Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2011/01/30
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
|
|
Image from Google Earth Ednei amaral (talk) 01:31, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Martin H. (talk) 01:43, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
watermarking emblazoned shows this to be a copyrighted image unsuitable for Commons Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 07:43, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Copy&pasted from the internet, not free content, not what we collect on Commons. Commons:Image casebook#Internet images. --Martin H. (talk) 13:02, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
unacceptable watermark, promotional, no evidence that the source has released the image for use here Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:01, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Closed early. Image has been replaced by File:Caprese fiorita.jpg which is OK. Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:58, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
unacceptable watermark, promotional, no evidence that the source has released the image for use here Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:01, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Closed early. Image replaced by File:Melon-blackberry sunflower.jpg which is OK. Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:56, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
unacceptable watermark, promotional, no evidence that the source has released the image for use here Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:02, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Closed early. Image has been replaced by File:Centrotavola-pinzimonio VisualFood.jpg which is OK. Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:57, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
File not shown Havang(nl) (talk) 16:10, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Kept. Image visible at preview, full resolution, thumbnail and es.wp -- Common Good (talk) 18:20, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
Zły opis grafiki !!!. To nie jest dwór w Kijaszkowie Clerkus (talk) 10:23, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Keep, no reason for deletion. {{Rename}} used instead. --ŠJů (talk) 08:00, 1 February 2011 (UTC)- Keep Bad name (as Clerkus stated) is no reason for deletion. Electron
<Talk?> 08:21, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
Comment I renamed the file -> File:Trutowo, klasztor.jpg. Electron <Talk?> 08:28, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
No images. 84.62.200.57 19:44, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Common Good (talk) 18:21, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
It comes from a blog site and I doubt this is free.Chrishmt0423 (talk) 07:05, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Copyright violation: Jonathan Daniel/Getty Images -- Common Good (talk) 18:11, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
Copyright violation Claymore (talk) 18:50, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Indeed. Other pictures by the user Galandar need a closer look. Trycatch (talk) 09:29, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
probably copyvio / Teleatlas / google Havang(nl) (talk) 15:51, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Blatant copyright violatoin: Google Earth screenshot. --High Contrast (talk) 11:44, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
low-quality unused diagram (superceded by File:Adipic acid structure.png) DMacks (talk) 09:11, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Delete Duplicate. --Yikrazuul (talk) 13:43, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Leyo 11:27, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
low-quality unused diagram (superceded by File:Adipic acid structure.png) DMacks (talk) 09:18, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Duplicate. --Yikrazuul (talk) 13:43, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
- Delete It is redundant. We can use Image:Adipic_acid.svg. --D.328 2011/01/31 08:48 (UTC)
Deleted. Leyo 11:28, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
vandalism 7 (talk) 07:37, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Delete No discussion. --Andrea (talk) 07:18, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted per discussion. abf «Cabale!» 18:10, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
not own work. see watermark. 78.55.207.90 08:12, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Delete Per nom. --Andrea (talk) 23:52, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted per discussion. abf «Cabale!» 18:11, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
Commercial poster, no copyright release. NVO (talk) 08:56, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Delete No reason to keep it. Out of scope and CR. --Andrea (talk) 00:08, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted per discussion. abf «Cabale!» 18:12, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
treagbdxgfgsgfdrhfghhhjiiklhujbjhfcujfhg cfhydse4yrhghyrfyrhf 5*fg 6512kl hj errthhgafqgxwwwgfgbdgfehdhbhhhfhxbnx xdggxvvbvvvvvvvvvvb 180.191.96.179 11:30, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
- The proposal contains no reason, but there exist more pages in this pseudo-spacename:
- Interwiki:Yen Ching-piao
- Interwiki:Li Yuanchao
- Delete these three pages and the test template Template:Interwiki. They can be only a needless complication for interwiki bots. --ŠJů (talk) 08:15, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
- These were test pages. Given than thay there are just three of them I did not think it was so troubling but you can delete them.--Zolo (talk) 08:12, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
- Delete per ŠJů and Zolo. — Jeff G. ツ 17:34, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted per discussion. abf «Cabale!» 18:15, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
copyvio from http://www.s-p-a.be/logo/ Brimz (talk) 16:02, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Copvio logo Brimz (talk) 16:04, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
and File:AleksaMaksic13.jpg. Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photoalbum. Not used. EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:36, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Delete both, per nom. --GeorgHH • talk 22:34, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted per discussion. abf «Cabale!» 18:18, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
out of scope Reinhardhauke (talk) 17:21, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted per nomination. abf «Cabale!» 18:19, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
unused personal foto Reinhardhauke (talk) 17:22, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted per nomination. abf «Cabale!» 18:19, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
out of scope GFreihalter (talk) 18:26, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted per nomination. abf «Cabale!» 18:22, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
publicity GFreihalter (talk) 18:29, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted per nomination. abf «Cabale!» 18:22, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
unknown music group - low quality GFreihalter (talk) 18:30, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted per nomination. abf «Cabale!» 18:22, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
unused personal foto GFreihalter (talk) 18:31, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted per nomination. abf «Cabale!» 18:23, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
out of scope GFreihalter (talk) 18:32, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted per nomination. abf «Cabale!» 18:23, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
publicity GFreihalter (talk) 18:33, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted fails COM:PS and likely fails COM:L as well abf «Cabale!» 18:23, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
out of scope GFreihalter (talk) 18:34, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted per nomination. abf «Cabale!» 18:24, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
out of scope GFreihalter (talk) 18:34, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted per nomination. abf «Cabale!» 18:24, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
out of scope GFreihalter (talk) 18:35, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted per nomination. abf «Cabale!» 18:24, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
out of scope GFreihalter (talk) 18:36, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted per nomination. abf «Cabale!» 18:25, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
out of scope GFreihalter (talk) 18:36, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted per nomination. abf «Cabale!» 18:25, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
publicity GFreihalter (talk) 18:40, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted per nomination. abf «Cabale!» 18:26, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
unused personal foto GFreihalter (talk) 18:40, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted per nomination. abf «Cabale!» 18:26, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
family foto - out of scope GFreihalter (talk) 18:42, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted per nomination. abf «Cabale!» 18:27, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
unused personal foto GFreihalter (talk) 18:43, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted per nomination. abf «Cabale!» 18:27, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
unused personal foto GFreihalter (talk) 18:45, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted per nomination. abf «Cabale!» 18:27, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
unused personal foto GFreihalter (talk) 18:45, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted per nomination. abf «Cabale!» 18:28, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
out of scope GFreihalter (talk) 18:46, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted per nomination. abf «Cabale!» 18:28, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
out of scope GFreihalter (talk) 18:47, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted per discussion. abf «Cabale!» 18:27, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
out of scope GFreihalter (talk) 18:49, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted per nomination. abf «Cabale!» 18:29, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
out of scope GFreihalter (talk) 18:50, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted per nomination. abf «Cabale!» 18:29, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
out of scope GFreihalter (talk) 18:53, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted per nomination. abf «Cabale!» 18:30, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
unknown musician GFreihalter (talk) 18:54, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted per nomination. abf «Cabale!» 18:30, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
unused personal foto GFreihalter (talk) 18:55, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted per nomination. abf «Cabale!» 18:30, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
vandalism GFreihalter (talk) 18:56, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
unused personal foto GFreihalter (talk) 18:58, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
- Delete probably copyright violation [1], [2] -- Common Good (talk) 18:28, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted per discussion. abf «Cabale!» 18:31, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
out of scope GFreihalter (talk) 18:58, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted per nomination. abf «Cabale!» 18:31, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
publicity GFreihalter (talk) 19:00, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
out of scope GFreihalter (talk) 19:00, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted per nomination. abf «Cabale!» 18:33, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
out of scope GFreihalter (talk) 19:01, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted per nomination. abf «Cabale!» 18:34, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
out of scope GFreihalter (talk) 19:05, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted per nomination. abf «Cabale!» 18:33, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
out of scope GFreihalter (talk) 19:07, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted per nomination. abf «Cabale!» 18:33, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
Same photo as http://www.vooz.com.br/blogs/teresina-uma-singela-homenagem-13080.html , that is older and attributed to "Raoni Dantas". User Juniorpetjua has copied several files, claiming they're "own work". Ednei amaral (talk) 19:16, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted " (show/hide) 20:44, 30 January 2011 Dferg (talk | contribs | block) deleted "File:Teresina-Piauí.jpg" (Copyright violation) (view/restore) (global usage; delinker log)" abf «Cabale!» 18:33, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
OUT OF SCOPE GFreihalter (talk) 21:02, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted WAS CAPSLOCK REALLY NECESSARY? ;) abf «Cabale!» 18:35, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
unused personal foto GFreihalter (talk) 21:02, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted per nomination. abf «Cabale!» 18:36, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
out of scope GFreihalter (talk) 21:03, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted per nomination. abf «Cabale!» 18:36, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
unused personal foto GFreihalter (talk) 21:04, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted per nomination. abf «Cabale!» 18:36, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
unused personal foto GFreihalter (talk) 21:05, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted per nomination. abf «Cabale!» 18:37, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
out of scope GFreihalter (talk) 21:06, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted per nomination. abf «Cabale!» 18:37, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
publicity GFreihalter (talk) 21:08, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted per nomination. abf «Cabale!» 18:37, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
out of scope GFreihalter (talk) 21:09, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted per nomination. abf «Cabale!» 18:37, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
out of scope GFreihalter (talk) 21:11, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
- Same opinion, private collection, delete--Motopark (talk) 03:55, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted per discussion. abf «Cabale!» 18:38, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
useless GFreihalter (talk) 21:11, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
- Delete More than useless, it´s an awfull video capture, no sense, completely out of scope. --Andrea (talk) 07:04, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted per discussion. abf «Cabale!» 18:39, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
publicity GFreihalter (talk) 21:13, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Television screenshot. A logo is partly visible on the lower left of the image. Maybe the uploader created the screenshot himself, but he not created the content. Martin H. (talk) 21:44, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Delete Per nom. --Andrea (talk) 13:08, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted per discussion. abf «Cabale!» 18:40, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
useless GFreihalter (talk) 18:37, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. George Chernilevsky talk 09:19, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
useless GFreihalter (talk) 18:38, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. George Chernilevsky talk 09:20, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
useless GFreihalter (talk) 18:39, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. George Chernilevsky talk 09:21, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
useless GFreihalter (talk) 18:52, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. advertisement George Chernilevsky talk 09:23, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
Promotional text and web-links, out of scope Motopark (talk) 20:53, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. blatant advertisement, out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 09:28, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
Looks like it was copied from http://www.petachem.com/products.html Sphilbrick (talk) 01:26, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Copyvio Captain-tucker (talk) 19:52, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
Out of scope: Hotel price card. NVO (talk) 02:04, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Out of the project scope. Podzemnik (talk) 21:57, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
small size drawing. No exif. Looks like a scan from a printed material. Teofilo (talk) 02:28, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Most likely derivative work. Podzemnik (talk) 21:59, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
Small size drawing. Looks like a scan from printed material. Teofilo (talk) 02:28, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Most likely derivative work. Podzemnik (talk) 21:59, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
small size drawing. Looks like a scan from printed material. Teofilo (talk) 02:29, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Most likely derivative work. Podzemnik (talk) 21:59, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
small size drawing, looks like a scan from printed material Teofilo (talk) 02:30, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Most likely derivative work. Podzemnik (talk) 22:00, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
Small size drawing. Looks like a scan from printed material. An older version is a photograph of a statue, which is perhaps OK Teofilo (talk) 02:32, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Kept. I reverted image to an older version and hided problematic revisions. Podzemnik (talk) 22:07, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
Possibly a cop-vio, Google.com is not a source. Theda (talk) 14:37, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
- Delete. Like File:Marsill.jpg, uploaded by the same user, this is a rather obvious copyright violation. —LX (talk, contribs) 12:39, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Podzemnik (talk) 22:09, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
- Please delete, based on a very unreliable source, Thanks. Sodacan (talk) 18:35, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
- Delete uploader request; I trust his judgement as to whether the file is useful for an educational purpose. DrKiernan (talk) 20:15, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Sodacan is experienced and trusted user, so I trust his judgement too. Podzemnik (talk) 22:13, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
Personal poem, out of project scope Martin H. (talk) 20:17, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Out of scope. Podzemnik (talk) 22:14, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
unused personal foto GFreihalter (talk) 20:45, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Unused personal image. Podzemnik (talk) 22:15, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
unknown person GFreihalter (talk) 20:58, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Podzemnik (talk) 22:16, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
This is unfree I think. A logo is clearly seen on the bottom right corner of the image. Chrishmt0423 (talk) 05:17, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Derivative work. Podzemnik (talk) 12:37, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
unusable image, better ones do exist abf «Cabale!» 18:13, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
- Keep Not unusable, this image is used in 3 Commons categories. No other photo is a better duplicate of this one, no reason for deletion. --ŠJů (talk) 09:09, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Not suitable for low quality, categorization does not imply usability. There are few better pictures of the same theme File:Ryanair Boeing 737-800 EI-DPT Dublin Airport.jpg, File:Ryanair.b737-800.aftertakeoff.arp.jpg, File:Boeing 737-800 EI-DYR Ryanair.jpg, File:Ryanair (EI-DYS), Belfast, June 2010 (03).JPG. --Tlusťa (talk) 17:18, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
- Delete I agree with ABF and also good argument is existence of File:Ryanair (EI-DYS), Belfast, June 2010 (03).JPG --Chmee2 (talk) 17:40, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Béria Lima msg 12:58, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, but there is no FoP in the UAE. Dura lex, sed lex. 84.62.200.57 10:30, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
- Keep - A building site, no copyright issue here. CT Cooper · talk 14:19, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, but there is no FoP in the UAE. Dura lex, sed lex. 84.62.200.57 10:31, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Keep - A building site, no copyright issue here. CT Cooper · talk 14:20, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, but there is no FoP in the UAE. Dura lex, sed lex. 84.62.200.57 10:32, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
- Keep - A building site, no copyright issue here. CT Cooper · talk 14:20, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, but there is no FoP in the UAE. Dura lex, sed lex. 84.62.200.57 10:32, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
- Keep - A building site, no copyright issue here. CT Cooper · talk 14:21, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Pornographic/Sexually explicit. 86.20.22.191
- Keep No valid argument --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 17:26, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
Kept. Masur (talk) 07:29, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
This thumbnail file is redundant to File:Louis J. Freeh.jpg Benchill (talk) 07:27, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Common Good (talk) 20:12, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
http://www.chariot-tours.com/images/namaste%20welcome.gif + Logo being used on several websites, and cannot be considered as simple geometry.. ...Captain......Tälk tö me.. 17:36, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Comment I must say, you are gaming policies against the spirit of policies (same tactics you tried at ml.wp before you get renamed here). I am sure that you know this image is a very old popular welcome image in India (sometimes even before centuries) and so in PD (because you are Indian). One can observe same image is carved on the doors of old palaces. I know that people not familiar with Indian origin images may feel you are right but I think deleting images like this ultimately no good for the project. I am also sure that you also know it is really hard to find any source of any of these images you are continuously trying to delete. If you really want to contribute, find source informations.--Praveen:talk 18:36, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
- If you can't show any evidence the image is old, then we can't keep it.--Prosfilaes (talk) 03:56, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
Keep - This is a very popular image in India.--Praveen:talk 18:36, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
- Delete The obligation is on the uploader to provide complete correct source information. If we can't provide clear source information, we must delete, India or not.--Prosfilaes (talk) 03:56, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
- Delete: the basic principle of copyright law is that ideas are not copyrightable, but expressions of ideas are. No one can copyright the idea of the namaste, which is certainly very ancient, but of course modern depictions of the namaste (such as this image) are fully copyrightable. If there are indeed images of the namaste carved on to ancient temple doors that are in the public domain, then such images can be photographed and uploaded here. Alternatively, an editor can create his or her own drawing of a namaste and upload it here after having released it into the public domain or licensed it under a free licence. But one cannot randomly take an illustration from the Internet and upload it here without any evidence that that illustration is in the public domain. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 14:18, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
- Comment This was uploaded over another, very different, file, which at least has a fair presumption of being in scope and validly licensed. This DR should just delete the new upload and leave the old one.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:32, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
- Comment: I am entirely with Prosfilaes here. There is no way we should even be considering the image that was here when this discussion started. It is certainly not public
- Comment: uploader claimed original work. Given that it was uploaded over another image, and is apparently not original work, I don't think we need to waste time sorting out details. Just revert to earlier image (and earlier description). - Jmabel ! talk 03:11, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
- Comment: I'm afraid we can't use the original work either. It is a copyright violation from iStockphoto. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 05:19, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
- Comment Both are copyvio's...delete.....Captain......Tälk tö me.. 09:17, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Deleted by User:Axpde as copyvio Powers (talk) 19:50, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
unusable image, better one exists, COM:PS abf «Cabale!» 19:30, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
- No other photo of this aircraft (EC-LBC) on Commons. --ŠJů (talk) 06:50, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
- Keep quite usable, and no better picture available of this particular aircraft. MKFI (talk) 19:25, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
Kept per discussion abf «Cabale!» 19:37, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
Not own work. The uploader has shown with his first uploads on en.wp, log, that he not has self-created photographs of Janet Jackson. Adiitionally Gabe19 is 19 years old according to his en.wp userpage and at the time of this concert he was 11 years old, not an age for professional photography in a time, 2001, where people at concert not made photos but listen to the music and let the photos be taken by professionals. Third im not sure about the date July 26 (Chicago) for various reasons. Martin H. (talk) 00:50, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
- Keep, How is my age a valid reason?? Just because I was 11 at the time doesn't mean it's my own work. I found this photograph in an old box of photos I own. This photo was taken 10 years ago; if I remember correctly I won a pair of front-row tickets to her concert in Chicago. Also where people at concert not made photos but listen to the music and let the photos be taken by professionals?? I uploaded those images more than a year ago, when I was relatively new to Wikipedia and wasn't familiar with licensing tags; and I know for a fact that those weren't uploaded under the "own work" license. Gabe19 (talk) 02:59, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Some blue spots in the picture make me believe that was a photo scanned from a magazin with satin-sheets. --Andrea (talk) 18:26, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
- The image is a scan, I took it with a disposable camera. Gabe19 (talk) 20:58, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
- Especially from the front row you will not be able to make this stage level photo. Another evidence that you gave me, thanks. Check 1/2 files I uploaded to flickr]: 1) A front rower will not have any chance to make such a photo, 2) there are no photo cameras, people not made photos in concerts at that time (if you not remember...) 3) television cameras and cameras are installed left and right from the stage - unlike your amateur camera they are installed on stage level. Regarding the second: Possible a magazine scan judging by the paper. If you want to provide evidences you may make a photo of the original negative or a photo of the photo, uncropped, laying on a table. I dont take the story. --Martin H. (talk) 21:53, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
- What do you mean by photo cameras, and people not made photos in concerts at that time (if you not remember...)??? I guess I was lucky? I'm not exactly sure what else you want me to say? Like I said, I found this image in an old box of photos I own, with no negatives, I never used to save negatives. Gabe19 (talk) 08:55, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
- With a disponsable camera I really doubt you can reach this kind of definition, beyond the blue spots. Sorry, I know I have a reasonable explaination for everyting, but don´t convince me. Cheers, --Andrea (talk) 09:48, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: I don't believe this story either Jcb (talk) 21:56, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
Image now redundant to File:Eleanor Roosevelt at United Nations.png, all other projects now use other image. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja (talk / en) 02:14, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
- Keep File is in use in Wikimedia. Nominator's removal of source and description information from image (!) has been reverted as inappropriate. Please see {{Duplicate}}, Commons:Deletion_policy#Duplicates; note as well this is not an excat duplicate and in any case should be universally replaced in advance before any deletion. -- Infrogmation (talk) 15:40, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Neutral; provided it's replaced, I don't see any reason to keep this. This is an exact duplicate, as far as I can tell; both PNG and GIF are lossless formats for greyscale, and the two images are the same size and look exactly the same.--Prosfilaes (talk) 04:01, 31 January 2011 (UTC)- Delete - I already went through every wiki globally that used the old file and replaced it with the new. It is a bit-for-bit conversion of the source image, only slightly smaller (filesize) due to better compression. Though it will be a slow process, all GIF files should be replaced with PNG files as the latter is in line with the free software movement. Please read the article Why There Are No GIF Files on GNU Web Pages from the Free Software Foundation. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja (talk / en) 10:22, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
- That's moot now; the patents on GIF have all expired.--Prosfilaes (talk) 17:49, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jcb (talk) 22:01, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
The source blogspot.com file bears the date 1974. It is difficult for me to imagine this could be old enough to be in the Public Domain. No permission from artist of coypright holder. Teofilo (talk) 02:35, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
The creator is unknown. The permission is for sure, because that sketch is made by a photo of a status. It is used widely in Greece as a symbol of an athletic club, for any kind of uses, including commercial purposes. Anyway, I think OTRS satisfies the rules. User:Pyraechmes Pyraechmes (talk) 18:06, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
This source blogspot is from the Athletic club "Zafirakis Naoussas". The year 1974 is the year of the foundation of the Athletic club. Not the year of the sketch. The sketch must be much older than the club. User:Pyraechmes Pyraechmes (talk) 08:21, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
The sketch could be a derivative work of the (XXth century, sculptor unknown) statue : see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Zafirakis Theodossiou2.JPG. Teofilo (talk) 18:45, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
The sculptor is Aekaterine Chalepa Katsatou. She is 86 years old now. I tried to comunicate with her. I am waiting for an answer but it is very digfficult. We will see. Pyraechmes Pyraechmes (talk)
Deleted Jcb (talk) 22:03, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
Possibly non-free shot of a tv show. Theda (talk) 03:35, 30 January 2011 (UTC) It was supposed to be behind the scene shot. It's from the right source Lurrenzinc
Deleted Jcb (talk) 22:39, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
author is 张乐平, die in 1992, not PD shizhao (talk) 03:52, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jcb (talk) 22:39, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
author is User:Adamantane, Unencyclopedic - The file doesn't seem likely to be useful in any Wikimedia project. / Création artistique crée sans usage éducatif évident.--Lynntoniolondon (talk) 04:23, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
- Keep So? I see no problems with that. Not all the jobs in this project are encyclopedic, and several that should be deleted, aren´t. This is I think a pretty much beautiful job. --Andrea (talk) 07:13, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
Info The link from the image page to this discussion didn't work because the discussion was misplaced, I have only just corrected that, and also notified the uploader on their home page and asked for more information about the image. --Tony Wills (talk) 01:25, 5 February 2011 (UTC)- Info I do not know what is the matter of choice between encyclopedic or unencyclopedic. My only reason for publishing this photographic still life is to give a free example of matching shades theme. Stone and Skin...For a training use, this photo illustrate an einsteinian discovery about effects of gravity on light propagation : stone-star alter the curvature of the skin-space ... When I write papers in my blog, I am frequently looking for such kind of imagery. My purpose is nothing but unselfish :-)) Adamantane (talk) 16:14, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
Kept Jcb (talk) 22:42, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
I am the creator and uploader of this flag. It is part of an alternate timeline which has now become obsolete. Obviously, this flag serves not purpose on Wikimedia Commons, as it is fictional and not used in the mainstream. I also do not wish to have this file on WC anymore for personal reasons. Please respect my wishes. Thank you in advance. --NuclearVacuum (talk) 04:41, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jcb (talk) 23:08, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
I am the creator and uploader of this map. It is part of an alternate timeline which has now become obsolete. Obviously, this flag serves not purpose on Wikimedia Commons, as it is fictional and not used in the mainstream. I also do not wish to have this file on WC anymore for personal reasons. Please respect my wishes. Thank you in advance. --NuclearVacuum (talk) 04:45, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jcb (talk) 23:08, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
I am the creator and uploader of this flag. It is part of an alternate timeline which has now become obsolete. Obviously, this flag serves not purpose on Wikimedia Commons, as it is fictional and not used in the mainstream. I also do not wish to have this file on WC anymore for personal reasons. Please respect my wishes. Thank you in advance. --NuclearVacuum (talk) 04:52, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jcb (talk) 23:08, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
Not an Ottoman stamp. Invalid license Vssun (talk) 07:00, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
- Keep. The description and the PD status tag look fine. Just correct what is apparently a mistake in the "author" line, so that it conforms with the correct information. (You can also add a Not-PD-US-URAA tag if you think you must, but non-US PD gov works are often tolerated on Commons anyway even when they're not PD in the US.) -- Asclepias (talk) 14:34, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
- Keep - My mistake.--Vssun (talk) 18:59, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
Kept Jcb (talk) 23:09, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
It is not an Ottoman stamp. Hence invalid license. Vssun (talk) 07:05, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
- And what kind of country it is a postage stamp in your opinion? --Sdobnikov A. (talk) 07:19, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
- It's turkish postal tax stamp for Red Crescent (1928), Michel #9 Zwangszuschlagsmarken, Scott #RA2. --Sdobnikov A. (talk) 07:36, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
- For the moment, author/designer/engravers(s)'s name is not printed on stamp, but the inscription "damga matbaasi" under the pictorial. The Darphane ve Damga Matbaası Genel Müdürlüğü is Turkey's national monetary and printing plant. If it is accepted that author is not known and not possible to know, but the State's plant: 1928 + 70 = 1998.Sebjarod (talk) 10:24, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
- Keep. It looks like the nominator just made a mistake. The file is tagged with PD-TR (Turkey), not PD-Ottoman. -- Asclepias (talk) 14:08, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
- Keep per above comments. --Michael Romanov (talk) 17:21, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
- Keep per Asclepias --Butko (talk) 08:06, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
- Keep Sorry for the mistake. Withdrawing deletion request. --Vssun (talk) 18:57, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
Kept Jcb (talk) 23:09, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
- also nominating:
Apparently from the copyrighted CD production described here. No evidence of permission. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:20, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
- Delete; I have to wonder why they're being used, since sourceless they are out of scope.--Prosfilaes (talk) 04:03, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jcb (talk) 23:11, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
replaced by Christliches Kunstblatt für Kirche, Schule und Haus, Inhaltsverzeichnis, 1858-1919, 1927.pdf Gerd Leibrock (talk) 08:27, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jcb (talk) 23:42, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
Source is deleted Wiki Image - See this Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Mundu-and-Saree.png & This Commons:Deletion requests/File:Sari-and-Mundu.png ...Captain......Tälk tö me.. 10:00, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Kept: everything seems OK, file was deleted at EN for being present at Commons, see here. The link as mentioned by nominator is incorrect, which has been caused by this edit. Jcb (talk) 23:51, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
Picture is marked with "© Musée de l'Air et de l'Espace, Paris-Le Bourget - droits réservés" on http://www.histoire-image.org/site/oeuvre/analyse.php?i=260 Teofilo (talk) 10:16, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
The picture that was shown in Le Matin on August 8th 1919 is a different one with the plane further away behind the monument : link. So as far as I know, the picture File:Godefroy_flight.jpg was not necessarily published in 1919. I think the attribution to fr:Jacques Mortane (death in 1939) might be wrong, because http://fandavion.free.fr/godefroy.htm tells about "photographs and cameramen warned by Jacques Mortane" rather than saying that Jacques Mortane was carrying his own camera. Even if it is from Jacques Mortane, we must assume, unless we have evidence to the contrary, that it is a posthumous work protected 25 years after first publication (French copyright law Article L123-4). If the picture is not from him, it is an anonymous work protected 70 years after first publication. Teofilo (talk) 10:27, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
The film is nominated for deletion at Commons:Deletion requests/Commons:Deletion requests/File:Charles Godefroy – Le vol a travers l'Arc de Triomphe.ogv. Teofilo (talk) 10:37, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Kept: those days people were not just photographing anything with their mobile phones. If you had made such a picture those days, you would publish it for sure. Jcb (talk) 00:07, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, but there is no FoP in Qatar. Dura lex, sed lex. 84.62.200.57 10:20, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
- Hey Fernrohr, forgot your password? I recall that at de-wiki you had many monikers, can't you pull the same act here? NVO (talk) 12:13, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
- Keep There are no copyrightable parts to be seen here. -- 194.48.128.75 11:02, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
- Keep There is no FoP in Qatar, but I would argue per de minimis that the stadium is a minor part of the photo. I would say the crowd, the fireworks, and the celebration of the 2009 Emir Cup final are the "subject" of this photo, rather than the small portion of the stadium depicted. -Gump Stump (talk) 18:39, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Kept: per comments above Jcb (talk) 00:08, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, but there is no FoP in Belgium. Dura lex, sed lex. 84.62.200.57 10:34, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
- Delete COM:FOP#Belgium —Quibik (talk) 14:16, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
- against deletion: If someone refers to Belgian Copyright law to argue for a deletion request, s/he should at least bother to read it:
- Belgian copyright law, Art. 22. § 1: "Lorsque l'oeuvre a été licitement publiée, l'auteur ne peut interdire: 1° la reproduction et la communication au public, dans un but d'information, de court fragments d'oeuvres ou d'oeuvres plastiques dans leur intégralité à l'occasion de comptes rendus d'événements de l'actualité; (...)" (bold by me). This picture clearly falls into the category of compte rendus d'événements de l'actualité (the introduction of the Euro in Estonia on Jnauary 1st, 2011) and also fulfills the requirement of court fragments (...) d'oeuvres plastiques, as only a tiny bit of the entire building - which obviously is not the main topic of the picture - is shown. In other words, the deletion request should be withdrawn. --Zinneke (talk) 21:22, 31 January 2011 (UTC) (edited by --Zinneke (talk) 13:44, 2 February 2011 (UTC) )
Deleted Jcb (talk) 00:33, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
this is a grainy, low resolution image with wrong colors of the same image here File:Nicolas Neufchâtel 002.jpg. No need to have this inferior file of the same painting. --Gryffindor (talk · contribs) Correct malformed DR. Captain-tucker (talk) 10:42, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Kept: files are not identical Jcb (talk) 00:35, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, but there is no FoP in the UAE. Dura lex, sed lex. 84.62.200.57 11:28, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Kept: unfinished building, per Commons:Deletion requests/Images of Burj Khalifa Jcb (talk) 01:53, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
Contains the copyrighted Atomium. 84.61.172.89 19:26, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
- Keep, at least as long as {{Money-EU}} is not deleted. --PaterMcFly (talk) 10:35, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
Contains the copyrighted Atomium. 84.62.200.57 10:10, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Kept. - per previous keep - Jcb (talk) 23:59, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, but there is no FoP in the UAE. Dura lex, sed lex. 84.62.200.57 11:29, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Kept: unfinished building, all possible FOP issues are DM Jcb (talk) 11:52, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, but there is no FoP in the UAE. Dura lex, sed lex. 84.62.200.57 11:31, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jcb (talk) 11:53, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, but there is no FoP in the UAE. Dura lex, sed lex. 84.62.200.57 11:31, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jcb (talk) 11:53, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, but there is no FoP in the UAE. Dura lex, sed lex. 84.62.200.57 11:32, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Kept: all possible FOP issues are DM Jcb (talk) 11:53, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
No Freedom of Panorama in the United Arab Emirates. Ras67 (talk) 11:41, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 19:42, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
Sorry, but there is no FoP in the UAE. Dura lex, sed lex. 84.62.200.57 11:32, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Kept: unfinished building Jcb (talk) 11:54, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, but there is no FoP in Russia. Dura lex, sed lex. 84.62.200.57 11:54, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Kept: no information was provided by nominator to check if this is still copyrighted Jcb (talk) 11:55, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
Civil Code of Russian Federation, articles 1259 and 1276, states no freedom of panorama in Russia. The building from 1953, architects B. M. Iofan (+1976), L. V. Rudnev (+1956), S. E. Chernyshyov (+1963), P. V. Abrosimov, A. F. Khryakov (+1976), V. N. Nasonov. PereslavlFoto (talk) 11:07, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
Spurious claim of 'no original authorship' - there are photographs and texts here, and everything is put in a lay-out, all of which seem to be copyrightable to me Andre Engels (talk) 11:59, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
- speedy. Curiously, the newspaper itself cannot release its content under a free license. NVO (talk) 12:16, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
- Dzinko I'm working in TMT and probably can put its content on Wiki 12:44, 03 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jcb (talk) 11:56, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, but there is no FoP in the UAE. Dura lex, sed lex. 84.62.200.57 12:04, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Kept: all possible FOP issues are DM Jcb (talk) 11:57, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
Not de minimis, and is nearing its final stage of construction (and its distinctive form has formed). The image is not a skyline pic. See also COM:FOP UAE. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 04:29, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Missvain (talk) 19:01, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
Sorry, but there is no FoP in the UAE. Dura lex, sed lex. 84.62.200.57 12:05, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jcb (talk) 12:11, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
low quality - too dark Reinhardhauke (talk) 12:30, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
- Keep clearly visible, no better duplicate photo linked. --ŠJů (talk) 08:18, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
- Keep It's my photo. clearly visible. Mpmpmp (d) 13:03, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
Kept Jcb (talk) 12:11, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
Examenfinal
[edit]- File:Profundidad de penetracion de la luz.jpg
- File:Porfirina activada con la luz.jpg
- File:Jjstt.jpg - redirection to the one above
Reasons for deletion request:
Out of scopes. In december 2009 they pass another DR. The result was keep and replace with a new version, because it was used in es:Efecto fotoelectrico en porfirinas. Now that article was cleaned because the section where this two pictures where used were add for a medical procedure. An the article was fusionated with es:Porfirinas. If you check, you´ll see the pics are no longer in use and completely unnecesary. Also they´re out of scope, very difficult to read or understand, and at least the second looks like copy from somewhere and retag in an awful way. There's no reason to redraw the files, because as I already says they´re using in an add wich has been removed. Anyway, more than 1 year has past since the last DR and no new version has been created and no new uses has been found (hardly believe because they´re almost impossible to read). I asked for a new version in es:WP but no one give me a response. And they have no categories neuther. Thanks. --Andrea (talk) 12:26, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
- Delete As mentioned in the first DR: there is no source, noone knows what those pictures are demonstrating and the author is not intrested in the DRs. --Yikrazuul (talk) 22:17, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
- Keep They may be terrible pictures, but they are still usable (File:Porfirina activada con la luz.jpg appears to be still in use). "out of scope" means they are not usable for the wiki projects, clearly they have been, and in some cases still are, so they aren't out of scope. Deleting images because we can't raise a response from the uploader will result in an awful lot of deletions! - No valid reason for their deletion has been cited. --Tony Wills (talk) 11:09, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
Comment No, it is not in use, as I already says, it´s only an old redirection. If you watch the article today, as I already explain the picture it´s no longer in use. Make click in the link and tell me if the picture is in use, please. And sorry, could be an awful reason, but the pictures still looks like copied and retags from somewhere. CR is not a valid reason? --Andrea (talk) 19:00, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
- Well it was in use when I posted that, there were about three images at the bottom of the article, it was the last one. Maybe I was seeing a cached copy of the article, I can only presume it has recently been removed (by you?). But that is not really the point, there are thousands of unused images here. It was used for a long time, obviously proving it has some conceivable use. There really isn't any great advantage in deleting it, it won't even give us any space back. If you can show it is a copy violation then that is a different matter. --Tony Wills (talk) 09:39, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, It was removed by me, because I made the cleanup of the article, and once again, it was add. No, I can´t give you the real website or broshure where the picture was taken, but it´s pretty much obvious that it is copy. Or how you explain those section awfully deleted? Lot of pictures are deleted dayly because are out of scope. Why are you so attached to these pictures? I se no one use them in any other thing in four years, and no one even try to redraw them in any other WMProject. But I have no problems. If is so important to keep something useless, with no focus, no certain source and impossible to read, well, do it. I´m a reasonable person and I know when give up. --Andrea (talk) 18:18, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
- Also no categories since 2007. --Andrea (talk) 19:12, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
- Update: New version here. Can we delete them now? --Andrea (talk) 22:49, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for finding someone to create an SVG version of that file, much better! Of course the new version is a derivative of this version, and this version should be kept on that basis at least (as we keep original versions of files so that we can refer to them if later something about the new version is queried). I've copied the categories from the new version to the original as well. Now all we need is an SVG version of the other file as well. :-) --Tony Wills (talk) 23:19, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
- Update: New version here. Can we delete them now? --Andrea (talk) 22:49, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
- Also no categories since 2007. --Andrea (talk) 19:12, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, It was removed by me, because I made the cleanup of the article, and once again, it was add. No, I can´t give you the real website or broshure where the picture was taken, but it´s pretty much obvious that it is copy. Or how you explain those section awfully deleted? Lot of pictures are deleted dayly because are out of scope. Why are you so attached to these pictures? I se no one use them in any other thing in four years, and no one even try to redraw them in any other WMProject. But I have no problems. If is so important to keep something useless, with no focus, no certain source and impossible to read, well, do it. I´m a reasonable person and I know when give up. --Andrea (talk) 18:18, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
- Well it was in use when I posted that, there were about three images at the bottom of the article, it was the last one. Maybe I was seeing a cached copy of the article, I can only presume it has recently been removed (by you?). But that is not really the point, there are thousands of unused images here. It was used for a long time, obviously proving it has some conceivable use. There really isn't any great advantage in deleting it, it won't even give us any space back. If you can show it is a copy violation then that is a different matter. --Tony Wills (talk) 09:39, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
I won´t ask it because took a lot of work and no one wants to work for something has not a reasonable aplication. And no, I should no been keep because the first DR says that if they were replace, they should be deleted. Why so attached to something useless, and probably stolen? --Andrea (talk) 00:14, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
- There was a suggestion by User:NEUROtiker in that original DR that they should be replaced and deleted, that was not agreed by anyone else. The closer suggested we revisit the DR once they were replaced. The images were in use until you removed them from the article and posted a deletion request - not completely useless. --Tony Wills (talk) 19:52, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
- Ok, let me clear one point: in es:WP several admin asked me to be an admin. I decline for now, but it shows that when I deleted not only these pictures, but also lots of text in the same article, I did it for a good reason: it was publicity for a new medical procedure with no references and probably a "primary source", wich means someone write something as an essay, or in this case very probably copied it from a brochure. And no one protested because they trust me. The old version is here. You can translated and check if you want. Also the name of the user ("Final Exam") sounds like a Wikipedia:Single-purpose account. More: Any other picture or article was uploaded from this user after. If so very important are, why don´t you try to draw them yourself or find someone to do it? If the problem is that after 4 years I decided to clean up an article, wich as a template from 2008, fine, keep it then. But I don´t like you question my reasons or my integrity, because you don´t know me at all, as I don´t know you neither. In the same way I can think you are trying to keep them for a particular purpose, thing I don´t do because, following rules of WP, I presume good faith. And this is my last participation in this DR, because I already explain with lot of details everything I did. The idea you think I´m doing this for a hidden reason make me sick. I never hide I deleted or the reason to do it. But I won´t allow anyone doubts about my good faith. Enjoy the pictures. Cheers. --Andrea (talk) 20:32, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
Kept. - insufficient reason for deletion - Jcb (talk) 12:23, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, but there is no FoP in South Africa. Dura lex, sed lex. 84.62.200.57 12:44, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Kept: too simple Jcb (talk) 16:00, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, but there is no FoP in South Africa. Dura lex, sed lex. 84.62.200.57 12:45, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Kept: - "it is unknown if photographs of artistic works are an infringement or not" - Jcb (talk) 16:04, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, but there is no FoP in South Africa. Dura lex, sed lex. 84.62.200.57 12:55, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Kept: - "it is unknown if photographs of artistic works are an infringement or not" - Jcb (talk) 16:04, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, but there is no FoP in South Africa. Dura lex, sed lex. 84.62.200.57 12:56, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
- This is only an interpretation - and an unnecessarily severe one. Even Freedom_of_panorama#South_Africa says "However, since it does not adequately mention photographs, it is unknown if photographs of artistic works are an infringement or not." If images of buildings were not allowed, this would certainly have been enforced in South Africa during the 2010 FIFA World Cup, when restrictions of this sort were enforced more strictly than usual, but it wasn't. Zaian (talk) 20:00, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Kept: - "it is unknown if photographs of artistic works are an infringement or not" - Jcb (talk) 16:05, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
Stadium was constructed in 1972, so based on South Africa's 50 years pma copyright term, is under copyright until at least 1/1/2023. South Africa does not have freedom of panorama adequate for Commons (this appears to have been clarified since the prior deletion discussion), so photographs of copyrighted buildings are not allowed. cmadler (talk) 16:18, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY (TALK) 07:39, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, but there is no FoP in South Africa. Dura lex, sed lex. 84.62.200.57 12:57, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
- This is only an interpretation - and an unnecessarily severe one. Even Freedom_of_panorama#South_Africa says "However, since it does not adequately mention photographs, it is unknown if photographs of artistic works are an infringement or not." If images of buildings were not allowed, this would certainly have been enforced in South Africa during the 2010 FIFA World Cup, when restrictions of this sort were enforced more strictly than usual, but it wasn't. Zaian (talk) 20:01, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Kept: - "it is unknown if photographs of artistic works are an infringement or not" - Jcb (talk) 16:05, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
No FOP in South Africa. — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 03:57, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --MBisanz talk 02:46, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
Sorry, but there is no FoP in South Korea. Dura lex, sed lex. 84.62.200.57 13:01, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Kept: all possible FOP issues are DM Jcb (talk) 16:06, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
Um, why was this kept? This isn't de minimis at all! The whole purpose of the image is the big skyscraper in the middle. Stefan4 (talk) 21:58, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:50, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
unacceptable watermark, promotional, no evidence that the source has released the image for use here Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:02, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jcb (talk) 16:07, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
COM:DW abf «Cabale!» 13:02, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Kept: mostly text, other parts DM Jcb (talk) 16:09, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
Copyrighted product packaging. Kelly (talk) 01:54, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
- Keep Nonsens, keine Schöpfungshöhe und menschliche Darstellung ist Beiwerk. --Ralf Roletschek (talk) 11:18, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:48, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
What do you mean by "FoP"? Could you elaborate on that? --Chulk90 (talk) 18:28, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, but there is no FoP in South Korea. Dura lex, sed lex. 84.62.200.57 13:02, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
- KeepWhole cityscape. Each building is de minimis for itself. -- 194.48.128.75 11:10, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
Kept: all possible FOP issues are DM Jcb (talk) 16:09, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, but there is no FoP in South Korea. Dura lex, sed lex. 84.62.200.57 13:03, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Kept: all possible FOP issues are DM Jcb (talk) 16:16, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, but there is no FoP in South Korea. Dura lex, sed lex. 84.62.200.57 13:04, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Kept: all possible FOP issues are DM Jcb (talk) 16:16, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
I don't think this is de minimis. The buildings comprise one single complex: w:en:Hyperion Towers, all completed in 2003. There is no commercial freedom of panorama in South Korea. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 11:01, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
- Delete Yes. Former conclusion was clearly wrong. Ox1997cow (talk) 13:15, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 23:15, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
Duplicate (non-exact) of File:Quadratic_spline_six_segments.svg — billinghurst sDrewth 14:02, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Kept: not identical Jcb (talk) 16:18, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
ошибка компьютера. Загружен второй правильный файл музыки "Корсар". computer error. Uploaded the second correct file music "Le Corsaire". Betsi Jane (talk) 13:56, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
the correct file was later uploaded as File:Le_Corsaire_Adan_Danse_enregistrement_spectacle_Forban.ogg" 62.140.224.1 14:22, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. rubin16 (talk) 18:29, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, but there is no FoP in the UAE. Dura lex, sed lex. 84.62.200.57 15:10, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jcb (talk) 16:18, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, but there is no FoP in the UAE. Dura lex, sed lex. 84.62.200.57 15:12, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Kept: unfinished building, all possible FOP issues are DM Jcb (talk) 16:19, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
No permission. 84.61.170.180 17:00, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Aside from the FOP issues, on which I disagree with Jcb, this image appears to be a copyvio with no permission from its creator. Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:06, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, but there is no FoP in the UAE. Dura lex, sed lex. 84.62.200.57 15:13, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jcb (talk) 16:20, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, but there is no FoP in the UAE. Dura lex, sed lex. 84.62.200.57 15:15, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jcb (talk) 16:20, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, but there is no FoP in the UAE. Dura lex, sed lex. 84.62.200.57 15:17, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jcb (talk) 16:21, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
Unfree screenshots in breach of Commons:Screenshots, To create a free screenshot, article 3
[edit]File list
[edit]The files below are picked up from Category:German Wikipedia screenshots and Category:English Wikipedia screenshots :
- File:Arora 0.4 de.png (unused)
- File:Article-de-wp-Schutzstaffel.png (unused)
- File:Dieses Wiki hat ein Problem.png (unused)
- File:Bildschirmfoto-Hauptseite - Wikipedia - Konqueror-1.png (unused)
- File:Bildschirmfoto-Hauptseite - Wikipedia - Konqueror.png (used)
- File:Fennec 1 1 N900.png (used)
- File:Firefox 1 5 0 3.png (used)
- File:Firefox 3-6 with Persona RetroPaint.jpeg (unused)
- File:Firefox 3.6.PNG (used)
- File:German Wikipedia screenshot - 2007-07-16.png (used)
- File:Hauptseite-2005-05-09.png (used)
- File:Hauptseite-januar2004.png (used)
- File:Hermannstraße - Version vom 18 Dezember 2009.png (used)
- File:Loeschorgie.png (used on user page)
File:MiniWikiAtlas screenshot 2.png(used) Have you even looked at the image page? What is supposed to be wrong with the licensing? No CC-BY-SA claims are made for the image. --Dschwen (talk) 03:44, 6 February 2011 (UTC) I was not aware that the
tag had been tagged by somebody else than you. Request withdrawn Teofilo (talk) 17:33, 6 February 2011 (UTC)File:MiniWikiAtlas screenshot 3.png(used) Same here --Dschwen (talk) 03:45, 6 February 2011 (UTC) I was not aware that the tag had been tagged by somebody else than you. Request withdrawn Teofilo (talk) 17:33, 6 February 2011 (UTC)File:MiniWikiAtlas screenshot.png(used) And here. --Dschwen (talk) 03:45, 6 February 2011 (UTC) Source must be mentioned even if that source is in the Public Domain. See Commons:Essential information. I had to look at m:WikiMiniAtlas to find out that the map is probably PD rather than free licensed. But basically the file is a combination of Allrightsreserved and PD with no (or so little) share-alike free license so it is OK too. Withdrawn. Teofilo (talk) 17:33, 6 February 2011 (UTC)File:Mozilla Firefox 3 Screenshot.png(used) I´ve uploaded a new version without Firefox logo. -- StealthFX9 (talk) 23:22, 30 January 2011 (UTC). Why not remove the Wikipedia logo too ? Teofilo (talk) 17:02, 31 January 2011 (UTC), Done. -- StealthFX9 (talk) 00:08, 8 February 2011 (UTC) Request withdrawn. Teofilo (talk) 00:19, 8 February 2011 (UTC)- File:Mozilla Firefox 3.5 Screenshot.png (used on user page)
- File:Navigation Popups.png (used)
- File:Neue Suchmaschine.png (used on talk page)
- File:San Jose Skinentwurf Bearbeiten.png (used on user page)
- File:San Jose Skinentwurf Bildbeschreibung 2.png (used on user page)
- File:San Jose Skinentwurf Reiterleiste.gif (used on user page)
- File:Screenshot-Sokrates-de-wiki.png (unused)
- File:SeaMonkey-2.0-alpha1-pre-Pic1.jpg (used)
- File:Tabbedbrowsing-firefox363.png (used)
- File:Ubuntu-Firefox 2.0.0.15-Schrift-Screenshot.png (used on user page)
- File:Vector-sighted-bug.png (unused)
- File:WP Frankfurt Screenshot 03.jpg (used on talk page)
File:WP-de has a problem.jpg(unused) - I've now removed the CC-BY-SA license tag, which had been wrongly added by upload default. --Túrelio (talk) 14:10, 30 January 2011 (UTC) Agree this one is OK. Thank you. Teofilo (talk) 15:35, 30 January 2011 (UTC)- File:WPL Eishockey.png (used)
- File:Wikipedia Auskunft - Antwort 42.jpg (used on project page)
- File:Wikipedia Hauptseite 2009-03-16.png (used on project page)
- File:Wikipedia-artikel-bearbeiten.png (used)
- File:Wp karl der grosse width 38em jumping pics keichwa.png (used on talk page)
- File:ZenoReader2.png (used on project page)
- File:ZenoReader3.png (used on project page)
- File:ZenoReader4.png (used on project page)
- File:Firefox 1 0 8.png (unused)
- File:Firefox 4.0-de.png (used)
- File:Firefox3.png (used)
- File:SeaMonkey 2.0.3, Composer.jpg (used)
- File:Seamonkey 1.1.16 - Composer.jpg (used on talk page)
- File:Wikipedia Die Wikipedianer 20051016.png (used on talk page)
- File:Wikipedia Portal 20051016.png (used on user page)
- File:Anxietyonwiki v.png (used on user page)
- File:Anxietyonwiki.jpg (used on user pages)
- File:Arora Webbrowser.png (used)
- File:Blackbox on Debian.png (used)
- File:EnWiki redirect - Pichilemo.png (used on project page)
- File:2008-01-03-Magnoliophyta.png (used as source on another unused Commons file page)
- File:Flowering plant talk 2008-01-02 pointing to former Magnoliophyta talk.png (unused)
- File:AGK's edit interface.png (unused)
- File:Animum's view of the main page.png (used on mediawiki.org)
- File:Anynobodyq.png (used on user page)
File:Buttons1.PNG (used on user page)request withdrawn, see talk below Teofilo (talk) 18:17, 30 January 2011 (UTC)- File:Celilo Falls - 2009-12-17.jpg (used on outreach.wikimedia.org)
- File:Cf-ezoom.png (used on user page)
- File:Checkuser screenshot 3.jpg (unused)
- File:Chromium 6.0.402 2.png (unused)
- File:Chromium 6.0.402.png (used)
- File:Chromium 6.0.422.png (used)
- File:Click-on-your-username-here.png (used on outreach.wikimedia.org)
- File:Comparison of AFD tp.png (used on village pump)
- File:Comparison of Viking ship tp.png (used on village pump)
- File:Comparison of thriller tp.png (used on village pump)
- File:Contributions annotated.png (used on help page)
- File:Checkuser screenshot 1.jpg (unused)
- File:Diff making step 1.PNG (used on user page)
- File:Droste Droste 1.png (unused)
- File:Droste Droste 2.png (unused)
- File:Droste Droste 3.png (unused)
- File:Droste Droste 4.png (used)
- File:English Wikipedia Main page screenshot.png (used)
- File:English Wikipedia screenshot 9 December 2008.png (unused)
- File:EnglishWikipediaMainPage3rdAugust2007.PNG (used)
- File:Enwiki-mainpage.png (used)
- File:Enwp Recentchanges.png (unused)
- File:Epiphany 2.18.2 en.png (used)
- File:Epiphany Browser.png (used only on wp duplicate)
- File:Ethnio recruit ad.png (unused)
- File:Firefox 3 point 5.JPG (unused)
- File:Firefox 4 beta 9.png (used)
- File:Firefox 4.0 Screenshot.png (used)
- File:Flowering plant talk 2008-01-02 pointing to former Magnoliophyta talk.png (unused)
- File:Fluxbox.png (used)
- File:Google Chrome incognito.png (used)
- File:K-meleon 11.png (used only on wp duplicate)
- File:KalangoLinux.png (used)
- File:Kde-konqueror-khtml-snapshot.png (used only on wp duplicate)
- File:Kmeleon114.png (used)
- File:Kmeleon153.jpg (unused)
- File:Kubuntu610.png (used only on wp duplicate)
- File:MainPage-Konqueror323-Vystrix Nexoth.png (used only on wp duplicate)
- File:ManzanarOnFrontPg.jpg (used on talk page)
- File:Monobook-Essjay-User-Full.jpg (used on user page)
- File:Mozilla Firefox 3.5.3 on XP.JPG (unused)
- File:Mozilla Firefox 3.5.png (used)
- File:MozillaFirefox3.6.png (unused)
- File:NetSurf-gtk.png (used only on wp duplicate)
- File:Policies and guidelines indicator.png (used)
- File:Popup revert.png (used on user talk page)
- File:Screen navegador Camino.png (used)
- File:Screenshot Gadgets Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.png (used on meta)
File:Screenshot of Computer form factor.png(used on village pump) OK now. Please delete only the older version. Teofilo (talk) 11:46, 1 February 2011 (UTC)- File:SeaMonkey-1.0.2-screenshot.png (used only on wp duplicate)
- File:Shiira screenshot.png (used)
- File:Twinkle-delimages-dialog-admin.png (used on project and user pages)
- File:Twm.png (used)
- File:Ubuntu Linux 9.04 screenshot.png (used)
File:WP has a problem.jpg (unused)- I've now removed the CC-BY-SA license tag, which had been wrongly added by upload default. --Túrelio (talk) 14:12, 30 January 2011 (UTC) Agree agreed. This file is OK now. Teofilo (talk) 15:35, 30 January 2011 (UTC)- File:Wfm monoclassic screenshot.png (used on mediawiki.org)
File:Wikipedia on Firefox mobile.jpg (used)It is OK now thank you. Teofilo (talk) 12:51, 9 February 2011 (UTC)- File:Wikipedia's server down.png (used on user talks)
- File:Wikipediaproblem.png (used on user pages)
- obviously the logo is part of the relevant content. -- Southgeist (talk) 17:13, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
- File:Yesvirginia.JPG (unused)
- File:Firebug extension screenshot.png (used)
- File:Fx-3.6.png (used)
File:IE9 Developer Preview.png(used)- File:Midoribrowser.png (used)
- File:Mozilla Firefox 3 in MS XP.png (unused)
File:Redirect with possibility.png(used on wikimania2010)- WP–WMF–MW logos now removed. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 08:43, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
- It is OK now. Thank you. Teofilo (talk) 17:09, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
- WP–WMF–MW logos now removed. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 08:43, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
Discussion
[edit]These files are created in breach of Commons:Screenshots#To_create_a_free_screenshot #3 "Cut away all possibly copyrighted elements. Only show the relevant content." A door must be either open or closed. Similarly a file is either free or unfree. Users must be told if they are allowed to reuse the file on their own website or not. Something cannot simultaneously be allowed and forbidden. The simultaneous presence of a Free Licence tag (such as CC-BY-SA or GFDL) and an unfree license tag ({{CopyrightByWikimedia}}) as seen on File:Arora 0.4 de.png is impossible.
(On the other hand, File:IuW Banner.jpg is OK because no free license tag is tagged on it : the door is clearly closed, not open. It is marked as copyrighted and reuse is clearly forbidden) (On the other hand, File:History comparison example.png is OK because no "all rights reserved" tag is tagged on it. The door is clearly open. It is marked as free and reuse is clearly allowed)
Additionally, the files I marked as "unused", or used on user page, or used in talk pages, might be out of COM:SCOPE (but not necessarily so : anyway the above mentioned reason is enough to request deletion). Screenshots in general contain text and are mostly suitable for one language. It is rare that two different language Wikipedias share this kind of files (that alone would not be a sufficient reason to request deletion, though).
Teofilo (talk) 13:12, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
- If you think something is wrong with these files, why don't you fix it instead of this rather destructive request? Multichill (talk) 15:20, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
- Commons:Screenshots#To_create_a_free_screenshot #3 (cropping out copyrighted parts) is a duty which incumbs upon the uploader. Teofilo (talk) 15:39, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
- We only allow free files with one big exception: {{CopyrightByWikimedia}}. This rule applies also to your rule #3. Multichill (talk) 16:39, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
- {{CopyrightByWikimedia}} is controversial and must be limited to the strict minimum, the Wikimedia logos and only that. {{CopyrightByWikimedia}} is not a rule. It is a tolerance. The principle on Wikimedia Commons is that the files must be free. At all events, the user must be given a clear answer to the question "can I upload the file on my own website ?" Teofilo (talk) 17:03, 30 January 2011 (UTC). {{CopyrightByWikimedia}} is for logos like File:Wikimedia-logo.svg. Not for screenshots. Teofilo (talk) 17:13, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
- We only allow free files with one big exception: {{CopyrightByWikimedia}}. This rule applies also to your rule #3. Multichill (talk) 16:39, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
- Commons:Screenshots#To_create_a_free_screenshot #3 (cropping out copyrighted parts) is a duty which incumbs upon the uploader. Teofilo (talk) 15:39, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
- In order to satisfy your wish to make this request less destructive, I have tried to upload a new censored version on File:Bildschirmfoto-Hauptseite - Wikipedia - Konqueror.png :
. But I won't do this for every file. These files have a lot of other problems and I don't want to be the one responsible if they violate people's copyright or if they violate any law. It is too dangerous. Teofilo (talk) 17:06, 30 January 2011 (UTC) Not only do these files break the "Share Alike" clause of the Free license by merging the Free content with unfree contents, but most of them breach the "BY (parternity) clause too by failing to mention the creator's names. Teofilo (talk) 17:50, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
- In order to satisfy your wish to make this request less destructive, I have tried to upload a new censored version on File:Bildschirmfoto-Hauptseite - Wikipedia - Konqueror.png :
- @Teofilo, do you still consider File:WP has a problem.jpg a problem even after I had removed the conflicting CC-BY-SA license tag? (done before you tagged it) --Túrelio (talk) 15:24, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
- Sorry. File:WP has a problem.jpg is OK now (the same kind as File:IuW Banner.jpg which I mentionned as being OK above).Teofilo (talk)
- Thanks. --Túrelio (talk) 15:39, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
- Sorry. File:WP has a problem.jpg is OK now (the same kind as File:IuW Banner.jpg which I mentionned as being OK above).Teofilo (talk)
- Keep I think this DR is a misunderstanding. The {{Wikipedia screenshot}} says it all loud and clear: "You may use everything except the logo(s) of Wikipedia etc.". If you do not like that ides start a discussion at the talk page of that template or at the village pump.
- The idea of the screenshots is mainly for internal purpose such as creating guides for the use of Wikipedia or to be used fun on userpages or to illustrate a historic moment on Wikipedia. The term to crop away all copyrighted stuff is for files that is supposed to be used in articles etc.
- I agree that some unused screenshots could be deleted. But only if we are sure they are not wanted anymore. Files can be used just by being in a category. If a wiki somewhere wants a screenshot they should be alloved to do so. We host files.
- I think files should be nominated one by one and only the files that really should be deleted. One way to find out is to ask the uploader. --MGA73 (talk) 15:41, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
- Ok, but as he notified the uploaders, such a "slow" DR gives the uploader the opportunity to remove conflicting license/copyright tags (as were present in my 2 files) and thereby to heal the problem. --Túrelio (talk) 15:52, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
- Please check File:Anxietyonwiki v.png. File was uploaded on en-wiki. I got the notice because I moved this (and thousands of other files) to Commons. Original uploader was not notified. --MGA73 (talk) 11:38, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
- Notifying only the person moving the picture from Wikipedia to Commons is the usual procedure. If the file gets deleted on Commons, he can request for the file to be undeleted on Wikipedia. If he never expected the File to be on Commons, he should not be that much bothered by its deletion from Commons. Teofilo (talk) 17:48, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
- Please check File:Anxietyonwiki v.png. File was uploaded on en-wiki. I got the notice because I moved this (and thousands of other files) to Commons. Original uploader was not notified. --MGA73 (talk) 11:38, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
- Ok, but as he notified the uploaders, such a "slow" DR gives the uploader the opportunity to remove conflicting license/copyright tags (as were present in my 2 files) and thereby to heal the problem. --Túrelio (talk) 15:52, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
- {{Wikipedia screenshot}} is wrong. After this Deletion Request is closed, it will need to be reworded, including, I hope, Commons:Screenshots#To_create_a_free_screenshot #3. Things for internal purpose should be uploaded direcly on each wiki. Things for external purpose should be uploaded on each wiki too. For example, onto the English Wikipedia, with a fair use rationale if a fair use rationale is available for the copyrighted logo. This way, if people want to copy the article on their own website, they can use the same fair use rationale and enjoy the article. How about creating a list of the files you want to keep ? Are they so many ? Teofilo (talk) 15:56, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
- So you are saying that Commons should not host files that is intented to be used only on some Wikipedia? You do not seem to understand the purpose of Commons then. For your information some Wikipedias do NOT allow local upload. So it is impossible to upload locally!!! We are actually trying to get more and more Wikipedias to close for local uploads. We do not need someone to spoil it all by nominating files for deletion with the reason that "Wikipedias should host their own files." --MGA73 (talk) 11:38, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
- "With the exception of Wikimedia Commons" in with the exception of Wikimedia Commons, each project community may develop and adopt an EDP at foundation:Resolution:Licensing policy means that Commons is not allowed to have an EDP. Fair use files can be uploaded only on those Wikipedias which have an EDP for fair use. Teofilo (talk) 17:48, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
- I ofcourse agree that we should not allow fair use on Commons. Everything that has other unfree stuff than the Wikimedia logos should just be nuked or fixed. What I did not like was the "Things for internal purpose should be uploaded direcly on each wiki. Things for external purpose should be uploaded on each wiki too." I think that if we can host the logos - we can also host screenshots where logos are included. --MGA73 (talk) 21:25, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
- "With the exception of Wikimedia Commons" in with the exception of Wikimedia Commons, each project community may develop and adopt an EDP at foundation:Resolution:Licensing policy means that Commons is not allowed to have an EDP. Fair use files can be uploaded only on those Wikipedias which have an EDP for fair use. Teofilo (talk) 17:48, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
- So you are saying that Commons should not host files that is intented to be used only on some Wikipedia? You do not seem to understand the purpose of Commons then. For your information some Wikipedias do NOT allow local upload. So it is impossible to upload locally!!! We are actually trying to get more and more Wikipedias to close for local uploads. We do not need someone to spoil it all by nominating files for deletion with the reason that "Wikipedias should host their own files." --MGA73 (talk) 11:38, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
- {{Wikipedia screenshot}} is wrong. After this Deletion Request is closed, it will need to be reworded, including, I hope, Commons:Screenshots#To_create_a_free_screenshot #3. Things for internal purpose should be uploaded direcly on each wiki. Things for external purpose should be uploaded on each wiki too. For example, onto the English Wikipedia, with a fair use rationale if a fair use rationale is available for the copyrighted logo. This way, if people want to copy the article on their own website, they can use the same fair use rationale and enjoy the article. How about creating a list of the files you want to keep ? Are they so many ? Teofilo (talk) 15:56, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
- Comment I also disagree with "Only include official Wikimedia logos if they are absolutely essential to what the screenshot is intending to illustrate - in most cases, these should be removed before uploading" written at the bottom of Commons:Screenshots. A Free license does not allow to merge the contents with unfree contents, even if they are "absolutely essential". "Absolutely essential" is not a valid excuse. At all events, user pages and talk pages are not absolutely essential. For example File:IE9 Developer Preview.png whose purpose is to show Internet Explorer 9 does not absolutely need to show a Wikipedia page. Any logo-free screenshot of Wikipedia or any other free website can illustrate Internet Explorer 9. Teofilo (talk) 16:31, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
- Comment So, if someone proposes to remove Wikipedia, WMF and MediaWiki logos from numerous screenshots, then let him provide dummy images (for use in place of removed logos) and guidelines for editing existing screenshots. "Screenshots" like Image:Mozilla Firefox 1.0 front page screenshot.png are not good because contain an irritating blank space instead of well recognized Wikipedia logo. Let us use some similarly looking replacement at least. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 16:47, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
- Replacing means uploading again. As I wrote again, I don't want to do this because I am afraid these files break many other rules (such as the BY (paternity) clause). I suggest to undelete the file everytime someone wants to take the risk and to provide such censored versions. Teofilo (talk) 18:26, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
- The problem with Image:Mozilla Firefox 1.0 front page screenshot.png and many others like that is that it contains visuals and elements of proprietary software (like the MS Windows titlebar), which means that it and others should not be eligible for Commons anyway. Furthermore, the aforementioned screenshot (and some others) also contains favicons of copyrighted websites. -Mardus (talk) 11:26, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
- I did not spot such elements of proprietary software in Image:Mozilla Firefox 1.0 front page screenshot.png. My screenshot-based works Image:Redirect without possibilities.png and aforementioned Image:Redirect with possibility.png certainly contain WP–WMF–MW logos but are also free of proprietary visuals, where is the problem indeed? Incnis Mrsi (talk) 12:17, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
- The problem with Image:Mozilla Firefox 1.0 front page screenshot.png and many others like that is that it contains visuals and elements of proprietary software (like the MS Windows titlebar), which means that it and others should not be eligible for Commons anyway. Furthermore, the aforementioned screenshot (and some others) also contains favicons of copyrighted websites. -Mardus (talk) 11:26, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
- I am having a difficult time following what the deletion requester exactly wants changed. I have changed the tag on the file File:Buttons1.PNG, is everything with regards to this satisfactory, or are additional changes still required? Thanks, --Hans2520 (talk) 17:29, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
- Don't you feel the designers of the mediawiki software might complain that the "Share alike" clause of the Free license is breached ? I think it would be safer for you to remove the logo from the picture, like I did on File:Bildschirmfoto-Hauptseite - Wikipedia - Konqueror.png with yellow paint, and release the file as a 100% free file, without fear to receive such complaints. Or perhaps your screenshot is so small that it does not pass the threshold of originality (quite commonplace tabs and buttons like many website designs). Your file is a little borderline in the sense that it is close to the "too simple to be copyrighted" case, for the remaining part of the screenshot. Teofilo (talk) 17:45, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
- I'm failing to see what the difference between my photo and File:WP has a problem.jpg is then. My understanding was that the tag was put there because "part" of the work may be copyrighted. Personally, I'm not too worried about receiving complaints from the designers of the mediawiki software, given the purpose of the usage, I think they would support it; however that is besides the point.--Hans2520 (talk) 17:54, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
- I withdraw my request for your file. Please license it as you think is suitable. Teofilo (talk) 18:17, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
- I'm failing to see what the difference between my photo and File:WP has a problem.jpg is then. My understanding was that the tag was put there because "part" of the work may be copyrighted. Personally, I'm not too worried about receiving complaints from the designers of the mediawiki software, given the purpose of the usage, I think they would support it; however that is besides the point.--Hans2520 (talk) 17:54, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
- Don't you feel the designers of the mediawiki software might complain that the "Share alike" clause of the Free license is breached ? I think it would be safer for you to remove the logo from the picture, like I did on File:Bildschirmfoto-Hauptseite - Wikipedia - Konqueror.png with yellow paint, and release the file as a 100% free file, without fear to receive such complaints. Or perhaps your screenshot is so small that it does not pass the threshold of originality (quite commonplace tabs and buttons like many website designs). Your file is a little borderline in the sense that it is close to the "too simple to be copyrighted" case, for the remaining part of the screenshot. Teofilo (talk) 17:45, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
- Comment note that a number of files, among which 12 are listed on User talk:IngerAlHaosului and 3 on User talk:Sreejithk2000 were moved from the English Wikipedia to Commons. Teofilo (talk) 18:26, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
- File:Flowering plant talk 2008-01-02 pointing to former Magnoliophyta talk.png
- Thanks, Theophilo, &sorry. This was a meanwhile outdated reference image in order to inform User:CarolSpears on display in FF_2. -- Remove ASAP. Best, Wolfgang [w.] 09:03, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
- Keep File:IE9 Developer Preview.png and File:Wikipedia on Firefox mobile.jpg They do not contain any copyright-protected portions. A simple black toolbar or a simple menu bar is nothing eligible for copyright protection is it does not pass Threshold of originality. Fleet Command (talk) 09:10, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
- Ähemm, the Wikipedia logo, of course. --Túrelio (talk) 10:05, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
Done Issue resolved on File:IE9 Developer Preview.png. Fleet Command (talk) 07:07, 8 February 2011 (UTC)Issue being resolved on File:Wikipedia on Firefox mobile.jpg. I have a good version with Wikipedia logo removed, but I need an administrator to rename the file because its bogus .JPG extension is preventing me from uploading the new version. For now, you have to assume good faith in me. Fleet Command (talk) 07:45, 8 February 2011 (UTC)- Done Issue resolved on File:Wikipedia on Firefox mobile.jpg. Fleet Command (talk) 09:18, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
- Ähemm, the Wikipedia logo, of course. --Túrelio (talk) 10:05, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
- Keep Similar to FOP-images, PD logos, and personality rights: The logos shown in theses images may have additional restrictions apart from copyright. Therefore, this dicussion here is NOT about copyright but about whether we want to keep images that are potentially unfree due to other restrictions like trademark law, personality rights, etc. --ALE! ¿…? 10:46, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
- Neutral - One of my uploads is included in this deletion proposal, and I am happy for that to be deleted as I no longer use it. But I have little familiarity with the wider context here, so I'm going to vote neutral. Anthøny 13:03, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
- A couple of my images (kmeleon screenshots) are included in this list, I'm happy for them to be deleted. I do think it is worth warning users when they are uploading screenshots of free software that they should scroll down or otherwise obscure any non-free logos, particularly the wikipedia logo which many people erroneously assume to be free Little Professor (talk) 16:06, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
- Keep File:Shiira screenshot.png - Screenshot in question shows the Shiira web browser (BSD licensed) user interface (the point of the screencap) and the Wikipedia web page. Note that the image consists of only the browser window itself, the desktop and menu bar are not represented. CyberSkull (talk) 17:07, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
- It includes the Wikipedia logo, which is unfree. Couldn't you make another screenshot without the Wikipedia logo ? That means scrolling the page down a little bit. Teofilo (talk) 17:49, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
- Keep File:Screenshot of Computer form factor.png - Is it because I use the wrong license tag? I have removed the PD tag. I also cropped away the wikipedia logo such that I can use another tag. I am not familiar to all the rules of Commons, so please tell me how to improve it. --Quest for Truth (talk) 22:39, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
- It is OK now. Thank you for the crop. Teofilo (talk) 11:46, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
- Keep I got notified because of my three WikiMiniAtlas screenshots. They show a userinterface element on Wikipedia. Censoring or cropping away the Wikiball would lessen the usefulness of the screenshots considerably, as context and with it recognizability would be lost. Images of the Wikimedia logo are allowed on commons. It is as simple as that. The DR is (at least for images that show a Wikimedia logo) without merit. I haven't read the discussion on the page (too busr IRL right now), but it makes me wonder if this is a political thing. --Dschwen (talk) 02:59, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
- Adding a copyrighted logo on a free picture is a breach of the "share alike" terms of the licence. It should never be allowed, even (and even more so, I would say) if it is a Wikimedia/Wikipedia logo. Yes it is political. This is Free Culture activism. Trying to have people be true to the terms of Free Licenses. Teofilo (talk) 03:49, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
- What about a CC BY screenshot where a CC BY-SA icon is visible? --AVRS (talk) 09:13, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
- Adding a copyrighted logo on a free picture is a breach of the "share alike" terms of the licence. It should never be allowed, even (and even more so, I would say) if it is a Wikimedia/Wikipedia logo. Yes it is political. This is Free Culture activism. Trying to have people be true to the terms of Free Licenses. Teofilo (talk) 03:49, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
- Ah, as we would say in Dutch: "De aap komt uit de mouw", see meta:Allrightsreserved. Multichill (talk) 05:40, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
- Don't think so. This meta site was started 2 days after this DR. But anyway, the creation of a separate project for the (C)-Wikimedia logos/material was discussed every now and then already years ago. --Túrelio (talk) 06:44, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
- That just tells me how wrong this is. You should not start a DR to force a change of policy through. The correct thing is to start a discussion somewhere and put notices on Village Pump and major Wikis etc. Once a new policy has been approved or excisting ones have been changed you could start a move of the files or a cleanup if something needs to be deleted. Tagging files for deletion to en:WP:POINT should not be tolerated. --MGA73 (talk) 17:04, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
- The merging of share-alike-free contents with unfree contents has never been a policy. The DerivativeFX tool clearly refuses such merging. The limited exception for Wikimedia logos at Commons:Licencing#Acceptable licenses was created for standalone logos, not for screenshots. Can you mention any screenshot being mentioned in a talk page in 2005 when the "Wikimedia logos are OK on Commons" policy was discussed (and approved) ? In my view, people were talking only about standalone logos at that time. On the other hand, foundation:Resolution:Licensing policy has been policy since 2007. See also my reply on m:Talk:Allrightsreserved. Teofilo (talk) 13:30, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
- The 2 talks that provide ground for the approval of Wikimedia logos are archived here : First request for deletion (starded on 8 May 2005) and Second request for deletion (started on 2 September 2005). I don't see anybody talking about screenshots. Anyway, striclty speaking, these 2 old 2005 talks should be seen as being abrogated by the 2007 foundation:Resolution:Licensing policy. Teofilo (talk) 14:09, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
- That just tells me how wrong this is. You should not start a DR to force a change of policy through. The correct thing is to start a discussion somewhere and put notices on Village Pump and major Wikis etc. Once a new policy has been approved or excisting ones have been changed you could start a move of the files or a cleanup if something needs to be deleted. Tagging files for deletion to en:WP:POINT should not be tolerated. --MGA73 (talk) 17:04, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
- Keep File:WPL Eishockey.png. I remade the picture with rekonq under Linux Mint. Hopefully this is OK now. --Sannaj (talk) 17:34, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
- Why don't you remove
? Teofilo (talk) 19:25, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
- Because this picture is used to present the default user interface of the Wikipedia in a Wikipedia-Book. --Sannaj (talk) 19:15, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
- Have you read you do need permission to use the Wikipedia logo on your book cover, even if you’re producing a book for an educational publisher foundation:Trademark Policy#Specific examples ? Teofilo (talk) 12:51, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
- Because this picture is used to present the default user interface of the Wikipedia in a Wikipedia-Book. --Sannaj (talk) 19:15, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
- Why don't you remove
.svg){kind=link}
_-_Vista_da_cidade_do_Cristo.png){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_Umar_Kecil_2.jpg){kind=link}
-2011-01-30T16:10:00.000Z-File:Ahpb2.jpg){kind=link}
-2011-01-30T15:51:00.000Z-File:Riofrío_de_Riaza.jpg){kind=link}
.svg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.svg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
,_Belfast,_June_2010_(03).JPG){kind=link}
- File:Mozilla Firefox 3.5 Screenshot.png : How is it possible to put a copyright on a dropshadow? I can recreate the windows windows with a few lines of CSS, in two minutes with Photoshop, … I can’t believe that this is really part of any copyright in this world. And then — something I wrote at least one-hundred times in Commons — just crop the image and upload it. What is this deletion request good for? Just because it’s easier then cropping the image (which I can’t believe)? All rhetorical questions, I’m not going to overlook this discussion. Delete the image if you think you have to. Regards, Fleshgrinder (talk) 23:56, 30 January 2011 (UTC) (copied from here Teofilo (talk) 19:14, 2 February 2011 (UTC))
- The resulting cropped picture would still need to have the names of the writers of the text be named in order to fulfill the "BY (paternity)" requirement of CC-BY-SA. That's a lot of work. Teofilo (talk) 19:14, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
- The problem is not the Firefox log but Wikipedia logo --MGA73 (talk) 21:13, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
- The resulting cropped picture would still need to have the names of the writers of the text be named in order to fulfill the "BY (paternity)" requirement of CC-BY-SA. That's a lot of work. Teofilo (talk) 19:14, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
Stop this madness!
[edit]Deletion requests should not be used as a way to force a change of templates and/or policies and/or scope. The proper way to get a change is to make a notice on Village Pump and on as many Wikis as possible and add the relevant templates to indicate that a poll/discussion is going on.
You should not nominate a few random files in a DR and use that as a way to get things "fixed" the way you want.
The goal is to get all files with Wikimedia-logos moved away from Commons per m:Allrightsreserved. If that is the goal why should we start a massdeletion on Commons before the new wiki is created and is ready to recieve the files?
As I pointed out on m:Talk:Allrightsreserved there is to many unclear things that should be sorted out before we delete hundred of files on Commons.
Just a quote from the discussion there:
"We have different kind of files:
- Official logos.
- Old logos.
- Suggested logos.
- Funny logos.
- Screenshots where logos are included.
Official logos: The official logos should be hosted somewhere. We do not have many official logos. Some of the logos are or should perhaps not even be marked as unfree.
The original Wikisource logo File:Wikisource-logo.jpg is licensed freely but the derivate is not File:Wikisource-logo.png! Logo for Wiktionary File:Wiktionary-logo-en.png is just text and was originally licensed as GFDL (licenses are not revocable). Logo for Wikiquote looks rather PD-ineligible to me File:Wikiquote-logo-51px.png.
So perhaps we should start by checking the copyright status of the logos.
Old logos: Logos that is not used anymore is "just" a part of our history. But does that mean that we should keep them? If the files were fair use the answer was "delete".
I think that we should keep our history. Either on Commons or on Allrightsreserved.
Suggested logos: Suggested logos is logos that was never used. It is "just" a part of our history or maybe just a result of what a single wikipedia or commons user created. Should we keep such files?
Fun logos: Logos are copyrighted by Wikimedia and are therefore not allowed to use. But still users create funny logos like File:Wikimikolaj.png. What should we do with files like that? Should we nuke or allow fun?
Screenshots where logos are included: We have a lot of screenshots where logos are included. Screenshots can be used for different purpose:
- As a part of a guide on Wikipedia.
- To document a historic moment.
- To illustrate something - used in an article.
- To illustrate a problem with the way a page is displayed.
- To be used for fun in a userpage.
If it was fair use we would demand that unused files was deleted and logos was only shown if it was really needed. So should we demand the same for files on Wikipedia and Commons etc.? Or should fun be allowed?
Alternatives? Another way out is that Wikimedia relicense the logos under a free license. Out goal is to share files but we do not want to share our own files. Is that the signal we want to send? Just a question."
As you can see from the discussion on meta it has been suggested that it is not legal to combine a free license with a unfree logo. Well what is the purpose of moving the file to Allrightsreserved? Does that suddenly make it legal?
So I think we should have the discussion what to do and once we have a agreement we change the templates and give users some time to fix the problems (remove the Wikimedia logos if that is the result) and after some time we delete all the illegal files. If the result is that unfree files should be hosted elsewhere we can move the files after a cleanup. There is no need to move a lot of illegal stuff.
So my suggestion is STOP THIS! Find out what logos are legally unfree. Find out if combination of free and unfree is legal. Etc. Do ALL that before we start deleting hundreds of files. --MGA73 (talk) 21:48, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
- Thank you MGA73 for your comment! And now: Please close this deletion request and have a proper discussion. --ALE! ¿…? 10:13, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
- The file File:Screenshot_Gadgets_Wikipedia,_the_free_encyclopedia.png is part of a whole pile of them all intended for use for translators, since we don't have a mech to autogenerate screenshots. I only got part of the way into that before getting hired by the WMF and being sucked into entirely unrelated projects. However it is still my goal to work on an infrastructure that will help translators of the interface to see how they are used (as a sometimes translator I get to see the many ways translations of the interface go wrong.) Someday (over the rainbow) we might have a setup that would let a translator click a message for translation and be transported to a live page showing the message in context, but that day is far far away. Until then I would ask that such images be kept. Thanks. -- ArielGlenn (talk) 00:35, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
- How about uploading it on meta with http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Upload ? Then it can be deleted from Commons. Teofilo (talk) 00:22, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
WMF Trademark policy
[edit]- Your website may not copy the exact look and feel of any Wikimedia website at foundation:Trademark Policy#Services Related to Wikimedia Projects means that full page screenshots cannot be reused by reusers on their own websites. So these contents are not free and are not allowed under foundation:Resolution:Licencing Policy's all projects are expected to host only content which is under a Free Content License, or which is otherwise free as recognized by the 'Definition of Free Cultural Works' as referenced above. Teofilo (talk) 13:50, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
- Your interpretation is a stretch. website may not copy the exact look and feel certainly does not mean a screenshot may not be embedded. It means the markup and layout of the site. --Dschwen (talk) 16:56, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
- Don't confuse copyright with trademarks ({{Trademarked}}). Multichill (talk) 20:35, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
- The commonsense meaning of "free" is "you can reuse". If any law, including trademark law, creates a legal context in which you can't reuse the file, then the file is not free in the common sense of "free". If the Wikimedia projects go on pretending that files are "free" with a very non-commons-sense specific wikilawyerish meaning, people will feel that Wikimedia projects are cheating. In a wikilawyerish way you are right but common sense people won't understand what you are saying. Normal people function with a very simple set of dos and don'ts, and if a policy page says "don't" they understand "don't". So, practically, it is unfree. Most people will understand that it is unfree. "Free because of some wikilawyerish argument" is practically "unfree" (people won't dare to use the wikilawyerish permission). I know that not caring about trademarks is the accepted policy on Commons, but can I hide that I don't feel comfortable with that policy ? Is it fair to tell people "this file is free" but we wash our hands if you have troubles with the trademark law after you reuse the file ? I can't help but think that a file including a trademark is less free than a file without a trademark. Teofilo (talk) 21:08, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
- File:EnWiki redirect - Pichilemo.png is used to illustrate the redirect function on en.wikipedia. (The use of the logo identifies the part of the page that is relevant.) The licence makes it clear that while the work itself is released under CC-BY-SA any text component and any logos have their own licensing terms. Arguably the image should be kept at meta:, but barring that being technically possible, commons is the best place for it. As to reuse, it is true that someone clipping part of the item and using it as a logo will be breaking the law, but it is also true that if they reuse the text without acknowledgement they will be breaking the law. And the licensing makes this clear. Therefore I think these deletion requests, while based on good reasons, should not be fulfilled. Rich Farmbrough, 14:13 25 February 2011 (GMT).
- Thank you for your comment. Even if reused as a whole, this is possible only under fair use. Imagine a smartphone company uses the picture as a whole in a giant promotional advertising campain with large posters on motorway sides... Imagine someone trying to sell T-shirts with the picture as a whole... I don't mind if this DR is not fulfilled. If an admin wants to close it and if it helps that I withdraw it, he can consider that I withdraw it. Something interesting I read again recently, but this concerns only the GFDL : the GFDL had a very very good provision saying that "An image format is not Transparent if used for any substantial amount of text" GFDL. It amounts to saying that screenshots of text are bad. They are not totally banned, because under some conditions GFDL allows opaque formats too (if the amount of text is "small")(if you provide the transparent format together with it), but I think that this is a clear sign that this sort of practice (making screenshots) takes us away from the mainstream free culture, as understood by the GNU-GPL-like free software culture. I think it is important to credit creators, and not to mix incompatible licenses together. Teofilo (talk) 16:56, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
Kept. - obviously no valid reason for deletion, in future cases it might be good to ask things like this in the village pump first - Jcb (talk) 16:51, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
Albert Harlingue died in 1963, not pd-old. Martin H. (talk) 15:49, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
- Are you positively sure that, indeed, Albert Harlingue, who was born in 1879 and became a pro photographer in 1905, was the photographer here? (Dvorak died in 1904).
- I tend to read "Photo Harlingue" credit as the name of an agency (business established in 1905), rather than photographer's identification.
- The rights to this photograph are managed by Roger-Viollet agency (est. 1938), their # 6170-16 or # RV-334607, but their online database card [3] does not name the photographer. They assert "Demander autorisation à l'agence pour toute utilisation publicitaire et en produits dérivés.", so if in doubt - delete. NVO (talk) 11:35, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
- I can only go from the available information. I found no source that confirms that opening the photographic studio in 1905 was Harlingues very first activity on the field of photography, therefore and given that the photo is dated about 1900, according to LIFE and an 1900 painting of Dvorak by Max Svabinský, and the date of birth it is not illogical to assume the author information is correct. Possibly an photo only distributed, yes, but evidence is missing. --Martin H. (talk) 12:27, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jcb (talk) 17:40, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
Probably not the work of the uploader - uploaders images on english wikipedia have been deleted after saying not all images were the uploaders and most had been sourced to friends. Refer http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Possibly_unfree_files/2011_January_15#File:China_Eastern_Airlines_A330-300.jpg MilborneOne (talk) 15:53, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Well, maybe you are right, but picture was from english wikipedia and saved under free license, so in my opinion it's not necessary to delete file from Commons. It's no surprise that not all the pictures from Commons are owned by their uploaders (especially historical pictures). As it was on discussion, sometimes people share their photos, it's not a crime, and upload it on Wikipedia or Commons. Not being owner of photo doesn't mean that you break law and GFDL license. But this is only my opinion, if it is wrong, you can delete it. I only uploaded it from en.wikipedia to Commons. --MrDark (talk) 10:51, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
- Appreciate your comment but it was not the uploaders property to release, although you say sharing files is not a crime but it is a breach of copyright to claim ownership and release it. MilborneOne (talk) 20:47, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jcb (talk) 17:45, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
Probably not the work of the uploader - uploaders images on english wikipedia have been deleted after saying not all images were the uploaders and most had been sourced to friends. Refer http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Possibly_unfree_files/2011_January_15#File:China_Eastern_Airlines_A330-300.jpg MilborneOne (talk) 15:54, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Well, maybe you are right, but picture was from english wikipedia and saved under free license, so in my opinion it's not necessary to delete file from Commons. It's no surprise that not all the pictures from Commons are owned by their uploaders (especially historical pictures). As it was on discussion, sometimes people share their photos, it's not a crime, and upload it on Wikipedia or Commons. Not being owner of photo doesn't mean that you break law and GFDL license. But this is only my opinion, if it is wrong, you can delete it. I only uploaded it from en.wikipedia to Commons. --MrDark (talk) 10:50, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
- Appreciate your comment but it was not the uploaders property to release, although you say sharing files is not a crime but it is a breach of copyright to claim ownership and release it. MilborneOne (talk) 20:47, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jcb (talk) 17:46, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
Copyvio: http://www.uniondesfrancophones.be/ Brimz (talk) 16:00, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Kept: PD-textlogo Jcb (talk) 17:47, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
copyvio from www.bpost.be Brimz (talk) 16:08, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Kept: PD-textlogo Jcb (talk) 17:47, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
copyvio logo from http://www.pff.be Brimz (talk) 16:09, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Kept: PD-textlogo Jcb (talk) 17:47, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
no PD, but CC BY-NC-ND 3.0[4]--58.176.42.242 16:20, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
- Keep, the photos are taken in the 1940s and the authors are unknown. According to Law of Hong Kong, the copyright of works which have unknown authorship expired 50 years after the works were first made. So the photos are in public domain no matter what the source declared.--Stevenliuyi (talk) 18:37, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
- no, copyright belongs to en:Szeto Wah, photos come from Szeto Wah's personal website--58.176.42.242 07:28, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
- Copyright belongs to who takes the photo, not who in the photo. So Szeto Wah can't be the author. And the fact that the photos come from Szet Wah's personal website doesn't change that.--Stevenliuyi (talk) 15:32, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
- no, these photos come from Szeto Wah's personal website must belong to Szet Wah family, you must ask permission from them--58.176.42.242 02:48, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
- The author must be a person, not a family.--Stevenliuyi (talk) 09:42, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
- no, these photos come from Szeto Wah's personal website must belong to Szet Wah family, you must ask permission from them--58.176.42.242 02:48, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
- Copyright belongs to who takes the photo, not who in the photo. So Szeto Wah can't be the author. And the fact that the photos come from Szet Wah's personal website doesn't change that.--Stevenliuyi (talk) 15:32, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
Kept: per Stevenliuyi Jcb (talk) 18:15, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
Unlikely to by own work: small resolution. EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:16, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jcb (talk) 18:16, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
Unlikely to by own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF. EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:23, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jcb (talk) 18:17, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
_-_Vista_da_cidade_do_Cristo.png){kind=link}
_-_Vista_da_cidade_do_Cristo.png&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Unnecessarily large file, have uploaded new jpeg version for faster loading. Bresolin (talk) 16:24, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
_-_Vista_da_cidade_do_Cristo.png){kind=link}
Kept: link to duplicate not provided Jcb (talk) 18:18, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
_-_Vista_da_cidade_do_Cristo.png){kind=link}
_-_Vista_da_cidade_do_Cristo.png&action=edit§ion=T-2){kind=link}
Excessively large file, replaced by jpeg version ( File:Guaporé_(RS)_-_Vista_a_partir_do_Cristo.jpg ) for faster loading. Bresolin (talk) 12:57, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
_-_Vista_a_partir_do_Cristo.jpg){kind=link}
Kept: We don't delete PNGs replaced by JPEGs, since JPEG encoding discards substantial information that is important for editing without generation loss. Dcoetzee (talk) 21:09, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
Looks like well-meaning flickrwashing. These three images are the only ones in the photostream. The name of the uploader, DaMag, is almost the same as the name of the Flickr account holder, Damag1. Chaser (talk) 16:24, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
- Could someone take a look at the metadata indicating that these were shot yesterday? I may have evaluated this incorrectly.--Chaser (talk) 21:49, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
- I rolled these other two in here. The account's been inactivated. This certainly smells like Flickrwashing.--Chaser (talk) 14:34, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jcb (talk) 18:43, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
and other uploads by Seadog41 (talk · contribs). Unlikely to by own work: small resolutions and/or missing EXIF. EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:29, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Kept: no duplicates found Jcb (talk) 21:21, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
Unlikely to by own work: resolution typical for photo services, missing EXIF. EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:33, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Kept: no duplicates found Jcb (talk) 21:23, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
Unused low-quality representation of a copyrighted character. Out of COM:SCOPE at best, copyvio at worst. User's only (remaining) upload. Wknight94 talk 16:45, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jcb (talk) 21:23, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
Knights Hospitaller images
[edit]- File:HospitallersP8220791.JPG
- File:HospitallersP8220792.JPG
- File:HospitallersP8220790.JPG
- File:HospitallersP8220788.JPG
- File:HospitallersP8220787.JPG
- File:HospitallersP8220785.JPG
- File:HospitallersP8220786.JPG
- File:HospitallersP8220789.JPG
- File:HospitallersP8220784.JPG
- File:HospitallersP8220783.JPG
Straightforward photographs of several prints, apparently taken while on a visit to a museum. The prints are clearly dated "MCMXCIV" (1994). --Kwekubo (talk) 16:43, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
- Delete derivative works of copyrighted paintings.MKFI (talk) 22:48, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jcb (talk) 21:25, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
can't prove user:Allenhung get permission from Mr. Jiang Yi-Huah 58.176.42.242 16:58, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
However, the user, Allenhung, does get the permission from Mr. Jiang Yi-Huah. How should the user prove it? Thanks.
Deleted Jcb (talk) 21:27, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
out of scope Reinhardhauke (talk) 17:20, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Why do you want to delete my pic? Plz get back to me... Andreas Wistrand musik@andreaswistrand.se
Deleted Jcb (talk) 21:28, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
unused personal foto Reinhardhauke (talk) 17:20, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
- He seems to be not quite unknown person, see http://www.emarrakech.info/Amine-El-Gotaibi-a-Agora_a53295.html, http://www.yacout.info/Amine-El-Gotaibi-exhibition-at-the-Agora-Gallery-Marrakech-12-February-3-March-2011_a2397.html, http://www.askart.com/askart/artist.aspx?artist=11169841, http://www.artnet.com/Artists/LotDetailPage.aspx?lot_id=208FC2DBB54B9DD4C2D6C84B0933BA9A. --ŠJů (talk) 09:14, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
Kept Jcb (talk) 21:29, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
OTRS permission insufficient. This is a screenshot, so I uploaded it to the English Wikipedia, the only place it was used, as fair use. It has no other uses. Chaser (talk) 17:48, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jcb (talk) 21:30, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
http://www.koenigstraumundmassenware.org/presse/pressebilder-in-druckqualitaet.html does not give any hint why this should be CC licensed. FA2010 (talk) 17:50, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
- The plate is in a Museum and "freedom of panorama" allows items on permanent display to be free of copyright in the UK ... Im not sure about this museum. The photo was placed where members of the press were invited to use it. However ... this is a plate, not a work of art. I'm not sure of the law here but if you take a photograph of me then you don't need the permission of the guy who designed the shirt I'm wearing or the cup I am drinking from ..... surely?? I did write to the museum, never the less, to ask about copyright and received no reply. Victuallers (talk) 10:58, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
- The plate was made in 1921 and so its copyright has expired in the U.S. --Macrakis (talk) 22:42, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
Kept: FOP applies Jcb (talk) 21:33, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
Obvious twofold copycio. 1st the plate itself is not in the PD (PD-US is irrelevant here). FOP does not apply inside museums in Germany, and not for mobile artwork like that anyway. 2nd the photo is a press photo from a museum and has no valid license at all. The CC license is an invention of the uploader. The former deletion request "keep" decision was totally wrong. If we let people upload photos from the web and invent licenses, where will the Commons go to? FA2010 (talk) 18:33, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
- Delete. No evidence that the author "museum staff" offered the license claimed by the uploader. -- Asclepias (talk) 23:35, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
- Abstain I'm not sure a photo can have "no valid license at all" ... I thought all images had licenses. I'm going to let you guys discuss this. I wasn't aware that FOP didnt apply in Germany inside museums - might be useful to reference this. Its good to see you guys are so active. I would have argued that an image which did "not have a valid license" or one where the the meuseum failed to make copyright clear did not have a copyright. If copyright does exist then surely it is with the Russian state and the museum cannot reclaim it by face-on photography? But I'm exhausted by this debate, I have already written to the museum who did not care to reply... I have submitted to the consensus once, if you guys want to keep debating it then you must eventually gain victory (if only by exhausting the consensus). Good luck Victuallers (talk) 15:56, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: FOP does not apply. --High Contrast (talk) 20:46, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
There are two issues here:
What is the copyright status of the plate design itself? The plate itself was produced in 1921, under the Soviet Union. If I read the article Copyright law of the Soviet Union correctly, the longest possible copyright under any version of Soviet or Russian copyright law until the year 2004 was life of the author + 50 years. As Mikhail Adamovich died in 1947, the copyright on the design of the plate under Soviet or Russian law expired at the latest in 1997. The Russian copyright law of August 8, 2004 extended the term from 50 to 70 years after death "only to works that were still copyrighted in Russia in 2004".[5] So it seems clear that the plate design itself is now in the public domain.
What is the copyright status of the photo of the plate? As for the copyright on the photo, should we treat it as "a faithful reproduction of a two-dimensional work of art" per Commons:When to use the PD-Art tag? Adamovich was a painter; the original design was flat, and was copied onto the 2-dimensional surface of a plate (the three-dimensional shape of the plate itself is presumably immaterial). The photographs I have found on the Web [6][7][8][9] all appear to be "technical" photographs under the terms of Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp.: "a copy in a new medium is copyrightable only where, as often but not always is the case, the copier makes some identifiable original contribution" and "But 'slavish copying,' although doubtless requiring technical skill and effort, does not qualify." What exactly is the claimed "identifiable original contribution" that goes beyond "technical skill"? The photos certainly have workmanlike lighting, but they are all full-face (perpendicular) copies of the artwork. Just as with a painting, the exact choice of lighting causes some variation in the relief or texture of the painted surface or of the plate. Is that the claim? If that is the issue, can we eliminate it by simply not reproducing the surrounding areas of the photos?
In summary, this is a technical copy of a two-dimensional painting by Adamovich, now in the public domain, applied to the two-dimensional surface of a plate and rendered by workmanlike photography. So it should be allowed under PD-Art. --Macrakis (talk) 20:20, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
unusable image. Better ones do exist. COM:PS! abf «Cabale!» 18:14, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
- Keep Not "unusable", this image is used in two Commons categories. No other photo is duplicate of this one, no reason for deletion. --ŠJů (talk) 09:07, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
- So you really suggest to keep an image of each airplane around the world at each airport for the reason of them being inside their categories, no matter of quality, educational purpose or whatever? Excuse me, but I really disagree! abf «Cabale!» 18:22, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
Kept: not out of scope Jcb (talk) 21:33, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
out of scope GFreihalter (talk) 18:41, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
- Seems to be in scope (see http://www.2m10.com/artistas/francisco/jorge/mora/garcia/compositor/director/cine/95/). --ŠJů (talk) 07:45, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: copyvio per SJu link - "Todos los derechos reservados." Jcb (talk) 21:35, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
copyvio? GFreihalter (talk) 18:48, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jcb (talk) 21:36, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
out of scope GFreihalter (talk) 18:50, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
- A photo of the uniform can have an educational value. --ŠJů (talk) 07:22, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
Kept Jcb (talk) 21:36, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
out of scope GFreihalter (talk) 18:51, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jcb (talk) 21:37, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
out of scope GFreihalter (talk) 18:52, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
- Keep RoboCup in scope -- Common Good (talk) 18:32, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
Kept Jcb (talk) 21:37, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
out of scope GFreihalter (talk) 18:56, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
- Keep There are not many photos of old skis at Commons. --ŠJů (talk) 07:32, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
- Comment within scope as such, but seems to be rotated duplicate of File:Sci.JPG. MKFI (talk) 22:35, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
- Probably, but both versions are usable. --ŠJů (talk) 23:25, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
Kept Jcb (talk) 21:38, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
low quality - out of scope GFreihalter (talk) 18:57, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
- Keep There are not many photos of old skis at Commons. --ŠJů (talk) 07:31, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
- Keep - usable file. --Dezidor (talk) 11:42, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
- Keep not that low quality, and quite useful. MKFI (talk) 22:34, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
- Keep ref ŠJů Hogne (talk) 07:15, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
Kept Jcb (talk) 21:38, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
unused personal foto GFreihalter (talk) 19:07, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- Not unknown person, see ro:Aculina Strașnei --ŠJů (talk) 07:35, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
Kept Jcb (talk) 21:38, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Lower-quality nearly-exact duplicate of File:Zhang Lu-Laozi Riding an Ox.jpg. Should be replaced and deleted. Wknight94 talk 19:20, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jcb (talk) 21:41, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
unusable image, COM:SCOPE abf «Cabale!» 19:34, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
no pic of this plane at night or at Malaga. --MKY661 (talk) 21:30, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
- So you really suggest to keep an image of each airplane around the world at each airport, no matter of quality, educational purpose or whatever? Excuse me, but I have to disagree abf «Cabale!» 14:03, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Kept Jcb (talk) 21:42, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
Renominate - per ABF, there is no possible use for this image. The plane is bloody invisible for crying out loud, it's barely a step up from a photo of a black cat in a coal cellar at night. -mattbuck (Talk) 02:17, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
- Delete per nom --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 17:35, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
- Delete I completely agree: it´s an useless picture. --Andrea (talk) 18:50, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
- Delete completely agree. --ELEKHHT 20:50, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
We have six other photos of this plane. Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:38, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
unusable file. Main subject of the photo seems to be a pillar - And well, there are two aircraft's parts that are in the image as well... Clearly no educational value --> fails to reach COM:PS abf «Cabale!» 19:51, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Kept Jcb (talk) 21:43, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
Per COM:SCOPE. Extreme low quality with minimal redeeming qualities. Previous DR was closed against the vote without reason, and when pressed for a reason, the proposed educational use seemed unlikely. 99of9 (talk) 23:51, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Agree with nomination, does not seem usable for educational purposes. Pmlineditor (t · c · l) 10:05, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
Reason for bad quality is because it is not a image, it is taken from a video. --MKY661 (talk) 20:11, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:00, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
Changed from speedy: "No FOP in Saudi Arabia" --ZooFari 19:58, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
- If the building does violate the FOP of Saudi Arabia, please arrange to have the image moved to the English and Arabic Wikipedias. WhisperToMe (talk) 12:33, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
Kept: no details visible, all possible FOP issues are DM Jcb (talk) 21:44, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
unused personal foto GFreihalter (talk) 20:44, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- Not unknown person, see ro:Aculina Strașnei --ŠJů (talk) 07:35, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
Kept Jcb (talk) 21:44, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
I doubt that the uploader has any rights for this photo. // Gikü said done Tuesday, 21 January 2014 16:20 (UTC) 16:20, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 07:02, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Derivative work. guerreritoboy (talk) 20:46, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
- Keep: It is a derivative work? It's a van. Granted it had the Asda logo on it, but it hardly makes up a large part of the image. I would say the plastic bags are a utility object. Also, these vans are a common sight around the areas they serve every day, so it is permanently on display in a way. Arriva436talk/contribs 21:18, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Kept Jcb (talk) 21:45, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
out of scope GFreihalter (talk) 20:46, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
- Hi, I am author the this picture
OK I think that this picture is not important for wikimedia foundation. Please delete this picture, I think that this action don't alter any proyect.- Davidmartindel (talk) 04:31, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jcb (talk) 21:46, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
- + File:Aps-cherry.png -- Common Good (talk) 18:38, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
- See also Commons:Deletion requests/File:APS.jpg-- Common Good (talk) 18:38, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
out of scope GFreihalter (talk) 20:47, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
- The diagram is described and seems to have an educational value. --ŠJů (talk) 06:57, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
- Comment No permission from www.flexline.it -- Common Good (talk) 18:38, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jcb (talk) 21:47, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
out of scope GFreihalter (talk) 20:48, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
- Comment In scope, but there is no evidence of permission. Trycatch (talk) 19:56, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jcb (talk) 21:47, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
Derivative Work guerreritoboy (talk) 20:49, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
- Keep: It is a derivative work? It's a van. Granted it had the Asda logo on it, but it hardly makes up a large part of the image. I would say the plastic bags are a utility object. Also, these vans are a common sight around the areas they serve every day, so it is permanently on display in a way. Arriva436talk/contribs 21:11, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Kept Jcb (talk) 21:47, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
out of scope GFreihalter (talk) 20:49, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jcb (talk) 21:49, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
out of scope GFreihalter (talk) 20:50, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
- An interesting document related to en:Clan Line. --ŠJů (talk) 07:12, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
Kept Jcb (talk) 21:50, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
unused personal foto GFreihalter (talk) 20:51, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jcb (talk) 21:50, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
out of scope GFreihalter (talk) 20:52, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
- In scope, a notable organization (en:DeMolay International with 5 interwikis), but copyright status can be problematic. See also similar file File:Crown.gif. --ŠJů (talk) 07:17, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
Kept: seems old enough in country of origin (US) Jcb (talk) 21:51, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
out of scope GFreihalter (talk) 20:53, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Kept: not out of scope, see en:Nagua Jcb (talk) 21:54, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
Not own work as per description, missing permission. P 1 9 9 ✉ 15:22, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:37, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
out of scope GFreihalter (talk) 20:54, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
- Keep It seems to be a photo of a public event in Chile (see http://www.bicicultura.cl/content/view/765327/Festival-de-Bicicultura-Bicicletas-para-un-Mundo-Mejor.html), not a personal photo. Such photos are in scope. --ŠJů (talk) 06:30, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
Kept Jcb (talk) 22:02, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
useless GFreihalter (talk) 20:55, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Kept Jcb (talk) 22:02, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
unknown person GFreihalter (talk) 20:55, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
- Cannot he be de:Axel Geerken? --ŠJů (talk) 06:33, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
- Anyway there is no evidence of permission. Trycatch (talk) 19:52, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jcb (talk) 22:03, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
out of scope GFreihalter (talk) 20:56, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
- Not quite unknown nor private, see http://www.huehnchentrio.de/, http://pressemitteilung.ws/node/151169, http://www.saarbruecken.de/de/event/53996. --ŠJů (talk) 06:36, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: copyvio Jcb (talk) 22:04, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
out of scope GFreihalter (talk) 20:57, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jcb (talk) 22:04, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
unknown person GFreihalter (talk) 20:58, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jcb (talk) 22:05, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
unknown person GFreihalter (talk) 20:59, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Kept: in use Jcb (talk) 22:07, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
unknown person GFreihalter (talk) 19:45, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
It is still in use. Please do not nominate it again. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:36, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
out of scope GFreihalter (talk) 21:00, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
- Specific types of swing seats. --ŠJů (talk) 06:44, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
Kept Jcb (talk) 22:08, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
unknown person GFreihalter (talk) 21:01, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jcb (talk) 22:08, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
Harcourt photograph published after 1991 therefore not free unless it can be proven that the uploader is the copyright holder. Cryptic-waveform (talk) 03:42, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 06:47, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
no evidence or license after 7 days Evalowyn (talk) 21:06, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Kept: PD-textlogo Jcb (talk) 22:09, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
unknown person GFreihalter (talk) 21:07, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jcb (talk) 22:10, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
Image is too young to assume author's date of death is at least 70 years ago. Must have died at latest 15 years after production to have 70y pma satisfied. Template:PD-AustrianGov does not apply as it only refers to "more official" works like laws. Saibo (Δ) 21:11, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jcb (talk) 22:12, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
unused personal foto GFreihalter (talk) 21:12, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
- A publicly active person, maybe not quite unimportant: see http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0679450/, http://www.kinobox.cz/osoba/356647-wolfgang-pfeiffer, --ŠJů (talk) 06:16, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
Kept Jcb (talk) 22:13, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
Image is too young to assume author's date of death is at least 70 years ago. Must have died at latest 4 years after production to satisfy the 70 years pma requirement of PD-old Saibo (Δ) 21:13, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jcb (talk) 22:13, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
_Umar_Kecil_2.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_Umar_Kecil_2.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Sadly, for the same reason we can't have Osama bin Laden's image on here, we cannot have this one. The US department of state did not create this image. Magog the Ogre (talk) 21:19, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
_Umar_Kecil_2.jpg){kind=link}
- Delete It's a screen capture. Not own work. --Andrea (talk) 00:58, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jcb (talk) 22:13, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
_Umar_Kecil_2.jpg){kind=link}
Seems to be a copyvio, uploader is not the creator of the image Antemister (talk) 22:13, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jcb (talk) 22:15, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
seems to be a copyvio, uploader did not create the image Antemister (talk) 22:15, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jcb (talk) 22:15, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
Pornographic/Sexually explicit. 86.20.22.191
- Delete No educational value, COM:PORN, source unknown. --Yikrazuul (talk) 22:24, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
- Keep No valid argument, useful and source known. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 17:27, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
- We could also speak about COM:PEOPLE and FlickR-Washing...--Yikrazuul (talk) 19:26, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
- There are many pictures of her (and actually only of her) on that Flickr account so I don't see why we could say it's Flickr washing (do you have any proof of that guess ?). And if it isn't Flickr washing, COM:PEOPLE doesn't apply since the Flickr user and the model would be the same person (which would mean agreement). We could ask the user for a proof but as usual : how are we supposed to do that ? --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 21:49, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
- This is commons, not FlickR. So what people are doing on FlickR is not of our concern. What is now the educational value? Source unknown! --Yikrazuul (talk) 18:34, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
- The source of this file is Flickr and the user seems to claim to be the model. The only question is : can we trust that ? If we do, there's no problem with that picture. As for the value, why wouldn't it be less useful than any other picture concerning nudity and/or sexuality ? (I'm sick of this eternal need to repeat that there are subjects of knowledge as any other subject !!!) --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 20:56, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
- This is commons, not FlickR. So what people are doing on FlickR is not of our concern. What is now the educational value? Source unknown! --Yikrazuul (talk) 18:34, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
- There are many pictures of her (and actually only of her) on that Flickr account so I don't see why we could say it's Flickr washing (do you have any proof of that guess ?). And if it isn't Flickr washing, COM:PEOPLE doesn't apply since the Flickr user and the model would be the same person (which would mean agreement). We could ask the user for a proof but as usual : how are we supposed to do that ? --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 21:49, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
- We could also speak about COM:PEOPLE and FlickR-Washing...--Yikrazuul (talk) 19:26, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: out of scope Jcb (talk) 22:16, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
I, the original uploader, have uploaded an updated version Angilas89 (talk) 22:31, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
- Where? If so it seems like a job for {{Superseded}} rather than a deletion request. Also note that the image is in use. // Liftarn (talk)
- Keep File:74bird - Copy.jpg has a lower resolution and no significant (if any) improvements. MKFI (talk) 10:34, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
- Keep No valid deletion reason. The other version is slightly better cropped, and has a different license to this one, but is much smaller. We usually keep all revisions of images anyway. I note this one was also replaced with a much smaller down-scaled version with no exif data after this deletion request was posted, I have restored the original. --Tony Wills (talk) 01:06, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
Kept Jcb (talk) 22:17, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
