Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2011/08/27
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
|
|
_147.jpg){kind=link}
_096.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
-2.jpg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
Moved from speedy. Not in use. Scope? Yann (talk) 20:06, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio and intended to use for spamming over multiple projects. --Dferg (talk) 20:56, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
Moved from speedy. Not in use. Scope? Yann (talk) 20:05, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: by Dferg. Yann (talk) 10:47, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
Moved from speedy. Not in use. Scope? Yann (talk) 20:06, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: by Dferg. Yann (talk) 10:47, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
Private picture of no educational use, out of project scope. Martin H. (talk) 20:25, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. Yann (talk) 10:49, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
_147.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_147.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
out of COM:SCOPE; obviously private picture of a non-notable person; image unused and hardly usable. --Túrelio (talk) 20:46, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
_147.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: Out of scope. Yann (talk) 10:49, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
_147.jpg){kind=link}
_096.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_096.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
out of COM:SCOPE; obviously private picture of a non-notable person; image unused and unusable. --Túrelio (talk) 20:47, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
_096.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: Out of scope. Yann (talk) 10:49, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
_096.jpg){kind=link}
out of COM:SCOPE; obviously private picture of a non-notable person; image unused; eventually even a derivative. --Túrelio (talk) 20:52, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. Yann (talk) 10:49, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
out of COM:SCOPE; obviously private picture of a non-notable person; image unused. -- Túrelio (talk) 20:53, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. Yann (talk) 10:49, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
I uploaded this photo for an article. I'm the copyright holder. I don't want it to be online anymore. Please delete this one! Hamdi Dinler (talk) 12:35, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Keep - license is not revocable. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:37, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
.jpg&action=edit){kind=link}
.jpg&diff=0){kind=link}
.jpg&action=history){kind=link}
.jpg&action=watch){kind=link}
.jpg&action=unwatch){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=purge){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&preload=Commons:Deletion_requests/preload){kind=link}
.jpg&action=delete){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
Okay, I know this isn't an excuse but I'm new to all this. I changed that image with a more adequate one in the article. All I want from you is to understand that I don't want you to keep this specific image. I know I uploaded it in the first place, but from now on I will be more careful about what I upload here. Please don't make me regret contributing to Wikipedia/Wikimedia, I really think high of you. It's not like I delete something without replacing it. Furthermore, I will be uploading more images regarding this subject. Once again, as the copyright holder of this work, I hope you are reconsidering your decision and removing this image. Please. Hamdidinler (talk) 10:21, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- As the image was uploaded only 10 days ago, was requested[1] for deletion 7 days after upload, is no longer in use, has as replacement File:Kayakapı.jpg by the same uploader, I think a courtesy deletion is o.k. --Túrelio (talk) 15:29, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
![[1]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Kayakap%C4%B1_(View_from_Dinler_Hotels_-_%C3%9Crg%C3%BCp).jpg&diff=next&oldid=58454216){kind=link}
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:14, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
The legal notice of the given source site does not fit for a Creative Commons licensing. Grand-Duc (talk) 01:29, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
Delete I cannot see any permission statement. --Saibo (Δ) 13:43, 27 August 2011 (UTC)- Delete - most probably copyrighted -jkb- (talk) 06:58, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio. Yann (talk) 17:45, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
This looks like a very private photo from the beach. Raymond 07:27, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. Yann (talk) 17:48, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
Like File:Womaninbikini.jpg: This looks like a very private photo Raymond 07:28, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. Yann (talk) 17:48, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
copy from internet [2] [3]-124.244.189.247 07:54, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio. Yann (talk) 17:48, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
Photo of a poster or photo, no source for the original. Martin H. (talk) 10:41, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio. Yann (talk) 17:50, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
not used: deleted on DE, pers. rights Nolispanmo 11:01, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. Yann (talk) 17:50, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
I doubt own work. Too sophisticated for PD-Textlogo? Let's discuss. RE rillke questions? 13:17, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
- In my opinion, no. It isn't too sophisticated for PD-Textlogo. The logo is based on a square with two circle on the top border. In the square there's the writing. --Supermicio (talk) 19:55, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Everytime I've seen editors place the Disney logos here, they've been deleted. Blatantly false claim of "own work". --Hammersoft (talk) 15:46, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio. Yann (talk) 17:55, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
this image is alleged to be a 2011 photograph of the ghost of a man who (is alleged to have) died in 2008. As such, its provenance is highly dubious; plus, it's only being used in a hoax page that has since been deleted. DS (talk) 14:32, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. Yann (talk) 17:57, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
unused shot of an unknown person, the hemp (cf. image title) is only visible in the foreground (blurry), unidentified plants in the background :bdk: 15:36, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. Yann (talk) 17:57, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
Likely copyvio, implausible "own work" claim; same uploader has multiple images with evidently false licensing info. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:00, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio. Yann (talk) 17:58, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
out of scope. Amada44 talk to me 17:54, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
- Delete, quality is too low. --Túrelio (talk) 18:09, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
- Delete, Agree, an image that does not clearly show its subject is of no use here. Rodhullandemu (talk) 19:03, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
- Delete, too wonky.Buddpaul (talk) 02:26, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
- The image is within scope because it shows something that could in principle be educational. However, it shows that thing so badly that it is pretty much useless, so Delete. -mattbuck (Talk) 10:03, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
- So 'useless' is not 'out of scope'? come on.... :) - Amada44 talk to me 12:53, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
- I think he's saying a better quality picture of the same subject matter would be in scope, that's all. Carl Lindberg (talk) 23:47, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
- So 'useless' is not 'out of scope'? come on.... :) - Amada44 talk to me 12:53, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
- Delete, per Buddpaul's wonkiness argument.--GrapedApe (talk) 01:43, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
- Delete clearly useless --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 14:05, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. Yann (talk) 18:02, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
Unsubstantiated claim to a free licence. Photo comes from a national newspaper (the New Straits Times). Mkativerata (talk) 21:16, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio. Yann (talk) 18:08, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
Possible copyright violation - small size - no EXIF - own work claim doubtful. Kaulder (contribs | talk) 08:55, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: many web hits. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 00:16, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
There is no evidence of permission but there is a clear copyright tag in the source page: "@ 2018 KEMENTERIAN PERTAHANAN MALAYSIA" Leoboudv (talk) 02:05, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
- Delete The uploader has a history of uploading copyright violations. clpo13(talk) 17:00, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
- Delete per nominator. Cannot assume good faith here. --Leoboudv (talk) 18:33, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 04:44, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
Appears to be a copyrighted image: see http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1289551/The-British-soldier-future-Star-Wars-helmet-sharpshooter-rifle-Taliban.html Letdorf (talk) 21:46, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio. Yann (talk) 18:09, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
Appears to be a copyrighted image: see http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1289551/The-British-soldier-future-Star-Wars-helmet-sharpshooter-rifle-Taliban.html Letdorf (talk) 21:48, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio. Yann (talk) 18:09, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
If this image has been lifted from www.army.mod.uk, then it will be Crown Copyright. Letdorf (talk) 21:50, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio. Yann (talk) 18:10, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
ESA copyright doctrine is not compatible with Commons. (…You may freely use the images you find on our site, as long as it is not for commercial use. You may not modify the images.) Ras67 (talk) 23:45, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Non commercial only. Yann (talk) 18:11, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
Not own work. According to the file size (720px at the longer site) its taken from some facebook.com page. Martin H. (talk) 11:12, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: copyvio. Amada44 talk to me 13:41, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
No FOP in Slovenia. 84.61.156.142 11:16, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
Comment Built in 1940s => public domain --Miha (talk) 13:43, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
- Keep Not complete building in focus.— MZaplotnik (my contribs) 16:26, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
- Comment - please use {{Fair use delete}} (if decision is delete), whoever closes this. --Sporti (talk) 14:13, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
Kept. Jcb (talk) 14:35, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
No evidence that Copyleft applies, and moreover another part of the website indicates "design and graphical elements" are unmodified copyright, [4] ChiZeroOne (talk) 11:49, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:01, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
Who's the author of this photo? Kobac (talk) 13:08, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:01, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
attempted flickr washing of copyrighted logo. Flickr account with only this photo. Warfieldian (talk) 13:14, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:02, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
This painting is a derivative work of the photograph used in this Sports Illustrated cover: http://image3.examiner.com/images/blog/EXID31822/images/resized_Miracle_on_Ice.jpg Ytoyoda (talk) 16:25, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:43, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
This image's panoramio license is 'ARR.' I had passed it since it was first uploaded to wikipedia in June 2008 before someone moved it to Commons in 2009. But according to Admin Lupo, pre-2009 uploaded images should have a 'general permission' and not one just for 'wikipedia' like this one. See this So, I will revert my original pass of this image and nominate this image for deletion to give time to the Common's uploader to choose to ask the copyright owner for a license change to "cc by sa 3.0 generic" or "cc by 3.0 generic" if he/she wishes to. Leoboudv (talk) 19:56, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:45, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
Photography in France, country with no FoP, of a 2010 copyright photography Léna (talk) 19:58, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:45, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
The permission given on this December 2008 upload image only applies to wikipedia and is not a general permission. Therefore, Commons, cannot keep it. A general permission was acceptable for images uploaded before January 1, 2009 but this is a restrictive permission. See Admin Lupo's comments here which are very clear on this point. Therefore, it should be deleted and I will, myself, revert my panoramio pass on this image. Leoboudv (talk) 20:25, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
- Delete, a permission "for your article" (or "for wikipedia") is not acceptable and it never was acceptable. --Martin H. (talk) 20:34, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
- Delete as per Martin H Warfieldian (talk) 16:18, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Missing permission --Hoangquan hientrang (talk) 03:57, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:45, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
The copyright owner gave a broad permission for his/her image here to be used on wikipedia but this is not acceptable for the Commons project since it is not a general permission. The permission should not say just for 'wikipedia' for this old 2008 image as Admin Lupo writes here since the copyright author's images can theoretically be used anywhere on the internet and the permission is not compatible with Common's licensing policies. A general permission without OTRS was OK before 2009 as long as it didn't mention just 'for wikipedia.' as Admin Lupo notes. So, this image file must be deleted.I will revert my panoramio pass based on Lupo's comments. Leoboudv (talk) 20:40, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:45, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
In 2008, one didn't need OTRS to get permission for images. The requirement for OTRS started for images uploaded in 2009 but the permission here applies only to 'wikipedia' which is too restrictve since it is not a general permission since the photo could be used on other non-wikipedia web sites. As Admin Lupo writes here pre-2009 images must have at least a general permission which did not solely apply to wikipedia. Therefore this image cannot be kept on Commons unless the license is changed from ARR to either cc by sa generic or cc by generic. I will revoke my panoramio pass of this image per this DR. Leoboudv (talk) 21:16, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:44, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
Painting of en:Serge Blanco in France, country with no FoP Léna (talk) 22:40, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:44, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
Eu carreguei essa imagem, e trata-se de uma foto da minha mão, ela não está mais em uso e eu quero exclui-la para evitar minha exposição na internet.
Kept: The image is widely used, the gift of the image is irrevocable, and it hardly exposes you on the internet -- no one would know it is your hand if you had not told us. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 20:54, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
No freedom of panorama in France. FunkMonk (talk) 05:47, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 20:54, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
Still in copyright. Philafrenzy (talk) 09:01, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 20:54, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
Appears to contain copyright material. Philafrenzy (talk) 09:25, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
- The images of stamps is in the public domain because any copyright held by the now defunct government has expired pursuant to Article 21 of the Copyright Law of the People's Republic of China. Baza bot (talk) 05:11, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
- What defunct government? It is categorized under Manchukuo, but it's obviously a modern job. Where's the connection? NVO (talk) 18:57, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
- Even if this is correct, which seems unlikely, what about the artwork in the sheet as a whole? Surely someone owns the copyright to that? Philafrenzy (talk) 10:41, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
- Overall, the all work of that has an author and all authors are listed in the template for the image, but a small part of that mail envelope (without a image of stamp and an art print-repayment-stamp of the first day of usage) is used in commercial advertising and informational purposes, and only this part is taken as a demonstration for an article in Wikipedia. This is only a small poor quality portion, which extends as a demonstration. The image have the double standard of copyright: all art work is copyright, but only that a small fragment (us a part of all work) can be freely distributed as a free sample. Baza bot (talk) 12:41, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
- Everything in the image has to be free of copyright. It is not enough that part of the image is free. Philafrenzy (talk) 16:55, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 20:56, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
A logo that's too complicated for PD-ineligible — is the uploader really the copyright holder? No evidence that s/he is. Nyttend (talk) 12:23, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
At the time, I was working at the camp. The director at the time, who had drawn the logo, asked me to create the wiki page. He was far too old to figure out how to upload the logo. I may have used the wrong permission code, but please advise how to revise. Demonstah (talk) 18:02, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
- See your talk page. Nyttend (talk) 19:45, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:01, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
-2.jpg){kind=link}
-2.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
low-quality duplicate of File:Burkina Faso (orthographic projection).svg Antemister (talk) 14:59, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
.svg){kind=link}
-2.jpg){kind=link}
Kept: Not quite a duplicate -- this one includes the new border between the Sudans. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:06, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
-2.jpg){kind=link}
Uploader requested Nanin7 (talk) 15:01, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:02, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
Uploader requested Nanin7 (talk) 15:02, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
- No objection, but just curious, why do you want your coat of arms to be deleted? Fry1989 eh? 20:17, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
- Delete. Useless + license infraction + usurpation of a sovereign state decoration (unless proof that the user is indeed knight of the order of the golden fleece). Katepanomegas (talk) 22:34, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:02, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
Uploader requested Nanin7 (talk) 15:02, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
- Keep Not a reason to delete this. It's useful. Fry1989 eh? 21:31, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
- Delete I don't think it's useful, because it's not real. It's a fantasy. Adelbrecht (talk) 10:29, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Useless + copyright infraction. Katepanomegas (talk) 22:25, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 20:34, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
Uploader requested Nanin7 (talk) 15:02, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 20:35, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
Uploader requested Nanin7 (talk) 15:03, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 20:35, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
Drawing of unknown age and authorship, implausible "own work" claim; same uploader has multiple images with evidently false licensing info. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:01, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 20:35, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
Painting incorporates/is a derivative of copyrighted photographs of baseball players. Ytoyoda (talk) 16:26, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 20:35, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
Something's definitely not right with the original upload on enwiki – the uploader claimed it was their own work, but w:File:Chris Huhne MP.jpg which is the same image had already been uploaded three months earlier by another user claiming it as their own work. Both versions look like copyright violations, as a smaller version of the image appeared on Chris Huhne's website in 2006 before either upload [5]. January (talk) 17:08, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 20:36, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
This is a derivative work of this copyrighted photograph. Karppinen (talk) 17:30, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 20:36, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
Appears to be a promotional photograph of the artist. Uploader is probably not the author of this image. Karppinen (talk) 17:38, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 20:36, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
This image is a derivative of the projected magazine page (assumed) and can hardly go by "de minimis". If the main intention of the image is to show the speaker, most of the "background" image should be cropped away. Túrelio (talk) 18:28, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
- I assume the same problem here: File:Oliviero Toscani International Journalism Festival 5.jpg, File:Oliviero Toscani International Journalism Festival 7.jpg, File:Oliviero Toscani International Journalism Festival 6.jpg, File:Oliviero Toscani 1.jpg and File:Oliviero Toscani International Journalism Festival 2.jpg. --Túrelio (talk) 18:30, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
- Thank you for your attention. The background is just for ilustrating "the aura" of the festival... It is a long way to "derivate work" of the Toscani image, the image is across, from diaprojector and low res and bad colors. If not - we can crop the backround, of course.--Svajcr (talk) 18:42, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
- It is not slide from magazine - it is snapshot from "conference show".--Svajcr (talk) 18:43, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
- The "background" is from "conference show"? Wat does that mean? --Túrelio (talk) 18:46, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
- ... pardon, excuse me, it is from International Journalism Festival paper (lecture).--Svajcr (talk) 18:56, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
- O.k. But that paper is copyrighted or is there any evidence that it is not? --Túrelio (talk) 18:57, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
- I don´t know, but - what does it mean "copyrighted paper"? --Svajcr (talk) 19:01, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
- Well, magazine/newspaper content (independent of the purpose it was produced for) is automatically copyrighted by its contributors, by the author who write the text and by the photographer who shot the photos in it. --Túrelio (talk) 19:04, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
- Please, do justice to; adjudicate it rightly! Thank you, have a nice weekend, --Svajcr (talk) 19:08, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
- Probably is OK under de minimis, but I'd have no objection to adding a Gaussian blur to the copyrighted material possibly infringed. - Jmabel ! talk 19:31, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Clearly DW, not de minimis Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 20:38, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
F John was British, and it is unknown when he died. http://www.copyrightexpired.com/earlyimage/fjohn/series1/F_John_Series_1_Pterodactyls_card_13.html FunkMonk (talk) 18:38, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 20:39, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
No OTRS confirmation. 90.2.35.2 20:19, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: The Flickr caption reads "Image by © Sophie Bassouls/Sygma/Corbis" -- not the Flickr account holder Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 20:48, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
In May 2008, the uploader uploaded this image but I mistakenly panoramio passed it based on the assumption that the copyright owner gave permission for this image to be used outside of wikipedia when there is no mention here and the permission applies to another image. The permission also mentions 'wikipedia' which is not acceptable to Commons. As Admin Lupo says pre-2009 images didn't need OTRS permission but a general permission with no restriction to wikipedia here Since there is 1. no permission for this image to be used anyway 2. no evidence that ther copyright owner allows her images to be used outside wikipedia and 3. this image is not used on wikipedia and wikicommons, I recommend that it be deleted as soon as possible. I will revoke my panoramio pass and correct my error here for this old 2008 image. Leoboudv (talk) 22:59, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 20:49, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
There's no unique context here - there are tons of things that have the Square & Compasses on them, and the picture isn't very clear, either, because it's zoomed in so tight.. MSJapan (talk) 23:04, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
Kept: It is not a great image, but is the only one we have of Masonic symbols on tableware, so I see no reason to delete it. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 20:51, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
Uploader requested Nanin7 (talk) 14:59, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Unused crashed svg per uploader's request Badseed talk 11:54, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
Uploader requested Nanin7 (talk) 15:00, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Unused crashed svg per uploader's request. See correct file at File:CoA of Kingdom of Illyria.svg Badseed talk 11:55, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
Uploader requested Nanin7 (talk) 15:01, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Unused svg of fictional seal per uploader's request Badseed talk 11:59, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
.svg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.svg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Uploader requested Nanin7 (talk) 15:03, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
.svg){kind=link}
Deleted: Unused svg of fictional crown per uploader's request Badseed talk 12:00, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
.svg){kind=link}
Low quality, out of project scope, presents the POV of the painter, as it is not a photography. Liberaler Humanist (talk) 11:20, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
- Actually I think it's from Second Life. Further, we don't care about POV on Commons, and it is within project scope as depicting human sexuality. -mattbuck (Talk) 21:13, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
- Keep I uploaded the full image since the small one was too low-quality. Handcuffed (talk) 01:10, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
Kept: Not 100% sure this is within the project scope, but err on the side of caution. Skeezix1000 (talk) 12:41, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
Copy violation. Uploader claims to be a family member of the deceased person in the photo. Maybe so. However, it is exceedingly unlikely that he is the author of the work uploaded, which would be the photographer. The picture was taken in 1939, from the looks of it by a professional photographer in a studio. That photographer would be at least 90 years old by now, and I have a hard time believing that he would be an active uploader in Commons. --Minderbinder (talk) 13:52, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
- Keep - photographer unknown, possible unpublished, in which case the owner of the print can publish this under whatever license they choose. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:57, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
- Since when has unpublished transferred the copyright to the owner of the print?--Prosfilaes (talk) 05:12, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Absent additional information, we have no way of knowing that the creator of the image has been dead for more than 70 years -or- that the uploader owns the rights to the image (either took it himself, or is the heir of the creator). Deletion is without prejudice to the uploader providing sufficient information to show that it is legitimately freely licensed. Skeezix1000 (talk) 12:50, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
Image was illegally uploaded 5 years ago without stating a copyright. The image is copyrighted and should be removed Canadaolympic989 13:10, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
- Who is the copyright-holder or from where was it taken? --Túrelio (talk) 15:45, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
User requested deletion, but it is in use. Opinions? Yann (talk) 19:26, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
Keep Nominator is also the uploader. "Image was illegally uploaded 5 years ago without stating a copyright" is not correct -- User:Canadaolympic989 put a PD tag on it when he or she uploaded it. At the very least we need answers to Túrelio's questions before deleting it. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 20:46, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
Kept: Incorrect nomination rationale. Nominator/uploader has not come forward with any additional information/explanation. Skeezix1000 (talk) 12:52, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
In this image uploaded in May 2008, there is no general permission for this image to be used. For pre-2009 images (its uploaded in May 2008) where the permission applies only to 'wikipedia', the image 'wikipedia' permission is too restrictive to the Commons project according to Admin Lupo here The image could be used in non-wikipedia web sites. I did not know this when I passed it and so I withdrew my panoramio pass and file a formal DR and ask the community to make a decision. Leoboudv (talk) 19:46, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- Comment: Maybe this photo could be kept since the copyright owner did not put a condition on his permission like 'for wikipedia only' as in this strict case which is clearly unacceptable for the Commons project. The copyright owner in 2008 (that is an important year) just said: "Hello yes u can use this picture with pleasure" whatever that means. Does it allow commercial or derivative use? If nolan said on the panoramio link that I license this image as CC BY 3.0 Generic or CC BY SA 3.0 Generic or just changed the license to 1 of these 2 options, then it would be OK. But sadly, I don't have a panoramio account to contact him. And really, would a normal panoramio account owner use such words? --Leoboudv (talk) 01:32, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
- Comment: There was a link to the photo on Commons so owner could check the license and if it was acceptable. I left a note to the owner asking if it is ok that the photo is also used outside Wikipedia. Not sure user is active but we have nothing to loose. --MGA73 (talk) 09:06, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
- Comment: I think that Nolan's panoramio account is inactive now. --Leoboudv (talk) 09:44, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Given permission is restricted to "wiki" Lymantria (talk) 09:50, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Files uploaded by Elfiasdorty
[edit]Personal photos, not in use anywhere.
Martin H. (talk) 11:22, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. Yann (talk) 17:54, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
RANGE MURATA wish secret of the photograph - PSEWEB
Kept: That is not a reason to delete an image of a notable person. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:46, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
RANGE MURATA does not desire the general public presentation of the photograph to the Wikimedia Commons 220.144.68.32 14:11, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
Speedy keep Again, the subject's wishes are not a valid reason for deletion. Please do not nominate this again. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:30, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
RANGE MURATA wish secret of the photograph 220.144.68.32 05:00, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
Kept: That is not a reason for us to delete an image of a notable person. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:41, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
RANGE MURATA does not desire the general public presentation of the photograph to the Wikimedia Commons 220.144.68.32 14:12, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
Speedy keep Again, the subject's wishes are not a valid reason for deletion. Please do not nominate this again. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:35, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
RANGE MURATA wish secret of the photograph 220.144.68.32 05:00, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
- Notable person at a public event, photo in use, keep NVO (talk) 06:11, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
- RANGE MURATA does not desire the general public presentation of the photograph to the Wikimedia Commons.
Kept: That is not a reason to delete this image. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:41, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
RANGE MURATA does not desire the general public presentation of the photograph to the Wikimedia Commons 220.144.68.32 14:12, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
Speedy keep Again, the subject's wishes are not a valid reason for deletion. Please do not nominate this again. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:28, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
RANGE MURATA wish secret of the photograph - PSEWEB — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.144.68.32 (talk • contribs) 05:10, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
Kept: That is not a reason to delete this image. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:42, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
RANGE MURATA does not desire the general public presentation of the photograph to the Wikimedia Commons 220.144.68.32 14:13, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
Speedy keep Again, the subject's wishes are not a valid reason for deletion. Please do not nominate this again. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:27, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
Uploads by User:Ronaldinho Barcelona
[edit]- File:Hrn.jpg
- File:Phonr.jpg
- File:Plasmal.jpg
- File:42flat.jpg
- File:S2m2.jpg
- File:Topoppp.jpg
- File:Hanns·G-HH-281HPB-28-Inch-Widescreen-LCD-Monitor.jpg
- File:Acer-h235h.jpg
- File:HP-Laptop.jpg
- File:Dell-vostro-1310-laptop.jpg
- File:Cheap-used-laptops-3.jpg
User with history of copyvio uploads. All listed images are low resolution product shots taken from the web. --Ytoyoda (talk) 16:05, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvios. Yann (talk) 18:01, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Zahraebrahimi
[edit]Personal photos, not in use anywhere. Out of project scope.
- File:Dr. Zahra Ebrahimi (7).jpg
- File:Dr. Zahra Ebrahimi (6).JPG
- File:Dr. Zahra Ebrahimi (9).jpg
- File:Dr. Zahra Ebrahimi (1).jpg
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Martin H. (talk) 20:09, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. Yann (talk) 18:06, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Zahraebrahimi (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of scope - unused personal images
- File:دکتر زهرا ابراهیمی در مراسم عروسی خواهر.jpg
- File:دکتر زهرا ابراهیمی متخصص زنان و زایمان.jpg
- File:دکتر زهرا ابراهیمی - زنان و زایمان- قم.jpg
- File:دکتر زهرا ابراهیمی عکس یادگاری برای او.jpg
- File:دکتر زهرا ابراهیمی متخصص زنان در شهر مقدس قم.jpg
- File:دکتر زهرا ابراهیمی - یورک انگلستان.jpg
- File:Dr. Zahra Ebrahimi-London 2010.jpg
- File:دکتر زهرا ابراهیمی.jpg
- File:دکتر زهرا ابراهیمی- ادینبورگ.jpg
- File:دکتر زهرا ابراهیمی- اسکاتلند.jpg
- File:دکتر زهرا ابراهیمی- انگلستان- باث.JPG
INeverCry 19:08, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination --Krd 06:41, 10 August 2014 (UTC)