The center for all Wikitravel images!

Votes for deletion/Archive Jan-June 2009

From Wikitravel Shared
Votes for deletion : Archive Jan-June 2009
Revision as of 18:00, 30 July 2009 by LtPowers (talk | contribs) (archive a few. This should be all of them for the first half of 2009.)
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to: navigation, search

This is an archive of images and other files whose VFDs closed between Jan. 2009 and June 2009


September 2008[edit]

User:It's So Easy Travel Insurance[edit]

  • Keep. We haven't really built a consensus one way or the other on this issue, I don't think... A user who owns a resort should be able to write about their resort and link to it on their userpage, I don't see that as a huge problem. But we have deleted pages that were huge spam link farms, which is a different issue. What do others think on this? – cacahuate talk 14:51, 24 September 2008 (EDT)
  • Delete. It opens the door to numerous free standing ads that will be impossible to control. We will have a page for every airline, Ins. co., travel agency and so on. I see a User Page as a personal page rather than a commercial page within WT. 15:24, 24 September 2008 (EDT) Unsigned comment by 2old (talkcontribs) .
There's been a lot more discussion on the duplicate vfd at en:vfd, consensus is leaning to keep, based on our history of not policing user pages unless egregiously spammy or pornographic – cacahuate talk 22:01, 22 October 2008 (EDT)

Outcome: keptcacahuate talk 19:19, 15 February 2009 (EST)

October 2008[edit]

Image:사본 -kor map03.jpg[edit]

Map by the Korean Tourism Organization, claimed as CC with no proof. The KTO website states "All rights reserved." Jpatokal 03:49, 10 October 2008 (EDT)

Delete. The KTO must explicitly say CC-bySA is okay with them in order for us to keep this. -- Cjensen 23:35, 13 October 2008 (EDT)

Here is the same image from KTO; Image:Map of Korea.jpg. -- Tatata 23:56, 13 October 2008 (EDT)

Yes. That's the image I had uploaded. I already asked Jpatokal what is necessary to prove I have permission but ironically no response. So I'm asking here. Do you need a letter from the president or from the author at the KTO or a letterhead from a rep...what?Paula 02:52, 22 October 2008 (EDT)

This is a good question guys, how is best to show proof of permission? In the past there have been times where a rep from the agency creates an account here and notes on the talk page (Image talk:사본 -kor map03.jpg). Or if a letter has been sent, perhaps a scan can be uploaded and linked to from the image? – cacahuate talk 21:59, 22 October 2008 (EDT)
Usually the minimum is an e-mail or scan of the permission from the copyright holder (in this case KNTO), including -- and this is important -- the contact information of the person granting permission. The wording also has to make it very clear that the license is granted under Creative Commons Sharealike-Attribution 1.0, not "for Wikitravel" etc. Jpatokal 17:35, 26 October 2008 (EDT)

Outcome: deletedcacahuate talk 19:19, 15 February 2009 (EST)

I uploaded the map and the letter of permission but i had to upload them separately. The filename for the map is Map_of_Korea.jpg and the letter is letter_of_permission.jpg. They are both under the same date.Paula 04:54, 18 May 2009 (EDT)
Correction: it's letter_of_permission.gif

November 2008[edit]

Hotel urbem opera valencia[edit]

Hotel article, in Spanish. --Episteme 12:52, 6 November 2008 (EST)


Unattributed derivative work.

  • Delete - Texugo 03:39, 8 November 2008 (EST)

Outcome: deletedcacahuate talk 19:19, 15 February 2009 (EST)


Copyvio --GF 07:08, 8 November 2008 (EST)

Outcome: deletedcacahuate talk 19:19, 15 February 2009 (EST)


  • Delete. States that it's copyrighted right on the image, but was uploaded as Public Domain by creator... unless the uploader is the creator, this needs to be deleted – cacahuate talk 16:24, 10 November 2008 (EST)

Outcome: deletedcacahuate talk 19:19, 15 February 2009 (EST)

Image:Resize old penang guesthouse.JPG[edit]

  • Delete. We generally avoid using pictures of specific business establishments, but in this case the image page is being used for outright advertising. --Peter Talk 17:07, 11 November 2008 (EST)

Outcome: deletedcacahuate talk 19:19, 15 February 2009 (EST)


There is a nice text in Spanish at bottom of the map, prohibiting reproduction without prior approval from authorities Sertmann 23:12, 23 November 2008 (EST)

Outcome: deletedcacahuate talk 19:19, 15 February 2009 (EST)

Image:Rhönlandschaft bei Tann.jpg[edit]

Delete. Image did not upload properly. Contributor has uploaded very good image of same photo. Well done. 2old 17:00, 26 November 2008 (EST)

Outcome: deletedcacahuate talk 19:19, 15 February 2009 (EST)

December 2008[edit]


This seems to be a painting. Without further information, it's highly unlikely the uploader painted it personally, and we have no way of knowing if it's old enough to be out of copyright. LtPowers 19:37, 1 December 2008 (EST)

  • Okay, taking a closer look, now I don't think it's a painting. I assumed it was because of what Texugo said here. Thoughts? LtPowers 19:42, 1 December 2008 (EST)
Looks like an effect. Edmontonenthusiast 19:47, 1 December 2008 (EST).
Keep. I think it is a photo, due to crooked image. The subject looks like it is slanting to one side. The Leaning Legislature Building of Edmonton? With a little work the problem could be corrected and maybe a little cropping would help, but I do think it is a photo. 2old 11:42, 2 December 2008 (EST)
we should contact winter. Edmontonenthusiast 17:32, 2 December 2008 (EST).

Outcome: deletedcacahuate talk 19:19, 15 February 2009 (EST)

Farming+gold in WoW[edit]

This is about Gaming, not Travel topic. --Rein N. 03:35, 11 December 2008 (EST)


Delete. No other comment really. --Inas 19:07, 17 December 2008 (EST)

Not Sure - According to the deletion policy, only copyright violations, and privacy rights violations are valid reasons for deleting a photo. Sure this is an uninteresting photo, but it is the only image in the Punta Cana article (I'll make it a thumb on the right). Sure a picture of the whole thing would be nice, but it draws attention to something which to me seems quite interesting. AHeneen 20:31, 17 December 2008 (EST)

The unwritten rule behind everything on wikitravel, is that it has to be of benefit to the traveller, that is what we are here for. If you can see a benefit of the image to the traveller then as far as I'm concerned, it should stay. --Inas 21:15, 17 December 2008 (EST)

Outcome: deletedcacahuate talk 19:19, 15 February 2009 (EST)

Image:Inuktitut Stop Sign.jpg[edit]

This image is licensed under cc-by-nc-sa-2.0.[1]

Delete. -- Tatata 00:11, 18 December 2008 (EST)

Outcome: deletedcacahuate talk 19:19, 15 February 2009 (EST)


User error. I was patching up the file of the same name over in WT non-shared namespace [2], but inadvertently uploaded the edited file to shared with the same filename - meaning that the old one would always get preference in articles. Oops! Re-uploaded under a different filename with no changes, so this one's just an unneeded and unusable duplicate. - Dguillaime 23:50, 6 January 2009 (EST)

We could also just delete the one on :en if you prefer. Just say the word and I'll speedy this. --Peter Talk 00:17, 7 January 2009 (EST)
This one is definitely extraneous - please go ahead and speedy it. The one on :en wasn't uploaded by me, so I didn't want to speak for it... it's only useful for context on Talk:Seattle, but I doubt anyone would shed a tear for its loss as well. - Dguillaime 00:39, 7 January 2009 (EST)

Outcome: Speedy deleted. --Peter Talk 14:13, 7 January 2009 (EST)

Image:Orphanage johannesburg.jpg[edit]

  • Delete. No recognizable images of people allowed. 2old
Delete per 2old -- Sergey kudryavtsev 08:39, 9 January 2009 (EST)

Outcome: deletedcacahuate talk 19:19, 15 February 2009 (EST)

Image:Johannesburg backpackers.jpg[edit]

  • Delete. No recognizable images of people allowed. 2old
Delete per 2old -- Sergey kudryavtsev 08:39, 9 January 2009 (EST)

Outcome: deletedcacahuate talk 19:19, 15 February 2009 (EST)


Outcome: deletedcacahuate talk 19:19, 15 February 2009 (EST)

extra Niagara Frontier region maps[edit]

In my experimentation I created some extra map files for the en:Niagara Frontier region. They can be deleted now.

-- LtPowers 15:26, 15 January 2009 (EST)

Done per uploader's request. -- Sergey kudryavtsev 17:12, 17 January 2009 (EST)

Outcome: deletedcacahuate talk 19:19, 15 February 2009 (EST)

Image:Skyh Creative - lo res - Westfield Couple.jpg[edit]

  • Delete. No recogizable people allowed in photos. 2old 11:17, 16 January 2009 (EST)
  • Delete. -- Sergey kudryavtsev 17:19, 17 January 2009 (EST)

Outcome: deletedcacahuate talk 19:19, 15 February 2009 (EST)

Image:ITM Learner lo res for web.jpg[edit]

  • Delete. No recogizable people allowed in photos. 2old 11:21, 16 January 2009 (EST)
  • Delete. -- Sergey kudryavtsev 17:19, 17 January 2009 (EST)

Outcome: deletedcacahuate talk 19:19, 15 February 2009 (EST)

Edmontonenthusiast's request[edit]

At Wikitravel Shared:Travellers' pub diff Edmontonenthusiast request to delete folowing files (his contribution): [NOTE: Comments after an image name were inserted by Shaund 14:33, 18 January 2009 (EST)]

Note that Image:Winspear.jpg is to delete, but Image:Winspear.JPG to keep.

I will wait his confimation here. -- Sergey kudryavtsev 16:13, 17 January 2009 (EST)

Thank you. I took out all the ones that I still want. What ever is on that list you can delete. thanks! Edmontonenthusiast 17:27, 17 January 2009 (EST).

A large number of those are still in active use in articles on en. - Dguillaime 21:06, 17 January 2009 (EST)

  • Keep allKeep those in use. It doesn't really work like that, you've released them under ccbysa, which isn't a reversible action – cacahuate talk 23:21, 17 January 2009 (EST)

They can be removed from articles it isn't a big deal. Cacahuate, learn to not be an ass maybe. Seriously theyre my photos and I should use them as I wish and not be controlled. Edmontonenthusiast.

Hi EE, it's not an issue of controlling. Once a photo is contributed to a site like Wikitravel or Wikipedia, the owner doesn't control its distribution anymore. That's why we make a fuss about this site licensing photos, maps, highway signs, etc. under Copyleft instead of the more traditional copyright. Even if we deleted the photos, someone could have mirrored the site and can distribute and/or post the photos as they see fit. There's nothing you, me or anyone else can do about it, other than ask if they'll take it down out of the goodness of their heart. Legally, they don't have to because it's Creative Commons or public domain.
As for deleting the photos, I'm fine with deleting most of them. About ten of that list above sit on the Edmonton pages, two on Vancouver and another three on Calgary; almost all of the rest are probably sitting on mine or EE's talk page when we were discussing maps and which photos looked best. Since they didn't make the cut, they should probably be deleted anyway for housecleaning purposes. I can list the photos that are in use in actual articles if needed. Shaund 01:18, 18 January 2009 (EST)
  • Keep all. Per the deletion procedure, in use images are not generally eligible for deletion. Second, the nominator has not given a reason for the deletion; being the uploader does not give one a right to avoid providing a reason (see the fine policy page for lists of possible reasons). Thirdly, the nominator is currently blocked on English Wikitravel and has no business attempting to foist changes upon en Wikitravel while blocked. -- Cjensen 01:09, 18 January 2009 (EST)
CJensen, use the goodness of your heart, as Shaund says. Although I have my reasons for the fact that they either:
Dont fit into anywhere
Look wierd
Aren't being used
I just dont plain want them on here
Honeslt,y I uploaded a lot of them before really knowing the licensing, if that helps at all. Just because I am blocked from the Wikitravel EN site, doesn't mean I can't do stuff here. Aside from this, I plan to stay away from here aswel, as it seems fair, I just want to get this over with as soon as possible then I'll leave here too. Bottom line, you guys should maybe just be nice and just do as I ask please. CJensen, it's your opinion that I shouldn't do business here, but I tend to disagree so there ain't anything you can do about it. Just respect my wishes and quit wasting time trying to make me angry and go against me in every single way. I'd appreciate the ones I said deleted. I may still upload new photos here, after, but I will be much more careful of which I do upload, something I didn't know before and it was just cause I was new so I'd just like the ones listed DELETED. I would support it if you wanted a photo of yours deleted. They are my photos and while it is legal for you to not do anything, just please be nice and do as I wish. Thankyou. --EE.
You say "they don't fit" and "aren't being used" AFTER it has already been pointed out that some are in use on English Wikitravel. It is your job, not ours, to make a valid nomination. -- Cjensen 02:34, 18 January 2009 (EST)
Additional reason from me -- while all of the files appear to be uploaded by EE, many are not Copyright by EE and I see no reason to delete them. Once again EE, please come back with a valid list so that we can reduce the number of issues involved here. -- Cjensen 02:46, 18 January 2009 (EST)
CJensen, so what if some of them are in use? This is my valid list - simply that and it isn't going to change. EE.
Shaund, since you have a good handle on this, I think it would be helpful if you listed the ones in use. Thumbing through these, most are useless, agree some housecleaning is in order – cacahuate talk 03:57, 18 January 2009 (EST)
Done. I've noted any files that are currently in use in a travel article after the image's file name above. There were also three that shouldn't be here because they were originally licensed under GFDL only. Shaund 14:33, 18 January 2009 (EST)

I still want them to be deleted out of respect. EE.

  • I have no problem Deleting the ones that are not in use in articles, out of respect to the contributor. (Image:MU qeii.png, by the way, should be public domain as it contains no original authorship.) But we should Keep the ones that are in use, because maintaining the quality of the travel guides is of higher importance. LtPowers 17:06, 18 January 2009 (EST)

A lot of the ones in the articles are unneccesary as well, that, too, is why I chose specific ones. That way, pages aren't cluttered with photos but have some good ones. EE.

Actually any road sign images can stay, sorry my bad for those being in there. EDMONTONENTHUSIAST.

  • Keep All. Ban EE for one month. 2old 10:14, 19 January 2009 (EST)
    • Change to Keep Those In Use. Ban EE for 60 Days. 2old 14:04, 19 January 2009 (EST)
  • I've deleted the copyvios and changed my opinion to keep only those that are currently in use in guides... there were a lot uploaded before user was familiar with what we were looking for in an image, and a lot uploaded as examples and recrops. There's no need to keep most of these around. If anyone sees a specific few that they think could be useful and don't want deleted, maybe we should list them and do it that way, otherwise I vote to delete the rest. Thanks Shaund for doing the legwork :) – cacahuate talk 11:49, 19 January 2009 (EST)
Thanks for at least looking into it a bit, and if you really want a ban for me for one month, can you please wait until this stuff is all cleared? EdmontonEnthusiast.

Outcome: deleted most, kept only those in use – cacahuate talk 19:19, 15 February 2009 (EST)


Already deleted on :en as an obvious copyright violation (from here); user apparently uploaded it to both sites. LtPowers 08:31, 26 January 2009 (EST)

We can speedy delete copyvios :) – cacahuate talk 14:40, 26 January 2009 (EST)
You can; I can't. LtPowers 17:26, 26 January 2009 (EST)
You're an admin here too, but it's pretty recent so you may need to log out and back in to see the extra buttons – cacahuate talk 19:18, 26 January 2009 (EST)
  • Deleted. You could have said something.  ;) LtPowers 09:46, 27 January 2009 (EST)

February 2009[edit]


- Lmage appears to be a copyvio, see watermark and [[3]] --Rein N. 13:23, 15 February 2009 (EST)

  • Delete copyvio from [4]. -- Sergey kudryavtsev 02:07, 16 February 2009 (EST)
  • Speedily deleted, obvious and blatant copyvio. LtPowers 11:29, 20 February 2009 (EST)

Image:Leuven-Tourist-Map.png, Image:LeuvenBrussel.gif[edit]

  • Delete. The first image appears to be a copyvio [5] and both were uploaded by the same user without specifying sources. --Peter Talk 14:56, 11 February 2009 (EST)
  • Result: Delete. LtPowers 13:35, 14 March 2009 (EDT)

March 2009[edit]


  • Delete - This image appears to be a copyvio [6] and is uploaded without specifying source or proper description. --Rein N. 07:04, 2 March 2009 (EST)
  • Deleted. LtPowers 19:03, 19 March 2009 (EDT)

Image:Picture 033.jpg and Image:Grand.JPG[edit]

These were deleted once already from the English Wikitravel, on the grounds that they violated privacy policy (many recognizable people). Re-created here, without fixing the problem, and should be deleted here as well. Somebody isn't getting the message. -- Bill-on-the-Hill 23:55, 14 March 2009 (EDT)

Outcome: deleted. --Peter Talk 04:05, 12 May 2009 (EDT)

Image:Silver Lake.jpg[edit]

Uploader thoughtfully included the copyright notice so that we could see nice and clearly that it's a copyvio. Already deleted once from en:wt. -- Bill-on-the-Hill 00:18, 15 March 2009 (EDT)

Outcome: deleted. --Peter Talk 04:05, 12 May 2009 (EDT)


Same author as the two above, and this time, a commercial advertising blurb. Still a clear copyvio. -- Bill-on-the-Hill 20:48, 15 March 2009 (EDT)

Outcome: deleted. --Peter Talk 04:05, 12 May 2009 (EDT)


Misspelled Category, replaced by category:Koningsbosch - --Rein N. 08:13, 16 March 2009 (EDT)

Image:Pittsburgh downtown map.png[edit]

If someone wouldn't mind speedy deleting this, this is the old version of the downtown Pittsburgh map, with ".png". The new version I just uploaded is ".PNG", creating two separate images. PerryPlanet 14:27, 19 March 2009 (EDT)

  • done --Rein N. 14:39, 19 March 2009 (EDT)

Image:3322590785 ce1006fe03 b.jpg and Image talk:3322590785 ce1006fe03 b.jpg[edit]

The uploader said that he/she uploaded wrong image [7]. -- Tatata 12:46, 20 March 2009 (EDT)

  • Speedily deleted, uploader's request. Thanks for calling attention to it, Tatata. LtPowers 21:35, 21 March 2009 (EDT)


  • Delete. Copyright notice on the image, and no note from the uploader stating that he holds that copyright. Used on en:La Paz. --Peter Talk 04:09, 25 March 2009 (EDT)
    • Speedy deleted as copyright violation from [8]. Copyright is clearly marked. LtPowers 09:28, 25 March 2009 (EDT)


  • Keep per below. --Peter Talk 18:52, 28 April 2009 (EDT)

Image:DSC 0686.jpg‎[edit]

  • Delete Please speedy delete this photo, it is mine. Thank you. —The preceding comment was added by Stephen sommerhalter (talkcontribs) .
    • Any particular reason? You released them under an irrevocable free license, though if you have good reason for wanting them removed we're willing to listen. LtPowers 21:05, 1 April 2009 (EDT)

Creative Commons License, Attribution 3, applies. Please provide legal authority for your contentions:

(a)"you released them under an IRREVOCABLE free license" (emph added);


(b) "if you have good reason for wanting them removed we're willing to listen".

There is nothing about that CC 3 license that is in perpetuity or that restricts my right to remove my photos.

Without waiving that point, and without agreeing that you, not I, control my intellectual property, please be advised that there is a website that is accessing my photos from your site, that I want nothing to do with, but which is being very slippery about two of my photos insofar as CC 3 is concerned. So I want to remove the photos from their reach, just to avoid dealing with these people.

You are quite mistaken, and should take a closer look at that license. To quote: Subject to the above terms and conditions, the license granted here is perpetual (for the duration of the applicable copyright in the Work). It is very much in perpetuity, and as our wiki is governed by consensus, and your ability to remove the photos is very much restricted (you don't have a right to do so per our site's licensing, and the license you chose for the photos). --Peter Talk 01:22, 4 April 2009 (EDT)
  • I'll add that I created a derivative work from one of these images, is that what this nonsense is about? I say keep, unless you provide some compelling reason. As a rule, I don't think we should get into the habit of indulging this type of contributor's remorse, as the very existence of our wiki depends upon the respect for the CC-by and by-SA licenses. --Peter Talk 01:26, 4 April 2009 (EDT)
The user in question has stopped using the images, so that problem seems to have been resolved.
I've read CREATIVE COMMONS PUBLIC LICENSE (the "LICENSE"). It provides, in Section “1. Definitions”, as follows:
“ "Licensor" means the individual or entity that offers the Work under the terms of this License … "You" means an individual or entity exercising rights under this License who has not previously violated the terms of this License with respect to the Work, or who has received express permission from the Licensor to exercise rights under this License despite a previous violation.”
WikiTravel, more precisely, Standard Brands, has no rights under the terms of the License because it is not a licensee within the meaning the defined term “You”; it is just a distributor of the photos.
The basis for my deletion request is Paragraph 7b of the License which provides in pertinent part:
"... Licensor reserves the right to release the Work under different license terms or to stop distributing the Work at any time; provided, however that any such election will not serve to withdraw this License (or any other license that has been, or is required to be, granted under the terms of this License), and this License will continue in full force and effect unless terminated as stated above"
Pursuant to Paragraph 7b, I , as Licensor, have the right to stop distributing the photos at any time. In other words, I have the right to stop distributing via WikiTravel, which is why I requested that WikiTravel delete the photos. Any rights previously conferred to those falling within the License's defined term “You” will survive, to the extent provided by Paragraph 7b.
To reply to the poster who states that he has made a derivative work based on my photo, I have not seen his work, so all that I can say is that, provided that the terms of the License and all applicable laws are being complied with, I thank him for selecting my photo. Unsigned comment by Stephen sommerhalter (talkcontribs) .
WT/IB is absolutely a licensee, or it would have no right to display your photos at all - a point that the upload page makes clear. That grant of license was made explicitly, by you, at the time of upload.
The portion of Sec. 7b quoted above permits you to stop distributing the files yourself. However, you are not WT. That paragraph means that you are not obligated to continue to offer the works yourself indefinitely (say, on a personal webpage under your exclusive control), but you do not have the right to "stop distributing via WikiTravel", because that's not what's happening. WT is hosting a copy on its own behalf, under the granted license terms. CC's own FAQ perhaps states it more eloquently. - Dguillaime 21:49, 7 April 2009 (EDT)

Create page[edit]

Delete unwanted redirect -- --Rein N. 13:49, 14 April 2009 (EDT)

Speedy deleted. Tout created, and the target is not even close to being permissable as an article—also speedy deleted. --Peter Talk 17:03, 14 April 2009 (EDT)

April 2009[edit]

Florence Hotel pictures[edit]

Almost certainly copyvios, no license or other information specified, and pictures not relevant to wikitravel.

  • Delete Sertmann 12:52, 3 April 2009 (EDT)
  • Delete. At least the first four were lifted from this hotel's site, which in addition to implicit copyright has an explicit "© VIVAHOTELS" on every page. - Dguillaime 17:59, 28 April 2009 (EDT)

Outcome: deleted. --Peter Talk 04:02, 12 May 2009 (EDT)

Image:Rurikouji gojunoto summer.jpg[edit]

License violation - this image is licensed under GFDL only. [9]

  • Delete -- Tatata 10:22, 10 April 2009 (EDT)

Outcome: deleted. --Peter Talk 04:03, 12 May 2009 (EDT)


License violation - this image is licensed under CC-BY-ND. [10]

  • Delete -- Tatata 10:05, 16 April 2009 (EDT)


Has an a-with-" char in the title giving a problem, is uploaded without it. See :Image:Mannlichen.jpg

  • Delete ----Rein N. 17:47, 22 April 2009 (EDT)

Image:Ecuador.jpg and Image:Main page image.jpg[edit]

We have no consensus to allow montages or even the stylized formatting of each individual photo in these montages. And even allowing that their truly are no copyright issues here, there are privacy rights issues. --Peter Talk 18:37, 24 April 2009 (EDT)

  • Delete. I agree with both your points. --Inas 07:04, 29 April 2009 (EDT)

Outcome: Deleted. --Peter Talk 04:01, 12 May 2009 (EDT)


Image:Näsinneula Tampere Winter.jpg and Image:Näsinneula winter.jpg are the duplication of Image:Nasinneula Tampere.jpg. And their thumbnails don't work because of convert error by letter problem.

  • Delete -- Tatata 03:12, 27 April 2009 (EDT)

Outcome: deleted. For future reference, I think it's fine to speedy delete duplicated images that have since been replaced by newer ones. Especially broken ones. --Peter Talk 04:10, 12 May 2009 (EDT)

Image:Map of Korea.jpg[edit]

The same image from KTO was deleted on 15 February 2009, because of copyvio; see Votes for deletion/Archive Jan-Jun 2009#Image:사본 -kor map03.jpg.

  • Delete, the letter on its talk page is not enough as a proof of permission. -- Tatata 03:12, 27 April 2009 (EDT)

Outcome: deleted. There is nothing here to address the concerns of the initial vfd, and it was inappropriate to re-upload it. --Peter Talk 04:12, 12 May 2009 (EDT)

Wikitravel:Korean Wikitravel Expedition[edit]

Duplication of Korean Wikitravel Expedition.

Image:Good.jpg, Image:Evil.jpg, and Image:Special.jpg[edit]

Photos of an individual, no travel relevance. - Dguillaime 23:21, 27 April 2009 (EDT)

  • Speedy deleted. Ah, caught those right after you posted this. Said user was up to silliness on :en. --Peter Talk 23:41, 27 April 2009 (EDT)

May 2009[edit]

Most images uploaded by Ronald_T[edit]

Likely to be copyright violations. All of his uploads are listed as PD-author, but also come from a variety of commercial websites with no apparent grant of license, though all do have explicit copyright statements. The user has not responded to comments left on his talk page here or on :en one week ago.

From Image:Zambales.jpg‎, Image:Tubbataha Reef.jpg‎, Image:The Philippine Eagle.jpg‎, Image:Surfing in the Philippines.jpg‎, Image:Pinatubo Lake.jpg‎, Image:Puerto Princesa Subterranean River Park.jpg‎, Image:Puerto Princesa Subterranean River Park 2.jpg‎, Image:Intramuros-manila.jpg‎, Image:Hundred-islands-in-pangasinan.jpg‎, Image:Dakak.jpg‎, Image:Corregidor.JPG‎

From Image:Puerto Princesa Subterranean River by Julia Dimon.jpeg‎

From Image:Puerto Princesa Subterranean River-2.jpg‎

From Image:Beach Front.jpg‎, Image:Boracay Sunset 2.JPG‎, Image:Boracay Sunset 2a.JPG‎, Image:Boracay Sunset 3.jpg‎, Image:Castle in the Sand.jpg‎, Image:Boracay Sunset 3.JPG‎, Image:Boracay Sunset 4.JPG‎

There are also a trio of unattributed pictures (Image:Boracay sunset.JPG‎, Image:Sunset in Boracay.JPG‎, Image:Anawangin_beach.JPG) with no source information at all. The first two are resized versions of each other, but the EXIF tags indicate it was shot with a different model of camera than the third - which makes the uniform PD-author claim suspicious, but certainly not proof. - Dguillaime 00:25, 5 May 2009 (EDT)

  • Speedy deleted. If a user is uploading files marked as PD, but coming from a copyrighted source, the onus is on them to explain why this is allowable. And he has not responded to talk messages. --Peter Talk 18:05, 11 May 2009 (EDT)

Image:Marienplatz.jpg, Image:Mariensaule.jpg, Image:Munich Glockenspiel.jpg[edit]

No source given, but apparently [11], [12], and [13] respectively, both of which are CC by-nd and thus not compatible with Wikitravel. All other Flickr uploads by User:MarinaK are also suspect... Jpatokal 11:56, 12 May 2009 (EDT)

Outcome: speedy deleted. Straightforward licensing violations. --Peter Talk 16:07, 12 May 2009 (EDT)

Many images uploaded by User:Kikugawa[edit]

In particular:

I checked other uploads from this user [14], and they checked out fine, but these are both in a format that we discourage (montage), and look very much like copyvios. --Peter Talk 08:48, 15 May 2009 (EDT)

Delete all. -- Tatata 14:25, 15 May 2009 (EDT)
Delete all. I feel we had better delete remains of the user's uploads since those are suspicious. -- Tatata 14:25, 15 May 2009 (EDT)

Outcome: speedy deleted. Enough evidence here that it's time to delete. And the images anyway were not in a proper format. I've left the user a message, although it might be worthwhile to leave one in Japanese as well. (I should return to that idea to have multilingual templates for these sorts of notices...) --Peter Talk 20:51, 15 May 2009 (EDT)

Category:GORGE ROBERTS[edit]

  • delete - No personal category's here. Rein N. 13:33, 20 May 2009 (EDT)

Speedy deleted: I went ahead and speedied it, as it was just gibberish—seems to be either a mistake or vandalism. --Peter Talk 19:03, 20 May 2009 (EDT)

Tech talk:Database error on posting in it:/[edit]

Speedy deleted: Spam page --Rein N. 07:17, 25 May 2009 (EDT)

Wikitravel Shared talk:Local spam blacklist/[edit]

delete: Spam page

June 2009[edit]


delete 1x1 pix is to small to be usable and a * gif ext --- --Rein N. 01:18, 11 June 2009 (EDT)

  • Speedied, presumably they uploaded the wrong file. Jpatokal 00:11, 12 June 2009 (EDT)

Image:Ostrava Masarykovo náměstí.jpg[edit]

Speedied - Sertmann 13:20, 12 June 2009 (EDT)