Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2011/03/23
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
Out of scope: No educational Use MorganKevinJ(talk) 00:47, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: per DR Julo (talk) 13:41, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Out of Scope: No Educational use MorganKevinJ(talk) 00:55, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: per DR Julo (talk) 13:42, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Porn. 84.61.170.180 12:26, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
- Used in articles ->
Keep --Don-kun (talk) 12:43, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Kept: Speedykept. Leyo 12:55, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Porn. 84.61.170.180 12:27, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
- er, what? Are we talking about the same image? Keep --Don-kun (talk) 12:40, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
- I don't see any porn here. Croquant (talk) 12:58, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Kept: Speedykept. Leyo 12:59, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
No usefull content MorganKevinJ(talk) 01:37, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Speedy delete, per nom. Jujutacular talk 17:55, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Common Good (talk) 19:15, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
See no evidence that this is really under a free license Prosfilaes (talk) 22:23, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Non-free game cover. Trycatch (talk) 03:26, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
Tricky thing: 1) It is not an artwork "reproduction of an artwork" 2) It consists of own "creativity". 3) The uploader said, he is the author but the source ... Then an OTRS permission is required. Read the help pages. RE RILLKE Questions? 13:39, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: (not by me) Jcb (talk) 11:28, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
No encyclopedic value, because no description and no location ; Out of project scope Civa (talk) 20:42, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Clearly out of scope Herby talk thyme 15:41, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
useless image that is being used to vandalize Wikipedia, the image has nothing to do with tsunami damage Chrishmt0423 (talk) 22:36, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Completely useless. Brandmeister (talk) 22:47, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
- Speedy delete - Used only for vandalism, deceptive filename, problematic user. --Bongwarrior (talk) 23:14, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted - Out of scope. Tabercil (talk) 00:11, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
JPEG is lossy. 84.61.170.180 10:16, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
- Any jpeg is lossy. This one isn't bad, no harsh artefacts. Note that any functional clone of file:example.jpg is something that's not supposed to be seen - it must scream "remove me or replace me!" so image quality is the least concern. NVO (talk) 12:37, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
- So what?! Do you know what this image is good for? --Euku:⇄ 12:54, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
- One of many deletion requests of this IP which are not worth for even to discuss about. --Matthiasb (talk) 19:55, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
- This ISP allocates IPs dynamically, it only takes a flick of the switch to restart connection. They won't shut down the whole ISP range, so the block was useless. NVO (talk) 11:48, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
Kept: Image is placeholder and used 50 times on different pages. Neozoon (talk) 22:51, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
error of upload: i must ask to author the permission before upload this file Francesco Candian (talk) 15:53, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Common Good (talk) 19:21, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
uploaded wrong file Fletcherfinn (talk) 16:25, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted -- Common Good (talk) 19:23, 24 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)
Porn. 84.61.170.180 12:23, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
- Used in articles -> Keep --Don-kun (talk) 12:44, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
- Keep It's used in quite a few articles.--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:30, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Keep In use. Dont like it, dont look at it. Tm (talk) 04:25, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
- Keep porn has never been a sufficient valid reason for deletion in commons, it illustrates what a "hentai" is, then it's useful (moreover it's a very nice picture lol). Jeriby (talk) 16:53, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Delete I really doubt the user drew this.
Cowik (talk) 23:18, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
- Why not? You can see his user page User:Niabot with other works. And if so, it's not related to the "porn" deletion reason. Jeriby (talk) 23:41, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
- It's exactly in line with the other images he's done, and with File:Dojikko.png the history even shows you step by step how it was created. It's not inconcievable he didn't draw this, but I think there's very good evidence he did.--Prosfilaes (talk) 04:42, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
- My bad, I stand corrected. But even though while this is a very nicely drawn image, I think its a bit to explicit for it to be on the page. Cowik (talk) 15:11, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
- (a) Commons is not censored. (b) By deleting this, we would be forcing a dozen Wikipedias which have already decided that it's not too explicit to either upload it locally or do without. Each of the Wikimedia projects get to make that decision on their own, without our interference.--Prosfilaes (talk) 16:31, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
- My bad, I stand corrected. But even though while this is a very nicely drawn image, I think its a bit to explicit for it to be on the page. Cowik (talk) 15:11, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
Delete I really don't think we need porn on this website. If you want porn, go to a porn website. But maybe some people are kids that are just trying to learn what the word means. We could at least allow them to know without having to see it.
- I personally find it a little rude to come onto a website and with your first edit start dictating how things are done.--Prosfilaes (talk) 06:10, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Kept: Speedily kept. There is nothing to discuss -- the picture is heavily in use, "porn" is not a valid reason for deletion. Trycatch (talk) 17:32, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Doubtful original uploader took picture, TinEye search brings up higher resolution images. Samuell (talk) 01:51, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Masur (talk) 08:30, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
chemically incorrect: needs a second oxygenated compound as the redox partner (replaceable by the correct File:Oppenauer oxidation reaction scheme.png) DMacks (talk) 21:12, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Per nom. --Yikrazuul (talk) 21:41, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Per above. Leyo 08:47, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
Orphaned picture of non-notable band, out of scope. Martin H. (talk) 01:12, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom Ezarateesteban 00:39, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
The image lacks description and looks like old promotional photo. Tineye found several copies on other websites like [1]. Blacklake (talk) 08:00, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom Ezarateesteban 00:48, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
broken? personal artwork? not used, not in scope Avron (talk) 19:12, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom Ezarateesteban 00:55, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
personal artwork, not used, not in scope Avron (talk) 19:19, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom Ezarateesteban 00:53, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
personal artwork, not used, not in scope Avron (talk) 19:19, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom Ezarateesteban 00:55, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
personal photo, not used, not in scope Avron (talk) 19:29, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom Ezarateesteban 00:56, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
self promotion, not used Avron (talk) 19:30, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom Ezarateesteban 00:56, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
sistemas} 190.26.211.114 19:54, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
personal photo, not used, not in scope Avron (talk) 20:03, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom Ezarateesteban 01:01, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
personal photo, not used, not in scope Avron (talk) 20:25, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
personal artwork, not used, not in scope Avron (talk) 20:35, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
personal artwork, not used, not in scoope Avron (talk) 20:36, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Personal image ; no notability ; no encyclopedic value ; out of project scope Civa (talk) 21:51, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
no notability ; no encyclopedic value ; out of project scope Civa (talk) 21:52, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
no notability ; no encyclopedic value ; out of project scope Civa (talk) 21:53, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Probable copyvio (because very small image and watermarks) ; notability ? ; out of project scope (except here) Civa (talk) 22:03, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom Ezarateesteban 01:08, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
Artist Henri Deneux died only in 1969, thereby still copyrighted. No FOP in France, therefore a copyvio. Túrelio (talk) 22:07, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
- Ok. See also this one Henri Deneux1.JPG. Regards--Citron (talk) 22:13, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks. It is really sad, but as France has no FOP, there is no other option. --Túrelio (talk) 22:15, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Still here???--Citron (talk) 22:48, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
Personal image : Commons is not an image hosting website Civa (talk) 22:11, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Presumably Vandalism Torsch (talk) 22:39, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
no notability (page on fr wikipedia deleted) ; no encyclopedic value ; out of project scope Civa (talk) 22:44, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
- Delete per nom; orphan image which briefly illustrated article on fr:w which was deleted for lack of notability; no in scope usefulness evident. Infrogmation (talk) 23:06, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom Ezarateesteban 00:58, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
The person in this photograph was lost without a trace in 1940, so it's very unlikely that he was photographed by the upoloader in 2008; therefore, the uploader cannot claim copyright and couldn't have licensed the picture under GDFL. — Kpalion(talk) 13:12, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
- Delete per nom, unless source can be found / authorship verified. Jujutacular talk 17:50, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:22, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
Hello! This image was taken from www.eso.org. There is an explicit agreement between ESO and Gerhard Hudephol that the images ESO releases on www.eso.org go under ESO's general license (CC License). Therefore, in this particular case, we can release the image under CC 3.0 on Wikipedia. Lars (ESO) 15:03, 23 March 2011 (CET)
This picture might not be CC3.0, and might be copyrighted. The ESO license notes that if the credit byline indicates otherwise, images are not copyrighted. This image is credited to "G. Hüdepohl (atacamaphoto.com)/ESO". At atacamaphoto.com, we find the following notice: "All photos Copyright by Gerhard Hüdepohl 1999-2011". This image's page on that website is here, so I question if this isn't copyrighted. StrPby (talk) 01:40, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:24, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
Blatant copyright violation, see http://www.gettyimages.com/detail/73191192/Bongarts. Uploader Moonwalker Dan on ru.wp is surely not the copyright holder. Martin H. (talk) 02:40, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:24, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
Can't see nothing; doesn't seem to be a useful file. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 04:54, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:26, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
At the bottom of the alleged source it is marked as copyrighted "© Vizion Plus 1999 -2011" :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 04:55, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:26, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
Derivated work of a copyrighted where original copyright may still exist.. Jayanta Nath (talk) 05:11, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
- In any of image, there won't be any copyright issue. Please let it remain on the page as all this image file are genuine without any copyright related concern. Thanks ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rasikdave (talk • contribs) 12:47, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
- Please explain how is it your work? This type of images frequently in India in every home( in Calender). Or available religious Area like Temple, Mosque, Gurudwara, Church ). Clearling shown that images is scan or camera shot. Please prove that it is your work and how?Jayanta Nath (talk) 08:17, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:36, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
Derivated work of a copyrighted photograph where original copyright may still exist.. Jayanta Nath (talk) 05:12, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:36, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
Derivated work of a copyrighted where original copyright may still exist.. wrong license Jayanta Nath (talk) 05:13, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:36, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
Derivated work of a copyrighted where original copyright may still exist.. wrong license Jayanta Nath (talk) 05:15, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
- In any of my image file, there won't be any copyright or license issue. Please let it remain on the page as all this image file are genuine without any copyright related concern. Thanks !— Preceding unsigned comment added by Rasikdave (talk • contribs) 03:29, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
- Please explain how is it your work? This type of images frequently in India in every home( in Calender). Or available religious Area like Temple, Mosque, Gurudwara, Church ). Clearling shown that images is scan or camera shot. Please prove that it is your work and how?Jayanta Nath (talk) 08:17, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:38, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
out of scope 92.227.119.154 06:57, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:38, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
This isn't software, but a logo, and the logo for FireFox is copyrighted. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 07:08, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
- The logo files in Firefox 3.5 and newer are copyrighted under the Mozilla tri-license, but they are still trademarked. --AVRS (talk) 08:49, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:40, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
Kept per Commons:Undeletion_requests/Current_requests#File:Crystal_Clear_app_firefox.png Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 20:02, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
According to the alleged source, http://iconicon.net/?page_id=79 says "You may not resell or redistribute th[is] icon[s]." :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 07:29, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
- Delete - Copyright violation. Jujutacular talk 18:17, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
- Keep Hey people, http://iconicon.net/?page_id=79 is not the license used by the image. See the correct page: http://iconicon.net/?cat=19&paged=3 Please take care next time before nominating. --百楽兎 (talk) 10:43, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
Kept: This is far from the nom's fault. THe uploader provided only the web site as a source, the web site has a general NC policy and there was no way for the nom to see that this particular icon was licensed CC-BY-SA. Next time the uploader should provide the link to the correct page in the image description. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:02, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
FireFox logos are trademarked, and according to their policy we may not alter their logos in any way. This is in conflict with our "for any purpose" clause which includes derivative works. Template:FirefoxWiki also recommends not using screenshots with the Firefox logo displayed in the browser unless it is de minimis. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 07:39, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:05, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
Undeleted after it was pointed out to me that this was not a Mozilla Icon, but one from another source. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:06, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
FireFox logos are trademarked, and according to their policy we may not alter their logos in any way. This is in conflict with our "for any purpose" clause which includes derivative works. Template:FirefoxWiki also recommends not using screenshots with the Firefox logo displayed in the browser unless it is de minimis. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 07:39, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:05, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
Kept per Commons:Undeletion_requests/Current_requests#File:Crystal_Clear_app_firefox.png Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 20:04, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
FireFox logos are trademarked, and according to their policy we may not alter their logos in any way. This is in conflict with our "for any purpose" clause which includes derivative works. Template:FirefoxWiki also recommends not using screenshots with the Firefox logo displayed in the browser unless it is de minimis. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 07:39, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:05, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
Kept per Commons:Undeletion_requests/Current_requests#File:Crystal_Clear_app_firefox.png Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 20:06, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
FireFox logos are trademarked, and according to their policy we may not alter their logos in any way. This is in conflict with our "for any purpose" clause which includes derivative works. Template:FirefoxWiki also recommends not using screenshots with the Firefox logo displayed in the browser unless it is de minimis. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 07:39, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
→ Commons:Deletion requests/File:Mozilla Firefox 3.5 logo 256.png. --AVRS (talk) 08:37, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
- I’ve made a bad example by using a logo, but let it stay until a better screenshot is available. --AVRS (talk) 08:39, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:52, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
Kept per Commons:Undeletion_requests/Current_requests#File:Crystal_Clear_app_firefox.png Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 20:07, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
Out of COM:SCOPE as user-generated activist material; not a photography of a sign really used in protests. --Túrelio (talk) 07:54, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
- Keep It's a summary of the protests, combining photos of other scenes, in a somehow pointing manner.-- sarang
사랑 18:36, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:53, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
Very unlikely to be taken by the user: taken 54 years ago; photo in a typical small "web" size, rather taken from other plane. The user upload only this one photo... Electron 
<Talk?> 08:17, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:53, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
Derivated work of a copyrighted photograph where original copyright may still exist.. Jayanta Nath (talk) 08:57, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
- Please do not delete this image file. there won't be any copyright or license issue on this. Please let it remain on the page as this image file is genuine without any copyright related concern. Thanks !
- Please explain how is it your work? This type of images frequently in India in every home( in Calender). Or available religious Area like Temple, Mosque, Gurudwara, Church ). Clearling shown that images is scan or camera shot. Please prove that it is your work and how?Jayanta Nath (talk) 08:18, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:53, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
Derivated work of a copyrighted photograph where original copyright may still exist.. Jayanta Nath (talk) 08:59, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
- Please do not delete this image file. there won't be any copyright or license issue on this. Please let it remain on the page as this image file is genuine without any copyright related concern. Thanks !— Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:|]] ([[User talk:|talk]] • contribs)
- Please explain how is it your work? This type of images frequently in India in every home( in Calender). Or available religious Area like Temple, Mosque, Gurudwara, Church ). Clearling shown that images is scan or camera shot. Please prove that it is your work and how?Jayanta Nath (talk) 08:16, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:53, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
Copyrighted. Same image can be found on sr.wiki. Current licencse is probably wrong. mickit 10:29, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:55, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
The diagram is missing the hydrogen atoms. A space-filling chemical diagram such as this is misleading and useless, if it does not show the space filled by all the atoms. Leyo 10:42, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
- Delete I agree. ChemNerd (talk) 12:53, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:55, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
Per COM:DW - Photo of a poster. Adambro (talk) 11:14, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:55, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
According to an OTRS person, the OTRS should not have been confirmed since the artist's e-mail was just a Gmail address and his identity couldn't be confirmed. His official web site was apparently unknown at the time. Copyright holder should send an e-mail from the web site address or indicate compatible copyright on the web site itself. Wknight94 talk 11:18, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:01, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
I have serious doubts this is a work of the uploader. The resolution is tiny as, and it looks more like a news agency photo which was probably used on an article for some event in the city. russavia (talk) 12:44, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:01, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
The diagram is missing the hydrogen atoms. This is misleading and useless. See File:Paraldehyde-3D-vdW.png for comparison. Leyo 13:10, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
- Delete I agree. ChemNerd (talk) 13:15, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:03, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
there is no proof of claimed license X7q (talk) 13:15, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:03, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
image is incorrectly described as "own work"; image is scanned and cropped from front cover of US Business Review. DS (talk) 13:26, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
image is used with permission from Scofield Media, publishers of the US Business Review. DS (talk) 11:02, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: The claim of permission seems unlikely, but in any case must be proven by an e-mail from USBR using the procedure at Commons:OTRS Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:05, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
не правильное описание Aransoft (talk) 13:30, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
- keep. Что не так? Описание можно сменить, файл переименовать. NVO (talk) 15:58, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
- Keep "не правильное описание" means "no correct description". no reason for deletion. alofok* 16:40, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Kept Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:05, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
there's two versions of this image - one is ... chocolate computer media? and the other is... some guy, half-naked? Both of them are out of scope, and neither has any real provenance. DS (talk) 14:19, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: This is another file name that should be protected once we get that working. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:06, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
Caption indicates that this is a Northgrop Grumman photo by Steven Blount, who was working for Northrop at the time (and still is). Despite the source it is not photo by a US Navy employee and is thus fair use. BrokenSphere (Talk) 14:54, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:07, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
The file was previosly used for proofreading om Swedish Wikisource but have since then been replaced by a jpg images in colour. Due to poor quality it has no other use. Thurs (talk) 14:58, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
- I agree with Thurs. I've put the picture into Wikimedia Commons, and I want it to be deleted.--92.32.218.43 16:21, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:08, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
The file was previosly used for proofreading on Swedish Wikisource but have since then been replaced by a jpg in colour. Due to poor quality it has no other use. Thurs (talk) 14:59, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
- I agree with Thurs, tht this isn't a good copy, but it it is taken from a book with another note at the frontpage. This note from the library about the first poem in print from Elai Sehlstedt would perhaps be interested to keep left. Otherwise I agree with Thurs, that this picture could be deleted.--RalphEng (talk) 16:27, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:08, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
Unlikely to by own work: small resolution, missing EXIF. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:25, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:09, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
Several days tagged as copyvio, nobody delete it, the floats should be copyrighted Ezarateesteban 15:27, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
- Delete as derivative work. The floats are copyrighted and they are the main focus of the picture. –Tryphon☂ 15:53, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:09, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
Several days tagged as copyvio, nodoby delete it Ezarateesteban 15:29, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:09, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
unused, probably unusable, hence out of scope AndreasPraefcke (talk) 15:55, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
- This user has created several accounts on Wikipedia in French just to add advertising. This file is an other attempt. Trizek here or on fr:wp 17:23, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:09, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
derivative of a logo that is not text-only or simple shapes. compare with en:File:Starcinema.jpg. 121.54.32.147 16:19, 23 March 2011 (UTC) --Cda stitch (talk) 16:39, 23 March 2011 (UTC)cda_stitch
- the company recently changed their logo and the en:File:Starcinema.jpg is their old logo.
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:19, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
Advertising. Out of scope? No permission. RE RILLKE Questions? 16:46, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:20, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
I have some doubts regarding the usefulness of this image. –Tryphon☂ 16:49, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Comment It's a (very bad) photograph of a radio mast at night. Dcoetzee (talk) 17:22, 23 March 2011 (UTC)- Delete per nominator. No encyclopedic use here. --Leoboudv (talk) 05:43, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Unusable, out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 08:14, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
I doubt own work. http://www.sportsclinicarena.com/articulos/bigs/27_1.jpg RE RILLKE Questions? 17:13, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:20, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
I doubt own work. If you are a member of Mircom’s FleX-Net™, please send an OTRS permission. RE RILLKE Questions? 17:38, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:33, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
sattelite image 91.67.138.29 17:43, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
satelite image and watermark. missing required permission. 91.67.138.29 17:49, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
- Η σήμαση (watermark) είναι όρος δημοσίευσης των φωτογραφιών. Το Blog τρόπος του λέγειν δεν είναι προσωπικό, αλλά συλλογικό ούτε αναφέρει ακόμα και το Μουσείο, απλώς αποβλέπει στην ανάδειξη της ιστορίας της καστοριάς. Dgolitsis--Dgolitsis (talk) 16:39, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
- -- Carried over from talk page. SV1XV (talk) 18:29, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Google watermark -- google images are (C) Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:35, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
added File:7pepsi.JPG derivative work, Pepsi and its design is a trademark, see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Pepsi Throwback 2010.jpg Ezarateesteban 17:57, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
- Keep Pepsi logo is a trademark, but doesn't have copyrights. And it's a can. Commons:Derivative works says: "On the other hand, ordinary alarm clocks, dinner plates, gaming consoles or other objects of daily use are usually not copyrightable.". A can isn't an "object of daily use"? --MisterSanderson (talk) 11:50, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Yes, but Product packaging is copyrightable. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:42, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
I doubt own work. facebook or use OTRS RE RILLKE Questions? 17:57, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:42, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
Just because the author is unknown does not make it a U.S. government work (and therefore public domain). This may well have been a photo taken from the press. I have no idea. The only thing that turned up in Google images was a link to the same blog post. Chaser (talk) 18:16, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:44, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
Red Bull cans and designs are trademark and copyrighted, derivative work Ezarateesteban 18:16, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
- Delete - lovely photo, but the logo is likely trademarked and the fact it is a Red Bull can means it's not de minimis. -mattbuck (Talk) 18:49, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
How i must delete this file (Sorry my English is bad)
- Wait 7 days and a sysop delete it --Ezarateesteban 13:11, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:44, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
COM:DW of Strontium by Richter. Not de minimis. We ve got 3 cropped versions. sугсго 18:21, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:45, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
Not realistically useful for an educational purpose. Personal photo not in use by any project. Out of scope. – Adrignola talk 18:38, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:45, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
Author: Unknown. Source: Internet (like many other pics from User:Вилле). delete NVO (talk) 18:48, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:45, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
Today, User:Вилле re-uploaded copies of recently deleted files. This one had been discussed at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Залив Вакколахти.jpg (well, there wasn't much of discussion: "found somewhere", this times from vkontakte.ru). delete and reevaluate all contributions. ~ NVO (talk) 18:55, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:46, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
copy of copyrighted t-shirt; as per name of photo and place in the picture, not de minimis Prosfilaes (talk) 18:57, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: 14:47, 24 March 2011 by Jafeluv, closed by Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:46, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
France does not have Freedom of Panorama. See COM:FOP#France. This building is considered as architecturally distinct (see the name of the file) and is an original work. It is not allowed to publish pictures of a building until 70 years after the death of its architect. Civa (talk) 20:52, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:46, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
France does not have Freedom of Panorama. See COM:FOP#France. This building is considered as architecturally distinct (see the name of the file) and is an original work. It is not allowed to publish pictures of a building until 70 years after the death of its architect. Civa (talk) 20:56, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
- look at: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Paris - Tour Montparnasse.jpg --Wladyslaw (talk) 21:32, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:47, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
France does not have Freedom of Panorama. See COM:FOP#France. This building is considered as architecturally distinct (see the name of the file) and is an original work. It is not allowed to publish pictures of a building until 70 years after the death of its architect. Civa (talk) 21:00, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:46, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
For a chemical formula, this format (JPG with a lot of white space) is rather useless. Besides, File:Dibutylether.svg is much better suited to represent this formula. Rosenzweig δ 21:03, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:48, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
France does not have Freedom of Panorama. See COM:FOP#France. This building is considered as architecturally distinct (see the name of the file) and is an original work. It is not allowed to publish pictures of a building until 70 years after the death of its architect. Civa (talk) 21:05, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:48, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
In Polish Wiki the article Paweł Pudło has been delated. Pablo000 (talk) 21:14, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:49, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
No license, repost of deleted image. Apparently copyrighted. TenPoundHammer (talk) 21:34, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:49, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
An image with a resolution of 120 x 68 pixels which supposedly shows fragments from a document is essetially useless. It could be anything or nothing, impossible to recognize at this resolution. Furthermore, GFDL/CC is given as license without any specific reasoning, and the image is completely unsourced. --Uwe (talk) 12:56, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:49, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
Copyvio (http://www.cafe.be/images/galleries/129159818875203923.JPG and http://www.cafe.be/Forms/frmPubDetails.aspx?id=51) EvilFreD overleg 21:02, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:31, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
Poor quality (compression artifacts), replaced by File:Delepine2.png. Leyo 21:43, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
- Agree The new version is undoubtedly better, no links to the old one. Michał Sobkowski (talk) 21:53, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
- Delete per nom.
However, replacement cage-structure looks like it has 3D confusion (or at least non-standard perspective): vertical bond going up from the bottom-center N would normally be in front rather than behind (horizontally oriented C3N3 ring conformation looks skewed otherwise)--compare to the one being discussed.Also might be clearer to non-chemists to write formaldehyde as "H2C=O" or "H2CO" instead of "HCHO" in products. Also, the final reaction and formaldehyde product itself contradicts en:Delépine reaction, which says that ethanolic (not aqueous) HCl is used and that the product is therefore the acetal of formaldehyde. Maybe it works aqueous too, but need to sync the description with the diagram one way or the other. Sorry for getting all content-discussion-y here:) DMacks (talk) 05:19, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
- Fixed my perspective concern. DMacks (talk) 15:07, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Per nom! --Yikrazuul (talk) 16:53, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:49, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
Poor image quality; similar images are available Torsch (talk) 21:58, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
- Delete poor quality, multiple alternatives in Category:Taraxacum sect. Ruderalia. MKFI (talk) 14:30, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:49, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
Poor image quality; similar images are available Torsch (talk) 21:59, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
- Keep the only similar image (with a black background) I found in Category:Taraxacum sect. Ruderalia is File:Taraxacum sect Ruderalia13 ies.jpg, and that one is also low quality (overexposed). If there are better similar images please link them in the nomination. MKFI (talk) 10:35, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
Kept Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:49, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
Poor image quality; similar images are available Torsch (talk) 22:14, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:50, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
We can't use PD-old for 1950 year photo. Dinamik (talk) 22:19, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:50, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
We can't use PD-old for 1951 year photo. Dinamik (talk) 22:20, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:50, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
Personal image ; no notability ; out of project scope ; very small image Civa (talk) 22:20, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:50, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
We can't use PD-old for 1964 year photo. Dinamik (talk) 22:20, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:50, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
Per the coment at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Formigoni - Foto Giovanni Dall'Orto, 8-Nov-2010 - 04 crop.jpg and my personal impression too: Possibly this is not de minimis enough. The file is in use in an wikiquote article describing it as "Roberto Formigonin, 2010", therefore it seems to be clear that the screen is way to much the main subject of this photo. Commons:Derivative work. Martin H. (talk) 22:23, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:51, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
No author, no source ; notability ? ; out of project scope Civa (talk) 22:25, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:51, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
Poor image quality; similar images are available Torsch (talk) 22:28, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:51, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
Poor image quality; similar images are available Torsch (talk) 22:32, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:51, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
Poor image quality; similar images are available Torsch (talk) 22:40, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:53, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
Vector image containing copyrighted font. According to COM:L#Fonts, only raster renderings of fonts are allowed. 84.61.170.180 10:11, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
- Howdy Fernrohr, tired of architecture at last? Good choice! NVO (talk) 12:42, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Kept: PD-ineligible Jcb (talk) 10:27, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
Vector image containing copyrighted font. According to COM:L#Fonts, only raster renderings of fonts are allowed. 84.61.170.180 10:12, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Kept: PD-ineligible Jcb (talk) 10:27, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
Vector image containing copyrighted font. According to COM:L#Fonts, only raster renderings of fonts are allowed. 84.61.170.180 10:14, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Kept: PD-ineligible Jcb (talk) 10:27, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
I doubt own work. [2]. If you have the rights, use OTRS. RE RILLKE Questions? 18:00, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
I resubmitted an image I have right to. [3] This was taken by my wife.
![[2]](http://www.inquirer.net/globalnation/img/sna/01_06.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: (not by me) Jcb (talk) 23:19, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
No encyclopedic value ; Location unknown ; Source missing ; Out of project scope Civa (talk) 21:12, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Neutral Ok for the source problem, but the pic can be useful to illustrate a street work site. Jeriby (talk) 02:52, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
Kept: per Jeriby. There is hardly a problem with source, because the author is properly stated. Trycatch (talk) 00:17, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
No FOP in Belgium, file can stay after crop, no problem with the train. Jcb (talk) 18:14, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
- Comment The Atomium is half hidden behind the trees. Could count as de minimis. -- Herby (Vienna) (talk) 18:39, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
- It's too prominent to be de minimis and it can also easily be cropped without harming the subject of the picture. Jcb (talk) 22:20, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
- I wouldn't consider it as de minimis if it is used to illustrate Atomium articles in at least 2 Wikipedias... Should be cropped to leave the tram. Masur (talk) 08:59, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
- The Atomium is too prominent in the background so Delete the Atomium portion and Keep the train portion. Part of the lowest ball can remain as long as the ball's windows are cropped out. 69.118.24.210 15:22, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
Kept: Cropped and kept. Masur (talk) 07:39, 5 April 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)
Geminy05 (talk) 01:37, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Kept: please give a reason for delete it Ezarateesteban 00:41, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
la razon por la que deseo que esta imagen sea borrada es por que al momento de subirla cometi el error de subir un archivo equivocado, esta imagen solo cuenta con derechos de creative commons, y temo que sea utilizada para fines de lucro o registrada a nombre de alguien mas que no sea yo en los derechos de autor. es por ello que solicito sea borrada lo mas pronto posible para evitar problemas legales. Geminy05 (talk) 04:01, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
Delete user's request, upload by error --Ezarateesteban 16:21, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
This file is unused; it is also incorrect. According to specifications I have from Tochigi Prefecture, the emblem is supposed to be 1/3rd the height of the flag and the colors are different. The SVG file that is replacing this matches those specifications. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 04:34, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jcb (talk) 10:31, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
Is it a copyright violation of any of these? Is it useful for an educational purpose? :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 04:56, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
- I don't know, but it's an Albanian flag, with some Albanian on it. The word "flamurit" means flag, but I can't find out what the rest means. —innotata 23:27, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
Kept: no copyright violation, it doesn't add anything eligible for copyright to other versions we have Jcb (talk) 10:33, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
It's a copy of File:Wikipe-tan in swimwear.jpg, which was recently deleted (see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Wikipe-tan in swimwear.jpg). I can't see that file, but I think this is an exact copy or very nearly so, so the same decision should apply to this file. Herostratus (talk) 07:02, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Keep Heavily in use. Tm (talk) 07:22, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
- Keep It's in use in article space, at w:en:fan service, so it has education value as per policy.--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:26, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
- Comment. See Commons:Undeletion requests#File:Wikipe-tan_in_swimwear.jpg. Trycatch (talk) 23:38, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Keep Educational use is present here and the image is used in multiple articles, this is not a copy of wikipe-tan in swimwear by the way so the nom is void in my opinion, the original image was this one: File:Wikipe-tan in swimwear.png which looks nothing like the image put up for deletion here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:35, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
- Keep Image is well within scope as it is used in article space on multiple languages. I'll also note that the nominator has attempted to remove this image from the English Wikipedia multiple times and could not get a consensus there. TheFarix (talk) 02:44, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
Oh, OK. Never mind. I was confusing two files. (Although I'm further confused by the existence of the page File:Wikipe-tan in swimwear.png after a discussion closed as "delete", but whatever, not germane to this discussion.)
Any any rate, I'm still nominating this file for deletion, but on different grounds: whatever reasonably likely educational value it provides is far outweighed by its negative aspects.
- 1) To the extent that it's used for decoration on people's personal pages on Wikimedia projects, that gives it no value as an entity to be hosted by Commons.
- 2) To the extent that its in common space on Foundation projects, its toxic. We don't need or want cheesecake pics in these spaces, and it is objectively harmful to Foundation projects to do this. See here and various other places.
- 3) To the extent that it's in article space on wikipedias, this is not legitimate since it contains marks identifiable as referencing a private corporate entity (the Wikipedia Foundation), and egregiously as the marks are not related to the content of the articles in which its used; this would be no more allowed than if the earrings showed the logo of American Airlines or whatever.
- Now, it's true on one level that this should be argued at the retail level of the individual articles on the individual wikipedias. Where we can be treated to lengthy debates featuring disingenuous arguments such as "That is just a random person with random puzzle pieces, they have nothing to do with the Wikimedia Foundation" and discussions of the meaning of trademark and the difference between difference a trademark and a copyright and between a registered and unregistered trademark and a work which, trademark or not, implicitly references another entity. With assorted refugees from /b/ who are neither interested in or (to be frank) probably capable of understanding these concepts. And thus going on to request boards for third-party input and so on and so forth, ending after much work and drama in the deletion of the image from the article. Until next year, at which point repeat as needed. So I would rather not go through all that, but it is in the hands of Commons I guess.
Source of negative energy. Delete. Herostratus (talk) 03:13, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
- You make plenty of wild accusations, but have absolutely 0 evidence that the accusations are even true. (1) Your argument is completely unsupported by the very wording of COM:SCOPE (A media file that is in use on one of the other projects of the Wikimedia Foundation is considered automatically to be useful for an educational purpose). (2) Your "objectively harmful" has no bases in fact (In fact, it is mostly men speculating that Wikipe-tan "drives off women" without any evidence, i.e. scapegoating.) (3) Wikipe-tan's design does not contain any trademarks or logos used by WikiMedia Foundation. TheFarix (talk) 03:30, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
- Keep. All arguments provided by nom are too subjective.-- deerstop. 11:21, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
- Keep arguments are nonsense, such as Farix said. But 2) may be a occasion for someone to draw a guy in swimwear, so we can attract more female users :D --Don-kun (talk) 11:34, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
- Keep Can't see the reason for this deletion request. It's an good example, which could be easily improved. I see no valid reason for deletion. --Niabot (talk) 11:37, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
- Keep - The nominator is essentially forum shopping because his attempts to get it removed in an article were rejected. We have policies specificially w:NOTCEBSORED which allows for its use on the article page's she is used under. Furthermore, the nominator has a personal bias against Wikipe-tan so its hard to see this nomination in good faith.Jinnai (talk) 16:10, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
- Keep no sexuall content. You don't see naked boobies or something like that. So why should it be delete? It's also no copy of a another picture more like a grown Wikipe-tan --Dr. Koto (talk) 17:27, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
- Keep I'm a woman and I think that this gendergap's initiative is a real madness. Анастасия Львоваru (ru-n, en-2) 18:22, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
- It is, it is nothing but pure scapegoating by editors who really believe that getting rid of wikipe-tan images will somehow make more female editors join, I started a discussion on jimbo's talk page last month and it appers that there has been discussion after discussion on the matter with the chat content going in circles. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:02, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
- Keep I like this Wikipe-tan--Хомелка (talk) 18:52, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
- Strongly keep. First of all the image is used in several Wikipedias proving it has an educational value. Also the whole initiative of deleting Wikipe-tan images, connected with accusing the mascot and thus all the community of being sexist seems to undermine the basic principles of good faith that we always regarded as a rule. Avenger911 (talk) 22:47, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
- Strongly Keep, no any reason for delete this file! --minhhuy*= (talk) 06:16, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
- Keep This image violates no rules, guidelines or wikiquette principles. There is no reason to delete this image--SamOdin (talk) 09:59, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
- Keep, the file mentioned by nominator is restored, so no reasons for deletion left. BTW, anyone now could see that these pics are absolutely different. AndyVolykhov (talk) 12:54, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
- Keep There is no reason to delete this image. --Jocian (talk) 22:55, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
- Keep Hands off! :P --Zimak (talk) 13:05, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
- Keep There is no reasonable reason.--Altostratus (talk) 08:14, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
- Keep Whatever standard of tastelessness you measure it by doesn't dismiss the fact that it's used on more than a few wikis. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 08:37, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
- Keep ofc. Reason per user:Хомелка. --Askarmuk (talk) 14:01, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
- Keep Per Хомелка. --Krassotkin (talk) 07:21, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
- Keep per User:TheFarix right at the top. COM:SCOPE#File in use in another Wikimedia project says
This is a drawing of a female in a bikini; not even a particularly small female or a particularly small bikini. She's even wearing a towel! Several Wikipedia languages apparently consider this file appropriate: they're using it. Also, nominator used Commons:Deletion requests/File:Wikipe-tan in swimwear.jpg (which almost nobody else would consider the same) as a claim of deletion outcome — but that image has since been undeleted by Commons:Undeletion requests/Archive/2011-03#File:Wikipe-tan_in_swimwear.jpg (restored). Sometimes, perhaps, we forget that we who edit Wikimedia projects are only a minority of Wikimedia users, and even a smaller minority of the general public; most people in the general public would not associate this specific drawing with a child in the first place. For this file's appropriateness to even be in question, one has to: (1) be familiar enough with Wikimedia projects to know who Wikipe-tan is and that she is usually drawn with moe anthropomorphism; (2) make the assumption that moe anthropomorphism indicates underaged girls (even the ones drawn combined with military weapons?!), therefore Wikipe-tan must be underaged; (3) believe this file represents Wikipe-tan still as a child; and (4) believe that the standard modern female attire for teenage and adult women on public beaches in most civilizations is inappropriate. (I'll not even opine on what kind of person would also have to believe that fictional mascots, with puzzle pieces in their hair and no specific planetary origin, are moral equivalent of live human children. I'm sure that's been rehased on Commons and Wikipedias hundreds of times.) As far as "objectively harmful": It could be argued that that prospective Wikimedia participants who find this file offensive would be just as objectively harmful because they have a point of view so distant from COM:NOTCENSORED that their participation on Wikipedia projects would take more time away from other contributors than they would provide in contributions themselves. --Closeapple (talk) 09:46, 2 April 2011 (UTC)"It should be stressed that Commons does not exist to editorialise on other projects - that an image is in use on a non talk/user page is enough for it to be within scope."
- Combining the statements 1-4 I can only say that this are pictures of Wikipe-tan at different age. Even so it is hard to judge the age of an comic figure. Some examples Komoe Tsukuyomi (School Teacher in To Aru Majutsu no Index), Horo (Hundreds of years old and main character in Spice and Wolf),... There are so many examples in which the outer appearance is not related to the real age. Also it has to be considered that a story can play at very different times. This said, the age can only be verified for each picture individually, if not truly impossible. I highlighted real because even the age of fictional figure is also fictional and the assumptions about the age may strongly divide. Regarding to this picture she could be seen as 16 or also 28. How will you verify her age? [4] --Niabot (talk) 11:24, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
![[4]](http://i9.glitter-graphics.org/pub/138/138429cspq8b161f.jpg){kind=link}
- Keep Image is used in the mainspace in WMF project(s), and does not violate COM:SCOPE. I don't see any valid reason for its deletion. Pmlineditor (t · c · l) 09:51, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
- Keep It has been alleged that this file violates trademark in multiple places, I have yet to see any evidence. It is used in article space, is clearly within the scope of the project, and I have yet to see a good reason to delete. Monty845 (talk) 02:27, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
- Request for closure Can this be laid to rest now, It has been over two weeks now and I am seeing almost if not all keeps aside from the nom here, if this were on wikipedia it would pass the wikipedia snow clause. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:37, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
- Please remove this File to delete box from page of this graphic that I can send new svg version of this file on commons Malyszkz (talk) 19:52, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
Kept Jcb (talk) 10:19, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
Mozilla's licensing terms for this logo (here: see "Mozilla Marks and Merchandise" about non-commercial use and "Linking" for non derivated notices) are just against this policies on Commons about mandatory commercial permission and mandatory allow of derivative works of all material posted in the project. --Linfocito B ~ Greetings from Colombia. 22:47, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
- Addendum (from en:Template:Non-free Mozilla logo)
The logo for a Mozilla product (such as the Mozilla Firefox browser or the Mozilla Thunderbird email client) is protected by copyright and/or trademark by the Mozilla Foundation and/or its subsidiary Mozilla Corporation. According to the Mozilla trademark policy, the logo is free to use as long as:
- It is non-confusing and non-disparaging
- It is not used commercially
- It is not modified
- It is not high resolution
Furthermore, the Mozilla Trademark Policy FAQ reads, "Can I put Firefox or Thunderbird banners on my website? Can I link to you?" Answer: "Thanks for your support :-) Of course you may. We have button programs for exactly this". Also, Mozilla's Firefox Buttons page reads "Put one or more of these buttons on your website to help us spread the word about Firefox. We appreciate it!"
Despite this, the restrictions on this logo make it non-free by Wikimedia's Definition of Free Cultural Works, and therefore it may only be displayed in the main english Wikipedia namespace in accordance with Wikipedia:Non-free content.
- Keep Firefox logo is licensed under triple MPL 1.1/GPL 2.0/LGPL 2.1 license[5]. All restriction put in place by Mozilla Trademark Policy is relevant only to the trademark, and it doesn't make any difference according by the Commons:Trademarks. Also bug[6] directly relevant to this licensing terms change is marked as fixed and licensing terms changed to triple one[7]. --Justass (talk) 22:59, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
- Comment Until work on bugzilla is disclosed, Commons:Trademarks also includes a guideline against complex logos (check "Trademark law" section). --Linfocito B ~ Greetings from Colombia. 00:33, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
- en:Template:Non-free Mozilla logo was created 5 years before Firefox logo was released under "free" licenses and has nothing to do with the current situation --Justass (talk) 00:37, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
- Comment. It may be against the spirit of Commons to upload trademarked logos which are under free copyright licenses, but that guideline is not against complex logos: “(eg because they are too simple to acquire copyright protection, or are old enough that copyright protection has expired)” is just a couple of examples. I have uploaded this logo for two reasons: 1) I wanted to prevent repeated uploads and deletions based on incorrect assumptions such as this one, 2) there was a third-party "Firefox logo" used in Afrikaans Wikipedia. There is a link to the Bugzilla discussion in the Permission field. --AVRS (talk) 16:57, 26 May 2010 (UTC), 17:04, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
- Keep per Justass. The patches can be found it the latest (4b) version as well--DieBuche (talk) 16:55, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, the logo is not free enough in accordance with Commons' policies. Kameraad Pjotr 20:08, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
- Did you read Justass comment?--DieBuche (talk) 20:59, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
- Maybe the logo was "tri-licenced" like stated in bugzilla tickets, but this still specifies that Mozilla foundation doesn't allow derivated works or commercial permissions for it. Remember that having a free licence is not enough; the following conditions are also mandatory. Linfocito B ~ Greetings from Colombia. 02:49, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
- Let me quote Justass "All restriction put in place by Mozilla Trademark Policy is relevant only to the trademark". Also, from your comment I assume you agree and understand that the logo is tri-licenced, namely "MPL 1.1/GPL 2.0/LGPL 2.1". GPL ({{GPL}}) for one is a very common license on Wikimedia Commons and allows commercial use. You can't say "It's released under GPL but you can't use it commercially". –Krinkletalk 18:42, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
- Commons:Undeletion_requests/Current_requests#Image:Mozilla_Firefox_3.5_logo_256.png --AVRS (talk) 22:42, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
- Maybe the logo was "tri-licenced" like stated in bugzilla tickets, but this still specifies that Mozilla foundation doesn't allow derivated works or commercial permissions for it. Remember that having a free licence is not enough; the following conditions are also mandatory. Linfocito B ~ Greetings from Colombia. 02:49, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
- Delete All the comments above about trademark, as several editors have noted, are irrelevant.
The question is, does Mozilla license the copyright to its logos in a way that we can use? It seems to me that the answer is a resounding NO.
At the Legal page for their home page they say, quite carefully:
- "The trademarks and logos of the Mozilla Foundation and any third party and the look and feel of this web site (to the extent the look and feel elements are works of authorship, such as the graphic design, artwork, and artistic illustrations) are not included in the work that is licensed under the Creative Commons terms."
That is a comprehensive statement that there is no license for the copyrights in their logos. The various quotes of their policy above all appear to be from subsidiary or software pages and do not necessarily apply to logos. Remember that a specific statement overrides a general statement. All of the quotes above are general. This one is specific and, therefore, is the one we must apply. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:22, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
FireFox logos are trademarked, and according to their policy we may not alter their logos in any way. This is in conflict with our "for any purpose" clause which includes derivative works. Template:FirefoxWiki also recommends not using screenshots with the Firefox logo displayed in the browser unless it is de minimis. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 07:40, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Kept. At the undeletion referenced in Commons:Deletion requests/File:Firefox icon.svg, I was convinced that Mozilla's General Counsel has explicitly stated that Mozilla will use only trademark to protect the use of its icons and that their copyright is freely licensed on the same terms as the software.
Although their trademark policy sharply limits outside use of the logos, it is our well-established policy to ignore trademark in our decisions on Commons. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:37, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
Poor automatic vectorization of File:Wiki-bukkake-2.png. Clearly inferiour to the PNG version. Leyo 12:57, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jcb (talk) 10:23, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
All of the images in this category (276 at this writing) are {{Copyvio}} candidates. Contrary to the claims on the individual image pages, the images are not creations of the U.S. Govt. and are not in the public domain. The license terms, which are not Commons-acceptable, are described at the PDB website, where it clearly reads "Molecule of the Month illustrations are copyrighted." —Danorton (talk) 03:27, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- Comment (The {{Copyvio}} box was getting crowded.) A more complete excerpt from the PDB Polices & References page reads:
- Molecule of the Month illustrations are copyrighted. They are available for educational purposes, provided attribution is given to David S. Goodsell and the RCSB PDB.
- A Google search reveals a couple of dozen more such images not included in this category. (I suspect that there are a few more.)
- The supporting reference links are no longer valid, but this page from archive.org at about the same time does not provide any suggestion that the works are creations of the U.S. Govt. or that they are in the public domain:
- The bottom of that page reads "© RCSB Protein Data Bank".
- This collection of {{Copyvio}} violations seems to be symptomatic of the common misconception that anything that is funded by the U.S. Govt. is a creation of the U.S. Govt. and, consequently, in the public domain. (See W:Work of the United States Government#Exemptions.) —Danorton (talk) 03:46, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- You are true. I think the Policies & References page did not exist (or, at least, it was not that clear) when I started uploading images. Anyway, I ask you to let me try to ask RCSB to release the images in cc-by, since the images are a lot (and a lot of projects commonly use them). I'm not confident that I'll succeed, but let's try... --Giac83 10:28, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- I sent them the request (OTRS ticket 2009041510031969). Cross the fingers... --Giac83 11:03, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- Bad answer!
- For the time being our policy is going to stay as listed at http://www.rcsb.org/pdb/static.do?p=general_information/about_pdb/policies_references.html
- Unfortunately, I think we should start to delete all Molecule of the Month images... :-( --Giac83 09:29, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
- Yes. What a pity! --Patho (talk) 21:00, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
- Bad answer!
- I sent them the request (OTRS ticket 2009041510031969). Cross the fingers... --Giac83 11:03, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- Comment The files were supplied by different sources. Some of it is government work, some are contractors, some may be university researchers. A whole category should not be deleted in this manner. In particular, uploaders must be notified. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 14:01, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- Comment The fact that the sources are multifarious provides support for deletion, as source information that would allow verification of image licenses isn't generally provided. The uploaders should be notified for deletion of the individual images, but this issue is only about the category page, and only the creator of the page need be notified for this purpose. —Danorton (talk) 17:20, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- Comment: Actually, the quantity of Commons images affected by related licensing issues isn't simply "a lot", but it numbers in the tens of thousands. See a typical example at Commons:Deletion requests/File:1axc tricolor.png. —Danorton (talk) 17:20, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- Comment: Good that I finally came upon this discussion, after uploading half a dozen more from the MOM page. And I thought the biggest problem in the Commons proteins section is the bot-made SCOP hierarchy... I have a radical proposition: instead of uploading all those again as stills, start at once with animations (rotating) and let the 2D world behind, once and for all. --Ayacop (talk) 08:38, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
No consensus for deletion, default to "keep". –Juliancolton | Talk 01:28, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
All images in the category not PD. see PDB Usage Policies: "Molecule of the Month illustrations are copyrighted. They are available for educational purposes, provided attribution is given to David S. Goodsell and the RCSB PDB". see Commons:Categories for discussion/2011/03/Category:PDB.org's Molecules of the Month shizhao (talk) 15:57, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Since they are all, at least by the terms of the source site, copyvio, it is not necessary to notify each uploader -- they are by our rules delete-on-sight. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:17, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
- I have to agree, though I like that stuff. However, as to copyright concerns Delete. --Yikrazuul (talk) 16:53, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
- CommentUploader of each file must be get warning first.--苹果派.留言 20:15, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
- Why exactly? If we have a copy violation, what do we need to contact the uploader? --Yikrazuul (talk) 15:38, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
- See the list at Commons:Deletion requests/PDB dummy and below set up to allow DelReqHandler to deal with these. (DRH will not deal with Category lists and doing 200+ deletions without it is dumb.) Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:10, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Copyvio per discussion -- uploader notice is not required to delete copyvios. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:22, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
A dummy DR to allow DelReqHandler to deal with these, see Commons:Deletion requests/Category:PDB.org's Molecules of the Month
- File:17-beta hydroxysteroid dehydrogenase.jpg
- File:1fbb-Bacteriorhodopsin twoviews.PNG
- File:3pte (D-alanyl-D-alanine carboxypeptidase-transpeptidase) (penicillin target).PNG
- File:Aa-tRNA-synthetase .PNG
- File:AAA+ ATPases (three examples).png
- File:AAA+ protease.png
- File:Acethylcholine receptor blocked by cobra venom.png
- File:Acethylcholine receptor.png
- File:Acetylcholinesterase (three views).png
- File:Acetylcholinesterase.png
- File:Aconitase and Iron Regulatory Protein 1.jpg
- File:Actin-binding.PNG
- File:Actin18 new rot.PNG
- File:Actin18 new.PNG
- File:Active vs inactive Src protein.png
- File:ADNA(1ana)-BDNA(1bna)-ZDNA(2dcg).JPG
- File:Allostery in Glycogen Phosphorylase.JPG
- File:Alpha amanitin poisoning RNA polymerase.png
- File:Alpha Amylase.png
- File:Alpha-amylase, Glucoamylase, glucose isomerase.png
- File:Alpha1 antitrypsin mechanism.png
- File:Alpha1 antitrypsin.png
- File:Amyloid-beta Precursor Protein wildtype vs mutated.png
- File:Amyloid-beta Precursor Protein.png
- File:Anthrax toxin components.PNG
- File:Antibody2.JPG
- File:Antitrypsin structure.png
- File:Aspartate Carbamoyltransferase.jpg
- File:ATP sinthase (F0 electric motor).png
- File:ATP synthase (F1 motor).png
- File:ATPsynthase.png
- File:B-DNA.JPG
- File:Bacterial Lactate Dehydrogenase active vs inactive.jpg
- File:Bacteriophage phiX174 mature.JPG
- File:Beta-2 adrenergic receptor.jpg
- File:Beta-barrel.png
- File:Beta-secretase.png
- File:BetaSecretase 1sgz 1py1.png
- File:Calcium pump inactive vs active form .png
- File:Calcium pump.png
- File:Calmodulin @ RasMol.png
- File:Calmodulin with or without calcium.png
- File:Calmodulin2.png
- File:Carbonic anhydrase inhibition by a sulfonamide.png
- File:Carbonic anhydrases alpha beta and gamma.png
- File:Carotenoid oxygenase (O2 positioning).png
- File:Carotenoid oxygenase.png
- File:Carotenoids disposition in proteins.png
- File:Caspase Activated Deoxyribonuclease.png
- File:Catabolite Activating Protein associated to RNA Polymerase.png
- File:Catabolite activator prot (CAP) (or cAMP-rec prot CRP) - Omodimer (1cgp) activated by cAMP (purple-makes CAP fit for DNA (red)) - stimulates synthesis of enzymes breaking down non-Glc sugars.png
- File:Catalase.png
- File:Ccadherin 1l3w.png
- File:Chaperonin.PNG
- File:Chaperonins (HSP70 vs prefoldin).PNG
- File:Charybdotoxin attacks potassium channels.png
- File:Cholera Toxin.png
- File:Citrate Synthase from E. coli.jpg
- File:Citrate Synthase.jpg
- File:Citratesynthase2.png
- File:Clathrin adaptor protein AP-2 with two appendages.jpg
- File:Clathrin cage and triskelion.jpg
- File:Clathrin triskelion.jpg
- File:Clathrin1.png
- File:Clathrin2.png
- File:Cyclooxygenase (COX) with Indometacin.gif
- File:Cyclooxygenase (COX).JPG
- File:CYP3A4.jpg
- File:CytC Oxidase.JPG
- File:Cytochrome C.PNG
- File:Deadenylation ribonuclease and decapping enzyme.jpg
- File:Dengue envelope 1k4r.png
- File:Dengue virus - envelope protein.jpg
- File:Dengue virus - nonstructural proteins.jpg
- File:Different Multidrug Resistance Transporters.jpg
- File:Different superoxide dismutases.png
- File:Differentt aa-tRNA-synthetase.JPG
- File:Dihydrofolate Reductase in bacteria and human.PNG
- File:Dihydrofolate Reductase.JPG
- File:Dihydrofolate Reductase.PNG
- File:DNA ligase.png
- File:DNA polymerase bacteria.gif
- File:DNA polymerase.JPG
- File:DNA Polymerase.jpg
- File:DNA.JPG
- File:Double life proteins.png
- File:EcoRI.gif
- File:Electron transport by cytochrome C.PNG
- File:Elongation Factor EF-Ts (EF-Ts).jpg
- File:Elongation Factor G (EF-G).png
- File:Elongation factor SelB.jpg
- File:Elongation Factor Tu (EF-Tu).png
- File:Endonuclease with thymine dimer.jpg
- File:Enolase.png
- File:Enterotoxin - Pertussis toxin - Diphteria toxin - Ricin toxin.png
- File:Enterotoxin action.png
- File:Estrogen receptor bound to estradiol and tamoxifen.png
- File:Estrogen receptor.png
- File:Exosome human.jpg
- File:Exosome2.png
- File:Fatty Acid Synthase (bacteria).jpg
- File:Fatty Acid Synthase (Fungus).jpg
- File:Fattyacidsynthase2.png
- File:Ferritin.PNG
- File:Fibrin fibers association.png
- File:Fibrin.png
- File:Flexibility of Calmodulin.png
- File:Foot-and-Mouth-Disease-Virus.png
- File:From GFP to BFP.png
- File:Fructose 1,6-bisphosphate Aldolase.png
- File:G protein (heterotrimeric).png
- File:G protein signal transduction (epinephrin pathway).png
- File:Glucose Oxidase.png
- File:Glucose oxidizing enzymes.png
- File:Glutamine synthetase action mechanism.PNG
- File:Glyceraldehyde-3-Phosphate Dehydrogenase.png
- File:GlycogenPhosphorylase.JPG
- File:Glycolysis enymes (horizontal).png
- File:Glycolysis enymes (vertical).png
- File:Green Fluorescent Protein.png
- File:Growth Factor, Prolactine, Insuline-like Growth Factor.png
- File:Growth hormone.png
- File:Hammerhead ribozyme.png
- File:Hb-animation2-zh.gif
- File:Hb-animation2.gif
- File:Hemagglutinin in action.png
- File:Hemagglutinin.png
- File:Hemoglobin.png
- File:Heptamer complex made by anthrax toxin.PNG
- File:Hexokinase (brain specific).png
- File:HIV-1 protease.JPG
- File:HMG CoA reductase with atorvastatin.jpg
- File:Human adh.JPG
- File:Human Growth Factor binding its receptor.png
- File:IgDomain2 examples.png
- File:Importin complex.jpg
- File:Importin, Ran protein and CAS .jpg
- File:Influenza Neuraminidase 1nn2.png
- File:Insulin.JPG
- File:Insulin.png
- File:Kinesin.png
- File:Kinesins (two different kinds).png
- File:Lac Repressor.png
- File:Lac-DNA loop.png
- File:Lactate Dehydrogenase.jpg
- File:Lambda integrase (transposase).png
- File:Luciferase (bacterium vs dinoflagellate).png
- File:Luciferase.png
- File:Lysozyme.JPG
- File:MDR transporters.png
- File:MHC class I.png
- File:MHC I vs MHC II.png
- File:MHC-peptides binding.png
- File:Microtubule.jpg
- File:MoFe clusters on nitrogenase .PNG
- File:Multidrug Resistance Transporter Sav1866.jpg
- File:Myoglobin.JPG
- File:Myosin Microtubule Actin Collagen.jpg
- File:Myosin powerstroke.JPG
- File:Myosin-painting-rotated.JPG
- File:Myosin-painting.JPG
- File:Myosin.JPG
- File:Nerve Growth Factor (NGF) binding to a TyrK receptor.png
- File:Nerve Growth Factor (NGF).png
- File:Nitrogenase.PNG
- File:Non Homologous End Joining.png
- File:Nucleosome (opposites attracts).JPG
- File:Nucleosome .jpg
- File:Nucleosome rasmol.JPG
- File:Nucleosome.JPG
- File:Oxidosqualene Cyclase.jpg
- File:P53-bound to DNA .PNG
- File:P53-unbound.PNG
- File:Pepsin-pepsinogen.JPG
- File:Phenylalanine Hydroxylase vs Tyrosine Hydroxylase.png
- File:Phenylalanine Hydroxylase.png
- File:Phosphofructokinase (active vs inactive form).png
- File:Phosphofructokinase.png
- File:Phosphoglucose Isomerase.png
- File:Phosphoglycerate Kinase.png
- File:Phosphoglycerate Mutase.png
- File:Photosystem I trimer.PNG
- File:Photosystem I.PNG
- File:Photosystem II - light harvesting molecules.png
- File:Photosystem II active site.png
- File:Photosystem II.png
- File:Picornavirus Structure.PNG
- File:Picornaviruses.PNG
- File:Poliovirus.png
- File:Poly(A) Polymerase .jpg
- File:Poly(A)-binding Protein .jpg
- File:Potassium channel @rasmol (1bl8).png
- File:Potassium channel.png
- File:Potassium channels shut and open.png
- File:PotassiumIonChannel.png
- File:Prolactin.png
- File:Proteasome.png
- File:Proteins of the Lac operon (beta-galactosidase, galactoside acetyltransferase and lactose permease).png
- File:Pyruvate Kinase.png
- File:Reverse Transcriptase (Two Enzymes in One).PNG
- File:Reverse Transcriptase.PNG
- File:Rhodopsins.PNG
- File:Ribosome (bacteria).JPG
- File:Ribozyme (self exciding intron).png
- File:Ribozyme.png
- File:RNA polymerase (1i6h).png
- File:RuBisCo (8x2subunits-plants-algae) + (2subs-photosynthBacteria).JPG
- File:Sav1866 MDR transporter.png
- File:Selenocysteine synthase and selenophosphate synthase.jpg
- File:Serine proteases mechanism.png
- File:Serine-proteases (Trypsin-Chymotrypsin-Elastase).png
- File:Serotonin N-acetyltransferase.jpg
- File:Serum Albumin @RasMol.png
- File:Serum Albumin.png
- File:Sex hormone binding globulin.jpg
- File:Sickle cell hemoglobin shortened vi.png
- File:Sickle cell hemoglobin zh.png
- File:Sickle cell hemoglobin.png
- File:Src - active vs. inactive.gif
- File:Src protein.png
- File:Stickyends.gif
- File:Superoxide Dismutase.jpg
- File:Superoxide Dismutases.jpg
- File:SV40 DNA and capsid.png
- File:SV40 T-antigen.png
- File:T-cell receptor.png
- File:TATA-binding protein.png
- File:TATA-BP associated cofactors.png
- File:TATA-BP association with TATA.png
- File:TCR-MHC bindings-tr.png
- File:TCR-MHC bindings.png
- File:TCR-MHC I bindings.png
- File:Tdimers1.png
- File:Tdimers2.png
- File:The chromophore of GFP.png
- File:The Multidrug Resistance Transporter AcrB.jpg
- File:Three caspases (1, 3, 9).png
- File:Three catalases.png
- File:Thrombin activation.PNG
- File:Thrombin block by hirudin.PNG
- File:Thrombin.PNG
- File:Thymidylate Synthase.jpg
- File:Thymine dimer.jpg
- File:Tissue factor activation.png
- File:Tissue factor.png
- File:Topoisomerase I.png
- File:Topoisomerase II.png
- File:Toxic components of anthrax toxin.PNG
- File:Transferrin.PNG
- File:Transpeptidase vs beta-lactamase.PNG
- File:Transposase.png
- File:Transthyretin vs transferrin.png
- File:Triose Phosphate Isomerase.png
- File:TRNA.PNG
- File:Trypsin vs trypsinogen.png
- File:Two ''Photosystem I'' molecules.PNG
- File:Two insulin.JPG
- File:Two views of photosystem I trimer.PNG
- File:Two-adh.PNG
- File:Tyrosine Hydroxylase.png
- File:Ubiquitin specific activation.png
- File:Ubiquitin.png
- File:Zinc Fingers - TFIIIA.jpg
- File:Zinc Fingers in proteins - GATA-1, FOG-1, HIV-1 nucleocapsid protein, EEA1.jpg
- File:Zinc fingers.jpg
_(penicillin_target).PNG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
-BDNA(1bna)-ZDNA(2dcg).JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(or_cAMP-rec_prot_CRP)_-_Omodimer_(1cgp)_activated_by_cAMP_(purple-makes_CAP_fit_for_DNA_(red))_-_stimulates_synthesis_of_enzymes_breaking_down_non-Glc_sugars.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.PNG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_with_Indometacin.gif&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_binding_to_a_TyrK_receptor.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_Polymerase_.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
-binding_Protein_.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.PNG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_%2B_(2subs-photosynthBacteria).JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:00, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Commons:Deletion requests/Category:PDB.org's Molecules of the Month Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:17, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
Images of Lloyd's building by Tbmurray
[edit]- File:Lloyds1.jpg
- File:Lloyds2.jpg
- File:Lloyds3.jpg
- File:Lloyds4.jpg
- File:Lloyds5.jpg
- File:Lloyds6.jpg
- File:Lloyds7.jpg
The uploader claims these images were taken from the URL:
Although it appears this URL was once valid, as it is linked from the Lime St tab at [8], it is no longer available, returning a 404 page. The uploader claims that the page once contained this statement:
"Download copyright free, high resolution images of the Lloyd's building. All of these images are copyright free."
This uploader has a history of fabricating upload information, such as claiming works taken from the web are his own work, so I don't think we can take him at his word. I have e-mail out to the lloyds.com people. If they don't respond (or respond in the negative) then these images will have to go. --Dcoetzee (talk) 17:18, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
- These images were indeed downloaded from that webpage, although I am not sure why it returns a 404 error now. I am sure the Lloyd's.com user support staff will verify that these images were free of copyright and were downloaded from that page in good faith. --Tbmurray (talk) 15:45, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Given the user's record and the strict copyright policy stated on the Lloyd;s site, it seems unlikely that these are PD as claimed. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:33, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
delete ! no need in an enclyclopedia Hellotheworld (talk) 22:51, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
- Keep. I don't see any reason to delete. Can illustrate brassieres, tired women or dirtness of body. Commons is project which stores files not only for wikipedia but for other project, too (wikibooks, wikisource, wikinews and others) and not only for now but for the future use, as well. Electron
<Talk?> 09:09, 21 October 2010 (UTC) - Keep, say there is a Wikinews article about how some new study suggests bathing is more healthy than showering when relatively clean but showering is more healthy than bathing when relatively dirty...unless we want to be racy, we don't really want a nude or "nude in a towel" image for such an article - better to have a relatively modest image for it. Also, as Electron says, people click "See Commons for more instances of dirtiness", etc. And obviously they expect to see new images, not just those used in the dirtiness article. Max Rebo Band"almost suspiciously excellent" 13:53, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
- Delete: We donna know anything about copyrights (or personal rights), the putative "original" has been deleted on FlickR, and this pic is clearly out of scope and not used. Commons is not a costfree database. --Yikrazuul (talk) 13:47, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
- It's been deleted on Flickr? I can still see it... Max Rebo Band"almost suspiciously excellent" 22:22, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
- You are right, there was a filter. Oddly the picture uploaded here is cropped. I wonder why...--Yikrazuul (talk) 16:51, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
Kept Original image on Flickr is at present still there and free licensed. Image seems properly categorized and multiple users think it is of in scope usefulness. That one user thinks there is "no need" for it is not a reason to delete. Infrogmation (talk) 15:29, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
Private image : out of project scope ; no encyclopedic interest Civa (talk) 22:38, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
- Speedy keep per previous discussion. Illustrates dirtiness; other relevant cats. Infrogmation (talk) 23:01, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
- Keep I see no reason to delate (see previous discussion above). Electron <Talk?> 08:40, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
- Comment I uploaded the orginal photo because is more usuful to ilustrate washing of the hard dirty body. Now is used on pl-wiki -> pl:Brud do ilustrate washing of the human body. Electron <Talk?> 14:15, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Tommy Jantarek (talk) 00:15, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
- Keep as previously said, useful image illustrating dirt(iness). Jeriby (talk) 02:40, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
Kept. --Trycatch (talk) 00:21, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
Out of scope, no potiential use, watermark Tyw7 (☎ Contact me! • Contributions) Changing the world one edit at a time! 13:08, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
Speedy kept per previous listings. Infrogmation (talk) 13:43, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- Reopened by 99of9
- Delete as above nom and I agree with 99of9. --Tyw7 (☎ Contact me! • Contributions) Changing the world one edit at a time! 16:16, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
- Keep per previous discussions. 99of9, could you please elaborate on what you think the COM:PEOPLE problem with the image is? Infrogmation (talk) 17:05, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
- Comment "When required, evidence of consent would usually consist of an affirmation from the uploader of the media." Since this image is identifiable in a private location, consent is clearly required, so we need some evidence that this has in fact been given. This came as a WMF resolution [9] 99of9 (talk) 08:38, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
- 1) The photo has been on Commons under a free license consistantly since 2007; the Flickr photographer is still active as of this month. 2)This photo is one of a set featuring the woman shown -- actually two sets; one of the series of "washing", and a much larger set of the woman shown by name, showing numerous groups of photos taken on seperate dates over time. IMO, these fact strongly suggest consent -- certainly not absolute proof, but I would say much better than the vast majority of photographs of identifiable people currently on Commons. (BTW, did you take any time to look at the photo in context in the Flickr photo stream & sets?) Infrogmation (talk) 05:04, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
I withdraw my nomination Ok, having looked at the breadth in time and costume of the second set there is sufficient evidence of the subject's consent to publish. I had looked at the narrow set previously, but that wasn't convincing on its own. --99of9 (talk) 12:53, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
- 1) The photo has been on Commons under a free license consistantly since 2007; the Flickr photographer is still active as of this month. 2)This photo is one of a set featuring the woman shown -- actually two sets; one of the series of "washing", and a much larger set of the woman shown by name, showing numerous groups of photos taken on seperate dates over time. IMO, these fact strongly suggest consent -- certainly not absolute proof, but I would say much better than the vast majority of photographs of identifiable people currently on Commons. (BTW, did you take any time to look at the photo in context in the Flickr photo stream & sets?) Infrogmation (talk) 05:04, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
- Keep Per Infrogmation and my reasons put in the previous discussons. The photo is in use. Electron ツ ➧☎ 10:58, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
- Comment I have cropped out the watermark and frame. --Tyw7 (☎ Contact me! • Contributions) Changing the world one edit at a time! 03:46, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
Kept, listing withdrawn by nominator. Infrogmation (talk) 16:20, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
Library of Congress page not says that they hold the original negative of this file (contrary to e.g. File:Liz Taylor, Liza Todd and family by Toni Frissell, 1957.jpg). But this is required for the file to be public domain according to http://www.loc.gov/rr/print/res/070_fris.html Martin H. (talk) 22:59, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
- Keep The image is copyrighted Toni Frissell, so it was not a work for hire; Frissell donated the rights (which probably had lapsed). /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 23:27, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
- Delete The rights status for this image is actually undecided, and this is not one of the images from a donated negative. -Nard (Hablemonos)(Let's talk) 00:47, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
- Keep I think I agree with Peter Kuiper. The LoC has not evaluated the rights yet, but that doesn't mean that we can't. By the documentation and the rights statement for the collection... I think it is OK. She was a staff photographer at Vogue until the late 40s; this photo was either in 1957 or 1958. The Library of Congress does not have the negative on this one, which is the slam-dunk situation, but the "Photoprint by Toni Frissell" notation does seem to imply that this was not a work for hire (otherwise it would have been credited to someone else), and the work for hire situation is the only thing the rights page at the LoC warns about. Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:32, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
- Keep per Peter Kuiper and Carl Lindberg; I think they have assessed the situation accurately. Infrogmation (talk) 17:57, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
- I just wonder, what the sentence at the LoC means: Images for which the Library holds original negative: Per the instrument of gift, Miss Frissell dedicated to the public the rights she held to original negatives in her collection. For this image there was no negative transfered and therefore there is no dedication from Frissell. I dont see this answered yet and also Carls comment only contains a «...» on this. There are similar photos from LIFE (cover) magazine for example. --Martin H. (talk) 19:38, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
- Comment I'm not sure which way I go on this, but please note that
- "Photoprint by Toni Frissell"
does not saying anything about the ownership of the copyright. At that time many periodicals and books would show a similar credit line even when they owned the copyright. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:57, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
Kept Jcb (talk) 10:35, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
keine Freigabe durch Erziehungsberechtigte ersichtlich, einzige Uploads des Benutzers waren Nacktbilder - Freigabe ist fraglich. --Ralf Roletschek (talk) 18:41, 15 September 2009 (UTC) Ich stimme Ralf zu. Bilder entfernen
Keep Own work by uploader, public situation. --Simonxag (talk) 18:04, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
Personality rights injured. No permission by photographed, identifiable persons. German FKK-beaches are commonly NOT public places, yet often separated, enclosed areas. No proove of public situation. In Addition neither date nor EXIF data given and relatively low resolution, and only contribution by this uploader. Alltogether strong indications for an illegal upload, possibly from flickr or other sources. License could be copyfraud, too. Please delete immediately. -- ~ smial (talk) 19:53, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
- Keep No reason to think any "personality rights injured". No identifiable persons; the only potentially identifiable face has been gently pixilated to avoid identification in an abundance of caution. 1,600 × 1,200 px size is similar to many other Commons photos, not small website size. Zero evidence of copyright violation offered. Infrogmation (talk) 00:14, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
- "gently pixilated"? "No identifiable persons"? ROTFLBTC! You should immediately try to find a good eye specialist, but get help from friends, or neighboursm, to avoid injuries by overlooking traffic signs, cars, or red lights. And thanks for ignoring essential arguments: NO public place, two more identifiable persons, socket puppet upload. Happy commons! -- smial (talk) 08:27, 18 March 2011 (UTC) Ps.: TinyEye found the image in lower resolution, but without pixelation here. That page samples a lot of similar images, taken in many different locations, with different cameras, different quality, all without license, permission etc. Do you still really believe, uploader FKK is the author of this image? -- smial (talk) 08:44, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
- Please keep discussions based on relevent facts without snark or insults directed at other users, thank you. I note that the page with a smaller version of this image dates to a year later than when the image was uploaded to Commons. Infrogmation (talk) 15:43, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
- "gently pixilated"? "No identifiable persons"? ROTFLBTC! You should immediately try to find a good eye specialist, but get help from friends, or neighboursm, to avoid injuries by overlooking traffic signs, cars, or red lights. And thanks for ignoring essential arguments: NO public place, two more identifiable persons, socket puppet upload. Happy commons! -- smial (talk) 08:27, 18 March 2011 (UTC) Ps.: TinyEye found the image in lower resolution, but without pixelation here. That page samples a lot of similar images, taken in many different locations, with different cameras, different quality, all without license, permission etc. Do you still really believe, uploader FKK is the author of this image? -- smial (talk) 08:44, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Per nom. The problems are - as usual - no source, a questionable license, no proof for permission (COM:PEOPLE). Could be grabbed, could be stolen, whatsoever. --Yikrazuul (talk) 18:25, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Kept: kept by Juliancolton Ezarateesteban 16:29, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
- Einspruch. Löschentscheidung geht nicht auf die erweiterte Argumentation und die Belege des erneuten Löschantrags ein, ist mithin unzulässig. Der Hinweis "I note that the page with a smaller version of this image dates to a year later than when the image was uploaded to Commons" in Verbindung mit der tatsache, daß das Bild aus der zweiten Quelle gerade nicht verpixelt ist, zeigt doch gerade, daß es nicht eine Kopie des Bildes von commons ist, sondern eine gemeinsame Quelle existiert, wobei dann sowohl das Bild auf commons als auch das Bild auf der anderen Website beides Urheberrechtsverletzungen darstellen. -- smial (talk) 19:47, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
- Einspruch. Auch die Verpixelung reicht nacht deutschem Recht bei weitem nicht aus (Schricker, Torwarturteil). Dieses Bild ist eine eindeutige Verletzung von Persönlichkeitsrechten. --Ralf Roletschek (talk) 06:52, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
- Delete, the version without pixilation shows that this is a possible copyvio. Regretably, because this is one of the rare images that shows FKK/naturism not as some kind of peepshow or with a creepy focus on genitals. --Martin H. (talk) 12:20, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. - high risk image, insufficient information to keep it - Jcb (talk) 16:03, 19 April 2011 (UTC)