced by File:PanoKourionTheater.jpg and deleted. Wknight94 talk 16:41, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
Kept. - in use - Jcb (talk) 22:53, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
and other uploads by Speed20 (talk · contribs). Unlikely to by own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF. EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:51, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
Kept. - I tried to find duplicates of several of the images, but I found nothing. Just small resolution and missing EXIF is not sufficient to delete images - Jcb (talk) 23:01, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
Unlikely to by own work: small resolution, missing EXIF. EugeneZelenko (talk) 17:01, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
Kept. Jcb (talk) 23:03, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
unused photo of musical band with no notability - out of scope Santosga (talk) 17:08, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 23:09, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
Because the picture isn't big enough Greencatproject (talk) 17:25, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 23:10, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
low res image - bad quality, possible copyvio, many better images to illustrate this subject can be found in Category:Waiting rooms Santosga (talk) 17:29, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 23:11, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
If the photo was taken and published in the late 50s, then it is likely to be under copyright. That various forums have used this image is not a valid rationale. Fæ (talk) 17:50, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 23:11, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
Fan picture, not used, out of scope Motopark (talk) 18:33, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 23:13, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
Italian source indicates this should not be transfered to commons; the uploader has not provided a source so we don't know if this is {{PD-old}} Magog the Ogre (talk) 18:57, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
- Итальянский источник выдаёт стандартное предупреждение для многих подобных файлов ибо законы Италии более либеральны. В данном случае (уже почти 8 лет как...), противоречий с политикой Викисклада нет, и там поставлена соответствующая лицензия. Будьте впредь внимательнее, чтобы не отвлекать людей на объяснение очевидных вещей. --Schekinov Alexey Victorovich (talk) 21:23, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
- Response - this is not an irrelevant question. We need to know the source, so as to know the author, because if the author died after 1940, this file is non-free. Magog the Ogre (talk) 23:15, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
- Файл был опубликован до 1923 года. И даже если автор и сейчас жив - это не имеет значения. Никакого. --Schekinov Alexey Victorovich (talk) 08:01, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 23:16, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
see w:Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2010 December 19#File:Farrell with Supertramp.jpg Magog the Ogre (talk) 19:28, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
Kept. - the result of that debate was keep - Jcb (talk) 23:18, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
Unused file; a larger, used version exists at File:Botticelli Trinity.jpg. I am the original uploader. Ham (talk) 20:37, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
- Comment new version is not larger, it's just a result of using Auto Levels on this original. In my opinion, new version is very blueish. Trycatch (talk) 16:32, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
Kept. Jcb (talk) 23:20, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
Out of project scope and personal POV by the drawer. Yikrazuul (talk) 21:33, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
Out of project scope and personal POV by the drawer Grand-Duc (talk) 21:37, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
- Keep just how many drawings of Egyptian toilets--a valid field of human study--do we have?--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:42, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
- Muhaha, a valid field of human study, this picture is sole POV and no one needs it. --Yikrazuul (talk) 22:00, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
- You do realize that laughing at someone will greatly offend people in many cultures around the world? I suggest that you avoid it in the future on multicultural projects.--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:57, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
- Delete see below...
is not by User:Toilet,is better drawn, and I am going to assume good faith and trust the description is backed up by some research and agree with Posfilaes that this image has potential educational value.
Info If this is not from Toilet, we do have a copyright problem! --Yikrazuul (talk) 16:58, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
- Comment Toilet has uploaded this Picture as own work, naming Peter van der Sluijs as the author. Peter van der Sluijs appears as the author of many pictures of toilet, it is likely, that Sluijs is User:Toilet. --Liberaler Humanist (talk) 19:16, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
- And if I uploaded pictures as own work, naming Pablo Picasso as the author, I would be Picasso? Besides of that, how does he know how Egyptian women crapped? Speedydelete would be appropriate. --Yikrazuul (talk) 19:26, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
- I have a modern roleplaying book by "Voltaire". People can use whatever pseudonym they want, and the problem with Picasso is confusion. The CC-BY license demands attribution, and it would be stupid of us to require only attribution in the username of the uploader. Of course, if you're uploading the work of the dead artist Pablo Picasso, then we have a problem, but it's completely separate from the one caused by you using the name of someone famous as a pseudonym. Unless you're seriously claiming expertise in Egyptian culture and history, I wouldn't trivially dismiss that there's documentation of how people went to the bathroom the most well-documented ancient history.--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:57, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
- Unless you're seriously claiming expertise in Egyptian culture and history Ehhm... pardon the other way round: User:Toilet has to show us where he has taken that picture (book, photo of old pharao etc.). Because I think they did it while standing.
- Oh well, I have forgotten: POV is allowed and even horrible drawings are acceptable! --Yikrazuul (talk) 20:47, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
- Er, yes, POV is an issue on Wikipedia, not here.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:14, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
- If you would upload a Photo as your own work and name picasso as the Author, you would actually state that you were Picasso. However, Toilet ans Sluijs seem to beone Person. --Liberaler Humanist (talk) 23:23, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
- I have a modern roleplaying book by "Voltaire". People can use whatever pseudonym they want, and the problem with Picasso is confusion. The CC-BY license demands attribution, and it would be stupid of us to require only attribution in the username of the uploader. Of course, if you're uploading the work of the dead artist Pablo Picasso, then we have a problem, but it's completely separate from the one caused by you using the name of someone famous as a pseudonym. Unless you're seriously claiming expertise in Egyptian culture and history, I wouldn't trivially dismiss that there's documentation of how people went to the bathroom the most well-documented ancient history.--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:57, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
- And if I uploaded pictures as own work, naming Pablo Picasso as the author, I would be Picasso? Besides of that, how does he know how Egyptian women crapped? Speedydelete would be appropriate. --Yikrazuul (talk) 19:26, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
- Comment -- I saw the author listed was "Peter van der Sluijs". I did not check the ID of the uploader. You are correct, it was uploaded by User:Toilet. I am prepared to take at face value that it is his work, even though it is of superior quality to his other images. Other contributors say they checked User:Toilet's uploade history, and reported that this individual had uploaded valid, compliant images. In my opinion one of the weakest, most problematic aspects of the wikipedia and its sister projects is that we have a tendency to gang up on individuals in the deletion fora. I am willing to extend the benefit of the doubt to the uploader, and assume this image belongs in the valid group. Geo Swan (talk) 00:37, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
- Googleing that name leads to apparently several different persons, amongst them a Peter van der Sluijs, MD and some other higher ranked white collar workers. On the other hand, we have a "Peter van der Sluijs" on MySpace, where it is apparent that he is the true Toilet. There is some evidence that the user wanted Commons as his personal image repository. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 13:12, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
- OK, google finds multiple individuals names PvdS, and one of them is an amatuer photographer, on myspace. How do you know he is User:Toilet? Geo Swan (talk) 00:08, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
- Look behind the link "evidence" and compare the shown images in e.g. "Toilet en gezondheid" to the few not already deleted. Grand-Duc (talk) 12:24, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
- I am not a myspace user. I went to the myspace page you offered as evidence, and saw nothing incriminating. Would it be possible for you to offer the specific URLs here? Geo Swan (talk) 15:23, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
- I am not a MySpace user too, but there is no dificulty in clicking the link http://www.myspace.com/slinger58/photos to go to http://www.myspace.com/slinger58/photos/albums/toilet-en-gezondheid/608211#mssrc=SitesPhotos_SP_AlbumTitle_ViewAlbum where a drawing of the same kind than those challenged for deletion is available: http://www.myspace.com/slinger58/photos/8785998#mssrc=SitesPhotos_AP_ViewPhoto . Or, a better suggestion, go on http://www.myspace.com/slinger58/photos/albums/constipatie/608625#mssrc=SitesPhotos_SP_AlbumTitle_ViewAlbum to see http://www.myspace.com/slinger58/photos/8786461#mssrc=SitesPhotos_AP_ViewPhoto and compare this image with the one this DR is about. At least, this works for me, using Firefox 3.6.13 and NoScript. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 20:49, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
- OK -- sufficient links provided... I am striking my keep. Geo Swan (talk) 18:32, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
- I am not a MySpace user too, but there is no dificulty in clicking the link http://www.myspace.com/slinger58/photos to go to http://www.myspace.com/slinger58/photos/albums/toilet-en-gezondheid/608211#mssrc=SitesPhotos_SP_AlbumTitle_ViewAlbum where a drawing of the same kind than those challenged for deletion is available: http://www.myspace.com/slinger58/photos/8785998#mssrc=SitesPhotos_AP_ViewPhoto . Or, a better suggestion, go on http://www.myspace.com/slinger58/photos/albums/constipatie/608625#mssrc=SitesPhotos_SP_AlbumTitle_ViewAlbum to see http://www.myspace.com/slinger58/photos/8786461#mssrc=SitesPhotos_AP_ViewPhoto and compare this image with the one this DR is about. At least, this works for me, using Firefox 3.6.13 and NoScript. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 20:49, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
- I am not a myspace user. I went to the myspace page you offered as evidence, and saw nothing incriminating. Would it be possible for you to offer the specific URLs here? Geo Swan (talk) 15:23, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
- Look behind the link "evidence" and compare the shown images in e.g. "Toilet en gezondheid" to the few not already deleted. Grand-Duc (talk) 12:24, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
- OK, google finds multiple individuals names PvdS, and one of them is an amatuer photographer, on myspace. How do you know he is User:Toilet? Geo Swan (talk) 00:08, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
- Googleing that name leads to apparently several different persons, amongst them a Peter van der Sluijs, MD and some other higher ranked white collar workers. On the other hand, we have a "Peter van der Sluijs" on MySpace, where it is apparent that he is the true Toilet. There is some evidence that the user wanted Commons as his personal image repository. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 13:12, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
- Delete The drawings of user toilet are samples of a strange interest and not applicable for purposes of documentation because of their law quality and dubious source. --Mbdortmund (talk) 13:02, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
- Strong Delete per nom and what is source for EV ??? Original research only. Junk --George Chernilevsky talk 07:32, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Amateur art, original research, etc. Wknight94 talk 01:31, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 23:26, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
bad quality Grand-Duc (talk) 21:52, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Copyright (Exif-data), too bad quality (could be also streets), not used in all that time. --Yikrazuul (talk) 11:42, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
- Keep you are free to upload better quality pictures of the same Nasca geoglyph. The quality is enough to identify the subject, low contrast is a feature of the subject (check other pictures from Category:Nazca lines). Trycatch (talk) 22:51, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
Kept. Jcb (talk) 23:30, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
The image has only a low resolution and there are no valid EXIF information. It is highly likely not the uploader's own work. High Contrast (talk) 16:33, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
- Keep [Looks like Fastily didn't notice there is a DR about this pic. The DR was not properly closed, so I prefer to discuss the issue here -- it could be moved to UDR, of course.]
- Lack of high-res and EXIF per se is not a proof of any wrongdoing, it's just a signal to look on the upload closely. The user uploads all the pictures in low resolution, and EXIF removed, including obviously personal ones like e.g. this or this. That's just his workflow -- he use Picasa before uploading to resize them to 480x*, and it removes the relevant metadata. Giving that the user was never caught in stealing of other people photos (while he uploaded hundreds of them), I believe to him. --Trycatch (talk) 11:09, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
- +He has numerous photos from Peru, numerous photos of remembrances from Peru (some with original Canon 500D EXIF kept), so it's absolutely believable that he indeed made these photos from a plane. Trycatch (talk) 11:31, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
- I don't believe that. Consider that it is the only aerial image he uploaded. --High Contrast (talk) 14:05, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
- Not at all, he uploaded the whole bunch of Nasca lines -- 1, 2, 3. All of them probably were created in the same flight. None of them has any google or tineye hit. Actually, there is hardly a reason to suspect the user in something wrong -- this is a popular landmark among tourists, there are lot of cheap air tours over Nazca lines. You can see in Category:Nazca lines that the subject is not uncommon by any stretch, and a lot of different users uploaded similar photos. Trycatch (talk) 14:46, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
- You missed it. I never doubted that it is impossible to take such images - I cannot imagine you you came on that. I just doubt that 1, 2, 3 were created by the uploader due to the very small image res and no EXIF. Besides, the question remains if User:Toilet has the permission of "Peter van der Sluijs" to upload Peter's images here under a free license. --High Contrast (talk) 15:14, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
- The user uploaded >1000 pictures. Almost all of them have 480px or 640px resolution, ~half have no EXIF (the most of the rest have Canon 500D camera EXIF). This picture is no different from the whole bulk of uploads. He doesn't look like a copyvio uploader, his contributions look perfectly legitimate (albeit downscaled). If this is a copyvio -- this is a copyvio of a huge scale, that should be easily discoverable, but we don't see anything like this. What about the identity of User:Toilet, I think this beyond any reasonable doubt -- actually, at first he signed his photos as Toilet (e.g. this), then he changed the signature to Peter van der Sluijs. Trycatch (talk) 15:40, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
- You missed it. I never doubted that it is impossible to take such images - I cannot imagine you you came on that. I just doubt that 1, 2, 3 were created by the uploader due to the very small image res and no EXIF. Besides, the question remains if User:Toilet has the permission of "Peter van der Sluijs" to upload Peter's images here under a free license. --High Contrast (talk) 15:14, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
- Not at all, he uploaded the whole bunch of Nasca lines -- 1, 2, 3. All of them probably were created in the same flight. None of them has any google or tineye hit. Actually, there is hardly a reason to suspect the user in something wrong -- this is a popular landmark among tourists, there are lot of cheap air tours over Nazca lines. You can see in Category:Nazca lines that the subject is not uncommon by any stretch, and a lot of different users uploaded similar photos. Trycatch (talk) 14:46, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
- I don't believe that. Consider that it is the only aerial image he uploaded. --High Contrast (talk) 14:05, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
- +He has numerous photos from Peru, numerous photos of remembrances from Peru (some with original Canon 500D EXIF kept), so it's absolutely believable that he indeed made these photos from a plane. Trycatch (talk) 11:31, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
Already deleted --Denniss (talk) 17:49, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
Toilet pictures of User:Toilet
[edit]- File:Young woman on the potty.jpg
- File:Poepende vrouw bronstijd.jpg
- File:Young mother on toilet.jpg
- File:Housewife with constipation.jpg
- File:Indiaanse vrouw die hurkend bevalt.jpg
- File:Constipatie komt in alle tijden voor..jpg
- File:Niet persen als constipatie heeft en zwanger bent maar gebruik wel een bankje.jpg
- File:Laying a egg.jpg
- File:Woman with a constipation problem.jpg
- File:Nooit persen bij constipatie want dan kunt u aambeien krijgen..jpg
- File:Constipatie tijdens zwangerschap.jpg
- File:Constipatie tijdens de vakantie.jpg
- File:Peeing woman.jpg
- File:Peeing is also privacy.jpg
- File:Moeilijk kunnen drukken op het toilet.jpg
- File:Wowman using toiletpaper.jpg
- File:Girl on potty.jpg
- File:Privacy is belangrijk op het toilet.jpg
- File:Gebruik een spiegel als u het niet vertrouw bijv bij ambeien.jpg
- File:Privacy is belangrijk op het toilet.jpg
- File:Older woman on the toilet.jpg
- File:Flightattendent on the toilet.jpg
- File:This is a good position on the toilet.jpg
- File:Voorkom blaasontsteking door richting het hoofd af te vegen..jpg
- File:Vrouw met constipatie op het toilet.jpg
- File:Nooit persen bij constipatie ook niet als u zwanger bent.jpg
- File:Verkeerde toilethouding.jpg
- File:Vrouw met een hele moeilijke stoelgang op het toilet.jpg
- File:Harde ontlasting bij constipatie.jpg
- File:Goede toilethouding.jpg
- File:Gebruik een bankje of verhoging als u op het toilet zit het belangrijkste is dat uw voeten plat op de grond zijn..jpg
- File:Als je zwanger bent en je hebt constipatie altijd de arts raadplegen..jpg
- File:Woman on the toilet always privacy.jpg
- File:Vrouw met verstopping.jpg
- File:Verstopping kwam ook vroeger voor.jpg
All those pictures are out of scope, and private POV. We did have a deletion discussion about such pictures, maybe some months ago: The outcome was to delete it.
In my personal opinion we should block the user if he persists of abusing commons in that way. Judging all other pictures the user is free to go to FlickR, but the purpose of commons is not to spam sole private pictures without any educational use. I donna want to tag those files every few months. --Yikrazuul (talk) 21:48, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
- thanks for joining this topic, I made the first MDR. As such, Delete and I also would agree to block the user after making things clear to him again. --Herzi Pinki (talk) 00:09, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
- Delete: unused personal artwork by non-notable artist not useful for any project. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 08:46, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
- Delete: Very low quality, very grotesque pictures. I do not see any reasons for keeping these pictures, we have got some photographs of persons using a toilet, there is no need for bad drawings. --Liberaler Humanist (talk) 10:36, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
- Delete just crap and definetly out of project scope axpdeHello! 15:40, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose mass deletion of Users images. I am fine with deleting his toilet images, but there is no reason to delete his non-toilet images which currently are all marked for deletion such as:
pictures not related to this deletion request commented out
Looking at his contributions log it seems a majority of his uploads aren't even related to toilets. Please refrain from adding them to this deletion, and only delete the toilet related images. --AerobicFox (talk) 04:36, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
- I second that. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 09:31, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
- There is another deletion request for those: Commons:Deletion requests/Photogaphic images by user:Toilet. The main issue there seems to be about whether the user is the photographer. --LPfi (talk) 11:34, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
- @AerobicFox: None of your linked pictures referes to this deletion request! --Yikrazuul (talk) 17:03, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
- Almost all Deleted. One in use, and one is drawing of a bird George Chernilevsky talk 08:46, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Yann (talk) 08:50, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
Bad quality and personal POVish filename by the uploader Grand-Duc (talk) 22:01, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
- Keep I don't see how this picture is out scope. Lack of hygiene and sanitation in poor countries is an important and socially significant topic, these problems kill millions of people every year (read this for example). What about quality, it's quite enough for web. Trycatch (talk) 16:13, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
- Delete COM:PEOPLE, does the person know that she is on commons now, is it her will? --Yikrazuul (talk) 20:54, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
Kept. Jcb (talk) 23:32, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
bad quality Grand-Duc (talk) 22:02, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
- Keep you are free to upload better quality picture of this particular Nasca geoglyph. Trycatch (talk) 14:52, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
- { Delete Not used, too bad quality to identify. --Yikrazuul (talk) 11:41, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
- Keep I looked at the other images in the category and none are particularly clear, and the reason appears to be the nature of the subject itself. No reason to delete this. -84user (talk) 09:14, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
Kept. Jcb (talk) 23:33, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
Out of project scope, bad quality (flares), derivate from another image, I know, that images of urinating persons are of an anatomical and encyclopedical interesst but there are better pictures without the pornographic context of this image. --Liberaler Humanist (talk) 22:24, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
- Keep This file has already been kept twice !!! (see here). Abuse of DR. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 08:40, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
- Comment The main problem is the bad quality. There are many better pictures of urinating persons. --Liberaler Humanist (talk) 11:02, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
- Delete...two DRs, not used in any Wiki => so why should be keep such pictures? Just because commons is a dumb data base? --Yikrazuul (talk) 16:59, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
- No we have to keep that just because Commons may illustrate any kind of subjects including sexual subjects. And 2 (now 3) DRs just mean that some people don't understand what Commons is made for and prefer puritanism and/or censorship. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 13:30, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
- Keep We do have better photos of female urination, but this one is part of a set along with File:Drinking urine.jpg. A project may reasonably wish to present both images together in sequence. The nominator also seems to be missing the point that non-pornographic images of female urination cannot be used to illustrate articles on urolagnia such as en:urolagnia. Dcoetzee (talk) 12:12, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
- Delete - Low quality photo. As a replacement I propose a woman pissing in another woman's mouth, that's double the fun you know. Aberforth (talk) 00:31, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
- And are you going to provide that image yourself? Anatiomaros (talk) 00:39, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
- No, I'm not paid to be on stage to do that, like the woman depicted. Which also means she may not really have a fetish for that, and that she's just paid to drink the stuff. Therefore, the image is not really suitable for the page about urophilia. Why do you think there are drawings of people engaging in acts that would be publicly embarrassing, instead of photos of real people doing them? Did this woman expect to be put on a high traffic site? Aberforth (talk) 15:29, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
- 1) I'd support the deletion of this file if we had a better photo of the same subject but we have none. 2) Even if this woman is not urolagniac in her private life, it is a urolagniac show, so it illustrate urolagnia (same argument if you consider it might not be real pee). 3) This is a public show, she may be aware of the risks to see her pictures uploaded on the net. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 16:56, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
- The fact is: you can't know for sure. Maybe she quit that job, because she felt uncomfortable, so she wouldn't like to have that stuff floating around the nets. Aberforth (talk) 23:20, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
- Unvalid argument. If a porn star quits his/her job, s/he won't complain about the public broadcast of his previous work ! Same here. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 17:04, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
- The fact is: you can't know for sure. Maybe she quit that job, because she felt uncomfortable, so she wouldn't like to have that stuff floating around the nets. Aberforth (talk) 23:20, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
- 1) I'd support the deletion of this file if we had a better photo of the same subject but we have none. 2) Even if this woman is not urolagniac in her private life, it is a urolagniac show, so it illustrate urolagnia (same argument if you consider it might not be real pee). 3) This is a public show, she may be aware of the risks to see her pictures uploaded on the net. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 16:56, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
- No, I'm not paid to be on stage to do that, like the woman depicted. Which also means she may not really have a fetish for that, and that she's just paid to drink the stuff. Therefore, the image is not really suitable for the page about urophilia. Why do you think there are drawings of people engaging in acts that would be publicly embarrassing, instead of photos of real people doing them? Did this woman expect to be put on a high traffic site? Aberforth (talk) 15:29, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
- And are you going to provide that image yourself? Anatiomaros (talk) 00:39, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
- Keep per TwoWings and Dcoetzee. Anatiomaros (talk) 00:37, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Kept. Jcb (talk) 23:34, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
Out of scope, low quality image, bad quality. Plus commons is not a porn image dump Tyw7 (☎ Contact me! • Contributions) Changing the world one edit at a time! 15:04, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
Kept; per decision earlier this year and repeated earlier discussions. Feel free to upload a higher quality photo of the practice of urolagnia if you wish. Cheers! Infrogmation (talk) 15:44, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
Out of project scope, I do not think that we need to collect pictures of people who drink their urine, this picture comes from a pornographic event. Liberaler Humanist (talk) 22:29, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
- Keep, disgusting though the subject may be, drinking urine - for health, sexual or medical reasons, is an actual phenomena and this photo is (sadly) in scope. Max Rebo Band"almost suspiciously excellent" 02:32, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
- Keep unvalid reason. See Max Rebo Band's comment. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 08:38, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
- CommentIf you think, that pictures of persons who drink urine are very worthfull I could bring the argument, that the picture ha a bad quality (unsharo, false colours) and we can not tell if the person is really drinking urine. --Liberaler Humanist (talk) 10:29, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
- I would reply we don't have pictures of better quality for such a subject (drinking urine as a sexual reason), therefore it's in the scope and it's useful. We can say it's urine because it's part of a set with a close-up picture of her peeing in the same glass. Nevertheless a combine file of both pictures might be a good and more useful idea. I'll do it later. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 17:01, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Not used in all that time (although for "health, sexual or medical reasons"), so it is more than dispensable. --Yikrazuul (talk) 17:01, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
- Keep In scope. I improved the colour balance. It's not a great quality picture, but we do not have a single other image of someone drinking urine, so it is presently irreplacable. Dcoetzee (talk) 12:09, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
- CommentThe Picture is still bad, there is also a photo which shows the whole person. --Liberaler Humanist (talk) 09:59, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
- We don't see her drinking the urine on the picture where we see the whole person. So both pictures have different purposes. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 10:54, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
- Uh, for all we know that could be tea or beer... so even if it gets deleted, some of you can surely get a picture where a woman drinks a glass of some similarly colored liquid to replace it. Aberforth (talk) 00:24, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
- We can guess that by comparing the 2 pictures. And that's why both are useful. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 15:28, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
- Or they could take a self portrait. Glass in one hand cellphone at arms length that sort of thing. --John lilburne (talk) 09:55, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
- Uh, for all we know that could be tea or beer... so even if it gets deleted, some of you can surely get a picture where a woman drinks a glass of some similarly colored liquid to replace it. Aberforth (talk) 00:24, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Images isn't irreplaceable. If something similar is needed then the requiree can simply take a self portrait. --John lilburne (talk) 09:55, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
- simply take a self portrait > That might be one of the most ridiculous argument I've ever read !
- Images isn't irreplaceable > I'd agree to delete it because of bad quality if we had an equivalent picture on Commons. But we don't ! --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 15:28, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
- How so? You have a camera, you have a glass, you take a pee at least once a day, what is the problem? You can take as many photos as it need to get a decent shot, there is no problem with copyright, there is no problem regarding the subject's permission. All problem with the photo are solved. Set the self timer, click, and you have 10 seconds to move into position and raise the glass. John lilburne (talk) 19:13, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
- Because you already know the answer, you hypocrite. But here it is : I personnally don't want to take such a picture of myself AND I'm not urolagniac myself. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 10:22, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
- As you have uploaded photos of toilet cleaning, kids peeing, and this, its not really fair to claim mistaken identity, but I accept your assertion. Do you not have friends, family, or colleagues that you could ask? John lilburne (talk) 20:06, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
- Your provocation is ridiculous. It doesn't bring any serious to your argumentation. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 17:02, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
- As you have uploaded photos of toilet cleaning, kids peeing, and this, its not really fair to claim mistaken identity, but I accept your assertion. Do you not have friends, family, or colleagues that you could ask? John lilburne (talk) 20:06, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
- Because you already know the answer, you hypocrite. But here it is : I personnally don't want to take such a picture of myself AND I'm not urolagniac myself. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 10:22, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
- How so? You have a camera, you have a glass, you take a pee at least once a day, what is the problem? You can take as many photos as it need to get a decent shot, there is no problem with copyright, there is no problem regarding the subject's permission. All problem with the photo are solved. Set the self timer, click, and you have 10 seconds to move into position and raise the glass. John lilburne (talk) 19:13, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
- Comment This image also puts the flickr account it was taken from at risk. Urine drinking is a taboo subject on Yahoo! sites, and can result in account deletion if it gets reported to flickr management. --John lilburne (talk) 10:00, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
- Not all people who wish to write articles about the act of drinking one's own urine would readily participate in that act for educational purposes. Even if they would, the image could not subsequently be used to show a real urolagniac. Dcoetzee (talk) 14:37, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
- And you know that this image show a real urolagniac how exactly? Where is the provenance, that this is a real urolagniac and not some Adult entertainer's stage trick. John lilburne (talk) 19:29, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
- Commons might be the only Wikimedia project where you sometimes have to trust the users in terms of description. If you think we shouldn't, well you'll have to ask lots of proofs or deletions. For instance, take any place in the geography of the world that is not sufficiently well-known, read the description of the file (such as "house in the city of blah-blah-blah") and tell me how we can prove it. There are thousands of examples like that on Commons. But to answer your question, just go to the Flickr gallery where it was taken, compare the different pictures and make your own interpretation. It seems clear to me that this woman, in an erotic show, drank glasses of beer or something, peed in the empty glasses and drank it again (therefore with pee in them). And even if it's adult entertainment and if this woman is not urolagniac in her private life, it is a urolagniac show. QED. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 10:22, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
- I did go to the flickr pages, bag with coloured water inserted into neck of vagina. Now I don't know about you but even after drinking a pint it can take 45 minutes or more before I actually need to go and take a piss. She probably does 2 or 3 shows a night spending no more that 30 - 45 minutes at each location. Dcoetzee's suggestion that this has to be kept because it is real is nonsense the only thing that makes this piss drinking is the caption. John lilburne (talk) 10:36, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
- Well you see, you interpret things too, so who are we supposed to trust ? Aren't you realizing that you are questioning almost all the files on Commons by reasoning like that ? Where do you see that she does 2 or 3 shows a night ? Where do you have a proof for your water bag guess ? What makes you think the actual pee is supposed to be from that beer she drinks on stage and not from something she drank before ? In all cases, even if it's fake pee, it's intended to be pee, so it's still a urolagnia show in its purpose. Let's make a parallel : in porn films, they often add some fake semen for the cumshot scenes. If we had a picture or video of such a porn film on Commons, should we say it may not be considered as an illustration of facial ejaculation just because some of it is fake ? Clearly not, because it's all about illustration, not "real". A photo is never real actually. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 16:53, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
- I did go to the flickr pages, bag with coloured water inserted into neck of vagina. Now I don't know about you but even after drinking a pint it can take 45 minutes or more before I actually need to go and take a piss. She probably does 2 or 3 shows a night spending no more that 30 - 45 minutes at each location. Dcoetzee's suggestion that this has to be kept because it is real is nonsense the only thing that makes this piss drinking is the caption. John lilburne (talk) 10:36, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
- Commons might be the only Wikimedia project where you sometimes have to trust the users in terms of description. If you think we shouldn't, well you'll have to ask lots of proofs or deletions. For instance, take any place in the geography of the world that is not sufficiently well-known, read the description of the file (such as "house in the city of blah-blah-blah") and tell me how we can prove it. There are thousands of examples like that on Commons. But to answer your question, just go to the Flickr gallery where it was taken, compare the different pictures and make your own interpretation. It seems clear to me that this woman, in an erotic show, drank glasses of beer or something, peed in the empty glasses and drank it again (therefore with pee in them). And even if it's adult entertainment and if this woman is not urolagniac in her private life, it is a urolagniac show. QED. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 10:22, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
- And you know that this image show a real urolagniac how exactly? Where is the provenance, that this is a real urolagniac and not some Adult entertainer's stage trick. John lilburne (talk) 19:29, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
- (outdent) Someone doing novelty performances doesn't make a living by doing just one show a night. They'll do a number, moving from club, to club. "If we had a picture or video ..." its not my argument, but Dcoetzee's that the relevance of this photos is because its "real" (© Dcoetzee). If someone who "drank glasses of beer" (© TwoWings) only peeing enough to half fill a wine glass, that shows an amazing skill at being able to measure the exact amount to drink, and being able to time it so that they are ready to pee just in time for the performance, that is some skill. The water bag is a pretty good summation of what the photo actually shows. This photo is just as "real" (© Dcoetzee) as a photo of any of the keepers holding a wine class with orange liquid to their lips and captioning it "Drinking urine". John lilburne (talk) 19:32, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
- Your argumentation is very tiring ! Can't you understand that you are also interpreting and that there's no reason to decide YOU are right and not anyone else ? But let's take your arguments. First your "doesn't make a living" argument : so what ? It's nonsense. She can do different "characters" per night and only once this one. Or having other jobs. Your argument is a bit too simplistic ! As for the "fake" argument, I have already explained that the show would still have a "urolagniac intention" so it still can illustrate the subject (but I agree we can improve the comment and add some different hypothesis about the interpretation of the picture) --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 09:40, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
- The same is true if anyone else took a photo of someone with a glass in their hand and labelled it "Drinking urine" the "urolagniac intention" would still be there. Thus, this photo is not unique, it is not difficult to replace, and as I've said above any of those that want such a photo could create one in less time than it is taking you to try and wriggle out of that. John lilburne (talk) 15:54, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
- Are you stupid, stubborn or both ? The label and description of this picture are pertinent only if you consider it within the set. And I said above that the best idea might be to create a montage with different pictures of this set. As for your idea to make another picture, read above, you'll have the explanations (if you can read). --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 10:30, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
- I thought we were discussing this particular image, as it is today, not some other image that exists purely in your head. John lilburne (talk) 11:43, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
- Are you stupid, stubborn or both ? The label and description of this picture are pertinent only if you consider it within the set. And I said above that the best idea might be to create a montage with different pictures of this set. As for your idea to make another picture, read above, you'll have the explanations (if you can read). --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 10:30, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
- The same is true if anyone else took a photo of someone with a glass in their hand and labelled it "Drinking urine" the "urolagniac intention" would still be there. Thus, this photo is not unique, it is not difficult to replace, and as I've said above any of those that want such a photo could create one in less time than it is taking you to try and wriggle out of that. John lilburne (talk) 15:54, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
- Hey John lilburne, maybe people should ponder about whether the woman depicted would agree on being featured on a very highly ranking site, and risk some potential embarrassment with friends and family. Aberforth (talk) 15:42, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
- Well I'd say it's a public show, isn't it ? --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 16:53, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
- Hey John lilburne, maybe people should ponder about whether the woman depicted would agree on being featured on a very highly ranking site, and risk some potential embarrassment with friends and family. Aberforth (talk) 15:42, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
- Keep Within project scope, distasteful though the subject may be to most of us, and irreplaceable at present. Anatiomaros (talk) 17:23, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Clearly out of scope and not useful in any definition. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:29, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
- Keep Keep, clearly within scope. Garion96 (talk) 21:19, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
- Scope requires a file to be usable. There is no use of this image, nor is there proof that it is even urine or that we would need such if it was. Personal opinion is not a substitute for policy. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:26, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
- As I've already explained, this is the only image we have of a person drinking urine, which is relevant to encyclopedic topics, even though editors may elect not to use it at the moment. Dcoetzee (talk) 17:09, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
- Just because you throw a bunch of words up it doesn't mean you actually said anything legitimate. 1. We have no clue if it is urine nor is it usable as such. Nor is the person even "drinking" it. 2. There is no use for an image of urine. 3. The even claim is laughably absurd and makes it seem like you would say anything to keep it even though it has no place as proven by it not being -ever- used. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:25, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
- "There is no use for an image of urine" strikes me as pretty absurd statement. If we have an article on a subject, we should have a picture on it, whether that is sodium, ammonia, water, grape juice, blood, or, last but not least, urine.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:35, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
- It must boggle your mind that in 2 years no one ever agreed with you. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:17, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
- The English Wikipedia has an image of urine on w:urine. So does w:it:Urina and a number of other language's articles on the subject.--Prosfilaes (talk) 05:49, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
- It must boggle your mind that in 2 years no one ever agreed with you. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:17, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
- "There is no use for an image of urine" strikes me as pretty absurd statement. If we have an article on a subject, we should have a picture on it, whether that is sodium, ammonia, water, grape juice, blood, or, last but not least, urine.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:35, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
- The original uploader is a known political advocate who uploads thousands of images that have no legitimate use. It is no wonder that fellow user like that MaxReboBand is here. These people have no place on this site nor do their images. Users have already verify the second by rightly not using their images. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:28, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
- And for this statement and the preceding one, I remind you of the No Personal Attacks policy: "Comment on content, not on the contributor."--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:35, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
- If you read the page, you would see that I referred never to the individual's race, intelligence, sexuality, or anything that can be seen as a personal attack. I have commented directly on the user's statements and online behavior as that -Wikipedia- policy says to do. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:10, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
- Ottava Rima, you have no place on Wikimedia projects. I'm sure you will find some way to spin that so I'm being uncivil but you weren't just above. COM:EIC#Person lists w:WP:NPA as policy.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:28, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
- I have no place? I've contributed more to the WMF than you ever have, and your incivility proves that you lack an argument. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:30, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
- By the way, it is highly inappropriate to make up a claim that WP:Personal attacks is Commons policy. That list you used is merely a reference of related works, not Commons policy. You selectively quoted things to say opposite of what they say. You made up claims at other times. This is really inappropriate. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:32, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
- Ottava Rima, you have no place on Wikimedia projects. I'm sure you will find some way to spin that so I'm being uncivil but you weren't just above. COM:EIC#Person lists w:WP:NPA as policy.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:28, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
- If you read the page, you would see that I referred never to the individual's race, intelligence, sexuality, or anything that can be seen as a personal attack. I have commented directly on the user's statements and online behavior as that -Wikipedia- policy says to do. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:10, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
- And for this statement and the preceding one, I remind you of the No Personal Attacks policy: "Comment on content, not on the contributor."--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:35, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
- Just because you throw a bunch of words up it doesn't mean you actually said anything legitimate. 1. We have no clue if it is urine nor is it usable as such. Nor is the person even "drinking" it. 2. There is no use for an image of urine. 3. The even claim is laughably absurd and makes it seem like you would say anything to keep it even though it has no place as proven by it not being -ever- used. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:25, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
- As I've already explained, this is the only image we have of a person drinking urine, which is relevant to encyclopedic topics, even though editors may elect not to use it at the moment. Dcoetzee (talk) 17:09, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
- Keep In scope. We have many articles on subjects, especially sexual ones, illustrated with drawings; does it matter if this photograph really shows urine drinking (not that anyone has given any evidence that's not), so long as it's a working representation for our users?--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:35, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
- The image is obviously not being used nor is there any example of possible use. User has expressed a desire to fight against what he sees as "censorship" to the point of keeping an image regardless of its actual usability. Political point of view is not an appropriate keep rationale. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:10, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
Keep The image is obviously not being used but there is many examples of possible use. User has expressed a desire to fight against what he sees as "indecency" to the point of wanting to delete a an image regardless of its actual usability. Political point of view is not an appropriate keep rationale. Also as it may be disgusting is within scope and as educational purposes. Tm (talk) 04:59, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Kept. Jcb (talk) 23:35, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
Arumentation is the same as in Commons:Deletion requests/File:2x2 matrixcollage.jpg. Montage is not usefull for educational purposes, it uses some (blurred out) picturs without any source, description for them. Martin H. (talk) 23:36, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
- {{Vd}} for nominator's reason. I have advised the uploader that if he or she wishes to create a montage, he or she should use images that do not need to be blurred out. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 08:37, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
I replaced the pictures with images from CC.
- Please add sources to the image description. --Martin H. (talk) 13:39, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Unsourced pictures will not stay longer...--...Captain......Tälk tö me 15:36, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
description and sources added...The scope is "notable events of the 80s" — Preceding unsigned comment added by SFCOLLAGE (talk • contribs) 18:58, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
- Keep: I think the image looks OK now, so I am changing my vote to "keep". SFCOLLAGE, I would suggest that you tag this image and "File:1st SFCOLLAGE.jpg" with {{Rename}} to change the filenames to something more descriptive, such as "File:Montage of notable events of the 1980s.jpg". — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 13:03, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
Kept. - but I deleted old versions with copyright problems - Jcb (talk) 23:38, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
