Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2011/12/29
 |
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}
Original uploader on en: is not the author. On the source webpage I only can find a copyright notice. JuTa (talk) 23:27, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
Comment I have alterted the uploader, User:DoxTxob to this deletion request. Unless User:DoxTxob is the same person as the "Thomas R Machnitzki" on the linked webpage, the license seems wrong. Infrogmation (talk) 07:26, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
Keep. Many of the user's other uploads have the same name so it appears DoxTxob == Thomas R Machnitzki. (Although COM:OTRS would be nice). Wknight94 talk 10:50, 2 November 2010 (UTC)- Keep. Yes, I am Thomas R Machnitzki. I usually upload the photos under my real name. The Nutbush photo as well as the other photos of Nutbush were taken by me and can be freely used for all purposes according to the license chosen for the image on Wikimedia. I did not request OTRS since there are about two dozen images of Nutbush that are on my private website as well as on Wikimedia and it was too much paperwork to get all the file names together for the request. doxTxob \ talk 12:33, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks for clearing this up. Keep, the question seems favorably resolved. Infrogmation (talk) 14:48, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks for clearing this up.
- @DoxTxob, did they really ask you for every photo name? I've never dealt with OTRS. It would seem you could just tell them/prove to them that you are Thomas R Machnitzki and that would suffice. But maybe I'm wrong. Another idea is to label the images on your web site with the license of your choice. Then it wouldn't matter whether or not DoxTxob == Thomas R Machnitzki. Just a thought... Wknight94 talk 16:11, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
Kept. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:06, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Copyright vio. Rapsar (talk) 07:59, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Blatant copyright violation High Contrast (talk) 08:40, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
Copyright vio. Rapsar (talk) 07:59, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Blatant copyright violation High Contrast (talk) 08:40, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
from http://www.helgeoveras.com/tina_turner.shtml : © Helge Øverås Must. not be used without permission shizhao (talk) 02:27, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
- Keep - see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Clash 21051980 12 800.jpg. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 10:10, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
Kept: Per Commons:Deletion requests/File:Clash 21051980 12 800.jpg Jarekt (talk) 15:22, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
This is a copy of Museu Nacional de Arte Antiga, Lisbon DutchHoratius (talk) 15:09, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
Kept: Template redirected to Institution:Museu Nacional de Arte Antiga Jarekt (talk) 15:18, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
This is a copy (and a stub) of Museu Nacional de Arte Antiga DutchHoratius (talk) 15:10, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
Kept: Template redirected to Institution:Museu Nacional de Arte Antiga Jarekt (talk) 15:18, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
Useless personal picture. Ices2Csharp (talk) 00:19, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio -mattbuck (Talk) 17:51, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
Based on the uploader's history, this is not their own work. If it were, they might know the date it was taken (18 June, not 25 December; the photo was clearly taken at the same event as this). —LX (talk, contribs) 06:26, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: most likely copyright violation Polarlys (talk) 20:35, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
Porque foi postado por engano. foi eu mesmo que postei por engano. Ele não é real. Dsrodrigues (talk) 13:51, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: copyright violation Polarlys (talk) 20:41, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
Postei 3 vezes repetidamente.. O erro foi meu, queria que eliminasse este arquivo. Ele está duplicado. Dsrodrigues (talk) 13:55, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: copyright violation Polarlys (talk) 20:40, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
Uploader has posted numerous other files from random websites claiming "own work"; I cannot pinpoint where he got this file from, but I have enough reason to doubt that this is the only exception. —Andrei S. Talk 17:15, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: copyright violation Polarlys (talk) 20:31, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
Copyright violation, for example please see http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-jQE3Fyq8uSY/TuEdhr_RI3I/AAAAAAAACSE/BPU7KK-9rC0/s1600/Parineeti-Chopra-Ladies-vs-Ricky-Bahl.jpg Jacopo Werther (talk) 14:33, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
Delete, this uploader seems to have only uploaded copyrighted works, claiming them as their own. Prof. Professorson (talk) 08:48, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: copyright violation Polarlys (talk) 11:58, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
low quality, out of scope , unused personal photo AtelierMonpli (talk) 23:40, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
Speedy deleted, orphan low res photo of unidentified person, title and description clearly meant as vanity insult. -- Infrogmation (talk) 17:42, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
Highly likely not the uploader's own work: typical low web resolution and no EXIF data given High Contrast (talk) 00:52, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: speedied as copyvio; can be found on the web e.g. here. Rosenzweig τ 21:17, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
Private image, out of scope Captain-tucker (talk) 13:40, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: COM:SCOPE Polarlys (talk) 23:54, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Useless personal picture. Ices2Csharp (talk) 00:15, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
.JPG){kind=link}
- Delete per nom; orphan, uncategorized since May. -- Infrogmation (talk) 05:15, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope Captain-tucker (talk) 00:13, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
.JPG){kind=link}
Useless personal picture. Ices2Csharp (talk) 00:16, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope Captain-tucker (talk) 00:14, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Useless personal picture. Ices2Csharp (talk) 00:17, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
- Delete per nom; orphan; uncategorized since May. -- Infrogmation (talk) 05:16, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope Captain-tucker (talk) 00:15, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 00:18, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope,Copyvio Captain-tucker (talk) 00:18, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Useless personal picture. Ices2Csharp (talk) 00:18, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
- Delete per nom; orphan; uncategorized since May. -- Infrogmation (talk) 05:16, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope Captain-tucker (talk) 00:18, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Useless personal picture. Ices2Csharp (talk) 00:18, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope Captain-tucker (talk) 00:21, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
unused, seems to be out of scope, dubious own work Calliopejen1 (talk) 00:39, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio Captain-tucker (talk) 00:22, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
unused, out of scope (company logo spam) Calliopejen1 (talk) 00:40, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 02:54, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
unused, out of scope (company logo spam) Calliopejen1 (talk) 00:40, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 02:56, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
unused, out of scope (spam) Calliopejen1 (talk) 00:42, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 02:55, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
no source for photos used in diagram Calliopejen1 (talk) 00:42, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 02:55, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
likely copyvio, logo only used in rejected articles for creation entry about a non-notable organization (out of scope) Calliopejen1 (talk) 00:44, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 02:55, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work. This user constantly uploads copyrighted files. Apparently here is the original file (http://forosdelecuador.com/f70/aeropuerto-internacional-mariscal-sucre-de-quito-641/index3.html) Felviper (talk) 07:14, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 23:19, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
Shows the logo of a Polish bank --Michael Metzger (talk) 01:22, 29 December 2011 (UTC) Michael Metzger (talk) 01:38, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
- True. Though shows some smaller logos of credit card issuers too, but the PEKAO-logo is dominant. So pls delete. --Wistula (talk) 19:38, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 02:56, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
It is a random clip art image; no indication the author gave it under a free license. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 01:33, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 02:56, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
from RMN Radio in Manila hostage crisis，Not PD.法庭呈堂证供可以合理使用
shizhao (talk) 02:09, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 02:56, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Copyrighted product packaging. Kelly (talk) 03:57, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
- IANAL but I don't think that applies in group shots like this. // Liftarn (talk) 11:05, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
- According to the unfortunate outcome of the "thumbnail case" in the Swedish supreme court, this is likely to be a problem. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:18, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 02:57, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Low quality version of the facebook logo. No educational value and out of the COM:SCOPE|commons project scope]]. Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 04:01, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 02:57, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Orphaned, low quality duplicate of File:Facebooklogo.png. Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 04:03, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 02:57, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Facebook logo with heavy JPG compression. Duplicates File:Facebook.svg and File:Facebooklogo.png. Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 04:04, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 02:57, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Orphaned, low quality version of the facebook "f button". Higher quality versions of this image exist. Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 04:06, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 02:57, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Screencapture of the copyrighted Google website. Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 04:21, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
- Delete (or copy back to Wikipedias that allow fair use): All Google material is after 1989, so copyright in the U.S. even without any notice. --Closeapple (talk) 20:31, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 02:59, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Copyvio. The uploader is not the copyright holder. I think that the uploader took it from this image on Televizyon Dizisi. Takabeg (talk) 04:36, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 02:59, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Looks like a professionally created image, no indication that uploader is the photographer or copyright holder The Mark of the Beast (talk) 04:57, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
Delete Image on this site with photographer's name: http://www.bakersfield.com/news/local/x1664564727/Florez-out-of-Lt-Governor-race --Funfood ␌ 10:07, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio Captain-tucker (talk) 01:39, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Nepalese stamps are copyright for 50 years pma per this post Commons talk:Licensing/Archive 34#Stamps of Nepal, also being issued in 1980 the stamp cannot comply with an author life +70 years. Ww2censor (talk) 05:09, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
- The stamp was adapted from a painting, so I assumed applied art as given in the Nepal Copyright Act, Chapter 3.14(5) http://www.nepalcopyright.gov.np/pdf/The%20Copyright%20Act.pdf would apply, under which protection ends 25 years after creation. Karrattul (talk) 11:31, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Neither paintings nor stamps are applied arts in the sense the term is used in most copyright laws. Applied arts are the work of artisans, not artists. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 03:01, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
I propose to delete this file, because uploader, Artem Tkachenko stated this as his own work, but metadata of file tells us: Yuri Dolgoruky, a new Russian nuclear submarine, is seen in the waters off the Sevmash factory in the northern city of Severodvinsk July 2, 2009. Russia's President Dmitry Medvedev visited the factory on Thursday, a well-equipped shipbuilding complex that builds and repairs submarines. REUTERS/Alexander Zemlianichenko/Pool (RUSSIA POLITICS MILITARY). --Rave (talk) 05:39, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Blatant copyvio, like all uploads by this user. Martin H. (talk) 21:18, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Collage containing deleted image File:Yahata from Mt. Sarakura at night.jpg. Takabeg (talk) 06:26, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
- Delete I'm the author of this file.I guess File:Yahata from Mt. Sarakura at night.jpg was deleted after I created this file. So, please delete this file. Then, I'm going to upload new version of montage of Kitakyusyu.--Fjkelfeimvvn (talk) 05:07, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 03:20, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
probably copyvio Chris.urs-o (talk) 08:28, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio Captain-tucker (talk) 01:41, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
probably copyvio Chris.urs-o (talk) 08:41, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio Captain-tucker (talk) 01:41, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Superseded by File:04R Dec 2011 track.png (in retrospect I realised I should have renamed this file rather than creating a new one.Sorry.) Keith Edkins (talk) 09:51, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 03:20, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
This is spam Cutwind (talk) 09:57, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 03:20, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Artwork of Compact Disc doubtfully free Funfood ␌ 09:58, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 03:20, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
No license, no (OTRS confirmed-) permission Ciell (talk) 10:06, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 03:20, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Just a black square Funfood ␌ 10:29, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 03:21, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Blank white image Funfood ␌ 10:41, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 03:21, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Advertising text of an electronics company, out of scope Funfood ␌ 10:46, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 03:21, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
small image, out of scope, not really in use. marked as copvio on User talk:Mampato, User_talk:Tharischev, uncategorizied on User_talk:Alex_223, as link in User:SqueakBox/images and User:DragonflySixtyseven/Short filenames 38, File:Anthony_Romero_2007.jpg was moved from it. see http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:WhatLinksHere/File:Romero.jpg AtelierMonpli (talk) 11:32, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 03:21, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Copyvio. Uploader says here it is his own work and that the authors name is Daniel Niazi, but at he repeatedly states he isn't Daniel Niazi. 178.232.185.200 11:55, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 03:21, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Copyvio. Uploader says here it is his own work and that the authors name is Daniel Niazi, but at he repeatedly states he isn't Daniel Niazi. 178.232.185.200 11:56, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 03:22, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Copyvio. Uploader says here it is his own work and that the authors name is Daniel Niazi, but at he repeatedly states he isn't Daniel Niazi. 178.232.185.200 11:56, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 03:22, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Copyvio. Uploader says here it is his own work and that the authors name is Daniel Niazi, but at nn:Diskusjon:Daniel Niazi he repeatedly states he isn't Daniel Niazi. 178.232.185.200 11:59, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 03:22, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Copyvio. Uploader says here it is his own work and that the authors name is Daniel Niazi, but at nn:Diskusjon:Daniel Niazi he repeatedly states he isn't Daniel Niazi. 178.232.185.200 11:59, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 03:22, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Copyvio. Uploader says here it is his own work and that the authors name is Daniel Niazi, but at nn:Diskusjon:Daniel Niazi he repeatedly states he isn't Daniel Niazi. 178.232.185.200 12:00, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 03:22, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Copyvio. Uploader says here it is his own work and that the authors name is Daniel Niazi, but at nn:Diskusjon:Daniel Niazi he repeatedly states he isn't Daniel Niazi. 178.232.185.200 12:01, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 03:22, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Copyvio. Uploader says here it is his own work and that the authors name is Daniel Niazi, but at nn:Diskusjon:Daniel Niazi he repeatedly states he isn't Daniel Niazi. 178.232.185.200 12:01, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 03:22, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Copyvio. Uploader says here it is his own work and that the authors name is Daniel Niazi, but at nn:Diskusjon:Daniel Niazi he repeatedly states he isn't Daniel Niazi. 178.232.185.200 12:02, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 03:22, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Copyvio. Uploader says here it is his own work and that the authors name is Daniel Niazi, but at nn:Diskusjon:Daniel Niazi he repeatedly states he isn't Daniel Niazi. 178.232.185.200 12:03, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 03:22, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
copyrighted works 太刻薄 (talk) 08:27, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
Image that found on search engine might be copyrighted. Octahedron80 (talk) 14:05, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 03:23, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Copyvio, original picture here. Licence is "All rights reserved". Snaevar (talk) 14:53, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 03:23, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
License is PD-Old, but author just died in 2009; copyright will not expire until 2070. We need permission from the author's estate to host on Commons. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:06, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 03:23, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
License is PD-Old, but artist died in 2009, so the copyright will not expire until 2070. We need this to be licensed freely by the author's estate to keep this. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:08, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 03:23, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
PD-VietnamGov does not apply for this file; hence it is not in the public domain 79.221.108.162 15:27, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
Shouldn't delete this image. Have two reasons:
The First reason: through The Vietnam Intellectual Property Law (Law No. 50/2005/QH11, October, 2005) wrote in Article 3: Object of copyright include literary, artistic and scientific works; objects of copyright - related rights include performances, sound recordings, video recordings; broadcasting programs; satellite signals carrying encrypted program.
The Second reason: in Article 25: The form of use of published works without obtaining permission and paying royalties, remuneration are as follow: a) Making of one copy for the purpose of science research and individual teaching.
This image is captured and uploaded by Trong Thiết & dokientrung, therefore this image have applied by PD-VietnamGov permission.dokientrung 18:42, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
- Dokientrung, you have used this {{PD-user-w|vi|wikipedia|dokientrung}} as licence. Did you take this photo? --High Contrast (talk) 17:49, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
- Mr.Trọng Thiết captured this photo and allow me to upload to public domain under name: Trọng Thiết & dokientrung. Because he hasn't got Wikipedia user.dokientrung
- So, if Mr.Trọng Thiết took that file, you must provide the permission of him that allows you the "free" upload here on Commons. Please visit COM:OTRS; there, you'll get all relevant information how to do this. --High Contrast (talk) 10:50, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
- Mr.Trọng Thiết captured this photo and allow me to upload to public domain under name: Trọng Thiết & dokientrung. Because he hasn't got Wikipedia user.dokientrung
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 03:24, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
It is unclear who the author is and when he lived. It is implied that he died before 1942, but nothing is clearly stated about him. —Andrei S. Talk 15:50, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 03:25, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
User image not in use, user only has two other edits globally. —innotata 16:12, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 03:25, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
The file has the watermark, probably for advertisement. Rangilo Gujarati (talk) 16:46, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 03:25, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Watermarked, meant for advertisement. Rangilo Gujarati (talk) 16:51, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 03:25, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Copied from here http://sundarvan.org/about.html. Also the file looks like an advertisement. Rangilo Gujarati (talk) 16:59, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 03:25, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. RE rillke questions? 17:26, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 03:32, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
Bonjour, La photo "Domaine de la brtesche.jpg" s'agit une photo du domaine. Je travaille pour le Domaine de la Bretesche, nous avons tous les droits sur cette photo. Le site que vous avez cité est un site qui emprunte nos photos pour leur article. En revanche, ils n'ont pas de droit sur cette photo. Merci
Hello, The photo "Domaine de la brtesche.jpg" is a photo of our Domaine, we have all the rights on this photo. The site drivermag-golf.com use our photos for their articls but they have no right on thoses photos. Thank you
Copyvio of this image Bzh-99 (talk) 17:29, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
- Delete copyright violation. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 11:37, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 03:33, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Unused composite image without apparent encyclopedia value and I doubt implied claim that uploader owns copyright to all component images. Rodhullandemu (talk) 19:51, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 03:35, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Unused, related article is deleted, non-notable group and vague sourcing. No indication of copyright ownership by uploader. Rodhullandemu (talk) 19:55, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 03:35, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Unused personal image with no apparent encyclopedic value. Rodhullandemu (talk) 20:14, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 03:35, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope, unused personal photo, en:WP article has been deleted as non-notable. Rodhullandemu (talk) 22:33, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 03:36, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope, unused self-publicising image for non-notable Ecuadorean band. Rodhullandemu (talk) 22:37, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 03:36, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope, unused self-publicising image for non-notable Ecuadorean band. Rodhullandemu (talk) 22:37, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 03:36, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
out of scope, not in use AtelierMonpli (talk) 22:41, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 03:36, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope, unused personal image. Rodhullandemu (talk) 22:46, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 03:36, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope, unused poster (of dubious copyright) for non-notable musician. Rodhullandemu (talk) 23:17, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 03:36, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Unused personal notices, out of scope Funfood ␌ 23:18, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 03:36, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
unused personal notices, out of scope Funfood ␌ 23:19, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 03:36, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope, unused, possible vanity image but no explanation. Rodhullandemu (talk) 23:24, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 03:36, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Advertising, out of scope Funfood ␌ 23:39, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 03:36, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Advertising text for a german company, out of scope Funfood ␌ 23:42, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 03:36, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Unused, no explanation of what it is a logo for, and no way of finding out. Rodhullandemu (talk) 23:52, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 03:37, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Orphaned, low quality image of the facebook logo. Out of the commons project scope. Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 04:02, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 02:57, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Personal image not in use on a user page. ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 00:12, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
- Delete and protect please, too generic name and created with personal picture. Amitie 10g (talk) 06:14, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
Deleted, and protectedYmblanter (talk) 18:59, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
Postei 3 vezes repetidamente.. O erro foi meu, queria que eliminasse este arquivo. Ele está duplicado. Dsrodrigues (talk) 13:54, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Deleted by Polarlys Captain-tucker (talk) 10:04, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Copyright violation, for example please see http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-BZ23rytvCJQ/TeTM60RtY2I/AAAAAAAADWE/e1h87PT_iJw/s1600/Aditi_Sharma_Hot_Actress%2B%252817%2529.jpg Jacopo Werther (talk) 14:39, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Deleted by Polarlys Captain-tucker (talk) 10:05, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Nothing indicates this was "based" on another source and then created by VOA. So it is not PD US gvt. FunkMonk (talk) 17:05, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
- Keep - looks like a graphic produced by VoA; I interpret the source note on the original as referring to the casualty numbers. Compare this map in the same style. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 11:32, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
- Keep - agree with the above poster graphic appears to be produced by VoA; It's a flash image with casualty numbers from the listed source. Cannot find the image on casualty source site. Guest2625 (talk) 17:29, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
- Keep Its produced by VoA and therefore public domain. As for source it´s SOHR but image itself was created by VoA. EllsworthSK (talk) 22:55, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: The VOA site shows the image with "Source:Syrian Observatory of Human Rights", at the bottom. The legend was cropped off the image before it was uploaded here. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 03:27, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
No meaningful content - originally a speedy deletion request by Schmelzle with the reason "nonsense" Trijnstel (talk) 17:36, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope Captain-tucker (talk) 10:08, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Unused, no indication that this is a screenshot of free software. Rodhullandemu (talk) 19:46, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Probable copyvio, COM:PRP Captain-tucker (talk) 10:09, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Unused, no indication that this is a free screenshot. Rodhullandemu (talk) 19:49, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Probable copyvio, COM:PRP Captain-tucker (talk) 10:10, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Website advertisement, related enwp article deleted Funfood ␌ 20:26, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio Captain-tucker (talk) 10:11, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Official product photo found on several webpages, unclear rights Funfood ␌ 20:41, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio Captain-tucker (talk) 10:12, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope, appears to be an unused personal image, subject does not seem to be notable. Rodhullandemu (talk) 21:39, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope Captain-tucker (talk) 10:12, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope, unused personal image. Rodhullandemu (talk) 21:54, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope Captain-tucker (talk) 10:14, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
No indication that sources used is free, e.g. WorldWind. "Own work" needs explanation. Rodhullandemu (talk) 22:04, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio Captain-tucker (talk) 10:14, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope, unused, non-notable musical group and no explanation; Goggle is no help on this one. Rodhullandemu (talk) 22:30, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Probable copyvio, see: http://www.sophieaime.com/Sophie_aime/yebuna.html Captain-tucker (talk) 10:15, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Unused personal logo, out of scope Funfood ␌ 12:09, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 12:44, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope: Unused personal memorial to the 2011 Arizona shooting of Congresswoman Giffords and others GrapedApe (talk) 13:07, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:56, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
Low quality version of the facebook "f button". Heavy JPG compression. Higher quality versions of this image exist. Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 04:07, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
- Keep File is in use. --MGA73 (talk) 08:51, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
- File usage can easily be replaced with a higher quality image. Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 14:53, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
- I agree but we (Commons users) should not decide which file is used on Wikipedia. If usage is replaced and local users do not revert then the file can be deleted. --MGA73 (talk) 13:46, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
- I have delinked the usage File:Simple Facebook logo.jpg → File:F icon.svg. Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 19:56, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
- I agree but we (Commons users) should not decide which file is used on Wikipedia. If usage is replaced and local users do not revert then the file can be deleted. --MGA73 (talk) 13:46, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
- File usage can easily be replaced with a higher quality image. Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 14:53, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Leyo 13:57, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
Related to Commons:Deletion requests/Template:Move to et.wiki Trixt (talk) 10:12, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: After transfers have been performed, now unused template. Túrelio (talk) 09:11, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Copyrighted image scraped from website with copyright information without permission. Rotoflex (talk) 04:23, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
- Comment It is a pre 1923 US work; the source website is linked. What copyright is on the image and what do you state is being violated? -- Infrogmation (talk) 04:31, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
- Keep Maybe somebody has the proprietary rights of the negative of this photograph. But the copyright of this image had expired. Takabeg (talk) 04:58, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
- Keep PD-1923. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:20, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
- It is plainly a derivative work. The orginal was not in color, this image is. There are additional alterations from the source material, which you are not entitled to recieve. Copyright claim is on the page that the image was taken from without permission or even cursory consideration as to its being a copy of the original. The holder of the copyright on this image has also requested that all other expressly noted as copyrighted pictures taken from that website without permission be removed from Wikimedia.Rotoflex (talk) 07:36, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
- This is just black/yellow instead of black/white, it does not create a new copyright - not even real colorization is copyrightable. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 08:06, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
- Looks to be a scan of a sepia photo with the saturation/contrast boosted. Website source linked. No additional info on source or authorship is on the website; if it had been it would have been sighted. Infrogmation (talk) 16:59, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
Copyrighted image scraped from website with copyright information without permission. Rotoflex (talk) 04:24, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
- Keep Published in the USA in 1917; it is {{PD-US}}. Copying and republishing publish domain material does not remove it from the public domain. -- Infrogmation (talk) 04:35, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
- Keep Maybe somebody has the proprietary rights of the negative of this photograph. But the copyright of this image had expired. Takabeg (talk) 04:58, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
- This image has alterations from the original and is a derivative work, as are all the images scraped from my website. This was stated on the Administrators' Noticeboard, and is being evaded. Your judgment of "appearances" and assumptions without seeing the source material are not sufficient analysis to override the statement of copyright claim that was placed on each page that each image was taken from without permission.Rotoflex (talk) 07:54, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
- Claim that permission is needed to distribute PD images is silly. Of course it was taken without permission, it wouldn't make sense to ask for the right to use PD stuff. VolodyA! V Anarhist (converse) 09:14, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
- Keep image is of US origin, was published in the US before 1923 thus it's PD-US. Alteration of such an image like recoloring does not generate new copyright. PD-US may only be denied if the image is not of US origin as there's a Commons policy somewhere stating an image should be PD in both the USA and the country of origin. --Denniss (talk) 11:07, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
Copyrighted image scraped from website with copyright information without permission. Rotoflex (talk) 04:24, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
- Keep Published in the USA in 1912, no? {{PD-US}}. Copying and republishing publish domain material does not remove it from the public domain. -- Infrogmation (talk) 04:36, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
- Keep Maybe somebody has the proprietary rights of the negative of this photograph. But the copyright of this image had expired. Takabeg (talk) 04:59, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
Copyrighted image scraped from website with copyright information without permission. Rotoflex (talk) 04:25, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
- A 1918 photoprint from the USA. Looks to be {{PD-US}} -- what is the problem? Are you claiming the image is still under copyright and you the webmaster are the copyright holder? What is the circumstances of this image and its copyright? -- Infrogmation (talk) 04:33, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
- Keep Maybe somebody has the proprietary rights of the negative of this photograph. But the copyright of this image had expired. Takabeg (talk) 04:59, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
I am the photographer & owner of this image. Its copyright status has been misrepresented on Wikimedia. i reserve all rights to the photograph, and do not grant permission for its use on Wikimedia. Rotoflex (talk) 05:58, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
- Comment How has it been misrepresented? (Other users: Please check file edit history.) You uploaded it here [1] under an attribution license. Since you stated it was under an attribution license but did not clearly state that you were the author, I asked for clarification about that and other details on your talk page [2], urging you to add or correct the info on the image page yourself. You gave more info about the image on your talk page [3]; I quoted the portion of your talk page comment relevant to the image there and put it in the info template [4]. Again, if some info is wrong, YOU can edit it to FIX it. I'm puzzled as to your actions. -- Infrogmation (talk) 06:10, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
![[1]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:NOLA-State-Palace-2005.jpg&oldid=64490094){kind=link}
![[4]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:NOLA-State-Palace-2005.jpg&diff=next&oldid=64505778){kind=link}
- Correct me if I'm wrong, but it looks like things went like this: Rotoflex uploads photo and takes a stab at licensing it. Later he realizes that the license he actually picked (Attribution, the Commons version of CC-BY) is way more permissive then what he had intended ("I reserve all rights to the photograph, & grant permission for its use on the Wikipedia page for the State Palace Theatre." User talk:Rotoflex). Due to unfamiliarity with the system, he then accuses Infrogmation of having tampered with the license. Should this be deleted as an honest mistake on the part of the uploader (since his intended license of "only for wikipedia" isn't allowed here)? --Kramer Associates (talk) 07:01, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
- On my talk page, it can be seen that I asked the administrator Infrogmation to change details related to the image, including copyright information. Administrator Infromaation replied "Thanks; I've added the info at File:NOLA-State-Palace-2005.jpg" The copyright information was still incorrect. The obvious conclusion was that the Administrator had incorrectly changed the information, as he said he had added it per my request. I did not not intend to offer this photo with those terms of copyright, an administrator did not correct them as requested, and I now request that the photo be deleted from Wikimedia. I do not wish to "edit information" about the photo. I want it gone from Wikimedia. I do not grant permission for Wikimedia to publish it.Rotoflex (talk) 07:47, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
- Others interested, please do look over the history page of User talk:Rotoflex as well as the history of this image. I, as can be seen, never asked Rotoflex to change the copyright information -- I asked Rotoflex to provide info on the photographer (since Rotoflex uploaded the photo under an "attribution" license but failed to clearly state who the image should be attributed to) and also for a date for the photo. (I suspect Rotoflex has decided I am some type of nefarious criminal out to do them dirty work, since I copied some PD 1910s US printed matter off a website of Rotoflex's, and Rotoflex still doesn't seem clear on the notion that copying someone else's public domain image does not create a new copyright which is your own property.) -- Infrogmation (talk) 17:26, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
- Delete - author apparently never intended to license it under terms acceptable to the Commons community.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:45, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Too bad to loose it -- it's a useful photo and no equivalent can be made today since shows interior of a theater before it flooded in the Katrina levee failure disaster of 2005. While usual practice is that free licenses are not revokable, I think an exception should be made here since it seems obvious that Rotoflex had no idea what they were doing. Unlike the scans from 1910s US magazines Rotoflex has also listed for deletion, Rotoflex can legitimately claim copyright of this. -- Infrogmation (talk) 17:36, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. MBisanz talk 23:34, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
Collage containing deleted image: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Glicoman.JPG. Takabeg (talk) 06:13, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
- Keep -- In principle, excluding those in the outdoors (Article 46 of the Japanese Copyright Law). Moreover, Japanese law this sign is part of the building. Building photography does not have a problem. --Aimaimyi (talk) 06:01, 30 December 2011 (UTC) -- edit --Aimaimyi (talk) 06:29, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
- Comment User(s) confuse this DR with the DR of File:Glicoman.JPG. At present, this collage have to be deleted because of its containing deleted image. Your correct address is here. Takabeg (talk) 06:30, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
- Comment Since Commons:Undeletion requests/Current requests#File:Glicoman.JPG was opened, I think we'd better wait for the closing of that UR. Thank you. Takabeg (talk) 09:47, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
- Keep File:Japan Osaka.png regardless of File:Glicoman.JPG status per Commons:De minimis. --M5 (talk) 23:35, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
- Comment Now we have to delete it per this closing. Keeping consistency is important. Takabeg (talk) 06:14, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: We cannot keep a collage that has a non-free component. You cannot argue that any component of a five component collage is de minimis. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 03:23, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
User subpage created by commonist without asking me, deletion requested --Kprateek88 (talk) 10:52, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Common Good (talk) 19:11, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
I don't want this page here. Commonist created it when I uploaded images. Kprateek88 (talk) 09:49, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Trijnstel (talk) 21:12, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
I have doubts that the uploader is the author. As per some of their other uploads, it would appear that the flickr is being used to wash the licences. russavia (talk) 19:37, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
- Ms. Hải Nguyên allowed me to upload to public domain under licence PD-VietnamGov (through The Vietnam Intellectual Property Law (Law No. 50/2005/QH11, October, 2005) dokientrung (talk) 05:50, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
- PD-VietnamGov is wrong for this photo, Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:PD Vietnam Government. This photo is unfree. 1) http://giadinh.net.vn/20110428113827363p0c1000/suc-song-truong-sa.htm is not a government source, or? Its just some random photo story from a private website. 2) The template is applicable only for such works specified in Art. 15 of the copyright law, thats "Legal documents, administrative documents and other documents in the judicial domain" and not photos from random websites. --Martin H. (talk) 02:57, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
- You must understand that in Vietnam, all of newspaper, daily or any online newspaper always belongs to Vietnamese Government or Vietnamese Organizations. In Vietnam, private newspaper do not exist. www.giadinh.net is website belongs to Vietnam General Department of Population - Family Planning. Therefore, this image can be added PD-VietnamGov.dokientrung (talk)
- PD-VietnamGov is wrong for this photo, Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:PD Vietnam Government. This photo is unfree. 1) http://giadinh.net.vn/20110428113827363p0c1000/suc-song-truong-sa.htm is not a government source, or? Its just some random photo story from a private website. 2) The template is applicable only for such works specified in Art. 15 of the copyright law, thats "Legal documents, administrative documents and other documents in the judicial domain" and not photos from random websites. --Martin H. (talk) 02:57, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Denniss (talk) 20:54, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
File is not named correct and there are tons more photo's of this bridge Dqfn13 (talk) 12:03, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
Kept: please use {{Rename}} to ask for a rename of the file. PierreSelim (talk) 22:26, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
Probably copyvio, see http://www.billyprice.com/photos.php Bulwersator (talk) 13:07, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
- On the album page, you can see that the credits given to the photographer Leland Scruby who is the original uploader here as well. May be we should ask for OTRS permission, but does not seem to to be copyvio at the first place. --Sreejith K (talk) 14:28, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
Kept: Not a copyvio, per Sreejith K. PierreSelim (talk) 22:20, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
A previous deletion request at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Rhs prm stone rgb.jpg found that this logo is too complex to be public domain on grounds of lack of originality. I am hence nominating this for review once again, and adding to this nomination similar logos, these being File:Low-res-rhs-logo.png and File:OldRHSSecondaryLogo(to2010).png. CT Cooper · talk 23:48, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
- I uploaded this logo merely to replace the inaccurate and misleading one that has been (dis)gracing the RHS entry for some years now. I would agree that the "lack of originality" reason is not an adequate one for keeping it. In fact, as a professional graphic designer, I would argue that it is an inadequate reason in almost every case where it is cited. Even "purely typographical" logos (the word, as I'm sure you know. is short for logotypes and should only be used to refer to a typographic namestyle, not a graphical symbol) usually involve some sort of inventiveness, if not a complete font design. But there seems to be no other way to illustrate a company or charity's graphic identitiy other than by using its logo. A low-res version such as this can be of little use in any other way, except perhaps a website, and if anyone wanted to set up a fake RHS website, they could easily go and download a similar or higher-resolution example from www.rhs.org.uk!!! SiGarb (talk) 18:02, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
- We appear to be in agreement then. The presence or choice of a logo in the RHS article's on Wikipedia projects isn't the issue, more should it be on Commons as not being complex enough to be copyrighted (everything on Commons must be free content or public domain per Commons:Licensing), it should be hosted locally on projects on the English Wikipedia as non-free content. When I made the original deletion request, a mixture of both these strategies was in use, and when the end result was delete, only those uploaded locally to Wikipedia projects as non-free were left. However, other editors, unaware of this discussion, have since re-transferred all the logos back to Commons, resulting in this deletion request. To prevent this happening again, if the result of this discussion is delete, I intend to add a note to the RHS category telling editors not to upload or transfer the RHS logo here. CT Cooper · talk 13:35, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Consensus expressed here is too complex for {{PD-textlogo}} (it confirms Commons:Deletion requests/File:Rhs prm stone rgb.jpg) PierreSelim (talk) 22:11, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
I have replaced this with File:Menachem Nachum Friedman, Boyan-Chernowitz.jpg, not being able to upload a newer version with a different file type Chesdovi (talk) 14:06, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Deleted and redirected to the jpg version. Sreejith K (talk) 18:03, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Unused, appears to be the words of a song (http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=ja&u=http://ameblo.jp/kojiontheroad/entry-11027967658.html&ei=ENz8Ts6PMMjitQbN3-zNDw&sa=X&oi=translate&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CCsQ7gEwAQ&prev=/search%3Fq%3D%25E6%2597%25A5%25E6%259C%25AC%25E8%25AA%259E:%2B%25E7%25AD%2591%25E7%25B4%25AB%25E4%25B8%2598%25E9%25AB%2598%25E6%25A0%25A1%25E6%25A0%25A1%25E6%25AD%258C%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DN%26rls%3Dorg.mozilla:en-US:official%26biw%3D1024%26bih%3D629%26prmd%3Dimvns) but no indication of age so as to clarify copyright. Rodhullandemu (talk) 21:35, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyright violation. Sreejith K (talk) 18:01, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
File:Sirikit - Chiang Mai - 2011-12-16 - xxx.jpg
[edit]
- File:Sirikit - Chiang Mai - 2011-12-16 - 001.JPG
- File:Sirikit - Chiang Mai - 2011-12-16 - 002.JPG
- File:Sirikit - Chiang Mai - 2011-12-16 - 003.JPG
- File:Sirikit - Chiang Mai - 2011-12-16 - 004.jpg
- File:Sirikit - Chiang Mai - 2011-12-16 - 005.JPG
- File:Sirikit - Chiang Mai - 2011-12-16 - 006.JPG
- File:Sirikit - Chiang Mai - 2011-12-16 - 007.JPG
- File:Sirikit - Chiang Mai - 2011-12-16 - 008.JPG
- File:Sirikit - Chiang Mai - 2011-12-16 - 009.jpg
- File:Yingluck Shinawatra - Chiang Mai - 2011-12-16 - 001.JPG
Images from government website claimed to be exempt from copyright under Article 7 of the Thai Copyright Act. Earlier deletion discussions, however, resulted in deletion of such images as such reasoning was not believed to be valid. (See Commons:Deletion requests/File:PM-Yingluck.jpg.) --Paul_012 (talk) 19:14, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
Oppose:
- The files are not "exempted from copyright", but they are of no copyright at all from the outset, for they are part of an official report as already stated in the description of each of them and are therefore in public domain pursuant to section 7 (4) of the Copyright Act, BE 2537 (1994).
- Moreover, the files could also be deemed as part of the news of the day, since they have been released as part of the regular information about the activities of the releasing person, Department of Sericulture (the source is provided in each of the files and here). If so, the files would fall under section 7 (1) of the Copyright Act, BE 2537 (1994), and be in public domain.
- It is not a kind of fair use.
- Plus, I am of an opinion that the case 'File:PM-Yingluck.jpg' is different, for such file is neither part of an official report nor the news of the day but merely released by a public agency for illustrative purposes or other purposes.
- #2 above is most likely invalid, as photojournalism is obviously covered by copyright. As for #1, the originating source of the images appears to be a public relations/press release page from the Department of Sericulture's website, with nothing indicative of its status as an "official report". I understand that official report is a specific term rather than a generic concept. This is an example of one. --Paul_012 (talk) 01:30, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
- When a term is not otherwise defined by the law, it is subject to broad construction, that its, it ought to be interpreted according to the general meaning. Especially when the copyright law, particularly section 7 of the Copyright Act, BE 2537 (1994), is part of the property law, a branch of the civil law, it ought to be interpreted in broad sense. In my opinion, an "official report" is of general meaning. --Aristitleism (talk) 05:47, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
- I am not a lawyer, but the exact terms of Section 7(4) are: "คำพิพากษา คำสั่ง คำวินิจฉัย และรายงานของทางราชการ", translated as "judicial decisions, orders, decisions and official reports." The Royal Institute Dictionary BE 2542 defines รายงาน (report) as "น. เรื่องราวที่ไปศึกษาค้นคว้าแล้วนํามาเสนอที่ประชุม ครูอาจารย์ หรือผู้บังคับบัญชา เป็นต้น." Roughly translated: "A narrative which one has researched and presents to a conference, or one's teacher or superior, etc." This could be interpreted as including things like news reports, but that involves stretching the definition to some degree, and I still think it is not safe to regard the above-linked press release as such. The fact that it is the images rather than the text of the "report" itself that is being used casts further doubt: One could regard the images as separate works only appearing together with the text on the webpage. Section 14 clearly states that government bodies may own copyright: "The Ministries, Departments or other government or local units shall be the owners of copyright in works created in the course of employment, order or control unless otherwise agreed in writing." I believe in such unclear cases, the outcome of most past Commons discussions was to err on the side of caution and regard these images as copyrighted. --Paul_012 (talk) 03:26, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: This is not a part of an official report, just government photos. They are copyrighted in Thailand. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 03:46, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
Reclame voor/Publicity for Youtube Channel Kthoelen (talk) 14:09, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Per nom., --Podzemnik (talk) 15:11, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
- Keep I've uploaded a new version with the debatable content removed. --MainFrame (talk) 16:06, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
- Don't know if there is anything wrong with my browser, but the changes I've made don't appear, damn..... However, the debatable content is/can be removed and then there is nothing to argue about. Despite that it's a widely used file.--MainFrame (talk) 16:16, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
- Comment: It is widely used only because the uploader consistently attempts to insert his images at every possible opportunity. His talk page on en:wiki is full of warnings to stop - Amog |Talk 07:04, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
- Don't know if there is anything wrong with my browser, but the changes I've made don't appear, damn..... However, the debatable content is/can be removed and then there is nothing to argue about. Despite that it's a widely used file.--MainFrame (talk) 16:16, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
- Keep I agree with Mainframe, as now it's just a good photo of an ordinary modern laptop, there's nothing to consider innaproppriate
- Keep The author removed the parts were his youtube account name was shown. it is OK now
- I will remove the deletion request because of reason above. Kthoelen (talk) 18:02, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
Kept. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 00:09, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
copyrighted windows logo background image. Please show a blank screen or something free or a photo shot by you or .... Saibo (Δ) 21:37, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
- Who made it? By the way: the windows logo stays copyrighted by MS - regardless if it was used in someone else's wallpaper work. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 11:59, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
- As explained above, Delete revisions "23:25, 13 October 2010" to "05:10, 12 February 2011", Keep revision "02:04, 13 February 2011". Jappalang (talk) 12:19, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
- As explained above,
- Keep Windows logo has been replaced by Google's homepage. Please don't tell me that this is copyright violation too!!
- It is okay → Keep the recent version. However I don't like it as it is advertising for google. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 20:15, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
- It is okay →
- Keep Well I dont think my photo will affect in any way the search engine preferences of anyone, so if you agree remove the deletion request! Have a nice day! Georgy90
- Yep, I agree - but deletion requests can and should only be closed by admins. Just wait a bit. And: all the previous versions 2010-10-13T15:25:39 to 2011-02-11T21:10:02 in the history should be hidden. --Saibo (Δ) 14:15, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
Kept. but only the last revision. Béria Lima msg 14:20, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
Image of the copyrighted Windows 7 OS, along with a number of icons that are quite likely under copyright. Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 04:20, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
- Keep All de minimis, IMHO. Thoroughly discussed twice before. I suggest that before you nominate a file for deletion, if there is a talk page, look at it to see if the file has been previously kept. If so, read the discussions. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:06, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
- Hi Jim, and I suggest to look in the file history - the file was overwritten in the meantime. --Saibo (Δ) 14:43, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
- The last time this image was discussed, it did not use the Windows 7 desktop, and the operating system was blurred. The Google website text was blurred, making it unreadable. This new version uploaded in October has a high quality image of the Windows 7 user interface, as well as a number of copyrighted or trademarked logos. Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 14:52, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
- Comment People should really not replace images like that. New image is not a different version of the same photo, it's a completely different photo which should have been uploaded as a different file, not over another one. VolodyA! V Anarhist (converse) 09:12, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
- Delete After thinking about this some more i think this is a case of a copyvio. The screen image needs to be blurred and then reuploaded with a different file name, the versions with Windows screen should be deleted from this one. VolodyA! V Anarhist (converse) 17:39, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
- Also even if the screen will finally be blurred, all the watermarked versions need to be deleted as they are automatically damaged. VolodyA! V Anarhist Beta_M (converse) 15:13, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
- Comment My apologies for my incorrect remark about looking at the talk page. However, my opinion that everything on the screen is de minimis stands. There are 35 icons on the screen -- any of them could easily be eliminated with affecting the image, which is the test of de minimis. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:22, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
- Keep Are pictures of Windows running on a computer not even allowed? Because of advertisements? Then what about File:Piccadilly Circus Panorama - April 2007.jpg ? CodeCat (talk) 22:51, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
- It is not about the advertisements, my concern is about the fact that this is a high quality image of the copyrighted Windows 7 user interface. It is clearly the main subject of the work, not a mere incidental occurrence as the image you linked above. The previous images were somewhat questionable, but at least the uploader had taken the step to use a blur tool on the screen area. If the screen of this image were blurred, there wouldn't be a problem. If that isn't changed, the file will remain a copyvio, no different than if someone took a screencapture and uploaded that. Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 23:30, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
- I'm not even sure a user interface falls under copyright, as it's not considered a creative work. Maybe patent, but that wouldn't affect a picture. CodeCat (talk) 12:23, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
- It is not about the advertisements, my concern is about the fact that this is a high quality image of the copyrighted Windows 7 user interface. It is clearly the main subject of the work, not a mere incidental occurrence as the image you linked above. The previous images were somewhat questionable, but at least the uploader had taken the step to use a blur tool on the screen area. If the screen of this image were blurred, there wouldn't be a problem. If that isn't changed, the file will remain a copyvio, no different than if someone took a screencapture and uploaded that. Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 23:30, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
- Keep Keep of course. Are you serious? This is almost dictatorship! If a picture of a laptop with a certain operating system is a violation, then a Mercedes car that has the emblem is also a copyvio? Seriously we have taken things too far! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.228.231.136 (talk • contribs)
- Copyright law regarding software is very different from copyright in regards to cars. Per Commons:Derivative works#Isn't every product copyrighted by someone? What about cars? Or kitchen chairs? My computer case?, every day objects may be covered by a patent, but not copyrighted. While software on the other hand is quite different. To quote Commons:Screenshots#Software,
| “ | In most cases, screenshots of computer software (which include programs, video games, operating systems) cannot be uploaded to Commons unless the software is released under a free software license that complies with the Commons licensing policy | ” |
- This is a high resolution image of the Windows 7 OS. An OS that is under copyright. It is clearly the main subject of the work, so it cannot be considered a trivial passing. I cannot believe I am having to fight to get a blatant copyright violation deleted, just because it has been around a while and is used on a large number of articles. Commons:Screenshots#Microsoft_products specifically mentions that screenshots of Microsoft software are prohibited on commons. Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 16:24, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
- Striking duplicate !vote made by 87.228.231.136 (talk · contribs)
{{vk}}I am the owner and I say keep. I also see that everybody else says the same thing. About computer software, visit the Laptop article and see the other pictures of laptops, they ALL have screenshots of software e.g Mac OS. Windows 8, Firefox and other. No one has nomited them for deletion. Also see on how many places this photograph is. Its a very widespread photo and will need work to replace it. I dont thing that this photo is going to affect anybody. Nobody will buy windows 7 just because it is on my photo...
Anyway, if i write on the description that i do not own this software's copyright is it ok?
In the article it says "unless the software is released under a free software license that complies with the Commons licensing policy (software released under licenses that meet the OSI definition of "Open Source" will meet the requirements"
Can i change the licencing and be ok? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.228.231.136 (talk • contribs)
- Notice that all of the images in that category either have blank or blurred screens. The one other image that does not, File:Hb486 dillo big.jpg, is running software released under a GDLF (free software license). Though that can of soda on the far right side really shouldn't be there, as it would be difficult to justify it meeting Commons:De minimis. Please note thaten:Wikipedia:Other stuff exists is not a reason for keeping an image. Just because there are other images on commons just as problematic, doesn't mean that they shouldn't be deleted. Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 21:21, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
- Keep Okay. What can I do to repair the photo and make it appropriate? if i write on the description that i do not own this software's copyright is it ok? Please tell me
Tell me what i should do to repair the pic!! Dont delete it
- Please try to blur the contents of the screen so that it's not possible to cut the image in such a way as to make it a depiction of the Windows GUI. I believe that will make it possible to keep. It is a good image, and i hope it will be kept. VolodyA! V Anarhist (converse) 13:53, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Ok i blurred the titles of the programs. I hope it's ok now and you remove the deletion request --Georgy90 (talk) 20:24, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
- "Contents of the screen" are clearly not "titles of the programs". In fact titles of the programs is the only thing on there which you can definitely keep. My main concern would be (from most likely to be a copyvio to least likely): icons, the start button, the background, the interface of the window. VolodyA! V Anarhist (converse) 01:43, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
Can anybody do this for me?? I am not very good with photoshop and i would be grateful if someone did it!! Please dont delete it without warning!!
Please help!!--87.228.231.136 19:04, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
Okay, I took another shot, with uncopyrighted firefox. No icons, and blurred start button. Now remove that deletion request ASAP.
Thank you, The owner --Georgy90 (talk) 20:51, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
- The new image has multiple copyrights in play. While the Mozilla browser is free software, it still has a license. The Wikipedia logo is under a license, as is the Wikipedia article text. {{free screenshot|license={{MPL}}}} would need to be added to the image description page in order to comply with the Mozilla license. Adding {{Wikipedia-screenshot|1=en|logo=yes}} should address the logo and text concerns, though you may wish to add a link to the Laptop history page. Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 00:06, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
I added both the codes you gave me.. Anything else?
- I believe the current version is fine now. An admin just needs to delete the old file revisions. Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 19:06, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
- Please stop uploading new versions on top of other photos (I will revert this file)! Please also stop using that ugly yellow watermark. --Saibo (Δ) 02:44, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
- There is no need for this long debate. As the author is in a position to get many similar photos just FULLSCREEN the Firefox browser(default F11) and be done with it. All those worrys about the windows bar will be gone. Also those about firefox copyright will also be gone.--Gauravjuvekar (talk) 14:48, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
PS-per Saibo STOP USING THE BLOODY WATERMARK--Gauravjuvekar (talk) 14:51, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
- Delete
- 1. The current version of the picture shows proprietary software logos on stickers below the keyboard, at bottom left (Intel Centrino, Windows Vista, Windows 7, Dolby, Bluray, and Nvidia).
- 2. There are six logo-icons including Windows, Internet Explorer, and Firefox showing on the bottom left of the monitor.
- 3. Youtube, Facebook and Panoramio logos also appear in the Firefox tabs at the top of the browser.
- 4. The older version of this picture showing even more software logos/icons appears within the Wikipedia article that has been photographed, thereby in effect reverting to a previous photograph that was in violation.
- 5. This whole thing is just a vanity project by the uploader whose name appears three times in browser tabs in the image, plus once in the Google search box in Firefox (top right), and – because the cursor is resting on the photograph within the photographed Wikipedia article (still with me?) – the file name "Acer Aspire 8920 Gemstone by Georgy.JPG" appears on the browser status bar at bottom left. That is a total of five instances of the author's name in this image – not forgetting the fact that he named the file name after himself, although his name is irrelevant to the subject. It is not in the spirit of Wikicommons to upload images devoted to such intensive self promotion like this. The picture should be about the laptop, not a calculated ego trip. Georgy has been warned by someone on his user page against self promotion, and he has also awarded himself a Barnstar saying "You are amazing!" This user has had previous files deleted for the same violations in the past. He has also been involved in Wikipedia edit wars over the terrible quality of the images which he uploads and tries to force into articles, replacing ones of much superior quality. This one is a particularly awful example, and should be deleted too.
- 6. To cap it all, the picture is badly and unevenly lit with a harsh illumination gradient, and the entire left foreground is out of focus. The picture has little merit to speak of and it cannot be argued that it is indispensible. All past and present versions of it should be deleted.
- 7. A good many other pictures uploaded by Georgy could be deleted too for showing proprietary logos: File:Acer Aspire 8920 by Georgy.jpg (tab beside browser address bar), example (his cellphone homepage with pictures of adolescent friends), example, example, example, example; for egregiously bad focus, just horrible: example, example, example, example, example, example, example, example, example, example, example, example, example; and for harsh and ugly lighting gradients: example, example. O'Dea (talk) 16:42, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
- User himself tried to remove your whole intervention in order to hide his name, I put your comment back but I removed some personal infos about the user. --Vituzzu (talk) 16:52, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
O'Dea s argument is actually invalid. My age makes no difference to the quality of the photo. The 6 sticks on the laptop are not easy to be seen, firefox and wikipedia are okay to use, since I imported some script at the page of the photo. My other contributions have nothing to do with this conversation. I made great efforts to find a way of taking good shots and I want my picture to stay, its widely used and its removal could cause havoc to 100s of pages on wiki. Please remove the request, i have done anything I could to remove copyrighted material. --Georgy90 (talk) 17:29, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
- Your picts are widely used since you put them on dozen of pages by yourself.
- Honestly most of photos you took are really in low-quality, I think you'd better take them again. --Vituzzu (talk) 22:54, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
- I don't think that images are of low quality. They aren't high quality images for sure, but i would not call them low. The problem remais that Geory90 choses to destroy one's own images with watermarck which does tend to cause artifacts (one first resaves the image after having added the watermark, then somebody has to remove the watermark again not losslessly). There is also a problem of uploading different files over previously used ones, that i think should really be addressed. For example this image has been uploaded over another one, the fact that it's created by the same user is irrelevant, it is a different photo rather than the same photo which was retouched. VolodyA! V Anarhist Beta_M (converse) 03:01, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
- File:Paronychia Thumb.JPG, File:SIM Card.jpg, File:The_Acer_Logo.JPG, File:Nokia 1100i.JPG. File:Cd_Drive.JPG, File:The Calculator.JPG are definitely low-quality, setting apart from other problems (e.g. titles), would you use any of these picts on Wikipedia? --Vituzzu (talk) 21:01, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
- Irrelevant to the discussion of this file on commons (these files are not this one, and this discussion is not on wikipedia). VolodyA! V Anarhist Beta_M (converse) 18:21, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
- Sorry but I have to contradict you: according to Commons' scope images must have an educational purpose and low-low-low-quality photos cannot have any. --Vituzzu (talk) 21:01, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
- Then by all means feel free to nominate those images for deletion. This discussion has gone for too long to bring another matter into it. VolodyA! V Anarhist Beta_M (converse) 03:21, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
- Sorry but I have to contradict you: according to Commons' scope images must have an educational purpose and low-low-low-quality photos cannot have any. --Vituzzu (talk) 21:01, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
- Irrelevant to the discussion of this file on commons (these files are not this one, and this discussion is not on wikipedia). VolodyA! V Anarhist Beta_M (converse) 18:21, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
- File:Paronychia Thumb.JPG, File:SIM Card.jpg, File:The_Acer_Logo.JPG, File:Nokia 1100i.JPG. File:Cd_Drive.JPG, File:The Calculator.JPG are definitely low-quality, setting apart from other problems (e.g. titles), would you use any of these picts on Wikipedia? --Vituzzu (talk) 21:01, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
- I don't think that images are of low quality. They aren't high quality images for sure, but i would not call them low. The problem remais that Geory90 choses to destroy one's own images with watermarck which does tend to cause artifacts (one first resaves the image after having added the watermark, then somebody has to remove the watermark again not losslessly). There is also a problem of uploading different files over previously used ones, that i think should really be addressed. For example this image has been uploaded over another one, the fact that it's created by the same user is irrelevant, it is a different photo rather than the same photo which was retouched. VolodyA! V Anarhist Beta_M (converse) 03:01, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
- Georgy, my arguments are not invalid as the stickers are present in the picture and are so clear that I could easily identify and enumerate their content in my original comment; the picture clearly breaks the rules as the original complainant and others have stated. Your other picture uploads are all relevant as they are part of a pattern, as I described. Simply wanting your picture to stay is not an argument for a picture in violation. The argument about "havoc" is simply ridiculous and it is verifiably untrue to claim it appears on "hundreds of articles". Even if it did, it would not matter. This image and the others are of dreadful quality, as others have agreed. O'Dea (talk) 13:55, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
- Comment I have a question for Georgy (which seems to be eligible for a rfc on meta for x-wiki spam): why did you replaced dozen of pictures with your ones on so many wikis? --Vituzzu (talk) 21:10, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
- Delete Agree that this image is in violation and the quality is really bad. Commons has lots of laptop pics already so we're not short of illustrations for articles, even pics of this one. This file has been nominated since over 3 months ago! Time to shut the yapping on this one. 72.37.249.116 00:48, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
- Comment Georgy, you cannot expect your anonymity to be protected if you expose yourself so much. My comment identifying who you are, your age, and where you live have been deleted from this page because there is a policy, apparently, disallowing Commons editors from putting such information in these conversations – even when already placed in the public domain by the other editor!
- But you, too, have a duty not to identify yourself by putting personally detailed information in photographs you upload, if privacy genuinely matters to you. You deleted my entire comment, which you were not entitled to do and which violates rules, too, and complained that your personal details were now in Commons, but you gave that information to Commons yourself.
- It took me a few seconds to track down your Facebook page because of what you upload in the photographs; you use your real name as your user ID; your real name and age is in the photographs; so don't be a hypocrite: stop promoting your name and personal details in the files you upload or others can quickly and easily track you down. "You cannot have your cake and eat it too", as they say. Georgy, make up your mind what you want: self-promotion or privacy, and don't cry when someone finds out who you are so easily. See: Wikipedia:How to not get outed on Wikipedia. O'Dea (talk) 01:28, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
- Comment Note to Vituzzu and Saibo: You left threatening remarks on my talk page. There is another policy in Wikipedia about assuming good faith. I was not previously aware of an anti-outing policy so I do not appreciate hostility being directed against me. If another editor almost writes his name and address in public, how am I to know I cannot show what he revealed himself? If you want to see how to approach someone who has inadvertently violated a rule in ignorance (note: Wikipedia has hundreds of rules), see how respectfully Rillke did it. You two jumped the gun and bristled with too much menace, which made me very uncomfortable and angry. Be respectful. See it from my perspective: As far as I was concerned, five other editors were fucking with my comments so naturally I was outraged (I said four in an edit summary but I forgot Georgy – so five.) You two need to reflect, too, and don't be so heavy-handed. O'Dea (talk) 01:28, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
- Comment Vituzzu, you claimed I should be "saved" from my own actions but surely Georgy should be saved from his self-exposing actions too? As a minor, he should not be allowed to upload pictures which allow adults to find out his name, age, and location. This is another reason why this image should be deleted. Children need to be protected against themselves, as they are too young to be fully responsible and aware of consequences because anyone else can replicate what I did very easily – with no hacking skills required, I might add. O'Dea (talk) 01:39, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
- Have replied to those off topic comments at your talk page User_talk:O'Dea#Outing. --Saibo (Δ) 01:59, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
- It is not off-topic to comment that Georgy is a minor who has exposed his first and last name, his age, and his location. It is a very strong reason to delete the file. O'Dea (talk) 02:22, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
- Fine (applies to the last version which includes it in the image), that was not clear in all that text. --Saibo (Δ) 02:35, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
- Assuming good faith doesn't mean "be blind", you outed him just to underline a supposed childish attitude and good faith *cannot* be assumed since it is definitely a personal attack. If you meant to protect him you would had sent him an email or, at least, a notice on his own talkpage. Also the use of this kind of statement to support your opinion is, definitely, a personal attack. On your homewiki I can read Comment on content, not on the contributor., try to guess on which policy I can do it. You also said you weren't warned properly, well, since you used the "undo" button you surely read The user is uncovering many personal information of me, that I dont want to be published such as my Facebook. He doesnt talk about any specific violations, instead he talks about irrelevant thinks about the problem, that has been solved, and, anyway, also my reinsertion of you comment with a note ...I put your comment back but I removed some personal infos about the user.
- Fine (applies to the last version which includes it in the image), that was not clear in all that text. --Saibo (Δ) 02:35, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
- It is not off-topic to comment that Georgy is a minor who has exposed his first and last name, his age, and his location. It is a very strong reason to delete the file. O'Dea (talk) 02:22, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
- Have replied to those off topic comments at your talk page User_talk:O'Dea#Outing. --Saibo (Δ) 01:59, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
- --Vituzzu (talk) 10:58, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
- Don't you even read my comments? I showed who he was to demonstrate abuse of Commons by this boy to show off in an immature fashion. I was not aware of the anti-outing policy at the time so I acted in good faith. The only new information about Georgy that I added was his Facebook page; he had already shown who he was himself, with his full name, age, and location. That is how I found his Facebook page in seconds – he laid it all out on a plate, including showing the name (first name, last name) of the Facebook page in his own photograph. I did not send him an e-mail because, first, I had never heard of the anti-outing policy and, secondly, this is the page where the discussion of the file was taking place and where it was relevant to discuss his use of the file. When Georgy complained about me talking about his identity, I dismissed that as insincerity since he was happy to show off who he was when he could do so on his own terms and only showed objections when he deleted the entirety of my lengthy comment discussing the various problems with his file, including those which had nothing to do with his identity. O'Dea (talk) 11:36, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
- Again, you outing was useless *here*, so it had no other clue than decrying. --Vituzzu (talk) 13:25, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
- Don't you even read my comments? I showed who he was to demonstrate abuse of Commons by this boy to show off in an immature fashion. I was not aware of the anti-outing policy at the time so I acted in good faith. The only new information about Georgy that I added was his Facebook page; he had already shown who he was himself, with his full name, age, and location. That is how I found his Facebook page in seconds – he laid it all out on a plate, including showing the name (first name, last name) of the Facebook page in his own photograph. I did not send him an e-mail because, first, I had never heard of the anti-outing policy and, secondly, this is the page where the discussion of the file was taking place and where it was relevant to discuss his use of the file. When Georgy complained about me talking about his identity, I dismissed that as insincerity since he was happy to show off who he was when he could do so on his own terms and only showed objections when he deleted the entirety of my lengthy comment discussing the various problems with his file, including those which had nothing to do with his identity. O'Dea (talk) 11:36, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
- --Vituzzu (talk) 10:58, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
- Comment I have to agree with Anon, above, why have administrators allowed this discussion to go unresolved for such a long time? Alpha Quadrant proposed deletion of this picture last year, on 29 December 2011. The uploader has abandoned the discussion for a week now. The proposal should be closed. O'Dea (talk) 01:44, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
I absolutely agree. The file was nominated 3 months ago for the reason "Image of the copyrighted Windows 7 OS, along with a number of icons that are quite likely under copyright.". The problem was a copyright violation. I fixed that, and replaced it with Firefox, and added a script that allows its use in wikipedia. You have gone off topic several times, without talking about specific violations of these file. As of O'Dea, I see that you call me insencere, because my name can be found easily according to him. I did that only to credit my work in some way that its not even noticable by 99.99% of the viewers, not to be exposed and self promoted. You had simply put a link to my FB account, without any specific reason. Could any admin please remove the nomination? I think that the case is closed. --Georgy90 (talk) 17:59, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
- I would propose that those users that want to make a policy about not having user's name appear in the file titles try to make it a policy. I think something along these lines should exist, but right now we shouldn't delete just because the file name is wrong. There was an issue of watermark, but it was not removed, Georgy90 should keep in mind that it is considered rude to add watermarks before uploading to commons. Copyright issue seems to be pretty much resolved. Image isn't going to become a featured photo... ever or anywhere... but it's not of low quality, and it is educational. VolodyA! V Anarhist Beta_M (converse) 18:34, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
- Please block me before I start using this kind of lowlowlow quality pict :p
- Anyway the supposed educational purpose has been blown up by the author of the photos who spread them among wikis. --Vituzzu (talk) 13:25, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
I dont believe that my picture is of low quality - this is low quality [[5]]. The fact also that I spread my photo in many wikis, does not make it uneducational! I can't see what policy the picture is violating right now! Its meaningless to still have the request keep going after a quarter of a year.--Georgy90 (talk) 17:42, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
![[5]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Lenovoideapad.jpg){kind=link}
- The file you linked (btw the right way is [[:w:en:file:) is not on Commons, and yes, it is of low quality too, feel free to open a rfd on en.wiki about it.
- Yours was definitely crosswiki spam, and I'm still asking you why you did it. By the way your spam is relevant to this discussion since it amplified the real use of this picture.--Vituzzu (talk) 23:20, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
Keep This picture is used in the collage on the en:Computer article and really fits in nicely there. If the Windows icons are the problem for you change them for a Gnome screen showing a Wikipedia page for all I care (btw: the Puzzle ball is also copyrighted, by the WMF). I don't think it's problematic as otherwise photo's of Mercedes stars or the Rolls Royce en:Spirit of Ecstasy (which is still in copyright as the sculptor died in 1950) would also be problematic, which I don't think they are. SpeakFree (talk) 23:05, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
Delete-That could be easily replaced by a similar one. There are many in category:Laptops and its subcategorys.--Gauravjuvekar (talk) 08:17, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
This is crazy. The nomination runs for more than half a year. Could some admin delete it please?--87.228.231.136 17:24, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
- Kept. The copyright concerns have been adressed by editing the image. The remaining icons are acceptable due to Commons:De minimis. The claims regarding how the uploader has acted or the naming of the file are not reasons for deleting it. Thuresson (talk) 19:05, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
Kept, Thuresson (talk) 19:05, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
It is unknown who the author (Mihai Barbulescu) is and whether or not he died before 1942. —Andrei S. Talk 17:21, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
- Keep He is a history professor, not the author, who seems to be unknown. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 12:35, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
- In several December 2011, Pieter Kuiper did Google searches, without verifying nor get proof the person in first result is the photographer and considering every photographer should be in Google first pages of a name query, so we should be cautious with this analysis. --Dereckson (talk) 19:30, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Per nomination, the information that there is a history professor of the same name with a high google ranking is not helpful here. Martin H. (talk) 16:35, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
I think that this template is unuseful. We have {{Fair use delete}} for these cases with a bot that automatically does the transfer request for all WP with fair use, not only et.wiki. Trixt (talk) 10:11, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
- Does this bot also transfer files that are currently not used in Estonian Wikipedia articles? --WikedKentaur (talk) 11:01, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
- No, but AFAIK a file under et:Mall:KunstiteoseFoto on Estonian Wikipedia must be included in at least one article, according to WMF licensing policy about non free content. So cannot be orphan there, and a user must include it in at least one page (and only after put {{Fair use delete}} here on Commons if he doesn't want upload it locally direct by himself).--Trixt (talk) 21:22, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
- Small note: Commons fair use upload bot does not reupload files to wikis where the files are not in use. Dcoetzee (talk) 13:38, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
- No, but AFAIK a file under et:Mall:KunstiteoseFoto on Estonian Wikipedia must be included in at least one article, according to WMF licensing policy about non free content. So cannot be orphan there, and a user must include it in at least one page (and only after put {{Fair use delete}} here on Commons if he doesn't want upload it locally direct by himself).--Trixt (talk) 21:22, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
Changed Move_to_et.wiki to a shortcut template: {{Fair use delete|no [[Commons:FOP#Estonia|FOP]] in Estonia}}
The other template Moved_to_et.wiki can be deleted after the images in Category:Images transferred to Estonian Wikipedia are deleted. --WikedKentaur (talk) 10:21, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
- Someone should have asked me (the bot author) about this, because the bot does not yet support uploading to et.wiki (I need help from a project local to create the appropriate templates to suit their non-free content policy). I could just create basic templates on all wikis accepting NFC and have the locals customise them, but then they might ban my bot if they don't know what's going on. :-P Dcoetzee (talk) 02:10, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
- Working on getting the bot set up for etwiki now. Dcoetzee (talk) 13:38, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
- WikedKentaur and Dcoetzee, could you give us a status update on the bot status? And is this template needed or not? --Dereckson (talk) 18:59, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
- Sorry. Bot is running and working fine with etwiki and has been for some time, as far as I know. Let me know if it has problems. Dcoetzee (talk) 01:03, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
- WikedKentaur and Dcoetzee, could you give us a status update on the bot status? And is this template needed or not? --Dereckson (talk) 18:59, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
- Working on getting the bot set up for etwiki now. Dcoetzee (talk) 13:38, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Kept: The template is now useful, per Dcoetzee situation update. Dereckson (talk) 15:15, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
- File:Harikalar Diyari 05984 nevit.jpg
- File:Harikalar Diyari RedKit 05983 nevit.jpg
- File:Harikalar Diyari Daltons 05986 nevit.jpg
- File:Harikalar Diyari DulDul 05990 nevit.jpg
Lucky Luke (known as RedKit in Turkey) was published in 1946. And accordin to the article 40 of the Turkish copyright law ([6]), works settled on umumi yollar (public roads), caddeler (streets) ve meydanlar (squares). However Harikalar Diyarı is neither public road, nor street, square. It's an amusement park. Not only in the United States, but also in Turkey, there is no legal basis for us to make them free content. Takabeg (talk) 12:56, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
- Keep Takbeg is re-opening multiple instances of group DR's for an already closed DR.
See
- Commons:Deletion_requests/Image:Harikalar_Diyari_Smurfs_gargamel_06050_nevit.jpg
- Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Harikalar Diyari Smurfs 06048 nevit.jpg
- Commons:Deletion requests/File:Barney Rubble Harikalar Diyari Flintstones 06019 nevit.jpg
- Commons:Deletion requests/File:Harikalar Diyari Smurfs 06048 nevit.jpg
--Nevit Dilmen (talk) 23:21, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
I know those DRs. Users misunderstood the article. The Article 40 of the Turkish copyright law defines exemptions: umumi yollar (public roads), caddeler (streets) ve meydanlar (squares).Takabeg (talk) 00:08, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
Keep It's the same with the Madame Tussaud case and images which were kept. That's also not a public road. --Kungfuman (talk) 16:21, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
Comment Why same ? Your claim is unclear. For example, File:Madame Tussauds London 00793 Nevit.jpg was kept with (this DR. However, File:Hulk Madame Tussauds 02.jpg, File:Madame Tussauds London 00799 Nevit.jpg, File:Madame Tussauds London 00798 Nevit.jpg, File:Madame Tussauds London 00797 Nevit.jpg were deleted with this case|this DR). So we cannot say "" Anyway images on this DR were taken in Ankara (Turkey), not in London (England). Takabeg (talk) 05:26, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
- Keep The copyright law is very clear these pictures are ok. -Nard (Hablemonos)(Let's talk) 17:22, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
- Comment Please read Commons talk:Freedom of panorama#Turkey. The Turkish copyright law doesn't permit for all works of fine art permanently displayed outdoors. It permit for all works of fine art permanently displayed on public streets, (public) avenues or (public) squares. Takabeg (talk) 17:52, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
- I wonder if this theme park wouldn't qualify as a public street. In Belgium, the new Région Wallonne's Forest code considers private paths openly accessible to public, without any indication it's private by a sign or a barrier, as public paths for the code application. Doing so, the legislator put in the law a doctrine analysis. Similarly, the road code is applicable to any private property (like a supermarket parking) where anybody can access without a barrier. Could you make some inquiries on how Turkey law, jurisprudence and doctrine treat the private estate openly accessible by all? --Dereckson (talk) 19:25, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
Kept: There's FOP in Turkey Cambalachero (talk) 22:18, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
