Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2011/12/11
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
|
|
.svg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_&_Tyler_Ward.jpg){kind=link}
Low resolution. User has 2 other images which are being nominated for deletion so it's unknown whether it's own work or not Morning Sunshine (talk) 15:42, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: copyvio ■ MMXX talk 21:19, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
Flickr review passed, but flickr account appears to be a collection of images from the web. THis one is a syndicated news image see Zee News, Telugu One etc. Also nominating other images from the same Flickr account —SpacemanSpiff 18:45, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
- Additional nom: File:Soundarya rajnikanth flickr.jpg -- see [1]. —SpacemanSpiff 18:47, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: copyright violation Polarlys (talk) 21:16, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
After identifying more than 15 copyvios in old uploads by this brazilian user, this is one of the missing files, for which I have no "proof" but I suspect that this might be a copyio too. I only get images which begins to circulate in internet in 2009 (example). Considering the "copyvioistical" behaviour of the user, his statement "own work" might be highly doubtful. In this case: No metadata/exif available, even though the uploader used a diversity of digital cameras in his copyvios (like Canon EOS 30D, DIGITAL CAMERA 5MP-9X9, CASIO COMPUTER, SONY Modell DSC-W125, Nokia Modell N95, etc.) :-) Gunnex (talk) 19:53, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: thanks for your research, this is most likely a copyvio too Polarlys (talk) 21:32, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
Out of scope/possible copyvio, see also http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Trijnstel&diff=63736379&oldid=63241524 Trijnstel (talk) 19:59, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: copyright violation Polarlys (talk) 21:18, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
Non free logo/possible copyvio, see also http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Trijnstel&diff=63736379&oldid=63241524 Trijnstel (talk) 19:56, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: copyvio Bapti ✉ 16:08, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
Non free logo/possible copyvio, see also http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Trijnstel&diff=63736379&oldid=63241524 Trijnstel (talk) 19:57, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: copyvio Bapti ✉ 16:09, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
Possible copyvio, see also http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Trijnstel&diff=63736379&oldid=63241524 Trijnstel (talk) 19:57, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
- Delete: Probable copyvio, as it can't possibly be the "author's" - and subject's - own work. Beyond that, out of project scope, as this is the photograph of an editor recently blocked on the French WP for POV-pushing, repeated aggressive behaviour and legal threats. --Azurfrog (talk) 10:30, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: copyvio Bapti ✉ 16:09, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
Possible copyvio, see also http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Trijnstel&diff=63736379&oldid=63241524 Trijnstel (talk) 19:58, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: copyvio Bapti ✉ 16:10, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
Possible copyvio, see also http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Trijnstel&diff=63736379&oldid=63241524 Trijnstel (talk) 19:58, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
- Delete: Copyvio. File is supposed to be Victoire Malki's own work, whereas the INA logo clearly appears on it. --Azurfrog (talk) 10:16, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: copyvio Bapti ✉ 16:10, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
Non free logo/possible copyvio, see also http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Trijnstel&diff=63736379&oldid=63241524 Trijnstel (talk) 19:59, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: copyvio Bapti ✉ 16:10, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
I doubt own work of the uploading person: small and low resolution image; maybe taken somewhere from the internet 80.187.102.94 00:01, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio, found here: http://www.capacidad.es/ Captain-tucker (talk) 11:25, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
Copyvio? Stefan4 (talk) 00:19, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
- Delete. This file and all the others in the same series of nominations. Apparently copied from this site. The copyright notice is explicit: reproduction of any content from the site is forbidden. -- Asclepias (talk) 01:22, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio Captain-tucker (talk) 11:44, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
Copyvio? Stefan4 (talk) 00:19, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio Captain-tucker (talk) 11:44, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
Copyvio? Stefan4 (talk) 00:19, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio Captain-tucker (talk) 11:45, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
Copyvio? Stefan4 (talk) 00:20, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio Captain-tucker (talk) 11:45, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
Copyvio? Stefan4 (talk) 00:20, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio Captain-tucker (talk) 11:45, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
Copyvio? Stefan4 (talk) 00:20, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio Captain-tucker (talk) 11:45, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
Copyvio? Stefan4 (talk) 00:20, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio Captain-tucker (talk) 11:48, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
Copyvio? Stefan4 (talk) 00:21, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio Captain-tucker (talk) 11:49, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
Copyvio? Stefan4 (talk) 00:21, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio Captain-tucker (talk) 11:50, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
Copyvio? Stefan4 (talk) 00:21, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio Captain-tucker (talk) 11:50, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
Copyvio? Stefan4 (talk) 00:22, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio Captain-tucker (talk) 11:51, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
Copyvio? Stefan4 (talk) 00:24, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio Captain-tucker (talk) 11:53, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
Copyvio? Stefan4 (talk) 00:25, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio Captain-tucker (talk) 11:54, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
Copyvio? Probably too complex for {{PD-ineligible}}. Stefan4 (talk) 00:25, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio Captain-tucker (talk) 11:56, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
Copyvio? Stefan4 (talk) 00:25, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio Captain-tucker (talk) 11:56, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
Copyvio? Stefan4 (talk) 00:26, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio Captain-tucker (talk) 11:57, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
Copyvio? Stefan4 (talk) 00:26, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio Captain-tucker (talk) 11:57, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
Copyvio? Stefan4 (talk) 00:26, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio Captain-tucker (talk) 11:57, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
Copyvio? Stefan4 (talk) 00:26, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio Captain-tucker (talk) 11:58, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
Copyvio? Stefan4 (talk) 00:27, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio Captain-tucker (talk) 11:59, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
Copyvio? Stefan4 (talk) 00:27, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio Captain-tucker (talk) 12:00, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
Copyvio? Stefan4 (talk) 00:27, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio Captain-tucker (talk) 12:00, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
Copyvio? Stefan4 (talk) 00:28, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio Captain-tucker (talk) 12:01, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
Copyvio? Stefan4 (talk) 00:28, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio Captain-tucker (talk) 12:01, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
Copyvio? Stefan4 (talk) 00:28, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio Captain-tucker (talk) 12:01, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
Copyvio? Stefan4 (talk) 00:28, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio Captain-tucker (talk) 12:02, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
Copyvio? Stefan4 (talk) 00:28, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio Captain-tucker (talk) 12:02, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
Copyvio? Stefan4 (talk) 00:29, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio Captain-tucker (talk) 12:02, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
Copyvio? Stefan4 (talk) 00:29, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio Captain-tucker (talk) 12:03, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
Copyvio? I think that the person to the right isn't {{PD-ineligible}}... Stefan4 (talk) 00:30, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio Captain-tucker (talk) 12:04, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
cut and copy paste from the www - http://www.3quarksdaily.com/3quarksdaily/2009/11/irans-new-chant-is-death-to-no-one.html - no evidence of ownership Off2riorob (talk) 00:45, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio from http://www.hamiddabashi.com/contact.shtml Captain-tucker (talk) 12:06, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
cut and copy paste from the www - http://www.3quarksdaily.com/3quarksdaily/2009/11/irans-new-chant-is-death-to-no-one.html - no evidence of ownership Off2riorob (talk) 00:45, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio from http://www.hamiddabashi.com/contact.shtml Captain-tucker (talk) 12:06, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
cut and copy paste from the www - http://www.3quarksdaily.com/3quarksdaily/2009/11/irans-new-chant-is-death-to-no-one.html - no evidence of ownership Off2riorob (talk) 00:45, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio from http://www.hamiddabashi.com/contact.shtml Captain-tucker (talk) 12:06, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
All Rights Reserved: http://www.flickr.com/photos/utahnationalguard/5239875482/in/set-72157625545973324 Oleola (talk) 00:50, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: already deleted (not by me) 99of9 (talk) 10:38, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
not notability Reality006 (talk) 01:17, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 10:08, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
Even if they forgot to delete the article, this person is not notable. Commons must not be used for personal promotion. Takabeg (talk) 02:10, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 10:11, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
Logo of some sort, used in a now deleted advert on en.wikipedia. no foreseeable use FASTILYs (TALK) 03:57, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 10:14, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
Promotional image of some sort. Likely copyrighted. No reason given to suggest that uploader is copyright holder. FASTILYs (TALK) 03:57, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope and copyvio George Chernilevsky talk 10:13, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
- File:Scatterplot of SweetIndex vs Pectin.gif
- File:Histogram of MPG.gif
- File:Histogram of C2.gif
- File:Histogram of C3.gif
- File:Histogram of C4.gif
- File:Histogram of C5.gif
- File:Histogram of MPG10000.gif
- File:Histogram of MPG1000.gif
- File:Histogram of MPG100000.gif
- File:Histogram of NoShows.gif
- File:Histogram of C43, C44, C45, C46, C47, C48, C49, C50, C51, C52, C53.gif
- File:Histogram of C1, C2, C3, C4, C5, C6, C7, C8, ..gif
- File:Histogram of C31, C32, C33, C34, C35, C36, C37, C38, C39, C40, C41.gif
- File:Mean of 1,000.gif
- File:Mean of 10,000.gif
- File:Histogram of C6.gif
- File:Histogram of C20.gif
- File:Histogram of C13.gif
- File:Histogram of 1000.gif
- File:Histogram of 100.gif
- File:Probability Plot of C57 normalality test.gif
- File:Normal1.gif
- File:Normal2.gif
- File:Mean of 100.gif
- File:Ws2-Histogram of C75.gif
- File:Ws2-Histogram of C48.gif
- File:Ws2-Histogram of C41.gif
- File:Scatterplot of PRICE vs AGE-BID.gif
- File:Scatterplot of NUMBIDS vs AGE-BID.gif
- File:Chart Lab1.jpg
- File:Pie Chart Lab1.jpg
- File:Histogram of Mean with n=10000.jpg
- File:HISTOGRAM OF MEAN - NORMAL.jpg
- File:Histogram of Mean n =2.jpg
- File:Histogram of MeanNOrmal.jpg
- File:Histogram of Mean- sample 100.jpg
- File:Probability Plot of MeanNormal.jpg
- File:Lab6 pic2.jpg
- File:Formula lab 6.jpg
- File:Capture8reg.jpg
- File:Capture7reg.jpg
- File:Capture6reg.jpg
- File:Capture5reg.jpg
- File:Capture4reg.jpg
- File:Capture3reg.jpg
- File:Capture2reg.jpg
- File:Manniok1.gif
- File:Lab 6.png
- File:Excel Data Lab 5.png
- File:Minitab.png
- File:Uniform(n=5).png
- File:Normal Plot.png
- File:Lab3 - Normal v Exponential.png
- File:Lab2 histograms.png
- File:Manniok7.png
- File:Manniok6.png
- File:Manniok5.png
- File:Manniok4.png
- File:Manniok3.png
- File:Manniok2.gif
- File:Reglab.png
- File:Scatterplot of PRICE vs NUMBIDS-NUMBIDS.gif
- File:Scatterplot of AGE vs NUMBIDS.gif
- File:Scatterplot of AGE-AGE vs NUMBIDS-NUMBIDS.gif
- File:Scatterplot of PRICE vs AGE.gif
- File:Probability Plot of C7i.gif
- File:Histogram of C3i.gif
- File:Histogram of C42i.gif
- File:Histogram of C7i.gif
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Unused files uploaded by students using Wikipedia as a webhost, their instructor consented to the deletion of all the "notebook" pages here. Train2104 (talk) 03:56, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
Delete I can't see how they would become useful without much more description. VolodyA! V Anarhist (converse) 10:24, 12 December 2011 (UTC)- Delete useless. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:18, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Not useful. Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 10:31, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
Promotional image of some sort. Likely copyrighted. No reason given to suggest that uploader is copyright holder. FASTILYs (TALK) 03:58, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 10:32, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
The satellite image is surely not the uploader's own work: likely from Google Maps or Bing Maps or any other comparable service High Contrast (talk) 09:23, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio and not useful George Chernilevsky talk 10:33, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
.svg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.svg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Duplicate from https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Corporal_punishment_in_Europe.svg Corlz (talk) 10:07, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
.svg){kind=link}
Deleted: already deleted (not by me) 99of9 (talk) 10:40, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
.svg){kind=link}
Out of scope - personal artwork with no educational value. -mattbuck (Talk) 10:08, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Martin H. (talk) 10:45, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 10:35, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
cannot see anything AtelierMonpli (talk) 10:48, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Corrupt file George Chernilevsky talk 10:36, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
Personal picture of user, not in use anywhere and not usefull. Out of project scope. Martin H. (talk) 12:06, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 10:37, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
Personal picture of user, not in use anywhere and not usefull. Out of project scope. Martin H. (talk) 12:06, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 10:37, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Personal picture of user, not in use anywhere and not usefull. Out of project scope. Martin H. (talk) 12:06, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 10:37, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
personal useless unused Chesdovi (talk) 12:10, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
- A wonderful example of a speedy delete. VolodyA! V Anarhist (converse) 10:34, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
Delete I agree, it would be speedy. Lobo (howl?) 20:08, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 10:38, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
Personal picture of user, not in use anywhere, out of scope. Martin H. (talk) 12:50, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 10:39, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
Bad quality, out of scope, use on a self-promoting article on en.wp Morning Sunshine (talk) 15:14, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 10:39, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
Unused poor quality picture, many alternatives given. Yikrazuul (talk) 16:34, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
- Delete No use possible. --Leyo 14:21, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Per nom. George Chernilevsky talk 10:40, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
private pic
+ one purpose upload: [2] --WikiAnika (talk) 19:28, 11 December 2011 (UTC) + equal for File:Chakal1.jpg --WikiAnika (talk) 19:36, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 10:43, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
private pic of a vandal, purpose of File:Chacal Nuevo.jpg was [3] WikiAnika (talk) 19:42, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 10:43, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
Where is there educational content...? GeorgHH • talk 19:36, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 10:43, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
Private image of a non-notable person. GeorgHH • talk 19:45, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 10:45, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
A private image without educational background. GeorgHH • talk 20:13, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 11:00, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
Private image of an inactive user, unused. GeorgHH • talk 20:22, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 11:01, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
cropped version of http://kprf.ru/f/styles/large/public/field/image/093.jpg The kprf.ru says nothing about free usage of site images or texts A5b (talk) 21:34, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: already deleted (not by me) 99of9 (talk) 10:41, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
Pre-existing SVG at File:Flag of Norway.svg Fry1989 eh? 21:39, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Unused scaled down duplicate George Chernilevsky talk 11:02, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
Unused image, out of scope. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 21:53, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 11:02, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
Out of scope image. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 21:54, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 11:03, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
out of scope AtelierMonpli (talk) 23:04, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope and copyvio George Chernilevsky talk 11:03, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
Unused personal photo of bad quality Funfood ␌ 23:04, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 11:04, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
out of scope AtelierMonpli (talk) 23:09, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
+the same:
Delete all. Some unused, undescribed, arbitrary website screenshots - maybe promotional intent. If not promotional then a copyvio (permission missing from designer). --Saibo (Δ) 23:29, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 11:05, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
Out of scope Funfood ␌ 23:09, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
- Delete /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:29, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 11:05, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
Just this revision. Generic filename has over written some other poor sod's, even so this a personal pic out of project scope Fred the Oyster (talk) 23:43, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
Comment I'm actually inclined to say keep and use an example why you should use good names. But i won't be upset if it's deleted. VolodyA! V Anarhist (converse) 10:45, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
My image has been tampered with!! What should i do?? Nipunbayas (talk) 09:24, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
- What did you think would happen with such a specific filename as "My photo.JPG"? Duh! --Fred the Oyster (talk) 09:52, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
So then what do u expect me to do now? I have reverted the image to my original image. Nipunbayas (talk) 15:12, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
Kept: reversion solves the problem, no further action required. 99of9 (talk) 10:56, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
Promotional image of some sort. Likely copyrighted. No reason given to suggest that uploader is copyright holder. FASTILYs (TALK) 03:56, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio Captain-tucker (talk) 17:25, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
Copyvio. This plastika was released in 1987 from Melodiya. I think record itself doesn't raise serious problem, but other elements is problematic. Takabeg (talk) 07:18, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio Captain-tucker (talk) 17:27, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
I don't think this is own work because of the low resolution and many results from Google Morning Sunshine (talk) 09:57, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Probable Copyvio, COM:PRP Captain-tucker (talk) 17:37, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
Most probably not the creation of the uploader user 80.187.97.49 10:37, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio Captain-tucker (talk) 17:40, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
Appears in 2004 at http://web.archive.org/web/20040710124241/http://karauli.nic.in/timan.htm. The uploader has made frequent assertions of "own work" that are demonstrably untrue, so the likelihood is that this also is an untrue claim. Uploaded in 2010. Sitush (talk) 11:49, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio Captain-tucker (talk) 17:41, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
"Fotolog.com" is not a valid source. PD-AR-Photo doesn´t apply because this photo was taken before 1986. Banfield - Amenazas aquí 19:49, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Undelete in 2016. VolodyA! V Anarhist (converse) 10:41, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: per Banfield Ezarateesteban 19:14, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Copyvio. Why PD-old ? This image is not so old. Takabeg (talk) 00:12, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- Delete. The PD-old status tag doesn't make sense for this. Not a photo that can possibly have been taken more than 70 years ago. Besides, the uploader claims that the author is unknown. Also, the source link may or may not have existed but currently doesn't show anything anymore. -- Asclepias (talk) 01:11, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Source is available in internet archive, http://web.archive.org/web/20090331111020/http://ahama.9online.fr/photos1.htm but does not provide any licensing info, this points back to a geocities site that no longer exists but can be found in internet archive here: http://web.archive.org/web/20021201231759/http://www.geocities.com/erolby/hoca/index.htm, no images are visible but there is no licensing info anyway. Obviously can not be PD-old. --Captain-tucker (talk) 11:42, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Maxim(talk) 22:46, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
There is a image from the poster which may be copyrighted Morning Sunshine (talk) 08:38, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
- Comment: I passed the image to get it out of the flickr review category as it was licensed freely. Anyway, the poster is a derivative image...but it depicts the candidate David Coltart. Since this picture is from David Coltart's own flickr account, one would think that he clearly licensed it copyright free since his other images are 'All Rights Reserved' and he may even have paid for it (meaning that he owns the rights to the poster). This person is a major state minister (of Education, Sport, etc) in Zimbabwe and his personal web site showes that he is the same person. In a general campaign, supporters always carry posters of candidates; its just a pity that this poster is so prominent in the photo but should we delete this image? Frankly, I don't know the answer to this question. --Leoboudv (talk) 08:52, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
Keep In mu opinion de minimis applies. Kind regards, Lymantria (talk) 06:49, 13 December 2011 (UTC)- Keep - relying on Coltart that he owns the relevant rights. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:27, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
Kept. Maxim(talk) 22:50, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
Promotional image of some sort. Likely copyrighted. No reason given to suggest that uploader is copyright holder. FASTILY (TALK) 09:24, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Maxim(talk) 22:50, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
The paintings themselves are in the public domain, the painter died in 1899. But the photographs were not taken by the uploader, but scanned from a book, and since they show not only the paintings, but also their elaborate three-dimensional frames, they must be presumed to be copyrighted. So the images should either be deleted, or cropped to show only the paintings. Rosenzweig τ 17:27, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
- Also included in this DR is File:German von Bohn, Kronprinzessin Olga von Württemberg.jpg. --Rosenzweig τ 17:28, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
- Comment Cropping is the best option. {{Non-free frame}}. -Martin H. (talk) 18:30, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
- Hi Rosenzweig, I have no tool to crop the images. Could you do this? --Gerd Leibrock (talk) 18:38, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
- Not with a round frame. You could try the Commons:Graphic Lab/Photography workshop or the de:Wikipedia:Fotowerkstatt. --Rosenzweig τ 18:57, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
Ich habe leider keine Zeit, mich in dieses Programm einzuarbeiten, also löschen, wenn sicher ist, dass Urheberrechte verletzt werden. --Gerd Leibrock (talk) 08:09, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
Info - cropped both. --Claritas (talk) 20:22, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
- Thank you. --Rosenzweig τ 14:47, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
Kept: Thanks, resolved then. Martin H. (talk) 11:54, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
While this image is larger, this image appeared on this website http://atc.az/forum/showpost.php?s=d2ef4e6f615b7ed9d39ad4dcd18725aa&p=409288&postcount=25 a few days before this was uploaded to the Commons. I honestly do not believe this is an own work. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 22:31, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: copyright violation Polarlys (talk) 12:20, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
This image (arse through tyre) has no encyclopedic value/ cannot be used for educational purposes 80.187.97.49 10:36, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
- Speedy Keep. I´am the uploader. This image is not even here in 5 minutes and there is already a coward (i call this as to how come a IP finds this image so fast if it even is searchable? So to the IP get some corage and login to see who you are and see what are your real intentions) and a crusader that by not liking the natural nudity, tries to hide its "i dont like nudes". Image is in scope as it shows a female nude in s situation not still in others images in Commons. Also how come is that this image as "no encyclopedic value/ cannot be used for educational purposes" in case you really think this. Also commons is not censored, "could also be used as an illustration in an html-teaching text (amusingly enough)" (here you have your educational value). Tm (talk) 10:58, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
- Also the fact that this image depicts a "arse through tyre" as by itself educational value as it shows that nude depictions can assume several variants and imaginative ways by crossing a HTML tutorial of a computer User Interface with a subject that apperently is not connected (this is called art and imagination). Also this image as three categories (Category:Nude women, Category:Female genitalia, Category:Female buttocks). Tm (talk) 10:58, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
- Keep Likely moralistic crusading. The image is borderline educational, i give you that, but to say that it has no way to become educational is beyond lying (especially since the title suggests what it depicts educationally). VolodyA! V Anarhist (converse) 10:33, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
- Keep - part of a series of nude HTML images. -mattbuck (Talk) 11:48, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
- Keep - That looks like a rather pleasant way to swipe one's credit card. It's such a nice shot that I'm sure someone could find it useful and educational, eg a teenage lad finding out how long it takes him to... yes well, enough of that. Keep, if only for the fact that it's such a cute derrière. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 21:28, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
Keep - Per the rest of the "gang" -- Gddea - Daniel E. Als-Juliussen (talk) 10:58, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
Kept: per discussion. Rosenzweig τ 19:51, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
- Delete - does not illustrate the subject matter. 13ab37 (talk) 21:48, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
Not educationally useful - misleading and does not depict what a radio button is or does, while perpetuating misogynist views on technology; Previous discussions have completely ignored that this image is not educationally useful, which supercedes any censorship discussion. The filename and description are misleading and claim that this is a technologically relevant image. Deeply troubling is that the previous nomination was voted "keep" because voters felt that a young womans vagina is a nice place to put their creditcard, and that this would be useful for young men to mastrubate to. These comments do not condiser how "useful" this is to young women attempting to learn web development, or for young men.:; COM:PS, COM:PORN Seazzy (talk) 01:01, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
- * Comment This is not censorship. This image is freely available online for anyone to use. It does not, however, have any use on Commons. It's presence and the dialogue around maintaining it has a serious chilling effect on women and others who are using Commons for research and educational purposes. That is censorship. It creates a culture of exclusion that is directly counter to Commons' stated claims to inclusivity. -Seazzy (talk) 16:24, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
- Comment Proofs that deleting this image are not an act of censorship? And proofs that this images make an "chilling effect on women and others who are using Commons for research and educational purposes"? He have almost 60 million images and are these dozen of images that make women participate less in Commons? Or are their other reasons like the unfortunate fact all Wikimedia and Wikipedia projects have a lot more men then women. And many of they dont have or link this images. A few images in tens of millions of images are the fact that stop women from participating in Commons, albeit the fact that all Wikimedia projects suffer the same problem despite the fact that they share the same unfortunate fact of female participation, despite all efforts and projects in all Wikimedia projects to revert that.
- I could take the same route as you and besides talk again that you never contributed nothing to Commons in the last three years, point out the fact that could point to your talk page and say that your have serious problems with copyright violations in your uploads and say that so deduce that "many of the arguments this user has made do not have any relevance to the requirements for inclusion in Commons, and are frequently false or misleading", but that last fact would be irrelevant and an ad hominem attack like the one you just did. Instead i will point to my block log and invite people to see that almost all blocks since 2012 were reverted for those blocks being abusive, unwarranted, against policy and were all reverted by other administrators. Besides that, see my archived talkpages and see why was i blocked and why almost all were reverted (and two of those blocking administrators have been desysoped). You will see that i do not have an "extensive history of bad faith and abusive behaviour" contrary to the false accusations of Seazzy. And, to the contrary of what you claim below, "Many of the arguments this user has made do not have any relevance to the requirements for inclusion in Commons, and are frequently false or misleading", please see what the unsuspected Fæ had to say in other related deletion request. Please provide links, like i do, that proofs of what you claim that i have an "bad faith and abusive behaviour, including having been blocked from Commons at times
.jpg&curid=82540612&diff=368621380&oldid=368319000&diffmode=source){kind=link}
Besides a comment by are not" and that "many of the arguments this user has made do not have any relevance to the requirements for inclusion in Commons, and are frequently false or misleading", speacilly the part about those being "frequently false or misleading". Either you show proofs what you claimed about me or your making some "frequently false or misleading" "arguments" and statements. Tm (talk) 16:50, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
- Delete Educationally worthless. AshFriday (talk) 06:17, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
- Keep per my previous closure at Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_in_Category:Nude_portrayals_of_computer_technology. -mattbuck (Talk) 15:29, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
- Commentmattbuck, the keep comments on the previous closure were based on arguments that the woman's vagina and anus are visually pleasing. There is a "joke" referring to the "keep" voters engaging in "gang" sex on the woman in the comments. This image does not depict a radio button or illustrate how a radio button might work. There is zero educational usefulness, but there is a strong effect on deterring new users, particularly women, from participating in Commons as an educational resource - something Commons claims to want to work on. -Seazzy (talk) 16:24, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
- Delete No educational value, misleading at best.Artchivist1 (talk) 17:18, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
- Keep Per Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_in_Category:Nude_portrayals_of_computer_technology, mattbuck and the IP. Nominator, in the last three years, did, except for two uploads, only edits related with this images and the one of the other deletions votes is by AshFriday , that has almost only edits on this kind of DR and almost always to delete. Image is in scope, image is of an photographer that has this kind of imagery published on technology magazines, and again this smells of someone nominating this kind of images because of "moral, religious or pudency reasons" and not as stated because of not being "educationally useful". Also i find if funny that someone claims someone claim that this images are misogynist and "aggressively perpetuates misogynist views of women and tech", when this images were taken of adult, mature and free women, modeling on their own terms and conditions, clearly as professional models. A random Commons user (statistically most probably an adult men, please correct me if i´am wrong) knows more and mansplains that free and adult female models know less about their free choices and decisions of where, when, how and to whom make this kind of images. So, what is in fact an misogynist position? And what Artchivist1, as i suppose an feminist (male of female) as to say about the free choice of adult women? Are they not entitled to do show (or not) their bodies whatever the way they choose? Is it not feminism fighting to make women make equal to men and and make free choices without anyone mocking, denigrating and lower their own choices? Is it not something that could said to be a patronizing and moralistic view, that shames and lowers one woman for their choices? Is it not the Antithesis of feminism? Tm (talk) 18:59, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
- Comment Please see user Tm's talk page for their extensive history of bad faith and abusive behaviour, including having been blocked from Commons at times. Many of the arguments this user has made do not have any relevance to the requirements for inclusion in Commons, and are frequently false or misleading and in bad faith. -Seazzy (talk) 16:24, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
- Also leaning to Keep. It's a nice example of abstract photographic art with nudity. There's also all kinds of things you could read into it. A radio button forces you to pick one option, so this image could be seen as a depiction of monogamy. The word "item" could be seen as a comment on the objectification of women. Or you could interpret the image completely different. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 20:05, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
- No new information since Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Nude portrayals of computer technology.
- Other DRs started by Seazzy:
- Commons:Deletion requests/File:Body painting - z-index.jpg
- Commons:Deletion requests/File:Binary prefixes (41983361972).jpg
- Commons:Deletion requests/File:Body painting - before.jpg
- Commons:Deletion requests/File:HTML output - Exey Panteleev.jpg
- Commons:Deletion requests/File:Erlang (9690003046).jpg
- Commons:Deletion requests/File:Body painting - display.jpg
- Commons:Deletion requests/File:Full Stack (Exey Panteleev).jpg
- Commons:Deletion requests/File:RSS feed icons painted on a naked woman (by Exey Panteleev).jpg
- Commons:Deletion requests/File:Body painting - QR code.jpg
- Commons:Deletion requests/File:Bling-bling - iframe.jpg
- Commons:Deletion requests/File:Body painting - Proxy.jpg
- Commons:Deletion requests/File:Body painting - MongoDB's "WHERE".jpg
- Commons:Deletion requests/File:Radio button and female nude.jpg
- Commons:Deletion requests/File:Body painting - float left right.jpg
- Commons:Deletion requests/File:SQL - DROP TABLE.jpg
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
- - Alexis Jazz ping plz 20:18, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
- Keep per mattbuck in Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Nude portrayals of computer technology. 68.194.210.136 00:52, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
- Keep, per Tm. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 12:43, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
- Keep per previous DR. Cdlt, VIGNERON (talk) 15:14, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
Kept: per discussion. --Strakhov (talk) 04:37, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
please remove. I am the person in the picture and I dont want my name associated with this. 173.3.138.198 15:26, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
- Speedy Keep No prooof that this IP is the person depicted, that by the away is a professional model that took this photo as work will being shooted by a professional photographer. Tm (talk) 15:32, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
- Keep - also because it is still on Flickr. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:39, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
- Note: I have received and OTRS claiming to be from the subject of the file requesting that it be taken down. Tiptoety talk 06:56, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: 17:49, 3 January 2012 Morgankevinj (talk | contribs | block) deleted "File:Olivia Evita smoking 02.jpg" (ticket # 2011121910021489 Subject requsted deletion of unused file) (view/restore) (global usage; delinker log) Tiptoety talk 04:51, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
unpublished research 201.42.25.102 12:01, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
It is an image! No need for any kind of reseach. --Luizpuodzius (talk) 07:04, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Blatant copyright violation, grabbed from http://current.com/community/93391197_operation-satiagraha-brazil-corruption-scandal-exposed-former-sao-paulo-mayor-banker-arrested.htm. Martin H. (talk) 03:03, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Its disputed wheter this is the uploaders photographic work. The image matches exactly the thumbnail of the facebook profile (deeplink). A photographer will not download some thumbnails from facebook but the original photography directly. A photography including the camera EXIF. Martin H. (talk) 18:48, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
- They might do that, if they only wanted to license this small version and it was already processed. Still, it sounds like we would need emailed permission per COM:OTRS. Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:42, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: article deleted for non-notability, no use for picture of questionable source Polarlys (talk) 23:10, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
uploaded without permission. Photo author wants deletion of original photo Joshb (talk) 01:45, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
- Keep The nominator uploaded it; and stated that it was 'own work'. Free licences are non-revokeable. VolodyA! V Anarhist (converse) 10:21, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
- Delete The original uploader wrote please delete the original photo on 11 December 2011. I respect the uploader's will. Moreover, it's useless image. Takabeg (talk) 14:27, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
- This image is so definitely not useless (it's a great representation of a teenage male nipple) that i don't even know how to counter such a blatant lie. VolodyA! V Anarhist (converse) 14:45, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
- Comment It is possible that Joshb simply misunderstands how DR work, so i have asked him to clarify. I would appreciate it if we would wait for his answer. I am willing to entertain some possibilities that it was just a misunderstanding, and that the user isn't trying to game the DR system. VolodyA! V Anarhist (converse) 06:07, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
- Delete Lack of permission seems plausible, and keeping body images against the subject's wishes seems like a bad practice, except in a very rare exceptional case where the specific image has value that would be difficult to replace. -Pete F (talk) 18:52, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
- Keep, per VolodyA! V Anarhist. It's not like the picture was just uploaded, it's been on Commons for more than 3 years. The second revision should be deleted though, it has no source. Prof. Professorson (talk) 12:14, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
- Comment On one's talk page Joshb now claims that the images were uploaded from this account without permission. I think that admins should investigate this, because this seems to be happening a lot lately, seeing how recently there's been a bunch of users claiming to have stuff uploaded from their accounts like that, and the fact that photos are clearly different i am personally more inclined to believe that somebody is bruteforcing the passwords on old-forgotten accounts which have ever uploaded images they disagree with. But i have no way to check this, so the admin should look into that (there are logs aren't there?). VolodyA! V Anarhist Beta_M (converse) 15:20, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
Kept: You uploaded it several years ago, you can't come along now and tell us it was done without your permission. Free licences cannot be revoked. -mattbuck (Talk) 13:35, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
Can you please delete this picture and the rest on my account that i nominated? Joshb (talk) 05:53, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
- Keep While this can be considered a replacement, it's not as high of the quality. If we would have a similar image i would vote delete, but until such time a non-revokable licence + educational image = keep. VolodyA! V Anarhist Beta_M (converse) 07:19, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
- Keep non revokeable licence; plus no personality rights infringed. I don't see any reason why this image should be deleted. -- Blackcat (talk) 12:30, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Speedily Kept - per my last closure, turning up 3 years after you uploaded it and claiming you didn't give permission is frankly a poor joke. This isn't a photosharing service, once you release images here you cannot say "oh no I didn't mean that", especially not three years after the fact. -mattbuck (Talk) 17:27, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Please remove my photos. I am the original uploader of the photos and I want them deleted. Please delete. Thanks Joshb (talk) 19:43, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
- Keep You do not engage in discussions, you ignore people who attempt to communicate with you about the deletion requests, you simply keep nominating, hoping that eventually people will get tired. There is no reason for deletion so far, i am getting tired of this. VolodyA! V Anarhist Beta_M (converse) 00:11, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
Speedily kept - per comments above. --Denniss (talk) 02:10, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
It is my opinion that the texture in this album cover (background with splotches, shadowing with splotches) leaves this work as too creative for {{PD-ineligible}} Magog the Ogre (talk) 04:50, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:33, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
If this is made in 1950 or later then it can not be PD-old (70 years from death) because 1950+70=2020. Perhaps it can be {{PD-Pakistan}} (or India) like is used on en:File:Divisions of India and Pakistan, 1950.jpg. MGA73 (talk) 10:11, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
- CommentUploader got the file from w:File:India Pakistan1947a.jpg, where it is probably a copyright violation too.Magog the Ogre (talk) 17:27, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
- Delete it says "c John Bartholemew & Sons, Edinburgh", UK law applies. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:30, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:22, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
Copyvio? Stefan4 (talk) 00:24, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Captain-tucker (talk) 11:52, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
DW of the bottle drawing on the sign - FOP doesn't seem to apply since it looks non-permanent, is it? Do I miss something why this is not a DW? Saibo (Δ) 01:21, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
- If you think the bottle drawing might cause a copyright problem feel free to delete the image. My heart isn't set on it. -- Ies (talk) 22:02, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: not permanent = no FoP Denniss (talk) 02:30, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
uploaded without permission. Photo author wants deletion of original photo. Joshb (talk) 01:40, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
- Keep The nominator uploaded it; and stated that it was 'own work'. Free licences are non-revokeable. VolodyA! V Anarhist (converse) 10:20, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
- Delete The original uploader wrote please delete the original photo on 11 December 2011. I respect the uploader's will. Moreover, it's useless image. Takabeg (talk) 14:29, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
- The comment above is useless. The image is free, educational, and of good quality. VolodyA! V Anarhist (converse) 14:48, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: already deleted Denniss (talk) 02:16, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
uploaded without permission. Photo author wants deletion of original photo Joshb (talk) 01:42, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
- I would like to make my vote neutral, although there is no reason for deletion it is possible to replace this image quite easily. VolodyA! V Anarhist Beta_M (converse) 18:34, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
- Delete The original uploader wrote please delete the original photo on 11 December 2011. I respect the uploader's will. Moreover, it's useless image. Takabeg (talk) 14:28, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
- Can you please delete all of my photos? I no longer want them on this site. Joshb (talk) 16:49, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: already deleted Denniss (talk) 02:42, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
uploaded without permission. Photo author wants deletion of original photo Joshb (talk) 01:43, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
- Keep The nominator uploaded it; and stated that it was 'own work'. Free licences are non-revokeable. VolodyA! V Anarhist (converse) 10:21, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
- Delete The original uploader wrote please delete the original photo on 11 December 2011. I respect the uploader's will. Moreover, it's useless image. Takabeg (talk) 14:28, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: already deleted Denniss (talk) 02:41, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
mirrored image. It's been changed in related articles. Wikiclaruelisa (talk) 03:42, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
- If it's mirrored just upload a corrected image, don't nominate for deletion!. Please provide a reliable source to know that's mirrored. The source of this image is this oficial educative page.--Zeroth (talk) 15:51, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
Kept: no reason to delete Denniss (talk) 02:32, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
This image is copyright Avery et al, 1944. First published in The Journal of Experimental Medicine, 79: 137-158. Copyright now held by The Rockerfeller University Press. [3] Graham Colm (talk) 08:47, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
- Keep - utterly improbable that copyright was renewed. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:23, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Image appears in another textbook (Genetics, Analysis of Genes and Genomes [8th edition] by Hartl & Ruvolo, 2012) with the text "Photograph reproduced from Journal of Experimental Medicine by O.T. Avery, et al. Copyright 1994 by Rockefeller University Press. Reproduced with permission of Rockefeller University Press in the format Textbook via Copyright Clearance Center." --AlphaEta (talk) 18:45, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Denniss (talk) 02:45, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
No freedom of panorama indoors in the UK 80.187.97.49 10:34, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
- Since when? -- Asclepias (talk) 19:40, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
- Keep - per Asclepias. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:33, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
- Keep The reason for nomination appears incorrect per Freedom_of_panorama#United_Kingdom. Relevant paragraph is:-
The practical effect of the broad Freedom of Panorama provisions in the UK and in other countries with similar laws is that it is acceptable to upload to Commons not only photographs of public buildings and sculptures but also works of artistic craftsmanship which are on permanent public display in museums, galleries and exhibitions which are open to the public.As this model is on permanent public display in Ludlow Museum, which is open to the public, it is therefore acceptable and within the scope of FoP in the UK. Rept0n1x (talk) 19:27, 17 December 2011 (UTC) - Comment Also, it is only right that I declare myself as the original uploader of this file. I retired my previous "Green Lane" account earlier this year due to lack of time. I remain semi-retired under this new account, but still visit commons occasionally. Rept0n1x (talk) 19:36, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
Kept: no FoP problem Denniss (talk) 02:39, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
Question own work. No metadata, only contribution of user and when you see this probably not meant a serious contribution for Commons Wouter (talk) 13:52, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Denniss (talk) 02:20, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
Derivative work of copyrighted character Morning Sunshine (talk) 15:46, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Denniss (talk) 02:40, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
File:Martin_McGuinness,_Deputy_First_Minister_of_Northern_Ireland,_Franklin_Urteaga,_former_White_House_Technology_Aide,_and_Peter_Robinson,_First_Minister_of_Northern_Ireland_March_2009.JPG
[edit]
EXIF data says the author is "John Harrison/Harrison Photography", not the uploader (User:FranklinU) Razvan Socol (talk) 15:59, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
- Copyright violation (see EXIF data). TanguyLyon (talk) 11:20, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:24, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small resolution, missing EXIF. EugeneZelenko (talk) 17:04, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom Denniss (talk) 02:19, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
Copyvio http://www.simplybooks.in/authorsrch/Nishtar+Khanqahi/ -- ɑηsuмaη ʈ ᶏ ɭ Ϟ 17:30, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Denniss (talk) 02:42, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
Used in a deleted joke article on fi.wikipedia. The image does not display anything educationally useful. Jafeluv (talk) 17:40, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
- (Translation for the image: Y axis label is "booze bought" and X axis label is "booze drunk".) Jafeluv (talk) 17:42, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Denniss (talk) 02:32, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
Out of project scope. A.Savin 18:05, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
- Keep In line with other images in Category:Fashion in 2007 VolodyA! V Anarhist (converse) 10:39, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
- Keep per Anarhist (but some people seem to feel that only bodies without clothes are in scope). /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:58, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
- Keep The image has strong educational importance, showing the human type of modern Russia. The file embodies something of value over and above raw text COM:PS.--PereslavlFoto (talk) 21:03, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
Kept. Denniss (talk) 02:46, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
Out of project scope. A.Savin 18:06, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
- Keep In line with other images in Category:Fashion in 2007 VolodyA! V Anarhist (converse) 10:39, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
- Keep per Anarhist. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:00, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
- Keep Important image showing women in Russia and their everyday style.--PereslavlFoto (talk) 21:00, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
Kept. Denniss (talk) 02:46, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
Out of project scope. A.Savin 18:06, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
- Keep In line with other images in Category:Fashion in 2007 VolodyA! V Anarhist (converse) 10:39, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
- Keep The file embodies something of value over and above raw text COM:PS. It shows the type of Russian young woman.--PereslavlFoto (talk) 21:05, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
Kept. Denniss (talk) 02:46, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
Poor duplicate of File:Paul Würtz.jpg. Quibik (talk) 18:43, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Denniss (talk) 02:43, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
The actress died in 1993, the "PD-Self" on en-wiki passed only because the user name of the uploader was also Divya Bharti. Every other upload by the original uploader was deleted as copyvio. —SpacemanSpiff 19:03, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Denniss (talk) 02:23, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
dubious own work - low res, looks like official portrait Calliopejen1 (talk) 19:07, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Denniss (talk) 02:34, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
Perhaps a railway map, no description, useless Funfood ␌ 19:16, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Denniss (talk) 02:35, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
žádost autora Valmont (talk) 19:40, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason given Denniss (talk) 02:49, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
neplatná licence Valmont (talk) 00:21, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
- Keep GFDL is an appropriate licence. Sinnamon Girl (talk) 01:57, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason given. This is the second nomination by the uploader. The GFDL license is non-revocable. If there is an additional concern about this image, it needs to be articulated. Эlcobbola talk 19:34, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
How useful is that image if we doesn't know the persons name nor place nor event where the image was made. GeorgHH • talk 19:42, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Denniss (talk) 02:27, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
wrong licenced, the uploader isn´t the author of this logo. Not sure that PD-textlogo apply. Banfield - Amenazas aquí 19:43, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
Kept: and changed to PD-simple Denniss (talk) 02:25, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
Part of a large professional set of images, the set is available on multiple websites, [4] has them all together in one page, although it was uploaded a few weeks after local upload. No evidence that the uploader owns the copyright to the image. —SpacemanSpiff 20:25, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: more than suspicious source Denniss (talk) 02:50, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
This is not pd-text. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 21:52, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Denniss (talk) 02:19, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
This is not pd-text. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 21:52, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted. Denniss (talk) 02:20, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Based on Google Map (see the corners), copyvio ! M0tty (talk) 21:53, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Denniss (talk) 02:33, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
Based on Google Maps (see also File:LGG-collégiales.png). Copyvio M0tty (talk) 21:54, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. VolodyA! V Anarhist (converse) 10:43, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Denniss (talk) 02:33, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
Crown Copyright work User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 21:58, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Denniss (talk) 02:40, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
Crown copyright work. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 21:58, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Denniss (talk) 02:49, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
Thius is not actually a federal government image, which would place it in the public domain. Rather, the photo was made by a photographer for the contractor operating ORNL. Orlady (talk) 17:59, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. A.Savin 22:49, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
No assertion that this license is correct for this image. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 21:57, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. A.Savin 22:48, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
for my own protection 72.218.90.57 00:02, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
for my own privacy Rtaisis (talk) 00:03, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
- Delete I doubt that protection is needed, but it's an unused personal image. VolodyA! V Anarhist (converse) 10:13, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. George Chernilevsky talk 10:06, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
out of scope, no description, unknown person Joxemai4 (talk) 12:55, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
- Comment It actually has a description stating it is w:Ehsan Fatahian, and indeed looks very similar to this image [5]. --Elekhh (talk) 06:35, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
Keep - seems to be this kurdish person that was executed Cholo Aleman (talk) 10:27, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
Kept, within project scope: Ehsan Fatahian. Kameraad Pjotr 10:09, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
- Renomination
On the web in several places, albeit smaller size. Uploader's only other contribution also claimed "own work" was clear copyvio. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 00:04, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
- Delete. If need, the uploader have to apply to Commons:OTRS. Takabeg (talk) 00:26, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted - more than suspicious. --Denniss (talk) 02:24, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
uploaded without permission. Original owner wants deletion Joshb (talk) 01:38, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
- The nominator uploaded it; and stated that it was 'own work'. Free licences are non-revokeable. I am reversing my vote to Keep VolodyA! V Anarhist (converse) 10:20, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
- The nominator uploaded it; and stated that it was 'own work'. Free licences are non-revokeable. I am reversing my vote to
- Delete The original uploader wrote please delete the original photo on 11 December 2011. I respect the uploader's will. Moreover, it's useless image. Takabeg (talk) 14:29, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: already gone Denniss (talk) 18:13, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Outside scope. -Nard the Bard 18:41, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
- Comment not very different from File:Bared Sandy in Washington.jpg which I planned to nominate for deletion, the other day, when I suddenly discovered that it was used. So perhaps File:Male_Torso.JPG can be used too. Teofilo (talk) 19:37, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
* Keep
Neutral It's not out of scope. One can argue that it is a bad crop and that the educational value is not very high. But somehow I have the feeling that you are just trying to make a point. Sorry about this!! Amada44 (talk) 21:32, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
- Actually I was going through a list of images Shakespearefan00 had marked as no license that had been actually been vandalized to remove the licenses. I wasn't sure this one was in scope. -Nard the Bard 22:41, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
- Okay. I just looked at the image again an I noticed some white lines around the nippels moving down. Could those be scars? Maybe was the body a woman? The pubic hair seems non male too... Amada44 (talk) 07:22, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
- Delete What sense does this pic have? Right, none, out of scope and bad anyway. --Yikrazuul (talk) 21:20, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
- Delete - uploader blanked page previously, possibly requesting deletion. -mattbuck (Talk) 18:49, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Just a male torso, I cannot see nothing bad. Luispihormiguero (talk) 21:26, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
- Delete - low-quality photo, better quality images illustrating the topic already exist on Commons. Wikignome0530 (talk) 22:04, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
Kept, no reason for deletion. If the author wants it deleted, he can nominate it. Kameraad Pjotr 18:42, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
- Renomination
uploaded without permission. Photo author wants deletion of original photo Joshb (talk) 01:44, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
- Comment - you uploaded it, and stated you were the author... -mattbuck (Talk) 02:08, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
- Comment I for once am willing to intertain the notion that the person in question doesn't speak english very well, and actually means that it's the person depicted who wants the image deleted and not the author. But i'm a bit split here, i don't see the image as something identifiable, but i wish to know more info so that we don't accidentally hurt somebody. VolodyA! V Anarhist (converse) 14:20, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
- Delete The original uploader wrote please delete the original photo on 11 December 2011. I respect the uploader's will. Moreover, it's useless image. Takabeg (talk) 14:23, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted - last DR was closed as Kept, no reason for deletion. If the author wants it deleted, he can nominate it. The author has asked us to delete it, so it shall be done. -mattbuck (Talk) 03:38, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
This city hall was inaugurated in 1976, The architect was not dead since 70 years ago. As there is no FoP in France, pictures of this building are not free. Sorry. Jebulon (talk) 13:07, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Le droit d'auteur permet d'interdire la reproduction d'un écrit, d'une photo, d'un dessein, d'une partition de musique, des plans architecturaux, etc que l'auteur a lui-même créé. Mais utiliser le droit d'auteur pour interdire l'utilisation d'une photo prise par un tiers d'un immeuble sur la place publique semble être une expansion considérable du droit d'auteur. Il n'y a aucune reproduction ni du plan architectural ni de l'immeuble. Utilisateur: Chateau-Gaillard, 28 décembre 2011
- Hélas, hélas, hélas, la question a été malheureusement tranchée depuis bien longtemps (même si des tentatives récentes quoiqu'ayant échoué, ont au moins eu le mérite de porter le débat sur la "place publique", comme vous dites)... Je ne saurais trop vous recommander de jeter un coup d'oeil ici, mais vous allez être déçu...--Jebulon (talk) 15:44, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: copyrighted building PierreSelim (talk) 01:00, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
the lateral and medial heads of gastrocnemius are reversed (mislabeled). fibular nerve is on the lateral side, therefore the lateral head of gastroc should be on that side (right-side of the picture) Chandangreddy (talk) 23:09, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
- Delete - probably the copyright belongs to SMH. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:32, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. MBisanz talk 14:26, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
the lateral and medial heads of gastrocnemius are reversed (mislabeled). fibular nerve is on the lateral side, therefore the lateral head of gastroc should be on that side (right-side of the picture) Chandangreddy (talk) 23:10, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
- Delete watermarked "SMH", probable copyright violation. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:40, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Doubt that it's own work (per watermark), so likely it's a copyvio. VolodyA! V Anarhist Beta_M (converse) 05:39, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. MBisanz talk 14:26, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Nemo
[edit]Following Commons:Deletion requests/Files of User:Nemo of October 17 there is still a lot of files uploaded from Oktober 18 to November 26. Most of them - listed below - is not usefull and out of scope.
- File:Pkes-Monkeys 023.JPG
- File:Pkes-Monkeys 022.JPG
- File:Pkes-Monkeys 021.JPG
- File:Sistemas (fantasía 001).JPG
- File:Pkes-Monkeys 015.JPG
- File:Pkes-Monkeys 014.JPG
- File:Pkes-Monkeys 013.JPG
- File:Pkes-Monkeys 012.JPG
- File:Pkes-Monkeys 011.jpg
- File:Pkes-Monkeys 006.JPG
- File:Pkes-Monkeys 005.JPG
- File:Pkes-Monkeys 004.JPG
- File:Pkes-Monkeys 003.JPG
- File:Pkes-Monkeys 002.JPG
- File:Pkes-Monkeys 001.JPG
- File:Su mirada-Pkes 493.JPG
- File:Su mirada-Pkes 492.JPG
- File:Su mirada-Pkes 491.JPG
- File:Su mirada-Pkes 490.JPG
- File:Su mirada-Pkes 489.JPG
- File:Su mirada-Pkes 487-2.JPG
- File:Su mirada-Pkes 487.JPG
- File:Su mirada-Pkes 486.JPG
- File:Su mirada-Pkes 485.JPG
- File:Su mirada-Pkes 484.JPG
- File:Su mirada-Pkes 483.JPG
- File:Su mirada-Pkes 482.JPG
- File:Su mirada-Pkes 481.JPG
- File:Su mirada-Pkes 480.JPG
- File:Su mirada-Pkes 479.JPG
- File:Su mirada-Pkes 478.JPG
- File:Su mirada-Pkes 477.JPG
- File:Su mirada-Pkes 476.JPG
- File:Su mirada-Pkes 475.JPG
- File:Su mirada-Pkes 474.JPG
- File:Su mirada-Pkes 473.JPG
- File:Su mirada-Pkes 472.JPG
- File:Su mirada-Pkes 471.JPG
- File:Su mirada-Pkes 470.JPG
- File:Su mirada-Pkes 469.JPG
- File:Su mirada-Pkes 468.JPG
- File:Su mirada-Pkes 467.JPG
- File:Su mirada-Pkes 466.JPG
- File:Su mirada-Pkes 465.JPG
- File:Su mirada-Pkes 464.JPG
- File:Su mirada-Pkes 463.JPG
- File:Su mirada-Pkes 462.JPG
- File:Su mirada-Pkes 461.JPG
- File:Su mirada-Pkes 460.JPG
- File:Su mirada-Pkes escena 459.JPG
- File:Su mirada-Pkes 459.JPG
- File:Su mirada-Pkes 458.JPG
- File:Su mirada-Pkes 457.JPG
- File:Su mirada-Pkes 456.JPG
- File:Su mirada-Pkes 455.JPG
- File:Su mirada-Pkes 454.JPG
- File:Su mirada-Pkes 453.JPG
- File:Su mirada-Pkes 452.JPG
- File:Su mirada-Pkes 451.JPG
- File:Su mirada-Pkes 450.JPG
- File:Su mirada-Pkes 449.JPG
- File:Su mirada-Pkes 448.JPG
- File:Su mirada-Pkes 447.jpg
- File:Miscelanea A09.JPG
- File:Miscelanea A07.JPG
- File:Su mirada-Pkes 446.JPG
- File:Su mirada-Pkes 445.JPG
- File:Su mirada-Pkes 444.JPG
- File:Su mirada-Pkes 443.JPG
- File:Su mirada-Pkes 442.JPG
- File:Su mirada-Pkes 441.JPG
- File:Su mirada-Pkes 440.JPG
- File:Su mirada-Pkes 439.JPG
- File:Su mirada-Pkes 438.JPG
- File:Su mirada-Pkes 437.JPG
- File:Su mirada-Pkes 436.JPG
- File:Su mirada-Pkes 435.JPG
- File:Su mirada-Pkes 434.JPG
- File:Su mirada-Pkes 433.JPG
- File:Su mirada-Pkes 432.JPG
- File:Su mirada-Pkes 431.JPG
- File:Su mirada-Pkes 430.JPG
- File:Su mirada-Pkes 429.JPG
- File:Su mirada-Pkes 428.JPG
- File:Su mirada-Pkes 427.JPG
- File:Su mirada-Pkes 426.JPG
- File:Su mirada-Pkes 425.JPG
- File:Su mirada-Pkes 424.JPG
- File:Su mirada-Pkes 423.JPG
- File:Su mirada-Pkes 422.JPG
- File:Su mirada-Pkes 421.JPG
- File:Su mirada-Pkes 420.JPG
- File:Su mirada-Pkes 419.JPG
- File:Su mirada-Pkes 418.JPG
- File:Su mirada-Pkes 417.JPG
- File:Su mirada-Pkes 416.JPG
- File:Su mirada-Pkes 415.JPG
- File:Su mirada-Pkes 414.JPG
- File:Miscelanea 006.JPG
- File:Miscelanea 005.JPG
- File:Miscelanea 004.JPG
- File:Miscelanea 003.JPG
- File:Miscelanea 002.JPG
- File:Su mirada-Pkes 413b.JPG
- File:Su mirada-Pkes 413a.JPG
- File:Su mirada-Pkes 412b.JPG
- File:Su mirada-Pkes 412a.JPG
- File:Su mirada-Pkes 411escena.JPG
- File:Su mirada-Pkes 411c.JPG
- File:Su mirada-Pkes 411b.JPG
- File:Su mirada-Pkes 411a.JPG
- File:Mi mirada 204 (Colores).JPG
- File:Mi mirada 203 (Colores).JPG
- File:Su mirada-Pkes 405-5.JPG
- File:Su mirada-Pkes 404-5.JPG
- File:Su mirada-Pkes 402b.JPG
- File:Su mirada-Pkes 400.JPG
- File:Su mirada-Pkes 410.JPG
- File:Su mirada-Pkes 409 b.JPG
- File:Su mirada-Pkes 409.JPG
- File:Su mirada-Pkes 408.JPG
- File:Su mirada-Pkes 407escena.JPG
- File:Su mirada-Pkes 407.JPG
- File:Su mirada-Pkes 406.JPG
- File:Su mirada-Pkes 405.JPG
- File:Su mirada-Pkes 404.JPG
- File:Su mirada-Pkes 402.JPG
- File:Su mirada-Pkes 401.JPG
- File:Su mirada Pkes 306.JPG
- File:Su mirada Pkes 305.JPG
- File:Su mirada Pkes 304.JPG
- File:Su mirada Pkes 303.JPG
- File:Su mirada Pkes 302.JPG
- File:Su mirada Pkes 301.JPG
- File:Su mirada-Pkes Geometría 06.JPG
- File:Su mirada-Pkes Geometría 05.JPG
- File:Su mirada-Pkes Geometría 04.JPG
- File:Su mirada-Pkes Geometría 03.JPG
- File:Su mirada-Pkes Geometría 02.JPG
- File:Su mirada-Pkes Geometría 01.JPG
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Martin H. (talk) 19:47, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 11:00, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
Copyvio? The letter is going from the United States, so the stamp might be {{PD-USGov}}, but I guess the rest of the stuff can't go as {{PD-ineligible}}. Stefan4 (talk) 00:32, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. A.Savin 19:00, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
Because I am the person in the photo and I am not giving you permission to report. I have also contacted the photog to ask him to take my name off the photos. 173.3.138.198 15:24, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
- Speedy Keep No prooof that this IP is the person depicted, that by the away is a professional model that took this photo as work will being shooted by a professional photographer. Tm (talk) 15:32, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
- Keep - and the photo is still on Flickr. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:37, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
It seems the Flickr user/photographer has indeed removed the name from the image on Flickr; it is still tagged "olivia", but nowhere carries the full name. So the removal of the name might possibly granted.
@Unknown/173.3.138.198, please file your complaint to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org, but include evidence about your identity (mails to this address are treated confidentially). --Túrelio (talk) 20:01, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
- Info ticket # 2011121910021489 the photographer confirms that the subject requested the photo's deletion. MorganKevinJ(talk) 18:17, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
- And the photo is still on a free license on Flickr. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:29, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
- The concern is mostly related to fact that the photo has the subject's name and appears in Google when searching for the photo. Maybe if the file were renamed and the description changed to woman smoking a cigarette. MorganKevinJ(talk) 23:11, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
- And the photo is still on a free license on Flickr. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:29, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
- Keep and - at the fairest - remove the name. Though I don't understand the nature of such request. It's a professional model posing for a professional photo, thus no personality rights are affected being a publicly known person. -- Blackcat (talk) 22:39, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
- Remove name for humanitarian reasons.--GrapedApe (talk) 04:05, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
- Info I went ahead and renamed the file as a courtesy to the subject (per the OTRS ticket). This should prevent it from being the first match for a Google search. Her name still appears in the description, however. I'll leave it for the closer to decide if there is consensus for other measures to be taken. Kaldari (talk) 01:36, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
- Name still would be in the file history log at the bottom so deletion-reupload would be needed. No reason not to remove it since the subject isn't notable, I guess. Rocket000 (talk) 13:55, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
- That would not pose a problem since Google bot does not use the file history.MorganKevinJ(talk) 03:20, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
- Name still would be in the file history log at the bottom so deletion-reupload would be needed. No reason not to remove it since the subject isn't notable, I guess. Rocket000 (talk) 13:55, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Comment Why should it be deleted here, when it is still available on flickr with a by-sa-2.0-licence? --High Contrast (talk) 14:22, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Kept. Denniss (talk) 21:46, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
_%26_Tyler_Ward.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_%26_Tyler_Ward.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
and other uploads by Dee03z (talk · contribs). Unlikely to be own work: small/inconsistent resolutions, missing EXIF. May be promo photos. EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:44, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
_&_Tyler_Ward.jpg){kind=link}
This is my photograph, taken from a live show. Thanks Dee03z (talk) 18:51, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
_&_Tyler_Ward.jpg){kind=link}
Please adivise as to how I can continue to use this image on Wiki. It is an original work all rights are mine. * low resolution is because I capped it from one of my videos from kinda far back. Dee03z (talk) 22:50, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
_&_Tyler_Ward.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted. A.Savin 19:01, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
_&_Tyler_Ward.jpg){kind=link}
Copyvio. The photograph itself seems old. However, this "newspaper" was not published in 1919, Günü gününe İstiklâl Harbi gazetesi was prepared by Ömer Sami Coşar in 1969. In Turkey, the latin alphabet system was introduced in 1929. Takabeg (talk) 07:04, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
- Comment photo from the en:Spartacist uprising in Berlin. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:21, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Parsecboy (talk) 21:08, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: most likely PD in the US, but unclear about the situation in Germany, presumably the original country of publication. Not enough information about this image to keep it. Rosenzweig τ 13:02, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
Appears to have been uploaded by the subject, but is clearly not a self-taken photo. -mattbuck (Talk) 10:11, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
The photo is a frame from a video made of a presentation at a Quantified Self meetup in the Bay Area. The video was uploaded to vimeo by Gary Wolf, who heads the meet-ups. I contacted Gary about permission to use the image and his response was: "Of course! Feel free to include my contact info if necessary." - User:Randalkoene (Talk) 20:32, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
- Neutral Then we need OTRS confirmation. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 02:32, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Needs OTRS permission. Sreejith K (talk) 18:14, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
and File:Szarvasi mini espresso.jpg, File:Szarvasi gyár.jpg, File:Szarvasi kotyogó2.jpg. Likely to be advertisement. EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:55, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: {{Out of scope}} Sreejith K (talk) 18:15, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
