Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2011/11/09
 |
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}
.svg){kind=link}
Ujnlop 218.186.17.241 03:56, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
Keep No understandable reason stated ? Is it related to the licence change on flickr ? PierreSelim (talk) 11:02, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
Kept: Request is unintelligible. No obvious reason to delete this pic, anyway. Pymouss Let’s talk - 13:51, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
salah menulis lisensi ZQheert (talk) 10:18, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
Delete Motopark (talk) 14:07, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: No permission. Out of scope. Yann (talk) 14:15, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
not look like a real source. and All Rights Reserved Sridhar1000 (talk) 12:43, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio. Yann (talk) 14:09, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
not from real source Sridhar1000 (talk) 13:05, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
Hello, I'm sorry for my bad English, I uploaded the file to flicker, because under the picture the author has written the license to use it.GIUNCO (talk) 14:46, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: No source, no permission. Yann (talk) 14:08, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
not from real source.Real source is http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/queensland/team-effort-puts-kids-on-the-top/story-e6freoof-1226136209817 Sridhar1000 (talk) 13:12, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio. Yann (talk) 14:08, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 2.0 Generic (CC BY-NC-ND 2.0) Sridhar1000 (talk) 12:44, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: speedied - no need for a del req Denniss (talk) 17:52, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
there is not any meta data, suspecting it is not own work Coekon (talk) 21:04, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
- Delete, google finds too many copies.--Motopark (talk) 16:41, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Fairly ordinary copyvio I think from a user with some history in that area Herby talk thyme 17:09, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
there is not any meta data, suspecting it is not own work Coekon (talk) 21:04, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
- Delete, google finds too many copies.--Motopark (talk) 16:41, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Obvious copyvio from a user with some history Herby talk thyme 17:07, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
there is not any meta data, suspecting it is not own work Coekon (talk) 21:05, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
- Delete, google finds too many copies.--Motopark (talk) 16:40, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: I see no likelihood this is "own work" given the user's history. COM:OTRS would be necessary to host the image Herby talk thyme 17:10, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
The moiré pattern suggests that the photograph was either scanned from another source or taken off a TV broadcast, and this website indicates the source as Aktuálně.cz, the website of a daily newspaper in the Czech Republic. There is insufficient evidence that the uploader was authorized to license this photograph under the GFDL. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 14:56, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: copyvio, per nomination. Rosenzweig τ 09:15, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
Copyvio for light art. No Fop in France. Per Commons:Deletion requests/Fête des lumières TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 19:03, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
Kept: nothing is copyrightable there Ezarateesteban 18:29, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
Architect is Eugène Beaudouin, dead in 1983. No FoP in France. NB : The building is clearly the main subject of the picture. TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 19:01, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
- Keep The photo is clearly a de minimis, the building simply obstructs the view and can easily be blurred slightly. The photo is poor quality due to the fact that the camera didn't decide where to focus. I did go and crop some of the image from the bottom so that less of the building is visible. Beta M (talk) 03:11, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: No FOP in France; de minimis does not apply High Contrast (talk) 13:57, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
Restored De minimis may apply, but there is nothing to copyright here. It is just an ordinary building without any originality. Also no need to crop anything. cf. Commons:Undeletion requests/Current requests#File:Vue depuis les Minguettes.JPG Yann (talk) 19:15, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
Architect is Eugène Beaudouin, dead in 1983. No FoP in France. TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 18:55, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
Keep I don-t see nothing special in the photo for copyright it --Ezarateesteban 18:31, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
Kept: There is nothing to copyright here. It is just ordinary buildings without any originality. Yann (talk) 19:39, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
Architect is Eugène Beaudouin, dead in 1983. No FoP in France. NB : The building is clearly the main subject of the picture. TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 18:57, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
Kept: There is nothing to copyright here. It is just an ordinary building without any originality. Yann (talk) 19:33, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
Artwork. No FoP in France. I haven't asked for speedy deletion only because it was made by students so I'm not 100% sure there's a copyright or any sort of licence. TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 18:52, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: no FoP in France Ezarateesteban 18:37, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
Recent architecture as one of the 2 main subejects of the picture (half of it). No FoP in France. TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 18:50, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: no FoP in France Ezarateesteban 18:38, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
Recent architecture. No FoP in France TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 18:48, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
Kept: Only partial view. Not enough details to get a copyright. Yann (talk) 19:43, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
Recent architecture. No FoP in France. Needs authorization from the architect. TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 14:06, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 11:04, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
.JPG&action=edit){kind=link}
.JPG&diff=0){kind=link}
.JPG&action=history){kind=link}
.JPG&action=watch){kind=link}
.JPG&action=unwatch){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG&action=purge){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit&preload=Commons:Deletion_requests/preload){kind=link}
.JPG&action=delete){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
Copyvio for light art. No Fop in France. Per Commons:Deletion requests/Fête des lumières. TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 18:42, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
.JPG){kind=link}
Kept: No copyright for light. Yann (talk) 19:36, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit§ion=T-2){kind=link}
Copyrighted artwork (projection mapping) TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 11:14, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
- Keep I don't think there is a copyright on this. Yann (talk) 13:00, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
- Delete It's artwork. There is a copyright on this... Like Tour Eiffel at night... --DocMuséo 14:02, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
- There is no copyright on the Eiffel Tower at night. How many times do we have to repeat that? *sigh* There is only copyright on a show from the Eiffel Tower, with fireworks, etc. Regards, Yann (talk) 14:09, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
- Désolé. Passer par l'anglais a simplifié un peu trop ce que je voulais dire. Alors, comme le français est votre langue maternelle, j'en profite ! Oui, nous sommes d'accord : ce n'est pas la Tour Eiffel en elle-même (ou tout autre monument du domaine public) qui est soumise au droit d'auteur la nuit, mais l'oeuvre qui y est (sur)ajouté (mise en lumière, feux d'artifice, etc.). En l'occurence, ici, il y a bien une oeuvre de l'esprit qui utilise la cathédrale Saint Jean comme support. Donc, malheureusement, cette photo ne me semble pas admissible sur Wiki. Mais si vous avez des éléments légaux allant dans le sens contraire, je suis preneur ! Cordialement--DocMuséo 20:50, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
- There is no copyright on the Eiffel Tower at night. How many times do we have to repeat that? *sigh* There is only copyright on a show from the Eiffel Tower, with fireworks, etc. Regards, Yann (talk) 14:09, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
- Keep With Yann.--Jebulon (talk) 20:53, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
- @Yann and Jebulon: How can you say such an artistic work is not copyrighted ?! Such a projection mapping (which is actually not a motionless picture) is like an animated movie. Look at the official 2016 program of the Fête des Lumières here : "the Festival of Lights brings together artists from over twenty-five different fields who transform the City of Lyon with light". Look at the 2016 project on St Jean cathedral here : "Artists Yann Nguema / Ez3kiel ".Yes, there are artists ! And it concerns any projection mapping of the official program of the Fête des Lumières of any year ! --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 20:46, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
Comment A video of it in 2008. Not totally motionless as you can see. And far from being a simple light. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 10:21, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
Kept: per previous closure. --Jcb (talk) 23:19, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
.JPG&action=edit){kind=link}
.JPG&diff=0){kind=link}
.JPG&action=history){kind=link}
.JPG&action=watch){kind=link}
.JPG&action=unwatch){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG&action=purge){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit&preload=Commons:Deletion_requests/preload){kind=link}
.JPG&action=delete){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
Copyvio for light art. No Fop in France. Per Commons:Deletion requests/Fête des lumières. TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 18:43, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
.JPG){kind=link}
Kept: No copyright on light. Yann (talk) 19:44, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
.JPG){kind=link}
Promotional, out of scope Motopark (talk) 17:36, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 21:06, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
Out of scope, some birthday picture Motopark (talk) 17:48, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 21:07, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
The claim of a CC license does not seem credible. The same image appears in this Orlando Sentinel article which is cited in the recently created Wikipedia article on Mary Spio. Pichpich (talk) 00:12, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: In doubt, we delete it Ezarateesteban 12:04, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
Commons is not a personal photo host; used in fr:Utilisateur:Kévin cattoen, out of project scope. ■ MMXX talk 00:39, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
- File:Casting 2.jpg used in fr:Utilisateur:Kévin cattoen
- File:Casting 3.jpg used in fr:Utilisateur:Kévin cattoen
- File:Casting 1.jpg unused
- File:Casting 4.jpg unused
- File:Casting 5.jpg unused
- File:Casting 6.jpg unused
- File:Casting 7.jpg unused
■ MMXX talk 00:44, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
- Keep I agree that Commons is not a persona web host. But these files are of good quality and therefore are as useful and in scope as any other picture in Category:People and its subcats. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 11:54, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Personal photos, only deleted that isn't used Ezarateesteban 12:05, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
Not an orginal work, a screen shot from a video or photograph's photo. Kiran Gopi (talk) 08:23, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: In doubt, we delete it Ezarateesteban 12:07, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
No FOP in Qatar. Kiran Gopi (talk) 08:38, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: no FoP in Qatrar Ezarateesteban 12:08, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
No FOP in Qatar. Kiran Gopi (talk) 08:39, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: no FoP in Qatar, no sources indicated Ezarateesteban 12:09, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
Hoax, the image is taken from Swedish Football Assosiation and does not depict Victor Bengtsson but swedish footballer Martin Olsson 136.163.44.102 09:06, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: no metadata, possibly not own work Ezarateesteban 12:10, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
Maybe not deleted, but doesn't correspon to the twon of Massagno. I trepresents the Town of Gandria ! 176.46.198.82 09:29, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
Kept: Please, ask to rename it Ezarateesteban 12:10, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
sudah ada file baru dgn lisensi yg pas.. ZQheert (talk) 10:12, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
salah menulis lisensi ZQheert (talk) 10:15, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Motopark (talk) 14:08, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
salah menulis lisensi ZQheert (talk) 10:17, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Motopark (talk) 14:08, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
No FOP in France. L'architecte (Max Sainsaulieu) est décedé en 1953 ; les images du bâtiment ne seront libres de droits qu'en 2024 Croquant (talk) 10:21, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: no FoP in France Ezarateesteban 12:12, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
No FOP in France. L'architecte (Max Sainsaulieu) est décedé en 1953 ; les images du bâtiment ne seront libres de droits qu'en 2024. Croquant (talk) 10:23, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: No FoP in France Ezarateesteban 12:12, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
No FOP in France. L'architecte (Max Sainsaulieu) est décedé en 1953 ; les images du bâtiment ne seront libres de droits qu'en 2024. Croquant (talk) 10:24, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: no FoP in France Ezarateesteban 12:13, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
No FOP in France. L'architecte (Max Sainsaulieu) est décedé en 1953 ; les images du bâtiment ne seront libres de droits qu'en 2024. Croquant (talk) 10:24, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: no FoP in France Ezarateesteban 12:13, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
No FOP in France. L'architecte (Max Sainsaulieu) est décedé en 1953 ; les images du bâtiment ne seront libres de droits qu'en 2024. Croquant (talk) 10:25, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
No FOP in France. L'architecte (Max Sainsaulieu) est décedé en 1953 ; les images du bâtiment ne seront libres de droits qu'en 2024. Croquant (talk) 10:26, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
No FOP in France. L'architecte (Max Sainsaulieu) est décedé en 1953 ; les images du bâtiment ne seront libres de droits qu'en 2024. Croquant (talk) 10:27, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
No FOP in France. L'architecte (Max Sainsaulieu) est décedé en 1953 ; les images du bâtiment ne seront libres de droits qu'en 2024. Croquant (talk) 10:27, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
No FOP in France. L'architecte (Max Sainsaulieu) est décedé en 1953 ; les images du bâtiment ne seront libres de droits qu'en 2024. Croquant (talk) 10:28, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
I doubt own work. wide-spread-web image. RE rillke questions? 10:54, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: In doubt, we delete it Ezarateesteban 12:16, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
This file violates copyright: I have a doubt that it's a work of User:Bogdy (see also http://images.yandex.ru/yandsearch?ed=1&text=%D1%84%D0%BE%D1%82%D0%BE%20%D0%B2%D0%B0%D0%BB%D0%B5%D0%BD%D1%82%D0%B8%D0%BD%D0%B0%20%D1%82%D0%B0%D0%BB%D1%8B%D0%B7%D0%B8%D0%BD%D0%B0&p=0&img_url=news.arvo.ua%2Fcontent%2Fnews%2Fjnr685sb24n42dk4h8.gif&rpt=simage) VAP+VYK (talk) 11:23, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: copyright violation Ezarateesteban 12:16, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
Part of Commons:Deletion requests/File:Sariyer.jpg Agora (talk) 11:32, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: copyvio Ezarateesteban 12:17, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
There is already a PNG duplicate of this file, which is of a better quality Fangusu (talk) 12:44, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Duplicate filer Ezarateesteban 12:21, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
There is already a duplicate of this file Fangusu (talk) 12:47, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
- Where is the duplicate? -- Elphion (talk) 20:40, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
There is a GIF version, which is the original version of the signature. Fangusu (talk) 14:40, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
- Where is it? --FormerIP (talk) 18:35, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:C.S.Lewis_signature.gif Fangusu (talk) 02:12, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Duplicate file Ezarateesteban 12:22, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
The file deleted was the gif version, we kept the vectorized version Ezarateesteban 22:17, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
Per COM:SIG#UK: he has not yet been dead for 70 years. Stefan4 (talk) 00:26, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 18:46, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
not from real source Sridhar1000 (talk) 13:06, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
Hello, I'm sorry for my bad English, I uploaded the file to flicker, because under the picture the author has written the license to use it.GIUNCO (talk) 16:18, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
- Keep nominator for deletion gave no argument for why it is not from "real source." Warfieldian (talk) 01:22, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: When I check the flickr license was ok Ezarateesteban 12:30, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
source??? Svajcr (talk) 06:56, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
- ok, now I have uploaded a new file whose source is Flicker GIUNCO (talk) 07:33, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
Kept I see no further reason for a deletion comparing to the previous request. A.Savin 14:55, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Self promotion. This picture is part of a massive promotional attack to Wikipedia and all its related projects. Details can be found here Hypergio (talk) 06:51, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
- Keep This seems to be part of a recent cross-wiki campaign by a very few people to eliminate any trace of this photographer from the Wikimedia projects, after a recent rather innocuous effort, apparently by him or on his behalf, to create user pages for him on many Wikimedia projects. Whatever the merits or foolishness of that effort, I certainly consider some of his art quite notable and worthy for inclusion, and much of it has existed here for years now, with no controversy, and now that it has come to my attention in recent weeks, I intend to use more of it at the Wikiquote project. ~ ♞☤☮♌Kalki·†·⚓⊙☳☶⚡ 10:35, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
- I will also note that the link Hypergio (talk · contribs) provides actually seems to call into question at least some of the actions of individuals in preforming some locks and initiating some measures against accounts that were perhaps not warranted. I believe that the current campaign against this photographer's work or mention seems to have now become something of an obsession on the part of some. ~ ♞☤☮♌Kalki·†·⚓⊙☳☶⚡ 11:18, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
- It is unacceptable call this an obsession. If you believe that it is not promotion it is your own opinion and not the opinion of all Wiki projects users. I did not propose the deletion of all Augusto de Luca photos but 51 on a total of 239 existing on Commons. The proposal concerns the ones that are clearly self promotion only. It would be interisting to know which are the reasons why you believe that this specific picture is not promotional. What do you see other than Augusto de Luca promoting himself? --Hypergio (talk) 16:39, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
- I will also note that the link Hypergio (talk · contribs) provides actually seems to call into question at least some of the actions of individuals in preforming some locks and initiating some measures against accounts that were perhaps not warranted. I believe that the current campaign against this photographer's work or mention seems to have now become something of an obsession on the part of some. ~ ♞☤☮♌Kalki·†·⚓⊙☳☶⚡ 11:18, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
Keep: the subject might be not notable for several Wikipedia projects but the photos are in-scope and properly licenced. It's up to the Wikipedia chapters evaluate subject's relevance, not Commons'. -- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 11:42, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
not from real source Sridhar1000 (talk) 13:07, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
Hello, I'm sorry for my bad English, I uploaded the file to flicker, because under the picture the author has written the license to use it.GIUNCO (talk) 16:18, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
- Keep Speedy Keep. I can see not reason to delete this image. Please explain what you mean "not from real source." Warfieldian (talk) 14:46, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
- Keep The nominator didn't understand the difference between the source (where you took the file from) and the author (who made it). The source can well be different from the author. Beta M (talk) 03:23, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
- Move it:File:Piazza Plebiscito, Napoli - foto di Augusto De Luca.jpg to Commons.
- Delete this as a dupe of 1. -- RE rillke questions? 19:31, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: per Rillke Ezarateesteban 12:33, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
Wrong name. Russula instead of Lactarius Thkgk (talk) 15:39, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
Kept: Please, ask to rename it Ezarateesteban 12:34, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:59, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: per Eugene Ezarateesteban 12:35, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
Nominated on behalf of User:Badzil. Reason given was: "Out of scope: Unused map of a virtual world." FASTILY (TALK) 19:59, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
- Delete No educational value. Badzil (talk) 21:02, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. --ZooFari 05:00, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
To modify 粉刷 (talk) 09:52, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
There is an error 粉刷 (talk) 12:03, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
- Delete even if a 'correct' version is uploaded, it's still text only. Beta M (talk) 03:16, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:51, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
Delete Too much effect for pdd text logo Kyro (talk) 10:05, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
Comment, There was a previous DR for this logo : Commons:Deletion requests/File:Sonic-Generations-logo.png
Keep Oh come one Kyro! This is just embossed text – please compare with w:File:WDW New Fantasyland logo.jpg and w:File:Hercules 1998 Intertitle.png! It's just more "shiny" than the Fantasyland logo. BeŻet (talk) 15:39, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
- Seriously the effects here, are more important than on the others. Kyro (talk) 19:12, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
Comment Please also compare with: w:File:Settlers II Logo.svg, w:File:Mass Effect logo.png, w:File:ArmA_II_Logo.png and others in the video game logos category. BeŻet (talk) 15:45, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
- Weak Keep The only creative bit is the inner turnt oval within O and C, is that enough for it to be copyrighted to a single org? If it is so, perhaps somebody can fill those oval with the same colour as the outer embroidery. Beta M (talk) 03:19, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
Kept: PD text logo -- no question Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:53, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
This logo is owned by SEGA of America, which is copyrighted cannot redistribute without permission. Macropedia (talk) 02:04, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
- Please consult the discussion above. Simple typography cannot be copyrighted. BeŻet (talk) 10:31, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
Kept: per former discussion: textlogo. Ruthven (msg) 12:16, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
copyright violation - turktelekom.com.tr Reality006 (talk) 16:28, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
Delete: copyvio. Takabeg (talk) 03:24, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:55, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
File:Türk Telekom logo.svg Cobija (talk) 17:49, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Natuur12 (talk) 00:26, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
copyright violation Reality006 (talk) 16:28, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
Delete: copyvio. Takabeg (talk) 03:24, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:55, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
copyright violation Reality006 (talk) 16:28, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
Delete: copyvio. Takabeg (talk) 03:25, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:55, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
copyright violation Reality006 (talk) 16:29, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
Delete: copyvio. Takabeg (talk) 03:25, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:55, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
copyright violation Reality006 (talk) 16:29, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
Delete: copyvio. Takabeg (talk) 03:25, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:55, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
absuluty copyright violation Reality006 (talk) 16:29, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
Delete: copyvio. Takabeg (talk) 03:25, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:55, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
copyright violation Reality006 (talk) 16:29, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
Yeah I know, that's right, I had already seen it coming while uploading. No hard feelings. Cheers Reality (= --Stultiwikiatext me 17:11, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
Delete: copyvio. Takabeg (talk) 03:26, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:56, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
and File:Csr.jpg. Unlikely to be own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF. EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:34, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:56, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
includes same picture than File:Johncrerarjpeg.jpg, plenty of white area in PDF Motopark (talk) 16:35, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:56, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
and File:RMC new campus.jpg. Unlikely to be own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF. EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:42, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:56, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
copyright violation and Mutfaksepeti.com is not notability Reality006 (talk) 16:48, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
'delete copyvio & out of scope. Takabeg (talk) 03:53, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:56, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
and File:Helmi yahya.jpg. Unlikely to be own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF. EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:50, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:56, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small resolution, missing EXIF. EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:55, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:57, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
Collection of different pictures without any description, private photobook ? Motopark (talk) 17:06, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:57, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
Collection of pictures, no desciption, private photobook Motopark (talk) 17:08, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:57, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
Collection of pictures, no desciption, private photobook Motopark (talk) 17:09, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:57, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
Collection of 2 picture of uploader, other out of scope birthday picture, other duplicate to better picture Motopark (talk) 17:50, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:58, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
Some band, homepage material, out of scope Motopark (talk) 17:51, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:58, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
Автор спутал Викисклад с блогом. Author has confused the blog with Wikimedia Commons.Бериллий (talk) 18:42, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
- Keep The Commons Official Guideline Commons:Galleries states that «Galleries exist to present readers with a structured and meaningful collection of the media found here on Wikimedia Commons». What a pity you are not acquainted with Commons rules. Official Guidelines also state in Commons:Talk page guidelines, that personall attack are disallowed (like your samples [1] of inpolite and offensive «Выпендриваться вы большой любитель», or «техническое дерьмо, на котором вы очевидно помешаны», or «наподобие троллинга, на который вы мастак»). --PereslavlFoto (talk) 22:13, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
- wow there. Seems like another Russian personal conflict spilled over into deletion area. The gallery itself can surely be kept but please remove subjective blog-like musings like "Шедевров не оказалось" or "Это нельзя понять, зато можно пройти мимо".
- Бериллию персонально: не стоило оно того - сюда сор выносить. NVO (talk) 08:20, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
- Вы хоть прочитали, что PereslavlFoto понаписал? Вы считаете, что всему этому ориссу о каком-то безвестном событии место на Викискладе? по хорошему надо было на быстрое выставлять. Причём здесь конфликт я не понимаю, хотя создание этой "галереи", на мой взгляд, как раз подтверждает верность процитированного выше (о выпендривании и троллинге - в данном случае проекта Викисклад).--Бериллий (talk) 17:27, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
- Пожалуйста, покажите приказ об утверждении вас цензором Викисклада по Переславскому району Ярославской области.--PereslavlFoto (talk) 13:30, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
- Очередной пример троллинга. Каждый участвует здесь в тех темах, в каких хочет.--Бериллий (talk) 11:16, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
- Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard#Original_research Оригинальные исследования разрешены на викискладе.--PereslavlFoto (talk) 14:13, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
- Ясное дело, что без некоторой отсебятины даже при описании фотографий не обойтись, но одно дело излагать какие-то наблюдавшиеся факты, а другое - высказывать своё субъективное мнение. Я посмотрел бы что вам ответили, дай вы ссылку на исходный вариант. Без ссылки на правило ни за что не поверю в это утверждение, противоречащее общей идее Викимедия. Хотя да, правильней было говорить о несоблюдении нейтральной точки зрения, но в таких случаях, я, честно говоря, слабо улавливаю разницу.--Бериллий (talk) 17:46, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
- Вы знакомы с наставлениями викисклада? Почему вы всё время нарушаете это наставление? Там говорится: «Don't label or personally attack people or their edits». Это означает: «Не клеймите и не нападайте на личности людей или на их правки». Здесь вы нарушили это наставление, хотя могли вместо этого улучшить галерею. Другие участники дискуссии захотели привести к нейтральной точке зрения и для этого показали проблемные места, помогли мне исправить их. Это добрый пример для вас! Никакого «исходного варианта» или «конечного варианта» нет, потому что согласно лицензии «Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike» любой вариант может быть отредактирован. Итак, почему же вы ничего не сделали для соблюдения нейтральной точки зрения? Приглашаю вас к этому!--PereslavlFoto (talk) 18:10, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
- Ясное дело, что без некоторой отсебятины даже при описании фотографий не обойтись, но одно дело излагать какие-то наблюдавшиеся факты, а другое - высказывать своё субъективное мнение. Я посмотрел бы что вам ответили, дай вы ссылку на исходный вариант. Без ссылки на правило ни за что не поверю в это утверждение, противоречащее общей идее Викимедия. Хотя да, правильней было говорить о несоблюдении нейтральной точки зрения, но в таких случаях, я, честно говоря, слабо улавливаю разницу.--Бериллий (talk) 17:46, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
- Пожалуйста, покажите приказ об утверждении вас цензором Викисклада по Переславскому району Ярославской области.--PereslavlFoto (talk) 13:30, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
- Вы хоть прочитали, что PereslavlFoto понаписал? Вы считаете, что всему этому ориссу о каком-то безвестном событии место на Викискладе? по хорошему надо было на быстрое выставлять. Причём здесь конфликт я не понимаю, хотя создание этой "галереи", на мой взгляд, как раз подтверждает верность процитированного выше (о выпендривании и троллинге - в данном случае проекта Викисклад).--Бериллий (talk) 17:27, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
- Бериллию персонально: не стоило оно того - сюда сор выносить. NVO (talk) 08:20, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
- Я не пользуюсь галереями, поэтому не могу сказать, годится ли это в качестве галереи; по Commons:Galleries кажется, что то, что там сейчас, не так уж и плохо — быстрого удаления не заслуживает, можно (или нужно; про комаров не сразу понятно, «прости господи» в галерее точно не место) переделать (ещё).
А вот как с копирайтом?--AVRS (talk) 19:48, 10 November 2011 (UTC)Где именно вы видите проблему с копирайтом? Я просил участников выставки писать в OTRS, однако мог кого-нибудь и забыть. Думаю через пару дней расставить номера тикетов.--PereslavlFoto (talk) 13:30, 11 November 2011 (UTC)А шаблон об этом только на двух файлах стоит. Не заметил.--AVRS (talk) 16:22, 11 November 2011 (UTC)А шаблон стоит на 4 файлах, о которых я точно знаю, что посланы письма. Когда получу известие про другие посланные письма, поставлю и там. Вы, пожалуйста, не уходите в сторону, а подскажите, где должны быть разрешения. Спасибо.--PereslavlFoto (talk) 16:36, 11 November 2011 (UTC)Наверное, где фотография используется для иллюстрации чего‐то о произведении (или хорошо подходит для такого использования), там и нужно разрешение.--AVRS (talk) 17:06, 11 November 2011 (UTC)- Поставлены номера OTRS.--PereslavlFoto (talk) 20:38, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Encyclopedic rules like NPOV have to be respected also on Commons. - A.Savin 17:12, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
- Где надо поправить текст описаний? Обратите внимание на других участников этого обсуждения: они указывают на проблему (хотя могли просто исправить), я исправляю.--PereslavlFoto (talk) 19:11, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
- Delete full of POV, non-notable event. Delete the gallery, add 1 or 2 photos as a very little side note to the gallery of the Переславский музей (Pereslavl Museum, described with this name in the file description). --Martin H. (talk) 19:45, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
- Why do you think this region-scale event is not notable, taking into account the interest shown from the newspapers and television, and considering its 5-year history? Where do you see POV and why don't you edit the gallery? Thanks for the answer.--PereslavlFoto (talk) 20:16, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
- User talk:Martin H. explains: 1) notability is from «nothing about the 2011 event, nothing about the event» in «searched Wikipedia», and 2) POV is from the «nasty insect». I think 1) Martin could change his mind checking the Russian-speaking media, 2) mosquitoes phrase was edited to remove any bias.--PereslavlFoto (talk) 21:35, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: This is an article -- a gallery is a collection of images, which may have captions, but not extensive text. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:59, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
File transfered from en:File:Angela Gheorghiu.jpg (CC 3.0) but: "The picture was taken in 2007. Photographer: Gioacchino Cantone Copyright owner: Angela Gheorghiu". Description here (author): "I dont know". Summary: Unknown copyright issue. Gunnex (talk) 19:26, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:00, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
copyvio? OTRS? Svajcr (talk) 20:58, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted Yann (talk) 13:24, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
The copyright holder (Author) is still alive, so the file, despite of being old, is not in public domain. --Razghandi (talk) 19:44, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:00, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
Considering "the work cannot be modified (...)" --> passage incompatible with CC 3.0/COM:L. Gunnex (talk) 19:53, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:00, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
Low res image of brazilian actress pt:Ariane Porto, apparently grabbed from internet. No exif-data. Source ("Grupo TAO") indicates to http://www.grupotao.org.br/ (no free licence), a brazilian theatre group. Gunnex (talk) 20:42, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:00, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
there is not any meta data, suspecting it is not own work Coekon (talk) 21:03, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:00, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
there is not any meta data, suspecting it is not own work Coekon (talk) 21:04, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:00, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
there is not any meta data, suspecting it is not own work Coekon (talk) 21:05, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
- Delete, google finds too many copies.--Motopark (talk) 16:38, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:00, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
there is not any meta data, suspecting it is not own work Coekon (talk) 21:05, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
- deleted, clear copyvio from Getty images, see [2] --Elya (talk) 21:21, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: 21:20, 10 November 2011 by Elya, closed by Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:01, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
Insufficient 'Google Images' source 80.187.103.180 21:06, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:01, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
Insufficient source info: who is the author of all those images? Copyright information for those images? All from the same author? 80.187.103.180 21:07, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:01, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
Copied from source given which is copyrighted Basvb (talk) 21:27, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:32, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
Too recent architecture. No FoP in France TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 19:08, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:04, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
The original building may be old enough but its recent exterior renovation makes it new, therefore very probably copyrightable. No FoP in France. TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 18:47, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:04, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
Recent architecture. No FoP in France TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 18:48, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:04, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
archivo realizado con sintetizador de voz (made with sintetize voice) Esceptic0 (talk) 01:12, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 23:09, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
archivo realizado con sintetizador de voz (made with sintetize voice) Esceptic0 (talk) 01:14, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope -- we might host a recording by the author, but not one spoken by synthesizer. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:05, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
archivo realizado con sintetizador de voz (made with sintetize voice) Esceptic0 (talk) 01:16, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:05, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
archivo realizado con sintetizador de voz (made with sintetize voice) Esceptic0 (talk) 01:16, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:05, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
archivo realizado con sintetizador de voz (made with sintetize voice) Esceptic0 (talk) 01:17, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:05, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
archivo realizado con sintetizador de voz (made with sintetize voice) Esceptic0 (talk) 01:18, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:05, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
hecho con voz sintetizada (make with sintetize voice) Esceptic0 (talk) 01:34, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
Question Do synthesized voices violate Commons policy? I see several others Spanish articles with synthesized voices also. In any case, this file should probably also mention {{Cc-by-sa-3.0}}, because its text is derived from es:Mozilla Firefox. (es: - no sirve, el wikiproyecto enciclopedia grabada es para voces reales, ya existe pediaphon.org para sintetizar la wikipedia. Ya denuncié los otros también (does not work, the Encyclopedia Wikiproject is for real voices recorded, and there pediaphon.org to synthesize wikipedia. And to denounce others as well. translated with google)--Esceptic0 (talk) 02:51, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
- Delete - seems a waste of server space to record computer-generated audio versions. (But it sounds better than File:Santo Domingo (capital).ogg.) /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:31, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:06, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
picture too large Davidoffrance (talk) 09:51, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
- speedy (request by uploader/creator, unused, correct version in place: File:Lutetia(21)Glyph.svg). NVO (talk)
- Delete both - this kind of inventions seems out of scope. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:44, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
Glyph.svg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Deleted: First -- there was no reason to create a new file for the second version -- it should have been uploaded over the bad one. Second, Pieter is correct -- this is our uploader's fantasy. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:13, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
copyright violation - http://www.panoramio.com/photo/28408131 Reality006 (talk) 16:12, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
- Keep Uploader and Panoramio user are the same. -- Herby (Vienna) (talk) 19:38, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
Kept. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:51, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
Includes copyrighted images, GM and Getty images Motopark (talk) 16:27, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
If Motopark had bothered to check, he'd know that eMOTION! REPORTS.com is a recognized media entity with full authority to use the images provided on GM media site and press kits. This analysis from a media entity has been provided to WIKI to enhance its body of knowledge, and as Publisher, I have authority to do so. User:ASIMOV51a
- I see two problems here:
- You may be allowed to use the images, but we require that you also have the authority to release them under a free license.
- Files containing mainly text don't belong on Commons (except in rare cases).
Deleted: I have several problems with this:
- the two raised by Kramer
- do you have the authority to freely license images from Getty and GM? -- seems unlikely -- it is one thing to publish them yourself, it is another thin entirely to give them to the world.
- is it in scope -- it is mostly text?
- but more important, this looks like a clear violation of COM:ADVERT. We do not generally host documents which are fundamentally selling pieces for consultants.
Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:57, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
.svg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.svg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Duplicated file > Escudo de Ventas de Zafarraya (Granada).svg Erlenmeyer (talk) 23:34, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
.svg){kind=link}
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:16, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
.svg){kind=link}
This file was tagged {{copyvio|Contains a copyrighted logo.}} by — Preceding unsigned comment added by Σ (talk • contribs) 2011-11-04T22:27:31 (UTC) since five days and no one deleted it as copyvio. So do I.
The logo could be well borderline to {{PD-textlogo}} (see also COM:TOO). So, although product_packaging is not generally okay this may be okay and is no clear copyvio case (in my and apparently other's opintions). Saibo (Δ) 01:30, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
- This is not a joke. This file really meets the criteria for speedy deletion because of the copyrighted logo which is actually owned py PepsiCO. The logo may be old (dropped in 2005) but it is still a copyrighted file. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.183.219.85 (talk • contribs) 2011-11-19T00:04:24 (UTC)
- Oh, I didn't say this was a joke. If something is copyright eligible or not is judged by the content (unless old or fed. gov't): here the logo mostly consists of Text with some light effects. Those may make it to copyright eligibility. Also the background is not simple.. I do not oppose deletion. I just wanted to have a opportunity to discuss it in a better way than letting it hang around in the copyvio category. --Saibo (Δ) 00:58, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. FASTILY (TALK) 10:41, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
This logo was tagged as "copyvio" by — Preceding unsigned comment added by XIIIfromTOKYO (talk • contribs) 2011-11-06T18:17:30 (UTC) since two days. But the logo could be well borderline to {{PD-textlogo}} (see also COM:TOO). The text on the right is totally okay and the "S" on the left could still count as a "S" - like in "Letter S". Saibo (Δ) 01:38, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
how do we know this was published before 1923 or that it was anonymous/pseudonymous? Calliopejen1 (talk) 04:47, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
- "in conjunction with the Nobel Prize in Literature" - because the image was released with his Noble Prize award. That is the publicity photo. If you looked at the source, it clearly says 1923. >.< Please use talk pages instead of deletion nominations for basic questions. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:01, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
Oppose - misuse of deletion request. No basis for nomination. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:01, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
- Where does it say the photo is from 1923? It says the prize was awarded in 1923. It wouldn't surprise me if they added a generic file photo to the award page. This means you would have to be searching a broad range of years of copyright renewals to make sure you found all possibilities. (It's not automatically PD--it must be before 1923 for that--so there would have to be evidence of a quite exhaustive renewal search.) Calliopejen1 (talk) 04:19, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
- Generic file photos, if they had one, would have been taken of the prize recipient the year they receive the work. Otherwise, the individual could die. They always own the copyrights of their images. Note also: "Copyright © The Nobel Foundation 1923" Ottava Rima (talk) 18:32, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
- Where does it say the photo is from 1923? It says the prize was awarded in 1923. It wouldn't surprise me if they added a generic file photo to the award page. This means you would have to be searching a broad range of years of copyright renewals to make sure you found all possibilities. (It's not automatically PD--it must be before 1923 for that--so there would have to be evidence of a quite exhaustive renewal search.) Calliopejen1 (talk) 04:19, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
- Comment there's also a derivative, File:YeatsColour.jpg. NVO (talk) 08:07, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
- Question. The source page is a bio blob credited to a 1969 publication. It mentions the death of Yeats in 1939 and his books published in 1933 and 1940. Where's the link between this 1969 text and the statement that the photograph was published in (or before) 1923? Have you actually seen hardcopy publications from 1923? Is it there or not? NVO (talk) 08:07, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
- No image in that book Ottava Rima (talk) 18:32, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
- Note the bottom of the page: "Copyright © The Nobel Foundation 1923". Also, if he died in 1939, 70 + 1939 is 2009, and it is 2011, making it 70+ after the original date per the copyright law of an anonymous work. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:35, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
- "Anonymous", I suspect, is your own conclusion. "I haven't seen it" = "Anonymous". NVO (talk) 00:42, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
- It was copyrighted 1923 by Noble Prize and not by an individual author, so legally it doesn't count as copyrighted by an author and thus does not go off an author's life. See the copyright mark. Remember, this is going off a foreign law and the Noble Prize copyright determination of age is very, very common. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:26, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
- "Anonymous", I suspect, is your own conclusion. "I haven't seen it" = "Anonymous". NVO (talk) 00:42, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
- Keep almost certainly published in "Les Prix Nobel" of 1923, with Yeats's signature; licence is fine, {{PD-Sweden}} would also apply. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:40, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
and other uploads by Segicollege (talk · contribs). No evidence of permission. EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:31, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
- Somehow this photo appears in my upload gallery. I didn't upload this photo and favore its deletion. Ranbar (talk) 10:58, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. FASTILY (TALK) 10:40, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
and other uploads by Sriram.04144 (talk · contribs). Unlikely to be own work: small/inconsistent resolutions, missing EXIF. EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:52, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. FASTILY (TALK) 10:41, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
Inferior duplicate version of File:Flag of Arabistan.svg, which is in the same format. ~ Fry1989 eh? 22:24, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. FASTILY (TALK) 10:41, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
I really hate to do to this, but the image is using Image:Landshut Flugzeug.jpg which has been deleted 3 years ago as a copyright violation (with no permission). I have now contacted the photograper for permission for their works on Commons, but have not yet received a response. I do ask that the file be kept at least until the end of November, to give some time to try and organise permission. If unsuccessful, the image needs to be deleted -- or amended to remove the aircraft photo russavia (talk) 23:44, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. FASTILY (TALK) 10:41, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
This file was uploaded on March 21, 2010. However same image had been used in a forum on March 7, 2007. As long as I understand, Template:PD-Self is wrong tag. Takabeg (talk) 23:48, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
Vieleicht ist einfach das Datum Falsch geschrieben, kann jedem mal passieren.Schreib doch den Urheber an und bitte Ihn dies zu verbessern;-). Nicht gleich Löschanträge stellen.--Serdal (talk) 18:48, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. FASTILY (TALK) 10:41, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
source [3] unknown publish time, not PD? shizhao (talk) 07:14, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
- Comment This website asserts that the image comes from a stamp issued by the PRC in 1955, which places it in the public domain there. Sorry for sloppiness on my part; this was one of my earlier uploads, and at the time I just assumed that any extant illustration of a 5th century Chinese scholar would be sufficiently old as to be in the public domain. RayAYang (talk) 12:55, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Kept. BanyanTree 11:21, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
According to Chinese law, non photographic work expires only 50 years after artists death, it is unclear who the artist was Gisling (talk) 01:47, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
"The term of protection for the right of publication and the rights provided for in Article 10, paragraphs (5) to (17), of this Law in respect of a work where the copyright belongs to a legal entity or other organization or in respect of a work created in the course of employment where the legal entity or other organization enjoys the copyright (except the right of authorship), shall be fifty years, and expires on 31 December of the fiftieth year after the first Publication of such work, provided that any such work that has not been published within fifty years after the completion of its creation shall no longer be protected under this Law and all non-photographic works enter the public domain fifty years after the death of the creator."
This stamp is clearly not a photography. According to Chinese law, non photographic work expires only 50 years after artists death. A search in Baidu indicates that the designer of the artwork for this stamp was famous stamp artwork designer 孙传哲[4] who died in Apri of 1995[5], the copyright will expire in 2045. Hence it is clearly copyright violation to publish it on wikepedia --Gisling (talk) 10:49, 11 November 2011 (UTC).
See also维基百科讨论:版权常见问题解答/存档2]--Gisling (talk) 11:16, 11 November 2011 (UTC).
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:09, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
Shajariyan
[edit]- File:Two musicians of Shahnaz band.jpg
- File:Shajarian concert in london.jpg
- File:Shahoo.jpg
- File:Playing Ghanoon.jpg
- File:Mojgan and Mohammad reza Shajarian concert in London.jpg
- File:Majid Derakhshani playing Tar.jpg
- File:Shahnaz band.jpg
It seems that all of them are just screenshots of a television program. They have very low resolutions and small sizes. The uploader has a great history of uploading copyright violated images! ----Razghandi (talk) 10:23, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: In doubt, we delete it Ezarateesteban 12:15, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
Irainian coins
[edit]- File:1000 Rial-Hadith of the pond of Khumm Monument (2).jpg
- File:1000 Rial-Hadith of the pond of Khumm Monument.jpg
- File:2000 Rials islamic republic of Iran coin (2).jpg
- File:2000 Rials islamic republic of Iran coin.jpg
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Due to here, Iranian coins and banknotes are copyrighted and their copyright holder is "Central Bank of Iran". For more information, refer to here ----Razghandi (talk) 11:29, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Commons:Currency#Iran Ezarateesteban 12:18, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
Imam Reza
[edit]- File:Imam Reza shrine view.jpg
- File:Imam reza zarih Tomb.jpg, it's description in Persian says: "Imam Reza tomb in Shahrokh Afshar era" (i.e. at least 500 years ago!!!)
- File:Gold calligraphy.jpg, it's description in Persian says: "Gold calligraphy on the first tomb" that must be really old!
- File:Imam Reza shrine heralds.jpg
- File:Imam Reza shrine.jpg
I strongly doubt that these images be his own work. All of them are in low-resolution and small-size. ----Razghandi (talk) 12:05, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: In doubt, we delete it Ezarateesteban 12:21, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
I doubt own work and maybe out of scope.
RE rillke questions? 15:56, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 21:03, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Caracazo1989 (talk · contribs)
[edit]It seems extremely unlikely that these are the user's own work. Conversely, if they were the user's own work, it would be very unlikely that they fell within scope, because as personal work they would be misleading. These are suspicious enough, in my view, as to cast doubt on all the user's other contributions.
- File:DiscursoItaloDejaMando.djvu
- File:DiscursoItaloTomaMando.djvu
- File:DiscursoItaloCLVBolivar1.djvu
- File:DiscursoCLVBolivar21 0001.djvu
- File:DiscursoCLVBolivar20 0001.djvu
- File:DiscursoCLVBolivar19 0001.djvu
- File:DiscursoCLVBolivar18 0001.djvu
- File:DiscursoCLVBolivar17 0001.djvu
- File:DiscursoCLVBolivar16 0001.djvu
- File:DiscursoCLVBolivar15 0001.djvu
- File:DiscursoCLVBolivar14 0001.djvu
I had already requested clarification of the situation (in Spanish, on the user's talk page), but did not receive any. Jmabel ! talk 16:02, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Self-created books really aren't in our scope, and copyvios definitely aren't. Jmabel's surely right that it's one or the other. Nyttend (talk) 21:36, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:54, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
files uploaded by User:Alborzagros
[edit]- File:Azad university flag.jpg
- File:An elephant on just 1 foot in Circus.jpg
- File:Crashed Peugeot 206.jpg
- File:Bahar Azadi Coins.jpg
- File:1 kg gold.jpg
- File:Gold ingots 2011.jpg
- File:Assembly of Experts in Iran.jpg
Probably not own work. All of have poor quality, low resolutions, small sizes, and NO mata data. I searched the web to find where these pictures were stolen from but I couldn't. I guess most of them must be screenshots of television programs. ----Razghandi (talk) 16:42, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:58, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
Commons:Deletion requests/File:JasonPatric by Roger Ebert.jpg
screenshots
[edit]
Screenshots of Microsoft Windows and Google website. ----Razghandi (talk) 21:00, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Martin H. (talk) 10:44, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
Photographer/copyright holder not specified 84.171.236.99 21:06, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Rosenzweig τ 11:40, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
