Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2011/01/24

the file is the photo of a person and so is not realistically useful for an educational purpose Gennaro.cappelluti (talk) 01:32, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

•  Comment delete it off your talk page at Wikipedia, and it will be unquestionably suitable for a speedy deletion.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:53, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I have just deleted it from my talk page. What should I do now for getting a speedy deletion? I would like to delete everything connected with File:GennaroCappelluti.jpg on Wikimedia and File:Gennaro.Cappelluti.jpg on Wikipedia. Moreover I'd like to rename my Wikimedia user account Gennaro.cappelluti into Jek77. Please tell me how I can do all this. Thanks.

---

Deleted. Amada44  ^{talk to me} 12:52, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Author request. Better version exists here: File:Gardenology.org-IMG 0436 rbgs10dec.jpg --RaffiKojian (talk) 10:56, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

---

Deleted. Amada44  ^{talk to me} 12:50, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

License is clearly false. The uploader could not publish this into PD. Miraceti (talk) 06:30, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

---

Deleted, clear derivative work; uploader not the copyright holder. Infrogmation (talk) 17:04, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

License is clearly false. The uploader could not publish this into PD. Miraceti (talk) 06:30, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Copyright violation. Delete. -jkb- (talk) 17:26, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

---

Deleted, derivative of non-free content; recent Swiss stamps are under copyright Infrogmation (talk) 17:30, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

“Copyright © 2006 David Monniaux” in the file description page does not correspond with the free licenses. Leyo 13:57, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it does. What's the problem ? David.Monniaux (talk) 17:15, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

---

 Kept, yes it does. Rama (talk) 16:49, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

gisjwjdcf 2.98.201.132 16:14, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

•  speedy keep --Eusebius (talk) 16:23, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

---

Kept. No motivation given. Jean-Fred (talk) 16:38, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

fair use license, although first was released under CC --Màñü飆¹5 ^talk 03:29, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Symbol taken from the English Wiki (Belarusian Scout Association.svg). I do not know how to write the license. Please do not delete, and edit the license. Thanks in advance--Gruszecki (talk) 11:58, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That file is hosted under Fair Use in the English Wikipedia, it, or its derivative works, cannot be uploaded here. --Màñü飆¹5 ^talk 12:54, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And nothing can be done? :( --Gruszecki (talk) 13:30, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely nothing... We don't allow Fair Use here. --Màñü飆¹5 ^talk 14:48, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How annoying --Gruszecki (talk) 15:22, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

---

Deleted. Masur (talk) 07:08, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy request by author/uploader changed to normal deletion request for discussion Snowmanradio (talk) 13:58, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep file, because it is potentially useful. It is education to have a range of images of birds seen from different angles, in different situations, and doing different things on commons. Snowmanradio (talk) 13:45, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete: I requesting this image be deleted. I am the creator and author (and at the time of the image being taken, the owner of the bird). The image was only being used for decoration on my userpage (no other pages) and after being renamed without my permission or note, and being told on COM:AN that a revert wasn't happening, I just want it deleted. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 13:46, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your request is being discussed as a normal file for deletion discussion. Please note that creative commons licences are non-revocable. Further, asking for a file to be deleted wastes editors time that have processed the file since upload. Snowmanradio (talk) 13:53, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Being that I am the only one that has touched the image (besides your move) and a couple bots, I don't quite see how I am wasting editors' time. Also, since it was, previously, just sitting on my userpage for decoration, I fail to see how it is any use now. It isn't that great of a picture, it shows a wall and some of decorations behind it, so it wouldn't be useable on any en.Wiki article. It would be replaced for another, better image. This is a simple case of "author requests deletion, admin hits delete button". - NeutralHomer • Talk • 14:02, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I identified the parrot, added relevant categories, completely rewrote the image description, and moved the file to a commons approved name. In doing this I made the file usable for the general commons user. Snowmanradio (talk) 14:07, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• A simple note to me on en.Wiki (per the message on my Commons talkpage) could have given you the information a lot faster, also would have let you know, I would have probably perfered you not do that. But still, it is now used by no one, nadda, zero people. It was used for decoration only. Even after your rename, it was still used for decoration on my userpage and only there. On the "Quaker Parrot" page (on en.Wiki) (which redirects to "Monk Parakeet" actually) there are PLENTY of MUCH better pictures. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 14:14, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Commons files have many other uses in addition to being shown on the wikipedias. It is highly likely that a number of commons users have viewed the parrot category and the file. Commons benefits from a range of bird photographs with the birds doing different things with photographs from different angles. Snowmanradio (talk) 14:20, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Likely, perhaps, but this was an image (that I am the author to and still have some form of rights to under CC-SA 3.0) and am requesting it's deletion. I requested the deletion of an image on en.Wiki...it was done in under 5 minutes. No questions, no discussion, no one called my home, no money down, it was just done. So, I don't see why this one is such a big idea, when another editor (an admin) has said it is low resolution (so not that great) and it isn't article quality (so it isn't going up anywhere), it is just going to sit here. Plus, oh, I don't want it here. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 14:25, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• It seems to me that an administrator has already declined to remove this image saying it might be useful following the discussion you started on the administrators noticeboard. I think it is time to wait for the opinions of other reviewers. Snowmanradio (talk) 14:36, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What was said was "it could be useful". Could being the word there. Doesn't mean it still can't be deleted. On en.Wiki we have a rule I think works nicely here. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Give it a look-see, I think you will find it quite enlightening in this situation. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 14:56, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• See Commons:Ownership_of_pages_and_files#Deletion - "If you upload an image but then decide that you don't want it to be on Commons any more, then you have the right to list it at Commons:Deletion requests, and the other users there may sympathise with you as the uploader. However, if the consensus is to keep the image, it will be kept, and you have no special right to protest about this.". Snowmanradio (talk) 22:06, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Even though the file appears to be properly licensed, the author is requesting deletion. There are 76 files of this type of bird. I don't think that deleting this one will have much of an impact. Whether or not the file was renamed without permission is, in my opinion, irrelevant. A note at the uploader's page would have been polite though.--Rockfang (talk) 15:02, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, could be useful to somebody, and "someone renamed my picture" is not generally considered a criterion for deletion. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:06, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: No, the reason for deletion is what we call at en.Wiki "db-author". - NeutralHomer • Talk • 15:09, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• See Commons:Ownership_of_pages_and_files#Deletion - "If an image uploaded by you is renamed and deleted (e.g. from DSC123456.jpg to Eiffel_tower_by_night.jpg) you have no special right to protest about this." Snowmanradio (talk) 22:03, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you. This can be marked closed or resolved. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 16:38, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• At this juncture there is no consensus to delete this file. I think that the unexpected deletion of the file may have been a mistake and can be disregarded. Discussion can continue. Snowmanradio (talk) 19:26, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per uploader request. There are plenty of alternate images. — Huntster (t @ c) 20:38, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• There is no consensus to delete. Pre-mature non-admin closure of discussion was presumably in error, so discussion re-opened. See Commons:Deletion_guidelines#Regular_deletion - "In general, requests can be closed by an administrator after seven days." Snowmanradio (Snowmanradio) 21:49, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• No, I was not mistaken, and I don't appreciate the refactoring. I completely understand what you posted, but the image has already been deleted, so this is nothing more than a housekeeping closure. It is one of those non-general situations, regardless of the controversial nature of things (since the image is deleted). If you wish to contest the deletion of the image, take it to Commons:Undeletion requests and refer back to this discussion. Do not re-open this specific request again, please, as nothing more can be accomplished here. — Huntster (t @ c) 05:02, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

---

 Deleted, — Huntster (t @ c) 05:02, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

copyvio: image of architectural work of Yuri Sheverdyaev,([1]) who died in 2000 ([2]). There is no FOP in Russia ([3]), and Russian law is applied retroactively to Soviet works ([4]). Should be category "undelete in 2071/75". -- Fernrohr (talk) 20:52, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Excellent! Except that Sheverdyaev's block, which according to the link, is set along Nikitsky Lane, is not visible from this angle (55°45′34.13″N 37°36′43.06″E / 55.7594806°N 37.6119611°E / 55.7594806; 37.6119611). The whole facade visible in this pic (Tverskaya St, Gazetny Lane) is Rehrberg's work, hence speedy keep. I told ya before, do some background research and please don't use wikis as "sources". There's plenty of printed RS on the subject. But, anyway, your turn to Sheverdyaev is highly commendable. Next stop, Obolensky. NVO (talk) 03:54, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

---

Kept. Wrong request. The building on the photograph is by w:Ivan Rerberg who died 1932. A.S. 14:40, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

same file is already present Odissifan (talk) 13:47, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

---

Deleted. Exact or scaled-down duplicate: File:Masako Ono Odissi.jpg -- Common Good (talk) 19:16, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

major copyright violation Kenmayer (talk) 14:58, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

---

Deleted. Common Good (talk) 19:22, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Eigenner samenerguss.JPG Peppi1 (talk) 13:08, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• As the uploader (Peppi1) cannot say why, I would delete it because we have better videos showing the ejaculation.  Delete. --Yikrazuul (talk) 18:49, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
•  Keep no deletion reason given. @Yikrazuul: such editorial decision is not Commons' job. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 20:25, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am very interested what user:High Contrast now gives as reason... --Saibo (Δ) 15:44, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

---

Deleted. Out of project scope: Replaceable and low quality pornographic content --High Contrast (talk) 18:38, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the encyclopedic value of a sleeping child? I assume this image to be outside the Commons project scope. 80.187.106.188 18:35, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Any article related to bedtime reading or sleeping children would seem relevant. I suspect the problem is that this photograph includes a child, I doubt the same objection would be raised for a woman in a bikini sleeping on a beach or the multitude of photos in Category:Sleeping men. --Fæ (talk) 20:33, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

---

Kept. Perfectly good image Herby ^{talk thyme} 17:22, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is no evidence of permission by the photographer T. Gill; the inclusion of the OTRS ticket in a user template User:EmilEikS/Template:Southerly Clubs is extraordinary trusting. Pieter Kuiper (talk) 23:44, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

---

Kept. - the permission issue has been resolved, a link to the specific entry of the ticket has been placed at the image description page - Jcb (talk) 22:11, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Out of scope. Unused and uncategorised since July 2006 UrLunkwill (talk) 16:02, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

---

Deleted. George Chernilevsky ^talk 17:00, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Out of scope. Unused and uncategorised since November 2008. UrLunkwill (talk) 16:32, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

---

Deleted. George Chernilevsky ^talk 17:02, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Out of scope. Unused and uncategorised since November 2008. UrLunkwill (talk) 16:32, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

---

Deleted. George Chernilevsky ^talk 17:03, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unused private photo. Uncategorised since April 2009. UrLunkwill (talk) 16:37, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

•  Delete per nom. Infrogmation (talk) 17:21, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

---

Deleted. George Chernilevsky ^talk 17:04, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bad quality, plenty of alternatives Yikrazuul (talk) 18:11, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

•  Delete My eyes! The colors, they burn! Also per nom. DMacks (talk) 21:36, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

---

Deleted. George Chernilevsky ^talk 17:05, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a Funicular, is a cable car (I made a mistake naming this file. sorry. Alejo dice (talk) 01:30, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Use the {{Rename}} to select an accurate name for the image, and it can be moved. No need to delete, thanks. Infrogmation (talk) 16:53, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

---

Kept. Renamed File:Teleferico Parque Santiago.jpg by Prashanthns Captain-tucker (talk) 09:58, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This photo linked to article has been speedy deleted in Chinese Wikipedia. Ellery (talk) 03:41, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

---

Deleted. Out of scope. Captain-tucker (talk) 10:03, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

links 76.173.199.200 03:12, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

---

Kept. Esby (talk) 21:23, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

because it violates my rights Premana'th pascal wilson (talk) 19:40, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

---

Nonsense/Incomprehensible deletion request. --PaterMcFly (talk) 13:51, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Poor quality; replaced by File:Dihydrogen hexachloroplatinate (IV) hexahydrate.svg. Leyo 10:11, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

•  Delete Per nom. --Yikrazuul (talk) 17:57, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
•  Delete Reubot (talk) 22:51, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

---

Deleted. Ed (Edgar181) 16:34, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Picture is a very poor representation of the subject Off2riorob (talk) 21:59, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

---

Deleted. Per nom (author) -- Common Good (talk) 19:52, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2005 US Statue COM:FOP#United States is not OK for Statues Teofilo (talk) 19:25, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Source for the date : http://www.jacobsschool.ucsd.edu/news/news_releases/release.sfe?id=376 Teofilo (talk) 19:44, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

---

Deleted.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:20, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2005 US Statue COM:FOP#United States is not OK for Statues Teofilo (talk) 19:29, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

---

Deleted.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:19, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2005 US Statue COM:FOP#United States is not OK for Statues Teofilo (talk) 19:30, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

---

Deleted.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:20, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2004 US Statue COM:FOP#United States is not OK for Statues. Source for the date : http://ucsdnews.ucsd.edu/newsrel/general/100thBirthdaySeuss.asp and http://siris-artinventories.si.edu/ipac20/ipac.jsp?session=12N5O9M704916.77484&profile=ariall&source=~!siartinventories&view=subscriptionsummary&uri=full=3100001~!364024~!3&ri=2&aspect=Browse&menu=search&ipp=20&spp=20&staffonly=&term=Dimond-Cates,+Lark+Grey,+sculptor.&index=AUTHOR&uindex=&aspect=Browse&menu=search&ri=2 Teofilo (talk) 19:37, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

---

Deleted.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:21, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"own work" is at least doubtfull abf «Cabale!» 20:26, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

---

Deleted. Stolen from http://enceleb.com/2010/09/sara-maldonado-besa-mujer-en-boca/. --Martin H. (talk) 18:22, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

i the right full owner and the person in the picture did not give permission for it to be used, and i dont like it Wizzeros (talk) 20:29, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Subject of a work has no control over it, other than those granted by personality rights (I added the {{Personality}} tag). Are you the person who uploaded this image, User:Rosengurtt? Please clarify. Dcoetzee (talk) 11:49, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Keep

The photographer, not the subject, is usually the owner of the rights to an image. There is no evidence here that the photographer has transferred his rights.

While China (where this was taken) restricts the right of photographers to publish pictures of identifiable people, that applies only to "regular people" which Miss Belize is certainly not.

As a general rule, we tend to keep multiple images of notable people, and tend to ignore whether the subject likes a particular image or not.

We have no evidence that Wizzeros (talk · contribs) is in fact Felicita_Arzu.

     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:54, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If the requester is the depicted person, a courtesy deletion is justified, IMHO. --Túrelio (talk) 11:55, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Wizzeros does not appear to be claiming that he is the person in the picture, his comment was that the person in the picture did not give permission for its use, which is irrelevant really. The question is down solely to whether or not Wizzeros is the owner and whether or not the uploaded file has the correct permissions. The359 (talk) 18:14, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

---

Kept. According to [5], the nominator has withdrawn their nomination. Dcoetzee (talk) 19:00, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This logo is (C) 2008 by the Universidad Fray Luca Paccioli (see bottom of http://www.uflp.edu.mx) , and there is no evidence the uploader has permission to release it under a free license Ianezz (talk) 09:28, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

---

Deleted. Per nom. Podzemnik (talk) 09:15, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This logo is (C) 2008 by the Universidad Fray Luca Paccioli (see bottom of http://www.uflp.edu.mx) , and there is no evidence the uploader has permission to release it under a free license Ianezz (talk) 09:30, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

---

Deleted. Per nom. Podzemnik (talk) 09:15, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No COM:FOP for statues in the United States. This one unveiled in 2001 so no PD tags apply. Wknight94 ^talk 13:12, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

•  Delete derivative work of copyrighted sculpture. MKFI (talk) 20:47, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

---

Deleted. Per nom. Podzemnik (talk) 09:18, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is no evidence that the uploader is Pedro Ramírez Vázquez (the author of the logo, see http://www.uam.mx/identidad/emblemaylema/index.html), and there's no evidence that the logo is available under a free license from the rightholder Ianezz (talk) 09:16, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

---

Deleted.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:10, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

New upload, size change InsightWAVE (talk) 09:39, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

---

If you mean to upload a new, higher resolution, of this image, do it over this image by clicking on

• Upload a new version of this file

below File history.

If you intend any other upload, please use a different file name. In any case, this image is in use and may not be deleted for quality or technical reasons.

Kept.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:14, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Written on source : "(c) by DESERTEC Foundation You are welcome to disseminate the content herein by indicating the source." not enought, it's like a CC-BY-ND. Need a OTRS agreement, or delete. --MGuf (d) 11:44, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

When the picture was released in 2009 the website stated (like you can see on a 2008 webarchive snapshot):

"Use of Contents

The whole contents of this website are licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike 2.5 License.

You are permitted (and welcome) to use any of the contents of this website but please acknowledge the source of any such information."

As you know Creative Commons Licences are irrevocable, so the licence formatting for this picture was right in 2009 and thus is still valid. Therefore I request to stop the Deletion request at once. --Chstdu (talk) 21:34, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, perfect. It's necesary to write it on the page, to be ok with any future question about licence. ----MGuf (d) 21:54, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

---

Kept.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:14, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't appear until 1997: source [6]. Thus it is copyrighted (cf. w:File:Cape Breton Island flag 1990s.png) Magog the Ogre (talk) 13:00, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The site provides usage of the picture provided the following:

• You can freely use any material copyrighted by the contributors of the website, provided that:
• you limit your use to a maximum of 5% of the images or content of the website
• you quote the author
• you quote the website (as "FOTW Flags Of The World website at http://flagspot.net/flags/")
• you do not alter in any way the images or the content of the text
• you use the material for non-commercial and non-political purposes only
• if you distribute our material by a non-Internet way (e.g., floppy disks or CD-ROM) you must add this copyright text on every copy of the medium
• if you distribute our materials by a non-Internet way (e.g., floppy disks or CD-ROM) you cannot sell these media
• if you want to mirror the Web, read these additional rules
• If you want to reuse FOTW GeoIndex maps and boundaries' data, read these rules--Harfang (talk) 20:42, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Even if that is the case, it clearly runs afoul of commons guidelines that require all images to allow derivatives and commercial usage (Commons:Licensing). Sorry; not trying to pick on you; just saying. Magog the Ogre (talk) 01:25, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

---

All of the following violate our rules:

• you limit your use to a maximum of 5% of the images or content of the website
• you quote the website (as "FOTW Flags Of The World website at http://flagspot.net/flags/") [we give author attribution, not source attribution]
• you do not alter in any way the images or the content of the text
• you use the material for non-commercial and non-political purposes only
• if you distribute our materials by a non-Internet way (e.g., floppy disks or CD-ROM) you cannot sell these media

Deleted.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:19, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt that this is the own work by the uploader: low photo resolution and no EXIF informations. In addition a strange licence choice 80.187.106.103 13:45, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

---

Deleted.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:21, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

see w:Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2011 January 24#File:ElmiraFromJerusalemHill.jpg Magog the Ogre (talk) 13:53, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

---

Deleted.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:22, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The PD-because rational is nonsense. The original site, visible in the webarchive says, that the images have been collected from various sources, scans from magazines etc. They are not free, the website owner can not grant any permission for commercial reuse. Maybe for personal use for your own website under fair use but thats not the scope of Commons. Martin H. (talk) 14:22, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

From the same source: File:Jaymz kirk88c.jpg and File:James HetfieldS&M.jpg. --Martin H. (talk) 14:23, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

---

Deleted.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:28, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Military Battles on the Egyptian Front was published in 2002. We do not have proof provided that this was ever published before 1961. Neither did the uploader provide any information on who took the photo, whether the name was listed in the book or it was anonymous; as such, we can't maintain {{PD-old-50}}. Magog the Ogre (talk) 14:29, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

---

Deleted.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:29, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unknown group of people (sportsteam?) looks like personal content. Unused -- Deadstar (msg) 14:57, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

---

Deleted.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:29, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

see w:File:Ranjeva.jpg. I am fairly sure this is copyrighted by the UN (it's not an "official document") Magog the Ogre (talk) 15:20, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

---

Deleted.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:29, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely to by own work: resolution typical for photoservices like Flickr, missing EXIF. EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:11, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

---

Deleted.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:30, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is my photo, and I do not like how big the file is. I can resubmit a smaller photo, but this makes it a little out of hand. Please delete it. Thank you. Maarisssa (talk) 16:13, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

•  Comment Images can easily be displayed at smaller sizes using the thumb|(number of pixels size desired here, eg "300")px function. See Wikipedia:Images#Forced_image_size for details if you're not familiar with it. I don't think there is a need to delete full sized image. -- Infrogmation (talk) 17:11, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

---

Kept. per Infrogmation, also, it is Commons policy to have the largest possible images.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:31, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is a nice holiday pose, but I cannot see any rationale for this being in scope in terms of possible educational value. Obviously the same argument can be applied to almost all photos in Category:Women with navel piercings, so perhaps this photo should set a precident for that mostly OOS category. Fæ (talk) 16:30, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

•  Keep Good illustration of fashion. (I agree that pretty women in swimsuits tend to be proportionally overrepresented, but that is a cultural bias much wider than Wikimedia Commons.) -- Infrogmation (talk) 17:18, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
•  Keep as per Infrogmation. My only sense is the picture should be deleted if the person IN the picture objects; if this hasn't happened, why delete it? I'm a Wikipedian trying to improve pictures to the article Lake Erie and am TRYING to get pictures of people in it but the pictures I uploaded from Flickr (which have people) -- well I don't understand the complex copyright issues. 2.0 vs 2.5. I would LOVE to get pictures of bathers around Lake Erie, smiling and beautiful, but it's very difficult finding relevant pictures on the Commons.--174.57.147.94 13:13, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

---

Kept.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:32, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Image from Amsterdam, local archives. year and creator unknown. yet licensed with PD-US. Incorrectly licensed. -- Deadstar (msg) 16:37, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also File:Keizersgracht143Gobelins.jpg. This search yields both images. No information on the first file, but second one is dated ca 1914, with author Johannes Baptista Bickhoff (fotograaf) (who died in 1968), it states "unknown" for copyright holder. -- Deadstar (msg) 16:48, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

---

Deleted.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:33, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1947 photo taken from website with copyright notice which gives no source nor copyright info on this particular photo, unknown author, no reason evident to assume "PD-Old". Infrogmation (talk) 16:43, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

---

Deleted.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:33, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

seems not to be PD-textlogo abf «Cabale!» 18:46, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

---

Deleted.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:33, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Image of artwork of en:Eduard Uspensky, who is still alive. There is no FOP in Russia ([7]), and Russian law is applied retroactively to Soviet works ([8]). -- Fernrohr (talk) 19:38, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

---

Deleted.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:34, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

in my eyes not a (PD-) textlogo abf «Cabale!» 19:56, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

---

Deleted.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:34, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

book cover from w:File:Loeb Classical Library.JPG; I am quite sure that Harvard University Press prints copyright notices on their books. Magog the Ogre (talk) 20:18, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

May be, book cover is not under copyright? What is written about copyright in books of that series?--Demetrius60 (talk) 08:50, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

---

Deleted.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:34, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This photo is has no source and is overdue for deletion based on that. Aaaccc (talk), 23 January 2011 (UTC)

---

Deleted.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:35, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The photo is copyrighted by Scouts Canada and not by Mr. Kent therefore it is a violation. Aaaccc (talk), 23 January 2011 (UTC)

---

Deleted.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:36, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unclear copyright: If subject is the copyright holder, then there's no evidence of permission that he allowed to license under the currently stated license. --ZooFari 04:07, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright holder information has already been emailed --User talk:Canbrit01 01:42, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

---

Closed early as delete. This image was previously deleted as shown above and did not go through an undeletion request.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:53, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright violation. duplicate of Commons:Deletion_requests/Coat of arms of Western Sahara.svg. Delete --Flad (talk) 00:22, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User:Flad marked this for SPEEDY, however I moved this to nomination so it can be discussed. Flad clearly feels this file is copyrighted, but I reviewed the link above and see no proof of that. Also, as per that discussion, freely made versions are permissible. This version WAS freely made as part of a request on the Wikipedia-EN graphic lab. I therefore feel that it should be kept. I am however, willing to concede to the decision of the community.  Keep Fry1989 (talk) 01:30, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This file is the EXACT DUPLICATE of the image made in 2007 by User:Reisio, who tried to reupload it many times after it's deletion for copyright violation. --Flad (talk) 13:36, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep per Fry1989. Flad, why wasn't I notified? Bad move on your part.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 16:03, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The keeps in the original AfD far outweighed the deletes, both numerically and in substance.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 16:05, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep Would you please produce a copy, or even a mention, of the Sahrawi Republic's non-existing copyright law? Or the date they signed the Berne Convention? Not to mention that this is a coat of arms, so it's essentially a description that can have different interpretations, and each visualizer is entitled to the rights of their interpretation, including the Commons user who did this one. And not to mention that in the last DR, the compelling and convincing arguments were on the "keep" side. It's a shame that it was deleted in the first place. -- Orionist ★ talk 13:18, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep Its necessary to have a coat of arms of the SADR image, I think it's probably one of the few (if not the only one) government articles without it, and that made me think about NPOV by certain users to avoid the symbol.--HCPUNXKID (talk) 18:46, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree with the NPOV about Flad. His contributions regard mostly Morocco, and with SADR a disputed territory, I have questioned where or not he's neutral on this matter. I've had similar issues with users regarding Serbia & Kosovo. I'm not saying Flad IS being partial, but it has crossed my mind. Fry1989 (talk) 21:03, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Funny, that was my first thought.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 12:08, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So, I'm guessing that's a fifth keep? Fry1989 (talk) 00:20, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, I already voted keep above.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 13:56, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yes, silly me :P You'll have to forgive me, I have a pair of twins at work XD. Fry1989 (talk) 21:38, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

---

Kept Jcb (talk) 12:15, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No proof this is the original work of the up-loader, more likely is it is a derivative work of the groups logo drawn or traced into a svg file LGA _talk^edits 01:14, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep Per the last DR and COM:COA which provides for self-drawn representations. Fry1989 ^eh? 01:16, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is still a copyvio of the original drawing and should be deleted, none of the relevant countries that concern this image have PD for CoA's and the organisation is to new for it to be PD due to time. LGA _talk^edits 01:27, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Of a non-existent country with non-existent copyright laws??? The world does not recognize this country, Morocco does not recognize this country, so tell me under just what country's laws would the copyright for this be recognized? This has already been established in the last two previous DRs for the image. More importantly, it was a graphic lab request and the uploader's creation qualifies under COM:COA. Your nomination adds no new information. Fry1989 ^eh? 01:29, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It would be covered by the copyright law of Morocco if it was designed in a part of the territory that Morocco claims as it's own; it would also be covered by US copyright as the commons servers are are located in the US. This is not a heraldic coat of arms, but a logo and should be treated no different to that. Fair use applies and should be on a project that allows for that and should be sourced and licensed to the real creators and not the uploader.LGA _talk^edits 02:12, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Except that as Morocco does not recognize this break-away territory's independence, the likelihood of them recognizing the copyrights on any of it's symbols or documents is about zero. The US also does not recognize this country or any of it's laws. It's also not up to you to decide if this qualifies as a coat of arms or not. It certainly contains heraldic elements and styles to it, and some juridictions even call their emblems "coats of arms" when they clearly aren't heraldic in nature (Mali and the US state of Ohio are examples of this). Lastly, I don't think it's right of you to completely ignore any of the effort of Reisio in recreating this whatever it is, and just call them "the uploader". It's rather obvious to me, but I'll leave it to everyone else to !vote. Mine however remains as per the previous DRs and COM:COA. Fry1989 ^eh? 02:19, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is there proof that Morocco has amended it's copyright law to excluded works created by or in the disputed territory ? from a political point of view such a move is unlikely as it would be a signal that Morocco no longer claims jurisdiction over the territory. This is no different to a logo, I can find no source for a blazon, there is no indication that this image was produced from one rather than a copy of an existing visual reproduction and thus a copyvio. LGA _talk^edits 03:47, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Again, whether it is a "coat of arms" or a "logo" is not up to you to decide. Would you tell the Government of Mali that their coat of arms really is not? Would you tell the Government of Ohio that their coat of arms really is not? Leave it at that. Fry1989 ^eh? 03:53, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Calling a logo a coat of arms does not remove copyright protection from it, take this logo, if I was to create a new image by tracing it or using a description and upload it as File:Airbus coat of arms.svg that new image would still be a copyvio of the original Airbus image even though I had called it a CoA. There is no evidence that this image was the original work of the uploader and not a reproduction of someone else's work with no evidence of consent for that reproduction. LGA _talk^edits 04:16, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You just don't get it do you. I never said anything about that, I simply said you have absolutely no right to decide for us whether this is a coat of arms or a logo, and hence whether or not COM:COA would apply. As that seems to be part of your rather silly reasonings to delete this, I'm rightfully correcting you on that misconception. You don't get to say what this is, to speak for all of us or the Sahrawi government or anyone else, and to pretend that you're the supreme authority on such things, so stop it. Fry1989 ^eh? 04:31, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you ask the Sahrawi government to provide consent via COM:OTRS then, my rational then is moot. LGA _talk^edits 04:38, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your point, at least regarding whether this is a coat of arms or not and how that affects the relevancy of COM:COA, is moot anyway and I'm calling you out on it and will continue to do so wherever you position yourself as an authority on things which you are not. Fry1989 ^eh? 04:46, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep Fry1989's arguments make more sense.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 04:58, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

---

 Kept,  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 00:57, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Probably Piatnik brand, but other modern French tarots are very similar." So this is a copy of a modern tarot deck; why is it in the public domain? Prosfilaes (talk) 01:47, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The uploader won't be around to defend or explain the image, since that account was an alias of Wikinger, who has been blocked. File:20071103100945!Tarotcards.jpg is the same as an earlier version of this file... AnonMoos (talk) 04:39, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, the clothing styles and domestic furnishings depicted in the 1 through 21 "trump" cards appear to belong to the late 19th-century, while the designs on the 1 through 9 of clubs, diamonds, spades, and hearts are probably not copyrightable. The English Wikipedia article "Tarot Nouveau" dates it to "late 19th century"/"early 1900s" France, and it's not clear to me that anonymous/corporate works first published more than 95 years ago (1915 or earlier) still have copyright protection (some templates, such as Template:Anonymous-EU Template:PD-EU-no author disclosure, suggest only 70 years after first publication). AnonMoos (talk) 09:03, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No argument about the non-face cards. But (a) how do we know the pictures are old, instead of just being in an old style, and (b) how do we know they're anonymous? It would be easy to say that Rider-Waite deck, from the same era, was anonymous-corporate from a spread like this, but it has very well-known authors.--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:47, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The authorship of the RWS deck has been very well-known for 80 years or so, but the authorship of this one isn't, to judge from en:Tarot Nouveau... AnonMoos (talk) 16:13, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

---

Deleted: No evidence has been provided that they are old Jcb (talk) 12:21, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

•  Delete This is an identifiable person photgraphed in a private place, consent required. Tomascastelazo (talk) 03:18, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

•  Comment The face of the person has been blurred, but the original remains and can therefore be used. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 16:40, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

•  Comment Did she give consent to be photographed? What is the law on such cases in Mexico? -- Infrogmation (talk) 16:52, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• *  Comment The file is in violation of Commons policy on identifiable people [[9]]. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 16:59, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Which particular part of the policy? Again, it seems to me that the main point is if the person did or did not give their consent for the photo. -- Infrogmation (talk) 17:27, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Actually, several parts of the policy, I provided the link above, follow it and read it, easier than to repost here the entire policy. It is not that long and it is very clear. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 17:36, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

---

Kept: relevant questions in this DR remained unanswered by nominator Jcb (talk) 12:25, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

source is "imagem da internet" (image from internet) the uploader probably took it from another website, we can't verify if it's under a free license --Màñü飆¹5 ^talk 03:40, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

---

Kept: PD-textlogo Jcb (talk) 12:27, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

PD-US-1989 seems to be invalid because, from what I've read, the signal containing the footage was only broadcast, and the copyright holder never published it because copies were not distributed to a group of persons for further broadcast. Thus, the broadcast was merely "a public performance or display of a work[, which] does not of itself constitute publication" (17 USC 101). Consequently, since it was not published under the authority of the copyright holder, it could not lose its copyright due to being published without notice. (I'm not sure how fixation plays into all this, though. If it was never fixed by the author, then perhaps anyone who created a fixed copy by taping could hold a copyright, so we would have to see whether the creator of the videotape has freely licensed this image. This is all predicated, of course, on the copyright holder not fixing his broadcast simultaneously with its transmission, which has yet to be determined.) RJaguar3 (talk) 06:40, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

•  Keep Copies were sent to the WTTW tower for further broadcast; he didn't have his own tower.--Prosfilaes (talk) 08:35, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
•  Keep per Prosfilaes. --Gyrobo (talk) 02:43, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
•  Comment: The work was prerecorded (in fixed form) prior to broadcast: It has two scenes, with the same person, and no transition time between. It seems pretty obvious that the creator is the person who put it in fixed form and intended it for broadcast, considering the comments about interrupting "Chuck Swirsky" and "the World's Greatest Newspaper nerds", and it actually did broadcast over two unrelated stations on November 22, 1987. I think the question to determine here is: What is the publication date (if any) of a work recorded in fixed form prior to broadcast, then actually broadcast with the consent of the creator, then not offered for syndication, sale, or other distribution? That seems like the situation for the majority of television programming prior to the 1990s, so surely there are copyright standards for it. --Closeapple (talk) 17:35, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Another couple of complications I just thought of in determining when or if a fixed form or publication happened:

  1. Is an unlawful act always treated as if it didn't happen? If not, is a person still precluded from claiming a legal advantage dependent on their own unlawful act? Can those who were not participants in the unlawful act (e.g. the public) still use it to claim a legal advantage (e.g. public domain) for themselves, to the disadvantage of the person who committed the unlawful act?
  2. Wasn't putting the work in fixed form (i.e. videotape) done with the intent to further an unlawful act? Does that make the act of putting it in fixed form also unlawful like the broadcast, and subject to the same questions above?

  --Closeapple (talk) 19:20, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

---

Kept: per Prosfilaes Jcb (talk) 12:30, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A flickr users derivative work based on a photo taken from the internet. Martin H. (talk) 13:31, 24 January 2011 (UTC) (Note: Possibly from the persons twitpic where it was used according to screens on this site. --Martin H. (talk) 13:37, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please desccribe the problem more in detail?

Slim Amamou(twitter-account:@slim404) stated today on twitter:

Tout ce que je publie est libre de droits y compris les photos et celles dans lesquelles j'apparais

Look here:

http://www.google.de/#hl=de&tbs=mbl:1,rtc:1,rtc_f:http_3//twitter.com/slim404/status/29549670820745216,mbl_sv:0,rtc_i:0977faa996bd58d4&q=slim404+libre+photos&aq=f&aqi=&oq=&tbo=u&fp=f07c00cb93c0f315

Could this be accepted ? --Peter Littmann (talk) 19:50, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why it shouldn't be acceptable, inasmuch as it was released under an appropriate Creative Commons license on Flickr. Beyond that, I can't say. Kencf0618 (talk) 05:50, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The question is, if the Creative Commons license is valid. The flickr user is not the sole owner but only copied the image from elsewhere, so the license is not valid. Maybe the flickrvio is now later legitimated by the twitter release. I dont speak french but from google translation I think the permission is not sufficient. There is a significant difference bettween something beeing publicly available and our COM:PS#Required_licensing_terms, e.g. modifications, e.g. commercial reuse and/or redistribution or even redistribution with commercial gains. Libre des droits is royalty free but it has not much to do with free content since it is a one-time right and does not include offering of the image under the royalty free license to others. If possible there should be an Creative Commons release for this particular photo. --Martin H. (talk) 13:19, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Royalty-free is not a one-time right, it's a perpetual right to use an image in almost any way you want after paying a one-time fee, without paying royalties to the owner. It is usually connected to licenses with different levels of extended use and corresponding fees. However, this term (royalty-free) is meaningless outside the stock photo/video/audio industry, especially when there's no initial fee. And without a connected license, it would mean what it says on the can: you don't have to pay royalties to the owner, nothing more. I've seen many people confuse "royalty-free" with "free" in the sense we use around here. And I highly suspect that anyone not working in graphic design/media buying/professional photography would know what it actually means, especially in its French form which means literally "free of rights", and could be only an unfortunate choice of words. -- Orionist ★ talk 23:37, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

---

Deleted: "libre de droits" is not a valid free license Jcb (talk) 12:37, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

delete as per [10] --~ Fernrohr (talk) 15:34, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep There is nothing protectable on the picture. A.S. 19:36, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

•  Keep - Fernrohr you promised to stop with this behaviour but now I see that you step over your promises so easily.--Avala (talk) 21:49, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Avala: bad advice. As soon as someone reminds Fernrohr about her "behaviour" she logs off and switches to a very boring duralex act. NVO (talk) 08:58, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

---

Kept Jcb (talk) 12:39, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

remove as per [11] --~ Fernrohr (talk) 15:39, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep per [12]. --Kaganer (talk) 16:05, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Honey, isn't it sweet that you have finally traded real architecture for some Brezhnevite chandeliers? You seem to be too mercurial for someone who pretends to be a Hessen granny. I told ya, you'll end up blasting Sheverdyaev and ... dare I say ... Obolensky. Go for it. Yikes! NVO (talk) 19:10, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

---

Kept Jcb (talk) 12:42, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

These images were all uploaded by User:Mrfafal:

• File:Maciej Tataj.jpeg - Copyright violation from W.Sierakowski Foto Sport
• File:5bff92fce5.jpeg - I doubt own work

-- Common Good (talk) 19:43, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

---

Deleted. Most probably copyright violation. Podzemnik (talk) 09:20, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All files of User:Dr Doc dlcs. The file descriptions contain random links and category spam. I can not see the purpose of the images, either, and most are of terrible quality. --Sebari (talk) 20:54, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not all pictures are of terrible quality, but (given the entirely random parts of some of the pictures, of varying quality (!) etc.) I'm concerned about the copyright for some of them... why I tend to delete all of them anyways. But even if that weren't the case: Given the category SPAM, these pictures were clearly not uploaded in good faith to add to the project... but rather in order to either SPAM for Christian purposes or SPAM to make people upset about Christian purposes. I don't care which of the two: Please let's delete every single one of them. Commons is not a place for advertisement. --Ibn Battuta (talk) 22:30, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

---

Deleted.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:38, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• File:Benal2007jan3.jpg
• File:Mainbedroomduplex3 op 450x600.jpg
• File:Upsidecomplex2.jpg

Ununsed and uncategorized low quality pictures of unidentified holyday resorts, out of COM:SCOPE (and possible copyvio). --Ianezz (talk) 21:25, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

---

Deleted.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:39, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Renominating; Jcb added an OTRS ticket to the Southerly Clubs template User:EmilEikS/Template:Southerly Clubs (which I find a weird way of granting blanket permission), but this image needs permission from the photographer; I see no evidence for that. See http://www.bruno-gasperini.book.fr/galeries/portraits-beaute/769624 which carries a copyright sign. Pieter Kuiper (talk) 23:38, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep - you don't see the evidence, because you cannot access the ticket. The ticket contains a personal permission from the photographer - Jcb (talk) 12:09, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yeah, why do you find it a "weird way of granting blanket permission" while the history of the template clearly shows that you, Pieter Kuiper created this very template? Jcb (talk) 12:13, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I guess the weird thing is, if this ticket contains permission from this specific photographer, why is it applied (through the template) to all the images from the Southerly Clubs (most of which have probably nothing to do with this particular photographer). –Tryphon^☂ 13:37, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This ticket contains 35 entries from 4 months ago till now. Jcb (talk) 13:44, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The photographer Bruno Gasperini (France) is not a member of this Swedish club. These OTRS tickets is already seriously lacking in transparency, but by mixing up his permission in 35 entries (covering hundreds of uploads), you are making this absolutely intractable. From now on, this club can upload any image they find, and nobody will bother about making a DR. Just trust them. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:48, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If someone has any doubt about the validity of a ticket for a particular image, we have Commons:OTRS/Noticeboard. About this particular case: the ticket DOES contain a message from Bruno Gasperini. Jcb (talk) 17:22, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Does that message justify the {{PD-self}} licence by SergeWoodzing? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:45, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's wrong. I corrected it. Jcb (talk) 23:02, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Deletion request withdrawn. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 23:06, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks. Jcb (talk) 00:14, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

---

Kept. - withdrawn by nominator - Jcb (talk) 00:14, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• File:2010-10-29_(30)_Lachmöwe,_(Common)_black-headed_gull,_Larus_ridibundus,_Mainz_Winterhafen.JPG
• File:2010-10-29_(28)_Lachmöwe,_(Common)_black-headed_gull,_Larus_ridibundus,_Mainz_Winterhafen.JPG
• File:2010-10-29_(34)_Lachmöwe,_(Common)_black-headed_gull,_Larus_ridibundus,_Mainz_Winterhafen.JPG
• File:2010-10-29_(25)_Lachmöwe,_(Common)_black-headed_gull,_Larus_ridibundus,_Mainz_Winterhafen.JPG
• File:2010-10-29_(23)_Straßentaube,_Street_pigeon,_Columba_livia_f._domestica.JPG
• File:2010-10-29_(22)_Straßentaube,_Street_pigeon,_Columba_livia_f._domestica.JPG
• File:2010-10-29_(15)_bird.JPG
• File:2010-10-29_(12)_Hausente,_Domestic_duck,_Anas_Platyrhynchos_dom..JPG
• File:2010-10-29_(5)_Hausente,_Domestic_duck,_Anas_Platyrhynchos_dom..JPG
• File:2010-10-09_(9)_Libelle.JPG
• File:2010-10-06_Spinnennetz_Guntersblum_(7).JPG
• File:2010-10-03_(49)_Großer_Kohlweißling,_Cabbage_white_butterfly,_Pieris_brassicae_Guntersblum.JPG
• File:2010-10-03_(42)_Guntersblum.JPG
• File:2010-10-03_(37)_Gewöhnliche_Heidelibelle,_Vagrant_darter,_Sympetrum_vulgatum_Guntersblum.JPG
• File:2010-10-03_(31)_Gewöhnliche_Heidelibelle,_Vagrant_darter,_Sympetrum_vulgatum_Guntersblum.JPG
• File:2010-10-03_(16)_Großer_Kohlweißling,_Cabbage_white_butterfly,_Pieris_brassicae_Guntersblum.JPG
• File:2010-10-03_(11)_Guntersblum.JPG
• File:2010-10-03_(9)_Siebenpunkt,_Seven-spot_Ladybird,_Coccinella_septempunctata_Guntersblum.JPG
• File:2010-10-03_(4)_Guntersblum.JPG
• File:2010-09-23_(5)_Libelle.JPG
• File:2010-09-23_(4)_Libelle.JPG
• File:2010-09-23_(3)_Libelle.JPG
• File:2010-09-23_(2)_Libelle.JPG
• File:2010-09-21_Libelle.JPG
• File:2010-09-21_(5)_Libelle.JPG
• File:2010-09-21_(3)_Libelle.JPG
• File:2010-09-11_(47)_Insekt.JPG
• File:2010-09-11_(37)_Grashüpfer.JPG
• File:2010-09-11_(33)_Grashüpfer.JPG
• File:2010-09-11_(32)_Grashüpfer.JPG
• File:2010-09-11_(31)_Wespe.JPG
• File:2010-09-11_(19)_Libelle.JPG
• File:2010-09-11_(17)_Libelle.JPG
• File:2010-09-11_(15)_Libelle.JPG
• File:2010-09-11_(13)_Tagpfauenauge,_Peacock,_Inachis_io.JPG
• File:2010-09-11_(6)_Tagpfauenauge,_Peacock,_Inachis_io.JPG
• File:2010-09-11_(5)_Tagpfauenauge,_Peacock,_Inachis_io.JPG
• File:2010-09-11_(4)_Spinne.JPG
• File:2010-09-11_(2)_Siebenpunkt,_Seven-spot_Ladybird,_Coccinella_septempunctata,.JPG
• File:2010-08-20_(10)_Libelle.JPG
• File:2010-08-20_(8)_Libelle.JPG
• File:2010-08-20_(4)_Libelle.JPG
• File:2010-08-20_(3)_Libelle.JPG
• File:2010-08-10_(53)_Wanze.JPG
• File:2010-08-10_(49)_Wanze.JPG
• File:2010-08-10_(46)_Schmetterling.JPG
• File:2010-08-10_(44)_Schmetterling.JPG
• File:2010-08-10_(35)_Ochsenauge,_Meadow_brown,_Maniola_jurtina.JPG
• File:2010-08-10_(31)_Wanze.JPG
• File:2010-08-10_(29)_Wanze.JPG
• File:2010-08-10_(27)_Wanze.JPG
• File:2010-08-10_(25)_Siebenpunkt,_Seven-spot_Ladybird,_Coccinella_septempunctata.JPG
• File:2010-08-10_(22)_Streifenwanze,_(red_and_black)_striped_stink_bug,_Graphosoma_lineatum.JPG
• File:2010-08-10_(21)_Streifenwanze,_(red_and_black)_striped_stink_bug,_Graphosoma_lineatum.JPG
• File:2010-08-10_(16)_Libelle.JPG
• File:2010-08-10_(14)_Heuschrecke.JPG
• File:2010-08-10_(12)_Heuschrecke.JPG
• File:2010-08-10_(9)_Heuschrecke.JPG
• File:2010-08-10_(8)_Heuschrecke.JPG
• File:2010-08-10_(4)_Libelle.JPG
• File:2010-08-10_(2)_Libelle.JPG
• File:2010-08-07_(39)_Heuschrecke.JPG
• File:2010-08-07_(37)_Heuschrecke.JPG
• File:2010-08-07_(35)_Heuschrecke.JPG
• File:2010-08-07_(29)_Insekt.JPG
• File:2010-08-07_(28)_Spinne.JPG
• File:2010-08-07_(27)_Blutrote_Heidelibelle,_Ruddy_darter,_Sympetrum_sanguineum,_Laubenheim.JPG
• File:2010-08-07_(25)_Blutrote_Heidelibelle,_Ruddy_darter,_Sympetrum_sanguineum,_Laubenheim.JPG
• File:2010-08-07_(20)_Blutrote_Heidelibelle,_Ruddy_darter,_Sympetrum_sanguineum,_Laubenheim.JPG
• File:2010-08-07_(14)_Blutrote_Heidelibelle,_Ruddy_darter,_Sympetrum_sanguineum,_Laubenheim.JPG
• File:2010-08-07_(11)_Insekt.JPG
• File:2010-08-07_(10)_Insekt.JPG
• File:2010-08-07_(7)_Wasserfrosch,_Edible_frog,_Rana_esculenta,_Laubenheim.JPG
• File:Lachmöwe_2010-08-06_(66).JPG
• File:2010-08-06_(62)_Nilgans,_Egyptian_goose,_Alopochen_aegytiacus,_Ginsheim-Gustavsburg.JPG
• File:2010-08-06_(61)_Nilgans,_Egyptian_goose,_Alopochen_aegytiacus,_Ginsheim-Gustavsburg.JPG
• File:2010-08-06_(40)_Kornblume,_Cornflower,_Centaurea_cyanus_Ginsheim-Gustavsburg.JPG
• File:2010-08-06_(37)_Höckerschwan,_White_swan,_Cygnus_olor,_Ginsheim-Gustavsburg.JPG
• File:2010-08-06_(49)_Großer_Blaupfeil,_Black-tailes_skimmer,_Orhetrum_cancellatum_Ginsheim-Gustavsburg.JPG
• File:2010-08-06_(32)_Großer_Blaupfeil,_Black-tailes_skimmer,_Orhetrum_cancellatum_Ginsheim-Gustavsburg.JPG
• File:2010-08-06_(23)_Großer_Blaupfeil,_Black-tailes_skimmer,_Orhetrum_cancellatum_Ginsheim-Gustavsburg.JPG
• File:2010-08-06_(19)_Großer_Blaupfeil,_Black-tailes_skimmer,_Orhetrum_cancellatum_Ginsheim-Gustavsburg.JPG
• File:2010-08-06_(15)_Großer_Blaupfeil,_Black-tailes_skimmer,_Orhetrum_cancellatum_Ginsheim-Gustavsburg.JPG
• File:2010-08-06_(14)_Nacktschnecke.JPG
• File:2010-08-06_(12)_Nacktschnecke.JPG
• File:Mäusebussard_2010-08-06_(2).jpg
• File:2010-08-04_Spinne.JPG
• File:2010-08-04_(33)_Spinne.JPG
• File:2010-08-04_(32)_Spinne.JPG
• File:2010-08-04_(30)_Spinne.JPG
• File:2010-08-04_(29)_Spinne.JPG
• File:2010-08-04_(27)_Beerenwanze,_Sloe_bug,_Dolycoris_baccarum.JPG
• File:2010-08-04_(26)_Beerenwanze,_Sloe_bug,_Dolycoris_baccarum.JPG
• File:2010-08-04_(19)_Schmetterling.JPG
• File:2010-08-04_(18)_Schmetterling.JPG
• File:2010-08-04_(17)_Schmetterling.JPG
• File:2010-08-04_(15)_Florfliege.JPG
• File:2010-08-04_(13)_Florfliege.JPG
• File:2010-08-04_(11)_Siebenpunkt,_Seven-spot_Ladybird,_Coccinella_septempunctata.JPG
• File:2010-08-04_(10)_Insekt.JPG
• File:2010-08-04_(8)_Insekt.JPG
• File:2010-08-04_(6)_Insekt.JPG
• File:2010-08-04_(3)_Hibuscus.JPG
• File:2010-08-03_(8)_Falter.JPG
• File:2010-08-01_(14)_Spinne.JPG
• File:2010-07-31_(16)_Wespe.JPG
• File:2010-07-31_(14)_Wanze.JPG
• File:2010-07-31_(13)_Libelle.JPG
• File:2010-07-31_(5)_Libelle.JPG
• File:2010-07-31_(4)_Libelle.JPG
• File:2010-07-20_(10)_Weißstorch,_White_stork,_Ciconia_ciconia,_Laubenheim.JPG
• File:2010-07-20_(9)_Kanadagans,_Branta_canadensis_Laubenheim.JPG
• File:2010-07-20_(7)_Graugans,_Grey_goose,_Anser_anser,_Laubenheim.JPG
• File:2010-07-20_(5)_Hibiscus.JPG
• File:2010-07-20_(3)_Hibiscus.JPG
• File:2010-07-18_(41)_Fly_Bodenheim.JPG

All the files above were nominated for deletion by User:VBuhl with the following reason: delete account. All individual request pages have been merged to this one. I say  Keep since retracting the files is a no no. They are all useful and good quality. --ZooFari 04:08, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• We should just speedy  Keep this. Delete account is no reason to remove all uploads. --Dschwen (talk) 14:42, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
•  Keep. All is said. --тнояsтеn ⇔ 15:05, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• She took pictures, named, uploaded, categorized them. Then she was appearantly told that the file names are too general, so she tried to determine the organisms, partly gave them wrong names (e.g. named a crane fly Culex pipiens), both in the file names and the descriptions. Then she was told of these mistakes. So unterstandably, she seems to be a bit frustrated and may need some help. For example: Is it possible to delete the files, save them under a new and correct name? I already gave her the link to the German wikipedia page http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Redaktion_Biologie/Bestimmung which offers great help in determining plants and animals. Hopefully this can change her wish. Because the pictures are good, and I would like to  Keep them. --Küchenkraut (talk) 15:29, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Pictures with wrong filenames can be tagged with {{rename|new name.jpg|reason for new name}} and will be renamed. No problem. --тнояsтеn ⇔ 15:44, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

•  Delete delete the photos. We must respect the wish of the creator/author. I saw it Commons previously that images were deleted because the uploader wanted it so. --80.187.106.136 21:16, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  There is nothing like user wish in the Commons:Deletion policy. So it has to be kept:  Keep. --141.82.19.254 22:32, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

•  Keep please remove all request. The user has it finally revoked. --Perhelion (talk) 19:17, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

---

Kept. :bdk: 10:03, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]