Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2011/08/17
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
|
|
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
Unnecesary —Fitoschido [shouttrack] \\ 17 August, 2011 [00:45] 00:45, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
- Deleted. Out of scope. Anna (Cookie) (talk) 00:53, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Duplicate. Kekator (talk) 03:08, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: Just use the {{Dupe}} tag next time. – Adrignola talk 21:45, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Copyright violation (Nickelodeon/Viacom) Grashoofd (talk) 16:57, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
Delete speedy delete Warfieldian (talk) 16:58, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyright violation Ed (Edgar181) 20:48, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
Copyright violation (Nickelodeon/Viacom) Grashoofd (talk) 16:57, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
- Delete speedy delete Warfieldian (talk) 16:57, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: copyright violation Ed (Edgar181) 20:48, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
Copyright violation (Nickelodeon/Viacom) Grashoofd (talk) 16:59, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Ed (Edgar181) 20:48, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
Accidentally uploaded thinking it had Creative Commons license, which it in fact does not. Delaywaves talk • contribs 17:36, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: User request Yuval Y § Chat § 17:47, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
Unambiguous copyright infringement Argyle 4 Life (talk) 20:34, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Speedied as copyvio: (C) J.LAGO. AFP. Túrelio (talk) 20:39, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
private information, I don't see any specimen mark. ■ MMXX talk 23:34, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
- If you look closely you can see the word model in red water mark. Blue-Haired Lawyer (talk) 00:34, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
Kept: Specimen. ■ MMXX talk 01:22, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
Low quality for own work Art-top (talk) 14:53, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: copyvio from http://www.clarkmheu.com/cms/index.php?id=17&L=2%2F%2Findex.php%3Foption%3Dcom_registration Túrelio (talk) 07:28, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
Didn't see any indication of copyleft at the source Eeekster (talk) 00:19, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. High Contrast (talk) 10:50, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
Low quality, maybe copyvio of these images and used in a self-promotion eswiki article.—Fitoschido [shouttrack] \\ 17 August, 2011 [01:02]
Deleted. High Contrast (talk) 10:50, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
Licensing is incorrect, and given the source and nature, it can be safely assumed to be under copyright. cmadler (talk) 01:07, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. High Contrast (talk) 10:50, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
the "own" license was wrong. this is copyrighted by Siemens AG 2011 as part of brochure: http://pdf.directindustry.com/pdf/siemens-low-voltage-power-distribution/lv-70-sivacon-8ps-busbar-trunking-systems/25580-178652-_18.html A5b (talk) 03:29, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. High Contrast (talk) 10:50, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
Looks like copyvio from siemens book. Compare with https://eb.automation.siemens.com/goos/catalog/Pages/ProductData.aspx?catalogRegion=WW&language=en&nodeid=10006945&tree=CatalogTree®ionUrl=/#activetab=product& - note the black wires, this is siemens's style, not a photo. such images are © Siemens AG Industry Sector 2008 A5b (talk) 03:41, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. High Contrast (talk) 10:50, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
Copyvio of https://eb.automation.siemens.com/goos/catalog/Pages/ProductData.aspx?catalogRegion=WW&language=en&nodeid=10000774&tree=CatalogTree®ionUrl=/ © Siemens AG Industry Sector 2008 A5b (talk) 03:43, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. High Contrast (talk) 10:50, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
copyvio of https://eb.automation.siemens.com/goos/catalog/Pages/ProductData.aspx?catalogRegion=WW&language=en&nodeid=10005206&tree=CatalogTree®ionUrl=/#activetab=product& with color corected. © Siemens AG Industry Sector 2008 A5b (talk) 03:49, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. High Contrast (talk) 10:50, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
copyvio http://siemens.el-complex.com/index.php?tree=1000000&tree2=10007430&tree3=9309999&tree4=10021868&tree5=10021870&tree6=10038599 (2005 year by EXIF) A5b (talk) 03:55, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. High Contrast (talk) 10:50, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
Possibly copyvio from http://www.riapress.by/catalogue/lotki_iz_ocinkovannoi_stali_dkc - they have bigger version. © Риапресс, 2009 - 2011 A5b (talk) 04:08, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. High Contrast (talk) 10:50, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
This image is not found on Flickr nor under the author mexsystem28 and tineye finds a few similar version of this image but the copyright status is not defined on any of these sites. Ww2censor (talk) 04:16, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
- Speedy Delete -- Appears on commercial website and no evidence of permission. Warfieldian (talk) 15:08, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
- Speedy delete, {{Copyvio}}.[1] It does appear on Flickr, but it's marked all rights reserved, and the Flickr user is not the copyright holder anyway. Alfonsoescobar16 has uploaded nothing but blatant copyvios so far. —LX (talk, contribs) 10:45, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
- Good find. I searched for both the image and the user but could not find the image on Flickr. Thanks Ww2censor (talk) 15:59, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. High Contrast (talk) 10:51, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
the title is incorrect - it should be Yarmouth not Freshwater (2 files) and it won't let me correct The Sandpainter (talk) 06:54, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
- If you only want a rename, use the {{Rename}} template. I have added the template to assist you. If this is correct, just withdraw deletion nomination. --P199 (talk) 23:45, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
- I've just renamed the file, as requested to File:Yarmouth Sunset Sand Painting.jpg, and removed the deletion template as I'm assuming you wanted it deleted to then re-upload under the correct name. Editor5807speak 19:52, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
Kept. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:26, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
low quality - better files exists GFreihalter (talk) 07:18, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. High Contrast (talk) 10:51, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
Low resolution, no exif, possible derivative work. Kiran Gopi (talk) 07:29, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. High Contrast (talk) 10:51, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
it seems to be no own work AtelierMonpli (talk) 08:16, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. High Contrast (talk) 10:52, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
it seems to be no own work, out of scope AtelierMonpli (talk) 08:27, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. High Contrast (talk) 10:52, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
out of scope, advertisement AtelierMonpli (talk) 08:33, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. High Contrast (talk) 10:52, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Oeuvre architecturale récente en France, originalité suffisante pour interdire la reproduction sans autorisation du ou des auteurs Croquant (talk) 08:44, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:26, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Oeuvre architecturale récente en France, originalité suffisante pour interdire la reproduction sans autorisation du ou des auteurs Croquant (talk) 08:45, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:26, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Oeuvre architecturale récente en France, originalité suffisante pour interdire la reproduction sans autorisation du ou des auteurs Croquant (talk) 08:45, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:27, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Company logo not likely to be CC licensed Eeekster (talk) 08:50, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:27, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
Is this a notable person. BTW: I doubt the uploader is the copyright holder. GeorgHH • talk 09:56, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:27, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
Author unknown, date unknown (30/01/1945 is the date of the event, not of publication), source not available (the site is up but this map does not show up). As for contents, there's no actual track of the Gustloff (did it depart from Gotenhaven or from Memel? too many tracks, which one is relevant for the Gustloff?). Here's a better (or at least uncontroversial) example of same map that can be easily recreated based on free-source maps. NVO (talk) 10:35, 17 August 2011 (UTC) NVO
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:27, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
Logo taken from a site that doesn't state anything about FAL. However, could the logo qualify for pd-ineligible? I don't think so as the bottom bit is intricate enough, but would like other opinions. -- Deadstar (msg) 10:59, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:28, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
Out of project scope, no educational value. This file (which is licensed as if it were a photo created by NASA) was used on ru.wiki to vandalize an article. Mathonius (talk) 11:00, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:28, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
A obsolte non-vector-SVG-File containing raster graphics with incorrect aspect ratio. We have a correct SVG-File, so this one should be deleted Antemister (talk) 11:15, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:28, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
recently uploaded low quality JPEG-Version of a file we already have Antemister (talk) 11:21, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:29, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
recently uploaded low quality JPEG-Version with an non-descriptive name of a file we already have Antemister (talk) 11:23, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:29, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
nonsense "fun-flag" without educational purpose: An ethiopien flag with the color shade of the Lithuanian flag? Antemister (talk) 11:37, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
Keep And how many hybrid flags do we have on here? You gonna go after all of them too? Fry1989 eh? 22:04, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Have to start somewhere. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:29, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
presumably a copyvio: What is the source for the photo of the camel? Antemister (talk) 11:43, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
- Delete. We have a proper version of this flag anyways. Fry1989 eh? 22:10, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:29, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
The uploader doesn't provide proof that WASTAC releases its images under the public domain. Given a glance at the website [2], it appears they may have worked with NOAA, but the uploader doesn't assert that. Magog the Ogre (talk) 13:39, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:29, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
Clearly a derivative work of proprietary software: en:ZBrush Magog the Ogre (talk) 14:12, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:30, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
Uploader claims own work but refuses to upload the source images to verify this claim Denniss (talk) 14:47, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
please delete the photo, I have no desire to discuss this issue
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:31, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
Uploader claims own work but refuses to upload the source images to verify this claim Denniss (talk) 14:47, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
- Qweasdqwe does not need to upload the files, or list them - IMO it's above the requirements of CC licenses. I understand that the sea of templates on their talk pages (many added by yours truly) discredits Qweasdqwe, but now the source files are here, so perhaps this case can be closes. Some trusted users from Russian wikipedia have spoken here in Qweasdqwe's defense, stating that he was, in fact, the author of many files deleted as copyvios. I haven't formed my own opinion except that his case is not so simple as it seems.
- Or maybe it is simple: all files in this set fail COM:FOP. The town was founded in a green field in 1948. There's nothing that passes 70 years p.m.a. test. Techically, Commons must delete all info on this town of 150 thousand people, even it's emblem (a derivative of a non-free monument appearing in this collage). NVO (talk) 06:41, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
please delete the photo, I have no desire to discuss this issue
Deleted: Per NVO Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:46, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
Doubtful license, authorship Art-top (talk) 14:52, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
- Copyvio: http://www.clark.ro/?modul=pagini&pagina_id=127 (official site). --Art-top (talk) 23:06, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:47, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
and other uploads by FlorianeB (talk · contribs). No evidence of permission. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:02, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. High Contrast (talk) 10:53, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photoalbum. Not used. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:08, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. High Contrast (talk) 10:53, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
modern painting - belgian painter died in 2002. -- Deadstar (msg) 15:24, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:47, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
Unlikely to by own work: small resolution, missing EXIF. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:51, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. High Contrast (talk) 10:58, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
and other uploads by Dinoxxxx (talk · contribs). No evidence of permissions. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:52, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. High Contrast (talk) 10:58, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
Not a screenshot of GPL software, but rather of some video recording. Taking a screenshot of someone else's video doesn't make one the author. —LX (talk, contribs) 16:34, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. High Contrast (talk) 11:01, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
Commons is not a personal web host. Out of scope and unused. – Adrignola talk 16:35, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. High Contrast (talk) 11:01, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
Poor resolution, replaced by File:Polypropylen.svg. Leyo 17:00, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Ed (Edgar181) 13:00, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
image used only in a since-deleted spam userpage on enwiki DS (talk) 17:03, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:48, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
image used only in a since-deleted spam userpage on enwiki DS (talk) 17:03, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:48, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
Commercial video game, wrong author, wrong license. TMg 18:08, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. High Contrast (talk) 11:01, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
"Own work"? Why is it signed then by J. Weltert? Copyvio! P199 (talk) 23:21, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Uploaded to her in 11 nov. 2010. Larger version her. Geagea (talk) 10:20, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
Useless and out of scope Angelus (talk) 02:49, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
- Keep First, thank you very much for not notifing me as the uploader of this deletion request. Second, could you please explain in more than 4 words why this image is "Useless and out of scope" as this sentence doesnt show anithing except that is image is "Useless and out of scope" because it is "Useless and out of scope" (circular argument). I´ve got to ask how many images do we have of topless women "flipping the bird"??? This image is in scope as this gesture is associated with sex and nudity (in this case female topless)might be associated with sex. As it is this is the only image in commons that associates this two caracteristics marking, by this, its usefulness and in scope. Tm (talk) 03:50, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
- Delete First, in the file history, the uploader turns out to be "Flickr upload bot"! Second, this image is useless because it has not educational or encyclopedic value. What would be the "educational" scope of this picture? The kind of reasoning you are proposing is misleading. Angelus (talk) 04:56, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
Comment In first place you notified no one (not me or the Flickr upload bot which is a bot and in the image can be claearly read "was uploaded to Commons using Flickr upload bot on 06:47, 14 August 2011 (UTC) by Tm (talk).") Second, about "What would be the "educational" scope of this picture?" the usefulness and educational scope (without quotation marks) can be asseded by the categories where is and by mine reasoning above (in case you havent read it). Third why is this image "useless because it has not educational or encyclopedic value" or this the continuation of your circulat reasoning that this image is "useless and out of scope" because is "useless and out of scope". What i ask is what are the reasons that make this image "useless because it has not educational or encyclopedic value", as is the job of the deletion requester show why is a image out of scope, which until now you didnt. Also i ask you what you mean by "The kind of reasoning you are proposing is misleading". Tm (talk) 07:07, 17 August 2011 (UTC)- Comment You haven't explained what is the purpose of this image. Your reasons expressed above are only a your personal interpretation of the meaning of this picture. Btw: "this gesture is associated with sex and nudity (in this case female topless) might be associated with sex": the kind of reasoning you are proposing is misleading because the association between a topless girl and this gesture is meaningless and has no utility. Angelus (talk) 13:42, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
- Comment And its is your personal interpretation that this image is out of scope, interpretation and reasoning that until now you didnt care to explain only saying that this image is "useless because it has not educational or encyclopedic value" and "Useless and out of scope" and yet you showed ZERO arguments as to this is. Please i ask you again to read my above reasoning. Also even if you forget that this image:
- 1)show two taboo subjects as both both taboo and are viewed as challenging the established social norms (nudity and obscene gesture are considered tabo, so here you have a "association between a topless girl and this gesture" that has meaning and is not uselesss;
- 2)they are both associated with sex (another meaningfull and nsefull conection;
- 3) It is the only image in Commons that shows the two subjects together (unless the swhowing in the same image of two subjects in scope, make the image automatically out of scope)
- 4) They both can be viewed as empowering and as a statement of power.
- 5) They both are viewed as obscene.
If you forget that this uselfull and meaninfull associations, you still have an image that is in scope and educaional as its shows female toplessness, a black and white photography and a middle finger gestures (see Category:Female toplessness, Category:Middle finger gestures and Category:Black and white photographs of topless women)
Please, for the third time explain what are your arguments as to why is this image, and please stop the circular reasoning that this image is "useless and out of scope" because is "useless and out of scope" and try to expain as to why " the association between a topless girl and this gesture is meaningless and has no utility." on the contrary of what i´ve already said. Tm (talk) 16:24, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
Comment For the second time: the association between a topless girl and this gesture is meaningless and has no utility. Ok, they are both associated with sex, but that's not enough to give a utility to this photo. This association of "taboo" does not make sense. So if I take a box of condoms, I draw on a middle finger, I take a picture and uploads it on Commons, do you think this deserves to stay just because both subjects are related to the world of sex and its taboo and because it would be "the only image in Commons that shows the two subjects together"? For the third time: this kind of reasoning you are proposing is misleading. Angelus (talk) 17:21, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
- Delete as per COM:NUDE. Purposeless, poor quality, unused. --P199 (talk) 23:39, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom Jcb (talk) 16:43, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
Moved from copyvio. I would say its pd-ineligible. see: Threshold_of_originality Amada44 talk to me 13:46, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
- If you say it's PD-ineligible, then why did you nominate it? Fry1989 eh? 20:56, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
- sorry forgot to mention. I moved it from from copyvio. Amada44 talk to me 11:09, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
Kept: per nom Jcb (talk) 16:45, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
Accidentally uploaded thinking it had Creative Commons license, which it in fact does not. Delaywaves talk • contribs 17:37, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:21, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
Copyleft does not seem to be applicable FordPrefect42 (talk) 18:06, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:21, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
not used EM311 (talk) 18:25, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:27, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
Highly unlikely to be the uploader's own work, given the resolution and lack of EXIF data. – Adrignola talk 18:50, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:27, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
Highly unlikely to be the uploader's own work, given the resolution and lack of EXIF data. – Adrignola talk 18:51, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:27, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
загружена более качественная версия File:Htplayer.PNG Андрюс (talk) 18:52, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio and probably out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 18:44, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
unused personal photo; has appeared only in deleted spammy English wikipedia entries, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Lil_Mirkk for more Holyoke, mass (talk) 19:24, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:29, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
unused personal photo; has appeared only in deleted spammy English wikipedia entries, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Lil_Mirkk for more Holyoke, mass (talk) 19:24, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:29, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
better versions exist GFreihalter (talk) 19:54, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Ok, blurred version of this --Sailko (talk) 20:33, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
- No objection Aoineko (talk) 20:37, 17 August 2011 (UTC) (the author)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:31, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
replaced with Category:Aleksandrs Cauņa Dark Eagle (talk) 21:39, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:31, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
Too small and bad quality. A better version is File:House of Capocelli.jpg. Vonvikken (talk) 22:19, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: unusable too small duplicate of good image George Chernilevsky talk 18:47, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
Unless they had black lasers and handheld computers back in 1950, I don't think this is suitable for PD as tagged. Warfieldian (talk) 22:21, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:32, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
Self promotion. Out of scope. Jorge Barrios (talk) 22:22, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:32, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
Author unknown. Presence on a government website doesn't make it work of the US government. – Adrignola talk 22:23, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
- If at least two generations of scholarly researchers and fans failed to identify "the author" reliably, then the song has no author. It happens. I'm not sure if Stephen Winick (text transcription) and Jennifer Cutting (sheet transcription) have strong enough rights to prohibit free publication (yes, it is a US-Gov publication but it's not enough to guarantee PD-US-Gov). NVO (talk) 07:01, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
This image was created by a division of the Library of Congress and published in one of their magazines. A link to the magazine was provided. The song itself is in the public domain. The image is a significant work because it is the only transcription of the earliest known recording of this song. – ReiffLorenz talk 23:43, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
- In the united states, there is no copyright on music engraving (the typesetting of notes.) Since the song is public domain and this is an exact transcription, there are no rights to claim in the United States. The transcriber and recorder were both employees of the Library of Congress. There are countries that protect the engraving with a separate copyright (like Australia); different rules may apply there. ReiffLorenz (talk) 12:03, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
Kept: I don't think ReiffLorenz's comment about sheet music is correct -- as far as I know, both song lyrics and music (with or without words) has had a copyright in the USA in at least the last two major revisions of the Copyright Act. However it is moot, because the two peeople who would own the copyrights are employees of LOC and therefore the image is PD. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:41, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
Also File:Dan brown yt swing - slightly edited.jpg. This Flickr user does not have similar files to this one and this looks to be license laundering, albeit inadvertent on the part of the Flickr user. – Adrignola talk 22:29, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:36, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
The photo is from a US Government site but its by "Wendy Gilmour." Is she an employee of the USA? Its not at all stated. If not, then we have to consider if this file should be deleted. What does the community think? Thank You. Leoboudv (talk) 22:39, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:39, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
The photo is from a US Government site but its by "Wendy Gilmour." Is she an employee of the USA? Its not at all stated. If not, then we have to consider should this file be deleted. What does the community think? Thank You. Leoboudv (talk) 22:41, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:39, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
Finnland has no COM:FOP indoors and Eliel Saarinen died in 1950, so no public domain yet for at least those elements around the window which make the focal point of this picture. Cecil (talk) 23:05, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
- According to this the windows itself also were designed by Saarinen so they are also not public domain yet. Windows from outdoors would be ok thanks to FOP, but indoors it is not. -- Cecil (talk) 23:13, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
Unless I am missing something, this should be covered by the information available on http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:FOP#Finland:
"Article 25a of the Finnish copyright law permits panorama freedom for buildings, both exteriors and interiors, regardless of whether the place is public (laws of privacy do apply). This, however, does not extend to works of art (other than architecture), when they constitute the central element of the picture. Pictures of works of art permanently located in public places can be used non-commercially or as illustrations to texts in newspapers and periodicals. Published works of art may according to article 25 also be used e.g. as illustrations to scientific texts or criticism."
Cognitiv (talk) 07:35, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:40, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
Finland has no COM:FOP indoors and Eliel Saarinen died in 1950, so no public domain yet for at least those elements around the window which make a big part of this picture. Cecil (talk) 23:06, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
- According to this the windows itself also were designed by Saarinen so they are also not public domain yet. Windows from outdoors would be ok thanks to FOP, but indoors it is not. -- Cecil (talk) 23:13, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
Unless I am missing something, this should be covered by the information available on http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:FOP#Finland:
"Article 25a of the Finnish copyright law permits panorama freedom for buildings, both exteriors and interiors, regardless of whether the place is public (laws of privacy do apply). This, however, does not extend to works of art (other than architecture), when they constitute the central element of the picture. Pictures of works of art permanently located in public places can be used non-commercially or as illustrations to texts in newspapers and periodicals. Published works of art may according to article 25 also be used e.g. as illustrations to scientific texts or criticism."
Cognitiv (talk) 07:33, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:40, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
Pure SPAM. P199 (talk) 23:12, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: (not by me) Jcb (talk) 16:46, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: 04:43, 18 August 2011 by Fastily, closed by Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:40, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
Finland has no COM:FOP indoors and Eliel Saarinen, the designer of this whole building, died in 1950, so no public domain yet for building, window and most likely also the lamps. -- Cecil (talk) 23:19, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
Unless I am missing something, this should be covered by the information available on http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:FOP#Finland:
"Article 25a of the Finnish copyright law permits panorama freedom for buildings, both exteriors and interiors, regardless of whether the place is public (laws of privacy do apply). This, however, does not extend to works of art (other than architecture), when they constitute the central element of the picture. Pictures of works of art permanently located in public places can be used non-commercially or as illustrations to texts in newspapers and periodicals. Published works of art may according to article 25 also be used e.g. as illustrations to scientific texts or criticism."
Cognitiv (talk) 07:32, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:41, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
Likely copyvio from http://www.lagrange-holidays.co.uk/holidays-rental-sea-mountain,accommodation-alpes-savoie,doucy-combelouviere-DOUCY-L-APPA-residence.html#station P199 (talk) 23:20, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:41, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
83.42.244.168 23:21, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
- No valid reason has been provided to delete this file.--Jcaraballo 00:16, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
Kept. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:41, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
better versions exist GFreihalter (talk) 19:52, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
- Keep false.. this also shows the captation of the work of art --Sailko (talk) 20:32, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
Kept. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:00, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
better versions exist GFreihalter (talk) 19:58, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
- If you think so you better link them.. otherwise we should Keep it. --Sailko (talk) 20:00, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
better version: File:Paris MNMA Vitrail Joseph 671.JPG--GFreihalter (talk) 21:33, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
- The second is darker.. i see no reason to delete one. --Sailko (talk) 21:56, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
- Keep. It's available under more licensing options than the other. There's nothing wrong with having the two files. -- Asclepias (talk) 21:59, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
Kept. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:01, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
better versions exist GFreihalter (talk) 19:59, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
- Keep cannot see it... If you think so you better link them --Sailko (talk) 20:01, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
better version: File:Paris MNMA Vitrail Auferstehung 682.JPG --GFreihalter (talk) 21:39, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
- Different light.. there is no reason to cancel it. --Sailko (talk) 21:55, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
Kept. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:01, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
better versions exist GFreihalter (talk) 20:02, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
- Keep I don't see any in the category, please stop. --Sailko (talk) 20:04, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
better version: File:Paris MNMA Vitrail Johannes 634.JPG with correct description and category. --GFreihalter (talk) 21:42, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
Kept. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:01, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
better versions exist, see Category:Stained glass in the Musée national du Moyen Âge GFreihalter (talk) 20:13, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
- Keep, there is no similar file! --Sailko (talk) 20:24, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
better version: File:Paris MNMA Vitrail Petrus 630.JPG with correct description and category.--GFreihalter (talk) 21:44, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
- This has a larger crop.. no need to cancel it. --Sailko (talk) 21:54, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
Kept. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:01, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
better version exist, see Category:Stained glass in the Musée national du Moyen Âge GFreihalter (talk) 20:16, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
- Keep cannot see any --Sailko (talk) 20:24, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
better version: File:St Paul Rouen MNMA Cl22734.jpg with correct category and description.--GFreihalter (talk) 21:37, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
- File is different a lot, with more details visible. Just correct category and description... --Sailko (talk) 22:01, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
Kept. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:01, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
Powtarza się.Moja pomylka PaPaKo (talk) 20:19, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
Kept. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:01, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
better versions exist, see Category:Stained glass in the Musée national du Moyen Âge; file without description, wrong category GFreihalter (talk) 20:21, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
- Keep description is in the filename, you can add it! Categories are ok too. I cannot see equal file, if you cannot link it, then do not propose cancellation. --Sailko (talk) 20:26, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
better version: File:Paris MNMA Vitrail Martin 643.JPG; origin of the window: Varennes-Jarcy (Département Essonne) and not Sainte-Chapelle--GFreihalter (talk) 21:29, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
- You can correct it. The crop is different. I don't understand why German people if they upload a new file they have to cancel all the similar ones before. Do they have a different guideline in German?? Do they just like monopoly? Just curious --Sailko (talk) 21:59, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
- Keep Sailko's is brighter, cropped and more square, second one is with margins. Sometimes you need image with margins, sometimes without. Shakko (talk) 07:59, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
Kept. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:01, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
no source, no author, claims to be 1914 but this is not clearly demonstrated, multiple dubious licenses claimed (claims to be work of federal government in PD and also CC), questionable value with no links to articles Warfieldian (talk) 21:35, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- The multiple irrelevant templates may be the upload wizard acting up again adding templates of its own initiative. The irrelevant Flickrreview requests are a clue to that. For the rest I agree, source and status are insufficiently explained. -- Asclepias (talk) 22:27, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:04, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
no source, no author, claims to be 1905 but this is not clearly demonstrated, multiple dubious licenses claimed (claims to be work of federal government in PD and also CC), questionable value with no links to articles Warfieldian (talk) 21:38, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:04, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Almost identical (but slightly worse) copy of File:House of Capocelli.jpg. -- Vonvikken (talk) 22:10, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:05, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
Small and bad quality (details nearly invisible). Vonvikken (talk) 22:21, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:05, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
no description, better versions exist, see Category:Stained glass in the Musée national du Moyen Âge GFreihalter (talk) 20:27, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
- Keep casual copy and past of cancellation procedures is not very polite. This is abviously an animation, no other files are similar. --Sailko (talk) 20:36, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
Animation makes no sense! see better versions in Category:Stained glass in the Musée national du Moyen Âge. --GFreihalter (talk) 21:48, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
- Keep from a quick glance all the other files in Category:Stained glass in the Musée national du Moyen Âge are still photos, not animations. They have obviously much higher resolution, but as quite different format they can not be considered better versions of this file. This is a quite simple animation, but it is currently in use at uk:Музей Клюні so it is in scope. MKFI (talk) 18:05, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
Kept: in use Mbdortmund (talk) 02:36, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
Thammasat University - Faculty of Law - Graduation - August 10, 2011 - XXX
[edit]- File:Thammasat University - Faculty of Law - Graduation - August 10, 2011 - 003.jpg
- File:Thammasat University - Faculty of Law - Graduation - August 10, 2011 - 001.jpg
- File:Thammasat University - Faculty of Law - Graduation - August 10, 2011 - 002.jpg
- File:Thammasat University - Faculty of Law - Graduation - August 10, 2011 - 004.jpg
The request for deletion of the files in question is on the basis of courtesy. Please see the discussion at the Village Pump which is in relation to these files. --Aristitleism (talk) 00:18, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
- Delete subject of the image is not a public person and the uploader (who is apparently her brother) uploaded her image to spread across multiple wikis as an example of 'dimples." The unused photos are arguably not in the scope of the project or other suitable alternative images could be found if needed. courtesy deletion is appropriate. Warfieldian (talk) 00:24, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
- Delete, same basis as Warfieldian. - Jmabel ! talk 00:42, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
- Plus (see below), the uploader has apparently got a history of claiming other people's work as his own, and there is reason to believe these were taken from FaceBook. - Jmabel ! talk 00:23, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
- Keep File:Thammasat University - Faculty of Law - Graduation - August 10, 2011 - 003.jpg, Delete others (as courtesy). The image is good quality and demonstrates the dimple subject well. No one has produced a superior image for the purpose in question. In particular, the English Wikipedia article states, "Some cultures, for example Asian and Indo-ethnic sub-groups, prefer dimples as a sign of attractiveness and veracity," which this image illustrates particularly well. No evidence has been given that the uploader is not actually her brother, and the photo is taken in a public place and not demeaning. It is reasonable to believe that her brother would have the opportunity to take close-up graduation photos of his sister. Dcoetzee (talk) 01:00, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
- delete. Not sure about "demonstrating dimples" (Dcoetzee) - if these are so great how come there are no photographs of public persons with dimples? NVO (talk) 01:21, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
- Delete as a courtesy to the person depicted. I'm sure another image of dimples can be found. Kelly (talk) 01:26, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
- Comment -- This nomination is an instance of a phenomenon that I find extremely disturbing. In my opinion we should absolutely never accept at face value claims by individuals claiming to be the subjects or images, or claiming to be the genuine rights holders, that have not been thoroughly verified through OTRS -- our open ticket system. We implemented the OTRS system precisely for situations like this. We need to learn from security experts how easy it is for well meaning people to be hoaxed through what computer hackers call "social engineering".
What security experts know is that what hackers call "social engineering" is much easier than a technical attack. This request shows signs of being a classic social engineering attack. We have an individual presenting themselves as: (1) a pretty girl; (2) expressing what appears to be genuine distress. And as a consequence everyone appears to have forgotten or chosen to skip the security measures we should routinely follow to protect ourselves from being spoofed.
Unfortunately some of the most senior members of our community have a past history of being the most vulnerable to choosing to forgo verification through OTRS.
I have been informed by a member of the OTRS team that, unfortunately, some other members of the OTRS team are clueless about security. They told me they have seen other membes of the team accept emails from webmail sites as sufficient verification that the email came from the individual it was claimed to have come from. These naive OTRS members would accept an email that asserted it was from Joe Blow really was from Joe Blow, if it was sent from Joe.Blow@gmail.com. If we wait until the real world identity of the individual requesting courtesy deletion is verified through OTRS I request the OTRS team member who performs the verification not accept webmail as sufficient verification of the real world identity. Geo Swan (talk) 02:03, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
- You nailed the weakness of OTRS very well; but pray tell the world how this, or any other system can "verify ... face value claims by individuals"? Fingerprinting by email? Commons cannot afford real-world police identification procedures - and these often fail, too. NVO (talk) 02:29, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
- Are you a member of the OTRS team? I don't think this is the place to go into more details about OTRS's procedures, so I put my response on this discussion's talk page. Briefly, it looks to me as if you may be advancing a straw argument. See the talk page for the details. Geo Swan (talk) 03:21, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
- I am and completely agree with you about lax approval of images. OTRS has a reputation to uphold and anyone claiming to be with an organization or a professional photographer needs to write in from a verifiable email address. – Adrignola talk 03:41, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
- What
humptalk page? NVO (talk) 04:11, 17 August 2011 (UTC) - now it's live. NVO (talk) 14:50, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
- Are you a member of the OTRS team? I don't think this is the place to go into more details about OTRS's procedures, so I put my response on this discussion's talk page. Briefly, it looks to me as if you may be advancing a straw argument. See the talk page for the details. Geo Swan (talk) 03:21, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
- You nailed the weakness of OTRS very well; but pray tell the world how this, or any other system can "verify ... face value claims by individuals"? Fingerprinting by email? Commons cannot afford real-world police identification procedures - and these often fail, too. NVO (talk) 02:29, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
- Keep There is absolutely no way we should ever delete images as a courtesy when no attempt has been made to verify that the request is a genuine request from the individual involved in the image. Geo Swan (talk) 02:07, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
- No proof of uploader's identity or the complainant's identity, indeed. Courtesy Google translate of the stated complaint. – Adrignola talk 03:41, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
- Comment I have to say that I'm studying at the same faculty as that of the complainant, that's why she complained to me when she saw the photographs in question and why I knew the complaining user is actually the girl in the photographs in question. Moreover, you can never rely on the greatly poor translation of Google. However, I would like to state also that the photographs in question are no doubt derived from the Facebook page of the complainant, whose nickname is "Ploy", as follows: 1, 2, (I can't find the other one, for there's a great number of her graduation pictures she uploaded in her Facebook). The complaining girl also claimed that the photographs in question which have been uploaded here must have been enlarged by Photoshop, and that the camera information appearing therein is false. If you would still like to have the girl in the photographs in question making her appearance here, I will bring about her intervention as soon as possible. --Aristitleism (talk) 06:27, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for returning here. Some projects similar to the WMF projects require contributors to establish their real world identities prior to contributing. The Citizendium requires this. I emailed my resume, and put a note on the free web-page my ISP provided me. This was not incredibly secure -- but sufficient to keep out several classes of vandals that plague the wikipedia.
Aristitle, don't take this as an insult, but we don't know who you are. We don't know that you are a law student. We don't know that you know the young woman. There was a contributor here who I had collaborated with for years. He was the only contributor who I had met in person. He ended up getting blocked when he did something I never would have predicted. He violated WP:POINT, and several other policies. I don't remember the details -- some kind of hoax. IIRC he said his hoax was an experiment to test how vulnerable the wikipedia was -- how long would the hoax remain undetected? It turned out his experiment was detected almost right away. Anyhow, since I know the guy I thought I knew best on the project could surprise me by plotting to lapse from WP:POINT I have to consider the possibility that you too might be hoaxing us.
Your friend should initiate an OTRS ticket. Various commons pages inform outsiders to do this if they find material on the commons they think they can make a convincing case should be removed. No offense, but I think you should have advised her to take this step, rather than to nominate the images for deletion. AFTER her identity was confirmed would have been the appropriate time to nominate the images for deletion.
Some comments seem to be saying that the photographer was her brother -- this may have been due to a naive reading of the translation of your Thai talk page. Does the talk page really say the photographer was her brother? Geo Swan (talk) 07:35, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
- I compared the facebook images you offered with the versions here on the commons. The faceback version is lower resolution than the commons version -- which storngly suggests the images were not taken from her facebook page. It suggests the uploader was the actual photographer. Your friend explains the difference in resolution by asserting that the uploader used photoshop to blow up the image. I haven`t used photoshop. But all the image programs I have used erode the quality of the image, when the number of pixels are increased. I didn`t notice the higher resolution versions here are lower quality. If their quality hasn`t been degraded wouldn`t that erode the credibility of the complainant. I looked at the exif data in the images, trying to figure out what the complainant found suspicious about them. I couldn`t see anything suspicious. Could you try to explain their concens again... Geo Swan (talk) 08:06, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
- I couldn't be present here frequently because I've to spend a lot of time attending university. Now I'm free and I'm back (typing and having dinner at the same time, ha ha).
- As you said that the FB version presented above is of lower quality than that of the images in question, I would like to explain as follows. The higher quality images could be downloaded from her FB when you click at the tab "ดาวโหลด" (or "Download" in English) under the frame of each image. But you're not her friend in her FB, you are not allowed to download her images. Because of this, I merely copied and pasted the URLs of the example images to which the public can gain access.
- Moreover, Photoshop, especially the latest version — Adobe Photoshop CS5, as specified in the Metadata of the images in question —, is capable of enlarging images in the manner keeping them in quite good quality. I'm an (amateur) CG designer and I've contributed certain CG works here, I confirm such ability of Photoshop.
- As for the information as to camera used and photographing, the latest Windows (including Windows 7 that I'm using also) enables this information to be filled in an image. In this picture, you will see that you can insert the camera information into the property of a picture, even the picture is a piece of drawing, not a photograph. The information inserted will be attached to the picture as if it were originally produced by the camera. I suggest that the accused uploader might have done so prior to uploading the images in question. The complaining girl said to me that each of the photographs in question was taken by a different camera. The Metadata indicates that they all were taken by the same camera.
- Nothing in the Thai Talk Page of the complaining girl (not mine) states that the accused uploader is her brother/sister. In fact, she calls me "little brother", and you will see that I refer to her as "sis(ter)". It's Thai customs of referential style. For example, a Thai person may call an old woman "mother", even the latter is not the former's natural mother; conversely, the old woman may call such person "son". I once again insist that you can never rely on the poor translation provided by Google, ha ha.
- As for OTRS ticket, I'm studying it and I might recommend her to take the steps concerned. Thank you so much :)
- Thanks for returning here. Some projects similar to the WMF projects require contributors to establish their real world identities prior to contributing. The Citizendium requires this. I emailed my resume, and put a note on the free web-page my ISP provided me. This was not incredibly secure -- but sufficient to keep out several classes of vandals that plague the wikipedia.
- Comment I partly agree with Geo Swan about the OTRS procedure. In this case, please, however, note that the credibility of the uploader is also questionable. For example, File:Accident on Bangkok Tollway 2010-12-28 038.jpg and other images in the same series, the uploader has claimed that the images are his/hers. It was discovered later by 2T, a Thai local sysop that her claim is false and those images were thus deleted. I discussed with 2T about the issue and he said that the uploader repeatedly does this on Wikimedia commons, but only a few incidents have been reported. --Taweethaも (talk) 07:08, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
- Delete I read through comments from Ployyh, whose pictures has been in question. She stated "If you are the lower grade, please ask for permission. This picture are available in the private space ... It doesn't do any harm (to use it to illustrate), but permission is required before you use the image". Therefore unless permission has been granted from the owner (I don't know if the uploader has taken the picture from which source, but as stated by Taweetham, it is unlikely to be self-made, unless verification has been made to prove that the uploader is the rightful owner) with the full permission to allow reusable under CC-BY-SA 3.0 and/or GFDL and not only the illustrate on Wikimedia only, I strongly suggested deletion to such images --G(x) (talk) 10:56, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
- Regarding the OTRS (as requested by Geo Swan) I have yet to address the concern to verify the Ployyh. I actually don't realize the policy about the procedure to inform the OTRS about the removal before nominating for deletion. If such procedure is suggested, it's better to follow the guideline. However, it seems Ployy demands the removal of her image immediately, which has been locally done, but still exist on some projects using it. Therefore, the case may have started here without the knowledge to inform the OTRS to confirm the identity, etc... first.
- Please also note that in the discussion page in Thai Wikipedia demanding the removal of the picture does NOT state who is taking the picture. The word "brother" that may appear from the translation machine, actually means Aristitle is still studying at the same university (the senior) as Ployyh, who has already graduated (alumni). It doesn't stated that who is taking the picture or if Aristitle is a real-life brother of Ployyh. --G(x) (talk) 12:37, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
- To clarify G(x) point on sister/brother see w:en:Senpai and kōhai. In Thai we use sister/brother to refer to senior/junior fellow students too. --taweethaも (talk) 14:49, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
Keep agree withuser:Dcoetzee but i need to comment a little everybody must like a pretty!, so this picture is a herself portrait--แฟนท่าเรือ : เกรียนที่หน้าตาไม่ดีแห่งไร้สาระนุกรม : พูดคุยกับควายตัวนี้ได้ที่นี่ 15:01, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
- Sorry, but this is stuff and nonsense. "Prettiness" should not be a reason for keeping an image here. --Aristitleism (talk) 15:03, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
Neutral i have change my mind, I just ask herself it's Piracy.--แฟนท่าเรือ : เกรียนที่หน้าตาไม่ดีแห่งไร้สาระนุกรม : พูดคุยกับควายตัวนี้ได้ที่นี่ 19:06, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
Delete I don't think those images are really useful. Amada44 talk to me 15:26, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
- They're in use; that by definition means they're useful.--Prosfilaes (talk) 17:31, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
Comment Having read Commons:OTRS, it is said that the process "may take a month before someone responds". I don't think the complaining girl can accept this. Even I've told her that we are discussing, the proceedings for deletion are getting underway, blah, blah, blah... I've was scolded by her [REDACTED] . She said she can have a video chat/web cam through MSN, skype, etc which would be easier, but I told her to give me times (even I don't think she can give). You know that sometimes I'm getting weary to be like a urinal, but, having decided to be a volunteer, I have to go on. --Aristitleism (talk) 17:15, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
Comment i am ploy and my skype username is ployyh (meikomoji@hotmail.com) Am i dare enough now? damn! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.168.39.191 (talk • contribs) 16:34, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
- Dear Sir, it is highly advised that you should log in with your name and discuss while in Username. IP discussion, while appreciated in the deletion discussion, does not prove the reliability of yourself to request the image to be taken down, since IP can be changed, and we would not be able to track if you are the same person participating in the deletion discussion. Unless some verification has been sent to the OTRS or has been provided to the administrator through any way depends on the consideration, we cannot assure you are the people in question, even though you said you are. Thanks for your cooperation and we are very sorry for wasting your time; we are trying to make it right. Thanks again. --G(x) (talk) 17:11, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
- login? happy now? find me who upload all my pics and who is Aristitleism? in real name. if he study same faculty and university if he truly is Thammasat Law student, why dont he just contact me personally? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ployyh (talk • contribs) 17:34, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
- I've to put the matter on the public discussion for it is not a personal matter or local matter which may be settled locally, even you alone are victimised. I am aware that you are deeply discomposed by the situation, but it is the best if you remain calm and carefully pay attention to the discussion underway. --Aristitleism (talk) 17:47, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
- It is advised, again, that you should sign your name by typing 4 (four) tildes (like ~~~~) so we can track your discussion. Please note that Khun (Ms.) Clumsy, the uploader (also known as K. Clumsily, alternate legitimate account) has "completed undergraduate education and my studying abroad" and has since inactive (See Her user page where you may left messages on the talk page, although not likely to be responded soon) while you may have some personal agreement to meet or to provide real world information to discuss the relevant concerns with K.Aristitleism, depends on his consideration. Please leave such discussion to arrange the meeting on Thai Wikipedia, and continue the discussion of the concern regarding the deletion and its process here. Thanks. --G(x) (talk) 17:44, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
- Ms Ployhh, perhaps you should curb your impatience. Yes, we recognize that you have offered your skype ID and an web-mail address. We understand that you say you don't understand why this is not enough to confirm you are who you say you are. But please understand there is a absolutely no connection between the images and your skype ID and webmail ID.
Please understand that our caution is for the protection of the person in the photos. Anyone could claim to be the young woman in these images. I too could claim to be the young woman in these pictures. I could claim I explicitly gave the photographer permission to upload these images. I too could offer a webmail address, and a skype ID, and those IDs would confirm nothing. Geo Swan (talk) 01:21, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
- Ms Ployhh, perhaps you should curb your impatience. Yes, we recognize that you have offered your skype ID and an web-mail address. We understand that you say you don't understand why this is not enough to confirm you are who you say you are. But please understand there is a absolutely no connection between the images and your skype ID and webmail ID.
- Delete: courtesy deletion of all files. This is a situation where significant caution should be exercised in favour of the subject of the photo. I'd prefer to not force her to jump through hoops just to have easily replaceable images removed. — Huntster (t @ c) 18:31, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
- I`m sorry, but why do you think these images require any more caution than any other images... We have 10 million images. A significant fraction of them -- millions -- include identifiable faces. Unless you can explain why these images are special you are implying we should be open to any hoaxster claiming any of our images are of them, and demanding deletion. What you characterize as jumping through hoops is our ordinary procedures. So please explain why you advocate taking extraordinary steps. Thanks. Geo Swan (talk) 18:46, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
- I think common sense plays a role here. Hypothetical --- someone takes a picture of you and uploads it to Wikipedias in many countries as an example of 'People with big noses.' Odds are that the person most concerned about this would be you. Responding to that request and removing the image is a matter of common courtesy. Even if it is a hoax and someone is trying to have a picture removed for some unknown reason, the images are not that distinctive and alternatives can be found if needed. Warfieldian (talk) 18:57, 17 August 20y
- I`m sorry, but why do you think these images require any more caution than any other images... We have 10 million images. A significant fraction of them -- millions -- include identifiable faces. Unless you can explain why these images are special you are implying we should be open to any hoaxster claiming any of our images are of them, and demanding deletion. What you characterize as jumping through hoops is our ordinary procedures. So please explain why you advocate taking extraordinary steps. Thanks. Geo Swan (talk) 18:46, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
Comment you know what? im not good in computer and not good in any computer program but if just only delete all of my pics is so very hard like this and you guys dont even believe me that I AM a girl in those pics! so dont delete it!dont doanything with it! just leave it!!! do whatever you want to! I gave you guys an email and skype username already,hope one of you who dont believe me add me or ask me straightly! and the uploader is not my photographer. all of pics were took by different camera and one of it...I repair change color by myself and upload it in my facebook by myself!!! so....if you guys can do only not believe just leave! i dont give a shit with it anymore and will remember that i have no any right on my own pics! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ployyh (talk • contribs) 20:57, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
- Rearranged version of her statement: You know nothing. I'm not skillful in either computer or programme. If the mere deletion of all my pics is difficult and you don't believe me that I'm the girl in the pics, so you shall leave the pics there and you shall do nothing with them! Just leave them there!!! And do whatever you want! I've given you my email and my Skype username, hoping one of you who don't believe me would add me and enquire me directly. The uploader is not my photographer. Each of the pics in question has been taken by a different camera. I've modified the colour of one of these pics by myself also. I uploaded them into my Facebook on my own!!! I won't give a shit about them anymore and I will bear in my mind that I am entitled to nothing, even in relation to my own pics! --Aristitleism (talk) 21:10, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
- The girl needs to calm down. The proceedings are underway and will be concluded as soon as possible. No one here wants to injure you or your rights, human dignity, freedoms or else. We respect you and are doing our best to cope with the problem. I don't think that our process constitutes a red tape. --Aristitleism (talk) 21:22, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
- You're graduating with a law degree, and you can't tolerate that things aren't done immediately? Me thinks you'll have trouble with handling the courts, where people rot in jail for weeks waiting for a trial to prove their innocence. If you feel you have a legal right to these pictures, feel free to use legal recourse, with all the speed or lack thereof.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:13, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
Comment If I read that correctly, the images are not own work by the uploader, contrary to his claims. He has taken them from Facebook, which — in general — is copyrighted. I don't see any need further for discussion. They are plain copyvios and should undergo speedy deletion. --Túrelio (talk) 21:19, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
- I concur in the speedy deletion mentioned above. I think I've sufficiently produced evidence and given explanation as to the FB issues, haven't I? --Aristitleism (talk) 21:24, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
- Frankly I would call into question User:Ployyh's credibility. They say "all of pics were took by different camera", yet the EXIF data shows obviously that they have been taken by the same camera, unless the EXIF was doctored (unlikely). They also have similar sharpness, colour quality, and depth of field. I want to see the real story behind these pics. Dcoetzee (talk) 22:58, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
- No doubt, the photographs in question are derived from her FB. In these pictures (1 and 2), you will see two of the photographs in question. I couldn't yet find the other one, for a great number of photographs existing in her FB dazzled me.
- Moreover, I found that the EXIF data shows that all the photographs in question are taken by Sony Cyber-shot (or DSC-P8). I can say that this kind of camera is never capable of producing such photographs as those in question. This ability belongs to a bigger and/or newer camera like DSLR for example. Even though I can't ascertain whether the photographs in question are taken by the different cameras, I would like to suspect that the existing EXIF data have been falsified. I've explained how to insert into an image file the false information as to camera used and photographing.
Comment Aristitleism...show yourself on my facebook right now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ployyh (talk • contribs) 21:40, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
- Opinion: This is not a place for personal/private notification. Next time, you ought to leave your messages dealing with personal/private matters at my Talk Page. Thank you. --Aristitleism (talk) 22:17, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
- Delete 001, 002, and 004 as personal out-of-scope pictures. As for 003, it is in use on many WP's. Unless there is an issue with personality rights, keep. --P199 (talk) 23:32, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
Comment Having reconsidered, I suggest we should close the present proceedings by (1) leaving the images in question there, or (2) keeping only that in use. Reasons: (1) It is difficult to prove the claim asserted by the complaining girl and by the uploader, when the girl does not play ball with us and when, according to some discussants, the claim of the uploader is more weighty. (2) It could be implied that the girl waives the claim, when she said "If the mere deletion of all my pics is difficult...so you shall leave the pics there and you shall do nothing with them!...I won't give a shit about them anymore"; especially, when I spoke to her that, if she cannot wait, she better go and bring an action in a court of law, and she replied: "Against whom? You told that the website is public. It is owned by no one, but merely taken charge by stupidly foolish volunteers." Aristitleism (talk) 17:38, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
[ Eh! I've just noticed the uploader's appearance (below). --Aristitleism (talk) 18:31, 18 August 2011 (UTC) ]
- If she were the copyright holder, she could issue a DMCA takedown request. If the image were being commercially exploited, she may be able to bring action under personality rights law. As it is, she cannot bring any sort of legal action. Instead, I suggest participating in the discussion. Dcoetzee (talk) 17:50, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
- I just spoke sarcastically to her, for she has no patience at all. You're right, she is not entitled to bring any action, especially when it doesn't appear that she suffer with any undue loss [save that against her mind, on the basis of which she may claim solatia -- then there would be a question "against whom will the claim be brought?" However, this talk would lead us to the mid-ocean, so I better return to the shore :) ] --Aristitleism (talk) 18:16, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
- Delete MAY THE IMAGES BE DELETED ACCORDING TO PLOYYH’S WILL. Sorry for causing this upheaval. I have nothing to plead. I don't want to waste my or your time anymore. Thank you and good bye. --Clumsily (talk) 17:55, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
- Delete It doesn't look like any of the images are currently in use (although one of them may have been previously according to the discussions above). Regardless, these all seem like run-of-the-mill snapshots that are easily replaceable and have little value to the project. In addition the providence of the images seems to be legitimately in question. I see no problem with deleting them as a courtesy. Kaldari (talk) 01:17, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
- File:Thammasat University - Faculty of Law - Graduation - August 10, 2011 - 003.jpg is still on use on several projects; we don't seem to have files to replace these in their use right now.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:36, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
- There are quite a few replacements on flickr. cheers, Amada44 talk to me 05:59, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
- File:Thammasat University - Faculty of Law - Graduation - August 10, 2011 - 003.jpg is still on use on several projects; we don't seem to have files to replace these in their use right now.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:36, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for the hint ;-). There we are: File:Here'sMyDimples Kelly 1878.jpg and File:BoyWithDimples Nagarjun.jpg. --Túrelio (talk) 06:20, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Ordinarily I would keep these -- as is said above, we have no way of knowing anything about this delete request and I don't like to delete images without a good, proven reason, which we don't have. However, these four images have wasted 5,000 words of debate above and they're simply not worth it. I'm sure that if I closed as a keep that one of my colleagues would reopen this and waste more time. And please, colleagues, don't go for an Undeletion request -- they really aren't worth it. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:22, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
possible copyvio http://www.riapress.by/catalogue/lotki_iz_ocinkovannoi_stali_dkc A5b (talk) 04:09, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
- Риапресс - оптовая и розничная торговля электротехнической продукцией Даже не производитель. Просто продавец, даже не уполномоченный фирмой DKC. Откуда у них права на изображение???--Mixabest (talk) 05:15, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
- А у вас? Изображение риапрессу, скорее всего, предоставлено производителем (либо выдрано из рекламных материалов производителя), а не вами, господин создатель изображения ("Source: Own work;... I, the copyright holder of this work,"). Не могли бы вы, как создатель, доказать факт создания? Например, показать изображение в более хорошем качестве... Может быть вы - художник оформитель компании DKC, но являетесь ли вы даже в этом (как я понимаю, гипотетическом случае) обладателем исключительных и иных прав на изображение? PS: Сорри за спам на СО, заявки отправлял из toolbox. PPS: Да, система идиотская, но "монастырь"-то не наш. `A5b (talk) 19:01, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 21:30, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
Photographs of Anilore Banon's Les Braves
[edit]- File:Omaha beach lesbraves-1.jpg
- File:Omaha beach01.jpg
- File:Omaha beach02.jpg
- File:Omaha Beach 2008 PD 42.JPG
- File:Omaha1.jpg
- File:OmahaBeach monument.JPG
In 2004, Anilore Banon unveiled and dedicated her memorial Les Braves on Omaha Beach to the soldiers who fought D-Day on the beaches of Normandy.[3] France does not have freedom of panorama (ref: Commons:Freedom of panorama#France) and grants a 70-year-pma copyright to its artists (ref: Commons:Licensing#France). --Jappalang (talk) 08:01, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. High Contrast (talk) 10:52, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
Photos of Paul Minieri
[edit]- File:Dr. P. Paul Minieri.jpg
- File:Melvin Firm -upper left-, P. Minieri -upper right- Herman Sokol -lower left-.jpg
- File:Hayden+Photo.jpg
These three duplicate photos were uploaded by two different users, each claiming to have copyright to the image. The source of one image is simply given as "Wikipedia.org". A fourth version of the photo (w:en:File:Melvin Firm -Upper Left-, P. Minieri -Upper Right- Herman Sokol -Lower Right.jpg) was uploaded to English Wikipedia with the claim, "This is copyright protected. Only to be used for a wikipedia page." and consequently speedy deleted. Copyright ownership is therefore unestablished as is the right to relicense under Creative Commons. --Ed (Edgar181) 11:19, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:28, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
no EXIF data, flickr account that it was uploaded from has multiple other what appear to be copyrighted images or photos of other people's work, states picture taken 26 Mar 2008 but this is unlikely. Warfieldian (talk) 14:14, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
- Keep I agree that most other photographs of that flick account seem taken from books (a great deal, almost all, older than 1910, though). Picture of Martí de Riquer, however, looks from an entirely different batch. I've checked "Martí de Riquer" with Google Images, and this image only appears once in several hundreds of results, being the only one a blog that could be from the same author than the flickr account. No existence of EXIF data could come because the photograph must be an analogic one (by the looks of the person depicted: now he is 97 years old and in this image he looks 60sh). Hardly conclusive, I know, but I don't see arguments enough to dismiss the image. Jordi Roqué (Discussió/Talk) 06:58, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
- Comment The Flickr account has many images taken from other sources and it is unlikely that the Flickr account holder is the copyright holder for this image. If the subject was around 60 in the photograph, that makes the photograph around 35-40 years old and not eligible for public domain. Since the uploader is unlikely to hold the copyright, he cannot release it under Creative Commons license. Warfieldian (talk) 13:31, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
- Comment That Flickr account (http://www.flickr.com/photos/xcaballe/sets/) has images from five origins, as much as I can guess: 126 photos from a photo-album about "La Setmana Tràgica" printed circa 1909; 26 photos from a second photo album called "Poble, Santes Creus, Montserrat" printed 1910; 16 photos called "Googlegrames" that look as 3 images of Joan Amades that seem experiments of some kind of photographic software (on somebody's else copyright, for sure); 14 fotos about "58a Fira del Llibre" that should belong to the holder of the account (they are modern and trivial enough); and the last bt not the least, the one that is discussed here, that doesn't fit with any of the previous categories. I know that it is not from the 1909 and 1910 books. Doesn't look as an experiment of photographic software of some kind. It has not been taken in the 58 Fira del Llibre. But I can't ascertain for sure where it came from: I don't have any collateral proof to say that it was not taken by the holder of the account, however. Having no arguments against it, I understand that the holder of the account has the copyright, and that its owner can release the image under a Creative Commons license. Jordi Roqué (Discussió/Talk) 13:12, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 21:27, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Superzohar (talk · contribs)
[edit]Since a bunch of images uploaded by this user recently was deleted per following single DR's:
- Commons:Deletion requests/File:Plavsk-church.jpg
- Commons:Deletion requests/File:Mokha port 1.jpg
- Commons:Deletion requests/File:Gillingham-marina.jpg
- Commons:Deletion requests/File:Krasnokamensk-church.jpg
- Commons:Deletion requests/File:Sosnogorsk-railway-station.jpg
- Commons:Deletion requests/File:Sosnogorsk-school.jpg,
as that images are fairly clear copyright violations from Panoramio.com, I have no longer a reason to believe that other uploads by this user - even if internet researches do not provide a clear evidence for copyvio - are actually own works by him, and not also stolen from some ecternal websites.
The other uploads by Superzohar which I request to delete are the following:
- File:Sa'id mousque- thamar.jpg
- File:Amran-market.jpg
- File:Dalnegorsk-1.jpg
- File:Al-hudeida-1.jpg
- File:Savinsky-ww2-memorial.jpg
- File:Obozerski-overview.jpg
- File:Gillingham-A2 looking West towards London.jpg
- File:Haeju-kim-il-sung-statue.jpg
- File:Church-zavodoukovsk.jpg
- File:Okhotsk-center.jpg
- File:Sretensk-quare.jpg
- File:Mednogorsk-leninskaya-square.jpg
- File:Olenegorsk-winter.jpg
- File:Nizhnevaratovsk-komsomolski-boulvard.jpg
- File:Sosnogorsk-church.jpg
- File:Novoaltaysk-church.jpg
- File:Novoaltaysk-street.jpg
- File:Severouralsk-01.jpg
- File:Novouralsk-01.jpg
- File:Belogorsk-municipality-01.jpg
- File:Slavgorod-town-building-bank.jpg
- File:Znamensk-overview.jpg
- File:Migdal-haemek-municipality.jpg
- File:Zheleznogorsk Kursk Oblast-1.jpg
- File:Erinaceus concolor-1.JPG
- File:Shimanovsk-train-station.jpg
- File:Kfar-qassem-street.JPG
- File:Puri gate, Sogwang templ.jpg
- File:Clearing snow at Kim Il Sung Square, Pyongyang.jpg
- File:Tongnim-look.jpg
- File:Tongnim town.jpg
- File:Sonchon train station.jpg
- File:Side street Sonchon.jpg
- File:Haeju-building.jpg
- File:Block of flats, Haeju central square.jpg
- File:Sredneuralsk-entrance-sign.jpg
- File:Lenin-street-krasnouralsk.jpg
- File:Krasnouralsk-administration-building.jpg
- File:Desnogorsk-street.jpg
- File:Desnogorsk-town-center.jpg
- File:Desnogorsk-entrance.jpg
- File:Hamhung-ox-main-street.jpg
- File:Propaganda wall in Jongsong Street, Hamhung.jpg
- File:Monument of Changui Shrine Hamhung Erected 1712.jpg
- File:Hamhung Grand Theatre.jpg
- File:South Hamgyong Museum of the Revolutionary Activities of Kim Il Sung.jpg
- File:Chongjin-center-3.jpg
- File:Chongjin-center-2.jpg
- File:Chongjin in the center of town.jpg
- File:Hamhung-residential-area-1.jpg
- File:Hamhung-center-5.jpg
- File:Hamhung-center-4.jpg
- File:Center-of-hamhung-3.jpg
- File:Hamhung-center-2.jpg
- File:Hamhung-center-1.jpg
- File:P4150040pyongyang.jpg
- File:Uzbek-woman-smoke.JPG
- File:Mustaqillik Maydoni14.JPG
- File:Mustaqillik Maydoni13.JPG
- File:Mustaqillik Maydoni12.JPG
- File:Mustaqillik Maydoni11.JPG
- File:Mustaqillik Maydoni10.JPG
- File:Mustaqillik Maydoni9.JPG
- File:Mustaqillik Maydoni8.JPG
- File:Mustaqillik Maydoni7.JPG
- File:Mustaqillik Maydoni6.JPG
- File:Mustaqillik Maydoni5.JPG
- File:Mustaqillik Maydoni4.JPG
- File:Mustaqillik Maydoni3.JPG
- File:Mustaqillik Maydoni2.JPG
- File:Mustaqillik Maydoni1.JPG
- File:Hakhnasat-sefer-torah-8.jpg
- File:Hakhnasat-sefer-tora-7.JPG
- File:Hakhnasat-sefer-tora-6.JPG
- File:Hakhnasat-sefer-tora-5.JPG
- File:Hakhnasat-sefer-tora-4.JPG
- File:Hakhnasat-sefer-tora-3.JPG
- File:Hakhnasat-sefer-tora-2.JPG
- File:Hakhnasat-sefer-tora-1.JPG
- File:Margalit3.jpg
- File:Moshav Zeitan landscape.jpg
- File:Neve yehoshua new buildings construction.jpg
- File:Neve yehoshua street towards hayarden.jpg
- File:Ben aliezer street towards ramat amidar.jpg
- File:Building under construction diamond exchange center.jpg
- File:Batei-totakh-amidar-ramat-gan.jpg
- File:Negba-uziel-juncion.jpg
- File:Uziel-negba-junction, tel yehuda neighbourhood.jpg
- File:Gan sheshet hayamim habiluim qrt.jpg
- File:Haroe street near pinhas.jpg
- File:Korazin neighburhood.jpg
- File:Order Nakhimov 1st.jpg
- File:Order of suvorov medal 1st class.jpg
A.Savin 18:07, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
- I do not have any opinion on the request, but if the files get deleted, Category:Savinsky must be speedily deleted as an empty category.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:22, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
- Indeed, different cameras have been used.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:24, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
- Comment: Using different cameras is no evidence of copyvio. I use different cameras at times as well. (I guess, if he used some 10 different cameras, that's getting suspicious... ;) --P199 (talk) 23:56, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
- If you look at the files, you see that most of those which have EXIF data at all have also a different camera, here some first ten:
- File:Sa'id_mousque-_thamar.jpg - Sony DSC N2
- File:Dalnegorsk-1.jpg - Sony Ericsson K790i
- File:Savinsky-ww2-memorial.jpg - Canon Power Shot A540
- File:Obozerski-overview.jpg - Canon Power Shot A60
- File:Gillingham-A2_looking_West_towards_London.jpg - Fujifilm FinePix S7000
- File:Haeju-kim-il-sung-statue.jpg - Sanyo S1275
- File:Church-zavodoukovsk.jpg - Sony HDR-HC5E
- File:Sretensk-quare.jpg - Pentax Optio 30
- File:Olenegorsk-winter.jpg - Canon Power Shot A620
- File:Nizhnevaratovsk-komsomolski-boulvard.jpg - Canon Power Shot G3
- A.Savin 04:34, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
- OK, you proved this point. Delete all. --P199 (talk) 17:15, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
- OK, you proved this point.
- If you look at the files, you see that most of those which have EXIF data at all have also a different camera, here some first ten:
- Delete Indeed copyvios from panoramio. Just tested the new Google image search tool and easily located the first two I randomly searched for. --ELEKHHT 09:44, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
- File:Sa'id mousque- thamar.jpg as by علي المراني
- File:Chongjin in the center of town.jpg as by Eckart Dege
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:27, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
86a Strafgesetzbuch. 84.61.188.59 19:12, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
- Um...speedy keep? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 00:05, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
- What's wrong with it? --NuclearVacuum (talk) 01:41, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
- The sourcing is likely dodgy, the flag may be wholly fictional, unless someone somehow found in a dusty German archive somewhere a proposed flag design for a territory on which a claim was never made. Could have happened, but I don't think so. That said, my only worry would be how it's used in articles. I see no need to delete it altogether from commons, given the only woe I see here is that it's most likely a fictional graphic. Someone might find it someday and find it helpful for harmless fiction. Gwen Gale (talk) 02:32, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
- 1 Gwen Gale, please do not discredit pages by inserting claims of what Germany did or did not do. This isn't the place for it. Night w (talk) 04:41, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
- Speedy keep. He's citing Strafgesetzbuch section 86a, which unfortunately doesn't affect Wikimedia. Night w (talk) 04:51, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
- Comment. The original version (GIF) of this image was created and used for the article on New Swabia in the Russian WP in July 2006 (here's the diff),where it has been part of the article since that time. It was created by User:Maxim Razin who was an active contributor from December 2004, especially to the Russian Wikipedia (here's his edit count), but he has been inactive since December 2007.
- Another version (SVG) was then created and uploaded here by NuclearVacuum in July 2010, based on Maxim Razin's earlier GIF version.
- Over the past couple of weeks Bluesclues100 has created a number of flag images for regions of Antarctica and surrounding islands, which appear to be mostly fictional - but including this New Swabia flag image.
- User 84.61.188.59 has rightly called for these spurious flag images to be deleted. In the case of the New Swabia flag image however, he has nominated it for deletion not on grounds of dubious authenticity, but under 86a Strafgesetzbuch.
- From the English WP article: The German Strafgesetzbuch (Criminal Code) in § 86a outlaws "use of symbols of unconstitutional organisations". This concerns Nazi symbolism in particular and is part of the denazification efforts following the fall of the Third Reich.
- The law prohibits the distribution or public use of symbols of unconstitutional groups, in particular, flags, insignia, uniforms, slogans and forms of greeting.
- Gwen Gale has now questioned the authenticity of this flag image, which is an entirely different matter. As this image has been in the Russian WP New Swabia article since 2006, this does suggest that that it may be authentic - and given the Nazi penchant for symbols, it does seem possible. As NuclearVacuum has some Russian language skills (mine are practically non-existant), I suggest that he check the references (and their reliability) there. Cheers, Bahudhara (talk) 06:51, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
- Keep No proof the flag doesn't exist, and national bans on former NAZI symbols do not effect Wikipedia. Fry1989 eh? 21:52, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
Kept. Jcb (talk) 21:28, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
This is an altered version of the flag of the Reichskolonialbund, as described here. I dont know if it needs to be deleted, but i really dont think we should be perpetuating misinformation. this flag is used on multple pages on 2 WP's, inaccurately. I now note the previous deletion discussion. The argument that its being used on a WP article is patently false circular reasoning. can we at least remove incorrect information on this, with some consensus so im not seen as disruptive for doing so myself?Mercurywoodrose (talk) 04:25, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
- Oppose: The file already states it's fictitious and we can't completely control what is put on Wikipedia. From what I'm getting from this is that your issues are towards non-English sites. You should bring up discussions on those particular talk pages to get any real info change. I'm all for updating the file description or changing the file name to reflect it non-authenticity, but I don't necessarily support removing it based on what other users do with it. I agree on allowing a consensus on this issue. --NuclearVacuum (talk) 01:32, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
- Commment the file doesn't state its fictional. it states it is the flag of a disputed territory. Its categorized as fictitious or special, so a cursory reading of the entire file page could easily lead one to believe its not fictitious, but "special", whatever that means. Yes, all i really want is for it to be properly described and categorized so that wikipedias dont use it incorrectly. We cant control what people place in articles, but we can make sure they arent mislead. I dont need it removed.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 02:31, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
- The template and category is what I meant by it being marked as fictitious. You are more than welcome to rewrite the description if you want, I would've had nothing against it. --NuclearVacuum (talk) 17:11, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
- Keep Fry1989 eh? 18:01, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
No consensus to delete -FASTILY 23:46, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
Out of COM:SCOPE user-generated fantasy flag; violation of COM:NOTHOST, COM:SELFIE, COM:EV. A realistic educational purpose is a policy requirement for all Commons files. All files with no such purpose must be deleted: "Wikimedia Commons is not your personal free web host". GPinkerton (talk) 06:58, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 20:15, 8 February 2022 (UTC)