The center for all Wikitravel images!

Votes for deletion/Archive July-Dec 2007

From Wikitravel Shared
Votes for deletion : Archive July-Dec 2007
Jump to: navigation, search

Contents

July 2007[edit]

Image:GoatsBurundi.jpg[edit]

  • Delete. Photo of people: privacy violation. - TVerBeek 21:54, 6 June 2007 (EDT)
  • Delete - the people are the main subject in the photo, which violates the privacy policy – cacahuate talk 00:38, 21 June 2007 (EDT)

Outcome: deleted – cacahuate talk 23:38, 8 July 2007 (EDT)

Image:Hurdy_Gurdy_Man.jpg[edit]

  • Please delete, at the request of creator of photo. Same reason as above. As I read deeper into your guidelines, I feel this may be over the line and not that much of a loss anyway. Just looking for something to fill the white space. 2old 15:33, 18 June 2007 (EDT)

Outcome: deleted – cacahuate talk 23:38, 8 July 2007 (EDT)

Karine 777's uploads[edit]

Karine 777's uploads meet Images that do not help the Wikitravel project.

  • Delete all - not useful to Wikitravel – cacahuate talk 00:38, 21 June 2007 (EDT)

Outcome: deleted all – cacahuate talk 23:38, 8 July 2007 (EDT)

Image:A residential view of Kabul in 2005.jpg[edit]

Outcome: deleted – cacahuate talk 23:38, 8 July 2007 (EDT)

August 2007[edit]

Image:Pilio.png[edit]

Outcome : deleted -- Tatata 00:09, 3 August 2007 (EDT)

Image:Copy of allmadrid (1).jpg[edit]

  • Delete. This image is a ad for another travel guide site and probably copyvio because all rights reserved by the site [1]. -- Tatata 01:14, 7 July 2007 (EDT)

Outcome : deleted -- Tatata 00:12, 3 August 2007 (EDT)

Image:Klu1.jpg[edit]

  • Delete. Copyvio : this image is not released under cc-by-sa, but released under cc-by-nc[2]. -- Tatata 21:30, 8 July 2007 (EDT)
    • I confirmed that the image was uploaded by the creator, and he changed the license from cc-by-nc to cc-by-sa on Flickr[3]. Thus the problem has been solved and I withdraw this nomination. -- Tatata 11:49, 5 August 2007 (EDT)
  • Keep - the image was uploaded by the creator, and while the image is marked as NC on Flickr, when it was uploaded to WT the user selected cc-by-sa-all – cacahuate talk 23:34, 8 July 2007 (EDT)

Outcome : kept -- Tatata 11:49, 5 August 2007 (EDT)

Image:Paysage maritime du Bas-St-Laurent Québec .jpg[edit]

  • Delete. License tag and image info were removed by the contributor.[4] -- Tatata 21:20, 12 July 2007 (EDT)

Outcome : deleted -- Tatata 00:14, 3 August 2007 (EDT)

Category:Name[edit]

  • Delete. This category was made by mistake. -- Tatata 00:00, 15 July 2007 (EDT)

Outcome : deleted -- Tatata 00:24, 3 August 2007 (EDT)

Image:373296152 5f5620faf9.jpg[edit]

  • Delete. Copyvio : this image is not released under cc-by-sa, but released under cc-by-nc[5]. -- Tatata 00:17, 15 July 2007 (EDT)
  • Delete. My mistake. I'll also delete the image from the Swansea article. Frequenttrekker 03:56, 15 July 2007 (EDT)

Outcome : deleted -- Tatata 00:27, 3 August 2007 (EDT)

Creativ3's contribution[edit]

Creativ3's contribution meet Deletion policy#Reasons to delete articles.

  • Macau
  • User talk:Creativ3 as the draft of above.
    • Delete. Both look like ads to me. -- Tatata 05:43, 16 July 2007 (EDT)
    • Delete, Keep. Delete the advert that does not meet article criteria at Macau, but keep the User talk:Creativ3 as it is in the userspace. I don't particularly agree, but there is a discussion on :en that has produced a semblance of consensus regarding touting in the userspace. --Peter Talk 04:04, 2 August 2007 (EDT)

Outcome : Macau deleted, User talk:Creativ3 kept -- Tatata 00:30, 3 August 2007 (EDT)

Image:Kampong-luong_silversmith1.jpg and Image:Tanorn_silkweaver.jpg[edit]

Uploaded by User:Monsoontours. Both are violations of the people-in-pictures policy, no indication of consent given. Gorilla Jones 17:45, 23 July 2007 (EDT)

  • Delete. -- Tatata 02:17, 27 July 2007 (EDT)
  • Delete. --Peter Talk 04:04, 2 August 2007 (EDT)

Outcome : deleted -- Tatata 00:32, 3 August 2007 (EDT)

Bhutan tour operator[edit]

Pretty clearly a non-goal. Speedy. Maj 09:54, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

Outcome: speedy deleted --Flip666 writeme! • 10:32, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

Image:CityMosque-KotaKinabalu.jpg[edit]

  • Delete. This Image: namespace page is a wreck of deletion by the contributor for the reason of the wrong filename. The current file is Deleted. -- Tatata 02:15, 27 July 2007 (EDT)
    • I deleted this to try the (Delete all revisions of this file) button. -- Tatata 03:22, 1 August 2007 (EDT)


Image:Miami metro area.jpg[edit]

  • Delete. Duplication of Image:Miamimetroarea.jpg, they were uploaded by the same contributor. Maybe, this was a wrong file name. -- Tatata 22:11, 29 July 2007 (EDT)
  • Delete. --Peter Talk 04:04, 2 August 2007 (EDT)

Outcome : deleted -- Tatata 01:09, 17 August 2007 (EDT)

Image:Miamimetroarea.jpg[edit]

Outcome : deleted -- Tatata 01:12, 17 August 2007 (EDT)

Image:Seaport.jpg[edit]

Outcome : deleted -- Tatata 01:14, 17 August 2007 (EDT)

Image:Metrorail.jpg[edit]

  • Delete. Copyvio[6]. This image is copyrighted; Polischuk is notified and acknowledged as photographer.[7] -- Tatata 23:33, 29 July 2007 (EDT)
  • Delete. --Peter Talk 04:04, 2 August 2007 (EDT)

Outcome : deleted -- Tatata 01:16, 17 August 2007 (EDT)

Image:Belem..jpg[edit]

  • Delete. Duplication of Image:Belem2.jpg, they were uploaded by the same contributor. Maybe, this was a wrong file name. -- Tatata 02:48, 31 July 2007 (EDT)
  • Delete. --Peter Talk 04:04, 2 August 2007 (EDT)

Outcome : deleted -- Tatata 01:18, 17 August 2007 (EDT)

Image:Almendra2.JPG[edit]

Outcome : deleted -- Tatata 01:20, 17 August 2007 (EDT)

Madagascar[edit]

  • Delete. Though I think it meets the speedy deletion, is it used as a <gallery> page? -- Tatata 21:43, 31 July 2007 (EDT)
  • Speedy delete. I think it is fair to speedy delete non-articles created on Shared's main namespace. If they look like an honest attempt to create a destination guide, we can leave a note on the contributor's page, including any deleted content from the article, and then speedy delete the article itself. --Peter Talk 04:12, 2 August 2007 (EDT)

Outcome : deleted -- Tatata 01:24, 17 August 2007 (EDT)

Image:Mad 11.jpg[edit]

  • Delete. Privacy rights violation. -- Tatata 01:14, 1 August 2007 (EDT)
  • Delete. --Peter Talk 04:12, 2 August 2007 (EDT)

Outcome : deleted -- Tatata 01:26, 17 August 2007 (EDT)

Image:Mad 3.jpg[edit]

  • Delete. Privacy rights violation. -- Tatata 01:17, 1 August 2007 (EDT)
  • Delete. --Peter Talk 04:12, 2 August 2007 (EDT)

Outcome : deleted -- Tatata 01:27, 17 August 2007 (EDT)

Image:Mad 4.jpg[edit]

  • Delete. Privacy rights violation. -- Tatata 01:20, 1 August 2007 (EDT)
  • Delete. --Peter Talk 04:12, 2 August 2007 (EDT)

Outcome : deleted -- Tatata 01:29, 17 August 2007 (EDT)

Image:Madagascar 4.jpg[edit]

  • Delete. Privacy rights violation. -- Tatata 01:22, 1 August 2007 (EDT)
  • Delete. --Peter Talk 04:12, 2 August 2007 (EDT)

Outcome : deleted -- Tatata 01:31, 17 August 2007 (EDT)

Nomadom's uploads[edit]

Outcome : all deleted -- Tatata 01:41, 17 August 2007 (EDT)

Image:Almendra22.JPG[edit]

Outcome: Deleted Fastestdogever 17:22, 19 August 2007 (EDT)

Image:Logo.jpg[edit]

Doubts about license; potential copyright violations . The contributor tagged {{cc-by-sa-1.0}}, but I couldn't find any CC-by-sa license information or copyleft permission on their site. [9]

Outcome : deleted -- Tatata 21:59, 22 August 2007 (EDT)

Image:Almeida.png[edit]

Copyright violations. The contributor tagged {{dual-gfdl-cc-by-sa-1.0}}, but this image released under only GFDL1.2 or later, not a dual licensing.[10]

  • Delete. But if the contributor explains what the author said and if the contributor declares that he is fully responsible for the decision, both in English on the image page, I will withdraw my vote. -- Tatata 22:37, 2 August 2007 (EDT)
  • Delete. Coat of arms not necessary on WT. -- Fastestdogever 17:38, 19 August 2007 (EDT)

Outcome : deleted -- Tatata 22:10, 22 August 2007 (EDT)

Image:Terrasse à La Malbaie Charlevoix Québec.jpg[edit]

Does not target our goals.

  • Delete. This image is entirely uninformative with regards to travel, as it shows only chairs on a porch. --Peter Talk 05:10, 4 August 2007 (EDT)
  • Delete. Probably, this is copyvio because the source site claims the prior written authorization for any use, reproduction, dissemination, publication, or retransmission.[11] -- Tatata 12:37, 5 August 2007 (EDT)
Just to clarify, the user who uploaded this claims to be an official representative, but this is unverified and we have been unable to contact the bureau itself. --Peter Talk 03:24, 7 August 2007 (EDT)
  • Delete. Copyvio or no, this could have been taken anywhere. -- Fastestdogever 17:38, 19 August 2007 (EDT)

Outcome : deleted -- Tatata 22:14, 22 August 2007 (EDT)

Image:Calle Sanpedro Hondarribia.jpg[edit]

Broken file. The contributor agreed to deletion.

  • Delete. -- Tatata 21:53, 5 August 2007 (EDT)

Outcome: Deleted -- Fastestdogever 17:27, 19 August 2007 (EDT)

Image:FIG.png[edit]

Copyright violations. The contributor tagged {{dual-gfdl-cc-by-sa-1.0}}, but this image released under only GFDL1.2 or later, not a dual licensing.[12]

  • Delete. But if the contributor explains what the author said and if the contributor declares that he is fully responsible for the decision, both in English on the image page, I will withdraw my vote. -- Tatata 22:27, 5 August 2007 (EDT)
  • Delete. Coat of arms not necessary on WT. -- Fastestdogever 17:38, 19 August 2007 (EDT)

Outcome : deleted -- Tatata 22:18, 22 August 2007 (EDT)

Image:Torre.jpg[edit]

Outcome: Deleted -- Fastestdogever 17:31, 19 August 2007 (EDT)

Image:Cba1.jpg[edit]

Broken file. Probably, is not being used anywhere.

  • Delete. -- Tatata 03:59, 15 August 2007 (EDT)

Outcome: Deleted -- Fastestdogever 17:37, 19 August 2007 (EDT)

September 2007[edit]

Image:Kazan kremlin.jpg[edit]

The term of use for this image become unclear because the source file was deleted on Wikimedia Commons[13]. Incidentally, the reason of deletion was Fair use[14].

  • Delete. -- Tatata 01:37, 4 September 2007 (EDT)
  • Speedy delete, since I uploaded it here, and the commons uploader used a false license. I have now removed the thumbnail link from en:Tatarstan. --Peter Talk 02:04, 4 September 2007 (EDT)

Outcome: Speedy deleted --Peter Talk 02:04, 4 September 2007 (EDT)


Image:Air shows.jpg[edit]

Copyright violations. This image is released under CC-BY-ND.[15]

  • Delete. I will ask the contributor to contact with the original creator to keep this image. -- Tatata 05:13, 6 August 2007 (EDT)
    • No response from the contributor for a full one month, so we cannot expect any more. -- Tatata 20:43, 9 September 2007 (EDT)

Outcome: Deleted. -- Fastestdogever 10:16, 18 September 2007 (EDT)

Image:Herb legnicy.svg[edit]

Outcome: Deleted. -- Fastestdogever 10:16, 18 September 2007 (EDT)

Image:Cheese stand Basel.JPG[edit]

  • Delete. Uploaded without license info and seems to be a privacy rights violation. -- Tatata 03:34, 8 August 2007 (EDT)
  • Speedy delete + notify uploader. --Peter Talk 04:52, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

Outcome: Deleted. -- Fastestdogever 10:16, 18 September 2007 (EDT)

Image:Sabugal.jpg[edit]

Copyright violations. This image is released under GFDL only.[16]

  • Delete. Is it speedy?-- Tatata 08:32, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
  • Delete. -- Fastestdogever 17:38, 19 August 2007 (EDT)
  • Speedy delete, provided the uploader is notified, so that they don't wonder what happened and upload it again ;) --Peter Talk 04:52, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

Outcome: Deleted. -- Fastestdogever 10:16, 18 September 2007 (EDT)

Image:Arundel Castle.JPG[edit]

Doubts about license; potential copyright violations . The lisence of this image is currently not clear; GFDL&CCBY2.5 on Wikimedia Commons[17], All rights reserved on Flickr[18].

  • Delete. I will ask the contributor to contact with the original creator to keep this image. -- Tatata 21:20, 12 August 2007 (EDT)
  • Delete. Unless we hear back from the contributor by August 26. -- Fastestdogever 17:38, 19 August 2007 (EDT)

Outcome: Deleted. -- Fastestdogever 10:19, 18 September 2007 (EDT)

Sterner's upload[edit]

Outcome: All deleted. -- Fastestdogever 10:19, 18 September 2007 (EDT)


Bonjour Quebec's upload[edit]

Outcome : all deleted. -- Tatata 01:31, 19 September 2007 (EDT)

Broken files in Uncategorizedimages[edit]

Outcome : all deleted. -- Tatata 01:35, 19 September 2007 (EDT)

Image:180px-TeatroAngelaPeralta brightened.jpg[edit]

At a uploader's request [20]

  • Delete. -- Tatata 03:37, 18 August 2007 (EDT)
  • Speedy delete on uploader requests, provided the uploader gives a valid reason, which they have in this case. --Peter Talk 04:52, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

Outcome : deleted. -- Tatata 01:38, 19 September 2007 (EDT)

Image:Disney rain.jpg[edit]

Copyright violations. A link to wikiHow is written as a souce, but the site licenses all content under a CC-BY-NC-SA-2.5 license. [21]

Outcome : deleted. -- Tatata 01:43, 19 September 2007 (EDT)

Image:West Quoddy Head Lighthouse brightened.jpg[edit]

This file was found in Special:Uncategorizedimages, is duplication of Image:West Quoddy Head Lighthouse.jpg and is not used on the contributor's language version[22].

  • Delete. -- Tatata 06:19, 20 August 2007 (EDT)
  • Delete. Not quite sure what I was doing with this photo, but yes, please delete it. It was one that appeared very dark on my monitor and I brightened it. Sorry about that. 2old 13:32, 24 August 2007 (EDT) Note:I bought a new monitor and I cured most problems. Now, if I get new glasses..........

Outcome : deleted. -- Tatata 01:46, 19 September 2007 (EDT)

Image:DSCF0033.JPG[edit]

This file was found in Special:Uncategorizedimages and is impossible to be used in articles without an appropriate rotation.

  • Delete. -- Tatata 06:42, 20 August 2007 (EDT)
  • Delete. Also a privacy vio. --Peter Talk 04:52, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

Outcome : deleted. -- Tatata 01:49, 19 September 2007 (EDT)

Gobbler's upload[edit]

Outcome : all deleted. -- Tatata 01:58, 19 September 2007 (EDT)

Image:Rangpur.PNG[edit]

Copyright violations. The site is copyrighted and I couldn't find that the map is released into public domain.[25]

  • Delete. -- Tatata 02:07, 21 August 2007 (EDT)
  • Delete. Appears to by copyrighted.[26] --Peter Talk 04:52, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

Outcome : deleted. -- Tatata 02:01, 19 September 2007 (EDT)


Image:Galle Ramparts.JPG[edit]

At a uploader's request [27]

  • Delete. -- Tatata 02:54, 26 August 2007 (EDT)
  • Speedy delete, as uploader has given valid reason. --Peter Talk 04:52, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

Outcome : deleted. -- Tatata 02:13, 19 September 2007 (EDT)

Image:Peredeniya.jpg[edit]

Duplication of Image:Peradeniya.jpg. It is not used in uploader's language version because of wrong file name.

  • Delete. -- Tatata 03:46, 26 August 2007 (EDT)
  • Delete. --Peter Talk 04:52, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

Outcome : deleted. -- Tatata 02:16, 19 September 2007 (EDT)

Image:Picture 011.jpg[edit]

Duplication of Image:A street in Brajčino.jpg. It is not used in en: ( maybe uploader's language version) because of wrong file name.

  • Delete. -- Tatata 23:57, 2 September 2007 (EDT)
  • Delete, and perhaps we could speedy delete duplicates that are not used on the uploader's language version? --Peter Talk 12:40, 7 September 2007 (EDT)

Outcome: Deleted. -- Tatata 00:10, 3 October 2007 (EDT)

Image:Kleftiko_in_milos.jpg[edit]

Doubts about license; potential copyright violations . Image comes from http://www.travel-to-milos.com/gallery.php, which states: "You may not use these Milos images for any commercial purpose without the permission of www.Travel-to-Milos.com." (Too bad, nice picture) Promeneur 04:26, 3 September 2007 (EDT)

  • Delete. Copyvio. --Peter Talk 12:40, 7 September 2007 (EDT)
  • Delete -- Gobbler 18:27, 7 September 2007 (EDT)

Outcome: Deleted. -- Tatata 00:12, 3 October 2007 (EDT)

Image:Fishignet.jpg[edit]

per Wikitravel Shared:Image policy#People in photos ~ 203.147.0.48 05:03, 3 September 2007 (EDT)

  • Delete. --Peter Talk 12:40, 7 September 2007 (EDT)
  • Delete -- Gobbler 18:25, 7 September 2007 (EDT)

Outcome: Deleted. -- Tatata 00:14, 3 October 2007 (EDT)

Template:Boulder[edit]

This is a useless template.

  • Delete. -- Tatata 22:11, 4 September 2007 (EDT)
  • Delete. --Peter Talk 12:40, 7 September 2007 (EDT)

Outcome: Deleted. -- Tatata 00:18, 3 October 2007 (EDT)

Image:Kabulstreetfood.jpg[edit]

This image is an apparent privacy violation.

  • Delete. No model release (obviously) and the people photographed are in the foreground and are easily recognizable. --Peter Talk 13:11, 8 September 2007 (EDT)
  • Delete. Yeah, you're right. I uploaded it before I knew better, and haven't vfd'd it since I like it. Tis a shame though that we'll be left for now with an image of the Kabul City Center as the (mis)representation of food Kabul ;) But I suppose it should go. Ho hum. – cacahuate talk 19:26, 8 September 2007 (EDT)
  • Delete. Besides the people being easily verified or recognized, this type of street food is not a permanent business, and it is something we already know that exists in every place where people live, in every city, town, street, etc, on earth. Since billions of dollars are being spent on rebuilding Afghanistan, we need to show images of a normal restaurant, where visitors would want to eat food that will not make them sick. You should keep in mind that the city is changing very rapidly from the state it was in few years ago.--Creative 21:22, 8 September 2007 (EDT)
    • Note: That's not a valid rationale for deletion. As long as the image is of the location claimed, its content is irrelevant. Jpatokal 01:16, 9 September 2007 (EDT)
    • Are you arguing this image does not qualify for deletion? I didn't see you vote on this one?--Creative 13:07, 11 September 2007 (EDT)
    • As long as we're just voicing individual opinions, rather than reasons for deletion, that food looks absolutely delicious in the view of this traveler. Afghan food rocks. --Peter Talk 01:15, 10 September 2007 (EDT)
      • I like the photo too. How about a cropping the heads and leave the food. I can do it if you like. 2old 15:09, 11 September 2007 (EDT)
Kabulstreetfood2.jpg
Here ya go, I uploaded a cropped version as Image:Kabulstreetfood2.jpg... does it work? Will it add to the article? I'd like to have some representation of street food there, we do mention it as a budget option after all – cacahuate talk 19:26, 11 September 2007 (EDT)
That's exactly how I wanted the image to look, good job. I am wondering if we can do similar thing with Image:Street shop selling beer in Kabul.jpg? Like making the tourist put on his sun-glasses or shading his entire face. If nothing can be done then delete it.--Creative 20:55, 11 September 2007 (EDT)
Looks good to me. Those fellows were not that good looking anyway. 2old 10:50, 12 September 2007 (EDT)

Outcome: Deleted. -- Tatata 00:27, 3 October 2007 (EDT)

Image:Taipei 45637448 6d6ac21e15 o.jpg[edit]

Copyright violations. This image is released under CC-BY-ND [28] ; this license doesn't meet our copyleft.

  • Delete. -- Tatata 20:49, 9 September 2007 (EDT)
  • Delete. --Peter Talk 01:15, 10 September 2007 (EDT)
  • Could've sworn that picture was by-sa when I uploaded; does Flickr let you change the licenses retroactively? Anyway, I've mailed the guy for permission. Jpatokal 02:22, 10 September 2007 (EDT)
    • I have no intention of blaming you and I think that was ture. Actually, Flickr allows users to change license simply rather than retroactively [29]. I don't know whether there are license change logs or not, it is problem for people who want to reuse photos from a CC license's point of view that there are not any logs on photo pages, because CC license does not allow a retroaction [30]. Thank you for contacting with him and I hope to hear good news! -- Tatata 22:41, 10 September 2007 (EDT)
      • The creator has changed the license on the page to CC by-sa, so the image should be OK now. Jpatokal 09:17, 12 September 2007 (EDT)
        • Yeah, good new! Thank you.

Outcome : kept -- Tatata 09:52, 12 September 2007 (EDT)

Image:Seoul Subway Map ver2.png[edit]

Copyright violations. The source of this image was delete on Wikimedia Commons[31] for reason of In category Copyright violation; not edited for 1 days[32] .

  • Delete. -- We cannot confirm any more that it was PD and whether copyvio or not. -- Tatata 00:58, 10 September 2007 (EDT)
  • Delete. --Peter Talk 01:15, 10 September 2007 (EDT)
  • Delete. I've uploaded Image:Seoul_Subway_linemap_en.png, which is legit PD-self, to replace it. Jpatokal 02:25, 10 September 2007 (EDT)
    • Thank you, I replaced with new one on ja:. -- Tatata 02:59, 10 September 2007 (EDT)

Outcome: Deleted. -- Tatata 00:33, 3 October 2007 (EDT)

Maps from geoatlas.com[edit]

Outcome: Deleted. -- Tatata 00:36, 3 October 2007 (EDT)

Image:MapaGlogowka2.png[edit]

  • Copyright violation from [34] LukeWestwalker 15:55, 14 September 2007 (EDT)
  • Delete. -- Tatata 01:17, 16 September 2007 (EDT)

Outcome: Deleted. -- Tatata 00:37, 3 October 2007 (EDT)

Image:Venetian Macau.jpg[edit]

Copyright violations. This image is All rights reserved.[35]

  • Delete. -- Tatata 22:16, 17 September 2007 (EDT)
  • Delete. -- Orel zion 06:59, 19 September 2007 (EDT) It's my mistake and I'm sorry.

Outcome: Deleted. -- Tatata 00:41, 3 October 2007 (EDT)

Airin's upload[edit]

Outcome: deleted all. -- Tatata 01:24, 18 October 2007 (EDT)

Image:Skopje.jpg[edit]

  • Delete. Almost certainly a copyright violation and no licensing info given. --Peter Talk 20:08, 27 September 2007 (EDT)
  • Delete. I couldn't confirm that contents of the site/parent site are released into public domain or meet our copyleft. -- Tatata 22:32, 27 September 2007 (EDT)

Outcome: deleted. -- Tatata 01:28, 18 October 2007 (EDT)

Images by User:Mhagopian[edit]

Delete both. --Peter Talk 02:38, 1 October 2007 (EDT)

Speedy delete. -- Tatata 00:04, 2 October 2007 (EDT)

Outcome: deleted all. -- Tatata 02:06, 18 October 2007 (EDT)

October 2007[edit]

Nanow jesús madrid's upload[edit]

  • Doubts about license; potential copyright violations . The contributor, admin of es:, wrote copy rights appears on the image. and replaced {{dont know}} on 2 image pages with {{cc-by-sa-1.0}}, but it is found at the bottom of images that Todos los derechos reservados..
  • Delete all. -- Tatata 04:08, 12 August 2007 (EDT)
  • Yes, I just wanted it to appear on Wikitravel during a couple of weeks till people realise that Wikitravel had appeared on the news. Althoug (I guess) it's possibly a violation of the copyrights, I wrote on the bottom of the image the name of the newspaper and the date of publication, which I though might be enough in order to not commit a copyrights violation. Anyway, do whatever you want. Nanow jesús madrid 13:22, 16 August 2007 (EDT)
I just want to know whether it is innocent or not. Do you have any evidence that contents of the site are licensed under CC-BY-SA-1.0? -- Tatata 22:18, 16 August 2007 (EDT)
I agree with the deletion. Just, say the day of the deletion a couple of days before. Nanow jesús madrid 08:18, 18 August 2007 (EDT)

Outcome: deleted – cacahuate talk 22:58, 30 October 2007 (EDT)

Image:Buncombe.gif[edit]

Copyright violations. The site is copyrighted and all rights reserved.[72]

  • Delete. -- Tatata 02:40, 21 August 2007 (EDT)
  • Allow plenty of time for uploader to respond. These uploads seem legitimate (and the photos are quite nice), but some evidence is needed, given that they are presented as under copyright elsewhere. --Peter Talk 04:52, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

Outcome: deleted – cacahuate talk 22:58, 30 October 2007 (EDT)

Image:Trieste science centre.jpg[edit]

Doubts about license; potential copyright violations. Immaginario Scientifico[73] is written as a souce, but the site copyrighted and all rights reserved.[74]

  • Delete. -- Tatata 02:49, 25 August 2007 (EDT)
I asked the Immaginario Scientifico to send me an image of museum that we can use free for Wikitravel. Do you need a writing confirm or something other? p.s. sorry for my english Airin 12:21, 25 August 2007 (EDT)
Sorry for bothering you. I think it is better to add something to the image page on the evidence of IS's permission.p.s. never mind, your English is perfect for me and I'm a nonnative too.-- Tatata 04:41, 26 August 2007 (EDT)
I added the note that you requested. Please check if it's ok. --Airin 06:52, 8 September 2007 (EDT)
Sorry, but I don't know whether the comment The Immaginario Scientifico gave us this image and authorized us to use it for Wikitravel. can be said a evidence of permission or not. BTW, does IS really understand that giving us permission under CC lisence means anybody all over the world can use the image under the same license? Though I'm not a lawyer, I'm afraid you will have leagal risk if they don't understand this. -- Tatata 21:33, 9 September 2007 (EDT)
Ok, delet it. --Airin 06:02, 7 October 2007 (EDT)

Outcome: deleted – cacahuate talk 22:58, 30 October 2007 (EDT)

Image:DaytonaBeach-Pier.jpg[edit]

No creator = never a correct licence 85.1.93.225 02:54, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

  • Leave note first. Possibly just an uploading mistake. Then delete if the issue is not fixed within the voting term. --Peter Talk 04:52, 30 August 2007 (EDT)
  • Delete. -- Tatata 23:30, 2 October 2007 (EDT)
  • Keep -- I personally took this photo, sorry if I missed documenting it correctly. Gamweb 21:51, 30 October 2007 (EDT)
  • Keep. The uploader corrected the licensing issue – cacahuate talk 22:23, 30 October 2007 (EDT)

Outcome: kept – cacahuate talk 22:58, 30 October 2007 (EDT)

Image:Complex_Map.JPG[edit]

I'm guessing that the same applies to this as with en:Wikitravel:Votes for deletion#Image:Golden-Triangle-Map.jpg - i.e. that if whoever made the actual map (i.e. whoever created the "original work" that this is a photograph of) has not licensed it, then it's a copyvio? ~ 203.147.0.48 10:42, 3 September 2007 (EDT)

The picture depicts only a small portion of the entire sign -- in particular, the code key that links the numbers to building names is omitted, making it useless as a map by itself -- so I'd argue that it's not a strict reproduction, but a "form of material expression" akin to taking a picture of a statue. Jpatokal 10:20, 4 September 2007 (EDT)
A photo of a statue isn't a direct copy, it's a derivative work created with a camera. Complex_Map.JPG is a direct copy - it's been reproduced with a camera. A person who reproduces someone else's work is not the author of that work. The fact that the copy is cropped doesn't make it an original work, and doesn't change the facts that it's a direct copy, and that the person who made the copy isn't the author. The only way this can be kept is if the "Original Author" (the individual or entity who created the work) licences it. Even if you were to argue that the photo is somehow a derivatave work (for example, if the original was three-dimensional) you'd still need the permission of the (original) copyright holder. ~ 203.147.0.48 13:59, 4 September 2007 (EDT)
No, it's not a reproduction, it's a derivative work because it's a different medium. The barrier for this is very low: for example, photos of paintings in museum catalogs, which are designed to reproduce paintings as faithfully as possible, have been held by courts to be derivative works and thus separately copyrighted by the photographer.
The second question, then, is whether the painter retains the right to restrict creation of derivative works. In most countries, including the US, works permanently displayed in public are free for all, and according to my non-lawyerly reading of Article 32 of the South Korean Copyright Law this applies to South Korea as well:
(1) The owner of the original of a work of art, etc. or a person who has obtained the owner's authorization, may exhibit the works in its original form. If the work of art is to be permanently exhibited in a street or park, outside the wall of a building, or other place open to the public, the consent of the copyright owner shall be obtained.
(2) Works of art, etc. exhibited at all times at an open place as referred to in the proviso of Paragraph (1) may be reproduced by any means,, except those falling under any of the following cases:
1. Where a building is reproduced in another building;
2. Where a sculpture or a painting is reproduced in another sculpture or a painting;
3. Where the reproduction is made in order to exhibit permanently at an open place, as prescribed under Paragraph (1);
4. Where the reproduction is made for the purpose of selling its copies.
The painting creator has obviously consented to displaying it outside (1), and my reproduction of it (2) is not, IMHO, banned by any of the exceptions. Jpatokal 02:06, 5 September 2007 (EDT)

Individual pictures (including photographs) of two-dimensional works of art (including paintings) are reproductions [75]. "Reproduction" shall mean the reproduction of works in tangible media of expression by means of printing, photographing, copying, sound or visual recording or other means [76]. Derivative work: A creation produced by means of translation, arrangement, alteration, dramatization, cinematization, etc. of an original work [77]

I still disagree with you -- it's not a reproduction if it's not effectively identical -- but this doesn't actually matter, because section 32 specifically allows "reproduction by any means", derivative or otherwise. Jpatokal 09:41, 5 September 2007 (EDT)
www.copyright.gov says: To be copyrightable, a derivative work must be different enough from the original to be regarded as a "new work" or must contain a substantial amount of new material. Making minor changes or additions of little substance to a preexisting work will not qualify the work as a new version for copyright purposes. The new material must be original and copyrightable in itself.
You're still barking up the wrong tree. The issue is not whether I have a copyright to the picture, it's whether the original work may be legally reproduced.
But for the record, even in the US (which is the wrong country here), the issue is hotly contested: here's one opinion that found in your favor for "substantially exact reproductions", but cites half a dozen other cases that state, among other things, "change of medium is likely to amount to a material alteration from the original work" ... "there must . . . be some element of material alteration or embellishment which suffices to make the totality of the work an original work." Does taking the picture at an angle and cropping the result suffice? Or how about I slap a Wikitravel logo on top, in which case it's unquestionably materially altered? Jpatokal 04:25, 6 September 2007 (EDT)
Change of medium (photographs of two-dimensional works being a notable exception) is likely to amount to a material alteration from the original work. Photographs of two-dimensional works are likely to amount to copies (i.e. reproductions, not derivative works). ~ 203.147.0.48 09:12, 6 September 2007 (EDT)

On the second question, (2)-3. applies: "Where the reproduction is made in order to exhibit permanently at an open place, as prescribed under Paragraph (1);" / "...permanently exhibited in [any] place open to the public" (any publicly accessible Internet website). ~ 203.147.0.48 07:19, 5 September 2007 (EDT)

That "any" is your own gloss, and it's inappropriate: the original text says "an open place". I don't think Wikitravel qualifies, as this is a privately owned and run site with its own terms of use. Also, for that exception to apply, you'd have to claim that I took the picture "in order to" exhibit it publicly, that is, on commission from somebody, which obviously wasn't the case. Jpatokal 09:41, 5 September 2007 (EDT)
The full original text is "If the work of art is to be permanently exhibited in a street or park, outside the wall of a building, or other place open to the public, the consent of the copyright owner shall be obtained." - in other words, ...place A or B, or C, or other place open to the public... which is clearly "any" place open to the public - because it covers all places open to the public, and no place that's open to the public is excluded.
The fact that Wikitravel is a privately owned and run site with its own terms of use is irrelevant . All that matters is that it's publicly accessible.
It doesn't say "to order", it says "in order". Nor does it say "with the intention". ~ 203.147.0.48 03:45, 6 September 2007 (EDT)
First, the full original text (1) you're quoting above is regarding the original work of art, not the reproduction. That is, the temple needed the painter's permission to put the original painting on public display, which was obviously granted, and we're now discussing section (2) which states that reproductions are allowed with no prior permission from the copyright holder in certain situations.
Section (2)-3. refers back to section (1), and would appear not to be a list of things the copyright holder isn't allowed to do.
Second, these sentences are quite different:
Where the reproduction is exhibited permanently at an open place (what you claim it says)
Where the reproduction is made in order to exhibit permanently at an open place... (what the law says)
So you tell me, what does that mean then?
I didn't make any such claim.
I'm sure it doesn't mean that you can say "I'm never going to upload this picture to any publicly accessible websites", press the shutter button, then five seconds later say "I've changed my mind", consider yourself the sole author, stick any copyright notice you want on it, and legitimately upload it to publicly accessible websites on that basis.
Instead of all this pseudolawyering — we're arguing about a translation here anyway, not the original binding Korean — maybe it would be easiest to just fire off a mail to Cheontae and get their permission though =P Jpatokal 04:25, 6 September 2007 (EDT)
The translation issue had crossed my mind too. ~ 203.147.0.48 09:12, 6 September 2007 (EDT)
  • Keep. The Korean law that Jpatokal cited seems to say that it's ok – cacahuate talk 04:01, 7 September 2007 (EDT)
  • Keep. In agreement with Cacahuate. -- OldPine 08:49, 10 October 2007 (EDT)

Outcome: kept – cacahuate talk 22:58, 30 October 2007 (EDT)

Image:KabulAfghanistan.jpg [edit]

This image from USAID is extremely bad in terms of quality and size. It also cannot be verified. There are many many nice photos available of the same area (view of Kabul), I think we should delete this one because it is not used in any article.

Speedy delete--Creative 18:27, 4 September 2007 (EDT)

  • Delete. It isn't really necessary for the article. However I don't see it as a copyright violation... User:Jake73 is a great contributor, and was well aware of our image policy... I think in the midst of uploading so many images around that time he simply forgot to select a license for this one... he was bulk uploading PD images, and this one should also I think have been PD-US gov. – cacahuate talk 04:07, 7 September 2007 (EDT)
  • Keep. I don't think we need to delete images just because they are not presently being used in our guides. First, shared is in my view something of a CC-by-SA compatible travel image directory, which has value independent of our guides. Second, who knows, maybe someone will find a use for this image on Wikitravel one day. In any rate, I don't think the lack of a compelling reason to keep an image should be cause to delete it; we should spend our efforts on more productive activities. --Peter Talk 12:40, 7 September 2007 (EDT)
  • Keep. It's a fine (if small) image and the PD-US gov license checks out. Jpatokal 01:16, 9 September 2007 (EDT)
Comment. Maybe you can explain more to us about what you find in this image that makes you think it is a fine image? I think someone is expressing their POV by indicating that Kabul, Afghanistan, is what you see in the image, and I find this as a direct insult towards my country because I'm from Afghanistan and that is not how Kabul appears. It is an image of an abandoned mud hut at the outskirts of the city, it is not an image of Kabul. Keep in mind that there are some people who use images to express their hate towards others, by showing only the worst places of certain countries, probably for political or hate reasons. Lets not act stupid or blind here, we know that this image is not representing Kabul, it should never have been named "KabulAfghanistan" but rather named more specifically to where it was shot at or the exact objects being shown (the old abandoned mud hut).--Creative 03:08, 9 September 2007 (EDT)
It's a picture, documenting an actual scene, it can't have a "POV". Was the picture taken in Kabul? (Sure looks like it to me; if not, what's the city in the background?) If yes, then it's OK. And to me it looks like the brick (not mud) hut you're objecting to is under construction -- no bullet holes or shrapnel damage! -- and is thus a fitting statement of the city's rise from the ashes.
But maybe you'd like these pictures from Flickr more, all cc-by-sa licensed and in the top 10 hits when you search: [78] [79] [80] [81] Jpatokal 09:55, 9 September 2007 (EDT)
"KabulAfghanistan" is a 2002 image from "USAID", documenting a small tiny area from the very outskirts of Kabul City for their development purposes, now remember that USAID has nothing to do with tourism or trying to document anything relating to attract tourists or visitors to Kabul, etc. USAID's job is to look for damaged or destroyed places ONLY, so they can help rebuild them. Wikitravel and USAID do not go well with one another. It is common sense to know all this and I don't see why you're still arguing over it?
About the Flickr pictures, now why would I like those pictures you're showing me when they are not showing the City of Kabul in them? You need to learn that there are 2 Kabuls, one is Kabul "City" and the other is Kabul "Province". The Kabul we are talking about is the "City" and we need pictures of how the city looks, here is how it looks......1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 (cc-by-sa 1.0). We need to see images like these on Wikitravel, because it shows what Kabul "City" looks like before hand. Of course, just like in every other city of the world, there are always ghettos and areas where poor people live, but that is not the reason why foreigners go visit other cities, unless to buy drugs or look for prostitutes. Average travellers want to go spend time inside the city, eat at restaurants, see popular attractions, and take pictures. This is what Wikitravel deals with, not USAID or other charity stuff.--Creative 17:19, 9 September 2007 (EDT)
Our site is not for anyone's idea of an "average traveler," it is explicitly for all travelers, and it is our hope that USAID workers find our guides as useful as anyone else. In any rate, if you don't think this picture belongs in the Kabul article, make your case at en:Talk:Kabul, not here; and please do feel free to upload more quality pictures of the city! But please keep in mind that we purposefully do not have an "NPOV" policy at Wikitravel. And not liking a picture is just not sufficient reason to delete it. --Peter Talk 01:15, 10 September 2007 (EDT)
First of all, this is not your site, it is a public site for all online users in the world. Secondly, my use of the words "average travellers" in my previous statement clearly refers to "all the travellers". You all are beginning to sound like you are more focusing on me rather then the image in question. The image is not showing Kabul City, and if it is, why can't I see Kabul City in it? I don't have any problems with my eye vision. My argument is that the image should be deleted because there is no such use to it, and if somebody wants to upload the same image in the future for whatever purpose, it will always be available on USAID Afghanistan site. Why are you telling me to make a case else where when this is the place to vote for image deletion?--Creative 10:51, 10 September 2007 (EDT)
"First of all" this is my site, as well as it is your site. In the English language this makes it our site. Please see en:Wikitravel:First person pronouns and en:Wikitravel:About for more details. --Peter Talk 22:58, 10 September 2007 (EDT)

Outcome: kept – cacahuate talk 22:58, 30 October 2007 (EDT)

Image:SGSSI-flag.png[edit]

This 2007 version file is a duplication of Image:Sx-flag.png (2002).

  • Delete. I replaced 2002 version with 2007 version by using "Upload a new version of this file" link. -- Tatata 02:31, 8 September 2007 (EDT)

Outcome: deleted – cacahuate talk 22:58, 30 October 2007 (EDT)

Image:Departure lounge of Kabul Airport in 2006.jpg[edit]

  • Delete. Might as well do all 3 privacy violations on the Kabul article at once. Shows recognizable people, in violation of our privacy policy. – cacahuate talk 19:40, 8 September 2007 (EDT)
  • Keep. There are too many people in the photo, which makes it difficult to verify somone in particular due to the fact that they are all from different parts of the country trying to fly out of the country. The airport serves people from all the country not just Kabul. I see one person staring at the camera which I don't like. However, I do have other images of the same place which is showing no people but the ceilings being repaired. If you really insist on deleting this one then I will upload different image, and the only reason I uploaded this one was to show that it is not the dirtiest airport in the world anymore as what someone has wrote in the Kabul article.--Creative 21:36, 8 September 2007 (EDT)
  • Delete. Privacy policy is clearcut on this. Jpatokal 10:01, 9 September 2007 (EDT)
  • Delete. This image would require at least 7 signatures to a model release in order to satisfy our image policy, and my strong hunch is no such document exists ;) --Peter Talk 01:15, 10 September 2007 (EDT)
  • Comment. Under the Image policy#People in photos, it states that "Some exceptions might be for particular sports or activities or crowd scenes....fair use includes a condition in which a person cannot assume a degree of privacy because they are in a public space, which means that he can be photographed (and cannot stop the process)." The people photographed in the airport are part of a crowd scenes.--Creative 11:12, 10 September 2007 (EDT)
Thanks for mentioning that, this is a "fair use" argument that has no place in our policy, given that fair use arguments apply specifically to the type of use. Since CC-by-SA requires that our images are available for any use, we cannot allow content under arguments that consider our use to be fair. I have also commented at Talk:Image policy and have removed this sentence. It does not match our common practice on Wikitravel anyway and my hunch is that this addition sort of sneaked into our policy on unnoticed on :shared during a time when shared was not seeing much attention. --Peter Talk 22:02, 10 September 2007 (EDT)
I'm afraid you're both wrong, please see Talk:Image policy. "Fair use" is a copyright term, which is irrelevant for privacy issues. The question is whether the people in the photo have a reasonable expectation of privacy: while it's difficult to give a definitive answer (is the lounge public or private property? what do Afghan laws say?), the people in the picture are so large and identifiable, with no other subject as such, that we have to err on the side of caution. Jpatokal 22:38, 10 September 2007 (EDT)

Outcome: deleted – cacahuate talk 22:58, 30 October 2007 (EDT)

Image:Street shop selling beer in Kabul.jpg[edit]

  • Delete. Might as well do all 3 privacy violations on the Kabul article at once. Shows recognizable people, in violation of our privacy policy. – cacahuate talk 19:40, 8 September 2007 (EDT)
  • Keep. I am very picky when I upload images. I made sure that the people in the image cannot be recognized anywhere. Also, that they won't feel uncomfortable about we showing their image online. It's 100% impossible for anyone to recognize the guy who has his back towards the camera. The name of his business or location is also not shown. The other person in the image has a big hat on, which conceals about 50% of his identity. He is looking somewhere, which only shows part of the side of his face, not enough to recognize him, or in anyway for him to feel uncomfortable about his image being shown online somewhere. Besides, the person who took the image (Koldo from Spain) gave rights to us in using his images here, and most likely the guy with the hat on in the image is his pal, knowing full well that his image may be used in places online. If anything, we can easily contact this person and ask if it's ok for us to use an image that shows him standing in Kabul buying something from a snack shop. Knowing all this, what's the chances of him saying no? Answer: about 1% :)--Creative 21:57, 8 September 2007 (EDT)
  • Delete. Privacy policy is clearcut on this: no model release, no picture. Of course, you're welcome to contact Koldo from Spain and try to get it, but it's not that great a picture... Jpatokal 10:01, 9 September 2007 (EDT)
Comment. What do you mean by privacy policy being clearcut? Also, what do you mean by "no model release" and "no picture"? I believe this image is wonderful, I don't see anything wrong with it. All of a sudden User:Cacahuate decided to delete this and my other images after they were here for quite some time and then you come along agreeing with Cacahuate, I smell something fishy, hahaha.--Creative 17:47, 9 September 2007 (EDT)
There's nothing fishy going on, we're simply deleting all 3 of the images on the Kabul article that are in violation of the privacy policy. And as you might have noticed, the first one is an image that I took and uploaded, so this clearly isn't personal against you. – cacahuate talk 02:10, 10 September 2007 (EDT)
I have hard time believing that you took the picture because most people who upload their own pictures are usually large sized. The one you claim to have taken appears to me as being found somewhere online, and I will try to see if I can find it elsewhere :}--Creative 11:18, 10 September 2007 (EDT)
Good luck :) – cacahuate talk 03:01, 11 September 2007 (EDT)
Delete. Jani means that Image policy#People in photos clearly states that no images can be uploaded that include recognizable people who have not signed a legal release of their image (their face) to be used in this picture under the terms of CC-by-SA 1.0. Moreover, we generally deprecate the use of photos that feature travelers. And don't worry, nothing's fishy. I would have vfd'd your privacy vios anyway; anytime Cacahuate or anyone points out a image policy violation, they are simply helping Wikitravel. --Peter Talk 01:15, 10 September 2007 (EDT)

Outcome: deleted – cacahuate talk 22:58, 30 October 2007 (EDT)

Alf Birnecker's uploads[edit]

  • Doubts about license; potential copyright violations. Including a url of cruise company's copyrighted site and looks like ad; www.island-cruises.org .
  • Delete all. I can't see why the images created by the contributor includes a url of other copyrighted site. -- Tatata 02:59, 10 September 2007 (EDT)
  • Wait. I think the author is the owner of the external site. I tried to contact him. --89.48.105.177 10:57, 10 September 2007 (EDT)

Outcome: deleted – cacahuate talk 22:58, 30 October 2007 (EDT)

Image:Karaweik-Palace.jpg[edit]

Copyright violations. This should not be tagged {{PD-creator}} [82].

  • Delete, if the license tag is not replaced on uploader's own responsibility with an appropriate one to satisfy a creator's demands. -- Tatata 01:17, 16 September 2007 (EDT)

Outcome: kept – cacahuate talk 22:58, 30 October 2007 (EDT)

Image:Wieza wodna p.jpg, Image:Zamek_p.jpg[edit]

Copyright violation like above, from [83]

Outcome: deleted – cacahuate talk 22:58, 30 October 2007 (EDT)

Image:SunsetSonora.jpg[edit]

Copyright violations. This image was taken from Free Range Stock; All Rights Reserved. And their licensing T's & C's[84] does not seem to meet our copyleft since they don't allow redistribution.

  • Delete. -- Tatata 03:46, 19 September 2007 (EDT)

Outcome: deleted – cacahuate talk 22:58, 30 October 2007 (EDT)

Template:Copyrighted-Layout[edit]

This is a useless template. It was called from Template:Attribution and I copied its contents into Template:Attribution.

  • Delete. -- Tatata 21:29, 19 September 2007 (EDT)

Outcome: deleted – cacahuate talk 22:58, 30 October 2007 (EDT)

Canshun's upload[edit]

Outcome: deleted – cacahuate talk 22:58, 30 October 2007 (EDT)

Image:Planmetro.jpg[edit]

Extracted from pdf [88] [89], reproduction prohibited [90] [91].

  • Delete LukeWestwalker 17:28, 30 September 2007 (EDT)
  • Delete. -- Tatata 00:34, 2 October 2007 (EDT)
    • Though I'm not sure whether this violates TCL's terms of use or not, I'm thinking to delete this for the very reason that this image was uploaded without a license specified. I'll wait advice of others until the end of this week. -- Tatata 01:57, 18 October 2007 (EDT)
      • It does violate:
"DROIT DE REPRODUCTION - Les informations présentées sur le site sont publiques, mais elles ne peuvent être utilisées à des fins commerciales ou publicitaires. La reproduction des pages de ce site est possible à condition de respecter l’intégrité des documents reproduits (pas de modification ni altération d’aucune sorte)."
"Information presented on the site is public but can not be used for commercial or advertising purposes. Reproduction is possible on the condition of keeping integrity of files (not any kind of modification)." LukeWestwalker 15:19, 18 October 2007 (EDT)
Today, I tried to use other translation service; as a result, I feel that TCL's terms of use is similar CC-BY-NC or CC-BY-NC-ND. Now, I think it does violate as you wrote. Thanks you. -- Tatata 23:25, 18 October 2007 (EDT)

Outcome: deleted – cacahuate talk 22:58, 30 October 2007 (EDT)

November 2007[edit]

Image:Vancouver Skytrain Current Map.PNG[edit]

This image is not PD but copyrighted[92], should not be tagged {{PD-creator}}.

  • Delete, if an appropriate licensing tag with a consensus of community is not provided. -- Tatata 00:56, 24 October 2007 (EDT)
  • Keep, but change license tag. The text "The copyright holder of this work allows anyone to use it for any purpose including unrestricted redistribution, commercial use, and modification." is functionally identical to public domain, and is used to release works when the local jurisdiction does not allow PD. (See eg. [93].) Jpatokal 04:24, 24 October 2007 (EDT)
  • Keep. What Jpatokal said. Sorry for using the wrong tag. Padraic 14:46, 31 October 2007 (EDT)

Outcome: kept. -- Tatata 01:01, 7 November 2007 (EST)

Image:Arabah.jpg[edit]

This image is not CC-BY-SA-1.0 but "copyrighted/attribution required" [94], should not be tagged {{cc-by-sa-1.0}}.

  • Delete, if an appropriate licensing tag with a consensus of community is not provided. -- Tatata 03:01, 24 October 2007 (EDT)

Outcome: kept. -- Tatata 09:25, 7 November 2007 (EST)

Image:Flourish.jpg[edit]

Copyright violation. This image is All rights reservedCC-BY-NC-SA-2.0.(changed by the photographer) CC-BY-SA-2.0 (fixed by the photographer)[95]

  • Speedy delete. -- Tatata 19:38, 8 November 2007 (EST)
  • Keep -- I'm the photographer, and I've changed the license for the original image on flickr. -- User:andrew_bisset 16:09, 8 Nov 2007 (MST)
    • Unfortunately, we cannnot keep the images with license elements NC (Noncommercial) or ND (No Derivative Works) because of our copyleft. We would appreciate it if you could change the license to CC-BY-SA-2.0 or CC-BY-2.0. Thanks in advance. -- Tatata 02:15, 9 November 2007 (EST)
    • Fixed. I think I got the license right... -- andrew_bisset 10:02, 9 Nov 2007 (MST)
      • Thank you for your contribution. -- Tatata

Outcome: kept. -- Tatata 00:40, 10 November 2007 (EST)

Image:Zvartnots.jpg[edit]

Copyright violation. This image is licensed under CC-BY-NC-SA.[96]

  • Speedy delete. -- Tatata 23:36, 1 October 2007 (EDT)

Outcome: deleted – cacahuate talk 01:33, 18 November 2007 (EST)

Image:ZanskarIndus.jpg[edit]

Doubts about license; potential copyright violations. This could not be confirmed its CC-BY-SA-2.5 licensing tag, because Flickr shows me the message This photo is private.

  • Delete. -- Tatata 01:26, 2 October 2007 (EDT)
  • Keep. I am usually careful about those things, so I can say that to the best of my knowledge, the creator had indeed licensed it under cc-by-sa 2.5. Creative commons licenses aren't revocable, so his making the image private has no bearing on the terms of the license. If I get sued, I'll just subpoena Flickr records :) — Ravikiran r 01:10, 3 October 2007 (EDT)
    • I'd love to see Flickr records since I've never seen. Please do so and prove innocence with evidence, of course, within 14 days counting from the date of the deletion nomination, or this image should be deleted. :-) -- Tatata 12:42, 3 October 2007 (EDT)
  • Keep. The way Wikipedia deals with Flickr images, given that the photographer has the right to change the displayed license after having selected an irrevocable CC license, is by having all Flickr images reviewed and tagged by a "trusted user" who verifies the licensing. Ravikiran is certainly a trusted Wikitravel user, so I say we take his word for it. In the unlikely event that someone does sue Ravikiran over the photo, there is an about 0% chance that the complainant would win. It's also a nice image of a remote area ;) --Peter Talk 22:01, 3 October 2007 (EDT)
    • I'm not sure what you said. What is the relation between the way of Wikipedia and the fact that Ravikiran is a trusted Wikitravel user? Do you mean there is the same image on Wikimedia Commons? If the image was reviewed and tagged on there, I think it will be a good evidence to prove innocence as a double check. -- Tatata 01:17, 4 October 2007 (EDT)
No the image is not on commons, I was just saying that Wikipedia's method for confirming the licensing of Flickr photos is to have an admin/trusted user (or now, a bot) verify the licensing. When this is done, they add Template:Flickrreview to the image file description. Such a practice is necessary for Flickr images, because Flickr allows users to change the displayed license.
I upload CC attribution 2.0 and CC-by-SA 2.0 images from Flickr very often. If, say, photographer John Picken were to make this nice image that I uploaded private, I don't think it would be appropriate to then delete it for lack of evidence—the fact that I myself will vouch for the fact that it was listed under an appropriate license is sufficient evidence. Flickr does not make its records public, but would have to in the event of a lawsuit, until then I think that Ravikiran's word is evidence enough. --Peter Talk 01:52, 4 October 2007 (EDT)
I know very well that Flickr allows their users to change license, and this is a problem from the CC license view. I think the bot or double check by other admin/trusted user is valid way for images from Flickr, but now we don't have neither the bot nor double check process. I think we all, including trusted users, make mistakes, sorry but, it seems to me that you are saying trusted users never make mistakes.
I still think that we need to confirm and correct license of the image in question, because if we assume that Ravikiran is a superman who never make a mistake, Flickr downgraded the version of their CC license tag from 2.5 to 2.0 in the past. Is it ture? I'm unable to be convinced of the downgrade at once.
Thus, generally speaking, it is unclear what uploader saw on the image page of Flickr after it was removed or made private, and uploader's words will not be evidence at all. I think we have vfd process to avoid legal matters. If a lawsuit is needed to prove innocence, the image should be deleted since the image policy says that When in doubt, leave it out. -- Tatata 03:46, 4 October 2007 (EDT)
See, the thing is, we trust users all the time. When a user uploads an image and says that the he owns a photo and he is licensing it under cc-by-sa, we trust him. It is possible that it was in fact his wife who took the photo on her camera and he just copied it on to his laptop and uploaded it to Wikitravel. It is possible that this awful truth comes out during the divorce case. Will Wikitravel be in trouble? I don't think so, because it is simply unreasonable to expect Wikitravel or downstream users do this level of due diligence. Similarly, in this case, I am saying that I am reasonably certain that the image was licensed under cc-by-sa 2.5. Wikitravel has no reason to believe that I am mistaken or lying. Wikitravel has taken reasonable care to ensure that copyright violations are removed from teh site. That should really absolve Wikitravel. — Ravikiran r 10:56, 4 October 2007 (EDT)
It is a matter of course that we trust users all the time. And it is also a matter of course that we confirm a license of image when there is a doubt. Please don't dodge the main point of the argument; the point is whether a license of the image is correct or not. I want to know how the photographer showed a license of the image. Is it same as ohter CC licensed images on Flickr? I think that you, as a uploader of the image in question, have a responsibility to explain until I am convinced. -- Tatata 23:02, 4 October 2007 (EDT)
First, where it says "when in doubt, leave it out," the policy is giving advice to those uploading files, not reviewing them. And Ravikiran was, by all accounts, not in doubt when he uploaded the file. Second, the reason why I brought up the Commons example in the first place was that they do not bother to review Flickr files uploaded by admins/trusted users. In my opinion, Ravikiran has explained that the image was properly licensed, and we trust Ravikiran, ergo keep the image.
Yes everyone makes mistakes, but it would be a rare mistake for an experienced user to upload an image from Flickr under a non-compatible license. I would say that I am 99.9% sure that I have never made such a mistake, as all images I have obtained through Flickr were through searches restrictive to allowed licenses, and I double checked myself! In any rate, the main point is that it is extremely unlikely that a lawsuit would ever be brought to bear in this case. Even if the author did want the image pulled from our site, we could just do that per request. If the extremely unlikely scenario of a lawsuit did occur, it would not be against Wikitravel, it would (as I understand it) be against Ravikiran, in which case he would simply get the records from Flickr and resolve the suit. I think we've already done all that could be asked of us in determining the license of the image.
I think it would be an undesirable practice to delete images from shared simply because the licensing cannot be confirmed when an experienced, trusted Wikitravel user will vouch for them. If we are to use such extreme standards for file review, we must also delete, for example, every map I have contributed to Wikitravel, since it is not possible to erase all possible doubt that I may have used non-PD satellite imagery. --Peter 02:32, 5 October 2007 (EDT)
Peter, please calm down a bit. I would not like to talk about individuals and I think we should talk about the image in question. Let's wait an answer to my question about the photographer's way of licensing. You should go Flickr and observe the facts there during we are waiting for the answer, and you will see the reason why I have a doubt about the licensing tag. -- Tatata 11:43, 5 October 2007 (EDT)
Sorry to butt in, but in my opinion, it would be a desirable practice to delete any image without a confirmed license, regardless who and when uploaded them. The license should be available to be confirmed any time and anyone should have right to put it in question when in doubt. Or we accept senior users to be excused from rules obliging freshmen? LukeWestwalker 11:57, 7 October 2007 (EDT)
I don't see where we are letting senior users get away with rules that we force on newbies. If a newbie uploads a photo and says that he took it, we trust him. We do not ask for a signed affidavit from him. All I am asking for is the same level of trust that we are giving to newbies. Only when we have independent evidence that the user lied that we start deleting. In any case, when we are talking of trust here, we are not talking of outright lies. Rather, the question is whether my memory can be trusted, and whether I can be trusted to have understood the licensing requirement when I uploaded. Surely, this is a case where there is justification for placing more trust in a senior user? — Ravikiran r 01:47, 10 October 2007 (EDT)
It seems that here is no person who go to Flickr oneself to confirm the facts there. Here are the points should be confirmed there.
Question 1. What kind of Creative Commons license elements can we choose on Flickr? [97]
Question 2. Which version of Creative Commons license can we use through Flickr's "Set a license for this photo" screen?
Question 3. What are the default license function and the batch function provided by Flickr and how do they work?
Question 4. What kind of license elements does the photographer Rishi Saikia choose for his works? [98]
Question 5. Does he use a special way of licensing his works other than the way using Flickr's function ("Set a license for this photo" screen, default license or batch)?
If I could, I would not like to write up here what I saw there. Because it will remain here unless developer delete this record from the table of MySQL database. I say again, I would not like to talk about individuals and I think we should talk about the image in question. Before I answer to my questions above by myself, please go to Flickr yourself to confirm, and consider. The best way is, I think, the uploader or person who want to keep this image ask the photographer to make it public again with a CC-BY-2.0 or CC-BY-SA-2.0 license. -- Tatata 00:48, 11 October 2007 (EDT)
  • Keep. I've actually looked at and seen this image on flickr before... I remember coming across it a while back and going to look at the user's other photos, and the license did check out, at least at that time. I know it's a bit tedious, but what about also uploading a screengrab of the license with the pic visible when we take them from flickr? – cacahuate talk 01:54, 10 October 2007 (EDT)
  • Keep - This photo has been here for almost 2 years and no objection has been raised before, neither by the owner or by a wikitraveler. There is no reason to believe that this is a deliberate copyright violation since the image source is being quoted with a link back to where the original used to be available. The discussion above around senior and newbie users seems a bit pointless to me; it all comes down to whether the uploader has a history of license abuse or not. Ravikiran r's history on wikitravel clearly shows no such abuse, but rather the opposite; strong enforcement of copyright. Even if a mistake was made, no prosecutor will take this to court, and if there is a silly fool out there that would like to attempt it, the case will be against Ravikiran r, not wikitravel. Should Yahoo decide to terminate the Flickr service and shut those servers down tomorrow, are we obliged to remove from wikitravel each and every CC-by-SA flickr photo ever imported from Flickr? --NJR ZA 03:58, 10 October 2007 (EDT)
  • Keep. We vote on each individually, and yes, it matters to me on this vote that it is Ravikiran(r). I don't believe we have policy that indicates deletion. -- OldPine 09:02, 10 October 2007 (EDT)
  • Keep. We have to trust Ravikiran r that there was a CC license on this image when it was uploaded. We have to trust the photographer, Rishi Saiki, that Image:ZanskarIndus.jpg really does show the "Confluence of Ladakh and Zanskar rivers". We have to trust each editor who adds a restaurant description, especially for those restaurants without web pages in a language we can read. As others noted, we have to trust that someone who uploads a PD-self image is telling the truth. If we were to require a URL to the source of each image so we could verify license, we'd have to trust that the source would stay live on the web forever. If we were to require a screen grab of the license page as part of an upload, we'd have to trust it wasn't forged. I don't think it's sensible to establish a higher requirement of trust for just this image. JimDeLaHunt 15:46, 10 October 2007 (EDT)
  • Comment. Due to the period of time that this photo has been around, I think it could remain. But, that will not clear up the issue of the license. From what I can conclude as a photo contributor (my own works), issues like people in images, privacy and such create a possible liability to the contributor. In the event of a legal problem, I am sure Wikitravel and IB would ask to be excused from the suit, as they only received the photo. My concern for WT is that someone would provide a photo that is not theirs, give the appropriate license and then change it in an effort to cover up what they have done. This is not an accusation, only a possibility. Hence, the danger of uploading someone else's submission. In cases like this where confusion has been created by someone in the change of a license, it may be best to adapt the When in doubt, leave it out policy. It is an EXCELLENT photo, but there has to be a substitute for a questionable photo, it has no extreme value. So the issue is not the photo, but the policy. My personal opinon of this photo is that is of military origin. I have numerous reasons to draw that conclusion, but of course I am no more certain of that, than I am that the original submitter did not take the photo. There are plenty of photo's why keep anything that is questionable? And, Peter, you do great work, please keep it up, I think you have little concern with your great submissions. 2old 10:46, 13 October 2007 (EDT)

Outcome: kept – cacahuate talk 01:33, 18 November 2007 (EST)

Image:Mountainrat.jpg[edit]

Broken file.

  • Delete. -- Tatata 04:54, 3 October 2007 (EDT)

Outcome: deleted – cacahuate talk 01:33, 18 November 2007 (EST)

Kangaroo7's upload[edit]

  • Copyright violations.
    • Image:Bezistenshtip.jpg - All rights reserved. Any reproduction of the content or any of its parts or any modification, in any form or by any method, known or yet to be invented, for any use besides private, without prior written permission by the authors is prohibited. [99]
    • Image:Churchinkrusevo.jpg - The site does not have term of use nor a statement about the license of images.[100]
  • Delete all. -- Tatata 01:47, 11 October 2007 (EDT)

Outcome: deleted – cacahuate talk 01:33, 18 November 2007 (EST)

Tech:A simple way to monetize the site to pay for inprovements, software, etc.[edit]

Not a tech request.

  • Delete. I'm not sure, but it looks like an ad. -- Tatata 22:27, 14 October 2007 (EDT)

Outcome: deleted – cacahuate talk 01:33, 18 November 2007 (EST)

Kelseyreis' upload[edit]

Outcome: deleted – cacahuate talk 01:33, 18 November 2007 (EST)

Template:Den Haag[edit]

This template is useless except images related Category:Den Haag and may lead to the overproduction of such Mediawiki Template specific to place.

  • Delete. -- Tatata 02:32, 22 October 2007 (EDT)
  • Keep -- There shout be a place to put photo's from Den Haag. It is the third city in The Netherlands, (in English The Hague). I can't find any page for photos of it. --Rein N. 03:32, 22 October 2007 (EDT)

Outcome: deleted – cacahuate talk 01:33, 18 November 2007 (EST)

Template:FlickrImport4[edit]

This template is useless except images licensed under CC-BY-2.5 and it's hard to find such images since Flickr's CC license version is 2.0. If we change the version written in the template, some people may use it for CC-BY-SA-2.0 images by mistake. Thus this template shoud be abolished. I think Template:Flickr (Template:Flickr4) is enough for images from Flickr and licese should be chosen from the pulldown list of Specia:Upload.

  • Delete. -- Tatata 03:26, 23 October 2007 (EDT)

Outcome: deleted – cacahuate talk 01:33, 18 November 2007 (EST)

Image:V2Peenemünde.jpg[edit]

This image is licensed under CC-BY-NC-SA-2.0 [104].

  • Delete. -- Tatata 03:58, 27 October 2007 (EDT)

Outcome: deleted – cacahuate talk 01:33, 18 November 2007 (EST)

Image:KabulKandaharRoadConstruction.jpg[edit]

The guy with bike and other with red beard are staring at the camera, it makes the image look bad. Also, it is from 2003 when the highway was under construction as it is now completed and does not look the same as in the image. The people may be identifiable so lets delete this image. I've just uploaded a better image of road in Afghanistan.

  • Delete--Creative 16:41, 29 October 2007 (EDT)

Outcome: deleted – cacahuate talk 01:33, 18 November 2007 (EST)

Image:Map-village-walk-big.jpg[edit]

Upload without a license specified; potential copyright violations. The source site of this image does not describe terms of use for their contents.

  • Delete. -- Tatata 22:55, 28 October 2007 (EDT)

Outcome: deleted – cacahuate talk 01:33, 18 November 2007 (EST)

Image:Skopjestreet.jpg[edit]

Upload without a license specified; potential copyright violations. This image was uploaded as Skopje.jpg by the same user on 06:23, 28 September 2007, and was deleted per VFD for the reason that its license could not be confirmed.

  • Delete again. -- Tatata 00:02, 29 October 2007 (EDT)

Outcome: deleted – cacahuate talk 01:33, 18 November 2007 (EST)

AboutGaoyou.com's upload[edit]

  • Copyright violations. The site is copyrighted, distribution or commercial use is strictly prohibited without written authorization and there is no evidence that the uploader is the site owner.[105]
  • Delete all. -- Tatata 02:35, 21 August 2007 (EDT)
  • Keep. They're nice pictures, and it appears that the uploader is the site owner, based on his username. If someone complains later then we can delete them then – cacahuate talk 23:04, 30 October 2007 (EDT)

Outcome: kept – cacahuate talk 01:34, 18 November 2007 (EST)

Image:Paris123456.JPG[edit]

Probably, copyright violation.[106]

  • Delete. Speedy? -- Tatata 21:24, 19 November 2007 (EST)

Outcome: speedy-deleted. -- Bill-on-the-Hill 14:16, 25 November 2007 (EST)