Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2011/03/18
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
|
|
Photographic PNG; duplicate of File:Palasterina maucheri.jpg — billinghurst sDrewth 11:14, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
deleted per "speedy", because it's a needless copy of File:Palasterina maucheri.jpg. --Ra'ike T C 11:48, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Low resolution, no EXIF, this looks like a copyright violation to me. –Tryphon☂ 01:34, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Martin H. (talk) 23:06, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Id like to keep it private sorry :-/ Matatat1985 (talk) 05:16, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Common Good (talk) 19:06, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
I doubt own work. RE RILLKE Questions? 11:08, 18 March 2011 (UTC) duplicate of File:Cycle.png
Deleted: Exact or scaled-down duplicate: File:Cycle.png -- Common Good (talk) 19:07, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
This image was uploaded 2 years ago by User:Kombie2 with a sole purpose of vandalizing en:Selbyville, Delaware. No, unfortunately they don't have swine roaming in the streets anymore. Your guess about "own work" by the prankster is as good as mine... (had it been legit and properly described it would be a fine encyclopedic illustration...). ~ NVO (talk) 16:32, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-6615251-kroo-bay-freetown-slum.php -- Common Good (talk) 19:10, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Author of this paint, ru:Кузнецов, Антон Георгиевич died in 1974. Bad author, bad source, bad license. Art-top (talk) 20:41, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Seedy deleted, bad upload as all recent uploads by this uploader. The best will be to nuke all 2011 uploads. Martin H. (talk) 20:50, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Someone using commons for personal photos. No encyclopedic value. Sven Manguard (talk) 21:31, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted --ZooFari 21:45, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
No author, no source, bad quality for own work. Art-top (talk) 23:46, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
- The file File:Image1.jpg (a very simple graph) was overwritten, but this graph was in use. Revert the overwriting in such cases and thats it. The rename of the file however messed things realy up here. I will move the file back to File:Image1.jpg, I will revert the overwriting and delete the overwriting for version cleanup and because of unlicensed upload and suspected copyright violation. The deletion request is fulfilled with that and I can close it. --Martin H. (talk) 00:28, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Overwriting removed, old file restored at File:Image1.jpg. Martin H. (talk) 00:31, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
error to upload the file Rvillenalopez (talk) 18:06, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Speedy: Uploader requested same day as upload; error in creation. – Adrignola talk 01:12, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
C'est ne pas un live. C’est une photo inutilisée personnelle. RE RILLKE Questions? 19:04, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Exact or scaled-down duplicate: File:Vincentchreih.jpg -- Common Good (talk) 20:52, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
Appears to be a copyrighted poster/screenshot Vssun (talk) 06:50, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
Delete per nom; photo of photo, derivative copyviol per Commons:Derivative works; claim of 2011 date for photo of person who died in 1980. Infrogmation (talk) 00:45, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Non-Commercial license is not acceptable in Commons Sreejith K (talk) 08:38, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: 00:26, 19 March 2011 by Infrogmation, closed by Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:26, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
Unused personal image. Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 11:49, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom plus personality rights Ezarateesteban 00:52, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
No FOP for sculptures in the US. 84.61.170.180 12:22, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
- Published in the US without a copyright notice. It's even properly tagged. -Nard (Hablemonos)(Let's talk) 13:15, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
- Does US-law apply? The UN is exterritorial. --Wuselig (talk) 13:31, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Keep The whole subject, including the fact that the UN is not extra-territorial with respect to copyright law was discussed at great length at Commons:Deletion requests/UN Art Collection. Although a few of the images in that DR required some discussion, this one was obviously a keep once we realized that there was no notice on it.
- There should have been a {{Kept}} tag on this image, but since most of the images included in the DR were deleted, it wasn't added when the DR was closed. I've added it after seeing this.
- Since I've taken part in this discussion, I'm not going to close this early, but perhaps one of my colleagues will. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:59, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
- Keep as previously said. Jeriby (talk) 16:10, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
Per the rationale used in this debate, the image adds nothing distinct from material already held on the same subject, not educational, not in use, therefore out of scope. BarkingFish (talk) 12:43, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom Ezarateesteban 00:37, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
lace group 92.16.49.100 14:03, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
- Nonsense -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 14:33, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
- I do not understand why this photo should be destroyed! Can we have explanations? --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 16:57, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Kept: it's a featured image Ezarateesteban 00:39, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
and other uploads by Marooned666 (talk · contribs). Modern art. Identity of author should be confirmed with Commons:OTRS. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:05, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom, also deleted other image Ezarateesteban 00:40, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Image already exists with a better resolution: See File:NY Height Comparison tr.png Jerchel (talk) 15:19, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
- Keep. The file you linked is in a different language (Turkish). Both are in use and can co-exist just fine. Jafeluv (talk) 15:22, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
- Keep, and it breaks the attribution path, Multichill (talk) 15:57, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
- Keep Its a derivate of your own image, with the same resolution!?! lol*? --Perhelion (talk) 17:49, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Orphaned personal picture, not in scope. Remaining of an deleted vanity article in pt.wp. Martin H. (talk) 17:52, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom Ezarateesteban 00:49, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
No foreseeable use. Out of scope. RE RILLKE Questions? 18:27, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom Ezarateesteban 00:58, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Continued from Commons:Deletion requests/File:Молодогвардейцев5.jpg: If it's 1958 (looks like it) then it's not "own work". ~ NVO (talk) 19:41, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: already deleted Ezarateesteban 01:00, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Image of recent sculpture is subject to copyright and therefore a non-free image JaGa (talk) 19:08, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
- Keep per COM:FOP#Australia, sculptures permantly in public places can be freely photographed. Mark with {{FoP-Australia}} if needed. MKFI (talk) 11:47, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
- OK with me; I didn't realize Australia permitted sculpture photos. Feel free to remove this nomination. --JaGa (talk) 15:19, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
I doubt own work. Looks like a computer game. RE RILLKE Questions? 19:21, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
I doubt own work. Looks like a computer game. Out of scope? RE RILLKE Questions? 19:21, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
I doubt own work. Looks like a computer game. Out of scope? RE RILLKE Questions? 19:22, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
I doubt own work. Looks like a computer game. Out of scope? RE RILLKE Questions? 19:22, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
I doubt own work. Looks like a computer game. Out of scope? RE RILLKE Questions? 19:22, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
I doubt own work. Looks like a computer game. Out of scope? RE RILLKE Questions? 19:22, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Advertising. Out of scope. RE RILLKE Questions? 19:28, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom Ezarateesteban 01:07, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
I doubt own work. No description. RE RILLKE Questions? 19:29, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom Ezarateesteban 01:09, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Out of scope? RE RILLKE Questions? 19:30, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: out of scope Ezarateesteban 01:09, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
I doubt own work: What's that: www.odmorder.com ? RE RILLKE Questions? 19:31, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyright violation: [1], [2] -- Common Good (talk) 19:13, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
Hello, I will like to remove my photograph. In fact I'm going to use it for an exhibition, and it is unthinkable to leave it on wikipedia for professional reasons, here it lose its artistic value to the detriment of its illustrative value in the wiki article. Hope you understand and you can remove it. 79.89.21.83 19:59, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
- delete per Commons:Freedom_of_panorama#Armenia anyway. NVO (talk) 19:57, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Ordinarily I would insist on keeping this. You have vandalized the file by removing information from it and are asking to break an irrevocable contract that you made with Commons when you uploaded it. Commons is not a place where you can advertise your photographs and then remove them when they sell. Unfortunately, NVO is correct, we must delete this because it infringes the sculptor's copyright. I suggest that you and the sponsors of the exhibition consider that if you exhbit it, you are infringing on another artist's rights. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:20, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Also File:Edmilsoncosta pcb.jpg. Source web site just links to Creative Commons. It doesn't appear to specify which CC license so no indication that it meets COM:L. Wknight94 talk 00:39, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:21, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Likely copyright violation. ErikvanB (talk) 04:16, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:21, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Personal photo - appears to be out of scope. SchuminWeb (Talk) 05:08, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 08:44, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Personal photo - appears to be out of project scope. SchuminWeb (Talk) 05:09, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 08:41, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Personal photo - appears to be out of project scope. SchuminWeb (Talk) 05:10, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 08:45, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Personal photo - appears to be out of project scope. SchuminWeb (Talk) 05:12, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 08:46, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
No foreseeable educational use for this photo - out of project scope. SchuminWeb (Talk) 05:12, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 08:49, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Out of project scope, and no foreseeable educational purpose. From what I can tell, though, the photo is inconsequential. This is blatant advertising, as the description contains someone's resume. SchuminWeb (Talk) 05:14, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Keep This image itself shows sound art using pyro-effects by media artist. There is no reason to delete as advertisement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clusternote (talk • contribs) 07:33, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted The resume in the file description definitely falls within our limits on promotional material. However, more important, the source site has no obvious relation to the uploader and does not have any indication that it is licensed for our use, so this is also a copyvio. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:34, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
no source 78.55.104.78 07:14, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:01, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Appears to be poor quality personal photo, unused, no real educational value, out of scope Pmlineditor (t · c · l) 08:31, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 08:49, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
dupe File:05 tsao fu tien.png shizhao (talk) 08:36, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:02, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
I doubt own work. It looks like copied from a website. (Because it's small in size; EXIF data incomplete) RE RILLKE Questions? 10:30, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:02, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
I doubt own work. It looks like copied from a website. (Because it's small in size; EXIF data incomplete) RE RILLKE Questions? 10:31, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:02, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
I doubt own work. Duplicate image of File:AIB LOGO At Large Size.png RE RILLKE Questions? 10:32, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:03, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
I doubt own work. Duplicate image of File:AIB LOGO At Large Size.png RE RILLKE Questions? 10:33, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:03, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Several better versions in Category:Benzene. Leyo 10:34, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Per nom. --Yikrazuul (talk) 23:19, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Sadly not all commons admins are versed in science...my {{duplicate}}-of-File:Benzene-circle-2D-skeletal.png was declined as not-a-dup on the assumption that the specific line-widths and circle-size were important. DMacks (talk) 07:18, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Note to DMacks -- they aren't scientifcally important, but may be esthetically important in a particular use. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:05, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
I doubt own work. Small JPEG. RE RILLKE Questions? 10:37, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Yes it is own work. Please don't delete! User:Mathieu Perino 19:04, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
- I can't assess how the admin's decicion will be. In general it would be useful if you add information, where you took this photo and whether it is scaled-down, or e-mail an OTRS permission. --RE RILLKE Questions? 21:09, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted
Comments to Mathieu Perino:
- You have uploaded this again recently after it was deleted a first time -- that is a violation of our policy, which requires an undeletion request after a file has been deleted.
- The file is very small, probably not useful whether or not you took it.
- It is the only upload you have made on Commons, so we cannot assess how truthful you are.
- It would be good to have a freely licensed image of Louise Pasteau -- I note, for example, that IMDB does not have an image of her.
- I suggest that if you want this file on Commons, you do an undeletion request with the understanding that you will upload a much larger version of it if the request is successful.
Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:09, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
derivative work Amada44 talk to me 10:50, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:17, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
I doubt own work. RE RILLKE Questions? 10:57, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:18, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
I doubt own work. RE RILLKE Questions? 10:58, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:18, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
I doubt own work. Is it in project scope? RE RILLKE Questions? 11:06, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope, adwertisement George Chernilevsky talk 08:51, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
I doubt own work. RE RILLKE Questions? 11:07, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:19, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
I doubt own work. RE RILLKE Questions? 11:11, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:19, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Personal Artwork, not used, not in scope. Avron (talk) 13:11, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 08:54, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Out of scope Jarekt (talk) 13:39, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 10:00, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Disputed structure (see file description page), replaced by File:Adipic acid spheres.png. Leyo 17:01, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
- Delete as non-optimal geometry...better to avoid using images that are known to be suboptimal when there are better ones. But I don't see evidence that C-C-O-H is 180° (vs 0°) and with all-anti backbone is the real conformation (vs cyclic with intramolecular H-bonding, or something like that) is really "correct" (rather than just "best that matches an arbitrary skeletal diagram")? Urge to kill uncited 3D structures rising. 136.160.133.128 18:44, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Ed (Edgar181) 14:57, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
A valid permission (e.g. OTRS) of "Uwe Niggemeyer" is missing. I am not saying that the original uploader is not telling the truth but I cannot image why "Uwe Niggemeyer" should give his photographs to Commons when he claims copyright on these photographs on his homepage. 80.187.106.166 17:34, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
- Err ... and why do you want to delete my user page? -- H005 15:26, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Kept: Wrong nomination of an anonyme George Chernilevsky talk 08:40, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Hello, I will like to remove my photograph. In fact I'm going to use it for an exhibition, and it is unthinkable to leave it on wikipedia for professional reasons, here it lose its artistic value to the detriment of its illustrative value in the wiki article. Hope you understand and you can remove it. 79.89.21.83 19:59, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
- delete per Commons:Freedom_of_panorama#Armenia anyway. NVO (talk) 19:57, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Ordinarily I would insist on keeping this. You have vandalized the file by removing information from it and are asking to break an irrevocable contract that you made with Commons when you uploaded it. Commons is not a place where you can advertise your photographs and then remove them when they sell. Unfortunately, NVO is correct, we must delete this because it infringes the sculptor's copyright. I suggest that you and the sponsors of the exhibition consider that if you exhbit it, you are infringing on another artist's rights. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:20, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Unused logo. Out of scope? RE RILLKE Questions? 18:52, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope, adwertisement George Chernilevsky talk 08:55, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Seems to be advertising. Out of Scope? RE RILLKE Questions? 18:55, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope, adwertisement George Chernilevsky talk 08:56, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
I doubt own work. Out of scope? RE RILLKE Questions? 18:57, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 08:58, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Unused small size JPEG. Out of scope? RE RILLKE Questions? 19:00, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 08:58, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Unused personal photo. RE RILLKE Questions? 19:01, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 08:59, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Unused personal photo. RE RILLKE Questions? 19:05, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 09:00, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Unused logo. Out of scope? RE RILLKE Questions? 19:19, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 09:01, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Out of scope? RE RILLKE Questions? 19:33, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 09:01, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Unused logo. Out of scope? RE RILLKE Questions? 19:38, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 09:02, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Only content is text. Out of scope? RE RILLKE Questions? 19:41, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 09:02, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Cheeky advertising. Out of scope. RE RILLKE Questions? 19:44, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 09:03, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Unused logo. Out of scope? RE RILLKE Questions? 19:45, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 09:03, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Hello, I will like to remove my photograph. In fact I'm going to use it for an exhibition, and it is unthinkable to leave it on wikipedia for professional reasons, here it lose its artistic value to the detriment of its illustrative value in the wiki article. Hope you understand and you can remove it. 79.89.21.83 19:59, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
- delete per Commons:Freedom_of_panorama#Armenia anyway. NVO (talk) 19:57, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Ordinarily I would insist on keeping this. You have vandalized the file by removing information from it and are asking to break an irrevocable contract that you made with Commons when you uploaded it. Commons is not a place where you can advertise your photographs and then remove them when they sell. Unfortunately, NVO is correct, we must delete this because it infringes the sculptor's copyright. I suggest that you and the sponsors of the exhibition consider that if you exhbit it, you are infringing on another artist's rights. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:20, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
загружена другая версия Yurii-mr (talk) 20:09, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
- Delete No permission on this image and on its duplicate: File:Yanina Yacenko.jpg. --Art-top (talk) 23:56, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
- Delete The author is stated as Olga Otkidach (in Ukrainian Cyrillic) and apparently that is not the uploader. De728631 (talk) 19:25, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
- I have also nominated the duplicate for deletion with a link to this discussion. De728631 (talk) 19:34, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted --Dferg (talk) 13:13, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
personal photo, not used, not in socpe Avron (talk) 20:37, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 09:55, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
I doubt own work. Project scope? RE RILLKE Questions? 21:15, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 09:54, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
I doubt own work. Project scope? RE RILLKE Questions? 21:16, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 09:54, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Blurry selfpainted image. Out of scope? RE RILLKE Questions? 21:31, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 09:52, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Blurry selfpainted image. Out of scope? RE RILLKE Questions? 21:32, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 09:15, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
out of scope; no description; no usage 84.167.98.218 22:29, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 09:52, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
out of scope; no description; no usage 84.167.98.218 22:30, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 09:51, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
out of scope; no usage 84.167.98.218 22:30, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 09:50, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Probably out of scope. I doubt own work. RE RILLKE Questions? 23:05, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted --Dferg (talk) 13:10, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
File is completely unuseful for any educational purpose. Image is a result of inversion of coat of arms of Upper Silesian Voivodeship into a try to make the coat of arms of Lower Silesian Voivodeship. But has completely incorrect heraldic stylization of Lower Silesian Eagle. File was never used and will not. Wikipedia is not a host place for user's experiments. Out of Scope. JDavid (talk) 23:16, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
- Delete As in the request. "Happy art"/OR by LUCPOL, without any educational values. Masur (talk) 19:13, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: out of scope, without EV George Chernilevsky talk 09:50, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Bad quality, plenty of alternatives available, unused. Yikrazuul (talk) 23:17, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Sadly not all commons admins are versed in science...my {{duplicate}}-of-File:Benzene-circle-2D-skeletal.png was declined as not-a-dup on the assumption that the specific line-widths and circle-size were important. DMacks (talk) 07:16, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: unused poor duplicate George Chernilevsky talk 09:48, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Unknown building, unknown location, low resolution for own work, no source. Art-top (talk) 23:19, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 09:14, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Unused file without description, low quality for own work, no source. Art-top (talk) 23:20, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 09:14, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Unused file with unknown person. Out of project scope. Art-top (talk) 23:29, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 09:13, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Unused file, bad quality for own work (likely copyvio), strange description. Art-top (talk) 23:33, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 09:12, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
And also: File:Parrot 100 3337.JPG
- Unused, bad quality images. There are many more quality photos. Art-top (talk) 23:49, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Too poor quality, not educational, out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 09:11, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
The word bubble was added to this photo. This is someone's child. This photo attributes a grammar error to her which no one has any idea whether she ever made. Doing that in a photograph that her classmates might find on the internet seems like a particularly bad idea. It unfairly demeans the subject. I realize that this was done with good intentions to further an important educational goal, but it is easily perceived another way.
This may also be a violation of her personality rights (Florida has them), but I don't know enough about that area of law to have an informed opinion.-Chaser (talk) 04:57, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
- leaning to delete, agree with nominator. NVO (talk) 17:01, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Of course! I didn't consider that... I've find another way to represent the same idea. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jennfleur (talk • contribs) 18:56, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: While it is probably, strictly speaking, all right as derivative works are permitted, the nom is absolutely right -- unless we are completely certain that the child's parents are OK with this, we should not keep it. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:25, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
- I agree that there were no licensing issues with this photo. Pardon me if I was unclear.--Chaser (talk) 17:58, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Appears to be derivative work of copyrighted cutout (the thing that the person is putting their head through). SchuminWeb (Talk) 05:11, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:24, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
because it is wrong. I had a mistake Andrómeda7 (talk) 11:22, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
KeepWhat is wrong -- it is a nice photograph? "Wrong" is not a reason to delete. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:20, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Comment I would guess they mean the name is wrong, judging from the file description: "Imatge del nucli de població d'estiueig d'es Grau, Maó". Definitely Keep, possibly rename. Jujutacular talk 18:47, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Unused personal image. Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 11:33, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:25, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Out of project scope, useless picture George Chernilevsky talk 11:47, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:25, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
No FOP in Belgium. 84.61.170.180 12:19, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:29, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
No FOP in Belgium. 84.61.170.180 12:20, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:29, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Date of original work/original author has to be given.Publish after URAA date (1941 in case of india)-- Dpkpm007 (talk) 12:51, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:29, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
I think it is not approriate to mix the Flag of Palastine with the map of the British mandate of Palestine because the flag was different back then. This combination seems just wrong to me. Please let me know if you agree or why you think that a combination of two things that didn't exist historically at the same time is correct - especially because this is an encyclopaedia. In this combination it seems also to me like a political statement as if an independent Palestine state existed right before 1948 which is not true. Schlaier (talk) 14:34, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Kept: Commons policy is to avoid political questions of the sort posed by the Nom. We are a repository and do not make such decisions, particularly where the image is widely used, as this one is. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:31, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
no proof of ownership, appears to be a professional promo photo Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 15:08, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
- Keep Professional photography is inappropriate? Proof of ownership ... Look at exif --W.Rebel (talk) 19:59, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
- Delete appears like here, copyvio? metadata changed? Ezarateesteban 00:45, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Generally when we have a commercially used image, apparently taken by a pro, that is the only upload from a new contributor, we assume the worst. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:36, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Commons:Derivative works from painting. Who is painter? What are dates of hes/her/ life? EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:35, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
- As I understand, the lady is alive and well [3]. NVO (talk) 17:22, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:37, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Reopened and undeleted, per the following post-deletion comment. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:28, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Si, la creadora de la pintura está viva afortunadamente, es mi amiga, el cuadro que has borrado es mio, me lo pintó expresamente ella y me lo dedicó, ya que lo pintado es de mi propiedad (la bodega), y actualmente está en mi salón, de donde lo fotografié, como ya os indiqué en la página de subida de la foto. Ya que te has molestado en encontrar el link donde viene su dirección y su teléfono, llamalá, verás que contenta está de que hayas borrado su cuadro, ya que estaba toda orgullosa de su publicación por mi parte. Yo no sé a que se debe la ansiedad de borrar fotos que son del usuario y demás aportes porque sí, desde luego incitais a no cooperar mas con Wikipedia, de momento seis páginas que tenia preparadas las subiré a otro lado donde sepan reconocer el trabajo y no borren las cosas sin discutir, solo por criterio de una persona y porque tiene algo de autoridad. Bueno fin de la discusión y de mis aportes a Wikipedia, y si quereis quitar todo lo que he subido con ilusión, pués lo quitais, ya me dá igual.SUERTE con vuestro proyecto. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Litox (talk • contribs) 09:49, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Comment First, you, Litox, were notified of this deletion request and had a full week in which to respond. Second, the file says that this is "Own Work", which is not correct -- it is the work of Concepción Diez Valcabado. So, we followed our normal procedures, which are designed to protect the creator's rights -- as a friend, I would hope that you would understand and appreciate that, rather than being angry.
This can all be fixed if Concepción Diez Valcabado follows the procedure at Commons:OTRS and sends permission to Commons to keep the file. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:28, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: No COM:OTRS permission for living artist. Wknight94 talk 02:51, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
This photo is work of Ohio Department of Corrections, which is not a part of Federal Government. Karppinen (talk) 17:09, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:40, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
The mouse cursor shows it: This is not a photo taken life at the game but a photo of a monitor. Same applies to all other uploads by the uploader. Martin H. (talk) 18:27, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: All done, per nom. Also, some were of usuable quality Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:59, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Is User:Modzzak the author of the photo on this poster? ~ Kobac (talk) 18:33, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:59, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Suspected string of copyvios (File:Молодогвардейцев5.jpg, File:Трамвай5.jpg, File:Ленина5.jpg). On March 13, Ilya Buyanovsky (a real person, native and resident of Moscow, and a prolific travel-blogger) uploaded a travelog on livejournal.com [4]. Buyanovsky explicitly stated no commercial use without my written permission [5]. Three days later, photos from this blog are uploaded to commons by User:Qweasdqwe, who identifies himself as a native of Salavat, Russia. Same low resolution, same absence of exif data, although some re-sampled to a different pixel count. There were also more obvious copyvios that I tagged to speedy (File:Галереясалават.jpg). NVO (talk) 18:41, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Another file from livejournal: File:Губкина.jpg is one of many many aerial shots published by lis-slv at his blog on 2008-10-17. Accounts here and there appear unrelated. Whom would you believe? NVO (talk) 19:28, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:04, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Continued from Commons:Deletion requests/File:Молодогвардейцев5.jpg:
Upsampled copy of [6]. Uploader identifies himself in Russian wikipedia as Evgeniy, Panoramio file was uploaded by Pyotr in 2009 ("(c) All rights reserved"). Uploader has a long record of copyright questions in Russian wikipedia. ~ NVO (talk) 18:59, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:05, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
I doubt own work. RE RILLKE Questions? 18:45, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:00, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
I doubt permission: Legal from the website:"We believe that all files on CM, including their contents, are freely distributable for NON-commercial use." RE RILLKE Questions? 18:50, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:05, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
copyright violation http://gastonnicolassoffritti-theourangel.forumfree.it/?t=41450808 TeenAngels1234 (talk) 19:13, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: 08:04, 25 March 2011 by Fastily, closed by Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:06, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
I doubt own work. RE RILLKE Questions? 19:15, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:06, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
No meanigful description. Out of scope? RE RILLKE Questions? 19:16, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:06, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Hello, I will like to remove my photograph. In fact I'm going to use it for an exhibition, and it is unthinkable to leave it on wikipedia for professional reasons, here it lose its artistic value to the detriment of its illustrative value in the wiki article. Hope you understand and you can remove it. 79.89.21.83 19:26, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Je suis à l'origine de cette demande. Je suis favorable à la suppression de cette image.
- Comment first you should log in prior to nominating for deletion your image to prove your identity as uploader. Second, free licenses are not revocable. --ELEKHHT 05:37, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for your assistance. My account name was changed to more anonymity because I want to suppress my true identity. Let me know how I can prove I upload the file. I'd like to also delete this file: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:00294003N33A.jpg could you help me? Thx. --Laurentvaulont (talk) 23:03, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
- Keep It's been here for a long time, and it's in use.--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:15, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Kept: You made the same request at File:00294003N33A.jpg, which we had to delete because it infringed the sculptor's copyright. There and here, you vandalized the file by removing description. Commons is not a place where you advertise your photographs and then remove them when they have commercial value. Your contract with Commons may not be retracted. This file is in use and therefore will be kept. If you make any more edits to it, you will be blocked. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:22, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
- Ok I understand your point of view. Can you just delete my identityt to he file that I did not appear in google searches? Thx.
contrary to author entry, not own work and original photographer not available, as per recent uploader statements on [[7]]; thereby no way to get a permission; image is unused anyway. -- Túrelio (talk) 15:22, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted - Jcb (talk) 13:18, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
Unused JPEG - Logo. Out of scope? RE RILLKE Questions? 19:33, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
- Comment Beko is in scope.
- Superseded by File:Beko logo.svg -- Common Good (talk) 20:57, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:23, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Unused small JPEG-Logo. I doubt own work. RE RILLKE Questions? 19:36, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:27, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
These leaves are not Curatella leaves. This file would be useful if it were correctly labele. Wintersflame (talk) 19:49, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
- keep. I categorized it into Category:Unidentified Dilleniaceae and Category:Leaves of unidentified plants, some day someone will sort it out. No big deal. NVO (talk) 20:03, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Kept: moved to File:Dilleniaceae leaves.jpg Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:31, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
I realised the flickr user was unreliable after uploading the photo. Beao 19:57, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:35, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
logo: http://www.nslvtec.ru/ Art-top (talk) 19:58, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:35, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Logo: http://www.salstek.ru/ Art-top (talk) 20:00, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:36, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Official logo of "Salavatneftemash" ("Салаватнефтемаш"). Published without permission. Art-top (talk) 20:02, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:36, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Website says image is copyrighted, so I doubt the license Avron (talk) 20:04, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:36, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Fake image of Dieter Dierks. This image is photoshopped. The hair was removed and the face distorted. Act of Vandalism. Dieter Dierks does not look like this at all! Conciacalis (talk) 20:09, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:36, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Changed "no source" to a DR. The self probably means own work. Do we have a reason not to asume that? MGA73 (talk) 20:12, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Kept Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:46, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks. This was my own work. --24.140.133.168 16:08, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
Changed "no source" to a DR. The self probably means own work. Do we have a reason not to asume that? MGA73 (talk) 20:12, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:47, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Part of odnoklassniki logo in right bottom of image. Images, uploaded in this service marked with this symbol. It borrowed image without current source. Art-top (talk) 20:18, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:51, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Changed a "no source" to a DR. It says own work but the reason why it was tagged is perhaps that the name of the author and the name of the uploader is not the same. MGA73 (talk) 20:23, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
- Exactly. The small resoltuion of the file and the filenames of other uploads suggest grabbing from the internet. Also the "source" was not "own work", it was "ALL" but has been changed without any explanation why. There is nothing that indicates own work here. --Martin H. (talk) 20:39, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:38, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Copyvio from http://www.naftan.by/ru/galery.aspx Art-top (talk) 20:23, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:52, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Image has no source so the statement "These photographs may be freely reproduced but credit should be given to 'Raytheon' to indicate that it means a release for commercial or derivative work MilborneOne (talk) 20:35, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Actually the source is given -- "Raytheon" is the manufacturer of the aircraft. No evidence of permission. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:52, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
if according to w:Unsinkable Sam the cat died in 1955 it is not sure that the image according to the license is older than 70 years. Wuselig (talk) 21:13, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
- The license tag says 50, not 70 :) --Brandmeister (talk) 00:49, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
- Take a click thru the different language versions. In the German vesion it says 70 years. Also in some other versions. Well, I dont want that the image is "Lost in translation". Perhaps the template should be checked first.--Wuselig (talk) 08:45, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
- The German version should be corrected: the Berne Convention link in the tag says "fifty years". Brandmeister (talk) 16:12, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
- After reading this I would say the licence shouldn't have been used at all for an image taken in the UK and that the image cannot be used in any wikpedia versions where a longer term of protection applies.--Wuselig (talk) 18:38, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
- There's no indication that the image was made in the UK. The fact that the image can't be used in wikpedias where a longer term of protection applies is not a valid reason for deletion. Brandmeister (talk) 22:50, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
- If it was made anywhere else but the UK, it isn't Sam. But that I concede is no reason for deletion. ;-) Let's wait for a third opinion. As a confessing inclusionist I won't break my heart if the image stays and nobody objects to the license. --Wuselig (talk) 00:02, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
- I'd be happy too :) Brandmeister (talk) 11:20, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
- If it was made anywhere else but the UK, it isn't Sam. But that I concede is no reason for deletion. ;-) Let's wait for a third opinion. As a confessing inclusionist I won't break my heart if the image stays and nobody objects to the license. --Wuselig (talk) 00:02, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
- There's no indication that the image was made in the UK. The fact that the image can't be used in wikpedias where a longer term of protection applies is not a valid reason for deletion. Brandmeister (talk) 22:50, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
- After reading this I would say the licence shouldn't have been used at all for an image taken in the UK and that the image cannot be used in any wikpedia versions where a longer term of protection applies.--Wuselig (talk) 18:38, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
- The German version should be corrected: the Berne Convention link in the tag says "fifty years". Brandmeister (talk) 16:12, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
- Take a click thru the different language versions. In the German vesion it says 70 years. Also in some other versions. Well, I dont want that the image is "Lost in translation". Perhaps the template should be checked first.--Wuselig (talk) 08:45, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Well, folks, I don't understand the question here. Unless this is somehow a German photo that survived the war -- and remember that the cat was not notable while he was German -- only after he became a Brit then it must be a UK photo.
While the rule is complicated, it is basically 70 years, which is at least 2014 and probably more like 2020. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:05, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Author = Zeitgenössischer Künstler RE RILLKE Questions? 23:18, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:08, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
What about this image here? Permission required. RE RILLKE Questions? 23:29, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:08, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
I doubt own work. If it is not own work, please use OTRS. Thank you. RE RILLKE Questions? 23:31, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:10, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
A valid permission (e.g. OTRS) of "Uwe Niggemeyer" is missing. I am not saying that the original uploader is not telling the truth but I cannot image why "Uwe Niggemeyer" should give his photographs to Commons when he claims copyright on these photographs on his homepage. 80.187.106.166 17:34, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
On hold I had already asked the uploader de:Benutzer_Diskussion:JoBa2282#Datei:Torpedopfanne.jpg some hours ago. A deletion request is a bit hard. A permission missing tag would have been the better way. ;-) Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 18:28, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted High Contrast (talk) 14:02, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
I doubt own work. RE RILLKE Questions? 10:50, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Hallo!
I sent a certification that I have the rights for this logo. --Obj (talk) 11:07, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Kept: PD-textlogo Jcb (talk) 14:38, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
file was replaced for another file Julie2011 (talk) 10:54, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
- The file is an exact duplicate of File:ART 7518.jpg. May I suggest keeping File:Schloss Reichenschwand.jpg, for it's descriptive name, and deleting File:ART 7518.jpg (just move description and OTRS notice to File:Schloss Reichenschwand.jpg). Delete File:ART 7518klein.jpg, there's no need to keep a scaled-down copy of the same. NVO (talk) 16:49, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
- On a second thought, Julie, the "author" fields in your uploads raise quite a few question. Who pressed the shutter of the D700 - Julie Wisbar (as in template) or Stefan Scheller (as in exif in File:Schloss Reichenschwand.jpg and File:SchlossReichenschwand.jpg)? Who submitted OTRS ticket #2011031510012647 ? NVO (talk) 16:56, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: based on the odd OTRS ticket, clearly not send by the real copyright holder Jcb (talk) 14:39, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
Nominated for speedy deletion by Rama with reason: "Not PD-textlogo for a so complicated work" Multichill (talk) 16:04, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
- For the record: I did not nominate this image, I resent Multichill attributing this to me. I demand a rectification, a public clarification and an appology. -- Rama (talk) 08:03, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
- Well, you deleted it 3 times for this reason, so... Yann (talk) 16:46, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
- Twice. Not three times. Three times is the number of times you have restored this image that you had uploaded yourself. And for what reason, exactly? Rama (talk) 19:41, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
- Well, you deleted it 3 times for this reason, so... Yann (talk) 16:46, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
- It was not Rama that made the original speedy nomination. He just deleted the file twice and reverted a removal of a speedy nomination. Multichill made a mistake when he fixed a problem and did that the involved admins should have done instead of fighting. I have there fore crossed over Ramas name above. I hope that covers it. --MGA73 (talk) 11:21, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
- Keep - PD-ineligible is OK for this, file doesn't contain anything copyrightable - Jcb (talk) 16:16, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
- * Delete Not PD-textlogo for a so complicated work. Ludo (talk) 16:20, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
- Keep any differences with PD-versions of the rod of Asclepius would be too simple for copyright. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:23, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Neutral - I have to say that this does look at first as if it's way over the threshold, but if the rod is PD, the nuclear symbol certainly is, I'm not sure there can really be much call that putting one on top of the other is very creative. -mattbuck (Talk) 17:08, 18 March 2011 (UTC)- no opinion. It looks like a composition of PD elements. But after the sysops here ruled that placement of rivets on a scale model is "copyrighted" (where? by whom?) because someone (who?) had choices and had decisions to make, I'm in doubt. By this logic, any placement of any common elements (rivets, letters, molecules...) becomes non-trivial and unacceptable here. NVO (talk) 17:30, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
- It's not simply a placement, it's not done randomly. It's a creation of the mind, by choice, as elements (forms and colors) are picked, it is then original and protected by copyright laws or its equivalent. In that case the authorization from the person having the right (eg: the site owner) is necessary here. Esby (talk) 20:11, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
- Just sent a mail to the contact person of the website asking her to contact OTRS to give permission. Esby (talk) 20:27, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
- It's not simply a placement, it's not done randomly. It's a creation of the mind, by choice, as elements (forms and colors) are picked, it is then original and protected by copyright laws or its equivalent. In that case the authorization from the person having the right (eg: the site owner) is necessary here. Esby (talk) 20:11, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
- Keep This is a combination of three PD elements:
-
The "atomic symbol" is PD. -
The "snake-needel symbol" is PD - see Rod of Asclepius. -
The file we are discussing here.
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
And the text is PD. --MGA73 (talk) 18:32, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
- An animation moovie is a combination of geometric elements. Can I uplaod Toy Story on Commons ? Ludo (talk) 20:19, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
- Are you really trying to tell me that you think that creating Toy Story is not harder than creating the file we are discussing here? Or are you just trying to make a joke? --MGA73 (talk) 14:43, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
- I'm just saying that this poster is a real work, using simple geometric shapes, as an animation movie. Ludo (talk) 16:38, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
- Are you really trying to tell me that you think that creating Toy Story is not harder than creating the file we are discussing here? Or are you just trying to make a joke? --MGA73 (talk) 14:43, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
- Delete The individual elements are public domain, but in combination, it's quite possible they rise above the threshold of originality. --Carnildo (talk) 23:29, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
- Delete The fact that a image of the Rod is PD doesn't mean all images automatically are. Copyright is related to the rendition not the concept. By the above argument we could make almost anything PD by virtue of depicting a sufficiently old concept. /Lokal_Profil 01:59, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
- No, I'm not saying that everything is PD. I agree that not all images of the Rod are PD. What we are discussing here is if this Rod here is eligible for copyright making all similar Rods a copyvio. I could not find an excact match in our files but personally I find that it does not qualify for copyright. --MGA73 (talk) 14:43, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
- Delete: The shapes making up the radiation warning symbol may be simple enough not to attract copyright, but the rod of Asclepius is certainly not. As I have pointed out before in discussions about depictions of Hindu deities, just because the idea behind an artwork is old does not render a modern rendition of the idea a public domain one. Copyright protects the expression of ideas, not the ideas themselves. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 07:48, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
- I did not say that all files are PD if they show an old idea. I think that you can gain copyright if you get a brilliant idea or if you make a "work" that is beyond simple shapes and lines etc. In this case I'm saying that the creators did get “the brilliant idea” and I do not think that this particular "drawing" of the Rod is creative enough to be eligible for copyright. --MGA73 (talk) 14:43, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
- Comment: I'm going to have to disagree. The snake coiled around a rod is, in my view, clearly too complex for {{PD-textlogo}}. I fail to see how it can be regarded as composed of simple geometric shapes. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 14:57, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
- Using this snake somewhere else could not be considered a copyright infringement. Nor would it be an infringement to show the rod in combination with the symbol for ionizing radiation. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 15:19, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
- Comment: Again, I disagree. This depiction of the rod of Asclepius is not composed of simple geometric shapes, and thus using it anywhere would be a copyright infringement unless it can be shown that this particular depiction is no longer copyrighted or that the copyright holder has licensed it under a free licence. Has anyone tried contacting the creators of the poster to ask for permission? — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 16:35, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
- You "thus" is a non-sequitur. Copyright law is not identical to the wording of license tags on Commons. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 17:11, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
- Be that as it may, I cannot see how the drawing of the rod of Asclepius on the poster is simple enough not to be copyrightable. In any case, one does not need to demonstrate a high degree of creativity to create a copyrighted work. Let's say I have "File:Rod of Asclepius2.svg" in front of me. All that I have to do to create a copyrighted work is to draw a version of that image which is not identical in some significant aspect. I can make the snake twirl around the rod in a clockwise manner, or have the head of the snake point to the left, or make the rod slant slightly to the right. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 17:28, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
- There is no significant aspect in which this rod has a any degree of creative difference with some other stilized version of this ancient symbol. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:05, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
- Be that as it may, I cannot see how the drawing of the rod of Asclepius on the poster is simple enough not to be copyrightable. In any case, one does not need to demonstrate a high degree of creativity to create a copyrighted work. Let's say I have "File:Rod of Asclepius2.svg" in front of me. All that I have to do to create a copyrighted work is to draw a version of that image which is not identical in some significant aspect. I can make the snake twirl around the rod in a clockwise manner, or have the head of the snake point to the left, or make the rod slant slightly to the right. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 17:28, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
- You "thus" is a non-sequitur. Copyright law is not identical to the wording of license tags on Commons. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 17:11, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
- Using this snake somewhere else could not be considered a copyright infringement. Nor would it be an infringement to show the rod in combination with the symbol for ionizing radiation. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 15:19, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
- I did not say that all files are PD if they show an old idea. I think that you can gain copyright if you get a brilliant idea or if you make a "work" that is beyond simple shapes and lines etc. In this case I'm saying that the creators did get “the brilliant idea” and I do not think that this particular "drawing" of the Rod is creative enough to be eligible for copyright. --MGA73 (talk) 14:43, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
- Keep The medical symbol cannot be copyrighted. It is used since ages. The nuclear symbol is too simple. The rest is just a few words. Yann (talk) 16:49, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
- Comment: Yes, I'm afraid depictions of rods of Asclepius can be copyrighted unless the depiction in question is identical to an old drawing that is in the public domain. Again, do not confuse the fact that the idea of a snake twined around a rod has been around for a long time with the fact that I can produce a brand-new artwork embodying this idea, and that that artwork will be subject to copyright. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 17:28, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
- For the U.S. at least, all the elements are centered, which is not a creative arrangement. Most of the elements are not PD, but you could argue for the specific drawing of the snake (obviously the general symbol is not copyrightable, but every separate depiction could have its own copyright). It would not surprise me in the least if that particular Asclepius drawing was taken from somewhere on the internet, but it is still possibly copyrighted. Secondly, this is not a U.S. work, so I'm not sure we should be applying U.S. standards -- France has different standards, and it may be an issue there. Even if it is only the 25-year "publication right". Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:02, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
- Keep - PD-ineligible. I cannot imagine any court upholding copyright on this poster or any of its elements. - Jmabel ! talk 17:50, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
- Keep - PD-ineligible. Neather do I. -- Perky (talk) 08:47, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
- Comment: I await evidence that this particular depiction of the rod of Asclepius is in the public domain, as opposed to some generic idea of the symbol. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 14:22, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
- This particular depiction has nothing more than any other. It is the same very basic symbol. I don't understand what you are looking for. Yann (talk) 05:32, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
- This depiction of the rod of Asclepius is too complex for {{PD-textlogo}}. It is not just a few simple lines or shapes, but a sinuous snake curled around a rod.
- Therefore, in my view there must be evidence that this exact depiction is in the public domain. If there is no such evidence, then the drawing is creative enough to be subject to copyright. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 06:57, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
- The rod of Asclepius is "sinuous snake curled around a rod," by definition. What you say that doesn't make sense. Yann (talk) 10:14, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
- A depiction of a sinuous snake curled around a rod is, in my view, too complex for {{PD-textlogo}}. It is more complex than drawing a lines or a few geometric shapes (like the radiation logo), and so requires enough creativity to generate copyright. As I have said above, the idea of a symbol comprising of a snake coiled around a rod is certainly not copyrightable, but each and every depiction of such a symbol is potentially copyrightable. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 10:55, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
- That's a personal opinion. Do you have any legal backing about that? You should have a look at Threshold of originality. Yann (talk) 14:31, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
- So is yours. We should Delete on grounds of COM:PRP. -mattbuck (Talk) 14:59, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
- So is yours. We should
- That's a personal opinion. Do you have any legal backing about that? You should have a look at Threshold of originality. Yann (talk) 14:31, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
- A depiction of a sinuous snake curled around a rod is, in my view, too complex for {{PD-textlogo}}. It is more complex than drawing a lines or a few geometric shapes (like the radiation logo), and so requires enough creativity to generate copyright. As I have said above, the idea of a symbol comprising of a snake coiled around a rod is certainly not copyrightable, but each and every depiction of such a symbol is potentially copyrightable. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 10:55, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
- This particular depiction has nothing more than any other. It is the same very basic symbol. I don't understand what you are looking for. Yann (talk) 05:32, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
- I have to remain you that in the matter of copyright law, the proof is on the accusation. Yet, the design of this poster is not more creative than the files listed here, and than many of the files in Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:PD-ineligible or Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:PD-textlogo. Examples: File:Quick drive takeway montigny.jpg, File:Mars Believe Bar.jpg, File:CD Svatoborice Dubnany.jpg, File:CD Praha Hodonin.jpg, File:Newprofile.jpg, File:Logo iirhb.gif, File:Logo morfeo project.png, File:Cricket bat.jpg, File:Sailinpg.png, etc., etc. Yann (talk) 12:46, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
- I believe the onus is on the uploader to show that the file uploaded is properly licensed. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 15:39, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
- Looking at your examples, most are plain text, which is not copyrightable. Only the cricket bat is of similar complexity to the image in question, and I have nominated that bat for deletion on grounds of not being ineligible. -mattbuck (Talk) 13:42, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
Kept: PD-ineligible Jcb (talk) 10:20, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
No educational use. Luispihormiguero Any problem? 16:35, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
- Delete What is that? Out of scope! --Yikrazuul (talk) 18:56, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
- Es la imagen que utilizo en mi página de usuario. Un poquito de por favor.--Nemo (talk) 21:44, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Wknight94 talk 17:23, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
Out of COM:SCOPE. Dodo (talk) 11:49, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
- Keep - in use on User:Nemo. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:58, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Kept. In use on a User page, which is permitted within limits. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:28, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Files of User:Agllorente
edit- File:Figura 6.jpg
- File:Agllorente5.jpg
- File:Agllorente4.jpg
- File:Agllorente3.jpg
- File:Agllorente2.jpg
- File:Agllorente1.jpg
I doubt permission from [8]. --RE RILLKE Questions? 18:19, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Source site has explicit (C) Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:43, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
useless Reinhardhauke (talk) 17:41, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
Kept. Jcb (talk) 15:46, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
Personal artwork, not used, not in scope Avron (talk) 20:07, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Out of project scope -- George Chernilevsky talk 09:06, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
vandalism Reinhardhauke (talk) 17:56, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
Kept. Jcb (talk) 15:53, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
personal photo, not used, not in scope Avron (talk) 20:09, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Out of project scope -- George Chernilevsky talk 09:57, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
другая версия есть Yurii-mr (talk) 20:14, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
другая версия есть Yurii-mr (talk) 20:16, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: 21:08, 20 March 2011 by Túrelio, closed by Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:48, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Published by Евгений 07.11.2010: http://2.www.gorodsalavat.ru/photos.php?id=654 Art-top (talk) 21:02, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
- Qweasdqwe signs as Евгений in Russian wikipedia, and I'd give him the benefit of doubt on this one. He has a peculiar way of stitching together panoramics (File:Гафури.jpg, File:Горького.jpg, File:Квартал2.jpg), they should be reviewed as a package. NVO (talk) 21:14, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Панорамная фотография мною сделана из моих же отдельных фотографий см. ссылки отдельных фотографий http://fotki.yandex.ru/users/jane6666/view/353973/?page=0
- Template:Оставить доказательство достаточно убедительное для оставления фотографии в Википедии.
Deleted: (by other DR) Jcb (talk) 07:09, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
and other uploads by Litox (talk · contribs). Unlikely to by own work: inconsistent/small resolutions, missing EXIF or different camers. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:34, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: this picture only, deletion reason cannot universally applied to the other uploads in this case Jcb (talk) 15:34, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
Changed a "no source" to a DR. There is a source (name of author) but there is no proof of permission. So I changed it to a DR to get more views on this. MGA73 (talk) 20:09, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
- Keep ancient uploads, see en:User:Raul654/favpics/Liz. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:27, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
- Liz is my brother's ex-girlfriend. She took these while she was vacationing in Costa Rica. I found the email of Feb 14, 2005 in which she gave me permission to use her pics, and I've forwarded it to the OTRS permission email. I'd tag it myself as OTRS approved but they turned off my OTRS account for inactivity. Raul654 (talk) 04:46, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
- OTRS permission is pending based on an explicit release from the copyright holder in ticket 2011032010001711. Please provide some time for a response. – Adrignola talk 13:49, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
- Copyright holder cannot be contacted for an explicit release. It comes down to whether this would be a friend/family situation where we don't hold the images to as high of a standard. I usually apply that only to pictures of one's self taken by another family member, though. But as mentioned above, if we were going to be strict, the images at en:User:Raul654/favpics/Liz would also have to be deleted. Closing admin's call. – Adrignola talk 15:13, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
- OTRS permission is pending based on an explicit release from the copyright holder in ticket 2011032010001711. Please provide some time for a response. – Adrignola talk 13:49, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
Kept: I can't see it as reasonable to ask more than what's present in the ticket, more than 6 years after the original permission email Jcb (talk) 15:40, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
