Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2010/06/01
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
|
|
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
No need for this pdf file as we have File:Ruqprod recto 10x15.jpg. GeorgHH • talk 13:31, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
- poster, fair use material, speedydelete--Motopark (talk) 14:17, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted by Túrelio: Exact or scaled-down duplicate: File:Ruqprod recto 10x15.jpg.
http://www.actioncontrelafaim.org/typo3temp/pics/9f508b4836.jpg already existing imag e on the net : probably a copyvio Loreleil (talk) 18:38, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Obvious copyvio Esby (talk) 18:42, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
albom cover - non-free matanya • talk 14:55, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Delete speedily. Should be uploaded to en: wiki with fair use rationale. -- Deadstar (msg) 15:32, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. No fair use on Commons Justass (talk) 06:49, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Appears to be copyrighted in England (see at least http://www.designerstoolbox.com/designlife/?p=161). I nominated it for deletion as copyvio for this reason here, but this was declined here as being "ineligible for copyright". I understand there's a standard for using certain images which are public domain in the United States, but copyrighted elsewhere (e.g., pre-1923 works), but I am unaware of any other standard which would allow the use of an image on commons which is otherwise copyrighted (under the UK's "sweat of the brow" doctrine instead of the US's "threshold of originality", which this does likely fail). --VernoWhitney (talk) 00:15, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Keep. Source country for this logo is germany, where this is clearly inelligible for copyright. The copyright status in england does not matter. --PaterMcFly (talk) 10:38, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
- Thank you for the clarification. I apparently misunderstood the "country of origin" part of Commons:Licensing. Feel free to consider my nomination withdrawn, I'm sorry for the hassle. VernoWhitney (talk) 15:19, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
- Keep - compare Threshold of originality#Germany. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 11:20, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Nomination withdrawn. Non-admin closure. VernoWhitney (talk) 22:37, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Unknown woman mis-identified as Holly Hunter. The image was taken at the red carpet at the Emmy awards 1994. Unless we can identify this woman, this image is useless. (See also the talk page of the file. If we can identify her, move the file to a better name, otherwise delete. Lupo 12:47, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
- P.S.: the file is currently unused. Lupo 12:49, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
- Delete from the way the image was cropped, it looks as though the unknown woman wasn't so much on the red carpet as well near the red carpet & just happened to get caught in the shot. -- Deadstar (msg) 15:36, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
- Here's the original uncropped file. Lupo 15:45, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks for that - on closer inspection and here, she has a badge that reads "Escort" if I'm not mistaken -- Deadstar (msg) 09:22, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
- Indeed, on that image it's clearly readable. Lupo 09:34, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks for that - on closer inspection and here, she has a badge that reads "Escort" if I'm not mistaken -- Deadstar (msg) 09:22, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
- Here's the original uncropped file. Lupo 15:45, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Lupo 09:10, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
Bad map. Possibly a copyvio. --Alakasam (talk) 16:21, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted by Polarlys: copyvio / no permission
Orphaned, out of project scope, no foreseeable use. Used in a now deleted advert on en.wikipeida. Possibly a copyvio. FASTILY (TALK) 19:42, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Amada44 (talk) 11:25, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Polarlys (talk) 19:22, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
Creative Commons Generic 2.0 lisence not accepted by Wikimedia. User may not be authorised to upload content and has uploaded similar images within the last 48 hrs that violate copyright. Amadscientist (talk) 21:52, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
- Keep, of course CC-BY 2.0 is a valid license for Commons, like every other version of CC-BY. The image [1] is licensed as CC-BY 2.0 on Flickr and appears to come from Meg Whitman's gubernatorial campaign, so I don't see why one would assume that the Flickr image is itself in breach of copyright. Sandstein (talk) 05:34, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
- Comment Wikimedia states which Creative Commons license can be used and this is not one of them. If this was uploaded by the photographer or Megwhitman.com, which owns this image it would be a simple mistake of licensing with an old CC to an older image. However that does not negate the fact that you cannot upload CC 2.0 Generic unless you are the owner and Commons is advising a change in the older license. The limited attribution requires the permission for use be verified and archived in the Wikimedia OTRS system. Just because there are CC 2.0 images in Commons does not mean they are allowed to be uploaded now or that we do not require OTRS authentication for what can only be a blatant attempt by someone not connected to either. Isn't it odd about the new member "Creater:Max Morse"....that was a copypaste from the flicker url.
- I don't get what you mean. If the image is cc-by (any version) on flickr, uploading it to commons is perfectly fine, as long as the author is mentioned, which is the case. Is there reason to believe the image on flickr is already a copyvio? --PaterMcFly (talk) 11:12, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
- Yes actualy the image was uploaded while it was still copyrighted. Also CC 2.0 generic requires attribution as determined by the owner, not just simple attribution of photographer. No anny CC is not fine. Wikimedia does have policy, but I am mostly suspicious of the way members are working...such as deleting the templete for this discussion against policy, creating unauthorised accounts under photographers name. I am following procedurte to insure a highly visible artcle and image are used correctly and within policy.--Amadscientist (talk) 22:18, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
- I don't get what you mean. If the image is cc-by (any version) on flickr, uploading it to commons is perfectly fine, as long as the author is mentioned, which is the case. Is there reason to believe the image on flickr is already a copyvio? --PaterMcFly (talk) 11:12, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Commons:Creative_Commons_copyright_tags contains CC-BY 2.0 as a valid, acceptable license. --Guandalug (talk) 19:03, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
- Page you link appears not to have been updated since 2008. Please see Commons:First steps/License selection where it has been updated. It states;
The two accepted Creative Commons licenses at Wikimedia Commons are "Attribution" ({{Cc-by-3.0}}) and "Attribution share alike" ({{Cc-by-sa-3.0}}) in every published version.
- Basically, "Attribution 3.0" requires crediting the author, whereas "Attribution share alike 3.0" requires people to additionally release modifications under this very license — the copyleft principle.
--Amadscientist (talk) 08:25, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
Creative Commons is not Wikimedia Commons. Wikimedia has a policy of only usung free or aquivelant. All I am saying is...we need conformation that the image is being used with the attribution AS required by the copyright holder as CC 2.0 Generic requires.--Amadscientist (talk) 22:20, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
- Comment I think there are a few misunderstandings about copyright, fair use and Creative Commons Licensing as well as Wikipedias role. Let me see if I can sort this out in prose here;
The image from the Meg Whitman Campaign was at full copyright on Flicker and released through her website for promotional use, granting permission to her supporters for it's use. When the image began to appear at Wiki it had not yet had an open CC copyright and was speedily deleted a number of times. The License at Flicker changed and a Creative Commons License was given from the choices available at flicker. These CC licenses at flicker DO NOT include the two CC 3.0 licenses Wikimedia requires on their site. CC 2.0 Generic is an older License and is no longer listed at Creative Commons. Creative Commons is NOT Wikipedia or Wikimedia. They are not connected. What is a valid Creative Commons license is not necessarily a valid license to use at Wikimedia Commons or on Wikipedia. Why? Because Creative Commons 2.0 Generic has a specific right withheld by the copyright holder (remember CC is still a copyright license). That right is in the specified manner of attribution. The holder of the CC 2.0 Generic has the right to determine how attribution is made. That goes against the spirit of Wikimedia for free use with simple attribution. This is still a right. The copyright holder still has rights.
The same is true of all copyright holders. It is not just a matter of respecting the image and the owner, its a legal obligation.....it's a license. Now....I have made good faith attempts to contact the copyright holder through my flicker account where i use the same username as on Wikipedia and Wikimedia in an attempt to have them contact OTRS for verification. But It seems that some users are not willing to allow consensus in the discussion as is required for license disputes to make it's natural course and have removed the Deletion discussion tag against Wikimedia policy. I have gone out of my way to find a legal way to use the image that does not put Wiki Foundation in danger of a legal dispute over a highly visible image and a highly visible article. If we cannot wait for the outcome....the only other choice is Fair use. In order to use Fair Use it must be uploaded to Wikipedia and a rational given to why it is being used and requires that no other free image is available (this is not just wikipedia's policy, but appears to be a brightline rule here. It is not required by US Fair Use law). For Meg Whitman there are several free images, but one of them is also CC 2.0 Generic and is in a deletion discussion.--Amadscientist (talk) 05:51, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
- Update The image was uploaded twice by the same flickr member to the official Meg Whitman Campaign account at flickr. Either way copyright or CC 2.0 Genric should not have been visualy approved as there is no attribution summary to know how the user wishes attribution, or waiver of Flickr limited CC license protection to be used on wikimedia as CC-by-3.0.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:34, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
Kept cc-by-2.0 is accepted by Wikimedia. See also Commons:Deletion requests/File:Meg Whitman.jpg. ZooFari 15:41, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
Possibly a copyvio. Additionally, map is not very well. --Alakasam (talk) 16:25, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
- Copyvio, in source will be read Derechos Reservados ©2003, 2004 ADE, speedydelete--Motopark (talk) 07
- 29, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted by Herbythyme: Copyright violation
self-promotional, crosswiki spam --Esteban (talk) 21:51, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Another one that preferred selfpromoting himself. An archeologist could have shared a lot of interesting things with the rest of the world than is autobiography only. What a pity. --Giorgiomonteforti (talk) 22:53, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:03, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
Originally uploaded to en.wikipedia under our "take an image from the internet and make up a license for it" program. (en admins see en:Special:Undelete/File:CRC_Cross_at_Mount_Ecclesia.JPG). The image comes from [2] UserB (talk) 02:44, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
- Delete copyvio from site mentioned. -- Deadstar (msg) 09:10, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:04, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This file just an enlarged version of the flag from Ministry of Culture of Thailand website, not a PD-self work. --Octahedron80 (talk) 06:21, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:04, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
wrong depiction of the siamese white elephant flag. According to the law, the elephant must be faced to the hoist as showed in File:Flag of Thailand 1855.svg, but this image was faced to the fly. Morever Xiengyod (talk) 07:58, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, early as a copyvio.. This uploader has uploaded this file before and it was deleted as a copyvio. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:29, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
This file just copied from FOTW source, not a PD-self work. --Octahedron80 (talk) 06:24, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
.JPG){kind=link}
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:05, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
.JPG){kind=link}
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:06, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
.JPG){kind=link}
This file just copied from FOTW source, not a PD-self work. Moreever, there also duplicated to File:Royal Thai Air Force Unit Colour.svg. --Octahedron80 (talk) 06:27, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:06, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
This file is just copied and enlarged from http://www.bloggang.com/viewblog.php?id=rattanakosin225&date=03-04-2007&group=9&gblog=4 so this should be not a PD-self work. --Octahedron80 (talk) 06:31, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
.JPG){kind=link}
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:18, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
.JPG){kind=link}
Reasons for deletion request - corresponding article has already been deleted Dr. med. Mabuse (talk) 08:44, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Unuseful, this way.--Giorgiomonteforti (talk) 22:56, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:19, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
I don't think this qualifies as PD-Textlogo. -- Deadstar (msg) 10:19, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Agreed, it's clearly more than just "simple geometric shapes and text". Jafeluv (talk) 11:19, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:20, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
" It is a painting that signifies fourteen dreams of Queen Trishala, Lord Mahavira's mother." not self made, but from "personal collection". Without more info on painter/date of the painting, this cannot be released into the PD by the uploader. -- Deadstar (msg) 10:20, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
- Delete I agree.--Giorgiomonteforti (talk) 22:57, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:21, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
No permission for the used logos. Probably not "Own work"? GeorgHH • talk 13:23, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:22, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
Derivative work. No evidence that the uploader is the same as the painter of the portrait. GeorgHH • talk 14:30, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. -- Deadstar (msg) 15:33, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:24, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
Derivative work. No evidence that the uploader is the same as the painter of the portraits. GeorgHH • talk 14:32, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:22, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
Painter es:Roberto Holden died in 1984. Not free of copyright. -- Deadstar (msg) 14:53, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
- Delete With the picture having been painted 1950... delete per nom. --Guandalug (talk) 19:00, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:25, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
screenshot of a copyrighted site matanya • talk 15:00, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:26, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
I am not satisfied with the quality of this picture. I took another one see image Nesher High School 1.jpg Thanks --Hanay (talk) 03:24, 23 May 2010 (UTC) Correct malformed DR. --Captain-tucker (talk) 17:04, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:27, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
out of scope - advertising Santosga (talk) 18:42, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:33, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
Orphaned, blurry/dim, no foreseeable use. Used in a now deleted advert on en.wikipeida. Possibly a copyvio. FASTILY (TALK) 19:45, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Not blurry/dim. Image is a clear illustration of a collection of shoes in a (charity?) shop. Would need more info if it is to be deleted as a copyvio. -- Deadstar (msg) 08:44, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
Kept. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:40, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
Orphaned, blurry/dim, no foreseeable use. Used in a now deleted advert on en.wikipeida. Possibly a copyvio. FASTILY (TALK) 19:45, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Unusable. Horrible and very old-fashioned jacket anyway. Not even my grandmother would find something for her in that shop.--Giorgiomonteforti (talk) 11:39, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Not blurry/dim. Good image of fashion from a certain era. Would need more info if this is to be deleted as a copyvio. -- Deadstar (msg) 08:37, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
Kept. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:41, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
Orphaned, blurry/dim, no foreseeable use. Used in a now deleted advert on en.wikipeida. Possibly a copyvio. FASTILY (TALK) 19:47, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Good illustration of women's suits (from a certain era) in a (charity?) shop. Not blurry/dim. Would need more info if this is to be deleted as a copyvio. -- Deadstar (msg) 08:49, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
Kept. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:41, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
Orphaned, blurry/dim, no foreseeable use. Used in a now deleted advert on en.wikipeida. Possibly a copyvio. FASTILY (TALK) 19:50, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Not blurry/dim, can be used as an illustration for collections of shoes in a shop. -- Deadstar (msg) 08:52, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
Kept. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:43, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
Orphaned, blurry/dim, no foreseeable use. Used in a now deleted advert on en.wikipeida. Possibly a copyvio. FASTILY (TALK) 19:50, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
- Keep It's not blurry. It's a good image of a random non-modern boardroom of a small company. It could be used to illustrate furniture from a particular era. Perhaps could do with rename. Would need more info if it is to be deleted as a copyvio. -- Deadstar (msg) 08:32, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
Kept. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:45, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
Orphaned, blurry/dim, no foreseeable use. Used in a now deleted advert on en.wikipeida. Possibly a copyvio. FASTILY (TALK) 19:50, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Not blurry/dim. Image of a clothes shop. Would need more info if it is to be deleted as a copyvio. -- Deadstar (msg) 08:34, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
Kept. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:46, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
Orphaned, blurry/dim, no foreseeable use. Used in a now deleted advert on en.wikipeida. Possibly a copyvio. FASTILY (TALK) 19:50, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Doesn't seem to illustrate anything clearly. -- Deadstar (msg) 08:55, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:47, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
Orphaned, blurry/dim, no foreseeable use. Used in a now deleted advert on en.wikipeida. Possibly a copyvio. FASTILY (TALK) 19:50, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Not blurry/dim. Illustrates men's clothing shop. -- Deadstar (msg) 08:56, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
Kept. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:48, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
Orphaned, blurry/dim, no foreseeable use. Used in a now deleted advert on en.wikipeida. Possibly a copyvio. FASTILY (TALK) 19:51, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Not blurry/dim. Illustrates a men's clothing shop. -- Deadstar (msg) 08:57, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
Kept. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:49, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
Orphaned, blurry/dim, no foreseeable use. Used in a now deleted advert on en.wikipeida. Possibly a copyvio. FASTILY (TALK) 19:51, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Not blurry/dim. Not a great shot, but it does illustrate a women's clothing shop. -- Deadstar (msg) 08:58, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
Kept. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:49, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
not relevant to subject"Airport Bremen. 87.210.240.163 21:27, 1 June 2010 (UTC) --87.210.240.163 21:28, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
- Keep It's part of a plane, image likely taken in Bremen, but I agree it has little to do with the airport. This is no reason for deletion however. Change the name to whatever the name is of that part of the plane and speedy keep. -- Deadstar (msg) 08:30, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
Kept. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:50, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
This file just copied from FOTW source, not a PD-self work. --Octahedron80 (talk) 06:23, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted by Jameslwoodward: Per Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Erroneous_Variant_Flag_of_Thailand_1855.JPG
Out of Commons:Scope. ← Körnerbrötchen » ✉ 09:18, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
- Delete ...and not shaved (balls). With the various dicks given another useless pic. --Yikrazuul (talk) 16:28, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. —Angr 16:34, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
The censorship of this image makes it unusable for educational purposes and puts it outside Commons's scope. —Angr 11:41, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Useless--DieBuche (talk) 11:48, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
- Delete - is the mushroom copyrighted by Nintendo?--E8 (talk) 08:46, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
- Delete ... or ... "wich position to make autofellatio". But it looks bad. --Fg68at de:Disk 05:06, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Unuseful.--Giorgiomonteforti (talk) 22:58, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 19:53, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
Orphaned, blurry/dim/out of project scope, no foreseeable use. Used in a now deleted advert on en.wikipeida. Possibly a copyvio. FASTILY (TALK) 19:49, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Privy.--Giorgiomonteforti (talk) 11:40, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Unremarkable and out of scope as I could not see it used, but not blurry/dim/orphaned. (NB:Alison Vaughn is a local politician) -- Deadstar (msg) 08:50, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. —Angr 16:37, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
Copyrighted film design. FunkMonk (talk) 19:52, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
- Delete /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 07:30, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 19:56, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
This is not the true civil ensign of siam during 1916-1917. The true flag is File:Flag of Thailand (1916).svg more information at http://www.siamflag.org --Octahedron80 (talk) 06:29, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
.svg){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
- Keep Maybe yes, maybe no. Note that a merchant ensign and civil ensign can be two different flags (the UK Union Flag = civil ensign, the Red Ensign = merchant ensign). FOTW, which is usually pretty accurate, is ambivalent about this. Perhaps we should keep it to illustrate the uncertainty? Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:17, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
- Keep per Jim. --Diego Grez return fire 21:26, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
Kept. Images such as flags are deleted based on discussions on whenever they are "correct" or "incorrect". Belgrano (talk) 21:59, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
.JPG){kind=link}
License at the original source is ARR; permission given in comments in not broad enough (on Wikipedia in article XY). Lupo 15:10, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Comment I asked the panoramio user if license could be changed or at least say "ok" on image page. --MGA73 (talk) 21:02, 3 June 2010 (UTC)- Delete Its been more than 10 days and the copyright owner has neither changed the license nor made a response on the panoramio link. While I doubt this image can be saved, we can wait 14 full days until June 15 or 16 at least to be fair. But after that, if there is no change in the situation, I would say that this image must deleted sadly. It cannot remain here indefinitely. --Leoboudv (talk) 06:54, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
- Delete per Leoboudy. --Diego Grez return fire 21:28, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted as photographer did not react to MGA73's request 20 days ago or change the (C)ARR licensing. If he does later, image could be undeleted. --Túrelio (talk) 19:39, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
Image taken from http://www.sanyo.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/Mass-Orchestra-small-cropped.jpg, which likely means it's not self made. I can't find a copyright notice on the website to indicate alternative free licensing for this image. -- Deadstar (msg) 15:30, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. --Diego Grez return fire 21:28, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted by Tiptoety: Per Commons:Deletion_requests/File:SA_NYO_Mass_Orchestra_July_2009.jpg
Image looks like a grab from a website, not self made. http://www.sharp.com/vista-pacifica/index.cfm. -- Deadstar (msg) 15:50, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
- File:Mesa-Vista1.jpg is the same story, user claims it is his own file, "also seen at" above website. -- Deadstar (msg) 15:52, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
- Delete both. --Diego Grez return fire 21:29, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Tiptoety talk 19:23, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
Own work claim seems dubious (web resolution, no EXIF). –Tryphon☂ 19:51, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
- Delete per Tryphon. --Diego Grez return fire 21:32, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Tiptoety talk 19:25, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
Orphaned, blurry/dim, no foreseeable use. Used in a now deleted advert on en.wikipeida. Possibly a copyvio. FASTILY (TALK) 19:51, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Privy. Unusable.--Giorgiomonteforti (talk) 11:41, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
- Comment Image is not blurry/dim & Alison Vaughn is a local politician (http://www.detroitpush.org/avaughn/about.htm) -- Deadstar (msg) 09:03, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
- Delete unuseful. --Diego Grez return fire 21:33, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Tiptoety talk 19:25, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
The reason is the Hebrew Inscription on the wall of the building. It is not nice Inscription. . I took another picture in which that inscription was deleted --Hanay (talk) 16:07, 15 May 2010 (UTC) Correct malformed DR --Captain-tucker (talk) 17:13, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
- Comment Could both images be kept as illustration of vandalism. -- Deadstar (msg) 09:07, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
- Weak Delete I'm inclined to delete on the grounds that it's not a very useful picture -- off level, mostly a parking lot, nondescript building, and, whatever the graffiti says, it's barely visible. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:32, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Avi (talk) 15:44, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
- It is not reason to delete. Julo (talk) 13:46, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
- Keep I'm with Julo. The picture hasn't anything wrong. Anyway it's true that a bigger image could have been more useful.--Giorgiomonteforti (talk) 22:59, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
- It has nothing right neither. It is not identifiable and even hardly recognizable. Do we really have to keep such inferior quality stuff??? Lycaon (talk) 18:45, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
- Delete agree with above. ZooFari 15:56, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
- Delete per above. --Diego Grez return fire 21:31, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
- Keep I think we can keep this . --Mardetanha (talk) 23:26, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
- Did you identify it? ZooFari 14:37, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
- Nah , does it really matter ? Mardetanha (talk) 19:37, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
- Yes. Someone who want to keep it ought to identify it, if possible. Without an identification and category it's useless. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 20:00, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
- It's crab Mardetanha (talk) 11:30, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
- Nope it's crap Lycaon (talk) 11:42, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
- so it's identified :D Mardetanha (talk) 02:24, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
- Comment I've reuploaded the file in its original resolution and I cropped the crab. I'm still not able to identify it exactly (I'm just an amateur photographer, not a biologist), but I think now the expert's task will be much easier. Please reconsider your comments and votes. Ewa Dryjanska (talk) 22:11, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
- Keep OK, I've changed my opinion. I suggest that User:Ewa Dryjanska find an expert -- look through histories at Category:Grapsoidea for people who put categories on -- and get it categorized. Even without that, I think we can keep it. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:45, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Kept. Avi (talk) 15:45, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
This Image is just copied form http://www.bloggang.com/viewblog.php?id=xiengyod&date=16-05-2007&group=3&gblog=11 (This blog is belong to me!) Xiengyod (talk) 18:52, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. by Huib. Wknight94 talk 15:31, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
Completely incorrect/misinformation. This forces alphebtic transliteration onto the script. A correct use of the script can be found at File:WikipediaTheFreeEncyclopedia-DeseretAlphabet.png. Seb az86556 (talk) 16:21, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted per COM:SCOPE as this image is currently unused and Seb az86556's assessment was not challenged. --AFBorchert (talk) 17:32, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
This file copied from FOTW Website. In fact, this is not consular flag of siam in 1891, It does not exist on the Flag Regulation of Siam of 1891 A.D. (See the Regulation and the flag at http://www.t-h-a-i-l-a-n-d.org/siamflag/rule.html ).Xiengyod (talk) 09:05, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted because of its dubious copyright status (the uploader claimed to be the copyright holder) and as it apparently does not match the claims in its description. At the time of deletion this image was unused. --AFBorchert (talk) 17:44, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
Unsourced and no references, may be a fictional flag. No Thai documents stated this flag.Xiengyod (talk) 09:06, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted per COM:SCOPE. At the time of deletion this image was unused. --AFBorchert (talk) 17:46, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Very bad resolution, may be copied from an old version of the flag in FOTW website. Duplicated to the high quality resolution flag in svg format named File:Flag of Thailand (1782).svg Xiengyod (talk) 09:20, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
.JPG){kind=link}
Deleted as this is indeed of low quality and as the SVG variant was not based on this file. This file was unused at the time of deletion. --AFBorchert (talk) 17:50, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
.JPG){kind=link}
this is a copyrhighted logo matanya • talk 14:53, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
- I think it qualifies as pd-textlogo -- Deadstar (msg) 15:32, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
It is not copyrighted, per PHR staff--Beeri.omri (talk) 09:29, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
- Keep but remove the sun thing. --Diego Grez return fire 21:27, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
- Well... It wouldn't be their logo without the “sun thing”. --Dereckson (talk) 17:14, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
- Comment Beeri.omri: Could you please forward a permission to OTRS for putting this logo into the public domain of the copyright holder? And please provide valid sources in your uploads. So far, they just use non-existing templates. --AFBorchert (talk) 17:23, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
- Comment. Mailed Beeri.omri this evening to invite him to review this discussion and send the OTRS permission. --Dereckson (talk) 17:14, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted; he's had long enough and we can always undelete if permission comes in. Stifle (talk) 19:01, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
