Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2011/09/27
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
Descriptive pages about Shyama Temple or Mithila University Darbhanga station should be made in Wikipedia, not in Commons.wikimedia. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 09:45, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: speedy close -- out of scope Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 10:00, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
Descriptive pages about Shyama Temple or Mithila University Darbhanga station should be made in Wikipedia, not in Commons.wikimedia. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 09:45, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: speedy close -- out of scope Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 10:00, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
This image infringes on the copyright of the artist, Graham Goddard, who is living. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:05, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Turns out this is a Speedy -- smaller duplicate of File:Paradigm-mountains by Graham Goddard.jpg Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:14, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
hlcdswae4mcviptarwvcxcxzñpimlh 190.238.222.29 16:30, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
Kept: Obvious nonsense request. Túrelio (talk) 16:33, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
NUDITY 96.225.74.20 18:36, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
Keep "Nuditiy"-images are not problemous on Commons; image is within the project scope. --High Contrast (talk) 18:41, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
Speedy kept, topless protest at public notable event, in scope, uploaded under free license by photographer. Infrogmation (talk) 18:52, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
Commons:Deletion requests/Commons:Help desk
Copyright questioned below pasted from Commons:Administrators' noticeboard [1] -- Deadstar (msg) 11:16, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
- File:AspenLakeWithMountains.jpg: I'm not really sure what's up with this file, so I thought I'd bring it up here. The link in the description page [2] links to the image, but the Flickr user is not the claimed author on the Commons image. The link in the file history [3] is to a different image by the author listed for the Commons image. Both images are copyrighted; basically, I'm concerned that any way you hack it, the Commons file may be a copyvio. Thanks. 107.10.43.91 03:23, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
Delete. The uploader claimed that the file was in the public domain. The file is clearly marked "all rights reserved" on the source (as is the file which was incorrectly claimed to be the source originally). Public domain is not a licensing option for regular Flickr users, so it's not simply a case of {{Flickr-change-of-license}}. The uploader has uploaded several files with copyright problems, both here and on English Wikipedia, so in all likelihood, they just haven't understood that "all rights reserved" is not "public domain." —LX (talk, contribs) 16:26, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
- Delete--Motopark (talk) 16:44, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: All rights reserved, has never been tagged for review so license change is not known Denniss (talk) 14:53, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
Low resolution, not used anywhere. Leyo 12:09, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
- Keep It's not so pixelated to be unusable. In the absence of any better equivalent image of 2,3-dimethoxybenzaldehyde, there is no reason to delete. ChemNerd (talk) 14:18, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
Comment I redid the diagram at current style-guide recommendations. DMacks (talk) 15:58, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
I withdraw my nomination. --Leyo 07:11, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
Source is copyrighted: http://www.flickr.com/photos/coundown/2942605574/ Safety Cap (talk) 14:48, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Speedy - copyvio Lymantria (talk) 11:47, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
Fictional currency sign. 84.62.204.7 15:24, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Fictional, no source it is used. See also Commons:Deletion requests/Files by User:Bluesclues100. --Mormegil (talk) 10:57, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Exact or scaled-down duplicate: File:Złoty.jpg -- Common Good (talk) 14:59, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
Fictional currency sign. 84.62.204.7 15:27, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Exact or scaled-down duplicate: File:Złoty.jpg -- Common Good (talk) 14:58, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
Logo of footballclub. Seems to be taken from official club site http://www.svemsroermond.nl which is copyright protected Miho (talk) 20:10, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
Kept: obvious case of {{PD-textlogo}} Jcb (talk) 20:07, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
This appears to be a copyright violation of http://www.iclothing.com.au/web_images/iclothing.jpg ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 15:59, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
Now that I've understood licencing somewhat, I would like to attribute the iClothing image to the iClothing website www.iclothing.com.au, as that image has been used in multiple articles about iClothing, but I can't seem to find it and the place "I, the copyright holder of this work, hereby publish it under the following license:" to edit it into another act? What should I do? Thanks. Domenico.y (talk) 21:42, 30 September 2011 (UTC) Domenico.y
- This ought to be speedy deleted, really. Dom, you have to own a picture to donate a picture (publishing to Commons = donation). But you don't own this. You found it on the internet. You can't donate it here on Commons unless the owner releases rights in writing (recall your other images, you've done this before). Wikipedia accepts some "fair use" of others' images, but Commons doesn't. I'm confident this image will not qualify under a "fair use" rationale, but it's up to you to try. JFHJr (talk) 21:23, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
Ok. Let me see if I've got this correct: Should I get the company to write an email to Commons (what is Common's email address?) then? Is that the proposed action? Domenico.y (talk) 21:41, 30 September 2011 (UTC) Domenico.y
Kept: In contact with the copyright holder via OTRS and approval worked out. – Adrignola talk 14:45, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
As seen in the first image of the history, this is not an image created by the uploader Cambalachero (talk) 01:16, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 10:26, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
the upload was a mistake DjNilsson (talk) 01:52, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
- Speedy Delete uploader's request.--Prosfilaes (talk) 06:47, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 10:26, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
Appears to be advertising. Dominic (talk) 04:20, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 10:27, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
Personal image. Out of scope Hoangquan hientrang (talk) 10:33, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 10:28, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
Poor quality, not used anywhere. Leyo 12:17, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Ed (Edgar181) 12:33, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
Incorrect structure (also with a broken line), compare doi:10.1038/197686a0. Leyo 12:22, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Ed (Edgar181) 12:33, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
Copyrighted image taken from Colgate's website (Copyright 2008 © Colgate University. All rights reserved.) The image author's website: http://math.colgate.edu/faculty/dlantz.html — Safety Cap (talk) 14:29, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Lymantria (talk) 06:19, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
That image on the school's website is copyrighted: Copyright © 2010 Tynecastle High School (http://www.tynecastle.edin.sch.uk/) Derivative works fall under the same copyright (in the US) Safety Cap (talk) 15:00, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Lymantria (talk) 06:21, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
Converted by me to regular DR from a speedy by uploader User:Matanski for "Copyrights sold to a third part"; as image is in use. --Túrelio (talk) 06:23, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
- Comment: Not amused about that, as the image was uploaded to Commons in 2008. This is actually part of a mass speedy-request by User:Matanski, which was also filed for
- File:Temple of Jupiter, Baalbek, Bekaa Valley, Lebanon.JPG (uploaded in 2008)
- File:Symi Island, Greece.jpg (uploaded in 2009)
- File:Symi Island, Greece, Greece.jpg (uploaded in 2008)
- File:Symi Greece.jpg (uploaded in 2008; in use)
- File:Sunset at Rhodes, Greece.jpg (uploaded in 2008; in use)
- File:Sunrise at the Island of Rhodes, Greece.jpg (uploaded in 2008; in use)
- File:The Wailing Wall.jpg (uploaded in 2008)
- File:Limassol Kanika Center.jpg (uploaded in 2008)
- File:Matanski-Cult of Aphrodite.jpg (uploaded in 2007)
- File:Matanski-Kastelorizo Harbour Greece.jpg (uploaded in 2007; in use)
- File:Panorama View of the antique town of Kourion (Curium).jpg (uploaded in 2008)
- File:Night panorama of Limassol, Cyprus.jpg (uploaded in 2008)
- File:Night panorama of tourist area of Limassol, Cyprus.jpg (uploaded in 2008; in use)
- File:Night time panorama of Limassol.jpg (uploaded in 2008) and
- File:Tyre Lebanon 2006.JPG (uploaded in 2008; in use).
--Túrelio (talk) 06:24, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
- Keep Once under a free license - always under a free license. He should have told his customer that the pictures are already available under Creative Commons. -- 88.117.35.100 16:15, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
Kept: a free license cannot be revoked, Matanski will have to resolve this with his client. Jcb (talk) 19:15, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
Converted by me to regular DR from a speedy by uploader User:Matanski for "Copyrights sold to a third part". --Túrelio (talk) 06:35, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
Kept: see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Downtown Beirut Lebanon.JPG Jcb (talk) 19:17, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
Converted by me to regular DR from a speedy by uploader User:Matanski for "Copyrights sold to a third part". --Túrelio (talk) 06:36, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
Kept: see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Downtown Beirut Lebanon.JPG Jcb (talk) 19:18, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
Converted by me to regular DR from a speedy by uploader User:Matanski for "Copyrights sold to a third part". --Túrelio (talk) 06:37, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
Kept: see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Downtown Beirut Lebanon.JPG Jcb (talk) 19:18, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
Converted by me to regular DR from a speedy by uploader User:Matanski for "Copyrights sold to a third part". --Túrelio (talk) 06:38, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
Kept: see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Downtown Beirut Lebanon.JPG Jcb (talk) 19:18, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
Converted by me to regular DR from a speedy by uploader User:Matanski for "Copyrights sold to a third part". --Túrelio (talk) 06:38, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
Kept: see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Downtown Beirut Lebanon.JPG Jcb (talk) 19:18, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
Converted by me to regular DR from a speedy by uploader User:Matanski for "Copyrights sold to a third part". --Túrelio (talk) 06:39, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
Kept: see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Downtown Beirut Lebanon.JPG Jcb (talk) 19:18, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
Converted by me to regular DR from a speedy by uploader User:Matanski for "Copyrights sold to a third part". --Túrelio (talk) 06:40, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
Kept: see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Downtown Beirut Lebanon.JPG Jcb (talk) 19:19, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
Converted by me to regular DR from a speedy by uploader User:Matanski for "Copyrights sold to a third part". --Túrelio (talk) 06:40, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
Kept: see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Downtown Beirut Lebanon.JPG Jcb (talk) 19:19, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
Converted by me to regular DR from a speedy by uploader User:Matanski for "Copyrights sold to a third part". --
Kept: see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Downtown Beirut Lebanon.JPG Jcb (talk) 19:19, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
Converted by me to regular DR from a speedy by uploader User:Matanski for "Copyrights sold to a third part". --Túrelio (talk) 06:51, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
Kept: see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Downtown Beirut Lebanon.JPG Jcb (talk) 19:19, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
Converted by me to regular DR from a speedy by uploader User:Matanski for "Copyrights sold to a third part". --Túrelio (talk) 06:52, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
Kept: see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Downtown Beirut Lebanon.JPG Jcb (talk) 19:19, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
Converted by me to regular DR from a speedy by uploader User:Matanski for "Copyrights sold to a third part". --Túrelio (talk) 06:53, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
Kept: see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Downtown Beirut Lebanon.JPG Jcb (talk) 19:19, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
Converted by me to regular DR from a speedy by uploader User:Matanski for "Copyrights sold to a third part". --Túrelio (talk) 06:53, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
Kept: see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Downtown Beirut Lebanon.JPG Jcb (talk) 19:19, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
Converted by me to regular DR from a speedy by uploader User:Matanski for "Copyrights sold to a third part". --Túrelio (talk) 06:54, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
Kept: see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Downtown Beirut Lebanon.JPG Jcb (talk) 19:19, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
Converted by me to regular DR from a speedy by uploader User:Matanski for "Copyrights sold to a third part". --Túrelio (talk) 06:54, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
Kept: see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Downtown Beirut Lebanon.JPG Jcb (talk) 19:20, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
and other upload of user
- File:1125736864 5 Z2lm.jpg
- File:1ff8a81d92cc366f14b42c0822a2e451.jpg
- File:1e seizoen zeventiger.jpg
- File:Voetbal vereniging MSV 71 uit Maassluis.jpg
Low resolution, missing evidence of license, likely copyvio Hoangquan hientrang (talk) 07:38, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 19:20, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
No proper licensing. Own work claimend but file is from http://msv.simgroep.nl/index.php?mediumid=2&pagid=11& Agora (talk) 07:41, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 19:21, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
No proper licensing. Own work claimend at club logo. Agora (talk) 07:43, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 19:21, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
Derived from logo ([4]), copyvio Ciell (talk) 08:02, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 19:22, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
Logo of some sort, used in a now deleted advert on en.wikipedia. no foreseeable use. FASTILY (TALK) 08:14, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 19:22, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
Obvious scan from a book; highly likely to be copyright MPF (talk) 13:41, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 19:24, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
Fictional currency sign. 84.62.204.7 13:44, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: the real sign for the Escudo is the cifrão (\mathrm{S}\!\!\!\Vert) Jcb (talk) 19:34, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
Fictional currency sign. 84.62.204.7 13:45, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: the real sign for the Escudo is the cifrão (\mathrm{S}\!\!\!\Vert) Jcb (talk) 19:34, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
Fictional currency signs. 84.62.204.7 13:49, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: the real sign for the Escudo is the cifrão (\mathrm{S}\!\!\!\Vert) Jcb (talk) 19:34, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
Contains fictional currency signs. 84.62.204.7 13:50, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 19:34, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
Contains fictional currency signs. 84.62.204.7 14:13, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 19:34, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
Fictional currency sign. 84.62.204.7 14:16, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: the real sign for the Escudo is the cifrão (\mathrm{S}\!\!\!\Vert) Jcb (talk) 19:34, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
Fictional currency sign. 84.62.204.7 14:20, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: the real sign for the Escudo is the cifrão () Jcb (talk) 19:33, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
ethanolat.svg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
ethanolat.svg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
ethanolat.svg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
ethanolat.svg){kind=link}
ethanolat.svg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.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}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
Fictional currency sign. 84.62.204.7 14:31, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: the real sign for the Escudo is the cifrão (\mathrm{S}\!\!\!\Vert) Jcb (talk) 19:35, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
Fictional currency sign. 84.62.204.7 14:31, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
- No proof of that Keep Fry1989 eh? 19:08, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
- No proof of that
Deleted: the real sign for the Escudo is the cifrão (\mathrm{S}\!\!\!\Vert) Jcb (talk) 19:35, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
Fictional currency sign. 84.62.204.7 14:46, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 19:35, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
no evidence that the picture is licenced under copy left - Off2riorob (talk) 14:49, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: copyvio. Rosenzweig τ 17:14, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, but there is no FOP in the UAE. Dura lex, sed lex. 84.62.204.7 15:52, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
Kept. Jcb (talk) 20:17, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
unnecessary page; no content, and category already exists at Category:River Kennet Rodhullandemu (talk) 22:19, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
- No reason to delete, all galleries start small. --Foroa (talk) 05:21, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
- Keep as nom. Blame my inexperience, I found this in the category tree and since it was late at night, didn't twig that it was a gallery since it was the first I'd seen. Please consider this nomination withdrawn. Rodhullandemu (talk) 14:10, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
Kept. Jcb (talk) 20:17, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
Funny but completely useless (notability below zero). Maybe PPCU is interested in free hosting? Bulwersator (talk) 23:35, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 20:18, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
Bad colors Vidariv (talk) 09:06, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
Kept: It's a software problem, the black and white pic is in there... the software is just not purging properly at the moment. 99of9 (talk) 10:28, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
Suspected copyvio. Image was uploaded by a single purpose account and is of extremely low resolution. No EXIF data as evidence of the user taking it. Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:28, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
- Per my comments at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Ebony Bones!.jpg (a larger version of the same image), it has been published elsewhere as early as November 2009. See here and also appears in on the artist's MySpace page here. Voceditenore (talk) 08:40, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
- Update. It seems this is a photo by Jean-Baptiste Mondino and appeared on the cover of Liberating Style, February 2010, fully credited on the inside page. See this - Voceditenore (talk) 09:35, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
- Delete The uploader in this case is clearly not the photographer himself, despite claiming it to be "Own work" and there's no evidence that the real photographer has surrendered the copyright to him/her. See Commons:Deletion requests/File:Ebony Bones!.jpg, of which this is a derivative work. Voceditenore (talk) 04:36, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: as above 99of9 (talk) 10:34, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
Suspected copyvio. Image was uploaded by a single purpose account and is of web resolution. No EXIF data as evidence of the user taking it. Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:28, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
- It's possible that the image was taken with a non-digital camera and this is a scan of the print. However it has been published elsewhere as early as November 2009. See here and also appears in a much smaller version on the artist's MySpace page here. Voceditenore (talk) 08:31, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
- Update. It seems this is a photo by Jean-Baptiste Mondino and appeared on the cover of Liberating Style, February 2010, fully credited on the inside page. See this - Voceditenore (talk) 09:35, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
- It also appears in multiple at nevsmodels.co.uk, the subject's agency. Voceditenore (talk) 13:25, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
- Wouldn't there at least be data from scanner (and the image generally be of a much higher resolution)? Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:19, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
- Not necessarily. I uploaded an image here which I took with an "old fashioned" camera back in 2001 and later scanned. The meta data only shows Adobe Photoshop. Some photographers prefer not to upload a really high resolution, print quality image, possibly for commercial reasons. Having said that, the uploader in this case is clearly not the photographer himself, despite claiming it to be "Own work" and there's no evidence that the real photographer has surrendered the copyright to him/her. Voceditenore (talk) 16:36, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
- It also appears in multiple at nevsmodels.co.uk, the subject's agency. Voceditenore (talk) 13:25, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
- Update. It seems this is a photo by Jean-Baptiste Mondino and appeared on the cover of Liberating Style, February 2010, fully credited on the inside page. See this - Voceditenore (talk) 09:35, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
- Delete per my comments above. Voceditenore (talk) 04:31, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
- Delete, obviously, unless proof of copyright ownership and license are provided. I have tagged the image for speedy deletion based on Voceditenore's findings. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:23, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: as above 99of9 (talk) 10:33, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
Copyrighted image ("All Content © 2011 - Bismarck Public School District") Safety Cap (talk) 14:33, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
- Speedy delete: copyright logo image falsely licence as USGov. Ww2censor (talk) 21:38, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: already deleted (not by me) 99of9 (talk) 10:34, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
Image has copyright watermark. Original appears to be: http://www.gem-flash.com/vb/showthread.php?t=156811 Safety Cap (talk) 14:37, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: already deleted (not by me) 99of9 (talk) 10:34, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
Fictional currency sign. 84.62.204.7 14:43, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 15:05, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
Violation of copyright to the image of the National Bank of Poland Numizmatyk123 (talk) 22:42, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory/Poland#Currency Numizmatyk123 (talk) 22:44, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
- Delete per above. 大诺史 (talk) 23:29, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Wdwd (talk) 07:49, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
Fictional currency sign. 84.62.204.7 14:44, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 15:05, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
Fictional currency sign. 84.62.204.7 14:48, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 15:05, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
Fictional currency sign. 84.62.204.7 14:52, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 15:05, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
It is a trademarked image. (Source site: http://www.ksuowls.com/) Safety Cap (talk) 14:53, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: already deleted (not by me) 99of9 (talk) 10:35, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
Fictional currency sign. 84.62.204.7 14:58, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Fictional, no source it is used. See also Commons:Deletion requests/Files by User:Bluesclues100. --Mormegil (talk) 10:58, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 15:05, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
Fictional currency sign. 84.62.204.7 15:02, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 15:05, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
Fictional currency sign. 84.62.204.7 15:03, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
- No proof of that, and it's in use on it's own article. Keep Fry1989 eh? 19:07, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
- No proof of that, and it's in use on it's own article.
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 15:05, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
Fictional currency sign. 84.62.204.7 15:21, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
- No proof of that Keep Fry1989 eh? 19:08, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
- No proof of that
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 15:05, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
Fictional currency sign. 84.62.204.7 15:43, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 15:05, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
Fictional currency sign. 84.62.204.7 15:47, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 15:05, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
Fictional currency sign. 84.62.204.7 16:32, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 15:05, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
Fictional currency sign. 84.62.204.7 16:34, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 15:06, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
Some logo of a local Social Cultural Center. Unused and no forseeable use. Lymantria (talk) 06:26, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 18:59, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
Promotional image, likely copyvio Hoangquan hientrang (talk) 07:29, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Per nom and out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 19:00, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
Orphaned, used in a now deleted article on en.wikipedia. no foreseeable use. FASTILY (TALK) 08:16, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
Keep A file on Commons doesn't have to be in use on WP to be worth keeping ;) As for examples of possible uses - this image could be used to illustrate w:University of Wolverhampton#History and is a useful supplement to the picture of the finished structure.--Nilfanion (talk) 10:14, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
Kept: Per Nifanion Courcelles (talk) 17:32, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
Author's permission is required for commercial use[5], does not fit the GFDL. きゅっきゅっきゅっニャー (talk) 08:42, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
- I uploaded this picture. I'm sorry. Please delete.--Okimona (talk) 23:07, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Courcelles (talk) 17:33, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
Author's permission is required for commercial use[6], does not fit the GFDL. きゅっきゅっきゅっニャー (talk) 08:43, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
- I uploaded this picture. I'm sorry. Please delete.--Okimona (talk) 23:08, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Courcelles (talk) 17:33, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
Author's permission is required for commercial use[7], does not fit the GFDL. きゅっきゅっきゅっニャー (talk) 08:43, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
- I uploaded this picture. I'm sorry. Please delete.--Okimona (talk) 23:09, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Courcelles (talk) 17:33, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
Author's permission is required for commercial use[8], does not fit the GFDL. きゅっきゅっきゅっニャー (talk) 08:44, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
- I uploaded this picture. I'm sorry. Please delete.--Okimona (talk) 23:09, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Courcelles (talk) 17:33, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
Author's permission is required for commercial use[9], does not fit the GFDL. きゅっきゅっきゅっニャー (talk) 09:04, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
- I uploaded this picture. I'm sorry. Please delete.--Okimona (talk) 23:10, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Courcelles (talk) 17:34, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
Author's permission is required for commercial use[10], does not fit the GFDL. きゅっきゅっきゅっニャー (talk) 09:07, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
- I uploaded this picture. I'm sorry. Please delete.--Okimona (talk) 23:10, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Courcelles (talk) 17:34, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
Author's permission is required for commercial use[11], does not fit the GFDL. きゅっきゅっきゅっニャー (talk) 09:10, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
- I uploaded this picture. I'm sorry. Please delete.--Okimona (talk) 23:11, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Courcelles (talk) 17:34, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused corporate logo. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:29, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 19:03, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused text logo. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:41, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 19:04, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused text logo. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:41, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 19:04, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photoalbum. Not used. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:48, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 19:05, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Low quality photo of domesticated rabbit. Non used. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:55, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 19:06, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
Promotional image, out of scope Hoangquan hientrang (talk) 16:08, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 19:07, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
personal image, out of scope Hoangquan hientrang (talk) 16:09, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 19:07, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
personal image, out of scope Hoangquan hientrang (talk) 16:10, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 19:08, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
personal image, out of scope Hoangquan hientrang (talk) 16:10, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 19:08, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
Bad duplicate of the 100px Gigillo83 (talk) 16:52, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom. George Chernilevsky talk 18:58, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
no description, looks like a screenshot or publicity photo - single-purpose account Dankarl (talk) 17:32, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 18:57, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
Scaled down duplicate of File:Flag of Israel.svg ~ Fry1989 eh? 18:13, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom. George Chernilevsky talk 18:56, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
Scaled down duplicate of File:Flag of Japan.svg ~ Fry1989 eh? 18:20, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom. George Chernilevsky talk 18:55, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
Scaled down duplicate of File:Flag of Slovakia.svg ~ Fry1989 eh? 18:23, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom. George Chernilevsky talk 18:54, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
Scaled down duplicate of File:Flag of Mexico.svg ~ Fry1989 eh? 18:24, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom. George Chernilevsky talk 18:54, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
Scaled down duplicate of File:Flag of Hungary.svg ~ Fry1989 eh? 18:26, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom. George Chernilevsky talk 18:53, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
Scaled down duplicate of File:Flag of Brazil.svg ~ Fry1989 eh? 18:28, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom. George Chernilevsky talk 18:53, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
Scaled down duplicate of File:Flag of Ukraine.svg ~ Fry1989 eh? 18:33, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Per nom. George Chernilevsky talk 18:53, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
no description, out of scope as personal image Dankarl (talk) 19:01, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 18:52, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
What we have here is a PNG from a SVG and not the other way round. Commons:Deletion policy#Duplicates is about SVGs made from bitmaps. 141.84.69.20 14:55, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
Kept: nominator didn't include a link to the supposed SVG file Jcb (talk) 13:34, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
See above, now with link: File:Gnome-system-software-update.svg. Sorry for the inconvenience.--141.84.69.20 10:40, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted - Jcb (talk) 16:20, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
- Comment - deletion doesn't seem to work at the moment, I will come back later to delete the file - Jcb (talk) 16:26, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
fair use Juanee DYSKUTUJ 11:34, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Martin H. (talk) 19:09, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
An extreme case of applying 70 years p.m.a. rule: the author, ru:Бубликов, Николай Евлампиевич, died February 9, 1942 -> not acceptable until January 1, 2013. ~ NVO (talk) 02:48, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Undelete_in_2013 Bencmq (talk) 08:05, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
user request きゅっきゅっきゅっニャー (talk) 08:20, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: FOP issues? Bencmq (talk) 08:06, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
user request きゅっきゅっきゅっニャー (talk) 08:21, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Bencmq (talk) 08:07, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
user request きゅっきゅっきゅっニャー (talk) 08:22, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Bencmq (talk) 08:07, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
user request きゅっきゅっきゅっニャー (talk) 08:22, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Bencmq (talk) 08:07, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
user request きゅっきゅっきゅっニャー (talk) 08:23, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Bencmq (talk) 08:07, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
Image seems to be a still/capture from the movie mentioned in the description. In addition, it is credited to a different name/person than the uploaders. Túrelio (talk) 08:40, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Bencmq (talk) 08:08, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
Author's permission is required for commercial use[12], does not fit the GFDL. きゅっきゅっきゅっニャー (talk) 08:41, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
- I uploaded this picture. I'm sorry. Please delete.--Okimona (talk) 23:07, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Per nom Bencmq (talk) 08:08, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
Possibly a false claim of ownership. Low resolution image, available on multiple internet sources like here. Bill william comptonTalk 15:42, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: The link you give obviously takes the image from Wikipedia. Nontheless, it is still a doubtful image. Bencmq (talk) 08:10, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
and File:IBMM logo TL 08.png. Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused text logo. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:43, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Bencmq (talk) 08:11, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
Orphaned, used in a now deleted article on en.wikipedia. no foreseeable use. FASTILY (TALK) 08:16, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
Kept: Now in use (global usage was down with the 1.18 upgrade for a time), and OTRS permission also received for license verification. – Adrignola talk 17:49, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
Copyright violation. Rapsar (talk) 06:46, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: (not by me) Jcb (talk) 13:35, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
Duplicate file of File:Fentz.jpg Mlpearc powwow 18:45, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: the duplicate has been deleted in the meantime for no permission Jcb (talk) 13:34, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
Possible copyvio low res, on the web here [13] Dankarl (talk) 19:21, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: (not by me) Jcb (talk) 13:33, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
Doubtful claim of authorship, no proper source and license indicated, this picture of a "Burmese leader [...] in 1946-1948" might be non-free content. Mathonius (talk) 00:25, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 15:20, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
No COM:FOP#Japan and copyvio as literature work. Vantey (talk) 05:39, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 15:23, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
No COM:FOP#Japan and copyvio as literature work. Vantey (talk) 05:41, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 15:23, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
No COM:FOP#Japan and copyvio as literature work. Vantey (talk) 05:42, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 15:23, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
No COM:FOP#Japan and copyvio as drawing work. Vantey (talk) 05:44, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
- This map is a public sign for a free public park. It is made by the Kanagawa prefectural forest office for the sake of public visitors. This sign is NOT a personal commercial work. It should be treated as a public object and is very appropriate to be used in Wikipedia because it contributes to the public profit. Please remove the deletion request. --Nikm (talk) 03:30, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
- Just because it's in a public place and non-commercial work, not copright-free. The subject doesn't seem simple enough to be ineligible for copyright, and doesn't seem old enough to be public domain by copyright-expired, so it is a derivative work of coprighted work. All of similar images in Japan were deleted. --Vantey (talk) 12:36, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 15:23, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
No COM:FOP#Japan and copyvio as drawing work. Vantey (talk) 05:45, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
- This map is a public sign to show the evacuation places in case of disasters. It is made by the Yokohama city office for the sake of the local residents. This sign is NOT a personal commercial work. It should be treated as a public object and is very appropriate to be used in Wikipedia because it contributes to the public profit. Please remove the deletion request. --Nikm (talk) 03:42, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
- Just because it's in a public place and non-commercial work, not copright-free. The subject doesn't seem simple enough to be ineligible for copyright, and doesn't seem old enough to be public domain by copyright-expired, so it is a derivative work of coprighted work. All of similar images in Japan were deleted. --Vantey (talk) 12:37, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 15:22, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
No COM:FOP#Japan and copyvio as drawing work. Vantey (talk) 05:46, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 15:22, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
No COM:FOP#Japan and copyvio as drawing work. Vantey (talk) 05:47, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 15:22, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
No COM:FOP#Japan and copyvio as literature work and drawing work. Vantey (talk) 05:49, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 15:22, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
No COM:FOP#Japan and copyvio as literature work and photography work. Vantey (talk) 05:49, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 15:22, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
No COM:FOP#Japan and copyvio as drawing work. Vantey (talk) 05:52, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 15:22, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
No COM:FOP#Japan and copyvio as literature work. Vantey (talk) 05:53, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
- This sign explains the history of the place, which is now the public park. It is made by the Ministry of the Environment of Japan. This sign is NOT a personal or commercial work. It should be treated as a public object and is very appropriate to be used in Wikipedia because it contributes to the public profit. Please remove the deletion request. --Nikm (talk) 03:47, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
- Just because it's in a public place and non-commercial work, not copright-free. The subject doesn't seem simple enough to be ineligible for copyright, and doesn't seem old enough to be public domain by copyright-expired, so it is a derivative work of coprighted work. All of similar images in Japan were deleted. --Vantey (talk) 12:37, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 15:22, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
No COM:FOP#Japan and copyvio as literature work and drawing work. Vantey (talk) 05:54, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 15:22, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
copyrighted advertisement. Vantey (talk) 05:59, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 15:24, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
Apart from the many phoney licenses, this is a low quality diagram and unused. I don't see it be used in the futere. Lymantria (talk) 06:24, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
- delete screenshot from canoo.net --Yoursmile (talk) 08:55, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: out of scope - no copyright problem, would be PD-ineligible Jcb (talk) 15:28, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
It is based on File:Spark plug construction.jpg, which is nominated for deletion because it has no source information. This is important because it claims to be copyright free due to its publication date, but as no source is given the publication date cannot be determined and thus the right to use this licence is not established Biker Biker (talk) 06:51, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
- Clearly, if the original is free then this one is. And if the original is a copyvio, then this is too. – Quadell (talk) 12:14, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
The original has now been deleted, so this one should be deleted too. --Biker Biker (talk) 07:17, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
- This is a personal conflict issue for Biker Biker and nothing to do with "copyvio". The original was posted as commons and was undisputed until it was used as evidence contradicting Biker Biker's mistaken opinions on a matter of a technical ceramic. But instead of simply learning something new, he's instead embarked on a program of common media destruction using tenuous technicalities simply because it allows him to contradict a position in which his ego is invested. This is the very antithesis of the Wikipedia ethos. "Modern" spark plug ceramics do not comprised of multiple pieces, and are not porcelain, they're single piece sintered alumina - the only material offering the thermal, thermal shock, mechanical and electrical properties that can reliably and easily be manufactured at a price point that is acceptable to the industry and to users. This drawing is the perfect illustration of this contemporary spark plug construction and is needed by Wikipedia to evidence reality. 24.5.243.100 05:06, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
- Bizarre and completely incorrect. It is everything to do with being incorrectly licensed and nothing to do with the spark plug article. --Biker Biker (talk) 06:41, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
- Was it not you insisting that spark plug insulators were two piece? When confronted by this diagram, evidence that it's not so, your reaction was to delete, first the Polish labelled version that was in the commons, then this English derivative. 24.5.243.100 16:24, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
- Still bizarre. What on earth does this have to do with incorrectly licensed files? --Biker Biker (talk) 19:40, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
- That question is a red herring.
1. They haven't been found to be "incorrectly licensed", they've only been alleged to be. By you. After years of exposure to others, including those in Polish and French language pages.
2. You only decided to make these allegations after you were given text cites regarding insulator materials and construction but were still trying to contest them.
- Again, this is not a matter if "copyvio", this is a matter of your ego getting in the way of factual information - your allegation is unsubstantiated and is not sufficient grounds to sabotage the Wikipedia knowledge base by suppressing accurate information. These diagrams have successfully stood for years of scrutiny as common media, albeit not in the English language, and an unsubstantiated allegation in a language not that of their contributor is no grounds for deletion.24.5.243.100 02:35, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
- Update: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Spark_plug#Biker_Biker_vandalism24.5.243.100 19:51, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
- That question is a red herring.
- Still bizarre. What on earth does this have to do with incorrectly licensed files? --Biker Biker (talk) 19:40, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
- Was it not you insisting that spark plug insulators were two piece? When confronted by this diagram, evidence that it's not so, your reaction was to delete, first the Polish labelled version that was in the commons, then this English derivative. 24.5.243.100 16:24, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
- Bizarre and completely incorrect. It is everything to do with being incorrectly licensed and nothing to do with the spark plug article. --Biker Biker (talk) 06:41, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
- This is a personal conflict issue for Biker Biker and nothing to do with "copyvio". The original was posted as commons and was undisputed until it was used as evidence contradicting Biker Biker's mistaken opinions on a matter of a technical ceramic. But instead of simply learning something new, he's instead embarked on a program of common media destruction using tenuous technicalities simply because it allows him to contradict a position in which his ego is invested. This is the very antithesis of the Wikipedia ethos. "Modern" spark plug ceramics do not comprised of multiple pieces, and are not porcelain, they're single piece sintered alumina - the only material offering the thermal, thermal shock, mechanical and electrical properties that can reliably and easily be manufactured at a price point that is acceptable to the industry and to users. This drawing is the perfect illustration of this contemporary spark plug construction and is needed by Wikipedia to evidence reality. 24.5.243.100 05:06, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: to keep with PD-Poland, we will need to know publication date, but it will also need to be a photograph, however this is a drawing Jcb (talk) 15:33, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
Source: "Image copyright of Matthew R. Gilligan, Savannah State University." Not a work of NOAA. 71.58.69.237 07:24, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
Er ... I am Rkmlai. I thought the image was a NOAA image. If it is not then it should be deleted from wiki.
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 15:35, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
Not own work, image lingers around on web f.i. http://media.psworks.de/11_11/IH-Sharks/i-heart-sharks.jpg. Copyright status unknown. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 07:55, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 15:36, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
Orphaned, used in a now deleted article on en.wikipedia. no foreseeable use FASTILY (TALK) 08:20, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 15:37, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
Orphaned, used in a now deleted article on en.wikipedia. no foreseeable use FASTILY (TALK) 08:21, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 15:37, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
Orphaned, used in a now deleted article on en.wikipedia. no foreseeable use FASTILY (TALK) 08:21, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 15:36, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
Orphaned, used in a now deleted article on en.wikipedia. no foreseeable use FASTILY (TALK) 08:21, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 15:36, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
Image seems to be a still/capture from the movie mentioned in the description. In addition, it was credited to a different name (Antoni Caimari) than the uploaders. Túrelio (talk) 08:39, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 20:12, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
Image seems to be a still/capture from the movie mentioned in the description. In addition, it is sourced to a different name/person than the uploaders Túrelio (talk) 08:42, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 20:12, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
Image seems to be a still/capture from the movie mentioned in the description. In addition, it is sourced to a different name/person than the uploaders Túrelio (talk) 08:44, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 20:12, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
Image seems to be a still/capture from the movie mentioned in the description. In addition, it is sourced to a different name/person than the uploaders Túrelio (talk) 08:46, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 20:12, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
PD-Old does not apply, painter died in 1949. -- Deadstar (msg) 09:08, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 20:13, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
The architect of the church, Albert-Paul Muller, is dead in 1965 (source), so 46 years ago, not 70 ; and there isn't FoP in France, so copyvio. Sebleouf (talk) 09:21, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. No FoP in France unless the author died 70 years ago--Hoangquan hientrang (talk) 09:48, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 20:13, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
Fails COM:DM - if we removed all copyright images, we would be left without anything useful at all. -mattbuck (Talk) 09:51, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
- Very weak keep Borderline de minimis, I think -- none of them are very large, most have a price marker over them, and none are in really sharp focus. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 10:10, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
- The question we have to ask when deciding de minimis cases is "if we were to remove all the unfree material, would what was left be of any use?" I would say the answer to this is no. -mattbuck (Talk) 10:14, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
- I think you take that too literally. We had a case a few months ago where the image was of a magazine stand with fifty or sixty magazines showing, all of them copyrighted. No one magazine had any significance to the image, so it was a "keep". I think the same applies here -- the test is not
- "can we delete all the copyrighted items without hurting the image"
- but
- "does the blanking of any particular one of the copyrighted items ruin the image".
- If you apply that test to each of the potential problems, one at a time, you are left with a "keep". Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:31, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
- But by that standard, this collage of album covers is potentially free use, as the removal of any one item would still give a meaningful picture. -mattbuck (Talk) 15:18, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
- No, I think that there is difference between a photo of a store that happens to have many copyrighted images in it and a collage that was created entirely from copyrighted images. With that said, if your collage were, say, thirty covers in each direction, I'd probably be OK with it here, particularly if they were all one artist or had some theme. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:06, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
- But by that standard, this collage of album covers is potentially free use, as the removal of any one item would still give a meaningful picture. -mattbuck (Talk) 15:18, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
- I think you take that too literally. We had a case a few months ago where the image was of a magazine stand with fifty or sixty magazines showing, all of them copyrighted. No one magazine had any significance to the image, so it was a "keep". I think the same applies here -- the test is not
Kept: although this is borderline Jcb (talk) 20:16, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by 1989 as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: Copyrighted characters; this is not de minimis at all. 1989 19:01, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
- Keep This issue has been discussed at length above. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:23, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
Kept: as above. Yann (talk) 14:10, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
Low resolution, likely copyvio Hoangquan hientrang (talk) 09:56, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: also has a watermark from a website Jcb (talk) 20:17, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
Promotional image, no evidence of permission Hoangquan hientrang (talk) 10:02, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 20:18, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
Poor quality, not at all informative or useful for educational purposes. Havesj (talk) 11:22, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 20:18, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
I doubt that the uploader is the author. Leyo 12:04, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
I suppose that it will be useful to copy it here too:
Hello.
Why You want to delete Voevod.jpeg? This picture is the work of our library staff and I - as the part of staff - have all permissions and rights to use it. Our library has all rights and permissions from the Siberian Branch of the Russian Academy of Science to use photos of the famous Russian scientists. I'm not a lawyer and I don't know all special copyright rules and tags. User --AJZобс counselled me to use the special tag {{PD-user-w|ru|Russian Wikipedia|Sergei Komarov87}} and I used it. Yes, I'm not the author of that long-suffering jpeg but I still have rights to use it. Please, tell me which tag I finally must to use in order to normally upload Voevod.jpeg (and all future pictures too) and use it in my article?
Yours,
Sergei Komarov. Sergei Komarov87 (talk) 13:07, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
- Who is the author of the photograph? --Leyo 13:25, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
- Somebody (photographer) from SB RAS I suppose but does it really matter? As I told, we have all necessary allowances to use such photos. I'll try to learn who is the author of the photograph. If I'll be successful in it - which copyright tag I must to use?
- Thanks in advance, Sergei Komarov. Sergei Komarov87 (talk) 06:59, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
- Your library needs to verify the above by an e-mail to the OTRS team. --Leyo 07:08, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
- Thank You, we'll try to do that. Sergei Komarov87 (talk) 05:06, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: We received nothing in OTRS till now Jcb (talk) 20:48, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
This image infringes on the copyright of the artist, Graham Goddard, who is living. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:06, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 20:49, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
This image infringes on the copyright of the artist, Graham Goddard, who is living. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:06, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 20:49, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
This photo is from here, and there is no indication that it's a free image. Is this a copyvio, or am I missing something? – Quadell (talk) 12:15, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
Steve Reich asked me to put the Brooklyn Bridge photo up. The photo was taken at the request of Steve's publisher, Boosey and Hawkes and it has been used by them and Nonesuch, Steve's record company. Steve very much prefers the Brooklyn Bridge photo over the clapping one and would like it to be used. I was puzzled by the various copyright choices and may have chosen the wrong one. What proof do you need to use this photo? Thanks, Richard Sutor (NasDeedo)
- Delete unless permission received: Because you do not own the copyright of the photo, you need to get the copyright holder, who may be Boosey and Hawkes, or Nonesuch or even Steve Reich himself, to confirm their permission to release this image under a free licence by emailing their permission to us at permissions-commons@wikimedia.org per the details at Commons:Email templates/Consent. The same issue applies to the identical image named File:Reich,Steve-authorizedPhoto.jpg though we don't need duplicates. Make sure the copyright holder understands that a free licence means that anyone can use it for anything including commercial use. Ww2censor (talk) 03:57, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 10:16, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
This is not Elgin but King George III Holsch (talk) 12:20, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
- Delete - poor duplicate of File:George III of the United Kingdom 405407.jpg. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:54, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
Kept: in use Jcb (talk) 10:17, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
Logo beyond threshold of originality, no permission through COM:OTRS. Lymantria (talk) 13:07, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
Kept: PD-textlogo, although this might be borderline Jcb (talk) 10:17, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
fair use 62.42.51.51 14:49, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
- Proof? It's a map of Cantabria with the flag, that's not copyrightable, we have that here in Commons in SVG already. The letters are to basic to be copyrighted as well. This file is free. Fry1989 eh? 18:36, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
Kept. Jcb (talk) 10:18, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
That image on the school's website is copyrighted: Copyright © 2010 Tynecastle High School (http://www.tynecastle.edin.sch.uk/) Derivative works fall under the same copyright (in the US) Safety Cap (talk) 15:00, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
- Should be on wikipedia.en not commons under a fair use rationale as a logo of an organisation. Edinburgh Wanderer
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 10:18, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
The graffiti might be legal graffiti, and thus the original creator might be able to uphold copyright of the artwork →AzaToth 15:24, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
Kept: per Commons:Image casebook#Graffiti Jcb (talk) 10:21, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
and File:Krzysztof-Soszynski.jpg. Unlikely to be own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:31, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
- The main file is a blatant copyvio from http://www.ufc.com/event/UFC131/printFightCard. The additional file clearly has ESPN's logo so it is likely also a copyvio. --TreyGeek (talk) 16:06, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 10:22, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
and other uploads by Rksarangi (talk · contribs). Unlikely to be own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:33, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 10:23, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Modern text document. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:37, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 10:24, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
and other photos by Mccormick aus (talk · contribs). Likely to be advertisement.. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:50, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: except one case of PD-textlogo Jcb (talk) 10:26, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small resolution, missing EXIF. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:51, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 10:28, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
Likely to be advertisement. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:53, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 10:28, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
copyright violation, a scan from a 1981 book. Uploader provided no evidence to support that the photo was published before 1923, so I checked the Picasa page given as the source, and it shows the photo with a printed caption (which also does not support that claim). A Google book search of a portion of the caption reveals that this was a scan of a photo on page 75 of the book, The Trolley Titans, by O. E. Carson, published in 1981 by en:Interurban Press. Steve Morgan (talk) 16:19, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 10:29, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
File:Goliath.png & File:GoliathCap1.png
[edit]
These were uploaded by an editor as part of a Wikipedia article about his personal project, which was then deleted. They are now out of scope, as there is no other educational purpose for them. Dominic (talk) 00:05, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Out of scope per nom. Missvain (talk) 02:29, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 10:24, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
not correct license Jajjeevv (talk) 04:16, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
this logo is protected by copyright and should have a different license. Sorry, please delete Jajjeevv (talk) 04:20, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
Kept: PD-textlogo Jcb (talk) 10:06, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
Not own work but from http://www.panoramio.com/photo/48393405 . Uploader Devashish Thakur says All rights reserved. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 09:31, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
Aside from poor quality, this appears to be an image of sculpture. No information is provided about the copyright status of the underlying work. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:39, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 01:50, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
UK copyright status is uncertain Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 16:47, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
Kept: given the provided information, I think we can safely keep this Jcb (talk) 17:04, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
possivle copyvio - see http://colombia.indymedia.org/news/2006/08/47875.php Dankarl (talk) 17:25, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 17:05, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
PD-RU-exempt does not apply here. The file is a scan of an envelope, not the post stamp. An envelope is not a state symbol, therefore copyright of the artist is protected under general rules. Blacklake (talk) 17:55, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
- must be a mass DR - there are 359 files in Category:Covers of the Soviet Union and who knows how many outside of it. NVO (talk) 01:00, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
- Такое впечатление, что Blacklake ни разу не держал в руках почтовую открытку. На одной стороне стандартная марка с шаблоном для написания адресов и свободное поле для письма, на другой стороне - картинка. Blacklake решил разделить по принципу - это можно, а это, якобы, нельзя, американские законы якобы не разрешают. А где написано, что нельзя? Где написано, что можно сфотографировать только одну сторону? В советских и российских филателистических каталогах сторона для письма вообще не показывается, там смотреть не на что. Пусть Blacklake покажет, где написано, что можно публиковать только одну сторону открытки. Сам придумал? Открытка загружена 3 года назад, никому не мешает, размещена во многих иностранных проектах и только Blacklake из России решил ее удалить. К чему такое рвение? Покажите, где запрещено фотографировать одну из сторон документа Министерства связи СССР.--Andshel (talk) 04:38, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
- Да не "фотографировать запрещено", а "публиковать". Вот этот конкретный файл точно в топку, а что с остальными делать? В том числе со "сторонами для письма". Долгое время торжествовал странный "консенсус", что почтовая продукция = официальные символы государства. Этот подход ещё можно было принять для стандартных марок, но здесь - обычное художественное фото, которое удаляется на раз как {{No permission}}. NVO (talk) 05:49, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
- Вам это надо? В смысле "удалять". Вам легче будет, если "удалить"? Чем легче? Соблюли "авторские права"? А их никто и не нарушал. Как был автором фотографии, допустим, Сидоров, так он им и остался. Сидоров молчит, он своё бабло в 1960-х отгрёб, Министерство связи в лице государства молчит, претензий не предъявляет, хозяева серверов (которым вы все зад лижете) молчат, только вам всем неймётся. Вам, "удалистам", янки зарплату платят за удаление? Удалите, и что вы получите? Амбиции свои удовлетворите? Миллионы людей не увидят Гагарина с Титовым. Люди вам спасибо скажут? Долгое время торжествовал странный "консенсус", что почтовая продукция = официальные символы государства. Но государство не возражает против этого. Или были попытки возражения? Тогда зачем лезть, куда вас не просят? Придумали какую-то игру в свободный-несвободный. Что не запрещено, то разрешено. Государство не запрещает, истинный автор не запрещает, а вам какое до этого файла дело? Хоть один случай был, когда кто-то или государство что-то запретило? --Andshel (talk) 07:57, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
- Про зад, это положим, вы зря (тут всё же не рашкин-педия где можно невозбранно лаять), а на будущее совет - ищите другой хостинг c внятным и предсказумем подходом. Здесь же - "Консенсус может измениться" - причём неожиданно для всех заинтересованных. NVO (talk) 09:06, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 10:07, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
- P.S. Господа, неужто вы не чуете разницу между фотографией конверта и фотографией художественной стороны открытки? Тут как раз второй случай, и он никак на PD-RU-exempt не тянет. --Rave (talk) 12:04, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
- Restored: as per [14]. Yann (talk) 07:51, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
![[14]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Undeletion_requests/Current_requests&oldid=661728069#File:Convert_ru_kosmos078.jpg){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
This image might infringe personality rights. FunkMonk (talk) 17:58, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
.JPG){kind=link}
Kept: {{Personality rights}} is sufficient for that Jcb (talk) 10:08, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
.JPG){kind=link}
Presidents of El Salvador
[edit]- File:Alfonsoquinones.jpg
- File:Angelguirola.jpg
- File:Chemaperalta.jpg
- File:Diegovigil.jpg
- File:Doroteovaconcelos.jpg
- File:Eugenioaguilar.jpg
- File:Fernandofigueroa.jpg
- File:Francisco_Dueñas.jpg
- File:Francisco_Malespín.jpg
- File:Gregoriosalazar.jpg
- File:Ignacionmenendez.jpg
- File:Joaquinescolanybalibrera.jpg
- File:Jorgemelendez.jpg
- File:Josedamianvillacorta.jpg
- File:Jose_Matias_Delgado.jpg
- File:Josemariacornejo.jpg
- File:Joserosales.jpg
- File:Juanvicentevillacortadiaz.jpg
- File:Manuelaguilar.jpg
- File:Maximiliano_Hernandez_Martinez.JPG
- File:Miguelsantin.jpg
- File:Norbertoramirez.jpg
- File:Rafaelcampo.jpg
- File:Rodolfocordon.jpg
- File:Santiagogonzalez.jpg
- File:Timoteomenendez.jpg
- File:Tomás_Medina.jpg
Those images were taken from a source named "Casa presidencial", and tagged with {{Copyrighted free use}} (images from an author from outside of wikimedia, who allows usage under compatible terms). The first problem is that the source is very vague: what is "Casa presidencial"? There is no link. If it is Presidencia de la República del Salvador, then there's the second problem: where are the compatible terms of use? Where is it said that unrestricted redistribution, commercial use and modification are allowed?
The files may be speedily kept if "Casa presidencial" is some other site, with visible terms of use allowing this usage, or if we got OTRS permission --Cambalachero (talk) 18:15, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
I forgot to add that some files seem to link to a former page hosted at presidencia.gob.sv, but I checked with Wayback Machine here, and similarily, I did not find any terms of use Cambalachero (talk) 18:33, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
- O.K. I did a quick search and found the origin of this much-reproduced image, both in its original line-etched, black-and-white lithograph form and in newer colorized copies. (Do an Internet search for Jose Matias Delgado, or better yet "Jose Matias Delgado retrato" and you'll see just how often this image is reproduced.) The original oil was commissioned by the Salvadoran National Assembly in 1833—the year after his death—to be placed in its chamber. (It's unclear if it's still there.) A lithograph based on this painting was commissioned in 1878, which is the image we see. It is probably impossible to determine how the JPEG, that was on the Salvadoran Presidency's site back in 2007, was created but I think the main copyright issue centers on the original image, since this seems to be a standard scan of the lithograph. Given its age, I think this image easily falls under fair use, if not under an expired copyright, but I defer to anyone's better analysis. My sources are El Salvador Bicentinario—Jose Matias Delgado and Proceres salvadoreños, but this information is also contained in the various-language article on Delgado here at Wikipedia. Best, TriniMuñoz (talk) 19:45, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
- Feel free to update the information and licence of any of the images listed, and we may remove them from this deletion request if that info is good enough for Commons requirements. If "Casa presidencial" is merely republishing older works from someone else, then it's someone else copyright, which may be expired. Or not. In case of doubt, images are deleted, per the Precautionary principle Cambalachero (talk) 03:00, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
- Comment Some individual images here may well be PD-Old, but others are probably too recent. Except for any individual images which can be identified as PD-Old, Delete unless actual free license for all confirmed. Infrogmation (talk) 02:32, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 10:15, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
Says it's a magazine cover, scan of which is likely copyright protected; source images don't have any specific releases either (multiple covers included in the nomination). SpacemanSpiff (talk) 18:18, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
- Also including File:Hungry Generation.jpg, File:Poetry Sessions.jpg. SpacemanSpiff (talk) 18:22, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 10:18, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
Doubtfully self taken; appers to be a publicity photo from an uploader who's had trouble with similar images in the past; cf. http://thescope.ca/election2007/lorraine-michael, which was published shortly after this image (on English Wikipedia) was. Magog the Ogre (talk) 18:30, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 10:19, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Suomalainen_henkil%C3%B6kortti.jpg Jaakkogro (talk) 18:39, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 17:07, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
copyvio . HombreDHojalata.talk 19:12, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 10:19, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
This image was likely not taken in 1944, look at the photo inscriptions. Please provie some evidence for 1944 80.187.106.179 20:16, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: "source" for this is a self-generated fake flickr washing source, therfore unverifiable. Martin H. (talk) 23:03, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
The image looks copyvio suspect Egon Eagle (talk) 21:29, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 17:06, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
Civil Code of Russian Federation, articles 1259 and 1276, states no FOP in Russia. The rights of famous architect Вячеслав Бухаев are violated. PereslavlFoto (talk) 22:20, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 10:23, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
Is a duplicate of L'Elefant.jpg I loaded by error. Pere Ramon (talk) 22:27, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 17:07, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
.svg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.svg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
File:Flag of Libya (1951).svg is the proper pre-existing SVG file of this flag. Once the TNC (or the new formof Government when the Transition is complete) officially changes the national flag of Libya, then Flag of Libya (1951).svg will be renamed to "Flag of Libya", corresponding to that change. Until such a law is passed (and one has not yet), then there is no purpose of pretending the flag is changed, or duplicating an already existing SVG file. Delete. ~ Fry1989 eh? 00:25, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
.svg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
- I find it is not a duplicate, the crescent and stars are different, and the colors are different, I just used (2011) because it is this year. Its a keeper. --Spesh531, My talk, and External links 05:22, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
- It is a duplicate. The crescent and star are identical. The Only thing different is the shade of green and red. They were taken from the CIA World Factbook, which is famous for it's errors when it comes to the proper colours and sometimes even proportions of national flags. It should be deleted, it will never be used. Fry1989 eh? 17:54, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
- Fry1989 -- We probably won't wait for such a law to be passed, but rather do the changeover when the situation in Libya seems to be fully solidly established (i.e. all major towns and cities under rebel control and/or Qaddafi arrested, dead, or exiled and/or the government dropping "transitional" from its name, etc.). The United Kingdom has never passed any such law, and technically the Union Jack is officially merely a naval flag, but encyclopedias and flag charts consider it to be the national flag of the U.K. As for the specific image File:Flag_of_Libya_(2011).svg my reaction is an indifferent "meh" -- it doesn't seem like it will do any good or do any harm. AnonMoos (talk) 19:50, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
- Anon, until the flag is officially changed by an edict or law or executive order by the NTC, Libya's national flag either is A: still the Ghadaffi green one, or B: currently non-existant. I'm not saying that this flag wont be used on Libya articles from now on, I'm just trying to set out when this flag would most likely be renamed from it's historical context to the current context of "Flag of Libya". In any case, we only need one SVG of this flag. If the specifications change, they can be reflected by uploading a new version. Fry1989 eh? 20:15, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
- Then according to you, the United Kingdom doesn't have a national flag, only naval flags... AnonMoos (talk) 21:17, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
- Convention over centuries sets a precedent for the UK. It's not so imple for Libya, and you know that. Fry1989 eh? 21:21, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
- Who gets to decide which "conventions" are relevant? You unilaterally? AnonMoos (talk) 21:30, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
- Covention doesn't just set in over 8 months. It takes time to develop. So loose your pissy attitude and realize that I am trying to be constructive here. Fry1989 eh? 21:34, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
- Whatever, dude -- you need to stop being pointlessly petty-bureaucratic, and realize that whether the new government of Libya is fully solidly-established will be given greater weight in the flag file switchover than whether some by-law is passed following Robert's Rules Of Order and filed in triplicate on goldenrod forms according to proper petty-bureaucratic procedure... AnonMoos (talk) 21:56, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
- You can call me bureaucratic all you want, but you can't deny that accuracy has been a key on Commons, and the official dates of adoption (and abolition for that matter) become particularily relevant when it comes to naming files here. Until a flag is adopted, we can't claim is has been. Fry1989 eh? 21:09, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
- Beyond a certain point, insistence on purely formalistic "ticket-punching" -- when most people care a lot more about the actual substantive reality than whether or not certain hoops were jumped through -- begins to seem a lot more like petty-bureaucratic niggling than a true concern for accuracy. Many of the Wikipedias now give greater prominence to the red-black-green flag, and I don't see why we have to be the only ones to ignore actually-occurring events in favor of technicalities. Anyway, I made a proposal at File_talk:Flag_of_Libya.svg#Proposal... AnonMoos (talk) 23:52, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
- You can call me bureaucratic all you want, but you can't deny that accuracy has been a key on Commons, and the official dates of adoption (and abolition for that matter) become particularily relevant when it comes to naming files here. Until a flag is adopted, we can't claim is has been. Fry1989 eh? 21:09, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
- Whatever, dude -- you need to stop being pointlessly petty-bureaucratic, and realize that whether the new government of Libya is fully solidly-established will be given greater weight in the flag file switchover than whether some by-law is passed following Robert's Rules Of Order and filed in triplicate on goldenrod forms according to proper petty-bureaucratic procedure... AnonMoos (talk) 21:56, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
- Covention doesn't just set in over 8 months. It takes time to develop. So loose your pissy attitude and realize that I am trying to be constructive here. Fry1989 eh? 21:34, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
- Who gets to decide which "conventions" are relevant? You unilaterally? AnonMoos (talk) 21:30, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
- Convention over centuries sets a precedent for the UK. It's not so imple for Libya, and you know that. Fry1989 eh? 21:21, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
- Then according to you, the United Kingdom doesn't have a national flag, only naval flags... AnonMoos (talk) 21:17, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
- Anon, until the flag is officially changed by an edict or law or executive order by the NTC, Libya's national flag either is A: still the Ghadaffi green one, or B: currently non-existant. I'm not saying that this flag wont be used on Libya articles from now on, I'm just trying to set out when this flag would most likely be renamed from it's historical context to the current context of "Flag of Libya". In any case, we only need one SVG of this flag. If the specifications change, they can be reflected by uploading a new version. Fry1989 eh? 20:15, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
These Two Flags Reflect two Different proposals of government if 1951 Con. is used so wil the 1951 flag and vice versa. --Rancalred (talk) 21:09, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
.svg){kind=link}
- No they don't. The specifications of the flag have nothing to do with the system of government. Fry1989 eh? 21:12, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
Kept: in use, be it in a discussion - no need to delete Jcb (talk) 10:12, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
.svg){kind=link}
.svg&action=edit§ion=T-2){kind=link}
JCB kept this file because it was in use on a discussion. However, if he had payed attention,, he would have noticed that this file was used on that discussion at a time when it and File:Flag of Libya (1951).svg were distinct from eachother. However, before my first nomination, this file had already been altered to make it identical to the 1951 file. We do not need this uneccesary duplication of the same flag. There are now 3 of them, and they're all 100% identical. I have discussed this with Admin:Zscout370, and he agrees that this one should be deleted.
We now have File:Flag of Libya.svg. File:Flag of Libya (1951).svg, and File:Flag of Libya (2011).svg. This duplication is rediculous, One, or preferably two, should go. We don't need 3 identical files of the same flag. ~ Fry1989 eh? 19:55, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
- This is not a duplicate file. If we put this file in the 1951 file, than we can delete it. This file is based on the construction sheet on the FOTW website. The 5 in the crescent means that if the crescent was completed to make a circle, than it would be 30 px. The width of the crescent at largest is 1/6 of the 30 (5px). --Spesh531, My talk, and External links 22:13, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
- At one time it was different, but now it is not. All three flags I have listed above have been altered and are currently identical. Fry1989 eh? 00:02, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
I propose:
First: move the old green flag to another file (with his edit history), called something like Flag of Libya (1977-2011).svg
Second, rename (or merge) the file Flag of Libya (2011).svg as Flag of Libya.svg
That would leave only 2 flags instead of 3.--Shadowxfox (talk) 08:48, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
- I agree on your proposal. The 1951 flag should stay (for the reason of time) and maybe renamed to the time period it was in. The 2011 file could be used if the flag gets changed, (therefore 2011-20??) But it would say on the page that it is a duplicate. --Spesh531, My talk, and External links 14:50, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
- Boys, the old green flag has already been uploaded separately as File:Flag of Libya (1977).svg, and it will be renamed to (1977-2011) in good time. File:Flag of Libya.svg is the proper file name already, and has been changed to the new flag. Zscout370 worked hard to make sure that there would be no confusion between the renames, so we don't have to worry about that. That leaves us This file File:Flag of Libya (2011).svg, which should be deleted, and File:Flag of Libya (1951).svg which should be merged with File:Flag of Libya.svg. Even if the 1951 file and "Flag of Libya" aren't merged, this file should be deleted, because we do not need 3 identical files. Fry1989 eh? 17:24, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
.svg){kind=link}
- Keep - still in use, even in article space, this unnecessary renomination can be keep-closed withour further attention - Jcb (talk) 10:21, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
- It can easily be replaced with File:Flag of Libya.svg through Commons Delinker. Give me one good reason why we need three identical svg files of the exact same flag. You can't, that's why you use "in use" as an argument, even though you're well aware of Commons Delinker. Fry1989 eh? 19:06, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
- Don't shout please. Jcb (talk) 21:03, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
- I'm not shouting, I'm using < big > because you have ignored this problem in this discussion, and I'm trying to get you to addresse it, and emphasis is the only other way I can get your attention. "In use" isn't the answer to everything, like you sometimes treat it. There is absolutely no valid reason to have 3 of the exact same thing. Fry1989 eh? 21:40, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
- Don't shout please. Jcb (talk) 21:03, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
- It can easily be replaced with File:Flag of Libya.svg through Commons Delinker. Give me one good reason why we need three identical svg files of the exact same flag. You can't, that's why you use "in use" as an argument, even though you're well aware of Commons Delinker. Fry1989 eh? 19:06, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: and redirected to duplicate file. No need to keep dupes around. Powers (talk) 18:34, 27 October 2011 (UTC)