Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2012/02/26
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
|
|
It says "es una foto" but it looks more like a screenshot from some unidentified game. Stefan4 (talk) 00:14, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Denniss (talk) 01:10, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
The source is "Facebook" without further information. Unclear if it is free and unlikely in scope. Stefan4 (talk) 00:24, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Denniss (talk) 01:26, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Wrong Commons Transfer from de.Wikipedia 1971markus (☠): ⇒ Laberkasten ... 00:02, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Speedied as unintended duplicate of File:Endlichit.png Túrelio (talk) 08:21, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Copyright violation, request speedy deletion. Image possibly from the film "The Three Musketeers", and the description claims it is from her *in* the film (I simply can't prove it, at the moment). uploader has history of copyvios with this actress. Actress also still alive, so no fair use (if I'm understanding that part correctly). – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies 05:25, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Speedy deletion as a copyvio. Tabercil (talk) 16:16, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
"All rights reserved" in the source as of now —Vensatry (Ping me) 05:54, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
- Comment - An admin confirmed the license at source as of the date it was brought to Commons. If Im correct, once a donation is made under a CC license, it cannot be revoked. Hence even if the flickr user claims to change the license back to full copyright, it does not make a difference. AroundTheGlobe (talk) 06:35, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Kept: license was valid on upload, CC license can't be revoked (just changed to a less restrictive type) Denniss (talk) 17:16, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
This is not a .png its a Microsoft Jet DB McZusatz (talk) 08:58, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope: not a media file, unallowed format. Ilmari Karonen (talk) 18:25, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
obsolete smial (talk) 13:21, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: userspace template per uploader's request. Rosenzweig τ 13:26, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
This is a press photo, not own work. McZusatz (talk) 13:32, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Obvious copyright violation mickit 14:58, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
A photograph of - at least what the descriptions claims to be - a politician. However, a quick Google search places the subject at a non-encyclopaedic position of a foundation manager. Nominating for deletion on grounds of lack of notability. Wpedzich (talk) 13:55, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope Masur (talk) 09:43, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
SVG file at File:Scandinavian Airlines logo.svg Fry1989 eh? 22:35, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Redundant. |EPO| da: 11:11, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
The first 20 seconds constist of a some Pop-song that is not covered by this PD-regulation of this dubious interview 79.221.106.56 12:06, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
- Would somebody apart from this anonymous let me know if i should chop the first 20 secs off. I can do that, it's an easy job. The interview is genuine, nothing "dubious" about it. VolodyA! V Anarhist Beta_M (converse) 14:37, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
- There's no pop song in the first 20 seconds. It happens to be Queen's w:Under Pressure, a classic rock song. And yes, it does need to be cropped off.--Prosfilaes (talk) 06:15, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
- Ok will do. Radio4All seems to be down at the moment, and i'd prefer to crop the original rather than doing double reencoding. I'll do this asap. VolodyA! V Anarhist Beta_M (converse) 06:45, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
- Done VolodyA! V Anarhist Beta_M (converse) 03:50, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
- There's no pop song in the first 20 seconds. It happens to be Queen's w:Under Pressure, a classic rock song. And yes, it does need to be cropped off.--Prosfilaes (talk) 06:15, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Keep, all above issues have been resolve properly. :) -- Cirt (talk) 04:38, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
- It still needs to have the first version removed from the history.--Prosfilaes (talk) 04:44, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
Kept: Problem resolved, no need to continue this. -mattbuck (Talk) 01:55, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
Uploader asserts that photo was taken during a photo shoot. No evidence the uploader is the pro who took the picture. No EXIF data, small image. Geraldo Perez (talk) 07:09, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Denniss (talk) 18:28, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
Not sure that we can trust this Flickr account TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 21:44, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
- True. Found as early as August 2016 at https://www.urbandaddy.com/articles/38321/emily-ratajkowski-enjoys-long-walks-on-the-beach. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 22:05, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
- I found it on flickr !!! Where can you find pictures ???? I use the rights licences and then after i'm blocked by wikicommons. Stop it ! Let my pictures as they are !!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Datsofelija (talk • contribs) 08:14, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Datsofelija: There are many Flickr accounts that cannot be trusted. And I have strong doubts aout that one. The absence of EXIF data is a bad sign. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 12:41, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
- I found it on flickr !!! Where can you find pictures ???? I use the rights licences and then after i'm blocked by wikicommons. Stop it ! Let my pictures as they are !!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Datsofelija (talk • contribs) 08:14, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 14:15, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
Absolutely and completely useless, out of scope etc Bulwersator (talk) 06:14, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 17:46, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
Absolutely and completely useless, out of scope etc Bulwersator (talk) 06:14, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 17:47, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
Absolutely and completely useless, out of scope etc Bulwersator (talk) 06:14, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 17:47, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
Absolutely and completely useless, out of scope etc Bulwersator (talk) 06:14, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 17:48, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
Absolutely and completely useless, out of scope etc Bulwersator (talk) 06:14, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 17:48, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
Absolutely and completely useless, out of scope etc Bulwersator (talk) 06:15, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 17:48, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
Absolutely and completely useless, out of scope etc Bulwersator (talk) 06:15, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 17:48, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
Absolutely and completely useless, out of scope etc Bulwersator (talk) 06:15, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 17:49, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
Absolutely and completely useless, out of scope etc Bulwersator (talk) 06:15, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 17:49, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
Absolutely and completely useless, out of scope etc Bulwersator (talk) 06:15, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 17:50, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
Absolutely and completely useless, out of scope etc Bulwersator (talk) 06:16, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 17:50, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
Absolutely and completely useless, out of scope etc Bulwersator (talk) 06:16, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 17:51, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
Absolutely and completely useless, out of scope etc Bulwersator (talk) 06:16, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 17:57, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
Absolutely and completely useless, out of scope etc Bulwersator (talk) 06:17, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 17:57, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
Absolutely and completely useless, out of scope etc Bulwersator (talk) 06:17, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 17:57, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
Absolutely and completely useless, out of scope etc Bulwersator (talk) 06:18, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 17:58, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
Absolutely and completely useless, out of scope etc Bulwersator (talk) 06:18, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 17:59, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
Absolutely and completely useless, out of scope etc Bulwersator (talk) 06:18, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 18:00, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
Absolutely and completely useless, out of scope etc Bulwersator (talk) 06:18, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 18:00, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
Absolutely and completely useless, out of scope etc Bulwersator (talk) 06:18, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 18:01, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
Absolutely and completely useless, out of scope etc Bulwersator (talk) 06:18, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 18:02, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
Absolutely and completely useless, out of scope etc Bulwersator (talk) 06:19, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 18:02, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
Absolutely and completely useless, out of scope etc Bulwersator (talk) 06:22, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 18:02, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
Absolutely and completely useless, out of scope etc Bulwersator (talk) 06:22, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 18:04, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
Absolutely and completely useless, out of scope etc Bulwersator (talk) 06:23, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 18:04, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
Absolutely and completely useless, out of scope etc Bulwersator (talk) 06:24, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 18:04, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
Absolutely and completely useless, out of scope etc Bulwersator (talk) 06:24, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 18:04, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
Absolutely and completely useless, out of scope etc Bulwersator (talk) 06:24, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 18:05, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
Absolutely and completely useless, out of scope etc Bulwersator (talk) 06:25, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 18:06, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
Absolutely and completely useless, out of scope etc Bulwersator (talk) 06:26, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 18:06, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
Absolutely and completely useless, out of scope etc Bulwersator (talk) 06:27, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 18:06, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
Absolutely and completely useless, out of scope etc Bulwersator (talk) 06:27, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 18:13, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
Absolutely and completely useless, out of scope etc Bulwersator (talk) 06:27, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 18:13, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
Absolutely and completely useless, out of scope etc Bulwersator (talk) 06:28, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 18:14, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
Absolutely and completely useless, out of scope etc Bulwersator (talk) 06:28, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 18:14, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
Absolutely and completely useless, out of scope etc Bulwersator (talk) 06:29, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 18:14, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
Absolutely and completely useless, out of scope etc Bulwersator (talk) 06:30, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 18:16, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
Absolutely and completely useless, out of scope etc Bulwersator (talk) 06:31, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 18:16, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
Absolutely and completely useless, out of scope etc Bulwersator (talk) 06:32, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 18:16, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
Absolutely and completely useless, out of scope etc Bulwersator (talk) 06:32, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 18:18, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
Absolutely and completely useless, out of scope etc Bulwersator (talk) 06:34, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 18:18, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
Absolutely and completely useless, out of scope etc Bulwersator (talk) 06:34, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 18:18, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
Absolutely and completely useless, out of scope etc Bulwersator (talk) 06:34, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 18:19, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
Absolutely and completely useless, out of scope etc Bulwersator (talk) 06:34, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 18:19, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
Absolutely and completely useless, out of scope etc Bulwersator (talk) 06:35, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 18:19, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
Absolutely and completely useless, out of scope etc Bulwersator (talk) 06:35, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 18:22, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
Absolutely and completely useless, out of scope etc Bulwersator (talk) 06:35, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 18:23, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
Absolutely and completely useless, out of scope etc Bulwersator (talk) 06:36, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 18:27, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
Absolutely and completely useless, out of scope etc Bulwersator (talk) 06:36, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 18:27, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
Absolutely and completely useless, out of scope etc Bulwersator (talk) 06:38, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 18:27, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
Absolutely and completely useless, out of scope etc Bulwersator (talk) 06:38, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 18:27, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
Absolutely and completely useless, out of scope etc Bulwersator (talk) 06:38, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 18:27, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
Absolutely and completely useless, out of scope etc Bulwersator (talk) 06:38, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 18:28, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope, permission not clear. Ices2Csharp (talk) 13:04, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 18:29, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
Unused personal picture. Ices2Csharp (talk) 13:07, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 18:31, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
small, poor quality, can't be identifed, not good enough to use if it could Jimfbleak (talk) 18:12, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 18:34, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
Small size, "phpgFU5Z3" suggests that this was grabbed from somewhere, unlikely own work by Flickr account "Austyn" (terminated). Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:28, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
- Per Pieter, images uploaded by this account seem to have dubious copyright and 2257 status. Anyways, I'm sure that the Commons regulars will rush to disagree.--Ianmacm (talk) 20:39, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
- Keep. This particular censorship WikiGaming maneuver, which I hereby dub the "Dirty Sanchez", is to say that any image might be copyrighted and therefore it must be deleted. That applies to any image on Commons. Your notion that "a bunch of letters" = "copyright violation" is farcical. Just do a Google search - this does indeed appear in many places on the web, and everywhere it is credited to Austyn as the original creator. And to unravel the actual basis of the supposedly incriminating letters, search "PHPG". PHPG is a private gallery software [1] - explaining the first four digits - while the remaining letters and numbers are probably a compact serial number for this user's self-made images. Of course, it could still be a copyright violation -- so could anything. Shall we delete Commons today? Wnt (talk) 20:59, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
- I seriously doubt that the girl is over 18 years old, but that probably does not matter on Commons these days.--Ianmacm (talk) 21:03, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
- Now that is a serious allegation. With her breasts all surrounded by cords, yeah, she looks underdeveloped, but I think that's just because they're unreasonably confined. But I'm not very good at estimating people's ages myself. Still, the fact that neither you nor Pieter mentioned that above, plus the presence of this image in multiple sites online makes me think not so many people think it's child pornography.[2] One of the images I found on the Japanese Wikipedia when looking for the copyvio evidence [3] really doesn't look like a child to me - do you really think that's a child? Wnt (talk) 21:23, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
- Any discussion of whether or not the subject is of legal age is probably moot, since this has all the signs of Flickr-washing. In this particular image, the uploaded version has been cropped just above the belly-button piercing, which likely makes the subject appear younger. If you look at the rear view image, you will see a tiny bit of a butterfly tattoo on her lower back. That image should likely also be deleted if this one is. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:47, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
- Now that is a serious allegation. With her breasts all surrounded by cords, yeah, she looks underdeveloped, but I think that's just because they're unreasonably confined. But I'm not very good at estimating people's ages myself. Still, the fact that neither you nor Pieter mentioned that above, plus the presence of this image in multiple sites online makes me think not so many people think it's child pornography.[2] One of the images I found on the Japanese Wikipedia when looking for the copyvio evidence [3] really doesn't look like a child to me - do you really think that's a child? Wnt (talk) 21:23, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
- I would bet the house on this girl being under 18, and would also want written evidence that she consented to being photographed in this pose before it went within a mile of any Wikimedia project.--Ianmacm (talk) 21:33, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
- The COM:SEX guideline as voted on described standards of evidence, but basically at the time the consensus was to allow existing images to be retained, and even that was voted down as too restrictive. But of course any allegation of child pornography is extremely serious - I just need to hear that from people who aren't already on a mission to strip regular adult porn out of Commons before I believe it. Wnt (talk) 21:43, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
- Also, this file and the Japanese image that I cited above has a history going back to April 6, 2006. Wait, actually that's also from here - File:Hotel Karada from Rear.png. So both of these images were looked at when Sanger asked the FBI to investigate child pornography on Wikimedia Commons - and the FBI apparently never found anything of the kind. It apparently survived the Jimbo Wales porno purge. All that time, nobody said it was kiddie porn. How the heck could that happen, unless she is an adult? Wnt (talk) 21:49, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
- Please don't repeat the allegation that I want to remove all sexual images from Commons. 2257 compliance will do me just fine. It is obviously difficult to judge the age of the person in the Hotel Karada from Rear image, but there are immediate concerns about the age of the person in the image nominated for deletion here.--Ianmacm (talk) 21:55, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
- I posted Commons:Administrators' noticeboard#Child_porn_claim_-_neutral_opinion_needed - this is too serious an allegation to have floating around without making a decision. Obviously I don't want Commons to really have child porn on it and see a bunch of orcs hauling away our servers in the back of a truck. Wnt (talk) 22:07, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
- Please don't repeat the allegation that I want to remove all sexual images from Commons. 2257 compliance will do me just fine. It is obviously difficult to judge the age of the person in the Hotel Karada from Rear image, but there are immediate concerns about the age of the person in the image nominated for deletion here.--Ianmacm (talk) 21:55, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
- Keep - was flickrreviewed. That the author has gone from flickr is why we review. No evidence of copyvio beyond simple innuendo. -mattbuck (Talk) 22:01, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
- And beyond the copyright status (yawn) are you perfectly happy with the image?--Ianmacm (talk) 22:09, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
- Beyond the copyright status? Yes, I have no issues with it. Perfectly within scope. -mattbuck (Talk) 22:12, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
- And beyond the copyright status (yawn) are you perfectly happy with the image?--Ianmacm (talk) 22:09, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
- Perfectly within your definition of scope, which excludes any 2257 considerations.--Ianmacm (talk) 22:16, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
- Given we are not subject to 2257 rules, correct. -mattbuck (Talk) 22:24, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
- It would be unwise to allow the legality of this image to be tested in court. Smugly denying the existence of any 2257 liability for Commons makes it more likely that either the law will step in and regulate Commons, or that Wikipedia and Commons will choose to go their own separate ways.--Ianmacm (talk) 22:31, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
- Wikipedia and Commons parting ways? Well, so long, don't let the door hit you on the way out. -mattbuck (Talk) 22:49, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
- It would be unwise to allow the legality of this image to be tested in court. Smugly denying the existence of any 2257 liability for Commons makes it more likely that either the law will step in and regulate Commons, or that Wikipedia and Commons will choose to go their own separate ways.--Ianmacm (talk) 22:31, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
- Given we are not subject to 2257 rules, correct. -mattbuck (Talk) 22:24, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
- Perfectly within your definition of scope, which excludes any 2257 considerations.--Ianmacm (talk) 22:16, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Delete if someone uploads 172 × 246 pixel images of some building as {{Own work}}, it is likely to be deleted. There is no exif metadata, and the image is in png format, all contributing to suspicion. One must wonder what effect young naked women have on critical faculties around here. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:34, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
- You don't think perhaps it was cropped down from a larger size? Remember, in 2006 (or whenever it was bought before then) digital cameras had less resolution to begin with. And pretty much zero zooming capability Wnt (talk) 23:05, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
- Delete This is not just about the copyright status and age of the girl, but whether consent was given for the image to be taken and distributed.--Ianmacm (talk) 23:22, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
- Delete I agree that (1) to claim this as child porn is just unhelpful inflammatory drama, (2) it was released on Flickr on a suitable copyright, (3) there is a lot of bad faith in these discussions, it is no wonder that it is only "Commons regulars" dare to wade in for fear of being maligned. Even given these points and the fact that this can only be considered intended to be mild erotica rather than graphically sexual, I am troubled by this image. It does appear copied from some other unnamed website as there is no EXIF data and it is a low resolution, the Flickr account has since been deleted and neither that person or the uploader (Max Rebo Band) has come forward to provide any context. Consequently I can believe there is a Flickrwashing problem and although there is no current complaint, I am concerned that without any context this remains a likely Photographs of identifiable people risk for an image that is of sufficient erotic interest to be copied and used elsewhere without us knowing if the model was ever aware or informed by the photographer that this might happen. An in-scope rationale for this image would at best be marginal, I have difficulty imagining this useful for illustrating much of educational interest as even a presentation on erotic rope rituals would find this a poor example and it is telling that nobody has yet found a reason to use this on Wikimedia projects (not even on a user page for a WikiLove message). In good conscience I have to go for a delete due to the doubtful source and the potential for IDENT issues making this significant enough for the precautionary principle to apply. --Fæ (talk) 23:25, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
- Note that the other side taken on that day, File:Hotel Karada from Rear.png, is in fact in use on the Japanese Wikipedia. If one side has an educational in-scope use the other probably does also. Wnt (talk) 00:14, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
- I'm aware of it, however that image has no IDENT problems so long as it remains unconnected with this one, and the case for being in-scope is slightly stronger if only because the rope-work is more obvious. --Fæ (talk) 05:04, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
- Keep, agree with astute analysis by Wnt (talk · contribs), above. -- Cirt (talk) 23:51, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
- Fæ has talked the most sense so far, Max Rebo Band has persistent problems with IDENT and copyright. There needs to be clearer information on how this user obtains and uploads images.--Ianmacm (talk) 00:05, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
- User:Max Rebo Band has been extensively Inquisitioned here for a very long time. If I recall correctly, the censorship faction was so eager to get his extensive userpage gallery deleted that they arranged to harass him at work to force him to delete it, after failing miserably at getting these very artistic images removed by deletion discussion. What has changed since the last time? Wnt (talk) 00:20, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
- Looking at his upload history, I believe that he has acted in good faith, but it is not ideal to import images of a sexual nature from Flickr or other external sources. The copyright tagging on Flickr needs to be taken with a pinch of salt, and the consent angle is often equally hard to determine.--Ianmacm (talk) 00:33, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
- User:Max Rebo Band has been extensively Inquisitioned here for a very long time. If I recall correctly, the censorship faction was so eager to get his extensive userpage gallery deleted that they arranged to harass him at work to force him to delete it, after failing miserably at getting these very artistic images removed by deletion discussion. What has changed since the last time? Wnt (talk) 00:20, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
- Keep I have seen many versions of IDONTLIKEIT, but IDONTLIKEFILENAME is definitely not a reason for deletion, especially after the file has been renamed correctly and thus is categorisable and useful. And to paraphrase Ianmacm i will add: I'm sure those who contribute very little to Commons will rush to disagree. VolodyA! V Anarhist Beta_M (converse) 05:03, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
- Pieter Kuiper is right, the judgment of some people seems to go out of the window when this type of image is involved. I would also dispute whether importing every possible sexual image from Flickr and elsewhere is a form of contributing to Commons. It would be better to start off from the assumption that sexual images hosted on Commons should be minimal and meritable, and have the clearest possible status in the areas of copyright and personality rights.--Ianmacm (talk) 06:06, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
- Human sexuality is one of the most understudied elements of our own selves, thus i believe that it would definitely not be better to start off from the assumption that the images must be minimal or minimalistic. We need to actively go out and search for some parts of human sexuality that we are not yet representing and to urge everybody who wishes to contribute to do so. Yes we may offer guidance on how to produce higher quality submissions, but we shouldn't hit people on the head for being bad photographers or artists. VolodyA! V Anarhist Beta_M (converse) 03:43, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
- Pieter Kuiper is right, the judgment of some people seems to go out of the window when this type of image is involved. I would also dispute whether importing every possible sexual image from Flickr and elsewhere is a form of contributing to Commons. It would be better to start off from the assumption that sexual images hosted on Commons should be minimal and meritable, and have the clearest possible status in the areas of copyright and personality rights.--Ianmacm (talk) 06:06, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
- Web resolution, flickrwashing is almost certain Bulwersator (talk) 09:37, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
- Delete per Fæ and Pieter Kuiper. --JN466 03:08, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
- Delete Lots of signs of copyvio (per PK/COM:PRP), no assertion of consent to upload (per COM:PEOPLE), good-faith age concerns. I seriously considered speedy deleting, because I share the age concern (I cannot say for certain that the subject looks over 18), but given that the deletion discussion is in progress I'll hold back for now. If any significant fraction of editors share the age concern, this file should be deleted. Arguments about "surviving Sanger/FBI/Jimbo" are spurious as obviously not all files were reviewed. --99of9 (talk) 13:03, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
- Please keep in mind that this image of a young woman appearing to be indulging in mild bondage is not actually engaged in anything sexual, is not displaying her genitals and the image has been on Commons for 6 years. My opinion above is to delete purely on IDENT and copyvio grounds and if there were any credible reasons to suspect that this were a deliberately abusive image (such as verified complaint from an involved party) I would have firmly supported your action in immediate speedy removal. The risk to Commons is that a vast proportion of our images with identifiable children could be interpreted as abusive, especially when put in an inappropriate context. For example here is an old image of a young boy who at the time of the photo was held as a slave File:Slavezanzibar2.JPG, by definition a case of child abuse, and another old image including nude children here and a very recent example with young nude children here. Personally I would defend these three examples for their obvious educational value though if someone came forward with a verifiable complaint that they were suffering damage as the result of Commons holding a (contemporary) image or it being used abusively, I would hope we could find a prompt way of resolving that problem, if necessary through renaming or deletion. --Fæ (talk) 14:00, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
- The Wikipedia article w:Bondage rope harness has no problems and is actually quite good. Contrast the lead image there, File:Dani-020914-2871-02.jpg, with its large resolution and clear attribution, with this image which has all the hallmarks of flickrwashing.--Ianmacm (talk) 19:25, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
- I don't think we are in any disagreement on these points (my opinion above is to delete this image). My point related to that fact that we should all avoid kneejerk reactions to doubtful and inflammatory claims of misuse of photographs of children. --Fæ (talk) 19:35, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
- Without wishing to be inflammatory, the discovery of this image on a British person's hard drive would almost certainly trigger a police investigation. The w:COPINE scale gives the police considerable power to do this, as this recent case shows. While all of this may be covered by the General Disclaimer, statements like "we don't give a shit about 2257" are incompatible with the letter and spirit of Commons policy.--Ianmacm (talk) 21:32, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
- As we are not going to get rid of all images that might be of children (including cartoons and paintings) from Commons, I can see little chance of ever being anything but having this website rated at "10" on the COPINE scale. We will always carry photographs or fictional depictions of people under 18 who may appear distressed, these are automatically considered "10", and anyone that views the images (and thereby has them in their browser cache) is in danger of being investigated or charged by the UK police. Such images do not need to feature nudity or be sexual to be a problem on the COPINE scale. Perhaps you should run an RFC to see if based on IP range, all UK users should be protected by not being able to see Commons at all, this would seem the only solution that might realistically satisfy your requirements. However for this DR, your comments have drifted a long way off-topic. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 22:06, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
- After the Fox/Sanger brouhaha in 2010, most of the obvious problem images on Commons were deleted, this one somehow slipped through the net. It has clear potential to be seen as child porn if the girl is under 18, and is not a "child in a swimsuit" image, which I agree is stretching the definition of child porn. Despite being portrayed as User:Max Rebo Band's arch persecutor, I found only two images of his, this one and Commons:Deletion requests/File:Simulated Forced Fellatio in Bondage Scenario.png that I would nominate for deletion. I am well aware that Commons is not directly bound by UK law, and would be interested to hear what people from other jurisdictions think.--Ianmacm (talk) 22:31, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
- As we are not going to get rid of all images that might be of children (including cartoons and paintings) from Commons, I can see little chance of ever being anything but having this website rated at "10" on the COPINE scale. We will always carry photographs or fictional depictions of people under 18 who may appear distressed, these are automatically considered "10", and anyone that views the images (and thereby has them in their browser cache) is in danger of being investigated or charged by the UK police. Such images do not need to feature nudity or be sexual to be a problem on the COPINE scale. Perhaps you should run an RFC to see if based on IP range, all UK users should be protected by not being able to see Commons at all, this would seem the only solution that might realistically satisfy your requirements. However for this DR, your comments have drifted a long way off-topic. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 22:06, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
- Without wishing to be inflammatory, the discovery of this image on a British person's hard drive would almost certainly trigger a police investigation. The w:COPINE scale gives the police considerable power to do this, as this recent case shows. While all of this may be covered by the General Disclaimer, statements like "we don't give a shit about 2257" are incompatible with the letter and spirit of Commons policy.--Ianmacm (talk) 21:32, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
- I don't think we are in any disagreement on these points (my opinion above is to delete this image). My point related to that fact that we should all avoid kneejerk reactions to doubtful and inflammatory claims of misuse of photographs of children. --Fæ (talk) 19:35, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
- The Wikipedia article w:Bondage rope harness has no problems and is actually quite good. Contrast the lead image there, File:Dani-020914-2871-02.jpg, with its large resolution and clear attribution, with this image which has all the hallmarks of flickrwashing.--Ianmacm (talk) 19:25, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
- Please keep in mind that this image of a young woman appearing to be indulging in mild bondage is not actually engaged in anything sexual, is not displaying her genitals and the image has been on Commons for 6 years. My opinion above is to delete purely on IDENT and copyvio grounds and if there were any credible reasons to suspect that this were a deliberately abusive image (such as verified complaint from an involved party) I would have firmly supported your action in immediate speedy removal. The risk to Commons is that a vast proportion of our images with identifiable children could be interpreted as abusive, especially when put in an inappropriate context. For example here is an old image of a young boy who at the time of the photo was held as a slave File:Slavezanzibar2.JPG, by definition a case of child abuse, and another old image including nude children here and a very recent example with young nude children here. Personally I would defend these three examples for their obvious educational value though if someone came forward with a verifiable complaint that they were suffering damage as the result of Commons holding a (contemporary) image or it being used abusively, I would hope we could find a prompt way of resolving that problem, if necessary through renaming or deletion. --Fæ (talk) 14:00, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
- Delete. As weird as it feels saying this, delete per Fae. He hit on pretty much everything. Kgorman-ucb (talk) 22:45, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio. Both are cropped from larger images which are part of a whole series of amateur nude/porn images. The series can be found e.g. here. Rosenzweig τ 00:40, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
Personal image, not in use so out of scope. QU TalkQu 20:55, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 18:35, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
File:OgAAANqm3yevAJMFIyzt9AZpwUPv U-2pkmURokwE8F8t5LrQbphhUQSFD9cjImD3D0ZAwQNJ7QeKv6zoBITNYJykjsAm1T1UH6q S02f6bN51pVr-Obo0yAPe4X.jpg
[edit]Personal image, unused so out of scope. No permission from second individual and appears to be in a private location. QU TalkQu 20:56, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 18:35, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
Personal image that is not in use so out of scope. Individual unidentified. QU TalkQu 21:00, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 18:36, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
Out of project scope: no educational value. Mathonius (talk) 21:10, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 18:36, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
Used in apparent defamatory vandalism on enwiki [4] OlEnglish (talk) 23:29, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 18:37, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
Unused template which probably is not fit for any use. Sreejith K (talk) 13:44, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: by Herbythyme Morning Sunshine (talk) 16:06, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
Unused template which probably is not fit for any use. Sreejith K (talk) 13:44, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: by Herbythyme Morning Sunshine (talk) 16:06, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
Unused template which probably is not fit for any use. Sreejith K (talk) 13:45, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: by Herbythyme Morning Sunshine (talk) 16:06, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
Close but not exact duplicate of File:Johann Georg Wille - Portrait of Christian Wolff - WGA25767.jpg — billinghurst sDrewth 00:06, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
It's another print (one sold at the auction house Bassenge), and I don't see why we shouldn't keep both versions. The WGA version is larger, but also somewhat artificial in its appearance. --AndreasPraefcke (talk) 08:16, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
I agree with that, keep. --Kürschner (talk) 10:42, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
Kept: As per Andreas. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 18:43, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
No FOP in Iran. Americophile 08:42, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: As per nomination. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 18:57, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
The image is being used for vandalism in the Ayesha article. The uploader doesn't seem to have the rights to use this image ★ Pikks ★ MsG 09:36, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Deleted as missing a licence by Morning Sunshine. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 18:55, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
Copyright violation. The license is "All Rights Reserved." Lovy Singhal (talk) 10:19, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
- Please consider this deletion request closed. It was by mistake. I'd failed to notice that the image was uploaded first here on Commons and later on Flickr. -- Lovy Singhal (talk) 10:23, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Kept: Request withdrawn, no Flickrwashing after all. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 18:59, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
Copyright vio. Rapsar (talk) 10:50, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
- Delete - per nom. Takabeg (talk) 07:36, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Deleted as missing a licence by Morning Sunshine. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 18:55, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
http://www.tineye.com/search/d17669daf97bfb7ef163f9798634bc20188eea29/?pluginver=firefox-1.1 Agent001 (talk) 12:13, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
- Delete! Photo by Martin Rose/Bongarts/Getty Images. --Laim (talk) 22:03, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio. The EXIF clearly mention this is from Getty Images. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 19:03, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 12:53, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Per nomination. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 19:04, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
The pyramid is a copyrighted work by still alive architect Ieoh Ming Pei. There's no COM:FOP in France. Léna (talk) 18:27, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: No FOP in France PierreSelim (talk) 07:56, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
It says on the image that it is copyrighted with all rights reserved, but it might be below the threshold of originality and it is claimed to be own work. However, I'm not sure that it is in scope. Stefan4 (talk) 19:52, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
- Delete Looks like a userspace image, that is unused. VolodyA! V Anarhist Beta_M (converse) 03:39, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Dubious copyright, out of project scope. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 14:19, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
Statue - as understand it created by Felix de Weldon (April 12, 1907–June 3, 2003). So it is not from 18xx as the text under the statue could suggest. Question is when and if this is copyrighted. No FOP in the US. Also see en:Wikipedia:Possibly_unfree_files/2012_February_26#File:Sim.C3.B3n_Bol.C3.ADvar_statue.JPG. MGA73 (talk) 20:24, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
- Keep - it was erected in 1959 (File:Simón Bolívar statue.JPG); unless it can be demonstrated that it carried a copyright notice and the copyright was renewed, then it is free per {{FoP-US-no notice}}. Magog the Ogre (talk) 20:29, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
- keep pd no notice per siris [5], not to be confused with portrait bust which has copyright notice [6], although i wonder when nominators will start looking at siris per wp:before. alternatively, it could get deleted here and saved at english wikipedia as non-free 3D art, if there had been a notice. in any event not deletion both places. Slowking4 (talk) 00:38, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Kept: No notice according to Siris, so FoP-US-no notice. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 14:18, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
I'd like to delete this picture because I want to deactivate my account on wikipedia and no longer want my picture on the internet. VicVanWeitz (talk) 17:23, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
Kept: THis is a nice image. CC licenses may not be revoked. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:20, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
This logo has some texture feature, so it might be copyrighted in the United States. Cf. Commons:Deletion requests/File:BF-Schriftzug.png / de:Datei:BF-Schriftzug.png. The country of origin is unknown, so it is not possible to determine if it is also copyrighted in the country of origin since it is not clear if the country of origin has a higher or lower threshold of originality than the United States. Stefan4 (talk) 00:44, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Per nom. & no license Lymantria (talk) 11:51, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
File:9 Antonio Rossellino e Francesco Botticini, Tabernacolo di San Sebastiano. Empoli Museum.jpg
[edit]3D object, PD-Art cannot apply. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 18:11, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Per Jastrow, we do not apply PD-Art to 3D objects PierreSelim (talk) 07:25, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
Pyramid is a copyrighted work by still alive architect Ieoh Ming Pei. No COM:FOP in France. Léna (talk) 18:38, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: by Dereckson Morning Sunshine (talk) 06:23, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
bad author: probably a scan of a book. Ginés90 (talk) 03:49, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
- Delete a complete lack of context for the photo means that the precautionary principle has to apply until this is provided. --Fæ (talk) 05:15, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. MBisanz talk 01:56, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
probably not a flickr user work, a scan or copy of the oldest photo Ginés90 (talk) 04:02, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
- Delete Without sufficient context the release here is meaningless. Most likely a scan from a book, the precautionary principle has to apply unless the uploader can explain enough to ensure this is not simple Flickrwashing. --Fæ (talk) 05:47, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. MBisanz talk 01:56, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
British logo. The logo looks more complex than the Edge logo (see COM:TOO#UK) and is thus copyrighted in the source country. Stefan4 (talk) 00:12, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
- The rational behind uploading this image is outlined on en wiki: „The significance of the logo is to help the reader identify the organization, assure the readers that they have reached the right article containing critical commentary about the organization, and illustrate the organization's intended branding message in a way that words alone could not convey. Because it is a logo there is almost certainly no free equivalent. Any substitute that is not a derivative work would fail to convey the meaning intended, would tarnish or misrepresent its image, or would fail its purpose of identification or commentary.“ It is believed that the use of this logo complies with Wikipedia non-free content policy and logo guidelines. --Dcirovic (talk) 01:05, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
- Wikipedia policies don't apply to Commons. Only COM:FU is relevant here. --Stefan4 (talk) 14:46, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Per the nominator. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 23:06, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
The flickr user is not the copyright owner of the magazine. According to her flickr description she just wants to tell the world that her yoga guru made it on the cover of that magazine. Martin H. (talk) 02:45, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
- I agree. I do not contest the deletion nomination. Lisa.davis (talk) 18:04, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Per the nominator. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 22:59, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
bogus license tag, no reason why this is PD Liliana-60 (talk) 04:55, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Licence very probably bogus: the same pic is used elsewhere with the Cleveland Museum of Art being credited. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 23:02, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
not own work, nor ineligible, why is this PD? Liliana-60 (talk) 04:55, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Blatant copyvio: book cover. This could have been speedied. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 23:00, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
Incredibly poor quality, I can't forsee any possible use due to the quality of the image. ~ Fry1989 eh? 04:56, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Quality is so bad it can't reasonably used in any of our projects (or anywhere at all for that matter). Jastrow (Λέγετε) 23:03, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
Duplicate of File:Karlsruhe 00315u.jpg. -- Sitacuisses (talk) 05:45, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted then redirected by User:Túrelio. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 23:10, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
Bad quality reproduction of non-notable artist painting (uploader's own work probably), out of project scope. A.J. (talk) 12:09, 26 February 2012 (UTC) A.J. (talk) 12:10, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 23:14, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 13:07, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 23:16, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
Fails COM:DM, copyrighted character from Azumanga Daioh. deerstop. 13:48, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Derivative work after a copyrighted artwork. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 23:19, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
Is non verifiable, and grossly damages friendly relations between the nations Ajay1694 (talk) 13:51, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: pictures don't have to comply to NPOV, but there is a copyright issue here: I don't believe the own work claim, as the picture can be found elsewhere in higher resolutions. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 23:21, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
As I understand it, this is a copyvio because of the use of the Windows XP logo among others that the uploader undoubtedly does not have rights to. OSborn arfcontribs. 16:39, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
- Delete as blatant copyvio. The only page using the image (en:User:Gavinstubbs09/The Linux Group) has been deleted as well. ···日本穣Talk to Nihonjoe 23:01, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 23:33, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
Pyramid is a copyrighted work by still alive architect Ieoh Ming Pei. No COM:FOP in France. Léna (talk) 18:33, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
- Keep. De minimis, the main subject being all the Cour and the pyramid can't be easily avoided to take a photo of all the Cour. --Dereckson (talk) 21:40, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
Comment Regarding the composition: The statue is on a third and the pyramid on another third of the photography. Both are on the strong position on the photography. The aperture chosen is f/14 which should give enought depth of field to have the pyramid sharp. I believe it was wanted due to the high ISO setting at 800 (result of having an aperture of f/14). However Dereckson has a point, it's hard to take a picture without having a part of this huge pyramid on it. --PierreSelim (talk) 14:52, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: This isn't a view of the whole Cour Napoléon, but a view of part of it: the uploader states the picture represents the entrance to the museum, viz. the Pyramid. I don't think de minimis can apply here. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 22:55, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
Pyramid is a copyrighted work by still alive architect Ieoh Ming Pei. No COM:FOP in France. Léna (talk) 18:35, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Per the nominator. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 22:56, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
Pyramid is a copyrighted work by still alive architect Ieoh Ming Pei. No COM:FOP in France. Léna (talk) 18:39, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Per the nominator. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 23:34, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
Pyramid is a copyrighted work by still alive architect Ieoh Ming Pei. No COM:FOP in France. Léna (talk) 18:40, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Per the nominator. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 23:35, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
Pyramid is a copyrighted work by still alive architect Ieoh Ming Pei. No COM:FOP in France. Léna (talk) 18:40, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Per the nominator. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 23:35, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
No indication on the parent site that this image is not copyrighted. Esrever (klaT) 20:21, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Per the nominator. The logo seems too complicated to be PD-ineligible. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 23:40, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
Agent001 (talk) 20:51, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Screenshot from a TV programme. To the nominator: please provide a reason next time. It helps. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 23:39, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
Photograph of a band, obviously not {{PD-ineligible}} as claimed. January (talk) 21:59, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Per the nominator. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 23:36, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
Clearly passes threshold of originality, and I doubt the uploader is the copyright holder for a college logo. -mattbuck (Talk) 22:03, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Per the nominator. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 23:48, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
There is a watermark for Corbis, so it shows publication outside of Afghanistan. Plus, there is no assertion this work was taken inside the country or the photographers are Afghan. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 22:28, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
- Delete - No evidence about who created the image or where it was.--Officer (talk) 16:36, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: No evidence for PD-Afghanistan. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 23:11, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
Self-made artwork with no apparent educational use, out of COM:SCOPE. We already have much higher quality illustrations of this fable by notable artists File:Leo_et_mus.jpg. 99of9 (talk) 02:38, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
- Keep, have not you heard about the story of lion and mice? Dipankan001 (talk) 06:53, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
- Yes I have. --99of9 (talk) 09:36, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
- Better images exist is not a valid reason Dipankan001 (talk) 09:11, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
- From COM:SCOPE "poor or mediocre files of common and easy to capture subjects may have no realistic educational value, especially if Commons already hosts many similar or better quality examples." --99of9 (talk) 09:16, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
- Delete Out of the commons project scope. Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 20:13, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 18:13, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
own work? McZusatz (talk) 13:28, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Obvious copyright violation of a copyrighted Windows logo Sreejith K (talk) 07:19, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
own work? McZusatz (talk) 13:30, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Obvious copyright violation of a copyrighted Windows logo Sreejith K (talk) 07:19, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
own work? McZusatz (talk) 13:30, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Obvious copyright violation of a copyrighted Windows logo Sreejith K (talk) 07:19, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
This is a crop of a Soviet Space photo most likely taken in the Soviet Union before his launch to the Mir station. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 17:56, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
- Keep - The photo shows an Afghan. At the time when it was made, Afghanistan was controlled by a Soviet-backed government. I'm sure that duplicates were made, one of which most likely was kept by Momand since this was a very historical trip to space, and published in Afghan newspapers in 1988. On the other hand, we have no idea if this same image was published in another country.--Officer (talk) 22:13, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
- The problem is that Soviet works are not public domain from this time, see {{PD-Russia-2008}} for the conditions for this image has to be in order for it to be public domain in the former Soviet Union. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 22:21, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
- The Soviets were not the only people creating images in 1988. We need to verify who the actual author is before we say who's work it is. Seeing an Afghan citizen in this photo makes me think that a group of Afghan government officials went along with the subject in the photo (Abdul Ahad Momand), took a camera with them since they knew this was one of a kind historical event, and began taking pictures. It's kind of difficult to believe that the Soviets only took this one person and no Afghan government officials because that is a very rare thing to do. Also, it's the Afghan government who were more interested in showing the world that one of their citizen went to space by making sure they have a picture to prove it.--Officer (talk) 19:41, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
- The problem is that Soviet works are not public domain from this time, see {{PD-Russia-2008}} for the conditions for this image has to be in order for it to be public domain in the former Soviet Union. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 22:21, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
- But we know Soviet press will take the photos, plus there will be no doubt that there will be publication in the Soviet Union within a month of the photo being taken. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 21:25, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
- This photo was not taken in Afghanistan therefore Soviet/Russian copyright law and/or Kazakhstan copyright law is in effect. Space suits do not leave Baikonur Cosmodrome. -- とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 12:41, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
- But we know Soviet press will take the photos, plus there will be no doubt that there will be publication in the Soviet Union within a month of the photo being taken. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 21:25, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Both Afghan and Soviet photos are copyrighted in the country of origin, and we have no prove this picture was released under a compatible license. Béria Lima msg 02:02, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
This image fails number 3 of this template. With this involving a Indian Government official, there is no doubt this would have seen publication in India within 30 days of this photo being released. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 18:00, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
- Delete, as India is a member of the Bern convention. --Dereckson (talk) 18:04, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
- Keep - It is an Afghan created image taken inside Afghanistan by Pajhwok Afghan News photojournalist. On this day there were many Afghan news reporters/photo-journalists and there were also some from other countries. India has own photo-journalists and there is no reason why India would publish this Afghan created image when they have their own versions. You need to provide some kind of evidence that this photo in particular was published in another country.--Officer (talk) 21:53, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Afghan photos are copyrighted in the country of origin, and we have no prove this picture was released under a compatible license. Béria Lima msg 02:07, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
The source photo was taken in Pakistan, so this license cannot apply. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 22:07, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
- Keep - It is made by a citizen of Afghanistan who accompanied the Afghan government officials. The photo was published inside Afghanistan and there is no proof that the same one was published in another country.--Officer (talk) 22:37, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
- http://www.demotix.com/news/722667/president-hamid-karzai-meets-dignitaries-pakistan-islamabad (7th image). User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 22:39, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
- What is demotix.com? All I see in the link is info about this and the other related images. I think you're misunderstood by PD-Afghanistan. The "country of origin" doesn't have to be Afghanistan, it is refering to the work being related to the country of Afghanistan. (i.e. author is from Afghanistan, published in Afghanistan, etc.)--Officer (talk) 22:47, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
- But one of the conditions of this template is this work has to be solely published only in Afghanistan and not in any Berne states. In this case, there is probably another photographer and it was released to an image press site, so there is publication outside of Afghanistan within 30 days of taking the photo. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 22:50, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
- Yeah but within 30 days. Reference sites like these are not that good to consider because they contain errors in many cases, especially with dates. That's a wrong way to determine, it's like using WikiCommons' place (USA) and date (June 11, 2011) of publication.--Officer (talk) 22:56, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
- But one of the conditions of this template is this work has to be solely published only in Afghanistan and not in any Berne states. In this case, there is probably another photographer and it was released to an image press site, so there is publication outside of Afghanistan within 30 days of taking the photo. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 22:50, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
- What is demotix.com? All I see in the link is info about this and the other related images. I think you're misunderstood by PD-Afghanistan. The "country of origin" doesn't have to be Afghanistan, it is refering to the work being related to the country of Afghanistan. (i.e. author is from Afghanistan, published in Afghanistan, etc.)--Officer (talk) 22:47, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
- http://www.demotix.com/news/722667/president-hamid-karzai-meets-dignitaries-pakistan-islamabad (7th image). User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 22:39, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
- Delete, as the photo has been published on www.pajhwok.com. This is a server hosted by Linode in US, a Bern convention country. --Dereckson (talk) 01:19, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Watermaked copyvio in a country with Copyright laws. Until prove in contrary we need to assume the copyright of the picture, and this has no prove of being released into a compatible license. Béria Lima msg 01:59, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
The source photo was taken in Pakistan, so this license cannot apply. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 22:08, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
- Keep - It is made by a citizen of Afghanistan who accompanied the Afghan government officials. The photo was published inside Afghanistan and there is no proof that the same one was published in another country within 30 days.--Officer (talk) 22:39, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
- http://www.demotix.com/news/722667/president-hamid-karzai-meets-dignitaries-pakistan-islamabad Third image User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 22:40, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
- That's wrong, it's like using WikiCommons' place (USA) and date (June 11, 2011) of publication.--Officer (talk) 23:11, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
- http://www.demotix.com/news/722667/president-hamid-karzai-meets-dignitaries-pakistan-islamabad Third image User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 22:40, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
- Delete. - This photo has been published on the www.pajhwok.com server, hosted in US, by Linode. The US is a Bern convention country. --Dereckson (talk) 01:23, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Watermaked and copyright status not clear. Béria Lima msg 01:57, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
This is a Soviet photo. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 22:12, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
- Keep - We know that. The photo shows an Afghan citizen. At the time when it was made, Afghanistan was controlled by a Soviet-backed government. I'm sure that duplicates of this photo were made, one of which most likely was kept by Momand since this was a very historical trip to space, and published in Afghan newspapers in 1988. On the other hand, we have no idea if this same image was published in another country.--Officer (talk) 22:15, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
- The problem is that Soviet works are not public domain from this time, see {{PD-Russia-2008}} for the conditions for this image has to be in order for it to be public domain in the former Soviet Union. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 22:21, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
- The Soviets were not the only people creating images in 1988. We need to verify who the actual author is before we say who's work it is. Seeing an Afghan citizen in this photo makes me think that a group of Afghan government officials went along with the subject in the photo (Abdul Ahad Momand), took a camera with them since they knew this was one of a kind historical event, and began taking pictures. It's kind of difficult to believe that the Soviets only took this one person and no Afghan government officials because that is a very rare thing to do. Also, it's the Afghan government who were more interested in showing the world that one of their citizens went to space by making sure they have a picture to prove it.--Officer (talk) 19:41, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
- The problem is that Soviet works are not public domain from this time, see {{PD-Russia-2008}} for the conditions for this image has to be in order for it to be public domain in the former Soviet Union. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 22:21, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
- Delete Both Afghan and Soviet photos are copyrighted in the country of origin, see recent changes to {{PD-Afghanistan}}. --Stefan4 (talk) 21:20, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Both Afghan and Soviet photos are copyrighted in the country of origin, and we have no prove this picture was released under a compatible license. Béria Lima msg 02:02, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
Image was published in an Berne signatory country (India) within 30 days after publication http://pib.nic.in/release/press_ph4.asp?kk=6/1/2011%203:46:21%20PM User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 22:16, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
- That's a wrong way to determine, it's like using WikiCommons' location (USA) and upload date (June 6, 2011) as evidence.--Officer (talk) 23:30, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
- I am starting to question if even this agency is making their own photos. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 23:33, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
- w:Pajhwok Afghan News is the leading news agency in Afghanistan. They have news photojournalists in all the 34 provinces. This is their image library and this their video video library--Officer (talk) 23:36, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
- I am starting to question if even this agency is making their own photos. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 23:33, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Afghan photos are copyrighted in the country of origin, and we have no prove this picture was released under a compatible license. Béria Lima msg 02:09, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
Files in Category:La Pyramide Inversée
[edit]Copyrighted work, no COM:FOP in France.
- File:La Pyramide Inversée - Thumbling.jpg
- File:La Pyramide inversée 1.jpg
- File:La Pyramide inversée 2.jpg
- File:La Pyramide inversée 3.jpg
- File:La Pyramide Inversée.JPG
- File:LaPyramideInverséelouvre.jpg
- File:Musee du Louvre pyramide inversee.jpg
- File:Museo del Louvre, pirámide invertida.jpg
- File:Paris, La Pyramide Inversée I - craigbooth.jpg
- File:Paris, La Pyramide Inversée II - craigbooth.jpg
- File:Pyramide inversé.JPG
- File:Pyramide inversée du Louvre.JPG
- File:Pyramidinv.JPG
- File:PyramidYEL.jpg
- File:The inverted pyramid beneath the Louvre - Ivo Jansch.jpg
Léna (talk) 19:06, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: DW from copyrighted recent architectural works Dereckson (talk) 21:58, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
Files in Category:La Pyramide Inversée
[edit]None of these shots meet the criteria of the "Please do not upload photographs or scans of works by this artist, unless they meet one of the following exceptions:" warning at the top of the Category:La Pyramide Inversée page.
- File:Carrousel du Louvre (2014) 03.jpg
- File:Climb (France through my eyes) (30019288755).jpg
- File:Louvre Parijs 25-02-2019 10-31-65.jpg
- File:Pyramide inversée (Paris).jpg
Lord Belbury (talk) 22:03, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:24, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
Files in Category:La Pyramide Inversée
[edit]No FoP in France. Architect I. M. Pei died in 2019, still within the 70 p.m.a. of the country
- File:Glass Pyramid End inside the Louvre Museum.jpg
- File:Louvre Museum Inverted pyramid 01.JPG
- File:Louvre museum's inverted pyramid (cropped).jpg
- File:Sous une pyramide de verre, à Paris.jpg
A1Cafel (talk) 03:46, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
- Delete 20 upper 09:17, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 04:39, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Stradaviatte (talk · contribs)
[edit]Looks like copyvio.
- File:Mara Navarria stretching.jpg
- File:Mara Navarria wins in Doha.jpg
- File:Mara Navarria World Championschip 2011 in Catania.jpg
- File:Mara Navarria lunge.jpg
Kobac (talk) 13:46, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. MBisanz talk 01:57, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
Out of project scope, I think.
- File:Sharing promotion.svg
- File:Copyright nazi.jpg
- File:Nursing Blue Lamp.jpg
- File:Nursing Blue Lamp.png
Kobac (talk) 13:57, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
- Moved from User talk:Kobac#Request for appeal
In responce to your deletion tag on - Delete this? Are you kidding? What are the limits - I am aware of the scope guidelines , I want to appeal that nomination on the grounds that the image is within scope. I am a professional nurse lecturer and I made this image because I could not find an adequate alternative. The blue lamp is the symbol for professional nursing which replaced the red cross worn by volunteer nurses during the great war. The International Council of Nurses uses a blue lamp logo which is obviously copyright. Many national professional nursing bodies have emulated this choice. This image combines the blue lamp logo with the word nursing so people will know what it means. My colleagues all tell me this is a useful image. The image is instructional because it draws an association between the blue lamp logo and the concept of nursing and breaks the association between the concept of nursing and the red cross logo which is the logo for the international red cross and red cresent societies and not synonymous with nursing or nursing uniforms except those found in costume shops. The blue lamp was chose by the ICN because it is associated with Florence Nightingale, the mother of modern professional nursing through the poem by Alfred Lord Tennyson. I can only apologize for the wobbly quality of the image but I am unable to find an analogue to this picture - find someone who teaches nurses and ask them if they feel it falls within scope. Nurses can be seen at a swearing in ceremony complete with lamps [[7]] and if you know somebody who likes to import material from FLICKR please see [[8]] The wikimedia commons are choked with unneccesary collections of genitalia - there is an plethora of material that warrants more urgent deletion than my innocent scribble.Tradimus (talk) 07:03, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
Well, where can we read about this? And tell me, please, are these images also the symbols for professional anything? Kobac (talk) 09:13, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
Well first I have to find the definition of scope
- File:Sharing promotion.svg - fair enough lousy picture anyway
- File:Copyright nazi.jpg - I made a better one, delete away
- File:Nursing Blue Lamp.jpg - the PNG is more useful
- File:Nursing Blue Lamp.png - Delete this? Are you kidding? What are the limits - I am searching for the scope right now, I want to appeal that nomination on the grounds that the image is within scope. I am a professional nurse and I made this because I could not find an adequate alternative. The blue lamp is the symbol for professional nursing which replaced the red cross worn by volunteer nurses during the great war. The International Council of Nurses uses a blue lamp logo which is obviously copyright. Many national professional nursing bodies have emulated this choice. This image combines the blue lamp logo with the word nursing so people will know what it means. My colleagues all tell me this is a useful image. The image is instructional because it draws an association between the blue lamp logo and the concept of nursing and breaks the association between the concept of nursing and the red cross logo which is the logo for the international red cross and red cresent societies and not synonymous with nursing or nursing uniforms except those found in sex shops.
The blue lamp was chose by the ICN because it is associated with Florence Nightingale, the mother of modern professional nursing through the poem by Alfred Lord Tennyson. I can only apologize for the wobbly quality of the image but I am unable to find an analogue to this picture - find someone who teaches nurses and ask them if they feel it falls within scope.
Where do I find the scope details? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tradimus (talk • contribs) 05:04, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
- oppose You can read about it at [[9]]. The poem was written by Longfellow but the association has a very long tradition. The motto for the nursing school in a capital city near here wass TRADIMUS LAMPADA which is greek for WE HAND ON THE TORCH. You can see a stylized oil lamp used by many major national nursing organizations like The american nurses association [[10]] or the International Council of Nurses [[11]], which are both professional organizations and not trade unions incidentally. The cheeky irreverence of the other images does not call their scope into question. I have no objection to deleting the others - scrawled political graffitti clipart really. You can also see nurses at a swearing -in ceremony complete with symbolic lamps at [[12]] and if you want to import from flickr - please see these
Tradimus (talk) 14:07, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose - while not the finest quality images, I don't see any particular need to delete them. Mr.choppers (talk) 21:58, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. MBisanz talk 01:58, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
Unused personal pictures.
- File:BoyJ7.jpg
- File:BoyJ6.jpg
- File:BoyJ5.jpg
- File:BoyJ4.jpg
- File:BoyJ3.jpg
- File:BoyJ2.jpg
- File:BoyJ1.jpg
Ices2Csharp (talk) 13:05, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
- Delete No possible educational use, so falls outside the scope. Sven Manguard Wha? 17:00, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 18:31, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Martin_soria (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of scope, no permission.
- File:Teoría de la Educacion.pdf
- File:Fundamentos de la Educacion.pdf
- File:PERIODOS SENSIBLES DEL NIÑO.pdf
- File:MANIFIESTO EDUCATIVO.pdf
- File:CAPACIDADES-Y-HABILIDADES.pdf
- File:Teoria-Del-Arte.pdf
Ices2Csharp (talk) 13:09, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. MBisanz talk 01:56, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
Recreation of a useless template which had been deleted 2007; has 2 shortcuts, {{Wiki cat}} and {{Wikicat}}. All transclusions are already replaced. Such category links are better done without templates. If really needed, there are other, powerful templates for such interwiki access. -- sarang
사랑 12:11, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Kept. Denniss (talk) 18:20, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Every page, every image and every category on WikiCommons can have interwikilinks in the left corner. They are discrete and very easy to use. Somebody thought WikiCommons needs something more complicated, more distracting and I dread the day people start making these boxes in other languages. Thuresson 20:06, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
- Delete along with Template:Wikipediapar, Template:Wikipediareq, Template:Wikipedias, and probably a few others. This is what interwiki links are for. —LX (talk, contribs) 07:16, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
- There are som similar templates at Special:Prefixindex/Template:WikiP, maybe some of those should also be deleted (I already nominated Template:WikiPcatNo a few days ago, for a slightly different reason). /82.212.68.183 19:52, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
- Delete I agree, links to the left. Samulili 18:36, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
- Keep These are Meta-wiki standard interwiki templates (more or less standardized) across all sisters, and have been around for many years and more over, are becoming more standardized everyday due to WikiProject Template Sharing. If your gripe with them is they aren't interwiki's please consider most English speakers haven't a clue as to what the interwiki bar is or that it's a link at all. Consider as well, there are three commonly linked places for all other languages interwiki's
.png){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
![148 File:A young Coyodog. Coyote- Husky Mix Costa Rican "Avellana".JPG](#File:A_young_Coyodog._Coyote-_Husky_Mix_Costa_Rican_"Avellana".JPG){kind=link}
,_Porträt_angefertigt_1920_von_Karl_Konrad_Friedrich_Bauer_(*_7._Juli_1868_in_Stuttgart;_†_6._Mai_1942_in_München).jpg){kind=link}
_Steingiebelfront_nach_Osten_(Archäolog._Stadtkataster_BW,_Bd_8,_HN._Landesdenkmalamt_BW,_Stuttgart_2001,_S._104-105,_Nr._49)_Ausschnitt.JPG){kind=link}
![[3]](https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E3%83%95%E3%82%A1%E3%82%A4%E3%83%AB:Hotel_Karada_from_Rear.png){kind=link}
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_03.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(30019288755).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
![[7]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:2250_photo.JPG){kind=link}
A) the categories here
B) The categories on en.wp
C) The articles on en.wp.
Any link to any of those three places ought and needs be encouraged for the customer-reader-user's sakes, not for some quasi-nationalistic dislike of English. They are the fundamental building blocks upon which all the foundations projects are based. // FrankB 22:56, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Unjustifiable anglocentrism / anglocentrisme non-justifié. Man vyi 17:38, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
- Delete As commons is trying to be language neutral, there seems no sense in any single language structures on pages (do we logically accept the usage of multiple copies of this template on a page, one in each language?) - Until this software can pick up language preferences from the browser, creating a template with some sort of arrow pointing to the wikipedia symbol which takes you to a page with a copy of the interwiki links would be more appropriate. (PS this is not anti-anglo, I am an english only speaker.) --Tony Wills 21:15, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
- Keep, but don't use on galleries or categories. (I just noticed I use this on my user page) --Pmsyyz 05:59, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- Delete when you have links to many wikis it is not helpfull. -- Rüdiger Wölk 06:26, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Unjustifiable anglocentrism / anglocentrisme non-justifié. Kelson 17:00, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
- Keep no anglocentrism as far as I can see - the same template can be used for other Wikipedia's as well ("Wikipedia:ru:Название" or "Wikipedia|lang=ru|article=Томилино|text=Томилино"). This template does no harm. --Yuriybrisk 17:48, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
deleted. I deleted this template – and all similar ones. Instead of creating templates like this, every single image, category and user page can be linked via interwiki links. Interwiki links are easy to maintain, they need no space, and as a software implementation they are used and accepted on every single project, you don’t have to deal with individual templates for the same effect. Furthermore, a suitable image or category description may also contain links to your local project. It’s simply impossible to use templates like this for several languages and different projects. Please focus on content and quality descriptions instead of template spamming. There were pages with a dozen different templates (newbies like that!) but a brief description of the category’s content was missing. It also doesn’t matter here on Wikimedia Commons, how category structures on en.wikipedia.org look like or if there is a local project, which uses files from commons (“This image, category, or template is used by the Military history WikiProjec on the English Wikipedia”). See also Commons:Language policy. --Polarlys 19:13, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Wiedergänger of a useless template which had been deleted 2007. All transclusions are already replaced. There are enough other, powerful templates for interwiki access. sarang사랑 12:28, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
- Delete Interwiki should be used. VolodyA! V Anarhist Beta_M (converse) 03:28, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
same image, though not exact duplication of File:Johann Georg Wille - Portrait of Christian Wolff - WGA25767.jpg — billinghurst sDrewth 00:09, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Close enough FASTILY (TALK) 09:12, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
Looks like a derivative work, mirrored and stretched from http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=156292584459055 Razvan Socol (talk) 06:20, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Denniss (talk) 18:22, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
I'd like to delete this picture because I want to deactivate my account on wikipedia and no longer want my picture on the internet. VicVanWeitz (talk) 17:28, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
- Keep. I'm sorry, but you can not change your mind, the license is unrevocable. Copying your works to Wikipedia you have accepted the notice: When you upload your work to commons you are donating it to the world by using a free content license which allow everyone to use, modify, and redistribute your work for any purpose. This donation is non-revocable.
Julo (talk) 23:23, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
I'd like to delete this picture because I want to deactivate my account on wikipedia and no longer want my picture on the internet. VicVanWeitz (talk) 15:43, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
- Keep. I'm sorry, but you can not change your mind, the license is unrevocable. Copying your works to Wikipedia you have accepted the notice: When you upload your work to commons you are donating it to the world by using a free content license which allow everyone to use, modify, and redistribute your work for any purpose. This donation is non-revocable.
Julo (talk) 23:23, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
- Thank you for this information. Should I remove the nomination for deletion from the picture?--VicVanWeitz (talk) 16:09, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
Kept. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:20, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
Naked young boys 178.176.134.183 22:25, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
- Keep That's not a reason to delete. Jafeluv (talk) 23:33, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
Speedy keep Mass bad faith nomination by since-blocked anon IP - see Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/User_problems#User:178.176.146.22. Argument given confuses simple nudity with sexual content and per COM:SEX: "Except for images prominently featuring genitalia or sexual activity, mere partial or total nudity are generally not considered sexual content." Tabercil (talk) 02:56, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
The image depicts identifiable people. There is no proof about the consent from the boys in question. It therefore infringes their privacy. Walker99 (talk) 18:46, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
- Delete - All Rights Reserved - Takabeg (talk) 18:52, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
- Keep. The current Flickr licensing is not an issue, as the page confirms that the photo was properly licensed at the time of upload. The privacy issue is not a real problem: boys of that age, who are now 6 years older and presumably look rather different, in a third-world city of 327,000 people, are for practical purposes not identifiable. Sandstein (talk) 19:01, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
- Keep. Sandstein is right, though I think it's not important to stress the city to be "third-world" or not: The boys bath openly in a public place and seem proud of it, one of them even openly smiles at the photographer, apparently they're acting in public, and it's right that after 6 years the now no longer little boys are for practical purposes not identifiable... The licence is OK, and nudity by consent isn't a crime as such. Aidas (talk) 21:08, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
- You can't argue that there is no privacy issue because it is from a "third world country" with "a lot of people". India or America, this is an infringement of privacy. Do only people from the so called first world have privacy rights? One cannot publish these nude images without consent. Walker99 (talk) 01:01, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
- This tank is not a place where people openly take photographs or openly stare at those boys. Only a paedophile would do so. Therefore we cannot say an implicit consent is given. Even though the boys may look different now, they are identifiable. Especially for people who know them. Therefore you cannot argue that this picture is okay since it is 6 years old. Aidas says "nudity by consent isn't a crime as such.". The problem is that there is no apparent consent from all the boys involved in this photograph. They are not skinny dipping in order to display their nudity. They are doing it because they don't have wet clothes. Just because one boy appears to looks in the direction of the camera, you cannot argue that they are "proud" of the nudity, or that they have given the consent. In a tank like this, no one is expected to start at a naked boy. Therefore, photography is not accepted or expected there. Walker99 (talk) 01:01, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
- Keep The picture has validity and is merely simple nakedness. Timtrent (talk) 23:16, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
- Keep Moral crusading against child nudity. VolodyA! V Anarhist Beta_M (converse) 03:35, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
- Keep, essentially agree with analysis by Sandstein (talk · contribs), above. It's basically Naturism. -- Cirt (talk) 05:33, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
Kept: per Aidas. These kids are bathing in a public place, plus you can't really see anything. Mentioning paedophilia is in particular bad taste. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 14:38, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
2nd boy from right has an erection 116.240.159.164 08:13, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
- Keep Invalid and false rationale and even if it was true not a reason to delete. Also this IP lost time to see an low resolution image of 699 × 468 and make this kind of comments is "creepy and inappropriate comment", per Sandstein comment below. Tm (talk) 14:40, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. Ruthven (msg) 20:49, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
2nd boy from right appears to have an erection 116.240.159.164 10:40, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
- That is (a) a creepy and inappropriate comment, and (b) not a reason for deletion even if true. Sandstein (talk) 10:55, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
- Keep Ivnalid and false rationale and even if it was true not a reason to delete. Also this IP lost time to see an low resolution image of 699 × 468 and make this kind of comments is "creepy and inappropriate comment", per Sandstein comment ãbove. Tm (talk) 14:40, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
- Keep the same keep arguments apply now, applied last time, and will apply in the future. Also the twin nominations should be combined please. Timtrent (talk) 13:18, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. Ruthven (msg) 20:49, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
Persistent flickrwashing (I believe this image is under copyright). 2001:4452:11E:F200:6849:CCEC:B321:3698 14:51, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
KEPT. The file is reviewed so many times during last 18 years the file has been in Commons. This is vandalistic nomination and I must protect the file. Taivo (talk) 20:02, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
The source photo was taken in Pakistan, so this license cannot apply. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 22:07, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
- Keep - It is made by a citizen of Afghanistan who accompanied the Afghan President. The photo was published inside Afghanistan and there is no proof that the same one was published in another country.--Officer (talk) 22:36, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
- Delete. the photo has been published on www.pajhwok.com ; their server is hosted by Linode, in a Bern convention country, the US. --Dereckson (talk) 01:17, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Denniss (talk) 18:16, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
My reading of the terms of service are that the final video is not "User content", so instead is only allowed for personal use. 99of9 (talk) 02:03, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
- ? The source page says “License: CC0/ Public Domain.” --AVRS (talk) 07:35, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
- That is just the user's description field. I have no doubt that the site-user intended to give away his/her content. They own the script, but not the character pics etc, and the xtranormal site does not give away their copyright on the characters, so the overall video is not the user's to give. The terms of service govern the copyright. --99of9 (talk) 09:53, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
- I asked Xtranormal to clarify. Will report back when I get a response. -- Daniel Mietchen - WiR/OS (talk) 21:17, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
- Great, thanks for asking. I must say, since these videos are their most important product, it's surprising that their copyright is not specifically mentioned in the terms of service. (Even though they have lots of catch-alls.) --99of9 (talk) 21:40, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
- The creator of the video has had some more exchange with the site. He actually got some answers, though not very clear ones. I have forwarded the exchange to OTRS. -- Daniel Mietchen - WiR/OS (talk) 00:20, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
- I asked Xtranormal to clarify. Will report back when I get a response. -- Daniel Mietchen - WiR/OS (talk) 21:17, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
- That is just the user's description field. I have no doubt that the site-user intended to give away his/her content. They own the script, but not the character pics etc, and the xtranormal site does not give away their copyright on the characters, so the overall video is not the user's to give. The terms of service govern the copyright. --99of9 (talk) 09:53, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Comment An email was send to OTRS, see ticket #2012032310000339. Trijnsteltalk 10:29, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: From looking at the 2012032310000339 email, the video was allowed to be used on Wikimedia for non-commercial use only. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 19:21, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
converted by me to DR from a speedy by WikedKentaur for "no FOP in Estonia. Copies uploaded to et.wikipedia.org, en.wikipedia.org as fair use candidates", as this file has an OTRS-permission, which may include a valid permission. --Túrelio (talk) 09:42, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: as per nomination russavia (talk) 08:36, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
Game screenshot, or something. Stefan4 (talk) 23:58, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 10:34, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
Game screenshot, or something. Stefan4 (talk) 23:59, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 10:34, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
This relates to the entry "Coydog" in en.wikipedia. This user contends that this is an Avellana, "a common pet" in Costa Rica. An avellana is a hazelnut, and this species appears to be made up. Cecropia (talk) 16:32, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
![16:32, 26 February 2012 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2012/02/26#c-Cecropia-2012-02-26T16:32:00.000Z-File:A_young_Coyodog._Coyote-_Husky_Mix_Costa_Rican_"Avellana".JPG){kind=link}
Deleted: Out of COM:SCOPE russavia (talk) 07:12, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
![07:12, 18 June 2012 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2012/02/26#c-Russavia-2012-06-18T07:12:00.000Z-File:A_young_Coyodog._Coyote-_Husky_Mix_Costa_Rican_"Avellana".JPG){kind=link}
Photo credited to WENN: http://www.examiner.com/women-s-issues-in-national/2010-miss-universe-pageant-ximena-navarrete-photo Ytoyoda (talk) 05:47, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, image sold to WENN by NYTrotter, a pro freelancer photographer, what's the point? (I have all digital copies of my own work). Cheers. NYTrotter (talk) 10:04, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyright violation High Contrast (talk) 14:14, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
uploaded with obsolete template {{PD}} in 2012 - why is this PD? Liliana-60 (talk) 14:08, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
- Additional information added. Vlaam (talk) 22:43, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
- Comment The BnF offers no evidence as to why this pic is PD. Louis Meurisse himself died in 1932, but he worked with other photographers after WW1, so in the absence of any other evidence we have no way to know if a pic from the Agence Meurisse is by Louis or not. Still I suppose the BnF know what they're doing. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 23:31, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
Kept: No evidence to doubt the Bibliothèque nationale de France, so I decided to keep the file. Better safe than sorry. Trijnsteltalk 22:21, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
Derivative work of dolls or something. Stefan4 (talk) 00:16, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 07:51, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Looks like some kind of promotional picture. Unlikely free. Stefan4 (talk) 00:30, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 07:58, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope? de:Evania was deleted as "Offensichtlich fehlende enzyklopädische Relevanz" at the same time as the logo was uploaded. The country of the logo is unknown, so it is unclear if it is above or below the threshold of originality in the country of origin. Stefan4 (talk) 00:34, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 07:50, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Wrong date "26. Februar 2012" and so probably wrong author and source (and hence missing permission/correct copyright tag). According to de:Schwarze_Legion_(Ustascha) the date seems to be around 1942. See COM:L. Saibo (Δ) 00:49, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 07:45, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Under a non-commercial license only, probably has always been, like most images on the site. —innotata 02:15, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 08:08, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
The owner of this file does not want it to appear on the internet. Muhammadalinaqvi (talk) 03:22, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 07:49, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
This is a derivative of a copyrighted work. Magog the Ogre (talk) 03:43, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 08:10, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
probably not own work Ginés90 (talk) 04:22, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 07:46, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
probably not own work Ginés90 (talk) 04:23, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 08:13, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
probably not a own work, incorrect data Ginés90 (talk) 04:24, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 07:52, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
probably not a own work, not a correct data Ginés90 (talk) 04:25, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 07:50, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
probably not own work, not a correct data Ginés90 (talk) 04:26, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 08:03, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
not own work, not a correct license Ginés90 (talk) 04:32, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 08:09, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
not a own work, not a correct date Ginés90 (talk) 04:36, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 07:47, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
not a own work Ginés90 (talk) 04:38, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 08:01, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
not own work, no a correct date, not a correct description Ginés90 (talk) 04:39, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 08:01, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
not a own work Ginés90 (talk) 04:40, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 08:06, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
not a own work Ginés90 (talk) 04:40, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 07:50, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
not own work Ginés90 (talk) 04:41, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 07:51, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
not a own work Ginés90 (talk) 04:42, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 07:41, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
not a own work Ginés90 (talk) 04:43, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 07:49, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
not a own work Ginés90 (talk) 04:44, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 07:56, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
with copyright in Paraguay, 70 years, the date: 1949 Ginés90 (talk) 04:46, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 07:51, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
not a own work Ginés90 (talk) 04:48, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 07:56, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
not a own work Ginés90 (talk) 04:48, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 08:01, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
not a own work Ginés90 (talk) 04:49, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 08:06, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
not a own work, probably a derivate from non free image Ginés90 (talk) 04:50, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 07:42, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
not a own work, probably a derivate work from non free image. not a correct date Ginés90 (talk) 04:51, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 08:10, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
not a own work, not a correct date Ginés90 (talk) 04:54, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 07:51, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
I think the image is not PD-textlogo, it clearly not only "consists of simple geometric shapes and/or text". deerstop. 14:09, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 08:09, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
If this is an image, that used to be on this website, than it is a copyviolation. There is no disclaimer that states that this is an image, released under a commons compatible licsense. Rodejong (talk) 14:18, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 07:57, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
(All files by Ryanmancl) Larger versions of this image are avalible online at websites affiliated with the building (ex. http://www.lgdevelopmentgroup.com/student-housing/vue-on-apache.php). It's clear from Wikipedia that the uploader is an SPA for promoting this building, so there might be authorization, but it needs to come through OTRS (mind you the building itself is up for deletion, so even OTRS might not be enough). Sven Manguard Wha? 16:55, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 08:14, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
(All files by Ryanmancl) Larger versions of this image are avalible online at websites affiliated with the building (ex. http://www.lgdevelopmentgroup.com/student-housing/vue-on-apache.php). It's clear from Wikipedia that the uploader is an SPA for promoting this building, so there might be authorization, but it needs to come through OTRS (mind you the building itself is up for deletion, so even OTRS might not be enough). Sven Manguard Wha? 16:56, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 08:14, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
(All files by Ryanmancl) Larger versions of this image are avalible online at websites affiliated with the building (ex. http://www.lgdevelopmentgroup.com/student-housing/vue-on-apache.php). It's clear from Wikipedia that the uploader is an SPA for promoting this building, so there might be authorization, but it needs to come through OTRS (mind you the building itself is up for deletion, so even OTRS might not be enough). Sven Manguard Wha? 16:56, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 08:13, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
(All files by Ryanmancl) Larger versions of this image are avalible online at websites affiliated with the building (ex. http://www.lgdevelopmentgroup.com/student-housing/vue-on-apache.php). It's clear from Wikipedia that the uploader is an SPA for promoting this building, so there might be authorization, but it needs to come through OTRS (mind you the building itself is up for deletion, so even OTRS might not be enough). Sven Manguard Wha? 16:56, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 08:13, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
small, poor quality, can't be identifed, not good enough to use if it could Jimfbleak (talk) 18:11, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 08:07, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
The image has "IRNA" embedded making the copyright holder the Iranian government. I'm listing this because the whole area of copyright for Iranian images is a complicated error so it needs checking. The existing license is surely wrong. QU TalkQu 21:10, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 08:04, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Book cover without written proof of free licence Teemeah (talk) 22:07, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 07:44, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
The source photograph is credited to RFE. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 22:10, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 08:00, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
I don't believe the own work. See for example http://ugeldechota.wikispaces.com/Fotos%20de%20Chota Moreover the user has two other photos that are questionable about copyright and not any other photo with the type of quality as this photo Wouter (talk) 22:46, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 07:47, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
SVG version at File:Coat of arms of the People's Representative Council of Indonesia (Dewan Perwakilan Rakyat Republik Indonesia).svg ~ Fry1989 eh? 22:53, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
.svg){kind=link}
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 07:48, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
bad author from flickr. Not a flickrs user work, view the use: here Ginés90 (talk) 03:54, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 21:13, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
probably not a own work, not a correct data. Ginés90 (talk) 04:24, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 21:14, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
not a own work Ginés90 (talk) 04:47, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 21:14, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
to be replaced by the better photo in File:Euerbach-083.JPG. File:Euerbach-004.jpg is missing some detail of the monument. --Tilman2007 (Diskussion) 23:21, 26 February 2012 (UTC) Tilman2007 (talk) 23:25, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 21:14, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Looks like a scan out of a book Rodejong (talk) 00:06, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Actually, it is a scan from a product brochure. The original company that produced the Velotype (and the brochure) does not exist anymore, but the rights have passed to the current producer of the Veyboard, who gave permission to use this. This can be checked at info@veyboard.nl. Fvgool
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 20:12, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
"Quelle: Stadtarchiv Albstadt" is not confirming to COM:L and COM:EI. Who is the photographer? How do we have his permission? Which is the license he agreed to? Saibo (Δ) 00:56, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 20:08, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
probably not a own work — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 200.108.136.46 (talk) 07:11, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 20:07, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Probably not own work. Looks like an upscaled version of http://www.magweb.com/picts/nm2238815.jpg (from [20]). Razvan Socol (talk) 06:16, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 20:08, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Copyvio. The source said that this painting was drawn by Münif Fehim. And he died in 1983. Takabeg (talk) 06:18, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 20:10, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Own work? It is a disdainful scan not more or less. Is it a US Military artwork? PD then? 79.221.106.56 10:16, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
This appears to be a scan of the original Summerall Guard patch that was given to members of The Citadel's elite drill platoon. It appears to be circa 1980-1990 from looking at the design.
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 20:11, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
(All files by Ryanmancl) Larger versions of this image are avalible online at websites affiliated with the building (ex. http://www.lgdevelopmentgroup.com/student-housing/vue-on-apache.php). It's clear from Wikipedia that the uploader is an SPA for promoting this building, so there might be authorization, but it needs to come through OTRS (mind you the building itself is up for deletion, so even OTRS might not be enough). Sven Manguard Wha? 16:56, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 20:10, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
I can't locate the image on the source except as a thumb. There is a bigger version on flickr but under an unfree license. Also see en:Wikipedia:Possibly_unfree_files/2012_February_26#File:Eric_Pickles_Official.jpg. MGA73 (talk) 16:54, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
- It is released under the OGL under the Controller of HMSO's offer —innotata 18:14, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
- As someone wrote on Wikipedia, a thumbnail is licensed under the OGL. The licence for the high-resolution photo appears to be unknown. --Stefan4 (talk) 17:21, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
- Due to it being the same picture that was released under the OGL, it therefore means that as it is the same it is allowed to be re-used as many times as possible, as the original was published under OGL, even though it might be a bigger version it is still the same.
I have also found this website [1] which has the picture and which at the bottom of the main page [2] says that it is available for re-usage.Classical Consort38 (talk) 11:54, 12 March 2012 (UTC)- No idea how that is the case; if the ministry could choose what to license, it could release only the small version. However, HMSO chose to release works like this under the OGL. —innotata 17:05, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
- Due to it being the same picture that was released under the OGL, it therefore means that as it is the same it is allowed to be re-used as many times as possible, as the original was published under OGL, even though it might be a bigger version it is still the same.
- As someone wrote on Wikipedia, a thumbnail is licensed under the OGL. The licence for the high-resolution photo appears to be unknown. --Stefan4 (talk) 17:21, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
- Innotata is correct; if the image is core Crown Copyright (as they claim this is), DCLG don't get to decide what licence it's available under - it's automatically under OGL. James F. (talk) 20:33, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
- References
- ↑ https://www.gov.uk/government/ministers/secretary-of-state-for-communities-and-local-government
- ↑ https://www.gov.uk/
Deleted: high res image not under OGL Denniss (talk) 06:05, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
Small, out-of-focus image, can't be identified, not good enough for use even if it could Jimfbleak (talk) 18:08, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
- Delete--Nevit Dilmen (talk) 14:34, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
- Concur with uploader's vote for deletion
Deleted, MPF (talk) 22:23, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
Looks like a scan out of a book. Rodejong (talk) 00:05, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Actually, it is a scan from a product brochure. The original company that produced the Velotype (and the brochure) does not exist anymore, but the rights have passed to the current producer of the Veyboard, who gave permission to use this. This can be checked at info@veyboard.nl. Fvgool
- In that case we really do need COM:OTRS to prevent deletion requests from taking place. VolodyA! V Anarhist Beta_M (converse) 03:09, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
- The owner of the copyright has to send an email to OTRS. that is all.--Rodejong (talk) 10:37, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 20:08, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
Photograph of an image on the side a train. Copyright details of the image are not given, but I suspect this is a copyright violation Edgepedia (talk) 16:55, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
- I have given the photograph suitable licences, The crest is that of The Metropolitan Railway a long defunct and nationalized railway company as such I believe it to be PD along with the other railway crests, the only difference in this instance is that the word "Railway" has been substituted for the word "Line" Oxyman (talk) 21:42, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: The unanswered question is when the creator of this particular crest died. Without knowing that, we cannot keep it. . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 20:03, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Logo of a brand new company that is not notable and produces no notable products. Night Ranger (talk) 05:42, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Is it still going to be deleted? Gavinstubbs09 (talk) 23:45, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Yes. . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 01:15, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
Photo is credited to a photo agency here: http://fametastic.co.uk/archive/20081112/14112/photos-daniel-craig-takes-the-quantum-of-solace-roadshow-to-new-york/. Unclear if the license is valid. Ytoyoda (talk) 05:46, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, image sold to SplashNews by NYTrotter, a pro freelancer photographer, what's the point? (I have all digital copies of my own work). Cheers. NYTrotter (talk) 10:03, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
- It sounds like you sold the rights as well, since SplashNews distributing the photograph? --Ytoyoda (talk) 15:34, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
Kept: . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 01:16, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
Source and author of contained photograph is missing. No proof that it is free. Leyo 12:49, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
- Origin of the photograph was given afterwards. -- Greifen (talk) 16:36, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
Kept: . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 01:19, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
File:Clemens Ernst Peter Bruckmann (* 13. Januar 1865 in Heilbronn; † 2. März 1937 ebenda), Porträt angefertigt 1920 von Karl Konrad Friedrich Bauer (* 7. Juli 1868 in Stuttgart; † 6. Mai 1942 in München).jpg
[edit],_Portr%C3%A4t_angefertigt_1920_von_Karl_Konrad_Friedrich_Bauer_(*_7._Juli_1868_in_Stuttgart;_%E2%80%A0_6._Mai_1942_in_M%C3%BCnchen).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
,_Portr%C3%A4t_angefertigt_1920_von_Karl_Konrad_Friedrich_Bauer_(*_7._Juli_1868_in_Stuttgart;_%E2%80%A0_6._Mai_1942_in_M%C3%BCnchen).jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
PD only in 2013, since the painter died in 1942. Also no source (uploader apparently was too lazy to fill that in) and a horribly bloated filename, though that could be fixed by renaming. Rosenzweig τ 17:54, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
- Did some research, apparently the source is here.
Search for the “Signatur” D003-131 hereto find the accompanying text. Apparently this painting isn't even by Bauer as claimed by the uploader, but is (perhaps, or perhaps not) a copy of another painting, artist unknown, date also not exactly known, but the archive speculates it could be from as late as 1955. With so little known about the painting, we can certainly not claim it is PD-Old. --Rosenzweig τ 19:04, 26 February 2012 (UTC) - Here is a direct link to the accompanying text. --Rosenzweig τ 16:10, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 01:30, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
File:Heilbronn, Gotisches Steinhaus, Kaiserstraße 18 a, Hinterhaus (UKP Nr. 357 a) Steingiebelfront nach Osten (Archäolog. Stadtkataster BW, Bd 8, HN. Landesdenkmalamt BW, Stuttgart 2001, S. 104-105, Nr. 49) Ausschnitt.JPG
[edit]_Steingiebelfront_nach_Osten_(Arch%C3%A4olog._Stadtkataster_BW,_Bd_8,_HN._Landesdenkmalamt_BW,_Stuttgart_2001,_S._104-105,_Nr._49)_Ausschnitt.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_Steingiebelfront_nach_Osten_(Arch%C3%A4olog._Stadtkataster_BW,_Bd_8,_HN._Landesdenkmalamt_BW,_Stuttgart_2001,_S._104-105,_Nr._49)_Ausschnitt.JPG&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Certainly not the uploader's own work under GFDL/CC as claimed. No source, no date, no author. Rosenzweig τ 18:02, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
- Comment - source is very clearly indicated. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:17, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
- That's not the source, that's a book where this house is described further. --Rosenzweig τ 18:22, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
- Die Informationen sind jetzt nachgereicht worden. Danke --Messina (talk) 15:43, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
- I wouldn't be so sure the author wasn't disclosed. Maybe not in the book the image was taken from, but as you certainly know, the author must not be disclosed anywhere. --Rosenzweig τ 18:55, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 01:31, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
The source photo was taken in Pakistan, so this license cannot apply. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 22:08, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
- Keep - It is made by a citizen of Afghanistan who accompanied the Afghan government officials. The photo was published inside Afghanistan and there is no proof that the same one was published in another country within 30 days.--Officer (talk) 22:39, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
- http://www.demotix.com/news/722667/president-hamid-karzai-meets-dignitaries-pakistan-islamabad 5th image User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 22:41, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
- That's a wrong way to determine, it's like using WikiCommons' location (USA) and upload date (June 13, 2011) as evidence.--Officer (talk) 23:14, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
- I think nominator is correct here, and that PD-Afghanistan only applies if:
- the photographer is an Afghan (or somali...);
- the image was captured in Afghanistan (or Somalia...);
- the image was first published in Afghanistan (or Somalia).
- While this image may have been taken by an Afghan, and may have been first published in Afghanistan, if it wasn't taken in Afghanistan then it is not PD.
- Sorry Geo Swan (talk) 01:42, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
- Can you show a law that says the image has to be of a scene inside Afghanistan only? The photographers of Pajhwok Afghan News are all Afghan citizens and native of Afghanistan. They marked them and they first published them inside Afghanistan.--Officer (talk) 02:02, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
- That's a wrong way to determine, it's like using WikiCommons' location (USA) and upload date (June 13, 2011) as evidence.--Officer (talk) 23:14, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
- http://www.demotix.com/news/722667/president-hamid-karzai-meets-dignitaries-pakistan-islamabad 5th image User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 22:41, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Delete This is a photo of three copyrighted photos. There is no freedom of panorama in Pakistan unless the installation is permanent (Commons:FOP#Pakistan), which presumably these are not, so the uploaded photo implicates the rights of the original photographers. Obviously just because Afghanistan effectively has no copyright laws does not mean that you can take photos of all sorts of copyrighted stuff temporarily installed in Pakistan, publish it in Afghanistan, then it is magically not copyrighted throughout the world. Calliopejen1 (talk) 21:34, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Infringes three copyrights as noted . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 01:33, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
Copyvio. The copyright of "Sentokun" belongs to Nara prefecture. Under some condition, tnis character can be used for free with applying to the authorities (www.pref.nara.jp) Takabeg (talk) 14:32, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
- Keep for #2,3,4 Commons:Image casebook#Costumes and cosplay. Can keep with tagging {{Costume}}. Vantey (talk) 08:20, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
- Delete for #1 File:Sento-Kun-Dinakarr-Jan2010.jpg is a photo of the figure of copyrighted mascot. Fairuse. Vantey (talk) 08:20, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: I am afraid the logic is faulty -- the image of a copyrighted character -- Mickey Mouse, for example -- is not permitted. . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 01:21, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
This linked file should be deleted. I work for Jason van Wyk representation agency and we already have one logo uploaded to his Wiki page, we don't need this lower quality version, which has been inverted as well so its not even the original coloring. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/archive/8/8d/20100605163308%21JasonvanWyk.jpg Alex320 (talk) 00:53, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
- To be quite clear, you want to delete the older version of File:JasonvanWyk.jpg, the one with white characters on a black background? Jastrow (Λέγετε) 18:53, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 06:59, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
fif10 81.232.69.52 12:54, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
- Не понял почему? и что такое fif10? 13243546A (talk) 10:42, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
Kept: wat FASTILY (TALK) 07:00, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
This can be type set, no need for an image. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:57, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
- I made this PNG myself. Why are you deleting it? I am making other Georgian surname PNGs and contributing to wikipedia. Please do not delete this picture. This file was made personally by me. --GeorgianJorjadze (talk) 14:59, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
- The problem is not copyright - it is that we do not host images of words -- this is as much a problem as an image of "Woodward" or "Jorjadze". Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:10, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
- This is not a word. This is a Georgian surname and how this surname is written in Georgian. If you host files for Chinese surnames or Japanese surname why don't you host it for the Georgian one? This is just one picture for one surname. As chinese have its own unique alphabet we do have it as well and it's unacceptable to delete my picture which just represents the surname in Georgian alphabet. --GeorgianJorjadze (talk) 15:13, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
- The problem is not copyright - it is that we do not host images of words -- this is as much a problem as an image of "Woodward" or "Jorjadze". Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:10, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
- He just uploaded another one, probably just in case this one gets deleted. I'm not sure what's the point of arguing with him if this is what he keeps doing.--Gelenvi (talk) 23:36, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
- It seems to me no one has addressed the point he raises. Are people uploading images of names (and one would assume, other words) in other languages? If so, is the policy to delete all of these, or generally keep? Maury Markowitz (talk) 19:38, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
- ფირცხალაიშვილი = "Pirtskhalaishvili"
- We can typeset in Georgian script, see above and Georgian alphabet, just as we typeset Chinese, Japanese, Cyrillic, Thai, Arabic, and many other non-Latin alphabets and therefore there is no reason to keep images of names or other words in any of those alphabets, any more than (as I said above) we might keep an image of "Woodward".
- User:GeorgianJorjadze knows this, because he inserted his image in the WP:EN article, Pirtskhalaishvili, which is where I got the typeset version of the name I put above.
- Since it is possible I misunderstand this, I will ask a Georgian speaker to join this discussion. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:56, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
- If there are similar own made PNG pictures on Chinese surnames why not to keep them on Georgian one? Here are the Chinese examples: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Li_%28%E6%9D%8E%29 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jiang_%28%E6%B1%9F%29_%28surname%29 --GeorgianJorjadze (talk) 16:39, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
The same issue applies to all of these:
- File:Surname Nakani.png
- File:Surname CHAVCHAVADZE.png
- File:Surname of JORJADZE.png
- File:Georgian Alphabet Sample 23.png
- File:Georgian Alphabet Sample 21.png
- File:Georgian Alphabet Sample 22.png
- File:Georgian Alphabet Sample 2.png
- File:Georgian Alphabet Sample Georgia.png
Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:13, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
- Keep Georgian fonts aren't common enough in browsers that this can be typeset (and viewed) worldwide. There's still value to having examples like this as bitmaps. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:35, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
- Again, I may be missing something, but.... My installation of Firefox 10.0 is very ordinary -- I did not install any special language support -- and I have no problem seeing the typeset Georgian above. The same is true of my IE6 installation -- since I installed it only because MS requires it for certain tasks, it is completely standard, and it also shows the type above perfectly well. Neither browser is the latest version. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 23:57, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
- When did you buy your hardware? How recent hardware does it take to track the versions such that "a very ordinary" installation brings Georgian with it? We're a worldwide project and not everyone has the budget to keep that close to the leading edge. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:48, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
- Again, I may be missing something, but.... My installation of Firefox 10.0 is very ordinary -- I did not install any special language support -- and I have no problem seeing the typeset Georgian above. The same is true of my IE6 installation -- since I installed it only because MS requires it for certain tasks, it is completely standard, and it also shows the type above perfectly well. Neither browser is the latest version. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 23:57, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
- Your hardware specification has nothing to do with it. If you have Unicode OpenType fonts on board (.otf) then you can view and type in the Georgian language. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 22:42, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
- Delete per Jim. I tried a couple of computers with different OSes around here and every single one was able to render ფირცხალაიშვილი without any problems. Laitr Keiows (talk) 01:40, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
- How recent were they? I've no problems on Windows7, but this suggests WindowsXP might need the script specifically installed. Rd232 (talk) 01:45, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
- Sure, one may need to install additional fonts for Windows XP by checking a couple of check boxes in the language and locale settings. If you think this is a valid argument to keep this unused image, consider than then for the same reason we should also render into image and keep every Japanese and Chinese, and even Hebrew surname or name. Once again, I emphasize that this image can be created on any recent computer with standard pre-installed software and thus it has very low value for the project. As this file isn't used anywhere, I'd say that this file and similar unused files are falling well outside of the Commons:Project scope. Laitr Keiows (talk) 02:20, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
- That's just for WindowsXP. In developing countries people may be using older or different systems where it's not that easy. Besides, asking people to install additional scripts just in order to see an illustration is unreasonable. So if we establish that there is an accessibility problem (we haven't quite yet), then we can start thinking about whether at least some images of scripts might be educationally useful. I wouldn't put surnames top of the list of such images, but if accessibility is an issue, then there is a decision to be made, it's not just a trivial "this is never needed because everyone can always see the text version". Rd232 (talk) 02:26, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
- Sure, if this image was used anywhere at all, I'd vote to keep it. But it isn't used and also can be recreated with ease by anyone using a recent computer. If I can make it, you can make it and the other guy can make it when a need arise, why should we keep it now, unused? For an example of similar image I'd vote to keep, see to the right. Laitr Keiows (talk) 02:51, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
- That's just for WindowsXP. In developing countries people may be using older or different systems where it's not that easy. Besides, asking people to install additional scripts just in order to see an illustration is unreasonable. So if we establish that there is an accessibility problem (we haven't quite yet), then we can start thinking about whether at least some images of scripts might be educationally useful. I wouldn't put surnames top of the list of such images, but if accessibility is an issue, then there is a decision to be made, it's not just a trivial "this is never needed because everyone can always see the text version". Rd232 (talk) 02:26, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
- Sure, one may need to install additional fonts for Windows XP by checking a couple of check boxes in the language and locale settings. If you think this is a valid argument to keep this unused image, consider than then for the same reason we should also render into image and keep every Japanese and Chinese, and even Hebrew surname or name. Once again, I emphasize that this image can be created on any recent computer with standard pre-installed software and thus it has very low value for the project. As this file isn't used anywhere, I'd say that this file and similar unused files are falling well outside of the Commons:Project scope. Laitr Keiows (talk) 02:20, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
- How recent were they? I've no problems on Windows7, but this suggests WindowsXP might need the script specifically installed. Rd232 (talk) 01:45, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
- I can't make this (and I'm probably one of the few non-Georgians here who has tried). I can't even type this, even if my computer could then render it. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:24, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
For the record, I'm running XP and did nothing to install Georgian or any other language support beyond the Latin alphabet.
About a quarter of the languages we support (about 70 of 284) use non-Latin alphabets. COM:SCOPE specifically excludes raw text. In view of the breadth of our non-Latin support, if that official policy page meant to say that raw Latin character text is outside of scope but raw text in non-Latin languages is OK, it should say so. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:43, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
- Commons:SCOPE#Excluded_educational_content clearly aims to exclude things which ...are better hosted elsewhere, for example at Wikibooks, Wikiquote, Wiktionary, Wikiversity or Wikisource. And there is a specific exemption: Commons can be used to host such material if included in a shareable media file that is of use to one of the other Wikimedia Foundation-hosted (WMF) projects. So I think broadly my intuition was right: files of this type can be kept if they are of use to other Wikimedia projects. I don't know if that's the case here (Wikipedia article on the surname?), but I think that's the decision criterion for files of this type. Rd232 (talk) 17:02, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
- Then why DON'T you delete Japanese, Chinese or Arabic PNGs? Why is having family names in Georgian alphabet in PNGs a problem and that big deal? It here's everything's equal I am asking you to treat Georgian PNGs with respect and do NOT delete them! --GeorgianJorjadze (talk) 19:53, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
- We have more than 12,000,000 images on Commons. We add over 8,000 images every day and delete about 1,300. We cannot possible catch every problem when it is uploaded. My educated guess is that any time, about one percent of Commons images -- 120,000 -- are problems of one sort or another. So we probably do have images of surnames in other left to right alphabets -- Greek, Cyrillic, and others -- that should be deleted. The fact that we have other images that should not be on Commons is not a reason to keep yours.
- As Fred the Oyster has pointed out in this discussion, Japanese, Chinese and Arabic, which you mention, are not as easy decisions. The first two are character based and the last is right-to-left. There may be legitimate reasons to keep them. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:18, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
- Then why DON'T you delete Japanese, Chinese or Arabic PNGs? Why is having family names in Georgian alphabet in PNGs a problem and that big deal? It here's everything's equal I am asking you to treat Georgian PNGs with respect and do NOT delete them! --GeorgianJorjadze (talk) 19:53, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
- For the record, if your computer uses Unicode fonts then you can read and type the Georgian language, and pretty much any other left to right language too. You only need other language support if you want to type in languages other than left to right ones. The type or age of your machine is irrelevant, as is your operating system that is under 10 years old. There ya go, Typesetting 101. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 22:42, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
- Wikimedia has access statistics for 2011, including breakdown by operating system. I'm not sure how many of those use Unicode. Windows98 is on there (0.05%). Rd232 (talk) 23:05, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
- I could have sworn I mentioned 10 years. If your Operating system is more than 10 years old you should be contacting a museum, not the Wikiverse. Microsoft have stopped supporting XP, let alone an OS two versions before that. If a Windows 98 user is having difficulties, then tough shit, it's 2012, spend a couple of quid and get with the times. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 00:09, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
- Commons is a global project, and older machines are likely to be in the developing world, where users don't have "a couple of quid" to spend on upgrading ancient machines. Yes, it's amazing that an internet-accessible Windows98 machine even works these days given the security vulnerabilities, but there you are. Hopefully the total figures for users who can't view these scripts is very low - but the fact that we had one right in this DR (above) suggests it's not as low as we'd like. So a bit more research would be nice, if anyone's willing+able to do it. Rd232 (talk) 00:26, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
- I'm willing to bet that the mentioned Win98 user isn't in the developing world. Operating systems (which is what supports Unicode, the hardware has nothing to do with it) can be had for nothing, which also support Unicode. Not having a few quid is not a valid excuse. If one is using Windows XP and above then it will support Unicode. Any flavour of OS/X will support it. Any version of Linux will support it, even some of the older versions suitable for older hardware. You didn't forget about Linux did you RD? --Fred the Oyster (talk) 00:43, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
- No, I didn't (not least since there are lots in the list I linked to). But the question is not what could people do to access Unicode, the question is what proportion of users don't have systems that use Unicode. Small? Undoubtedly. But is it small enough to ignore? I'd say "probably", but I'd like more information. PS Win98 was 0.05% of all access requests on Wikimedia in 2011 - over 2m requests. That's hardly likely to be one user. Rd232 (talk) 00:55, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
- "but the fact that we had one right in this DR (above)" was the one user mentioned I was referring to, not the 0.05%. But regardless, there is no reason why someone has to use a 10yr-old OS and then complain they can't access certain things. From totally free OSs to cheap as chips computers on eBay, to the library down the road, to the a relative's spanking new laptop etc etc, the first two being the optimum. But to get back on-topic, there is no excuse, or reason why there needs to be someone's (anyone's) name written out as a graphic if the native language used is a left to right alphabet, even if it's using non-Latin characters. So my vote is Delete. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 01:17, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
- "but the fact that we had one right in this DR (above)" was the one user mentioned I was referring to, not the 0.05%. But regardless, there is no reason why someone has to use a 10yr-old OS and then complain they can't access certain things. From totally free OSs to cheap as chips computers on eBay, to the library down the road, to the a relative's spanking new laptop etc etc, the first two being the optimum. But to get back on-topic, there is no excuse, or reason why there needs to be someone's (anyone's) name written out as a graphic if the native language used is a left to right alphabet, even if it's using non-Latin characters. So my vote is
- No, I didn't (not least since there are lots in the list I linked to). But the question is not what could people do to access Unicode, the question is what proportion of users don't have systems that use Unicode. Small? Undoubtedly. But is it small enough to ignore? I'd say "probably", but I'd like more information. PS Win98 was 0.05% of all access requests on Wikimedia in 2011 - over 2m requests. That's hardly likely to be one user. Rd232 (talk) 00:55, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
- I'm willing to bet that the mentioned Win98 user isn't in the developing world. Operating systems (which is what supports Unicode, the hardware has nothing to do with it) can be had for nothing, which also support Unicode. Not having a few quid is not a valid excuse. If one is using Windows XP and above then it will support Unicode. Any flavour of OS/X will support it. Any version of Linux will support it, even some of the older versions suitable for older hardware. You didn't forget about Linux did you RD? --Fred the Oyster (talk) 00:43, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
- Commons is a global project, and older machines are likely to be in the developing world, where users don't have "a couple of quid" to spend on upgrading ancient machines. Yes, it's amazing that an internet-accessible Windows98 machine even works these days given the security vulnerabilities, but there you are. Hopefully the total figures for users who can't view these scripts is very low - but the fact that we had one right in this DR (above) suggests it's not as low as we'd like. So a bit more research would be nice, if anyone's willing+able to do it. Rd232 (talk) 00:26, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
- I could have sworn I mentioned 10 years. If your Operating system is more than 10 years old you should be contacting a museum, not the Wikiverse. Microsoft have stopped supporting XP, let alone an OS two versions before that. If a Windows 98 user is having difficulties, then tough shit, it's 2012, spend a couple of quid and get with the times. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 00:09, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
- Wikimedia has access statistics for 2011, including breakdown by operating system. I'm not sure how many of those use Unicode. Windows98 is on there (0.05%). Rd232 (talk) 23:05, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
Well that was confusing as Andy Dingley didn't say what his OS was. What made you assume it was Win98? And the point remains that the percentage of users in this DR who can't see the Unicode text version is a bit worrying. It may be coincidence, but more info would be nice. And I'm interested in the principle, not this file. I'd say if such a file is in use, it should be considered in scope. This one isn't now, and maybe it never will be, but as a general principle that works for me: allow uploading of this sort of file if it is intended for (and then used for) a specific use in a WMF project. Rd232 (talk) 14:26, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
- I didn't assume his OS was Win98, you did. I assumed by the above quote (of yours) that you knew someone in this DR was using Win98. But why should it be worrying that an infinitely small percentage of readers can't use Unicode? They are using old, redundant and unsupported software. There are lots of things on the net that don't support their OSs. Should we stop all innovation and moving forward just because there are some laggers behind? Their software barely supports XHTML, let alone HTML5 so should we stop using it because their OS doesn't support it? There is no excuse for them to be using old and redundant software when there is free up-to-date alternatives. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 18:49, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
- My working destop OS are modern and certainly render Georgian - although I can't personally type it into them. However I also have a number of older PCs still in service that don't have such a capacity. I even have a working Windows '95 box - it runs a high-quality film scanner with no driver support past this. It's still a dubious claim though that older hardware will be able render Unicode: both that it's possible to upgrade through one of the lightweight Unixes to achieve it (widespread Unicode and UTF doesn't go all that far back), and certainly that our hypothetical low-budget school (a key target market for the WMF projects) has the capacity to do this.
- Why are we even working so hard to disprove the possibility that someone has less fortunate equipment than we do ourselves?
- I write software for a living - one of the first lessons is that you should avoid ruling out possibilities because you can't think of a need for them, because there are a whole bunch of users out there who will think of a way to use it. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:24, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
- As far as your film scanner goes I don't know why you don't use a current spec machine and run a VM with Win95 running within it, but if you have no logistical reason to stop using your current method then, as I'm sure you already know, don't fix it if it ain't broke. You don't need a lightweight Linux distro just because the machine is old. For my webserver I use a Mac G5 aged about 5-6yrs, may be older, and a mail server running on an even older Mac G4 which is about 11 years old or so. Both are running the latest version of Debian Linux (v6 "Squeeze"). Using an Intel machine will give you even more choices. As for "possibilities", it's not that I'm ruling them out ,ore like I'm totally disregarding them entirely. 10 years is a lifetime+ in computer terms and people cannot expect support for equipment that old, wherever that support may come from. Three or four-year-old hardware can be had for peanuts on eBay and Craig's List. As already mentioned the OS can be free. I'm not saying that people shouldn't have or use 10+ year old machines, just that they should expect that they won't be able to get the user experience a more up-to-date setup would give them, e.g. a Win98 user should not complain that they can't run IE9. Likewise they have no room for complaint if they can't use Unicode fonts, or that other people should have to go to the time and effort and jump through hoops to make it possible for them to be able to use Unicode, or at least be able to see characters from Unicode fonts. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 00:26, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
- As far as the text graphic goes, well it's against policy. Images are supposed to be images, anything that that can be written as text should be text. The fact that a very, very small percentage of users can't see it is immaterial. It is the responsibility of the people who can't see it to bring their OS up to scratch, not ours. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 18:49, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
- (i) I assumed nothing. I mentioned Windows 98 because I was surprised to see it on the list, even as a tiny fraction. Somehow you jumped to a conclusion there. (ii) Calm down; keeping some images on Commons (if that were decided) is hardly halting the march of progress. And policy can be changed, that's hardly a problem. The question is whether there is reason to do so - is the fraction of users who would be served by this high enough to justify it? I reiterate: probably not, but I'd like to be sure. And this DR is probably not the place to answer that question... so I will go and post at the English Technical Village Pump, as I think that's most likely to produce a good answer: en:WP:VPT#Unicode font access. Rd232 (talk) 21:25, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
- I was extremely calm until you decided to start patronising me by telling me to calm down. And yes you are quite correct policy can be changed. But if you hadn't noticed it hasn't been changed and currently the policy is as I stated. This DR should be run based on what policy is right now, not what it could be at some determinate point in the future. What it has to do with any technical aspect of WM I have no idea. Unicode is the way of the future, not the way of the past. It makes things easier for people, not more difficult. If people wish to remain in the past, for whatever reason, with their 10+ year old technology then they are in no position to complain about what current technology is able to bring. The fact that WM supports Unicode just means that it is using current technology and there is no way you will get anyone to agree to backward compatibility, because there is none. They could try getting their hands on Adobe Type Manager and then install some postscript1 fonts to get the same results, but then again that isn't free. I don't see why we, or WMF should jump through hoops to support ancient technology when there are free measures that the user can do to supply their own support. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 21:41, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
- Fine, then you were calmly hyperbolic when you wrote "Should we stop all innovation and moving forward just because there are some laggers behind?" as a response to the idea that we might keep certain images on Commons. And I didn't actually mean to be patronising. Anyway, this part of the discussion doesn't seem likely to get any more productive; you don't want to worry about supporting tech "laggards" and I do, if the proportion of users affected is high enough. Let's see if we can get an answer on what the proportion is, and hopefully that will resolve the issue. Rd232 (talk) 22:18, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
- Not hyperbole, merely a rhetorical question. There's supporting "tech laggers" and there's supporting archaic and moribund OSs. Why don't you push for supporting NT4, W2K, OS/2 Warp, MACOS 9.2? At some point it has to stop. The simple fact of the matter is that, from a Windows standpoint, Unicode fonts are only natively supported from XP-onwards. In fact XP itself is 3 versions ago and is no longer supported by Microsoft. W98 is 5 versions ago and 14 years old. There are admins on en.wp who aren't that old. In computer terms that's prehistoric. In any case, knowing how many people are affected by not being able to support Unicode fonts will serve no purpose as it's a black and white situation, they either can or they can't. The Mediawiki software can either support Unicode or it can't. There's no in-between. The only way is to change policy with regard to having text in graphics, and I wish you good luck on that one. Either way it isn't going to save this graphic under review. As of right now it is against policy and should therefore be deleted. Simples. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 22:50, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
- "In any case, knowing how many people are affected by not being able to support Unicode fonts will serve no purpose as it's a black and white situation, they either can or they can't." - you seem to be losing track of the issue. Users without Unicode can be supported in certain educational contexts by text displayed in image form. The question remains whether there are enough of them to make it worth the effort (and part of that calculation must be how much effort it is; hosting a few more images is not exactly a great cost for Commons). See also Andy Dingley's reply above. Rd232 (talk) 23:37, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
- I'm not sure what you mean by "educational contexts", but Mediawiki already supports inline graphics for mathematical characters (an option that can be switched on or off in one's preferences). I suppose that could be widened to support Unicode characters, but is the time, trouble and expense justified? I suggest that it isn't, you suggest that it is. Meanwhile we are continuing to stray off-topic. Although I've tried a couple of times to veer back on-topic you haven't actually commented on any of my on-topic comments, e.g. the current policy is that graphics containing nothing but text are out of scope ergo this image is out of scope and should therefore be deleted. This is whether or not the image is being used elsewhere. There is nothing to stop the image's author uploading the image to the local wiki where the article is that he intends to use the graphic. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 00:26, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
- I did comment, I said policy could be changed. And I've no idea where you get the concept of changing MediaWiki from! Really, truly, where? "There is nothing to stop the image's author uploading the image to the local wiki" - except for the local wikis which have local image uploads disabled of course. Rd232 (talk) 00:53, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
- If it helps any: this file will probably be deleted, and I'll probably support that. But before that happens, I'd like more info. That's all I'm saying. Rd232 (talk) 01:01, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
- Gentlemen, are you going to keep my PNGs or not? I hope you won't delete them. Regards. --GeorgianJorjadze (talk) 18:09, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
- Jorjadze thanks for your good work but Commons is not encyclopedia or dictionary. How we write words surnames or others we can see in dictionary or encyclopedia. for example File:Surname Nakani.png in en:Nakani gives no further information as it is alredy written in the article. Geagea (talk) 00:46, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
- You are NOT answering my question! Why is Chinese and Japanese surnames PNGs uploaded on wiki and they are not deleted and why do you plan to delete Georgian PNGs? We have our own script and that's why I uploaded the Georgian surname PNGs. Why is Georgian PNGs exception when there are Chinese and Japanese PNGs of surnames? --GeorgianJorjadze (talk) 21:53, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
- Jorjadze thanks for your good work but Commons is not encyclopedia or dictionary. How we write words surnames or others we can see in dictionary or encyclopedia. for example File:Surname Nakani.png in en:Nakani gives no further information as it is alredy written in the article. Geagea (talk) 00:46, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
- Gentlemen, are you going to keep my PNGs or not? I hope you won't delete them. Regards. --GeorgianJorjadze (talk) 18:09, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
- I'm not sure what you mean by "educational contexts", but Mediawiki already supports inline graphics for mathematical characters (an option that can be switched on or off in one's preferences). I suppose that could be widened to support Unicode characters, but is the time, trouble and expense justified? I suggest that it isn't, you suggest that it is. Meanwhile we are continuing to stray off-topic. Although I've tried a couple of times to veer back on-topic you haven't actually commented on any of my on-topic comments, e.g. the current policy is that graphics containing nothing but text are out of scope ergo this image is out of scope and should therefore be deleted. This is whether or not the image is being used elsewhere. There is nothing to stop the image's author uploading the image to the local wiki where the article is that he intends to use the graphic. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 00:26, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
- "In any case, knowing how many people are affected by not being able to support Unicode fonts will serve no purpose as it's a black and white situation, they either can or they can't." - you seem to be losing track of the issue. Users without Unicode can be supported in certain educational contexts by text displayed in image form. The question remains whether there are enough of them to make it worth the effort (and part of that calculation must be how much effort it is; hosting a few more images is not exactly a great cost for Commons). See also Andy Dingley's reply above. Rd232 (talk) 23:37, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
- Not hyperbole, merely a rhetorical question. There's supporting "tech laggers" and there's supporting archaic and moribund OSs. Why don't you push for supporting NT4, W2K, OS/2 Warp, MACOS 9.2? At some point it has to stop. The simple fact of the matter is that, from a Windows standpoint, Unicode fonts are only natively supported from XP-onwards. In fact XP itself is 3 versions ago and is no longer supported by Microsoft. W98 is 5 versions ago and 14 years old. There are admins on en.wp who aren't that old. In computer terms that's prehistoric. In any case, knowing how many people are affected by not being able to support Unicode fonts will serve no purpose as it's a black and white situation, they either can or they can't. The Mediawiki software can either support Unicode or it can't. There's no in-between. The only way is to change policy with regard to having text in graphics, and I wish you good luck on that one. Either way it isn't going to save this graphic under review. As of right now it is against policy and should therefore be deleted. Simples. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 22:50, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
- Fine, then you were calmly hyperbolic when you wrote "Should we stop all innovation and moving forward just because there are some laggers behind?" as a response to the idea that we might keep certain images on Commons. And I didn't actually mean to be patronising. Anyway, this part of the discussion doesn't seem likely to get any more productive; you don't want to worry about supporting tech "laggards" and I do, if the proportion of users affected is high enough. Let's see if we can get an answer on what the proportion is, and hopefully that will resolve the issue. Rd232 (talk) 22:18, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
- I was extremely calm until you decided to start patronising me by telling me to calm down. And yes you are quite correct policy can be changed. But if you hadn't noticed it hasn't been changed and currently the policy is as I stated. This DR should be run based on what policy is right now, not what it could be at some determinate point in the future. What it has to do with any technical aspect of WM I have no idea. Unicode is the way of the future, not the way of the past. It makes things easier for people, not more difficult. If people wish to remain in the past, for whatever reason, with their 10+ year old technology then they are in no position to complain about what current technology is able to bring. The fact that WM supports Unicode just means that it is using current technology and there is no way you will get anyone to agree to backward compatibility, because there is none. They could try getting their hands on Adobe Type Manager and then install some postscript1 fonts to get the same results, but then again that isn't free. I don't see why we, or WMF should jump through hoops to support ancient technology when there are free measures that the user can do to supply their own support. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 21:41, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
- (i) I assumed nothing. I mentioned Windows 98 because I was surprised to see it on the list, even as a tiny fraction. Somehow you jumped to a conclusion there. (ii) Calm down; keeping some images on Commons (if that were decided) is hardly halting the march of progress. And policy can be changed, that's hardly a problem. The question is whether there is reason to do so - is the fraction of users who would be served by this high enough to justify it? I reiterate: probably not, but I'd like to be sure. And this DR is probably not the place to answer that question... so I will go and post at the English Technical Village Pump, as I think that's most likely to produce a good answer: en:WP:VPT#Unicode font access. Rd232 (talk) 21:25, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
I answered that question above:
- "We have more than 12,000,000 images on Commons. We add over 8,000 images every day and delete about 1,300. We cannot possible catch every problem when it is uploaded. My educated guess is that any time, about one percent of Commons images -- 120,000 -- are problems of one sort or another. So we probably do have images of surnames in other left to right alphabets -- Greek, Cyrillic, and others -- that should be deleted. The fact that we have other images that should not be on Commons is not a reason to keep yours.
- As Fred the Oyster has pointed out in this discussion, Japanese, Chinese and Arabic, which you mention, are not as easy decisions. The first two are character based and the last is right-to-left. There may be legitimate reasons to keep them."
But, in any event, the fact that there may be other similar problems is never a reason to keep an image. If that were true, we could never delete anything. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:36, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
- Delete such images unless in use on another project. I'd like more info about the potential usefulness of such images, but that doesn't seem easy to get, so let's just go with the policy unless there's a convincing reason not to (being used would be convincing, IMO). Rd232 (talk) 13:54, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Fairly clear consensus to delete. These can be easily represented with unicode typesets. FASTILY (TALK) 04:28, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
small, poor quality, can't be identifed, not good enough to use if it could Jimfbleak (talk) 18:14, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Ok, I agree. But in this picture not the bird was the important thing. But the cloudy landscape. DenesFeri (talk) 10:56, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 07:01, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
SVG version at File:Coat of arms of the Regional Representative Council of Indonesia (Dewan Perwakilan Daerah Republik Indonesia).svg ~ Fry1989 eh? 22:54, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
.svg){kind=link}
- hi Fry1989, please see at LOGO of the DEWAN PERWAKILAN RAKYAT REPUBLIK INDONESIA is official, thanks Geyol (talk) 11:53, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
- I aplaud your attempt to be as accurate as possible, but we do prefer to have coats of arms in SVG whenever we can. We can edit the SVGs to make them more like the JPEGs you have uploaded, if you desire, but I stand by my nomination. Fry1989 eh? 20:06, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
- hi Fry1989, please see at LOGO of the DEWAN PERWAKILAN RAKYAT REPUBLIK INDONESIA is official, thanks Geyol (talk) 11:53, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 06:59, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
From here, page 25. I'm not convinced that it is PD-ineligible. On the other hand, a different plot could be made from the same data. Stefan4 (talk) 00:19, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Keep Six numeric data points and two header phrases come nowhere near the threshold of originality set forth as the minimum creative expression necessary to obtain copyright protection in Feist v. Rural, where the US Supreme Court indicated that an entire telephone directory was ineligible for copyright protection because it was a collection of facts. Are you suggesting that the typography or gradient background have some element of creative expression that I have overlooked here? CLDunlap (talk) 00:34, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
- Delete Directly clipped from the study (p.20 rather than p.25 as mentioned in the nomination). Taking statistics from a table would be okay, but clipping the entire layout with colouring and style choices is not. --Fæ (talk) 05:43, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
- Has there been a case where USA copyright has been granted on such colouring and style choices? 223.130.4.246 18:20, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
- If you look closely, the positioning of years and the numbers is quite inexact. Someone has used their creative skill and judgement in presenting the material rather than just listing statistics or an automatic graph of statistics. As for simple colour and layout, you could compare with the works of Mondrian for which there is no debate that Commons cannot carry images of these works and yet many are less complex than the layout colour choices of this table (e.g. here). --Fæ (talk) 23:46, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
- Has there been a case where USA copyright has been granted on such colouring and style choices? 223.130.4.246 18:20, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
Replacement requested at Graphics Lab. 71.212.237.94 15:43, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
Done I believe this request can be closed. CLDunlap (talk) 19:58, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
Kept: Hid original version. . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:58, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
Those are postcards from the 1930ies or later. The photographer is unknown in each case, so we cannot assume they are PD-old.
- File:Wernigerode Schloß ca.1934.jpg
- File:Esslingen am Neckar ca.1942.jpg
- File:Gutenzell Postkarte ca.1940.jpg
- File:Gutenzell ca.1940.jpg
- File:Cannstatter Volksfest ca.1940.jpg
- File:Ellwangen Gymnasium und Realschule ca.1932.jpg
- File:Blaubeuren ca.1941.jpg
- File:Bartenstein Brunnensäule ca.1939.jpg
- File:Bartenstein Schloss ca.1942.jpg
- File:Bartenstein ca.1932.jpg
- File:Schönenbergkirche bei Ellwangen ca.1930.jpg
- File:Schloss Rechenberg Kreis Crailsheim ca.1950.jpg
- File:Flugplatz Hornberg Gmünd 1930er.jpg
- File:Quedlinburg Dom ca.1934.jpg
Rosenzweig τ 13:17, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
- Hello Rosenzweig, as I wrote on the deletion request for File:Ulmer Münster mit Donaudampfer Ulm - Wien 1940.jpg, those pictures are from my grandfather's heritage. I scanned them and found no photographers and no dates on their back. The years are the years of the postmarks, so the pictures could be older. Greetings! -- Kdkeller (talk) 14:06, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
- They could be older, but we need to know more precisely who photographed them and when. A photograph is normally protected by copyright for 70 years after the death of the photographer. For photographs from the 1930ies and later we cannot assume the photographers are dead for at least 70 years anyway, regardless of who they were. --Rosenzweig τ 17:44, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
- Delete File:Schloss Rechenberg Kreis Crailsheim ca.1950.jpg, this can only possibly become PD in 2020 at the earliest. -- Liliana-60 (talk) 14:48, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 20:04, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
Files in Category:Camouflage
[edit]These logos look a bit too complex for {{PD-textlogo}}, especially given the background. They are currently listed as own work and the uploader's user name suggests that own work may be true, but there is no way to confirm this since there is no OTRS ticket.
Stefan4 (talk) 19:01, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
- Delete I agree, they are not ineligible for copyright due to complex elements (such as backgrounds).Fma12 (talk) 16:37, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 21:14, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
The source photo was taken in China, so this license cannot apply. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 22:09, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
- Keep - It is made by a citizen of Afghanistan who accompanied the Afghan President. The photo was published inside Afghanistan and there is no proof that the same one was published in another country.--Officer (talk) 22:34, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Either it has an Afghan copyright, or since It was uploaded here within thirty days of its creation, it has a USA copyright. In either case, it is an infringement. . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:05, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
Files uploaded by عباد ديرانية (talk · contribs)
[edit]Looks like Flickrwashing.
- File:اعتصام بحماة (Hama demonstration)2.jpg
- File:اعتصام بحماة (Hama demonstration)1.jpg
- File:بقايا الرصاص في حماة (Bullets remains in Hama).JPG
- File:مقبرة حماة (Hama graveyard)2.JPG
- File:مقبرة حماة (Hama graveyard)1.JPG
- File:كتابات الشبيحة في حماة.JPG
- File:قصف حماة (Hama shelling)8.JPG
- File:قصف حماة (Hama shelling)5.JPG
- File:قصف حماة (Hama shelling)6.JPG
- File:قصف حماة (Hama shelling)7.JPG
- File:قصف حماة (Hama shelling)4.JPG
- File:قصف حماة (Hama shelling)2.JPG
- File:قصف حماة (Hama shelling)3.JPG
- File:قصف حماة (Hama shelling)1.JPG
- File:مسيرة بالقامشلي (Demonstration in Al-Qamishli).jpg
- File:4الدمار في الزبداني (Destruction in Az-Zabadani).jpg
- File:3الدمار في الزبداني (Destruction in Az-Zabadani).jpg
- File:2الدمار في الزبداني (Destruction in Az-Zabadani).jpg
- File:الدمار في الزبداني (Destruction in Az-Zabadani).jpg
- File:قصف بابا عمرو2 (Baba Amr shelling).jpg
- File:قصف بابا عمرو1 (Baba Amr shelling).jpg
- File:تشييع مظاهرة المزة (Al-Mazzah funeral).jpg
- File:تشييع شهداء المزة (Funeral of Damascus)4.jpg
- File:تشييع شهداء المزة (Funeral of Damascus)3.jpg
- File:قوات الأمن في القابون بدمشق (Security forces in Damascus).jpg
- File:الدمار في حمص4 (Homs destruction4).jpg
- File:الدمار في حمص3 (Homs destruction3).jpg
- File:مظا.هرة ببلدة نصيب في درعا (Naseeb, Daraa demonstration).jpg
- File:تشييع شهداء المزة (Funeral of Damascus)2.jpg
- File:تشييع شهداء المزة (Funeral of Damascus).jpg
- File:مظاهرة بالقامشلي (Demonstration in Al Qamishli).jpg
- File:مظاهرة مارع بحلب في جمعة المقاومة الشعبية (Maree demonstration).jpg
- File:الجيش الحر في حمص (Free army in Homs.jpg
- File:نقطة تفتيش للجيش الحر بحمص (Free army checkpont, Homs).jpg
- File:الدمار في حمص2 (Homs destruction2).jpg
- File:الدمار في حمص1 (Homs destruction1).jpg
- File:نعوات شهداء حمص (Obituaries in Homs).jpg
- File:تشييع شهداء معرة النعمان.jpg
- File:قسم متظاهري إدلب جمعة متظاهري حماة (Idlib protesters).jpg
2.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
1.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
2.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
1.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
8.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
5.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
6.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
7.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
4.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
2.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
3.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
1.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
4.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
3.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
2.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Kobac (talk) 23:07, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
- Hello. I can't see where is the prbolem in the files listed above. Most of those files were uploaded by freedom House group on flickr under a free license, and others I have asked their authors to upload them on flickr with a free license for use on Wikipedia, as we have a big lack for protests images there, and I can confirm the premission from those authors if needed. Anyway, I don't see the point in marking them for deletion, they are licensed with creative commons and published with the original resolution --عباد ديرانية (talk) 23:49, 26 February 2012 (UTC).
- We can't keep the images from doubtful Flickr accounts created by unknown specially for uploading to Commons. Kobac (talk) 12:56, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
- As I said, I have a premession from the authors, so if we will follow your way there is no way on earth to get a free pictures for the protests, in addition to the fact that there is no copyrights protect any of the protest pictures in the current chaos, but anyway, I have a premission. Give me two days until I send the premission from the authors to Wikimedia email to confirm it. Also, if the pictures does not exist on any other site with the original resolution, there is no point in the first place in marking them for deletion, because there is no way I can get them in the current conditions if they were not uploaded on the internet --عباد ديرانية (talk) 13:20, 27 February 2012 (UTC).
- If you have images of protests why don't you just load them directly onto the wikipedia commons before they're loaded anywhere else on the internet. This will help prove authorship. The images do not need to come through Flikr to have a commons license. --Guest2625 (talk) 02:53, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
- And how will I confirm authorship in this case? Those images are not hided in the drawer, they are published everywhere on the internet, because they was created to be published by the protests media, so it is hard to confirm what was their original source. Right now, I don't know what to do to prove the copyrights, because all authors of the images are news networks on Facebook. For example, here is the original source of most Homs city pictures [21], look below and read:
- If you have images of protests why don't you just load them directly onto the wikipedia commons before they're loaded anywhere else on the internet. This will help prove authorship. The images do not need to come through Flikr to have a commons license. --Guest2625 (talk) 02:53, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
- As I said, I have a premession from the authors, so if we will follow your way there is no way on earth to get a free pictures for the protests, in addition to the fact that there is no copyrights protect any of the protest pictures in the current chaos, but anyway, I have a premission. Give me two days until I send the premission from the authors to Wikimedia email to confirm it. Also, if the pictures does not exist on any other site with the original resolution, there is no point in the first place in marking them for deletion, because there is no way I can get them in the current conditions if they were not uploaded on the internet --عباد ديرانية (talk) 13:20, 27 February 2012 (UTC).
- We can't keep the images from doubtful Flickr accounts created by unknown specially for uploading to Commons. Kobac (talk) 12:56, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
"These pictures were taking by me, using my personal camera. It's my own property. All these pictures are under the Creative Commons license (CC).
Please, Feel free to use, publish, re-produce them.
No prior approval needed, and no financial compensation is require".
- But, although, I don't have a way to confirm the fact that this was the original source of them. If you open the pictures, you will find that they were published on 19 February, I bet you can't find any other copy of them with an older date on the internet --عباد ديرانية (talk) 15:11, 1 March 2012 (UTC).
- I'm not the one who decides if the images are kept. I'm just saying that if the images are first published on the wikipedia commons with no modification then there won't be a dispute about the ownership of the photos. I agree it's too bad that these images are made freely available to the media but that getting them on wikipedia is difficult that's why I suggest publishing first on the wikipedia commons.--Guest2625 (talk) 21:20, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
- But, although, I don't have a way to confirm the fact that this was the original source of them. If you open the pictures, you will find that they were published on 19 February, I bet you can't find any other copy of them with an older date on the internet --عباد ديرانية (talk) 15:11, 1 March 2012 (UTC).
- Comment There is nothing called "the Creative Commons license". There are many different Creative Commons licences and it is unclear which one the statement refers to. Besides, permission would have to be sent to OTRS. And what about FOP? There is no entry for Syria at COM:FOP, but many countries in the Middle East lack FOP, so it is not unlikely that Syria also might lack FOP which could mean problems with some of the images. --Stefan4 (talk) 16:33, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
- An OTRS email have been sent for Hama photos [22] --Abbad_Dira (talk) 09:01, 6 March 2012 (UTC).
- Okay, I have tried using GoogleImages tab with most photos nominated, let us start with Hama shelling photos (Which, as I have previously said, were mostly taken from their original author without being published anywhere before, although, some of them were published on other sites). Here is the search results for the 8 shelling photos: [23] - [24] - [25] - [26] - [27] - [28] - [29] - [30]. As you can see, they weren't published by any other website before, excepting the 4th and the 7th photos, which were published on Hama free website with a much lower resolutions. Here is the rest of Hama photos: [31] - [32] - [33] - [34]. The 2nd and the 4th photos were published on Hama free, but, as before, with a much lower resolutions. If you want to nominate photos for deletion, you will need more than doubt to do that, because it is clear that all Hama photos are taken from their original source. Now I will check the others, but note that the rest of them were uploaded by freedom house, and I don't know so much about their authors --Abbad_Dira (talk) 04:11, 7 March 2012 (UTC).
- Oh, I had forgot those two [35] - [36]. But it is the same with both of them, they weren't published anywhere else before --Abbad_Dira (talk) 04:15, 7 March 2012 (UTC).
- And now starting with Homs photos. remember the link I gave before that proves the copyrights of those images, with the original resolution and oldest publication history. But anyway, here we go: [37] - [38] - [39] - [40] - [41] - [42] - [43] - [44] - [45] - [46]. All of them were published else where, but in the cases of the 1st, 2nd and 6th photos, they are with a lower resolution on all other site. The 3rd, 4th, 5th and 9th are published on one other site with the SAME resolution, and no higher. the 7th and 8th is the only ones published on other sites with a higher resolution --Abbad_Dira (talk) 04:40, 7 March 2012 (UTC).
- The version on Commons is larger than the version on Flickr. So it is not a simple "copy paste" from Flickr. We can't undo what has been done but in the future it would be best to upload to Commons before uploading anywhere else.
- As for the question on FOP I think we should concider it de minimis. It is not the building that is the motive. It is the damage made on the building. --MGA73 (talk) 09:43, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
- I think that many (not all) of the other images have either been OTRS'ed or been deleted. But this is certainly a flickrwash and can't be kept on Commons: File:اعتصام بحماة (Hama demonstration)2.jpg A few other too likely cannot be kept if they have not been OTRS'ed. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 07:43, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: The uploader stated that he could not confirm if the sources he listed were in fact the original sources for the files (which are absolutely required for files uploaded to Commons). MGA73 put it best - "The version on Commons is larger than the version on Flickr. So it is not a simple 'copy paste" from Flickr.' ". Unless we have textual, tangible evidence from the original copyright holder, we cannot host these files on Commons. FASTILYs (TALK) 23:49, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
"Published prior to 1942"? I have nowhere heard of an Austrian law that places such works into the PD, it probably doesn't exist. As for simple photographs, keep in mind that the threshold of originality, like in Germany, is very low, and few things apart from passport photos and accidental shots would benefit from this term. Note too that many uses of this template are a mistake for {{PD-AustrianGov}}. Liliana-60 (talk) 04:23, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
- Citation of law from the wrong country removed.
- Comment The template I created stated "This image is in the public domain in Austria and elsewhere. This is because its first publication was in Austria prior to 1 January 1955, or because its copyright expired." per [47]. This was the basis of the template back then a review may be necessary as the law may have had modifications. -- とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 13:02, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
- Umm, you're confusing Austria and Australia... -- Liliana-60 (talk) 13:43, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
- Huh? In that case since the creation of the template, it was covering the wrong country. :D Since {{PD-Australia}} exists perhaps you want to notify some other person since I am not sure where prior to 1942 claim came about. -- とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 14:45, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
- Umm, you're confusing Austria and Australia... -- Liliana-60 (talk) 13:43, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
- Comment. I don't see anything to delete here :-), but some amendments are clearly necessary. For example, the link to the Article 74(6) in the template is dead. I found a pdf copy in English here, but it is not searchable. Maybe someone can propose a better link? Anyway, this linked pdf document apparently supports the terms of this template. Materialscientist (talk) 06:32, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
- I point to the rationale at the top, and also to Commons:Deletion requests/Template:PD-Germany which was already deleted in a similar way. -- Liliana-60 (talk) 13:14, 27 February 2012 (UTC) (addendum: and please read User:Lupo/Simple Photographs too)
- Thanks for explaining. It is important to outline which photos can be covered by this template. I do not believe passport-like photos are a small class - a typical infobox image in an article on a person is a passport-like headshot. Materialscientist (talk) 12:38, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
- No. Those are photographic works. Read the last link again, especially the "basically all photos are "works"" part. The only things that could possibly be considered simple photographs is those photos you get from the photo booths, which is pretty much what I meant above. -- Liliana-60 (talk) 20:04, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks for explaining. It is important to outline which photos can be covered by this template. I do not believe passport-like photos are a small class - a typical infobox image in an article on a person is a passport-like headshot. Materialscientist (talk) 12:38, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
- I point to the rationale at the top, and also to Commons:Deletion requests/Template:PD-Germany which was already deleted in a similar way. -- Liliana-60 (talk) 13:14, 27 February 2012 (UTC) (addendum: and please read User:Lupo/Simple Photographs too)
- Comment Template History: It was made as PD-AU, was moved incorrectly to PD-Austria, the content was removed, then changes took place including redirects, User:BomBom rewoke the template and made the actual use [48]. I made a comment on his talk page. --Fg68at de:Disk 16:42, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
- Comment In an annotation to the in the template linked [49] judgment from 2001 states, that the "work" to define it as "art" is very low, even only the selection of the display detail. The jugdment considering EU-regulation from 1998. (Austria is member since 1995.) All judgment before is for the thrash.
So this template can be useful only for "simple pictures", propably from automats for passport-pictures (often with a specific store in the background like File:PhotoBoothStrip.jpg, File:Dan Geist.jpg or File:Jonathan McIntosh.jpg, i think since 1950s in Austria) (but not for passport-pictures from a fotograf, and not not-common-"artisted" pictures) pictures from webcams (to new technology for a useful template), satellits (austria have no sattelits), radology (there it can be useful), computer tomographs (to new technology). So it is useful for standard-passport-fotos from automats and radiology (and i some find another theme). --Fg68at de:Disk 16:42, 12 September 2012 (UTC) - Keep The term "Lichtbildkunst" and "Lichtbildwerke" (photographic works) ist introduced with BGBl. 106/1953 ([50] p. 487, Art. I (1).) Only "Lichtbilder" (photographical picture), for wich the copyright to this time is not expired (20 years after creation or publishing, max 40 years, nothing about death) can be under the new category "Lichtbildwerk" with its longer term and with calculation after death. (p. 489, Art. II (3)). This is in force with 1953-10-14 (in force of "Berner Übereinkunft" in the version of Brussel 1948).
It is very useful for ALL photographs (in the austrian law)
* made and published until 1932
* or made until 1932 & not published until 1952 & not first published in the last 25 years ("nachgelassene Werke"/"posthumous works", today 1986),
* notwithstanding the lifetime of the photographer.
i.e. File:Equus hemionus hemippus.jpg made 1924 from Johann Kuffner (1894-1973), surly published 1928. (notwithstanding i had made cotact with the fonds, wich is sole heir, and they are willing to give a free license.)
The text must be better (mention the changes of the "art" definition) and it should moved to e better name, like Template:PD-Austria-simple photograph. --Fg68at de:Disk 16:11, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
Kept: No clear consensus to delete. The template doesn't seem to be factually incorrect either FASTILY (TALK) 02:44, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
This template with its current wording gives the totally wrong impression that all photographs which are not professional studio photos are simple photographs in Austria. Clearly copyrighted pictures were already kept by Commons admins due to this wrong interpretation (see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Famine Kharkov 1933.jpg).
Thankfully, there's a link to a court decision in the template, and if anyone had bothered to read it it would become obvious the text of the court decision directly contradicts the template text. It says "Nach Auffassung des erkennenden Senats ist seit Wirksamwerden der Schutzdauer-RL eine Fotografie dann als Lichtbildwerk iSd § 3 Abs 2 UrhG zu beurteilen, wenn sie das Ergebnis der eigenen geistigen Schöpfung ihres Urhebers ist, ohne dass es eines besonderen Maßes an Originalität bedürfte." which roughly means that all photographs that are the result of an own intellectual creation are photographic works - no level of originality is needed! That means pretty much all photographs taken by humans are photographic works, and only a very limited category of photographs (basically from photo booths, surveillance cameras and the like) fall under the category of simple photographs for which the 50 year term mentioned in the template applies. As such, because of the great deal of confusion this template causes, and the very, VERY limited scope of works that are covered by the template, it's better to delete this, just like {{PD-Germany}} was deleted before. Liliana-60 (talk) 19:59, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
Kept: No clear consensus to delete. Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:14, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
Completely redundant to {{PD-old-70}} and {{PD-anon-70}}. -- Liliana-60 (talk) 05:21, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
- Comment Surely PD-anon-70 should make it clear that Peru is one of the nations. As it is, {{PD-anon-70}} gives no help as to which nations are or are not included, nor does it link to a list.--Prosfilaes (talk) 06:10, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
- Please replace the licenses before deleting anything. -- Rillke(q?) 13:14, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
Kept: Re-closing as Deprecated. All uses have been removed. Rd232 (talk) 15:45, 4 October 2012 (UTC)