Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2011/10/03
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
|
|
I made this file and I realized that there are some errors in it, I've made another one that is right. Hopur3 (talk) 12:24, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Uploader request. Presumably replaced by File:Integration process in host cell.png Wknight94 talk 12:34, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
I made this file and I realized that there are some errors in it, I've made another one that is right. Hopur3 (talk) 12:24, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Author request. Presumably replaced by File:Integration process in host cell.png Wknight94 talk 12:32, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
I made this file and I realized that there are some errors in it, I've made another one that is right. Hopur3 (talk) 12:24, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Uploader request. Presumably replaced by File:Integration process in host cell.png Wknight94 talk 12:34, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
I made this file and I realized that there are some errors in it, I've made another one that is right. Hopur3 (talk) 12:24, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Author request. Presumably replaced by File:Integration process in host cell.png Wknight94 talk 12:32, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
Reasons for deletion request: uploaded without my permission -Spoozlemoosle (talk) 16:04, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
- Um... someone using your username uploaded it. Anyways, uploader request right after uploading, presumed accident, so
Delete. Speedy deletion probably fine too. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:40, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom Denniss (talk) 19:18, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
Lisa Ann 2010.jpg 109.121.141.253 18:18, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
Keep no reason given for the nom (by a non-logged-in user), & backtracking the file shows recent, previous, failed deletion attempt. uploader appears to be perfectly legit. Lx 121 (talk) 19:43, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
Keep No reason to delete what-so-ever. Is this some form of back-door Vandalism, or what? Toglenn (talk) 01:08, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
Kept: Speedy closing as kept - no explanation given for why, and upload is by the legitimate copyright owner Tabercil (talk) 01:58, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
http://www.mondoreality.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/Emma-Marrone-A-me-piace-cos%C3%AC-sanremo-edition-cover.jpg Shivanarayana (talk) 20:52, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Picture is crop from CD-cover (http://www.mondoreality.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/Emma-Marrone-A-me-piace-cos%C3%AC-sanremo-edition-cover.jpg) and uploader has history of several Copyvio uploads Neozoon (talk) 22:35, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
copyvio alleged by User:Motopark, insufficient reason/evidence provided for speedy, converting to regular dd; no strong opinion on this one, other than regret if we have to lose it Lx 121 (talk) 18:01, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
- Album covers need OTRS-permission, without that, Delete--Motopark (talk) 18:23, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
- please refer me to the commons policy page where it states that all album covers MUST have otrs? Lx 121 (talk) 18:45, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
- The upload form states that "if your file was published without a free license, or with a different credit name, or with no credit at all, please send a confirmation E-mail to the address on this page and add {{OTRS pending|month=October|day=4|year=2011}} with details about the previous publication in the permission field below." This file was previously published, yet the uploader did not follow those instructions. File:ArcasBanner.png, also uploaded by the same user, was deleted in 2009. For that upload, the user claimed to be the author, but stated the source as "Arcas Myspace" rather than "own work." If they really were the author, why would they need to retrieve it from the web? For subsequent uploads, they switched to claiming "own work." —LX (talk, contribs) 06:04, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Commons:How to detect copyright violations is close when it calls out work by professionals. Even if we do have permission to use it, I'm not sure it's in scope; a CD cover of a band that can't make it to Wikipedia has no educational use.--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:38, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Speedy, no fair use in commons Ezarateesteban 11:41, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
because I don't have the copyright Gyangoya (talk) 20:03, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Speedied as goodfaith req at day of upload by uploader for "copyvio". Túrelio (talk) 06:54, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
Copyright violation from http://football.hiblogger.net/authors/stadiums/1151422.html/thread/5178059 , no evidence of permission NickK (talk) 20:47, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: copyvio Anatoliy (talk) 14:15, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
copyvio http://www.adif.es/es_ES/infraestructuras/estaciones/22308/informacion_000390.shtml . HombreDHojalata.talk 17:23, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Wknight94 talk 03:06, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
http://www.diatonico.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/ferro.jpg Shivanarayana (talk) 20:45, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: speedied as copyvio. Rosenzweig τ 17:32, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
for delete Dare66 (talk) 18:50, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: obvious copyvio from http://www.zorandjurovic.com/biografijae/index.html Túrelio (talk) 13:00, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
This picture is not about the Reisjärvi church - it is named wrongly and errorneously. Tetopa (talk) 23:41, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
- (I am myself very familiar with this place & church, visited on the site a month ago - and here is some picture evidence from another source: http://www.kirjastovirma.net/kirkot/reisjarvi).Tetopa (talk) 23:44, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
EDIT: The church is actually from Pihtipudas, the neighbouring municipality to Reisjärvi: see e.g.: http://www.finnica.fi/keski-suomi/kirkot/kirkkoesittely.php?id=8 . Hence, the file should be re-named & categorized accordingly.Tetopa (talk) 02:06, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
- Keep. There is not reason to delete the image. It can be renamed. (See {{Rename}}.) I already made a rename request of this file. ––Apalsola t • c 13:35, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
Kept: I will rename the image Courcelles (talk) 23:44, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
Derivative work of copyrighted content. I do not believe this satisfies de minimis. FASTILY (TALK) 00:34, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: already deleted (not by me) 99of9 (talk) 09:47, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
Out of scope: picture of text, also possibly promotional material Kramer Associates (talk) 03:34, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 15:37, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
This is a photograph of a photograph. Own work claims are irrelevant. The photograph is from WW2 79.237.163.206 08:10, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
- Keep uploader is providing historic images of germany & occupied europe during 1930s - ww2 era; uploader seems to be working on russian wiki, & clearly needs to be informed of proper procedures for sourcing info (possibly in russian or german?); useful material, that is probably clear for use, & efforts should be made to retain it. Lx 121 (talk) 19:56, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
- Efforts can be made but, until there is a proper source, Delete. See also Commons:Deletion requests/File:Türkische Offiziere Ukraine.jpg where it is noted that all of this user's uploads have sourcing problems. Wknight94 talk 00:43, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Per Wknight94. Leyo 12:38, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
Extreme bad image quality. An encyclopedic use seems not to be possible. It is extremely unsharp and of very low image resolution. 79.237.163.206 08:15, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
- Delete per 79.237.163.206 -- Gddea - Daniel E. Als-Juliussen (talk) 13:56, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope. Unusable poor quality George Chernilevsky talk 15:39, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
Poor quality pic now superceded by better pic, File:1_Sandgate2.jpg. Sardaka (talk) 08:29, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
- Weak Keep. Shows more of the surroundings which could be of some value. Wknight94 talk 12:49, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
Kept: In use, so COM:SCOPE automatically satisfied. I agree the other is probably best for most uses, but there are enough differences to make this potentially useful. 99of9 (talk) 09:53, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
Poor quality, low res. Better version is: (1)Sandgate-1a.jpg in same category Sardaka (talk) 10:10, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --INeverCry 23:51, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
Poor quality pic now superceded by better pic, 1_BrigidineCollege22.jpg. Sardaka (talk) 08:31, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
- Keep Appears to be a completely different side of the building. Wknight94 talk 12:47, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
Kept: per Wknight 99of9 (talk) 09:57, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
Poor quality slide scanned at low res, there are plenty of other images available in this category. Sardaka (talk) 08:11, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 00:40, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
Poor quality pic now superceded by better version, 1BrigidineCollege22.jpg. Sardaka (talk) 08:32, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
- Keep Appears to be a completely different side of the building. Wknight94 talk 12:47, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
Kept: per Wknight94 99of9 (talk) 09:58, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
Poor quality slide scanned at low res, plenty of other images available Sardaka (talk) 08:13, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 00:40, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
the work is in public domain but the picture of the work is under copyright 193.54.109.8 09:48, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
- Keep. Per COM:DW, a photo of a two-dimensional work does not establish a new copyright. Wknight94 talk 12:42, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
- Keep per Wknight94 --Jarekt (talk) 12:45, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
The Work is in Public Domain but the Photographic Picture of the Work is under copyright 193.54.109.8 09:55, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
- Keep. Per COM:DW, a photo of a two-dimensional work does not establish a new copyright. Wknight94 talk 12:43, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
- Keep as above; obvious Lx 121 (talk) 19:49, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
I can't imagine this wouldn't meet the threshold for originality, so this is surely not in the public domain. Unlike some of the examples at Commons:Threshold of originality, this is not just a single word written in a distinctive font; instead, the author created an original combination of colors and sizes for the five different letters, as well as placing the dark orange dot to evoke a pair of eyes.
The Badoo logo is at the English Wikipedia at en:File:Badoo logo.PNG at lower resolution, as required for a commercial logo. Adrian J. Hunter (talk) 10:15, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
Kept: This logo does not meet any threshold of originality. Leyo 12:43, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
Has been an error Laguno (talk) 11:05, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
Has been an error
Ha sido un error; este trabajo no es mío. No quiero incurrir en apropiación indebida de un trabajo ajeno, ni incurrir en ningún delito. Gracias 90.164.167.165 14:30, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Loosely translated from Spanish, the IP (that is very likely to be the abovementioned user Laguno) said that the uploaded file is not their work, they uploaded it by mistake and don't want to be charged of stealing someone else's work, thus requested for this file's deletion. -- Blackcat (talk) 09:12, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: per request 99of9 (talk) 10:01, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
COM:SCOPE. Going out on a limb here but I don't see any use to this personal family photo. The unknown people take up 70% of the photo so they cannot be cropped out. And even if you could crop them out, the top of the statue is cut off and no other noteworthy portions of the memorial are visible. Wknight94 talk 12:06, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Leyo 12:48, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
From http://nuthsverleden.blogspot.com/ - it also has a watermark in the image. Unlikely to be self made, and the date given (ie 2011) is likely incorrect too, the subject of the photograph died in 1972. -- Deadstar (msg) 13:10, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Leyo 12:46, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
I doubt this is self made. -- Deadstar (msg) 14:55, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: obvious copyvio 99of9 (talk) 10:01, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
too small to be useful and I doubt this is own work. Saibo (Δ) 16:03, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope, distorted and too small George Chernilevsky talk 15:41, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
poor quality and per del log of uploader's usepage Saibo (Δ) 20:25, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
+ File:Farhad Varasteh.jpg Same - out of scope (especially the whole article on the file page). --Saibo (Δ) 20:26, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom 99of9 (talk) 10:13, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
Copyright violation from http://www.greatfootball.com.ua/ukraine/fin-cup11.php NickK (talk) 20:30, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: already deleted (not by me) 99of9 (talk) 10:00, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
Copyright violation from http://www.football-online.com.ua/index.php?section=hot&id=888 . No evidence of permission of O. Parkhomenko and/or football-online.com.ua NickK (talk) 20:36, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: already deleted (not by me) 99of9 (talk) 10:00, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
Appears to be a mugshot, so therefore the source information is false. Blueboy96 (talk) 22:43, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: already deleted (not by me) 99of9 (talk) 10:00, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
Low resolution, no EXIF data and looks like a screenshot. Mathonius (talk) 00:02, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Per nom. Missvain (talk) 03:30, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
- Keep looks like a courtroom video feed; subject & event are BOTH notable [[1]], & sourcing be checked thoroughly before making a decision on this one. would be deeply regrettable to lose the file. Lx 121 (talk) 18:43, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
- Delete out of focus, license problems ? -- Gddea - Daniel E. Als-Juliussen (talk) 13:53, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:42, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
It is redundant - I added this picture before realizing that a better picture already exists of the water tower pictured. Josejuan05 (talk) 01:11, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
Keep; image is still useful & easily within scope. this is commons, we don't just collect "one of" everything; we need to have multiple images of a subject (& this photo is good, decently hi-res; detail/cropped derived images could be made from it, collages/montages, etc.). also, could the uploader/nominator please provide a link to the other image, for comparison? Lx 121 (talk) 20:21, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
- Keep I see no reason to delete this, -- Gddea - Daniel E. Als-Juliussen (talk) 13:54, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
Forgive my misunderstanding of the commons. Upon further review there is no other picture like this in the Wikimedia commons, but there are at least two uploaded directly to Wikipedia. They can be found Here and Here Josejuan05 (talk) 21:24, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
Kept. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:44, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
This file is a copy of File:Wilson Chee.jpg with a reduced resolution, and it's no longer used on any wikiprojects.(The two pages on wikipedia-zh has been deleted and white-paper protected due to advertising) Le Concorde (talk) 02:12, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: As per nom. Duplicate of File:Wilson Chee.jpg. Skeezix1000 (talk) 18:25, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
Low resolution, missing EXIF, likely copyvio from another website Quan (talk) 06:05, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:22, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
I recorded this sound file off a British Broadcasting Company TV programme and I no longer think that makes me the copyright owner of it Ephert (talk) 06:50, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: As per nom. Skeezix1000 (talk) 18:31, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
Da ist ein Copyright-Verweis auf dem Bild selber und es scheint aus einem Buch gescannt worden sein. Der Uploader scheint hierbei nicht der Autor wie auf dem Bild vermerkt zu sein. Verdacht auf Urheberrechtsverletzung. - English: There is a copyright on that image itself and it looks like scanned from a book. The uploader doesnt seam to be the original autor of that graph. Fundriver (talk) 06:52, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: As per nom. Skeezix1000 (talk) 18:32, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
Die Frage nach dem Urheberrecht - schaut gescannt aus, vielleicht ähnlich liegender Fall wie File:ScrumFlow.png - English:Copyright Question? Looks Scanned... Maybe similiar case as File:ScrumFlow.png Fundriver (talk) 07:22, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: As per nom. Skeezix1000 (talk) 18:33, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
This is a reproduction of a copyrighted work. Especially the TV tower drawing is copyrighted and not trivial, so own work claims are irrelevant 79.237.163.206 08:06, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: As per nom. Skeezix1000 (talk) 18:36, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
Our clear policy is that models are covered by copyright. Don't tell a model maker that models are not creative -- you are constantly making choices about how to make small things and what you can omit 79.237.163.206 08:07, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
Keep it's a static & public display of a model of an utilitarian object, in a museum in gdansk (& it was apparently created during the communist era, if that's relevant to the polish-rules experts); & could the nominator (or someone) please refer me to the page with commons policy on models, to which they are referring? Lx 121 (talk) 19:29, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Models are considered covered by copyright - see Commons:Image casebook#Models for more information. I am certainly not aware of any rule or principle which exempts models from copyright rules. I did think that this image would be saved by COM:FOP, but freedom of panorama seems to only apply in Poland to works within publicly accessible roads, streets, squares or gardens. Under Article 33 of Poland's copyright law, images of works in museums are only covered by FOP where published "in catalogues and printed publications for promotion of such works and also in the press and television current event reports, however, within the limits justified by information purposes" (English translation). Skeezix1000 (talk) 18:47, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
Very low image resolution and no EXIF information: OWN WORK is very doubtful. Maybe some webgrab? 79.237.163.206 08:16, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
This image is a OWN WORK. In the picture my motorcycle and a friend can be seen. The avoidance of doubt: more pictures of my bike on my page: http://www.mz-nico.de
I can put the picture in higher resolution available.
- Keep as per uploader's statement, image is OBVIOUSLY a snapshot uploaded @ low-res; image is useful & in-use; & @ User:MZ-Nico: yes please do upload images @ higher-res, higher-resolution is always better! :) Lx 121 (talk) 20:01, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
Image has now been uploaded in a higher resolution (2.832 × 2.128)
- Keep higher resolution version uploaded, no reason to doubt uploader. MKFI (talk) 21:20, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
- This deletion request is a good example of too much copyright paranoia on Commons! Undue suspicion! --P199 (talk) 16:36, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
Kept: The new version makes any doubts impossible High Contrast (talk) 17:06, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
Non-free record cover - photo from 1960s. ~ NVO (talk) 08:55, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
- closing admin - please delete the first version of File:Telefunken Musikus 108 vAS.jpg - another record cover (cropped out in second upload). NVO (talk) 08:56, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
- first image is in-use @ eng & ital wikis; should be MOVED there, & labeled for fair-use
- second image is not a copyvio; album cover is not the focus of the photograph, it's simply part of an "in situ" image of a record-player. wasn't a problem to begin with, but now that the original photo is already in "history", that makes another reason to keep it; attribution & sourcing. therefore Keep on the 2nd image (which should have been nominated separately, to begin with) Lx 121 (talk) 00:27, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
- The original can be reverted back - if the LP cover is acceptable. NVO (talk) 05:51, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
- second image is not a copyvio; album cover is not the focus of the photograph, it's simply part of an "in situ" image of a record-player. wasn't a problem to begin with, but now that the original photo is already in "history", that makes another reason to keep it; attribution & sourcing. therefore
Delete as album cover --Motopark (talk) 10:16, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio. Courcelles (talk) 00:26, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
Artwork by Jacques Simon who died in 1953. Not a free image. ~ PierreSelim (talk) 12:14, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: License laundering and not FoP in France - Ezarateesteban 23:36, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
Artwork by Jacques Simon who died in 1953. Not a free image. ~ PierreSelim (talk) 12:14, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: License laundering and not FoP in France - Ezarateesteban 23:36, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
Artwork by Jacques Simon who died in 1953. Not a free image. ~ PierreSelim (talk) 12:14, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: License laundering and not FoP in France Ezarateesteban 23:35, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
and other uploads by Vjapass (talk · contribs). Unlikely to be own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:25, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
- Keep STRONGLY: the images are obvious snapshots, uploaded @ low-res; not professional images.
- also nominator should nom & make the case for EACH image they are prod'ing; it's lazy-work "bundling" them like this, & DOES NOT PROVIDE PROPER NOTICE TO THE UPLOADER
Deleted. High Contrast (talk) 17:08, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small resolution, missing EXIF. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:33, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small resolution, missing EXIF. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:44, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small resolution, missing EXIF. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:50, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
Creater has used an image from Google, that apparently allowed commercial reuse with modification but I'm unable to find the source image -- I've found use of this image elsewhere though. If we can't find the source image, this ought to be deleted. SpacemanSpiff (talk) 16:32, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: In doubt we delete it Ezarateesteban 23:31, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
Category have moved to Category:Casa Granell (carrer Girona, Barcelona) KRLS (talk) 17:07, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
Keep redirected; should be kept as a redirect, for obvious reasons of utility Lx 121 (talk) 19:05, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
This file should be deleted. It does not illustrate anything meaningful to any Wikimedia project (it is used in a self-promotion article at eswikiversity), so it is out-of-scope. —Fitoschido [shouttrack] \\ 3 October, 2011 [17:58] 17:58, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
Keep it is an organization chart for the staff @ a specific university, very much within scope (respectfully, whatever disputes may be playing out @ eswikiversity, should remain there) Lx 121 (talk) 18:57, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
- & just as a matter of record, scope is NOT decided solely upon the question of "utility to other wikiprojects"; that is a legitimate criteria for inclusion, BUT lack-of-same is not a legitimate criteria for exclusion. Lx 121 (talk) 18:59, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
It's a copy of it. ComputerHotline (talk) 18:03, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
STRONG Keep NO, it is NOT A COPY. the one file is 15.xx mb, the other is 58.xx mb; these are 2 versions of the same image file, taken @ different resolutions. with all due respect to the good faith intentions of the nominator, this is not a criteria for deletion @ commons. Lx 121 (talk) 18:54, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
Not PD-self. But ? Aʁsenjyʁdəgaljɔm11671 18:26, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, "Фотография из собственного архива" ("a photograph from the personal archive"). It seems that it was scanned from some magazine, look at the halftone pattern. Trycatch (talk) 16:59, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: In doubt we delete it Ezarateesteban 23:24, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
too blury to be useful. Better copy: File:Jacopo Pontormo 017.jpg Jarekt (talk) 18:33, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
- I agree. Sorry I used to have a very bad camera on those times ;) --Sailko (talk) 21:43, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
it:La Pimpa is a copyrighted comic character, and no FOP in Italy. Trixt (talk) 19:07, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom Ezarateesteban 23:18, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
Nombre incorrecto, esta es una serie de imágenes que subiré pero necesito borrarla para subirla de nuevo — Preceding unsigned comment added by MadriCR 20:07, 3 October 2011 (UTC) (talk • contribs)
- Delete as copyright violation. Bogus authorship claims. Actually created by Myrna Rojas Garro (which is not the uploader's name according to n:es:Usuario:MadriCR), as clearly shown by the signature. —LX (talk, contribs) 06:29, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
copyvio alleged by User:Motopark, insufficient reason/evidence provided for speedy, converting to regular dd; no strong opinion on this one, other than regret if we have to lose it Lx 121 (talk) 20:12, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
- Album cover need OTRS-permission, without that Delete--Motopark (talk) 23:03, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
- as before, please provide me with a link to the commons policy that states "Album cover need OTRS-permission, without that Delete"? because i am not aware of that being an established point of our policies here. Lx 121 (talk) 00:20, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: album cover, no fair use in commons Ezarateesteban 23:16, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
Screenshot from 20/20; by definition screenshots can never be free. Also, this is a picture of a living person, and a free image could reasonably be obtained. Blueboy96 (talk) 22:42, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Clear DW of broadcast programme Courcelles (talk) 00:29, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
copyright violation; released on Flickr but no viable release of image at source Killervogel5 (talk) 23:05, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
- See source: link. The photo is rights-managed, and no release under CC-BY is given as per Flickr (see supposed release here). Killervogel5 (talk) 23:06, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
- My bad if the Flickr copyright isn't legit, I probably should've deduced that. This project could use a picture of the Griffeys together. Muboshgu (talk) 17:54, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Yep, the Flickr user acknowledges they don't own this photo, so this is a Flickrwash. (Whihc is not to say it wouldn't have been a damned useful file if we could keep it.) Courcelles (talk) 00:31, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
Spam for the plastic hand Fg68at de:Disk 01:07, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
- Delete
Dislike. Missvain (talk) 03:31, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
- I was merely making a joke by saying "dislike" in reference to "like" on Facebook and the use of the hand to promote "liking things." ;) Sorry if it did not come off appropriately! Missvain (talk) 20:44, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
- Keep no valid reason given for deletion; "dislike" is not a legitimate cfd on commons(!); image has some potential uses, & is apparently intended for an artivle on DE wiki Lx 121 (talk) 18:37, 3 October 2011 (UTC
Comment: The hand ist not part of the show. It is also not seen in the audience on tv. The focus is on the hand. The stage is not sharp. If the hand is cutted from the picture, there is nothing to be left. The URL is not from the show, it is from the plastic hand. The picture was placed in the article from the popular and actual show de:Die große Chance (Fernsehsendung). It seems that it was there only placed as an advertisment for the hand. --Fg68at de:Disk 21:12, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
- this point is IRRELEVANT to the deletion debate @ commons. such discussion is appropriate on the DE-WIKI article-page; the question here is whether the image meets COMMONS' scope, & nominally, it appears to do so. Lx 121 (talk) 00:38, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
- You wrote: "image has some potential uses, & is apparently intended for an artivle on DE wiki": The only potential use i see is advertesing for the hand, a new product since april 2011 (Domain-date). --Fg68at de:Disk 00:48, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
- this point is IRRELEVANT to the deletion debate @ commons. such discussion is appropriate on the DE-WIKI article-page; the question here is whether the image meets COMMONS' scope, & nominally, it appears to do so. Lx 121 (talk) 00:38, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
- Keep incoherent rationale for deletion, so little to discuss here. --Fæ (talk) 07:05, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Out of scope. If the hand is unrelated to the television show, then it seems merely promotional spam for the website. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 18:09, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
- please explain how you feel that it is out-of-scope? motives of the uploader are irrelevant to scope considerations. Lx 121 (talk) 12:50, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
- If it's spam, then of course the motive is relevant. I spent a fair amount of time with this image back on October 10, and couldn't for the life of me figure out how it met the tests at COM:SCOPE. The onus is on the uploader, or on those seeing to keep the image, to show how it is in scope, not for others to try and prove a negative. If you spent less time complaining about alleged behaviour, and instead explained how the image meets an education purpose, you would have more success winning people over. Skeezix1000 (talk) 16:00, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
- re: "alleged behaviour" please IDENTIFY any allegations i have made, that i have not proven? when a user behaves badly, or inappropriately, it is appropriate to point this out, no?
- If it's spam, then of course the motive is relevant. I spent a fair amount of time with this image back on October 10, and couldn't for the life of me figure out how it met the tests at COM:SCOPE. The onus is on the uploader, or on those seeing to keep the image, to show how it is in scope, not for others to try and prove a negative. If you spent less time complaining about alleged behaviour, and instead explained how the image meets an education purpose, you would have more success winning people over. Skeezix1000 (talk) 16:00, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
- please explain how you feel that it is out-of-scope? motives of the uploader are irrelevant to scope considerations. Lx 121 (talk) 12:50, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
- re: scope: THE MOTIVES OF AN UPLOADER ARE IRRELEVANT TO COMMONS' SCOPE
- what matters is if the image is, or is not, useful to the project; how hard is that to understand?
- motives of the user are ONLY relevant in considering the record of a user's behaviour & actions, & whether they should be restricted (banned, etc.); NOT in deciding whether specific media files are within scope.
- re: this image & commons' scope please see Category:Thumbs_up, subcat Category:Hitchhiking, etc.
- I referred to "alleged behaviour" simply because I have no interest in becoming involved in, or taking sides in, whatever pissing match is going on between you and the nominator. I'm not interested in accusations from either of you, and I'd rather just stick to the substance.
On the issue of the substance, please stop jumping down the throat of anyone with an opinion that differs from yours - i.e. "yelling' in caps, and using patronizing comments like "how hard is that to understand?". It's not helpful.
Finally, and I am just repeating myself here, the image seems out-of-scope as it seems intended to promote a website that has no relation to the background or to the Commons - that's why I referred to motive being relevant, so please calm down about that. At a minimum, the url needs to be cropped. I'm not sure how the image relates to hitchhiking, but I think we can find many non-spam images that serve to illustrate "thumbs up". --Skeezix1000 (talk) 12:22, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
- I referred to "alleged behaviour" simply because I have no interest in becoming involved in, or taking sides in, whatever pissing match is going on between you and the nominator. I'm not interested in accusations from either of you, and I'd rather just stick to the substance.
also note the nominator Fg68at deliberately de-categorized the file, [2] AFTER i had placed it into an appropriate classification, AND they revised the file info, to emphasize the nominator's arguements re: spam & self-promotion.
this is INAPPROPRIATE BEHAVIOUR by the user, & deliberately de-categorizing files is, at least, borderline vandalism.
Lx 121 (talk) 14:07, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
- Your Category was thumbs up icons [3]. This picture is not an icon. False categorey. [4]
- On the picture is the stage of the show: out of focus
- On the picture is the hand: in focus
- The description was ~: Picture of the stage - also there a jumbohand fan merchandise
Because of the focus i changed to ~: Jumbohand on the tribune, to buy at URL from on the picture, and in the background the stage of the show [5] And it is not a merchandise from the show, it is more a a common merchandise for many occasions. - Scope: The hand. Usefull: for the Hand, not for the show. COM:SCOPE :
- realistically useful for an educational purpose: It demonstrate, that there is a jumbohand used at the show.
- in use in another Wikimedia project: No
- Out of scope because: Advertising or self-promotion whithout educational purpose & Files that add nothing educationally distinct to the collection of images we already hold covering the same subject, especially if they are of poor or mediocre quality.
- THE MOTIVES OF AN UPLOADER ARE IRRELEVANT TO COMMONS' SCOPE is not included in COM:SCOPE, because privat collections and advertisment whithout educational purpose or useful for articles are out of scope.
- The best argument would not the sentence before, but a statement like: "It is useful because ...."
- --Fg68at de:Disk 20:30, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: out of scope Jcb (talk) 16:16, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
This file is not PD. It comes from the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, which claims copyright and only allows non-commercial use, as per its copyright status notice. It is one of many files incorrectly assumed to be PD-USGov-DOE, as discussed at Template talk:PD-USGov-DOE. --Bomazi (converted from copyvio tag to DR since this file has many many usages, is a FP and is uploaded since 2005 --Saibo (Δ) 01:37, 3 October 2011 (UTC))
- (without making more research) could be true --Saibo (Δ) 01:39, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
- delete per nom 79.237.163.206 08:27, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
- Since when does the importance of a picture to wikipedia have any bearing on its copyright status? The argument is uncontroversial and other pictures from the same source have been speedy deleted with no discussion. The proper course of action in this case is to move the file to wikipedia, where fair use can be argued, and delete it from commons. Bomazi (talk) 16:09, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
- It does since you will probably not be the one who restores all usages if it was deleted due to wrong or mistaken facts/conclusion. Restoring is really no fun and takes ages (manual work!). Do you understand?
In addition and image that old and featured gets a lot of review (sure - not directed at copyright, but at least a bit). Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 23:04, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
- It does since you will probably not be the one who restores all usages if it was deleted due to wrong or mistaken facts/conclusion. Restoring is really no fun and takes ages (manual work!). Do you understand?
- Keep - http://picturethis.pnl.gov/ requires attribution. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 00:12, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks! [6] even says "If you wish to use a credit line... " - so maybe not even attribution necessary. But I can only find this statement: "are to be used for lawful purposes only"[7]. Is this a sufficient release? Modification? By everybody? Although I cannot see anything to the contrary. --Saibo (Δ) 03:49, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Neither the link provided by Pieter nor the link provided by Saibo freely license the images, and the link provided by Bomazi does indicate that the use of documents on that web server is limited to non-commercial uses. However, the website does clearly contemplate third party use of the materials on that site - unfortunately, it's not clear that PNNL freely licenses its images in accordance with Commons requirements (and if the copyright notice identified by Bomazi applies, then it does not). Since this image is used on so many pages, could someone interested in preserving this image contact the PNNL marketing office (link on the page Pieter provided) to see if we can get free license confirmation through OTRS. If that confirmation can be obtained, it would remove all significant doubt. Skeezix1000 (talk) 18:23, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
- Bomazi's link is for the whole pnl website. But this comes from picturethis.pnl.gov with images that are released for any lawful use. Of course that includes commercial use. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:07, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
- The site says "Photos and graphics obtained from PictureThis are to be used for lawful purposes only" -- that doesn't mean that they are freely licensed, merely that they cannot be used for illegal uses. And how do we know that the link Bozami provided does not apply to the entire site? I'm honestly asking the question - it refers to all documents on the "web server".--Skeezix1000 (talk) 22:29, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
- Sigh. Default is: protected by copyright. Then the lab puts its free images on a picture-this site for anybody to use. Why is that hard to understand? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:53, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
- You haven't pointed to anything that says that the images are free to use in accordance with Commons requirements or that the Copyright statement does not apply to them. That's what is difficult to understand. Skeezix1000 (talk) 23:56, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
- Sigh. Default is: protected by copyright. Then the lab puts its free images on a picture-this site for anybody to use. Why is that hard to understand? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:53, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
- The site says "Photos and graphics obtained from PictureThis are to be used for lawful purposes only" -- that doesn't mean that they are freely licensed, merely that they cannot be used for illegal uses. And how do we know that the link Bozami provided does not apply to the entire site? I'm honestly asking the question - it refers to all documents on the "web server".--Skeezix1000 (talk) 22:29, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
- Bomazi's link is for the whole pnl website. But this comes from picturethis.pnl.gov with images that are released for any lawful use. Of course that includes commercial use. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:07, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: no evidence that it's free enough for Commons, e.g. no explicit permission for derivates, even no explicit permission at all, only implicit Jcb (talk) 16:24, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
does not seem to be public domain based on date plane was made. source has no real information about where this picture came from, or who holds the copyright Calliopejen1 (talk) 05:16, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
- Keep - If I recall correctly, the person who produced that image was never named. Σ (talk) 07:19, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
- which means, it can never be hosted here. delete, does not fit anything in {{PD-Russia-2008}}. If, indeed, it is an in-flight photo (it's not certain at all), then it was taken on September 2, 1942, and kept secret until first publication in (as I recall) 1970s.
- I share Calliopejen1's doubts about provenance: check the story of this first and only flight, which went terribly wrong, and ask yourself - were did they hide the camera? Looks like an "artist's impression" to me. NVO (talk) 09:05, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
- The History Channel is a reliable source, no? Σ (talk) 04:57, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
- A source for what, precisely? For the fact that they grabbed "a photo" from "the internets"? NVO (talk) 05:17, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
- That is a serious statement. Can you prove that there are no more images? Can you prove that they violated copyright on television, stole a copyrighted image from "the internets" while stating that is was (closely paraphrasing from memory) "the only known photo taken anonymously"? I know that the closing admin has reason to doubt my memory of a television programme, but I'd rather have original research as my rationale than saying "there are alternatives, I just can't find them". Σ (talk) 06:52, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
- Big businesses never "steal" anything - they "exercise creativity". It does not matter, really - what matters is the specific requirements of a specific PD-template, and the precautionary principle. Three years ago it was free and acceptable. Now it's not. NVO (talk) 11:34, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
- That is a serious statement. Can you prove that there are no more images? Can you prove that they violated copyright on television, stole a copyrighted image from "the internets" while stating that is was (closely paraphrasing from memory) "the only known photo taken anonymously"? I know that the closing admin has reason to doubt my memory of a television programme, but I'd rather have original research as my rationale than saying "there are alternatives, I just can't find them". Σ (talk) 06:52, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
- A source for what, precisely? For the fact that they grabbed "a photo" from "the internets"? NVO (talk) 05:17, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
- The History Channel is a reliable source, no? Σ (talk) 04:57, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
- STRONG Keep; image is HEAVILY in-use (as an unique, ONLY AVAILABLE image), across multiple wikiprojects. "authenticity" IS NOT a criteria for deletion; it's a separate issue (soviet propaganda pic?). & my reading of our russian copyright info is different from the above user's ("which means, it can never be hosted here." o__0!?): ussr, author unknown/not identified, pre 1943 = pd Lx 121 (talk) 20:30, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
- How do you know this was published anonymously/pseudonymously? Do you know where it was published at all before 1943? Calliopejen1 (talk) 02:09, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
- according to the wikipedia article, the whole project ENDED (cancelled) in late 1942. whether the photograph is of the actual aircraft, or the builder's model, it is unlikely to have been taken later than that time (or published for whatever original purpose, later than that time). especially considering soviet predilections towards secrecy (particularly during wartime). Lx 121 (talk) 13:37, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
- as for authorship: the image appears to be intended for either project-design purposes, or soviet propaganda, possibly both. considering this is a secret military project of the ussr, during wartime, it's not particularly likely to have ever been printed with a photo-credit to the author, nor is it likely that any record of authorship has been published subsequently. therefore, acking any evidence to the contrary, anonymous/pseudonymous. Lx 121 (talk) 13:48, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
- Strictly speaking, there is also another publicly known photograph - stationary, frontal view, with turret removed. Same bad quality tracing to the original low-res publication. NVO (talk) 05:40, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
Kept: option 2 applies Jcb (talk) 16:29, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
The collage may be the own work of the uploader but it is unclear whether the photograph of the tank and the tower is the uploader's work, too. Especially the tank seems not to be own work 79.237.163.206 08:08, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
Bonjour
Bien que mon anglais est très sommaire il me semble comprendre qu'il y aurait un problème avec mon fichier
Ce montage est personnel , il a été fait avec mes photos , donc dans ce fichier tout m'appartient
J'espère avoir répondu correctement à la question
S'il est possible de m'envoyer le courrier en français ce serait plus facile pour moi
Merci à vous
--Jacquelineguy (talk) 08:53, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
- Free translation (both ways):
- Ce montage est peut-être l'œuvre de la personne qui a importé le fichier, mais est-ce que la photo du tank et celle de la tour sont également son œuvre ? Le tank, notamment, ne semble pas être un travail personnel. 79.237.163.206 08:08, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
- Hello!
- Even though my English is very poor, I believe this means that there may be a problem with this file.
- Now, this collage is my own work, based upon my own photographs, hence the whole resulting file belongs to me.
- Hoping to have properly answered the question.
- Please note however that writing to me in French would help a lot. Thanks! Jacquelineguy. (translated by --Azurfrog (talk) 10:27, 3 October 2011 (UTC))
Voici le fichier original en ce qui concerne le char
Le char a été détouré ensuite inversé
--Jacquelineguy (talk) 13:54, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
Keep uploader has proved their authorship (& thanks @ free translator) Lx 121 (talk) 20:06, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
Keep Same. --Azurfrog (talk) 08:13, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
Comment Where is that tower from? We have no source/license information from this one. --High Contrast (talk) 08:27, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
Voici l'original qui a servi de base pour le montage de la tour et du char
Toutes ces photos et montages sont des fichiers personnels
--Jacquelineguy (talk) 12:29, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for clarification but please always state the source of an image correctly. If you use free files for a collage you must prove that those files are really free. Give them as source. Thanks. --High Contrast (talk) 14:41, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
Mon montage est toujours considéré comme proposé à la suppression alors que j'ai prouvé que les photos m'appartenaient
Y a t il encore un problème ?
--Jacquelineguy (talk) 11:26, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
- The same problem exists with this image: File:L'esplanade des blindés.png. Can you correct that as well? --High Contrast (talk) 16:02, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
Voici le fichier ayant servi pour le montage de l'esplanade des blindés
--Jacquelineguy (talk) 18:25, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
Kept. Jcb (talk) 19:46, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
A reproduction of the model: Our clear policy is that models are covered by copyright. Don't tell a model maker that models are not creative -- you are constantly making choices about how to make small things and what you can omit 79.237.163.206 08:08, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
- Keep. I don't understand the request. The picture is derivated from a small-size model? What could be the difference with the real boat? Jeriby (talk) 14:37, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
Kept. Jcb (talk) 19:48, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
Replaced with a newer image that is larger and cropped to remove unneeded information. Kumba42 (talk) 08:55, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
Kept: no link provided to that newer image Jcb (talk) 19:49, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
Incorrect license, as this is not self made. I couldn't find a government license that could apply - http://images.nigms.nih.gov/ states that images cannot be used for commercial purposes. The image (where used) is credited, I've added the name to the description page. -- Deadstar (msg) 09:40, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 19:51, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
bad quality and there is a svg-version of this icon available, makes no sense to keep this!? --~ DaSch (talk) 09:58, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
- Used as an external link icon by some users on en.wiki; SVG images cannot be used for this purpose. Links do not show as the image is loaded through en:User:Gadget850/ExternalLinkIcons.css. If there is a better quality version, then it needs to be the same size. --Gadget850 (talk) 11:57, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
- Maybe someone could upload the according famfamfam icon!? (Page_white_text.png) --DaSch (talk) 22:03, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
- Where would that be located? Would it look any better at the required 16px? What about the other icons used in en:User:Gadget850/ExternalLinkIcons.css? --Gadget850 (talk) 13:46, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
- Maybe someone could upload the according famfamfam icon!? (Page_white_text.png) --DaSch (talk) 22:03, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
Kept. Jcb (talk) 19:54, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
seems to have been taken from a web page with no copyright info provided. Smalljim (talk) 11:55, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 17:02, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
Architect Max Sainsaulieu died in 1953, not in public domain until the 1st of january, 2024. No Freedom of panorama in France. Léna (talk) 12:11, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
- Comment Delete per Commons:Deletion requests/File:Reims -Bibliothèque -1.JPG. Adding here category:undelete in 2024. Teofilo (talk) 16:10, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 20:26, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
The image is uploaded by the uploader for the purpose of promoting himself. He has, for many times, and unsuccessfully, attempted to create articles on Thai Wikipedia as to himself (see his contributions). Aristitleism (talk) 13:07, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
Keep; it's a userpic, no need to pick fights (or play them out via deletion noms) Lx 121 (talk) 18:49, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
- Comment I am not persecuting the uploading user. I just don't think that the image is of value to the extent it should be kept here, especially when it was for vandalising purposes and when it is not in use now. --Aristitleism (talk) 04:11, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
- it is clearly a user-pic, which is permitted. please provide evidence of how it is being used for vandalism? Lx 121 (talk) 12:54, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: this upload is globally the only contribution of this user - no user page, actually not even a contributor, no userpic needed Jcb (talk) 17:05, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
not within Commons:Project scope Calame (talk) 22:30, 26 February 2009 (UTC) (I had forget to log in)
- comment When you say no sources do you mean where I got the photo from. If so I got the picture of the rug from commons, the picture of the dogs was taken by myself and copy pasted onto the rug. The file name is from the original images taken from commons. I thought that this image would have been good in an article or gallery about dogs Adam.J.W.C. (talk) 02:32, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
- Good, but you need to say that on the file ! Wich rug ? (I can’t find it) under wich licence ? and so on. Cdlt, VIGNERON * discut. 12:17, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
- I will look for it and get back to you Adam.J.W.C. (talk) 05:29, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
- This is the picture (File:FirstSurahKoran.jpg) of the rug or whatever it might be. I have rotated my version anti clockwise Adam.J.W.C. (talk) 05:34, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
- I will look for it and get back to you Adam.J.W.C. (talk) 05:29, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
-
This -
and this
![33 File:"We_are_what_we_repeatedly_do.Excellence,_then,_is_not_an_act,_but_a_habit.".jpg](#File:"We_are_what_we_repeatedly_do.Excellence,_then,_is_not_an_act,_but_a_habit.".jpg){kind=link}
![[2]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.phptitle=File%3AGro%C3%9Fe_chance_kl_jumbohand.JPG&action=historysubmit&diff=60604234&oldid=60507828){kind=link}
![[3]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Gro%C3%9Fe_chance_kl_jumbohand.JPG&diff=prev&oldid=60507828){kind=link}
![[4]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Gro%C3%9Fe_chance_kl_jumbohand.JPG&diff=next&oldid=60604170){kind=link}
![[5]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Gro%C3%9Fe_chance_kl_jumbohand.JPG&diff=next&oldid=60507828){kind=link}
![[8]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File%3AL%27esplanade_des_blind%C3%A9s.png&action=historysubmit&diff=60599264&oldid=58995843){kind=link}
Out of com:scope, possibly insulting image Jarekt (talk) 03:56, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
- Delete per nom, it is out of scope, as non-educational. --ELEKHHT 06:14, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
- Comment looking to the discussion on the French Village pump is clear that was the interpretation of the previous nominator as well. I do not understand why it was kept. --ELEKHHT 06:18, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
- Delete I certainly can't think of any educational use for a picture of some dogs pasted onto a page of the Koran. Unused personal image. Misleading name. --Kramer Associates (talk) 20:13, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Out of scope per discussion. No need to synthesize for non-educational purposes. --99of9 (talk) 10:09, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
Pierre Patout, the architect, die in 1955, and there si no freedom of panorama in France. / Pierre Patout, l'architecte de ce bâtiment, est décédé en 1955, et il n'y a pas de liberté de panorama en France. Trizek here or on fr:wp 06:59, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
Pourtant ce bâtiment est listé dans les monuments historiques français et fait partie du concours Wiki Loves Monuments : http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liste_des_monuments_historiques_du_15e_arrondissement_de_Paris En tout cas, ce n'est pas très sympa... j'essaie de me rendre utile à la communauté, j'utilise ce site qui pourtant est loin d'être accessible et voilà ma récompense :/ Bref, je me sens très frustré. Guillaume Wolf
- Bonjour,
- Le monument est listé comme monument historique ; aucun doute là dessus. Cependant, en France, le droit d'auteur subsiste sur un bâtiment jusqu'à 70 ans après la mort des architectes. Cela rend impossible une diffusion de al photographie avec une licence libre, incluant une possible exploitation commerciale.
- Le règlement du concours, articles 4 et 10, stipule qu'il faut s'assurer des droits liés au bâtiment photographié. Cette procédure de suppression est la politique légale vis à vis du droit d'auteur.
- Navré pour cela; reste à écrire à votre député pour changer la loi (amha bien emmerdante).
- Cordialement, Trizek here or on fr:wp 09:19, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
Kept: nothing special to see here Jcb (talk) 22:04, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
No COM:FOP#France. According to French law, it is not allowed to publish picture whose the main subject is an original building (or original creation) until 70 years after the death of its author. Unless prior authorization by the author or his heirs. The architect of this building, Pierre Patout, wad dead in 1955. Tangopaso (talk) 06:27, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
- Keep,this nom should be removed; previous dd was decided as keep <1 month ago & re-nomming (so soon!) is not proper procedure for this, regardless of what the "right" decision should be. Lx 121 (talk) 19:26, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
- Is it France? yes. Does it look really old? No. Then delete. LX 121: Chasing one picture over and over, indeed, doesn't look good. But yours or mine prejudice against is not the reason to bend the rules. Right, the rules themselves are very thinly formulated (a sort of a lax "consensus" based on a "help page"), - but they are in place and they overrule anyone's personal ethics. Off topic (re. JCB's earlier closure), this is a really bad photograph of Le paquebot. The building was quite ingenious for its period. If it were 1970s one could say "nothing to see here", but it was 1935. NVO (talk) 05:32, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
- Keep - nothing special to see here - Jcb (talk) 17:07, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:24, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
Wrong name (European Financial Stability Facility in Russian), questionable authorship (google image search), not used anywhere (replaced by the real ESFS logo in the article). —Volgar (talk) 13:49, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 10:14, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
While I personally don't want this image delete (and I was the uploader) as a matter of trying to follow the rules, I am beginning to think that this image is a copyright violation, but I'm not sure. This image appears to be from the LDS General Conference, but it may be from any number of meeting at the conference center. Per the rules at the conference center (see here) Photography is not allowed during the meetings, except by credentialed news media. Therefore, the image cannot be owned by hljavery@verizon.net. Since this is a televised event the image would be owned by Bonneville Communications. --ARTEST4ECHO talk 14:23, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
- The users Flickr photostream where this image was from contains many other copyrighted images, some clearly belonging to Intellectual Reserve and others. It would appear highly unlikely that this user is the actual source of this image, nor that they have any legitimate rights to it.-- 208.81.184.4 16:55, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
- Unfortunately (since I have learned more about copyright rules since I uploaded this image), I think your right. I think this is a Flickr copyright washing (I think that's the term to use when someone used Flickr to hid the true copyright status). I will hate to see this image go, but I almost positive this is a copyrighted image of Intellectual Reserve or Bonneville communications.--ARTEST4ECHO talk 13:37, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 10:16, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
redundant file. same as File:BirraTacosEncarnacion2.jpg Mlpearc powwow 14:51, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
- It is similar to the one I uploaded just prior, but there are some minor differences. Sometimes folks like to choose which they think is better. If the community decides to delete, its no big deal.AlejandroLinaresGarcia (talk) 00:58, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
Kept: not exact duplicates Jcb (talk) 10:17, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
and other uploads by Qeduardop (talk · contribs). Unlikely to be own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:09, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: except one case of PD-textlogo Jcb (talk) 10:19, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
and other uploads by Mathematrucker (talk · contribs). No evidence of permissions. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:30, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 10:21, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
Most likely a scan from newspaper/magazine Quan (talk) 15:31, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
- Das Bild ist kein scan aus einer Zeitschrift bzw. Magazin, sondern in meinem privaten Besitz. Ich war zu dieser Zeit der Leiter der Abteilung Eisschnellauf des Berliner TSC, mit in Albertville bei den Olympischen Spielen und habe dieses Foto gemacht. Jacueline Börner war eine Sportlerin meiner Abteilung. Aus dem Originalfoto wurde von unserem damaligen Sponsor Berlin Chemie AG dieses Autogrammfoto für die Sportlerin angefertigt. Das hochgeladene Bild ist ein scan dieses Autogrammfotos. --SK49 (talk) 10:24, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
- Thank you for your comment. Could you please discuss in English--Quan (talk) 15:42, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
- He says that he is the photographer of the original picture. Later it was used to produce an autograph card and the scan was taken from one of these cards. -- Herby (Vienna) (talk) 20:17, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
- So you have to confirm that you are the real author of this image by sending permission to OTRS at permissions-commons@wikimedia.org. Otherwise, it will be deleted because of missing permission --Quan (talk) 09:22, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
- Thank you for your comment. Could you please discuss in English--Quan (talk) 15:42, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 10:25, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
Emsee uploaded a LOT of images claiming own work, half were from NASA, others unattributed flickr, I seriously doubt this is truly own work. -mattbuck (Talk) 16:50, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
Keep with no disrespect intended to matt, but whatever the uploader's record, i think this one is "clean". electric sheep is a gpl project & this file is a fractal image generated by same; entirely plausible that it came from the user's machine, & it's covered by the gpl in any case, see [[9]] Lx 121 (talk) 19:13, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
Kept. Jcb (talk) 10:26, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
Out of scope personal artwork. -mattbuck (Talk) 16:52, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
Keep a perfectly nice, useable fractal image created by using the apophysis software (for which we have a category); demonstates the possibilities of the software & uses of fractal math; motives of the uploader are irrelevant Lx 121 (talk) 19:16, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 10:28, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
Out of scope personal artwork. -mattbuck (Talk) 16:52, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
Keep a perfectly nice, useable fractal image created by using the apophysis software (for which we have a category); demonstates the possibilities of the software & uses of fractal math; motives of the uploader are irrelevant (sorry matt, i just don't agree with you, abt these ones) Lx 121 (talk) 19:32, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 10:28, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
Artwork by other persons shown. Not De minimis as only these book covers are shown for the purpose of showing them (illustrates en:Pacesetters Novels ). So it is a copyright violation. See also: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Schachbücher.JPG. Saibo (Δ) 18:53, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
The images are original digital artwork by myself based on my dipictions of the book covers, the images are not scans of the original book covers. I am allowed to create original still artwork of a book or such object and digitise it. So it's not a copyright violation. Michuk (talk) 19:05, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
Keep as per nominator's claims; ALSO the covers depicted are each so small (& blurry) as to be barely legible, even @ full-size; the point of the image is to show these items "en masse", the individual covers are each "de minimus". a photograph of a stack of magazines, cds, dvds, etc. where the individual packaging design(/s) isn't(/aren't) the "focus" IS legit Lx 121 (talk) 19:38, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
- @Michuk: Thanks for your comment - but, sorry, I do not understand. In the article the image is subtitled "A selection of Pacesetters books". So apparently the original books are shown. Do we see the artwork from the original books here? Are you the designer of the artwork for the books?
- @Lx 121: We have no stack here - the purpose of this image is to show the covers. And if it doesn't fulfill this purpose it cannot be used usefully in the Wikipedia article. If we would blur all covers to be completely illegible the image is worthless for the Wp article. However, if it is the uploader's own work we do not need to think about this DM situation. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 03:41, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
Kept. Jcb (talk) 13:39, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
Irrtum im Urheberrecht Targazh 21:07, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 13:40, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
