Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2012/01/31
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
|
|
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
COM:DW. Lyrics by en:Vasily Lebedev-Kumach, who died in 1949. sугсго 09:08, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
- And Alexandrov died in 1944 for the music, so I agree with the deletion. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 15:02, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
- Well, but Lebedev is poet, and we talk about the songm but not lyrics. The song is the lyrics + music. If music or lyrics is different, the song will be different.--Anatoliy (talk) 15:32, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
- But the lyrics and music are not public domain, so we cannot host here as a full recording. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 17:08, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Not public domain in Russia anymore. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 15:09, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Question own work. No metadata. See http://www.batteride.nl/products/285-voorbeeld-ombouw-fiets.aspx; The other contributions of the user have also copyright problems Wouter (talk) 15:40, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Advertisement. EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:41, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Uploader claims to be copyright holder but the image is being used in an article about an internet meme The Mark of the Beast (talk) 03:40, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted. Denniss (talk) 19:16, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Uploader claims to be copyright holder but the image is being used in an article about an internet meme The Mark of the Beast (talk) 03:40, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted. Denniss (talk) 19:17, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Uploader claims to be copyright holder but the image is being used in an article about an internet meme The Mark of the Beast (talk) 03:41, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Delete clear copyvio of pedobear art.--Prosfilaes (talk) 08:14, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Denniss (talk) 19:17, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Uploader claims to be copyright holder but the image is being used in an article about an internet meme The Mark of the Beast (talk) 03:41, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
- Delete Clear copyvio of underlying photo.--Prosfilaes (talk) 08:15, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Denniss (talk) 19:16, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Uploader claims to be copyright holder but the image is being used in an article about an internet meme The Mark of the Beast (talk) 03:41, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
- Delete Almost certain copyvio of photo of Nickel Back.--Prosfilaes (talk) 08:15, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Denniss (talk) 19:17, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Uploader claims to be copyright holder but the image is being used in an article about an internet meme The Mark of the Beast (talk) 03:44, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Denniss (talk) 19:16, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Uploader claims to be copyright holder but the image is being used in an article about an internet meme The Mark of the Beast (talk) 03:44, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- Delete clear copyvio of MIB photo.--Prosfilaes (talk) 08:17, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Denniss (talk) 19:17, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Out of scope. Hystrix (talk) 04:10, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Denniss (talk) 19:07, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Copyvio Dismas (talk) 04:51, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Denniss (talk) 19:06, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Copyright violation (extracted from a copyrighted material) Moonian (talk) 05:09, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Denniss (talk) 19:13, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Copyright violation (extracted from a copyrighted material) Moonian (talk) 05:09, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Denniss (talk) 19:14, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
unused personal image Flickrworker (talk) 12:24, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Denniss (talk) 19:08, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Unsued personal image Flickrworker (talk) 12:25, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Denniss (talk) 19:08, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
unused personal image Flickrworker (talk) 12:26, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Denniss (talk) 19:08, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
unused personal image Flickrworker (talk) 12:26, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Denniss (talk) 19:09, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
unused personal image Flickrworker (talk) 12:27, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Denniss (talk) 19:09, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
unused personal image Flickrworker (talk) 12:28, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Denniss (talk) 19:11, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Some musician from myspace. Not in use. From user with 1 edit. Out of SCOPE Shakko (talk) 12:40, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Denniss (talk) 19:21, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
IMO, flickr-washing. Thé flickr accourt holds a lots of copyvios. Kyro (talk) 13:53, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
- to complete this DR, see Commons:Deletion requests/Flickr source Ferrarifan1956. PierreSelim (talk) 14:25, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Denniss (talk) 19:19, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
copyright violation. See search with TinEye Berthold Werner (talk) 14:33, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
- Delete - image from the cover of Powerlifting USA, Vol. 13 No. 2, Sep. 1989, $3.50 [1] - also widely circulating over internet forums. Materialscientist (talk) 04:01, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio Morning Sunshine (talk) 04:43, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
bookcover, copy vio Chesdovi (talk) 19:08, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Martin H. (talk) 19:31, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
The image is being utilized to vandalize English Wikipedia, ([2], [3], [4]) and has no other use than that. Tbhotch™ 19:14, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: copyvio Denniss (talk) 19:18, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Although an argument could be made that this is utilitarian and not, therefore, eligible for copyright, this is a long way from a plain piece of furniture and I think it is probably eligible for copyright in many jurisdictions. If that is true, then this image infringes on the copyright. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 23:32, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
- There has been a long discusion about this March 2010 at Commons:Undeletion requests/Archive/2010-03 -- Mdd (talk) 01:30, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
- Again, it's a piece of design (doesn't matter if plain or not plain), not a sculpture, read the old discussion and archive the deletion request, thanks. --Sailko (talk) 11:10, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Kept: I disagree, but some battles aren;t worth fighting. -- withdrawn by Nom Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:11, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
The uploader's description clearly indicates this to be a derivative work and most likely he has no right to add the free licence to the image. Without any evidence of permission it should be deleted. Ww2censor (talk) 10:31, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: copyvio Julo (talk) 22:47, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
The file represents too much Microsoft Windows interface for comfort - the interface elements as well as logos, such as Internet Explorer in the quick-access toolbar. Wpedzich (talk) 12:12, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
- Delete Clear depiction of windows GUI, which is fully copyrighted. Masur (talk) 12:40, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Windows (c) Julo (talk) 22:50, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
oos, used for soap boxing at User:BoyXhh Chesdovi (talk) 20:01, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of scope Julo (talk) 22:53, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
unused, personal image Chesdovi (talk) 20:06, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
- Delete The picture is out of project scope мιѕѕ мαηzαηα (talk) 20:07, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: personal Julo (talk) 22:55, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
User:LX thinks that this image license laundering High Contrast (talk) 20:09, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
{{vk}} as long as there is no clear evidence provided that can show that the picasa user is not the copyright holder of this file. --High Contrast (talk) 20:11, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- Delete. This user is clearly not the copyright holder of his uploads (international advertising campaigns from H&M, Victorias Secret, magazine covers, etc). This also applies to File:Defilé etam (185).jpg. —LX (talk, contribs) 20:15, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
- Well, the picasa user's name is "angel Cortes" and he states to be associated with stilo.es. His name appears on stilo.es; Editor ejecutivo y Director: Ángel Cortés it seems to be that this person comes from this business. File:Defilé etam (185).jpg is downloadable in a proper high resolution (3,333 × 5,000) and has valid EXIF information - no reason to doubt authorship with this file. --High Contrast (talk) 20:22, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
- Stilo.es is just a Wordpress blog reposting magazine covers and content from other websites, operated by Noticias Digitales SL, a company with less than five employees and less than €3,100 of capital, where Oriol Cortés used to be COO before moving on to become Online Marketing Manager of Barcelo Experience, which sells experience gift boxes. I'm not sure why any of this makes you think he has the right to issue licenses for Agua Bendita's advertising material or content copyrighted by Etam. —LX (talk, contribs) 20:52, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
- Delete, I think its a bad user too. Candice Swanepoel for Agua Bendita, why should that picasa user hold the copyright? Other uploads from same picasa user, File:Defilé etam (185).jpg, contain EXIF information (leading to Laurent Vu) that also suggest: that Picasa user is someone who collects content from the web, or someone using picasa as a webhost for a (not well developed) busines, not as an upload service for self-created works. --Martin H. (talk) 21:44, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Delete convincing evidence has been brought: we should delete those two files and "mark" this special picasa user as problemous. Thanks for your support LX and Martin. --High Contrast (talk) 23:17, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: copyvio Julo (talk) 22:54, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
i think this is a holiday snap Chesdovi (talk) 20:40, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
- Keep, can be used uploaders userpage picture.--Motopark (talk) 21:00, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: It could be used on a user page, but it is not -- and it is the user's only contribution to Commons other than a user page that belongs on Facebook. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 00:28, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Composed image contains non-free components (book-jacket from 1951). DMacks (talk) 20:54, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 00:28, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Composed image does not cite sources of any of its components (or maybe scan of hardcopy source (maybe schoolbook or literary resource?) again not cited. The cartoon image is at [5] (maybe elsewhere, but again without source we can't know). Central Park image is [6] DMacks (talk) 21:01, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 00:29, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope as an unused and noneducational portrait of a non-notable person and a likely copyright violation due to the professional quality and lack of EXIF data. Logan Talk Contributions 04:15, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 06:17, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Weird and unusable GrapedApe (talk) 04:21, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 06:16, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 08:06, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 06:28, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 08:06, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 06:29, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 08:06, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 06:29, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 08:07, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 06:29, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 08:09, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 06:30, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 08:11, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 06:30, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 11:06, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 06:31, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 11:13, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 06:19, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
unused personal image Flickrworker (talk) 12:29, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 06:20, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Misleading filename, unused, unencyclopedic ~ Crazytales (enwiki) 18:40, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 06:22, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
not sure what educational purpose this 911 image serves Chesdovi (talk) 19:37, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
- Delete. Uploaded solely for vandalism purposes. —LX (talk, contribs) 19:55, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 06:23, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
unused, bad quality personal image Chesdovi (talk) 19:47, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 06:23, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope, logo for a company which has no article on any project (enwiki article was deleted in 2009). January (talk) 20:04, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 06:27, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Out of project scope: unused personal photo. Hystrix (talk) 21:01, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 06:24, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Unused personal photo. Outside of Commons' project scope. —LX (talk, contribs) 23:03, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 06:25, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Unused and outside of Commons' project scope. —LX (talk, contribs) 23:09, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 06:25, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Unused and outside of Commons' project scope. —LX (talk, contribs) 23:09, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 06:26, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Unused and outside of Commons:Project scope. Not realistically useful for educational purposes. We already have slightly better illustrations for this rifle. —LX (talk, contribs) 23:36, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 06:26, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Possible/probable copyvio (see http://www.charmercharts.com/our-analysts). I was advised to open this request, and I'm not active on Commons, so if this request is obviously wrong or misplaced, then my apologies. Nolelover (talk) 00:47, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
- Delete - grabbed from the website. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:54, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:51, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
Another user nominated this for speedy deletion claiming: "the copyright of this Alaskan license plate design obviously doesn't belong to the uploader, and as the focus is on the plate specifically it plainly meets the threshold of originality"
I considered uploading it locally at en.wp but then I saw Category:License plates of Alaska and that those images are pretty much the exact same idea as this one with the various license plate designs used throughout Alaska's history. Either this needs to stay or they all need to go, I'm honestly not sure which it is but I suppose an argument could be made that a license plate on a vehicle on a public street falls under freedom of panorama. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:32, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Upon further review there is also the issue of all the images listed below, most of which are licensed the same way and many of which contain unique designs or graphics, and that the same user who nominated this image for speedy deletion has nominated many of them with the same reasoning. I certainly don't think speedy deletion is the right way to handle this, if there is an entire category of images which may be problematic or incompatible with Commons some discussion to determine if this is actually the case should be had first.
American Samoa · Guam · Northern Mariana Islands · Puerto Rico · United States Virgin Islands
- Delete. The difference between this license plate and the rest listed at Category:License plates of Alaska are the level of artistry involved; the rest of the plates in that category simply consist of a yellow background, blue text, and uncopyrightable elements (M. Benson's 1927 copyright on the flag is expired, though I'm unsure about the decoration on File:AK 69306.jpg). Ergo, none of those other license plates are copyrighted. The Iditarod plate on the other hand has obvious artistic elements which meet the threshold of originality and were automatically copyrighted upon creation; that copyright then belongs to the state of Alaska unless it can be proven they've explicitly released all their rights to it.
These are the same bases on which I nominated the rest of the license plates to which the nominator refers. Unless the license plate is a de minimis portion of the image, it doesn't matter who took the photo and how they release it, the copyright of the plate's design lies with it's state and designer. These issues were previously raised here (Commons:Deletion requests/License plates 2), where consensus came down on deletion of US license plates with "non-trivial imagery"
Lastly, I added the {{Delete2}} template to this discussion, and added the pertinent link at Commons:Deletion requests/2012/01/31. — Fourthords | =/\= | 04:03, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: This plate is a clear DW, but we cannot possibly consider all of the other states in one DR. Please raise the issue only state by state when appropriate. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:54, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
Photographer: Andie Petkus (Andie Petkus Photography). Needs OTRS permission Sreejith K (talk) 04:41, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Comment I've sent an email notification of this page to the uploader. -- Cirt (talk) 16:24, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:55, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
Looks like an image scanned from elsewhere, highly doubt the "own work" license used, especially considering user's history of uploading other work as "own". Chaojoker (talk) 06:47, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
- Same applies to File:Əvəlik dolması Azerbaijani cuisine.jpg. Chaojoker (talk) 06:50, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:57, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
Copyvio. All images uploaded by User:TCDD were taken from other websites.
- File:TCDD CAF 1.jpg I've seen this photo. This was used in the official website of TCDD when the train were brought from Spain. And as long as I understand, this photo was taken in Spain by Karlos Corbella. Today the derivative work of the same photo is used in this page of the official website of TCDD.
- File:TCDD CAF 2.jpg, File:TCDD CAF 3.jpg and File:TCDD CAF 4.jpg were posoted to Worturkey on November 5, 2007 by hüseyin avni. But I think these images don't belong to him. He also took from other websites. Takabeg (talk) 07:06, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:57, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
Tagged as fair use on enwiki Bulwersator (talk) 09:25, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Keep - who gives a damn about those tags on enwp? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:59, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Kept: Australian government works are fifty years from creation, therefore this has been PD since 1998. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:00, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
Logo from UK, above COM:TOO Bulwersator (talk) 09:30, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
- Keep - really?? can you explain exactly what is above any threshold here? please stop these stupid nominations. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:01, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Kept: Clearly PD-text logo Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:00, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
Tagged as PD-US only on enwiki Bulwersator (talk) 09:30, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
??? This picture is tagged as PD-US only on PT-wiki. Vitor Mazuco Msg 17:47, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Kept: PD- textlogo Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:02, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
Tagged as fair use on enwiki Bulwersator (talk) 09:38, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, and it is now tagged as public domain in Commons, which is quite suitable for a photo taken around 1870.--Rsteen (talk) 16:56, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
- Keep - who gives a damn about those silly tags on enwp? fix them if you must, no need to bother Commons about it. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:03, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Kept. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:02, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
According to the uploader at Wikipedia, this is not PROVABLY in the Public domain Sfan00 IMG (talk) 21:30, 15 July 2012 (UTC) Deleted by Fastily --Denniss (talk) 07:35, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
Logo from UK, above COM:TOO Bulwersator (talk) 09:41, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
- Keep - another unexplained nomination by Bulwersator. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:05, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Kept: clear PD-text logo Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:03, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
Tagged as fair use on enwiki Bulwersator (talk) 11:03, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
- Keep - {{PD-textlogo}} and {{PD-font}}. Only plain text in this image, nothing creative. --Sreejith K (talk) 12:09, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Kept. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:03, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
See page 4: non commercial. Ices2Csharp (talk) 11:11, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
- Keep - those claims by Microsoft can be safely ignored, I think. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:09, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Kept: Agreed. THe Microsoft scan does not create a new copyright in a book long PD. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:05, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 11:15, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:06, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope --Mdann52talk to me! 10:10, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
Deleted. -- George Chernilevsky talk 19:18, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 11:16, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:06, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope, I also doubt if the license applies. Ices2Csharp (talk) 11:18, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
- Keep - I see no reason to delete. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:11, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: The license is fine, but I see no reason why we should be keeping Library of Congress papers. THey are also a repository and I see no reason to duplicate. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:11, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 11:19, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:08, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 11:20, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:08, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 11:20, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:07, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 11:21, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:07, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 11:21, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:12, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 11:24, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:12, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope, copyvio. Ices2Csharp (talk) 11:27, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:13, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope, copyvio. Ices2Csharp (talk) 11:27, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:15, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
unnotable band Flickrworker (talk) 12:55, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:16, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
This listed building is concealed by renovation screens and is invisible. The picture lacks encyclopedic value. The screens have been removed in 2011; uploader can be invited to submit a new image. Loranchet (talk) 13:29, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
- Keep In use -> in scope. Multichill (talk) 21:29, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
- Keep - good image of renovation. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:16, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Kept. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:16, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
The picture is of such a bad quality (dark, out of focus) that it lacks encyclopedic value. Loranchet (talk) 13:35, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
- Keep In use -> in scope. Multichill (talk) 21:28, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
- Keep As per Multichill.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:45, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Kept. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:17, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
Image is obviously taken from a book. "Own work" tag is misleading. Probably copyright violation of Chanel and/or whoever owns the actual cuffs/took the photo for publication. ~ Mabalu (talk) 13:43, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:17, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
Another KVDP nonsense. This is sheer invention and fabrication, and this image isn't good enough to support that. As per his other images, this is a fanciful creation of "green" technologies. In this case a combined wastewater (note the methane digestion) and potable water (chlorination) system. Outside NASA and enclosed ecologies, there are no such plants. Taking a googleful of random sources and applying an Ouroboros plumbing technique to them is not the same thing as innovation.
There's also the small issue that the image is utterly unreadable and unexplained.
Additionally, KVDP's next act (yet again) was to log out of Commons / WP unified login, then to use an anonymous IP address to add this as a new masthead article for en:Sewage treatment. These are not the actions of an editor with any respect for the project's encyclopedic goals. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:20, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
- Delete - I was reverting the image insertion on Sewage Treatment but Andy Dingley beat me to the draw. Not only is it wrong, but it is most unhelpful and suggests a mystical complexity to sewage treatment that it doesn't have. A wholesale invention that professionals in the topic would not recognise. Velella (talk) 17:39, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
- Modify description - Without addressing the implications of the method this image was added to the sewage treatment article, I feel the image itself represents valid concepts assembled in an unconventional way. The quality could be better, but I question if low quality or imaginative content are valid bases for deletion of the image. Poor quality images can be valuable if no better image exists, and fanciful or distorted images are a common means of artistic expression. Representing a fanciful or distorted image as fact is a separate issue. The description of the image might be modified, since the present description makes questionable implications. I concur with removal of the image from the sewage treatment article in the absence of reference citations for the suggested process sequencing.Thewellman (talk) 18:12, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
- "valid concepts assembled in an unconventional way. " See Special:Contributions/KVDP and user talk:KVDP. This has become a problem, both here and at Wikipedia. Even Appropedia now seems to be catching on to the problem. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:18, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
- Delete: this appears to be an attempt at designing a closed-cycle waste treatment plant. Unfortunately, KVDP's engineering skills are nowhere near good enough for that. --Carnildo (talk) 20:51, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
- Delete: No basis in reality. No conceivable educational use.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:45, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
- Delete Another KVDP flight of imagination. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:09, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
- There is one method on how I could possibly fix the image; by simply making it a snapshot of a single component. That way, the issue of the water treatment plant as a whole (which now includes parts which are lined up in an unconventional way) is avoided. Also, the link is still kept, allowing other users to reuse some of my work. Let me know whether this is acceptable, and which part seems good enough to create a close-up from.
Google Warehouse/Google Earth are going to become a new major source of information, and will -in the future- probably be linked from wikipedia articles anyway. I doubt whether following 3D models of treatment plants represent more accurate water treatment plants:
- http://sketchup.google.com/3dwarehouse/details?mid=d91437031c62d2b3952545a1e25624f4&prevstart=0
- http://sketchup.google.com/3dwarehouse/details?mid=a9b3642ad07d4d9d91e77bf8960d497c&prevstart=0
- http://sketchup.google.com/3dwarehouse/details?mid=cabf77ec4a7e272184fa34422f70cd1c&prevstart=0
- http://sketchup.google.com/3dwarehouse/details?mid=6c02c8e5b43bbe1afcaa47549fbedbaf&prevstart=0
but perhaps I'm wrong here ? User:KVDP (talk) 10:39, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
- This image, like so many of your images, fails because it tries to do everything at once. It tries to show detail, it tries to show an entire plant, and it tries to invent a whole new mechanism at the same time.
- If you want to add an image of a sand-bed filter to Commons, then that would be both useful and possible. Would it be achievable? A bit harder, but not impossible.
- If you want to draw an entire plant, at least make the image bigger so that we can see what it's supposed to be.
- If you want to invent something, then find a different host from Wikimedia projects. This is not their purpose. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:17, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:22, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
The source document is credited to the Missouri Highways and Transportation Commission, which is a state government entity, and does not qualify for the PD-USGov license which is only for federal government works. Carl Lindberg (talk) 19:49, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
- Delete - no indication at http://www.modot.org that Commission works are PD.--ukexpat (talk) 14:49, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:31, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
This is not a straight photograph, but an album cover. This is still copyrighted in Argentina. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 19:59, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:31, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
taken from "wapking.in" Chesdovi (talk) 20:56, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:36, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
taken from "wapking.in" without permission Chesdovi (talk) 20:56, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:36, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Unlizensierte Kopie 93.219.164.128 21:03, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:36, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
Nonsensical permission statement. The English Wikipedia uploader also claimed to be the author of File:0512.PDNEXPO.judy.jpg, a Getty Images photo. —LX (talk, contribs) 22:01, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:42, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
Disney caracter 142.217.114.54 23:19, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
- Can't we keep this photo as fan art? VolodyA! V Anarhist Beta_M (converse) 12:47, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
- Delete Unless we get the permission of the artist. --Leyo 13:32, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Kept: There are two issues here. THere is a copyright in the design of the tattoo, but the uploader claims to be the designer, so that is not a problem. There other is that this might infringe on a copyright in the character, Captain Jack Sparrow. However this is not a cartoon character and this is not copied from any particular image in the movies, just a general impression, so I think that is a stretch, hence my decision. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:49, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
Disney caracter 142.217.114.54 23:21, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:49, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
Disnwy caracter 142.217.114.54 23:22, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:50, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
Non-free album cover ■ MMXX talk 00:50, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: by Mmxx. Yann (talk) 16:25, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
Copyvio Dismas (talk) 04:50, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: by Denniss. Yann (talk) 16:26, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
cant change suffix. wrong pic. am uploading correct one now Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 05:28, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: by Fastily. Yann (talk) 16:26, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 11:08, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
- Keep, within scope. cygnis insignis 11:42, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
- Keep in COM:SCOPE Gnangarra 12:54, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
- Keep - clearly in scope. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:07, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Kept: as above. However the first page should be removed. Yann (talk) 16:28, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 11:08, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
- Inscope w:Life of William Blake indirectly links to it, why would we delete the complete volume while its an incomplete work on wikisource Gnangarra 12:13, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
- We are not a mirror of Google Books, are we? Ices2Csharp (talk) 14:04, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
- Not out of scope at all; not even close. However it does appear to be a duplicate of File:Life of William Blake, Pictor ignotus (Volume 2).djvu. Hesperian 01:26, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Kept: as above. However the first page should be removed. Yann (talk) 16:28, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
not in use 94.172.35.176 12:17, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Yann (talk) 16:29, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
This image infringes the copyright of the living artist. FOP in the Netherlands explicitly does not include museums. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:53, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- Uploaded undisputed alternative (provided by the museum under CC BY-SA 3.0) here: File:Galaxy MPH 2005-042 01.jpg. Whaledad (talk) 03:52, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
- It is not obvious to me that the artist approved the license of the photo on the museum site. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 08:00, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
- Go to the picture's page, click on "Auteursrecht" (bottom left), read that page, then click on "Creative Commons" (bottom of left column). Any more questions? Whaledad (talk) 13:15, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
- Thank you for your pointer, but I already referred to the license on the museum site. Yes, it has a license, just like the photo by Mdd. The remaining question is the same in both cases: did the artist give permission? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 13:29, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
- There is a BIG difference of course. For the newly uploaded picture it is the museum that publishes the picture under CC BY-SA 3.0. Are you telling me there is any likelihood that the museum publishes these pictures with that license without permission from the artist? Feel free to NfD the newly uploaded picture if you will. Whaledad (talk) 14:30, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
- Compare Commons:Deletion requests/File:Picasso 4382.jpg where the museum had even sent specific permission via the OTRS system. So that is what Mdd could have done, fix an OTRS ticket, and it is likely to survive a DR. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 14:52, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
- Delete You're right: it is what he could have done, and should have done, but what he didn't do. The 7 days are now up and without OTRS ticket the picture will be deleted. I simply provided a safe, documented alternative, which is even a better picture (not taken with a smartphone). So, what is your problem here? Again, if you have your doubts around the new picture, by all means, NfD it. Whaledad (talk) 15:30, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
- Compare Commons:Deletion requests/File:Picasso 4382.jpg where the museum had even sent specific permission via the OTRS system. So that is what Mdd could have done, fix an OTRS ticket, and it is likely to survive a DR. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 14:52, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
- There is a BIG difference of course. For the newly uploaded picture it is the museum that publishes the picture under CC BY-SA 3.0. Are you telling me there is any likelihood that the museum publishes these pictures with that license without permission from the artist? Feel free to NfD the newly uploaded picture if you will. Whaledad (talk) 14:30, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
- Thank you for your pointer, but I already referred to the license on the museum site. Yes, it has a license, just like the photo by Mdd. The remaining question is the same in both cases: did the artist give permission? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 13:29, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
- Go to the picture's page, click on "Auteursrecht" (bottom left), read that page, then click on "Creative Commons" (bottom of left column). Any more questions? Whaledad (talk) 13:15, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
- It is not obvious to me that the artist approved the license of the photo on the museum site. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 08:00, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
- I guess I didn't completely understand the discussion here until just now: The File:Galaxy MPH 2005-042 01.jpg is disputed as well, but a Commons:Deletion requests hasn't been started yet. Because I didn't understand until that until now, I just uploaded two more images of Wietske van Leeuwen from the same source. File:Groene glasschaal (1997).jpg and File:Terrine met deksel (1997).jpg
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
- Now what I can do is contact Wietske van Leeuwen again and ask here to send permission to the OTRS system for the release of both images here. And I can contact Barbara Nanning (if Whaledad approves) and ask here the same for both of here images, disputed here? -- Mdd (talk) 17:48, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
- @Mdd: I have no doubts as to the copyright status of the picture I uploaded. Pieter expresses doubts here, but has not filed a NfD. If you contact Barbara anyway, feel free to also include the picture I uploaded, just to satisfy Pieter. On the two new pictures (Wietske): the picture I uploaded was clearly marked "Eigenaar: Vereniging van Vrienden Keramiekmuseum Princessehof". This was not the case for the 2 pictures you uploaded (so in both cases your remark on the picture page "Picture: Vereniging van Vrienden Keramiekmuseum Princessehof" may well be incorrect). I have a suspicion that both those pictures may fall under the disclaimer on this page, in that the museum isn't sure who owns the picture. Just to make sure, you may want to contact the museum on this. Because even if Wietske would OTRS for the sculpture (which again, I don't think necessary because the museum has a clear CC BY-NA 3.0 statement), you would still need to make sure who the owner of the picture is. Whaledad (talk) 18:04, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
- I have contacted Barbara Nanning to ask her permission. -- Mdd (talk) 21:34, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
- I have had a response that she is ok with it (with both images). I will work on the OTRS conformation. -- Mdd (talk) 10:14, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
- There has risen some doubts here: It doesn't seem right that we contact the artist/designer independent from the museum which has already released the image. I will make some further inquiries (with OTRS people, Wikimedia Netherlands free publicity project, and perhaps the museum) which could take a couple of days/weeks. I will get back on this, if I have some answers. -- Mdd (talk) 19:37, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
- Note sure exactly where this doubt is coming from and what you plan to do. My current understanding:
- There has risen some doubts here: It doesn't seem right that we contact the artist/designer independent from the museum which has already released the image. I will make some further inquiries (with OTRS people, Wikimedia Netherlands free publicity project, and perhaps the museum) which could take a couple of days/weeks. I will get back on this, if I have some answers. -- Mdd (talk) 19:37, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
- I have had a response that she is ok with it (with both images). I will work on the OTRS conformation. -- Mdd (talk) 10:14, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
- File:Galaxy_(Barbara_Nanning).jpg is not properly marked up in the system. You now have verbal approval from the artists and have started work on getting this confirmed in an OTRS ticket. Correct?
- File:Galaxy MPH 2005-042 01.jpg is properly marked up in the system, appears to have the proper release from the museum on their website, which most of us read as to include permission by the artist. Pieter Kuiper has cast doubt on this, and you agreed with this doubt and have asked the artist if she agreed to that picture being on Commons as well, and she confirmed that. You planned to work on an OTRS ticket for this image too (to confirm what most of us already understood), but now....
- And this is where you lost me. Whaledad (talk) 03:38, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
- Well you lost me here as well. What system are you refering to? Why is the first not properly marked up and the second is? There are several differences between the two images:
- The first is made by an independent photographer Dutch Esther Westerveld released at Flickr under CC BY 2.0.
- The second is released by the Keramiekmuseum Princessehof at their website under CC BY-SA 3.0
- Now there are several questions.
- First a minor one: Where did you, Whaledad, got the idea here that the photograph is by the Vereniging van Vrienden Keramiekmuseum Princessehof? The source info states that, if I am not mistaken, the Vereniging is the owner of the sculpture and not the picture.
- The mayor question here is whether or not these applied art objects are matter of copyright themselves or not.
- Also does the exception in the "gebruikersvoorwaarden" (see here) "Tenzij anders vermeld is op deze website geldt de Creative Commons Licentie Naamsvermelding / Gelijk delen van toepassing" implies that the museum is already in the position to release the images, and we don't have to contact the artists ourselves.
- And there is a OTRS system/Wikicommons matter whether or not we want to take all precaution here. We could choose to respect the "gebruikersvoorwaarden" of the museum. If the artist has second thoughts, we could still remove the image, stating we respected the conditions(gebruikersvoorwaarden) of the Keramiekmuseum Princessehof.
- Now maybe you, Whaledad, already gave your answer to the last two questions, with your statement "the image is properly marked up in the system". Well, I can life with that. That means I only have to ask Barbara Nanning permission for the first image. And I don't have to ask Wietske van Leeuwen for here OTRS permission about her two (new) pictures. -- Mdd (talk) 11:19, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
- Well you lost me here as well. What system are you refering to? Why is the first not properly marked up and the second is? There are several differences between the two images:
- To get a solution on short notice, I have asked Barbara Nanning to send her permission anyway, which she did (sse below). This deletion requests can be closed. -- Mdd (talk) 16:39, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Permission by the artist
[edit].jpg&action=edit§ion=T-2){kind=link}
I have received permission by the artist to use this image, and therefor to use the piece of art in this particular image. The image itself has sufficient licence on the website Flickr. All can be look up in OTRS ticket #2012021010007028 Edoderoo (talk) 15:04, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Kept: Withdrawn by nom after OTRS permission has been received. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:41, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
copyrighted picture that got dumped here http://www.koninklijkhuis.nl/Paleizen/De_Eikenhorst.html Sonty (talk) 14:01, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Yann (talk) 16:31, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
registered trademark logo, upload to Wikimedia Commons instead of Wikipedia, SORRY :-( Ddeguerville (talk) 16:36, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Kept: PD-textlogo. Yann (talk) 16:38, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
registered trademark logo, upload to Wikimedia Commons instead of Wikipedia, SORRY :-( Ddeguerville (talk) 16:37, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Kept: PD-textlogo. Yann (talk) 16:39, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
COM:FOP#Saudi Arabia. 84.61.139.62 19:11, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Kept: Just a clock. Yann (talk) 16:40, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
According to EXIF metadata, it is an AP photo. Yann (talk) 07:55, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
- Delete Probably a copyvio. Sinnamon Girl (talk) 04:02, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
- Delete, likely a copyright violation image. -- Cirt (talk) 06:21, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:08, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
It looks like a copyright violation, since no source is specified мιѕѕ мαηzαηα (talk) 20:15, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: by Fastily. Yann (talk) 16:40, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
KVDP nonsense. The output pipe leads upwards, above the top of the coil. This pump will drain backwards instead. A realistic(sic) coil pump needs more than this pump's five turns. There is indeed a small increment in hydrostatic pressure with each turn, but not enough to make a large-bore, low-turn pump like this pump above its own diameter. Practical coil pumps use tens of turns, which leads to their limiting factor in operation of their internal resistance becoming too high and impacting efficiency. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:31, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
- The output pipe is not drawn beyond the top of the coil. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:50, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
- A simple one-turn spiral pipe pump only pumps to its centre height. Each extra turn adds a little more than that, however they don't add this much. Note also that this pump is running in shallow water, so it will work very poorly as a coil pump. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:55, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
- The file is in use on en:Coil pump; it is against policy to delete it. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:02, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
- If it's inaccurate, then we should remove it from WP first. I thought you were a physicist? Are you really in favour of KVDP's little fairytale pictures?
- You might also like to look at the sourcing for that article. First ref is about spiral pumps, not helical pumps. Different machines. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:24, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
- As a physics teacher, I wonder what is behind your idea that the centre height of the coil would be limiting. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 10:00, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
- Mostly from building water-wheel powered coil pumps. I gave up on them as a bad lot and switched to a hydraulic ram. IMHE, spiral pumps (i.e. single plane coils) work fine, but are limited to their centre height. Coil pumps (multi-turn helices) lose too much in internal friction to deliver useful flow. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:41, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
- As a physics teacher, I wonder what is behind your idea that the centre height of the coil would be limiting. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 10:00, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
- The file is in use on en:Coil pump; it is against policy to delete it. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:02, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
- A simple one-turn spiral pipe pump only pumps to its centre height. Each extra turn adds a little more than that, however they don't add this much. Note also that this pump is running in shallow water, so it will work very poorly as a coil pump. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:55, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
- Keep. Unlike most of KVDP's work, there's no original research involved in this diagram: see section 3.6.4 and the picture just above it. Edit: If my mental calculations are correct, a coil pump that is 50% submerged in water can give (almost) one diameter of hydraulic head per loop of the coil, give or take the compressibility of air. --Carnildo (talk) 23:59, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
- Keep I indeed took over the fao schematic as closely as I could, I just kept out the barrel for clarity and esthetics, I did mention this in the description though. I do have confidence in Andy's comment that, in practice, more than five turns will be needed (I assume the exact number of turns will also depend on the length of the outlet pipe, going upwards). However, I think this is perhaps best included in a next version of the image (when someone at the Graphics lab decides to make an .svg of it)
User:KVDP (talk) 10:59, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
- withdraw Andy Dingley (talk) 11:13, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
Kept: Withdrawn. Yann (talk) 16:41, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
brak licencji Korwin3 (talk) 22:58, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: by Fastily. Yann (talk) 16:44, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
Uploader claims to be copyright holder but the image is being used in an article about an internet meme The Mark of the Beast (talk) 03:43, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Wknight94 talk 02:59, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
out of scope, useless personnal picture --MGuf (d) 12:23, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
- Comment I ask the deletion for the newbie user lost with how to ask, after he try to delete it on wp:fr ----MGuf (d) 12:25, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
- Delete ----MGuf (d) 12:25, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
- Delete out of scope, useless personnal picture Zied2 (talk) 19:44, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: useless personnal picture Julo (talk) 22:49, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Uploader claims to be copyright holder but the image is being used in an article about an internet meme The Mark of the Beast (talk) 03:41, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:21, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Uploader claims to be copyright holder but the image is being used in an article about an internet meme The Mark of the Beast (talk) 03:42, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:21, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
This seems not a U.S. work and hence {{PD-US}} doesn't seem to apply. Lymantria (talk) 07:48, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
- It's not a US work; it was published in Argentina. See comments on a related photo from the same source at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Sirio wrecked.jpg. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 15:22, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:22, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
Stolen from here [[7]] Artmax (talk) 07:52, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:22, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 08:11, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:22, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
The following logo listed for deletion because it is (possibly) copyrighted. Unsure if the decorative artwork and distinctive typeface still allow it to fall under the "plain text" exception that Commons uses occasionally. Senator2029║talk 08:20, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:22, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
COM:DW. Pjotr Tajoschni died in 1952. (see: ru:Таёжный, Пётр Иванович) sугсго 09:04, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:22, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
1950. Not PD-old, or PD-Russia-2008. sугсго 09:09, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:23, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
1947. not PD-old. Not PD-Russia-2008. sугсго 09:10, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:23, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
1947. Not PD-old, Not PD-Russia-2008. sугсго 09:11, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:23, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
1947. Not PD-old, not PD-Russia-2008. sугсго 09:11, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:23, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
1946. Not PD-old. Not PD-Russia-2008. sугсго 09:15, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:23, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
1950s. Not pd-old, not PD-Russia-2008. sугсго 09:16, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:23, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
1948. Not PD-old, not PD-Russia-2008. sугсго 09:18, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:23, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 11:17, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:23, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
A better version of the same map has been uploaded as File:Netherlands, Stompwijk, map, around 1865-1870.jpg Loranchet (talk) 13:52, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
- Delete. No need to keep this one. --P199 (talk) 14:46, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
- Keep different colors, different file format. Multichill (talk) 21:32, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
- Keep As per multichill, a black and white version of this map may be useful. --AlphaEta (talk) 23:11, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Kept. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:25, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
A better version of this map has been uploaded as: File:Netherlands, Veur, map of 1867.jpg Loranchet (talk) 13:54, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
- Delete. No need to keep this one. --P199 (talk) 14:47, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
- Keep different colors, different file format, in scope. Multichill (talk) 21:33, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
- Keep This black and white copy of the map is of sufficient quality to be retained along with the newer version. --AlphaEta (talk) 23:08, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Kept. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:25, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
A better version of this map has been uploaded as: File:Netherlands, Voorburg, map of 1867.jpg Loranchet (talk) 13:56, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
- Delete. No need to keep this one. --P199 (talk) 14:47, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
- Keep no need to delete this one. Different colors, different file format, in scope. Multichill (talk) 21:33, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
- Keep This black and white copy of the map is of sufficient quality to be retained along with the newer version. --AlphaEta (talk) 23:08, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Kept. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:25, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
The uploader requested deletion a few minutes after upload but used a Wikipedia deletion template instead of a Commons deletion template [8] Asclepias (talk) 15:29, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
![[8]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Copie_de_P1010654.JPG&diff=36424949&oldid=36424492){kind=link}
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:28, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
User:Mdd does not appear to be old enough for this to be "own work" as claimed. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:41, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
- The OTRS ticket is on the File:Henny Langeveld (1953a).jpg file. This file can be deleted. -- Mdd (talk) 20:15, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:28, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
This image shows obviously[9] NOT the 1965-born journalist es:Tomás Roncero that it claims to be per its current use (inserted by the uploader himself). Per this Roncero seems to have some enemies, so it's not unlikely that this image was uploaded with the intent to demean or whathever the real Roncero. -- Túrelio (talk) 17:03, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:29, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope; the image in this paper is File:Supercontinuum in a microstructured optical fiber.PNG, the rest is just text. Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:05, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
- Could be used by wikisource. Commons:Project_scope#PDF_and_DjVu_formats would seem to apply. Carl Lindberg (talk) 09:27, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
- The relevant section is Commons:Project scope#Excluded educational content. This is just uploader's own article, not of interest for wikisource. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 09:30, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
- I guess the question is about the article -- is it published elsewhere? From the scope article: A PDF or DjVu file of a published and peer-reviewed work would be in scope on Wikisource and is therefore also in scope on Commons. Examples of in-scope documents include published books (but not vanity-publishing), peer-reviewed academic papers etc., university theses and dissertations. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:58, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:29, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
COM:FOP#Saudi Arabia. 84.61.139.62 19:06, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:30, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
COM:FOP#Saudi Arabia. 84.61.139.62 19:10, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:30, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
COM:FOP#Saudi Arabia. 84.61.139.62 19:13, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:30, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
No information about architect. No FOP in Russia. Artem Karimov (talk) 20:32, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
- Built by Andrey Fandysh-Krandiyevsky in 1956, which means it is copyrighted till 2037. I suggest that next time you do your homework yourself.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:35, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
- Burden of proof lies with the uploader, not me. Your argument does not stand. Artem Karimov (talk) 10:06, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
- Well, I need to remind you once more that you plainly do not understand the policies, and I hope you will be blocked for this pretty soon, as you have been blocked in Russian Wikipedia. If you want to train, nominate File:Sadko palekh.jpg for deletion and see what reactions you get.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:41, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
- Скажите пожалуйста, чьи права нарушает изображение Садко?--PereslavlFoto (talk) 10:59, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
- Художника, разумеется. Только надо ещё выяснить, кто он. Я вчера потратил полчаса и не смог.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:01, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
- Вот именно. Мы не знаем, чьи права нарушены и был ли вообще художник. А в данном случае мы точно знаем, что был скульптор и что фотограф должен купить у скульптора права. Поэтому ваша аналогия очень, очень невежлива. Вы притянули её за уши, хотя ничего общего тут нет. Точно так же можно требовать, чтобы не удалялись и книги и картины живых авторов, то есть призывать к широкому пиратству. Но так никто не делает, понимая, что призывать к нарушению законов бесполезно.--PereslavlFoto (talk) 11:05, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
- Отнюдь. Мы знаем, что был художник, что этот художник жил в Палехе, и что, скорее всего, миниатюра послевоенная. Художник наверняка известен, надо просто пойти в библиотеку и найти эту миниатюру. Более того, с некоторой вероятностью это Николай Зиновьев. Точно так же и тут: безусловно, есть скульптор, мы знаем, что изображены события 1922 года, то есть памятник поставлен после 1922 года, но он вполне мог быть поставлен до войны, а скульптор умереть до 1941 года, и тогда скульптура была бы свободная. А так, знаете, можно и мои фотографии выносить на удаление с требованием, чтобы я доказал, что это именно я снимал. И в случае возражений добавлять: We can not take any chances.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:12, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
- Вот именно. Мы не знаем, чьи права нарушены и был ли вообще художник. А в данном случае мы точно знаем, что был скульптор и что фотограф должен купить у скульптора права. Поэтому ваша аналогия очень, очень невежлива. Вы притянули её за уши, хотя ничего общего тут нет. Точно так же можно требовать, чтобы не удалялись и книги и картины живых авторов, то есть призывать к широкому пиратству. Но так никто не делает, понимая, что призывать к нарушению законов бесполезно.--PereslavlFoto (talk) 11:05, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
- Художника, разумеется. Только надо ещё выяснить, кто он. Я вчера потратил полчаса и не смог.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:01, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
- Скажите пожалуйста, чьи права нарушает изображение Садко?--PereslavlFoto (talk) 10:59, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
- Oh please. Where exactly am I wrong in understanding the policies? Is it not the burden of uploader to prove license? Or is it your unwillingness to follow core policies speaking? Artem Karimov (talk) 17:23, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
- I am sorry that you do not get the point, but I have no time for the tenth attempt to explain it to you. I am afraid this is not my problem.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:42, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
- Ha! I asked you to clarify those dubious accusations and you run away. So typical. Artem Karimov (talk) 18:33, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
- Well, so far ALL of you nominations were closed with the result keep. Not a single person, with the exception of one troll, ever supported you in your nominations, nor in your comnplaints on Village Pump. If I did not spend my time yesterday to find out who the sculptor actually was, this nomination would also be closed as keep. If everybody os against you, then it should be smth wrong with your attitude, not with mine. And the problem is that you are here to stalk users, not to improve Commons.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:44, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
- If people create all sorts of excuses just to ignore copyright policy of Commons that does not make their actions right. And you still run away. Of course in Russia when you ask someone to stand behind their words, to answer for them one would rather flame instead of clarifying dubious statement. That is why your replies are so typical. So let me ask again: is it not the burden of uploader to prove license? Artem Karimov (talk) 18:59, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
- I am not in Russia, so tha you do not have a point. Concerning your question: The uploader did provide the licence, it it that just licence turned to be incorrect due to his limiting understanding of the copyright laws. In this situation, you should (i) assume good faith; (ii) do the research proving your point. You failed to do both. In this situation, one could assume that the monument is PD (in contrast for instance to the post-war metro stations which are clearly not PD even if the architect is not immediately known). It also does not help that you opened this DR immediately after you had a clash with the user, which strongly suggests that you just went over his upload list and have chosen the most recent dubious upload. This is known as wikistalking and may be prevented by blocking your account.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:55, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
- And from here we go to the COM:AGF where it is clearly stated that "Editors have an obligation to properly document the files they upload and material may be deleted if the documentation is incorrect or inadequate. ... Good standing contributors's copyvio uploads cannot be treated or kept under good faith and it will [be] dealt accordingly". So it is not my obligation to do the research. If the uploader did not take care of licensing issues, it is his fault, not mine. And yes, I checked user's uploads for copyvios after he called me to "fight fat art persons" and disregard copyright. It made me very wary about user's intentions and actions. Artem Karimov (talk) 20:33, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
- Well, next time I will not do the research for you, and you will have to convince the sysops that they have to do it. So far, you failed miserably. But I see that arguing with you is as much productive as arguing with X-romix, so I better stop and leave you proving your point to the admins. Bye.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:44, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
- And from here we go to the COM:AGF where it is clearly stated that "Editors have an obligation to properly document the files they upload and material may be deleted if the documentation is incorrect or inadequate. ... Good standing contributors's copyvio uploads cannot be treated or kept under good faith and it will [be] dealt accordingly". So it is not my obligation to do the research. If the uploader did not take care of licensing issues, it is his fault, not mine. And yes, I checked user's uploads for copyvios after he called me to "fight fat art persons" and disregard copyright. It made me very wary about user's intentions and actions. Artem Karimov (talk) 20:33, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
- If people create all sorts of excuses just to ignore copyright policy of Commons that does not make their actions right. And you still run away. Of course in Russia when you ask someone to stand behind their words, to answer for them one would rather flame instead of clarifying dubious statement. That is why your replies are so typical. So let me ask again: is it not the burden of uploader to prove license? Artem Karimov (talk) 18:59, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
- Ha! I asked you to clarify those dubious accusations and you run away. So typical. Artem Karimov (talk) 18:33, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
- Burden of proof lies with the uploader, not me. Your argument does not stand. Artem Karimov (talk) 10:06, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Очередной прогиб Артема Каримова перед американцами. Черта с два ваш склад от меня получит.--Andshel (talk) 07:21, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
- Delete English: Please do not insult individuals, discuss the image. By the laws of Russia it's a copyvio.Русский: Пожалуйста не унижайте конкретных людей, а обсуждайте само изображение. По Российским законам - это нарушение копирайта.VolodyA! V Anarhist Beta_M (converse) 12:45, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
- Можете ещё Варшавянку тут спеть. Не поможет. Artem Karimov (talk) 17:20, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:31, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
This is a personal picture of myself and I would no longer like to have it publicly available. Fg1234567892000 (talk) 21:37, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
- It is in use. Yann (talk) 16:43, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
- Not any longer. --63.228.161.242 18:55, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:32, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
The file is intended to show a listed building (called monument in the Netherlands). But as it was under reconstruction, nothing of the building can be seen in the picture, just workers' sheds. The picture therefore has no educational or encyclopedic value. Loranchet (talk) 23:10, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
- The photographs documents the reconstruction of the document. The banner visible in the picture gives a description of what is goin on. A new version is File:Leidschendam - Sluisplein 1 - Rijksmonument 25722.jpg. Dedalus (talk) 16:08, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
Kept. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:52, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
The object of this image is a listed building. But it is completely invisible due to renovation screens and sheds. It therefore lacks encyclopedic value. Currently the renovation is finished. Uploader can be requested to submit a new image. Loranchet (talk) 13:42, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
- Speedy kept. No new arguments for deletion. The image is in scope. Multichill (talk) 21:31, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
I know that there is a previous DR on this, but that one didn't discuss the derivative work that's an issue I think in this picture Vera (talk) 14:11, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
- Keep I see your point and I am normally tough on such things, but given the steep angle and the poor reproduction of the sign, I would be inclined to say that the DW issue is de minimis. . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:28, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
Kept as per Jim. Yann (talk) 13:03, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
Photo is not created by uploader. Photo apparently comes from a photo sesion with Cecil Beaton according to photos with a similar setting at NPG London. Not freely licensed, not public domain. Martin H. (talk) 22:35, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
- This user appears to habitually claim self-creation. Check their contributions - they claim to have self-created photographs from 1910s and 1920s, which is impossible. Also some appear to have been taken from television screens (Chanel & Balsan, Iribe) or from books (see Chanel cuffs by Verdura image - obviously from a book). Mabalu (talk) 13:14, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Photo is not created by uploader. Photo apparently comes from a photo sesion with Cecil Beaton according to photos with a similar setting at NPG London. Not freely licensed, not public domain. (Reasons originally given by User:Martin_H. 22:35, 8 January 2012 (UTC)) Am reposting here as it doesn't look like uploader received notification of earlier nomination. ~ Mabalu (talk) 13:51, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:17, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
Copyrighted logo —Andrei S. Talk 13:56, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Denniss (talk) 13:24, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
Although there might be an argument that this furniture is utilitarian and therefore not eligible for copyright, I think that the elaborate decoration makes it closer to art and therefore at least needs discussion. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:15, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
- There has been similar discussions (delete and undelete) with the File:Ettore sottsass, libreria casablanca, 1981.JPG file, see here. This kind of work seems to be acceptable here. -- 17:29, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
- I see nothing there to suggest that it has ever been discussed -- images that have been kept after a DR have a {{Kept}} template on their talk page. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 23:39, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
- @Jameslwoodward. That image was removed first and afterwards restored after a discussion at Commons:Undeletion requests/Archive/2010-03. There was a long there discussion March 2010. -- Mdd (talk) 00:20, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
- Delete In that long discussion you correctly argued that in the Netherlands unique designs like this are protected by copyright. The Undelete of "Ettore..." was based on the fact that Italy doesn't have such explicit protection of unique designs for possibly utilitarian objects. Whaledad (talk) 13:35, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
I will contact Jurgen Bey and ask for permission. -- Mdd (talk) 21:12, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
- I have contacted the company of Jurgen Bey and they are willing to consider the options. Further communication could take a couple of days. -- Mdd (talk) 19:02, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Denniss (talk) 13:25, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
Another case where an argument could be made that this is utilitarian and therefore not eligible, but the art work on the furniture probably qualifies for copyright. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:22, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
- There has been similar discussions (delete and undelete) with the File:Ettore sottsass, libreria casablanca, 1981.JPG file. This kind of work seems to be acceptable here. -- Mdd (talk) 17:30, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
- For further discussion see Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Meubelkist_Meubels.jpg. -- Mdd (talk) 19:00, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
- If kept, it should be renamed. Yann (talk) 16:37, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
- I have received conformation and have send this to the OTRS system. I agree this item shoud be renamed to the formal name: "Stofkasthuis open.jpg". -- Mdd (talk) 15:52, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
- The last conformation didn't work out. Now today I have received (new) conformation by the photographer Bob Goedewaagen, and will ask him to send the standard conformation email. -- Mdd (talk) 10:45, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
- I have received conformation and have send this to the OTRS system. I agree this item shoud be renamed to the formal name: "Stofkasthuis open.jpg". -- Mdd (talk) 15:52, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Denniss (talk) 13:25, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
Original work of art is by Cor Kraat; no indication that Cor Kraat has given permission for this. Whaledad (talk) 20:20, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
- Keep FOP in The Netherlands, no permission required. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:22, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
- Wow, you're fast. Yes, I was already removing the nomination.
Done Whaledad (talk) 20:26, 31 January 2012 (UTC) - Is {{pd-self}} the right template here? Whaledad (talk) 20:27, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
- Yes; it is what Gerardus wanted. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:51, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
- Wow, you're fast. Yes, I was already removing the nomination.
Kept. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:32, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
Files of User:Pritom67
[edit]- File:Pravu Jagadbandhu Sundor.jpg
- File:Eight Martyrs.jpg
- File:Original band of Mahaanam Sampraday.jpg
- File:Sripadmahendraji.jpg
- File:Original band of Mahaanam Sampraday.jpg
- File:America (Mohanambrata Brhamachari).jpg
- File:Guru porompora.jpg
- File:Sri Dham Sri Angan.jpg
- File:Dr. Mahanambrata Brahmachari.JPG
- File:Bg31.jpg
- File:Convocation2 copy.jpg
- File:Schoolcopy.jpg
- File:Reading scriptures1.jpg
- File:Kalvoirob.jpg
- File:Kalvoirober ongsobisesh.jpg
- File:Vason2.jpg
- File:Mallodan at Osto Shahid.jpg
- File:At USA.jpg
- File:Vason.jpg
- File:Mahanam132.jpg
- File:Drmahanambrat chicago univ convocation2.jpg
- File:M 101413.jpg
- File:Mahanam group india.jpg
- File:Mahanambrata Sig.jpg
- File:Kaminisundoridevi.jpg
- File:At chicago world fellowship of faith.jpg
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
These files have been used repeatedly on the English Wiki for spam pages. I have CSD'ed the pages, but they reappear in a few days. Also, unlikely that this one user owns the copyrights to all these images --Dcshank (talk) 19:10, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:31, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Sarahjames (talk · contribs)
[edit]Likely copyright violations based on the truthfulness of some of the uploader's other authorship claims. (File:Victory Lane Dover 2011 Kurt Busch & Patricia Driscoll.jpg by Geoff Burke, File:Victory Lane Sonoma, CA.jpg by Jason O. Watson and File:Kurt Busch Patricia Driscoll Victory lane Sonoma, CA.jpg by Nigel Kinrade were all claimed to be the uploader's own work.)
- File:Richmond VA Hospital Dinner Patricia Driscoll Wounded Troops.jpg – Nikon D60, 10 September 2009
- File:Las Vegas Wounded Troops Trip Venetian Patricia Driscoll.jpg – Nikon D70, 22 May 2008
- File:Kurt Busch & Patricia Driscoll Nascar Banquet 2011.jpg
- File:Sononma California Martin Family Kurt Busch Patricia Driscoll.jpg – Canon PowerShot SD400, 26 June 2011
- File:Nascar Championship Banquet 2011.jpg
—LX (talk, contribs) 21:50, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:42, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
Unlikely authorship claims in light of the uploader's other copyright violations.
- File:Hayat Muhammad Khan Sherpao Governor of the North West Frontier Province.jpg
- File:Hayat Khan Sherpao.jpg
- File:Governor Hayat Muhammad Khan Sherpao.jpg
- File:Hayat Muhammad Khan Sherpao speaking at a public rally.jpg
—LX (talk, contribs) 22:52, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:43, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
Likely to be collection of promo/fan photos.
- File:Gillies.jpg
- File:Gillies sexy.jpg
- File:Victorious-cast2.jpg
- File:Victorious-cast.jpg
- File:ImagesCAS12PXT.jpg
EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:46, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Blatant copyvios Martin H. (talk) 19:29, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Files of User:Mike1353
[edit]- File:Radnor Trail.jpg
- File:Radnor trail 1.jpg
- File:Radnor station.jpg
- File:Radnor wayne.jpg
- File:Radnor walking.jpg
- File:Sugartown-2.jpg
- File:Radnor stroller.jpg
- File:Radnor stroller 2.jpg
- File:Old wayne.jpg
Images taken from various websites. --Smooth_O (talk) 14:00, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:20, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
Flickr source Ferrarifan1956
[edit]- File:MSC Special Gold Helmet.jpg
- File:Schumi Gold Helmet.jpg
- File:Mercedes-Benz Sports Car Drivers 1991.jpg
Flickr washing from flickr account --PierreSelim (talk) 14:17, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
- Delete per PierreSelim. Kyro (talk) 15:40, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Denniss (talk) 19:19, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
Flag/Logo of an orgazation. I don't believe it meets threshold of originality. Further, I think that original file (400 × 267 (7 KB)) is taken from here, so it cannot be the uploader's work. Bojan Talk 08:34, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: logo of organisation "Отачаствени покрет Образ" http://www.srb-obraz.org/, without permission JDavid (talk) 09:20, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
per Commons:Deletion requests/File:Assassin's Creed Logo.png & Commons:Deletion requests/File:Assassin's Creed logo.svg. 79.33.28.193 14:51, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 19:36, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
unlikely own work. Also see the "otrs pending" (no template link) which was given by the uploader. http://www.panoramio.com/photo/28771762 "© adrian_olimpero" since 2009-11. Or http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showpost.php?s=6a038f19fce5e236d711f37dd5c67ecd&p=16958821&postcount=113 since 2007-12 (that date is confirmed by the HTTP last modified date of imageshak.us: Fr 07 Dez 2007 16:51:37 CET). Saibo (Δ) 23:51, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 19:36, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
This file has wrong name. This building is named Building 'L'. 掬茶 (talk) 05:02, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
- Keep not a deletion reason; use {{Rename}}.--Prosfilaes (talk) 08:19, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Kept: Has been renamed. Ices2Csharp (talk) 22:41, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
Text on this flag is in Comic Sans. Nuff said. Ole Yves 14:34, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Kept: In heavy used, so no reason to delete for quality problems like the wrong font being used. Ices2Csharp (talk) 22:44, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
Es handelt sich um ein Foto einer nicht in der Öffentlichkeit stehenden Privatperson. Es ist kein Einverständnis zur Veröffentlichung erkennbar. Zudem wurde der "Artikel" zur Person bereits gelöscht (aufstrebender Kinderrapper). Weissbier (talk) 05:42, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 07:31, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
This image is taken by me. It is of poor quality. Overall poor image. Joydeep (talk) 06:01, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 07:25, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Duplicate of another file. Did not realize when I created it. It's possible this file might still have a place. The other file (File:Hyland software thirdfrontiersummit 2002 Taft Hyland close cropped.jpg) is cropped a bit tighter for use in the List of Governors of Ohio page, whereas this is a longer crop intended for Taft's sidebar. I'll leave it up for others to decide. (Neutral).--~ Tim Thomason (talk) 06:37, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 07:25, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
While the image is correctly licensed on Flickr, the work in the image is not. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:03, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 07:36, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Loewy died in 1986. Unless this was first published in the USA without notice, it is still in copyright and will be for a long time. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:20, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 07:30, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Ho sbagliato a caricarlo su Commons, andava caricato normalmente in wikipedia.Grazie.
Sono l'utente che ha inserito l'immagine stessa.
---DottMs (talk) 13:30, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 20:12, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Page must be deleted. Source is unavalible. Licensing is fake - (User:Яков Юдельсон has not proove that he is person (Sergey Bulichyov) or photographer of the person. Carn 09:43, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
Plus - this image has no use in any wikipedia page.·Carn 08:38, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
- Not exists of any reason for deletion of this picture. Archival legistation must be viewed by you. - Иван Токон (talk) 04:03, 28 January 2012 (UTC).
- Sergey Bulichyov does not satisfy the requirements of en:WP:Notability. He's too distant descendant of Baron Ungern. His life is not important for the description Ungern. The text about him in an article about Ungern has been removed. Therefore, this picture is not needed in Wikipedia. Unnecessary photo should be deleted.·Carn 11:45, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
- There are no evidences that Sergey Bulichyov is real descendant of Baron Ungern.94.29.12.39 18:50, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
- Sergey Bulichyov does not satisfy the requirements of en:WP:Notability. He's too distant descendant of Baron Ungern. His life is not important for the description Ungern. The text about him in an article about Ungern has been removed. Therefore, this picture is not needed in Wikipedia. Unnecessary photo should be deleted.·Carn 11:45, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
- EN: In strict accordance with archival law of Russia, any materials which were got by request from an archive, is available for distribution and another usage, unless otherwise indicated. Thus, civil rights of person, who first uploaded the photo here, were violated. As result, these rights must be restored, as and contribution of this man. (about User: Яков Юдельсон).
RU: В строгом соответствии с архивным законодательством России, любые материалы, которые были получены по запросу из архива, доступны для распространения и другого использования, если не указано иное. Таким образом, гражданские права человека, который первым загрузил фото здесь, были нарушены. В результате, эти права должны быть восстановлены, как и вклад этого человека. (о User: Яков Юдельсон). - 95.29.241.86 16:55, 5 February 2012 (UTC).
- You are making legal threats over and over again. ·Carn 10:59, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
- I am an OTRS user and I see right now the source of information with the mark 'cc-by-sa 3.0' (on vk.com). Анастасия Львоваru (ru-n, en-2) 12:33, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
I am ru.wiki admin and here is my summary: Sergey Bulichyov (vk.com/photos74241939) as a person does not satisfy the requirements of en:WP:Notability. If what he say is true, he's too distant descendant of Baron Ungern to write about him in the article about Ungern. This foto is used only in being regularly removed self-praising spam and not useful for an educational purpose. It should be deleted.·Carn 13:20, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
- Not exist of any reason to continue this nomination, which without any grounds (currently is known). Permission was got from user Sergey Bulichyov. This permission was taken by user from OTRS and was confirmed. Images of of Sergey are for the free usage, when exists additional source (on the american hosting Flickr this is displayed). Such source, is secondary source (authoritative). - 178.66.132.71 21:25, 15 March 2012 (UTC).
- Page should be deleted. Bulychev's photograph was added only to "substantiate" that he is a descendant of baron R.F. Ungern, which was never proved. The photograph was used in Wikipedia only for this self-PR.94.29.15.21 15:52, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
- Delete, false license and out of scope anyway (picture of a non-notable person)--Ymblanter (talk) 09:34, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 10:38, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
"Do not copy this file to Wikimedia Commons. This image is believed to be non-free or possibly non-free in its home country, Australia. In order for Commons to host a file, it must be free in its home country and in the United States. Some countries, particularly other countries based on common law, have a lower threshold of originality than the United States." Bulwersator (talk) 11:04, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
- Comment - 3WBC FM is a local radio station in Melbourne, Australia; a country for which COM:TOO does not say much about. --Sreejith K (talk) 12:08, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Kept: It is just a circle and common font Cambalachero (talk) 22:57, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
Niet duidelijk dat het bestand onder deze licentie is vrijgegeven, bron suggereert ND-licentie (die niet bruikbaar is voor Commons)/ Unclear whether image has been released under the specified license: source seems to suggest ND license: http://reliwiki.nl/index.php?title=Frequently_Asked_Questions#Foto.27s_hergebruiken Pbech (talk) 17:25, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
- Delete - There is no ND restriction (=noDerivs), "geen winstoogmerk" stands for NC restriction (=nonCommercial) instead. Ices2Csharp (talk) 22:52, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Commercial and derivative use must be allowed Cambalachero (talk) 22:56, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
There is no FOP for sculptures in the USAand this is clearly a post-1978 work. Rodhullandemu (talk) 00:39, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
- Addendum: From COM:FOP: "Prior to 1978, when the definition changed, works of art such as statues or sculptures that were permanently installed in a public place were considered in general to be published." This sculpture was installed in 1976, so seems to be free of copyright, but I;'d welcome more expert input here. Rodhullandemu (talk) 00:48, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
- Keep - also the miniature was dedicated 1976, http://siris-artinventories.si.edu does not mention any copyright notice /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:48, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
- keep pd no notice per siris; clearly dedicated "Dedicated May 18, 1976." [10]; Dedicated Feb. 1, 1976. [11] Slowking4⇔ †@1₭ 22:31, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
Kept: . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:05, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
This photo was made in 1950-s. It's copivio ShinePhantom (talk) 14:32, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
- Please provide proof link. --El1604 (talk) 15:12, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
- [12] in 1954. Same appearance - at the same time? Do you think that on this photo he is younger than 55 years old? Maybe ot this photo - not on yours. ShinePhantom (talk) 04:51, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
- Обратите внимание на возраст ученого. Он родился 25 августа 1862. В 1942 ему исполнилось уже 80 лет.--El1604 (talk) 08:52, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
- По этому фото вообще возраст даже примерно не определелить. Но вот я привел пример, где фото датирована, но он примерно в том же облике. А уж доказывать, что оно свободное - это ваше дело, тем более, что в вашем источнике даже имя перепутано. Найдете дату - прекрасно. Нет, ну что ж.ShinePhantom (talk) 09:14, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
- Если вы хотите удалить файл, вам надо указать дату.--El1604 (talk) 10:47, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
- По этому фото вообще возраст даже примерно не определелить. Но вот я привел пример, где фото датирована, но он примерно в том же облике. А уж доказывать, что оно свободное - это ваше дело, тем более, что в вашем источнике даже имя перепутано. Найдете дату - прекрасно. Нет, ну что ж.ShinePhantom (talk) 09:14, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
- Обратите внимание на возраст ученого. Он родился 25 августа 1862. В 1942 ему исполнилось уже 80 лет.--El1604 (talk) 08:52, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
- [12] in 1954. Same appearance - at the same time? Do you think that on this photo he is younger than 55 years old? Maybe ot this photo - not on yours. ShinePhantom (talk) 04:51, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
![[12]](https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A4%D0%B0%D0%B9%D0%BB:%D0%A1%D0%BE%D0%B1%D0%BE%D0%BB%D0%B5%D0%B2%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B8%D0%B9_%D0%A1%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%B3%D0%B5%D0%B9_%D0%98%D0%B2%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B8%D1%87_1954.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:06, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
License plates of Slovenia
[edit]- File:Car-plate celje.jpg
- File:Car-plate koper.jpg
- File:Car-plate krsko.jpg
- File:Car-plate murska sobota.jpg
- File:Car-plate novo mesto.jpg
- File:Car-plate postojna.jpg
- File:Kranj car-plate.jpg
- File:Maribor car-plate.jpg
- File:SLO international vehicle registration oval.jpg
- File:SLO_international_vehicle_registration_oval.png
- File:SLO_international_vehicle_registration_oval.svg
- File:Slopvenia_moped_number_plate_2008.jpg
- File:SLOVENIA,_KRSKO_1992_SERIES_LICENSE_PLATE_with_KRSKO_CITY_CREST_-_Flickr_-_woody1778a.jpg
- File:SLOVENIA,_LJUBLJANA_EEC_with_SLO_AND_EUROSTARS_-_Flickr_-_woody1778a.jpg
- File:SLOVENIA,_MARIBOR_2003_SERIES_BLACK_BORDER_-LICENSE_PLATE_WITH_MARIBOR_CITY_CREST_AND_EUROSTARS_-_Flickr_-_woody1778a.jpg
- File:Slovenian_license_plate_1992-2004.png
- File:Slovenian_license_plate_2004.png
- File:Slovenian_license_plate_for_small_motorcycles.jpg
- File:Slovenian_license_plate.jpg
- File:Slovenian_license_plate.svg
- File:Slowenien-anhaengerkennzeichen.jpg
- File:Slowenien-SloveniaKfz.jpg
- File:Vanity_plate_from_Slovenia.JPG
These photos of registration plates and stickers from the Category:License plates of Slovenia contain the coat-of-arms of one of the municipalities of Slovenia, or other copyrighted elements of design. Per Slovenian law, these are not exempt from copyright - see Article 9 (pg. 3). --Eleassar (t/p) 08:53, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
- Which elements are copyrighted in File:SLO international vehicle registration oval.jpg? Kobac (talk) 13:09, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
- The design of the sticker - the sticker as a whole. --Eleassar (t/p) 20:28, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
- Well, but what about {{PD-text}}, {{PD-shape}} and {{PD-ineligible}}? Kobac (talk) 08:18, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
- I think {{PD-textlogo}} could be applied. --Eleassar (t/p) 13:41, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
- The design of the sticker - the sticker as a whole. --Eleassar (t/p) 20:28, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
- Coat-of-arms are only a small part of the plates. If it's not small enought for De minimis, it could be cut out of the photos. --Sporti (talk) 13:49, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
- I've been thinking about 'de minimis'. I'm not a lawyer, but it seems to me that the coat-of-arms is a major part of the plates, as it gives notable information about the place of registration. It's not an "incidental inclusion of a work or other subject-matter in other material". It could be cut out. In this case, it would be good to correct the descriptions so that it's clear they belong to entire registration areas. --Eleassar (t/p) 20:28, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: There are some things we simply can;t keep here -- there is little point in leeping images of license plates without their only differentiating feature. . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:04, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
Later found and deleted:
--Eleassar (t/p) 07:32, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
incorrect pronunciation, correct pronunciation is मेरठ, see w:Wikipedia:IPA for Hindi and Urdu. Siddhartha Ghai (talk) 05:37, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
- File is in use. Why not upload a new and correct version? --MGA73 (talk) 16:22, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
- Keep Please see COM:NPOV. VolodyA! V Anarhist Beta_M (converse) 12:37, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
- Hmm, although I find it really weird that an unused factually incorrect file can be deleted while a used one can't (I mean, if I had gone ahead and removed the usage of this file from all wikis it would've been a delete? or someone could stop a DR by merely adding its use on a wiki?), nevertheless I'll have to go with policy. And I don't have good enough mic to upload a pronunciation, so I can't correct it. I'd still request deletion on the basis that this file's been giving the wrong pronunciation since almost 6 years (even though the policy states its allowed). This pronunciation is along the lines of me- whereas the correct pronunciation is along the lines of may- . Plus, the ending is pronounced incorrectly too.
- I'd also like to point out that the policy reads "A file that is in good faith use on another Wikimedia project is, by that very fact, considered useful for an educational purpose and is not liable to deletion on the grounds that it is "wrong" in some way. " However, in case of place-names, there is no "good faith" involved in selecting an audio file to add. Other language wikis mostly wont know what the correct pronunciation is and add the audio file anyways. And, as far as I know, there can be no educational use of a factually incorrect pronunciation of a placename. Also note that hindi (devanagari script to be precise) has an inherent one-to-one correspondence between alphabets and their pronunciation, so there's no two views on pronunciation in hindi (the word meerut is from hindi). So, hi-wp mostly doesn't need pronunciation except in rare cases of natively non-hi words. Hence, "Where an alleged error generates significant dispute, however, the file should be kept and the dispute left to the relevant individual wiki communities to resolve." can't really be applied here since the relevant (native language) community doesn't need the file (yes, I removed its usage from hi-wp; and no, I'm not trying to game the system to get this DR approved). So, basically it comes down to convincing the other language communities that this is an incorrect pronunciation, which is illogical as far as hi is concerned, since there are no disputes about pronunciation in hi.
- Nevertheless, if my arguments aren't convincing enough to effect/merit a deletion, and convinving other language wikipedias to stop using this file as this is an incorrect pronunciation (to make this an unused file which then fails the test of being useful for educational purposes) is what I need to do, please let me know so that I can get on it and get this incorrect pronunciation deleted.--Siddhartha Ghai (talk) 00:10, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
- If you could please advertise this DR to others on hi wikipedia, it would be awesome. I have some reservations about what you say, for example i do know that russian is also a phonetic language, but i also know that there are some exceptions. I do not know what the case for Hindi is. Also i think that while removing the file from use to get your way is probably a bad faith gesture, it would be great to bring people who commonly edit the articles using this file here, so that they can make a decision. VolodyA! V Anarhist Beta_M (converse) 02:20, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
- I have uploaded a new version of this as File:Meerut-new.ogg. If pronunciation is correct, I can upload it over the old one. --Vssun (talk) 03:34, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
- Sure, I'll inform hi-wp users of it (will place a notice on the village pump). The second pronunciation is much closer to the real thing, but its still not accurate. The new file's pronunciation is more along मैरठ instead of the correct मेरठ.--Siddhartha Ghai (talk) 19:17, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks for comment. Uploaded a better version. Please examine the file again. --Vssun (talk) 03:01, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
- Listen to http://www.forvo.com/word/meerut/ That's 100% correct. You've gotten quite close, but still sound more like मॅरठ than मेरठ.--Siddhartha Ghai (talk) 22:39, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
- I have tried once again. Please check the new version --Vssun (talk) 02:12, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
- Its perfect! So, now we need to replace the old one with the new one. One way would be to upload the new one over the old one. Another would be to delete the old one and redirect it to the new one. I don't mind either way.--Siddhartha Ghai (talk) 20:13, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
- Uploaded on top of the old one. Old version of the file may be deleted if required. --Vssun (talk) 01:19, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
- DO NOT DELETE OLD FILE!!!. Uploading over the other files is already against the guidelines, it should be done for the different versions of the same file (i.e. minor alterations) not for different depictions of the same thing. But in this case i won't raise too much fuss about it. But deleting old versions would violate COM:NPOV to the extent not seen before. There is absolutely no reason to delete. VolodyA! V Anarhist Beta_M (converse) 05:15, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
- For starters, this isn't a different depiction, its factual inaccuracy. I would restate here, hindi does not have two pronunciations for any word; so there is no way this can be said to be an alternate depiction. Secondly, with the new correct pronunciation here; it is not educationally useful
(since over time it is bound to be replaced by the correct pronunciation); thus out of scope as far as I see; and hence merits deletion.--Siddhartha Ghai (talk) 18:50, 15 February 2012 (UTC) - Scratching the stupid part of my comment. Didn't remember I was saying that for a file's old version (not a current one), oops...
- If no-one objects to keeping the correct version over the incorrect one, please consider this deletion request withdrawn. However, if that is a problem and the new version has to be uploaded separately, please consider this DR active, since that would mean replacing the incorrect one with the correct one and then deleting the incorrect one. I'd personally prefer the first one (much less work).--Siddhartha Ghai (talk) 19:07, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
- For starters, this isn't a different depiction, its factual inaccuracy. I would restate here, hindi does not have two pronunciations for any word; so there is no way this can be said to be an alternate depiction. Secondly, with the new correct pronunciation here; it is not educationally useful
- DO NOT DELETE OLD FILE!!!. Uploading over the other files is already against the guidelines, it should be done for the different versions of the same file (i.e. minor alterations) not for different depictions of the same thing. But in this case i won't raise too much fuss about it. But deleting old versions would violate COM:NPOV to the extent not seen before. There is absolutely no reason to delete. VolodyA! V Anarhist Beta_M (converse) 05:15, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: COM:SCOPE Commons does not retain factually inaccurate files... FASTILY (TALK) 22:51, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
This image infringes on the copyright of several of the works in it. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:58, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
- I transfered this image from Flickr to Wikicommons, and I don't know about that. It seems to me that it is a collage of several works, and that's why it is acceptable. -- Mdd (talk) 22:15, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
- It is not a collage -- it is simply an image of some sort of convention or trade show, with a number of copyrighted images in it. And, by the way, to be acceptable on Commons, all of the images in a collage must be properly licensed and attributed -- putting several copyrighted works together does not somehow make the result free of copyright -- just the reverse. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 23:45, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
- Gamma is actually a DIY store (like Home Depot or Lowes). So, it is publicly accessible. Not sure if that makes it fall under FOP-NL... Whaledad (talk) 06:25, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
- Delete Reading FoP-NL carefully it seems that shops (like Gamma is) are not covered under FoP-NL. Sorry. Whaledad (talk) 17:32, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
- It is not a collage -- it is simply an image of some sort of convention or trade show, with a number of copyrighted images in it. And, by the way, to be acceptable on Commons, all of the images in a collage must be properly licensed and attributed -- putting several copyrighted works together does not somehow make the result free of copyright -- just the reverse. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 23:45, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 22:51, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
This image infringes on the copyright of the artist, Tejo Remy. We don't know where it was taken, but Remy is Dutch, so the Netherlands is a good guess and FOP does not apply there. Unless it was taken somehwere that indoor FOP is in force, it must be deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:10, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
- There has been similar discussions (delete and undelete) with the File:Ettore sottsass, libreria casablanca, 1981.JPG file. This kind of work seems to be acceptable here. -- Mdd (talk) 01:25, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
- According to Flickr tagging the picture was taken in the St. Louis Art Museum. Whaledad (talk) 22:52, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
- The cabinet at File:Ettore sottsass, libreria casablanca, 1981.JPG was arguably usable as a cabinet, therefore utilitarian and ineligible for copyright. This piece is not usable as a chest of drawers and therefore the same argument does not apply. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:00, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
- Mmm... I will contact Tejo and ask if people use is design. I think I read once, people do use it. And the chest of drawers is made in a series. -- Mdd (talk) 22:05, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
- The photography policy of the museum. I think commercial use without permission is not allowed. Whaledad (talk) 18:01, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
- Comment It is our firm policy to ignore such restrictions. The museum may have a cause of action against the photographer, but its policy has no effect on copyright or the reuse of the images. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:39, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 22:51, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
This image infringes on the copyright belong to the living artist, Wietske van Leeuwen. FOP in the Netherlands explicitly excludes museums. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:56, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- Have you even taken a closer look at the picture? There is a Shark aquarium, the waterline, lot's of plants, a shark and a collection of the work of the artist Wietske van Leeuwen. This is a conceptual art installation constructed by me, and the picture is mine.
- You seem to pretend this is a picture of just ceramics. Have you ever heard of a ceramics in a Shark aquarium. The way Whaledad has altered the data[13] only confirms the wikihounding accusation. I have restored this info and explained some more. -- Mdd (talk) 18:55, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
![[13]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File%3AShark_Art_Gallery_%287-24%29.jpg&action=historysubmit&diff=66343003&oldid=66337361){kind=link}
One more thing: Because this is clearly a coproduction, I will ask the artist for OTRS confirmation. -- Mdd (talk) 19:01, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- Keep This photo series provides some context, and permission of the ceramicist can be safely assumed. She clearly agreed to have her work put in a shark tank on public display. That was a concept by Mdd. I believe it implies her permission to make photo and publish photos of that installation. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 10:12, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
- I have contacted the artist to make new/better arrangements. I guess next week I will send confirmation to the OTRS system. -- Mdd (talk) 15:15, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
- I just have send the OTRS confirmation. -- Mdd (talk) 13:28, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
- OTRSPermission received, and granted on the image. Edoderoo (talk) 15:28, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
- I just have send the OTRS confirmation. -- Mdd (talk) 13:28, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Kept: OTRS permission recieved Lymantria (talk) 16:22, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}