Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2011/06/28
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
|
|
No attribution, as required by its claimed licence. I seriously doubt it's a free image. Rodhullandemu (talk) 01:09, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
- Speedy delete - was previously uploaded from the same person with a different username. Copyvio via Flickrwashing. --Denniss (talk) 02:03, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Apparently from WireImage originally - see http://wireimage.com/SearchResults.aspx?sr=161&igi=284771&s=princess%20diana&sfld=C&vwmd=e Tabercil (talk) 02:05, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
PORQUE EL NOMBRE DE LA IMAGEN NO CONCUERDA CON EL CONTENIDO Eduardoalvarracin (talk) 03:49, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
- Eso no es una razón de la canceladura. Mire: Commons:Normas de borrado Commons:Renombrar un archivo. Infrogmation (talk) 05:33, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
Speedy kept. Thinking the title is not descriptive enough is not a reason for deletion; images can be renamed. Infrogmation (talk) 05:33, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
uploader dont know author's name doesn't mean it is free, and he can't licence it Free Art License ! Lilyu (talk) 05:36, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
Speedy deleted, clearly false license; no evidence of any free license at website the user yoinked it from. Infrogmation (talk) 05:47, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
uploader dont know author's name doesn't mean it is free, and he can't licence it Free Art License ! Lilyu (talk) 05:36, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
Speedy deleted, clearly false license; no evidence of any free license at website the user yoinked it from. Infrogmation (talk) 05:47, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
No image Vibhijain (talk) 06:57, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Speedy Herby talk thyme 07:19, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
Against the Notability Guildlines Vibhijain (talk) 06:58, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Speedy Herby talk thyme 07:20, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
Nonsense Vibhijain (talk) 06:58, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Speedy Herby talk thyme 07:20, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
uploader dont know author's name doesn't mean it is free, and he can't licence it Free Art License ! Lilyu (talk) 05:36, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
Speedy deleted, clearly false license; no evidence of any free license at website the user yoinked it from. Infrogmation (talk) 05:47, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
No image Vibhijain (talk) 06:57, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Speedy Herby talk thyme 07:19, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
Against the Notability Guildlines Vibhijain (talk) 06:58, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Speedy Herby talk thyme 07:20, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
Nonsense Vibhijain (talk) 06:58, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Speedy Herby talk thyme 07:20, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
album cover, obviously not in PD, wrong license mickit 12:09, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted, copyright violation, false license claim. Infrogmation (talk) 13:35, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
COM:FOP#United_States -- ~ Grcampbell (talk) 23:46, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
Nomination withdrawn, not in the US but Singapore. My bad. Not admin but per Non-admins may close a deletion request as keep if they have a good understanding of the process, and provided the closure is not controversial. closing nom. --Grcampbell (talk) 23:55, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
Potential flickr-washing. The image was first uploaded here with source from imageshack. Then uploaded to flickr 4 hours ago. Ben.MQ (talk) 06:58, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: brian_thn94 on Flickr is an flickr account created for the purpose of copyright infringement and license laundering Martin H. (talk) 13:14, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
out of COM:SCOPE; related to deleted article on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alex_Brown-Garcia_(ABG) Túrelio (talk) 13:49, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope Darwin Ahoy! 13:26, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
out of COM:SCOPE; related to deleted article on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alex_Brown-Garcia_(ABG) Túrelio (talk) 13:50, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope Darwin Ahoy! 13:24, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
This portrait can't be a selfportrait. Claim own work must be rejected. See also this interesting edit. Lymantria (talk) 11:11, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
- Well done Lymantria ! You can deleted it. I want to forget bad souvenir with the author of the picture...--Lionel Scheepmans (talk) 21:06, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: per speedy-req of uploader http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Lionel_Scheepmans.jpg&diff=56101003&oldid=56018176. Túrelio (talk) 06:19, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
Bizarre template, created under an inappropriate name that is problematically close to the well-known template at :en:WP Andy Dingley (talk) 16:00, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: yup, inappropriate name and content :bdk: 15:41, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
No evidence of what year photo is, could be recent photo, people still dress like that today, possible copyright violation, source just stated as old magazine Hold and wave (talk) 18:43, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
- This is not a recent photo, I personally scanned it from Iggeret Lagolah, a magazine published in May-June 1955. דוד 11:26, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
Kept, issue resolved with more specific info added. Infrogmation (talk) 22:59, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
Not uploaded by the author Gert-Peter Bruch: need authorisation via OTRS --MGuf (d) 09:23, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
Kept: Permission via OTRS Bapti ✉ 13:33, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
Bad quality picture: scan or resized copy. Not uploaded by the author, need OTRS authorisation. --MGuf (d) 09:27, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
Kept: Permission via OTRS Bapti ✉ 13:33, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
Scanned: not original picture, no uploaded by the author: need OTRS authorization. --MGuf (d) 09:29, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
Please provide the original picture with EXIF if you are really the photographer. ----MGuf (d) 11:38, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
Kept: Permission via OTRS Bapti ✉ 13:33, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
Is wrong Jeaustin Darche (talk) 03:09, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: by EugeneZelenko. Yann (talk) 19:31, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
permission not granted for Wiki Commons - please remove --EM311 (talk) 08:46, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: by Reinhard Kraasch. Yann (talk) 19:32, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
Not free art and copyvio from http://vi.be/bands/foto/foto.jsp?id=242715&album=21218 Brimz (talk) 09:04, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: by Túrelio. Yann (talk) 19:33, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
album cover, obviously not in PD, wrong license mickit 12:09, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
Delete, no reason suggested to explain why it should be PD; no statement of such status stated at website it was copied from. Infrogmation (talk) 13:36, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio. Yann (talk) 19:35, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
No image or content Vibhijain (talk) 17:10, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: by Jameslwoodward. Yann (talk) 19:36, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
Out of scope: private photo; unused since april 2010 Hystrix (talk) 17:48, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: No source, no permission. FB image. Yann (talk) 19:37, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
Out of scope: private photo; unused since april 2010 Hystrix (talk) 17:49, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: No source, no permission. FB image. Yann (talk) 19:37, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
Out of scope: unused private (party?) photo --~ Hystrix (talk) 18:12, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: No source, no permission. FB image. Yann (talk) 19:39, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
Out of scope: unused private photo --~ Hystrix (talk) 18:14, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: No source, no permission. FB image. Yann (talk) 19:39, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
Out of scope: unused private photo --~ Hystrix (talk) 18:15, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: No source, no permission. FB image. Yann (talk) 19:39, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
Maybe not free... Please write me an email--~ Michael Reschke (talk) 18:33, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: by Túrelio. Yann (talk) 19:39, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
PORQUE EL NOMBRE DE LA IMAGEN NO CONCUERDA CON EL CONTENIDO Eduardoalvarracin (talk) 03:48, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
- Do you mean rename? -- Asclepias (talk) 05:11, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
Keep No es una razón para borrarla. Mire: Commons:Normas de borrado Commons:Renombrar un archivo. Infrogmation (talk) 05:38, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
Kept: use {{Rename}} instead Jcb (talk) 10:23, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
PORQUE EL NOMBRE DE LA IMAGEN NO CONCUERDA CON EL CONTENIDO Eduardoalvarracin (talk) 03:49, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
- Keep No es una razón para borrarla. Mire: Commons:Normas de borrado Commons:Renombrar un archivo. Infrogmation (talk) 05:39, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
Kept: use {{Rename}} instead Jcb (talk) 10:24, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
PORQUE EL NOMBRE DE LA IMAGEN NO CONCUERDA CON EL CONTENIDO Eduardoalvarracin (talk) 03:50, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
Kept: use {{Rename}} instead Jcb (talk) 10:24, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
PORQUE EL NOMBRE DE LA IMAGEN NO CONCUERDA CON EL CONTENIDO Eduardoalvarracin (talk) 03:50, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
Kept: use {{Rename}} instead Jcb (talk) 10:24, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
PORQUE EL NOMBRE DE LA IMAGEN NO CONCUERDA CON EL CONTENIDO Eduardoalvarracin (talk) 03:50, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
Kept: use {{Rename}} instead Jcb (talk) 10:24, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
PORQUE EL NOMBRE DE LA IMAGEN NO CONCUERDA CON EL CONTENIDO Eduardoalvarracin (talk) 03:50, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
Kept: use {{Rename}} instead Jcb (talk) 10:24, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
PORQUE EL NOMBRE DE LA IMAGEN NO CONCUERDA CON EL CONTENIDO Eduardoalvarracin (talk) 03:50, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
Kept: use {{Rename}} instead Jcb (talk) 10:24, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
PORQUE EL NOMBRE DE LA IMAGEN NO CONCUERDA CON EL CONTENIDO Eduardoalvarracin (talk) 03:51, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
Kept: use {{Rename}} instead Jcb (talk) 10:24, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
PORQUE EL NOMBRE DE LA IMAGEN NO CONCUERDA CON EL CONTENIDO Eduardoalvarracin (talk) 03:51, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
Kept: use {{Rename}} instead Jcb (talk) 10:24, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
PORQUE EL NOMBRE DE LA IMAGEN NO CONCUERDA CON EL CONTENIDO Eduardoalvarracin (talk) 03:51, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
Kept: use {{Rename}} instead Jcb (talk) 10:25, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
PORQUE EL NOMBRE DE LA IMAGEN NO CONCUERDA CON EL CONTENIDO Eduardoalvarracin (talk) 03:51, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
Kept: use {{Rename}} instead Jcb (talk) 10:25, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
PORQUE EL NOMBRE DE LA IMAGEN NO CONCUERDA CON EL CONTENIDO Eduardoalvarracin (talk) 03:52, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
Kept: use {{Rename}} instead Jcb (talk) 10:25, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
PORQUE EL NOMBRE DE LA IMAGEN NO CONCUERDA CON EL CONTENIDO Eduardoalvarracin (talk) 03:52, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
Kept: use {{Rename}} instead Jcb (talk) 10:25, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
PORQUE EL NOMBRE DE LA IMAGEN NO CONCUERDA CON EL CONTENIDO Eduardoalvarracin (talk) 03:53, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
Kept: use {{Rename}} instead Jcb (talk) 10:25, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
PORQUE EL NOMBRE DE LA IMAGEN NO CONCUERDA CON EL CONTENIDO Eduardoalvarracin (talk) 03:54, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
- Keep No es una razón para borrarla. Mire: Commons:Normas de borrado Commons:Renombrar un archivo. Infrogmation (talk) 05:40, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
Kept: use {{Rename}} instead Jcb (talk) 10:25, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
Scan of a book cover. Uploader claim to be author, but he's not the copyright holder (probably the editor CORTEZ ). Also, image so small and of so low quality, that it's hardly usefull even if not copyrighted --Lilyu (talk) 04:54, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio. Yann (talk) 09:27, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
This file was never explicitly marked for who created it, nor what its license are. This is because it was uploaded on top of another image. I will paste the en.wp history in the below as an explanation.
Deletion log (del/undel) 10:42, 11 August 2011 Athaenara (talk | contribs | block) deleted "File:Atc.jpg" (F8: Media file available on Commons) (view/restore) (del/undel) 02:20, 5 June 2011 Zscout370 (talk | contribs | block) deleted "File:Atc.jpg" (Deleted old revision 20071218194715!Atc.jpg: F9: Unambiguous copyright violation) (view/restore) (del/undel) 02:14, 5 June 2011 Zscout370 (talk | contribs | block) deleted "File:Atc.jpg" (Deleted old revision 20080316211855!Atc.jpg: F5: Unused non-free media) (view/restore) Page history (del/undel) (diff) 06:17, 10 August 2011 . . Sreejithk2000 (talk | contribs | block) (294 bytes) (Now commons: new section) (del/undel) (diff) 21:27, 17 September 2010 . . Apollo1758 (talk | contribs | block) (222 bytes) (Summary) (del/undel) (diff) 04:01, 31 July 2008 . . Zappernapper (talk | contribs | block) (202 bytes) (adding defaultsort to images i've missed and adding to apprpriate subcats using AWB) (del/undel) (diff) 00:32, 24 July 2008 . . Zappernapper (talk | contribs | block) (171 bytes) (adding Category:Images of rodents using AWB) (del/undel) (diff) 21:00, 10 May 2008 . . JMyrleFuller (talk | contribs | block) (129 bytes) (Summary) (del/undel) (diff) 13:25, 24 March 2008 . . Jawathegreat (talk | contribs | block) (293 bytes) (Summary) (del/undel) (diff) 21:18, 16 March 2008 . . JMyrleFuller (talk | contribs | block) (163 bytes) (uploaded a new version of "Image:Atc.jpg": Reverted to version as of 19:47, 18 December 2007) (del/undel) (diff) 05:42, 1 March 2008 . . Jawathegreat (talk | contribs | block) (163 bytes) (uploaded a new version of "Image:Atc.jpg": I use media monkey and when I play the music it automatically downloads the image to my hdd,) (del/undel) (diff) 19:47, 18 December 2007 . . Jbowler93 (talk | contribs | block) (163 bytes) (uploaded a new version of "Image:Atc.jpg": Alvin The Chipmunk Balloon) (del/undel) (diff) 18:22, 9 November 2007 . . Salim beleko (talk | contribs | block) (163 bytes) (uploaded a new version of "Image:Atc.jpg": New colors of Air Tanzania) (del/undel) (diff) 23:59, 18 July 2006 . . Khatores (talk | contribs | block) (163 bytes) (I took this picture of the Advanced Technology Center at Florida Community College of Jacksonville in April of 2006.) File history (del/undel) 21:18, 16 March 2008 . . JMyrleFuller (talk | contribs | block) 275×298 (18,346 bytes) (Reverted to version as of 19:47, 18 December 2007) (del/undel) 05:42, 1 March 2008 . . Jawathegreat (talk | contribs | block) 130×130 (7,667 bytes) (I use media monkey and when I play the music it automatically downloads the image to my hdd, ) (del/undel) 19:47, 18 December 2007 . . Jbowler93 (talk | contribs | block) 275×298 (18,346 bytes) (Alvin The Chipmunk Balloon) (del/undel) 18:22, 9 November 2007 . . Salim beleko (talk | contribs | block) 763×375 (72,177 bytes) (New colors of Air Tanzania) (del/undel) 23:59, 18 July 2006 . . Khatores (talk | contribs | block) 592×366 (53,612 bytes) (I took this picture of the Advanced Technology Center at Florida Community College of Jacksonville in April of 2006.)As you can see, there is no change in the text between the file that was uploaded by Khatores, the the one uploaded by JBowler. The text, after it was uploaded by JBowler, read:
== Summary ==
I took this picture of the Advanced Technology Center at Florida Community College of Jacksonville in April of 2006.
== Licensing ==
{{cc-by-sa-2.5}}
I hope I'm not being too unclear here, but the gist is that the uploader never gave it a license nor a source. Magog the Ogre (talk) 05:04, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted 05:18, 13 August 2011 by Zscout370, closed by Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:57, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
copyrighted @ http://www.larioja.com/20081124/rioja-comarcas/importante-poder-demostrar-bien-20081124.html JeanBono (talk) 06:05, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: copyvio. Yann (talk) 09:29, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
Poor quality, unused, better alternatives in Category:Cyclooctasulfur. Leyo 07:21, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Per nom. --Yikrazuul (talk) 17:19, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. DMacks (talk) 17:48, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
- Delete I don't even remember why I uploaded this. Probably there wasn't a better version. Now there is. -SuperJew (talk) 08:27, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
- Delete File format, quality, uninformative view (top instead of side). Materialscientist (talk) 03:50, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 09:30, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
Poor quality, unused, better alternatives in Category:Cyclooctasulfur. Leyo 07:22, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Per nom. --Yikrazuul (talk) 17:19, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Pixelated. SVG also has better 3D perspective. DMacks (talk) 17:55, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Poor quality. File:Cyclooctasulfur structural formula 3D.svg is much better. Materialscientist (talk) 03:52, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 09:31, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
Out of SCOPE. Not in use. From user with 1 edit. Shakko (talk) 07:23, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. Yann (talk) 09:31, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
out of scope, unknown people JeanBono (talk) 08:36, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. Yann (talk) 09:32, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
It was a mistake Christertorstensson (talk) 08:40, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: User's request. Yann (talk) 09:33, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
out of scope, unused JeanBono (talk) 09:04, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. Yann (talk) 09:35, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
copyrighted @ http://www.kroschke.de/ JeanBono (talk) 09:06, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. Yann (talk) 09:35, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
Out of scope, and permission of Andrew Wong is missing. Yikrazuul (talk) 10:47, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: No permission. Out of scope. Yann (talk) 09:37, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
No description, no source, no scope. Yikrazuul (talk) 10:48, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Orphan undescribed photo of unidentified person in unidentified context; no in scope usefulness evident. Infrogmation (talk) 13:42, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. Yann (talk) 09:37, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
Out of scope, no source. Yikrazuul (talk) 10:49, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. Yann (talk) 09:38, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
unused & unknown people (more @ http://www.flickr.com/photos/meaganthomas/tags/witties/ ) JeanBono (talk) 11:07, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. Yann (talk) 09:39, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
unknown artist & advertisment for his album JeanBono (talk) 11:13, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. Yann (talk) 09:40, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
Logo for university cannot be licensed with a "self" license. Does not qualify for PD-Ineligible. -- Deadstar (msg) 11:28, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 10:27, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
Out of scope, was used for this deleted article on nl-wiki, all other images he uploaded are either already deleted or nominated for deletion (see here) Trijnstel (talk) 11:30, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. Yann (talk) 09:41, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
copyrighted from http://www.merchantcircle.com/business/Mount.Sinai.Heritage.Diner.631-642-3700/picture/view/1996490 JeanBono (talk) 11:41, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio. Yann (talk) 13:47, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
duplicate Kafuffle (talk) 11:56, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Duplicate. Yann (talk) 13:48, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
The quality and blurring of this make me think it's a screen-grab and therefore probably not uploader's own work. -mattbuck (Talk) 12:16, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: No source, no permission. Yann (talk) 09:43, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
Claimed to be own work... looks like orphaned non-free content too me GaneshBhakt (talk) 12:37, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
- Keep. This kind of object is not eligible for copyright. See Commons:Derivative works#Isn't every product copyrighted by someone? What about cars? Or kitchen chairs? My computer case? BrightRaven (talk) 14:20, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
Renamed and kept. Yann (talk) 10:03, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
Is this image useful? Double, maybe triple, exposure? Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:58, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
Yes it is useful, as it can be used e.g. in the Wikipedia project's SEAT Toledo page. It presents a rarely seen concept car named Toledo Prototipo being captured before a window glass (not an exposure issue) in Autostadt Germany, and it is the sole picture available for use in Commons where you can see the bicolor side of the concept car. The painted in two colours bodywork has been one of the strong points which distinguished this concept from the relevant production model. For more info http://www.worldcarfans.com/104052010605/seat-unveils-the-toledo-prototipo And please if it is possible, I unwittingly created the 'Category:SEAT Toledo Prototipo interior' while I only wanted it to be a subpage to the 'Category:SEAT Toledo Prototipo'. Could you help me what should I do? (LeonCR (talk) 13:19, 28 June 2011 (UTC))
- No, you created SEAT Toledo Prototipo interior, which was a Commons Gallery page -- you forgot to put "Category:" on the front. I deleted it when I ran across it doing New Page Patrol. To create a subcategory, just type the new category name (including "Category:") in the search box, click on "Create the page ...." and then add [[Category:Parent category]] to it. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:38, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. Yann (talk) 13:42, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
- Also: File:Awesome by antonio salazar aaaaaaaaaa.JPG
Both images are user-created "artworks" which are not in use. I think those are too "awesome" to be on Commons... ;-) Saibo (Δ) 14:45, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: as per Saibo. ;o) Yann (talk) 10:04, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
and other uploads by FreedomTechnologies (talk · contribs). Advetisement. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:06, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. Yann (talk) 10:06, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
Poor quality, better alternatives 1, 2 exist. Yikrazuul (talk) 15:21, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. DMacks (talk) 22:40, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Agree. Also these alternatives better show the ionic character. Materialscientist (talk) 03:53, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. Yann (talk) 10:07, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
Unlikely to by own work: small resolution, missing EXIF. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:34, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: No source, no permission. Yann (talk) 13:49, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
Promotional material of professional quality; sourced to a Flickr account that was created 2 days ago. Unlikely the true rights holder. Túrelio (talk) 15:58, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: No permission. Yann (talk) 13:57, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
unused private montage - out of scope ( I cannot identiy it) Cholo Aleman (talk) 16:01, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. Yann (talk) 10:08, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
unused logo of a small company (KG means "Kommanditgesellschaft") from Germany / Austria - not notable, out of scope Cholo Aleman (talk) 17:27, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. Yann (talk) 13:36, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
unused diagram of a company - not notable, out of scope (advertisement) Cholo Aleman (talk) 17:28, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. Yann (talk) 13:37, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
unused image / drawing of a colibri (should be) - I cannot see any value for the commons - private stuff with no educational value - this user did upload about ten similar images Cholo Aleman (talk) 17:35, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. Yann (talk) 13:36, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
unused strange logo - championship for nothing - a joke ((or dadaism ?)) - out of scope Cholo Aleman (talk) 17:40, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. Yann (talk) 13:31, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
No conceivable encyclopedic use ianusius ✆ Disk. 17:50, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. Yann (talk) 10:10, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
unused food packaging - derivative image - copy vio Cholo Aleman (talk) 17:57, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. Yann (talk) 13:30, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
unused self promotion, nearly a joke- out of scope Cholo Aleman (talk) 17:58, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. Yann (talk) 10:11, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
Unused experimental template created several years ago. (See Commons:Village_pump/Archive/2008/03#Billboard_for_.2F_Advertising_of_cats.3F.) Rd232 (talk) 18:01, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Unused. Yann (talk) 10:12, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
Unused template from 2007 "for some future scripts" (which appear not to have materialised) Rd232 (talk) 18:04, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Unused. Yann (talk) 10:11, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
Out of scope: unused private photo --~ Hystrix (talk) 18:54, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. Yann (talk) 10:12, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
Out of scope: unused private photo --~ Hystrix (talk) 18:55, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. Yann (talk) 10:12, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
Out of scope: unused private photo --~ Hystrix (talk) 18:57, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. Yann (talk) 10:12, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
Orphaned file, better quality svg version in usage Ronhjones (Talk) 19:11, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Per nom! --Yikrazuul (talk) 10:26, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
- Delete. Agree, File:Chlorphenamine.svg is better. Materialscientist (talk) 03:54, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 10:13, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
out of scope, simple map probably fictional place Honza chodec, earlier known as Slfi (talk) 19:21, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. Yann (talk) 10:14, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
out of scope - used only on "user page" which is promotional article about some company Honza chodec, earlier known as Slfi (talk) 19:23, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: No source, no permission. Out of scope. Yann (talk) 10:14, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
watermark Aristitleism (talk) 19:27, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: No source, no permission. Yann (talk) 10:14, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
The uploader uploded this file for the purpose of promoting himself in the Thai Wikipedia (see: http://th.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_Promise_%E0%B8%AA%E0%B8%B1%E0%B8%8D%E0%B8%8D%E0%B8%B2%E0%B8%AA%E0%B8%B9%E0%B9%89_%E0%B8%AA%E0%B8%B1%E0%B8%8D%E0%B8%8D%E0%B8%B2%E0%B8%9E%E0%B8%B4%E0%B8%86%E0%B8%B2%E0%B8%95%E0%B8%B8). The file lacks significance and is about to be unused (for the article concerned in the Thai Wikipedia is to be deleted soon due to vandalism). Aristitleism (talk) 19:29, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. Yann (talk) 10:15, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
The uploader uploded this file for the purpose of promoting himself in the Thai Wikipedia (see: http://th.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_Promise_%E0%B8%AA%E0%B8%B1%E0%B8%8D%E0%B8%8D%E0%B8%B2%E0%B8%AA%E0%B8%B9%E0%B9%89_%E0%B8%AA%E0%B8%B1%E0%B8%8D%E0%B8%8D%E0%B8%B2%E0%B8%9E%E0%B8%B4%E0%B8%86%E0%B8%B2%E0%B8%95%E0%B8%B8). The file lacks significance and is about to be unused (for the article concerned in the Thai Wikipedia is to be deleted soon due to vandalism). Aristitleism (talk) 19:29, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. Yann (talk) 10:15, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
personal artwork, not used, not usefull Honza chodec, earlier known as Slfi (talk) 19:44, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. Yann (talk) 10:15, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
not notable logo with promotional text in japanese Honza chodec, earlier known as Slfi (talk) 19:46, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. Yann (talk) 10:16, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
out of scope Honza chodec, earlier known as Slfi (talk) 20:03, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. Yann (talk) 10:17, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
some sort of promotional diagram (for a hospital) Honza chodec, earlier known as Slfi (talk) 20:03, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. Yann (talk) 13:28, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
screenshot of not notable web Honza chodec, earlier known as Slfi (talk) 20:04, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. Yann (talk) 10:17, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
"personal" photo Honza chodec, earlier known as Slfi (talk) 20:05, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. Yann (talk) 10:18, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
out of scope - personal artwork Honza chodec, earlier known as Slfi (talk) 20:08, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. Yann (talk) 10:18, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
out of scope - personal artwork Honza chodec, earlier known as Slfi (talk) 20:09, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. Yann (talk) 10:18, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
out of scope - personal artwork Honza chodec, earlier known as Slfi (talk) 20:10, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. Yann (talk) 10:19, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
personal photo Honza chodec, earlier known as Slfi (talk) 20:11, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. Yann (talk) 10:19, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
out of scope - article in jpeg Honza chodec, earlier known as Slfi (talk) 20:14, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. Yann (talk) 10:19, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
far out of scope Honza chodec, earlier known as Slfi (talk) 20:16, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. Yann (talk) 10:19, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
personal artwork Honza chodec, earlier known as Slfi (talk) 20:22, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. Yann (talk) 10:21, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
Is this in fact "art"? Is this useful in earnest? GeorgHH • talk 21:02, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. Yann (talk) 10:21, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
unused low res photo of unidentified person, only previous usage was on a hoax as discussed here fr:Discussion:Wayne Guy Dedieu/Suppression - no foreseeable use, out of scope Santosga (talk) 21:25, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. Yann (talk) 10:21, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
out of scope, used for promotion of Tricolo bc and "own work"? Trijnstel (talk) 22:35, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. Yann (talk) 10:22, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
Source = "my computer", author is not uploader, no evidence of permission Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 23:04, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: No source, no permission. Yann (talk) 13:27, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
Source = "my computer", author is not uploader, no evidence of permission Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 23:05, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: No source, no permission. Yann (talk) 13:27, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
Dana DeArmond at Kill Girl 3 party.jpg 94.236.131.201 09:12, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
- And why? --Túrelio (talk) 10:01, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
- I'll give the IP 24 hours to expand their rationale - if there's nothing more added, I'll close it as malformed... Tabercil (talk) 12:36, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
Kept: No valid deletion reason given High Contrast (talk) 21:15, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
Orphaned, out of scope. Yikrazuul (talk) 10:51, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. High Contrast (talk) 21:15, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
Blurry image of unknown educational purpose (out of scope). Yikrazuul (talk) 10:53, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. High Contrast (talk) 21:15, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
no Freedom of Panorama in Italy for modern works of art, which I believe this is. Ignazio Messina born 1903, died 1982 ([1]). Couldn't (quickly) find info on when this memorial was erected. -- Deadstar (msg) 11:12, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 21:42, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
and other uploads by Miraanpunjabi (talk · contribs). Unlikely to by own work: small/inconsistent resolutions, missing EXIF. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:50, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. High Contrast (talk) 21:16, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
and other uploads by Dusan777 (talk · contribs). Unlikely to by own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:53, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: No source, no permission. Yann (talk) 13:28, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
Own work, uploaded under wrong name Duplicate of File:Eller OM ADRAD snow.jpg Runningonbrains (talk) 04:01, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
Comment Files can fairly easily be renamed; deletion not needed. See Commons:File renaming. Infrogmation (talk) 05:42, 28 June 2011 (UTC)- Oh. Well. I didn't know that. So it is now a duplicate of File:Eller OM ADRAD snow.jpg. When did MediaWiki get the ability to move images? -Runningonbrains (talk) 07:59, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:40, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
picture taken from somewhere on the web (many of them can be seen on google image). uploader makes a false claim of copyright. Image is probably derivative work from an older paint. Example.Lilyu (talk) 05:00, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:40, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
This is not looks like a painting created by the uploader, Looks old but no evidence of PD so the own work claim is wrong, Moreover its a decent crop of a full sized picture..No sources are indicated ...Captain......Tälk tö me.. 06:58, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:40, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
False claim of own work with a PD-India tag, Provide the source of this picture (If its in PD) This painting have an existing copyright and that should be respected ...Captain......Tälk tö me.. 07:00, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:40, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
No Freedom of Panorama for art in Belgium -- Deadstar (msg) 10:40, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:45, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
Author=Jeroen Flamman, uploader is MartijnVisscher87. It does not look like they're the same person, so a PD-Self license is incorrect. -- Deadstar (msg) 11:31, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:45, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
COM:DW - photo of a sculpture in a museum. Is this model of a person so common and utilitarian that it is not copyrighted? I doubt it. Saibo (Δ) 11:48, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
- Keep I think it is. This kind of model is obviously not art. BrightRaven (talk) 14:23, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
- Keep The picture is not about the plastic man but the uniform and guns of WWI. All pictures have been taken in Mémorial de Verdun where pictures are allowed (I have asked), so I don't understand where's the problem... historicair (talk) 14:29, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
- It is not about the museum (if you are allowed to take photos or not is only your problem) - it is about the person/artist/author who made this model. If you can get his permission it would be fine. --Saibo (Δ) 02:12, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
- delete. There may be long debates on "art or not art", "model or sculpture", "useful object or not", but it's all irrelevant and useless. The only thing that matters is: whether this DR will be closed by a sysop who says "models must be deleted", or the one who says "not necessarily so". NVO (talk) 20:00, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:46, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
Jerzy Petersburski died in 1979, not in PD now rubin16 (talk) 15:01, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:46, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
The author is unknown and the image was taken in 1934, so I'm not sure that it is in the public domain. Same image can be found on sr.wiki. mickit 08:35, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
- Is very simple. We will use the template {{Anonymous-EU}} or?--R ašo
16:13, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
- That license would be better, IMO. I suppose that the image was published the same year when it was taken, because copyright expires 70 years after the image was made available to the public? mickit 17:58, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
- Slažem se (I agree). Change the licence, and put it in the serbian wiki. ;) --R ašo 18:24, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
Delete Unknown does not equal Anonymous. I suggest you copy it as required, because it should be deleted here. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:42, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted as we have no proof that {{PD-Old}} applies, i.e. we do not know anything about the original publication (source is missing) and the author remains unknown. --AFBorchert (talk) 13:08, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
Offensive and Unused Picture Vibhijain (talk) 11:44, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
- Delete - The file does not appear to be realistically useful for an educational purpose.--Rockfang (talk) 14:05, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
- Comment - It could be used in an article describing anti-Bush sentiments? --Grcampbell (talk) 00:03, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
- We should try to use images with no such word, specially when it is about such a important person. Vibhijain (talk) 09:12, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope Ben.MQ (talk) 08:56, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
Redundant file: this copy of File:Globe Southwark street plan.svg was made because of font rendering issues in the original. These have now been fixed (by making the letter shapes into clipping paths). Old Moonraker (talk) 17:23, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Ben.MQ (talk) 09:14, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
unused "Haiku" - should be - more or less: private art - the commons are not a playground for this kind (consens??) Cholo Aleman (talk) 17:36, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Ben.MQ (talk) 09:14, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
out of scope - map about some reconstruction of schools (according to Google Translate) Honza chodec, earlier known as Slfi (talk) 19:57, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
- Delete It's also pain to look at. Missvain (talk) 03:30, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Ben.MQ (talk) 09:14, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
Unused picture
replaced by image:Scala Z RK.svg and image:Scala ZM K.svg
These file is not used in any project (except in the user talk page to remark that these file has to be deleted.) This useless file can be immediately deleted without long deletion debate.
These file was uploaded by Red Rooster, but take into consideration that he called me specifically as the author of the file.
--Mjchael (Diskussion) 11:00, 28 June 2011 (UTC) (author)
Deleted: Uploader requests deletion of unused image. – Adrignola talk 19:37, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Unused picture
These file is not used in any project (except in the user talk page to remark that these file has to be deleted.) This useless file can be immediately deleted without long deletion debate.
If this picture should be needed someday, I will once more draw it, but as SVG (if it's not already be done).
These file was uploaded by Red Rooster, but take into consideration that he called me specifically as the author of the file.
--Mjchael (talk) 13:15, 28 June 2011 (UTC) (author)
Deleted: Uploader requests deletion of unused file. – Adrignola talk 21:10, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
and other uploads by James considine20 (talk · contribs). Unlikely to by own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:37, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
- Comment I don't think it is outing an editor to point out that No 20. in the en:Fitzroy Doncaster Cricket Club#Squad is apparently James Considine. I don't think this is as straight forward as ripping off a website as it appears James is closely tied to the club and may have some legitimate right to the image. Hopefully James will be able to clear this up. -- Mattinbgn/talk 21:00, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Nothing provided by uploader/James Considine to verify copyright ownership of files uploaded. – Adrignola talk 20:05, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
and other uploads by RUGGERISERGIO (talk · contribs). Unlikely to by own work: inconsistent resolutions, missing EXIF/different cameras. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:48, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. – Adrignola talk 20:59, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
This is kind of a complex case, so I want to bring this to DR instead of just marking it {{subst:npd}} or something.
- First off, I can't find where it says anything on the Raytheon website about how the photographs may be reproduced, but I admit maybe I'm not looking hard enough. But I do see where it says all rights reserved.
- Second off, there is a question of whether that attribution statement is good enough. It may or may not be, but we probably should judge it once it's found, if it can be found.
- Third off, the image may in fact have been created by the Navy: see en:File:APG-73.jpg. But that file is also poorly sourced, so we can't verify it was found on that site, or even if it was, whether it was created by the Navy or if it was third-party material.
Magog the Ogre (talk) 23:51, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: No evidence of permission. – Adrignola talk 21:12, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
unused private image ((?? !!)) - no exif - looks like taken from somewhere - copy violaton Cholo Aleman (talk) 15:42, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Wknight94 talk 12:39, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
Commons:When to use the PD-signature tag#UK starts with "UK Not OK for a typical signature." and ends with "Unless further legal commentary or caselaw to the contrary becomes available, the UK position is that typical personal signatures are arguably entitled to protection under local law, and generally UK signatures should be deleted under the precautionary principle. However, if the signature is extremely simple (eg a scribbled line or two), it will not be copyright even in the UK." 84user (talk) 16:07, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Per Commons:When to use the PD-signature tag as above – Adrignola talk 17:21, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
- Restored per UDR - file has entered the Public Domain in the meantime - Jcb (talk) 14:43, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
Derivative of a presumably non-free sculpture in a location with no freedom of panorama, meaning the Flickr user cannot issue a valid license without the consent of the sculptor. —LX (talk, contribs) 20:20, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
- Comment. Since Flickr is outside the management of Wikicommons, isn't it beyond our mandate to rule on how other people license an image? For example, although unlikely, it's possible the Flickr user did get consent from from the sculptor. We would assume good faith that it's a valid license. Green Cardamom (talk) 00:02, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
- Licensing statements on Flickr are critically evaluated just like any other licensing statements. Since the sculptor isn't attributed, it's pretty clear that the sculpture is not being reproduced under a Creative Commons Attribution license. We cannot just assume that every Flickr user has thought of every copyright aspect of their uploads. Assuming good faith is not the same as assuming diligence and good awareness. —LX (talk, contribs) 05:52, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
- Alright well I don't see any way to argue this as it seems clear cut according to the above written guidelines, you may want to look at the rest of the images in Category:Butter sculptures. The only thing is, why are these "guidelines" and not policy, and why are we doing a Deletion vote and not speedy? Is there some controversy or subtle points about pictures of sculptures that require hashing it out each time? Green Cardamom (talk) 17:03, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
- Licensing statements on Flickr are critically evaluated just like any other licensing statements. Since the sculptor isn't attributed, it's pretty clear that the sculpture is not being reproduced under a Creative Commons Attribution license. We cannot just assume that every Flickr user has thought of every copyright aspect of their uploads. Assuming good faith is not the same as assuming diligence and good awareness. —LX (talk, contribs) 05:52, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Assuming that all Flickr users got consent for their images would be condoning Flickrwashing.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:24, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Derivative work. – Adrignola talk 18:40, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
Unused picture
These file is not used in any project (except in the user talk page to remark that these file has to be deleted.) This useless file can be immediately deleted without long deletion debate.
If this picture should be needed someday, I will once more draw it, but as SVG (if it's not already be done).
These file was uploaded by Red Rooster, but take into consideration that he called me specifically as the author of the file.
--Mjchael (talk) 13:21, 28 June 2011 (UTC) (author)
Deleted: Author requests deletion of unused file. – Adrignola talk 14:20, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
Unused picture
These file is not used in any project (except in the user talk page to remark that these file has to be deleted.) This useless file can be immediately deleted without long deletion debate.
If this picture should be needed someday, I will once more draw it, but as SVG (if it's not already be done).
These file was uploaded by Red Rooster, but take into consideration that he called me specifically as the author of the file.
--Mjchael (talk) 13:29, 28 June 2011 (UTC)(author)
Deleted: Author request deletion of unused file. – Adrignola talk 17:06, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
Unused picture
These file is not used in any project (except in the user talk page to remark that these file has to be deleted.) This useless file can be immediately deleted without long deletion debate.
If this picture should be needed someday, I will once more draw it, but as SVG (if it's not already be done).
These file was uploaded by Red Rooster, but take into consideration that he called me specifically as the author of the file.
--Mjchael (talk) 13:29, 28 June 2011 (UTC)(author)
Deleted: Uploader requests deletion of unused file. – Adrignola talk 18:08, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
unused image of an unknown band Cholo Aleman (talk) 16:03, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope. – Adrignola talk 16:42, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
This image infringes on the architect's copyright. There is no FOP exception in France. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:20, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: No FOP in France. – Adrignola talk 16:58, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
Ukraine has no freedom of panorama DS (talk) 23:56, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: No FOP in the Ukraine. A loss of an image used in many articles. – Adrignola talk 16:01, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
Ukraine has no freedom of panorama DS (talk) 23:57, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
- I guess you have never been to Ukraine. This is surely taking it to the extreme. Are you going to delete all pictures taken in Ukraine now? What's next? Pictures of every building? Narking (talk) 06:20, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
- I have never been to Ukraine, correct. But Ukrainian law says that photos of sculptures or artwork in public places are under copyright until 70 years after the sculptor-or-artist is dead. Buildings are not artwork, people are not artwork, nature is not artwork, vehicles are not artwork, and very old artwork is free. But if the artist is still alive, or died less than 70 years ago, we cannot have it on Commons. The photos can be transferred to uk.wikipedia and ru.wikipedia and en.wikipedia and every other wiki that wants to use them in articles, and categorized as "fair use". But they cannot be kept on Commons, unless Ukraine changes its law. I admit that this is a pain in the ass, and I apologize, but it's the law. DS (talk) 16:09, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
- Then you certainly will have to delete many more pictures taken in Ukraine that's here at Commons. And I'm sure architects can claim their buildings to be artwork.
- And what makes this picture different from this one that's been kept? [2] Narking (talk) 17:28, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
- I have never been to Ukraine, correct. But Ukrainian law says that photos of sculptures or artwork in public places are under copyright until 70 years after the sculptor-or-artist is dead. Buildings are not artwork, people are not artwork, nature is not artwork, vehicles are not artwork, and very old artwork is free. But if the artist is still alive, or died less than 70 years ago, we cannot have it on Commons. The photos can be transferred to uk.wikipedia and ru.wikipedia and en.wikipedia and every other wiki that wants to use them in articles, and categorized as "fair use". But they cannot be kept on Commons, unless Ukraine changes its law. I admit that this is a pain in the ass, and I apologize, but it's the law. DS (talk) 16:09, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
- You're right, we should delete many more of these pictures from Commons. I can't handle them all myself, but I can start. And as for what's permitted and what's not: this should give an explanation? DS (talk) 18:36, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
- ^^This is why commons is a failed project, I never upload to commons if I can avoid it. Narking's right, you're taking this out of proportion. So basically you are saying that there can be no photos of any "artwork" (sculptures, etc.) correct? If I took a photo of a public place and there happened to be a sculpture in the middle, that would not be acceptable?? —dima/s-ko/ 21:14, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
- You're right, we should delete many more of these pictures from Commons. I can't handle them all myself, but I can start. And as for what's permitted and what's not: this should give an explanation? DS (talk) 18:36, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
That's called "de minimis", and it's acceptable: as long as they're part of a larger image, instead of it being a photo specifically of the sculpture. I would much rather this not be necessary; perhaps if this becomes embarrassing enough, Ukraine will change its law. But we have to assume that they will not, and that the images of art in Ukraine are still copyrighted in Ukraine until 70 years after the death of the artist. DS (talk) 22:45, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
- So assuming this law you speak of exists... can you show me the legal definition of artwork in Ukraine? I understand that maybe in the United States or Britain a building may be considered artwork, but does this also apply in Ukraine?
Another thing. I understand the possibility how taking a picture of a building can be essentially taking a picture of an artwork. But a panorama is the picture of an entire city. So according to our own "de minimis", since taking a picture of a panorama is taking a picture of the city, and some artworks just happen to be there so there is no problem because if when you take a picture of a panorama those artworks are part a larger image - the city.--Boguslav (talk) 03:42, 6 July 2011 (UTC)- Here, citing the various provisions of the law in question, and with links to gov.ua. I find it most regrettable, but it's the law. I'm not an expert on this, but panoramas of entire cities are okay (I think), whereas closeup photos of individual sculptures or monuments are not. DS (talk) 04:18, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: No freedom of panorama in the Ukraine. Artist that created the sculpture must be dead for 70 years before artwork can be hosted at Commons. – Adrignola talk 15:59, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
COM:FOP#United_States. The Big Boy character was introduced in 1946. --~ Grcampbell (talk) 23:57, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
- I just moved this file from enwiki to Commons as part of a "lets move all flickr files to Commons". Sadly I did not think of possible FOP-problems. Does anyone know when this "statue" was made? And if there is a copyright notice? --MGA73 (talk) 19:28, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Not reasonable to expect a copyright notice to be placed on a statue. Per Commons:Project scope/Precautionary principle, unlikely that author is dead 70+ years. – Adrignola talk 18:46, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
unused, a better version exists: File:M56 locator.svg 188.123.231.4 20:01, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
- Drawing is same, but markings are different, This one have more text values...--...Captain......Tälk tö me.. 08:48, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
Kept: Not clear that the proposed replacement is better. – Adrignola talk 21:29, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
US-NTSB-Seal.svg is existing SVG. No use. Fry1989 (talk) 22:43, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
- Keep - Actually this is here to use to replicate US government webpages on Wikisource. Normally a low quality version would be deleted, but this is expressly for duplicating content from US PD government webpages onto Wikisource. See Wikisource:en:Portal:Korean Air Flight 801 investigation and Wikisource:ko:KAL801기 사고 청문회
- Also I understand you were trying to improve the page, but Wikisource I think is about presenting source material as it was. Those US government webpages did not use more detailed US seals images. They used the lower quality one, so I believed that we should use the lower quality image on those Wikisource documents.
- WhisperToMe (talk) 02:35, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
- The SVG is scalable, and can be made to fit any size needed. Therefore we don't need the GIF version of the seal. It's the same Seal, even if the formats are different. Fry1989 (talk) 02:42, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
- I understand that the SVG version can be scaled to fit any size. I also understand that it's the same seal. But what I am trying to do is actually recreate the webpage using the same images and files, but using MediaWiki instead of HTML. That means that if the webpage has a low quality GIF, then it uses the low quality GIF even though we can scale an SVG version down to make it look similar. WhisperToMe (talk) 02:45, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
- But that creates a problem. When somebody wants to look at the seal, they won't make out what it is. This file is not very good. Surely you can understand that. Also, re-creating a website can get into all sorts of copyright problems, so I would be concerned about that. Fry1989 (talk) 03:04, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
- I do understand the file is not very good, so I would say "that's what the website had, considering it was made in the late 1990s"
- The question is, on Wikisource, should webpages strictly adhere to the images that they came with, or should they be "improved" upon?
- WhisperToMe (talk) 03:27, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
- But that creates a problem. When somebody wants to look at the seal, they won't make out what it is. This file is not very good. Surely you can understand that. Also, re-creating a website can get into all sorts of copyright problems, so I would be concerned about that. Fry1989 (talk) 03:04, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
- I understand that the SVG version can be scaled to fit any size. I also understand that it's the same seal. But what I am trying to do is actually recreate the webpage using the same images and files, but using MediaWiki instead of HTML. That means that if the webpage has a low quality GIF, then it uses the low quality GIF even though we can scale an SVG version down to make it look similar. WhisperToMe (talk) 02:45, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
- The SVG is scalable, and can be made to fit any size needed. Therefore we don't need the GIF version of the seal. It's the same Seal, even if the formats are different. Fry1989 (talk) 02:42, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
Kept: Commons doesn't editorialize on the other projects. The removal of this image when it was in use and contrary to the Wikisource philosophy was not appropriate. Wikisource doesn't even fix typos because the idea is to replicate the original as accurately as possible. Please do not remove the uses of this again. – Adrignola talk 20:31, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
COM:FOP#France --~ Grcampbell (talk) 23:14, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. – Adrignola talk 21:47, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
Ukraine has no freedom of panorama DS (talk) 00:00, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, you’re right, but it’s so funny to nominate one photo, when there are thousands of photos from Ukraine on Commons. ~ Aleksandrit (talk) 00:08, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
- Feel free to help me nominate them; I can't do them all myself. DS (talk) 16:01, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
- Sorry, I don’t see any sense in this. In practice, no one pays attention to the existence of freedom of panorama, but these photos help to illustrate some Wikipedia articles. I understand that it’s theoretically wrong and conflicts with some lofty principles, but in fact it’s needless self-censorship. ~ Aleksandrit (talk) 16:51, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, but we do not break the law just because we think we can get away with it. See COM:PRP. -mattbuck (Talk) 20:28, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
- Sorry, I don’t see any sense in this. In practice, no one pays attention to the existence of freedom of panorama, but these photos help to illustrate some Wikipedia articles. I understand that it’s theoretically wrong and conflicts with some lofty principles, but in fact it’s needless self-censorship. ~ Aleksandrit (talk) 16:51, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
- Delete - clear-cut case, the monument is at most 12 years old, so is not PD yet. -mattbuck (Talk) 20:28, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: No FOP in the Ukraine. This is a collection of freely licensed media, not just a collection of media. If needed this can be used under fair use terms in projects that allow it. – Adrignola talk 19:12, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
Ukraine has no freedom of panorama DS (talk) 00:00, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
- Redraw it by hand, is that such a problem? At least it's more productive activity to take pride in than this commonplace tagging. Move on, we need you! ;) 91.145.205.62 22:06, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: No FOP in the Ukraine. Redrawing by hand would simply be a derivative work and not allowed either. – Adrignola talk 22:03, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
http://www.rrpartners.com JeanBono (talk) 08:47, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio. – Adrignola talk 16:37, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
Per COM:FOP#France and COM:DW --~ Grcampbell (talk) 23:02, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. – Adrignola talk 17:26, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
Per COM:FOP#France --~ Grcampbell (talk) 23:06, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
Oppose what is the reason of a deletion ? This people died in 1915 (more than 70 years), the author is unknown. so, where is no reason for this request ! Véronique PAGNIER (talk) 03:59, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
- There are two artists involved with this work which was forged in 1923. The first is Eugène Rudier (1875-1952) who did the bronzework and the second is Auguste Maillard (1864-1944) who did the basework. As the copyright expires from death of artist + 70 years, it will expire next year (1952+70=
20122022). --Grcampbell (talk) 05:00, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
On hold just wait until 2012 then 
. I don't think we need to delete it for 6 months and the undelete it. But if the admin closure decides a deletion, PLEASE don't forget to add the category "undelete in 2012" in order not to lose this great picture. Jeriby (talk) 16:38, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
- 1952+70=2022 not 2012. Yann (talk) 19:43, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
_The_Dock_of_the_Bay_Single.jpg){kind=link}
_Single.jpg){kind=link}
![82 File:"I_remember_the_days_when_King_Vitaman_was_in_the_supermarket..._"_(70231526).jpg](#File:"I_remember_the_days_when_King_Vitaman_was_in_the_supermarket..._"_(70231526).jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_The_Dock_of_the_Bay_Single.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_The_Dock_of_the_Bay_Single.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_The_Dock_of_the_Bay_Single.jpg){kind=link}
_The_Dock_of_the_Bay_Single.jpg){kind=link}
_Single.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_Single.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_Single.jpg){kind=link}
_Single.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
![[2]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Khodemchuk_memorial.jpg){kind=link}
- Oh indeed, I just read the result year^^ sorry. Jeriby (talk) 21:13, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. – Adrignola talk 19:00, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
- Undeleted, Véronique PAGNIER, Grcampbell and Jeriby. Sorry that it had to be a longer wait than initially expected :-) - Platonides (talk) 23:53, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
COM:FOP#France --~ Grcampbell (talk) 23:16, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. – Adrignola talk 21:08, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
Ukraine has no freedom of panorama (unless User:UAWeBeR is the sculptor, which I doubt) DS (talk) 23:54, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
- I don't understand, why do you open a lot of DR with similar reasons? So, why do you open DR for No FOP images? What arguments against deletion do you wait to hear?--Anatoliy (talk) 00:22, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
- I'm doing this because it's necessary to do it. I found out that there was no FoP in Ukraine, and I found a big category full of images that were therefore not free. So I went through it and I tagged-for-deletion the ones that needed to be tagged-for-deletion. Should I have tagged them for speedy deletion instead? DS (talk) 23:10, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: No FOP in the Ukraine. – Adrignola talk 19:25, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
PORQUE EL NOMBRE DE LA IMAGEN NO CONCUERDA CON EL CONTENIDO Eduardoalvarracin (talk) 03:52, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
PORQUE EL NOMBRE DE LA IMAGEN NO CONCUERDA CON EL CONTENIDO Eduardoalvarracin (talk) 03:52, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
Kept: use {{Rename}} instead Jcb (talk) 10:25, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
Jose_Alfredo_Sanchez_13.jpg Eduardoalvarracin (talk) 02:06, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Uploader request, no reason given. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 15:52, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
- Por que? Ud es autor del foto? In use. Infrogmation (talk) 00:43, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
PORQUE EL NOMBRE DE LA IMAGEN NO CONCUERDA CON EL CONTENIDO Eduardoalvarracin (talk) 03:53, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
- Eso no es una razón para borrarla. Mire: Commons:Normas de borrado Commons:Renombrar un archivo. Infrogmation (talk) 05:36, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
Speedy kept. Thinking the title is not descriptive enough is not a reason for deletion; images can be renamed. Infrogmation (talk) 05:36, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
The file is not realistically useful for an educational purpose. Craigboy (talk) 04:43, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
Kept: All files in use are inside Commons scope. This one is used in 2 different wikipedias. Béria Lima msg 10:18, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
The file is not realistically useful for an educational purpose. Craigboy (talk) 04:20, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
"This one is used in 2 different wikipedias." But only on personnel pages.--Craigboy (talk) 04:22, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
- Weak Keep. I don't "get it" either, but it's free licensed, and a couple of users seem to like it enough to use it on their pages. Infrogmation (talk) 05:44, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
- Keep Please don't reopen your own DRs like this. It's free, it's in use, there's no reason to delete it.--Prosfilaes (talk) 16:41, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
- Deletion request was closed without discussion. --Craigboy (talk) 00:24, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
Kept In use, so in scope. Yann (talk) 13:45, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
files from Gruyere alpage
[edit]- Image:Récupération des grains.jpg
- Image:Fromage vieux.jpg
- Image:Sortie des grains de fromage.jpg
- Image:Cloches des vaches.jpg
- Image:Fromage du jour.jpg
- Image:Controle de la temperature.jpg
- Image:Cochons.jpg
- Image:Viellissement en cave..jpg
- Image:Prélèvement vétérinaire.jpg
- Image:Mise sous presse.jpg
- Image:Cercle de moulage.jpg
- Image:Chaudière en cuivre de 800 litres.jpg
- Image:Passage de la toile au fond de la chaudière.jpg
- Image:Cloches pour la bénichon.jpg
- Image:Identification de la meule.jpg
- Image:Étiquette en caséine.jpg
- Image:Vache en alpage (lys).jpg
- Image:Le decaillage à l'aide du tranche caillé.jpg
- These files come from gruyere-alpage.com. No proof the photographer is OK to provide pictures with CC-By-SA, no proof User:Gruyere alpage is really from gruyere-alpage.com : need e-mail by OTRS.
- Les photos viennent de gruyere-alpage.com, mais on ne sais pas si User:Gruyere alpage est détenteur des droits, on ne sais pas qui est le (ou les) photographes, ni s'il accepte que son travail soit mis à disposition sous CC-By-SA. Besoin de régulariser par OTRS. ----MGuf (d) 15:12, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- J'ai pris contact avec les gestionnaires du site histoire de mettre au clair. Ludo (talk) 16:17, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
cf User:Gruyere alpage#Images de gruyere-alpage.ch--Bapti ✉ 20:41, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
It isn't a real image, there are other reals photos, it is no necessary Esteban (talk) 14:16, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
- Keep: that is not a sufficient reason to delete an image that has otherwise been properly licensed to the Commons. However, the images should be deleted if it can be shown that the drawing is a derivative work of a copyrighted photograph. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 19:19, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks for your help ;) y Esteban obviamente es un gran retrato y una muy buena contribución cuando vos seas capaz de hacer algo así opina por favor ;)
- DeleteNot needed, we have real pictures, delete.--Motopark (talk) 20:47, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
- Keep: Motopark, tu argumento es inválido no explicas ni declaras nada, refuerza us palabras con alguna FALTA INFRINGIDA no sólo argumentes sin bases, estE es un RETRATO, y no debe ser borrado porque NO VIOLA NINGUNA DECLARACIÓN de wikipedia, y así si NO EXISTE UNA RAZÓN VÁLIDA LA DISCUSIÓN QUEDA TERMINADA CON EL ARGUMENTO de Jacklee.
- Gracias. Neo ender (talk) 21:02, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
Keep This image does not violate any Commons policy, so it must stay. Alpertron (talk) 00:27, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
- Delete This is a hard one -- I lean slightly toward delete as private fan art from a non-notable artist and therefore out of scope. But I don't feel strongly, noting that three active and respected colleagues disagree above. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:09, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Like Jameslwoodward, I don't have strong feelings, however I lean towards "why not" Chzz ► 17:08, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
- Keep It is a portrait of good technical quality. It can be used to illustrate many things, starting with painting techniques and materials. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 15:20, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
- Keep As Tomascastelazo--Miguel Bugallo 21:39, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Kept. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:23, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Image was "drawn" after this CV-deleted Getty Images photo File:Chris Colfer in the Teen Choice Awards 2010.jpg (image-view for admins: [3]), also found in a less colorized version under http://www.gettyimages.de/detail/103293627/Getty-Images-Entertainment. Likely to be considered as a derivative. But I would like to hear other opinions about that. --Túrelio (talk) 16:30, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
![[3]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Undelete&target=File%3AChris+Colfer+in+the+Teen+Choice+Awards+2010.jpg&file=gagcj1505h419mxdk1w6clqhx1yicz0.jpg&token=a1b501a62341ac3eb94eeace213fb32a%2B%5C){kind=link}
Delete Absolutely no question in my mind -- identical right down to the colors, the artifact or highlight in his left lapel, and the fact that half of the top button is visible. I was only a weak delete above, but that was without seeing the original. This is a clear DW -- delete it. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:41, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
Delete - Same as Jameslwoodward, no question in my mind about being a derivative. Should probably be speedy deleted, indeed.-- Darwin Ahoy! 16:45, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
Delete: Either the uploader actually drew the picture by himself or herself, in which case there might be sufficient creativity for there to be a separate copyright in the image; or the uploader simply used some computer program to make it look like the photograph was drawn, in which case it is an unauthorized derivative work. Since we cannot tell one way or the other, based on our precautionary principle the image should be deleted. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 17:08, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
Delete Both images are identical. It's cleary a redraw and thus copyrighted. --ecelan (talk) 19:35, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
Comment - To me this is clearly looks as computer generated stuff, see here. An intelligent being (as opposed to a filter) drawing a version of that portrait would probably not include the brown letters in the back as part of the subject coat.-- Darwin Ahoy! 20:16, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
File:Chris colfer portrait picture.png
Keep Yo no entiendo muy bien inglés por lo cual este individuo (talk) yo no entiendo cuál es su problema. Lo único que sé es que yo soy un retratista de lápiz de color, no sé si están celosos o cual es su problema pero cualquier puede ver mis trabajos aquí http://picasaweb.google.com/rafaelic0003 Yo sólo tengo 18 años peor sin embargo sé que tengo gran talento. No es problema mío si están celosos ya que aquí no se habla de un trabajo derivativo, SE HABLA DE CELOS.
Me tomé la molestia de subir mi retrato HECHO CON LÁPIZ DE COLOR SOLAMENTE, YA QUE YO SOY UN ARTISTA INATO DE 18 AUNQUE NO LO ENTIENDAN File:Chris colfer portrait picture.png Cualquiera puede agregarme a correo o preguntar a quién desee sobre mi trabajo, yo no digo mentiras como estos sujetos que ni siquiera me concoen y están opinando.
--Neo ender (talk) 04:19, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
- Lo siento, Neo ender, pero tengo algunas dificultades para entender por qué has dibujado las letras de fondo como parte del abrigo de este muchacho (aquí), cuando es obvio que no deberían estar allí. Ese es el tipo de cosa que ocurre cuando alguien produce una imagen generada por ordenador a partir de otra, con uso de filtros o algo así.-- Darwin Ahoy! 04:31, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
Keep Yo no produje nada
--Neo ender (talk) 04:41, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
KeepY como en verdad estoy cansado de sus falsas acusaciones, los celos de otros usuarios y el hecho de que en lugar de aportar sólo comenten este tipo de absurdos.
Aquí está otra demostración de que no no necesito de ningún filtro, ni programas ni absolutamente nada para trabajar, yo soy un retratista y si soy talentoso como ya mencioné no es culpa mía, no porque estos usuarios digan este tipo de absurdos, mi talento se va a desaparecer. Lo único que desean es provocar y creo que lo lograron estoy enfadado por sus acusaciones sin fundamento sin siqueira saber el grado de ejecución artística que poseo.
Y como pueden observar en la siguiente foto, yo soy capaz de reproducir tal vez no exactamente, peor sí CASI IDÉNTICO un retrato, así como mejorarlo y re definirlo. Pido que estos usuarios se dejen de absurdos.
--Neo ender (talk) 05:14, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
Speedy deleted. This image is a clear case of a derivative work of a copyrighted photograph. Whether you recreate/sketch (in analogue or in digital form) of a copyrighted work, that copyright will always remain to the holder of the original object/item/image not the person who recreated it. It is clear to me that the uploader has no understanding of copyright and derivative works, I suggest that they read the policies since this has nothing to do with other editors being "jealous". Bidgee (talk) 07:57, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
Hallgrímskirkja
[edit]I'm very sorry. I uploaded images of Hallgrímskirkja, and only after realized that there is no FOP in Iceland. I would have just requested for speedy deletion if it was only about my own images, but some images of other users are also concerned.
- Images of GaAs (me) :
- Images of other users :
Reason in short for this DR : no FOP. Note : I didn't list here images in this category for which I think they don't show a significant part of the church, but It's only my POV. --Aʁsenjyʁdəgaljɔm11671 17:19, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
- How old is this church? We can keep File:Reykjavik Aðflug Braut 19.JPG anyway. De minimis in this case. Yann (talk) 13:39, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: except File:Reykjavik Aðflug Braut 19.JPG which is DM. Ben.MQ (talk) 09:10, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
Files of User:Aejh
[edit]- File:Pene curvo eretto scappellato.jpg
- File:Pene curvo eretto con prepuzio.jpg
- File:Pene flaccido.jpg
I am the uploader of these files and I want them to be deleted since i don't want to appear naked on the web. I made a mistake uploading them --Aejh (talk) 12:49, 28 June 2011 (UTC)Aejh
Deleted: User's request. Yann (talk) 13:59, 5 July 2011 (UTC)