Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2011/04/27
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
|
|
Archive April 27th, 2011
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
There isn't actually an OTRS ticket, this is copyrighted. Ask an OTRS person about this, I just did. Sven Manguard (talk) 05:41, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Seems there is no way we can have permission of this, but if we have permission in future, we can restore. — [ Tanvir | Talk ] 06:24, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Please delete both Images.1) I was trying to link to flickr page. 2) Image of Face is NOT my property and was uploaded incorrectly. I would like to start over. Lumn8tion (talk) 01:48, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Common Good (talk) 18:11, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
exact clone of File:Eden gardens.jpg Sven Manguard (talk) 06:12, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Duplicate MGA73 (talk) 17:03, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
"Source: random Google Images search. Author: Unknown". No other information. There's an OTRS-pending template, but under the circumstances I think that's worthless. DS (talk) 13:27, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
- This image is used in an online journal article titled "Rickettsial Pathogens and their Arthropod Vectors" by Azad, University of Maryland School of Medicine and the CDC. This article is found on the CDC website. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ld11743 (talk • contribs) 14:43, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
- from http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/eid/vol4no2/azadg.htm -- Common Good (talk) 18:14, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted, bogus unspecific source, claim that OTRS is sent while "author unknown", an obvious impossibility. Infrogmation (talk) 20:49, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
"Source: random Google Images search. Author: Unknown." OTRS-pending template is in place, but under the circumstances it's useless. DS (talk) 13:29, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Delete Author: Chelsea Gibson http://bioweb.uwlax.edu/bio203/s2008/gibson_chel/Habitat.htm -- Common Good (talk) 18:16, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Copyright violation, no useful source info given by uploader. Infrogmation (talk) 20:54, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Copyvio of vector-images.com image Svgalbertian (talk) 15:32, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
- Delete speedy delete. It is clearly not a derivative of the PD-USGov version as claimed, and is apparently a straight copy of the vector-images version instead. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:42, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Per above. Jafeluv (talk) 16:41, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Fair use is not allowed on Wikimedia Commons. -- Common Good (talk) 19:27, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted, a composite image including "fair use" images cannot legitimately be put under a free license. -- Infrogmation (talk) 20:38, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Fair use is not allowed on Wikimedia Commons. -- Common Good (talk) 19:31, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted, not legitimately free licensed, should not have been uploaded to Commons. -- Infrogmation (talk) 20:43, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
too many of the same pictures 173.217.166.118 20:28, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
- Speedy
Keep, image in use, no reason for deletion, likely anon prank deletion request. (I would close it as a speedy keep myself, but shall let someone else do it since I am the photographer. ) Infrogmation (talk) 20:31, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Kept, non-admin closure, per Infrogmation RE rillke questions? 22:47, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Vector data copied from vector-images.com Svgalbertian (talk) 21:56, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
- This file is different, and must be kept. It's in broad use and would be a horrible loss. The log also shows that Oren neu dag converted this to SVG, so I doubt it's a direct SVG-element copy from VI. Fry1989 (talk) 21:58, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
- User:Oren neu dag has acknowledged in the past that this image is simply a conversion of the EPS file from vector-images.com. Not withstanding if the visual elements of the file could be eligible for copyright, I believe the mathematical data of the file, points, lines, curves, and shapes, which would have been copied from the original file, can still carry copyright.--Svgalbertian (talk) 22:04, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
- Per these 2 past deletion nominations, the file should be kept, as that has been the consensus twice.
- http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Template:Vector-Images.com_(2nd_request)
- http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:State_Seal_of_Texas.svg
- Fry1989 (talk) 22:09, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
- Those discussions were about copyright of the visual data. For this deletion request I am making the case that copying the mathematical data of a vector file (especially in it's entirety), would constitute a copyright violation.--Svgalbertian (talk) 22:15, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
- But those two past discussions are relevant to this case. You may think the mathematical data counts as a vio, but I doubt that. Especially considering the mathematical data would have been changed via the vectorization process from EPS, and in the following alterations to the file that have been made since. I also believe you are just making this up now based on the discussion on your talk page, otherwise you would have done this long ago. Fry1989 (talk) 22:20, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
- Besides, if the mathematical properties are such a real issue, the file can be altered greater, to change that. It's not a reason for deletion. Fry1989 (talk) 22:24, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
- The file that was copied was already vector. That means the exact coordinates of the points and the path data would be identical between the two files. Simply converting a file between formats should not invalidate copyright.--Svgalbertian (talk) 22:33, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
- But because of several alterations since, the data has changed. Infact, I had to redo the ribbon on the bottom of the laurel, and reposition the star. Other elements have also been deleted from the file. That makes it atleast partially different from the original. Go through the file history and you will see. Hence, the mathematics are now different, and the copyright would not apply as a "direct copy" anymore Fry1989 (talk) 22:38, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: {{copyvio}} User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 23:29, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Orphan talk page Pierre Rudloff (talk) 22:54, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: orphan Amada44 talk to me 07:26, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
license information Achawan (talk) 00:48, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: by User:Fastily -- Common Good (talk) 18:19, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Non-free file Waihorace (talk) 09:38, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: by User:Túrelio -- Common Good (talk) 18:18, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Image is non-free - KercKhaert's permission page asserts "it's not allowed to change the content of the images with any software". Zetawoof (talk) 15:15, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: by User:Túrelio -- Common Good (talk) 18:18, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
there is no MPL or cc-by-sa release at the source. maybe this is okay with {{PD-textlogo}} - but i am not sure. Saibo (Δ) 00:30, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
- Delete, source page says "© Disney. Todos os direitos reservados". --Túrelio (talk) 14:39, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyrighted material. Béria Lima msg 17:14, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Copyvio (magazine scan) Zetawoof (talk) 04:11, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
- Delete definitely. -- Blackcat (talk) 14:54, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Common Good (talk) 17:26, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
image is beyond project scope DS (talk) 14:27, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
- Delete--Slfi (talk) 14:58, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Common Good (talk) 17:27, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Low-quality, artifacts and the distorted area at the bottom indicate either a very lousy camera or taken from TV or similar media. I suspect the latter as there's no camera info at Flickr. Denniss (talk) 00:36, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
- Update: The uploader (outlogged, account will be blocked soon as it's a Paulinho15 sockpuppet) constantly removes the deletion notice. --Denniss (talk) 13:52, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
- I've semi-protected the image page. --Túrelio (talk) 13:52, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Lymantria (talk) 08:58, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Out of scope Zetawoof (talk) 04:23, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 07:14, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Inappropriate license (MPL); vandalism (see text on screen) Zetawoof (talk) 04:29, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope, vandalism George Chernilevsky talk 07:16, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
I highly doubt that this porno-picture is the on work of the uploader 79.237.172.252 08:13, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
- Delete If so, I would like to know the female Wikipedian in the photo :-))) -- Blackcat (talk) 15:17, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Per nom. George Chernilevsky talk 07:19, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
orphaned vanity photo. out of scope. no foreseeable use. FASTILY (TALK) 09:00, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 07:20, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Out of scope: self promotion of a not notable music band High Contrast (talk) 11:27, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 07:20, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Looks like a private image GeorgHH • talk 16:03, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope, unusable poor quality George Chernilevsky talk 07:22, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
I as the author don't need this file any more. My user's page is the only page which is using this file. --Nikcro32 (talk) 18:15, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Per Uploader's request George Chernilevsky talk 07:23, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
unused file with wrong data (nothing proves it) rubin16 (talk) 18:37, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Kept: Un use and in scope George Chernilevsky talk 07:28, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
self promotion/spam Slfi (talk) 18:42, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 07:25, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Out of scope. The file is not used and there is no obvious encyclopedic value 91.57.88.141 19:58, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
- Delete per nom; no in scope usefulness evident. Infrogmation (talk) 20:39, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 07:37, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Out of scope. The file is not used and there is no obvious encyclopedic value 91.57.88.141 19:58, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 07:38, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Out of scope (text pdf) Zetawoof (talk) 04:13, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Unidentified subject. (Who is this?) Zetawoof (talk) 04:20, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
- en:Michael Hoppé (born 1944), I presume. NVO (talk) 11:43, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Kept: only photo of him, if he is Michael Hope Ezarateesteban 00:07, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Inappropriate license ("MPL") and author ("Adobe") Zetawoof (talk) 04:27, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Common Good (talk) 19:07, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Invalid source ("Mozilla") and license (MPL) Zetawoof (talk) 04:30, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Common Good (talk) 19:07, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Invalid source ("d djjddd") and license (MPL) Zetawoof (talk) 04:30, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Common Good (talk) 19:08, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Invalid source ("youtube.com") and license (MPL) Zetawoof (talk) 04:32, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Common Good (talk) 19:08, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Invalid source ("Copy of: (url)") and license (MPL) Zetawoof (talk) 04:33, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Common Good (talk) 19:09, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
TV screenshot Zetawoof (talk) 04:33, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Why would you want to remove that image from the page "EEK! A Penis!" As mentioned by the free license it is under, the screenshot contains no images of copyrighted material. The mouse in the screenshot does bear a resemblance to Mickey Mouse in order to be effectively humorous, but neither is the name Mickey Mouse used in the episode, nor is an exact image of the character used.
Deleted Common Good (talk) 19:11, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Source is non-free Zetawoof (talk) 04:34, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: © Valéry Joncheray Photographie Common Good (talk) 19:13, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Delete: This is a 2003 statue located in the US where the freedom of panorama restriction applies to such statues per COM:FOP#United States unless permission has been provided by the creator of the statue. Ww2censor (talk) 04:36, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
- Delete. What the nominator said. Buddy431 (talk) 16:27, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom Ezarateesteban 00:07, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
I think this logo reach a minimal threshold of originality, therefore Delete. Kyro (talk) 07:44, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Quite sure it serves it's role on Polish wiki. Not sure why you think it reached the threshold of originality- there are many logos on commons and some even more complicated (see: File:Gta san andreas logo.png). Keep. Hoodinski (talk) 09:16, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom Ezarateesteban 00:08, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
- Delete The letters are definitely not in a standard font. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:53, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
- In other logos the letters aren't in a standard font either. (For instance: File:Grand Theft Auto Vice City.svg or File:Atlantis 2 logo.svg)). Hoodinski (talk) 16:26, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
- OK, I wasn't clear about what I meant by "standard." Basically, if a logo can be rendered relatively easily as an SVG, then it's probably simple enough. Try creating an SVG of this. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:02, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Surpasses the threshold of originality. Not simply text. Contains many artistic embellishments at a high level of detail. – Adrignola talk 22:25, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
License information of every each image is missing. 79.237.172.252 08:12, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom Ezarateesteban 00:09, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Apparent copyvio, cut out from a larger image: http://www.tineye.com/search/2b01de14b253d80a8cb387e6636b389d455551d6/ Nikola (talk) 09:01, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom Ezarateesteban 00:11, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
The uploader's claims of being the copyright holder are clearly bogus. Not simple enough for {{PD-textlogo}}. —LX (talk, contribs) 10:21, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: (not by me) Jcb (talk) 15:30, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
No evidence of permission TreasuryTag (talk) 11:15, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Common Good (talk) 19:12, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
No permission to use this picture from the copyright holder. Stigfinnare (talk) 11:37, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
I have contacted the author, but not yet recived a reply. I tried to add this tag but failed.
{{OTRS pending}}
--Franke 1 (talk) 12:23, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: (not by me) Jcb (talk) 15:29, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
English: unused file, no content; Category: Trousers enough
Polski: Żadna strona nie odwołuje się do tego pliku. Wystaczy Category: Trousers
Marek M (talk) 14:15, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Common Good (talk) 19:14, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
out of scope Slfi (talk) 14:55, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Common Good (talk) 19:15, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
unused poor-format graphic of simple bit of text DMacks (talk) 20:02, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: (not by me) Jcb (talk) 15:29, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
unused poor-resolution graphic of simple bit of text DMacks (talk) 20:03, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: (not by me) Jcb (talk) 15:29, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
unused poor-resolution graphic of simple bit of text, and almost certainly chemically incorrect (the single unified BTMSA unit binds via side-on to Ti, this equation suggests that there are two "CTMS" units attached) DMacks (talk) 20:46, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: (not by me) Jcb (talk) 15:29, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
unnecessary redirect - old typo Finavon (talk) 21:09, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
- Delete speedily for nominator's reason. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 06:34, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Common Good (talk) 19:05, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
newer picture available Kunglfan (talk) 20:13, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Kept Jcb (talk) 07:11, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
old photo please delete KUNGLART (talk) 21:59, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
- Keep: Still in use and with OTRS permission. CC licenses are irrevocable. --Amitie 10g (talk) 00:16, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
Kept, per Amitie. Old photos are also useful to show history. Taivo (talk) 11:28, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
newer picture available Kunglfan (talk) 20:14, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
- Keep Not a valid reason for deletion. howcheng {chat} 16:24, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
Kept Jcb (talk) 07:11, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
newer picture available Kunglfan (talk) 20:15, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
- Keep. Not a valid reason for deletion. howcheng {chat} 16:23, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
Kept Jcb (talk) 07:11, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Unused image of copyright game Guy 22:51, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jcb (talk) 21:39, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Unused image of copyright game Guy 22:51, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jcb (talk) 21:39, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Unused image of copyright game Guy 22:51, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jcb (talk) 21:39, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Unused image of copyright game Guy 22:51, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jcb (talk) 21:39, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Unused image of copyright game Guy 22:52, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jcb (talk) 21:39, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Unused image of copyright game Guy 22:52, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jcb (talk) 21:39, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Unused image of copyright game Guy 22:52, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jcb (talk) 21:39, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Screenshot of non-free software A333 (talk) 15:25, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jcb (talk) 22:26, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Logo should be presumed copyright. No indication on the school's website that this logo has been released under anything other than a non-free copyright. Esrever (klaT) 02:45, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Comment Dubious. A shield, a ribbon and a Greek cross. Are we sure that this simple assembly of simple elements is eligible for copyright? It doesn't look quite original... -- Blackcat (talk) 14:37, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jcb (talk) 15:20, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
I am the copyright holder and changed the license. Markus.freise (talk) 12:20, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Kept: a release into a free license cannot be revoked Jcb (talk) 15:19, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Not longer valid, there is an updated logo with slogan for Telepriskollen Musse96 (talk) 13:19, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jcb (talk) 15:17, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
It's a football club logo and not the user's own work. The copyright may have expired but I am not sure. Peter E. James (talk) 17:41, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jcb (talk) 15:15, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Probable copyright violation: Contrary to the tag, this is an Associated Press photograph—not a work of the US Congress or any other US government agency. It is still be under copyright unless the AP failed to renew copyright. —teb728 t c 00:15, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
- is there a way to know whether AP did renew their copyright? -- Blackcat (talk) 12:25, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: there is sufficient chance they did renew to delete Jcb (talk) 20:16, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Unclear source and wrong license. Unknown when it was created. According to COM:PD, works of the Philippines government need permission for commercial use. Wknight94 talk 01:23, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Also nominated for same reason:
Wknight94 talk 01:28, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jcb (talk) 20:17, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Also File:F'lomlok Festival - Polomolok.jpg. Conflicting license. Description says use for wiki purposes only. Wknight94 talk 01:25, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jcb (talk) 20:18, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Duplication of the file Flag of Pakistan.svg. The fin flash is the flag of Pakistan. Fry1989 (talk) 02:34, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
- Keep It's necessary to create a Pakistan fin flash file showing a light border. This is to give the reader a better understanding of where the white section of the fin flash begins, and ends. These images are being used on en.wikipedia "Fin Flash" article, and are in a gallery setting, so there is no other way to create a border, unless it is physically drawn in, and there lies the problem. You can't draw a light border on Countries flag file, that would make those files inaccurate. Here are some examples of Fin Flashes with light boarders shown here, here, and here, that don't seem to be a problem. Jetijones (talk) 06:05, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Support I don't see why fin flash images would need to have their edges delineated any more than flag images do, or why they'd be any less inaccurate if you did. In any case (with the default skin at least) the <gallery> tag will give a slightly contrasting off-white background to an image; if you use Template:Image gallery, then you also get a nice border for free:
Flag of Pakistan
- Outside of galleries, you can used the "border" parameter:
- So it isn't necessary to add a border to an image when it isn't an intrinsic part of it, IMHO. Regards, Letdorf 21:42, 29 April 2011 (UTC).
Kept: in use Jcb (talk) 20:19, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
We've had this discussion before. When the Fin Flash is the national flag, we use the flag file. This is unneccesary duplication of that. Jetijones insistance on duplicating flag flags needs to stop. There were two agreements above to delete, and it was shown that this duplication is not needed.
Delete per duplication of File:Flag of Pakistan.svg Fry1989 eh? 20:26, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
- It was Kept, need I say more? Jetijones (talk) 05:09, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
- Under the reasoning that it was still in use, which it is no longer. Two users agree there is no need for this duplication, and you have freely admitted that you only add borders to make white sections more decernable, not because they're actually part of the fin flash itself. Fry1989 eh? 17:34, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
- Keep - insufficient reason for deletion - Jcb (talk) 22:14, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
- It is a sufficient reason. The fin flash is the national flag of Pakistan, with no borders. The photos prove that. Per the above discussion, it was also shown that a separate file with a border isn't needed because you can add a border by using "|border". This file is a useless duplication. Fry1989 eh? 23:08, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
- Wikimedia Commons is not only meant for Mediawiki based sites like Wikipedia. Jcb (talk) 11:28, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
- It is a sufficient reason. The fin flash is the national flag of Pakistan, with no borders. The photos prove that. Per the above discussion, it was also shown that a separate file with a border isn't needed because you can add a border by using "|border". This file is a useless duplication. Fry1989 eh? 23:08, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
Kept per Jcb's last comment, showing it is not a "useless duplication". --Rosenzweig τ 15:11, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
From speedy. Original rationale by RJaguar3:
- There is no evidence that the text of the e-mail (which appears to be sufficiently creative to merit copyright protection) is freely licensed
I don't know if text of the e-mail (a real spam letter from the wild) is copyrightable, but even if it is, the file is in use in many wikis and it's very easy to replace this screenshot or obscure the smam letter. Trycatch (talk) 03:56, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
- Keep I don't see any copyright infringment. Actually I don't see any copyright at all. -- Blackcat (talk) 14:45, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
- The text of the e-mail appears to be a sufficiently creative (a very low bar to satisfy) and original (not copied from somewhere else) work. I don't see why there wouldn't be copyright on the text of the e-mail (also, remember that this e-mail was almost certainly first published after 1989, so it could not have entered the public domain for lacking a copyright notice). It would be very easy to replace this screenshot by having a Wikipedian send public domain or freely licensed text to another Wikipedian, who takes the screenshot in Mutt. RJaguar3 (talk) 03:15, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
Kept: per Blackcat Jcb (talk) 20:25, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Historical photo of some sort. Possibly copyrighted. Unlikely upload is author. No reason given to suggest that uploader is copyright holder. FASTILY (TALK) 04:14, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
- Keep the picture was taken in Italian territory before 31 december 1990. According to our law, photographic works with no "added or artistic" value taken, or first published, in Italy (and Italian territories) more than 20 yrs before (well, no later than the 31 December of the 21st year before etc etc., you know what i mean) are into pd because of copyright expiration. -- Blackcat (talk) 14:57, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
- Keep Same reasons of Blackcat. Photo done more than 70 years ago.--LupusFido 20:11, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Uploader describes the file as "own work", which is doubtful given its apparent age. Per Commons:Essential information and COM:D, the actual author and source of the file must be specified, as does the license allowing the image to be re-used on Commons. If none of the above is supplied, the file is eligible for deletion within 7 days: "If there is some licensing information missing, then the file gets tagged as missing information and the uploader is informed and given 7 days time to correct the problem. After this period the file can be deleted by an admin on sight without further debate". Uploader has also already been indefinitely barred from English Wikipedia, Simple English Wikipedia, Italian Wikipedia and WikiCommons for abusing multiple accounts i.e. he shouldn't have uploaded this or any other file to begin with. Middayexpress (talk) 01:38, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
- Comment Replaced existing licence with PD-Italy -- Blackcat (talk) 15:18, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
- It has not been demonstrated that the file was "first published in Italy and its term of copyright has expired" as PD-Italy indicates. You claim that it was published in Italian Somaliland during a certain period of time, but haven't offered any proof of that either. All you've done is state that it has, and that unfortunately isn't good enough. Actual proof is what both COM:D and Commons:Essential information require:
- Images missing source or licensing information should be tagged {{subst:nsd}} (no/missing source, tagged by date) or {{subst:nld}} (no/incomplete licensing information, tagged by date) or {{subst:npd}} (no/missing permission, tagged by date).
- In order that it can be sure that the license is in fact true, the file description page needs to mention where a file comes from. This information has the purpose to give verification if the license is true and the file meets the licensing criteria to be used by anyone, anytime, for any purpose. Without having this information, it could simply be claimed that a file is freely usable, but in fact it's not reusable. To avoid this, information where the file comes from needs to be given on the file description page. Source information should be mentioned in the "|Source=" field of the {{Information}} template, as this is the common place for people to look for this information.
- I have therefore reverted your addition of PD-Italy to this file. Kindly wait until the deletion discussion is completed before attempting any such edits again. Middayexpress (talk) 20:49, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
- You know well that it's a photo taken in Italian territory. -- Blackcat (talk) 22:58, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
- Actually, I have no idea where or when the photo was taken. And even if I did, that still wouldn't change the fact that, per Commons:Essential information, COM:D and Template:Information, the actual source of the file must be indicated on the file description page. Failing that, it gets deleted. Middayexpress (talk) 23:38, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
- Zaptié were Italian Carabinieri. They existed since 1888 and 1942 as military police in the Italian territories in Africa (and, according to the historic sources, they also were loyal and brave soldiers who fought for Italy and were the last to give up). So any claim that the photo was not taken into italian territory (reason for which is de facto in Public Domain) is pretextuous. Sorry but claiming "no source" for a photo that is beyond any doubt in Public Domain is not a good politics, and sounds like an assertion in bad faith. -- Blackcat (talk) 01:33, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
- That's unfortunately not a valid argument. There are many historical images of zaptie that are copyrighted; that means they aren't in the public domain (examples: [1], [2]). And no evidence has yet been presented to prove that this particular black-and-white file of random uniformed men isn't. The fact that you are still arguing that the pic is public domain rather than actually proving that it is as Commons:Essential information instructs by indicating the original source and author only strengthens the likelihood that the pic isn't in the public domain at all. Again:
- "In order that it can be sure that the license is in fact true, the file description page needs to mention where a file comes from. This information has the purpose to give verification if the license is true and the file meets the licensing criteria to be used by anyone, anytime, for any purpose. Without having this information, it could simply be claimed that a file is freely usable, but in fact it's not reusable. To avoid this, information where the file comes from needs to be given on the file description page. Source information should be mentioned in the "|Source=" field of the {{Information}} template, as this is the common place for people to look for this information". Middayexpress (talk) 13:04, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
- Wrong example. The two mentioned photos are both in PD no matter what the uploader wrote. The first one was taken in Italy in 1912, the second is an historic card. Both's copyright are expired. I suggest you to read better what italian law say about public domain. -- Blackcat (talk) 17:57, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
- I'm afraid not. They're both tagged as copyrighted and "All Rights Reserved" on those link-throughs. Worse, Brunodam/LupusFido/NBDA attempted to upload one of them in the past as File:ZAPTIEfromsomalia.jpg, but that file too was deleted for the same reason this one already was. Middayexpress (talk) 18:09, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
- Wrong example. The two mentioned photos are both in PD no matter what the uploader wrote. The first one was taken in Italy in 1912, the second is an historic card. Both's copyright are expired. I suggest you to read better what italian law say about public domain. -- Blackcat (talk) 17:57, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
- "In order that it can be sure that the license is in fact true, the file description page needs to mention where a file comes from. This information has the purpose to give verification if the license is true and the file meets the licensing criteria to be used by anyone, anytime, for any purpose. Without having this information, it could simply be claimed that a file is freely usable, but in fact it's not reusable. To avoid this, information where the file comes from needs to be given on the file description page. Source information should be mentioned in the "|Source=" field of the {{Information}} template, as this is the common place for people to look for this information". Middayexpress (talk) 13:04, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
- That's unfortunately not a valid argument. There are many historical images of zaptie that are copyrighted; that means they aren't in the public domain (examples: [1], [2]). And no evidence has yet been presented to prove that this particular black-and-white file of random uniformed men isn't. The fact that you are still arguing that the pic is public domain rather than actually proving that it is as Commons:Essential information instructs by indicating the original source and author only strengthens the likelihood that the pic isn't in the public domain at all. Again:
- Zaptié were Italian Carabinieri. They existed since 1888 and 1942 as military police in the Italian territories in Africa (and, according to the historic sources, they also were loyal and brave soldiers who fought for Italy and were the last to give up). So any claim that the photo was not taken into italian territory (reason for which is de facto in Public Domain) is pretextuous. Sorry but claiming "no source" for a photo that is beyond any doubt in Public Domain is not a good politics, and sounds like an assertion in bad faith. -- Blackcat (talk) 01:33, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
- Actually, I have no idea where or when the photo was taken. And even if I did, that still wouldn't change the fact that, per Commons:Essential information, COM:D and Template:Information, the actual source of the file must be indicated on the file description page. Failing that, it gets deleted. Middayexpress (talk) 23:38, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
- You know well that it's a photo taken in Italian territory. -- Blackcat (talk) 22:58, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
PS Please, is unpolite to use bold fonts. I know what you are repeatedly stating but the point is, this is public domanin because of copyright expiration. Period. I do not care about your considerations about lack of sources. The simple fact they were taken in Italian territory (and Somalia was), make them eligible for PD. Simple and plain. The rest are pretextes. -- Blackcat (talk) 17:59, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
- You can repeat that the file is "public domain" all you want, but that unfortunately won't make the WikiCommons policy cited above go away. An actual source and the original author of the image are still required. Middayexpress (talk) 18:09, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
- "Anonymous" is allowed here. -- Blackcat (talk) 21:46, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
Wrong. Per Template:Information, both the source and author are required:
{{TemplateBox
|1=source
|1d=information about where the file is from (own files should be tagged with {{tl|own}}); if the file is derived work, the original work(s) should be designated
|1stat=required
|2=author
|2d=original author of the file; where appropriate, use <nowiki>{{Creator:Name Surname}} with {{Creator}}. If the work is derived, the author of the original (e. g. depicted or retouched) work should be mentioned as well.
|2stat=required
}}</nowiki>
Middayexpress (talk) 21:30, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
- It's you who wrote a wrong thing. See here, there's no author specified, just a generic "seaman". -- Blackcat (talk) 14:18, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
- Wrong again. That's a link to a file published by the UK government under PD-British-Gov (British laws), unfortunately not by the Italian government under PD-Italy (Italian laws). As such, it is unfortunately utterly irrelevant. There is zero proof that this file was published by the Italian government; in fact, the uploader claimed it was his own work (though it clearly isn't). All you've done is claim that it is "public domain" and offered no evidence whatsoever to support this despite all of the policies that have been cited. Middayexpress (talk) 03:32, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
- The uploader made a false claim but is a formal question. The substantial question is that the pic is PD. Period. -- Blackcat (talk) 17:23, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, I'm familiar with your opinion by now. However, you have yet to prove that the file is not copyrighted. In fact, you don't even appear to know where it comes from or who shot it. Refer again to Commons:Essential information: "In order that it can be sure that the license is in fact true, the file description page needs to mention where a file comes from. This information has the purpose to give verification if the license is true and the file meets the licensing criteria to be used by anyone, anytime, for any purpose. Without having this information, it could simply be claimed that a file is freely usable, but in fact it's not reusable. To avoid this, information where the file comes from needs to be given on the file description page." Middayexpress (talk) 04:50, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
- No matter who took it. After 20 yrs a non artistical pic is PD according to italian laws. Don't let the "author" becomes a fetish. -- Blackcat (talk) 11:20, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
- Commons:Essential information is unfortunately not a "fetish". Nor have you even demonstrated that this file was taken on Italian soil; you've just repeatedly claimed that it is and offered nothing in the way of links or quotes to substantiate this. In fact, I remember you likewise claiming that File:DUBAT.jpg was taken in Italian Somaliland, only to later find out that it was actually taken in Ethiopia and isn't even of a Somali soldier. All talk, no proof makes for a likely deletion. Middayexpress (talk) 01:30, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
- Besides, even if the image had been taken in Italian Somaliland as claimed, it would have to have been taken during the Fascist period between 1923 and 1941 for the tiny off-chance that it falls under PD-Italy to be in effect since, prior to that time, southern Somalia (the former Italian Somaliland) was ruled by the Somali Sultanate of Hobyo and the Majeerteen Sultanate (who had protection treaties with Italy), and after that period, it was a United Nations Trust Territory. However, no evidence in the way of links or quotes has been offered to substantiate either the source, author or date of the files per Commons:Essential information. Middayexpress (talk) 02:56, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
- No matter who took it. After 20 yrs a non artistical pic is PD according to italian laws. Don't let the "author" becomes a fetish. -- Blackcat (talk) 11:20, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, I'm familiar with your opinion by now. However, you have yet to prove that the file is not copyrighted. In fact, you don't even appear to know where it comes from or who shot it. Refer again to Commons:Essential information: "In order that it can be sure that the license is in fact true, the file description page needs to mention where a file comes from. This information has the purpose to give verification if the license is true and the file meets the licensing criteria to be used by anyone, anytime, for any purpose. Without having this information, it could simply be claimed that a file is freely usable, but in fact it's not reusable. To avoid this, information where the file comes from needs to be given on the file description page." Middayexpress (talk) 04:50, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
- The uploader made a false claim but is a formal question. The substantial question is that the pic is PD. Period. -- Blackcat (talk) 17:23, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
- Wrong again. That's a link to a file published by the UK government under PD-British-Gov (British laws), unfortunately not by the Italian government under PD-Italy (Italian laws). As such, it is unfortunately utterly irrelevant. There is zero proof that this file was published by the Italian government; in fact, the uploader claimed it was his own work (though it clearly isn't). All you've done is claim that it is "public domain" and offered no evidence whatsoever to support this despite all of the policies that have been cited. Middayexpress (talk) 03:32, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
Kept: per Blackcat Jcb (talk) 20:28, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Historical photo of some sort. Possibly copyrighted. Unlikely upload is author. No reason given to suggest that uploader is copyright holder. This file was previously uploaded as File:DubatSomaliaItaliana.jpg FASTILY (TALK) 04:15, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
- Keep. As I told, the pic was first taken or published in Italy (it was Italian territory) before 1990. Thus copyright has expired not being an "artistic" work. The work is in PD according to Italian laws. -- Blackcat (talk) 15:02, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
PS More generally, all the pics taken in Libia, Somalia and Ethiopia between 1936-45 are in PD. - Delete per nom. File was already uploaded and later deleted for copyright infringement. Per COM:SPEEDY, a file in Candidates for speedy deletion can be speedy deleted if it "has previously been deleted under Commons deletion guidelines". Uploader also describes the file as "own work", which is doubtful given its apparent age. Middayexpress (talk) 01:27, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
- Yes. But it was not a copyright violation because, as I said before, the photo is in PD according to the Italian law (see template PD-Italy). -- Blackcat (talk) 10:09, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
- Keep Same reasons of Blackcat. Photo done more than 70 years ago. As in Discussion of the image: I don't know to what other image of Commons seems related this picture, but I have done a digital photo from a picture on a book about "Italian Somalia" edited in 1939. This book is over 70 years old, so there it is no copyright.--LupusFido 20:16, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
- Comment It would appear that the image's uploader User:LupusFido has been blocked on English Wikipedia for abusing multiple accounts [3]. It seems s/he has already attempted to upload this same picture under a different account in the past (User:NBDA; c.f. [4], [5]). Middayexpress 20:32, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
- Hey Middayexpress. After reading your many contributions to wikipedia I think you hate everything is not somalian and moslem from your Somalia. I understand that you don't like a photo showing Somalians fighting for Italy, but wikipedia must show everything in order to be a real encyclopedia. And the image is PD and not copyrighted, even if you will obtain to erase it....Good luck with your country full of hate.--LupusFido 02:43, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
- Unfortunately Brunodam, speculating on my ethnic background, nationality and religion (none of which I have divulged anywhere) and otherwise engaging in personal attacks won't distract attention away from the basic fact that (a) you are yet again abusing multiple accounts, and (b) that was one of the very reasons why this image was deleted the last time you attempted to upload it as User:NBDA. Middayexpress 07:07, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
- Middayexpress and Lupus, instead of argueing about your own respective ethnic-cultural backgrounds, I would kindly invite you to stay to the subject. As I told, there's no reason to delete that picture as Somalia was Italian territory at time, and any photo (with no particular artistic interest) taken or first published in Italy earlier than 20 yrs ago is in Public Domain, so I just can't understand what is not clear in this statement. -- Blackcat 10:41, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
- Actually, only Brunodam/LupusFido/NBDA has engaged in ad hominem. I unfortunately haven't speculated about his ethnicity, background or religion nor do I need to. As the OP also stated in his initial post, the uploader has offered no evidence proving that he is the copyright holder of that pic -- he indicated in the source section that it is his "own work", not someone else's; and this, of course, is highly doubtful given the pic's apparent age -- or that the image is somehow public domain. He just claimed it is, which unfortunately doesn't cut it. That is not even mentioning the fact that the user has already had his various accounts indefinitely blocked and shouldn't even be uploading material, let alone the same deleted pic that he uploaded in the past under a separate account. In fact, his abuse of multiple accounts was one of the very reasons cited for the image's deletion in the first place [6] ("Deletion of files added by NBDA: Abusive sockpuppeteer"). Middayexpress 18:01, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, I know this user's history in it.wiki, but let's stay to the evidence: I have to be honest, sometimes has happened to me too to confuse the field "Author" with "Uploader", thus I think that entry should never be taken too seriously, and if necessary correct it; anyway this is not a sufficient reason for deleting the pic, or declaring it as "lacking source". It's clear that it's a picture of a Somali soldier enrolled into the Italian Army, and the fact that is into Public Domain according to the Italian laws overrides every consideration about its uploader. He might have uploaded other non-free media, but this one is free, we are to discuss about the media, not about its uploader. -- Blackcat (talk) 23:17, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, Brunodam/LupusFido/NBDA/Spalantino has been barred indefinitely from opening an account, uploading, editing, posting, etc. not only on Italian Wikipedia, but on English Wikipedia, Simple English Wikipedia and WikiCommons as well. It makes no difference whether he made a mistake claiming that the image is his "own work" when it clearly isn't -- he never should've been uploading files again to begin with. As the OP already indicated, no proof has been provided that the uploader is the copyright holder. Per Commons:Essential information and COM:D, the actual author and source of the file needs to be specified, as does the license allowing the image to be re-used on Commons. If none of the above is supplied, the file is eligible for deletion within 7 days: "If there is some licensing information missing, then the file gets tagged as missing information and the uploader is informed and given 7 days time to correct the problem. After this period the file can be deleted by an admin on sight without further debate". In fact, per COM:SPEEDY, the file can already be speedy deleted since it "has previously been deleted under Commons deletion guidelines". Those are the rules. Middayexpress (talk) 01:22, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
- Again. There is no copyright on such file. Is clear that this file is in Public Domain according to Italian laws? -- Blackcat (talk) 15:10, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
P.S. I took off the cc-zero licence and replaced it with PD-Italy, so the matter is clearer.- I heard you the first several times. What you don't seem to understand, however, is that you have not proven that the file was "first published in Italy and its term of copyright has expired" as PD-Italy indicates. You claim that it was published in Italian Somaliland during a certain period of time, but haven't offered any proof of that either. All you've done is state that it has, and that unfortunately isn't good enough. Actual proof is what both COM:D and Commons:Essential information require:
- Again. There is no copyright on such file. Is clear that this file is in Public Domain according to Italian laws? -- Blackcat (talk) 15:10, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, Brunodam/LupusFido/NBDA/Spalantino has been barred indefinitely from opening an account, uploading, editing, posting, etc. not only on Italian Wikipedia, but on English Wikipedia, Simple English Wikipedia and WikiCommons as well. It makes no difference whether he made a mistake claiming that the image is his "own work" when it clearly isn't -- he never should've been uploading files again to begin with. As the OP already indicated, no proof has been provided that the uploader is the copyright holder. Per Commons:Essential information and COM:D, the actual author and source of the file needs to be specified, as does the license allowing the image to be re-used on Commons. If none of the above is supplied, the file is eligible for deletion within 7 days: "If there is some licensing information missing, then the file gets tagged as missing information and the uploader is informed and given 7 days time to correct the problem. After this period the file can be deleted by an admin on sight without further debate". In fact, per COM:SPEEDY, the file can already be speedy deleted since it "has previously been deleted under Commons deletion guidelines". Those are the rules. Middayexpress (talk) 01:22, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, I know this user's history in it.wiki, but let's stay to the evidence: I have to be honest, sometimes has happened to me too to confuse the field "Author" with "Uploader", thus I think that entry should never be taken too seriously, and if necessary correct it; anyway this is not a sufficient reason for deleting the pic, or declaring it as "lacking source". It's clear that it's a picture of a Somali soldier enrolled into the Italian Army, and the fact that is into Public Domain according to the Italian laws overrides every consideration about its uploader. He might have uploaded other non-free media, but this one is free, we are to discuss about the media, not about its uploader. -- Blackcat (talk) 23:17, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
- Actually, only Brunodam/LupusFido/NBDA has engaged in ad hominem. I unfortunately haven't speculated about his ethnicity, background or religion nor do I need to. As the OP also stated in his initial post, the uploader has offered no evidence proving that he is the copyright holder of that pic -- he indicated in the source section that it is his "own work", not someone else's; and this, of course, is highly doubtful given the pic's apparent age -- or that the image is somehow public domain. He just claimed it is, which unfortunately doesn't cut it. That is not even mentioning the fact that the user has already had his various accounts indefinitely blocked and shouldn't even be uploading material, let alone the same deleted pic that he uploaded in the past under a separate account. In fact, his abuse of multiple accounts was one of the very reasons cited for the image's deletion in the first place [6] ("Deletion of files added by NBDA: Abusive sockpuppeteer"). Middayexpress 18:01, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
- Middayexpress and Lupus, instead of argueing about your own respective ethnic-cultural backgrounds, I would kindly invite you to stay to the subject. As I told, there's no reason to delete that picture as Somalia was Italian territory at time, and any photo (with no particular artistic interest) taken or first published in Italy earlier than 20 yrs ago is in Public Domain, so I just can't understand what is not clear in this statement. -- Blackcat 10:41, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
- Unfortunately Brunodam, speculating on my ethnic background, nationality and religion (none of which I have divulged anywhere) and otherwise engaging in personal attacks won't distract attention away from the basic fact that (a) you are yet again abusing multiple accounts, and (b) that was one of the very reasons why this image was deleted the last time you attempted to upload it as User:NBDA. Middayexpress 07:07, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
- Hey Middayexpress. After reading your many contributions to wikipedia I think you hate everything is not somalian and moslem from your Somalia. I understand that you don't like a photo showing Somalians fighting for Italy, but wikipedia must show everything in order to be a real encyclopedia. And the image is PD and not copyrighted, even if you will obtain to erase it....Good luck with your country full of hate.--LupusFido 02:43, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
- Images missing source or licensing information should be tagged {{subst:nsd}} (no/missing source, tagged by date) or {{subst:nld}} (no/incomplete licensing information, tagged by date) or {{subst:npd}} (no/missing permission, tagged by date).
- In order that it can be sure that the license is in fact true, the file description page needs to mention where a file comes from. This information has the purpose to give verification if the license is true and the file meets the licensing criteria to be used by anyone, anytime, for any purpose. Without having this information, it could simply be claimed that a file is freely usable, but in fact it's not reusable. To avoid this, information where the file comes from needs to be given on the file description page. Source information should be mentioned in the "|Source=" field of the {{Information}} template, as this is the common place for people to look for this information.
- I have therefore reverted your addition of PD-Italy to this file. Kindly wait until the deletion discussion is completed before attempting any such edits again. Middayexpress (talk) 20:41, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
- Sure? And wherever else could be taken? Sure dressed that way it couldn't be an Italian soldier during the Russian Campaign (ok, not a good example since soldiers were sent in Russia poorly dressed but...) -- Blackcat (talk) 23:00, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
- Sorry, but personal claims as to where and when the file was taken still are not good enough. Per Commons:Essential information and COM:D, the actual source of the file must be indicated on the file description page. Since it clearly isn't the uploader's "own work" as he has claimed, the actual, original author of the file also needs to be indicated per Template:Information. Failing the above, it gets deleted. Middayexpress (talk) 23:37, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
- Ok, then prove it has been taken anywhere than Somalia. You notice by yourself that you're putting pretextuous motivations... -- Blackcat (talk) 01:30, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
- As I didn't upload the file, the onus is unfortunately not on me to prove anything. It's on the uploader and other accounts wishing to retain the file to meet Commons:Essential information, COM:D and Template:Information's instructions. Actually read the rules, and kindly stop arguing for the sake of arguing. You're not strengthening your case in doing so, but actually showing that you are incapable of fulfilling the basic criteria required of any file uploaded to Commons i.e. to simply indicate the actual author -- which clearly isn't the Brunodam alternate account -- and source of the file. Middayexpress (talk) 13:04, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
- I have strong arguments instead. That was italian territory, hence the public domain which the photo belongs. Your motivations are weak because based to the (very very very) not probable hypothesis that it couldn't be taken in Italian territory. Whereas you know as well as me that it couldn't be anything else than italian territory. So it's not me who's argueing for the sake of argueing, because i am reporting a simple and plain fact; but it's you who is claiming something highly improbable. -- Blackcat (talk) 18:02, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
- That's unfortunately not a valid argument. There are many historical images of colonial troops that are copyrighted; that means that they aren't in the public domain. And no evidence has yet been presented to prove that this particular black-and-white file of a random uniformed man is public domain, or even whether the person it depicts or location it claims to have been shot in is, in fact, accurate. The fact that you are still arguing that the pic is public domain rather than actually proving that it is as Commons:Essential information instructs by indicating the original source and author only strengthens the likelihood that the pic isn't in the public domain at all. Worse, the file wasn't even taken in Italian Somaliland as claimed ("colonial troop of Italian Somalia"); it was taken during Italy's expeditions in Ethiopia and depicts an ethnic Eritrean soldier (c.f. [7], [8]). That makes the pic neither PD-Italy nor the uploader's own work. Middayexpress (talk) 19:20, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
- Ethiopia was Italian territory as well. -- Blackcat (talk) 21:38, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
- That's highly debatable. And the file was taken during the Second Italo-Abyssinian War, not after it and Italy's establishment of Italian East Africa. Hence, the Eritrean troops deployed in Ethiopia. Ethiopia was still unarguably independent at the time. That means that even the tiny off-chance that this pic falls under PD-Italy has all but disappeared. It also means that the uploader -- a blocked user who is abusing yet another new account -- misrepresented not only the author of the file (and thus the license) by claiming that it was his own work, but also the subject and location of the shot. That's unfortunately where the story ends. Middayexpress (talk) 21:32, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
- Highly debatable Ethiopia had a copyright law at time. Highly debatable they had any law at all. -- Blackcat (talk) 09:02, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
- That's speculation, and irrelevant speculation at that. It would only matter if the copyright holder or his estate no longer held the copyright. But since you don't even know who the copyright holder is (since it clearly isn't the uploader), it's all academic. Middayexpress (talk) 03:56, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
- You can't accuse me to "make speculations". It's you who said first "highly debatable", I simply replied using your same logics. So I assume that the two above interventions (mine and yours) are fallacious, and we get back to the fact that Ethiopia was Italian territory. -- Blackcat (talk) 22:51, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
- That's speculation, and irrelevant speculation at that. It would only matter if the copyright holder or his estate no longer held the copyright. But since you don't even know who the copyright holder is (since it clearly isn't the uploader), it's all academic. Middayexpress (talk) 03:56, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
- Highly debatable Ethiopia had a copyright law at time. Highly debatable they had any law at all. -- Blackcat (talk) 09:02, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
- That's highly debatable. And the file was taken during the Second Italo-Abyssinian War, not after it and Italy's establishment of Italian East Africa. Hence, the Eritrean troops deployed in Ethiopia. Ethiopia was still unarguably independent at the time. That means that even the tiny off-chance that this pic falls under PD-Italy has all but disappeared. It also means that the uploader -- a blocked user who is abusing yet another new account -- misrepresented not only the author of the file (and thus the license) by claiming that it was his own work, but also the subject and location of the shot. That's unfortunately where the story ends. Middayexpress (talk) 21:32, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
- Ethiopia was Italian territory as well. -- Blackcat (talk) 21:38, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
- That's unfortunately not a valid argument. There are many historical images of colonial troops that are copyrighted; that means that they aren't in the public domain. And no evidence has yet been presented to prove that this particular black-and-white file of a random uniformed man is public domain, or even whether the person it depicts or location it claims to have been shot in is, in fact, accurate. The fact that you are still arguing that the pic is public domain rather than actually proving that it is as Commons:Essential information instructs by indicating the original source and author only strengthens the likelihood that the pic isn't in the public domain at all. Worse, the file wasn't even taken in Italian Somaliland as claimed ("colonial troop of Italian Somalia"); it was taken during Italy's expeditions in Ethiopia and depicts an ethnic Eritrean soldier (c.f. [7], [8]). That makes the pic neither PD-Italy nor the uploader's own work. Middayexpress (talk) 19:20, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
- I have strong arguments instead. That was italian territory, hence the public domain which the photo belongs. Your motivations are weak because based to the (very very very) not probable hypothesis that it couldn't be taken in Italian territory. Whereas you know as well as me that it couldn't be anything else than italian territory. So it's not me who's argueing for the sake of argueing, because i am reporting a simple and plain fact; but it's you who is claiming something highly improbable. -- Blackcat (talk) 18:02, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
- As I didn't upload the file, the onus is unfortunately not on me to prove anything. It's on the uploader and other accounts wishing to retain the file to meet Commons:Essential information, COM:D and Template:Information's instructions. Actually read the rules, and kindly stop arguing for the sake of arguing. You're not strengthening your case in doing so, but actually showing that you are incapable of fulfilling the basic criteria required of any file uploaded to Commons i.e. to simply indicate the actual author -- which clearly isn't the Brunodam alternate account -- and source of the file. Middayexpress (talk) 13:04, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
- Ok, then prove it has been taken anywhere than Somalia. You notice by yourself that you're putting pretextuous motivations... -- Blackcat (talk) 01:30, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
- Sorry, but personal claims as to where and when the file was taken still are not good enough. Per Commons:Essential information and COM:D, the actual source of the file must be indicated on the file description page. Since it clearly isn't the uploader's "own work" as he has claimed, the actual, original author of the file also needs to be indicated per Template:Information. Failing the above, it gets deleted. Middayexpress (talk) 23:37, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
- Sure? And wherever else could be taken? Sure dressed that way it couldn't be an Italian soldier during the Russian Campaign (ok, not a good example since soldiers were sent in Russia poorly dressed but...) -- Blackcat (talk) 23:00, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
- I have therefore reverted your addition of PD-Italy to this file. Kindly wait until the deletion discussion is completed before attempting any such edits again. Middayexpress (talk) 20:41, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
No... I unfortunately never referred to "makes speculations" [sic]. I said that you are speculating when you state in reference to Ethiopia that it is "highly debatable they had any law at all". That Ethiopia was independent during the Second Italo-Abyssinian War when that the file was taken, on the other hand, is most certainly not debatable. I'm afraid that still very much means that even the tiny off-chance that this pic falls under PD-Italy has all but disappeared. Middayexpress (talk) 05:01, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
Kept: per Blackcat Jcb (talk) 20:30, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Good reason to doubt license: upload by serial copyright violator: [9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18] (etc.). All the images that are currently visible at en.wikipedia have different Exif data [19]. Magog the Ogre (talk) 05:27, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
I can assure you that i have taken this image from my own camera (Nok 3110c model). I have two phones that may be a reason for differnt EXIF data. The photo was taken by me while in a train. Devx101 (talk) 17:41, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: let's not take the risk, also I can't imagin how this picture could have possible been taken from inside a train Jcb (talk) 20:36, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Video screenshot and that too of low resolution not useful for any purpose -- Sreejith K (talk) 07:23, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: copyvio, duplicates found Jcb (talk) 20:43, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
SVG seems to be just a container of File:Ernährungs Pyramide.jpg. Leyo 08:24, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jcb (talk) 20:44, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Historical photo of some sort. Likely copyrighted. Unlikely uploader is author. No reason given to suggest that uploader is copyright holder. FASTILY (TALK) 09:02, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jcb (talk) 20:45, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This map is messed up. The reason why is because the municipalities are totally wrong. You can see the political division here, so clearly this map is very troubling as it claims that all these blue units are municipalities. The map is not used anywhere, so deleting it does not hurt. And on top of that, it has no source. LAz17 (talk) 09:13, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Kept Jcb (talk) 20:47, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
Not only is this not used anywhere, it defies logic. These territorial units do not exist! Nor have they ever looked anything like this. One may see the map of municipalities here, [20] , and here, [21] - please delete this unsourced insanity. LAz17 (talk) 04:56, 15 May 2011 (UTC) The most simple explanation is that there is no source. (LAz17 (talk) 18:02, 21 May 2011 (UTC)).
- Keep - DRs of maps for this kind of reasons are mostly inspired by the other way around POV - Jcb (talk) 12:54, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
- Before you blindly disregard the deletion as POV, do look at the reason why it is being listed for deletion. These units "DO NOT EXIST". Is it hard to understand that? Is it? Can I make a map of the US that shows 78 states instead of 50? Can I? No, I can not. Same for this map, there a bunch of made up units that do note exist. (LAz17 (talk) 03:41, 25 May 2011 (UTC)).
- Comment but inclined towards Keep - The user that created this map has not been active here since 10 November 2010. meaning it's not likely he/she will appear. Visually, the borders of the individual municipalities seems to match File:Bosnia and Herzegovina Political.png. If there are extra municipalities then that may be explained by w:Municipalities of Republika Srpska#Former Municipalities which resulted in the deletion of 18 municipalities in 1996. The map shows the state of the country in 1991. I found File:DemoBIH1991.png which also shows the state in 1991. I did not do a point-by-point compare but again the maps are similar. It also appears he/she gave a source "Borders of municipalities which would include most of Croats in BiH(1991 status). Red borders show municipalities in RS, orange ones in Federation." Beyond that, I have no way of evaluating the claims of the map maker nor the person who wishes to delete this map. Marc Kupper (talk) 07:26, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
- Oops - I just noticed this was a closed discussion. I'd come here as a result of seeing the DR request and wondered why the xFD was still open... Marc Kupper (talk) 07:52, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
- 1) The Discussion is not closed. It was reopened. I then saw Jcb list comment and thought that he closed it again without any thought, and so I listed it again by accident - that's why the date's moved. The case is open.
- 2) Your claims that the maps are similar is an obscene statement. It's downright mind boggling and shows that you did not look at the map. Because of that I decided to chew the food for you - you did not want to do the chewing so I decided to. I this link I have labeled what is wrong, [22] - all the yellow are "made up imaginary" entities that do not exist. Now, take the map that you mentioned, File:Bosnia and Herzegovina Political.png , and you can clearly see that every one of those yellow areas does not exist. The conclusion therefore is that we are dealing with a bullshit map. Ceha is one of those promoters of a "greater croatia", and has had lots of problems on the english wikipedia for repeatedly posting false inaccurate information. It is true that one should assume good faith, but with this map there clearly is no good intention.
- I have taken the time to label the mistakes in yellow. Now the least that you could do is look at it and compare it to the administrative map. You can do that, can't you? When you do that you will see why this map is up for deletion. (LAz17 (talk) 16:45, 25 May 2011 (UTC)).
- On the map with errors labeled in yellow, I made a mistake - there should be some more yellow, a couple more polygons. But, I think this is enough to prove that the map is very flawed and thus should be deleted. (LAz17 (talk) 17:53, 25 May 2011 (UTC)).
- The map you're comparing appears to be modern, whereas the map under discussion is intended to reflect the situation 20 years ago. Do you have any evidence that the map under discussion is incorrect in that respect? Powers (talk) 19:01, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
- Here're borders from 1991. [23], they're the same as they were in 1971, and 1981. These units in this map are fabricated units that did not exist back then, nor do they exist now - nor does anything that resemble them exist now nor in the past. Is this enough evidence that the image up for deletion looks like something that a bullshit artist would concoct? Can you make a map of the 50 US states by drawing out 30 states correctly, and then adding another 63 on the territory of the remaining 20??? (LAz17 (talk) 21:45, 25 May 2011 (UTC)).
- The map you're comparing appears to be modern, whereas the map under discussion is intended to reflect the situation 20 years ago. Do you have any evidence that the map under discussion is incorrect in that respect? Powers (talk) 19:01, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
- Delete - Frankly, in maps there are so much political issues, potential for conflict and misunderstandings, and worse yet, potential for malicious "education" of unaware users of Commons with fabricated info with obscure purposes, that I believe no map should be allowed here without a clear source for its info. I know that Commons usually does not worry with original research, but in those cases it should. In my view, fabricated or imaginary versions of maps without a clear source, or at least a clear rational, should all be deleted from here. Commons should not be a forum to advance political agendas.-- Darwin Ahoy! 18:11, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
- Delete As all maps of this user, it is a political and unsourced map. If we are honest, what kind of educational value does a map have which is based on sciance fiction? If something like this will be keept, we should think about the real wikipedia goal: to make knowledge accessible to everyone. Otherway i wrote this user some months ago and even he agrees with deletion of his unsourced maps. Just take a look at his talk page. --WizardOfOz talk 19:17, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
- Delete - Hahaha comon guys, that map is so ridiculous, that we didnt need to discuss about it. If the situation were like on the map, they would been majority in Bosnia, and not minority :). Check this www.izbori.ba and see were Croats live and were they are majority, that are the result of the last elections in 2010. If wikipedia is a serious project, it must be deleted !!! dino hattab
- Keep Well it is just some of the maps which speak about territories on which Croats are/were present or have/had pretensions to. In the territories marked in RS Croats were significant porcentage before the war. Borders of some municipalities shown are purely historical (for example Derventa or Ljubija). Some territories should be wider, for example there are some Croat villages in municipalities of Srebrenik and Gradačac which were suposed to be part of new municipaly Brčko-Ravne, but plans for it were dropped where Brčko was proclaimed a district. Similar goes for Tramošnica municipality (today's Pelagićevo municipality). Comment of wizardOfOz is purely political, and comment of dino hattab is a bit laughing to the refuggies. Laz17 is of course in a habbit of deleting my maps :) I'm not here often so just read a first two sentences. That should provide enough reasons for keeping the map. Best regards --Čeha (talk) 09:46, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
- Comment Ceha your statment above just confirms what i wrote: this is science fiction. What kind of educational value does it have? Showing that there are Croats in Bosnia and Hercegovina? Sure they are there, but we don´t need to cut the borders of the municipalities just to show every single farm where they are majority :D If we go straight ahead, the same map has the same menaing for Bosniaks or Serbs or any people living in Bosnia, because I´m sure that in those borders you draw are also some farms from they. I wrote you months ago to use those sourced which are relevant and not some fictional sources which "could be" or "could show" something "if they are implemented as source". All your maps are based on the same map which has bean deleted on enwiki as unsourced. If you fallow your maps, there are only vice versa sources and you are jumping from one to another. To be honest, I have nothing against your maps if they are sourced so everyone can verify the facts, but I´m against putting such maps in articles all across the projects where uninvolved peaople will be desinformed. If your truly goal is to help to bring the whole human knowlage to all the people of the world no matter where they are, you should add something like: this is my imagination how it could be, so peaople can search for evidence how the status of your maps realy is. This is just original research and nothing else. --WizardOfOz talk 15:58, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
- Ok, wizard I can now see that you don't know what are you tallking about. My maps rage from dialectal maps of Croatia to maps of war fronts in BiH. How, by the holly cow, can they all be from one source?
- Second I'd be very gratefull if you would read the map name. If you wish to make maps of Bosniak or Serb municipalities, that's fine with me. This map speaks about the Croats, theirs settlmenst (in some cases ex settlments) and their's interests.
- Further more, map title is in Croatian. So every one who could read it has some knowledge of the sittuation. --Čeha (talk) 07:55, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
- Also on info about map it clearly states ; Borders of municipalities which would include most of Croats in BiH(1991 status). Red borders show municipalities in RS, orange ones in Federation or in Croatian Granice općina koje bi uključile većinu hrvatskog pučanstva u BiH(stanje iz 1991). Crvene granice pokazuju općine u RS, narančaste u Federaciji which describes intent of the map. I'm very certain that everywone here knows what conditional is for:) Please leave your petty politcs for somebody else.--Čeha (talk) 08:02, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
- CommentCeha's response shows that he has nothing to say to the evidence of how this is a bad map - a map that has no source whose borders are totally wrong. Hence I feel that we have all the evidence we need for deletion. (LAz17 (talk) 18:25, 26 May 2011 (UTC)).
- Comment As first, taking care of your answer Ceha, the title is wrong. Is this map showing us croatian municipalities or not? If the map do, which kind of source have you use for the non existing municipality borders? But if it just shows terrain where Croatian are majority, than it should at least be renamed, and the borders of municipalities removed so it can be taken for real. Such as it is now, it´s just a original research and nothing else. We can´t create new borders just to get all sheeps in one stall. --WizardOfOz talk 16:18, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
- Title is correct. Read the info part and you'll see that title is appropriate. Same would go for municipal borders in some time period (which is not present), or suggestions of border changes. Please do read the whole case before making persumtions.--Čeha (talk) 13:21, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
- You didn´t answer the two questions: Is this map showing us croatian municipalities or not? If the map do, which kind of source have you use for the non existing municipality borders? If you can answer those, i will change my opinion. If you say yes the map shows croatian municipalities, as stated from ip below, you are lying. So the name of the file is wrong. If you say that you have sources for the borders, i would like to see them, even if i need to buy a book to proove that. But you will never find a source which can explain a wild drawing around real municipalities. So please stop your POV pushing and try to understand that this and all projects of wikimedia are not here for desinformation but to provide well sourced knowlage. Once you get this, i think it could be fine to work with you. --WizardOfOz talk 15:35, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
- Again, please read the previous response. Pay attention of words as time line and plans of making new municipalities. There is also part on Croatian, which I'm sure would help your understanding. As for details of changes, there are really so many of them that I don't have time nor will do document it. Say for example that in 1991 people of 7 villages in Doboj municipality organized a referendum to unite those villages with Derventa municipality. That's an easy thing to google. That's just a sample of the changes that happened. --Čeha (talk) 21:47, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
- Fantasy plans according to nobody? Where is the source? You know, I had plans for the northern part of the state in which I live in to become its own new separate state. Nobody really cares about my personal fantasy, just like nobody cares about your personal fantasy either. Your dream is a totally unacceptable source. (LAz17 (talk) 04:11, 1 June 2011 (UTC)).
- Sources are numerous. Google them:) It is easy --Čeha (talk) 08:15, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
- Fantasy plans according to nobody? Where is the source? You know, I had plans for the northern part of the state in which I live in to become its own new separate state. Nobody really cares about my personal fantasy, just like nobody cares about your personal fantasy either. Your dream is a totally unacceptable source. (LAz17 (talk) 04:11, 1 June 2011 (UTC)).
- Again, please read the previous response. Pay attention of words as time line and plans of making new municipalities. There is also part on Croatian, which I'm sure would help your understanding. As for details of changes, there are really so many of them that I don't have time nor will do document it. Say for example that in 1991 people of 7 villages in Doboj municipality organized a referendum to unite those villages with Derventa municipality. That's an easy thing to google. That's just a sample of the changes that happened. --Čeha (talk) 21:47, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
- You didn´t answer the two questions: Is this map showing us croatian municipalities or not? If the map do, which kind of source have you use for the non existing municipality borders? If you can answer those, i will change my opinion. If you say yes the map shows croatian municipalities, as stated from ip below, you are lying. So the name of the file is wrong. If you say that you have sources for the borders, i would like to see them, even if i need to buy a book to proove that. But you will never find a source which can explain a wild drawing around real municipalities. So please stop your POV pushing and try to understand that this and all projects of wikimedia are not here for desinformation but to provide well sourced knowlage. Once you get this, i think it could be fine to work with you. --WizardOfOz talk 15:35, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
- Keep This sort of discussion is exactly why we have things like {{Inaccurate-map-disputed}}. Commons is not the place for political discussions, or judgements about the accuracy or otherwise of maps, flags, graphs etc. If the map is in dispute, upload one with 'correct' information under a different name (no overwriting). The wikis can decide for themselves what diagrams to use, don't bring those fights here. Yes there should be a source for the data in maps, diagrams, graphs etc, but frankly we are lucky if there is a description, let alone a source for the data. That sort of thing has never been a criteria for deletion, it just means the file (like most here) needs more info on its description page. --Tony Wills (talk) 11:57, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
- While unsourced maps are allowed into Commons, those fights will always, always end up here. Sincerely, I'm having trouble in understanding why unsourced maps should be kept here. I would believe that maps suspected to be forgeries and of being planted here with political motivations would be out of scope of this project.-- Darwin Ahoy! 12:06, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
- But that is the point, in any political debate there will always be accusations of incorrect, inaccurate, false, forged, POV, biased etc, etc. What do we do?, set up a panel of unbiased experts to consider each map and adjudicate? Are we to judged which wiki is using the right map? Wars are fought over this sort of thing, we can not and do not, try to solve that sort of dispute here. --Tony Wills (talk) 12:59, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
- Tony, I have explicitly proven how the map is wrong. The guy uses "fake boundaries". You are basically saying that we should have unworthy maps on wiki commons. There is a better map that shows croats in Bosnia and Herzegovina, it is here, [24] , so there is no need to keep this bullshit "fake" map. The map which I linked right there is a super map. It's superior in every way compared to this thing whose boundaries are very messed up. It's not like there is a small error. There are MANY MANY errors. Did you see the map that I posted which indicated where there are errors? Did you see it? Here is the link again, the yellow is what is wrong - [25] - I forgot to label a couple other yellow spots. The coloring of colors on the map is not something I have brought up yet - what I have brought up is these "fake municipalities"... you can not just draw random lines all over and produce a bullshit map. Such maps are not good for anyone.
- I have proved quite well that this map is wrong - not just wrong but very wrong. I swear to you that I will start uploading bullshit maps that I will make wrong on purpose if this improper map is allowed to stay here. I'll make maps of the US that have 60-70-or even 80 states on them. If this guy can get away with that thanks to your opinion that "bad maps are okay", then I can and will do the exact thing that you are supporting. I promise you that. (LAz17 (talk) 15:30, 27 May 2011 (UTC)).
- And tony, one more thing... it's not rocket science to figure out if a map is problematic or not. You make it sound like it is something hard to do, which is actually quite sad. In this case the thing is obviously very flawed. (LAz17 (talk) 16:15, 27 May 2011 (UTC)).
- I agree here with Darwin. I can´t understand why unsorced maps are alowed on commons. Even if commons have it own rules, its a part of Wikipedia and the files are used there to ilustrate the article. If the reader klicks on the map to see it, he will allways be desinformated. So what is the goal? Writing a sourced encyclopedia or desinformation of half of the world? I think that this discussion will lead us higher were we need to discuss unsourced maps for general, and which sources should be used for creation of maps that shows demographical content. But even if we start this discussion elswhere, this map should still be deleted. --WizardOfOz talk 16:18, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
- But that is the point, in any political debate there will always be accusations of incorrect, inaccurate, false, forged, POV, biased etc, etc. What do we do?, set up a panel of unbiased experts to consider each map and adjudicate? Are we to judged which wiki is using the right map? Wars are fought over this sort of thing, we can not and do not, try to solve that sort of dispute here. --Tony Wills (talk) 12:59, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
- While unsourced maps are allowed into Commons, those fights will always, always end up here. Sincerely, I'm having trouble in understanding why unsourced maps should be kept here. I would believe that maps suspected to be forgeries and of being planted here with political motivations would be out of scope of this project.-- Darwin Ahoy! 12:06, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
- Delete. To an extent, I agree with DarwIn. I wouldn't go as far as to say that every map should always have a source or be deleted, but if the accuracy of a map is disputed we should be able to base the information on a source to be certain that what we're hosting is educational content and not misinformation. Jafeluv (talk) 18:16, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
- Darvinus, map is well documented and it's usage is well explained in info text. There is no political or other usage of the map, and correct usage is expained in info text. I'm sorry to see that some people would not take the time to read the whole case before they make such accusations. But that speaks more of them than anybody else. --Čeha (talk) 13:21, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
- We don't need your original fantasy research. It is disinformation in this case. (LAz17 (talk) 15:05, 30 May 2011 (UTC)).
- Darvinus, map is well documented and it's usage is well explained in info text. There is no political or other usage of the map, and correct usage is expained in info text. I'm sorry to see that some people would not take the time to read the whole case before they make such accusations. But that speaks more of them than anybody else. --Čeha (talk) 13:21, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
- Keep I see no problem with this.Quahadi Añtó 18:02, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
- This user is a croat, therefore he likes imaginary croatian municipalities that misinform people. He, like Ceha, is thrilled to see any map that has more "fake municipalities" so long as they somehow suggest that Croats have a bigger share of bosnia and herzegovina.
- Here's one for a start - these units do not exist. That is the problem. The units do not exist. Understand? The units do not exist. They never have and they never will. No room for fantasy maps. May I make a map of "supposed" serbian municipalities in Croatia where they never existed? Or a map of 70 states in the US? No. (LAz17 (talk) 22:25, 30 May 2011 (UTC)).
- Ethnic bias from you Laz is not a nice thing to do/say. One thing more, just to show that your arguments are flawed, is state of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jefferson_(Pacific_state). Pay attention to map. --Čeha (talk) 21:47, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
- Are you joking with me? The state of jefferson is an idea, yeah, but there are no firm borders of the thing. It's something that only naive idiots think will happen. But yeah, if they let you keep your map then the state of jefferson will take half of california, a bit of Nevada, and I'll label it as the state of ceha. That, and another 40 er so other new imaginary states.
- Your "imaginary municipalities" were never mentioned by anyone. They're your fantasy and have no source. They never existed, nor will they ever exist. On top of that nobody ever suggested such idiotic borders, ever. (LAz17 (talk) 04:17, 1 June 2011 (UTC)).
- Ethnic bias from you Laz is not a nice thing to do/say. One thing more, just to show that your arguments are flawed, is state of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jefferson_(Pacific_state). Pay attention to map. --Čeha (talk) 21:47, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
- Delete. Speedy delete. Ceha has further distorted the map, adding more "imaginary" areas. The more we wait the worse it will be. On top of that, a place like drvar, which traditionally has no croats is labeled as Croatian. Same for some other places where croats traditionally have no presence, like Glamoc or Grahovo. So we see that a map that disinformed now only disinformes only more. Cherio. (24.15.189.122 22:37, 30 May 2011 (UTC)).
- Town of Drvar had large portion of Croats until the ww2. Just for info :)--Čeha (talk) 21:47, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
- Man what the hell do you take us for, idiots? This is really going to far. Drvar is labeled as a Croatian municipality. This was indicated as a mistake. To counter that you do not say yes I did this wrong, or yes I did this wrong on purpose because I like to misinform - you try to make up excuses. It proves that you do not have good intentions, and hence are a detriment to wikipedia.
- 1931 - back then municipalities were much smaller than they are today. Drvar was a small municpality that was part of the bosnaski petrovac municipality. In fact it was not a town but a small little community. We can look at the census data. Croats are catholic, serbs are orthodox... total population of the small drvar municipality 8627. Catholics/Croats are 305, or about 3 percent. Serbs are almost all the remaining. And you get to the conclusion that Drvar is a Croat municipality? In your sick dreams perhaps. This is very offensive to any serb. It's advocating genocide.
- I took time to obtain you data from 1931. [26] This only proves that before WW2 and after WW2 Drvar was not a croatian place. It also proves yet more flaws on top of "imaginary unsourced municipalities". Drvar is a municipality that exists... you did not chop up its borders... but croatian it is not. It's known as the most ethnically pure serbian municipality in the country for crying out loud! I mean come on people, the map is retarded, it's proven to be wrong with imaginary boundaries and then there are boundaries like this which are labeled wrong... it's a map of a person's dreams of a greater croatian territory on bosnia and herzegovina. We must not support nationalism in the form of these maps. It is misinforming people, it's wrong. We've shown so many examples of how this map is wrong. (LAz17 (talk) 05:05, 1 June 2011 (UTC)).
- 5 things:
- 1.Mind your manners. That is reason why I do not like talking to you.
- 2.Read my post(s). There were a lot of Croats in the small town of Drvar (at least until 27.7.1941.) Town had a Catholic church back than, no?
- 3.Croats made majority in Drvar in the years after the war (post 1995), and now there is about 1000 Croats in municipality, more or less in the town itself.
- 4.It is certainly not "most Serbian municipality in the country". Because of Genocide in eastern and western Bosnia, there are municipalities with 100% serbian population.
- 5.This is all of topic. Map is good, read the info and try to control your emmotions, we are not in kinder garden.
--Čeha (talk) 08:12, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
- Please, people, let's focus, ok? Being an imaginary map is not a problem on itself, as it's not a problem if it "promotes nationalism". I would not have any problem with a map of Eretz Israel from the Nile to the Euphrates, given that it was well sourced. If the source is biased or not, it's not that important, really, given that such source is well visible. Then let the Wikipedias fight over it.
- The problem in this case is that it has no source at all, as far as I can see. Ceha, you could start sourcing your affirmations above about the demographics of Drvar. And please, don't tell people to go Google it, such kind of comments are annoying and not helpful in the least, as the comments about genocide made by Laz17 and you. Please stay academic and present your sources as requested, ok?-- Darwin Ahoy! 08:37, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
- Sorry Darwin. It really is stupid to go into details. My only point was that even some municipalities that have okay borders are not croatian yet he labels them as.
- What happens if he can not provide the source to this catastrophic map? (LAz17 (talk) 16:07, 1 June 2011 (UTC)).
- What happens would depend mostly on the evaluation the closing admin would do of all the debate. But IMO, unsourced maps which are contested should be deleted from Commons, otherwise they will be always a source of trouble and conflict, and the educational potential for such things is arguably null.-- Darwin Ahoy! 16:13, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
- Well, the source is the net. Discussions and plans of making such municipalities. That's the reason I talked about google and referendum in those 6 villages at the north of Doboj municipality for rejoining Derventa municipality. Or changes in Travnik municipality, and it's division in 6 municipalities (parallel to Mostar, as garanteed by washington agreements). And those are just few. As you can see from the map changes are quite numerous.... --Čeha (talk) 16:07, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
- Please, Ceha, be serious and try to not insult other's intelligence. "The source is the net" means nothing, really.-- Darwin Ahoy! 18:16, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
- Maybe something is lost in translation here. Source is data from the net. Everything you need, you shall find there. Let me be more specific;
- Posavina;
- Derventa municipality is shown in pre 1963 borders.
- Modriča municipality is shown in borders suggested by Contact group plan
- In territories of municipalites of Srebrenik and Gradačac (in federation) shown is the part which Croats suggested to enter municipality of Brčko-Ravne.
- Parts of Pelagićevo are shown as distinct municipality (Tramošnica) where the settlments (all but one) which in 1991 had Croatian majority. To Tramošnica municipality are also added (1991) Croatian villages in Modriča, Šamac and Gradačac municipalities(leaving Serbian coridor intact).
- Shown area in Donji Žabar is area of Oštra Luka, and one small part of the village which were Croatian in 1991, but became part of RS in Dayton.
- Shown part of the Šamac includes Croatian villages of Gornji and Donji Hasić, Tišina, Grebenice and Novo Selo as well as Serbian enclave around Crkvina and town of Bosnian Šamac.
- Northern Bosnia:
- Croatian villages in Ćelinac,Tuzla and Živinice are shown as part of Soli municipality (it is a bit unprecise here, some villages of Lukavac should also be part of it and includes a lot of Muslim/Bosniak settlments).
- Usora is enlarged by few Croatian villages which in Dayton became part of RS.
- Parts of Maglaj and Zavidovići which are shown on the picture were part of croatian war municipality of Žepče
- Parts of Teslić showed are parts of suggested Komušina municipality which had Croatian majority before the war and was held by HVO during its initial phases.
- Parts shown around Vareš had in 1991 Croatian majority
- Parts shown in Kakanj and Visoko were controled by HVO in 1992-93,had Croatian majority and were suggested to form Croatian municipality of Kraljeva Sutjeska (Kraljeva Sutiska).
- Central Bosnia:
- Shown parts in Mrkonjić grad and north of Jezero include Liskovac and Majdan, which were Croatian settlments by 1991 census.
- The rest of Jezero was part of Jajce municipality before the war. Also Jajce municipality is enlarged by part of Vlašić in Travnik municipality.
- Travnik municipality is divided on Muslim/Bosniak Turbe municipality and Croat Travnik municipality (census of 1991).
- Vitez municipality is enlarged for Čajdraš and some other smaller Croatian villages (census 1991) in Zenica municipality.
- Kiseljak municipality is enlared for Croatian villages in Visoko municipality.
- Parts of Fojnica municipality which had Croatian majority (including town itself and its subburbs) is shown as seperate municipality (that was the territory which HVO held in the beginings of Croat-Muslim/Bosniak war)
- Croatian villages in western part of Fojnica (which were part of Novi Travnik until 1918) are added to Novi Travnik, as well as Croatian villages in north Bugojno (census 1991).
- Most of Croatian villages (including Muslim/Bosniak enclaves) are shown as part of Croatian municipality of Uskoplje.
- Most of Croatian villages (including Muslim/Bosniak enclaves) are shown as part of Croatian municipality of Bugojno (including 2 Croatian villages in Donji Vakuf municipality).
- South western Bosnia
- Municipality of Kupres in elarged by settlments aroun Šuica in Tomislavgrad municipality.
- Municipality of Grahovo is added to Livno municipality
- Municipalities of Drvar and Glamoč are united in one municipality (as for the ethnic situation, most of yunger generation are Croats, I think that 60% of students in schools listen to Croatian program in Glamoč, and that there is 20% of Serbian students and 20 Muslim/Bosniak).
- Herzegovina
- Western part of Jablanica, which was held by HVO during the war and which had Croatian majority in last Census is shown as Croatian municipality of Doljani.
- Western parts of Konjic in which most of Croatians lived, including war held enclave of Turija are shown as seperate municipality.
- Western part of Berkovići (settlment of Sv.Stjepan Križ, Croat 1991 census) is show as area which should be added to Stolac municipality.
- Border Croatian villages in municipalities of Berkovići, Ljubinje and Trebinje (including Serbian enclaves) are shown as area which should be added to Ravno municipality.
- Western Bosnia
- Croatian Plješivica villages in Bihać municipality which were until 1947 part of Croatia (and Croatian parts of neighbouring villages) are shown as seperate Croatian municipality.
- Croatian villages around Ljubija which had Croatian majority in 1991 census (including not Croat enclaves) are shown as seperate municipality.
- Croatian villages around Sasina which had Croatian majority in 1991 census (including not Croat enclaves and Croatian parts of not Croat settlments) are shown as seperate municipality.
- Croatian villages around Ivanjska in Banja Luka, Gradiška, Laktaši and Čelinac municipalities which had Croatian majority in 1991 census (including not Croat enclaves and Croatian parts of not Croat settlments) are shown as seperate municipality.
- Croatian villages around Kotor Varoš which had Croatian majority in 1991 census (including not Croat enclaves and Croatian parts of not Croat settlments) are shown as seperate municipality.
- Croatian villages in eastern Prnjavor and western Doboj are shown as seperate municipality.
- Croatian villages in Gradiška municipality (including not Croat enclaves and Croatian parts of not Croat settlments) are shown as seperate municipality.
- Please, Ceha, be serious and try to not insult other's intelligence. "The source is the net" means nothing, really.-- Darwin Ahoy! 18:16, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
As can be seen, this map reflects plans of Croatian people in BiH in 1991-2005 period. --Čeha (talk) 07:40, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
- Thats what I´m talking about: could be, was, sugested to be.... and so on. The title is Croatian municipalities in Bosnia and Hercegovina and not Croatian municipalities the way they could be if we compare the last thousand years of history and take care about the future. Just as citation: Croatian villages in eastern Prnjavor and western Doboj are shown as seperate municipality, Croatian villages in Gradiška municipality (including not Croat enclaves and Croatian parts of not Croat settlments) are shown as seperate municipality, Croatian villages around Ljubija which had Croatian majority in 1991 census (including not Croat enclaves) are shown as seperate municipality, Border Croatian villages in municipalities of Berkovići, Ljubinje and Trebinje (including Serbian enclaves) are shown as area which should be added to Ravno municipality... and so on... I´ve just took the last sentences. So now we know that this map doesn´t show municipalities but parts of those which aqre shown as one. Ergo as i wrote houndred times above: Science fiction, unsourced, original research, no educational value so out of scope... and so on... --WizardOfOz talk 16:44, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
- I agree, you can't just create municipalities out of the blue based on demographic data. It has no foreseeable educational use.-- Darwin Ahoy! 16:52, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
- Promoters of a "Greater Croatia" can not understand this. This is basically a map that show's Ceha's ethnocentric nationalist ambitions. As such he adores this map, he loves it, and there is no way that he can see that there is anything wrong with it. It is "his" own personal dream, and so he feels that he is helping wikipedia when he is in fact disinforming people.
- What is worse is that most of ceha's maps revolve around this principle, to disinform people by making maps that show some greater croat units in bosnia and herzegovina. He has gone out of his way to edit other people's maps - he has no shame! (LAz17 (talk) 17:00, 3 June 2011 (UTC)).
- Darwin, as I answered below to Laz some of this municipalities in this borders existed(most of it) during the Bosnian war. For example Komušina existed until it was conquered by Serbian forces. Others were planed and demanded in numerous peace plans during the war.
- I agree, you can't just create municipalities out of the blue based on demographic data. It has no foreseeable educational use.-- Darwin Ahoy! 16:52, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
To add one thing more, Census of 1991 is still valid in Bosnia and Herzegovina. It is the last census and it is used in elections (national representatives) etc.
- Name of the map is Hrvatske opcine in BiH with info text that clearly states Borders of municipalities which would include most of Croats in BiH(1991 status). Red borders show municipalities in RS, orange ones in Federation.
- I'll repeat again, educational purpose of this map is quite clear. It shows Croatian plans and municipalities that existed in the time period of 1991-20005.
- I do not see a problem here. Title is in Croatian and in the info part is pretty much explained. Municipalities in those borders existed in 1991-2005 period (some less, some more time), or were planed (as abbolishment of Grahovo municipality due to the small population there). I explained here every line, and it's educational use. Were is the problem? --Čeha (talk) 10:33, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
- The problem is that what you are saying now is not clear in your relation above. For instance: "Municipality of Kupres in elarged by settlments aroun Šuica in Tomislavgrad municipality" (randomly picked) - What is your source for this enlargement? If you could document what you wrote above with the sources for such plans of enlargements and new municipalities, I would not have any problem with this map.-- Darwin Ahoy! 10:41, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
- Like you can see, there are 35 changes of border municipalities and municipalities itself. Documentation of every change would took to much space even on wiki pages :) So basicaly I do not have the time (nor will) to do it.
- Thet's all. But this could be solved. I can add two more categories, one indicating municipalities that existed during the war, and other municipalities which were planed during that period. Would that simplify the situation? --Čeha (talk) 09:07, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
- And answer to this randomly picked question is ethnic composition of Kupres and Šuica (enlargment of Croats numbers in mixed municipality). This proposition was made in early years of BiH war. --Čeha (talk) 09:01, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
- You still failed to present your source, even for such a simple request. And I doubt that it would be so difficult to document your map, unless there are no sources at all, as everyone is suspecting here - and you are not doing any effort to dismiss those suspicions. Look, maps pretending to present the Portuguese Empire in the 16th century, taking into account the Portuguese presence in the various corners of the world, where deleted for OR, and those were sourced (the OR was to assume that mere Portuguese presence would make those places part of the Portuguese Empire). This is a similar situation. You can't transform Croatian presence in a region in a true municipality, that is even much more far-fetched than claiming that Vietnam was Portuguese because we were there (which was indeed the use at the 16th century).-- Darwin Ahoy! 09:41, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
- Map changed. File:Hrvatske_opcine_u_BiH.png Armed presence and existent bodies of authorities are enough proof :) As for example, both Kupres and Tomislavgrad are municipalities with Croat majority (today in this borders). There change would not mean nothing in the terms of territory expansion (today, but it would 1991). Others here (I mean Laz and Wizard), have a bit bias to Croats, so I'm a little sceptical of theirs motives. What's the story about Vietnam and Portugal, I did not know it's presence there? Obrigado antecipadamente :) --Čeha (talk) 10:06, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
- Oh yes, we were in Vietnam, and our presence was significant enough that they still use today the Latin alphabet introduced by us. We established there a number of missions and commercial posts, though since we were (and are) a small country, our population was not sufficient to establish a grip everywhere we went. That's also the reason why we never established in Canada and North America, though there are documented Portuguese expeditions in the 15th century to those parts before anyone else from Europe being there (besides the Vikings, perhaps).
- But to the point: You must document that map with the sources you consulted to dismiss the suspects of OR. You can't take some data from the region and depart from there to conclusions that were never seen before, such as inventing municipalities based on that. If you have sources that refer those municipalities, or projects of municipalities, please state them in the description of the file, it doesn't matter how long it gets. It's very important to know where that information came from, so that your map can be considered educational and useful, and not some wishful thinking dream.-- Darwin Ahoy! 10:23, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
- Obrigado :) I new about Newfounland in Canada, but didn't new about Vietnam. It makes sense, Vietnam was in Portuguese sphere of influence established in Las Tordesillas.
- But, to the point:
- This is for Ravne Brčko the changes influence Srebrenik and Gradačac, there is a list of settlments which are included in new municipality.
- Opcina Soli
- Kraljeva Sutjeska
- Some of the war lines can be seen here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bosnian_war
- Are this enough? The map is changed, so I belive there is no need to source war municipality borders?--Čeha (talk) 13:17, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
- Better said, which sources should be added to the map? --Čeha (talk) 13:55, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
- First of all, you are changing the map, attempting to make it better or something. We have a discussion going on, please don't tamper with the material.
- You can not take small enclaves and things where there was presence and declare that a municipality.
- Posavski-obzor is not a legimate source. Look at what it says man... for Kraljvska Sutjeska the date is from 2010, and it is simply a discussion that has been transferred from some forum. It is not official in any way. What's more it does not mention anything about a new municipality, it simply talks about the croat presence there. The only place where they speak of a municipality/opcina is in the comments where some people express desires for this. Opcina soli is a similar "idea" that some people thought up in 2010.
- You seem to not understand that you can not take an area where there were croats and declare it a municipality. (LAz17 (talk) 16:32, 6 June 2011 (UTC)).
- Posavski-obzor are daily Croatian newspapers. In the text they provided map of Kraljeva Sutjeska, an area which was under Croatian defence Council (HVO) control during the early phases of Bosnian war. Municipality of Soli is a demmand by Croat authorities in 1994 to Federation, and a theme which was discused during the war. You have all of that in the newspaper, try reading it for a change. --Čeha (talk) 20:51, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
- Kraljeva Sutjeska is not in any way talked about as a municipality. Your article talks about that area. It is not in any way a municipality, nor has it ever been, nor will it be. The maps are maps which have been made my Milan Djogo, a serb, in 2010, to show where croats lived in that area.
- The two articles you linked are under the category "komentari" which means that it is not something of the newspaper.
- We return to the same problem, that your map is not acceptable and that you can not label an area where croats lived as a municipality. (LAz17 (talk) 21:38, 6 June 2011 (UTC)).
- Posavski-obzor are daily Croatian newspapers. In the text they provided map of Kraljeva Sutjeska, an area which was under Croatian defence Council (HVO) control during the early phases of Bosnian war. Municipality of Soli is a demmand by Croat authorities in 1994 to Federation, and a theme which was discused during the war. You have all of that in the newspaper, try reading it for a change. --Čeha (talk) 20:51, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
- Map changed. File:Hrvatske_opcine_u_BiH.png Armed presence and existent bodies of authorities are enough proof :) As for example, both Kupres and Tomislavgrad are municipalities with Croat majority (today in this borders). There change would not mean nothing in the terms of territory expansion (today, but it would 1991). Others here (I mean Laz and Wizard), have a bit bias to Croats, so I'm a little sceptical of theirs motives. What's the story about Vietnam and Portugal, I did not know it's presence there? Obrigado antecipadamente :) --Čeha (talk) 10:06, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
- You still failed to present your source, even for such a simple request. And I doubt that it would be so difficult to document your map, unless there are no sources at all, as everyone is suspecting here - and you are not doing any effort to dismiss those suspicions. Look, maps pretending to present the Portuguese Empire in the 16th century, taking into account the Portuguese presence in the various corners of the world, where deleted for OR, and those were sourced (the OR was to assume that mere Portuguese presence would make those places part of the Portuguese Empire). This is a similar situation. You can't transform Croatian presence in a region in a true municipality, that is even much more far-fetched than claiming that Vietnam was Portuguese because we were there (which was indeed the use at the 16th century).-- Darwin Ahoy! 09:41, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
- The problem is that what you are saying now is not clear in your relation above. For instance: "Municipality of Kupres in elarged by settlments aroun Šuica in Tomislavgrad municipality" (randomly picked) - What is your source for this enlargement? If you could document what you wrote above with the sources for such plans of enlargements and new municipalities, I would not have any problem with this map.-- Darwin Ahoy! 10:41, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
- Moreover I'll be gratefull, wizard of Oz, if you could keep this discussion accademic. I see that you didn't read my whole post (which I spent half an hour to wrote) and that you are not well informed into history and demographic of this areas. Or maybe is my English unappropriated for this discussion? The point be, I've given the sources (if you wish, we can go into the details, for example those four villages in Bihać municipality were even claimed as part of Croatia in international talks of marking the border) for every line and every of that lines existed some time in 1991-2005 period. So it's a little not accademic to speak of this map in one thousand years context when our fathers wore furs and axes, don't you think so? --Čeha (talk) 10:33, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
Laz, I think that it would be best of you to stick to the subject (or better be take a vaccation of it). Add hominem atacks, rude language is not something which wikipedia is for. So I'm putting you on my ignore list. Best regards. --Čeha (talk) 10:33, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
- Ceha, I think that it would be best for you to stop making fantasy maps with no source. We have indicated repeatedly that your map has no source. What you do is that you disregard this and say "the map is fine, google it"... you are therefore very arrogant and ignorant. You do not want to engage in constructive discussion. We feel that the map is wrong because of this this and this - and you reply with something unrelated. It's as if you're making fun of us/wasting our time. (LAz17 (talk) 15:56, 4 June 2011 (UTC)).
- It is fair to say that Ceha does not understand english. He does not understand what we are saying. That is why he is repeatedly just repeating his useless comments. The problem is that this is the way that he operates. Many of his maps have been made like this, on the basis of nothing. (LAz17 (talk) 15:58, 4 June 2011 (UTC)).
- So Ceha... Yu´ve claim that I should keep the discussion accademic? No problem! Than stop kidding with us. You´ve spended half of a hour to write this above? Respect, but it was just wasting of your and our time, we already know that this, like all your maps, is an unsourced imaginery map. Your comment was just a confirmation. I don´t know which part of the discussion you can´t follow, but as i don´t like to repeat over and over again, last time for your information: all of your maps are kind "take a look at google maps". So let us see it from readers side: I open this map which illustrate something, and as a reader i can expect that is true. But not on your maps. You are expecting that every reader, even if this is a child looking for informations for a homework, starts to search to search for every single municipality and border if they exist or not. That is a kind of not educational. Furthermore, you´ve added borders and municipalities where those not exist! And that is desinformation, as it looks the only puropose of this map. I´m just wondering that Mostarac hasn´t take a part in this discussion, as he is the one who allways makes suggestions how to draw your maps. Just take look at history of your and his talk page on hrwiki. So once more: your map is unsourced, is imagination, has no educational value, is original research and therefore for deletion. --WizardOfOz talk 09:30, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
- No, I expect that person who reads this will read info part. That's all. It is just when someone rent's a movie, he should see it is for appropriate age. Again, it would be good that you stick to the subject and not to gossip other wipedia members, is that to much to ask?
- P.S. As I explained in answers above, almost all of municipalities did exist in mentioned period.--Čeha (talk) 09:01, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
- We have proven that they did not exist. What's more, these imaginary dreams will not exist. (LAz17 (talk) 16:35, 6 June 2011 (UTC)).
- Like municipality of Srbobran on Srbinje did not exist? Laz, you start to contradict yourself. But I suppose that is not something new? --Čeha (talk) 21:12, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
- Srbinje is called Foca and has nothing to do with this map and discussion. Srbobran is not even in Bosnia and Herzegovina, so it too is redundant for our purposes here. I do not understand why you bring them up, for it does not help solve this problem. (LAz17 (talk) 21:47, 6 June 2011 (UTC)).
- Delete per Wizard, Jafeluv et al. What's the purpose of this image? There is no sources, the image isn't used anywhere. mickit 16:05, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
- So lets come to your sources: according to the first:
| Narodnosni sastav stanovništva općine Brčko, po naseljenim mjestima, prema popisu iz 1991. | ||||||
| naseljeno mjesto | ukupno | Bošnjaci | Hrvati | Srbi | Jugoslaveni | ostali |
| Bijela | 2,539 | 5 | 1,729 | 730 | 34 | 41 |
| Boće | 1,253 | 0 | 1,242 | 0 | 4 | 7 |
| Boderište | 965 | 1 | 952 | 2 | 1 | 9 |
| Brčko | 41,406 | 22,994 | 2,894 | 8,253 | 5,211 | 2,054 |
| Brezik | 413 | 0 | 3 | 408 | 1 | 1 |
| Brezovo Polje (selo) | 335 | 0 | 3 | 330 | 1 | 1 |
| Brezovo Polje | 1,393 | 1,158 | 11 | 89 | 96 | 39 |
| Brka | 2,044 | 1,921 | 3 | 40 | 27 | 53 |
| Brod | 1,042 | 938 | 6 | 50 | 28 | 20 |
| Bukovac | 364 | 6 | 69 | 279 | 9 | 1 |
| Bukvik Donji | 212 | 0 | 3 | 192 | 16 | 1 |
| Bukvik Gornji | 378 | 0 | 9 | 328 | 23 | 18 |
| Buzekara | 430 | 0 | 0 | 422 | 5 | 3 |
| Cerik | 280 | 3 | 25 | 221 | 18 | 13 |
| Čađavac | 74 | 0 | 60 | 0 | 6 | 8 |
| Čande | 377 | 377 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Čoseta | 507 | 502 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 5 |
| Donji Rahić | 647 | 4 | 552 | 48 | 12 | 31 |
| Donji Zovik | 481 | 0 | 465 | 0 | 0 | 16 |
| Dubrave | 1,338 | 1 | 1,310 | 18 | 1 | 8 |
| Dubravice Donje | 396 | 1 | 368 | 0 | 0 | 27 |
| Dubravice Gornje | 319 | 0 | 20 | 280 | 2 | 17 |
| Gajevi | 196 | 0 | 1 | 188 | 3 | 4 |
| Gorice | 1,097 | 1 | 894 | 174 | 19 | 9 |
| Gornji Rahić | 2,167 | 2,131 | 6 | 8 | 5 | 17 |
| Gornji Zovik | 1,569 | 0 | 1,454 | 9 | 0 | 106 |
| Grbavica | 557 | 13 | 21 | 499 | 16 | 8 |
| Gredice | 303 | 0 | 121 | 168 | 2 | 12 |
| Islamovac | 105 | 97 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 8 |
| Krbeta | 244 | 0 | 4 | 240 | 0 | 0 |
| Krepšić | 1,156 | 0 | 721 | 383 | 9 | 43 |
| Laništa | 656 | 1 | 648 | 0 | 0 | 7 |
| Lukavac | 225 | 0 | 8 | 208 | 7 | 2 |
| Maoča | 2,886 | 2,815 | 5 | 11 | 36 | 19 |
| Marković Polje | 470 | 0 | 362 | 88 | 2 | 18 |
| Ograđenovac | 734 | 723 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 10 |
| Omerbegovača | 895 | 792 | 73 | 1 | 7 | 22 |
| Palanka | 1,394 | 1,381 | 1 | 0 | 9 | 3 |
| Popovo Polje | 248 | 0 | 0 | 245 | 1 | 2 |
| Potočari | 893 | 3 | 2 | 838 | 26 | 24 |
| Rašljani | 1,155 | 1,073 | 0 | 76 | 2 | 4 |
| Ražljevo | 341 | 0 | 2 | 331 | 4 | 4 |
| Repino Brdo | 246 | 240 | 4 | 0 | 1 | 1 |
| Sandići | 420 | 1 | 0 | 410 | 7 | 2 |
| Skakava Donja | 2,272 | 2 | 2,175 | 40 | 12 | 43 |
| Skakava Gornja | 1,737 | 3 | 1,581 | 142 | 5 | 6 |
| Slijepčevići | 371 | 0 | 2 | 363 | 1 | 5 |
| Stanovi | 353 | 0 | 2 | 345 | 0 | 6 |
| Šatorovići | 1,238 | 1,216 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 20 |
| Štrepci | 861 | 5 | 804 | 25 | 4 | 23 |
| Trnjaci | 313 | 0 | 0 | 310 | 2 | 1 |
| Ulice | 1,266 | 1 | 1,108 | 136 | 7 | 14 |
| Ulović | 912 | 200 | 606 | 73 | 8 | 25 |
| Vitanovići Donji | 419 | 5 | 324 | 82 | 4 | 4 |
| Vitanovići Gornji | 286 | 1 | 158 | 98 | 9 | 20 |
| Vučilovac | 700 | 1 | 0 | 673 | 11 | 15 |
| Vujičići | 284 | 0 | 1 | 270 | 9 | 4 |
| Vukšić Donji | 644 | 1 | 633 | 3 | 3 | 4 |
| Vukšić Gornji | 821 | 0 | 805 | 1 | 4 | 11 |
| ukupno | 87,627 | 38,617 | 22,252 | 18,128 | 5,731 | 2,899 |
- And this are official counts from 91. Your source for Ravno-Brcko has took those from the list where the croats are majority, but has remove all of those where they are not majority. According to they list, they have make a try to unify those villages to a municipality which was only a union to a katholic parish. Futhermore, thay´ve added Prijedor (?!?) which is near 70 km away from this region (just read the last sentence on the page of your source)!
- According to Soli, it was a creation after war, but doesn´t exist and was only declared by the croatian citizens, and never accepted from both others.
- According to Vares or Kraljeva Sutjeska, your source is writing that there were:
- Croats= 8. 982 (40, 62 %)
- Bosniacs= 6. 721 (30,39%)
- Serbs= 3. 630 (16,41%)
- Jugoslav= 2. 049 (9,27%)
- others= 732 (3,31%)
- summary= 22. 114
- But official stats say that there were:
- Croats - 9.016 (40,60%)
- Bosniacs - 6.714 (30,23%)
- Serbs - 3.644 (16,41%)
- Jugoslav - 2.071 (9,32%)
- others - 758 (3,44%)
- Summary: 22.203
- And as you can see there is something wrong on your source like above. I would like to note that your sources are not realy notable, as they are croatian pages which have no validation. I´ve already told you that you should use those which are official. And those are the statistic agency of Bosnia and Hercegovina ( www.bhas.ba ) and the federal statistic agency under www.fzs.ba. So could we please end this unneeded discussion and just delete this nonsense? --WizardOfOz talk 16:32, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
- Ok, now I can see that you are just malicious. What on earth would Croatian settlments on Croat (HVO controled area) would do in Croat municipality?? And why would catholic parishes be marked on a map which shows Croat dominated area (Croats are mostly catholics, are they not?).
- And as you can see there is something wrong on your source like above. I would like to note that your sources are not realy notable, as they are croatian pages which have no validation. I´ve already told you that you should use those which are official. And those are the statistic agency of Bosnia and Hercegovina ( www.bhas.ba ) and the federal statistic agency under www.fzs.ba. So could we please end this unneeded discussion and just delete this nonsense? --WizardOfOz talk 16:32, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
Prijedor is local community in Brčko district which has the same name as town 70 km away. Which just shows your knowledge of the area Mjesna zajednica Prijedor --Čeha (talk) 21:12, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
- Shame on me, I didn´t know that there is a sattlement called like my hometown. But this doesn´t change the proove that your sources are interpreting the census the way they want. Could you please answer with yes or no the following questions:
- Have you created a map with borders that doesn´t match the borders of the municipalities today and have describe it in the title like they do?
- Have you used the only valid source for demographic data, those two i linked above?
- Is a daily newspaper for you a notable source?
- Is the pruopose of this map to show some municipalities the way that they are dominated by Croatian?
- And please if possible just with yes or no without the same prologue over and over. Thanks in advance. --WizardOfOz talk 21:33, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
- Firstly, to ilustrate your demand and to give you a few questions (if you wish you can answer on them with yes/no).
- Have you read info and legend of the map (time period of municipal existance is quite clearly explained there)?
- Does census of 1991 reflect war time or postwar changes on municipal borderies?
- Does BiH has on-line service in which every of the municipal changes is shown? Is report in daily papers enough to assume that some civil servant done his/her's job? If the answer of any of this questions is no, please give me the sources for change of borders of Bihać municipality (it is far away from entity line).
- Is it easier to you to ask a non logical question than to read the info part or the legend of the map? Alternative question would be, define domination. Is that something from dungeon and dragons or some kinky sex game?
- Shame on me, I didn´t know that there is a sattlement called like my hometown. But this doesn´t change the proove that your sources are interpreting the census the way they want. Could you please answer with yes or no the following questions:
Thnx in advance. --Čeha (talk) 12:12, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
- Ceha's link on Kraljeva Sutjeska is simply an analysis of croats on that area. It is not about any municipality. From the title to the content it does not talk about a municipality. It's one of the many plans/discussions that nationalist biggots from the online forum herceg-bosna have concocted, in their dreams of a greater croatia. This map is nationalist bigotry. (LAz17 (talk) 16:42, 6 June 2011 (UTC)).
- Nationalistic biggotry? Greater something? It is nice to see that wording in an academic discussion which analyzes how few thousands of members of one nation established their's municipality, defended it in the war against aggression of overwhelming odds, just to be expelled by members of another nation for the thanks and their's help in deffence. Splendid words indeed. Laz the academic. Not biggot ....
- This discussion is going into overkill. It's ceha's famous method, to deny everything, with no arguments, but to produce large quantities of writing for no purpose, avoiding questions, and refusing to provide the source of his image-which I prefer to call his dream in this case. That way he hopes that someone in charge will think that there is legitimate discussion going on and avoid looking at the problem. (LAz17 (talk) 16:37, 6 June 2011 (UTC)).
- Guys (Wizard and Laz), I realy do not want do discuss with you. You showed complete and utter ignorance of sittuation and Laz showed also something of (what's that word on B?, how does he calls himself:)? Darvin, if you wish help me source this map, I'll gladly cooperate with you... You two, guys are definately on my ignore list (Laz was there before, but man never stops learning:) Cheers --Čeha (talk) 21:23, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
- You can ignore everyone you want, but not facts my dear. And it´s the easy way to go out of discussion if you have no more evidence for your claims. :D --WizardOfOz talk 21:37, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
- Guys (Wizard and Laz), I realy do not want do discuss with you. You showed complete and utter ignorance of sittuation and Laz showed also something of (what's that word on B?, how does he calls himself:)? Darvin, if you wish help me source this map, I'll gladly cooperate with you... You two, guys are definately on my ignore list (Laz was there before, but man never stops learning:) Cheers --Čeha (talk) 21:23, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
- Ceha's link on Kraljeva Sutjeska is simply an analysis of croats on that area. It is not about any municipality. From the title to the content it does not talk about a municipality. It's one of the many plans/discussions that nationalist biggots from the online forum herceg-bosna have concocted, in their dreams of a greater croatia. This map is nationalist bigotry. (LAz17 (talk) 16:42, 6 June 2011 (UTC)).
- Please, people, this debate is already so poisoned and confuse that it will certainly scare away everyone else. I will make a proposal below, please give it some attention:
- 1) It is certainly appropriate for Ceha to correct the map and upload new versions during the debate. If there are errors in the map, they should be corrected if possible, and not force a delete based on the first version, that is absurd;
- 2) Ceha, please document the map stating every source you used (as you began doing now), so that a rational discussion can ensue, and not a flame war based on the old wounds of the past conflicts in the region;
- 3) Ceha, please make an effort in ascertaining the notability of your sources. Forum threads and comments in websites should not be used, for instance. The reliability of the source is not that important, given that it's notable enough, in context and clearly stated in the description;
- 4) Ceha, please review your map, source it and do all necessary corrections, according to what has already been discussed;
- 5) When you finish that, open a new topic below, to separate it from this mess, so that a fresh discussion can start.
- 6) Any admin following this, please give more time to this DR and do not close it hastily;
- 7) Everyone else, please keep regional conflicts out of this discussion. It doesn't matter if the map is a "nationalist dream of Greater Croacia", given that it's well sourced. Keep a cold head, ok?
- -- Darwin Ahoy! 10:09, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
- How much time is appropriate? A week perhaps? (LAz17 (talk) 17:01, 7 June 2011 (UTC)).
- Probably less, since Ceha seems to be actively engaged in resolving this issue. If it's almost only a matter of sources, as he maintains, a few days should be more than enough, though only Ceha can say.-- Darwin Ahoy! 19:31, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
- How much time is appropriate? A week perhaps? (LAz17 (talk) 17:01, 7 June 2011 (UTC)).
- Such maps already exist, and are based on the census from 91. Even if they are unsourced, they are using the last valid census and statistical data from the statistic agency. One of them is just based on estimation, but as the statistic agency and cia worldfactbook provides the same information, this is valid and educational.
- I just hope that everyone can see the diference and what has happen with Ceha´s map. --WizardOfOz talk 19:01, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Illustration of problem
[edit]I have taken the time to label in yellow what are imaginary/fake municipalities. There is no source for them. The case has been presented above, and with this section I simply illustrate how obscene and ridiculous this image is. Link: [27] I thank you for your time to look at this and am sorry that such a stupid image is being discussed so much. Thanks again for your time. (LAz17 (talk) 04:05, 3 June 2011 (UTC)).
- hm, again:
- 1. you misinterpreted the map. New lines show new municipalities. So, on this map Grahovo is part of Livno municipality.
- 2. Please, please, preaty please read my posts. Also have in mind that on the territories of western Jablanica during the war existed Croatian municipality of Doljani. The same goes for Komušina, Derventa in Doboj villages, Modriča, parts of Maglaj and Zavidovići, Fojnica, Bugojno, Uskoplje, Vareš, Travnik, Konjic, and during and after the war there borders were/are debated. Žepče and Usora are good examples of borders being changed in Federation.
- 3. By the way, I find it ammusing that you use different criteria on Grahovo or Novi Travnik (which you painted as seperate) and not on Žepče or Usora. Or on Vukosavlje-Modriča and Derventa-Doboj municipalities?
Let's just say that your interpretation of my map is full of errors, including ethnic ones; 2011 Kreševo, Usora and Žepče municipalities in current borders have Croatian majority. --Čeha (talk) 07:54, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
- Please man, you put your garbage imaginary municipalities up above. We don't need you to list them here. I have simply looked at a municipality map of bosnia and herzegovina, the official ones - from both 1991 and the present day... I have seen a great many municipalities that you labeled that do not exist. Therefore I have simply illustrated this fraud. (LAz17 (talk) 17:00, 3 June 2011 (UTC)).
- Accademic discussion? Ignore button. --Čeha (talk) 09:59, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
- Please man, you put your garbage imaginary municipalities up above. We don't need you to list them here. I have simply looked at a municipality map of bosnia and herzegovina, the official ones - from both 1991 and the present day... I have seen a great many municipalities that you labeled that do not exist. Therefore I have simply illustrated this fraud. (LAz17 (talk) 17:00, 3 June 2011 (UTC)).
Added changes
[edit]Is it ok now, Darwin?--Čeha (talk) 12:32, 8 June 2011 (UTC) Does it has anything more to be corrected. As I saw, Wizard put 3 pages which shows after Dayton municipalities (not on 1991 census, but on post war situation, I know, as 2.one is my work). Period of this map (Hrvatske opcine u BiH.png) are municipalities which existed in 1991-2005 period, as it is clearly stated in the map legend. If you think there are more inconsistencies/errors, please report them to me, I'll be glad to fix them. Cheers!--Čeha (talk) 12:38, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
- You did not do what Darwin said. You added no source, that's the primary problem. Therefore the accusations that these entities are imaginary nationalism still stand. (LAz17 (talk) 16:26, 8 June 2011 (UTC)).
- There were sources added, tough some of them seem to be quite vague and unreliable, namely the wikipedia articles. It would be better for the debate if the real sources would be added there, otherwise we risk debating an wikipedia article, when all that matters to keep the map is to know if it is based in something more material than sheer imagination. But some of the sources seem to be valid on first sight, "report for 1994 demand for Soli municipality" and others. -- Darwin Ahoy! 18:41, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
- Well wikipedia article, with much of the maps there, realy solved my problems on lines of front and similar issues. If somebody has noticed some border errors, please inform me, and I'll try to fix it. It would be good if there was some official site with fronts of bosnian war, but unfortunately we do not have it, so I used wikipedia... --Čeha (talk) 12:17, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
- Hmm... But the Wikipedia article has sources, no? Otherwise it may be just a collection of unreliable stuff. Wikipedia should never be used as a source on itself, it was never intended to be used that way. -- Darwin Ahoy! 13:34, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
- Well wikipedia article, with much of the maps there, realy solved my problems on lines of front and similar issues. If somebody has noticed some border errors, please inform me, and I'll try to fix it. It would be good if there was some official site with fronts of bosnian war, but unfortunately we do not have it, so I used wikipedia... --Čeha (talk) 12:17, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
- There were sources added, tough some of them seem to be quite vague and unreliable, namely the wikipedia articles. It would be better for the debate if the real sources would be added there, otherwise we risk debating an wikipedia article, when all that matters to keep the map is to know if it is based in something more material than sheer imagination. But some of the sources seem to be valid on first sight, "report for 1994 demand for Soli municipality" and others. -- Darwin Ahoy! 18:41, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
- His editing did not cover most of the problems. For this thing called Soli - perhaps there is some sense in that - but even that is questionable. For the rest of the map, which I colored in yellow, it is clear that he does not address the concerns. Should I list the unsourced things myself - I thought that making a map was enough. The list is big and ceha has not shown willingness to address the problem. The map is obscene to all non-croats from the region. (LAz17 (talk) 05:16, 9 June 2011 (UTC)).
- Sorry Laz, but that is your (or just common) nationalistic POV. We disscussed your map in upper article. War made municipalities are sourced by link to the bosnian war pages, there is a quite large collection of war fronts, so sources for it exists. Sincearly, I do know what your map presents? Do you deniy existance of new war time municipalities like Doljani near Jablanica or Komušina near Teslić? What's the problem (note that I do not like it is not an argument)? Best regards --Čeha (talk) 12:13, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
- His editing did not cover most of the problems. For this thing called Soli - perhaps there is some sense in that - but even that is questionable. For the rest of the map, which I colored in yellow, it is clear that he does not address the concerns. Should I list the unsourced things myself - I thought that making a map was enough. The list is big and ceha has not shown willingness to address the problem. The map is obscene to all non-croats from the region. (LAz17 (talk) 05:16, 9 June 2011 (UTC)).
- I believe it was already stated that one can not declare an area controlled as a municipality. DarwIn, any comments? You seem to me the mediator, and Ceha disregards what I say as nationalist POV... he's more accepting when you say something, even if it is the exact same as what I say. (LAz17 (talk) 16:14, 10 June 2011 (UTC)).
- I'm indeed trying to mediate this and see if a solution can be reached, but fundamentally I'm trying to understand if this file has a place in Commons. Ceha presented some valid sources to at least part of the map, and apparently the map could be useful if changed to reflect only what has been correctly sourced (not wikipedia, e.g.). Would you agree with that?-- Darwin Ahoy! 20:40, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
- I feel that his sources are not useful. "fronts of the war" can not translate into municipalities. The only source that he listed which I feel has some merit is the Soli municipality - though that is simply a suggestion, and not an official one. It's questionable, I'd say. In general, he has not addressed this almost all these yellow areas, [28]. (LAz17 (talk) 02:46, 11 June 2011 (UTC)).
- Would it help if I made the complete list of problems on this map? (LAz17 (talk) 02:53, 11 June 2011 (UTC)).
- Yes, that would help very much. About the suggestions of municipalities, there is no problem with that, if the purpose of the map is to show them. But I fully agree that there has to be solid evidence for those suggestions and proposals, and not translate everything remotely associated with a wish to make a municipality into a real suggestion or proposal.-- Darwin Ahoy! 03:15, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
- 'morning. Later today I'll post a new section that details the mistakes/obscenities of the map. It will be a list, yet I am a afraid that Ceha will simply say "it's correct, what are you talking about LAz17???" - that way it will become a yes no yes no sort of discussion - leading to his strategy of "overkill" by making the discussion unnecessarily longer and pailful to look at. Have to go right now, but I'll post the list later. I hope that you comment on the list before Ceha comments - since he prefers to ignore me, it would be of great help if you ask him the favor to not comment before you. (LAz17 (talk) 10:33, 11 June 2011 (UTC)).
- Yes, that would help very much. About the suggestions of municipalities, there is no problem with that, if the purpose of the map is to show them. But I fully agree that there has to be solid evidence for those suggestions and proposals, and not translate everything remotely associated with a wish to make a municipality into a real suggestion or proposal.-- Darwin Ahoy! 03:15, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
illustration of problem explained/quantified
[edit]So here goes. First of all, the map claims that these units were municipalities, and it also claims that this is about what "would be" municipalities. Very subjective and clearly original research. But since that obvious part is not enough, here we go with a complete list.
- 1) [29] As we see, a Croat municipality is labeled there. That is not a municipality. That is a problem.
- 2) Top part of Ostra Luka has a municipality. It goes over into four municipalities. That is not a municipality. That is a problem.
- 3) Bottom part of Ostra Luka has a municipality. It crosses into three or four municipalities as well. That is not a municipality. That is a problem.
- 4) Northern part of Banja Luka is labeled as a municipality and it crosses over into other lands from other municipalities. That is not a municipality. That is a problem.
- 5) Eastern part of Banja Luka has a small municipality. That is not a municipality. That is a problem.
- 6) The northern part of Gradiska has an area that is labeled as a municipality. That is not a municipality. That is a problem.
- 7) Part of Mrkonjic Grad is labeled as a municipality. It is not a municipality. That is a problem.
- 8) The Jezero municipality has been butchered, and put into yet another imaginary thing. Those products are not a municipality. That is a problem.
- 9) Jajce seems enlarged into yet another phony municipality, taking the municipality beside it with it. Fun fact on the site, the croats were not a majority there in 1971, 1981, or 1991, not in the town or in the municipality either. Source: data on [30] , which was transfered from official population censuses. So yeah, that is not a municipality, that is a problem.
- 10) Two parts of Travnik have been ripped off into other imaginary units. Those are not municipalities. That is a problem.
- 11) Vitez has been expanded. Such borders do not exist. That is a problem.
- 12) The dominantly Bosniak town and municipality of Bugojno has been malformed into what ceha claims to be a municipality. It is not one. That is a problem.
- 13) Novi Travnik has been expanded to the north and to the south, in order to appear as an even bigger municipality. Croats were not a majority here, and they never had more than 25% of the town's population. This is not a municipality. This is a problem.
- 14) One part of Fojnica has been added to Novi Travnik, while another imaginary unit from the east of this municipality has sprung up. That is not a real municipality. That is a problem.
- 15) Most of the Bosniak municipality Gornji Vakuf has been transformed into some new municipality. One part got kicked out of it. Weird. This is wrong. This is a problem.
- 16) The Konjic municipality is not shown correctly on this map. To be precise, the northern part is labeled as a Croatian unit. This unit is not a municipality. This is a problem.
- 17) The municipality of jabalanica, got its two or three croatian villages separated into a separate municipality. As in many cases so far, we see that ceha has taken settlements and declared them to be municipalities. This is not a municipality. This is a problem.
- 18) It is extremely controversial to label Mostar as croatian. As census results show, the bosniaks were the more numerous group. This is a problem.
- 19) Ceha's map shows Livno annaxing the serbian municipality called Grahovo. This is not acceptable. This is a problem.
- 20) Drvar and Glamoc, two dominantly Serbian municipalities, have been labeled as Croatian municipalities. What's worse, ceha's new territorial unit has them joined together. This is not a municipality. This is a problem.
- 21) Kupres has taken the top of the Tomislavgrad Municpality, which is just south of it. This is not true. This is a problem.
- 22) Kiseljak has some land added to it. Hence it is enlarged. That is false. That is a problem.
- 23) Bosniak municipality of Zepce has been labeled Croatian, and it has usurped land from neighboring municipalities such as Maglaj. This municipality has not been enlarged, nor did the town or municipality ever have a croatian majority. This is a problem.
- 24) The southeast part of Teslic has been declared a municipality. It is not a municipality. This is a problem.
- 25) A village in the north of Teslic is also labeled a municipality. It is not. This is a problem.
- 26) Croatian villages in the municipality of Kotor Varos have been conglomerated into a single municipality. This is not a real municipality. As tends to be the case, ceha is labeled villages as municipalities. This is not a municipality. This is a problem.
- 27) A southern village in Prnjavor is labeled as a municipality. It is not. This is a problem.
- 28) Vares has its northern part, along with parts of Olovo and Kakanj as a separate municipality. This does not exist. This is a problem.
- 29) Kakanj has a southeastern bit as a separate municipality. That is not a municipality. That is a problem.
- 30) The serbian municipality of Derventa is labeled inappropriately as Croatian. Ceha decided to kick some serbian settlements out of the municipality, and add some settlements from northern Doboj municipality. This is not a municipality. This is a problem.
- 31) Brod is not a croatian municipality. This is a problem.
- 32) Vukosavlje is not a croatian municipality, nor is it acceptable to add the northern part of Modrica to it. This is not a municipality. This is a problem.
- 33) Modrica also has an eastern part of it labeled as a separate croatian municipality. This is also not true, this is yet another problem.
- 34) There is this Samac municipality. Ceha took the town itself and labeled it as croatian, kicking the rest of the municipality out. Samas is not and never was croatian. There is no such quazi entity. This is a problem.
- 35) Orasje has been expanded a little bit. This is not right. That is a problem.
- 36) A part of Gradacac has been butchered. This is a problem.
- 37) The serbian pelagicevo municipality has been labeled croatian, and a new one that is on similar territory, though slightly different has arrisen, labelled as croatian. This is a problem.
- 38) Brcko is not a croatian municipality. The map seems to suggest that it is. This is a problem.
- 39) Municipality Soli is just an idea, and is not sourced properly. This is a problem.
- 40) Ceha has labeled the bosniak municipality Stolac as croatian. Further, he expanded that municipality to have bogus borders. This is a problem.
- Well I be damned, that's a whole lot of problems. (LAz17 (talk) 01:44, 12 June 2011 (UTC)).
- Alright DarwIn. This is my list. As we see Ceha has disregarded nearly everything on it. The map is as bad - actually worse - then it originally was. Ceha added a couple more units since I submitted it for deletion, hence the map is actually worse. I hope this is enough evidence to any admin with decision power to delete this silly map that has no source and is the work of an angry croatian's nationalistic baised original research. (LAz17 (talk) 01:44, 12 June 2011 (UTC)).
- I also ask Ceha to not respond to this - he would probably address each one of the points and say that they are all correct, hence further promoting "overkill" by his endless unproductive worthless discussion. As we see, he always stalls discussion with irrelevant things. Therefore, I ask him to refrain from posting until Drawinius makes a statement, for he is the mediator. (LAz17 (talk) 01:44, 12 June 2011 (UTC)).
- If anyone has any more obscenities and unsourced monstrosities to shout out, please do so. I think I got just about everything though. (LAz17 (talk) 01:44, 12 June 2011 (UTC)).
- Thanks for that data, Laz17, it is very evident that the map as a lot of unexplained and unsourced municipality divisions. It was already stated before, but this exhaustive list makes it very easy to spot each of them. Frankly, my opinion is that if those issues are not resolved, the map has no educational value, an should be deleted from Commons.
- I ask Ceha to have a serious look into this and try to resolve or explain each of those issues without resorting to unreliable data such as a Wikipedia article (it's circular logic, something is written in a Wikipedia article, then a map is made using that something as source, and then placed in the article to reinforce the original claim, which may be totally baseless and unsourced).
- I must recall, however, that you must not block direct dialogue with Ceha, I'm trying to help a little here informally mediating the issue, but I can't serve as a messenger between both parts, nor such is the role of a mediator. If both of you keep the focus in the issue of the map, instead of the supposed intentions behind it (and behind the wish to delete the map), it would help a lot. The intention is not important. As an example, I'll appeal to Godwin's law to say that I could be a neonazi uploading war-time anti-Jewish propaganda to Commons with the most sordid intentions, and those intentions would still be completely immaterial given that the material is genuine (and thus educational) and properly licensed.-- Darwin Ahoy! 08:45, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
- I agree with you. The problem is when Ceha starts going off on unrelated tangents. It serves to ruin the discussion's value and make it annoying. To me it seems that he goes off on fewer tangents when you talk to him, because in my opinion he does not want to cooperate with me.
- However, thus far Ceha has refused to admit any flaw, despite numerous obvious errors on the map. He actually made the map worse by adding more imaginary units. I somewhat doubt that he will be inclined to cooperate in a constructive manner, but we'll see. (LAz17 (talk) 13:11, 12 June 2011 (UTC)).
- Well, I realy do try to comunicate with people, but unfortunately some people are best held ignored.
Darwin, I've gave wikipedia page as source to map as it showes lines of front for wich is no official source (just data from the net). I'm certain that other wikipedians with knowledge of the reggion will affirme that. Let me start with list.
- 1. Those 4. villages were part of Croatia until 1947. Croatia even asked for them when border was (between BiH and RH) drowned. During the war, those 4 villages (one was depopulated, but nonethe less) were held by HVO. Local Croat goverment submited proposal for making Croat municipality (as did serbian one during the war). The link Laz proposed is municipal line from 2002-2011 when Bihać municipality expanded to include few of the villages from eastern part of prewar Drvar municipality. Does Laz opposes the thesis that territory was controled by HVO during the war and that a Croat municipality existed there in that period?
- 2. Again, villages around Ljubija had Croat majority in 1991 census. During early phases of Bosnian war, there were suggestions of Croat municipality there (which is even showed in SDS suggestion of entity borders in 1991). Village and its suroundings were briefly controled by Croats in that period. Map which Laz showes is 1995 map. Does anybody opposes this?
- 3. Again, Sasina was 1991 settlment with Croatian majority. During early phases of Bosnian war, there were suggestions of Croat municipality there (which is even showed in SDS suggestion of entity borders in 1991). Village and its suroundings were briefly controled by Croats in that period. Map which Laz showes is 1995 map. Does anybody opposes this?
- 4. The same here, just for Ivanjska.
- 5. The same here.
- 6. The same here. (I'll try to find SDS suggestion)
- 7. & 8. Those parts are suggested to be part of enlarged Jajce municipality, which would include whole of prewar municipality of Jajce (Jezero was part of it) as well as border villages from Mrkonjić. That suggestions were part of Ženeva conference of BiH (see Bosnian peace plans) as well as 1995. sugestions when HVO forces controled the area).Does anybody opposes anything of this?
- 9. Actualy, no. Jajce with Dobretići (and few Croat villages in Mrkonjić) has Croatian majority, as Muslim/Bošnjak percentage is just a few points higher than Croats. in 1961 that municipality included Dobretići, and in that borders, Croats would have absolute majority in the area. Whole area (expect 2 southern villages) were held by HVO in 1995, and affter 1995 municipality is assumed to retained Croatian majority. (see fronts, 1961 census, etc). Does anybody opposes anything of this?
- 10. Washington agreement. There is a paralell between Mostar and Travnik. It was divised to be equality, and that part of municipality (actualy all of it) was controled by HVO during the early phases of the war. Does anybody opposes anything of this?
- 11.Vitez was enlarged by Croatian villages in Zenica municipality which were under HVO control during the early phases of the war. They were under Vitez municipal goverment. Do anybody opposes anything of this?
- 12.Municipal borders in Bugojno show what area HVO controled, and what area Croats labeled as theirs. In first municipal elections Croat parties (HDZ) were the victor of municipal ellections. It is interesting to ask Laz, what Bosniak domination means? In what period? The town itself did not have a mosque before the war (Bosniaks are majority muslims).Does anybody opposes anything of this?
- 13. & 14. Croats have been majority in Novi Travnik municipality whole of 20th and early parts of 21 century. See censuses. The border is changed to include Croatian villages in Fojnica and Bugojno municipality (which were HVO controled) in Ženeva peace conference (see David Owen's Balkan Odyssey). That villages in Fojnica were also part of Novi Travnik municipality in the beginings of 20th century. Does anybody opposes anything of this?
- 15.In the early part of 20th century (Austro Hungarian rule) today's Gornji Vakuf-Uskoplje (not just Gornji Vakuf, as Laz wrongly calls it) were in fact 2 seperate municipalities. In eastern part Muslim/Bosniak were majority and in western were Croats. Showed part was under HVO control in the early phase of the war. In Ženeva conference (again David Owen's Balkan Odyssey) Croats asked for themselves the western part as a bridge to other municipalities. 1991 census shows Croatian majority in that part of the municipality. Does anybody opposes anything of this?
- 16. Shows part of municipality which HVO controled, and which was asked in Ženeva conference.Does anybody opposes anything of this?
- 17. HVO controled, Croatian municipality of Doljani existed until 1998 (if I'm not mistaken). Post war plans for reorganization of municipality also existed. Does anybody opposes anything of this?
- 18. Croats are majority in municipality of Mostar in 2011. borders. As shown in ellections there is a 60:40 ratio in Croat favor. Croats were majority in the municipality of Mostar in every census except the one in 1991. In first democratic elections, Croatian parties (HDZ) won majority there. Does anybody opposes anything of this?
- 19.Acceptable to whom? Grahovo has a small population, and there is a suggestion to annex it to more populate Livno (as most of the municipalities are on the peace of land known as Livanjsko polje). In 1910 census (I think) they were part of the same municipality. Croats were majority in Grahovo in 1995-98 period and are majority in Livno (in today's borders).Does anybody opposes anything of this?
- 20. Croats were majority in Drvar and Glamoč in 1995-98 period. Croats are today majority in the town of Glamoč (local elections are regulary won by Croatian parties). Drvar is depopulation area. Same case as with Grahovo. Does anybody opposes anything of this?
- 21. As explained before. Suggestion during early phases of the war. In post 1995 world, both municipalities have Croatian majority. Does anybody opposes anything of this?
- 22. Kiseljak is enlarged by few villages in Visoko municipality which were HVO controled during the war and claimed by Herceg-Bosna.Does anybody opposes anything of this?
- 23. Municipality of Žepče had Croatian majority until 1981 census. It also has Croatian majority in 1995-2011 period (as seen by local elections). During the war Žepče and that part of Maglaj were controled by HVO.Does anybody opposes anything of this?
- 24. Southeast part of Teslić was a war time municipality known as Komušina under HVO control. Does anybody opposes anything of this?
- 25. Same thing, just for Usora. Does anybody opposes anything of this?
- 26. HVO control, peace plans, Ženeva conference, Washington accords, were to start?
- 27. Croat control in early phases of the war. Suggestions for municipality. Does anybody opposes anything of this?
- 28. Again, Vareš was a Croatian municipality in 1991 census, plans for expanding it onto neighbouring Croatian villages were made during the war and in peace plans . Does anybody opposes anything of this?
- 30. 1948 municipal borders, referendum in Doboj villages in the 90ies, HVO control. Does anybody opposes anything of this?
- 31. Brod is a Croatian municipality on every census that happend. Does anybody opposes anything of this? It is actualy interesanting how Laz uses different standards for Mostar and Brod or Žepče.
- 32. Croatians were a majority under 1991 census in Vukosavlje. North Modriča is drawned as in Contact group peace plan. Does anybody opposes anything of this?
- 33. Eastern parts of Modriča were claimed as Croatian during peace talks. Does anybody opposes anything of this?
- 34. Šamac municipality had Croatian majority in 1991 census (and before). This line is shown as one suggested in numerous peace talks. Does anybody opposes anything of this? Again, Laz'sdoble stards are clearly vissible.
- 35. Orašje included Croatian villages (Oštra Luka) which were part of prewar municipality of Orašje, and were controled by HVO during the war.Does anybody opposes anything of this?
- 35. Again, peace plans, war control....Does anybody opposes anything of this?
- 37. Today's municipality of Pelagićevo (also known as Gornji Žabar) had Croatian majority in 1991 census. Peace plans, war control is somwhere similar to the above. Does anybody opposes anything of this?
- 38. Brčko is shown (and wrote in the legend) as separate district. Does anybody opposes anything of this?
- 39. Municipality of Soli was a suggestion made in 1994. Does anybody opposes anything of this?
- 40. There is a clear majority (as shown in local elections) of Croats in Stolac municipality. In that part of Stolac (pre war municipality also included today's municipality of Berkovići) Croats are majority from 1992. In local elections there is a 2:1 ratio for Croat parties. Bogus borders are borders which where suggested during peace plans. Does anybody opposes anything of this?
- So let's conclude in wich parts this critisim is flawed:
- a) Critic not read leggend (in wich border creation is explained), nor info part of the map.
- b) Critic used arbitrary rules (for example in Mostar, although there are different borders 1991 census is still in power, while in Brod and Šamac it is not), whith clear anti-croatian byass.
- c) Critic used some miss informations and false data (example Novi Travnik)
- d) Critic does not recognise war time municipal borders, nor plans for municipal changes made on long talks at Ženeva Conference and Bosnian peace plans....
- So unforutnately, Darvin, this critisism is of no value. If you have any questions I'll gladly answer to it. --Čeha (talk) 14:29, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
- I decided to cave in an ram you hard on population figures. Lets start with mostar. The bosniak were the biggest group in the town in 1971, 1981, and 1991. In the municipality they were the biggest group in 1971 and 1991. In 1981 many declared themselves as yugoslavs, otherwise they would also be the biggest group then too. If we look at zepce in 1971, 1981, and 1991, we can see that the bosniaks had some 60% of the town's population, while croats had about 20%. In the municipality the bosniaks had about 45% vs the croatian 40% for those three census years. Meanwhile, municipalities like pelagicevo were over 95% serbian... before and after the war. So, clearly ceha does not know what he is talking about. If anyone wants I will provide much data with direct links from the official statistics office that shows this. I know what I am talking about. (LAz17 (talk) 03:56, 14 June 2011 (UTC)).
- This is the stuff, I'm talking about. From the text Laz posted it is not even certain that he recognaises official censuses in BiH. More over, when he is caught red handed he starts to confuse towns with municipalities. Mostar municipal borders are not the same in 1971, 1981, 1991 and 2011. I'm not even going to comment the claime that some of the people are in fact of one nation when they registered themselves as members of another nation in official census. Non recognizing official data? POV. Žepče under current municipal(2011) changes had Croat majority by the census of 1991. The difference is that in 2011 municipal borders is old 1991 Žepče municipality and a list of Croat villages from Maglaj and Zavidovići municipalities as it can be seen on this map .
- More over, Pelagićevo municipality in 2011 borders included settlments of Njivak, Orlovo Polje, Gornja and Donja Tramošnica, Turić, Blaževac, Porebrice, Samarevac and Pelagićevo. From 9 settlments, Croats were majority in 6. 5 from the settlments were somewhat larger, and out of those 5 Croats were majority in 4. Map of Pelagićevo can be found in here and list here. In 1991 census territory of today's Pelagićevo municipality there had 6.154 Croats and 4.280 Serbs (out of 11.156), or 55% Croats and 38% Serbs. In territories shown on map Croatian percentage is even higher. So this is a blant lie.--Čeha (talk) 07:30, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
2011 (UTC)
- Mostar's municipal borders were the same between 1971 and 1991. In 2011 a small part was not part of it - the so called Eastern Mostar. But it only had a thousand er so Serbs, so it doesn't change the overall picture much. Now then, since you are clearly not aware of the population census, here are the figures and go educate yourself before you accuse others of not knowing what they are talking about. 1971[31] 1981[32] 1991[33] So clearly you do not know how to look at numbers. If you want a visualization of how you are wrong, here, [34].
- Zepce's borders were not changed. That's pure bullshit. YOu tried pulling that fake map that you produced on the english wikipedia, and it was quickly deleted. It's a shame that the croat wikipedia let you rip off an image produced initially by crostat.
- Nice, you give us a link on pelagicevo that states that it was 99% serbian. Yet you claim the opposite. Here's even your croat wikipedia, [35] Enjoy.
- We clearly see that this guy is very troubled. Ceha, don't bother replying, just wait for an admin or someone to close this out via deleting the worthless and misinforming image. (LAz17 (talk) 14:45, 14 June 2011 (UTC)).
- Ok, this is not accademic discusion. Firstly here is the link about changes of Žepče municipality.
- See any of the maps of 2011 municipal borders and compare them to 1991. I dot know if Laz is intentionaly lying or is his english is just bad. If the latter is the case, I'm certain that he can notice the difference between village of Pelagićevo (one settlment) and the 2011. municipality (wich includes 9 villages) and which had croatian majority in 1991 census. Difference is clear in my post, so I'm afraid he is just lying. --Čeha (talk) 09:19, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
- Ceha, did you look at the official censuses that I linked? Did you see how I proved you do not know what you're talking about for places like Mostar? Where is the sorry from you?
- There is not a single map produced by any branch of government in Bosnia and Herzegovina in the last ten years that shows that Zepce enlarged. Modern maps do not show it. Hence, the whole thing is a silly idea.
- Lets look at the official website. на овом простору прије рата живјело негдје око 11 000 становника, а од тога око 55 % су били Срби, а око 45 % Хрвати. on this territory before the war there lived somewhere around 11,000 people, of which 55% were serbs, and 45% were croats. Aren't official statements beautiful? [36] (LAz17 (talk) 16:17, 15 June 2011 (UTC)).
- Well Laz I'm really sorry, and I do not realy know why am I wasting time with you? You gave me map of census of 1991 on Mostar? Mostar's borders changed in time and in 1995. few villages were left in RS in a new municipality (Eastern Mostar) and few villages from Nevesinje (I think Žuja and parts of Rabina and Sabinjani). So you realy do not know what you are talking about.
- For Žepče, I've gave you link on goverment (federation) decission. It was also the source how municipality of Žepče got it's local autonomy in school department as in new borders (but by census 1991) Croats made majority there. But that's not important. The same goes for your false claim of Croat minority in Novi Travnik. Missinformed. Pure fellow.
- Pelagićevo? First thank google for translation. Second local community Kladuša does not exist in that municipality (at least not by 1991 census, link2 and local community Ćendići is in reality not a settlment, but few of it (as it is not found on settlment list)link. Third Sa određenom dozom rezerve možemo procijeniti da je na ovom prostoru prije rata živjelo negdje oko 11.000 stanovnika, a od toga oko 55% su bili Srbi, a oko 45% Hrvati. Bio je određen broj i ostalih nacionalnih kategorija, ali u vrlo malom i zanemarivom obujmu is translated as With a certain amount of reserves we can estimate that in this region before the war was around 11,000 inhabitants, of which about 55% were Serbs, and Croats 45%. He has a number of national and other categories, but in a very small and negligible volume
in other words, it is just their's gues. As I explained in my post before, that gues is false. Municipality realy had 10 434 residents, of which were 55% Croats and 38% Serbs. But, yes it is easier to fabricate data than to use excell, census and see for yourself municipality numbers. Frankly I did not expect anything better. --Čeha (talk) 08:13, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
- To summarize in short...
- You reject any criticism, regardless of the issue - in general.
- Your excuses for keeping certain things are the following... "territory controlled by Croatian army units" - in no way does that make that area a municipality. "Territory where croats were the majority" - again, in no way is this a municipality. That's basically it. This is ridiculous. I can go into detail on each thing that Ceha said, but I'll basically keep repeating myself over and over. I am not sure how to even respond to some of his stuff - for example he says that Grahovo is a depopulated area - yet they have about 10,000 people, almost all of which are serbian. Or, for example how he does not know census results - I'd link exact results if necessary.
- This map is a biased stupid map, from the very outset. It is something that is nice for croat nationalists, who want to claim more of bosnia and herzegovina. It is necessary to stamp out original research, especially if it is biased in a nationalistic tone. Therefore is is necessary to delete this map which almost nobody finds to be of any usefulness whatsoever. (LAz17 (talk) 03:45, 14 June 2011 (UTC)).
- Grahovo had 8311 residents in 1991 census Bosansko_Grahovo and now has got maybe a few thousands. It had 10 residents for square kilometar! In 2011 it maybe has 2 residents for square kilometar... Other commentaries are basicly nationalistic POV. In the majority of areas which HVO controled during the war there was not only military, but also and civil goverment. And that was a municipality. As for Croatian majority critisism it is only noted that Croats on the areas they were majority organized their's local goverment (municipal), or had plans of doing so. I do not see what is the issue here. --Čeha (talk) 07:41, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
- Please, people, stop debating demographics, that is completely irrelevant to the main stated problems with this map which are about municipalities which allegedly don't exist. Ceha, this: "In the majority of areas which HVO controled during the war there was not only military, but also and civil goverment. And that was a municipality." is the sort of claim that can't be made without a solid source supporting it, for each of those alleged municipalities. Demographic data is a minor issue and can be more easily fixed using the Census after the main problems with the municipalities are resolved, please don't bring it again here, it only confuses the whole question.-- Darwin Ahoy! 17:58, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
- No. Maps shows Borders of municipalities which would include most of Croats in BiH(1991 status). Red borders show municipalities in RS, orange ones in Federation. Map does not shows 1991 border of municipalities and is a collection of municipalities which existed during 1991-2005 or were planed in that period (which is stated in the leggend).--Čeha (talk) 09:26, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
- By the way, why are we discussing war time municipalities here, in a map that is supposed to be the state of the country as of 1991? Am I missing something here? -- Darwin Ahoy! 18:09, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
- Answered above. One question, how do you stand for Laz's wording? --Čeha (talk) 09:32, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
- Why? Because it's his way of promoting greater croatia, and greater croat places in its neighbor. Many like to do it from all sides, to try to use maps and whatever convoluted reasoning they could find to try to somehow justify their dreams. People even wrote books on this subject... How to lie with maps for example. Good book though. The very sad thing is that nowadays anyone can make a map, while in the 1800s only few could. Too bad. (LAz17 (talk) 21:23, 14 June 2011 (UTC)).
- Not even the 1800s maps are safe here, a 19th century map from South America here in Commons has been uploaded with a retouched version which includes the city of the uploader, which was nowhere into existence at the time the map was done - and the map is still there. Anyway, if the map is supposed to represent the municipality status in Bosnia as of 1991, it's completely wrong from top to bottom (as has been claimed from the start, granted).-- Darwin Ahoy! 23:36, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
- His map represents "potential municipalities". At least that's what I seem to get out of it. Very subjective and not fit for an encyclopedia. It's just original research. It disregards all borders, as he goes about creating criteria to create a new Croat municipality in order to suggest to people that "oh my look at their presence", at a time when their numbers are ever decreasing. (LAz17 (talk) 05:19, 15 June 2011 (UTC)).
- Laz an conspiracy theories:) Darvin, you should have read map descriptions. --Čeha 10:00, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
- I have red the map legend and description. It says "Borders of municipalities which would include most of Croats in BiH(1991 status)". this is plainly confusing. What does that mean? What is the 1991 status? The demographics only? And nothing there hints that the map deals with fictional municipalities, since it says "borders of municipalities which would include...", it can be assumed that we are talking about real municipalities which would include that ethnic group, not fictional municipalities designed with some unclear criteria.
- Not even the 1800s maps are safe here, a 19th century map from South America here in Commons has been uploaded with a retouched version which includes the city of the uploader, which was nowhere into existence at the time the map was done - and the map is still there. Anyway, if the map is supposed to represent the municipality status in Bosnia as of 1991, it's completely wrong from top to bottom (as has been claimed from the start, granted).-- Darwin Ahoy! 23:36, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
- Correct me if I am wrong, but my understanding now is that you intended to design a map showing potential new municipalities that would be created after the Croatian invasion of Bosnia (don't know if this is the PC term for it, but whatever) in places where there was a Croatian majority as of 1991. Is this correct? If so, I urge you to correct the map description. In any case, all those "potential new municipalities" must be individually sourced, as well as the demographics data.-- Darwin Ahoy! 07:40, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
- Status is wrong word. Census would be better. I'll change that. Map speaks of the territories were in that perriod existed Croatian municipalities. There was newer Croatian invansion of Bosnia. Croats are one of 3 nations there. --Čeha (talk) 08:19, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
- In what period? During the war? What is the time frame? -- Darwin Ahoy! 08:34, 16 June 2011 (UTC) (I don't know the details of that war, from my understanding Croatia assembled an army there, that's why I called it "invasion", I suspected already it was not the proper word for it)
- 1991-2005. No, HVO was an army made of local Croats. Croatian army interveened in BiH in 1995 on the call of Federation goverment, thus making the necessary prequsitions for making Dayton agreement. Also Croatian army interveened few times in the war near the border. But all of that is beside the point. --Čeha (talk) 08:55, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
- Ok, knowing that, here goes a suggestion to solve this question:
First: Change the map description to something like "Municipality status of BiH from 1991 to 2005, displaying municipalities which would include a majority of Croats according to 1991 census".
Done- Second: Edit your map, and place some ID in the questioned municipalities, a number or something.
- Third: Complete the description with a source for every number, both for the census data (if it does not come from a single source) and for any changes of municipality status (new municipality, proposed municipality, etc)
- Once you have done that, I believe we can close this DR and continue any eventual discussion on the File talk. But please, use valid sources, not Wikipedia or something, though you may link to the Wikipedia article if the issue is better explained there.-- Darwin Ahoy! 09:18, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
- Ddarwin, this remains original research that is unsourced. His logic that since there were croats here at some point in time, that is a municipality. That is plainly wrong and very biased. This region is very controversial, and this original research is a big insult to other ethnic groups in that country. (LAz17 (talk) 15:36, 16 June 2011 (UTC)).
- That's why I asked for every questioned municipality to be numbered and independently sourced. The map can include planned municipalities such as Soli or others for which a source is found. I agree that this is more an "ideological" map than anything else, which possibly follows an agenda, and its purpose is not very clear to me, but that is the kind of thing that should not get in the way of DR decisions. It is also possible that the map is being made in good faith to provide some understanding for the situation during the war. If Ceha manages to source it, it should remain. If the sources are find to be biased, then another map can be done without them or with other sources, and then let the Wikipedia projects chose between the two. In any case, the sources must be minimally notable, no Internet forums, no comment sections in web pages, no Wikipedia, and so on.-- Darwin Ahoy! 19:53, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
- Ddarwin, this remains original research that is unsourced. His logic that since there were croats here at some point in time, that is a municipality. That is plainly wrong and very biased. This region is very controversial, and this original research is a big insult to other ethnic groups in that country. (LAz17 (talk) 15:36, 16 June 2011 (UTC)).
- Ok, knowing that, here goes a suggestion to solve this question:
- Status is wrong word. Census would be better. I'll change that. Map speaks of the territories were in that perriod existed Croatian municipalities. There was newer Croatian invansion of Bosnia. Croats are one of 3 nations there. --Čeha (talk) 08:19, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
- Correct me if I am wrong, but my understanding now is that you intended to design a map showing potential new municipalities that would be created after the Croatian invasion of Bosnia (don't know if this is the PC term for it, but whatever) in places where there was a Croatian majority as of 1991. Is this correct? If so, I urge you to correct the map description. In any case, all those "potential new municipalities" must be individually sourced, as well as the demographics data.-- Darwin Ahoy! 07:40, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
- Ceha, please refrain from inserting your comments wherever you want. There should be some chronological order, you are making things only more messy. (LAz17 (talk) 16:19, 15 June 2011 (UTC)).
Comment: Well, I am mostly not interested in this discussion, but there is one thing that user Ceha should clarify. He provided description that this map show municipalities that were "planed in 1991-2005 period", so my question is: planed by whom? If creation of these municipalities was planed by some Croatian organization or by some politician, it should be specified which organization and which politician are in question here. The reliable source that mention such plans should be also provided. If that info and source are provided then this map could serve educational purpose of showing Croatian political plans for creation of ethnic Croatian municipalities. However, without clear clarification of who exactly planed creation of these municipalities, educational purpose of this work would be unclear. PANONIAN (talk) 09:26, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
- Also, if it is correct (as user LAz17 suggested) that this map is some sort of original research of uploader and that uploader presented his own assumption that "where ever Croats lived in BIH that would be a municipality at some point in time", I would suggest that user Ceha modify this map in a way to show only those municipalities that really were planed by Croatian politicians and organizations. In that case, educational purpose of this map would not be disputed. PANONIAN (talk) 09:53, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
Kept. What a waste of time, effort, and 17,000 words.
Please understand that Commons firm policy is that we do not judge the accuracy of maps such as this one. Commons is a repository of images. Whether or not to use this image is up to editors on the various Wikipedias and other users throughout the world. We simply keep it here so that it can be used. We do not attest to its accuracy, nor will we delete it if some parties believe it is inaccurate.
Please do not waste our time by opening this a third time. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 19:56, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
This image is NOT USED ANYWHERE, and LACKS A SOURCE, not to mention how many countless mistakes there are. This should be deleted asap for we can not accept unsourced original research. LAz17 (talk) 19:27, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
Speedy keep. The source of the image is "own work" by Ceha. I have added {{Disputed map}} which you should have done long ago.
Please read my comments above. We all have better things to do. If you nominate this image for deletion again, you will be blocked from editing on Commons. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:25, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
horrible picture Ruchie Scott (talk) 09:23, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
- Keep Sorry but "ugly" is not a good reason for deleting a file. Personally I find it not ugly at all, if this can help. -- Blackcat (talk) 15:32, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: out of scope Jcb (talk) 20:49, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Given the strange format of the image (with this big white frame), I somewhat doubt this is own work. –Tryphon☂ 09:31, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: also contains a copyrighted screenshot Jcb (talk) 20:53, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
No ticket and copy of http://www.pmu.gov.jo/Home/NewsAnnouncements/Events/tabid/111/Default.aspx MorganKevinJ(talk) 13:59, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jcb (talk) 20:55, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Photo 1944 year, display on museum - bad license, bad author, bad data. Art-top (talk) 14:21, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jcb (talk) 20:55, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Art by Slavko Pengov
[edit]- File:Slavko Pengov. Zale 1.jpg
- File:Slovenian Parliament. Mural by S. Pengov 2.jpg
- File:Slovenian Parliament. Mural by S. Pengov.jpg
- File:Pengov Bled 1.jpg
- File:Pengov Bled 10.jpg
- File:Pengov Bled 11.jpg
- File:Pengov Bled 12.jpg
- File:Pengov Bled 13.jpg
- File:Pengov Bled 14.jpg
- File:Pengov Bled 15.jpg
- File:Pengov Bled 16.jpg
- File:Pengov Bled 17.jpg
- File:Pengov Bled 18.jpg
- File:Pengov Bled 2.jpg
- File:Pengov Bled 3.jpg
- File:Pengov Bled 4.jpg
- File:Pengov Bled 5.jpg
- File:Pengov Bled 6.jpg
- File:Pengov Bled 7.jpg
- File:Pengov Bled 8.jpg
- File:Pengov Bled 9.jpg
See also:
- File:Sv Martina Bled.jpg, which may be separated in result
These are beautiful images, and I'm sorry to have to bring them up for review, but I'm very much afraid that copyright policies and laws do not allow their presence on Commons. sl:Slavko Pengov died in 1966. The bulk of these works were made in the 1930s (in the en:Church of St Martin (Slovenia)), while those in parliament were done in the 1950s. According to en:Wikipedia:Non-U.S. copyrights, copyright in Slovenia persists for 70 years after the death of the artist--or until 2036. While I was hopeful that Slovenia might have a "freedom of panorama" allowance that permitted two-dimension interior works, it seems, according to this conversation, that Slovenia does not have a "freedom of panorama" provision that Commons can accept at all, because they forbid commercial reuse. I'm very much afraid that these images will only be usable if they meet an individual project's "exemption doctrine."
The last image is separated out because I think there's a chance that the paintings by Pengov are small enough elements to permit the picture overall. The building itself was completed in 1905. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:58, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Delete most, Keep File:Sv Martina Bled.jpg. Unfortunately, Moonriddengirl appears to be right. I consider the last picture to be primarily of the archetecture, with the paintings qualifying under De Minimis. Make sure to put these in Category:Undelete in 2036 (if that is the date they enter the public domain, I haven't checked Moonriddengirl's math or law citations). Buddy431 (talk) 16:36, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Category:Undelete in 2037 for most, Category:Undelete in 2028 for the last (architect died in 1957) Jcb (talk) 21:01, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
claims "no copyright for money by Samoan laws", but I cannot find any such exception in Samoan copyright law. Prince Kassad (talk) 16:19, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jcb (talk) 21:04, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
scan of halftone photo unlikely to be uploader's own work; might be PD if pre-1978, but uploader claims self-authorship instead Closeapple (talk) 17:07, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jcb (talk) 21:05, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
architech's rendering highly unlikely to be uploader's own creation - would probably need COM:OTRS to confirm if really own work Closeapple (talk) 17:12, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jcb (talk) 21:05, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Author requests deletion – this was an example image only and is no longer required. Keraunoscopia (talk) 18:17, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
- I should add that it was superseded (I put in a request to have this image made, from scratch, into an SVG icon) by File:NFCC image.svg. – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies 07:33, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jcb (talk) 21:07, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
No license tag, personal rights problems Uwe W. (talk) 20:24, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
- Comment I do not believe there is a personality rights problem, the boy is facing away from camera and his name is not mentioned. Missing license is a more serious concern, this might be {{PD-US-Gov}} but there is no confirmation of that. MKFI 13:47, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
Kept: {{PD-US-Gov}} applies Jcb (talk) 21:11, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
© Henry Heerup/Folketinget no permission -- Common Good (talk) 18:45, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jcb (talk) 21:12, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This is not as difficult as this thread suggests. So here is a very basic guide to relevant parts of Danish copyright laws:
1/ Money is not relevant. It doesn't matter whether the photographer is an amateur or professional and it doesn't matter whether the publisher is commercial or non-profit, the rules are the same.
2/ The photographer (and not the copyright holder) has to be credited no matter who owns the copyright to the picture - even if the photographer is dead. The Danish National Union of Journalists regularly send bills to media who has legally published a picture but forgotten to credit the photographer).
3/ When a photographer allows the publication of a picture that includes publication • in one particular media • on one particular occasion All other uses (on multiple platforms, more than one time, in more than one title, by a third person or storing in an archive/retrieval system (including on a computer hard disk)) must be specifically agreed upon between the photographer and the person/organisation to whom he/she hands over all or part of the copyright.
4/ If a picture has been (legally) edited then the editor retains some copyright protection in relation to the edited version of the picture.
5/ Any form of 'intellectual work' including pictures can be quoted - but this is a bit tricky, because it requires that it is not the motif in the original picture that- in itself - is the reason for the quotation, but, typically, that the original publication of the picture or its context has had some consequence which is the rationale for the (visual) quotation. Furthermore, both the visual presentation and the accompanying text must make it clear where the picture is from and why it is quoted. Usually the courts accept that a minor part of a work can be quoted but it depends on both the form and the size of the original work.
6/ The question of distortion or 'derivatives' of a picture has nothing to do with criminal law (quite an exotic suggestion - no, it's purely a matter for civil law). It relates to the old (and almost universal) codex 'droits morale' (moral rights) which is completely separated from copyright. The rights according to 'droits morale' a/ cannot be sold or transferred in any other way by the photographer, and b/ protects the integrity of the photographer by making it illegal to alter or use a photograph in a way that is contrary to the photographers original intentions.
In conclusion: If Folketinget has acquired the right to allow others to publish a picture, then you can publish it (within the limitations, if any, in the agreement between the photographer and Folketinget), as long as you remember to credit the photographer and do not violate his/her moral rights. However, such an agreement does not absolve you, the publisher, from responsibility so you have to be certain that the agreement gives you the right to publication in the way you intent.
Notes: A/ The full (Danish) text of the law is here: https://www.retsinformation.dk/Forms/R0710.aspx?id=12014 B/ I have used the words 'photographer' and 'photograph' extensively (as they are the focus of the discussion here), but it would be more correct to say 'creator' and 'work' as the law applies to all forms of intellectual and artistic works.
(Reopened on July 30th, 2007 by ALE! ¿…?)
Derivative work and commercial use isn't expressly permitted, so it seems that this is a license for publication purposes. Moreover, I advise that Commons should accept only pictures for which the source web site displays a clear CC license tag (or has an equivalent release boilerplate for a standard, non-home-brew license). --Rtc 09:33, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- How about actually reading the text? "De billeder vi bruger på ft.dk er enten fotograferet af Folketingets ansatte eller af professionelle fotografer, hvor vi har betalt ekstra for muligheden for at lægge billederne ud til fri benyttelse." = "The pictures we use on ft.dk are either photographed by employees of Parliament or by professional photographers where we [=ft.dk / Parliament] have paied extra money to allow the pictures to be used freely." And you claim that commercial use is not allowed. That is exactly why ft.dk paid off these photographers. Valentinian (talk) 10:47, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- No. That is for them to be usable for press purposes. --Rtc 11:08, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- Since when hasn't newspapers been commercial? Valentinian (talk) 11:24, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- Induction is not a valid mode of conclusion. Just because some special commercial use is permitted does not have as a necessary consequence that all commercial use is permitted. It doesn't even make the latter more probable. In fact, it countersupports the conclusion.[Popper and Miller 1983, 1987, 1994 unpublished] --Rtc 11:33, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- That is your interpretation, nothing more, nothing less. Valentinian (talk) 11:48, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- No, I claim that it is true. --Rtc 12:34, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- That is your interpretation, nothing more, nothing less. Valentinian (talk) 11:48, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- Induction is not a valid mode of conclusion. Just because some special commercial use is permitted does not have as a necessary consequence that all commercial use is permitted. It doesn't even make the latter more probable. In fact, it countersupports the conclusion.[Popper and Miller 1983, 1987, 1994 unpublished] --Rtc 11:33, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- If that was the case, they wouldn't have used the words "lægge ud". I don't see the reason for this request either. --Pred 17:09, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- Since when hasn't newspapers been commercial? Valentinian (talk) 11:24, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- Valentian, do you claim that “fri benyttelse” implies the right to make derivative works? Kjetil r 17:25, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- This is how I read it. If you speak in purely monetary terms, one would normally use the word "gratis". Valentinian (talk) 18:43, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- True, but it is still ambiguous IMO. I'll send dthem an e-mail later today. Kjetil r 18:56, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- This is how I read it. If you speak in purely monetary terms, one would normally use the word "gratis". Valentinian (talk) 18:43, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- No. That is for them to be usable for press purposes. --Rtc 11:08, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep - Valentinian has got a point. Rtc, why are you so hooked on deleting haft the repostery? --Lhademmor 12:54, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- Which point do you see in what Valentinian writes? Rtc 13:36, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Comment I have now written to Folketinget asking if commercial use is allowed, and if one can make derivative works. It is written in conservative Norwegian, which should be easily understood by Danes. See User:Kjetil r/folketinget. Kjetil r 23:02, 25 March 2007 (UTC)- Keep - it says 'any' use it allowed. Why the need to get any more explicit? - Andre Engels 12:57, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
- It is impolite towards the coypright holder not to demand a unambiguous license. "any use" often means "use of this version in any context", not "use for profit" or "use of a derived version" --Rtc 17:03, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
- I think it is impolite to demand from someone to put it under another license just because you do not like the one they gave - especially if that other license for all practical purposes is the same. - Andre Engels 23:03, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
- No, such thoughts have to be banished at all means. It is keeping trouble away from the copyright holder to demand from him that he states the terms clearly. Since, in case he doesn't intend the license as broad as you read it, he can well have a lot of drawbacks from that. If he intends it to be as broad, then it should be no problem for him to state that unambiguously and give users of his works the safetry they need. It is honest and not rude to demand licensing terms to be stated clearly; it is in the rights holder's as well as the user's interest (except, perhaps, in the collectionist's who don't care about the actual intentions of the rights holder, but only about satisfying their endless greed for more pictures from other people's sites). --Rtc 08:16, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
- I think it is impolite to demand from someone to put it under another license just because you do not like the one they gave - especially if that other license for all practical purposes is the same. - Andre Engels 23:03, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
- It is impolite towards the coypright holder not to demand a unambiguous license. "any use" often means "use of this version in any context", not "use for profit" or "use of a derived version" --Rtc 17:03, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
- Asking a copyright holder to say that their images are free of copyright issues even for defamatory purposes (which is effectively what this is) is a contradiction in terms. Defamatory actions against individuals are outlawed in the Danish criminal code § 267 [37] so let's assume that a Dane states that an image of a living person may be used completely unrestricted. In that case, I would argue that giving such a permit might in itself be a violation the criminal code's § 136, art. 1 [38] which forbids anyone from encouraging others to commit criminal actions. Distinguishing these two aspects as you demand [39] is simply not a possibility under Scandinavian law, and I would expect that German law also forbids encouraging criminal activities. If not, please inform me of any jurisdiction in which it is not an offence to encourage crime. However, asking somebody: "May we use this image for any purpose including commercial use, modification and derivative works, while naturally understanding that we are also bound by the criminal code", is a request that a copyright holder can accept or deny without creating legal complications for himself. Unless we have this clarification, somebody will have to analyse American law extremely carefully. If libel/defamation and encouraging crime, as I expect, are both criminal offences under U.S. law, won't we then have to delete all images of all living people from the Commons? Provided this is the case, it might be an idea to ask if any such attitude is what this project needs? Valentinian (talk) 11:09, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
- You really have misunderstood what I am saying completely. "Could you please replace the unclear licensing terms on your website by a creative commons license that reflects your intentions" is a polite request that a copyright holder can accept or deny without creating legal complications for himself; and I am saying nothing more than that this should be done. You did not see that copyright law and other rights (especially criminal law) are completely independent and that the latter is out of scope of a copyright license. Stating such restrictions anyway in a copyright license can cause you to be prosecuted for a criminal crime and additionally being sued for copyright violation if you commit the crime. We don't want that "additionally"; it's not aceptable for a free license. Prosecution of criminal activity should be a purely public matter, not a private one. I am not saying that a license should encourage criminal behaviour, it should merely abstain from restricting the corresponding use. --Rtc 11:26, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
- The standard requests people file to copyright holders can indeed very easily give the impression I stated above and copyright law does not exist in a vacuum. Suppose a copyright holder has tried to release an image as CC but somebody questions this and e-mails him: "Do you really mean that we may use your images for all intents and purposes?" The copyright holder can't give a positive reply without compromising himself, however this is what Commons effectively demands. If he replies "I hereby confirm that I release ... .jpg under CC" then he'll be fine. If he answers "sure, do what you want with it" he might put himself in harm's way. Which is why many copyright holders will try to cover their own bases by stating something like; "you can't use my work for anything illegal". But to stay clear of this problem we'd effectively have to send out emails stating something like "Dear Sir. Could you please release FILE.jpg under a free license selected from the list below. If you agree, please don't answer anything else than "yes" since you may incriminate yourself by doing so. The photographer's legal bases would be covered by such a message, but I sincerely doubt that anybody would reply positively to such a mail. Valentinian (talk) 11:59, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
- First of all, I do not think that a CC license needs ever to be questioned, if it was stated by the author on his web page and there are no other indications that there is something wrong with it (for example, if he sold exclusive licenses and hence may not be legally entitled to license the work anymore)—it is the author's responsibility to read and understand the license he grants, really. Second, it is simply wrong that an answer such as "sure, do what you want with it" is in any way problematic. Whether you are complying with criminal law is completely your issue, not the author's; he cannot exempt you from your duties. It is out of scope of questions about copyright. Third, I do not believe that "Dear Sir. Could you please release FILE.jpg under a free license selected from the list below. If you agree, please don't answer anything else than 'yes' since you may incriminate yourself by doing so." is a correct way at all to do it, but, as I already said, "Could you please replace the unclear licensing terms on your website by a creative commons license that reflects your intentions". This asks the author to clarify the terms and conditions on his web site, not to give you any problematic reply at all. --Rtc 12:09, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
- I'm not saying that a photographer could release the user of one of this images from responsibility should this end user choose to break the law by using the image as an instrument to slander the person on it. I'm saying that if the end user that violated the law had previously asked the photographer for a blanket permission to use the image and got it; the photographer can be charged in court if somebody claims that the photographer either knew or should have known all along that the end user of his image was up to no good. The photographer might well get out of such a situation with the skin on his nose, but photographers shouldn't risk having to go through such proceedings, even if the risk is slim. It is not surprising if a photographer might wish to avoid any such hypothetical situation. Valentinian (talk) 12:47, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
- No, that is clearly wrong, although unfortunately widely believed. The photographer cannot be charged in court if the end user who violated the law had previously asked the photographer for a blanket permission to use the image and got it. Solely the user who violated the law is responsible, because even if the licensor told him that he can use the image for any purpose, it is still he who decides to act uncritically according to that. He is guilty, because he culpably did not know that the permission was refering only to copyright. It is his responsibility to know that. Ignorance is no excuse. Law does not free you from responsibility just because someone else said so. Even if the photographer had told him "I will take responsibility for any criminal offense you are committing", that is contrary to "ordre public" and thus null and void; the photographer cannot be brought to court, but only the one doing the crime. Credulity and good faith in the truth of what someone else says (in contrast to good faith about his intentions) by itself is already half a criminal offense. --Rtc 13:14, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
- Provided the above analysis is correct (which I hope, such a situation will be more clear cut and easier to deal with) this will still not solve Wikimedia's problem at hand, if the sender and receiver of a licensing request are unaware of such legal details. I don't believe an image would become less free by openly writing in the request to a license holder "This request merely concerns the copyright aspect of using your image(s) to which you retain moral rights. Whoever uses the image(s) is legally responsible for his / her own actions doing so." Valentinian (talk) 15:19, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, that's correct.--Rtc 15:31, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
- In that case, a lot of problems could probably be solved if people include something along these lines when contacting copyright holders. Valentinian (talk) 17:48, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
- Actually, I had something like this in my version of the licensing template already for ages. The relevant passage translates roughly to "I permit anyone to use the picture according to the free licence/s X. This permission refers only to copyright. Personality rights, competition law, trademark law and other laws remain unaffected. However, I know that in general, I cannot additionally sue for copyright violation if the work is used in conflict with such or other interests I have [that refers to the licensor's religious, political, ethical or material interests]." --Rtc 19:20, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
- In that case, a lot of problems could probably be solved if people include something along these lines when contacting copyright holders. Valentinian (talk) 17:48, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, that's correct.--Rtc 15:31, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
- Provided the above analysis is correct (which I hope, such a situation will be more clear cut and easier to deal with) this will still not solve Wikimedia's problem at hand, if the sender and receiver of a licensing request are unaware of such legal details. I don't believe an image would become less free by openly writing in the request to a license holder "This request merely concerns the copyright aspect of using your image(s) to which you retain moral rights. Whoever uses the image(s) is legally responsible for his / her own actions doing so." Valentinian (talk) 15:19, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
- No, that is clearly wrong, although unfortunately widely believed. The photographer cannot be charged in court if the end user who violated the law had previously asked the photographer for a blanket permission to use the image and got it. Solely the user who violated the law is responsible, because even if the licensor told him that he can use the image for any purpose, it is still he who decides to act uncritically according to that. He is guilty, because he culpably did not know that the permission was refering only to copyright. It is his responsibility to know that. Ignorance is no excuse. Law does not free you from responsibility just because someone else said so. Even if the photographer had told him "I will take responsibility for any criminal offense you are committing", that is contrary to "ordre public" and thus null and void; the photographer cannot be brought to court, but only the one doing the crime. Credulity and good faith in the truth of what someone else says (in contrast to good faith about his intentions) by itself is already half a criminal offense. --Rtc 13:14, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
- I'm not saying that a photographer could release the user of one of this images from responsibility should this end user choose to break the law by using the image as an instrument to slander the person on it. I'm saying that if the end user that violated the law had previously asked the photographer for a blanket permission to use the image and got it; the photographer can be charged in court if somebody claims that the photographer either knew or should have known all along that the end user of his image was up to no good. The photographer might well get out of such a situation with the skin on his nose, but photographers shouldn't risk having to go through such proceedings, even if the risk is slim. It is not surprising if a photographer might wish to avoid any such hypothetical situation. Valentinian (talk) 12:47, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
- You really have misunderstood what I am saying completely. "Could you please replace the unclear licensing terms on your website by a creative commons license that reflects your intentions" is a polite request that a copyright holder can accept or deny without creating legal complications for himself; and I am saying nothing more than that this should be done. You did not see that copyright law and other rights (especially criminal law) are completely independent and that the latter is out of scope of a copyright license. Stating such restrictions anyway in a copyright license can cause you to be prosecuted for a criminal crime and additionally being sued for copyright violation if you commit the crime. We don't want that "additionally"; it's not aceptable for a free license. Prosecution of criminal activity should be a purely public matter, not a private one. I am not saying that a license should encourage criminal behaviour, it should merely abstain from restricting the corresponding use. --Rtc 11:26, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. I created the template, and had the original email conversation. It seemed quite clear to me that there were no restrictions to the use of the images. Thue 20:56, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
- See the reply from Høyer below, he is supposed to get back to me with a clarification. If it was quite clear, no clarification would be needed, right? (I have not received further emails from him) Kjetil r 21:10, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
til: Kjetil Ree vedr.: Brug af billeder Tak for din mail. Jeg skal have snakket med et par kollegaer om en præcisering af betingelserne for brugen af billeder på ft.dk. Jeg vender tilbage med et svar om kort tid. p.v.a. Folketingets webmaster Benny Høyer 27. marts 207
I have now received an answer from folketinget:
Tak for din påmindelse. Jeg har fået aftale følgende formulering emd koppegaer i vores kommunikationsafdeling: "Ophavsretten til tekst og billeder på Folketingets hjemmesider tilhører Folketinget. Materialet kan dog frit benyttes og gengives med klar kildeangivelse, men må ikke gøres til genstand for selvstændig kommerciel udnyttelse eller for direkte forvanskning." Jeg håber formuleringen dækker de supplerende spørgsmål du havde. pva. Folketingets webmaster Benny Høyer 9. maj 2007
Kjetil r 19:22, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
- The key phrase is that they do not allow "selvstændig" (stand-alone?) commercial use. Seems like a mass deletion? :( --|EPO| 19:48, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, based on the above all images should be deleted. But Folketinget cannot have that that intention. Let me just contact them and ask them to reconsider... Thue 10:08, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
- They said in reply to my email that they would reconsider, but haven't gotten back to me yet. Still waiting... Thue 20:23, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
- Sigh, this would be much simpler if we would not allow licenses that do not expressly permit unrestricted commercial reuse and derivative works. I think that this is an invalid license, but am willing to wait until we got confirmation on its validity. --Iamunknown 03:08, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
- What would have been easier was if legal traditions hadn't developed as differently as they did on the two sides of the Atlantic. In Denmark, every child knows that defamation of others is outlawed, but people mix up which law this is specified in, for one thing, because our country isn't the lawyers' paradise that the U.S. is. In addition, people are afraid that if they give a "you may use it for everything" permission, that they put themselves in harm's way legally should somebody misuse the material. Given a Danish cultural background, it is very difficult interpreting unlimited requests as anything but a "may I break the law with this image?"-request. What people need to do is to add very clearly a clarification of a type that "We naturally recognize that other laws may apply regarding against inappropriate use of your image(s), but this request has nothing to do with this issue, only the copyright status of the image(s)." Or something along those lines. Valentinian (talk) 11:42, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
- Ah, fair point (and one I would not have come up with by myself!). That said, many restrictions may apply to the use of an image that are separate from copyright (personality rights, trademarks, laws against fraud). But I was under the impression that the license Www.folketinget.dk puts their images under was restrictive in terms of copyright, based upon the above e-mail conversation; are these images not under copyright restrictions? --Iamunknown 18:36, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
- I doubt that the original photographer(s) give(s) a toss about these images. A previous email from the same person stated that the images were either taken by Folketinget staff or by professional photographers that had been paid off specifically to allow unrestricted use. I've had my own photo taken that way when I stood as a candidate years ago, and I know from one MP that e.g. Venstre paid one photographer a large amount so he couldn't later cite any rights nomatter what Venstre did with his photos of our candidates to parliament. From what I read here, it is obvious that Folketinget made a similar arrangement. The current mail reads directly: (quote) "The copyright to text and images on the webpages of Folketinget belongs to Folketinget. Materials may however be freely used and reprinted given a clear indication of source, but they may not be the objects of stand-alone commercial use or complete corruption [of their content]." (unquote) The one caveat about modification beyond recognition would be a violation of moral rights anyway (and Folketinget is concerned about not accidentally sanctioning something completely bizzare / criminal which would look bad on Parliament). Forgive me for going just a tad over the line: the sender of the email is saying between the lines that he doesn't wish to lose his own job just in case he is talking to a complete crackpot that then does something insane and then cites Folketinget's e-mail as "documentation" that it was legal for the offender to smear all of Parliament. Had I been in his position and not been a Wikipedian (so I knew what the purpose of the request actually was about) I would have replied with something almost identical. Wikipedia's "modification" clause sounds very innocent but it is extremely problematic in a Scandinavian context because people believe that you're asking for permission to break the laws about defamation of others, and that's part of the criminal code. If you were saying that you were asking for permission to correct technical errors, nobody would care. Newspapers do this all the time.
- As I see it, the issue needing clarification here is stand-alone commercial exploitation, but the core of the underlying problem is that the average Dane will confuse at least two laws, and that the notion of "public domain" is next to unknown in Scandinavia. For decades, the standard practice has been to pay off the photographer (he is happy, and you'll never hear from him again) and to release the image "to the press" meaning that the press may use it free of charge. This consequently gives a politician some sort of control over which image(s) his local newspaper actually uses of him. These press releases are considered stock footage sent to those that ask for a photo of a given person or object. The normal caveat is that corruption of logos (and sometimes images) may be specifically denied. If a later user of the material is then stupid enough to do something criminal (read: insulting) with the image, he/she would be charged with breaking the criminal code regarding this issue. Denmark doesn't normally use the U.S. practice of suing people for X different violations at the same time. Instead the public prosecutor will charge a person with the offence giving the highest penalty, unless of course the case is very complex e.g. a politician committing a ton of offences against the public - he would be tried with a selection of charges. Valentinian (talk) 19:41, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Status report? Did Thue contact webmaster again? Do we agree that permission is not complying with Commons policies? --|EPO| 20:26, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
- As I see it the template (and images) should all be deleted. --Broadbeer 21:57, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
- I have gotten a few replies, and it seems very likely that the images will be available under an acceptable license. I am still talking to them to determine which license that will be, or rather waiting for them to respond to my questions. They are extremely slow :(. But please don't delete the images before I have finished talking to them. Thue 15:56, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
- If it really seems likely images will be released under an acceptable license I agree we should give it a chance. Even though the images' current copyright status on Commons are somewhat unclear. But if a free license is realistic we should keep it. Just too bad they're that slow. --|EPO| 21:58, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
- It's not very good to keep them too long, but if we delete them now and they are going to released soon it would be a VERY big work to upload them again (or undo deletion). --Broadbeer 22:02, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
- Thue, I'm actually impressed that you keep contacting them eventhough the webmaster must be pissed with Wikipedia by now. If you haven't mentioned it already, the Dutch Parliament has allowed the use of a series of photos of its cabinet under GFDL (en:Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2007-06-04/Dutch government), so Folketinget might find that interesting. #2) That Wikipedia recognizes that Danish law still applies against illegal (smearing) use, and that the request merely concerns copyright. This entire Wikilawyering against press images is just counterproductive. Wikipedia rejects a ton of European images that nobody even questions are intended for gratis mass distribution, using a very rigid interpretation of what a free image is. Yet, nobody even questions the use of a ton of U.S. government images that are very likely covered by copyright outside of the U.S. Same deal with the PD-art images; PD is the U.S. and Germany, but no-no for many other Wikipedias. Not to mention how ridiculous it felt when I had to lecture a Danish politician who wanted his press image to be used on his Wikipedia article that he most likely doesn't have the right to release an image he paid for, since Wikipedia's interpretation of U.S. law doesn't care about Danish practice regarding commissioned works. And judging from my inbox, I'll have to reject a similar image tomorrow. Valentinian (talk) 23:49, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
Keep As per the above discussion. --Alien life form 13:51, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
- Actually I think I have the right to pissed, because they originally told me that I could use the images without restrictions. Thue 14:58, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
- update: I finally got a reply today (the long wait has only been because of their slowness). They refuse to waive the "no stand-alone commercial use" clause. I replied with a final plea for them to consider for example a CC attribution-sharealike license, but I have asked that before, so one might consider the issue closed already. However, I sometimes get the idea that they really do not read what I actually write, so there is a small chance that my suggested has not registered up unil now, but by a miracle will now... Thue 14:58, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
- So, any updates? --Iamunknown 20:38, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
If you do keep it, I request you rename it to something more easily understandable, like "PD-Folketinget", or "CC-Folketinget" or something. The current template name says NOTHING beyond the site that it's taken from — It's not a licence tag! 68.39.174.238 20:59, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Kept. —Angr 20:51, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
- I updated the license tag, as the permission is NonCommercial and NonDerviative. --Kjetil r 11:44, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
- Delete If it is really non commercial and non derivative then it has to be deleted. Therefore I reopened the deletion request. --ALE! ¿…? 07:21, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
- Alright, lets delete them. / Fred J 08:00, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
- Keep for the time being - The matter is still being investigate by User:Thue, he has previously stated that the process is very slow but that he beleives the images will be released under an adequate license. We should await this process before doing any deletion. --Morten LJ 06:45, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
- If we are to keep them it would be nice with an update as we haven't seen any since June 17. --Broadbeer 17:58, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
2_Synthesis.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
2_Synthesis.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
2_Synthesis.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
2_Synthesis.jpg){kind=link}
2_Synthesis.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit){kind=link}
.jpg&diff=0){kind=link}
.jpg&action=history){kind=link}
.jpg&action=watch){kind=link}
.jpg&action=unwatch){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=purge){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&preload=Commons:Deletion_requests/preload){kind=link}
.jpg&action=delete){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
![[4]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:DubatSomaliaItaliana.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
![[7]](http://www.histoquiz-contemporain.com/Histoquiz/Lesdossiers/guerresoubliees/italoethiopie/Cavalerieindigene.jpg){kind=link}
![[9]](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=File%3AJamshedpur+coll+of+images.jpg){kind=link}
![[10]](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=File%3ATata+motar+assembly+line.jpg){kind=link}
![[11]](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=File%3ATata+steel+lake+and+plant.jpg){kind=link}
![[12]](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=File%3ARussi+Mody+Centre+for+Excellence.jpg){kind=link}
![[13]](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=File%3ARussi+mody.jpg){kind=link}
![[14]](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=File%3APratyusha+banerjee.jpg){kind=link}
![[15]](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=File%3ATata+steel+lake.jpg){kind=link}
![[16]](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=File%3ATata+growth+shop.jpg){kind=link}
![[17]](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=File%3ATcil.jpg){kind=link}
![[18]](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=File%3ARhs+jamipol.jpg){kind=link}
![[22]](http://i459.photobucket.com/albums/qq314/LAzWikiDude/Hrvatske_opcine_u_BiH.png){kind=link}
![[23]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:DemoBIH1991.png){kind=link}
![[24]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:BiH_-_UH_N_1991.gif){kind=link}
![[26]](http://i459.photobucket.com/albums/qq314/LAzWikiDude/Drvar1931.png){kind=link}
![[27]](http://i459.photobucket.com/albums/qq314/LAzWikiDude/Hrvatske_opcine_u_BiH2.png){kind=link}
![[29]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Bihac_Municipality_Location.svg){kind=link}
![[34]](http://img193.imageshack.us/img193/3069/mostarresize.jpg){kind=link}
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
- I asked him for an update. His reply on my talk page was that he can't get in contact with them right now as they all gone for the summer. He is still optimistic for a free license.
- But until a free license has been confirmed we should not accept any more uploads. --|EPO| da: 18:24, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
- Why not accept any more uploads? --Morten LJ 09:54, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
- Because that means more deletionwork if we do not get the proper permission. --Broadbeer 17:22, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
- I disagree, whether you delete them when they are uploaded, or a month later when we decide to delete everything makes no difference. --Morten LJ 18:08, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry the real reason is that if we were to follow the "rules" all images shuold be deleted as the current license is not valid on Commons. Therefor if you upload an image an tag it with the license you would be in bad faith (same as tagging a imge with © without permissions to use it freely. --Broadbeer 21:04, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
- I finally got a reply. It was a "no" to remove the "no stand-alone commercial redistribution". As such the images would have to be deleted :(. Thue 14:58, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry the real reason is that if we were to follow the "rules" all images shuold be deleted as the current license is not valid on Commons. Therefor if you upload an image an tag it with the license you would be in bad faith (same as tagging a imge with © without permissions to use it freely. --Broadbeer 21:04, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
- I disagree, whether you delete them when they are uploaded, or a month later when we decide to delete everything makes no difference. --Morten LJ 18:08, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
- Because that means more deletionwork if we do not get the proper permission. --Broadbeer 17:22, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
- Why not accept any more uploads? --Morten LJ 09:54, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Would someone care to explain what "Complete corruption" is supposed to mean? 68.39.174.238 23:07, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
- It was translated from Danish "direkte forvanskning" by User:Valentinian. "Direkte forvanskning" means something like "directly made difficult," but it is hard to translate it correctly into English. Kjetil r 00:11, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
- It could also mean "immediate distortions". / Fred J 00:31, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
- In this case, "Forvaskning" refers to changing something beyond all recognition, in particular if one has an evil intent in doing so. Nomatter if people demand this to be permitted copyright-wise, doing so will very likely still be a violation of § 267 in the Danish Criminal Code about trying to destroy the reputation of another person. (quote) § 267. Den, som krænker en andens ære ved fornærmelige ord eller handlinger eller ved at fremsætte eller udbrede sigtelser for et forhold, der er egnet til at nedsætte den fornærmede i medborgeres agtelse, straffes med bøde eller fængsel indtil 4 måneder. (My attempt at a translation: § 267: He who violates the honour of somebody else by means of insulting words or deeds or by creating or spreading accusations about circumstances that can be used to degrade the attacked in the eyes of fellow citizens, shall be punished by a fine or up till four months of imprisonment.) Valentinian (talk) 21:19, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
- Remember that pictures/portraits of a person is not allowed in a commercial ad without a model release (in most countries). --Bongoman 08:10, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
- In this case, "Forvaskning" refers to changing something beyond all recognition, in particular if one has an evil intent in doing so. Nomatter if people demand this to be permitted copyright-wise, doing so will very likely still be a violation of § 267 in the Danish Criminal Code about trying to destroy the reputation of another person. (quote) § 267. Den, som krænker en andens ære ved fornærmelige ord eller handlinger eller ved at fremsætte eller udbrede sigtelser for et forhold, der er egnet til at nedsætte den fornærmede i medborgeres agtelse, straffes med bøde eller fængsel indtil 4 måneder. (My attempt at a translation: § 267: He who violates the honour of somebody else by means of insulting words or deeds or by creating or spreading accusations about circumstances that can be used to degrade the attacked in the eyes of fellow citizens, shall be punished by a fine or up till four months of imprisonment.) Valentinian (talk) 21:19, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
- It could also mean "immediate distortions". / Fred J 00:31, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete as the license does not allow unrestricted commercial use. If no new arguments for keeping are made, then I will ensure deletion of all images within a very short time. --|EPO| da: 22:10, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per Thue's recent information. Valentinian T / C 11:07, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Closing, template is now copyvio, all images with the template will be deleted soon. / Fred J 22:12, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
unused template. -- Common Good (talk) 18:59, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. - Jcb (talk) 22:28, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
blank image Slfi (talk) 19:03, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
- Delete --Broc (talk) 13:25, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jcb (talk) 21:13, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Files of User:Yinging 16
[edit]- File:P1020025.jpg
- File:SLOGAN2 tee.jpg
- File:P1020020-1.jpg
- File:Mask tee.jpg
- File:P1020031.jpg
- File:P1020030.jpg
- File:IMISSYOU TEE.jpg
- File:P1020029.jpg
- File:Doyouremember tee.jpg
- File:P1020027.jpg
- File:HKC TEE.jpg
Advertisement - this images are useful for a online shop, but not for a wikimedia projekt. None of this images is in use. --GeorgHH • talk 19:07, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Per nom. Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 07:37, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
copyvio of http://www.jpe.com/images/brad.jpg, OTRS sent but with no sign of permission Holyoke, mass (talk) 20:02, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
- Delete. Policy and common practice say that we should delete files on the absence of evidence of a free license, and an insufficient OTRS is evidence of absence of a free license. Nyttend (talk) 02:30, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
Hi - I posted this and hope to have permission to reupload it soon; I requested the incorrect permission previously. Thanks NathanBermann 20:47, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: incomplete OTRS for more than a month Jcb (talk) 21:16, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Copyvio - Monument created in 1954. Creator dead in 1994: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trandumskogen 81.191.187.18 20:21, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
- Delete As far as I can see: This monument is in Norway, copyright has not expired, it is more an artwork than a building. The monument is the main subject. Or we get COM:OTRS permission. -- RE rillke questions? 22:38, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
- Hmmm, well, it's obviously a monument. If that means it's not allowed on commons, I suppose it has to go. But, if this one goes, I suppose File:Trandumskogen_monument_norsk.jpg, File:Trandumskogen monument russisk.jpg and File:Trandumskogen oppslag.jpg need to go as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TommyG (talk • contribs)
Deleted: Norway has only FOP for buildings Jcb (talk) 21:18, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Files uploaded by Robertcharles13240690
[edit]All of the below files have been claimed as "own work" by User:Robertcharles13240690. Many of them had OTRS pending on them initially (since removed by me due to own work claim). It is as though the uploader knew they were from other websites but felt content to allow the ambiguity to allow for their retention to fill out es:Santiago Ixcuintla. In order from oldest to newest:
- File:Mural Nuestras Raices.jpg - thumbnail-size image
- File:SeñordelaAscensionSantiagoIxcuintla.jpg - thumbnail-size and has visible watermarks
- File:IsladeMexcaltitan.jpg - thumbnail-size image
- File:PlayasdeSantiagoIxcuintla.jpg - thumbnail-size image
- File:IglesiadelSeñordelaAscencionSantiagoIxcuintla.jpg - thumbnail-size image ripped from http://www.panoramio.com/photo/7293210
- File:BocadeCamichinSantiagoIxcuintla.jpg - Sony Cybershot, 16 April 2005
- File:PlazaHidalgoSantiagoIxcuintlaNayarit.jpg
- File:Fiestaspatrias2010SantiagoIxcuintla.jpg - web resolution image
- File:RompimientodelaFeriaNacionaldelaPrimavera2010.jpg - web resolution image
- File:ExplanadadelaFeriaNacionaldePrimavera.jpg
- File:Chupe-de-camarones.jpg - thumbnail-size image
- File:TeatrodelpuebloIxcuintla.jpg - thumbnail-size image that appears to be cropped from a video screenshot
- File:Panoramicadelaciudaddesantiagoixcuintla.jpg - Sony DSC-W5, 12 August 2006; uploader claimed 1 January 2009
- File:Panoramica1delaciudaddeSantiagoIxcuintla.jpg - Sony DSC-W5, 12 August 2006; uploader claimed 1 January 2008
- File:IMSS santiago ixcuintla.jpg - thumbnail-size ripped from http://www.panoramio.com/photo/6725389
- File:ELEKTRASANTIAGOIXCUINTLA.jpg - thumbnail-size image
- File:LienzocharrodeSantiagoIxcuintla.jpg - thumbnail-size ripped from http://www.panoramio.com/photo/6727453
- File:EstadioRevoluciondeSantiagoIxcuintla.jpg
- File:AeropistaLomaBonitaSantiagoIxcuinta.jpg - ripped from http://www.panoramio.com/photo/4184241
- File:HOSTIPALGENERALDESANTIAGOIXCUINTLA.jpg
- File:Bodegaaurrerasantiagoixc.jpg
Note that several are pulled from Panoramio despite them being tagged all rights reserved there. Only three images have EXIF data and they don't even match the same camera. Most of the remainder are low-resolution images likely pulled from various websites that I have been unable to find with Tineye or Google Image Search. I'm inclined to believe that none of them are actually the uploader's work. – Adrignola talk 20:46, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jcb (talk) 21:21, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
source is web Slfi (talk) 20:53, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jcb (talk) 21:22, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
The iron bar through the picture makes it no readable. There are other pictures without the bar, such as File:Bassin de l'Arsenal Paris P1040347.JPG Tangopaso (talk) 20:56, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
- Keep, people are free to use other pictures if they think they're better, but that's no reason to delete this one. –Tryphon☂ 23:08, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
- Keep, the bar is ugly but it is not sufficent reason to delete the file. MKFI (talk) 11:49, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
Kept: per comments Jcb (talk) 21:23, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
some files of User:Pietro.hu.sky
[edit]
Unknown source ("web") and author. --Slfi (talk) 20:58, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jcb (talk) 21:24, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This is most certainly a work of art, not a photograph. Thus the 70 year pma applies, but the author died in 1950. Magog the Ogre (talk) 21:05, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jcb (talk) 21:25, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Derivative work from copyrighted poster: [40], it's obvious even for TinEye: [41] Trycatch (talk) 21:28, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
![[41]](http://tineye.com/search?url=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2F0%2F03%2FIvan_Drago.jpg&sort=size&order=desc){kind=link}
Deleted Jcb (talk) 21:25, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
low quality - useless Reinhardhauke (talk) 18:32, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Basically replaced by far-superior File:020KrakówFranciszkański.JPG Wknight94 talk 01:36, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
