Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2011/03/19
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
|
|
No notability : was used in page destroyed and in another one as a school (?) ; No source Civa (talk) 10:47, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Deleted as lacking source. -mattbuck (Talk) 12:01, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
No FOP in Ukraine MorganKevinJ(talk) 16:41, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Keep. Rather typical Soviet building, seems to be one of the standard projects for small towns. No architecturally outstanding details at all — NickK (talk) 16:56, 19 March 2011 (UTC)- Keep. There are just few images of this town available. — --Maxim75 (talk) 22:43, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Nomination Withdrawn MorganKevinJ(talk) 02:46, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
Doubtful source and author - see copyright on image. Art-top (talk) 17:43, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Delete, stolen from http://cnfaovivo.blogspot.com/2010/10/b737-800-copa-airlines.html. I not speedy close this request for the moment to check the other uplaoads from this user (or give the uploader the chance to excuse here) --Martin H. (talk) 17:46, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Martin H. (talk) 18:03, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Copyrighted logo. 84.61.170.180 09:57, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Wknight94 talk 04:53, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
due to (incorrect) usage of initials, replaced by Creator:Christiaan Benjamin Nieuwenhuis; is vervangen door Creator:Christiaan Benjamin Nieuwenhuis Freekc34 (talk) 15:42, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted, per author request. Rehman 14:15, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
No source, and that the fake source link goes to a copyrighted photo and that this is our uploaders only upload to Commons do not inspire confidence. Chaser (talk) 21:42, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Martin H. (talk) 12:34, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
No articles link to the file. Keraunoscopia (talk) 02:12, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
- The Salsa (dance) article originally linked to it. I made a request for a name change of the file, which broke the reference. I'm going to re-link it, and the file should not be deleted. Cold Salsero (talk) 04:08, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
- Ohh, I was so confused by that. Your video appeared in the category for Requests for Name Changes, but the actual file didn't seem to have a tag on it. So I thought it was an orphaned file. My apologies. Definitely keep. Do note that I also tagged the redirect for deletion as well (similarly named). – Keraunoscopia (talk) 07:43, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
I believe this image IS copyright - NARA are falsely claiming no restrictions. Megapixie (talk) 07:12, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
- Do you have any evidence, that this file is copyrighted? If not, than keep. Armbrust (talk)
- It was taken by an associated press photographer, so one might assume that the photographer would hold copyright for life+70 Joe Rosenthal only died in 2006, so we have a long time to run before his copyright on the image expires, alternatively if it was a work for hire, then AP would hold copyright for 90 years - i.e. still some time to go.
- Let me reverse the question - do you have any evidence (other than an inappropriately applied flickr tag), that it isn't copyright ? Megapixie (talk) 08:35, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
- Well the Flickr tag is enough for me. Armbrust (talk) 23:07, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
- Delete: clearly it is an uncleaned-up copy of w:File:WW2 Iwo Jima flag raising.jpg, which is indeed copywritten by AP (and used with thier permission). Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima is a fairly famous photo, and NARA is probably keeping it with AP's permission for the historical value, but they shouldn't be claiming that there are no restrictions. And before anyone suggests that it is a still from Bill Genaust's video (which is PD because Genaust was a Marine), note that the video is in color, but the famous photo is not. There may be an argument to transferring it to en.wiki for use in the article on the photo as an unedited original, but I hold no opinion there. Bahamut0013 (talk) 11:57, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: It's a repost, see Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2005/03#Image:WW2 Iwo Jima flag raising.jpg. The picture had been uploaded several times before with the same rationale (i.e. "unrestricted" claim by NARA), and had been deleted numerous times already. Trycatch (talk) 18:41, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
probably derivate works, not used Avron (talk) 11:56, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Screenshot. All rights reserved. -- Common Good (talk) 19:31, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Rotated Gegik (talk) 16:24, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: File:Peter Eriksson professor.JPG -- Common Good (talk) 19:35, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Rotated Gegik (talk) 16:25, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: File:Pehr Gyllenhammar4751.JPG -- Common Good (talk) 19:32, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Rotated Gegik (talk) 16:25, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: File:Peter Eriksson professor.JPG -- Common Good (talk) 19:35, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Rotated Gegik (talk) 16:25, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: File:Peter Eriksson professor.JPG -- Common Good (talk) 19:35, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Author: Unknown. Source: Internet. Delete. NVO (talk) 23:51, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Delete per nomination. De728631 (talk) 14:45, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: I'm going to nominate the rest of uploads by this user. Trycatch (talk) 22:27, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
This doesn't seem to be an original work but rather a screenshot of a copyrighted video 71.135.172.137 02:09, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom Ezarateesteban 01:35, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
Appears to be a screenshot of a copyrighted concert video 71.135.172.137 02:12, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom Ezarateesteban 01:35, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
Blatant copyright infringement of logo 71.135.172.137 02:22, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom, it is not a simple logo Ezarateesteban 01:37, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
blatant copyright infringement of logo 71.135.172.137 02:23, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom, it isn't a simple logo Ezarateesteban 01:37, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
No evidence of permission; looks like a video screenshot judging by the low quality Lpdrew (talk) 02:25, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
- Also File:All brothers gibb.jpg is a derivative work Lpdrew (talk) 17:22, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom Ezarateesteban 01:38, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
This is not work of the uploader neither an official symbol. This is a copyrighted work. Dantadd✉ 04:10, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom Ezarateesteban 01:39, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
uploaded for deleted hoax article en:Reltih Flöda - name is "Adolf Hitler" backwards. JohnCD (talk) 11:16, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Common Good (talk) 19:09, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Attack page, posted on Userpage in enwp. It specifically attacks a user Joe Gazz84 (talk) 11:26, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Delete. I was temporarily using it as evidence against a stockpuppet. Go ahead and delete it. I am done with using the image. Crazymonkey1123 (talk) 14:31, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Delete it already, please. Crazymonkey1123 (talk) 22:41, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom and the uploader's request Ezarateesteban 01:49, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
Image is tagged as self but uploader admits other images so-tagged are not his own, see File:David Swann Iconic 2010.JPG Rob (talk) 00:15, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:53, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
Image is tagged as self but uploader admits other images so-tagged are not his own, see File:David Swann Iconic 2010.JPG Rob (talk) 00:15, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:53, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
Image is tagged as self but uploader admits other images so-tagged are not his own, see File:David Swann Iconic 2010.JPG Rob (talk) 00:17, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:53, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
Unused self-created artwork without obvious educational use. Art-top (talk) 00:20, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:53, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
Out of scope. Photo of uploader, and photo seems to be promotional in nature. Related article on en.wp was deleted due to non-notabilty. Skeezix1000 (talk) 00:25, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:54, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
Copyrighted art, no freedom of panorama in Belgium, see COM:FOP#Belgium. Gestumblindi (talk) 01:17, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
- OK - Perhaps you should delete File:Stockel-TinTin-2.jpg and File:Stockel-TinTin-3.jpg as well. Secondarywaltz (talk) 05:18, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
- Probably, yes... although the Tintin mural is not the only subject in File:Stockel-TinTin-2.jpg, it is probably too prominent to be De minimis, and in File:Stockel-TinTin-3.jpg, the mural is the main subject. I'm going to add DR's there too. Gestumblindi (talk) 14:25, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
- I cropped out commercials into File:Stockel train cropped.jpg, perhaps it's below the radar now. However, according to COM:FOP#Belgium, the station itself cannot be hosted here, or can it? NVO (talk) 22:00, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
- That's a crop from File:Stockel-TinTin-2.jpg, the comment would have been more fitting at its DR page; anyway: the station itself is of a very simple, functional design, so I don't know whether it counts as a piece of (architectural) art. Gestumblindi (talk) 00:20, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
- I cropped out commercials into File:Stockel train cropped.jpg, perhaps it's below the radar now. However, according to COM:FOP#Belgium, the station itself cannot be hosted here, or can it? NVO (talk) 22:00, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
- Probably, yes... although the Tintin mural is not the only subject in File:Stockel-TinTin-2.jpg, it is probably too prominent to be De minimis, and in File:Stockel-TinTin-3.jpg, the mural is the main subject. I'm going to add DR's there too. Gestumblindi (talk) 14:25, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:18, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
his article violates the rights of cars, the logos of a contest are not allowed on commons. The file can be found easily on the Internet. Elberth 00001939 (talk) 01:40, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:19, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
Copy of http://photopeach.com/public/upload/data/thumb/70/5/4/54145072ae38f2b67c1d4fd0c8ed4e50.jpg MorganKevinJ(talk) 01:50, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
- Delete. Flickrwashing by persistent copyright violator. http://www.flickr.com/people/24062765@N03/ is DAIEDA's own Flickr account, but the file is obviously not their own work, since the author is "desconocido" (unknown). —LX (talk, contribs) 11:09, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:19, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
Logo, no evidence of permission 71.135.172.137 02:20, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:19, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
probably the logo since 1945; before it was a swallow. To young not to be copyrighted (if it is not copyrighted please state clearly why). However, the current license template is wrong. Saibo (Δ) 02:54, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
- So what license template should it be then? RomeEonBmbo (talk) 20:30, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
- There are {{PD-textlogo}} or {{PD-ineligible}} - but if you read them you will notice that they do not match. So another option would be that the jaguar drawing is old enough to be public domain. According to the years I mentioned this does not seem to be the case. So the logo is copyrighted has to be deleted on Commons and you can upload it locally and use it only under fair use (if the relevant wiki has it). See e.g. Commons:Licensing#Simple_design. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 23:46, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:24, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
sorry, I doubt you also filmed the old parts in this video. If they are public domain please clearly state why. In general see COM:L Saibo (Δ) 02:57, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
The video is part of the museum, made by the museum with footage from the museum, which license should we use? we made a virtual walkthrough of our Carnaval Museum and this video is part of it. Can anybody help, please? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carnavaluy (talk • contribs) 2011-03-19T03:39:42 (UTC)
- Sure, first of all: who and when were the parts of the video filmed? Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 15:25, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Without copyright release on all the old fottage here we cannot keep this. I also wonder if it is out of scope for low quality? Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:26, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
Album cover, no proof of permission, just "OTRS pending" tag since January 28. It's unlikely that we really get a permission from the copyright holder. It's already widely used on various projects, so better delete it now and restore it if we receive permission via OTRS. -- Kam Solusar (talk) 04:58, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:27, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
Looks to be merely a photo of a modern illustration in a book or exhibit; unless the person who took the photo also created the illustration they don't have the right to release it under a free licence Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 04:58, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: UK FOP does not extend to posters and flat exhibits, even if permanently mounted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:29, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
this is a bad map, it shows the North and South Islands at different scales Benchill (talk) 04:58, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Kept: Since New Zealand extends over 13 degrees of latitude there will be scale differences on many projections -- a Mercator map will have a 22% different scale from Southwest Cape to North Cape. It is certainly satisfactory for this purpose. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:44, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
This is an official logo which can't be a free media to upload here. Bill william compton (talk) 05:21, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:44, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
I doubt this is the work of the author; it is a logo of a South Korean city. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 05:31, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:44, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
This screenshot is from "en:Europa Barbarorum", a modification for PC game en:Rome: Total War. I wonder if copyright does not allow this image to be here. --Barosaurus Lentus (talk) 11:11, 18 March 2010 (UTC) 78.55.15.81 06:57, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:45, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
Unauthorized upload. Copyright violation confirmed by original photographer Markus Senn by e-mail: "besten Dank für Ihre Nachricht: das Bild ist tatsächlich von mir! ich bitte Sie, das Bild von der Wikipedia Site zu nehmen; die Urheberrechts-Angaben sind falsch, das Copyright liegt bei mir." Noebu (talk) 07:10, 19 March 2011 (UTC) Noebu (talk) 07:14, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:45, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
Unauthorized upload. Copyright violation confirmed by original photographer Markus Senn by e-mail: "besten Dank für Ihre Nachricht: das Bild ist tatsächlich von mir! ich bitte Sie, das Bild von der Wikipedia Site zu nehmen; die Urheberrechts-Angaben sind falsch, das Copyright liegt bei mir." Noebu (talk) 07:11, 19 March 2011 (UTC) Noebu (talk) 07:17, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Copyvio confirmed by photographer. -- Herby (Vienna) (talk) 09:31, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:45, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
Personal image ; no encyclopedic value ; out of scope ; no category Civa (talk) 07:45, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom Ezarateesteban 01:41, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
Personal image ; no encyclopedic value because unknown place ; perhaps no-Fop pb because unknown place ; out of scope (only in user pages) Civa (talk) 07:54, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
- Keep A few such pictures on userpages are OK. And btw. peine de los vientos is in Spain, look what we have there. FOP is perfectly OK! -- 178.190.75.13 10:18, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
- Keep The image is used on somebodys user page. As already said: this is okay for a small number of images (one of those delightful greyzones of Commons). --High Contrast (talk) 10:36, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
- Keep and when the picture will be geocoded it won't be an "unknown place" any more. Jeriby (talk) 17:19, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Done I added geocoding tag. I never went there, but anyway I could manage to find the place, then it's not so "unknown" I think! 
Jeriby (talk) 17:38, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Image of very little educational interest ; Exact place unknown ; Generic file name Civa (talk) 08:09, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
- Keep a good picture. Exact place and geotagging doesn't matter at all for this photo. Trycatch (talk) 18:53, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Kept Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:47, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
Personal image (description is "seen from my home") ; unknown place (doubt about Paris) Civa (talk) 08:16, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
- There's a good clue - two conspicuous towers on the horizon. keep, it's identifiable. NVO (talk) 22:09, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
- In France, we have many, many water towers like that (I dont know why...). It is not possible to identify with only 2 ordinary water towers. And in Paris, there are a few. And not of that kind. --Civa (talk) 16:46, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
- Keep and just ask the uploader for geocoding information ^^ Jeriby (talk) 17:44, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Personal image ; no encyclopedic value ; out of scope ; is source free ? Civa (talk) 08:21, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom Ezarateesteban 01:45, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
it is not the correct logo Osamahelal (talk) 08:31, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:48, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
No notability ; no encyclopedic value ; out of project scope Civa (talk) 08:31, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
- Keep Ugh. John Pugh is a pretty famous artist, even I read about some of his works. Quality of the picture is not great, but it's the best we have. Trycatch (talk) 00:40, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
- Actually there is an article in en-wiki about him: w:John Pugh (artist). So you don't even tried to check en-wiki before the "No notability" nomination (not to mention of googling or something). No good. Trycatch (talk) 00:45, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Kept: Agreed. Thank you, Trycatch for a good catch. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:50, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
Sculpture by a living sculptor and located in Lier, Belgium, where there is no COM:FOP#Belgium. Thereby violates copyright of sculptor. --Túrelio (talk) 09:05, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Rien à faire ! Tant pis ! Torsade de Pointes (talk) 20:03, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
- So you are not going to contact the sculptor for a permission? --Túrelio (talk) 20:10, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:50, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
I have serious doubts about the fact that this computer rendering is the "own work" of the uploader 90.58.125.172 09:50, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:49, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
ich habe keine rechte an dem graffiti Schubert33 (talk) 10:09, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
- Keep Musst Du auch nicht. Deutschland hat die Panoramafreiheit. -- 178.190.75.13 10:10, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
ich habe keine rechte an dem graffiti Schubert33 (talk) 10:10, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
- Keep Musst Du auch nicht. Deutschland hat die Panoramafreiheit. -- 178.190.75.13 10:10, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
No notability (the page on english wikipedia has been deleted) Civa (talk) 10:17, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 06:36, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
No encyclopedic value ; Out of project scope ; description unclear Civa (talk) 10:20, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 06:36, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
Personal image : Commons is not an image hosting website Civa (talk) 10:57, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 06:38, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
No notability ; was used on a russian page now destroyed Civa (talk) 11:13, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
- Idiotic Russian rules are irrelevant for Kazakstani lawyers. But even there consensus may change or the person may accidentally get a magic "notability ticket". This is not a valid reason to delete. However, "own work" is questionable. NVO (talk) 22:25, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:49, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
self promotion/personal artwork of a gaming clan. not used, not in scope Avron (talk) 11:17, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 06:41, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
personal artwork, no educational value, not in scope, not used Avron (talk) 11:19, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 06:42, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
personal artwork, no educational value, not in scope, not used Avron (talk) 11:20, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 06:42, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
personal artwork, no educational value, not in scope, not used Avron (talk) 11:21, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 06:43, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
Image of very little educational interest ; Unknown place (Spain ? Latin America ?) ; Out of project scope Civa (talk) 11:32, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:50, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
Personal image ; no notability ; no encyclopedic value ; out of scope Civa (talk) 11:36, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom Ezarateesteban 01:50, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
Who knows what it is and where its from? Is this really PD? If it is, how about scope? Amada44 talk to me 11:42, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
- It's a newsreel about a 1957 Disneyland exhibit where "even the ceilings are made of plastics". Presume non-free. NVO (talk) 22:42, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for finding that out. well, so its a copyvio most likely... Amada44 talk to me 13:42, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:50, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
probably derivate works, not used Avron (talk) 11:58, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
- speedy delete - commercial software screenshot = copyrighted --Pierpao.lo (listening) 10:10, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio. Commercial software from www-mig33-com George Chernilevsky talk 06:53, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
I don't know what this is but this seems too small for own work, notu used Avron (talk) 12:00, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:50, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
unused personal image Amada44 talk to me 12:04, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 06:54, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
personal artwork, not used, not in scope Avron (talk) 12:39, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 06:55, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
personal artwork, not used, not in scope Avron (talk) 12:43, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:50, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
Unreliable Flickr source. Sourced to [1] with correct license, but the same Flickr photostream also contains [2], with a fake free license, which is stolen from [3] (all rights reserved by different uploader). Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:01, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
- Delete, flickr user not trustworthy, the image was uploaded to flick on January 13, short time after Rars07 on en.wp had serious copyright problems and was blocked on January 12. This most likely is a flickrwashing account created by that user. --Martin H. (talk) 13:46, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
- Ah, thanks for pointing out that account, which I hadn't noticed yet. Images of this particular pop singer have been the object of quite a bit of tomfoolery from quite a number of accounts on en-wiki of late, and I've also been suspecting some unconventional use of woolen footwear of some kind or other. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:15, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
- Delete I'd must've assumed at the time of uploading that the source was a fan of Sarah who actually went to her concerts (same as me & Nash the Slash) and had not realized that it was just a bunch of copyvios... Tabercil (talk) 17:06, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:51, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
personal artwork, not used, not in scope Avron (talk) 13:06, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 06:56, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
Poor quality, unused, plenty of alternatives given. Yikrazuul (talk) 13:38, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Sadly not all commons admins are versed in science...my {{duplicate}}-of-File:Benzene-circle-2D-skeletal.png was declined as not-a-dup on the assumption that the specific line-widths and circle-size were important. DMacks (talk) 07:18, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:52, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
unused personal image Amada44 talk to me 13:45, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 06:56, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
scope? Amada44 talk to me 14:19, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
- no
- thats me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gonduras (talk • contribs) 07:16, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
- Ahh, you look great ;). Do you still need this image or can it be deleted? cheers, Amada44 talk to me 09:02, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 06:58, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
The Tintin mural is copyrighted art, no freedom of panorama in Belgium, and probably too prominent to be De minimis. See also this DR. Gestumblindi (talk) 14:28, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:51, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
The Tintin mural is copyrighted art, no freedom of panorama in Belgium. See also this DR. Gestumblindi (talk) 14:29, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:51, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
Not "expropriated as national heritage" (Template:PD-TR#Article_47_.28.22Expropriation.22.29), expropriated by a decree, but a simple recent portrait from some website. Martin H. (talk) 14:42, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
- Sorry. Taken from enwiki en:File:ANSezer.jpg Vssun (talk) 16:51, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
- Delete as per nom.....Captain......Tälk tö me.. 08:35, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
- Why not using the image which the official Turkish President website is hosting now? An image is hosted at http://www.tccb.gov.tr/pages/past_presidents/ but I am not sure whether it is in a license that is appropriate to Commons. --Sreejith K (talk) 15:45, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:57, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
This photograph is not Not "expropriated as national heritage" (Template:PD-TR#Article_47_.28.22Expropriation.22.29) expropriated by a decree, but a simple recent portrait from some website. Martin H. (talk) 14:47, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:57, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
This photograph is not Not "expropriated as national heritage" (Template:PD-TR#Article_47_.28.22Expropriation.22.29) expropriated by a decree, but a simple recent sports photo from some website. Blatant copyright violation. Martin H. (talk) 14:55, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:57, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
This photograph is not Not "expropriated as national heritage" (Template:PD-TR#Article_47_.28.22Expropriation.22.29) expropriated by a decree, but a simple recent photo from some website. Martin H. (talk) 14:56, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:57, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
This photograph is not Not "expropriated as national heritage" (Template:PD-TR#Article_47_.28.22Expropriation.22.29) expropriated by a decree, but a simple recent portrait from some website. Martin H. (talk) 14:56, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:57, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
This photograph is not Not "expropriated as national heritage" (Template:PD-TR#Article_47_.28.22Expropriation.22.29) expropriated by a decree, but a simple recent portrait from some website. Martin H. (talk) 14:56, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:57, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
unused logo of extinct business with no notability or article in es or any other wiki project - no foreseeable use, out of scope Santosga (talk) 15:11, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:57, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
A town's coat of arms is a non-free image JaGa (talk) 15:16, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
- Delete. This particular image appears to be copied from [4]. -- Asclepias (talk) 16:13, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
- Question if it were a reproduction - as in, someone did their own SVG version or something, wouldn't it still be non-free? I assume we treat a coat of arms the same way as a logo. Is that correct? Thanks, --JaGa (talk) 00:35, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Policy is that the blazon -- the text description of a CoA -- is copyright free, but individual representations of the CoA have copyright. Thus if a user drew this from the blazon, the result would have only the user's copyright which he or she could license to Commons Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:59, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
From the fact the description says it's a logo, I assume it's a logo of somewhere real, in which case this is a copyright violation because this is definitely not PD-ineligible. -mattbuck (Talk) 15:52, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
- hello there! the File:Robinsonsmalls.svg is their real logo and their logo could be found at http://www.robinsonsmalls.com/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cda stitch (talk • contribs) 16:43, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:03, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
And also:
- File:Image19.jpg
- File:Imagesinfoselect.jpg
- File:Imagefassade.jpg
- File:Imageinfoselect.jpg
- Unused files with bad date (2012), low resolution for own work. Art-top (talk) 16:46, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 07:01, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
Unused, unknown destination image, possibly a derivative work from unfree image. Art-top (talk) 16:47, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
- Delete, not in use, not usefull and of unknown origin. Per nom. --Martin H. (talk) 17:02, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 07:00, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
Unused, low quality image with unknown destination. Art-top (talk) 17:03, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
- Delete, not used and not usefull. --Martin H. (talk) 17:21, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 06:59, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
no notability ; no encyclopedic value ; out of scope Civa (talk) 17:20, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:09, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
качество плохое Ильнар Шайдуллов (talk) 17:22, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Kept: It looks OK to me -- it's an SVG so it can be any size. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:11, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
Unused bad quality image. Art-top (talk) 17:33, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 07:03, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
Personal image : Commons is not an image hosting website ; out of project scope Civa (talk) 17:51, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 07:04, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
Doesn't look like it was published over 50 years ago, and Pakistan published a Bi Amma stamp in 1990, according to en:List of people on stamps of Pakistan. —innotata 17:51, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
- Isn't the center image the only copyrighted part of the stamp but thats already in public domain? --Sreejith K (talk) 07:06, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
- Perhaps, but how is it public domain? —innotata 18:42, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
- I guess so, because the person in the photograph, viz. Abida Beegum expired on November 13, 1924. --Sreejith K (talk) 04:25, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
- It is a drawing of her, so there's a very good chance it was made after her death. There is no evidence the drawing is out of copyright. —innotata 14:47, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
- I guess so, because the person in the photograph, viz. Abida Beegum expired on November 13, 1924. --Sreejith K (talk) 04:25, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
- Perhaps, but how is it public domain? —innotata 18:42, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Per innotata, the drawing could have been made for the 1990 stamp. UNless we know otherwise, we must delete. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:24, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
No notability ; no encyclopedic value ; out of scope Civa (talk) 17:54, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Kept: Google turns up sufficient evidence of notability for our rather low standard. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:29, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
Personal image, but no use ; no notability Civa (talk) 06:44, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
- Keep OK I found him on Google. He is a scientist in India --Civa (talk) 12:43, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
Kept, Recently kept by admin, nominator is in favor of keeping, see no reason why this should wait a week. Taketa (talk) 14:11, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
Low quality photograph of a non-notable person. Out of the commons project scope. Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 17:47, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
Kept - Dr.A.B.Rajib Hazarika is a notable personality as per Google results. --Sreejith K (talk) 20:30, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
Buggy SVG file; not used anywhere. Leyo 20:10, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
- Delete per nom DMacks (talk) 10:32, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Per nom, to buggy. --Yikrazuul (talk) 11:15, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Per nom George Chernilevsky talk 07:07, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
self promotion, not used, not in scope Avron (talk) 20:15, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope, adwertisement George Chernilevsky talk 07:11, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
Self promotion? not used, not in scope Avron (talk) 20:32, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 07:12, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
personal photo, not used, not in scope Avron (talk) 20:37, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 07:13, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
personal artwork, not used, not in scope Avron (talk) 20:40, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 07:14, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
personal photo, not used, not in scope Avron (talk) 20:51, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 07:18, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
personal photo, not used, not in scope Avron (talk) 20:53, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 07:20, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
no encyclopedic value because unknown location ; generic file name Civa (talk) 21:52, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Per nom., also poor quality George Chernilevsky talk 07:21, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
Screenshot of Telefe, Argentina Ezarateesteban 12:42, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Screenshot of a TV program - not own work, not permission available. --Andrea (talk) 19:25, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:50, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
Low quality for own work, bad source, likely copyvio. Art-top (talk) 17:56, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Kept: User page image on WP:EN therefore within scope; User's real name is Victor (see WP:EN) therefore source is OK, probably not copyvio. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:07, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
Private image : out of scope Civa (talk) 18:02, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:17, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
no encyclopedic value because unknown location, unknown date of the furniture ; out of scope Civa (talk) 18:45, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:17, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
no encyclopedic value because unknown location, unknown date of the furniture ; out of scope ; generic name Civa (talk) 18:56, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:17, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
no encyclopedic value because unknown location, unknown date of the furniture ; out of scope ; generic name Civa (talk) 18:57, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:18, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
No source given for the maps in the illustration. Unlikely to be own work. Wknight94 talk 19:59, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:23, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
No source given for the maps in the illustration. Unlikely to be own work. Wknight94 talk 20:00, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:23, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
No source given for the map in the illustration. Unlikely to be own work. Wknight94 talk 20:00, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:23, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
poor quality version of File:LogoShitoryu.svg Santosga (talk) 20:04, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:24, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
out of date Katharina giesler (talk) 20:05, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Kept: moved to File:Chart Radiation Fukushima GRS 12 03 2011.JPG, we often keep time series of important events Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:26, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
Copyright uncertain. Yann (talk) 10:10, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
- File was requested for deletion by uploader 69 minutes after uploading[5]. Ignoring such a good-faith request is not good. Besides, the source site says "© 2011 Gesellschaft für Anlagen- und Reaktorsicherheit (GRS) mbH" and the image has no license (tag). Clearly Delete. Might be re-uploaded, provided it can be truely obtained under a free license. --Túrelio (talk) 10:13, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
- Well, don't blame me. May be this DR was improperly closed as Kept, but I think if there was a DR, the image should not be deleted without a new discussion. Yann (talk) 10:37, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
- I didn't blame anyone personally. However, beyond all the objective problems with this image, a uploader-DR 69 minutes after upload should be honored. --Túrelio (talk) 10:41, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
- Well, don't blame me. May be this DR was improperly closed as Kept, but I think if there was a DR, the image should not be deleted without a new discussion. Yann (talk) 10:37, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
- I point out that the DR which the uploader posted said "out of date" and nothing about copyright concerns, so I did not ignore the request, merely closed it in the way we close most requests to delete earlier versions of dated graphs.
- In an ideal world perhaps we would have time to do thorough research on every DR before closing it, but we are shorthanded, so I, at least, usually make a decision based only on issues raised in the DR nom and discussion and do not do further research.
- While many time series graphs do not have the creativity necessary for copyright, this has a map and other annotations, so I think it should be deleted. Delete Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:29, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted No information provided, doubt of copyvio Ezarateesteban 14:45, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
Unused screenshot of problems in external RTL link icon from 2008 Avron (talk) 20:13, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:27, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
Poor quality, better versions in Category:Toluene, not used anywhere. Leyo 20:13, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
- Delete per nom DMacks (talk) 10:31, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
- Delete per nom --Yikrazuul (talk) 11:15, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:27, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
Buggy SVG, replaced, not used. Leyo 20:20, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
- Delete per nom DMacks (talk) 10:33, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
- Delete per nom --Yikrazuul (talk) 11:15, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:27, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
I don't believe the film Roman Holiday published in the United States without a copyright notice. Sysywjel (talk) 20:26, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
- Keep. It does not say the film, it says the trailer. -- Asclepias (talk) 20:38, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
- You can not apply a page of a book for public domin with no copyright notice, although there wasn't a copyright notice in such page.--苹果派.留言 17:11, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
- Keep: I do not understand what you mean. The trailer is not "a page" from the film. Trailers were released independently of the film, and usually earlier than the film was released. I also do not believe the film was released without copyright notice but I have made no such claim: the image is a screenshot from the trailer. The difference between films and their promotional trailers is explained here. Rossrs (talk) 09:34, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
- Keep per long-established Commons practice (see Category:Film trailer screenshots), founded in the explanation Rossrs has linked to: trailers from before 1976 are considered separate works from the films, but they were published without copyright notice, so {{PD-US-no notice}} applies. —Angr 23:58, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
- Keep: Beware, "trailers from before 1976 are considered separate works from the films, but they were published without copyright notice" is patently false; there are many such trailers that do come with copyright notices. However, the original Roman Holiday trailer, http://www.tcm.com/mediaroom/video/98669/Roman-Holiday-Original-Trailer-.html, does not, so keep. Jappalang (talk) 01:38, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Kept Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:19, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
I don't believe the film Roman Holiday published in the United States without a copyright notice. Sysywjel (talk) 20:26, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
- Keep. It does not say the film, it says the trailer. -- Asclepias (talk) 20:40, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
- You can not apply a page of a book for public domin with no copyright notice, although there wasn't a copyright notice in such page.--苹果派.留言 17:11, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
- Keep, though this discussion should be merged with Commons:Deletion requests/File:Audrey Hepburn in Roman Holiday trailer.jpg, as this image is a derivative of that one. —Angr 23:54, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:19, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
- File:Dub.jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) Orphaned images, not used anywhere for a realistically educational purpose (out of scope) and no discernible way to tell what this can be used for. Commons should not host images for the sake of hosting images. (Second one is a duplicate of the first) :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 20:41, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted --Dferg (talk) 19:01, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
I'm the author and I want you deleting this file as not wanted MaxBioHazard (talk) 20:54, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Kept: File is in use, the license is irrevocable Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:20, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
very small so I doubt this is own work Avron (talk) 20:55, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:21, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:22, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
very small so I doubt this is own work Avron (talk) 20:58, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:21, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
very small so I doubt this is own work Avron (talk) 20:58, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:24, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
very small so I doubt this is own work Avron (talk) 20:58, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:24, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
very small so I doubt this is own work Avron (talk) 20:59, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:24, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
very small so I doubt this is own work Avron (talk) 20:59, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:24, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
very small so I doubt this is own work Avron (talk) 21:00, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:24, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
very small so I doubt this is own work Avron (talk) 21:01, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:24, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
Wrong name given Bora83ns (talk) 21:04, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:24, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
No verifiable source or other indication as to why {{PD-Sweden}} should apply to this photo of an American boxer. Walcott did have a notable fight in Sweden, but that was in 1949, but this photo was supposedly taken in 1947. The immediate source of the file seems to be http://charlespaolino.wordpress.com/2010/03/16/the-bigger-they-are/. —LX (talk, contribs) 21:43, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:25, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
This appears to be a b/w photograph of a painting. The Slovenian Wikipedia states that sl:Dvorec Slatna manor was destroyed after WW 2 so that leaves the question of original authorship. Unless the uploader painted the image prior to the destruction of the house, someone else must be the author and this might still be copyrighted. De728631 (talk) 21:49, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:26, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
This Castle is mine and I take all responsibilities about the authorship. Thank You --M.Hugo Windisch-Graetz (talk) 13:06, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
Not the uploader's own work as claimed, but as the watermark shows, clearly taken from http://www.gettyimages.se/detail/51243541/Hulton-Archive. Neither the uploader nor Getty offer any information as to what the original work is or when it was made, but even if it's in the public domain, the watermark-encumbered version is rather useless. —LX (talk, contribs) 21:58, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
- Keep and retouch/exchange file. The right image was already published in a German book on architecture in 1888, see File:Julia Domna.jpg, so it is clearly PD-art by now. We need to get rid of the Getty watermark though. De728631 (talk) 14:56, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
Kept Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:28, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
No evidence that this logo is in the Public Domain. --ZooFari 22:01, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:28, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
Bogus source, authorship, date and copyright claims. Actually taken by Keturah Collings (1862–1948) in 1912.[6] The file itself appears to have been taken from http://www.meaus.com/162-victoria-luise-2010.htm. —LX (talk, contribs) 22:21, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Delete Still copyrighted until 2019. De728631 (talk) 14:47, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:30, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
Bogus source, authorship, date and copyright claims. Actually taken by Keturah Collings (1862–1948) in 1910.[7] —LX (talk, contribs) 22:29, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Delete Still copyrighted until 2019. De728631 (talk) 14:42, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:34, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
Very recent artwork in ground next to Bedford Castle Mound. Clearly a graphic work, so not subject to FOP. Artwork rather than area on which it is placed is subject of photo. Simonxag (talk) 23:25, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
- Oppose: FoP applies to mosaics. Commons:Deletion requests/File:John Bunyan window - geograph.org.uk - 809805.jpg. --ClemRutter (talk) 22:26, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
Comment - I've checked and though the work is clearly pictorial, not just decorative, it is definitely a mosaic with the picture made up of black and white tiles. --Simonxag (talk) 17:26, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Kept: Although mosiacs are not specifically mentioned in our summary of FOP in the UK, a variety of works of similar craft are mentioned, so I think we are safe here. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:38, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
Sculpture not permanently located (taken inside each evening) so not subject to Freedom of Panorama. Unless someone can show that the model is somehow out of copyright, the photo is a copyvio. Simonxag (talk) 23:37, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
- Oppose see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Busy road for bunnies - geograph.org.uk - 970460.jpg about a simmilar artwork, the same arguments and reasoning applies Oxyman (talk) 01:08, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
Kept Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:39, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
out of date Katharina giesler (talk) 20:03, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Kept: it is dated. we often keep historical information Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:24, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
Reopened. All information is missing, and it seems that the uploader is not the author. Yann (talk) 10:00, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
- Delete, it's also a duplicate of File:Chart Radiation Fukushima GRS 12 03 2011.JPG (also without license) and it was requested for deletion by the uploader on the day of upload. --Túrelio (talk) 10:04, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
- Weird. Why is the date different? I have put a message on the upload's talk page. Yann (talk) 10:26, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
- It is not a 1-day shot, but covers the days from 12th to 20th. --Túrelio (talk) 10:28, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
- Weird. Why is the date different? I have put a message on the upload's talk page. Yann (talk) 10:26, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted no information provided, doubt of copyvio Ezarateesteban 14:41, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
An also:
- File:Prikol sobaka.JPG
- File:Sobaka prikol.JPG
- This files is not realistically useful for an educational purpose, out of project scope. Art-top (talk) 00:01, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Out of scope --Civa (talk) 08:01, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:52, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
Files of User:Qweasdqwe
[edit]- File:Огородысалавата.jpg
- File:Трамвай5.jpg - discussed at commons:Deletion_requests/File:Молодогвардейцев5.jpg - photo by Ilya Buyanovsky source
- File:Молодогвардейцев5.jpg - discussed at commons:Deletion_requests/File:Молодогвардейцев5.jpg - photo by Ilya Buyanovsky source
- File:Ленина5.jpg - discussed at commons:Deletion_requests/File:Молодогвардейцев5.jpg - photo by Ilya Buyanovsky source
- File:Первомайская5.jpg
- File:Табынскаяикона.jpg - needs an expert. The prototype of Tabynskaya Icon was created in 1590s, but is this the prototype (which was lost without trace decades ago) or a later PD-Art work or a modern work? (I don't know; it looks like a recent work). NVO (talk)
- File:Табынское.jpg
- File:Догопрудненское.jpg - discussed at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Догопрудненское.jpg. 2009 photo by Pyotr from [8].
- File:Volkovo5.jpg
- File:Квартал2.jpg - mentioned in discussion at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Комсомольскаяплощадь.jpg
- File:Snos5.jpg - speedy tagged as a copy o [9]
- File:Дворецсалават.jpg
- File:Могилы2.jpg
- File:Кладбищесалават2.jpg
- File:Никишенков.jpg
- File:Дружбымусино.jpg
- File:Трестсалаватстрой.jpg
- File:Тэц3.jpg
- File:Salavatsteklo3.jpg
- File:Салаватстекло.jpg - Commons:Deletion requests/File:Салаватстекло.jpg
- File:Салаватнефтемаш2.jpg - Commons:Deletion requests/File:Салаватнефтемаш2.jpg
- File:Салаватнефтемаш.jpg - Commons:Deletion requests/File:Салаватнефтемаш.jpg, photo from [10]
- File:Паркгорького.jpg
- File:Сухайла.jpg
- File:Автовокзалсалават.jpg
- File:Белая3.jpg
- File:Снос3.jpg - suspect copyvio - looks like a scanned printed pano made by a pro; and from all that I know about Qweasdqwe he just wasn't there. NVO (talk) 05:55, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
- File:Автовокзал3.jpg
- File:Ленина3.jpg
- File:Салаватстроителей.jpg - tagged for speedy as a copy of [11]
- File:Почет.jpg
- File:Храм2010.jpg
- File:Арбузы.jpg
- File:Музейдубай.jpg
- File:Базардубай.jpg
- File:Бедуины.jpg
- File:Королев2.jpg
- File:Дубай2.jpg
- File:Бурдж.jpg
- File:Зият.jpg
- File:Дубай.jpg
- File:Женя2.jpg
- File:Нефтехимик2.jpg
- File:Обелиск.jpg
- File:Салават58.jpg - speedy tagged as a copy of [12]
- File:Губкина.jpg - discussion at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Молодогвардейцев5.jpg - file from [13]
- File:Матросов.jpg
- File:Пушкин.jpg
- File:Нефтяников.jpg
- File:Тополя.jpg
- File:Горького.jpg - mentioned in discussion at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Комсомольскаяплощадь.jpg
- File:Гафури.jpg - mentioned in discussion at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Комсомольскаяплощадь.jpg
- File:Юлаев.jpg
- File:Памятникпервостроителям.jpg
- File:Комсомольскаяплощадь.jpg - discussed at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Комсомольскаяплощадь.jpg
- File:Мозаикакузнецова.jpg
- File:Kuznez.jpg - clearly not own work (posed photo of an actor who died in 1974) - speedy? NVO (talk) 06:00, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
- File:Базар в Салавате.jpg
- File:ДК МЭИ.jpg
- File:БиблиотекаМЭИ.jpg
- File:МЭИ2.jpg
- File:ПТУ19.jpg
- File:Улица Первомайская.jpg
- File:Салават Площадь Ленина.jpg
Concerns of mass copyright violations by this user have been raised on the Administrators'_noticeboard. --MorganKevinJ(talk) 00:39, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
- Delete all contribution of user. Most uploaded in 2010 images removed as copyvio. User puts {{PD-self}} for all files - foreign photos, paintings by famous artists (Commons:Deletion requests/File:Osen.jpg), logos - impossible to understand any of these files are really made by the user. And it continues on the same activities, such as: File:Сфугнту.jpg (no source, bad license) - logo of educational institution. --Art-top (talk) 12:36, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
- Addition: last contribution - File:Табынская7.jpg copyed and crop from there: [14], author: kasparova2. Qweasdqwe says that he is the author - bad license, bad source. --Art-top (talk) 13:16, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
- Comment I have deleted a few more that seemed obvious, but I'm not sure about many of the remainder -- they appear to have decent size -- more than ordinary web resolution -- and might well actually be made by the uploader. So there is a part of me that would like to simply blow them all away and be done with him or her, but another part that thinks we may be able to keep some of these. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:13, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
- Addition: about panorams - see published in 2008 images: [15]. --Art-top (talk) 14:28, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
- Addition: about panorams 2 - File:Огородысалавата.jpg, File:Белая3.jpg, File:Гафури.jpg, File:Комсомольскаяплощадь.jpg, File:Салават Площадь Ленина.jpg is published there. Photos from firm ОлдТи (Салават). --Art-top (talk) 14:28, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
- File:Обелиск.jpg from this page. --Art-top (talk) 14:28, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
- File:Никишенков.jpg, File:Могилы2.jpg, File:Кладбищесалават2.jpg from this page. --Art-top (talk) 14:32, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
- File:Базар в Салавате.jpg from this page. --Art-top (talk) 17:20, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
- File:Автовокзалсалават.jpg - from this page (third photo from left). Search more or enough? --Art-top (talk) 14:43, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
- File:БиблиотекаМЭИ.jpg from this page; File:ДК МЭИ.jpg - from this page (author - jane). --Art-top (talk) 18:35, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
- File:Первомайская5.jpg from this page, File:Табынское.jpg - from this page. --Art-top (talk) 18:47, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: if for most we can see that they are copyvio, for the remaining few we cannot AGF Jcb (talk) 09:57, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
File:ༀམཎིཔདྨེཧཱུྃ།_Tibetan_pilgrim_spinning_a_prayer_wheel_(mani_wheel)_at_the_Tibetan_Buddhist_Monastery,Bir,HP,India.jpg
[edit]Copy of http://www.flickr.com/photos/falsalama/2851677816 MorganKevinJ(talk) 02:40, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
- Comment The original uploader seems identical with the flickr user. However, there is no evidence the bigger version uploaded by Motopark is licensed under a sufficiently free license (flickr only lists a non-derivative CC license). Either evidence of permission for the bigger image must be provided or the bigger version removed so the smaller version is displayed. Hekerui (talk) 08:36, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
- Revert to the smaller version, delete the high resolution file. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 09:20, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
- Keep:The uploader of the file is the copyright holder. The suggestion to simply revert to the first upload seems logical however, if we were to be overly anal, you could delete that smaller version as well because the same license does not appear here and Flickr. ("large" (1024 x 689) Flicr Source) The issue is that the uploader did license this image here under an acceptbale license, the fact someone else upped the "Original" is secondary. All I did was make a note that at the Flickr "source" it had the other license, in case someone had questioned why. Of course I also feel, while not any sort of requirement across the board, that OTRS's should be required when multi licensing such as this is in effect. In a sense this is no different than someone other than the copyright holder takes a work from Flickr, ups it here and than the copyright holder changes their terms at the source. The stance here is always that "Well when it was upped here it was ok, you can't revoke the license". But this is an image where have the actual copyright holder uploading the image, not a third party. Soundvisions1 (talk) 15:35, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Kept: but reverted to smallres version Jcb (talk) 10:03, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
bad file 143.216.49.250 04:29, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
speedydelete 143.216.49.250 04:34, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Kept: no reason given. Martin H. (talk) 13:03, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
Is not the information Fex (talk) 07:24, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Is not the information 186.93.46.54 21:05, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
In not information Fex 21:15, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Is not the photo Fex 21:16, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Is false 186.88.178.212 00:20, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Is false information 186.88.178.212 00:24, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: nobody knows who's on the picture, why uploaded, who's author and what license Julo (talk) 13:40, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
It is duplicate and the name is not as good as the duplicate. Cdb4321 (talk) 11:55, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
- Keep File:HFIR-gamma-glow.jpg has lower resolution. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 17:11, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
Kept, per Pieter Kuiper. Kameraad Pjotr 18:32, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
Insufficient source information: Oak Ridge National Laboratory. There is no valid evidence that this image is a work of the United States Federal Government. Author information is missing as well. 80.187.107.145 09:24, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
- Comment ORNL: "These documents may be freely distributed and used for non-commercial, scientific and educational purposes." I still think it is silly that Commons does not want to host such images. What other purpose could this image be used for? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 09:56, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
- We only want images to be used for every purpose! -- 178.190.75.13 10:12, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:52, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
erreur de détermination Parent Géry (talk) 21:11, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
Kept: use {{Rename}} instead Jcb (talk) 14:42, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
erreur d'identification Parent Géry (talk) 09:29, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
A bad name or identification error is not a reason to delete an image. Please do not put a {{Delete}} on it again.
Instead, please provide correct information in the file description and, as Jcb instructed above, please add the {{Rename}} template to suggest a better name for the file. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:05, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
bad Reddog11223 (talk) 15:00, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
- Keep image quality is quite good, not at all bad. MKFI (talk) 18:11, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Info It is a request by the uploader. --Leyo 13:10, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
speedy/delete Reddog11223 (talk) 11:05, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Kept: no reason to delete. --Màñü飆¹5 talk 18:20, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
requested delete by uploader Hold and wave (talk) 10:42, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
Speedy deleted as user request for unused image. -mattbuck (Talk) 11:49, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
Film screenshot Vssun (talk) 06:55, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
Only non-commercial use allowed as per description. Sreejith K (talk) 11:24, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:28, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
Not an normative or individual act of government bodies. Not excempted from copyright. --Martin H. (talk) 14:37, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
- Keep In 1947-1968 and 1977-1992 in the People's Republic of Bulgaria existed Organisation for defence assistance (in Bulgarian:Организация за съдействие на отбраната, OSO). This image is scanned from a reversal film, created by OSO (a military governmental organisation) to instruct the Bulgarian people how to act in case of attack with weapons of mass destruction. In my opinion this educational reversal film is "an individual act of a government body" and should stay in Commons as such. If this image is not free, we should delete all six images from Category:Military training in Bulgaria. But please DO NOT propose them for deletion — let's discuss the case here and implement the result on all these six images. I hope at least the official logo of OSO — File:OSO Emblema.gif is properly licensed. Иван (talk) 07:36, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
Kept: per Иван Jcb (talk) 10:05, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
same image is available at flickr as another person's work. here -- Dpkpm007 (talk) 14:38, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Judging by the images http://www.filmyfriday.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/Shreya-Ghoshal1.jpg and http://www.deccanchronicle.com/supplementary/shreya-ghoshal-mika%E2%80%99s-latest-crush-503 it does not seem that this blog at all created this photograph of her. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 05:34, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Copyright violation, not made by site, but reposted from http://www.screenindia.com/. Hekerui (talk) 17:52, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Copyvio per above. NativeForeigner 토론 (talk) 02:46, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. --Dferg (talk · meta) 09:16, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom, recreate Ezarateesteban 01:52, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
Files of User:TomZH3030
[edit]- File:1 Bez naslova.png
- File:NZ.jpg
- File:WaidbergZH.jpg
- File:Höngg.png
- File:Cobrazh.JPG
- File:Cobra3030.JPG
- File:LimmatZH.JPG
- File:Cobra3058.JPG
- File:StPeterZH.JPG
- File:Unizh.JPG
- File:Zurich by night 50.jpg
- File:LangstrasseZH.jpg
- File:VBZ.png
Per copyright Concerns on Administrators' noticeboard.--MorganKevinJ(talk) 17:32, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
- Comment I deleted three that did not have good sources, but the rest could well be own work -- all reasonable images, not too good and do not show up on Tineye. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:21, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
Kept. - Jcb (talk) 10:08, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
no encyclopedic value ; out of project scope Civa (talk) 19:05, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:18, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
- Personal artwork, not in scope : this is not a drawing of the real Arab Liberation Army flag. Sources are not provided.
- Not used : it has been removed from different articles on wp:he, wp:en, wp:fr for 2 months now because it was a fake
- Abuse : googling images for "Arab Liberation Army" gives this picture in the top results. It acquired a false notoriaty on the topic of the Arab Liberation Army due to the name it was given in commons. It is propaganda : a dagger stabbing the Magen David brings the false message that Arab Liberation Army (read Arabs) would have entered in war in 36-39 and 48 to kill/stab the Jews.
- Fake : all in all, this is not a the real flag of the en:Arab Liberation Army and it should be at least renamed and at best deleted as a "fake". Noisetier (talk) 12:31, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
- Noisetier -- "Special or fictional" flags and emblems are not usually deleted from Commons merely for being special or fictional or proposed or hypothetical, and we have many hundreds of them here on Commons. However, malicious and intentionally deceptive hoaxes are something quite different, and generally are deleted, so you should try to present evidence that this is a deliberate hoax. And one of your statements is completely and utterly false -- if the Arabs had won the 1948-1949 Israeli-Arab war, the treatment of the Jews would almost certainly have been quite harsh -- at an absolute minimum, there would have been several additional incidents comparable to the Etzion massacre, and the vast majority of Jews would have been expelled, other than a few old Sephardi Jerusalem families kept for purposes of making a public display and parading show for international consumption which would supposedly demonstrate how "tolerant" the Arabs were... AnonMoos (talk) 17:04, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
- You don't know the history of that period and you just report here propaganda too.
- I cannot help you. Just read books about that period. There are too many information to tell you. I would suggest you start with en:Yoav Gelber, Palestine 1948.
- This flag is not real and there is not a single source to attest this. Anybody who would not agree to change this name is just a progandist. Commons now have the information.
- Noisetier (talk) 18:27, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
- Noisetier -- "Special or fictional" flags and emblems are not usually deleted from Commons merely for being special or fictional or proposed or hypothetical, and we have many hundreds of them here on Commons. However, malicious and intentionally deceptive hoaxes are something quite different, and generally are deleted, so you should try to present evidence that this is a deliberate hoax. And one of your statements is completely and utterly false -- if the Arabs had won the 1948-1949 Israeli-Arab war, the treatment of the Jews would almost certainly have been quite harsh -- at an absolute minimum, there would have been several additional incidents comparable to the Etzion massacre, and the vast majority of Jews would have been expelled, other than a few old Sephardi Jerusalem families kept for purposes of making a public display and parading show for international consumption which would supposedly demonstrate how "tolerant" the Arabs were... AnonMoos (talk) 17:04, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
- It would really be better all around if you would refrain from officiously telling me what my motives are, when I know what you say to be false, and to refrain from telling me I'm doing something, when I know I'm not doing it. Considering that around January 1948, the two main contenders to be ruler of an Arab state created from British Palestine were Hajj Amin al-Husseini, who had distinguished himself chiefly by a 25-year career of ideological extremism and calls to violence against Jews, capped by a shameless collaboration with Adolf Hitler (none of which prevented him from remaining the single undisputed leading Palestinian political personality down to 1964, of course), and Abdullah of (Trans)Jordan -- a country which had a constitutional provision preventing any Jews being citizens, and which supervised the destruction of all the synagogues in Jerusalem which had not already been destroyed in the 1948-1949 fighting -- my speculations were reasonable and realistic.
- What is more relevant for the current discussion is that "special or fictional" flags and emblems are not usually deleted merely for being "special or fictional", unless there's some additional aggravating factor, as explained in my previous comments above. So what's the aggravating factor here? AnonMoos (talk) 03:12, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
- I didn't try to give your motivations. I wrote that you didn't know this topic and what you reported was the propaganda that you believe in because you don't know the topie of the '48 war. You mix everything : Al-Husseini, Abdallah of Jordan and hte Arab Liberation Army are not the same entities ; the alleged motivations that you report for the Arab here above have nothing to deal with your concern and they are not reported by historians but by propaganda only.
- I answered to your argument even before you gave it : there is no source for the origin of this flag and it is a fake but given the name this image have received, it comes immediately in google researches and therefore it should be deleted or, if people thinks this fictious picture should be kept, it should be renamed.
- Noisetier (talk) 08:14, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
PROBLEM: Original image uploader User talk:Valleyofdawn has not been informed of this deletion discussion. -- AnonMoos (talk) 17:22, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
- I am not aware of the process. Sorry for this. Where was this explained. I assume you informed him now. Noisetier (talk) 18:31, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
- I see that you didn't inform him. So I did. Noisetier (talk) 18:33, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
- It was really solely and exclusively your obligation to do so, if you wanted your deletion nomination to be valid -- as was explained in the following text on page Template:Delete, which would have been displayed as you went through the deletion process: Notify the item's uploader or the creator of the page by placing the following code on the user's talk page:
{{subst:idw|Template:Delete|}} ~~~~. And you did not ask for help in any meaningful or specific way on Commons:Village pump... AnonMoos (talk) 02:50, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
- You require the respect of netetiquette and you harash me as if I was a slave and even more you write that I would be a liar ! What is your problem ? Game over.
- Netetiquette means that you could have informed him even if it was my task to do so. I asked support here, and before here and after here again. I also informed the user here when I noticed you had not.
- Instead of focusing on procedures to keep a fake image that was used to try to make pov-pushing in articles, you should focus on the topic. Whatever my quality of my mistakes, we discuss here about the image and the reasons why it should be kept, removed or renamed.
- Noisetier (talk) 08:29, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
- It was really solely and exclusively your obligation to do so, if you wanted your deletion nomination to be valid -- as was explained in the following text on page Template:Delete, which would have been displayed as you went through the deletion process: Notify the item's uploader or the creator of the page by placing the following code on the user's talk page:
{{subst:idw|Template:Delete|}} ~~~~. And you did not ask for help in any meaningful or specific way on Commons:Village pump... AnonMoos (talk) 02:50, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
- I see that you didn't inform him. So I did. Noisetier (talk) 18:33, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
With the big Star of David in this flag, it look like the main or only concern of this "Arab Liberation Army" were to liberate from the Jews; as if the Ottoman, the British, the Mubarak, the Al Khalifa etc. did not exist. Or maybe they are all jewish puppets? Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 21:43, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
- You don't seem to understand the history of the period, or are confusing the "Palestine Liberation Army" with the "Arab Liberation Army". In 1948 and the second half of 1947, the British were already clearly withdrawing (and were therefore not the main enemy), the Ottomans were defunct for 30 years, and the coming war was clearly to be Arabs vs. Jews... AnonMoos (talk) 02:50, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
- You do not know the topic. The en:Arab Liberation Army, known as the Jaish al-Inqad al-Arabi and under the leadership of en:Fawzi al-Qawuqji fought the British during the en:1936–1939 Arab revolt in Palestine too.
- But this is not the issue : this picture is a fake and without source. This personnal work should not receive any credit by wikipédia by the name it is given because that makes this image come immediately in google reseraches on the words "Arab Liberation Army".
- Noisetier (talk) 08:46, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
Kept: in use Jcb (talk) 10:16, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
Out of scope: Apparently a false flag or hoax. Reason presented to keep in last deletion request is invalid: It is not in use (the instance shown as "in use" is merely someone showing to the uploader in his talk page that the file was successfully uploaded last October. Darwin Ahoy! 04:03, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
- While I am still trying to find information about this flag (or at least any flag during this conflict), the symbol is real. If you look at http://www.ynet.co.il/PicServer2/02022009/2084252/12-Zklarts_043_a.jpg (or at http://www.ynet.co.il/Ext/App/Thumbnails/CdaThumbnails_OpenWin/1,9788,L-2084251-2084252,00.html?CapField=article_images.name&TabSelect=article_images,images&WhereCls=article_images.image_id=2084252%20and%20article_images.article_id=3749700%20and%20article_images.image_id=images.id&DescField=images.credits) this is the marking used on the ALA trucks and tanks. So that part is right. As for the flag itself, really not sure yet, but I don't feel comfortable having this deleted at all. Keep User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 04:59, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
- Keep For the reasons outlined in the last deletion nomination above (which would be sufficient in themselves), but greatly strengthened by what Zscout370 has turned up... AnonMoos (talk) 11:57, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
- Zscout370 has turned out a faked picture (and a bad fake at that). The symbol was digitally pasted over the original picture of the truck, covering shadows and all. This looks more and more like some obscure propaganda operation, and Commons is dully cooperating in that, unfortunately. If this has no credible source and is not in use it should be deleted as out of scope, it's not Commons role to serve as a whitewash for this kind of stuff.-- Darwin Ahoy! 13:51, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
- The handle of the knife in the photograph does not have the detail of the handle we have in our image. I will have to look at the website again to see where even these photographs come from, since the link I provided does not mention an author of the image, other than just All Rights Reserved. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 15:05, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
- The photographs came from an album of a certain Eliezer Sklartz (the complete article is here. That particular picture represents a Canadian C15TA of British production - you can see a nice picture of it here. The big shadow below certainly is from the high rear mirror mounted at the front of the vehicle (out of the picture), and the shadow above seems to derive from the mechanism used to hold the front cover, immensely deformed due to the Sun position. Both shadows are superimposed by this symbol, showing that the photo was doctored. The symbol is also in a whiter tonality, and does not show signs of wearing, as opposed to the rest of the picture. The detail in the dagger handle is also utterly quaint, looks like a 3d image painted in the truck. As for the truck itself, those models were left behind when the British left their former possessions and mandates, and were used both by the Zionists and by the Arabs, it's impossible to tell from this model to which army it belonged to, though one thing is certain: This rather awkward symbol was not originally in the photograph.-- Darwin Ahoy! 16:02, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
- I just refound the link right as you were writing that. I have no reason to believe that Sklartz would have faked the image at all. We know he was in the area because he was awarded by King George with a British Empire Medal in 1937 and Sklartz was used before in history books for information about this time period. I see no reason why we should believe these photographs are photoshopped. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 16:09, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
- In addition, when armies take over vehicles during combat, some armies will paint over the vehicles. If not giving it a new paint job, they will erase old markings and put new ones, so that can explain the white paint. Take a look at http://www.ww2incolor.com/us-armor/sherman-76-02.html to show an example of what I am talking about. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 16:12, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
- I never said Sklartz faked the picture (he died in 1994, by the way), even more as this seems to be some lame fake made by digital software rather recently, probably using as a base a legit photograph by Sklartz of the C15TA truck. However, there can be no doubt that it is faked, as the symbol covers the shadows of parts of the vehicle, defying the laws of physics. I'll rather believe my eyes than any source that would say that this photo with the symbol is legit. If the British Museum shows a picture of Moscow with the Kremlin and says it's Berlin 1933, what would you believe, the BM or your own eyes? -- Darwin Ahoy! 16:29, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
- Image captions can be wrong (just like with the Bundesarchiv). But until we know for sure this image is faked (like if we have the negatives to Sklartz) I don't feel comfortable calling this a fake (though it is a silly question to ask why an Israeli paper would fake an image, but there has been several instances with issues related to Israel that photos were doctored on both sides). Plus, as mentioned before, having "fake" images is something that we on the Commons. We do not need to follow any sort of NPOV requirement and many people have done images (logos, flags, maps, anything) that are faked. In this case, we know that a flag for the ALA is speculation, yet this is not named as a flag. This is just a graphic symbol from the images that are found. With the last DR, there was concerns about this being a flag (I would ask a person who is well versed in this topic, but he is deceased). I personally think sources within Syria and Israel should at least be looked it, and perhaps photographs, since we just can't go with what is just online. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 16:40, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
- Well, let's see if I can be more clearer. I cast no doubts over the good faith of the newsite who published it nor over Sklartz. However, whoever supplied the photos to Ynet newsite supplied among them this particular faked/doctored photo. I fail to understand why you do not feel "comfortable" calling it a fake when it is such an egregious one. Would you rather believe that it is possible to paint things over sunlight-cast shadows in real life? -- Darwin Ahoy! 16:49, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
- We have no total proof that it is a fake. Sure, we can say something is shopped, but maybe the lighting was bad, maybe it was a new paint job, maybe the vehicle is in piss poor shape, maybe there was a shade or some other thing we just don't know. We know it is a not a flag, but we know it is a marking. We do not know what circumstances the photo was taken, so everything now it just an academic exercise. The logo should be kept. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 16:53, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
- "Academic exercise"? For heavens sake, just look at the picture. If it was not enough that it is the unique instance of that symbol ever appearing, it's rather obvious that it was painted or pasted over the original photograph. If this spurious symbol is to be kept here, at the very least it should be renamed to something else. In any case, I do not see why it should be kept, as it's not in use and does not represents anything meaningful or with any educational use, therefore is out of scope of this project.-- Darwin Ahoy! 16:58, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
- It is a marking used on a vehicle, so it can be used as as that in articles about this conflict (so in scope, but everyone keeps removing the image because people think it is a flag, even though we both agree that it is not a flag of any kind). It is already named Arab Liberation Army.svg, so I think it does not need to be renamed at all (because you and others might think it is fake, me and others don't think so, and who knows what is floating around offline). But even if they are just userpage only, they are still technically in scope when it comes to Commons policy. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 17:02, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
- "Academic exercise"? For heavens sake, just look at the picture. If it was not enough that it is the unique instance of that symbol ever appearing, it's rather obvious that it was painted or pasted over the original photograph. If this spurious symbol is to be kept here, at the very least it should be renamed to something else. In any case, I do not see why it should be kept, as it's not in use and does not represents anything meaningful or with any educational use, therefore is out of scope of this project.-- Darwin Ahoy! 16:58, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
- We have no total proof that it is a fake. Sure, we can say something is shopped, but maybe the lighting was bad, maybe it was a new paint job, maybe the vehicle is in piss poor shape, maybe there was a shade or some other thing we just don't know. We know it is a not a flag, but we know it is a marking. We do not know what circumstances the photo was taken, so everything now it just an academic exercise. The logo should be kept. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 16:53, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
- Well, let's see if I can be more clearer. I cast no doubts over the good faith of the newsite who published it nor over Sklartz. However, whoever supplied the photos to Ynet newsite supplied among them this particular faked/doctored photo. I fail to understand why you do not feel "comfortable" calling it a fake when it is such an egregious one. Would you rather believe that it is possible to paint things over sunlight-cast shadows in real life? -- Darwin Ahoy! 16:49, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
- Image captions can be wrong (just like with the Bundesarchiv). But until we know for sure this image is faked (like if we have the negatives to Sklartz) I don't feel comfortable calling this a fake (though it is a silly question to ask why an Israeli paper would fake an image, but there has been several instances with issues related to Israel that photos were doctored on both sides). Plus, as mentioned before, having "fake" images is something that we on the Commons. We do not need to follow any sort of NPOV requirement and many people have done images (logos, flags, maps, anything) that are faked. In this case, we know that a flag for the ALA is speculation, yet this is not named as a flag. This is just a graphic symbol from the images that are found. With the last DR, there was concerns about this being a flag (I would ask a person who is well versed in this topic, but he is deceased). I personally think sources within Syria and Israel should at least be looked it, and perhaps photographs, since we just can't go with what is just online. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 16:40, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
- I never said Sklartz faked the picture (he died in 1994, by the way), even more as this seems to be some lame fake made by digital software rather recently, probably using as a base a legit photograph by Sklartz of the C15TA truck. However, there can be no doubt that it is faked, as the symbol covers the shadows of parts of the vehicle, defying the laws of physics. I'll rather believe my eyes than any source that would say that this photo with the symbol is legit. If the British Museum shows a picture of Moscow with the Kremlin and says it's Berlin 1933, what would you believe, the BM or your own eyes? -- Darwin Ahoy! 16:29, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
- In addition, when armies take over vehicles during combat, some armies will paint over the vehicles. If not giving it a new paint job, they will erase old markings and put new ones, so that can explain the white paint. Take a look at http://www.ww2incolor.com/us-armor/sherman-76-02.html to show an example of what I am talking about. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 16:12, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
- I just refound the link right as you were writing that. I have no reason to believe that Sklartz would have faked the image at all. We know he was in the area because he was awarded by King George with a British Empire Medal in 1937 and Sklartz was used before in history books for information about this time period. I see no reason why we should believe these photographs are photoshopped. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 16:09, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
- The photographs came from an album of a certain Eliezer Sklartz (the complete article is here. That particular picture represents a Canadian C15TA of British production - you can see a nice picture of it here. The big shadow below certainly is from the high rear mirror mounted at the front of the vehicle (out of the picture), and the shadow above seems to derive from the mechanism used to hold the front cover, immensely deformed due to the Sun position. Both shadows are superimposed by this symbol, showing that the photo was doctored. The symbol is also in a whiter tonality, and does not show signs of wearing, as opposed to the rest of the picture. The detail in the dagger handle is also utterly quaint, looks like a 3d image painted in the truck. As for the truck itself, those models were left behind when the British left their former possessions and mandates, and were used both by the Zionists and by the Arabs, it's impossible to tell from this model to which army it belonged to, though one thing is certain: This rather awkward symbol was not originally in the photograph.-- Darwin Ahoy! 16:02, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
- The handle of the knife in the photograph does not have the detail of the handle we have in our image. I will have to look at the website again to see where even these photographs come from, since the link I provided does not mention an author of the image, other than just All Rights Reserved. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 15:05, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
- Zscout370 has turned out a faked picture (and a bad fake at that). The symbol was digitally pasted over the original picture of the truck, covering shadows and all. This looks more and more like some obscure propaganda operation, and Commons is dully cooperating in that, unfortunately. If this has no credible source and is not in use it should be deleted as out of scope, it's not Commons role to serve as a whitewash for this kind of stuff.-- Darwin Ahoy! 13:51, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
The question is that it do not seem at all to be a "marking used on a vehicle", but rather a marking that some revisionist pasted over an historical picture of a vehicle to advance some obscure point. I wouldn't die if this thing remains here on Commons, though I still think it's out of scope. In any case, I've already advised about the fake "source" on the talk of the file, so people will use it at their own risk, in case it remains here.-- Darwin Ahoy! 17:15, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
Zscout370 said: "But even if they are just userpage only, they are still technically in scope when it comes to Commons policy." - It's not in use, see my opening sentence. It's out of scope.-- Darwin Ahoy! 17:24, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
- It is still used on a Hebrew userpage, so still in scope, even if it is just for pure decoration. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 17:32, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
- It's not decorating anything, and it's not even in an userpage. It's a tiny thumbnail placed by someone on the talk page of the uploader last October to notify him that his upload of that very image to Commons was successful. I don't believe that it qualifies as "in use".-- Darwin Ahoy! 17:38, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
- In my experience as Commons admin, it does. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 17:52, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
- If it does, it's an utterly stupid habit, I must say. How come something like "See, your file
was uploaded at Commons" qualifies as "in use"? It's impossible to get rid of garbage if such quaint interpretations of "in use" come to prevail.-- Darwin Ahoy! 18:00, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
- Ain't my rules. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 18:11, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
- Are they written somewhere or is this more of an habit?-- Darwin Ahoy! 18:18, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
- http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/COM:SCOPE#File_not_legitimately_in_use is what is written down. Yet, if I look at this from an admin point of view, it says files that could not realistically could be used at all on one or other Wikimedia projects. I see what you are getting at, but if I take this case and put it to the link I just showed, this does not meet it (it is not a LQ image, it has a realistic use and there are not many images like this of units from the 1948 war against Israel). I am more of the symbolic guy (in a literal sense) because I usually get involved (or get asked about) fake flags and symbols. We know this is not a flag, the main reason for the first DR. Now since we know it is not a flag, but a marking/logo, we sidestepped the main issue of the first DR. The file name does not mention anything about a specific symbol, so I think rename is not needed. I think we just need more outside opinions either way, because the three of us should not really decide this DR. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 18:28, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
- I absolutely agree that more opinions are needed. However, I'm not willing to make this case into a true dispute in order to get them, and it can be revisited in the future in case the file is kept. I didn't understand, however, your affirmation: "there are not many images like this of units from the 1948 war against Israel". This is not a representation of the C15TA armored vehicle (which would be very desirable, even with the fake symbol and all), but rather a reproduction of what seems to be a forgery made upon an historical photograph, reproducing only the forgery bit, unfortunately - if that was indeed a reproduction based on that photograph, that is, we don't know that, really, despite the link someone added to the image source quite recently.-- Darwin Ahoy! 18:42, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
- I was thinking more of emblems of units or armies from this conflict. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 18:44, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
- It's circular logic. What seems to be a doctored photo can't serve as source for a symbol of an army. Even more, the caption of the Ynet photo doesn't even clearly states that the symbol has anything to do with the Arab Liberation Army, it says something like "Armored rescue car (Qawukji)". All the rest is original research.-- Darwin Ahoy! 18:56, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
- And this is where further digging in book sources could really help us out. I am not a military buff, and when I focus on history and politics, it is not related towards Israeli issues (mostly towards Soviet and Japanese). My library at my school does not have much that I saw on Israel, but this is also final exam time for my classmates, so I am not sure what even is going to be there. I would try Google Books, but not sure exactly what can be found. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 18:59, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
- It's circular logic. What seems to be a doctored photo can't serve as source for a symbol of an army. Even more, the caption of the Ynet photo doesn't even clearly states that the symbol has anything to do with the Arab Liberation Army, it says something like "Armored rescue car (Qawukji)". All the rest is original research.-- Darwin Ahoy! 18:56, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
- I was thinking more of emblems of units or armies from this conflict. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 18:44, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
- I absolutely agree that more opinions are needed. However, I'm not willing to make this case into a true dispute in order to get them, and it can be revisited in the future in case the file is kept. I didn't understand, however, your affirmation: "there are not many images like this of units from the 1948 war against Israel". This is not a representation of the C15TA armored vehicle (which would be very desirable, even with the fake symbol and all), but rather a reproduction of what seems to be a forgery made upon an historical photograph, reproducing only the forgery bit, unfortunately - if that was indeed a reproduction based on that photograph, that is, we don't know that, really, despite the link someone added to the image source quite recently.-- Darwin Ahoy! 18:42, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
- http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/COM:SCOPE#File_not_legitimately_in_use is what is written down. Yet, if I look at this from an admin point of view, it says files that could not realistically could be used at all on one or other Wikimedia projects. I see what you are getting at, but if I take this case and put it to the link I just showed, this does not meet it (it is not a LQ image, it has a realistic use and there are not many images like this of units from the 1948 war against Israel). I am more of the symbolic guy (in a literal sense) because I usually get involved (or get asked about) fake flags and symbols. We know this is not a flag, the main reason for the first DR. Now since we know it is not a flag, but a marking/logo, we sidestepped the main issue of the first DR. The file name does not mention anything about a specific symbol, so I think rename is not needed. I think we just need more outside opinions either way, because the three of us should not really decide this DR. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 18:28, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
- Are they written somewhere or is this more of an habit?-- Darwin Ahoy! 18:18, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
- Ain't my rules. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 18:11, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
- If it does, it's an utterly stupid habit, I must say. How come something like "See, your file
- In my experience as Commons admin, it does. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 17:52, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
- It's not decorating anything, and it's not even in an userpage. It's a tiny thumbnail placed by someone on the talk page of the uploader last October to notify him that his upload of that very image to Commons was successful. I don't believe that it qualifies as "in use".-- Darwin Ahoy! 17:38, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
"And this is where further digging in book sources could really help us out." - Yes, indeed, and doing that I believe I finally have found the source for this awkward mysterious symbol. Apparently it dates from 1977 during Palestinian-Israeli peace negotiations, and represents the deformed vision of the Israeli party of an original drawing from a Palestinian participant, where the dagger was initially a cross. See here and also here ("s they saw it, the symbol represented Israel (the Star of David), encircled by the Arab world (the crescent), with a dagger (the cross) piercing its heart.") The Israeli vision of the symbol was made into a case study, and it was probably from there that it migrated to the status of "Arab Liberation Party symbol". With those sources I wouldn't oppose to keeping the image there, but it would have to be renamed, of course.-- Darwin Ahoy! 19:24, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
- Well, spot on Darwin. I think the DR could be closed, and this discussion could be moved to figure out what to call this image and allow for more research and time. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 19:27, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
- Here, again, though it's impossible to know what was the context in which the image appeared. You may close it and move the discussion to an appropriated place (I don't know what), but the image should indeed be renamed, as it's association with the ALA seems to be all but a parasitic one.-- Darwin Ahoy! 19:36, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
- Since I voted keep, I won't close it. I will find someone who can, or we can just have it sit here. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 19:46, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
Apparently I happen to have found as well what seems to have been the real symbol of the ALA, which is indeed close to this image, but with some important differences: A curved dagger dripping blood thrust into a star of David. Sources are Benjamin Balint and this other book, they both say the same. There is no mention to the circle, and the dagger is dripping blood.-- Darwin Ahoy! 20:20, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
At last, from the book "1948: The First Arab-Israeli War" by Ben Morris, chapter "Operations Yoav and Hiram", page 340, "The [Syrian] troops, well-dressed and well-equipped, ran hither and thither between the houses and in the alleyways and in the nearby fig groves, alone and in groups, and tried to fire back...Qawuqji’s troops fled in the direction of the Jermak...We captured two...armored vehicles taken from us in the Yehiam Convoy and now decorated with the symbol of the ALA, a bent dagger dripping blood, stuck in the heart of a Shield of David" -- Darwin Ahoy! 21:38, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
DarwIn -- we have whole categories of Category:User images, Category:User logos, Category:Coats of arms of users , etc. which are considered to be in scope mainly because they're used on a user page. AnonMoos (talk) 18:58, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
- This image is not in use in an userpage, as has already been said, therefore that rule can't apply.-- Darwin Ahoy! 19:16, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
- I said userspace (and that does include talk pages). User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 19:17, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
- Hi, I asked to a specialist of this period from wp:en to come and give his mind about this flag/logo. Let's not close the discussion before he can come and give his mind.
- You made a great research job. Many thanks for this. The fact that we find a fake picture with this logo digitalized in it is really appealing but sources that are provided (such as Morris) are reliable.
- @Zscout370 : we are not linked to NPoV on commons we are linked to reliable work of quality. If somebody would upload flag of different countries (X) with blatant mistakes or propaganda in these we would not agree they would be names "flag of X" or even "X"
- Noisetier (talk) 18:45, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
- I am a specialist on flags and from what I can tell and find, this is not a flag, but just either a logo or vehicle marking. But when it comes to images of flags that, lets say, might not look great, this is where I come in and fix them. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 19:42, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
- I said userspace (and that does include talk pages). User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 19:17, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
Although source has been presented showing that the sign is a dagger in a star, this SVG file is not following the source, there are clear differences, see for example the distance between the star and the circle and the design/color of the grip of the dagger and that there is no line on the blade and the differences in the thickness of the lines of the star here:[16] and there are no sources supporting the colors used, and based on that it should be deleted. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 19:41, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
- Colors can be fixed, and since it is an SVG file, I can do that myself. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 19:42, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
- Not only colors, but several other inaccuracy's as I have pointed out above.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 19:48, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
- I am working on it. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 19:54, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
- Not only colors, but several other inaccuracy's as I have pointed out above.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 19:48, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
Noisetier: If you were referring to me as the expert, I am flattered :) Here are some pictures:
Further commentary: The rationale for deletion was that the image is a hoax, which it clearly is not. If there are specific problems with the image, they can be fixed, including transforming it from a flag into an emblem. High-quality SVGs should not be deleted because of minor problems. Therefore keep and fix if necessary. —Ynhockey (talk) 20:08, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
- Thank you Ynhockey.
- I agree with your conclusion.
- Anyway, I have other concerns. Darwin here above proved with 100% confidence (whatever Zac thinks) that the image he had found was a fake and I think the second one you scanned (the armoured car) is a fake too (in the book). Could you check carefully in your book and confirm or not that the emblem is painted on two sides/faces of the armoured car : one part is next to the door and a another part of the emblem is on the front side of the armoured car.
- Noisetier (talk) 21:12, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
Yes, the second is clearly a fake, the vehicle bends but the symbol and the writing below remains straight. I don't know what's going on with this symbol, but there's clearly something very fishy here, with all those forgeries.In any case, every picture provided as "source" fails to show the symbol as it is described in the reliable sources, a dagger dripping-blood.-- Darwin Ahoy! 21:54, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, the camouflage painting tricked me on this one. I've identified the vehicle and it does not bend, indeed.-- Darwin Ahoy! 22:34, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
- I know the details of the images are not great, but I could not recall or seeing in them dripping any sort of blood, but I know the book sources says so. I got finals coming up, so I will fix this image, but I just request time. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 22:36, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, the camouflage painting tricked me on this one. I've identified the vehicle and it does not bend, indeed.-- Darwin Ahoy! 22:34, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
Just clarifying one point here—both pictures I provided were scanned from a book published in 1950, which I have a copy of (original, not any kind of reprint). Therefore, the chance of it being fake is practically non-existent, and of course Photoshop didn't exist in 1950. As for the blood issue, the original caption for the image does not mention blood, which probably means that there's no blood (seems like it would be an important thing to note). —Ynhockey (talk) 23:14, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
- Which is a bit strange, since both sources I mentioned above detailed that part. One refers to buses carrying Syrian troops passing by and displaying that symbol, the context of the other is two Israeli vehicles captured by the ALA and then recaptured by the Zionist forces, which were found painted with that symbol. Both mention the dripping blood dagger piercing a shield of David.-- Darwin Ahoy! 23:56, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
- @Ynhockey : faking could have arouse in 1950 (in the book from which you took this). Anyway, I think we don't have enough facts to claim it is a fake. That is just suprising that historians claim the intents of the Arab armies are unknown. I would have excpected the symbol of Palestine, not this one.
- @Darwin : indeed - I was troubled too but that was due to the camouflage. What follows is wp:or but I can understand that soldiers after seeing this emblem (with the dagger inside the Magen David) remember this as bleeding even if it didn't. That is why historians should always use documents. This picture is the one of an Otter. The ALA should not have had such vehicules so I assume this is one of the armoured cars that was captured by the ALA when it attacked the Yechiam convoy. Noisetier (talk) 07:26, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
- I'm not sure there was any "symbol of Palestine" convenient for that purpose at that time... AnonMoos (talk) 12:48, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
- That's nice -- however, what specific "symbol" did you have in mind? (There's none given on the article you linked to.) The 1917 Arab revolt flag certainly would not have been too practical as a monochrome armored-car emblem, and I'm not sure that there was any other "symbol of Palestine" in use by Arabs at that time. AnonMoos (talk) 06:50, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
- I didn't understand that you was wondering about a symbol to be used as an emblem for the vehicules of the Arab Liberation Army. I don't know they had any so I am not sure too that there was another one. Anyway, for a flag, there is the one of the Palestnian movement since 1920. Noisetier (talk) 05:50, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
- Then why did you say "I would have excpected the symbol of Palestine, not this one." when you in fact didn't actually have any such specific symbol in mind? AnonMoos (talk) 07:35, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
- Because I was talking about a flag. I didn't understand that you was wondering about a symbol to be used as an emblem for the vehicules of the Arab Liberation Army. I don't know they had any so I am not sure too that there was another one. Anyway, for a flag, there is the one of the Palestnian movement since 1920. Noisetier (talk) 10:50, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
The darkroom techniques of the 1940s could easily fake a photo like this, but I don't see a compelling reason to suspect it is fake. The apparent disappearance of the shadow when it hits the white paint looks odd, but it doesn't prove forgery. The paint is shiny, so it reflects ambient light such as the light of the sky more than the body of the vehicle. This means that the shadow should appear weaker on the white than on the vehicle. As well as this, photographs of the period compressed extreme brightness ranges, so anything more than a certain level of brightness would come out pure white (similarly for pure black). The combination of these two things might erase the shadow. So the proof of forgery is not convincing. However, I'm less convinced about the ALA connection. If this was an official emblem, why do I not find it mentioned at all in the book and several academic papers that I have about the ALA? Also, the emblem does not match the description of Morris. More importantly than the lack of blood, the dagger is not stuck into the Magen David, but sits in front of it as if the star is holding the dagger rather than being threatened by it. Zero0000 (talk) 22:12, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
- I agree with your observations. Indeed, I've already noticed the incongruence of the drawing with respect to the "piercing" part, though my gasp of the English language was not enough to understand if there really was a difference between "piercing" and what the drawing shows. Indeed, my first thought while looking at the drawing was that it looked quite a lot like a symbol that the Zionists would use themselves (if I well recall the IDF used swords in front of the shield of David, this one has a dagger).-- Darwin Ahoy! 22:38, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
- How would either of you propose to visually represent the concept of "stabbing a star of David" by means of a design which is to be painted with white paint onto slightly-curving metal surfaces by people who do not necessarily have great artistic talents? The design under discussion doesn't have any fancy perspective tricks like a 1970's corporate logo, but it shows the dagger going into the center of the star of David and coming back out, in keeping with the traditional conventions of artistic interlacing (see the majority of images in Category:Knots in art and decoration. AnonMoos (talk) 04:36, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
Don't overwrite files!
[edit]I gave repeatedly a standard notice {{Dont overwrite}} to Zscout370 at his discussion page but he repeatedly removed it instead of answering it and respecting standard conventions. New work (a derivative version which is not only a minor, uncontroversial correction) should be uploaded allways under a new name. A decision about delete request about the original file should be indepentent on the fact whether there exist some derivative versions at Commons. --ŠJů (talk) 00:55, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
- As this stage, I suggest :
- we keep the new black version of Zscout in a new file with the name "Arab Liberation Army Emblem"
- we delete all the green versions.
- Noisetier (talk) 07:26, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
- The green version was probably intended to look like white paint on on a background color chosen to blend into vegetation (which may have been the predominant use, judging from the photographs). It's only wrong if someone interprets it as a flag, or Islamic green, or something like that. AnonMoos (talk) 12:55, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
- The green version was of course a political choice and it must be removed. Noisetier (talk) 20:39, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
- What evidence do you have that it wasn't intended to represent WW2-era tank paint and/or military uniform dark green? AnonMoos (talk) 06:50, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
- It doesn't make sense to be green, since those vehicles were generally brown to blend with the landscape colours (Palestine is not exactly la Provence française to use green as camouflage). Survival vehicles in museums of the region generally are brown or caki to reflect it's original use. As Noiseter, I also believe that the choice of green was rather political. In any case, the background colour should be changed into something more factual or at least more neutral, such as black/white.-- Darwin Ahoy! 20:28, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
- @AnonMoos : what evidence do you have that it was intended to this ? None. The charge of the proof is to the one who wants to add something. Noisetier (talk) 05:38, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
- It doesn't make sense to be green, since those vehicles were generally brown to blend with the landscape colours (Palestine is not exactly la Provence française to use green as camouflage). Survival vehicles in museums of the region generally are brown or caki to reflect it's original use. As Noiseter, I also believe that the choice of green was rather political. In any case, the background colour should be changed into something more factual or at least more neutral, such as black/white.-- Darwin Ahoy! 20:28, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
New image
[edit]Have a look at this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eE1YUNF2LTE . Doesn't that look like a real dagger? Look at the shadow of the dagger handle. I think the vehicle has a small loop of metal there. A circle and Magen David had been painted around it. Now a dagger has been placed there. Does that explain why the dagger in the first photo looked 3-dimensional as someone commented? I bet that the painting is of Jewish origin. Zero0000 (talk) 05:19, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, that image is pretty much identical to the one in the vehicle which I presumed to be faked, and it sure looks like something three-dimensional,either the real thing or an elaborate artwork, not something one would expect to find out painted in haste in the doors of vehicles by troops in the middle of a war. But that TV spot is Palestinian, and I really do not understand what that image is doing there. :S -- Darwin Ahoy! 07:01, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
- If some variant of the logo is faked (or hypothetical), the image should be described as faked or hypothetical, not deleted. Btw., Commons is not Wikipedia, discussions about historical problems and proofs of falsification or historical authenticity belong rather to Wikipedias or to discussion page of the file than here. --ŠJů (talk) 10:29, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
- When we are trying to understand what this image is, and if it has a place here in Commons, those discussions belong here. It is yet to be clearly shown what this thing is, really.-- Darwin Ahoy! 10:38, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
- Zero0000, if I follow you well, you make the hypothesis that the ALA militiamen fixed a dagger of the armoured car that they captured. Am I right ? I think this is in contradiction with the 1st picture given by Ynhockey where it is on a motorcycle.
- I am still convinced the 1st picture found by Darwin is a fake. I deduce this from the disparition of the shadow that we should find on the Magen David.
- Whatever, I suggest we remove the green color from the picture and that we rename this.
- Noisetier (talk) 19:50, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
- When we are trying to understand what this image is, and if it has a place here in Commons, those discussions belong here. It is yet to be clearly shown what this thing is, really.-- Darwin Ahoy! 10:38, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
- If some variant of the logo is faked (or hypothetical), the image should be described as faked or hypothetical, not deleted. Btw., Commons is not Wikipedia, discussions about historical problems and proofs of falsification or historical authenticity belong rather to Wikipedias or to discussion page of the file than here. --ŠJů (talk) 10:29, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
I'm guessing this new image is on Palestinian TV because they consider it to be Zionist. I agree that the motorcycle picture complicates the issue. Obviously there is some story behind all of this that we did not yet uncover. 220.253.67.199 00:37, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
Can someone please translate what the caption of the motorcycle picture says? My Arabic is very basic and doesn't allow for that, if no one here can translate it, perhaps I could fetch someone in the wiki-ar Village Pump.-- Darwin Ahoy! 01:46, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
- Unfortunately it's rather blurry... I recognize قي هذه towards the end.
-- AnonMoos (talk) 03:13, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
- The caption of the motorcycle picture says: «شعار مدرعات جيش الإنقاذ .. النجمة الصهيونية يطعنها خنجر عربي .. كما ترى في هذه الصورة». Literal translation: «The logo of the armored vehicles of Salvage Army [إنقاذ literally means salvage not liberation] .. the Zionist star is stabbed with an Arabic dagger .. as seen in this picture». For me it looks that the logo both in this and the other picture is of a superior quality compared to the newspaper photo overall. It looks superimposed over the 'original' picture by a non-professional: the logo is in one plane, it does not fold according to the armored vehicle nor according to the motorcycle. Well, the next photoshop-treated image will probably be better, thus hoax will be harder to detect :) --Abanima (talk) 09:09, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for the translation! You mean that an Egyptian newspaper supposedly misprinted the name of the ALA? And such a detailed (and rather emotional) description in the caption for something so elusive as this logo, which seem to have been used very seldom, if at all? If it was fishy, it is now fishier. I also agree with your observations on the logo quality compared to the rest of the image.-- Darwin Ahoy! 11:38, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
- My Arabic dictionary defines the word in question as "deliverance, salvation, saving, rescue; salvaging, recovery; relief". It's not the word most commonly equated with English "Liberation" since Nasser's day (which may have surprised Abanima), but the use of Nasserite terminology in 1948 would actually make things more suspicious, not less... AnonMoos (talk) 13:28, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for the translation! You mean that an Egyptian newspaper supposedly misprinted the name of the ALA? And such a detailed (and rather emotional) description in the caption for something so elusive as this logo, which seem to have been used very seldom, if at all? If it was fishy, it is now fishier. I also agree with your observations on the logo quality compared to the rest of the image.-- Darwin Ahoy! 11:38, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
- The caption of the motorcycle picture says: «شعار مدرعات جيش الإنقاذ .. النجمة الصهيونية يطعنها خنجر عربي .. كما ترى في هذه الصورة». Literal translation: «The logo of the armored vehicles of Salvage Army [إنقاذ literally means salvage not liberation] .. the Zionist star is stabbed with an Arabic dagger .. as seen in this picture». For me it looks that the logo both in this and the other picture is of a superior quality compared to the newspaper photo overall. It looks superimposed over the 'original' picture by a non-professional: the logo is in one plane, it does not fold according to the armored vehicle nor according to the motorcycle. Well, the next photoshop-treated image will probably be better, thus hoax will be harder to detect :) --Abanima (talk) 09:09, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
,_August_2009.JPG){kind=link}
-Markus-Senn.jpg){kind=link}
![88 File:Markus_Eliance_-_"Saint_Markus"_-_cropped.png](#File:Markus_Eliance_-_"Saint_Markus"_-_cropped.png){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_at_the_Tibetan_Buddhist_Monastery,Bir,HP,India.jpg){kind=link}
_.JPG){kind=link}
,_August_2009.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
,_August_2009.JPG&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
,_August_2009.JPG){kind=link}
,_August_2009.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
,_August_2009.JPG){kind=link}
-Markus-Senn.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
-Markus-Senn.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
-Markus-Senn.jpg){kind=link}
-Markus-Senn.jpg){kind=link}
![17:20, 19 March 2011 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2011/03/19#c-Civa-2011-03-19T17:20:00.000Z-File:Markus_Eliance_-_"Saint_Markus"_-_cropped.png){kind=link}
![14:09, 26 March 2011 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2011/03/19#c-Jameslwoodward-2011-03-26T14:09:00.000Z-File:Markus_Eliance_-_"Saint_Markus"_-_cropped.png){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}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
![[5]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Chart_Radiation_Fukushima_GRS_12_03_2011.JPG&action=history){kind=link}
_at_the_Tibetan_Buddhist_Monastery,Bir,HP,India.jpg){kind=link}
_at_the_Tibetan_Buddhist_Monastery,Bir,HP,India.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_.JPG){kind=link}
_.JPG&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_.JPG){kind=link}
_.JPG){kind=link}
_.JPG&action=edit§ion=T-2){kind=link}
- In any case, I think we're losing sight of our legitimate role here. It's generally not the place of people participating in Wikimedia Commons deletion discussions to become historical document sleuths, in cases where such sleuthing has no possible implications for copyright status. If this is a hoax, it's a hoax of many decades standing which has seen publication in a number of print sources -- it is definitely NOT a hoax on the part of the image uploader, or a meme recently originating on the Internet (things which would actually be relevant for a Wikimedia Commons deletion discussion). Therefore its ultimate historical veracity is somewhat irrelevant here -- we provide the image, and it's then up to each individual language Wikipedia to weigh the historical evidence and decide whether or not to use the image on articles there. It's really not the role of Wikimedia Commons to come down on one side of legitimate historical controversies, or act as some kind of advance filter to pre-decide issues which should be settled on the various Wikipedias. REITERATE MY KEEP VOTE ABOVE -- AnonMoos (talk) 13:49, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
- I would happily vote for keep as well, though I really would like to know what it is before doing that. I understand, however, that most probably it's not relevant to know what something is to decide that it should be kept here. Darwin Ahoy! 14:36, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
Kept per discussion above. Even if this is a hoax, it is old enough that we may now want to discuss the hoax in an educational context. If the description or filename can be improved through further research, go for it. If the colours are in dispute, we should keep all variants of the files until we are confident that one is wrong. If the shape can be proved to be wrong, feel free to change it, but remember that some symbols are only roughly proscribed, and there may be many variants in exactly how it was expressed historically. --99of9 (talk) 10:11, 29 May 2011 (UTC)