Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2011/07/02
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
|
|
.png){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
I've upload the same image twice. Please remove this archive, I'll keep the another. Thanks. Tkrempser (talk) 17:25, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Unfree photo grabbed from http://esportes.r7.com/futebol/times/botafogo/noticias/elkeson-celebra-adaptacao-rapida-ao-botafogo-20110607.html Martin H. (talk) 17:41, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
Created in error Autoandragogist (talk) 18:04, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted by User:Túrelio (non-admin closure). Jujutacular talk 19:12, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
Convert from speedy: "all rights reserved, fake(?) Flickr tag". --ZooFari 23:43, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Falsely tagged, failed license review. --ZooFari 23:52, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
Orphaned map, used in a now deleted advert on en.wikipedia. no foreseeable use. FASTILY (TALK) 04:55, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
Keep "orphaned map"? This file is a camera phone shot of a dam. Not featured picture material, but could still be usable; we only have four images of Category:Nagarjuna Sagar Dam. MKFI (talk) 13:55, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
Kept: Not a map, a mistake of some sort by the nominator. Speedy keep. Trycatch (talk) 23:19, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
Personal picture of a user, not in use anywhere. Out of scope. Martin H. (talk) 00:49, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
delete per nom Cholo Aleman (talk) 21:57, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 09:40, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
Image shows up on tineye to a third party site; part of a higher resolution version of the image also appears on a third party site [1]. This image is a web resolution; I doubt the uploader was the original author, or we at least need OTRS permission. Magog the Ogre (talk) 01:54, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
good catch. I took the original uploaders word for it when transferring from en.wikipedia!
Roseohioresident (talk) 19:56, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:40, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
This file does not appear to be free; I don't see anywhere on the said website where the image is described as public domain. Archived web version here: [2]. Magog the Ogre (talk) 02:40, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:41, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
No date of painting or years of life and death for painter Prosfilaes (talk) 03:17, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
- Keep 18th century painting; this is the kind of silliness that give Commons a bad name. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 15:36, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
Kept: 1712-1770 is given at Category:Francesco Liani Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:42, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
not found at source; no date; no evidence it's EU-Unknown or who the author is Prosfilaes (talk) 03:19, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
- Keep with {{PD-Bain}}. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 14:23, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
Kept. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:44, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
a file from 2006... It is here: http://www.exo.net/~pauld/Mars/3camping/campingonmars.html "Scientific Explorations with Paul Doherty © 2003 25 Dec 2003" The image is the preview thumb of the full res Saibo (Δ) 04:15, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
Delete - Copyrighted at the source, uploaded with bogus license.-- Darwin Ahoy! 04:17, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:46, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
doesn't look like own work Prosfilaes (talk) 04:32, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:47, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
doesn't look like own work Prosfilaes (talk) 04:32, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:47, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
doesn't look like own work Prosfilaes (talk) 04:32, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
- This picture have a date of 1938-1939, it sould have the licence {{PD-Canada}}. --Fralambert (talk) 05:09, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
- Keep as {{PD-Canada}}. MKFI (talk) 15:05, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
- Keep PD-Canada. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 14:38, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
Kept. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:48, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
doesn't look like own work; date on photo is 1962, so it's too new to be PD Prosfilaes (talk) 04:32, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:48, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
doesn't look like own work Prosfilaes (talk) 04:32, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. 1962 image Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:48, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
doesn't look like own work; 1953 date is too late to generally be PD Prosfilaes (talk) 04:33, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:51, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
doesn't look like own work Prosfilaes (talk) 04:33, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
Kept. 1924 Canadian image Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:51, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
doesn't look like own work Prosfilaes (talk) 04:33, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
- The photo was created in Canada in 1926. As such, it is without doubt in the public domain in Canada since January 1st, 1977, because of its year of creation. All photos created before 1949 have entered into the public domain in Canada 50 years after their creation. So, for its public domain status in Canada, it is immaterial if it was published or not. However, we do not know if it was published before now. What is the consequence of that on its status in the U.S.? If it was published in Canada, it is a Canadian photo and therefore it is also in the public domain in the U.S. because it was in the public domain in Canada before the URAA date. Problem solved. But if it was unpublished and if it is now being published for the first time, then does that give it the status of a U.S. photo instead of a Canadian photo? If so, then it would not be in the public domain in the U.S. (before 2047?) Should the uploader have published it first on a Canadian website one month ago, so that it would have acquired the status of a Canadian photo, then waited the month before uploading it to Commons, to avoid giving it the status of a U.S. photo? How does that work exactly? Also, it is possible that the photo was created by someone from the uploader's family and that he is the only heir of that person's rights. That doesn't change anything to the domain status of the photo if it is a Canadian photo. But if it is a U.S. photo, then he can license it. It would be useful to know the authorship information anyway, as an information about the moral rights. -- Asclepias (talk) 06:23, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
Kept: While I fully understand Asclepias's concern, I can't imagine this being a problem -- a US court would laugh at the proposition that an image of a Canadian church, long out of copyright there (whether or not published), could somehow acquire a copyright in the US by being uploaded to Commons. Add that to the small likelihood that someone will turn up to claim copyright and you have a very small risk indeed. I know that we normally ignore the sort of argument I just made, but there are limits. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:57, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
doesn't look like own work Prosfilaes (talk) 04:33, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
- The original drawing would be copyrighted until 2022 (50 years p.m.a.). The uploader should specify if he is the heir of the author and if that is the reason why he licenses the work. Even then, the author of the original drawing should be identified as Louis N. Audet and not the uploader. The scan should not create a copyright for the reproduction. -- Asclepias (talk) 06:39, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:00, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
doesn't look like own work Prosfilaes (talk) 04:33, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
Kept: PD Canada Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:01, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
Orphaned vanity photo, low quality, out of scope, no foreseeable use. FASTILY (TALK) 04:46, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 09:42, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
Promotional image of some sort. Likely copyrighted. No reason given to suggest that uploader is copyright holder. FASTILY (TALK) 04:46, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:03, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
Press photo of some sort. Used in a now deleted article on en.wikipedia. Likely copyrighted. No reason given to suggest that uploader is copyright holder. FASTILY (TALK) 04:47, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:03, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
Promotional image of some sort. Likely copyrighted. No reason given to suggest that uploader is copyright holder. FASTILY (TALK) 04:50, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:03, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
Promotional image of some sort. Used in a now deleted article on en.wikipedia. Likely copyrighted. No reason given to suggest that uploader is copyright holder. FASTILY (TALK) 04:54, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:03, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
Orphaned map, used in a now deleted article on en.wikipedia. Likely copyrighted. No reason given to suggest that uploader is copyright holder. FASTILY (TALK) 04:55, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:03, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
not required, a picture already covered for this Wykymania (talk) 06:36, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
Comment please link the better picture for comparison. Having multiple images of the same subject is generally a good thing. MKFI (talk) 19:41, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
Kept. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:04, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
Licensed at source as cc-by-nc-nd-2.0-cl - no permission Lymantria (talk) 06:38, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:04, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
No permission, photo is being used on website of subject and was used in an article about this non-encyclopedic writer on nl.wiki (which is now deleted). Mathonius (talk) 06:42, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:04, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
not needed, another image already demonstrates this Wykymania (talk) 06:47, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
Kept. You must provide a link to the other image for this sort of DR. Generally we keep multiple images of the same subject. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:04, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
Including:
Promotional image of some sort, used in a now deleted advert on en.wikipedia. Likely copyrighted. No reason given to suggest that uploader is copyright holder. FASTILY (TALK) 06:49, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:06, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
Logo of some sort. Likely copyrighted. No reason given to suggest that uploader is copyright holder. FASTILY (TALK) 07:42, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:07, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
I do not think that GFDL-licence on http://www.sajed.ir applies to images there, too. I assume this GFDL-licence is reduced to the text on this page. Besides, it is possible that the use of photographs by sajed.ir is pure licence laundering: it is likely that photographs were just taken and placed on this homepgae without having sufficient permissions by the copyright holders. Koskoards (talk) 07:55, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:08, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
Claimed to be shot in February 2011, whereas the depicted died in 1982. Image clearly a scan from print. Uploader unlikely the photographer. --Túrelio (talk) 08:56, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
- In earlier CV-deleted upload (File:187971 296710384016 6369289 n.jpg) by the same user this image had been sourced to "Revista Directísimo 1975". --Túrelio (talk) 09:00, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:10, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
Copywio. The wase in the picture may be consired as a work of art. It's fair use in Finland, but not suitable for Commons. Htm (talk) 09:44, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
This picture was deleted once, then undeleted. I'd like to have it deleted bacause of copyvio. Thank You. Htm (talk) 09:47, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
- Comment the vase was considered a utilitarian object at the undeletion request. MKFI (talk) 12:12, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
- That's right. It is a vase (I said it). But on the other hand, since then I have been following discussions in fi-Wiki and this very vase is commonly consired as a work of art. For ins. in [3] is a picture of the same vase, it is used as "fair use" and its picture is in fi-Wiki, not in Commons. Htm (talk) 12:47, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
- Keep Utilitarian object; and yes, copyright may be used in Europe to protect against imitations, but that is about as far as the protection goes. In Sweden, Maglites are protected by copyright, according to a supreme court decision. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 15:49, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
- I understand your opinion, but I still consider that photo a copyvio and I would very much appreciate if it would be deleted for good. Kantarelli is a work of art and thus copyvio (I have seen Kantarellis all my life and never seen a single flower in them). --Htm (talk) 18:28, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:11, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
Redundant file with DiodeGenCharacteristics1.jpeg Rsuessrb (talk) 09:55, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
Kept: No clear reason to prefer one over the other. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:12, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
Poor quality, unused, many many alternatives given. Yikrazuul (talk) 10:37, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. None other have this exact orientation, but it's also confusingly drawn (wedge between two stereocenters makes stereochemistry hard to decipher). DMacks (talk) 20:49, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Per nom. George Chernilevsky talk 09:44, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
SVG-bug, unused in main space, many many alternatives given. Yikrazuul (talk) 10:37, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
- Delete. I don't see the svg bug, but they are usually specific to certain sizes/embedding methods. None other have this exact orientation, but it's also confusingly drawn (wedge between two stereocenters makes stereochemistry hard to decipher). DMacks (talk) 20:50, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Per nom. George Chernilevsky talk 09:45, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
- Delete too low quality to be useful. MKFI (talk) 15:07, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Too poor quality. Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 09:46, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Too poor quality. Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 09:46, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
Image one of several only used for recreating previously speedy-deleted content on en: The Anome (talk) 13:09, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:28, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
previously deleted. file not in use. all pages related to D-Ploy records and the artist J-Pimp have been repeatedly deleted as spam. Lazypub (talk) 12:37, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Clear case cross-wiki spam with no potential educational use. Please also note that this is spam by the Prince-au-Léogâne LTA. Hiàn (talk) 22:50, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
- Also, because the user is long term cross-wiki spammer (using sock accounts and ip addresses), can we add his name(s) to the filter list to prevent future additions of his entities?:Lazypub (talk)
- Note: We have a confirmed OTRS release. --JuTa 08:24, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
- @User:JuTa. Sorry, I don't know the lingo. What is OTRS?Lazypub (talk)
- @Lazypub: see Commons:OTRS. --JuTa 14:32, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
- Not that I fully understand that link, but let me explain better. The image, I believe, was posted by the owner/creator. That is not the problem. The problem is that entries associated with D-Ploy Records/J-Pimp/Daniel South/Joél Célestin Filsaime/Nesley Filsaime are all non-notable entities which have been deleted numerous times in numerous countries for numerous years, and the user is now a globally blocked sock puppet.
- I know that on EN Wikipedia, if a word or phrase becomes a problem, it can be added to the filter list which will prevent future instances from occurring. Also, on EN Wikipedia, I have seen some article titles being blocked from being made again. That is what I am wondering if we can do here. Lazypub (talk)
- @Lazypub: see Commons:OTRS. --JuTa 14:32, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
- @User:JuTa. Sorry, I don't know the lingo. What is OTRS?Lazypub (talk)
- Keep This file has a confirmed OTRS release. 2607:FB90:902B:6FC:BA01:1BF6:C244:3302
- but the file is totally useless. It serves one purposes - self-promotion by a non-notable entity. Who, as I previously pointed out, is a globally blocked sock-puppet. Lazypub (talk) 18:31, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
- Keep OTRS release confirmed permission, because there is proof that the author or copyright holder agreed to license the file. Note: confirmed OTRS release. — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 172.58.11.131 (talk) 10:44, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. --DaB. (talk) 15:01, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
Personal picture, not in use anwhere. Out of project scope. Martin H. (talk) 13:10, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:28, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
A map displayed in public places in Hong Kong is not covered by FOP clauses in Hong Kong copyright law. See FOP clause and definition of graphic work. (it is similar to law in UK.) Ben.MQ (talk) 13:11, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:31, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
Low quality (resolution and fileformat), slightly incorrect (carboxyls should be trans not cis on azo) and unused (replaceable by File:DEAD.svg) DMacks (talk) 13:23, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
- Delete. Apart from quality, I think it is just incorrect because it assumes a crescent shape whereas the molecule should be more linear. Materialscientist (talk) 03:35, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Per discussion. Leyo 11:46, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Image is copyrighted by the Boy Scouts of America. Gadget850 (talk) 13:23, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
- Delete per nom. Image redundant to what we have on en:wp. Gadget850, please assure any of these we can use on en:wp are transwikied there, thanks!--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 03:40, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:31, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
Image is copyrighted by the Boy Scouts of America. Gadget850 (talk) 13:25, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:31, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
Image is copyrighted by the Boy Scouts of America. Gadget850 (talk) 13:25, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
- Please upload to hu:wiki, where it is in use.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 03:56, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:31, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
Image is copyrighted by the Boy Scouts of America. Gadget850 (talk) 13:26, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:32, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
Image is copyrighted by the Boy Scouts of America. Gadget850 (talk) 13:26, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
- Please upload this one to en:wp first.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 03:45, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:32, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
Image is copyrighted by the Boy Scouts of America. Gadget850 (talk) 13:26, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
- Please upload to en:, ru:, be:, and uk: wikis, where image is used.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 03:55, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:32, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
Image is copyrighted by the Boy Scouts of America. Gadget850 (talk) 13:29, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:32, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
False license declared. The image cannot be a subject of PD-US since it was created by author from Switzerland in Italian issue. The author died in 1949 and his works are not in public domain yet. Mithril (talk) 14:03, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:32, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
Like in File:Chtenopteryx sicula2.jpg, false license declared here. The author died in 1949 and his works are not in public domain yet. Licensing as CC-SA-BY or GFDL is also inacceptable. Mithril (talk) 14:03, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
- Comment, the licence right now is not PD but PD-US ! PD-US does not depend on author death but the date of publication. This file was publish before 1923 (or in 1923, here is a little thing unclear) so it’s look like PS-US. Cdlt, VIGNERON * discut. 16:46, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
- First of all in this file license is "cc-by-sa-3.0,2.5,2.0,1.0/gfdl". PD-US is invalid for publication in Italian issue by Swiss zoologist. Mithril (talk) 17:25, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
- My fault, I was looking at File:Chtenopteryx sicula2.jpg.
- How do you know 1. this was publish in Italian and/or Italy (which is not the same thing ; plus it seems to be in German) 2. this was not also published/registered in USA ? (on w:Adolf Naef I can see that other publication of this man were in USA ; moreover there is two years 1921 and 1923 maybe it was in different places). Cdlt, VIGNERON * discut. 18:19, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
- I wonder how you could imagine that a publication of the Zoological Station in Naples had been made in some US publishing house. That's especially unbelievable for the text written in German (language of international science in the first half of the twentieth century). Mithril (talk) 19:01, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
- First of all in this file license is "cc-by-sa-3.0,2.5,2.0,1.0/gfdl". PD-US is invalid for publication in Italian issue by Swiss zoologist. Mithril (talk) 17:25, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
Delete This schema is naught, I prefer this one--Citron (talk) 21:06, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:37, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
Copyrighted logo/artwork. Tomer T (talk) 14:23, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:37, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
One more image by Adolf Naef (1881–1949) with false license. The author lived in Switzerland and died less than 70 years ago. Hence no PD. Mithril (talk) 14:03, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:37, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
False license declared. The image cannot be a subject of PD-US since it was created by author from Switzerland in Italian issue. The author died in 1949 and his works are not in public domain yet. Mithril (talk) 14:03, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:37, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
and File:Jon2.jpg. Unlikely to by own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:03, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
- SPEDDY DELETE : copyvio from myspace page of this person : [4] myspace
- uploader dont really understand what copyright laws are (see deleted content from this user)
- Raise a huge suspicion on File:Jon2.jpg, but i can't find the source. Is there anything like "untrusted user uploading a bunch of copyrighted material so this one can't be believed either" ?--Lilyu (talk) 02:07, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
![[4]](http://a1.l3-images.myspacecdn.com/images02/131/dc8517a7648a4784b05276bd541f20eb/l.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:37, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
and File:BhaskarBakhale.jpg. Proper information should be provided to determine public domain status. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:31, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:38, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
Unlikely to by own work: small resolution, missing EXIF. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:32, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:38, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photoalbum. Not used. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:38, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 09:48, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
COM:PEOPLE, and what exactly is the scope? Yikrazuul (talk) 15:44, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:38, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
permission of RailPictures.Net unclear 78.55.162.65 16:50, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
- Comment the railpictures original is here (added to the image) and the photographes profile here. Perhaps the author could be contacted and a permission requested? MKFI (talk) 19:55, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:02, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
bugged png, same image can be found here File:Wiki-frimans-lov.jpg Santosga (talk) 17:04, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: This is a well known problem with WMF software, but there is no reason to keep a huge image of a simple graph Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:04, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
It's the wrong picture of me. I wanted to delete it and upload a different picture for wikipedia profile. Autoandragogist (talk) 17:07, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: 18:22, 2 July 2011 by Túrelio, closed by Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:05, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
unused chat screenshot - no foreseeable use, out of scope Santosga (talk) 17:11, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:05, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
Including:
- File:VisionGal2.jpg
- File:VisionGal3.jpg
- File:VisionGal4.jpg
- File:VisionGal5.jpg
- File:VisionGal6.jpg
- File:VisionGal7.jpg
Orphaned, used in a now deleted advert on en.wikipedia. no foreseeable use. FASTILY (TALK) 17:37, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:13, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
I doubt the uploader is the copyright-holder as stated. He has uploaded many pictrures on en which has been deleted Avron (talk) 18:11, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:14, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
out of scope Honza chodec, earlier known as Slfi (talk) 18:20, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:14, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
out of scope Honza chodec, earlier known as Slfi (talk) 18:31, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:17, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
not notable, out of scope Honza chodec, earlier known as Slfi (talk) 18:34, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:17, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
out of scope Honza chodec, earlier known as Slfi (talk) 18:39, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
I have no idea what Honza means by out of scope. I do take this personal as the picture was created by me, Mike Guarino, for use by anyone. So, why again is my picture being nominated for deletion?
Attention users, it would appear as I am being a victim of defamation of charachter by Honza via Wikipedia. While Honza is more than likely from the middle east I know that the U.S. has juridiction over wikipedia. I don't know what little game everyone is playing by threatening to take down my picture but malicious intent will not be taken lightly. I am a victim of slander and because of being a public figure now a victim of libel. Someone has to see where I am coming from, I get some bogus threat to take down my art and no reason behind the action, typical liberalism!— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikegfunk (talk • contribs)
- I am not from middle east, I'm from Czech Republic, but that is not important. See COM:SCOPE Honza chodec, earlier known as Slfi (talk) 19:53, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: Personal artwork by not notable artist, therefore out of scope. Note that any further threats of legal action will cause you to be blocked from editing on Commons. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:24, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
out of scope Honza chodec, earlier known as Slfi (talk) 18:40, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:24, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
Is this copyvio? Paper itself it could be copyrighted, so photo of this paper should be copyvio Honza chodec, earlier known as Slfi (talk) 18:43, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
Speedy Delete Clear copyviol. I uploaded this file about a month after my registration on Commons and I was inexperienced at that time. My mystake, I'm really sorry for it. Jacopo Werther (talk) 21:07, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:25, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
own-book-promotional file Honza chodec, earlier known as Slfi (talk) 18:44, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:25, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
not notable group Honza chodec, earlier known as Slfi (talk) 18:46, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:25, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
3 uploads, 3 different sources. Where this photo realy comes from? Who is the photographer? Martin H. (talk) 18:47, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:25, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
out of scope (used as FP candidate) Honza chodec, earlier known as Slfi (talk) 18:48, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:25, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
out of scope, not notable Honza chodec, earlier known as Slfi (talk) 18:50, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:25, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Por error José Luis Cantos Torres (talk) 19:13, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:26, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:26, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
personal photo, not description, not used Avron (talk) 19:29, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:26, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
Personal artwork, not used, not in scope Avron (talk) 19:31, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:27, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
unused web-design Avron (talk) 19:32, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:27, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
unused web-design Avron (talk) 19:32, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:27, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
personal photo, not used Avron (talk) 19:34, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:27, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
low quality personal photo Avron (talk) 19:36, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:27, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
personal photo, not used Avron (talk) 19:36, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:27, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
personal photo, not used Avron (talk) 19:38, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:27, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
personal artwork? not used Avron (talk) 19:39, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:28, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
personal photo, not used Avron (talk) 19:41, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:28, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
personal artwork, not used Avron (talk) 19:42, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:28, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
personal photo, not used Avron (talk) 19:44, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:28, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
This coat of arms probably was given by Vatican to PUC-SP (Pontifical Catholic University of São Paulo). So, its definition (composition / description) is not copyrighted (as well as File:BXVI CoA like gfx PioM.svg), but the work based in this description is copyrighted. As the picture is a copy of http://www.pucsp.br/brasao, it should be deleted. Giro720 (talk) 19:46, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:28, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
personal artwork? not used Avron (talk) 19:47, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:28, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
personal artwork, not used Avron (talk) 19:48, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:28, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
personal photo, not used Avron (talk) 19:49, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:30, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
Despite the page categorization, this is not a Commons policy. In fact, I suspect it is out of scope. -Nard (Hablemonos)(Let's talk) 19:59, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:31, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
Unlikely own work and/or out of scope. Who is this guy? -Nard (Hablemonos)(Let's talk) 20:00, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:32, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
Out of scope. -Nard (Hablemonos)(Let's talk) 20:02, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:32, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
out of scope - logo of blog Honza chodec, earlier known as Slfi (talk) 20:04, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:32, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
out of scope - logo of blog Honza chodec, earlier known as Slfi (talk) 20:04, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:33, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
Out of scope, personal religious experience not educational IAW scope policies. -Nard (Hablemonos)(Let's talk) 20:05, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:33, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
logo of not notable parkour group Honza chodec, earlier known as Slfi (talk) 20:07, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:33, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
Personal picture, not in use anywhere. Out of scope. Martin H. (talk) 20:12, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:33, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
not usefull - to small part of map to be usefull Honza chodec, earlier known as Slfi (talk) 20:12, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:33, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
out of scope Honza chodec, earlier known as Slfi (talk) 20:13, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:33, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
Unused personal image. -Nard (Hablemonos)(Let's talk) 20:13, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:33, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
file for allready deleted "blog" on wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Aranho/The_Amazing_Race_Singapore Honza chodec, earlier known as Slfi (talk) 20:16, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
You may delete this file, I no longer have any use for it. Thanks. Aranho (talk) 20:18, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:34, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
broken jpeg, logo of not notable theatre Honza chodec, earlier known as Slfi (talk) 20:18, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:34, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
personal photo Honza chodec, earlier known as Slfi (talk) 20:26, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:34, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
far out of scope Honza chodec, earlier known as Slfi (talk) 20:29, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:34, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
not notable group Honza chodec, earlier known as Slfi (talk) 20:35, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:34, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
blog logo Honza chodec, earlier known as Slfi (talk) 20:41, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:34, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
private photo with goat Honza chodec, earlier known as Slfi (talk) 20:42, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:35, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
not notable person Honza chodec, earlier known as Slfi (talk) 20:47, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:35, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
out of scope Honza chodec, earlier known as Slfi (talk) 20:51, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:35, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
Probably copyrighted. Same image can be found on many websites. mickit 20:56, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
It is not Troll *Alert* ( = warning ), it is a specific name, Albert.
- It doesn't matter. If the original image is protected by copyright, derivative works are not allowed without the author's permission. mickit 21:21, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
- And the image is copyrighted. See here. mickit 21:23, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
ok, I agree: trash it. thx for pointing out. rgds PS: I appreciate your attention (not cynical at all)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:36, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
out of scope Honza chodec, earlier known as Slfi (talk) 21:00, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:36, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
It's broken and I can't think of an possible encyclopedic usage. XenonX3 (talk) 21:09, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:37, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
Missing source information, possibly a screenshot? Martin H. (talk) 21:27, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:37, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
This file is Copyrighted but it needs to be used for Wikipedia file titled "M. S. RamaiaH institute of Technoolgy". It needs to get a copyright Tag Pavankumar.pn (talk) 17:54, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: 15:17, 4 July 2011 by EugeneZelenko, closed by Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:40, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
see description 92.227.155.152 21:46, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: cyberstalking Jcb (talk) 15:08, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
Orphaned map, used in a now deleted article on en.wikipedia. Likely copyrighted. No reason given to suggest that uploader is copyright holder. FASTILY (TALK) 04:55, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 19:09, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
Some people thinks that this can offend on someone, so maybe it will be better if it will be deleted Bearas (talk) 21:06, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
private artwork without educational porpose Antemister (talk) 19:59, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 19:11, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
don't need it. 184.99.10.29 10:20, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
- No reason for deletion. Is wikipedia a Puritan organization ?. This woodblock printing is published in a book in Germany--Gisling (talk) 11:50, 2 July 2011 (UTC).
×Do you delete File:Heqi.JPG too ???????--Gisling (talk) 12:00, 2 July 2011 (UTC).
- Keep no proper reason for deletion given, in scope. (I changed Gisling's image to inline link.) MKFI (talk) 13:57, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
Fehler im Dateinamen WillYs Fotowerkstatt (talk) 11:56, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
- Keep just rename, no reason to delete. WillYs, you can request renaming with {{Rename}}. MKFI (talk) 15:15, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
Kept: Please use {{Rename}}. Wknight94 talk 01:49, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
and other photos by Juffylube (talk · contribs). Unlikely to by own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:27, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: All. Invalid sources and/or licenses. Wknight94 talk 01:55, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
and other uploads by Laguillmath (talk · contribs). Unlikely to by own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:30, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: All. Clear copyvio. Wknight94 talk 01:57, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
Not a US picture; no source given so that we can check to see if it's EU-unknown Prosfilaes (talk) 03:15, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
- Keep Source where it can be verified has been given. It was published anonymously like most roayl pictures were at the time. Photo is more than 75 years old, any rights expired--Miguelemejia (talk) 23:40, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
- Keep with {{PD-EU-no author disclosure}}. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 17:09, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
Kept: as above. Yann (talk) 13:21, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
no proper source; no date; no reason to think it's PD-Old Prosfilaes (talk) 03:19, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
- Comment found a tineye hit from all posters (not identical file), tags suggest that the original may be in Mary Evans archive. Sadly no photographer information, and a quick search of the Mary Evans did not yield a hit. MKFI (talk) 19:50, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
- Keep probably from around 1905, when she married; the Evans collection does not know the photographer, {{PD-EU-no author disclosure}}. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 14:52, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
Kept: as per Pieter Kuiper. Yann (talk) 14:22, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
No proper source; no date; no evidence it's PD-Old or that the author is properly unknown Prosfilaes (talk) 03:20, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
- Keep Old anonymous photo from around 1915. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 15:17, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
Kept: as per Pieter Kuiper. Yann (talk) 14:26, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
no date; no proper source; no evidence that it's PD Prosfilaes (talk) 03:21, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
- Keep so you rather delete this than completing the source field? This is the behaviour that Commons gives such a bad name on the projects. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 15:21, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
- Completing the source field to what? If it can be done, it might show evidence that this isn't PD in its home country.--Prosfilaes (talk) 17:31, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
- KeepFrederick Francis IV (9 April 1882 – 17 November 1945) is on the phot. It was taken around 1910 in Germany. it is more than 100 years old any right expired.--Miguelemejia (talk) 00:05, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
- Nope. If it's not anonymous, it could easily be copyrighted to 2050 or beyond.--Prosfilaes (talk) 06:11, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
Kept: as per Pieter Kuiper. Yann (talk) 14:27, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
According to OTRS Ticket 2012072610005661, this image is subject to copyright (presumably, without a free license) in Germany and other locations. I see the image description page claims it was purchased by the Library of Congress. I read the prior deletion discussion, which did not appear to definitely rule out the possibility that the copyright still exists. How do we sort this out? Sphilbrick (talk) 14:09, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
- Comment just claiming this image is subject to copyright is not productive at all. The LoC says that it's a original portrait by palace photographer Heuschkel, so it's probably German for our purposes. It's possible it's Fritz Herschel and that the uncited death date on that page of 1925 is correct. I don't there's any reason to accept an OTRS claim that this work is under copyright in Germany without an author and death date.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:25, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY (TALK) 00:10, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
no date; no proper source; no evidence it's PD Prosfilaes (talk) 03:22, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
- KeepSource for verification has been given. Photo published anonymously in 1905. It is more than 100 years old. Any rights expired.--Miguelemejia (talk) 00:00, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
- "published anonymously in 1905" by which publisher ? La Chata by Maria Jose Rubio is a book published in 2003, not in 1905 : http://www.mariajoserubio.com/la-chata/ Teofilo (talk) 16:02, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
Kept: as per Miguelemejia. Yann (talk) 14:31, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
Modern art. Who is painter? What is date of his/her life? EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:33, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
unspecified name Willson (talk) 07:21, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: missing author Ezarateesteban 17:48, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
Unused private photo, Out of scope Hold and wave (talk) 20:54, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
- Keep disruptive DR. unused is no argument for deletion. It is not out of scope - see the categories of the image. --Saibo (Δ) 04:18, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
- Keep Why is this image "Out of scope"? Could the people (at least the majority) that nominate this kind of image explain in more than 3 or 4 words. Not in use doens mean out of scope (or will 90% of images get deleted?), private where?. In scope, see categories. Tm (talk) 14:43, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
InfoThe file April Erotic.JPG that makes part of the same set was nominated to deletion twice and was kepted twice. Tm (talk) 15:41, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
- Keep – Why people don't bother to see the category of related files. Bill william comptonTalk 18:41, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
Kept: per consensus above, it's not out of scope mickit 08:45, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
As per http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:April_after_!st_act.jpg Hold and wave (talk) 21:06, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Per nom. Missvain (talk) 21:21, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
- Keep - non-identifiable, so the reason for deletion in that DR does not apply. -mattbuck (Talk) 21:51, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
Speedykept: disruptive DR. --Leyo 07:54, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
Wife no longer wants her Vulva on display as many other bigger better Vulva's can be viewed at this site Reddog11223 (talk) 04:18, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
- Keep No valid reason for deletion. The person in the photograph is not recognizable. --Leyo 06:55, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
- Courtesy delete The norm on Commons is to allow courtesy deletions in reasonable circumstances. These are normally for recently uploaded images, however considering this is not in use and the original photographer is making this request, I encourage accommodating it. --Fæ (talk) 15:54, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
- Keep Per Leyo. Jacopo Werther iγ∂ψ=mψ 17:03, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
Kept: per Leyo. INeverCry 16:43, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: I deleted the file as a courtesy to the person photographed and in response to the request of the author (as posted at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Aprils safe sex.jpg). odder (talk) 12:20, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
and other uploads by Isaacbasaure (talk · contribs). Unlikely to by own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:23, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Martin H. (talk) 20:19, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
and other uploads by Igor ludvika (talk · contribs). Unlikely to by own work: small/inconsistent resolutions, missing EXIF. No evidence of permissions. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:11, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: per nominator mickit 19:08, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
lower quality duplicate of File:BlackFlagSymbol.svg, unused Darwin Ahoy! 08:35, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: as it's not superseded by the SVG, but it was apparently downloaded from the SVG, this image is useless. The Evil IP address (talk) 14:12, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
doesn't look like own work Prosfilaes (talk) 04:33, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
- There is a copyright notice in the lower left corner. "Copyrighted by (...partan?) air service (...) Ottawa (...)". So, not likely the uploader's own work. The photo is probably in the public domain at least in Canada. (Certainly is if created before 1949. And certainly is if created before 1961 and the air service was a corporation.) -- Asclepias (talk) 07:01, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 12:09, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
Possibly the only legit photo of this copyfraudster, but even so it's better to pass a DR Darwin Ahoy! 08:05, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 12:11, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
Uploader is a copyfraudster, uploaded several copyvios as his own, no guarantee that this is his own work Darwin Ahoy! 08:06, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 12:11, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
This image and all of those listed below have the following in their license template:
- "The illustration above was created by me, and is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License. If anyone would like to reuse and distribute the illustration above, please contact me by e-mail or via talk page here before you do so. And please credit me (Eric028－Wikipedia user) as the author of the illustration above. Thankyou for your cooperation !"
Requiring contact prior to use is not permitted by the CC-BY license or by Commons. Therefore, unless User:Eric028 chooses to change his license template User:Eric028/LSI, all of these must be deleted.
Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:49, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
- Keep - it is a request, not unlike User:Rama/use my images. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 17:29, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
- Comment I don't agree. Rama explicitly says:
- "You do not need ask further authorisation to do so, the licence labels suffice. However, I appreciate being informed of academic or commercial usage of my documents."
- On the other hand, Eric028 phrases it as a polite request, but as a legal matter it is a requirement, not optional. That is not a free license. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:24, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
- If you interpret that as a legal requirement (strange, it would contradict the license), then also Rama's can be read as a non-commercial restriction. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 13:40, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
'Kept: the files, all had a valid license as well - deleted this invalid license Jcb (talk) 13:04, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
because the logo is too big Biznisakademijasmilevski (talk) 13:24, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
Comment Too big is never a problem, you can always force it to display smaller. However, is it in scope? Is it a copyvio? Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:31, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: seems out of scope Jcb (talk) 17:03, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Ercan kavakderelioğlu (talk · contribs)
[edit]Contrary to the uploaders claim: The person shown in this photos is not the photographer the same time. Photos presumably from various authors, incomplete sources, unreliable author information, unclear copyright status.
- File:Ercankavakderelioğlu-rocknroll.jpg
- File:Ercankavakderelioglu-dansavarmisin1.jpg
- File:Ercankavakderelioglu-01.jpg
- File:Ercankavakderelioglu-halkdanslari1.jpg
- File:Ercankavakderelioğlu-halkdansları1.jpg
- File:Ercankavakderelioğlu-salsa1.jpg
- File:Ercankavakderelioglu-tango2.jpg
- File:Ercankavakderelioglu-tango1.jpg
Martin H. (talk) 00:03, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
Delete - no clear sources etc, no EXIF - like Martin H. Cholo Aleman (talk) 17:00, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. The Evil IP address (talk) 14:09, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
www.rothenthurm.ch files
[edit]- File:Rothenthurmer Bahnhof.jpg
- File:Biberegg Kapelle.jpg
- File:Rothenthurm Hochmoor.jpg
- File:Rothenthurm roter Turm.jpg
OTRS Ticket is not valid. ← There is no statement at all that the person has the rights; no author is named. The ticket is not even explicitly valid for the last three ones. --Saibo (Δ) 00:58, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
- I support that. As already discussed in detail with Saibo, the statement forwarded to permissions (ticket:2006112210021252) does unfortunately not contain an explicit release under a free license. Despite greater tolerance with respect to emails dating back as long as 2006, we cannot accept this. —Pill (talk) 22:57, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
Comment I transferred these files tagged with an OTRS template from de.wikipedia to Commons, because I trusted in the judgment of the OTRS agents. If their decision turns out to be wrong in this case, just go ahead and deleted the files. --Leyo 19:53, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:53, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
Drug lists of Psychonaught
[edit]- File:Dr00gZ.jpg
- File:Final List Of Drugs.jpg
- File:The Final Final Drug Listy.jpg
- File:Drugs Final II.jpg
- File:The Final Drugs.jpg
- File:All Drugs In Order.jpg
- File:All The Best Drugs.jpg
- File:All The Good Drugs.jpg
- File:Categorically Speaking Drugs.jpg
- File:Drugs!!!!.jpg
- File:All Drugssss.jpg
- File:All Drugsss.jpg
- File:All Drugss.jpg
- File:All Drugs.jpg
Out of project scope, not used. I didn't add only File:Drug Archive.jpg, it's used on user's page. It seems to be a "drug CV" of user and I don't see any use of it. Even if we agree that it may be useful, then we have File:Drug Archive.jpg. There's no need to keep other files that burns eyes. Author probably didn't know that he can replace old file with same name. Herr Kriss (talk) 09:52, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Apparently out of project scope. Moreover any of this files can be recreated using normal tables. Masur (talk) 18:31, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
Angsumalin siriphatthrasakmetha by Clumsily
[edit]This are copies from http://www.pattieworld.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=3202&st=0&p=61617&#entry61617 of March 24 8:40 PM (=(?)1:40 PM UTC)
- File:Angsumalin siriphatthrasakmetha - 25 march 2011 - 008.jpg
- File:Angsumalin siriphatthrasakmetha - 25 march 2011 - 007.jpg
- File:Angsumalin siriphatthrasakmetha - 25 march 2011 - 006.jpg
- File:Angsumalin siriphatthrasakmetha - 25 march 2011 - 005.jpg
- File:Angsumalin siriphatthrasakmetha - 25 march 2011 - 004.jpg
- File:Angsumalin siriphatthrasakmetha - 25 march 2011 - 003.jpg
- File:Angsumalin siriphatthrasakmetha - 25 march 2011 - 002.jpg
- File:Angsumalin siriphatthrasakmetha - 25 march 2011 - 001.jpg
- File:Angsumalin siriphatthrasakmetha - 25 march 2011 - 000.jpg
Martin H. (talk) 12:02, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:55, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
reverted too many times and it's still the same old one Wykymania (talk) 13:08, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
old image thumbnail persists, rather than new file Wykymania (talk) 02:56, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
- New file = File:M set lower deck cityrail.jpg, right? Perhaps it's the thumbnail caching bug, again. Delete (for convenience only) if the problem persists.NVO (talk) 07:42, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: thumbnail problem, too many versions Mbdortmund (talk) 21:02, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
After some discussion with other users, I wish to bring this file to DR. I believe it is a derivative work and not 'simple' enough. However the uploader believes that it only consists of geometric shapes and text, and does not meet the threshold of originality. But indeed only a judge can really decide. Ben.MQ (talk) 14:05, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
- I´ll be home on the 5th or thereabouts, but I won´t have good internet till then. Or a keyboard with tildes and colons and forward slahes... But, for the moment:
- Ben.MQ, could you please link to or copy-paste this ´discussion´ you have had? I have seen nothing of it except what was posted to my talk page, and I believe it would be relevant here.
- Finally, for the moment, before this 1990s computer gives out. Relevant policy slash legalese is Commons:Threshold of originality.
- Hopefully, talk to y'all on Tuesday... Pi.1415926535 (talk) 22:24, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
- It was on IRC with User:lilyu, User:multichill and some other people. Sorry I can't post it without their permission, but basically we all believe that it is a derivative work and not simple enough. Lilyu mentioned that railway company in France is claiming copyright of their railway station map. --Ben.MQ (talk) 04:16, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
- Is there any way to get permission from them, or give present the actual arguments (paraphrased, of course)? Because if not, then your argument here is "people whom I can't quote agree with me", and while you may very well be right, that doesn't form much argument for deletion. (Of course, if they'd be willing to comment directly here, that would be wonderful.)
- Also: if the result of this discussion is "delete", then some sort of judgement will be needed on how visible a map is before it's not allowed on Commons, as there are numerous images under the MBTA and WMATA (DC Metro) categories - and probably others - with visible maps. Having a separate DR on each would be tedious; if they are unacceptable on Commons, better to delete/move to Wikipedia under fair use/etc en masse for those that require it. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 14:45, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
- Sorry, what I said was misleading. What I meant was more of 'asking for opinions' rather than a in-depth discussion on IRC. What I get from other people has been summarised in the reason for DR. I am not representing anyone here unless they wish to comment. --Ben.MQ (talk) 15:41, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
- It was on IRC with User:lilyu, User:multichill and some other people. Sorry I can't post it without their permission, but basically we all believe that it is a derivative work and not simple enough. Lilyu mentioned that railway company in France is claiming copyright of their railway station map. --Ben.MQ (talk) 04:16, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: These are clearly images of the signs. Our de minimis rule can handle other instances on a case by case basis. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:35, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
and other uploads by Dialogue 2011 (talk · contribs). Unlikely to by own work: small/inconsistent resolutions, missing EXIF. Likely to be advertisement. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:36, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: copyright problem Aude (talk) 03:41, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
Files of Jack Dyson uploaded by 3122WIKI (talk · contribs)
[edit]I doubt own work of Jack Dyson at en.wikipedia. These are small size pngs with no Metadata. Furthermore I investigated a copyvio of a similar image of this user. (And it is very unlikely that he photographed all these street-view cameras.)
RE rillke questions? 16:37, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
- File:Streetview 1st Gen-1-.png is also at http://www.mcs.csueastbay.edu/~tebo/GoogleStreetViewVan/ → jpg by william thibault with a good story and wrong EXIF (apparently a wrong set clock). according to the page the pics are from March 2007. File:Streetview 1st Gen-1-.png is 50% and an exact match then (tested in GIMP with layer substraction)
- File:Streetview 2 Gen.png is at 2008-06-15 by Ron Davis http://www.moreron.com/2008/06/15/google-street-view-camera-car/ → jpg. However - currently (!) it is watermarked. If it was watermarked when the wiki upload happend the watermark must have been retouched/removed - which is possible at this low res. Or they weren't watermarked. Anyway, I think the website has the original - good story, high res.
- File:Streetview 3.jpeg couldn't find it in the web. But taken the previous two and his talk page in enwp into account ... Delete all. Any maybe we should go through his upload log to find more files like these. --Saibo (Δ) 04:00, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:56, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
Non public person who has asked to be deleted from Wikimedia. The person is Swedish and in Sweden there is a law that you need to have the persons approval before you publish a picture on him online Soundcheck (talk) 17:23, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
- Sweden is not on our list of countries that requires consent for such photographs. Please provide a specific citation to the relevant law.
- You say that this person is Swedish, but do not say that the photograph was taken in Sweden. The nationality of the subject is not relevant, only the location of the photograph.
- With that said, however, the subject is probably out of scope. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:12, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
Well, that is not true. If you read the on the Swedish Wikimedia Commons its written that "The Swedish Personal Data Act, PUL, restricts the use of images of people who have not given their explicit consent for the picture published". Here is a link to that page: http://wikitravel.org/sv/Wikitravel:Riktlinjer_för_användande_av_bilder. If you want to read the whole Swedish Personal Data Act then you can do it here: http://www.datainspektionen.se/in-english/
The photograph is taken in Sweden and the person is Swedish. He wants to be removed from Wikimedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Soundcheck (talk • contribs) 09:31, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
- I have two problems with "Well, that is not true."
- First it is insulting, as it suggests that I knew that the statement was not true. It is always better to use "incorrect" rather than "not true". The first is neutral, the second suggests that the other person is a liar.
- Second, it is, itself, not correct. The Commons list of countries which I linked above has no mention of Sweden. You link above to a page which you call "Swedish Wikimedia Commons", but it is, in fact, a page at Wikitravel.org which is entirely unrelated to Wikimedia Commons or the Wikimedia Foundation in any way other than the use of similar software.
- Further, I have read the brochure "Personal Data Protection" which was linked off of the other web site you provided above. It is not at all clear that single photographs of individuals are protected in any way -- in fact there is no mention at all of photographs. The word "photograph" does not appear in the Personal Data Ordinance (1998:1191) or in the Personal Data Act (1998:204).
- Therefore, I think it is best if you take this discussion to Commons talk:Photographs of identifiable people and raise the issue there. You will need, as I requested above, a citation to the specific section of the law that would require Commons to delete this photograph. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:29, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
I didn't want to insult you. Its my English that is not good enough.
Well, regarding the picture issue. Maybe you are right, but I found this following text (I have used Google Translate and I can not find the text on English):
Is a photo Considered as a personal data?
Answer: Yes, all kinds of information that directly or indirectly linked to a natural person who is alive counted under the Data Protection Act that personal data. Although images (photos) in individuals treated in the computer can be personal data. This means that one must take into account the provisions of the Data Protection Act. It may for example require the consent of the person they refer.
Processing of personal data as a private person performs as part of the activities of a purely private nature are not covered by the Data Protection Act. But this exemption does not apply when you publish information on a website.
If a website would like to publish photos of employees, students or the like may be necessary to first obtain consent. Although the case of processing of personal data in unstructured material, such as single images on the Internet, you may need to ask the person first. See the questions under the heading Internet.
- Again, please take this to Commons talk:Photographs of identifiable people. This is not the place to change the handling of images from a whole country. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:14, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
- DeleteThe image is unused and, arguably, out of scope. This is a picture that should probably be deleted anyway, but especially if the subject wishes it. Buddy431 (talk) 03:15, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: out of scope (the only remaining valid reason in this DR) Jcb (talk) 10:25, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
Derivative work of an unfree photo, see here. The other "own works" should also be checked. D.W. (talk) 18:30, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
- This is nonsense. The case i opened myself here. I like to beg all Admins of commons to wait until this is finished. Thanks and greetings --MittlererWeg (talk) 21:14, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
- The opinion of german WP community is not so relevant as you think maybe...--D.W. (talk) 22:21, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
- Please stop this behaviour similar to that of a Wikihound, D.W. Ah, and please note the following posting: Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems#D.W.. It could be relevant to the outcome of the DR. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 22:10, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
- Do you have any arguments regarding this deletion request?--D.W. (talk) 22:21, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
- Yes. This drawing is not a derivative work of any photograph, as it lacks some intrinsic characteristics of a possible source photograph. there is no dealing with the lighting and the pojnt of view in the drawing. The drawer produced little more that the basic geometric shape and outline, so everything that may be a distinct/unique feature like an individual pattern of scratches and bumps is not available in the drawing. With this lack of information, no one can claim a copyright protection because there can't be any evidence that a certain protected work is indeed the source. Keep Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 23:13, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
- Keep, i agree with Grand-Duc. I's never a copyvio/derivative work problem. --Bobo11 (talk) 12:36, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
- Yes. This drawing is not a derivative work of any photograph, as it lacks some intrinsic characteristics of a possible source photograph. there is no dealing with the lighting and the pojnt of view in the drawing. The drawer produced little more that the basic geometric shape and outline, so everything that may be a distinct/unique feature like an individual pattern of scratches and bumps is not available in the drawing. With this lack of information, no one can claim a copyright protection because there can't be any evidence that a certain protected work is indeed the source. Keep Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 23:13, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
- The collegs on wikpedia decited that it is not an derivative work [5]. Thanks for your attention. Regards --MittlererWeg (talk) 16:43, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
- That it is not an exactly copy you can see in example on the cheek flaps of the helmet. On the Photo you will see an miniature of a figure, i think it may be Hermes. On the drawing there is nothing to see of any figure!!. If the picture is not an exactly copy, i think its not an derivative work. For this my drawing is not good enough. Any structure on the metal, damages and such things is not existing. Even the drawing is not three dimensional. You can see this things on all of my near 600 drawings here on Commons. Greetings--MittlererWeg (talk) 13:01, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
- Keep I agree with Bobo11 at de:Wikipedia:Urheberrechtsfragen/Archiv/2011/07#Bitte um Hilfe bei UR Frage. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 17:54, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
Kept. Jcb (talk) 10:26, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
Files by User:October16
[edit]Personal pictures, not in use anywhere. Out of project scope.
Martin H. (talk) 19:12, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:26, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
porno 90.56.130.213 13:46, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
Kept: "Porno" is not a valid reason for deletion. -mattbuck (Talk) 14:40, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
Unused private photo, Out of scope Hold and wave (talk) 20:54, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
- In what way is it "out of scope"? It is in the categories "Anus, human female", "Fishnet stockings", and "Female genitalia" and looks to be relevant to all 3. Infrogmation (talk) 23:01, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
- Keep disruptive DR (one of a set). unused is no argument for deletion. It is not out of scope - see the categories of the image. --Saibo (Δ) 04:19, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
- Keep Why is this image "Out of scope"? Could the people (at least the majority) that nominate this kind of image explain in more than 3 or 4 words. Not in use doens mean out of scope (or will 90% of images get deleted?), private where?. In scope, see categories. Tm (talk) 14:44, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
- InfoThe file April Erotic.JPG that makes part of the same set was nominated to deletion twice and was kepted twice. Tm (talk) 15:41, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
- Comment - In what way is this realistically useful for an educational purpose? Does it not fall into "Commons is not an amateur porn site"? --Hold and wave (talk) 21:53, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
- You can use it for example to show how female genitalia look like when bent over with fishnet stockings around ... Stop wasting out time please. --Saibo (Δ) 00:59, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
- Comment In what is this file not realistically useful for an educational purpose? It does not fall into "Commons is not an amateur porn site" because it was kepted in the first deletion with the rationale "Porno" is not a valid reason for deletion." as are all files that are argumented to be "Porn" kepted because that is not a valid reason to delete files. However this file falls into "Commons is not censored". Tm (talk) 16:48, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
Kept per mattbuck. --Leyo 15:32, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
As per Commons:Deletion_requests/File:April after !st act.jpg Hold and wave (talk) 21:06, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Per nom. Missvain (talk) 21:22, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
- Keep - COM:PEOPLE, the deletion reason given in that DR, is about identifiable people. I do not believe this is identifiable. -mattbuck (Talk) 21:33, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
- Keep per Mattbuck, 2 previous "Kept" rulings. Infrogmation (talk) 23:11, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
Kept. “As per Commons:Deletion requests/File:April after !st act.jpg” is silly, because the two cases are not comparable at all. Unlike in the other picture, the woman is not identifiable here. --Leyo 15:07, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
I believe this is a great clear photo of my wife's rear, showing nice detail of Aprils anus and her lips..It still doesnt get many views disappointly therefore please delete this photo also ,,,,I can tell under stats she's not get many veiws about 60Reddog11223 (talk) 04:27, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
- Keep, strange request (if I understand correctly, because not enough people look at it?) not citing any Commons reasons for deletion. Kept in multiple previous del reqs. No legitimate reason to delete offered. -- Infrogmation (talk) 05:17, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
- Keep No valid reason for deletion. --Leyo 06:52, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
Question - Commons doesn't list pageviews. How do you know it's not getting many views? -mattbuck (Talk) 17:22, 6 December 2013 (UTC)- Question - You guys sure about this? I mean, obviously the image has more page views now, but the original uploader asking us to delete the porn he once uploaded should fall under Commons:Courtesy deletions, shouldn't it?LlywelynII (talk) 12:28, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
- Commons:Courtesy deletions is only a proposed Commons guideline, policy, or process! Jacopo Werther iγ∂ψ=mψ 16:44, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
- Courtesy delete The norm on Commons is to allow courtesy deletions in reasonable circumstances. These are normally for recently uploaded images, however considering this is not in use and the original photographer is making this request, I encourage accommodating it. --Fæ (talk) 15:51, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
- Keep Really no valid reason for deletion. Jacopo Werther iγ∂ψ=mψ 16:11, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
- courtesy delete The original uploader requesting its deletion isn't valid? LlywelynII (talk) 16:17, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
- You should know that licenses are non-revocable. --Leyo 00:30, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
Kept: per Infrogmation & Leyo. INeverCry 16:47, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: I deleted the file as a courtesy to the person photographed and in response to the request of the author (as posted at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Aprils safe sex.jpg). odder (talk) 12:19, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
Totally inappropriate. Pornographic content. Monsterkillu (talk) 17:49, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
- Keep "Inappropriate" how? It is in category "Sexual fetishism", and seems relevent to topic. Nudity is not necessarily "pornographic", and in any case Wikimedia is not restricted to G rated content. Infrogmation (talk) 18:20, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
- Keep Useful e.g. as an example of a large labia minora. --Leyo 22:42, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
- Keep this DR is a set of DRs with invalid reasons (COM:NOTCENSORED). By the way: I have added some more categories to show you the usefulness. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 00:44, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
- Keep - no reason for deletion. -mattbuck (Talk) 08:15, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
- Keep this is no pornographic content but a naked woman wearing a breath of nothing --Wladyslaw (talk) 09:31, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
- Keep Can't see a reason for deletion... -- ／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ 苦情処理係 12:16, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
Kept: per consensus above Trycatch (talk) 13:49, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
Unused private photo, Out of scope Hold and wave (talk) 20:54, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
- Keep For the same reasons as last time. -- ／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ 苦情処理係 21:30, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
Speedy kept, just kept after deletion request a couple weeks ago. Infrogmation (talk) 22:55, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
As per Commons:Deletion requests/File:April after !st act.jpg. Hold and wave (talk) 21:06, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Per nom. Missvain (talk) 21:23, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
- Keep Same as in previous case. How often will you try the same thing over and over again? -- ／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ 苦情処理係 21:24, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
- Keep no new argument, close this useless DR --Wladyslaw (talk) 21:32, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Per FloNight on the other case, does not meet COM:PEOPLE. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:34, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
- Keep - has been kept twice in the past 4 months, nothing has changed. -mattbuck (Talk) 21:35, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
- Something has changed. A group of some people hunts down images with mass {{vd}} votes, to get rid of them. See the Deletion request linked at the top as an example. -- ／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ 苦情処理係 21:38, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
- Mattbuck, please read FloNight's reason on the link. Pointing out a policy that people have ignored before is something that was overlooked in the above discussion. :) According to COM:PEOPLE, OTRS needs to have a slip that verifies consent from the individual in the picture. That is all. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 22:58, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
- Keep per 2 previous rulings. Inappropriate repeat listings. "Personality" rights not relevant as face not shown.
- Commons:PEOPLE - She is identifiable because she was named and other images could be used to identify her. Commons People's doesn't specify that a face has to be seen to be part of identifiable. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 23:23, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
- So remove her name. By your argument, every picture of a person is identifiable, whether or not we have other pictures. -mattbuck (Talk) 09:16, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
- That is what Commons People suggests as a possible solution. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 14:41, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
- "Identifiable"? That seems a dubious stretch to me. "Named"? In what way? (Seriously, I'm at a loss. Is "April Erotic" the person's actual name? So rename the file if that worries you.) I'm not sure how "other images could be used to identify her" -- Um, what, someone might say to themselves "Hey, I recognize that vulva"? -- Infrogmation (talk) 11:47, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
- The image was part of a set. To make her unidentifiable we would have to get rid of anything that links it to the set (like this or the one deleted above, etc.). By the way, the creator has had his images removed per "wife's request" before, which means that it should be easy to get his wife's permission, no ([6]) ? The uploader has an interesting series of edits. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:41, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
- So remove her name. By your argument, every picture of a person is identifiable, whether or not we have other pictures. -mattbuck (Talk) 09:16, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
- Commons:PEOPLE - She is identifiable because she was named and other images could be used to identify her. Commons People's doesn't specify that a face has to be seen to be part of identifiable. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 23:23, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
![[6]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Naked_wives.jpg){kind=link}
- Comment COM:PORN Missvain (talk) 00:33, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
- Which says what relevant? It's pretty clear that several people don't think this has no educational use.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:41, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
- "There are no pages that link to this file." Since "05:25, 6 March 2011". If you think it has an educational use, find at least one page to put it in and that it stays there for more than a day. :P Ottava Rima (talk) 00:43, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
- Apply the same logic to the pictures of the Eifel Tower and have a happy tea party. -- ／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ 苦情処理係 00:54, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
- You do know that we have deleted many Eifel Tower images, right? :) Ottava Rima (talk) 01:41, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
- Not for lacking links. Infrogmation (talk) 01:45, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
- Ha, well, yes for the most part. :) There were other problems, such as the whole night time copyright nonsense. But like this, not all images can be used or useful. I just want some demonstration of potential. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 01:49, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
- Not for lacking links. Infrogmation (talk) 01:45, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
- You do know that we have deleted many Eifel Tower images, right? :) Ottava Rima (talk) 01:41, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
- Apply the same logic to the pictures of the Eifel Tower and have a happy tea party. -- ／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ 苦情処理係 00:54, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
- "There are no pages that link to this file." Since "05:25, 6 March 2011". If you think it has an educational use, find at least one page to put it in and that it stays there for more than a day. :P Ottava Rima (talk) 00:43, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
- Which says what relevant? It's pretty clear that several people don't think this has no educational use.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:41, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
- Delete. An image of a photographer's woman in a private setting spreading her legs while wearing crotchless fishnet tights. What can this possibly illustrate — "Home pr0n for dummies"? Ari Linn (talk) 14:34, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted - although the previous keeps could be a reason to keep again, in this case there is clearly no realistic possible educative usage, making the file out of scope - Jcb (talk) 14:51, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
- Restored per udel --MGA73 (talk) 09:41, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
Wife no longer wants this photo on display as has no value Reddog11223 (talk) 04:20, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
- Keep No valid reason for deletion. Since the face is cut off, she is not recognizable. --Leyo 06:53, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
- Delete Although the deletion reason is invalid, this file is still clearly out of scope. It does not have any educational purpose. Jcb (talk) 10:24, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
- I disagree. Please elaborate. --Leyo 10:37, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
- Courtesy delete The norm on Commons is to allow courtesy deletions in reasonable circumstances. These are normally for recently uploaded images, however considering this is not in use and the original photographer is making this request, I encourage accommodating it. --Fæ (talk) 11:47, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
- Keep Per Leyo. Jacopo Werther iγ∂ψ=mψ 17:01, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
- Delete - A courtesy deletion requested by the subject of an image that 's not in use and doesn't have significant value should be honored (as a courtesy). We should be respectful of the wishes of subjects, especially those who are not notable, double-plus especially when supported by the author and contributor. --SJ+ 04:44, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted - pretty easily replaceable, only use is a userpage, no reason to annoy the contributor. -mattbuck (Talk) 08:42, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
Files uploaded by User:Dubianman
[edit]Strange image editing, self-created art postcards. If you want to build a page with your personal postcards you should open your own website, Commons is not the right place. I tried to exclude those postcards that have been used on usertalk pages, small numbers of such images are accepted on Commons.
- File:出産祝いカード-花束家族-横.png
- File:全国の伊達直人さんありがとう.png
- File:出産祝いカード-親父と赤ちゃん-横.png
- File:年賀状-コウモリドラゴン-横.png
- File:出産祝いカード-幸せ家族-横.png
- File:年賀状-昇り竜-縦.png
- File:出産祝いカード-イクメンパパ-縦.png
- File:年賀状-背中入れ墨-縦.png
- File:出産祝いカード-フレア母子像-横.png
- File:出産祝いカード-坊主親子-縦.png
- File:ご懐妊祝いカード-ヌードキス-縦.png
- File:年賀状-頂上ドラゴン-横.png
- File:出産祝いカード-家族赤ちゃん-縦.png
- File:出産祝いカード-お人形-縦.png
- File:年賀状-竜騎士-縦.png
- File:出産祝いカード-家族キス-縦.png
- File:年賀状-恐竜ドラゴン-横.png
- File:出産祝いカード-家族-横.png
- File:年賀状-年越し状-縦.png
- File:出産祝い-三輪車-縦.png
- File:出産祝いカード-天使-横.png
- File:誕生祝いカード-グラス赤ちゃん-縦.png
- File:出産祝いカード-キス親子-縦.png
- File:年賀状-ブラック・ドラゴン-横.png
- File:出産祝いカード-横.png
- File:年賀状-ドラゴン-2.png
- File:年賀状-帯祝い-横.png
- File:年賀状-ドラゴン-横.png
- File:年賀状-ソリうさぎ-横.png
- File:年賀状-ないしょうさぎ-縦.png
- File:年賀状-サムライうさぎ-横.png
- File:年賀状-国旗うさぎ-横.png
- File:年賀状-キスうさぎ-縦.png
- File:年賀状-雨うさぎ-横.png
- File:年賀状-両手に花うさぎ-横.png
- File:年賀状-母娘うさぎ-横.png
- File:年賀状-自愛うさぎ-縦.png
- File:年賀状-山ガールうさぎ-横.png
- File:年賀状-ハイ・ボールうさぎ-縦.png
- File:年賀状-3つ子うさぎ-縦.png
- File:年賀状-キャト・ウォークうさぎ-縦.png
- File:年賀状-うさぎ男-横.png
- File:年賀状-マッピングうさぎ騎士-横.png
- File:年賀状-相撲うさぎ-縦.png
- File:年賀状-プレグナントうさぎ-縦.png
- File:年賀状-竜馬うさぎ-横.png
- File:年賀状-食べ過ぎうさぎ-縦.png
- File:年賀状-春うさぎ-横.png
- File:年賀状-マッピングビッグスマイルうさぎ-横.png
- File:年賀状-育メンうさぎ-横.png
- File:年賀状-リトルガールうさぎ-縦.png
- File:年賀状-うさきち-縦.png
- File:年賀状-うさぎ仙人-横.png
- File:年賀状-デジタルうさぎ-横.png
- File:年賀状-眠りうさぎ-縦.png
- File:年賀状-スノボサンタうさぎ-横.png
- File:年賀状-スペードうさぎ-縦.png
- File:年賀状-うさぎマスク-横.png
- File:年賀状-白黒うさぎ-横.png
- File:年賀状-目玉焼きうさぎ-縦.png
- File:年賀状-うさみ-横.png
- File:年賀状-まるなげうさぎ-縦.png
- File:年賀状-モノクロうさぎ-縦.png
- File:年賀状-跳躍うさぎ-横.png
- File:年賀状-アストロうさこ-縦.png
- File:年賀状-色むらうさぎ-横.png
- File:年賀状-本番-黄色うさぎ-横.png
- File:年賀状-本番-うさた-横.jpg
- File:年賀状-本番-緑うさぎ-横.jpg
- File:年賀状-本番-青いうさぎ-縦.jpg
- File:年賀状-本番-うさえさん-縦.jpg
- File:年賀状-リサイズ-吹き出し付き-横.jpg
- File:年賀状-リサイズ-習字しぶめ-縦.jpg
- File:年賀状-リサイズ-バニーガール-縦.jpg
- File:年賀状-リサイズ-でぶうさぎ-縦.jpg
- File:年賀状-リサイズ-しろうさぎ-縦+-+コピー.jpg
- File:年賀状-リサイズ-しぶいうさぎ-横.jpg
- File:年賀状-リサイズ-こたつうさぎ-縦.jpg
- File:年賀状-リサイズ-キャラクター.jpg
Martin H. (talk) 21:51, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
- Weak delete hardly within the scope. Delete since not in use--Ben.MQ (talk) 19:57, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Scope beyond good or evil. --Yikrazuul (talk) 21:21, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:39, 9 July 2011 (UTC)