Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2010/10/06

Copied from <link removed> Ednei amaral (talk) 01:45, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Obviously, clear copyvio. I removed your long google link. --Martin H. (talk) 03:35, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Already deleted as File:HumoristicCam.jpg Ednei amaral (talk) 01:43, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted by Martin H.: Copyright violation: Already deleted as File:HumoristicCam.jpg

ctyhrhdcg 83.248.122.123 14:49, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Test nomination closed. --PaterMcFly (talk) 15:42, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Only being used to vandalise articles  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 23:59, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Justass (talk) 00:02, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

nonsense license templates; no evidence that the image is in the public domain. ireas :talk: 18:48, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. |EPO| ^da: 15:26, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

perhaps violating personal rights (have a look at the description), not used anywhere 4028mdk09 (talk) 04:45, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Only used on a deleted joke page on en.wikipedia, no possible educational use. Ilmari Karonen (talk) 20:10, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unused and redundant copy of File:Heraldic achievement of Ghana from 1957 by Alexander Liptak.png, both of which are being superseded by File:Alexander_Liptak—Coat_of_arms_of_Ghana_1957.png. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 19:34, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep User:Xanderliptak is changing his mind and now trying to impose new non-CC-license-compatible terms on his previously-uploaded images and trying to purge all derivative images (by others) of images originally uploaded by him. AnonMoos (talk) 19:39, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• What? The original is in the public domain and still is, so...? I was not aware we keep unused images of low quality. But, if you want to take this on some sort of Crusade, go for it. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 19:43, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You want this image deleted because it's derivative of an image uploaded by you, and not for the reasons you have stated. Wikimedia Commons actually prefers heraldic images to be in SVG format (other than scans of historical documents, of course), and if an SVG has a few semi-minor problems, then the usual response is to leave it in place so that someone will come along and fix it (unless the SVG is so poor-quality that it's completely unsuited to its intended purpose, and/or useless as the foundation of an improved image -- neither of which is the case here). AnonMoos (talk) 19:55, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not attempt to tell me my intentions. The reasons you gave are outright lies, stating something about licensing issues when the image is in the public domain. You clearly have some agenda against me and are throwing out random reasons without even taking the time to research them to see if they are real. Had you simply looked, you would have avoided this embarrassment. The image is poor quality, and not in use. You gave no reason to keep other than you don't like me. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 19:59, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever, dude -- your misuses of the "speedy" tag to control derivatives of images you have previously uploaded, your misuses of the "duplicate" tag to control derivatives of images you have previously uploaded, your misuses of the deletion nomination process to control derivatives of images you have previously uploaded, and your ill-informed and misguided attempts to retroactively add incompatibly-restrictive terms onto a CC-BY-SA license in order to control derivatives of images you have previously uploaded, all together combine to make it overwhelmingly likely that your motivations are as I stated. Too bad taht you didn't ask for a little help and try to learn a how things are done around here, instead of assuming that you had nothing to learn, and could issue demands and make up stuff as you go along... AnonMoos (talk) 20:30, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The image is a copy, so duplicate seemed to work? We don't keep unused duplicates, and this is an unused duplicate. So, what is your problem? And what is the CC talk? This image is in the public domain, there is no CC issue here. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 20:37, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An SVG which contains actual vector data cannot be a "duplicate" of a PNG under Wikimedia Commons conventions. It can be a good SVG, or an OK SVG (with a few issues which could be fixed), or an extremely poor quality SVG (which cannot be practically fixed to become a good SVG) -- but it cannot be a "duplicate". AnonMoos (talk) 00:36, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I am sorry, I didn't know Commons had it's own definition. See, I looked at the original, then the new one, and they looked the same. See, I might just be a backwater Illinois bumpkin to you, but here, that would be called a "duplicate". [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 00:51, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, when you take the attitude that you already know everything and have nothing to learn, and you don't take the trouble to find out how things are actually done, then you're certain to make mistakes. AnonMoos (talk) 01:18, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kept. SVG is not superseded by a PNG. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 03:44, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Did you even look at the image that supersedes this one? It is much more detailed... [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 07:56, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

yes, I did. But that isnt important. The SVG is a different format, and useful for different purposes. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 08:27, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And the fact it was unused didn't matter? That it was of low quality? After only a day, what made you close this discussion? [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 00:55, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Image is virtually unused save for a single template. It is an image of low quality, rather cartoonish, and replaced by a more accurate and detailed painting. No articular reason to keep it. [talk] XANDERLIPTAK 04:44, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dude, we've been all through this before. Such files are generally not deleted unless they're so poor-quality that they can't realistically be used for their intended purpose and/or can't realistically serve as a basis for producing an improved SVG -- neither of which seems to be the case here. Unless you have something distinctly new to say (which you didn't say the last time around), then you're pretty much wasting everybody's time, including your own. AnonMoos (talk) 06:47, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You closed the discussion early because SVGs can't be superceded. So, I am listing the other reasons for discussion. [talk] XANDERLIPTAK 07:20, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kept. Still no valid reason for deletion. I also sense a conflict of interest here. It's is used, so that is a particular reason to keep it. Another one is because it's an SVG and can easily be improved. And no, images that look the same are not duplicates, especially if one's vector and one's raster. Usually, duplicate means "exact or scaled-down". Please read Commons:Deletion_policy#Regular_deletion and Commons:Deletion_policy#Redundant/bad_quality and don't renominate this. Rocket000 (talk) 07:40, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

didn't realise that this picture exists already Sandmann4u (talk) 21:34, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Exact or scaled-down duplicate: File:Plauen, Tatra KT4 (1).jpg -- Common Good (talk) 19:02, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The source information is inadequate and the image looks like a copyright infringement. I haven't been able to find the full original photo, but the top half can be found here. ~ Nev1 (talk) 16:25, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Unambiguous copyright infringement. —David Levy 05:57, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicate already uploaded by self --Taprobanus (talk) 17:05, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 23:25, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Superseded by File:William S. Soule - Satank (SPC BAE 3912-B Vol 1 01158500).jpg or File:William S. Soule - Satank.jpg - see Category:Sitting Bear Martin H. (talk) 01:36, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

•  Keep, in use. –Tryphon^☂ 05:06, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Use replaced. --Martin H. (talk) 14:41, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Probably really not useful any longer, since badly cropped. --PaterMcFly (talk) 16:10, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 23:27, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

the image looks like a professional photo and appears to be a cropped version of this similar image of a poster found on this web page, and with no metadata present the uploader's claims seem suspect. Ww2censor (talk) 03:27, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete. Same source as this cover. --Túrelio (talk) 06:46, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete. Dragonslayerboy (talk) 21:34, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete as copyvio since there's no evidence of permission. VernoWhitney (talk) 21:20, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Amada44  ^{talk to me} 20:09, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

out of project scope, perhaps violating personal rights 4028mdk09 (talk) 04:55, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Amada44  ^{talk to me} 19:57, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki wouldn't render the image right EugeneZ (talk) 06:36, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

•  Question What's wrong with it? Looks good to me... —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 20:19, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
•  Keep Looks fine. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:08, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kept. Mbdortmund (talk) 23:29, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Photo likely a PROMO shot of this model and uploaders only upload as of yet: highly suggestive of copyvio. Túrelio (talk) 07:35, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

•  Delete per nom. Amada44  ^{talk to me} 08:12, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 23:30, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Picture of retired user, not used in any wikimedia projects PolargeoSock (talk) 08:46, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 23:32, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Possible copyright violation on the logo MS50: Multimedia Music Station on the picture. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 08:52, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep No. Logo is PD-Textlogo and clearly de-minimis. --PaterMcFly (talk) 18:19, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep Photo's subject is clearly the fiesta and not the logo. LobStoR (talk) 22:24, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep Perdón? La foto está clarisimamente orientada a la imagén general de la fiesta y no a la de ese logo que ni siquiera había visto cuando saqué la foto, esta consulta es completamente inecesaria, y una perdida de tiempo para varios usuarios.--Dark Bane (talk) 23:15, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

although quality is a problem Kept. Mbdortmund (talk) 23:33, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mistake about License : I personnaly take a picture of this recent icon (c.2000) but there is no permission by the paintor for publication. Ps2613 (talk) 09:11, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete Recent work, according to uploader. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:47, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete, per Pieter Kuiper. Obelix (talk) 21:03, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 23:34, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mistake about License : I personnaly take a picture of this recent icon (c.1980) but there is no permission by the paintor for publication. Ps2613 (talk) 09:13, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete Uploader says that this is a recent icon. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:13, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 23:34, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Out of scope and not used anywhere. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 09:23, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Very bad resolution, but I would call a picture of a church to be perfectly in scope. --PaterMcFly (talk) 10:38, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok ...If the resolution is very bad ...go ahead and delete it. I will upload another one with a better resolution. Γλαύκος (talk) 14:52, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 23:34, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gillette stadium logo has possible copyright for image use. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 10:48, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep No, that is a) de minimis and b) is the logo ineligible for copyright anyway. --PaterMcFly (talk) 12:05, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

•  Keep Don't worry so much. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:19, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kept. Mbdortmund (talk) 23:35, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

trademark without proper permission; source = http://getinnoblebank.pl/ WTM2 (talk) 12:31, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Amada44  ^{talk to me} 20:00, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

im the author, its not needed anymore (and messed up anyways) Trex2001 (talk) 12:55, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 23:36, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

brak dowodów na PD, plik skopiowany ze strony http://www.danzig-online.pl/bud/senat.html Pumeks (talk) 13:15, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The picture is published on the website you provided, regarding the history of the senate's building from 1882 to 1886. The author is not mentioned. But I guess that, because this is more than 124 years in the past, it can safely be asserted that the author is deceased for 70 years at least. I assume that he was more than 30 years at age when he had taken the pictures (cameras weren't that cheap these days). Might he became older than 85? Possible but unlikely, if you think about the WW2 and all that. --Trac3R (talk) 12:27, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

•  Keep /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:06, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
•  Keep Obelix (talk) 21:07, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kept. Mbdortmund (talk) 23:37, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

sole contrubution by uploader. IP edit hints to a copyvio. See here. Amada44  ^{talk to me} 13:23, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete Peter Gaunt is photo editor at BSU. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:33, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 23:40, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

perhaps violation personal rights, out of project scope 4028mdk09 (talk) 13:47, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:39, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Amada44  ^{talk to me} 20:02, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

bad quality, not useful for project scope 4028mdk09 (talk) 13:48, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Amada44  ^{talk to me} 20:02, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See w:Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2010 September 23#File:GretaGarbo1920s.jpg Magog the Ogre (talk) 06:02, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep Photoplay Magazine wasn't renewed until the 1940s; see [1].--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:37, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you are (or I am) misunderstanding. US copyrights have to be renewed 28 years after the creation of the item. So they didn't start renewing until they'd been around for 28 years. It's not relevant in case this unless they failed to renew on the 28th year of publication for this item. Magog the Ogre (talk) 20:56, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

According to that webpage I linked, the first renewed issue of Photoplay Magazine was January 1944 (v. 24 no. 2).--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:47, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I see. OK, withdrawn. Magog the Ogre (talk) 22:49, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kept. Mbdortmund (talk) 23:42, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photoalbum. Not used. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:28, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Amada44  ^{talk to me} 20:03, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

unused, no cat, no encylopedic value, useless, etc Frédéric (talk) 18:02, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Amada44  ^{talk to me} 20:03, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

unused, no cat, no encyclopedic value, useless, etc Frédéric (talk) 19:10, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Amada44  ^{talk to me} 20:05, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

unused, just a formula, should simply use math syntax Frédéric (talk) 19:19, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete unused, {{Use TeX}}. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:49, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 23:43, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Flickr copyright status: "All rights reserved" Jorge Barrios (talk) 19:23, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Amada44  ^{talk to me} 20:06, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

just a test, useless, unused Frédéric (talk) 19:26, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

•  Delete. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:50, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
•  Delete.Obelix (talk) 21:04, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 23:43, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Image comes from Google Earth. This specific file copyrighted to DSS Consortium. This is a blatant copyright violation. 80.187.102.254 20:17, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

should be deleted, it's also unreadable --Saviour1981 (talk) 20:38, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Amada44  ^{talk to me} 20:10, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Scanned from a FORD catalog (see the flickr page), CC license not plausible. GeorgHH • talk   21:58, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Amada44  ^{talk to me} 20:12, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unused, no description, could be anything and the uploader has previous copyright issues and hasn't edited in over 2 years Rodhullandemu (talk) 22:12, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Amada44  ^{talk to me} 20:12, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

unused private image - out of scope Santosga (talk) 00:02, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 20:12, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

photo of a copyrighted work Eeekster (talk) 03:09, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 20:14, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

source clearly states: non commercial. maybe author would give permission? Amada44  ^{talk to me} 07:53, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 20:15, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly out of scope, there's nothing on the band. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 10:46, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 20:22, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Scanning a bill dose not create a new copright. This image is listed as "Fair use" here ----ARTEST4ECHO ^talk 12:47, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm... Egypt is not covered by Commons:Money. Anybody got a clue on egypts copyright terms? --PaterMcFly (talk) 15:39, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted.

There does not appear to be any exception for currency in the law. The exception for government works (Article 141) is narrow.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 20:28, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Scanning a bill dose not create a new copright. This image is listed as "Fair use" here ----ARTEST4ECHO ^talk 12:56, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 20:29, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No valid source. The uploader's claims of being the author and copyright holder are clearly bogus. They blanked the source problem tag; hence nominating here. —LX (talk, contribs) 13:44, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: rather than commenting here, the uploader chose to blank the notification about this ongoing deletion discussion from the file description page. —LX (talk, contribs) 14:41, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Scan of printed image. Not yet 70 years old, therefore not PD in Brazil.     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:39, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No valid source. The uploader's claims of being the author and copyright holder are clearly bogus. They blanked the source problem tag; hence nominating here. —LX (talk, contribs) 13:44, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: rather than commenting here, the uploader chose to blank the notification about this ongoing deletion discussion from the file description page. —LX (talk, contribs) 14:35, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Scan of printed image. Not yet 70 years old, therefore cannot be PD in Brazil.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:41, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

THE PAGE COME FROM A COPYRIGHTED BOOK, NO GFDL. Sysywjel (talk) 18:58, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 20:30, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

THE PAGE COME FROM A COPYRIGHTED BOOK, NO GFDL. Sysywjel (talk) 18:59, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 20:30, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

THE PAGE COME FROM A COPYRIGHTED BOOK, NO GFDL. Sysywjel (talk) 19:00, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 20:30, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

THE PAGE COME FROM A COPYRIGHTED BOOK, NO GFDL. Sysywjel (talk) 19:01, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 20:31, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

THE PAGE COME FROM A COPYRIGHTED BOOK, NO GFDL. Sysywjel (talk) 19:03, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 20:30, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

THE PAGE COME FROM A COPYRIGHTED BOOK, NO GFDL. Sysywjel (talk) 19:04, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 20:31, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

THE PAGE COME FROM A COPYRIGHTED BOOK, NO GFDL. Sysywjel (talk) 19:04, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 20:31, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

THE PAGE COME FROM A COPYRIGHTED BOOK, NO GFDL. Sysywjel (talk) 19:08, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 20:31, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

THE PAGE COME FROM A COPYRIGHTED BOOK, NO GFDL. Sysywjel (talk) 19:09, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 20:32, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

THE PAGE COME FROM A COPYRIGHTED BOOK, NO GFDL. Sysywjel (talk) 19:10, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 20:32, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

THE PAGE COME FROM A COPYRIGHTED BOOK, NO GFDL. Sysywjel (talk) 20:50, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 20:34, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

on flickr it says: ph: Alberto Macaluso so I interpret that flickr uploader is not author. Amada44  ^{talk to me} 07:29, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Polarlys (talk) 22:56, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Out of scope and not used anywhere. Is there evidence of consent? :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 08:22, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

El de la foto soy yo, puede borrarse de ser preciso.--Dark Bane (talk) 23:18, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Polarlys (talk) 22:56, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This file is a derivative of File:-Roadsign-startover.png which has now been deleted. It is now the lone file in its now obselete category. Serenthia 00:06, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion rationale for the other file was 16:04, 27. Sep. 2010 Bidgee (Diskussion | Beiträge) hat „File:-Roadsign-startover.png“ gelöscht ‎ (Mass removal of files added by sock of User:Rukshanawahab) (global usage; delinker log). What was the exact reason for deletion of this one? Doesn't look like something protected to me, at least this derivative should be fine for keeping, as it is just a 2D-reproduction of a simple road sign. --PaterMcFly (talk) 08:16, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kept. Mbdortmund (talk) 17:19, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:NewEngland RoadSign StartOvertaking.svg

New England is not a country, this is therefore fake. Fry1989 ^eh? 20:28, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t see how that follows; I may be wrong, but I understood the title to mean that the sign is commonly seen in New England, or is officially used by some or all of the states (or perhaps the counties & municipalities, whichever is responsible for such things in the USA) comprising the region. Here in Canada, at least, there are some variations in signage style from one jurisdiction to another, some of which might well be common to, or characteristic of, larger regions.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 19:49, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've never seen a sign like that in North America, but that's not the reason I nominated it. The reason I nominated it is because it's part of Category:Diagrams of road signs of New England. Look at the few signs in there. I only know of two "New England" areas of the World, one in the Northeastern United States, and one in Australia, and both countries absolutely do not use or allow signs like File:Roadsign-nouturn.svg (especially not the US considering they drive on the right, not the left) and File:Roadsign-noovertakinglorriesend.svg (which is positively European in it's design). The fact those are in there makes the entire category and it's contents suspect. Fry1989 ^eh? 20:51, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted Per Fry -- I've spent most of my driving life in New England and I've never seen a sign like this. Also, of course, road signs are largely specified by the Federal Department of Transportation, and by the various states, so there is no such thing as a New England road sign. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 23:53, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reason to doubt that User:Cuasarte would have the same name as "Rafael Correa." :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 08:35, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• The {{PD-self}} tag is clearly incorrect, or at least insufficient; I assume the uploader's intent was to relinquish any copyright claim the act of scanning the signature might've given them (which it would not do under most jurisdictions, including U.S., although it might in some places). However, {{PD-signature}} may apply; it certainly would under U.S. law, but I can't say for sure where Ecuadorean copyright law draws the threshold of originality. Given the simplicity of the signature, though, I'd be somewhat surprised if it was considered copyrightable. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 05:57, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

as PD-signature Kept. Mbdortmund (talk) 17:21, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

brak dowodów na PD, plik skopiowany ze strony http://www.danzig-online.pl/bud/senat.html Pumeks (talk) 13:06, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

•  Keep seems PD-old. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:45, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
•  Keep, per Pieter Kuiper. Obelix (talk) 21:01, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kept. Mbdortmund (talk) 17:22, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am the photographer of this photo & I know I did have this photo under shair alike at the time, but the person of whom owns the room does not want this image on the internet! Thank you. Frankieerose (talk) 12:46, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK then, do I have some time for seaching of the similar image? In best way I'd like to have at least 20 days because of my business trip. Thank you in advance! KirNata (talk) 14:15, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I'd say  keep, at least until a good replacement can be found, because it's in use. And since nothing in the image gives away the identity of the owner of the room, I don't see how their privacy is violated. –Tryphon^☂ 15:35, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• [this post was replaced after blanking by User:Frankieerose]  Keep Keep Per Tryphon.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 18:04, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes that is fine I'll wait till you can find a replacemnt, I'd just like for it to be deleted as soon as you can. Thank you. Frankieerose (talk) 12:46, 6th October 2010 (UTC) <nowiki>Insert non-formatted text here</nowiki>

I'd really appreciate if you could please delete this image now. I've waited over 20 days! Frankieerose (talk) 09:03, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've put my keep above, but I'd like to make it stronger. This image was uploaded to Commons under a license that is not revocable. Occasionally, as a favor to users, we will remove such images if asked, but policy does not favor such removal and we very rarely remove an image that is in use elsewhere in the WMF project.

User:Frankieerose has abused our process both by blanking my  Keep above and by starting a second DR while the first one was still open. I've cleaned up both of those things, but I see no reason to do a favor for this user.

Since the owner of the room is not identified in any way -- and the original Flickr upload is gone -- there can be no special reason not to keep this.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 10:39, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps we should delete this simply because the uploader has problems with it and because of the promise to seek for a replacement. --Mbdortmund (talk) 23:40, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When I google my name this is the first image that comes up & I'd really like it not to be. Can you please just remove it. Please! it invades my privacy. I know I had it under share alike, & that I gave the right for people to reuse it, really I don't mind you using the image but I'd rather my name not come up with it. I just hate that it comes up when my name is Googled. I can come up with a compromise If you could just use my flickr name 'frankie_green' rather than my real name than I'd be fine with that. Just so it doesn't come up when I/People google my name... Thank you. Frankieerose (talk) 14:03, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your problem now. It probably comes from the Comment field in the upload history. I've re-uploaded the same image, so if an administrator can delete the first version, it should make your name disappear from the page entirely. –Tryphon^☂ 07:51, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Done The change in a Google search will not happen immediately -- it depends on when Google's web-crawler next sees the file -- but it would not happen any faster if we deleted the whole file.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:11, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete Looking at the picture it does look like quite a personal picture of a private space. Though no physical person is portrayed I can see how the "subject" might feel their privacy has been invaded. I doesn't seem an irreplaceable image and I think the ,oral thing would be to delete it. --Simonxag (talk) 23:33, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Guys, I'm very sorry - due to my production I had not chance to attend the conversation and/or find a replacement. So what is the current status? Is requester happy at this moment or the image is still to be replaced? Frankly speaking I'd prefer to  Keep it, at least for a while - fast flickr search doesn't return image with the same subject, quality and licence. I've found and uploaded an image that potentially can replace current one, so at least I have temporary replacement (after it is comfirmed by flickrbot), but it is quite small-sized - so it is not the best image to be replaced with. But if User:Frankieerose insists on deletion and if community agrees with him - we have at least something for replacement. Regards, KirNata (talk) 10:18, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kept.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:39, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This image still comes up when my name it googled. (It has been almost a month) Could you delete it completly then re-upload under Frankie_green? Or do you really need to use this image anyway? like one person is using it. Couldn't you just delete it? It's not like it is an essential part of the persons page... Frankieerose (talk) 09:30, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep The problem is not with our image, it is with Google. Google does not -- can not -- update its index immediately. You will have to wait for it to clear out of their files with time.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 10:59, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can't you just simply delete it. Frankieerose (talk) 05:35, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As I explained above, deleting it will not change your problem with Google at all.     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:05, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it will. Because the image would no longer be available if it was deleted. It would come up blank until Google updates. I'd rather that than this image sill being linked to my name. Frankieerose (talk) 12:01, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, Google caches pages. It will come up on Google until Google clears it out. We cannot help you.     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:27, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is my photo. My rights and I want you to delete it. Its simple. If someone asked me to simply delete their image that 'they took' I'd do it no questions asked. Why do you have to be so difficult? and what you're saying is wrong. I've had someone delete my image from wiki commons previously and the image no longer came up. The link directed to wiki saying something along the lines of "the image is no longer available..." That's all I want. Could you please just delete it!! I don't believe it's taken this long just to do something so simple. Frankieerose (talk) 12:55, 12 November 2010 (UTC) Kept. - no valid reason for deletion - Jcb (talk) 02:10, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unused redundant copy. A cropped version was preferred by editors, see File:Coat_of_arms_of_Theodore_Roosevelt_by_Alexander_Liptak_2.png. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 20:49, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, it may be unused on Wikipedia but that's not the only possible use for Wikimedia Commons images. Yworo (talk) 22:32, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep it's currently in use on w:Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive642; that's not mainspace, but there's no need to run around breaking pages, either.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:06, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kept. 99of9 (talk) 00:17, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reasons for deletion request -Saviour1981 (talk) 20:18, 6 October 2010 (UTC) homophobic comparison with drug addicts. Gay flags shaped as drug syringes. Violation of applicable laws in germany (incitement of popular hatred and sexual discrimination) --Saviour1981 (talk) 20:18, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hä? Wie bitte? Wie kann ein Logo Volksverhetzung sein? --PaterMcFly (talk) 06:30, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seit beispielsweise Symbole aus der Nazizeit verboten wurden (Hakenkreuz, SS-Runen etc.) Und hier sehe ich eine Gleichsetzung von Homosexuellen mit Drogenabhängigen, was für mich einen sehr negativen Aspekt eröfnet --Saviour1981 (talk) 07:49, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Abgesehen davon sprach ich nicht primär von Volksverhetzung, sondern eher von einem diskriminierenden Aspekt. Da du wahrscheinlich hetero bist, kannst du das nicht nachvollziehen, was wir Homo- und Bisexuellen alles mögliche an Anfeindungen und kruden Thesen ertragen müssen, besonders, dass wir krank im Kopf seien, widernatürliche Triebe hätten und es in der Schweiz das Patentrezept gegen solche "unnatürlichen" Auswüchse gäbe. Und dann kommt hier ein stalinistischer Russe namens Ivan hereingeschneit und redet davon, dass alle Homos Krankheiten übertragen würden und - salopp gesagt - krank im Kopf wären. Das ist einfach nur beleidigend und hier in deutschland verstößt das nunmal gegen bestehende Grundgesetze (Antidiskriminierungsgesetz, Gleichstellungsgesetz). --Saviour1981 (talk) 19:40, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

•  Delete Unused offensive original research "anti"-logo, out of scope. Sometimes such logos have been speedily deleted. Trycatch (talk) 10:17, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
•  Delete per COM:SCOPE. // Liftarn (talk) 22:14, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
•  Delete Out of scope. Commons is not a soapbox, a battleground, or a vehicle for propaganda. Walter Siegmund (talk) 20:17, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Jafeluv (talk) 22:59, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No valid source. The uploader's claims of being the author and copyright holder are clearly bogus. They blanked the source problem tag; hence nominating here. —LX (talk, contribs) 13:45, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Martin H. (talk) 00:38, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Superseded by File:William S. Soule - Lone Wolf (SPC BAE 3912-B Vol 1 01159200).jpg. Martin H. (talk) 01:34, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep very different prints, while the second picture is better, I don't think this should be deleted. Trycatch (talk) 10:08, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The second is a print, the first is a scan or copy created with a black and white device from the same print. The prints are not different, only their processing and that for this file a large portion of the work (at the bottom) is missing and the top shows parts of the scanning device. --Martin H. (talk) 14:36, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kept. MBisanz ^talk 22:09, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Too long hindlegs. The forelimbs are too thin, and the digits IV and V should not have claws. The body have the wrong shape. Conty (talk) 04:53, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. MBisanz ^talk 22:09, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The sticker is more than geometric shapes and text as it has a designed background image. No free license applies so the image does not have an appropriate copyright release. Fæ (talk) 09:45, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. MBisanz ^talk 22:09, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

no reason for save this, becaus e there exist some pictures with more quality / das bild ist qualitativ nicht besonders gut und es exisiteren bessere bilder Sandmann4u (talk) 18:57, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. MBisanz ^talk 22:10, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Like said in the discussion, the borders of Europe described here are uncommon and weird. There are no sources in the picture, and the user who added it is notorious from his tendency of adding his own research to wikipedia. ML (talk) 20:08, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. MBisanz ^talk 22:10, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• File:Boulervard_juan_pablo_ll.jpg
• File:TegucigalpaD.C.jpg
• File:Picacho_06.1171416420.picacho.jpg
• File:Cholutecacity.jpg
• File:Marriott_tegucigalpa.jpg
• File:TegusMarriott.jpg
• File:Boulervard_juan_pablo_ll.jpg
• File:Teatro_01.jpg
• File:Tegucigalpacity02.jpg

All files by uploader have an invalid source (different sources) and are most likely copyvios. Amada44  ^{talk to me} 08:06, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 20:21, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unused and redundant file, see File:Coat of arms of Theodore Roosevelt by Alexander Liptak.png and File:Coat of arms of Theodore Roosevelt by Alexander Liptak 2.png. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 19:29, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep User:Xanderliptak is changing his mind and now trying to impose new non-CC-license-compatible terms on his previously-uploaded images and trying to purge all derivative images (by others) of images originally uploaded by him. AnonMoos (talk) 19:40, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on content, not editors, please. I am not attempting to purge anything but unused images. THis is one of those. There are other works that are derivatives of my work that exist that I am not deleting because they are being used. There is no reasont o keep something sloppily cropped and unused. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 20:05, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, it's available for all to see from your editing history that you're trying to retroactively change a CC-BY-SA in an invalidly restrictive way, and the "unused" images that you've nominated for deletion somehow seem to be derivatives by others of images first uploaded by you... AnonMoos (talk) 20:22, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is a CC-BY-SA, I need to write out how I want to be attributed, that is what the BY stands for. As for the rest about not having my work be used in a derogatory or demeaning way, that is called my moral rights, which are recognized by the CC and can be seen here. I am making it clear from the start that I will exercise my moral rights and will not let my work be used in any horrible way. You might be okay with Nazis defecating on my work to make a political statement, but I will not let my work be used in that way and making it clear form the start. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 20:34, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Background to the purpose of this image can be found here (very long), here and here and here. It is currently unused, but that is no bar to its existence, and it's still p[ossible to be used in the future. The image is derivative, a legitimate alteration under the upload license of the original (which the nominator has attempted to change retroactively). Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:41, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The other editors who wanted the creation of a cropped version rejected this version because it was done sloppily. It has remnants overlapping part of the scroll at the bottom, quite messy looking, and poor editing I am afraid. No one has attempted to change the licensing retroactively, I don't even know how to hack into Wikipedia to do such a thing. Please stop lying about me, Beyond My Ken, and stick to the issue at hand. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 20:05, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Xanderliptak mispeaks. No one in the discussions linked above commented negatively on the quality of the version under discussion here, and an en.wiki admin, DrKiernan, was the person who inserted it into the Theodore Roosevelt article, replacing Xanderliptak's original. Once that happened, the only person to remove this version from the article was Xanderliptak, and other editors, myself included, restored this version.

@Xanderliptak: You have to remember that practically everything on the Wikimedia wikis is kept forever, so you shouldn't misrepresent a conversation that any editor can read for him or herself. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:59, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, is that why your image isn't being used? Because editors wanted it? They decided that the motto wasn't necessary, and it was definitely unnecessary given the sloppy crop you tried. The image is not used, there are versions that are not so sloppy and whitewashed, so there is no reason to keep it. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 00:53, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, my image is not being used, because you replaced it with another which removed both the embellishments and the motto (again, don't you realize that everyone can see that in the article history?). The consensus on en.wiki appears to be that while the heraldic artist has the right to include or not include as he sees fit, and the more complete image would include the motto. I have not replaced your non-motto alteration, though, because your behavior is so egregiously annoying and over-protective of your image, that I really didn't want to take on that burden. It's a shame, because the article is now carrying a somewhat deficient image not because it's the best image available, but because one editor behaves so badly that others -- myself included -- shy away from making the right choice. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:00, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So, please do us a favor -- post a diff where other editors on en.wiki spoke about the qualitative deficiency of the image currently under discussion. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:04, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Again, stick to the subject at hand. If you have a content dispute, take it to the appropriate place. I am sorry that no one used your image, and that you take general cleanup as personal attacks. Perhaps a break would help, so you can step back, reassess and calm down a bit? Get some hot tea, get some you time. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 01:13, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I am sticking to the subject (and, by the way, the only reason we're here is because you could not prevail in a content dispute on en.wiki). You said that a reason to delete the image is that it's not in use – a peculiar argument, considering that thousands of images in the Commons are not used – and that the reason it is not used is because other editors found it deficient in quality. Fine -- please provide a single diff in which another editor said that this current image is deficient in quality. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:05, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The only reason we are here is because you are mad someone had the audacity to delete your image. Where did I loose a content dispute? An editor asked me to crop an image, I did, and I put it in the article per his request. Again, if you want to argue about herraldic practice here, it is the wrong place. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 07:53, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The only reason we are here is that you are trying to delete this image. You have made a number of claims about it, but you have yet to support those claims with any diffs. Please post a diff to shows another editor asking you to crop the image and put it in the article. It's quite a simple request, yet you have failed to comply, and continue to argue as if your contention is proven, without providing any evidence. Diff, please. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:52, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, I see three different and beautiful images, allowing people to choose which they want to use, which appears to be permissible under the Guidelines for Heraldic Practice in the United States Recommended by the American Heraldry Society (2007). John Vandenberg ^(chat) 03:53, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• My artistic skill is not what is in question. It is the fact that only one image is in use, and the other images are not needed and provide no additional value the one in use provides. Whatever the AHS recommends is not relevant here, less you forgot you are not on Wikipedia but at Commons. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 07:53, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I know I am at Commons. Wikipedia may not want to use this image, however Commons is used by people besides Wikipedia. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 08:28, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Then can we stop with trying to make this a content dispute? There is no reason to bring up content issues when Commons is not about editorializing. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 19:21, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I am avoiding the en.wp content dispute by saying that I love all the images, and can see value in them all. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 22:23, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Then why are you not trying to keep the original? Your words and actions do not match up. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 22:46, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• No one has suggested deleting your original image. All three images – your original, my alteration removing the embellishments but leaving the motto, and your alteration removing the embellishments and the motto – should be kept, as there is no valid reason to delete any of them. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:04, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I put the original up for deletion, because, you know, it is unused. There are no reason to keep so many similar copies of th same image. It just clutters things and causes a lot of confusion. An editor at the English Wikipedia asked me to crop it tighter, and I did. No need for the old one. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 00:34, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No editor in any public discussion I am aware of of en.wiki asked you to "tighten the crop", that was entirely your choice. If I am wrong, please post a diff where an editor asked you to crop the image tighter than the image I provided (which, incidentally, was exactly the same resolution as your original image.)

Again, you should try to avoid misrepresenting the content discussions about this coat of arms that took place on en.wiki, since they are publicly available for anyone to read. Doing so only undermines your position, and tends to call into question the veracity of your other statements. Just stick to the facts, and avoid exaggeration and misstatements whenever possible, and allow the community to decide about whether to delete this image, and Theodore Roosevelt bookplate. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:11, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to read the discussion again before you start accusing people of misinterpreting things or lying. I am not your bitch, if you want to find it, you read through it. Not that the matter even applies here, so if you still have issues with the discussion there, take it there. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 07:13, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am quite conversant with all the discussion that has taken place, thank you.

Please post a diff showing that an editor asked you to crop out the motto and post it to the article, and another where an editor commented that the image under discussion here is deficient in quality. You continue to contend these are true, but despite the fact that all the discussions are public, and available for you to cite, you have not posted anything from them. Despite this, you continue to make these claims.

Have you forgotten where the discussions are? Here are the links: here (very long), here and here and here. Do you not know how to cite a diff, do you need help? I'm sure you wouldn't want that assistance from me, given your stance, but in the spirit of fair play I'll be glad to provide it -- or, you can ask one of the other participants here, or any other editor you trust, most folks here can provide the information you need. Once you know the technique, just go to one of the discussions on en.wiki, get the URL for the edit which proves your point and post it here, and it'll show that your statement is correct and I've been totally wrong. That's all you need, is two little diffs -- why not go get them now?

You see, the problem is this: you have made definite concrete statements which I, and everyone who has read the discussions on en.wiki, know to be false. So the only way out of the dilemma you've created for yourself is for you is to show that we are all wrong, and you are right, and the only way to do that is by posting diffs that show your claims are true. If you can't -- and I know you can't -- then it'll be clear to everyone reading this discussion that your claims are false, which raises the likelihood that everything you have said in this discussion is a mistatement, deliberate or otherwise. The only way you can turn away that perception, if to follow through, and post the diffs that show your contentions are true -- not to counter with more rhetoric, and more questionable statements, but to prove your case with concrete evidence. When you do that, I'll shut up and admit you're right. When you fail to do that -- which you will, because those diffs do not exist -- I will also shut up, because it will have been shown that your statements are totally false.

So what is it going to be? Are you going to dig the hole deeper, or post the evidence that shows how wrong I've been? Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:52, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Really, you should have read the discussion again. I am going to believe that you are making a gross error and are not meaning to spread lies. Gimmetoo asked me to ignore your ridiculous argument and just focus on the painting itself, he asked me to remove the shields here. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 17:45, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Let's see the whole conversation. Gimmetoo did not ask you to remove the shields, he asked if you would agree to what I had already done, the removal of the shields for use on Wikipedia:[2]

XL, there may be dynamics or rules on Wiki that may make something unusable on Wiki even though it is perfectly acceptable within the practice of heraldry. Would you agree to the modification of your work (omitting the three shields) for the Wiki, even if just to achieve peace, and even though heraldry doesn't require that modification? Gimmetoo (talk) 02:16, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

But ROUX and others wish to argue it is against heraldic custom, without evidence and in the face of many references and sources that state otherwise. Both images are mine, the original and the replacement, so this is not a personal matter, which ROUX seems to think it is based on his tone and language. It would have been completely different were they to ask if the additions could be removed for clarification. However, they wishes to argue a fallacy. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 02:48, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Please try to ignore what everyone else is saying for a moment. Would you agree to omit the three shields for Wiki use, regardless of heraldry custom? Gimmetoo (talk) 11:40, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

That I have no issue with. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 17:23, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Whew. —Tamfang (talk) 18:32, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

You chose to take that as a request for you to crop, which it was not. Gimetoo did not say "Would you agree to modify your work...", he said "Would you agree to the modification of your work...", referring to the already existing modfication, this very image you are attempting to have deleted. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:39, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Um, where is modification in his request? He said, "Would you agree to omit the three shields for Wiki use, regardless of heraldry custom? " Stop misquoting people and misrepresenting them. He asked me to omit the shields and I did. Done. I am sorry you take things so personally, but it is time to get over it. It has been a week. If you spent as much time studying heraldry as you did sulking, you would know a thing or two about heraldry. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 05:49, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(sigh) Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:05, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, you just assume he meant you? Where did he ever reference you? You have quite the ego, hunh? Of course, no one could speak without it being about you, which is why you probably have been following me around on Wikipedia, believing each and every edit and comment must come back to you. Let me tell you again, since you seem to not believe me, it is not all about you. Simply because you show up and force your way into a conversation, does not mean that conversation is about you. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 06:09, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They are not the same image. Wikipedia is not the only consumer of images on Commons; people can download the image and use it, and any wiki in the world can use it immediately(mw:InstantCommons). We need to keep these images available so people can refer to our copy for attribution purposes, and also to confirm the license it was originally granted under. --John Vandenberg ^(chat) 01:22, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strange, Beyond My Ken is deleting this image because I cropped the original, so why the different stance here? [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 06:59, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, CC-BY-SA doesn't have a "pack up my toys and leave" clause. Yworo (talk) 22:30, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Does it have a 'jackass' clause? Probably not, but since we are mentioning clauses that don't exist, I thought I should bring it up. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 03:24, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep DR is not a place to fight out battles. This image is in use on w:Talk:Theodore Roosevelt and w:Roosevelt (surname) (linked here in case they're removed), and may well be in use in the future.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:03, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You altered the original to remove the OR embellishments, which made it a duplicate of the image I uploaded, so there was no need for it any more. (Although if you change your image back, I'll upload it again.) In this case of the image under consideration here, your altered image is different from this current one, because you removed the motto.

Here, let me show you, here are the two JFK images:

However, here are the three TR images:

Can you see the difference? Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:22, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

God you're so paranoid, "if you do this then I will do that". Dude, you need to do something about all your fervor for me. Oh, and you increased the brightness or contrast and don't know how to make the background transparent. Wow. Impressive "addition" to the image.

You said "Since there's no longer any need for my altered image, I nominated it for deletion". There is no need for this one either. So delete it. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 08:24, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm... at a loss for words. Somebody put me out of my misery, please.

@Xanderliptak: The first two images are duplicates. The three images at the bottom are different. See how that works? Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:53, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You added nothing new, you just cropped it and adjusted the brightness. There is no use for it, so there is no reason to keep it-that was your reason for deleting the other image. Anyone that wants to recreate your changes, they are quite simple in fact, they will be able to do so without any problem. Just because you're increasing the brightness by 5 is no reason to keep it. Why not one by 10, then one -5 and one -10? They will all be technically different, but redundant and serve no purpose. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 17:51, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I never claimed to have added anything, but the image is, nonetheless, a legitimate alteration of the original, created to address a problem which arose on en.wiki. There is no legitimate reason to delete it. This is my last comment here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:01, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are two reasons to delete it, it is unused and it is redundant. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 19:09, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kept. Jafeluv (talk) 01:39, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is a derivative work. High image resolution makes de minimis impossible 80.187.102.254 20:20, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Um was geht es hier? Wieso wurde ein LA gestellt? --Schängel (talk) 05:41, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete Das ist ein abgeleitetes Werk, du kannst nicht einfach irgen ein fremdes Werk abfotografieren und als dein eigenes Werk angeben. In diesem Fall greift auch die Panoramafreiheit nicht, weil es sich nicht um eine dauerhafte Ausstellung handelt. --PaterMcFly (talk) 06:29, 7 October 2010 (UTC) Ups, wie peinlich, das hätte natürlich ein "löschen" sein sollen[reply]

Die Buga 2011 GmbH hat aber nichts dagegen, das weiß ich aus persönlichen Gesprächen. --Schängel (talk) 16:19, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm... Das ist leider nicht hinreichend, weil das jeder behaupten könnte. Du solltest ein Mail an OTRS schicken. --PaterMcFly (talk) 20:47, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Jcb (talk) 13:27, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reasons for deletion request -Saviour1981 (talk) 20:19, 6 October 2010 (UTC) homophobic comparison with drug addicts. Gay flags shaped as drug syringes. Violation of applicable laws in germany (incitement of popular hatred and sexual discrimination) --Saviour1981 (talk) 20:19, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also Volksverhetzung ist etwas ziemlich anderes. Das mag zwar für einige beleidigend wirken, das macht es aber noch nicht illegal. --PaterMcFly (talk) 06:32, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Illegal oder nicht, hier geht es einzig und allein darum, dass damit gegen gewisse Gesetze verstoßen werden (deutsches Antidiskriminierungsgesetz, Gleichstellungsgesetz) und auch ein negatives Bild über Homosexuelle darstellt. Dass die Homophobie über die Grenzen des Erträglichen hier hinaus gehen, dürfte eigentlich klar sein, wenn man den Aspekt des Bildes sehen will --Saviour1981 (talk) 07:52, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Crossed gay-flag syringes over the drop of blood with lesbian logo within symbolize the proven fact, that lesbians are much more likely to develop infectious and mental diseases, than normal women. References:

1. Peter Freiberg, "Study: Alcohol Use More Prevelent for Lesbians," The Washington Blade, January 12, 2001, p. 21.;
2. Lettie L. Lockhart et al., "Letting out the Secret: Violence in Lesbian Relationships," Journal of Interpersonal Violence 9 (December 1994): 469-492.;
3. Gwat Yong Lie and Sabrina Gentlewarrier, "Intimate Violence in Lesbian Relationships: Discussion of Survey Findings and Practice Implications," Journal of Social Service Research 15 (1991): 41-59.;
4. J. Bradford, et al., "National Lesbian Health Care Survey: Implications for Mental Health Care," Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 62 (1994): 239, cited in Health Implications Associated with Homosexuality, p. 81.
5. HIV/AIDS Among US Women: Minority and Young Women at Continuing Risk," Divisions of HIV/AIDS Prevention (Centers for Disease Control)November 14, 2000. Available at: www.cdc.gov/hiv/pubs/facts/women.
6. Ulysses Torassa, "Some With HIV Aren't Disclosing Before Sex; UCSF Researcher's 1,397-person Study Presented During aids Conference," The San Francisco Examiner (July 15, 2000).

And the image is fully OK with the Bulgarian legislation. Иван (talk) 08:35, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your homophobic opinion is making me sick! There's no clear point of view that you show off here! --Saviour1981 (talk) 11:33, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm quite sure that something with your health is wrong and in fact you are sick, but the reason is not me, may be it's something about genetics? Do you really think, that six independant, refferd, statistically grounded scientific papers "are not clear point of view"? Иван (talk) 12:41, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're the most abominable user i've ever met here on Wikimedia Commons and you're not better than Stalin with your mentally diseased point of view!!! I'm fully okay and that's an insult to me and my personal references! It's worth to report it. --Saviour1981 (talk) 19:17, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What a drama :) :) :) You said, that I make you sick and I answered that I believe you are sick, but the reason is not me. Now you call me "the most abominable user i've ever met here on Wikimedia Commons" and you are going to complain that I insult you??? That makes me laugh :) :) :) I'll tell you a little secret: I don't receive money for my contributions here so I definitely don't care if any administrator from your flock will ban me or not. Anyway our main conversation theme is not about our mental health or our heredity, but about why this picture should or should not be deleted. I've listed six independant, reffered, statistically grounded scientific papers that lesbians are much more likely to develop infectious and mental diseases than heterosexual women. This picture symbolize that risk. That is why this picture should stay in Wikimedia Commons, despite of the opinion of some people, who one day feel sick and the next day feel insulted about discussions over their sickness. Иван (talk) 08:38, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

•  Delete Unused offensive original research "anti"-logo, out of scope. Sometimes such logos have been speedily deleted. Trycatch (talk) 10:15, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
•  Delete, out of scope. –Tryphon^☂ 18:52, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
•  Delete per COM:SCOPE. // Liftarn (talk) 22:16, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
•  Delete I'd speedily delete this one, but it only has one day to go. Saviour1981 (talk · contribs) and Ivanov id (talk · contribs) are admonished to avoid personal attacks. Walter Siegmund (talk) 20:09, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Jafeluv (talk) 23:01, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No source given at http://www.flickr.com/photos/us_army_rolling_along/4191645028/ GeorgHH • talk   22:08, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep Almost certainly {{PD-US-norenewal}} because the company went out of business shortly after it started, but it will take some research to prove it.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 20:38, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kept. Jcb (talk) 13:13, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

no U.S. work as needed for this template. Saibo (Δ) 22:36, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Info Also see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Dr. Oscar Kohnstamm (1871-1917).JPG with the same image and with further informations. --Quedel (talk) 06:59, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep - just change the license. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 06:17, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Into what? --Quedel (talk) 10:44, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

{{PD-Old}} or {{PD-anon-70}} or something like that. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 11:54, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@PD-anon: We have no evidence “that the author's name (e.g., the original photographer, portrait painter) was not published with a claim of copyright in conjunction with the image within 70 years of its original publication.” To the contary we nearly know some possible authors.

@PD-old: not really possible since the authorship is only a guess. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 00:35, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Because it is more than 70 years published (first date in the year 1906) the rigth one is: Template:Bild-PD-§134 {{PD-anon-70}} - --Groth-Pfeifer (talk) 19:52, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

§134 is only a german template for works of a juristic person - here is no juristic person named (it is anonym as you say). PD-anon-70 isn't usable, see Saibo (no evidence of published anonym). And to say further: it isn't a well behaviour, to upload again and again the same pictures (that were deleted because of missing permission) and changing some informations as long as it will kept. There are more than 30 pictures uploaded in the last year to that topic that have to be deleted because there are not Public-Domain. --Quedel (talk) 20:19, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Jcb (talk) 13:16, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Because its a wrong file. The name into the image should be "bajotierra de Narnia", instead of "esquma geográfico del mundo de Aslan". The file sohuld be deleted Danie1996 (talk) 22:53, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All you need to do is add {{badname|File:Es-Bajo tierra de Narnia.png}} to the image page... AnonMoos (talk) 13:14, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kept. Jcb (talk) 13:18, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Image is only free for non-commercial use until 70 years following the architect's death per COM:FOP#Iceland. Architect was Ingimundur Sveinsson, who is alive.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:53, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep The building (what building? there are a lot buildings there) do not "comprise the principal motif in a photograph". Trycatch (talk) 22:56, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep Agreed. There's a number of buildings, and no one is clearly the main motif of the photograph.--Prosfilaes (talk) 04:17, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kept. - no infringement of architect copyright - Jcb (talk) 13:29, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

mage is only free for non-commercial use until 70 years following the architect's death per COM:FOP#Iceland. Architect was Ingimundur Sveinsson, who is alive.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:54, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kept. - no infringement of architect copyright - Jcb (talk) 13:23, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

mage is only free for non-commercial use until 70 years following the architect's death per COM:FOP#Iceland. Architect was Ingimundur Sveinsson, who is alive.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:55, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep architecture elements are de minimis, and do not "comprise the principal motif in a photograph". Trycatch (talk) 22:58, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kept. - no infringement of architect copyright - Jcb (talk) 13:23, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

mage is only free for non-commercial use until 70 years following the architect's death per COM:FOP#Iceland. Architect was Ingimundur Sveinsson, who is alive.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:55, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

•  Keep unidentifiable glass structure --Justass (talk) 23:04, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kept. - no infringement of architect copyright - Jcb (talk) 13:24, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]