Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2011/06/07
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
|
|
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_&_Ant_Sawyer.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
Porque a imagem ficou destorcida Febo Apolo (talk) 03:01, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
- Translation: The image got blurred - I tend to agree, and there is better substitute here: File:Basilica no natal.jpg.-- Darwin Ahoy! 09:31, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Delete Actually, we have a better one. This is really blurred so not very useful for any scope.--Giorgiomonteforti (talk) 09:58, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Speedily deleted per uploader request. --AFBorchert (talk) 18:43, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
described as "you tube", which contradicts own-work. Uloader has history of copyvio uploads DMacks (talk) 06:58, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: screenshot of unfree content. Martin H. (talk) 17:18, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Not the church mentioned in the title. Just a quick upload over another image to avoid deletion of copyrighted material. The latter should be deleted anyhow as it is still in the upload history. Moros y Cristianos 11:57, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
- The second revision is a blatant copyright violation anyway. It's clearly watermarked non-free Google content falsely passed off as the uploader's own work. —LX (talk, contribs) 20:06, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: First file is a copyvio from an unfree source, the second upload is also not own work (although the uploader claims it in the upload log) but a screenshot from google streetview. Martin H. (talk) 23:00, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Appears to be still from film (Description appears to agree); no evidence uploader works for studio (own-work) or has permission to upload under CC license DMacks (talk) 15:57, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: It is. Copyvio uploader. Martin H. (talk) 17:17, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
no permission, source web - copyvio Slfi (talk) 10:54, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Copyviol. It could be speedy deleted.--Giorgiomonteforti (talk) 01:29, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: unfree source website Túrelio (talk) 10:50, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
- Out of scope, if it could be upload local. It seems only for the nl:User page for fun. Perhelion (talk) 15:31, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
- The Dutch wikipedians don't upload local [1], we're just using commons (except for a tiny group of exceptions). Regards, Leo db (talk) 16:19, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
- It is definitely not for fun. It is used as an example as many have different settings in their browser or Wikipedia. Therefore they see my signature as something totally different. As a result of several complains I need to show what my signature looks like.--Rodejong (talk) 09:58, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Kept, as an example Perhelion (talk) 12:50, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks--Rodejong (talk) 13:59, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
- Out of scope, if it could be upload local. Perhelion (talk) 15:34, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
- The Dutch wikipedians don't upload local [2], we're just using commons (except for a tiny group of exceptions). Regards, Leo db (talk) 15:56, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
- Ok this seems to differ, but the allowed number, for users only is here limited. Another unused user pic File:WT-RDJ.jpg. I still do not think that Commons is the place for temporary fun images for local talk pages (while these are not marked for this)!?! --Perhelion (talk) 16:28, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
- How should I mark them then? And FYI, File:WT-RDJ.jpg is used in an older version of my userpage.. But it's not likely that I am going to use it any more. So you might want to delete that. I have no objection to that. But as I just wrote on your talkpage, please read that, I use these two images as example for other users to see. --Rodejong (talk) 10:03, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Kept, as an example Perhelion (talk) 12:51, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks--Rodejong (talk) 13:59, 8 June 2011 (UTC)This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
The original source is not informed. The "source" link is a blog, and there do not report anything Ferbr1 (talk) 18:36, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
- Although the source is hosted at Blogger, it is the "Juan Manuel de Rosas National Institute of Historical Investigations", an institute established in 1938, part of the Secretary of Culture of the Argentine government, headquarters at Montevideo 641, Buenos Aires. Clearly, not a random guy with a blog.
- As for the image, it is the Argentine national coat of arms from a pair of centuries ago, during Juan Manuel de Rosas tenure. Cambalachero (talk) 18:43, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Prove it, please. In the blog are not information from the license or the author. you can not tell whether the image is created in the past or present, because there is no chance of knowing. In this situation, all his images are protected until proven otherwise. Ferbr1 (talk) 18:45, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
- The image can be found here as well. It is identified as a litography by R. Rocabert, from sometime at the late XIX century or early XX century. Cambalachero (talk) 23:21, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
- KeepOk, now, I not have any objection. Is imperative that you check these items before upload images, not after. Ferbr1 (talk) 18:56, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Kept: Declined by nominator Cambalachero (talk) 23:58, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
Obsolete, the file has been replaced by a better version. User:Id4abel
- Delete per nom. Replacement: File:VforVoluntary_normal.svg. Demmo (talk) 07:19, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Poor duplicate George Chernilevsky talk 17:58, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
no evidence that permission is given for the use of an obviously copyrighted cover Lpdrew (talk) 05:05, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Speedied, obvious copyvio. Jafeluv (talk) 10:44, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
Duplicate|Cicero.PNG was removed. But better PNG duplicate (this is why the “badGIF” is unused) Cicero_transparent.png was deleted. (image demonstration: inconsistend transparancy ) --Perhelion (talk) 14:19, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
I actually wanted to put both images in the deletion request. How is this handled? -- Perhelion (talk) 14:31, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jcb (talk) 14:14, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
Image is very similar to copyrighted images at http://www.mouseplanet.com/9635/First_look_Mickeys_Soundsational_Parade. Uploader claim should be verified. Bbb23 (talk) 00:12, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
- Non-commercial and no derivatives license at Flickr Lymantria (talk) 12:10, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Published under a non-free license Lymantria (talk) 12:11, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
copyrighted, by a different person from uploader. TCO (talk) 03:58, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
- Note, this was discovered during an FAC review at Wiki. FYI: there is also a recently created derivative of this photo. There are thousands of nice Commons images found when searching for fluorite or fluorspar, so no good reason to keep this one if questionable.TCO (talk) 04:00, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
- Link to relevant discussion? Phearson (talk) 05:32, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
- Towards the end of this page [3].TCO (talk) 08:04, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
- Keep. Looks like an old, sloppy transfer from English Wikipedia. Ryan Salsbury is en:User:Ryanrs. The English Wikipedia log for the file is here. The upload was made too long ago to show up in that log, but a record of the upload is available at en:Wikipedia:Upload log archive/January 2004 (2). The reason for deletion was the move to Commons.[4] Copyright is a prerequisite for copyleft licensing, so that's not a problem either. I fixed up the file description. —LX (talk, contribs) 15:35, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks. was wondering if it was something like that. Appreciate your figuring it out. Agree with keep then.TCO (talk) 16:22, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Kept: nominator agrees 99of9 (talk) 13:35, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
unused private image of an unknown (school) band - out of scope, not useful Cholo Aleman (talk) 04:09, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: permission claimed OTRS pending ... from years ago. And per nom. 99of9 (talk) 13:37, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
no exif data - taken from a website - copy violation Cholo Aleman (talk) 04:10, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: obvious copyvio 99of9 (talk) 13:38, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
taken somewhere - montage, no exif - copy violation (did not try to identify the person), unusable in this form Cholo Aleman (talk) 04:17, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom, probable copyvio 99of9 (talk) 13:39, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
Duplicate of File:Gary E. Johnson.jpg. User:Gage insists on uploading this duplicate and then labeling the original as the duplicate William S. Saturn (talk) 04:28, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
- Delete - Duplicate tag is in place.....Captain......Tälk tö me.. 09:04, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
- Keep Normal action is to keep the version uploaded by author as the line of attribution is shorter and more solid. see Commons:Deletion_policy#Duplicates --Tony Wills (talk) 09:18, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
- Keep Per Tony Wills. Gage (talk) 00:22, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
Kept: this file is the one uploaded by the author 99of9 (talk) 13:43, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
Privacy issue, no evidence of consent Elya (talk) 06:02, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
- see also: File:Lilbaker.jpg --Elya (talk) 06:04, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
- Delete per nom + COM:PEOPLE. --Yikrazuul (talk) 20:52, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom 99of9 (talk) 13:45, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
Privacy issue, no evidence of consent Elya (talk) 06:02, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
- see also File:Nude_women_showing_.jpg --Elya (talk) 06:04, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
- Delete per nom + COM:PEOPLE. --Yikrazuul (talk) 20:51, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom 99of9 (talk) 13:45, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
private photo Slfi (talk) 10:22, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom 99of9 (talk) 13:48, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
personal photo, not used Slfi (talk) 10:49, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
- Delete - As per nom --...Captain......Tälk tö me.. 09:10, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: as above & per COM:PEOPLE 99of9 (talk) 13:51, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
I am nominating this image for deletion because it has been replaced by a better version and of an extremely low resolution.
The image is of an extremely low resolution and has been replaced by a better version. The better version is File:Wabash River Meanders Grayville, Illinois.jpg. Cristellaria (talk) 12:40, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom 99of9 (talk) 13:56, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
Useless junk picture Acather96 (talk) 18:38, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted --ZooFari 14:57, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
Out of project scope: personal image Acroterion (talk) 18:39, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: & COM:PEOPLE & dubious filename 99of9 (talk) 14:00, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
Not used and never will be. Acather96 (talk) 18:40, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted --ZooFari 14:57, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
Personal photo/self promotion. Out of scope. Jafeluv (talk) 19:34, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: COM:SCOPE. --ZooFari 14:56, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
unused private image - out of scope Cholo Aleman (talk) 20:11, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom 99of9 (talk) 14:02, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
unused small image - nearly private - out of scope, unclear content Cholo Aleman (talk) 20:15, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom, unuseable 99of9 (talk) 14:03, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
unused small group image - nearly private - out of scope Cholo Aleman (talk) 20:16, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: unuseable 99of9 (talk) 14:03, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
Nepovedlo se nahrání, nevím jak to sám smazat. Kolemjdoucí (talk) 22:05, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: No license Lymantria (talk) 12:48, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
Špatné zadání jména nálezu, chybí háček ve slově Dobřichov Kolemjdoucí (talk) 23:56, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Translation: Bad name. User allready uploaded new file, so it's duplicate.--Slfi (talk) 06:56, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted --ZooFari 14:55, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
copyrighted sports team logo, doubtful license Postoronniy-13 (talk) 00:42, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
- Delete copyrighted logo without evidence of permission. theMONO 00:51, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: No OTRS permission. --ZooFari 20:23, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
This logo is copyrighted and it has no evidence of permission. Este logotipo es propiedad y no tiene evidencia de autorización. theMONO 00:50, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: No OTRS permission and unused. --ZooFari 20:24, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
It reminds me of when had cancer a real bad time in life and I never gave permision for this or the other one to be used it would be grateful 98.228.182.122 03:34, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
- Keep Invalid reason for deletion, given that the image is from a valid source (lukeisback.com) with OTRS permissions on file from the photographer. Tabercil (talk) 03:39, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
- Keep In absence of copyright issues, I agree with Tabercil. Sorry for whoever claims to had a cancer, if it's the actress she has to remind the price notability costs.--Giorgiomonteforti (talk) 09:54, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Kept: OTRS permission provided, no copyright issues, per above. --ZooFari 20:27, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
Sorry to bother but this pic is from same time of life and would be greatful 98.228.182.122 03:39, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
- Note: IP address previously opened a DR for a related image with this for the argument: "It reminds me of when had cancer a real bad time in life and I never gave permision for this or the other one to be used it would be grateful"
- Keep Invalid reason for deletion, given that the image is from a valid source (lukeisback.com) with OTRS permissions on file from the photographer. Tabercil (talk) 03:41, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
- Keep I repeat myself: in absence of copyright issues, I agree with Tabercil. Sorry for whoever claims to had a cancer, if it's the actress she has to remind the price notability costs. She could have chosen to be an anonymous housewife so no pictures of her, healty or sick, were around.--Giorgiomonteforti (talk) 09:56, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Kept: per above. --ZooFari 20:28, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
Kept: per above. --ZooFari 20:28, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
Sorry to bother but this pic is from same time of life and would be greatful 98.228.182.122 03:39, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
- Note: IP address previously opened a DR for a related image with this for the argument: "It reminds me of when had cancer a real bad time in life and I never gave permision for this or the other one to be used it would be grateful"
- Keep Invalid reason for deletion, given that the image is from a valid source (lukeisback.com) with OTRS permissions on file from the photographer. Tabercil (talk) 03:41, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
- Keep I repeat myself: in absence of copyright issues, I agree with Tabercil. Sorry for whoever claims to had a cancer, if it's the actress she has to remind the price notability costs. She could have chosen to be an anonymous housewife so no pictures of her, healty or sick, were around.--Giorgiomonteforti (talk) 09:56, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Kept: per above. --ZooFari 20:28, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
Kept: per above. --ZooFari 20:28, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
nearly private pdf about yoga - out of scope Cholo Aleman (talk) 04:03, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
- Keep - Can be used of education related to yoga..?? ...Captain......Tälk tö me.. 09:02, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
- Delete out of scope, text articles should be stored elsewhere. Demmo (talk) 13:00, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: out of scope, for wikipedia or wikisource Ezarateesteban 23:54, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
text about a school project - out of scope Cholo Aleman (talk) 04:14, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 18:01, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
unused logo of a school project - out of scope, not useful for other people Cholo Aleman (talk) 04:15, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 18:02, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
unused private image - out of scope Cholo Aleman (talk) 04:19, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom Ezarateesteban 00:11, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
Test image, no longer needed 4thjuly (talk) 05:21, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: uploaders request Ezarateesteban 00:12, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
contains errors; corrected replacement already uploaded LenderCarl (talk) 08:10, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
- Keep The "errors" are rather purely cosmetic, and do not justify deleting an SVG file where there is only a PNG file replacement offered for it. The "errors" could be corrected pretty easily by someone who has the appropriate skills... AnonMoos (talk) 13:36, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
- Keep I don´t see any error. If I there is something wrong, than please contact me. I will correct the the error. --D(e)r Lero (talk) 06:39, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
- Delete The author told me the reason for deleting the picture: The error is, that the leap years are not printed bold. So it is not possible to see, what year has a intercalary day. --192.35.17.12 18:37, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
- Keep Shouldn't PNG be deleted instead? Demmo (talk) 13:05, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
Kept Jcb (talk) 21:28, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
Die "GNU-Lizenz" habe ich nicht erteilt. Diese ist ein Eingabefehler ! und muss gelöscht werden. Weiterhin werden Zahlen und Buchstaben in Worten angeschnitten. Die gleichnamige PNG ist in der Qualität besser. LenderKarl (talk) 09:35, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
- Don't understand what the real reason for this nomination is any more than last time around, but you can't retroactively withdraw a previously-granted free license, and you don't seem to have done the actual SVG conversion work anyway. AnonMoos (talk) 21:15, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
- Am 2. März 2010 hat User:D(e)r Lero diese Datei mit CC- und GFDL-Lizenz hochgeladen[5]. Was hast du, LenderKarl, damit zu tun? Und falls du damit etwas zu tun hast, warum kommst du damit 2 Jahre später? --Túrelio (talk) 16:07, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
![[5]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Permanent_calendar_greg.svg&oldid=36057182){kind=link}
- Der User:LenderKarl/LenderCarl ist der ursprüngliche Ersteller der „Permanent calendar greg“-Datei (wohl in Excel) und hatte den User:D(e)r Lero gebeten diese in SVG zu konvertieren und hochzuladen. Die Qualität stellt ihn nun nicht zufrieden (verständlich). Hier und hier sieht man die png-Formate, von denen er immer schrieb. Leider hat er dies alles nie deutlich gemacht. --Botaurus (talk) 17:25, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted as it is currently unused (with the exception of a test page by the nominator of this DR) and as indeed this SVG appears to be inferior in comparison to the corresponding PNG. --AFBorchert (talk) 18:04, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
out of scope, not notable organisation Slfi (talk) 10:14, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 18:04, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
out of scope, letter in jpeg Slfi (talk) 10:14, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 18:04, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
promotional image, no notable company, missing OTRS, not used Slfi (talk) 10:16, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 18:05, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
out of scope, maybe copyvio Slfi (talk) 10:17, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 18:05, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
promotional photo (it was used in article on es.wiki, which was deleted as promotional) Slfi (talk) 10:19, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 18:05, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
out of scope, not notable company Slfi (talk) 10:19, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 18:06, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
promotional image (es.wiki deleted article about it as promotional) Slfi (talk) 10:20, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Not notable person. Evidently in pose. No educational or illustrative purpose. Self promotion.--Giorgiomonteforti (talk) 01:21, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 18:06, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
out of scope - text in pdf Slfi (talk) 10:20, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Demmo (talk) 13:06, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 18:07, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
out of scope Slfi (talk) 10:23, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope, non-notable band George Chernilevsky talk 18:08, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
out of scope Slfi (talk) 10:23, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 18:08, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
out of scope Slfi (talk) 10:24, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
- Delete-Speed up......Captain......Tälk tö me.. 09:08, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 18:09, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
out of scope, not used, deformated Slfi (talk) 10:24, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 18:09, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
private photo Slfi (talk) 10:28, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope, self-promotional George Chernilevsky talk 18:10, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
damaged image, not used Slfi (talk) 10:28, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 18:11, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
promotional text in pdf - far out of scope Slfi (talk) 10:28, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Demmo (talk) 13:06, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 18:11, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
out of scope, text in pdf Slfi (talk) 10:30, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Demmo (talk) 13:07, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 18:12, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
photo from promotional article deleted on es.wiki Slfi (talk) 10:38, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 18:13, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
source web, missing permission Slfi (talk) 10:40, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: No OTRS permission. --ZooFari 20:31, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
out of scope missing permissionSlfi (talk) 10:40, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: No OTRS permission. --ZooFari 20:29, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
not notable person, missing permission Slfi (talk) 10:44, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted --ZooFari 20:29, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
missing permission, probably out of scope Slfi (talk) 10:44, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted --ZooFari 20:29, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
missing permission, promotional Slfi (talk) 10:44, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted --ZooFari 20:29, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
out of scope Slfi (talk) 10:46, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope, article was deleted too George Chernilevsky talk 18:14, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
article deleted on en wiki as promotional, missing permission Slfi (talk) 10:47, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: No OTRS permission. --ZooFari 20:32, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
out of scope, text in prf Slfi (talk) 10:47, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Demmo (talk) 13:08, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 18:15, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
out of scope, private photo, no author, no permission Slfi (talk) 10:47, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 18:15, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
promotional photo, out of scope Slfi (talk) 10:49, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Evident self promotion. No educational or illustrative scope. Terrible picture in itself. May be they have to change photographer. Wrong body language also, so the institute is not very good for coaching or was very badly coached.--Giorgiomonteforti (talk) 01:26, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 18:17, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
promotional photo, out of scope Slfi (talk) 10:50, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
- Delete That's even worst. Grotesque self promotion. And they wanted to convince someone on spending money on them with such a presentation? Oh god.--Giorgiomonteforti (talk) 01:27, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 18:18, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
not notable person, thumbnail Slfi (talk) 10:51, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 18:18, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
promotional image Slfi (talk) 10:51, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 18:19, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
out of scope Slfi (talk) 10:56, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 18:19, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
out of scope, not usefull even if it was notable person Slfi (talk) 10:58, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 18:20, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
out of scope Slfi (talk) 10:59, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 18:20, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
private photo Slfi (talk) 11:01, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 18:33, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
out of scope Slfi (talk) 11:07, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 18:35, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
out of scope Slfi (talk) 11:08, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 18:36, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
out of scope, private photo Slfi (talk) 11:15, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jcb (talk) 21:28, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
out of scope Slfi (talk) 11:15, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 18:37, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
promotional image Slfi (talk) 11:16, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Self promotion. Bad composition. Are the girls actresses or they select their female students in base of their look? If yes, it's a crime in many EU countries.--Giorgiomonteforti (talk) 01:33, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 18:37, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
out of scope Slfi (talk) 11:23, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 18:41, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
out of scope Slfi (talk) 11:25, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
- Delete. --Martin H. (talk) 22:37, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
- Delete -- "Personal message..??"......Captain......Tälk tö me.. 09:23, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 18:41, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
out of scope Slfi (talk) 11:26, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 18:43, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
Portrait picture of a not notable woman. Not in use. Out of scope, this way. Giorgiomonteforti (talk) 13:59, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 18:44, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
Promotional picture, blurred even, of a not notable boy band. Unique contrib of this user. Not in use. Self promotion. Giorgiomonteforti (talk) 14:23, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 18:45, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
author request, not used anywhere, also COM:IDENT: I revoke the Wikimedia rights to use my photo Grebenkov (talk) 14:28, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Per uploader request: personal photo George Chernilevsky talk 18:46, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photoalbum. Not used. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:13, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 18:47, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
there is an updated version Wikiatmi (talk) 18:09, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: duplicate of: Nowpak-wiki.jpg Amada44 talk to me 18:40, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
unused small image of a classroom - not really useful - out of scope Cholo Aleman (talk) 20:14, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Too small - unusable George Chernilevsky talk 18:51, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
Probable copyright. No educational content. Have a look at the description if you have any doubt. Broc (talk) 20:22, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 18:50, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
unused private image - out of scope (only edit of this user) Cholo Aleman (talk) 20:24, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 18:49, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
personal image not used anywhere Broc (talk) 20:24, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 18:49, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
unused private image - out of scope Cholo Aleman (talk) 20:27, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 18:29, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
unused private image - out of scope (nice people, but misunderstanding of the commons) Cholo Aleman (talk) 20:35, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 18:28, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
Outside of project scope: unused personal photograph Underwaterbuffalo (talk) 18:49, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 12:31, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
unused strange montage - taken from a website - copy vio, out of scope Cholo Aleman (talk) 20:36, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
comment: the organisation "serida" is from spain Cholo Aleman (talk) 20:37, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 18:27, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
unused private image - out of scope Cholo Aleman (talk) 20:38, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 18:26, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
This seems to be a picture created by a government or organisation or something. Unlikely to be own work by the uploader. No idea what it is - possibly out of scope. Stefan2 (talk) 17:52, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: unclear permission status. --Basvb (talk) 00:28, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
Only used in a speedily deleted article, en:Gurwinder sidhu Mike Rosoft (talk) 20:40, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 18:25, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
unused private image - out of scope - (imagined map) Cholo Aleman (talk) 20:43, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted --ZooFari 20:38, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
unused private image - out of scope (Cheers!) Cholo Aleman (talk) 20:57, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 18:23, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
unused image of an unknown band - out of scope Cholo Aleman (talk) 20:59, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 18:22, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
unused image of unknown musicians - out of scope (small - taken from a website?) Cholo Aleman (talk) 21:00, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 18:22, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
unused nearly private image (unknown band, bad) - out of scope Cholo Aleman (talk) 21:01, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 18:21, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
unused private text (theory) - out of scope Cholo Aleman (talk) 04:13, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. Must be a media file. – Kwj2772 (msg) 12:41, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
Verletzung des Markenrechts Principal 15 (talk) 10:08, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
- Keep. Nominator: please read Commons:Non-copyright restrictions. —LX (talk, contribs) 19:17, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Kept: PD-textlogo Yann (talk) 19:49, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
e-book about php, licenced under Open Publication License. Is this licence accepted by WM? It is possible move it on Wikisource or wikibooks? Slfi (talk) 10:38, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
- Keep - Useful for education, license is OK.....Captain......Tälk tö me.. 09:10, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Wikisource is the right place. Demmo (talk) 13:07, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
Kept: License is OK. Wikisource is for plain texts. PDF files are hosted on Commons. Yann (talk) 19:52, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
out of scope Slfi (talk) 10:48, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Comment In use in an article with no current notability issue process. The article should be looked into first. --ZooFari 20:36, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: No permission. Yann (talk) 19:53, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
missing permission, low quality Slfi (talk) 11:18, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: No permission. Yann (talk) 19:55, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
had trouble uploading - gave it a useless name - I'll try to reload with good name Daderot (talk) 11:34, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Duplicate. Yann (talk) 19:57, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Flag for nonexistent "state", only being used in multiply-recreated speedy-deleted articles in en: Wikipedia. See, for example, en:Prince Joél I of Léogâne, en:Prince Joél I, en:Prince Joél I (Joél Filsaime), and so on. The Anome (talk) 11:59, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
.JPG){kind=link}
- Delete per nom. Kaldari (talk) 22:44, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: by Cirt. Yann (talk) 19:57, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Flag for nonexistent "state", only being used in multiply-recreated speedy-deleted articles in en: Wikipedia. See, for example, en:Prince Joél I of Léogâne, en:Prince Joél I, en:Prince Joél I (Joél Filsaime), and so on. The Anome (talk) 12:00, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
.JPG){kind=link}
- Delete per nom. Kaldari (talk) 22:46, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: by Cirt. Yann (talk) 19:57, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
.JPG){kind=link}
Small size picture of a canadian actor. Taken probably from facebook [6] or somewhere else. No exif. Unique contrib of this user. A supposed case of copyviol. Giorgiomonteforti (talk) 14:07, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: No permission. Yann (talk) 20:00, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
Headshot of a not notable model. Not in use. Beautiful, otherwise she wouldn't be modeling, but self promotion. Giorgiomonteforti (talk) 14:20, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope, as per above. Yann (talk) 20:00, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
Picture of Microsoft Zune HD, operating system is protected by copyright. ■ MMXX talk 16:43, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
- Keep. Blur the screen immediately!!! --Kungfu2187 (talk) 13:03, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
Done, and the old version now hidden. --ZooFari 15:11, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
Kept: Screen blurred. Yann (talk) 20:03, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
The screen has been blurred because of copyright issues with the operating system, but the resulting image looks terrible. The blurring was not done well (look at the edges of the screen) and even if it was, there is no good reason to have a picture of a Zune with a manually edited, blurred screen instead of just a picture of a Zune with the screen turned off. The original version may work for the Zune article on enwiki under fair use, but there is no reason to have this image here. —danhash (talk) 17:24, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
- Keep Files that are in use are in scope.--Prosfilaes (talk) 17:41, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
- Comment: Even if they are terrible? I replaced the image on w:Zune HD. Now it is only in use on w:ru:Zune HD, and I'm sure they wouldn't mind having it changed, so long as someone who speaks Russian changes it and leaves a proper edit summary. —danhash (talk) 18:33, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
- No, we don't go around vandalizing Wikipedia pages because we think they're terrible.--Prosfilaes (talk) 18:35, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
- Obviously not. How is that sentence even relevant? —danhash (talk) 19:09, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
- Deleting the images off a Wikipedia page and preventing the editors of that page from readding it is vandalism.--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:18, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
- That's a really nice assumption of my intentions, thank you. It seems you didn't actually read what I said about Wikipedia: the original image could probably be used on Wikipedia under fair use. At least on the English Wikipedia, I am not aware of the Russian Wikipedia's non-free content criteria. But regardless, this picture sucks. It doesn't belong on Wikipedia, at least not as a main article image as it was/is being used for. The main image in an article about the Zune HD should not be what looks kind of like a picture of a Zune HD but isn't. I don't think it belongs here either, since it doesn't add anything of value, since it's a terrible image. —danhash (talk) 20:16, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
- Your intentions are irrelevant. Your actions are relevant, and that's what you're doing. You're trying to delete an image, which will remove an image from a Wikipedia page in such a way that any user who disagrees is powerless to revert your edit.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:42, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
- Why not give the reasons why you think the image should stay, based on the merits of the image? My argument is that the image is inappropriate for Wikipedia and inappropriate for Commons. That's why I nominated it for deletion–it's a terrible image. If an image is inappropriate for Wikipedia (as is my contention) then it is not vandalism to remove it from a Wikipedia article. This used to be a picture of a Zune HD; then that picture was distorted in an unproductive way so as to make the image no longer relevant to a Wikipedia article about the Zune HD. If you disagree that the image in inappropriate for Wikipedia, a comment about your opinion on that subject would then be relevant. Also, w:User:CommonsNotificationBot places notices on article talk pages about Commons images nominated for deletion, as it did for the Zune HD article on the English Wikipedia. Apparently it does not also run on the Russian Wikipedia, but as I said, it would be great if someone who speaks Russian could join in. —danhash (talk) 14:35, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
- For the same reason I don't rule on the defendant's guilt based on whether I like the guy; that's not the way the game works. It's policy; we don't delete files that are in use on another project. It's a good neighbor thing.--Prosfilaes (talk) 18:16, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
- How about applying some of those "good neighborly" intentions by not accusing vandalous intentions with absolutely no basis? If your entire argument is that it is against policy to delete images in use on another project, then just say so. I think it makes sense to delete terrible images and have them be replaced on Wikipedia in the same fashion as copyvio and other images are deleted and replaced on Wikipedia, but if Commons policy is against it then there is no point in arguing with you about it and a simple explanation is all that is required. —danhash (talk) 15:20, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
- I gave you a simple explanation. I never said anything about your intentions; I spoke merely about the results of your actions.--Prosfilaes (talk) 04:44, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
- What I was proposing was *clearly* not vandalism, as you are obviously aware. "Vadalism" implies intentions. My intentions are to have this image not be used in Wikipedia articles, because it's my opinion that it is not relevant to any Wikipedia article, and to not have this image on Commons, because it is terrible. I mentioned the possibility of someone who speaks Russian making the change on the Russian Wikipedia, so there would be an explanation in that language on that Wikipedia article. Using your reasoning, it was vandalism to blur the screen in the first place, since it took an image off an article (two articles actually) and disallowed it from being re-added, especially when the first image would have been an acceptable image for Wikipedia if uploaded there. It should have been transferred instead of mutilated. —danhash (talk) 18:49, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
- I gave you a simple explanation. I never said anything about your intentions; I spoke merely about the results of your actions.--Prosfilaes (talk) 04:44, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
- How about applying some of those "good neighborly" intentions by not accusing vandalous intentions with absolutely no basis? If your entire argument is that it is against policy to delete images in use on another project, then just say so. I think it makes sense to delete terrible images and have them be replaced on Wikipedia in the same fashion as copyvio and other images are deleted and replaced on Wikipedia, but if Commons policy is against it then there is no point in arguing with you about it and a simple explanation is all that is required. —danhash (talk) 15:20, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
- For the same reason I don't rule on the defendant's guilt based on whether I like the guy; that's not the way the game works. It's policy; we don't delete files that are in use on another project. It's a good neighbor thing.--Prosfilaes (talk) 18:16, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
- Why not give the reasons why you think the image should stay, based on the merits of the image? My argument is that the image is inappropriate for Wikipedia and inappropriate for Commons. That's why I nominated it for deletion–it's a terrible image. If an image is inappropriate for Wikipedia (as is my contention) then it is not vandalism to remove it from a Wikipedia article. This used to be a picture of a Zune HD; then that picture was distorted in an unproductive way so as to make the image no longer relevant to a Wikipedia article about the Zune HD. If you disagree that the image in inappropriate for Wikipedia, a comment about your opinion on that subject would then be relevant. Also, w:User:CommonsNotificationBot places notices on article talk pages about Commons images nominated for deletion, as it did for the Zune HD article on the English Wikipedia. Apparently it does not also run on the Russian Wikipedia, but as I said, it would be great if someone who speaks Russian could join in. —danhash (talk) 14:35, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
- Your intentions are irrelevant. Your actions are relevant, and that's what you're doing. You're trying to delete an image, which will remove an image from a Wikipedia page in such a way that any user who disagrees is powerless to revert your edit.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:42, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
- That's a really nice assumption of my intentions, thank you. It seems you didn't actually read what I said about Wikipedia: the original image could probably be used on Wikipedia under fair use. At least on the English Wikipedia, I am not aware of the Russian Wikipedia's non-free content criteria. But regardless, this picture sucks. It doesn't belong on Wikipedia, at least not as a main article image as it was/is being used for. The main image in an article about the Zune HD should not be what looks kind of like a picture of a Zune HD but isn't. I don't think it belongs here either, since it doesn't add anything of value, since it's a terrible image. —danhash (talk) 20:16, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
- Deleting the images off a Wikipedia page and preventing the editors of that page from readding it is vandalism.--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:18, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
- Obviously not. How is that sentence even relevant? —danhash (talk) 19:09, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
- No, we don't go around vandalizing Wikipedia pages because we think they're terrible.--Prosfilaes (talk) 18:35, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
- Comment: Even if they are terrible? I replaced the image on w:Zune HD. Now it is only in use on w:ru:Zune HD, and I'm sure they wouldn't mind having it changed, so long as someone who speaks Russian changes it and leaves a proper edit summary. —danhash (talk) 18:33, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
- New version uploaded with artificial off-screen. --ZooFari 03:40, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
- How was the "artificial off-screen" created and applied? —danhash (talk) 15:23, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
- Gradient was blended in to cover the electrified portions of the screen with colors corresponding to the "off" portions, and slight noise to blend in with the overall picture quality. --ZooFari 00:23, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
- This is no longer a photograph then and should not be passed off as such. It is a photograph modified to try to look like what the Zune HD would have looked like had the screen been off. And now the blurry nature of the photograph is even more apparent. If this file must be kept, it should definitely be explained on the image description page that this is NOT just a photograph. —danhash (talk) 18:31, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
- The image is fine. The "blurry nature" is the shallow depth of field common in many professional photos, most of them which are not authentically original. If you insist, you can add a description or find a template to add to the file page (I'd think looking at the image history would be sufficient evidence for manipulation), but that's no reason to delete this from Commons nor other projects. --ZooFari 03:10, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
- This is no longer a photograph then and should not be passed off as such. It is a photograph modified to try to look like what the Zune HD would have looked like had the screen been off. And now the blurry nature of the photograph is even more apparent. If this file must be kept, it should definitely be explained on the image description page that this is NOT just a photograph. —danhash (talk) 18:31, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
- Gradient was blended in to cover the electrified portions of the screen with colors corresponding to the "off" portions, and slight noise to blend in with the overall picture quality. --ZooFari 00:23, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
- How was the "artificial off-screen" created and applied? —danhash (talk) 15:23, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
Kept. Blank screen, no copyright issues. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:03, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
No OTRS Kobac (talk) 17:28, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Mistake, sorry. Kobac (talk) 17:35, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Kept: Error. Yann (talk) 20:11, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
I doubt own work. RE rillke questions? 18:21, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope, as per above, and probable copyvio. Yann (talk) 20:10, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Either the description is an attack ("Eva Telles tax" - no search results) or the person is not notable. Furthermore, I doubt own work. RE rillke questions? 18:25, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: Out of scope, as per above. Yann (talk) 20:09, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Keine Zustimmung der Eltern ersichtlich, gezeigtes Werk (Plakat) Ralf Roletschek (talk) 10:58, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
- Habe Mail geschrieben, was meinst Du mit gezeigtem Werk? Der Aufsteller ist ein Problem oder das Bild im den Aufsteller? -- Ra Boe watt?? 13:15, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
- Das Foto im Aufsteller ist mit Sicherheit kein Beiwerk mehr. --Ralf Roletschek (talk) 07:03, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
- Ok verstanden. Tschüß -- Ra Boe watt?? 07:40, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
- Hier sind mal wieder die Kleinkrämer von Wiki am Werk. Das Bild ist vom Vater des Jungen und auf dem Plakatt ist außer der Burg nicht sehr viel mehr zu erkennen.--Falkmart (talk) 11:38, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
- Naja wer im Glashaus usw. auf jeden Falls ist das Bild auf dem Aufsteller sicher nicht "Lizenzfrei" und damit ist es zu 99% ein Grund zu Abmahnung des Fotografen ;). Falls der Rechteinhaber das hier merkt, aber zur Sicherheit kann ich das Museum gerne anschreiben und fragen ob das Luftbild frei ist. ;) Tschüß -- Ra Boe watt?? 12:06, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
- Hier sind mal wieder die Kleinkrämer von Wiki am Werk. Das Bild ist vom Vater des Jungen und auf dem Plakatt ist außer der Burg nicht sehr viel mehr zu erkennen.--Falkmart (talk) 11:38, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
- Ok verstanden. Tschüß -- Ra Boe watt?? 07:40, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
- Das Foto im Aufsteller ist mit Sicherheit kein Beiwerk mehr. --Ralf Roletschek (talk) 07:03, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: The image obv. has two main subjects, the poster and the kid. The first is copyrighted, the second is out of scope. A.S. 19:25, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
map drawn highly probably not by uploader and so copyrighted Postoronniy-13 (talk) 00:51, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
- Add File:Trollejbus Severodoneck-Lisichansk.jpg, File:Karta gorsovetov.jpg, File:Karta Lisichansko-Severodoneckoj aglomeracii.jpg, File:Karta Lisichanska.jpg - all fairly recent maps. NVO (talk) 04:34, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: all deleted Trycatch (talk) 16:51, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
not notable person, self-promotional photo, no permission Slfi (talk) 11:03, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Trycatch (talk) 23:34, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
Uploader requested deletion. I'm just filling in the incomplete request. --99of9 (talk) 11:19, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: It was an exact duplicate of File:CD Granuloma.jpg. Deleted, replaced with a redirect. Trycatch (talk) 17:23, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
This page needlessly duplicates pictures already indexed in Category:Stacks of Australia Cristellaria (talk) 12:46, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
- No good reason for the deletion of a gallery of another person. --Foroa (talk) 12:52, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
- Keep per Foroa. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:54, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
Kept: per above Trycatch (talk) 17:19, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
This appears to be a copyright violation; I cannot locate the immediate source of the image, but I note that The Guardian sources it to Mark Rogovin [7]. The image appears to have been widely used by the press [8]. Without OTRS confirmation, I don't see why we should believe the uploader is Mr. Rogovin. Magog the Ogre (talk) 17:43, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom Trycatch (talk) 20:05, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
I doubt own work. RE rillke questions? 19:46, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: okay, seems to be copyvio -- [9] Trycatch (talk) 22:11, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
the flag as wrong, the white stripes should be yellow. As we have a corrected version, this one can be deleted Antemister (talk) 20:48, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Demmo (talk) 07:23, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: per above Trycatch (talk) 23:33, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
not formally notified (only at de:Wikipedia:Fotowerkstatt#Moir.C3.A9) for now... just for info - DerivativeVersions:
- File:Kleinfassung Aerodrome Orly 1938.jpg
- File:Aérodrome d'orly 1938-2.JPG
- File:Aérodrome d'orly 1938-2011-06-06.jpg
- File:Aérodrome d'orly 1938-3.JPG
- File:Aérodrome d'orly 1938 Version AHH.jpg
- File:Aérodrome d'orly 1938-2011-06-06-2.jpg
License is invalid. PD-old-70 given but the uploader says he is the author so he cannot be dead more than 70 years. If the uploader is not he the author, the author must have died at latest 2 years after creation of this photo since 1938 is given as date - that is too short to assume this.
Needed: who is the author, when did he die? Saibo (Δ) 21:06, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
- The uploader did change the "author" to "unknown". The license is still invalid as we to not know when this author died. 1938 is too young to assume 70+ years after death. --Saibo (Δ) 02:14, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: No evidence to support PD-old. Jafeluv (talk) 09:10, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
copyvio of [10] where is stated "All rights reserved" what makes it unfit for Commons Night of the Big Wind (talk) 22:58, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
The file should not have been nominated for deletion since is was released under CC 2.0. The 'all rights reserved" is for Flikr not the image. Saffron Blaze (talk) 02:50, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
- Comment is unclear if the uploader Delat is the same as the flickr user Huib Laurens. If not, than the authorship is wrongly stated. In any case there is an inconsistency with the license as the Commons license is CC-BY-SA while the flickr one is CC-BY. --ELEKHHT 07:34, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
- Comment The putative author and uploader, Delay (talk · contribs), is identified as a sock of Abigor (talk · contribs) and is indefinitely blocked on nlwiki.[11][12] --Walter Siegmund (talk) 02:18, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
- Keep The license at Flickr is now OK. Yann (talk) 20:06, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
- Isn't that if it has been first released on flickr under a CC-BY license than it cannot be further restricted to CC-BY-SA as now on Commons. Otherwise since the uploader Delat alias Delay is sock of Abigor (as shown above) and Abigor seems to be Huib Laurens the flickr uploader, I guess is ok to use alias of choice as author info. --ELEKHHT 20:53, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
- Delete The license at Flickr isn't sufficient as it requires attribution to Huib Laurens and not Delat. -- Docu at 08:10, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
- Ehm, what is the problem if the picture was uploaded by the author himself? Author could use whatever pseudonym he wants. Trycatch (talk) 20:21, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
- Even when it are blocked sockpuppets? Night of the Big Wind (talk) 20:48, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
- Even when he claims not to be the uploader ? --ELEKHHT 22:58, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
- Indeed. Neither Delay nor Huib are blocked at Commons BTW.
Obviously, it's possible to delete this image and to re-upload it from Flickr with the correct attribution. -- Docu at 02:55, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
- Indeed. Neither Delay nor Huib are blocked at Commons BTW.
- Ehm, what is the problem if the picture was uploaded by the author himself? Author could use whatever pseudonym he wants. Trycatch (talk) 20:21, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
Kept: The file is now under an appropriate license at flickr, I've updated the info with Flinfo, there's no reason to delete the file now, independently of who uploaded it Darwin Ahoy! 09:12, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
and File:Mackayascenso.jpg. Unlikely to by own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:29, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: per OTRS - copyright infringement notice received and confirmed. --Dferg (talk) 16:39, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
no exif data and low resolution; possibly a copyvio Moray An Par (talk) 09:10, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:40, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
not notable person Slfi (talk) 10:55, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
- Delete per nom--Hold and wave (talk) 10:33, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:40, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
_%26_Ant_Sawyer.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_%26_Ant_Sawyer.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
wrong author, missing permission (author is Michael Bracey) Slfi (talk) 10:58, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
_&_Ant_Sawyer.jpg){kind=link}
- Where did you find the correct author listed? --99of9 (talk) 13:53, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
- It is writed in exif.--Honza chodec, earlier known as Slfi (talk) 15:48, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:40, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
_&_Ant_Sawyer.jpg){kind=link}
not notable person Slfi (talk) 11:00, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:40, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
out of scope Slfi (talk) 11:00, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:41, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
out of scope Slfi (talk) 11:01, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:41, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
not notable person Slfi (talk) 11:03, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:41, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
out of scope Slfi (talk) 11:18, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:41, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
The source of the listed information in this graph can not be traced, the information provided on this graph can therefore not be verified, and maybe a possible copyright infringement of the work of the original researchers wich have the data ever assembled, if the data were correct. Arch (talk) 11:51, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
- Keep in use in two wikis, and bare facts can't be copyrighted. Trycatch (talk) 17:27, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
Kept. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:41, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
The source of the listed information in this graph can not be traced, the information provided on this graph can therefore not be verified, and maybe a possible copyright infringement of the work of the original researchers wich have the data ever assembled, if the data were correct. Arch (talk) 11:53, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
- Keep in use in nl.wiki, bare facts can't be copyrighted. I don't know much about that data, but it exactly fits to the information of nl.wiki -- w:nl:West-Friesland (regio)#Religie. Trycatch (talk) 17:30, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
Kept. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:41, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
out of scope, missing exif of original photos Slfi (talk) 10:17, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Unlikely to be own work – Adrignola talk 21:07, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
out of scope, no exif of original photos Slfi (talk) 10:18, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Unlikely to be own work. – Adrignola talk 21:08, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Picture of a group of people probably engineers or something like that according to the other uploads of the user. No notable people in it, otherwise they would have been descripted. Not in use. No educational or illustrative scope, apparently. Out of it. Giorgiomonteforti (talk) 13:41, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Not in scope. – Adrignola talk 20:16, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Who's the real author and copyright holder of this proffesional photo / album cover? ~ Kobac (talk) 15:08, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: No source or permission from original photographer. – Adrignola talk 21:06, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
personal photo, out of scope Slfi (talk) 10:48, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Wknight94 talk 12:07, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
If this file is a 'childhood picture', then I doubt the user could have taken the photograph, and henceforth cannot release it under cc-by. Useless and un-used. Acather96 (talk) 18:42, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Delete derivative image, copy vio Cholo Aleman (talk) 11:12, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. – Adrignola talk 16:47, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
One of the images (Lungomare di Crotone.jpg) has no source and is uploaded by a non-existing user. Moros y Cristianos 12:04, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
- It was still in wiki-it, I transferred it here now, so the source is not an issue anymore. It can be speedily kept, if there re no other issues with the files.-- Darwin Ahoy! 13:33, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
- Please delete the first two revisions of the file, as it is not clear where the photos in those revisions come from. The latest revision can be kept. I've cleaned up the file description page and corrected the licensing and attribution. —LX (talk, contribs) 21:16, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
- But there's still a problem with Crotone Lungomare.jpg by AlMare, {{Cc-by-sa-2.5}} → sa = "share alike"! So the new licence has to include "sa" as well! axpdeHello! 20:23, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Incompatible licenses. Marked cc-by-sa-3.0, but File:Crotone Lungomare.jpg is cc-by-sa-2.5. It is not possible to be compatible with the 3.0 share-alike licensed files and the 2.5 share-alike licensed files. – Adrignola talk 16:08, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
Doubt PD-self claim, probable copy-vio Acather96 (talk) 18:48, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
- delete If you search with Google, you find many versions of this picture on the web. This version at photobucket for example is nearly two years longer there than this picture is on commons. So it seems to be a copyvio. --Don-kun (talk) 08:05, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio: http://s444.photobucket.com/albums/qq170/iloverbd_album/?action=view¤t=CopyofEmo-Anime-emo-1042197_347_440.jpg&newest=1 – Adrignola talk 17:56, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
changing from speedy to DR discussion Tony Wills (talk) 01:30, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- Nominated by user:Officer because of original found with different license] (all rights reserved). But as Afghanistan doesn't have any copyright law (or none recognised by the USA), is the copyright claim valid, or if not, do we act as though they have at least basic rights of some sort anyway? (I know this sort of thing has been discussed before, but haven't found any policy about it). --Tony Wills (talk) 01:40, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
- We don't know where it was first published. If it was first published somewhere outside of Afghanistan, it's copyrighted. And the interesting thing about the afghanan.net -- "The content of this website has been gathered from various sources, unfortunately i have not been able to provide references to these sources (books) but if you send me your inquiry through email i’ll be able provide you with relevant information." I.e. we don't know much about the provenance of these pictures. Trycatch (talk) 17:00, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Unclear provenance. – Adrignola talk 17:27, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
out of scope Slfi (talk) 10:49, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: No evidence of permission. If it were under a free license, the Flickr user at here would be laundering the license, but even there it's all rights reserved. – Adrignola talk 17:36, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
Have not author permission send to OTRS and ticketed in such way Ency (talk) 12:27, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
- If somebody could find an email for Alyeksyey Melkin, we could ask him for a written confirmation. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 16:20, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
- Wouldn't the uploader, Ency be the only one who can do that? Just googling the name ("Алексей Мелкин") I found two guys, one of them apparently now living in Canada... --Illythr (talk) 22:38, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: No permission received. – Adrignola talk 20:17, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
Have not author permission send to OTRS and ticketed in such way Ency (talk) 12:28, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
- If somebody could find an email for Alyeksyey Melkin, we could ask him for a written confirmation. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 16:09, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: No permission received. – Adrignola talk 19:49, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
Personal picture of a supposed writer. Unknwon to the web. Notable or not notable? If not, self promotion so out of scope. Giorgiomonteforti (talk) 13:53, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. – Adrignola talk 19:28, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
Supposed cover of the book written by the google unknown Hultin writer. Copyviol? Private publication so self promotion? Out of scope? Giorgiomonteforti (talk) 13:57, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: No permission from publisher through OTRS. – Adrignola talk 19:59, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
No source. No author. . HombreDHojalata.talk 15:56, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: No source and author information. GeorgHH • talk 19:00, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
No source. No author. . HombreDHojalata.talk 15:56, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: No source and author information. GeorgHH • talk 19:00, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
It is wrong signaure i have uploaded and corrected signature so this is the wrong signaure please delete this
(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
wrong signature Germanlight (talk) 16:08, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Uploader request. GeorgHH • talk 19:03, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
Strongly doubt self-gfdl/cc-by claim here. Delete as a copy-vio. Acather96 (talk) 18:37, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
- Delete well, it's not so hard to find the original, but I don't see much point in this pic. Trycatch (talk) 23:31, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Not realistically useful for an educational purpose. – Adrignola talk 21:31, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
propably non-free content uploaded by User:TomZH3030, ref. User talk:TomZH3030 respectively missing EXIF, further description, date etc. User:TomZH3030, ref. User talk:TomZH3030, 84.75.160.122 18:47, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Kept: No indication found for non-free content. GeorgHH • talk 16:49, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
Out of scope - logo of nonserious student club in the Netherlands - article on this club deleted @ nlwiki - unused. Lymantria (talk) 05:39, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope, might be copyvio. ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 11:15, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
not covered by Freedom of panorama (modern bust located inside a building) Polarlys (talk) 08:38, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
- Keep - Invalid request, no specific reason stated, FOP on which country..???--...Captain......Tälk tö me.. 09:06, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
- Modern artwork in Germany, located inside a building, thus not covered by Germany’s FOP. --Polarlys (talk) 13:59, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
- And all the pictures taken within a museum? They are also located inside. --LoKiLeCh 18:28, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
- Modern artwork in Germany, located inside a building, thus not covered by Germany’s FOP. --Polarlys (talk) 13:59, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
- How old is the sculpture? Is it public domain due to age? – Adrignola talk 20:15, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
- The Skuptur has probably the same age as the building in which it stands. The building is from the 1970s. The building is completely open to the public. Everybody can go there. --LoKiLeCh 17:48, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Derivative work of copyrighted sculpture not covered by FOP. As the depicted person died in the 1960s, it is unlikely, that the sculptor has been dead for more than 70 years. ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 11:17, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
out of scope Slfi (talk) 11:18, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
- Keep a notable person: w:Troy Newman. Trycatch (talk) 17:15, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: All uploads of this user have different resolution and different camera meta data. Own work claim seems unlikely. ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 11:21, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
out of scope Slfi (talk) 11:19, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
- Keep notable person -- w:Troy Newman. Trycatch (talk) 17:16, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: All uploads of this user have different resolution and different camera meta data. Own work claim seems unlikely. ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 11:21, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
out of scope, self promotional Slfi (talk) 11:19, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
- Keep in scope -- w:Troy Newman, I don't see a problem even if this picture is self-promotional while it's in scope. Trycatch (talk) 17:18, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: All uploads of this user have different resolution and different camera meta data. Own work claim seems unlikely. ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 11:21, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
unused logo of an Italian organization [13], related article was deleted here it:Wikipedia:Pagine da cancellare/Saraj associazione for no notability back in 2008 - out of scope Santosga (talk) 12:32, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Low quality logo of non-notable organization. Might even be copyvio. ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 11:23, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
3/4 figure of the same not notable model. Apart some apparent plastic surgery, she looks like many others models. Self promotion. Giorgiomonteforti (talk) 14:22, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Promotional image of non-notable person. Out of project scope. ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 11:24, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
Promotional picture of a MILF, self proclaimed actress and celebrity from Bulgaria. The picture is in use in bulgarian wikipedia but the entry was evidently edited by her for self promotion and every line of the entry ends with "what the fuck?" wikipedia style. The woman is attractive, the picture is profesional. But it remains self promotion. I'm puzzled, may be because I'm a man. Single even and I would like to have a woman like this for a while. So I'm partial in this issue and I risk to not thinking with my brain but with something else -that's what she wanted-. I give the picture to your wise opinions, fellas. Giorgiomonteforti (talk) 14:32, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
- Delete per nom--Hold and wave (talk) 17:14, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
- Delete we do not editorialise other projects, if bg.wiki considers she is relevant for them, it's enough for us. But generally such professional photographs require an OTRS confirmation. Trycatch (talk) 20:17, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
- Comment Why would we delete a picture of someone who has an article on Bulgarian WP ?! --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 08:59, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Professional promotional shot. Own work claim seems unlikely and needs to be backed by OTRS permission. ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 11:26, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
Unlikely to by own work: small resolution, missing EXIF. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:00, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. – Adrignola talk 16:19, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
A finished version of this map already exists at File:Sri_Lanka_Railroads_Map.svg. Some wires got crossed over at Wikipedia:Graphic_Lab/Map_workshop, leading to the creation of this unnecessary map. MissMJ (talk) 20:58, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. – Adrignola talk 17:08, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
out of scope Reinhardhauke (talk) 19:41, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
Hat CDs veröffentlicht Kept. Mbdortmund (talk) 00:23, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Personal picture of not notable musician or singer. Unique contrib of this user. Not in use. Out of scope. Giorgiomonteforti (talk) 14:00, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
- Comment Sorry if I have put back the file on deletion but I don't agree with the decision to keep it. The guy has produced just one CD and by himself [14]. Googling his name, just 4 results come out and 2 are his facebook and myspace page. Sorry but he is not notable, evidently. I have nothing personal against him and I wish to him to become a music legend: I'll be the first of his fans. No problem also, for me, to keep his picture. But it would be not correct for all the others not notable musicians' pictures we have already deleted. Perhaps I'm wrong: this is my position, anyway.--Giorgiomonteforti (talk) 01:45, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Not realistically useful for an educational purpose. – Adrignola talk 21:31, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
Pictures of Microsoft Windows Phone 7
[edit]- File:LG Optimus 7-Windows Phone.jpg
- File:HTC HD7 (smartphone).jpg
- File:HTC HD7 smartphones.jpg
- File:HTC Arrive smartphone.jpg
- File:HTC Trophy smartphone.jpg
- File:HTC Arrive smartphone.jpg
- File:HTC Mozart smartphone.jpg
- File:Dell Venue Pro smartphone.jpg
- File:DellVenuePro.jpg
- File:Samsung Focus.jpg
.jpg){kind=link}
Pictures of Microsoft Windows Phone 7, operating system is protected by copyright. ■ MMXX talk 16:39, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
- Keep. Blur the screen immediately!!! --Kungfu2187 (talk) 13:03, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
Kept. Blurred the interface. – Adrignola talk 02:07, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
Copyright violation. Uploading user is not the rights holder to the underlying artwork, as he made explicit in this edit on en.wiki Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:48, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
- What if I bought the painting? Kencf0618 (talk) 06:32, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
- Only if the artist transferred the copyright to you with the painting. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:01, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
- Which is exactly what I'll be talking about with gallery's co-owner about someday Tuesday afternoon. If I can get the rights to it, fine, and if not, that's O.K. too. Lesson learned. Kencf0618 (talk) 07:15, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
- I've begun negotiations with the rights-holder, but rather than letting this discussion hang fire I'm deleting the image now; I'll put it up again if and only if I attain the rights. Then everything will be copacetic. Cheeers!~
- Which is exactly what I'll be talking about with gallery's co-owner about someday Tuesday afternoon. If I can get the rights to it, fine, and if not, that's O.K. too. Lesson learned. Kencf0618 (talk) 07:15, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
- Only if the artist transferred the copyright to you with the painting. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:01, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
In negotiation for the rights. Shall upload again if I succeed in attaining them. Kencf0618 (talk) 22:29, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: (not by me) Jcb (talk) 13:26, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
Probable copyright violation: Uploading user admitted to not being the rights holder to File:IMAG0443.jpg, and refused to answer a direct question on en.wiki about whether he was the rights-holder to the underlying artwork in this image. User has a history of uploading copyvio images. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:51, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
- I didn't answer promptly because I was taking a nap. I'll be more careful about the provenance of my imagery in the future. Kencf0618 (talk) 07:27, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
- You answered, but instead of posting a response to my direct question, you wrote on your en.wiki user talk page "Fine. Since WMF takes it seriously, they can take care of it. Problem solved." Since with that statement you blew off the question, I went ahead and noominated the images for deletion, since they are both, by your admission, copyright violations. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:09, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
- The co-owners of Bricolage are very interested in both CC & this discussion, so hold on to your horses --I may be the rights-holder soon. Kencf061872.62.137.128 17:06, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
- Above sent via Android. Entering my password on it is a bit cumbersome. Kencf0618 (talk) 20:35, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
- You answered, but instead of posting a response to my direct question, you wrote on your en.wiki user talk page "Fine. Since WMF takes it seriously, they can take care of it. Problem solved." Since with that statement you blew off the question, I went ahead and noominated the images for deletion, since they are both, by your admission, copyright violations. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:09, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Have begun negotiations with the rights-holder. Shall upload again if I attain the rights. Kencf0618 (talk) 22:32, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: speedy - copyvio Jcb (talk) 15:45, 8 June 2011 (UTC)