Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2010/12/01
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
|
|
.svg){kind=link}
converted to DR by me from a speedy by uploader Nima Baghaei (Diskussion · Beiträge) for "I want my picture removed from Wikimedia please", as image was uploaded in 2007. --Túrelio (talk) 07:24, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
Delete, as it seems rather useless anyway. --Túrelio (talk) 07:25, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. out of scope, useless George Chernilevsky talk 11:40, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
converted to DR by me from a speedy by uploader Nima Baghaei (Diskussion · Beiträge) for "I want my picture removed from Wikimedia please", as image was uploaded in 2007. --Túrelio (talk) 07:29, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
- Delete, as it seems hardly usable. --Túrelio (talk) 07:30, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. unusable, out of scope George Chernilevsky talk 11:39, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
I the author of this image, want to delete this file as I have changed my mind. I don't want it here, anymore. Prajwal21 (talk) 12:59, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Per Uploader request. Personal sign George Chernilevsky talk 15:12, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
It's copyrighted http://www.utilisima.com/us/television/variedades/hogar-express see above section "Fotos" Copyright by C.Fox Aner77 (talk) 01:39, 1 December 2010 (UTC) PD: Sorry, below section--Aner77 (talk) 01:44, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Common Good (talk) 20:12, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
no source, wrong permission, out of scope 4028mdk09 (talk) 03:39, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Common Good (talk) 20:11, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
out of scope, violating personal rights, not used or categorized since 2008 4028mdk09 (talk) 09:43, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. --:bdk: 21:25, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
unused photo of a Chilean band with no notability as decided here - autopromotion, out of scope, also lowres duplicate of File:Yetimilk2.jpg Santosga (talk) 16:53, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Exact or scaled-down duplicate: File:Yetimilk2.jpg -- Common Good (talk) 20:07, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
Unused out of scope image. ZooFari 03:48, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Anyone can create pink curly text against a pink background, and it would have no meaning. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 06:30, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
- Delete per nom --Simonxag (talk) 00:38, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. George Chernilevsky talk 07:10, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
I have a feeling this might be for personal use, therefore out of project scope Missvain (talk) 04:49, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
Delete It's a chunk of text and described as a test upload. --Simonxag (talk) 00:35, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. George Chernilevsky talk 07:09, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
Cover of book. NOT in public domain Frór (talk) 08:34, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted by Wknight94: Copyright violation
copyright violation; recording of radio news of West German radio station 78.55.135.200 21:39, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. AlNo (discuter/talk/hablar/falar) 17:25, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
Self-created artwork without obvious educational use. Art-top (talk) 07:38, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 09:34, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
Self-created artwork without obvious educational use. Art-top (talk) 07:39, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 09:35, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
out of scope, violating personal rights 4028mdk09 (talk) 09:39, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
- Delete unused personal photo (doesn't violate anybody's personal rights though). --Simonxag (talk) 00:52, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 09:36, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
unused private image - out of scope Santosga (talk) 14:30, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
Delete per nom --Simonxag (talk) 00:57, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 00:42, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Image of a living individual uploaded without permission, see OTRS Ticket:2010113010017725. Subject requests deletion. Image currently not used on any project. Guy 00:02, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
- The author, Georges Seguin (Okki), have kindly asked me if I could translate in English the following statement:
- “ I'm the author of this photography, which represents a « personnalité publique », a person, here a comic author, who appear in a public place, here a convention, not for private matter but for public working matter, here the promotion of her work.
- The French law does authorize to take such pictures. ”
- --Dereckson (talk) 17:00, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
Hello, I am Audrey Alwett and I really would like that this photo will be delete. Can we tell that I am a "personnalité publique" ? I am not sure. Nevermind, I do not understand why Okki wants absolutely publish this horrible photo. If you want another one, Okki, no problem, I have many others. But please delete this one (what a horrible face !) Thanks.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Alwett (talk • contribs)
Keep Audrey is a published author, so notable (and a public person in a public place - a convention). Come on Audrey, what's the matter with the picture? It makes you look a bit like Sophie Aldred as Ace. --Simonxag (talk) 00:33, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
Bon, cher George Seguin, il va falloir que vous m'expliquiez un acharnement pareil. Votre photo est exécrable alors pourquoi vouloir à tout prix la publier ici ? Prenez-vous le site Wikimedia Commons pour un mauvais canard people où le but est de ridiculiser l'image d'une personne ? Parce que que c'est ce que vous faites avec moi, et je ne crois pas que ce soit le but de ce site. Ou bien votre ego est-il à ce point démesuré que vous prenez pour un chef-d'oeuvre des clichés ridicules ? Quand même pas, si ? Alors qu'est-ce qu'on fait maintenant ? Vous vous acharnez, je m'acharne, et quoi ? Je trouve un moyen de vous blacklister auprès des copains et festivals pour vous compliquer vos séances de dédicaces ? Je pourrais, c'est légal, mais bon, ce serait ridicule, pas vrai ?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Alwett (talk • contribs)
- Étant donné que je ne me suis pas encore exprimé, pour l'acharnement, il faudra repasser (j'avais juste fait une demande d'aide en anglais auprès de Dereckson, mais je ne pensais pas qu'il la publierai directement). En ce qui me concerne, je n'ai rien contre la suppression de cette photo. Néanmoins, nous ne sommes pas sur Flickr, et les règles de Wikimedia Commons font qu'une fois la photo importée, son auteur n'a plus vraiment de contrôle dessus. Les licences Creative Commons sont non révocables, et c'est à la communauté de voter pour savoir si oui ou non elle désire la suppression d'une photo. Je peux effectivement voter pour sa suppression, mais mon avis n'aura pas plus d'importance qu'un autre (oui, je sais, c'est frustrant). Maintenant, je pense que la communauté sera tout de suite plus réceptive si vous fournissiez une photo de remplacement. Il faut juste faire attention au fait que cette dernière doit être publiée sous licence libre, et tout ce que cela implique (comme par exemple le droit de modification et de réutilisation hors des sites Wikimedia). Et même si vous êtes le sujet de la photo, seul le photographe qui l'a prise peut faire un tel choix (sauf s'il vous a cédé ses droits, mais dans ce cas, il faudra fournir les preuves adéquates à OTRS). Bon, maintenant, ce n'est que mon avis, et ça se trouve, la communauté décidera de supprimer la présente photo sans rien demander en retour. Il faut juste être patient, les procédures de vote durant quelques jours. Okki (talk) 02:43, 4 December 2010 (UTC) ps: désolé que la photo vous ai déplu à ce point, mais ce n'est pas toujours évident de faire de bonnes photos durant ce genre d'événements, avec les éclairages qui laissent parfois à désirer, le monde qui attend son tour... Tout serait si simple si les éditeurs fournissaient eux-même des photos de qualité sous licence libre.
Delete
- English: We already have another photograph on Commons of this personality. While the other photograph might not be perfect, it is still better than a photograph of someone smiling with only the two upper teeth. While the photograph we are talking of is technically legit, it is, in my opinion, somehow hurting a bit the image of the person being photographied. Hence my vd here.
- Français : Nous avons déjà une autre photographie sur Commons de cette personnalité. Alors que cette autre photographie peut ne pas être parfaite, elle est tout de même meilleure qu'une photographie de quelqu'un souriant en montrant deux dents de devant. Alors que la photo est techniquement légale, elle, selon mon opinion personnelle, abime un peu l'image de la personne présentement photographiée, d'où mon avis pour la suppression.
- Esby (talk) 09:50, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
Delete Il me paraît normal que la personne photographiée ait un droit sur son image. À titre personnel, je pense que nous sommes peut-être là confrontés à une lacune de la licence, dont le « tout-libre » ne devrait pas se faire au détriment de la personne photographiée. Donc vote pour la suppression, ne serait-ce que par courtoisie. Et aussi, la personne photographiée ne devrait pas tant s'en faire, elle n'est pas vilaine du tout même en faisant la grimace. Od1n (talk) 11:01, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
- À titre légal, la France et d'autres pays européens sont les seuls à avoir une notion de droit à l'image.
- Dans nos pays, la différence est claire et nette entre d'une part la sphère privée (e.g. une photo prise au restaurant) et la sphère publique (e.g. une convention, un discours, etc.).
- Il serait peut-être plus correct de tout simplement dire que nonobstant la légalité de l'image (et il n'y a pas de lacune, il y a une jurisprudence très abondante en la matière fixant de façon précise ce qu'est ou non une personnalité publique ainsi que l'exercice de son activité publique), il y a lieu par choix éthique de la communauté de supprimer une image jugée peu flatteuse par le sujet de l'image, dès le moment où des alternatives existent, et où le besoin d'illustration de l'information est satisfait. --Dereckson (talk) 18:28, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
wish of the nice woman in the photo who believes that she should even look better Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 22:26, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
Are West German coins covered by copyright? COM:COIN has nothing to say on it; the only thing I could find is Commons talk:Currency#German deutschemarks. Magog the Ogre (talk) 01:20, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
- The link mention a image that is now tagged with {{PD-GermanGov}}. I do not know if that is correct. --MGA73 (talk) 18:58, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Official Coins are public domain (see also , see also de:Wikipedia:Urheberrechtsfragen/Archiv/2010/09#Gedenkmünzen in Euro. I think,
{{PD-GermanGov}} {{Currency}}will be correct. So no worry, I think we can keep it. --Quedel (talk) 15:56, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure this is Flickrwashing. The Flickr account contains a series of these maps, all with similar printouts with orientering run times. It looks like these were laid over the maps and then everything was scanned. This guy has a blog [1] that indicates he's a student and implying that he either scanned these maps or created them with some kind of software, copyright status of output unknown. Chaser (talk) 01:30, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
Comment See also here. Bear in mind this is a derivative of another file too. Watching this. --Herby talk thyme 08:49, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
- Ah, I missed that. Thanks for pointing it out. Now that you mention it, I do see "Program: OCAD 9" in the lower right corner of the original, uncropped image. Examining the software's license terms, I don't see anything either specifically releasing or restricting use of the maps. I don't usually deal with such maps or this program, so I'm not sure where we go from there. Ordinarily, I think we need affirmative permission.--Chaser (talk) 19:23, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
- Yeah - agreed :) --Herby talk thyme 08:37, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
- Ah, I missed that. Thanks for pointing it out. Now that you mention it, I do see "Program: OCAD 9" in the lower right corner of the original, uncropped image. Examining the software's license terms, I don't see anything either specifically releasing or restricting use of the maps. I don't usually deal with such maps or this program, so I'm not sure where we go from there. Ordinarily, I think we need affirmative permission.--Chaser (talk) 19:23, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
Please delete. I contacted the uploader of the original flickr-image (see also here) and Herbythyme, be were both wrong and both right :-) The uploader is a creator of orienteering maps as I said and owns the rights of some of the maps he uploaded, but not of this one, so I guess it has to be deleted. He will send the permission for the other maps via OTRS. --Grnzi 20:49, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 21:14, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
Duplicate Aavindraa (talk) 02:44, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
- Of what? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:43, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
- AS I indicated on the template, of this file. Aavindraa (talk) 03:17, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted/ Duplicate--Fanghong (talk) 06:03, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Notebook cover, is free? Or copyvio? shizhao (talk) 03:26, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
- only the logo could be copyrightable, perhaps de minimis, but perhaps the whole ting is out of scope? --Mbdortmund (talk) 19:15, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. - logo is copyvio - Jcb (talk) 23:04, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
Screenshot: No evidence of GFDL ZooFari 03:55, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
Delete I went to the claimed source site and found "TL elektronic Inc. authorizes you to copy documents published by TL elektronic Inc. on the World Wide Web for personal or non-commercial use only..." --Simonxag (talk) 00:43, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted/ Copyvio--Fanghong (talk) 06:05, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Super confused on what the use of this document is. Perhaps someone else knows otherwise? Missvain (talk) 04:47, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
Delete Copyvio. Also delete File:Page-Miroir, détail. Rober Racine.jpg for same reason. These marked up dictionary pages are actually artworks by the living Canadian artist Rober Racine. --Simonxag (talk) 00:50, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted/ Copyvio--Fanghong (talk) 06:08, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
More closer shot available File:ARANMULA KANNADI RAW.jpg from the same image Kalarickan | My Interactions 04:55, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted / Duplicate--Fanghong (talk) 06:13, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Sourced to a blog; doubtful that this is an official photo despite the background. Lpdrew (talk) 05:34, 1 December 2010 (UTC) Correct malformed DR. Captain-tucker (talk) 18:42, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 19:16, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
This is actually a gubernatorial portrait by the State of Texas; no evidence that works of that state government are in public domain. Lpdrew (talk) 05:35, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
- It's from [here http://www.defense.gov/photos/newsphoto.aspx?newsphotoid=4269] --Mbdortmund (talk) 19:19, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
Kept. Jcb (talk) 23:05, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
Incorrect licensing information as this photo is actually not a fed gov work but rather a state of Texas work; it is not this official Presidential photo as claimed in previous deletion nomination. Lpdrew (talk) 21:55, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
In some of the 73 web instances of this photo, you can see the Texas state flag to the right. Obviously not a White House image. Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:10, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
Out of scope (for the same reasons as Commons:Deletion requests/File:Motivation emotion.png). :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 06:34, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
in use on a wikiversity userpage, imo acceptable Kept. Mbdortmund (talk) 21:17, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
Scaled down duplicate of File:Hrithik Roshan.JPG, unused George Chernilevsky talk 06:40, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 21:17, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
WW2 photo - I don't think we can credit this as PD-Russia-2008 yet (Russia's engagement was 1940-45 IIRC)... won't be PD until 2011-16 Magog the Ogre (talk) 07:00, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
- Comment Thank you for inquiring, Magog the Ogre. I believed license in enwp and uploaded this image. Please delete this image if it's a fact.--Hideokun (talk) 15:57, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 01:31, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
No information about pre-1946 publication that would make it PD in both US and Russia PlanespotterA320 (talk) 19:42, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
Kept: considering this is marked as an "early publicity photo" on the source site, a publication during the war is very likely. --Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 19:11, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
Unused personal photo. Art-top (talk) 07:32, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 21:18, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
Not a amtliches Werk (It ins't a part of a statute, ordinance, official decree or judgment). sугсго 08:09, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
- Comment: seems even to have an author signature at the right border (lower half). --Túrelio (talk) 08:11, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
- Maybe Klebrand. :-P sугсго 08:21, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
Not PD-anonymous. A German non-photographic pre-199 5work, which are according to § 137f UrhG iVm § 66 UrhG aF. and § 64 ff UrhG protected 70pma and 70 years after first publicated. See Klaus Graf: Urheberrecht bei anonymen Plakaten, 2004-09-28. sугсго 08:21, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 01:39, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
Out of scope, possibly meant as an attack on subject of photo. — Huntster (t @ c) 09:22, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 21:21, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
This article is a fair-use file, the uploader does not own the rights to the screenshot, Microsoft does. --Pumpmeup 09:49, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
Delete per nom --Simonxag (talk) 00:54, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Yes, the file does belong to Microsoft. However, that doesn't mean that it cannot be attributed to them. All the photo author needs to do is change the copyright info to attribute Microsoft, and not himself. Flightx52 (talk) 05:15, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
- But Microsoft (the copyright holder of the original image) would have to give permission for the image to be released under a free license, which is about as likely as the Pope becoming a Hindu. --Simonxag (talk) 12:45, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. ZooFari 01:54, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
Wrong way round. See talk page. Chevin (talk) 09:57, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
- Agreed. Train's on what would usually be the wrong line, and the signal is clearly reversed. However why delete? Can't we just flip and upload a new version? Andy Dingley (talk) 17:53, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
- The image has been reversed, (see the replaced image). That image hasn't been tagged for deletion it is just the this one which has been tagged. WVRMad Talk 18:03, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 01:50, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
Logo, probably not own work, at least OTRS is needed Basvb (talk) 10:44, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 22:29, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
not a correct image Reinhardhauke (talk) 11:29, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
Kept. - no valid reason for deletion - Jcb (talk) 01:54, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
Poor quality and wrong color. This beetle never has green painting, only dark yellow and black. Historical source, but unusable now George Chernilevsky talk 12:17, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
- maybe just add a caveat to the file's page? --213.83.32.130 12:38, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
- It is only a small part of an old lithograph. We have good photos, like this and other in Category:Diaperis boleti --George Chernilevsky talk 13:23, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
- Keep - no reason to delete. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:48, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
Kept. - no valid reason for deletion - Jcb (talk) 01:57, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
Timothé Bosch has nothing particular, I have create this file to laugh. I am Timothé Bosch, I shall like the abolition of this file 90.18.214.185 14:28, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
Timothé Bosch has nothing particular, I have create this file to laugh. I am Timothé Bosch, I shall like the abolition of this file Motocross-Mx (talk) 14:32, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 21:34, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
Poor quality and small resolution drawing, unused. We have goood photos in Category:Rapana venosa George Chernilevsky talk 13:36, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
It is an icon. I have added it right now to the en:Template:Muricidae-stub as one of the most known representative of the Muricidae. It's really poor quality but it should be recreated in SVG. --Snek01 (talk) 14:25, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
- Keep In use = in scope. --MGA73 (talk) 22:07, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Very much in use. I think it has to be png as we have problems displaying svgs really small. --Simonxag (talk) 00:56, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
unused private image - out of scope Santosga (talk) 14:34, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. ZooFari 03:05, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
.svg){kind=link}
.svg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Map is incorrect. The most glaring evidence of this is that Rome's territory is seen reaching up near modern day Denmark. They controlled much of this area from 5-9 AD, but the rest of the borders are clearly those of 117 AD, the empire's greatest extent. There are many other correct maps of the Roman Empire; there's no need to keep this one around. Swarm (talk) 15:34, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
.svg){kind=link}
- Keep In use. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:53, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
- Delete. In use? The map is wrong. The fact that this image is widely used is just another reason to delete it -- it's spreading misinformation. Hayden120 (talk) 02:14, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
- Comment this is an SVG so can be easily corrected. no need to delete for that. --Elekhh (talk) 20:35, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
.svg){kind=link}
useless private image Reinhardhauke (talk) 15:42, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Seems to be our only picture of an Instamatic 44. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:57, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
- Keep per Pieter. MKFI (talk) 20:58, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
person pictured vassilina dikidjieva objects to her FULL name publication. i am author / publisher Ecce Ego. OR, RENAME HER AS "VASS" Ecce Ego (talk) 21:27, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 19:24, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
person pictured vassilina dikidjieva objects to her FULL name publication. i am author / publisher Ecce Ego. OR, RENAME HER AS "VASS". Thx, rgds Ecce Ego (talk) 21:29, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 19:24, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
person pictured vass objects to her FULL name publication. i am author / publisher Ecce Ego. Ecce Ego (talk) 21:36, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 19:23, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
unused logo of Swiss organization with no notability as decided here de:USL Verein für Kunst und Kultur - out of scope Santosga (talk) 21:40, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. ZooFari 01:57, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
unused logo of Swiss organization with no notability as decided here de:USL Verein für Kunst und Kultur - out of scope Santosga (talk) 21:40, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. George Chernilevsky talk 10:05, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
person pictured vassa objects to her FULL name publication. i am author / publisher Ecce Ego. Thx, rgds Ecce Ego (talk) 21:41, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 19:23, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
Source listed is not a primary source, uploader removes no source and no permission tags, insisting on the invalid PD-BritishGov license. Denniss (talk) 22:02, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. There is no evidence for PD-UKGov whatsoever. Trycatch (talk) 12:02, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
- Delete http://nobelprize.org/terms_use.html forbids any reuse and special permissions do not include commercial use. Matt (talk) 17:58, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. ZooFari 01:56, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
simply SrikantChavan (talk) 10:40, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 21:36, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
Imagen dibujada a partir de un logotipo de un programa de televisión chilena. Según la "ayuda memoria" de los archivos permitidos en commons, el archivo debe ser borrado, ya que es una ilustración a partir del logo usado. Superzerocool (talk) 12:45, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
- Machine translation: Image drawn from a logo of a program of Chilean television. According to the “aid memory” of the archives allowed in commons, the file must be erased, since it is an illustration from the used logo. — Jeff G. ツ 02:11, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Según la "ayuda memoria", el archivo no llega al umbral de originalidad. En palabras simples, el logotipo es muy simple para tener derechos de autor, a pesar de que sea "el logo" de un programa de televisión chilena. Diego Grez return fire 02:03, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
- Machine translation: According to the “aid memory”, the file does not arrive at the originality threshold. In simple words, the logo is very simple to have right of author, although it is “the logo” of a program of Chilean television. — Jeff G. ツ 02:11, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
- Keep per Diego and Template:PD-text. — Jeff G. ツ 02:11, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Kept. Jcb (talk) 02:15, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
image had no verifyable source, uploader changed it multiple times, osed wrong Flickrbot upload tags, now they appeared on a Flickr account with the uploaders name. EDIT: I forgot to mention the images have either no exif data or data from multiple camera models and mobile phones. The other uploads of this user need source verification too but no source and no permission tags are systematically remove by this user. --Denniss (talk) 15:10, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
the source of this image is: http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_6IRYA4E6U-U/TGAaGYDizOI/AAAAAAAAAkg/Sl3bSpftOMc/s1600/DSC01763.JPG
of this blog: http://pedromendessb.blogspot.com/search?Procurar=thissite&search=theweb&q=Grupo+Desportivo+de+Sesimbra+&Pesquisar=Pesquisar
if you help me rather than make life difficult for me I had already put the correct things on the images JozeSlb (talk) 16:59, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
this image already have correct source, author and permission so the deletion is not necessaryJozeSlb (talk) 22:57, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
- It may have a (questionable) source but there's no permission for the license to reuse the image inside or outside Wikipedia. --Denniss (talk) 23:01, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
- IN the source will be read Copyright © 2024 Alexiel, so delete--Motopark (talk) 16:09, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
that copyright is for the template of the page, not from the imagesJozeSlb (talk) 19:48, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. - no evidence of permission - Jcb (talk) 02:36, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
not a goog image, a better exists: Bengel(Mosel)St.Quirinus22.JPG Reinhardhauke (talk) 15:47, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
Kept. - no valid reason for deletion - Jcb (talk) 02:45, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
unused photo of a Chilean band with no notability as decided here es:Grupo Yeti - autopromotion, out of scope Santosga (talk) 16:52, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 02:05, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
The file uploaded first to Flickr account with tha same name. Later n the user provid correct link. since then he Insists to remove {{subst:npd}}. The file have no permission and tje user dont show intention to do so. ~ Geagea (talk) 22:38, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
this file doesnt have copyright and you cant see "All rights reserved" anywere because these rights are not reserved
i told you a lot of time that the rights of these file are not reserved, but you are always saying that these image have copyright without proving it
JozeSlb (talk) 22:52, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
- Almost every published picture in the world is copyrighted - you don't need to say "all rights reserved". That's just a formality. It's up to you to prove that the copyright owner has released this image to publi domain. Ytoyoda (talk) 23:20, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
"ALMOST every published picture..." not this one JozeSlb (talk) 03:19, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
- Exactly. So in those rare cases, it's up to your to prove that the copyright owner relinquished rights to the image. Have you read Commons:Licensing yet? --Ytoyoda (talk) 03:31, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
- In the source will be read Copyright © 2010 C. M. de Sesimbra. Todos os direitos reservados, so delete--Motopark (talk) 03:51, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
how can you read "Copyright © 2010 C. M. de Sesimbra. Todos os direitos reservados" there if this magazine is dated from June 2008???JozeSlb (talk) 19:42, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
- Yeah, I don't see "Todos os direitos reservados" on the magazine. But like I said, it's irrelevant. If the image is in public domain, it should be stated, or the owner needs to submit proof. Ytoyoda (talk) 04:41, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
- You must provide evidence that this is free image. No evidence given. Geagea (talk) 05:39, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
what did i have to do to prove it?(i dont know how)JozeSlb (talk) 19:48, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
- You can not provide it because there is no permission. You have to ask for permission from the site by E-mail. Follow the instraction in OTRS. Geagea (talk) 19:57, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
ok, give me a week and i send the permission to OTRS JozeSlb (talk) 18:50, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
- Also the other files too.Geagea (talk) 19:24, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. - no evidence of permission - Jcb (talk) 02:38, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
All files of User:PHILTHEGUNNER60
[edit]- File:JAPANESE FORDSON STEAMPUNK TANK.jpg
- File:Giffey5.jpg
- File:Parisiana giffey.jpg
- File:Giffey-faceboche.jpg
- File:Giffey ca 1925.jpg
- File:De NIZEROLLES.jpg
- File:Tipwalter.jpg
- File:Ampsshowtable.JPG
- File:Fichier Heinz-Wolfgang Schnaufer.jpg
- File:Bolivian Patrol in Chaco.jpg
- File:Evere aérodrome militaire.JPG
French artist René Giffey died in 1965. All his works are still in copyright. There is no permission shown for the uploads File:Giffey-faceboche.jpg, File:Giffey5.jpg or File:Parisiana giffey.jpg, so they are blatant copyvios. All the rest (bar one) are old images claimed to be the work of the uploader, which they are not: hence they are probable copyvios. Perhaps File:Ampsshowtable.JPG might be the uploader's own work, but would you bet on it? --Simonxag (talk) 23:49, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
- Hello there ! All those pics are scanned Xerox-copies (colors/B&W) from my personnal collections and archives. Mostly from old newspapers ( espec. the "Giffeys"). Some are copies of existing Commons-docs unavailable from FR-Wikipedia as illustrations for entries. Thib Phil (talk) 21:37, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
- Delete. Without evidence that the images are no longer protected by copyright, we have no choice but to assume they are. Kaldari (talk) 19:53, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
- CommentFile:Fichier Heinz-Wolfgang Schnaufer.jpg (with a different name, without "fichier", but source website shows the same picture) has an upload and deletion log entry on the English Wikipedia, showing that it was first uploaded there with a fair use rationale. Teofilo (talk) 15:41, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
- File:Giffey-faceboche.jpg appears to be a 1915 file... Max Rebo Band"almost suspiciously excellent" 23:52, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 02:51, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
Also File:Dickinson Rock in Rio tour.jpg. w:User:RedSectorZ has several clear copyvio uploads at en.wp including w:File:Iron Maiden-photo.jpg and w:File:Dickinson1.jpg and w:File:Iron Maiden - Brave New World - P.jpg. Wknight94 talk 12:38, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 17:06, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
Vector version of this file exist. None article in any language links here. License status disputed too. I think image taken from here. Vasyatka1 (talk) 14:06, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
Comment I compared the 2 images visually with the GIMP. They do look awfully similar. Is the image copyrightable? Which was the original? If this has to go then so does the vector version of it, but if it's not a copyvio then it should be kept as the source of the vector version. --Simonxag (talk) 01:08, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
- I'm sure it's a 100%-copyvio. Сoats of arms of German divisions existed on lexikon-der-wehrmacht.de almost a hundred years :) Another source where we can see this image, note that last update of the page: 15 Sep 2009. User Seichelprinz uploaded series of images from 28 August 2010 to 29 August 2010 - all taken from lexikon-der-wehrmacht.de. & I think all should be deleted. No actions or answers from this user was received, his activity was exhausted by this period (28 August 2010 - 29 August 2010). --Vasyatka1 (talk) 11:47, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
Kept. Jcb (talk) 17:09, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
and File:Dr Umnat sittat.jpeg, File:Pithaya lewseri.jpg. Unlikely to by own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:52, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 17:10, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
and File:Ratu kolinio rokotunaceva.jpg. Unlikely to by own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF. EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:30, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 17:13, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
and other uploads by JOENKIKE (talk · contribs). Unlikely to by own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF or different camera models (more then 6). EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:40, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 17:35, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
I doubt that this is the own work by the uploader: low image resolution, no EXIF data and the copyvio upload history of the uploader user 80.187.107.117 22:08, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
The photo is mine!!--Spisidda (talk) 10:47, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
Kept. Jcb (talk) 17:41, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
La foto aerea è stata manomessa da un grafico, quindi non reale. Interi quartieri sono duplicati di proposito per far sembrare la cittadina una grande città. 31.27.105.182 02:00, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
Speedy keep COM:INUSE all over the place. I don't think even if you could prove beyond doubt that this photo is faked, that would be a deletion reason on Commons. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:48, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
- It's simple, a graphic designer just needs to look at this photo to immediately confirm my thesis. It would be advisable to delete it, as it would represent a fake. 31.27.105.182 00:20, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
Kept: I do not believe that this is a fake. There are no repeating patterns as stated. Instead it appears to match satellite views. --AFBorchert (talk) 09:06, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
I doubt that this is the own work by the uploader: low image resolution, no EXIF data. In addition the source information is insufficient: it is not clear if this photo is the own work of "Sergyi". According to COM:L this must be stated explicitely 80.187.107.117 22:09, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 17:45, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
I doubt that this is the own work by the uploader: low image resolution, no EXIF data and the copyvio upload history of the uploader user 80.187.107.117 22:08, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
- Delete. The uploader also blanked a {{No permission}} tag without explanation and tried to cover up the actual source, http://natalezappala.blogspot.com/2009/11/i-vasi-calcidesi-reggini.html. —LX (talk, contribs) 06:53, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
The photos I entered, the first indicating the site where it is found and the second time as my work is better - in my opinion - that it remains so because mine seemed more defined. I can, however, include a photo of me in the same pot (and other archaeological finds). Tell me if it fits the latter proposal. Sorry for my english.--Spisidda (talk) 10:41, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, but it is rather hard to understand what you are trying to say. Please feel free to write in Italian instead. —LX (talk, contribs) 11:14, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
Sarò certamente una frana quando mi esprimo nella lingua inglese ma respingo con decisione la tua insinuazione che avrei nascosto la fonte da cui ho ricavato la foto (..."and tried to cover up the actual source"...). Non capisco dove vuoi arrivare: ho indicato chiaramente il sito da cui è stata tratta la foto (http://natalezappala.blogspot.com/2009/11/i-vasi-calcidesi-reggini.html) e, poichè hai scritto in lingua inglese, nel mio piccolo intervento - appunto in lingua inglese - ho tentato di spiegare che la foto che ho inserito su WP ha una risoluzione migliore di quella che ho io, scattata personalmente e con tanto di autorizzazione del museo di RC. --Spisidda (talk) 20:39, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
Dopo le spiegazioni che ti ho fornito già da molto tempo, non credi sia giunto il momento di rimuovere la tua proposta di cancellazione del file e dissipare così i tuoi "dubbi"? Grazie. --Spisidda (talk) 08:09, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
Non è necessaria l'autorizzazione del museo, bensì del fotografo, di cui sono i copyrights Missionary (talk) 11:18, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
@Spisidda: per chiarire: questa fotografia, ora pubblicata qui su Commons, l'hai scattata tu o l'hai semplicemente prelevata dal sito che hai indicato? Te lo chiedo esplicitamente perché se la fotografia non fosse stata scattata da te personalmente, non si può ripubblicare qui senza il permesso del fotografo (anche se è molto molto simile a quella che hai fatto tu). Se così fosse, non ci sono grossi problemi: questa la cancelliamo e carichi quella scattata da te (anche se ha una risoluzione peggiore). Ti ringrazio--Trixt (talk) 21:16, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
La foto l'ho prelevata dal sito indicato ed ho specificato perchè l'ho inserita: è molto più nitida della mia e il "fotografo" è - tra l'altro - autore di uno splendido libro che possiedo nella mia biblioteca (La Reggio di Anassila, storia, economia e societa, pubblicato nell'aprile 2010, Leonida Edizioni). Comunque spero di provvedere in giornata per l'inserimento della mia foto... dello stesso vaso. Mi permetto di chiedere però cosa cambia dal momento che tutti sappiamo che in alcuni luoghi non è possibile fotografare alcunchè. Io ho avuto, infatti, una specifica autorizzazione (che custodisco, of course) e fin'oggi ho ritenuto che occorresse una specifica autorizzazione del museo piuttosto che del fotografo. --Spisidda (talk) 07:45, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
Seppur perplesso e contrariato (e per la gioia di tutti) ho sostituito la foto "incriminata" con quella che ho scattato io. --Spisidda (talk) 20:45, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
- I think it is File:Metauros, anfora a figure nere.jpg.--Chaser (talk) 20:51, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted and substituted with an own work by uploader.--Trixt (talk) 20:56, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
Mi sembrava d'aver inserito nella voce cancellata una descrizione dell'oggetto. Nel caso, sarebbe opportuno recuperarla e inserirla a corredo della nuova immagine. --Ligabo (talk) 15:33, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
