Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2005/07
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
|
|
July 1
[edit]and
These pages only pretend that there is content but they are empty. -guety July 1, 2005 02:47 (UTC)
First article deleted, the second has content now. Thuresson 01:05, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
Image most probable copyrighted, as it comes from a commercial company website. And we already have additional two images of the same event: Image:Soyuz TMA-6 launch.jpg and Image:Blast off of Soyuz 041505.jpg. Image is not used on any wikipedia. --Bricktop 1 July 2005 11:02 (UTC)
- On the uploader's talk page, User talk:Ygrek, uploader claims that he/she tagged the image as PD since there was no copyright info on the web page. Thuresson 1 July 2005 15:46 (UTC)
- I have seen carefully the page of Energy Corporation and have not found any information on copyrights. Moreover, I have sent them E-mail where asked of the permission to use of their photos, but no any answer received. I have pointed the URL, there photo has been taken. Besides, another Web pages use photos from Web page of the Energy Corporation too.(for example, here http://www.novosti-kosmonavtiki.ru/content/z13.04.05.shtml )--Ygrek 2 July 2005 18:27 (UTC)
- Don't know if this image is indeed copyrighted, but I don't think we should allow a commercial usage of this image. And due to the fact that we already have other two images of the same launch event, I think we shouldn't take the risk and remove this one. --Bricktop 2 July 2005 23:17 (UTC)
- I have seen carefully the page of Energy Corporation and have not found any information on copyrights. Moreover, I have sent them E-mail where asked of the permission to use of their photos, but no any answer received. I have pointed the URL, there photo has been taken. Besides, another Web pages use photos from Web page of the Energy Corporation too.(for example, here http://www.novosti-kosmonavtiki.ru/content/z13.04.05.shtml )--Ygrek 2 July 2005 18:27 (UTC)
- Deleted, Thuresson 01:05, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
Just read that Gunther von Hagens does only allows to take pictures under strikt restrictions, so these were taken unlawful. They should be delete as copyvios. -guety July 1, 2005 02:21 (UTC) (No deletionrequest on the pictures because I uploaded them and already know about the deletionrequest)
- Actually, no, whether or not the photography was illegal, the photographs are not invalid (copyright free) merely because the by-laws locally were unfavourable. These shouldn't be deleted unless it can be shown that they are also copyvios or otherwise under a non-free licence, but given that (apparently) you took them, they are fine. James F. (talk) 2 July 2005 01:11 (UTC)
- I don't took them, I just uploaded them to commons. I'm sure there were taken and licenced as cc-by-sa in good faith, but nonetheless violate the Hausrecht (rights of the householder? [1]) -guety July 2, 2005 22:18 (UTC)
- I don't disagree that the photographer almost certainly violated the by-laws of the exhibition hall (or whatever), but the important point is that this has no bearing whatsoever on the images' copyright status. We don't delete images because they're illegal for non-copyright reasons (or, at least, for non-copyright reasons that only are in effect outside of Florida, where we are legally liable). James F. (talk) 8 July 2005 11:32 (UTC)
- I don't took them, I just uploaded them to commons. I'm sure there were taken and licenced as cc-by-sa in good faith, but nonetheless violate the Hausrecht (rights of the householder? [1]) -guety July 2, 2005 22:18 (UTC)
I agree with James F. I've heard the suggestion that images should be legal in Florida, where the photo was taken, and in the photographer's country of citizenship. But I think that if the photo is legal in Florida, that's good enough. dbenbenn | talk 14:54, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
July 2
[edit]This page has been created erroneously for an image of mung bean sprouts. However, "mung bean" is Vigna radiata, whereas Phaseolus mungo is a synonym of Vigna mungo (black gram ). I moved the photo to Vigna radiata. So the page now is empty and should be deleted. --Franz Xaver 2 July 2005 14:47 (UTC)
- Deleted, Thuresson 01:32, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
The Image is for non-commercial use only (cc-by-nc). It was my failure to upload ist :-/
Or would this be a candidate for speedy deletion? --Boris23 讨论 2 July 2005 20:41 (UTC)
- Deleted, Thuresson 01:32, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
Image is not free use. MattKingston 2 July 2005 21:12 (UTC)
- Note that this was nominated for deletion on May 28. See Image talk:Sudoku.gif for the old discussion.
- Do you think the Times invented the actual puzzle? If so, I suppose it might be copyrightable. dbenbenn | talk 15:49, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
- I offer Image:Sudoku-by-L2G-20050714.gif as a replacement. (I've already put it in the Sudoku article.) LarryGilbert 19:18, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
- Deleted. I changed in en, de, fr, sv, pl, pt, es, it, zh, no, da, ca and sl. Thuresson 20:45, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
It's a thumbnail of w:Image:Victoriya Terminus Railway Station Bombay,India.jpg, which itself has no source or copyright information. dbenbenn | talk 2 July 2005 21:39 (UTC)
- Deleted, the uploader is a troublemaker. Thuresson 01:32, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
Image has been incorrectly named and must be uploaded with the correct information.
- How long will this take? --Komencanto 7 July 2005 05:13 (UTC)
- It's up to you to upload the image to a new title, and then indicate the new title at Image:Nowra-BirdsfootDelta.jpg. This image won't be deleted until then. dbenbenn | talk 15:54, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
- Left message on uploader's talk page if the request is still standing. Thuresson 01:32, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
Do we make a category for each user ? I don't think so. Yann 3 July 2005 14:55 (UTC)
- Each user who wants one, yes. I've made it a subcat of Category:User galleries. dbenbenn | talk 5 July 2005 22:34 (UTC)
- Was this discussed before ? I am a bit surprised. Yann 7 July 2005 21:05 (UTC)
- I think there should at least be a naming convention for those categories. Something like [[Categorie:User/Name]] or [[Categorie:User:Name]]. I don't know what would be possible with Mediawiki. --80.137.17.182 8 July 2005 15:44 (UTC)
- Some have proposed to create a specific gallery page such as http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Nitot/gallery . It does not solve the problem I tried to solve by creating this Nitot category, which is to have a Gallery of all my picture contributions. —Nitot 12:16, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
- I think there should at least be a naming convention for those categories. Something like [[Categorie:User/Name]] or [[Categorie:User:Name]]. I don't know what would be possible with Mediawiki. --80.137.17.182 8 July 2005 15:44 (UTC)
- Was this discussed before ? I am a bit surprised. Yann 7 July 2005 21:05 (UTC)
July 3
[edit]I should have been uploaded this as an Edge Connector not a D-connector. I've uploaded a copy to the correct locationImage:44EdgeConnector.jpg. Please delete Dconnector44.jpg. RJFJR 3 July 2005 16:31 (UTC)
- Deleted, Thuresson 20:08, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
After creating the category, intended for maps of the districts, I realized that similar categories had a different naming style, and created Category:Maps of English districts instead, leaving Districts of England empty. Cnyborg 3 July 2005 22:00 (UTC)
- Deleted, Thuresson 20:08, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
July 5
[edit]This was recorded 'off-the-cuff' by a single person, then uploaded as a 'Wikinews audio broadcast'. It was not based on any Wikinews articles (although some have been written around it since), nor was it sanctioned by the Wikinews community. The person simply recorded what he felt like then uploaded it. Dan100 5 July 2005 11:11 (UTC)
- Keep. This recording follows the transcript available at en:n:Wikinews:Audio Wikinews/Transcripts/July 2, 2005. I see no reason to delete this. Thuresson 00:02, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
- You miss the point. The transcript was written after the recording was made. 81.79.46.211 10:55, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
Category holding 4 pictures of 1 person, standing out strangely within all its parent categories. Moved the article to parent categories. --81.71.140.110 5 July 2005 16:03 (UTC)
- Deleted. -- Joolz 19:01, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
It's an amateurish cutout of Image:Kooikerhondje.jpg. I don't think we should be encouraging this kind of modification. If you want a photo of a dog on a white background, put the dog on a white background, then take the picture. Don't try to fake it afterwards. Not used, after I removed it from Kooikerhondje. dbenbenn | talk 5 July 2005 22:39 (UTC)
- Deleted, Thuresson 22:05, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
Terms of use from the website the picture is from: "2.) Selling and redistribution of these photos (individually, or as a whole) without written permission is prohibited. Using the photos in website templates, on postcards, mugs etc. doesn't count as selling or redistribution, however you are not allowed to build a gallery using the photos you downloaded from here." There are more restrictions (may not be used for adult oriented material etc.). I don't think that's fit for Commons, is it? --AndreasPraefcke 6 July 2005 07:46 (UTC)
- I do agree with you, but this question has been voted before and most people think otherwise: see Commons:Stock.xchng images/vote and Commons:Stock.xchng images. --Patrick-br msg 7 July 2005 19:02 (UTC)
- Keep, photographer allows free use, Thuresson 22:05, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
Duplicates of Image:Telekia speciosissima QWERTZY2.JPG, which has the right scientific name of the plant.Qwertzy2 6 July 2005 15:20 (UTC)
- Deleted, Thuresson 22:05, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
After having realized that there is a typo in the filename, I uploaded this new version: Image:Eryngium alpinum.JPG. So that one becomes a useless duplicate.Qwertzy2 6 July 2005 15:20 (UTC)
- Deleted, Thuresson 22:05, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
July 7
[edit]Source: http://www.rn.gov.br which states: Governo do Estado do Rio Grande do Norte © 2005 (© 2005 Government of Rio Grande do Norte). --Patrick-br msg 7 July 2005 00:53 (UTC)
- Deleted -- Breezie 14:08, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
This image has been updated to: Image:Moringa hildebrandtii 2.JPG.Qwertzy2 7 July 2005 12:41 (UTC)
- Deleted -- Breezie 14:08, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
This image is tagged {{PD-Art}}, with no justification. According to Commons:Licensing#United States (assuming it was even first published in the US?), it isn't public domain unless the copyright was renewed. Other images in Category:Marcel Duchamp, and indeed other uploads of User:File Upload Bot (Cobalty) should be inspected. dbenbenn | talk 7 July 2005 19:07 (UTC)
- deleted -- Breezie 14:54, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
Error in title, correct title (and image uploaded again): Image:Shinney 1924-25 in Switzerland.jpg. --Hedavid 7 July 2005 19:35 (UTC)
- Deleted -- Breezie 14:08, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
July 8
[edit]London Underground maps
[edit]Simon Clarke allows non-commercial use of his London Underground map and it is used by permission on English Wikipedia. Because of confusion about the license, it has been uploaded to WikiCommons. See also en:Template talk:Simon Clarke Tube Map.
The map and its derivative work should be deleted.
- Image:London Underground Zone1.png
- Image:London Underground Zone1 Anschlaege.png
- Image:London Underground Zone1 Anschlaege en.png
- I thougth, thats Image:London Underground Zone1.png is okay. So I made other versions (terrorist attacks). I didn't knew, that is a copyright violation. So I suppose, of course. --Jcornelius 9 July 2005 09:18 (UTC)
These aren't copy-vios; they are curvy lines drawn through fixed points in pretty colours. The claim is that, by extracting the positions of the stations from a map (that would be, well, pure data), this somehow makes the data under copyright. This is a ... 'curious' argument. Certainly, it is not a legally valid one in the United States, AFAIAA, which is quite frankly all that matters in the case of Commons hosting.
James F. (talk) 14:37, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
- That's an interesting standpoint. After all, all drawings are lines on paper. This drawing of curvy lines in pretty colours also has a copyright claim, I notice. Thuresson 21:41, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
- My point is that the "fixed points" are necessarily the same, because of what they represent.
- James F. (talk) 01:46, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
Anyway, this is moot; I have deleted the original map, and replaced it with one that Ed and I have made as a suite.
James F. (talk) 13:58, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
A other image is upload before but the user didn't put in the categories.--Dav 59 8 July 2005 10:22 (UTC)
- Deleted, identical to Image:USAF Lockheed C-141C Starlifter 65-0248.jpg. Thuresson 20:36, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
Copyright violation: belongs to Microsoft --Warden 8 July 2005 11:04 (UTC)
- Deleted. --Avatar 8 July 2005 12:48 (UTC)
- deleted, local copy on en.wiki marked as fair use. ed g2s • talk 17:13, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
I tagged this {{Copyvio}} yesterday, but the uploader reverted without explanation. It's marked as {{PD}}, with the reasoning "Being an announcement, this information is considered to be in the Public Domain." I'm pretty sure that's nonsense, and that this text, like anything else creative, is copyrighted. dbenbenn | talk 8 July 2005 14:40 (UTC)
- Same thing goes for Image:Nettsigae.jpg. dbenbenn | talk 8 July 2005 14:41 (UTC)
- Delete - everything must be assumed to be copyrighted unless the author states otherwise explicitely. Also, the uploader has a history of uploading files with dubious copyright status. -- Duesentrieb 8 July 2005 16:00 (UTC)
- Delete the first image, which is likely nicked off some news site. The other one looks OK, but should be verified and if possible replaced by a higher res version. --Mayhem 9 July 2005 00:07 (UTC)
- this image is from english wikipedia en:Image:Al Qaeda responsible.jpg, it's under PD licence! 02:06, 9 July 2005 Mosesofmason
- But some/most of us didn't believe it's PD. Somthing isn't PD automatically when someone tag it so. --Avatar 9 July 2005 07:54 (UTC)
- I just got this image from english wiki. so if you would like request delete this image, you should tag it by template:deletion request in english wikipedia first, isn't it? 9 July 2005 09:51 (UTC) Mosesofmason
- It isn't. First of all, our primary concern is Wikimedia Commons. Of course, we are also interested in wp-en. Second, the en-wp uses (and most of us strongly dislike that) fair-use. Even if there are many, many images in en-wp which are tagged as fair-use but are clearly only copyvios, THIS image would be fair-use. So it's supposable a good thing to change the license, but I strongly discourage from putting up a deletion request in wp-en. --Avatar 9 July 2005 10:15 (UTC)
- I think, all responsibility claims are per definitionem in public domain, hence i strongly advocate to keep the image. Regards, Daniel FR 9 July 2005 15:00 (UTC)
- It isn't. First of all, our primary concern is Wikimedia Commons. Of course, we are also interested in wp-en. Second, the en-wp uses (and most of us strongly dislike that) fair-use. Even if there are many, many images in en-wp which are tagged as fair-use but are clearly only copyvios, THIS image would be fair-use. So it's supposable a good thing to change the license, but I strongly discourage from putting up a deletion request in wp-en. --Avatar 9 July 2005 10:15 (UTC)
- We can assume that the terrorist group has basically forfeited any copyright they have, since no judge in their right mind would award damages to terrorists. We can do whatever we like with Al Qaeda's "intellectual property" - as we can safely say no one will charge us in court for violating Al Qaeda's copyrihgt. -- Natalinasmpf 9 July 2005 16:41 (UTC)
I assume that this will be dealt with just like other web screenshots, e.g. assume that content is protected by copyright unless publisher explicitly allows free use or similar. Thuresson 23:47, 9 July 2005 (UTC)
No, because then our excessive use of it will be restricted. The publisher doesn't have to explicitly allow free use - for goodness sake, they're terrorists. We can safely assume they've forfeited their copyrights: who's going to uphold it in court? -- Natalinasmpf 04:17, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
- Ok, here are a few point to consider:
- "announcements" are certainly not automatically PD. Press statements, blurps from news agencies etc are copyrighted.
- what is legal and compiant to our policy is different from what we can get away with. I don't belive the latter should be a criterion.
- Even terrorists have rights, althogh some people may not think so. If we deny them those rights, we are lowering ourselfs to their level.
- I think this should be treated like any other screenshot of anything on the web - it's not free unless the author explicitely releases it or the copyright expires.
- Now, the text may be trivial enough to be considered PD, i don't know, I can't read it. It would also be good to know where it was first published and what the copyright laws are there.
- Best, upload this picture to the en:wp as fair use - it is fair use.
- chears -- Duesentrieb 09:16, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
- This image is from this web forum. At the bottom of the page, it's declares that "The postings on this discussion forum do not necessarily reflect Qal3ah's views and do not undergo monitoring before being published". --216.152.71.153 12:02, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
- Deleted. ed g2s • talk 17:19, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
- This image is from this web forum. At the bottom of the page, it's declares that "The postings on this discussion forum do not necessarily reflect Qal3ah's views and do not undergo monitoring before being published". --216.152.71.153 12:02, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
Delete Flower arrangement because of wrong title. New page is called Inflorescence.Rasbak 8 July 2005 18:21 (UTC)
- Delete, but only the redirect page: Inflorescence illustrates terms from botanical morphology. "Flower arrangement" is something different --Franz Xaver 9 July 2005 08:02 (UTC)
- deleted -- Breezie 15:14, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
All three images previously included here were misclassified and actually show Tanacetum macrophyllum. After moving them to Tanacetum macrophyllum this page is empty now and should be deleted. --Franz Xaver 8 July 2005 19:07 (UTC)
- deleted -- Breezie 15:14, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
Photo not any more used at WP:PT, or what other project. -- Get_It • 8 July 2005 21:12 (UTC)
- deleted -- Breezie 15:14, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
Wrong Image - the right version is Image:ec-hasslau.de_ec-sachsen-logo.gif --Ec-hasslau.de 9 July 2005 02:28 (UTC)
July 9
[edit]Nice pictures, but unusuable for wikimedia projects. Unused, except for the uploader's personal page on the German Wikipedia. (Ec: Consider hosting the pictures outside of wikimedia.) --Martinroell 9 July 2005 08:52 (UTC)
Wrong spelling - see also The International Plant Names Index. This misspelling is very uncommon: With Google 3630 hits for the correct spelling "Senecio inaequidens" and only 7 hits for the misspelling "Senecio inequidens". So there is no redirect page needed. --Franz Xaver 9 July 2005 11:34 (UTC)
- Keep as a redirect. The numbers given above means that 2 out of a 1000 have used this exact misspelling, and considering that redirects take up very, very little space I think that's enough to keep it. Cnyborg 23:37, 9 July 2005 (UTC)
on this page is clearly written, that the whole content is copyrighted: "Das Copyright für veröffentlichte, vom Autor selbst erstellte Objekte bleibt allein beim Autor der Seiten. Eine Vervielfältigung oder Verwendung solcher Grafiken, Tondokumente, Videosequenzen und Texte in anderen elektronischen oder gedruckten Publikationen ist ohne ausdrückliche Zustimmung des Autors nicht gestattet." ...Sicherlich 9 July 2005 14:29 (UTC)
- the uploader reomved the deletion-tag ... and wrote "The right owner give me the right to offer the Image in combination with de:Entschieden für Christus! --Ec-hasslau.de 08:24, 12 July 2005 (UTC)" ... that´s IMO not enough for commons ... that´s fair use ...Sicherlich 16:17, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
Image is not PD in Germany: 70 years after death of photographer is the condition here. Therefore the picture is to be deleted in de-Wikipedia as well. --Svencb 9 July 2005 15:06 (UTC)
- It was most likely taken in Norway, but the Norwegian law is the same; 70 years after the death of the photographer. Unless someone can name the photographer and it turns out that he died before 1934, it should be deleted. Cnyborg 23:40, 9 July 2005 (UTC)
- I've searched, and pictures apparently taken om the same occasion are shown at http://www.hamsun.no/norholmbilder.html. It seems it was taken by Anders Beer Wilse, who died in 1949. Thus, it will no be PD until 2020. Cnyborg 23:46, 9 July 2005 (UTC)
Unknown license 9
[edit]The following 50 images from Category:Unknown have no license. Thuresson 9 July 2005 17:08 (UTC)
- Please stop this bulk deletion. It is madness; fully half of the images you are deleting have license information of some sort on their pages. Please resubmit those which do not appear on quick perusal to be uploaded by their creator. Sj 12:17, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
Image:02-DoYeJong.JPG Image:07-leeSooByung.JPG Image:11-YuJingon.JPG Image:123.jpg Image:1pound2000front.jpg Image:257484898Tgxhts ph.jpg Image:285px-FernsehturmTaschkent.jpg Image:22 bichkek baz poivrons.jpg Image:29 bichkek bazar salades.jpg Image:30 bichkek bazar cooking.jpg Image:320px-Keltenfürst Glauberg.jpg Image:33 kg chui vers kashkasuu.jpg Image:521px-Sapporo CitySymbol.png Image:628889.jpg Image:64798.jpg Image:745px-Harta Ocean Indian Quake.png Image:800px-Army prosthetic.jpg Image:Abbaspalestine.jpg Image:Academiadiplomatica.jpg Image:Adjuntasescudo.jpg Image:Adyggrb.jpg Image:AestheticRealismFoundationBanner.jpg Image:Agalloch.jpg Image:Alarmclock.JPG Image:Alberta steel and an old wooden grain storage 035.jpg Image:Albolote-Escudo.png Image:Alstom train.jpg Image:Altamira.jpg Image:Altamira1.jpg Image:Altamira2.jpg Image:Altamira3.jpg Image:Alvaro2.gif Image:Amadhavan.jpg Image:Andreas baader.JPG Image:AngelaDavisAfro.jpg Image:Antwerp-boerentoren2.jpg Image:Approch vhhh.png Image:Argentum Online 2.jpg Image:Arsenal fc old crest small.png Image:Atimeandaplace.mid Image:Atterissage vhhh.png Image:Audio-mastick.jpg Image:Auguste Borget.JPG Image:Auschwitz plan obecny.jpg Image:BSE.jpg Image:BVM Resus.jpg Image:Banisadr.gif Image:BarVict193a.jpg Image:Barbafamily-figure.jpg Image:Barbapapa.jpg Image:Bas.jpg
- Keep. If you are going to delete an image because it shows up in this category, please a) spend some time describing it and its likely origins, in honor of the time spent uploading it, and b) check to see where on the Wikimedia projects it is used. Sj 12:19, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
Both images are album covers, GFDL is claimed but this seems extremely unlikely. -- Joolz 19:52, 9 July 2005 (UTC)
- Image:Batter Farm (Human Error).jpg was a deletion request on June 21 (my request). User:Pkuczynski claims GFDL and refers to a web site, [2]. Human Error seem to be a one-member musical group with Rafał Kuczyński. Thuresson 23:19, 9 July 2005 (UTC)
- I had a look through the website and I couldn't see anything which indicated GFDL. -- Joolz 23:22, 9 July 2005 (UTC)
- Rafał Kuczyński is my brother and I have his agreement to put those covers into Commons. Piotr Kuczyński 09:51, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
- Does he a) own the copyright on the two images? b) agree that the images can be distrbuted freely, including commercial use, under the terms of the GFDL? I'd also appreciate it if an administrator removed the deletion request after such request has been settled, rather than you doing so, thanks -- Joolz 17:29, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
- a) yes, b) ok, sorry Piotr Kuczyński 00:04, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
- Does he a) own the copyright on the two images? b) agree that the images can be distrbuted freely, including commercial use, under the terms of the GFDL? I'd also appreciate it if an administrator removed the deletion request after such request has been settled, rather than you doing so, thanks -- Joolz 17:29, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
- Rafał Kuczyński is my brother and I have his agreement to put those covers into Commons. Piotr Kuczyński 09:51, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
- I had a look through the website and I couldn't see anything which indicated GFDL. -- Joolz 23:22, 9 July 2005 (UTC)
July 10
[edit]Unknown license 10
[edit]The following 50 images from Category:Unknown have no license. Thuresson 12:10, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
Image:Bavilliers.JPG
Image:Beakes.jpg
Image:Bear.jpg
Image:Beek 01.jpg
Image:Bekend gebouw snachts.gif
Image:Bekend gebouw.jpg
Image:Benedictcoatofarms.jpg
Image:Benxi.jpg
Image:Bereshit read by Nevu.ogg
Image:Berkman-mar24-1.jpg
Image:Berkman-mar24-2.jpg
Image:BibleCode.png
Image:Bishkek.jpg
Image:Bishopgonzaleznieves.jpg
Image:Blason roye-1-.jpg
Image:Blason roye.jpg
Image:Bodensee satellit.jpg
Image:Boerentoren.jpg
Image:Boerentoren3.jpg
Image:BoerentorenA.jpg
Image:Bombayindialocation.png
Image:Boole.gif
Image:Boston marathon mile 25 050418.jpg
Image:Bratislava Rybne Sq.jpg
Image:Bratislava Slavin and Staromestska St..jpg
Image:Bratislava Slovak Radio bldg..jpg
Image:Bratislava St Martin Cathedral.jpg
Image:Bratislava modern Salesian church.jpg
Image:Bratislava, Postova St.jpg
Image:Broca2.gif
Image:Bulbophyllum beccarii.jpg
Image:Bulbophyllum globuliforme.jpg
Image:C-\Documents and Settings\Administrator\Desktop\Proiecte\figura1.jpg
Image:C-\Documents and Settings\Administrator\Desktop\Proiecte\figura2.jpg
Image:CA0TUPC3.jpg
Image:CNOOC.PNG
Image:CSC-estoril.png
Image:Cachoeirinha De Cima.jpg
Image:Calligramme.jpg
Image:Capital de noche.jpg
Image:Capitolfront m.jpg
Image:Carpenter01.jpg
Image:Casa Independencia Paraguaya (14MayoPte Franco.Asuncion).jpg
Image:Casequimper.jpg
Image:Cassino da Montecassino e panorama.jpg
Image:Cat-greeneye.jpg
Image:Catquimp.jpg
Image:Cattleya.jpg
Image:Chat maroc.png
Image:ChatEcaillesDeTortue.JPG
Image:Chinese straat .jpg
- Keep unless clearly not uploaded by the photographer. Sj 12:25, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
- Image:Calligramme.jpg : author was died for 90 years ago so belong to the public domain. --Pseudomoi 12:56, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
Various
[edit]- Category:French chimists : wrong title. Thanks.--Valérie75 14:17, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
- Deleted, Category:French chemists available. Thuresson 18:44, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
- Image:Knechtsteden Torbogen.jpg image is incorrectly named and has been re-uploaded. New Image is Image:Knechtsteden Torhaus.jpg
- Deleted, Thuresson 18:44, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
Some of mine
[edit]Want to have scheme in article. Didn't use this pics. --Chemiker 19:58, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
11 July
[edit]Copyrighted, obviously.
James F. (talk) 14:24, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
This image lacks information about the author. It's taken from en-wiki where it has GFDL license. The person who added the photo there said it's from fr-wiki. The page on fr-wiki says the picture is from de-wiki as a PD-image. The image was removed from the German article on breasts stating that the image was deleted ("Bild raus, wird gelöscht"). I don't know de-wiki enough to say the reason for the decision to delete but I suspect it's copyright problems. CSamulili 17:42, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
- Additional information from from de-wikiSee "1. Märtz" here. Tells that the image was originally uploaded by a user "Roughneck" and many of his images have been removed. CSamulili 18:21, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
- Nice detective work there! A moment I though somebody was trying to get it deleted because of the nudity, which I would have opposed :). Thue 20:40, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
- Nah, not me. I can't deny the esthetic value of the image :) CSamulili 11:33, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
- As I understand it, the image was deleted in de.wikipedia after the uploader ("Roughneck") had requested deletion, although at first glance the license seemed to be OK. Pjacobi thinks that "Roughneck" is angry as many of his images had been deleted because of license problems. And finally zeno questions the correctness of the license, probably thinking that it had been faked. So probably in de.wikipedia the photo was deleted because the license status "unknown" had been attributed to it. --Franz Xaver 05:58, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
- Roughneck wanted the deletion of his image in de. -- Breezie 15:50, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
This is a duplicate of Image:Laws on homosexuality.PNG which is better named. --Admrboltz 19:32, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
- Deleted, also added "NowCommons" template to bg: and he: Thuresson
Unknown license 11
[edit]The following 50 images from Category:Unknown have no license. Thuresson 21:07, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
Image:Chirag.jpg
Image:Chongerfei.mid
Image:Cimg2017.jpg
Image:Cimg2026.jpg
Image:CityoABQ.gif
Image:Clima españa.jpg
Image:Clima mundo.gif
Image:Clip image002.jpg
Image:Close up leeuw.jpg
Image:Close up toegangspoort.jpg
Image:Collection Schlumpf.JPG
Image:Comar32a.jpg
Image:ComunidadValencianaAtz.jpg
Image:Construction of LHC at CERN.jpg
Image:Corfu-Grecia.jpg
Image:Cosmovision.jpg
Image:Cropped 1916 Proclamation.jpg
Image:Cropped Easter Proclamation.jpg
Image:Cuesta.jpg
Image:DCP 3697.JPG
Image:DSC00387.JPG
Image:DSC00390.JPG
Image:DSC00916.JPG
Image:DSC00938.JPG
Image:DSC00942.JPG
Image:DSC00944.JPG
Image:DSC01055.JPG
Image:DSCF0031.JPG
Image:DSCN1812.JPG
Image:Dach Olympiastadion Berlin.jpg
Image:Dahlia La Gioconda.jpg
Image:De-Sonne.ogg
Image:Dead dog.jpg
Image:Deadcat.jpg
Image:Debian name.png
Image:Debian swirl.png
Image:Demiportr.jpg
Image:Dharamsala indien.jpg
Image:Diocesis catedral.jpg
Image:Distrito Industrial Cachoeirinha.jpg
Image:Dsc0036.jpg
Image:Dsc0063.jpg
Image:Dsc0075.jpg
Image:Dsc01976.jpg
Image:EM-0004-03.mpg.ogg
Image:EconomiaULA.jpg
Image:Ek vienna gloriette.jpg
Image:Ek vienna schoenbrunn.jpg
Image:Elpescailla.jpg
Image:Email instructions for talkpage.PNG
Image:Emblema del Consell Insular de Menorca (petit).jpg
- Keep unless clearly not uploaded by the photographer. Sj
- Image:DCP 3697.JPG is striked, but still missing Licence Information, Image:Email instructions for talkpage.PNG is a Wikipedia Screenshot that should be keept. Is there a tag for this? -guety 02:59, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
- There is a tag for this on en wiki, see wiki:Template:Wikipedia-screenshot --Admrboltz 23:47, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
July 12
[edit]Unknown license 12
[edit]The following 50 images from Category:Unknown have no license. Thuresson 13:07, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
Image:EnigmaFuge2.mid
Image:Errect penis2.JPG
Image:Escudo actual-bocajuniors.gif
Image:Escudo real sociedad.jpg
Image:Essai.JPG
Image:Essai2.JPG
Image:Essai3.JPG
Image:EthanMug.jpg
Image:Euro flag.jpg
Image:Femesa.png
Image:Figura1.jpg
Image:Figura2.jpg
Image:Figura3.jpg
Image:Fingerprint.png
Image:Flacid penis1.JPG
Image:Florida Keys map.jpg
Image:Frankie Muniz.jpg
Image:FregsAbrantes.png
Image:GMT France with altitudes 30s.pdf
Image:GW-Bush-in-uniform.jpg
Image:Gaelisch.jpg
Image:Gcmg.gif
Image:Genimage.JPG
Image:George Lucas.jpg
Image:Giuseppe-Meazza-Stadionrundumansicht.jpg
Image:Grodno coatofarms.gif
Image:Guppy male.jpg
Image:HPIM0572.JPG
Image:Hana yori dango characters.jpg
Image:Hatecrime2 edited.jpg
Image:Head-in-sand.jpg
Image:Herge.jpg
Image:Himmler Hitler.jpg
Image:Hong Kong coa.png
Image:Hotel1.JPG
Image:Hotel2.JPG
Image:Howe-Close-Guitar-Solo2.mid
Image:IM004781.JPG
Image:IMG 0047.JPG
Image:IMG 0179.JPG
Image:IMG 1086.JPG
Image:IMG 1509.JPG
Image:IMG 1778.JPG
Image:IRL 2004 Kenmare Druid Circle.jpg
Image:Image(19).jpg
Image:Image(49).jpg
Image:Img 0032.jpg
Image:Incipitblog free fr-20050227-ALBERT LONDRES-Chez les fous.ogg
Image:Incipitblog free fr-20050303-PAUL LAFARGUE-Le droit a la paresse.ogg
Image:Irish potterty jug.jpg
- Keep unless clearly not uploaded by the photographer. Sj
- ??? -guety 03:01, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
- Image:IMG 0179.JPG et al, Image:Irish potterty jug, etc. are pretty clearly uploaded by the photographer. Deleting them for 'potential copyright violation' is unnecessary and impolite, wasteful of both good resources and the uploader's time. Instead, you could leave a note on the uploader's page, or their page on their 'home' wiki, and wait a month. Sj 06:48, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
- Why do you think they are copyright violations? The uploaders have not tagged them so the rest of us can't use them. All uploaders have been contacted last week. Thuresson 21:03, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
- Image:IMG 0179.JPG et al, Image:Irish potterty jug, etc. are pretty clearly uploaded by the photographer. Deleting them for 'potential copyright violation' is unnecessary and impolite, wasteful of both good resources and the uploader's time. Instead, you could leave a note on the uploader's page, or their page on their 'home' wiki, and wait a month. Sj 06:48, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
- ??? -guety 03:01, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
- Keep unless clearly not uploaded by the photographer. Sj
- Image:Himmler Hitler.jpg is public domain Schaengel89 @me 14:01, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
- Just add your source for this. Thuresson
- Keep image:EthanMug.jpg is clearly User:Ethan
- Delete the rest
- Logos:
- Is EnigmaFuge2.mid a midi file?
- Delete the rest
--Vizcarra 21:23, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
source of Image:Hong Kong coa.png is en:Image:Hong Kong coa.png --Watcharakorn 21:32, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
- All images tagged or deleted. Thuresson 23:30, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
Culmhof_Forrest*.JPG
[edit]Image:Culmhof_Forrest-2005-06-24-1.JPG, Image:Culmhof_Forrest-2005-06-24-2.JPG, Image:Culmhof_Forrest-2005-06-24-3.JPG have incorrect name's, the correct are Kulmhof_Forest*.* Ency 17:58, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
- Deleted, Thuresson 23:30, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
No license info, rather looks like vanity. --Mayhem 23:30, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
- Deleted, Thuresson 23:30, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
July 13
[edit]Midi-Files
[edit]The Midi-Files Atimeandaplace.mid , EnigmaFuge2.mid and Howe-Close-Guitar-Solo2.mid were listed as deletion-request. In my point of view, this request is not right (is without reason). —Boris Fernbacher 12:46, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
In german law it is said: ->
The use of under some points without permission of the owner allowed. 1.) If the owner has no financial loss of this use. 2.) If the used part is small, and is for the demonstration of a scientific interessting thing. In german text: ->
Die Verwendung von Zitaten ist durch das Urheberrecht geregelt und unter bestimmten Voraussetzungen gestattet, ohne dass eine Erlaubnis des Urhebers eingeholt oder diesem eine Vergütung gezahlt werden müsste (§ 51 UrhG in Deutschland, siehe unten). Die allgemeine Begründung dafür ist, dass Zitate der kulturellen und wissenschaftlichen Weiterentwicklung einer Gesellschaft dienen (siehe auch Informationsfreiheit).
Zitate sind mit Quellenvermerken zu versehen (Gebot der Quellenangabe in § 63 UhrG im Sinne einer genauen Angabe der Fundstelle). Das Zitatrecht dürfen nur Werke beanspruchen, die selbst urheberrechtlichen Schutz genießen, also eine eigene „Schaffenshöhe“ aufweisen. Demnach dürfen sich Zitatsammlungen, die ausschließlich Fremdleistungen wiedergeben, nicht auf das Zitatrecht berufen. Die (wirtschaftlichen) Interessen des Urhebers bzw. Rechteinhabers des zitierten Werkes dürfen durch ein Zitat nicht über Gebühr eingeschränkt werden. -> Durch ein kurzes Midi-Beispiel wird ja niemand vom CD-Kauf abgehalten, eher animiert.
Unterschieden werden:
Kleinzitate dürfen weiterreichend verwendet werden. Der Zitierzweck muss erkennbar sein. Das Zitat muss also in irgendeiner Beziehung zu der eigenen Leistung stehen, beispielsweise als Erörterungsgrundlage. Der Umfang des Zitats muss dem Zweck angemessen sein.' -> Im Artikel dient es der Untersuchung der Musik. Es sind nur Stellen zitiert, die ein gewisses Merkmal beleuchten (Intervalle,etc.)
Zitate in der Wikipedia
Kleinzitate im Sinne kurzer Entnahmen aus geschützten Werken sind ohne weiteres zulässig. Da das deutsche Urheberrechtsgesetz eine deutliche Quellenangabe verlangt, ist darauf zu achten, dass die genaue Fundstelle nachgewiesen wird (im Sinne einer bibliographischen Angabe mit Autor, Titel, Publikationsort, bei längeren Werken, aus denen entnommen wird, mit Seitenzahl oder Abschnittsangabe).
Zitate im Deutschen Urheberrecht
Im deutschen Urheberrecht gilt für Zitate der Paragraph 51 (Stand: 10.9.2003):
UrhG § 51 Zitate Zulässig ist die Vervielfältigung, Verbreitung und öffentliche Wiedergabe, wenn in einem durch den Zweck gebotenen Umfang 1. einzelne Werke nach dem Erscheinen in ein selbständiges wissenschaftliches Werk zur Erläuterung des Inhalts aufgenommen werden, 2. Stellen eines Werkes nach der Veröffentlichung in einem selbständigen Sprachwerk angeführt werden, 3. einzelne Stellen eines erschienenen Werkes der Musik in einem selbständigen Werk der Musik angeführt werden.
End —Boris Fernbacher 12:46, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
- As I said before, there are no articles on commons. -guety 14:10, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
- I requested deletion for these files because they do not have a copyright tag. I'm not quite sure why you refer to German law for fair use when Commons rules do not allow fair use. According to Somalian law, copyright violators get their left hand chopped off, their children slapped in the face and other relatives verbally abused. All you have to know is that WikiCommons do not allow material not licensed under a free license, eg. public domain, GFDL, Creative Commons or similiar. I also question that you can claim copyright when you upload works of Bruce Springsteen, Mike Oldfield and Toto. Instead of reading German law, I kindly advise you to read Commons:Licensing. Thuresson 14:19, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
4 Images of User:Dubaduba
[edit]- Image:Sevilla2005July 071.jpg
- Image:Sevilla2005July 048.jpg
- Image:Sevilla2005July 018.jpg
- Image:Sevilla2005July 009.jpg
Permission of the women? -- Breezie 13:38, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
- Well, Image:Sevilla2005July 071.jpg looks like it might be a picture of the photographer. I've asked at User talk:Dubaduba; please don't delete this pictures until the user replies. dbenbenn | talk 16:02, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, I don't see these photos ever being useful to a Wikimedia-project. Thuresson 20:07, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
- Hi I am Dubaduba. I uploaded some images but one of the girls asked me kindly not to upload images of her so I marked them for deleting. I cant delete them because im not an admin. Please remove them.
- Deleted, Thuresson 23:39, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
Simpsons
[edit]- Image:Lenny Action Figure.gif taken from a website, copyvio
- Image:Lenny Eyepatch.gif, Image:Carl Waving.gif, Image:Lenny Leonard.jpg and Image:Homer Lenny Carl.jpg obvious copyvios
-guety 14:05, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
- Deleted, by Breeze
Unknown license 13
[edit]The following 50 images from Category:Unknown have no license. Thuresson 14:19, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
Image:Itaipu2.jpg Image:Jalapeno flower.jpg Image:Jalapeno-fruit.jpg Image:Jalapeno.jpg Image:Jan Pajak 2004 min.jpg Image:Jehan la Pucelle.JPG Image:Jose Gaspar Rodriguez de Francia.jpg Image:Julian Marias Aguilera (joven).jpg Image:Julian Marias Aguilera (viejo).jpg Image:KEN logo kl.gif Image:Kaffka.jpg Image:Kaffka2.jpg Image:Kannadhasan.jpg Image:Kataeb.jpg Image:Kavitation at pump impeller.jpg Image:Kghs.JPG Image:Krishnamurti.jpg Image:LA Homeless.jpg Image:LOL.jpg Image:Lacan.jpg Image:Largada.jpg Image:Leon.jpg Image:Leuven1.jpg Image:LiaoTianDing.gif Image:Lifecycle.png Image:Lincspoacher.mid Image:Littlefield Garden Flower.jpg Image:Lo2.jpg Image:Loccum kloster winter20042005.jpg Image:LogoINEA.jpg Image:LogoOracleByMejdieu.jpg Image:LogoSEP.jpg Image:LogoUSS.jpg Image:Lotschberg tunnel diagram.jpg Image:LouAtCapeBrett.jpg Image:Lupa.jpg Image:LuquitoLuna.JPG Image:MFR.png Image:MHP0017.JPG Image:MTR Train during peak Hour.jpg Image:Magdalena cs.jpg Image:Magdalena.JPG Image:Mambo template1.jpg Image:Mambo template2.jpg Image:Mambo template3.jpg Image:Mambo template4.jpg Image:Manif.etud.mtl.1.jpg Image:Manises01.jpg Image:Manuel Fraga Ministro.jpg Image:Manuel puig.gif Image:Manuelcedeno.jpg
- Keep unless clearly not uploaded by the photographer. Sj
- Image:Kannadhasan.jpg for this image, I have now added the Public Domain tag. I was not aware that I have to add this tag. Sorry for that and thanks for letting me know this. - Santhoshguru 07:29, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
- Tagged or deleted images above. Await further response about Image:Jalapeno flower.jpg, Image:Jalapeno-fruit.jpg, Image:Jalapeno.jpg and Image:LogoOracleByMejdieu.jpg. Thuresson 08:40, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
Image:HeyNow.jpg, Image:Sunfire.jpg, Image:Seeya T.J.jpg, Image:Noctbird.jpg, Image:Exs018b.jpg
[edit]Copyvios. -guety 18:49, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
- Deleted by Breeze
July 14
[edit]Unknown license 14
[edit]The following 50 images from Category:Unknown have no license. Thuresson 15:54, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
Image:Marine Drive Mumbai.jpg
Image:Mark Hacking Police Photo.jpeg
Image:Markfelt.jpg
Image:Masada.jpg
Image:Mashtun-full.jpg
Image:Mass-massaquoi.jpg
Image:Max schreck.jpg
Image:Mdb 1.PNG
Image:Menorca cala pregonda.jpg
Image:Merida.jpg
Image:Michaeljacksonm.jpg
Image:Mikontalo student housing in Hervanta-view2up.jpg
Image:Milanstemma.png
Image:Min-max-heap.gif
Image:Min-max-heap.sxd
Image:Miperu.gif
Image:Missings hunger strike.jpg
Image:Miting.jpeg
Image:Mnoriega.jpg
Image:Modlinger.jpeg
Image:Moho.jpg
Image:Moinhos ruinas.jpg
Image:Monaco coa.png
Image:MontrealGreekCommunity March25Parade.jpg
Image:Monumento a Alberdi (nov. 1917).jpg
Image:Morocco.png
Image:Mosquésousse.jpg
Image:Mulching.jpg
Image:MyScratedOctopusCard.jpg
Image:Myalarmclock.JPG
Image:NYC meetup 5.jpg
Image:National Ice Centre overshadowing Cricket Players.jpg
Image:Nevada general.jpg
Image:NikkoSamuraied.JPG
Image:Nissan skyline 2000 gt-r.jpg
Image:Nissan skyline gt-r gt500 2003.jpg
Image:NupediaLogo.jpg
Image:Ogrysok2.jpg
Image:Oliver Neuville.jpg
Image:Ooo.JPG
Image:Ostrich2.gif
Image:OstrichHeadInSand.jpg
Image:Otto von Guericke stamp 20.jpg
Image:P5090950.JPG
Image:PICT7709.jpg
Image:PICT0101.JPG
Image:PICT8831.jpg
Image:PSU-Open-left-closer.jpg
Image:PSU-Open-left.jpg
Image:PSU-Open-right.jpg
Image:PSU-Open2.jpg
Image:Mulching.jpg - This one is from US gov. agency, but may be freely used only for noncommercial purposes - I noticed it after uploading. So I think it should be deleted? --Marac 02:27, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
- Tagged or deleted images above. Thuresson 04:42, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
Unknown license (Category:Unknown)
[edit]Image:3d Swingometer Swing to Yellow from Red.jpg Image:3d Swingometer Swing to Yellow from Blue.jpg Image:3d Swingometer Swing to Red from Yellow.jpg Image:3d Swingometer Swing to Red from Blue.jpg Image:3d Swingometer Swing to Blue from Red.jpg Image:3d Swingometer Swing to Blue and Yellow from Red.jpg Image:3d Swingometer Swing Regions.jpg Image:3d Swingometer No Swing.jpg Image:3d Swingometer Equal Swing to Red.jpg Image:3d Swingometer Equal Swing from Red.jpg Image:3d Swingometer Equal Swing from Blue.jpg Image:1959-03-03 shelep3.png Image:1959-03-03 shelep1.png Image:1940-03-05 polburo.png Image:1940-03-05 beria4.png Image:1940-03-05 beria3.png Image:1940-03-05 beria2.png Image:1940-03-05 beria1.png -- Breezie 18:10, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
- The Beria documents are probably Template:PD-Soviet but documents like these need to be translated or at least have a description to be really useful. They are used in pl:Zbrodnia katyńska (Katyn Massacre) which might give a clue. I would welcome if somebody who understands russian or polish can write a description on every single document. Thuresson 19:31, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
- deleted by Paddy
The image is not free for editing and changing. I renewed the deletion request of May 18, because the result was not clear: 2 people for deletion (without me), 2 against. See Commons:Deletion_requests/Archives03#May_18. -- Breezie 18:34, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
- From Commons:Licensing: Publication of derivative work must be allowed. Since the ministry do not allow this, photo should be deleted. Thuresson 19:31, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
- Sorry, but this limitation is german law. I explained this allready: Federal Constitutional Court of Germany, Ron Sommer vs. Wirtschaftswoche, 5% deformation of face, http://www.urheberrecht.org/news/2203/ (german only, sorry). Please accept it. This is due to the personal rights of the persons shown. There's the rub. It is exactly like the NASA pictures showing persons, where you have usage restrictions. So, please accept the world outside with real laws and real people with real rights and just keep those pictures. Best regards from Ruhr Area/germany, again. -- Stahlkocher 19:43, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
- To the left of Mitterrand is a large section of cobblestone street and legs of people in the background. Copyright owner do not allow me to remove that part. Thuresson 18:01, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
- I agree with Thuresson, of course. Delete. dbenbenn | talk 16:59, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
- deleted by Paddy
Please delete picture Schroef.jpg because it is confusing with schroef.jpg which is uploaded on the Dutch Wikipedia. I have change it in schroef (bloeiwijze).jpg and upload it again.Rasbak 19:21, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
- Deleted, replaced by Image:Schroef (bloeiwijze).jpg. Thuresson 19:36, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
There are doubts that the image ist PD. --Crux 00:54, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
- deleted -- Breezie 14:56, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
Incomplete license, no author. GFDL is very probably wrong. --AndreasPraefcke 08:38, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
Deleted. Some people from Dusiburg are using wikimedia projects for propagating their dispute over the local mayor. NPOV is constantly violated. In addition to the missing license, the uploader constantly vandalised the picture by uploading new versions with political propaganda with the name of the old file, a politician's portrait. Same goes for the German wikipedia. I'll keep an eye on the developments and will delete as soon as this crap shows up again. --AndreasPraefcke 19:18, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
They show people's faces clearly probably without permission. I don't see any encyclopedic use for them. Anna 21:14, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
- Done. Sanbec ✉ 23:09, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
wrong licence, image in en.wikipedia is NOT gfdl :( 217.237.151.235 22:11, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
- I have canged, it is public domain --Jonathan Hornung 07:04, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
- Nonsense, it is tagged as unknown on en.wikipedia, so it has to be deleted here. :Bdk: 20:06, July 16, 2005 (UTC)
- Deleted, Thuresson 09:08, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
July 15
[edit]Uploaded a new pic with better resolution, and I took the opportunity to change the name. -- Get_It • 22:17, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
- Replaced by Marc Mitscher g236831.jpg. -- Get_It • 22:17, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
- Done, Sanbec ✉ 23:19, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
This was a deletion request in February and deleted on March 3. See Commons:Deletion requests/Archives02#Image:Snape.png. To me this looks like actor Alan Rickman in Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone, copyright by Warner Brothers. Thuresson 23:46, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
- Deleted -- Breezie 15:02, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
July 16
[edit]Both images formerly included there have been misidentified. They show any species of Hebe. After moving these photos to Plants misidentified the page is empty now and should be deleted. --Franz Xaver 06:03, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
- deleted -- Breezie 14:58, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
Wrong naming. The correct upload is to be found at Image:Karte_Dolenjske_Toplice_si.png. Besednjak 14:08, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
Wikimedia Commons isn't a list of chatrooms. -- Get_It • 19:37, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
- Deleted as spam, no media content. dbenbenn | talk 14:53, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
July 17
[edit]How many plants should go in there? 3.000 species, each with many single images? This category was just created today, I removed the only 3 entries (single images). Category:Plants of Europe is not better at the moment anyway. It doesn´t make sense to sort all plants or animals to such small regions compared to their complete - and in most cases much bigger - distribution area IMO. Most alpine plants are not restricted to the alps; although there are some unique or typical species of alpine flora, of course. So should we keep this category? And if yes, with which content and shouldcomparable categories for plants in western europe, eastern europe, scandinavia, the british isles, iberia, the balkans ... also be created as subcategories of "Plants in Europe"? That could be useful in the future, I know, but only if it is used with good reason ... I would not like a species gallery or a single image with 20 or more categories only for plants in xyz because the plant is common in whole europe and asia and perhaps america. ;-) I also think that we have wikipedia for such differentiated information about distrubution which is often not as easy to categorize as it seems. --:Bdk: 22:18, July 16, 2005 (UTC)
- Deleted -- Breezie 15:44, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
Image:I405.gif Orphaned, Duplicate of Image:Interstate-405.png -Admrboltz 21:57, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
- Done, Sanbec ✉ 23:16, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
July 18
[edit]
July 19
[edit]Please delete. Mistakenly double entry. (correct original entry is Image:Trad_regions_slovenia.jpg). Besednjak 21:30, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
- deleted -- Joolz 20:33, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
Please delete. Mistakenly double entry. (correct original entry is Image:Trad_regions_slovenia.jpg). Besednjak 21:30, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
- Deleted, Thuresson 09:03, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
OpenTTD is an open source game, but use to run the original game en:Transport Tycoon Delux (i download and test it :D). here http://www.openttd.org/downloads.php we can read "OpenTTD requires the original version of Transport Tycoon Deluxe data files in order to function. (...)" than the graphics are the same than Transport Tycoon Deluxe and are copyrighted. Bayo 21:56, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
- delete Bayo 21:58, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
- 'Deleted -- Joolz 11:20, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
[:Image:[Waaier.jpg]]
[edit]Sorry guys. Please delete Waaier.jpg, because I renamed the filename in Waaier (bloeiwijze).jpg and upload this also.Rasbak 08:18, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
- Redundant, delete. Why do we need a vote for images like these? --Ardonik 07:48, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
- We don't. Just write {{db|duplicate of Image:Waaier (bloeiwijze).jpg}} at Image:Waaier.jpg to get it speedy deleted. dbenbenn | talk 14:52, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
- Thanks, I didn't realize that Template:db was being used here, too. --Ardonik
- We don't. Just write {{db|duplicate of Image:Waaier (bloeiwijze).jpg}} at Image:Waaier.jpg to get it speedy deleted. dbenbenn | talk 14:52, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
- deleted -- Joolz 20:40, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
Was used on Make Poverty History but is no longer used. Is a poor picture that is unlikly to be usefull for any article ever. You can't even see Tony Robinson--JK the Unwise 13:32, 20 July 2005 (UTC) (P.S. I took it)
- Deleted, Thuresson 09:03, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
July 21
[edit]Please delete. Since its not helpful to have this two categories Category:Coats of arms of German municipalities and Category:Coats of arms of German cities we should merge them together and delete the category Category:Coats of arms of German cities. See also discussion (in german). Kookaburra 06:53, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
- I agree with Kookaburra; merge Category:Coats of arms of German cities into Category:Coats of arms of German municipalities and delete the former. --Ardonik 07:46, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
- I agree too. --Schubbay 08:32, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
- Motion seconded, please delete. --Rosenzweig 11:30, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
- Deleted -- Joolz 11:16, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
Made redundant by Image:Czechia, Jicin, Wallenstein's alley.jpg, which is the same image with more information. --Ardonik 07:20, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
- Deleted -- Joolz 11:41, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
See below. --Ardonik 07:36, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
- Yes, all this kind of junk can and should be shot^H^H^H^Hdeleted on sight, I'm working on these now. Stan Shebs 13:01, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
- Deleted
Worthless empty category added by an anonymous user. --Ardonik 07:43, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
- Deleted -- Joolz 11:22, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
Another empty category added by an anon. --Ardonik 08:06, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
- Deleted -- Joolz 11:22, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
Appears not to be under free license as it comes from http://tvnz.co.nz/view/page/411419/598778. Has been tagged as NZ Crown Copyright, which is only true if it is created by the Government which I can't verifiy --Evil Monkey 07:49, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete unless this can be shown to not be a copyvio. --Ardonik 08:09, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
- Keep TVNZ is a Crown Corporation. James Anatidae 08:27, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
- TVNZ copyright notice states that "You may print out individual articles or pages for your private use but no form of distribution or making available to the public (whether in print or electronic form) of any of this website's content is permitted." Also TVNZ is a Crown-Owned Company meaning it is a registered company that just happens to be solely owned by the Crown. Evil Monkey 21:06, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
- Deleted, Thuresson 12:46, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
A list of victims of a boating accident(?). Looks like a copyvio. And whatever it is, Commons isn't the place for it. --Ardonik 08:02, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, English Wikipedia didn't want this list, see en:Wikipedia:Votes for undeletion/List of General Slocum victims. It is available at Wikisource, see General Slocum and List of General Slocum victims. Regardless if Wikipedia or Wikisource want it, this is the wrong place. WikiCommons is not the Wikimedia trash heap. Thuresson 08:04, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
- Deleted, Thuresson 12:46, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
- It's not a copyvio, it was a compiled list, and as such does not belong on Wikisource. That's why it's up for deletion at Wikisource. Since you didn't take this into consideration, or even bother to contact the creator of the page, who of course knows the entire situation, and because the main page of Commons says it accepts text (and currently no other place wants this), I'm readding the page. Please reply at en:User:Brian0918 --Brian0918 14:58, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
- The page was created by 68.105.182.214 on July 21, an IP very likely belonging to a Wikisource user. On July 25 84.177.155.181 blanked the article with the comment "Text moved to w:en". Brian0918 was not mentioned in the article history, the talk page or the article. Thuresson
- Delete. I don't see the reason to keep it on Commons. On English Wikipedia/Wikisource/Wikibooks - may be. --EugeneZelenko 15:36, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
- Strong Keep. It was VFD'd from Wikipedia and is currently up for VFD from Wikisource. It is not a source text, but a user-compiled list from source texts, so it doesn't belong on Wikisource. The Commons Main Page says that Commons accepts texts. Wikibooks is for books by users, not lists by users. Numerous people from both the VFD on Wikipedia and the VFD on Wikisource say that it should be on Commons. --Brian0918 15:57, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. We are going through this same issue on Source. This is a piece of media that is used on Wikipedia. It seems like this is the perfect place for it. Well actually, it should clearly be on Wikipedia with the main article but if it doesn't belong there, than as supplementary media, it should be here. And, jesus, it's not trash, its a carefully compiled list and has historical relevance. It has to go on one of the projects. We need to find the correct place for it. CSN 04:24, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
I have put this picture on Wikimedia Commons and I thought it was in the public domain (It's a 1575 map), but indeed the picture seems to be copyrighted ! Kuxu76 13:51, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
- You mean, the "copyright" notice at the bottom of the image? It's a lie (and a criminal lie, too, in the States, AIUI). This is a 2D piece of art in the PD, and so representations of it such as this are in the public domain in the US, due to the Bridgeman Art Gallery vs. Corel Corporation ruling.
- James F. (talk) 19:48, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
Yes I mean the "copyright" at the bottom of the image. I thought too it was very excessive. In fact, I guess I can use this kind of map for Wikipédia in English and I'm glad you confirm but I'm french and I'd like to use too this map or another of a website of historic maps in Wikipédia France. Do you think I can use the Bridgeman Art Gallery vs. Corel Corporation ruling effects in France? Legally, Wikipédia France as a part of Wikipédia.org have to respect american laws or french laws ? Kuxu76 02:26, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. I don't know about French law, but I'm sure we can keep the map here. dbenbenn | talk 21:11, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
- Keep It is PD unless the map was modified recently. Yann 08:30, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
Delete, because it is redundant with Category:Climbing. There used to be two articles in this category (Climbing and Crampons), but I moved them over to Category:Climbing. -- Hike395 14:26, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
Delete, redundant with Category:Sports (which is much larger). I started cleaning it up. -- Hike395 16:13, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
- Deleted, Thuresson 12:46, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
Delete, redundant with Category:Martial arts. Also, an empty category. -- Hike395 16:13, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
- Deleted, Thuresson 12:46, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
22 July
[edit]Guo Xue-hu still live , image copyvio--Shizhao 07:48, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
- Deleted, Thuresson 22:15, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
idem --Shizhao 07:48, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
- Deleted, Thuresson 22:15, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
Tateishi Tesuomi (立石鐵臣 1905-1980) ", all image copyvio on the page --Shizhao 07:48, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
- Deleted, Thuresson 22:15, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
Thumbnail versions of Image:RoyalPoinciana.jpg and Image:RoyalPoincianaFlower.jpg respectively. --Franz Xaver 12:48, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
- speedy deleted, thumbs were unused and not tagged in a correct way, too. Thanks Franz Xaver! --:Bdk: 13:57, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
July 23
[edit]July 24
[edit]July 25
[edit]
July 26
[edit]Image obviously not available under adaequate license - will be deleted in de-Wikipedia as well. --Svencb 08:29, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
- Deleted. There are other photos at Stefan George. Sanbec ✉ 09:27, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
Exhibitionism and XXX, the picture was also deleted in de: some months ago. --Herrick 10:38, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
- @Herrick "The picture was also deleted in xyz" is not an valid argumentation line for a deletion request. Yes, the penis is shown naturally... not shaved, not pierced, not... It's a simple documentary picture of a part of the human body. It could be, that someone has heavy problems with his/her own body. But this picture shows no XXX nudity or offending content (only if someone owns no private parts). KEEP. 84.59.38.111 01:37, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
- I wouldn't say it's XXX, there is no sexual act going on in the picture. It is a quite good illustration of the change between the two states. Whether or not the person photographed enjoys having his private parts shown to the world is in my opinion not very relavant here, it's whether or not this is a picture that can be of any use to a Wikimedia project and if so, if it is within the accepted limits of decency. I'd say yes to both, so keep. Cnyborg 12:37, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
- I wouldn't say it's XXX either, it's not taken in a pornographic manner, and also, it's used in the english wikipedia to illustrate Penis, I agree with the reasoning above. keep. -- Joolz 13:09, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
- Keep --SPUI 14:02, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
- I believe Jimbo said that anatomy pictures are OK with him so long as they are "clinical", which I believe this is. Raul654 01:36, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
This is not a pornographic picture, but it there to depict the male anatomy for educational purposes. Heaven knows there are enough other places on the web for true pornographic pictures, that one would think that enlightened, intelligent people would not mind seeing a picture of the very thing that is being discussed!
- Keep. Evil Monkey 09:01, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. Wikipedia is the free encyclopedia not the puritan one. Sanbec ✉ 09:17, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
Many pictures are deleted from de: because they were uploaded into commons for use by others. So this argument is not valid to support you.
Keep for the Freedom of Information --84.142.36.171 10:44, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
Viele Bilder wurden aus de: gelöscht weil sie in Commons hochgeladen wurden zur Benutzung durch andere. Dieses Argument kann daher diesen Antrag nicht unterstützten.
Behalten Kampf der Zensur --84.142.36.171 10:44, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
@Herrick: The image still is in the german article, and I guess it only has been deleted because it's now on commons. I cannot believe it has been deleted on de: because it's "XXX" - as I'm the one checking most of German image deletion requests. keep --Crux 11:20, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
Keep of course. Pornography? Get a life. --AndreasPraefcke 11:27, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
Keep. A picture often explains what words cannot. Don't be so prude 82.42.53.148 01:20, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Clinical. Absolutely keep. If you had 2 or 3 of these, then it's overdoing it. But 1 is fine.--Muchosucko 02:41, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
Keep. In the USA circumcision is so prevalent that many people have never seen an uncircumsized penis in any state. The photograph serves an educational purpose. If it is deleted then those looking for information would end up searching through adult websites for this information. 68.8.129.140 00:05, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete - unnecessary and gratuituous. --68.32.123.212 23:11, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
Keep necessary.
Keep - Clinical quality photo. Not pornographic, since no sexual act is going on. And one must say that it is hard to find images of flaccid penises on the internet. Aleron235 05:37, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
Keep - That a penis can be errected is a medical fact. This photo shows an erected penis and the difference to an unerrected. Therefore it is an explaining medical picture like in medical / biological books. By the way, in many countries (e.g. germany, where the picture is in the penis-article)a picture of an erected penis is not porn by default, because it can be used in science-, encyclopedia-, teaching- etc. -ways. - Tobias 6.8.05
Keep - Good illustration of the man body
Keep --142.163.130.240 18:39, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
Keep - My wife and I are going to have our first child, a boy, in a few months. We are trying to decide whether to circumcise him or not. I am 33 years old, but I had absolutely no idea what an uncircumcised penis even looked like because I am circumcised. After making an image search on Google for "uncircumcised penis" and having to sift through truly pornographic pictures I was pleased when Wikipedia came to the rescue with the aforementioned picture. It was simple and perfectly showed me what a normal, natural, uncircumcised penis looks like.
- Keep-- There's no sexual activity going on. The main purpose here is not for exhibitionism or other sexual reasons; it's information. Besides, what's so wrong with looking at a part of the human body? We know that it's there, so why not? There's a few other pictures of the genitals floating around. And there's nothing wrong with the human body, let alone an erect penis. And as so few in the United States have seen an uncircumcised penis, it can put to rest any curiousities as to what one looks like (albeit informationally and not through desire); online, too many people will find pornographic images of penises when all that they wanted was a simple medical image. 22:38, 11 August, 2005
Keep: it's a simple comparison photo. ~ Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 06:26, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
This picture shows a building in Germany. After a German law, it cannot be changed without restrictions, that is my opinion. (I noticed that by reading the article Panoramafreiheit in the German Wikipedia. That is why I do not think that this picture is compatible with the GNU-FDL. So I, the uploader, want the picture to be deleted, only to make sure that all my uploaded pictures are free. Mg22 11:12, 26 July 2005 (UTC) (One more thing:Please pardon me my horrible English)
- No Problem with Panoramafreiheit because it's been mande from a place freely accessible for the public. --Denniss 11:34, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
- keep - in the German Wikipedia we accept all Panoramafreiheit photographs although we know that the shown bulding or object (NOT the photograph!) is not allowed to be altered in the picture. It is possible to make certain changes (NOT: any changes) in the picture. --Historiograf 11:42, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
Unknown license 16
[edit]The following 50 images from Category:Unknown have no license. Thuresson 11:41, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
Image:Rkm emblem.png Image:Rockieswater-4.jpg Image:Rodrigues Regional Assembly Coats of Arm.jpg Image:Roh.jpg Image:Romeria cs.jpg Image:Romeria.JPG Image:Rosa socialista.jpg Image:Rossmayfield.gif Image:Royspa.JPG Image:Roßtal Krypta.JPG Image:Roßtal Martinerli.jpg Image:Roßtal Oberer Markt.JPG Image:Roßtal Spitzweed.JPG Image:SIRPATIRMM40.jpg Image:STMICHELDECUXA.JPG Image:Saguenay flood.jpg Image:Saint-Pierre ecusson coat.png Image:Salyut 3 on launch pad.jpg Image:Salzheilstollen 2.jpg Image:Salzheilstollen 3.jpg Image:Sanspression.jpeg Image:Sarajevo.jpg Image:Satellite Image of Hungary 2003 Sep.JPG Image:Scanografie.jpg Image:Schengen eu.png Image:Scoeur.jpg Image:Scorpio.JPG Image:Sdk1111.jpg Image:Sedan Plowshare Crater.jpg Image:Segato.jpg Image:Sejm lipiec 2005 sondaz CBOS.JPG Image:Seleukos nikator.jpg Image:Semboku3000.jpg Image:Semboku3050.jpg Image:Semboku7000.jpg Image:Semboku7050.jpg Image:Senat belge.gif Image:Senat.gif Image:Sheet Metal Forge.gif Image:Sheffield University Arts Tower.JPG Image:Sheffield onfire.jpg Image:Sho.png Image:Shuttle STS107 2003 0116.jpg Image:Silkroutes.jpg Image:SinaloaCowboys.mid Image:Sinxy.gif Image:Skilauefer Alpin.jpg Image:Skin overlap.png Image:Skin plank.png
- Image:Sinxy.gif is probably PD, because it's a purly technical rendering of a simple math function. Or what does MAPLE's EULA say? -- Duesentrieb 15:32, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
- Image:Rosario desde el aire.jpg It was me who uploaded this, and I did it because the author posted in his internet page and omited any copyright reservation. So I understood that he was releasing it. Maybe if I get an email authorization it would be more likely? --Jfa 17:29, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
- Not mentioning copyright doesn't mean it isn't copyrighted! If you can get authorization so that anybody can use it for any purpose (which the commons requires) that'd be great -- Joolz 18:30, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
- Image:Sheffield University Arts Tower.JPG is copyrightfree I took it and released it into PD. However it can be deleted as it is redundant because Image:Sheffield University Arts Tower.jpg is a version of it the right way up. (P.S. I'm not sure why I uploaded it as a different file instead of just updating the file? And why the only diff is the file extention in capitals or not, mystery?)--JK the Unwise 09:48, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
- The wrongly rotated one has been deleted, thanks - Joolz 13:07, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
- I wonder whether the kept version was rotated losslessly. I don't think so, since the dimensions are not divisible by 8. I'll go ask JK to re-upload the original ... dbenbenn | talk 03:14, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
- The wrongly rotated one has been deleted, thanks - Joolz 13:07, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
- All photos tagged or deleted. Thuresson 13:11, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
It has been inserted with wrong title. The image with right title is Image:NerolaRMbelvedere.jpg --MM 14:32, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
- Deleted, Thuresson 13:11, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
Image:Adolf Hitler at the Heldenplatz on 2 April 1938.ogg is the same video file Campani 17:10, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
- I have done the check for all projects and have changed the filenames. --Walter 08:00, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
- Deleted, Thuresson 13:11, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
Created in error. I forgot the standard in Wikipedia (and, I assume, Wikimedia Commons) is to use the English ceremonial (ie. pre-1972) counties, rather than the administrative counties created in that year and now partially abolished. On that basis, the images I placed here should have gone into Category:Somerset, which is where I have now moved them. --Chris j wood 20:00, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
- Deleted -- Joolz 20:06, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
Photo was taken in Norway by a Norwegian, and uploaded by a Norwegian. Under Norwegian law, pictures of works of art permanently installed in public places are free only if the work of art is not the main subject (similar to German panoramafreiheit). The organization BONO, which is responible for protecting artists' rights, have successfully claimed financial compensation for similar photos of this monument. Cnyborg 22:55, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
- Danm thats a shame, but note that Panoramafreiheit also aplies when the work of Art is the main subjekt. Please dont't delete them all. -guety 02:15, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
- Right, please note that Norwegian and German law are not entirely similar. In Norwegian law, the protected work cannot be the main subject. The image can also be used in many Wikimedia projects provided that it is marked as copyrighted by the creator of the depicted object and not for commercial use; with a few exceptions, non-commercial use is fine. Cnyborg 12:30, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
- Keep, nothing artistic about this "work of art", Thuresson 22:57, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
27 July
[edit]Flags of the PKK
[edit]These images:
- Image:Ernk flag large.jpg obsolited by Image:PKK-ERNK flag large.gif
- Image:Kongra-gel flag large.jpg obsolited by Image:PKK-KONGRA-GEL flag large.gif
- Image:PDF-PKK flag large.gif obsolited by Image:PKK-PDF flag large.gif
- Image:PKK flag large.png obsolited by Image:PKK flag large.gif
- Image:PJAK-AL flag large.jpg
- Image:Kadek flag large.jpg obsolited by Image:PKK-KADEK flag large.gif
- Image:PKK - PJA flag large.jpg obsolited by Image:PKK-PJA flag large.gif
are all relating to the Kurdistan Worker's Party, all with the source of "google", and no explanation of why they qualify as public domain. -- Joolz 16:48, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
- Logical argument: All images are released to public domain by the organisation. Flags of organisations are alwats released to public domain for publicicy reasons. --Cool Cat My Talk 16:56, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
- No, generally logos and emblems of organizations are not made PD, do be able to control the use and avoid them to appear in pleaces where to org does not like it. It's a little different with official insigia of states, etc, which generally are PD but have a separate set of laws restricting their use. So, I have no idea about the status of these images, but just assuming they are PD because they are emblems of organizations is simply false. I belive even the official insignia of the UN are not PD. -- Duesentrieb 17:14, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
- It is classified by a number of countries as "terrorist" (includes EU/US not limited to) the organisation treats this flag as a "national" flag hence I serriously doubt there is a copyright on this image. Its a freaking flag! --Cool Cat My Talk 04:15, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
- Well, i'm not sure I understand you argument. Are you saying "They are terrorists, and terrorists don't have any rights"? Or are you saying "They are a legitemite government, so the flags are PD"? I can't really follow either of the arugments.
- Anyway, some information about the origine of the flags would be good - how old are they? Who created, or at least, wo adopted/used them first, and when? In most jurisdictions, there is copyright on any work of art, automatically - the flags would have to be exempt by law explicitely.
- Furthermore, "Google" is not a valid image source, you should at least point to the web page you found the images. Note that i'm not saying those flags are not PD - I just don't know, but you don't seem to know either, really. So, some reseach would be excelent. Maybe ther's even an interresting story to this that would be worth mentioning in the Wikipedia articles about the PKK. -- Duesentrieb 11:23, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
- My argument is, they claim they are a goverment. Hence they releaced the flags to PD. Forget the source. Multiple websites use these images. I dont have a clue where I got them from. I'll actualy re hunt sources because I am honestly sick of dealing with this nonsense. Hell, I'll draw the images. --Cool Cat My Talk 13:13, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
- It is classified by a number of countries as "terrorist" (includes EU/US not limited to) the organisation treats this flag as a "national" flag hence I serriously doubt there is a copyright on this image. Its a freaking flag! --Cool Cat My Talk 04:15, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
- OK I screwed up big time. Below images should be deleted. --Cool Cat My Talk 14:22, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
- No, generally logos and emblems of organizations are not made PD, do be able to control the use and avoid them to appear in pleaces where to org does not like it. It's a little different with official insigia of states, etc, which generally are PD but have a separate set of laws restricting their use. So, I have no idea about the status of these images, but just assuming they are PD because they are emblems of organizations is simply false. I belive even the official insignia of the UN are not PD. -- Duesentrieb 17:14, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
- Image:PKK flag large.gif.gif
- Image:PKK-KOMKAR flag large.gif.gif
- Image:PKK-PDF flag large.gif.gif
- Image:PKK-Former-Variant-2 flag large.gif.gif
- Image:PKK-Former-Variant-1 flag large.gif.gif
- Image:PKK-Former flag large.gif.gif
- Image:PKK-ERNK flag large.gif.gif
- Image:PKK-ARGK.gif
Image:PKK flag large.gif is from Flags of the World, http://www.crwflags.com/fotw/flags/krd%7Dpkk.html. Their copyright policy is non-free: you cannot "alter in any way the images". Image:PKK flag large.png, nominated above, is simply a PNG conversion of the GIF file. dbenbenn | talk 18:03, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
- Err. realise that they are not related to the PKK in any way. PKK is the only place you can argue about copyrights. The design of the image is not copyrightable. You cannot "alter in any way the images" means that they hold copyrights to any image that looks remotely like the PKK flag. Since they dont own the copyrights in the first place (as pkk does as it is PKK which designed their own flag) this isn't a valid copyright statement. Simmilar PKK images are avalible in multiple websites. --Cool Cat My Talk 20:38, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
July 28
[edit]July 29
[edit]July 30
[edit]This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
|
.jpg_&_Image:Tajemnice_Ludzkiej_Dloni_(Human_Error).jpg){kind=link}
![17.4 [:Image:[Waaier.jpg]]](#[:Image:[Waaier.jpg]]){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
New Zealand Crown Copyright do not seem to allow commercial use or creating derivative works. Thuresson 12:19, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
- Yes, please delete! We have had the discussion about commonwealth crown copyright before, see Template:CrownCopyright - the respective templates have been converted into warnings and the images have been deleted, see [6] and [7]. -- Duesentrieb 14:31, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
- I see no reason to delete this template, any more than Template:Cc-nd. I've made it a redirect to Template:Nonderivative. dbenbenn | talk 03:05, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
- Uh, yes, you are right, that's much better :) -- Duesentrieb 10:07, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Definitely misplaced article. Should be in English Wikipedia/Wikisource/Wikibooks. --EugeneZelenko 15:28, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
- Strong Keep. It was deleted from English Wikipedia, it is currently up for deletion at Wikisource. It is not a source text, but a compilation of data from source texts, so it doesn't belong at Wikisource. The Commons Main Page says that Commons accepts texts, and the VFD's on Wikipedia and Wikisource say that it belongs on Commons (see [8]) . Wikibooks is for books written by users, not lists written by users. --Brian0918 15:51, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
- And every article deleted from Wikipedia/Wikibook/Wikisource should be placed on Commons? Great idea... I could only propose to create Wikilists to help Brian0918. --EugeneZelenko 17:29, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
- I'm still waiting for you to provide a valid reason for why it shouldn't be here. Commons says it accepts text. Whether you're able to cope with being wrong on ocassion is beside the point. --Brian0918 22:09, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
- And every article deleted from Wikipedia/Wikibook/Wikisource should be placed on Commons? Great idea... I could only propose to create Wikilists to help Brian0918. --EugeneZelenko 17:29, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
- Delete and move to WikiBrian. WikiCommons is not Wikimedia's trash heap. Thuresson 18:09, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
- Thanks for your insightbull comments. Looks like I put more work into that list than most people do into 5 featured articles for nothing. You're truly a gift to information distribution. --Brian0918 22:08, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
- If it can't be on wikipedia then commons looks like the next best for me. BrokenSegue 22:29, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
- Comment. This is bouncing off various VfD equivalents, and every project says "this should be on another project". Not very productive.
I would argue, however, that Wikipedia is the right project, not Wikicommons, no matter what the main page says. The intent of Wikicommons is to provide hassle-free, shared resources to projects regardless of their language or goal. There doesn't seem to be anything useful to providing shared access to an (English) list of disaster victims. I don't know why lists like these would not belong on Wikipedia while things like List of songs with titles that don't appear in the lyrics, which is both less useful and only implicitly sourced, do. With the way projects are zoning off their areas of interest, it appears that this list doesn't belong anywhere in Wikimedia. That doesn't seem right. JRM 23:03, 30 July 2005 (UTC) - Keep Please find a permanent place for this article. Simon.Pole
- This is the first WikiCommons edit ever by User:24.81.135.64
- Brian0918, I know you have contacted 20 pals to comment on this but articles without photos or other media do not belong on WikiCommons, no more than List of French soccer players who enjoy a good sauerkraut for lunch. Thuresson 23:35, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
- You've said delete twice now, you know :P -- Joolz 00:09, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Firstly, the commons isn't really designed for this purpose (see for instance Commons:Criteria for inclusion), the commons is about sharing media between the different projects, this article is an article (and one, in english, which can't be used on another project because there's no mechanism to include it in, unlike images/sound etc.). I couldn't find any debate on en.wikipedia nor wikisource where the outcome was to transwiki to the commons (there was no VfD on en.wiki at all). I'm sorry that you can't find a place for it on wikimedia (although, you could probably try enwiki since it's never been through VfD on there) but I still don't think that this is appropriate for the commons. By the way, just because it may say we possibly accept texts, it does not say we have to accept all and any text. (I hate edit conflicts, especially when the point is made better than mine!)-- Joolz 23:57, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
- Transwiki back to Wikipedia Per JRM. This was a historical event, and, like September 11, Columbine, and other disasters, this belongs in an encyclopedia. Ryan 00:01, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
- keep: at the very least until a permanent location can be agreed upon. Ombudsman 00:18, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
- This is the first WikiCommons edit ever by User:Ombudsman, but he has 1600 edits on Wikipedia.
- Delete, but make sure it's kept somewhere. The main page text doesn't say that Commons accepts texts, it says "and, possibly, texts and spoken texts" (italics mine). As I see it, the word 'possibly' can only mean that texts are not automatically approved, so unless som better argument than "it's allowed" here comes up, I feel that this fall outside what this project is about. Cnyborg 00:33, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
- Keep at Wikipedia. Brian - submit this issue to the wikien mailing list. Theres no sense in people batting this thing about. Clearly it belongs at source or there. Source seems to be limited to other things, according to that definition. There needs to be some policy against batting things around. -Stevertigo 00:58, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Commons isn't a repository for all non-encyclopedic, non-primary-source texts that the other projects have rightly rejected. Please accept that some text isn't suitable for any Wikimedia project, especially lists of non-notable people. Angela 02:46, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
- But lists of non-notable songs are acceptable]??? --Brian0918 02:48, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
- I never said those were acceptable. There are lots of unacceptable pages across the Wikimedia projects. That isn't a reason to allow more of them. Angela 04:46, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
- There is no need create lists on commons only because enWikipedia has more stupid lists. Save somewhere for m:Wikidata and add there. -guety 03:32, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
- But lists of non-notable songs are acceptable]??? --Brian0918 02:48, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. The article is at Wikisource:List of victims of the 1913 Great Lakes storm. It is not "currently up for deletion at Wikisource". According to the Wikisource history, it was nominated for deletion there on March 15, and on June 22 the consensus was to keep it. dbenbenn | talk 03:00, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
- The article and others like it are up for deletion again on Wikisource. --Brian0918 03:07, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
- Delete I read about it on foundation-l and come to see it. Commons is a repository of multimedia. I can't find any relevance to this mission on this article. --Aphaia 03:37, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
- Please note that votes from this point on may be a result of campaigning on user talk pages at the English Wikipedia by the creator of the page listed for deletion. Angela 04:46, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
- Keep here or at Wikipedia. I don't know why they ever VfD'd it from Wikipedia but it does seem to make sense to have it here. It is a piece of shared media that is used in Wikimedia projects. This is a repository for shared media including text. The fact is, Wikipedia is the place for lists. They only deleted this in the first place because some people thought it was a memorial instead of a historical document. Is there anyway to bypass the community on this and go straight to the developers for judgement? CSN 04:18, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
- Whatever do developers have to do with deletion votes? Angela 04:48, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
- Forgive my ignorance on this... I assumed there was some type of arbitration built into the Wikimedia community that could handle situations like this where it is not clear which project an article belongs too. CSN 20:59, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
- The article has never been VfD'd from Wikipedia. Thuresson 09:05, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
- How can you dismiss my comments as the result of campaigning without even addressing the issues I raise? Lists similar to this one were deleted off Wikipedia and we all have a vested interest in keeping this knowledge alive somewhere. If you regular users of Wikicommons feel that this list is not appropriate for Commons as a piece of media used on a Wikimedia project, please explain your reasoning for that instead of dismissing my opinion. The family of projects needs to operate as a cohesive community and determine the proper place for articles like this instead of shuffling it off from project to project without discussing the reasons for it. CSN 20:59, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
- Your comments have not been dismissed, they're still here (your vote on the other hand is a different matter) - now, what your argument appears to boil down to is 'it should be on wikipedia *somewhere* so why not here?' (forgive me if that isn't an accurate representation of them!) to which the answer is the commons is not the appropriate place for them because it doesn't fit with the purpose of the commons, they shouldn't be kept on the commons just because it should be *somewhere* on wikimedia, we're not a dumping ground! Other people have also said that it's been deleted from en.wiki and wikisource and we shouldn't keep passing it back and forth. My understanding is that it's been speedied before on en.wiki and that a VfD on wikisource resulted in it being kept, so it's not exactly going back and forth at all. At the end of the day, if there isn't a wikimedia project for this article, then the only two real solutions are to a) have a wikimedia project setup for them (very unlikely) or b) do not have the article on wikimedia. -- Joolz 21:17, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
- The disclaimer placed before my comment was definately a dismissal. The status of the lists existance on Wikisource is still undecided in my opinion. Ironically, the majority of the people voting to keep the article on Source were Wikipedians who wanted these lists somewhere aside from Wikipedia who came to Source to influence the vote. My argument is not that Commons is the best dumping ground for unwanted articles. When we were discussing deleting lists on Wikisource, I was trying to find a good place for these lists. In comparing the criteria of inclusion for the various projects I thought Commons might be a good fit. I thought these lists were kind of like maps or diagrams in that they are a type of media useful to other projects and since Commons claims to accept text, I thought this might be a good place for them. Since the lists have been through Pedia, Source, and now Commons, I would say they are being bounced around. I don't believe they will be deleted from Source until they find a more permanent home elsewhere but I was trying to help find that place because there is a chance they will be deleted and then all of Brian's hard work will have gone to waste. I agree with your last statement though and I think it would be a shame if the articles disappear. CSN 00:27, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
- Please don't take it so personally. Your comment is not being discounted and the disclaimer was aimed only or specifically at you. It is just a message to explain why there might suddenly be a large number of unregistered users appearing to vote. It's no more a dismissal than the standard "user has 5 edits" comment added after such voters. Angela 19:25, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
- You're right. I did blow it out of proportion. Sorry. CSN 22:24, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
- Keep on commons, even though it should not have been deleted from Wikipedia. Yes, this is my first edit, but someone named Kate seems to believe I have over 7000 edits on the English Wikipedia. —RaD Man (talk) 07:45, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
- The article has never been VfD'd from Wikipedia. If a person's experience and knowlege of WikiCommons is measured by the number of edits, 1 edit is only 1 edit. Thuresson 09:05, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
- Delete - lack of suitability for inclusion on other projects does not beget suitability for this one. James F. (talk) 10:38, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
- Stating the history of an article does not a reason make. Try again. --Brian0918 19:57, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
- Transwiki back to 'pedia. It's an in-depth article - especially with the embedded source details moved back to user space. If it was a pure list of proper names, 'commons would be a good place for it (although maybe causing searching problems) because it could be included in any 'media project that didn't insist on transliteration. Rich Farmbrough 00:12, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
- Keep here or at Wikipedia. - Calmypal 14:57, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
- This is the first WikiCommons edit ever by User:Calmypal
- Keep somewhere. Deletionism run rampant. --Golbez 21:25, 3 August 2005 (UTC) (And no need to check, I not only have several hundred uploads here but I'm an admin. Mazel tov.)
- We can only decide what should be kept on the commons though, we don't have any jurisdication over anywhere else, so should your vote be interpreted as a keep, or a delete because it's on wikisource? -- Joolz 22:23, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, should be at Wikipedia (my opinion) or nowhere (if the users there really want to delete it). The article is unusable for any other project; it is an encyclopedic article in English. Even if the English Wikipedia's users believed it has no place in Wikipedia, what could I do with that? --Mormegil 13:58, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
- Keep or move to wikibooks. This kind of material would be suitable for a book on the storm, which would be more in-depth than seems reasonable for WP, and making the list useful will require some original research. I note that User:User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) has been uploading masses of family history detail including some extremely non-notable persons that could only possibly be useful in a genealogical wikibook, and nobody seems to be complaining about the extremely limited usefulness of those images. Stan Shebs 21:54, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
- Delete --Paddy 15:26, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
- Keep and transwiki to en:wikipedia. Arj 17:50, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
- Keep on Commons at least until en: policies change. These lists belong somewhere. ‣ᓛᖁ
ᑐ 20:58, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
- Deleted. Thuresson 04:16, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
