Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2011/12/14
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
|
|
.jpg){kind=link}
![50 File:"Project_Shed_"_on_the_Sugar_Tongue_-_geograph.org.uk_-_127226.jpg](#File:"Project_Shed_"_on_the_Sugar_Tongue_-_geograph.org.uk_-_127226.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
Unused personal image, out of scope Morning Sunshine (talk) 08:02, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Junk - gone Herby talk thyme 08:37, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
copyviol from http://static.weltsport.net/bilder/spieler/gross/183145.jpg Threecharlie (talk) 09:05, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Blatant copyright violation Trixt (talk) 10:57, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
taken from http://www.mostaganem-aujourdhui.com/pages/l-andalou/ibn-badja-avempace.html Omar-Toons (talk) 09:11, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
- There is no reason to delete this picture, i took if from the web site [2] (blog) of this school and it's for public (not private picture).--Yugho (talk) 12:31, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
Delete, per nom. Freely accessible doesn't mean it has a free license. Prof. Professorson (talk) 00:05, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: The fact that an image may be publically seen does not mean it may be freely licensed - as such this is a copyvio and so eligible for speedy deletion - thanks Herby talk thyme 13:26, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
In this edit the uploader removed this image saying it is "Copyrighted uploaded image, Copied from website. Not original work." If so, it should be removed. Muhandes (talk) 20:17, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: copyvio from http://ptuaccounts.ac.in/#fragment-1 Béria Lima msg 18:11, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
Contiene Errores (No se Muestran los Negros) Dittoduarte (talk) 19:11, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Contiene errores muchos errores Dittoduarte (talk) 22:44, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:27, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
Picture marked "Getty Images" and "copyright AFP" in EXIF Teofilo (talk) 16:35, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: clearly copyvio from ROBYN BECK/AFP/Getty Images Túrelio (talk) 21:25, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
Picture marked "Globe photos" in EXIF ;
"EDITORIAL USE ONLY" according to http://imagecollect.com/picture/james-ginty-photo-3309119/new Teofilo (talk) 16:51, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: unfree image "PHOTO BY RICK MACKLER" Túrelio (talk) 21:26, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Not a CL Charger R/T 101.172.230.144 00:14, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- Please see the talk page. The then known RTA (now RMS) state that it is a CL Valiant and the owner states that it is a Chrysler CL Valiant Charger R/T E55, cite a source reliable source that states it didn't exist. Bidgee (talk) 07:40, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
- If it's true that this model wasn't released by the time RTA states (from refered talk) then it seems like an obvious mistake. Though no need to delete, just clarify in description that the model is unknown. 90.190.114.172 13:16, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
Kept, Replaced {{Delete}} with {{Fact disputed}}. 90.190.114.172 09:35, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Not a CL Charger R/T 101.172.230.144 00:18, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
- What is it then? If you are right and it is not a CL Charger R/T, can't we just fix the description and title rather than delete the image? -- Mattinbgn (talk) 03:04, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
- Please see the talk page. The then known RTA (now RMS) state that it is a CL Valiant and the owner states that it is a Chrysler CL Valiant Charger R/T E55, cite a source reliable source that states it didn't exist. Bidgee (talk) 07:40, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
- Um, I never claimed it isn't what you say it is. I was making the point that it didn't need to be deleted if you happened to be wrong. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 09:40, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
- Was in reply to the IP, not you. ;) Apologies if it read that my comment was directed at you. Bidgee (talk) 09:43, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
- Um, I never claimed it isn't what you say it is. I was making the point that it didn't need to be deleted if you happened to be wrong. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 09:40, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
- Please see the talk page. The then known RTA (now RMS) state that it is a CL Valiant and the owner states that it is a Chrysler CL Valiant Charger R/T E55, cite a source reliable source that states it didn't exist. Bidgee (talk) 07:40, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
I'd be happy to support the retention of this image provided that the following issues are addressed in the title and description:
- The Charger R/T was only offered in the VH series
- The E55 option was only available in the VH & VJ series
- The grille, headlights and indicators of the car in the image are not those of a CL series Charger
- Only the VH & VJ Chargers were "Valiant Chargers" as the Valiant name was dropped for the VK Charger series
GTHO (talk) 21:26, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
- As I've stated to the IP, "cite a source reliable source that states it didn't exist". Just because you and the IP feel it is wrong (RTA/RMS state otherwise) doesn't mean it should be deleted. Bidgee (talk) 23:29, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
- Why do you twist one's words? One's in support of retention not deleting. This here seems like an obvious mistake at the RTA database if the model wasn't in production yet in the year that RTA states (see talk) and if validity of the description is questioned in numerous other ways. If the actual model can't be recognized then just say in description and title that it's unknown. 90.190.114.172 07:39, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
- I didn't twist anyone's words, see what GTHO has stated which is "I'd be happy to support the retention of this image provided that the following issues are addressed in the title and description". RTA's database is unlikely to have mistakes since the information it has is from the build plate located on the car and I've been the only person to cite a reliable source. Why do I feel that you are stalking me (like the other IP whom nominated the two photos). Bidgee (talk) 08:07, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
- Kind of stalking, yes, sorry, no offence. Just checking if you tend to ignore the arguments in other discussions too and arrogantly deny to discuss things as you did with flora categories. (Not that this is an argument regarding this image here or anything.) Would be nice indeed if they provided some sources for what they are telling and yet if at least two persons question the validity of this image's description I'd at least consider that RTA might be wrong. 90.190.114.172 09:16, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
- I didn't twist anyone's words, see what GTHO has stated which is "I'd be happy to support the retention of this image provided that the following issues are addressed in the title and description". RTA's database is unlikely to have mistakes since the information it has is from the build plate located on the car and I've been the only person to cite a reliable source. Why do I feel that you are stalking me (like the other IP whom nominated the two photos). Bidgee (talk) 08:07, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
- Why do you twist one's words? One's in support of retention not deleting. This here seems like an obvious mistake at the RTA database if the model wasn't in production yet in the year that RTA states (see talk) and if validity of the description is questioned in numerous other ways. If the actual model can't be recognized then just say in description and title that it's unknown. 90.190.114.172 07:39, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
Kept, replaced {{Delete}} with {{Fact disputed}}. 90.190.114.172 09:32, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
The linked source of the file, http://www.flickr.com/photos/jimmyack205/3665336844/, is marked as copyrighted and all rights reserved. I realize there is a verification of the license by a bot, but I'm not sure how reliable this is. Requesting review to see if this file should be deleted. Grondemar (talk) 04:03, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
- Keep, free licenses cannot be revoked. Prof. Professorson (talk) 21:26, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
- Keep per above. VolodyA! V Anarhist (converse) 04:36, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
Kept: CC licenses can not be revoked, FlickreviewR bot verified free license Captain-tucker (talk) 10:15, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
Appears to have been copied from http://www.pro-gospel.org/about-us/evangelists/124-mike-gendron . The uploader does claim to have the copyright and to have released it, but the low resolution uploaded and its appearance on the web copyrighted to an organization makes this seem doubtful. --Novaseminary (talk) 04:33, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
- Delete, per nom. Prof. Professorson (talk) 21:27, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio Captain-tucker (talk) 11:15, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
Unused personal image of bad quality Funfood ␌ 08:05, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
- Delete, along with File:First attempts 006.jpg. Prof. Professorson (talk) 21:33, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 06:36, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
no worth, probably test upload Kürschner (talk) 11:47, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
- Delete, out of scope. Prof. Professorson (talk) 00:07, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 06:37, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
Personal image, used in a self-promotioning article on zh.wp Morning Sunshine (talk) 12:08, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. It appears it's been removed from zh-wp now. -Pete F (talk) 23:11, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 06:38, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
Personal image, used in a self-promotioning article on zh.wp Morning Sunshine (talk) 12:09, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. It appears it's been removed from zh-wp now. -Pete F (talk) 23:11, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 06:38, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
This looks like a professional studio photo. jonkerz♠ 12:17, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio see: http://wallpapers.oneindia.in/v/album01/album18/Movies/pralyarudrudu/Pralyarudrudu11.JPG.html Captain-tucker (talk) 12:01, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
Incorrect (H missing); correct alternatives available in Category:Biurets. Leyo 13:48, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
- Delete It is a misleading chemical structure and there are correct alternatives. Ed (Edgar181) 15:12, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
- Delete As an author of the picture I can only agree - indeed the H atom is missing and there are correct svg pictures :-) Polimerek (talk) 21:45, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. George Chernilevsky talk 06:39, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
Obviously copyrighted work Rondador (talk) 13:55, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
- Speedy delete, quite obvious indeed. Prof. Professorson (talk) 00:12, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio Captain-tucker (talk) 12:02, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
This image might be unfree. Top left seems to be Firefox (which is not CC-BY-SA but still free). I'm not sure whether the other programs are free programs or not. Stefan4 (talk) 14:42, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
- Delete, also out of scope given it's size (one can barely see anything) and lack of description or categories. Prof. Professorson (talk) 00:17, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope and copyvio George Chernilevsky talk 06:40, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
Install shield progress bar screenshot, out of scope Funfood ␌ 15:56, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
- Also probably non-free (screenshot of proprietary software) and doesn't even illustrate what the description says it does (a file upload). -- Perey (talk) 04:54, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio Captain-tucker (talk) 12:04, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
Install shield screenshot, out of scope Funfood ␌ 15:57, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio Captain-tucker (talk) 12:04, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
was uploaded to commit vandalism in ru.wiki Andrei Romanenko (talk) 19:40, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 06:42, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
out of scope, personality rights Ezarateesteban 20:54, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 06:45, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
looks like personal request from uploader AtelierMonpli (talk) 21:48, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
plus
- File:Surya_Chitturi_2.jpg [://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Surya_Chitturi_2.jpg&action=history same] --Saibo (Δ) 22:01, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
Delete if he wants to delete them... seem to be personal images (portraits of the uploader - compare the file names and the uploader name) with no use. --Saibo (Δ) 22:01, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Per nom. Also out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 06:48, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
Out of scope, including description Funfood ␌ 19:17, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 21:44, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
Out of scope, including description Funfood ␌ 19:17, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 21:44, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
definitely not a free image; it comes from Getty Images: http://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/gabe-pruitt-of-the-orlando-magic-poses-for-a-portrait-news-photo/135711549 Zagalejo (talk) 20:50, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Deleted by Herbythyme Captain-tucker (talk) 21:26, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
Epstein died in 1959 so not PD. And there is no fop in France. Kyro (talk) 07:23, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
- Delete, per nom. Prof. Professorson (talk) 21:30, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Per nom Lymantria (talk) 11:02, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
ce n'est pas le blason de la famille de Saint-Souplix 88.162.229.25 07:51, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
- Keep, in use. Prof. Professorson (talk) 21:31, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
Kept: In use. Any dispute should be taken up at the talk page of the article that uses this file, or on the talk page of the file itself (using the {{Disputed coat of arms}} template). Skeezix1000 (talk) 21:18, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
Useless for lack of description. Ices2Csharp (talk) 08:08, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: The image was uploaded in 2008, and has been categorized as unidentified since 2009 - the likelihood that this image will be identified at this point is slim. Given that it is an image of an unidentified church in an unidentified location, it is not realistically useful for an educational purpose, so out of scope. Skeezix1000 (talk) 21:24, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
This is a signature by Dae-Sung. And this is a fair-use photo. This file is copyrighted and not published under a free license, and the uploader Znppo asserts that the usage of this file is fair use, but fair use claims are not permitted on Commons. Therefore, please delete this file. I am sorry about uploading this file. --Znppo (talk) 08:19, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: As per nom and COM:SIG. Skeezix1000 (talk) 21:27, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
Bad name: Kipper.JPG already exists (and there is a Kipper.jpg on EN). I reuploaded as Red herring.jpg. GRuban (talk) 14:31, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: already deleted. Rosenzweig τ 20:34, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
El contenido para el cual fue subido, ha sido borrado por el colectivo de wikipedia. El dueño de la fotografia desea retirarla Dittoduarte (talk) 22:31, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
El contenido para el cual fue subido, ha sido borrado por el colectivo de wikipedia. El dueño de la fotografia desea retirarla Dittoduarte (talk) 13:51, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted as requested by the uploader and as this seems to be out of COM:SCOPE. The associated article was deleted at es-wp as being promotional. At the time of deletion it was unused. --AFBorchert (talk) 13:12, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
No own work, like the other 2 uploads of user, pics found on the web. (but this pic could't be found with author/license infos like the other 2) Funfood ␌ 22:26, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
- http://www.tineye.com/search/14e556fd2565da3fe87f409e6b21af1e28fb58a0/?sort=size&order=desc gives 2 hits. --Túrelio (talk) 19:25, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
- here in higher resolution than our version. --Túrelio (talk) 19:27, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: copyright violation Polarlys (talk) 12:25, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
The file description page says "Blacklisted user; images from that user's pages must not be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons." This implies that the image doesn't belong on Commons. There is no licence template either. Stefan4 (talk) 14:07, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
- Delete, no source, no license. Prof. Professorson (talk) 00:15, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: missing essential information, COM:L Saibo (Δ) 02:17, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
and other uploads by Drniteshkr (talk · contribs). Unlikely to be own work: small/inconsistent resolutions, missing EXIF. EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:37, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio Darwin Ahoy! 02:37, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
Veraltet und nicht benutzt Barbian (talk) 13:16, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
- Keep No rason for deletion. -- Herby (Vienna) (talk) 21:26, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
- Keep dito ... and will be used soon for the list of cultural heritage monuments in Saarbrücken --anro (talk) 18:56, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
Excluded from the Creative Commons is: all logos on this website (including Blender logo, Apricot logo, Yo Frankie! logo, Creative Commons logo) and associated trademarks. -- Common Good (talk) 15:52, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. -Pete F (talk) 23:14, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. --Sreejith K (talk) 05:49, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. MBisanz talk 14:33, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
File:'Composition',_oil_painting_on_wood_panel_by_Alexander_Rodchenko,_1918,_Art_Gallery_of_New_South_Wales.JPG
[edit]
A painting does not belong to "sculptures and works of artistic craftsmanship" mentioned on the FOP Australia template Teofilo (talk) 15:56, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Russian painter, died 1956. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 23:51, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. MBisanz talk 14:34, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
Picture of sculpture taken in Paris. Please delete per COM:FOP#France Teofilo (talk) 16:04, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. MBisanz talk 14:34, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
A painting does not belong to the "sculptures and works of artistic craftsmanship" mentioned on the FOP Australia template Teofilo (talk) 16:05, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. MBisanz talk 14:34, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
COM:FOP#Saudi Arabia. 84.61.131.15 16:23, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. MBisanz talk 14:34, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
and other photoss by LP Superfan (talk · contribs). Unlikely to be own work: small/inconsistent resolutions, missing EXIF. EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:24, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. MBisanz talk 14:34, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
Created by C-SPAN which is not actually a US federal institution at all, but a private non-for-profit, and therefore does not fall under PD-US. Bobamnertiopsis (talk) 20:35, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Blatant copyright violation. As nominator noted, C-SPAN is not owned by the US government, and the license posted here is inaccurate. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:07, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. MBisanz talk 14:36, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
Limited to non-commercial usage only? Stefan4 (talk) 21:23, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. MBisanz talk 14:36, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
Limited to non-commercial usage only? Stefan4 (talk) 21:24, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. MBisanz talk 14:36, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
Work of the Navy of Peru. Kramer Associates (talk) 21:25, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
- Delete - own work, but an unused duplicate of File:Cuadro de nubes.jpg, which is a bit huge; see DR of that file, which was kept. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 23:32, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. MBisanz talk 14:36, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
Wrong Typing 124.49.231.130 21:25, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. MBisanz talk 14:36, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
Modern sculptures in Khabarovsk
[edit]
- File:Винни-Пух_Хабаровск_1.JPG
- File:Винни-Пух Хабаровск 1.JPG
- File:Винни-Пух Хабаровск.JPG
- File:Шапокляк Хабаровск.JPG
- File:Крокодил Гена Хабаровск.JPG
- File:Каникулы в Простоквашино Хабаровск.JPG
- File:Ну погоди Хабаровск.JPG
- File:Нижний пруд 1 Хабаровск.JPG
Per COM:FOP#Russia Teofilo (talk) 15:17, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
- The last one is pretty spooky, reminds me of en:Childhood's End ... all others are derivatives of animated characters ... delete, bad bad bad sculpture. NVO (talk) 02:56, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
Может хватит ерундой заниматься? Эти скульптуры установлены в публичном месте по решению администрации Хабаровского края и на них распространяется свобода панорамы. Заботитесь об авторских правах? а на авторские права никто не покушается, автор уже получил своё (в смысле деньги) и весьма доволен. Возле этих скульптур фотографировались бессчисленное количество раз родители с детьми и все кому не лень, не спрашивая разрешения у Teofilo и прочих.
Юзер НВО, а вы что, исскуствовед? комментируете "bad bad bad sculpture"? Это не ваше дело, хорошая скульптура или плохая. Жители моего города этими скульптурами довольны. Прошу больше подобных высказываний не допускать. И пусть вам дети, отдыхающие на берегу пруда не напоминают утопию Артура Кларка. Кстати, чем фотография богадельни, сделанная вами, помешала анониму?--Andshel (talk) 07:47, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
- The above is translated by Google as It may be enough to engage in this nonsense? These sculptures are installed in a public place to address the Khabarovsk Krai Administration and are covered by freedom of panorama. Care about copyright? and that the copyright no one attempts, the author has already received his (meaning money), and very pleased. Beside these sculptors Next to these sculptures were photographed besschislennoe times parents and children and all and sundry, without asking permission from Teofilo and others. / . User NVO, what do you, isskustvoved? comment on the "bad bad bad sculpture"? This is not your thing, good or bad sculpture. This is not your thing, good or bad sculpture. Residents of my city, these sculptures are happy. Please more of these statements do not allow. And let your children, tourists on the shore of the pond does not look like a utopia by Arthur C. Clarke. By the way, what the photographer By the way, than a photo almshouses, made by you, the anonymous prevented?
- Dear Andshel, some time ago I made a number of travels between Japan and Europe using Aeroflot and the plane was often making a stopover in Khabarovsk for refuelling. So I visited Khabarovsk's airport a number of times, and have always been curious to know more about the city. Therefore I am glad to be able to look at your pictures. However, there is a rule on Wikimedia Commons concerning modern sculptures. The same rule that applies to Russia applies also to the sculptures from my country, France. For example Commons:Deletion requests/File:Vaubau par Pierre Duc.jpg. Teofilo (talk) 13:19, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
Уважаемый Теофило, у французского писателя Антуана де Сент-Экзютери есть такие слова:
- - Если я прикажу какому - нибудь генералу порхать бабочкой с цветка на цветок, или сочинить трагедию, или обернуться морской чайкой и генерал не выполнит приказа, кто будет в этом виноват - он или я?
- - Вы, ваше величество, - ни минуты не колеблясь, ответил маленький принц.
- - Совершенно верно, - подтвердил король. - С каждого надо спрашивать то, что он может дать. Власть прежде всего должна быть разумной. Если ты повелишь своему народу броситься в море, он устроит революцию. Я имею право требовать послушания, потому что веления мои разумны."
Власть прежде всего должна быть разумной. Придумали "игру" с дурацкими правилами якобы в "свободу", защищаете "якобы авторские права" тех, кто об этом вас не просит. Парадокс весь в том, что нарушений никаких нет. Если кто-то начнет ломать скульптуру - просто подойдет полицейский и молча протянет резиновой дубинкой по хребту. Это и есть самая лучшая защита. Если кто-то скажет что он скульптор - над ним все будут глупо смеяться. Оттого что сфотографировали эту скульптуру и опубликовали - никому хуже не стало, автору тем более. Для этого он её и делал (её уже тысячу раз сфотографировали). И он не просил вас о его защите. Вам не кажется, что идиотские правила надо менять? Хуже вы делаете только людям, которые читают Википедию. Для людей надо работать, вы же работаете сами на себя. Не пытались ли вы лично попробовать изменить идиотские абсурдные правила? Красивое животное на фотографии, не так ли? Особенно та вещь, которая на глаза ему надета. Может снимете шоры (Blinders)? Кстати, может вы обясните, зачем на этой фотографии шаблон об удалении висит? Вам хочется показать свою активность? Про Мавзолей Ленина вы забыли. Тоже вроде как под ваши идиотские правила попадает. Теофило, а не могли бы вы в следующий раз просто не обращать внимания? Есть такая поговорка: "Если очень хочется - то можно". Слышали такую? Увидите картинку красивую - оставьте ее в покое, пусть люди удовольствие от просмотра получают. Или "правила" попытайтесь изменить, развели театр абсурда, смешно смотреть. Святее папы Римского. Так трудитесь, будто вам деньги за это платят. Вы же все прекрасно понимаете, что мои фотографии 100 лет провисят и "автору скульптуры" на это наплевать, никаких претензий ни к кому он не предъявит. Зачем нос суете? Жалко мне вас. --Andshel (talk) 15:53, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
- Грузите на фликер, незачем здесь флудить. На википедию чебурашку не пущают, решили здесь пристроить? А вот не пристраивается. NVO (talk) 18:37, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
- Delete These are very good images, and it would be nice when they go public domain in umpteen years. However, arguments like "nobody will care" and "it's better to ignore copyright" aren't valid in deletion debates. VolodyA! V Anarhist (converse) 04:46, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
- Да уж... Главный аргумент - имидж очень хорош, им могут воспользоваться. Ну и пусть себе пользуются. Без меня сфотографировали скульптуру много раз, вас забыли спросить. Такое впечатление, что в дурдоме находишься. Володя-Анархист! А ваш Карбышев кому помешал? Тоже имидж слишком хорош? Свободы панорамы, значит в России нет. А этого почему не удаляют? Аппарат "Samsung S1065" разрешение "2,304 × 3,072 pixels, file size: 2.71 MB" неплохое выдает, да и автор этой скульптуры вроде бы как еще не умер (70 лет, во всяком случае не прошло). А этот обгаженый забор значит, "This is a PD-young file" . Разрешения у "автора графитти" надо спросить перед публикацией. Или 70 лет ждать после того как он помрет. Автор стакан водяры на радостях засосал, что потом на заборе написал - не помнит. Ой, мля, наперебой друг перед другом выделываетесь, авторы и правозащитники.--Andshel (talk) 23:40, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
- To those who do not know Russian, most of the post above is about a personal attack on me and the fact that i have made mistakes with my uploads in the past as well. VolodyA! V Anarhist (converse) 01:26, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
- Володя-Анархист, интересно, о какой ошибке вы пишете: о загрузке фотографии бюста Героя Советского Союза или о загрузке фотографии загаженного забора, которую вы назвали "графитти"? Обычно автору графитти в морду дают, а не прогибаются перед ним, "This is a PD-young file". Или автор Бюста Свердлова у вас защиты попросил? Так я не понял, есть свобода панорамы в России или нет её?--Andshel (talk) 03:25, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
- I am going to clear up misconceptions. 1) There is no FOP in Russia, i would like it to exist, and i'd gladly join a campaign to bring such an exception to the copyright in Russia, i think that would move the world closer to the freedom of speech, and it's very needed in this country and in the world as the whole. 2) I have made mistakes in the past (the monument upload), and i have uploaded images which i should not have, it's unfortunate, and i will not upload such images again, i may upload them to English or Russian wikipedia under the fair use rationale, however. The fact that i made such a mistake is in no way a justification for continuing to do that. 3) Anonymous graffiti has been voted on Commons to be acceptable; however, if the author does step forward, they are normally treated as copyright violation and deleted. 4) PD-young issue is pertaining to my copyright of the photo, not to the things that the photo contain. For example the photo of the graffiti would be copyrighted by me, regardless of the copyright of the graffiti itself. This means that if the author steps forward, they wouldn't be able to use my photo under a licence which is incompatible with what i have releaced it under. PD-young refers to my desire to terminate the copyright earlier than normal, but not quite right away. 5) The fact that there are violent people who may assault somebody for making a graffiti is irrelevant to the copyright. VolodyA! V Anarhist (converse) 04:17, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
- Володя-Анархист! Пишите по русски, что уж там... Вы оправдываетесь, а может лучше изменить всю эту дурь, по другому не назовешь. На "авторские права" этого зайчика никто не претендует. Автор кем был, тем и останется. Деньги за работу он давно получил (и пропил, или как там). А скульптура перешла в собственность государства. Кстати, стоит она тоже с разрешения государства, попробуйте сами поставить от себя что-нибудь (или домой унести, даже если вы и "автор"). Вы же прекрасно понимаете, что "автор" этого уродливого Свердлова ни копейки больше не получит (а стоит Свердлов с 1960-х, не так ли?). И если кому-то надо сфотографировать Свердлова - то никто ни у кого "разрешения" спрашивать не будет никогда, только эти с викисклада базар непонятно о чем устроили, цену себе набивают. Цена-то этим фотографиям 3 копейки в базарный день. Ну так и делайте все, чтобы "правила" изменить, будет людям только лучше. Или люди скажут спасибо за удаление вашего Карбышева? Шизофрения групповая, по другому не скажешь.--Andshel (talk) 07:58, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
- en|So go and change the rules, rather than just talking about it on here. ru|Ну и пойдите измените правила, а не просто говорите об этом тут. VolodyA! V Anarhist (converse) 11:13, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
- Володя-Анархист! Пишите по русски, что уж там... Вы оправдываетесь, а может лучше изменить всю эту дурь, по другому не назовешь. На "авторские права" этого зайчика никто не претендует. Автор кем был, тем и останется. Деньги за работу он давно получил (и пропил, или как там). А скульптура перешла в собственность государства. Кстати, стоит она тоже с разрешения государства, попробуйте сами поставить от себя что-нибудь (или домой унести, даже если вы и "автор"). Вы же прекрасно понимаете, что "автор" этого уродливого Свердлова ни копейки больше не получит (а стоит Свердлов с 1960-х, не так ли?). И если кому-то надо сфотографировать Свердлова - то никто ни у кого "разрешения" спрашивать не будет никогда, только эти с викисклада базар непонятно о чем устроили, цену себе набивают. Цена-то этим фотографиям 3 копейки в базарный день. Ну так и делайте все, чтобы "правила" изменить, будет людям только лучше. Или люди скажут спасибо за удаление вашего Карбышева? Шизофрения групповая, по другому не скажешь.--Andshel (talk) 07:58, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
- I am going to clear up misconceptions. 1) There is no FOP in Russia, i would like it to exist, and i'd gladly join a campaign to bring such an exception to the copyright in Russia, i think that would move the world closer to the freedom of speech, and it's very needed in this country and in the world as the whole. 2) I have made mistakes in the past (the monument upload), and i have uploaded images which i should not have, it's unfortunate, and i will not upload such images again, i may upload them to English or Russian wikipedia under the fair use rationale, however. The fact that i made such a mistake is in no way a justification for continuing to do that. 3) Anonymous graffiti has been voted on Commons to be acceptable; however, if the author does step forward, they are normally treated as copyright violation and deleted. 4) PD-young issue is pertaining to my copyright of the photo, not to the things that the photo contain. For example the photo of the graffiti would be copyrighted by me, regardless of the copyright of the graffiti itself. This means that if the author steps forward, they wouldn't be able to use my photo under a licence which is incompatible with what i have releaced it under. PD-young refers to my desire to terminate the copyright earlier than normal, but not quite right away. 5) The fact that there are violent people who may assault somebody for making a graffiti is irrelevant to the copyright. VolodyA! V Anarhist (converse) 04:17, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
- Володя-Анархист, интересно, о какой ошибке вы пишете: о загрузке фотографии бюста Героя Советского Союза или о загрузке фотографии загаженного забора, которую вы назвали "графитти"? Обычно автору графитти в морду дают, а не прогибаются перед ним, "This is a PD-young file". Или автор Бюста Свердлова у вас защиты попросил? Так я не понял, есть свобода панорамы в России или нет её?--Andshel (talk) 03:25, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
- To those who do not know Russian, most of the post above is about a personal attack on me and the fact that i have made mistakes with my uploads in the past as well. VolodyA! V Anarhist (converse) 01:26, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
- Да уж... Главный аргумент - имидж очень хорош, им могут воспользоваться. Ну и пусть себе пользуются. Без меня сфотографировали скульптуру много раз, вас забыли спросить. Такое впечатление, что в дурдоме находишься. Володя-Анархист! А ваш Карбышев кому помешал? Тоже имидж слишком хорош? Свободы панорамы, значит в России нет. А этого почему не удаляют? Аппарат "Samsung S1065" разрешение "2,304 × 3,072 pixels, file size: 2.71 MB" неплохое выдает, да и автор этой скульптуры вроде бы как еще не умер (70 лет, во всяком случае не прошло). А этот обгаженый забор значит, "This is a PD-young file" . Разрешения у "автора графитти" надо спросить перед публикацией. Или 70 лет ждать после того как он помрет. Автор стакан водяры на радостях засосал, что потом на заборе написал - не помнит. Ой, мля, наперебой друг перед другом выделываетесь, авторы и правозащитники.--Andshel (talk) 23:40, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 00:14, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
There is FOP in Russia now. Can we restore the images? Infovarius (talk) 21:23, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
- No. The new Russian FOP is limited to architecture. See Commons:Freedom_of_panorama#Russia. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:32, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
DW of the text which is apprently not by the photographer (if I decipher the signature correctly). And anyway: not really in scope. Saibo (Δ) 20:20, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
![20:20, 14 December 2011 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2011/12/14#c-Saibo-2011-12-14T20:20:00.000Z-File:"Project_Shed_"_on_the_Sugar_Tongue_-_geograph.org.uk_-_127226.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted. Nilfanion (talk) 11:03, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
![11:03, 2 March 2012 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2011/12/14#c-Nilfanion-2012-03-02T11:03:00.000Z-File:"Project_Shed_"_on_the_Sugar_Tongue_-_geograph.org.uk_-_127226.jpg){kind=link}
Out of project scope. Private drawing George Chernilevsky talk 19:18, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
- Keep as good illustration of the subject. VolodyA! V Anarhist (converse) 05:01, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
- Strong Delete. We had this discussion about those crap private pictures already. --Yikrazuul (talk) 17:59, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
- Delete - private artwork is almost always out of scope. --Claritas (talk) 22:42, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
- And since everything can be considered an art work we should just delete everything that looks artistic. VolodyA! V Anarhist (converse) 01:46, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
Comment - are the drawings File:Defecation img 1907.svg, File:Defecation img 1907.jpg, File:Defecation img 1908.jpg,File:Squatting defecation.jpg less private? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 23:20, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
- I would say those four drawings are educationally usable, to illustrate different toilet designs. This one however is pointless.
- Hence, Delete. --JN466 23:40, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
- Keep, great piece of artwork, good depiction of the subject matter. -- Cirt (talk) 23:31, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
- Delete. Out of scope; no conceivable educational use. Kgorman-ucb (talk) 01:45, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: I disagree that private artwork is always out of scope, but it is almost always out of scope. This is not a great work of art, and I don't see it as being useful or educationally valuable. -mattbuck (Talk) 04:15, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
Out of project scope. Private art without EV George Chernilevsky talk 19:19, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
- Keep In scope, the fact that it's art doesn't mean it does not illustrate the act. VolodyA! V Anarhist (converse) 05:02, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
- Strong Delete. We had this discussion about those crap private pictures already. --Yikrazuul (talk) 17:59, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
- Delete - no educational value. --Claritas (talk) 23:15, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
- Comment - why not make DRs on File:Defecation img 1907.svg, File:Defecation img 1907.jpg, File:Defecation img 1908.jpg,File:Squatting defecation.jpg? Because they were made by an admin? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 23:18, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
- Keep, nice artistic work. -- Cirt (talk) 23:30, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: I simply fail to see any educational value to this. We generally delete user artwork, and I see no reason why this one should stay. -mattbuck (Talk) 04:13, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
As I said during the discussion on enwiki re: whether this counted as free -- all that "damage" to the cover is actually trompe-l'oeil art, which therefore passes the threshold of originality. This image should not have been transferred to Commons in the first place. DS (talk) 17:02, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
- Delete per the nominator. If the "damage" is actually part of the cover's design, then it does pass the threshold of originality and cannot be considered a public domain work. However, if it is the original uploader's original work, then it should be kept. I'm assuming that the license is a mistake. Logan Talk Contributions 00:06, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
- Delete - per nom and Logan. --Ceradon (talk) 00:08, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Trompe-l'oeil damages are not PD. Publication in 2006 so the author of the cover isn't dead for 70 years. PierreSelim (talk) 00:09, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
Out of project scope. Private drawing without EV George Chernilevsky talk 19:20, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
- Keep - sound advice. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 23:36, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
- Keep . Veracious (talk) 10:40, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
- Strong Delete. We had this discussion about those crap private pictures already. --Yikrazuul (talk) 17:58, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
- Images like File:Defecation img 1907.svg, File:Defecation img 1907.jpg, File:Defecation img 1908.jpg,File:Squatting defecation.jpg you mean? When were they discussed? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:03, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
- per Yikrazuul, Strong Delete. This is at least the third time that user:Toilet uploads those images. Out-of-scope. For the new images, he/she improved his drawing skills, but still private works of art. --Herzi Pinki (talk) 18:44, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Should be within the project scope. But the permission of "Peter van der Sluijs" is missing. There is no evidence provided that the user:toilet is "Peter van der Sluijs" Incorrect reason inserted: The image is out of scope. The keep voters unfortunately did not bring up arguments for it. --High Contrast (talk) 23:27, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
File:'Still_Life',_oil_on_canvas_painting_by_Giorgio_Morandi,_1957,_Art_Gallery_of_New_South_Wales.JPG
[edit]
Painting does not belong to "sculptures and works of artistic craftsmanship" mentioned on the FOP Australia template Teofilo (talk) 15:44, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Painting does not qualify under FOP Bastique ☎ appelez-moi! 06:04, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
Giorgio Morandi died in 1964 Teofilo (talk) 15:39, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
- Info, in case....http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Teofilo&diff=63873223&oldid=63830052 --Gary Dee (talk) 21:31, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
- I added a deletion request template on File:Giorgio Morani.jpg too. Teofilo (talk) 21:35, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
- BTW, thx. --Gary Dee (talk) 20:24, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
- I added a deletion request template on File:Giorgio Morani.jpg too. Teofilo (talk) 21:35, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Not out of copyright Bastique ☎ appelez-moi! 06:05, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
I don't dispute that the arms is out of copyrighty being from 1906, but under COM:COA each rendition has their own copyright attached to it. In this case, it belongs to the Mauritius Embassy in Germany. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 05:58, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. A.Savin 19:35, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
erreur sur l'inti Toutaitanous 2 (talk) 08:49, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
- Delete. The reason given in the nomination is normally not a reason for deletion. But the deletion request is made by the author for a recent upload, so his wish should be respected, whatever his reasons are. -- Asclepias (talk) 22:59, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. A.Savin 19:38, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
I don't think this is own work of the uploader. Although it has high resolution, there is also another image which is the same size with this image so it requires permission Morning Sunshine (talk) 08:51, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
hello, maybe you mean the image on pressezone.at This is the press agency of benjamin parth. the images there are for everyone to use and the full copyrights are on benjamin parth. and yes, the image is not the work of the uploader(me). i am the web agency an make the online work. so i wrote on the description, creator: Benjamin Parth. Benjamin Parth have the full copyright.
Deleted. A.Savin 19:38, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
The are no sufficient grounds for PD-tag. We don't know when the photo was published (somewhere between 1940 and 1957 - when Yakovlev received his second Hero star). There is no proof that it was first published on the territory of Ukraine and so on. Blacklake (talk) 08:54, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. A.Savin 19:39, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
Although I can't track down the original, given its size along with the style of image I suspect this image to be a copyvio. Fred the Oyster (talk) 11:24, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. A.Savin 19:40, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
Modern sculpture in Italy : COM:FOP#Italy Teofilo (talk) 16:30, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. A.Savin 19:41, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
Modern sculpture in Italy : COM:FOP#Italy Teofilo (talk) 16:30, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. A.Savin 19:41, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
No obvious permission from painter. Probably same problem as Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Karel Kafka.jpg Teofilo (talk) 17:13, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. A.Savin 19:43, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
No permission from sculptor (born in 1945) for a public domain release Teofilo (talk) 17:24, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. A.Savin 19:43, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Out of project scope - personal artwork. Claritas (talk) 20:19, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
-2011-12-14T20:19:00.000Z-File:Boustil-burning_desir(afrika).jpg){kind=link}
Deleted. A.Savin 19:45, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
out of scope and personality rights, no public place, we need permissions Ezarateesteban 20:47, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. A.Savin 19:45, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
Copyvio tag reverted by User:Liftarn with "Looks like a false positive". I can´t follow this. Mark was: "copyvio http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=1111093 (04.2010)" (jump to "Praça 5 de Outubro"). Gunnex (talk) 21:16, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, but what came first? // Liftarn (talk)
- User "Barragon", 15.04.2010 http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=1111093 = .jpg (last modified: 15.04.2010, exif: 2010-04-11) vs. User:Joaogalvao89, 10.10.2010 (exif identical).Gunnex (talk) 22:02, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Denniss (talk) 21:57, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
misfiled Dogbrain (talk) 21:59, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. A.Savin 19:47, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
DW of the posters - Only hide (revision delete) the old version - I made a crop already (of which I think that the artwork is DM. Saibo (Δ) 23:54, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
I shot this photograph at a public event, it is newsworthy and not used for commercial purposes. This is one of the last known and/or available photographs of Will Eisner. Now that the Disney poster has been cropped out, I suggest we keep it as is. Pattymooney (talk) 00:00, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
- All images at Commons need to be usable for commercial purposes (COM:L). Is the photo somehow restricted to non-commercial use?
- Yes, as you can read in my comment above I only proposed to delete the old version with the posters. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 00:11, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Kept: Rev hidden Denniss (talk) 00:50, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
Only hide (revision delete) the old version - I made a crop already (of which I think that the artwork could be regarded as DM (if the uploader wants to take this risk...).
DW of the art in the background. Also see: "I think it should probably be removed as soon as you can, and you should probably take it to deletion requests" (Maedin 07:36, 24 May 2009 (UTC)) And comments at Commons:Quality_images_candidates/Archives_May_2009. Saibo (Δ) 23:55, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
Kept: Revision hidden Denniss (talk) 00:47, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
Far too dark, OB by other examples in Category:Jewish Town Hall (Prague) Chesdovi (talk) 14:58, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
- Keep We don't have another picture of this detail in such a high resolution. -- Herby (Vienna) (talk) 21:32, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
Kept. Non-admin closure. Better version uploaded. -- Herby (Vienna) (talk) 19:50, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
I changed the layout of this closure to match our usual standards using {{Delh}} and {{Delf}}, regards --PierreSelim (talk) 10:10, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
I don't think this is own work of the uploader. Although it has high resolution and proper EXIF data, there is also another image which is the same size with this image so it requires permission Morning Sunshine (talk) 08:47, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
hello, maybe you mean the image on pressezone.at This is the press agency of benjamin parth. the images there are for everyone to use and the full copyrights are on benjamin parth. and yes, the image is not the work of the uploader(me). i am the web agency an make the online work. so i wrote on the description, creator: Benjamin Parth. Benjamin Parth have the full copyright.
Deleted: No proof of free license. Sreejith K (talk) 07:01, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
No freedom of panorama in France. Lymantria (talk) 15:36, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Per norm Sreejith K (talk) 07:02, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
Obvious composite uncredited. Unlikely to be a single person's work (closeup of a footballer + photo of papal regalia). No possible educational value. Jmabel ! talk 16:51, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
- I also note it is the sole contribution from this user, which makes it even less likely that the closeup of a footballer and photo of papal regalia are both this person's work. - Jmabel ! talk 16:53, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
Delete I delete the article linked to this image because it was a hoax plenty of silly comments. It´s pretty much obvious for me that this is a joke or something. Besides, picture says "Juan Pablo XVI" when there is only Juan Pablo II or Benedicto XVI. If this is really a footballplayer as description says, I think he could use better pictures than one tricked. --Andrea (talk) 08:27, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Unlikely in a free license. Sreejith K (talk) 07:04, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
After tagging with copyvio several images related to members of brazilian band pt:Forfun (difficult to find, some cropped from images of this large Flickr-account of band http://www.flickr.com/photos/forfunfotos/, as I could see: all CC BY-NC-SA 2.0), this is the "missing" one. The user, notorious for his copyvio-contribuitions related exclusively to this band, has lost IMHO all my good faith and it is highly presumable, that this file might be a copyvio too. Gunnex (talk) 18:36, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Likely Copyright violation. Sreejith K (talk) 07:06, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
Copyvio? The slightly similar en:File:RAN badge.png has various fair use statements. Stefan4 (talk) 14:49, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
- All the svg elements in the image are taken from free images here on commons such as File:BritishArmyFlag2.svg. That's the crown you may be concerned about. Also, take note of images together in this series such as File:Aus-Navy-OF6-shoulder.svg, File:Aus-Navy-OF7-shoulder.svg, File:Aus-Navy-OF8-shoulder.svg, File:Aus-Navy-OF10-shoulder.svg. Any verdict here should also influence these other images. Officer781 (talk) 14:53, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, I didn't see the source. The image looks fine. There is a licence issue: you use {{PD-self}} for your version, but the originals have {{Cc-by-sa-3.0}}. Your derivative work would have to be {{Cc-by-sa-3.0}} too in order to comply with licence requirements. That's what the "SA" part does. --Stefan4 (talk) 17:14, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
- Alright, changed the licenses for the relevant images. Sorry to overlook that one. --Officer781 (talk) 18:06, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, I didn't see the source. The image looks fine. There is a licence issue: you use {{PD-self}} for your version, but the originals have {{Cc-by-sa-3.0}}. Your derivative work would have to be {{Cc-by-sa-3.0}} too in order to comply with licence requirements. That's what the "SA" part does. --Stefan4 (talk) 17:14, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
- Keep Licensing issues are handled. I think this is all done. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 17:50, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
Kept: License fixed. Sreejith K (talk) 07:02, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
obviously from http://www.mpobooks.nl/pers.htm; "free for public use" does not mean "public domain". There is no permission distributed that is able to confirm the PD-licence High Contrast (talk) 16:01, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
Comment The uploader placed this statement on my talk page. I expect that he will send an OTRS-Email. Then this DR should be closed. --High Contrast (talk) 16:28, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
- Delete In 6 months no OTRS has been forthcoming. I think we've waited long enough for a file not being used. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 18:04, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: No OTRS permissions. Sreejith K (talk) 07:03, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
DW of the artwork on the wagon. Main subject - not DM. Saibo (Δ) 18:12, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
- Delete per COM:FOP#United States: no freedom of panorama for artworks. --Stefan4 (talk) 12:34, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
Just let me include three very similar cases in this DR:
Do not close this DR before 29 December 2011 - therefore.
And.. ehm.. if this is finished.. I think I need to put up a new mass DR of some files of Category:Floats of New Orleans Mardi Gras. :-( --Saibo (Δ) 16:32, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
- Keep Again I state that I have come across zero evidence to think that photographs of New Orleans Mardi Gras floats in parades is any violation of copyright. On the contrary, a wealth of examples of books, postcards, calendars, etc spanning from a century and a half ago to the present day show amply in practice that the copyright resides in the photographer photographing the parade, not some hypothetical copyright by float builders or parade sponsors. I challenge for a single counter example, for example any legal case challenging this. Some of the photographs of floats in New Orleans Mardi Gras parades come from the Library of Congress, for example: File:RexParade2006NewcombPotteryFloatHighsmith.jpg from LOC - "No known restrictions on publication." I accept the Library of Congress's judgement on the matter. -- Infrogmation (talk) 00:18, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for your comment! Technically the requirement of evidence is on your (the "keep" side) - however, of course I do not want to see some files deleted for nothing. [toys] are sometimes (not always) considered to be copyrighted. I cannot see exceptions like "folklore" not copyrighted in Commons:Licensing#United_States. And: the fact that others are using the pictures doesn't make them lawful for our intention of providing commercially usable media. Maybe some of the uses you cite are covered by fair use? And, no, I do not trust the LoC - they just give an assessment to their best knowledge (probably only regarding the photographer - not regarding the work shown). Maybe someone else (who is more knowledgeable about US copyright) can help a bit. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 01:15, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: No FOP in United States Sreejith K (talk) 07:06, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
Wiki Commons is not Wikipedia: this article should also be in English (I mean the title) 80.187.97.161 13:56, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
- translate it. Why I shall translate russian original name from museum to english, japanese and other languages I know poorly? Or lack of fluence in english is enough to delete galleries of images from international project? #!George Shuklin (talk) 15:08, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
- in any event, a request should be filed for renaming, not deletion! Vmenkov (talk) 15:38, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
- rename. VolodyA! V Anarhist (converse) 04:40, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
- Anybody who wants to translate it is free to rename it - but don' t delete those files !
Tonton Bernardo
- Keep Commons is a multilingual project Werieth (talk) 13:24, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
Kept, Thuresson (talk) 18:52, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
Copyvio tag reverted by User:Liftarn with "A blog entry is not a reason. Please explain.". Ok. I tried to explain it. Getting reverted by User:Pieter Kuiper via "reuse does not make this a copyvio; make a regular DR if you disagree". Somebody checked the indicated source "http://latuff2.deviantart.com/" ("©2011 deviantART. All rights reserved")? No related image. So, what I am supposed to do? {{subst:npd}} for a source which is apparently not the source? If so, please tag the image like that. Or do I have to browse the 100.000 files under this link to eventually find exactly the image reference for a copyvio tag? Come on. Last mark was: "copyvio (example) http://blog.jonolan.net/politics/a-surprising-source/?nggpage=9 (2009) or http://www.haksozhaber.net/devrimci-cizer-carlos-latuff-ile-konustuk-18819h.htm (01.2011, "Copyright ©2001 Haksöz Haber") or http://cpds.ps/eng/news-det-383.html (02.08.2011) or http://affendina.blogspot.com/2009/04/carlos-latuff.html (2009) or...", involving multiple, unknown copyright issues. Gunnex (talk) 23:15, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
- Comment the reference to copyright claims on http://www.haksozhaber.net/ etcetera does not explain anything, it certainly does not apply to this photo; that is why I removed the copyvio template, which is for obvious cases only. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 23:21, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
- Comment Latuff generally releases much of his work under Creative Commons, and the images so licensed generally have their own pages with the license clearly stated. I did not see this particular photo in a minute looking around the site; it would help if the uploader would link to the particular page where the photo originated rather than the front page of Latuff's site. I note that this photo is in use in multiple Wikimedia projects. I also note that the site has multiple other photos of Latuff with clearly stated Creative Commons licenses. I therefore suggest that if this image is to be deleted, one of the different free licensed photos of Latuff be substituted in Wikipedia pages first. -- Infrogmation (talk) 00:11, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
- Comment "I also note that the site has multiple other photos of Latuff with clearly stated Creative Commons licenses" (User:Infrogmation) --> I noticed this too. But these images are related to his own created art which were liberated via User:555/Latuff and/or several OTRS-tickets. "it would help if the uploader would link to the particular page" (User:Infrogmation) --> I informed the user about that issue. Gunnex (talk) 09:22, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
- Delete The provided source is not reliable enough to determine copyright. Werieth (talk) 13:29, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
- Deleted. Uploader is not trustworthy, eg. File:Vfudge.jpg, which is a 1970 photo by Michael Ochs. Thuresson (talk) 21:43, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted, Thuresson (talk) 21:43, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
These are disc covers. BrightRaven (talk) 13:09, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
- I had nominated this file for speedy deletion, but I have in the meanwhile received this message from the uploader :
- Bonjour¡ BrightRay: (il fait deja beaucoup que je ne écris pas en francais, escusez-moi)
- J'ai reÇue votre appel-mail, bien sûre. Je suis novice (recrue) au Wikipedie et alors peut être j'aurai fait quelque chose mauvaisement. Moi, je m'excuse sincèrement. La Romántica Banda Local etait l'agrupattion musicale dans celle-que j'avais chanté a ma jeunesse. Le collage en conflict, je l'avais fait moi même avec les covertures des cinq singles que nous avons publié dans une petite discographique (aujourd'hui disparue). De plus, des photos et les dessins sont'ils faits par moi et ma famille (il fait deja temps): mon père des photos et ma soeur les dessins. Elle est encore une grande peinte¡ Cependant je nes sais pas si les covertures ont de droits apres 30 années. Nous n'avons recue pas d'argent pour notres photos et dessins. Et c'est tout ce-que je peut vous dire. Salut¡
- He says he was a member of this band and he made the disc covers with members of his family. So, I do not know what we have to do in this case. BrightRaven (talk) 13:14, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
- Delete at a minimum it would require OTRS permission Werieth (talk) 13:23, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: No OTRS permission yet. Sreejith K (talk) 11:25, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Images by Spet1363
[edit]
Web-resolution images, unlikely own works. Harryroy.png is from a record cover and has an OTRS ticket, which imho does not provide a credible assertion of own work. Jafeluv (talk) 03:03, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Werieth (talk) 13:22, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted, Thuresson (talk) 18:32, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
To be kept on Commons, works must be PD in the USA and in "own country". I see no evidence that this painting is PD in Russia. Teofilo (talk) 15:54, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
- Wouldn't Template:PD-RusEmpire apply? --GRuban (talk) 16:13, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
I have no objection, if someone thinks Template:PD-RusEmpire is OK then it is OK. Teofilo (talk) 16:39, 14 December 2011 (UTC)- Template:PD-RusEmpire seems to merely say this work is not protected by copyright internationally. It sounds like that the work could not be protected in the USA by a US court. But that template leaves open the question whether the work is protected by copyright by the national copyright law of Russia and by Russian courts. At the bottom of Template:PD-RusEmpire there is a recommendation to use Template:PD-Russia-2008 instead. I think that at this point we have no evidence that any of the criteria of Template:PD-Russia-2008 apply. Teofilo (talk) 13:35, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
- Things can get messy with changing borders. At the time, the Russian Empire contained a number of other modern states. If published in the Empire, would it be considered "simultaneously published" in all those other countries today, since it was presumably published in those areas at the time? If so, then by the Berne Convention, the country among those with the shortest term would be the "country of origin", not necessarily modern-day Russia. Belarus, with its 50pma term, would probably be the one with the shortest term. Kind of a tough question. But if PD-RusEmpire is a valid template, it may apply. It was created in the wake of Russia's 2008 law by some folks who I think were pretty familiar with the legal situation there, so if it is a valid tag, not sure why it wouldn't apply. If you think it's not a valid tag at all, that is a separate DR. Unfortunately the two reference URLs explaining the legal situation no longer work. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:49, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
- I have updated the URLs to archived version. There were also relevant discussions in Commons:Village_pump/Archive/2010/08#Verifying_the_application_of_PD-RusEmpire and w:ru:Обсуждение шаблона:PD-RusEmpire (in Russian). The basic idea is that the modern Russian Federation is not the legal successor of the Russian Empire and does not recognize the rights which Russian Empire provided, including copyrights and physical property rights (the latter is important because there were many claims on property and none was ever upheld in Russian courts). --M5 (talk) 07:12, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
- The people born in St Petersburg before 1917 are considered as being Russian citizens, I guess. When Rodchenko died in Moscow 1956, he was a soviet citizen living in en:Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic. If we consider the French point of view, "droit d'auteur" is a right attached to the person of the creator, not to the physical ownership of the work. But let's have a look at the Russian civil code. Article 1256 of Russian civil code says "The exclusive right in works of science, literature, and art shall extend: (...) 2) to works made public outside the territory of the Russian Federation or not made public but existing in some objective form outside the territory of the Russian Federation and shall be recognized for authors who are citizens of the Russian Federation (or their legal successors); My understanding is that if an American artist published his work in Moscow in 1915, he can't receive protection for his work. But if the author is a Russian, it is OK. Teofilo (talk) 10:06, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
- Hm interesting. It does sound like the author would receive protection in Russia today (though it probably was in the PD at least for a couple years I think, and maybe a lot longer due to old USSR copyright rules). The main question though is what is the Berne country of origin, by its definition. In which modern-day Berne countries would it be considered published in 1915? It does get weird. None of the countries involved were Berne members at the time... though all are now. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:05, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
- I could not find any detailed legal analyses of the issue but there is an evidence that in Russia pre-1917 works are treated in practice as public domain: there are publishers which reprint pre-1917 books claiming they are "unencumbered by copyright" ("не обремененные авторским правом"): [3] [4]. Moreover, w:Russian State Library provides "copies of non-copyrighted printed works" ("копии произведений печати, не являющихся объектами авторского права") which it defines as "official and regulatory documents, and documents published before 1917" ("официальные и нормативные документы и документы, изданные до 1917 года"), see [5]. --M5 (talk) 07:34, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
- Hm interesting. It does sound like the author would receive protection in Russia today (though it probably was in the PD at least for a couple years I think, and maybe a lot longer due to old USSR copyright rules). The main question though is what is the Berne country of origin, by its definition. In which modern-day Berne countries would it be considered published in 1915? It does get weird. None of the countries involved were Berne members at the time... though all are now. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:05, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
- The people born in St Petersburg before 1917 are considered as being Russian citizens, I guess. When Rodchenko died in Moscow 1956, he was a soviet citizen living in en:Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic. If we consider the French point of view, "droit d'auteur" is a right attached to the person of the creator, not to the physical ownership of the work. But let's have a look at the Russian civil code. Article 1256 of Russian civil code says "The exclusive right in works of science, literature, and art shall extend: (...) 2) to works made public outside the territory of the Russian Federation or not made public but existing in some objective form outside the territory of the Russian Federation and shall be recognized for authors who are citizens of the Russian Federation (or their legal successors); My understanding is that if an American artist published his work in Moscow in 1915, he can't receive protection for his work. But if the author is a Russian, it is OK. Teofilo (talk) 10:06, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
- I have updated the URLs to archived version. There were also relevant discussions in Commons:Village_pump/Archive/2010/08#Verifying_the_application_of_PD-RusEmpire and w:ru:Обсуждение шаблона:PD-RusEmpire (in Russian). The basic idea is that the modern Russian Federation is not the legal successor of the Russian Empire and does not recognize the rights which Russian Empire provided, including copyrights and physical property rights (the latter is important because there were many claims on property and none was ever upheld in Russian courts). --M5 (talk) 07:12, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
- Things can get messy with changing borders. At the time, the Russian Empire contained a number of other modern states. If published in the Empire, would it be considered "simultaneously published" in all those other countries today, since it was presumably published in those areas at the time? If so, then by the Berne Convention, the country among those with the shortest term would be the "country of origin", not necessarily modern-day Russia. Belarus, with its 50pma term, would probably be the one with the shortest term. Kind of a tough question. But if PD-RusEmpire is a valid template, it may apply. It was created in the wake of Russia's 2008 law by some folks who I think were pretty familiar with the legal situation there, so if it is a valid tag, not sure why it wouldn't apply. If you think it's not a valid tag at all, that is a separate DR. Unfortunately the two reference URLs explaining the legal situation no longer work. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:49, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
- Keep, then. If they were public domain once, they should be public domain now, at least as far as we're concerned. I'm pretty sure, we, as a project, don't accept the idea that freely licensed status can be "taken away" - if it can be, then every single one of our images is at risk, and even the concept of "freely licensed" means nothing. --GRuban (talk) 04:22, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
- comment to closing admin: Should it end the way it goes now, please provide some guidance on deletion of other files tagged with PD-RusEmpire (a) when author is known and not dead enough yet (b) when the author is not known - like the sea of the old postcards. NVO (talk) 18:43, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
- Keep agree with GRuban Werieth (talk) 13:25, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
Kept, Thuresson (talk) 18:50, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
Doesn't seem like own work; seems out of scope too. Prof. Professorson (talk) 16:39, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
- Keep - as an educational illustration of the difference in ionization energies of lithium and helium atoms, this is much more in project scope than most other stuff; uploader seems to be experimenting with different sizes, may very well be own work. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 23:44, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
- File:Animasi karakteristik unsur berelektron banyak.JPG
- File:Kartun.JPG
Takabeg (talk) 13:40, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
- Comment Pretty clearly a scan. Looks like it came out of a textbook given the wear to the image, and the solid white section in the upper-right corner (as opposed to the grey in other blank areas of the image) would seem to be where text was erased. I dunno. I think there's something fishy going on. Also Delete the smaller resolution versions as unnecessary dupes. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 18:10, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted, Thuresson (talk) 18:58, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
конфликт Valdis72 (talk) 18:00, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
- Keep, does not sound like a valid reason for deletion--Ymblanter (talk) 18:19, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
- Ярослав, суть претензий к изображению — орисс, в нём совмещены данные двух разных переписей (русской 1897 года и австрийской 1910) и всё это наложено на современную карту Украины. При этом не очевидно, что 1) данные русской а австрийской переписей сопоставимы; 2) административные границы, в которых проводились эти переписи, за 100 лет не изменились. Суть проблемы изложена здесь. К сожалению, моего английского на столь сложное объяснение не хватает, не могли бы Вы перевести?--Uncle Fred 22:30, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
- The actual reason is that the image represents original research, since it combines the results of two censuses, 1897 in Russian Empire and 1910 in Austro-Hungarian Empire, and the results are superimposed on the modern map of Ukraine. It is not obvious that (i) the data of Russian and Austro-Hungarian censuses can be compared to each other; (ii) that the administrative borders where the censuses were not changed over 100 years. The problem was discusses here (in Russian). Translated at the request of the poster. --Ymblanter (talk) 08:10, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
- Насколько я вижу, на карту нанесены не современные области Украины, а губернии по состоянию на 1897 год. Существуют только два изменения по сравнению с 1897 годом: часть Черниговской губернии была отделена и передана России (это сейчас запад Брянской области); Западная Украина передана Украине. Оба они отражены на карте. Остаётся вопрос о сравнении русской и австрийской переписей, что, на мой взгляд, вполне может быть отражено в подписи. Что касается обсуждения, то оно, как это обычно бывает в русском разделе, слишком длинное и слишком малоосмысленное, чтобы в нём детально разбираться, но я вижу, что в нём тон задаёт сплочённая группа участников, одним из взглядов которой является то, что до 1918 года украинского языка не существовало, а украинцы (которых они называют малороссами) говорили по-русски. Поэтому меня не особенно удивляет, что именно эта группа намерена удалить изображение. Я не вижу проблем с картинкой. Хотя поляки её использовать- пусть используют. Не хотите использовать у себя - не используйте.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:23, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
- From what I see, the divisions on the map correspond to the governorates as of 1897, not to actual Oblasts of Ukraine. The only change with respect to 1987 are taken into account: the northern part of Chernigov Governorate now belongs to Russia, and Western Ukraine now belongs to Ukraine. They have both been taken into account. The problem of comparison of the censuses can be reflected in the caption. Concerning the discussion, it is too lengthy and contains too little information, as is common for Russian Wikipedia, and I am not willing to look into details, but I see that an organizing group of users who usually promote the idea that Ukraininan language did not exist until 1918, and that the Ukraininans spoke Russian, also promote the idea that this file is an OR. I do not have problem with the file. If Polish Wikipediand want to use it, fine. If Russian Wikipedians do not want to use it - also fine.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:23, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
- Dear Ymblanter, I think that this image is fake not because of the drawings, but because of notes on the image, which looks like original research very much. I personally asked a dozen of times in ru-wiki to provide sources of image's notes, but without any chances to be responded. It was offered to image-loader to change it (to deleat all notes, and to keed only drawing), but this suggestion was not responed amicably so far. This is the issue, as I see it. Regards, HOBOPOCC (talk) 15:32, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
- I do not understand the notes since they are in Ukrainian, but I guess it is easy to get rid of them anyway.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:56, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
- Exactly! That's what we (opposition to the image in it's present status) offered to do as a cure, and the opposite side (the defenders of the image) verbaly agreed to. But as of the moment I do not know about any development (upgrade) of the image. Best regards, HOBOPOCC (talk) 20:30, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
- OK, I've translated image note in Russian:
- В 1897-1910 на территории современной Украины преобладал украинский язык. В целом по Украине считали родным языком украинский 70.1% населения. Русский - 9.8%. Другие языки (прежде всего татарский, польский, еврейский и немецкий) в то время были родными для 20.2% населения Украины. Которое в сумме составляло около 28 млн. человек.
- Наибольшая распространенность украинского языка наблюдалась в Полтавской (93%), Подольской (80.9%), Харьковской (80.6%) губерниях российской Империи. Наименьшая - в Таврической, где его доля составляла около 42%. В то же время на юге Украины были довольно распространены татарский, немецкий, греческий, еврейский и болгарский языки, доля которых в Таврической губернии почти треть. В Херсонской - 26%.
- На западе Украины, при преобладании украинского языка, довольно распространен был и польский язык. Доля которого составляла 6-34% в зависимости от региона.
- Примечание: Приведены данные по Черниговской губернии, включая Стародубщину, входившую в то время в состав Черниговщины.
- Is it OR? --Kurgus (talk) 15:41, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
- OK, I've translated image note in Russian:
- Definitely it's OR. And it will be nothing, but OR, till the moment somebody would give RS that results of Russian Census in part of "Malorusskie narechie" should be treated as "Ukrainian language" our days. I'm not absolutely sure, that all people in Southern Russia, which were responded in 1897 to the question in the questionnaire "what is your mother language?" - "Malorussky" - meant Ukrainian actually. RS should be given, explaining "...those results of that Census in part of mother language should be treated so-and-so...". HOBOPOCC (talk) 16:19, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
- Exactly! That's what we (opposition to the image in it's present status) offered to do as a cure, and the opposite side (the defenders of the image) verbaly agreed to. But as of the moment I do not know about any development (upgrade) of the image. Best regards, HOBOPOCC (talk) 20:30, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
- Dear Ymblanter, I think that this image is fake not because of the drawings, but because of notes on the image, which looks like original research very much. I personally asked a dozen of times in ru-wiki to provide sources of image's notes, but without any chances to be responded. It was offered to image-loader to change it (to deleat all notes, and to keed only drawing), but this suggestion was not responed amicably so far. This is the issue, as I see it. Regards, HOBOPOCC (talk) 15:32, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
- Keep COM:NPOV, Original research is not a reason for deletion. The image is potentially educational and free. VolodyA! V Anarhist (converse) 04:53, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
- To Delete. Image represents results of Russian Empire Census in a way of OR and gives comments on it which are OR definately. Reliable sources on comments were requested, but neither auther, nor supporters of the image were not able to privide such (as of the moment). HOBOPOCC (talk) 12:29, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
- Delete data presented on image in question deceive visitors which not familiar with Censuses methodology, create a wrong impression about scholar value of hoax given.Jo0doe (talk) 06:23, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
- Hoax
- File represent a hoax
- - there no "Ukrainian language" in Austro-Hungary Census [6] - instead Ruthenian - w:Rusyns
- - number of Polish language spoken persons for Galicia not listed (which were a high number enumerated)
- - Persentage in Russian Empire inacurate nor reflect the correct Census area borders. Jo0doe (talk) 17:43, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
- - there were no "Ukrainian language" in Russian Census - it was "malorusskoe narechie" (or little-russia-language) used in that Census ([7] - data is in Russian language) HOBOPOCC (talk) 10:03, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
You have misinterpreted archaic terms of Russian ("малорусское наречие" - "Little russian dialect") either Austro-Hungarian ("ruthenische Sprache" - Ruthenian Language) Censuses: in modern linguistics these obsolete terms have been replaced with "Ukrainian": Ukrainian (formerly sometimes known also as "Little Russian" or "Ruthenian") / Sussex, Roland (2006) The Slavic languages, Cambridge University Press, p. 84 ISBN: 978-0-521-22315-7. /. --Kurgus (talk) 10:14, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
- As I mentioned above, RS should be provided, explaining how to treat results of that specific Census our days (if you want to make substitution Ukrainian instead of Malorossyskiy). General declaration (that what is Ukrainian now, it was Malorusskiy 125 years ago) is not valid in this specific case. Or, image in question to be changed the way, that written explanations would simply copy terms of Census as it was, i. e. Malorossyskiy instead of Ukrainian. HOBOPOCC (talk) 16:25, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
- OK, Eberhardt, Piotr (2003) Ethnic groups and population changes in twentieth-century Central-Eastern Europe: history, data, and analysis, M.E. Sharpe ISBN: 9780765606655. - page 185, Table 4.4 "Ethnic structure of the Ukrainian territories belonging to Russia in 1897, by declaring language" (Source - Census 1897): "language - Ukrainian". --Kurgus (talk) 10:54, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
- Re to Kurgus - there no Ukrainian in 1910 Austro-Hungarian Census - there lot of w:Rusyns at Census territory - so blind coversation all Ruthenian to Ukrainias is completely wrong. There Ukrainian mentioned above dialects in 1897 Census - put it was a nonrepresentative group located at north-east of Volhynia. The main issue remains - combining two incomparble data at one graph using the incorrect description. ThanksJo0doe (talk) 06:23, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
- In modern demographic studies Ruthenians in Austro-Hungarian Census = Ukrainias - see Eberhardt, Piotr (2003) Ethnic groups and population changes in twentieth-century Central-Eastern Europe: history, data, and analysis, M.E. Sharpe ISBN: 9780765606655. - page 190, Table 4.9. --Kurgus (talk) 10:54, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
- Re to Kurgus - there no Ukrainian in 1910 Austro-Hungarian Census - there lot of w:Rusyns at Census territory - so blind coversation all Ruthenian to Ukrainias is completely wrong. There Ukrainian mentioned above dialects in 1897 Census - put it was a nonrepresentative group located at north-east of Volhynia. The main issue remains - combining two incomparble data at one graph using the incorrect description. ThanksJo0doe (talk) 06:23, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
- As I mentioned above, RS should be provided, explaining how to treat results of that specific Census our days (if you want to make substitution Ukrainian instead of Malorossyskiy). General declaration (that what is Ukrainian now, it was Malorusskiy 125 years ago) is not valid in this specific case. Or, image in question to be changed the way, that written explanations would simply copy terms of Census as it was, i. e. Malorossyskiy instead of Ukrainian. HOBOPOCC (talk) 16:25, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
- KeepNo hoax at all here. All the necessary information concerning administrative subdivision, changes of the borders of Ukraine, use of Polish in Galicia is already given on the map itself. And there is no doubt that малорусское наречие is modern Ukrainian, as well as Ruthenisch (note that Rusyn language is Russinisch in German and not Ruthenisch, Ruthenisch is an obsolete term which used to mean Ukrainian) — NickK (talk) 17:44, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
- Improve I know as anon I cannot vote, but I think that the map itself is very well graphically designed, though it does contains errors. To rectify this, a simple case of having the author re-upload it as a .png (if not an .svg) will allow other users to fix it as they desire, and moreover will allow for different language versions to be created. As for geographical errors, there are similar maps and which do not show that many discrepancies. Regards.
- Kept. From Commons:Project scope/Neutral point of view: "It is not the role of Commons to adjudicate on subject-matter disputes nor to force local projects to use one version of a file in preference to another. " This image is in use. Thuresson (talk) 19:04, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
