Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2005/10

This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

As there is no reason for the request for deletion given yet, let me say some words:

1. It is a copy of a book of 1939 - it is not old enough and therefore violating copy rights.
2. It is not legal in a couple of countries, for example Germany, to spread Nazi Symbols and similiar material.

Thx. -- Simplicius 20:45, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I uploaded these for the following reasons:

1. The text explains it to be "Gemeinfrei". It could be PD, if it is 50 years old, published by the German government, with the painter of the images unknown (afaik). This is still disputed (see link below), but here is one extract in German: Ich vermutete seinerzeit, daß die Bilder gemeinfrei sind, da der Verleger des „Reichsorganisationshandbuches der NSDAP“ seit 1945 nicht mehr besteht. Ferner liegen zwischen dem Erscheinungsjahr 1939 und heute 66 Jahre dazwischen.
2. A discussion is taking place on German wikipedia about deleting them ([1]) Sorry -- I thought a Image for Deletion process was closed when I uploaded the images. (My German is not that good).
3. Also NB that I uploaded them because I noticed the english wikipedia already had these images, and reasoned I might as well put them on commons.
4. That nazi symbols may/may not be allowed/wanted in Germany, Austria and Switzerland should not, as I see it, be a reason why not to put on commons.

// Fred Chess 21:11, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion in the German Wikipedia is still going on. The times for copy right are a bit longer then 50 years.

Beside the law diskussions: On one hand material for educational purposes is necessary, on the other we should not keep a reservoir of devotional objects open for people who live in a world of Nazi-fetish. -- Simplicius 22:59, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

To me, the criterion on Nazis is irrelevant. First of all, from a legal point of view, or such pictures, we use Template:Nazi symbol; it is then up to the users to the pictures to ensure that they use them in educational etc. manners if they use them in Germany. Another point is that deciding to remove photographs with true educational content just because they remind some of bad historical events, or could help "fetichists", will have two adverse effects: first, it sets a precedent (after the Nazis, how about removing, say, documentation on KGB uniforms?), then it definitely hampers our educational goals for dubious political goals (we are not here to reform people's fetishes).

The copyright issue should be discussed by people with knowledge of German law and jurisprudence. David.Monniaux 10:48, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

To me a template is no criterion. Selling stolen items for instance would not be healed by adding a slip of paper "please note that trading stolen things can be illegal in some countries". One can not expel responsibility for things while doing them - the result is acting irresponsible.

In this case it is not "a documentation" but NS propaganda material. It has less educational information and just a value for Nazi devotional interests. We should not open a channel to spread materials like digitalized NS literature and similiar via Wikimedia as if we could distribute it in the shops and on the streets. -- Simplicius 14:00, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nazi propaganda is encyclopedic. We should keep this if it is public domain. dbenbenn | talk 19:59, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me, but I fail to see how a depiction of SS uniforms constitutes nazi "propaganda". It does not condone the people in the uniform, but merely describes how they were clothed. David.Monniaux 20:01, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A picture of a uniform is not "propaganda". From Wikipedia: "The aim of propaganda is to influence people's opinions actively, rather than to merely communicate the facts about something." Showing the image communicates the fact how SS uniforms looked like, it does not even try to influence the people's opinion on national socialism.

However, the German Criminal Code (Strafgesetzbuch - StGB) does ban every distribution of such images, unless it serves serves "publich education, the defence against unconstitutional efforts, art, science, academic research and lore, reporting on current or historic events or similar purposes". A good NPOV image description, however, nearly automatically falls under "reporting of historic events" (i.e. it will report that historically, SS people wore that uniform), so it's not a criminal offence to distribute these images on Commons. -- 3247 10:07, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I know that Prince Henry wearing uniform and Hakenkreuz on a Britsh party is different to doing so in Germany.

De facto the source is "Reichsorganisationshandbuch der NSDAP" ... something like "Reich Organisation Handbook of the NSDAP" translated into English ... and I consider it as propaganda material not as "documentation". - Of course I worship educational purposes but should not feel free to be educated by original NS-books.

It can be educational if it is embedded into a referring article but we also store it without an educational frame - so it is also a pure distribution as it might be criminal in Germany.

Yet I did not argue with the laws (considering copyright the book is unfree anyway until the 70 years are over - there is no difference to "Mein Kampf") but for the next years after the time line: how can we prevent becoming a reservoir for Nazi reliquies? -- Simplicius 13:10, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If these images are to be removed for copyright reasons and if you find it useful, you can let me know (before deleteing the images) on my talk page so that I draw an equivalent myself. Cheers ! Rama 09:19, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep if the pictures are not a copyvio. As said in the German discussion there are no legal arguments not to show such pictures. Simplicius is completely wrong. A Hitler picture can also used as a Nazi reliquie - should scholars and educators worldwide avoid showing Hitler's picture because a German Simplicissimus has Neonazi-fear? --Historiograf 13:30, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

See above. -- Simplicius 20:45, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Images kept. Thuresson 20:24, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

A mutant hybrid of the flags of Germany and Chile. Why? check-usage is down right now, so I can't be sure, but I don't see how this is usable. dbenbenn | talk 00:29, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wait until the check-usage functions again, check it and if it is not used, then make a deletion request. --ALE! 21:19, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This image is used in the german WP to mark german-chilean football players. Besides that, i can't see any reason to delete every image, that isn't used in any wikimedia project, see Commons:FAQ#What materials can I upload?: "Anything that can be used in the Wikimedia projects"

Thanks for the hint to this request on my user talk page. Regards, norro 00:42, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if a file can't possibly be used, it should certainly be deleted. Anyway, since it's used by the German Wikipedia, I withdraw the request. (It might have been a good idea to explain what you wrote above on the image description page. In general, an image description page should describe how an image can be used. I've added your explanation to the flag's page.) dbenbenn | talk 02:30, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Trademarks are not free images. --EugeneZelenko 01:40, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The SUSE logo is listed as PD on http://www.openclipart.org/ as listed in my upload. I simply took their word for it. Many projects have a trademarked logo and a non-trademarked logo, are you sure of it?

I think SuSE image is trademark. At least it was year ago. Modified version still in use on http://opensuse.org. --EugeneZelenko 02:58, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Virginian Herald is over 100 years old and is the emblem for rail way system which has been gone since the 1950s, there is no standing trademark on it as far as I can tell. This one should not be deleted --Gmaxwell 02:02, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A search of the USPTO confirms that there is no current registered marks from the orignal company, nor any simmlar marks from the company that now owns most of that railline, nor any mark at all the resembles the VGN logo. The trademark is clearly dead. --Gmaxwell 02:14, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In this case image could be kept. --EugeneZelenko 02:58, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

SuSe logo deleted by Eloquence, Virginian Herald kept. Thuresson 04:33, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

REASON -- Bad name. The same file re-uploaded as Image:Taiwan Pride 2005 before setout.JPG.

Deleted

This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Redundant copy of Image:Ie pres.png. --Fibonacci 23:50, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted, Thuresson 03:29, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

No license, non-notable topic. Unless somebody recognizes the person depicted on this photo? David.Monniaux 10:39, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted, Thuresson 13:34, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Bartok - Op.4b -1.ogg, Image:Bartok - Op.4b -2.ogg, Image:Bartok - Out-of-Doors Suite-1.ogg, Image:Bartok - Out-of-Doors Suite2.ogg.

The recordings may be under a free license, but the music played cannot be, since composer Bela Bartók died in 1945. The music will become public domain on 1 Jan 2016. Therefore they must, unfortunately, be deleted. ---AndreasPraefcke 19:03, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please not inline the sounds as if they were images? It's a 35MB download, which is a bit much even for my 4-megabit connection. --67.185.129.168 07:12, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted, Thuresson 20:34, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Advertising line (domain address) in the picture. -- 84.190.133.152 23:46, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

How do I exchange this photo for another out without copyright indication and smaller with same name?

Copyright-Signs are generally OK on pictures, but they are IMHO ugly and pointless, since anyone can remove them. If you use a copyleft license (instead of "PD-self" or "CopyrightedFreeUse"), this requires the author and license to be given, anyway. That'S the point of copyleft licenses. Putting that info into the image is OK with the policy, but often frowned upon. Oh, and keep the image. -- Duesentrieb^(?!) 11:04, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, I check the original version, and found that the (c) notice in the image is very big - which I don't like, but i'm not sure it's a reason for deletion. I hope the uploader will go for using a copyleft license to ensure he's mentioned, instead of uglyfying the picture... -- Duesentrieb^(?!) 11:19, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Uploader changed to a photo without a copyright sign. Thuresson 13:47, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

category:role playing games already exists --Cdang 08:18, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Empty, redundant category. --AndreasPraefcke 16:21, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

I uploaded it, only when categorizing to notice that it is a duplicate: Image:Red Army recruitment poster.jpg. Mikkalai 03:08, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. --EugeneZelenko 14:06, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

The following 50 images comes from Category:Unknown. Thuresson 08:28, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Trekking.jpg Image:Trio-2.mid Image:Trompeta.jpg Image:Troops Falklands.jpg Image:Trulli roofs 24 08 2005.jpg Image:Tuba.jpg Image:Turkey coat of arms.png Image:Turkmenistan coa.jpg Image:Tut chest defeating nubians.jpg Image:Tut closeup no distort.jpg Image:Tut garrett nubian slave staff grip.jpg Image:Tut shabti garret geo.jpg Image:Tut tomb cross section.jpg Image:Tut unguent crush nubians.jpg Image:TutsCougar.jpg Image:Tuvalu-coa.jpg Image:UHJ.gif Image:US PA PHIL.JPG Image:USC Bovard Auditorium.jpg Image:UT University College.JPG Image:UZ-Fergana.PNG Image:Ubiacacion de guadalajara.jpg Image:Ubicacion nuevo laredo.JPG Image:Uk flag large.png Image:Us-gaat2.png Image:Utah party raided by police 2005-08-20.jpg Image:Utpch.jpg Image:VLT.JPG Image:Vaishnodevi.jpg Image:Vakantie Parijs Ber 2005 026.jpg Image:VanillaIceMug.jpg Image:Venezuela MER FR Orbit05318 20030307 20030324.jpg Image:Venice-62.jpg Image:Verlichting.jpg Image:Vidyasagar.jpg Image:Vidyasagar2.gif Image:Vienna Lugeck 2.jpg Image:Vienna Medical school.jpg Image:Vienna Peterskirche.jpg Image:Vienna Schwarzenbergplatz 1.jpg Image:Vienna Schwarzenbergplatz 2.jpg Image:Vienna Schwarzenbergplatz 3.jpg Image:Vienna St Michael.jpg Image:Vienna St Stefan 2.jpg Image:Vienna St Stefan 5.jpg Image:Vienna St Stephan 11.jpg Image:Vienna St Stephan 6.jpg Image:Vienna street scene 2.jpg

All images tagged or deleted. Thuresson 06:57, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Superseeded by Image:Blason Montreuil-sur-Mer-Relief.svg --Mathieu.clabaut 10:36, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted, Thuresson 06:57, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Superseeded by Image:Blason la Tour dAigues Relief.svg --Mathieu.clabaut 10:36, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted, Thuresson 06:57, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Copyrighted image. Uploader did not ask the author (instead he made the false claim: "author uknown to me so free license"). Arnomane 22:57, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted by Paddy

{{PD-UA-exempt}} is wrongly assumed. --EugeneZelenko 13:30, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Which section of exempt from Ukraine copyright law could be applied in this case? This is not transport schedule. --EugeneZelenko 01:00, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"Other similar databases that do not meet originality criteria".--Irpen 04:46, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image/Map is not database. Please create you own and made available under free license. --EugeneZelenko 15:57, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This drawing just shows lines and station. Lacks originality as per above. --Irpen 07:52, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that text list of station is trivial but not image. It require job to create so do not assume that other people job is not copyrighted even if you think that it luck originality. See London Underground geographic maps for inspiration. --EugeneZelenko 14:36, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is deeper than whether it is copyrighted. The issue is whether it is copyrightable. If not, even if someone makes a cp claim, the claim is invalid. Skill and effort are irrelevant if the job lacks originality, see (en:Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp). --Irpen 03:21, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's copyrightable even if you see this map every day in Kiev, and think that it's trivial information. You think that if any commercial publisher will decide to print its version of Kiev metro map, it can't copyright image? I don't think so.

EugeneZelenko 13:27, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Eugene, this map is sufficiently artistic to be copyrightable. dbenbenn | talk 20:41, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree since there is nothing articstic in it. Besides, it is overlayed over Kiev landscape (one can see Dnieper) based on older Soviet-PD map. WHoever created it just drew lines and wrote the stations down. It is not artistic and not copyrightable. Commercial publisher may make an artistic map (with attractions, etc.) and copyright it. This isnt' one. --Irpen 23:48, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If you insist that it's very easy to do these maps, please do them yourself (based on PD-Soviet map of Kiev). SVG versions will be especially welcomed. --EugeneZelenko 03:13, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I am not saying it is easy to make. I say it lacks originality. An artist who makes a copy of Leonardo's paintings can't copyright his work, even though he has to be skilled and work hard. The originality and/or lack of triviality is the critera, not the ease to make. --Irpen 23:24, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

For me, as person who seen mostly Minsk subway map, these maps looks original enough. Based on your logic, Google can't copyrights maps too. --EugeneZelenko 14:04, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, cp laws in UA are different from the laws in US. I just don't know. Secondly, and most importanly, this is NOT a map. This is a scheme that consists of lines that roughly connect from point to a point and names of the stations written down in a standard font, not some artistic scribing. This is all overlayed on the image of the river that is PD because it is from the Soviet maps. I don't see anything original done by the authors of this image. Of course the decision on originality is subjective and we should excersize caution making it. However, here it seems trivial enough. If others disagree, go ahead and delete it. Once we have a consensus, the decision will be made. I am just offering my opinion and the arguments that support it. --Irpen 04:36, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

I uploaded this several months back; apparently, I was ignorant of the guidelines and purpose of the Commons at the time. I apologize for not pointing this out sooner, but I just noticed and remembered it when I glanced at my contributions page. — Prizm 02:41, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted --EugeneZelenko 13:52, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

• Image:Atomium-restoration-detail.jpg
• Image:Atomium-restoration-05-2005.JPG
• Image:Brussels atomium underconstruction.jpg

REASON: building is protected by rights of architect TeunSpaans 16:34, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• ARGUMENTS: Belgium does not have an exception in the law allowing unlimited publication of public works of art. This means that the children of the architect will profit from any web- or other publication for 70 years to come. See also discussion about eiffeltower at [2] TeunSpaans 16:34, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep see above --Historiograf 19:10, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, I meant to link to [3] TeunSpaans 19:32, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Images kept, no consensus to delete. Thuresson 01:26, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

REASON: It isn't galena, it's silvina (es:, gl:, perhaps in en:Silvine). You can see the same photo in Image:Mineral Silvina GDFL105.jpg--Lmbuga 18:36, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted, Thuresson 13:51, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:1_ceres.png is for non commercial use only (http://www.swri.org/press/ceres.htm). This image was uploaded several times in de.wikipedia and here als well. The SWRI was asked via mail as well and did not release this image under a free license. So maybe speedy deletion. Arnomane 08:39, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted by Paddy

This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Attribution to Jimbo Walles and all related authorisation stuff seems ridiculous. --Ecemaml 18:29, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

keep' - the info is correct. If you would bother to follow the links given on the description page, you would know that Jimmy Wales is founder and ex-CEO of Bomis.com, and he indeed confirmed that this Picture can be released under the GFDL. The only problem I see is that the actual creator is not named. Chears -- Duesentrieb^(?!) 18:53, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Whoever the photographer was, Bomis holds the copyright, so Bomis are the ones who have to be attributed. Not knowing the photographer isn't really a problem. dbenbenn | talk 05:20, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, btw - why did you put the image deletion waring on User talk:Melancholie? The image was uploaded by User:David.Monniaux? A little rash, are we? -- Duesentrieb^(?!) 18:57, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep this is the only image in the article Bomis I did not delete. It is obvious Jimbo put it under the GFDL and I agree the authour should be named if Bomis does not have all rights. --Paddy 22:23, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. About the photographer: I was under the impression that it was en:Suze Randall, see [4]. Lupo 08:59, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keeep I discussed the matter with JWales and he, acting as CEO of Bomis, licensed this very photograph under GFDL (if I remember well, so that we can put some illustration of what a "typical" porn star looks like on ). David.Monniaux 15:10, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

This image violates the copyright, because it is copied from this website: [5] --Markus Schweiss 04:20, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted, Thuresson 03:39, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

This is no PD. See [6]. --Avatar 09:25, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The current version appears to be the same as Image:Mohamed el-Baradei.jpg. The previous versions are the ones with questionable status in PD. -- PFHLai 15:32, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

IAEA allows free use of its own photos. Thuresson 05:56, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Sorry. I messed up. Please delete this. The proper one is Image:ElBaradei 030110.jpg. Thanks. -- PFHLai 13:36, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted by Paddy

This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

This image is claimed as fair use in its source, the English Wikipedia. [7]. --Joanot Martorell ✉ 12:32, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted

This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

It is IMO a clear copyvio outside of Canada and we have been warned by the UK rights holder. --Historiograf 00:56, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

National Archives of Canada claim that the photos in the Yousuf Karsh collection have various copyright statuses [8] and that the copyright of this particular photo has expired [9]. Thuresson 04:50, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the photo

Accord National Archives of Canada this photo has:

Restrictions on access: Nil

Restrictions on use/reproduction: Nil

Copyright: Expired

Credit: Yousuf Karsh / Library and Archives Canada / PA-212510

Why do we have to contest those informations? In case they are wrong, is it Wikimedia responsibility? Zimbres 10 October 2005

The UK rights holder has warned us (see discussion page). The pictures may be PD in Canada but only in Canada. In the EU they are protected 70 years pma. I think the photograph is protected in the US. --Historiograf 23:22, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, of course. If the Library and Archives of Canada, who have acquired the Youssuf Karsh collection, state that there were no reproduction restrictions and the copyright was expired, then that's good enough for us. Note that this person claiming copyright claims to be from a company making money from such images, but has not shown any proof that they do hold the copyright. If their copyright claim were indeed founded, they would pursue more official avenues that a basically unverifiable post on some web site (namely ours). I think a statement by the LAC is much more trustworthy than some anonymous claim that may (or may not) be frivolous. The mere fact that the "warning" occurred back in May 2005 and we've not seen any follow-up action makes me think that probably the claim is not well-founded indeed. If they do have a claim, they can take it up with the LAC directly. Now, a completely different question is why the LAC claims that the copyright on these images was expired... Lupo 08:40, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have to take back my words. I just discovered this page at the LAC (which Thuresson also linked above), where the LAC gives contradictory information on the copyright/licensing status of the images from the Yousuf Karsh collection. It is not clear to me which statement is applicable. I have sent an e-mail to the LAC's copyright office asking for clarification. I thus vote to wait with a decision until the LAC answers, which I hope they'll do soon. Note that a decision on this image also applies to the other images from the Yousuf Karsh collection! Lupo 09:54, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Allright: KEEP. The LAC has confirmed that the image is in the public domain, see Image talk:Albert Einstein.jpg. Lupo 07:17, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

I mistook "Monestary" for the correct word, while I meant "Abbey". I already uploaded a corrected version "Abbey_Silvacane.jpg". TY.--Psycho Chicken 16:16, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted, replaced by Image:Abbey Silvacane.jpg. Thuresson 14:50, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Its a screen shot of an open source software en:OpenTTD, using copyrigted graphic resource of en:Transport Tycoon Deluxe , ~ bayo or talk 21:50, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• delete its not an open screenshot, and it use wrong licence. ~ bayo or talk 21:50, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted, tagged as fair use at en: Thuresson 14:50, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

pictures by DigitalGlobe are not free as i know so far. see also [10]: "No Commercial Use". --BLueFiSH ?! 00:32, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted, not for commercial use. Thuresson 15:01, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

• 2005-10-09 10:14:37 and 2005-10-09 10:16:06 from Image:Hiyama Subprefecture shadow picture.png
• 2005-10-09 10:14:37 from Image:Oshima Subprefecture shadow picture.png
• The versions that I contributed by mistake. --kahusi - (Talk) 10:26, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. --EugeneZelenko 14:31, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Copyright is not compatible with Commons

• Je ne suis pas expert en copyright, mais il me semble que le copyright de ces deux images n'est pas compatible avec Commons. Entre autres : "vous devez me demander une autorisation spéciale de reproduction" et "La mention légale « © Xddc 2003 » est indispensable."
• I'm not an expert in copyrights, but it looks like the copyright given to these two images is not compatible with Commons. The copyright is written French. --Kipmaster 11:39, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Remove The author (XDDC) requests a special authorization for each use. His sentence is not very clear, I'm unsure as whether this special authorization applies to the JPEG bitmap or only if one wants a vector representation, which XDDC can send on request. David.Monniaux 15:16, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted, unusual license, no source, uploader Lemur is not the author. Thuresson 21:27, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

site regering.nl allows TEXT to be copied, but no pictures. 82.210.117.113 21:41, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

See also (in dutch: [11])

Deleted, Thuresson 21:27, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

same story. Only text can be used, no pictures. (and website links do not work also) 82.210.117.113 21:50, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted, Thuresson 21:27, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:10braziliacentEZ.jpg Image:10braziliacentEZ.jpg Image:10braziliacentEZ.jpg Image:1cent.jpg Image:1centbraziliacoin.jpg Image:25_brazilian_cent.jpg Image:5_brazilian_cent.jpg Image:50_brazilian_cent.jpg Image:50_brazilian_cents2.jpg Image:5braziliancentEZ.jpg Image:Ma025.jpg Image:Ma100.jpg Image:Me001.jpg Image:Me100.jpg

REASON: it was my mistake to upload all those images because they have a clearly non commercial license.

Zimbres 10 October 2005

Deleted by Aevar

This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

I uploaded this several months back; apparently, I was ignorant of the guidelines and purpose of the Commons at the time. I apologize for not pointing this out sooner, but I just noticed and remembered it when I glanced at my contributions page. — Prizm 02:41, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted --EugeneZelenko 13:52, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Despite being asked to, the uploader refuses to give a source who can verify the copyright. Thuresson 04:54, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Katsumi.jpg, Image:AriaGiovanni.jpg, Image:TeaganPresley.jpg

As I've repeatedly said: I got these pictures from the photographer who agreed to their free use but prefers to remain anonymous. You have my word as an officer of the Wikimedia Foundation that their use is okay. Neither the foundation nor anyone else will be sued for using these pictures. --Elian ^Talk 21:09, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thuresson is right, we need confirmation for the copyright. However, the above comment of the well known user Elian should be sufficient: she was in contact with the photographer himself and obviously he authorised Elian to put the imagage under the needed license. It is legal to authorise other people for legal actions like this. At least the above statement of Elian can be defined as a declartion of putting the image under our license in the name of the photographer. So the necessary confirmation is gained, we can keep the photos. Nevertheless Thuresson was right to doubt the verification of the copyright in the first place. In order to prevent deletion requests like this one, these declarations should appear earlier. Berlin-Jurist 21:26, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:The Great wall - by Bernard Goldbach.jpgthe upload tell a lay.he clamed that this pic is taken by a flickrer and is taken in 2005-02-09 13:17:20,it must be a lay, i leave in beijing for over 20 years and have never seen such green leaves in February and never seen no body stand on great wall in such a sunshine midday. By the green leaves and the angle of sunlight i conjecture this photo is taken in a summer morning before 6:00. Most improtant of all i have seen this photo many times in some chinese bbs before 2005, so i conclude the uploader tell a lay and the author and copyright statusof this photo is unknow. Snowyowls 05:15, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The web page also says that the photo was uploaded on February 9, 2005. The photo could have been taken years earlier. Thuresson 12:06, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

you are misunderstanding what i means. the uploader clamed that this photo is taken on midday of February 9, 2005 ,(see description of this photo) not means this photo is upload on 2005 02 09, what i say is it is impossble that the picture is taken on February. so i doubt the uploader tall a lay and maybe not the really author of this photo.you know an author should know when he was taken the photo at least rough --Snowyowls 05:03, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The same user has uploaded several photos from China to Flickr: [12] I've sent him a message asking for quick confirmation that this one was taken by him as well. Note that the "Taken on .." information on Flickr is not necessarily reliable -- this information is automatically generated, from EXIM data and possibly file timestamps.--Eloquence 18:31, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I got a response:

"The image was shot by Hao Wei, a Chinese exchange student attending Tipperary Institute, when he was in the vicinity of the Great Wall. It should be licensed under the Creative Commons framework."

I don't really know what to make of this. "Should be licensed"? Thoughts?--Eloquence 19:32, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It obviously means that the photo is published at Flickr and licensed under Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 and should be labeled with the CC-by license in Commions. Maybe we should change the author to Hao Wei in the description. --Leopard 13:08, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image kept. I changed the attribution to Hao Wei and added an explanatory note. Thuresson 21:37, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Adrenaline.png - the filename is wrong (german: Adrenalin, english: Epinephrine) plus we already have a better image of Epinephrine which actually shows the structure. --C.Löser 07:49, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Object. Adrenaline.png is used by DE, FR, and NL. And in English, "adrenaline" is a synonym for epinephrine, so the filename isn't wrong. dbenbenn | talk 18:29, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

So adrenaline is not wrong, but still the structure in that image is hardly to see. It would not be a problem for me to change filenames on de, fr and nl. --C.Löser 19:16, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Only de used Adrenaline.png from commons; fr and nl have a different local image that is named Adrenaline.png. --C.Löser 19:23, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Psilocin..png - duplicate of Image:Psilocin.png. --C.Löser 08:11, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Lsd-structure.png - duplicate of Image:LSD.png. --C.Löser 08:19, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Object. Lsd-structure.png is used on the English Wikipedia. And it's hardly a duplicate of LSD.png. dbenbenn | talk 18:29, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

the images are not identically but they both show the structure of lsd. we just need one of them. and it won't be a problem to change filename on en. --C.Löser 19:16, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Image:Geom-Radiodrome scetch.png, Image:Geom-Radiodrome 0.png - uploaded accidentally with wrong name, sorry --W!B: 01:36, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image:M3Lee-Fort-Knox.jpg - duplicate of Image:M3grant.jpg. Bukvoed 08:50, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Police Day Parade 2005 Gurkha 1.jpg - duplicate of Image:Singapore Gurkha 01.jpg. Accidental re-upload by picture author.--Huaiwei 11:08, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

All four were deleted. --EugeneZelenko 14:54, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

The Leonard Bernstein Collection [13] at the Library of Congress has a gallery of Leonard Bernstein photos: The Library of Congress is providing access to The Leonard Bernstein Collection ca. 1920- 1989 for educational and research purposes. The written permission of the copyright owners and/or other rights holders (such as publicity and/or privacy rights) is required for distribution, reproduction, or other use of protected items beyond that allowed by fair use or other statutory exemptions. (Copyright restrictions)

Thuresson 11:44, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Image:Leonard Bernstein 1951 Felicia.jpg
• Image:Leonard Bernstein 1957 West Side Story.jpg
• Image:Leonard Bernstein 1964 family.jpg
• Image:Leonard Bernstein 1970ties family.jpg
• Image:Leonard Bernstein.jpg
• Image:Leonard Bernstein 1971.jpg
• Image:Leonard Bernstein 1988 Fairfield.jpg

Isn't it fair use? wiki-vr 19:46, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Commons doesn't allow fair use content. See Commons:Licensing, and delete. dbenbenn | talk 21:00, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

additionally, it wouldn't be fair use on en either: a collection of images is never fair use, fair use depends on editorial context. It's also not readily applicable to unmodified fotographs. -- Duesentrieb^(?!) 12:05, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted all except Image:Leonard Bernstein 1971.jpg which seems to be OK. Thuresson 04:43, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Amphetamine.JPG should be deleted in favour for its png version. --C.Löser 13:26, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Somebody did it. --Sanbec 12:52, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Wrong name. Replaced by Image:WaldemarWroblewski.jpg--aceJacek 13:32, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Somebody did it --Sanbec 13:05, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Amphetamine structure.png shows the same as Image:Amphetamine.png --C.Löser 14:41, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not a chemist but I see two different chemical structures. Thuresson 22:15, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Paramethoxyamphetamine.png shows the same as Image:PMA.png --C.Löser 14:41, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Same as above, this looks like two very different chemical structures to me. Thuresson 22:15, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

¿? Both are equal. Paramethoxyamphetamine.png looks better. --Sanbec 13:04, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Images kept. Thuresson 01:26, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

The Phantasialand does not permit commercial use of pictures taken on their ground without permission. Please note: the foto of the Phantasialand-Hotel is taken from public accesible ground, so it should be covered by the german "Panoramafreiheit". --Boris23 讨论 17:40, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If it's covered by Panoramafreiheit, we can keep it, can't we? dbenbenn | talk 21:01, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's not. I refered to another picture (Image:Hotel_phantasia.jpg), which is taken from public accessible ground.

This one is taken from the inside of the park and you have to pay to get in, so it is not covered by Panoramafreiheit as Guety already said. --Boris23 讨论 11:19, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If it's taken from inside Phantasialand, which is private ground, Panoramafreiheit does not apply. -guety 01:31, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I do not understand at all. You, Boris23 are the photographer, so you must know wether taking pictures was allowed or not. Honestly, I cannot imagine that a theme park forbids photographs. --Ikiwaner 09:28, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

They don't permit (but there are parks, which forbid it completely!). Photographs are permitted for private use. I noticed their rule yesterday:

8. Filmen und Fotografieren für gewerbliche Zwecke bedarf grundsätzlich der Genehmigung der Geschäftsleitung.

Film an photographs for commercial use require permission of the management.

I didn't know that before. I'll try and take a picture from public accessible ground next week (which is possible). --Boris23 讨论 10:31, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In that case this could be speedily deleted. --Ikiwaner 17:40, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That would be OK for me. I'll try and take a new picture ASAP. --Boris23 讨论 20:13, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This should not have been speedy deleted, as it is necessary for others to be able to review images, and once an image is deleted, this possibility is irrevocably lost. It is not currently possible to undelete images! What was shown on the photo that was copyrighted? The house rules of the park are completely irrelevant for Commons copyright considerations. What is relevant is whether copyrightable art, designs or sculptures were shown.--Eloquence 05:36, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

ACK Eloquence --Historiograf 20:35, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It was a picture of some lightended buildings in the park (their "main street").

Since when is an usable without restrictions in german law? de:Panoramafreiheit says:

Die Aufnahme muss von einem öffentlichen Weg, einer Straße oder einem Platz aus gemacht werden.

(The picture must be taken from a public accessible way, street or place)

Can someone clarify why it should be possible. I understand, that the request for speedy-deletion was wrong and I'm sorry, that I requested it after Ikiwaner recommended this. --Boris23 讨论 16:00, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You were confusing property rules and copyright. If a copyrighted bulding is on the photo it would be problematic to claim Panoramafreiheit. If it is not it's no copyvio. We accept such photos because owner's rules are not relevant. --Historiograf 22:57, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted, by Paddy, 01:31, 17 October 2005

This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

These photos are claimed to be exempted from copyright law, which clearly is a misunderstanding. In the Ukraine, news photos are not exempt from copyright protection. Just because everybody has the right to report newsworthy items of interest doesn't mean that photographs are not protected by copyright. If these are PD for any other reason, I'd like to see sources. Thuresson 23:49, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Image:VRU Jan23 2005 president.jpg
• Image:Yushchenko family.jpg
• Image:VRU Jan23 2005 guests.jpg
• Image:VRU Jan23 2005 oath.jpg
• Image:Viktor Yushchenko.jpg

Delete. Even http://www.president.gov.ua/ materials are copyrighted. --EugeneZelenko 16:08, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. These images were uploaded from the English Wikipedia by User:Sashazlv who claims these pictures are in the public domain [14]. If they are deleted here then they should be deleted from wp:en as well. /Slarre 21:37, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, we should send them to EN Wikipedia if there is consensus to not have the images here. Zscout370 (sound off) 03:06, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted from commons, all photos available locally at en: Thuresson 19:03, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

No license, tagged unknown for a long time, inactive user, no information about the picture, bad quality. --Ikiwaner 09:21, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted, Thuresson 15:14, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

The following 50 images comes from Category:Unknown. Thuresson 19:12, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Vietnam-coa.png Image:Villaamengual.jpg Image:Villaamengual2.jpg Image:Ville de Genève depuis Salève.jpg Image:Violetaparra.jpg Image:Violín.jpg Image:Vishniac reading.jpg Image:Vistaparcialsc.jpg Image:Visualitzador La ciutat.pdf Image:Visualitzador vegetal.pdf Image:Vlaggen.jpg Image:VonBertalanffy.jpg Image:Vuache et Jura depuis Salève.jpg Image:Västerbotten county.png Image:WDAK 1969-07-31 1.jpg Image:WMKrakow.gif Image:WU Wien.jpg Image:Walesa.jpg Image:Wappen guckheim.gif Image:Wappen-logo-poysdorf2.gif Image:Warsaw Town Wall.JPG Image:Warsaw church1.jpg Image:Welcomeapachescreenfedora3.png Image:Wembley At Live Aid.JPG Image:Wernic.jpg Image:Whitesrt4.jpg Image:Wilford Woodruff.jpg Image:Will Dockery 6.jpg Image:Will elfes fischschwarm.jpg Image:Will elfes lore.jpg Image:Will elfes madonna mit kind.jpg Image:Will elfes maedchen mit katze.jpg Image:Will elfes picasso.jpg Image:Will elfes turm der toten.jpg Image:Will elfes volksschule dachauerstr 1.jpg Image:Will elfes volksschule dachauerstr 2.jpg Image:William Rehnquist 1942.jpg Image:Witkacy potret teodora bialynickiego-birula 1929.jpg Image:Women Soldier.jpg Image:Wpi campus center.jpg Image:Wpi fall.jpg Image:Wpi seal.jpg Image:Wpi washburn.jpg Image:Xiangshan-mountain.jpg Image:Youngstown2 002.jpg Image:Yushchenko and Lukashenko.jpg Image:Zandoli3.jpg Image:Newb.JPG Image:151 5113.JPG

Go ahead and delete Image:Yushchenko and Lukashenko.jpg, since this would have been whacked earlier for being a copyrighted image from the website of the President of Ukraine. Zscout370 (sound off) 19:48, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Why deleting Image:Vietnam-coa.png? What is the correct classification for a National Coat of Arms (in this case, the Vietnamese Coat of Arms)? GFDL? "CIA-Image"? Or what? Isn't this just a simple case of changing the wrong classification (i.e., in this case, "I don't know what license is" to the correct one (e.g. "GDFL")? I think that correcting the classification would be much more simple and useful than simply deleting it. Should I correct the classification myself, or may anyone logged in commons:wiki correct it? With regards, Joao Xavier 23:21, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

All images should have a copyright tag and a source who can verify that the copyright tag is correct. This is not an image from the CIA World Factbook [15]. The same image at en:Image:Viet-coa.PNG is tagged as possibly fair use. Thuresson 00:04, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Wernic.jpg is not "unknown", I stated quite specifically that the image is PD due to Polish copyright laws - all images published pre-1994 are considered to be {PD}. Roo72 09:12, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You are wrong about Polish copyright law. See Template:PD-Polish and Template talk:PD-Polish. Thuresson 17:22, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm not, I didn't know that this {PD-Polish} template existed but it only proves my point. This picture comes from a source without a copyright notice, old newspaper, and as such it does belong to {PD}. Roo72 00:59, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The photo was uploaded to pl: from wernic.pl, a fan page. Considering your talk page, there may be credibility issues. Thuresson 03:52, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

All photos tagged or deleted. Thuresson 15:14, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:1966 leonids big.gif: Source http://starchild.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/StarChild/shadow/solar_system_level2/1966_leonids.html This image is an explicit exception from NASA-Public domain, see http://starchild.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/StarChild/graphics.html: Quote: Meteor shower image is adapted from the Sydney Photo Library image by Stephen Jay. So it needs to be deleted. Arnomane 19:39, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted by User:Paddy

This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Uploader claims that this company logo is too simple to be protected by copyright. I disagree. Compare this logo with the simple PD images in Category:Public domain images ineligible for copyright. Thuresson 20:59, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, but imho is this image licensed under a special, german PD license. I guess it is compatible with commons licenses. This image is licensed under Category:PD-Markenrecht, which says that the logo is PD (cause it's not the original logo but it might be, allthough it's Public Domain, protected by german "Markengesetz". (See template and category). This license is used in DE-WP (and you might know that the license rules there are stricter than here).

I agree that this has nothing to do with the images in the category you linked - but I disagree that it's not PD.

See also original source image on de:Bild:ZDF.png --TheDortmundFreak 19:16, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The whole template {{PD-Markenrecht}} is not justificated (neither in German Wikipedia) because a trademark is not necessarily simple. -- Simplicius 06:38, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Simplicius is confusing trademarks and copyrighted works. The template refers ONLY to logos which are NOT copyrighted (lack of originality, simple design) AND registered trademarks. The template is widely accepted in the German wikipedia and Simplicius cannot speak for the German wikipedia (fortunately!) --134.130.68.65 11:23, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

@TheDortmundFreak: why do you belive the logo is PD? The designes that created it (the design, not the image), would surely disagree. Also, there has been some discussion on the mailing list about allowing PD logos on the commons or not - which turned out in disfavor of trademarked logos. Jimmy Wales even suggested to deleted all such images immediately. -- Duesentrieb^(?!) 12:19, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

@Duesentrieb. Would you PLEASE give exact references for Jimbo's edict and stop writing nonsense. It isn't relevant what a design creator thinks. --Historiograf 22:53, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please delete this image, nobody found it on DE-WP, therefor it wasn't deleted. This may be a wrong use of the license on DE, so also on Commons ;) To all the Germans here: Überzeugt! TheDortmundFreak 20:01, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted, Thuresson 15:14, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

I uploaded this, but I screwed up. Obsoleted by Image:Maracaibo Basin.png. ¦ Reisio 07:15, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted, Thuresson 04:50, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Now: Category:Aschaffenburg, Germany --Schubbay 12:07, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Done, Thuresson 04:50, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

I uploaded the picture again with a better name. -- Kjkolb 13:22, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted --EugeneZelenko 13:58, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

A file with a more descriptive filename is uploaded as Sym_9_First_Movement.mid --Ukdragon37 15:21, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted, Thuresson 22:31, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

sowie: Image:Heinrich-Luebke.jpg, Image:Gustav-Heinemann.jpg, Image:Walter_Scheel_1.jpg, Image:Richard-von-Weizsaecker.jpg, Image:Karl-Carstens.jpg, Image:Roman-Herzog.jpg, Image:Johannes-Rau.jpg

• Grund: Die Bilder sind - entgegen der Behauptung des Hochladers - keine Amtlichen Werke.
• Argument: Siehe Diskussion auf [der deutschen WP]. (war User:Mogelzahn, der vergessen hatte zu unterschreiben, sorry)

Delete German law does not allow to see them as PD (official works) --80.132.81.192 20:23, 17 October 2005 (UTC) --Historiograf 20:26, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• These deletion requests should be delayed because their proper deletion discussion was moved to a specific article discussion in the German domain (see above), out of the range of image management attention. In case of evident result on German law and/or new issues it can be set as new deletion request for due discussion. --Calvin Ballantine 12:19, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Äh, hallo, Du kannst doch nicht einfach die Löschanträge herausnehmen, weil es Dir nicht passt. Du hast bisher noch keinen einzigen Beleg (Literatur oder Urteil) für Deine Rechtsauffassung anführen können. Ich stelle die LAs wieder her! --Mogelzahn 13:26, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Ich habe sie nicht herausgenommen "wie es mir passt". Vielmehr wurde die entschediungsvorbereitende Diskussion von euch Guys ganz woanders angesiedelt. Sucht euch das ordnungsgemäße Forum, eines davon, denn das gehört zu einem LA. LA ohne parallele Diskussion ist unstatthaft. --Calvin Ballantine 15:10, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

German not does not even know PD at all. Most likely they couldt be used for illustrating german history or persons, as official pictures. They are widely used. Why dont mark them with {Attribution}?

The result of the discussion at de:Diskussion:Amtliches Werk seem to be that the photos should be deleted? Thuresson 22:31, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Photos deleted by User:Paddy. Thuresson 14:44, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

I hope this is the right place to ask for this. Image:Sanchi2.jpg has already been here for a while. But now it got replaced by a smaller version - for no obvious reason. Could an admin please delete the newest version so that the larger one is available again? Thank you. --Tsui 17:52, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Done

This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Falsch geschrieben, richtige Kategorie Category:Bacharach, Germany von mir angelegt worden. --Mogelzahn 17:55, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted, Thuresson 00:33, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Keep - The image is far too simple to be copyrighted. -- 3247 14:49, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Schaengel89 18:35, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The image Image:Vilagarcía_GFDL74.jpg (Show here) is the same photo than Image:Vilagarcía_GDFL_11_74.JPG (Show here).

Deleted, Thuresson 00:33, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

This is is now an SVG; see Image:Trust_Territory_Pacific_Islands_flag_large.svg. - Hoshie 03:10, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted, Thuresson 00:33, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Orphan - not used by any Wikimedia project; English Wikipedia article using it has been deleted. --Wikiacc 00:53, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, it was used at a wikipedia page about Suzie Wilde but that got deleted (rightly so) due to her not being notable enough.--JK the Unwise 17:55, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing as how it has been picked up an used in an article I vhange by vote to Keep.

Keep, I added it to en:Freedom of Speech where it is the best illustration, in my opinion. It is the only photograph of an indoor meeting and shows the use of bullhorns. -Wsiegmund 20:25, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Rama 21:14, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image kept. Thuresson 22:34, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

It seems copyvio. [18]--っ [Café] [Album] 09:42, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted, Thuresson 22:54, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

see Template:Featured pictures candidates/Image:The Great wall - by Bernard Goldbach.jpg--Shizhao 16:39, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted, Thuresson 22:54, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

I realized that the image is already uploaded on commons and by it's author. The original can by found in Image:Canals_of_Amsterdam_-_Jordaan_area.jpg. Please, delete the picture. Thx. --Bebenko 16:58, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted, Thuresson 22:54, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

It was a mistake from me. An article already exists about Thales' theorem. Please delete this category. HB 20:43, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

This is not public domain. It is work of Osvaldo & Roberto Salas RobertLechner 22:48, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. This photo was scanned from the book "Fidel's Cuba: A Revolution in Pictures" (Amazon.com). Thuresson 00:27, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Obsoleted by Image:Polynesia-triangle.png; artifactless PNG remake that's language-neutral and has PD license. ¦ Reisio 23:45, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

I uploaded this one. My bad - this is a duplicate and inferior version of Image:Sanzio 01 Plato Aristotle.jpg.

FranksValli 23:03, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted, Thuresson 00:55, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Obsoleted by an SVG version, Image:Petersen graph 3.svg. The two images are not the same, but the drawings are topologically equivalent. So I propose the PNG should be replaced with the SVG version at sl:Petersenov graf, which is the only article that uses it. dbenbenn | talk 01:24, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What is the policy here that one image becomes obsolete? If one author upload one image first, (in this case Image:Petersen graph 011042.png, which is now all of a sudden a candidate for speedy deletion and obsoleted by SVG version) and then the other author makes another version of the same image and claims that previous one does not have any uses anymore. I vote for deletion of both images, but I have spent some time to create them both, so in the end it might seem that I've done nothing. --XJamRastafire 02:28, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted, Thuresson 00:13, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Dubious {{PD-self}} claims. First seems to be from [19], second is from businessweek as said by the uploader. -guety 03:15, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted, Thuresson 23:06, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

This file has been changed name into Image:Hkharbour.jpg. Please delete Image:1 copy.jpg, thank you.--Simon Shek 09:30, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. --EugeneZelenko 15:06, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

This is not a half r, but an insular r, see page 68 of MUFI character recommendation v. 2.0 b: Alphabetical order (25 September 2005) - PDF file, 1.2 MB, the most up-to-date specifications of the Medieval Unicode Font Initiative. I've uploaded an image of the proper half r to Image:Half r.png --- J. 'mach' wust • ˈkːlaːwːr̩ 12:47, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per above. Jordi Kroon 18:32, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

This flag of the Georgian SSR doesn't look at all like the other Georgian SSR flag available, Image:Flag of Georgia SSR.png. See also en:Flag of Georgia (country). Thuresson 15:10, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Easily fixed. The flag was simply offset from the display area. Keep and speedy-delist. dbenbenn | talk 20:13, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Thuresson 00:55, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Besseres Bild Image:Haus Wahnfried.jpg hochgeladen. --Schubbay 20:43, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted, Thuresson 23:06, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

I think I may this media is fairuse. see eureka-prj.net news release and Approximately the same media-- Lusheeta 01:13, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted, Petrus 15:24, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

same reason as the above. -- Lusheeta 01:22, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like a copyright tag in the lower left corner. I suggest speedy deletion. Thuresson 06:59, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted, Petrus 15:24, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

No licence information. Uploader asked for details on 2005-08-26 - no response. Uploader last posted 10/8, only this file and this one below. Although likely to be taken by the uploader, no licence, no commons. --Tagishsimon 14:20, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted, Thuresson 21:23, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

No licence information. Uploader asked for details on 2005-08-26 - no response. Uploader last posted 10/8, only this file and this one below. Although likely to be taken by the uploader, no licence, no commons. --Tagishsimon 14:20, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted, Thuresson 21:23, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Was uploaded from [infodestinations.com] which is a copyright web resource => is most likely copyvio. --Tagishsimon

Deleted, Thuresson 21:23, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please delete this picture. I have uploaded the wrong one. Thanks. HB 14:46, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted by Ævar

This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

• Image:Wroclaw ratusz 2005 camera obscura Kivas.jpg,
• Image:Wroclaw rynek 2005 camera obscura Kivas.jpg,
• Image:Wroclaw rynek camera obscura Kivas.jpg,
• Image:Wroclaw Plac solny camera obscura Kivas 1.jpg,
• Image:Wroclaw Plac solny camera obscura Kivas 2.jpg.

All of them are very bad quality, probably made using experimental technology (camera obscura???). Architectonical objects on these pictures are shown on many other photos in article Wrocław, with much better quality. "Plac solny 1" and "Plac solny 2" are not shown in any other version, but I know they do not show any object of the city Wrocław, but only a temporary instalation of newspapers and glue, made by one of artists. This instalation does not exist any more and these two photos show nothing really interesting.

Julo 15:28, 23 October 2005 (UTC) corrected by myself Julo 14:33, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, "Camera obscura" is most probably a reference to the Fatal Frame video game series, where a camera used to exorcise ghosts is called that. But yes, the images are horrible... If they are to be deleted or not I have no experience to tell. /Grillo 00:55, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, I should check my facts better... en:Camera obscura even. Sorry about that I've checked the images better now though, and I say delete, extremely bad quality. /Grillo 00:57, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If these pictures have been made with a Camera Obscura (resp. a pinhole camera), we should keep them as an excample of the capabilities of this early photographic technique. The details of their creation should be made clear on the image description pages, though. -- Duesentrieb^(?!) 12:35, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you're right, maybe they should be moved to camera obscura instead of Wrocław - they are more useful as examples of camera obscura photography than pictures of Wrocław. And Julo, you're mistaken. This object (iglica) pretty much still exists and is not made from paper or glue :). Ausir 23:34, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I was mistaken, that's true: this object does exist (I thought about different performance on the same square), but all other my arguments are still valid. And in my opinion even for the article w:camera obscura it is rather wrong illustration, because it does show nothing except bad quality photo, just somebody's experiments or play. Julo 14:33, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted, Thuresson 15:04, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

These images require that the creator is notified in each instance of use, including our own (the uploader copied them straight off the photographer's website which carries these conditions). This is utterly unacceptable, as the goal of the Commons is to provide instantly usable images. If I use [[Image:Foo.jpg]] on Wikipedia, Wikinews, Wikibooks or anywhere else, and that image comes from Commons, that should be all I need to do. The requirement to send an e-mail to the photographer whenever I put the image on a page on a Wikimedia wiki complicates this process beyond what can be deemed acceptable.

Also think of other people who use Wikimedia content, such as the makers of the German Wikipedia DVD -- these copy articles and images in quantity, and requiring them to notify the creators of a small subset of images complicates the process of creating forks, mirrors and offline copies unnecessarily. One major advantage of Commons is that it eliminates the need to filter images or give them special treatment -- you can just take a dump of all images and include them together with Wikipedia, as long as the whole thing stays under the FDL. That's no longer the case if you include images like this.

This shows that even if the notification requirement was limited to "third parties" besides Wikimedia, as the template incorrectly (!) implies it is, this would be against the spirit of Commons licensing policy. As a repository of freely usable images, we should not host materials where the user has to perform additional actions besides downloading the content (and possibly making derivative works freely available).

Any automated process or any low friction usage will be negatively impacted by such a requirement. For example, in the not so far future, we may decide to enable other wikis to use Commons images in the same way Wikimedia wikis do -- by modifying the software so that [[Image:Foo.jpg]] for a non-existent image will perform a lookup on the Commons and create a local cached copy of the image if it does not yet exist. This would then work on any wiki, Wikimedia or not, and images requiring notification would greatly diminish the value of such a feature.

Hence, I strongly urge to delete this template and all images using it ASAP. Someone so inclined may contact the photographer and ask them to modify the terms to request notification rather than requiring it. But unless the terms are changed in this way, the images should not be hosted on Commons.--Eloquence 06:45, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. --Patrick-br ^msg 11:21, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

delete - this seems like a small and unproblematic requirement at first, but in fact renders the images very problematic for a project like the commons, which offers images for bulk-reuse and distribution. -- Duesentrieb^(?!) 12:18, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

delete it is incompatible with the copyright guidelines --C.Löser 15:32, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

delete this seems to be a major problem in my eyes. --Avatar 17:30, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've started deleteing the images using this template on the grounds that they're nonfree. —Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 21:31, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

delete What a pain --205.155.154.3 22:14, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

delete Quite some time ago I explained the issue to the creator at Commons talk:Licensing. I gave the very same argumentation as Eloquence but the creator did insist on his strange position (and made invalid comparions to other free license restrictions). Arnomane 16:23, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of deleting the template, I changed the wording in the template to discourage requiring notification. Thuresson 04:25, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Was flagged as PD. This seems not to be public domain data: http://earth.google.com/support/bin/answer.py?answer=21422&topic=1141 --Avatar 16:58, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I refered to en:Virtual globe and the comment in en:Image:Bora_Bora_Google_Maps.jpg with "This image was created by NASA and taken from a NASA website or publication. NASA copyright policy notes that "NASA material is not protected by copyright unless noted". For more information, please refer to the NASA copyright policy page." -- Simplicius 19:16, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted by Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason

This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

I uploaded this image. It has been reuploaded it as a different version: Image:Tree hadrian's wall.jpg as it really is just another version of the image there. Note that you need to look in the history to see the image in its new location --Tomhab 12:06, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted, Thuresson 14:27, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

REASON: I uploaded a smaller jpg version at Image:Billy Kersands.jpg --BrianSmithson 02:53, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Let's keep the original PNG version for archiving. Disk space is cheap. Who knows; maybe eventually we'll be able to tell MediaWiki "although this is a PNG image, make JPG thumbnails because they're smaller". dbenbenn | talk 03:41, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• delete, JPEG is a more appropriate form for this type of image. —Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 03:57, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • And the JPG version is what's used in articles. But is there any reason why it's inappropriate to keep the original PNG version, as long as it isn't used in articles? dbenbenn | talk 00:55, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• JPEG is most suitable for photographs, which naturally have some blur to them, not pencil drawings, which often contain fine shading that is poorly represented by JPEG. The PNG should be retained and used in articles for small-size versions of the image, since the software produces PNG when shrinking PNGs and JPGs when shrinking JPGs. However, I think this image could do with a palette reduction, say to 16 or 32 levels of grayscale (drastic size reduction would result). Deco 03:34, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

REASON: I uploaded a smaller jpg version at Image:Francis Leon in costume.jpg --BrianSmithson 02:53, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

REASON: I uploaded a smaller jpg version at Image:Blackface stereotypes 2.jpg--BrianSmithson 02:53, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Images kept. Thuresson 04:11, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Obsoleted by Image:Location-london.png; artifactless PNG remake using satellite photos rather than data (also has political boundaries). Check-Usage ¦ Reisio 22:51, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• keep - Each usage is in each image. The new image is beautiful but unsuitable to the thumbnail display in encyclopedias etc., because the red mark is too small, Britain is inclined, and the tone is too dark. --っ [Café] [Album] 03:52, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Images kept, Thuresson 04:11, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Two identical images. --PuzzletChung 15:19, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dbenbenn took care of this.

This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Original deleted in sv as copyvio. --Avatar 19:39, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. My upload here did depend on the license given in sv. If this was faked, it must be deleted. --Pjacobi 09:31, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Done. --Sanbec 13:22, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Derivative work from above file. --Avatar 19:42, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, if it is indeed derived from a non-free picture, it should be deleted, so it probably depends on the fact of the ...NMO image. MosheZadka 20:52, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• If the above work is found to be non-free, it's definitely a non-free derivative work, but it may be able to be uploaded to Wikipedia (since it may qualify for fair use if used for a suitable purpose like comment or parody). Deco 03:29, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted, Thuresson 04:11, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

My own mistake - wrong name.
The proper name of this file is Image:Wiezienie Wroclaw od strony Reymonta.jpg

Julo 01:27, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted, Thuresson 04:11, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

I'm not aware of Texas public records being in the public domain, and even if they were the card itself is copyrighted by Hallmark. JYolkowski 02:33, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Hallmark portions could be removed by slicing them out - they're more or less on isolated rectangles and aren't the interesting part. I don't know whether the remaining issues still qualify it for deletion. I personally wonder where the uploader got it from in the first place. Deco 03:26, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• I am the uploader, and I found the image on The Smoking Gun, as indicated in the image description. I am not an expert on US copyright law, but even if this image were covered by copyright (either Hallmark's or Harriet Miers') despite being a government record, its use in the Harriet Miers context on Wikipedia ought to qualify as fair use. Any lawyers care to comment? Sandstein 10:40, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted, WikiCommons do not allow fair use photos. Thuresson 15:25, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

It's a photo owned by Agencia EFE (Spain), as it's being shown at a web page from EL PAIS newspaper. Works from EFE aren't under free license:

© Está expresamente prohibida la redistribución y la redifusión de todo o parte de los contenidos de los servicios de Efe, sin previo y expreso consentimiento de la Agencia EFE S.A.

(© Specifically it is prohibited the redistribution and the redifusion of totally or parcially contents from the services of Efe, without previous and express permission of Agencia EFE S.A.)

--Joanot Martorell ✉ 07:25, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted this photo before I saw it was listed here. Thuresson 03:42, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

My mistake: I uploaded the flag of Texel with the wrong name. I later replaced the flag for the proper one, but I had already created another image Image:Terschelling flag.png, so now it is redundant. -- Quistnix 09:05, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. --Avatar 00:09, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

logo, is copyvio --Shizhao 11:55, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted, Thuresson 15:25, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Photo take 1958, < 50 year, copyvio--Shizhao 11:58, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted, Thuresson 15:25, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

REASON --friend was drunk. this photo has no meaning

This filename never existed? --Avatar 00:11, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image does not exist, deletion requested by 60.228.2.114 who obviously have no uploads. Thuresson 15:25, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Bad name, now reuploaded and relinked (with checkusage tool) as Image:Corsica-calvi-panorama.jpg. Greudin

Deleted, Thuresson 05:07, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

The image page claims that the image is GFDL, but it is in fact a derived work of a copyrighted logo image which can be found at w:Image:FidoNet.png. Uncle G 16:15, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

delete --Cosoleto 18:54, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted, Thuresson 15:25, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Have to write with i not e, I am uploaded the right one Image:Francis Ford Coppola(CannesPhotoCall).jpg

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Ford_Coppola --Rodrigo 17:49, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. --Avatar 00:03, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Uploaded wrongly from en WP (in most cases by myself), there licensed as {{money}}. In fact they are private images without a clear permissions (fair use). You can see all of them at en:Category:Images of ancient Roman coins. --Saperaud 18:05, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Image:Denarius-Julia Soaemias-RIC 0237.jpg (Julia Soaemias)
• Image:Denarius-Faustina the Elder-RIC 0339a.jpg (Faustina the Elder)
• Image:Tremissis-Aelia Verina-s4344.jpg
• Image:Sestertius-Aelius-RIC 1057.jpg
• Image:Antoninianus Tetricus I-RIC 0080.1.jpg
• Image:Antoninianus Tetricus II-s3191.jpg
• Image:Solidus Constantine IV.jpg
• Image:Solidus-Michael II Theophilus-sb1640.jpg
• Image:Follis-Constantine-lyons RIC VI 309.jpg
• Image:Antoninius Balbinus-s2395.5.jpg
• Image:Antoninianus Claudius II-RIC 0137.jpg
• Image:Antoninianus-Gallienus-l7claudia-RIC 0348-j-v.jpg
• Image:Antoninianus Philip the Arab - Seculum Novum.jpg
• Image:Antoninianus Trebonianus Gallus-s2777.jpg
• Image:Antoninianus Victorinus-s3165.2.jpg

Deleted by Saperaud

This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

The permission to use the fotos granted by http://www.presidencia.gov.ar/ should not be misinterpreted and be extended to all graphics. Furthermore the fotos from http://www.presidencia.gov.ar/ should be tagged GNU FDL and not PD! See also: de:Benutzer:ALE!/Bilder Presidencia Argentina --ALE! 20:56, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, according to Argentines I discussed with on es:, none of the photos from the Argentine presidency should be on commons! David.Monniaux 23:16, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

And why is that? Can you explain that. (Look at the correspondence that I had with the presidency.) --ALE! 18:59, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In the authorization Pedro Janices says that "all the content is public", I interpreted that as not only the photos. But I agree that it is safer just to copy the pictures.

On the other hand, about the authorization, an es.wikipedia user (w:es:Usuario:Angus has questioned the authorization. Basicaly he says that the webmaster is not allowed to authorize the usage of that pictures.) I met Pedro Janices in 2003 and I know he was not just a Webmaster kid there. Anyway, I have written an e-mail again to presidencia.gov.ar in order to reconfirm the authorization BarceX 19:25, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted, Thuresson 16:48, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Who is this guy? David.Monniaux 23:16, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted, Thuresson 16:48, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

not needed, we have categories for that. --Saperaud 01:50, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

But categories are superslow to load. I cleared the unsorted "category:Roman" and sorted into new gallery pages. There should be one central gallery page for the people who don't know how to create a new gallery page or don't want to sort. That's precisely "Miscellaneous (Roman)". Later, other people can look in this gallery page and sort the images there. I am against deleting the page. But then, I created it. I don't like dumping images in Categories. Greetings,Longbow4u 13:19, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Kept the article but added Category:Romans so users can actually find it. Thuresson 03:55, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Wrongly named by myself. Now re-uploaded under "Ryokan's Grave". - Mu 12:33, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. --EugeneZelenko 14:06, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Wrongly named by myself. Now re-uploaded under "Ryokan_Sculpture". - Mu 12:53, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. --EugeneZelenko 14:06, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

This template claims that photos of money can be uploaded by referring to "fair use". I don't see a purpose for this template besides creating confusion. Thuresson 15:47, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I uploaded that template exactly as it was from the Englihs Wikipedia, just to keep the existing licences with which images are associated on English wikipedia.

However, that licence was applied on cases were the "fair use" was not applicable there, as the image itself was perfectly valid without it (because the images respected other constraints).

Before deleting the template, make sure that images on English Wikipedia that use this template do not need a more appropraite text, without the reference to "fair use". Note that the absence of fair use does not imply copyright infringement, so I suggest changing the text rather than deleting it, something like:

The image above depicts a unit of currency of a government. Some currency designs are ineligible for copyright and are in the public domain. Others are copyrighted and can't be used under the fair use definition (as stated in Berne Convention which applies to artistic works, and that fixes limitation about how such use is legal). In those cases, the herein licence must state the legal provisions under which the free publication is valid, and without which the publication could be copyright infringement. Before using this image in your projects, you must the provisions stated by following references:

This means that the template remains valid, but existing images without further referenced are not valid, because they are not clearly licenced. (But may be this implies that and so many existing images using this template without enything else are not valid due to lack of explicit licence.) So look for those images in English Wikipedia where this template is used: there must exist another licence text and the name and copyright of its author.

What is trange, is that I was advised in my talk page about this template, but there is no image I may have uploaded in the past that is associated with this template. Hmmm. May be it was an image that was already deleted or an image whose licence was already modified with a more precise licence (I think about BCE currency images, which are legal provided that the BCE attribution is noted, and the image displays the additional non-transparent "SPECIMEN" word over at least 75% the diagonal. I uploaded such an image for Euro banknotes, and it conforms to the BCE notice (whose licencing link is given in the licence page of my image). All other images currently associated with this template are not mine, and I never edited them.

Verdy p 22:03, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted, Thuresson 20:49, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

REASON: Rosaliadecastro.jpg is the same image than RosaliaDeCastro.jpg--Lmbuga 19:10, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Done, usage checked. --Sanbec 13:34, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

The image is for educational or non-profit use only. See also discussion in Ambasada Polska. --Hapsiainen 23:16, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted, Thuresson 20:49, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Copyright by Australian War Memorial: This website is the copyright of the Australian War Memorial. You may download, display, print and reproduce this material in unaltered form only for your personal, non-commercial use or use within your organisation. Apart from any use as permitted under the Copyright Act 1968, you must not copy, adapt, publish, distribute or commercialise any material contained on this site without the permission of the Australian War Memorial --W.wolny 08:34, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

According to Australian War Memorial photos first published before May 1, 1969 in Australia are protected 50 years from the making. Thuresson 17:42, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tagged the photo with Template:PD-Australia. Thuresson 04:44, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

The license tag in en WP was wrong. --Saperaud 00:28, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted, Thuresson 17:42, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

same like above --Saperaud 00:28, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted, no source. Thuresson 18:07, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

This photo comes from the NYC web site, www.nyc.gov. The privacy statement claims that all images are protected by copyright: "Users are notified, therefore, that one should presume the need to obtain permission from the copyright holder before reproducing or otherwise using images/graphics from this website.". Thuresson 13:52, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted, Thuresson 18:07, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Movie-Screenshots and Posters. Dubious {{PD}} claims, probable copyvio.--Michael 08:55, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted, none of these had a source. Thuresson 16:55, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]