Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2011/04/26
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
|
|
acetylene.jpg){kind=link}
62.23.102.40 14:05, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
Kept: no reason specified Jcb (talk) 15:22, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
Talkpage of a deleted page. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 04:34, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jcb (talk) 16:24, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
Talkpage of a deleted page. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 04:35, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jcb (talk) 16:24, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
Duplicate (lower resolution version) of File:Zaporozhian by Repin.jpg Very trivial (talk) 09:39, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Speedy: duplicate Anatoliy (talk) 22:35, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
The licensing template does not make sense. It claims that it is a screenshot of a related English Wikipedia page, but the page referenced does not explain its source. If all that the editor is trying to do is to illustrate the shade of color of a team's uniform a square box showing that color would be sufficient without creating licensing problems. A some point, someone must offer a source for the color, the image or the combination. Someone must either claim it is his/her own work and is licensing it or provide a source and licensing data for the underlying elements. 66.173.140.100 14:26, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
- Licensing issues fixed. Deletion should no longer be required. --LauraHale (talk) 17:57, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
Kept: Issues have been fixed by the uploader. Bidgee (talk) 21:02, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
Source: Internet, Author:Google does not give our uploader the right to make this PD. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 19:03, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
- delete, same picture deleted before as copyvio--Motopark (talk) 19:15, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
Delete -- speedy close, copyvio of http://caribbeandigital.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/ABEL.jpg Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 20:28, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
PRIVATE IMAGE. UNAUTHORISED USE. Image is nonfree - subject of photo contacted WMF and asked for it to be removed please DS (talk) 18:55, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Per ticket 2011042610015551 + wmf confirmation — [ Tanvir | Talk ] 06:22, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
unsourced, unauthored, unused private image - out of scope Santosga (talk) 19:22, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
- Just noticed that it is also a duplicate, I processed it accordingly. Santosga (talk) 19:25, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: (not by me) Jcb (talk) 14:50, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Also nominated for deletion for the same reason:
Non-free images. Taken from a video games that were published by Ubisoft, in which there is no proof of them releasing any such images under the CC-BY-SA or PD. MuZemike (talk) 15:55, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Cliffs Of Dover + Assassin's Creed -- Common Good (talk) 19:56, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
No EXIF. Full version of this file can be seen her. Not own work. Geagea (talk) 00:32, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio Lymantria (talk) 06:48, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
This is a corporate logo. Uploader has given no evidence that they have authority to license it in a manner acceptable for Wikimedia Commons. Orlady (talk) 03:32, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
Delete per nom, no permission. Jujutacular talk 11:52, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: No permission Lymantria (talk) 06:51, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
Low quality, superceded by more accurate pictures like this or that. Yikrazuul (talk) 18:00, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
- Delete low quality, and also ambiguous alkene E/Z geometry. DMacks (talk) 21:51, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Per discussion. Leyo 09:31, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
acetylene.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
acetylene.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Just a simple chemical structure formula. Graphic is of rather poor quality; low resolution. Norbert Nagel 20:14, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
Comment. It might be poor, but it's in use and I don't see any replacement for it. I can draw one later today, but until someone provides an alternative to use as the main image illustrating this entity at en:Bis(trimethylsilyl)acetylene, it's not deletable here. DMacks (talk) 16:33, 27 April 2011 (UTC)- Delete Unused and replaceable by File:Bis(trimethylsilyl)acetylene.png. DMacks (talk) 18:43, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
acetylene.jpg){kind=link}
acetylene.png){kind=link}
Deleted: Per discussion. Leyo 09:32, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
acetylene.jpg){kind=link}
Web resolution surely not own work, similar image is present in defence accadamy site, copy vio Kiran Gopi (talk) 10:23, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: copyvio Geagea (talk) 02:23, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
Private image, not a notable group. GeorgHH • talk 10:23, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Unused, out of scope image. Jujutacular talk 11:47, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Common Good (talk) 17:26, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, wrong file name. I shall upload it again with another name. Zinneke (talk) 22:37, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
- For renaming use Template:Rename, but also provide license info. --ELEKHHT 13:50, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: (not by me) Jcb (talk) 16:51, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
no longer desired and used Luxusfrosch (talk) 13:17, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: (not by me) Jcb (talk) 21:29, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
Scan from magazine or newspaper - very probably copyvio Lymantria (talk) 15:54, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
- Delete -Per nom, Scan from magazine or newspaper not sure the image is in pd --Kiran Gopi (talk) 11:00, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jcb (talk) 22:15, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
Scan from magazine or newspaper - very probably copyvio. Lymantria (talk) 15:55, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
- Delete -Per nom, Scan from magazine or newspaper not sure the image is in pd --Kiran Gopi (talk) 11:01, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jcb (talk) 22:16, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
Photos could be better placed and sized. 24.129.116.52 17:58, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jcb (talk) 22:22, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
converted to DR by me from a copyvio-speedy by User:Hold and wave for "http://www.paroquiasaobasilio.com.br/detalhes.php?cod=21" --Túrelio (talk) 14:50, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
- Somewhat unlikely a copyvio as "our" image was uploaded in 2008, whereas the article on that website is from "25 de Outubro de 2009." and in addition the image on that website has 300x450 pix, whereas our has far higher resolution. --Túrelio (talk) 15:30, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Uploader has very loose understanding of copyvio. This includes taking images from a site that sells its images, and from explicit (c) site as "own work". Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:03, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
converted to DR by me from a copyvio-speedy by User:Hold and wave for "http://www.gaudiumpress.org/view/show/14473-xvi-congresso-eucaristico-nacional-tera-ritos-orientais-catolicos" © Ass. Worldwide Plus Brazil - 2009 --Túrelio (talk) 14:53, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
- Unlikely a copyvio from that site, as "our" image has far higher resolution and was uploaded far earlier (27-05-2008) than the article (26-03-2010) on the cited site. --Túrelio (talk) 14:07, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Our user does not seem to understand "own work". I have just deleted two images that were plain copyvios -- source was higher res than ours. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:58, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
Category:Québec Highway Shields
[edit]I have a pretty big list that needs only two extra things I wasn't able to do before deletion (file 191 and 211). All these files were changed in SVG after a request found on English Wikipedia graphic lab archives. I've corrected ALL the associated pages for the PNG files and double checked it, so by now you can delete every file listed here (except 191 and 211 that requires extra attention). The list is pretty big, so I won't use the bullet lists too much.
- Comment Please note that it is much faster (5-10x) to delete from a bulleted list than from a list that has multiple files per line. A bulleted list allows DelReqHandler to work on multiple files at once.
- File:Qc101.png
- File:Qc102.png
- File:Qc104.png
- File:Qc105.png
- File:Qc107.png
- File:Qc108.png
- File:Qc109.png
- File:Qc131.png
- File:Qc132.png
- File:Qc133.png
- File:Qc134.png
- File:Qc136.png
- File:Qc137.png
- File:Qc138.png
- File:Qc139.png
- File:Qc191.png
(NEEDS TO BE CONVERTED IN SVG)Done! - File:Qc195.png
- File:Qc197.png
- File:Qc198.png
- File:Qc199.png
- File:Qc201.png
- File:Qc202.png
- File:Qc203.png
- File:Qc204.png
- File:Qc205.png
- File:Qc206.png
- File:Qc207.png
- File:Qc208.png
- File:Qc209.png
- File:Qc210.png
- File:Qc211.png
(NEEDS TO BE CONVERTED IN SVG)Done! - File:Qc212.png
- File:Qc213.png
- File:Qc214.png
- File:Qc215.png
- File:Qc216.png
- File:Qc217.png
- File:Qc218.png
- File:Qc219.png
- File:Qc220.png
- File:Qc221.png
- File:Qc222.png
- File:Qc223.png
- File:Qc224.png
- File:Qc225.png
- File:Qc226.png
- File:Qc227.png
- File:Qc228.png
- File:Qc229.png
- File:Qc230.png
- File:Qc231.png
- File:Qc232.png
- File:Qc233.png
- File:Qc234.png
- File:Qc235.png
- File:Qc236.png
- File:Qc237.png
- File:Qc239.png
- File:Qc291.png
- File:Qc293.png
- File:Qc295.png
- File:Qc296.png
- File:Qc297.png
- File:Qc298.png
- File:Qc299.png
- File:Qc301.png
- File:Qc303.png
- File:Qc305.png (NOT USED IN PNG AND NO SVG)
- File:Qc307.png
- File:Qc309.png
- File:Qc340.png
- File:Qc341.png
- File:Qc342.png
- File:Qc343.png
- File:Qc344.png
- File:Qc345.png
- File:Qc346.png
- File:Qc347.png
- File:Qc348.png
- File:Qc349.png
- File:Qc360.png
- File:Qc361.png
- File:Qc362.png
- File:Qc363.png
- File:Qc364.png
- File:Qc365.png
- File:Qc366.png
- File:Qc367.png
- File:Qc368.png
- File:Qc369.png
- File:Qc370.png
- File:Qc371.png
- File:Qc372.png
- File:Qc373.png
- File:Qc375.png
- File:Qc379.png (NOT USED IN PNG AND NO SVG)
- File:Qc381.png
- File:Qc382.png
- File:Qc385.png
- File:Qc386.png
- File:Qc387.png (NOT USED IN PNG AND NO SVG)
- File:Qc388.png
- File:Qc389.png
- File:Qc390.png
- File:Qc391.png
- File:Qc392.png (NOT USED IN PNG AND NO SVG)
- File:Qc393.png
- File:Qc394.png (NOT USED IN PNG AND NO SVG)
- File:Qc395.png
- File:Qc396.png (NOT USED IN PNG AND NO SVG)
- File:Qc397.png
- File:Qc398.png (NOT USED IN PNG AND NO SVG)
- File:Qc399.png
--UncivilFire (talk) 01:58, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:22, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
No evidence of free use license. See http://www.worldvision.in/Terms_of_Use ELEKHHT 04:55, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
- I wrote to them. I don't think there will be an issue in it. Thanks for your help. User:12afser12T 08:05, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:24, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
Orphaned. used in a now deleted out of scope page. no foreseeable use. FASTILY (TALK) 05:38, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:24, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
Orphaned. used in a now deleted out of scope page. no foreseeable use. FASTILY (TALK) 05:38, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
- Comment quite clearly in scope in my opinion, a scenery of a pond in a town. I am concerned that the image might be a copyvio: small resolution, no camera exif. MKFI 13:53, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:24, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
The picture is signed "J. Polewinski" however the death date of this person is not known (really, nothing is known about an artist of this name). The book containing the picture was published in 1885, the person at the portrait looks much younger than on File:Waleria Marrene.jpg, so it was probably created about 1870. It is unlikely that its author still lived in 1941, but possible. If the picture is not to be deleted, I have no idea what license should be used: {{PD-1923}} is obvious, but what else? Ankry (talk) 10:03, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
Keep There is usus that pictures produced before 1900 of unknown authors we are keep here generally. If we know nothing about J. Polewinski we don't know it is a real name of the author or it is only his/her pseudonym (in that time it was not a rely case when a woman tried to hide under a man sounded pseudonym because an artistic work was bad seen in same circles of upper classes)... I would use {{Anonymous-EU}} and add the description about the known facts. Electron ツ ➧☎ 13:16, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
Kept Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:26, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
Photograph's photo, no idea about the actual source. Kiran Gopi (talk) 10:34, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:26, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
Photograph's photo, no idea about the actual source. Kiran Gopi (talk) 10:35, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:26, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
source "internet" Slfi (talk) 11:47, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:26, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
copyvio, http://www.hauptstadtkulturfonds.berlin.de/index.php?id=231&tx_nkhkf_pi1[category]=140&tx_nkhkf_pi1[singleView]=4787&tx_nkhkf_pi1[image]=2#image Athenchen (talk) 12:59, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:26, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
copyvio, http://www.hauptstadtkulturfonds.berlin.de/index.php?id=231&tx_nkhkf_pi1[category]=140&tx_nkhkf_pi1[singleView]=4787&tx_nkhkf_pi1[image]=1#image Athenchen (talk) 13:00, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
- Full ack --83.135.247.140 09:12, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:27, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
possible copyvio, compare "Permission" and http://www.wunderhorn.de/wunderhorn/content/autoren/alle/glissant_douard/index_ger.html Athenchen (talk) 13:02, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:28, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
Author is unknown therefore there is no evidence supplied that shows that the author of this image died more then 70 years ago. per 17 USC 302: "Works of unknown authors or where the author's death date is unknown are copyrighted until the shorter of 95 years since the first publication or 120 years since their creation" or before 1891, far before c 1922. --ARTEST4ECHO talk 19:39, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
Kept: PD-anon-1923 Jcb (talk) 14:38, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
See also: Commons:Deletion requests/File:FredM Large.jpg
I normally wouldn’t re-nominate an image once it was kept (this is the very first time ever), however, the "Kept: PD-anon-1923" was absolutely and clearly in error. Both {{PD-anon-1923}} and {{PD-US-not renewed}} require the image be Published ("because it was published in the United States"). I have seen nothing that says it was published in any way shape or form. We have no idea who the "creator" was, if it was published, if it was an anonymous or pseudonymous works, or anything else simply because the uploader failed to supply the information.
COM:L#United_States and Wikipedia: When does copyright expire clearly says "Works created but not published before January 1, 1978 are protected for 95 years from the date they were registered for copyright, or 95 (for anonymous or pseudonymous works) or 120 years (for works by individuals) from year of creation, whichever expires first." Since we cannot Assume it was published, {{PD-US-unpublished}} is the only legitimate tag that can be use and it says:
- 1. its author died before 1941;
- 2. the death date of its author is not known, and it was created before 1891;
- 3. it is an anonymous work, a pseudonymous work, or a work made for hire, and it was created before 1891.
The author is "unknown" so 1 and 2 don't apply. The image is not older then 1891 so 3 dosn't apply. Thefore the image fails to meet the requirements for {{PD-US-unpublished}}. This image has so much missing information, it could theoretically even be tagged {{No source since}}, but I didn't tag it like that to give the uploaders a chance to fix the {{Information}} tag.--ARTEST4ECHO talk 13:56, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
- Keep - Those days (1922) people were not yet taking pictures of everything with their mobile phones, A picture with this age and of this kind is very unlikely to not have been published promptly. - Jcb (talk) 15:04, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
- Delete, missing essential source information; photo from 1922 is not even close to being a proper source, we need at least to know where the uploader obtained this copy (online, from a book, private archives, ...) in order to assert its copyright status. Guessing it was published is simply not an option. –Tryphon☂ 15:36, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
Again, "very unlikely to not have been published promptly." dose not establish that it was published. This could be a family photo that was never published. How do we even know this is from 1922? Frederick M. Smith died in 1946. This image could conceivably be from then. As Tryphon points out, there is simply not enough information to assert its copyright status.--ARTEST4ECHO talk 20:09, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Without evidence of publication, we cannot keep it. I am certainly not alone in owning albums full of family pictures and formal portraits such as this from the 1920s and earlier that have never been published. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:32, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
Lower quality duplicat of File:Slastion-Bandurist Samiylo Yasnij.jpg Very trivial (talk) 14:10, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jcb (talk) 18:28, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
No FOP in Russia, see Commons:Deletion requests/File:MosMetro VDNKh 2011.jpg for details, station opened in 2003. PereslavlFoto (talk) 14:54, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
- I'm against that Wikipedia so blindly followed to laws about copyright. Excuse me for my bad English --Eugeny1988 (talk) 15:01, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
- The law may seem unpleasant, but it is the law. Didn't you vote for the members of State Duma? You may transfer the image into Russia Wikipedia, they have some chance to keep it.--PereslavlFoto (talk) 15:22, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
- @Pereslavl: I don't understand what are your motives for nominating this and other pictures for deletion. The important ones we will transfer anyway to other Wikimedia projects (e.g. the German Wikipedia), which don't care about Russian laws. So your mission to enforce the laws of Матушка Россия will fail anyway. --Paramecium (talk) 16:23, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
- The motivation is to make Commons a storage of free content. This content is not free. Do I need any special motivation to follow the law? By ther way, the picture is not so dark. A commons user living in Russia can easily speak to those artists/architects and gain their approval. I wonder why noone does this...--PereslavlFoto (talk) 16:39, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
- By the way, what are the motives of other citizens following "no FOP" policy in their countries? Why noone shoots the ligths of Eiffel Tower, for example — just to enforce the laws of Mère France? I think law-abiding citizens do not think why, they just follow.--PereslavlFoto (talk) 16:39, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
- On the other hand, I cannot understand the motives to upload non-free images to free Commons.--PereslavlFoto (talk) 16:39, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
- Not all countries in the world were took this idiot law --Eugeny1988 (talk) 21:10, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
- @Pereslavl: I don't understand what are your motives for nominating this and other pictures for deletion. The important ones we will transfer anyway to other Wikimedia projects (e.g. the German Wikipedia), which don't care about Russian laws. So your mission to enforce the laws of Матушка Россия will fail anyway. --Paramecium (talk) 16:23, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
- The law may seem unpleasant, but it is the law. Didn't you vote for the members of State Duma? You may transfer the image into Russia Wikipedia, they have some chance to keep it.--PereslavlFoto (talk) 15:22, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Whatever your view on our policies, we do follow local copyright law on Commons in most cases. With no FOP in Russia, this image of a copyrighted work must be deleted. Buddy431 (talk) 16:47, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
Kept: all possible FOP issues are DM Jcb (talk) 18:32, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
Files uploaded by PrinceMarciano
[edit]- File:Prince Dirty Mind Tour.jpg
- File:Prince Controversy Tour.jpg
- File:Prince 1999 Tour.jpg
- File:Prince Purple Rain Tour.png
- File:Scène du Purple Rain Tour.png
- File:Prince éxécute The Splits.png
- File:Prince avec son groupe pendant le Lovesexy Tour.png
- File:La Scène du Lovesexy Tour.png
PrinceMarciano (talk · contribs · page moves · block user · block log · upload log) has previously uploaded multiple copyright violations. The files listed here appear to be screenshots of television broadcasts or photographs of television screens rather than the uploader's own work. The exception is File:Prince Controversy Tour.jpg, but the resolution of that is still low enough that I'm inclined to doubt the uploader's claims given their history. —LX (talk, contribs) 15:11, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jcb (talk) 18:35, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
No FOP in Russia. Wall images copyright by Zurab Konstantines dze Tsereteli, the underground station opened in 2003. PereslavlFoto (talk) 15:19, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jcb (talk) 18:52, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
No FOP in Russia. Wall images copyright by Zurab Konstantines dze Tsereteli, the underground station opened in 2003. PereslavlFoto (talk) 15:19, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
- Yikes! is it a vampire saga reenactment? I mean, Zu's "picture"? Delete all of this kitsch, and congratulations with crossing with another sysop. 257 of them remaining... ;) NVO (talk) 16:03, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
- Будьте добры, напишите родной речью? Мне лень мозги ломать :-).--PereslavlFoto (talk) 16:14, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
- Поздравление с наездом на ещё одного сисопа. Осталось 257. А сама "картина", конечно, страшна - вот бы её в реале куда-нибудь ... к юбилею Колумба ... отправить. NVO (talk) 16:20, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
- При чём тут сисопы? Я выставляю фотографии, которые не могут быть свободными в силу ГК4. Что же касается 257, хорошо если так, а то ведь на DR их совсем мало.--PereslavlFoto (talk) 16:33, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
- Поздравление с наездом на ещё одного сисопа. Осталось 257. А сама "картина", конечно, страшна - вот бы её в реале куда-нибудь ... к юбилею Колумба ... отправить. NVO (talk) 16:20, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
- Будьте добры, напишите родной речью? Мне лень мозги ломать :-).--PereslavlFoto (talk) 16:14, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
- Delete: Clear copyright violation. As an aside, we should be letting the people on the Wikipedias where these are used know that the image will be deleted. I'll let the English Wikipedia know in this case. Buddy431 (talk) 16:49, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jcb (talk) 18:52, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
Prośba własna, plik niepotrzebny Marek013 (talk) 17:11, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
Kept: insufficien reason for deletion Jcb (talk) 18:54, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
Zdjęcie niepotrzebne, prośba własna Marek013 (talk) 08:59, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
Kept, no reason to delete. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:23, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
There is no source for this map. The post dayton situation in Bosnia and Herzegovina is one of two entities - a Serbian entity, and a Muslim-Croat Federation entity. The HVO and ABiH as indicated in the small legend is wrong - these two were joined in 1994. On top of that, some blue places were not in control of the croats since 1992. This map is a false propaganda map with no source. LAz17 (talk) 17:39, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
- Keep. Here is an external source with similar map: http://www.srpska-mreza.com/MAPS/Bosnia/DaytonBosnia.jpg Croat and Muslim BIH army were officially joined in 1994, but de facto remained separate after Dayton Peace Treaty. So, I would not agree that this map is not accurate or that it represents "propaganda". PANONIAN (talk) 09:19, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Kept Jcb (talk) 18:54, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
The source is http://www.svrpu.ru/psv/3995/100.shtml and I see no copyright notice saying that this photo is PD. And the this is a photo of a 3D-work so PD-art can not be used. Also nominated for deletion on en:Wikipedia:Possibly_unfree_files/2011_April_26#File:Atlasov.jpg. MGA73 (talk) 17:49, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jcb (talk) 18:57, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
The line between k and l is incorrect; see File:Brosen ironcarbon.svg. Wizard191 (talk) 17:54, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
Kept: see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Diag phase fer carbone.png Jcb (talk) 19:03, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
The line between k and l is incorrect; see File:Brosen ironcarbon.svg. Wizard191 (talk) 17:55, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
- There are in fact two iron/carbon binary diagrams, see File:Diagramme fer carbone.svg: the stable (graphite) diagram (dashed lines) and the metastable (iron carbide) diagram (plain line). The stable diagram is adapted to grey cast irons, the metastable diagram is adapted to steel and white cast iron: it takes a long time to form graphite precipitates, it only occurs for high carbon content and with alloy element such as silicon.
- Therefore, it depends whether you refere to the stable diagram or to the metastable one.
- The media File:Diag_phase_fer_carbone.png clearly referes to the metastable diagram (the "Fe3C" labels). Although the caption of File:Brosen ironcarbon.svg also mentions "Fe3C", I have the feeling that the lines correspond to the stable diagram.
- So, it is my opinion that the caption of File:Brosen ironcarbon.svg is wrong, and that File:Diag_phase_fer_carbone.png is right.
- Cdang (talk) 13:04, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
- Interesting. I never realized a difference until you noted the above. That's a nice diagram you made of the two; it matches well with the graph I found in my Degarmo book (my William F. Smith book is worthless, I don't know why I keep looking at it). I see what you are saying about File:Brosen ironcarbon.svg, however it could go either way: either the line has to move, or the text has to change. It all depends on what the image was supposed to mean. I tend to like the edit I made because the vast majority of the images already on commons are of the metastable phase. Wizard191 (talk) 02:30, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
Kept Jcb (talk) 19:03, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
The line between k and l is incorrect; see File:Brosen ironcarbon.svg. Either fix it or delete it and change all of the in use files to File:Brosen ironcarbon.svg. Wizard191 (talk) 17:57, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
Kept: see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Diag phase fer carbone.png Jcb (talk) 19:05, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
The line between k and l is incorrect; see File:Brosen ironcarbon.svg. Either fix it or delete it and change all of the in use files to File:Brosen ironcarbon.svg. Wizard191 (talk) 17:57, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
Kept: see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Diag phase fer carbone.png Jcb (talk) 19:05, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
Screenshot of a non-free software (Microsoft Outlook) Sreejith K (talk) 04:50, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Speedly as copyvio George Chernilevsky talk 06:44, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
Unused and outside of project scope. —LX (talk, contribs) 18:39, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
- This also applies to File:Pepon.jpg. —LX (talk, contribs) 18:40, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. (not by me) - protected against recreation - Jcb (talk) 22:19, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
no evidence of permission - picture is adobe cut and copy - no original meta data.- picture has been around on the Internet for the last couple of years. Off2riorob (talk) 19:08, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jcb (talk) 19:06, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
Looks like it was scanned from a book or a magazine. –Tryphon☂ 19:39, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
Dear Tryphon, this is the photo which I had taken in 2001. Furthermore,I already have a reference
OTRS ticket 2010092810008441, for this and other files which I am corently uploading to Wikimedia Commons.
best wishes
- Keep I don't see why this can't be own work. However, the date is wrong. It should say 2001. Vincent Steenberg (talk) 16:00, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
Kept: ticket is OK, but nominator couldn't know that Jcb (talk) 19:11, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
It isn't clear if the uploader is the author of the original picture, or only scanned it. –Tryphon☂ 19:40, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jcb (talk) 19:19, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
no evidence or original work, looks scanned in from magazine Hold and wave (talk) 19:53, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jcb (talk) 19:24, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
Discovery Education claim copyright these days, and it strikes me they almost certainly did back in 2007 as well. Jarry1250 (talk) 20:13, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jcb (talk) 19:26, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
i am the photographer of this picture. the description page of the picture still contains my real name (in the descriptions of the older file-versions) and turns up in ggogle-searches. so please either remove the old versions of the file along with the mentioning of my real name, or delete the file altogether, so i can re-upload it without using my real name. F.412 (talk) 20:16, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
i am the photographer of this picture. the description page of the picture still contains my real name (in the descriptions of the older file-versions) and turns up in ggogle-searches. so please either remove the old versions of the file along with the mentioning of my real name, or delete the file altogether, so i can re-upload it without using my real name. F.412 (talk) 15:17, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: the versions with the real name as requested Jcb (talk) 19:30, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
This is in france. We need permission from Disneyland. RE rillke questions? 21:44, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
- Delete - No FOP in france --Kiran Gopi (talk) 11:05, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jcb (talk) 19:30, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
Photo of an unidentifyable band. RE rillke questions? 22:02, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jcb (talk) 19:31, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
The flash reflection in the middle of the image shows that this is a photograph of another picture. –Tryphon☂ 23:21, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
- File:Bream.JPG is another version. --Rosenzweig δ 15:04, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
- See also Commons:Deletion requests/Files of User:Inkaclassic. --Rosenzweig δ 18:17, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jcb (talk) 19:33, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
changed a speedy nomination of Otourly into a normal DR, reason given was 'no FOP in France' Jcb (talk) 15:36, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
- Keep - straight building, all possible FOP issues are DM - Jcb (talk) 15:38, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
- Delete There's no policy that "straight buildings" are exempt from copyright. Buddy431 (talk) 16:59, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 23:23, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
changed speedy nomination by Otourly into a normal DR, reason given was 'no FOP in France' Jcb (talk) 15:41, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Architectural works in France are protected under droit d'auteur. The theshold of originality for the buildings is rather low and there is no elements allowing to think this one is below this threshold. Dereckson (talk) 10:44, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
changed speedy nomination by Otourly into normal DR, reason given was 'no FOP in France' Jcb (talk) 15:46, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Architectural works in France are protected under droit d'auteur. The theshold of originality for the buildings is rather low and there is no elements allowing to think this one is below this threshold. Dereckson (talk) 10:44, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
Derivative work of a probably copyrighted content (a model inside a museum). A.S. 08:24, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
- Keep I made this photo by permission of the museum. Shooting in this museum I found no evidence of copyright for this item, and have no warnings from the museum clerks (I asked them). Thus you are to check if this is copyrighted and to show that. Thanks.--PereslavlFoto (talk) 10:40, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
- You know very well that you need to identify the authors (persons, not the institution) or, if they died less than 70 years ago, the complete list of their heirs (and heirs of these heirs if necessary), and then arrange an OTRS from each person. I warned you, think twice before going to a deletion war. Speaking of past "consensus", there are three and a half options:
- speedy as copyvio. Example: self-made, self-painted, self-photographed model. More at User talk:Muskelkater.
- delete because you failed to secure OTRS release.
- delete because "Copyright generally subsists in models", no FOP in Russia etc.
- keep because the scale model has nothing added to the original.
- To be fair, this case is precisely #3, but who am I to advise the judge? It may well end in keep. But, as you now know very well, keep does not rule out filing the same FFD again and again. NVO (talk) 15:01, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
- You know very well that you need to identify the authors (persons, not the institution) or, if they died less than 70 years ago, the complete list of their heirs (and heirs of these heirs if necessary), and then arrange an OTRS from each person. I warned you, think twice before going to a deletion war. Speaking of past "consensus", there are three and a half options:
- @PereslavlPhoto: You need a permission of the creator of this model and not of the museum (unless the latter owns the creator's rights). - A.S. 18:57, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
- How can I state that I have a permission from the museum and they gained the rigths from the author?--PereslavlFoto (talk) 09:41, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
- You can not. The museum can not. Only the creators (each and all of them) can do it. Dura lex, you've been warned. It's not as difficult as getting OTRS from His Holiness. NVO (talk) 12:06, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
- Will be cleared on the 14th of May.--PereslavlFoto (talk) 20:40, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
- Ok, let's wait till that date. To collegues, please don't delete without checking OTRS, a ticket may have been received, but not yet processed. Jcb (talk) 18:21, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
- Sorry, I cannot catch the procedure. I have to send the ticket? But I do not want to show my identity to anyone, so I may send a ticket from an anonymous email under an anonymous name? I am completely sure there is no author's denial, and no museum's denial, as I can see talking to museum personnel. I may state it on the photo's page. So whan can I do now?--PereslavlFoto (talk) 15:42, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
- The people at OTRS have been carefully selected and can be trusted. An anonymous email won't do anything. Jcb (talk) 22:53, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
- So this is a free photo that author cannot publish anonymously. Wow.--PereslavlFoto (talk) 08:26, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
- The people at OTRS have been carefully selected and can be trusted. An anonymous email won't do anything. Jcb (talk) 22:53, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
- Sorry, I cannot catch the procedure. I have to send the ticket? But I do not want to show my identity to anyone, so I may send a ticket from an anonymous email under an anonymous name? I am completely sure there is no author's denial, and no museum's denial, as I can see talking to museum personnel. I may state it on the photo's page. So whan can I do now?--PereslavlFoto (talk) 15:42, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
- Ok, let's wait till that date. To collegues, please don't delete without checking OTRS, a ticket may have been received, but not yet processed. Jcb (talk) 18:21, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
- Will be cleared on the 14th of May.--PereslavlFoto (talk) 20:40, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
- You can not. The museum can not. Only the creators (each and all of them) can do it. Dura lex, you've been warned. It's not as difficult as getting OTRS from His Holiness. NVO (talk) 12:06, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
- How can I state that I have a permission from the museum and they gained the rigths from the author?--PereslavlFoto (talk) 09:41, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
- @PereslavlPhoto: You need a permission of the creator of this model and not of the museum (unless the latter owns the creator's rights). - A.S. 18:57, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jcb (talk) 18:54, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
