Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2011/09/16
 |
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}
In the EXIF data it says: 2010 Disney Enterprises, Inc. All rights reserved. ALE! ¿…? 08:40, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: speedied as clear copyvio Túrelio (talk) 08:42, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Uploader requested deletion in OTRS 2011091210018538 Akoopal (talk) 14:58, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted, Per request. Ciell (talk) 15:50, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Uploader requested deletion in OTRS 2011091210018538 Akoopal (talk) 14:59, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted, Per request. Ciell (talk) 15:50, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
If the date of September 1913 is correct, than this is in fact not PD, as the licence requires that the file be published before 1923. Sven Manguard (talk) 09:50, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
- Withdrawn - I saw September 1913 and thought September 1923. Sven Manguard (talk) 09:52, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Kept: Request withdrawn, PD-1923. Martin H. (talk) 19:05, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Datei hat einen Rand von geradestellung. Inzwischen neu ohne Rand hochgeladen. Monster4711 (talk) 11:32, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: duplicate of File:Bassum 25100700011 Stift2a ehemalige Waschküche 1.jpg Martin H. (talk) 19:09, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Possible copyvio? Missvain (talk) 13:45, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: unfree anime / manga. Martin H. (talk) 19:16, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Possible copy vio? Missvain (talk) 13:45, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Unfree anime / manga. Martin H. (talk) 19:16, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Doubtful license 93.75.199.194 14:54, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: gettyimages.com is definitively not published under a license that allows commercial reuse for anyone. Unfree. Martin H. (talk) 19:27, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
We don't need another low resolution image of a naked woman and it's almost certainly a copyvio Kgorman-ucb (talk) 23:08, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 23:38, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Low resolution image with no legitimate educational purpose not better met by files we already have Kgorman-ucb (talk) 23:11, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: probably copyvio, also high risk of depicted person being a minor Jcb (talk) 23:39, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
vermutlich falsche Spezies eingestellt wg teils ähnelnder Abbildungen Kmo5ap (talk) 10:37, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Keep If it is not Rana Dalmatina then the image should be renamed and recategorized, not deleted. /Esquilo (talk) 11:31, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
I suggest considering femur length, it is Rana temporaria. I do not know how to rename and categorize it somewhere else. Another upload in the proper category was denied as the image was already uploaded. Upload of a renamed image was also refused.Kmo5ap (talk) 16:45, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
copy right infringment no permission given to post and rename and copy 77.182.139.83 11:28, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
- Seems to me a plain wall painting, that has no special protection status.--Sinuhe20 (talk) 15:03, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Keep This is a faithful photographic reproduction of an original two-dimensional work of art. The work of art itself is in the public domain because its copyright has expired due to the age. This photographic reproduction is therefore also considered to be in the public domain. --16:08, 16 September 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by GDK (talk • contribs)
Deleted: Not 2D, not COM:ART. The stones not have a 2D surface, not even with giving the difference of 2D/3D a big tolerance. Martin H. (talk) 12:50, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
copy right infringment no permission given to post and rename and copy 77.182.139.83 11:39, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
- Seems to me a plain wall painting, that has no special protection status.--Sinuhe20 (talk) 15:04, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Keep This is a faithful photographic reproduction of an original two-dimensional work of art. The work of art itself is in the public domain because its copyright has expired due to the age. This photographic reproduction is therefore also considered to be in the public domain. --16:08, 16 September 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by GDK (talk • contribs)
Delete I don't think these fit under the narrow terms of PD-art; too 3D.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:33, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Not 2D, not COM:PDART Martin H. (talk) 12:45, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
copy right infringment no permission given to post and rename and copy 77.182.139.83 11:40, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
- Seems to me a plain wall painting, that has no special protection status.--Sinuhe20 (talk) 15:05, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Keep This is a faithful photographic reproduction of an original two-dimensional work of art. The work of art itself is in the public domain because its copyright has expired due to the age. This photographic reproduction is therefore also considered to be in the public domain. --GDK (talk) 16:05, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Delete I don't think these fit under the narrow terms of PD-art; too 3D.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:33, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Not 2D, not COM:ART. The stones not have a 2D surface, not even with giving the difference of 2D/3D a big tolerance. Martin H. (talk) 12:49, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
authorship and copyright unclear 78.55.102.176 21:06, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Per nom. Missvain (talk) 00:33, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: speedied as source=Google and clearly a professional promo shot Túrelio (talk) 16:20, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
and other uploads by Deficits (talk · contribs). No evidence of permissions. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:58, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
- Delete: non-free media. Mathonius (talk) 16:00, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Per nom. Missvain (talk) 19:54, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio uploader. Martin H. (talk) 20:40, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
authorship and copyright unclear 78.55.102.176 21:08, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Per nom. Missvain (talk) 00:33, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: speedied as source says "Copyright © Asianbite" Túrelio (talk) 18:07, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
Appears to be a scan from a publication. Only contribution by user. Copyright vio potential? Missvain (talk) 14:36, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
- Delete A quick google and tineye search didn't turn up original author, but confirms multiple uses of identical photo in blogs and sports news articles years before the upload here. Infrogmation (talk) 19:30, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio very likely. Leyo 16:18, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
Most likely Flickr washing, image was uploaded nearly 1 hour ago Hoangquan hientrang (talk) 03:59, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
- OK, after seeing a conversation on the user's talk page, I decide to
withdraw my nomination--Hoangquan hientrang (talk) 04:06, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Kept: Withdrawn. -mattbuck (Talk) 13:05, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
Possible copy vio for movie poster from Italy? Missvain (talk) 04:32, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. -mattbuck (Talk) 13:06, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
Orphaned photo of identifiable person. Questionable regarding not only educational value, but permission of identifiable person. (The user has other uploads of the same person, fully identifiable.) Best to delete, out of scope. Missvain (talk) 04:40, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
- nuke all five. NVO (talk) 00:01, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
- Delete As per nominator. --Hold and wave (talk) 20:47, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. I hate just saying per nom, but... the nom pretty much covered it all. Kgorman-ucb (talk) 23:38, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Unusable and potential personality rights issues. -mattbuck (Talk) 13:07, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
Promotional poster. Out of scope. Missvain (talk) 05:05, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Probable copyvio -mattbuck (Talk) 13:07, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
Rock band promotional photo. Professional photoshoot, I am suspicious if the uploader is truly the photographer. An OTRS ticket would be needed to confirm copyrights. MKFI (talk) 07:56, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
- Delete, http://www.madvanna.cl/WEB%202/images/bg_header%20copy.jpg from (warning: website contains music) http://www.madvanna.cl/. --Martin H. (talk) 18:59, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio -mattbuck (Talk) 13:08, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
Appears to be cropped from a newspaper/magazine. Likely copyrighted. No reason given to suggest that uploader is copyright holder. FASTILY (TALK) 07:58, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
- Delete This may be a scan of a crop from magazine --Hoangquan hientrang (talk) 08:40, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Per above. Missvain (talk) 13:13, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Possible copyvio. -mattbuck (Talk) 13:08, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
- Including
- File:Sabritec filter connectors.gif
- File:Sabritec expanded beam contacts.gif
- File:Sabritec quadrax connectors.gif
Promotional image of some sort, used in a now deleted advert on en.wikipedia. Likely copyrighted. No reason given to suggest that uploader is copyright holder. FASTILY (TALK) 07:59, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. They have very low resolution, no use, unlikely to be own work --Hoangquan hientrang (talk) 08:42, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Per above. Missvain (talk) 13:14, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Probable copyvios -mattbuck (Talk) 13:09, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
Promotional material for an ABBA tribute band. Out of scope. Missvain (talk) 13:52, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope/copyvio -mattbuck (Talk) 13:11, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
I accidentally uploaded this image under this file name without realizing there was already an image on the English Wikipedia using the name. (I checked Wikimedia Commons before uploading, but didn't think to check the English Wikipedia for non-free images) I've re-uploaded this trailer screencap as File:Judy Garland Over the Rainbow 2.jpg, so this version can now be removed. Crakkerjakk (talk) 18:18, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: User request -mattbuck (Talk) 13:15, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
Accidentially uploaded by me . used by a German soccer club . most likely restricted via copyrights Jason vom Anger (talk) 18:34, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. -mattbuck (Talk) 13:16, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
The right category is Category:Association football players from Thailand Redrobsche (talk) 20:17, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. -mattbuck (Talk) 13:17, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
Under "Permissions" it says "© Joe Henson 2009 All Rights Reserved". Will Beback (talk) 20:36, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Per nom. Missvain (talk) 00:33, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Unfree -mattbuck (Talk) 13:18, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
misteke Dark Eagle (talk) 22:13, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
- Comment: For such cases, use the {{Speedy}} template. Regards, Avenue X at Cicero (talk) 09:33, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. -mattbuck (Talk) 13:18, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
these people are not notable in any waym and I could not imagine a reasonable way of using this picture as an illustration Andrei Romanenko (talk) 23:04, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Personal gathering photo of seemingly non-notable people. Also probably have no clue their portrait is able to be used by the world for whatever use. Ha! Missvain (talk) 00:37, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. -mattbuck (Talk) 13:19, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
Out of project scope, educational value unclear (although image was (mis)used here...). Mathonius (talk) 00:42, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Missvain (talk) 02:16, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:53, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
Scope, usefulness, etc Queeg (talk) 02:30, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Per nom! Missvain (talk) 03:19, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:58, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
Small, long time orphaned personal image. Only upload by user. No foreseeable educational use. Missvain (talk) 03:27, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Very low resolution, no use, out of scope --Hoangquan hientrang (talk) 05:29, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
- Delete -- Queeg (talk) 23:40, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:58, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
Out of project scope, personal photograph. Nixón (wop!) 03:26, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Per nom. Missvain (talk) 03:35, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:58, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
Small personal vacation photo, orphaned since upload. Only upload by user ever made. No foreseeable educational use. Missvain (talk) 03:29, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Nixón (wop!) 03:31, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
- Delete -- Queeg (talk) 23:41, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:58, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
Presumed artistic create by uploader. Orphaned since upload. No educational value. Missvain (talk) 03:31, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
- Delete per nom, also no description since 2008; no contributions to Commons by user since. Infrogmation (talk) 19:17, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:58, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
Personal photo from group project. Out of scope. Missvain (talk) 03:32, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
- Delete also dubious license claim, uncategorized since 2008. Infrogmation (talk) 19:19, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
- Delete -- Queeg (talk) 23:41, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Out of scope. --Aleator (talk) 19:38, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:58, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
Small, diptrych of low quality images. Only contribution by user. I foresee no educational use for these images. Missvain (talk) 03:33, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
- Delete -- Queeg (talk) 23:42, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:59, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
Orphaned, only upload by user, presumed personal photo of performance. Out of scope. Missvain (talk) 03:34, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
- Delete -- Queeg (talk) 23:42, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:59, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Promotional photograph. Out of scope. Missvain (talk) 03:35, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
.JPG){kind=link}
- Delete -- Queeg (talk) 23:42, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:59, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
.JPG){kind=link}
Personal photo, only upload by user. No educational value. Out of scope. Missvain (talk) 03:35, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
- Delete per nom --Hoangquan hientrang (talk) 05:19, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
- Delete -- Queeg (talk) 23:43, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:59, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
Orphaned personal image. No educational value. Out of scope. Missvain (talk) 03:37, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
- Delete -- Queeg (talk) 23:43, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:59, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
Orphaned logo, possible copyvio. Out of scope. Missvain (talk) 03:39, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
- Delete: Fine with me, it's outdated anyway. 99.129.177.11 04:15, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
- Comment:Whoops, that last comment was me. Robin Chen (talk) 04:17, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
- Delete -- Queeg (talk) 23:44, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:59, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
Orphaned poor quality image. Out of scope. Missvain (talk) 03:41, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
- Delete -- Queeg (talk) 23:44, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:59, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
Orphaned photo of non-notable musical act. Only contribution by user to Commons. No foreseeable educational use. Out of scope. Missvain (talk) 03:49, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
- Delete -- Queeg (talk) 23:45, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:00, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
Promotional material. Out of scope. Missvain (talk) 03:49, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
- Delete -- Queeg (talk) 23:46, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:00, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
personal picture with poor quality. Doubtful source (how did you hold the photo in this situation?) Saibo (Δ) 03:54, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Per nom. Missvain (talk) 04:00, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:00, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
Personal picture - out of scope (self-advert was also on main page talk). Doubtful source (how did you hold the photo in this situation?) Saibo (Δ) 03:55, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Per nom. Missvain (talk) 04:01, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:00, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
out of scope. maybe copyvio. Austriantraveler (talk) 23:04, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 12:38, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
Design of the sport medals is copyrighted by the organizing committee of the Games, thus copyvio.Bill william comptonTalk 03:58, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Per nom. Missvain (talk) 04:01, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:01, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
Personal photo. No foreseeable educational use. Missvain (talk) 03:58, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
- Delete -- Queeg (talk) 23:47, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:02, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
Orphaned, small logo. Only upload by contributor. No description, author, or source. No foreseeable educational value for this project. Missvain (talk) 03:59, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
- It's the logo of the Fit for Östereich campaign from the Österreichische Bundes-Sportorganisation. -- ／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ 苦情処理係 14:05, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
- Delete I don't believe that the user had the rights to release it into the PD. When in doubt, remove. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:14, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
- It falls under the logo category with plain text which is accepted as a work without enough creativity, as many other plain text logos are. -- ／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ 苦情処理係 14:16, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
- There are multiple circles and color patterns that make it more than "plain text". Ottava Rima (talk) 15:57, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
- That falls under simple geometry. See upload dialog for more information. Even the Commons-Logo is way below the threshold. See: Commons:Upload/public domain -- ／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ 苦情処理係 16:00, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
- There are multiple circles and color patterns that make it more than "plain text". Ottava Rima (talk) 15:57, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
- It falls under the logo category with plain text which is accepted as a work without enough creativity, as many other plain text logos are. -- ／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ 苦情処理係 14:16, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
- Comment Perhaps some other users can chime in. If it's felt that it's keepable, go for it and perhaps it can be added to the appropriate articles. Missvain (talk) 14:19, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
- Delete I uploaded an alternative with much higher quality under File:Fit für Österreich.png -- ／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ 苦情処理係 14:45, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:03, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
Low quality personal photo. We do have better quality images of musicians. Only contribution by user. Out of scope. Missvain (talk) 04:02, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
- Delete -- Queeg (talk) 23:48, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 07:14, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
Logo? No foreseeable educational use, I believe it's out of scope. Missvain (talk) 04:05, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
- Delete -- Queeg (talk) 23:48, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:03, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
Orphaned out of scope promotional material. Missvain (talk) 04:07, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
- Delete -- Queeg (talk) 23:48, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:03, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
Orphaned artwork and/or promotional material. Only user contribution. No foreseeable educational use for Commons. OUt of scope. Missvain (talk) 04:08, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
- Delete -- Queeg (talk) 23:49, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:03, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
Orphaned promotional image for uploader. Only contribution to Commons. Out of scope. Missvain (talk) 04:10, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
- Delete -- Queeg (talk) 23:49, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:03, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
Promotional logo wall paper. Questionable educational value. Missvain (talk) 04:11, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:03, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
Promotional logo/image? For uploader. Missvain (talk) 04:11, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:04, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
Promotional material for band. Out of scope. Missvain (talk) 04:15, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
- Delete -- Queeg (talk) 03:57, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:04, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
Small promotional photo for unknown musical act. Only contribution by user. No foreseeable educational use on Commons. Missvain (talk) 04:16, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
- Delete -- Queeg (talk) 03:56, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:04, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
Personal photo, out of scope. Missvain (talk) 04:17, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
- Delete -- Queeg (talk) 17:15, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:04, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
Oprhaned, undescribed screen shot. Lacks educational value for Commons. Out of scope. Missvain (talk) 04:18, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
- Delete non-free website screenshot --Hoangquan hientrang (talk) 05:23, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
- Delete -- Queeg (talk) 15:07, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:04, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
Long time oprhaned personal artwork. Out of scope? Missvain (talk) 04:19, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:04, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
Coat of arms made by 4 crests. Giro720 (talk) 04:22, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:05, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
Promotional photograph. Out of scope. Missvain (talk) 05:04, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:05, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
Orphaned personal photo. Out of scope. Missvain (talk) 05:04, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:06, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
Orphaned personal photo. Out of scope. Missvain (talk) 05:05, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:06, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
Orphaned movie poster. Possible copy vio? Missvain (talk) 05:05, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:06, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
Orphaned album cover. Out of scope. Missvain (talk) 05:06, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:06, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
Possible copy vio of promotional poster? Missvain (talk) 05:06, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:06, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
Promotional flier. Out of scope. Missvain (talk) 05:07, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:06, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
Possible copy vio for logo? Missvain (talk) 05:07, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:06, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
Non-notable, orphaned book/album cover. Out of scope. Missvain (talk) 05:08, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:06, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
No COM:FOP#Japan and copyvio as literature work and musical work. Vantey (talk) 07:26, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
- Delete No FOP for modern artwork in Japan unless the architect has been dead for at least 50 years. This work looks modern --Hoangquan hientrang (talk) 08:33, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:07, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
Promotional image of some sort, used in a now deleted advert on en.wikipedia. Likely copyrighted. No reason given to suggest that uploader is copyright holder. FASTILY (TALK) 08:05, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Per nom. Missvain (talk) 13:14, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:07, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
No freedom of panorama in Latvia, including (I believe) plaques and such -- Commons:Freedom_of_panorama#Latvia. Should be uploaded locally. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK ▎enWP TALK 09:20, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:08, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
According to flickr source, "Photo credit to Christine. I was standing right next to her, but I draw the line at sticking my camera in the face of people I don't know :-)", so not own work and flickr user does not have the right to relicence. -mattbuck (Talk) 09:41, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
- Keep Licenced as CC-BY-SA 2.0 on Flickr. Flickr user jonathanhstrauss attributed. Licence reviewed by User:Abigor. All by the book. /Esquilo (talk) 11:26, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
- Sorry, I pasted the wrong bit, fixed. -mattbuck (Talk) 11:32, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
- Still Keep. It is not claimed to be "own work", neither at Flickr or Commons. Attribution should be changed to Christine Whoever though. /Esquilo (talk) 12:03, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
- Still
- Sorry, I pasted the wrong bit, fixed. -mattbuck (Talk) 11:32, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
- Delete, someone else photo taken from facebook uploaded to flickr, flickr uploader cant publish it under cc-by. --Martin H. (talk) 19:03, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
- Keep It seems that the original uploader on Facebook allowed the flickr uploader to do so with her consentment under cc-by. So I vote keep.- Sauloviegas (talk) 17:16, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
- Im interested to learn where you take this information from. The facebook page not says anything of a free licensing, the upload to flickr maybe happened with the agreement of the photographer, but the license change was done independently by the flickr user after a Commons user asked him to change the license. --Martin H. (talk) 17:48, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
- Didn't knew that. Then I change my vote to Delete. - Sauloviegas (talk) 23:16, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
- Didn't knew that. Then I change my vote to
- Im interested to learn where you take this information from. The facebook page not says anything of a free licensing, the upload to flickr maybe happened with the agreement of the photographer, but the license change was done independently by the flickr user after a Commons user asked him to change the license. --Martin H. (talk) 17:48, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: We would need OTRS from Christine. The link is here if anyone wants to request it. 99of9 (talk) 09:50, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
Were these images ever reviewed? Authors Lehnert and Landrock died in 1948 and 1957 1966, so the 70 years limit does not apply. This applies to many of their images. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 09:44, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Delete per nom. Missvain (talk) 13:15, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
- Keep. PD-old is not the correct tag. Retag with the correct tag PD-Tunisia. -- Asclepias (talk) 23:27, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
- But does PD-Tunesia apply? Lehnert was born in Bohemia and died in 1948 in Tunesia where he then lived. Landrock was born in Germany and died in 1966 in Switzerland. 1904: Lehnert and Landrock meet on a trip to Tunisia. They start a photo-business in Tunis, Lehnert takes photographs, Landrock manages the business. Lehnerts photographs are at that time published in Munich and Leipzig. During the first world-war the company is confiscated. In 1924 they establish "Lehnert & Landrock" in Cairo. In 1930 Lehnert seperates from Landrock and returns to Tunis where he starts a studio; the copyright on Lehnerts photographs remain with "L & L, Ernst Landrock Successors". In 1938 Landrock sells a majority of the shares to his son-in-law Kurt Lambelet and returns to Germany. The negatives from Lehnert & Landrock are now owned by the Musée de l’Élysée in Lausanne, Switzerland.[1] What does this mean: Czech, German, Swiss, Tunesian or Egyptian copyright? If the company Lehnert & Landrock owned the copyrights I guess Egyptian copyright law applies here, because it was founded in Egypt. PD-Egypt also has a 50 years limit, but Landrock died 45 years ago (Lehnert 63 years ago). Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 17:23, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
- This photo seems to be from Lehnert's first Tunisian period, c. 1904-1914. The question you raise is where those postcards and/or other photos were first published. There is some speculation that they might have been printed elsewhere but nothing is certain. What is certain is that on the back of the L&L postcards from this period the identification is clearly "Lehnert & Landrock, Tunis". What is also certain is that the photo was created in Tunisia and that L&L were running their business in Tunisia and were selling their production from there. That is enough for me to think that Tunisia is the country primarily associated with the first publication of those photos. Some of them were also later republished by Landrock in Leipzig, c. 1919-1924, but republication doesn't matter. The Tunisian copyright law at the time would have been the 1889 law. I don't know if, like later Tunisian copyright laws, it determined that photos entered the public domain 25 years after their creation. If so, this photo entered the public domain in Tunisia between c. 1930-1940 but, anyway, it is certainly in the Tunisian public domain now. So, under Commons internal policy, I think the appropriate tags are indeed PD-Tunisia + PD-1923. -- Asclepias (talk) 18:54, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
- Why does it seem to be a photo from Tunis 1904-1914? The firm Lehnert & Landrock was not established until 1924, so PD-1923 would not be correct. The description does not say 1910s but 1920s, although I cannot determine where uploader got that information.
- Why is it certain that this photo was created in Tunisia. The source identifies this photo only with the text Veiled Arab women in the street (Verschleierte Araberinnen auf der Straße). That could be anywhere.
- What does it mean that Landrock died only 45 years ago? PD-Tunisia says 50 years ago.
- Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 19:34, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
- The first Lehnert & Landrock business was established in 1904 in Tunis, Tunisia, as you mentioned in your first posting. It lasted until 1914. Later, they established the business Orient Kunst Verlag in 1920 in Leipzig, Germany, until 1924. Then they established a new Lehnert & Landrock business in 1924 in Cairo, Egypt. They split in 1930. (For a summary of the whole chronology, there is this webpage by Michel Mégnin, who wrote a book about Lehnert and Landrock.) The photos published during L&L's Tunisian period, 1904-1914, bear the identification of the publisher "Lehnert & Landrock, Tunis". See this photo of the business in Tunis, with the name Lehnert & Landrock displayed on the front: photo at the bottom of this page. The photo discussed here (File:532_-_Jeunes_filles_arabes.jpg) is from the 1904-1914 Tunisian period because it is the postcard number 532 in the colorized héliogravures series captioned in French, series which is from that period. The identification of the publisher, Lehnert & Landrock, Tunis, is on the back of the postcards of this series. We can see an example on this image, which shows the back of the postcard number 506 in the same series. For comparison, the photos from the Egyptian period (1924-1930) are printed with a different technique, are captioned in English and are identified "Lehnert & Landrock, Cairo". For an example, this image shows the back of the postcard number 69 of a series from the Egyptian period. (And after 1930, Lehnert, in his second Tunisian period, used other wordings such as "Photos d'art Lehnert" and "Lehnert Colisée", while Landrock and Lambelet, through the various reorganizations of their Cairo business, used variations around "Lehnert & Landrock, Cairo".) For the editions of the photos and the numbering system, one can refer to the list compiled by J.-P. Perpoil (Perpoil's list in .xls file). Of course, the same numbers can be used in different series. The different series and periods are distinguished from each other by, among other things, the type of printing and support, the language of the captions, the particular wording of the identification of the publisher (Tunis, Cairo). Perpoil's list is ordered by numbers, not by series, so to distinguish the different series in that list, look in particular at the columns "pays" (country) and "support". The image discussed here is part the series of the type of support "hélio coloriée". (For example, the preceding number in the same series is postcard 531, "Tunis - Mauresque"). The label on the postcards themselves (for the initial publication of this series) that identifies the publisher as "Lehnert & Landrock, Tunis", is normally sufficient for us to establish that the country of origin is Tunisia. I don't know why we would even want to question that. The business was indeed in Tunis. Anyway, further evidence of the connection with Tunisia (far more than with any other country) is that Tunis is where the original photographic plates were located. That is where the plates were seized in 1914, where they were placed in séquestre, and where Lehnert retook possession of them in 1922. As for Landrock's year of death, it is irrelevant for the copyright. Depending on each country's law, the copyright is calculated either from the year of creation of the photo, or the year of the first publication of the photo or the year of death of the creator of the photo. In Tunisia, before 2009 the copyright was for 25 years calculated from the year of creation of the photo, as I mentioned in my previous posting. In 2009 it was extended to 50 years after creation (from that moment only, although that would not have made any difference for that photo). Even in the countries where the copyright is calculated in years p.m.a., the creator being Lehnert, it would be years p.m.a. from Lehnert's death. The Lambelet family business, in whose hands the copyright landed after acquisition, may still hold a copyright in countries whose laws prescribe, for example, a copyright of 70 years p.m.a. and do not apply the rule of the shorter term. That would be until 2019 (70 years p.m.a. Lehnert). But those other countries do not concern the Commons internal policy, which requires freedom in the U.S. and in the country of origin. -- Asclepias (talk) 19:13, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for the very detailed answer, and I agree with you that the image probably is Tunesian, and therefore in the public domain. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 21:20, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
- The first Lehnert & Landrock business was established in 1904 in Tunis, Tunisia, as you mentioned in your first posting. It lasted until 1914. Later, they established the business Orient Kunst Verlag in 1920 in Leipzig, Germany, until 1924. Then they established a new Lehnert & Landrock business in 1924 in Cairo, Egypt. They split in 1930. (For a summary of the whole chronology, there is this webpage by Michel Mégnin, who wrote a book about Lehnert and Landrock.) The photos published during L&L's Tunisian period, 1904-1914, bear the identification of the publisher "Lehnert & Landrock, Tunis". See this photo of the business in Tunis, with the name Lehnert & Landrock displayed on the front: photo at the bottom of this page. The photo discussed here (File:532_-_Jeunes_filles_arabes.jpg) is from the 1904-1914 Tunisian period because it is the postcard number 532 in the colorized héliogravures series captioned in French, series which is from that period. The identification of the publisher, Lehnert & Landrock, Tunis, is on the back of the postcards of this series. We can see an example on this image, which shows the back of the postcard number 506 in the same series. For comparison, the photos from the Egyptian period (1924-1930) are printed with a different technique, are captioned in English and are identified "Lehnert & Landrock, Cairo". For an example, this image shows the back of the postcard number 69 of a series from the Egyptian period. (And after 1930, Lehnert, in his second Tunisian period, used other wordings such as "Photos d'art Lehnert" and "Lehnert Colisée", while Landrock and Lambelet, through the various reorganizations of their Cairo business, used variations around "Lehnert & Landrock, Cairo".) For the editions of the photos and the numbering system, one can refer to the list compiled by J.-P. Perpoil (Perpoil's list in .xls file). Of course, the same numbers can be used in different series. The different series and periods are distinguished from each other by, among other things, the type of printing and support, the language of the captions, the particular wording of the identification of the publisher (Tunis, Cairo). Perpoil's list is ordered by numbers, not by series, so to distinguish the different series in that list, look in particular at the columns "pays" (country) and "support". The image discussed here is part the series of the type of support "hélio coloriée". (For example, the preceding number in the same series is postcard 531, "Tunis - Mauresque"). The label on the postcards themselves (for the initial publication of this series) that identifies the publisher as "Lehnert & Landrock, Tunis", is normally sufficient for us to establish that the country of origin is Tunisia. I don't know why we would even want to question that. The business was indeed in Tunis. Anyway, further evidence of the connection with Tunisia (far more than with any other country) is that Tunis is where the original photographic plates were located. That is where the plates were seized in 1914, where they were placed in séquestre, and where Lehnert retook possession of them in 1922. As for Landrock's year of death, it is irrelevant for the copyright. Depending on each country's law, the copyright is calculated either from the year of creation of the photo, or the year of the first publication of the photo or the year of death of the creator of the photo. In Tunisia, before 2009 the copyright was for 25 years calculated from the year of creation of the photo, as I mentioned in my previous posting. In 2009 it was extended to 50 years after creation (from that moment only, although that would not have made any difference for that photo). Even in the countries where the copyright is calculated in years p.m.a., the creator being Lehnert, it would be years p.m.a. from Lehnert's death. The Lambelet family business, in whose hands the copyright landed after acquisition, may still hold a copyright in countries whose laws prescribe, for example, a copyright of 70 years p.m.a. and do not apply the rule of the shorter term. That would be until 2019 (70 years p.m.a. Lehnert). But those other countries do not concern the Commons internal policy, which requires freedom in the U.S. and in the country of origin. -- Asclepias (talk) 19:13, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
- This photo seems to be from Lehnert's first Tunisian period, c. 1904-1914. The question you raise is where those postcards and/or other photos were first published. There is some speculation that they might have been printed elsewhere but nothing is certain. What is certain is that on the back of the L&L postcards from this period the identification is clearly "Lehnert & Landrock, Tunis". What is also certain is that the photo was created in Tunisia and that L&L were running their business in Tunisia and were selling their production from there. That is enough for me to think that Tunisia is the country primarily associated with the first publication of those photos. Some of them were also later republished by Landrock in Leipzig, c. 1919-1924, but republication doesn't matter. The Tunisian copyright law at the time would have been the 1889 law. I don't know if, like later Tunisian copyright laws, it determined that photos entered the public domain 25 years after their creation. If so, this photo entered the public domain in Tunisia between c. 1930-1940 but, anyway, it is certainly in the Tunisian public domain now. So, under Commons internal policy, I think the appropriate tags are indeed PD-Tunisia + PD-1923. -- Asclepias (talk) 18:54, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
- But does PD-Tunesia apply? Lehnert was born in Bohemia and died in 1948 in Tunesia where he then lived. Landrock was born in Germany and died in 1966 in Switzerland. 1904: Lehnert and Landrock meet on a trip to Tunisia. They start a photo-business in Tunis, Lehnert takes photographs, Landrock manages the business. Lehnerts photographs are at that time published in Munich and Leipzig. During the first world-war the company is confiscated. In 1924 they establish "Lehnert & Landrock" in Cairo. In 1930 Lehnert seperates from Landrock and returns to Tunis where he starts a studio; the copyright on Lehnerts photographs remain with "L & L, Ernst Landrock Successors". In 1938 Landrock sells a majority of the shares to his son-in-law Kurt Lambelet and returns to Germany. The negatives from Lehnert & Landrock are now owned by the Musée de l’Élysée in Lausanne, Switzerland.[1] What does this mean: Czech, German, Swiss, Tunesian or Egyptian copyright? If the company Lehnert & Landrock owned the copyrights I guess Egyptian copyright law applies here, because it was founded in Egypt. PD-Egypt also has a 50 years limit, but Landrock died 45 years ago (Lehnert 63 years ago). Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 17:23, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
_(n.d.)_-_back_-_TIMEA.jpg){kind=link}
_(n.d.)_-_front_-_TIMEA.jpg){kind=link}
Keep Per above discussion. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 21:20, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
Kept: Withdrawn by nom Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:11, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
The author is trying to push a nationalistic/political/religious point of view by showing the national boundary in the wrong place" Bokpasa (talk) 11:22, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
- This is the territory of the Saadi dynasty in 1591. No viewpoint pushing. Keep --Saint-Louis (talk) 13:25, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Kept: We do not delete disputed maps. You may add {{Disputed map}} to the file if your wish. Please do not nominate this or any others like it again. If you do, you may be blocked from editing on Commons. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:17, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
the map is outdated, and the maintenance of this map should be centralized at File:Death Penalty World Map.svg Antemister (talk) 11:37, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Kept: per Commons:Deletion requests/File:Death Penalty World Map.png 99of9 (talk) 10:03, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
this is a duplicate of File:Death Penalty World Map.svg, the maintenance of this map should be centralized at there Antemister (talk) 11:38, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Kept: per Commons:Deletion requests/File:Death Penalty World Map.png 99of9 (talk) 10:03, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
this is a duplicate of File:Death Penalty World Map.svg, the maintenance of this map should be centralized at there Antemister (talk) 11:39, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Kept: per Commons:Deletion requests/File:Death Penalty World Map.png 99of9 (talk) 10:03, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
Ich werde statt dem JPG-File eine SVG-File hochladen, damit die Ansicht schneller funktioniert. StefanNuncic (talk) 11:54, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Kept: Not a reason to delete this -- we often keep both. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:18, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
derivative image of a statue, that is protected by copyright h-stt !? 12:53, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:18, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Google logo Tournesol (talk) 13:14, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
- The logo seems to be {{PD-textlogo}}, but the authorship, permission, and licensing claims are obviously nonsense, the description is unrelated advertising, and the file was uploaded solely for use in a deleted SEO spam article on Swedish Wikipedia. Outside of Commons' project scope, so Delete. —LX (talk, contribs) 12:08, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:19, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
incorrectly named Modal Jig (talk) 13:17, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Kept: Not a reason to delete. Please use {{Rename}} to suggest a good name. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:20, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
Doubtful claim of authorship, file can be found all over the Internet, has a very low resolution and no EXIF data. Mathonius (talk) 13:37, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:20, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
The stated source, http://www.magicasruinas.com.ar/revistero/aquello/revaquello071.htm, does not contain either revision of the file or any evidence that they were published more than 20 years ago. The problem tag regarding the missing source information was blanked without explanation by Rec79. —LX (talk, contribs) 13:43, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
- Delete, the given web source not contains this image, it not confirms the claimed authorship of "revista Argentina Extra". Looks like that author/source information "revista Extra" is invented just to fit the requirement of {{PD-AR-Photo}}. --Martin H. (talk) 19:15, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:21, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
Orphaned personal artwork. Out of scope. Missvain (talk) 13:51, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:21, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
Orphaned personal photo. Doubtful educational use in Commons. Missvain (talk) 14:09, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:21, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
Personal art work. Out of scope. Missvain (talk) 14:15, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:21, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
This file is not being used and I can't find any reliable source indicating that there is or has been a television series called "6ft North". Therefore, I think this is outside of the project scope and should be deleted. Mathonius (talk) 14:41, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:22, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
Also see : File:Saint-Vivien-de-Médoc, Gironde, église Saint Vivien bu IMG 1336.jpg
The architect, Joseph Rivière, die in 1961. As there is no freedom of panorama in France, this image is a copyvio.
L'architecte, Joseph Rivière, est décédé en 1961. Comme il n'existe pas de liberté de panorama en France, cette image constitue une atteinte au droit d'auteur.
Trizek here or on fr:wp 14:43, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:23, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
This is my house Barn Lodge, Old Bolingbroke . The image and description will make my house very difficult to sell and devalue it, we are very upset that this image is available to all and please could you delete it. Geolocation have kindly already removed this image and I have contacted Geograph and hoping for the same. Regards Andrew Gore. Lufcdave (talk) 15:00, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Comment The photo is one of those documenting the 2007 United Kingdom floods. I live in New Orleans (you might have heard something on the news about some flooding problems we had back in 2005) so I can sympathize with inconvenience. Still the photo seems to be simple documentation of historic circumstances. I have edited the photo caption to remove the unencyclopedic description of the street as a "canal", and added additional text from the Geograph source page noting that the house itself did not flood. Cheers, Infrogmation (talk) 19:44, 16 September 2011 (UTC)- Keep No evidence that this would devalue the house, why would buyers look here anyway? Oxyman (talk) 20:18, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Kept. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:33, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
Small, orphaned personal image. Out of scope. Missvain (talk) 15:06, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:33, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
Small, uneducational photo, orphaned. Doubtful educational use for Commons project. Missvain (talk) 15:22, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:33, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
Low resolution, no source, no permission Hoangquan hientrang (talk) 15:29, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Per nom. Missvain (talk) 19:39, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
- Tagged as npd, let's let that run. -mattbuck (Talk) 13:13, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:34, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
Modern art. I think painter identity confirmation via Commons:OTRS is necessary. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:34, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
- Agree, 1996 work by living artist Le Fumeur de Narguilé. Unless OTRS permission from Pierre et Gilles to release under free license, Delete Infrogmation (talk) 20:00, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:35, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
Unlikely to by own work: small resolution, missing EXIF. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:37, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:35, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
and File:Мой Кордай.jpg. Unlikely to by own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:41, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:35, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
and File:Maggie-sottero-wedding-dress-bridal-gown-10003-b.jpg. Unlikely to by own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:44, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Per nom. Missvain (talk) 19:52, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:35, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
Unlikely to by own work: small resolution, missing EXIF EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:44, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Per nom. Missvain (talk) 19:52, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:35, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
Text document which contains image unlikely to be own work: small resolutions EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:46, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:35, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small resolution, missing EXIF. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:47, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Per nom. Missvain (talk) 19:53, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:35, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small resolution, missing EXIF. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:47, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:35, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small resolution, missing EXIF. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:53, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Per nom. Missvain (talk) 19:54, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:36, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
modern annotations at the source make it a derived work not in the public domain Bob Burkhardt (talk) 15:46, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
- Keep: de minimis. Mathonius (talk) 16:06, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
- Keep: I don't see anything which is newer than 1881 there. --Pjacobi (talk)
- Keep - trivial annotations. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:57, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Abstain : Thanks for responding to this, and for the link to the guideline. Bob Burkhardt (talk) 01:41, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
Kept. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:38, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
Dubble of Fichier:Mizoen w.jpg that is in better colours Les Meloures (talk) 16:06, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Support Uploader requested, unused and I agree that File:Mizoen w.jpg is better. --MGA73 (talk) 19:03, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:39, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
Not useful without knowing what is being graphed. Queeg (talk) 17:17, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Useless. No description since 2006. Orphan. User not active since 2008. Infrogmation (talk) 20:14, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:41, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
Unused, un-useful web page screenshot. Queeg (talk) 17:32, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Per nom. Missvain (talk) 19:55, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:42, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
Even if the "map" had been documented, it would have been too small and condensed to be useful. Queeg (talk) 17:38, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:42, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
Artist (Jean Dubuffet) died less than 70 years ago. Edelseider (talk) 17:49, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Copyright violation for sure. Missvain (talk) 19:56, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:42, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
Between the image contents and the description the purpose and use of this image still lacks definition. There is not a place for it here.... Queeg (talk) 17:56, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:43, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
3D art of project from a known architect. source doesn't allow 'free art libre'. OTAVIO1981 (talk) 18:01, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:46, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
3D art of project from a known architect. source doesn't allow 'free art libre'. OTAVIO1981 (talk) 18:01, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:46, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
3D art of project from a known architect. source doesn't allow 'free art libre'. OTAVIO1981 (talk) 18:01, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:46, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
Without description (for several years now) this image has no use or place here. Queeg (talk) 18:02, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
- Keep I believe that this is an unusual en:Swing (seat) made out of stone rather than wood or metal. I have attempted to contact the uploader before categorizing it this way. It might be usable at en:Playscapes, which is about playgrounds using natural materials. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:21, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
- It never occurred to me to drill a hole into a rock and use it as a swing; please forgive my lack of imagination.... If you write a description and categorize it, I will certainly vote to keep it. Is there a "withdraw" in this process? -- Queeg (talk) 17:33, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
- It was the unusualness of it that originally caught my attention. I've added the cat and the description, and asked at another place on en.wiki to see whether anyone else knows more than I do. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:45, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
- It never occurred to me to drill a hole into a rock and use it as a swing; please forgive my lack of imagination.... If you write a description and categorize it, I will certainly vote to keep it. Is there a "withdraw" in this process? -- Queeg (talk) 17:33, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
- Keep or Withdraw -- which is not a recommendation or encouragement (which is probably a more appropriate word) to actually use this as a template to create playground equipment. I think it would hurt small children, perhaps fatally, who might be playing with it or in the area; I think it could also hurt (not fatally, but damaged goods are damaged goods) especially grown men who might be playing with it or in the area (I don't want to make a diagram of forces and height and things that occur at this height -- I have seen far too many diagrams here lately). Then, the question of the reason to go through the trouble to drill a hole into a rock to make a plaything and is this as environmentally thoughtful as the good old fashion tire swing which -- nothing like rubber for being safe for the children and the tall enough males... -- Queeg (talk) 19:45, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
Kept: nominator withdrew request 99of9 (talk) 10:34, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
No authorship information, unknown copyright situation. Jcb (talk) 12:45, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
- Keep:
{{Own assumed}}and{{Author assumed}}, until proven to be previously published (copyvio). 2001:2003:54FA:2F79:0:0:0:1 22:37, 25 August 2017 (UTC)- No, it works the other way round. There must be some evidence that this is not a copyvio. File has very low resolution and is the only upload of the user. There is no base to assume own work. Jcb (talk) 22:47, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
- My vote to keep stands, the EXIF information is available and matches closely to the upload date. I'm willing to assume good faith, considering the old upload date (when unstructured descriptions were common) and the uploader's claim of
{{PD-self}}. 2001:2003:54FA:2F79:0:0:0:1 23:14, 25 August 2017 (UTC) - If you can show a higher quality, freely licensed picture of the same subject on Commons, I'll consider voting to delete (but not on copyright grounds). 2001:2003:54FA:2F79:0:0:0:1 23:16, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
- Assuming good faith is of course not assuming random things. The uploaders 'claim' is not a claim at all. Those days, the 'PD-self' was inserted automatically if uploader left a checkmark in place. Uploader did not fill in authorship information. Jcb (talk) 23:20, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
- My vote to keep stands, the EXIF information is available and matches closely to the upload date. I'm willing to assume good faith, considering the old upload date (when unstructured descriptions were common) and the uploader's claim of
- No, it works the other way round. There must be some evidence that this is not a copyvio. File has very low resolution and is the only upload of the user. There is no base to assume own work. Jcb (talk) 22:47, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
Kept: per 2001:2003:54FA:2F79:0:0:0:1. File uploaded in 2008, so low resolution is possible. Moreover, I found no proofs of copyvio. Ruthven (msg) 09:54, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
promotion material? not used Avron (talk) 18:21, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Per nom. Missvain (talk) 19:58, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
- Delete -- Queeg (talk) 20:30, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:46, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
no usable quality Avron (talk) 18:24, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Per nom. Missvain (talk) 19:59, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
- Delete -- Queeg (talk) 21:23, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:47, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
Image shows identifiable minor. When asked for a permission from the minor's parents, uploader did not reply. Per Commons:Country specific consent requirements permission is required in Switzerland. --Túrelio (talk) 18:53, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Per nom. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:12, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
- Delete ACK Túrelio. -- Wo st 01 (talk / cont) 21:18, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom 99of9 (talk) 10:29, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
no description, no educational value Avron (talk) 18:59, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Per nom. Missvain (talk) 20:00, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
- Delete -- Queeg (talk) 22:41, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:47, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
It's not a repeating background, if it is a diagram symbol, more information should be provided. Deleting it will remove several solid white uploads and if it is a useful image, the uploader can reupload it with a description and some categories. Queeg (talk) 21:06, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
- something's fishy - 578KB for a tiny 300x300px pic? what's in there? NVO (talk) 00:48, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
- 90% quality, exif data, xmp data, a color profile (sRGB) and a thumbnail -- no comment, however which is what I first thought to look for. Probably the thumbnail is insanely large or something like this. I noticed when using the "preview" that it rendered a completely white image. I resaved it here and the 579Kimage became 9.4K. This was most certainly an "annoyance" deletion request -- Queeg (talk) 04:32, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: bad quality (unnecessary size), unused since 2007, uncategorized and undescribed 99of9 (talk) 10:17, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
The thumbnails automatically created from this SVG file are weird. I have now uploaded a PNG version of this diagram - please delete the useless SVG version. Sch (talk) 22:41, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Kept: PNG can't ever fully replace svg, because svg is scaleable. I understand that this SVG needs fixing, but that won't be possible if we delete it. I suggest you put a link to your PNG in the other_versions field. 99of9 (talk) 10:24, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
Questionable license claim, derivative photo. Infrogmation (talk) 19:13, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Per nom. Missvain (talk) 20:00, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:50, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
- Including
Orphaned, used in a now deleted article on en.wikipedia. no foreseeable use. FASTILY (TALK) 19:30, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:50, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
Promotional content. Queeg (talk) 20:22, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:53, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
Barcode with no explained purposes. Personal art, as the title may suggest? At least the text in the center makes it undecodable. Out of scope. Ben.MQ (talk) 20:32, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Per nom. Missvain (talk) 00:32, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
- Abstain It's perfectly decodable; see w:QR Code#Error correction. Bobmath (talk) 17:00, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
- delete. QR codes are not yet common on commons, but they are a potential problem. "We" don't know what's there - decoding needs third-party software. And yet they must be checked - who knows what kind of vandalism or spam or you name it could be there (especially when it comes from permablocked account). The only worthwhile QR codes are those that illustrate the concept, anything else is redundant (what's the point of expressing an URL with graphics?). NVO (talk) 00:43, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
- There are a number of free software packages that can decode QR codes. I think your definition of which QR codes are worthwhile is a bit narrow, but I have to agree that I don't see much point in this one. Bobmath (talk) 19:49, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:53, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
License "PD" was added by a third user to the picture on de.wp. No information or confirmation from the uploader to the license. File on de.wp deleted. Quedel (talk) 20:32, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:53, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
Low quality, unused, not a real word, (neither is "humdity dity dity humdityily", btw). Queeg (talk) 21:27, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Per nom. (Hahaha!) Missvain (talk) 00:34, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:54, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
Binar identical to de:Datei:Raslavice.png which states unknown author sourced from http://portal.gov.sk/Portal/sk/Default.aspx?CatID=109&cityID=519936. Own work very doubtfull. Coat of arms seems not to be free in Slovakia. JuTa (talk) 21:47, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Slovakian arms are not free. --Wikijunkie (talk) 21:12, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:54, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
Personal artwork not used Queeg (talk) 22:00, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Per nom. Missvain (talk) 00:34, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:54, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
This image is from a film directed by José María Forqué que died in 1995, and need died in 1931. The actor died in the 80s. Botedance (talk) 22:10, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Per nom. Missvain (talk) 00:35, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:54, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
Clearly not own work; no evidence of PD-EU-anonymous without any idea where this came from Prosfilaes (talk) 22:15, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
- After I nominated this for deletion, the uploader added "Author died more than 70 years ago". Without knowing who the author is, we can't check this, and I question whether the uploader truly knows this.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:20, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:55, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
Not used, no description, not a particularly unique building. Queeg (talk) 22:44, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Per nom. Missvain (talk) 00:35, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:55, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
Small, crappy, uploaded by "dajoker" Queeg (talk) 22:56, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Per nom. Missvain (talk) 00:36, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:55, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
a portrait of not notable person (the article in ru.wiki was deleted) Andrei Romanenko (talk) 23:06, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Per nom. Missvain (talk) 00:38, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:55, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
The calligrapher, Dangyo Kawase (ja:河瀬断魚), passed away in 2010 and the copyright is still in effect. Yasu (talk) 14:54, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Question If this were English writing, then the writing itself would have no copyright. Is this Japanese calligraphy simple writing or is it art? If it is writing and not art, then this has a copyright only if Dangyo Kawase composed the words so that it has a literary copyright. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:27, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
- The United States would consider this PD-ineligible -- it's still just writing (they explicitly say that about Chinese calligraphy in their guidelines). However, not sure about Japan. I think China may protect calligraphy. Secondly... where was this taken from? If it was not published elsewhere first, that would seem to indicate the uploader has special access to it, and possibly rights. Google images only finds it on the wikipedia pages. Granted, there is no way I could search Japanese sites effectively. Carl Lindberg (talk) 18:01, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
- The words themselves are an old proverb so I think there are no literary rights. However, in Japan, calligraphy is generally regarded as a type of artistic work [2] and is protected by the Copyright Law. As for the source, description on the file page reads: "独立書人団ホームページ" (Dokuritsu Shojindan website). I couldn't find the file in question there, but anyway, the website says "All Rights Reserved" and that means the file is not freely usable (if it really originated there). Yasu (talk) 15:30, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Therefore it is a delete. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:14, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
Derivative work, probably a copyrighted design of the badge/medal. Bill william comptonTalk 19:11, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyright violation and possible copyright violation. The symbol is possibly unfree, publishing a photo of it without permission possibly is copyright violation. The photo of this 3D object is not self-created but stolen from the internet, thats copyright violation. Martin H. (talk) 14:02, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
Need a review that it's a FAL, and source is in Russian which I'm unable to understand. Bill william comptonTalk 19:13, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
- Couldn't resist a pun: there were no FALs in Soviet Army. This looks like a formal Army photograph taken in or shortly after 1988 (his promotion to General of the Army at the age of 57; he Retired in 1992, died in 2008). "Formal" does not mean "produced by the state", rather that it followed a strict format, like passport photographs. No free license - from whom? a nameless photographer who did not sign the photo, - they never did. That's the problem with all these official photos - no names, no dates, perfect legal limbo). delete. NVO (talk) 00:29, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Obvious copyright violation, uploader selected a random - but entirely wrong - copyright tag in the upload form: The Free Art License. Unfree picture grabbed from the internet. Martin H. (talk) 14:01, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
Besause this part of land belongs to greece since the first world war. And no radical idiots should get the chance in wikipedia to expand their radical and stupid wishes. 160.44.238.22 09:27, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
- Speedy Keep It's a historical map, in use. Calling people "radical idiots" does nothing to make Commons a more pleasant place to be.--Prosfilaes (talk) 12:46, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
- Keep Per Prosfilaes Missvain (talk) 13:14, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
- This is not a historical map, only the wish of some radicals.
Kept: See COM:NPOV Courcelles (talk) 04:29, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
and other uploads by Lemmy Indarkness (talk · contribs). Likely to be promo photos. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:36, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- Delete Per nom. Missvain (talk) 19:41, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Courcelles (talk) 04:30, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
and other uploads by Nightrider51 (talk · contribs). Unlikely to be own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:52, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Agreed- they're almost surely copyvios Courcelles (talk) 04:32, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
No evidence of ownership except uploader's own statement. Image can be found in multiple places on the Internet; however, its source is unclear. Bbb23 (talk) 20:18, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
The image belongs to the Governor's Executive Office, of which I am an employee. It belongs solely to the Governor's office, but we wish to make it publicly available. Currently, the photo also is available on the Governor's "Rick for Michigan" Flickr page, and perhaps others have grabbed it from there. Keconfer (talk) 13:13, 19 September 2011 (UTC)Keconfer
- We will need a license from the photographer, using the procedure at Commons:OTRS. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:52, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
My boss sent an email to the OTRS email, confirming that the picture is available at michigan.gov/snyder and is copyright free, so everything should be straightened out. The reason it is so frequently found on other websites is because we give it out freely to any reporter or other third party who wants it. Let me know if you have any other questions! Keconfer (talk) 16:58, 26 September 2011 (UTC)Keconfer
Kept: OTRS email received. – Adrignola talk 17:01, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
Orphaned personal photo. Out of scope. Missvain (talk) 03:57, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
- Someone should check if it is Fernando Cuellar first. -- ／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ 苦情処理係 13:58, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
- Comment Great observation Niabot!! It looks like it indeed is. Should we perhaps ask for OTRS verification for this image? :) Missvain (talk) 14:02, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
- The uploader seams to be his son. Maybe someone admin should look at Image:PAPA.jpg if it is the same photograph, as seen on the discussion page of the user. -- ／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ 苦情処理係 14:28, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Kept: per Niabot, in scope. Image:PAPA.jpg was indeed the same image. Rosenzweig τ 14:34, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
Solely a text file, therefore out of project scope Lymantria (talk) 07:43, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
- Delete: I've transcribed the text of this file and created en:s:Charter of the United States Senate Oceans Caucus on Wikisource, which I believe is a more appropriate project for this (see this diff as well). Mathonius (talk) 00:32, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: per nominator. Rosenzweig τ 14:30, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
Copyvio http://angela.org.ua/photos/image-3152.html --Bulka UA (talk) 09:10, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
- this source itself says that picture dates to the 19th century. That's why it's not copyvio, just derivative from PD-Old image rubin16 (talk) 15:51, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
- Not sure if it fits {{PD-Art}} - burned planks make it a 3D object. NVO (talk) 23:57, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
- If I am not wrong, we don't need to apply PD-Art here: basic image is in PD (PD-Old), the whole 3D object is in PD, photo is made by uploader and licensed under free license, so there is no copyvio - original object is in public domain, derivative is licensed under cc-by-sa rubin16 (talk) 09:25, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
- Not sure if it fits {{PD-Art}} - burned planks make it a 3D object. NVO (talk) 23:57, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
- Keep as per Rubin16. --P199 (talk) 20:47, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
Kept. Jcb (talk) 10:19, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
Not sure those files are realistically useful for an educational purpose, none of projects nor users uses. Mys 721tx (talk) 00:57, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Missvain (talk) 02:16, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:57, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
template's requirements not obeyed: "To use this template, the image must meet both of the following two conditions: published over 70 years ago, and the original author's actual identity was not publicly disclosed in connection with this image within 70 years following its publication. " Saibo (Δ) 01:13, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
- Keep WWI photo; ignore the bot. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:56, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
- Hi, vk robot, how should this fulfill the second requirement? --Saibo (Δ) 04:19, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
- Keepseems to be, that the original author's actual identity is unknown as in most cases concerning photos from WWI. made in the field! --Steinbeisser (talk) 06:28, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
- Hi, vk robot, how should this fulfill the second requirement? --Saibo (Δ) 04:19, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
- Keep per Steinbeisser Ipos (talk) 16:03, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
Kept: {{PD-EU-no author disclosure}} seems to apply. – Adrignola talk 00:50, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
template's conditions still not fulfilled (see last DR above). The picture was only published on some WW1 fan page (or what is it). What do they know about the photo? Would they surely know the author if somebody (from the "public") know him? Was this photo never published in a book? Why should the doubtful internet fanpage be enough to strip the photographer from his 70 years pma copyright? Saibo (Δ) 05:36, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
- Keep - repeating DRs like this is just disruptive. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:09, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
- Delete, unless a reference to the 1917 publication of this photo is given for verification whether it is published with or without author name. This will not be reasonable research to verify that the authorship was never disclosed, but it is a startingpoint at least. At the moment we have no information on nothing. --Martin H. (talk) 18:53, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Kept - per previous DR - Jcb (talk) 13:57, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
What is going on here? NO replies to my questions - no nothing. --Saibo (Δ) 01:16, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
- I agree, the file description explains: "because it was published more than 70 years ago without a public claim of authorship", this explanation must bear up against the question: Where was it published more than 70 years ago without a public claim if authorship? If the file description cant answer this question then the explanation is incorrect and cant be used. The file not has a valid copyright tag. --Martin H. (talk) 09:42, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
- I could open a third DR... awesome processes here. --Saibo (Δ) 17:48, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
Same as last DR. Saibo (Δ) 22:43, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
- Keep - and block Saibo if he does nominate this a fourth time. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:17, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
- Comment I see a 'vote' saying "ignore it", I see an opinion saying that the author is unknown because it is unknown in "most" cases, I see a closure saying "{{PD-EU-no author disclosure}} seems to apply"... Sorry, but thats not arguments. The file description says that the file "was published more than 70 years ago without a public claim of authorship". Can we confirm this with a source? Where was it published? If this cant be answered the file should be removed from the project because of unclear copyright status. Delete. And because of unclear information. It appears to me that the "unknown" author is not added to the file description because various sources confirm or suggest it, but written there for the only purpose to upload something to Wikimedia Commons. That is manipulation of historic facts for a very strange reason. --Martin H. (talk) 23:05, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
- Keep --Nevit Dilmen (talk) 09:23, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
- DRs are no vote - in order to give your vote a bit of usefulness please comment on the issue and reply to the claims of the contrary of your opinion. --Saibo (Δ) 15:15, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
- Delete - no evidence presented that the photo was published prior to 1942. This looks like a private photo and could be unpublished before it appeared on the web.Nigel Ish (talk) 18:09, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
- Delete - As I said in a related DR, not knowing the author's name is not the same being published anonymously. Also per Nigel. Parsecboy (talk) 21:17, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
- Deleted. It has not been shown that the photographer published this anonymously, that a serious attempt has been made to find the photographer or that such a search would be futile. From previous discussion: "As in case of other templates, its usage requires proper documentation and where this is missing or unsatisfactory, the individual files can be submitted for deletion." Thuresson (talk) 12:49, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted, Thuresson (talk) 12:49, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
COM:NPOV False information Bokpasa (talk) 19:42, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
Kept: COM:NPOV; neutrality is not required, and the file is in use. Courcelles (talk) 03:49, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
The author is trying to push a nationalistic/political/religious point of view by showing the national boundary in the wrong place" Bokpasa (talk) 11:22, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Kept. We do not delete disputed maps. You may add {{Disputed map}} to the file if your wish. Please do not nominate this or any others like it again. If you do, you may be blocked from editing on Commons. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:15, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
Not used at all, superseeded by File:Death Penalty World Map.svg. SkyBonTalk\Contributions 09:04, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
- You're kidding, right? 689 wikis searched. Death_Penalty_World_Map.png is used on 72 pages in 50 projects. I would tend to say keep. --Tryphon (talk) 11:35, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
Not to mention that the SVG is not a faithful reproduction of the PNG (different kind of projection, labels, etc.), so it should be kept regardless of usage. --Tryphon (talk) 11:40, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
- If there are no copyright problems and it's still used, it falls into the project scope criteria. Belgrano (talk) 01:18, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Kept. — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 01:54, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
Superseeded and not used anywhere. SkyBonTalk\Contributions 20:28, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
- Keep. Not used anymore because you removed it from all the articles. I still think the maps are different enough to justify keeping both, and we should let the possibility for the various projects to revert your actions if they're unsatisfied with the new map. –Tryphon☂ 15:16, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
- Note: still no one has reverted my actions. Everyone except, perhaps, you seems to be satisfied with the SVG map. SkyBonTalk\Contributions 17:11, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
Not used by anyone for quite some time (indicates that no one really wants it). Clearly redundant. Artem Karimov (talk | edits) 15:18, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
- Why do people want to delete that file so bad? It's been on Commons since 2005, there could be countless outside re-users linking to that page. We don't delete files just because they're not in use, and there's nothing wrong with some redundancy. –Tryphon☂ 16:49, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
Delete and replace instances with the svg. Part of the problem of duplication: someone updates file 1, unaware that file 2 exists, or too lazy to update file 2. One only needs to look at the gluttony of half completed maps in Category:2008 U.S. presidential election maps. As Commons is primarily an encyclopedic in nature, it's important for us to be accurate as well as a general repository. Redundancy is OK for certain image types, but for continually updating diagrams, it is harmful. It is for precisely this reason that we delete images on the individual projects rather than just allow a duplication on commons. Magog the Ogre (talk) 23:32, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
- Commons is not an encyclopedia, and this file is tagged with {{Vector version available}} already, so there's no risk of anyone not knowing about the alternative. –Tryphon☂ 00:22, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Sometimes somebody would prefer PNG than SVG. Redundancy is OK, and deletion even would not save our memories, because we keep deleted versions also. Julo (talk) 21:48, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
- Keep We don't delete redundant images unless they're exact duplicates (or down-scaled duplicates), because we don't want to eliminate information that might be useful (for example, someone might notice a small artifact in an SVG and be uncertain whether it's from the original PNG or occurred during the conversion process). This is policy and is sensible. Dcoetzee (talk) 01:06, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
Kept. 99of9 (talk) 12:57, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
this is a duplicate of File:Death Penalty World Map.svg, the maintenance of this map should be centralized at there Antemister (talk) 11:39, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
- Keep. Image is not a duplicate and the deletion of superceded images has been discontinued, as there are a multitude of reasons to keep them. The image is tagged with {{Vector version available}}, has already not been updated for over two years, and (now) bears a note to that effect. IceKarma (talk) 06:40, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
Kept - Jcb (talk) 07:14, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
I doubt that uploader has author's right on insignia of Russian Space Forces. VAP+VYK (talk) 13:24, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
- Сменить на {{PD-RU-Exempt}}, приравняв войсковые эмблемы к state symbols. NVO (talk) 00:18, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
- Question What organization is it, is this an official logo. Is it realy 2D or is it 3D? More 3D, similar as a medal or coin, that matters because obviously the uploader did not even create this photo himself - contrary to his false claims. And finaly of lesser imortance but as a question of accuracy and educational value, is the designer known. --Martin H. (talk) 14:15, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
- It's a machine-embroidered shoulder tag of en:Russian Space Forces units stationed at the en:Baikonur Cosmodrome. Author's identity could be a curious investigation - the graphic core (as described in ru:Флаг Космических войск) was first approved in 1990s, then trashed, then finally approved in 2004. NVO (talk) 15:17, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 10:21, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
Files of User:Burdel
[edit]- File:Burdel 12.jpg
- File:Se vendentuenti.jpg
- File:Burdel02.jpg
- File:Naufargolunar.jpg
- File:Burdel.jpg
Collection of non-notable rock band promotional materials. Orphaned and Commons is not a personal web host. They also lack permission. If we do decide to keep, I encourage that we seek permission and delete if not provided. --Missvain (talk) 14:23, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:21, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
właściciel nie wyraża zgody na zdjęcie Ewiok (talk) 14:35, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 10:25, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
and other Torne valley related uploads by Mestos (talk · contribs). Unlikely to by own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:40, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Per nom. Missvain (talk) 19:43, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Yes, please delete that and a few other with low resolution which I uploaded. Just garbage here. I am sorry. I did not udnerstand how it works--Mestos (talk) 09:11, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: this file (the others will have to be named separately) Jcb (talk) 10:26, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
and other uploads by MiguelTejeda (talk · contribs). Modern art. I think painter identity confirmation via Commons:OTRS is necessary. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:50, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Commons is not for publishing personal art. --P199 (talk) 20:54, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 10:28, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Dubble of: Ecluse Chênée ou écluse N° 2 Porte avale (W).jpg and not used Les Meloures (talk) 16:11, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- Keep File:Ecluse Chênée ou écluse N° 2 Porte avale (W).jpg is a cropped version of this picture. --Trycatch (talk) 16:25, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Kept. Jcb (talk) 13:29, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Dubble of File:Marnach Nightantenna1.jpg and not used Les Meloures (talk) 17:30, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
- Keep as an original for File:Marnach Nightantenna1.jpg. Trycatch (talk) 17:41, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
- The two pictures are originals of myself. The one is well upright and the other not. --Les Meloures (talk) 22:25, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 13:30, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
Il est redondant. MAM51 (talk) 17:33, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
- Question: pourquoi? Mathonius (talk) 17:36, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
I have got 3 templates of the same photography, with the same text. Il would like to delete only two of them. MAM51 — Preceding unsigned comment added by MAM51 (talk • contribs) 18:00, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: uploader request shortly after upload Jcb (talk) 13:31, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
Podcasts
[edit]- File:PODCAST Stress Relief Stress Management and Inner Peace with Lauren Miller.ogg
- File:PODCAST What Are Omega 3 Fats Nutrition Tips on Healthy Fats.ogg
- File:PODCAST Soy or Milk Which is Healthier.ogg
- File:PODCAST Healthy Habits and Nutrition Authentic Health Coaching Show.ogg
- File:PODCAST Scarlett Winters Naturopathic Doctor Shares Nutrition Tips.ogg
- File:Converted file 185c780f.ogg
- File:Dr. Corson's Top 5 Nutrition Tips - YouTube.theora.ogv
- File:Does Soy Cause Breast Cancer or Reduce You Risk of Breast Cancer - YouTube.theora.ogv
- File:Interview with Pati Chandler on Fibromyalgia Symptoms, Natural Treatments, and Nutrition Tips (1 5 - YouTubeA .session safari --type main,fid Hocny--,YM.session safari timestam.theora.ogv
Per COM:SCOPE as self-promotional material. See Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard#Podcasts. --Deli nk (talk) 17:59, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
- Delete, spam. --Martin H. (talk) 19:32, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
- Delete - self-promotional spam content. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 02:46, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
- Note: see also an additional file added today by the same user:
- --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 02:49, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:45, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
Converted to DR by me from a speedy by User:NBS for "copyvio, date ~ 1950s => no PD". --Túrelio (talk) 19:37, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 13:31, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
Derivative work from a logo: it is a cropped version of fr:Fichier:Région Île-de-France (logo).svg, which is hosted under fair use on WP:fr. Hr. Satz 15:55, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
.svg){kind=link}
- Question: doesn't {{PD-ineligible}} apply to this file? Mathonius (talk) 15:58, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
- Do you mean, as {{PD-shape}}? It is obviously not simple geometry. By comparison, File:Eight rayed star (red).svg could be PD-shape, but not this one. Hr. Satz 16:02, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
- Comment - this is heavily in use and will have to be replaces by an alternative before deletion - Jcb (talk) 10:30, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
.svg){kind=link}
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 14:04, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
