Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2012/04/20
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
|
|
duplicate~ .:infektedpc:. (talk) 07:23, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Denniss (talk) 22:18, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
no permission.
source: [1] better version: [2]
Robot Monk (talk) 05:13, 20 April 2012 (UTC) Robot Monk (talk) 05:13, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Denniss (talk) 22:20, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
Copyvio - ~ M0tty (talk) 06:04, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Denniss (talk) 22:17, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
Copyvio - ~ M0tty (talk) 06:04, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Denniss (talk) 22:17, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
Copyvio - ~ M0tty (talk) 06:04, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Denniss (talk) 22:17, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
Copyvio - ~ M0tty (talk) 06:04, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Denniss (talk) 22:17, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
Copyvio - ~ M0tty (talk) 06:04, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Denniss (talk) 22:17, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
Copyvio - ~ M0tty (talk) 06:04, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Denniss (talk) 22:17, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
Copyvio - ~ M0tty (talk) 06:04, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Denniss (talk) 22:17, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
Copyvio - ~ M0tty (talk) 06:04, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Denniss (talk) 22:16, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
Copyvio - ~ M0tty (talk) 06:04, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Denniss (talk) 22:16, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
Copyvio - ~ M0tty (talk) 06:05, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Denniss (talk) 22:16, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
Copyvio - ~ M0tty (talk) 06:07, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Denniss (talk) 22:16, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
Copyvio ? - ~ M0tty (talk) 06:07, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
Delete Check this page and search for "Mercredi 3 avril 2008". It seems that it was uploaded there four years before it was uploaded here. --Stefan4 (talk) 09:03, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Denniss (talk) 22:17, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
Copyvio - ~ M0tty (talk) 06:07, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Denniss (talk) 22:16, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
Copyvio - ~ M0tty (talk) 06:07, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Denniss (talk) 22:16, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
Copyvio - ~ M0tty (talk) 06:07, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Denniss (talk) 22:16, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
Copyvio - ~ M0tty (talk) 06:10, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Denniss (talk) 22:16, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
Copyvio - ~ M0tty (talk) 06:10, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Denniss (talk) 22:16, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Text file, promotional. ~ Lymantria (talk) 09:10, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Denniss (talk) 22:16, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
One can hardly see anything in pic. Hindustanilanguage (talk) 11:09, 20 April 2012 (UTC) .
DR withdrawn because its user pic.Hindustanilanguage (talk) 11:12, 20 April 2012 (UTC).
Kept: Withdrawn Denniss (talk) 22:14, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
out of project scope Didym (talk) 02:50, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --lNeverCry 22:55, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
Unused personal picture. Ices2Csharp (talk) 12:47, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Denniss (talk) 22:13, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
Unused personal picture. Ices2Csharp (talk) 12:48, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Denniss (talk) 22:14, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
Unused personal picture. Ices2Csharp (talk) 12:48, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Denniss (talk) 22:14, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
Unused personal picture. Ices2Csharp (talk) 12:49, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Denniss (talk) 22:14, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
Unused personal picture. Ices2Csharp (talk) 12:53, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Denniss (talk) 22:14, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
error in filename, replaced by Kronprinzenpalais, Stuttgart, Elsas 1925, 23.jpg --~ Gerd Leibrock (talk) 13:16, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Denniss (talk) 22:15, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
There is no FOP in South Korea, therefore this is an infringement of the architect's copyright. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:30, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
Kept. Jcb (talk) 22:31, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
Reopening this, as Jcb gave no reason at all for his "kept". Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:48, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
Kept - too simple architecture details to be copyrighted. Just plain windows and walls visible. --Denniss (talk) 22:13, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
es gefelt mir nicht mrr 95.90.253.226 19:02, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
- This is not a valid reason for deletion. --UV (talk) 19:45, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
Kept. Denniss (talk) 22:04, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
Own Work? Doesnt seem so with a National TV Channel's (Zee TV) logo on it. ~ §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 20:17, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Denniss (talk) 23:36, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
No encyclopedic use: uploaded for use in hoax article "Orlando Maroj", deleted both on :en and :es. JohnCD (talk) 18:42, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
No encyclopedic use: uploaded for use in hoax article "Orlando Maroj", deleted both on :en and :es. Previously nominated on 18 Feb, but nothing happened. Its companion File:Orlando Maroj y Su Hermana1.jpg was deleted. ~ JohnCD (talk) 20:56, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Denniss (talk) 23:35, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
According to the page, it was taken from a commercial website. No evidence of permission. ~ InverseHypercube 22:15, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Denniss (talk) 23:32, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
It says "All rights reserved" in the description text and the Flickr tag, and the Flickr user is a professional photographer whose profile says explicitly that none of his photos are free. I don't think we should be claiming this image as CC-BY on the basis of the author misclicking on the license field in Flickr when his intention is already clearly stated. (Note, I tagged it as copyvio previously, but that was reverted, so I am bringing it here for discussion.) ~ Dominic (talk) 22:22, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom, no need for further discussion as clearly marked Denniss (talk) 23:32, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
Scaled down dupe of File:Flag of France.svg ~ Fry1989 eh? 22:43, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Denniss (talk) 23:29, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
Scaled down dupe of File:Flag of Bolivia (state).svg ~ Fry1989 eh? 22:50, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
.svg){kind=link}
Deleted. Denniss (talk) 23:29, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
Correo Argentino Logo on en:wp is non-free and for fair use. What should we presume about this image? Hindustanilanguage (talk) 16:53, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Yann (talk) 17:30, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
Unsure copyright. http://www.koreandrama.org/?page_id=323 says "Koreandrama.org does not claim copyright to the photo shown in this website. All photos belong to the rightful owners." MGA73 (talk) 17:24, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio Morning Sunshine (talk) 08:30, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
Also File:Le potager en carrés à la française.jpg
On the description, the photographer is Hervé Morand, not Anne-Marie Nageleisen. This user has confirmed us here she was not the photographer. ~ Trizek here or on fr:wp 20:07, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: copyvio with very low chances to get an OTRS permission PierreSelim (talk) 10:36, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
released as "own work", but copyright claimed by National Geographic in metadata. ~ Holyoke, mass (talk) 01:01, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: copyvio Julo (talk) 04:51, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
unused personal picture. ~ Robot Monk (talk) 05:18, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Denniss (talk) 21:14, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 07:04, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Denniss (talk) 21:15, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 07:04, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Denniss (talk) 21:15, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
Unused personal picture. Ices2Csharp (talk) 07:05, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Denniss (talk) 21:15, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
Unused personal picture. Ices2Csharp (talk) 07:06, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Denniss (talk) 21:15, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 07:06, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Denniss (talk) 21:15, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 07:07, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Denniss (talk) 21:16, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
Unused personal picture. Ices2Csharp (talk) 07:07, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Denniss (talk) 21:16, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
Unused personal picture. Ices2Csharp (talk) 07:07, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Denniss (talk) 21:16, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
Unused personal picture. Ices2Csharp (talk) 07:09, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Denniss (talk) 21:16, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
Unused personal picture. Ices2Csharp (talk) 07:09, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Denniss (talk) 21:17, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
Unused personal picture. Ices2Csharp (talk) 07:09, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Denniss (talk) 21:17, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 07:11, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Denniss (talk) 21:18, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
Unused personal picture. Ices2Csharp (talk) 07:12, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Denniss (talk) 21:18, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
Unused personal picture. Ices2Csharp (talk) 07:12, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Denniss (talk) 21:18, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 07:12, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Denniss (talk) 21:18, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
Unused personal picture. Ices2Csharp (talk) 07:12, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Denniss (talk) 21:18, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
Unused personal picture. Ices2Csharp (talk) 07:12, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Denniss (talk) 21:21, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
Unused personal picture. Ices2Csharp (talk) 07:13, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Denniss (talk) 21:21, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
possible advertisement and no permission ~ Trex2001 (talk) 07:53, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Denniss (talk) 21:22, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
Translation of description: A teacher from China is teaching mathematics. I see no significance in this low quality image, and it is not used anywhere. ~ Bencmq (talk) 08:02, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Denniss (talk) 21:24, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
out of scope as nothing is identifiable. ~ Bencmq (talk) 08:04, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Denniss (talk) 21:24, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
I uploaded this picture as the author, my friend, asked me to do so. But now he doesn't want his name to appear here so it can't be found through google search, so i'll proceed to ask for its deletion Enekismo (talk) 08:28, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
Kept: personal information has been hidden Denniss (talk) 21:26, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Koui² as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: copyrighted logo. Is this {{Pd-textlogo}} ? Sreejith K (talk) 10:18, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: may fit textlogo but no need to keep unused file of little value Denniss (talk) 21:27, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
Edoderoo (talk) 11:34, 20 April 2012 (UTC) this image is not free, but from Facebook. Also explained in otrs #2012041610016101 Edoderoo (talk) 11:34, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Denniss (talk) 21:31, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
Unused personal picture. Ices2Csharp (talk) 14:59, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Denniss (talk) 21:42, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Commons is not Wikipedia. Stefan4 (talk) 15:25, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Denniss (talk) 21:43, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
Description says: "Weare is a company dedicated to the creation of various communication systems, focused on providing innovative solutions." but is the upload a logo or what? No academic value. Hindustanilanguage (talk) 06:43, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Not in use, and likely out of scope russavia (talk) 11:45, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Should be replaced by a wikitable. Leyo 10:06, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
Keep - in use. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 13:50, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
- I know, it should be replaced by a wikitable. --Leyo 23:19, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
- And as long as that has not been done, it should not be deleted. Knowingly proposing deletion of this file is just disruptive. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 00:04, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
- The single use is at es.wikiversity, which is not letting me log in so I can't replace the image with this wikitable equivalent:
- And as long as that has not been done, it should not be deleted. Knowingly proposing deletion of this file is just disruptive. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 00:04, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
- I know, it should be replaced by a wikitable. --Leyo 23:19, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
| Sustancia | Tc (K) |
|---|---|
| Co | 1388 |
| Fe | 1043 |
| Fe2B | 1015 |
| FeOFe2O3 | 858 |
| NuOFe2O3 | 858 |
| CuOFe2O3 | 728 |
| MgOFe2O3 | 713 |
| MnBi | 630 |
| Cu2MnAl | 630 |
| Ni | 627 |
| MnSb | 587 |
| MnB | 578 |
| MnOFe2O3 | 572 |
| Y3Fe5O12 | 560 |
| Cu2MnIn | 500 |
| CrO2 | 386 |
| MnAs | 318 |
| Gd | 292 |
| Au2MnAl | 200 |
| Dy | 88 |
| EuO | 69 |
| CrBr3 | 37 |
| EuS | 16,5 |
| GdCl3 | 2,2 |
- And then Delete per nom (pretty crazy to upload an image with explicitly highlighted spellchecking mistake tags too!). Having a "multicolumn" table can save space, but also interferes with accessibility and sortability and hides comparisons of items that happen to wrap to next column, so (in addition to now having accessibility at all as text vs image-of-text) this replacement is even better than simple text equivalent of original layout. But someone at es.wv doesn't like accessibility is welcome to change to a different layout (another benefit of text vs image!). DMacks (talk) 04:16, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
- @DMacks: Thanks a lot. I replaced it in es.wikiversity.
- @Pieter: This DR was intended to be a request to the uploader to do it himself. He has probably been notified by wikimail. --Leyo 09:31, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
- Do not use DRs to ask an uploader to do something. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 10:06, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
- And then
Deleted: As it is no longer in use, it can safely be deleted. russavia (talk) 11:47, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
Does not seem to fulfill any criteria of {{PD-Iraq}}. ~ Quibik (talk) 11:54, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: as per nom russavia (talk) 11:48, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
It is a hidieous photo of myself Shontayne (talk) 14:19, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
Kept: File is widely in use russavia (talk) 11:53, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
Unused personal photo - see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Shafkat_Chowdhury ~ Bulwersator (talk) 16:04, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: as per nom russavia (talk) 11:53, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
Useless gallery (3 images!) ~ Bulwersator (talk) 16:17, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
yes, I can't see any relevant purposes --Fmrauch (talk) 19:21, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
Kept: Redirected. Galleries which are undersized can always be expanded anyway russavia (talk) 11:54, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
Low quality, strange angles; not used anywhere. Leyo 20:16, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
- Delete In particular, File:Amide-general.png is high-quality replacement of the same concepts and details. DMacks (talk) 04:26, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: as per nom russavia (talk) 11:55, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
Low quality, many better alternatives in Category:Benzoic acid. Leyo 20:20, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
- Delete Oddly pixelated even at its full resolution. File:Benzoic acid.png is high-res direct replacement (even to the level of speedyable dup IMO). DMacks (talk) 04:27, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: as per nom russavia (talk) 11:56, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
Low quality, many better versions in Category:Phenyl group. Leyo 20:22, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: It is unused, and there are plenty of higher quality alternatives that should be used instead Ed (Edgar181) 12:52, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
Incorrect geometry, not used anywhere. Leyo 20:23, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
- Delete as usual for "linear" imine-like structures (R-N=C should be bent). DMacks (talk) 04:24, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: as per nom russavia (talk) 11:56, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
Copyvio ? - ~ M0tty (talk) 06:07, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Given all the other copyvios among the uploads of this user, we cannot be sure about this. AFBorchert (talk) 07:05, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 07:10, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Has already been deleted by User:Morning Sunshine. AFBorchert (talk) 07:06, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 07:10, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: "ARBOL DE OBJETIVOS" is no sufficient description to make clear why this diagram is educational and therby within scope. It is unused and as far as I can see, there was no attempt to use it anywhere within the WMF projects. AFBorchert (talk) 07:13, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 07:10, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: No useful description beyond "M2A4 PARTE 2", unused. This is out of scope. AFBorchert (talk) 07:14, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 07:10, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: No useful description, just "M3A2" is given, unused. This is indeed out of scope. AFBorchert (talk) 07:15, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 07:11, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: No useful description given, just "para examen". Purpose of this paper remains unclear. This is out of scope. AFBorchert (talk) 07:17, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
not free yet, photographer died only in 1945 ~ h-stt !? 08:42, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
same author: Category:Alois Schiesser (1866 - 1945) ---Anika (talk) 14:13, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted as copyvios and put into the Category:Undelete in 2016 category. I let the category and the creator template survive as they are still a useful reference and will be needed in 2016 anyway. --AFBorchert (talk) 07:22, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
Derivative of non-free material Morning Sunshine (talk) 10:56, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
- Disagree I took this image at the street, so the Freedom of Panorama rule should apply. --Jordiferrer (talk) 11:01, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Freedom of panorama in Singapore does not extend to 2D objects as we have in this case (graphics of a person carrying an umbrella). AFBorchert (talk) 10:12, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
Uploaded with incompatible copyright restrictions: "all rights reserved. Please email Lauren for permission before downloading or using". Dominic (talk) 10:57, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
- Also, File:Wild Iris (limnaris subgenus) Lauren Noyes.jpg. I'm not sure about her other 4 images, which require users to submit photo requests, but don't say "all rights reserved". Dominic (talk) 11:01, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
_Lauren_Noyes.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Deleted: "All rights reserved" is in conflict with free licenses which are required here. AFBorchert (talk) 10:16, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
Derivative of copyrighted toy product Morning Sunshine (talk) 10:58, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
- Keep - The character is not directly implicated, and this image was originally posted to Flickr by Joybot. The user has accepted to share. - Symbolium (talk) 17:29, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Per COM:TOYS as derived work of a copyrighted sculpture. AFBorchert (talk) 10:18, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
Seems to be from this set by photographer Mark Allan. Suspiciously small for a high-quality image, too. ~ Quibik (talk) 11:07, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Within that set, you find this one which seems to be the original, photographed by Mark Allan. AFBorchert (talk) 10:51, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
This was uploaded after File:Coffee Percolator Cutaway Diagram.svg, which is the same image. Do we need both? Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:22, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
- unjustified delete request - superseded by SVG is no valid reason.--Wdwd (talk) 18:40, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
- While we do not delete png files that have been superseded by an svg file, we do delete the png when it is uploaded at the same time or later. There is no good reason to keep both because the svg will be rendered as a png whenever needed. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:14, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
Kept: It is possible to delete such PNG files, if they came later. However, this one is still in use and there is no consensus to force a switch from PNG to SVG on the other projects. It also does not hurt much to keep both variants. AFBorchert (talk) 10:56, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
The claim as own work and the license are most probably incorrect. It is a work by Johannes Vermeer? Leyo 12:37, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
This copperplate print was carved in 1730s by anonymous. I'm pretty sure it isn't a work by Johannes Vermeer. I think this picture Public domain.--弦楽五重奏 (talk) 16:10, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
- You might want to correct this in the file description page.
- I just noticed that the image is used in the Japanese article about Johannes Vermeer, but I do not understand the text. --Leyo 22:53, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
I understood. rewrote description page. I think that is correct. Are we on the same page?--弦楽五重奏 (talk) 06:11, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
- Source, date and license are still incorrect. --Leyo 10:21, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
Sorry. rectify errors. It's Ok next time for sure?--弦楽五重奏 (talk) 13:43, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
- Keep - old print. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 13:53, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
Kept: Is PD as this is the work by Johannes Vermeer. AFBorchert (talk) 11:00, 28 April 2012 (UTC) ... this is in the public domain as this has been published in the 1730s according to its source. --AFBorchert (talk) 14:36, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
This painting seems too modern. There is no evidence of {{PD-Art-100}}. Takabeg (talk) 14:00, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: As publication date is just given "before 1970", the author is declared to be "unknown". This is not sufficient to claim PD-Old-100. AFBorchert (talk) 11:03, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
This photograph is a derivative work of a likely copyrighted CD cover. Thus it would be copyright violation as long as there is no permission by the author/copyright holder High Contrast (talk) 14:55, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: derived work of a copyrighted CD cover. AFBorchert (talk) 11:04, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
While Hixguy1 may own the copyright in the book, it is unlikely that the license which allowed publication of the clippings in the book extends to use here. Therefore this is a copyvio not of the book, but of the newspaper(s) Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:43, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
I digress. From legal research on copyright issues, please note the following under the fair use provision: "Usually, copyright works may be used for the purpose of reporting news or commentary. For example, you could take a photo of a sculpture which won a major art prize, if that photo is to be used in a news report on TV or in a media article discussing or announcing the award-winner. However, you will usually have the obligation to identify the name of the creator, and maybe also the name or title of the work that you have captured in your photo." I should note that I identified the name of the creator, and the creator gave permission for the image to be used in a book that I hold the copyright to. Additionally, the photo is part of a greater work (a collage) that was created by me. Lastly, the wiki article was created as a newsworthy item celebrating the 50th anniversary of the tragedy that my book references;Ed . . . . hixguy1 (talk to me) 15:43, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Fair use is not permitted at Commons (but on en-wp under some restrictions). AFBorchert (talk) 12:25, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
File:French Electronic duo performing their first live-set with Sir.Cus Techno Travel at the Palais des sports of Marseille, France, fall of 1995.jpg
[edit]
Description says: "The French Electronic duo performing their first live-set with Sir.Cus Techno Travel at the Palais des sports of Marseille, France, fall of 1995 (Sorry, they're hiding)". If nothing is clear in the pictures, then why have it at all? Hindustanilanguage (talk) 06:56, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope Sreejith K (talk) 20:14, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
and other uploads by Spjr4104 (talk · contribs). Unlikely to be own work: small/inconsistent resolutions, missing EXIF. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:46, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 10:41, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Possible copyrighted with http://www.vopus.org/ro See the marking on the image. Hindustanilanguage (talk) 16:56, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 10:30, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
No permission. An artwork of some Aastha Desai (according to signature) ~ Robot Monk (talk) 19:47, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 12:27, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Is this an illustration by de:Lois Welzenbacher (who died in 1955) or is it an illustration by someone else showing a building designed by de:Lois Welzenbacher? 1955 is less than 70 years ago, so his works are not yet in the public domain. Stefan4 (talk) 21:52, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 10:18, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
The given copyright notice is not sufficient: "When using materials from the site, a link to www.mosmetru.ru is required. ©2005 GUP "Moscow Metro". ALL RIGHTS RESERVED". ~ Dominic (talk) 22:59, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 10:24, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Including files having only this template. Originally tagged by Fastily as 'no permission', but for the huge number of involved files, I think a regular DR is more appropriate. Ices2Csharp (talk) 15:18, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
Comment Fastily's tagging is weird, as npd is not supposed to be used on templates. I don't think there is a real problem, but I will notify Commons talk:Bible Illustrations. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 14:01, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
- Hi, as the template maker, I've been notified about this DR. Is this a deletion request for a particular template, or for all of the pictures? Bennylin (yes?)
- If this template gets deleted, this will cause deletion of the pictures, because they will stay behind without a license. Ices2Csharp (talk) 07:14, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
- In that case I can do nothing but expect the DSMedia person to send a letter to OTRS. I've send another email to him yesterday. Bennylin (yes?) 06:41, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
- I've just tried to find an email regarding this in OTRS, but to no avail. In general it would be best to await this before uploading c. 3000 images relying on this permission. I will not close this DR for now but suggest to put some urgency behind this by contacting them again. --AFBorchert (talk) 11:23, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
- Thank you for looking up. I've sent an email to service (at) sweetpublishing.com but hasn't received any reply yet. I was promptly replied before and was under the perception that they are part of the same company and willing to send an email to OTRS, that's why I started the upload. Bennylin (yes?) 11:13, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
- Still no email relating to this in OTRS. Please make sure that they send this to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org (I've access to quite some OTRS queues but not all of them). --AFBorchert (talk) 14:19, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
- I've reached their Facebook page (/distantshoresmedia) and replied that an email is on the way. :) Bennylin (yes?) 14:53, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
- Still no email relating to this in OTRS. Please make sure that they send this to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org (I've access to quite some OTRS queues but not all of them). --AFBorchert (talk) 14:19, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
- Thank you for looking up. I've sent an email to service (at) sweetpublishing.com but hasn't received any reply yet. I was promptly replied before and was under the perception that they are part of the same company and willing to send an email to OTRS, that's why I started the upload. Bennylin (yes?) 11:13, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
- Another comment: All source fields of these images contain following statement: Biblical illustrations by Jim Padgett, courtesy of Sweet Publishing, Ft. Worth, TX, and Gospel Light, Ventura, CA. Copyright 1984. All rights reserved. This "All rights reserved" has to go (with permission of the copyright holder) or we have to delete the whole set. A clause "All rights reserved" would be otherwise in conflict to a free license. --AFBorchert (talk) 11:29, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
- The same question has been raised here, and as result, I've removed the wording that I lifted from different page altogether, which is more about the printed book, rather than the images itself. See [3] Bennylin (yes?) 11:19, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
- I've just tried to find an email regarding this in OTRS, but to no avail. In general it would be best to await this before uploading c. 3000 images relying on this permission. I will not close this DR for now but suggest to put some urgency behind this by contacting them again. --AFBorchert (talk) 11:23, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
- In that case I can do nothing but expect the DSMedia person to send a letter to OTRS. I've send another email to him yesterday. Bennylin (yes?) 06:41, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
- If this template gets deleted, this will cause deletion of the pictures, because they will stay behind without a license. Ices2Csharp (talk) 07:14, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
- Hi, as the template maker, I've been notified about this DR. Is this a deletion request for a particular template, or for all of the pictures? Bennylin (yes?)
An email to OTRS has been sent dated Wednesday, May 16. Can someone take a look? Bennylin (yes?) 09:42, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
- We received an email on May 16: ticket:2012051610007039 which was replied to by another OTRS member. --AFBorchert (talk) 12:08, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
- Status
Any update on this? If there's no new info regarding proper OTRS permission we'll have to delete the files during the next days. --Denniss (talk) 10:13, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
- We have ticket:2012051610007039 related to these illustrations. We received a confirmation, had agreed upon delivery of a copy of a document which has not been sent yet to us. I've just asked for it again. Please give it some additional time period before a deletion is considered. The free release appears to be genuine, we just want to have all well documented at the OTRS ticket. --AFBorchert (talk) 12:08, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
Kept: I have read the OTRS ticket and am comfortable that it comes from DSM and that it clearly gives a CC-BY-SA license on some 3,000 images. . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:42, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
- Just need a clarification for the pages that links here. Is the OTRS ticket you're talking about is ticket:2012051610007039, or different one? Please correct Template:Bible Illustrations (Sweet Publishing)-license if I'm wrong. Thanks. Bennylin (yes?) 16:59, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
Licence needs review - although deletion will not be required, a move back to :en:WP at worst. This clearly isn't CC-zero. CC-by or CC-by-sa more likely. Secondly we need a statement from Flight that this is acceptable for _Commons_, not just Wikipedia. Are they really aware of the ongoing re-use situation this places them into? Andy Dingley (talk) 18:18, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
- I feel the same (very uneasy about this loose e-mail clearance). We need to make a decision for all such files from Flight magazine and tag them with instructions (do or do not move to commons, etc). Sorry I cannot bring any input other than "I agree". Ariadacapo (talk) 07:44, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
- Wikipedia does not allow images as "Wikipedia only", because all content on Wikipedia is reused by other other projects. This image should be deleted at both projects. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja (talk / en) 22:38, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
- "Wikipedia does not allow images as "Wikipedia only", because all content on Wikipedia is reused by other other projects."
- Why would you think this? WP allows content, and allows the re-use of content, according to the licence on each item. There are some accepted licensing conditions on WP that, whilst discouraged, are only acceptable for WP use. Andy Dingley (talk) 08:48, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
- Wikipedia does not allow images as "Wikipedia only", because all content on Wikipedia is reused by other other projects. This image should be deleted at both projects. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja (talk / en) 22:38, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
- It's not CC-anything. According to English Wikipedia, "images with permission for use on Wikipedia only...are therefore classified as non-free." (en:Wikipedia:Non-free content) To be retained there they must meet the en:Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria. It should be moved to English Wikipedia, marked there as needing a non-free use rationale (which can probably be done for the use in en:Short Crusader but not en:Schneider Trophy aircraft due to en:WP:NFLISTS), and deleted from Commons. cmadler (talk) 10:05, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
- :en:WP (well :us:WP, which is what it really is) has a further problem in perennially confusing non-free and fair-use content. This is non-free, but it isn't merely there as fair-use. Lists are a good example. There are far too many admins and admin-wannabees at WP who repeatedly, and incorrectly, delete non-free content for failing to meet the stricter fair-use criteria. Speaking as someone in the UK (where there's no clear legal basis for fair-use) the idea that "non-free content should be avoided because it restricts re-publishing of WP content" is a nonsense when US-only fair-use content is accepted at all.
- As an aside, I think it's probably CC-by or CC-by-sa (making assumptions about what Flight intended), but we need to have Flight agree to that, not merely to "use at WP". Andy Dingley (talk) 10:56, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
- It's not CC-anything. According to English Wikipedia, "images with permission for use on Wikipedia only...are therefore classified as non-free." (en:Wikipedia:Non-free content) To be retained there they must meet the en:Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria. It should be moved to English Wikipedia, marked there as needing a non-free use rationale (which can probably be done for the use in en:Short Crusader but not en:Schneider Trophy aircraft due to en:WP:NFLISTS), and deleted from Commons. cmadler (talk) 10:05, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
- Delete. Absolutely no evidence of permission to host it on this website, completely aside from our definition of free license. Nyttend (talk) 13:11, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
- Hm.... I think the full discussion is at en:Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Aircraft/page_content/Archive_3#List_of_online_resources. Their initial statement was pretty clear that they did not want any commercial use, and possibly no-derivatives as well. However they may have relented on the images in particular (not the text or the collection as a whole) at least at the lower resolutions found in the PDF files. They seemed willing to do a CC-BY-NC-ND permission on their entire collection, and then perhaps something more on just the image portions, as the statement does seem to acknowledge potential commercial use, which was the primary hangup for that discussion. Unfortunately, that last statement included "reuse on Wikipedia", which may be acknowledging the overall licensing requirements Wikipedia has (since they were made aware of them) but it could also be construed as a restrictive licensing clause to be Wikipedia-only. It would be much better to get a more clear statement, of course. I'm undecided based on that larger exchange. It looks like the last statement was intended as a compromise to allow the commercial use of the images from the archive alone, particularly as it acknowledges the potential for commercial re-use, but the actual wording is a little ambiguous. I'm undecided at this point -- if I had to go by the statement alone, I'd say it looked to be Wikipedia-only, but based on the entire discussion, the intent may have been something else, since the discussion centered around the commercial use issue. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:39, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Given the level of doubt here.... PRP applies . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:38, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
Fake and copyvio (see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Cezayir Genocide Newspaper Books.jpg ~ . HombreDHojalata.talk 17:48, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
- Don't delete. This is the original image from 1922. It is not copyvio and not fake ! --Claude Truong-Ngoc (talk) 12:16, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
Not fake.
- Keep your statement is fake. Image is valid. Please do not nominate images for political reasons. --Tachfin (talk) 16:56, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
Kept: as above. Yann (talk) 05:16, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
I think this is not simply text logo Morning Sunshine (talk) 15:37, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
- Because of the negative space in the "O" using a map of Africa? Looks PD to me. Fry1989 eh? 22:45, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 22:23, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
Esta licencia requiere que sólo se reproduzcan las obras «sin alterar[las]». Esta cláusula significa que no se debería crear las obras derivadas; esto es contra COM:L/es.
This license requires that works only be reproduced "without altering [them]"; this clause means that derivative works can't be created, which is against COM:L. Magog the Ogre (talk) 21:41, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
- Keep - I do not understand where you get that from. The FoP-provision in the law says that no authorization is needed for: "REPRODUCCION, COMUNICACION Y DISTRIBUCION POR MEDIO DE DIBUJOS, PINTURAS, FOTOGRAFIAS Y PROCEDIMIENTOS AUDIOVISUALES DE LAS OBRAS QUE SEAN VISIBLES DESDE LUGARES PUBLICOS. " (emphasis mine). This is a permission to make derivatives (drawings, paintings, photos) of works that are visible in public places. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 14:13, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
- Something here doesn't make sense:
LAS OBRAS LITERARIAS Y ARTISTICAS YA DIVULGADAS PODRAN UTILIZARSE, SIEMPRE QUE NO SE AFECTE LA EXPLOTACION NORMAL DE LA OBRA, SIN AUTORIZACION DEL TITULAR DEL DERECHO PATRIMONIAL Y SIN REMUNERACION, CITANDO INVARIABLEMENTE LA FUENTE Y SIN ALTERAR LA OBRA, SOLO EN LOS SIGUIENTES CASOS:
[...]
VII. REPRODUCCION, COMUNICACION Y DISTRIBUCION POR MEDIO DE DIBUJOS, PINTURAS, FOTOGRAFIAS Y PROCEDIMIENTOS AUDIOVISUALES DE LAS OBRAS QUE SEAN VISIBLES DESDE LUGARES PUBLICOS.
- So they must be altered ("por medio de dibujos, pinturas, fotografías y procedimientos audiovisuales" — a building is 3D but only 2D copies are listed) but at the same time unaltered ("sin alterar la obra")? --Stefan4 (talk) 20:33, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
- There is a long-standing consensus on Commons to allow FoP with non derivatives restrictions,in fact the FoP policy unblinkingly refers to this fact without even explaining why. See also Commons:Village_pump/Archive/2009/02#COM:FOP_and_derivative_works for instance. -Nard (Hablemonos)(Let's talk) 19:43, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 05:28, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
- Undeleted: there's nothing wrong with these provisions - see Commons:FOP#The_right_to_modify. If people have a problem with these provisions, it affects a lot more than one FOP template, and should be discussed much more widely before deleting anything. Rd232 (talk) 09:21, 10 October 2012 (UTC)