Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2011/01/29
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
|
|
Commons:Deletion requests/Commons:Deletion requests/User:Manuelrz
The file is not realistically useful for an educational purpose. It adds nothing educationally distinct to the collection of images we already hold covering the same subject, especially if they are of poor or mediocre quality. THENEWMONO (a real person) 02:14, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Exact or scaled-down duplicate: File:Copy right symbol.jpg -- Common Good (talk) 18:50, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
No licensing and claimed source is "The Sun" so presumably under copyright Sphilbrick (talk) 15:49, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Copyright violation: http://www.thesun.co.uk/scotsol/homepage/sport/spl/3376211/Cheeky-monKI.html -- Common Good (talk) 18:34, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
useless Reinhardhauke (talk) 20:28, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Exact or scaled-down duplicate: File:Pao de Acucar RJ.jpg -- Common Good (talk) 18:12, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
INCORRECT Ringin (talk) 00:50, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
- Incorrect indeed. Suggest speedy as copyvio. NVO (talk) 02:08, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. George Chernilevsky talk 08:40, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
Unused personal photo, out of COM:SCOPE Ianezz (talk) 07:56, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. George Chernilevsky talk 08:44, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
Unused personal photo, out of COM:SCOPE Ianezz (talk) 07:57, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. George Chernilevsky talk 08:42, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
Unused low-quality personal photo of non-notable person, out of COM:SCOPE Ianezz (talk) 08:00, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. George Chernilevsky talk 08:43, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
Unused low-res personal photo, only contribution in a year, out of COM:SCOPE Ianezz (talk) 08:03, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. George Chernilevsky talk 08:46, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
Unused personal photo of non-notable person, out of COM:SCOPE Ianezz (talk) 08:05, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. George Chernilevsky talk 08:46, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
Unused personal photo, out of COM:SCOPE Ianezz (talk) 08:14, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. George Chernilevsky talk 08:48, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
Unused personal photo, out of COM:SCOPE Ianezz (talk) 09:24, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. George Chernilevsky talk 08:50, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
Unused personal user photo, out of COM:SCOPE Ianezz (talk) 09:26, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. George Chernilevsky talk 08:51, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
Unused low-quality personal photo, out of COM:SCOPE Ianezz (talk) 09:37, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
Delete, per nom. --Martin H. (talk) 12:35, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. George Chernilevsky talk 08:52, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
Completely useless, out of COM:SCOPE Ianezz (talk) 09:41, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. George Chernilevsky talk 08:53, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
No topic, nothing interesting visible Taxocat (talk) 14:18, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
- Delete per nominator's reasons. --ŠJů (talk) 09:56, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. George Chernilevsky talk 08:56, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
personal artwork Reinhardhauke (talk) 20:23, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. out of scope and probably copyvio George Chernilevsky talk 09:00, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
out of scope Reinhardhauke (talk) 20:24, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. George Chernilevsky talk 09:02, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
low quality and out of scope Reinhardhauke (talk) 20:25, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. George Chernilevsky talk 09:02, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
out of scope Reinhardhauke (talk) 20:26, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. George Chernilevsky talk 09:03, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
out of scope Reinhardhauke (talk) 20:29, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. George Chernilevsky talk 09:13, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
out of scope Reinhardhauke (talk) 20:29, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. George Chernilevsky talk 09:15, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
unused personal foto Reinhardhauke (talk) 20:30, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. George Chernilevsky talk 09:15, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
out of scope Reinhardhauke (talk) 20:31, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. George Chernilevsky talk 09:17, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
unused personal foto Reinhardhauke (talk) 20:32, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. George Chernilevsky talk 09:25, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
unused personal foto Reinhardhauke (talk) 20:34, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. George Chernilevsky talk 09:26, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
out of scope Reinhardhauke (talk) 20:35, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
Kept. Notable person fr:Christophe Patier George Chernilevsky talk 09:29, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
out of scope Reinhardhauke (talk) 20:49, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. George Chernilevsky talk 09:32, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
out of scope Reinhardhauke (talk) 20:50, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. George Chernilevsky talk 09:33, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
Orphaned, used in a now deleted out of scope page, Derivative work, no foreseeable use. FASTILY (TALK) 22:08, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted per nomination. abf «Cabale!» 18:45, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
No clear info on author or date. FunkMonk (talk) 00:58, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
Delete As a work first published in 2000, it is copyrighted until 31 December 2047 or later if PMA+70 is later. See http://www.copyright.cornell.edu/resources/publicdomain.cfm Teofilo (talk) 13:46, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Podzemnik (talk) 21:13, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
Nothing indicates this is PD old. FunkMonk (talk) 20:58, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
- Which part of 1925 you can't understand? Béria Lima msg 18:09, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
- What part of "life of the author plus 70 years" do you not understand? 1925 in itself doesn't explain when the author died. If it had been 1890 or something, yes, the author would most likely be dead more than 70 years ago, but this case is too recent to be certain. FunkMonk (talk) 18:43, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
- DeleteWe are told by the source site "Credit: Family of Captain George L. Anderson, C&GS", which says that it was not taken by a government employee, but by a member of the family of the government employee in the picture. If this sat in a family scrapbook until recently, it will be a while before it is PD, depending on when the family member died. Of course if it was published in 1925 and not renewed, then it is PD. So we must delete unless we can get more facts. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:01, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
- What part of "life of the author plus 70 years" do you not understand? 1925 in itself doesn't explain when the author died. If it had been 1890 or something, yes, the author would most likely be dead more than 70 years ago, but this case is too recent to be certain. FunkMonk (talk) 18:43, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
Keep - of course this circulated at the time. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 14:11, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Per Teofilo in the previous deletion request. A photograph first published in 2000 in the US in copyrighted until 2047, regardless of when it was taken (see [1]). Even if it were first published in 1925 in the US, it would still be in copyright if it complied with all formalities. User:Beria's unilateral restoration of the image was in error and out-of-process, and I advise them to use Commons:Undeletion requests in the future. Dcoetzee (talk) 13:36, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
Not own work (In low quality) Shiva temple in moscow is noticed...no source for its release by the artist ...Captain......Tälk tö me.. 10:35, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Podzemnik (talk) 21:39, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
unknown musical group - publicity Reinhardhauke (talk) 20:22, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Podzemnik (talk) 21:47, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
unknow musical group Reinhardhauke (talk) 20:27, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Podzemnik (talk) 21:44, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
unknown musical group Reinhardhauke (talk) 20:30, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Podzemnik (talk) 21:44, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
useless Reinhardhauke (talk) 20:36, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Yes, useless. Podzemnik (talk) 21:52, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
out of scope Reinhardhauke (talk) 20:37, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Unused image of nonsignificant band. Podzemnik (talk) 21:54, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
out of scope Reinhardhauke (talk) 20:48, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Podzemnik (talk) 21:55, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
out of scope Reinhardhauke (talk) 20:51, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Unused personal image. Podzemnik (talk) 21:56, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
I doubt the picture on the top right corner is free. I could not find the mentioned URL on the internet. Teofilo (talk) 11:34, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
Kept. Permission received --Màñü飆¹5 talk 21:05, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
The file is not realistically useful for an educational purpose. It adds nothing educationally distinct to the collection of images we already hold covering the same subject, especially if they are of poor or mediocre quality. THENEWMONO (a real person) 02:14, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 23:54, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
This looks like it's taken from a brochure. Note the smiling faces on the actors. A higher-res version can be seen here. Powers (talk) 02:53, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 23:57, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
Derivative work of the paintings on the anchors. Powers (talk) 03:14, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 23:57, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
All images on this website are Copyright to © Simon Fieldhouse 2009 [2] -58.176.42.242 03:37, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 23:58, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
Licensing is invalid. Copyright belongs to publisher, user claims it is own work The Interior (talk) 04:25, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 23:59, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
Unused low-quality personal photo, out of COM:SCOPE Ianezz (talk) 08:09, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 00:01, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
Same user, same pitifully low quality drawings and utter disregard for any basis in technical reality. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:37, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
- Keep I am under the impression that this image is correct, or atleast very close to it, allowing a simple image update. No information has been given on how to correct the image if indeed wrong (the above comment doesn't specificly state that it is). Image is very valuable as no good images are present at wikipedia of brushed/brushless engines (there is one nice image of Wapcaplet, but it doesn't really show individual components, nor differences to brushless engine)
KVDP (talk) 12:36, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
- Life is too short to teach you engineering, duff image by duff image.
- This image is literally meaningless: it conveys no meaning. Just how helpful is an image where its main feature is a row of question marks? What do the segments mean? Are these meant to be commutators? In which case, why are brushless motors included? Why is the motor described in terms of "electromagnets"? Whilst this is probably a translation issue in origin, it's badly misleading. Apart from the very earliest motors (e.g. Froment's Mouse mill motor) motors do not use electromagnets, at least in the apparent sense of a solenoid electromagnet working by attraction or repulsion. Describing field coils as electromagnets is very misleading.
- These two images (see File:1 2 3 phase E engine.JPG as well) are just a few scrawled lines with random words alongside. They have no basis in fact, they convey no further understanding or meaning to the reader. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:26, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
- Delete I can't make heads or tails of it. --Carnildo (talk) 20:53, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 00:04, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
Same user, same pitifully low quality drawings and utter disregard for any basis in technical reality. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:37, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
- Hey Andy,
I wasn't sure about this one so if it's incorrect, delete it. I have some other drawings which may be more correct, but not sure of them neither. It would nonetheless be useful to have either a schematic explaining the differences between the engine types (having 1, 2 and 3-phases) or otherwise, a good text (there isn't one as of yet). Finally, we need some restructuring in regards to the articles + images; some are arranged in a very confusing manner. KVDP (talk) 09:35, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Diagram is either oversimplified or wrong, and is so low-quality I can't figure out which it is. --Carnildo (talk) 20:56, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 00:04, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
No source of its PD release by the artist, and already deleted in En.Wiki w:User_talk:F16 ...Captain......Tälk tö me.. 10:38, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 00:05, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
Its not the drawing by the uploaded user, as its in web resolution and many similar images appears on website...No source is available for its free release ...Captain......Tälk tö me.. 10:43, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 00:06, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
converted to DR by me from a speedy by IP 93.220.124.223 for "the image is pretty outdated and not used since a long time, only here by Wikipedia, please delete this one and use the other picture contributed". --Túrelio (talk) 10:59, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
- Keep at least as long as the other image, File:Klaus Goldhammer hoch Web.jpg, has no OTRS-permission. --Túrelio (talk) 11:00, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
In use, therefore, kept. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 00:07, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
The permission E-mail copied on the Bulgarian Wikipedia talk page is not clear. Can be interpreted as "Wikipedia only", rather than a free license. Teofilo (talk) 12:05, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 00:07, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
I previously tagged the picture as speedy (no premission from book publisher) but the uploader reverted my speedy. Teofilo (talk) 12:12, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 00:08, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
Reclame voor/Publicity for Youtube Channel Kthoelen (talk) 14:09, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Per nom., --Podzemnik (talk) 15:11, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
- Keep I've uploaded a new version with the debatable content removed. --MainFrame (talk) 16:06, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
- Don't know if there is anything wrong with my browser, but the changes I've made don't appear, damn..... However, the debatable content is/can be removed and then there is nothing to argue about. Despite that it's a widely used file.--MainFrame (talk) 16:16, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
- Comment: It is widely used only because the uploader consistently attempts to insert his images at every possible opportunity. His talk page on en:wiki is full of warnings to stop - Amog |Talk 07:04, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
- Don't know if there is anything wrong with my browser, but the changes I've made don't appear, damn..... However, the debatable content is/can be removed and then there is nothing to argue about. Despite that it's a widely used file.--MainFrame (talk) 16:16, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
- Keep I agree with Mainframe, as now it's just a good photo of an ordinary modern laptop, there's nothing to consider innaproppriate
- Keep The author removed the parts were his youtube account name was shown. it is OK now
- I will remove the deletion request because of reason above. Kthoelen (talk) 18:02, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
Kept. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 00:09, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
copyrighted windows logo background image. Please show a blank screen or something free or a photo shot by you or .... Saibo (Δ) 21:37, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
- Who made it? By the way: the windows logo stays copyrighted by MS - regardless if it was used in someone else's wallpaper work. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 11:59, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
- As explained above, Delete revisions "23:25, 13 October 2010" to "05:10, 12 February 2011", Keep revision "02:04, 13 February 2011". Jappalang (talk) 12:19, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
- As explained above,
- Keep Windows logo has been replaced by Google's homepage. Please don't tell me that this is copyright violation too!!
- It is okay → Keep the recent version. However I don't like it as it is advertising for google. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 20:15, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
- It is okay →
- Keep Well I dont think my photo will affect in any way the search engine preferences of anyone, so if you agree remove the deletion request! Have a nice day! Georgy90
- Yep, I agree - but deletion requests can and should only be closed by admins. Just wait a bit. And: all the previous versions 2010-10-13T15:25:39 to 2011-02-11T21:10:02 in the history should be hidden. --Saibo (Δ) 14:15, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
Kept. but only the last revision. Béria Lima msg 14:20, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
Image of the copyrighted Windows 7 OS, along with a number of icons that are quite likely under copyright. Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 04:20, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
- Keep All de minimis, IMHO. Thoroughly discussed twice before. I suggest that before you nominate a file for deletion, if there is a talk page, look at it to see if the file has been previously kept. If so, read the discussions. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:06, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
- Hi Jim, and I suggest to look in the file history - the file was overwritten in the meantime. --Saibo (Δ) 14:43, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
- The last time this image was discussed, it did not use the Windows 7 desktop, and the operating system was blurred. The Google website text was blurred, making it unreadable. This new version uploaded in October has a high quality image of the Windows 7 user interface, as well as a number of copyrighted or trademarked logos. Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 14:52, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
Comment People should really not replace images like that. New image is not a different version of the same photo, it's a completely different photo which should have been uploaded as a different file, not over another one. VolodyA! V Anarhist (converse) 09:12, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
- Delete After thinking about this some more i think this is a case of a copyvio. The screen image needs to be blurred and then reuploaded with a different file name, the versions with Windows screen should be deleted from this one. VolodyA! V Anarhist (converse) 17:39, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
- Also even if the screen will finally be blurred, all the watermarked versions need to be deleted as they are automatically damaged. VolodyA! V Anarhist Beta_M (converse) 15:13, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
- Comment My apologies for my incorrect remark about looking at the talk page. However, my opinion that everything on the screen is de minimis stands. There are 35 icons on the screen -- any of them could easily be eliminated with affecting the image, which is the test of de minimis. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:22, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
- Keep Are pictures of Windows running on a computer not even allowed? Because of advertisements? Then what about File:Piccadilly Circus Panorama - April 2007.jpg ? CodeCat (talk) 22:51, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
- It is not about the advertisements, my concern is about the fact that this is a high quality image of the copyrighted Windows 7 user interface. It is clearly the main subject of the work, not a mere incidental occurrence as the image you linked above. The previous images were somewhat questionable, but at least the uploader had taken the step to use a blur tool on the screen area. If the screen of this image were blurred, there wouldn't be a problem. If that isn't changed, the file will remain a copyvio, no different than if someone took a screencapture and uploaded that. Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 23:30, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
- I'm not even sure a user interface falls under copyright, as it's not considered a creative work. Maybe patent, but that wouldn't affect a picture. CodeCat (talk) 12:23, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
- It is not about the advertisements, my concern is about the fact that this is a high quality image of the copyrighted Windows 7 user interface. It is clearly the main subject of the work, not a mere incidental occurrence as the image you linked above. The previous images were somewhat questionable, but at least the uploader had taken the step to use a blur tool on the screen area. If the screen of this image were blurred, there wouldn't be a problem. If that isn't changed, the file will remain a copyvio, no different than if someone took a screencapture and uploaded that. Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 23:30, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
- Keep Keep of course. Are you serious? This is almost dictatorship! If a picture of a laptop with a certain operating system is a violation, then a Mercedes car that has the emblem is also a copyvio? Seriously we have taken things too far! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.228.231.136 (talk • contribs)
- Copyright law regarding software is very different from copyright in regards to cars. Per Commons:Derivative works#Isn't every product copyrighted by someone? What about cars? Or kitchen chairs? My computer case?, every day objects may be covered by a patent, but not copyrighted. While software on the other hand is quite different. To quote Commons:Screenshots#Software,
| “ | In most cases, screenshots of computer software (which include programs, video games, operating systems) cannot be uploaded to Commons unless the software is released under a free software license that complies with the Commons licensing policy | ” |
- This is a high resolution image of the Windows 7 OS. An OS that is under copyright. It is clearly the main subject of the work, so it cannot be considered a trivial passing. I cannot believe I am having to fight to get a blatant copyright violation deleted, just because it has been around a while and is used on a large number of articles. Commons:Screenshots#Microsoft_products specifically mentions that screenshots of Microsoft software are prohibited on commons. Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 16:24, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
- Striking duplicate !vote made by 87.228.231.136 (talk · contribs)
{{vk}}I am the owner and I say keep. I also see that everybody else says the same thing. About computer software, visit the Laptop article and see the other pictures of laptops, they ALL have screenshots of software e.g Mac OS. Windows 8, Firefox and other. No one has nomited them for deletion. Also see on how many places this photograph is. Its a very widespread photo and will need work to replace it. I dont thing that this photo is going to affect anybody. Nobody will buy windows 7 just because it is on my photo...
Anyway, if i write on the description that i do not own this software's copyright is it ok?
In the article it says "unless the software is released under a free software license that complies with the Commons licensing policy (software released under licenses that meet the OSI definition of "Open Source" will meet the requirements"
Can i change the licencing and be ok? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.228.231.136 (talk • contribs)
- Notice that all of the images in that category either have blank or blurred screens. The one other image that does not, File:Hb486 dillo big.jpg, is running software released under a GDLF (free software license). Though that can of soda on the far right side really shouldn't be there, as it would be difficult to justify it meeting Commons:De minimis. Please note thaten:Wikipedia:Other stuff exists is not a reason for keeping an image. Just because there are other images on commons just as problematic, doesn't mean that they shouldn't be deleted. Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 21:21, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
- Keep Okay. What can I do to repair the photo and make it appropriate? if i write on the description that i do not own this software's copyright is it ok? Please tell me
Tell me what i should do to repair the pic!! Dont delete it
- Please try to blur the contents of the screen so that it's not possible to cut the image in such a way as to make it a depiction of the Windows GUI. I believe that will make it possible to keep. It is a good image, and i hope it will be kept. VolodyA! V Anarhist (converse) 13:53, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Ok i blurred the titles of the programs. I hope it's ok now and you remove the deletion request --Georgy90 (talk) 20:24, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
- "Contents of the screen" are clearly not "titles of the programs". In fact titles of the programs is the only thing on there which you can definitely keep. My main concern would be (from most likely to be a copyvio to least likely): icons, the start button, the background, the interface of the window. VolodyA! V Anarhist (converse) 01:43, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
Can anybody do this for me?? I am not very good with photoshop and i would be grateful if someone did it!! Please dont delete it without warning!!
Please help!!--87.228.231.136 19:04, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
Okay, I took another shot, with uncopyrighted firefox. No icons, and blurred start button. Now remove that deletion request ASAP.
Thank you, The owner --Georgy90 (talk) 20:51, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
- The new image has multiple copyrights in play. While the Mozilla browser is free software, it still has a license. The Wikipedia logo is under a license, as is the Wikipedia article text. {{free screenshot|license={{MPL}}}} would need to be added to the image description page in order to comply with the Mozilla license. Adding {{Wikipedia-screenshot|1=en|logo=yes}} should address the logo and text concerns, though you may wish to add a link to the Laptop history page. Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 00:06, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
I added both the codes you gave me.. Anything else?
- I believe the current version is fine now. An admin just needs to delete the old file revisions. Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 19:06, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
- Please stop uploading new versions on top of other photos (I will revert this file)! Please also stop using that ugly yellow watermark. --Saibo (Δ) 02:44, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
- There is no need for this long debate. As the author is in a position to get many similar photos just FULLSCREEN the Firefox browser(default F11) and be done with it. All those worrys about the windows bar will be gone. Also those about firefox copyright will also be gone.--Gauravjuvekar (talk) 14:48, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
PS-per Saibo STOP USING THE BLOODY WATERMARK--Gauravjuvekar (talk) 14:51, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
- Delete
- 1. The current version of the picture shows proprietary software logos on stickers below the keyboard, at bottom left (Intel Centrino, Windows Vista, Windows 7, Dolby, Bluray, and Nvidia).
- 2. There are six logo-icons including Windows, Internet Explorer, and Firefox showing on the bottom left of the monitor.
- 3. Youtube, Facebook and Panoramio logos also appear in the Firefox tabs at the top of the browser.
- 4. The older version of this picture showing even more software logos/icons appears within the Wikipedia article that has been photographed, thereby in effect reverting to a previous photograph that was in violation.
- 5. This whole thing is just a vanity project by the uploader whose name appears three times in browser tabs in the image, plus once in the Google search box in Firefox (top right), and – because the cursor is resting on the photograph within the photographed Wikipedia article (still with me?) – the file name "Acer Aspire 8920 Gemstone by Georgy.JPG" appears on the browser status bar at bottom left. That is a total of five instances of the author's name in this image – not forgetting the fact that he named the file name after himself, although his name is irrelevant to the subject. It is not in the spirit of Wikicommons to upload images devoted to such intensive self promotion like this. The picture should be about the laptop, not a calculated ego trip. Georgy has been warned by someone on his user page against self promotion, and he has also awarded himself a Barnstar saying "You are amazing!" This user has had previous files deleted for the same violations in the past. He has also been involved in Wikipedia edit wars over the terrible quality of the images which he uploads and tries to force into articles, replacing ones of much superior quality. This one is a particularly awful example, and should be deleted too.
- 6. To cap it all, the picture is badly and unevenly lit with a harsh illumination gradient, and the entire left foreground is out of focus. The picture has little merit to speak of and it cannot be argued that it is indispensible. All past and present versions of it should be deleted.
- 7. A good many other pictures uploaded by Georgy could be deleted too for showing proprietary logos: File:Acer Aspire 8920 by Georgy.jpg (tab beside browser address bar), example (his cellphone homepage with pictures of adolescent friends), example, example, example, example; for egregiously bad focus, just horrible: example, example, example, example, example, example, example, example, example, example, example, example, example; and for harsh and ugly lighting gradients: example, example. O'Dea (talk) 16:42, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
- User himself tried to remove your whole intervention in order to hide his name, I put your comment back but I removed some personal infos about the user. --Vituzzu (talk) 16:52, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
O'Dea s argument is actually invalid. My age makes no difference to the quality of the photo. The 6 sticks on the laptop are not easy to be seen, firefox and wikipedia are okay to use, since I imported some script at the page of the photo. My other contributions have nothing to do with this conversation. I made great efforts to find a way of taking good shots and I want my picture to stay, its widely used and its removal could cause havoc to 100s of pages on wiki. Please remove the request, i have done anything I could to remove copyrighted material. --Georgy90 (talk) 17:29, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
- Your picts are widely used since you put them on dozen of pages by yourself.
- Honestly most of photos you took are really in low-quality, I think you'd better take them again. --Vituzzu (talk) 22:54, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
- I don't think that images are of low quality. They aren't high quality images for sure, but i would not call them low. The problem remais that Geory90 choses to destroy one's own images with watermarck which does tend to cause artifacts (one first resaves the image after having added the watermark, then somebody has to remove the watermark again not losslessly). There is also a problem of uploading different files over previously used ones, that i think should really be addressed. For example this image has been uploaded over another one, the fact that it's created by the same user is irrelevant, it is a different photo rather than the same photo which was retouched. VolodyA! V Anarhist Beta_M (converse) 03:01, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
- File:Paronychia Thumb.JPG, File:SIM Card.jpg, File:The_Acer_Logo.JPG, File:Nokia 1100i.JPG. File:Cd_Drive.JPG, File:The Calculator.JPG are definitely low-quality, setting apart from other problems (e.g. titles), would you use any of these picts on Wikipedia? --Vituzzu (talk) 21:01, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
- Irrelevant to the discussion of this file on commons (these files are not this one, and this discussion is not on wikipedia). VolodyA! V Anarhist Beta_M (converse) 18:21, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
- Sorry but I have to contradict you: according to Commons' scope images must have an educational purpose and low-low-low-quality photos cannot have any. --Vituzzu (talk) 21:01, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
- Then by all means feel free to nominate those images for deletion. This discussion has gone for too long to bring another matter into it. VolodyA! V Anarhist Beta_M (converse) 03:21, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
- Sorry but I have to contradict you: according to Commons' scope images must have an educational purpose and low-low-low-quality photos cannot have any. --Vituzzu (talk) 21:01, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
- Irrelevant to the discussion of this file on commons (these files are not this one, and this discussion is not on wikipedia). VolodyA! V Anarhist Beta_M (converse) 18:21, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
- File:Paronychia Thumb.JPG, File:SIM Card.jpg, File:The_Acer_Logo.JPG, File:Nokia 1100i.JPG. File:Cd_Drive.JPG, File:The Calculator.JPG are definitely low-quality, setting apart from other problems (e.g. titles), would you use any of these picts on Wikipedia? --Vituzzu (talk) 21:01, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
- I don't think that images are of low quality. They aren't high quality images for sure, but i would not call them low. The problem remais that Geory90 choses to destroy one's own images with watermarck which does tend to cause artifacts (one first resaves the image after having added the watermark, then somebody has to remove the watermark again not losslessly). There is also a problem of uploading different files over previously used ones, that i think should really be addressed. For example this image has been uploaded over another one, the fact that it's created by the same user is irrelevant, it is a different photo rather than the same photo which was retouched. VolodyA! V Anarhist Beta_M (converse) 03:01, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
- Georgy, my arguments are not invalid as the stickers are present in the picture and are so clear that I could easily identify and enumerate their content in my original comment; the picture clearly breaks the rules as the original complainant and others have stated. Your other picture uploads are all relevant as they are part of a pattern, as I described. Simply wanting your picture to stay is not an argument for a picture in violation. The argument about "havoc" is simply ridiculous and it is verifiably untrue to claim it appears on "hundreds of articles". Even if it did, it would not matter. This image and the others are of dreadful quality, as others have agreed. O'Dea (talk) 13:55, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
- Comment I have a question for Georgy (which seems to be eligible for a rfc on meta for x-wiki spam): why did you replaced dozen of pictures with your ones on so many wikis? --Vituzzu (talk) 21:10, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
- Delete Agree that this image is in violation and the quality is really bad. Commons has lots of laptop pics already so we're not short of illustrations for articles, even pics of this one. This file has been nominated since over 3 months ago! Time to shut the yapping on this one. 72.37.249.116 00:48, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
- Comment Georgy, you cannot expect your anonymity to be protected if you expose yourself so much. My comment identifying who you are, your age, and where you live have been deleted from this page because there is a policy, apparently, disallowing Commons editors from putting such information in these conversations – even when already placed in the public domain by the other editor!
- But you, too, have a duty not to identify yourself by putting personally detailed information in photographs you upload, if privacy genuinely matters to you. You deleted my entire comment, which you were not entitled to do and which violates rules, too, and complained that your personal details were now in Commons, but you gave that information to Commons yourself.
- It took me a few seconds to track down your Facebook page because of what you upload in the photographs; you use your real name as your user ID; your real name and age is in the photographs; so don't be a hypocrite: stop promoting your name and personal details in the files you upload or others can quickly and easily track you down. "You cannot have your cake and eat it too", as they say. Georgy, make up your mind what you want: self-promotion or privacy, and don't cry when someone finds out who you are so easily. See: Wikipedia:How to not get outed on Wikipedia. O'Dea (talk) 01:28, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
- Comment Note to Vituzzu and Saibo: You left threatening remarks on my talk page. There is another policy in Wikipedia about assuming good faith. I was not previously aware of an anti-outing policy so I do not appreciate hostility being directed against me. If another editor almost writes his name and address in public, how am I to know I cannot show what he revealed himself? If you want to see how to approach someone who has inadvertently violated a rule in ignorance (note: Wikipedia has hundreds of rules), see how respectfully Rillke did it. You two jumped the gun and bristled with too much menace, which made me very uncomfortable and angry. Be respectful. See it from my perspective: As far as I was concerned, five other editors were fucking with my comments so naturally I was outraged (I said four in an edit summary but I forgot Georgy – so five.) You two need to reflect, too, and don't be so heavy-handed. O'Dea (talk) 01:28, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
- Comment Vituzzu, you claimed I should be "saved" from my own actions but surely Georgy should be saved from his self-exposing actions too? As a minor, he should not be allowed to upload pictures which allow adults to find out his name, age, and location. This is another reason why this image should be deleted. Children need to be protected against themselves, as they are too young to be fully responsible and aware of consequences because anyone else can replicate what I did very easily – with no hacking skills required, I might add. O'Dea (talk) 01:39, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
- Have replied to those off topic comments at your talk page User_talk:O'Dea#Outing. --Saibo (Δ) 01:59, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
- It is not off-topic to comment that Georgy is a minor who has exposed his first and last name, his age, and his location. It is a very strong reason to delete the file. O'Dea (talk) 02:22, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
- Fine (applies to the last version which includes it in the image), that was not clear in all that text. --Saibo (Δ) 02:35, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
- Assuming good faith doesn't mean "be blind", you outed him just to underline a supposed childish attitude and good faith *cannot* be assumed since it is definitely a personal attack. If you meant to protect him you would had sent him an email or, at least, a notice on his own talkpage. Also the use of this kind of statement to support your opinion is, definitely, a personal attack. On your homewiki I can read Comment on content, not on the contributor., try to guess on which policy I can do it. You also said you weren't warned properly, well, since you used the "undo" button you surely read The user is uncovering many personal information of me, that I dont want to be published such as my Facebook. He doesnt talk about any specific violations, instead he talks about irrelevant thinks about the problem, that has been solved, and, anyway, also my reinsertion of you comment with a note ...I put your comment back but I removed some personal infos about the user.
- Fine (applies to the last version which includes it in the image), that was not clear in all that text. --Saibo (Δ) 02:35, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
- It is not off-topic to comment that Georgy is a minor who has exposed his first and last name, his age, and his location. It is a very strong reason to delete the file. O'Dea (talk) 02:22, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
- Have replied to those off topic comments at your talk page User_talk:O'Dea#Outing. --Saibo (Δ) 01:59, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
- --Vituzzu (talk) 10:58, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
- Don't you even read my comments? I showed who he was to demonstrate abuse of Commons by this boy to show off in an immature fashion. I was not aware of the anti-outing policy at the time so I acted in good faith. The only new information about Georgy that I added was his Facebook page; he had already shown who he was himself, with his full name, age, and location. That is how I found his Facebook page in seconds – he laid it all out on a plate, including showing the name (first name, last name) of the Facebook page in his own photograph. I did not send him an e-mail because, first, I had never heard of the anti-outing policy and, secondly, this is the page where the discussion of the file was taking place and where it was relevant to discuss his use of the file. When Georgy complained about me talking about his identity, I dismissed that as insincerity since he was happy to show off who he was when he could do so on his own terms and only showed objections when he deleted the entirety of my lengthy comment discussing the various problems with his file, including those which had nothing to do with his identity. O'Dea (talk) 11:36, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
- Again, you outing was useless *here*, so it had no other clue than decrying. --Vituzzu (talk) 13:25, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
- Don't you even read my comments? I showed who he was to demonstrate abuse of Commons by this boy to show off in an immature fashion. I was not aware of the anti-outing policy at the time so I acted in good faith. The only new information about Georgy that I added was his Facebook page; he had already shown who he was himself, with his full name, age, and location. That is how I found his Facebook page in seconds – he laid it all out on a plate, including showing the name (first name, last name) of the Facebook page in his own photograph. I did not send him an e-mail because, first, I had never heard of the anti-outing policy and, secondly, this is the page where the discussion of the file was taking place and where it was relevant to discuss his use of the file. When Georgy complained about me talking about his identity, I dismissed that as insincerity since he was happy to show off who he was when he could do so on his own terms and only showed objections when he deleted the entirety of my lengthy comment discussing the various problems with his file, including those which had nothing to do with his identity. O'Dea (talk) 11:36, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
- --Vituzzu (talk) 10:58, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
- Comment I have to agree with Anon, above, why have administrators allowed this discussion to go unresolved for such a long time? Alpha Quadrant proposed deletion of this picture last year, on 29 December 2011. The uploader has abandoned the discussion for a week now. The proposal should be closed. O'Dea (talk) 01:44, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
I absolutely agree. The file was nominated 3 months ago for the reason "Image of the copyrighted Windows 7 OS, along with a number of icons that are quite likely under copyright.". The problem was a copyright violation. I fixed that, and replaced it with Firefox, and added a script that allows its use in wikipedia. You have gone off topic several times, without talking about specific violations of these file. As of O'Dea, I see that you call me insencere, because my name can be found easily according to him. I did that only to credit my work in some way that its not even noticable by 99.99% of the viewers, not to be exposed and self promoted. You had simply put a link to my FB account, without any specific reason. Could any admin please remove the nomination? I think that the case is closed. --Georgy90 (talk) 17:59, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
- I would propose that those users that want to make a policy about not having user's name appear in the file titles try to make it a policy. I think something along these lines should exist, but right now we shouldn't delete just because the file name is wrong. There was an issue of watermark, but it was not removed, Georgy90 should keep in mind that it is considered rude to add watermarks before uploading to commons. Copyright issue seems to be pretty much resolved. Image isn't going to become a featured photo... ever or anywhere... but it's not of low quality, and it is educational. VolodyA! V Anarhist Beta_M (converse) 18:34, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
- Please block me before I start using this kind of lowlowlow quality pict :p
- Anyway the supposed educational purpose has been blown up by the author of the photos who spread them among wikis. --Vituzzu (talk) 13:25, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
I dont believe that my picture is of low quality - this is low quality [[3]]. The fact also that I spread my photo in many wikis, does not make it uneducational! I can't see what policy the picture is violating right now! Its meaningless to still have the request keep going after a quarter of a year.--Georgy90 (talk) 17:42, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
![[3]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Lenovoideapad.jpg){kind=link}
- The file you linked (btw the right way is [[:w:en:file:) is not on Commons, and yes, it is of low quality too, feel free to open a rfd on en.wiki about it.
- Yours was definitely crosswiki spam, and I'm still asking you why you did it. By the way your spam is relevant to this discussion since it amplified the real use of this picture.--Vituzzu (talk) 23:20, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
Keep This picture is used in the collage on the en:Computer article and really fits in nicely there. If the Windows icons are the problem for you change them for a Gnome screen showing a Wikipedia page for all I care (btw: the Puzzle ball is also copyrighted, by the WMF). I don't think it's problematic as otherwise photo's of Mercedes stars or the Rolls Royce en:Spirit of Ecstasy (which is still in copyright as the sculptor died in 1950) would also be problematic, which I don't think they are. SpeakFree (talk) 23:05, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
Delete-That could be easily replaced by a similar one. There are many in category:Laptops and its subcategorys.--Gauravjuvekar (talk) 08:17, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
This is crazy. The nomination runs for more than half a year. Could some admin delete it please?--87.228.231.136 17:24, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
- Kept. The copyright concerns have been adressed by editing the image. The remaining icons are acceptable due to Commons:De minimis. The claims regarding how the uploader has acted or the naming of the file are not reasons for deleting it. Thuresson (talk) 19:05, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
Kept, Thuresson (talk) 19:05, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
a bit of a duplicate of File:Ramasseur noisettes.jpg, with number plate not extinguished. The intent is obvious and conforms to commons rules, make number plates unreadable. So this one should be deleted. Herzi Pinki (talk) 10:13, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
- Delete as duplicate. But I'd say that extending "number plates invade privacy" opinion to commercial vehicles goes too far. What's next, removing registration numbers from 747s? NVO (talk) 02:14, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
- OK je modifie ma photo.
Deleted. Bapti ✉ 16:08, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
Higher pixels file is uploaded at File:The_State_of_Wikipedia_by_JESS3.ogv Waihorace (talk) 02:06, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
- No problem. Just make sure you replace all instances where this file is used, for instance on the Bookshelf.//Hannibal (talk) 09:25, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
- DeleteSome people might be happy to download the light 12.97 MB rather than the heavy 46.06 MB. Teofilo (talk) 13:52, 29 January 2011 (UTC). But regarding the licencing, as a collage containing a copyrighted logo, the whole must be considered as unfree. Only a shorter version deprived of Wikimedia logos can be licenced under a Creative Commons license. The copyright of this collage is is jointly owned by two owners : the Wikimedia Foundation and Jess3 Labs, but we allow only unfree files owned 100% by the Wikimedia foundation. As a non-free media not 100% owned by the Wikimedia Foundation, it must be deleted. Teofilo (talk) 14:21, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
- I request the deletion of the other file at Commons:Deletion requests/File:The State of Wikipedia by JESS3.ogv. Teofilo (talk) 14:28, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jcb (talk) 00:46, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
No Freedom of Panorama in UAE, All the dervative work of the architectures are copyrighted to the creator of the work..for more information please see this Commons FoP - UAE ...Captain......Tälk tö me.. 07:00, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jcb (talk) 00:47, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
No Freedom of Panorama in UAE, All the dervative work of the architectures are copyrighted to the creator of the work..for more information please see this Commons FoP - UAE ...Captain......Tälk tö me.. 07:03, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
Kept: all possible FOP issues are DM, though the commercial on the left may be borderline Jcb (talk) 00:49, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
Logan Lerman google photo 78.55.253.193 07:04, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jcb (talk) 00:51, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
de: Keine enzyklopädische Darstellung. Sieht wie Propagande auf Bildzeitungs-Nivau gegen die Talsperre aus, was NPOV verletzt. en: No encyclopedic presentation and desing of information, so it violats imho NPOV WPCommons (talk) 10:36, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
- sorry, but there is no such thing as NPOV here. See also our Deletion policy. I do not see any policy here that would propose to delete this image. Thus Keep And the file is in use. --Herzi Pinki (talk) 15:10, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
- I would say it violates The file is not realistically useful for an educational purpose. of the collage in connection with Uncertain licencing status of the image from 1909. WPCommons (talk) 21:11, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
- Delete as being out of scope - raster image instead of plain text. Had it been real political campaigning (against a future construction), it would be encyclopedic. But it's a statement of past events, and can be just as well spelled out in plain text. PS. Why doesn't w:de:Talsperre Rauschenbach mention these costs? Omission = POV. NVO (talk) 02:25, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jcb (talk) 01:44, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
A file is either free or unfree. Files cannot have two licence tags. This licencing violates Commons:Licencing policy. The only unfree items allowed on Commons are files 100% owned by the Wikimedia Foundation. A shorter version, where the Wikimedia logos are cut out might be uploaded on Commons as a free file. Teofilo (talk) 14:27, 29 January 2011 (UTC) See also Commons:Deletion requests/File:State_of_Wikipedia.ogv.
- Comment I suggest to speedy-keep per Template:Wikipedia-screenshot. guillom 21:20, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
- A video is not a screenshot. Teofilo (talk) 22:42, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
- In case my above arguments are not convincing enough, read also Jimbo Wales « I would also vote to delete them ». Teofilo (talk) 22:47, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
- A reference to the co-founder is the worst argument against your POV. NVO (talk) 02:31, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
- Can you please read what he says, rather that focusing on your feelings towards him, please. Teofilo (talk) 10:51, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
- A reference to the co-founder is the worst argument against your POV. NVO (talk) 02:31, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
- In case my above arguments are not convincing enough, read also Jimbo Wales « I would also vote to delete them ». Teofilo (talk) 22:47, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
- Comment In order that the mistakenly written Template:Wikipedia-screenshot can no longer be used as an excuse to upload more files creating unfree derivative works out of free contents, I made a mass deletion request at Commons:Deletion requests/Unfree screenshots in breach of Commons:Screenshots, To create a free screenshot, article 3. Teofilo (talk) 16:12, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
- Comment In any case I wish that after this deletion request is closed, users are provided with a clear answer to the question "can I upload this video on my own website?". Teofilo (talk) 18:52, 30 January 2011 (UTC) (I mean beyond "fair use", of course Teofilo (talk) 19:20, 30 January 2011 (UTC))
- Comment The statement written on blog.jess3.com by Leslie Bradshaw, President & Co-founder of JESS3 and Becca Colbaugh, VP of Client Services & Production of JESS3 that The State of Wikipedia is a project released under Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike (CC BY-SA). The puzzle globe logo is a trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation is mistaken because it ignores the copyright ownership beyond the trademark ownership. The video includes Wikimedia logos which are copyrighted works owned by the Wikimedia Foundation. (Unless the Wikimedia Foundation has sold its logo to JESS3, which is highly unprobable) the video has two owners and only the two owners together can release it jointly under a Free License. In case the Wikimedia Foundation agrees, every frame of the video becomes free, and the Wikipedia logo will become automatically free. So my intuition is that the Wikimedia Foundation is not part of such an agreement. So my intuition is that this File is released under no valid license today because one of the owners has not given his consent. Therefore it must be deleted (until the rightful copyright owners of the video take a coherent decision together concerning the licensing). This video is perfect as "fair use" everywhere where fair use is allowed. It is just that fair use is not allowed on Commons. Teofilo (talk) 19:17, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
- Inclusion, with permission or as part of normal community activity, of Wikipedia and Wikimedia marks is permitted per Commons:Licensing#Acceptable licenses and standard practice on Wikimedia Commons. The use of the marks in this video is a permitted use and clearly identified as such on the description page. This request is therefore invalid and should be speedy-closed.--Eloquence (talk) 23:56, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
- I propose to remove all these contents from Commons and move them to a new Wikimedia website : see my proposal on meta m:Allrightsreserved (listed at m:Proposals for new projects like a new project). Teofilo (talk) 04:34, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
- But that's only part of the solution. With an evasive answer you are eluding the question : are people outside Wikimedia allowed to reuse this file ? A door must be either open or shut. Teofilo (talk) 12:12, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
- Since the author of this video had permission to use the wikimedia logo/trademark, destributing the video as-is is not forbidden as far as I know. However modification may require permission from the foundation. –Krinkletalk 01:32, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
- We need to see the full text of that permission in order to know if it is restricted to Jess3 only of if is meant as a licence for everybody to enjoy. Without a written permission text, it is impossible to say. Generally speaking, licenses with "ND" (No derivatives) are not allowed on Commons. Teofilo (talk) 18:28, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
- Since the author of this video had permission to use the wikimedia logo/trademark, destributing the video as-is is not forbidden as far as I know. However modification may require permission from the foundation. –Krinkletalk 01:32, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
- But that's only part of the solution. With an evasive answer you are eluding the question : are people outside Wikimedia allowed to reuse this file ? A door must be either open or shut. Teofilo (talk) 12:12, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
- Comment If the trademarks were blurred would the video become reusable? MorganKevinJ(talk) 19:46, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
- The best would be to replace the logo with a plain grey ball like File:Sphere - monochrome simple.svg Teofilo (talk) 18:28, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
- Comment Jess3 does not seem to be complying with Availability of source data: Where a final work has been obtained through the compilation or processing of a source file or multiple source files, all underlying source data should be available alongside the work itself under the same conditions. This can be the score of a musical composition, the models used in a 3D scene, the data of a scientific publication, the source code of a computer application, or any other such information. Definition 1.0 of free cultural works required by foundation:Resolution:Licensing policy. For example, if the concerned copyright holders really want the video to be free, the SVG code of the Wikipedia logo should be provided to the readers of the Jess3 blog next to the video. If the other pictorial elements in the video are compiled from a vectorial code, that source code ought to be provided. We should have each pictorial element available as standalone elements with a separate licence, and then the whole video should be uploaded on Commons using http://toolserver.org/%7Eluxo/derivativeFX , making clear that the video is a compilation of smaller items, with the source code for each item being available. Teofilo (talk) 14:07, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
- See also Commons:Deletion requests/File:Editing tutorial - Wikimédia France.ogv Teofilo (talk) 04:15, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
- KeepCC-BY-SA 3.0 per the JESS3 blog. --Waihorace (talk) 05:54, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
- The JESS3 blog does not own the Wikipedia logo, and does not have the authority to release the Wikipedia logo under a free license. Teofilo (talk) 16:29, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
- Comment If that video is so free, why can't I see any Creative Commons logo, or internet link, or any word saying that it is free at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gXD1TRGafQ0 ? The Youtube terms of service say "You agree not to distribute in any medium any part of the Service or the Content without YouTube's prior written authorization", so the video is not free. Teofilo (talk) 16:34, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
- A truly free video on Youtube should look more like this one (click on the drop down button after "Stanford University", then a free license shows up with a download link). See also http://www.google.com/support/youtube/bin/answer.py?answer=140497 . But the incompatibility with the Youtube terms of service is not addressed. It is not done in such a way that the potential reuser feels secure if he reuses it. Anyway, the mp4 format would be considered unfree on Commons : see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Ljusreklam Stureplan 2010.ogg and Commons:Video#Video_formats. Teofilo (talk) 19:28, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
- Comment Why is that video marked with "Copyright © MMX" at http://devour.com/video/the-state-of-wikipedia/ ? Teofilo (talk) 16:39, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
- Comment Why is this video associated to "Attribution Non-Commercial" terms of use at http://tv.gawker.com/#!5740167/learn-about-the-state-of-wikipedia-in-this-animated-short ? Teofilo (talk) 16:43, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
- Comment Why is it associated to "This work is licensed under a Creative Commons License permitting non-commercial sharing with attribution." at http://www.boingboing.net/2011/01/22/jimmy-wales-narrates.html ? as http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/us/ at http://laughingsquid.com/the-state-of-wikipedia/ , as "©2005-2011 Mashable, Inc. All Rights Reserved." at http://mashable.com/2011/01/18/10-years-of-wikipedia-infographic/ ? Teofilo (talk) 16:49, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
- Whether there's incorrect information about the licensing of this video elsewhere is completely irrelevant. The authors of the video have clearly and irrevocably licensed it under CC-BY-SA in their blog. If you want to constructively argue for your "All rights reserved" proposal, go ahead and do so, but please don't disrupt Wikimedia Commons to make a point.--Eloquence (talk) 07:04, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
- Please don't reverse the roles. Some people are disrupting Wikimedia Commons by uploading files in disobediance of Commons' rules and the Wikimedia Foundation's licensing policies. I am offering them an honourable exit with my proposal to host the files somewhere else. Every evidence shows that the Wikipedia logo is unfree so that your statement that "The authors of the video have clearly and irrevocably licensed it under CC-BY-SA" is false. Teofilo (talk) 15:18, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
Kept: the file has been clearly and correctly licensed. Nothing wrong here. Every single page at Wikipedia contains a copyrighted logo in the upper left corner, while the article is CC-BY-SA 3.0 and included images may have different licenses. Nothing different here Jcb (talk) 01:59, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
Copied from http://img.viajanet.com.br/img/cias-aereas/hotsite-cias/puma-air/aviao-puma-4.jpg . User has already copied other file he uploaded. File name is the same. In the source, there are 4 images (and this is the fourth, that's why it's "aviao-puma-4").) Ednei amaral (talk) 14:33, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jcb (talk) 02:55, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
No authorship information on depicted 3D work of art. Kelly (talk) 20:04, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
- Keep according to en:Karl Bitter the statue was erected in 1915, and the artist died on the same year, therefore PD. MKFI (talk) 08:45, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
Kept. Rastrojo (D•ES) 15:28, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
No authorship/publication information on depicted 3D work of art. Kelly (talk) 01:33, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
- Keep re-nominating two days after the last deletion request? Please provide some information on why you think the previous keep was incorrect. MKFI (talk) 09:13, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
- Oops! Please close this, I nominated it by mistake. Kelly (talk) 14:25, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
Kept. --Podzemnik (talk) 21:16, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
This is not free. See [4]. --Muyo (talk) 04:55, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:28, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
Out of scope? Probably also a copyvio. Herr Kriss (talk) 09:02, 29 January 2011 (UTC) Deleted. I didn't notice earlier delreq. Herr Kriss (talk) 09:03, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
Out of scope - unused personal image Inez Diaz-Lopez (talk) 17:58, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination - also small, no EXIF, third party copyright claim. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:31, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
Looks like a photograph of page from a book, in which case the licensing is incorrect. Nev1 (talk) 14:45, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
- I think it's one of those information boards that you find outside. -- Deadstar (msg) 09:03, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
- That was my initial thought, but I thought the bottom right corner looks like a table cloth or something. If it is an information board, Belgium (where such a photo would have been taken) doesn't permit freedom of panorama. Nev1 (talk) 16:16, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jcb (talk) 11:20, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
claims to be a logotype for Delphi program language, but is really just made up... useless grillo (talk) 14:54, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
- It's not the logo of Delphi because is different. But is sufficient similar to be used for ilustration purpouse in Wikipedias that don't accept Fair Use, as it's being used now.--MisterSanderson (talk) 18:41, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
- That would be a derivative work of a copyrighted logotype. Also, it's extremely crudely drawn, like a child had done it. /grillo (talk) 19:16, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
- Because it's so crudely drawn, it can't be a derivative work. --MisterSanderson (talk) 23:00, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
- It's also not what it's supposed to be: a logotype for a trademark. It's simply misleading to use this in articles. Better no image than a false one. /grillo (talk) 05:08, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
- Because it's so crudely drawn, it can't be a derivative work. --MisterSanderson (talk) 23:00, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
- That would be a derivative work of a copyrighted logotype. Also, it's extremely crudely drawn, like a child had done it. /grillo (talk) 19:16, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
Delete. What is this?! Plrk (talk) 22:09, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
- A version of the Delphi's "favicon". See it here --MisterSanderson 16:03, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Kept: too simple to be copyrighted and apparently useful, being in use in several projects Jcb (talk) 11:24, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
Leaflets in Category:2008 Nishinari riot
[edit]- File:Kamagasaki Riot20080615 1002.jpg
- File:Kamagasaki Riot20080617 0842.jpg
- File:Kamagasaki Riot20080623 0841.jpg
- File:Kamagasaki Riot20080811 0801.jpg
- File:Kamagasaki Riot20080811 0802.jpg
- File:Kamagasaki Riot20081105.jpg
- File:Kamagasaki Riot20080614 2134.JPG
- File:KamagasakiRiot2008Bill.ogg (has been uploaded after this request was posted)
I'm sorry, but it seems to me that the conclusion at the previous DR was wrong: they are from 釜ヶ崎地域合同労働組合 (Kamagasaki chiiki godo rodo kumiai, roughly translates as "Kamagasaki Area Joint Workers' Union") as seen thereon. And they are not so-called "riot bills" but protest leaflets against the police, the prosecutors office and the court; thus they cannot be governmental works at all. Yasu (talk) 14:54, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
- DeleteCopyright violation of writing.--KENPEI (talk) 21:57, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jcb (talk) 11:28, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
out of scope, whatever it should be; no use. --Don-kun (talk) 10:19, 22 August 2010 (UTC) --Don-kun (talk) 10:19, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
- It's the homuncule of the jar, in the serie Fullmetal Alchemist Brotherhood. In article of him, it's important. --MisterSanderson (talk) 14:29, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
Kept. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:37, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
Either Copyrightviolation from Fullmetal Alchemist or not usefull at all. Niabot (talk) 15:57, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
- It's not copyright violation because is too different. But is sufficient similar to be used for ilustration purpouse in Wikipedias that don't accept Fair Use, as it's being used now.--MisterSanderson (talk) 18:42, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
- If it's too different to be a derivative work, it's most definitely useless. Crude images like these just make the articles look silly and unprofessional. /grillo (talk) 21:21, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
- It's either a copyright violation or it contains missleading/wrong content. What value does the image have in this case, or which justification for use in articles? The image should be removed for the reasons:
- If it is to close to the original it would be a copyright violation.
- If it's to far away from the original, it does not make sense using the image at all, since it isn't related to the original topic anymore, is missleading and should not be used in articles.
- What is the purpose of such an image that is either wrong or illegal? --Niabot (talk) 08:52, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
- It's either a copyright violation or it contains missleading/wrong content. What value does the image have in this case, or which justification for use in articles? The image should be removed for the reasons:
- Delete The image is, aside the copyright issue, completely useless. It doesn't show more, or I would say it shows less, than a text description of the homunculus can. Why should we use a scribble if two sentences can do a better work? --Don-kun (talk) 09:27, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
- If it's too different to be a derivative work, it's most definitely useless. Crude images like these just make the articles look silly and unprofessional. /grillo (talk) 21:21, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Plrk (talk) 22:10, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
- Again, our Portuguese and Chinese colleagues are using it. Our policy forbids deleting it for any of the reasons given here as long as it is in use. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:43, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
- Not they use it, the uploader putted the image in the articles. Now the picture is no more in the articles. And which policy forbids the deletion of a unuseful image, just because the uploader spread it into some projects? --Don-kun (talk) 10:53, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
- Delete There is, of course, no such policy. Since I don't know anything about the subject and read neither Portuguese nor Chinese, it was not my place either to go to the two articles and remove the image or to directly suggest that you do it. My indirect suggestion seems to have finally done the trick. I won't close this because I am involved in it, but one of my colleagues probably will. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:21, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
- Not they use it, the uploader putted the image in the articles. Now the picture is no more in the articles. And which policy forbids the deletion of a unuseful image, just because the uploader spread it into some projects? --Don-kun (talk) 10:53, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 11:33, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
Own work seems highly doubtful: low image resolution, no EXIF information: it looks like a web grab 80.187.106.199 16:00, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
Kept: I found no duplicates and also there is EXIF data Jcb (talk) 11:37, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
Own work does not fit - especially the supposed date and given seem not to be true 80.187.106.199 16:01, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
- Comment: Missiing source shall be better choice.--Motopark (talk) 14:02, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: no information to check if this is PD-old Jcb (talk) 11:40, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
do not want to share anymore 76.95.177.213 16:02, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jcb (talk) 11:41, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
This is a sloppy version of File:BritishMandatePalestine1920.png and has been replaced by said image across all the wikis. Vadac (talk) 16:10, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
- Is that a reason for deletion? Richardprins (talk) 19:30, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
- As I know there is no mention for Transjordan in en:San Remo conference's (April 1920) documents.
- See also (Jordan and Palestine) :
- «Prior to the Allied Powers victory in World War I and the Partitioning of the Ottoman Empire, which created the British mandate in the Levant, most of the northern area of what is today Jordan formed part of the Ottoman Vilayet of Damascus (Syria), while the southern part of Jordan was part of the Vilayet of Hejaz. What later became part of British Mandate Palestine was in Ottoman times divided between the Vilayet of Beirut (Lebanon) and the Sanjak of Jerusalem.[1] »
- «In 1920, most of modern-day Jordan was at first incorporated into the planned League of Nations mandate territory of Palestine. However, the Transjordan was made into a separate political unit on April 11, 1921, and its separate Mandate came into force in September 1923 as the Emirate of Transjordan.»
- So your variant of map concerns to the next stage of Mandate, no to its initial one what was based at San Remo's decisions.
- Igorp_lj (talk) 23:58, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
References
[edit]
- ↑ "Palestinim, Am Behivatsrut," by Kimmerling, Baruch, and Joel S. Migdal - Keter Publishing, ISBN 965-07-0797-2
Kept: maps are not identical Jcb (talk) 11:43, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
The map is of bad quality, borders are largely inaccurate and better versions exist. Makeandtoss (talk) 09:14, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
Kept: in use. --INeverCry 00:39, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
Source does not indicate CC-BY-SA-2.5, instead it states "Photographs can be freely used on any pages if you let me know about it first. Also include my name/email under every photograph and link to http://www.biolib.cz either under every photograph or on some visible place on your site." I think the mentioning that FIRST the author should be informed is not free enough for use on commons. Lymantria (talk) 16:43, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
- Hi, I'm author of this image and I've uploaded it on Wikipedia under CC-BY-SA-2.5 license. Copyright texts displayed on BioLib site apply to my images on BioLib in general. Is it not possible to have same images presented under two different licenses on two different sites? I thought there might not be any problem, since we have similar arrangement for example with EOL.org where many of the authors with copyrighted images on BioLib agreed to have EOL display their sized down images under free licenses.
- If there is just problem with the SOURCE field, I can just replace it with "own work" instead of www.biolib.cz. I've uploaded this image since I wanted to see how it works a bit, I don't care much about my photos on Wikipedia, but as this image is already used in some pages, it would be pity to remove it. Just let me know what should be done to clear this problem.
- I suspect there might be some more images of mine in Wikimedia Commons since I once gave permission to some Czech Wikipedia users to take anything they need from BioLib. However I was not informed by them they will need to upload these images under free license, it was many years ago and they probably didn't know they're supposed to explain. But I don't mind about such images being on Wikipedia under whatever licenses. I never accepted payment for any image used on websites, journals, books and so on, it's just that I like to know where my images were used, which is something that can be considered an additional request for the CC-BY license, which unfortunately does not allow such wish to be included (which I find very unfortunate). --Ziasystems (talk) 17:38, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
- Keep OTRS permission received --Sreejith K (talk) 15:47, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
Kept Jcb (talk) 11:46, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
It is a low copy of the image for Hurricane Anita (1977) File:Hurricane Anita.jpg — Iune(talk) 17:05, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jcb (talk) 11:47, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
Image has a border and shadow. I'm questioning the source as I doubt the author would do this himself and then upload it to Commons. –Krinkletalk 17:08, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
I did it myself, before I loaded it to commons. (Mg_far)
Kept Jcb (talk) 13:16, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
The poster is too big for COM:DM (de minimis) to apply. No Freedom of panorama because I believe the poster is not permanent. Teofilo (talk) 22:53, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
Oops sorry. It is outdoors, and COM:FOP#China seems to be Ok even if not permanent. Request withdrawn. Teofilo (talk) 23:08, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
Poster on the background is a copyrighted one, Will it fall under de minimis, If the primary subject is the temple we have another picture (Cropped) so why we need to keep it ...Captain......Tälk tö me.. 17:26, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Not de minimis. As you say, we have another photo to depict the temple by itself; the intention of the composition of this photo was obviously to juxtapose the temple and the ad (and besides that, it covers like half the area of the image). FOP would not apply in any nation since the ad is not permanent. Dcoetzee (talk) 16:58, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
- Keep There's a discussion at Commons talk:Freedom of panorama#China (People's Republic) and non permanent works outdoors that the poster failed to mention. COM:FOP#China, People's Republic of says it covers "copying, drawing, photographing, or video recording of an artistic work located or on display in an outdoor public place". (Article 22, part 10--Official English translation). It says nothing about permanence. I don't see any reason why the law should insist on permanence; if the point of FOP is to protect the photograph taking pictures of a downtown modern city, there's going to be a lot of stuff in the way that's not permanent.--Prosfilaes (talk) 04:12, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Prosfilaes is correct, but doesn't read far enough in the Chinese law:
- "...provided that the name of the author and the title of the work are mentioned..."
- In order to keep it, we would have to know, I think, at least the name of the photographer of the billboard. The work probably doesn't have a name. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:46, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
- Artistic Work is permitted....we need to know how the chinese law is describing about artistic works, is it painting, drawing, crafts etc..no idea of the author..so its not relevant.....Captain......Tälk tö me.. 17:20, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
- See my note above -- the Chinese FOP rule is that you have to give attribution to the artist, which in this case would be the photographer who took the picture on the billboard at the top. Without that, FOP cannot apply. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:46, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
- Artistic Work is permitted....we need to know how the chinese law is describing about artistic works, is it painting, drawing, crafts etc..no idea of the author..so its not relevant.....Captain......Tälk tö me.. 17:20, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: per Jim Jcb (talk) 20:11, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
new version better color will come Janwikifoto (talk) 17:29, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
Kept: in use Jcb (talk) 13:17, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
Holy!!!! - Those who addedd the OTRS didn't look for a copyvio - See this - http://img03.picoodle.com/img/img03/9/10/14/f_sneha03m_8fa2408.jpg Look at the head and bottom portion, both watermarks hidden ...Captain......Tälk tö me.. 17:35, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
- I just transfer the image from ta wikipedia with same OTRS tag. May be this image was present in kollywoodtoday.com in 2008. --Kiran Gopi (talk) 17:56, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
- Can you re validate the tag.......Captain......Tälk tö me.. 18:06, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
- Tag is right if the image was taken from kollywoodtoday.com.--Kiran Gopi (talk) 18:17, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
- It should be behindthewoods.com... as the crop is avoiding watermark.....Captain......Tälk tö me.. 18:58, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
- If it weren't for the OTRS tag I'd say delete the file as a probable copyvio. It's a promotional still from a Telugu film called Madhumasam - you can see the actress in the exact same costume/background in this YouTube clip (pirated??) starting at about the 10:20 mark. According to the article on EN for it, the distributor for the film is Suresh Productions, which is quite different from kollywoodtoday. Tabercil (talk) 06:14, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
- Agree with Tabercil as this image taken during the Madhumasam movie shooting. But is it a screen shot from the movie? It is difficult to find the same poss in that movie shot. There are other possibilities like other photographers(different media) can take the photographs. Is it restricted? If so please delete this image, we can upload other images from here. Any suggestions are welcomed --Kiran Gopi (talk) 07:15, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
- The image can be deleted if
- the image is a screenshot from the movie, or
- this image was published in other websites before KollywoodToday published it on their site.
- Tineye is throwing multiple results when I search this image but I am unsure who published it first. --Sreejith K (talk) 07:48, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
- All are missing one point, the shown picture is a full scape and the picture we have it on commons is a cropped one, If kollywoodtoday is not genuine how we can trust on its other photos.....Captain......Tälk tö me.. 08:14, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
- The image can be deleted if
- Agree with Tabercil as this image taken during the Madhumasam movie shooting. But is it a screen shot from the movie? It is difficult to find the same poss in that movie shot. There are other possibilities like other photographers(different media) can take the photographs. Is it restricted? If so please delete this image, we can upload other images from here. Any suggestions are welcomed --Kiran Gopi (talk) 07:15, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
As per discussions it is difficult to prove the image came from kollywood.com(lack of source). So uploaded a new file with details and put a speedy deletion tag for the first one. --Kiran Gopi (talk) 08:24, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
- This is not a better idea to upload an entirely different image to this file page while a discussion is on progress.....Captain......Tälk tö me.. 16:42, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: discussed version, not by me Jcb (talk) 17:38, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
Blurry, unused file. Can't tell what it is Albacore (talk) 18:11, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
Kept: luckely the title tells Jcb (talk) 17:39, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
Uploads by user:MiSSSha
[edit]
- File:Шнекороторная_снегоуборочная_машина.jpg being a blatant copyright violation of http://www.isp-group.ru/catalog_13.html and File:Резонансный метод разрушения ледяного покрова pic02 Козин Виктор Михайлович.jpg a crop from book cover File:Kozin book 006.jpg, I think this user does not have a good understanding of copyright law. So it is safer to delete all his uploads. It is possible to imagine that the uploader has some connections with the book author, but the precautionary principle means the files should be deleted unless an OTRS E-mail is provided.
- Older edits are listed as speedy "no permission" at User_talk:MiSSSha#Files_you_uploaded_may_be_deleted since December 2010.
- I list here only newer uploads :
- File:Газоструйная тепловая машина.JPG
- File:Снегопогрузчик.jpg
- File:Фрезерно-роторная снегоуборочная машина.jpg
- File:Снегоочиститель шнекороторный КО-605.jpg
- File:Щеточная снегоуборочная машина.jpg
- File:Фрезерно-плужная снегоуборочная машина.jpg
- File:Плужная снегоуборочная техника .jpg
- File:Опытный образец, изготовленный по разработанной технологии Козин В М.jpg
- File:Универсальное устройство для разрушения ледяного наката и снежного наката на поверхности дорожного покрытия 03.jpg
- File:Универсальное устройство для разрушения ледяного наката и снежного наката на поверхности дорожного покрытия 02.jpg
- File:Универсальное устройство для разрушения ледяного наката и снежного наката на поверхности дорожного покрытия 01.jpg
- File:Универсальное устройство для разрушения ледяного наката и снежного наката на поверхности дорожного покрытия.jpg
- File:Дальневосточный Опытовый гидродинамический бассейн КнАГТУ for sheet Виктор Козин .jpg
- File:Резонансный метод разрушения ледяного покрова picture Козин Виктор Михайлович .jpg
- File:Ледоразрушающая способность изгибно-гравитационных волн от движения объектов Козин Виктор .png
- File:Исследование возможностей разрушения ледяного покрова амфибийными судами на воздушной подушке Козин Виктор .png
- File:Зуев В.А., Козин В.М. Использование судов на воздушной подушке для разрушения ледяного покрова Владивосток .png
- File:Kozin V M book 008.jpg
- File:Kozin V M book 007.jpg
- File:Kozin V M book 006.jpg
- File:Kozin Victor Scientist.jpg
- File:Телепередача (время город люди) Комсомолькс-на-Амуре.jpg
- File:Время город люди.jpg
_%D0%9A%D0%BE%D0%BC%D1%81%D0%BE%D0%BC%D0%BE%D0%BB%D1%8C%D0%BA%D1%81-%D0%BD%D0%B0-%D0%90%D0%BC%D1%83%D1%80%D0%B5.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Some medals bear an old date : 1909 on File:Серебряные медали на конкурсе «Архимед», посвящённом 100 летию новейшего изобретения в России Санкт-Петербург up.png so I leave coins aside for now, but some bear also a recent date : 2009 on File:Лауреат первой премии конкурса Губернатора Хабаровского края для профессоров высших учебных заведений up.png
Teofilo (talk) 19:14, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
- delete. the first medal is from 2009 too - it marks the centennial of a 1909 event (note modern orthography). It's a private issue, not a state coin or award, so PD-Ru-Exempt doesn't apply. NVO (talk) 02:37, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
- Thank you. I am a bit too lazy to list all medals now. Perhaps I will do it later if need be. Teofilo (talk) 18:49, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jcb (talk) 21:24, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
Superceeded with a higher quality file at File:1980-1981 South-West Indian Ocean cyclone season summary.png — Iune(talk) 19:56, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
- Keep Higher quality is questionable, the older file is much higher resolution. It also shows the SW IO - the alternate is of a larger area, which may or may not be appropriate (why include part of the Aussie region?), and the boundary of that region. Just because there is an alternative available which (in your opinion) is better doesn't mean it is...
Incidentally, try experimenting with some of the features in the track program, check the help (by using --help). --res 2048 would be a start :)--Nilfanion (talk) 20:52, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
- Note: I have uploaded a 2048px version of the file. — Iune(talk) 02:35, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
Kept: files are not identical Jcb (talk) 21:30, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
No FOP for architectural works in France. The bridge is the primary subject. 67.80.214.27 20:03, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jcb (talk) 21:30, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
No FOP for architectural works in France. The bridge's detail is visible in this photo. 67.80.214.27 20:06, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jcb (talk) 21:30, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
unused useless foto Reinhardhauke (talk) 20:21, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
- Keep A good photo of one-lane road, though without correct location. --ŠJů (talk) 09:42, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
Kept Jcb (talk) 21:31, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
No source, author, or publication information. Kelly (talk) 20:21, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
Kept: subject died 131 years ago, must be old enough to be PD Jcb (talk) 21:33, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
no source and no author given and can't be located by me, claim to PD-old-100 must be sustained by facts, reason for last close was trivial Hekerui (talk) 10:50, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted - We cannot tell if this painting was done when the subject was alive or 5 years ago. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 20:20, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
out of scope Reinhardhauke (talk) 20:26, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
- Keep Probably South Korean actor Lee Min Ho (이민호). Verification needed --George Chernilevsky talk 09:11, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Probably copyvio (low resolution etc). --Podzemnik (talk) 21:51, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jcb (talk) 21:34, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
unused personal foto Reinhardhauke (talk) 20:35, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
- Keep What speaks against an appropriate licensed image of a scene in a brazilian bistro? --Ras67 (talk) 16:27, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
Kept Jcb (talk) 21:36, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
low qualitynd useless Reinhardhauke (talk) 20:51, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
- Keep not that low quality, and I did not find anything better either from Commons. MKFI (talk) 19:19, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
Kept Jcb (talk) 21:36, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
Derivate work from this character ([5]), copyrighted by Akira Toriyama, Shueisha and Toei Animation. Nominated by Grizzly Sigma --Màñü飆¹5 talk 11:16, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
![[5]](http://www.universosaiyajin.com/imagenes_biografias/krillin.jpg){kind=link}
- Delete - this one's iffy, but I'm tending towards deletion on the grounds of copyright paranoia and that it's generally crap. -mattbuck (Talk) 11:21, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
- I disagree. I think the file shouldn't be deleted, cause it's different from the Akira's work. --MisterSanderson (talk) 21:57, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
Kept, very low quality, but used and thus within project scope; different enough from the original not to be a derivative work. Kameraad Pjotr 19:41, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
useless or derivative work grillo (talk) 21:22, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
- Comment I didn't see that there had already been a deletion debate when I clicked nominate for deletion on this image... If this is ok, then speedy keep. /grillo (talk) 21:34, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
There is no info about age or author so PD-old is not documented properly. MGA73 (talk) 22:12, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jcb (talk) 21:37, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
Self-promoting paper, non-educational chanchicto 23:04, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jcb (talk) 21:38, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
Original version by long-absent is clearly just a book scan. But there's no statement of which book it is, hence no way to justify it being US Federal Government. The listed "sources" appear to be the sources used to construct the map (and the 1992 work is not US PD) but what book was scanned is unclear. 109.224.142.191 23:44, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
- Before any action is taken someone with a JSTOR account needs to examine this article to see how the map images appear in it. — Hex (❝?!❞) 12:58, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
- "Area of Virgin Forest 1620," "Area of Virgin Forest 1850," and "Area of Virgin Forest 1920" are obviously taken from that article, p. 4 and 5., respectively. Versions here and there look identical to me so I assume they have been directly copied from the article. Hope this helps, —Pill (talk) 08:58, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jcb (talk) 21:40, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
Completing an incomplete DR. Quote:
- No FOP in UAE Commons:Freedom_of_panorama#United_Arab_Emirates (User:Binukalarickan 2010-10-31T08:14:45)
End of quote. --JuTa (talk) 05:30, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
Kept. - functional building - Jcb (talk) 01:07, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
No Freedom of Panorama in UAE, All the dervative work of the architectures are copyrighted to the creator of the work..for more information please see this Commons FoP - UAE ...Captain......Tälk tö me.. 17:11, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
Delete the white things at the top of the buildings are useless decorative things, not functional at all. Teofilo (talk) 22:40, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
Keep - it seems that you have missed some basic point in the foregoing debates... Bjoertvedt (talk) 10:35, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Delete - It has been established and re-affirmed that there is no freedom of panorama in the UAE, and I see no reason to treat this architecture any differently from the Burj Khalifa. CT Cooper · talk 14:12, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Delete What does functional building have to do with it? In the US, judging by the cases, architecture copyright covers tract homes quite well. Architectural copyright means all buildings, not just their nonfunctional parts.--Prosfilaes (talk) 04:07, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. The buildings are in UAE, they are the focal point and they are not under construction anymore. -- Cecil (talk) 21:14, 4 March 2011 (UTC)