Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2011/12/01
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
|
|
Unlikely own work of source Flickr account, which is used for Flickr-washing by the uploader of this image. Túrelio (talk) 09:12, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Identified as copyvio from Getty Images by further research; http://justjaredjr.buzznet.com/2011/11/06/selena-gomez-mtv-emas-2011/?photomorehere Túrelio (talk) 09:28, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Unlikely own work of sourced Flickr account, which is used for Flickr-washing by the uploader of this image Túrelio (talk) 09:13, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: By further research identified as earlier published copyvio from http://celeborama.net/gallery/images/selena_gomez/2011-08/85fc6394f0f2e0feae3e44c22b19acaa.jpg Túrelio (talk) 09:31, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
assumption of copyvio: no metadata, many other uploads from this user are copyvios. Croquant (talk) 09:38, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Almost all uploads deleted, including this one. Wknight94 talk 12:48, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
Music album cover from Beyoncé >>> not own work 80.187.103.72 17:59, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Gone - that is a speedy deletion - thanks Herby talk thyme 13:52, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
Google MAPS/EARTH screenshot >>>> nevertheless not the uploaders own work 80.187.103.72 18:05, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: GEarth screenshot - so speedy Herby talk thyme 13:55, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
Low image resolution; no valid EXIF info >>>> likely not the uploader's own work! 80.187.103.72 18:17, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: TV screenshot - speedy Herby talk thyme 13:53, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
This was already deleted before (back in March 2011) for A: being the wrong ratio, and B: having a border which is not part of the fin flash. Proper file is File:Naval Ensign of the Bahamas.svg. The previous DR is available at [1], and once evidence was provided that Jetijones version of the Fin Flash was incorrect, he did not continue to contest the DR, nor did he ask for a unDR once it was gone. Also, This file's name is "Bahama Flash", but the first version uploaded was the Civil Ensign of the Bahamas, a completely different flag. Jetijones is not one to make mistakes like that (and especially not one to not correct mistakes like that for 3 days), so it is also extremely likely he uploaded this in a deliberate attempt to sneak past me his prefered and inaccurate version of the Flash. For all these reasons, it should be deleted. Fry1989 eh? 00:45, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
No Fry there's no deliberate attempt to sneak anything past you… you’re too quick that, just an incorrect file selection (with similar file names on my hard drive). But thanks for the accusation. We are however working on standardization the Fin flash article. I would tell you to join in, but we can't, cause of your current block. Anyway I fixed the file. Jetijones (talk) 14:34, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
- Actually you are trying to force your way through that article, because as soon as you uploaded this new version opf the flash, you inserted in on the article, removing File:Naval Ensign of the Bahamas.svg which had been there for 8 months after your previous incorrect Bahamas flash file was deleted in the above-linked DR, and then as soon as I nominated this file for deletion, you uploaded your incorrect flash to Wikipedia English to surpass this DR. You are showing extreme owndership of that article, and as soon as my block passes, I'm going to have to take it to mediation, because I cannot allow you to insert an incorrect file that even your own sources say is wrong. As for this file, it should go per the last DR, and Jetijones own sources showing it's wrong. Fry1989 eh? 20:43, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
You are the one who brought it to my attention, with the request, but nice try Fry Jetijones (talk) 22:33, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
- Your intentions are clear in and by themself. I didn't bring anything to your attention, you uploaded the civil ensign of Bahamas (in non-SVG format under a an svg tag btw), and then 3 days later, uploaded a completely different flag, (you're incorrect-ratio version of) the Naval Ensign of the Bahamas (which is also used as the fin flash for the Bahamas Defence Force Air Wing). It wasn't until after you did that, that I nominated this for deletion, at which point, you uploaded the same image to Wikipedia English (to surpass this DR), and reverted this back to the old image, probably in an attempt to have it kept, even though the name is wrong for the image, as is the formatting. This will go to mediation on Wikipedia English, you can count on that. Fry1989 eh? 22:58, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
- Btw, when you said "we" (as in "We are however working on standardization the Fin flash article"), you meant you, because you haven't talked about that article or the changes you are implementing (either on it's article talk page, or on anybody's personal talk page) for months. Fry1989 eh? 05:32, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio from http://www.flickr.com/photos/26168844@N07/3505668020/ User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 23:12, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
{{delete|reason=Don't want it any more|subpage=Commons:Deletion_requests/File:JiaZhouDaXue.gif|year=2011|month=December|day=1}}
Don't want it any more
Don't want it any more Darrenjunhua (talk) 07:50, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Uploader requested deletion shortly after upload. However, this seems to be a screencapture of CALTV anyway. I doubt the uploader is the camera man/woman. Saibo (Δ) 04:03, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
Commons:Deletion requests/Commons:Deletion requests/File:JiaZhouDaXue.gif
Don't want it any more Darrenjunhua (talk) 07:48, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Delete It appears to be a purposeful upload of a copyrighted video. A very good one, it shows police brutality in all its horror. VolodyA! V Anarhist (converse) 03:19, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Uplader requested deletion of unused file some days after upload (2011-11-27T05:11:46). Anyway: Obviously a screencapture (copyvio) of Euronews. I doubt the uploader is the camera man/woman (as it is claimed on the file page). Saibo (Δ) 04:09, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
{{delete|reason=Don't want it any more|subpage=Commons:Deletion_requests/File:JiaZhouDaXue.gif|year=2011|month=December|day=1}}
Don't want it any more
Don't want it any more Darrenjunhua (talk) 07:50, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Uploader requested deletion shortly after upload. However, this seems to be a screencapture of CALTV anyway. I doubt the uploader is the camera man/woman. Saibo (Δ) 04:03, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
Don't want it any more Darrenjunhua (talk) 07:48, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
- Delete It appears to be a purposeful upload of a copyrighted video. A very good one, it shows police brutality in all its horror. VolodyA! V Anarhist (converse) 03:19, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Uplader requested deletion of unused file some days after upload (2011-11-27T05:11:46). Anyway: Obviously a screencapture (copyvio) of Euronews. I doubt the uploader is the camera man/woman (as it is claimed on the file page). Saibo (Δ) 04:09, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
Buggy SVG, replaced by File:Ginkgolic acid 2.svg. Leyo 09:03, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. DMacks (talk) 09:28, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Ed (Edgar181) 12:48, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
unused, low-resolution and small-size, with unusual angles and poor bond positions. Many high-res and vector alternatives in Category:Oxalic acid DMacks (talk) 10:23, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Low quality and superior alternatives. Ed (Edgar181) 12:49, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
low-res and small, unused; at least one of the stereochemical bonds is drawn backwards (wedge should have its point on the cyclohexane ring not its wide end). Have File:Oxaliplatin-2D-skeletal.png as high-res and File:Oxaliplatin.svg as raster, both with corrected wedge DMacks (talk) 10:27, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Low quality, superior alternatives, and chemical errors. Ed (Edgar181) 12:49, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
Low quality, replace by (more accurate) File:Carboplatin-2D-skeletal.png. Leyo 10:34, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. If the N–Pt were written as a normal single-bond, the N would have to be +1 (dative bond is more correct for "neutral ammine ligand"). Not sure what the "real" electronic structure is, but nom'ed image isn't it. DMacks (talk) 17:02, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Accuracy issues Ed (Edgar181) 12:50, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
Low quality, better alternatives in Category:Cyclophosphamide. Leyo 10:38, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Multiple high-res raster and vector available. DMacks (talk) 16:59, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Low quality and superior alternatives Ed (Edgar181) 12:50, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
BadJPG, replaced by File:Quinolizidine.svg. Leyo 10:40, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Low quality and superior alternatives Ed (Edgar181) 12:50, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
BadJPG, unused, replaced by better SVG. Leyo 10:42, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Low quality and superior alternatives. Ed (Edgar181) 12:50, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
BadJPG, unused, replaced by File:Fluorouracil.svg. Leyo 10:43, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Low quality and superior alternatives. Ed (Edgar181) 12:50, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
BadJPG, not used in articles, replaced by File:Aciclovir standard.svg. Leyo 10:44, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Low quality and superior alternatives. Ed (Edgar181) 12:51, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
Duplicate of File:Commons-logo.svg Kramer Associates (talk) 06:35, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
- Delete No problem with having a PNG alternative available, but this one is tagged all wrong. Listed as "own work," does not explain reason for duplicate file, etc etc. Could be a speedy delete candidate, I think. -Pete F (talk) 15:45, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Alternative available at File:Commons-logo-en.png, being duplicate of svg is no reason, problems as described by Pete F are Romaine (talk) 00:45, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
Unlikely own work of sourced Flickr account, which is used for Flickr-washing by the uploader of this image Túrelio (talk) 09:13, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
- Image was published in same or slightly higher resolution already months earlier on http://kidrauhl.blog.banjig.net/post.php?post_id=31269&share=print and http://www.thirdage.com/news/justin-bieber-selena-gomez-update-caught-canoodling-and-kissing-yacht_1-3-2011. --Túrelio (talk) 09:22, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
- Delete and speedily because of Flickr license laundering. The Flickr image page stated that it was taken 13 hours ago--Morning Sunshine (talk) 09:38, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
- Delete The uploader has been warned to stop uploading copyright violations previously...and he/she did not stop. That was why he/she was banned for 1 month after another slew of copyright violations again like this one. He owns this flickr account and it is a clear flickrwash. --Leoboudv (talk) 03:16, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
- Delete No free imagem. Vitor Mazuco Msg 18:33, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Flickrwashing Denniss (talk) 18:52, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
Out of project scope. Too blurry to be realistically useful, even if this is some notable person (which is doubtful). Rosenzweig τ 00:17, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Unusable poor quality. Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 14:04, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Out of project scope, unused. ■ MMXX talk 00:47, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 14:04, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Out of scope: text Kramer Associates (talk) 02:25, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 14:05, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
No encyclopedic value Kramer Associates (talk) 02:37, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
- Delete This made me smile. Sometimes i like nonsense like this. VolodyA! V Anarhist (converse) 03:12, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 14:06, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Possible copyvio. Probably out of scope. Kramer Associates (talk) 03:54, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 14:08, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
appears to be a promotion poster for a website 68.183.106.2 04:11, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope, promotional banner George Chernilevsky talk 14:09, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Out of scope: text only Kramer Associates (talk) 04:38, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 14:10, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Out of scope: text only. Text is also very hard to read Kramer Associates (talk) 04:40, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 14:10, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Possible copyvio. Also out of scope personal artwork. Kramer Associates (talk) 04:45, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 14:11, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Out of scope: text only Kramer Associates (talk) 04:58, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 14:12, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Out of scope: not educationally useful, advertising, low quality Kramer Associates (talk) 05:02, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 14:14, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Out of scope: text only Kramer Associates (talk) 05:16, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 14:15, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Out of scope: text only Kramer Associates (talk) 05:16, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 14:15, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Out of scope: text only Kramer Associates (talk) 05:17, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 14:16, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Out of scope: text only Kramer Associates (talk) 05:17, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 14:17, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Out of scope: text only Kramer Associates (talk) 05:17, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 14:18, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Out of scope: text only Kramer Associates (talk) 05:25, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 14:19, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Out of scope: text only Kramer Associates (talk) 05:26, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 14:20, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Out of scope: text only Kramer Associates (talk) 05:30, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 14:20, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Out of scope: text only Kramer Associates (talk) 05:32, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 14:21, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Out of scope: text only Kramer Associates (talk) 05:51, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 14:21, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Out of scope: text only Kramer Associates (talk) 06:22, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 14:21, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Possible derivative work, we can see camera flash on the image. May be user taken it from existing photograph. Kiran Gopi (talk) 08:09, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
- Delete - I believe this is a photo of a screencast of the actual signing and thus a derivative work.--Sodabottle (talk) 09:04, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
- Delete - Sorry. I wrongly took it from a TV screen that was kept in that function. :( --Surya Prakash.S.A. (talk) 12:34, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Derivative Work / Uploader request. RE rillke questions? 10:40, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Unused personal image, out of scope Morning Sunshine (talk) 08:39, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 14:24, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Personal photo, unused since Dec 2010. Chesdovi (talk) 11:04, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Out of scope. Curious: how did you learn it was "last used" in Dec 2010? I don't know of a tool that shows that, but would like to! -Pete F (talk) 15:50, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 14:26, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Personal photo, unused since Dec 2010. Chesdovi (talk) 11:04, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 14:26, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Doubtfuly own work, rights and permission not clear. Image is used by the uploader as an avatar on a brazilian website Funfood ␌ 11:12, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope, unused personal photo George Chernilevsky talk 14:31, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Out of scope: private photo; unused since December 2010 Chesdovi (talk) 11:22, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 14:31, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Out of scope: private photo; unused since December 2010 Chesdovi (talk) 11:22, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 14:32, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Out of scope; unused since December 2010 Chesdovi (talk) 11:24, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 14:33, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Out of scope: private photo; unused since December 2010 Chesdovi (talk) 11:24, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 14:34, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Out of scope: private photo; unused since December 2010 Chesdovi (talk) 11:25, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 14:34, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Copyright violation, © 2011 Dudek-City.de Ices2Csharp (talk) 11:26, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio and out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 14:35, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Out of scope: private photo; unused since December 2010 Chesdovi (talk) 11:26, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 14:36, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Out of scope: private photo; unused since December 2010 Chesdovi (talk) 11:27, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 14:37, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Blurred private photo; unused since December 2010 Chesdovi (talk) 11:29, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 14:38, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Out of scope: private photo; unused since December 2010 Chesdovi (talk) 11:31, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 14:38, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Out of scope: private photo; unused since December 2010 Chesdovi (talk) 11:35, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 14:40, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Out of scope: private photo; unused since December 2010 Chesdovi (talk) 11:35, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 14:41, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Out of scope; unused since December 2010 Chesdovi (talk) 11:36, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 14:42, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Personal image, out of scope Morning Sunshine (talk) 11:38, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 14:42, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Personal files of user without other useful contribution. Ю. Данилевский (talk) 18:44, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 06:49, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
Out of scope: private photo; unused since December 2010 Chesdovi (talk) 11:40, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 14:43, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Out of scope: private photo; unused since December 2010 Chesdovi (talk) 11:42, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 14:43, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Out of scope: private photo; unused since December 2010 Chesdovi (talk) 11:46, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 14:43, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Out of scope: private photo; unused since December 2010 Chesdovi (talk) 11:47, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 14:45, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Out of scope: private photo; unused since December 2010 Chesdovi (talk) 11:48, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 14:45, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Out of scope: private photo; unused since December 2010 Chesdovi (talk) 11:55, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 14:45, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Out of scope: private photo; unused since December 2010 Chesdovi (talk) 11:55, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 14:46, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Out of scope: private photo; unused since December 2010 Chesdovi (talk) 11:57, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 14:46, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Out of scope: private photo; unused since December 2010 Chesdovi (talk) 11:58, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 14:47, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Out of scope: private photo; unused since December 2010 Chesdovi (talk) 12:03, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 14:48, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
This photo is promotional in nature. The article on enwp is currently under discussion for deletion, and appears that it will be deleted. The photo will therefore be out of COM:SCOPE russavia (talk) 13:02, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 14:49, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Unused. Out of scope. Just a picture of some gangly guy who works as a fraternity staffer. GrapedApe (talk) 13:22, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 14:50, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Source from enwp deleted, out of project scope Funfood ␌ 13:28, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 14:50, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Blurry. Better image available. -- Common Good (talk) 15:22, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Per nom. Unused poor quality duplicate George Chernilevsky talk 14:54, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
No evidence of permission; unused since December 2010 Chesdovi (talk) 16:07, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 14:56, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Out of scope: private photo; unused since December 2010 Chesdovi (talk) 16:07, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 14:57, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Out of scope: private photo; unused since December 2010 Chesdovi (talk) 16:13, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 14:58, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Out of scope: private photo; unused since December 2010 Chesdovi (talk) 16:14, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 14:59, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Out of scope: private photo; unused since December 2010 Chesdovi (talk) 16:15, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 14:59, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Out of scope: self promotion letter; unused since December 2010 Chesdovi (talk) 16:18, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 14:59, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Here is not the hungarian Wikipedia. Totally misplaced file and text page. Saibo (Δ) 16:23, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 15:00, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Only a test file: out of scope: it is not used; not usable for any encyclopedic purposes 80.187.103.72 16:48, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Test upload. Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 15:01, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Out of scope: private photo; unused since December 2010 Chesdovi (talk) 16:59, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 15:02, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Out of scope: private photo; unused since December 2010 Chesdovi (talk) 17:01, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 15:02, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Out of scope: private photo; unused since December 2010 Chesdovi (talk) 17:03, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 15:04, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Out of scope: private photo; unused since December 2010 Chesdovi (talk) 17:04, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 15:06, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Out of scope: private photo; unused since December 2010 Chesdovi (talk) 17:13, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 15:07, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Out of scope: private photo; unused since December 2010 Chesdovi (talk) 17:13, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 15:07, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Out of scope: private photo; unused since December 2010 Chesdovi (talk) 17:14, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 15:08, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Out of scope: private photo; unused since December 2010 Chesdovi (talk) 17:14, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 15:09, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Non-notable image, page deleted at wikipedia. Chesdovi (talk) 17:21, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 15:09, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Out of scope: private photo; unused since November 2010 Chesdovi (talk) 17:22, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 15:12, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Out of scope: private photo; unused since November 2010 Chesdovi (talk) 17:22, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 15:13, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Out of scope: private photo; unused since November 2010 Chesdovi (talk) 17:23, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 15:13, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Out of scope: private photo; date-stamp, unused since November 2010 Chesdovi (talk) 17:23, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 15:14, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Out of scope: private photo; unused since November 2010 Chesdovi (talk) 17:24, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 15:15, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Out of scope: private photo; unused since November 2010 Chesdovi (talk) 17:25, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 15:15, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Out of scope: private photo; unused since November 2010 Chesdovi (talk) 17:26, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 15:16, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Out of scope: private photo; unused since November 2010 Chesdovi (talk) 17:27, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 15:16, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Out of scope: private photo; unused since November 2010 Chesdovi (talk) 17:27, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 15:17, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Out of scope: private photo; unused since November 2010 Chesdovi (talk) 17:28, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 15:17, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Out of scope: private photo; unused since November 2010 Chesdovi (talk) 17:29, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 15:18, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Out of scope: private photo; unused since November 2010 Chesdovi (talk) 17:29, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 15:18, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Out of scope: private photo; unused since November 2010 Chesdovi (talk) 17:29, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 15:18, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Out of scope: private photo; unused since November 2010 Chesdovi (talk) 17:29, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 15:19, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Out of scope: private photo; unused since November 2010 Chesdovi (talk) 17:34, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 14:02, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Out of scope: private photo; unused since November 2010 Chesdovi (talk) 17:40, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 14:02, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Out of scope: private photo; unused since November 2010 Chesdovi (talk) 17:41, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 14:01, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Out of scope: private photo; unused since November 2010 Chesdovi (talk) 17:41, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 14:01, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Own work claimed doubtful, missing EXIF/permission, low resolution Jianhui67 talk★contribs 13:02, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
Deleted. INeverCry 07:22, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
Orphaned, used in a now deleted article on en.wikipedia. no foreseeable use. FASTILY (TALK) 20:01, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
- Delete The image has no encyclopedic value and is of low resolution with no metadata. Might as well delete it then. --Leoboudv (talk) 01:27, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
Keep While everything that is encyclopaedic is automatically educational, it doesn't mean that everything that is not encyclopaedic is non-educational. Commons is not an encyclopaedia! VolodyA! V Anarhist (converse) 03:39, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
Kept: She is a member of a South Korean pop group, so she has some notability, and a photo of her is in project scope. Rosenzweig τ 14:05, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Orphaned, used in a now deleted article on en.wikipedia. no foreseeable use. FASTILY (TALK) 20:02, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
- Delete per nominator. The uploader only has 2 images on Commons both of which are under DR. --Leoboudv (talk) 01:29, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 13:50, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
No, not the uploaders own work! This WW2 vehicle was surely not photographed by him. It is surely some webgrab 80.187.103.72 18:44, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
- This image was the duplication of this file in Russian Wikipedia, which was uploaded as non-free image. Takabeg (talk) 00:20, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: copyright violation Polarlys (talk) 21:49, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
Author: Hugo Jaeger. See also Commons:Deletion requests/File:Warsaw1939parade.jpg. -- Common Good (talk) 16:58, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Already deleted by Fastily on 9 December 2011. Trijnstel (talk) 21:33, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
Out of scope: not usable for encyclopedic purposes 80.187.103.72 17:53, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Already deleted by Herbythyme on 2 December 2011. Trijnstel (talk) 21:35, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
Commons is no place for lovely private pictures. Out of scope. 80.187.103.72 17:54, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Already deleted by Herbythyme on 2 December 2011. Trijnstel (talk) 21:36, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
Copyvio uploder, I found evidences that the rest 3 photos uploded by him were copyvios uploaded on commons with false self-made claim. Oleola (talk) 17:55, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Already deleted by Polarlys on 2 December 2011. Trijnstel (talk) 21:36, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
Non free book cover. Kiran Gopi (talk) 07:58, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
- Delete - can be speedied. I have uploaded to local wiki with a NFCC tag and FU rationale.--Sodabottle (talk) 08:40, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Copyvio. VolodyA! V Anarhist (converse) 03:20, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: as copyvio. Rosenzweig τ 13:43, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
Not free. Fry1989 eh? 01:00, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
- Delete That image is copyrighted and isn't simple geometry. --NaBUru38 (talk) 16:51, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. MBisanz talk 20:08, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
The gradients would make it non-free, and we already have a better SVG. ~ Fry1989 eh? 01:01, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Agree with Fry. --NaBUru38 (talk) 16:53, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. MBisanz talk 20:08, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
The author claims that this is the own work of him with a CC-self license but it is definately not the own work! 80.187.103.72 16:50, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Kept: {{PD-NASA}} applies; valid source was provided by the uploader High Contrast (talk) 18:19, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
The author claims that this is the own work of him with a CC-self license but it is definately not the own work! 80.187.103.72 16:51, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
- Keep and change license to {{PD-NASA}}. MKFI (talk) 12:06, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Kept: {{PD-NASA}} applies; valid source was provided by the uploader High Contrast (talk) 18:19, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
The author claims that this is the own work of him with a CC-self license but it is definately not the own work! 80.187.103.72 16:56, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Kept: {{PD-NASA}} applies; valid source was provided by the uploader High Contrast (talk) 18:20, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
The author claims that this is the own work of him with a CC-self license but it is definately not the own work! 80.187.103.72 17:00, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
The CC-self license is not possible for this image. "ISS024E011003" means that this image was taken from NASA. Takabeg (talk) 15:18, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
Kept: {{PD-NASA}} applies; valid source was provided by the uploader High Contrast (talk) 18:21, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
The author claims that this is the own work of him with a CC-self license but it is definately not the own work! 80.187.103.72 17:02, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Kept: {{PD-NASA}} applies; valid source was provided by the uploader High Contrast (talk) 18:21, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
The author claims that this is the own work of him with a CC-self license but it is definately not the own work! 80.187.103.72 17:03, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Kept: {{PD-NASA}} applies; valid source was provided by the uploader High Contrast (talk) 18:21, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
This image and that one have the same shapes of clouds. Via null (talk) 12:34, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: already deleted. Rosenzweig τ 19:57, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
An image in the page is maybe the same. Via null (talk) 12:40, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: already deleted. Rosenzweig τ 19:57, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
apparent copyvio (promotional photo w watermark) Calliopejen1 (talk) 16:46, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: already deleted. Rosenzweig τ 19:56, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
No, not the uploaders own work! This WW2 vehicle was surely not photographed by him. It is surely some webgrab 80.187.103.72 18:46, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Not the uploaders'. This image was taken in front of the Red Army Theatre in 1941. But, as long as I understand, this gun is not Model 1938 but M 1931. Takabeg (talk) 03:15, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
- This image was the same as former File:Battle of moscow17.jpg (we can understand it with this file in this website), which was deleted with Commons:Deletion requests/Battle of Moscow. Re-examination of the data is required, because I (we) don't know data of this file in detail, and some images on same and similar theme (Category:Battle of Moscow) were accepted. I understand images from RIAN, Bundesarchiv are OK, but File:Soviet Offensive Moscow December 1941.jpg is not from RIAN. I don't understand which reasons are applied to this file, and are not applied for files deleted with Commons:Deletion requests/Battle of Moscow.Takabeg (talk) 02:14, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: already deleted. Rosenzweig τ 19:56, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
Possible chance of a Cd/Book cover. Kiran Gopi (talk) 08:07, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
- Delete - can be speedied. I have uploaded the file to local wiki with a NF tag and FU rationale.--Sodabottle (talk) 08:49, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Non free cover, Fair Use Effeietsanders (talk) 13:59, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
Non free logo Kiran Gopi (talk) 08:08, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
- Delete - can be speedied. I have uploaded the file to local wiki with a NF tag and FU rationale.--Sodabottle (talk) 08:49, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
- Speed delete--Kanags (talk) 11:48, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
- migrate to english wikipedia "non free logo" Slowking4 (talk) 01:17, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Fair Use Effeietsanders (talk) 13:58, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
Non free poster. Kiran Gopi (talk) 08:16, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
- Delete - can be speedied. I have uploaded the file to local wiki with a NF tag and FU rationale.--Sodabottle (talk) 08:48, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Fair Use Effeietsanders (talk) 13:57, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
Non free logo Kiran Gopi (talk) 08:16, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
- Delete - can be speedied. I have uploaded the file to local wiki with a NF tag and FU rationale.--Sodabottle (talk) 08:49, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Fair Use Effeietsanders (talk) 13:57, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
Non free logo. Kiran Gopi (talk) 08:17, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
- Delete - can be speedied. I have uploaded the file to local wiki with a NF tag and FU rationale.--Sodabottle (talk) 08:49, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Fair Use Effeietsanders (talk) 13:57, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
I don't think this is own work of uploader because of the lack of META data and low resolution and results on Google Morning Sunshine (talk) 09:29, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: unlikely own work Effeietsanders (talk) 13:57, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
Duplicate + Not uses Zukaz (talk) 09:58, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
I've found the Duplicate and added some Tags there, so, please remove --Fabian RRRR (talk) 14:26, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: dupe Effeietsanders (talk) 13:57, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
This file is originally from fr:Fichier:Chdevant.jpg, where it was deleted as a copyright violation, with the statement "copyvio... all this user's images" (translated) Magog the Ogre (talk) 02:16, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: "Copyvio (toutes les images de cet utilisateur)" Effeietsanders (talk) 13:39, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
May be too complex to be PD-textlogo Kramer Associates (talk) 02:29, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
- Delete --NaBUru38 (talk) 16:55, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Non-PD; no permission available. Uploader notified. Effeietsanders (talk) 13:43, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Copyright status of mosaic unknown Kramer Associates (talk) 03:06, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
- delete, very recent (2005) - en:Komendantsky Prospekt (Saint Petersburg Metro), can't even say "undelete in such-and-such century" (which century?) NVO (talk) 05:55, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
- Delete No fop in Russia. I tagged it now. --Funfood ␌ 09:10, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Lack of FOP, public art Effeietsanders (talk) 13:46, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
unlikely to be own work, logos may be copyrighted Kramer Associates (talk) 03:11, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
- Delete --NaBUru38 (talk) 16:56, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
- Delete French article deleted a few days ago. (Genium (talk) 18:57, 19 December 2011 (UTC))
Deleted: Fair Use? Not free. Effeietsanders (talk) 13:55, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope: text only Kramer Associates (talk) 04:31, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
- Delete That text can be put with... wwell, text. No need for an image. --NaBUru38 (talk) 16:56, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
Kept: No pressing reason to delete. Is some markup. Effeietsanders (talk) 13:57, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope: text only Kramer Associates (talk) 04:32, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Same as with client. --NaBUru38 (talk) 16:56, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
Kept: No pressing reason to delete, is some markup Effeietsanders (talk) 13:57, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work Kramer Associates (talk) 04:33, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
- Keep' It could be very well. Quiz shows have public, so perhaps they were aprt of it and took a picture. --NaBUru38 (talk) 16:58, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: lowres and published before on http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/19078208/ns/today-entertainment/t/price-check-barker-will-miss-show-terribly/ Effeietsanders (talk) 13:59, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Per COM:TOYS A1Cafel (talk) 07:13, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 21:19, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
Possible web rip since several lower resolution images are found in a Google search. MorganKevinJ(talk) 05:00, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Dr.K. (talk) 21:05, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Martin H. (talk) 13:08, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
the uploader has previously uploaded copyvios with a claim of own work. I doubt this is their own work. MorganKevinJ(talk) 05:08, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Dr.K. (talk) 21:05, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
____________
- I have checked over several websites and this (filename "Progression of CSS.jpg") seems to me of authentic work. There is no website (official and even unofficial) from where this seems to be copied or pulled out from. Please reconsider the claim by 'MorganKevinJ' who claims that the file has been copied. If you have proof of the work has been copied form somewhere - please provide the website or the link to your proof. It seems that the image 'Progression_of_CSS.jpg' is of authentic and original work by the original uploader. Thanks!— Preceding unsigned comment was added by 59.178.160.26 (talk) December 9, 2011 (UTC19:20)
- The image may have been scanned from a book. The image is clearly cutoff on the right side. Also if the uploader made the chart themselves, they still need to give the source of the information needed to build the chart. MorganKevinJ(talk) 00:49, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
- I have checked over several websites and this (filename "Progression of CSS.jpg") seems to me of authentic work. There is no website (official and even unofficial) from where this seems to be copied or pulled out from. Please reconsider the claim by 'MorganKevinJ' who claims that the file has been copied. If you have proof of the work has been copied form somewhere - please provide the website or the link to your proof. It seems that the image 'Progression_of_CSS.jpg' is of authentic and original work by the original uploader. Thanks!— Preceding unsigned comment was added by 59.178.160.26 (talk) December 9, 2011 (UTC19:20)
- I know this because I know the uploader. I talked to him and he told me that it is not a scan from a book but a table he himself created out of his knowledge through reading of various sources, books and newspapers. The design hasnt been impressive or perfect. One more thing - You should not claim something you cannot prove. Could you provide me the name, source, isbn of the book or anything that you claim to be scanned or cutout off. If you can prove of the vandalism or cheating or someone else's work then please be willing to delete it out of wikimedia commons. If you cannot then please retain it because this is an original creation.— Preceding unsigned comment was added by 59.178.160.26 (talk) December 9, 2011 (UTC23:21)
- The creator of this work would know what sources of information they based their work off of. If you were to turn in homework and could not tell your teacher how or where you got the information used on the assignment. You would not get credit for it. Also we need to know if the image uses enough information from an outside source to be considered a derivative work. The reason that we need to verify copyright ownership is that the images here are used across many Wikimedia projects and by other outside sources(some that do not have a safe harbor status) that can encounter legal trouble for use of an image in violation of copyright law. The uploader has been blocked as a suspected sock-puppet but can still email the necessary information to permissions-commons
wikimedia.org. MorganKevinJ(talk) 00:39, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
- The creator of this work would know what sources of information they based their work off of. If you were to turn in homework and could not tell your teacher how or where you got the information used on the assignment. You would not get credit for it. Also we need to know if the image uses enough information from an outside source to be considered a derivative work. The reason that we need to verify copyright ownership is that the images here are used across many Wikimedia projects and by other outside sources(some that do not have a safe harbor status) that can encounter legal trouble for use of an image in violation of copyright law. The uploader has been blocked as a suspected sock-puppet but can still email the necessary information to permissions-commons
- I know this because I know the uploader. I talked to him and he told me that it is not a scan from a book but a table he himself created out of his knowledge through reading of various sources, books and newspapers. The design hasnt been impressive or perfect. One more thing - You should not claim something you cannot prove. Could you provide me the name, source, isbn of the book or anything that you claim to be scanned or cutout off. If you can prove of the vandalism or cheating or someone else's work then please be willing to delete it out of wikimedia commons. If you cannot then please retain it because this is an original creation.— Preceding unsigned comment was added by 59.178.160.26 (talk) December 9, 2011 (UTC23:21)
___________________
- I had a talk with him again. I however emailed him what you replied to me. He however replied back to me with the answer he wants you to consider for taking off the deletion request for his original creation of "File:Progression of CSS.jpg" in wikimedia commons.
The answer is below:
- a) If you are not from India, do not know what civil services or how bureaucracy work then please refer articles Civil Services of India and Indian Civil Service.
- b) For fact, all All India Service and Cenral Civil Service (Group A) in civil services of India follow the format, desgnations and pay scale of the Indian Administrative Service.
- c) The image is a derivative or modified version from of IAS.
- d) Other sources where reference has been taken from Group A officer of CCS - Civil List(http://persmin.nic.in/DOPT/CSWing/CSDivision/CSS/css_civillist/civil_list_css_2010.pdf) and Posts in CSS of Additonal Secretary under Group A.
- Delete: 59.178 is the sockmaster Vrghs jacob. See the en.wiki sock cats for more info, this is a heavy hitting copyvio problem: [2], [3], [4]. If anything, this is the perfect case for application of the precautionary principle. —SpacemanSpiff 06:01, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
- Delete That content can be rendered with a table and text. --NaBUru38 (talk) 16:59, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: simple text file to be replaced with table and text. Scanned from somewhere without providing any source information. Martin H. (talk) 13:08, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Several lower resolution images can be found using a Google search. Due to large amount of copyvios by this user I doubt this is their own work. MorganKevinJ(talk) 05:15, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Dr.K. (talk) 21:04, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Martin H. (talk) 13:06, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Several lower resolution copies of this image can be found using a reverse search on Google. due to a large amount of copyvios by this user I doubt it is their own work. MorganKevinJ(talk) 05:19, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
- Delete per nom--Morning Sunshine (talk) 09:43, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
- Delete - I do feel the same. -- Karthik Nadar (talk) 15:34, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Dr.K. (talk) 21:03, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Martin H. (talk) 13:08, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Might be a copyvio, but I'm not sure which country's law applies here Kramer Associates (talk) 05:29, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
This is a piece of "Diario de Noticias (Lisbon)" kept by my father in his archives. I do not understand what the problem is...
Deleted: Not in the Public Domain - <70y after publication Effeietsanders (talk) 09:30, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Copyvio.Sergey Prisekin was born in 1959. Takabeg (talk) 05:49, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Not in the Public Domain Effeietsanders (talk) 09:31, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Uploader and name credited on the photo appear to be different people. Ytoyoda (talk) 07:02, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
- Delete --NaBUru38 (talk) 17:00, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Seems an image from the web? Effeietsanders (talk) 09:32, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Based on credit at bottom left, photographer and uploader don't appear to be the same person. Ytoyoda (talk) 07:03, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
- Delete --NaBUru38 (talk) 17:00, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Uploader doesn't seem to match the cited author Effeietsanders (talk) 09:33, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Published in a book year 2002, not come under PD. Since the image is published in a book before coming to commons need to get identify both the authors are same. Kiran Gopi (talk) 07:56, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
,_sengai_podhuvan_with_victor_grigas2,TN507.jpg)
Keep The uploader is the author of the book mentioned in the description. He is the creator and owns the rights for the image. Author's and uploader's identity is well known in the Tamil Wiki community. He is a known Tamil scholar and is widely known in the Tamil Wiki community. He was recently honoured at the Wikiconference India as a noteworthy wikimedian and was interviewed by Victor Grigas from the WMF for the stories project - thus self identified to a lot of WMF, Wikipedia community, Wikipedia Chapter people. He has nearly 10000 contributions to Tamil Wikipedia. Please Check his global contributions. He contributes under his real name and his identity + contact details are given in his Ta wiki user page. I am admin in Ta wiki and can vouch that the uploader and the author are the same person. (I am the one helping him with commons uploads) If you cant take my word for it, you can ask the wikimedia india chapter folks or other admins at Ta wikipedia. --Sodabottle (talk) 08:35, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Comment Who is the publisher of the book? Any contract between the author and publishers? If yes need to get NOC from the publishers--Kiran Gopi (talk) 11:20, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
- Says which policy?. Dont manufacture laws where none exist. Under usual publishing practices, the author retains the copyright of the book and its contents - not the publisher --Sodabottle (talk) 11:22, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
- First of all am not manufacturing any new law, just worried if any contract b/w the author and publisher exist or not. If so just remained here(Avoid to Infringement the term and condition).--Kiran Gopi (talk) 13:20, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
- Apologies for having been rude. I understand your concern and the necessity to be thorough. I just spoke with Sengai Podhuvan and he has clarified there is no such contract and he owns the rights exclusively. He will be sending a permissions mail to OTRS shortly verifying his identity and confirming the above.--Sodabottle (talk) 13:24, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
- Keep - Per OTRS Ticket 2011120110017115 --Kiran Gopi (talk) 04:40, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
Promotional image of some sort, used in a now deleted advert on en.wikipedia. Likely copyrighted. No reason given to suggest that uploader is copyright holder FASTILY (TALK) 04:56, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
- Delete --NaBUru38 (talk) 16:58, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Tiptoety talk 00:27, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
This is NOT the named person, but Paracelsus; see thumb Ggenellina (talk) 09:07, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
- Delete per nominator. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:09, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Tiptoety talk 00:27, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
Also included in this discussion:
Possible copyvio. User claims to be Jolene Blalock herself but she is in the picture. No evidence that Lucidbijou is Jolene Blalock. Esp. with celebrity pics we should err on the side of caution. Of this pic there is also a derivate: File:JoleneBlalockEgyptCropped.jpg and there is also another pic of Jolene Blalock uploaded by the user: File:JoleneBlalockCairo.jpg, A previous upload by the user: File:JoleneBlalock.jpg was deleted as copyvio. SpeakFree (talk) 13:52, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
- Keep - given the high quality, that is not web resolution, I don't see any reason to assume bad faith. PhilKnight (talk) 16:17, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
- I can't find copies on other sites on Google Images or TinEye (which doesn't find the versions on Commons either so I wonder how effective it is). I did find a Twitter account with the same username which is following @JoleneBlalock (which doesn't have any personifiable information associated with it): https://twitter.com/#!/LucidBijou/following and an empty Google+ profile under the name Jolene Rapino (which is her married name): https://profiles.google.com/lucidbijou/about. I have a hunch it may be a fan who uploaded those images but I'm willing to see what other people say (and may possibly find out). SpeakFree (talk) 17:20, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
- Keep - no reason to doubt that these photos were made with her own camera and under her direction. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 13:06, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
Withdraw nomination and snow close did some more digging can't find this and the other image anywhere on the net, pretty sure now that it was originally uploaded here. Like said above AGF, sorry for being a bit too suspicious, the Twitter account could just have been a secondary account of hers. SpeakFree (talk) 11:50, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
- Do I need to spell it out? I withdraw my nomination for all the listed files. So this should be an easy closure to make. SpeakFree (talk) 01:50, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
Kept: Withdrawn by nominator. Tiptoety talk 00:28, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
Derived from File:JoleneBlalockEgypt.jpg which I also nominated as possible copyvio. Please respond in the discussion Commons:Deletion requests/File:JoleneBlalockEgypt.jpg SpeakFree (talk) 13:54, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
- Keep per my reasoning at Commons:Deletion requests/File:JoleneBlalockEgypt.jpg - this is a high quality image, as opposed to web quality, so I don't see any reason to assume bad faith. 86.157.58.166 11:33, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
Withdraw nomination and snow close did some more digging can't find the original of this and the other image anywhere on the net, pretty sure now that it was originally uploaded here. SpeakFree (talk) 11:51, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
Kept: Withdrawn by nominator. Tiptoety talk 00:28, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
Possible copyvio, no evidence that the user who uploaded it is Jolene Blalock herself. Please respond in the discussion Commons:Deletion requests/File:JoleneBlalockEgypt.jpg SpeakFree (talk) 14:04, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
- Withdraw nomination and snow close did some more digging can't find this and the other image anywhere on the net, pretty sure now that it was originally uploaded here. SpeakFree (talk) 11:53, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
Kept: Withdrawn by nominator. Tiptoety talk 00:28, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
no evidence of permission 88.128.94.210 15:25, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
- Keep - this is User:Rockman own work, and he licensed it correctly and uploaded it himself. He is a famous norwegian musicblogger. --KEN (talk) 16:45, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
- Says who? What evidence do you have the uploader is the person he claims to be? 88.128.88.158 15:04, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
- Keep - per above.--Neo139 (talk) 18:43, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
No, not the uploaders own work! This WW2 vehicle was surely not photographed by him. It is surely some webgrab 80.187.103.72 17:13, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
- DeleteThis image was not K-52's own work and same as ru:Файл:Metro-su76i.jpg. Su-76is were producted between April and Novemer 1943. According to Template:PD-Russia-2008, the copyright of this image had not expired. Takabeg (talk) 04:51, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Tiptoety talk 00:29, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
There is no evidence that the uploader has the rights to release this image Whpq (talk) 17:40, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
- This File is taken from Honey Singh's Facebook Profile, where privacy status of this picture[5] is public.Gurjinder.romana (talk) 11:17, 2 December 2011 (UTC)Gurjinder Romana
- Comment - The fact that it is a public image is not the same as releasing it into the public domain. -- Whpq (talk) 04:09, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
- i provide the exact source i upload this photo for the article Honey Singh. please dont delete it
- Delete – No permission.Bill william comptonTalk 12:07, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
- Delete. The author might be willing to release this photo into public domain, but he should be contacted and asked to do it properly. Privacy status "public" is not a valid permission for wikipedia (see COM:L). Materialscientist (talk) 22:32, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Tiptoety talk 00:29, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
No, not the uploaders own work! This WW2 vehicle was surely not photographed by him. It is surely some webgrab 80.187.103.72 19:02, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
- Keep It's not the uploader's own work. However, this image is same as ru:Файл:152mm m1930 mortar 01.jpg, which was taken in 1931, and author is unknown. According to Template:PD-Russia-2008, the copyright of this image had expired. Takabeg (talk) 01:53, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
- Keep per Takabeg. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:03, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
- Keep According to Takabeg's explanation. Hindustanilanguage (talk) 05:33, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
No, not the uploaders own work! This WW2 vehicle was surely not photographed by him. It is surely some webgrab 80.187.103.72 19:04, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
- Keep This is not hte uploaders'sa work. But as long as I understand, Template:PD-Finland50 can be used for this image. Takabeg (talk) 08:10, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
- Keep per Takabeg, PD-Finland50 applies. Source and author fields have been fixed. MKFI (talk) 10:15, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
Not really 2D (see Google's video Zolo (talk) 19:56, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
- Delete. Non-free photo of a 3D work. File:Louis14-8.jpg should also be deleted for the same reason and because it doesn't even have a source or credit. -- Asclepias (talk) 02:43, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
- Delete. Wow, had no idea that work was 3D. Dcoetzee (talk) 03:00, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Tiptoety talk 00:30, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
The file was never sourced and we are just guessing who the author is for the photo. I think this photo is not-free and can't be useful on any project. Katarighe (talk) 01:07, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
- Comment I have no opinion on copyright status, but the image is used on two projects, how can you say that it can't be useful? VolodyA! V Anarhist (converse) 03:10, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
- Comment The image is very likely a copyvio. Going from memory, I think a similar image was deleted on the English Wikipedia due to a copyright problem, and a review of the Fatima.new talk page on the English wikipedia shows that the article that this image was used in was speedily deleted twice due to copyright violations. If it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck... -- Whpq (talk) 14:52, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Aliman5040 (talk) 21:45, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
Not likely to have been published before 1951. —LX (talk, contribs) 11:44, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Aliman5040 (talk) 21:43, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
Copyright mentioned on photo. No metadata. Onceapart is not Nelson photo images. See also the userpage of Onceapart Wouter (talk) 15:09, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Aliman5040 (talk) 21:43, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope: private photo; unused since December 2010 Chesdovi (talk) 16:06, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Aliman5040 (talk) 21:43, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope: private photo; unused since December 2010 Chesdovi (talk) 17:02, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Aliman5040 (talk) 21:43, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
Few minutes before uploading this file user Daledalebo uploded copyvio File:Copa Libertadores 2007.jpg under false self-made claim. This photo is probably a crop from photo he found on web. Oleola (talk) 17:30, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Aliman5040 (talk) 21:42, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
Has no licensing information 80.187.103.72 17:34, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Aliman5040 (talk) 21:42, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
No, not the uploaders own work! This WW2 vehicle was surely not photographed by him. It is surely some webgrab 80.187.103.72 18:45, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
- Keep It's not the uploader's own work. However, this image is same as ru:Файл:Бронеавтомобиль Д-13.jpg, which was taken in 1930s, and author is unknown. According to Template:PD-Russia-2008, the copyright of this image had expired. Takabeg (talk) 15:39, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
Kept: No valid reason for deletion. Yann (talk) 16:38, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
copyvio 88.128.94.210 14:59, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
- Keep - this is User:Rockman own work, and he licensed it correctly and uploaded it himself. He is a famous norwegian musicblogger. --KEN (talk) 16:37, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
- Says who? What evidence do you have the uploader is the person he claims to be? 88.128.88.158 15:03, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
Kept. Denniss (talk) 18:03, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
no evidence of permission 88.128.94.210 15:01, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
- Keep - this is User:Rockman own work, and he licensed it correctly and uploaded it himself. He is a famous norwegian musicblogger. --KEN (talk) 16:34, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Kept. Denniss (talk) 18:03, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
no evidence of permission 88.128.94.210 15:01, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
- Keep - this is User:Rockman own work, and he licensed it correctly and uploaded it himself. He is a famous norwegian musicblogger. --KEN (talk) 16:37, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Kept. Denniss (talk) 18:03, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
no evidence of permission 88.128.94.210 15:02, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
- Keep - this is User:Rockman own work, and he licensed it correctly and uploaded it himself. He is a famous norwegian musicblogger. --KEN (talk) 16:34, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Kept. Denniss (talk) 18:03, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
no evidence of permission 88.128.94.210 15:02, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
- Keep - this is User:Rockman own work, and he licensed it correctly and uploaded it himself. He is a famous norwegian musicblogger. --KEN (talk) 16:34, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Kept. Denniss (talk) 18:01, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
no evidence of permission 88.128.94.210 15:03, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
- Keep - this is User:Rockman own work, and he licensed it correctly and uploaded it himself. He is a famous norwegian musicblogger. --KEN (talk) 16:37, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Kept. Denniss (talk) 18:01, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
no evidence of permission 88.128.94.210 15:04, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
- Keep - this is User:Rockman own work, and he licensed it correctly and uploaded it himself. He is a famous norwegian musicblogger. --KEN (talk) 16:37, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Kept. Denniss (talk) 18:01, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
no evidence of permission 88.128.94.210 15:04, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
- Keep - this is User:Rockman own work, and he licensed it correctly and uploaded it himself. He is a famous norwegian musicblogger. --KEN (talk) 16:37, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Kept. Denniss (talk) 18:01, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
no evidence of permission 88.128.94.210 15:05, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
- Keep - this is User:Rockman own work, and he licensed it correctly and uploaded it himself. He is a famous norwegian musicblogger. --KEN (talk) 16:37, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Kept. Denniss (talk) 18:01, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
no evidence of permission 88.128.94.210 15:05, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
- Keep - this is User:Rockman own work, and he licensed it correctly and uploaded it himself. He is a famous norwegian musicblogger. --KEN (talk) 16:37, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Kept. Denniss (talk) 18:01, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
no evidence of permission 88.128.94.210 15:07, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
- Keep - this is User:Rockman own work, and he licensed it correctly and uploaded it himself. He is a famous norwegian musicblogger. --KEN (talk) 16:39, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Kept. Denniss (talk) 18:01, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
no evidence of permission 88.128.94.210 15:08, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
- Keep - this is User:Rockman own work, and he licensed it correctly and uploaded it himself. He is a famous norwegian musicblogger. --KEN (talk) 16:43, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Kept. Denniss (talk) 18:01, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
no evidence of permission 88.128.94.210 15:09, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
- Keep - this is User:Rockman own work, and he licensed it correctly and uploaded it himself. He is a famous norwegian musicblogger. --KEN (talk) 16:39, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Kept. Denniss (talk) 18:01, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
no evidence of permission 88.128.94.210 15:09, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
- Keep - this is User:Rockman own work, and he licensed it correctly and uploaded it himself. He is a famous norwegian musicblogger. --KEN (talk) 16:44, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Kept. Denniss (talk) 18:00, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
no evidence of permission 88.128.94.210 15:10, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
- Keep - this is User:Rockman own work, and he licensed it correctly and uploaded it himself. He is a famous norwegian musicblogger. --KEN (talk) 16:39, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Kept. Denniss (talk) 18:00, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
no evidence of permission 88.128.94.210 15:10, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
- Keep - this is User:Rockman own work, and he licensed it correctly and uploaded it himself. He is a famous norwegian musicblogger. --KEN (talk) 16:39, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Kept. Denniss (talk) 18:00, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
no evidence of permission 88.128.94.210 15:12, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
- Keep - this is User:Rockman own work, and he licensed it correctly and uploaded it himself. He is a famous norwegian musicblogger. --KEN (talk) 16:39, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Kept. Denniss (talk) 18:00, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
no evidence of permission 88.128.94.210 15:12, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
- Keep - this is User:Rockman own work, and he licensed it correctly and uploaded it himself. He is a famous norwegian musicblogger. --KEN (talk) 16:42, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Kept. Denniss (talk) 18:00, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
no evidence of permission 88.128.94.210 15:12, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
- Keep - this is User:Rockman own work, and he licensed it correctly and uploaded it himself. He is a famous norwegian musicblogger. --KEN (talk) 16:39, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Kept. Denniss (talk) 18:00, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
no evidence of permission 88.128.94.210 15:14, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
- Keep - this is User:Rockman own work, and he licensed it correctly and uploaded it himself. He is a famous norwegian musicblogger. --KEN (talk) 16:39, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Kept. Denniss (talk) 18:00, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
no evidence of permission 88.128.94.210 15:14, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
- Keep - this is User:Rockman own work, and he licensed it correctly and uploaded it himself. He is a famous norwegian musicblogger. --KEN (talk) 16:39, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Kept. Denniss (talk) 17:59, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
no evidence of permission 88.128.94.210 15:15, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
- Keep - this is User:Rockman own work, and he licensed it correctly and uploaded it himself. He is a famous norwegian musicblogger. --KEN (talk) 16:39, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Kept. Denniss (talk) 17:52, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
no evidence of permission 88.128.94.210 15:16, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
- Keep - this is User:Rockman own work, and he licensed it correctly and uploaded it himself. He is a famous norwegian musicblogger. --KEN (talk) 16:35, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Kept. Denniss (talk) 17:52, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
no evidence of permission 88.128.94.210 15:17, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
- Keep - this is User:Rockman own work, and he licensed it correctly and uploaded it himself. He is a famous norwegian musicblogger. --KEN (talk) 16:39, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Kept. Denniss (talk) 17:51, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
no evidence of permission 88.128.94.210 15:18, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
- Keep - this is User:Rockman own work, and he licensed it correctly and uploaded it himself. He is a famous norwegian musicblogger. --KEN (talk) 16:40, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Kept. Denniss (talk) 17:51, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
no evidence of permission 88.128.94.210 15:20, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
- Keep - this is User:Rockman own work, and he licensed it correctly and uploaded it himself. He is a famous norwegian musicblogger. --KEN (talk) 16:42, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Kept. Denniss (talk) 17:51, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
no evidence of permission 88.128.94.210 15:21, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
- Keep - this is User:Rockman own work, and he licensed it correctly and uploaded it himself. He is a famous norwegian musicblogger. --KEN (talk) 16:41, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Kept. Denniss (talk) 17:50, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
no evidence of permission 88.128.94.210 15:22, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
- Keep - this is User:Rockman own work, and he licensed it correctly and uploaded it himself. He is a famous norwegian musicblogger. --KEN (talk) 16:47, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Kept. Denniss (talk) 17:50, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
no evidence of permission 88.128.94.210 15:23, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
- Keep - this is User:Rockman own work, and he licensed it correctly and uploaded it himself. He is a famous norwegian musicblogger. --KEN (talk) 16:41, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Kept. Denniss (talk) 17:49, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
no evidence of permission 88.128.94.210 15:24, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
- Keep - this is User:Rockman own work, and he licensed it correctly and uploaded it himself. He is a famous norwegian musicblogger. --KEN (talk) 16:41, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Kept. Denniss (talk) 17:49, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
no evidence of permission 88.128.94.210 15:24, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
- Keep - this is User:Rockman own work, and he licensed it correctly and uploaded it himself. He is a famous norwegian musicblogger. --KEN (talk) 16:41, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Kept. Denniss (talk) 17:41, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
no evidence of permission 88.128.94.210 15:25, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
- Keep - this is User:Rockman own work, and he licensed it correctly and uploaded it himself. He is a famous norwegian musicblogger. --KEN (talk) 16:45, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Kept. Denniss (talk) 17:49, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
It's not a work from NASA or Russian Space Agency but a copyrighted work from Gagarin Cosmonaut Training Center, e.g. here is a quite similar photo. Ras67 (talk) 13:57, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
The point is: source's credit is NASA and this is enough. "Similarities" are "possibilities" not the real thing. MachoCarioca (talk) 06:40, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
- Yeah, someone (in this case spaceflight101.com) says "Photo: NASA RSA" (both NASA and Russian Space Agency!) and this is a proof for a NASA work? Not in any way! We have many false claims here on Commons, in this case too. A proof could be a link to a NASA site without a notice "Photo credit: (someone outside of NASA)". --Ras67 (talk) 13:50, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Not made by NASA, if the proper license template had been used there's an explicit warning about SOV/RUS images hosted there Denniss (talk) 18:45, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
Bad quality: I am not able to discern what exactly is going on there. But it's utmost unlikely that someone would wilfully defecate or urinate on clothing (excepted for some sexual behaviour obviously not taking place here). Anyone who is interested in this DR may check how many deletion requests are linked to the uploader, additionally, that may explain why I do not trust at all his file description. I do not know what may be illustrated with this picture, but it's obviously not anything related with sanitary, hence my deletion proposal rationale "bad quality" Grand-Duc (talk) 00:29, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Comment if we do keep it, it should probably be renamed, re-described, and recategorized -Kramer Associates (talk) 03:27, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
- Comment The user behaviour really resembles copyvio, but the image itself is good, i would like to keep that. Somebody with better search abilities than me should try to see if it's lifted off of somewhere. VolodyA! V Anarhist (converse) 11:43, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
- Keep Since it was a lot of time, and no copyvio was discovered, i am voting keep. VolodyA! V Anarhist Beta_M (converse) 03:47, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
- Keep The theme pictured seems relevant to me. --NaBUru38 (talk) 16:52, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
Based on the uploader's blog posts (http://blog.seniorennet.be/regenjas/ and http://plas-jurk.jouwweb.nl/), it would appear a better description would be "Peruvian woman uses her dress and poncho to provide privacy while urinating". See also http://slingeraar.deviantart.com/art/Squatting-woman-in-Peru-197667377 and http://slingeraar.deviantart.com/art/Bad-sanitation-in-Peru-199932888 . --Kramer Associates (talk) 22:41, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
Kept: Unless someone can say this is a copyvio, I think we should keep it. -mattbuck (Talk) 08:40, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Kiran Gopi (talk) 08:12, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
- Speedy keep. This file was uploaded as part of an organized contest: w:ta:வலைவாசல்:ஊடகப் போட்டி/அறிமுகம்/en If there are questions about the value of the file, please check with the contest's organizers before proposing deletion. -Pete F (talk) 02:14, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
- I am one of the organisers of the contest. The contest subject is any image on "Tamil and Tamils". As part of it we have been receiving some images of Tamils like this one which on the surface looks like they have no educational value. There is no clear description added and in a few weeks we will be sending messages to uploaders of images like these for descriptions of their images. I dont see any harm in keeping such an image till a description can be obtained. I have seen cases where apparently useless images become useful for illustrating particular groups of people later--Sodabottle (talk) 04:18, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
Kept: apparently there is a use for it Effeietsanders (talk) 14:19, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
This is NOT the named person, but a low quality scan of Category:Saint Francis in the desert by Giovanni Bellini. Since there are six quality scans of the same painting already available, there is no gain keeping also this one (misnamed and miscategorised). Ggenellina (talk) 09:19, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Reasoning seems OK, lower res identical scan. The slightly different color doesn't seem enough difference in this instance. Effeietsanders (talk) 14:21, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Plates visible. need to edit and upload again Dies irae011 (talk) 10:56, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
- Keep
Neutral I am not certain if that is necessary. In any case, you can upload a new version of this file and then request revdeleting the original version. Until there actually is a new version this one should be kept. MKFI (talk) 15:26, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
- A new version with blackened plates is up: 191 Ostrower Damm 3 NW-Ansicht2.jpg. Dies irae011 (talk) 14:16, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
- New version available, changing to neutral. I am still not quite convinced it was a necessary effort, but now that it exists there is no point in keeping both images. MKFI (talk) 17:23, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: edited version (privacy) available Effeietsanders (talk) 14:24, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
I don't think this is the own work because of the results on Google Morning Sunshine (talk) 11:54, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Kept: Images on Google are not identical - although same angle, they have a smaller cut! Effeietsanders (talk) 14:26, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
An image in the page is maybe the same. Via null (talk) 12:42, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Indeed same image - car in background identical. Effeietsanders (talk) 14:28, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
An image in the page is the same (different size). Via null (talk) 12:50, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Indeed identical Effeietsanders (talk) 14:29, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Copyvio. She looks considerably old and wears hijab. This photograph of Halide Edip (1884 - January 9, 1964) was taken after July 1, 1955, when she lost her husband Adnan Adıvar. According to the Turkish copyright law, copyright of this picture has not expired. Takabeg (talk) 13:03, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
- migrate to english wikipedia; "non free" tag. Slowking4 (talk) 01:30, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Non-Public Domain Effeietsanders (talk) 14:30, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
no evidence of permission 88.128.94.210 15:18, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
- Keep - this is User:Rockman own work, and he licensed it correctly and uploaded it himself. He is a famous norwegian musicblogger. --KEN (talk) 16:38, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Kept, per KEN. Gestumblindi (talk) 21:56, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
No, not the uploaders own work! This WW2 vehicle was surely not photographed by him. It is surely some webgrab 80.187.103.72 19:04, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
- Delete This image was used in the article Aleksei Vinogradov in Japanese Wikipedia. This file name "ヴィノグラドフ中将" means "Lieutenant General Vinogradov". However, this image is not of Vinogradov, but of Aleksei Fatyanov (see also [6]). Takabeg (talk) 01:41, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: No evidence of a free license. Jafeluv (talk) 11:45, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Promotional image of some sort, used in a now deleted advert on en.wikipedia. Likely copyrighted. No reason given to suggest that uploader is copyright holder FASTILY (TALK) 04:56, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. A.Savin 00:11, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
I don't think this is own work of uploader because of low resolution and results on Google Morning Sunshine (talk) 09:59, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. A.Savin 00:12, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
No own work, uploader has lots of files from painter Dick van den Brakel, but seems not to be himself Funfood ␌ 11:46, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
- See here: Special:Contributions/Caravaggio1959 --Funfood ␌ 11:49, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
- Delete The fact that every single image here is under the restrictive copyright and that the uploader doesn't want to engage in discussion unfortunately means that this is likely to be a copyvio. Of course, the image is very good and i want to keep it. So if the permission is to arrive count me as a keep vote. VolodyA! V Anarhist Beta_M (converse) 04:06, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. A.Savin 00:16, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Not educationally useful and possible copywrite violation. Image submitted in furtherance of an apparent hoax article, recently deleted here--> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Archibald_Scott_Kanon Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 01:13, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
- Isn't it one of Breivik's photos? NVO (talk) 05:53, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
- There is a passing resemblance, but I don't think so, although it would make this photo even more of a hoax. There are a couple of examples of the contemporary person who's image I think this really is, from the AfD; for example. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 12:30, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. A.Savin 19:43, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
Not educationally useful and possible copywrite violation. Image submitted in furtherance of an apparent hoax article, recently deleted here--> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Archibald_Scott_Kanon Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 01:15, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
- Comment The wikipedia article was in fact deleted as a hoax, but the question remains, is this a hoax (we must assume somebody would write music to substantiate a hoax) or a copyvio. If it's the former i would actually like to keep because in and of itself it's educational. If it's the latter then of course delete. VolodyA! V Anarhist Beta_M (converse) 03:52, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. A.Savin 19:45, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
I made a mistake, this is not teh parvat room, but the hall Couceiro (talk) 08:29, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
- Keep. Changes to the description can be made to the page itself. If the file name is not good, use {{Rename}} template. No need for deletion. --P199 (talk) 22:02, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
Kept: See P199. A.Savin 20:12, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small resolution, missing EXIF. EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:32, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. A.Savin 20:20, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small resolution, missing EXIF. EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:45, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. A.Savin 20:21, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
Unused personal image, out of project scope. ■ MMXX talk 16:59, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Kept: Used on a userpage in enWP, is in category Wikipedians, therefore no reason to delete. A.Savin 20:24, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope: Self promotion Chesdovi (talk) 17:01, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. A.Savin 20:25, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
Low image resolution; no valid EXIF data >>> own work likely not true. I think it is mostly probably taken from somewhere from the internet 80.187.103.72 17:06, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. A.Savin 20:26, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
Duplication of File:YU Application 2011(2) (1).png Chesdovi (talk) 17:09, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. A.Savin 20:27, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
Duplication of File:YU Application 2011(2) (1).png Chesdovi (talk) 17:09, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
- you might want to delete the other, since the parens make a problem. also "fair use logo". Slowking4 (talk) 01:25, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. A.Savin 20:28, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
Someone wrote in the description field: Bernard Courtois - The photo should be deleted. This NOT BERNARD Courtois. He died long before photography was invented! It is of M. Courtois - from a genealogical page of railwaymen (cheminots - not chemistes!). Previous text was: Date=ca. 1838 - NOTE: Bernard Courtois died in 1838 therfore photograph (if for sure above website is correct it is him) can not be later dated. AndreasPraefcke (talk) 17:43, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. A.Savin 20:30, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
Google Earth screenshot? Nevertheless, it is NOT the uploaders own work? 80.187.103.72 17:46, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. A.Savin 20:31, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
No permission by the author "Moritz Quast" for a free image release here. There is no evidence given that the uploader "Codus" is the author "Moritz Quast". 80.187.103.72 18:02, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. A.Savin 20:32, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
Music album cover 80.187.103.72 18:07, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. A.Savin 20:32, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
Looks like a TV screenshot (if you look at the image quality) 80.187.103.72 18:10, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
- I don't see problems.Eversonrachadel (talk) 10:48, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. A.Savin 20:33, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope: image is not used and it is likely that the depicted persons are not notable eough so that they could meet the project scope 80.187.103.72 18:20, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Kept: Used in 2 projects, no valid reason for deletion. A.Savin 20:35, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
Own work? Surely not! 80.187.103.72 18:28, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. A.Savin 20:35, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
DVD Artwork possibly copyrighted Funfood ␌ 18:29, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. A.Savin 20:36, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
As this is a logo, it's questionable whether it should be hosted on Commons. No evidence given that uploader had rights to release a university's logo under free licensing. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:35, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. A.Savin 20:38, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
from www.alrosa.net; no permission for that free license provided 80.187.103.72 18:35, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. A.Savin 20:38, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
from www.alrosa.net; no permission for that free license provided 80.187.103.72 18:36, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. A.Savin 20:39, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
No, not the uploaders own work! This WW2 vehicle was surely not photographed by him. It is surely some webgrab 80.187.103.72 18:52, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
- Keep Not the own work of K-52. But this image is same as ru:Файл:Metro-SU 5 2 4.jpg, which was taken in 1935. And the author is unknown. According to Template:PD-Russia-2008, the copyright of this image had expired. Takabeg (talk) 02:00, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
It might by the original file but involves unclear copyright issues. Apparently the image was published before 2011 in (for example) brazilian magazine GuitarPlayer --> http://guitarplayer.uol.com.br/?area=materia&colid=2&matid=1434 (04.2010, "Foto: Marcus Castro". "© Copyright . 1996 . 2010 - GUITARPLAYER.COM.BR - MELODY EDITORA - Todos os direitos reservados") and after then in several blogs & sites. Summarizing: Author ("Marcus Castro" vs uploader "Gazozzo"), ownership & copyright unknown. Gunnex (talk) 18:52, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
- Marcus Castro authorized his customer, RUBEN DI SOUZA itself, to publish this photo; There´s no problem about copyrights.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.20.116.75 (talk • contribs)
- Thx IP. We have to solve the permission issue via OTRS (Open-source Ticket Request System). As I could see, "Marcus Castro" is very active under http://marcuscastro.com. An email by "Marcus Castro" from that domain, following the instruction described at COM:OTRS, would be apreciated. When the email was sent to the OTRS-system, you can tag the file with
{{subst:oP}}(= advice of OTRS pending) for extending this deletion request until confirmation by our OTRS-volunteers. Is that procedure okay for you? Abraço. Gunnex (talk) 19:54, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
- Thx IP. We have to solve the permission issue via OTRS (Open-source Ticket Request System). As I could see, "Marcus Castro" is very active under http://marcuscastro.com. An email by "Marcus Castro" from that domain, following the instruction described at COM:OTRS, would be apreciated. When the email was sent to the OTRS-system, you can tag the file with
Deleted. A.Savin 20:42, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
No, not the uploaders own work! This WW2 vehicle was surely not photographed by him. It is surely some webgrab 80.187.103.72 19:06, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
- Keep It's not uploader's own work. This image is same as ru:Файл:Танк Т-100.jpg, which was taken in August 1939, and author is unknown. According to Template:PD-Russia-2008, the copyright of this image had expired. Takabeg (talk) 01:31, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: File has a Fair Use template in Russian Wikipedia. A.Savin 20:44, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
clearly not PD-old AndreasPraefcke (talk) 20:01, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. A.Savin 20:50, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
Too small to be useful, maybe copyrighted windows software design too? Funfood ␌ 20:35, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. A.Savin 20:51, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
Too small to be useful, maybe copyrighted windows design too? Funfood ␌ 20:37, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Along with File:Screendump_2_thumb.gif and File:Screendump_3_thumb.gif this would need a clear release rather than a comment from an anon account. Following Commons:Screenshots we would have to assume that the interface shown (albeit at thumbnail size) has a copyright applicable. --Fæ (talk) 19:38, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. A.Savin 20:51, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
Too small to be useful, maybe copyrighted windows design too? Funfood ␌ 20:38, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. A.Savin 20:52, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
no content Coekon (talk) 21:52, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Keep no thumbnails, as the image is a very large png, but the image is fine. the license, however, is incorrect. the image has cc-by-sa on it, which contradicts the cc-0 listed on the file page. --Kramer Associates (talk) 07:10, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Unclear permission status. A.Savin 20:55, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
This photo has lack of information and we do not know who the author is. It might have copyright infrigement. Katarighe (talk) 22:50, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
- The information may be wrong, but it's not lacking. I vote Keep unless we have some evidence of wrongdoing. VolodyA! V Anarhist (converse) 03:47, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
- Then, Is it okay to send to OTRS? --Katarighe (talk) 01:21, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. A.Savin 20:56, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
Bad quality files with dubious reuse requirements by user:Norero
[edit]- File:S4021860.JPG
- File:S3020137.JPG, included because it's nearly a duplicate of this file with several usage instances.
- File:S4021109.JPG
The following with the same reuse requirements were later added by User:Dcoetzee (the list should now be exhaustive):
- File:S4021710.JPG
- File:S4021722.JPG
- File:S4021257.JPG
- File:S4020565.JPG
- File:S4021096.JPG
- File:S4021269.JPG
- File:S4021253.JPG
- File:3koi2.jpg
- File:3koi.jpg
- File:Iris sibirica rw.jpg
- File:Aquaria.jpg
- File:S4021693.JPG
- File:Acerpalmatumdissectum total.jpg
- File:Acerpalmatumdissectum leaf.jpg
- File:Pyranha Pygocentrus piraya group 1280.jpg
- File:S4021283.JPG
- File:S4021704.JPG
- File:S4021480.JPG
- File:S4021816.JPG
- File:S4021800.JPG
- File:S4020800.JPG
- File:Wheatflour rw.jpg
- File:Athene cunicularia konijnuil.jpg
- File:Expobxl200505b.jpg
- File:Expobxl200505.jpg
- File:Cytisu scoparius 1280.jpg
- File:Cygnus atratus ZwarteZwaan 1280.jpg
- File:Lion zoo antwerp 1280.jpg
- File:Pyranha Pygocentrus piraya 1280.jpg
- File:Spinnekopmolen plan.jpg
- File:Toxotes jaculatrix 1280.jpg
- File:Scilla non-scripta-rw1.jpg
- File:Scilla non-scripta rw2.jpg
- File:Burgerszoo aquarium 1280.jpg
- File:Mus musculus muizenjong 1280.jpg
- File:Pyranha Pygocentrus piraya group 1280 boosted.jpg
- File:Empanadas de horno.jpg
Deletion request rationale: these files are not useful for encyclopaedic purposes due to their mediocre quality. The blur is too extreme. Additionally, the usage condition "Inform the photographer before any use of this image" is not really compatible to any licensing allowed on Commons. --Grand-Duc (talk) 06:53, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
- Keep File:S3020137.JPG as it is what File:Empanadas_de_horno.jpg is based on. Leaning Delete on the other two as semi-useless. --Kramer Associates (talk) 07:21, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
- The first one is in use; that defeats any "not useful" argument. The third one was in use long ago on es:Suspiro de limeña though it was replaced by a better image a few months later. The usage conditions are a problem though. This was mentioned on the user's talk page in 2007, and the more recent uploads don't seem to have this condition. The user does seem to still be active on the Spanish WIkipedia; perhaps the license condition could be brought up again to see if it can be removed. As blurry as they are, these three either were or are in use, so I would vote keep on the in-scope issue. They are old uploads, may be used elsewhere as well, may as well keep them. However, the license condition is non-free. While that may have been something which may not have been as clear in 2006, that condition really needs to be removed. Carl Lindberg (talk) 08:06, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
- Delete due to the requirement "Conditions: Inform the photographer before any use of this image." -- Docu at 05:19, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
- Delete The language "Conditions" makes it very clear that is a compulsory requirement. The user has effectively not released the work under the Creative Commons License, but under an amended version thereof which is inconsistent with Commons:Licensing. There is clear precedent for deleting this type of work, see e.g. Commons:Deletion requests/License "adding my name directly under the photo". Derivative works will also need to be deleted. If the user can be contacted and is willing to relicense to CC-BY-SA I'd be happy to keep these. Image quality doesn't need to be brought into this at all. Dcoetzee (talk) 03:52, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
- Delete due to the requirement "Conditions: Inform the photographer before any use of this image." Hindustanilanguage (talk) 05:24, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
- Note This discussion was started following discussion at Commons:Village_pump#Inform_the_photographer_before_any_use_of_this_image, see there for opinions not currently represented here. Dcoetzee (talk) 03:57, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
- The section was archived: Commons:Village pump/Archive/2011/12#Inform the photographer before any use of this image
- What are we going to do with the other cases: Special:Search/"Inform the photographer before any use of this image"? --Leyo 11:27, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
- I've added them all to this deletion discussion, since the license is the main concern of the discussion, and tagged all their file description pages. This does reset the clock, so let's give this discussion at least another 7 days (until at least 24 December 2011). Dcoetzee (talk) 14:33, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
- Keep just go by the license; disregard stuff like User:Túrelio/Note. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 17:33, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
- Then, the requirement should be removed from the file description pages. --Leyo 15:27, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
- Keep Poor quality is not a deletion reason. Commons is a media archive and no art auction. --Ralf Roleček 14:36, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
- @Ralf: "poor quality" is a valid deletion rationale per Commons:Deletion_policy#Redundant.2Fbad_quality. "Schlechte Qualität" ist eine statthafte LA-Begründung, wenngleich es stimmt, dass ich bis jetzt noch kaum eine so begründete Löschung gesehen habe. Außerdem meine ich, dass auch Archive wie Commons nicht jeden bunten Pixelhaufen annehmen sollten, denn das erschwert das Auffinden besser nutzbarer Bilder. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 20:07, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
- Keep Keep all of the:The following with the same reuse requirements were later added by User:Dcoetzee (the list should now be exhaustive): images except File:S4021269.JPG (not sure what that one is at all) and File:Aquaria.jpg (low quality, replaceable). Many of the others are necissary to represent their topics, some are the only image of their topic. Commons has no capability to replace so many varied images (I think). The three Bad quality files with dubious reuse requirements by user:Norero look to bad quality to be of any use so deleate. File:3koi2.jpg and File:3koi.jpg are good quality pictures of Koi. File:Pyranha Pygocentrus piraya group 1280 boosted.jpg was a featured picture, do not deleat it! File:S4021704.JPG appears replaceable and low quality. --50.46.150.107 18:55, 21 December 2011 (UTC) (User:HighFlyingFish) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:HighFlyingFish)
- Keep File:Pyranha Pygocentrus piraya group 1280 boosted.jpg is one of the more significant images on Commons. It has been a featured image and picture of the day on the English Wikipedia. It is widely used on many different language versions of Wikipedia, and is certainly a very valuable image in the areas I contribute to on the English Wikipedia. That the nominator considers this image to be, in any sense, a "bad quality file" raises doubt over the validity of his selection of other files for deletion. --Epipelagic (talk) 01:02, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
- The original nominator nominated only three files, and I added the rest for a reason unrelated to quality (the licensing problem). Sorry for the confusion. Dcoetzee (talk) 04:30, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
- Comment. I now realise I was foolish to add all these images to this deletion discussion due to the misleading title, since they all do have a serious licensing issue, but they are not all bad quality, nor do I think quality is a concern here at all. Dcoetzee (talk) 04:27, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Incompatible conditions and licence. This makes following one of them only a copyvio, but both are not free. VolodyA! V Anarhist Beta_M (converse) 03:57, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
- Delete I note the uploader/creator hasn't yet commented, which is a shame; some of these images are worth keeping, if only the licensing issue could be resolved. Rodhullandemu (talk) 01:07, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
- I just wanted to start a DR for one of those listed images because it sadly has "Inform the photographer before any use of this image." Not COM:L compatible.
Info Note that this is for File:Mus musculus muizenjong 1280.jpg which is listed above but not uploaded by Norero but by Okapi. Are there more by this uploader? I do not see even a deletion notification on his Commons talk page. Also E-Mail is active for his nlwp account nl:Gebruiker:Okapi. So he can and should be messaged. Maybe he did not notice that his confirmed restriction (all pictures may by definition be used in all wikimedia without notification) is not possbile for Commons and that the images will be deleted - sadly that issue wasn't followed up in 2005. --Saibo (Δ) 01:48, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: As the original uploader has not commented in the DR, I suppose that she has no longer interest in distributing own files under a free license. Those, all we have left to do is to follow the logical meaning of such sentences, and that is a little bit different from sth. like "A notification of the author would be appreciated" (see the example with Túrelio's user page). To me, it reads like a true condition and then it is not compatible with CC-BY-SA, which is - regardless of quality and/or usage in wikipedias - a reason for deletion. A.Savin 20:00, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
Non free logo Kiran Gopi (talk) 08:22, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
- Delete - can be speedied. I have uploaded the file to local wiki with a NF tag and FU rationale.--Sodabottle (talk) 08:47, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
- Unsure if it is really non free - institution is 19th century, so it depends how old the logo (coa) is. Effeietsanders (talk) 13:53, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
Non free logo ~Anton~ 13:44, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
- Hi Anton,
- Just wondering: how do you know it is a non-free logo? I'm no expert here, but I didn't find evidence to back up one claim or the other, so I'm just interested in how you came to this conclusion. Effeietsanders (talk) 09:55, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Tiptoety talk 06:01, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
Files of User:Peter Krsko
[edit]- Copyrighted images
- Unclear licenses
User:Peter Krsko has uploaded some copyrighted images as CC. Other files with unclear licenses might be violating copyright too. --丁 (talk) 14:44, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. A.Savin 20:17, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
File:VMZ-RYAZAN.jpg
[edit]Taken from http://transphoto.ru/photo/450763/ --80.187.103.72 19:17, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: by Fastily (No license since 1 December 2011). A.Savin 20:47, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
Spam for HS
[edit]Spam. I couldn't find wikipedia articles with google - so we also do not need the logos (under the impression that it is just spam). No file is currently in use. The ones I have already deleted were ripped-off stock photos (copyvios). The advert is just spam and I guess the electronic thingy is also ripped from somewhere - so no use in blacking the screen of a copyvio. (see User talk:Health Sanctuary for the copyvios)
- File:Health-sanctuary.gif
- File:Fight your obesity with the world best procedures.gif
- File:1 Week Weight Loss Challange @ "Health Sanctuary".png
- File:Call ---"Health Sanctuary.jpg
- File:For More Info ----"health Sanctuary.gif
- File:Weight Loss --"Health Sanctuary".jpg
- File:Health Sanctuary.png
Saibo (Δ) 19:14, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Per nom. Leyo 13:56, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
Files of User:Fabio la joie
[edit]- File:Amour de fabio.jpg
- File:Bébé de fabio.jpg
- File:Fao.jpg
- File:Fabioamour.jpg
- File:Ida de fabio.jpg
- File:G.fabrice.jpg
- File:Fabio capelo.jpg
- Out of project scope: personal photos of the uploader (User:Fabio la joie), who has never edited an article on any project. --Orlodrim (talk) 19:53, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
- Delete. All photos seem to arise from a confusion between Wikipédia and Commons on the one hand, and Facebook on the other. At any rate, the French corresponding article on fr:WP (deleted) totally failed notability, focusing on this high school student's amorous and literary fantasies (not to mention family anecdotes), without any source. --Azurfrog (talk) 14:50, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
- Delete : idem Azurfrog. Bloody-libu (talk) 19:24, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
- Delete : it's a confusion between Facebook and fr-WP and Commons. Jur@astro (Parler au lynx jurassien) 18:42, 11 January 2012 (UTC).
Deleted. A.Savin 20:49, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
File uploaded by User:LamastiPlow
[edit]May fall out of scope, do not show their an educational purpose. Mys 721tx (talk) 21:50, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
- Comment Without any reasonable description I cannot see anyone using these. I quite like the look of the first image, but can't think of a real reason as to why these could be within potential educational scope unless "Lisa" has a context. Come on, uploader LamastiPlow, give us a clue. --Fæ (talk) 19:45, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. A.Savin 20:52, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
French signs
[edit]Per COM:FOP#France. These signs don't look too old. --Stefan4 (talk) 22:34, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Sans doute ! ...
[edit]Car ce sont les plaques que l'office du tourisme appose pour l'information du public. On voit mal un organisme œuvrant à la promotion touristique poursuivre quelqu'un qui en ferait la réclame !
Le juridisme atteint parfois les sommets de la stupidité !
Daniel Villafruela (talk) 08:36, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Derivative works after copyrighted texts; France doesn't acknowledge freedom of panorama.
Denis, c'est bien sûr possible. On a vu à plusieurs reprises des compagnies poursuivre des sites de fans faisant la promotion de l'œuvre qu'elles produisent. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 16:12, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
Non free image, please provide a source to prove Karunanidhi's image is in PD. Kiran Gopi (talk) 08:19, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
- Keep I am the uploader, i uploaded this as i thought it was a 2D representation of a 3d utility object (a goodies bag). As covered by the Utility object clause of the derivative work policy. The subject of this image is not the person in the image (Karunanidhi) - rather the bag itself and i believe this comes under Commons:De minimis. If this doesnt come under the above mentioned policies or cross the threshold of originality for utility objects then please delete (the image of Karunanidhi is not in PD)--Sodabottle (talk) 08:51, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
- Info In India FOP#India is not covering 2d objects. As the picture is the main focus, I believe it is not come under Commons:De minimis--Kiran Gopi (talk) 11:10, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
- I am not talking about FOP at all - i am talking about the utility object clause of derivative work policy. The focus is not the picture, the focus is the bag--Sodabottle (talk) 11:16, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
- See if the artwork is free, we can keep the picture. --Kiran Gopi (talk) 11:26, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
- I am not talking about FOP at all - i am talking about the utility object clause of derivative work policy. The focus is not the picture, the focus is the bag--Sodabottle (talk) 11:16, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
- It is definitely not the hold all case. Read the section in DW i quote above.--Sodabottle (talk) 11:27, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Kept: blurring the image on the bag solves the issue. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 12:14, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
Please provide source of the images on the cover, if it is in free licence we can keep otherwise delete. Kiran Gopi (talk) 08:20, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
- Keep I am the uploader, i uploaded this as i thought it was a 2D representation of a 3d utility object (a goodies bag). As covered by the Utility object clause of the derivative work policy. The subject of this image are not the pictures on the bag - rather the bag itself and i believe this comes under Commons:De minimis. If this doesnt come under the above mentioned policies or cross the threshold of originality for utility objects then please delete (cant prove the copyright statues of images in the bag with any certainty). In that case i would upload a version--Sodabottle (talk) 08:53, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
- Info Main focus is the picture not come under minimis--Kiran Gopi (talk) 11:15, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
- Ok. I am not convinced and will leave it upto the closing admin/other users. But a general query. I want to give a representation of the bag without running into Derivative work/ copyvio territory. I see two routes before me a) reduce resolution, produce a montage of two photos in which the images on the bag are not clear b) or blur the image portion and upload with same resolution. Are these okay?.--Sodabottle (talk) 12:44, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
- Please choose option 'b', no one will question. :) --Kiran Gopi (talk) 12:57, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
- Ok. I am not convinced and will leave it upto the closing admin/other users. But a general query. I want to give a representation of the bag without running into Derivative work/ copyvio territory. I see two routes before me a) reduce resolution, produce a montage of two photos in which the images on the bag are not clear b) or blur the image portion and upload with same resolution. Are these okay?.--Sodabottle (talk) 12:44, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
- Done. I have blurred the image on the bag. I hope this addresses the copyright concern about it. Please delete the original version alone.--Sodabottle (talk) 13:42, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
- Delete If the image has to be kept only after blurring everything, it doesnt provide any educational value IMO. This image would well fit under FUR and the image,logos are very much essential for commentary on freebies by govt of Tamilnadu. Logicwiki (talk) 13:57, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
Kept: blurring the image on the bag solves the issue. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 12:17, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
New version of brazilian identification card released in 2010 (oficial details and images, see [10] + [11]), failing IMHO {{PD-BrazilGov}} - license refering to works published by brazilian government prior to 1983 and/or to published text of (...) official enactment. Btw, for uploader(s): Agência Brasil (CC BY 3.0, {{Agência Brasil}}) has some material: example I, II Gunnex (talk) 13:38, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
- See also related: Commons:Deletion requests/File:RG-VERSO.jpg. Gunnex (talk) 13:41, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: per the nominator – the file doesn't match the requirements of the licence. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 12:18, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
New version of brazilian identification card released in 2010 (oficial details and images, see [12] + [13]), failing IMHO {{PD-BrazilGov}} - license refering to works published by brazilian government prior to 1983 and/or to published text of (...) official enactment. Btw, for uploader(s): Agência Brasil (CC BY 3.0, {{Agência Brasil}}) has some material: example I, II Gunnex (talk) 13:39, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
- See also related: Commons:Deletion requests/File:RG-FRENTE.jpg. Gunnex (talk) 13:40, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: per the nominator – the file doesn't match the requirements of the licence. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 12:19, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
The author is given as Alexander Hauk [14] but I don't see his permission. Is "Build-by" an acceptable license tag for this image? Officer (talk) 15:09, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
- The uploader on German Wikipedia, http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benutzer:Promifotos.de, identifies as Alexander Hauk who is the owner of the photo. What more information is needed? The nominator has not properly explained what they think is deficient about the permission on German Wikipedia. Are we to believe that this account has been impersonating Alexander Hauk for the past 5 years? Someone can email Alexander Hauk at aha75@web.de (see http://rb-media.net/user/hma-online.de/kontakt.php) if you want to clarify anything. Fences and windows (talk) 20:19, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
- Note that another photo he uploaded on German Wikipedia has certification from OTRS: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Datei:Arbeitszimmer_Stoiberaha.jpg. That'd not be possible without the author, Alexander Hauk, confirming approval. The translation of the template used on German Wikipedia, "BILD-BY" (bild=picture, by=attribution, same as in CC-BY), is "This file is protected by copyright. The copyright holder allows anyone (outside of and independently from Wikipedia), any use, as far as is legally possible (including use for any purpose, performance, redistribution, commercial use, processing) worldwide and unlimited time on the condition of reasonable mention of his authorship (such as in the caption)." That's an attribution license. Fences and windows (talk) 20:24, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
- Can an OTRS volunteer check to see whether ticket:2007042310007055 just applies to de:Datei:Arbeitszimmer Stoiberaha.jpg or whether it is broad enough to cover this photo as well? --Philosopher Let us reason together. 10:50, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
- I've requested assistance at the OTRS Noticeboard. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 11:09, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
- The point of that, to directly address Fences and windows' identity question, is that if the OTRS ticket verifies that de:Benutzer:Promifotos.de is
HawkHauk, we can make a note of it, slap the OTRS ticket on the image explaining the situation, and be good. If we don't have an OTRS verification of that, we'll need to get one. Note that even though everyone knows that en:User:XKCD is Randall Munroe, we still throw an OTRS tag on File:Webcomic xkcd - Wikipedian protester.png as a means of verifying that claim. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 11:01, 2 December 2011 (UTC)- The ticket in question only covers that one image and doesn't mention any relationship between "Alexander Hauk" and the user "Promifotos.de". So, it might well be that those two are identical, we just do not have any proof. What we DO have is a couple of additional tickets by the same user for more of his pictures, but that won't help you here, either, as all of them are template-text mails. --Guandalug
- I don't quite understand how OTRS can have approved several uploads but that there is still doubt that Hauk is that German Wikipedian. How on earth did the OTRS ticket give approval without confirming that the account had permission to upload under that license? I tried emailing the address I noted above but it bounced, so I have left a message on their user talk. I'm not desperate to keep the image, I just find it bemusing that Commons editors seem so unwilling to believe that user is who they say they are, despite other images they uploaded getting verified permission. Commons is even more of a court of law than Wikipedia... Fences and windows (talk) 22:59, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
- The OTRS ticket probably never said what you think it said - that the account has permission to upload images; rather, judging from Guandalug's reply, it probably just said that that particular image was okay, without reference to any account. It would be a trivial matter for the user to send an OTRS ticket verifying who he is - if he wants to. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 07:16, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
- Precisely, Philosopher. The Tickets (and there are multiple) all give the Okay for one specific image to be uploaded with a given license. There is no such thing as an uploader to rights owner - relation within the tickets I've checked - they all just say "I hold the rights and agree with the image XYZ to be published with this or that license". That's a normal OTRS ticket, and we frequently accept those. --Guandalug 20:31, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
- The OTRS ticket probably never said what you think it said - that the account has permission to upload images; rather, judging from Guandalug's reply, it probably just said that that particular image was okay, without reference to any account. It would be a trivial matter for the user to send an OTRS ticket verifying who he is - if he wants to. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 07:16, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
- I don't quite understand how OTRS can have approved several uploads but that there is still doubt that Hauk is that German Wikipedian. How on earth did the OTRS ticket give approval without confirming that the account had permission to upload under that license? I tried emailing the address I noted above but it bounced, so I have left a message on their user talk. I'm not desperate to keep the image, I just find it bemusing that Commons editors seem so unwilling to believe that user is who they say they are, despite other images they uploaded getting verified permission. Commons is even more of a court of law than Wikipedia... Fences and windows (talk) 22:59, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
- The ticket in question only covers that one image and doesn't mention any relationship between "Alexander Hauk" and the user "Promifotos.de". So, it might well be that those two are identical, we just do not have any proof. What we DO have is a couple of additional tickets by the same user for more of his pictures, but that won't help you here, either, as all of them are template-text mails. --Guandalug
- Can an OTRS volunteer check to see whether ticket:2007042310007055 just applies to de:Datei:Arbeitszimmer Stoiberaha.jpg or whether it is broad enough to cover this photo as well? --Philosopher Let us reason together. 10:50, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
- Note that another photo he uploaded on German Wikipedia has certification from OTRS: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Datei:Arbeitszimmer_Stoiberaha.jpg. That'd not be possible without the author, Alexander Hauk, confirming approval. The translation of the template used on German Wikipedia, "BILD-BY" (bild=picture, by=attribution, same as in CC-BY), is "This file is protected by copyright. The copyright holder allows anyone (outside of and independently from Wikipedia), any use, as far as is legally possible (including use for any purpose, performance, redistribution, commercial use, processing) worldwide and unlimited time on the condition of reasonable mention of his authorship (such as in the caption)." That's an attribution license. Fences and windows (talk) 20:24, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Kept: I see no reason to doubt German user Promifotos.de isn't Alexander Hauk (promifotos.de redirects to Alexander Hauk's website). Jastrow (Λέγετε) 12:27, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
The image could be taken in 1925 but the problem is that we do not have a reliable source that could prove that fact. We only have a dubious forum as source and that's not really something trustable. The same for the author of this picture: who says that the author is unknown? Again this not trustworthy forum or who? Therefore this goodwill attempt for a "PD-anon-70"-use is quite anchorless and idle 80.187.103.72 17:18, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
- Keep - the date 1925 was written on it (probably in black on the negative). /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 17:44, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
- That is not enough evidence for the license you used: remember >>>> ´´pseudonymous works is 70 years from the year of first publication or less´´. Evidence for that cannot be a date that is written on the photograph. --80.187.103.72 18:24, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
- Remember: publication does not require isbn-numbers or publishing houses. It is enough that copies circulated without restriction. This is a group portrait, it is safe to assume that multiple copies circulated at the time. But it even looks like the kind of photo that would be published in a newspaper. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:41, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
- Rememeber: Your dreams dont count just objective facts. And all you are presenting are your personal ventures. Sorry --80.187.103.72 19:04, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
- Remember this definition in to US copyright law: "The offering to distribute copies to a group of persons for purposes of further distribution or public display constitutes publication." /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:20, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
- Rememeber: Your dreams dont count just objective facts. And all you are presenting are your personal ventures. Sorry --80.187.103.72 19:04, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
- Remember: publication does not require isbn-numbers or publishing houses. It is enough that copies circulated without restriction. This is a group portrait, it is safe to assume that multiple copies circulated at the time. But it even looks like the kind of photo that would be published in a newspaper. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:41, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
- That is not enough evidence for the license you used: remember >>>> ´´pseudonymous works is 70 years from the year of first publication or less´´. Evidence for that cannot be a date that is written on the photograph. --80.187.103.72 18:24, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
- Delete as in 99% of those pd-anon cases: no proof of nothing. Don't just tag those uploads from this user now simply PD-anon without providing reliable source, Pieter. --Saibo (Δ) 20:53, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Pieter, as often on this subject, you quote out of context. The key word is "public" -- distributing to a group of persons is not sufficient, it must be made availalbe to the public. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 10:26, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
from http://www.forum.panzer-archiv.de/viewtopic.php?start=15&t=449; no permission for that free license provided. And the ´´forum.panzer-archiv´´ is not the copyright holder of this image--80.187.103.72 18:39, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 10:30, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
Probable copyvio from this site: http://www.darkcorner.co.uk/ Kramer Associates (talk) 02:41, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Comment The site's all Flash; the image is at "Drawings" -> 5th from the left on the top row. --Kramer Associates (talk) 02:45, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Keep The uploaded file has the best resolution and quality of this image that can be found with google images. A photo of the original drawing can be found here: http://www.chapter.org/13898.html. The author is named and the uploaders username seems similar, perhaps wife, what is no evidence, I know. I vote keep, because the quality of the picture shows it is not stolen from another website, but an own photograph/scan (what leaves the question for permission unanswered). --Funfood ␌ 08:48, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Relation to owner of copyright unverified. Precautionary principle. Bastique ☎ appelez-moi! 16:33, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
Derivative work need information about the orginal arist. Kiran Gopi (talk) 08:03, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
- Keep - This is similar to street art / graffiti. We do have a whole category on graffitti?. As with street artists, it is impossible to identify original artist here and even if we do the design is a traditional motif and the artist cannot claim copyright to it. --Sodabottle (talk) 09:19, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Note such murals are covered under FOP in India Commons:Freedom_of_panorama#India - any artistic work permanently situate in a public place or any premises to which the public has access;. This is a mural/painting that is displayed permanently in a place to which public has access and thus is clearly a not a copyvio.--Sodabottle (talk) 09:34, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
- OK. my apologies. struck the FOP part of my objection. But it is not obvious copyvio. This is a common religious motif similar to a rangoli pattern and no one claim claim copyright to it--Sodabottle (talk) 11:53, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
- Keep - This is a common art displayed all most every house in countryside of South India especially Tamil Nadu and it is a common art, which cannot be claimed by any person or organization. This is a traditional practice, which is comparable to Rangoli. Further more as a author of this image I am not intended to do copyright violation or plagiarism of any mean. Thanks.--Karthickbala (talk) 09:26, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
- I believe this has a threshold of originality. Widely used doesn't denies any copyright ownership.--Kiran Gopi (talk) 12:01, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
- I dont think this has crossed a threshold of originality. The motifs are universally common and are reproduced across households. The basic design easily predates the 60 year limit of Indian copyright law - probably by hundreds of years - and no single author can claim copyright to it.--Sodabottle (talk) 12:12, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
- Keep As it is a common design. VolodyA! V Anarhist (converse) 03:22, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
- There is no verifiable source provided as it a common design, more over different types of colors are used for colorizing, we should respect that talent and copyright.--Kiran Gopi (talk) 04:20, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
- An artist cannot take a common religious motif paint it in a different colour and claim copyright to it. As for verifiable proof you ask for that this is a common design - national geographic 1975 issue says "...frightening face has been painted is suspended at the facade of Tamil houses in order to protect against the evil eye through its ugliness". or this 1975 book that talks about the practice of kan thrishti. Here is a university text book in tamil about Tamil rural culture - புதிதாகக் கட்டிய வீட்டின் முன்பு...கோரமான உருவத்தை வரைந்து கட்டித் தொங்கவிடுவது (lit. [for warding of evil eye] in front of a newly built house.. an ugly and ferocious face is painted and suspended). So let me repeat - This is a common cultural motif of Tamil culture that has been in use for centuries. No single artist or painter can claim copyright to this--Sodabottle (talk) 07:15, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
- There is no verifiable source provided as it a common design, more over different types of colors are used for colorizing, we should respect that talent and copyright.--Kiran Gopi (talk) 04:20, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
- Keep --NaBUru38 (talk) 17:02, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
- comment - The main question seems here if there is copyright at all on this depiction - which seems to depend on the threshold of originality. Could you perhaps (somewhere on the internet) find similar pictures so that non-Tamil people can also consider whether it is different enough and original in itself? Effeietsanders (talk) 09:38, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_.jpg){kind=link}
_-_Google_Art_Project.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
![[1]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Bahamas_Air_Force_fin_flash.svg){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_.jpg){kind=link}
_.jpg){kind=link}
_.jpg){kind=link}
_-_Google_Art_Project.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_-_Google_Art_Project.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_-_Google_Art_Project.jpg){kind=link}
_-_Google_Art_Project.jpg){kind=link}
_(1).png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
![[8]](http://333.fotoc.com/hk_icycling/v/wm2004/DSCN2519.JPG.html){kind=link}
- A few other images of 3 dimensional evil eye objects - based on the same motif - available in commons. The motifs are depicted in various forms - 2d images painted on walls, pots or pumpkins and as 3d objects - sculptures, masks and effigies--Sodabottle (talk) 10:08, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
- Hmm, I'd like another admin to take a look at it - but my guesstimate would be that there is still a lot of difference in the details between the presented images, and therefore it would seem likely that the threshold of originality is met (consider the size of the tongue, eye brows, color, shape of the ears, horns, moustache etc.) There doesn't seem to be a well defined shape etc. Effeietsanders (talk) 12:45, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
- Ok. I would differ on the originality though. Except for small variations in size and colouring - the basic motif is the same, portruding tongue, sharp teeth, large curled moustache, horns, the mark on forehead, staring eye. The variations are minute and someone cant claim copyright over what is essentially the same motif.--Sodabottle (talk) 13:29, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
- You would be correct that they couldn't claim copyright over the motif - however, they could (as I interpret this) claim copyright over this specific expression of that motif. There are many stories about couples in love who are not allowed to see each other because of their parents, overcome that and get together in the end. The motif is not protected, but each of those stories with all its details is. The relevant question would be: are there enough artistic choices to be made by the author or is it a 'purely technical' representation. Effeietsanders (talk) 08:06, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
- Ok. I would differ on the originality though. Except for small variations in size and colouring - the basic motif is the same, portruding tongue, sharp teeth, large curled moustache, horns, the mark on forehead, staring eye. The variations are minute and someone cant claim copyright over what is essentially the same motif.--Sodabottle (talk) 13:29, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
- Hmm, I'd like another admin to take a look at it - but my guesstimate would be that there is still a lot of difference in the details between the presented images, and therefore it would seem likely that the threshold of originality is met (consider the size of the tongue, eye brows, color, shape of the ears, horns, moustache etc.) There doesn't seem to be a well defined shape etc. Effeietsanders (talk) 12:45, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
- A few other images of 3 dimensional evil eye objects - based on the same motif - available in commons. The motifs are depicted in various forms - 2d images painted on walls, pots or pumpkins and as 3d objects - sculptures, masks and effigies--Sodabottle (talk) 10:08, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Kept: Differences in motif of a public domain image are highly unlikely to be artistic interpretation, no apparent originality intended and therefore no originality should be considered in decision. Bastique ☎ appelez-moi! 16:40, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
Messy and outdated version of File:Palestine-recognition-map.png. Orphaned and not likely to be used in the future, given that it's been superseded. Night w (talk) 17:47, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
Kept: in use Jcb (talk) 17:48, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
- Renomination #1
Superseded by File:Palestine-recognition-map.png. Dominated for deletion last month, but was in use. Now orphaned. Night w (talk) 16:52, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
- Keep I see it to be a better quality than the alternative. If anything we should keep this file (although rename it) and delete File:Palestine-recognition-map.png. VolodyA! V Anarhist (converse) 03:34, 4 December 2011 (UTC) - Also this image is in public domain, the other one is under free licence. I think that we should try to move to freer of the two if they are equal, thus keeping the PD image. VolodyA! V Anarhist (converse) 03:35, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
Kept per Volodya. The two versions are different enough that people may prefer one to the other. Not everyone wants the map legend directly on the map, for instance. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 12:29, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
Canadian Film Centre photos by WireImage
[edit]- File:Norman Jewison, Eugene Levy and Slawko Klymkiw.jpg
- File:Nia Vardalos and Eugene Levy.jpg
- File:Eugene Levy and Slawko Klymkiw.jpg
It appears that WireImage has licensed the Canadian Film Centre to use the images, but there's no indication that WireImage has released the rights to the image or given the CFC the right to relicense them. Appears to be the common Flickr error of giving a "some rights reserved" license to an image without the license to do so --Ytoyoda (talk) 23:49, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
- It appears that CFC is a professional organization and we could assume they know what they are doing - their account don't seem set up for flickrwashing or so... --RussianTrooper (talk) 21:33, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
- I'm not sure if that's a particularly good assumption. I've been involved with plenty of professional organizations that don't know their way around social networks, and copyright on other people's images isn't going to be a top priority for an organization concerned with films. --Ytoyoda (talk) 21:44, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
- It appears that CFC is a professional organization and we could assume they know what they are doing - their account don't seem set up for flickrwashing or so... --RussianTrooper (talk) 21:33, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
- Comment: The Canadian Film Centre would know what a free 'CC BY Generic' license means. They aren't newbies to copyright law. If WireImage has a problem about the use of these images, they would tell the CFC to change the license to 'ARR', maybe inform wikipedia to delete them and likely send out a press release to clear out any misunderstandings on the legal status of these particular photos. Right now, this DR is based on an assumption only, I think. In my opinion, its OK to keep them...at present since all photos sources are correctly credited and the images passed flickr review; I don't pretend to read the CFC or WireImage's mind. --Leoboudv (talk) 08:02, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
- Comment:I support Leoboudv's view. Hindustanilanguage (talk) 05:30, 17 December 2011 (UTC).
- Comment: I agree with Leoboudv too. --RanZag (talk) 14:47, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
- Comment: The United States Government has put pictures on its site that it does not own. It may be entirely possible that the Canadian Film Centre did the same. It does no harm to contact them to verify that the license they've put on the images is correct. This is why courtesy notification of Flickr copies to Commons comes in handy. Bastique ☎ appelez-moi! 17:13, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
- Comment I forgot to add, that I left a message on the Flickr pictures in question. If I do not get an appropriate response back, I will delete these. Bastique ☎ appelez-moi! 02:31, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
- CFC has not responded to me and I have found these images [109842753&ep=1/60/1&s=3 here], which is definitely copyrighted. CFC doesn't have any apparent permission to relicense Bastique ☎ appelez-moi! 14:53, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: CFC has no apparent permission to relicense. Deleted per COM:Precautionary principle Bastique ☎ appelez-moi! 14:53, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
- restored: CFC has responded, they hired the photographer and had permission to release the images. Bastique ☎ appelez-moi! 01:05, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
Not an "amtliches Werk" or a work by the US-Gov. See Commons:Deletion requests/RAF fahndungsplakat ±1972. sугсго 14:36, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
(COM:DW):
- File:Andrea Klump, RAF.jpg
- File:Barbara Meyer, RAF.jpg
- File:Birgit Hogefeld, RAF.jpg
- File:Christoph Seidler, RAF.jpg
- File:Henning Beer, RAF.jpg
- File:Horst Meyer, RAF.jpg
- File:Inge Viett, RAF.jpg
- File:Sabine Callsen, RAF.jpg
- File:Sigrid Sternebeck, RAF.jpg
- File:Sigrid Sternebeck.jpg
- File:Thomas Simon, RAF.jpg
- File:Wolfgang Grams, RAF.jpg
Comment per the US Air Force (source), the USAF is claiming that it is PD-UsGov. --High Contrast (talk) 16:36, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
- "published by Bundeskriminalamt, printed by Bundesdruckerei" steht da sogar drauf. Alles, was amerikanische Behörden behaupten, kann nur frei erfunden sein. Zumindest einige der Fotos unterliegen (wieder) dem Rechtsschutz, weil die Veröffentlichung zum Zweck der Fahndung mitlerweile erledigt ist und Fotografen bei einigen Bildern "Externe" gewesen sind. Soweit die deutsche Rechtslage. Ob die Amis ihr Recht einfach auf alle anderen Staaten übertragen, steht in den Sternen. Denkbar ist es, siehe Beutefotos des 2. Weltkriegs. --Ralf Roleček 17:46, 1 December 2011 (UTC) PS: die Einzelbilder betrifft dies ebenfalls...
- Selbst das Recht am eigenen Bild könnte jetzt greifen, zumindest bei den noch lebenden Personen, die ihre Haftstrafe abgesessen haben, müssen wir das annehmen. §24 KUG greift nicht mehr. -- Ralf Roleček 18:49, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Please mind this discussion, too: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Fahndungsplakat NSU.JPG 80.187.96.237 21:15, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
- Comment These image is not owned by the United States Air Force, and are not subject to being PD-US. The Copyright owner may wish to ask the USAF to take them down or put a disclaimer on those particular images, but we must assume that the right to publish is based on German law, not American. I believe that there are also problems with personality rights of ex-criminals in accordance with German law, if I'm not mistaken? We should take a stronger look in that case. Bastique ☎ appelez-moi! 17:27, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
- Cf. Commons:Deletion requests/RAF fahndungsplakat ±1972 Bastique ☎ appelez-moi! 17:42, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted as a copyright violation. The German authorities are free to use these pictures per §24 KUG as long as there is a need. This does not put these pictures into the public domain. Hence, this neither {{PD-GermanGov}} nor {{PD-USGov-Military-Air Force}}. --AFBorchert (talk) 20:41, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
Fraternity pins
[edit]- File:Kappa Kappa Psi enameled pin.png
- File:KKPsi-TBSigma North Central District pin.png
- File:Badgeofaoii.jpg
- File:Pi Mu Epsilon Key.JPG
- File:PhiPin.jpg
- File:Aka pin.jpg
- File:Akapledgepin.jpg
- File:Oxbadge.JPG
- File:Golden Key Honor Society Key.JPG
- File:Old Key Pin.jpg
- File:Scarlet Key Pin (old).jpg
- File:Theta Nu Epsilon.jpg
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
These are all derivative works of a fraternity's pins. None of these files have any o evidence to indicate that the copyright of the pins is freely licensed or PD. --GrapedApe (talk) 12:59, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
- The Phi Beta Kappa key was standardized in 1912. I don't know when Pi Mu Epsilon's key was standardized, but it was founded in 1914, so the key was likely pre-1923 as well. -- Avi (talk) 02:02, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
- There is no key from Phi beta kappa nominated. Can you substantiate the pre-1923 date for the Pi Mu Epsilon pin?--GrapedApe (talk) 03:46, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
- Kappa Kappa Psi
- File:Kappa Kappa Psi recognition pin.png
- File:Kappa Kappa Psi Badge.png
- File:Kappa Kappa Psi prospective pin.png
The badge, prospective member pin, and recognition pin of Kappa Kappa Psi are public domain as they were created in 1919 as regalia for the fraternity. I will contact National Headquarters regarding the district pin and enameled recognition pin—these were created later and while no registered copyright exists for them, I'm not sure when they were created. LazySofa (talk) 17:53, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
- We need to know when those pins were created in order to determine what formalities must have been followed in order to preserve copyright.--GrapedApe (talk) 01:34, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
- I have contacted National Headquarters and am awaiting reply. It is my understanding that works created prior to 1923 are in the public domain—shouldn't the crown pearl badge, recognition pin, and prospective member pin be removed from this nomination as they are firmly in the public domain? I have no trouble leaving the district lapel pin and enameled pin on the list while their status is determined. LazySofa (talk) 02:08, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
- Is there a reference or other reason to think that those items were pre-1923?--GrapedApe (talk) 02:34, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
- "Committees were elected as follows: . . . Fraternity Pin Design and Coat of Arms –William Coppedge, Clyde Haston, and Dick Hurst . . . ." and "During the first year of operation as an honorary society, the members were kept busy . . . designing the jewelry needed to provide distinctive recognition for the organization . . . ." [15] [16] and from the 2011 Ritual and Regalia committee report (unpublished, but the relevant portion contains no secrets), "The committee discussed bringing terminated jewelry back to celebrate the centennial, but after talks with Scott Stowell we found that there was no jewelry different than what we have today." which indicates to me that today's jewelry is the same as was designed by Haston, Hurst, and Coppedge in the first year of the fraternity (1919-1920). To cover bases, I also asked NHQ to verify the public domain status of these pieces of jewelry. LazySofa (talk) 02:50, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
- Very interesting. But, that is assuming that this contemporary pin is the exact same design in every way from that original pin, a proposition I would say is not likely. Surely in the 90+ years in the interim, there would be multiple firms producing these pins using different (and separately copyrighted) casting molds, etc.) Here's the important question: is there a date stamp on the back of the pins?--GrapedApe (talk) 22:48, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
- I believe that although technically you are correct that remaking of a pin with the same design is a copyright of its own, that part would be PD-simple from the perspective of Commons. Look at a historical building, do we ask if that historical building has gone through a reconstruction process in the past 70 years? No, and most of them have. And a lot of wall paintings and such, which get retouched to undo the effects of time could in theory be called copyrighted again. But we take a look at the fact that the only goal of the reconstruction is to replicate the original as well as possible, and therefore ignore that minor copyright. VolodyA! V Anarhist (converse) 03:08, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
- There is no date stamp on the back of the particular pins photographed. However, I have compared them with a number of pictures of dated pins and badges (from as early as 1931, which predates the first change in jeweler to Balfour) and there are only very minor differences—no differences of sufficient originality to be eligible for copyright. "[t]he test of originality is concededly one with a low threshold in that all that is needed is that the author contributed something more than a merely trivial variation, something recognizably his own." There is no variation in the badges through the years that is anything more than trivial. LazySofa (talk) 03:21, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
- I believe that although technically you are correct that remaking of a pin with the same design is a copyright of its own, that part would be PD-simple from the perspective of Commons. Look at a historical building, do we ask if that historical building has gone through a reconstruction process in the past 70 years? No, and most of them have. And a lot of wall paintings and such, which get retouched to undo the effects of time could in theory be called copyrighted again. But we take a look at the fact that the only goal of the reconstruction is to replicate the original as well as possible, and therefore ignore that minor copyright. VolodyA! V Anarhist (converse) 03:08, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
- Very interesting. But, that is assuming that this contemporary pin is the exact same design in every way from that original pin, a proposition I would say is not likely. Surely in the 90+ years in the interim, there would be multiple firms producing these pins using different (and separately copyrighted) casting molds, etc.) Here's the important question: is there a date stamp on the back of the pins?--GrapedApe (talk) 22:48, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
- "Committees were elected as follows: . . . Fraternity Pin Design and Coat of Arms –William Coppedge, Clyde Haston, and Dick Hurst . . . ." and "During the first year of operation as an honorary society, the members were kept busy . . . designing the jewelry needed to provide distinctive recognition for the organization . . . ." [15] [16] and from the 2011 Ritual and Regalia committee report (unpublished, but the relevant portion contains no secrets), "The committee discussed bringing terminated jewelry back to celebrate the centennial, but after talks with Scott Stowell we found that there was no jewelry different than what we have today." which indicates to me that today's jewelry is the same as was designed by Haston, Hurst, and Coppedge in the first year of the fraternity (1919-1920). To cover bases, I also asked NHQ to verify the public domain status of these pieces of jewelry. LazySofa (talk) 02:50, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
- Is there a reference or other reason to think that those items were pre-1923?--GrapedApe (talk) 02:34, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
- I have contacted National Headquarters and am awaiting reply. It is my understanding that works created prior to 1923 are in the public domain—shouldn't the crown pearl badge, recognition pin, and prospective member pin be removed from this nomination as they are firmly in the public domain? I have no trouble leaving the district lapel pin and enameled pin on the list while their status is determined. LazySofa (talk) 02:08, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
- The Kappa Kappa Psi/Tau Beta Sigma district pin was created in the late-1990s (personal knowledge) and should be presumed copyrighted. The Kappa Kappa Psi enameled pin only began official use within the last decade (I think it was approved in 2003, but it may have been 2005), so that item would also be under copyright. As for the Kappa Kappa Psi badge, prospective member pin, and recognition pin, Scott Stowell is probably the most likely person to know, and I find his ipse dixit sufficient. cmadler (talk) 16:20, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
- If some of the badges are out of copyright, I can ask my Greek friends to see if photos could be taken of their badges and upload them here. But I feel many of these badges were taken off the internet and we cannot just use them here. I know folks from ΦM, TBΣ, AOΠ. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 19:02, 7 December 2011 (UTC) (ATΩ)
- Tau Beta Sigma was started in 1946, so it's unlikely that their jewelry would be permissible on the Commons. All of the pictures of Kappa Kappa Psi jewelry on the Commons were taken by me, but I can't speak for the other keys and pins mentioned in this deletion request. LazySofa (talk) 19:25, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
- My school is the Delta Delta chapter of Kappa Kappa Psi, but I don't know any of their members personally. Many of the Tau Beta Sigmas I know are also in Phi Mu, so I could have asked them for advice. The Greek advisor of my school is Alpha Omicron Pi so I might ask her after finals to see if a badge photo could be taken, but not sure what the actual copyright status of any of these badges (and now coat of arms due to another DR) are. I am an Alpha Tau Omega and I do have some badges I can take photos of, but my colony badge is from 1973 and not sure if I can take a photo of it. Since my chapter did not have a pledge class until this upcoming semester, there is no pledge pin I can take (but it is from the 1800's) and the badge we have is from 1865. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 19:35, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
- Tau Beta Sigma was started in 1946, so it's unlikely that their jewelry would be permissible on the Commons. All of the pictures of Kappa Kappa Psi jewelry on the Commons were taken by me, but I can't speak for the other keys and pins mentioned in this deletion request. LazySofa (talk) 19:25, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
- I think the underlying question here is whether the design of each pin/badge itself is in the public domain. In the cases where the design of the badge is unchanged since pre-1923, the answer is "yes", and so there is no question of an underlying copyright. It appears that this is the case for (at least) the Kappa Kappa Psi recognition pin, Kappa Kappa Psi prospective member pin, and Kappa Kappa Psi badge, so these images can be kept. In jewelry designed post-1977 (e.g. District pin, Kappa Kappa Psi enamel pin) I think we must give a presumption of copyright, unless someone wants to argue that an item fails to meet the threshold of originality (a dubious arguement here, I think). For jewelry designed from 1923 through 1977 (e.g. most Tau Beta Sigma jewelry) we get into questions about whether it was first published with a copyright notice and whether copyright was renewed, but again, conservatism dicates a presumption of copyright in the absence of evidence to the contrary. cmadler (talk) 16:07, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
- Can a decision be made on these three, one way or the other? The copyright status of these images is a factor holding up the Good Article nomination for en:Kappa Kappa Psi, and I'd like that to be resolved so the nomination can move forward. LazySofa (talk) 01:42, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
- Commons deletion requests take a long time to figure out, so my suggestion is to remove the images from the Kappa Kappa Psi article yourself for the time being. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 02:09, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
- The GA reviewer said "Due to the sheer amount of unreferenced statistics, I am failing this article." The copyright status of those images are not the biggest problem to GA passage.--GrapedApe (talk) 05:32, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, but the copyright status of the images was the only comment given besides original research/citations needed. Since the original research and citations were fixed, the images were the only thing that the original reviewer had commented on that were still in flux. LazySofa (talk) 14:59, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
- The GA reviewer said "Due to the sheer amount of unreferenced statistics, I am failing this article." The copyright status of those images are not the biggest problem to GA passage.--GrapedApe (talk) 05:32, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
- Commons deletion requests take a long time to figure out, so my suggestion is to remove the images from the Kappa Kappa Psi article yourself for the time being. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 02:09, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
- I have marked the three images of the pre-1923 Kappa Kappa Psi pins to indicate that the underlying work (the pin) is PD. cmadler (talk) 15:24, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
Some of these pictures where already deleted at the time of closing this deletion request:
- File:Kappa Kappa Psi enameled pin.png Uploader requested deletion of unused file
- File:PhiPin.jpg Copyright violation: http://www.phimu.org/aspnet_client/FreeTextBox/upload/images/About_Us/Our_History_and_Organization/untitled.bmp
- File:Oxbadge.JPG No permission since 8 December 2011
I am deleting the following files as they are apparently not photographs taken by the uploader:
- File:Theta Nu Epsilon.jpg refers just to {{PD-old}} without stating anything about the photograph itself
- File:Akapledgepin.jpg tells that Author gave me permission to release it via e-mail but this was apparently never processed through OTRS
The Kappa Kappa Psi pins are kept per cmadler, this does not include the district pin:
- File:Kappa Kappa Psi recognition pin.png
- File:Kappa Kappa Psi Badge.png
- File:Kappa Kappa Psi prospective pin.png
All others have been deleted as there does not appear to be sufficient evidence to keep them. --AFBorchert (talk) 05:31, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
I've restored File:Pi Mu Epsilon Key.JPG based on this request as its design appears to be from 1914, see here. --AFBorchert (talk) 00:29, 22 October 2012 (UTC)