Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2011/01/04
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
|
|
-hexacyclinol-2D-skeletal-200px.png){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
Author was 16 years old when he copied this image from a blog and uploaded it here. It's not likely that he is the copyrightholder. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 10:54, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Small mass-delete likely to follow too. Wknight94 talk 13:53, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Uploader is 16 years old (see es:User:Davidbaquero) and not likely the copyrightholder of the logo of a Colombian political party. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 11:05, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Wknight94 talk 13:54, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Incomplete DR by User:4028mdk09:
- out of scope, not used or categorized since 2/2010
-- Common Good (talk) 19:23, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
- Speedy
Delete: hidden.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:28, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Martin H. (talk) 00:44, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
out of scope Reinhardhauke (talk) 15:30, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
Jon Stephenson von Tetzchner, CEO of Opera Software Kept. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:26, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Reopening DR.
Delete The image is very small and cropped from http://www.flickr.com/photos/41149903@N04/4348370614/. No permission. -- Common Good (talk) 20:34, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Delete Agreed. Good catch! Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 00:04, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Blatant copyright violation: image comes from here and exists there in a higher resolution. Images from the opera homepage are copyrighted (Copyright © 2011 Opera Software ASA. All rights reserved.). As long as there is no valid OTRS permission this issue is just copyright violation. --High Contrast (talk) 22:55, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
-hexacyclinol-2D-skeletal-200px.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
-hexacyclinol-2D-skeletal-200px.png&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
chemically incorrect and unused (corrected structure uploaded at File:Hexacyclinol-2D-skeletal.png). Uploader agrees with deletion: [1] DMacks (talk) 04:53, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
-hexacyclinol-2D-skeletal-200px.png){kind=link}
- Delete Per nom. --Yikrazuul (talk) 10:58, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
Speedydeleted. Leyo 11:05, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
-hexacyclinol-2D-skeletal-200px.png){kind=link}
Missing OTRS permission Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 03:33, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
- This deletion request is invalid. Content that predates the OTRS does not require OTRS tagging: Commons:OTRS/Noticeboard#Content_that_predates_OTRS_but_has_proper_legacy_license_tagging and Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive_21#OTRS_permissions_required_for_old_cases.3F. For good measure i contacted the creator anyway to see if he wants to add OTRS information. ---volty 12:33, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
Recommend to keep this file for now, and only re-instate the deletion request if we do not hear back from the creator who was first notified today. The image was uploaded prior to OTRS being in place, with proper legacy licensing information and the uploader / creator was notified less than 15 days ago about the missing OTRS permission. I uploaded this content to the Commons (moved it there from the English Wikipedia, including original license tagging) and I do not see any attempt to contact the uploader/creator prior to January 4 2011. Before filing a deletion request like this, we should give the (original) uploader at least 15 days to respond and fix the problem; especially if the content in question was originally uploaded before the introduction of OTRS, and if the content has proper legacy copyright information. Today I have contacted the user who originally uploaded the content (User Glogger on the English Wikipedia) via eMail, explained OTRS and asked to provide consent to OTRS accordingly. From what i'm concerned, this deletion request should be revoked and reinstated only if we do not hear back from the original uploader within the next 15 days (which i would still consider harsh for properly license-tagged pre-OTRS content). Once the 15 days have passed without response, a new deletion request with a new timeline for discussion should be spawned. My ¤ 0.02, ---volty 02:50, 5 January 2011 (UTC)(deleted by ---volty 12:33, 5 January 2011 (UTC))
- P.S. I saw in the version history of the file that Marcus Qwertyus at one point indicated that this may be a copyright violation with respect to http://wearcam.org/industrial_design. Please note that the file description of File:Aimoneyetap.jpg shows the original creator as being en:User:Glogger, whose user page states: "My own site (which is an intentionally disorganized dump of my thoughts and ideas) is http://wearcam.org." This contributes to my strong understanding of this file being NOT a copyright violation. ---volty 03:49, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
Kept. - nom withdraw. Didn't know there was a time before OTRS.
Blurred, easily replaceable by many other photos of the same train type at the same station; or elsewhere. -mattbuck (Talk) 17:13, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
- Keep It's not that blurred, and while there are other photos of the same type, there are no other of this particular train, with one exception. Therefore we should not delete it, what if this train was involved in an accident, making it much more notable and we had no photos of it? The exception is File:319445 at St Pancras 2.jpg, which is practically the same as this image (take same place, same date), yet is much more blurred than this one. Which begs the question why has this image been requested for deletion over the other one? Arriva436talk/contribs 17:45, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
- I grant the train in #2 is more blurred, but that's just subject motion blur, not camera motion blur as in the first one. In the first one everything is blurred. -mattbuck (Talk) 18:34, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
- You have a point, but the subject of the image is the train is it not? I'd rather keep the image with a small bit of blur all over than the one with the front of the train with a huge amount of blur. You can read the train's number in #1, you can't in #2. If we are worried about the rather boring surroundings of the train in the background, and the track, then yes, things are different. But we have many photos at the same station so it doesn't seem important. Arriva436talk/contribs 19:03, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
- I grant the train in #2 is more blurred, but that's just subject motion blur, not camera motion blur as in the first one. In the first one everything is blurred. -mattbuck (Talk) 18:34, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
- Keep There is nothing really wrong with this image, there is no credible reason to nominate it. This image is esily good enoth quality to warrent inclusion and User Mattbuck is operating unreasonably and should be watched Oxyman (talk) 13:14, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
I withdraw my nomination - Very well, if you think it's worthy of inclusion, I withdraw the nomination. However, I object to the idea that I am "operating unreasonably and should be watched". I don't outright delete stuff because it's bad quality, I nominate bad quality photos if I don't think they show something we don't already have in better quality. I think that is a way to improve our service here - Commons is not a repository for all your photos, it should be for educational images; and bad quality ones are not going to be used if they're easily replaced by another. -mattbuck (Talk) 13:34, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
wrong written Bernd Schwabe in Hannover (talk) 00:24, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Delete typo / missing colon ":". Uncontroversial cases like this can be tagged with Template:Speedy Benchill (talk) 06:49, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Common Good (talk) 18:37, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
also
Author: H. Behmer. Not enough info about his birth and death dates to verify PD status. -- Martina Nolte (talk) 01:06, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Keep According to de:Heinrich von Nathusius (Landwirt), the artist was Hermann Behmer (1831-1915). Lupo 11:01, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
Ah, okay. I couldn't find these informations. Thanks! I withdraw, of course, my request. --Martina Nolte (talk) 18:45, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
=== File:Пашпарт._Рэспубліка_Беларусь._2005._1.jpg ===
Unused duplicate of 
Stratforder (talk) 21:42, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted, Rehman 02:23, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
copyvio : image from a telefilm of 1999 Nemoi a parlé le 02:28, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted {{Nld}}, clearly unfree abf «Cabale!» 12:02, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
copyvio : image from a telefilm of 1999 Nemoi a parlé le 02:29, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted {{Nld}}, clearly unfree abf «Cabale!» 12:03, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Looks like flickrwashing because there is no freedom of panorama in France. I asked about uploading this to the French Wikipedia as fair use, but it cannot stay here. Chaser (talk) 05:14, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
- I didn't know anything about "Freedom of panorama", I thought there was no problem with Street art stuffs ... I'm probably wrong, so do what you have to do.
- Mossburg (talk) 08:09, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
- See the English discussion here. Is this genuinely a logo or is it just street graffiti? I cannot tell for sure because I'm not familiar with the subject, although it appears to be a sticker logo rather than spray, particularly with the small text above the design. I don't know whether applying Commons:Image_casebook#Graffiti to stickers is appropriate or not.--Chaser (talk) 16:17, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
- Zevs is known as a street and graffiti artist. A lot of graffiti writers uses some stickers as a part of their work, you can read more about stickers art here, it's considered a subcategory of Graffiti. So, i think this picture can be considered as a graffiti.
- Mossburg (talk) 19:59, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
- Fine with me. I'll leave this open in case anyone else has some other insight. But I'm no longer actively favoring deletion.--Chaser (talk) 03:45, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
- Thank you for this constructive discussion.
- Mossburg (talk) 22:08, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
- Fine with me. I'll leave this open in case anyone else has some other insight. But I'm no longer actively favoring deletion.--Chaser (talk) 03:45, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
- See the English discussion here. Is this genuinely a logo or is it just street graffiti? I cannot tell for sure because I'm not familiar with the subject, although it appears to be a sticker logo rather than spray, particularly with the small text above the design. I don't know whether applying Commons:Image_casebook#Graffiti to stickers is appropriate or not.--Chaser (talk) 16:17, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
Appears to be a Flickrwashed press image. Appears in this article that predates the date given on Flickr. Ytoyoda (talk) 06:20, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Besides the press image has a smaller resolution, it means that the flickr version probably has been flickrwashed. --Màñü飆¹5 talk 03:55, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
The site from which this image was taken (http://www2.akb48.co.jp/) says "Copyright 2008 AKS All Rights Reserved". DAJF (talk) 10:29, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Copyvio. Yann (talk) 12:36, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Video game screenshot 93.211.86.219 10:51, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Yann (talk) 12:36, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
This image is out of the Commons' project scope. Where is the encyclopedic value of someone's dick hanging out of his trousers??? 93.211.86.219 10:55, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Out of scope. Yann (talk) 12:35, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
out of scope, not used or categorized 4028mdk09 (talk) 11:25, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Out of scope. Yann (talk) 12:37, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
derivative work (Puerto Rican artist... 1960s)... see also w:User talk:Magog the Ogre#Deleting Image Magog the Ogre (talk) 18:11, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Yann (talk) 12:46, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Bogus claim of ineligibility for copyright -- is identifiable image of a person, prob copied from http://www.tacoma.washington.edu/ias/about/faculty_detail.cfm?employee_id=633 Brianhe (talk) 22:59, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Kept. Copyvio. Yann (talk) 13:01, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Commons is not a personal photo album, out of scope. BrokenSphere (Talk) 20:32, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
- Keep user image. -- Docu at 08:24, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Because this pic is too old. 2freshworld (talk) 06:34, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
- Delete: reason is spurious, but the image is clearly made up of two separate images photoshopped together. Insufficient evidence to show that uploader had the right to use the underlying source images to create the composite image. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 07:07, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Trycatch (talk) 05:23, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
uploader has uploaded wotks credited both to Ginger Neumann and to Hanna Lubek, as well as to an unknown photo archive. licensing status is iffy. Calliopejen1 (talk) 00:08, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:48, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
uploader has uploaded wotks credited both to Ginger Neumann and to Hanna Lubek, as well as to an unknown photo archive. licensing status is iffy. (besides, who is the author of this underlying artwork?) Calliopejen1 (talk) 00:08, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:56, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
uploader has uploaded wotks credited both to Ginger Neumann and to Hanna Lubek, as well as to an unknown photo archive. licensing status is iffy. Calliopejen1 (talk) 00:09, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
In any case, it is not the pic of the 13th, but of the 14th Shamar Rinpoche. Would be nice, if this picture could remain in this site.
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:57, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
uploader has uploaded wotks credited both to Ginger Neumann and to Hanna Lubek, as well as to an unknown photo archive. licensing status is iffy. Calliopejen1 (talk) 00:09, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:57, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
Weird colour scheme with weird "balls" where the rings meet. I am unsure if it serves a purpose. It is not linked to and numerous alternatives are available. ~ OAlexander (talk) 05:35, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:01, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
Out of project scope self-portrait. Wikimedia NOT a Facebook George Chernilevsky talk 06:51, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:01, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
Higher resolution version of File:Bigbang-nasa.jpg. Delete this one, and add its categories and higher res version to File:Bigbang-nasa.jpg Smallman12q (talk) 13:05, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Kept. Added duplicate to File:Bigbang-nasa.jpg Captain-tucker (talk) 21:30, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
The license does not apply: We cannot be sure that the author died more than 70 years ago. Leyo 14:46, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
- Sadly, but per nom, COM:PRP. --Yikrazuul (talk) 18:37, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:04, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
This is a plain derivative work of a still copyrighted content. The uploader cannot release these posters under a Creative Commons license. There is no permission by the copyright holder that would allow this. Besides, de minimis does not work here. 93.196.44.156 16:04, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Comment This is the same sock puppet again whose only activity in Commons is to request delitions of my images. Look here. -- Ies (talk) 16:36, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
- Keep Think a little further to understand that there is no difference to any other image of the advertising posters of Germany or for instance World War II posters that origin from the same time. Either there is a copyright problem for the entire stuff or there is none. So either delete the entire stuff or none. -- Ies (talk) 16:49, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
The fact that there may be other similar material that ought to be deleted is irrelevant -- we deal with what is in front of us, not what we might search out. Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:06, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
unused photo of swedish band with no notability or article in sv or other wiki project - no foreseeable use, out of scope Santosga (talk) 16:17, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:09, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
Unlikely to by own work: small resolution, missing EXIF. EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:53, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Appear to be crop of professional head shot. Captain-tucker (talk) 22:10, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
Out of project scope: Text article with unsourced images. Martin H. (talk) 17:02, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:15, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
Because it was just a test, testing how it works to upload a file to Wiki Commons Fromanteel1 (talk) 17:19, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:17, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
unused photo of painter with no notability as decided here fr:Jean-Philippe Vallon - out of scope Santosga (talk) 19:17, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Keep this is not fr.wp. Other projects may consider him notable. -- Docu at 08:23, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
I tend to agree with the no-notability claim -- he doesn't appear on the first Google page for his name, but more serious is the fac that the uploader is not the author and there is no permission. Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:21, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
unused photo of musician with no notability as decided here pt::Wikipedia:Páginas para eliminar/Valterson Wottrich - out of scope Santosga (talk) 19:19, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:21, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
Comes from Commons:Flickr batch uploading/Plushev, this is some photo montage for maybe self importance but not own work entirely Martin H. (talk) 22:55, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:30, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
Wrong file uploaded - this image does not correspond to its description. Davebevis (talk) 19:12, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Captain-tucker (talk) 01:15, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
also
- File:Hundisburg alt Auffahrt Seite.JPG
- File:A D Thaer, old monument in Celle.JPG
- File:Försterhaus Landschaftspark.JPG
- File:AHL, Gartenseite, Postkarte.JPG
Postcard, no information about the author's identity and death date before or in 1940, so that 70 years pma status is not verified. Local German law allows PD for anonymous works published more than 70 years ago only for works created in or after 1995. -- Martina Nolte (talk) 00:41, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
- @Sysop: Before deleting: pls have a look at this disc, I do not have time to react on all those mass deletion requests seperatly. In case, you are a German speaker, pls have a look here too rgds --Wistula (talk) 22:05, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
- Keep - old anonymous photos are free according to German law. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:23, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
- See i.e. the note on Template:Anonymous-EU (with links to further informations). --Martina Nolte (talk) 22:36, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
- Indeed. (Please be a bit more explicit when you admit that you are wrong.) /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 23:10, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
- In which regard? --Martina Nolte (talk) 23:29, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
- Indeed. (Please be a bit more explicit when you admit that you are wrong.) /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 23:10, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
- See i.e. the note on Template:Anonymous-EU (with links to further informations). --Martina Nolte (talk) 22:36, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
Kept. Jcb (talk) 14:56, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
Newspaper publication, authors name is not given or known by the uploader. Local German law allows PD for anonymous works published more 70 years ago only for works created in or after 1995. -- Martina Nolte (talk) 00:53, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
- @Sysop: Before deleting: pls have a look at this disc, I do not have time to react on all those mass deletion requests seperatly. In case, you are a German speaker, pls have a look here too rgds --Wistula (talk) 22:04, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
- Keep - Nolte is misinformed. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:39, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
- Misinformed about what? See i.e. the note on Template:Anonymous-EU. --Martina Nolte (talk) 22:34, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
- There is no problem for photos. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 23:12, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
- Where should be made the difference between images/photos and other works? --Martina Nolte (talk) 23:35, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
- Subtleties of German legislation: "Während Fotografien nicht als Werke der bildenden Kunst im Sinne von § 66 Abs. 4 alter Fassung gelten" etcetera. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 23:54, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
- de-WP which you refer on, indeed, gives good examples. The former § 66 UrhG said (4) Die vorstehenden Bestimmungen sind auf Werke der bildenden Künste nicht anzuwenden. The paragraph was thus not applied on graphic art. §§ 64 and 65 had to be exclusively applied for these works and still are for graphic art created before July 1995. Photos are not graphic art, right. § 66 can be applied. But what's your point? --Martina Nolte (talk) 00:50, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
- The point is that it is now too late for anybody to start claiming copyright for this photo. It is in the public domain. For photos, the pre-1995 German law is almost the same as the post-1995 law. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 01:32, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
- And the publication date was? There is no date given except that the depicted person died in June 1936. --Martina Nolte (talk) 02:10, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
- It is a photo from an obituary, so this c. 1910 photo was published 1936. According to the laws in force in 1936, its copyright had already expired. There was no reason to mention the photographer's name when this photo (supplied by the family?) was published, and anyway, the photographer's name had probably already fallen in oblivion in 1936. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 08:32, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
- And the publication date was? There is no date given except that the depicted person died in June 1936. --Martina Nolte (talk) 02:10, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
- The point is that it is now too late for anybody to start claiming copyright for this photo. It is in the public domain. For photos, the pre-1995 German law is almost the same as the post-1995 law. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 01:32, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
- de-WP which you refer on, indeed, gives good examples. The former § 66 UrhG said (4) Die vorstehenden Bestimmungen sind auf Werke der bildenden Künste nicht anzuwenden. The paragraph was thus not applied on graphic art. §§ 64 and 65 had to be exclusively applied for these works and still are for graphic art created before July 1995. Photos are not graphic art, right. § 66 can be applied. But what's your point? --Martina Nolte (talk) 00:50, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
- Subtleties of German legislation: "Während Fotografien nicht als Werke der bildenden Kunst im Sinne von § 66 Abs. 4 alter Fassung gelten" etcetera. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 23:54, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
- Where should be made the difference between images/photos and other works? --Martina Nolte (talk) 23:35, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
- There is no problem for photos. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 23:12, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
- Misinformed about what? See i.e. the note on Template:Anonymous-EU. --Martina Nolte (talk) 22:34, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
Delete Lass dir nichts einreden. The only thing Pieter knows here is that he not knows anything. From this knowledge he concludes on public domain. Thats wrong. It does not matter if the authorship was disclosed to Pieter or was disclosed with the publication in this or in any other newspaper. If the author disclosed his identity to anyone the copyright will expire 70 years following the authors death. Most photographs have authors and therefore it is reasonable to assume that also this photo has an author. People communicate and also photographers do this in the decades after they made a photo like this, the newspaper editor got this image from somewhere or someone, archives collect negatives (or plates) and together with the collections they store author information, etc., given all this paths of communication and author disclosure it is reasonable to assume that it is possible to find out this author. We dont know if the author is unknown or not, and also Pieter impression does not constitute an unknown authorship. --Martin H. (talk) 02:19, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. - in this case, there could have been a name of a photographer lower at the page - Jcb (talk) 17:06, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
duplicate of File:JAMIE1.jpg 117Avenue (talk) 01:05, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Hi there. I am the owner and original uploader of both Jamie1.jpeg and jamiebaillie.jpeg. I would like to delete both as Jamie1 is obsolete and I intend to replace jamiebaillie with a lower resolution version of the photo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Milton19 (talk • contribs) 13:11, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
- See also Commons:Deletion_requests/File:JAMIE1.jpg. Yann (talk) 12:42, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Geagea (talk) 22:35, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
File:Imautodurchrersien8.JPG
[edit]
also
- File:Heinrich v N (Markus).JPG
- File:Süsswinkel.JPG
- File:AvT alt0001.JPG
- File:SvN alt.JPG
- File:Distanzritt1892 Ausschnitt.JPG
- File:Markus vN, Anzug, alt.JPG
- File:AvT, mit Frau.JPG
- File:AvT, Pferd + Lanze.JPG
- File:AvT, Distanzritt, Ausschnitt.JPG
- File:Bruno von Kern, General aD.JPG
.JPG){kind=link}
Group DR. The uploader could not provide further informations. See User_talk:Wistula#Urheber_.2B_Todesdatum_unbekannt and following discussions.
Anonymous work. Not enough information for PD-old / 70 years pma. No information about any publication. US law allows PD status to unpublished anonymous works that have never been registered in the US (independent from their origin) 120 years after creation. Thus PD as of 1. January 2011 only if they have been created before 1891. See http://copyright.cornell.edu/resources/publicdomain.cfm Martina Nolte (talk) 01:23, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
- Comment Delinked header, because File:Imautodurchrersien8.JPG has been published --> another group. --Martina Nolte (talk) 02:33, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
- @Sysop: Before deleting: pls have a look at this disc, I do not have time to react on all those mass deletion requests seperatly. In case, you are a German speaker, pls have a look here too rgds --Wistula (talk) 22:02, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
@Martina: Kannst Du nicht warten, bis wenigstens einer Deiner LAs ausdiskutiert und entschieden ist? Wer soll das noch überschauen? --Mbdortmund (talk) 16:09, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
- Hab ich bei einzelnen (quasi exemplarisch, u.a. um zu sehen, wie hier sowas überhaupt gehandhabt wird) und die ersten sind (z.T. auch als Gruppe) auch schon entschieden. Ich hab versucht die Dateien zur besseren Überschaubarkeit zu gleichartigen Paketen zusammengefasst (un-/bekannter Autor mit und ohne Infos zu Lebensdaten, un-/veröffentlicht usw.). Sowohl zur Vorklärung mit dem Uploader (seit November) auf seiner Disk. und dann die noch verbleibenden (m.E. ungeklärten) für diese Gruppen-DRs. Wenn ich die DRs nun einzeln stellen und jedes Mal bis zur Entscheidung warten würde, würde das noch ewig dauern. Alles richtig machen kann man bei sowas warscheinlich nicht. --Martina Nolte (talk) 18:26, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
- Keep - old anonymous photos. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:41, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
Kept. Jcb (talk) 17:12, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
also
medal (no official coin) from about 1905. No author name given or known. Not enough information for PD-old / 70 years pma -- Martina Nolte (talk) 01:26, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
- @Sysop: Before deleting: pls have a look at this disc, I do not have time to react on all those mass deletion requests seperatly. In case, you are a German speaker, pls have a look here too rgds --Wistula (talk) 22:01, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
Question - old, but what does it say at the bottom on the backside? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:42, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
- Here is the backside: File:HERMANN-VON-NATHUSIUS-MEDAILLE Seite 2.JPG. But the writing is illegible. --Túrelio (talk) 23:27, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
- It is more that the photo or scan is unclear; uploader should be able to tell. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 23:29, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
- Here is the backside: File:HERMANN-VON-NATHUSIUS-MEDAILLE Seite 2.JPG. But the writing is illegible. --Túrelio (talk) 23:27, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. - insufficient information to keep - Jcb (talk) 17:34, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
also for
- File:WEH von Dresler u Scharfenstein 3.JPG
- File:Johann Christoph Gatterer, Wohnhaus Göttingen.JPG
- File:Johann Christoph gatterer, portrait.JPG
- File:Imautodurchrersien3.JPG
- File:Imautodurchrersien8.JPG
Subgroup Polte-Werke:
- File:Polte-Werke, Garderobenraum.JPG
- File:Eugen Polte, Orden.JPG
- File:Polte-Werke, Eisengiesserei.JPG
- File:Polte-Werke, Prüf-und Messanlage 1935.JPG
- File:Polte-Werksfeuerwehr 1935.JPG
- File:Polte-Werke, LKW Fuhrpark, 1935.JPG
- File:Polte-Werke, Versandhalle, 1935.JPG
- File:Polte-Werke, Talsperre.JPG
- File:Polte werk Ia.JPG
- File:Polte Werk Halberstädter Str.JPG
- File:Polte, Absperrschieber.JPG
- File:Polte, Gasschieber0002.JPG
- File:Polte Werk Poltestr..JPG
Group DR. See User_talk:Wistula and following discussions.
Anonymous published works. (The uploader partly placed his RL name (Mark Nikolaus von Nathusius mistakenly in the credit field as author.) Not enough information about the authors' life and death dates for PD-old / 70 years pma, needing author's death before or in 1940. Local German law allows PD for anonymous works published more 70 years ago only for works created in or after 1995. -- Martina Nolte (talk) 02:03, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Discussion about subgroup Polte-Werke
- Ich werde das mal in Deutsch beantworten, da es im wesentlichen die Bebilderung des ausschliesslich in de:WP beheimateten Artikels zu den Polte-Werken betrifft. Dieser Artikel umfasst rund 85 KB und betrifft einen der ehemals grössten Waffen/Munitionsproduzenten Europas. Wie dem Artikel entnehmbar ist, existiert die Firma nicht mehr, sie ist quasi mehrfach aufgelöst worden: entschädigungslose Enteignung nach dem Krieg, mehrfach Umfirmierung in DDR, Liquidation in BRD (1970), Liquidation nach Verkauf (juristischer Nicht-) Nachfolger zu Treuhandzeiten. Es gibt keine Rechtsnachfolger mehr. Die strittigen Fotos stammen aus Verkaufskatalogen der Firma aus den 1930er Jahren, sie wurden zur Bebilderung dieser Kataloge angefertigt, sind auch entsprechend einheitlich nachbearbeitet. Die (mir im Original vorliegenden) Kataloge enthalten keine Copyright-Hinweise betr der Fotos, weder im Impressum noch an den Fotos selbst. Entsprechend sind die Rechte der Firma Polte zuzuschreiben, die - je nach Sichtweise seit 65 bzw 41 bzw etwa 10 Jahren - nicht mehr existiert und keine Rechtsnachfolger mehr hat. Ergo kann imo niemand Rechte an diesen Fotos geltend machen. Ich bezweifle ganz stark, dass es die Nachkommen der Eigentümer vor Enteigung nach dem Krieg machen könnten. Das beträfe aber Angehörige meiner (Gross-) Familie. Nun könnte jemand auf die fabelhafte Idee kommen, zu verlangen, dass sämtliche Nachkommen der ehemaligen Eigentümer einer Veröffentlichung zustimmen müssten - das beträfe überschlägig 20 lebende Personen und ist ergo aus praktischen Gründen (20 Leute müssten mit klar zuordenbaren e-Adressen OTRS anmailen) nicht realisierbar. Allg.: Die LA-Stellerin fühlt sich offenbar berufen, Commons im grossen Stil von solchen Dateien zu befreien, die nicht den Wortlaut der letzten noch irgendwo findbaren Regelung entsprechen. Nicht, dass mir solch ein Denkansatz oder Wesenszug sympathisch sein muss - formell ist dagegen wenig einzuwenden. Dem Sinne nach wäre imo allerdings auch eine Abwägung von Interessen (wo kein Schaden, da kein Kläger, aber: Nutzen von Nutzern - der Artikel kommt auf 600-700 Aufrufe/Monat) sowie der Versuch einer Besserung erkannter Schwächen (gem dem Wikiprinzip - lieber retten als vernichten) statt eines Ordnung-muss-sein-Kaputtgehaues nicht falsch. --Wistula (talk) 09:04, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
- Zu deinen allgemeinen ad hominem Anmerkungen hier (zur Sache weiter unten): Es ist mitnichten mein Ziel Commons in großem Stil zu durchforsten; ich stolperte lediglich über einen Upload von dir mit vollkommen unzutreffender Lizenzierung und sah auf deiner Seite, dass es bereits mehrere Hinweise an dich wegen solcher fehlerhaften Lizenzierungen und fehlender Freigaben der Urheber gab sowie bereits erste Löschungen deswegen. Eine Stichprobe zeigte, dass du mehrere Hundert Dateien pauschal mit PD-old versehen hattest. "Lieber retten als vernichten" finde ich auch gut; deshalb habe ich dir im November die Dateien nach Problemgruppen sortiert, dir etliche Hinweise gegeben, was zu klären und ggf. nachzutragen ist (dies hab ich, wo mir möglich, auch selbst gemacht), welche Lizenzierung möglicherweise statt dessen zutreffen könnte, welche Bilder du unter die "pragmatische 100-Jahre-Regel" in die de-WP verschieben könntest usw. usf. Aber das ist dir zu mühselig und du findest, wo kein Kläger, da kein Richter. Dies ist nicht die Maxime von Commons, sondern das Projektziel ist eine Sammlung freier Medien, die jedermann für jegliche Zwecke weiterverwenden darf. --Martina Nolte (talk) 18:42, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
- Du willst ernsthaft hier einen wunderbar deutlichen und für am Thema Interessierte wertvollen Schattenriss (File:Johann Christoph gatterer, portrait.JPG) von Johann Christoph Gatterer, der erkennbar seit über 200 Jahren tot ist (Schattenrisse werden zu Lebzeiten angefertigt) und hier dieselbe Daseinsberechtigung haben sollte wie viele ähnlich schöne Werke (File:JALeisewitzxv.jpg, File:Goethe.GIF) löschen lassen. Du stellst so wie diesen Hunderte weitere meiner Dateien zur Löschung ein (natürlich ganz ohne zu forsten). Du willst mich zwingen (ich erwarte von Dir ...), zu dem von Dir als genehm erkannten Zeitpunkt die Lizenzen bzw Angaben zu ändern und solche LAs wie auf den Gatterer-Scherenschnitt zeitaufwendig zu beantworten. Und ich bin derjenige, der hier ad hominem arbeitet ??? Ach so, und ja: solche Aktionen nehme ich persönlich. Sie bedrohen nämlich mühsam viel Arbeit, die ich in das Scanen und Hochladen der Dateien gesteckt habe. Sie bedrohen die passende und komplettierende Bebilderung von Artikeln. Sie binden darüber hinaus jetzt viel Zeit. Ob Du es nachvollziehen kannst oder nicht - so etwas ärgert Leute. Damit wirst Du Sauberfrau leben müssen. --Wistula (talk) 21:47, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
- The argumentation of Wistula has inherent logic and follows word and spirit of applicable laws. Beyond this individual members of vaguely potential successors do not have rights that can be acceded individually. For this, these people would have to firstly regain the rights to the company, but for this, there is no legal way as the periods of limitations are well exceeded. There is no potential claimant to any potential rights imaginable (bar retroactive legislation). It would be a thoroughly unnecessary waste to renounce the interesting material. OAlexander (talk) 15:23, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
- Comment I separated in the headline the other six images from the subgroup of Polte-Werke images that both users refer on. This book is a one time 50th anniversary publication, no product catalogue for which could be assumed that the company acquired exclusive usage rights for any purposes. Only in this case, lack of heirs could be claimed. Historically this is of course very interesting material. It's legal status is unclear. --Martina Nolte (talk) 18:42, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
- I do have a serious problem with you claiming facts in matters you obviously do not know anything about. Why would you state, that the mentioned by you anniversary publication is not a product catalogue ? I do have this publication in front of me, both versions (in several issues, as I collect them since years): Gesamt-Ausgabe 1935 with 606 pages, out of those 573 pages are product specifications, while the remaing 30 pages refer to the company and company history, which is not unusual to have in catalogues. Wasser und Gas, Ausgabe 1935 has 330 pages, again 30 pages about the company, the others: product specifications, order procederes, legal claimers trade aso. Both catalogue-covers are to be seen at the Polte-Werke-article in de:WP - still not announced for deletion, I guess, that will change soon. In the subtitle for those fotos I even mentioned the expression Jubiläumskatalog - (jubilee catalogue), how would a German speaker not see or understand that ? You furtheron claim all fotos to be from that anniversary publication. Again - not true, not covered by the info at the files too. File:Polte Werk Poltestr..JPG eg is from a catalogue from 1931, this 290p-catalogue (red) is pictured too at the article. Your statement above shows: though claiming the opposite, you are not interested in saving those files at all. Vice versa - you constantly construct reasons for deletion. Even with the help of clearly false statements. --Wistula (talk) 21:47, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
- Wistula, on several description pages you wrote book, Polte Werke, 50 years jubilee and delivered it's title as Polte Armaturen- und Maschinenfabrik, 1885 - 1935, 50 Jahre Armaturen, Gesamt-Ausgabe 1935, Magdeburg, Deutschland. We had a short discussion about theses images in November where you suggested that, having payed for these images, the company should have exclusive copyrights. I explained that works for hire are not automatically "owned" including exclusive copyrights by the customer (or, in other cases of you uploads, copies of pictures "owned" by you do not automatically fall under your personal copyright). :::In November you arranged permissons for most of the contemporary images and gave birth and death dates for some authors. Since then you refuse to add informations for all the rest of these globally PD-old tagged images and instead blame me to "cleanup" Commons. Of course, it is a question of principle if Commons wants to gather potencially or really free media. --Martina Nolte (talk) 14:31, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
- ... and that is the next problem: you are not able to admit a mistake. You said all fotos to be from one book - that was wrong. You said, that not to be a product catalogue - wrong again. Which was the base of your argumentation of a single use only (which in your opinion indicates, the fotos to be used somewhere else, therefor copyrights not to be with the book publisher ...) - which so turned out to be wrong too. So what to do now: blame the uploader for info which mislead you, coming up with new deletion-arguments. This is an endless circle. I do not have time to follow-up/answer all this deletion-apps and running 10kb discussions about each single file. That is, why I stopped to react on your activities (and you are right: I did in the beginning til it turned out that being a fruitless undertaking with you), as they do not intend to save files. --Wistula (talk) 15:45, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
- Sorry, it was not me who uploaded hundreds of images created by others and stated for (nearly) all that they would be PD-old regardless if authors are known or not, their life dates known or not, if published or not etc. It was also not me who stated that he wouldn't know much about copyright issues and also didn't want to think too much about it. Where PD-old wasn't clearly recognizable I asked you for further informations. Sometimes images where only lacking informations in the description (like for Category:Franz Müller-Münster images and others where I added the informations then provided by you). There are others where you didn't or couldn't provide these informations or where the situation still seems unclear to me or ehere images are in a twilight zone. I think that admins deciding on DRs do have a deeper understanding of such legal issues and will decide thouroughly and keep whatever they can keep. --Martina Nolte (talk) 18:14, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
- ... and that is the next problem: you are not able to admit a mistake. You said all fotos to be from one book - that was wrong. You said, that not to be a product catalogue - wrong again. Which was the base of your argumentation of a single use only (which in your opinion indicates, the fotos to be used somewhere else, therefor copyrights not to be with the book publisher ...) - which so turned out to be wrong too. So what to do now: blame the uploader for info which mislead you, coming up with new deletion-arguments. This is an endless circle. I do not have time to follow-up/answer all this deletion-apps and running 10kb discussions about each single file. That is, why I stopped to react on your activities (and you are right: I did in the beginning til it turned out that being a fruitless undertaking with you), as they do not intend to save files. --Wistula (talk) 15:45, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
- Wistula, on several description pages you wrote book, Polte Werke, 50 years jubilee and delivered it's title as Polte Armaturen- und Maschinenfabrik, 1885 - 1935, 50 Jahre Armaturen, Gesamt-Ausgabe 1935, Magdeburg, Deutschland. We had a short discussion about theses images in November where you suggested that, having payed for these images, the company should have exclusive copyrights. I explained that works for hire are not automatically "owned" including exclusive copyrights by the customer (or, in other cases of you uploads, copies of pictures "owned" by you do not automatically fall under your personal copyright). :::In November you arranged permissons for most of the contemporary images and gave birth and death dates for some authors. Since then you refuse to add informations for all the rest of these globally PD-old tagged images and instead blame me to "cleanup" Commons. Of course, it is a question of principle if Commons wants to gather potencially or really free media. --Martina Nolte (talk) 14:31, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
- I do have a serious problem with you claiming facts in matters you obviously do not know anything about. Why would you state, that the mentioned by you anniversary publication is not a product catalogue ? I do have this publication in front of me, both versions (in several issues, as I collect them since years): Gesamt-Ausgabe 1935 with 606 pages, out of those 573 pages are product specifications, while the remaing 30 pages refer to the company and company history, which is not unusual to have in catalogues. Wasser und Gas, Ausgabe 1935 has 330 pages, again 30 pages about the company, the others: product specifications, order procederes, legal claimers trade aso. Both catalogue-covers are to be seen at the Polte-Werke-article in de:WP - still not announced for deletion, I guess, that will change soon. In the subtitle for those fotos I even mentioned the expression Jubiläumskatalog - (jubilee catalogue), how would a German speaker not see or understand that ? You furtheron claim all fotos to be from that anniversary publication. Again - not true, not covered by the info at the files too. File:Polte Werk Poltestr..JPG eg is from a catalogue from 1931, this 290p-catalogue (red) is pictured too at the article. Your statement above shows: though claiming the opposite, you are not interested in saving those files at all. Vice versa - you constantly construct reasons for deletion. Even with the help of clearly false statements. --Wistula (talk) 21:47, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
first six images
The uploader claimes above, that the depicted person (I now added her life dates in the descr.) died in 1799. That's really long ago. We do not know the author nor the creation date of this papercutting and do not know if it was reused for this publication or newly created for it. Publication year is given as 1921 with a notice by the uploader probably much older. This might be or might not. We can suggest the one or the other. --Martina Nolte (talk) 14:31, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
- The uploader (me) claims nothing, just stated that already at the file very visible the life data of the pictured person is given. In future pls just have a look at the file, before you apply for its deletion ... It is unclear whether this is a papercut or a painted silhouette (the later I intend to believe in this case). In any case: one needs a shadow to do such work (that is why it is called in German "Schattenriss"). Difficult to organize with century old corpses; that is why they are/have been done in 99,99% with people alive. All your "We don't know ..."- questionmarks once again show, that you are desperatly searching for the even most ridiculous reasons to delete, delete, delete. --Wistula (talk) 15:26, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
- Keep Unmanageable nomination - File:Johann Christoph Gatterer, Wohnhaus Göttingen.JPG is clealy PD-Old. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:38, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
Kept. - I checked them one by one and none of them seems problematic - Jcb (talk) 22:52, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
A company's collection stamp from 1930. Like File:Pilz,_Erfurt,_Sammelmarken_2.JPG. -- Martina Nolte (talk) 02:27, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
- @Sysop: Before deleting: pls have a look at this disc, I do not have time to react on all those mass deletion requests seperatly. In case, you are a German speaker, pls have a look here too rgds --Wistula (talk) 22:01, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
- Keep old. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:46, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
Kept. Jcb (talk) 22:53, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
File:Stich_der_G.F._Flechtner_Mechanische_Webereien,_Bleiche,_Färberei_und_Appreturanstalt_in_Langenbielau,_auf_Firmenbriefpapier.JPG
[edit]
Image in a company's letterhead, created about 1900. No obvious reason for PD. -- Martina Nolte (talk) 02:35, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
@Sysop: Before deleting: pls have a look at this disc, I do not have time to react on all those mass deletion requests seperatly. In case, you are a German speaker, pls have a look here too rgds --Wistula (talk) 22:00, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
- Keep old anonymous letterhead. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:48, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
Kept. Jcb (talk) 22:56, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
.svg){kind=link}
.svg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
This pic is false is not correct Bserin (talk) 08:30, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
.svg){kind=link}
- Please explain what is "false" in this coat of arms. According to the french "blasonnement" (1984, voted by the Conseil Municipal), it seems perfectly correct to me.
- --Syryatsu (talk) 08:46, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
Kept. Jcb (talk) 22:59, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
.svg){kind=link}
Eletrobras logos
[edit]Copyrighted logos. No source, no permission. see also the following, which have been deleted:
All of the following:
- File:Eletrobras acre.JPG
- File:Eletrobras alagoas.JPG
- File:Eletrobras amazonas.JPG
- File:Eletrobras cepel.JPG
- File:Eletrobras cgtee.JPG
- File:Eletrobras chesf.JPG
- File:Eletrobras eletronorte.JPG
- File:Eletrobras eletronuclear.JPG
- File:Eletrobras eletropar.JPG
- File:Eletrobras eletrosul.JPG
- File:Eletrobras rondonia.JPG
- File:Eletrobras roraima.JPG
- File:Eletrobrascgtee1.JPG
Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:58, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. --Màñü飆¹5 talk 03:59, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
evidence needed that this is really the new logo. History comments show image has been manipulated --JPense (talk) 13:00, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
- this is a fake. The image has been manipuleted. This is a retouched image. Lery007 (talk) 13:42, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
this is a fake. The image has been manipuleted. This is a retouched image.
On constate très clairement que l'image a été retouchée. Le clocher de l'église a été coupé et collé à droite. On peut très bien voir la différence de blanc à l'endroit initial du clocher.
Lery007 (talk) 03:32, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
- Delete. Permission to "adapt" trademark, if it ever existed, does not extend to manipulations that may be deemed insulting, or merely a prank. NVO (talk) 10:26, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. fake George Chernilevsky talk 12:16, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
wrong geometry, should be replaced by File:Screw Head - Bristol.svg 92.106.226.110 14:24, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 00:00, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
No evidence that the picture was published before 1949, the source link is a circle reference to Wikipedia. The person was born 1914, so in this photo he has to be younger 35 years which is possible but can be questionated and therefore requires some reference. Martin H. (talk) 14:34, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 00:01, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
unused private image - out of scope Santosga (talk) 16:13, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
- Keep No real reason to delete it. --Herby talk thyme 16:57, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
- Delete It was created four years ago with probably a very special purpose - any future use is most unlikely. Anyway, I like the graphic. But out of scope to maintain. OAlexander (talk) 15:38, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
- Keep This creative image is useful as it can lead to interesting derived works. — Xavier, 22:18, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Out of scope --Mbdortmund (talk) 16:12, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 00:03, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
and other uploads by Evets ehcuofrah (talk · contribs). Unlikely to by own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF. EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:30, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
- Delete - does not look like own work. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:52, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
- Delete - Definitely not own work 173.33.166.58 17:35, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Copyio's Captain-tucker (talk) 19:09, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Text document. EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:45, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
- Not all text documents are necessarily out of scope: see here. TFCforever (talk) 02:33, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 00:04, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
Estonian Land Board images
[edit]- All images in Category:Estonian Land Board images (except ones in subcategory)
- Template:Attr-ELB
See talkpage of duplicate template. It's OK to use only this data as maps in subcategory do. To use other maps it's needed to purchase a license.
Also delete incorrect template which is used to tag nominated images as there is also more precise template available, which is used to tag images in subcategory. --193.40.10.180 17:17, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Kept. - invalid nomination, uploaders must be notified and all involved images must be listed one by one in the deletion request (this page) and must be tagged one by one with a nomination tag - Jcb (talk) 00:11, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
Per request above. I think everything is tagged now. I nominate following 32 images and 1 template for deletion:
- File:Ahtme_borough_2008.jpg
- File:Department_of_Social_Weltare_of_Tartu_2007.jpg
- File:Emajõe_Business_Centre_3.jpg
- File:Estonian_roads_2007.jpg
- File:Heritage_protection_area_in_Tartu_2007.jpg
- File:Ihaste_2007.JPG
- File:Jaamanõisa_2007.JPG
- File:Järve_borough_2008.jpg
- File:Karlova_2007.JPG
- File:Kesklinna_linnaosa_Tartu_2007.JPG
- File:Kompanii_street,_Tartu_01.JPG
- File:Kukruse_borough_2008.jpg
- File:Küüni_street_2007_3.jpg
- File:Maarjamõisa_2007.JPG
- File:Oru_borough_2008.jpg
- File:Port_of_Heltermaa_6.png
- File:Prison_of_Tartu.JPG
- File:Raadi_Kruusamäe_2007.JPG
- File:Raadi_airport.jpg
- File:Ropka_2007.JPG
- File:Ropka_tööstusrajoon_2007.JPG
- File:Ränilinn_2007.JPG
- File:Sompa_borough_2008.jpg
- File:Supilinn_2007.JPG
- File:Tammelinn_2007.JPG
- File:Tähtvere_2007.jpg
- File:Uueturu_street_2007_1.jpg
- File:Vaksali_2007.JPG
- File:Variku_2007.JPG
- File:Veeriku_2007.jpg
- File:Viivikonna_borough_2008.jpg
- File:Ülejõe_2007.JPG
- Template:Attr-ELB
193.40.10.181 14:41, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:20, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
"Reuse and reprint recommended provided source is stated" doesn't meet the requirements for free permission. For example it lack explicit permission to create derivative works. Blacklake (talk) 17:35, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Kept. - attribution *is* a permitted condition at Wikimedia Commons - Jcb (talk) 00:13, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
Is the license free enough? Uwe W. (talk) 09:33, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
- I retract the request, sorry my mistake--Uwe W. (talk) 09:46, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
Kept. - revoked by nominator - Jcb (talk) 10:30, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
Wrong license. See fr:Fichier:Insigne GIGN.svg -- Common Good (talk) 21:09, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
- Then if i'tll be delete pleas upload it on wikipeida und use the de:template:Bild-PD-Amtliches Werk--Sanandros (talk) 17:04, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 00:15, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
no FOP in the United States for artwork Magog the Ogre (talk) 21:21, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
- Comment park was established 1969, this statue is likely old enough to need a copyright sign, and probably it does not have one. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:57, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
- Remember the artwork must be published (i.e., many copies distributed to the public). The simple exhibition of a piece of work does not constitute publication in the US. Magog the Ogre (talk) 13:10, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
- That is not true. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 07:51, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
- Yes it is: w:publication says publication [in the US] is defined as: the distribution of copies... of a work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending. A public... display of a work does not of itself constitute publication.... In Germany, §6 of the Urheberrechtsgesetz additionally considers works of the visual arts (such as sculptures) "published" if they have been made permanently accessible by the general public (i.e., erecting a sculpture on public grounds is publication in Germany). Australia and the UK (as the U.S.) do not have this exception and generally require the distribution of copies necessary for publication. In the case of sculptures, the copies must be even three-dimensional. You might like to qualify your absolutist statements unless you can back them up. Magog the Ogre (talk) 14:13, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
- Before 1978, statues were considered published when they were unveiled and accessible for public view. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:37, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
- OK; can you provide a source for that? Thanks. Magog the Ogre (talk) 19:38, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
-
- It sounds like the en.wp article is incorrect then, or at least only partially correct. It sounds like we're dealing with an ad hoc case law in which there is no set law. OK, I then withdraw. Magog the Ogre (talk) 22:49, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
- I don't recall seeing any copyright notice posted when I've visited the statue. Bitmapped (talk) 03:31, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
Kept. Jcb (talk) 00:17, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted by User:Zscout370 at en.wp (no source) -- Common Good (talk) 21:21, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
- Sorry, but I don't understand why a deletion at en has any effect here. Isn't it quite normal to delete photos, which are at commons now? Anka Friedrich (talk) 19:24, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
- The Image has been deleted due to copyright concerns (Category:Images with unknown source/Category:Images with unknown copyright status). -- Common Good (talk) 20:01, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 00:22, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
Unused duplicate of File:Пашпарт. Рэспубліка Беларусь. 2009. 1.jpg Stratforder (talk) 21:37, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Kept. - not an exact duplicate, also for exact duplicates please use {{Duplicate}} - Jcb (talk) 00:23, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
Unused duplicate of Stratforder (talk) 21:40, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Kept. Jcb (talk) 00:25, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
Unused duplicate of Stratforder (talk) 21:41, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Kept. Jcb (talk) 00:25, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
Unused duplicate of Stratforder (talk) 21:42, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Kept. Jcb (talk) 00:25, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
Unused duplicate of Stratforder (talk) 21:46, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
- Keep colors are different. -- Docu at 08:33, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Kept. Jcb (talk) 00:27, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
Unused duplicate of Stratforder (talk) 21:48, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Kept. Jcb (talk) 00:27, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
Unused duplicate of 
Stratforder (talk) 21:50, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
- Keep doesn't seem to be the same version of the passport. -- Docu at 08:32, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Kept. Jcb (talk) 00:27, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
Unused duplicate of 100px Stratforder (talk) 21:52, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
- Keep, clearly not a duplicate. It's a different photo of a different passport of the some country. --ŠJů (talk) 22:32, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
Kept. Jcb (talk) 00:29, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
Unused duplicate of 100px Stratforder (talk) 21:54, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
- Keep, not duplicate but a different photo by different author. --ŠJů (talk) 22:49, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
Kept. Jcb (talk) 00:29, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
Unused duplicate of 100px Stratforder (talk) 22:00, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
- Keep it's not a duplicate as identified by MediaWiki. The colors are different too. -- Docu at 08:26, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
- Keep, not a duplicate but a different photo by different author. It seems be also of different color variant. --ŠJů (talk) 23:34, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
Kept. Jcb (talk) 00:29, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
Unused duplicate of 100px Stratforder (talk) 22:01, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
- Keep other image seems over-cropped. -- Docu at 08:28, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
- Keep, not a duplicate but a different photo by different author. --ŠJů (talk) 23:37, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
Kept. Jcb (talk) 00:29, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
Lacking source information, author, description, unused, duplicate of 100px Stratforder (talk) 22:05, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
_of_Montenegro.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
- Keep clearly not a duplicate - a different photo of a different passport of the same country, different composition (one is a photo of the passport, the second seems to be something like a copy of the passport). The photo is not a creative artwork and evidently not a proffesional work - and the uploader claims himself as the copyright holder through the license template. Copyright violation is a nonsense in this case. --ŠJů (talk) 22:39, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
Kept. Jcb (talk) 00:29, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
Unlösbare Probleme mit dem PNG-Renderer. fini (talk) 22:09, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 00:31, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
The EXIF says the author is Igor Vereschagin, not Alexander Plyushchev, applies for a group of photographs:
- File:Би-2.jpg (which depicts Plyushchev on the left)
- File:Би-2_2.jpg
- File:Би-2 3.jpg
- File:Би-2 4.jpg
- File:Plushev 2.jpg (which focuses Plyushchev)
-- Martin H. (talk) 22:58, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
- I think that photos licensed with permission of Igor Vereschagin. Don't delete. -- TarzanASG +1 12:51, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. - no indication of such a permission - Jcb (talk) 00:44, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
False map without source Pececillo (talk) 23:00, 4 January 2011 (UTC) Correct malformed DR Captain-tucker (talk) 19:32, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
Kept. Jcb (talk) 00:48, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
False map without source Pececillo (talk) 23:01, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Kept. Jcb (talk) 00:48, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
Герб не может быть родовым для всех представителей рода Цителашвили; так как для этого нужно согласие большинства представителей рода и этот герб уже зарегистрирован в Украинском геральдическом обществе как личный герб трёх представителей рода Цителашвили. Levani1980 (talk) 02:49, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
deleted --32X (talk) 13:51, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
