Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2011/07/29
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
|
|
This was the flag of the Mongolian People's Republic (1940-1992), not then or now, the flag of the Mongolia President. I thank the user for the REAL presidentital standards he has uploaded, but these fictions must stop being uploaded under the claim of any sort of officiality. Delete. Fry1989 (talk) 00:25, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: speedy delete -- duplicate of File:Flag of the People's Republic of Mongolia (1949-1992).svg Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:15, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
Per source, NOT presidential flag, but merely a proposal for a square version of the national flag of Nepal due to it's odd shape. Fry1989 (talk) 00:28, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: speedy delete -- duplicate of File:Flag of Nepal rectangular.svg Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:16, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
Was the standard of the Federal President until 1984, not the Chancellor. No longer used, and per source there is already an SVG of this flag. Delete. Fry1989 (talk) 00:32, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: speedy delete -- duplicate of File:Presidential Standard of Austria (-1984).svg Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:17, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
This image is in the public domain as stated here: http://www.loc.gov/pictures/item/2003655656/ PETER WEIS TALK 09:51, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
- Er... You want to delete it because it is in the public domain? Jean-Fred (talk) 09:59, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
- You lost me here. File doesn't display here. Is it corrupted? Multichill (talk) 12:28, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
Keep The raw image seems to be fine. I added it to category:Images without thumbnails. --Jarekt (talk) 13:25, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
- Keep -- This nomination confuses me too. Geo Swan (talk) 15:29, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
Kept, public domain images are very much allowed on Commons. Infrogmation (talk) 17:41, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
Copyvio Tekstman (talk) 17:37, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio -mattbuck (Talk) 19:14, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
False license. Uploader claims it as his own work, which is extremely unlikely LeeGer (talk) 17:40, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio -mattbuck (Talk) 19:13, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
Scanned from a large print. What is source and licensing status of the print? ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 16:35, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
- Keep as well as File:Vesuvius from Pompeii (hires version 2 scaled).png I suppose; there is no raster; uploader declares credibly that this own work. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 10:55, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
- In the description, the uploader declares it as a "Hi-res scan from large-format print.". The description is ambiguous whether the uploader created the print or whether they only scanned an existing print created by a third party. Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 13:03, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
- He knows the exact date of the photo; he took it himself. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 14:01, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
- Might as well have been on the back of the print. Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 15:04, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
- ... and the coordinates. Please stop those pseudo-polite "regards" of yours; you do not seem to hold anybody in high regard. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:30, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, I took the photo myself and later had a large-format print scanned because the existing print from my album was faded and did not yield a high-res image. Please close this bullshit deletion request. Thanks! --Morn (talk) 19:52, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
- ... and the coordinates. Please stop those pseudo-polite "regards" of yours; you do not seem to hold anybody in high regard. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:30, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
- Might as well have been on the back of the print. Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 15:04, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
- He knows the exact date of the photo; he took it himself. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 14:01, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
- In the description, the uploader declares it as a "Hi-res scan from large-format print.". The description is ambiguous whether the uploader created the print or whether they only scanned an existing print created by a third party. Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 13:03, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
Kept: Uploader clarified licensing situation. ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 22:30, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
Caricature by Heino Aspelin (1882–1956). Pieter Kuiper (talk) 23:07, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
- I thought it was safe because it was 106 years old, but it turns out that it is still protected. Please, delete. --Jonund (talk) 15:38, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted, author not yet 70 years dead so not yet PD; uploader concurs with deletion. Infrogmation (talk) 20:15, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
If picture is from YouTube video, then at best uploader has taken picture of a copyrighted picture. Bbb23 (talk) 23:28, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted, obvious copyright violation, false license. Infrogmation (talk) 20:11, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
Flickr license doesn't allow derivatives, therefore not compatible with Commons. Connormah (talk | contribs) 18:11, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom. Túrelio (talk) 08:58, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
These photos are all part of a crime. Made by the murder Breivik to make public relations for himself als a christian martyr. To show him in that way, he prefared. I am sure it would be better to wait for photos which show him f. i. in front of a judge (my english is very simple, sorry. I hope you will understand, what I mean.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zabia2 (talk • contribs) 2011-07-29T06:52:52 (UTC)
- Keep One does not make a problem disappear by hiding it. --Foroa (talk) 07:17, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
- Keep We do not delete pictures from Commons for moral reasons, only for copyright-related reasons. Anything else would be a violation of NPOV. /FredrikT (talk) 16:49, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
- Keep Not a relevant reason to delete the category. We don't practice damnatio memoriae here or at Wikipedia. Also, the category mainly serves to categorize his images, so it makes no sense to delete it as long as the images still exist. Regards SoWhy 22:23, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
Delete: look at: w:de:Wikipedia:Urheberrechtsfragen "Fazit: Das Bild sollte hier aus urheberrechtlicher Sicht nicht verwendet werden; ein entsprechender Löschantrag auf Commons (Ausgang offen) läuft.". And much more. This means, that we should not use this pictures. We do not know anything sure about of the Rights of these Pictures. We do not know even who made the Pics. We do not even know who "Brewick" ist, we do not even know of the version of the paper is origin oder made of the man in prison Breivik. 81.10.128.25 10:48, 30 July 2011 (UTC) Sorry, that's me. I wasn't logged in. Zabia2 (talk) 10:51, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
- Keep I see no reason whatsoever why either this category or the images in it should be removed. Polozooza (talk) 20:02, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
Behalten: Laut der Europäischen Menschenrechtskonvention haben Beschuldigte einen Rechtsanspruch darauf, sich vor Gericht zu äußern. In Fällen wie diesem erfolgt aber eine Vorverurteilung durch die Medien, die die Auswahl eines unvoreingenommenen Richters ausschließen. Aufgrund dieser medialen Vorverurteilung denke ich, dass man das Recht, sich zu den Vorfällen zu äußern auch auf die Mediale Konversaton ausweiten sollte. Wobei es ja eigentlich zu den Grundsätzen eines ordnungsgemäßen Journalismus dazugehört, immer beide Seiten zu hören zund zu Wort kommen zu lassen. Dies wird meist duch die Justiz verhindert. Weil in der U-Haft keine Interviews gestattet werden. Ist das mit einem Rechtsstaat vereinbar? Schließlich sieht Breivik sich ja als unschuldig an. Zu einem fairem Urteil kann nur kommen, wer diese Argumente kennt, versteht und berücksichtigt. Wer Argumente nicht verstehen will, der nennt sie einfach wirr, dann muß er sich nicht weiter damit auseinandersetzen. Aber wer solche Taten verhindern will, der soillte sie zuerst einmal verstehen. Sowas kennt man ja: Stauffenberg wurde auch in einem Schauprozeß zum Tode verurteilt, später erhielt er dann das Bundesverdienstkreuz. Und soweit Breivik die Texte, Bilder und das Video zum Zwecke der Weiterverbreitung ins Internet gestellt hat, ist damit eine urheberrechtliche Einwilligung verbunden. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.53.32.78 (talk • contribs) 2011-07-30T14:02:23 (UTC)
- Vielen Dank für Ihre Meinung. Es ist völlig irrelevant.--Cerejota (talk) 02:14, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
- Speedy keep this category. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:44, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
KEEP IT! Of course we want to keep these images! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.209.107.2 (talk • contribs) 2011-07-31T22:03:39 (UTC)
- Keep As long as there are (sufficient) images in the category, it makes sense to keep it. If all the images are deleted, then the category could be deleted as well. V85 (talk) 23:37, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
- Keep Crusier (talk) 08:37, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
- Keep, refering to V85; images exist in a specific context and so can be found easily. --Blogotron (talk) 09:25, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
- Keep These images are omnipresent, and even if you want to you can't suppress them. And I wait for one or more images of him in front of his judge and the families of his victims! JayCeeH (talk) 11:02, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
Kept: Consensus is that disapproval of the images, for whatever reasons, is not grounds for deleting the category page, as long as the images still exist. Sandstein (talk) 11:45, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
doubtful license Postoronniy-13 (talk) 00:05, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:54, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
doubtful license Postoronniy-13 (talk) 00:15, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:56, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
doubtful license Postoronniy-13 (talk) 00:24, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:56, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
doubtful license Postoronniy-13 (talk) 00:25, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
- Obviously false license; it is impossible for the author of a work from the 1960s to have been dead for more than 70 years.
Delete unless image can be legitimately shown to be PD or free licensed for some other reason. Infrogmation (talk) 17:34, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:56, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
doubtful license Postoronniy-13 (talk) 00:26, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:56, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
doubtful license Postoronniy-13 (talk) 00:31, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:56, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
doubtful license Postoronniy-13 (talk) 00:41, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:56, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
doubtful license Postoronniy-13 (talk) 00:42, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:57, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
doubtful license Postoronniy-13 (talk) 00:43, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:57, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
doubtful license Postoronniy-13 (talk) 00:50, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:57, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
doubtful license Postoronniy-13 (talk) 00:54, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:57, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
doubtful license Postoronniy-13 (talk) 00:55, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:57, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
There is no FOP in Vietname, and the uploader did not provide enough information about this statue to prove its PD status. Magog the Ogre (talk) 01:11, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:58, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
doubtful license Postoronniy-13 (talk) 01:14, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:58, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
doubtful license Postoronniy-13 (talk) 01:15, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:58, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
doubtful license Postoronniy-13 (talk) 01:59, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:58, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
doubtful license Postoronniy-13 (talk) 02:07, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:58, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
doubtful license Postoronniy-13 (talk) 02:11, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:58, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
doubtful license ("Author = не известен" = unknown) Postoronniy-13 (talk) 02:12, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
- Delete, if the author is unknown, the uploader clearly cannot be the author and license the image. Infrogmation (talk) 17:38, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:58, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
User claims this is a logotype for a company/institution. The real logotype can be seen here. grillo (talk) 02:41, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:58, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
This 2011 USPS stamp is not the work of NASA but designed by Donato Giancola based on images, not an actual NASA image per this and this. All post-1977 USPS stamps are copyright per Commons:Stamps/Public_domain_templates. Ww2censor (talk) 02:48, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:59, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
doubtful license Postoronniy-13 (talk) 03:02, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:10, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
This request is on Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Grinders -- πϵρήλιο ℗ 03:11, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:10, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
Derivative work from image with unknown license status. Art-top (talk) 04:44, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:11, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
Derivative work from image with unknown license status. Art-top (talk) 04:53, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:11, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
Derivative work from image with unknown status. Art-top (talk) 05:07, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:11, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
Derivative work from image with unknown license status. Art-top (talk) 05:11, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:11, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
Derivative work from images with unknown license status. Art-top (talk) 05:12, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:11, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
Derivative work from images with unknown license status. Art-top (talk) 05:13, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:11, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
Derivative work from image with unknown license status Art-top (talk) 05:14, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:11, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
Derivative work from image with unknown license status Art-top (talk) 05:14, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:11, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
- File:Схема расположения водозаборов.jpg
- File:Схема водозабора станции в Сестрорецке.jpg
- File:Сестрорецкий Разлив у водозабора.jpg
- File:Разрез 3 к схеме водозаборов на Сестрорецком Разливе.jpg
- File:План Сестрорецкого Разлива с точками отбора проб.jpg
Derivative work from images with unknown license status. Art-top (talk) 05:15, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:12, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
Derivative work of the copyrighted sculpture. There is no freedom of panorama for sculptures in the US. Sandstein (talk) 06:33, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:17, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
Derivative work of the copyrighted sculpture. Sandstein (talk) 06:34, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:17, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
Derivative work of the copyrighted sculpture. There is no freedom of panorama for sculptures in the US. Sandstein (talk) 06:34, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:17, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
Non-free logo http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Compass_experiment_logo.png 77.184.147.128 06:40, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:18, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
Improvisation Klamm [Gorge] was painted in or around Muinch and never left Germany. (Germany is the country of Orgin (Berne Convention Article 5, 4). In Germany (and France) all of Kadinskys works are still protected by copyright, cause he died as French. sугсго 07:28, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: The fact that he died French is irrelevant -- the only law that applies here is German, but it's still in copyright in any case. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:20, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
Presence of watermark on the source image suggests that the Flickr uploader does not own the rights to the image InverseHypercube (talk) 07:39, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:23, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
Logo of some sort, used in a now deleted advert on en.wikipedia. no foreseeable use. FASTILY (TALK) 07:43, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:23, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
This is not the uploader's own work - it is commercial artwork from a video game, see http://marketplace.xbox.com/en-US/Product/BloodyCheckers/66acd000-77fe-1000-9115-d802585508ba Jezhotwells (talk) 08:16, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:24, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
This is not the up-loader's work it is a screenshot from a commercial video game, see http://marketplace.xbox.com/en-US/Product/BloodyCheckers/66acd000-77fe-1000-9115-d802585508ba Jezhotwells (talk) 08:19, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
I am the author of this work. I have created these images and own them. 06:12, 1 August 2011 (UTC)BigEveArc (talk)
- BigEveArc, because it appears to be an image of a commercial product, which appears on the website http://www.facebook.com/BloodyCheckers with no indication that it is freely licenced, you will have to send a "Declaration of consent" via email, as described in Commons:OTRS.
- If you choose to do that, please leave a further comment here, then allow several days for the permission to be processed. Thanks, Chzz ► 06:25, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:24, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
this is not the up-loader's work, it is a screenshot from a commercial video game, see http://marketplace.xbox.com/en-US/Product/BloodyCheckers/66acd000-77fe-1000-9115-d802585508ba Jezhotwells (talk) 08:21, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:24, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
this is not the up-loader's own work it is a screenshot/cover form a commercial video game, see http://marketplace.xbox.com/en-US/Product/BloodyCheckers/66acd000-77fe-1000-9115-d802585508ba Jezhotwells (talk) 08:24, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:24, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
unused dup scaled-down/lower-resolution equivalent of File:TCNE.png in same format DMacks (talk) 08:28, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
- DeleteI agree with deletion as author. --Mixtures (talk) 14:44, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Per discussion. Leyo 10:56, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
unused (except in what appears to be personal list-of-uploads gallery?) and equivalent in all relevant respects to File:1,1-Dichloroethane 2.svg, except spacing of hashes DMacks (talk) 08:30, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Per nom. --Yikrazuul (talk) 16:14, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:24, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
No FoP in Belgium. sугсго 08:51, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:25, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
Belgian FOP does not cover the interior of museums. Moreover, this was a temporary exhibition, so it is not a permanent display. BrightRaven (talk) 10:58, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 21:47, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
Unknown artist, possibly the photo is not a self-portrait as implied by the file description. Mere a container for some bio spam on wikimedia projects. Martin H. (talk) 10:27, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:25, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
No FOP in France. 84.61.137.220 10:35, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:26, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
I mistakenly clicked the wrong licensing type. Please delete Jmi2WCDOT (talk) 12:25, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
Kept: Not a reason for deletion -- you may change the license within our limits. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:28, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
Wrong author, source and permission ShinePhantom (talk) 12:25, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:28, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
error, see discussion Wefo (talk) 12:25, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
- Keep. No reason given. If there are some mistakes in the schematic, the drawing should be fixed not deleted.--Wdwd (talk) 19:21, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
- There is nothing to fix, the complete drawing could only be replaced. In the right drawing there is only one tube with three systems. -- Wefo (talk) 21:48, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
Kopie der deutschen Diskussionsseite: Dieser Schaltplan zeigt nur dann ein Audion, wenn C2 ca. 100 pF und R2 ca. 1 Mohm sind, weil dann V2 als Audion arbeitet. -- wefo 11:44, 28. Jul. 2011 (CEST)
Die zutreffende Schaltung dürfte unter http://www.radiomuseum.org/r/loewe_opta_ro433.html zu finden sein. -- wefo 14:21, 29. Jul. 2011 (CEST)
- Im Jahr 1926 ist eine Besprechung der Loewe Röhren erschienen in Radio News, siehe http://www.radiomuseum.org/forumdata/upload/Loewe_Multiple%20Tubes_62_en.pdf. Dort steht über die Loewe Röhre 3NF (3NFB): "the detector and two stages of resistance-coupled audio-frequency amplification". Die deutsche Übersetzung von Radiomuseum schreibt "dem Detektor und zwei widerstandsgekoppelten Stufen zur Niederfrequenzverstärkung", siehe http://www.radiomuseum.org/forumdata/upload/Loewe_Mehrfach_Roehren_2_de.pdf. Es gibt somit mindestens eine seriöse Quelle welche die Loewe Röhre in dem RO433 Empfänger als 0v2, ein Audion mit 0 HF Verstärker, Audion Stufe in der ersten Röhre und 2 NF Verstärker Stufen beschreibt. Werter wefo, bitte zeigen Sie ihre Quelle die hinter ihrer Meinung steht das nicht die erste Röhre V1 als Audion arbeitet sondern die zweite Röhre V2. -- AndreAdrian 02:10, 30. Jul. 2011 (CEST)
- Sehr geehrter AndreAdrian, ich habe Achtung vor Ihrem Fleiß, insbesondere deshalb, weil es mir an dieser Eigenschaft mangelt. Fleiß alleine genügt aber nicht.
- Die Fa. Loewe ist dafür bekannt, dass sich fast alle Röhrensysteme innerhalb nur eines Glaskolbens befinden (fast, weil die ggf. vorhandene Netzgleichrichtung separat erfolgte). Auch Koppelkondensatoren und Gitterableitwiderstände sind „nackend“ und somit in kostengünstiger Weise mit im Kolben. Vorliegend auch die Arbeitswiderstände, bei denen ich mich nicht erinnere, ob die immer in der Röhre waren (die Anode des zweiten Systems ist hier von außen nicht zugänglich). Deine Links stellen diese Technik verbal dar.
- Aber – ich muss es zugeben –, dies war nicht meine Stolperstelle, denn ich hatte allein die Funktion der dargestellten Schaltung im Auge. Und da suche ich immer zuerst nach der für ein Audion kennzeichnenden Gitterkombination. Weil eine direkte Verbindung zwischen dem Schwingkreis und dem Gitter dargestellt ist – und weil keine Bemessung angegeben ist – stolperte ich im Sinne meiner ersten Aussage. Dann brachte eine Recherche das Ergebnis in Form der zweiten Aussage.
- Wenn Du dem von mir angegebenen Link folgst, dann siehst Du auch als Nichtmitglied in der schlecht erkennbaren Schaltung die etwas unglücklich dargestellten Elemente R und C oben am Schwingkreis. Unglücklich deshalb, weil es didaktisch günstiger wäre, die Parallelschaltung dieser Elemente sozusagen als eigene Baugruppe hervorzuheben. Didaktisch günstiger – aber nicht so alt und exotisch – wäre eine Schaltung mit der AF7, wo sich die Gitterkombination in der Gitterkappe befindet, also so kapazitätsarm wie möglich direkt am Gitteranschluss. Die abgeschirmte Leitung ist zwar nicht das, was man sich unter „kapazitätsarm“ vorstellt, ist aber in ihrer Wirkung Teil der Kapazität des Schwingkreises. Die Wellenbereiche wurden so festgelegt, dass der Variationsbereich eines Drehkondensators bei vergleichbaren Schaltungskapazitäten ausreichte, um den Frequenzbereich zu überstreichen.
- Vielleicht solltest Du mir etwas mehr vertrauen, denn ich bin mit dem Audion aufgewachsen und habe den Unfug mit dem „Transistoraudion“, das eben kein wirkliches Audion sein kann und dass, wenn es etwa so wie ein Audion aufgebaut ist, die erste Ableitung des Signals (also ein „Gequäke“) liefert, erlebt. Dieses Gequäke wurde zu Zeiten des wirklichen Audions nicht beachtet, weil es ein vernachlässigbares Störsignal war. Ich glaube deshalb nicht, dass ein Beleg dafür in der Literatur zu finden ist − und wenn, dann nur mit großer Mühe und Fleiß, die ich nicht aufbringe. Mir genügt hier mein Wissen – und das ist in der WP eben nur TF.
- Es ist für mich auch nicht überraschend, dass gerade Wdwd (er ist auch so einer, der meinem Wissen nicht vertraut) für das Behalten der fehlerhaften Schaltung plädiert, siehe http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File_talk:Loewe_RO433_Schaltplan.png. Es ist meiner Meinung nach unsinnig, den unter dem von mir angegebenen Link erkennbaren Schaltplan nur wegen der Rechtsverhältnisse in der WP mühsam abzuzeichnen. Hier wäre es anzustreben, das Original zu verwenden, das mit der Verbundröhre ein deutliches Zeichen für die Ausgereiftheit dieser Technik, die eine Epoche bestimmte, liefert.
- Das erste patentierte „Audion“ ist übrigens definitiv nicht jenes Audion, das diese Epoche bestimmte, denn es hat die Steuerelektrode außen, es kann kein Gitterstrom fließen. In einem anderen Patent fehlt der Gitterableitwiderstand. Ich unterstelle mangelhafte Isolation bei der Technik und mangelshaftes Verständnis der Funktion beim „Erfinder“. Letzteres ist aber im Patent„un“wesen auch gar nicht erforderlich, es genügt die reproduzierbar vorführbare Beobachtung. -- wefo 07:07, 30. Jul. 2011 (CEST)
-- Wefo (talk) 06:29, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
Kept: Our policy in cases like this is to Keep. We are not experts, we leave that to WP editors and others. You may want to add {{Disputed diagram}} to it. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:31, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
Corrupted file. Please reupload if possible. Jarekt (talk) 13:21, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:37, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
doubtful license Postoronniy-13 (talk) 13:23, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:38, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
doubtful license Postoronniy-13 (talk) 13:27, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:38, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
doubtful license Postoronniy-13 (talk) 13:28, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:38, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
doubtful license Postoronniy-13 (talk) 13:29, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:38, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
This video contains BBC news. Very unfortunately, it occurs copyright problem. 丁 (talk) 14:01, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
- Delete copyright violation. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:07, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:40, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
No exif data and user has a history of stealing images from the web. grillo (talk) 14:00, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:40, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
COM:DW of http://www.buddytv.com/articles/the_nine/Images/Owain-Yeoman-4.jpg
Also the other drawings on User:Pernak1 are highly likely to be derivatives of copyrighted photos:
- File:Simon Baker - drawing portrait by Pernak.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Amanda Righetti - drawing portrait by Pernak.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Eva LaRue - drawing portrait by Pernak.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
/Pieter Kuiper (talk) 14:06, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:41, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
The Picture is a little bit inclined/ replace by my file: "Indophenin2a.tif. Durfo (talk) 14:08, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Request by uploader. Leyo 10:57, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
This picture is twisted, 90°. I have made a new file with the formulae horizontally: "Indophenin2a.tif" Durfo (talk) 14:14, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Request by uploader. Leyo 10:58, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
unused photo of band with no notability as deleted here fr:Trunel - out of scope Santosga (talk) 14:16, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:41, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
File:Aliko_Dangote_-_African_Fellowship_Programme_with_Young_Global_Leaders_Announcement_-_World_Economic_Forum_on_Africa_2011.jpg
[edit]I re-uploaded it with the simpler title File:Aliko Dangote.jpg, as Wikipedia did not seem to be picking up this version Amakuru (talk) 14:22, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Next time please use {{Rename}} as a new upload and deletion is wasteful of time and of disk space. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:41, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
All the users other uploads were deleted as probable copyvios of http://www.digikey.com/Web%20Export/Supplier%20Content/Schurter_486/PDF/Schurter_WP_MatingConnectors.pdf?redirected=1 , this one seems to be no exception but it seems it was missed (likely because it wasn't used in the article where the others where).
I tried to delete this though the speedy process (unfortunately I forgot to log in at the time) but someone claimed it was inelegiable for copyright. I find this claim unlikely (there is whole paragraphs of text in there for a start) and in any case I don't think it's of any use to us. Plugwash (talk) 14:49, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:44, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
pomyłka w nazwie i opisie silu (talk) 15:02, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
Kept: Mistakes in name and description are not a reason to delete. Please use {{Rename}} to change the name and fix the description yourself. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:45, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
and File:Diablos rojos futbol sala.jpg. Unlikely to by own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:39, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:45, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
Unlikely to by own work: small resolution, missing EXIF. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:41, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:45, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
Unlikely to by own work: small resolution typical for photo services. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:42, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:45, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
The copyright information for this photo is all wrong. It was done in 2007 and the author asserts copyright. Chaser (talk) 15:44, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:46, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
and File:GeoffHeslop.JPG. Unlikely to by own work: small resolutions. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:49, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:10, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
and File:Hector Barallobre 2.jpg. Unlikely to by own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:52, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:10, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
Unlikely to by own work: small resolution, missing EXIF. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:56, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:10, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
bad name/Pycnoclavella nana Parent Géry (talk) 18:22, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
- No need for a deletion, just a {{Rename}} is necessary . Mirgolth (talk) 12:04, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
Kept: please use {{Rename}} Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:13, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
badname/Pycnoclavella nana Parent Géry (talk) 18:23, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
- No need for a deletion, just a {{Rename}} is necessary . Mirgolth (talk) 12:03, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
Kept. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:14, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
copyed from official facebook. false infomation @ author. see. http://www.facebook.com/pages/KANTA/197954950255166?sk=info Ks aka 98 (talk) 18:25, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:14, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
badname/Pycnoclavella nana Parent Géry (talk) 18:25, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
- No need for a deletion, just a {{Rename}} is necessary . Mirgolth (talk) 12:03, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
Kept. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:14, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
Was marked as copyvio by User:Edgar181: "From the image's talk page on English Wikipedia: "This photograph is © copyrighted by Melinda Hughes of Hughes Photography. She is the authorized photographer at Cougar Rock, where this image was taken during the Tevis Cup Endurance Ride. Indian Joe does not own the copyright to this image."" That's http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File_talk:Teviscup.jpg. Couldn't find the image there however. Rosenzweig δ 18:47, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:14, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
Copyvio / derivative work Otourly (talk) 19:56, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
- No it is not. The same case happens a few weeks ago [1]. The case i put for discussion here in WP. The colleges from URV-Portal means that this is not an derivative work. For a derivative work the quality, structure, position and this what is in german "Schöpfungshöhe" (sorry i don't know the english word for this) is not existing. Please Check the discussions. Greetings --MittlererWeg (talk) 20:09, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
- Please check this correctly, because it is important for the over 800 drawings i load up on commons, and without the pictures i can stop my work at WP. --MittlererWeg (talk) 20:13, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
- Can someone explain me from what it is a derivative work?--Sanandros (talk) 23:26, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
- Please check this correctly, because it is important for the over 800 drawings i load up on commons, and without the pictures i can stop my work at WP. --MittlererWeg (talk) 20:13, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: The other case is not obviously derivative. This one is -- it is an exact copy of a (c) photograph. You cannot simply take a photograph and make an exact drawing from it and claim that it is free of the photographer's copyright. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:18, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
Chris Webby wikipedia article was deleted months ago for lacking notability, has been turned down by articles for creation 4 times Markvs88 (talk) 20:09, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
- Delete: Obviously, I support deletion. Markvs88 (talk) 20:17, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Probably out of scope, no evidence of permission from the photographer. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 14:11, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:19, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
COM:DW: derivative work of a television screen High Contrast (talk) 21:14, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:20, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
COM:DW derivative work of a television screen Andreasm 
just talk to me 21:19, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:20, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
Highly unlikely to be own work. It is cropped from another picture. P199 (talk) 21:28, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Agreed - a TinEye search even comes back with an example of the image from which this is cropped. Tabercil (talk) 21:53, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Own work extremely unlikely. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 14:12, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:20, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
I am the author, and I no longer want this book to be free! Joseph D. Smith 22:00, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: The release of a work under a public licence is irrevocable, so we usually deny this kind of requests. This is however unused and out of scope. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 14:15, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
badname/vanadinite sur hollandite Parent Géry (talk) 22:19, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
Comment. Files can be renamed. Is the name the only problem? If so, I shall rename it. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 14:17, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
Kept. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:22, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
badname/vanadinite sur hollandite Parent Géry (talk) 22:23, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
Kept: please use {{Rename}} Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:22, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
out of scope - no desc., no cats, no ponies, no nothing. Probably some "user-created artwork" which is not in use Saibo (Δ) 22:44, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:22, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
no reason Nummer 12 (talk) 22:56, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
Kept: "No reason" is not a reason for deletion. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:23, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
Own picture please delete!! (second time) Nummer 12 (talk) 14:56, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
- Keep You placed the image in the Public Domain when you uploaded it two months ago. You cannot retract that. We rarely delete images on request, except for very good reason, which you have not given. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:02, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
- Oooo :) Okay ;) Nummer 12 (talk) 16:59, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
Kept Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 18:44, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
out of scope - personal artwork without current useage. And I doubt the user has understood the licensing. And I doubt the consent of the second person who is not the uploader. Saibo (Δ) 22:57, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:23, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
This image is so tiny you can't even recognize the person, who seems to be competely unknown as well. Out of project scope. Rosenzweig δ 23:03, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
- Delete per nom; tiny blurry image of no potential in scope usefulness. Infrogmation (talk) 20:12, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:24, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
Unlikely to by own work: small resolution. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:44, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
Please, could you provide more information that I can help you to be sure that it's my work, thanks also to do it in correct english that I can clearly understand and answer your questions.GDAThrawn 16:45, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
- The image is very small -- 169x260 pixels -- and appears to be professionally photographed -- it has multiple lights and a blank beige background. Therefore, my colleague and I doubt that it is actually your work. When Commons users upload their own work, they usually do so in much larger sizes, such as your File:Jeanmurat2.jpg. Very small images almost always have been taken from a web site somewhere.
- If this is in fact your own image, then please tell us so and upload a larger version -- which you may do directly over this one.
- You will note, by the way, that I have deleted your File:Jeanmurat.jpg. We do not generally keep duplicates and mirror images of our files.
- As for "correct english", many of us have a first language other than English, so not every comment you will see on Commons is correct English. Even so, we manage to communicate. If you are more comfortable in a different language, go ahead and use it here. Google Translate will often be helpful, or one of us will answer in your language. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:08, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:53, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
Out of scope personal artwork. -mattbuck (Talk) 13:06, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
- Comment I'm not sure about this. If the uploader, User:Jimmywalter is actually Jimmy Walter then he is a political figure of note, although not one I agree with. Given that, a Biden poster by him is probably notable. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:45, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
- Delete. Out of scope. --P199 (talk) 04:41, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:29, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
if photo was really made in 1922, then the actress on photo is 13 years old: that doesn't seem to be truth. If later - then it's not PD rubin16 (talk) 16:01, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
Comment - this is another frustrating case where a image that really was not eligible to go to commons was moved there from wikipedia. Is there any way to undo the move, rather than simply deleting it? TJRC (talk) 20:28, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
Delete, I've restored the image on the English Wikipedia, and I use a fair-use claim there. Sorry about the other Wikipedias. Quadell (talk) 19:33, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. rubin16 (talk) 06:16, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
doubtful license Postoronniy-13 (talk) 00:51, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
and other user's contributions [2] --Postoronniy-13 (talk) 01:58, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Blacklake (talk) 12:03, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
and other uploads by Dexta Daps (talk · contribs). Unlikely to by own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:37, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. – Adrignola talk 18:48, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
I doubt this is realy own work. Compare with de:Datei:F1 Logo.svg and en:File:F1 logo.svg. JuTa (talk) 20:54, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: (not by me) Jcb (talk) 14:12, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
According to {{PD-Egypt}}, this image would be public domain in the US if published before 1946. It was taken in 1949, so I'm assuming it is copyrighted. UserB (talk) 18:21, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
- Keep - disregard URAA, tag with {{Not-PD-US-URAA}} if you must. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 08:43, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
- Huh? It's copyrighted in Egypt and it's copyrighted in the US. You can't just ignore the law because you don't like it (unless you are a politician, in which case it's okay). --UserB (talk) 13:35, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
- It is not copyrighted in Egypt. Try to read. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:55, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
- Fine, but Commons doesn't use images that are copyrighted in the US. Try to read. --UserB (talk) 18:42, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
- It is not copyrighted in Egypt. Try to read. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:55, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
- Huh? It's copyrighted in Egypt and it's copyrighted in the US. You can't just ignore the law because you don't like it (unless you are a politician, in which case it's okay). --UserB (talk) 13:35, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 14:12, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
The correct source is not confirmed. First, the source in detail is not written. Look for in www.navsource.org, it is from [3]. Second, there is a source "Hazegray and Underway" that says. Third, it is not found the same picture in the Haze Gray & Underway, and Haze Gray says "all contents of this site are All Rights Reserved". So, the correct source of this picture is unknown. Be written as PD-USGov, there is no evidence, probably fake license. --Vantey (talk) 00:06, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 19:16, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
no right to use unless proven otherwise, se bus company's official app on App Store, Link Bluescan sv.wiki (talk) 20:55, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:39, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
obviously screenshot from a pdf document grillo (talk) 02:44, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
- And obviously the user just reuploaded the same picture... Also see Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Grinders. /grillo (talk) 02:53, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
Speedy delete of image reuploaded after DR. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 10:45, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
All these images seem to be taken from different web sites. The user has a history of copyvios. I have not included photos, but they should probably be examined as well. Some are pointless images of numbers.
- File:VTlogo.JPG derivative of File:Varmlandstrafik.png with yellow background
- File:Baslinje.jpg url = http://www.karlstad.se/apps/symfoni/karlstad/karlstad_mm.nsf/lupGraphics/baslinjekarta.pdf/$file/baslinjekarta.pdf
- File:Centrumlinjer.jpg url = http://www.karlstad.se/apps/symfoni/karlstad/karlstad_mm.nsf/lupGraphics/centrumlinjekarta.pdf/$file/centrumlinjekarta.pdf
- File:Karlstadsbuss.jpg
- File:Resenarer tag.jpg url = http://www.varmlandstrafik.se/media
- File:Profilbussar.jpg url = http://www.varmlandstrafik.se/media
- File:Hpl hammaro.jpg url = http://www.varmlandstrafik.se/fullkoll/2010/12/122/
- File:Varmlandstrafik.png url = http://www.varmlandstrafik.se/media/hamta-logotyper
- File:Ettillsju.gif
- File:Linje57.jpg
- File:13 2.gif
- File:12 2.gif
- File:11 2.gif
- File:Centrum 12.gif
- File:11 centrum.gif
- File:Kronoparkencentrum 2.gif
- File:Universitet 1.gif
- File:74 vaxnas.gif
- File:73 kasernhojden.gif
- File:72 stodene.gif
- File:71 skare.gif
- File:64 LLA.gif
- File:63 LLA.gif
- File:62 LLA.gif
- File:61 LLA.gif
- File:56 ikea.gif
- File:55 sundsta.gif
- File:53 valsviken.gif
- File:52 universitet.gif
- File:51 orsholmen.gif
- File:7 herrhagen.gif
- File:6 farjestad.gif
- File:5 henstad.gif
- File:4 bergvik.gif
- File:3 rud.gif
grillo (talk) 02:51, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
- Delete some Copyvio: added url's (there is more) -- πϵρήλιο ℗ 03:16, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
- Keep all GIF are under PD-text or PD-shape lower high -- πϵρήλιο ℗ 03:39, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
- Keep, most of images are not copyrightable. Please use new separate deletion requests for such of them which can be really copyvios. --ŠJů (talk) 08:12, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
- Delete I have deleted the photos and logos which were clear copyvios. The others do not appear to be copyvios, but are they in scope? I assume they are route number symbols -- they are small gifs (which we don't like in any case) -- do we need them? Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:06, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
- They do seem rather pointless. I guess the user could want to create horrendous tables with them, but they would surely be removed from those tables the second I saw them anyway :P /grillo (talk) 02:56, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:51, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
and
File:Uruguay 1930 World Cup.jpgokay now (author found) --Saibo (Δ) 00:25, 27 April 2011 (UTC)- File:38france.jpg
wrong license template. However, a poster of a world cup is surely not anonymous! It is issued by the FIFA or whatever and they either have the copyrights or know who made it. Saibo (Δ) 01:19, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
- Keep FIFA is not the author, it was probably someone hired by FIFA. In this case, it can be assumed as an "corporative authorship" and AFAIK it could be considered in the same group than anonymous works. Do you have any proof that the work is not anonymous nor licensed as a "corporative authorship"? You can't prove that something is anonymous because always someone can say that your proofs are not enough... it's like proving that you are innocent; it's the other way around, you have to prove that you are guilty. --B1mbo (talk) 02:10, 11 February 2011 (UTC) PD: Maybe the template should be {{PD-EU-no author disclosure}} instead. In the case of the Uruguayan poster, the local Intellectual Property law grants 40 years for organizations and then the works become public domain.
- ¡Hola B1mbo! Yep, but If you ask FIFA and they dig in their archives they probably will know. Or: the copyright was transferred to FIFA and the hold it.
- A quote from the template you mentioned: "Reasonable evidence must be presented that the author's name (e.g., the original photographer, portrait painter) was not published with a claim of copyright in conjunction with the image within 70 years of its original publication."
- Yes, "You can't prove that something is anonymous because always someone can say that your proofs are not enough..." - you've got it. Anonymous works are bad - that bad that dewikipedia decided not to host them.
- @Uruguay: maybe - but was the poster by a local organization? Or by the international FIFA? Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 03:01, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
- With this being a work of an event inside Uruguay, I am not sure what is the rule to go with. As B1mbo pointed out, it is 40 years in that country. If we go with the FIFA as authors, it would be the 70 year rule and it is public domain due to that (1934+70 is 2004). It has no notice on the poster, so it would be PD in the United States. I am going to go with Keep due to the points B1mbo brought up. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 08:47, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
- Which "70 year rule" do you mean? Please see COM:L and give the correct name. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 20:26, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
- http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/COM:L#European_copyright_law this one. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 23:19, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
- Thank you.
- Quote: “This directive sets the duration of copyright to 70 years following the death of the author (for multiple authors, of the last author; for collective, pseudonymous or anonymous works, following the date of publication).”
- It's date of death - not publication. Do you think these posters are "collective, pseudonymous or anonymous works"? Surely not anonymous. Maybe pseudonymous and I do not know what collective means in this case. And which template should be used then? {{PD-old}} is it not. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 00:19, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
- Collective is like a corporate work. However, as state above, if the person who did the poster's name is never released to the public, we consider this an anonymous work. I would suggest to use {{PD-EU-no author disclosure}} (and we can add the Uruguay template too). User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 00:50, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
- Okay, thank you. Then we only need "Reasonable evidence must be presented that the author's name (e.g., the original photographer, portrait painter) was not published with a claim of copyright in conjunction with the image within 70 years of its original publication." to use the {{PD-EU-no author disclosure}}. I say you cannot present such evidence. Maybe the poster was published on presentation of the design and logo of the championship with the author's name to give him honor.
- I do not know if the work counts as anonymous in this case. en:Anonymous_work is very poor. So it would be nice if someone could clarify why this is an anonymous work although FIFA is known and they surely know the real author. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 01:17, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
- By the way: before 1932 FIFA was located in France, after 1932 in Switzerland. de:FIFA#Sitz_der_Organisation: "Im Jahre 1932 zog der Internationale Weltfußballverband FIFA von Paris nach Zürich und hat seitdem dort seinen Hauptsitz." --Saibo (Δ) 01:38, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
- Even if we do not know the actual author of the poster, there is a term we use called work for hire and FIFA could be well the author of the image (if we look at it through those eyes). If that is the case, the term of copyright would be 70 years after publication (since corporations cannot really suffer death). User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 05:30, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
- As I said before, you can't prove a work is anonymous, you must prove the other way around. You can always say that a work is not anonymous (even a known work like Cantar de Mio Cid) because there is a remote chance that the author published its name somewhere in the world... --B1mbo (talk) 20:15, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
- Yes - you cannot really prove a work is anon. That's one reason why such works are not allowed in dewp. I quoted from the template: "Reasonable evidence must be presented that the author's name (e.g., the original photographer, portrait painter) was not published with a claim of copyright in conjunction with the image within 70 years of its original publication."
- I think here is a good possibility to the contrary of a anon work and you nearly cannot proof it is wrong. It is not my problem that the anonymous copyright concept is not really useable. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 20:41, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
- As I said before, you can't prove a work is anonymous, you must prove the other way around. You can always say that a work is not anonymous (even a known work like Cantar de Mio Cid) because there is a remote chance that the author published its name somewhere in the world... --B1mbo (talk) 20:15, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
- Even if we do not know the actual author of the poster, there is a term we use called work for hire and FIFA could be well the author of the image (if we look at it through those eyes). If that is the case, the term of copyright would be 70 years after publication (since corporations cannot really suffer death). User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 05:30, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
- Collective is like a corporate work. However, as state above, if the person who did the poster's name is never released to the public, we consider this an anonymous work. I would suggest to use {{PD-EU-no author disclosure}} (and we can add the Uruguay template too). User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 00:50, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
- Thank you.
- http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/COM:L#European_copyright_law this one. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 23:19, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
- Which "70 year rule" do you mean? Please see COM:L and give the correct name. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 20:26, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
- With this being a work of an event inside Uruguay, I am not sure what is the rule to go with. As B1mbo pointed out, it is 40 years in that country. If we go with the FIFA as authors, it would be the 70 year rule and it is public domain due to that (1934+70 is 2004). It has no notice on the poster, so it would be PD in the United States. I am going to go with
For the Uruguay Poster, a user just identified the author as Guillermo Laborde. According to http://www.artfact.com/artist/laborde-guillermo-fyph2z7auw, the author died in 1940, so 2011-1940 just put it in the public domain this year (71 years). User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 22:11, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
- Thank you very much! Fine - it is just public domain. On the page you gave it is perfectly described: there was a competition and - of couse, like I said above - the author is not anonymous. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 00:17, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
- Delete, unless the life data of Henri Desmé for the 1938 poster can be found and the signature on the 1934 poster can be undeciphered. Surely not anonymous works. --Martin H. (talk) 17:37, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
- Keep the Italy poster with {{PD-EU-no author disclosure}}; Delete the Desmé poster - he made a "Merry Christmas" design in 1944. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:04, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
Kept: the 1934 poster, Deleted the 1938 poster. – Adrignola talk 13:58, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
Following the last deletion request someone mixed it up and added the author of the Uruguay poster also to the Italy poster. Wrong. The Italy poster is signed, therefore there is an author (who?) and Pieters idea with {{PD-EU-no author disclosure}} will not work. Martin H. (talk) 10:50, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Ok, I see it now, near the Brazilian flag. I found some larger files, it looks like a signature, but I cannot read it. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 12:47, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
- Comment How do you know it's the author's name? It's ilegible and could say anything... --B1mbo (talk) 12:00, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
- Quite likely this is a signature. If it is something else, Commons wants to see proof of that. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 13:32, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
- It could be anything! We don't have a higher quality image to figure to prove it is or is not a signature. Just because it is likely, we could say also the author is likely dead or likely approve the uploading of the image. --B1mbo (talk) 08:49, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
- Not having a higher quality version or not beeing able to read the text/signature on this low quality version does not mean that we can simply ignore it. Checking the signature is not even a case of COM:PRP, its a matter of course for all possible PD scenarios pd-old as well as pd-eu-anonymous. --Martin H. (talk) 11:12, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
- It could be anything! We don't have a higher quality image to figure to prove it is or is not a signature. Just because it is likely, we could say also the author is likely dead or likely approve the uploading of the image. --B1mbo (talk) 08:49, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
- Quite likely this is a signature. If it is something else, Commons wants to see proof of that. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 13:32, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
- Delete. Artist was en:Gino Boccasile (1901-1952). [4][5] Lupo 14:39, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
- Delete. Author found and clearly not under PD. --B1mbo (talk) 15:22, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted - Jcb (talk) 19:18, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
Derivative image. Skeezix1000 (talk) 12:56, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
Discussion
[edit]Hi, why does this image is proposed to deletion? Benoit Rochon (talk) 14:46, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
- Comment Salut. The photograph on the banner (presumably of Emmett Johns) is central to this image, and unless we have evidence to the contrary, we must assume that the photo of Johns is copyrighted. It is a violation of that copyright to take and make use of an unauthorized image of the Johns photo. See Commons:À propos des licences#Œuvres dérivées and fr:Œuvre dérivée for more information. Hope that helps. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 18:20, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:35, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
Uploader name = subject = photographer. Looks like professional work, so we will need Commons:OTRS permission from the photographer. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:58, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
- Keep I think this is work for hire, so the subject owns the copyright. Otherwise if a friend of him took the photo with Walter's camera, he can still own the copyright. Yann (talk) 16:40, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
- Delete unless the uploader confirms via OTRS. -mattbuck (Talk) 17:06, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
- Comment Unless Mattbuck objects, I'm going to withdraw this. After a discussion at User_talk:Jimmywalter, I am satisfied that the uploader owns the copyright as Yann suggests. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:45, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
- I'd prefer to have an OTRS verification of the user being who he says he is, but whatever. -mattbuck (Talk) 15:23, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
Kept, satisfied user is who he says. Aude (talk) 03:22, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
Although the previous deletion discussion was closed as keep, there are two outstanding issues which require more thorough confirmation. One is that we need to independently confirm that the uploader is Jimmy Walter, e.g. through one of his public e-mail addresses. The other is that we need to confirm that this photograph was taken under a contract which transfers copyright to Jimmy Walter. In the absence of such a contract, the copyright in a work by a hired contractor in the United States would remain with the photographer - this work does not qualify as a work for hire in the US (see en:Work_for_hire#Law_in_the_United_States). Dcoetzee (talk) 17:45, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
- Keep I'm satisfied on both issues, see User_talk:Jimmywalter, but since I withdrew the first DR, I don't think I should close this one. . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:08, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
Kept
Weil ich diese nicht haben möchte 217.246.48.194 12:14, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
Kept: nonsense request :bdk: 21:23, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
loeschen 84.215.79.142 13:13, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
Kept: again, nonsense request :bdk: 20:35, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
mmm 91.64.209.246 18:06, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
Kept: again, nonsense request. --Túrelio (talk) 18:37, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
delete ! no need in an enclyclopedia Hellotheworld (talk) 22:51, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
- Keep. I don't see any reason to delete. Can illustrate brassieres, tired women or dirtness of body. Commons is project which stores files not only for wikipedia but for other project, too (wikibooks, wikisource, wikinews and others) and not only for now but for the future use, as well. Electron
<Talk?> 09:09, 21 October 2010 (UTC) - Keep, say there is a Wikinews article about how some new study suggests bathing is more healthy than showering when relatively clean but showering is more healthy than bathing when relatively dirty...unless we want to be racy, we don't really want a nude or "nude in a towel" image for such an article - better to have a relatively modest image for it. Also, as Electron says, people click "See Commons for more instances of dirtiness", etc. And obviously they expect to see new images, not just those used in the dirtiness article. Max Rebo Band"almost suspiciously excellent" 13:53, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
- Delete: We donna know anything about copyrights (or personal rights), the putative "original" has been deleted on FlickR, and this pic is clearly out of scope and not used. Commons is not a costfree database. --Yikrazuul (talk) 13:47, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
- It's been deleted on Flickr? I can still see it... Max Rebo Band"almost suspiciously excellent" 22:22, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
- You are right, there was a filter. Oddly the picture uploaded here is cropped. I wonder why...--Yikrazuul (talk) 16:51, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_in_it_-_probably_a_logo.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.png&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
![[1]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Phrygisch-Chalkidischer_Flügelhelm.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}
_in_it_-_probably_a_logo.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_in_it_-_probably_a_logo.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
Kept Original image on Flickr is at present still there and free licensed. Image seems properly categorized and multiple users think it is of in scope usefulness. That one user thinks there is "no need" for it is not a reason to delete. Infrogmation (talk) 15:29, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
Private image : out of project scope ; no encyclopedic interest Civa (talk) 22:38, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
- Speedy keep per previous discussion. Illustrates dirtiness; other relevant cats. Infrogmation (talk) 23:01, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
- Keep I see no reason to delate (see previous discussion above). Electron <Talk?> 08:40, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
- Comment I uploaded the orginal photo because is more usuful to ilustrate washing of the hard dirty body. Now is used on pl-wiki -> pl:Brud do ilustrate washing of the human body. Electron <Talk?> 14:15, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Tommy Jantarek (talk) 00:15, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
- Keep as previously said, useful image illustrating dirt(iness). Jeriby (talk) 02:40, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
Kept. --Trycatch (talk) 00:21, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
Out of scope, no potiential use, watermark Tyw7 (☎ Contact me! • Contributions) Changing the world one edit at a time! 13:08, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
Speedy kept per previous listings. Infrogmation (talk) 13:43, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- Reopened by 99of9
- Delete as above nom and I agree with 99of9. --Tyw7 (☎ Contact me! • Contributions) Changing the world one edit at a time! 16:16, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
- Keep per previous discussions. 99of9, could you please elaborate on what you think the COM:PEOPLE problem with the image is? Infrogmation (talk) 17:05, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
- Comment "When required, evidence of consent would usually consist of an affirmation from the uploader of the media." Since this image is identifiable in a private location, consent is clearly required, so we need some evidence that this has in fact been given. This came as a WMF resolution [6] 99of9 (talk) 08:38, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
- 1) The photo has been on Commons under a free license consistantly since 2007; the Flickr photographer is still active as of this month. 2)This photo is one of a set featuring the woman shown -- actually two sets; one of the series of "washing", and a much larger set of the woman shown by name, showing numerous groups of photos taken on seperate dates over time. IMO, these fact strongly suggest consent -- certainly not absolute proof, but I would say much better than the vast majority of photographs of identifiable people currently on Commons. (BTW, did you take any time to look at the photo in context in the Flickr photo stream & sets?) Infrogmation (talk) 05:04, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
I withdraw my nomination Ok, having looked at the breadth in time and costume of the second set there is sufficient evidence of the subject's consent to publish. I had looked at the narrow set previously, but that wasn't convincing on its own. --99of9 (talk) 12:53, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
- 1) The photo has been on Commons under a free license consistantly since 2007; the Flickr photographer is still active as of this month. 2)This photo is one of a set featuring the woman shown -- actually two sets; one of the series of "washing", and a much larger set of the woman shown by name, showing numerous groups of photos taken on seperate dates over time. IMO, these fact strongly suggest consent -- certainly not absolute proof, but I would say much better than the vast majority of photographs of identifiable people currently on Commons. (BTW, did you take any time to look at the photo in context in the Flickr photo stream & sets?) Infrogmation (talk) 05:04, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
- Keep Per Infrogmation and my reasons put in the previous discussons. The photo is in use. Electron ツ ➧☎ 10:58, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
- Comment I have cropped out the watermark and frame. --Tyw7 (☎ Contact me! • Contributions) Changing the world one edit at a time! 03:46, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
Kept, listing withdrawn by nominator. Infrogmation (talk) 16:20, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
Images by/of a non-notable artist. The corresponding wikipedia article de:Mario Büchsler is up for deletion at the German wikipedia (de:Wikipedia:Löschkandidaten/27. Juli 2011#Mario Büchsler).
- File:499BBEF9AFCF7337D8350100.jpg
- File:49CCF3EA598A5DF56A7E0100.jpg
- File:49CCF42C6E2A04B3F4830100.jpg
- File:Mario Büchsler.jpg
- File:49CCF3CA2BB322FD5D3A0100.jpg
- File:49CCF40892417399027A0100.jpg
- File:499EC827AE49260CC6110100.jpg
- File:49A63FE9E8C337ACBCE10200.jpg
- File:49AFC213EFB6A4886F380100.jpg
Rosenzweig δ 13:35, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:40, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
and other uploads by Fredresseguier (talk · contribs). Unlikely to by own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:45, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 19:21, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
and other uploads by Vitunia (talk · contribs). Unlikely to by own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:51, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 19:26, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
Copryrights! 78.49.113.53 15:15, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
Copyrights 92.228.175.231 01:58, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
- Keep Irrevocable free license; in use. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:14, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
- Keep, same IP made Commons:Deletion requests/File:ObiWolf Lesbian foreplay.jpg yesterday about the same file. Max Rebo Band"almost suspiciously excellent" 21:00, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
- Keep per Max Rebo Band. — Jeff G. ツ 04:48, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
Kept, Speedy close, as no evidence given that the images are not properly licensed. Additionally, I suspect this is part of series of bad faith nominations we've been seeing of porn stars. Tabercil (talk) 17:03, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
I´m the photographer of this work. The models and I badly want to delete this pictures out the web. Thank you. 78.48.76.157 14:34, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
- Keep If you didn't want it on the web, you shouldn't have released it under a free license permitting anyone else to use it. In scope. Dcoetzee (talk) 17:03, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
- Delete If this photograph was published without the explicit consent of the models, this would be a violation of COM:PEOPLE. --AFBorchert (talk) 19:40, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
- I do not think that is the problem, because the photo is still available at http://www.obiwolf.com/#hotel /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:48, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
Kept, Speedy close, as no evidence given that the images are not properly licensed. Additionally, I suspect this is part of series of bad faith nominations we've been seeing of porn stars.[7] (as per above). — Jeff G. ツ 00:57, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
![[7]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/File:ObiWolf_Lesbians_in_Bed.jpg&diff=48621756&oldid=48515966){kind=link}
I´m the photographer of this work. The models and I badly want to delete this pictures out the web. Thank you. 92.228.136.0 00:28, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
Kept, see above--DieBuche (talk) 07:54, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
author requested delete (see above). Out of scope, potientially pornographic content. Tyw7 (☎ Contact me! • Contributions) Changing the world one edit at a time! 13:17, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
- How about if author contact through COM:OTRS? --Tyw7 (☎ Contact me! • Contributions) Changing the world one edit at a time! 13:37, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
Speedy kept per repeat decisions above. "Potentially pornographic"? The women are covered up much more modestly than is seen at the average public beach, and any eroticism is implied rather than explicit. As mentioned, if the author wishes to contact Commons they may do so through Commons:OTRS. Infrogmation (talk) 13:58, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
I object to the above speedy, as per COM:PEOPLE, if the author/subject has not explictely given consent for the upload of the image, it shouldn't be used/uploaded to Commons. The author has explicetly asked to have the img taken down Tyw7 (☎ Contact me! • Contributions) Changing the world one edit at a time! 16:10, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
- Keep per previous discussions. Infrogmation (talk) 17:10, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
- Keep An individual claiming to be the photographer has been requesting a courtesy deletion for six months. Our OTRS procedure, where they could establish their bona fides, has been explained to them on multiple occasions. Yet they have made no attempt to allow us to verify their identity. I think it would be a good idea for someone authorized to perform a checkuser do so, and see whether the IP address range used by the individual claiming to be the original photographer is one used by an established user. FWIW, if the individual claiming to be the uploader does initiate an OTRS ticket I request the member of the OTRS team who reviews the bona fide be thorough. Apparently some OTRS tickets show that some OTRS volunteers are willing to accept an email from joe.blow@gmail.org or joe.blow@yahoo.com as sufficient to confirm a request is actually from joe blow. Geo Swan (talk) 16:47, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
- Comment there is an existing OTRS ticket from the alleged author https://ticket.wikimedia.org/otrs/index.pl?Action=AgentTicketZoom&TicketID=2011022410009118. Could someone take a look at it and summerize what it says here? --Tyw7 (☎ Contact me! • Contributions) Changing the world one edit at a time! 03:39, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
- I wrote to another contributor, who had been in contact with the flickr user. They told me they communicated with the flickr user via flickrmail, and that they had initiated an OTRS ticket. While they can initiate the OTRS ticket it really requires the active cooperation of that flickr person to confirm their real world identity. I think we need to assume the flickr person hasn't cooperated. Today I sent a flickr mail to the flickr person, which I will copy to this discussion's talk page. Geo Swan (talk) 22:09, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
- If I'm reading that OTRS ticket right in that the first 8 digits represent a date, then I can guess what's part of it. As Geo Swan indicated, someone had written to the Flickr account back when. Well, I was that someone... but the date on the is February 24th and that's about two weeks after I forwarded my conversation to OTRS. That's a little long for it to have been sitting in a queue waiting to be read so I'm guessing there was some additional follow-up done on it which I wasn't privy to... long statement short, as a result of my part of the exchange I'm in favour of removing the images. Tabercil (talk) 00:14, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
- A delay of weeks is regrettably long. Unfortunately, if I recall correctly, the OTRS team was backlogged by weeks earlier this year.
I wrote my own flickrmail to the flickr-id in question, a couple of days ago. I copied that flickrmail to this discussion's talk page. No response yet. I think it is important, in principle, to only accept outside requests at face value if the outside requester's real world identity is confirmed via OTRS. The individual who has requested deletion is requesting a courtesy deletion. They are asking for special measures. In return, goldarnit, that individual should follow our procedures, and contact the OTRS team. The individual behind that flickr-id could send me a flickrmail, and I could write repeat their reasons for requesting a courtesy deletion here. But that is not our procedure. According to our procedure members of the OTRS team are the only people authorized to confirm requests from outsiders. I think we should stick to that. Geo Swan (talk) 02:20, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
- A delay of weeks is regrettably long. Unfortunately, if I recall correctly, the OTRS team was backlogged by weeks earlier this year.
- If I'm reading that OTRS ticket right in that the first 8 digits represent a date, then I can guess what's part of it. As Geo Swan indicated, someone had written to the Flickr account back when. Well, I was that someone... but the date on the is February 24th and that's about two weeks after I forwarded my conversation to OTRS. That's a little long for it to have been sitting in a queue waiting to be read so I'm guessing there was some additional follow-up done on it which I wasn't privy to... long statement short, as a result of my part of the exchange I'm in favour of removing the images. Tabercil (talk) 00:14, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
- I wrote to another contributor, who had been in contact with the flickr user. They told me they communicated with the flickr user via flickrmail, and that they had initiated an OTRS ticket. While they can initiate the OTRS ticket it really requires the active cooperation of that flickr person to confirm their real world identity. I think we need to assume the flickr person hasn't cooperated. Today I sent a flickr mail to the flickr person, which I will copy to this discussion's talk page. Geo Swan (talk) 22:09, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
- Comment I think it would be more convient if we could merge the conversation with Commons:Deletion_requests/ObiWolf_Lesbian_Images as we are discussion the same photographs. That is sort of a "bulk" deal of all of obiwolf's pictures. --Tyw7 (☎ Contact me! • Contributions) Changing the world one edit at a time! 15:44, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
Kept - previous 4 (!) DRs - if I see a sixth nomination, I will probably just revert it and protect the page - Jcb (talk) 14:59, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
Copyrights 92.228.175.231 01:59, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
- Keep - well-licensed, in use; same IP made Commons:Deletion requests/File:ObiWolf Lesbian foreplay.jpg yesterday and Commons:Deletion requests/File:ObiWolf Lesbians in Bed.jpg today, all well-licensed files from the same source, as their only contributions. — Jeff G. ツ 04:52, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
Kept, Speedy close, as no evidence given that the images are not properly licensed. Additionally, I suspect this is part of series of bad faith nominations we've been seeing of porn stars. Tabercil (talk) 17:03, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
author request deletion, duplicate img of File:ObiWolf Lesbians in Bed.jpg. Tyw7 (☎ Contact me! • Contributions) Changing the world one edit at a time! 13:23, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
Kept, not a duplicate (it is a similarly posed but different photo, apparently from same photo session); if the author wishes to contact Commons they may do so through Commons:OTRS. Infrogmation (talk) 14:02, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
I object to the above speedy, as per COM:PEOPLE, if the author/subject has not explictely given consent for the upload of the image, it shouldn't be used/uploaded to Commons. The author has explicetly asked above and at Deletion_requests/File:ObiWolf_Lesbians_in_Bed.jpg to have the img taken down Tyw7 (☎ Contact me! • Contributions) Changing the world one edit at a time! 16:10, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
- Keep per previous discussions. Tyw7, it's looking like you're just shooting deletion reasons scattershot, and trying again when you don't get the result you want. Infrogmation (talk) 17:18, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
- Actually I got the idea from 99of9 and I wanted to get the pic deleted out of courtsey since the author (allegedly) request it to be deleted from commons. If I were an admin, I would delete the picture if somebody voiced an objection over it and it is not used in a promient page --Tyw7 (☎ Contact me! • Contributions) Changing the world one edit at a time! 17:24, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
- Comment There is an OTRS ticket from the alleged author https://ticket.wikimedia.org/otrs/index.pl?Action=AgentTicketZoom&TicketID=2011022410009118 --Tyw7 (☎ Contact me! • Contributions) Changing the world one edit at a time! 03:39, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
Kept - per previous DRs - Jcb (talk) 15:01, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
delete ! no need in an enclyclopedia Hellotheworld (talk) 22:51, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
- Keep. I don't see any reason to delete. Can illustrate brassieres, tired women or dirtness of body. Commons is project which stores files not only for wikipedia but for other project, too (wikibooks, wikisource, wikinews and others) and not only for now but for the future use, as well. Electron <Talk?> 09:09, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
- Keep, say there is a Wikinews article about how some new study suggests bathing is more healthy than showering when relatively clean but showering is more healthy than bathing when relatively dirty...unless we want to be racy, we don't really want a nude or "nude in a towel" image for such an article - better to have a relatively modest image for it. Also, as Electron says, people click "See Commons for more instances of dirtiness", etc. And obviously they expect to see new images, not just those used in the dirtiness article. Max Rebo Band"almost suspiciously excellent" 13:53, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
- Delete: We donna know anything about copyrights (or personal rights), the putative "original" has been deleted on FlickR, and this pic is clearly out of scope and not used. Commons is not a costfree database. --Yikrazuul (talk) 13:47, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
- It's been deleted on Flickr? I can still see it... Max Rebo Band"almost suspiciously excellent" 22:22, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
- You are right, there was a filter. Oddly the picture uploaded here is cropped. I wonder why...--Yikrazuul (talk) 16:51, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
Kept Original image on Flickr is at present still there and free licensed. Image seems properly categorized and multiple users think it is of in scope usefulness. That one user thinks there is "no need" for it is not a reason to delete. Infrogmation (talk) 15:29, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
Private image : out of project scope ; no encyclopedic interest Civa (talk) 22:38, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
- Speedy keep per previous discussion. Illustrates dirtiness; other relevant cats. Infrogmation (talk) 23:01, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
- Keep I see no reason to delate (see previous discussion above). Electron <Talk?> 08:40, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
- Comment I uploaded the orginal photo because is more usuful to ilustrate washing of the hard dirty body. Now is used on pl-wiki -> pl:Brud do ilustrate washing of the human body. Electron <Talk?> 14:15, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Tommy Jantarek (talk) 00:15, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
- Keep as previously said, useful image illustrating dirt(iness). Jeriby (talk) 02:40, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
Kept. --Trycatch (talk) 00:21, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
Out of scope, no potiential use, watermark Tyw7 (☎ Contact me! • Contributions) Changing the world one edit at a time! 13:08, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
Speedy kept per previous listings. Infrogmation (talk) 13:43, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- Reopened by 99of9
- Delete as above nom and I agree with 99of9. --Tyw7 (☎ Contact me! • Contributions) Changing the world one edit at a time! 16:16, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
- Keep per previous discussions. 99of9, could you please elaborate on what you think the COM:PEOPLE problem with the image is? Infrogmation (talk) 17:05, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
- Comment "When required, evidence of consent would usually consist of an affirmation from the uploader of the media." Since this image is identifiable in a private location, consent is clearly required, so we need some evidence that this has in fact been given. This came as a WMF resolution [8] 99of9 (talk) 08:38, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
- 1) The photo has been on Commons under a free license consistantly since 2007; the Flickr photographer is still active as of this month. 2)This photo is one of a set featuring the woman shown -- actually two sets; one of the series of "washing", and a much larger set of the woman shown by name, showing numerous groups of photos taken on seperate dates over time. IMO, these fact strongly suggest consent -- certainly not absolute proof, but I would say much better than the vast majority of photographs of identifiable people currently on Commons. (BTW, did you take any time to look at the photo in context in the Flickr photo stream & sets?) Infrogmation (talk) 05:04, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
- I withdraw my nomination Ok, having looked at the breadth in time and costume of the second set there is sufficient evidence of the subject's consent to publish. I had looked at the narrow set previously, but that wasn't convincing on its own. --99of9 (talk) 12:53, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
- 1) The photo has been on Commons under a free license consistantly since 2007; the Flickr photographer is still active as of this month. 2)This photo is one of a set featuring the woman shown -- actually two sets; one of the series of "washing", and a much larger set of the woman shown by name, showing numerous groups of photos taken on seperate dates over time. IMO, these fact strongly suggest consent -- certainly not absolute proof, but I would say much better than the vast majority of photographs of identifiable people currently on Commons. (BTW, did you take any time to look at the photo in context in the Flickr photo stream & sets?) Infrogmation (talk) 05:04, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
- Keep Per Infrogmation and my reasons put in the previous discussons. The photo is in use. Electron ツ ➧☎ 10:58, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
- Comment I have cropped out the watermark and frame. --Tyw7 (☎ Contact me! • Contributions) Changing the world one edit at a time! 03:46, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
Kept, listing withdrawn by nominator. Infrogmation (talk) 16:20, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
Was marked for speedy deletion as "Flickr review NOT passed: Author is using NC, ND, or all rights reserved." The original file seems to be quite old, however, and since the woman depicted (en:Nazli Sabri) was born in 1894, it could well be pre-1923. Anyone have more info that would allow to keep it? Rosenzweig δ 17:21, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
Kept: PD-Egypt Jcb (talk) 19:46, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
Files uploaded by V K HEMANT (talk · contribs)
[edit]What and whom are those images supposed to depict? Unless a reasonable explanation comes up: Out of project scope.
- File:V.K.HEMANT ( I HAVE A DREAM TODAY),,,PCS.jpg
- File:V.K.HEMANT ( I HAVE A DREAM TODAY) 2.jpg
- File:V.K.HEMANT ( I HAVE A DREAM TODAY),,,PCS 1.jpg
,,,PCS.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_2.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
,,,PCS_1.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Rosenzweig δ 21:56, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:21, 5 August 2011 (UTC)