Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2011/11/08
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
|
|
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_Mnet_20s_Choice_Award.jpg){kind=link}
non-free logo ■ MMXX talk 01:05, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: by Mmxx. Yann (talk) 22:24, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
scanned cover not likely freely licensed as claimed Eeekster (talk) 02:56, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
- This image is the poster of the movie and it is used on the article of that movie and according to wikipedia it can be used.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sexymax15 (talk • contribs) 13:32, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
- It can be used in en.wikipedia with a proper non free use rational. However, you did not upload it to en.wikipedia, you uploaded to the wikimedia commons, where you can't use "non free usage" images. --Muhandes (talk) 15:02, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: by EugeneZelenko. Yann (talk) 22:24, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
Code copied from Commons Helper is corrupted. Need to remigrate same filename from en.wikipedia using Commons Helper 2. M0rphzone (talk) 06:54, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: by Túrelio. Yann (talk) 22:24, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
Wrong article space Rsmn (talk) 09:58, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: by Jameslwoodward. Yann (talk) 22:24, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
Image on insignificant people, also it should be noted that user has been uploaded so many such images even after repeated deletions. This has got to stop. Bill william comptonTalk 16:01, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
For closing admin: please take a look here.Bill william comptonTalk 16:03, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: out of scope Denniss (talk) 18:20, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
There is no evidence of permission Letters (talk) 20:04, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
- Rubens died more than 370 years ago. It'd be kind of hard to ask him for permission. Luckily, we don't have to. —LX (talk, contribs) 22:10, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
Kept, baseless/prank nomination by vandalism account. Infrogmation (talk) 00:18, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
from http://www.flickr.com/photos/ajithphotos/5364212364/in/photostream/ - not free Luxo 22:00, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
- All files of Vazhikatti are from Flickr, © Thomas George--Luxo 22:12, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
- deleted.--Luxo 23:11, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
i am thomas george and its my id in . if you like i can provide details. i updated these pictures in to flicker. i am thomas george and its my id in flicker. if you like i can provide details. i updated these pictures in to flicker. i am thomas george and its my id in flicker. if you like i can provide details. i updated these pictures in to flicker.
- Ok, please update your Flickr licenses, then I can restore your images--Luxo 15:03, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
i am using promotional flicker website, i tried to find out licenses but i don't know exactly what is license, please let me know .
out of scope Reinhardhauke (talk) 13:44, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: No permission. Out of scope. Yann (talk) 14:07, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 2.0 Generic (CC BY-NC-SA 2.0) Sridhar1000 (talk) 14:18, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Speedied per NC-restriction at source. Túrelio (talk) 08:52, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
Image of non-notable person. Bill william comptonTalk 16:06, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. Yann (talk) 14:03, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
Out of scope, don't see any possible encyclopedic use. Bill william comptonTalk 16:10, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
Delete--Motopark (talk) 20:18, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. Yann (talk) 14:03, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
copyvio Screenshot from television Kattenkruid (talk) 17:42, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio. Yann (talk) 14:06, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
Possible copyvio based on ticket:2011110710014387. Courcelles (talk) 22:31, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio. Yann (talk) 14:04, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
unused personal image, out of project scope ■ MMXX talk 22:49, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
- appears to be used. Kelly (talk) 02:14, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
Kept: File is now used. ■ MMXX talk 14:47, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 2.0 Generic (CC BY-NC-ND 2.0) Sridhar1000 (talk) 14:01, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom Denniss (talk) 17:24, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
not from flick add real source Sridhar1000 (talk) 14:14, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: most likely just another copyvio from this uploader Denniss (talk) 17:27, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
not look like real source Sridhar1000 (talk) 14:23, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Logo - fair use Denniss (talk) 17:53, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
Picture by Ivar Starkenberg (1886–1947) Copyright expires in 2017. Esquilo (talk) 09:52, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, delete. The uploader admitted alreday in 2010 that he had misunderstood the copyright rules. /FredrikT (talk) 10:00, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
- Please delete. Raphael Saulus (talk) 11:45, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Put on Undelete in 2018 page and deleted. Túrelio (talk) 10:03, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
Picture by Ivar Starkenberg (1886–1947) Copyright expires in 2017. Esquilo (talk) 09:58, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
- Actually not until January 1st, 2018. Delete! /FredrikT (talk) 10:03, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
- Please delete. Raphael Saulus (talk) 11:50, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Put on Undelete in 2018 page and deleted. Túrelio (talk) 10:04, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
Out of scope, not used, no descriptionm not categorized Motopark (talk) 15:39, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: E.g. here → jpg in higher res, earlier. Not sure if this is the photographer - but at least File:Scogar.pdf seems to be with a high probability a copyvio. Furthermore, this seems to be an attack image violating the personality rights of the person on the right. Not useful upload by a "1-edit and vanish" uploader. Saibo (Δ) 00:28, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
Unused in poor quality, with various alternatives given. Yikrazuul (talk) 20:05, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
- Delete, as per Yikrazuul.--Jsjsjs1111 (talk) 15:28, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Ed (Edgar181) 02:20, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
Possible copyvio. Looks more like a TV screenshot than a photo, which makes it even more unlikely this is a free image. Uploader has upped several non-free items, or alternatively wrongly claimed other free works as their own (documented on their talk page). I can't find an actual source for this on google's reverse image search or tineye, so some other eyes would be helpful. But given the image's age and the uploader's history, I doubt whether this is actually freely licensed. Would happily be proved wrong, mind. Buttons to Push Buttons (talk) 21:58, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
- Delete most likely a copyvio. Beta M (talk) 19:57, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: In doubt, we delete it Ezarateesteban 12:52, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
Possible copyvio. Uploader has upped several non-free items, or alternatively wrongly claimed other free works as their own (documented on their talk page). I can't find an actual source for this on google's reverse image search or tineye, so some other eyes would be helpful. But given the image's age and the uploader's history, I doubt whether this is actually freely licensed. Would happily be proved wrong, mind. Buttons to Push Buttons (talk) 21:56, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: I doubt, we delete it Ezarateesteban 12:53, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
copyvio: same as http://www.mcdonalds.co.jp/quality/basic_information/menu_info.php?mid=9099 cpro (talk) 00:44, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: copyvio Ezarateesteban 12:54, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
I do believe this logo can be declared as be above the threshold of originality →AzaToth 01:19, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
- Delete I believe the same. Beta M (talk) 20:00, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom Ezarateesteban 12:54, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
Unused personal photo. Sreejith K (talk) 12:05, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 20:11, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
Part of Promo campaign, including six bogus cateogries, Gallery-article, etc. Out of scope, not notable, no google or IMDB hits. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:21, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 20:13, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
vulgar image Sridhar1000 (talk) 15:06, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
Keep That is no valid reason for deletion. --Saibo (Δ) 15:42, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
- Keep Per Saibo. Sridhar1000 seems unaware of many rules of Commons (judging his talk page...) --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 21:46, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
But according to Indian Law Publication of these type of content prohibited. --Sridhar1000 (talk) 12:27, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
- Then be aware that Commons is based in the USA and doesn't follow Indian law. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 12:29, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
- In fact we follow Indian law in some cases. Only if India is the source country of a photo/artwork and (nearly) only regarding copyrights. Of course it is clever for yourself not to upload images here which are prohibited for some reason in India. --Saibo (Δ) 15:29, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
Keep Per Saibo. -- Gddea - Daniel E. Als-Juliussen (talk) 14:48, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
- Keep bad faith nomination. Beta M (talk) 18:38, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
Kept: No reason for deletion. Indian laws about prohibited content are not relevant for us. Rosenzweig τ 19:09, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
not in scope - to small to be usefull Honza chodec (talk) 15:29, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 20:14, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
Promotional include phonenumbers and web-address Motopark (talk) 15:31, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 20:15, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
Promotional, includes web-address and phone numbers Motopark (talk) 15:42, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 20:16, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photoalbum. Not used. EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:09, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 20:17, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
Logo og non-notable fictional universe, out of project scope. Blacklake (talk) 16:36, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 20:18, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
Out of scope. Commons is no private photo album (image is not used on any Wikimedia project) High Contrast (talk) 17:48, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 20:20, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
Fake symbol used for a fictional article on Wikipedia English that takes place in the future. No foreseeable educational use ~ Fry1989 eh? 20:05, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
- The fake article has since been deleted. Fry1989 eh? 01:56, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 20:21, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
No description, Can't find in search, not used Motopark (talk) 20:37, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 20:22, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
Not realy in scope; see here. Not own work and probably not simple enough for {{PD-textlogo}}. JuTa 22:01, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 20:23, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
Not realy in scope; see here. Not own work and probably not simple enough for {{PD-textlogo}}. JuTa 22:03, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 20:23, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
Is such a text "screenshot" within scope? Its doubtfull if the text is realy own work as well, which would make it a cpvio. JuTa 22:09, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 20:24, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
unused private shnapshot.IMHO out of scope. JuTa 22:18, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 20:24, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
Logo of a facebook user. IMHO out of scope. JuTa 22:50, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 20:25, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
unused personal image, out of project scope ■ MMXX talk 22:58, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 20:26, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
unused private shnapshot of very poor quality. Not own work as well. JuTa 23:12, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination Beta M (talk) 20:13, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 20:26, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
Its at the borderline but the large logo and text inlets making it nearly unuseable. JuTa 23:17, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 20:27, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
IMHO out of scope. without a sensefull description nearly unusable. JuTa 23:21, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 20:27, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
A private handwritten note. Out of scope. JuTa 23:23, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
- Delete i don't really want to follow that link. Beta M (talk) 20:14, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Rosenzweig τ 20:08, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
without rights Reinhardhauke (talk) 13:36, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
- Keep Copyrights are standardly declared, personality rights are treated with the appropriate warning template. No indication of disapproval from the depicted person. No reason to empty files from Wikimedia Conference Berlin 2011. --ŠJů (talk) 15:10, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
- Keep As per ŠJů.--Juandev (talk) 11:24, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. Rosenzweig τ 21:33, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
out of scope Reinhardhauke (talk) 13:37, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- Keep, descriptive realistic photos of technical devices are in scope. --ŠJů (talk) 14:46, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
- Keep it is not out of scope as it is being used on cs.wp.--Juandev (talk) 11:27, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
- Keep well within scope --Kyknos (talk) 12:14, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
- Keep Das ist ein Abstandhalter zwischen Freileitungsdrähten. -- Herby (Vienna) (talk) 19:53, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
Kept: in scope. Rosenzweig τ 21:34, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
out of scope Reinhardhauke (talk) 13:38, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
- Keep, a realistic, good and categorized local photo of an U-Bahn station. --ŠJů (talk) 14:51, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
- Keep Das ist ein gutes Bild eines Beobachtungsspiegels in einer Berliner U-Bahn-Station. Wo liegt das Problem? -- Herby (Vienna) (talk) 19:56, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
Kept: in scope. Rosenzweig τ 21:35, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
out of scope Reinhardhauke (talk) 13:38, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
- Keep, the image is really used in an other project. --ŠJů (talk) 14:50, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
- Keep As per ŠJů - being used on WMF project.--Juandev (talk) 11:30, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
Kept: in use, seems in scope. Rosenzweig τ 21:37, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
out of scope Reinhardhauke (talk) 13:39, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- Keep, descriptive photos of technical devices are in scope. --ŠJů (talk) 14:46, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
- Keep see w:cs:Distanční rozpěrka - its a really usefull picutre.--Juandev (talk) 11:31, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
Kept: in scope. Rosenzweig τ 21:35, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Logo of amateur football team. Copyright protected. Taken from http://www.dhc-delft.nl/ Miho (talk) 20:11, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
Kept: below the threshold of originality. Rosenzweig τ 21:41, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
Copyrighted logo of a football club. It consists more than simple geometric shapes and text. Rapsar (talk) 16:43, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
- Where in this image do you see "more than simple geometric shapes and text"? --Rosenzweig τ 15:55, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
- The section that "1910 - 2010" is written on it.--Rapsar (talk) 18:35, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
- The scroll? That may be more than a square or a circle, but it still has zero originality, as scrolls like this have been used in coats of arms for a long time. Template:PD-ineligible/en (PD-Ineligible is used here) says "This file […] consists entirely of information that is common property and contains no original authorship." Is still maintain that this is the case here. So
- The section that "1910 - 2010" is written on it.--Rapsar (talk) 18:35, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
- Keep. --Rosenzweig τ 18:47, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
- What about the main frame then?--Rapsar (talk) 18:53, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
- Same thing. Traditional forms of heraldic shields, like this one, have zero originality as well because they've been in use for centuries. --Rosenzweig τ 06:51, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted I've deleted this for two reasons. First, it is too small to be useful -- you can't read the text. Second, Rosenzweig's line of reasoning -- that it is simply a number of standard heraldic elements and therefore cannot have a copyright -- would mean that no COA can have a copyright, as they are all standard heraldic elements. We know that COA's can have a copyright, so the line of reasoning is not good. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:07, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Scanned movie poster unlike to be freely licensed. Eeekster (talk) 02:54, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- According to Copyright act of india this work is in Public Domain. Released more than 60 years ago(1941).— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sexymax15 (talk • contribs) 03:01, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
- Delete The work (film) may be in the public domain, so you can use a screen cap from the movie freely. But this is cover art of a VCD and has its own copyright. --Muhandes (talk) 14:59, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Yes, needs to be deleted. The film itself, and probably any original posters, would be public domain in India, though. —innotata 02:04, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:23, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
appears to be a screen shot that has been painted on Eeekster (talk) 03:38, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:23, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
Copyvio, probably screenshot from the Frank Herbert's Dune; probably could be uploaded on Russian Wiki as "fair use image". Gumruch (talk) 04:06, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:24, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
no FoP in France. Bloody-libu (talk) 06:12, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:25, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
too small bad quality Alexandronikos (talk) 08:30, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
- Keep. Widely used as an example in help pages. -- Asclepias (talk) 17:35, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
Kept: Before starting a DR for quality reasons, please chack to see if the image is in use. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:26, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
out of scope Reinhardhauke (talk) 13:45, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
- Keep, a realistic, described and categorized local photo. --ŠJů (talk) 14:48, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 19:27, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
not from a public building Sridhar1000 (talk) 14:26, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
- Keep: FoP exists for UK buildings. Ww2censor (talk) 16:54, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
- Keep: per Ww2censor. Mr Stephen (talk) 18:05, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
- Keep There is full FOP in the UK. --Leoboudv (talk) 05:47, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
Kept. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 19:28, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
looklike a new painting Sridhar100 (talk) 14:39, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
- Keep This Bishop of Syrian Orthodox faith died on 17 December 1928. Here is information from official website of the church. This portrait was made before 17 December 1928. Thus this portrait is considered public domain as per Indian copyright laws. --Jovian Eye storm 21:14, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 19:31, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
Copyright © 2011 Yahoo! India Pvt. Ltd. All rights reserved Sridhar1000 (talk) 15:04, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 19:31, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
I failed to find the claimed copyright notice on the source given. This logo is may not be freely licensed (especially commercial use). I recommend Delete and upload locally as fair use, if needed. Bencmq (talk) 15:21, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 23:15, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
out of scope - too small to be useful Honza chodec (talk) 15:40, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
Kept: Before you nominate files for lack of quality, please check to see if they are in use. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 19:33, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
This picture is too bad quality, it does not show anything, my mistake Dinkum (talk) 15:42, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
Kept: I rather like it -- it's not a featured picture, but it could be useful. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 23:15, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
Wrong license, image is under CC BY-NC-SA 3.0, not suitable for Commons. Bill william comptonTalk 16:14, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 23:14, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small resolution, missing EXIF. EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:50, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 23:14, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
and File:Ucbuilding.gif. Unlikely to be own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF. Also available on Facebook. EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:53, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 23:14, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Not in use, from user with 1 edit, out of SCOPE Shakko (talk) 17:13, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 23:14, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Copyvio [1] Kattenkruid (talk) 17:40, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
- Delete "Author: ANP"! /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:16, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 19:34, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
copyvio Screenshot Kattenkruid (talk) 17:43, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
- Delete /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:18, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 19:34, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
Insufficient evidence that it was the work of the original uploader, Aquilachrysaetos, as it is an official portrait that has appeared on stamps: see [2] and [3]. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 18:34, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
![[2]](http://smom-za.org/images/smomgm78_04.jpg){kind=link}
![[3]](http://smom-za.org/images/smomgm78_02.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 23:14, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
The uploader says that it is from his grandfather's personal collection, but then goes own to claim it is his 'own work', and has released it into the public domain. Does he have the authority to do this? - no, IMO. Acather96 (talk) 19:56, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 23:13, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
Uploader is a serial copyright violator (see this CCI), and this photo has no description, doesn't look like the work was actually created by the uploader, and EXIF data shows the photo has been simply scanned in. No real source either. Acather96 (talk) 20:08, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 23:13, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
not realy within scope and bad quality. Own work is minimum doubtfull here as well because of the web-source. Should be confirmed through COM:OTRS if kept. JuTa 21:11, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 23:12, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
very poor quality and incorrect licnse JuTa 21:15, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 23:11, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
No source/author given for depicted 3D artwork. Kelly (talk) 21:17, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 23:11, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
Highly likely to be a copyvio — a small version exists at the subject's official site on the Wayback Machine. The site has been taken down, and it is very likely that a large version of "111.jpg" existed. Train2104 (talk) 21:30, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 23:11, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
either cpvio from http://www.1235.ro/details-22169.html or self promotion. JuTa 22:45, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 19:35, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
I had tagged the image with subst:npd: "CC-by-nc-nd/2.0 at source which is not compatible with Commons. We would need a explicit permission via email by the photographer. Or a license change at flickr."
more .... Saibo (Δ) 02:54, 8 November 2011 (UTC) URL added 21:36, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
.** copied comments from User talk:JayWalsh **
- Hey Saibo - I'm fully aware of the NC/ND restrictions on Commons, but I'm also pretty positive that this photo was originally CC BY SA on flickr when I originally transferred it. I suspect the license might have been changed. We only use Commons-eligible images for the WMF annual report, which this was a part of. I perhaps neglected to use the flickrbot when making this transition... 216.38.130.164 Oops, that would be me... JayWalsh (talk) 00:12, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
- Hi JayWalsh, thanks for your comment! Yes, exactly: Try to use http://toolserver.org/~magnus/flickr2commons.php or http://toolserver.org/~bryan/flickr/upload to upload - they automatically do a License review of the file. If you do a upload from external websites manually (also from flickr) it is a good idea to request license review by adding the {{Flickrreview}} template to the file page. That way the license at flickr is documented according to our processes.
I just had a look in the file history: no info about the license at flickr, except the fact that you chose {{Cc-by-sa-3.0}}. By the way: this license is not available at flickr. They do not offer version 3 cc licenses (to my knowledge). Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 03:03, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
- Hi JayWalsh, thanks for your comment! Yes, exactly: Try to use http://toolserver.org/~magnus/flickr2commons.php or http://toolserver.org/~bryan/flickr/upload to upload - they automatically do a License review of the file. If you do a upload from external websites manually (also from flickr) it is a good idea to request license review by adding the {{Flickrreview}} template to the file page. That way the license at flickr is documented according to our processes.
. ** end copy **
To whatever it my concern: WMAR people (the organizers of Wikimania 2009) are trying to contact the photographer of this image, to get him to change the license. Please don't delete this image before one of them come here to say something about it. Thanks. Béria Lima msg 13:23, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: File is to be restored when original photographer agress to adjust the license of the file. FASTILY (TALK) 10:45, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
File is not displayed properly Thkgk (talk) 09:14, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
Please, delete all versions except the last one. Thank you. --Thkgk (talk) 12:29, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: done FASTILY (TALK) 10:46, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
Author request. Ebe123 (talk) 12:01, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. FASTILY (TALK) 10:46, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
Invalid licensing. The (undocumented) permission only allows reproduction. Mofification is not mentioned. Image is not free. Damiens.rf 12:21, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. FASTILY (TALK) 10:46, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
ชื่อซ้ำครับ อยากเปลี่ยชื่อใหม่ สมภพ เจ้าเก่า (talk) 14:12, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
Comment Kept the file until the renaming process has been done, and I will report it here (or Administrators performing the move may delete the file redirects, if appropriate.) Regards, --G(x) (talk) 12:06, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
Done renamed file. Papatt (talk) 14:43, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
- Kept redirects if appropriate; otherwise Delete --G(x) (talk) 14:59, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. FASTILY (TALK) 10:46, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
Not needed. Not linked to, and covered by Help:Multimedia beta and Commons:Universal Subtitles Rd232 (talk) 12:28, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. FASTILY (TALK) 10:46, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
Not used anymore; replaced by NymarkovMuis.png Madyno (talk) 13:08, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. FASTILY (TALK) 10:47, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
Not used anymore; replaced by NyMarkovMuis.png Madyno (talk) 13:10, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. FASTILY (TALK) 10:47, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
Uploader is not the copyright holder of the work, Copyright is with Moulinsart which never releases anything with a compatible license... Fram (talk) 13:36, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. FASTILY (TALK) 10:47, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
Uploader is not the copyright holder of the work, Copyright is with Moulinsart which never releases anything with a compatible license... Fram (talk) 13:36, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. FASTILY (TALK) 10:47, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
not from real source Sridhar100 (talk) 14:38, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
- Please give details, I dont understand what you mean. AroundTheGlobe (talk) 14:41, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
- It's original source is http://www.swaminarayan.nu/acharya/gaadi.shtml
- Image link is http://www.swaminarayan.nu/acharya/images/vadach1.jpg--Sridhar1000 (talk) 08:07, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. FASTILY (TALK) 10:47, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
not from real source Sridhar1000 (talk) 14:55, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. FASTILY (TALK) 10:47, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
not from real source Sridhar1000 (talk) 14:56, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
- What do you mean ? This was drawn by a person i know, he posted this a first time here http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showpost.php?p=85366880&postcount=2141, i asked him to put it on flickr with the good licence. The only mistake is that he added the EMA logo that's all. So before accusing some one of copyvio just ask him about... This is not different of that :
Ffrom Algiers Métro Company : http://img268.imageshack.us/img268/4153/plan1p.jpg and this : http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fichier:Metro_Alger_-_Plan_Ligne_1.png --Sandervalya (talk) 16:57, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. FASTILY (TALK) 10:47, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
not look like a real source Sridhar1000 (talk) 14:58, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. FASTILY (TALK) 10:48, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
_Mnet_20s_Choice_Award.jpg){kind=link}
_Mnet_20s_Choice_Award.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
useless crop of original Sridhar1000 (talk) 14:58, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
_Mnet_20s_Choice_Award.jpg){kind=link}
- How is it useless? It was cropped to only include one member of the group. Lee Jaewon (Talk) 15:10, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
Here's a list of others:
Lee Jaewon (Talk) 15:37, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
_Mnet_20s_Choice_Award.jpg){kind=link}
- Keep it is in use - so it is the opposite of useless. --Saibo (Δ) 15:48, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
- Keep as a use(d/ful) cropped version of a photo of a group in order to just show one member. Logan Talk Contributions 23:01, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
_Mnet_20s_Choice_Award.jpg){kind=link}
spam - developer company promotion Honza chodec (talk) 15:55, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. FASTILY (TALK) 10:48, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
we do not want seals or flags ith background shadow, as this is not part of the seal Antemister (talk) 19:26, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
Delete I've nominated here. Do we have to merge this page ? Takabeg (talk) 22:35, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
- This one should be deleted for the original reason, the shadows aren't part of the actual image. Also it is a duplicate of the other one listed by Takabeg (which will be kept because it's PD-ineligible). Fry1989 eh? 03:01, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. FASTILY (TALK) 10:49, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
Previously mentioned source was www.mediamilieu.com (similar to uploader's username), I doubt the 'own wok' though, the camera can produce larger images, I couldn't find this file on the mentioned source or any larger version on the internet. ■ MMXX talk 21:02, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
H I MMXX,
Regarding all the Images uploaded by me all are my creations. So how do I go about releasing them in to public domain. They feature in sites like Kalaripayattu, Jasmine Simhalan, Simhalan Madhava Panicker etc.
I have tried the format of transferring to Wikimedia commons by emailing. There was no response.
Can you sort that out for me please
media milieu — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mediamilieu (talk • contribs) 10:12, November 9, 2011 (UTC)
Hi Mmxx the file's author/owner/creator is me and been trying to edit the credits. can you please help me sort this out as I am having problem in coding it.
I have send the email to confirm the authorship.
But you put the tag again.
There is no high resolution available of this file as it is edited in Photoshop in few years back.
can you check those things before deleting the file.
Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mediamilieu (talk • contribs) 11:00, November 9, 2011 (UTC)
- I've copied the above comments from my talk page. ■ MMXX talk 14:25, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. FASTILY (TALK) 10:49, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
I loaded it with the wrong name. I can't now reload it with the correct name Martinvl (talk) 21:34, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
- See COM:RENAME for how to rename it. --Kramer Associates (talk) 22:01, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. FASTILY (TALK) 10:49, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
anija 91.187.121.103 13:30, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
No FOP in Belgium. 84.61.186.139 13:12, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
Kept: just another straight building, all possible FOP issues are DM Jcb (talk) 11:50, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
No FOP in Belgium for this building achieved in 1967. Law is law and architecture is copyrightable ! TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 09:26, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
- Keep Yes, architecture is copyrightable, just like writing. But if i were to write an alphabet and claim copyright, it'd be laughed at. You need to be creative for it to be copyright elidgeable. Beta M (talk) 19:59, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
- Well even if it looks minimalist, there is creativity. Don't you see the "white" dash/lines on the facade ? Do you really think the tallest building in Belgium is considered as a banal building ? --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 20:15, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
- IANAL, but to me the lines are so overdone, that by now they mean nothing, unless there is some meaning in them (like there is some, for example, chinese symbol that they are meant to represent). As for the fact that it is the talles building, i'm sure that if the user would publish the blueprints for how it's created structurally, that would be an argument, but if it's just an outside two sides, then its height is irrelevant, if it would be a small rectangular doghouse the issue wouldn't change. Beta M (talk) 16:41, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
- What I also meant is that it's not up to you to decide if a work is enough creative to be copyrighted. I'm sure you'd say this building is not creative enough if you were not aware it's the work of Le Corbusier (and therefore his works in France are not admissible on Commons). What makes you think it's not the same case here ? --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 08:23, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
- IANAL, but to me the lines are so overdone, that by now they mean nothing, unless there is some meaning in them (like there is some, for example, chinese symbol that they are meant to represent). As for the fact that it is the talles building, i'm sure that if the user would publish the blueprints for how it's created structurally, that would be an argument, but if it's just an outside two sides, then its height is irrelevant, if it would be a small rectangular doghouse the issue wouldn't change. Beta M (talk) 16:41, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
- Well even if it looks minimalist, there is creativity. Don't you see the "white" dash/lines on the facade ? Do you really think the tallest building in Belgium is considered as a banal building ? --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 20:15, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:20, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
Fête des Lumières by Romainberth
[edit]Copyvio for light art. No Fop in France. Per Commons:Deletion requests/Fête des lumières. Concerned files are all files included in the gallery User:Romainberth/images/fete-lumieres-2010-lyon, except File:Fete lumiere 2010 panorama lyon.JPG, File:Lyon panorama fete lumiere 2010.JPG and File:Fete lumiere 2010 fluviale.JPG (those 3 files might been discussed separately because they're a more complicated case if we consider the light shows are not the main subject of the picture - which is allowed by French law, see Template:NoFoP-France) --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 09:21, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
Are you sure of this ? If the light art are displayed in the street and the photo is shooted in the street, i think it's possible to share a copy with free software licence. Can you explain me the reasons with more details ? If with your explaination you are right surely, i'm agree to delete these files. However i'm completly agree with you to the case of three file. The subject is completly different. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Romainberth (talk • contribs)
- "FoP" means "Freedom of panorama" (=right to use freely the picture of an artwork or recent architecture when taken from a public place). But that right doesn't exist in French law. See Commons:Liberté de panorama for details. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 10:25, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
Ok for the explanation. For me it's a bad discovery! I don't understand why it's not possible in the French law! It's very a bad point. The example with the eiffel tower in Paris by night is inadmissible! Now, how the deletion of these file is possible ? I'm agree to delete all the files except the three files mentionned before. We must another discussion or that's all ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Romainberth (talk • contribs)
- (I switch to French) Je suis d'accord, c'est dommage... mais c'est comme ça ! Moi aussi j'ai chargé des photos hors-la-loi (dont certaines de la fête des Lumières) avant d'apprendre l'existence de cette notion de "liberté de panorama". C'est dommage mais il faut faire avec ! Ceci dit, pas sûr que des photos de la fête des Lumières aient été autorisées même si une loi française autorisait la liberté de panorama. En effet, dans les pays qui l'autorisent, il est généralement précisé que ça s'applique aux monuments et oeuvres qui sont installés/visibles depuis un espace public de façon permanente, ce qui exclut de facto les installations provisoires comme les spectacles lumières du 8 décembre... --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 12:01, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. FASTILY (TALK) 10:44, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
List of deleted files:
- File:Fete lumiere 2010 animation theatre celestins.JPG
- File:Fete lumiere 2010 clocher charite1.JPG
- File:Fete lumiere 2010 clocher charite2.JPG
- File:Fete lumiere 2010 clocher charite3.JPG
- File:Fete lumiere 2010 clocher charite4.JPG
- File:Fete lumiere 2010 fontaine bartholdi1.JPG
- File:Fete lumiere 2010 fontaine bartholdi2.JPG
- File:Fete lumiere 2010 fontaine bartholdi3.JPG
- File:Fete lumiere 2010 fontaine bartholdi4.JPG
- File:Fete lumiere 2010 fontaine bartholdi5.JPG
- File:Fete lumiere 2010 fontaine bartholdi6.JPG
- File:Fete lumiere 2010 fontaine bartholdi7.JPG
- File:Fete lumiere 2010 fontaine bartholdi8.JPG
- File:Fete lumiere 2010 fontaine bartholdi9.JPG
- File:Fete lumiere 2010 fontaine bartholdi10.JPG
- File:Fete lumiere 2010 fontaine bartholdi11.JPG
- File:Fete lumiere 2010 fontaine bartholdi12.JPG
- File:Fete lumiere 2010 fontaine bartholdi13.JPG
- File:Fete lumiere 2010 fontaine bartholdi14.JPG
- File:Fete lumiere 2010 fontaine bartholdi15.JPG
- File:Fete lumiere 2010 fontaine bartholdi16.JPG
- File:Fete lumiere 2010 fontaine bartholdi17.JPG
- File:Fete lumiere 2010 fontaine bartholdi18.JPG
- File:Fete lumiere 2010 fontaine bartholdi19.JPG
- File:Fete lumiere 2010 fontaine bartholdi20.JPG
- File:Fete lumiere 2010 fontaine bartholdi21.JPG
- File:Fete lumiere 2010 fontaine bartholdi22.JPG
- File:Fete lumiere 2010 fontaine bartholdi23.JPG
- File:Fete lumiere 2010 fontaine jacobins.JPG
- File:Fete lumiere 2010 fourviere vieux lyon.JPG
- File:Fete lumiere 2010 fourviere vieux lyon proche.JPG
- File:Fete lumiere 2010 notre dame fourviere contrebas rouge proche.JPG
- File:Fete lumiere 2010 notre dame fourviere contrebas verte.JPG
- File:Fete lumiere 2010 notre dame fourviere contrebas verte proche.JPG
- File:Fete lumiere 2010 notre dame fourviere pied.JPG
- File:Fete lumiere 2010 notre dame fourviere pied proche.JPG
- File:Fete lumiere 2010 primatiale saint-jean.JPG
- File:Fete lumiere 2010 roue bellecour.JPG
- File:Notre dame fourviere fete lumiere 2010 pres.JPG
- File:Notre dame fourviere fete lumiere 2010 proche.JPG
_list added by JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 08:23, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
Fraternity COAs
[edit]These fraternity coat of arms are not freely licensed and should be deleted. (For the ones in use, I plan on re-uploading them at en.wiki using proper fair use documentation)--GrapedApe (talk) 03:51, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
- No evidence of legitimate fraternity-sanctioned free license release
- Insufficient information (i.e. date/source/author) information to support PD claim
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:24, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
game cd cover from http://www.excalibur-publishing.com/streetcleaning.htm Sridhar1000 (talk) 14:05, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
game cd cover from http://www.excalibur-publishing.com/streetcleaning.htm Sridhar1000 (talk) 14:06, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: game cover Denniss (talk) 17:23, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
Concerning the maps and photos, I doubt own work. Therefore we need COM:OTRS permission. Other files are maybe out of scope if they aren't for a specific project.
- File:Slide10.gif
- File:Slide9.gif
- File:Slide8.gif
- File:Slide7.gif
- File:Slide6.gif
- File:Slide5.gif
- File:Slide3.gif
- File:Slide4.gif
- File:Slide2.gif
- File:Slide1.GIF
RE rillke questions? 14:14, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 19:28, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
This picture seems to be pornographic. RayquazaDialgaWeird2210 (talk) 23:28, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
It's a photo of a nude woman. It is also in use as an illustration in Wikimedia projects, thus within project scope. As Jimbo Wales has said, "mere nudity is not pornography" -- [4]. Annoyance nomination apparently based on prudery; speedy kept. -- Infrogmation (talk) 04:43, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
This is a photo of a naked woman in what appears to be a private home with no indication of consent. Moreover, it is quite low resolution and not used on any projects outside a talk page. I realize this was nominated for deletion before, but it was not a serious request, a complaint of "pornography", and it was speedily kept. Dominic (talk) 17:22, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
- Keep The DW File:Venushügel.jpg is used in an article - although non-use is no reason for deletion.
Sorry, that should be low res? We have pictures of the year (FP, too) in roughly that res (counted by pixels - the optical res may be lower at this image. But it is by far no low res)!- 1.575 × 1.200 this image
- 1.428 × 968 File:Broadway tower edit.jpg
- 1.850 × 1.282 File:Biandintz eta zaldiak - modified2.jpg
- Are you joking? Re. consent: sure, you can ask for all pictures with naked people for consent to get them deleted. I do not see a special need here. In relation with your low res claim this seems just to be a reason to try to get this image deleted somehow, sorry. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 19:22, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
- I'm not joking. This is a picture of an identifiable woman while she is naked in what seems mostly likely to be a private location with no indication of the subject's consent. It is the only contribution of the contributor (named "Nudey"), so we have no track record from the contributor or further explanation about the circumstances. I am sure you are aware of the guidance at Commons:Photographs of identifiable people, even if you are acting like you aren't. Moreover, this is not an anatomical photo. It's poorly lit with an upward angle while the subject is looking away, and it's not even clear if she was aware the picture was taken. It is clearly intended to be suggestive, not educational. The file's size is 241 KB, which, while not tiny, makes it far smaller than many other alternatives. These last two points explain why it isn't used on any projects. I'm not arguing that this should be censored because it is pornographic, but that doesn't really seem to matter because these reflexively dismissive keep votes on anything regarding nudity seem commonplace, unfortunately. Dominic (talk) 20:53, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for your comment, Dominic. In case it wasn't clear: "are you joking" was regarding your statement that this is "low resolution".
What do you want with "in use"? That is not necessary to keep an image here. And this even is in use - a crop of it. I want to mind you about the page as it was when the image was uploaded ("the consent of the subject should normally be sought before uploading any photograph featuring an identifiable individual that has been taken in a private place"). So even if an uploader was aware that there is such a page what should he have done? And: you might know that you could delete probably about 99 % of all images of people here on Commons by demanding "consent" since I have rarely seen a image with consent (if not uploaded as a "self-protrait" by the depicted person)... Taken together with your claim about "low resolution" you just seem to want to get this image deleted - somehow, don't you? --Saibo (Δ) 00:09, 12 November 2011 (UTC)- I doubt that 99% of all images of people on Commons were taken in a private place with no evidence of consent. Regardless, the policy seems pretty clear here. Is your point that it should be ignored because there are other images which violate it? Emufarmers (talk) 00:50, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
- Read my comment about the 99% (which is of course a imagined number) again and add "in private place". No, policy shouldn't ignored because there are many other violations. And also current policy should be applied to some extent (we should partly take into account how the policy was in the past) to older uploads when the policy wasn't that strict. And: what do you want? Would you accept it if this completely anon uploader had said "the depicted person has agreed to publish this photo on Commons under a free license"? That would be much better? If so: we need to put it in our upload forms - but there is no bit of "consent needed!". Should we hunt all uploaders to write such a sentence on the file page directly after upload? Some tag like {{Consent missing and probably needed}}? Where is the policy which requires this? Btw: If I see correctly here this was the vote/discussion to make this a "guideline" (not a policy)? Well, well... --Saibo (Δ) 01:18, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
- If you wouldn't apply the guideline here, with a candid photo of a nude person in a private setting looking away from the camera, I have a hard time believing you'd ever apply it, despite the fact that you are trying to argue there are some mitigating factors related to this particular image. That guideline is based on ethical (and, to some extent, legal) reasoning. You are suggesting that someone is more deserving of having their privacy violated if the person violating it uploaded the image before we had a guideline, and that is a silly. Clearly, the guideline exists to be applied to all images, including those in existence at its creation, which likely inspired it. Your objections all seem incredibly shortsighted and, to be honest, quite irresponsible. Whether or not we have proper upload guidance or templates, while possibly an important consideration for the project, also has no bearing on how we should safeguard this subject's privacy. Dominic (talk) 09:29, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
- No, you have misunderstood me and are fully missing to comment on my points. I do not enjoy this style of conversation, so I stop here. --Saibo (Δ) 20:17, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
- If you wouldn't apply the guideline here, with a candid photo of a nude person in a private setting looking away from the camera, I have a hard time believing you'd ever apply it, despite the fact that you are trying to argue there are some mitigating factors related to this particular image. That guideline is based on ethical (and, to some extent, legal) reasoning. You are suggesting that someone is more deserving of having their privacy violated if the person violating it uploaded the image before we had a guideline, and that is a silly. Clearly, the guideline exists to be applied to all images, including those in existence at its creation, which likely inspired it. Your objections all seem incredibly shortsighted and, to be honest, quite irresponsible. Whether or not we have proper upload guidance or templates, while possibly an important consideration for the project, also has no bearing on how we should safeguard this subject's privacy. Dominic (talk) 09:29, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
- Read my comment about the 99% (which is of course a imagined number) again and add "in private place". No, policy shouldn't ignored because there are many other violations. And also current policy should be applied to some extent (we should partly take into account how the policy was in the past) to older uploads when the policy wasn't that strict. And: what do you want? Would you accept it if this completely anon uploader had said "the depicted person has agreed to publish this photo on Commons under a free license"? That would be much better? If so: we need to put it in our upload forms - but there is no bit of "consent needed!". Should we hunt all uploaders to write such a sentence on the file page directly after upload? Some tag like {{Consent missing and probably needed}}? Where is the policy which requires this? Btw: If I see correctly here this was the vote/discussion to make this a "guideline" (not a policy)? Well, well... --Saibo (Δ) 01:18, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
- I doubt that 99% of all images of people on Commons were taken in a private place with no evidence of consent. Regardless, the policy seems pretty clear here. Is your point that it should be ignored because there are other images which violate it? Emufarmers (talk) 00:50, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for your comment, Dominic. In case it wasn't clear: "are you joking" was regarding your statement that this is "low resolution".
- I'm not joking. This is a picture of an identifiable woman while she is naked in what seems mostly likely to be a private location with no indication of the subject's consent. It is the only contribution of the contributor (named "Nudey"), so we have no track record from the contributor or further explanation about the circumstances. I am sure you are aware of the guidance at Commons:Photographs of identifiable people, even if you are acting like you aren't. Moreover, this is not an anatomical photo. It's poorly lit with an upward angle while the subject is looking away, and it's not even clear if she was aware the picture was taken. It is clearly intended to be suggestive, not educational. The file's size is 241 KB, which, while not tiny, makes it far smaller than many other alternatives. These last two points explain why it isn't used on any projects. I'm not arguing that this should be censored because it is pornographic, but that doesn't really seem to matter because these reflexively dismissive keep votes on anything regarding nudity seem commonplace, unfortunately. Dominic (talk) 20:53, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
- Comment - not low resolution, and unused is not a reason for deletion. -mattbuck (Talk) 22:45, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
- Keep I see no reason or policy that indicates that this pic should be deleted. -- Gddea - Daniel E. Als-Juliussen (talk) 14:52, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
- Keep The fact that flash has fired (and it is quite visible that it did) pretty much invalidates any claim that it was a candid camera. The person is not identifiable, making it hardly an issue of personality rights, and the photo is not of low resolution. Beta M (talk) 04:16, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
- Keep - useful derivative file hosted on Commons. --Xijky (talk) 23:49, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
Kept: I've uploaded a new version which omits the face, and I have hidden the original version. That way the identifiable person problem should be solved, and there's no reason to delete the image. --Rosenzweig τ 17:00, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
Uploads of User:Bluegreengrey
[edit]All of his uploads are claimed as own work but looking like copied from comercial advertising websites. For some of them I found external sources. Probably all are cpvio's.
- File:Crosslee logo2wikipedia.jpg is completly without a license template
- File:Hostess new logosmall.jpg from here or here i.e.
- File:HT6030.jpg
- File:PlateWarmersmall.jpg from here or here i.e.
- File:HostessTrolleysmall.jpg
- File:HWbothsmall.jpg from here or here i.e.
- File:Wklogosmall.JPG
- File:Ecosmall.jpg from here i.e.
- File:Backgassmall.JPG
- File:Eco83a.jpg from here i.e.
--JuTa 21:45, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 19:35, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
Not under a free license on YouTube (the one and only free license is CC-BY-3.0). Bidgee (talk) 13:01, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
- This file definetly was licensed under CC-BY, see this link. But in any way I changed license to PD-USGov-VOA. -- TarzanASG +1 15:31, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
- I'm not 100% sure that the footage was produced by the VOA. NVO (talk) 08:27, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
- I am sure. Это снималось не камерой Эха или RTVi. У них камеры расположены в других местах. Сравните видео. Видео с Клинтон отличается, тут камера низко расположена. -- TarzanASG +1 13:10, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
- I'm not 100% sure that the footage was produced by the VOA. NVO (talk) 08:27, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. FASTILY (TALK) 10:47, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
Reopened: there is a discussion, which wasn’t at all commented on. --AVRS (talk) 17:06, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: I'm not completely convinced the video or at least the portion this screenshot was pulled from was produced by VOA, so I'm deleting the image per the precautionary principle. Rosenzweig τ 17:28, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
