Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2011/05/22
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
|
|
Ugly Ozankra (talk) 20:21, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Especially not your own work, copyright violation. Martin H. (talk) 22:23, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
Out of scope; unused private artwork. Hold and wave (talk) 21:57, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
- The logo in the middle, the three people, appears to be some alternative logo from the Mafia PC game. Copyright violation therefore. --Martin H. (talk) 22:17, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
Deleted, copyright violation per Martin H.; clearly a simple collage of images not by the uploader and therefore the uploader cannot copyright it as "own work". Infrogmation (talk) 23:30, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
Something titled "Official photo" is own work? Seems doubtful, especially with such low res. -mattbuck (Talk) 20:16, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
Delete Copyvio [1] --> identical pixel resolution + file name.--Gunnex (talk) 10:33, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio, also from http://addmbariri.blogspot.com/2011/02/bispo-manoel-ferreira-pastor-presidente.html Túrelio (talk) 13:48, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
Not sure where this photo is from originally, but the authorship claim is dubious. The Commons and Flickr accounts have the same name and this image has Flickr date info that predates the one linked as the "source". Chaser (talk) 03:46, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
- Delete This is a flickrwash. The ultra small resolution is another clue. --Leoboudv (talk) 05:34, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
Deleted High Contrast (talk) 09:32, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
broken image? not used Avron (talk) 16:22, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
- Delete per nom --Slfi (talk) 11:58, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
Deleted High Contrast (talk) 09:32, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
broken image? not used Avron (talk) 16:30, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
Deleted High Contrast (talk) 09:32, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
Personal picture, not usefull for educational purposes. Out of scope. Martin H. (talk) 18:32, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
Deleted High Contrast (talk) 09:43, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
Low res and lack of metadata make me suspect a copyvio. -mattbuck (Talk) 22:14, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
Or because it was taken with a cell phone and copied into different files in my personal archives multiple times? --Brow276 (talk) 23:15, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
- Hmm, cell phones from 2010 would very likely write EXIF data and by digital copying EXIF data don't get simply lost. --Túrelio (talk) 08:38, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
Not used now doesn't mean it won't be used in the future. This isn't pornography. --Brow276 (talk) 07:43, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Three copyvios from the same user, and he is talking about "cell phone" or "personal archives". --Yikrazuul (talk) 17:46, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
- hi yikrazuul; i see we're back to the same old arguement:
- claimed copyvio has not been proven in ANY of these 3 cases; suspicion is not proof, & it is bad form to use unfounded allegations in stating your position, especially when it involves accusing the motives of another user. you should review the basic wikimedia principle of "assume good faith", before writing such things; on every "porn-deletion" you chose to become involved with.
Keep; request more info/details from uploader. "suspicion is not proof"; if we applied "suspected copyvio", therefore delete, based on the criteria cited, then there are a few hundred-thousand OTHER files on commons, that have to be removed
- also, disagree; image fits scope @ commons. nominator went "on a spree" deleting every file uploader has provided, with same basic rationale "suspect copyvio, file has no value" Lx 121 (talk) 18:10, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Highly likely not the own work of the uploader: per COM:PRP High Contrast (talk) 09:36, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
Jestem jego autorem i nie chcę by oglądano moje fotografie. Szymon 22:39, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
- Keep license is non-revokable, uploaded in 2008. MKFI (talk) 09:14, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
Kept Jcb (talk) 12:47, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
Jestem jego autorem i nie chcę by oglądano moje fotografie. Szymon 22:39, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
- Keep license is non-revokable, uploaded in 2008. MKFI (talk) 09:14, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
Kept Jcb (talk) 12:47, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
Jestem jego autorem i nie chcę by oglądano moje fotografie. Szymon 22:44, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
- Keep license is non-revokable, uploaded in 2008. MKFI (talk) 09:14, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
Kept Jcb (talk) 12:47, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
Jestem jego autorem i nie chcę by oglądano moje fotografie. Szymon 22:44, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
Kept Jcb (talk) 12:47, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
Jestem jego autorem i nie chcę by oglądano moje fotografie. Szymon 22:44, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
- Keep license is non-revokable, uploaded in 2008. MKFI (talk) 09:14, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
Kept Jcb (talk) 12:47, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
Jestem jego autorem i nie chcę by oglądano moje fotografie. Szymon 22:44, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
- Keep license is non-revokable, uploaded in 2008. MKFI (talk) 09:15, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
Kept Jcb (talk) 12:47, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
Jestem jego autorem i nie chcę by oglądano moje fotografie. Szymon 22:44, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
Kept Jcb (talk) 12:47, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
No evidence of permission Morefoolhim (talk) 23:15, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Probable copyvio. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:50, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
Deleted High Contrast (talk) 09:44, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
No evidence of permission Morefoolhim (talk) 23:18, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Probable copyvio. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:50, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
Deleted High Contrast (talk) 09:44, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
outside project scope DS (talk) 23:59, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
Deleted High Contrast (talk) 09:44, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
out of scope Slfi (talk) 16:49, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
Deleted High Contrast (talk) 20:45, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
out of scope Slfi (talk) 16:52, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
Deleted High Contrast (talk) 20:46, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
missing permission, to edited to be useful Slfi (talk) 16:55, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
Deleted High Contrast (talk) 20:46, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
out of scope, maybe copyvio Slfi (talk) 16:57, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
Deleted High Contrast (talk) 20:46, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
maybe copyvio, useless format Slfi (talk) 16:57, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
Deleted High Contrast (talk) 20:46, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
Jestem jego autorem i nie chcę by oglądano moje fotografie. Szymon 22:44, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Uploader wants this image deleted because he is recognizable on this photo. I respect that. High Contrast (talk) 20:47, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
self-promo, private photo Andrei Nikolaenko (talk) 10:55, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
Deleted High Contrast (talk) 08:06, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
Out of scope Sankoswal (talk) 10:54, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
- Delete: Unused vanity photo of non-notable individual. Outside project scope. --DAJF (talk) 11:33, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 19:08, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
This file is a personal photo that has no educational value. It is out of scope per COM:SELFIE. KSFT (talk) 13:08, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --INeverCry 00:47, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
Unused low-quality (blurred) selfie of a non-notable individual. Outside project scope. DAJF (talk) 13:54, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 23:34, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
Unused selfie of non-notable individual. Outside project scope. DAJF (talk) 01:09, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
- Delete I suggest to protect the filename indefinitely against recreation after deletion of the photo. Overall generic filename. Taivo (talk) 09:03, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 13:24, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
Personal image, out of project scope. ■ MMXX talk 11:03, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jcb (talk) 17:15, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
not original work, scanned in from newspaper Hold and wave (talk) 21:50, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jcb (talk) 17:18, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
Not original work, scanned in from newspaper Hold and wave (talk) 21:52, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jcb (talk) 17:18, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
Jestem jego autorem i nie chcę być już oglądany. Szymon 22:38, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
Kept: License is irrevocable Jcb (talk) 17:20, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
=== File:RGB-Farbmischung_aus_GMZ.png ===
Correction of colour (falsification from unawareness) not needed!Perhelion (talk) 23:38, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
- Dieser versteckte und unpassend begründete Löschantrag (LA) scheint mir nur ein Troll- oder Vandalismusversuch zu sein, siehe auch „Vorlage Diskussion:Farbdarstellung#Farbmischungen bitte korrigieren“. Hier sollte also entweder eine passendere Begründung gestellt oder der LA einfach abgewiesen werden.
- --92.224.249.211 08:22, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
- Im jetzigen Zustand macht das Bild eindeutig keinen Sinn, zudem ist es eine verwirrende Verfälschung von einem was Sinn macht: File:Farb-Check-RGB.png. Daher treffen hier wohl 2 relevante Löschgründe zu. Den Antrag hatte ich zwar in der dortigen Diss. angekündigt, wohl jedoch nicht direkt dem eigentlichen Uploader. Deutsche Kommentare werde hier auch gelegentlich gerne ignoriert. Eine fachlich sachlich korrekte Lösung des Uploaders sehe ich nicht.
- The file is not realistically useful for an educational purpose.
- Files that add nothing educationally distinct to the collection of images we already hold covering the same subject, especially if they are of poor or mediocre quality.
Das hier erst ein Bild von der deutschen Wikipedia in dieses Commons geschoben wurde, dann hier Wochen später ohne Ankündigung ein versteckter LA gestellt und dabei auch noch wie selbstverständlich angegeben wird, daß deutsche Beiträge gerne mal ignoriert werden, das macht noch viel weniger Sinn und sieht aus meiner Perspektive immernoch wie Vandalismus aus. Hinzu kommt dann noch, daß mit der Löschung des Bildes auch mal ebenso nebenbei die Grundlage für eine Diskussion entzogen wird. Dieses Commons hier sollte daher künftig besser gemieden werden.
Im Übrigen geht es bei diesem Bild hier nicht nur um die möglicherweise tatsächliche Falschverwendung für eine Gammakorrektur, sondern vielmehr auch um die im Bildnamen genannte Farbmischung, die – wie in der oben verlinkten Diskussion bereits belegt wurde – wohl durchaus korrekt sein dürfte.
--92.226.62.75 16:43, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
- Ja Commons hat auch seine Nachteile. Da die Diskussion wohl noch nicht beendet ist, ziehe ich den LA zurück. Eine Verwendung als Farbmischung wage ich jedoch zu bezweifeln. --Perhelion (talk) 20:51, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
Kept, Perhelion (talk) 20:51, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
No other contributions by this user and a description suggestive of a mental disorder diagnosis for the woman depicted. Jmabel ! talk 02:54, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope unused private photo George Chernilevsky talk 11:08, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
Tried to change it, but I prefer not to have personal pictures on Wikimedia Pepijntje (talk) 13:17, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
- It's a nice illustration of ... something, but I'd suggest delete as unwanted personal image. NVO (talk) 06:02, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
- (EC) Delete Even though it is in use and CC licenses are irrevocable, I think it would be an act of goodwill to respect their privacy. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:03, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: per above (and the new WMF resolution) Trycatch (talk) 02:36, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
Seems to be a hap-hazardly placed licensing on Flickr, as there is a copyright notice in the image description for someone that does not appear to be the Flickr account holder. Chaser (talk) 04:00, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
- Delete I noticed the copyright notice too. That's why I didn't mark it. The photographer and flickr account holder are different people. This cannot be kept. --Leoboudv (talk) 05:36, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
- Permission or Delete. Posted to Flickr May 19, 2011, this is some bad example of license laundering. --Martin H. (talk) 09:41, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
Comment Fidelio Artist appears to be a legitimate company, so license laundering is unlikely. I want to know why they would mark this (and a few others) CC-BY-SA when everything else in their photostream is all rights reserved. This is why I suspect the photographer may have chosen to release it under that license. Somebody try and ask them what's up? -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:17, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
- I'll defer to the uploader, who was notified of this discussion.--Chaser (talk) 23:04, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 20:07, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT http://www.dailytimes.com.ng/article/nafissatou-diallo-maid-assaulted-imf-chief-dominique-strauss-kahn Lpdrew (talk) 05:31, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
Support The claim to own the copyright is plainly false. Also cogent is the French Wiki's Affaire Dominique Strauss-Kahn's naming of this person despite the Anglo-Saxon tradition of privacy for alleged rape victims, whereas the Wikipedia server is American, and with scant regard for the sensibilities expressed and consensus reached at the English Wiki Dominique Strauss-Kahn sexual assault case. FightingMac (talk) 14:18, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 20:08, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
COM:DW 78.55.74.109 06:15, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 20:08, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
This upload by a user with no prior contributions, no image metadata and unclear source information ("internet") is very likely a copyright violation. Sandstein (talk) 08:50, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 20:10, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
Non-free as work of the government of the Philippines. see en:Template:Non-free Philippines government. Bluemask (talk) 09:35, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 20:11, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
Non-free as work of the government of the Philippines. see en:Template:Non-free Philippines government. Bluemask (talk) 09:40, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 20:11, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
Non-free as work of the government of the Philippines. see en:Template:Non-free Philippines government. Bluemask (talk) 09:40, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 20:11, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
no evidence of original work, looks scanned in, metadata looks like scan Hold and wave (talk) 10:03, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
- Keep It doesn't matter who made it, in fact he almost certainly did not make it himself (unless webcam) because it's a picture of himself. But 1) it is a candid photo made at the request of the subject (satisfying copyright) and 2) it is in use, and the uploader is not known for using this as his Myspace (satisfying project scope). -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:08, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
Kept Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 20:17, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
Shitting dog in the category Kuks? Were is the educational value? I think that the user uploaded a wrong file. :D alofok* 10:33, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
- Who knows. Maybe it is important in 20 years, when some important person hangs on the tree that was nourished by this evil minded dog. ^^ -- ／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ 苦情処理係 10:48, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
- Put it in the correct Category:Dogs defecating --Paddy (talk) 11:18, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
- Then Keep. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:03, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
- Keep Now in correct category. I added note about this sculpture in the background. --Dezidor (talk) 14:59, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
- Comment Deletion request was withdrew by Alofok. [2] --Dezidor (talk) 16:41, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
Kept Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 20:17, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
bad quality, naming, exact version of File:Anne Catherine Constance Vasa.jpg BurgererSF (talk) 11:24, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
- I don't see why this version is any worse than the suggested one. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 19:01, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
Kept: not exact dupe -- different size, contrast, depth of detail -- hard to say which is better, no reason not to keep both. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 20:20, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
The image in the middle is from this flickr page, the flickr user is creating creative montages or collages based on not self-created, unfree photos. Therefore this is a flickrvio. Martin H. (talk) 11:43, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
- Delete per nom: montage of unfree photos. Jujutacular talk 04:25, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 20:23, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
Prawa autorskie zostały naruszone przez inne strony. Proszę o usunięcie kategorycznie wszystkich moich plikow. Pozdrawiam 83.7.88.108 12:05, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
Kept It is not your file -- IP users cannot make uploads. We must have more information of why you think this file is a problem.
Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 20:24, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
no evidence of first publication occurring prior to January 1, 1923. - could be anytime in 20's, 30's, 40,s or 50's Hold and wave (talk) 13:51, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 20:27, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
Photograph of an 3D object, the photographic work is not public domain. Commons:When to use the PD-Art tag (although its not used here, just some PD-old-100 tag which is not applicable for this photo) Martin H. (talk) 14:39, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
- Keep Why not public domain? It's too old that copyright holder is already few thousands years dead.--Slfi (talk) 20:56, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
- The copyright holder is the photographer. The photographer is not dead for thouhsand years. --Martin H. (talk) 20:58, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
- Delete sorry, photo itself is not public domain--Slfi (talk) 20:59, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 20:28, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
Only the line drawing is PD. FunkMonk (talk) 14:43, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
- Oppose What line drawing?? You need to give fuller rationales than this. The cave has been closed to the public since 1963, & I very much doubt flash-photography was allowed even before that. This appears to be one of the official photographs taken soon after WW2, so photographers copyright has expired. Sadly, if it were taken more recently it would probably show the mould infestation that has plagued the site. It would qualify for fair-use rationales on many pages, so should at most be transferred to at least the English WP. Johnbod (talk) 19:07, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
- Oppose, at least until rationale is provided. 92.24.127.198 19:48, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
- Oppose: PD without copyright, tag appears to be placed without any solid reason. There are multiple images similar to this on Commons, all the others seem to be fine. Montanabw (talk) 20:50, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
- Should be obvious that the "line drawing" is the cave painting itself. That is PD, but the photo of the cave, which is a three-dimensional structure, is not. And why should this be PD old if it was taken after WW2? If we don't know who the author is, we can have no idea. And Montana, those other pictures you mentioned are either user-made or PD with proper sources to confirm it, this specific image is one I uploaded because I overlooked the fact that it is actually a picture of the interior of a cave, thus not 2D art. See also here:[3] FunkMonk (talk) 00:31, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
- It isn't a line drawing at all, but a painting. I'm not sure how the term of copyright for published photos taken in France works, but it is likely to be 50 years from publication, is it not? It may well be public PD anyway. How there can be any "user-made" photos of the cave I can't see. Johnbod (talk) 18:38, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
- But this is not about the painting/drawing/whatever, it is about the photo. The photo itself is not PD, because the artwork is not entirely two-dimensional (the rock wall). FunkMonk (talk) 20:17, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
- The work is PD; the photo becomes PD when the photographer's copyright expires, or if it is released (by the French government). Johnbod (talk) 17:47, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
- But neither of those cases have been shown to apply to this image. All we know is that it's a photo of a cave painting, nothing more. FunkMonk (talk) 17:50, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
- The same is true of all the photos of the original cave that we have. Why pick on this one? Johnbod (talk) 19:18, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
- Nope, since all the other images of the cave have been taken by the uploaders. This specific image is just one I found on the web and has no source info at all, therefore I "picked on this one". FunkMonk (talk) 19:23, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
- Most of the images in the category are of the replica cave, but those of the real cave cannot (almost certainly) have been taken by the uploaders, for the reasons explained above. Johnbod (talk) 17:42, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
- Anyway, this deletion request is not about other photos, for which anybody may start deletion requests, if they think their respective uploaders lied about being the authors, and then that can be debated there on the merits of each case. But this deletion request, here and now, is about this photo, for which the fact is undisputed that the uploader never claimed to be the author, and he requests deletion on the grounds of having made a honest mistake in applying PD-Art. I understand that the uploader is nominating this image for deletion because he has direct knowledge that he is not the author of this photo, while he does not have direct knowledge about other people's uploads, which are not the object of this deletion request. -- Asclepias (talk) 22:47, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
- Most of the images in the category are of the replica cave, but those of the real cave cannot (almost certainly) have been taken by the uploaders, for the reasons explained above. Johnbod (talk) 17:42, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
- Nope, since all the other images of the cave have been taken by the uploaders. This specific image is just one I found on the web and has no source info at all, therefore I "picked on this one". FunkMonk (talk) 19:23, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
- The same is true of all the photos of the original cave that we have. Why pick on this one? Johnbod (talk) 19:18, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
- But neither of those cases have been shown to apply to this image. All we know is that it's a photo of a cave painting, nothing more. FunkMonk (talk) 17:50, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
- The work is PD; the photo becomes PD when the photographer's copyright expires, or if it is released (by the French government). Johnbod (talk) 17:47, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
- But this is not about the painting/drawing/whatever, it is about the photo. The photo itself is not PD, because the artwork is not entirely two-dimensional (the rock wall). FunkMonk (talk) 20:17, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
- It isn't a line drawing at all, but a painting. I'm not sure how the term of copyright for published photos taken in France works, but it is likely to be 50 years from publication, is it not? It may well be public PD anyway. How there can be any "user-made" photos of the cave I can't see. Johnbod (talk) 18:38, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
- Should be obvious that the "line drawing" is the cave painting itself. That is PD, but the photo of the cave, which is a three-dimensional structure, is not. And why should this be PD old if it was taken after WW2? If we don't know who the author is, we can have no idea. And Montana, those other pictures you mentioned are either user-made or PD with proper sources to confirm it, this specific image is one I uploaded because I overlooked the fact that it is actually a picture of the interior of a cave, thus not 2D art. See also here:[3] FunkMonk (talk) 00:31, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
- Not sure what to make of this, a smaller version of the image was uploaded prior to the one I uploaded, and labelled as "self-made": http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Lascaux_04.jpg FunkMonk (talk) 19:31, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
- Few people understand these badly described labels. Johnbod (talk) 17:42, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
- Comment: I suppose the result should be consistent with Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Paleo ptg lascaux unicorn.jpg. -- Asclepias (talk) 22:47, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 20:32, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
small size, source is a website. unclear if uploader is the copyrightholder Avron (talk) 16:15, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 20:34, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
wrong license Scanner62 (talk) 16:35, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
- Delete copyvio--Slfi (talk) 21:02, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
Comment Any evidence for copyright violation? --High Contrast (talk) 08:07, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 20:34, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
Photo of some castle used to boast in some self-promotion article. en:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Franck Bossi. From what I know from google this building is not conected to the person in any way, the information is possibly wrong, according to the quality and size of the photo the image itself is also not self-created. Martin H. (talk) 18:09, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 20:35, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
Simple text contribution, not in scope of Commons. Commons:Alcance del proyecto#Contenido educativo excluido. Martin H. (talk) 18:25, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Demmo (talk) 07:59, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 20:35, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
- It's not the Vykhino-Zhulebino Moscow district view actually on the picture. It's Veshnyaki district view, as seen from the "Vykhino" train station side.
- Image has watermarks and bad overall quality.
- It's not used anywhere now.
- Person that loaded it was blocked in Russian Wikipedia, thus it is a problem even to contact him.
(and sorry for my bad English, I'm newbie here at Commons) Grayed (talk) 18:33, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
- Keep The quality is OK, and it shows a street with apartments in the background, so it could potentially be useful. The watermarking can be removed, and the file can be renamed if its title is incorrect. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:55, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
- There are much better pictures of this area available, including free ones (example). I also should note that person loaded photo had many warnings in Russian Wikipedia related to possible and actual copyright violations: [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9] (sorry, I do not know how to make those links internal here). So it's possible that this photo is not even "an own work".
- Yes, but he has many uploads using the camera "KODAK EASYSHARE C315 DIGITAL CAMERA," which is a cheap point-and-shoot that is very plausible for him to have. His other photos also have a yellow datemark in the lower right, suggesting consistency. Just because he has uploaded copyvios doesn't mean that everything he's uploaded is a copyvio. And again, we don't delete images just for being of lower quality than others. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:04, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
- OK, thanks, I got the point. Should the file be renamed then to, say, "Veshnyaki view from Vykhino railway station, Moscow, Russia.jpg" or "Krasniy Kazanec near Vikhino railway station, Moscow, Russia.jpg" (Krasniy Kazanec is the street being seen there)? Grayed (talk) 17:55, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
- Well I don't know anything about the place, so that's your judgment call. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:11, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
- OK, I'll rename this file to "Krasniy Kazanec near Vikhino railway station, Moscow, Russia.jpg" then. What should I do with current delete request and file page (except, obviously, renaming)? Grayed (talk) 23:18, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
- You put {{Rename}} on the file page, specifying what you want it to be renamed to. As for this request, put "nomination withdrawn" in bold letters below and an admin will close it. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:47, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
- Thank you again. Grayed (talk) 08:34, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
- You put {{Rename}} on the file page, specifying what you want it to be renamed to. As for this request, put "nomination withdrawn" in bold letters below and an admin will close it. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:47, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
- OK, I'll rename this file to "Krasniy Kazanec near Vikhino railway station, Moscow, Russia.jpg" then. What should I do with current delete request and file page (except, obviously, renaming)? Grayed (talk) 23:18, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
- Well I don't know anything about the place, so that's your judgment call. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:11, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
- OK, thanks, I got the point. Should the file be renamed then to, say, "Veshnyaki view from Vykhino railway station, Moscow, Russia.jpg" or "Krasniy Kazanec near Vikhino railway station, Moscow, Russia.jpg" (Krasniy Kazanec is the street being seen there)? Grayed (talk) 17:55, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, but he has many uploads using the camera "KODAK EASYSHARE C315 DIGITAL CAMERA," which is a cheap point-and-shoot that is very plausible for him to have. His other photos also have a yellow datemark in the lower right, suggesting consistency. Just because he has uploaded copyvios doesn't mean that everything he's uploaded is a copyvio. And again, we don't delete images just for being of lower quality than others. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:04, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
- There are much better pictures of this area available, including free ones (example). I also should note that person loaded photo had many warnings in Russian Wikipedia related to possible and actual copyright violations: [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9] (sorry, I do not know how to make those links internal here). So it's possible that this photo is not even "an own work".
For administrators: nomination withdrawn, file is now proposed for rename after current discussion.
Kept: renamed and kept Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 20:37, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
Simple text contribution, out of scope. Commons:Alcance del proyecto#Contenido educativo excluido Martin H. (talk) 18:59, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 20:38, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
No proper source information. The claim that it was "self made" was not made by the uploader. The uploader only stated that it came from his or her "personal archive," which doesn't say anything about who actually created the photograph. —LX (talk, contribs) 20:07, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
- Actually you are right. I changed to "self made" because it seemed plausible to assume it, due to PD-self tag and picture metadata. I left a message for her (at pt.wp) asking for further information. Giro720 (talk) 20:42, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
- Thank you for responding. Part of the reason I'm concerned is that the uploader has previously uploaded files including File:Paisagem urbana do município de Padre Bernardo.jpg (taken from http://www.panoramio.com/photo/29221229, where it is clearly marked all rights reserved) and File:Mancha urbana de Padre Bernardo - Goiás.JPG (non-free Google content claimed to be the uploader's "own work"). Given that the uploader seems to have such little understanding or care of what makes one the author or copyright holder of a work, I'd like to know more about how the file ended up in their personal archive before I am willing to believe they are actually the author and copyright holder. —LX (talk, contribs) 20:56, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
Rather than participating in this discussion, the uploader just chose to blank the template pointing to it. —LX (talk, contribs) 08:45, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 20:39, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
Non-free derivative photograph of a presumably copyrighted, modern statue, not covered by Commons:FOP in its country Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:59, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 20:46, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
Not (as claimed) own work: see http://detektorysci.pl/zdjecia-z-mazowsza/rzezba-delfina-z-ogrodow-villa-regia/?action=dlattach;attach=4560;PHPSESSID=f73bcea59c95671a04529d9d5c4cd2d1 Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 22:22, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
- Own work, photo taken with my cell phone in the Historical Museum in 2008. Some similarity it's not a proof that I'm not an author, besides it's absurd as it concerns images taken at the museums where light and composition are usually the same. BurgererSF (talk) 12:36, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
- But the images are exactly the same. But if this is your own work, then why don't you upload the hi-res version with the exif-date from you camera. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 07:48, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
- Own work, photo taken with my cell phone in the Historical Museum in 2008. Some similarity it's not a proof that I'm not an author, besides it's absurd as it concerns images taken at the museums where light and composition are usually the same. BurgererSF (talk) 12:36, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: The two are taken from exactly the same angle -- the background has minor defects which are in exactly the same place in both. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 20:51, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
I uploaded this by mistake. After that I uploaded this file in another format, png. Muhammad (talk) 23:21, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 20:56, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
Correction of colour (falsification of falsified source) not needed! The poor test should now over. There are 3 other images (more realistic)
-
object -
-
-
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
![[2]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File%3ANov%C3%BD_les_u_Kuksu_%289%29.jpg&action=historysubmit&diff=54718944&oldid=54718758){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
![[3]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Aboriginal_thylacine.jpg){kind=link}
![[5]](https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9E%D0%B1%D1%81%D1%83%D0%B6%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%B5_%D1%83%D1%87%D0%B0%D1%81%D1%82%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%BA%D0%B0:Stoljaroff/%D0%90%D1%80%D1%85%D0%B8%D0%B2#.D0.A1.D1.82.D0.B0.D1.82.D1.83.D1.81_.D0.B8.D0.B7.D0.BE.D0.B1.D1.80.D0.B0.D0.B6.D0.B5.D0.BD.D0.B8.D1.8F_.D0.98.D0.B7.D0.BE.D0.B1.D1.80.D0.B0.D0.B6.D0.B5.D0.BD.D0.B8.D0.B5:.D0.A5.D0.A0.D0.92.D0.A1.D0.A5.D0.A0.jpg){kind=link}
![[6]](https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9E%D0%B1%D1%81%D1%83%D0%B6%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%B5_%D1%83%D1%87%D0%B0%D1%81%D1%82%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%BA%D0%B0:Stoljaroff/%D0%90%D1%80%D1%85%D0%B8%D0%B2#.D0.A1.D1.82.D0.B0.D1.82.D1.83.D1.81_.D0.B8.D0.B7.D0.BE.D0.B1.D1.80.D0.B0.D0.B6.D0.B5.D0.BD.D0.B8.D1.8F_.D0.98.D0.B7.D0.BE.D0.B1.D1.80.D0.B0.D0.B6.D0.B5.D0.BD.D0.B8.D0.B5:Unholan_urut.jpg){kind=link}
![[7]](https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9E%D0%B1%D1%81%D1%83%D0%B6%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%B5_%D1%83%D1%87%D0%B0%D1%81%D1%82%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%BA%D0%B0:Stoljaroff/%D0%90%D1%80%D1%85%D0%B8%D0%B2#.D0.A1.D1.82.D0.B0.D1.82.D1.83.D1.81_.D0.B8.D0.B7.D0.BE.D0.B1.D1.80.D0.B0.D0.B6.D0.B5.D0.BD.D0.B8.D1.8F_.D0.98.D0.B7.D0.BE.D0.B1.D1.80.D0.B0.D0.B6.D0.B5.D0.BD.D0.B8.D0.B5:275px-Konstsud.jpg){kind=link}
![[9]](https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9E%D0%B1%D1%81%D1%83%D0%B6%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%B5_%D1%83%D1%87%D0%B0%D1%81%D1%82%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%BA%D0%B0:Stoljaroff/%D0%90%D1%80%D1%85%D0%B8%D0%B2#.D0.98.D0.B7.D0.BE.D0.B1.D1.80.D0.B0.D0.B6.D0.B5.D0.BD.D0.B8.D0.B5:100_0361.jpg){kind=link}
- Keep We normally keep all versions. If these are illustrations as part of a discussion on what the correct colours should be, then that discussion only makes sense if the images are still visible (remember that these are wiki projects, there is always a history that later people might want to make sense of even if you don't archive the discussion). Just mark any test versions with Category:Image detail for discussion and remove them from the main categories if they will cause confusion there. If the images are alternative photographs by different people we also keep them. --Tony Wills (talk) 07:52, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
- Ok, that would be a reason, but as example for a bad (or wrong) image that would be a generally keep for everything!? So such images must better declared with a info-template (instead of just a category.)!? Because this images were not declared and used in real articles. -- Perhelion (talk) 15:29, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
Kept Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 20:57, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
To me, the image likes as a logo and the page of Marcolini say: "© Marcolini". See: http://www.marcolini.be/ " and http://www.marcolini.be/#/en/pierre-marcolini/ . Copyvio--Miguel Bugallo 16:04, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
- The main topic of the image is a luxury chocolate box. The luxury requirement requests a logo from one of the fine chocolatiers (Neuhaus, Pierre Marcolini, maybe Bruyère (but here we down from one category), Galler being discarded as they've a more broad set of products available in hypermarkets).
- Could the logo be considered de minimis in such cases? I'm rather skeptical, as it's the logo which confers the luxury characteristic to the picture. --Dereckson (talk) 18:25, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
- Keep. I think what Mike Godwin said about wine bottles applies here. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:33, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
- Comment Ok, but to me it's
free(fair) use--Miguel Bugallo 20:13, 23 May 2011 (UTC)- (I think you mean fair use) There is a difference between fair use and de minimus. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:10, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
- Comment Also is a derivative work with source in http://www.marcolini.be/ ("© Marcolini"). The Berne Convention say "Copyright under the Berne Convention must be automatic; it is prohibited to require formal registration". If it's not a logo, it's a artistic work--Miguel Bugallo 07:41, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
- Again, how is this different from wine bottles? ("I don't believe there's a copyright problem with photographs of wine-bottle labels. In the absence of a complaint from wine makers, I would not worry about the issue" [Mike Godwin].) -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:52, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Sorry, I can't say these words in english (I will look for a person who translates these words). (Español) El motivo fundamental por el cual considero que la imagen debería ser borrada, además de lo expuesto, es el siguiente: Commons aporta a todo el mundo (Chima, Taiwan, España, EEUU...) imágenes que permiten obras derivadas y uso comercial. Esta imagen, si se mantiene en Commons con esta licencia, permite que cualquier persona la use con fines comerciales sin cometer delito. Si alguien la usa duplicando o imitando el producto, Commons comete delito pues "Marcolini" no ha admitido por escrito que esta imagen pueda ser publicada permitiendo obras derivadas y uso comercial. La imagen necesita aprobación mediante OTRS. Marcolini tiene derecho a expresar si desea que esa imagen sea compartida publicamente permitiendo obras derivadas y uso comercial.
- Lo siento, por el momento estoy pensando en la imagen. Más tarde podré decirle a usted si las imágenes de botellas son en mi opinión violaciones de los derechos de autoría, o no lo son. Las imágenes hai que considerarlas, casi siempre, individualmente, o al menos al comienzo de una reflexión, en mi opinión.--Miguel Bugallo 11:44, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
Translation to english (thanks to my friends): The fundamental reason to consider that the image should be deleted, besides my previous exposition, is the following: Commons provides images throughout the world which allow derivative works and commercial use. This image, if kept with this license here, would allow anyone to use it commercially without commiting a crime. If it was reproduced to simulate the product Commons is commiting a crime, as "Marcolini" has not given his consent for derivative works or commercial use, so OTRS permission is needed. I'm sorry but I'm thinkng about the image for now. In my opinion, images must be considered individually, almost always so, later I will consider if, in my opinion, wine bottles are copyright violations or not.
- (Apologies for my bad Spanish) A mi parecer la imagen es fundamentalmente para retratar la caja, y no el logotipo. Aunque esta clase de imágenes no sean toda DM, creo que este deseño es más sencillo que File:Croix-Milhas.jpg o File:João Tavares Festas Clarete.JPG (en la galería de Commons:Deletion requests/Wine labels). -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 12:01, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
- Lo siento, discrepamos. Lo que usted dice, siendo el logotipo el centro de la imagen, es "fair use". Que en Commons hay muchos errores es algo que ya sé, no precisa decírmelo--Miguel Bugallo 12:10, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
- I can ask the opinion of the company, I can ask “Marcolini” his opinion on this image that allows commercial use, but it's not OTRS--Miguel Bugallo 12:23, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
- Y en File:Louvre Museum Wikimedia Commons.jpg la pirámide es el centro de la imagen también ... -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:13, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
- Pues solamente te puedo decir que no compruebo que sea esa pirámide el centro de la imagen porque creo en lo que me dices. La cuestión, entonces, no es si esta imagen es copyvio o no (cosa que me parece evidente: es copyvio), la cuestión será, en tal caso, dado lo que me planteas, si en Commons se admite o no "fair use", un "fair use" disimulado con argucias, pero "fair use". La cuestión es cuantas imágenes hay que borrar en Commons para que el proyecto sea lícito realmente. Para mí en Commons no se permite "fair use" y el "fair use" no se debe disimular. Pensamos diferente. Probablemente tengas razón y la imagen tenga cabida en Commons. En mi opinión, no tiene cabida. Yo me reservo el derecho de avisar a la empresa de lo que aquí ocurre. Pienso que tengo el mismo derecho en cualquier otro caso, en el de las botellas también, o en el de la pirámide (ni siquiera lo he mirado), pues antes de ser ciudadano de Commons, soy ciudadano. --Miguel Bugallo 19:03, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
- Ya he enviado un mensaje a la empresa--Miguel Bugallo 19:33, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
- Dentro de tres o cuatro días envíaré más mensajes, los enviaré hasta que me respondan--Miguel Bugallo 17:12, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
- Ya he enviado un mensaje a la empresa--Miguel Bugallo 19:33, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
- Pues solamente te puedo decir que no compruebo que sea esa pirámide el centro de la imagen porque creo en lo que me dices. La cuestión, entonces, no es si esta imagen es copyvio o no (cosa que me parece evidente: es copyvio), la cuestión será, en tal caso, dado lo que me planteas, si en Commons se admite o no "fair use", un "fair use" disimulado con argucias, pero "fair use". La cuestión es cuantas imágenes hay que borrar en Commons para que el proyecto sea lícito realmente. Para mí en Commons no se permite "fair use" y el "fair use" no se debe disimular. Pensamos diferente. Probablemente tengas razón y la imagen tenga cabida en Commons. En mi opinión, no tiene cabida. Yo me reservo el derecho de avisar a la empresa de lo que aquí ocurre. Pienso que tengo el mismo derecho en cualquier otro caso, en el de las botellas también, o en el de la pirámide (ni siquiera lo he mirado), pues antes de ser ciudadano de Commons, soy ciudadano. --Miguel Bugallo 19:03, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
- Y en File:Louvre Museum Wikimedia Commons.jpg la pirámide es el centro de la imagen también ... -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:13, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
- I can ask the opinion of the company, I can ask “Marcolini” his opinion on this image that allows commercial use, but it's not OTRS--Miguel Bugallo 12:23, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
- Lo siento, discrepamos. Lo que usted dice, siendo el logotipo el centro de la imagen, es "fair use". Que en Commons hay muchos errores es algo que ya sé, no precisa decírmelo--Miguel Bugallo 12:10, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
- (Apologies for my bad Spanish) A mi parecer la imagen es fundamentalmente para retratar la caja, y no el logotipo. Aunque esta clase de imágenes no sean toda DM, creo que este deseño es más sencillo que File:Croix-Milhas.jpg o File:João Tavares Festas Clarete.JPG (en la galería de Commons:Deletion requests/Wine labels). -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 12:01, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: De minimis does not apply (it's the only copyright-worthy part of the image). James F. (talk) 15:03, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
out of scope Jcb (talk) 13:27, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
- Delete per nom--Hold and wave (talk) 17:00, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Wknight94 talk 01:44, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
Promotional image of some sort. Likely copyrighted. No reason given to suggest that uploader is copyright holder. FASTILY (TALK) 09:11, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 20:09, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
Probable copyvio - user's other images were. Fairly low res, no meta. -mattbuck (Talk) 20:35, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
- Keep resolution is adequate, absence of metadata is irrelevant. can't judge the user's other files, because the nominator has already deleted them; BUT this pic appears to be a perfectly normal fan-photo. the uploader has also provided reasonably detailed info about time & place.
- also: we only have 12 photos of this person, in total, & this appears to be one of the most recent.
- so, i'm going with useful image, "assume good faith" (in the absence of proof), & "don't bite the noobs"
Kept. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 20:10, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
website source - "La Terra dei Fuochi / Video-Denunce" 2008 © Rights-Reserved Hold and wave (talk) 21:55, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
I received explicit authorization by the web site creator Angelo Ferillo. I have a mail message confirming this, if needed the author can be contacted again.--Guarracino (talk) 11:21, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
Please follow the procedure at Commons:OTRS. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 20:45, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
Author contacted and feedback received, pleace hold on, I'm waiting for his final reply.--Guarracino (talk) 13:04, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
- Comment - It has been over 2 weeks with no authorization confirmation.--Hold and wave (talk) 04:58, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
- @Guarracino, "Permesso concesso esplicitamente dagli autori per l'uso su Wikipedia" is not enough. It has to be free for anybody to use it. --Túrelio (talk) 14:56, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 20:10, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
website source - "La Terra dei Fuochi / Video-Denunce" 2008 © Rights-Reserved Hold and wave (talk) 21:55, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
- I received explicit authorization by the web site creator Angelo Ferillo. I have a mail message confirming this, if needed the author can be contacted again.--Guarracino (talk) 11:20, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
- Please follow the procedure at Commons:OTRS. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 20:47, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
Author contacted and feedback received, pleace hold on, I'm waiting for his final reply.--Guarracino (talk) 13:04, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
- Comment - It has been over 2 weeks with no authorization confirmation.--Hold and wave (talk) 04:58, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
- @Guarracino, "Permesso concesso esplicitamente dagli autori per l'uso su Wikipedia" is not enough. It has to be free for anybody to use it. --Túrelio (talk) 14:57, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 20:10, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
.png&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
the original file was updated -Thire (talk) 03:48, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
Kept: in use Jcb (talk) 10:20, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
Infringes copyright Lahore1994 (talk) 07:08, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
Breaks copyright law. Not for distribution or display. Bilalmohsin (talk) 07:09, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 20:09, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
At http://lb.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fichier:B%C3%BCllingen_Wopen.png, the author was listed as the city and was claimed under fair use. This is a derivative work of that said file, so might not be able to relicense under GFDL. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 07:39, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
- No {{PD-Vlaams-gemeentewapen/en}} or similar tag could apply? :S -- Darwin Ahoy! 14:08, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
- The only copyrightable element there seems to be the lion, I can replace it with a free version, if needed.-- Darwin Ahoy! 14:11, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
- File:Armoiries Ambleve.png, File:Héraldique Ville BE Ans.svg, and all the other COAs have the same problem. It is not PD-old? I think it exists since more than 70 years after author's death. If not one can say that the Luxembourgish lion lion is PD-old.
- Est-ce qu'il y a un francophone qui peut poser la question de la licence ici? Merci beaucoup. -- RE rillke questions? 16:25, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
- The lion is used in the Civil Ensign of Luxembourg, so it can be used in a redraw. I just don't know how old these arms is, but I a certain it could be redrawn if a proper blazon could be found. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 17:46, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
- User:Chatsam was so kind as to provide us with a free SVG version of that COA, therefore it can now be replaced with the SVG version wherever it's used. However, I'm really not sure that the lion in this COA, the only thing eventually copyrightable, passes the threshold of originality.-- Darwin Ahoy! 21:15, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
- As I said, the lion is used in other symbols of Lux. and we have various drawings of the coat of arms from that country. I think it is fine having an SVG replacement. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 08:08, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
- User:Chatsam was so kind as to provide us with a free SVG version of that COA, therefore it can now be replaced with the SVG version wherever it's used. However, I'm really not sure that the lion in this COA, the only thing eventually copyrightable, passes the threshold of originality.-- Darwin Ahoy! 21:15, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
- The lion is used in the Civil Ensign of Luxembourg, so it can be used in a redraw. I just don't know how old these arms is, but I a certain it could be redrawn if a proper blazon could be found. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 17:46, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 11:17, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
This photo belongs to me and I no longer wish to have it on Wikipedia. Seansmhealy (talk) 00:22, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
Delete as for File:Co-Founder.png --Tony Wills (talk) 10:02, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
Kept: in use - release is irrevocable Jcb (talk) 14:22, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
I uploaded this file and no longer wish to have it on Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons. I also filled out the licence information incorrectly as this is not my own work, I actually appear in the photograph, second from top left and in reality have no idea whether I have permission to put it up on Wikipedia or not. I did not ask for the permission of the owner or the people who feature in the photograph as I did not know it was important. I now fully understand the copyright laws and would like it to be deleted. Some of the players in the photo no longer play for said team and yet they appear on the team's page as the current squad. Long story short, the picture has no permission to be on the website. Seansmhealy (talk) 17:32, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
Deleted - Jcb (talk) 10:12, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
Not (as claimed) own work. See: http://swiadectwo1.republika.pl/bratina.html Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 22:27, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
- It's my own work. Photo taken with my cell phone during the exhibition in the Moscow Kremlin in 2005. Some similarity it's not a proof that I'm not an author, besides it's absurd as it concerns images taken at the museums where light and composition are usually the same. BurgererSF (talk) 12:32, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
But the images are exactly the same.But if this is your own work, then why don't you upload the hi-res version with the exif-date from you camera. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 07:48, 24 May 2011 (UTC)- You uploaded File:Amber altar of Władysław IV Vasa.jpg, File:Crucifix of John II Casimir.jpg and File:Pendant of Constance of Austria.jpg as well. All small images without exif-data, but claimed by you as own work. I wouldn't be surprised, if I would make an effort, to find out that they are copies from the internet as well. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 07:57, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
- Presumptions and assumptions, unfounded accusations, no evidence!!! BurgererSF (talk) 08:34, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
- Unacceptable statements. What's this, some kind of extremely primitive blackmail or smth: I wouldn't be surprised, if I would make an effort, to find out that they are copies from the internet as well [10], feel free to do this! BurgererSF (talk) 16:08, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
- It's my own work. Photo taken with my cell phone during the exhibition in the Moscow Kremlin in 2005. Some similarity it's not a proof that I'm not an author, besides it's absurd as it concerns images taken at the museums where light and composition are usually the same. BurgererSF (talk) 12:32, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
![[10]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Bratina_of_W%C5%82adys%C5%82aw_IV_Vasa.jpg&diff=54710244&oldid=54710066){kind=link}
- Comment This one, on the other hand, is not proven. The two images may be of the same piece, but they are quite different, taken about 30 degrees around the piece from one another. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 20:55, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
- I take back my claim that it is exactly the same image. Jim is right, this image looks like the other one, but it is taken from a different angle, as is shown by the gems on the cup. Excuse me. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 21:39, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
Kept. Jcb (talk) 11:21, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
out of scope Jcb (talk) 13:28, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
- Delete per nom--Hold and wave (talk) 16:59, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
- Keep animated gif of ejaculation. I see no reason why it would be out of scope. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 08:55, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
- Keep disruptive DR. It is not out of scope - see the categories of the image. *shakes head* --Saibo (Δ) 04:25, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
- Keep In scope per Saibo and TwoWings. Why is it out of scope? (please provide a explanation with more than 4 words please).
Tm (talk) 16:13, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
- Comment - Categories such as Category:Male reproductive system and Category:Penis show that Commons has a large quantity of images relating to human genitalia. Some of these images provide little descriptive information other than, for example, "self made" or "an erect human penis"; the user is told nothing useful about the background of the individual, or relevant vital statistics. Such images are of limited value as media for categories related to human anatomy and stages of development, because they depict a subject we already have images of, with no additional useful information.
--Hold and wave (talk) 21:47, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
- Variety does matter. You will probably not find a single image which is shot from the same angle, same skin color, same size of the penis, same state, same photo lighting, same photo background (was this all? hmm..). And: Commons is not here to make editorial decisions. Those are at the other projects. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 00:57, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
- Quoting "Categories such as Category:Male reproductive system and Category:Penis show that Commons has a large quantity of images relating to human genitalia." i have to ask what is a "large quantity of images relating to human genitalia"' And why is it that only this kind of image put to deletion with the argument that we have to many images of "Porn, erotica,nude, etc" when it (almost) never appears images of cats, buildings or others types with the argument that we have to many or that they are "of limited value as media for categories related". I have to ask what sets apart this kind of images from the others? The standards set for this kind of images vs. other type seem to be almost kafkian (this image is bad quality=amateur=delete; this image is of good quality=copyvio=delete; this image is identifible=personality rights=delete; this image is not identifible= we cant see the human expressions (no kidding)=delete; this image is redundant (only this kind is, never other types of images=delete; this image is unique= is identifible=delete; etc). In conclusion "preso por ter cão, preso por não ter" (arrested for having a dog, arrested for not having). Tm (talk) 17:03, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
Kept: The community wants a wide variety of penises to choose from as part of this repository of educational media. – Adrignola talk 22:21, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
Low quality COM:PENIS actually, withdrawn— it’s decent and it’s slow motion so it’s interesting. Dronebogus (talk) 18:19, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
Kept: Withdrawn. --Gbawden (talk) 17:58, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
out of scope Jcb (talk) 13:29, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
- Delete per nom--Hold and wave (talk) 16:58, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
- Keep Not out of scope and actually perfectly educational with that double picture showing how a penis changes during the erection. Keep immedialtely. Abuse of DR. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 09:00, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
- Keep disruptive DR. It is not out of scope - see the categories of the image. *shakes head* --Saibo (Δ) 04:25, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
- Keep In scope per Saibo and TwoWings. Why is it out of scope? (please provide a explanation with more than 4 words please).
Tm (talk) 16:13, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
- Comment - Categories such as Category:Male reproductive system and Category:Penis show that Commons has a large quantity of images relating to human genitalia. Some of these images provide little descriptive information other than, for example, "self made" or "an erect human penis"; the user is told nothing useful about the background of the individual, or relevant vital statistics. Such images are of limited value as media for categories related to human anatomy and stages of development, because they depict a subject we already have images of, with no additional useful information.
--Hold and wave (talk) 21:46, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
- Variety does matter. You will probably not find a single image which is shot from the same angle, same skin color, same size of the penis, same state, same photo lighting, same photo background (was this all? hmm..). And: Commons is not here to make editorial decisions. Those are at the other projects. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 00:57, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
- Quoting "Categories such as Category:Male reproductive system and Category:Penis show that Commons has a large quantity of images relating to human genitalia." i have to ask what is a "large quantity of images relating to human genitalia"' And why is it that only this kind of image put to deletion with the argument that we have to many images of "Porn, erotica,nude, etc" when it (almost) never appears images of cats, buildings or others types with the argument that we have to many or that they are "of limited value as media for categories related". I have to ask what sets apart this kind of images from the others? The standards set for this kind of images vs. other type seem to be almost kafkian (this image is bad quality=amateur=delete; this image is of good quality=copyvio=delete; this image is identifible=personality rights=delete; this image is not identifible= we cant see the human expressions (no kidding)=delete; this image is redundant (only this kind is, never other types of images=delete; this image is unique= is identifible=delete; etc). In conclusion "preso por ter cão, preso por não ter" (arrested for having a dog, arrested for not having). Tm (talk) 17:06, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
- Delete no special educational use compared to other existing images --Ben.MQ (talk) 07:49, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
- Commons' purpose is also to offer alternatives on different subects (including erection). How would you decide why we'd delete this file and keep another file on the same subject... and not the contrary ? --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 08:59, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Kept: The community wants a wide variety of penises to choose from as part of its repository of educational images. – Adrignola talk 22:19, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
