Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2011/06/08
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
|
|
Not the work of the flicker user. But is it pd old? MorganKevinJ(talk) 04:23, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
- This image is in the public domain because the copyright of this photograph, registered in Argentina, has expired. (Both at least 25 years have passed after the photograph was created, and it was first published at least 20 years ago, 11.723, Article 34 as amended, and Convention Article 7 (4)) . —Moebiusuibeom-en (talk) 04:39, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Nomination Withdrawn per Moebiusuibeom-en MorganKevinJ(talk) 04:42, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
{{PD-AR-Photo}}-fail (not for drawings or other pieces of art), considering poster art related to es:Ford Ranchero (Argentina), produced in Argentina 1973—1991. Most likely created in 1973, would also fail {{PD-AR-Photo}} due to COM:URAA. Gunnex (talk) 08:52, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 12:12, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
Another low-quality penis image. Out of scope. Jafeluv (talk) 09:27, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Delete. A more important problem is the likely personality rights violation. We have no evidence that this image was uploaded by the depicted. It might be someone else, a disgruntled ex-friend/whatever, who wants to damage the depicted. --Túrelio (talk) 10:14, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Speedied by Jcb. Túrelio (talk) 10:36, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Page appears to be solely promotional in nature: images linked have been repeatedly used to recreate speedy-deleted articles on enwiki. 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) 10:57, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Spam promo sock accounts. -- Cirt (talk) 02:27, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Unused low-quality (fileformat and diagramming style) and missing stereochemistry. Replaceable by File:Thromboxane A2.png DMacks (talk) 17:54, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Per nom. --Yikrazuul (talk) 13:22, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Per discussion. Leyo 22:44, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
low-quality (font-variations, file-format, bond-angles) unused; many replacement cis- and trans-fatty-acid diagrams, and File:Isomers of oleic acid.png among others as single-image comparison DMacks (talk) 18:15, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Per nom. --Yikrazuul (talk) 13:22, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Per discussion. Leyo 22:46, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
person of no notability (articles about him in ru.wiki are regulary being deleted as self-promotion) Andrei Romanenko (talk) 08:22, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Not per nomination here - but has no license Lymantria (talk) 12:57, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
Unused low-quality (resolution and format), replaceable by File:Bpe-resorcinol-cycloaddition.png DMacks (talk) 20:44, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Per nom. --Yikrazuul (talk) 13:23, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Per discussion. Leyo 20:02, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
low-quality (resolution and file-format), replaceable by File:2,3-Dichloro-5,6-dicyanobenzoquinone.png. Only use is in zh.wp page that is this same file prior to being transwikied to commons (I don't know how to nom for deletion on zh, but is already tagged there as transwikied) DMacks (talk) 23:42, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Per nom. --Yikrazuul (talk) 13:23, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Per discussion. Leyo 20:04, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
Unused and tagged as low-quality ("Very low resolution. Non-standard depiction with explicit hydrogens, but not carbons."). Could be useful to emphasize H geometries, but the H geometries are not correct: inconsistent left/right perspective on C2/C4 vs C3/C5, and poor tetrahedral geometry on C1 and C6 DMacks (talk) 23:51, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
- Delete pern om. --Yikrazuul (talk) 13:24, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Per discussion. Leyo 20:05, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
Bad format, unused, superceded by File:Triazine trimerization vector.svg Demmo (talk) 08:05, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Per nom. --Yikrazuul (talk) 13:22, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
- Delete. Unused, redundant, jpg. Materialscientist (talk) 07:41, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Per discussion. Leyo 09:56, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
It is wrong picture. I testing your upload system. Please delete it. Caboz (talk) 10:31, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Uploader's request. – Kwj2772 (msg) 09:40, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
Advertising out of scope and unused Good twins (talk) 12:03, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted – Kwj2772 (msg) 09:44, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
personal image? joke? anyway, no educational content. Broc (talk) 18:13, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: copyvio from http://www.sherdog.net/forums/f75/genuine-ot-mascot-808549/index3.html Túrelio (talk) 06:33, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
Unused low-quality (file-format, diagram style, resolution) with text that may inhibit reuse. Replaceable by File:Suppes-reaction.png DMacks (talk) 23:10, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Per nom. --Leyo 08:45, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
- Delete. File:Suppes-reaction.png is of much better quality and is lacking captions, as appropriate for international use. Materialscientist (talk) 07:20, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Ed (Edgar181) 11:01, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
FILE UPLOADED IN WRONG ORIENTATION Mukulfaiz (talk) 23:32, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
- We have rotate-bots to fix things like that... AnonMoos (talk) 10:39, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
Keep now rotated. MKFI (talk) 10:51, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
Kept – Kwj2772 (msg) 10:30, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
Photo without encyclopedic and educational value. Mazvier (talk) 05:48, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
- Delete - Out of scope..--...Captain......Tälk tö me.. 08:04, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
- Delete - also potentially a PR vio - slander and such. -mattbuck (Talk) 10:20, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope, as per above. Yann (talk) 18:41, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
Photo without encyclopedic and educational value. Mazvier (talk) 05:49, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
- Delete - very strange. -mattbuck (Talk) 10:18, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope, as per above. Yann (talk) 18:43, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
Bad format, unused, superceded by File:!xoo orthography.svg Demmo (talk) 08:08, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: unused poor duplicate George Chernilevsky talk 21:43, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
Advertisement, out of scope. Jafeluv (talk) 09:18, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope, and no permission. Yann (talk) 18:46, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
my mistake, unused
Deleted: Empty. Yann (talk) 18:48, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
Possible copyvio - very low resolution, no metadata. The image appears elsewhere (eg here) but can't be sure if image came from us. Uploader has several deleted contribs at en.wp. -mattbuck (Talk) 10:20, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio. Yann (talk) 18:49, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
Microscopical and unusable picture of a town or village in Spain. Not in use, of course. Probably not own work of the uploader. Unique upload of this user. Giorgiomonteforti (talk) 10:40, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: as per above. Yann (talk) 18:50, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
a bunch of logos, several of which are not simple logos. Copy vio likely Good twins (talk) 10:56, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio. Yann (talk) 18:50, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
Same as the last one I nominated it's exactly the same but bigger. Good twins (talk) 10:57, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio. Yann (talk) 18:50, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
Too small to be used. Seems like a screenshot or something copyrighted. But's too small to be certain Good twins (talk) 11:22, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
- Please delete, I have uploaded a fairly large image from my database.Jürgenser (talk) 05:54, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: as per above. Yann (talk) 18:51, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
Personal photo, out of scope, unused Good twins (talk) 11:43, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope, as per above. Yann (talk) 18:52, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
Unused out of scope picture Good twins (talk) 11:44, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope, as per above. Yann (talk) 18:52, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
Unused, out of scope personal picture Good twins (talk) 11:45, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope, as per above. Yann (talk) 18:52, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
Unused personal photo. Out of scope Good twins (talk) 11:45, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 21:44, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
Too small poor quality and unused picture Good twins (talk) 11:46, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope, as per above. Yann (talk) 18:53, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
Unused out of scope picture of a man who does not have a wikipedia page Good twins (talk) 11:48, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 21:45, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
Out of scope personal picture Good twins (talk) 11:49, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope, as per above. Yann (talk) 18:54, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
Poor quality, unused personal out of scope picture Good twins (talk) 11:51, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope, as per above. Yann (talk) 18:54, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
Unused personal photo, possibley advertisment Good twins (talk) 11:53, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope, as per above. Yann (talk) 18:55, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
Unused out of scope picture Good twins (talk) 11:54, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope, as per above. Yann (talk) 18:56, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
Unused personal photo Good twins (talk) 11:59, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 21:47, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
Unused out of scope picture Good twins (talk) 12:00, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope, as per above. Yann (talk) 18:57, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
Not a simple logo. And unused out of scope Good twins (talk) 12:01, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio. Yann (talk) 18:57, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
Poor quality, can't see what man is showing camera and unused out of scope Good twins (talk) 12:02, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope, as per above. Yann (talk) 18:57, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
Out of scope unused Good twins (talk) 12:06, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: as per above, + no permission. Yann (talk) 19:00, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
Unused personal photo Good twins (talk) 12:06, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 21:48, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
Unused personal photo Good twins (talk) 12:07, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope, as per above. Yann (talk) 18:59, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
Author and user are different can not assertain whether permisson has been given due to duff url Good twins (talk) 12:08, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Delete unused promo image - copy vio? + out of scope Cholo Aleman (talk) 20:45, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: as per above. Yann (talk) 18:58, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
image is copyrighted, at least not by rahulmit, see there:
- http://neoavatara.com/blog/?p=1773
- http://mikeghouseforindia.blogspot.com/2009/09/dual-citizneship-woes.html
- http://www.indiaedunews.net/Today/Indo-US_higher_education_summit_inaugurated_in_Mumbai_12200/
- http://www.deccanherald.com/content/13091/indo-us-relationship-has-improved.html
Can this then be public domain since everybody is using it? Mabdul (talk) 12:30, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio. Yann (talk) 19:01, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
The scratch on the surface of the chair. is that in scope? I don't think so. Amada44 talk to me 14:59, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 21:49, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
some more scratches (out of scope) Amada44 talk to me 15:00, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 21:49, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
and other uploads by CHrizYOu (talk · contribs). Unlikely to by own work: inconsistent resolutions, often missing EXIF. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:05, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: No source, no permission. Yann (talk) 19:02, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
not useful for education Slfi (talk) 15:14, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 21:50, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
probably copyvio, but google didn't find original, only smaller versions - missing EXIF Slfi (talk) 15:24, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: as per above. Yann (talk) 19:03, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
and other uploads by Gerard Benitez (talk · contribs). Unlikely to by own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:25, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: as per above. Yann (talk) 19:04, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
Unlikely to by own work: small resolution, missing EXIF. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:28, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: as per above. Yann (talk) 19:04, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
out of scope, wrong licence Slfi (talk) 15:29, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 21:51, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
drawing of map of fictional island - out of scope Slfi (talk) 15:38, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 21:52, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
out of scope Slfi (talk) 15:42, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 21:52, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
private photo Slfi (talk) 15:42, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope, as per above. Yann (talk) 19:05, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
and other uploads by Belaunde (talk · contribs). Unlikely to by own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:42, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: No source, no permission. Yann (talk) 19:06, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
private photo Slfi (talk) 15:54, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 21:59, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
out of scope Slfi (talk) 15:55, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 22:00, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
out of scope Slfi (talk) 15:56, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 22:00, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
out of scope Slfi (talk) 16:01, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 22:01, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
not notable person Slfi (talk) 16:02, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 22:01, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
Image appears only to be being used to recreate speedy-deleted article content under multiple article names on enwiki. 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) 16:41, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: deleted by Cirt. Yann (talk) 19:08, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
without encyclopedical value, see also: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Datei:NerdsLM.jpg Atlan 16:46, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope, as per above. Yann (talk) 19:08, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
Not realistically useful for an educational purpose and not in use on a user page to grant an exception to this portion of the project's scope. – Adrignola talk 16:50, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope, as per above. Yann (talk) 19:24, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
personal image not used anywhere Broc (talk) 17:37, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope, as per above. Yann (talk) 19:25, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
personal image not used anywhere Broc (talk) 17:39, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope, as per above. Yann (talk) 19:25, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
personal image not used anywhere Broc (talk) 17:39, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope, as per above. Yann (talk) 19:26, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
CV from http://www.123theband.com/ Broc (talk) 17:45, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio. Yann (talk) 19:27, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
personal image not used anywhere Broc (talk) 17:46, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Unused private photo. Vanjagenije (talk) 11:37, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Per nom. --Hold and wave (talk) 22:30, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 21:54, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
personal image not used anywhere Broc (talk) 18:12, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 21:55, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
personal image not used anywhere Broc (talk) 18:13, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope, as per above. Yann (talk) 19:28, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
personal image not used anywhere Broc (talk) 18:34, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope.Article was deleted too George Chernilevsky talk 22:04, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
personal image not used anywhere Broc (talk) 18:34, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 22:04, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
unknown musician, no educational content. Broc (talk) 18:35, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 22:05, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
personal image not used anywhere Broc (talk) 18:37, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope, as per above. Yann (talk) 19:29, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
personal image not used anywhere; copied from facebook, too Broc (talk) 18:39, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope, as per above. Yann (talk) 19:29, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
personal image not used anywhere Broc (talk) 18:43, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope, as per above. Yann (talk) 19:30, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
no educational content at all. Broc (talk) 18:44, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope, as per above. Yann (talk) 19:30, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
personal image, out of project scope Broc (talk) 19:07, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope, as per above. Yann (talk) 19:31, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
personal image, out of project scope Broc (talk) 19:07, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Kept: In use on user page. Yann (talk) 19:32, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
no educational content, logo of don't know what Broc (talk) 19:10, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 22:06, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
unused private image - out of scope Cholo Aleman (talk) 19:11, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 22:07, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
personal image not used anywhere Broc (talk) 19:30, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Happy birthday or something like that to some friend, out of scope. --Martin H. (talk) 00:24, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope, as per above. Yann (talk) 19:34, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
taken from television or a video - copy violation (no exif) Cholo Aleman (talk) 19:31, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio. Yann (talk) 19:34, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
out of project scope Broc (talk) 19:40, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope, as per above. Yann (talk) 19:35, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
out of scope Slfi (talk) 19:48, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Don't delete this idiot!
Deleted: Out of scope, as per above. Yann (talk) 19:35, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
out of scope, unidentified logo, possibly fictional logo Slfi (talk) 19:52, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 22:07, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
out of scope - personal artwork Slfi (talk) 19:57, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 22:08, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
extreme small thumbnail, not used Slfi (talk) 19:58, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope, as per above. Yann (talk) 19:35, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
private photo Slfi (talk) 20:03, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope, as per above. Yann (talk) 19:36, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
promotional photo Slfi (talk) 20:07, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 22:09, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
personal photo Slfi (talk) 20:07, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 22:10, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
out of scope Slfi (talk) 20:09, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 22:10, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
out of scope Slfi (talk) 20:09, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 22:10, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
out of scope Slfi (talk) 20:12, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 22:11, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
out of scope, not used Slfi (talk) 20:21, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 22:11, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
out of scope Reinhardhauke (talk) 20:23, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
- Delete, most likely copyrighted material improperly uploaded under free license. --KinuP (talk) 20:41, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: No source, no permission. Yann (talk) 19:39, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
nice photo but not notable person Slfi (talk) 20:23, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 22:12, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
out of scope Reinhardhauke (talk) 20:24, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
- Delete, most likely copyrighted material improperly uploaded under free license. --KinuP (talk) 20:38, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: No source, no permission. Yann (talk) 19:40, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
out of scope Reinhardhauke (talk) 20:31, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope, as per above. Yann (talk) 19:41, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
Disputed license. No evidence that uploader is copyright holder. No indication that image is within project scope. --KinuP (talk) 20:42, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: No source, no permission. Yann (talk) 19:41, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
Copyright violation, screenshots are subject to the copyright of the displayed work. One does not become the copyright holder of someone else's work by copying it. Mathonius (talk) 21:10, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
- It's not a screenshot. Someone was in the audience and took the photo. Hence the Flickr title "Nashville Now In Progress" http://www.flickr.com/photos/91829349@N00/541799587/ --Ichabod (talk) 23:36, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
- My sincere apologies. I very wrongly assumed from reading the description that this was a photo taken from a video picture. I've removed the {{Delete}} template. Mathonius (talk) 02:14, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
Kept: as per Ichabod. Yann (talk) 19:42, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
A logo of a non notable band (the fr-wikipedia page was deleted). Its ourside the scope of commons. Guerillero 21:45, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Per nom. George Chernilevsky talk 22:17, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
Out of scope, unused advertising Good twins (talk) 22:24, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted --ZooFari 21:11, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
Out of scope, unused, advertising Good twins (talk) 22:24, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted --ZooFari 21:11, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
Unused out of scope Good twins (talk) 22:56, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Delete - unused private image - out of scope Cholo Aleman (talk) 03:34, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted --ZooFari 21:09, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
Claims own work. No metadata and out of scope, unused Good twins (talk) 22:57, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted --ZooFari 21:10, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
Unused out of scope Good twins (talk) 23:00, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted --ZooFari 21:09, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
Seems to be made up. Unused out of scope Good twins (talk) 23:01, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted --ZooFari 21:09, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
Flickr washing, bogus license. 182.71.254.46 06:23, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Flickr washing. Yann (talk) 18:45, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
There is no metadata, and dimensions of an image is too little. I have doubts about authorship. Dmitry89 (talk) 04:23, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: No source, no permission. Yann (talk) 21:52, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
Personal photo unused out of scope Good twins (talk) 11:52, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. Facebook image. Yann (talk) 21:24, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
Unused personal photo out of scope Good twins (talk) 11:53, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. Facebook image. Yann (talk) 21:25, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
Unused personal photo Good twins (talk) 11:58, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
- The lady seems to be a media personality, sort of a psychic - so it's not totally personal and might be in scope. But small size = very likely copyvio. NVO (talk) 04:19, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: No source, no permission. Yann (talk) 21:49, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
and other newspapers and posters uploaded by Jonyrh (talk · contribs): no evidence of permissions. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:44, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: No permission. Yann (talk) 21:31, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
promotion image Slfi (talk) 15:46, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: No source. Yann (talk) 21:27, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
in use, but probably copyvio (No EXIF, frame and shadow around picture), missing permission Slfi (talk) 15:59, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: No source, no permission. Yann (talk) 21:36, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
Book covers are the main subject of this photo. They are copyrighted. RE rillke questions? 17:22, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Book covers. Yann (talk) 21:37, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
I doubt own work. Typical web-size image. RE rillke questions? 17:30, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: No source, no permission. Yann (talk) 21:39, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
Only used in an article subject to speedy deletion on Wikipedia.() MorganKevinJ(talk) 19:34, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Kept: In use. Yann (talk) 21:41, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
Out of scope. Skyshifter (talk) 19:22, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 02:00, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
File:Logotipo de la FCMEC.png nene cundy (talk) 18:39, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio. Yann (talk) 21:43, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
probable violation of copyright. cannot verify source Broc (talk) 18:43, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio. Yann (talk) 21:42, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
probably a copyright violation. Broc (talk) 19:24, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: No source, no permission. Yann (talk) 21:43, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
out of scope Reinhardhauke (talk) 20:21, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
- Delete, given the watermark this is most likely copyrighted material improperly uploaded under free license. --KinuP (talk) 20:39, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: No source, no permission. Yann (talk) 19:38, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
Advertising. Oh dear. Good twins (talk) 22:12, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Dear Good twins, I'm an internet developer at Hackett Security right now, and have authorization to work with the logo/company information.
- Delete out of project scope -- George Chernilevsky talk 22:19, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. Yann (talk) 21:44, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
Personal picture unused Good twins (talk) 22:22, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Delete - per nom, unused private Cholo Aleman (talk) 20:44, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. Yann (talk) 21:45, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
Out of scope unused, advertising Good twins (talk) 22:25, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: No permission. Yann (talk) 21:45, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
Unused out of scope Good twins (talk) 22:27, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. Yann (talk) 21:46, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
Though at http://dragonage.wikia.com/wiki/Lyrium it is CC-by-sa license, I think just this image is copyrighted, so it can be used only as fair use. Dmitry89 (talk) 04:17, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom Trycatch (talk) 23:36, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
Unused personal photo Good twins (talk) 11:59, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
- no opinion. Speaking at a public event is not precisely personal photo, but then the person needs better identification. Which one of the few Richard Goyettes is it? It's probably not Richard Goyette the powder-bomber [1]. It's not Richard Goyette the Canadian trade union boss [2]. - could it be an error in file name ?? NVO (talk) 04:30, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
- It's a Canadian trade-unionist, identified here [3]; I already included this photo on its related article fr:Richard Goyette. Santosga (talk) 21:29, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
Kept: per Santosga. Trycatch (talk) 01:28, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
Please delete, this upload was a mistake, sorry! Neitram (talk) 13:40, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
- Keep Why? It's a photo of a PD painting.--Prosfilaes (talk) 16:46, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Kept: per Prosfilaes. The uploader didn't provide a reason why this good quality PD picture should be deleted. Feel free to nominate it again with better explanations. Trycatch (talk) 00:39, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
DW of copyright of fabric designer. No evidence of permission Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:17, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom Trycatch (talk) 01:09, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
Personal picture??? Unused Good twins (talk) 22:23, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
If you look at the other images of this user it can be identified, see File:Jacquelineconvictor 2.jpg, in scope (duplicte or something else) Cholo Aleman (talk) 20:38, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
Kept: per Cholo Aleman Trycatch (talk) 01:24, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
and other uploads by BABYGRAND007 (talk · contribs). No evidence of permissions. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:47, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted – Adrignola talk 14:13, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
Missing stereochemical information, badJPG, replaced by File:Asenapine.png. Leyo 12:30, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
- Delete per nom chemical-structure problem. However, this diagram is the 1:1 maleic acid, not the free-base of the proposed replacement. However however, this diagram is also wrong for the maleate-salt structure (would be protonated-amine/maleate-monoanion not two neutral compounds), so I also support deletion due to that chemical-structure problem. So the content-equivalent replacement is File:Asenapine.png + File:Maleic acid structure.png, but the "correct" replacement is a different structure entirely. Only use is in a userspace draft (de:Benutzer:Hgieck/Spielwiese)--I don't know enough German to decide how to handle it. DMacks (talk) 16:00, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
- The sandbox subsite has entirely be copied to the article namespace. --Leyo 16:06, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
- Delete, for reasons described above. ChemNerd (talk) 14:06, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Ed (Edgar181) 13:03, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
Small image resolution, and no EXIF metadata: I don't think that this image is the own work of the person who uploaded it 80.187.107.1 17:19, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: While I note the uploader's user name is similar to the subject's name, this still looks like a professional sideline photo so the subject probably doesn't even own the copyright. Needs some sort of COM:OTRS permission at a minimum. Wknight94 talk 03:21, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
Out of scope: text document Lymantria (talk) 05:36, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
DO NOT DELETE: There are countless official government documents obtained through the Freedom of Information Act on Wikipedia and WikimediaCommons.
Do not delete: There are numerous text documents on Wiki Commons, and other F.O.I.A. documents, as well. Elizabeth Blandra (talk) Liz B. 15:15, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Keep per Blandra. Σ (talk) 01:21, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
Thank you,Σ. There are two additional pages which have been marked for deletion. Their names are the same, but Page2of3 and Page3of3 -- they can be accessed via the first page. If you wouldn't mind commenting on them, as well, I'd appreciate it. Again, thank you -- I appreciate it. Elizabeth Blandra (talk) Liz B. 02:51, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
DO NOT DELETE: There are countless official government documents obtained through the Freedom of Information Act on Wikipedia and WikimediaCommons. PeaceFrog71 (talk) 15:01, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
- Please note COM:SCOPE#Excluded educational content "Excluded educational content includes: (...) Files that contain nothing educational other than raw text." Lymantria (talk) 07:58, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
DO NOT DELETE: This page and the two related pages clarify and improve upon the article on Stalking in that they show that multiple stalkers do in fact stalk in teams or groups (an issue left unclarified on the main Stalking page subentry for stalking by groups). Furthermore, these three pages are official government, unimpeachable documents obtained from the Department of Justice through the Freedom of Information Act. PeaceFrog71 (talk) 13:56, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
- What holds you back from adding the content of these files to Wikisource? Lymantria (talk) 15:06, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
- Thank you for the suggestion regarding Wikisource. Elizabeth Blandra (talk) 22:26, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
Please do not delete: There are ample precedents for the inclusion of these images. Refer to File:Majic6.jpg, File:Ann Agnes Bernatitus FOIA documents.djvu, File:CIA-Arbenz-overthrow-FOIA-documents-1of5.gif, to cite just a few. Elizabeth Blandra (talk) 16:38, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
Please do not delete: From COM:SCOPE#Excluded educational content: "However, Commons can be used to host such material if included in a shareable media file that is of use to one of the other WMF projects (so, scanned copies of existing texts that are useful to other WMF projects—e.g. to serve as the basis of a reliable, verifiable source—are in scope)." This file is to be referenced from Wikipedia, serving as "the basis of a reliable, verifiable source." Thank you. Elizabeth Blandra (talk) 16:51, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
- Delete per Lymantria - this is not used anywhere and is out of the scope of the project. Ruhrfisch (talk) 18:05, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
Please do not delete: This file is currently being accessed from the Harassment page on Wikipedia and will be added to other pages, as well. I will be using the thumbnail feature to display it, in some cases. (An example of a similar file is as follows: File:CIA-Arbenz-overthrow-FOIA-documents-2of5.gif. This “Arbenz” file has never been marked for deletion and has been available on Wikimedia Commons since September of 2010.) The information in all three files will be useful to academicians and researchers, among others. As such, they should be retained. Thank you.Elizabeth Blandra (talk) 00:33, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
- Note - PeaceFrog71 was a sockpuppet of Elizabeth Blandra and
both are[is] now blocked indefinitely. See Commons:Requests for checkuser/Case/Elizabeth Blandra Ruhrfisch (talk) 03:14, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
- Please note: My (Elizabeth Blandra's) account remains active -- it has not been blocked. Things aren't always what they appear to be. Such was the case here. Sincerely, Elizabeth Blandra (talk) 12:34, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
- My apologies - I assumed all the accounts had been blocked, instead of just the two sockpuppets. Ruhrfisch (talk) 04:19, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
- Please note: My (Elizabeth Blandra's) account remains active -- it has not been blocked. Things aren't always what they appear to be. Such was the case here. Sincerely, Elizabeth Blandra (talk) 12:34, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:46, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
Out of scope: text document Lymantria (talk) 05:36, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
DO NOT DELETE: There are countless official government documents obtained through the Freedom of Information Act on Wikipedia and WikimediaCommons.
Do not delete: There are numerous text documents on Wiki Commons, and other F.O.I.A. documents, as well. Elizabeth Blandra (talk) Liz B. 15:32, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
DO NOT DELETE: There are countless official government documents obtained through the Freedom of Information Act on Wikipedia and WikimediaCommons. PeaceFrog71 (talk) 15:02, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
- Please note COM:SCOPE#Excluded educational content "Excluded educational content includes: (...) Files that contain nothing educational other than raw text." Lymantria (talk) 07:58, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
DO NOT DELETE: This page and the two related pages clarify and improve upon the article on Stalking in that they show that multiple stalkers do in fact stalk in teams or groups (an issue left unclarified on the main Stalking page subentry for stalking by groups). Furthermore, these three pages are official government, unimpeachable documents obtained from the Department of Justice through the Freedom of Information Act. PeaceFrog71 (talk) 13:56, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
- What holds you back from adding the content of these files to Wikisource? Lymantria (talk) 15:06, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
Please do not delete: There are ample precedents for the inclusion of these images. Refer to File:Majic6.jpg, File:Ann Agnes Bernatitus FOIA documents.djvu, File:CIA-Arbenz-overthrow-FOIA-documents-1of5.gif, to cite just a few. Elizabeth Blandra (talk) 16:39, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
Please do not delete: From COM:SCOPE#Excluded educational content: "However, Commons can be used to host such material if included in a shareable media file that is of use to one of the other WMF projects (so, scanned copies of existing texts that are useful to other WMF projects—e.g. to serve as the basis of a reliable, verifiable source—are in scope)." This file is to be referenced from Wikipedia, serving as "the basis of a reliable, verifiable source." Thank you. Elizabeth Blandra (talk) 16:52, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
- Delete per Lymantria - this is not used anywhere and is out of the scope of the project. Ruhrfisch (talk) 18:07, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
Please do not delete: This file is currently being accessed from the Harassment page on Wikipedia and will be added to other pages, as well. I will be using the thumbnail feature to display it, in some cases. (An example of a similar file is as follows: File:CIA-Arbenz-overthrow-FOIA-documents-2of5.gif. This “Arbenz” file has never been marked for deletion and has been available on Wikimedia Commons since September of 2010.) The information in all three files will be useful to academicians and researchers, among others. As such, they should be retained. Thank you.Elizabeth Blandra (talk) 00:34, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
- Note - PeaceFrog71 was a sockpuppet of Elizabeth Blandra and
both are[is] now blocked indefinitely. See Commons:Requests for checkuser/Case/Elizabeth Blandra Ruhrfisch (talk) 03:14, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
- Please note: My (Elizabeth Blandra's) account remains active -- it has not been blocked. Things aren't always what they appear to be. Such was the case here. Sincerely, Elizabeth Blandra (talk) 12:36, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
- My apologies - I assumed all the accounts had been blocked, instead of just the two sockpuppets. Ruhrfisch (talk) 04:20, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
- Please note: My (Elizabeth Blandra's) account remains active -- it has not been blocked. Things aren't always what they appear to be. Such was the case here. Sincerely, Elizabeth Blandra (talk) 12:36, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:48, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
Out of scope: text document Lymantria (talk) 05:36, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
DO NOT DELETE: There are countless official government documents obtained through the Freedom of Information Act on Wikipedia and WikimediaCommons.
Please do not delete: There are numerous text documents on Wiki Commons, and other F.O.I.A. documents, as well. Elizabeth Blandra (talk) Liz B. 15:28, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
DO NOT DELETE: There are countless official government documents obtained through the Freedom of Information Act on Wikipedia and WikimediaCommons. PeaceFrog71 (talk) 15:03, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
- Please note COM:SCOPE#Excluded educational content "Excluded educational content includes: (...) Files that contain nothing educational other than raw text." Lymantria (talk) 07:57, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
DO NOT DELETE: This page and the two related pages clarify and improve upon the article on Stalking in that they show that multiple stalkers do in fact stalk in teams or groups (an issue left unclarified on the main Stalking page subentry for stalking by groups). Furthermore, these three pages are official government, unimpeachable documents obtained from the Department of Justice through the Freedom of Information Act. PeaceFrog71 (talk) 13:56, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
- What holds you back from adding the content of these files to Wikisource? Lymantria (talk) 15:06, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
Please do not delete: There are ample precedents for the inclusion of these images. Refer to File:Majic6.jpg, File:Ann Agnes Bernatitus FOIA documents.djvu, File:CIA-Arbenz-overthrow-FOIA-documents-1of5.gif, to cite just a few. Elizabeth Blandra (talk) 16:40, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
Please do not delete: From COM:SCOPE#Excluded educational content: "However, Commons can be used to host such material if included in a shareable media file that is of use to one of the other WMF projects (so, scanned copies of existing texts that are useful to other WMF projects—e.g. to serve as the basis of a reliable, verifiable source—are in scope)." This file is to be referenced from Wikipedia, serving as "the basis of a reliable, verifiable source." Thank you. Elizabeth Blandra (talk) 16:53, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
- Delete per Lymantria - this is not used anywhere and is out of the scope of the project. Ruhrfisch (talk) 18:07, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
Please do not delete: This file is currently being accessed from the Harassment page on Wikipedia and will be added to other pages, as well. I will be using the thumbnail feature to display it. An example of similar files is as follows: File:CIA-Arbenz-overthrow-FOIA-documents-2of5.gif. This page has never been marked for deletion and has been available on Wikimedia Commons since September of 2010. The information/data in all three file is/are useful to academicians and researcher, among others. As such, they should be retained.Elizabeth Blandra (talk) 00:55, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
- Note - PeaceFrog71 was a sockpuppet of Elizabeth Blandra and
both are[is] now blocked indefinitely. See Commons:Requests for checkuser/Case/Elizabeth Blandra Ruhrfisch (talk) 03:15, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
- Please note: My (Elizabeth Blandra's) account remains active -- it has not been blocked. Things aren't always what they appear to be. Such was the case here. Sincerely, Elizabeth Blandra (talk) 12:37, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
- My apologies - I assumed all the accounts had been blocked, instead of just the two sockpuppets. Ruhrfisch (talk) 04:21, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
- Please note: My (Elizabeth Blandra's) account remains active -- it has not been blocked. Things aren't always what they appear to be. Such was the case here. Sincerely, Elizabeth Blandra (talk) 12:37, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:47, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
There does not seem to be FoP in Mozambique.[4] It may be PD, but I don't know when the building was made.[5] Rockfang (talk) 07:23, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
It's the Flickr text of the photoe taken on February 10, 2010, I can't say anything more. Your choice. --Молли (talk) 07:38, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
- Delete - No FOP as per nom and text.....Captain......Tälk tö me.. 08:57, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
- If there are some Mozambique's low reasons, you have to delete it, of course. --Молли (talk) 10:52, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:50, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
No FOP in France. Not free as the building is recent. - Zil (d) 09:26, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
- Delete : per COM:FOP#France de minimis does not apply --Grcampbell (talk) 05:59, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:51, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
Unused personal photo Good twins (talk) 12:04, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Comment: for sure this is an unused private image - unless it has some photographic value. So I hesitated to make a DR in this case when I saw it. Borderline case Cholo Aleman (talk) 08:55, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:52, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
Statue likely still copyrighted; name of sculptor not provided by uploader. As there is no FOP in France, the image violates the copyright of the sculptor. Túrelio (talk) 12:20, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
- Delete : per COM:FOP#France de minimis does not apply --Grcampbell (talk) 06:00, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:52, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
Statue likely still copyrighted, though name of sculptor and year of installation was not provided by uploader. As there is no FOP-exemption in France, image violates copyright of sculptor. Túrelio (talk) 12:24, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Similar problem with File:Monument besancon.jpg. --Túrelio (talk) 12:24, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
- Delete both per COM:FOP#France de minimis does not apply --Grcampbell (talk) 06:00, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:52, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
i see no indication that insplanet authorized this upload Niklas R (talk) 13:30, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
I'm a representative from insplanet and have rights to upload this file. --AlbionVenables (talk) 13:43, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Requires an OTRS e-mail from an officer of the company. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:53, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
promotional photo Slfi (talk) 15:07, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:53, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
promotional photo Slfi (talk) 15:07, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:54, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
out of scope Slfi (talk) 15:43, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
- Keep in use in en.wiki for a year or something. Trycatch (talk) 00:35, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
Kept, MacMed (talk) 19:55, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
do we really need an image for a table? Broc (talk) 17:48, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:54, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
I do not see how this pdf document fits within COM:SCOPE, and even if it does, it seems we would need OTRS permission for it anyway. Magog the Ogre (talk) 17:55, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:00, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
The photo is certainly from the 1950s, the date in the description is totally absurd, since in 1922 he was 10 years old. This signed photo was being sold in the internet, and suspect it was probably grabbed from there at that time. Darwin Ahoy! 18:04, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:01, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
Photo certainly from the 1950s or 1960s, this person was born in 1912. The "then younger" bit in the description is completely absurd, since this is obviously a mature man. I couldn't find the image in the stated source. This signed photo was being sold in the internet, and suspect it was probably grabbed from there at that time. Darwin Ahoy! 18:07, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:01, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
do we really need an image of a table? Broc (talk) 18:11, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:01, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
do we really need an image of a table? Broc (talk) 18:11, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:01, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
is this really useful? It's just a standard form... maybe also copyrighted Broc (talk) 18:12, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:02, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
Logo of a non-notable project, ru:FlowBook has been deleted. Out of project scope. Blacklake (talk) 19:02, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:02, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
out of scope, not notable person Slfi (talk) 20:00, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:03, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
probably non free images used for creation this... looks like official photos Slfi (talk) 20:28, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:04, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
Unused out of scope Good twins (talk) 22:25, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:05, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
Unused out of scope Good twins (talk) 22:28, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:05, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
Unused out of scope Good twins (talk) 22:34, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:05, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
Has not permitted for public use as for permisson. So what is commons then. Probably a copyvio due to lack of metadata. Unused as well Good twins (talk) 22:38, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:05, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
Can't see where it comes from. Copyvio I think due to website being copyrighted, from the source, but as I say can't tell what it is Good twins (talk) 22:42, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:05, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
Unused out of scope Good twins (talk) 22:45, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Also a thumbnail image and lacking proper permission - band promo material. Missvain (talk) 04:26, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:05, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
Photograph is from courtroom of the Casey Anthony trial; low quality image that was likely taken from a media photo or video. — Huntster (t @ c) 00:19, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Untill a better picture of Dr.Vass is available, this photo should remain in this project to have better completeness of record. This photo was captured from video which is public record and in the public domain...it is fully legal and should not be removed as such until a better photograph be provided. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Diaboliq380 (talk • contribs) 23:36, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
- No, it is not. You claimed ownership of this image, when you did not take it. What is your source? How do you know it is public domain? If it is a video made by a media outlet, then it is protected by copyright. Rarity never trumps the law. — Huntster (t @ c) 05:53, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Not uploader's own work to put under a free license. – Adrignola talk 21:27, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
2D work of art likely derived from a vanity photo. Possibly copyrighted. No reason given to suggest that uploader is copyright holder. Unlikely uploader is author. FASTILY (TALK) 00:23, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. – Adrignola talk 19:30, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
1. There is no indication that Arnold S. Dion is the copyright holder, 2. The permission was only "for your Wikipedia contribution", not under the GNU or CC-BY-SA license 84.81.114.142 17:48, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
- Keep must be PD-USGov. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:18, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Nine days after the accident, he was presumably in a hospital somewhere. This could be a photograph by hospital staff, a family member, or, albeit unlikely, a journalist. Government photo is certainly possible, but by no means certain. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:59, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Uncertain origin, at minimum lacking sufficient permission from stated copyright owner. – Adrignola talk 14:29, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
Original research, the crest resembles example [6] only in the text Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 19:03, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
- I have just revised version upload. Steifer (talk) 20:25, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
- It still looks quite different. Why is that? Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 21:07, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
- Keep: The image was incorrect, it should have been "On a chapeau Gules furred Ermine a hand holding up a skene in pale Argent, hilted and pommelled Or" per ref pp.98; thanks for pointing that out, however, it seems Steifer has corrected the matter. As to the image not resembling the picture, it seems to me that the picture is not that of the crest badge but rather the Earls personal crest displayed on his coronet. Scottish landed families often displayed personal achievements on their houses, this would included symbols of rank, mixed crests or other heraldic elements incorporated with marriage alliances, dates etc. These carvings should not be confused with crest badges that contain some elements of the chiefs personal coat of arms, but not all. It seems to me that the picture is not of the crest badge, but is a personal seal of the Earls on one of their homes.
is now only "Original research" in that the artist has drawn the image from a written description, in my view Wikipedia accepts this in matters of heraldry, however if you disagree you might want to raise the subject at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Heraldry and vexillology. Yours ever, Czar Brodie (talk) 12:57, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
- p.s. on a sub note, Erskine was later divided from when the carving was made, see Clan Mar. 13:25, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
- I found a recent discussion about images vs txt at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Heraldry and vexillology Royal Arms of the United Kingdom; see the comments by w:user:roux: "Anachronistic in terms of what was actually used at the time, perhaps, but by no stretch of the imagination is it incorrect. In heraldry, the drawn coat of arms is irrelevant; the definitive achievement is contained in the blazon...". Czar Brodie (talk) 14:04, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
- p.s. on a sub note, Erskine was later divided from when the carving was made, see Clan Mar. 13:25, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
- Keep: The image was incorrect, it should have been "On a chapeau Gules furred Ermine a hand holding up a skene in pale Argent, hilted and pommelled Or" per ref pp.98; thanks for pointing that out, however, it seems Steifer has corrected the matter. As to the image not resembling the picture, it seems to me that the picture is not that of the crest badge but rather the Earls personal crest displayed on his coronet. Scottish landed families often displayed personal achievements on their houses, this would included symbols of rank, mixed crests or other heraldic elements incorporated with marriage alliances, dates etc. These carvings should not be confused with crest badges that contain some elements of the chiefs personal coat of arms, but not all. It seems to me that the picture is not of the crest badge, but is a personal seal of the Earls on one of their homes.
- It still looks quite different. Why is that? Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 21:07, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
- I have just revised version upload. Steifer (talk) 20:25, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
Kept: In use. Commons does not editorialize on other projects. – Adrignola talk 17:59, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
django is BSD license, while the browser is not released under a free license. Look at the ribbon "New in 2.1", it looks like some sort of advertisement copied from a website, not a screenshot made by the author himself. Broc (talk) 19:10, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Kept: Removed non-free elements and changed license. – Adrignola talk 16:55, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
Corrupt file 182.71.254.46 06:17, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
- I uploaded this file. It is not a corrupt file. Granted it is of far from ideal quality, but this is a very rare image of one of just four individuals who were sent from the secretive Bagram prison to the much more notorious Guantanamo prison, was subsequently released, only to be re-apprehended, and sent again to Bagram, where he remains today. Human rights workers, and his lawyers, believe he is being held based on allegations he has already been cleared of. Geo Swan (talk) 06:25, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
- Delete - Nothing to see, only black patches...--...Captain......Tälk tö me.. 08:59, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
- Keep In use.--Prosfilaes (talk) 16:45, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Kept: Not corrupt, in use (albeit a user gallery which isn't saying much), with no proposed replacement. This closure doesn't preclude a future nomination if a superior version is acquired. – Adrignola talk 18:05, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
Likely to be historical photo. May be public domain, but relevant information needed. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:52, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Missing essential information. – Adrignola talk 21:25, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
out of scope Reinhardhauke (talk) 20:19, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
- What does it mean "out of scope"? It illustrates mobile phone, authorship is specified, what is problem? Dmitry G (talk) 20:25, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
- It means that it falls out side of what can be held on commons. I.e. commons can not have anything that is copyrighted, have the incorrect license or fails to have a purpuse on wikipedia or other wiki projects. Good twins (talk) 22:06, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
- Everything held on commons is presumed "copyrighted" unless it's firmly in public domain. It's why the {{Self}} licenses start with "I, the copyright holder...". The file needs some more explanation on this "mod" (what does it make? a melee weapon? earwax picker? alien transponder?), but seems otherwise well in scope. NVO (talk) 04:47, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
- How much "out of scope" images hold in commons with nudity, erotic, pornography, etc.? I'm saying nothing against them despite I can't find scientific missions on them. This image doesn't violate anything; time comes and someone will tuck it into article about mobile phones as scientific illustration. Dmitry G (talk) 21:44, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
- Everything held on commons is presumed "copyrighted" unless it's firmly in public domain. It's why the {{Self}} licenses start with "I, the copyright holder...". The file needs some more explanation on this "mod" (what does it make? a melee weapon? earwax picker? alien transponder?), but seems otherwise well in scope. NVO (talk) 04:47, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
- It means that it falls out side of what can be held on commons. I.e. commons can not have anything that is copyrighted, have the incorrect license or fails to have a purpuse on wikipedia or other wiki projects. Good twins (talk) 22:06, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyright violation. Taken from a forum with no evidence of permission for release under the stated license. – Adrignola talk 17:23, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
Out of Scope, Commons is not personal web host Photograph not released in PD, and its derivative from an existed photo where up loader is not the original photographer ...Captain......Tälk tö me.. 07:59, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
- Assuming good faith, I presume that the nominator inserted a completely wrong rationale by mistake. en:P. M. Taj is in scope. However, the flickr account (registered in April 2011) looks suspicious - all vintage movie posters and photos of movie people - looks like copyvio to me. Leaning to delete. NVO (talk) 08:18, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
- Changed my DR's rational, as (before)i didn't found any link to the picture...--...Captain......Tälk tö me.. 09:34, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
- Background: this photograph was contributed by user w:en:User:Vishaltajpm, the author of the article w:en:P.M. Taj. I helped the user contribute the photograph to Commons when he logged in to #wikipedia-en-help. At the time he represented himself as the son of the subject, that the photograph is a family photograph, and that as the heir he is the rights holder. I did not see any reason to disbelieve him: his username matches his story ("Vishtal Taj PM"), he has made almost no edits outside of this article, and the photograph is evidently not a professional job. I accepted his explanation on good faith and had Flickr upload bot upload the image from his Flickr stream. Tim Pierce (talk) 13:25, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Keep per Tim --182.71.254.46 04:53, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
- Its a clear derivative of an existing picture and which is still under copyright...--...Captain......Tälk tö me.. 07:33, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Derivative work. Photograph of a photograph with no permission provided by the photographer. – Adrignola talk 21:45, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
Since this building appears to be modern, the image is a derivative work of the architecture and it therefore infringes the architect's copyright. There is no FOP exception in Iran. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:11, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Question OK -- since the usual rule in Iran is 30 years p.m.a. and I doubt that the architect of a building built in 1979 has been dead for thirty years (he would have had to die within two years of designing the building), I must be missing something. Article 16 says the rule is 30 years from publication
- "in cases where the work belongs to a person of legal position" --WIPO translation
- "Whenever work is owned by the person or legal right to use the legal person" -- Google translation
- Something has been lost in both translations, I think. Can you explain, please. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:26, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
- Delete - Exact death date of the architect is not available and there is less possibility that he died after 2 years from the designing of the building..--...Captain......Tälk tö me.. 06:12, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
Comment The building was built in 1976 as a private library for Farah Pahlavi , not 1979 (which is the date of Iran's revolution). I couldn't find any information about the architect and we can't base this deletion on a guess if architect died 30 years ago or not, but after Iran's 1979 revolution, this and all other palaces in Iran belong to Cultural Heritage Organization of Iran, therefore, copyright is void 30 years after the ownership of a legal personality.- Part 2 of article 16 of Iran's copyright law (COM:L#Iran) says:
- هر گاه اثر متعلق به شخص حقوقی باشد و یا حق استفاده از آن به شخص حقوقی واگذار شده باشد
- Which means: Whenever the work belongs to legal person or the usage rights are transferred to a legal person
- For more information compare en:Legal personality and it's link to fa:شخص حقوقی. ■ MMXX talk 13:19, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
- OK, I understand the concept. But we have the same problem we often have -- just because the work is owned by X does not mean that the copyright is owned by X.
- I am going to guess that the intention of the law was that if the work was created by a Legal Person, then copyright expires in thirty years -- but it doesn't make sense to have the copyright term change depending on who owns the work. That would mean that if I sold a work to Josef, the copyright would last thirty years after my death, but if he sold it to Ajax Corporation, then it would change to thirty years after creation. If Ajax then sold it to Samuel, would it then go back to thirty years PMA?
- Therefore, in order to keep this, we have to show that the architect's copyright was transferred to the Cultural Heritage Organization of Iran when they became owners of the building. That would not be the case in most countries. Is Iran different in this respect? Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:15, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
- I believe it should be like this: architect's right transferred to Farah Pahlavi and then her rights transferred to Cultural Heritage Organization of Iran after the 1979 revolution.
- Financial rights of this work should have been transferred to Farah Pahlavi (employer), also, as this was a building inside a private palace, I don't think it was possible for the architect to claim any financial rights for his works, after the Iran's 1979 revolution, Farah Pahlavi no longer have any financial rights (properties) in Iran and her properties have been transferred to different governmental organizations, as for palaces they are mostly museum now and they belong to Cultural Heritage Organization of Iran.
- Also I find a biography of the architect Abdol Aziz Farmanfarmaian who is apparently still alive and some information about the building itself. ■ MMXX talk 16:02, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
- As you know, I know nothing of Iranian copyright law or practice except what I have read in the inadequate translation at WIPO. With that understood, what you describe would not be usual in copyright practice anywhere else -- the architect retains the copyright and the client gets only a license to build one building. Work for hire rules rarely apply (or are eliminated by contract) except in the cases where the architect is actually an employee of the builder.
- The reason for this is simple -- it is exactly the same case as buying a book -- owning the book does not give you the right to publish it. The architect's fee is usually 10% of the project cost. If the client owned the copyright, he could license copies of the building in other places -- obviously the architect would want that opportunity. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:34, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
- Me too, I don't know much about these laws except what I've read about them in different websites. the WIPO translation is almost correct and still in use. articles 13, 14 and 15 are only parts of this law which explains the relations of author and employer or transferees:
Article 13: The financial right of work produced by employees belongs to the employer for a period of thirty years from the date of production, unless a shorter period or more limited arrangements has been agreed upon.
Article 14: A person to whom the rights of the author have been transferred, is entitled to hold same for a period of 30 years, unless a shorter period is agreed upon.
Article 15: With respect to articles 13 and 14 of this law, on the expiry of the agreed period of time, ownership of rights will be restored to the author, or otherwise settled according to Article 12 above.
The architect may be able to claim financial rights on reproduction of design of the building according to the above articles, so as the author is possibly still alive and I'm not sure on terms of contract between architect and Farah Pahlavi (employer) and I never practiced these laws in real life, maybe the safe practice is to delete this image for now. ■ MMXX talk 18:47, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
- Me too, I don't know much about these laws except what I've read about them in different websites. the WIPO translation is almost correct and still in use. articles 13, 14 and 15 are only parts of this law which explains the relations of author and employer or transferees:
"Employer" can be a difficult word and would require very precise translation. USA law draws a sharp distinction between an "employee" -- one who is on the payroll of a company or individual and a "contractor", who is not an employee. Although architects are employees of architecture firms and sometimes of builders who build many houses or small commercial buildings, the architect for a one-off project such as this palace would be a contractor in the USA and in most countries with which I am familiar. So, I think you are right -- absent more knowledge, we should delete. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:12, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
- Actually more accurate translation of article 13 would be like this:
- ماده 13 - حقوق مادی اثرهایی که در نتیجه سفارش پدید میآید تا سی سال از تاریخ پدید آمدن اثر متعلق به سفارش دهنده است مگر آن که برایمدت کمتر یا ترتیب محدودتری توافق شده باشد.
Article 13 - The financial right of work produced based on an order belongs to person who ordered the work (orderer) for a period of thirty years from the date of production, unless a shorter period or more limited arrangements has been agreed upon. - In this case, the employer, Farah Pahlavi (or someone from the royal family), who perhaps ordered this work, was a royalty, and I can't imagine how was the terms of contract between them, one thing is for sure, architect could never sell the design of this work to someone else or make similar building for someone else! ■ MMXX talk 17:54, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: No FOP in Iran. – Adrignola talk 20:03, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
OUt of focus, several reflections -- not usable and therefore out-of-scope. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:12, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Kept: In use on another Wikimedia project. I quote: "Such a file is not liable to deletion simply because it may be of poor quality: if it is in use, that is enough." – Adrignola talk 20:06, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
DW of sculpture or chandelier in top of image. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:21, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted. – Adrignola talk 20:04, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
DW of sculpture Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:21, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted. – Adrignola talk 20:04, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
The uploader has not explained in enough depth how this is not a derivative work and how s/he could be the author of this logo. Magog the Ogre (talk) 00:11, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyrighted logo. ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 11:54, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
Highly technical radio map from 1933. Claim of "Own work" is not credible. We need legitimate evidence of the source and the real author of this image before its suitability for Commons could be established. GrapedApe (talk) 03:54, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Missing author and licensing information. ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 11:55, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
There is incomplete information on the source. Since the subject died in 1944, the photographer may not have been dead for 70 years. The uploader does not say if this was published in a certain paper. Leoboudv (talk) 09:37, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
- Keep with {{PD-India}}. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:12, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Missing publication date and author information. Not enough information available for PD-India. ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 11:57, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
Unused out of scope Good twins (talk) 22:58, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
- Comment The guy has an entry on english wikipedia, he is a local politician of California, city mayor of Santa Cruz: [10]. The entry is quite controversial anyway: [11]. Dunno.--Giorgiomonteforti (talk) 23:59, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Professional promo shot. Own work claim seems unlikely or should be backed by OTRS permission. ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 12:01, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
Sadly, I believe this is a textbook case of a derivative work Magog the Ogre (talk) 00:21, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Per Commons:Image_casebook#Product_packaging. – Adrignola talk 16:34, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
There is no metadata, and dimensions of an image is too little. I have doubts about authorship. Dmitry89 (talk) 04:23, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
- Weak Keep -- actually, the picture has camera metadata, and I tend to believe the user -- both deleted uploads had correct attribution. Trycatch (talk) 21:38, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
- About metadata - my fault, I've been looking at the same time both at this photo and File:Safronov-portret.jpg, where no metadata... Hm... Maybe you are right, and it would be right decision to keep it. Dmitry89 (talk) 22:00, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Kept. – Adrignola talk 16:41, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
'File:Renesas Electronics logo.svg' is the same logo but not a bitmap. Chjb (talk) 13:30, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Unused, identical to File:Renesas Electronics logo.svg. – Adrignola talk 16:27, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
I doubt own work. RE rillke questions? 17:24, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
I can confirm that this is my own work as I am the son of William Templeton and own all rights relating to my father's publicity material as he is deceased.Templeton contibs 17:23, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
@Chris templeton: And who is the author? Can you please login when posting messages? Thanks. -- RE rillke questions? 15:37, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: No OTRS permission from author or proof that all rights were transferred to William Templeton or even that User:Templeton is the son. – Adrignola talk 21:07, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
No evidence of a PD status, still the copyright may exist, Uploader need to give the exact link that shows the age of this image. ...Captain......Tälk tö me.. 05:00, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
- Appears to be painted by Dirgha Man Chitrakar, according to http://www.nepalhomepage.com/ganeshphoto/gallery.html (near bottom, painting of Bhimsen Thapa). No date of death is given at http://www.nepalhomepage.com/ganeshphoto/photographers.html. – Adrignola talk 19:43, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Info In that UNESCO document, it is said that Dirga Man Chitrakar died in 1951 (p. 17, first column, third pargraph). --Myrabella (talk) 14:45, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Has not been 70 years since the artist's death for the painting depicted to be public domain. – Adrignola talk 22:09, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
a better quality version exists at ToVictoryPoster.jpg. This image ia so blurry that it's unlikely to ever be used Labattblueboy (talk) 14:48, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Ben.MQ (talk) 09:19, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
MOS Carhifi images
[edit]
- File:Tda1541as1.jpg - not own work, taken from here, dated 2009
- File:Subd.jpg
- File:Resultx12001.jpg - not own work, taken from here, dated 2005
- File:Phoenixgoldxenonx12001.jpg
- File:NakamichiCD700MKII.jpg - not own work, taken from here, dated 2005 (click on thumbnail for full-size)
- File:Interiorcopper2.jpg
- File:Interiorcopper.jpg
- File:DAC101Side.jpg - not own work, taken from here (see others in set on the same surface for knowledge that this is the original source)
- File:DAC101.jpg
- File:12at7.jpg - not own work, taken from here; was 208x244, see full size at 450x529
- File:12ax7.jpg - not own work, taken from here, dated 2009 (also larger size)
- File:Bam235.jpg - not own work, taken from here, dated 2004
- File:Preampinterior.jpg
- File:Openport.jpg - taken from here, dated 2009 and I note that the uploader covered up the original watermark with a new one to obscure the original author
- File:Newpanelwood.jpg - taken from here, dated 2009 and I note that the uploader covered up the original watermark with a new one to obscure the original author
- File:Halfwaycompletion2.jpg - taken from here, dated 2009 and I note that the uploader covered up the original watermark with a new one to obscure the original author
- File:Halfwaycompletion.jpg - taken from here, dated 2009 and I note that the uploader covered up the original watermark with a new one to obscure the original author
- File:Finalbuttweeterusingthe.jpg - taken from here, dated 2009
- File:Doorpanelori.jpg - taken from here, dated 2009 and I note that the uploader covered up the original watermark with a new one to obscure the original author
- File:Beginthediy.jpg - taken from here, dated 2009 and I note that the uploader covered up the original watermark with a new one to obscure the original author
- File:MOSSunny6.jpg - taken from http://img521.imageshack.us/img521/356/15et7av2.jpg (full size)
- File:MOSSunny5.jpg - taken from http://img509.imageshack.us/img509/4715/14tl9yz9.jpg (full size)
- File:MOSSunny4.jpg - taken from http://img509.imageshack.us/img509/9250/13ms0oe7.jpg (full size)
- File:MOSSunny3.jpg - taken from http://img402.imageshack.us/img402/3976/10mw0.jpg (full size)
- File:MOSSunny2.jpg - taken from http://img402.imageshack.us/img402/3796/11861249hw4.jpg (full size)
- File:MOSSunny1.jpg - taken from http://img402.imageshack.us/img402/1047/61475227tt9.jpg (full size)
- File:Carhifi MOS.jpg
Wikipedia/Commons is not a hosting service. Only used in a deleted article, en:MOS Carhifi. Mike Rosoft (talk) 04:18, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
- It's a fairly diverse lot:
- no opinion on copyright/licensing status of File:Resultx12001.jpg - are PG logos "simple" or "not so simple" (I'd presume that the response plot itself is PD-ineligible).
- delete File:Subd.jpg, File:Phoenixgoldxenonx12001.jpg - look like manufacturers's own promo pictures. Duck test.
- delete File:Carhifi MOS.jpg - non-free logo of a non-notable business.
- delete File:Interiorcopper2.jpg, File:Interiorcopper.jpg - too small to be of any use (what does it show? I know, but others can only guess). keep File:Tda1541as1.jpg - a higher-res, readable pic of the same.
- keep most (with no prejudice against examining license/copyright status) but remove spammy watermarks. A photo of a tube is a photo of tube regardless of uploader's identity and their intentions. A photo of a car installers' work-in-progress is in scope and can illustrate an article about the trade (rather than a specific shop), or an aricle on woodworking in general, or about the materials used, or an article on acoustics. Car exteriors are dull, but they are just photographs of a car similar to many in Category:Nissan Sunny.
- File:Bam235.jpg and File:Preampinterior.jpg are perhaps the most valuable pieces in the kit - tube car amps are quite rare, I don't think commons had any before. keep. That said, I'd strongly warn against their approach to chassis construction and layout - 300 Volts deserve more respect.
- Disclaimer: In the past, I myself had certain connections with car audio trade (although not affiliated with any business and product shown here). NVO (talk) 06:00, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Deleted images as copyright violations, as I noted above in my previous edit. Deleted remaining two summarily because this uploader has uploaded 95% confirmed copyright violations. – Adrignola talk 19:55, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
Skyzdalimit1
[edit]- File:Prineandprinceslakescover.jpg
- File:Paplpage1.jpg
- File:Paplpage2.jpg
- File:Paplpage3.jpg
- File:Paplpage4.jpg
- File:Paplpage5.jpg
- File:Paplpage6.jpg
- File:Paplpage7.jpg
- File:Paplpage8.jpg
- File:Paplpage9.jpg
- File:Paplpage10.jpg
- File:Paplpage11.jpg
- File:Paplpage12.jpg
- File:Paplpage13.jpg
These are all the pages of a short booklet entitled The Prince and Prince's Lakes; as such, it is of double concern. The uploader claims all the images as own works, but no evidence is provided that the uploader is Joan Lattimore, whom the cover (see the first image in my list) attributes as the author. Moreover, actual books really aren't in our scope. Nyttend (talk) 05:07, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
- FYI, books are very well in scope. No idea about the copyright through. Yann (talk) 21:51, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:45, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
Files from User:Kolemjdoucí
[edit]- File:Archeologie Čelákovice-Záluží.jpg
- File:Archeologie Třebusice.jpg
- File:Archeologie Strachotin.jpg
- File:Archeologie Strachotín.jpg
User don't have permission (missing OTRS) (copyvio) --Slfi (talk) 07:12, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:50, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
No media-file; Out of scope Commons:Project scope Brimz (talk) 11:22, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
- Delete It is using to do crosswiki spam for a particular (not WMF), without respect the custumes or rules of each project or language:WP and without ask if is right or wrong, if can or not, etc. I said "speedy delete" but I don´t know the template. Cheers. --Andrea (talk) 12:22, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
- The promotion campaign and the need for voter participation has been encouraged at the highest levels. This template is undergoing widespread translation and will continue to do so. Don't delete it. If you object to the general idea of soliciting voter participation, discuss on election talk. If you object to the specific wording, discuss on template talk.
- We're not going through all this work-- CSS and autotranslate and soliticting translations-- just for the four days left of the 2011 election-- This won't be the last time the foundation and the movement need to participation and engagement the community. --PromoteElection2011 (talk) 20:02, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
- I won't discuss it in the election talk, I discuss here because this template is the problem and this is the place to discuss it. Please, note that sentence like: "Use this box: just add {{Promote Board elections 2011}} to any page" or the hole sections 3 and 4 are actually spam, and incite spamming others users. You created a single-purpose account to
sell your washmachinesorry, to promote the elections, and think you are allowed because it comes from the WMF and you are above all policies. You didn´t stop to think that maybe could not be nice to introduce yourself in any WP without any prior edition or knowledge about their own rulea (trust me, not only exist en:WP). As other user told you:
- I won't discuss it in the election talk, I discuss here because this template is the problem and this is the place to discuss it. Please, note that sentence like: "Use this box: just add {{Promote Board elections 2011}} to any page" or the hole sections 3 and 4 are actually spam, and incite spamming others users. You created a single-purpose account to
| “ | This kind of templates aren't wanted on nl-wiki. Just dumping some stuff from other wiki's isn't considered polite and nice, but considered awfull and irritating. It is also very annoying that users from other wiki's think they can just step into whatever project, and may ignore every custum the different projects have, and think they can mess whatever they want. That is not a nice attitude. I suggest you change your username to DiscourageElection2011, because that is more precize the result of this kind of actions. It is not respectfull, it does even show that the user in question doesn't understand how other languages look onto the English-attitude. Sorry if I am rude, but don't do this again please. | ” |
- I can´t do more than agree with him. As I told you before, in WM Spain and WM Argentina says you are not related to WM in any way. I understand WMF promote and incite to promote the election to the "highest level", but I doubt they´ve told to creat a single purpose account, brake rules and spamming all WP and think it´s Ok. Your sentence "This template is undergoing widespread translation and will continue to do so" show me you didn't understand or didn´t want to understand that what you´re doing is wrong. So I will tell you in a different way: Please, stop spamming Wikipedia. Thanks. --Andrea (talk) 22:30, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
- The election is nearly over, highest language open projects have already been offered the usage of the template via their village pumps, that's over. Some projects have felt it was helpful, clearly some people feel it was unhelpful.
- When I suggested a change of venue to the election talk page, it was not meant to stifle discussion, but only to point out that it _sounds_ like your concerns were less over the creation of the template here among the Commons community, and more about how it was initially shared with the various local projects?
- This is absolutely a community effort, one that has largely concluded, and one seeking to learn how to best accomplish this goals in the future.
- Translation is on-going for people who want to translate it for the Commons community-- that's just standard practice. Offering the template to the local project's village pump is the part that I'm hearing is complicated, right?
- I strongly dispute the claim that this template was 'spammed'-- consider the alternative of posting it only to the EnWP pump-- this might be giving EN.WP candidates a potential 'advantage'. In the interest of fairness, it seemed appropriate to offer the template to the major languages for their use. Village Pumps seemed like the best on-wiki place to offer the template, it obviously bothered some, and in the future that's something we need to learn from two years from now. (there's a LOT to be learned). But regardless of whether it was spam or not, the activity you objected to is very much over now, and absolutely no disrespect or annoyance was intended or expected. --PromoteElection2011 (talk) 00:07, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
- But is still spam, and the method is not right. Of course this template will be when election finish. The idea is to prevent this kind of unconsensuated attitude, spamming ones, continue in the future. If you want to promote the election, connect with the WM people in every community and ask them for guidelines, not creat a SPA to encourage everybody to spam every page with a giant, no sthetic and no-request template. Again, the attitud here is the problem. Because is a usual practice in en:WP doesn´t make it right to everybody. And no, the problem is not only how it was iniciated in the local WP. Again, you only see one part. I tell you clearly point 3, 4 and the last warning in the left corner of the template are actually spam. Who gaves or not advantage with this is not my concern. But the community all hasn't got why to receive massive publications of this add, "in central places" or "in every page you can", because that not advantage anyone. Both, text and attitud are spam. And is not a community effor, since WM Spain and WM Argentina has not recognize you as a part of WMF. This template is not under scope of Commons (not educational purpose here) and the text is clearly promotional. No reason to be in Commons --Andrea (talk) 00:44, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
- I'm sorry about the apparent cross cultural confusion. We had a direct need to post a sincere, relevant request for discussion to a village pump of the local projects-- indeed, to fully evaluate all candidates fairly, such global discussion was essential.
- The promotion text is certainly up for improvement-- it was hurriedly assembled when it was realized there was virtually zero inter-community dialogue on the candidates and voter engagement was a huge priority. Ideally, we could have incorporated this 'call to action' into initial election plan, only midway through did it become necessary.
- Additionally, there may be something lost in translation with regard to the chapters statements-- this part of voter engagement is a community effort not WMF. Once the template was made by and for english speakers, given that english speakers actively discuss on-wiki and on irc, it's only fair to offer other languages the same advice. Your feedback suggests this approach should be altered in the future to be more sensitive to the established traditions and leadership and I concur. If you're here in two years and want to do it, you can definitely help us learn from this year and brainstorm ways to get EVERYONE engaged but without causing annoyance either. --PromoteElection2011 (talk) 01:27, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
- I can´t do more than agree with him. As I told you before, in WM Spain and WM Argentina says you are not related to WM in any way. I understand WMF promote and incite to promote the election to the "highest level", but I doubt they´ve told to creat a single purpose account, brake rules and spamming all WP and think it´s Ok. Your sentence "This template is undergoing widespread translation and will continue to do so" show me you didn't understand or didn´t want to understand that what you´re doing is wrong. So I will tell you in a different way: Please, stop spamming Wikipedia. Thanks. --Andrea (talk) 22:30, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Cross-wiki spam, this bothers a lot and has no use, we already have the "Election of the board of trustees has begun, please, vote" Template in top of every page we go to have this. Really, annoying.--Jcaraballo (talk) 20:14, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
- Keep misuse is no reason to eliminate this template (btw: if you eliminate it at Commons it is still present at your local projects). It is the responsibility of the user who uses it. Instead of using this template he could also post such a write-up without this template. Don't destroy everything you do not like. It is also good to learn for other making new, other templates. Regarding the initial deletion request comment: yes, it is no media file. Our Main page isn't a media file, too. ;-) Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 02:00, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
- Comment Misuse? Exactly what is the educational or right use of this template? What use will receive once election is over? --Andrea (talk) 14:30, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
- By "misuse" I am referring to the usage of this template to use this template for actions which are - according to your words - not okay in your project. There is nothing educational on this image. It is a meta / project-related template. Commons does also host such templates: Category:User_templates. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 18:07, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
- I nominated the template, because commons is not the place to be the headquarters of a (spam)campaign initiated by Wikimedia. Wikimedia should be the place of that headquarters. This is a kind of abuse of the Commons servers and is therefore out of scope. Brimz (talk) 09:58, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
- Hi Brimz-- I'm really really sorry that you saw this as a spam campaign, that wasn't it's intention, I want you to know we hear you, the postings to the village pumps was, essentially, a one-time thing that's over.
- As to why we used Commons-- technically Meta might have been a better home, but in practice Commons has the most active 'massively-multilingual' community, and thus was a natural choice of venue.
- I want to reiterate what was said above and encourage you to have this deletion discussion on the local copy of the template, if you're not already. (Not that the discussion here is unwanted either). As discussed, those local copies of the template are what show up on a local project, and ideally there wouldn't be copies, just one that could be referenced globally.
- Local project consensus absolutely should determine what is 'allowed' on their project and the existence of the template here on commons should never automatically mean the projects feel any kind of 'obligation' to allow it just because so many other projects do.
- Keeping it here after the election will primarily serve the historical purpose-- learning from it, understanding what efforts were tried this year to engage the global community, what effects it had, what responses it got, etc. --PromoteElection2011 (talk) 17:30, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom Jcb (talk) 16:27, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
ljseoracle files
[edit]
No educational content at all. --Broc (talk) 18:57, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:02, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
Milan Christopher
[edit]- Image:Milanchristopher.jpg
- Image:Milanchristopher3.jpg
- Image:Milanchristopher5.jpg
- Image:Milanchristopher1.jpg
- Image:Milanchristopher4.jpg
- Image:Milanchristopher6.jpg
Not notable person, self-promotional photos --Slfi (talk) 19:44, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
There is no WP-Article about him, and this is clear self promotion - but he can be identified as an actor and model, see http://www.imdb.com/name/nm3069289/ - tendency to keep Cholo Aleman (talk) 04:23, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
comment: all images need an OTRS, because they are obviously not self made. Cholo Aleman (talk) 04:28, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:03, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
not notable person Slfi (talk) 20:30, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
- leaning to delete. Notability of an article in ru-wiki (ru:Сафарян,_Вилен_Габриелович) is now being contested, but to me it's just a matter of incomplete sourcing of his earlier works (as opposed to his controversial recent "discoveries") and should not be the rationale to delete. However, licensing status ("photo from personal archive", unknown author) is unacceptable for commons (I don't support this crusade against family albums but so far "consensus" is to delete them). NVO (talk) 04:38, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
- Keep Old photo of notable person and uploaded by this person (Сафарян). -- George Chernilevsky talk 22:16, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
Kept: article at RU.wiki still exists Jcb (talk) 16:29, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
Author is not specified, no permission from author. It does not seem that uploader has made any effort to find out author Schwäbin (talk) 22:15, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
- Delete - No source, No author..--...Captain......Tälk tö me.. 08:54, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
- Hi I uploaded the photo. The source is well given. "Zeitbilder" was the illustrated weekly paper of the paper "Pfaelzische Presse" in Kaiserslautern Palatinate, which I have bounded according the years in my collection. The paper "Pfaelzische Presse" was supressed 1933 and is not existing since than.--Joachim Specht (talk) 13:17, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
- Hallo Joachim, es wäre gut, wenn Du statt einem (für die meisten Menschen auf der Welt nicht deutbaren) Wort Zeitbilder zumindest noch etwas wie illustrierte Beilage der Pfälzischen Presse, Ausgabe xxx, Jahrgang xxxx schreiben würdest. In der Zeitschrift müsste angegeben sein, wer der Fotograf ist (der ist der Urheber, erst 70 Jahre nach dessen Tod ist das Foto gemeinfrei). Schaust Du bitte mal nach? --Schwäbin (talk) 21:02, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
- Hi I uploaded the photo. The source is well given. "Zeitbilder" was the illustrated weekly paper of the paper "Pfaelzische Presse" in Kaiserslautern Palatinate, which I have bounded according the years in my collection. The paper "Pfaelzische Presse" was supressed 1933 and is not existing since than.--Joachim Specht (talk) 13:17, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
Hallo, ja da muss ich Dir recht geben, ich hätte das ausführlicher schreiben sollen, dachte aber auch nicht, dass so ein altes Foto noch Probleme aufwirft. Bei dem Foto stand kein Fotograf. Es erschien aber auch nicht in der von Dir verlinkten "Pfälzischen Freien Presse", sondern die Zeitung hiess nur "Pfälzische Presse". Es war eine in Kaiserslautern aufgelegte Tageszeitung die der Prot. Landeskirche der Pfalz nahestand. Ihre wöchentliche illustrierte Beilage hieß "Zeitbilder". Sicher kann man die 1933 aufgelöste Zeitung als Urheber ansehen, denn selbst wenn das Bild ein "Zeitungsreporter" machte, so tat er es ja im Auftrag und in Bezahlung durch diese Zeitung, welche damit die Rechte an dem Bild hatte. Da der Rechteinhaber ab 1933 aufgelöst war, sollte es eigentlich keine Probleme geben; danach gab es dann in der Pfalz als Tageszeitung nur noch die NSZ-Rheinfront. Gruss --Joachim Specht (talk) 11:22, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
Kept: per Pieter Kuiper Jcb (talk) 16:31, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
This is an American incorrect pronunciation, not supported by any orthoepic authority. It has been removed from the "azure" page on Wiktionary Nohat (talk) 03:12, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
- By you, I presume? It sounds like how the word azure is pronounced to me. -Nard (Hablemonos)(Let's talk) 04:23, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
Kept. - yes, it 'has been removed' by nominator and has been restored by me - Jcb (talk) 17:07, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
This is not the "proper" pronunciation of azure in any dialect. Just as there's no [ˈɛpəˌtoʊm] file at the article for epitome, this should not be on Azure. 67.1.2.13 22:51, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
In use. Feel free to upload a new version that is correct. Otherwise this file is automatically in scope. – Adrignola talk 17:57, 24 July 2011 (UTC)