Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2009/01/17
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
Unfortunately, this image is not a product of the US Congress, but a private photo that they are using - it was taken before Mr. Burris became a Senator. See this. Kelly (talk) 01:47, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Deleted as copyvio. Tom (talk - email) 02:20, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Out of project scope. No idea what this even is. Uploader is apparently promoting his band somehow. Doulos Christos (talk) 04:34, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Delete Not used, difficult to see what it could be used for. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 08:09, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Joku Janne(Fi) (Wikiwiki) 10:15, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Out of project scope and unused. Some attempt at comedy apparently. Uploader's only contributions are for a myspace page. Doulos Christos (talk) 04:47, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Out of project scope, not used anywhere. Joku Janne(Fi) (Wikiwiki) 10:09, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Out of scope. Useless unused joke image. Uploader's only contribution. Doulos Christos (talk) 05:09, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
- Delete Might be attack image. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 08:12, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Joku Janne(Fi) (Wikiwiki) 09:59, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Out of project scope. Useless image used only on en.wiki user page. En.wiki account appears to be a meatpuppet to participate in deletion discussion there and edited nothing but that discussion and user page. Doulos Christos (talk) 05:13, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Joku Janne(Fi) (Wikiwiki) 10:01, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Out of project scope. Useless unused image - apparently a joke? Doulos Christos (talk) 05:15, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Out of project scope. Joku Janne(Fi) (Wikiwiki) 10:05, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Duplicate of File:Ukrainian Artists Society of Australia-1976.jpg (which is a better and later version). Pkravchenko (talk) 06:53, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Unused lower quality duplicate of File:Ukrainian Artists Society of Australia-1976.jpg. Joku Janne(Fi) (Wikiwiki) 10:03, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Copyvio: promotional photo taken from fansite ˉanetode╦╩ 02:40, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. From http://pictures.bjorkish.net/2007.htm. Joku Janne(Fi) (Wikiwiki) 13:04, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Nonsense personal image. Unused anywhere. Uploader's only contribution. Doulos Christos (talk) 03:39, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Joku Janne(Fi) (Wikiwiki) 10:13, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Photography of copyrighted work. Peter17 (talk) 10:24, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Joku Janne(Fi) (Wikiwiki) 12:44, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
doubtful that the uploader has the rights of all single images composed in this file; rather surely a derivative/copyvio. Túrelio (talk) 10:54, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
- Please speedy delete, was previously uploaded and deleted two times for the exact same reason: no proof all images were available at the given license. Previous image upload was File:Filipino people.jpg by user:Ben ambo. --Denniss (talk) 12:36, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Joku Janne(Fi) (Wikiwiki) 12:46, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Didn't setup the permissions properly. I'll do further reading to figure out the proper way to upload game covers. Rizz768 (talk) 13:09, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Please upload all covers to the English Wikipedia, thank you. Joku Janne(Fi) (Wikiwiki) 13:22, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
copyright on flickr is "All Rights Reserved" , thus not allowed on Commons. Raeky (talk) 13:36, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
- It was CC-BY at the time of the upload.Geni (talk) 14:36, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Keep CC-BY at time of upload. Licence is not revocable. Adambro (talk) 14:47, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
- Kept and added {{Flickr-change-of-license}}. Multichill (talk) 14:57, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
It is a photograph of a poster, which is almost certainly the copyright of someone else 86.164.235.9 13:37, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Deleted, clear case of copyright violation by derivative work. Only purpose of photo is to reproduce the commercial advertisement. -- Infrogmation (talk) 15:36, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
as Colombo became cardinal in 1965 and is shown here as cardinal, the original of this image is nowhere PD but copyrighted (even if the original painter or photographer died in 1965); so our image is a derivative. Túrelio (talk) 13:53, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
- Delete Seems a small-res scan of decades old promotional photo. Uploader claims to be creator and copyright holder, but description calls it a "card" and official portrait. -- Infrogmation (talk) 15:30, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
deleted, not the uploader’s first obvious copyvio. --Polarlys (talk) 18:16, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
A call for violence without any historical, documentary or illustrative value. The image is not used in any Wikimedia project --נטע (talk) 17:16, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
- Keep Just an echo of Drork and Mbz1 without any substance. It is a call to stop violence. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 17:20, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
- Keep Nomination is a gross mischaractorization of image; hard to see how anyone could misconstrue this as "a call for violence". (Cartoonist is making analogy of suffering of those in besieged Gaza to the suffering of Jews in the Holocaust. Whether one thinks the analogy appropriate, or agrees or disagrees with the cartoonist's political views, is irrelevent to Commons scope and policy discussion.) The cartoonist has articles in Wikipedias in more than one language, so in project scope. -- Infrogmation (talk) 18:02, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
- Keep In scope, it is realistically useful for an education purpose and Commons is not censored. Since it appears this user is familiar with the reasoning Drok et al have nominated similar images for deletion it would follow that they also are familiar with the clear consensus on the other deletion requests to keep these images. Since נטע (talk · contribs) hasn't made any attempts to develop the argument to delete these images already put forward then they should expect the same answer. As such I consider this deletion request to have little merit and am slightly suspicious that it is intended just to further disrupt the project as part of the ongoing campaign against Latuff. Perhaps a checkuser would be appropriate? It would seem that the anti-Latuff campaigners have not taken heed of my suggestion that constantly irritating the community with poorly justified deletion nominations is likely to reduce the chance that these images are deleted rather than increase it. Adambro (talk) 18:31, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
- Keep as the given reason is so obviously false and wouldn't be a valid argument for deletion even if it was. // Liftarn (talk) 19:15, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
- Keep No reason for deletion. --Dezidor (talk) 20:56, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Kept. Joku Janne(Fi) (Wikiwiki) 22:05, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Image shows copyrighted trading cards, thus being a derivative work. --NoCitNeed (talk) 17:26, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. -- Infrogmation (talk) 18:07, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Joku Janne(Fi) (Wikiwiki) 22:17, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: unused private photo. EugeneZelenko (talk) 17:46, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Joku Janne(Fi) (Wikiwiki) 22:15, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Commons:Derivative works Polarlys (talk) 18:54, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Joku Janne(Fi) (Wikiwiki) 22:19, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Commons:Derivative work Polarlys (talk) 19:07, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Joku Janne(Fi) (Wikiwiki) 22:29, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Out of project scope. Cannot determine who this is. Uploader's only contribution. Doulos Christos (talk) 03:27, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
- Comparing name in description and uploader name suggest it's the uploader himself. However, it's used nowhere. --Túrelio (talk) 14:31, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Joku Janne(Fi) (Wikiwiki) 23:02, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
the license applies to the reproduction maybe, not to the original art work by Damien Hirst Polarlys (talk) 18:41, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
- It's not an original art work by Damien Hirst. It's an original art work by Mark D, called Damien Hirst: Money for Old Rope, as stated on the image page:
- Retrieved from stuckism.com, 30 March 2008.
- Licence on originating site:
- http://www.stuckism.com/MarkD/index.html
- Copyright © Mark D, stuckism.com.
You can find it along with Mark D's other paintings on stuckism.com.
I suggest withdrawal of nom. Please note that many of Mark D's paintings have titles which are the names of artists, as they are the subjects of his paintings. I hope this isn't going to recur.
Tyrenius (talk) 01:43, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
kept, sorry for the inconvenience --Polarlys (talk) 10:16, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
On the page which present this image, it is stated that it was taken by a "official White House photographer" - does the Obama-Biden Transition Project really descide the copyright status of that kind of images? Calandrella (talk) 20:05, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
- Keep. Firstly, the Obama transition team has actually seriously been using free content as a driving force behind their online operations. Also, if its an "official White House photographer", wouldn't that make it {{PD-USGov}}? If I'm not mistaken, the White House is part of the US Government, and since taking photos would be within their "official duties". ViperSnake151 (talk) 20:18, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Comment Well if what you are telling is right (which I have no reason to not think), then the file was wrong licensed. And then it was although good the case was paid attention to. Calandrella (talk) 20:37, 17 January 2009 (UTC)- Keep--Farzaaaad2000 (talk) 21:30, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
- CommentI don't think he's the "official White House photographer" yet, but was announced as such. But I don't know if working for an election campaign makes it PD-USGov -- Gorgo (talk) 21:50, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Closed as kept. While the issue of a transition team which has not yet assumed office acting as part of the U.S. Federal Government may be ambiguous, the transition website clearly authorizes reuse of contents under Creative Commons 3.0. License of image has been changed accordingly; usable free content per Wikimedia policy. -- Infrogmation (talk) 23:53, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Modified version of fair use image from Wikipedia (en:File:10dr19.jpg) -- — Edokter • Talk • 21:01, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
- (EDIT) Now tagged for copyvio. — Edokter • Talk • 21:15, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Joku Janne(Fi) (Wikiwiki) 22:59, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
© http://www.lastfm.com.br/music/Phil+Thornton Yanguas (talk) 23:00, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. In the future, mark obvious copyright violations with the following syntax: {{Copyvio|it is from Insert URL here}} Joku Janne(Fi) (Wikiwiki) 23:07, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Appears to be an unused duplicated of File:BSicon dHSTR.svg. Adambro (talk) 16:32, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
- Keep It's the other way around: File:BSicon dHSTR.svg should be deleted, because the title is not correct. - Erik Baas (talk) 18:51, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
- What isn't correct about the title? Adambro (talk) 19:18, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
- "d" means "half width", "STR" means "strecke" (in german, or straight in English), "q" means "quer" (=horizontal). Compare to File:BSicon STRq.svg (idem, full-width), which is a duplicate of the
to-be-deleted File:BSicon HSTR.svg. - Erik Baas (talk) 00:17, 18 January 2009 (UTC)- Also see Commons:Undeletion_requests/Current_requests#File:BSicon_dSTRq.svg, where User:Axpde explains it. - Erik Baas (talk) 00:40, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
- "d" means "half width", "STR" means "strecke" (in german, or straight in English), "q" means "quer" (=horizontal). Compare to File:BSicon STRq.svg (idem, full-width), which is a duplicate of the
Wow, I requested to restore my original icon, waited several days and even before I mentioned the approval, the just restored icon gets nominated again! Ok, here we go:
- On April, 15th 2007 I created this icon and loaded it to german WP. see german logfile
- On August, 2nd 2007 I uploaded this icon to commons (btw. why does it say "User:$2gm0yRS"?!? Ok, it was before I merged my accounts to SUL, but it's a bit strange ... can anyone listening change this weird user? I uploaded several icons that day and want to have them in "my gallery" ...)
- On January, 7th 2008 User:BjørnN did a re-upload of my icon with another name (which – as Erik already noted – violated the naming convention but later more) and one hour later he nominated the old icon to be a duplicate of the re-uploaded one!
- On the very same evening, just two hours after the reupload, my file got speedily deleted (unfortunaly I haven't been informed on that due to the weird user thing mentioned above).
So first of all, this "cloak-and-dagger operation" is not very kind manner! Second (and to carry out the remark I made before), there has always been only one naming convention – the original one adopted from the german WP, the inventors of the whole BSicon project. This naming convention clearly states, that only the name of the icon is capitalized, the prefix modifiers are all lower case and only about the condition of the icon (in/off use, underground, tunnel, etc.), all modifiers conc. direction (left/right, overhead/underneath, start/end, etc.) go to the suffix and are all lower case, too!
That's the reason I introduced the suffix q in german WP in spring 2007, and that's the reason I'm working hard to correct the flaw made one year ago!
Btw. "Appears to be an unused duplicate":
- File:BSicon dHSTR.svg is used on one page (a userspace list of icons)
- File:BSicon dSTRq.svg is used on eight pages !!!
Any questions left?!? axpdeHello! 09:08, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
- Now that's fast! Since File:BSicon dHSTR.svg has been deleted, this diskussion is de facto ended, the main reason for the deletion isn't anymore! axpdeHello! 15:51, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
Kept. Adambro (talk) 15:59, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
Out of project scope and unused. Some attempt at comedy apparently. Uploader's only contributions are for a myspace page. Doulos Christos (talk) 04:43, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
- Delete Not a bad photo of a man holding a chicken other than that the background and foreground not matching, but given the uploader's other deleted contributions likely joke/vanity upload, dubious claim of copyright/authorship. -- Infrogmation (talk) 17:40, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Unlikely to be own work MichaelMaggs (talk) 18:28, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
After uploading, I noticed that it is very poor quality, Hike395 (talk) 10:21, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
- Delete Indeed very poor. Plrk (talk) 11:35, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 18:28, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
Out of scope --Lycaon (talk) 13:42, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
- Comment Maybe; I can't tell. Perhaps the uploader or someone else can give more info or relevent categories showing significance of group of people shown. -- Infrogmation (talk) 15:33, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
- Delete per nom --Simonxag (talk) 12:35, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 18:29, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
copyright Michiel1972 (talk) 23:03, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. No evidence of stated licence MichaelMaggs (talk) 18:31, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
copyright Michiel1972 (talk) 23:04, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. No licence by "UA", whoever or whatever that is. MichaelMaggs (talk) 18:32, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
The image isn't very clear and has no categories. At the least, it should be renamed something more descriptive and included in an article about Ayatollah Khomeini Jonjames1986 (talk) 03:02, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
- Keep Nominator should add categories. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 08:07, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Kuiper said it. - Anonymous DissidentTalk 09:20, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
copyright Michiel1972 (talk) 15:39, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Keep FOP in the Netherlands. --Simonxag (talk) 12:48, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
- fop is not the problem. its copyrighted. reuploaded on 19 jan assuming its from flickr. falsplay Michiel1972 (talk) 14:29, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
- The image is in fact from skyscrapercity, where it was posted in January 2008. Speedying, deleting the few remaining uploads of this user, putting the Flickr account on the bad list, and blocking uploader indefinitely. Lupo 14:48, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
- fop is not the problem. its copyrighted. reuploaded on 19 jan assuming its from flickr. falsplay Michiel1972 (talk) 14:29, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Lupo 14:49, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Derivative work: woman dressed like the unfree Power Girl fictional character -- User:Belgrano
Comment User:Belgrano tagged this as a speedy delete; I have changed it to a deletion discussion per comments at talk page File talk:AN Liana K 1.jpg Note also image has an OTRS. -- Infrogmation (talk) 15:19, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
- A moment ago, I requested an OTRS ticket check (Commons_talk:OTRS#Power_Girl_ticket_File:AN_Liana_K_1.jpg_.3F) --InfantGorilla (talk) 15:42, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
- Delete What is there to discuss? The fictional character Power Girl is copyrighted by DC Comics, and to make a costume similar to it is beyond doubt a Derivative Work. What can be said in contrary? People dressing like sitcom or soap opera characters may be ambiguous, but this woman is not dressed in a manner that may be conceived as common everyday clothing or similar. As for the OTRS, surely it says that the photographer licences his work or that the woman has no objection with it's use, but I can bet that there isn't anything said by the owners of the original copyright, wich is not bypassed by the made of a derivative work. By the way, if someone is not aware about that character and thinks this to be just a photo of a woman with big hooters, it's easy to investigate but you can see samples here and read the wikipedia article (short version for people that do not read comics: it's the cousin of Superman, with a twisted story) Belgrano (talk) 01:11, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
- Keep The character may be copyright but the performer is not. This is a picture of the performer. --Simonxag (talk) 12:40, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
- Delete The construction of the costume is Commons:Fan art and derivative work. There are many fair use images of Power Girl at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:JSA_images --InfantGorilla (talk) 15:36, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
- Speedy delete Derivative work of Power Girl. It's fair use like w:File:Power Girl.png. AnimeFan (talk) 05:06, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
- Keep. This image is used in the w:Cosplay article to illustrate cosplay at conventions in North America. This image is not in the w:Power Girl article. It's a photo of Liana Kerzner in a costume, taken at Wizard World Chicago 2007 and uploaded to Flickr. Is the nominator suggesting that the costume is an unlicensed derivative work? Does that automatically mean that a photograph where the costume is visible is a derivative work? Why is the nominator focused on the clothing and not the tub of Dubble Bubble or the cover of Ed and Red's Comic Strip issue #2? I don't know of a policy against photos of people in costumes, like File:Tronguy.jpg, so I say keep. If this image is considered fair use, like w:File:Power Girl.png, then I suggest the image be copied over to Wikipedia. --Costumed Adventurer (talk) 21:20, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, it is an unlicenced derivative work, unless someone shows me the authorization by DC Comics for it. It doesn't really matter in wich article is it used, or even if it's used in any article at all. In a related issue, I don't know if that comic book mentioned made any copyright violation or not, I don't even know about it (my knowledge of comic books is minimal), but if that copyright violation took place outside of commons it's not at all our issue. By the way, I wouldn't advise to upload it to wikipedia under a fair use claim either: fair use isn't a wild card for anything copyrighted, and a good rationale must be provided to met the strict requirements. An impressive comic book cover that seems like a piece of art is one thing; a woman using a costume at a fan's convention is another Belgrano (talk) 21:52, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
- Do you work for DC Comics? The cover of that comic book I mentioned is also in the image up for deletion. It's a photo in a public place. Your argument makes it seem like no photos of costumes are allowed, but it looks to me like they are allowed. Your argument makes it seem like no photos from any conventions are allowed, but it looks to me like they are allowed. Where does it say that photos of costumes are forbidden? If they're forbidden, then why is File:Tronguy.jpg still here? --Costumed Adventurer (talk) 23:07, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
- Delete - If the character is copyrighted, then if someone makes a costume of that character, it's a derivative work. Since the copyright terms are doubtless all rights reserved, that costume is a copyright violation. A photo of a copyright violation is still a copyright violation. -mattbuck (Talk) 00:25, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
- Comment There's a wider ongoing discussion of this topic at Commons:Deletion requests/Images of costumes tagged as copyvios by AnimeFan. If there are no objetions, I suggest merging this deletion request there. Belgrano (talk) 15:57, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
Result: Inconclusive As said 3 days ago, there's a wider ongoing deletion request about people costumed like fictional characters. This deletion request, being a single example of the same topic of discussion, does not deserve a separate deletion request. The image is added to that debate, and will be either deleted or kept when that debate is over and closed. This closure is not a final statement about deleting or keeping the file (wich must be done by an unrelated administrator) but just to simplify maintenance Belgrano (talk) 16:28, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
No OTRS ticket. -Nard (Hablemonos)(Let's talk) 20:24, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
- I found this ticket https://ticket.wikimedia.org/otrs/index.pl?Action=AgentTicketZoom&TicketID=1044658&ArticleID=1286551&QueueID=53 for 117 images. There is a notice on the image (http://www.flickr.com/photos/animenut/1102048986/#comment72157601495708813) saying the image is on Wikipedia. So I think that it is likely that author gave a permission and do not mind, that image is on Commons - but for some reason this image was not mentioned in the permission. --MGA73 (talk) 18:33, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
- But the flickr image has ARR on the image page and not mentioned in the permission. Could we send another email to make sure that the above image is actually a part of this permission? User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 19:13, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
Isn't it enough to keep File:Liana K 2.jpg, where everything seems to be o.k. 84.227.66.112 23:53, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
Kept, per MGA73. Kameraad Pjotr 17:24, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
replaced by two new maps S. Bollmann (talk) 17:19, 3 January 2009 (UTC) New maps: File:Grosser_Nordischer_Krieg_Phase1.png and File:Grosser_Nordischer_Krieg_Phase2.png
- Keep Might be superseded, but I see no reason to delete. --Eusebius (talk) 21:47, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
This map from me is replaced by two new correct maps made also by me. This map is incomplete and leaves a false impression about the course of the Great Northern War. I think it's more important for the Wikipedia project to have correct maps than to have a collection of bonnily maps. S. Bollmann (talk) 00:27, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
- Sure, but which maps are those then? Patrícia msg 20:31, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
- New maps: File:Grosser_Nordischer_Krieg_Phase1.png and File:Grosser_Nordischer_Krieg_Phase2.png (See also the deletion request above.) --S. Bollmann (talk) 13:22, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
Deleted, superseded by the new maps/image replaced/user request. Kameraad Pjotr 13:44, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
no OTRS agreement and info about the real author Polimerek (talk) 20:40, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Did OTRS even exist when this was uploaded in 2006? Anyway, it was clearly uploaded with the bands permission, and one can assume that they had obtained copyright. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:07, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
Kept. OTRS ticket seems fine. James F. (talk) 11:43, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
File was kept because it was assumed that there was an OTRS ticked allowing its use, however as a regular visitor, I see no proof that a ticket was sent. →Diti the penguin — 17:35, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
- Uploader said that he lost email with permission and he won't ask for it again, so you may delete it. He got proper permission and uploaded other photos instead. Herr Kriss (talk) 23:26, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
- Mistake, as far as i know, there is permission here, but somebody have to check it, somebody who knows Polish lang. Herr Kriss (talk) 23:37, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
- Comment I asked a polish OTRS user: same thing goes for File:Acid Drinkers band 3.jpg (old DR). Ciell (talk) 11:20, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
- Mistake, as far as i know, there is permission here, but somebody have to check it, somebody who knows Polish lang. Herr Kriss (talk) 23:37, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
- Appearently the OTRS permisson in insufficient: "It seems that there is no agreement from the actual copyright holder". Ciell (talk) 13:14, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. --Tryphon (talk) 13:17, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
Files by User:ChNPP
[edit]- File:AES-92.PNG
- File:AES-WWER-2006.PNG
- File:AST-Reaktor.PNG
- File:Erstbeladung des EPR.PNG
- File:Kerninstrumentierung des EPR.PNG
- File:MKER Fundament.PNG
- File:MKER.PNG
- File:RBMK-1000 Reaktor.PNG
- File:RBMK Reaktorhallenaufbau.PNG
- File:RBMK-1500 Reaktorhallenaufbau.PNG
- File:WWER-440-213 Reaktor.PNG
The drafts are originally not by User:ChNPP, but a derivative work e.g. from this one. See also the discussion on German wiki's nuclear power portal: de:Portal_Diskussion:Kernenergie#Probleme_mit_selbst_erstellten_Bildern. --S[1] 21:00, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Deleted all per nomination. However this is not a law-releated statement (and I am not giving to give one, but my interpretation of COM:L) abf «Cabale?! Quelle Caballe?» 10:55, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
Copyrightet logo, not free --Laaknor (talk) 18:16, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Kept. Too simple to pass the threshold of originality, only text. Joku Janne(Fi) (Wikiwiki) 11:28, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Does this really not meet the threshold of originality needed for copyright protection, I have my doubt Abigor talk 22:02, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
- Originality depends on the country. In Germany, this was not protected by copyright. The Atea-logo is from Norway. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 08:55, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
- I tend to Keep this one as it's indeed a very simple logo. →Na·gy 12:13, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
- Atea has in no way endorsed usage of this logo on Commons. The legal status is not changed if it's kept. The fact that its on Commons does not widen the allowed use. ZorroIII (talk) 18:44, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
- I tend to
copyright / no link to web that states its cc-by Michiel1972 (talk) 23:06, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
This file is not done by uploader but by www.izvestiya.kz. So it should be deleted as not free. --Mheidegger (talk) 14:49, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
- Please check website address. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 18:33, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 09:59, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
More Files by User:ChNPP
[edit]- Image:RBMK Reaktorhallenaufbau en.PNG
- Image:RBMK-1500 Beschriftet en.PNG
- File:RBMK-1500 Kostroma.PNG
- Image:MKER Beschriftet en.PNG
These are english versions of the images deleted here. (not own work, but derivative). See the german disc. for details.---<(kmk)>- (talk) 23:15, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Images of Salman khan65
[edit]- File:BMW 7 Series High Security Sedan Front View.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:BMW 7 Series High Security Sedan Rear.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:BMW 7 Series High Security Sedan.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:BMW 7 Series Instrument Cluster.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:BMM 7 Series Automatic Transmission With Right Paddle Shifter.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:2002 BMW 760Li Rear View.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:2002 BMW 745 Li.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Ekta Kapoor's Car.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Saif Ali Khan's Car.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:17320srkre5.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:NOKIA N73 ME.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
After notice on COM:AN/U, I think these images are copyright violations. Contrary to what Herby said, I think the more recent ones (detail shots of a car interior) might be the uploader's work - it is the earlier uploads I think are not. For example, File:BMW 7 Series i Drive Controller For Driver and Front Passenger.jpg shows a key with an unsightly tag on it in the reflection - a proper promotional shot wouldn't have that (also has bad lighting). As well, it seems from File:BMW 730Ld.jpg and File:BMW 7 Series Sedan Steering Wheel.jpg that these images were taken in a car lot or showroom or something - maybe a rental place. File:BMW 7 Series Starting Switch with Start and Stop Botton.jpg has bad lighting, which wouldn't appear in a promotional shot. I'd encourage others to review the rest of this user's uploads and add/remove images. — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 16:53, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
- I've found 3 that match in size and have found one that matches but the size is smaller[1] (which has been there since 2006 going by Archive.org). I'll continue to search Google images. Bidgee (talk) 14:31, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Since I have doubt that this user owns or took the photographs since finding that most images have no EXIF data, low resolution (not all but some), similar images online that have been on the net before some of these images were uploaded and have also taken COM:PRP into account. Bidgee (talk) 03:13, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
no FOP in Italy Polarlys (talk) 18:17, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
- Painting might be old enough, therefore I asked for the name & life dates of the painter. --Túrelio (talk) 20:24, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
- Mh, looks modern to me :) --Polarlys (talk) 22:13, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
- In my town (Corbetta) this painter is unknown, but recent reliefs had revealed this painting is from XVIII century as you can read in "Corbetta"'s wikipage on italian wikipedia--Pelican (msg) 14:42, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
- That would be somewhere here. --Túrelio (talk) 08:41, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
Keep as of additional informations provided by uploader. --Túrelio (talk) 10:09, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
Kept. MichaelMaggs (talk) 17:08, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
no FOP in Italy Polarlys (talk) 18:17, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
- Painting might be old enough, therefore I asked for the name & life dates of the painter. --Túrelio (talk) 20:24, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
- Mh, looks modern to me :) --Polarlys (talk) 22:13, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
- In my town (Corbetta) this painter is unknown, but recent reliefs had revealed this painting is from XVIII century as you can read in "Corbetta"'s wikipage on italian wikipedia--Pelican (msg) 14:42, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
- That would be somewhere here. --Túrelio (talk) 08:41, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
Keep as of additional informations provided by uploader. --Túrelio (talk) 10:09, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
Kept. MichaelMaggs (talk) 17:08, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
Poor description, unknown subject, no used in any Wiki project
Deleted, per nominator. Kameraad Pjotr 13:40, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
Poor description, unknown subject, no used in any Wiki project
Deleted, per nominator. Kameraad Pjotr 13:40, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
Poor description, unknown subject, no used in any Wiki project
Deleted, per nominator. Kameraad Pjotr 13:40, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
Poor description, unknown subject, no used in any Wiki project
Deleted, per nominator. Kameraad Pjotr 13:40, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
- Deletion of Saddleback maine logo.gif
Hello,
I have uploaded this file in the incorrect place with the incorrect permission. I will be uploading this logo (different file) onto Wikipedia with the correct copyright.--Bubblecuffer (talk) 18:41, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Deleted by Túrelio. Kameraad Pjotr 15:02, 22 July 2009 (UTC)