Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2009/09/06
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
|
|
Useless image used as a vehicle for spam Calton (talk) 01:39, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
Delete Look at the ultra-low resolution too. --Leoboudv (talk) 04:14, 6 September 2009 (UTC)- Delete Not useful, not in use now. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 07:26, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. –Tryphon☂ 12:13, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work - see http://mijermita.blogspot.com/2009/03/mayra-matos-modelos-venezolanas.html Tabercil (talk) 02:44, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
- Strong delete per copyvio. This can be speedied. --Leoboudv (talk) 04:17, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
Comment Very suspect, this photo is the only contribution by User:Luzunaris7. Sv1xv (talk) 12:15, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Copyvio. Yann (talk) 20:56, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
rather unusual set of photos present at the source Flickr account, which makes me suspect this is Flickrwashing a copyrighted image Tabercil (talk) 03:02, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
- Delete Only 8 images of very prominent people on this flickr account. Very suspicious. This person is no Alan Light. --Leoboudv (talk) 04:16, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
- Delete Probable copyvio. By the way, the statue in the background is copyrighted, see also Commons:Deletion requests/Images of Oscar statuettes. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 07:24, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
Keep it's licensed as 'Some rights reserved" on Flickr, I don't see any reason to delete it from Commons;)--Esss (talk) 17:15, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Copyvio. Yann (talk) 20:58, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
Covnerted from a speedy deletion (nld). Possibly "PD-textlogo". --Sv1xv (talk) 04:45, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
Kept as {{PD-textlogo}}. –Tryphon☂ 12:15, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
Covnerted from a speedy deletion (nld). I am not sure if "PD-textlogo" applies here. --Sv1xv (talk) 04:47, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
Kept as {{PD-textlogo}}. –Tryphon☂ 12:16, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
Most likely not the uploader's own work. —LX (talk, contribs) 07:50, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
- Delete It is not a real photograph of the car. Its likely a photograph/scan of a photograph which means its a deerivative. --Leoboudv (talk) 21:43, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. –Tryphon☂ 12:17, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
The entire image description at the English Wikipedia was {{self|cc-by-sa-3.0|GFDL}}. {{Self}} is not a source, and this would not be considered a sufficient amount of information here at Commons for an image uploaded in August 2009. The English Wikipedia uploader's File namespace contributions does not exactly inspire confidence that they have any idea whatsoever what the words "I, the copyright holder" mean. —LX (talk, contribs) 08:00, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
- I think it's not made by en:User:Cyrus-green and someone should delete it even from en.wikipedia.org Hooman91 (talk) 08:14, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
- Working on that now. J Milburn (talk) 21:55, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
Clear copyvio. Also deleting user's uploads at enwp. J Milburn (talk) 21:55, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
Uploader on en requests deletion on en talk-page (original WP upload site prior to commons migration). Best I can tell, there are two images in the history of this filename: a larger and a cropped. Log has same user uploading full as CC license then replacing it with cropped (still CC) with assertion that upload of full was an accident. This all occurred after user had already learned the hard way about not reading license-terms carefully and thus accidentally relinquishing control over his uploaded content via free-licensing. At most, I could support removing the larger images from the history as accidental and quickly-corrected uploader error. DMacks (talk) 07:58, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
Kept. In use, the free license is not revocable. –Tryphon☂ 12:22, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
Sculptor (Aarre Aaltonen) died in 1980; sculpture not in Public Domain yet. No FOP in Finland. Apalsola t • c 09:19, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
- Delete sadly. Limited FOP in Finland. --Leoboudv (talk) 21:41, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
- Delete COM:DW /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:49, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
- Delete as requestedHtm (talk) 14:20, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 14:29, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
Sculptor (Aarre Aaltonen) died in 1980; statue not in Public Domain yet. No FOP in Finland. Apalsola t • c 09:20, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
- Delete sadly. Limited FOP in Finland. --Leoboudv (talk) 22:02, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
- Delete as requested Htm (talk) 14:19, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 14:30, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
A recent photo of a 3D object. If the source listed is accurate, then it is Copyright © CNG 2002-2009 Sv1xv (talk) 10:36, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
- OTRS:450621 applies to all images from the CNG site. Stifle (talk) 18:09, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
- Keep Fine, so the photo is ok, the {{CNG}} template should be modified. Sv1xv (talk) 19:39, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
- Keep per Stifle who verified the OTRS permission. --Leoboudv (talk) 07:05, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
Kept. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 14:24, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
A recent photo of a 3D object. If the source listed is accurate, then it is Copyright © CNG 2002-2009 --Sv1xv (talk) 10:37, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
- Keep Admin MartinH told me on my talkpage here that there is a specific OTRS tag for CNG coins: {{CNG}} Since it is a low resolution image, I don't see why the image could not be retagged with the CNG template? It is also a good way for CNG to promote their products here. If you want the high resolution photos, you would still have to buy it from them. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 21:35, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
- Comment So this DR must be closed by someone with access to the OTRS ticket. Depending on the content of the ticket he can either delete the photos or keep and relicense them, as the current license tag {{PD-old}} is bogus. Sv1xv (talk) 04:34, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
- OTRS:450621 applies to all images from the CNG site. Stifle (talk) 18:09, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
- Keep Fine, so the photo is ok, the {{CNG}} template should be modified. Sv1xv (talk) 19:39, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
- Comment: I hope the OTRS tag can be applied to all images from this site. --Leoboudv (talk) 23:01, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
Kept. – per OTRS. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 14:25, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
Copyright violation: All Images Credited To Richard Leonhardt Are Copyrighted And May Not Be Reproduced For Re-Sale. NavSource Has The Exclusive Rights To Reproduce These Images From The Copyright Holder. (see here: http://www.navsource.org/archives/dload.htm) High Contrast (talk) 11:13, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
- Delete This photo is not published under a free license. Sv1xv (talk) 12:10, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
- Delete Unfree license. --Leoboudv (talk) 21:54, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
- Delete if there is so problem PMG (talk) 16:01, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 14:23, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
Copyright violation: All Images Credited To Richard Leonhardt Are Copyrighted And May Not Be Reproduced For Re-Sale. NavSource Has The Exclusive Rights To Reproduce These Images From The Copyright Holder. (see here: http://www.navsource.org/archives/dload.htm) High Contrast (talk) 11:13, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
- Delete This photo is not published under a free license. Sv1xv (talk) 12:10, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
- Delete Unfree license. --Leoboudv (talk) 21:56, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
- Delete if there is so problem PMG (talk) 16:01, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 14:23, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
OTRS permission doesn't cover this image. Multichill (talk) 16:04, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. –Tryphon☂ 13:32, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
Low quality, and because of the shape of legs I think it's a photography of tv (film or documentary) Abujoy (talk) 17:24, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
- And Cincinnati Zoo doesn't have a Pampas Cat MAMMALS--Abujoy (talk) 17:28, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
- Delete It looks like a screenshot and is not an actual photograph by the uploader. --Leoboudv (talk) 22:05, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. –Tryphon☂ 13:33, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
Invalid permission (uploaded simply copied this from the first page of a Google image search --Ohnoitsjamie (talk) 17:49, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Copyvio. Yann (talk) 21:00, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
Low-quality duplicate of File:Accretion Disk Binary System.jpg. Has been tagged as superseded for a long time, only remaining uses were two pages on he.wikipedia which I've now replaced. This PNG version has been converted from a 256-color GIF image, and suffers from significant color quantization. The JPEG version is the original, straight from the NASA press release. Ilmari Karonen (talk) 18:05, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Unused low-quality duplicate. –Tryphon☂ 13:34, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
copyrighted. Licensed only for non-commercial use on wikipedia. See http://wikisky.org/wiki/Copyright_-_DSS2_images 84user (talk) 18:12, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
- Here it goes again. See Commons:Deletion_requests/All_DSS2_Images_from_wikisky for seems never ending discussion regarding DSS2 images in commons. Please move the image back to en wiki if possible. Thanks. Friendlystar (talk) 07:07, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Non-commercial restrictions are not accepted here nor on the English Wikipedia. –Tryphon☂ 13:40, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
Personal image, not used. Yann (talk) 19:57, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
- Delete per nominator. No encyclopedic value. --Leoboudv (talk) 21:55, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
- Delete Unused personal image - no encyclopedic value. Hekerui (talk) 17:46, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. –Tryphon☂ 13:41, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
Personal image, not used. Yann (talk) 19:58, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
- Delete per nominator. No encyclopedic use. --Leoboudv (talk) 21:32, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. –Tryphon☂ 13:41, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
Personal image, not used. Yann (talk) 19:59, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. –Tryphon☂ 13:42, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
Personal image, not used. Yann (talk) 20:06, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
- Delete per nominator. There is no encyclopedic use for it here. --Leoboudv (talk) 21:34, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. –Tryphon☂ 08:56, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
Personal image, not used. Yann (talk) 20:19, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
- Delete No encyclopedic value too. --Leoboudv (talk) 21:29, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. –Tryphon☂ 08:28, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
Original source http://www-history.mcs.st-and.ac.uk/Mathematicians/Bacon.html but this is not Roger Bacon as Dmitri Rozhkov showed by the reference to http://obswww.unige.ch/~bartho/EAAE/L3/l3_fig7.gif - it is an incorrectly named duplicate of File:Berthold-Schwarz.jpg. Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:24, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
- Already changed to Bacons portrait --Dmitry Rozhkov (talk) 20:26, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
- Ok, that solves it - withdrawing the nomination (looks like a phantasy portrait, though). /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:30, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
Personal image, not used. Yann (talk) 20:52, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. –Tryphon☂ 08:54, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
Personal image, not used. Yann (talk) 21:21, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. –Tryphon☂ 08:35, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
Professional studio picture, needs permission. Yann (talk) 21:22, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
- Delete Only image by uploader too. No permission from the author. --Leoboudv (talk) 22:03, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. –Tryphon☂ 08:35, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
Personal image, not used. Yann (talk) 21:23, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
- Delete per nominator. --Leoboudv (talk) 21:51, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. –Tryphon☂ 08:36, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
Personal image, not used. Yann (talk) 21:24, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
- Delete If its not used, why keep it? --Leoboudv (talk) 23:53, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. –Tryphon☂ 08:36, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
Personal image, not used. Yann (talk) 21:30, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. –Tryphon☂ 08:36, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
Personal image, not used. Yann (talk) 21:49, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
- Delete per nominator. No encyclopedic value. --Leoboudv (talk) 21:52, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. –Tryphon☂ 08:37, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
This image does exist on Indian government websites[1] [2]. However does not have a PD-Gov system, hence {{PD-IndiaGov}} redirecting to "copyvio". Rambo's Revenge (en.wiki) 14:01, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
- Delete Copyright violation because Indian government images are not automatically public domain per Indian Copyright Act of 1957, Chapter V, Section 25 Hekerui (talk) 21:52, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. –Tryphon☂ 08:38, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
Personal image, not used. Yann (talk) 21:51, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
- Delete Only 2-3 images by uploader. No evidence uploader is the copyright owner and not much encyclopedic value either. --Leoboudv (talk) 23:52, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. –Tryphon☂ 08:38, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
Personal image, not used. Yann (talk) 21:52, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
- Delete per nominator. --Leoboudv (talk) 23:47, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. –Tryphon☂ 08:39, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
No description, not used. Either studio shot without permission, or personal image. Yann (talk) 21:56, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
- Delete When it is the sole image here by the uploader, it is not easy to assume good faith. If the uploader was the photographer, he/she would surely have placed a few more images here at least. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 22:10, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
- Keep The band exists (photo), I see no copyright problem. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:23, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
- Keep There's camera info & it's a good camera but hardly an exclusively professional one. I'd guess a friend of the band, made this and uploaded it. There's no actual positive evidence of anything illicit. --Simonxag (talk) 20:55, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
Kept. Per Simonxag. –Tryphon☂ 08:44, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
The photo is tagged with Yugoslavia PD but the image description states it is an Indian government photo with foreign ministry holding copyright russavia (talk) 02:07, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
- Delete Source country is U.S. (meeting in New York, October 1960), meaning the picture is copyrighted. Hekerui (talk) 22:19, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. –Tryphon☂ 08:44, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
Personal image, not used. Yann (talk) 22:01, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. –Tryphon☂ 08:45, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
Personal image, not used. Yann (talk) 22:05, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
- Delete Only image by uploader of an unnotable person. --Leoboudv (talk) 22:07, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. –Tryphon☂ 08:45, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
Personal image, not used. Yann (talk) 22:18, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. –Tryphon☂ 08:46, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
Personal image, not used. Yann (talk) 22:19, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. –Tryphon☂ 08:46, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
Not a NYWT&S staff photograph but an United Press International (UPI) photo according to LOC. Copyright by CORBIS, also according to LOC http://www.loc.gov/rr/print/res/151_upi.html. --Martin H. (talk) 22:29, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. –Tryphon☂ 08:46, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
Personal image, not used. Yann (talk) 22:33, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
- Delete Personnal pic. --Abujoy (talk) 17:52, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. –Tryphon☂ 08:47, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
Personal image, not used. Yann (talk) 22:37, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
- Delete Description: "my cousin". /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:53, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. –Tryphon☂ 08:47, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
Personal image, not used. Yann (talk) 22:38, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
- Delete No encyclopedic use for this image at all. --Leoboudv (talk) 23:50, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. –Tryphon☂ 08:48, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
I don't think this is own work. So no source, no permission. Yann (talk) 22:39, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
- Delete No evidence author is the uploader. --Leoboudv (talk) 23:48, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. –Tryphon☂ 08:48, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
Personal image, not used. Yann (talk) 22:46, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. –Tryphon☂ 08:49, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
File:Israelis_killed_by_Palestinians_in_Israel_and_Palestinians_killed_by_Israelis_in_Gaza_-_2008.png
[edit]
This graph fails WP:V/verification and is therefore unencyclopedic. It claims to be based on information found here and on wikipedia !?. I checked those pages and several subpages and was unable to find corresponding data. Original research. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 22:56, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
- Keep In use. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 05:52, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
- How do you suggest to address verification? Did you locate source of graph's numbers? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 07:08, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
- Keep Wikimedia Commons does not require WP:V. If an image is in use, it's in scope.--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:44, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
Kept. Per COM:NPOV; in use. –Tryphon☂ 08:50, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
Out of scope. Yann (talk) 22:47, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
- Keep He even has an article: en:David McMillan (smuggler). /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:50, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
- Delete, in scope but strongly suspected copyright violation from maybe http://www.flickr.com/photos/21837524@N02/ or another source. --Martin H. (talk) 23:53, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Most likely a copyright violation, maybe from http://www.flickr.com/photos/21837524@N02/2110974080/. –Tryphon☂ 08:53, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
This picture was moved here from the Hungarian Wikipedia.
- As you can see on the original page the picture was published under a non free license.
- This image can only be used for noncommercial purposes, see license (hungarian Licenc), english text below.
- The image has no source, has no author and no permission.
- The image is marked for deletion by a Hungarian Wikipedia user since may, 2009. --Beroesz (talk) 11:44, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. –Tryphon☂ 12:12, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
Two 'Loenen' categories
[edit]Category:Sculptures in Loenen and Category:Memorials in Loenen. The first-mentioned one only contains the second one, which is emptied. Apdency (talk) 11:25, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. –Tryphon☂ 12:24, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
Mystic Treatises
[edit]- Category:Mystic Treatises
- All subimages; the entire book
The book was published in 1923, so it's not PD in the US, and it was translated by w:de:Arent Jan Wensinck, who died in 1939, so it's not PD in the Netherlands, where it was published.--Prosfilaes (talk) 13:15 , 6 September 2009 (UTC)
- Delete Published in Amsterdam, the translator has copyright. (Warning: the category with all the .gif files takes forever to load.) /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:19, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
- Comment But why the ... did not you notify the uploader of all these files?!!! /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 17:07, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
- Because opening that category page and doing the simplest thing takes about 10-15 minutes for me, as it eats up all my memory, and I ran out of time.--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:22, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
- Comment Is it correct that the copyright of this book anywhere except in the USA expires on January 1, 2010? Sv1xv (talk) 17:45, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
- No. Columbia, for one, has a life+80 term and no rule of the shorter term.--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:22, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
- So, with the exception of a few countries with extreme copyright protection and the USA (not before 2018 due to URAA) it shall be generally free in less than 4 months. Sv1xv (talk) 04:26, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
- With those exceptions, it was already generally free.--Prosfilaes (talk) 07:04, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
- So, with the exception of a few countries with extreme copyright protection and the USA (not before 2018 due to URAA) it shall be generally free in less than 4 months. Sv1xv (talk) 04:26, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
- No. Columbia, for one, has a life+80 term and no rule of the shorter term.--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:22, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
- Keep per common sense here. Since the translator died in 1939, the work is copyright free in 4 months time. We can surely wait 4 months rather than delete 160 files here I think? --Leoboudv (talk) 21:59, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
- That makes good sense. Let this DR linger in the backlog until January. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:14, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
- So we host a work that violates US copyright (where the servers are hosted) and it also violates the copyright of its country of origin and we should just sit on it?--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:22, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
- If it was one file (or a small number of files) the best course would be to delete it now and then undelete it in four months. But when the work is distributed in a 457 files, it is counterproductive, unless it can be done by a script or a bot. I believe we have no technical option to temporarily hide it from public access, is it correct? (If a paper book publisher wanted to publish it when the copyright expires, he would already have started printing, binding, packaging and distributing the books. He would also set an official release date of January 1, 2010.) Sv1xv (talk) 04:26, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
- He wouldn't have started printing the books if he were a Florida-based publisher like Wikimedia is. I'm curious if they would be openly printing or distributing the books even if they were about to be PD, as that's a criminal act under US law.--Prosfilaes (talk) 07:04, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
- This is not the place to resolve the WMF-URAA policy issue, is it? The current discussion is about handling a specific case and we have proposed two options (temporary deletion using some script or leaving the DR open). Sv1xv (talk) 07:25, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
- We should just follow whatever Commons:Licensing says, which is "Wikimedia Commons accepts only media [...] that are in the public domain in at least the United States and in the source country of the work", and take the policy discussion, which needs to change that first, elsewhere.--Prosfilaes (talk) 16:19, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
- On this specific issue (URAA) the current Commons policy is "wait and see, don't rush to remove media unless asked to", see {{Not-PD-US-URAA}}. I don't know what happens behind the scene but I suspect they act on legal advice. If the courts decide that URAA is constitutional, a solution like hosting some media outside the USA may be implemented. Sv1xv (talk) 17:34, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
- If you believe that, then edit Commons:Licensing to say that.--Prosfilaes (talk) 18:19, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
- Why should I get involved ? I have no strong personal views on the subject. Sv1xv (talk) 18:52, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
- If you believe that, then edit Commons:Licensing to say that.--Prosfilaes (talk) 18:19, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
- On this specific issue (URAA) the current Commons policy is "wait and see, don't rush to remove media unless asked to", see {{Not-PD-US-URAA}}. I don't know what happens behind the scene but I suspect they act on legal advice. If the courts decide that URAA is constitutional, a solution like hosting some media outside the USA may be implemented. Sv1xv (talk) 17:34, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
- We should just follow whatever Commons:Licensing says, which is "Wikimedia Commons accepts only media [...] that are in the public domain in at least the United States and in the source country of the work", and take the policy discussion, which needs to change that first, elsewhere.--Prosfilaes (talk) 16:19, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
- This is not the place to resolve the WMF-URAA policy issue, is it? The current discussion is about handling a specific case and we have proposed two options (temporary deletion using some script or leaving the DR open). Sv1xv (talk) 07:25, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
- He wouldn't have started printing the books if he were a Florida-based publisher like Wikimedia is. I'm curious if they would be openly printing or distributing the books even if they were about to be PD, as that's a criminal act under US law.--Prosfilaes (talk) 07:04, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
- If it was one file (or a small number of files) the best course would be to delete it now and then undelete it in four months. But when the work is distributed in a 457 files, it is counterproductive, unless it can be done by a script or a bot. I believe we have no technical option to temporarily hide it from public access, is it correct? (If a paper book publisher wanted to publish it when the copyright expires, he would already have started printing, binding, packaging and distributing the books. He would also set an official release date of January 1, 2010.) Sv1xv (talk) 04:26, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
(unident) Sorry, I thought copyright ran out exactly 70 years after death of the author, this would be in a few days... If it is not so: delete it, I will upload the whole sh.. January 1st, 2010. --Moros (talk) 07:49, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
- If you are willing to upload it again, there is another issue, unrelated to copyright: It would be much better if you could upload it in PNG format instead of GIF. Sv1xv (talk) 08:50, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
- Don't worry, I've converted all files into the .PNG format and I would upload all files as .PNG files. --Moros (talk) 13:50, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
- Excellent! Then it is better to delete these ones now. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 14:04, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
- Don't worry, I've converted all files into the .PNG format and I would upload all files as .PNG files. --Moros (talk) 13:50, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. per request on Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard#Commons:Deletion_requests.2FMystic_Treatises Huib talk 17:11, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
Mystic Treatises
[edit]- Category:Mystic Treatises
- All subimages; the entire book
- Template:Mystic Treatises, Template:Mystic Treatises Preface
As noted above, this work was first published in the Netherlands by a translator who died in 1939, so it was still in copyright (70 pma retroactive) on the 1996 URAA date. Being published in 1923, it's still in copyright in the United States until 2019. Dcoetzee (talk) 18:32, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
- Delete As per above.--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:42, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY (TALK) 02:56, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
Images of Jspearmint (talk · contribs)
[edit]File:Beanfield.jpg{{PD-old}}- File:Gardencity.jpg
- File:Openshaw1.jpg
- File:Rationaldresscommittee.jpg
- File:Rationaldressprotest.jpg
File:Waldegrave-Houghton.jpg{{PD-National Photo Company}}
All the images uploaded by Jspearmint appear to be hoaxes, and as such, either copyvios or out of scope. Here are the relevant links to discussions at en.wp: en:WP:AN/I, Jspearmint's talk page and various AfD discussions. (See also the original request at COM:AN#User:Jspearmint.) –Tryphon☂ 20:08, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
- The last one is taken from http://www.shorpy.com/node/6620. —LX (talk, contribs) 20:25, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
- And it could be {{PD-US-no notice}} according to that source (blank caption labels means no copyright notice). –Tryphon☂ 20:33, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
- Someone tagged it correctly as {{PD-National Photo Company}}, and I added the primary source from the LOC. I will rename it to a more suitable name, but this one can be kept. –Tryphon☂ 09:56, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
- And it could be {{PD-US-no notice}} according to that source (blank caption labels means no copyright notice). –Tryphon☂ 20:33, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
- File:Beanfield.jpg seems to be correctly identified except for its location. It's at the Tate, not at the Letchworth Museum. I don't know about its copyright status; the Tate claims copyright on the linked page, but Gore died in 1914, so it would appear to be PD. Deor (talk) 11:36, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
Hoax
[edit]The hoax Regina Waldegrave-Houghton refers to Maria Waldegrave, the secret wife of Henry, Duke of Cumberland and Anne Houghton, wife of Henry, Duke of Cumberland. The two ladies are said to be responsable for the Royal Marriages Act of 1772. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 07:27, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Except the two that have been determined to be in the public domain and properly sourced. –Tryphon☂ 08:26, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
This personally drawn map of Alania is not supported by any source, see other images at Category:Maps_of_Alania and here and here. As such this orphan image as no usefulness and thus it is unencyclopedic. --Martintg (talk) 19:11, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
- Martintg, I hope that you do not want to claim that my map is wrong because it is different from other maps from "Maps_of_Alania" category? I provided my source for this map now and if you compare this map again with other maps from "Maps_of_Alania" category you will notice that this map is the only map in that category that mention its source. PANONIAN (talk) 13:05, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
- Delete. An obvious OR and POV. Not a single source cited. My reasoning is stated here.--Kober (talk) 20:26, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
- You are right in one thing: I did not cited my sources and I apologize for that, but I repaired this mistake and cited them now. As for POV claims, I live in Serbia, you know, so why would I have any POV interest in Caucasian history? This is against logic, you know... PANONIAN (talk) 13:02, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
- Keep - this is not "personally drawn map of Alania" but a map that I made according to this one from Russian Wikipedia: http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Файл:Karta_alania1_VII-XII.jpg and this map itself came to Russian Wikipedia from www.iratta.com. So much about sources, and would be users Martintg and Kober so kind to present for us some sources that would show why this map would not be correct? (I do not think that their "opinion" is a best proof for accuracy of this map). PANONIAN (talk) 12:41, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
- And here is original source of the map: http://www.iratta.com/atlas and http://iratta.com/2007/03/03/alanija_v_viixii_vv.html these maps are obviously scaned from historical atlas of some kind. PANONIAN (talk) 12:53, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
- What is iratta.com? It is just a forum where a certain user 00mN1ck posted maps of dubious authenticity. It is hardly a reliable source. "...obviously scaned from historical atlas of some kind" is not an argument.--Kober (talk) 14:23, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
- Not an argument? I do not see that you have a better one - seems that your only argument is in fact your own opinion. As for this web site, no it is not forum. Forum is just another part of this website (see: http://iratta.com/forum/ ), and history maps there are posted in completelly different section named "atlas" (see: http://www.iratta.com/atlas ). As for my observation that these maps were "obviously scaned from historical atlas of some kind", it is my assumption where these maps originally came from since the mentioned web site does not further elaborate origin of the maps, but, regarding my map, this web adress itself IS an source for info in the map and therefore you have no base to claim that my map is "unsourced". As for your claims that this source is "dubious", "POV" or whatever, I do not see a proof for such claims, so if you cannot provide any proof for this better than your own "opinion" please refrain from such claims in the future. PANONIAN (talk) 15:26, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
- Consult WP:SOURCE. I guess it also applies to historical maps at Commons. Not anything you find on the net qualifies as a source.--Kober (talk) 15:31, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
- "Consult WP:SOURCE" is not an answer. Please quote exact citation from WP:SOURCE that would apply to this web adress. PANONIAN (talk) 15:37, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
- In fact I have one quotation from WP:SOURCE here: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true. Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, or the material may be removed." - from what I see, I did provided a source for my map (and there is yet no proof that such source is not reliable) and you are the one who only providing your own opinion whether this info is truth or not. PANONIAN (talk) 15:42, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
- Sigh. It seems you are having hard times interpreting what you are reading. Yes, you did provide a source, but failed to prove that it is reliable as required by the text you have just cited. Who operates that website (WP:SPS)? Is it an academic or otherwise reliable publication (WP:SOURCES)? What is that mysterious "historical atlas of some kind" the map is supposedly scanned from? If you don't identify that source, how can others check it (that's what Verifiability is called on Wiki)? Man, just SAY WHERE YOU GOT IT.--Kober (talk) 15:54, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
- Do not worry, such "mysterious historical atlas" will not stay mysterious forever. In fact, we are very close to it. First check this map from iratta.com: http://iratta.com/2007/03/01/alany_v_velikom_pereselenii_narodov_konejj_iv__nachalo_vi_v.html then check this one from caucasica.org: http://www.caucasica.org/photo/20.jpg (the last one came from this atlas: Исторический атлас Осетии. Владикавказ. 2002. as geopolitica.ru claims (see: http://geopolitica.ru/Maps/4/ and http://geopolitica.ru/Maps/4/#_ftn19 ) - two maps are techically same, so it is obvious that they came from same atlas and the only question would be from which edition of the atlas first map came since there are slight colour and other differences in these maps. PANONIAN (talk) 16:07, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
- That's not the way how the sources are cited. Jumping from a website to a website in search of similarities between unrelated images and then forge a theory regarding its origin is WP:OR. Btw, you did a great job by finding http://geopolitica.ru. The article posted there is titled as Политизированная картография Кавказа (Politicized cartography of Caucasia), while its section where Исторический атлас Осетии falls is called Карты-фальсификации (Falsified maps). A comment to that map of Alan migration is also interesting. Do you now see why such sources fail to meet our polciies? --Kober (talk) 16:22, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
- fine, we do not have to discuss every web site. in fact, here is the "real" source (just for you, mister Kober): first see this page: http://www.aors.narod.ru/Frams/Istoria.htm then see map: http://www.aors.narod.ru/images/Al-VII.gif and then see bibliography (which include our misterious atlas): http://www.aors.narod.ru/Texty/Istochniki.htm Исторический атлас Осетии / Отв. ред. Р.С. Бзаров - Владикавказ: Ремарко, 2002 - 48 с. ил. PANONIAN (talk) 16:25, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
- How do these links prove that the source of this map is that very atlas, mister PANONIAN? Even if we assume that the atlas authored by Ossetian and published in North Ossetia in 2002 and subjected to criticism at the Russian website you have cited is a neutral third party source (WP:SOURCES), there is no proof that the image you based your work comes from that atlas. It is just cited in the bibliography at the no less unreliable source (aors.narod.ru) than iratta. --Kober (talk) 16:39, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
- ok, there is no clear link between maps and bibliography page on that web site, but there is on this one: http://www.alanica.ru/map/index.htm and here is English translation of the page: http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=ru&u=http://www.alanica.ru/map/index.htm&ei=cy1aSq3NHpLFsga6rInWAw&sa=X&oi=translate&resnum=8&ct=result&prev=/search%3Fq%3D%25D0%2591%25D0%25B7%25D0%25B0%25D1%2580%25D0%25BE%25D0%25B2%2B%25D0%25B0%25D1%2582%25D0%25BB%25D0%25B0%25D1%2581%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DG - I think I proved my case with this. PANONIAN (talk) 19:04, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
- Fine. Now other legitimate questions remain regarding the neutrality of the source and your decision to outline only N. and S. Ossetias which renders the map even more OR/POV. --Kober (talk) 04:21, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
- As for neutrality of the source, I have a proposal: we can use this map in the articles with description that it was made according to mentioned Ossetian source (i.e. mentioned historical atlas) and you can also post in these articles other maps made according to Georgian sources, so the Wikipedia readers would have both points of view presented, which is in accordance with Wikipedia neutral policy. As for my decision to show N and S Ossetian borders in the map, it is quite simple: these two modern nations/territories are cultural/political successors of medieval Alania, so it is relevant for the subject to compare their borders with medieval Alania and my whole intention for that map was to made it as illustration for articles related to Alanian-Ossetian history, so I did not think that any other modern border would be relevant to be shown in the map. As for POV/NPOV issue, you can notice that my map do not interfere with the question of modern political status of South Ossetia, i.e. it does not mention is S Ossetia part of Georgia or independent nation (and, according to peace proposals made by Georgian politicians, even if remain within Georgia, South Ossetia would be still an autonomous entitu/nation inhabited by Ossetians and thus, this medieval Alania would be still part of the history of South Ossetians and South Ossetia, no matter if S, Ossetia is an independent nation or an autonomous entity within Georgia - and my map is completelly neutral regarding modern political status of S, Ossetia). PANONIAN (talk) 16:42, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
- ok, there is no clear link between maps and bibliography page on that web site, but there is on this one: http://www.alanica.ru/map/index.htm and here is English translation of the page: http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=ru&u=http://www.alanica.ru/map/index.htm&ei=cy1aSq3NHpLFsga6rInWAw&sa=X&oi=translate&resnum=8&ct=result&prev=/search%3Fq%3D%25D0%2591%25D0%25B7%25D0%25B0%25D1%2580%25D0%25BE%25D0%25B2%2B%25D0%25B0%25D1%2582%25D0%25BB%25D0%25B0%25D1%2581%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DG - I think I proved my case with this. PANONIAN (talk) 19:04, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
- How do these links prove that the source of this map is that very atlas, mister PANONIAN? Even if we assume that the atlas authored by Ossetian and published in North Ossetia in 2002 and subjected to criticism at the Russian website you have cited is a neutral third party source (WP:SOURCES), there is no proof that the image you based your work comes from that atlas. It is just cited in the bibliography at the no less unreliable source (aors.narod.ru) than iratta. --Kober (talk) 16:39, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
- fine, we do not have to discuss every web site. in fact, here is the "real" source (just for you, mister Kober): first see this page: http://www.aors.narod.ru/Frams/Istoria.htm then see map: http://www.aors.narod.ru/images/Al-VII.gif and then see bibliography (which include our misterious atlas): http://www.aors.narod.ru/Texty/Istochniki.htm Исторический атлас Осетии / Отв. ред. Р.С. Бзаров - Владикавказ: Ремарко, 2002 - 48 с. ил. PANONIAN (talk) 16:25, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
- That's not the way how the sources are cited. Jumping from a website to a website in search of similarities between unrelated images and then forge a theory regarding its origin is WP:OR. Btw, you did a great job by finding http://geopolitica.ru. The article posted there is titled as Политизированная картография Кавказа (Politicized cartography of Caucasia), while its section where Исторический атлас Осетии falls is called Карты-фальсификации (Falsified maps). A comment to that map of Alan migration is also interesting. Do you now see why such sources fail to meet our polciies? --Kober (talk) 16:22, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
- Do not worry, such "mysterious historical atlas" will not stay mysterious forever. In fact, we are very close to it. First check this map from iratta.com: http://iratta.com/2007/03/01/alany_v_velikom_pereselenii_narodov_konejj_iv__nachalo_vi_v.html then check this one from caucasica.org: http://www.caucasica.org/photo/20.jpg (the last one came from this atlas: Исторический атлас Осетии. Владикавказ. 2002. as geopolitica.ru claims (see: http://geopolitica.ru/Maps/4/ and http://geopolitica.ru/Maps/4/#_ftn19 ) - two maps are techically same, so it is obvious that they came from same atlas and the only question would be from which edition of the atlas first map came since there are slight colour and other differences in these maps. PANONIAN (talk) 16:07, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
- Sigh. It seems you are having hard times interpreting what you are reading. Yes, you did provide a source, but failed to prove that it is reliable as required by the text you have just cited. Who operates that website (WP:SPS)? Is it an academic or otherwise reliable publication (WP:SOURCES)? What is that mysterious "historical atlas of some kind" the map is supposedly scanned from? If you don't identify that source, how can others check it (that's what Verifiability is called on Wiki)? Man, just SAY WHERE YOU GOT IT.--Kober (talk) 15:54, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
- Consult WP:SOURCE. I guess it also applies to historical maps at Commons. Not anything you find on the net qualifies as a source.--Kober (talk) 15:31, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
- Not an argument? I do not see that you have a better one - seems that your only argument is in fact your own opinion. As for this web site, no it is not forum. Forum is just another part of this website (see: http://iratta.com/forum/ ), and history maps there are posted in completelly different section named "atlas" (see: http://www.iratta.com/atlas ). As for my observation that these maps were "obviously scaned from historical atlas of some kind", it is my assumption where these maps originally came from since the mentioned web site does not further elaborate origin of the maps, but, regarding my map, this web adress itself IS an source for info in the map and therefore you have no base to claim that my map is "unsourced". As for your claims that this source is "dubious", "POV" or whatever, I do not see a proof for such claims, so if you cannot provide any proof for this better than your own "opinion" please refrain from such claims in the future. PANONIAN (talk) 15:26, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
- What is iratta.com? It is just a forum where a certain user 00mN1ck posted maps of dubious authenticity. It is hardly a reliable source. "...obviously scaned from historical atlas of some kind" is not an argument.--Kober (talk) 14:23, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
- And here is original source of the map: http://www.iratta.com/atlas and http://iratta.com/2007/03/03/alanija_v_viixii_vv.html these maps are obviously scaned from historical atlas of some kind. PANONIAN (talk) 12:53, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
- as for comments about maps of Ossetia in geopolitica.ru, this web site is exactly an example of forum, which you already said that is not reliable source, so if I understand you correctly, internet forums are not relible when they do not support your claims, but they are reliable when they support your claims, how interesting, dont you agree? I lost half of my day arguing with you here... PANONIAN (talk) 16:30, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
- It were you who brought geopolitica.ru here, not me. Now you are denouncing your own source as unreliable and an example of forum.--Kober (talk) 16:39, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
- I never used forum as a source - what I used is a map posted in that forum and that map clearly came from published historical atlas (which I proved). on the other hand, opinion of participants in the forum about that map or atlas is irrelevant for our case. PANONIAN (talk) 19:04, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
- It were you who brought geopolitica.ru here, not me. Now you are denouncing your own source as unreliable and an example of forum.--Kober (talk) 16:39, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
- as for comments about maps of Ossetia in geopolitica.ru, this web site is exactly an example of forum, which you already said that is not reliable source, so if I understand you correctly, internet forums are not relible when they do not support your claims, but they are reliable when they support your claims, how interesting, dont you agree? I lost half of my day arguing with you here... PANONIAN (talk) 16:30, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
- Delete.Strong Delete This image is example of OR and POV, completely contradicting every scholarly map where Alania's borders are clearly within North Caucasus and has never stretched over the South Caucasus frontiers. Iberieli (talk) 16:32, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
- Note that this user is from Georgia and therefore he might have personal political agenda about the subject due to recent Georgian-Ossetian conflict in 2008. as for image sources, I listed them here: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Alania_10_12.png#Sources - these sources are certainly more relevant than a personal opinion of any Wiki user. PANONIAN (talk) 19:04, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
- Nop, me being from Georgia does not change the fact that this map is an attempt to falsify historical accuracy and engage in POV pushing agenda here on Wiki. Again, where are your scholarly sources for the claim that Alania borders have been stretched into South Caucasus and covered current territory of so called "South Ossetia" ? Moreover, where are the examples of other scholarly maps which confirm Alanian border incursion into South Caucasus (similar maps as this, published by scholars) ? Where are your primary, secondary or even tertiary sources? IMHO I think you suffer from anti-Georgian attitude and hence pushing your Original research, historical revisionism and non-encyclopedia materials on Wikipedia. Iberieli (talk) 01:27, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
- As I said, scholarly sources has been presented here: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Alania_10_12.png#Sources - I used as a source an historical map published in historical atlas in North Ossetia. The map may reflect point of view of Ossetian historians, but if point of view of Georgian historians contradict to this, that would not be up to us to decide which of the two points of view is right and which is wrong - our job is only to accept that both points of view exist and to present both of them to Wiki readers. Nobody stopping you to present Georgian sources and to upload maps made according to these sources, but, as I showed, this Ossetian point of view also exist and, as such, it is legitimate view to be presented in Wikipedia. What personal opinion you might have about this view is not an issue that Wikipedia should deal with. PANONIAN (talk) 17:12, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
- Moreover, your sources are completely unacceptable due to its unschoalrly nature, and plus from a biased pro-Russian source. There are no neutral sources and those maps are not scholarly. Blunt attempt to cover your OR. Iberieli (talk) 01:30, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
- So, you want to say that Russian sources are more biased regarding this question than the Georgian ones? I certainly do not think so (let just start with war propaganda that came from Georgia during 2008 war and we can see how Georgian sources might be reliable or unreliable). As for unschoalrly/schoalrly nature of the source, the author of the historical atlas that I used as a source is Ruslan Suleymanovich Bzarov who is a doctor of historical sciences, which would made this source a very schoalrly one (see this: http://news.yandex.ru/people/bzarov_ruslan.html ). PANONIAN (talk) 17:12, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
- Moreover, your sources are completely unacceptable due to its unschoalrly nature, and plus from a biased pro-Russian source. There are no neutral sources and those maps are not scholarly. Blunt attempt to cover your OR. Iberieli (talk) 01:30, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
- It is so hypocritical on PANONIAN's part to speak of others' "personal political agenda". Just check his tirade here where the guy has displayed outright hostility towards Georgians in addition to his incivility and prejudices.--Kober (talk) 04:19, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
- Well, Kober, I do not see that my post there include any specific anti-Georgian statements - you can clearly see that I spoke there about "nationalists and racists of all kinds" and I would say the same to any nationalist from any country. it is not problem that you are from Georgia, but that I percieve your behavior as nationalistic one (I apologize if I am wrong, of course) and I admit that I do have prejudices about nationalists in general no matter from which country they came. PANONIAN (talk) 17:12, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
- It is so hypocritical on PANONIAN's part to speak of others' "personal political agenda". Just check his tirade here where the guy has displayed outright hostility towards Georgians in addition to his incivility and prejudices.--Kober (talk) 04:19, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
- Keep I do not going to go in any argumentation, I think that user Panonian give enough sources and confirmations about this map. Nothing wrong!----László (talk) 00:55, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
- Delete. Clear POV. Geagea (talk) 23:04, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
- Note that this user is from Georgia and therefore he might have personal political agenda about the subject due to recent Georgian-Ossetian conflict in 2008. As for the image, it might represent point of view of Russian historians, but Wikipedia exist to present all views about the subject. Do you want to say that all other maps based on Georgian sources should be deleted too because they represent Georgian POV? PANONIAN (talk) 08:20, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
- First I am not from Georgia. Second, who made you the in charge? Pleas clear your unchecked statement, and clean also the POV map. Geagea (talk) 12:43, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
- Note that this user is from Georgia and therefore he might have personal political agenda about the subject due to recent Georgian-Ossetian conflict in 2008. As for the image, it might represent point of view of Russian historians, but Wikipedia exist to present all views about the subject. Do you want to say that all other maps based on Georgian sources should be deleted too because they represent Georgian POV? PANONIAN (talk) 08:20, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
This map is far from reality. This is the only map showing Alania borders located south to Caucasioni. This map is based only on one Russian source and can not be considered correct. It's subjective and evidently made by a dilettante.
- No, it is not "only map showing Alania borders located south to Caucasioni" (by the way, it is Caucasus in English, you know). If you look here, you will see several such maps in my sources: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Alania_10_12.png#Sources As for Russian source question, I will repeat what I said to previous user: image might represent point of view of Russian historians, but Wikipedia exist to present all views about the subject. Do you want to say that all other maps based on Georgian sources should be deleted too because they represent Georgian POV? PANONIAN (talk) 08:20, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
Other Wikipedia maps showing that borders of Alania are located on Caucasioni mountains and do not include places historically populated by Georgians.
- "Other Wikipedia maps" that you mentioned mostly do not mention their sources (unlike my map which clearly mention and describe its source) and therefore unsourced maps drawn by few wiki users cannot be considered a valid argument against my map. PANONIAN (talk) 08:20, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
We assume that Wikipedia uses eligible sources only. This map is not in this list. We expect it to be removed from Wikipedia.
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Datei:Caucasus_1060n_map_de.png
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Geor_david.gif
http://conflicts.rem33.com/images/Georgia/geor_tamro.GIF
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8a/Caucasus_1000_map_de.png
- Delete. Clear POV. --იბერია (talk) 12:47, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
- Note: this user has just few edits, and thus it is clear sockpuppet created for voting. As for "eligible sources", eligible for whom? For Georgian nationalists who cannot live with the fact that Ossetian people live in the south Caucasus, right? Sorry, but it is outrage - if we start removing things from Wikipedia just because somebody do not like to see them where that will lead us? It will lead us to medieval darkness when books were burned by inquisitors. As for these 4 maps that you posted, they just represent opposite POV about the subject (and they DO represent a POV, you know), and the existence of these maps is one reason more not to delete my map since, if my map is deleted then Wikipedia would have only maps that represent Georgian POV and that would be against neitrality policy of Wikipedia. PANONIAN (talk) 08:20, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
Keep like the Description says, it illustrates the oppinion of a Ossetian historian. Of course it can not illustrate 10-12 century, because there were some changes in this time. In my opinion the map could illustrate Alania at the beginning of the 10th century, because later Georgia was united and ruled over hole Inner Kartli (and Abkhazia didnt exist after ~1000 AC). And the other maps in the category, most drawn by me, also depend on more or less reliable sources. Maybe the one for ~900 from me is wrong and this is right for that time. --Don-kun (talk) 14:30, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
- Delete--Lika2672 (talk) 16:00, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
- Note that this user is from Georgia and therefore he might have personal political agenda about the subject due to recent Georgian-Ossetian conflict in 2008. PANONIAN (talk) 08:44, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
- Delete -- It is so nonobjective, It is a shame keeping this file in the wikimedia Common! delete it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!--Temuri rajavi (talk) 16:23, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
- Note that this user is from Georgia and therefore he might have personal political agenda about the subject due to recent Georgian-Ossetian conflict in 2008. As for objectivity, source for my map is doctor of historical sciences from Russia. Are you doctor of historical sciences too so that your opinion might match his? PANONIAN (talk) 08:44, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
- Delete- This is the falsification of history! Dato deutschland (talk) 16:33, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
- Note that this user is from Georgia and therefore he might have personal political agenda about the subject due to recent Georgian-Ossetian conflict in 2008. As for objectivity, source for my map is doctor of historical sciences from Russia. Are you doctor of historical sciences too so that your opinion might match his? PANONIAN (talk) 08:44, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
- Not only falsification, it is a beginning of a naughty policy in the Wikimedia COMMONS, I repeat: IT IS A SHAME FOR WIKIMEDIA COMMONS HAVE SUCH A "STUPID" FILE (excusem me for this word "Stupid") --Temuri rajavi (talk) 16:43, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
- No, Temuri rajavi, it would be shame if Wikimedia Commons start deleting well sourced files that represent valid opinions of valid historians just because some users think that these files are "stupid" or because they do not like to see what is represented in such files. And you might not understand now what I will tell you but I hope that you will one day: for your own good it is important that this file remain here because you will not become civilized human being of the 21st century until you do not accept the fact that people of other ethnicity have right to live in south Caucasus and have right to speak about their culture and history. PANONIAN (talk) 08:44, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
- Delete--David1010 (talk) 17:05, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
- Note: this user has just few edits, and thus it is possible sockpuppet created for voting. PANONIAN (talk) 07:59, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
- Delete--BRUTE (talk) 17:35, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
- Note: this user has just one edit, and thus it is clear sockpuppet created for voting. PANONIAN (talk) 07:59, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
- Delete-- It's chauvinism. which soursis does the outhor of this map had made use of? if any of us want to compose map, we shoud read more histoical books. mikkelanjelo
- Note: this user has just one edit, and thus it is clear sockpuppet created for voting. As for chauvinism, what kind of chauvinism? As I already stated, I live in Serbia and I do not have political agenda regarding Caucasian affairs. As for my sources, I clearly stated them, so just read them: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Alania_10_12.png#Sources PANONIAN (talk) 07:59, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
- Delete --გრიგოლ (talk) 18:53, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
- Note: this user has just few edits, and thus it is possible sockpuppet created for voting. PANONIAN (talk) 07:59, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
Delete--ჯაბა ლაბაძე (talk) 10:20, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
- Note that this user is from Georgia and therefore he might have personal political agenda about the subject due to recent Georgian-Ossetian conflict in 2008. PANONIAN (talk) 10:26, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
- Keep--This is true historical map, also displaying 2 Ossetia republics, It does not matter, if they independent or not.--Vicpeters (talk) 11:31, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
Each user can vote. They know much more than the author of this map --იბერია (talk) 11:13, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
The map must be primarily an independent source. In this case, it is not so --იბერია (talk) 11:37, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
- I just want to mention that User:იბერია/de:Benutzer:იბერია is the third (or more) sockpuppet of de:Benutzer:Schalwa, who was banned from German Wikipedia because of his pro-Georgian POV and the kind he acts in discussions. --Don-kun (talk) 11:38, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
This topic is not about me, but a false map and your personal thoughts you do not write here. That is childish. --იბერია (talk) 11:48, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
- It is true historical map, there are some sources. Keep. And, sorry, voting looks like a flash mob created by Georgian users. - Аурелиано Буэндиа (talk) 12:58, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
- Keep; true map, look at original sources. --Latitude (talk) 14:51, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
History Map of Europe, Year 1000
http://www.euratlas.com/history_europe/europe_map_1000.html
History Map of Europe, Year 1100
http://www.euratlas.com/history_europe/europe_map_1100.html
Map of Europe in Year 1200
http://www.euratlas.com/travel_time/europe_south_east_1200.html
The Russian map comes in contrast to all other maps. The border was never Alanias in the south of the Caucasus --იბერია (talk) 07:33, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
- Don't know about Alania, but the map in euratlas.com is roughly incorrect: in 1200, Novgorod was not principality, but republic. It illustrates that its editors knows not much about Eastern Europe history. 85.249.170.39 07:54, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
The boundary is represented correctly. That is the main --იბერია (talk) 08:03, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
- In fact there is no boundary, only blurred colors. The maps from euroatlas say nothing about where South Ossetia belongs to in that time. And they call the western Georgian Kingdom Kingdom of Abkhazia, I wonder that you agree with that :D --Don-kun (talk) 10:18, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
- And I want to remember you the map at the left, where the borders of Iberia and Alania (under Khazars) are south of Caucasus. And that is based on statements of Heinz Fähnrich, German Caucasiologist (do you say so? don't know if thats the right word for German Kaukasiologe) and Member of Georgian Academy of Sciences. --Don-kun (talk) 10:26, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
The display on the Map South Ossetia is already a disgrace. You know very well that South Ossetia to 17 Century did not exist.
Your map also has no source. --იბერია (talk) 14:39, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
- I named my source in my statement before. Can you read? --Don-kun (talk) 15:29, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
There are no source-Own work by uploader-
And this map does not fit on this map --იბერია (talk) 07:28, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
- What word in the phrase in my statement before you don't understand? And shouldn't you first look up what derivate means before writing about. --Don-kun (talk) 09:26, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
These two maps have nothing common. --იბერია (talk) 11:21, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
Proposition
[edit]
Ok. To finalize this discussion we have to try to answer some questions:
- Why do all of us using en-wiki rules here? I think it's ok, but could anybody give a reference.
- Does the map should be independently sourced, or it may give us somebody's opinion?
- What does reliable source means (third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy en:WP:SOURCES)?
- Do we have such kind of source here?
I won't propose any decision here, but note that I'am from Russia 
and therefore might have personal political agenda about the subject due to recent Georgian-Ossetian conflict in 2008.
Besuglov.S (talk) 12:43, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
- First I think that there can not be a real independant source, because nearly everybody who is engaged in this topic has his position. The map claims only to show the opinion of a historian, not what realy was, and refers to a map which was made by that person. IMO that is a reliable source for that map. And until now there were no prove given, that the map is wrong. There were only maps shown, which show more the Georgian view, wich may be OK too. But, by the way, discussing about this subject I recognized some inconsistency between my sources (maps by Andrew Andersen and book by Heinz Fähnrich) too. So nothing is sure, maybe we will find an answer in the future ;) --Don-kun (talk) 13:04, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
Maybe dear Don Kun will explain when and HOW the Alans had crossed the great Caucasian Range? Or, maybe they could fly? Please note, that on Panoyan's map the only possible way of crossing this nature great range is at the territory of Abkhasia. (I mean the Daryal gate)Even Russia couldn't to conquer Caucasus without coasts of Black and Caspian seas. So, the quetion. How & when had the Alanscrossed Great Caucasian Range?--George Mel (talk) 14:24, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
- They crossed by foot and horse, of course. There are several passes, Heinz Fähnrich mentioned the Dariel Pass, so does David Braund in Georgia in Antiquity. If you confuse Abkhazia with Khevi, please think about it before writing. --Don-kun (talk) 18:50, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
I don't understand why you are changing the theme. Abkhazia was a Georgian feudalic state. It was ruled by a Georgian dynasty of Bagrationi and used Georgian language. I hope that it's clear.--George Mel (talk) 17:00, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
- Theme here was not Abkhazia, but you mentioned it in your statement (the only possible way of crossing this nature great range is at the territory of Abkhasia. (I mean the Daryal gate)) --Don-kun (talk) 14:52, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
Keep Please see the standing policy Commons:Project scope/Neutral point of view. --Simonxag (talk) 20:18, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
Kept. Per COM:NPOV; in use. –Tryphon☂ 08:31, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
OSM png renders
[edit]- File:Rondebosch OSM map 437px.png (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Rondebosch OSM map 873px.png (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Rondebosch OSM map 1747px.png (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Rondebosch OSM map 3493px.png (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
I uploaded these four images as a workaround at a time when MediaWiki didn't properly display the SVG maps that OpenStreetMap was generating. I have no intention of updating them, and they serve no purpose other than to confuse. They are used nowhere (per CheckUsage) and they are entirely replaceable by File:Rondebosch OSM map.png and File:Rondebosch OSM map.svg. They are redundant and of bad quality, given that they are missing any features whatsoever in large areas of the map, and missing many features that have since been added in the mapped areas. There is absolutely no reason to retain them on Commons, given that they were created solely as a workaround for a technical problem that has long since been resolved. Htonl (talk) 23:59, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
- Delete per good faith uploader request. --Leoboudv (talk) 00:58, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
- Delete obsolete duplicates; also File:Rondebosch OSM map.png would not be needed anymore now that svg-files have png-links in different sizes. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 05:55, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. – I've also taken the liberty of deleting File:Rondebosch OSM map.png per Peter Kuiper. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 14:34, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
I uploaded the new, improved version of the diagram File:Complex Osówka - Riese.PNG Les7007 (talk) 12:02, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
- Delete per good faith uploader request. --Leoboudv (talk) 22:00, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
- Delete The diagram has low quality and does not reflect the present state of the underground. --Les7007 (talk) 15:15, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
Deleted Per uploader request. Low quality image not used in any Wikimedia project. Alpertron (talk) 15:57, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
Professional studio picture, needs source and permission. Yann (talk) 20:03, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
- Comment Could the uploader be the photographer here or is it a copy vio? Its a professional picture and he gives a very specific date for it but it is not clear if this is a copy vio. Does one assume good faith or delete it? Its a tough call. --Leoboudv (talk) 21:37, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Uploader's only contribution is a photo taken by thousands of dollars worth of camera - that means permission is required in my opinion. Uploader was notified and has had plenty of time to provide such permission. Wknight94 talk 21:40, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
Author has uploaded other images under a similar claim of being his/her own work , but upon research were in fact taken from other websites, these being File:Campus entrance sm.jpg and File:Campus from rear.jpg which originated [3]. I have not found an exact copy of this image on another website but I am suspicious on if this image is really not copyrighted given (a) its professionalism (b) its similarity to [4] which is clearly marked as copyrighted (c) the user’s other uploads suggesting the claim of this being in the public domain is not reliable. Camaron · Christopher · talk 14:26, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
Deleted, per nominator. Kameraad Pjotr 19:05, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
Image requires permission from N.Evans Univ of Texas at Austin. See copyright statement from Spitzer: Some image and video materials on Spitzer public web sites are owned by organizations other than Caltech, JPL, or NASA. These owners have agreed to make their images and video available for journalistic, educational, and personal uses, but restrictions are placed on commercial uses. To obtain permission for commercial use, contact the copyright owner listed in each image caption and/or credit. Ownership of images and video by parties other than Caltech, JPL, and NASA is noted in the caption material and/or image credit with each image. 84user (talk) 19:09, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
Deleted, per nominator. Kameraad Pjotr 19:07, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
Prominently features a copyrighted photo by Robert Mapplethorpe 67.39.251.254 13:09, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
The President of the ToF Foundation, Durk Dehner in person, allowed to use Mapplethorpe's photo of Tom of Finland for this portrait in front of the foundation's estate. Henning von Berg allowed his picture to be featured for free here at Wiki. (September 19, 2009)
Neither of them owns the copyright to Mapplethorpe's work. This is a copyvio.
- Comment: We can put a Gaussian blur over the copyrighted photo and re-upload. - Jmabel ! talk 17:54, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
- The background photo is why it was uploaded to Wikipedia in the first place: to supply a photo of the subject for the article about him, without using the fullsize photo. - 99.24.251.105 02:00, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
- If so, this photo is clearly a copyvio. I thought the main subject was the person in front. --Kjetil_r 09:39, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
- There's an editor who's tried to justify the use of the image by claiming that the guy in front is notable... but, no. - JasonAQuest
- I agree with jasonaquest above in that i was just perusing this article and thought the man standing in front of the picture was tom, instead after reading hte description, it's just somebody looking to promote himself.
- There's an editor who's tried to justify the use of the image by claiming that the guy in front is notable... but, no. - JasonAQuest
- If so, this photo is clearly a copyvio. I thought the main subject was the person in front. --Kjetil_r 09:39, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
- The background photo is why it was uploaded to Wikipedia in the first place: to supply a photo of the subject for the article about him, without using the fullsize photo. - 99.24.251.105 02:00, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
(talk) 00:39, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
- Keep but crop and/or blur per Jmabel. The photo is currently in several "Tom of Finland" articles and the person in this picture is its co-founder. Wknight94 talk 15:39, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
Deleted, abuse of FOP. Kameraad Pjotr 20:32, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
Very low quality. Can be replaced by File:South Asian Games participating countries.PNG with no problems. Filipe Ribeiro Msg 20:09, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
- Keep In use, in scope. Multichill (talk) 20:42, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
- Comment File:2010 SAG PMap.jpg is not used. I replaced File:2010 SAG PN.JPG by File:South Asian Games participating countries.PNG in en-wiki. Three images with the same application, two of them with very low quality. Is this really necessary? Filipe Ribeiro Msg 15:33, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
- Keep File:2010 SAG PN.JPG is released under the {{Cc-zero}} Creative Commons CC0 waiver, which makes it "free-er" than the PNG. Uploader has also created File:AAG 2003 PN.jpg, another map in a matching style. Quality alone is not a reason for deletion. -84user (talk) 19:06, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
Kept, files are within project scope and show more context than the replacement image. Kameraad Pjotr 19:10, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
