Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2011/10/30
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
|
|
![45 File:"Stop_strip_mining"_sign_in_Southeastern_Ohio.jpg](#File:"Stop_strip_mining"_sign_in_Southeastern_Ohio.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
I don't see any proof that this coat of arms falls under any of the PD-Dominica clauses listed. If this version of the coat of arms was drawn for the state, it would have had to have been 70 years ago, but it was unquestionably no earlier than 1961 (per en:Coat of arms of Dominica). If it was drawn by a private citizen of Dominica, the author would have had to have died 70 years ago. If it was drawn by a private citizen of another country, then that country's laws apply. Even 70 years after 1961, it's unclear who drew this version of the coat of arms, and it isn't free per COM:COA Magog the Ogre (talk) 00:05, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
- Learn to read more thoroughly before you keep nominating files. This is the third file you have nominated where you claim it's not covered by it's license but it is. In this case, *"It is one of "any official text of a legislative, administrative or legal nature, or any translation thereof"" includes the coat of arms. Speedy Keep Fry1989 eh? 00:09, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
- Um, that doesn't look like text to me. Magog the Ogre (talk) 00:11, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
- The blazon of the coat of arms is described in legal text, and the arms was adopted through legislative text. Your ignorance of that is not a reason to delete the file which is PD according to the law. Fry1989 eh? 00:14, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
- Um, that doesn't look like text to me. Magog the Ogre (talk) 00:11, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
- Learn to read more thoroughly before you keep nominating files. This is the third file you have nominated where you claim it's not covered by it's license but it is. In this case, *"It is one of "any official text of a legislative, administrative or legal nature, or any translation thereof"" includes the coat of arms. Speedy Keep Fry1989 eh? 00:09, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
- Keep. What? Again? Does Magog not read the text of these PD templates? A country's CoA is in itself, and by its very nature, an official document partly because of what it is and partly because it appears on numerous public/official documents. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 00:52, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
- Not it's not. See COM:COA. Magog the Ogre (talk) 00:54, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, it is. Fry1989 eh? 00:56, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
- Can you point to a legal precedent which shows that? Because I've already pointed to page that shows it doesn't. Simply ignoring it when I point it out that doesn't change the fact either. Magog the Ogre (talk) 01:03, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
- There are countless coats of arms on here that are allowed because they are Public Domain under national law because they are part of "any official text of a legislative, administrative or legal nature, or any translation thereof". The coat of arms is legally described in text, it is legally adopted in text, that makes it PD under the Law. Albania's coat of arms is licensed on Commons this way, so is the coats of arms of Armenia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Botswana, Brazil, Bulgaria, Cameroon, the People's Republic of China, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, the Republic of the Congo, Croatia, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Ethiopia, Georgia, Hungary, India, Jordan, Kyrgyzstan, Latvia..... Do I need to go on? . Fry1989 eh? 01:19, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
- Can you point to a legal precedent which shows that? Because I've already pointed to page that shows it doesn't. Simply ignoring it when I point it out that doesn't change the fact either. Magog the Ogre (talk) 01:03, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, it is. Fry1989 eh? 00:56, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
- Just want to comment a bit on law interpretation: I can tell you from Germany that CoAs in Germany count as "amtliches Werk" {{PD-Coa-Germany}} although the legal definition in the law sounds more like it is only about texts. Just as an example. ... which does nothing say about the law and courts in Dominica. What I want to say: It simply doesn't help much to try to read the law sometimes - but(!) it also doesn't help to claim (without a source or reasonable explanation) why CoAs are covered ... And until we know they are covered by any "official works" law COM:PRP and COM:PS#Evidence should be thought of. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 01:25, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
- Saibo, check the licensing of the coats of arms I listed above. They are all licensed under the same reasoning, because they are part of an official text. Show me a single country whose national emblem wasn't adopted via some sort of official text. The license is accurate and applies, per all the others I listed. Fry1989 eh? 01:31, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio of http://images.vector-images.com/117/dominica_coa_n1129.gif User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 01:46, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
Not own work, probably grabbed off the net. Fry1989 eh? 23:13, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 09:35, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
I don't see any proof that this coat of arms falls under any of the PD-Gambia clauses listed. If this version of the coat of arms was drawn by the state itself, it would have had to have been 50 years ago, but it was unquestionably no earlier than 1964 (per en:Coat of arms of the Gambia). If it was drawn by a private citizen of Gambia, the author would have had to have died 50 years ago. If it was drawn by a private citizen of another country, then that country's laws apply. Even 50 years after 1965, it's unclear who drew this version of the coat of arms, and it isn't free per COM:COA Magog the Ogre (talk) 00:13, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
- Per Commons:Deletion requests/File:Coat of arms of Dominica.png, national coats of arms are described and adopted through legal, administrative and legislative texts. As the final clause of PD-Gambia includes these texts, these arms are PD. Speedy Keep Fry1989 eh? 00:16, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
- Delete. Per Mr. Ogre. No evidence that this drawing is free. We respect the artists' copyright. -- Asclepias (talk) 00:43, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
- Per Gambian LAW, this is free. Read the license: "It is one of any official text of a legislative, administrative or legal nature or any of its translations thereof". That includes the coat of arms, because it is described and adopted in legal and legislative text. That makes it free. Fry1989 eh? 00:49, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
- Keep. What? Again? Does Magog not read the text of these PD templates? A country's CoA is in itself, and by its very nature, an official document partly because of what it is and partly because it appears on numerous public/official documents. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 00:50, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
- Not it's not. See COM:COA. Magog the Ogre (talk) 00:54, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, it is. Fry1989 eh? 00:55, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: The image was a copyright violation from http://images.vector-images.com/116/gambia_coa_n4883.gif User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 01:36, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
probably copyvio, thumbnail image Nilfanion (talk) 11:00, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Speedy deleted: clear copyvio - see http://www.reichelbrinquedos.com.br/produtos/produtos-escolares/brinquedos-em-madeira/material-dourado.html Lymantria (talk) 11:58, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
copy right violation Robosorne (talk) 07:37, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
This photo can be seen generally on the Internet: TinEye and it is not owned by its uploader. --Octahedron80 (talk) 10:21, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted, clear copyright violation. -- Infrogmation (talk) 15:03, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
Out of scope: textfile - unused Lymantria (talk) 07:30, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom Denniss (talk) 04:28, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
Can we trust this is not a flickrwash? There are only 2 images on the flickr account at present. Just curious. Image has no camera metadata. Leoboudv (talk) 04:27, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
Delete Very few images in the Flickr account and no others from red carpet photo shoot opportunities. Low res image. No EXIF data. Credited to JOlivera but account name on FLickr is different. Uploader was notified so unless some other proof that he holds the copyright or has permission to use the image, recommend deletion of the image. Warfieldian (talk) 00:46, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: highly suspicious image, Flickr user is most likely not the copyright holder of this image Denniss (talk) 16:52, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
copyvio http://1001resepsemur.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/Semur-Kambing.jpg Midori (talk) 00:03, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio. Yann (talk) 15:48, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
copyvio http://1001resepsemur.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/ke-ciap.jpg Midori (talk) 00:14, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio. Yann (talk) 15:49, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
copyvio http://ohbalaraja.blogspot.com/2011/06/hitam-manis-kecap-benteng.html Midori (talk) 00:17, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio. Yann (talk) 15:49, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
MEDICINE C36 175.145.195.185 00:38, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
- speedy
Keep. No reason for deletion. --JuTa 08:34, 30 October 2011 (UTC) - Keep, why is this not closed yet? Beta M (talk) 14:37, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
- Keep ou renommer en Medecine MG**** @@@-fr Accueil fr:Accueil 08:18, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
Kept: No reason for deletion. Yann (talk) 15:50, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
Out of scope - low quality personal picture, unused Lymantria (talk) 07:26, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. Yann (talk) 15:53, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
Looks like a screenshot of a video game 91.57.76.254 08:56, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio. Yann (talk) 15:54, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
copyrighted website screenshot 91.57.76.254 08:56, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio. Yann (talk) 15:54, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
Out of project scope. Without description since 2009 George Chernilevsky talk 13:10, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. Yann (talk) 15:55, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
Includes web-page address, promotional, out of scope Motopark (talk) 13:37, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. Yann (talk) 15:57, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
Includes web-page address, promotional, out of scope Motopark (talk) 13:38, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. Yann (talk) 15:57, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
Includes web-page address, promotional, out of scope Motopark (talk) 13:39, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. Yann (talk) 15:57, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
Includes web-page address, promotional Motopark (talk) 13:39, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. Yann (talk) 15:57, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
Includes web-page address, promotional Motopark (talk) 13:40, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. Yann (talk) 15:57, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
Includes web-page address, promotional Motopark (talk) 13:40, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. Yann (talk) 15:58, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
Includes web-page address, promotional Motopark (talk) 13:40, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. Yann (talk) 15:58, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
Includes web-page address, promotional Motopark (talk) 13:41, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. Yann (talk) 15:58, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
Includes web-page address, promotional Motopark (talk) 13:41, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. Yann (talk) 15:58, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
Includes web-page address, promotional Motopark (talk) 13:42, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. Yann (talk) 15:59, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
Includes web-page address, promotional Motopark (talk) 13:43, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. Yann (talk) 15:59, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
Includes web-page address, promotional Motopark (talk) 13:43, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. Yann (talk) 15:59, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
Includes web-page address, promotional Motopark (talk) 13:44, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
- Delete This file is completely useless; the watermarks obscure the entire picture.--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:47, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
- Delete as per Prosfilaes. Yann (talk) 06:39, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. Yann (talk) 15:58, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
I'm not sure if this image is really public domain, because the Horrid Henry characters, books and merchandise are all copyrighted. Fangusu (talk) 14:05, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: DW. Yann (talk) 16:00, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
No source, no author. Also, this is a PDF and we do not generally allow PDFs for images. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:35, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
Delete low quality copy of File:1bkv collagen 02.png - Kramer Associates (talk) 19:58, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. Yann (talk) 16:01, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
copyvio http://www.radiocompagnie.nl/muziekarchief.html Kattenkruid (talk) 20:41, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio. Yann (talk) 16:04, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
Possible copyvio. See http://www.hs-augsburg.de/~harsch/germanica/Chronologie/20Jh/Ising/isi_intr.html Kramer Associates (talk) 20:53, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
- Delete probable copyvio, see http://theor.jinr.ru/~kuzemsky/isingbio.html /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:01, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
- Delete unless someone can trace the provenance. This appears to be a crop of another image which appears as ising.jpg (file date September 2005) via http://wwwdev.bradley.edu/las/phy/personnel/ising.html and a smaller version at 143135.jpg (file date July 2011) via http://www.bradley.edu/academic/departments/physics/why/ising.dot also. (ising.jpg via http://theor.jinr.ru/~kuzemsky/isingbio.html appears to be a direct copy of the larger of the Bradley image pages.) So the image was likely at Bradley University between 1948 and 1976, so there is a chance that this was first published in the United States before 1978 without a copyright notice. I have no evidence that is the case, however. --Closeapple (talk) 01:11, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio. Yann (talk) 16:05, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
I want to delete this image I've uploaded, as I think it's not needed here. Thank you. Pabloasturias (talk) 22:51, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: User's request. Yann (talk) 16:06, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
Speedy delete, I think the file name and description is obvious enough reasoning why. ~ Fry1989 eh? 23:24, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. Yann (talk) 16:06, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
Plain text. out of project scope Martin H. (talk) 10:00, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. Yann (talk) 15:55, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
own work unlikely, out of scope Nilfanion (talk) 11:00, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 14:56, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
Includes web-page address, promotional Motopark (talk) 13:42, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Per nom. Promotional George Chernilevsky talk 15:00, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
Unlikely to be "own work" Kramer Associates (talk) 00:04, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
- Delete As copyviolation. Beta M (talk) 14:36, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:59, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
copyvio, similar to this image http://id-id.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=305230509488730&set=a.140231135988669.24292.129700913708358&type=1&theater upper right cropped using Adobe Photoshop CS Windows Midori (talk) 00:13, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:59, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
no need to have mathematical forumlas on commons as they all can be created on the fly using the math extension →AzaToth 00:48, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
- Keep and clean up (currently it's not clear whether it's licensed or released into public domain). We need to remember that Wikimedia Commons exists for other projects which are not Wiki-based. As such there maybe no "math extension", and it is clearly educational. Beta M (talk) 14:42, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
Comment we also have File:X parenthesis n odd x.svg, File:SPPS formula 1.svg, File:SPPS formula 0.svg, File:X tilde parentheses n even.svg, File:X tilde parentheses n odd x.svg, File:X parenthesis n even.svg, File:X parentheses n.svg, File:X tilde parentheses n.svg. Magog the Ogre (talk) 20:39, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Mathematical formulas are text and therefore out of scope. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:03, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
nonsense licence template, possible copyvio – declared author is not the uploader, the souce is Google!? Gumruch (talk) 05:54, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:13, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
Taken from a college site http://www.psihfak.ru/, no evidence of "own work", no evidence of a free license at source (their main page has no legal notice, but all subpages are (c)). ~ NVO (talk) 07:02, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:14, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
Unlikely to be "own work" Kramer Associates (talk) 07:03, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
Comment: See Commons talk:Deletion requests/File:Dei 12 2008.jpg. I am placing a note on User talk:Bogus233 telling that user to use COM:OTRS soon if this file is to be rescued. --Closeapple (talk) 02:44, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:14, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
File:THERE_IS_SOME_LOCAL_OPPOSITION_TO_STRIPPING_THE_LAND_IN_SOUTHEASTERN_OHIO._MOST_PEOPLE,_HOWEVER,_ARE_EMPLOYED_BY_THE..._-_NARA_-_554793.jpg
[edit]
Duplicate of File:"Stop strip mining" sign in Southeastern Ohio.jpg, more recent upload, ALL CAPS filename -- Docu at 07:13, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
- If Docu wants to change the naming convention for the mass upload of NARA files, he can find another way of doing it besides nominating one out of the 100,000 files for deletion just because someone uploaded one of the JPGs from their catalog a year ago under a different name. The file name is in all caps because that is the original, archival description for this particular set. In fact, the other duplicate is the one that should be deleted and replaced for housekeeping purposes. Dominic (talk) 07:26, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
- Housekeeping needs to be done indeed. You need to go through the bot's uploads and remove duplicates it may have generated and rename file's that have illegal filenames such as this one.
- Besides that, it's doubtful whether this is a good title for this image or, as any misleading filename, it would need renaming anyway. -- Docu at 07:35, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
- There is nothing illegal about the file name, nor is this the place to debate it when there are many thousands more like it. I think you have been warned before about bad faith nominations of NARA images. Please stop. Dominic (talk) 07:40, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
The file name you were trying to upload has been blacklisted because it is very common, uninformative, or spelled in ALLCAPS. Please go back and choose a better file name. When uploading files to Wikimedia Commons, please use a file name that describes the content of the image or media file you're uploading and is sufficiently distinctive that no-one else is likely to pick the same name by accident.
Examples of good file names:
- Nodnol skyline from Nodnol City Hall - Aug 2022.jpg
- 1875 Meeting of Settlers at Falconer Bay, New Nodland.jpg
- Pseudohedron with no vertex visible from center.png
Examples of bad file names:
- Image01.png
- Joe.jpg
- DSC00001.JPG
- Foo.svg.png
- 30996951316264l.jpg
- PSEUDOHEDRON WITH NO VERTEX VISIBLE FROM CENTER.png
For more information, please see Commons:First steps/Upload form. If you have a good reason for uploading a file with this name, or if you receive this message when attempting to upload a new version of an existing file, please let us know at Commons:Administrators' noticeboard or directly at MediaWiki talk:Titleblacklist. Be sure to specify the exact name of the file you are trying to upload. Thank you.
- As per above, ALL CAPS filesnames are illegal. In the sample we reviewed when you made a request for the bot to be approved, there probably wasn't one included. This doesn't make it legal or even good practice though. If you persist in generating such filenames, we need to stop it. Consider this as a request to check and fix the problem.
- Other than that, the summary you make of a scope discussion about another problematic upload of yours seems rather misleading. It looks like you didn't understand the scope problem in the first place. I suggest you withdraw it. You might want to refrain from participating in deletion discussion if you can't remain civil in the first place. -- Docu at 07:55, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
- I haven't been uncivil, though you do seem to be trying to bait me. You're not quoting the actual policy; you are quoting a MediaWiki message. Moreover, this is not the same situation as the one alluded to there, as the reason it is in all caps is because it is the exact title, from its catalog record, of the original work being uploaded. Dominic (talk) 08:05, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
- Accusing users of bad faith and baiting is incivil. Thus stop.
- Titleblacklist is quoted in Commons:File naming as the way to enforce the convention that to make sure that "Files uploaded to Wikimedia Commons should have a proper name."
- Titleblacklist does block all caps names. Thus consider this as a request to fix the problem with the bot.
- Anyways, this file needs to be deleted as it's a duplicate of File:"Stop strip mining" sign in Southeastern Ohio.jpg. -- Docu at 08:14, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
- I haven't been uncivil, though you do seem to be trying to bait me. You're not quoting the actual policy; you are quoting a MediaWiki message. Moreover, this is not the same situation as the one alluded to there, as the reason it is in all caps is because it is the exact title, from its catalog record, of the original work being uploaded. Dominic (talk) 08:05, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
- Other than that, the summary you make of a scope discussion about another problematic upload of yours seems rather misleading. It looks like you didn't understand the scope problem in the first place. I suggest you withdraw it. You might want to refrain from participating in deletion discussion if you can't remain civil in the first place. -- Docu at 07:55, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
- Keep - delete the referenced duplicate at File:"Stop strip mining" sign in Southeastern Ohio.jpg (as it's not the NARA direct upload) and stop your bickering, both of you. Neither title is particularly descriptive of the image; Dominic's at least says "NARA" in it and there seems to be a practice of uploading these with the NARA title of the image; whether that's a good idea or not should be discussed elsewhere. The nomination does not appear to be in bad faith but it does appear to be the wrong way of going about changing the naming convention. There is no policy against all caps titles, the closest thing is the reference at Commons:First steps/Upload form to following Wikipedia:Naming conventions for things like capitalization. That English Wikipedia policy says at Wikipedia:Naming_conventions#Article_title_format that "Use lower case, except for proper names" and refers to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (capitalization) for more details. This does probably need to be clarified but it is by no means a Commons Policy. Furthermore, Docu, would you please stop using the term "illegal"? copyright violations are illegal, child porn is illegal, capitalized file names are not even violations of a policy; at most they are annoying to some users.--User:Doug(talk • contribs) 16:53, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
- Doug, try to upload an image with an all caps title and see what happens. -- Docu at 18:06, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
- I'll take your word for it; there are a lot of things that one cannot do via the mediawiki software but that doesn't mean they are not allowed; there are also things we are able to do that are not allowed (and some of them are actually illegal). If the normal user interface doesn't allow it, then the question is "why?" and if there's a good reason, should policy be amended? and if policy should be amended, is this an exception? The file name is a red herring, this file is better and should replace the other one. Files can be renamed and file naming policies can be discussed but file names are not even mentioned as a ground for deletion. I support the idea that the general naming rules ought to be discussed and if we decide as a community that we don't like this naming convention, we need to 1) let Dominic know and 2) create a list of files that need to be renamed. If you feel the bot is misbehaving or that Dominic isn't handling it in accordance with the bot approval terms then that also should be discussed elsewhere; including it above only appears to be a collateral attack and furthers the suggestion of bad faith (which I've already said, I don't believe is correct, but I see where the thought could come from). --User:Doug(talk • contribs) 18:24, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
- I'm glad we agree about the problems with the title.
As there are two similar files, we need to decide which one to pick. As there is a problem with this one, it's normal to pick the other one.
It's odd that with those NARA uploads, every simple thing is made a drama out of by its uploader. -- Docu at 18:41, 30 October 2011 (UTC)- I did not say that I think there is a problem with this title. I said "I support the idea that the general naming rules ought to be discussed". As there are two virtually identical files we need to decide what to do with them. There is no problem with this file. There is an arguable issue with its name. That has nothing to do with the file content. As the other file is of lower quality, it's normal to delete it in favor of this one. If there is a problem with the name of this file, it should be renamed. I am not saying that it should be renamed, I'm saying that renaming is the appropriate action to take if the name is a problem. Not deletion. You are really starting to appear like you are trying to delete the file based on its name and based on issues you may have had with its uploader; neither of those is a deletion criteria and I'm starting to wonder if it may be a bad faith nomination after all.--User:Doug(talk • contribs) 19:04, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
- If there are two identical files, you need to decide which one to delete, as uploading a duplicate makes this eligible for speedy deletion. Let's do this here as we don't seem to agree on other criteria. -- Docu at 19:16, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
- I did not say that I think there is a problem with this title. I said "I support the idea that the general naming rules ought to be discussed". As there are two virtually identical files we need to decide what to do with them. There is no problem with this file. There is an arguable issue with its name. That has nothing to do with the file content. As the other file is of lower quality, it's normal to delete it in favor of this one. If there is a problem with the name of this file, it should be renamed. I am not saying that it should be renamed, I'm saying that renaming is the appropriate action to take if the name is a problem. Not deletion. You are really starting to appear like you are trying to delete the file based on its name and based on issues you may have had with its uploader; neither of those is a deletion criteria and I'm starting to wonder if it may be a bad faith nomination after all.--User:Doug(talk • contribs) 19:04, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
- I'm glad we agree about the problems with the title.
- I'll take your word for it; there are a lot of things that one cannot do via the mediawiki software but that doesn't mean they are not allowed; there are also things we are able to do that are not allowed (and some of them are actually illegal). If the normal user interface doesn't allow it, then the question is "why?" and if there's a good reason, should policy be amended? and if policy should be amended, is this an exception? The file name is a red herring, this file is better and should replace the other one. Files can be renamed and file naming policies can be discussed but file names are not even mentioned as a ground for deletion. I support the idea that the general naming rules ought to be discussed and if we decide as a community that we don't like this naming convention, we need to 1) let Dominic know and 2) create a list of files that need to be renamed. If you feel the bot is misbehaving or that Dominic isn't handling it in accordance with the bot approval terms then that also should be discussed elsewhere; including it above only appears to be a collateral attack and furthers the suggestion of bad faith (which I've already said, I don't believe is correct, but I see where the thought could come from). --User:Doug(talk • contribs) 18:24, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
- Doug, try to upload an image with an all caps title and see what happens. -- Docu at 18:06, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Deleted as duplicate. While ALL CAPS file names are a nuisance, NARA does them that way and I would not be inclined to go to the trouble of changing them all. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:18, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
File replaced by newly generated from tif — billinghurst sDrewth 07:14, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
![07:14, 30 October 2011 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2011/10/30#c-Billinghurst-2011-10-30T07:14:00.000Z-File:"Stop_strip_mining"_sign_in_Southeastern_Ohio.jpg){kind=link}
- The quality of the other file doesn't seem superior. Besides that, it has an illegal filename. -- Docu at 07:18, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
- There are a whole stream of files that have been imported from NARA, and this is another. The name for the file that you mention is the archival name, so it is "more accurate" and it allows a closer alignment with that archive. As the files are the same, therefore it would seem preferable to go with the copy that NARA believes is a better reproduction. if the filename is illegal, then please make that suggestion to Dominic and we can look to correct such. — billinghurst sDrewth 08:23, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
- It's not really for NARA to decide what we consider the better reproduction nor how we title it.
- There isn't really any problem with this file nor its title. As you even added the file description from the other file, it's this one that should be kept. -- Docu at 08:29, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
- There are a whole stream of files that have been imported from NARA, and this is another. The name for the file that you mention is the archival name, so it is "more accurate" and it allows a closer alignment with that archive. As the files are the same, therefore it would seem preferable to go with the copy that NARA believes is a better reproduction. if the filename is illegal, then please make that suggestion to Dominic and we can look to correct such. — billinghurst sDrewth 08:23, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
- Keep This image is in useful categories; the other is not. Nominator, how do you expect users to find the newer image? -- Infrogmation (talk) 14:53, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
- Delete The other image can be easily categorized, and now has been, simply by copying the relevant cats. The quality of the image wouldn't seem superior as it's the difference between a 1st generation jpg and a 2nd or 3rd generation jpg, they are designed not to seem different to the ordinary user, but it's a lossy format so older one has artefacts and the 1st generation one is by definition superior. Besides, re Billinghurst's point, it isn't about whether NARA decides what we think, they don't, it's about what they know about their images. They are the experts on the quality of their own archival images and reproductions that they have made in other formats.--User:Doug(talk • contribs) 17:09, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
Kept. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:19, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
![17:19, 6 November 2011 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2011/10/30#c-Jameslwoodward-2011-11-06T17:19:00.000Z-File:"Stop_strip_mining"_sign_in_Southeastern_Ohio.jpg){kind=link}
Not exact duplicate, though to be replaced by newly generated jpg from master tif File:THERE_IS_SOME_LOCAL_OPPOSITION_TO_STRIPPING_THE_LAND_IN_SOUTHEASTERN_OHIO._MOST_PEOPLE,_HOWEVER,_ARE_EMPLOYED_BY_THE..._-_NARA_-_554793.jpg — billinghurst sDrewth 07:19, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
- Comment You have linked to the wrong image; there is indeed a higher res Tif of this jpg now availible, but the file listed is unrelated. -- Infrogmation (talk) 14:59, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
You are right, it would be this one File:VIEW EAST ALONG GLEN HIGHWAY TOWARD MOUNT DRUM (ELEVATION 12,002 FEET) AND INTERSECTION OF ROAD AND TRANS-ALASKA... - NARA - 555653.jpg, I believe.--User:Doug(talk • contribs) 17:19, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
_AND_INTERSECTION_OF_ROAD_AND_TRANS-ALASKA..._-_NARA_-_555653.jpg){kind=link}
- Delete use the higher quality (the one directly from the master tif) and get rid of the technically lower quality version as it has no value now that the better one is available.--User:Doug(talk • contribs) 17:19, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
Kept: Renamed and kept. Duplicate was deleted. Yann (talk) 21:20, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
Where is the permission of the author? I do not believe this is released with this free license 91.57.76.254 08:55, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:21, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
unlikely to be own work Qoan (dis-me!) 09:32, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: by Jameslwoodward. Yann (talk) 21:20, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
Was marked as copyvio, used on http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/europe/10/27/uk.ship.rescue/index.html and watermarked there. Declined speedy as file was uploaded here on October 5,and that CNN article was on October 27. Not sure of true source of file. Nilfanion (talk) 10:36, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:23, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
Suspected copyvio - from a magazine maybe? It's a scan of something anyway. -mattbuck (Talk) 11:18, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
Yes it's a scan of the original picture which is old and not in any digital format, and therefore it has been scanned in order to use it here. I have the rights to use this picture which is a picture of the swedish magician Robert "Robert'o" Lundell since I am his son Anders Lundell.
- That's not how copyright works I'm afraid. Just because it's a picture of someone you are related to does not necessarily mean you have the rights to release it. I suspect there are two possible cases here:
- The copyright is owned by the photographer
- The copyright is owned by your father
- In either case, you are not the copyright holder, and we would need permission from the copyright holder before you could release it. For that matter, and my apologies if this seems insensitive, but we don't have any proof that you are who you say you are. Please could you contact OTRS in order to file some statement of ownership - this way we have a suitable paper trail. -mattbuck (Talk) 11:32, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
Ok, I'll do that then
Email sent to OTRS 14:30, 30 October 2011
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:24, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
Looks like a copyvio to me - scan from something? Seems like a professional pic, so own work is dubious anyway. -mattbuck (Talk) 11:21, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
Yes, this is also a scan, since the picture is not in any digital format. However I have the right to use this picture from Robert "Robert'o" Lundell (I am his son Anders Lundell) since he is on the picture and has the rights to the picture even though it is made by a professional as you say. I didn't know how to classify this picture other than own work, so it is just a mistake from my side in that case. But as I said, I have all the rights to use this picture from the person (Robert) on the picture who also owns the rights to the picture. -Flanders (Talk) 12:34, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
Email sent to OTRS 14:30, 30 October 2011
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:24, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
copyright of their owners Sridhar1000 (talk) 12:00, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: 08:50, 6 November 2011 by Fastily, closed by Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:25, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
The source website does not exist. The author is not the uploader. Therefore we have no evidence of permission for this license. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:05, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio. Yann (talk) 21:22, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
Source site has an explicit copyright notice and no evidence of CC licensing. Author is not uploader, therefore there is no reason to believe that this is correctly licensed. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:10, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio. Yann (talk) 21:22, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
Out of project scope. Was used in now deleted article in it.wiki George Chernilevsky talk 13:12, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:26, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
Out of project scope. was used in now deleted article in it.wiki George Chernilevsky talk 13:14, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:26, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
Out of project scope. Related article was deleted George Chernilevsky talk 13:17, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:26, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
Includes logo, promotional Motopark (talk) 13:45, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:26, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
Leider gibt es keine Panoramafreiheit in Frankreich. 84.62.204.7 14:27, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:27, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
Leider gibt es keine Panoramafreiheit in Frankreich. 84.62.204.7 14:28, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:27, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
Leider gibt es keine Panoramafreiheit in Südkorea. 84.62.204.7 14:29, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:28, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
Leider gibt es keine Panoramafreiheit in Südkorea. 84.62.204.7 14:30, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:28, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
Leider gibt es keine Panoramafreiheit in Südkorea. 84.62.204.7 14:30, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:28, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
Leider gibt es keine Panoramafreiheit in Südkorea. 84.62.204.7 14:31, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:28, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Seems to be a derivative of this Flickr image, http://www.flickr.com/photos/hendisgorge/5279945618/, uploaded a year ago and (C)ARR. Túrelio (talk) 15:03, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: Copyvio. Yann (talk) 21:23, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Unlikely to be own work: small resolution, missing EXIF. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:30, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: No source, no permission. Yann (talk) 21:24, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
and File:Jwpspslef2010.JPG. Out of Commons:Project scope: text which may be replaced with wiki-table. Also doubtful relevance for Wikipedia purposes. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:40, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. Yann (talk) 21:24, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
according http://www.eiffel-tower.com/the-eiffel-tower-image-and-brand/image-rights-the-eiffel-tower-brand.html must be granted a permission but the quality is low Ezarateesteban 16:19, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
- "low quality" is not a reason for speedy deletion, so I guess this would be the proper way to ask for deletion of this image.
- I had thought that it was deleted for some other reason.
- Anyways, in this case:
Neutral. -- Docu at 05:40, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
Kept: Not part of the copyrighted show. Yann (talk) 21:25, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
- Renomination #1
Photograph is too blurred to be of use in any project. Also, uploader has been permanently blocked on all Wikimedia Foundation wikis for "cross-wiki abuse". — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 07:24, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
Whoops, didn't notice the previous deletion discussion. Anyway, I'll leave it to the closing administrator to decide whether the image should be kept or not. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 08:28, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
- Delete - I'm not normally too fussy about the quality of images, but this is of such poor quality with the blurriness that it can't possibly be of much use to any project or anyone. CT Cooper · talk 12:02, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
- Delete. There can easily be many good images of the same object. This one is too blurry to be reasonably useful. Please make clear that's the reason for the deletion, if that's the decision. -- Asclepias (talk) 19:46, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
- Delete -- User:Phanuruch855 uploaded this, I have reverted all of his edits becuase he has been blocked on all WMF wikis. The photo is also unuseable. --Katarighe (talk) 23:03, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
- What did he or she do to warrant being banned? — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 13:59, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
- Please refer to the Global Block Log for evidence. This policy subsection may also be helpful to understand why he is blocked. --Katarighe (talk) 22:46, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
- It just says "cross-wiki abuse". I'm none the wiser. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 11:53, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
- Click on the user name to get here: m:Special:CentralAuth/Phanuruch8555. –Temporaluser (talk) 01:09, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
- Ah, thanks. OK, it looks like the reason for the ban was not directly related to the licensing of the image, then. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 07:13, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
- Click on the user name to get here: m:Special:CentralAuth/Phanuruch8555. –Temporaluser (talk) 01:09, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
- It just says "cross-wiki abuse". I'm none the wiser. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 11:53, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
- Please refer to the Global Block Log for evidence. This policy subsection may also be helpful to understand why he is blocked. --Katarighe (talk) 22:46, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
Speedy deleted. In addition to quality problems, views of the Eiffel Tower at night are generally considered to be derivative works of the non-free lighting display (ref en:Eiffel_Tower#Image_copyright_claims). Dcoetzee (talk) 09:06, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
Magazine cover. Unlikely to be "own work" Kramer Associates (talk) 19:54, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
Comment: Front cover of El Nazareno Year 4, No. 4 (April 2009), published by the Hermandad Nazarenos de la Purísima Sangre (Nules, Castellón). Note that the uploader's username is Nazarenosnules (talk · contribs): It may be that the society really might be OK with releasing the front cover to public domain, and this may be salvagable with confirmation by COM:OTRS or something and resolve a bunch of this user's uploads at the same time. (A copy of the publication is available as boletin09.pdf via http://www.nazarenosnules.es/docs/hermanamientos1.html and has no copyright in the publication itself, but the website is labeled "© 2006-2011" and I don't see any indication that copyright notices are required in Spain anyway.) Is there a good way to tell someone in Spanish that they need to send an OTRS e-mail and add an OTRS template to the images? --Closeapple (talk) 02:03, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio. Yann (talk) 21:26, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
not really notable for the project, c.f. here abf «Cabale!» 20:46, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
Kept: No reason for deletion. Yann (talk) 21:27, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
part of File:Johann Nepomuk Hummel - Schabblatt Franz Wrenk nach Zeichnung Escherich.jpg. This is an extract, its however not an extract because its such a great composition, its an extract because at the time of upload in 2005 the full size of this work was not available on the internet. Martin H. (talk) 22:36, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
- Keep Can't see the reason for this DR. Image is PD due to age, a internet source is not required to upload it here. --GeorgHH • talk 23:00, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
- The reason is that it is a low quality duplicate. Die Wahl des Bildausschnitts folgt dabei keinem editoriellem oder ästhetischem Kriterium sondern ist einzig dem Zufall geschuldet, dass zur Zeit des Uploads nur dieses Bild in der Google-Bildsuche vorhanden war. --Martin H. (talk) 23:59, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
- Behalten, kein Löschgrund erkennbar, es gibt viel schlechtere Bilder auf Commons. --Mogelzahn (talk) 11:56, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Duplicate. Yann (talk) 21:29, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
Its derivative of the drawing File:Johann Nepomuk Hummel - Schabblatt Franz Wrenk nach Zeichnung Escherich.jpg. The colors have been added later, possibly in digital ages. There can be a copyright for the colorization, this copyright is not adressed in the permission field which only refers to the copyright status of the original work. Martin H. (talk) 22:39, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Uncertain copyright, too small to be useful, we have better a copy. Yann (talk) 21:31, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
Can the community decide if these images are derivative copyrighted objects or if they are not...and can be kept by Commons? Please feel free to make a reply. Leoboudv (talk) 21:24, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
- Is it on me to reply? What do I write to investigate? Its from the given source. Lantus (talk) 21:50, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
- Delete See Commons:Derivative works --Kramer Associates (talk) 22:12, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
- Delete derivative work of copyrighted characters. Warfieldian (talk) 19:55, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Thanks for your comments which clears the air now. The photo is of the actual Gumby and Pokey toy which would be copyrighted by the company that owns its rights and actually creates it. So, this photos is unfree and a copyright violation....and Commons could be sued by the company because this is a derivative image. The flickr owner incorrectly licensed the image freely when he/she did not own the rights to Gumby and Pokey and the uploader was simply misled by the flickr owner's free license here. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 06:02, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Courcelles (talk) 00:08, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
"Unknown, possibly Indonesian government employees" should be enough to assume this is a gov't work? Btw: even the website is fully copyrighted ("© 2010 The House of Regional Representative. All Rights Reserved.") - at least claimed. Saibo (Δ) 02:48, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
- Regarding the source, publication by the Indonesian government itself would be enough to make it PD. Regarding the law in question, it says
(emphasis mine). The picture itself does not have a copyright statement on it, which makes it PD under Indonesian law. Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:03, 30 October 2011 (UTC)"publication and/or reproduction of anything which is published by or on behalf of the Government, except if the Copyright is declared to be protected by law or regulation or by a statement on the work itself or at the time the work is published"
- Thanks for your explanation. So the website is from the government but they claim copyright on the website itself but not on the photo. Strange - but if you are sure and no one here finds reasons to the contrary: keep it with this clarifying explanations. --Saibo (Δ) 03:59, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
- Delete The cited sentence does not require that every photograph have a watermark -- it merely requires "a statement on the work itself or at the time the work is published". This image is taken from a web page which has an explicit copyright notice at the bottom which is certainly "a statement ... at the time the work is published". Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:12, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: per Jim Ezarateesteban 18:19, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
OWN WORK??? Not really. This image looks like a work from the 1940ies 91.57.76.254 08:58, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
- Ah, "our" dear Fernrohr-Allesmuller at work again. Welcome back! Leaning to delete. Obviously, the card (of 1890s interiors) is not from the 1940s. In 1940s it looked completely different. Now back to this postcard. There were different photos of the same interior, at almost the same angle, even with the same placement of furniture. I believe that this card is based on a photo published by de:Julius Goldiner's shop (see Category:Julius Goldiner here) with some margins cropped. For attribution, see reverse of the card here for example (and for a different photo, cf. here). Clues: placement of desk and chairs in left foreground, cropping to the right of the pale wall panel. Julius Goldiner (the person) died in 1914, but J. Goldiner (the business) continued until 1945, so in absence of publication date and/or name of the photographer - precautionary principle prevails. NVO (talk) 20:00, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: not own work Ezarateesteban 18:39, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
and other uploads by Ikraam24 (talk · contribs). Unlikely to be own work: small/inconsistent resolutions, missing EXIF. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:44, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
- I deleted the files coming from Facebook. Yann (talk) 16:03, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
and File:DAV Hehal Hawan Kund.jpg. Unlikely to be own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:56, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: not own work Ezarateesteban 18:40, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
1. According to the Article 27 of the Turkish copyright law, the copyright of those files have not expired: Art. 27. The term of protection shall last for the lifetime of the author and for 70 years after his death. If there is more than one author, this period shall end upon the expiry of 70 years after the death of the last remaining author. The term of protection for works that have been first made public after the death of the author shall be 70 years after the date of death. The term of protection in the cases determined in the first paragraph of Article 12 shall be 70 years from the date on which the work was made public, unless the author reveals his name before expiry of such term. If the first author is a legal person, the term of protection shall be 70 years from the date on which the work was made public.
2. The armed forces of modern Turkey was formed as the Forces of the National Assembly on May 3, 1920, But they didn't used this emblem. And the Turkish Armed Forces (Türk Silahlı Kuvvetleri), consists of Land Forces, Navy and Air Forces, was formed on July 1, 1949.
3. We can see M1 Helmet in this emblem. However the armed forces of Turkey accepted M1 Helmet after the Korean War.
4. In this situation, we can understand that this image is not public domain.
5. And I think that Commons:Deletion requests/File:Seal of the Turkish Navy.svg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Emblem of TuAF.svg must be re-listed. Because both of them were closed by User:Jcb, who know neither rules of Commons nor copyright laws. On the other hand, User:Future Perfect at Sunrise knows issues related with Turkey very well.
5-1. For File:Seal of the Turkish Navy.svg, User:Randam claimed I, the copyright holder of this work, hereby publish it under the following license. But it's impossible.
5-2. For File:Emblem of TuAF.svg, User:The Emirr claimed I, the copyright holder of this work, hereby publish it under the following license. But it's impossible.
Takabeg (talk) 07:28, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
- Speedy keep all of these and block Takabeg for a couple days. He already nominated these files for deletion, and it was explained to him that because they are a freely made reproduction by a Wikipedian, that makes them free and available on here. Per the rules of COM:COA, I have tried explaining to him on 3 different talk pages (1, 2 and 3) how a coat of arms can be on Commons even when it's copyrighted, but he refuses to listen, and he has also vandalized these files several times here on Commons and over on Wikipedia English, by marking them as speedy deletions for copyvio countless times after it was denied and he was told to use a regular DR if he truly felt it shouldn't be here, and most recently on this file by removing it's license leaving it blank. He claims people don't know what they're talking about, that this is all impossible, that we're POV pushers, and on and on and on. It needs to stop. Fry1989 eh? 21:53, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
Why do you stop personal attack against me ? These are common sense among those who are interested in topics related with Turkey. So in English and Turkish Wikipedia, these files were (are) uploaded as non-free images. If you want keep it, you have to try to prove that file may be public domain. Takabeg (talk) 22:53, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
- I have already proven that these files are PD countless times. You refuse to believe it. You do not and refuse to try and understand the concept of a personally created work, and how that entails it's own rights. It's not my, or any other user on here's problem that you refuse to listen. That is your problem, and until you learn the way things work here, and how copyright works, you do not belong here. Per COM:COA, and the age of the emblems, they are all PD. Fry1989 eh? 22:59, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
I don't know precise date that they introduced this bröve, but I (we) know that this is not so old. (April 3, 1921 - January 12, 1944) didn't wear it (A, B). (January 12, 1944 - July 30, 1946) didn't wear it (A, B). At least we cannot find any evidence to prove that they used this bröve. So it's very clear that {{PD-old}} is not appropriate tag. Takabeg (talk) 23:02, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
- None of this is copyrighted because it's a personal reproduction. Even the helmet isn't copyrightable, there's no distinct shape or markings. YOu do not understand, and it's sad, but that's not a reason to delete files that are free according to age and COM:COA. You're also a vandal, your past behaviour in regards to these files absolutely meet the mark of intentional vandalism. I stand by my request you be blocked, and this file speedy kept. Fry1989 eh? 23:15, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
Vandal ? First of all you must stop personal attack. Unfortunately your offensive behavior spoils normal discussion. Please stop personal attack.
According to Kamu Kurumları İnternet Siteleri Standartları ve Örnekleri Rehberi, Regulation: The web sites of public institutions and organizations must be organized and maintained in accordance with copyright laws. (Kural: Kamu kurum ve kuruluşları internet siteleri telif hakları kanunlarına uygun bir şekilde düzenlenmeli ve korunmalıdır. ). We can see Türk Silahlı Kuvvetleri © Turkish Armed Forces in the official website of the Turkish Armed Forces.
P.S. The Turkish Copyright Law is in favor of original copyright holders. For example, national anthem İstiklâl Marşı was not a public domain before 2010. Only for making it a puclic domain, they needed to enact amendment to the law. (İstiklal Marşı, 'kamu malı' oluyor, Milliyet). Takabeg (talk) 23:57, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
- I haven't attacked you at all. I've pointed out your unwillingness to listen when others try and help you understand how copyright works, and how every individual work carries it's own rights. I've also pointed out your repetitious and vandal actions against these files. You simply do not understand how copyright for coats of arms works. This file is a self-made reproduction, that makes it PD and gives the uploader his own rights. The files stayed for these reasons, and you refuse to accept it. You have also shown rather xenophobic views, such as that because I and others here aren't Turkish, we can't possibly know as much as you about Turkish issues. That view is not productive either. YOu also don't understand that just because a website is copyrighted, that doesn't carry over to the images contained on that website. They carry their own copyrights. You have also tried to claim that because these files don't match 100% the arms as they appear on the Turkish websites, that makes them a modification and therefore a violation of Turkish Law, but that simply isn't the case either. These files accurately disply the emblems as they appear, even if they don't match 100%, whereas a modification is a deliberate act to take something and make it look like something else. You do not understand anything that you claim as reasons for this being a violation'. Fry1989 eh? 00:01, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
- Delete - Under Turkish copyright law, the copyright term is indeed 70 years for government works. There is an exception for legislation, regulations and other items of a judicial or legislative character (Article 31) but I have not been able to locate an actual law yet. The initial images that I saw were derived from http://www.taraf.com.tr/fotoraflar/27trfs12TSK_Forsu.jpg and also included that black line at the top left of the emblem. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 17:22, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
- Delete - yes, that is convincing. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:43, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
- Keep - Nicht Löschen, es ist gemeinfrei.--Serdal (talk) 10:24, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
Die Zitierung (Darstellung) oder Besprechung eines Wappens wird durch die deutsche Rechtsprechung nicht verboten.--Serdal (talk) 09:46, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
- But this emblem is not public domain in the source country of Turkey, so we cannot keep the image here even if it would be public domain elsewhere, like Germany. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 13:31, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
- It is still a coat of arms, so COM:COA does apply. I have yet to see any proof this is a derivative of a copyrighted version. Fry1989 eh? 19:15, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
- See my deletion rationale and there is no blazon or legislative text describing the arms. It has to be deleted under those guidelines. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 21:47, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
- How do you know there is no legislative text? Fry1989 eh? 22:03, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
- I looked. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 01:39, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
- Just because you couldn't find it, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Fry1989 eh? 01:45, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
- And if such a law does exist, the image will be restored. But until such legislation is found, under the Turkish copyright laws, we cannot keep it. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 02:09, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
- Just because you couldn't find it, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Fry1989 eh? 01:45, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
- I looked. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 01:39, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
- How do you know there is no legislative text? Fry1989 eh? 22:03, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
- See my deletion rationale and there is no blazon or legislative text describing the arms. It has to be deleted under those guidelines. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 21:47, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
- It is still a coat of arms, so COM:COA does apply. I have yet to see any proof this is a derivative of a copyrighted version. Fry1989 eh? 19:15, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
Das TSK Forsu ist in der Türkei gemeinfrei und ist nicht wie behauptet copyright geschützt.Ausserdem wird das Embleme bei der türkischen Wikipedia verwendent.Da müsste es doch als erstes gelöscht werden, wenn es Copyright geschützt wäre.Also beendet das Thema, es ist gemeinfrei.
LG --Serdal (talk) 22:46, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
- It is not public domain by age and symbols are not automatically public domain in Turkey. There has to be a law saying this is the emblem of the TSK and gives the design before we can claim as public domain. There is no such law that could be found. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 08:46, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. FASTILY (TALK) 23:09, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
Original upload log says:"This picture was taken from http://www.ngkhai.net/cebupics". Thats not a free content source and not GFDL as far as I see. Martin H. (talk) 10:01, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
- I'm the uploader, but I present no objection. Dantadd✉ 23:00, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: copyvio, per nomination. Rosenzweig τ 22:26, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
Possible copyvio - letter written by Paul Claudel, who died in 1955 Kramer Associates (talk) 21:06, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: copyvio, per nomination. Rosenzweig τ 22:28, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
I am not sure if this is PD-simple in order to be hosted on the Commons; called fair use by the en and de Wikipediae. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 20:25, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
- Delete, a simple version with clear colors maybe qualifies. This version with transparency and light effects is too much. Its not "own work" by Camuzotomotiv, thats simply untrue. --Martin H. (talk) 15:00, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: together with the whole set of company logos from this user. Such terribly false claims of own work are a shame for our project (if e.g. external media relies on that claim or companies wonder why Wikipedia claims that "Camuzotomotiv" designed their logos) and shouldnt stay long on our site. Martin H. (talk) 15:03, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
I'm concerned that the person who uploaded this image has done so purely to show his penis to the world. A quick Google search of his username brings up several pages which specialise in "weenie wobbling for the ladies". Given that the image was almost certainly uploaded in bad faith, and that it cannot be realistically useful for an educational purpose, I am of the opinion that this should be deleted. See also OTRS ticket #2011102510004811. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 02:58, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
- Comment - see also www.rulesoftheinternet.com/index.php?title=Main_Page, which appears to redirect to the image. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 03:04, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
- Support per Chase me. This is gaming of the system, with no valid educational purpose. Philippe (WMF) (talk) 03:43, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
Leaning towards Keep as i can see it being used to illustrate lack of erection, etc. Beta M (talk) 14:43, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
- Make my vote a definite. After thinking about it, with all the deletions, we need as many examples of genetalia that can remain, to allow the choice for educational use. Beta M (talk) 17:45, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
- Delete not realistically educationally useful and I understand there are a number of sites out there that would better cater for such uploads.Geni (talk) 17:42, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
- Could someone summarize OTRS ticket #2011102510004811 for those who can't see it? --Kramer Associates (talk) 19:51, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
- It's a complaint from a schoolteacher who has had 15 students sent to this image by a misleading link external to Wikipedia. It's his second complaint in as many weeks - the first was about File:Sodomie.jpg, which was kept. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 08:26, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
- Delete no reasonable likelihood of usefulness for any purpose. Although we might be able to imagine a purpose, that is not enough for something uploaded in apparent bad faith and I expect there are much better images of the speculative use available, in the event nothing in Category:Flaccid human penis or any related category will suffice.--User:Doug(talk • contribs) 21:29, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
This is actually a high speed capture of the gravity effects of a penis being dropped onto a hard surface, nothing more. Produce another such photo that shows the structures make up as to texture compression resillience. You can see how all the parts respond together in a semi-erctile state to rebound, several times, before resting. don't be jelly because you didn't create it.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Repromodel (talk • contribs) 01:20, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
- While the bio-mechanics of the whole thing are certainly interesting, I'm not sure it has any educational use, not to mention that there is something vaguely silly about a bouncing penis. --Kramer Associates (talk) 03:09, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
Thanks and I thought so also. Humor is there (vaguely silly) but that is open to the observer. OTRS ticket #2011102510004811 refers to an act of sodomy involving a vegetable. This is a flaccid penis. I can't see the comparison.
- Why did you choose a photograph of a penis as your first upload? Given that you (or someone with your username) appears to have done the same thing here, here, here, here and (since removed but available through caching) here... I could go on, but I think there are enough photographs of this penis linked to on the internet already. It seems to be all you upload: pictures of the same penis, again and again, wobbling. While it's no doubt fascinating, I think it's clear that the reason you've uploaded this photo is not educational nor in the spirit of the project. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 22:45, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
- I appreciate your insite as to the "spirit" of the project. the links you posted, as examples, above, bypass "passwords and usernames" safeguards to prevent underage viewing. Thank you
- Considering that there are no username/password safeguards on any of those sites (how else would I find them?), I'm not sure what your point is. Why did you choose a photograph of a penis as your first upload? Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 13:05, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
- I appreciate your insite as to the "spirit" of the project. the links you posted, as examples, above, bypass "passwords and usernames" safeguards to prevent underage viewing. Thank you
If you try to access mature material on ebaumsworld, you can't, at least i cant, without signing up. Because i found it interesting, stimulating and funny. Like parts of wiki. I won't bother you again. Good day.
- Keep I don't like it and it is showing a human is no reason for deletion. And because WMF pops up here... Phillipe, please could you use your personal account for community actions.
Question@Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry: Why did you choose a photograph of a model train as your first upload? ... I hate trains. They are often not on time! And this train is even not real. Couldn't you had uploaded a video of something real like a penis? --Saibo (Δ) 23:09, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
- You hate images? You are aware that Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry is an english wikipedia oversiter and thus burned out on having any emotional reaction to images a long time ago?Geni (talk) 02:25, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
- No, I am not aware that some cavalry is over site, sorry. Next time call the fire fighters before something burns out? Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 03:39, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
Keep. Keep It's a body part and gravity in slow motion. Showing the effects, compression upon impact, dispursion of the shock wave traveling back towards the groin. - Keep— Preceding unsigned comment added by Repromodel (talk • contribs) 2011-11-16T02:29:17 (UTC)
It's a perfectly good picture of a slow-mo bouncing todger, I vote keep 87.112.138.238
Delete I don't think it can really be used for anything. It's not educational and could possibly be classified as pornography. --Tech12 (talk) 02:18, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
- Delete - No potential educational use. --Xijky (talk) 23:57, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
I would like to close this, but I think there's maybe more life in the discussion yet. However, I would like to request the following be taken into consideration:
- The motives of the uploader are irrelevant if the image is suitably licenced and vaguely educational.
- That someone was offended is equally irrelevant, Commons is not censored.
- What the nominator does on other projects is also irrelevant unless there is a clear case that the nomination was in bad faith, which there isn't.
So, can we please get back to discussing the file, and not the circumstances of the uploader, complainer or nominator. -mattbuck (Talk) 14:23, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
This file must be kept. An image is worth 1000 words. www.rulesoftheinternet.com leads here. There are no rules on the Internet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.81.199.127 (talk • contribs) 20:57, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
- Keep. Keep nice GIF! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.194.157.204 (talk • contribs) 15:52, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
Kept: As per my previous comment, the intentions of the uploader are irrelevant as long as the image is freely licenced and educational. Further, that someone is offended is irrelevant, they should read the site disclaimer. The nomination is not in bad faith, so that's irrelevant. I don't see any particular reason to delete. -mattbuck (Talk) 17:17, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
While I am aware that Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Slow-motion-bouncing-penis.gif#File:Slow-motion-bouncing-penis.gif happened, this image is not used on any project and has no educational value whatsoever. It appears that it is being used on other websites that are not Wikimedia projects. This most certainly violates COM:NOT#Commons is not your personal free web host. The previous debate also was leaning to deleting it, as well.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 06:14, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
- Delete - No educational value, I mean who searches on Wikipedia what a penis bouncing in slow motion looks like anyways? Also, as per the previous nomination (which personally should have been closed delete but it is obvious the closing admin let their personal beliefs get in the way). Tiptoety talk 06:21, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
- If you have a problem with my DR closures, tell me on my talk page, don't put innuendo in renominations. I stand by my closure - I weighed the arguments, and, as I noted above, looked at them thusly:
- Someone was offended - simply not an issue, we have offensive stuff, read the disclaimer.
- Upload as vandalism - not relevant if considered vaguely educational and properly licensed.
- Nominator's work on other projects - not relevant unless the nomination was in bad faith, which it wasn't.
- "A number of sites out there which would better cater to such uploads", aka, "go look at a real porn site" - irrelevant.
- "Something vaguely silly about a bouncing penis" - irrelevant.
- "Why is your first upload a penis?" - why is anyone's first upload anything? Mine was probably a train or something, it's simply not relevant if the image has educational value.
- "Could be classified as pornography" - not relevant if it's educational pornography.
- Lacks educational value - this is the crux of the matter, and frankly it's a matter of opinion because this case is admittedly borderline, and, I make no bones about this, in a borderline situation I think it's better to keep than to delete. I felt that there was possible educational value in it, though it would be better if we had a whole string of these at different levels of flaccidness to demonstrate how the reaction changes. It's rather hard to demonstrate the physical properties of things by a single picture - you can't exactly reach through the screen and touch it. Video allows us to see how things react, thus allowing people to get an idea of their properties without having to be there in person. Human sexuality and sexual anatomy is a very poorly understood subject throughout most people of the world, and the more media we can provide to help alleviate that, the better off we all will be. In summary, Keep. -mattbuck (Talk) 07:19, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
- If you have a problem with my DR closures, tell me on my talk page, don't put innuendo in renominations. I stand by my closure - I weighed the arguments, and, as I noted above, looked at them thusly:
- Comment: I am personally requesting that User:mattbuck recuse himself from this debate, and the other debates I started on similar files, as he has closed every single one of them and none of those closures are in any way appropriate, in my opinion.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 06:54, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
- I won't close it, but you will not stop me participating in the debate. -mattbuck (Talk) 07:19, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
- Speedy keep - this is fillibustering; constantly keeping sexual images in the state of deletion requests. No facts about the image have changed, nothing new came to light. Saying "I still don't believe that it's useful" isn't a reason to nominate again within a month of closure. Commons is not your personal webpage, your opinion has been noted and the consensus was reached. Grow up! VolodyA! V Anarhist (converse) 11:07, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
- A consensus was reached but it was in no way indicative of the opinions of the editors. The debate was closed because the image is freely licensed and that is the only reason why anyone on the commons is defending it.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 20:58, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
- Delete - Commons is not for exercising voyeuristic or exhibitionistic urges. --Stebbiv (talk) 11:08, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
- Yes Commons is for sharing media which is freely licenced and useful to those who need it for educational purposes. Which this image (animated one at that) is. VolodyA! V Anarhist (converse) 11:10, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
- This has no educational purpose. It's a guy dropping his semi-tumescent penis onto a table which is being used offwiki on shocksites. The majority in the previous deletion debate saw fit that it has no purpose. The mere fact that it is free to use should not be what determines whether or not it should kept. We should look at the utility of the file, which in this case was before I edited it a 150-frame animation of a penis falling, with 100 of the frames focusing on the penis. The uploader is an exhibitionist who is abusing copyleft to keep the gif (a low quality file format in itself) here.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 12:37, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
- Any image may be used to shock, the only time such logic is acceptable in a deletion request is when the upload itself was for shock only. This image is properly titled and it displays exactly what it says. As for the choice of the word "abuse" to refer to distributing freely to everybody for whatever reason on Commons... that is what free licences are designed to do, so it's anything but abuse. VolodyA! V Anarhist (converse) 13:38, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
- I just scrolled up and looked at the previous debate. 4 keep votes, 4 delete votes. Apparently now we have started claiming that this is "[t]he majority in the previous deletion debate saw fit that it has no purpose", soon i will be told that i have actually voted delete as well. VolodyA! V Anarhist (converse) 13:41, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
- There were only two valid keep votes (one being from the creator and one from a random IP). This animation, File:Sodomie.jpg, File:Anal 2.jpg, File:Anal 3.jpg, File:Anal2.jpg, and File:Anal3.jpg are no way within the scope of this project, particulalry when you have a policy against such content.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 05:32, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
- The Anal* images specifically pass that policy - If the quality is bad, we may keep the file if we have no better file on a subject it can illustrate. As for Sodomie, that's not low quality so the policy doesn't apply either. Now please stop bringing other DRs into this one. -mattbuck (Talk) 06:43, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
- We have photos of women using using dildos anally. Does the fact that Xiri has a scrotum make it a better illustrative purpose?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 08:22, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
- If you're doing something on male masturbation, yes. -mattbuck (Talk) 09:03, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
- We have photos of women using using dildos anally. Does the fact that Xiri has a scrotum make it a better illustrative purpose?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 08:22, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
- The Anal* images specifically pass that policy - If the quality is bad, we may keep the file if we have no better file on a subject it can illustrate. As for Sodomie, that's not low quality so the policy doesn't apply either. Now please stop bringing other DRs into this one. -mattbuck (Talk) 06:43, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
- There were only two valid keep votes (one being from the creator and one from a random IP). This animation, File:Sodomie.jpg, File:Anal 2.jpg, File:Anal 3.jpg, File:Anal2.jpg, and File:Anal3.jpg are no way within the scope of this project, particulalry when you have a policy against such content.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 05:32, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
- This has no educational purpose. It's a guy dropping his semi-tumescent penis onto a table which is being used offwiki on shocksites. The majority in the previous deletion debate saw fit that it has no purpose. The mere fact that it is free to use should not be what determines whether or not it should kept. We should look at the utility of the file, which in this case was before I edited it a 150-frame animation of a penis falling, with 100 of the frames focusing on the penis. The uploader is an exhibitionist who is abusing copyleft to keep the gif (a low quality file format in itself) here.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 12:37, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
- Yes Commons is for sharing media which is freely licenced and useful to those who need it for educational purposes. Which this image (animated one at that) is. VolodyA! V Anarhist (converse) 11:10, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Guys, are we keeping now every single home-made crap? What exactly should be shown in this video? If u want to look for "falling dicks", go to youporn. Commons is too good for that. --Yikrazuul (talk) 18:10, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
- No comment - censorship raid. "You may wish to restate your arguments as to why the Commons should no longer host these exhibitionist photographs." Ryulong. If somebody wants to delete it: have good arguments. --Saibo (Δ) 19:19, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
- This is not a censorship raid. This is a low quality photo that has no possible educational use. And I am merely notifying a user who has had opinions on these photos that I have relisted them for deletion, when he originally proposed them. There is nothing wrong about that.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 21:01, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
- Keep. Keep Naturally I would vote *Keep. Keep and kudos to Ryūlóng for the editing job. I am a newb at editing and apologize for the lingering frames they were not left intentionally.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Repromodel (talk • contribs) 2011-12-19T01:28:43 (UTC)
- Comment Somebody (possibly the creator) has commented on the talk page. VolodyA! V Anarhist (converse) 03:55, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
- He commented on the talk page months ago in the original debate. And he seems to have decided to come back just as his penis is being proposed to be deleted from the project, again.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 05:30, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
- Probably because he has it set to alert him to talk page changes. Maybe he edits elsewhere... -mattbuck (Talk) 06:37, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
- I just checked en.wiki and he's not there.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 08:22, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
- Have you tried all 300-odd other projects? -mattbuck (Talk) 09:03, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
- Out of 707 projects, he's only here at the moment [1]. --Fæ (talk) 11:38, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
- I used en.wiki as the hallmark to see if he's really a contributor.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 20:29, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
- So your idea is that only people who edit en.wp are "real" contributors. Nice to know. -mattbuck (Talk) 21:27, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
- Wow. What an amazing jump from what I said. No. I'm going off of the fact that the English Wikipedia is the most edited of all of the projects, and that it would be more likely for him to be found there than say the Danish Wiktionary considering his use of the English language.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 03:51, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
- So your idea is that only people who edit en.wp are "real" contributors. Nice to know. -mattbuck (Talk) 21:27, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
- Have you tried all 300-odd other projects? -mattbuck (Talk) 09:03, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
- I just checked en.wiki and he's not there.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 08:22, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
- Probably because he has it set to alert him to talk page changes. Maybe he edits elsewhere... -mattbuck (Talk) 06:37, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
- He commented on the talk page months ago in the original debate. And he seems to have decided to come back just as his penis is being proposed to be deleted from the project, again.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 05:30, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
- Keep My opinion is that this short clip has educational value as it intuitively demonstrates the flexibility and mass of an erect human penis. Nobody has pointed to a image or video that does this at better technical quality and the clip does not appear unnecessarily graphically sexualized. Other arguments for potential deletion based on Commons:Nudity appear weak in this context. The argument that the uploader is an exhibitionist seems oddly weak as it is difficult to imagine a shy person uploading a similar image, or indeed any other image of their own body. Chaseme has provided above some links from external websites, though the ones I tested out today appear to no longer redirect to this image. I fully agree that when external websites may point to Commons in unexpected or abusive ways, this should be a concern and possibly a reason to delete (or rename) this image in the future, but a policy based rationale has yet to be put forward here in a form that I can understand (for example a rationale against the moral issues described in COM:IDENT) and that would not be undermined by judging the exact same rationale if a general image of an unidentifiable overweight person were being misused on an external website. If our policies are insufficient in this area, I would strongly encourage a Village Pump discussion based on firm case studies to help develop more effective policies against general misuse and mischief making. Having such good scrutiny to date, thankfully gives us confidence that there are no copyright issues for which the precautionary principle might apply. In general I find the argument that we have enough penises already highly dubious; I believe if we compare with Trafalgar Square, we can find more images of the unique Nelson's Column compared to all images of the human penis for which we may estimate that around 5 billion times many more exist on the planet. Any andrologist will explain that there are many variations and conditions that our small collection of this part of the human anatomy has yet to fairly represent for potential future educational purposes. --Fæ (talk) 12:16, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
- Well, Category:Human penis seems fairly full of photos, what with everyone who isn't ashamed of taking a photo having done so. Regardless of the fact that Repromodel is an exhibitionist who uploads videos of himself taking his semi-erect penis and flopping it about because that's what gets him off, there does not seem to be any dire need of his services to the Wikimedia projects. No scientific article (to the best of my knowledge) has discussed the biomechanics of the human penis coming in contact a flat surface (and I know of crazy scientific articles, such as one that discusses why one testicle hangs lower than the other and the classical Greek sculptors made the wrong testicle hang lower thanks to w:QI). So we should just take this at face value as being a low quality GIF that shows a penis doing something that the Commons and its sister projects really have no use of displaying.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 20:44, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
- Keep your comments on the images, not the contributors. Personal attacks are not tolerated on Commons. -mattbuck (Talk) 21:21, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
- I am only going off of what was stated in the previous deletion debate as stated by The Cavalry. And saying someone's an exhibitionist is not really a personal attack, anyway.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 03:51, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
- Keep your comments on the images, not the contributors. Personal attacks are not tolerated on Commons. -mattbuck (Talk) 21:21, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
- Well, Category:Human penis seems fairly full of photos, what with everyone who isn't ashamed of taking a photo having done so. Regardless of the fact that Repromodel is an exhibitionist who uploads videos of himself taking his semi-erect penis and flopping it about because that's what gets him off, there does not seem to be any dire need of his services to the Wikimedia projects. No scientific article (to the best of my knowledge) has discussed the biomechanics of the human penis coming in contact a flat surface (and I know of crazy scientific articles, such as one that discusses why one testicle hangs lower than the other and the classical Greek sculptors made the wrong testicle hang lower thanks to w:QI). So we should just take this at face value as being a low quality GIF that shows a penis doing something that the Commons and its sister projects really have no use of displaying.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 20:44, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Just look at the huge stretch Fæ had to come up with to rationalize how this image is useful. Prodego talk 04:07, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
- Is your opinion based on any policy? --Fæ (talk) 08:56, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Image is out of the Commons project scope. There is no realistic educational value in keeping this image. Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 04:08, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
- Educational use was already demonstrated. VolodyA! V Anarhist (converse) 04:15, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, how do you respond to the arguments presented by those who have stated the images are educational? -mattbuck (Talk) 12:05, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
- This image will not be used on any other Wikimedia project. There have been no arguments as to how it will be of any use anywhere. All of the keep arguments say is that "it's educational". How? What project would we reasonably use this image on? Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 16:31, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
- Educational is not the same as "a Wikimedia project will use it". -mattbuck (Talk) 16:56, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
- See Commons:SCOPE#File not legitimately in use. Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 17:26, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
- I don't see what you're getting at, that states that it may be suitable for "some other educational use", which is exactly what I'm saying. -mattbuck (Talk) 17:46, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
- The thing is, it isn't used on any educational purpose. The scope of Commons is not to provide an image of every object imaginable doing every imaginable thing. The file needs to have actual reasonable educational value. We don't keep every picture of non-notable people, yet every person is different. If our goal really was to document everything imaginable, then why delete these images? The same goes with fingers, every finger is different in some way. Fingerprints are so different it would require millions to accurately create a sample. Yet I do not see thousands of fingers images on commons. And don't get me started on the eyes. There is a near infinite number of possible combinations and differences. That is why we have a project scope. So, how will this image provide any reasonable educational value. Or for that matter, how it at all realistically useful for any of the Wikimedia projects. Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 18:57, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
- I don't see what you're getting at, that states that it may be suitable for "some other educational use", which is exactly what I'm saying. -mattbuck (Talk) 17:46, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
- This image will not be used on any other Wikimedia project. There have been no arguments as to how it will be of any use anywhere. All of the keep arguments say is that "it's educational". How? What project would we reasonably use this image on? Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 16:31, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
- Delete previous deletion was against consensus and policy, and reflect an admin's personal decision and not what is best for any WMF project or abides by any of our policies. This is clearly out of scope and problematic for many reasons which the opposers will never recognize for whatever reason but they are a clear minority. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:31, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
- You appear to be saying that anyone who has a view that opposes yours in this discussion has a motivation not based on policy, is that a fair interpretation of your statement? --Fæ (talk) 08:50, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
- No. I am clearly saying that the oppose rationales above are baseless. They make claims about policy which are just not true. Ottava Rima (talk) 10:54, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
- That is quite a broad statement dismissing all possible opposing viewpoints. Could you explain in what way all my own claims about policy are not true? --Fæ (talk) 11:32, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
- Sorry, but your are starting to be disruptive. The keeps were not based on policy. That is not broad. It is just that simple. You don't like it. That doesn't give you a right to behave in that manner. If you want them to have legitimate keep rationales, inform them about how Commons operates and what kind of images we have here. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:45, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
- Amazing, you claim that all opposes on this page are falsely representing Commons policy, I ask for clarification for how this applies to my stated opinion and you immediately accuse me of disruption and behaving badly. If you have evidence I am being disruptive, please report me properly rather than making accusations in a DR. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 17:42, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
- "you claim that all opposes... are falsely representing commons policy"? Now you are just making things up, which is a blockable offense. I stated that the opposers "will never recognize for whatever reason but they are a clear minority". It is obvious that you are willing to directly misstate what others say to push your own view, and if you keep it up I will report you for that behavior. It isn't acceptable. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:56, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
- "They make claims about policy which are just not true" seemed quite clear enough to me, I did nothing more than state your words back to you. Perhaps you would like to withdraw your statement as it was a mistake? --Fæ (talk) 18:03, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
- No. That is not my original comment. You were directly misstating what I said from the beginning, and continued to make me defend things I didn't say. Such things are smears and libel and are prohibited here. You really need to stop. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:41, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
- Libel? Write to legal
wikimedia.org rather than making such claims here. --Fæ (talk) 11:03, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
- Why write to them when a simple block would normally be handed down for you refusing to stop? Ottava Rima (talk) 12:36, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
- You have above made claim of libel which is a consequently legal threat, you cannot pursue a legal action in a deletion discussion or anywhere else on Commons. --Fæ (talk) 13:02, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
- Libel is a term, not a legal threat. It means to publish material you know isn't true. It is also prohibited in policy. Stop making up claims. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:12, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
- You have above made claim of libel which is a consequently legal threat, you cannot pursue a legal action in a deletion discussion or anywhere else on Commons. --Fæ (talk) 13:02, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
- Why write to them when a simple block would normally be handed down for you refusing to stop? Ottava Rima (talk) 12:36, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
- Libel? Write to legal
- No. That is not my original comment. You were directly misstating what I said from the beginning, and continued to make me defend things I didn't say. Such things are smears and libel and are prohibited here. You really need to stop. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:41, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
- "They make claims about policy which are just not true" seemed quite clear enough to me, I did nothing more than state your words back to you. Perhaps you would like to withdraw your statement as it was a mistake? --Fæ (talk) 18:03, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
- "you claim that all opposes... are falsely representing commons policy"? Now you are just making things up, which is a blockable offense. I stated that the opposers "will never recognize for whatever reason but they are a clear minority". It is obvious that you are willing to directly misstate what others say to push your own view, and if you keep it up I will report you for that behavior. It isn't acceptable. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:56, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
- Amazing, you claim that all opposes on this page are falsely representing Commons policy, I ask for clarification for how this applies to my stated opinion and you immediately accuse me of disruption and behaving badly. If you have evidence I am being disruptive, please report me properly rather than making accusations in a DR. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 17:42, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
- Sorry, but your are starting to be disruptive. The keeps were not based on policy. That is not broad. It is just that simple. You don't like it. That doesn't give you a right to behave in that manner. If you want them to have legitimate keep rationales, inform them about how Commons operates and what kind of images we have here. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:45, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
- That is quite a broad statement dismissing all possible opposing viewpoints. Could you explain in what way all my own claims about policy are not true? --Fæ (talk) 11:32, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
- No. I am clearly saying that the oppose rationales above are baseless. They make claims about policy which are just not true. Ottava Rima (talk) 10:54, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
- You appear to be saying that anyone who has a view that opposes yours in this discussion has a motivation not based on policy, is that a fair interpretation of your statement? --Fæ (talk) 08:50, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
- Question Fæ, you write: "we can find more images of the unique Nelson's Column compared to all images of the human penis for which we may estimate that around 5 billion times many more exist on the planet." Does it mean that you're suggesting that Commons should host as many images of penises, and naked butts including the ones decorated with chains for that matter, as it gets? After all there are "around 5 billion times many more exist on the planet" than a boring and a very unique Nelson's Column. BTW did you mention this idea in your presentation to the Parliament? This sure would have helped Wikipedia UK to get a status of a charitable organization :-)--Mbz1 (talk) 19:38, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
- That really is quite irrelevant, please keep your mind on the task at hand. -mattbuck (Talk) 19:05, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
- What "really is quite irrelevant" how many unique penises are there in the world or how many even more unique butts are there :-) BTW, muttbuck, while we are talking about penises I'd like to ask you please as an experienced admin:A policy states:Commons:What Commons is not#Commons is not an amateur porn site. Does it mean there is no problem with porn images as long as they are professional? --Mbz1 (talk) 02:51, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
- I meant the Parliament bit. -mattbuck (Talk) 03:06, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
- Ah, I see the number of unique penises and unique butts are relative, only "the Parliament bit" is not :-) Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 03:20, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
- I meant the Parliament bit. -mattbuck (Talk) 03:06, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
- What "really is quite irrelevant" how many unique penises are there in the world or how many even more unique butts are there :-) BTW, muttbuck, while we are talking about penises I'd like to ask you please as an experienced admin:A policy states:Commons:What Commons is not#Commons is not an amateur porn site. Does it mean there is no problem with porn images as long as they are professional? --Mbz1 (talk) 02:51, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
- That really is quite irrelevant, please keep your mind on the task at hand. -mattbuck (Talk) 19:05, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Not usefull at all. -- Gegensystem (talk) 18:34, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
- Please note that deletion requests are not votes. Potential use has already been demonstrated. VolodyA! V Anarhist (converse) 03:46, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
- Well people disagree with that and they need not explain how they feel that way. And there is no potential use because there is no educational value in displaying a penis being slammed against a table. There have been plenty of arguments that this falls entirely outside the scope of the project, but everyone is defending it because "there are no alternatives". There are no alternatives. Even if it is not a vote, the majority of the community disagrees with this file's utility for this project.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 05:47, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
- That is exactly why Commons is not a democracy, so that common sense, even when it's commonly set aside for sexually explicit and other imagery, can prevail. The motion of a partially erect penis can only be demonstrated with the motion. You cannot create a photo showing how it moves, you must create either a video or an animated picture (i would prefer a video, but that's just me). P.S. While it is true that "they need not explain how they feel that way", it is also true that admins need to ignore the "me too" votes. VolodyA! V Anarhist (converse) 10:18, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
- No project is a democracy, but when so many people are saying "This does not belong on the Commons", why does a minority of the group get to decide that it stays because they say so?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 06:54, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
- Because it's an educational project, and the content is educational to some is already educational. It's like a black swan argument, let's say you are claiming that there are no black swans, and so do 1000 other people, then i come along and show you a black swan, that means that regardless of 1000 people saying that no swans are black they are still wrong. VolodyA! V Anarhist (converse) 07:42, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
- So you are saying that the minority gets to decide what happens even when they have no empirical evidence that this particular series of images in an animation has a legitimate educational use when the majority believe that this file is entirely out of the Wikimedia Commons' scope?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 11:13, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
- Because it's an educational project, and the content is educational to some is already educational. It's like a black swan argument, let's say you are claiming that there are no black swans, and so do 1000 other people, then i come along and show you a black swan, that means that regardless of 1000 people saying that no swans are black they are still wrong. VolodyA! V Anarhist (converse) 07:42, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
- Well people disagree with that and they need not explain how they feel that way. And there is no potential use because there is no educational value in displaying a penis being slammed against a table. There have been plenty of arguments that this falls entirely outside the scope of the project, but everyone is defending it because "there are no alternatives". There are no alternatives. Even if it is not a vote, the majority of the community disagrees with this file's utility for this project.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 05:47, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
- Please note that deletion requests are not votes. Potential use has already been demonstrated. VolodyA! V Anarhist (converse) 03:46, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
- Delete - try as I might, it's too much of a stretch to call this 'educational', or even potentially so. I read Mattbuck's comments above and have to disagree with his rationale on borderline educational media given we've so many media files relating to the glory of the male organ here on Commons. And I'm totally not buying the rationale that one can infer various physical properties from an image of some dude slapping his cock off a table. In short; I'm not seeing an educational need for the image here. EDIT - also per ticket:2011102510004811 which I've just seen now - Alison ❤ 03:36, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
- Note: this ticket is just some random outsider complaining - see contents of the ticket on top of this page. --Saibo (Δ) 20:47, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
- Oh, it's "just some random outsider complaining" - well screw them, so; they don't matter. In fact, we should just ditch OTRS altogether, in that case >_> (actually, the OTRS ticket contains much more relevant information than just a complaint, and has been updated repeatedly since it was discussed above at the previous DR. I've linked to the ticket above so OTRS agents can decide accordingly - Alison ❤ 21:23, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
- I find the term "random outsider" really abhorrent, especially given that we're all supposed to be here to serve the public - right? We have a duty to the greater community (humanity), and not just to Commons - Alison ❤ 21:43, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
- Meeh, "random" (=no relation to this image) and "outsider" since it is someone from not in Commons. Why should the opinion (without any documented policy-based reasoning) count anything? I also mentioned this since tickets here in DRs often contain highly relevant information (e.g. messages from copyright holders). Oh, btw: this is a DR - not a general discussion. Please try to stay on topic. --Saibo (Δ) 23:05, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
- Everyone saw what you said, Saibo, regardless of your handwaving. It's clearly relevant to this discussion - Alison ❤ 02:15, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
- I am not sure what you mean, but let's just stop here. I have no interest in a discussion with you. --Saibo (Δ) 03:26, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
- Everyone saw what you said, Saibo, regardless of your handwaving. It's clearly relevant to this discussion - Alison ❤ 02:15, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
- Meeh, "random" (=no relation to this image) and "outsider" since it is someone from not in Commons. Why should the opinion (without any documented policy-based reasoning) count anything? I also mentioned this since tickets here in DRs often contain highly relevant information (e.g. messages from copyright holders). Oh, btw: this is a DR - not a general discussion. Please try to stay on topic. --Saibo (Δ) 23:05, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
- Can somebody who can see that ticket summarise its contents here. VolodyA! V Anarhist (converse) 05:47, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
- It appears to be an email form an (unconfirmed) educator who is stating that the file in question is continually being "brought to his/her attention" by students under the age of 16 and is requesting that such "trolling" and "childish vandalism" be removed from commons. (Please note that I did vote delete above, but attempted to summarize the information in the ticket in a neutral manner.) Tiptoety talk 06:16, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
- Without going into the details, Tip, message #4 from the OTRS agent (Nov 4th) mentions legal matters, and this gives me pause for concern. This was after the original description above - Alison ❤ 07:00, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
- Yeah, since I wasn't real clear on what legal matters said agent was referring to, I just didn't mention it at all. That said, it might not hurt to look into that and possibly contact the agent for additional details. Tiptoety talk 08:08, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for the summary. In that case this OTRS can safely be ignored. You can take any image and turn it into the tool of trolling, per policy we should only consider if the upload itself is an act of trolling/vandalism. VolodyA! V Anarhist (converse) 09:26, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
- Without going into the details, Tip, message #4 from the OTRS agent (Nov 4th) mentions legal matters, and this gives me pause for concern. This was after the original description above - Alison ❤ 07:00, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
- It appears to be an email form an (unconfirmed) educator who is stating that the file in question is continually being "brought to his/her attention" by students under the age of 16 and is requesting that such "trolling" and "childish vandalism" be removed from commons. (Please note that I did vote delete above, but attempted to summarize the information in the ticket in a neutral manner.) Tiptoety talk 06:16, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
- Note: this ticket is just some random outsider complaining - see contents of the ticket on top of this page. --Saibo (Δ) 20:47, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
- Delete – per Alison. --JN466 04:25, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
- Delete A falling dick, wow, how useful. --Yikrazuul (talk) 18:15, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
- Keep While I know that deletion requests aren't the US court of law, I believe the animated penis is a victim of w:double jeopardy, as all the arguments for deletion in this deletion request are the same as in the first one. In conclusion, since the first deletion request already failed, and as this request has no new arguments on the delete side, I think it's pointless to even keep this deletion request open. --nlitement [talk]] (talk) 19:59, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
- It doesn't matter if the image is out of scope and the closing administrator of the previous request decided it was despite a consensus against it.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 10:33, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
- Delete No educational use has been found for this and I can't think of any use that wouldn't be satisfied just as well by a water filled balloon. Therefore should not be in commons. For things like this I there there should be some reliable secondary source mentioning the effect for educational use to be supported. That's the sort of assurance one gets from an image being used in an article. If it isn't used in an article and no citation is given and it could lead to trouble with the law then there is absolutely no good reason to keep it. Dmcq (talk) 10:44, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
- Keep I see how this could be used in a sexual education class. Also, it's a body part in slow motion, showing the physics of the body part. You see, we can't predict what users might need in the future, so we keep a variety of images in the hopes that at least one will cover a user's needs. That's why we so many different images of Nelson's column in Category:Trafalgar_Square. And that's why we have +210 photos in Category:Golden_Retriever (heck, there are 15 photos showing the same dog in the same position from 15 different angles). Photos at day and night, from different angles, with or without clouds, close-up photos of little details, etc. There is no real reason for deletion here, apart from IDONTLIKEIT. --95.121.219.115 00:18, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
- Delete It simply isn't educational, a fact which is reinforced by the lack of use on any WMF projects. If a Wikipedia ever has an article about recreational bouncing of penises on tables, perhaps this image could be undeleted - until that time, I see no reason to have it around. Per above, this is out of Common's scope. Ajraddatz (talk) 00:23, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted per consensus above that the image is outside Common's scope. WJBscribe (talk) 00:38, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
I marked this train station but am uncertain if its a generic building which may be kept. Does anyone have any views here? There is no Freedom of Panorama in Russia for Commons to keep an image unless the architect has been deceased for 70 years. Leoboudv (talk) 17:21, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
Has to be deleted, per [2] -- built about 50 years ago.--PereslavlFoto (talk) 13:56, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Derivative work of architecture, which is likely not PD-old-70. No FoP is Russia. Dcoetzee (talk) 14:37, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
I'm not absolutely certain this should be deleted, but it seems to me it should at least be discussed. Looks to me like derivative work of a presumably copyrighted piece. Am I missing something? At least I'd like an explanation of why the underlying work does not raise copyright issues. Jmabel ! talk 19:25, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
- I think the thing depicted is probably not really copyright eligible ({{PD-shape}}, {{PD-textlogo}}). It is a plate mounted on a stand. No special / unusual shapes. The plate has just a diagonal line over it, a textlogo and a small Germany outline map (if not own work by the uploader('s company) it may be PD-inelig or DM).
The (self-advert posting) uploader who claims own work is the CEO of the company who "award" this prize. If someone wants to he can ask for OTRS permission by them. I won't invest time and do it. --Saibo (Δ) 22:47, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
Comment if we delete this, we should also delete the derivative work: File:OE Award.png --Kramer Associates (talk) 22:36, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
- sure - this is how this file has came to public attention. ;) Thanks anyway for being complete. --Saibo (Δ) 01:02, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Even if it were Kleine Münze, it is not "Gebrauchsgrafik": work of applied art. But for example the map certainly makes it more than "small change" in the sense of German copyright. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 14:49, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: The map bit is copyrightable, and we have no idea who its author is. Deleting PNG and TIF. Feel free to undelete if you obtain OTRS permission. Dcoetzee (talk) 15:04, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
File almost identical to File:Jardin botanique Paris Aug 2006 005.jpg File:Jardin botanique Paris Aug 2006 006.jpg File:Jardin botanique Paris Aug 2006 007.jpg ; and no use Tangopaso (talk) 20:48, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
Kept: Photograph is a wider angle than 006, 007, and superior in composition to 005 (better rotation, no distracting person at left-hand side, etc.). No reason to exclude. Dcoetzee (talk) 14:36, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
COM:DW abf «Cabale!» 20:59, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
- Delete, not appropriately licensed. --Simone 22:05, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
commentKeep is this not covered by Commons:DW#Isn.27t_every_product_copyrighted_by_someone.3F_What_about_cars.3F_Or_kitchen_chairs.3F_My_computer_case.3F? This is a flat design, its utilitarian, the card shape is a basic shaped shared by thousands or millions of different cards around the world. The card contains a logo, but a picture of an airplane probably contains logos as well. Much like say File:Plane_Tails.jpg does.--Crossmr (talk) 05:11, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Derivative work of artwork on card. Unlike the plane example, impossible to claim de minimis here since the photograph focuses on the design of the card, not its basic utilitarian shape. Dcoetzee (talk) 14:33, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
The man on the picture IS NOT Tadeusz Różewicz. It's a terrible mistake. Zdjęcie zamieszczone przy haśle "Tadeusz Różewicz" nie przedstawia Tadeusza Różewicza. Wystarczy zajrzeć do źródła, czyli Narodowego Archiwum Cyfrowego. Na stronie internetowej http://www.audiovis.nac.gov.pl/obraz/92/8ba8d1e7e332492d46c2a33a23dc42db/ przy owym zdjęciu pojawia się komentarz: "Fotografia portretowa nierozpoznanego mężczyzny (zdjęcie BŁĘDNIE opisane przez autora jako Tadeusz Różewicz)." Proszę o niezwłoczne usunięcie fotografii jako poważnego błędu merytorycznego. Zielona roza (talk) 23:25, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
- Keep I didn't completely understand your statements but just because the person in the image doesn't correspond with the file name, is not a valid criteria to delete the image. You can use {{Rename}} to correct the file name. AMERICOPHILE 19:26, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
Kept: Incorrect filename/description not a valid reason for deletion. Use {{Rename}} if needed. Dcoetzee (talk) 14:29, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
Not the given source nor the author can give cluence why this photo is publication under Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported. It is not own work of the user who uploaded this one and the homepage which is given for a source is copyrighted (and the image cannot be founded there) 91.57.76.254 09:00, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
My apologies, I did not include the link to the image I used to crop this from. The original image, is provided with permission which has been verified and archived in the Wikimedia OTRS system, available as ticket #2011052510005463. --FocalPoint (talk) 10:35, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
Kept: Resolved, original work is CC-BY-SA, per OTRS. Dcoetzee (talk) 15:11, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
Leider gibt es keine Panoramafreiheit in Luxemburg. 84.62.204.7 14:38, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
- Answer I took this picture with no intention to violate the law of Luxemburg. If it is illegal or goes against any law or rule of any kind in the GD of Luxembourg, city of Luxembourg or whatever other authority in that area, erase that picture right now. No need of any more considerations. B25es (talk) 15:18, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Derivative work of non-free architecture. I have some doubts about copyrightability, but there is some minimal complexity to it. Dcoetzee (talk) 15:07, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
definetely not own work. Maybe to simple (?) abf «Cabale!» 16:12, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: "Trabajado desde una captura del canal" - based on a screenshot of the channel, so derivative work. The 3D sphere and text adhering to its surface push it over the threshold of originality for me, although it is a narrow thing. Dcoetzee (talk) 15:09, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
Simple text, Commons is the wrong project for this. Commons:Project scope#Excluded educational content.
Martin H. (talk) 11:30, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 14:58, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
No proof that uploader is the Denis Harper he claims to be in these photos, and if the story is correct and it's a work for hire for the subject, it seems unlikely the photographer would retain copyright. Note that at File:Ray Reach 001-1.jpg (npded), user claims his name is Charlie Burtram. -mattbuck (Talk) 14:20, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:26, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
Leider gibt es keine Panoramafreiheit in Luxemburg. 84.62.204.7 14:37, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
- Hallo IP. Kannst du mir zeigen wo das geschrieben steht ? MfG v --Elkawe (talk) 18:11, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: per COM:FOP#Luxembourg. The building must be assumed to be copyrighted by the architect, was constructed only a few years ago and is not presented in a de minimis way here. Rosenzweig τ 21:40, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
most of Category:Museum labels
[edit]- File:AAMSF---duck-vessel---label.jpg
- File:AAMSF---orb-vessel---label.jpg
- File:Apollo-Computer---label.jpg
- File:Apollo-Software---label.jpg
- File:Apple-I---label.jpg
- File:Auguste_Rodin_-_Severed_Head_of_Saint_John_the_Baptist_-_LACMA_-_label.jpg
- File:Cray-2---label.jpg
- File:Cray-3-Brick---label.jpg
- File:Curta-Calculator---label.jpg
- File:De Young Museum - Burroughs photograph - label.jpg
- File:Difference-Engine---label.jpg
- File:Don-Ed-Hardy-flash-label.jpg
- File:Doris Salcedo untitled - label.jpg
- File:Duane Hansen - Museum Guard - label - Nelson-Atkins Museum of Art.jpg
- File:Enigma---label.jpg
- File:European Women's Undergarments, late 19th Century - label - Fashioning Fashion - LACMA.jpg
- File:Farmer's shirt label.jpg
- File:French Suit, 1765 - label - Fashioning Fashion - LACMA.jpg
- File:Glen Baxter - Ascent of a Watercolour Painting - De Young Museum - Label.jpg
- File:Hendrick Trebrugghen - The Beheading of Saint John the Baptist - Nelson-Atkins Museum - label.jpg
- File:Hethkit-Hero-Jr---label.jpg
- File:Jacques-Louis David - Portrait of Jean-Pierre Delahaye - museum label.jpg
- File:Japanese matchlock pistol label.jpg
- File:Josiah McElheny -De-Young label.jpg
- File:Katsukawa Shunsho - Actor Sawamura Tanosuke - 1770 - label - Tacoma Art Museum.jpg
- File:Katsukawa Shunzen - Coming and Going - label - Tacoma Art Museum.jpg
- File:Keith Jacobshagen - Crow Call (Near the River) - label - Nelson-Atkins Museum of Art.jpg
- File:Liberty & Co. Tea Gown, English, c. 1887 - label - Fashioning Fashion - LACMA.jpg
- File:Maddida-Prototype---label.jpg
- File:Magnetic-drums---label.jpg
- File:Man's At-home Robe, Dutch, 1750-60 - label - Fashioning Fashion - LACMA.jpg
- File:Mantle clock label.jpg
- File:Minuteman-I-Computer---label.jpg
- File:NAS - LEGO Chicago Pile-1 text.jpg
- File:NEAC-2203---label.jpg
- File:Neil Welliver - Late Squall - label - Nelson-Atkins Museum of Art.jpg
- File:Norden-Bombsight---label.jpg
- File:Omnibot-2000---label.jpg
- File:Rachel Neubauer - Jowls - De Young Museum - label.jpg
- File:NAM - Enola Gay Model text.jpg
- File:RB5X-Robot---label.jpg
- File:Reliquary with Finger of Saint John the Baptist - Nelson-Atkins Museum - Label.jpg
- File:Samurai armour label.jpg
- File:Samurai helmet - label.jpg
- File:Sikh helmet museum label.jpg
- File:Spainish Suit, 1785 - American Tricorne Hat, 1780 - label - Fashioning Fashion - LACMA.jpg
- File:The Arrival of Saint Ursula at Cologne label.jpg
- File:The Blessed Bernard Tolomei Visiting Victims of the Plague - label.jpg
- File:The Hindu deity Vishnu in the form of the man-lion Narasimha - 12th Century - label - Asian Art Museum of San Francisco.jpg
- File:Thomas Gainsborough - Portrait of James Christie - 1778 - Getty Center - label.jpg
- File:Tibetian objects label.jpg
- File:Utagawa Kunisada - Pulling the Elephant - 1852 - label - Tacoma Art Museum.jpg
- File:Utagawa Kuniyoshi - Tawara Toda and the Dragon Maiden - mid 1840s - label - Tacoma Art Museum.jpg
- File:Utah-Teapot---label.jpg
- File:Watanabe Nobukazu - A Picture of a High-Ranking Marriage Ceremony - 1900 - label - Tacoma Art Museum.jpg
- File:Wayne Thiebaud - Starboat (Tugboat and Riverboat) - label - Nelson-Atkins Museum of Art.jpg
- File:Wayne-Thiebaud---Machines--.jpg
_-_label_-_Nelson-Atkins_Museum_of_Art.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_-_label_-_Nelson-Atkins_Museum_of_Art.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Clear derivatives of 2D works--Geni (talk) 16:28, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
- Renominate remaining images individually. I went ahead and deleted all the ones I thought were clear derivative works, either containing photos that are likely non-free or containing extensive text, per my essay Commons:Images containing text. However I maintain that photos of a limited amount of text are probably permissible. At least one image, File:NAM - Enola Gay Model text.jpg, is probably just fine since it's a list of basic facts. Dcoetzee (talk) 14:52, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
- There is copyright in the wording used and the layout of the text.Geni (talk) 17:18, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
- Small amounts of text have always been permitted at Commons under {{PD-text}}. The borderline between "a little" text and a copyrightable amount has never been made clear. I have set the line at "short quotation" length, under the theory that all WMF projects allow short quotations of text, even those with no non-free content policy. In other words, when it comes to text, all WMF projects allow fair use, and so should we. Dcoetzee (talk) 18:34, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
- PD text is for cases where the underlying text wouldn't qualify for copyright for example where it is single word.Geni (talk) 20:55, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
- I'm aware of that. However, in the absence of clear precedent, I am asserting that there is no reason for Commons to exclude textual content that is permissible under fair use, because all WMF projects allow fair use quotations of textual content. If you disagree this would probably be an issue to consider at Commons talk:Licensing. Dcoetzee (talk) 03:51, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
- PD text is for cases where the underlying text wouldn't qualify for copyright for example where it is single word.Geni (talk) 20:55, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
- Small amounts of text have always been permitted at Commons under {{PD-text}}. The borderline between "a little" text and a copyrightable amount has never been made clear. I have set the line at "short quotation" length, under the theory that all WMF projects allow short quotations of text, even those with no non-free content policy. In other words, when it comes to text, all WMF projects allow fair use, and so should we. Dcoetzee (talk) 18:34, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
- There is copyright in the wording used and the layout of the text.Geni (talk) 17:18, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
- Renominate remaining images individually. I went ahead and deleted all the ones I thought were clear derivative works, either containing photos that are likely non-free or containing extensive text, per my essay Commons:Images containing text. However I maintain that photos of a limited amount of text are probably permissible. At least one image, File:NAM - Enola Gay Model text.jpg, is probably just fine since it's a list of basic facts. Dcoetzee (talk) 14:52, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: most of the rest and kept only a few that listed only basic facts. You could argue if some of the others were also ok (as Dcoetzee did), but I deleted them per the precautionary principle. Rosenzweig τ 22:02, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
This appears to be a close derivative of http://www.soccerway.com/teams/latvia/fc-dinaburg/. That website was up before it was uploaded to Wikipedia (proof). Even if it was self-drawn the similarity is too close, and thus it is a derivative work. Finally, I read the translated version of {{PD-LV-exempt}}, and it appears that it only pertains to coats of arms for public organizations (state or international); that does not apply to a sports team. Magog the Ogre (talk) 22:24, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. -Pete F (talk) 23:16, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. If this were from the US or Germany, I'd keep it as below the threshold of originality, but I don't know about about Latvia, and since it's a bit more than just text and simple geometrical shapes, I'll delete it per the precautionary principle. Rosenzweig τ 22:56, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
Files of User:Meisenstrasse
[edit]- File:Alternative 132 133.jpg
- File:Alternative 117.jpg
- File:Coveralternative13233.jpg
- File:Kunstpolitik_umschlag.jpg
Scans of covers of magazines and books claimed as "own work". If the uploader is, in fact, the copyright holder, as the description of the magazines seems to claim, we still need proper permission. --Kramer Associates (talk) 20:28, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Rosenzweig τ 23:44, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
All uploads by User:Anatomist90
[edit](edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
We need to clarify if uploader is the photographer or used files from http://www.anatomyumftm.com/ all users uploads was deleted on en-wiki.
See user talk on enwiki: en:User talk:Anatomist90
See example on edits on enwiki: All file edits - en:File:Brain dissected after Prof. Nicolas method 2.jpg (text: Dissection and plastination site www.anatomyumftm.com)
See example on file on Commons - Adding as source: |source={{own}}[[www.anatomyumftm.com]]
It is unclear if files are from there or user just wants to link to the page as a page where there is more info.
File list:
- File:Anterior surface of sacrum.jpg
- File:Anterior surface of scapula.jpg
- File:Basal ganglia - horizontal section.jpg
- File:Brain dissected after Prof. Nicolas method 2.jpg
- File:Brain dissected after Prof. Nicolas method.jpg
- File:Common hepatic artery.jpg
- File:Endolarynx.jpg
- File:Extensor carpi ulnaris muscle.jpg
- File:Extensor digitorum muscle.jpg
- File:Female pelvic cavity.jpg
- File:Great sciatic nerve.jpg
- File:Hand dissection.jpg
- File:Hand plastination.jpg
- File:Heart dissection.jpg
- File:Heart, aorta and pulmonary artery.jpg
- File:Human left lung.jpg
- File:Hypogastric artery.jpg
- File:Inferior epiphysis of humerus.jpg
- File:Intervertebral disks.jpg
- File:Larynx opened.jpg
- File:Larynx.jpg
- File:Left kidneys.jpg
- File:Left ureter.jpg
- File:Liver with portal vein dissected.jpg
- File:Lobes of liver.jpg
- File:Lobes of the brain.jpg
- File:Lumbar vertebrae.jpg
- File:Male hypogastric artery.jpg
- File:Maxillary nerve.jpg
- File:Medulla oblongata, pons and middle cerebellar peduncle.jpg
- File:Mesentery.jpg
- File:Pancreas in situ.jpg
- File:Parahippocampal gyrus.jpg
- File:Pons and medulla oblongata.jpg
- File:Posterior surface of sacrum.jpg
- File:Posterior surface of scapula.jpg
- File:Radial nerve.jpg
- File:Right kidney.jpg
- File:Right lung.jpg
- File:Scapula.jpg
- File:Sciatic nerve.jpg
- File:Superior epiphysis.jpg
- File:Superior mesenteric vein.jpg
- File:Thyroid cartilage.jpg
- File:Thyroid gland.jpg
- File:Tibial nerve and common peroneal nerve.jpg
- File:Trachea.jpg
- File:Trigeminal ganglion.jpg
- File:Ureters and common iliac vessels.jpg
- File:Vocal folds.jpg
--MGA73 (talk) 16:45, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
I, Adrian Halga (Anatomist90), am the author of all anatomical preparations and I am also the photographer.
- Could someone walk him through the OTRS process then? Sven Manguard (talk) 04:09, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
- I got a mail from User:Anatomist90 with the same message + "Please visit our site http://www.anatomyumftm.com/#!contact" where Adrian Halga is mentioned. --MGA73 (talk) 17:03, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
- I left a note on user talk about OTRS. --MGA73 (talk) 17:50, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
Update: We now have 3 permissions related to these files: 2011102210001177 + 2011102410005259 + 2011110210010809. Do not have time for them at the moment. --MGA73 (talk) 19:16, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
The owner of the first mail did not reply on my note so I "took" the permission and wrote a reply. See mail in OTRS (if you have access). --MGA73 (talk) 20:58, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
- So do we have confirmation that all these "SMH" uploads are legit? Or should we delete all. -mattbuck (Talk) 15:30, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
I say delete them all -- there is a prominent logo in all the images; they are of questionable value; and were clearly machine-bulk-uploaded. (comment left by 64.105.174.210)
I agree. Delete them all. (comment left by 144.30.0.116)
Delete them all. (comment left by 144.30.0.116)
Update: Sorry. I forgot all about this DR. We have a permission from Stefan Misaca (the webmaster) and Halga Adrian (medical student) both claiming to be "the creator and owner of the exclusive copyright...". Bot users gave permission under:
- "Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0" (unported) and GNU Free Documentation License (unversioned, with no invariant sections, front-cover texts, or back-cover texts).
If the 2 mails were not in conflict with eachother I think the permission(s) would have been ok. The problem is most likely that the webmaster send a mail with the wrong person as copyright holder.
Another OTRS volounteer was the owner of the permission but after a few days without a response I wrote to Stefan asking if he was the photographer or "just" the webmaster on November 7. We recieved no response. We could try to send a mail to them both.
Some of the files are in use. For example File:Maxillary nerve.jpg so I do not think that we should delete them as out of scope. --MGA73 (talk) 18:31, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
- Comment I don't suppose anybody ever thought they were out of scope, this DR is about copyright. If you think more OTRS action is appropriate to clarify the permissions situation then proceed with it, we can wait a bit longer before a reaching a decision to keep or delete the files. --Rosenzweig τ 18:38, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
- Comment Just above my update it was suggested to delete them all. I just send a mail to both of them who send us a permission asking for clarification. Lets hope they reply soon. --MGA73 (talk) 18:58, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
Isn't it also relevant to discuss if the subjects have given their permission to be photographed and distributed on the internet? As mentioned the photographer is a medical student, and at least in denmark (where i study medicine) all of our subjects are explicitly protected against being photograpped or in any way recorded and shown to the general public. I was looking through both his files here and the ones displayed on the website, and there is no mention if this permission have been granted (nor is there a thank you to the people in them). (Sorry, im quite inexperienced in posting stuff on wikipedia, but i figured this was worth writhing here anyway)--62.44.134.5 11:05, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
Comment In my opinion, they should all be removed. There is no indication that the images are for free use, they are watermarked (thus decreasing the quality and appropriateness of the image), there has been no meaningful response from the uploader, and there is no indication that the sources (in this case - the people featured in the photos) have consented. Along with this, some of the markings in the pictures themselves have grammatical errors. The user was also blocked on the English Wikipedia for abuse that is partially related to the topic at hand -Here. If there are no further objections, I am willing to get the ball rolling to have these removed. --Slazenger (Contact Me) 19:56, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
Update again We got a reply on January 11 from Adrian Halga once more confirming that he is the photographer and copyright holder of the photos. He also explained that "These pictures are all after dissections of me and my collaborator <the person who send the other permission>.".
I do not think that helping in a dissection gives you copyright so I think that the photographer has the copyright alone. I think that uploader is the photographer and the permission from the other person was just an attempt to help uploader fix the problem with the missing permission.
I asked an OTRS voulenteer on IRC to have a look on this unusual OTRS. The answer was "Yes I'll have a look later" so I forgot about it once more... Sorry... --MGA73 (talk) 00:13, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
Also included in this DR, but so far not listed here, were:
- File:Axilla.jpg
- File:Dissection of spinal cord.jpg
- File:Ganglion.jpg --Rosenzweig τ 11:39, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
Kept: Per the comments made here, it seems we now do have a valid OTRS permission, so the files are not copyvios. There are no identifiable people in the images, so we do not need any permissions from the people those body parts belong to (or their heirs, since at least some are likely dead). Watermarks, texts etc. can be corrected, and that the uploader was perhaps once blocked at en.wp is not a reason to delete his Commons uploads. --Rosenzweig τ 11:45, 22 January 2012 (UTC)