Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2010/03/10

useless due to low quality, odd background --:bdk: 08:04, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted by Lupo: nopenis

Uploaded File:Sankara Warrier.jpg as a copyright violation on the same day with the same rationale. Hekerui (talk) 12:51, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted by Kameraad Pjotr: Copyright violation: http://www.hinduonnet.com/thehindu/fr/2006/10/13/images/2006101300820202.jpg on http://www.hinduonnet.com/thehindu/fr/2006/10/13/stories/2006101300820200.htm

useless due to low quality, very blurry :bdk: 08:16, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Same applies to File:2010-03-07 09.01.21.jpg and File:2010-03-07 09.00.50.jpg, I think. Jafeluv (talk) 11:05, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We have better similar pictures. Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 06:59, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

no source, no author, good svg file avaliable Image:Bulgari logo.svg Amada44 (talk) 09:59, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

svg is much better, this one unused Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 07:00, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Selfportrait of a non notable person, David Castro or Don davixo, who likes to play footbal and is happy. Not used, not categorized Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 17:24, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

•  Delete per above. --Elekhh (talk) 00:02, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

per nom Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 07:03, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lacking the research of which the author is unknown and cannot be ascertained by reasonable enquiry. --Laod (talk) 23:55, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep obviously anonymously published in 1908. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 10:15, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

per Pieter Kept. Mbdortmund (talk) 07:07, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't find the promised permission email in the OTRS system. An earlier upload of presumably the same file was deleted as copyvio. High on a tree (talk) 01:24, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Blurpeace 10:34, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Superior quality SVG available at File:ETV2 logo.svg. Quibik (talk) 14:51, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

•  Delete per nom --George Chernilevsky ^talk 09:06, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Blurpeace 10:35, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The permission statement contradicts the licensing statement. Fair use is not permitted on Commons. —LX (talk, contribs) 23:09, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Commercial use seems not to be allowed. --High Contrast (talk) 13:55, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not authorized by models (likely minors) eistreter → 00:42, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Bad sourcing, possibly out of scope (file not used) --High Contrast (talk) 17:00, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

unused, no cat, no description, useless, out of scope Frédéric (talk) 20:42, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Blurpeace 22:10, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No evidence that the painter/photographer has died more than 70 years ago. (The depicted person died in 1969.) High on a tree (talk) 01:32, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Polarlys (talk) 13:19, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The owner of the website grants some kind of permission for use on websites ([1]), but these images (along with the text on the source page) seem to come from a General Motors press release. The text and images can also be found on various sites on the net (like [2]) and newspapers [3]. -- Kam Solusar (talk) 05:13, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Polarlys (talk) 13:19, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Permission only for press and publicity use, not released under a free license. -- Kam Solusar (talk) 05:17, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see anything here. Is the image broken? --PaterMcFly (talk) 08:16, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It works here, but the license is not clear. --Mbdortmund (talk) 06:51, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Polarlys (talk) 13:19, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect licence: Derivative of http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/films/1964to1979/filmpage_kitchen.htm - film from 1973 under Crown Copyright, released under licence requiring attribution, no derivatives and non-commercial use: "The material featured on the website is subject to Crown copyright protection unless otherwise indicated. The Crown copyright protected material may be re-used free of charge for research for non-commercial purposes and private study. This is subject to the material being re-used accurately and not used in a misleading context. Where any of the Crown copyright material on this website is being republished or copied to others, the source of the material must be identified and the copyright status acknowledged." Man vyi (talk) 08:06, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Polarlys (talk) 13:19, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The permission is stated as "fair use", which contradicts the licensing and is not permitted on Commons. There is no evidence that the copyright holder approved the stated license. —LX (talk, contribs) 09:18, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Polarlys (talk) 13:19, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Foto is watermarked "Igor Corbeau". Uploader claims copyright and is called "thomasartz", taken from the website www.thomasartz.nl. -- Deadstar (msg) 10:23, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Polarlys (talk) 13:19, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

not used, and vector version is not a derivate from this file. Amada44 (talk) 10:28, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Polarlys (talk) 13:19, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Person in the image died in 1992, there is no information on author/source, and PD-Old is incorrect. -- Deadstar (msg) 10:31, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Polarlys (talk) 13:19, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Logo / advertisement for argentinian company, taken from www.m-planet.com.ar. Likely not self made. -- Deadstar (msg) 10:38, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Polarlys (talk) 13:19, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No use appearently. Out of project scopes --Sailko (talk) 15:34, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

--carulmare (talk) 17:54, 10 March 2010 (UTC) Is there a problem with this picture? Please explain! I can think of many educational uses for this picture - Wikipedia articles on Mother Mary, devotion, holiness, mysticism, religious women and so on.[reply]

Deleted. Polarlys (talk) 13:19, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

While the image is present on the Rewards for Justice page, there is no assertion the image was even taken by the US Government. We have a similar issue with the mugshots of Osama Bin Laden and a few others. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 17:22, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can this be transwikied to en: or something, then? A recent notable death makes this photo useful. --Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 04:16, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you can make a fair use rationale for it, maybe. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 04:37, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Polarlys (talk) 13:19, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No author given, so it is unknown if this is really PD. Also, the typeface doesn't look like "before 1930" to me. Rosenzweig δ 17:44, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Polarlys (talk) 13:19, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Likely copyright violation from [4]. Uploader is User:CCMichalZ, who states on his user page that his name is Michał Piotr Zięba; source page credits the photo to Paweł Traczyk. —Bkell (talk) 18:43, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Polarlys (talk) 13:14, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- Delete -- Copyright violation of this site (page). Non-free image. Same situation as was the case with the file Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Redstrobe.gif, already deleted for copyright violation. In that DR discussion, the uploader confessed that he has no right to claim that those images were free. This original image being non-free, the derivatives (listed on its description page) made from it must also be deleted. -- Asclepias (talk) 14:31, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- Info -- Didn't confess anything, don't put words in my mouth. Delete if you want, since the copyright disclaimer has been taken down from the page as of since. I don't personally care about the image anymore, but next time please learn to read first before making blatantly false assumptions about others' beliefs. --StonedChipmunk (talk) 14:51, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it sounded like an admission. If the licence was real, wouldn't you have said so and opposed the deletion? Anyway, ok, I don't want to put words in your mouth. Just tell us, then. It's really a simple question. Now, if you are actually claiming that you are the copyright owner of the images on the jmarcoz site, or that their legitimate copyright owner has placed them under that free licence in any verifiable manner, then please just say so clearly instead of being cryptic. In that case, I will be happy to support keeping the image. -- Asclepias (talk) 18:56, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment In use on hundreds of pages, seems ineligible for copyright. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:56, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. MBisanz ^talk 03:07, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If this image is public domain, it is not for the reason listed. We cannot create SVGs of logos and claim them suddenly public domain. J Milburn (talk) 00:33, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• You should delete olympic rings for this reason as well. Come on – paralympics should be "decorated" with CURRENT logo: three agitos. Maybe it's just a case of licensing change...
  If you want to delete this file, you should delete files with paralympics medals images and Chinese Taipei paralympics flag and other as well.
   Keep this image at Commons... Mboro (talk)
  • Well, the Olympic rings are public domain due to age (but still have trademark issues. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 17:23, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
•  Keep Yeah they're just 3 arcs. Purely geometric. ViperSnake151 (talk) 19:56, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I'm inclined to suspect that these don't meet the w:threshold of originality required for copyright protection under US law, (making the use of Template:PD-textlogo correct, or maybe it should be Template:PD-shape -- there's doesn't seem to be shapelogo template) however I'm neither a lawyer nor a graphic designer, so I'm unqualified to make a definitive determination. Cmadler (talk) 14:32, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

IIRC, we use PD-shape for logos, but we also have {{PD-simple}}. On the graphic side, while it will take a very, very small effort to do the curves, but I really do think it is simple. I do have construction diagrams for the IPC logo (along with related flags and color schemes). User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 15:11, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: The regulations on the Paralympic symbol and the other Game's Marks can be found here: Using the brand. Wcommons (talk) 15:45, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Moral rights and copyrights are two different cans of worms. We are trying to focus on copyright here. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 03:53, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
•  Keep --Soquette (talk) 11:33, 27 March 20::10 (UTC)

 Keep. Image created by commons user. Simple geometry - no use of deleting.--Gaeser (talk) 09:22, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kept. Trixt (talk) 21:58, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Colours do not match the real colours at File:IPC 00 Symbol CMYK 210.jpg - notified by International Paralympic Committee at OTRS 2012061810009184  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 20:00, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

•  Keep CMYK is the only reason ??! Come on... Mboro (talk) 21:41, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
•  Keep So change the colours to the correct ones, a work of seconds. Duh! Do we have the specific colours the OTRS whingers want? --Fred the Oyster (talk) 13:05, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
•  Keep Per Fred. cmadler (talk) 18:01, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I've had a go at trying to match the colours in the CYMK image and the result is at en:File:IPC_logo.svg - it's not easy to extract RGB info from that image to change the SVG, and I suspect it might also depend on how my PC renders them - if that test looks better then we can upload it here.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 19:43, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Now Keep - the IPC have supplied an official svg with what they say are the correct colours, I have uploaded it.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 19:07, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

•  Keep per Ronhjones. - Presidentman (talk · contribs) Wikipedia Random Picture of the Day 18:00, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kept - nomination withdrawn. --99of9 (talk) 23:51, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Useless category that is not within the Commons project scope. A category in which penis photographs of Commons users are grouped do not even meet the criteria of COM:CAT. By the way, this deletion request includes the categorized categories there, too: namely: Human anatomy, set of subject 01, 02, 03, 04, 05, 06, 07. --132.199.211.5 22:05, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

•  Keep It's useful to see several pictures from different perspectives of what is unquestionably the same person's anatomy.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:50, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep

1. re: scope: anyone with any knowledge of anatomy, medicine, or simply efficient cataloging of information should not have trouble understanding the logic of grouping photosets of anatomy images of the same person together. when we have a set of images of the same subject, it makes sense to group them together. since the media-wiki tools for organizing information are miserably limited, & since categories are effectively the default scheme of organization @ wmc, categories seem to be the best way of doing this..

2. the purpose of the category is not to collect genitalia images, it is intended for any photosets of the same anatomical subject. any & all such sets belong in the category; currently it happens to contain mostly genital images, because that's what i've been sorting; i've been focussing on organizing that material first, because there aren't as many users dedicated to deleting images of feets, hands, internal organs, etc.

3. commons is not censored.

4, the naming-scheme is provisional; i'm open to improvements. actively looking for a better system; usernames don't work, so...?

5. the nominator is an an anonymous IP account, whose only contributions to commons are deletion noms, who clearly has knowledge of commons procedures & who has turned up after a 6-month absence, apparently for no other reason than to nominate this category for deletion. seems like we've got a number of accounts being used in this way; i've come across several. possible sockpuppeting?

(also, the nominator did not show the courtesy of adding a notification to my talkpage, as creator of the cat.)

Lx 121 (talk) 22:54, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

•  Keep I agree with the above, it's indeed useful to organize the sets by subject.-- Darwin ^Ahoy! 04:34, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
•  Delete This category mixes the Commons-namespace for a Category in Commons with the User-namespace. H.fraud 18:13, 12 March 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.187.97.174 (talk) 18:13, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kept, per Lx 121. Kameraad Pjotr 16:54, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• File:Gagged.jpg
• File:ER9P-K-234 electric trainset.jpg
• File:Two hands.jpg
• File:Business handshake.jpg

The terms of use of this website are too restrictive for Commons. According to them, unacceptable uses include "offer the images for sale or distribution" and "use them on merchandise where the image is the sole reason someone would buy the product, for example greeting cards, T-shirts, mugs and so on." --Kam Solusar (talk) 05:58, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete Not free enough for commons. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 23:28, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment looks as if the uploaders here and on freedigitalphotos are identical. --Mbdortmund (talk) 06:57, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why? Uploaders here are User:Ranell.lefler, User:Guaraquear, and User:EvilTeeth. The source site gives different photographers: net.admin, djcodrin, etc. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 07:19, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Polarlys (talk) 13:19, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]