Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2011/05/03
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
.jpg){kind=link}
i dont speak eng. Erjansert (talk) 12:15, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jcb (talk) 15:37, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
This file was marked as copyvio because "Published in http://asociacionculturaltorrejoncillo.blogspot.com/2009/05/torrejoncillo_24.html, not in PD". However, the blog owner (JOSÉ MARÍA DOMÍNGUEZ MORENO) seems to be the actual uploader, so I'm starting a deletion request instead. Darwin Ahoy! 22:20, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
- I don't know why you say that:
- Jose María Domínguez Moreno is the blog owner, because its owner is "Asociación Cultural Torrejoncillo" (a cultural asociation named Torrejoncillo). Jose María Domínguez Moreno is only a post writer.
- Jose María Domínguez Moreno seems to be the actual uploader. ¿Josemamc?
- LMLM (talk) 10:09, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
- When I tried to open that website yesterday it looked terribly botched, I hardly could read what was there, but dismissed it as bad website design and still tried to make sense of it. I looked for the main page, and at the bottom of it I could read JOSÉ MARÍA DOMÍNGUEZ MORENO, which I presumed to be the blog owner. As it was possible that Josemamc were the initials of that name, I opened the request to give some time for uploader to clarify things. Today I can see the website perfectly, and now I don't believe there is a relation. You can close this and delete the thing if you want.-- Darwin Ahoy! 11:03, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
Deleted, LMLM (talk) 11:43, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
There are at least three copyrights here -- the written material presented, the actual presentation (performance), and the editor/producer of the audio file. If the uploader is the last, we need evidence of permission for the other two. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:21, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
- I am the uploader (and editor/producer) of this file. You can see copyrights on written material here. Is an email exchange extract with conferencer stating that GFDL and CC-* licence apply sufficient as to be an evidence of permission ? --LowMemory (talk) 13:29, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
- Unfortunately we have been burned in the past and now take only direct e-mails from the author. For this one, please have Stéphane Bortzmeyer follow the procedure at Commons:OTRS. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:35, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
- I am getting Mr. Bortzmeyer aware and asking him to send the expected mail (on french speaking OTRS list). Thanks for pointing me to the procedure. --LowMemory (talk) 19:59, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: copyvio Bapti ✉ 20:55, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
There are many copyrights here -- Each questioner has a copyright in the question and in his speaking (performance). Each answer has the same. The editor/producer of the audio file. If the uploader is the last, we need evidence of permission for all the others. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:24, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
- I will not be able to have copyright permission from all performers, so that I agree with the deletion request: this file can be deleted. --LowMemory (talk) 15:22, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio Bapti ✉ 20:54, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
There are many copyrights here -- Each questioner has a copyright in the question and in his speaking (performance). Each answer has the same. The editor/producer of the audio file has a copyright. If the uploader is the last, we need evidence of permission for all the others. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:25, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
- I will not be able to have copyright permission from all performers, so that I agree with the deletion request: this file can be deleted. --LowMemory (talk) 15:23, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: copyvio Bapti ✉ 20:55, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
no licensing, but most likely copyrighted image Maniago (talk) 17:04, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Common Good (talk) 18:25, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
No licensing, not even a self published work; copied from some mentioned website, which also doesn't hold copyright of the file. Bill william comptonTalk 23:35, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Common Good (talk) 20:04, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
How a screenshot from a movie became an "Own work". Screenshots are usually copyrighted. Bill william comptonTalk 23:47, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Common Good (talk) 20:07, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
Copyrighted cartoon http://www.tineye.com/search/baa5cf448582319206fa51ca6f906c22a57f2fac/ —Preceding unsigned comment was added by 153.107.97.161 (talk) 01:31, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:22, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
Deleted --ZooFari 02:56, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
Deleted --ZooFari 02:56, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
Copyrighted cartoon http://www.tineye.com/search/baa5cf448582319206fa51ca6f906c22a57f2fac/ —Preceding unsigned comment was added by 153.107.97.161 (talk) 01:31, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:22, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
Deleted --ZooFari 02:56, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
Deleted --ZooFari 02:56, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
Out of scope: unidentified personal photo Zetawoof (talk) 03:27, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
Deleted --ZooFari 03:03, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
orphaned, used in a now deleted out of scope article. possibly copyrighted. no reason given to suggest that uploader is copyright holder. FASTILY (TALK) 03:38, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
- delete--Motopark (talk) 15:35, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
Deleted --ZooFari 03:03, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
poor image quality 84.59.190.208 07:10, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Bad quality, and we have plenty of dicks. --Yikrazuul (talk) 18:42, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
Deleted --ZooFari 03:04, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
Out of scope: low quality photo - unused Lymantria (talk) 07:14, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
Deleted --ZooFari 03:07, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
Unlikely authorship claims given the resolution, lack of EXIF data, and the uploader's history of uploading copyright violations. —LX (talk, contribs) 07:25, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
Deleted --ZooFari 03:08, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
orphaned, used in a now deleted out of scope article Motopark (talk) 15:36, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
Deleted --ZooFari 03:00, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
orphaned, used in a now deleted out of scope article Motopark (talk) 15:36, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
Deleted --ZooFari 02:59, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
out of scope Slfi (talk) 16:27, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
Deleted --ZooFari 02:59, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
private photo, out of scope Slfi (talk) 16:28, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Per nom. Not realistically useful for an educational purpose. –BMRR (talk) 19:46, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
Deleted --ZooFari 03:00, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
out of scope/spam Slfi (talk) 16:28, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
Deleted --ZooFari 03:00, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
private photo, out of scope Slfi (talk) 16:35, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Per nom. Not realistically useful for an educational purpose. –BMRR (talk) 19:55, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
Deleted --ZooFari 03:01, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
private photo, out of scope Slfi (talk) 16:51, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Per nom. Not realistically useful for an educational purpose. –BMRR (talk) 19:48, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
Deleted --ZooFari 03:02, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
private photo, out of scope Slfi (talk) 16:51, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Per nom. Not realistically useful for an educational purpose. –BMRR (talk) 19:47, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
Deleted --ZooFari 03:02, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
private photo, out of scope Slfi (talk) 16:53, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
Deleted --ZooFari 03:02, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
out of scope Slfi (talk) 16:55, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
Deleted --ZooFari 03:02, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
private photo/out of scope Slfi (talk) 17:09, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
Deleted --ZooFari 03:03, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
no free file Zimi.ily (talk) 20:20, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Deleted by User:Fastily. --ZooFari 03:06, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
And all other images uploaded by this user (list below)
They are all either
- Family photos
- Pictures of the uploader taken by someone else but claimed as "own work", or
- Miscellaneous copyvios.
None, except possibly one or two of the copyvios, are in scope.
- File:4554545.jpg
- File:Dgdf.jpg
- File:FFFFFDFFDFDF copy.jpg
- File:Fghhggf.jpg
- File:Gfgfgfgf.jpg
- File:Jester 1.jpg
- File:Jester 2.jpg
- File:Jester 6.jpg
- File:Jester Wiki 1.jpg
- File:Jester Wiki 2.jpg
- File:Jester Wiki 3.jpg
- File:Jester Wiki 4.jpg
- File:Jester1.jpg
- File:Jester2.jpg
- File:Jester3.jpg
- File:Jester4.jpg
- File:Jester7.jpg
- File:Jesterbanner1.jpg
- File:Main fhhgfbanner copy copy.jpg
- File:Nvbvnvbnbn.jpg
- File:Sadd.jpg
- File:The Magic Jester.jpg
- File:Wiki 5.jpg
- File:Wiki 6.jpg
- File:Wiki 7.jpg
- File:Wiki 8.jpg
Although I have not tagged every image, I have warned the uploader that they all would probably be deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:44, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
- Delete, out of scope. --Martin H. (talk) 13:11, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
Deleted --ZooFari 02:58, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
잘못 업로드한 파일입니다. 2o622039 (talk) 04:49, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Deleted by Fastily with the note No license since 3 May 2011. Dereckson (talk) 10:56, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
eu não quero mais 187.13.11.10 05:13, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- Delete Private pic? --Yikrazuul (talk) 18:43, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 06:04, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
TV screenshot 92.226.234.119 05:16, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Derivative work from a non-free TV program (COM:DW) Dereckson (talk) 10:57, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
Nothing wrong with the contents or licensing, but the intended purpose of the contents (and subsequently the file's title), while made with good intentions, is problematic. It is currently used to represent enwiki and as an indicator of an English summary of a page in another language. Using national flags to represent a global project could be seen as unappreciative. Using national flags to represent a language used by billions might often be seen as offensive. Using a flag as an eye-catcher in a page of foreign-language text is useful, but if that's to be used, we should stick to the Union Jack, as it's the only widely recognised symbol for English. This originally came to my attention in the wiktionary Beer parlour. I'd suggest another use for the current file, but it also seems like a bit of a duplicate of File:Flags of the United States and the United Kingdom.svg. Night w (talk) 11:17, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
- You need to contact en_wiki if you wish to address content issues there. Commons is not the place to discuss this. If it's a duplicate of File:Flags of the United States and the United Kingdom.svg it can obviously be deleted, but I'm not sure which one should be kept. -- Docu at 11:31, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
Keep: I agree with Docu. If there is nothing wrong with the licensing, then deletion (except if it is a duplicate) is not warranted. Proper use of the file at English Wikipedia needs to be addressed there, not here. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 12:39, 3 May 2011 (UTC)- Keep in use -> in scope. Multichill (talk) 14:42, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
Comment: I have tagged the file as a duplicate of "File:Flags of the United States and the United Kingdom.svg". There doesn't seem to be any significant difference between the two files, and the latter is a more descriptive name. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 11:20, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
- As I said, there's nothing actually wrong with the content, it's the way it's being used, even in commons: example. There was a previous discussion against using flags to represent languages here, wherein consensus was to use ISO text instead. If (in accordance with the instructions on the duplicate tag) I replace the instances of each image, would I presume that text or the ISO image is the preferred replacement? Night w (talk) 15:44, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
- Keep, -jkb- (talk) 16:49, 6 May 2011 (UTC) - see above, in use - - > in scope otherwise discus on enwiki; by the way, Night w, why do you delete (twice) the image on de.wiki with the comment it will be deleted on commons? It soesn`t seem so, I revert you the second time, OK? -jkb- (talk) 16:49, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
Kept: Image is used, so in scope, per COM:SCOPE. Especially, Commons doesn't edtiorialize other projects. Dereckson (talk) 11:00, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
I believe File:English language.svg breaks the United States Flag Code that establishes advisory rules for display and care of the flag of the United States. It is Chapter 1 of Title 4 of the United States Code ( et seq). This is a U.S. federal law. I think it should be speedy deleted. Theworm777 (talk) 19:32, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
- Delete Commons:General disclaimer is also a policy this file breaks.Theworm777 (talk) 20:51, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
- "General disclaimer is also a policy this file breaks" - how? why? Bulwersator (talk) 21:53, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
- Keep The flag code is more of a guideline, not a law. There is no enforcement; even prohibition of flag burning has been found unconstitutional. The drawing is not an actual flag anyways... not sure it violates even the guidelines. Carl Lindberg (talk) 21:28, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
- Keep The flag code deals with the flag of the United States, but this is a different flag. --Stefan4 (talk) 21:32, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
- As Clindberg has indicated, Supreme Court rulings mean that those provisions cannot actually be enforced under criminal law (otherwise people wouldn't be talking about an anti-flag burning constitutional amendment). AnonMoos (talk) 21:39, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
- This is a U.S. Federal Law. It is Chapter 1 of Title 4 of the United States Code ( et seq) 4 USC § 8 - RESPECT FOR FLAG (g) The flag should never have placed upon it, nor on any part of it, nor attached to it any mark, insignia, letter, word, figure, design, picture, or drawing of any nature. Theworm777 (talk) 22:28, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
- United States Flag Code article: "The United States Flag Code establishes advisory rules for display and care of the flag of the United States. It is Chapter 1 of Title 4 of the United States Code (4 U.S.C. § 1 et seq). This is a U.S. federal law, but there is no penalty for failure to comply with it and it is not widely enforced—indeed, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that punitive enforcement would conflict with the First Amendment right to freedom of speech." Bulwersator (talk) 22:34, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
- Just because it has not been enforced or is not widely enforced. Does not mean that people can break this law on wiki. It has not been removed from U.S. Federal Law so we should respect this law and not break it on wiki. It shows disrespect to the US Flag and U.S. Federal Laws I have shown above and should be removed plan and simple. Theworm777 (talk) 22:46, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
- ""The United States Flag Code establishes advisory rules for display and care of the flag of the United States" Bulwersator (talk) 23:11, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, but 4 USC § 8 - RESPECT FOR FLAG] (g) The flag should never have placed upon it, nor on any part of it, nor attached to it any mark, insignia, letter, word, figure, design, picture, or drawing of any nature. Is a U.S. Federal Law not just the United States Flag Code that establishes advisory rules for display and care of the flag. Theworm777 (talk) 23:21, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
- First -- this is not a flag. A flag is a cloth article (or at least a physical item). This is a drawing. Second, it's a drawing of a diagonal half of the flag -- there is no other mark placed on it. It's merely joined with the diagonal half of another flag drawing. The flag code you cite is referring to other marks placed on the flag itself, not the same thing. I don't see how this is disrespectful in any way. Lastly, any use which *does* violate that section of the US Code is fully protected free speech anyways, meaning it would be perfectly legal (not that I think this drawing even violates the flag code as it stands anyways). Trying to prevent any such use is basically engaging in censorship. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:03, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
- Just because it has not been enforced or is not widely enforced. Does not mean that people can break this law on wiki. It has not been removed from U.S. Federal Law so we should respect this law and not break it on wiki. It shows disrespect to the US Flag and U.S. Federal Laws I have shown above and should be removed plan and simple. Theworm777 (talk) 22:46, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
- Keep Clearly a keep. As has been pointed out, the image is not a flag, and certainly is not the US flag. It is an image that incorporates elements of that flag. A nomination for deletion without any substance. If you want a heart attack look at Category:Variations on flags of the United States --Tony Wills (talk) 23:17, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
- It clearly breaks this US Law 4 USC § 8 - RESPECT FOR FLAG (g) The flag should never have placed upon it, nor on any part of it, nor attached to it any mark, insignia, letter, word, figure, design, picture, or drawing of any nature. Theworm777 (talk) 23:21, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
- It does not "clearly" break any law, it is your opinion that it does (are you perhaps a lawyer or legislator?). It is not a US flag that has something placed upon it (by that argument it is also a British flag that has something placed upon it). It uses elements of both flags, and does not perport to being the US flag, or even a flag at all. Are you trying to argue that using any elements depicted on the US flag, violates some law? I think that would run straight into constitutional freedom of expression (aka freedom of speech). If you are serious, it is a much bigger issue than images on Commons, and we are not in a position to decide upon it, perhaps you have some legal precedent that you can quote? In my (non lawyer) opinion even if there was substance to what you claim, this usage would be seen as a legal trifle. --Tony Wills (talk) 00:09, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
- This file says it was Remade using Image:Flag of the United Kingdom.svg and Image:Flag of the United States.svg. The 1:2 version of the Union Flag was scaled horizontally to match The flag of the United States. Which says it is a U.S. Flag and quotes the same Law I have stated above. Theworm777 (talk) 00:34, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
- ??? We are not arguing that the image does not contain elements that symbolise the US flag, it is not particulary relevant that we take bits of code out of an SVG image that represents a US flag ??? Either you have a huge case, as important as the burning of flags, or none at all; either way a Commons deletion request is not a forum than can decide. The image does not appear to be violating Commons policy and even if there is substance to your assertion, the flag burning precedent would seem to suggest that we are not putting wikimedia in legal peril. --Tony Wills (talk) 01:27, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
- This file says it was Remade using Image:Flag of the United Kingdom.svg and Image:Flag of the United States.svg. The 1:2 version of the Union Flag was scaled horizontally to match The flag of the United States. Which says it is a U.S. Flag and quotes the same Law I have stated above. Theworm777 (talk) 00:34, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
- It does not "clearly" break any law, it is your opinion that it does (are you perhaps a lawyer or legislator?). It is not a US flag that has something placed upon it (by that argument it is also a British flag that has something placed upon it). It uses elements of both flags, and does not perport to being the US flag, or even a flag at all. Are you trying to argue that using any elements depicted on the US flag, violates some law? I think that would run straight into constitutional freedom of expression (aka freedom of speech). If you are serious, it is a much bigger issue than images on Commons, and we are not in a position to decide upon it, perhaps you have some legal precedent that you can quote? In my (non lawyer) opinion even if there was substance to what you claim, this usage would be seen as a legal trifle. --Tony Wills (talk) 00:09, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
- Keep Silliest nomination I've seen in recent months. Fry1989 eh? 01:01, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
- Keep It's unenforced, unenforcable advisory law of questionable applicability here. (I would discourage anyone from using it; English is a national language of over 50 nations, and the dominant language of at least four other large nations, so the merging of two flags just doesn't cut it. But it's most definitely in use, though I might start thinning out some of the Commons uses outside of user space.)--Prosfilaes (talk) 06:10, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
- There is no way file like these should be on commons. There should be a disclaimer stating this could be breaking this law at the least. It can not be released under Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 license so this has to be removed from commons.Theworm777 (talk) 13:35, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
- What? Is that a serious comment? --auburnpilot talk 16:24, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
- Keep This nomination is the equivalent of saying burning a picture of a person is the same as burning the person. No. Depictions of an item do not fall under the same laws or regulations that protect the actual item. --auburnpilot talk 16:24, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
- It says it is a US Flag on the file used to make this file. If it not a US flag it should not claim to be one. Like Tony Wills has said I dont think a Commons deletion request can decide this they will need lawyers to look at this. Theworm777 (talk) 16:56, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
- Ceci n'est pas un drapeau. Anyway, who cares? --Stefan4 (talk) 17:09, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
- Ah, of course we can not run an SVG file up a pole and watch it wave in the wind. So I have corrected the lingistic mistake in the description [1], others may wish to amend the translations ;-) --Tony Wills (talk) 22:22, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
- It says it is a US Flag on the file used to make this file. If it not a US flag it should not claim to be one. Like Tony Wills has said I dont think a Commons deletion request can decide this they will need lawyers to look at this. Theworm777 (talk) 16:56, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
![[1]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File%3AFlag_of_the_United_States.svg&diff=69726294&oldid=65580672){kind=link}
Question How is this meaningfully different from File:Flags of the United States and the United Kingdom.svg? It seems to me that one or the other should be deleted as a duplicate, no? This issue was raised (and never resolved?) in the previous deletion discussion also.cmadler (talk) 19:48, 12 April 2012 (UTC)- Delete as an exact duplicate of File:Flags of the United States and the United Kingdom.svg. --Carnildo (talk) 20:37, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
- This was uploaded first (in 2005); the other would technicallty be the duplicate. Also it has not always been a duplicate... there have been other versions at times. The different names may also indicate a semantic difference even if they are currently the same image -- if someone else comes up with a better "English language" icon, it may be done here, meaning it would no longer be a duplicate (while the other image is specifically for the combination of the two flags). This has also seen discussion of the matter on its talk page. Both are in wide use; not sure it would be a goo idea to delete either. Carl Lindberg (talk) 21:28, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
- It is not an *exact* duplicate, different code size and slightly different rendering of the star field. But if we do just want to keep one copy, I would upload that version as another revision of this one (someone can subsequently revert it back if they like) and delete that one as the duplicate (after merging author info etc). That way the alternative svg coding is still available in the history even if is reverted. --Tony Wills (talk) 22:07, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
- This was uploaded first (in 2005); the other would technicallty be the duplicate. Also it has not always been a duplicate... there have been other versions at times. The different names may also indicate a semantic difference even if they are currently the same image -- if someone else comes up with a better "English language" icon, it may be done here, meaning it would no longer be a duplicate (while the other image is specifically for the combination of the two flags). This has also seen discussion of the matter on its talk page. Both are in wide use; not sure it would be a goo idea to delete either. Carl Lindberg (talk) 21:28, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
- I'm changing my vote to a Delete, but not for the reasoning of the nominator. The edit war on this file is beyond rediculous, and there are better ways of representing the English language. Fry1989 eh? 22:06, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
- That's not a justification for deleting a file in use on over a hundred pages over several wikis.--Prosfilaes (talk) 06:31, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
- It is for me. Fry1989 eh? 23:02, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
- Protection may be used, there is no need for deletion Bulwersator (talk) 06:28, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
- My vote stays. Fry1989 eh? 22:57, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
- They aren't votes. Carl Lindberg (talk) 21:40, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
- My vote stays. Fry1989 eh? 22:57, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
- That's not a justification for deleting a file in use on over a hundred pages over several wikis.--Prosfilaes (talk) 06:31, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
Delete as an exact duplicate of File:Flags of the United States and the United Kingdom.svg. Why are these two duplicates still around? If this was uploaded first, then delete the other one and rename this one. The other name is a better description and much less offensive. Night w (talk) 12:27, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
- As noted above, they are not quite exact duplicates, and there is a semantic difference between them. They are each used for different situations. Carl Lindberg (talk)
- Actually, they're not. They're both being used for the same thing. You're right though, the coding is the tiniest bit different. Since it doesn't make a visible difference, they're still duplicates as far as I'm concerned. Night w (talk) 21:54, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
- Will somebody just delete or protect the file and end this infantile edit war already? Fry1989 eh? 19:57, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
Kept: Flag code. This discussion has established (i) the fact the code applies to this image hasn't been demonstrated (ii) even if it applied, this is not a rationale to delete a picture, as the code is non binding but advisory, and must be balanced with the freedom of speech. Duplicate. The two images aren't duplicate, there is currently an extra maple leaf on File:English language.svg not present on File:Flags of the United States and the United Kingdom.svg. Fry1989 request. Edit war on Wikimedia Commons aren't dealt by DR. --Dereckson (talk) 20:36, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
Nothing wrong with the contents or licensing, but the intended purpose of the contents (and subsequently the file's title), while made with good intentions, is problematic. It is currently used to represent enwiki and as an indicator of an English summary of a page in another language. Using national flags to represent a global project could be seen as unappreciative. Using national flags to represent a language used by billions might often be seen as offensive. Using a flag as an eye-catcher in a page of foreign-language text is useful, but if that's to be used, we should stick to the Union Jack, as it's the only widely recognised symbol for English. This originally came to my attention in the wiktionary Beer parlour. I'd suggest another use for the current file, but it also seems like a bit of a duplicate of File:Flags of the United States and the United Kingdom.svg. Night w (talk) 11:18, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
- Keep Unfortunately, the fact that you're personally offended on some esoteric metaphysical plane has very little to do with the reasons why files are deleted from Wikimedia Commons (as already seen from the comments at Commons:Deletion requests/File:English language.svg -- and this deletion should have been grouped together with the other one, by the way). In any case, the most technically correct would be the flag of England (Argent, a Cross Gules), but few people outside of the UK would recognize it... AnonMoos (talk) 18:47, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
- Right, well, I've never said that I'm personally offended by this, so I'm not sure what brought you to that conclusion. And I was only going on the advice you gave on my talk page. This request may be closed; I'll tag it for renaming instead. Night w (talk) 15:54, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
- All of your objections are on grounds of philosophical unsuitability, rather than those types of reasons which are usually recognized as valid arguments for deleting files on Wikimedia Commons. AnonMoos (talk) 21:57, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
Kept: Per Commons:Deletion requests/File:English language.svg Dereckson (talk) 11:01, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
An unused private image. GeorgHH • talk 18:01, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 06:06, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
Very bad quality image. Art-top (talk) 19:23, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Useless, so out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 06:09, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
Bad quality, much higher quality files: Category:White persians. Art-top (talk) 19:26, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Per nom. Useless George Chernilevsky talk 06:10, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
Bad quality image, much higher quality files: Category:Tortoiseshell cats. Art-top (talk) 19:30, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Per nom. George Chernilevsky talk 06:11, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
Screenshot of a video, published by the Department of Defense. There's no evidence that the video is a work of the United States Federal Government or that is was released into the public domain by its copyright holder. -- Kam Solusar (talk) 02:28, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
- However, if the video was shot in Afghanistan, it might be without copyright due to missing copyright law. --Túrelio (talk) 09:45, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
- That might save it. Otherwise, delete per nom.--Chaser (talk) 15:23, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
- Delete - My guess is that the video was created by an Arab because Osama bin Laden only allowed Arabs around him when he was living in Afghanistan. It's highly unlikely that it was made by an Afghan, at that time taking pictures or filming was banned under the Taliban rule, and there was no TV stations so the video was not first published in Afghanistan. This means that we cannot use the PD-Afghanistan license tag.--Officer (talk) 00:55, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Presumably copyrighted image, unacceptable for Commons. --Karppinen (talk) 15:12, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
Kept: The source page explicitely tags this file as a "DoD photo". This is a primary source evidence. As User:Turelio stated: there might be copyright issues that we do not know. For further clarification in this issue it would be the best to contact the DoD directly. High Contrast (talk) 17:00, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
Image comes from www.superborg.de... notes here provide no evidence item was released under cc-by-2.0-de. An exact source is needed to determine this. Magog the Ogre (talk) 06:35, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: No exact source, no evidence of cc-by-2.0-de license. Skeezix1000 (talk) 00:20, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
changed from speedy. is this past the threshold of originality? Amada44 talk to me 08:19, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
Kept: The question is moot, because the image is released under CC BY-SA 3.0. Skeezix1000 (talk) 00:25, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
The image is not related to any excisting article on Wikipedia. Obscureticks (talk) 10:35, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. While lack of use on Wikipedia does not mean an image should necessarily be deleted, this request is being made by the uploader. A Google search suggests Nofield is not a particularly notable band, and this publicity shot would therefore not appear to be realistically useful for an educational purpose. Skeezix1000 (talk) 00:42, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
exact duplicate of File:Arts_Centre_Spire_Pano,_Melbourne,_jjron,_29.09.2010.jpg (was formerly an alt for en:FPC, but i've now uploaded over the original) jjron (talk) 10:42, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Duplicate (although the {{Duplicate}} tag works in these situations as well) Skeezix1000 (talk) 01:00, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
wrong picture 84.194.40.117 12:18, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: I'm not sure what is meant by wrong picture, but it would appear to be out of scope. Skeezix1000 (talk) 00:51, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
Although uploaded as a "copyLeft" file, this is clearly a copyrighted image from the "Where's Waldo" franchise. WikiDan61 (talk) 14:36, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
- Delete. Author is en:Martin Handford, still alive, so the picture isn't probably not in the public domain. --Dereckson (talk) 11:04, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Clear copyvio. Skeezix1000 (talk) 00:51, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
Unlikely to by own work: small resolution, missing EXIF. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:20, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
Deleted High Contrast (talk) 16:53, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
Wrong file Abechnak (talk) 18:03, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: (not by me) Jcb (talk) 22:16, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
The author indicated on the description page is actually the subject of the picture. The EXIF metadata indicates that Chelle is the actual author; permission from that person is required. –Tryphon☂ 20:50, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
- Delete. Actually, according to COM:L candid/casual shots at one's request are allowed. However, this user has uploaded nothing other than his family pictures, a violation of COM:SCOPE. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:04, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: (not by me) Jcb (talk) 22:17, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
Unused outdated logo. --ZooFari 23:19, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
- Keep. In scope as the historic logo. --Dereckson (talk) 12:06, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
Kept: In scope. Skeezix1000 (talk) 12:28, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
Image looks exactly as those used in commercial sites selling heraldic stuff, see TinEye results Darwin Ahoy! 02:49, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jcb (talk) 13:46, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
this is a lower quality duplicate of File:Mcnabb transcom.jpg - lower resolution, and the aspect ratio has been stretched vertically. Benchill (talk) 04:56, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jcb (talk) 14:07, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
Copyrighted toy in the US. FunkMonk (talk) 05:57, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
- Keep. Published 1923-1977 without notice. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:15, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
- According to what? And is a toy "published"? FunkMonk (talk) 06:25, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
- 1) According to [2]. I do not see a copyright notice. 2) Publication is just mass production of identical copies of the toy. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:12, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
- There is text in the bottom corners, might be copyright notice. FunkMonk (talk) 10:12, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
- Here's a bigger version: [3]. You still can't read the text perfectly, but it is almost certainly not a copyright notice. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:09, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
- How can you be so sure? And for all we know, the notice could be underneath the figures, that is often the case. FunkMonk (talk) 04:59, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
- For all we know, the copyright notice could be inside the figure; how do you check that then? Really, we need to avoid copyright paranoia and not question every single possible detail. I think it is far more likely (than anything you're suggesting regarding this image that would make it non-PD) that a user claims something as "own work" when it's really not. Do we want to demand that every uploader claiming own work provide "proof" (beats me how you'd do that with complete certainty) that they actually created it? -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:21, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
- You could basically take a picture of anything copyrighted and just claim it is PD because you don't care to find out whether it is or not. A picture like this should only be kept if it was clear that it is PD, and it certainly isn't clear here. Nothing "paranoid" about that. FunkMonk (talk) 07:27, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
- You are distorting the situation; you claim the toy may have a copyright notice on the bottom. The thing is, it is not possible to conclusively show nonexistence, so once I have eliminated the obvious case of the packaging, the burden of proof is on you to find the copyright notice, because burden of proof is always on the side against that which cannot realistically be expected to provide definitive evidence. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:10, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
- Again, I can't see how you have demonstrated the notice isn't on the package as well. All I see is unreadable text. FunkMonk (talk) 11:10, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
- On the left, the first line is "Spaulding Dinosaur Company" (no reference to copyright) and the second line is "Made in USA." On the right, the first line is "for ages 4 and up" and the second line is "non toxic materials." -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:46, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
- Again, I can't see how you have demonstrated the notice isn't on the package as well. All I see is unreadable text. FunkMonk (talk) 11:10, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
- You are distorting the situation; you claim the toy may have a copyright notice on the bottom. The thing is, it is not possible to conclusively show nonexistence, so once I have eliminated the obvious case of the packaging, the burden of proof is on you to find the copyright notice, because burden of proof is always on the side against that which cannot realistically be expected to provide definitive evidence. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:10, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
- You could basically take a picture of anything copyrighted and just claim it is PD because you don't care to find out whether it is or not. A picture like this should only be kept if it was clear that it is PD, and it certainly isn't clear here. Nothing "paranoid" about that. FunkMonk (talk) 07:27, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
- For all we know, the copyright notice could be inside the figure; how do you check that then? Really, we need to avoid copyright paranoia and not question every single possible detail. I think it is far more likely (than anything you're suggesting regarding this image that would make it non-PD) that a user claims something as "own work" when it's really not. Do we want to demand that every uploader claiming own work provide "proof" (beats me how you'd do that with complete certainty) that they actually created it? -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:21, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
- How can you be so sure? And for all we know, the notice could be underneath the figures, that is often the case. FunkMonk (talk) 04:59, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
- Here's a bigger version: [3]. You still can't read the text perfectly, but it is almost certainly not a copyright notice. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:09, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
- There is text in the bottom corners, might be copyright notice. FunkMonk (talk) 10:12, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
- 1) According to [2]. I do not see a copyright notice. 2) Publication is just mass production of identical copies of the toy. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:12, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
- According to what? And is a toy "published"? FunkMonk (talk) 06:25, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
![[2]](http://www.dinosaurcollector.150m.com/company_files/SDC_GR-DINO1.jpg){kind=link}
Kept Jcb (talk) 14:12, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
Ticket#: 2011050310002971 "I do not own the website I found the image on." MorganKevinJ(talk) 06:14, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jcb (talk) 14:13, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
No author given, but {{Attribution}} requires the author: ...The copyright holder of this file allows anyone to use it for any purpose, provided that the copyright holder is properly attributed. ... GeorgHH • talk 07:46, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
- Question Could someone check the OTRS ticket? --Skeezix1000 (talk) 00:23, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
Kept: resolved Jcb (talk) 14:17, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
Файл не свободен, так как является сканировкой из книги. Максимов2 (talk) 12:03, 3 May 2011 (UTC) Файл не свободен, так как является сканировкой из книги. Максимов2 (talk) 08:01, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jcb (talk) 14:18, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
Universal Studio globe
[edit]
This is a derivative work (for those familiar with the issue, there is no freedom of panorama in the US, and this item was erected 1990 at the earliest, so it is almost certainly still under copyright). Magog the Ogre (talk) 13:22, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: No FOP in US. Skeezix1000 (talk) 00:48, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
Original uploader/photographer requested deletion due to personality rights of the depicted person. This image was only uploaded to get it retouched in the dewp photography workshop which has been done now: File:Bünting Teemuseum.jpg and File:Bünting Teemuseum-2.jpg. Saibo (Δ) 14:42, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
All that is true. I agree with the deletion. --Lindi44 (talk) 19:02, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jcb (talk) 14:20, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
only a temporary file to explain something. So serious use. Eddylandzaat (talk) 16:44, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jcb (talk) 14:24, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jcb (talk) 14:27, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
Bad quality image Art-top (talk) 18:35, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
Kept: in use Jcb (talk) 13:47, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
Сopyright on image. Besides this picture pretty low quality. Art-top (talk) 18:55, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jcb (talk) 13:47, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
Picture too small and poorly cropped to be useful for the project's purpose. Art-top (talk) 19:43, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
Kept: usage could be possible Jcb (talk) 13:48, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
These banknotes were issued by a private company (see ru:Уральские франки), not by the Russian government. Thus, copyright belongs to the company (or the banknote artist) and {{PD-RU-exempt}} cannot be applied here. Shureg (talk) 19:51, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jcb (talk) 14:27, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
"Tobarum" is a sock puppetry to avoid detection. Several IP used by this user have been blocked; an article has been protected also. And there are a lot of images uploaded by "ingusername" and "zarzar" (the same person) that have been deleted by administrators in Commons. Also, the image is not useful. Paolazaccardi (talk) 20:27, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: copyright situation unclear Jcb (talk) 14:30, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
Files of User:ToJa55
[edit]These are very likely derative works of a TV-emission. Look at File:Senit.png.
RE rillke questions? 20:37, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
- Delete - In a curious coincidence, I nominated the same images for deletion at the same time for similar reasons. I could not trace any of the images to a website, but given that all the users previous uploads have been deleted as copyright violations, I strongly suspect these are as well, possibly from TV. CT Cooper · talk 20:47, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Masur (talk) 20:26, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
Poor quality, superceded, e. g. Methane-2D-square.png among others. Yikrazuul (talk<×/span>) 21:04, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
- Info. The picture is the result of the \chemfig{C(-[:0]H)(-[:90]H)(-[:180]H)(-[:270]H)} LaTeX rendering. --Dereckson (talk) 12:09, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
- Keep. Image is in scope, as used on b:LaTeX/Creating Graphics. --Dereckson (talk) 12:08, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
Kept: in use Jcb (talk) 14:32, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
- File:Palestinians_criticism_not_allowed2.jpg
- File:Palestinians_criticism_not_allowed3.jpg
- File:Palestinians_criticism_not_allowed4.jpg
Out of scope; unused private artwork. –Tryphon☂ 21:22, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
- The current license of the original image allows to create derivative work from it. TheCuriousGnome (talk) 21:28, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
- Sure, but it doesn't mean we have to host every possible derivative. –Tryphon☂ 21:31, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
- Are you suggesting that wikicommons is only allowed to host pro-Palestinian/pro-Islamist propaganda images and not any other images and/or derivative images which are opposite that approach? TheCuriousGnome (talk) 17:34, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
- No, TheCuriousGnome, what he's suggesting is your images aren't an educative resource or aren't usable to illustrate a concept.
- It could be very strange to understand but sometimes, people could give an EXTERNAL point of view on a Palestine/Israel related picture without siding with one or other point.
- Tryphon, aren't those pictures usable to demonstrate the tendency of people to accept or justify violence where a cause is right? If so, that could be in scope.
- Now, I think the answer of TheCuriousGnome means the works is propaganda and am not sure than to host propaganda and not factual images is in the Commons Scope. --Dereckson (talk) 12:16, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
- Are you suggesting that wikicommons is only allowed to host pro-Palestinian/pro-Islamist propaganda images and not any other images and/or derivative images which are opposite that approach? TheCuriousGnome (talk) 17:34, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
- Sure, but it doesn't mean we have to host every possible derivative. –Tryphon☂ 21:31, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
- Strongly delete. The image violates the moral right of the author, used as derived to express the opposite idea the original work wanted to . This image isn't a caricature as it doesn't portray the other message or used in such a way. The Berne convention, article 6 bis, provides: "Independent of the author's economic rights, and even after the transfer of the said rights, the author shall have the right to claim authorship of the work and to object to any distortion, mutilation or other modification of, or other derogatory action in relation to the said work, which would be prejudicial to the author's honor or reputation.". --Dereckson (talk) 12:22, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
- Delete as they are personal artworks, violate the original author's moral rights as well as not being educational as they have no basis in reality. // Liftarn (talk)
Deleted: out of scope Jcb (talk) 14:37, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
I'm doing this deletion request on behalf of Sonko71 (talk), who is the uploader of the picture. He says it is "false information". Darwin Ahoy! 21:41, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
Kept: he will need to be more comprehensive in his nomination reason Jcb (talk) 14:41, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
