Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2013/03/24
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
|
|
,_August_2009.JPG){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
Spam/Promotional — ΛΧΣ21 04:21, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 17:11, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
Scaled down duplicate of File:S7 LOGO.png. Froztbyte (talk) 00:33, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
Comment Marked. --186.221.210.130 10:27, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: duplicate Didym (talk) 10:31, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
Out of COM:SCOPE due to low image quality, making it unusable. -- Túrelio (talk) 09:45, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 10:11, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
Out of COM:SCOPE due to low image quality, making it unusable. -- Túrelio (talk) 09:45, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 10:11, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
i need to upload a picture that is similar to this one Arianator2013 (talk) 15:59, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 10:11, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
possible duplicate of File:Nl--Bas van der Heijden--article.ogg. Also this is in mp4-format which is currently not accepted: com:file types McZusatz (talk) 10:28, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Speedied FASTILY (TALK) 02:31, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
Private picture of user, out of project scope. Martin H. (talk) 13:43, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
- The subject is claimed to be en:Siddharth_Haldipur. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 11:57, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 03:35, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
Out of project scope. Personal photo used only in autobio page en:User:Sinhasid/Sudeep sinha, now deleted as abandoned draft. JohnCD (talk) 11:13, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Jianhui67 talk★contribs 07:42, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
Unused personal photo - out of project scope. XXN, 00:04, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Sealle (talk) 15:57, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
This redirect is the result the image being moved to it's proper page sequence. Nothing links to this page. — Ineuw 20:37, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom. JuTa 03:20, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
Screenshot of a TV channel. Copyvio. —Bill william comptonTalk 03:10, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
Delete Evident copyvio. --Alan Lorenzo (talk) 16:10, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
Delete Hindustanilanguage (talk) 18:01, 24 March 2013 (UTC).
- ===== Speedy Delete. Copyvio. --186.221.210.130 10:11, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: copyvio Morning ☼ (talk) 12:31, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
Fgggghghghrghfgyvhjvgbghfhhc cbxgdghlfxgkdfiuutugokgfmkgukghg 109.76.106.38 09:43, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
Speedy keep photo seems fine, joke/test nom Rybec (talk) 01:06, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
Keep Vandalism. File description is reverted, please close this request. --BáthoryPéter (talk) 10:54, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
Kept: vandalism Morning ☼ (talk) 12:31, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
No license for none of the images (see version) for more than two years Friechtle (talk) 15:13, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: no license at all JuTa 13:14, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
Private picture of user, out of project scope. Martin H. (talk) 00:19, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
- Delete Not used picture! — Habib M'HENNI [Message] 00:12, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 00:00, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
Too blurry for practical use, found better photo at file:Donell Taylor in 2006.jpg Lpdrew (talk) 00:52, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 00:00, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
Text contribution, out of project scope. Commons:Project scope#Excluded educational content. Martin H. (talk) 01:45, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 23:59, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope. Unused personal image. Érico Wouters msg 03:07, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 23:59, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope. Unused personal image. Érico Wouters msg 03:07, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 23:59, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
Picture of an unremarkable person. Out of project scope. —Bill william comptonTalk 03:15, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
Esta imagen es realizada por nosotros, es subida a esta pagina para ser utilizada en la biografia de una persona en wikipedia. Saludos. [[User:CATP1710|
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 23:59, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
Picture of an unremarkable person. Out of project scope. —Bill william comptonTalk 03:15, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 00:00, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
imho pure 'advertisement' for the uploader's establishment Roland 03:28, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
Delete per nom and no likely educational purpose Rybec (talk) 01:26, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 00:03, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
Looks like a flickr-washed screenshot Sealle (talk) 08:07, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
Delete per nom, obvious derivative work Rybec (talk) 01:04, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 00:00, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small/inconsistent resolution, missing EXIF. Gunnex (talk) 09:15, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 00:00, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
com:scope: Plain text is not allowed. McZusatz (talk) 10:33, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
Delete overly self-promotional Rybec (talk) 01:24, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:06, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope, it doesn't seem realistically useful for any educational purpose. Basilicofresco (msg) 10:58, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
Delete per nom, also test edit with insufficient context Rybec (talk) 01:21, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 23:58, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope, it doesn't seem realistically useful for any educational purpose. Basilicofresco (msg) 10:58, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 23:58, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope, it doesn't seem realistically useful for any educational purpose. Basilicofresco (msg) 11:00, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
- Delete Illogical, irrelevant, out of scope, edition test, ......... --Alan Lorenzo (talk) 16:17, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 23:58, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope, it doesn't seem realistically useful for any educational purpose. Basilicofresco (msg) 11:04, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 23:58, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope, it doesn't seem realistically useful for any educational purpose. Basilicofresco (msg) 11:05, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 23:58, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope, it doesn't seem realistically useful for any educational purpose. Basilicofresco (msg) 11:06, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 23:58, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope, it doesn't seem realistically useful for any educational purpose. Basilicofresco (msg) 11:06, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 23:58, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
Commons is not Wikipedia Basilicofresco (msg) 11:28, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 00:01, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
http://www.quintgroup.nl/index.php/regie-van-it-diensten-en-projecten-verbinden-van-vraag-en-aanbod/ Halvar nl (talk) 11:37, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
Can you please advice. My company is owner of this Framework and the related images. How do I proceed in such way that the page will not be deleted?
Kind Regards
Jeroen
- Please send permission of all files to com:otrs. Additionally you should provide better pictures, if possible. (Higher resolution or SVG files, please) --McZusatz (talk) 14:09, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 00:03, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
source is pdf in http://www.quintgroup.nl/index.php/regie-van-it-diensten-en-projecten-verbinden-van-vraag-en-aanbod/ Halvar nl (talk) 11:38, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 00:03, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
source is pdf at http://www.quintgroup.nl/index.php/regie-van-it-diensten-en-projecten-verbinden-van-vraag-en-aanbod/ Halvar nl (talk) 11:38, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 00:03, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
Very low quality photo of a unknown printer. IMHO it doesn't seem realistically useful for any educational purpose. Basilicofresco (msg) 12:08, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 00:03, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
Presumably copyrighted logo. Appears to be a little too complicated for {{PD-textlogo}}. CT Cooper · talk 12:36, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 00:01, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
Private picture of user, out of project scope. Martin H. (talk) 13:32, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 00:01, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
Film poster, for a film due to be released in December 2013, which the uploader claims is their own work, but is either a copy-vio or self-created fan-cruft. Uploader has previously uploaded a number of self-created posters - all of which were deleted Arjayay (talk) 13:34, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 00:08, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
Poorly trimmed from the source image. Useless. Basilicofresco (msg) 13:44, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 00:01, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
not in use. should use {{TeX}} anyway. McZusatz (talk) 15:05, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 23:58, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
not in use. should use {{TeX}} anyway. McZusatz (talk) 15:05, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 23:58, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
Copyvio. Picture shows an image from Rötger Feldmann.-Karsten11 (talk) 15:08, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
- Cartoonist Roetger Feldmann yesterday has been asked for giving his copyright. He is not able to agree and has announced to deal his lawyer in this case. So as author of the file I ask for speedy deletion. --Brühl (talk) 12:43, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:12, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Low quality photo of more then common subject. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:16, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 23:58, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small resolution, missing EXIF. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:26, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 00:01, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:27, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 00:01, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
This image really doesn't look like "own work" from 2008, especially since almost all buildings of this barracks were demolished in 2007. Rosenzweig τ 17:06, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 00:02, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope, personal image uploaded by a user blocked as a vandalism-only account on enwiki. January (talk) 17:06, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 00:02, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
This non-free logo is unlikely to be the property of the uploader. There's a copy on en.wiki that I will keep for fair use. Diannaa (talk) 17:28, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:14, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
This image is not published under a GNU license - there is no evidence for taht at the source homepage http://www.ghorayeb.com/CauliflowerEar.html . 188.104.102.144 17:32, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:14, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small/inconsistent resolution, missing EXIF. Similar to official facebook (2011). Gunnex (talk) 18:39, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 00:07, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
Current Flickr license is CC-BY-NC-SA (not valid on Commons); no evidence for any license review at time of upload to prove flickr-change-of-license MPF (talk) 18:50, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:17, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
,_August_2009.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
,_August_2009.JPG&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
The FOP does not apply to graphic works - such as a mural or poster - even if they are permanently located in a public place. Steinsplitter (talk) 20:17, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
,_August_2009.JPG){kind=link}
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 00:07, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
,_August_2009.JPG){kind=link}
Low resolution, no valid EXIF. Unlikely to be own work. Jespinos (talk) 21:43, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 23:56, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope, unused personal image. Jespinos (talk) 22:03, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 23:55, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope, only text contribution. Jespinos (talk) 22:05, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 23:55, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope, unused personal image. Jespinos (talk) 22:07, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 23:55, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
Poor quality and of no realistic educational application. Moreover, Commons is not an amateur porn site. Rrburke (talk) 22:10, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 23:55, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
Text contribution, out of project scope. Commons:Project scope#Excluded educational content. Martin H. (talk) 22:16, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 23:55, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
Low resolution, no valid EXIF. Unlikely to be own work. Jespinos (talk) 22:27, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 23:55, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope, unused personal image. Jespinos (talk) 22:29, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 23:55, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope, unused personal image. Jespinos (talk) 22:42, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 23:55, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope, unused personal image. Jespinos (talk) 22:46, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 23:55, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope, unused personal image. Jespinos (talk) 22:47, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 23:55, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
Blatant advertising for company OpsDog; and no OTRS submission —Eustress talk 22:52, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
Delete if permission not obtained. Title could be changed and watermarks removed. Rybec (talk) 01:48, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 23:56, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
- file:Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar Ananda Murti image.JPG
- file:Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar Ananda Murti.JPG
- file:Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar black and white photo.jpg
- file:Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar image.JPG
- file:Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar photo.JPG
- file:Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar photograph.JPG
Per OTRS 2013010810002181, several photographs has been identified as not copyright of the uploader, and should be deleted. While non-agents cannot see the email, note that there is no permission statement, so can be deleted as no permission provided. Sphilbrick (talk) 22:55, 24 March 2013 (UTC--Sphilbrick (talk) 22:57, 24 March 2013 (UTC))
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 00:07, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
Low resolution, missing EXIF. Unlikely to be own work. Jespinos (talk) 23:07, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 23:56, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
Low resolution, missing EXIF. Unlikely to be own work. Jespinos (talk) 23:13, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 23:56, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
This photo contains a statue of unknown age. Per COM:FOP#Brazil, you are only permitted to take photos of statues which are permanently installed. This statue is placed in front of what looks like a door. If you wish to enter or exit the house through this door, you would have to move the statue. This suggests that the statue might not be permanently installed. Stefan4 (talk) 23:32, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 23:56, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
Low resolution, missing EXIF. Unlikely to be own work. Jespinos (talk) 23:37, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 23:56, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope, unused personal image. Jespinos (talk) 23:40, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 23:56, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope, only text contribution. Jespinos (talk) 23:58, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 23:56, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
author in English is "Hyundai life webpage". So it is not public domain. - 관인생략 (talk) 00:24, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:16, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
no source nor licence Pibwl (talk) 10:11, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Per uncontested DR. MBisanz talk 13:44, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
Not the good one Olivier Dalmon (talk) 14:07, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Per uncontested DR. MBisanz talk 13:44, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Beschreibungsseite nicht ausgefüllt. Xocolatl (talk) 15:32, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- Bitte löschen, da zudem nun ein Doppel. Diese Datei existiert schon wesentlich länger (seit 2007): File:Mittag in den Alpen 1891.jpg. --Thot 1 (talk) 16:28, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: duplicate Hystrix (talk) 21:03, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Files uploaded by Cachulo quintito (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unlikely to be own work: small/inconsistent resolutions, missing EXIF/different cameras.
- File:Copa Argentina.jpg
- File:DTs de Talleres y Belgrano.jpg
- File:Arnaldo-sialle.jpg
- File:Talleres-sportivo.jpg
- File:Pastore talleres.jpg
- File:Presentacion 2013.jpg
- File:Richie mccaw talleres.jpg
- File:Idolos de Talleres.jpg
- File:Talleres 2013.jpg
- File:Talleres 2012.gif
- File:Gabriel Carabajal.jpg
- File:Roberto Musso.jpg
- File:Claudio Frances.jpg
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:30, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 00:02, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Camilo0924 (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used.
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:29, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 00:01, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Dinomeglio (talk · contribs)
[edit]No evidence uploader is the copyright holder of the images.
Jespinos (talk) 22:49, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 23:55, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Djdelarosa25 (talk · contribs)
[edit]Detailed graphics of mobile phones and photos of professional wrestlers are not uploader's own work. Internet images used without permission. New user uploading copyvios. See File:Miz-Intercontinental-Champion.jpg also.
- File:N7610r.jpg
- File:2680S.jpg
- File:Galaxys3.jpg
- File:Psvita.png
- File:Galaxymini.jpg
- File:Bgusk.jpg
- File:Psp3000ms.jpg
- File:TheMiz.png
- File:PSP-3000MysticSilver.jpg
Senator2029 06:17, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . Materialscientist (talk) 07:54, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Heriick Souza (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of scope, unused personal images.
Jespinos (talk) 23:42, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 23:56, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Modern university papers, which could be replaced with wiki /math markup. Unclear authorship.
- File:ACT5a.jpg
- File:ACT5b.jpg
- File:ACT5d.jpg
- File:ACT5c.jpg
- File:ACT5e.jpg
- File:Act3ageo.jpg
- File:Act3geo.jpg
- File:Actividad 1b.jpg
- File:Actividad 1a.jpg
- File:GeoU1A3d.jpg
- File:GeoU1A3f.jpg
- File:GeoU1A3e.jpg
- File:GeoU1A3a.jpg
- File:GeoU1A3c.jpg
- File:GeoU1A3b.jpg
- File:PropLimites1.jpg
- File:PropLimites2.jpg
- File:Diagrama de flujoAct4.JPG
- File:OG Trabajo equipo.jpg
- File:DF Trabajo equipo.jpg
- File:MapaMentalAct4Wiki.jpg
- File:ConceptoLimite3.jpg
- File:ConceptoLimite2.jpg
- File:ConceptoLimite1.jpg
- File:Wiki4f.jpg
- File:Wiki4e.jpg
- File:Wiki4d.jpg
- File:Wiki4b.jpg
- File:Wiki4a.jpg
- File:Wiki4c.jpg
- File:Pag7Act1Unid1.jpg
- File:Pag6Act1Unid1.jpg
- File:Pag5Act1Unid1.jpg
- File:Pag4Act1Unid1.jpg
- File:Pag2Act1Unid1.jpg
- File:PortadaAct1Unid1.jpg
- File:Pag3Act1Unid1.jpg
- File:Actividad 2 c.jpg
- File:Acitvidad 2 b.jpg
- File:Actividad 2 a.jpg
- File:Limite 40 en 3.jpg
- File:Limites 40.jpg
- File:F continua.jpg
- File:Limite x cuadrada.jpg
- File:Limite.jpg
- File:G DE SENO.jpg
- File:Wiki5aAct4.jpg
- File:Wiki4Act4.jpg
- File:Wiki5Act4.jpg
- File:Wiki3Act4.jpg
- File:Wiki1Act4.jpg
- File:Wiki2Act4.jpg
- File:Actividad 1 Unid2.jpg
- File:ActFunciones.jpg
- File:PAG7.jpg
- File:PAG5.jpg
- File:PAG4.jpg
- File:PAG6.jpg
- File:PAG1.jpg
- File:PAG3.jpg
- File:PAG2.jpg
EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:34, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:36, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
Unused college papers of unclear origin. Anyway out of Commons:Project scope: should be replaced with math/wiki mark-up and SVG graphic.
- File:Actividad2c.jpg
- File:Actividad2a.jpg
- File:Actividad2b.jpg
- File:Actividad2.jpg
- File:Actividad 4c.jpg
- File:Actividad 4a.jpg
- File:Actividad4.jpg
- File:Actividad 4b.jpg
- File:Parabola 2.jpg
- File:Parabola 1.jpg
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:25, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:19, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused text documents which should be replaced with wiki/math markup and SVG graph.
- File:Actforo.jpg
- File:Actforo1.jpg
- File:Actividad 2.jpg
- File:Actividad dosa.jpg
- File:Actividad 1a.jpg
- File:Actividad 1b.jpg
- File:Actividad 1.jpg
- File:Actividad 2c.jpg
- File:Actividad 2d.jpg
- File:Actividad 1g.jpg
- File:Actividad 2a.jpg
- File:Actividad 2b.jpg
- File:Actividad 1f.jpg
- File:Actividad 1e.jpg
- File:Actividad 1d.jpg
- File:Actividad 1c.jpg
EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:57, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted --A.Savin 21:53, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Kelly Denis (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unlikely to be own work: inconsistent resolutions, missing EXIF.
- File:Kelly K Denis.jpg
- File:Kelly Denis.jpg
- File:Kellis Doing It live In Church.jpg
- File:Kelly With Holy Keane Amooti.JPG
- File:MY FB COVER.jpg
- File:Wasted Talent Cover.jpg
- File:Kellis.jpg
- File:Destiny-1.jpg
- File:Up Line.jpg
- File:Studio Mic.jpg
- File:System Room.jpg
- File:Kelly Denis Playing a Jitar.jpg
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:48, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Likely out of scope, and COM:PRP applies russavia (talk) 09:36, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Kelly Denis (talk · contribs)
[edit]Self-promotional images, out of scope
- File:Kelly Denis.jpg
- File:Destiny-1.png
- File:Destiny-1 (PatricknKelly).jpg
- File:White T-Shirt.png
- File:Oh Lord Single Cover.png
- File:Blue T-Shirt.png
- File:Kelly Denis Logo Black & White.png
- File:Kelly Denis Logo Red & Black.png
- File:Twitter Banner.jpg
- File:Kelly Denis Logo Icon.png
- File:Kelly Denis.png
- File:Tumblr Header.png
- File:Destiny-1-BORN NOW.ogg
- File:Destiny-1-Oh Lord - Destiny-1.ogg
- File:Kelly wikip.png
- File:Kelly Denis 2013.png
- File:Sseku Martin Live In Concert..jpg
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Morning ☼ (talk) 10:08, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
- Delete per nom --Herby talk thyme 11:37, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Out of scope, editor on a self promotional rampage. That editor has been indeffed on en WP. Timtrent (talk) 22:25, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:13, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Kelly Denis (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of scope. Solely self promotional
- File:Kelly Denis-23.jpg
- File:Kelly Denis-22.jpg
- File:Kelly Denis-24.jpg
- File:Kelly Denis-21.JPG
- File:Kelly Denis-20.JPG
- File:Kelly Denis-19.JPG
- File:Kelly Denis-18.JPG
- File:Kelly Denis-16.JPG
- File:Kelly Denis-17.JPG
- File:Kelly Denis-15.JPG
- File:Kelly Denis-14.JPG
- File:Kelly Denis-13.JPG
- File:Kelly Denis-12.JPG
- File:Kelly Denis-11.JPG
- File:Kelly Denis-10.jpg
- File:Kelly Denis-9.jpg
- File:Kelly Denis-7.jpg
- File:Destiny-1 (PatricknKelly)-4.JPG
- File:Kelly Denis-6.jpg
- File:Kelly Denis-5.jpg
- File:Kelly Denis-3.png
- File:Kelly Denis-2.png
- File:Kelly Denis -1.png
-4.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Timtrent (talk) 22:27, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 23:32, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
These two look too old to be own work, and too young to be PD.
Vera (talk) 20:44, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:17, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
Looks like collection of promo/fan photos, not own work.
- File:A Napkutya tagjai..jpg
- File:Koncert az Old Man's Music Pub-ban..jpg
- File:Az első vakkantás 2012-ben Szigethalmon..jpg
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:21, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 23:57, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
Possible copyvios.
- File:SDB BOSCUM.gif
- File:CARTEL RAPHAEL 3.jpg
- File:182957 502142191585 747451585 645d5369 4530208 n.jpg
- File:Gira2012-13.jpg
- File:Cartel Raphael.jpg
- File:Raphael2012.jpg
Jespinos (talk) 17:29, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 00:03, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF.
EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:41, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 13:00, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Maria magdalena morales tlapanco (talk · contribs)
[edit]Possible copyvios or out of scope images.
Jespinos (talk) 22:44, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 23:55, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Miteshkanojiya (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used.
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:21, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 23:58, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Necromancer-Mary (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of scope, unused personal artwork.
Jespinos (talk) 23:16, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 23:56, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Nicholashines (talk · contribs)
[edit]Private pictures of user, out of project scope.
Martin H. (talk) 17:57, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 23:57, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
Files uploaded by SamanthaJune (talk · contribs)
[edit]Uploader is too young to be the copyright holder of the professionally looking images.
- File:Can you see the water? It is clear!.JPG
- File:Omish sign.JPG
- File:Sunset over lake with cottontail in the front.png
- File:Nature Waterfall.jpg
- File:My lovely St. Bernard, Nami (Short For Tsunami)..jpg
..jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Jespinos (talk) 01:03, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
Delete The date on File:Nature_Waterfall.jpg is May 2005 (the user would have been about three years old) and the EXIF data explicitly says Frans Lemmens was the photographer. Rybec (talk) 01:40, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 00:00, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
Low resolutions, missing EXIF. The images are likely not own work and some are also out of project scope.
- File:Ha'ha.jpg
- File:Is6.jpg
- File:Is5.png
- File:Is4.jpg
- File:Is2.jpg
- File:Det handler om is den her kalder jeg is 1.jpg
- File:Is3.jpg
Jespinos (talk) 21:49, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 23:57, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Violentaarch (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of scope, unused personal images.
Jespinos (talk) 21:52, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 23:56, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Waldemar Gołdys (talk · contribs)
[edit]Possible copyvios or out of scope images.
- File:Rozbity wazon.JPG
- File:Monika i neptun.JPG
- File:Ucieczka z planety Raj.JPG
- File:Kosmiczna harmonia.JPG
- File:Rybobranie 1275.jpg
- File:Kobieta w ogrodzie 2101.jpg
- File:Autor gołdys 1901.jpg
- File:Autor gołdys 554.jpg
- File:Obraz 0793.jpg
- File:Kształt i wdzięk kobiety.JPG
- File:Zawsze piękna i silna.JPG
- File:Impresja ekspresyjnej myśli.gif
Jespinos (talk) 22:34, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 00:06, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Waldemar Gołdys (talk · contribs)
[edit]Some homepage pictures, promotional, see text in pictures, not used in any wikipedia, only userpage
- File:Grafika komputerowa.jpg
- File:Portret Wandy.jpg
- File:Ogrody1342.jpg
- File:GaleriaGArt 0.jpg
- File:Droga bez końca.JPG
- File:Brama do Raju 6.jpg
- File:Duch Gladiatora.jpg
- File:Ucieczka z planety Ray.JPG
Motopark (talk) 11:01, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
out of scope -FASTILY 21:30, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Yo yo nazim (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used.
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:22, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 23:57, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
D. Howard Hitchcock
[edit]- File:'Helen under Umbrella at Apua' by D. Howard Hitchcock, 1924.jpg
- File:'Canoes, Kealakekua Bay, Kona' by D. Howard Hitchcock, 1929.jpg
- File:'From Mokapu', oil painting by D. Howard Hitchcock, 1937, Cedar Street Galleries.jpg
- File:'Hanalei Valley, Kauai' by D. Howard Hitchcock, 1926-27.jpg
- File:'Hanalei Valley, Kauai' by D. Howard Hitchcock, 1936.jpg
- File:'Kailua Bay', oil painting by D. Howard Hitchcock, 1931, Cedar Street Galleries.jpg
- File:'Lahaina Beach (Looking at Lanai)', oil painting by D. Howard Hitchcock, 1932, Cedar Street Galleries.jpg
- File:'Lanai from Lahaina' by D. Howard Hitchcock, 1924.jpg
- File:'Lawai Beach' by D. Howard Hitchcock, 1929.jpg
- File:'McInerny's First Store', oil painting by David Howard Hitchcock, 1929, McInerny Foundation.jpg
- File:'Onomea Bay' by D. Howard Hitchcock, 1926-27.jpg
- File:'Pearl Harbor & Waianae Range from Papakolea', oil painting by D. Howard Hitchcock, 1936, Cedar Street Galleries.jpg
- File:'Round Top from Ala Wai' (sketch for Malolo painting) by D. Howard Hitchcock, 1926.jpg
- File:'Sampan off Maxon Place at Mokapu' by D. Howard Hitchcock, 1937.jpg
- File:'Waimanalo Seascape' by D. Howard Hitchcock, 1932.jpg
- File:'Waimea Canyon', oil painting by D. Howard Hitchcock, 1936, Cedar Street Galleries.jpg
- File:'Windward Oahu' by D. Howard Hitchcock, 1925.jpg
- File:'Young Cane' by D. Howard Hitchcock, 1928.jpg
- File:D. Howard Hitchcock (1861-1943) - Kahana Bay, O'ahu, 1935, oil on canvas.jpg
- File:D. Howard Hitchcock - 'Midnight Star over Diamond Head', 1934.jpg
- File:David Howard Hitchcock - 'Rabbit Island, Oahu, Hawaii, 1936'. 1936.jpg
- File:David Howard Hitchcock - Beyond Coco Head, 1934.jpg
- File:David Howard Hitchcock - Hawaiian Landscape with Flowering Trees, 1933.jpg
- File:David Howard Hitchcock - Kahalawai, at Foot of Diamond Head, 1934.jpg
- File:David Howard Hitchcock - Pali, 1929.jpg
- File:Untitled painting by D. Howard Hitchcock, c. 1927, Cedar Street Galleries.jpg
- File:David Howard Hitchcock - Waimanalo Beach on Windward Oahu, 1934.jpg
%27,_oil_painting_by_D._Howard_Hitchcock,_1932,_Cedar_Street_Galleries.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_by_D._Howard_Hitchcock,_1926.jpg){kind=link}
_-_Kahana_Bay,_O%27ahu,_1935,_oil_on_canvas.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Paintings created after 1923. No evidence that they are out of copyright in the US. --— hike395 (talk) 18:34, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 21:51, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
As Commons:FOP#Germany does not cover in-door works and as the depicted work is from a living artist, this photo violates his copyright, provided the depicted work is above the threshold of originality. -- Túrelio (talk) 00:29, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
Same object: File:Chorraum Altar Kreuz.jpg. --Túrelio (talk) 00:29, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
Die Kirchengemeinde und der Künstler haben der Nutzung des Fotos zugestimmt. Keine Urheberrechtsverletzung!
Wenn das Bild gelöscht wird ist eine Dartstellung von Kunst in Kirchenräumen nicht mehr möglich. Soll auch das Deckengemälde in der Sixtinischen Kapelle gelöscht werden, weil es in einem Raum sich befindet?
Wikipedia auf den Seiten, in den Kirchenräume beschrieben werden, voll mit Innenansichten. Soll das alles gelöscht werden?
Die Kirche ist ein öffentlicher Raum, der regelmäßig und verlässlich für alle Besucher offen gehalten wird. --TorstenKoopmann (talk) 07:24, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
- Nicht gleich in Panik verfallen. Nur mal zur Klarstellung:
- 1) "Wenn das Bild gelöscht wird ..." - da hier jeden Tag mehrere hundert hochgeladene Dateien gelöscht werden (müssen), wäre nach dieser Logik gar kein Hochladen mehr möglich.
- 2) "Deckengemälde in der Sixtinischen Kapelle" - dir scheint der Grund für den Löschantrag nicht klar zu sein. Es geht primär ums Urheberrecht. Der Maler der sixt. Kapelle, Michelangelo, ist 1564 verstorben, wohingegen der Künstler, der die hier abgebildeten Werke geschaffen hat, noch lebt. Das Urheberrecht des Künstlers währt bis 70 Jahre nach dessen Tod.
- 3) "Die Kirchengemeinde ..." - das Hausrecht, das du hier berührst, ist für uns weniger wichtig, allerdings für Nachnutzer durchaus. Deshalb gilt hier dasselbe wie unter 5).
- 4) "Die Kirche ist ein öffentlicher " - das spielt für die Panoramafreiheit nach dem deutschen UrhG keine Rolle. Siehe de:Panoramafreiheit#Innenaufnahmen
- 5) "der Künstler haben der Nutzung des Fotos zugestimmt" - das ist eine konstruktive Auskunft. Wie in solchen Fällen üblich, musst du die schriftliche Zustimmung an permissions-commons@wikimedia.org (OTRS) weiterleiten, damit sie dort dokumentiert wird. Falls sie doch nicht schriftlich vorliegt, kann ich dir eine Textvorlage zur Verfügung stellen.
- 6) Da es aus dem Innenraum dieser Kirche noch weitere Fotos von Kunstwerken möglicherweise vom selben Künstler gibt, sollten diese in die Genehmigungen des Künstlers (und ggf. der Gemeinde) mit eingeschlossen werden. --Túrelio (talk) 08:23, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
Ich versteh das schon. Schriftlich liegt die Genehmigung nicht vor. Ich werde sie auch nicht einholen. Der Künstler hat das dieses Werk geschaffen und sagt, jetzt macht mal. Mir ist das hier viel zu kompliziert. Ihr Löscher man immer an ans Werk. Lösch man schön alle Bildaufnahmen moderner Kunst, wo der Künstler noch lebt. Da liegt fast nirgends eine schriftliche Genehmigung vor. Und sobald das Bild und die anderen in dem Artikel gelöscht sind, werde ich mich nicht darum bemühen in Wikipedia die Kirchen der Region Nord-Ost-Niedersachsens hier darzustellen. Dann melde mich ab. Tschüß.
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 21:55, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
Eindeutiger Fake ! ... nicht existenter Adelstitel mit Bezug auf das Herzogtum Sachsen-Coburg und Gotha Metilsteiner (talk) 18:35, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 21:51, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
C:\Documents and Settings\pc bureau\Mes documents\Downloads\quentin gourillon\arme et moi.jpg GOURILLON (talk) 16:10, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
- Errr.... What is the deletion rationale? --PaterMcFly (talk) 07:44, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
Bonjour, comme je l'ai écrit dans ma demande de suppression : le titre n'est pas bon, etc Cordialement, Quentin
Kept. Jcb (talk) 02:18, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
Je souhaite supprimer cette photo, car j'y suis dessus et qu'elle n'est plus d'actualité. Pouvez vous la supprimer rapidement s'il vous plait? Merci d'avance. Cordialement, Quentin GOURILLON (talk) 12:20, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
- Can somone translate that? thx--Sanandros (talk) 02:55, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
- I believe he's asking that this be deleted because it is an old photo of him. The rationale for the previous deletion request was that the title was bad. The title means "a weapon and me" or "me with gun". Rybec (talk) 01:15, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY (TALK) 21:54, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
fehlende Quellen- und andere Angaben. Xocolatl (talk) 15:30, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 21:54, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Beschreibungsseite mit Quellenangaben etc. wurde nicht ausgefüllt. Xocolatl (talk) 15:31, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 21:54, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
This file was initially tagged by Steinbeisser as duplicate (dupe) and the most recent rationale was: Feldjäger Dienstkommando.png Didym (talk) 20:13, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 21:51, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Taken from here; "Source: Jim Guglielmo". No indication that this is an official military photo. Rosenzweig τ 17:20, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Keep There is no need for an "official military photo" becaus it's enough if the photo was made by a member of the US Army! And what do you think who's "Jim Guglielmo" was in 1954 in Germany - a tourist? -- Steinbeisser (talk) 17:31, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- You're wrong, that is not enough. Just read the text of the license tag: "taken or made during the course of the person's official duties." Jim Guglielmo is given as the source btw, not the author. --Rosenzweig τ 17:33, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
- Scheiß drauf -- Steinbeisser (talk) 07:42, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: per Rosenzweig FASTILY (TALK) 21:53, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
No scope. Fry1989 eh? 20:04, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
- Are any of the following in scope?
- File:Flag-map of Greater Finland.svg
- File:Flag-map of Greater Argentina.svg
- File:Flag-map of Greater Armenia.svg
- File:Flag-map of Greater Hungary.svg
- File:Flag-map of Greater Somalia.svg
- File:Flag map of Greater South Africa.png
- File:Flag-map of the Greater Netherlands.svg
- File:Flag-map of Greater Nepal.svg
- File:Flag-map of the Greater Philippines.svg
- File:Flag map of Greater Romania.svg
- File:Flag-map of Greater Slovenia.svg
- File:Flag-map of Greater Croatia.svg
- If so, what distinguishes them from the nominated image? —Psychonaut (talk) 17:10, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
- I don't think any of them have scope. What's your point? Fry1989 eh? 19:20, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, but I don't understand what you mean by "have scope". Do you mean "are in scope"? —Psychonaut (talk) 20:13, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
- The two are the same thing. They have no SCOPE. Fry1989 eh? 20:17, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
- If you say so, but I find it strange that policy you cite doesn't use the term in the same way you do. It says that Commons has a scope, and that the individual media files it hosts are or are not in that scope. —Psychonaut (talk) 08:30, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
- The two are the same thing. They have no SCOPE. Fry1989 eh? 20:17, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, but I don't understand what you mean by "have scope". Do you mean "are in scope"? —Psychonaut (talk) 20:13, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
- I don't think any of them have scope. What's your point? Fry1989 eh? 19:20, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
- Keep The image serves to illustrate irredentist claims over Greater Syria and is in scope on that basis. Such flag-maps are common nationalist propaganda—one sees them all the time on posters, lapel pins, etc. As hinted at above, there are dozens already on Wikipedia and/or Commons, many of which are in use to illustrate nationalist claims. See Category:Irredentism and Category:SVG maps incorporating flags - Irredentist. I suspect this nomination isn't really about scope but more about User:Fry1989's ongoing dispute with the uploader. Fry1989 himself has uploaded many similar images such as File:Flag map of Greater Romania.svg and File:Flag map of Greater Italy.svg. —Psychonaut (talk) 08:30, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
- I was asked personally to make those two, and they have historical context where Italy and Romania actually controlled the lands shown in the map. These irredentist claimant maps are sketchy at best. Fry1989 eh? 16:46, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
Kept: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:30, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
No reason was given for the keep and this map is historically anachronistic. The flag shown did not even exist until the 1950s. Unlike the two maps listed that I uploaded, this does not have historical context. It is a fiction. Fry1989 eh? 15:49, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
- Nearly all irredentist maps are historically anachronistic, as they reflect expansionist aspirations which may never have been realized in the past, or which may have been realized but never together at the same time in history. This is doubly true of flag-maps, since national flags rarely remain constant across history. Applying your criteria consistently would eliminate the vast majority of irredentist maps on Commons, whether or not they contain flags, and therefore deprive Wikimedia projects of a considerable amount of educationally useful material. (I should point out that, contrary to your claim, your own flag-map of Italy is just as fictional and ahistorical as this one; the flag it depicts also never flew over the entire territory shown.) —Psychonaut (talk) 17:09, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
- A version of that flag did, all it's missing is the Savoy arms so it's easily fixed. This is different, this flag didn't exist over any of the lands shown in the map in any form. Honestly I think most of these irredentist maps should be deleted, they're nonsense, but we're focusing on this one right now. If you want the others to go, nominate them yourself, don't try and use the fact I haven't nominated them as a reason for this one to stay. The criteria is different from map to map. I think you're more interested in obfuscating this issue by bringing up other stuff, then in dealing with the validity of this map and whether or not it should be here. Fry1989 eh? 17:39, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
- I'm not citing the fact that others similar maps haven't been nominated as a reason for this one to stay. I'm saying that the issues you are complaining about are inherent to such maps, but this doesn't affect their educational usefulness, as demonstrated by their inclusion on many Wikimedia projects. Irredentist maps illustrate nationalist aspirations, not historical realities, and therefore are almost always fictional in some sense. (And as an aside, you're still wrong about your own map. The Italian tricolor, with or without the Savoy arms, never flew over Malta.) —Psychonaut (talk) 18:07, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
- Something that can me removed or fixed, it's still irrelevant to this map, this issue. You are trying to obfuscate, because your points aren't strong enough for this map. Tell me, why should it stay? Why should any of them stay? Fry1989 eh? 18:13, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
- I just did, twice (and once more in the previous deletion discussion above). If you haven't been able to identify my argument, that's OK; I trust the administrator closing this discussion will. —Psychonaut (talk) 18:24, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
- Not to my satisfaction, obviously, or else I wouldn't be asking you for another reason. Commons isn't the place for political aspirations, least of all anachronistic ones. Italy at one time controlled Libya, Tunisia, and the Balkans, under the green-white-red tricolour (with or without the Savoy arms), so it has a very clear historical context which is why I agreed to create it when it was requested of me. Syria has never controlled the lands shown in this map, least of all under the flag shown, It has no historical context. That's a very big difference between the two. Fry1989 eh? 18:41, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
- Also Syria Controled places in this map , Like Lebanon , Hatay , Diar Bekr and all the places in the map of Turkey , Mousle , Palestine , Jordan and Sinaa, this Picture is mixed with The SSNP Syria Greater Map , With the True Levant Before WWI
- Not to my satisfaction, obviously, or else I wouldn't be asking you for another reason. Commons isn't the place for political aspirations, least of all anachronistic ones. Italy at one time controlled Libya, Tunisia, and the Balkans, under the green-white-red tricolour (with or without the Savoy arms), so it has a very clear historical context which is why I agreed to create it when it was requested of me. Syria has never controlled the lands shown in this map, least of all under the flag shown, It has no historical context. That's a very big difference between the two. Fry1989 eh? 18:41, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
- I just did, twice (and once more in the previous deletion discussion above). If you haven't been able to identify my argument, that's OK; I trust the administrator closing this discussion will. —Psychonaut (talk) 18:24, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
- Something that can me removed or fixed, it's still irrelevant to this map, this issue. You are trying to obfuscate, because your points aren't strong enough for this map. Tell me, why should it stay? Why should any of them stay? Fry1989 eh? 18:13, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
- I'm not citing the fact that others similar maps haven't been nominated as a reason for this one to stay. I'm saying that the issues you are complaining about are inherent to such maps, but this doesn't affect their educational usefulness, as demonstrated by their inclusion on many Wikimedia projects. Irredentist maps illustrate nationalist aspirations, not historical realities, and therefore are almost always fictional in some sense. (And as an aside, you're still wrong about your own map. The Italian tricolor, with or without the Savoy arms, never flew over Malta.) —Psychonaut (talk) 18:07, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
- A version of that flag did, all it's missing is the Savoy arms so it's easily fixed. This is different, this flag didn't exist over any of the lands shown in the map in any form. Honestly I think most of these irredentist maps should be deleted, they're nonsense, but we're focusing on this one right now. If you want the others to go, nominate them yourself, don't try and use the fact I haven't nominated them as a reason for this one to stay. The criteria is different from map to map. I think you're more interested in obfuscating this issue by bringing up other stuff, then in dealing with the validity of this map and whether or not it should be here. Fry1989 eh? 17:39, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
178.61.35.103 18:09, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
if you didn't want to delete my pictures, you are trying delete what exactly i wanted to delete about syria, i think you are now retaliation.GhiathArodaki (talk) 17:59, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
- Keep In scope as it can be used in Syria and irredentism subjects. Tm (talk) 20:57, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
- Comment Irridentist maps are in scope (and it's quite a fascinating subject as well). It doesn't seem to properly attribute the sources used however. It also seems to mix the French Mandate and Antun Saadeh's and the SSNP's greater Syria, without clearly mentioning it. If the file is kept, I think these issues should be addressed. Lemmens, Tom (talk) 18:28, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
- Delete unless proper sourcing is provided for the map. Without sourcing of some kind, it doesn't have any educational value. Rd232 (talk) 14:15, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
- The source appears to be the Syrian Social Nationalist Party's map of Greater Syria, though the borders around the Persian Gulf are a bit off. This could conceivably be fixed through means other than deletion. Though I agree with the need for sourcing I should also point out that the vast majority of user-contributed maps on Commons, irredentist or otherwise, are not sourced at all. —Psychonaut (talk) 15:14, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
- the vast majority of user-contributed maps on Commons, irredentist or otherwise, are not sourced at all - yes, it's a common problem with user-generated maps. All unsourced maps should be chucked out unless there's some case-specific reason not to. Rd232 (talk) 15:22, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
- The source appears to be the Syrian Social Nationalist Party's map of Greater Syria, though the borders around the Persian Gulf are a bit off. This could conceivably be fixed through means other than deletion. Though I agree with the need for sourcing I should also point out that the vast majority of user-contributed maps on Commons, irredentist or otherwise, are not sourced at all. —Psychonaut (talk) 15:14, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
Rd232 said it best -FASTILY (TALK) 21:54, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
File:ItaqueraoDigital1.jpg & 2 & 3
[edit]
Following on from Commons:Village pump/Copyright#www.copa2014.gov.br, the licence on this image can not be verified, it does not appear to be in use currently on the site it is claimed to be sourced to, it is however used on this page, where it is credited to the designers and there is a clear copyright statement on the page. LGA talkedits 06:20, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 21:56, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
The following statement: "Copyright Jodiphotography - DO NOT edit or remove watermarks, if you are interested in using any of these photos for promo use etc please contact me at any of the following:" are at variance with the Creative Commons licence shown, which would allow modification (as in removing watermarks) for most images though this one does not have the statement on the image's own page but it is on the main set page for this image here. Ww2censor (talk) 11:23, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
- Jodi gave me the permission to use this photo in Wiki, I have all his messages and we talked so he would give me the license to use it here. Please don't delete this pic, I can show you all the messages in which he gives me the permission to use it, but if that's not enough I'll ask him to change the text in the image (http://www.flickr.com/photos/jodixhavok/sets/72157632158209596/). So I can use it in Wiki.--Fallengrademan (talk) 14:55, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
- The best solution is for you to get Jodi, who we presume is the copyright holder, to email his permission directly to the OTRS Team by following the procedure found at COM:OTRS. Assuming he does that all should be well as an OTRS ticket will be attached to the image verifying the permission. Hope that helps. Ww2censor (talk) 20:06, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
- I'm really sorry for the delay, but I send an e-mail to Jodi to fix the problem and she hasn't answered me yet, so I really don't know what I could do to keep the photo on Commons, I'm kinda new at this, but if you have to delete the pic it will be ok, I'll try to find another. But if at some point you can leave it that would be great too :).--Fallengrademan (talk) 19:39, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
- Even if it does get deleted before Jodi sends her permission to the OTRS Team, they can restore it once the permission is verified but make sure she tells them the original file's name that was used here. Good luck. Ww2censor (talk) 21:03, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
- I'm really sorry for the delay, but I send an e-mail to Jodi to fix the problem and she hasn't answered me yet, so I really don't know what I could do to keep the photo on Commons, I'm kinda new at this, but if you have to delete the pic it will be ok, I'll try to find another. But if at some point you can leave it that would be great too :).--Fallengrademan (talk) 19:39, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
- The best solution is for you to get Jodi, who we presume is the copyright holder, to email his permission directly to the OTRS Team by following the procedure found at COM:OTRS. Assuming he does that all should be well as an OTRS ticket will be attached to the image verifying the permission. Hope that helps. Ww2censor (talk) 20:06, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Missing permission. To be restored upon reciept of permissions FASTILY (TALK) 21:57, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
A question: How can we be certain that this uploader is Andre.Avdeenko, who is named as the author in the camera metadata? This uploader has a record of Many copyright violations. Leoboudv (talk) 04:33, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
- The author should send a permission to com:otrs. --McZusatz (talk) 10:06, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
- Delete Also looks proportional and ot of Commons:Project scope for me. Article about interior could be illustrated without serving modern commercial interests. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:26, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
- Keep I think it's an artistic photo, my opinion is: keep. --Alan Lorenzo (talk) 16:14, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Missng adequate evidence of permission. Please contact COM:OTRS FASTILY (TALK) 21:55, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
It's not only a question of scope. This file simply lacks any educational purpose and cannot be used for anything Ecemaml talk to me/habla conmigo 23:06, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
Keep It is a good image that could be used to show the view of a darkroom. I also wonder if this is clearly a revenge nomination. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 00:18, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
weak Keep It could be considered black humour ;) and satire. Better to let it be than make a fuss. Rd232 (talk) 00:55, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
- What about the derivative question ? Nickelodeon's lawyers could bash down my door any moment. Apart from that, I have no objections, it quite clearly has educational content as some have learned from looking at it that it lacks any educational value, and so it has value in teaching that it has none. Penyulap ☏ 04:49, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
- I think the passage of time will put this one out of scope faster than anything else. Basically jokes aren't funny forever, quite possibly next week or next month or something Tom will remove it from his page because something better will come along and if it's not used then one of us would ask for it to be deleted if it has no use. It's not rocket-science and don't we have anything better to do with our time than silly discussions like this ? Draw something, upload something, photograph something that is not in your pants and improve the project ! Come on ! Penyulap ☏ 12:27, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
Questionable authorship. It was uploaded to English Wikipedia in July 2009, but appeared here in a blog post with comments dated 2008 and later. Also check the URL to the image: http://www.zentastic.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2008/04/shannon18.jpg The part 2008/04 suggests that the file was uploaded in April 2008, which is more than a year before it was uploaded to English Wikipedia. Also, the webserver suggests that the image hasn't been modified since 29 April 2008. Stefan4 (talk) 17:17, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
- Hi, Shannon died some days ago, he had an account on Wikipedia, and he also wrote that anything from the blog is fine to use on Wikipedia read: " any content from my blog at zentastic.com may be used here (pictures, whatever) if need be.". I'm not sure how we should handle this. But decide for yourself. C.Nilsson (talk) 17:25, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 21:52, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
Incorrect Flag. An svg version of the correct one: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Trinidad_%26_Tobago_President_Standard.svg, has been uploaded 186.45.251.38 16:17, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 21:51, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
The permission in the cited OTRS ticket is for Wikipedia and Wikimedia. It makes no statement as to general use. The volunteer who asked for the permssion gave an explanation of GFDL which is not complete and upon which the grantor explcitly relied. We need the grantor to give us an explicit license, not a reference to an incorrect request. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:37, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
- Keep In the email which was sent to M Radzi, I explained to him that I was asking for permission to use his photos under the GFDL, and he replied that he was giving blanket permission "subject to the condition as you've stated in your email." Various links were provided for his information as well. He was also cc'ed in on the email to OTRS. If one were to email M Radzi via OTRS they will likely receive an affirmative re-confirmation from him. russavia (talk) 13:28, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
- Refer to ticket:2011091110011064 for further correspondence from MRD. russavia (talk) 17:31, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
Duplicita k 
Maxx (talk) 16:49, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
- In my opinion is the latter file worse quality than the previous, so I would KEEP the file and nominate the other. --Zirland (talk) 08:50, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
- Keep: Hardly a duplicate –moogsi (blah) 04:54, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
Kept: Not a duplicate at all. No reason why we should not keep both MichaelMaggs (talk) 09:13, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
This file is not an accurate representation of the person depicted and is of very poor quality. A photograph is required, but I would argue that this image is worse than no image at all, as it misrepresents his appearance. NikNaks talk - gallery - wikipedia 16:53, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
Keep I disagree, while trying to hunt down a free image or images to satisfy the request at the graphics lab and the demand for an image which has led contributors to upload copyvios, I think I came across the photograph that this was based upon. This image describes the subject. The drawing is clearly not an old man, an old woman, a girl, a dark-haired boy and so on. So it has significant illustrative value in a number of respects, especially prompting readers who have seen the original. They would think 'ah yes, this is the article, and the reverse effect worked for me, I recognised the image upon which this image was based. The image is also the best quality free image available, so I wouldn't call it low quality unless you can show me something better. Penyulap ☏ 11:19, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
- I disagree almost entirely. Any photograph is better than this drawing, and I really do not believe that this depiction contains enough details or features for someone to identify Uudam if presented with a roster of similar looking children. Users shouldn't be expected to have to find the original image to be able to recognise the person. NikNaks talk - gallery - wikipedia 14:26, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
- Most people can't choose the President from a series of donkey photos. :)
- Most people know this guy from TV, they would have seen the precise performance I expect. He's not known for anything else as far as I know. Penyulap ☏ 22:41, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
Delete The image is a derivative work. Even if considered that the derivative work is so different to the original not to be an actual derivative work, we lack permission from both the image this DR deals with and the original image. --Ecemaml talk to me/habla conmigo 12:21, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
- derivative of what ? the other half of your point is missing. Penyulap ☏ 16:02, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
Delete I think this illustration shows Uudam in a way grotesque. I doubt that he the same would like to accept it. And his opinion and his legal guardians (adoptive parents) should be primarily taken into account. But can not ask them, so therefore should be removed it. On the internet there are enough real photos of a good quality.--Seti6908 (talk) 19:52, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
- (inserted comment) I've just changed the res, please consider the new image. Penyulap ☏ 16:02, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
- Unfortunately. I stand by my opinion. Please, do not think of this as malice on my part, but I do it out of respect for Uudam. Not against him, not against you and not against the author. I hope you understand my position on this matter and I consider this matter is closed for me.--Seti6908 (talk) 19:34, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
- Post Scriptum :Foregoing comment relates to this file. If you mean this file, although I'm not convinced it, I approved it on plwiki. I have no the possibility in German wiki. I can only automatically approve my own edits. I hope this is a temporary solution and in the future will a free real image.--Seti6908 (talk) 20:06, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
- (inserted comment) I've just changed the res, please consider the new image. Penyulap ☏ 16:02, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
- Why can't we ask them exactly ? and while we are at it, let's ask them for a decent photo. Penyulap ☏ 22:38, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
- You can write him an e-mail if you know that and if you can break through the Chinese Internet censorship. I am too small. Even if Uudam has an e-mail, he probably can't answer to USA. Furthermore this image has really very poor quality. In my opinion it is ridiculous, and Uudam is not able to defend himself. If it were otherwise, surely he or someone from his family would be able to load on The Commons truely real picture a hundred times better than this. Of course I would like to, that in the article was a legal photo of Uudam, not violate copyright, but not at any price. Not at the cost of common sense. Sorry, that's my opinion and I will stand by it emphatically insisted.--Seti6908 (talk) 00:42, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
- Of course of course no problem. I think I
better give it a trycan't be bothered myself. I had seen things like this image which is headed for deletion. There'd be a wide variety of people to ask, however I can't sign in to face book and ask them, so I may need help there. Penyulap ☏ 06:32, 29 March 2013 (UTC)- The image is headed for deletion?
It's licensed with self-cc-by-sa 3.0 by the uploader User:Amirul bunkerzs and the history indicates no past proposals of deletion. Anyway, thanks for finding that free image… Ok, it's actually suspicious this user is uploading several non-free media without license as has the image File:Uudam Wudamu.jpg been uploaded by the same user and is currently going through the process of deletion.--Flekstro (talk) 19:36, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
- The image is headed for deletion?
- Of course of course no problem. I think I
- You can try contacting him at http://weibo.com/wudamutieba (definitely accessible within the Great Firewall)--Flekstro (talk) 19:36, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
Delete Don't see it being used for anything useful. --Conti|✉ 14:34, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
- It was in the article for some time as far as I recall, I think the main problem was how ugly it is when looked at up close, as is any image, be it oils, watercolour, macaroni :) or pixels on a glass screen. I've reduced the resolution, which always made it look better, so that now people can't get that close-up surprise.
- However, I don't know who can 'look again with new eyes' and who will simply have the memory cache stuck in it's usual position. who knows. Penyulap ☏ 16:02, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
- Even if this version is a small improvement, it is still of very low quality and doesn't accurately display the image of Uudam, unlike the new image you uploaded. NikNaks talk - gallery - wikipedia 16:13, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
- I wouldn't pin your hopes on that one. I still think this one is useful, even if you need to squint (no longer) to see it. It's all they have for that article, every other image that has been uploaded so far has been non-free, beggars *should not* be choosers. Penyulap ☏ 16:27, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
- As I intimated before, in my opinion this image is worse than no image at all. There is no requirement for an image, and this one really isn't fit for purpose. NikNaks talk - gallery - wikipedia 16:30, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
- I wouldn't pin your hopes on that one. I still think this one is useful, even if you need to squint (no longer) to see it. It's all they have for that article, every other image that has been uploaded so far has been non-free, beggars *should not* be choosers. Penyulap ☏ 16:27, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
- Even if this version is a small improvement, it is still of very low quality and doesn't accurately display the image of Uudam, unlike the new image you uploaded. NikNaks talk - gallery - wikipedia 16:13, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
- Hey, what about silhouettes, are they any good in articles ? Penyulap ☏ 16:48, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
- I really don't understand how that's relevant... NikNaks talk - gallery - wikipedia 17:24, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
- Hey, what about silhouettes, are they any good in articles ? Penyulap ☏ 16:48, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
Hello, I'm the author of this ugly painting noticing this discussion a bit too late! Thanks User:Penyulap not only for creating the perfect alternative free “drawing” (File:乌达木2.png), but also for appreciating my “quick-and-dirty” drawing! I'm not going to vote for or against the deletion. Thanks all for elaborately discussing about this. --Flekstro (talk) 18:28, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
- Hey. I'm sorry that I was at the opposite side of the barricades. I hope you believe in my good intentions. Thanks for your forbearance. Best Regards.--Seti6908 (talk) 19:34, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: The discussion indicates that it was based on a photograph, and hence is a derivative work. Probably not much loss anyway, as the file is not in use and it is of poor quality MichaelMaggs (talk) 09:19, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
The main page (where the image was taken) says in spanish:
«Esta página es una obra intelectual protegida por la Ley Federal del Derecho de Autor, puede ser reproducida con fines no lucrativos, siempre y cuando no se mutile, se cite la fuente completa y su dirección electrónica; su uso para otros fines, requiere autorización previa y por escrito de la Directora General del Instituto».
Translated is:
«This page is an intellectual work protected by the Federal Copyright Law, may be reproduced for non-profit purposes, provided they do not mutilate, it quotes the complete source and electronic address, its use for other purposes, requires prior permission writing by the Director General of the Institute».
This is incompatible with license of Wikimedia Commons Gusama Romero (talk) 20:56, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
- Irrelevant. "© 2013 Sony Corporation of America". To claim copyrights and to have copyrights are not the same thing. IPN is a government-operated school, and as such {{PD-Coa-Mexico}} applies. Tbhotch™ 21:09, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
- That's not the point. I understand that we can use the emblems. But that image was taken from a page that has an incompatible license. --Gusama Romero (talk) 00:25, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
- And again, you cannot claim copyrights if a law say that you can't own them (that's why I posted Sony's logo as an example). You can claim trademark violations, which is different, but "IPN" or related logotypes are not trademarked, and Wikimedia has no problems with trademarks. We can cite 1000s of similar examples where the author (Sony, Samsung, Apple, Coca-Cola, etc.) has an "all right reserved", "you can use our content with non-profit purposes", "you can't reproduce our page without our permission", etc. message on their webpages, products, and retail, but if a law states otherwise you can't claim you own the copyrights, you just own the trademarks. Tbhotch™ 04:34, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
- Let me clarify: I'm not arguing a violation of copyright of the shield. Only said that the logo was taken from a site whose content is protected, so it is not legal to use when no consent is given. If the image was created by another person or extracted from a page with a compatible license would be different. In other words, does not have the permission from the author. Sorry for my English, is not my native language. --Gusama Romero (talk) 06:32, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
- This very same logo was deleted before (I tagged it). This logo isn't free and can't be published under {{PD-Coa-Mexico}} because the IPN is not a state, municipality, nor any other political subdivision, nor a similar distinctive symbol belonging to an international or "recognized" organization, nor NGO. It is just a public educational institute. — Ralgis [mantis Religiosa] — 20:33, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
- From RAE, "Organización.- Asociación de personas regulada por un conjunto de normas en función de determinados fines.", therefore, it qualifies as "an international or 'recognized' organization, or NGO, operating in or outside of Mexico." Also per {{PD-MX-exempt}} "Copyright shall not apply to shields ... or emblems of ... names, acronyms, symbols or emblems of ... any ... organization officially recognized." Now, Romero has a point and I don't know if the file should be deleted or kept because of that Tbhotch™ 02:55, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
- The Mexican law says:
- «No son materia de reserva de derechos: […] Las reproducciones o imitaciones, sin autorización, banderas o emblemas de cualquier país, estado, municipio o división política equivalente, ni las denominaciones, siglas, símbolos o emblemas de organizaciones internacionales gubernamentales, o de cualquier otra organización reconocida oficialmente, así como la designación verbal de los mismos. […] Sin embargo, serán objeto de protección las concordancias, interpretaciones, estudios comparativos, anotaciones, comentarios y demás trabajos similares que entrañen, por parte de su autor, la creación de una obra original».
- Translate:
- “They are not subject to reservation of rights: […] The reproductions or imitations, without authorization, of flags or emblems of any country, state, town or equivalent political subdivision, or the names, abbreviations, symbols or emblems of international governmental organizations, NGOs, or any other officially recognized organization and verbal designation of these. […] However, it should be protected concordances, interpretations, comparative studies, annotations, comments and other similar work involving the creation of an original work by their author”.
- That is, if a person creates for himself an imitation of a shield without authorization, is not incurs a copyright violation. But can not be reproduce or copy an element from original work. --Gusama Romero (talk) 04:45, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
- {{PD-MX-exempt}} and this law can't be aplied because this is not an emblem of a country, state, municipality or political division. I don't think either that IPN is NGO or international or "recognized" organization. It is a university. — Ralgis [mantisreligiosa] @ 18:04, 27 March 2013 (UTC) —
- I already gave you the meaning of organization, you just commented the same with a different ending (institute -> university). You speak Spanish, right? You can search for the meaning of "organization", "university" and "institution" at RAE website and all of them are related in a form:
- "Universidad": Instituto público de enseñanza donde se hacían los estudios mayores de ciencias y letras, y con autoridad para la colación de grados en las facultades correspondientes.
- "Instituto": Organismo que desempeña una función de interés público, especialmente benéfico o docente.
- "Organización": Asociación de personas regulada por un conjunto de normas en función de determinados fines.
- It is simple, depending the context, they can be used as synonyms. The problem is not the concept, the problem is Mexican law, which is written in a vague form and use the wrong words. Tbhotch™ 22:05, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
- I never questioned it was an organization. I question it is an officialy recognized institution. As far as I see it is only public. — Ralgis [mantisreligiosa] —@ 21:33, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
- I already gave you the meaning of organization, you just commented the same with a different ending (institute -> university). You speak Spanish, right? You can search for the meaning of "organization", "university" and "institution" at RAE website and all of them are related in a form:
- {{PD-MX-exempt}} and this law can't be aplied because this is not an emblem of a country, state, municipality or political division. I don't think either that IPN is NGO or international or "recognized" organization. It is a university. — Ralgis [mantisreligiosa] @ 18:04, 27 March 2013 (UTC) —
- The Mexican law says:
- From RAE, "Organización.- Asociación de personas regulada por un conjunto de normas en función de determinados fines.", therefore, it qualifies as "an international or 'recognized' organization, or NGO, operating in or outside of Mexico." Also per {{PD-MX-exempt}} "Copyright shall not apply to shields ... or emblems of ... names, acronyms, symbols or emblems of ... any ... organization officially recognized." Now, Romero has a point and I don't know if the file should be deleted or kept because of that Tbhotch™ 02:55, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
- This very same logo was deleted before (I tagged it). This logo isn't free and can't be published under {{PD-Coa-Mexico}} because the IPN is not a state, municipality, nor any other political subdivision, nor a similar distinctive symbol belonging to an international or "recognized" organization, nor NGO. It is just a public educational institute. — Ralgis [mantis Religiosa] — 20:33, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
- Let me clarify: I'm not arguing a violation of copyright of the shield. Only said that the logo was taken from a site whose content is protected, so it is not legal to use when no consent is given. If the image was created by another person or extracted from a page with a compatible license would be different. In other words, does not have the permission from the author. Sorry for my English, is not my native language. --Gusama Romero (talk) 06:32, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
- And again, you cannot claim copyrights if a law say that you can't own them (that's why I posted Sony's logo as an example). You can claim trademark violations, which is different, but "IPN" or related logotypes are not trademarked, and Wikimedia has no problems with trademarks. We can cite 1000s of similar examples where the author (Sony, Samsung, Apple, Coca-Cola, etc.) has an "all right reserved", "you can use our content with non-profit purposes", "you can't reproduce our page without our permission", etc. message on their webpages, products, and retail, but if a law states otherwise you can't claim you own the copyrights, you just own the trademarks. Tbhotch™ 04:34, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
- That's not the point. I understand that we can use the emblems. But that image was taken from a page that has an incompatible license. --Gusama Romero (talk) 00:25, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
- Now; although I have reviewed, I can't found this image on the mentioned website. Maybe comes from ancient version, or maybe incurs an erroneous documentation, because is not indicating the original source. --Gusama Romero (talk) 10:11, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
- Tbhotch was updated the source, but the problem is the same, in this new website the legal indication is: «Universidad de Guadalajara © Derechos reservados ©1997 - 2012». The copyright is not compatible with free licenses. --Gusama Romero (talk) 01:13, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
- I update the source for verification. The UdG is not the copyholder of the logo regardless their license. Tbhotch™ 00:35, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
- Also, it still being the same case as "© 2013 Sony Corporation of America". You hava a valid point about Commons:Licensing about "Commercial use of the work must be allowed", but that's it. The final decision will be about if we can use the logo considering IPN copyright use policy along with Mexican copyright protection law v. Wikimedia's Licesing policy. Tbhotch™ 00:38, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
- Tbhotch was updated the source, but the problem is the same, in this new website the legal indication is: «Universidad de Guadalajara © Derechos reservados ©1997 - 2012». The copyright is not compatible with free licenses. --Gusama Romero (talk) 01:13, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Unclear copyright status. Unless we have clear, explicit written/textual, tangible evidence indicating that this file is indeed freely licensed under a Commons compatible license, we cannot host it on Commons FASTILY 06:22, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
