Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2011/03/14
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
|
|
Subject believes this file name to be defaming--it implies that she was a participant at the AVN show (i.e., porn star) which she denies. Jclemens (talk) 06:48, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted, per Ticket:2011031410002212. Rehman 12:08, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Subject believes this file name to be defaming--it implies that she was a participant at the AVN show (i.e., porn star) which she denies. Jclemens (talk) 06:49, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted, per Ticket:2011031410002212. Rehman 12:09, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Screenshot of a nonfree software. I doubt permission. [1] RE RILLKE Questions? 12:10, 14 March 2011 (UTC) The image is also available at the official web site of the application: http://www.virtualtags.net Thereafter it is already a public image. Fbartolom (talk) 13:37, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: speedy deleted as scaled down duplicate of File:Default@2x.png Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:18, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
spam -- this talk page was used to spam a link to a blogspot page 184.144.160.156 05:46, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
- It was speedily deleted. 184.144.160.156 07:55, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted by User:Jafeluv (non-admin closure). Jujutacular talk 20:23, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
spam -- this talk page was used to spam a link to a blogspot page 184.144.160.156 05:48, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
- It was speedily deleted. 184.144.160.156 07:55, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted by User:Jafeluv (non-admin closure). Jujutacular talk 20:24, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
There is no freedom of panorama exception in Poland, therefore this infringes the sculptor's copyright. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:19, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Keep this appears to be a historical artifact over 1000 years old: pl:Kamienne bóstwo pogańskie z Małocina (Google translation: [2]). MKFI (talk) 18:22, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Kept: Withdrawn, thank you Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 23:16, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
There is no freedom of panorama exception in Poland, therefore this infringes the sculptor's copyright. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:21, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
- Keep this appears to be a historical artifact over 1000 years old: pl:Kamienne bóstwo pogańskie z Małocina (Google translation: [3]). MKFI (talk) 18:22, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Kept: Withdrawn, thank you Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 23:15, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
There is no freedom of panorama exception in Poland, therefore this infringes the sculptor's copyright. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:21, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
- Keep this appears to be a historical artifact over 1000 years old: pl:Kamienne bóstwo pogańskie z Małocina (Google translation: [4]). MKFI (talk) 18:22, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Kept: Withdrawn, thank you. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 23:15, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Screenshot of a nonfree software. I doubt permission. [5] RE RILLKE Questions? 12:10, 14 March 2011 (UTC) The image is also available at the official web site of the application: http://www.virtualtags.net Thereafter it is already a public image. Fbartolom (talk) 13:37, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: speedy deleted as scaled down duplicate of File:Default@2x.png Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:18, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Teste Serpro (talk) 14:41, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted by User:Dodo (non-admin closure). Jujutacular talk 20:32, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
I doubt permission. RE RILLKE Questions? 17:30, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyright violation, Commons:Image casebook#Internet images Martin H. (talk) 17:39, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
1) I doubt own work. 2) "i want to take it down Hshaikh (Diskussion)" 3) The original file was replaced by a totally dissimilar version. RE RILLKE Questions? 20:56, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Removed the overwriting. Martin H. (talk) 21:14, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
- Reconsidered: the overwriting was a possible copyvio and therefore deleted. The overwritten upload was deleted already in Commons:Deletion requests/File:Woman in a green sari.jpg, therefore deleted again as apparently the uploader dont want to have it online. However, overwriting with unfree files is not a sollution. --Martin H. (talk) 21:16, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Photo of an unknown band. Out of scope? RE RILLKE Questions? 11:30, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
- The band seems to be known http://www.cubaunderground.com/rock-de-cuba/resenas/cry-out-for-cumple-cinco-anos but the image looks like a promotional photo or maybe part of a cover. It has a very low resolution, no source and a false license. Deleted. Anna (Cookie) (talk) 22:29, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
wrong archive. Bestiasonica (talk) 00:28, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Common Good (talk) 19:04, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
personal photo, not used, not in scope Avron (talk) 14:04, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: en.wp vandalism (en:Jacob facer known as mr denver, en:Jacob facer is mr denver) -- Common Good (talk) 19:12, 16 March 2011 (UTC) Common Good (talk) 19:12, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
Screenshot of an unknown program. No description. RE RILLKE Questions? 16:42, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: from http://www.jazzsingers.com/WhatsHappening/AllAboutJazzNewYork_june_2010.pdf -- Common Good (talk) 19:25, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
I doubt own work. RE RILLKE Questions? 17:04, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
- Yes you're wright, I didn't realy understand how things work here when I uploaded this file. ישרון (talk) 22:37, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Cover image collage credited to Getty Images Common Good (talk) 19:14, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
teste Serpro (talk) 17:47, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Common Good (talk) 19:15, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
useless --Chrumps (talk) 19:20, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Common Good (talk) 19:16, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
Wrong file extention was used Ual1728 (talk) 01:10, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted by User:Túrelio as copyright violation (non-admin closure). Jujutacular talk 13:46, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
Flickrwashing. The account on Flickr has four uploads, all of them within the last day. The account was created this month. This image is in use in zh:垄上行, which is currently nominated for deletion because it has been speedied and recreated many times. It's not quite protocol, but I'm also including Category:垄上行, which was created by the uploader and only has this and a similar image (that one is unused). Chaser (talk) 18:21, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Copyvio, see for instance http://live.jznews.com.cn/ (bottom). Lymantria (talk) 11:45, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted by User:EugeneZelenko (non-admin closure). Jujutacular talk 14:03, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
Flickrwashing. The account on Flickr has four uploads, all of them within the last day. The account was created this month. His other upload is in use in zh:垄上行, which is currently nominated for deletion because it has been speedied and recreated many times. Chaser (talk) 18:22, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Copyvio, see for instance http://live.jznews.com.cn/ (bottom). Lymantria (talk) 11:43, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted by User:EugeneZelenko (non-admin closure). Jujutacular talk 14:04, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
delete Not government work, creation of private industry Theanphibian (talk) 19:29, 14 March 2011 (UTC) To add more detail, the page itself notes that report is from 2006 but the image is older. Uploader assumed that image was the work of Sandia National Lab because it was in a report from the Lab, but that is not the case, it was created before then, almost certainly by the vendor General Electric, as it is a stylized rendering of the containment. It would be nice to have a production of a national lab representing the containment, but this is not it. Theanphibian (talk) 19:32, 14 March 2011 (UTC) Also nominating File:BWR Mark I Containment, diagram.png. Theanphibian (talk) 19:45, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
- You guessed right. http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/basic-ref/teachers/03.pdf shows the same image with General Electric watermark. --Hydrox (talk) 21:19, 14 March 2011 (UTC) http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/bwrs.html links to [6], what appears to have a remake of the diagram.
Is it safe to assume it is government-made?--Hydrox (talk) 21:24, 14 March 2011 (UTC) Not needed, copyright has expired, see below. --Hydrox (talk) 22:46, 14 March 2011 (UTC) The copyright for this image has most likely expired. The first commercially-operated nuclear power reactor in the U.S. was the Dresden 1 reactor. Operating license was issued on 1 January, 1960, and the reactor was decommissioned in 1978. It was based on the Mark I design. So the picture above most likely predates 1964, and is thus in the public domain in the U.S., unless its copyright was renewed.--Hydrox (talk) 22:39, 14 March 2011 (UTC)- Unfortunately I have to conclude that this might after all be a copyvio. I didn't consider above that the same document contains diagrams of the Mark-II & Mark-III designs as well, and Mark-III didn't start operating until 1970s. Assuming these diagrams were drawn by the same person around the same time, they would have probably been published after 1963 and would be copyrighted to GE.
- [7] has, in small letters, "GEZ-4396" written under the image. This is a General Electric publication reference code. [8] has a search engine for GE publications. But it does not find anything for this reference. If someone has access to GE publication archive index, he/she could verify with this reference # the exact date of publication.. --Hydrox (talk) 04:01, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
- There is no acknowledgement of external copyright, or any thanks to GE, in the Sandia source doc (produced under contract to the NRC). Could this lend support to the notion it is copyright expired, so does not need acknowledgement by Sandia? Rwendland (talk) 23:08, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
- That would be great if someone could provide the expired copyright rationale with the proper tags. I am personally not knowledgeable enough to do this, but hopefully we can attract the attention of a user with some better legal know-how. I would caution, however, that the fact that it's legal to use or could be defended doesn't make it in compliance with the Wikimedia Commons policy. It could be possible that it's likely PD but can't be assuredly proven, and then it'll be deleted anyway. Theanphibian (talk) 03:35, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
- Keep and change copyright tag. OK, here goes with the PD argument: US copyright law 1923-1977 is if the image as distributed was not tagged with a "(c) Whoever, Year" notice, then the image is Public Domain.[9] We strongly believe that General Electric created this image, and distributed it without copyright notice, during this period when the Mark I containment was being marketed and built. Page 3-16 of this US NRC document[10] appears to show the entire distributed image, merely tagged "General Electric ... GEZ-4396", indicating a full copyright notice was not used by General Electric. The fact that Sandia National Lab and US NRC reproduce this image without credit or acknowledgment to General Electric supports this argument that this image is without copyright (Public Domain). Rwendland (talk) 12:55, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
- The thing is, the original publication GEZ-4396 was probably published with a copyright notice. If you look at the database of the GE publications, they are always published with a copyright notice, at least today. Not enough evidence to support assuming it was first published without copyright notice. --Hydrox (talk) 18:44, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
- I'm inclined to think it was published as a marketing poster without a legal copyright notice. That was common in the 1950s I believe, before colour TV and many magazines. I suspect it was reproduced in full in the NRC BWR training manual.Rwendland (talk) 16:41, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
Please keep it for at least a month. This is timely information and the image is the most detailed and credible that I have seen. Give the copyright status the benefit of the doubt, please. 67.122.210.104 00:22, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
I second that motion, tho want to keep it for 6 months, it is the only decent model/diagram of a GE Mark 1 reactor, so in the news. No one else has info.—Preceding unsigned comment was added by 174.7.23.169 (talk) (UTC)
- We recently had a user contribute a hand-drawn sketch, File:BWR Mark I Containment sketch.png. This should do. Theanphibian (talk) 03:35, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
Consider keeping this illustration under a fair-use rationale. From what I know at this time, the illustration by the manufacturer of Fukushima reactor and sufficiently accurately depicts the Fukushima reactor structure. I would consider this illustration kind of "officially accurate" and can see no way how to find a replacement under a cc-license. In case of complex technical articles, accuracy of illustrations is desirable, even necessary, to provide appropriate explanation of the article's subject. Another aspect of "fair use" could be documentation of how these types of reactors were depicted (advertised?) in 1960s/70s. -- 109.90.167.117 08:30, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
I think it is interesting that someone decided this image should be tagged for removal now when we are all looking at the real thing on TV. The image should not be taken down for political reasons. It is particularly relevant that we should have access to an acurate diagram of this type of reactor now.Djapa84 (talk) 12:07, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
Delete. This is Wikimedia Commons. Commons does not accept fair-use content. Also, as a free alternative exists, I see no case for fair-use in those individual Wikipedias that allow fair-use content either. --Hydrox (talk) 13:49, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
- Hydrox, I'm puzzled. Have you changed your mind that there is a good Public Domain argument for keeping, as you made above? Rwendland (talk) 14:52, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
- Please read my reasoning above. --Hydrox (talk) 18:44, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
- Hydrox, I'm puzzled. Have you changed your mind that there is a good Public Domain argument for keeping, as you made above? Rwendland (talk) 14:52, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
- There is no free alternative, since many details are shown only in this image, eg the spent fuel pool on the upper right below the crane. This is the pool (and its problematic position) which caused the fire in block 4. Keep --WolfgangRieger (talk) 17:08, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
Keep -- 16:40, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
Would a drawing (eg SVG) showing the same content solve any copyvio problem? --WolfgangRieger (talk) 17:10, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
Keep The title page of the original report clearly indicates that this is a work for hire for the United States Government. It is therefore public domain. There is no copyright notice. Sandina uses copyright notices for things that are copyrighted (see their website, for example). --Selket (talk) 19:29, 15 March 2011 (UTC) Keep Is it really possible to enter such an unnecesary discussion. This ilustration is certainly more than public and more than "Govermental" enough, comming from this publication: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Job Code Y6757. Inge Holst Jacobsen. 15:07, 16 March 2011
Keep Either keep this drawing or substitute the extremely similar drawing that is hosted by the Nuclear REgulatory Commision on their BWR page. See page two of this PDF. http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/generic-bwr.pdf Clearly this is the same drawing reproduced on a US government site in slightly less resolution. User: Sherifftruman
- Delete Just because the NRC has violated the copyright for this image does NOT mean it falls into US Government public domain. 142.244.60.133 20:35, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Clearly work of General Electric and most probably published orginally with a copyright note. (In addition: We can not keep it as fair use. But you can link in the articles to this PDF. ALE! ¿…? 08:01, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
I doubt own work/ permission. Out of scope. Advertising. RE RILLKE Questions? 21:00, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted by User:Herbythyme (non-admin closure). Jujutacular talk 14:05, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
Copyvio and if not - useless, small image. RE RILLKE Questions? 21:45, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted by User:SatuSuro (non-admin closure). Jujutacular talk 14:07, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
The diagram is incorrect/misleading. Steam outlet (8) near top of (5) without a corresponding input will only deliver steam over a short period. HeWhoMowedTheLawn (talk) 23:01, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
- The creator has been informed --188.104.143.244 04:13, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
- Keep Thank you for your Hint, i think i fixed it. best regards, --Stefan-Xp (talk) 20:42, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
- Strange: the fix - the blue pipe - disappeared from the picture again. How can this happen without a new version? --Mopskatze (talk) 19:05, 16 March 2011 (UTC) PS: Seems to have been a caching problem - the file is OK. --Mopskatze (talk) 00:33, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
- Keep Ok now, thanks. (I'm fine with removing the deletion request) --HeWhoMowedTheLawn (talk) 21:02, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
Kept Withdrawn by nominator (non-admin closure). Jujutacular talk 14:10, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
Contains an album cover that is likely covered by copyright. Project scope? RE RILLKE Questions? 23:32, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
- Delete, non-free icons and album cover. –Tryphon☂ 23:50, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted by User:Mattbuck (non-admin closure). Jujutacular talk 14:08, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
wrong name, see File:BSicon UKLC.svg! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tuvalki (talk • contribs)
Comment - Tagged for speedy deletion. Jujutacular talk 20:28, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted by User:Túrelio (non-admin closure). Jujutacular talk 13:59, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
Doubtful that uploader is the copyright holder. Sole contribution by uploader. Kelly (talk) 10:26, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
- I am the owner of said picture. It is not copyrighted. I have a release of ownership from the photographer.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.227.159.156 (talk • contribs) 18:39, March 14, 2011 (UTC)
- Keep I have emailed the uploader and they have provided information - I'll kick it along to OTRS and see if it's sufficient to get a ticket # associated with it. Tabercil (talk) 22:01, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
Done OTRS ticket received, number #2011031510017188, closing as kept. odder (talk) 11:01, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
(see also Commons:Deletion requests/File:Karl-Christoph Kuhn.jpg) This is a case of " It looks like a duck to me". I found both the images (File:Paß.jpg and File:Karl-Christoph Kuhn.jpg) that User:Karl-Christoph Kuhn has uploaded at Karl-Christoph Kuhn's blog (File:Paß.jpg here and File:Karl-Christoph Kuhn.jpg here. I find it highly peculiar that User:Karl-Christoph Kuhn came along, registered, uploaded two images from the same website, then didn't make a single other contributions. This I this is a ”Single Purpose account" created only to upload copyrighted image so both images should be deleted with a "I'm Karl-Christoph Kuhn" claim.--ARTEST4ECHO talk 17:34, 14 March 2011 (UTC) --ARTEST4ECHO talk 17:36, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
deleted copyright violation: http://a34.idata.over-blog.com/4/29/90/92/pa-.jpg (furthermore using a non-descriptive file name) axpdeHello! 13:57, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
=== File:Prh_luotettavan_tiedon_tuottaja_wikipedia.jpg ===
I doubt permission. RE RILLKE Questions? 17:31, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted, per request by uploader (User:Leena-liisa). Rehman 02:27, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
Unused low-quality jpeg. Out of scope. RE RILLKE Questions? 16:37, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 11:40, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
Is this an artwork? If not - out of scope - delete. RE RILLKE Questions? 16:39, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 11:40, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
Advertising. Poster. Out of scope. RE RILLKE Questions? 16:55, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 11:38, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
Unused logo. Out of scope. RE RILLKE Questions? 16:55, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 11:38, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
Unused logo, out of scope. RE RILLKE Questions? 17:02, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope, adwertisement George Chernilevsky talk 11:37, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
Personal unused photo. RE RILLKE Questions? 17:13, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Sole image by this uploader and its unused. --Leoboudv (talk) 02:28, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 11:36, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
Personal unused photo. RE RILLKE Questions? 17:19, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 11:35, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
Out of scope or artwork? Low resolution jpeg. RE RILLKE Questions? 17:21, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 11:35, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
Commons is not a playground. Out of scope. RE RILLKE Questions? 17:30, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 11:39, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
Out of scope. RE RILLKE Questions? 17:34, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 11:34, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
Unused image that is not useful for any project. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 18:53, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 11:33, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
unused button, no foreseeable use Avron (talk) 19:46, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 11:31, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
personal artwork, not used, not in scope Avron (talk) 19:48, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 11:31, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
What's this? no description, no usable quality Avron (talk) 19:52, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 11:31, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
personal artwork, not used, not in scope Avron (talk) 20:03, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 11:30, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
I doubt permission. Out of scope? RE RILLKE Questions? 20:17, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 11:30, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
1) Advertising. 2) Out of scope. 3) Permission required. RE RILLKE Questions? 20:37, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Per all nominator's reasons George Chernilevsky talk 11:29, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
unclear author, no educational content, not used Avron (talk) 20:39, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 11:28, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
Personal photo, not used, not in scope Avron (talk) 20:40, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 11:28, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
Personal photo, not used, not in scope Avron (talk) 20:41, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 11:28, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
personal artwork, not used, not in scope Avron (talk) 20:44, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 11:27, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
No foreseeable use. Therefore out of scope. RE RILLKE Questions? 21:36, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
- Delete That was not the file I wanted to upload. --Vilarrubla (talk) 13:31, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 11:25, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
File:OgAAAMW9HqKDpEs4m3ryFcix5ipxF2DHjAddyzWUHuerkQY2ODW3DKzPzYTI6-CaTyNvmx3tCC2S-a5-59nfbQq9N54Am1T1UHvvxWHF_zvpRTaKSjaNBgL4goib.jpg
[edit]Personal unused photo. Therefore not in scope. RE RILLKE Questions? 22:50, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 11:24, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
(only for the old version) apparently taken at a madonna concert. there is a video/photo on a big screen in the background → permission from the photographer of this photo needed Saibo (Δ) 03:11, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
- Delete version from history only, per nom. Jujutacular talk 20:22, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Kept: The version as of 21:35, 25 September 2010 has been deleted. -- Common Good (talk) 19:45, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
apparently taken at a madonna concert. there is a video/photo on a big screen in the background → permission from the photographer of this photo needed Saibo (Δ) 03:11, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Common Good (talk) 20:09, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
Image used as part of a personal attack - this is not Bearforce 1, a gay dance music band. Fæ (talk) 05:52, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Common Good (talk) 20:10, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
personal photo, not used, not in scope Avron (talk) 06:42, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Common Good (talk) 19:54, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
personal artwork, not used, not in scope Avron (talk) 06:50, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Common Good (talk) 19:54, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
personal photo, no educational value, not used Avron (talk) 07:08, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Common Good (talk) 19:55, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
personal photo, not used, not in scope Avron (talk) 10:54, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Common Good (talk) 19:56, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
personal photo, not used, not in scope Avron (talk) 10:57, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 21:01, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
personal photo, not used, not in scope Avron (talk) 10:57, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 21:01, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
personal photo, not used, not in scope Avron (talk) 11:01, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Common Good (talk) 19:56, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
probably derivative work Avron (talk) 11:14, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Common Good (talk) 19:57, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
Out of scope - relevance? Advertising? RE RILLKE Questions? 11:17, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 21:03, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
personal photo, not used, not in scope Avron (talk) 11:20, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 21:03, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
personal photo, not used, not in scope Avron (talk) 11:21, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 21:04, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
promoting material, not used, not in scope Avron (talk) 11:27, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Common Good (talk) 19:58, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
personal artwork, not used, not in scope Avron (talk) 11:30, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Far out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 21:04, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
personal photo, not used, not in scope Avron (talk) 11:31, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Common Good (talk) 20:11, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
Advertising. No educational value. Out of scope. RE RILLKE Questions? 11:59, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: no license -- Common Good (talk) 20:13, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
I doubt own work. Out of scope? RE RILLKE Questions? 12:26, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: no license -- Common Good (talk) 20:12, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
Unused graphic. Out of scope? RE RILLKE Questions? 12:53, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 21:09, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
Cheeky advertising. Commons is not an image-hoster. RE RILLKE Questions? 12:56, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Common Good (talk) 19:59, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
Out of scope. Advertising. RE RILLKE Questions? 12:58, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 21:09, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
Unused logo. Out of scope. RE RILLKE Questions? 13:02, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Common Good (talk) 20:14, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
Unused personal photo. RE RILLKE Questions? 13:17, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 21:11, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
Cheeky advertising. Out of scope. RE RILLKE Questions? 13:18, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Common Good (talk) 20:00, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
-- Common Good (talk) 19:09, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
Out of scope. Text can be created using wiki-markup. RE RILLKE Questions? 13:30, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
- Delete out of project scope -- Common Good (talk) 19:09, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope, promotional George Chernilevsky talk 21:13, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
I doubt permission. RE RILLKE Questions? 13:32, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: http://www.peopleenespanol.com/pespanol/articles/0,22490,1868416,00.html -- Common Good (talk) 19:52, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
personal photo, not used, not in scope Avron (talk) 13:42, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 21:16, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
File:OECD.svg was updated about a week after this file was uploaded, adding Israel and Estonia as OECD members. While not exact duplicates based on file hash, a visual comparison will verify that these two files are the same. As a result of File:OECD.svg being updated in place, this file is no longer necessary. – Adrignola talk 13:44, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
agreed.--MAEV 16:18, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Common Good (talk) 19:43, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
personal photo, not used, not in scope Avron (talk) 13:47, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 21:17, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
personal photo, not used, not in scope Avron (talk) 13:48, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Common Good (talk) 20:00, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
It's unclear whether "Nintendo" gave permission to use this file and I very much doubt they ever will. Mathonius (talk) 15:30, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Common Good (talk) 19:51, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
Out of scope? Text-effects can be created with css and wiki-markup. RE RILLKE Questions? 16:05, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Common Good (talk) 19:50, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
Size: A 16 MB SVG-File? Does not work. RE RILLKE Questions? 16:16, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Corrupt file George Chernilevsky talk 21:21, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
Out of scope. RE RILLKE Questions? 16:24, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Common Good (talk) 19:50, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
Unused Logo. Out of scope. Advertising. RE RILLKE Questions? 16:40, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope, promotional George Chernilevsky talk 21:22, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
I doubt own work. Out of scope. RE RILLKE Questions? 16:44, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 21:22, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
unused logo. Out of scope? RE RILLKE Questions? 16:51, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Common Good (talk) 20:02, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
OTRS permission required. RE RILLKE Questions? 17:39, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Common Good (talk) 20:02, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
I doubt own work. If it is own work, it's very likely out of scope. RE RILLKE Questions? 21:17, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Common Good (talk) 20:08, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
I doubt own work. RE RILLKE Questions? 22:05, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Common Good (talk) 20:05, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
Personal unused image. Leaking descriptive information. RE RILLKE Questions? 22:57, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Common Good (talk) 19:53, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
personal photo, not used, not in scope Avron (talk) 14:20, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom George Chernilevsky talk 09:50, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Seems to be spam to get a good google ranking. Without a description useless. RE RILLKE Questions? 15:13, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 09:52, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Seems to be spam to get a good google ranking. Without a description useless. Nothing protectable. It should be PD. RE RILLKE Questions? 15:15, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 09:52, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Seems to be spam to get a good google ranking. Without a description useless. Nothing protectable. It should be PD. RE RILLKE Questions? 15:16, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 09:52, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Seems to be spam to get a good google ranking. Without a description useless. Nothing protectable. It should be PD. RE RILLKE Questions? 15:17, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 09:53, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Out of scope. What a description? I doubt own work. RE RILLKE Questions? 15:26, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope, promotional George Chernilevsky talk 09:54, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Out of scope. I doubt permission. RE RILLKE Questions? 15:31, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 09:54, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
I doubt own work. Out of scope. RE RILLKE Questions? 16:52, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 09:56, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Unused screenshot of non-free software. RE RILLKE Questions? 22:24, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio George Chernilevsky talk 09:58, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
An image of a comic book character per Commons:Derivative works MorganKevinJ(talk) 02:03, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
I put this file on Wikimedia Commons because there is a Category:Madame Tussauds London with some photos of wax statues. I thought that UK FOP can be applied Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2010/09/09#File:Madame_Tussauds_London_00801_Nevit.jpg. After some speedy deletion from User:Dodo, a lot of discussion, UK FOP can not be applied on the Marvel characters because the exhibition part with the Marvel characters is only kept five years [11]. This file should be deleted and also the following ones :
--Crazy runner (talk) 04:04, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Also, #1 & #3 are touristic shots of dubious educational value (COM:SCOPE). Please take also this into account. --Dodo (talk) 07:35, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
- Comment While discussing with Crazy runner I sent an email to Madame Tussaud London asking about this issue, and today they have answered. Here you have them (omitting my real name & email addresses):
- From: Dodo [mailto:xxxxxx@gmail.com]
- Sent: 13 March 2011 14:33
- To: MTL Guest Experience
- Subject: About wax figures copyright
- Hi.
- If I go to Madam Tussauds London and make photos of the wax figures displayed there, can I use those photos freely? I mean, can I publish them commercially?
- Does Freedom Of Panorama applies to your wax figures?
- Thank you in advance. Regards. --Dodo
- Subject: RE: About wax figures copyright
- Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2011 18:34:06 -0000
- From: "Liz Edwards" <xxxxxx@madame-tussauds.com>
- To: <xxxxxx@gmail.com>
- Dear Dodo
- All Madame Tussauds are copyright to us, therefore no figures must be used for commercial reasons. If people are found doing this we will take legal action.
- Best wishes,
- Liz
- Now what? --Dodo (talk) 18:46, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
- Delete all - Copyright violation. Jujutacular talk 20:20, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Comment If we take in accont the UK FOP this statement is irrelewant... Of corse we can discussed what "permament display" does mean... But in my opinion someting what is on display for 5 years is on veeeery permamant display. Electron 
<Talk?> 16:41, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
- Comment Have you read this link I put above? Do you think the "permanent display" issue is still debatable? :S --Dodo (talk) 07:45, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
- But I did't say they are not copyrigted. The problem is that the UK law system (an the law systems of some others countries) has a category which is know as "freedom of panorama", e.g. in Poland or in Germany I can took a photo of a new "copyrigted" monument in the street or in museum that are on permamanet display without any permission or peyments to the author. In UK it is even browder -> FOP is not only for artistic works but also e.g for photos of "works of artistic craftmentship" (this category fits better to our subject of discussion) that are on permament display. Everybody can write his own restriction but they have no power if the law is in contrary to the private statement. Electron
<Talk?> 08:36, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
- Comment Still not permanently displayed, though. So FOP does not apply. --Dodo (talk) 08:57, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
- But I did't say they are not copyrigted. The problem is that the UK law system (an the law systems of some others countries) has a category which is know as "freedom of panorama", e.g. in Poland or in Germany I can took a photo of a new "copyrigted" monument in the street or in museum that are on permamanet display without any permission or peyments to the author. In UK it is even browder -> FOP is not only for artistic works but also e.g for photos of "works of artistic craftmentship" (this category fits better to our subject of discussion) that are on permament display. Everybody can write his own restriction but they have no power if the law is in contrary to the private statement. Electron
While it is my view that notwithstanding the e-mail above, permanent displays at Mme Tussaud's London are free under UK FOP, these are temporary and therefore deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:45, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
apparently taken at a madonna concert. there is a video/photo on a big screen in the background → permission from the photographer of this photo needed Saibo (Δ) 03:03, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
- Dont think the uploader can resolve this problem with providing the required permission from the screens copyright holder. We have to delete the file because it is a derivative work of that concert screen and it is not de minimis. Delete. --Martin H. (talk) 03:16, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
- In theory - he can - but in practice I strongly doubt it that he can manage to get one - sure. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 00:32, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
- Delete per COM:DW --Leoboudv (talk) 04:48, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
- Delete per nom --Dodo (talk) 08:58, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Unfortunately, the large video image - presumed (c) - causes a problem. Obtaining permission is highly unlikely. Chzz ► 03:20, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:55, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
apparently taken at a madonna concert. there is a video/photo on a big screen in the background → permission from the photographer of this photo needed Saibo (Δ) 03:06, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
- I don't think it classifies as De minimis since the imagery on the screen is that of the music video for the song performed.--MindyHall (talk) 20:01, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:55, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
apparently taken at a madonna concert. there is a video/photo on a big screen in the background → permission from the photographer of this photo needed Saibo (Δ) 03:06, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:55, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
wrong file, sorry! tetraktys (talk) 05:53, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
- Delete User requested, recent upload, unused Chzz ► 03:33, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:56, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
author not uploader shizhao (talk) 06:25, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
i have asked the manufacturer for the approval. But since i replace it with a photo I took myself, please delete the captioned file. Thanks for helping out
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:57, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
personal photo, not used, not in scope Avron (talk) 06:55, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:03, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
personal photo, not used, not in scope Avron (talk) 07:03, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:04, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
personal photo, not used, not in scope Avron (talk) 07:06, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:04, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Changed from "copyvio" to regular deletation request. Electron <Talk?> 08:00, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
3 years ago the file was discussed here -> Commons:Deletion requests/Image:End of Civilization.jpg with the "kept" result. I can only repeat: "
Keep The main theme of pictute is the end point of civilization (as the title is describing). "After this, nothing… The Black Rock Desert is devoid of visible plants and animals. Not even a rock." Besides the picture was taken in a public place, "copyrighted character"s were taken accicentally, are not the main theme of the pictures and it is a permament instalation..."
- Delete. Derivative. The argument that the sculpture is included accidentally in the picture is not really believable. (But you could publish a version with the sculpture cropped out.) Also, it does not change anything if it is a public place and if the work is a permanent installation. -- Asclepias (talk) 15:06, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:06, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Changed from "copyvio" to regular deletation request. Electron <Talk?> 08:13, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
- Keep To say the truth I can't see very big similarity to the orginals. If the picture wasn't it described in the title it can be whatever donkey and fairy on the world... Electron <Talk?> 08:22, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
- That's true, but the sculpture is copyrighted nevertheless, no matter what it represents. Delete. –Tryphon☂ 08:42, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
- In my opinion the work is a real derivate if we see at first sight that it is very similar to the orginal, e.g. a child picture with 5 lines and a circle and with the name "Shrek" is rather not, because it can show whatever on the word... without this name. Electron <Talk?> 09:05, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
- You don't understand. I'm not saying that the sculpture is a derivative work of Shrek characters, I'm saying that this image is a derivative work of the sculpture (and the sculpture is copyrighted regardless of whether it represents Shrek characters or not). –Tryphon☂ 09:27, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
- OK. Now I see. Very sad that the photo was taken in US. The ice squlptures melted away many years ago but the copyrigts are stronger then the ice is ;) Electron <Talk?> 10:04, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
- OK. Now I see. Very sad that the photo was taken in US. The ice squlptures melted away many years ago but the copyrigts are stronger then the ice is ;) Electron
- You don't understand. I'm not saying that the sculpture is a derivative work of Shrek characters, I'm saying that this image is a derivative work of the sculpture (and the sculpture is copyrighted regardless of whether it represents Shrek characters or not). –Tryphon☂ 09:27, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
- In my opinion the work is a real derivate if we see at first sight that it is very similar to the orginal, e.g. a child picture with 5 lines and a circle and with the name "Shrek" is rather not, because it can show whatever on the word... without this name. Electron
- That's true, but the sculpture is copyrighted nevertheless, no matter what it represents.
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:06, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Changed from "copyvio" to regular deletation request. Electron <Talk?> 08:14, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
- Keep To say the truth I can't see very big similarity to the orginals. If the picture wasn't it described in the title it can be whatever gnoms on the world... Electron <Talk?> 08:24, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
- That's true, but the sculpture is copyrighted nevertheless, no matter what it represents. Delete. –Tryphon☂ 08:40, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
- In my opinion the work is a real derivate if we see at first sight that it is very similar to the orginal, e.g. a child picture with 5 lines and a circle and with the name "Shrek" is rather not, because it can show whatever on the word... without this name. Electron <Talk?> 09:09, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
- You don't understand. I'm not saying that the sculpture is a derivative work of Shrek characters, I'm saying that this image is a derivative work of the sculpture (and the sculpture is copyrighted regardless of whether it represents Shrek characters or not). –Tryphon☂ 09:27, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
- OK. Now I see. Very sad that the photo was taken in US. The ice squlptures melted away many years ago but the copyrigts are stronger then the ice is ;) Electron <Talk?> 10:03, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
- OK. Now I see. Very sad that the photo was taken in US. The ice squlptures melted away many years ago but the copyrigts are stronger then the ice is ;) Electron
- You don't understand. I'm not saying that the sculpture is a derivative work of Shrek characters, I'm saying that this image is a derivative work of the sculpture (and the sculpture is copyrighted regardless of whether it represents Shrek characters or not). –Tryphon☂ 09:27, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
- In my opinion the work is a real derivate if we see at first sight that it is very similar to the orginal, e.g. a child picture with 5 lines and a circle and with the name "Shrek" is rather not, because it can show whatever on the word... without this name. Electron
- That's true, but the sculpture is copyrighted nevertheless, no matter what it represents.
- Delete Cool case worth to remember. As Tryphn says: this image is a derivative work of the sculpture and the sculpture is copyrighted , because in most jurisdictions the FoP applies to permanent structures only. Masur (talk) 17:32, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
- Cool is the right word :) But in jurisdictions where there is FOP for sculptures, this would most likely be considered permanent (natural lifetime of the work). See COM:FOP#Permanent vs temporary. –Tryphon☂ 18:26, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:08, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Unused personal photograph not useful for any project. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 08:14, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
- No objection to deletion by me as the uploader. - Andre Engels (talk) 15:14, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:08, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
In all likelihood this is a copyvio. Copyright in this cast photo would be held by Disney, so JustJared Jr would have no authority to release it for use on commons. The summary info shows a date of 28 February 2011, while the image was uploaded on 14 March 2011. The uploader has probably just copied the template from somehwere else and forgot to change the date. AussieLegend (talk) 08:35, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:09, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
out of COM:SCOPE; this currently unused logo seems to be a personal "logo" of the uploader. --Túrelio (talk) 09:17, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
- No, it's for the category. -- amrollbia ☎ 17:41, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
- For what category? --Túrelio (talk) 19:18, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
- For the category "Amrollbia". -- amrollbia ☎ 18:21, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
- That cat has been deleted because there were no files categorized into it. Besides, if that cat was meant to host all files uploaded by you, it had the wrong name. The appropriate name should follow the syntax Category:Files uploaded by Amrollbia or Category:Images by Amrollbia. But you should create such a cat only íf you have uploaded more file that this one. --Túrelio (talk) 19:37, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
- For the category "Amrollbia". -- amrollbia ☎ 18:21, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
- For what category? --Túrelio (talk) 19:18, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:10, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
No FOP in the UAE. 84.61.186.139 10:19, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:10, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Out of scope, unused personal artwork. –Tryphon☂ 10:25, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:10, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
probably pd-old, but author is wrong Avron (talk) 10:34, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
- From 1945. Definitely not PD-old --78.55.7.90 05:59, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:10, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
probably pd-old, but author and license are wrong Avron (talk) 10:35, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
- From 1945. Definitely not PD-old --78.55.7.90 05:58, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:11, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
probably pd-old, but author and license are wrong Avron (talk) 10:36, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
- From 1945. Definitely not PD-old --78.55.7.90 05:58, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
- Might be {{PD-USGov-Military}}. MKFI (talk) 15:22, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
- I suppose this also but unfortunately there is no source given.--Avron (talk) 20:09, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
- Might be {{PD-USGov-Military}}. MKFI (talk) 15:22, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:11, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
I doubt own work. Why it is a low-quality jpeg, not a png? RE RILLKE Questions? 10:41, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:12, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
I doubt own work. RE RILLKE Questions? 10:44, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:12, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
I doubt own work. RE RILLKE Questions? 10:45, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:12, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
personal photo, not used, not in scope Avron (talk) 10:49, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:12, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
I doubt own work of this low-quality jpeg. Here's what I found: http://www.arqhys.com/construcciones/imagenes/Buscapolos.jpg RE RILLKE Questions? 10:58, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:12, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
personal photo, not used, not in scope Avron (talk) 10:59, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:13, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
I doubt own work of the original image. Permission has to be added. Created 73 years ago. Lebensmittelkomiker is 73 years old? RE RILLKE Questions? 11:02, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:13, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
personal photo, not used, not in scope Avron (talk) 11:05, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:13, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
I doubt own work. RE RILLKE Questions? 11:05, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:13, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
personal artwork, not used, not in scope Avron (talk) 11:06, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:13, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Out of scope? Format = PDF? RE RILLKE Questions? 11:25, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:13, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Bizarre unused image. Out of scope. RE RILLKE Questions? 11:36, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:15, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
I doubt own work. RE RILLKE Questions? 11:40, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:15, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
I doubt own work. RE RILLKE Questions? 11:58, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:15, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Out of scope. Logo of an unknown band. Look at revision history here: fr:Whispering_Tears RE RILLKE Questions? 12:03, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:15, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Screenshot of a nonfree software. I doubt permission. [12] RE RILLKE Questions? 12:11, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:19, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Advertising. Non-educational. RE RILLKE Questions? 12:24, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:19, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
No license given. I doubt permission. RE RILLKE Questions? 12:40, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:19, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
No license given. I doubt permission. RE RILLKE Questions? 12:41, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:19, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Screenshot of a self-written unpopular computer - ego shooter - game. Out of scope. RE RILLKE Questions? 12:51, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:20, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
I doubt permission. Everyone can create an account here under likely every name. OTRS required. Out of scope. RE RILLKE Questions? 12:55, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:20, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Unused logo. Out of scope. RE RILLKE Questions? 13:00, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:20, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Unused logo. Out of scope? RE RILLKE Questions? 13:02, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:20, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
I doubt permission. OTRS required. RE RILLKE Questions? 13:06, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
- So what? That's all, no research? Only a hunch? Hoffmansk (talk) 00:10, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
- I had a brief look at the website but I can't find 1) the logo in that size 2) a license that permits the usage. Please give a link direct 1) to the image 2) to the explicit permission page. Thank you. --RE RILLKE Questions? 08:19, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:20, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Out of scope. Text can be created with wiki-markup and css. RE RILLKE Questions? 13:11, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:21, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
I doubt own work. RE RILLKE Questions? 13:12, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
- Delete The picture is a logo. --Taichi (talk) 04:17, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:21, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
I doubt own work. No description. - Who is on the photo? RE RILLKE Questions? 13:24, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:21, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
I doubt own work. No description. - Who is on the photo? RE RILLKE Questions? 13:24, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:21, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
I doubt own work. No description. - Who is on the photo? RE RILLKE Questions? 13:26, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:22, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
I doubt own work. No description. - Who is on the photo? RE RILLKE Questions? 13:27, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:22, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
I doubt own work. RE RILLKE Questions? 13:28, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:22, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Copyright violation. Abiyoyo (talk) 13:37, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
- This file is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 Generic license.
- This image, which was originally posted to Flickr, was reviewed on February 22, 2009 by the administrator or reviewer User:File Upload Bot (Magnus Manske), who confirmed that it was available on Flickr under the above license on that date. Octave.H (talk) 18:52, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Flickrwashing. Photographer was Fritz Bach, aka Federico Bach, born in 1897 in Basel, Switzerland. Swiss communist who emigrated to Mexico in 1924; met Kahlo, Rivera, etc. in 1937/38. Worked in Mexico in the Department of Statistics and became a professor of economy there. Died 1979-11-19 in Mexico City. See López De La Parra, Manuel: El Pensamiento Economico De Fritz Bach, Facultad de Economía, UNAM, Mexico 2005. ISBN 970-32-2801-1. Photographer died 1979, according to Mexican copyright law, this photo will enter the public domain in 2080. Flickr user has no right to license this image as CC-whatever. Lupo 21:27, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:23, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Derivative from copyvio. Abiyoyo (talk) 13:37, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
- This is a cropped version of Diego Rivera.jpg which was licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 Generic license. Octave.H (talk) 18:56, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
- Delete per my comments at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Diego Rivera.jpg. Lupo 21:30, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:23, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Unused logo. I doubt own work. Out of scope? RE RILLKE Questions? 13:38, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:23, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
I doubt permission. OTRS required. RE RILLKE Questions? 13:40, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:23, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
I doubt own work. RE RILLKE Questions? 13:41, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:23, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
I doubt permission. Unused logo. RE RILLKE Questions? 13:43, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:23, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
I doubt permission. Unused low-quality map. RE RILLKE Questions? 13:45, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:23, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
I doubt own work. Black frame? Only contribution of user Eveling624? RE RILLKE Questions? 13:47, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:23, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
I doubt permission and only own work. OTRS required from [13] RE RILLKE Questions? 13:53, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:23, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
from ABC news, not PD-USGov shizhao (talk) 13:53, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:23, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
personal photo, not used, not in scope Avron (talk) 13:58, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:23, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
I doubt own work. RE RILLKE Questions? 14:00, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:24, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Out of scope?: Quote from the website ([мультилайн.рф]): "Ladies and Gentlemen! Благодарим Вас, что посетили сайт компании МультиЛайн. Thank you for visiting the website MultiLayn. Сейчас сайт находится в разработке. Now the site is under construction." RE RILLKE Questions? 14:04, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:24, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
personal photo, not used, not in scope Avron (talk) 14:09, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:24, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
I doubt permission. Derative work of: [14] RE RILLKE Questions? 14:19, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:24, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Not realistically useful for an educational purpose. Personal photo not in use by any of the projects. Out of scope. Also, may be a reupload of the previous version that was deleted as a copyright violation. – Adrignola talk 14:25, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:27, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
I doubt own work: [15] RE RILLKE Questions? 14:28, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:27, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Uberaba J23 0902 (talk) 15:28, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:35, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
I doubt own work. RE RILLKE Questions? 15:28, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:35, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:J23_0902 J23 0902 (talk) 15:32, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Kept: We do not delete or blank User talk pages. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:49, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
I doubt permission. No license. RE RILLKE Questions? 15:34, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: 15:49, 22 March 2011 by EugeneZelenko, closed by Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:50, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
I doubt permission: Quote from the terms of use [16]: "Das Dokument darf nur für nichtkommerzielle Informationszwecke genutzt werden. Jede Kopie dieses Dokuments oder eines Teils davon muss diese urheberrechtliche Erklärung und das urheberrechtliche Schutzzeichen des Betreibers enthalten. Das Dokument, jede Kopie des Dokuments oder eines Teils davon dürfen nicht ohne schriftliche Zustimmung des Betreibers verändert werden. Der Betreiber behält sich das Recht vor, diese Genehmigung jederzeit zu widerrufen, und jede Nutzung muss sofort eingestellt werden, sobald eine schriftliche Bekanntmachung seitens des Betreibers veröffentlicht wird." RE RILLKE Questions? 15:39, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:50, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
I doubt own work. Out of Scope? RE RILLKE Questions? 15:40, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:50, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Out of the Commons' project scope. Image is not used and cannot be used in educational purposes 80.187.107.180 15:45, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:50, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Duplicate of [:FILE:IFLAC1.GIF]. I doubt own work. Out of scope? RE RILLKE Questions? 15:51, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:50, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
I doubt own work. If it is own work, it is out of scope. RE RILLKE Questions? 16:00, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:51, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Out of scope? RE RILLKE Questions? 16:06, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:51, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
No license. RE RILLKE Questions? 16:13, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:51, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
I doubt own work. RE RILLKE Questions? 16:23, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:51, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Unused personal image. RE RILLKE Questions? 16:25, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:51, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
I doubt permission. RE RILLKE Questions? 16:27, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:51, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
I doubt own work. RE RILLKE Questions? 16:29, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:52, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Unused logo. Out of scope? RE RILLKE Questions? 16:31, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:52, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
I doubt own work. Out of scope. RE RILLKE Questions? 16:31, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:52, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
I doubt own work. If it is own work, this file is out of scope. RE RILLKE Questions? 16:34, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:52, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Out of scope? Permission? RE RILLKE Questions? 16:36, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:52, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Unused logo. Out of scope? RE RILLKE Questions? 16:37, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:52, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
I doubt permission. Out of scope? RE RILLKE Questions? 16:46, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:52, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
1) The description does not contain a source of the data. 2) Where did the study take place? - Not in description. Therefore: useless RE RILLKE Questions? 16:50, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:52, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
I doubt own work. RE RILLKE Questions? 16:54, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:01, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
I doubt own work. Out of scope? RE RILLKE Questions? 16:57, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:01, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
The uploader was banned on English WP and has a list of other copyvio images, hence giving me all the more reason to think that this image copyright claim is dubious as well. Dave1185 (talk) 17:05, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:07, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Unused photo. RE RILLKE Questions? 17:07, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:07, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
I doubt own work. Out of scope. Unused photo. RE RILLKE Questions? 17:09, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:08, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
I doubt own work. RE RILLKE Questions? 17:12, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:08, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
I doubt own work. RE RILLKE Questions? 17:25, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:08, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Non-free logo, no permission. Sealle (talk) 05:53, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Natuur12 (talk) 19:54, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
I doubt permission. RE RILLKE Questions? 17:32, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: 15:48, 22 March 2011 EugeneZelenko, closed by Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:08, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
I doubt own work. RE RILLKE Questions? 17:34, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:08, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
I doubt permission. RE RILLKE Questions? 17:38, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:09, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
I doubt permission. OTRS required. [17] © 2000 - 2011 | Weinmann Geräte für Medizin GmbH + Co. KG | Alle Rechte vorbehalten RE RILLKE Questions? 17:42, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:09, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Cheryl Karyana having fun - I don't think so. But now the reason: I doubt permission. OTRS required. RE RILLKE Questions? 17:46, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
- Delete. Not realistically useful for an educational purpose. Uploaded for user-page fake-article by serial sockpuppeteer and fantasist, see en:User:CherylK1.1 and en:Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/JAT6634. JohnCD (talk) 15:11, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:09, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Who is the author? PD or GFDL? If GFDL, where is the permission? "free screenshot" - No, it's a logo. RE RILLKE Questions? 19:54, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:21, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Who is the author? PD or GFDL? If GFDL, where is the permission? "free screenshot" - No, it's a logo. Source = Wiki? What is Wiki? RE RILLKE Questions? 19:56, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:22, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Who is the author? PD or GFDL? If GFDL, where is the permission? "free screenshot" - No, it's a logo. RE RILLKE Questions? 19:57, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
- {{PD-textlogo}} might apply. --Leyo 15:29, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:22, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Who is the author? PD or GFDL? If GFDL, where is the permission? "free screenshot" - No, it's a logo. RE RILLKE Questions? 20:03, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
- {{PD-textlogo}} might apply. --Leyo 15:28, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:22, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Who is the author? PD or GFDL? If GFDL, where is the permission? "free screenshot" - No, it's a logo. RE RILLKE Questions? 20:04, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:22, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
The image contains the logo of Wikipedia, which is protected by wikimedia. (At least CopyrightByWikimedia has to be added.) RE RILLKE Questions? 20:14, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
I am really sorry for the misappropriate category, please add in the proper category and help me post it. ସୁଭ ପା/Subhashish Panigrahi (talk) 17:38, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
- Keep: I think it's ok now. --RE RILLKE Questions? 17:54, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
- Please add the source of the logo -file in the source section of the information template like this {{en|1=Reproduction of [[:File:XY.svg]]}}. Then, all should be ok. --RE RILLKE Questions? 11:37, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
Added all those info you have asked to add, could you please remove the deletion tag by adding any missing info? ସୁଭ ପା/Subhashish Panigrahi (talk) 06:26, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
- An admin should close this deletion request. --RE RILLKE Questions? 08:40, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
Kept Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:23, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
No evidence of source 117Avenue (talk) 20:14, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Image is of David Swann, picture taken by source. For comparison reasons, check out the website: http://www.davidswann.ca/ (talk) 20:16, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
- Delete this and review all images taken by User:Vinsher and User:Vinsherkid. The user has repeatedly claimed photos were taken by him/herself (based on "self" tag from original upload). But, then when challenged they add different author's name. So, we know it's obviously not created by the Vinsher(kid). There's no OTRS ticket to show they authorized usage. --Rob (talk) 18:28, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:28, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Wrong license: on flickr it has cc-by-sa/deed/de . But even if the license here is modified, there has to be a permission by the author. RE RILLKE Questions? 20:32, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
- Delete This looks like a derivative. --Leoboudv (talk) 02:26, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
- Delete The flickr status does not matter in this inst (clearly it is not an acceptable licence) but, this is obviously a photograph of a copyrighted work (the book), with no clear indication of permission. As permission for such work is highly unlikely to be granted under a suitable licence, this needs deleting. If it were for enwiki, then a local wiki upload as 'fair use' might apply to an article about the book, but I have no idea how FUR is applied at the eswiki article es:Dawson isla 10 (libro). I have removed the bot tag requesting human review. Chzz ► 02:40, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:31, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Derivative work -- Common Good (talk) 20:35, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:31, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Unused text-logo. No description. RE RILLKE Questions? 22:12, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:38, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
I doubt own work of music. RE RILLKE Questions? 22:16, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:38, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
I doubt permission. RE RILLKE Questions? 22:17, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:39, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Well, this is a scan from a magazine or book. The uploader may very well be the author, but I think that in such cases a little bit more than "own work" should be stated; as far as I'm aware, Commons doesn't accept obvious magazine scans by pseudonymous uploaders who don't state their relation to the source (and what exactly the source is). Gestumblindi (talk) 22:19, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:39, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Unused logo. I doubt permission. RE RILLKE Questions? 22:21, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:39, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
I doubt own work. Unused. RE RILLKE Questions? 22:24, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:40, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
self promotional, out of scope Ezarateesteban 22:26, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:40, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
This constitute a derivative work of the Looney Tunes character, copyrighted material. As such, it cannot be hosted on Wikimedia Commons. Jean-Fred (talk) 22:28, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
- Note: Picture probably taken at Million Dollar Breakfast Cruise - Tustin, California. So COM:FOP can't apply. Esby (talk) 00:25, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
- Pas besoin d'un troisième larron, les gars ? --Warp3 (talk) 03:11, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:40, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Out of scope: unused band poster. RE RILLKE Questions? 22:33, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:40, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Low quality jpg. Unused. RE RILLKE Questions? 22:34, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:40, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
I doubt permission. OTRS required. RE RILLKE Questions? 22:39, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:42, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Golgota.sv Rex Mettal (talk) 22:43, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:43, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
I doubt permission. (Source = Bethany Fellows); Who is "Jay Aleksandr Warner-Jones"? (Out of scope?) RE RILLKE Questions? 22:55, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:43, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Unused personal photo. Who is Maxime Gariepy? (Out of scope?) RE RILLKE Questions? 23:00, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:43, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Unused personal photo of a band. RE RILLKE Questions? 23:01, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:43, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
I doubt own work. Is it in project scope? Nevertheless OTRS permission required. RE RILLKE Questions? 23:27, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:43, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
I doubt permission. If it's self-created it is probably out of scope. RE RILLKE Questions? 23:39, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:43, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Probably a copyvio of [18] RE RILLKE Questions? 23:44, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:44, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Promotional of IPhone app. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:13, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: The application was not even launched on this picture, it demonstrates nothing. Trycatch (talk) 02:16, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
Self-porn, nothing we don't have already. -mattbuck (Talk) 19:17, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Not again... --Yikrazuul (talk) 21:17, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
- Keep It is not Porn. You can see a lot of usefull details of the foreskin on this Picture. There are a lot of pictures on wikipedia you cant see details. You should delete this pictures at first.--Tänzer (talk) 15:49, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Kept: per Tanzer. The quality is pretty good. Trycatch (talk) 01:44, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
Commons has enough home-made pictures of penises. -Nard (Hablemonos)(Let's talk) 20:18, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
- Keep - what is it with the sudden rush to delete decent quality penis photos? No legitimate reason has been provided for deletion, merely "oh no it's another penis". There is no way we would accept as a valid argument that if it were a picture of, say, the Eiffel Tower. -mattbuck (Talk) 20:53, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
- Keep Nominator failed to provide a valid rationale (i.e. "pictures X1, X2, X3 covering exactly the same subject have much better quality, so let's get rid of this photo"). Generic rationales like "We have enough photographs of (penises|cars|buildings|planes|people|etc)" are not valid reasons for deletions, because actually, no, we don't have enough photographs of (penises|cars|buildings|planes|people|etc). Trycatch (talk) 03:02, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted - doesn't add anything educational to the existing collection of penises - Jcb (talk) 21:11, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
I doubt permission. RE RILLKE Questions? 15:29, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
This image is part of the Tarkett Public Media Library. The image has been acquired by Tarkett Group in 1998 as a total global buy out and is fully owned by the Tarkett Group in Nanterre, France -so are all the other over +5.000 photographs in the Tarkett Media Library, which is for public use (journalists, BtoB customers, etc. ) - you may go to www.tarkett.com/group/en/press/media-library and enroll (free of charge) to verify this information. Please undelete the picture and upload it onto the Tarkett Page again. BBPMB — Preceding unsigned comment added by BBPMB (talk • contribs) 08:37, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
- Please use COM:UD to start an undeletion request. Next time, please add a link to the explicit permission. Thanks. --RE RILLKE Questions? 08:46, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted 15:29, 20 March 2011 by EugeneZelenko.
Closing comment by Jameslwoodward: There is nothing on the cited web site to suggest that anything on it is free:
- Intellectual Property
- The content of the www.tarkett.com website, including trademarks and logos, general structure, software, texts, images, videos, sounds, know-how, animations, and generally the information published on the website is the property of Tarkett or is subject to an authorization of use. The above-mentioned elements are subject to the legislation protecting Intellectual Property rights.
- Any representation, modification, reproduction, misrepresentation, total or partial, of all or part of this website or its content, whatever the process or medium used, is strictly prohibited.
Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:44, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
and other uploads by Morticiano (talk · contribs). Unlikely to by own work: small/inconsistent resolutions, missing EXIF, attribution to different sources. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:46, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Martin H. (talk) 23:39, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
upload without permission of the person that appears in the photo, according to https://ticket.wikimedia.org/otrs/index.pl?Action=AgentTicketZoom&TicketID=5599072 and not in use 95.108.79.81 22:53, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
My friend dr Kujawa is not very happy with this picture, so I support his request to delete this file TomasoAlbinoni (talk) 12:27, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
- Deleted. odder (talk) 21:30, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
- Probably under copyright (uploader probably lied about that)
- Upload by banned user.
See Commons:Deletion requests/Files by User:Midnight68 for verification on both points. Herostratus (talk) 03:13, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
- Keep Of course, it's under copyright, but it was released by the author under a free license. There is no strong ground for suspecting User:Midnight68 in plagiarism, see Commons:Undeletion requests/Archive/2010-08#File:Kogaru1.jpg -- he has provided preliminary sketches for this picture. #2 is irrelevant, we do not delete works by banned users per se (BTW the user was banned without any serious reason). Trycatch (talk) 04:03, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
- Where are the preliminary sketches? Herostratus (talk) 03:10, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
- Based on the understanding of the link provided : here Loreleil (talk) 15:43, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
- Ah, thank you. Herostratus (talk) 18:31, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
- Based on the understanding of the link provided : here Loreleil (talk) 15:43, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
- Where are the preliminary sketches? Herostratus (talk) 03:10, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
- Comment That DR did not delete this image. So why should this image be deleted now. If the Admins in the discussion agree that the uploader is the author, then this image can likely be kept. The uploader was rightly banned for abusive behaviour (trolling) but not copyright violations which would likely require this image file to be removed from Commons, I believe. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 05:02, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
- Keep - the status of a user doesn't matter. If they create it - and there appears to be very good indication he did - then regardless of what we at Wikipedia do to his account at any time, it does not change his decision to release a work.Jinnai (talk) 21:35, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
- Keep Per above, this image was being used in the wikipedia article as an example of fanservice, it is of free use. - 205.173.154.21 21:44, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
- Keep as the image is within Common's scope and the copyright ownership has already been checked out. However, I do have an issue with the "Kogaru Diaries 1" along the side and I think it should be cropped out. TheFarix (talk) 01:05, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
- Keep No reason to doubt the permission given. I agree the side-banner could be cropped, but that - and usage - is a matter for local wiki consideration (ie they can create a derivative if they like). Chzz ► 03:23, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
- weak Keep, based on my knowledge of us law, no problem with "lolicon" images (but on many countries laws are really a mess upon such topics), that the reason why it's a weak support. Copyright doesn't seem to be problematic (based on the previous deletion request). The last point is pointless for a deletion request. Loreleil (talk) 15:46, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
- Based on the link that Lt Powers provided, I now think it is probably true that this is the user's own work (although he's a complicated and odd case, so...). So there's the question of work by a banned user. Not being a Commons regular I don't know what the rule for that is (or if there is one). I assume that work uploaded by a banned user after his banning (by making a new account) isn't allowed, but what about before? Does Commons take the stance of encouraging people to think "Well, I can troll Commons (and through that the entire range of Foundation projects), and sure, I'll get kicked out, but my 'contributions' will live on to disrupt, damage, and confound Foundation projects for (I hope!) years, and there's nothing they can do about that", or not? Herostratus (talk) 23:44, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
- This image does not live on to "disrupt, damage, and confound Foundation projects" though as explained above, it is a fair use image being used in the article "Fan service" over at wikipedia, that to me is an image serving a purpose. - 205.173.154.21 15:41, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
- I don't know if commons has a similar policy, but wikipedia has assume good faith and there's no reason to believe he created this to "troll" the Foundation. People can and do act differently at different times and to different people.Jinnai (talk) 22:52, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
- Based on what I could read about the user and his behavious and why he has been blocked, I can't say that he was a "troll", I can't say also that he was willing to disrupt the system with his contribution... But I can say that WP:AGF has not been taken into account during the previous Deletion Request (and the Block : no clear reason for infinite block, no clear discussion or warning), based on my analysis but I might have missed something (copyviolation was already considered as false but some logs show that the speed deletion was based on copyvio problem ....). The main stuff that I could see : he has only been working on "highly" sensitive matter. Loreleil (talk) 09:44, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
- The statement that we should have to assume good faith about a user who has been banned for life is ridiculous and annoying. We assume good faith up to a point, after which evidence of good faith has to be provided, and being banned for life is a good ways past that point. "Assume good faith" is not intended to prevent a person being being called out for egregious toxic behavior, for goodness sake. If you think he should be reinstated take it up with the responsible parties. Absent that I'd lay off this particular line of reasoning. Herostratus (talk) 06:53, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
- If that is the case seeing the current consensus in this article that the image does not violate anything, and is useful to keep why not someone else just reupload it? Problem solved. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:16, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
- The image was uploaded before the individual was banned. But the ban does not invalidate all of their contributions before the ban took place. The image either has to be out of scope (it's use on several articles), does not have a clear copyright (previously clarified), or does not have a valid free-use licensees (it's licensed under CC-BY-SA). However, all of your arguments have been to attack the uploader. This discussion should be about the image, not its creator and/or uploader. TheFarix (talk) 03:08, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
- The statement that we should have to assume good faith about a user who has been banned for life is ridiculous and annoying. We assume good faith up to a point, after which evidence of good faith has to be provided, and being banned for life is a good ways past that point. "Assume good faith" is not intended to prevent a person being being called out for egregious toxic behavior, for goodness sake. If you think he should be reinstated take it up with the responsible parties. Absent that I'd lay off this particular line of reasoning. Herostratus (talk) 06:53, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
- Based on what I could read about the user and his behavious and why he has been blocked, I can't say that he was a "troll", I can't say also that he was willing to disrupt the system with his contribution... But I can say that WP:AGF has not been taken into account during the previous Deletion Request (and the Block : no clear reason for infinite block, no clear discussion or warning), based on my analysis but I might have missed something (copyviolation was already considered as false but some logs show that the speed deletion was based on copyvio problem ....). The main stuff that I could see : he has only been working on "highly" sensitive matter. Loreleil (talk) 09:44, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
Keep Evidence of authorship is good. File is in use on multiple projects. Even if the uploader created this in bad faith, we have no policy-based reason to delete a perfectly useful, permissible image. Jujutacular talk 12:26, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Kept: Per consensus — [ Tanvir | Talk ] 04:03, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
The author of File:Kogaru1.jpg is TGcomix. (potentially libelous information was removed. Trycatch (talk) 03:21, 1 April 2011 (UTC)) He's banned from DeviantArt. He's banned from Commons. And he's blocked from Wikipedia. TGcomix even earned himself an Encyclopedia Dramatica article. Please view his SpankingArtWiki article. File:Kogaru1.jpg is from TGcomix's Kogaru Diaries. There's nude and abused children in it. TG comix is also the author of Glory Bee, Selina the Moon Girl, Miho-Chan, Victory Girl, and Ikusa no Yukai.
TGcomix has a fetish for spanking and children's panties. Using TGcomix's artwork is more than bad taste; it's dangerous. Imagine the scandal if a children's rights organization or news agency finds out. (potentially libelous information was removed. Trycatch (talk) 03:21, 1 April 2011 (UTC)) --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 02:29, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
- Here's some archives of TGcomix's deleted images on Commons:
- http://www.webcitation.org/5rnBz43UU
- http://www.webcitation.org/5rnC0fdwP
- http://www.webcitation.org/5rnC278rM
- http://www.webcitation.org/5rnC44sYu
- http://www.webcitation.org/5rnC7WxCa
- http://www.webcitation.org/5rnBsbZ67
- http://www.webcitation.org/5rnBxRysQ
- http://www.webcitation.org/5rnBvhNSH
- http://www.webcitation.org/5rn7z7BOv
- As seen by these, hosting any sort of image related to "Kogaru Diaries" or TGcomix is an extremely bad idea. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 02:51, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
- Keep this one per the above discussion; note that the real name of the artist appears to be Gauis Marius (NSFW). — Jeff G. ツ 16:04, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
- wikipedia:Gaius_Marius – Are you sure it isn't another pseudonym? --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 16:35, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
- Comment – I just realized that TGcomix's artwork has sneaked its way back onto Commons:
- File:Gender_school_1.jpg – Paul Harald Kaspar placed "Own work" as the source and listed Blackshade as the author, but Paul Harald Kaspar links to his own userpage. Paul Harald Kaspar is obviously a sockpuppet created in order to evade Midnight68's ban.
- File:Genderschool2a.jpg
- File:Kogaru_3.jpg – Batzarro placed "Own work" as the source and listed Blackshade9 as the author, but Batzarro links to his own userpage. Batzarro is obviously a sockpuppet created in order to evade Midnight68's ban.
- Category:Sockpuppets_of_Midnight68 – Midnight68 has operated sockpuppets here in the past.
- As a result, I would like to continue this discussion at Commons:Deletion requests/Files by User:Midnight68 2 instead. Would that be alright? --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 17:26, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
- That would be fine, but please don't include this file, which was uploaded before the user was banned, or any other file in like circumstances, in that group nomination. — Jeff G. ツ 21:11, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
- Keep These issues were addressed in the last nomination that was closed four days before be this second nomination. Renominating something so close to a solid consensus is usually grounds for a speedy closed over on Wikipeida for disruption. (w:WP:KEEPLISTINGTILLITGETSDELETED). TheFarix (talk) 20:40, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
- The previous deletion request doesn't even mention "Kogaru Diaries". Herostratus created the previous deletion request due to copyright concerns, not for the concerns about the nature of "Kogaru Diaries". I'm bringing up new ideas that weren't discussed before. This isn't a mirror of the previous discussion. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 01:16, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
Delete Does this really have to go through another deletion request, it was kept by a solid consensus three days ago above with everybody for keep but the nom. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:30, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
- After seeing the link below, this should be removed not because it is a picture from a banned user but due to it's promotion of the fan site and per the links below. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 11:06, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
- Keep for attempt of disrupting wikipedia + commons (based on that search : google1 I suspect that there is a global attempt to control content inside WP-EN and Commons). It also seems that not the only "deletion request" that has been reopened because the result didn't fill their goal (one article in WP:EN). it also seems that this is a "war" that is beeing occuring in the previously cited "wiki" (encyclopediadramatica) based on the information we can found google2 (which shows why we have Michaeldsuarez fighting against him and his image on commons). This site has been blacklisted on all wiki (meta:Spam blacklist) due to [19]. Loreleil (talk) 16:05, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
- TGcomix / Rizden is actually pretty fond of me. Our interactions are actually quite friendly and polite. I just feel that it's wrong to host artwork that treat children as sex objects, especially when the artist has such a negative reputation. This isn't about Encyclopedia Dramatica or a "war". If it were so, then I wouldn't be the only ED member here. Couldn't we use images of adults instead? --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 21:07, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
- In fact, the nature of our conversations are so polite that TGcomix initially believed that someone was impersonating me here. We don't share any animosity with each other. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 21:22, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
- Just curious but where does it mention that the image is of that of a child? You can not see the front part of the body here and anime artwork tends to be on the youthful side of the court. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:07, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
- http://spankingartwiki.animeotk.com/wiki/File:KogaruSpk.jpg – Read the text on the image. The characters of "Kogaru Diaries" are schoolgirls. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 01:10, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
- The image description even confirms that it's a child: Comments: Lolicon and Panchira are common forms of fanservice in modern anime games. Also, if you click all of the links I've provided above, you'll see that most, if not all, of TGcomix's art concerns children. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 01:35, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
- http://spankingartwiki.animeotk.com/wiki/File:KogaruSpk.jpg – Read the text on the image. The characters of "Kogaru Diaries" are schoolgirls. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 01:10, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
- TGcomix / Rizden is actually pretty fond of me. Our interactions are actually quite friendly and polite. I just feel that it's wrong to host artwork that treat children as sex objects, especially when the artist has such a negative reputation. This isn't about Encyclopedia Dramatica or a "war". If it were so, then I wouldn't be the only ED member here. Couldn't we use images of adults instead? --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 21:07, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
- Keep - While IMO the image in question is in poor taste, it does serve an educational purpose where it is used. The author's fetishes and internet history don't seem to have any bearing on this. What's at issue here is policy, and I don't see an argument from policy as to why it should be removed, beyond what was already discussed in the previous nomination. --Kraftlos (talk) 11:32, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
- Delete - Having read through the legal links below I do not believe the image in question is in violation of those legal statutes; but the content of the work that the image was taken from is. I think it is reasonable to expect that someone might, after reading the title on the right, search out that work in question which does indeed seem to depict child sexual abuse. So because it does seem to advertise "Kogaru Diaries" I have changed my opinion here. --Kraftlos (talk) 06:51, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
- We can easily crop the advertising part, or change the caption. Trycatch (talk) 08:37, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
- Cropping the image won't change what it is or where is came from. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 10:39, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
- I agree with that comment. We shouldn't touch anything from Kogaru Diaries with a barge pole; even when cropped, its provenance will always be clear from the file history. It's a piece of artwork from a non-notable roleplaying game with explicit themes of pedophilia and child sex abuse. That's just not a suitable source of media for this or other Wikimedia projects. --JN466 18:37, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
- We are required to say where the image came from, regardless of cropping. So really, the image has to go. --Kraftlos (talk) 08:41, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
- I agree with that comment. We shouldn't touch anything from Kogaru Diaries with a barge pole; even when cropped, its provenance will always be clear from the file history. It's a piece of artwork from a non-notable roleplaying game with explicit themes of pedophilia and child sex abuse. That's just not a suitable source of media for this or other Wikimedia projects. --JN466 18:37, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
- Cropping the image won't change what it is or where is came from. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 10:39, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
- We can easily crop the advertising part, or change the caption. Trycatch (talk) 08:37, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Advertises a work depicting child sexual abuse per [20] and [21] --JN466 00:51, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Offensive to a significant element of the global public; advertises a game which is offensive to a significant element of the global public. Fred Bauder (talk) 13:36, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
- Delete "Kogaru Diaries" is thinly disguised animé/manga pedophile porn, and the Foundation should not give it any platform - Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:08, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
- Keep I really don't understand what to discuss here. This picture is legal (if it's not legal or even borderline, why it was not deleted by WMF during infamous w:Reporting of child pornography images on Wikimedia Commons?), Commons is not censored, and the picture is heavily in use, therefore in scope. Trycatch (talk) 02:30, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
- Before making such a statement, it would be wise to examine how the image became so heavily used in the first place. TGcomix / Midnight68 added this image is those articles himself: [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27]. Midnight68 was promoting the use of his art on all of these Wikimedia projects. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 02:53, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
- Also, this isn't about freedom of speech or censorship. I'm not purging Wikipedia of every perceptibly offensive images I see (I'm an Encyclopedia Dramatica sysop, for crying out loud!). I'm concerned with this image because of where it came from: the "Kogaru Diaries", which exploits children in order to please the audience sexually. Wikipedia's mission is making knowledge accessible, and the "Kogaru Diaries" doesn't have anything to do with knowledge. If you want free speech, create a blog, join a forum, or participate in a usenet group. Free speech is a means for Wikipedia to spread knowledge, but free speech isn't the end of Wikipedia's means. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 03:11, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
- At least in Russian Wikipedia (I didn't check other wikis) pictures were added not by Midnight68, but by a highly reputable editor. Anyway the picture is in use for a very long time, and wasn't removed by local users. So it's legitimately in use. The fact you are a sysop at ED doesn't change anything -- so you don't care about photographs of genuine bestiality and explicit sex cartoons with Lisa Simpson (clearly forbidden by 1466A) hosted at ED, but for some reason you are trying to delete this relatively innocent and perfectly legal lolicon cartoon from Commons (hosted here not for "lulz" or private amusement, but for a valid encyclopedic use). Okay, anybody has their own likes and dislikes, sometimes weird -- and you are simply trying to delete without a valid reason a picture that offends personally you. It's an attempt to censor Commons plain and simple, no particularly different from deletion nominations from users, who see scary "porn" in every penis hosted on Commons or see blasphemy in hosted pictures of Muhammad. Trycatch (talk) 15:17, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
- Hypocrite. You censored my comments and told me not to use a certain "p"-word. That "p"-word is concise and easy to understand. You're forcing me to remove concise lexicon from my arguments and telling me to use your politically correct newspeak. Without conciseness, arguments against the state-sponsored status quo are weakened. The newspeak forced upon me is restrictive and makes my arguments unclear and difficult for the audience to understand. The "Kogaru Diaries" meets the characteristics of that "p"-word, yet I'm not allowed to say it. Don't you dare call me a hypocrite. I deleted plenty of pedophile art from ED:
http://encyclopediadramatica.com/index.php?title=Rugrats&diff=1998719871&oldid=1998719044. And just for you, I deleted all of the illegal Simpsons crap:http://encyclopediadramatica.com/index.php?title=The_Simpsons&diff=1998764912&oldid=1998706975. I fail to see how that image is of any encyclopedic use. They are better images of panchira from more reputable artists. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 16:55, 9 April 2011 (UTC)- I've just removed only possible libel and grossly inappropriate personal attack that should be immediately removed on sight per explicit text of w:WP:CHILDPROTECT -- use any language you want, but please, abstain from potentially libelous statements about other users. "They are better images of panchira from more reputable artists." -- OK. Upload them, replace this picture in articles, then it can be easily deleted here and everyone will be happy. Trycatch (talk) 17:32, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
- I take back back then. I also can't find fee images of anime / manga panchira (although there are plenty of copyrighted ones), so I'll take back too. The best avenue would be to ask someone to draw a new image (or use the images 8Midnight6 linked to). --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 23:22, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
- I've just removed only possible libel and grossly inappropriate personal attack that should be immediately removed on sight per explicit text of w:WP:CHILDPROTECT -- use any language you want, but please, abstain from potentially libelous statements about other users. "They are better images of panchira from more reputable artists." -- OK. Upload them, replace this picture in articles, then it can be easily deleted here and everyone will be happy. Trycatch (talk) 17:32, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
- Hypocrite. You censored my comments and told me not to use a certain "p"-word. That "p"-word is concise and easy to understand. You're forcing me to remove concise lexicon from my arguments and telling me to use your politically correct newspeak. Without conciseness, arguments against the state-sponsored status quo are weakened. The newspeak forced upon me is restrictive and makes my arguments unclear and difficult for the audience to understand. The "Kogaru Diaries" meets the characteristics of that "p"-word, yet I'm not allowed to say it. Don't you dare call me a hypocrite. I deleted plenty of pedophile art from ED:
- At least in Russian Wikipedia (I didn't check other wikis) pictures were added not by Midnight68, but by a highly reputable editor. Anyway the picture is in use for a very long time, and wasn't removed by local users. So it's legitimately in use. The fact you are a sysop at ED doesn't change anything -- so you don't care about photographs of genuine bestiality and explicit sex cartoons with Lisa Simpson (clearly forbidden by 1466A) hosted at ED, but for some reason you are trying to delete this relatively innocent and perfectly legal lolicon cartoon from Commons (hosted here not for "lulz" or private amusement, but for a valid encyclopedic use). Okay, anybody has their own likes and dislikes, sometimes weird -- and you are simply trying to delete without a valid reason a picture that offends personally you. It's an attempt to censor Commons plain and simple, no particularly different from deletion nominations from users, who see scary "porn" in every penis hosted on Commons or see blasphemy in hosted pictures of Muhammad. Trycatch (talk) 15:17, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
- Also, this isn't about freedom of speech or censorship. I'm not purging Wikipedia of every perceptibly offensive images I see (I'm an Encyclopedia Dramatica sysop, for crying out loud!). I'm concerned with this image because of where it came from: the "Kogaru Diaries", which exploits children in order to please the audience sexually. Wikipedia's mission is making knowledge accessible, and the "Kogaru Diaries" doesn't have anything to do with knowledge. If you want free speech, create a blog, join a forum, or participate in a usenet group. Free speech is a means for Wikipedia to spread knowledge, but free speech isn't the end of Wikipedia's means. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 03:11, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
- Before making such a statement, it would be wise to examine how the image became so heavily used in the first place. TGcomix / Midnight68 added this image is those articles himself: [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27]. Midnight68 was promoting the use of his art on all of these Wikimedia projects. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 02:53, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
- Delete - this kind of stuff has no place here. Once in a while, we ought to have some standards. --UserB (talk) 13:01, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
Comment - The more you try to crush the material you consider questionable, the more it will slip through the cracks of the crushing machine. Meanwhile, the power of the Dark Ones grows ever stronger. 68Midnight (talk) 13:55, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
- Every repost of already deleted content will be speedily deleted on sight. Trycatch (talk) 15:17, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
- Keep, not illegal, illustration an existing kind of "art". ----MGuf (d) 15:33, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
- Here's a valid substitute for the Panchira files. thumb|300px Many thanks to Raymond for taking the time to follow women and flash them. It may be a little creepy, but it's for the good of free culture. 6Midnight8 (talk) 18:53, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
By the way, please cringe while i post the following links to a variety of Japanese material.
8Midnight6 (talk) 19:31, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
- Most of those images would fall under lolicon and not fan service in general. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:02, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
- Those images don't anything to do with "Kogaru Diaries", so I don't have anything to cringe or object to. In fact, those images are better examples of panchira than the Kogaru image. Can Wikipedia use these images under fair use? --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 23:22, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
- Most likely not those images are from the anime series Kodomo no jikan and are not under fair use. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:49, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
- It can't be uploaded as fair use, because these pictures are replaceable, thus violating the first criterion of NFCC. Moreover, fair use is not an option for numerous Wikipedias that do not allow non-free content (including Dutch, Sweden, Polish, Spanish and Deutsch WPs). Trycatch (talk) 02:39, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
- Comment - I have uploaded a non-advert version of the image so please make votes based on the current one, which addressed the problems of it being an advertisement for a website.Jinnai (talk) 23:42, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
- Same response as before. Removing the text doesn't change the source of the image, and it doesn't remove my concerns about the source. My vote won't change, but others may change their if they wish. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 00:37, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
- Delete No modification of the image, that can be made, can cut the link to its "very questionable" origin. Do we have to keep "all" free contents uploaded by groups that promote genders, racial, religious discrimination or homophobia? --KrebMarkt (talk) 11:12, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Advertising on the image aside, technical legality of the image aside--we should not play host to content that advocates pedophilia or the content of the game in any way, shape or form. David Fuchs (talk) 15:03, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
Kept. - as long as Wikipedia projects use it, we don't judge if it's "inappropriate" or "bad taste" or whatever quality or scope related argument - Jcb (talk) 21:21, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
I doubt own work. If it is your own work, please use OTRS to send a permission. I found: [28] RE RILLKE Questions? 20:44, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
OTRS email was just submitted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DentalSchoolProf (talk • contribs)
OTRS permission received, ID 2011031510011791 from Dr. Jeff Dorfman from the domain listed as the contact email on http://www.nycdentist.com – Adrignola talk 14:00, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Kept: OTRS permission confirmed – Adrignola talk 14:01, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
I doubt own work. Copyvio? If not, please send OTRS permission. Found here: [29] RE RILLKE Questions? 20:42, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
This is my work and I own the copyright. I published it in my book "A Color Atlas of Digital Dentistry" in 2000 and published it on my website at that same time. Why doubt "own work??" Please explain bc I am new to Wiki and trying to learn. Thanks. - Dr. Jeffrey Dorfman, aka DentalSchoolProf. I will figure out how to use the OTRS as requested.
- Sorry, but often users don't have permission and, however, upload images. Have a look at your discussion page for explanations. Please sign your posts with --~~~~ or just click on the pen in the symol-bar. Thank you. --RE RILLKE Questions? 14:39, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
I just emailed OTRS permission to Wiki.--DentalSchoolProf (talk) 15:20, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
Kept: OTRS permission confirmed – Adrignola talk 22:38, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Because it is a duplicate of File:Frank_Woodruff_Buckles_at_16.jpg Ferrylodge (talk) 06:20, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
- Delete - PD status disputed, duplicate of image already deleted via a deletion request. Mjroots (talk) 07:58, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
- Delete: No proof for the claim of government work; LoC advises that contributory material are private works unless stated otherwise. Jappalang (talk) 13:03, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
- Delete See lengthy discussion as to the ambiguity of PD-status at the presently open Commons:Deletion requests/File:Frank Woodruff Buckles at 16.jpg. VernoWhitney (talk) 13:31, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jcb (talk) 15:45, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
Subject believes this file name to be defaming--it implies that she was a participant at the AVN show (i.e., porn star) which she denies. Jclemens (talk) 06:53, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
On hold ... but why do we not simply change the file name?! Same for the other DRs with already got deleted. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 00:49, 15 March 2011 (UTC)- Keep it would be ok for me to simply rename it. Jeriby (talk) 02:41, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
- I have no further access to the OTRS ticket that spawned this since I handed it over to a Commons OTRS queue, otherwise I'd be happy to forward that question to the subject. Jclemens (talk) 05:59, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
- I think the already happened deletions were too fast. The subject seems just to complain about the title which may be a reason (personality rights). But the photos themselves? Well - I cannot help. But unless there is a good reason for deleting we shouldn't and simply remove the "bad" word from the name and description. --Saibo (Δ) 01:50, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
- I have no further access to the OTRS ticket that spawned this since I handed it over to a Commons OTRS queue, otherwise I'd be happy to forward that question to the subject. Jclemens (talk) 05:59, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
- Keep but rename. Subject isn't a porn actress but was present as a model at the Green Novelties (golfsupplier) booth. Photo where you can read subjects namecard [30] (was allready deleted). Gohe007 (talk) 10:11, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
Kept: - please use {{Rename}} instead - Jcb (talk) 10:42, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
- renamed. --Saibo (Δ) 12:44, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
All files by Bagayaro-tttnis
[edit]- File:Mazda-T600-Rear.jpg
- File:Mazda-T600-Front.jpg
- File:1964 Mazda B1500 Pickup with Carol 600.jpg
- File:Subaru-Justy-Ta-Ching.jpg
According to the name of the user, 'Bagayaro-tttnis' ('bagayaro' seems like 'bakayaro', which means 'stupid' in Japanese) and the fact that most files uploaded by the user are of Mazda cars, the user must be the same person as User:Hiko0927, whose files violated copyright. (cf. Commons:Deletion requests/All files by Hiko0927)
And one of the files above (File:1964 Mazda B1500 Pickup with Carol 600.jpg) was proved to be copyvio.[31]
Given these reasons above, all files uploaded by Bagayaro-tttnis must be copyvio and should be deleted.--TTTNIS (talk) 06:52, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jcb (talk) 10:45, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
Subject believes this file name to be defaming--it implies that she was a participant at the AVN show (i.e., porn star) which she denies. Jclemens (talk) 06:54, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
- Keep but rename Jeriby (talk) 02:45, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
- Keep but rename.Gohe007 (talk) 10:12, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
Kept: - please use {{Rename}} instead - Jcb (talk) 10:39, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
Subject believes this file name to be defaming--it implies that she was a participant at the AVN show (i.e., porn star) which she denies. Jclemens (talk) 06:54, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
- Keep but rename Jeriby (talk) 02:45, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
- Keep but rename.Gohe007 (talk) 10:12, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
Kept: - please use {{Rename}} instead - Jcb (talk) 10:39, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
Subject believes this file name to be defaming--it implies that she was a participant at the AVN show (i.e., porn star) which she denies. Jclemens (talk) 06:56, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
- Keep but rename Jeriby (talk) 02:47, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
- Keep but rename.Gohe007 (talk) 10:12, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
Kept: - please use {{Rename}} instead - Jcb (talk) 10:39, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
Subject believes this file name to be defaming--it implies that she was a participant at the AVN show (i.e., porn star) which she denies. Jclemens (talk) 06:56, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
- Keep but rename Jeriby (talk) 02:47, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
- Keep but rename.Gohe007 (talk) 10:12, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
Kept: - please use {{Rename}} instead - Jcb (talk) 10:39, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
Subject believes this file name to be defaming--it implies that she was a participant at the AVN show (i.e., porn star) which she denies. Jclemens (talk) 06:57, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
- Keep but rename Jeriby (talk) 02:47, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
- Keep but rename.Gohe007 (talk) 10:11, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
Kept: - please use {{Rename}} instead - Jcb (talk) 10:40, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
PD status disputed, duplicate of image already deleted via a deletion request Mjroots (talk) 07:56, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
- Oppose deletion. It is clearly PD. Please see here. First of all, if you look at the bottom of that page I've just linked to, you'll see that the image has been unambiguously cleared as public domain: "Images on the Army Web site are cleared for release and are considered in the public domain. Request credit be given as 'Photo Courtesy of U.S. Army' and credit to individual photographer whenever possible." Secondly, just because Buckles is credited doesn't mean the pic is not public domain (e.g. it would be public domain because the Army took the pic and/or because it's too old to still be copyrighted and/or because Buckles donated whatever rights he had, and yet Buckles would deserve credit for preserving and providing the non-copyrighted photo). The previous deletion request that Mjroots refers to did not recognize that the Army has explicitly and unambiguously cleared this image as PD (that deletion request did not mention the Army and only considered statements by the Library of Congress). Incidentally, it's been widely reported that this was an "enlistment photo", rather than some private portrait.[32][33][34] Enlistment photos are public domain (e.g. this one).Ferrylodge (talk) 08:04, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
- Delete The same US Army web site quoted above, on the page with the image itself says:
- "Photo Credit: Courtesy of Frank Buckles and the Library of Congress' Veteran's History Project"
- so the Army itself does not believe that it is an Army image. The rule of law and of common sense require that the more specific credit on the image page replaces the more general credit on the whole web site. Therefore, this is almost certainly a private, professional image which Buckles had made after he joined the Army. That eliminates the possibility of {{PD-USGov}}.
- I further believe that it was in a family scrapbook, unpublished, until Buckles became notable as the last surviving American veteran of WWI. The fact that the NY Times, cited above, credits the Buckles family for the image, reinforces that view. No evidence has been presented to the contrary, only guesses. Since the first publication would have been in this century, we can not use {{PD-1923}}.
- I could be convinced that this was an Army image if anyone could produce any evidence that the Army regularly made high quality portraits of raw recruits during WWI. I can't imagine that they did so -- mug shots, maybe, but not posed studio portraits. Even the very recent enlistment photo cited above is not of this quality.
- Since no one who wants to keep this image on Commons has shown convincing evidence that it deserves either of the PD tags, it must be deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:49, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
- Today (March 14), the Army re-posted the image without any credit to Mr. Buckles.[35] So, the matter should now be moot. Even if the Army were to credit both Buckles and the Library of Congress (which they are not now doing), that would not indicate that Buckles owns the copyright any more than it means the Library of Congress owns the copyright.
- While it's true that a specific legal statement generally trumps a more general legal statement, it's also true that an unambiguous legal statement generally defines the meaning of an ambiguous legal statement. According to the Army, "Images on the Army Web site are cleared for release and are considered in the public domain. Request credit be given as 'Photo Courtesy of U.S. Army' and credit to individual photographer whenever possible."
- I don't know with 100% certainty the particular reason why this image is in the public domain. There could be several reasons. But it is 100% clear that the Army says it is in the public domain for at least one of those reasons. I haven't looked comprehensively at other WWI photos, but following are some examples. I'm showing these here only for purposes of showing comparable quality, and not because these people were in the same status or position as Buckles. Note that it was very common for World War I soldiers to have individual official photos taken, as happened with Harry Truman, for example (Truman's identity photo was not scanned very well, but these were).Ferrylodge (talk) 19:22, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
- Since no one who wants to keep this image on Commons has shown convincing evidence that it deserves either of the PD tags, it must be deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:49, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
-
Samuel Woodfill -
Sam Dreben -
Allen M. Sumner -
Clayton K Slack -
Jake Allex -
Johannes S Anderson -
Sidney Gumpertz -
Willie Sandlin -
George H. Mallon
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
![137 File:Герб_СООО_"Держава".JPG](#File:Герб_СООО_"Держава".JPG){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
![[9]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:PD-US_table.svg){kind=link}
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
![11:40, 14 March 2011 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2011/03/14#c-Rillke-2011-03-14T11:40:00.000Z-File:Герб_СООО_"Держава".JPG){kind=link}
![16:15, 22 March 2011 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2011/03/14#c-Jameslwoodward-2011-03-22T16:15:00.000Z-File:Герб_СООО_"Держава".JPG){kind=link}
![[15]](http://www.flowmaster.com/images/overview_cosim.jpg){kind=link}
![[18]](http://k43.pbase.com/o4/41/379541/1/58480602.IMG_9074640x640.jpg){kind=link}
![[28]](http://www.nycdentist.com/images/atlas/320.jpg){kind=link}
![[29]](http://www.nycdentist.com/images/atlas/6922119934d752d1015ecb9.33083907.jpg){kind=link}
![[31]](http://media.photobucket.com/image/1964%20mazda%20b1500%20and%201964%20mazda%20carol%20600/japaneserestorer/alljap1a.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
Comment Seven of the men above had been awarded the Medal of Honor, one (Sumner) was a Marine, and the last (Dreben) is a Mexican Army photograph -- none of them are WWI US Army raw recruits. It should not surprise any of us that the Army took photographs of the winners of its highest honor and what the Marines and the Mexicans did is not relevant to this discussion.
While it is true that the citation on the Army site has changed, it still does not tell us that it is a US Army photograph. Remember that the NY Times credited the Buckles family. Who would you rather trust for accuracy in a photo attribution -- the New York Times, or the Army? That's particularly true when the Army's statement is at the same place that it tells the user to credit the US Army -- very different from what it says on the page with this image.
I say again, there is no evidence that the Army took this image -- even the Army doesn't believe it -- and no evidence that it was published before this century. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:37, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
- I specifically said above that I was showing these Commons photos "not because these people were in the same status or position as Buckles". So, it kind of confuses things when you argue they were not in the same status or position as Buckles. I gave a link showing high quality photos of WWI soldiers who are not medal of honor winners.[36] As for the NYT, they credited both the Buckles family and Associated Press, but that doesn't mean the Associated Press has the copyright; the NYT said it was an enlistment photo which implies public domain, as claimed by the Army.Ferrylodge (talk) 22:42, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
- Sorry if I misinterpreted your intentions with the images above -- but, after all, why are they here at all if they aren't relevant to this discussion? It's not at issue that there are high quality images of Army soldiers -- there are similar images of Civil War soldiers. It remains unproven that the US Army routinely took studio portraits of raw recruits.
- As for the Times credit -- they credited the AP and the Buckles family because the AP got it from the Buckles family. AP newspapers routinely credit the AP for its work, whether or not the AP owns the copyright.
- I don't know why you think that "enlistment photo" implies that it is public domain. Certainly the Army would not be crediting others for this image if it knew that the Army took it in 1917. If we assume that the Army is correct and that it did not take the image, then why does the fact that it was an "enlistment photo" make it PD? Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 23:00, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
- Why wouldn't the Army credit others with preserving the photo that the Army itself created but did not keep? The Army never said that it did not take the image, AFAIK. On the contrary, by asserting that it's public domain, the Army strongly suggests that it did create the image (or alternatively that the Army obtained rights to the image by gift or by the passage time). I think it's generally understood that an "Army enlistment photo" is a photo that the Army takes when you enlist. This is as clear as it gets: "Army Cpl. Frank Buckles, shortly after he arrived in Winchester, England, on his way to France in 1917. U.S. Army photo". Delete if you like, but it's clearly a "US Army photo" according to the US Army, and that should be good enough for us.Ferrylodge (talk) 23:09, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
The Army has three different stories about this image. Here, until March 14, 2011, the Army said:
- "Photo Credit: Courtesy of Frank Buckles and the Library of Congress' Veteran's History Project"
At the same place, it now says:
- "Photo courtesy of the Veterans History Project, American Folklife Center, Library of Congress."
- "Army Cpl. Frank Buckles, shortly after he arrived in Winchester, England, on his way to France in 1917. U.S. Army photo"
while the New York Times gives credit to the Buckles family and no credit to the Army. Since the Army doesn't seem to know what to say, I'd much rather trust the Times, which by the nature of its work is institutionally much more careful about copyright. Also, the fact that the photo was taken in England suggests that it was not done by the Army at his enlistment -- after all, he didn't enlist there. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:59, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
- Well, if you deny it's his enlistment photo then you're contradicting the NYT.[37] And at every step of the way, the Army has credited at least the Library of Congress, and yet you don't say the Army was attributing any copyright, any authorship, or any ownership to the LoC (unlike the Buckles family). So, I don't think your argument is as consistent as, say, my excellent argument. :)Ferrylodge (talk) 14:15, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
- I think my argument is more excellent than yours and could refute everything you say above -- but I tell you what: since I've spent way too much time on this image and we now have "9,820,212 freely usable media files to which anyone can contribute". This isn't the only problem in database, so let's both just leave it alone and see what our colleagues do with it without any more help from either of us. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:06, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
- Good idea.Ferrylodge (talk) 16:56, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
- I think my argument is more excellent than yours and could refute everything you say above -- but I tell you what: since I've spent way too much time on this image and we now have "9,820,212 freely usable media files to which anyone can contribute". This isn't the only problem in database, so let's both just leave it alone and see what our colleagues do with it without any more help from either of us. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:06, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
- Well, if you deny it's his enlistment photo then you're contradicting the NYT.[37] And at every step of the way, the Army has credited at least the Library of Congress, and yet you don't say the Army was attributing any copyright, any authorship, or any ownership to the LoC (unlike the Buckles family). So, I don't think your argument is as consistent as, say, my excellent argument. :)Ferrylodge (talk) 14:15, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
- Keep - "the Library of Congress' Veteran's History Project" seems to refer to [38], which has seven photos of him (including this one) and does not give attribution for any of them. Three of them are modern. But regardless of where the rest of them came from, [39] very clearly identifies this photo as a US Army photo. --UserB (talk) 03:43, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
- I agree. Additionally, the Department of Veterans Affairs credits the photo to the National Archives.[40]Ferrylodge (talk) 02:50, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
- I can put this to bed. The images aren't from the Library of Congress, they are from the Pentagon and were donated by photographer and biographer David DeJonge to the Pentagon. See here. With that, they are Pentagon photos, which would make them eligible for {{PD-USGov}}. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 17:18, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
- You should look at the information more carefully. David DeJonge is a contemporary photographer - an example of his work is shown at #8 of the slideshow. Further, even if he had taken the picture in question, the fact that he is donating his collection to the government does not necessarily mean that he is also transferring copyright. Even if he was transferring copyright, the government can hold copyright - it's only works which are actually created by the government in the first place which are automatically PD (see for example here, where the government actually does hold the copyright to the obverse of the Sacagawea dollar). Finally, if you hover over the first image in the slideshow (i.e., the one in question here) it states "Courtesy of Frank Buckles and the Library of Congress' Veteran's History Project". I haven't reviewed the case in detail enough to weigh in for myself, I'm just noting that you appear to be making some unwarranted assumptions here. VernoWhitney (talk) 19:47, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
- Well, this article is up for GA and it hinges on this edit. So we need to come to a decision on what to do. Ferry, myself and others put far too much work into this article for it to miss GA status due to an image. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 01:19, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
- Dejonge's 9 portraits (1 of which is Buckles) are of 9 WWI veterans in their old age; however, if you hover your mouse over Buckles' photographs in the provided army.mil link, it states "By: Courtesy of Frank Buckles and the Library of Congress' Veteran's History Project". Jappalang (talk) 13:02, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
- Well, this article is up for GA and it hinges on this edit. So we need to come to a decision on what to do. Ferry, myself and others put far too much work into this article for it to miss GA status due to an image. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 01:19, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
- You should look at the information more carefully. David DeJonge is a contemporary photographer - an example of his work is shown at #8 of the slideshow. Further, even if he had taken the picture in question, the fact that he is donating his collection to the government does not necessarily mean that he is also transferring copyright. Even if he was transferring copyright, the government can hold copyright - it's only works which are actually created by the government in the first place which are automatically PD (see for example here, where the government actually does hold the copyright to the obverse of the Sacagawea dollar). Finally, if you hover over the first image in the slideshow (i.e., the one in question here) it states "Courtesy of Frank Buckles and the Library of Congress' Veteran's History Project". I haven't reviewed the case in detail enough to weigh in for myself, I'm just noting that you appear to be making some unwarranted assumptions here. VernoWhitney (talk) 19:47, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
- Delete: No proof that this is a photograph taken by US federal employees. What is evident is that the army and LoC credit the photographs to Frank Buckles. This photograph could have been taken at a studio on Buckles' request.[41][42] Jappalang (talk) 13:02, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Having now reviewed the various locations where the image is posted, it is my feeling that the image is generally credited to Veterans History Project. Defense.gov credits it to the Army, who in turn credits it to the VHP. The Veterans History Project in turn states that it "guarantees the veterans’ legal copyright to their materials". The required release form grants the Library of Congress all of the rights they need, but that's it. In order for us to consider this PD I feel that it would need contact with the submitter of the collection and have evidence logged in OTRS that whoever the copyright holder is now is releasing it or the contributor's statement that it is, in fact, originally an official U.S. Army photograph. VernoWhitney (talk) 13:24, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
- Delete - After a lengthy search for a phone number, I finally broke down and checked the Army's website and it says clearly: "Photographs and imagery on the Army's website at http://search.ahp.us.army.mil/search/images/, unless otherwise noted, are in the public domain." So, yeah, that's the problem we run into. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 20:56, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted, -FASTILY (TALK) 01:53, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
Benny Goodman Carnegie Hall recordings
[edit]These two tunes are from Benny Goodman's performance in Carnegie Hall in 1938. The compositions are in the public domain. The concert was historic and recordings of it (first published in 1950) are still likely to have commercial value.[43]
Sound recordings made in the United States prior to 1972 are not covered by federal copyright law, but can be protected on the state level. It's been pointed out several times in the discussions on the licensing policy talk page that states are likely to protect sound recordings with commercial value, and there's at least one case from New York that supports this. There have been several attempts to reach consensus to change the policy, but so far they have been unsuccessful.
I'm nominating these for deletion to clear my conscience (since I uploaded them before getting familiar with the problematic part of US copyright law) and because I now sincerely believe that the recordings are not free enough for Commons. (Note: There are more files like this that use the problematic {{PD-US-record}} license tag and have obvious commercial value, but I won't be nominating other files until and unless we can reach a consensus to change the policy first.) Jafeluv (talk) 09:00, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted, recordings almost certainly still in copyright (per [44]). Kameraad Pjotr 19:32, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
Files of User:Barmichev
[edit]
I doubt permission. Copyvio? Just google for ZTE ligh and the other uploads. --RE RILLKE Questions? 10:22, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyright violations using images taken from Google Images and all lack a license as well. – Adrignola talk 20:38, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
Files of User:Nairobi123
[edit]
I doubt permission. Copyvio? Just google. --RE RILLKE Questions? 10:32, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: 15:23, 22 March 2011 by EugeneZelenko, closed by Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:11, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Files of User:JeffyJohn
[edit]
Images used to create a hoax article, see w:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/World Clown. --January (talk) 12:24, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. All these images are hoaxes. JJ98 (talk) 08:33, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:19, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Files of User:Memorialz
[edit]- File:185623 193493287347986 192479577449357 520794 659616 n.jpg
- File:188360 1658223776754 1271914943 31626142 1391151 n.jpg
- File:497293pan3.jpg - Advertising.
I doubt own work. Out of scope? --RE RILLKE Questions? 12:32, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyright violations, unfree files copied from the internet. Martin H. (talk) 03:27, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
I don't think, the flickr uploader had the permission. It looks like a postcard. RE RILLKE Questions? 14:24, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- I don't know if Massimo Nicolodi works for CoppaDelleDolomiti but he uses the official logo on flickr.--Gamsbart (talk) 14:42, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
- This is M. Nicolodi on Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/people/Massimo-Nicolodi/598967772 --Gamsbart (talk) 14:46, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Kept: let's AGF in this case Jcb (talk) 10:47, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Files of User:Flowengineer
[edit]- File:Integration-with-flowmaster.jpg
- File:Ecs-cooling-systems.jpg
- File:Screenshot-hydaulic-system.jpg
- File:Flowmaster-software-montage.jpg
- File:Internal-flow-systems-DS-Miller-Page.jpg
- File:Internal-flow-systems-DS-Miller.jpg
Screenshots of non-free software; copyvios from the web, ... I seriously doubt own work. --RE RILLKE Questions? 14:36, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:27, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Files of User:Drawpack
[edit]All spam, useless and probably copyvios. Don't want to enumerate all. And please block this user. --RE RILLKE Questions? 15:21, 14 March 2011 (UTC) The content of all these business diagrams are not spam and of interest to all, who deal with business and management topics like students and consultants for example. The author of these business diagram is CEO and owner of drawpack.com. Drawpack is specialized in business diagrams for all management topics. For further details go to http://www.drawpack.com. unsigned reply by Drawpack
- Then, please add a description to the information section, and the right license information. OTRS or other proves for permission are required. --RE RILLKE Questions? 18:08, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
- Do not use every chance to post your website here. That's spam. If you want to help here, remove the advertising from the graphics, please. Otherwise they are not usable in wikipedia and other wikimedia projects. --RE RILLKE Questions? 18:14, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: We would be happy to have these without the web link, but with it they fall within COM:ADVERT Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:33, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Files of User:Tmcarlosruiz
[edit]I doubt own work. Advertising. Out of scope. And please block this user. --RE RILLKE Questions? 15:55, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jcb (talk) 10:51, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
Thisi is not a skeleton of Spatangus purpureus but an Echinocardium sp. Esculapio (talk) 16:00, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
- I think it's better change the name of the image instead of delete.--Drow male (talk) 00:39, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
Kept: name has been changed in the meantime Jcb (talk) 10:52, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
sorry, mistake Diego19 (talk) 03:07, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Out of scope. No eductional value. RE RILLKE Questions? 16:33, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope, test upload George Chernilevsky talk 21:20, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
Unused personal photo. - Out of scope. RE RILLKE Questions? 17:49, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Low res, lacking metadata, watermark - own work seems doubtful. -mattbuck (Talk) 17:49, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 11:33, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
Probably not government work, probably private industry rights Theanphibian (talk) 19:41, 14 March 2011 (UTC) I'm also currently nominating File:BWR Mark I Containment, cutaway.jpg, which is right next to this image in the referenced pdf. I have searched through the pdf, and no indication of the origin for this image is given. There is no proof that this is government work, and the fact that the image is in a report by a National Lab doesn't cut it. The image is most likely from licensing material that is prepared by General Electric or contractors and remains the property of the companies that created it. If it was a creation of Sandia, they should have given better indication than just labeling it "Figure 5". Theanphibian (talk) 19:44, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
- Please note, these diagrams have been shown on the news and are currently displayed in more detail in a video on CNN.com, deleting this image may be unnecessary
- Wrong, that makes it valid for fair use. This discussion is about a copyvio due to the fact that the file is mislabeled as a PD image. Even if you can use it with a different rationale, you can't use it on Wikimedia Commons, and that is what this discussion is about. Theanphibian (talk) 21:04, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
- keep. even if this image is proprietary; as fair use, because it is documenting a current newsworthy event, and there is probably no suitable replacement. -- 99.233.186.4 21:07, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
- Please note, these diagrams have been shown on the news and are currently displayed in more detail in a video on CNN.com, deleting this image may be unnecessary
- Comment In case this image gets deleted (I won't vote on this one), I made File:BWR Mark I Containment sketch.png using the same canvas size and using the original's image note rectangles and the original as guides. Hopefully, this is different enough to to avoid copyright problems. Someone could probably do a better job. -84user (talk) 22:06, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
- I'm switching all the images to your sketch right away. No matter how many "keep" votes, I'm still 99% sure this will be deleted when an administrator closes it. Even if someone is willing to implement it as fair use, your diagram would take precedence over that. Theanphibian (talk) 03:29, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
- keep. I think it is completely valid as a current event to have something depicting what it may or may not look like, regardless of actual government installation may have been. Plus, with all the stuff about Anti-Terror in America, what government would willingly post those images/documents??
- Keep. Its appearance in the US Gov generated report, presumably without any attribution there, is adequate evidence of the public domain status. -R. S. Shaw (talk) 23:24, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
- Keep. As per reasons given by RS Shaw Flaviusvulso (talk) 01:49, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
- Keep, per reasons given by R. S. Shaw. In addition, the drawing at PDF page 41 (while the image discussed is at page 40) does contain a General Electric logo, while most others, such as schematics, seem not to contain the logo. -Mardus (talk) 17:06, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
- Keep. This diagram is important for the article.74.89.247.90 23:56, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
- Keep --Panoramafotos.net (talk) 00:12, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
- Keep The title page of the original report clearly indicates that this is a work for hire for the United States Government. It is therefore public domain. There is no copyright notice. Sandina uses copyright notices for things that are copyrighted (see their website, for example). --Selket (talk) 19:30, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
- Comment while the upper part of figure 5 is clearly a copyvio, as it is work of the company General Electric, the lower could well be made specifically for this government publication which could qualify as PD. (I have deleted the upper image from Commons. With this one I am unsure what to do.) But please note: We can not keep images because they are "important for the article". We can NOT keep images on Commons on fair use grounds. You can do this on the English langauage wikipedia but not here. --ALE! ¿…? 08:09, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
- Keep I am a California lawyer, and I can think of about 10 excellent reasons to keep this image online under everything from fair use to news reporting.
Section 107 contains a list of the various purposes for which the reproduction of a particular work may be considered fair, such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Section 107 also sets out four factors to be considered in determining whether or not a particular use is fair:
The purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes The nature of the copyrighted work The amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole The effect of the use upon the potential market for, or value of, the copyrighted work 128.125.59.112 20:26, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
- Delete SNL is a contractor and as such can only grant the US government "a nonexclusive, irrevocable, worldwide, royalty-free license in the work to reproduce, prepare derivative works, distribute copies to the public, and perform publicly and display publicly, and to allow others to do so, for U.S. Government purposes. The Government’s [NRC] license does not place these works in the public domain." The copyright of the document, and therefore any content within the document is strictly reserved to SNL. In fact having a copyright on the SNL website will by default cover the copyright notice for this document if this document does not contain a contravening copyright notice (or a disclaimer of lack of copyright) per the Berne Convention. Cowbert (talk) 00:08, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
- Cowbert, can you provide a link at SNL about this? I looked before uploading this image, but could not track one down. Rwendland (talk) 16:29, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
- Comment A commons user has produced a far better diagram than this one - though 90 degrees rotated by the look of it, File:Reaktor.svg, so I don't see that much point in debating this that much more. As the uploader, my view is if there is serious doubt on copyright, we should delete it. Rwendland (talk) 16:34, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
- Keep Beginning a charge of copyright infringement with the word "probably" doesn't inspire me to believe there's anything amiss here.
Kept Jcb (talk) 10:57, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
Courtesy photos US Armed Forces
[edit]Courtesy photos. Per Commons:Deletion requests/File:US Navy 090712-N-0000G-005 The littoral combat ship Independence (LCS 2) underway during builder's trials.jpg and Commons:Deletion requests/Courtesy photos from navy.mil.
_underway_during_builder%27s_trials.jpg){kind=link}
- File:US Navy 090322-X-0000X-005 The remains of a Japanese mini-submarine lie on the seafloor under 1,000-feet of water near Pearl Harbor, Hawaii.jpg - Photo courtesy of Lone Wolf Productions
- File:US Navy 110304-O-9999L-001 An F-35C Joint Strike Fighter test aircraft returns from a flutter envelope expansion flight.jpg - U.S. Navy photo courtesy of Lockheed Martin by Phaedra Loftis
- File:US Navy 110226-O-XX000-001 An F-35B test aircraft completes its 100th flight with Lockheed Martin test pilot David .jpg - U.S. Navy photo courtesy of Lockheed Martin by Michael D Jackson
- File:US Navy 110211-O-XX000-001 The U.S. Navy variant of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, the F-35C, conducts a test flight over the Chesapeake Bay.jpg - U.S. Navy photo courtesy Lockheed Martin
- File:Advanced Composite Cargo.jpg - Courtesy photo
- File:Advanced Composite Cargo Aircraft.jpg - Courtesy photo
- File:US Navy 110225-O-XX000-001 One of the first pieces of steel is cut for the second ship in the Gerald R. Ford class, CVN 79, during a ceremony at No.jpg - Photo courtesy of Northup Grumman Shipbuilding by John Whalen
- File:US Navy 090516-N-0000X-005 The Aegis guided-missile destroyer pre-commissioning unit (PCU) Gravely (DDG-107) is prepared for christening at Northrop Grumman Shipbuilding in Pascagoula, Miss.jpg - Photo courtesy Northrop Grumman
- File:US Navy 040527-O-0000G-002 Artists concep of General Dynamics Littoral Combat Ships (LCS) design.jpg - Artist concept provided to the U.S. Navy courtesy General Dynamics
- File:US Navy 040527-O-0000G-005 Artist concept of General Dynamics Littoral Combat Ships (LCS) design.jpg - Artist concept provided to the U.S. Navy courtesy General Dynamics
- File:US Navy 040527-O-0000G-001 Artists concept of General Dynamics, Littoral Combat Ships (LCS) design.jpg - Artist concept provided to the U.S. Navy courtesy General Dynamics
- File:US Navy 040605-O-0000C-002 Thousands of spectators gather at General Dynamics Electric Boat's shipyard to witness the christening of the U.S. Navy's newest and most advanced nuclear attack submarine, Jimmy Carter (SSN 23).jpg - Photo provided to U.S. Navy courtesy General Dynamics Electric Boat
- File:US Navy 040605-O-0000C-001 Former first lady Rosalynn Carter christens the U.S. Navy's newest and most advanced nuclear attack submarine, Jimmy Carter (SSN 23).jpg - Photo provided to U.S. Navy courtesy General Dynamics Electric Boat
- File:US Navy 030815-N-0000X-001 Capt. David Kern, prospective commanding officer of the Pre-Commissioning Unit (PCU) Virginia (SSN 774), and Lynda Johnson Robb, the boat^rsquo,s sponsor, pose for a photo with the pre-commissioning c.jpg - Photo provided courtesy General Dynamics.
- File:US Navy 100609-O-3913D-012 Allison Stiller, .jpg - Photo courtesy of General Dynamics Electric Boat
- File:US Navy 110126-N-XXXXW-001 USNS Washington Chambers (T-AKE 11) exits San Diego Bay to complete sea trials before delivery to the MSC Feb. 23.jpg - Photo courtesy of General Dynamics
- File:USS Comstock (LSD-45).jpg - U.S. Navy photo courtesy of Avondale Industries, Inc.
- File:US Navy 100203-N-0000X-001 An artist rendering of the new child development center at Marine Corps Base Hawaii, Kaneohe Bay.jpg - Rendering courtesy of AMEC-Nan Joint Venture, LLC, Honolulu
- File:US Navy 021101-N-0000X-026 File photo of the guided missile destroyer Preble.jpg - Photo provided to the Navy courtesy Lockheed Martin
- File:Lewisandclark class.jpg and File:USNS Lewis and Clark (T-AKE-1).jpg - General Dynamics NASSCO photo
_Gravely_(DDG-107)_is_prepared_for_christening_at_Northrop_Grumman_Shipbuilding_in_Pascagoula,_Miss.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_design.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_design.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_design.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_Virginia_(SSN_774),_and_Lynda_Johnson_Robb,_the_boat%5Ersquo,s_sponsor,_pose_for_a_photo_with_the_pre-commissioning_c.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_exits_San_Diego_Bay_to_complete_sea_trials_before_delivery_to_the_MSC_Feb._23.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
-- Common Good (talk) 19:44, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
- Delete sadly for the cases Common Good gave. --Leoboudv (talk) 02:32, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:21, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Logo of some sort. Likely copyrighted. no reason given to suggest that uploader is copyright holder FASTILY (TALK) 01:02, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:08, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
seems to be an unfree logo abf «Cabale!» 19:58, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
- Looks like it's not so easy, see [45]. Let's wait some time. Trycatch (talk) 01:56, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
the ticket #2011031910006647 give the permission of this file--Mys 721tx (talk) 11:00, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
OTRS OK, therefore kept. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:36, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
Files of User:Muhtac
[edit]All files of:
Advertising, low quality images. Cannot see any possibility for use. --RE RILLKE Questions? 21:06, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:35, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
The source page gives contradictory information about the license. On one hand, it links to the cc-by-3.0, but on the other hand, the text right next to the link says it's limited to non-commercial usage. I don't know if we can just trust the license and ignore the extra clause. –Tryphon☂ 22:10, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
- Thank you for comment. We've just changed copyright info on the webpage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dkortunov (talk • contribs) 11:51, 2011 March 17 (UTC)
- As far as I can see, nothing has changed. It still says "These materials can be used for non-commercial purposes with obligatory indication of the author" despite the link to the cc-by-3.0 license (which allows use for commercial purposes). –Tryphon☂ 21:51, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
- Sorry! We've change it already, but website goes to backup version. We will change it tomorrow.
- As far as I can see, nothing has changed. It still says "These materials can be used for non-commercial purposes with obligatory indication of the author" despite the link to the cc-by-3.0 license (which allows use for commercial purposes). –Tryphon☂ 21:51, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
- Денис, необходимо разрешение на коммерческое использование любыми третьими сторонами от имени авторов - cм. Commons:Лицензирование. А у вас non-commercial purpose. NVO (talk) 19:17, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
- Спасибо большое! Завтра (в понедельник) поменяем текст на сайте. Этого будет достаточно или нужно будет еще что-то сделать? Dkortunov (talk) 15:50, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
- (а) непосредствено на странице сайта указать "Допускается использовать изображение на условиях лицензии пример Creative Commons CC-3.0-SA-BY" ([46] русского текста у ней нет, и в РФ она не признаётся)
- или (б) отправить от имени авторов (в вашем случае обоих авторов) электронное письмо в адрес permissions-commons-at-wikimedia.org - см. Commons:OTRS/ru. В письме обязательно выбрать конкретный шаблон (шаблоны) лицензии (см. доступные варианты на Commons:Лицензирование#Популярные лицензии) и точно указать, что именно вы выпускаете под этой лицензией (например, ссылку на страницу или конкретные файлы вашего сайта). NVO (talk) 20:14, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
- This looks like a Delete to me, as SPAM, but I can't read the comments above. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:38, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: per Jim Jcb (talk) 11:02, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
