Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2011/07/05
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
|
|
Looks like spam, probably out of scope Darwin Ahoy! 11:04, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: http://nk-vd.ru Copyright © 2011. All Rights Reserved. Darwin Ahoy! 11:14, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
Low res and no exif, uploader has an history of uploading copyvios as own work Darwin Ahoy! 11:50, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: User not reliable at all, no point sending this to DR Darwin Ahoy! 12:07, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
Doubtful own work, uploader has an history of uploading copyvios as own work Darwin Ahoy! 11:51, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: User not reliable at all, no point sending this to DR Darwin Ahoy! 12:06, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
Against Notability Guidelines Vibhijain (talk) 12:04, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Speedy - emply gallery/out of scope Herby talk thyme 12:37, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
DR to decide if this qualifies as a simple logo or is otherwise under a free license Darwin Ahoy! 13:04, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: No way this can be a simple logo, I opened this request out of good faith for the uploader, but after seeing him faking OTRS pending to keep copyvios this is completely moot. Darwin Ahoy! 13:20, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Tom_delonge_.jpg#file Atom7310 (talk) 06:18, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Request by uploader. No reason given, but most likely he is not the copyright holder. GeorgHH • talk 19:56, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Adam-willard.jpg Atom7310 (talk) 06:19, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Request by uploader. No reason given, but most likely he is not the copyright holder. GeorgHH • talk 19:55, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
see File:Wikipedia-logo-uk-300k.png Ickis (talk) 18:33, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Dupe, author request Anatoliy (talk) 19:35, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
According to the description, this is a clear case of spam, and therefore probably out of scope. Darwin Ahoy! 02:45, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Also unused. --ZooFari 02:11, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
unused personal logo - out of scope Santosga (talk) 12:21, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. --ZooFari 02:07, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
unused personal logo - out of scope Santosga (talk) 12:21, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Clearly out of scope. Vanjagenije (talk) 20:29, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. --ZooFari 02:07, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
unused personal image - out of scope Santosga (talk) 12:51, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Clearly out of scope. Vanjagenije (talk) 20:29, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. --ZooFari 02:07, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
unused personal image - out of scope Santosga (talk) 12:51, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Clearly out of scope. Vanjagenije (talk) 20:28, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. --ZooFari 02:07, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
Self-promotion of a non-notable teacher. File is just text and has no education value. Wikiweek (talk) 14:45, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
Delete--Vibhijain (talk) 15:15, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
- Delete--Shameless self-advertisement. Quest09 (talk) 20:32, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. --ZooFari 02:04, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
was used for the deleted (irrelevant and written in advert style) article de:KissNoFrog. → out of scope Could be considered advert/spam. In addition permission is missing for this license (although it would probably be possible to keep as pd-textlogo). Saibo (Δ) 18:31, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. --ZooFari 02:04, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
Poor quality, unused and superceded. Yikrazuul (talk) 18:31, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. I could envision a place where one wants to highlight the "OH" part, but the thing is so trivial and this particular image is low-quality, would redo from scratch in high-quality form if needed. DMacks (talk) 06:01, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. --ZooFari 02:03, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
CC-BY-SA for a logo is not plausible. http://www.lorrainedarts.fr/informations-legales says "Contenus protégés : © lorrainedarts.fr. Tous droits réservés." Aʁsenjyʁdəgaljɔm11671 18:49, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
- Note : even if the uploader is Stéphane Ribeiro (the president of Lorraine d'Arts), I don't think he understand what is implied by CC-BY-SA for his logo... --Aʁsenjyʁdəgaljɔm11671 18:52, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: OTRS permission required. --ZooFari 02:03, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
a person of no notability Andrei Romanenko (talk) 18:50, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. --ZooFari 02:02, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
a person of no notability Andrei Romanenko (talk) 19:05, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. --ZooFari 02:01, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
sorry that is too blurry / not sharp - totally out of focus. Use macro mode next time. According to the desc it should show sediment in a mug... Maybe this photo could count as modern art? ;) Saibo (Δ) 19:12, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
- Delete I totally agree with Saibo. That is not useable for anything. --AtelierMonpli (talk) 23:34, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: I thought it was earth... --ZooFari 02:00, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
Out of COM:SCOPE, unused, maybe promotional. Uploader's only contribution. Wknight94 talk 23:49, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. --ZooFari 01:54, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
Out of COM:SCOPE, unused photo of some non-notable guy. Uploader's only contribution. Wknight94 talk 00:01, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. --ZooFari 01:54, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
Unused personal photo, out of scope Gbawden (talk) 12:24, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete COM:SCOPE. Riley Huntley (talk) 05:20, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. --Steinsplitter (talk) 18:51, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
DR to decide of this qualifies as simple logo Darwin Ahoy! 00:28, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: although this may be borderline Jcb (talk) 10:08, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
DR to decide if this qualifies as simple logo Darwin Ahoy! 00:30, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 10:09, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
- Restored after additional information was provided - Jcb (talk) 13:01, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
- Redundant image, not being used! I request that this version be deleted. Correct image in SVG format File:Palmeiras logo.svg - Raphael Figueira (talk) 05:37, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
Kept: dupe processed. --lNeverCry 05:55, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
DR to decide if this qualifies as simple logo Darwin Ahoy! 00:34, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
Kept: although this may be borderline Jcb (talk) 10:09, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
Photo belongs to this set: http://www.mariahconnection.com/pictures/main.php?g2_itemId=20539 where it is copyrighted. This Flickr photostream doesn't seems to have the rights to relicense it under a free license as they have done. If this is the case, I suggest adding the Chicagofabulous Flickr photostream to the blacklist. Darwin Ahoy! 00:55, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:12, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
Low res and no EXIF, doubtful own work as claimed Darwin Ahoy! 01:02, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
- Delete This looks like a flickrwash unfortunately. --Leoboudv (talk) 00:02, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:12, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
Promotional image of some sort. Likely copyrighted. No reason given to suggest that uploader is copyright holder. FASTILY (TALK) 01:46, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:12, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
low resolution duplicate Rleonmx (talk) 03:22, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:12, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
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) 03:42, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:13, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
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) 03:42, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:13, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
Includes File:Aconcagua - Argentina - January 2005 - by Sergio Schmiegelow.jpg, which was deleted for missing permission information —LX (talk, contribs) 05:33, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
- This also applies to File:LatinAmericaPortalVer2.jpg. —LX (talk, contribs) 05:35, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:13, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
the Oscar statuette is copyright according to this Egon Eagle (talk) 08:00, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:14, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
the Oscar statuette is copyright according to this Egon Eagle (talk) 08:01, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:14, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
possibly the ladybird image is PD? Here a higher res image of the ladybird: http://176.mpdesk.cn/pdtimgs/7fd963be-e34f-4190-bbfe-93b4632e44ea.jpg (I'm sure the cam is a copyvio too) Amada44 talk to me 08:19, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:18, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
Not a simple logo, uploaded with bogus license, probably under copyright Darwin Ahoy! 08:21, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:18, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
There is no evidance that the source was under a free licence. m Huib talk Abigor @ meta 08:26, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
- Delete There is obviously no permission to use. Vanjagenije (talk) 20:36, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:18, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
It has been uploaded incorrectly Lauradewey (talk) 08:55, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
Kept: Without further explanation, that is not a good reason for deletion. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:19, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
Out of scope: does not belong to any article on any project (the enwiki one has been deleted). Not realistically useful. Quibik (talk) 10:41, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Clearly out of scope. Vanjagenije (talk) 20:30, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
- Delete The wikipedia article was deleted in January 2011. Not notable. --Leoboudv (talk) 04:38, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:19, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
Also nominating:
Highly unlikely "own work" claim. Original uploader on sq-wiki, sq:User:Xixa, is a serial copyright violator; all his uploads lack sources and/or have obviously random, false PD or fair use claims. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:43, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
- I Agree. Delete.--R ašo
18:31, 5 July 2011 (UTC) - Delete Clear copyrights violation. Vanjagenije (talk) 20:31, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:19, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
DR to decide if this qualifies as a simple logo, or is otherwise free Darwin Ahoy! 10:50, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Yeah I think this is over border line. Clearly original, bevels, coloration, etc. --ZooFari 02:06, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
- Also unused... --ZooFari 02:09, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: per ZooFari High Contrast (talk) 13:37, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
DR to decide if this qualifies as simple logo Darwin Ahoy! 11:00, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
Keep Made up of text and common heraldry element. --ZooFari 02:10, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
Kept: Withdrawned, agree with ZooFari Darwin Ahoy! 11:11, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
The uploader on flickr is not the copyright owner. Mys 721tx (talk) 11:15, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
- what about this one File:HuangmeiOpera.jpg? obsviouly, there is no problem--心中的凉茶 (talk) 11:50, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
- Delete The photo would have been taken after 1950 and so copyright applies. Without a clear source, this photo should not be retained. --Fæ (talk) 06:28, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
- Delete per nominator. --Leoboudv (talk) 20:41, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:21, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
propaganda fall out of project scope Mys 721tx (talk) 11:44, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:21, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
собственник Skyiol (talk) 12:12, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
- Leaning to keep: PD-ineligible to me. An oversized comma sign is still a comma sign. NVO (talk) 07:34, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
Kept. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:22, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
No author given. No reason to believe he is already more than 70 years dead. <=1900 as date of publication is given. Assume: author's age 30 then. Died at 80 years: 1950. That would be only 61 years ago. Saibo (Δ) 12:57, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
- Keep old postcard with different unsigned photos; {{PD-EU-no author disclosure}}. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 15:11, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
- The old game... let's play it: We have no evidence “that the author's name (e.g., the original photographer, portrait painter) was not published with a claim of copyright in conjunction with the image within 70 years of its original publication.” Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 18:01, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
- The only thing this card says is "Herausgeber Johannes Eichlepp Hof, Buch, u. Kunsthandlung, Freiburg im Breisgau". And the name of the owner of the manor house. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:16, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
- Good: so, should be possible to ask at "Johannes Eichlepp Hof" who is the author. They could know it. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 01:05, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
- Eichlepp was a court book and art dealer, the "Hof" referred to is probably the court of the Grand Duke of Baden. Since then, two World Wars have passed, and it seems that young German cannot even interpret such titles anymore. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 07:05, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
- Continuing with off topic talk: If you wouldn't do these "anonymous work" claims again and again I wouldn't need to make mistakes in copying and could spend my time to more useful work.... --Saibo (Δ) 01:08, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
- Eichlepp was a court book and art dealer, the "Hof" referred to is probably the court of the Grand Duke of Baden. Since then, two World Wars have passed, and it seems that young German cannot even interpret such titles anymore. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 07:05, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
- Good: so, should be possible to ask at "Johannes Eichlepp Hof" who is the author. They could know it. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 01:05, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
- The only thing this card says is "Herausgeber Johannes Eichlepp Hof, Buch, u. Kunsthandlung, Freiburg im Breisgau". And the name of the owner of the manor house. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:16, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
- The old game... let's play it: We have no evidence “that the author's name (e.g., the original photographer, portrait painter) was not published with a claim of copyright in conjunction with the image within 70 years of its original publication.” Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 18:01, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:22, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
Not entirely self-created by the uploader but a photo of the monitor - no joke, note the mouse cursor. Therefore derivative work of some unfree video or other web content. Martin H. (talk) 14:26, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
Also:
You cant simply upload photos here that you made of your monitor. Your ability to watch some content on your computer does not mean that you in any way are allowed to reproduce that content and distributing it worldwide for educational as well as commercial reuse by uploading it here. --Martin H. (talk) 14:28, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:23, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
No information on when it was made, and no author information, yet a GFDL-self license. Incorrect licensing. -- Deadstar (msg) 15:21, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Probably a copyrighted image. Vanjagenije (talk) 20:26, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
- Keep It says "Author: own work", consistent with the license. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 15:42, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
- It says "Source: Own work". Date: Unknown. Author: (no information). If source info was correct, filling in the other two fields shouldn't be difficult. -- Deadstar (msg) 19:04, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:24, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
This looks like a screenshot, despite all the OTRS information provided? -- Deadstar (msg) 15:21, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
- The first image uploaded contained a watermark. I have requested "the original picture" without watermark and received this one. I agree that the quality of the image is not very high, but that does not necessarily mean it is a screen shot. Edoderoo (talk) 09:01, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
- If file ends up being kept: Is there anyway to "stretch" the image if licensing etc. is correct? -- Deadstar (msg) 19:06, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:24, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
image of an brazilian artist - without proper source, scanned from a newspaper - copy vio Cholo Aleman (talk) 16:02, 5 July 2011 (UTC) Delete Clear copyvio case. Vanjagenije (talk) 20:25, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:24, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
unused logo / image of eminem and another musician - copy vio, taken from a website Cholo Aleman (talk) 16:07, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Clear copy vio. Vanjagenije (talk) 20:24, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:25, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
Copyvio - central lion crudely copied from Sporting Lisbon logo Malpass93 (talk) 16:29, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:25, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
Out of scope: A parking car, a building, nothing special. Yikrazuul (talk) 17:25, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:36, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
non-free poster, no FOP in Japan. Ben.MQ (talk) 17:48, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:36, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Both buildings are obviously fairly recent; France does not recognise freedom of panorama. Should be transferred before deletion to Wikipedias accepting Fair Use, including the French-speaking Wikipedia. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 18:00, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:36, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
Buildings is obviously fairly recent; France does not recognise freedom of panorama. Should be transferred before deletion to Wikipedias accepting Fair Use, including the French-speaking Wikipedia. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 18:04, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:37, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
Artwork by Paul Landowski (d. 1961), still protected by copyright; France does not recognise Freedom of panorama. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 18:11, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:37, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
I'm not sure who the real creator of this image is, but I don't think it is the uploader. It is quite common in the Internet, see for example http://www.assamspider.com/gallery/1353-Image-Bishnu-Prasad-Rabha.aspx http://biswajitgogoi.blogspot.com/2011/05/great-man-of-assam.html Muhandes (talk) 18:44, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:37, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
bad name Kusurija (talk) 19:20, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:38, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
bad name Kusurija (talk) 19:31, 5 July 2011 (UTC) Category was renamed to Category:Saint Roch of Montpellier church in Varsėdžiai
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:38, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
Based on the copyright info on this page : http://www.mairie-doullens.fr/page00010007.html , the logotype is copyrighted and need specific permission. Loreleil (talk) 20:02, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:38, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
No Fop in France and Architecte is ERIC BAGGE (dead in 1978) : main element of the picture is the design of the architecture of the front. Loreleil (talk) 21:14, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:38, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
DR to decide if this qualifies as a simple logo Darwin Ahoy! 03:11, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
Kept: PD-simple Jcb (talk) 17:11, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
Just another cock, this one don't bring anything original or interesting compared to all those that already exist (and better quality images) DR include :
Lilyu (talk) 06:53, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Per nom, I cannot here anything special, "better" or not-have-been-here. --Yikrazuul (talk) 21:13, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom Jcb (talk) 17:13, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
COM:PENIS, just bad and boring in every way Dronebogus (talk) 12:08, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 15:25, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
Is this PD-simple? Otherwise its a copyvio from apple: http://images.apple.com/de/airportextreme/images/specsairport_20070109.png Amada44 talk to me 08:08, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
Kept: PD-simple Jcb (talk) 17:15, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
a non-free logo, see also this history of the image Trijnstel (talk) 15:18, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 17:16, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
Isn't this a Mac OS X icon? I found one on the apple homepage: http://images.apple.com/at/pro/color/workflow/images/image_displayassistant.jpg Amada44 talk to me 07:47, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Ben.MQ (talk) 08:23, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
This does not look like PD-simple to me. Complex enough in my opinion. --ZooFari 21:16, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
- Why do you say it is complex? It's only simple shapes. You mean the whole arrangement? -- Darwin Ahoy! 22:43, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
- Just my opinion, yes. But because the threshold is set by our own opinions, might as well nominate for deletion something I'm not too sure on. Our own logo is simpler than this but we have not opened our eyes to this controversy yet, so I'm just asking for others' input. --ZooFari 23:47, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for doing it, then, I do it all the time when I have a doubt about some logo. Unfortunately the DRs I opened don't seem to be much concurred until now. I also hope to see more comments on this logo, it's a good case for discussion since it's all simple shapes but the whole arrangement may have some creativity.-- Darwin Ahoy! 02:43, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
- Just my opinion, yes. But because the threshold is set by our own opinions, might as well nominate for deletion something I'm not too sure on. Our own logo is simpler than this but we have not opened our eyes to this controversy yet, so I'm just asking for others' input. --ZooFari 23:47, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
- Keep as PD-Old. As can be seen here, this emblem dates from 1904 and represents the football balls which were used at the time. In 1963 the text in the emblem was changed, but the drawing remained the same.-- Darwin Ahoy! 17:49, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
Kept: Withdrawn per Darwin. --ZooFari 18:05, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
Copyrighted logo, fair use COM:FU ✎kovox90 13:54, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
Kept: per first DR close. --INeverCry 00:17, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
DR to decide of this qualifies as simple logo. The only copyrightable element seems to be the crown, though it doesn't look that original (If I well recall we have a lot of identical crown drawings here in Commons under a free license) Darwin Ahoy! 00:37, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
Kept. Jcb (talk) 19:55, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
Nominating this for deletion again. I'm not buying this is below COM:TOO in most countries, let alone Brazil, where we don't know what the level is. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 16:49, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 12:47, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
DR to decide of this qualifies as simple logo Darwin Ahoy! 00:38, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
Kept. Jcb (talk) 19:56, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
This image has no valid source that could prove that it is a NASA image so that the applied licence fits. 80.187.106.229 06:48, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
- Google Maps has a similar image, though it doesn't seem to be the same.-- Darwin Ahoy! 07:04, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
Comment The image _has_ a valid source -- it's a screenshot of NASA World Wind with Landsat imagery. However, if the used layer was i-cubed Landsat, it's possible that the picture is not free, because this layer was created by a third party, not by NASA (see [1], [2]). I can't check if this is i-cubed Landsat or something else by myself, because I can't execute World Wind under Linux (rating Garbage in winehq). Trycatch (talk) 13:44, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: to be sure Jcb (talk) 20:05, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
Lithomancy
[edit]
These images were all uploaded by User:GW4psychic—or should I say, "Gary L. Wimmer, Master of Lithomancy". They are from a copyrighted book,[3] and we only have his say-so that he's the author. However, even if he is the author, this is blatant self promotion by an obvious charlatan. The WP-en article that used the images linked five times to his website[4] (he posted links to his website on other articles as well), where he advertizes readings over the phone for $60 per half hour. The book is not a reliable source (it's vanity press), and is in no way notable in its own right.
If these images are not deleted, I have some stuff from my own vanity book that I'd like to upload ;-) Kwamikagami (talk) 07:39, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
- Delete, as obvious copyright-violations (as stated, and stated on [5] c/f [6]. Should be speedy, if the policy actually existed. Clearly, straight from the book - which is (c) and we have no evidence of permission. Chzz ► 07:57, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: speedy copvios. Blurpeace 08:01, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
the Oscar statuette is copyright according to this Egon Eagle (talk) 08:00, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
- Delete had been deleted before per Commons:Deletion requests/Images of Oscar statuettes, which makes it an obvious case for speedy deletion. Admin Jcb (talk · contribs) was wrong when he repeatedly removed copyvio tags on this image. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 09:40, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:14, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
Sending to DR to decide if this qualifies as a simple logo Darwin Ahoy! 08:09, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
Kept. Jcb (talk) 20:06, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
geonorge.no maps
[edit]- File:Nordkin, Finnmark, Norway.JPG
- File:Gamvik, Finnmark, Norway 2009.JPG
- File:Gamvik airport 2009.JPG
- File:Alta municipality 2009 Est lang.jpg
- File:Alta municipality 2009.jpg
- File:Riksvei 888 Norway.JPG
- File:Aroya, Alta, Norway.JPG
- File:Ifjord Norway.jpg
- File:Slettnes Nature Reserve 01a.jpg
The source doesn't mention a CC license. The permission document mentioned here only says that maps are freely accessible via geonorge.no. --88.196.241.249 08:07, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
All geoNorge images are part of GeoNetwork opensource [7] and actual licence is GPL [8]. --Rünno (talk) 08:46, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
- This applys to the software used to make the maps available. I didn't find an evidence of Norwegian Mapping Authority (Statens kartverk) publishing their maps under a free license. 88.196.241.249 11:33, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
- They say, that service is free [9].--Rünno (talk) 11:53, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
- To be sure, I wrote them letter to know, what they are thinking about "free".--Rünno (talk) 12:19, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
- Delete per http://gammel.geonorge.no/Portal/ptk and click further on the lower line about copyright; "free" only means "without a fee". /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:04, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, You are right... But, if to open http://www.geonorge.no/geonetwork/srv/no/main.home - no such claim--Rünno (talk) 16:51, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:16, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
Because the Author want it! Valternet (talk) 22:32, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
- Keep in use, useful. Infrogmation (talk) 02:08, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
Kept. Commons licensing non-revocable George Chernilevsky talk 06:47, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
Delete my photo from wikipedia - I want it deleted from wikipedia! Valternet (talk) 20:41, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
Speedy kept You uploaded it! You shared it under a free license!! The license is non-revokable!!! This has been explained to you many many times!!!! Repeating yourself with exclamation marks does not change things!!!!! -- Infrogmation (talk) 20:59, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
Because the author wants it deleted from wikipedia! Valternet (talk) 09:22, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
Kept. Creative Commons licenses are non-revocable. Dcoetzee (talk) 11:21, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
Because the Author wants the file deleted from Wikipedia! Valternet (talk) 22:48, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
- Keep, image is in use in multiple Wikipedias, useful in project scope. Released under free license; Commons licensing non-revocable. -- Infrogmation (talk) 01:22, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
Kept. Commons licensing non-revocable. George Chernilevsky talk 07:15, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
Because the author wants it deleted from wikipedia! Valternet (talk) 09:23, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
Kept. Creative Commons licenses are non-revocable. Dcoetzee (talk) 11:17, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
Because the Author wants the file deleted from Wikipedia! Valternet (talk) 22:45, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
- Keep, in use, no problem evident. Infrogmation (talk) 01:27, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
Kept. Commons licensing non-revocable. George Chernilevsky talk 07:08, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
Because the author wants it deleted! Valternet (talk) 18:53, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
- Keep Suggest speedy keep. Valternet, the issue has been explained to you repeatedly. If if you do not understand fully because your English is not good enough, please use your language of choice; we will find an admins who is fluent. Unless you have something new to say or explain, or a question, I suggest you stop what you are doing here, as it only annoys and wastes time. If it keeps up you may risk being blocked -- that is not a threat, it is an assessment of the situation. -- Infrogmation (talk) 19:02, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
Kept. Commons licensing non-revocable. Béria Lima msg 07:33, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
Because the author wants it deleted from wikipedia! Valternet (talk) 09:49, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
- Keep Can someone block this person? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 10:02, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
Kept. Creative Commons licenses are non-revocable. User is now blocked indefinitely. Dcoetzee (talk) 11:16, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
Because the Author want it! Valternet (talk) 22:31, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Because the Wikipedia use it! -- Infrogmation (talk) 02:07, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
Kept. Commons licensing non-revocable. George Chernilevsky talk 06:46, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
Delete my photo from wikipedia - I want it deleted from wikipedia! Valternet (talk) 20:41, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
- Sorry, but you released this image under a free license 4 years ago. That is not revocable. Why do you want to delete it now? --Túrelio (talk) 20:50, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
Because the author wants it deleted from wikipedia! Valternet (talk) 10:33, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
Kept. Creative Commons licenses are non-revocable. Dcoetzee (talk) 11:16, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
Because the Author wants the file deleted from Wikipedia! Valternet (talk) 22:44, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
Kept. Commons licensing non-revocable. George Chernilevsky talk 07:08, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
Because it's not used by anyone! And the Author want it with "All Rights Reserved" Valternet (talk) 11:07, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
- Keep, as you were told three weeks ago, it's not possible to make this all-rights-reserved. Moreover, our scope doesn't require that files be in use; it only requires that files be useful. It's a good photo of an identified location, so it's definitely useful. Nyttend (talk) 00:25, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
Kept. Creative Commons licenses are non-revocable. Nominator is urged to cease this disruptive behavior. Dcoetzee (talk) 10:56, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
Because the author wants it deleted from wikipedia! Valternet (talk) 10:35, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
Kept. Creative Commons licenses are non-revocable. Dcoetzee (talk) 10:56, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
Because the Author wants the file deleted from Wikipedia! Valternet (talk) 22:46, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
- Keep, image is in use in multiple Wikipedias, useful in project scope. Released under free license; Commons licensing non-revocable. -- Infrogmation (talk) 01:10, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
Kept. Commons licensing non-revocable. George Chernilevsky talk 07:12, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
Because the author wants it deleted from wikipedia! Valternet (talk) 10:35, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
Kept. Creative Commons licenses are non-revocable. Dcoetzee (talk) 11:05, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
Because the Author wants the file deleted from Wikipedia! Valternet (talk) 22:41, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
- Keep, image is in use in multiple Wikipedias, useful in project scope. Released under free license; Commons licensing non-revocable. -- Infrogmation (talk) 01:33, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
Kept. Commons licensing non-revocable. George Chernilevsky talk 06:56, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
Because the author wants it deleted from wikipedia! Valternet (talk) 10:36, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
Kept. Creative Commons licenses are non-revocable. Dcoetzee (talk) 11:15, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
Because the Author want it! Valternet (talk) 22:35, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Currently in use. And changing idea 3 years after uploading an image doesn't seem to be (alone) a valid reason to delete something on Commons. --Ianezz (talk) 15:44, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
I, the copyright holder of this work, want this File REMOVED from Wikipedia as soon as possible! Do not steal my photo! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Valternet (talk • contribs)
- WHY do you want it removed?? You released it under a free licenese. As a good photo released by the copyright holder under a free licnese and useful to Wikimedia projects, Keep. Do not steal Valternet's photo! Keep it free here on Wikimedia! -- Infrogmation (talk) 15:25, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
Kept. Commons licensing non-revocable. George Chernilevsky talk 06:49, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
Because the author wants it deleted from wikipedia! Valternet (talk) 10:37, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
Kept. Creative Commons licenses are non-revocable. Dcoetzee (talk) 10:56, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
Because the Author want it! Valternet (talk) 22:34, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Not in use, but it's currently the only photo on Commons of that species, and changing idea 3 years after uploading an image doesn't seem to be (alone) a valid reason to delete something on Commons. --Ianezz (talk) 15:37, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
Kept. Commons licensing non-revocable. George Chernilevsky talk 06:48, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
Because the author wants it deleted! Valternet (talk) 20:09, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
- Sorry, but you released this image into the public domain 4 years ago. That is not revocable. --Túrelio (talk) 20:48, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
Speedy kept.' Valternet has had that explained to them many times. Infrogmation (talk) 20:56, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
Because the author wants it deleted from wikipedia! Valternet (talk) 10:38, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
Kept. Creative Commons licenses are non-revocable. Dcoetzee (talk) 10:56, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
- Comment: It's not under a license. It was released into the public domain. -- Asclepias (talk) 18:42, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
- My mistake, I copy pasted too fast. Releasing a work into the public domain is also non-revocable. Dcoetzee (talk) 20:15, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
Because the Author wants the file deleted from Wikipedia! Valternet (talk) 22:43, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Useful; in use in multiple projects! -- Infrogmation (talk)
I, the copyright holder of this work, want this File REMOVED from Wikipedia as soon as possible! Do not steal my photo! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Valternet (talk • contribs)
- You, the copyright holder of this work, released this file under a non-revokable free licence. Please stop trying to take your gift back with no reason given. -- Infrogmation (talk) 15:30, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
A photo is not like a gift... during some time wikipedia used my photos for free... but know must pay 10 eur per year by each photo.
Otherwise, photos must be REMOVED. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Valternet (talk • contribs)
Kept. Commons licensing non-revocable. George Chernilevsky talk 07:05, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
Because the author wants it deleted from wikipedia! Valternet (talk) 10:39, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
Kept. Creative Commons licenses are non-revocable. Dcoetzee (talk) 11:05, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
Because the Author wants the file deleted from Wikipedia! Valternet (talk) 22:43, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
Kept. In use. Commons licensing non-revocable. George Chernilevsky talk 07:03, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
Because the author wants it deleted from wikipedia! Valternet (talk) 10:40, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
Kept. Creative Commons licenses are non-revocable. Dcoetzee (talk) 10:56, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
Unusually high-resolution image of non-public event (ministerial meeting). Unlikely to be a valid CC-eligible image. Strange Passerby (talk) 16:34, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
User:Geneva2011 is a new user who has uploaded only five images, all with the same subject and all as "own work". This one, File:Vivian balakrishnan sec 4.jpg, is obviously not "own work" as it appears to be from a secondary school yearbook and would require the permission of the photographer to keep it here.
The others,
- File:Vivian05.jpg
- File:VivianBalakrishnan03.jpg
- File:VivianBalakrishnan02.jpg
- File:VivianBalakrishnan.jpg
are taken with a camera and a phone, so I would be inclined to assume good faith, if it were not for the first of the five, which shows that the user does not understand "own work". Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:35, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom Jcb (talk) 20:08, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
Files uploaded by JOis161onOChiphopcharts (talk · contribs)
[edit]No information at all about the photograph used (presumably of Al Capone). Very likely it was NOT taken by the uploader, and we do not have enough information to know if it is in the public domain.
Rosenzweig δ 16:54, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:35, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
Building is obviously fairly recent; France does not recognise freedom of panorama. Should be transferred before deletion to Wikipedias accepting Fair Use, including the French-speaking Wikipedia. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 18:04, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
- From COM:FOP: "Concerning buildings, case law (CA Riom, 26 mai 1967) recognizes two criteria for originality: "a definite artistic character" (« un caractère artistique certain ») and the fact that it does not belong to a series." I would argue that it is part of a series, as it is an academic building owned by a university that has commissioned a number of academic buildings around the world, and that that would constitute a "series". As for background, this is a picture of w:Georgia Tech Lorraine, which was built somewhere around 1990 as a satellite campus to an American university, the w:Georgia Institute of Technology. Disavian (talk) 20:48, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
- ‘Series’ applies to series of identical separate houses typically found in housing estates (think Privet Drive in the Harry Potter films for instance, see also File:Caudry - Lotissement récent.JPG for a French example). Are all buildings of Georgia Tech the same around the world? Jastrow (Λέγετε) 12:51, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
Delete: No FOP in France, building is within copyright. Buddy431 (talk) 03:41, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
Kept: the "a definite artistic character" criteria is negative Jcb (talk) 20:10, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
