Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2011/11/30
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
|
|
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
![112 File:Latvian_"Galerts"_(Headcheese).jpg](#File:Latvian_"Galerts"_(Headcheese).jpg){kind=link}
Serial copyright violator; web resolution, unlikely self-taken. Magog the Ogre (talk) 07:11, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_dZS3YTIYZB8/StpNDt9py8I/AAAAAAAAAAg/Yzwvij8FR1Y/S231/Jos%C3%A9+Melero+y+Presentaci%C3%B3n+libro+085.jpg User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 07:17, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
Serial copyright violator; web resolution, unlikely self-taken. Magog the Ogre (talk) 07:11, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
- This is not self taken, but the source of the image is http://www.panoramio.com/photo/48153279 and it is an acceptable CC license. Delete and reupload with the right information? User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 07:22, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
Or just add it over top the wrong information; doesn't much matter. Magog the Ogre (talk) 07:50, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
I've just edited the source and author to the correct ones. Could someone check my work? --Kramer Associates (talk) 22:42, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
- Looks good to me. If no one objects, I like to withdraw this DR. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 03:31, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Kept: License and source figured out; it is a CC image. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 03:32, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
A333 (talk) 14:58, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
Kept: Apparently a accidental nomination by the user page owner himself. Btw: if you want to have your userpage deleted please just use {{Speedy}}. Saibo (Δ) 20:26, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
Amada44 thought that {self is equal to "Source = Self-published work" and "|Author = Michaelphillipr". Sorry: no. The license template is simply added by selecting to upload a multilicensed work in the upload form and is far less explicit than full source and author. The uploader was active at 2011-10-19 so he can tell us the source and author of this file. Saibo (Δ) 20:06, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
- Self-published IS source=own. And by the way, I didn't 'think' that, its what the http://tools.wikimedia.de/~magnus/add_information.php adds automatically not because the script is dumb, but because self published implies that the uploader is the owner. You are free to challenge the "self-published" though. Shame that you didn't notifying me, would be important if you criticizes my action. And I don't keep all the files I edit on my watchlist. cheers, Amada44 talk to me 20:37, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
- Just some tiny bit of research: this was the first file by uploader, second file has a 'own work' added by the uploader and that image was taken with the same camera and only one minute later. Your DR is really a joke here and I don't like the way you are accusing me. Amada44 talk to me 20:44, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
- The DR (which is really no joke) is about the file - not about you. Thanks for understanding. It would be helpful not to attack me for something I haven't done. If you want to talk with me about some problem please let's continue on my talk page.
- Tools and scripts may say everything - they are created by humans. So do not claim something like "it is right because the tool said it".
- If you would deal more often (apparently you don't do) with poorly sourced files you would know that {self doesn't mean anything.
- I have added some explanations based on your new facts to provide the needed transparency for re-users. Anyway: It would be nice if the uploader could make these assumptions unnecessary. --Saibo (Δ) 14:38, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
- Just some tiny bit of research: this was the first file by uploader, second file has a 'own work' added by the uploader and that image was taken with the same camera and only one minute later. Your DR is really a joke here and I don't like the way you are accusing me. Amada44 talk to me 20:44, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
Kept: "own work" assumable now Saibo (Δ) 14:39, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Poor quality (badGIF, low resolution), replaced by File:Dibutyl phthalate.svg. Leyo 09:38, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Ed (Edgar181) 13:15, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
Incorrect: there is no covalent bond between oxygen and sodium. Leyo 09:42, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
Delete per nom. It should be separate sodium-cation and iodate-anion. DMacks (talk) 09:19, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Ed (Edgar181) 13:15, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
Incorrect: there is no covalent bond between oxygen and silver. Leyo 09:43, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
- Delete both per nom. It should be separate silver-cation and iodate-anion. DMacks (talk) 09:21, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Ed (Edgar181) 13:14, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
Incorrect: Some hydrogen atoms are missing, others are wrong. Leyo 09:47, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Totally impossible structure--exceeds octet on two of the ring carbons. Have File:Dibutyl phthalate 3D balls.gif that is chemically valid and also more explicit (all H visible rather than omitting alkyl H for clarity, if we want to be generous with the nom'ed one). DMacks (talk) 09:30, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Incorrect chemical structure. Ed (Edgar181) 13:14, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
No source, "Mi PC" is not a valid one. It seems as a copyrighted image, maybe a screenshot. Banfield - Amenazas aquí 00:06, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. -Pete F (talk) 06:45, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:39, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
Not simple enough to be free. ■ MMXX talk 00:10, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
- Comment The uploader claims it's his/her own work. Maybe a case for OTRS? -Pete F (talk) 06:48, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Six uploads from this user. All claimed as "own work". Three were speedy copyvios, three are DRs, including this. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:45, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
COM:DW of other people's copyrighted posters? Stefan4 (talk) 00:16, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:18, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
Non-free logos and possibly out of project scope ■ MMXX talk 00:26, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
- File:LAVANTAGE logo 05.jpg
- File:LAVANTAGE logo 04.jpg
- File:LAVANTAGE logo 03.jpg
- File:LAVANTAGE logo 02.jpg
■ MMXX talk 00:30, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:46, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
The uploader pretends this painting as own work. Ras67 (talk) 01:36, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Then correct it. The real problem is that the painter died in 1981 (see w:pl:Wacław Brejter.)--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:21, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
- Delete copyvio. To Ras67: Everybody can edit pages here, you know, if something is wrong, then fix it rather than acting like you don't know what's going on. VolodyA! V Anarhist (converse) 04:21, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
- Of course, i've seen the entire problems of this pic, the above rationale is only a shortening. It's senseless to correct this in anticipation of deletion. --Ras67 (talk) 13:18, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:20, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
Inferior-format duplicate of File:Roundel of the French Fleet Air Arm.svg ~ Fry1989 eh? 01:52, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: 00:14, 7 December 2011 by Fastily, closed by Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:46, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
The uploader has provided no proof that this seal was drawn pseudonymously 70+ years ago (even if the club existed back then), let alone the 100 years s/he states on the licensing page Magog the Ogre (talk) 01:58, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: 02:19, 30 November 2011 by Zscout370, closed by Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:47, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
given title & the subject was ID'd on en wiki, can easily be considered vandalilsm & BLP issues could apply as well Skier Dude (talk) 02:44, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:47, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
I'm looking at a photo of Mr. Calwell in 1960 here: [1], and he definitely looks younger than this photo. I doubt this photo was taken before 1961, or even 1969 for that matter, for which we have no proof because the uploader gave only the image URL (not the record URL). Magog the Ogre (talk) 04:11, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
- I found the record page here, and it gives the date as 1966. Looks like we have to wait another five years to use this one. Frickeg (talk) 03:50, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
- Could you give that link again? You just linked back to the image page. Magog the Ogre (talk) 19:38, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:22, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
From here, © 1999-2009, András Zboray, Fliegel Jezerniczky Expeditions Budapest, Hungary. The picture can't found at NASA's site, so we can not verify the PD-NASA claim. Ras67 (talk) 04:49, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:49, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
uploaded by mistake - wrong image Celiaclements (talk) 05:28, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: 16:16, 30 November 2011 by Herbythyme, closed by Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:50, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
per w:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Demolition F.C, I do not believe this fits inside COM:SCOPE. Magog the Ogre (talk) 06:13, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:51, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
I believe that the logo has originality (Commons:Threshold of originality), therefor not PD. Sdrtirs (talk) 06:35, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:23, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
Logotype for a webpage Civilspanaren (talk) 06:36, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:23, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
This image is clearly either a copyright violation (television program art) or it is entirely out of scope (fan created art) Magog the Ogre (talk) 07:02, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:23, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
see Commons:When to use the PD-Art tag#Photograph of an old sculpture found on the Internet, or in a book Magog the Ogre (talk) 07:32, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:24, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
Unsufficient licensing Agora (talk) 07:38, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:24, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
see Commons:When to use the PD-Art tag#Photograph of an old sculpture found on the Internet, or in a book (this was never sourced at en.wp) Magog the Ogre (talk) 07:42, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:24, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
Looks like a photo from official VW catalogue. Another photos from this uploader: 473172.03.jpg, 473172.05.jpg, 473172.19.jpg, 473172.25.jpg. Kobac (talk) 08:04, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:51, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
Looks like a photo from official VW catalogue. Another photos from this uploader: 473172.03.jpg, 473172.05.jpg, 473172.19.jpg, 473172.25.jpg. Kobac (talk) 08:05, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:51, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
Looks like a photo from official VW catalogue. Another photos from this uploader: 473172.03.jpg, 473172.05.jpg, 473172.19.jpg, 473172.25.jpg. Kobac (talk) 08:05, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:53, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
Looks like a photo from official VW catalogue. Another photos from this uploader: 473172.03.jpg, 473172.05.jpg, 473172.19.jpg, 473172.25.jpg. Kobac (talk) 08:06, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:53, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
Looks like a photo from official VW catalogue. Another photos from this uploader: 473172.03.jpg, 473172.05.jpg, 473172.19.jpg, 473172.25.jpg. Kobac (talk) 08:07, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:53, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
Looks like a photo from official VW catalogue. Another photos from this uploader: 473172.03.jpg, 473172.05.jpg, 473172.19.jpg, 473172.25.jpg. Kobac (talk) 08:07, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:53, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
Looks like a photo from official VW catalogue. Another photos from this uploader: 473172.03.jpg, 473172.05.jpg, 473172.19.jpg, 473172.25.jpg. Kobac (talk) 08:08, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:53, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
Corrupted file. The MIME type says video/mp4 Sreejith K (talk) 08:47, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: 19:45, 30 November 2011 by Multichill , closed by Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:53, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
No own work, picture of Britney Spears from facebook and official myspace Funfood ␌ 08:51, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:54, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
It may not meet the three-dimensional works, but two-dimensional works, which isn't allowed by Commons:FOP#Canada. Sdrtirs (talk) 09:59, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:54, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
Low res, blurry, unlikely to be own work. Sdrtirs (talk) 10:54, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
I agree the quality is poor and low-res. This is my own work. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dealphungo (talk • contribs) 10:54, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
Keep - why would own work be unlikely? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:22, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
Comment If it is own work, then it would be better uploading a better quality. Commons has lots of copyvios from websites everyday and the photo's quality ressembles those copyvios. If it isn't, then keep. Although I have my doubts if the photo fits Commons:Project scope, at the Must be realistically useful for an educational purpose part, because the purpose of identify Ed Snider wasn't totally accomplished, as per image quality. Yet, I think that is the only photo Commons has about the subject. --Sdrtirs (talk) 09:41, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
- Strange logic. If this would be a copyright violation, then why not uploading a better photo? Amateur photos are more likely to be own work, and I would guess that this was cropped from a larger photo. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:46, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
- Still, I have my doubts about how educational can be this photo, as it is blurry and poor quality. Unless being an example of blurry photos. --Sdrtirs (talk) 17:14, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
Kept: I assume good faith -- could easily be taken from the other side of the court by a spectator and cropped hard. WP:EN has an article on Ed Snider -- I added the image there until someone gives us a better one. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:06, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
Mar profundo 66.87.86.16 11:45, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
Kept: Mar profundo ("Deep sea") is not a reason to delete. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:09, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
Looks like newspaper scan, so no own work. Original colour image e.g. here http://www.latinofest.org/laorquestabroadway.html Funfood ␌ 12:05, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:10, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
Insufficient information provided to show that this photograph is in the public domain. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 12:27, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
Keep Turkish version of the official website of Turkish Air Forces explains "Atina Seyahati", but English version of same website explains "Turkey Tour". However this photograph was taken in the 1930s and useful to explain aircraft and pilots at the time. Turkish service Letov Š-16s were replaced by the Westland Lysanders in 1940. According to Turkish copyright law, this photograph is public domain. Takabeg (talk) 13:02, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks. Could you please put this information and the links to the websites on the file information page? — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 16:20, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
- Keep: Ah, I see you have already done so. In that case, I withdraw my nomination. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 16:28, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
Kept. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:10, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
Bad JPEG compression, already replaced by File:MPLS rotocolstack.svg Ricordisamoa (talk) 13:08, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
Delete Ricordisamoa (talk) 13:09, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:14, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
i want to upload again, coz its was not showing Ajaysingh2021 (talk) 13:12, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
- Delete derivative of the Premier League logo. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:05, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:14, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
No sign of GPL or other free licence on the source website. Should probably be considered as Fair Use content and moved to the local Wikipedias, when possible. Eusebius (talk) 13:31, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:14, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
OB by File:Naftali Tzvi Iehuda Berlin (ha-Natziv) 1a.jpg Chesdovi (talk) 13:35, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
_1a.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: When you make this type of nomination, please first change all the uses of the image to the new one. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:21, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
This file is obsolete and has been updated by a new one I uploaded today - The-concentration-camp-of-blechhammer.jpg 83.24.94.218 13:54, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
Kept.
- We often keep more than version of a map to let users decide which one they want.
- Since IP users cannot upload images, the nominator's claim is not correct.
- See Commons:Deletion requests/File:The-concentration-camp-of-blechhammer.jpg.
Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:30, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
File:Muslim_Razakars_pose_with_captured_Hindu_civilians_before_killing_them_in_cold_blood_(Telangana,_1948).jpg
[edit].jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Wagner, Heather Lehr. People at odds. U.S.A: Chelsea House Publishers, 2002.) P. Sridhar Babu (talk) 14:18, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:34, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
copyviolation 92.149.10.253 14:25, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:34, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
Unsufficient licensing. Filename states it's taken from the Audax financial statement 2004 Agora (talk) 15:16, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:35, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
Unsufficient licensing, taken from http://www.en-maes.nl/wie-we-zijn/#medewerkers Agora (talk) 16:03, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:35, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
Although this mainly consists of text, there is also a logo prsent, so this may be copyrighted material which cannot be released under CC by an anonymous editor. Guillaume2303 (talk) 16:26, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:37, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small resolution, missing EXIF. EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:55, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:37, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
Some homepage material include email and web-address Motopark (talk) 18:03, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: 13:51, 6 December 2011 by Herbythyme, closed by Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:38, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
Some homepage material, out of scope Motopark (talk) 18:09, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:39, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
Some homepage material, out of scope material, includes many pictures without author and permission Motopark (talk) 18:15, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:40, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
unknown source/company, out of scope Funfood ␌ 18:18, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:40, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
Unused personal photo since April 2011. Chesdovi (talk) 18:18, 30 November 2011 (UTC) Chesdovi (talk) 18:18, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:40, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
Unused personal photo since May 2011. Chesdovi (talk) 18:20, 30 November 2011 (UTC) Chesdovi (talk) 18:20, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:40, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
Unused personal photo since May 2011. Chesdovi (talk) 18:21, 30 November 2011 (UTC) Chesdovi (talk) 18:21, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:40, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
some hompage material, youtube-chammel promotion, out of scope Motopark (talk) 18:21, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:41, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
Unused personal photo since Dec 2010. Chesdovi (talk) 18:21, 30 November 2011 (UTC) Chesdovi (talk) 18:21, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:41, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
some homepage material, youtube-chammel promotion, out of scope Motopark (talk) 18:22, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:41, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
Unused personal photo since Dec 2010. Chesdovi (talk) 18:22, 30 November 2011 (UTC) Chesdovi (talk) 18:22, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:41, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
some homepage material, youtube-channel promotion, out of scope Motopark (talk) 18:22, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:41, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
Unused personal photo since Dec 2010. Chesdovi (talk) 18:22, 30 November 2011 (UTC) Chesdovi (talk) 18:22, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:41, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
some homepage material, youtube-channel promotion, out of scope Motopark (talk) 18:23, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:41, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
some homepage material, youtube-channel promotion, out of scope Motopark (talk) 18:23, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:41, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
some homepage material, youtube-channel promotion, out of scope Motopark (talk) 18:23, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:41, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
The source's copyright terms prohibit commercial use. January (talk) 18:24, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: 22:20, 30 November 2011 by Fastily, closed by Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:42, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
some homepage material, youtube-channel promotion, out of scope Motopark (talk) 18:24, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:43, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
Unused personal photo since Dec 2010. Chesdovi (talk) 18:24, 30 November 2011 (UTC) Chesdovi (talk) 18:24, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:43, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
The license at source website is not compatible with commons. Sreejith K (talk) 18:24, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
How to solve the issue? I have uploaded this Photo, I have the right to upload it, Because I have been given right to upload by the person who have uploaded and taken this photo. This photo is originally posted to Flicker on account of Afghan Footballer Israfeel Kohistani, SO let me know how to solve the problem.
- Please ask the copyright owner to send the permissions to OTRS --Sreejith K (talk) 12:54, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Weak Delete -- Lots of copyright issues. We should upload it to Wikipedia or send to OTRS. --Katarighe (talk) 23:00, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:43, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Unused personal photo since December 2010. Chesdovi (talk) 18:25, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:43, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
some homepage material, youtube-channel promotion, out of scope Motopark (talk) 18:25, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:43, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
Unused personal photo since May 2011. Chesdovi (talk) 18:26, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:43, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
Screenshot shows cover art for the musician's album. This cover art is labeled as non-free here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Armchair_Apocrypha.jpg 46.161.100.81 18:27, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:44, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
Unused personal photo since May 2011. Chesdovi (talk) 18:27, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:44, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
Unused personal photo since May 2011. Chesdovi (talk) 18:30, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:45, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
Used in self-promotion userpage since May 2011. Chesdovi (talk) 18:39, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:46, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
Used in self-promotion userpage since May 2011. Chesdovi (talk) 18:39, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:46, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
This logo looks quite original to me. Is it really "PD-textlogo"? -- deerstop. 19:18, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
Kept: it is just four letter in a fancy typeface -- therefore PD text logo applies Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:46, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
Heavy doubts about "PD-textlogo". I suppose that the island image does not qualify for 'simple geometry'. deerstop. 19:21, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:47, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
I seriously doubt it is "PD-textlogo". deerstop. 19:27, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:47, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
I seriously doubt it is "PD-textlogo". deerstop. 19:32, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:47, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
Brazilian municipality founded in 1938, but symbol only in 1989, failing {{PD-BrazilGov}}. No trivial text logo, failing {{PD-textlogo}}. Unlikely to be own work, grabbed from internet via (example) http://www.citybrazil.com.br/ma/sjoaopatos/geral_detalhe.php?cat=10. Obs.: If I'm misinterpreting the case, pls see also Commons:Deletion requests/File:Cópia de brasão iTAIPULÂNDIA.jpg & Commons:Deletion requests/File:Brasao-slo.jpg. Gunnex (talk) 20:02, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:47, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
unused, useless, no encyclopedic value, etc etc Frédéric (talk) 20:04, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
Delete very low quality penis picture, useless name --Kramer Associates (talk) 23:31, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom. George Chernilevsky talk 20:59, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
unused personal photo, out of scope Gbawden (talk) 08:11, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: --Christian Ferrer (talk) 11:39, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
Identical file with same name at en:Wikipedia says the source of this photo is San Francisco Public Library, whose licensing is not WP compatible. No permission for use from the library is known. We hope (talk) 20:26, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
file page "This file may meet Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion as this file is copied from Campaign Material San Francisco Public Library, which does not have a license compatible with Wikipedia, and the uploader does not assert fair use or make a credible assertion of permission. See CSD F9." We hope (talk) 20:27, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Whatever the source, there is no reason to believe it is a US Government photo, as claimed. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:50, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
The source page is not an US-goverment site and credits "ESA/Hubble" as source. The image itself looks more as an "artistic impression" than an Hubble image. JuTa 20:47, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:50, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
Self-nomination: I uploaded this file as a JPG but its artifacts make it very poor quality. I uploaded a GIF image which is identical but with no artifacts. Binksternet (talk) 21:37, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:50, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
While claimed to be "No Known Restrictions", this is a photo of the MiG Ye-8 2nd prototype (which appears to be a scan from a book), which dates from 1962 or later - the aircraft is from the Soviet Union - Soviet photos from this year will still be under copyright. No real evidence that this is a special exception Nigel Ish (talk) 21:45, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- This image is from San Diego A&S museum collection. Please refer to a book where you saw that photo and prove that this is a scan. James R. Nockson (talk) 21:49, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
I have to concur with the nomination. It is highly unlikely that the San Diego Air & Space Museum would have been privy to any test flights or unveilings of the Ye-8 at the height of the Cold War in the early 1960s. Also other information which is missing is authorship info. We need to be careful with all of these partnerships on Flickr, as some of them are organisations which have used sloppy copyright releases such as the SDA&S. However, if I were editors, I would copy the image to local projects, and use it under fair use, because if we adhere to COM:PRP, this image will be deleted after 7 days of discussion. russavia (talk) 22:13, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- Yes, I see. I've actually found a higher resolution version on airwar.ru. Well, I've uploaded some other SDA&S images in last few days. Please check them out for the same purpose too: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18. Most of them are rare - that's why I was happy to find images with no copyright restrictions. It's sad to lose them now. Sorry for copyright violation - it wasn't intended. James R. Nockson (talk) 22:27, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
- The image quality shows that it is a fairly low quality scan from a book or newspaper - while it is on the San Diego A&S museum's flikr stream as "no known restrictions", it has no other source data. As the photo a) originates from the Soviet Union at a time when there wasn't general press access and (b) appears to be a scan from a book/newpaper, so isn't some sort of spy photo, there is a high probability that this isn't free of copyright despite what San Diego says.Nigel Ish (talk) 22:28, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
- Hey Nockson, no harm no foul, I know you didn't mean to upload copyvios :) It's a shame that SDA&S museum has released these under "no known restrictions" -- it is very sloppy on their part, and I would be very hesitant in uploading anything from their flickr stream. All of the other photos you have shown would also be unlikely to have copyright held by the museum, and hence they too will likely be deleted in 7 days too. Please take this time now to upload anything that you need from those photos to local projects under fair use, as they will be deleted. Although I am an admin here, because I have opined in the discussion, it might be inappropriate for me to close the discussion, however, once you have uploaded what you need to local projects for use, drop a note back here and they can be safely deleted without articles being disrupted. You'll have a couple of days as least, k. russavia (talk) 22:49, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
- Oh, you mean ALL of them are copyvios?! Let's talk about particular images:
- 1, 2 (Tupolev himself) - founded second photo in low res on the web. Dunno, maybe it's really a copyvio.
- 3, 4 (Beriev VVA-14) - looks like the same situation as with Ye-8, but these got better quality
- 5, 6 (Mirage IIIV) - could these possibly be free images?
- 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 (MFI MiG) - well these are from early 2000s. №9 looks like this image but in different colors. №10 looks like this image but has some major differences.
- 12, 13 (Sukhoi P-42) - dunno maybe these are from airshow or something (like that photo). Name of №13 is a mistake, it's probably not 2010.
- 14, 15 (Yakovlev Yak-141) - these two I want to save. They're from MAKS-1993 airshow there anyone can make a photo and has good quality.
- 16 (Yakovlev Yak-24) - well, looks like a copyvio
- 17, 18 (Yakovlev Yak-38) - №17 can be PD-USgov, maybe №18 too
- Let's discuss all of them and try to save some. James R. Nockson (talk) 09:58, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
- On Commons COM:PRP applies to all images. We need to know when images when/were published for the first time, who the author is, etc. Without this information they need to be deleted. I would really urge all editors not to upload from that particular flickr stream due to their lax copyright releases. russavia (talk) 13:04, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
- I know that principle - and looks like SDA&SM used it too. They post photos which they actually have in digital format or in physical form. If someone recognize that this photo is copyvio - they delete it (we do the same). So, let's keep photos №14,15 at least until someone prove that they're copyvios. James R. Nockson (talk) 16:16, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
- On a side note, this is where an Aviation WikiProject could come in handy. If we wrote to Tupolev, for example, we could be asking them for photos which they are able to release under a free licence. Perhaps we should be setting this project up asap? :) russavia (talk) 13:07, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
- During last months I was thinking about writing a letter to Yakovlev OKB about providing some images and info for Yak-141 article. So let's really start this W soon. It's sad that other users are not that active. None from ru-wiki has responded yet to my call about commons aviation WP. James R. Nockson (talk) 16:16, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
- Do you use IRC? Commons:IRC? Or how about Gtalk or other such things. Email me, and we can co-ordinate the creation of said project. russavia (talk) 16:31, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
- I've just emailed you :) James R. Nockson (talk) 17:22, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
- During last months I was thinking about writing a letter to Yakovlev OKB about providing some images and info for Yak-141 article. So let's really start this W soon. It's sad that other users are not that active. None from ru-wiki has responded yet to my call about commons aviation WP. James R. Nockson (talk) 16:16, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
- On Commons COM:PRP applies to all images. We need to know when images when/were published for the first time, who the author is, etc. Without this information they need to be deleted. I would really urge all editors not to upload from that particular flickr stream due to their lax copyright releases. russavia (talk) 13:04, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
- Oh, you mean ALL of them are copyvios?! Let's talk about particular images:
_(2).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(2).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(2).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(2).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(3).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(4).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(5).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(2).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(2).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Nockson, I've just looked at one of the images you showed. That being File:Mikoyan-Gurevich_MiG-1.44_(by_San_Diego_A&S_museum)_(5).jpg. When I compared it to the other photo you showed, yes there are differences, but I actually believe the small image has been photoshopped. Compare the guy's stance -- it is exactly the same, so much so that the part of the aircraft shown between his legs is exact. Also, the other people have been photoshopped out, and their shadows are actually still evident on the ground in the snow. The clouds have obviously also been added. The photo we have on Commons is a bloody good photoshop of the original photo I must say :) russavia (talk) 13:20, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- These guys from San Diego are awesome - that's for sure. Looks like all photos of MFI MiG must be deleted ASAP. James R. Nockson (talk) 16:16, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. I note the special plea for
- File:Yakovlev Yak-141 at MAKS-1993 airshow (by San Diego A&S museum) (2).jpg and
- File:Yakovlev Yak-141 at MAKS-1993 airshow (by San Diego A&S museum).jpg
The museum does not give us any attribution or source. I see no reason to believe that these are any more PD than any of the rest. In fact, I agree with Russavia that they are sloppy. This extends to their policy page where they say:
- "It is the policy of the San Diego Air and Space Museum to charge licensing fees for commercial use of these images, which helps fund ongoing efforts to care for our collection. If you are interested in licensing for commercial use, please contact the Library and Archives..."
I'm not quite sure how they can expect to collect fees for commercial use of images that they have marked as "No Known Copyright Restrictions" -- if the images are free of copyright, then they have no basis on which to collect a fee. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:53, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
better image File:UrsulaG.jpg Drongou (talk) 21:53, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
Question - who is the photographer? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 17:58, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
- In 2007, Jgheuser import the photo UrsulaG.jpg in Commons say : "Heuser"
- Then after (why ???), Jgheuser import the poor photo in WP:en in 2007 say : "John Heuser Photo" ; With this and this, you can see who is who
- in 2008, Jerroby import in Commons the poor poor Ursula_Goodenough.jpg photo
- Drongou (talk) 20:29, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:16, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
I think this is to simple to violate any copyright, so it is not a case for speedy deletion. I do however think something like this should be used in text form in an article, not as an image, and that this image is thus out of project scope. Rosenzweig τ 22:42, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
- Included in this deletion request is File:Implementation Process.jpg. --Rosenzweig τ 22:44, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:14, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
Bad file (Commons didn't digest some features of Inkscape). I have already uploadad a png version instead Gengis Gat (talk) 22:46, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
- Keep - the SVG code is rendered correctly by Fireforx. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 17:56, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
- Comment You mean you can see the equivalent of this and do not see any black rectangle? If so, I could cancel this request and categorize the image, but with the warning of not putting it on Wikipedia, since not all browsers (e.g. Chrome) support it. --Gengis Gat (talk) 22:19, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
- Chrome also shows the file correctly, just click "Full resolution" to load the svg code. It is just the wikimedia thumb renderer that is not good at handling text. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:52, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
Kept. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:13, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
Trivial logo, out of COM:PS, related pt-article deleted speedy via SPAM Gunnex (talk) 23:20, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:12, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
Although the logo passes the threshold of originality, Mexican trademark laws prohibits to trademark government logos (there is no evidence that "Convergencia" is a trademark or registered trademark), thus I believe that Template:PD-Coa-Mexico applies. I am nominating this logo to deletion in case I'm wrong. If this logo is kept, current and upcoming Mexican politiican parties logos, such as PVEM and the recently created Movimiento Ciudadano can be uploaded here. Tbhotch™ 23:48, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
Kept: My Spanish is very limited, but the copyright exemption for logos appears to be very broad -- "de cualquier otra organización reconocida oficialmente" = "any other officially recognized organization" appears to apply. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:12, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
It seems to be using an image from a blog without proper attribution/licensing (see http://simplechildrearingtips.blogspot.com/2010/12/drinking-clean-fresh-water-regularly-is.html) Helder 23:54, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:06, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
Computer graphics taken from a game or something? I suspect that this either is {{Copyvio}} or something which fails COM:SCOPE. Stefan4 (talk) 00:14, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
- A screenshot from a game (Minecraft) where the creator doesn't mind - even encourages players to build an active community, including taking screenshots. The player's skin depicted was designed by me, and the textures are customised, and the screenshot was taken by the uploader. It violates no copyright or licencing rules whatsoever. If you can prove at all that this is violating copyright, we will gladly take the picture down. Innocent until proven otherwise.KufaKuja (talk) 19:18, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
- Commons is actually different: guilty unless proven otherwise. ;) I looked at the Wikipedia article about Minecraft and found [2] on description pages for screenshots which looks compatible with Commons. However, I'm not sure if it fits within the scope of Commons. If kept, the licensing terms need to be clarified on the file description page. --Stefan4 (talk) 20:22, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
- Comment The licencing of Minecraft screenshots have been argued about for ages. They check out! Now the question is about the scope. I sort of think that we need to be on the safe side and keep, but i need to think about it a bit more. VolodyA! V Anarhist (converse) 04:19, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
- I assume by the scope you mean the picture isn't educational. This would be because in the context of the commons, this picture makes next to no sense. However, we (TheSilentStapler and I) along with other members of a Minecraft server have started a Wiki about said server, which is educational and informative for both newcomers and veterans of the game. We intend to make pages about every aspect of the server, including the staff. The picture is of one of the staff members, and so is used in an educational context. KufaKuja (talk) 12:19, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
- Delete KufaKuja makes it clear that 1. it was uploaded for personal reasons and has no purpose here and 2. that it is used on another Wiki and can be used there, which Commons does not help. If he cares about the image, he should upload it to the Wiki where it is pertinent. It does not fall within our scope. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:39, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
- Delete per Ottava. Don't see any reason to host the image on commons, per COM:SCOPE#Must be realistically useful for an educational purpose. -Pete F (talk) 06:52, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:18, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
Commons has more than enough penis. Sdrtirs (talk) 10:46, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
- Keep No it hasn't. "Penis!!!!" is no reason for deletion. If you think this image is fully redundant please provide a selection of similar (angle, action, color, size, ...) pictures. --Saibo (Δ)
- Keep High quality, in scope. VolodyA! V Anarhist (converse) 04:31, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
- Comment Just that there was some deletions before and it was created the {{Nopenis}} and the request based on those facts. --Sdrtirs (talk) 22:07, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
- Delete - Duplicate of File:EJACULATION DE SPERME..jpg and File:EJACULATION DE SPERME.jpg and none contain anything original enough or proof of use to warrant being kept per policy. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:43, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
- Duplicate? Yiiha! And I have the same user page title as you, hm? Both begin with "user:", right. --Saibo (Δ) 04:06, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
- It is the same penis doing the same action. Lets say that one was able to be used in a page on a pedia. Do you think the others would? Would someone say "I think it is great that I have three images showing the same thing because I wouldn't know what ejaculation looked like if I didn't?" Generic white penises are generic. Once you seen one ejaculate you've seen them all ejaculate. This just happens to be the same guy with the same penis in the same pose. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:10, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
- "Once you seen one ejaculate you've seen them all ejaculate." This is exactly the reason to have more media of ejaculation here, so that people can't say stuff like that without being laughed at. VolodyA! V Anarhist (converse) 16:35, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
- Um, what? It all looks the same. These are even images of the same penis doing the same act. Our policy says that unoriginal images like this shouldn't be kept as they are absolutely unuseful around here. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:04, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
- Ottava, sorry, I save my time now and will not further waste it to explain you Commons (since you apparently forcefully misunderstand). --Saibo (Δ) 02:21, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
- I would say I understand it more than you, especially when you think that three incredibly similar porn images aren't exactly what the porn policy was created to deal with. The fact that the guy even gave overlapping names is proof that even he thought they were the same. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:36, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
- Ottava, sorry, I save my time now and will not further waste it to explain you Commons (since you apparently forcefully misunderstand). --Saibo (Δ) 02:21, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
- Um, what? It all looks the same. These are even images of the same penis doing the same act. Our policy says that unoriginal images like this shouldn't be kept as they are absolutely unuseful around here. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:04, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
- "Once you seen one ejaculate you've seen them all ejaculate." This is exactly the reason to have more media of ejaculation here, so that people can't say stuff like that without being laughed at. VolodyA! V Anarhist (converse) 16:35, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
- It is the same penis doing the same action. Lets say that one was able to be used in a page on a pedia. Do you think the others would? Would someone say "I think it is great that I have three images showing the same thing because I wouldn't know what ejaculation looked like if I didn't?" Generic white penises are generic. Once you seen one ejaculate you've seen them all ejaculate. This just happens to be the same guy with the same penis in the same pose. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:10, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
- Duplicate? Yiiha! And I have the same user page title as you, hm? Both begin with "user:", right. --Saibo (Δ) 04:06, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
Kept: No compelling reason for deletion given. -mattbuck (Talk) 11:50, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
Commons has more than enough penis. Sdrtirs (talk) 10:46, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
- Keep No it hasn't. "Penis!!!!" is no reason for deletion. If you think this image is fully redundant please provide a selection of similar (angle, action, color, size, ...) pictures. --Saibo (Δ)
- Keep High quality, in scope. VolodyA! V Anarhist (converse) 04:32, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
- Comment Just that there was some deletions before and it was created the {{Nopenis}} and the request based on those facts. --Sdrtirs (talk) 22:06, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
- Delete - Duplicate of File:SPERME.jpg and File:EJACULATION DE SPERME.jpg and none contain anything original enough or proof of use to warrant being kept per policy. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:44, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
- Clearly visible that the files are not duplicate of each other. VolodyA! V Anarhist (converse) 16:31, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
- Same penis, same action, same image. That is how it is in the policy. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:05, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
- Clearly visible that the files are not duplicate of each other. VolodyA! V Anarhist (converse) 16:31, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
Kept: No compelling reason for deletion given. -mattbuck (Talk) 11:50, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
No more penis. Sdrtirs (talk) 10:48, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
- Keep "Penis!!!!" is no reason for deletion. If you think this video is fully redundant please provide a selection of similar (angle, action, color, size, ...) videos. --Saibo (Δ)
- Keep No more bad faith nominations! Good quality, in scope. VolodyA! V Anarhist (converse) 04:33, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
- Comment Just that there was some deletions before and it was created the {{Nopenis}} and the request based on those facts. --Sdrtirs (talk) 22:06, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Kept: No compelling reason for deletion given. -mattbuck (Talk) 11:49, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
No more penis. Sdrtirs (talk) 10:50, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
- Keep "Penis!!!!" is no reason for deletion. If you think this video is fully redundant please provide a selection of similar (angle, action, color, size, ...) videos. --Saibo (Δ)
- Keep Average quality, in scope. VolodyA! V Anarhist (converse) 04:37, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
- Comment Just that there was some deletions before and it was created the {{Nopenis}} and the request based on those facts. --Sdrtirs (talk) 22:05, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
- A misunderstood template is no policy. But thanks for explanation of your motivation. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 22:26, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Kept: No compelling reason for deletion given. -mattbuck (Talk) 11:50, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
wrong logo upload Curtbr72 (talk) 03:35, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: as per uploader request Captain-tucker (talk) 02:09, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
Obvious copyright infringement (see http://www.tineye.com/search/1262a940021744eb55550424b336cdd3564130f9) Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:51, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Deleted by Polarlys Captain-tucker (talk) 00:18, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
Obvious copyright infringement (see http://www.tineye.com/search/8deecdd6a9e9745062e97b7858d14173c87c3c7a) Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:53, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Deleted by Herbythyme Captain-tucker (talk) 00:18, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
uploaded by mistake - wrong image Celiaclements (talk) 05:29, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
- Delete per uploader request, not used on any Wikimedia projects. -Pete F (talk) 06:55, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Per Uploader request, not in use Captain-tucker (talk) 01:34, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
uploaded by mistake - wrong image Celiaclements (talk) 05:29, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Per Uploader request, not in use Captain-tucker (talk) 01:35, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
uploaded by mistake - wrong image Celiaclements (talk) 05:31, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Per Uploader request, not in use Captain-tucker (talk) 01:36, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
uploaded by mistake - wrong image Celiaclements (talk) 05:32, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Per Uploader request, not in use Captain-tucker (talk) 01:36, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
uploaded by mistake - wrong image Celiaclements (talk) 05:32, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Per Uploader request, not in use Captain-tucker (talk) 01:36, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
uploaded by mistake - wrong image Celiaclements (talk) 05:32, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Per Uploader request, not in use Captain-tucker (talk) 01:37, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
Low quality, blurry and previous copyvios from uploader makes it unlikely to be own work. Sdrtirs (talk) 11:50, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: As per Precautionary principle Captain-tucker (talk) 01:41, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Mistake TalivaldisViesturs (talk) 16:23, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
![16:23, 30 November 2011 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2011/11/30#c-TalivaldisViesturs-2011-11-30T16:23:00.000Z-File:Latvian_"Galerts"_(Headcheese).jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: Per uploader request, not in use Captain-tucker (talk) 01:42, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
![01:42, 14 December 2011 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2011/11/30#c-Captain-tucker-2011-12-14T01:42:00.000Z-File:Latvian_"Galerts"_(Headcheese).jpg){kind=link}
Doubtfully own work, see http://fernandosotohojadevida.blogspot.com/ Funfood ␌ 17:21, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
- Keep It's very likely to me that it was the party who uploaded the picture. He surely must love to get to Wikimedia. And he runs for the parliament, so possibly he's relevant. --NaBUru38 (talk) 16:47, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Probable Copyvio, Precautionary principle Captain-tucker (talk) 01:59, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
If this is own work, as claimed, then it is out of scope. If not, it has an explicit (c), so it is a copyvio. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 23:56, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Doesn't appear in internet searches, therefore it doesn't seem to be relevant. --NaBUru38 (talk) 16:51, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope Captain-tucker (talk) 02:04, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
Commons:Deletion requests/File: Wikipedians P1070767.JPG Commons:Deletion requests/File: Wikipedians P1070798.JPG
uploaded by mistake - wrong image Celiaclements (talk) 05:29, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
uploaded by mistake - wrong image Celiaclements (talk) 05:31, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Per Uploader request, not in use Captain-tucker (talk) 01:34, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
I uploaded this flie. please keep this image. because here is the LGEPR's profile:http://www.flickr.com/people/lge/ LGEPR is LG Electronics's flickr account, LG Electronics uploaded Big Bang's promotionals for LG's phone Lollipop Part 2. and this link is the evidence that this image is truly licenced cc-by licence by LG Electronics --Puramyun31 (talk) 09:04, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
- As far as I remember from earlier uploads, the Flickr account LGEPR is valid. Therefore Keep in regard to copyright. Wether we need this promo shot is a different question. --Túrelio (talk) 12:51, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
- Keep, licensing checks out. This image also serves as the cover art for their digital single "Lollipop Part 2", so it's not simply a promotional image. If anything, delete File:Big Bang Lollipop 2 cover.jpg, that image doesn't display correctly. — ξxplicit 20:32, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
- Comment how come the image was deleted before the closing? Beta M (talk) 15:59, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: by Beria as a copvio, which is incorrect. However, it violates COM:ADVERT, so it will remain deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:53, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
On taking a closer look, this image is not the same as the sourced image. I would say this is probably the original image, as the alleged source has higher contrast and saturation (note shoes on the left, coat on the right), which in several places causes colour blowout, and so this image could not be derived from the other. Therefore this lacks source or proof of licence. -mattbuck (Talk) 10:11, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
Because I changed the flie format from .jpg to .png, since unchanged version(File:Big Bang Lollipop 2 cover.jpg) doesn't display correctly on Commons and Wikipedia. --Puramyun31 (talk) 10:59, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
- That's because the other image is encoded as CMYK rather than RGB, it doesn't account for the fact this image is not the same as the one on flickr. -mattbuck (Talk) 15:19, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
OK, however, if File:Big_Bang_Lollipop_2_cover.png will be deleted, how display File:Big Bang Lollipop 2 cover.jpg correctly? --Puramyun31 (talk) 00:34, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
File:Big Bang Lollipop 2 cover.jpg is correct now. This png is a (useless since it is a photo) derivative of the original jpg and can be deleted therefore (dupe) Delete. --Saibo (Δ) 02:22, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
- Delete album cover, need OTRS-permissionMotopark (talk) 06:45, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
- Can you read the above conversation please? LG released it under CC-BY, there is no need for OTRS-proof, the LG official website has a disclaimer saying the Flickr account is theirs. Teemeah (talk) 14:02, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted since it's now a duplicate. -mattbuck (Talk) 14:22, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
Files of User:Lur1111
[edit]- File:Walter meade.png
- File:Jorge Fernández Menéndez.png
- File:Walter meade.jpg
- File:HumbertoMayans.jpg
- File:Walter Meade.png
User:Lur1111 has been uploading copyrighted files, including from YouTube, so the files above (blurry, low quality and with "walter meade" as description in most of all) are unlikely to be own work. --Sdrtirs (talk) 20:36, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:50, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
The image infringes the copyright of the sculptor, there is no FOP in France Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:48, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Sculpture (Etoile Polaire) was created by Mark di Suvero in 1973. --AlphaEta (talk) 16:30, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Rosenzweig τ 21:46, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
the ticket number for this file is ticket:2010120510015157 - it is not sufficient permission for use of this file. Instead of deleting outright, I am starting this discussion, to give enough time for permission to sorted out. russavia (talk) 18:11, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, since the situation apparently did not change since November 30. Rosenzweig τ 21:44, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
not free Fry1989 eh? 01:16, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
Delete --NaBUru38 (talk) 16:38, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. A.Savin 18:53, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
not free Fry1989 eh? 01:16, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
- Comment If we focus on the "H" only, the image is just an "H" regardless the font. I've been considering a request to move the .svg file from en.wiki. I don't think that this logo is original enough. Tbhotch™ 17:33, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
- Actually it can stay per File:History Channel logo.svg, but should be deleted as the SVG is superior. Fry1989 eh? 04:35, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
- Simple geometry? It has a compley degradé. That one should be deleted too. --NaBUru38 (talk) 16:39, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
Delete --NaBUru38 (talk) 16:39, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. A.Savin 18:54, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
probably not free Fry1989 eh? 01:18, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
Delete --NaBUru38 (talk) 16:40, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. A.Savin 18:54, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
This is obviously not self-created; see w:File:Muslim Brotherhood logo.png; the author provides (or even states) that the logo is out of copyright in its home country of Egypt (per {{PD-Egypt}}). Magog the Ogre (talk) 02:47, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
- Delete copyvio. VolodyA! V Anarhist (converse) 04:25, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
- Delete --NaBUru38 (talk) 16:40, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. A.Savin 18:58, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Bad quality, vague Wiki-uk (talk) 05:58, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
- Keep Yes it's bad quality, but there doesn't seem to be similar pictures of temples from the inside. --NaBUru38 (talk) 16:43, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
Kept: File is used, no reason to delete as long as there is no better pic with the same motive. A.Savin 18:56, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
converted from speedy; probably PD-textlogo Prosfilaes (talk) 11:22, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
Keep Although the "Logo oficial" is obnoxious, A&E logo is not original. Tbhotch™ 21:13, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
- Delete We already have it in SVG at File:A&E Network logo.svg Fry1989 eh? 00:58, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Delete, per above. Tbhotch™ 01:17, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Motopark (talk) 06:41, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. A.Savin 18:42, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
The person in the image corresponds to an article irrelevant. MarioNone (talk) 21:49, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
- Keep She seems to have appeared in a few very popular television show, so she dosn't seem much irrelevant. --NaBUru38 (talk) 16:49, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Doubtful ownership by the uploader (black frame, missing EXIF). A.Savin 18:41, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Too small and blurry to be realistically useful, thus out of project scope. Rosenzweig τ 22:56, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
- Comment It's not the best image on earth, but i think that we need to be cautious due to all the bad faith nomination of sexual images. I will vote at a later time. VolodyA! V Anarhist (converse) 04:43, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
- Delete I thought about it a bit more, and i feel that there is just too much chance that it's a copyvio. The picture is definitely useful if it's not. VolodyA! V Anarhist (converse) 23:01, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
- Keep right on first sight.. but please show several other, better photos showing similar objects in the same angle, lighting. I have searched 5 minutes in three cats but couldn't find one. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 22:16, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
- Keep - per Saibo -- Gddea - Daniel E. Als-Juliussen (talk) 09:45, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
- Keep - I haven't seen one as cute as that for a long while. Shame it's out of focus and just low-res, presumably from a phone camera? I do have some questions though. Do we have proof that she's 22, that she's a virgin and that she gives permission for her gorgeous pudendum to be winking at us all? --Fred the Oyster (talk) 21:43, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
- Delete - I agree, this looks like it might be a vidcap, in which case likely a copyvio. Low resolution and low quality. -mattbuck (Talk) 07:22, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
- Delete - Low quality. Tiptoety talk 07:12, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Too blurry, and in the cat u can find more, just look. --Yikrazuul (talk) 18:13, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Only upload by the uploader and missing EXIF means often copyvio. Apart from that, there is no real reason to keep extremely low quality genitalia shots. A.Savin 18:38, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
It is a malformed picture PavelNajman (talk) 17:06, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
- Keep - the SVG code seems to be fine, just a problem with text in the Commons renderer. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 17:29, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
Kept: The SVG is OK, it was probably a temporary technical problem with Commons PierreSelim (talk) 11:32, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Commons has more than enough penis. Sdrtirs (talk) 10:50, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
- Note: I moved the image to show it's part of a series. -mattbuck (Talk) 19:01, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
- Keep No it hasn't. "Penis!!!!" is no reason for deletion. If you think this image is fully redundant please provide a selection of similar (angle, action, color, size, ...) pictures. --Saibo (Δ)
- Keep Commons has more than enough bad faith nominations. High quality, in scope. VolodyA! V Anarhist (converse) 04:36, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
- Comment Just that there was some deletions before and it was created the {{Nopenis}} and the request based on those facts. --Sdrtirs (talk) 22:05, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Per our policy, it contains a white penis that is ejaculating. We have many, many images of the same subject. Trying to say that it has a different "angle" or the rest is not acceptable rationale - use has to be proven per our policies. No encyclopedia article could find a use of a similar image because of slightly different angel. It contains nothing truly unique or original and must be deleted per policy. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:41, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
- Commons is not Wikipedia, we must not prove something encyclopaedic, just show that it's educational. Viewing ejaculation for a different angle is educational. VolodyA! V Anarhist (converse) 16:30, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
- "we must not prove something encyclopaedic, just show that it's educational" - policy says that it must be used. The encyclopedia at Wikipedia is the only possible place to use it. You do the math. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:06, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
- Please do not stop, that is really funny. I like to see which other policies are 180° turned around, sliced, mixed and put back together. Oh, well, we want to have a useful discussion, allright: could you please provide links/citations of the policies you name? --Saibo (Δ) 02:59, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
- Saibo, be nice. That said, I have to agree, I don't see where in COM:NUDE it says an image has to be in use.
- matt, wasn't I? If not that must be some Ottava effect (you know... 180° and so on). N.b. COM:NUDE is not a policy (although I do not know if Ottava referred to this guideline with "policy"). --Saibo (Δ) 13:42, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
- Com:Nude doesn't say it but the definition of educational in our core policy says it. We have many cum shot images, and we have multiple cum shot images of the same penis. Com Nude talks about redundancy, and this is redundant. How is it more informational to have 4 shots of this guy's penis ejaculating instead of 1? Ottava Rima (talk) 17:09, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
- Saibo, be nice. That said, I have to agree, I don't see where in COM:NUDE it says an image has to be in use.
- Please do not stop, that is really funny. I like to see which other policies are 180° turned around, sliced, mixed and put back together. Oh, well, we want to have a useful discussion, allright: could you please provide links/citations of the policies you name? --Saibo (Δ) 02:59, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
- "we must not prove something encyclopaedic, just show that it's educational" - policy says that it must be used. The encyclopedia at Wikipedia is the only possible place to use it. You do the math. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:06, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
- Commons is not Wikipedia, we must not prove something encyclopaedic, just show that it's educational. Viewing ejaculation for a different angle is educational. VolodyA! V Anarhist (converse) 16:30, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
- Ottava is right in some point. At Commons:Nudity, there is cleary expressed that new uploads must be significantly different from existing images, else it would become redundant and Commons being a porn site instead of adding knowledge. But that doesn't mean censor photos that can add knowledge, as it can be images better than existing images or very similar to, and no better than, existing images. It is needed to clear which photos add knowledge, prefering the better quality images, and clear which photos are redundant. --Sdrtirs (talk) 17:43, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
- My major concern is that the images are taken back to back, show the same action, and even have the same title. One of this set could possibly be justified, but not all of them. I wish others would recognize that and prune it down a bit. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:46, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
- I understand your concern, as it says under photo at Commons:Nudity Commons does not need you to drop your pants and grab a camera. I have seen people adding some photos that doesn't add any knowledge, just to show their penis. Some people try to make Commons like Facebook or other social network. We need to make clear which photos add knowledge and which don't. --Sdrtirs (talk) 18:08, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, like me for example. I am doing my best to expand then category of images of the town that i live in currently. Of course, it's possible to say "once you've seen one town you've seen them all", but i believe that it's educational to show the full range of the images of this town. I do the photos of graffiti, photos of parks, etc. They are not encyclopaedic, but they are educational. It's the same here. Seeing one penis may be enough for one person, but there are many things that can be learnt from the diversity of such images. VolodyA! V Anarhist (converse) 18:19, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
- You are also right. Knowledge has to come from different sources, as to cover the subject universally. Therefor, just one photo isn't enough. But we need to be carefull to the redundant images, as Commons:Nudity say:
- Categories such as Category:Male reproductive system and Category:Penis show that Commons has a large quantity of images relating to human genitalia. Some of these images are of low resolution and/or provide little descriptive information other than, for example, "self made" or "an erect human penis"; the user is told nothing useful about the background of the individual, or relevant vital statistics. Such images are of limited value as media for categories related to human anatomy and stages of development, because they depict a subject we already have images of, with no additional useful information. In such cases, the files may be nominated for deletion, citing appropriate rationale(s).
- So, if it adds knowledge and information (of course), then it is a good add to gather knowledge. If it doesn't add knowledge, the policy says for itself. --Sdrtirs (talk) 18:40, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
- You are also right. Knowledge has to come from different sources, as to cover the subject universally. Therefor, just one photo isn't enough. But we need to be carefull to the redundant images, as Commons:Nudity say:
- Yes, like me for example. I am doing my best to expand then category of images of the town that i live in currently. Of course, it's possible to say "once you've seen one town you've seen them all", but i believe that it's educational to show the full range of the images of this town. I do the photos of graffiti, photos of parks, etc. They are not encyclopaedic, but they are educational. It's the same here. Seeing one penis may be enough for one person, but there are many things that can be learnt from the diversity of such images. VolodyA! V Anarhist (converse) 18:19, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
- I understand your concern, as it says under photo at Commons:Nudity Commons does not need you to drop your pants and grab a camera. I have seen people adding some photos that doesn't add any knowledge, just to show their penis. Some people try to make Commons like Facebook or other social network. We need to make clear which photos add knowledge and which don't. --Sdrtirs (talk) 18:08, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
- My major concern is that the images are taken back to back, show the same action, and even have the same title. One of this set could possibly be justified, but not all of them. I wish others would recognize that and prune it down a bit. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:46, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Again a home-made picture we do have plenty of. --Yikrazuul (talk) 18:08, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
- Keep - it's part of a series of images, all high quality which is quite surprising considering they seem self-taken, and which are all much higher quality than our other images from the same angle. Both other shots from the series were kept at DR - Commons:Deletion requests/File:SPERME.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:EJACULATION DE SPERME.jpg. -mattbuck (Talk) 19:00, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Kept: I think, since the image has acceptable quality and there are no doubts on copyright status, there is no reason why particularly this file should be deleted. A.Savin 18:51, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
This is obviously not self created (plagiarized from w:File:Buffalo Seal.svg); the uploader has not provided any proof that this image is free in the US (e.g., that it fits {{PD-1989}}). Magog the Ogre (talk) 02:54, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
- Uh, small problem. The seal is from File:Flag of Buffalo, New York.svg here on Commons. The flag has been here since 2008, and was made a year before the Seal was. So if the flag can be here (so far, it's not been challenged), so can the seal, as a derivative of the flag. Fry1989 eh? 08:18, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
Good point. I hadn't noticed the article w:Flag of Buffalo, New York, which clearly shows the flag was made public in 1924. That would probably qualify as {{PD-pre1964}}, but I'm not an expert on how something that general can fall into the public domain (e.g., Why is Mickey Mouse as an idea not in the public domain?). Magog the Ogre (talk) 09:26, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
- I'm not sure either, just thought I'd point that out. I knew we had the flag of Buffalo on Wikimedia somewhere, but I didn't realize it was hosted on Commons until I looked it up last night for reference, as I knew it had the seal on it. Fry1989 eh? 20:32, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
This is not ineligible for copyright, or the uploader has not properly explained why it isn't copyrightable. In fact, the composer died only in 1962, thus making this copyrighted in Germany until 2033; and this is completely independent of who created this individual playing (who can thus claim an additional copyright on it). Magog the Ogre (talk) 06:06, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
- Well, this is a tough one: Since the DDR doesn't exist anymore, it's hard to say which copyright law applies here. But if you apply the German copyright law, you definitely have to apply §5 of the "UrhG" which states that:
- "Amtliche Werke [...] genießen keinen urheberrechtlichen Schutz [...] mit der Einschränkung, daß die Bestimmungen über Änderungsverbot und Quellenangabe in § 62 Abs. 1 bis 3 und § 63 Abs. 1 und 2 entsprechend anzuwenden sind. "
- Being a national anthem definitely makes this to some kind of an "Amtliches Werk" thus making it also ineligible for copyright (as long as the name of the composer is given in the file description). 79.234.106.231 15:57, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
- We might need someone with knowledge of German copyright law. All GDR copyrights were transferred to the modern German state; what exactly has the state done with them? Nevertheless we have Template:Bild-PD-Amtliches Werk (Deutsche Briefmarke) and Template:PD-GDR stamps, which seem to indicate that such works are PD in modern Germany. But there isn't much proof there, I don't think. Magog the Ogre (talk) 13:21, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted, I'm not sure what the status of the anthem itself is (i.e. whether it's an "Amtliches Werk" in the current German state), but as there is no information about the performers and the year of the recording given in the file description, I think we must delete it anyway, as long as there is no further information. I think the recording would need to be older than 50 years to be free of the rights of performers. Which is possible, but not shown in the file description. Gestumblindi (talk) 03:18, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
OR w czystej postaci 95.51.207.58 12:32, 30 November 2011 (UTC) Translation: OR in pure form
- The image was constructed according to the map added to game Witcher. So it's not a 'clear case of OR'. Hoodinski (talk) 17:19, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
- też w pierwszej chwili pomyślałem że OR. Jeśli "was constructed according to the map added to game" to naruszenie praw autorskich może być. Marek Mazurkiewicz (talk) 15:20, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
- Translation: At first I also thought it's an OR. If it "was constructed according to the map added to game", it can be copyright violation. Yarl ✉ 21:55, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
- Please discuss in English, so others can join. Thanks. Ingolfson (talk) 21:13, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
- Ingolfson, Commons is a multilingual project, so each user is allowed to debate in his own language.
- We can find a contributor speaking polish to help us to understand on Commons:Bar. --Dereckson (talk) 21:29, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
- Please discuss in English, so others can join. Thanks. Ingolfson (talk) 21:13, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
- It's not similar (in coast or borderlines shape) to official map of the game or others created by fans, so it's not clear copyvio. Sapkowski himself did not create any map of this wolrd, so all maps are based on information from Witcher books. I don't think that creating another map of Witcher's world is derivative work of Sapkowski's books or the games. Let's compare this case to picture of witcher Geralt based of Sapkowski's description: should that be considered derivative work or mere inspiration? Weak Keep. About original research issue: using this map in Wikipedia article is different matter, AFAIR commons permits own works. A.J. (talk) 22:18, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
- Comment There is also another map created by Witcher fan on Commons. A.J. (talk) 22:51, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
- Comment I rather wonder how this one may not be copyrighted. It was posted at sapkowski.pl in this form and also in flash one few years ago. Page is down now, but I don't suppose it changes anything. ARvєδuι + 21:26, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
- Keep per A.J. Original research material is allowed on commons. Although it might not be usable on wikipedia. --Jarekt (talk) 03:36, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
- Keep This one doesn't violate copyright (I think...) and in meritum looks well as we talk about Withcher's geography. ARvєδuι + 21:26, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
Kept: Not derivative of official materials. Original research is permitted on Commons. Dcoetzee (talk) 06:31, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
copyright violation. a clear case of Commons:Derivative works Scantasyundfiencefiction (talk) 20:22, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
Kept: Already discussed in previous DR. Map is made by the uploader based on description from a book(?). Therefore, original research and not COM:DW. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 00:48, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
Unauthorized reproduction from http://www.rensenji.net/blog/?p=70 きゅっきゅっきゅっニャー (talk) 13:49, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
- 「File talk:蓮泉寺_鐘楼堂.jpg」の投稿者白胡椒です。削除依頼リストに追加された由、非常に残念です。当該画像は、ウィキページで「蓮泉寺」作成の為に自身のwebページよりアップロードしたものです。--白胡椒 (talk) 02:42, 2 December 2011 (UTC)--
- Comment Commons:OTRS is the best way. Takabeg (talk) 11:02, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
- As long as I understand from sentence 上記内容はWikipediaにも投稿しています, 上記内容はWikipediaにも投稿しています, the administrator of the website of the temple acknowledged the existence of these pictures on commons. Takabeg (talk) 11:18, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
- Delete So? That´s not a real permission. --Andrea (talk) 18:46, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
- There appears to be a clear language issue here, and I'm not sure the uploader understands the OTRS requirement. I'd like to get some Japanese editors' help with this. Bastique ☎ appelez-moi! 15:37, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
- Keep I think we can keep the uploader's images, as there is a sentence "(I/we) posted the same contents to Wikipedia, too." I can explain the OTRS system to the uploader, if necessary.--miya (talk) 16:40, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
- It´s really necessary. Also explain the implications of free licence. --Andrea (talk) 16:50, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
- If picture is finally deleted could be restore when OTRS ticket appears, so I suggest delete and restore if permission is attribute, but not "keep if" because picture has waiting for too long. --Andrea (talk) 16:18, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
- It´s really necessary. Also explain the implications of free licence. --Andrea (talk) 16:50, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: lack of required permission. A.J. (talk) 09:06, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
