Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2011/06/01
 |
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}
.svg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
_2.svg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
Out of scope. Aside from far too much white space, this text should be typeset, not a pdf. Demmo (talk) 06:59, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Extranaturality in b.pdf Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:26, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
Immature personal image and is not to do with the V is for Vendetta movie Good twins (talk) 12:22, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
Support. It isn´t for speedy delete and warning to the user? Metrónomo (talk) 12:31, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Underlying image of the female model is almost certainly copyrighted, so speedily deleting on that basis. Tabercil (talk) 12:33, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
No indication it's actually in the public domain Jayjg (talk) 02:09, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
- yes it is, since its used by a lot of bloggers!--Omar2788 (talk) 13:35, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: - speedy, copyvio - Jcb (talk) 23:20, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
Possible copvio since it is low res MorganKevinJ(talk) 21:46, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Its copied from http://garciarangel.blogspot.com/2008/09/firma-de-acuerdos-de-paz.html. See also nuestrodiario.com Martin H. (talk) 21:50, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
- an error name, please delete it. Thank you --Betsi Jane (talk) 13:42, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
- Why don't you request for it to be redirected rather than deleted??? Good twins (talk) 13:46, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
- Because I changed her name (at the time of reading the book her sister Anastasia), and then gave a contrast of the photo itself: File:Boris Messerer Monumant Marina Tsvetaeva Tarusa 21.05.2011.jpg --Betsi Jane (talk) 09:32, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
- So, finitely delete this file, please. (he was only takes a place, there is another correct). --Betsi Jane (talk) 17:06, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
Photographing of a copyrighted subject Razghandi (talk) 02:31, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom. ■ MMXX talk 16:31, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
Advertisement, out of scope. Jafeluv (talk) 10:12, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
Delete possible copyvio. Can't see where it could be used either. Good twins (talk) 12:50, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
- Additional note: The uploader has been globally locked as a spam-only account. Jafeluv (talk) 13:02, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Per nom Herby talk thyme 10:56, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
.svg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.svg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
This file is an exact duplicate, there should only be one. Fry1989 (talk) 23:31, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
.svg){kind=link}
- Just like this comment it's getting repetitive. Why are you nominating it for deletion when it has already been nominated for speedy delete. Good twins (talk) 23:38, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
- It may have been put under speedy in the past, but when i nominated it just now, it wasn't under any form of deletion. So no, I'm not being repetitive. Fry1989 (talk) 23:40, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
- 15.01 Madboy nominated for speedy delete. Good twins (talk) 23:45, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
- No, it is not. It has a duplication tag, but it doesn't have a speedy template. Saying it will be speedily deleted, and having a speedy tag are two different things. Fry1989 (talk) 23:46, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
- There was a speedy delete tag on it. Good twins (talk) 23:49, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
- It may have been put under speedy in the past, but when i nominated it just now, it wasn't under any form of deletion. So no, I'm not being repetitive. Fry1989 (talk) 23:40, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: dupe Túrelio (talk) 21:35, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
.svg){kind=link}
.svg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.svg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
This file is an exact duplicate. There should only be one. Fry1989 (talk) 23:32, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
.svg){kind=link}
- Just like this comment it's getting repetitive. Why are you nominating it for deletion when it has already been nominated for speedy delete. Good twins (talk) 23:37, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
- It may have been put under speedy in the past, but when i nominated it just now, it wasn't under any form of deletion. So no, I'm not being repetitive. Fry1989 (talk) 23:40, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
- Yes it was, madboy nominated it for deletion at 15.24 today. Good twins (talk) 23:43, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
- No, it is not. It has a duplication tag, but it doesn't have a speedy template. Saying it will be speedily deleted, and having a speedy tag are two different things. Fry1989 (talk) 23:46, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
- That is the speedy delete template on it for a duplicate file. Good twins (talk) 23:48, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
- It may have been put under speedy in the past, but when i nominated it just now, it wasn't under any form of deletion. So no, I'm not being repetitive. Fry1989 (talk) 23:40, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: dupe Túrelio (talk) 21:36, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
.svg){kind=link}
Per COM:SCOPE. Unused personal photo of non-notable person. We have many similar views of the bridge from this angle. 99of9 (talk) 02:25, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Personal picture. Good twins (talk) 12:52, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Souvenir picture. Out of scope.--Giorgiomonteforti (talk) 19:08, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Unused personal photo. Podzemnik (talk) 08:55, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
Meaningless lengthy file name, from recently created redirect of filemove :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 04:20, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
Delete - File uploaded very recently, no need for the redirect (seems to have been a sloppy upload by some kid from that school, but valuable nonetheless).-- Darwin Ahoy! 06:28, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
- Delete no need for the non descript redirect Good twins (talk) 12:46, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Pen nom. George Chernilevsky talk 07:38, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
listas.20minutos.es is content uploaded by 20minutos users to that page. This users obviously not care about copyrights. NON of the photos you see at google imagesearch for this person and that website is validly published under a Creative Commons license. Listas.20minutos.es (st-listas.20minutos.es) must be blacklisted if 20minutos is unable to enforce their terms of service and prevent users from copyright violations. Martin H. (talk) 00:42, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
- p.s.: This list http://listas.20minutos.es/lista/carrera-filmografica-de-luisana-lopilato-275042/ is created by Lucho! who obviously is not the copyright holder of any of the files he used to illutrate his list. Its not my job to point him to http://www.20minutos.es/especial/corporativo/aviso-legal/ and exlpain him, that per 3.3 of that terms he is not allowed to «transmitir, difundir o poner a disposición de terceros a través de los Servicios proporcionados por 20 Minutos, informaciones, mensajes, gráficos, archivos de sonido y/o imagen, fotografías, grabaciones, software y en general cualquier clase de material, datos o contenidos que:[...](g) se encuentren protegidos por cualesquiera derechos de propiedad intelectual o industrial pertenecientes a terceros[...]». Thats 20minutos job, and they obviously not do it, we can only look out to prevent reuse of such bad sources on our project. --Martin H. (talk) 00:52, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
Ok, then that might add photo of luisana lopilato and that does not infringe copyright? because it is impossible! can you add one? thanks
- I not have a photograph of her and as far as I see there is no photo online that is allowed for free reuse. Therefore: No photo of her on Wikipedia at this moment. --Martin H. (talk) 00:54, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Copyvio and frankly slightly creepy to put that kind of image on a user page imo. Good twins (talk) 12:48, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Per nominator Lymantria (talk) 09:15, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Obvious violation of copyright Razghandi (talk) 02:09, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
Comment I nominated it for speedy deletion. Razghandi (talk) 07:50, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: already deleted 99of9 (talk) 11:28, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Out of COM:SCOPE theMONO 02:10, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- Why nominate it when you've already put a speedy delete tag on it for having no liecense. Good twins (talk) 13:35, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: already deleted 99of9 (talk) 11:28, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- In case it doesn't get deleted the other way, here we go. theMONO 16:40, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
Obvious violation of copyright Razghandi (talk) 02:13, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Consider speedy tagging images like this with {{copyvio|reason}} MorganKevinJ(talk) 16:21, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
- Comment. I nominated it for speedy deletion. Razghandi (talk) 07:43, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: already deleted 99of9 (talk) 11:28, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Photographing of a copyrighted subject Razghandi (talk) 02:27, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: no FOP in iran, sculpture is copyright 99of9 (talk) 11:32, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Photograph of a copyrighted subject Razghandi (talk) 02:37, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: no FOP in iran, artwork is copyright 99of9 (talk) 11:32, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Photographing of a copyrighted subject Razghandi (talk) 02:38, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: copyright book, unless we know date of book's publication we can't tell if it is PD 99of9 (talk) 11:33, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
It is plagiarized file and a movie still, on which even the website from where it is copied doesn't have a copyright Fanofbollywood (talk) 07:17, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Should have tagged it a copyvio. Good twins (talk) 12:51, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: obvious copyvio 99of9 (talk) 11:34, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Altrough its simple forms, the file should be deleted because we in Spanish Wikipedia do not want to someone uses this file again to promotize his/her enterprise --totally out of Commons' and Wikipedia's scope. —Fitoschido // Leave me a shout! 11:08, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Unless the user can prove that he is an official representative of Eskabe through an OTRS ticket the image should be deleted as a copyvio. MorganKevinJ(talk) 16:39, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
- But it's not a copyvio; it's PD-Textlogo.--Prosfilaes (talk) 17:52, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, that is true MorganKevinJ(talk) 17:57, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
- But it's not a copyvio; it's PD-Textlogo.--Prosfilaes (talk) 17:52, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
Kept: PD-textlogo Lymantria (talk) 09:55, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Self-promotional logo of non-notable band. Article was deleted. Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 11:19, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. No educational value. Jujutacular talk 04:17, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom 99of9 (talk) 11:35, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Personal picture. Good twins (talk) 12:01, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
- Delete no use in userspace MorganKevinJ(talk) 16:43, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 07:45, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Personal picture Good twins (talk) 12:01, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
- Delete no use in userspace MorganKevinJ(talk) 17:44, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 07:46, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Personal picture Good twins (talk) 12:05, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
- Delete no use in userspace MorganKevinJ(talk) 17:44, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 07:46, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
personal picture Good twins (talk) 12:06, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
- Delete no use in userspace MorganKevinJ(talk) 17:45, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 07:47, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
personal picture Good twins (talk) 12:07, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
- Delete no use in userspace MorganKevinJ(talk) 17:46, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 07:47, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Personal picture Good twins (talk) 12:08, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
- Delete no use in userspace MorganKevinJ(talk) 17:47, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 07:48, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
personal picture Good twins (talk) 12:08, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
- Delete no use in userspace MorganKevinJ(talk) 17:47, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 07:48, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
personal picture Good twins (talk) 12:18, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
- Delete no use in userspace MorganKevinJ(talk) 17:49, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 07:49, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Logo + background image = wrong side of the threshold of originality DS (talk) 12:42, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
- Delete No OTRS permission. Jujutacular talk 04:20, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: per above 99of9 (talk) 11:37, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Poor quality, badGIF, not in use, many alternatives in Category:Isobutane. Leyo 12:56, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Per nom. --Yikrazuul (talk) 15:41, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
- Delete. Agree. File:Isobutane.png is a better copy. Materialscientist (talk) 13:51, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Poor duplicate George Chernilevsky talk 07:51, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Unused personal photo, out of scope. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:20, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
- Delete As per nom Good twins (talk) 13:31, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 07:51, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
- File:ALunospeça.jpg
- File:Diversas 228.jpg
- File:Diversas 242.jpg
- File:Diversasfgh 240.jpg
- File:Grupo JOFASA, Garanhuns, Pernambuco.jpg
- File:MVI 2872 0001.jpg
- File:MVI 2879 001 0001.jpg
- File:MVI 2880 0001.jpg
- File:Noitedeluz1.jpg
- File:Peçateatrofundamental.jpg
- File:Sdgerge1r5hjfgthg.JPG
- File:Semanatecnologia.jpg
Uploader is known for uploading copyvios as own work, though I couldn't find the source (possibly Orkut or Facebook) probably these photos were stolen from somewhere else as well. Inconsistent filenames, sloppy dates which do not match the exif data, and different camera types seem to support the idea that those were picked from here and there and uploaded as "own work". Darwin Ahoy! 13:27, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: I agree with nominator, clear signs the work is not own work 99of9 (talk) 11:45, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Personal picture out of scope Good twins (talk) 13:27, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 07:52, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Personal picture out of scope Good twins (talk) 13:29, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
- Delete personal picture, not used and out of scope. -- Phoebe (talk) 00:54, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 07:53, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Self promotion and possibley not users own work Good twins (talk) 13:41, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
- Delete: Advertising and out of project scope. + doubt of own work. -- RE rillke questions? 16:12, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
- Delete I agree.--Giorgiomonteforti (talk) 19:11, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 07:54, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
bad image, small Broc (talk) 15:49, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Unusable, this way.--Giorgiomonteforti (talk) 19:13, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Per nom. George Chernilevsky talk 07:54, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
There is a replacement version, in SVG format located at File:Royal_Grammar_School_Guildford_Site_Map.svg Glanis 15:53, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: ok, uploader's request Trycatch (talk) 14:29, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
personal image, out of project scope Broc (talk) 15:55, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 07:55, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Doubtful authorship, looks like a scanned picture of living people. Art-top (talk) 16:19, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: source -- "my printer" Trycatch (talk) 14:33, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Out of project scope? RE rillke questions? 17:06, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Yes, out of project scope. Related article was deleted. George Chernilevsky talk 07:57, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
unused private data - out of scope , misunderstanding of the commons Cholo Aleman (talk) 17:57, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
- Delete per nominator, personal document -- Phoebe (talk) 06:42, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 07:58, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
strange unused drawing - out of scope (not realistically useful) Cholo Aleman (talk) 18:20, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Out of scope. Jujutacular talk 04:15, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Out of scope. But I like this strange drawing. Traumrune (talk) 22:11, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 08:03, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
personal photo, not used, not in scope Avron (talk) 18:33, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
- Delete not used, no metadata, out of scope. -- Phoebe (talk) 00:52, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 08:04, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
unused private image - out of scope (not a good quality) Cholo Aleman (talk) 18:34, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
- Delete not used, out of scope and personal image. -- Phoebe (talk) 02:48, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 08:04, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
self promotion of a music band? not used, not in scope Avron (talk) 18:36, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 08:05, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
unused image of an unknown band - out of scope Cholo Aleman (talk) 18:43, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 08:05, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
taken from a website - copy violation Cholo Aleman (talk) 18:45, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: copyvio George Chernilevsky talk 08:06, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
unused private image - out of scope Cholo Aleman (talk) 18:47, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 08:06, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
personal artwork? not used, not in scope Avron (talk) 18:49, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 08:07, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
personal artwork? not used, not in scpoe Avron (talk) 18:51, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Far out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 08:08, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
low quality personal artwork, not used, not in scope Avron (talk) 19:13, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 08:13, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
no usable quality, not used Avron (talk) 19:15, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
- I will use it in my own page. Thanks. --Joaquín Martínez Rosado (talk) 21:31, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
Kept: In use George Chernilevsky talk 08:14, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
personal artwork, not used, not in scope Avron (talk) 19:21, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 08:15, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
personal photo, not used Avron (talk) 19:22, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 08:17, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
personal photo, not used, not in scope Avron (talk) 19:24, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 08:23, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
personal artwork? not used, not in scope Avron (talk) 19:26, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 08:23, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
no description, personal artwork, not used and no educational value Avron (talk) 19:33, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 08:24, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
personal photo, not used, not in scope Avron (talk) 19:46, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
- Delete as per nom. Good twins (talk) 10:21, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 08:25, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
personal artwork, personal promotion, not in scope Avron (talk) 19:47, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 08:26, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
This seems to be a personal photo that fails COM:EDUSE. Given how generic the filename is (c.f the earlier deletion requests) perhaps the title should be salted Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:24, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 17:34, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
Personal photo. Commons is not a personal image-hoster. RE rillke questions? 19:54, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 08:26, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Unused, low quality photo. The file is not realistically useful for an educational purpose. Art-top (talk) 20:07, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Per nom. George Chernilevsky talk 08:27, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Poor quality, badJPG, not used anywhere; better alternatives exist. Leyo 20:49, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
- Should have speedy deleted rather than this as it has no licesene. Good twins (talk) 23:54, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
- Delete License is not the problem here, rather the quality and usuabilty. Per nom. --Yikrazuul (talk) 15:42, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Deleted by User:Fastily: "No license since 1 June 2011" Ed (Edgar181) 15:17, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Poor quality, badJPG, not used anywhere; better alternatives exist. Leyo 20:50, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
- Should have speedy deleted rather than this as it has no licesene. Good twins (talk) 23:54, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
- Delete License is not the problem here, rather the quality and usuabilty. Per nom. --Yikrazuul (talk) 15:42, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: (not by me) Jcb (talk) 07:14, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Poor quality, badJPG, not used anywhere; better alternatives exist. Leyo 20:51, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
- Should have speedy deleted rather than this as it has no licesene. Good twins (talk) 23:54, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
- Delete License is not the problem here, rather the quality and usuabilty. Per nom. --Yikrazuul (talk) 15:42, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: (not by me) Jcb (talk) 07:14, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Poor quality, badJPG, not used anywhere; better alternatives exist. Leyo 20:52, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
- Should have speedy deleted rather than this as it has no licesene. Good twins (talk) 23:54, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
- Delete License is not the problem here, rather the quality and usuabilty. Per nom. --Yikrazuul (talk) 15:42, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: (not by me) Jcb (talk) 07:14, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Poor quality, badJPG, not used anywhere; better alternatives exist. Leyo 20:52, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
- Should have speedy deleted rather than this as it has no licesene. Good twins (talk) 23:54, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
- Delete License is not the problem here, rather the quality and usuabilty. Per nom. --Yikrazuul (talk) 15:43, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: (not by me) Jcb (talk) 07:15, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Poor quality, badJPG, not used anywhere; better alternatives exist. Leyo 20:53, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
- Should have speedy deleted rather than this as it has no licesene. Good twins (talk) 23:54, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
- Delete License is not the problem here, rather the quality and usuabilty. Per nom. --Yikrazuul (talk) 15:43, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: (not by me) Jcb (talk) 07:15, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
This picture has been photoshopped. The original can be found here. This picture is also deceptive, Polar Bears were never used in such a way. Also, it cannot be used in a constructive way on Wikipedia. It has no purpose. Furthermore, it has been made for some stupid joke on the Dutch Wikipedia, the uploader committed vandalism there, while referring to this picture. It has been made and uploaded to support his/her vandalism visually, on the Dutch wiki. --Kennyannydenny (talk) 21:27, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jcb (talk) 07:14, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
I see no proof uploader has provided of no rights reserved Magog the Ogre (talk) 06:04, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:14, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Incomplete licensing, the copyright tags only refer to the coins, not the reproduction. There is however no copyright tag available on Commons for this, Commons:When to use the PD-Art tag#Photograph of an old coin found on the Internet. Martin H. (talk) 12:15, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:15, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Personal picture Good twins (talk) 12:23, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
- Ähem, no, the depicted is the child actor Nick Romeo Reimann. However, I wonder whether the uploader really has the copyright. --Túrelio (talk) 13:12, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
- Sorry quiet right. But agree does look like a private picture so do they really have the copyright Good twins (talk) 13:33, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
- Hmmm. It is a pretty high resolution image with full EXIF info... in a quick search I could not find it elsewhere on the web, although, the actor's official site has some photos here which were obviously taken during the same shoot (same shirt I think, and the same hair-combing for sure). The uploader only has this one contribution, though they did again claim authorship on the nominator's talk page. it seems likely it was taken by a professional photographer, which may make us use a bit more caution, but who else would have access to the higher-resolution version? If we can find the same image (at this or higher resolution) somewhere on the web, then delete for sure, but failing that... hrm. Policy is usually to assume good faith. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:26, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
Keep as long as we can't find the same picture published before this one or a higher resolution, we must assume good faith. The images linked here do not have Exif. -- RE rillke questions? 16:42, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
Kept Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:16, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Personal picture out of scope Good twins (talk) 13:27, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
Kept: file is in use on a user page High Contrast (talk) 17:11, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Photo uploaded by copyright fraudster who picked files from here and there and uploaded as "own work". However, I found this file here marked as a work of the logal Prefeitura for "divulgação" - dissemination, possibly it's public domain? Darwin Ahoy! 15:02, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: 22:38, 1 June 2011 by Yann, closed by Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:18, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
no proper license Sushiya (talk) 15:07, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:18, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
File:Blogger.svg already exists: do we really need this one? Broc (talk) 15:49, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
- Delete IMHO no. --Leyo 22:43, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:19, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Maybe copyvio. Anyway, it's out of project scope Broc (talk) 15:50, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
No, it belongs to ArtistScope and free to use. But it does need a category and I'm not sure how to do that at this stage Joygf53 (talk) 14:22, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Author does not equal uploader, no permission, no reason to believe it is in scope. The ArtistScope web site has a very explicit copyright notice. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:20, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
probable copyvio Broc (talk) 15:50, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:24, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
probable copyvio Broc (talk) 15:50, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:24, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Derivative image of a banner in Finland. FoP in Finland applies to buildings only. Skeezix1000 (talk) 15:54, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:24, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
probable copyvio Broc (talk) 15:55, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:24, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Dubious "own work" statement: attributed to "C. M." here: http://www.diariosur.es/v/20110507/cultura/tajan-recibe-premio-ciudad-20110507.html --~ Eusebius (talk) 15:57, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted High Contrast (talk) 17:12, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
probable copyvio, out of project scope Broc (talk) 15:58, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted High Contrast (talk) 17:12, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
probable copyvio Broc (talk) 16:02, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:25, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
probable copyvio Broc (talk) 16:04, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:25, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
High school is not "federal" - No PDUSGov Lymantria (talk) 16:35, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted High Contrast (talk) 19:37, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
copyvio, music album cover Ben Skála (talk) 17:02, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted High Contrast (talk) 17:13, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Copyright claim seems unlikely. This image is floating around the internet and clearly was not taken today. The first result is this wiki, which has an image upload date in 2009. It is not simply a mirror of the en.wiki page (I compared the page histories). Chaser (talk) 18:53, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:45, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
strange unused montage (??!!) from japan - private image - out of scope (bad quality) Cholo Aleman (talk) 18:54, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:45, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
maybe other licence applies, but PD-self is apparently wrong Avron (talk) 19:18, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:45, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
I doubt the uploader is the copyright-holder Avron (talk) 19:29, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted High Contrast (talk) 17:13, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
I doubt the uploader is the copyright-holder Avron (talk) 19:30, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:45, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Personal photo, not used, out of project scope. Art-top (talk) 19:34, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
Keep Encyclopedic use is possible, thus it is in scope - in my opinion. The image quality is ok. --High Contrast (talk) 17:16, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Since we do not know where it is from, there are a variety of personal rights issues. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:47, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Very bad quality photo, there are many better images. Art-top (talk) 19:33, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
- Think sometimes before you do something. You could ask first why admin with alright photos uploads such thing. I'm using it to learn people how to upload file to Commons, so leave it alone. Krzysiu (talk) 20:03, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
Kept: temp file for learning ppl. Krzysiu (talk) 20:11, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
- You are uploader of this file, and you should not close this nomimation. Please let other sysop to do it.--Anatoliy (talk) 20:52, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
- Delete Bad quality, unused.--Anatoliy (talk) 20:52, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
- Can't you read? It's used for helping people upload new cool photos for Commons and you want to delete it? In the name of what? It's an example. I'm not sure if I still want to teach them to join the place when some people stop your help, because they didn't bother to read what I've wrote. It has to be without deletion request template and you destroyed it. You have destroyed work of Jah. Krzysiu (talk) 21:18, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Unsharp to the point is hard to know what is in the picture, no use, no quality. Béria Lima msg 21:25, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
Low quality for own work, bad license. Art-top (talk) 19:40, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted High Contrast (talk) 17:14, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Low quality for own work. Art-top (talk) 20:13, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
- Keep There's no reason to assume this is not their own work. And it's in use, meaning we don't delete it for being low quality.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:12, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
- Found the source of photo, it was published in 2008, photograph - Corbis: http://www.guardian.co.uk/travel/2008/oct/18/reykjavik-iceland --Art-top (talk) 21:40, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:48, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
neaktuální Valmont (talk) 20:50, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
Kept: "Outdated" is not a reason to delete. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:51, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
žádost autora Valmont (talk) 19:41, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason given. --Denniss (talk) 02:48, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
Unused photo without description and categoryes and with bad name. Unknown place, out of project scope. Art-top (talk) 21:02, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
- Another supposed photo of " aaaaaaa". Delete per nom. Infrogmation (talk) 21:46, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted High Contrast (talk) 19:41, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
I seriously doubt that this Spanish speaking user had met Hannah Bond, from the United Kingdom. It appears to be taken from a Facebook fan page (see http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=109101379162247&set=pu.109099162495802). --Moraleh (talk) 21:51, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:52, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
en: This image appears on Flickr here. I contacted the Flickr account holder. The Commons uploader is not him. The dialog is at OTRS ticket:2011060110017485.
it: Questa foto e a Flickr qui. Ho mandato un messaggio al creatore della foto. Mi ha risposto che non e' Forzaruvo94. Il dialogo e' a OTRS ticket:2011060110017485.--Chaser (talk) 23:14, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I wrong, you can delete this foto. Again I'm sorry! --Forzaruvo94 (talk) 13:10, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:53, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Objectionable content. Monsterkillu (talk) 17:41, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
- Keep No objectionable content; Commons is not censored.--Prosfilaes (talk) 17:56, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
- Keep No reason for deletion offered. Infrogmation (talk) 18:21, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
- Keep Can't see a reason for deletion... -- ／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ 苦情処理係 12:15, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
- Keep No good reason for deletion. And image has usage potential. Freakmighty (talk) 22:12, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
and other uploads by Paucalvot (talk · contribs). Unlikely to be own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:09, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: deleted by User:Túrelio Trycatch (talk) 13:51, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
and other photos by Vivesceramica (talk · contribs). Unlikely to be own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:35, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Okay. If it's a corporate account, we need an OTRS permission or something. Trycatch (talk) 13:32, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
and other uploads by Rsu maikhaw (talk · contribs). Unlikely to be own work: inconsistent resolutions, different cameras. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:43, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Okay, four picture -- four different cameras, I agree, it's likely copyvio. Trycatch (talk) 13:39, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
Totally inappropriate. Pornographic content. Monsterkillu (talk) 17:49, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
- Keep "Inappropriate" how? It is in category "Sexual fetishism", and seems relevent to topic. Nudity is not necessarily "pornographic", and in any case Wikimedia is not restricted to G rated content. Infrogmation (talk) 18:20, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
- Keep Useful e.g. as an example of a large labia minora. --Leyo 22:42, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
- Keep this DR is a set of DRs with invalid reasons (COM:NOTCENSORED). By the way: I have added some more categories to show you the usefulness. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 00:44, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
- Keep - no reason for deletion. -mattbuck (Talk) 08:15, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
- Keep this is no pornographic content but a naked woman wearing a breath of nothing --Wladyslaw (talk) 09:31, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
- Keep Can't see a reason for deletion... -- ／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ 苦情処理係 12:16, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
Kept: per consensus above Trycatch (talk) 13:49, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
Unused private photo, Out of scope Hold and wave (talk) 20:54, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
- Keep For the same reasons as last time. -- ／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ 苦情処理係 21:30, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
Speedy kept, just kept after deletion request a couple weeks ago. Infrogmation (talk) 22:55, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
As per Commons:Deletion requests/File:April after !st act.jpg. Hold and wave (talk) 21:06, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Per nom. Missvain (talk) 21:23, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
- Keep Same as in previous case. How often will you try the same thing over and over again? -- ／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ 苦情処理係 21:24, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
- Keep no new argument, close this useless DR --Wladyslaw (talk) 21:32, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Per FloNight on the other case, does not meet COM:PEOPLE. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:34, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
- Keep - has been kept twice in the past 4 months, nothing has changed. -mattbuck (Talk) 21:35, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
- Something has changed. A group of some people hunts down images with mass {{vd}} votes, to get rid of them. See the Deletion request linked at the top as an example. -- ／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ 苦情処理係 21:38, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
- Mattbuck, please read FloNight's reason on the link. Pointing out a policy that people have ignored before is something that was overlooked in the above discussion. :) According to COM:PEOPLE, OTRS needs to have a slip that verifies consent from the individual in the picture. That is all. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 22:58, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
- Keep per 2 previous rulings. Inappropriate repeat listings. "Personality" rights not relevant as face not shown.
- Commons:PEOPLE - She is identifiable because she was named and other images could be used to identify her. Commons People's doesn't specify that a face has to be seen to be part of identifiable. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 23:23, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
- So remove her name. By your argument, every picture of a person is identifiable, whether or not we have other pictures. -mattbuck (Talk) 09:16, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
- That is what Commons People suggests as a possible solution. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 14:41, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
- "Identifiable"? That seems a dubious stretch to me. "Named"? In what way? (Seriously, I'm at a loss. Is "April Erotic" the person's actual name? So rename the file if that worries you.) I'm not sure how "other images could be used to identify her" -- Um, what, someone might say to themselves "Hey, I recognize that vulva"? -- Infrogmation (talk) 11:47, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
- The image was part of a set. To make her unidentifiable we would have to get rid of anything that links it to the set (like this or the one deleted above, etc.). By the way, the creator has had his images removed per "wife's request" before, which means that it should be easy to get his wife's permission, no ([1]) ? The uploader has an interesting series of edits. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:41, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
- So remove her name. By your argument, every picture of a person is identifiable, whether or not we have other pictures. -mattbuck (Talk) 09:16, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
- Commons:PEOPLE - She is identifiable because she was named and other images could be used to identify her. Commons People's doesn't specify that a face has to be seen to be part of identifiable. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 23:23, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
![[1]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Naked_wives.jpg){kind=link}
- Comment COM:PORN Missvain (talk) 00:33, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
- Which says what relevant? It's pretty clear that several people don't think this has no educational use.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:41, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
- "There are no pages that link to this file." Since "05:25, 6 March 2011". If you think it has an educational use, find at least one page to put it in and that it stays there for more than a day. :P Ottava Rima (talk) 00:43, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
- Apply the same logic to the pictures of the Eifel Tower and have a happy tea party. -- ／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ 苦情処理係 00:54, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
- You do know that we have deleted many Eifel Tower images, right? :) Ottava Rima (talk) 01:41, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
- Not for lacking links. Infrogmation (talk) 01:45, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
- Ha, well, yes for the most part. :) There were other problems, such as the whole night time copyright nonsense. But like this, not all images can be used or useful. I just want some demonstration of potential. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 01:49, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
- Not for lacking links. Infrogmation (talk) 01:45, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
- You do know that we have deleted many Eifel Tower images, right? :) Ottava Rima (talk) 01:41, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
- Apply the same logic to the pictures of the Eifel Tower and have a happy tea party. -- ／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ 苦情処理係 00:54, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
- "There are no pages that link to this file." Since "05:25, 6 March 2011". If you think it has an educational use, find at least one page to put it in and that it stays there for more than a day. :P Ottava Rima (talk) 00:43, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
- Which says what relevant? It's pretty clear that several people don't think this has no educational use.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:41, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
- Delete. An image of a photographer's woman in a private setting spreading her legs while wearing crotchless fishnet tights. What can this possibly illustrate — "Home pr0n for dummies"? Ari Linn (talk) 14:34, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted - although the previous keeps could be a reason to keep again, in this case there is clearly no realistic possible educative usage, making the file out of scope - Jcb (talk) 14:51, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
- Restored per udel --MGA73 (talk) 09:41, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
Wife no longer wants this photo on display as has no value Reddog11223 (talk) 04:20, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
- Keep No valid reason for deletion. Since the face is cut off, she is not recognizable. --Leyo 06:53, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
- Delete Although the deletion reason is invalid, this file is still clearly out of scope. It does not have any educational purpose. Jcb (talk) 10:24, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
- I disagree. Please elaborate. --Leyo 10:37, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
- Courtesy delete The norm on Commons is to allow courtesy deletions in reasonable circumstances. These are normally for recently uploaded images, however considering this is not in use and the original photographer is making this request, I encourage accommodating it. --Fæ (talk) 11:47, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
- Keep Per Leyo. Jacopo Werther iγ∂ψ=mψ 17:01, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
- Delete - A courtesy deletion requested by the subject of an image that 's not in use and doesn't have significant value should be honored (as a courtesy). We should be respectful of the wishes of subjects, especially those who are not notable, double-plus especially when supported by the author and contributor. --SJ+ 04:44, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted - pretty easily replaceable, only use is a userpage, no reason to annoy the contributor. -mattbuck (Talk) 08:42, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
.svg){kind=link}
.svg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
There is an exact duplicate of this file (see below file description).. There should only be one. Fry1989 (talk) 20:11, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
.svg){kind=link}
- Keep There is a duplicate template on the other file. Good twins (talk) 00:00, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
- Keep Please use {{Duplicate}} to delete exact duplicates. A link to the claimed duplicate is necessary in either case. I can find no exact duplicates of this file (only a similar which has dark edges between colours). --Tony Wills (talk) 00:15, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
.svg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Kept: per above Trycatch (talk) 13:45, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
.svg){kind=link}
_2.svg){kind=link}
_2.svg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
This file is a duplication of Insignia Hungary Army History (1918-1919) 2.svg Fry1989 (talk) 23:29, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
_2.svg){kind=link}
- Keep Just like this comment it's getting repetitive. Why are you nominating it for deletion when the dublicate has already been nominated for speedy delete. Good twins (talk) 23:41, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
- THIS is the duplicate, as it was uploaded AFTER the other file. Also, neither are under speedy. Fry1989 (talk) 23:42, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
- The other file IS up for speedy delete. Good twins (talk) 23:44, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
- No, it is not. It has a duplication tag, but it doesn't have a speedy template. Saying it will be speedily deleted, and having a speedy tag are two different things. Fry1989 (talk) 23:45, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
- Yes I was right now has been deleted or merged, no thanks to your delete tags. Good twins (talk) 23:47, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
- THIS is the duplicate, as it was uploaded AFTER the other file. Also, neither are under speedy. Fry1989 (talk) 23:42, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
Kept: duplicated DR, see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Insignia Hungary Army History (1918-1919) 2.svg Trycatch (talk) 14:06, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
_2.svg){kind=link}
_2.svg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.svg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
This file is an exact duplicate. There should only be one. Fry1989 (talk) 23:33, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
.svg){kind=link}
- Just like this comment it's getting repetitive. Why are you nominating it for deletion when it has already been nominated for speedy delete. Good twins (talk) 23:36, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
- It may have been put under speedy in the past, but when i nominated it just now, it wasn't under any form of deletion. So no, I'm not being repetitive. Fry1989 (talk) 23:40, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
- Yes it was. Madboy nominated it for speedy at 3pm today. Good twins (talk) 23:42, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
- No, it is not. It has a duplication tag, but it doesn't have a speedy template. Saying it will be speedily deleted, and having a speedy tag are two different things. Fry1989 (talk) 23:46, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
- There is a speedy delete tag on it. Good twins (talk) 23:49, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
- It may have been put under speedy in the past, but when i nominated it just now, it wasn't under any form of deletion. So no, I'm not being repetitive. Fry1989 (talk) 23:40, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
- Keep I don't know what on earth is going on here, but those are not identical files (the red star has been outlined in black). So no valid reason to delete, not a valid {{Duplicate}} deletion either. @Fry1989, {{Duplicate}} is a speedy deletion process, this is the wrong process for what you are claiming, and is much slower than any speedy process. If there is another copy of this file, point it out, then we can get rid of one duplicate. If the uploader wants it deleted even if it's not a duplicate, then they should state that here and it probably will get deleted. --Tony Wills (talk) 23:55, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
Kept: per above, not a duplicate Trycatch (talk) 14:07, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
.svg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.svg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
This file is an exact duplicate of Insignia Hungary Army History (1931).svg there should only be one. Fry1989 (talk) 23:36, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
.svg){kind=link}
- Keep Wrong process, use {{Duplicate}} but in this case it is no longer an exact duplicate, it is a derivative version. We keep both the original and derivative versions. --Tony Wills (talk) 23:43, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
Kept: File:Insignia Hungary Army History (1931).svg was already deleted Trycatch (talk) 14:08, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
.svg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
Derivative work from unfree image: http://www.junaci.webege.com/nikacodrovina.htm Art-top (talk) 16:06, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyright © 2011 INI. All Rights Reserved. Designed by INI Yann (talk) 21:11, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
Unnecessary and irrelevent content. Misleading. Monsterkillu (talk) 17:53, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
- Keep "Misleading" is meaningless. It's in use, so it's obviously necessary and in scope.--Prosfilaes (talk) 17:56, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
- Keep per Prosfilaes; no legitimate reason for deletion offered. Infrogmation (talk) 18:17, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
- Keep Necessary (in use) and relevant content. Misleading deletion nomination. Tm (talk) 19:58, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
- Keep - the only thing that is misleading is calling it a picnic. It's clearly a barbeque. -mattbuck (Talk) 22:18, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
- Keep no valid reason given. Good twins (talk) 00:02, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
- Keep Can't see a reason for deletion... -- ／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ 苦情処理係 12:16, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
- Delete not educational (what does it illustrate, exactly? Sausages, as the category "Barbecued food" would indicate?); and no subject consent for private persons in what appears to be a private setting. Not unique; the de:wiki naturism article that it is used in has plenty of other images of nude persons in public settings. -- Phoebe (talk) 00:49, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
- It is by definition educational as it is in use. We don't second-guess Wikimedia projects on that.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:10, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
- Keep it doesn't look like a private place. Trycatch (talk) 14:13, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
Kept: Used, not a private place. Yann (talk) 21:15, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
- File:Nude picnic.jpg 2nd nomination
See Commons:Deletion requests/File:Nude sunbathing.jpg for some Commons sense. 95.199.16.147 22:41, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
- Delete - File:Nude picnic 2.jpg, a photo from the same set, is seen in thumbnail at [2], which was in Feb 08, well before upload here. -mattbuck (Talk) 23:32, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
deleted
Unused photo with unknown person, out of project scope. Art-top (talk) 21:00, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Personal picture.Good twins (talk) 23:53, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
- Keep: Saulo Vasconcelos, brazilian actor and singer. Braswiki (talk) 01:56, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
- Delete It seems that the picture was taken from Facebook: [3] (as the name suggests). It's still possible that the photo was uploaded by the subject, but it needs an OTRS permission or something in this case. Trycatch (talk) 14:52, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
![[3]](https://a6.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/163677_484831696730_549211730_6186544_4800174_n.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: Copied from Facebook. Yann (talk) 21:20, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
Unused photo of unknown person. Out of project scope. Art-top (talk) 21:03, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Personal picture Good twins (talk) 23:50, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
- Keep: Saulo Vasconcelos, brazilian actor and singer. Braswiki (talk) 01:50, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Copied from Facebook. Yann (talk) 21:21, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
Unused photo without description and categoryes and with bad name. No exif, low quality. Unknown place, out of project scope. Art-top (talk) 21:04, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
- No idea guess it's Belgrade or some ex soviet place. Anyway Delete Good twins (talk) 23:52, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
- Comment It's Placa de la Ciudadania in Santiago, Chile, [4] and the palace in the picture is the Palacio de la Moneda, the presidential palace. The picture is low in quality and without exif, true, but not out of scope. We can categorize it and we can change its name. No problem. Dunno, about copyright issues. It looks genuine, anyway.--Giorgiomonteforti (talk) 00:30, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
- Comment The image is a strange streaks of water(?) - rephotographed photo? --Art-top (talk) 08:18, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
- Comment Yes definitively, there was a glass between the photographer and the subject. It could be taken from a bus. From buses passing trough the square there is such a perspective as in the picture. But, may be, the guy wants just to fool us.--Giorgiomonteforti (talk) 09:38, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
- Maybe reversal film scan (it may have defects such), but comments from the uploader has not received. --Art-top (talk) 14:16, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Copied from Facebook. Yann (talk) 21:21, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
Unused photo of unknown person. Out of project scope. Art-top (talk) 21:04, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
- Delete photograph of "aaaaaa"; delete per nom. Infrogmation (talk) 21:44, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
- Keep: Saulo Vasconcelos, brazilian actor and singer. Braswiki (talk) 01:53, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Copied from Facebook. Yann (talk) 21:21, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
Probably NOT own work (low resolution, NO metadata) Razghandi (talk) 01:54, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jcb (talk) 15:25, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Photographing of a cpyrighted subject Razghandi (talk) 02:24, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Neutral That 3D art-work seems to be in the public domain since it seems to be very old.MorganKevinJ(talk) 16:28, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
- Comment Considering w:Private library of the Niavaran Palace, it's not that old : "Other sections of this library include a set of art works, which comprises of over 350 works and paintings. These works can display a part of the modern art history, particularly the modern tendencies of Persian art in the 1950s and 1960s. ". Trycatch (talk) 14:18, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jcb (talk) 15:31, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Photographing of a copyrighted subject Razghandi (talk) 02:25, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- Neutral That 3D art-work seems to be in the public domain since it seems to be very old. MorganKevinJ(talk) 16:29, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jcb (talk) 15:31, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
SVG bug; many alternatives in Category:L-proline. Leyo 12:41, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Per nom. --Yikrazuul (talk) 17:30, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
Kept: in use Jcb (talk) 12:13, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
SVG bug; many alternatives in Category:L-proline and now unused. --Leyo 07:43, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Per nom, and as last time. --Yikrazuul (talk) 15:40, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: per above Trycatch (talk) 14:19, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
As per Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Varghese_Palakkappillil.jpg, uploader edited the image and added the colour and straighten the image, but it will not create another copyright... ...Captain......Tälk tö me.. 09:57, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
- This a new photograph which i created and i have all the rights to publish it.Achayan (talk) 15:20, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
- In commons we are calling it as derivative work..!!! ...Captain......Tälk tö me.. 07:42, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
- This a new photograph which i created and i have all the rights to publish it.Achayan (talk) 15:20, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
- Learn the rules buddy. Derivative work means editing or modifying an alredy existing file. This is a new photo drawn and created by me. It has no copyright problems either.Achayan (talk) 18:33, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Clearly DW of the deleted photograph. DW does not require working on an existing file, but merely seeing it or using it as a model. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:36, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Copyright infringement - See Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Varghese_Palakkappillil.JPG and Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Varghese_Palakkappillil.jpg and false claims in the undeletion requests, 2 times deleted and finding another way to keep the copyrighted picture in commons ...Captain......Tälk tö me.. 07:58, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
- Recent UDR -Commons:Undeletion_requests/Current_requests#File:Varghese_Palakkappillil.JPG...--...Captain......Tälk tö me.. 08:05, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
- The above discussion was not about the current image. That was a different color photo of Varghese Palakkappillil and was not uploaded as PD. The present picture is a black and white photo. It was uploaded as PD but got deleted saying there was no evidence that the image is in PD. See the following discussion
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Varghese_Palakkappillil.jpg
Since it is again nominated for deletion by the same person, Captainofhope, I will clearly explain to you about the copyright issues of this picture.
First of all, as I said in the undeletion request, I, Rahul Johnson Palakkappillil, belong to the same family of Varghese Palakkappillil. I own the copyright of almost all the famous photos of Varghese Palakkappillil. But this particular photo was published for the first time 80 years back and is now in PD. Once it was deleted saying there was no evidence for my claim.
This picture is of a person who died in 1929 and clearly this picture is in PD. It was first published in the Malayalam daily 'Nasrani Deepika' dated 6th October 1929 along with the news of death of Varghese Palakkappillil. It is more than 80 years now and has no copyright problems.
Please see the photo of another saint from Kerala http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Saint_Kuriakose.jpg
If the above picture has no copyright violations then what is the point in arguing that the picture which I uploaded has copyright violation! After all I gave you evidence too. At least now please be kind enough to stop attacking this image again and again for no reason. This picture clearly has the right to be in Commons.Achayan (talk) 05:40, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
- Your claim is its a "Photo" but its clear that its a pencil drawing, and moreover there is no evidence available that this picture is available in PD. if you belong to the same family that doesn't bring a copyright to you and you are telling this 'story' after 2 successfull deletion request so it can be considered as COM:PRP--...Captain......Tälk tö me.. 08:15, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
This is a photo and not a drawing. Some minor edits have been done. That is why you are mistaking it as a drawing. And moreover it doesnt matter whether its a photo or a drawing. This same picture was first published on October 6th 1929 and therefore it is clearly in Public Domain. And if you are saying that this file was deleted twice successfully then please do not forget the fact that this same file has once survived the deletion request and again after deletion it got restored once. so even I have 2 success stories to tell you!
And if you are too reluctant to believe that I am a relative of Varghese Palakkappillil then its your headache to prove that I am not a relative of Varghese Palakkappillil. I once again promise to all the users here that Fr.Varghese Palakkappillil is my great great grandfather's younger brother. Also I own the copyright of many photos of Varghese Palakkappillil.Achayan (talk) 17:25, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
- Please show a link that shows this image (pencil drawing) published in 1929, without a valid link how i can assume that this is published long time ago, at least you can submit the scan image of the purticular newspaper if its published on 1929...Current undeletion req was a weak one and its closed by the admin Yann, without getting more arguments into the page...relation and copyright ownership is only your claims, like anybody who pretend to be the copyright owner and getting support with precautionary elements...--...Captain......Tälk tö me.. 08:12, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
I have given you the name of the newspaper along with the date. I really do not understand why you are again asking for more links! Please do check the particular newspaper and confirm it. That is all I have to tell you. And later this photo has come in the newspapers several times.Achayan (talk) 09:41, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
- Its is the responsibility of the uploader, that to establish a clear copyright stand for the images listed in deletion, and it should be provided inorder to came into a consensus, untill such varifiable links didn't come the image will get deleted...--...Captain......Tälk tö me.. 09:43, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
- I think that Achayan has answered the questions, and provided the needed information. Asking for more is not reasonable, it looks like more double standard, or even harassment. Yann (talk) 11:52, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
- Uploader didn't provide any informations rather than some false statements that this image was published in 1929, he can claim it to be PD but an evidence is necessary to prove such status and @yann is the only one who close the UDR without listening to others words or commons policy...AGF is away for this case..--...Captain......Tälk tö me.. 12:59, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
Info Publication date is 2009, Link--...Captain......Tälk tö me.. 13:01, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
- Uploader didn't provide any informations rather than some false statements that this image was published in 1929, he can claim it to be PD but an evidence is necessary to prove such status and @yann is the only one who close the UDR without listening to others words or commons policy...AGF is away for this case..--...Captain......Tälk tö me.. 12:59, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
- I think that Achayan has answered the questions, and provided the needed information. Asking for more is not reasonable, it looks like more double standard, or even harassment. Yann (talk) 11:52, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
- Its is the responsibility of the uploader, that to establish a clear copyright stand for the images listed in deletion, and it should be provided inorder to came into a consensus, untill such varifiable links didn't come the image will get deleted...--...Captain......Tälk tö me.. 09:43, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
Keep This is just a memoir written by Superior General mother Smitha SD in 1995. Achayan has clearly stated that he is the copyright owner and you do not have a reason to disbelieve him or the age of the photo. You are just too adamant and it makes me wonder about your intentions.Ajaykuyiloor (talk) 06:48, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
- You are pretending this to be archaic, but no evidence of such 'false' claims, uploader currently claims that he is the relative of the subject and copyright belongs to him, moreover if the image is published in 1929 it will be in PD but there is no evidences available to the community other than statements from uploader who is willing to keep this image and that too will fall under precautionary principles...--...Captain......Tälk tö me.. 09:00, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
If a user cannot upload his grand father's picture in Commons even when it is in public domain, I think Commons has lost it somewhere. And for the vigor at which Captainofhope is trying to delete this picture and for his personal remarks on the uploader, I sense a personal attack here than a honest worry on copyright. --117.254.153.30 19:02, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
No evidence for a PD status, renominating for deletion for 5th time since this file was deleted 2 times, kept 2 times and undeleted one time. And the last keep was without commenting anything and tempting the nominator to re-open this DR, This time itself community need to be able to identify the copyright status of this 'pencil drawing' which is drawn by somebody who is behind the creation of article as sourced, If uploader want to keep this image, please show a verifiable link which shows that this is a 'photograph' and which is published before 60 years. All the claims like relative, heirs are out of the board, since there is no enough evidence available that this drawing was done by the relative of the up-loader. In a simple way, commons cannot keep a copyrighted artwork (pencil drawing) which is drawn on or before 06th September 2009 (As per the date written on the article). ...Captain......Tälk tö me.. 13:50, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
Comment Related discussion: Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard#.27Keep.27_for_a_DR_and_that.27s_too_without_a_valid_reason..Commons:Deletion_requests.2FFile:Varghese_Palakkappillil.JPG. -- Docu at 06:30, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
Category:Images of Cairo to check
[edit]- File:Flickr - dlisbona - Desert Safary lobby, still celebrating the new year.jpg
- File:Flickr - dlisbona - Inside Diwan bookshop in Zamalek.jpg
- File:Flickr - dlisbona - KFC Tahrir Square.jpg
- File:Flickr - dlisbona - Koran on TV in a microbus.jpg
- File:Flickr - dlisbona - Mobile Caller ID on car radio display.jpg
- File:Flickr - dlisbona - Preparing business cards in the print shop.jpg
- File:Flickr - dlisbona - Restaurant clientele.jpg
- File:Flickr - dlisbona - Run-down stairway in downtown Cairo.jpg
- File:Flickr - dlisbona - The mobile phone revolution.jpg
- File:Flickr - dlisbona - The new Egypt.jpg
Very Low quality images that I have uploaded with my bot User:Dudubot as part of a bigger batch upload. Please delete these images. --Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 09:55, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:46, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
File without using, self promotion of some one and without categories since 2008 alofok* 10:56, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
- Keep In use on a wikipedia user page: es:Usuario:Tomaspollak. Jujutacular talk 04:19, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
- Oh yes. That user page is only self promotion. Nothing else. alofok* 16:54, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jcb (talk) 15:32, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
- And File:Артюх Игорь LONDON.JPG, File:Артюх Игорь - Арбат, Москва - 2004.jpg and signature - File:Артюх Игорь - подпись.jpg
Staged photos (excluding the signature) are uploaded in a small resolution. Most of the photographs and reproductions, uploaded by user and associated with Igor Artyukh (Игорь Артюх) removed as copyvio or nominated for deletion. See also: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Artyukh Igor - abstract - 2008.jpg. Art-top (talk) 11:31, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jcb (talk) 15:33, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
Images by Sunil ns nair
[edit]- File:Sunil Kumar in New York, USA.JPG
- File:Sunil Kumar N.S. in Frankfurt.jpg
- File:Sunil Kumar N.S. in New Jersey, USA.JPG
- File:ATA Day2 048.JPG
- File:Sunil Kumar N.S..jpg
Self-promotion, out of scope. Jafeluv (talk) 11:38, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 07:44, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
- File:Виадук Мийо 23.jpg - copyvio: http://www.nice-places.com/gallery/europe/france/116/
- File:Запоріжжя міст2.jpg
- File:Московський міст - Київ.jpg - copyvio: http://kiev-foto.org.ua/index/show/id/ship-moscow-most
- File:Мост киев украина.jpg
- File:Московський міст - київ - 2011.jpeg
- File:Київ, Дарницький міст.jpg - copyvio: http://kiyany.obozrevatel.com/life/podarok-voditelyam-v-kieve-otkryit-most-kirpyi.htm
- File:Київ, Дарницький міст 2.JPG - copyvio: http://photo.i.ua/channel/567/7074815/
- File:Мост донецк.jpeg - copyvio: http://union.makeevka.com/2010/08/26/avarijnye-mosty-donetska/
- File:Преображенский мост Запорожье.jpg - copyvio: http://bestbridge.net/Eu/most-preobrazhenskogo-cherez-staryi-dnepr.html
- File:Мост-харьков.jpg
- File:Kharkov-most.jpg - copyvio: http://amerikanki.com/70-krasivyx-foto-xarkova/6/
- File:16514 img 1613 1.jpg
- File:Кам'янець-Подільський.jpg - copyvio: http://www.zharii.kiev.ua/img98.search.html?l=ru
- File:Mist-pidterepovleyu ternopilskaobl.jpg - copyvio: http://tripua.info/index.php?page=articles&op=readArticle&id=161&title=Kamjaniy_avstryswkiy_mst_na_Ternoplwschin_foto
- File:Марефо-Херсонський міст.jpg - copyvio: http://foto.mail.ru/mail/irdisa/9/1822.html
- File:Merefa.jpg - scan from book
- File:66666666.JPG
- File:801 or.jpg - copyvio: http://www.calend.ru/cityday/643/
- File:Украина мост днепр.jpeg - copyvio: http://antban2.livejournal.com/15872.html (direct link)
- File:Мост в днепропетровске украина.jpg - copyvio: http://dieselpunk.livejournal.com/262740.html
- File:Дніпропетровськ - україна - 2.jpg - copyvio: http://dieselpunk.livejournal.com/262740.html
- File:Dnipro2010.jpg
- File:Днепро-мост.jpg
All photos of bridges and panoramas uploaded by User:Иван Лозовой - in small resolution. Part of these photos have been removed as a proven copivio from different sources (File:Херсонський міст - Дніпропетровськ.jpg, File:Bridges Gavanskiy 04.jpg, File:Київ русанівський міст.jpg, File:Most-Centralnii-Dnepropetrovsk.jpg, File:Киев.jpg, File:Киев - мост Метро.jpg, File:PanoramaDnepropetrovsk.jpg, File:1w.jpg). The rest do not have exif or taken on different cameras. Doubtful authorship, unconfirmed license. --Art-top (talk) 13:33, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
Suspected as cause other user files relating mainly to the city en:Marhanets - uploaded in low resolution, warped in Photoshop
- File:Київ - городецький.jpg,
- File:Костёл Днепродзержинск - Украина.jpg,
- File:09.10.2010-Марганець.jpg,
- File:Марганець - сонячний-зима-2010.JPG,
- File:Марганець-ГОСТРОЙ.JPG,
- File:Марганець-лытак-ALBATROS.jpg,
- File:Марганець-вул-Київська.JPG,
- File:Марганець-Сонячний.JPG,
- File:Марганець-Башня.jpg,
- File:Марганець-8.JPG,
- File:Марганець-7.JPG,
- File:Марганець-6.jpg,
- File:Марганець-5.jpg,
- File:Марганець-4.jpg,
- File:Марганець-3.jpg,
- File:Марганець-2.jpg,
- File:Марганець-1.jpg,
- File:Вул.Пушкіна - марганець.jpg,
- File:Вул Київська - Марганець.jpg,
- File:Будівля.jpg,
- File:Церковь. Вечер.JPG,
- File:Марганецький стадіон.jpg)
- However, unlike bridges, the source could find only one file:
- File:Церковь. Вечер.JPG (source). --Art-top (talk) 14:56, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jcb (talk) 15:34, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
and other uploads by Indigenousheritage (talk · contribs). No evidence of permission. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:58, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
Kept: United Nations works are typically OK Jcb (talk) 20:57, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
I understand that the uploader is the subject. Who, then, is the author? --~ Eusebius (talk) 15:58, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
- Hi Eusebius, the picture is a photo of myself taken by my wife. I used this photo to see how it works the program. I don't see what's the problem. I think i chose the correct license. Could you explain why you request deletion? --Solomons (talk) 13:58, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
- Hi. The problem in this case can easily be solved, then. Only the copyright holder of a photograph (in most cases, the author) has the right to release the picture under a certain licence, and therefore to publish it on Commons. This is why we simply need a permission from your wife, if you release the picture on her behalf (the formal way is to have her send an e-mail in this form to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org). Additionally, to be hosted on Commons, the image must fit within the project scope. In two words, is the subject notable enough? Or is this picture used on your user page on Commons or a sister project? I hope this is clearer. --Eusebius (talk) 07:38, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
- No need for permission in this case, but is it in scope? Yann (talk) 21:11, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
- Hi. The problem in this case can easily be solved, then. Only the copyright holder of a photograph (in most cases, the author) has the right to release the picture under a certain licence, and therefore to publish it on Commons. This is why we simply need a permission from your wife, if you release the picture on her behalf (the formal way is to have her send an e-mail in this form to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org). Additionally, to be hosted on Commons, the image must fit within the project scope. In two words, is the subject notable enough? Or is this picture used on your user page on Commons or a sister project? I hope this is clearer. --Eusebius (talk) 07:38, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: we have the practice to accept picture where the uploader is the subject, but seems out of scope Jcb (talk) 20:58, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Image not being used for educational purposes, unlikely to be, and thus out of scope JN466 15:00, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete no model age or consent noted. Out of scope. - Stillwaterising (talk) 15:55, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
- Keep It's a great illustration of mutual lesbian masturbation (and therefore perfectly in the scope and usable !). The arguments of age and consent seem to be unvalid since the persons are not recognizable. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 19:09, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete. Infringes on COM:PORN. No use other than MRB's user page. --Tyw7 (☎ Contact me! • Contributions) Changing the world one edit at a time! 22:22, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
- Keep, neither the age nor consent are required by law, nominator seems to be pursuing a personal agenda against images (including those in use on multiple projects and clearly educational) with any hint of visible bodies...even if they just happen to include a bikini. AGF seems to have gone out the window with Jimbo's new jihad against "distasteful" corners of reality. Max Rebo Band"almost suspiciously excellent" 22:25, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
Comment Copy and paste rebuttal. Neither Stillwaterising nor me Tyw7 is AGF! --Tyw7 (☎ Contact me! • Contributions) Changing the world one edit at a time! 22:58, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
- Keep useful eg. for articles about lesbian love. @Stillwaterising: No model age or consent required / AGF sufficient. @Tyw7, I hope you know the basic wiki principle en:WP:AGF. --Saibo (Δ) 00:30, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
- Ah yes, always confusing with 3 letter short names of policies :/ --Tyw7 (☎ Contact me! • Contributions) Changing the world one edit at a time! 02:10, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
Propose a new template: {{Restricted use}}, which is in use at en wiki {{Restricted use}}.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Tyw7 (talk • contribs) (UTC)
- Don't forget that this template on en.wiki is used to prevent displaying of images but only if they are heavily used for vandalism. Which is not really (I think) much of a problem on Commons. Garion96 (talk) 08:28, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
- Keep illustrates lesbian relationships. Apart from AGF, the girls seem to be old. Notice the wrinkles and veins in the hand of the girl in the right. It doesn't look like the hand of a young person. --Enric Naval (talk) 09:10, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Commons isn't censored, don't try to force your violent culture on others. Erik Warmelink (talk) 21:50, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
Kept. I would love to delete this as a fairly rubbish image, but we don't have many alternatives of a similar vein. -mattbuck (Talk) 01:25, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Out of scope, low quality image --Tyw7 (☎ Contact me! • Contributions) Changing the world one edit at a time! 07:26, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Was closed as keep just 5 days ago. Nominator should be slapped about with a trout. -Nard the Bard 07:27, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
Kept - Non admin closure. Previous debate was only closed five days ago. Garion96 (talk) 09:01, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
76.121.125.205 07:53, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
- Keep. No argument given by anonymous nominator, does not rebut any of the previous arguments. Dcoetzee (talk) 08:09, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
- Comment - I'll let it run a few days, see if the IP comes back. -mattbuck (Talk) 11:04, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
- Keep per Dcoetzee and the previous closed requests above. — Jeff G. ツ 04:15, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
- Keep immediately. Abuse of DR. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 09:20, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
Kept due to lack of rationale for deletion. -mattbuck (Talk) 11:46, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
Totally unnecessary. Erotic. Misleading ! Monsterkillu (talk) 17:40, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
- Keep As per the three DRs above.--Prosfilaes (talk) 17:54, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
Speedy kept Inappropriate baseless nomination, kept per 3 previous discussions. Infrogmation (talk) 18:24, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
Out of scope? Just have a look at the english WP-article. w:User:Chris Callas/Qcare. If it is really own work, please upload a png or svg version. RE RILLKE Questions? 10:25, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
Kept: in use so not out of scope Jcb (talk) 17:00, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
I do not give up: out of scope. RE rillke questions? 18:04, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Out of project scope. Unused and uncategorized -- George Chernilevsky talk 08:01, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Not used and no encyclopedic value is evident. Out of scope. --High Contrast (talk) 19:40, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
It is used on pl:Wikipedysta:Pgrams/brudnopis. This article looks more being advertising than relevant. There are no facts proving the relevance. Therefore out of scope. RE RILLKE Questions? 21:34, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Kept: It is, as you say, in use on WP:PL. It is not up to us to decide what articles WP:PL permits or what images it choses to use. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:00, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
Now it is not in use anymore. RE rillke questions? 18:08, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:27, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
No evidence is provided to support the {{PD-Old}} claim. —Bkell (talk) 18:19, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jcb (talk) 15:29, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
Unused image without categoryes and description, with bad name - unknown building, unknown place - out of project scope. Art-top (talk) 08:10, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jcb (talk) 10:29, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
Low quality for own work. Art-top (talk) 19:23, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Copyvio uploader. --Martin H. (talk) 22:47, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
Bad source, questionable license and the author - site name in image. Art-top (talk) 15:29, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
- Delete copyvio. Good twins (talk) 22:32, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
- Adding three more files with the same problems (same uploader):
- --Art-top (talk) 23:24, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted, by Masur
Unused photo of unidentified buildings in unidentified locations. No description, uninformative filename. 79.173.80.61 00:50, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
- Perhaps the uploader knows the answers. NVO (talk) 09:43, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
- A duplicate of this image is in use at ar:قلعة شنقل. Here we get the geolocation. Some ancient castle in Turabah in Saudi Arabia. Lupo 08:48, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
Kept. Now known and in COM:SCOPE. Wknight94 talk 02:32, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
uploaded for testing purposes. AUKQ8 (talk) 21:25, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
uploaded for testing puposes AUKQ8 (talk) 21:10, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:55, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Is this truly a free image? The source page states "Concert photography: © Helge Øverås. Must not be used without permission." This contradicts with the CC-BY-SA 3.0 license. For a picture to be allowed on Commons it it must be truly free and permission is not required. SpeakFree (talk) 23:22, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
- What if the user is Helge Øverås? They've uploaded a lot of images with similar licensing: http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&dir=prev&target=Helwik so this is a nice can of worms you've opened! They may not have entirely understood Wikimedia Common's requirements or the licenses they were using. I'm going to email him. Fences and windows (talk) 00:15, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
- I hope you get a positive resolution. Please update this page if you get a response. SpeakFree (talk) 20:45, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
- Comment If User:Helwik is Helge Øverås then by granting CC-BY-SA 3.0 the full terms of the license apply regardless if clarification is given or not. It's as solid as signing a contract. See w:Wikipedia:Revocation of our licensing is not permitted and Creative Commons FAQ - What if I change my mind?. He could prevent future copies by changing the license but not the presently used ones on the various WikiMedia sites. SpeakFree (talk) 23:37, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
- Any replies about this image. --Guerillero 21:14, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
- Sorry for the delay. I received a reply on 8 June but I was away and without access to that email account. The reply is as follows. Fences and windows (talk) 22:54, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for this information!
I have now removed "Contact photographer..." and the links to my homepage from all my contributions on Wikimedia.
My original intention with this information was to:
1. Be able to see where and how my images were used (everybody who have asked have been granted permission). 2. Let users be able to see my other images from these concerts (only available on my homepage). 3. Give authors and book publishers an opportunity to contact me if they needed high resolution versions of my images for commercial use in books etc.
If there are standard procedures for displaying information and links for these purposes, please let me know :)
The versions of my images that I have published on Wikimedia are available for reuse for any reason so long as they attribute the source and author. I hereby confirm that I'm happy to have them released under the GFDL and CC licenses.
Please contact me if there are any misunderstandings...
All the best from Helge Øverås Oslo, Norway http://www.helgeoveras.com/ ---
- Nomination withdrawn. SpeakFree (talk) 12:36, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
Kept, SpeakFree (talk) 12:43, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
_2.svg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
There are two identical copies of this image (see below file description). The should only be one. Fry1989 (talk) 23:27, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
- Just like this comment it's getting repetitive. Why are you nominating it for deletion when it has already been nominated for speedy delete. Good twins (talk) 23:41, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
- No, it is not. It has a duplication tag, but it doesn't have a speedy template. Saying it will be speedily deleted, and having a speedy tag are two different things. Fry1989 (talk) 23:46, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
- Keep The only reason that it is an exact duplicate at any instant is because User:Fry1989 uploaded a duplicate version of another image then indulged in a revert war. --Tony Wills (talk) 00:28, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
Kept: per above, not a duplicate Trycatch (talk) 14:05, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
Files of User:Buweosman
[edit]- File:Memory Lapses.jpg
- File:A Hope.jpg
- File:A Dream.jpg
- File:Illusions.jpg
- File:The Energy of Colors.jpg
- File:The Instinct of Eating.jpg
- File:Bookfuturistic.jpg
- File:KodakContemporary African Art.jpg
- File:Schizophrneia.jpg
- File:Bookabuseofmarijuana.jpg
- File:Loneliness in immigrants.jpg
- File:Liverfailure.jpg
- File:Breastcancerinafricans.jpg
- File:African art 3 death.jpg
- File:Hemorrhagic shock.jpg
- File:Mohamed Osman, Painting of a woman with opisthotonus (2011).jpg
- File:The unheard agonies pdd op 800x626.jpg
- File:Stroke 1.jpg
- File:Genetic engineering 1.jpg
- File:Polygamist.jpg
- File:Tensionheadache1.jpg
- File:Loneliness2a.jpg
- File:Medicll student.jpg
- File:Thumbsucking op 800x606.jpg
- File:Night terror edited-1 op 800x615.jpg
- File:Time out op 800x623.jpg
- File:Goiter2.jpg
- File:The world migration.jpg
- File:World migration 1.jpg
- File:Blind & diabetic.jpg
- File:He is mine2.jpg
- File:Opiate abuse.jpg
- File:Smoking.jpg
- File:Homosexuality2.jpg
- File:Hermaphroditism.jpg
- File:Hearing loss.jpg
- File:Body dysmorphiic disorder.jpg
- File:Fgm2A.jpg
- File:Anorexianervosapng.jpg
- File:Visualhallucination.jpg
- File:Mother'saffection.jpg (see also Commons:Deletion requests/File:Mother'saffection.jpg)
- File:Peacemarch.jpg
- File:Art&Culture.jpg
- File:Contemporary African Art.jpg
- File:Heavenlydream.jpg
- File:Myhome.jpg
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Great works of art, but unfortunately are out of project scope. Further, OTRS permission is needed because files have already been published elsewhere, but this is secondary. I just saved File:Pareidolia, anthropomorphic figure.jpg (renamed version).--Trixt (talk) 23:55, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:59, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
File:50_Jahre_Europäische_Wirtschaftsgemeinschaft_EWG_1958_bis_2008_in_Strasbourg_France_-_Foto_2008_Wolfgang_Pehlemann_IMG_0105.jpg
[edit]
There is no FOP in France. This is an infringement of the architect's copyright. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:43, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
- Image might be copied to :de, where it will be acceptable (due to broad FOP-exemption in Germany, Austria and Switzerland), and eventually to :en, as it would be covered by FOP of US and UK. --Túrelio (talk) 14:20, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. --Grcampbell (talk) 00:13, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Ben.MQ (talk) 14:38, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
File:European_Parliament_Europäisches_Parlament_Parlement_européen_Strasbourg_France_Louise_Weiss_building_Frankreich_-_Foto_2008_Wolfgang_Pehlemann_IMG_0096.jpg
[edit]
There is no FOP in France -- this is an infringement of the architect's copyright. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:44, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
- Image might be copied to :de, where it will be acceptable (due to broad FOP-exemption in Germany, Austria and Switzerland), and eventually to :en, as it would be covered by FOP of US and UK. --Túrelio (talk) 14:20, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
- Copied from User talk:Wolfgang Pehlemann:
- "I requested by official OTRS Mail a permission from the architects (see ticket 2011060210017591)
- Groetjes --Neozoon (Diskussion) 23:52, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
- Great idea. --Túrelio (Diskussion) 06:08, 3 June 2011 (UTC)"
- In case of a decision about the request of Neozoon let me know, or let me know if I've to transfer to :de, thank you. -- Wolfgang Pehlemann (talk) 06:19, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
- Note that I have removed the image from three locations on WP:EN, as the license requirement of attribution directly under the image cannot be met under WP:EN policy. My guess is that similar policy will prevent its use in most other Wikipedias. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:50, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
- As well known and discussed during to much weeks I added at no time my name under the photo inside WMF/WP and I didn't ask for such an attribution inside WMF/WP. My understanding of WMF/WP was to work here, but not to be tired from such endless deletion requests while the terms and conditions in the WMF/WP are not restricted in the way of wishful thinking in the discussions (please understand my last sentence in general, not against Jim). Greetings -- Wolfgang Pehlemann (talk) 07:38, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
- Note that I have removed the image from three locations on WP:EN, as the license requirement of attribution directly under the image cannot be met under WP:EN policy. My guess is that similar policy will prevent its use in most other Wikipedias. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:50, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
- Copied from User talk:Wolfgang Pehlemann:
- Delete per nom. --Grcampbell (talk) 00:12, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: no license - OTRS request remained unanswered Jcb (talk) 16:37, 16 July 2011 (UTC)