Commons:Deletion requests/2024/08/05

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
4 August 2024
6 August 2024
Deletion requests on 5 August 2024

August 5

[edit]

File:Advertising Billboard 8.jpg

[edit]

No freedom of panorama in Ghana A1Cafel (talk) 03:23, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]


File:Advertising Billboard in Ghana 3.jpg

[edit]

No freedom of panorama in Ghana A1Cafel (talk) 03:27, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]


File:Advertising Billboard in Ghana 7.jpg

[edit]

No freedom of panorama in Ghana A1Cafel (talk) 03:28, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]


File:Warkop Asep Rohimat.jpg

[edit]

Because i am no need Aseprohimatt (talk) 04:57, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]


File:MINISO Ormoc-3.jpg

[edit]

Per COM:TOYS A1Cafel (talk) 05:44, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Files in Category:Monument to Latvian Riflemen (Riga)

[edit]

Erected in 1971, co-authors died in 1984 and 2015, no FoP in Latvia.

Quick1984 (talk) 05:51, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]


File:Riga Landmarks 01.jpg
Further to your proposed deletion of this image I would request that you reconsider on the basis of 'Latvian jurisprudence' (as relevant to FOP) which states that "no infringement is constituted when the work is an accessory compared to the main represented or handled subject" as the focus is on the clock tower of the Town Hall not the Riflemen's Monument. Alternatively would it make it 'acceptable' to 'blur' the Monument, or more drastically crop the Monument from the image, although this would be a disappointing act from a photographic perspective? Thank you for your kind consideration of this request --SM:!) (talk) 10:39, 5 August 2024 (UTC) SM:!) (talk) 09:00, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files in Category:Interior of Paul-Löbe-Haus

[edit]

There is no FoP for interior views in Germany and Germany has a standard of life + 70 years. The architect of the building is Stefan Braunfels and he is still alive.

Paradise Chronicle (talk) 05:58, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Files in Category:Kunstmuseum Bonn

[edit]

There is no FoP for interior views in Germany and Germany has a standard of life + 70 years. The architect of the building is Axel Schultes and he is still alive.

Paradise Chronicle (talk) 06:08, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Files uploaded by Launchpad1944 (talk · contribs)

[edit]

ʽːFile:Convenient Store Suit Press Photo - Royal Fools Band.jpg is from https://royalfoolsband.com/store File:Royal Fools Jumping Action Shot Press Picture.jpg was uploaded 5 Aug but online here on 18 June https://boldjourney.com/meet-royal-fools/ etc etc

Uploader needs to confirm ownership via VRT

Gbawden (talk) 08:38, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Arab nationalism Map.svg

[edit]

In this map almost half of Iran is added to the "Arab World" which is completely wrong. No Arabic speaking population in the most of that area which is added to that part of the map. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ماني (talk • contribs) 07:26, 5 August 2024‎ (UTC)[reply]

If the map is disputed that can be adressed, but they will not delete the file while it is being used. 186.172.83.68 09:09, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The file cites no sources, so I would consider it close to useless. Sadly, though, that is the case for enough maps on Commons that I'm not sure it is a sufficient reason to delete.
For what it's worth, there are areas of Iran marked on that map that have lower percentages of Arabs than several U.S. cities or Greater London, and I'd guess most of that area has a lower percentage of Arab population than Paris or Marseilles.
The fact that, for religious reasons, many Iranians can read, pray, and even write in Arabic is neither here nor there. The same is true of Pakistan, Bangladesh, Indonesia, etc. No one calls those countries "Arabic".
However this goes in terms of deletion, I have marked the file with {{Fact disputed}}. - Jmabel ! talk 22:35, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by Tbrown2892 (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Unlikely to be own works.

Yann (talk) 11:00, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi All of those listed pictures are all my own work. I am an amateur photographer am proud of my work. Why do you consider them not to be my work?
best regards
Tony Brown Tbrown2892 (talk) 11:07, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Tbrown2892: Then please upload the original images with EXIF data. If the images were published else before being uploaded here, you need to confirm the license via COM:VRT. Yann (talk) 11:10, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Yann I tried to upload newer versions of the images (originals with exif data) as you requested, but I get the following message  :-
A file with this name already exists; please check the existing file if you are not sure whether you want to change it. Please choose another filename, unless you are uploading a technically improved version of the same file.
Do not overwrite an image with a different one of the same topic (see file naming).
The upload is an exact duplicate of the current version of File:Tortoiseshell TB.png.
What am I doing wrong? Should I upload them as totally new images rather than newer versions? None of the files listed are used on any Wiki articles / pages apart from my Wikipedia user page.
Cheers Tony
PS how do I delete files if they are obsolete and not going to be used in any Wiki articles? Tbrown2892 (talk) 14:48, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The original image can't be File:Tortoiseshell TB.png. It should be a JPEG file. Yann (talk) 15:44, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Chir 1940.jpg

[edit]

Bogus PD rationale (if you don't know who the author is, you can't claim he's died), no attempt to clarify who the author is while all maps have such information, so no evidence of PD. Quick1984 (talk) 11:05, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The author was certainly not a single person but an institution of the Soviet Union, and "all maps have such information" is definitely NOT true. However, Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Soviet Union provides no rationale why official Soviet maps would fall under PD. --Enyavar (talk) 06:57, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What is definitely NOT true is that copyright laws in the USSR and Russia allowed for the possibility that copyright on maps belonged not to cartographers but to 'institutions'. Please do not present your opinion as the truth. Once again, any atlas published in the USSR has a page with the imprint (e.g., Commons:Deletion requests/Pocket Atlas of the USSR, 11th ed., 1940 (renomination)), and it is the uploader who must provide evidence that the map is in the public domain. Quick1984 (talk) 09:00, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Files uploaded by Basicowes (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Possible copyright violation. Non-free maps.

Maxinvestigator (talk) 09:46, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment If the cration data is really y. 1942, it may be PD. License below is wrong at the moment. A09090091 (talk) 12:37, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
1st file was also uploaded to Ru-Wiki with source David Glantz, Jonathan M. House, To the Gates of Stalingrad: Soviet-German Combat Operations, April-August 1942. - University Press of Kansas, 2009. Alex Spade (talk) 22:47, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. The uploader did not give sufficient evidence that the file is in the public domain or that the copyright owner has released it under a suitable licence, per COM:EVID. Therefore the files have to be deleted. --Ellywa (talk) 20:14, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by Basicowes (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Some sort of receipts for food, out of project scope.

Quick1984 (talk) 11:13, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Kiloo Games logo.svg

[edit]

The fish in the right of the logo might be above COM:TOO Denmark. Jonteemil (talk) 16:59, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:A v golove more 2022.jpg

[edit]

This file was initially tagged by Netora as Speedy (SD) and the most recent rationale was: F10 Yann (talk) 17:58, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:EdwardElgarPompandCIrcumstanceMarchNo1.ogg

[edit]

As far as I can see, the source page ([1]) doesn't give the recording under the CCBY3.0 licence on the file page but instead a Performance Restricted Attribution Non-commercial No Derivatives 1.0, which as the name suggests is a Non Derivative licence, and thus ineligible for commons (see COM:ND). This was also the case in 2013 when the file was uploaded (way back machine) Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 19:44, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Templates found with Special:Search/template: "GL workshop"

[edit]

I replaced all the few uses with {{Graphic Lab}} so think it can be deleted now. No usecase as superseded template.

Jonteemil (talk) 19:57, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Woltersdorf-KIetz (Altstück 11).png

[edit]

Out of scope: Erfindung eines Vereins für PR, nicht offiziell GerritR (talk) 20:16, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sam Flynn Graphic (24004255386).jpg

[edit]

Violation of COM:FOP US. (Oinkers42) (talk) 21:35, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Files found with Special:Search/NLI Ref.: ODEA

[edit]

Per close Commons:Deletion requests/File:Kilfree Junction, Co. Sligo (5994423216).jpg NLI photgraphs in ODEA collection all probably have copyright issues as photographer died 1992

Djm-leighpark (talk) 07:00, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Keep "probably" isn't good enough, unless this is just another of those "serious admin biznis" deletions that are only here as a make-work exercise, not for anything to do with the images.
Commons is full of work from living, and recently deceased, creators. We accept stuff here either because it's PD by age after death or because the creator has chosen to freely license it. These have come via the National Library of Ireland. A body of professional librarians, whose view I'm going to take over that of a couple of WP editors every time. No doubt the nominator has discussed this issue with the NLI WP:BEFORE (What did OTRS Ticket:2019093010006056 say?) , but otherwise this seems to be a large bulk deletion of content for no more reason than Commons' own poor filing. That's no good rationale. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:16, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]


@Andy Dingley: Ticket:2019093010006056 was applied to the following email sent by myself to info@nli.ie & permissions@nli.ie and cc'ded to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org.

For attention of "National Library of Ireland on The Commons" "Flickr" team / O'Dea photographic collection.

Hi, Hi,

I have worked on Irish Railway articles and obviously have used images from Wikimedia Commons when available. Previously these were licensed on "National Library of Ireland on The Commons" in such a way as they could be used:

For example: NLI Ref: ODEA20/12

http://catalogue.nli.ie/Record/vtls000148330 which NLI placed onFlickr Commons about 2011/12 https://www.flickr.com/photos/nlireland/5994423216/ was copied to Wikpedia commonshttps://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Kilfree_Junction,_Co._Sligo_(5994423216).jpg then used on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kilfree_Junction_railway_station in 2014.

However more recent items the NLI have published from the from the O'Dea collection cannot be used: For example NLI Ref.: ODEA 22/50 - I think uploaded about April 2019 to Flickr ... https://www.flickr.com/photos/nlireland/33917599278/ is not usable and I would love an image at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NCC_Class_W (Current interpretation of https://www.flickr.com/commons/usage/ of "No known copyright restrictions" leading to https://www.flickr.com/commons/usage/ and http://www.nli.ie/en/flickr-commons.aspx which seems incompatible with Wikipedia commons ).

My ideal would be if all O'dea collection pictures uplaoded to Flickr copy be confirmed as usable in Wikipedia. (In all events they should probably be all in or all out I'd like to certain of which).

Basically in terms of of the ODEA 22/50 I might have an option of purchasing an alternative H.C. Casserley image of same and obtaining the the copyright with a chance (at extremely hard work) of obtaining a copyright trail through the vendor and auctioneer. I have been badly burnt through not being able to get a provenance trail to Wikimedia Commons permissions satisfaction previously. Obviously I don't want to go through the pain of this route if I can simple use an O'Dea image from NLI.

Hope this makes sense,

Best regards,

My name redacted

https://www.flickr.com/photos/nlireland/48640728006/

Notes:
May be worth raising at Commons:Village pump/Copyright perhaps ? Djm-leighpark (talk) 11:32, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete, Unfortunately I would only restate what I wrote at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Kilfree Junction, Co. Sligo (5994423216).jpg, so please read it. This NLI problem has already been raised over 6 years ago with this research request and some other such images have also been deleted based on author's death date and PCP. Without confirmation from the NLI I think these have to go but can be restored in 2063. Djm-leighpark your mention of a Casserley image is an entirely different matter where the OTRS ticket, which I have access to, verifies the negatives were sold on behalf of the heir and included the copyright from the heir, so the purchaser now own the copyright. I'm fairly certain there are more NLI images whose author copyright is still extant. Ww2censor (talk) 21:53, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The librarian's name is Carol, we're buddies on flickr. I'm more than happy to ask for advice there. I've sent a PM on flickr, can we hold off for a few days until the Library responds? Oaktree b (talk) 22:37, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Oaktree b Any response? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Djm-leighpark (talk • contribs) 15:37, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Oaktree b: What's the word? No response? -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 19:07, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No response from the NLI. Oaktree b (talk) 20:50, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm having a wee gentle prod myself. I can't see myself in Dublin for a few months at least but the NLI is on my itinerary.Djm-leighpark (talk) 18:52, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment considering that most of these images have been here for several years, we should really wait until we get a response from the NLI on way or another. Perhaps one of our Dublin-based editors could visit them and see if they can solicit a definitive answer. Depending on the donation of the collection it's possible the copyright was transferred at that time. I am sure there are still several W.D. Hogan images, as mentioned above, still on the commons from these 128 found on the NLI Flickrstream that should certainly be deleted too, such as most of these. Ww2censor (talk) 11:33, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  •  CommentHere's what they replied today:

Re: Can you help with copyright on images?

Hello there, Brian! Sorry for delay on this, it came in just as I was dealing with the launch of a big exhibition! But I do thank you for bringing it to our attention. That said, I'm not convinced you'll be delighted with my response.

Brian, I don't feel qualified to make a decision on this matter. Copyright is a huge legal and other quagmire that has broken better women than me. Our take here has always been that we are willing to share on Flickr Commons our photos that are out of copyright, or for which we hold the copyright – solely for people to enjoy and for research, not for any commercial use, with the proviso that people link back to either Flickr, or reference the National Library of Ireland.

This is Flickr's take: BY ASSERTING "NO KNOWN COPYRIGHT RESTRICTIONS," PARTICIPATING INSTITUTIONS ARE SHARING THE BENEFIT OF THEIR RESEARCH WITHOUT PROVIDING AN EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED WARRANTY TO OTHERS WHO WOULD LIKE TO USE OR REPRODUCE THE PHOTOGRAPH.

And Flickr also says on RIGHTS STATEMENT... Participating institutions may have various reasons for determining that "no known copyright restrictions" exist, such as: The copyright is in the public domain because it has expired; The copyright was injected into the public domain for other reasons, such as failure to adhere to required formalities or conditions; The institution owns the copyright but is not interested in exercising control; or The institution has legal rights sufficient to authorize others to use the work without restrictions.

Our simplest option (and one that allows EVERYONE to have such an excellent and fruitful time on our Flickr Commons photo stream) has always been to use the No known copyright restrictions. That may not, and obviously from the whole string of queried images, apparently does not satisfy the Wikimedia admins involved. I personally have no problem with properly referenced O'Dea images being used on Wikimedia Commons, as they're always well-referenced, and link back to our Flickr.

Sorry, Brian, I know this is probably an unsatisfactory response, that will not really help you in this regard, but it is the best that I can give.

All the best Carol

-so, no real help. They allow us to use the ones out of copyright, and have no issues with us using the O'Dea ones still in copyright, but not for commercial use. This would seem to negate keeping the more recent ones on Commons. Oaktree b (talk) 03:06, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Accordingly, it is up to us to determine the copyright status based on our own best research because NLI cannot exactly confirm the copyright status and their "No known copyright restrictions" does not verify the images are freely licensed for them to be kept on the commons. Therefore we really can only go by the death date of the photographer when known. That's not what we wanted to hear but is pretty much what I had expected. We may have to go through the rest of the NLI media in the same way. Ww2censor (talk) 22:35, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately it would likely be necessary for the O'Dea heir to confirm the passing of the copyright in this circumstance in the rightful words. If the collection was bought by the NLI it would obviously rest on the terms of the agreement; if donated it is likely the intention was altruistically for unrestricted or CC-BY-SA use but it is perhaps equally likely no such thing was discussed.Djm-leighpark (talk) 15:58, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Djm-leighpark, Oaktree b: I wonder if the NLI knows who the heirs are and would they share that information. Otherwise someone may have to search for an obituary in the Irish newspaper of 1996. Does anyone have access to them online? The Gilbert Library in Pearse Street used to keep them but it was maybe 30 years ago since I was there and used their newspaper archive. Ww2censor (talk) 17:57, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It is just possible the Irish Railway Record Society (or IRPS) might have the contacts. I'm not a member ... (I have chewed it over and it would give me additional sources) and I might go to a (London) meeting at some point but its likely Dublin where the answer will lie. I have no clue whatsoever as to the IRRS their view of Wikipedia! Or the man and the Cavan & Leitrim knows nearly everything. For some reason the I think the Mullingar area may be relevant, or not. In essence I have the simple hope of attaching the odd couple of images to Irish railway wikipedia articles where necessary. Amazingly the removal of the O'Dea might trigger some positive searching for images(unlikely), or there may be possibility of appealling to modellers or even general public who might have images their willing to upload. The person at the Eiretains site is another possibility. Djm-leighpark (talk) 20:34, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination, previous DR, and discussion. Author died in 1992, so images are still under copyright. The source site does not provide evidence of a free license. Undelete in 2063. --Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 13:03, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Files found with Special:Search/NLI Ref.: ODEA

[edit]

Same reason as previous deletion discussion.

We may want to blacklist the Flickr account.

Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 23:14, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't blacklist the entire NLI account, but the items from the O'Dea collection certainly don't seem to be public domain. Oaktree b (talk) 23:30, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Blacklisting the NLI seems like overkill considering many of their images are proven to be in the public domain and for others unfortunately neither we, nor the NLI, have exact details of their copyright status. As with many museum or library Flickr donated images, the onus is on us to determine that and change the licence of those images accordingly. "no known copyright restrictions" does not help us in this case. Others, like these ODEA images, have to be deleted for the time being until we can find better information or until 2063. There is a small chance I can visit the NLI in October but don't know until I get to Dublin. Ww2censor (talk) 10:32, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Multitudinaria Feria 2022.jpg

[edit]

Probably not an own work, this user has been taking images from the web and uploading them as his own. Banfield - Amenazas aquí 00:00, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Light Eye Color Map Europe, Nature.png

[edit]

The source given for this image is a circular reference, linking back to the original "Robert Frost" commons image, whch was deleted for copyright violation:

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Eye_colors_map_of_Europe.png

In short there is no evidence that the original map was ever uploaded under a Creative Commons 4.0 license. It's copywritten material and should be deleted. The source erroneously identified one "Robert Frost" as the source, but as you'll see at the deletion page, it's *Peter Frost* who used the map with the expression of theactual copyright owners. We don't have that permission. A Rainbow Footing It (talk) 02:37, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Updated Upon further review, this copyright law only applies to works published AFTER 1978, works published prior to 1978 do not apply. Prior to 1978, the law specified that a work would need to have the copyright updated every 28 years. This work was published in 1965 and the copyright was not updated. Therefore, this work is no longer protected under copyright law. Therefore, I withdraw my previous statement, and I do not support the removal of this work.
  • Additionally, the work from 1965 used the map from The human species : an introduction to physical anthropology by Frederick S Hulse published in 1963, which is prior to the date of 1964. Since the map is originally from a source published prior to 1964, and was not renewed after 28 years, this means the map is indeed in the public domain and is therefore free to use, given that the ultimate source of it is the work by Frederick S Hulse.
  • So in other words, this map is originally from a source published in 1963 by Hulse, and then reused in 1965 by Beals and Hoijer. Copyright.gov shows there was a second edition published in 1971, but neither edition show signs of renewal(not that the second edition would effect this regardless). So because of this, since it was published prior to 1964, and since it was not renewed within 28 years, it did not gain the additional 65 years to the copyright, meaning the map is in the public domain as the copyright expired in 1991. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Runjeetgupta008 (talk • contribs) 23:11, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You have provided no evidence that the copyright was not updated. This image, taken from Peter Frost ca. 2000s, shows that the copyright WAS in fact updated:
https://thesocietypages.org/graphicsociology/files/2009/01/frost_european_eye_color2.jpg
Frost states here (at the bottom) that he obtained permission to use the photo, and that the copyright is owned by Pearson Education. This unequivocally shows that the map was updated and that the copyright hasn't expired.
So as usual, the image uploader (a sockpuppeteer from the English wiki) is lying and refusing to get out of the ring. A Rainbow Footing It (talk) 04:00, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The map is not originally from Beals and Hoijer, they used it from a source published in 1963 called The human species : an introduction to physical anthropology by Frederick S Hulse. This is the source of the map, and according to copyright.gov, the copyright was never renewed, you can go to the website and search for it. There is no record for a renewal, just a record for a second edition which also received a copyright(a second edition does not renew the first edition copyright though). And because it was published prior to 1964, without a renewal, it expires within 28 years, which means the copyright expired in 1991. Peter Frost was obviously not aware that Beals and Hoijer were not the original publishers of the map, they published it with the permission of the original publisher, Hulse.
Please stop using personal insults to try to get your way with the administrators, it is not becoming and I could report you for that as well. Runjeetgupta008 (talk) 13:39, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Again, you have failed to provide any evidence at all to support your assertions. The source I'm showing you says clearly that the copyright to this map is owned by Pearson Education;
https://thesocietypages.org/graphicsociology/files/2009/01/frost_european_eye_color2.jpg
If you cannot provide a source for your claims, there's nothing that can be done about them. The copyright to this map is clearly owned by Pearson Education. A Rainbow Footing It (talk) 20:59, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Beals and Hoijer cite the source I gave(I did indeed cite a source numerous time here), The human species : an introduction to physical anthropology by Frederick S Hulse, which is the origin of the map. As such, I actually have already cited my claim numerous times. Additionally, because the copyright was not renewed for this work(which can be checked at copyright.gov) and because it was published prior to 1964 it is in the public domain(without renewal, works published prior to 1964 only have a copyright term lasting 28 years, if the copyright is not renewed within that 28 year period). The website you give does not prove anything to the contrary, it just shows that Frost used Beals & Hoijer but was not aware that the source was in the public domain already. Peter Frost does not have omniscience, him being unaware of something existing in the public domain at the time he published a work does not prove your point. In fact,since this map is an altered version, rather than the exact map used in Beals and Hoijer(which is the map Frost used on his website), one could very easily make the argument, which is the argument I am making, that this map can just be claimed to be an altered version of the original one published by Hulse, in which the copyright expired in 1991.
Now please allow the administrators to consider both of our arguments and make a decision, please do not keep editing the page in which I uploaded the map to try to trick admins into thinking it is not in the public domain. In other words please stop insulting me and acting like a child(I read the comment you gave calling me an "utter creep" to another user, and also the comment in this very thread calling me a liar. I could report you for both of those and will consider it depending on if you keep acting like a child and pestering me.
Please have a good day and leave me alone from here on our and I will do likewise. Runjeetgupta008 (talk) 23:35, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You have continually failed to provide a source for your claims. The source from Peter Frost clearly says that the copyright to this image is owned by Pearson Education. A Rainbow Footing It (talk) 06:57, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Again, I already covered this point. Peter Frost was not aware that this map was in the public domain, because he was not aware that it was originally published by Hulse. Stating that Frost sought approval from Pearson does not disprove that this map was published in 1963, in a work that never had the copyright renewed. I have already given my source numerous times. I understand you do not like this map for some bizarre reason, perhaps because it shows that England is primarily brown eyed in the south and west? Going by your edit history, you seem to fetishize interracial relationships between Englishmen and Asian women(and Asian female pornography), probably why you are also obsessed with proving a bizarre point that men are more blue eyed than women?(if Englishmen are not as heavily blue eyed as you want to imply, this hurts the strange point you are trying to make). Now, these points are off topic and I do not ask the admin to consider those, it is just a curiosity I noticed in your edit history.
But please do not resort to sophistry, I have provided my source, let the administrators decide for themselves. Runjeetgupta008 (talk) 15:27, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/2024/08/05&oldid=921238992"