Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2011/12/23
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
|
|
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
Looks like a screenshot from the copyvio image File:NistiStérk.JPG. Stefan4 (talk) 16:39, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Martin H. (talk) 17:57, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
Based on resolution, point of view, and editor history. This is an obvious screenshot of a TV program. Geraldo Perez (talk) 18:42, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: copyright violation Polarlys (talk) 22:10, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
road sign non existing in the Italian road code Gigillo83 (talk) 23:33, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Speedy deleted since this was uploaded by a serial hoaxer Bidgee (talk) 04:28, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
I don't think this is own work of Flickr uploader because the water mark states "alrage.org" which may be the website this image belongs to Morning Sunshine (talk) 12:01, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: same as Commons:Deletion requests/File:Amad Ali Suleiman Al-Hosni.jpg Martin H. (talk) 22:13, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
don't think this is own work of Flickr uploader because the acount is not trustworthy and there is a similar image Morning Sunshine (talk) 12:04, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: The flickr account is a known abusive flickr account created and operated by Mromarfootballfan1 sockpuppets. Martin H. (talk) 22:10, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
don't think this is own work of Flickr uploader because the acount is not trustworthy and there are some results with Google Morning Sunshine (talk) 12:06, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Same as Commons:Deletion requests/File:Amad Ali Suleiman Al-Hosni.jpg. Martin H. (talk) 22:10, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
Non-commercial license according to the flickr page. That makes it unqualified for Commons. Apparently, there is a review (it is malformed for some reason - can't find anything in the page that suggests the page was updated and the license is easy to mistake between NC and BY, and there is no reason to move from BY to NC) Ottava Rima (talk) 02:35, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
Keep History shows that it passed Flickr review; I have reverted an erroneous edit by an ip-number. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 09:04, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
- I saw that later but my assessment of improbability of switching from NC to BY and the likelihood of people just not realizing that there are different CC-SAs still makes me think this was wrong. It is the problem of having one reviewer or no ability to see what the reviewer read. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:30, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
- FlickreviewR (talk · contribs) is a bot, and very reliable. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 15:46, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
- You know that the bot merely plugs in when someone clicks that they reviewed it? It isn't as magical as you assume it is. Bots screw up a lot, and that is why you have a reviewer confirm it. This one didn't even get a reviewer to review it as standard to do in addition to the bot. Hell, knowing the errors produced by the Coren copyvio bot which has a much less complex code would suggest that such a thing is completely untrustworthy on its own. As a side note, the link to the original script is no longer at the page it is supposed to be, which makes the bot even less trustworthy. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:34, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
- Ottava Rima made essentially the same claim in a comparison of the coren bot and the flickrreview bot in Commons:Village_pump#Really_tired_with_flickr. They seemed to be saying that since the coren bot was simpler, and seemed to screw up a lot, the flickrreview bot had to screw up even more often. What was this analysis based on? O.R. asserted that since Coren analyzed text, not images, it had to be simpler. But the most important thing flickrreview does check the main web page for the image to see if it had the correct free license. This is also a text operation. Determining the size of a file, and computing a checksum are well understood processes -- ones for which there are reliable library functions. The claim that flickrreview has to have more bugs than the coren bot because it is more complicated may be based on misconceptions. I suggest O.R. base their challenges solely on flickrreview, and forget their concerns with other bots. Geo Swan (talk) 08:54, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
- The block log proves that it screwed up in 2008. Why do you keep making it seem like it didn't ever screw up? That is rather weird. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:02, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
- You know that the bot merely plugs in when someone clicks that they reviewed it? It isn't as magical as you assume it is. Bots screw up a lot, and that is why you have a reviewer confirm it. This one didn't even get a reviewer to review it as standard to do in addition to the bot. Hell, knowing the errors produced by the Coren copyvio bot which has a much less complex code would suggest that such a thing is completely untrustworthy on its own. As a side note, the link to the original script is no longer at the page it is supposed to be, which makes the bot even less trustworthy. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:34, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
- FlickreviewR (talk · contribs) is a bot, and very reliable. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 15:46, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
- Authors can very well switch their images on Fickr from one license to another if they please and it's not our business to question their motives. Just because you would not change the licensing of your own photos doesn't mean that other people shouldn't decide to change the licensing of their photos if they want. It is not unusual. And that's exactly why Commons has a license review procedure to keep track of the license that was validly used at the time of upload. -- Asclepias (talk) 22:25, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
Delete Everything in the account prior to 2nd of June is marked as NC everything afterwards is BY. There is nothing to suppose that the user changed the license, particularly as retro licensing 1000+ images on flickr is a pain in the arse. But as the uploader is still active on flickr it should be easy to ask him. One thing though his flickr profile says:
- [My photos have been published in the NY Times, calendars, annual reports, websites, magazines, etc. Please let me know if you would like to use any of my photos.]
- Which is strange thing for someone that understands the licenses to say. John lilburne (talk) 12:18, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
- The author uploaded photos directly to Commons under the GFDL. Many other photos under CC-by-2.0 at his flickr account were copied to Commons by other users, including several before June 2009. Just with a quick search, we can find the examples File:Tigerwater.jpg (u:Dalmacia), File:GrayLine Montreal 8.jpg (u:Secondarywaltz, r:Giggy), File:Agilitydog.jpg (u:A2 supersonique, r:MBisanz), File:Bob Jagendorf - Lunar Eclipse (by).jpg (u:ComputerHotline), File:Fabfaux2.jpg (en.wp-u:Jenolen), File:Clarksville TN.jpg (u:Avala), File:Franklin D. Roosevelt East River Drive.jpg (u:Chin tin tin), File:Citadel Hill Soldier Reenactors.jpg (u:WarBaCoN), File:Union station interior nashville.jpg (u:Kaldari), File:HobokenNJ Downtown.jpg (u:Yassie), File:Agelaius phoeniceus -standing on wood-8.jpg (u:Snowmanradio), File:Chinese New Year Balloons.jpg (u:Atlaslin), File:Driving on the Verrazano Bridge.jpg (r:Abigor), File:MidCityLanesSignDaytimeDec2006.jpg (u:Infrogmation, r:Kved). They were uploaded to Commons by many different users and they were reviewed by several different trusted reviewers. Only with those few examples linked, we can count 10 uploaders, plus 4 reviewers, plus 2 reviewer bots (Flickrrevier and File upload bot), who all confirm the CC-by-2.0 license. Is it reasonable to think that those users all independently made the same stupid mistake about the license on this Flickr account? It is unlikely. On one side, besides the bots, we have at least those 14 users, who each personnally witnessed the Flickr pages of those images and who all independently confirmed that those images of that Flick account were offered under the CC-by-2.0 license. On the other side, we have two users, who never saw the Flickr pages at the time of the uploads, and who, without any evidence, are merely making speculations. I'll believe the 14 direct witnesses. -- Asclepias (talk) 22:25, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
- It is extremely unlikely for anyone to relicense from BY to NC or back again. It isn't unlikely for someone to pass off material here as what it isn't or for bots to screw up. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:18, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
- There may have been a time when a flickr user couldn't change the license to all their images in one fell swoop, but this hasn't been true for years. I just checked. You "select all", drag all your images to the workspace with a single drag, then click permissions. I was warned the "select all" step might take minutes. It took less than one minute for my 700 images. So, no, your assumption that this is difficult and time consuming operation is misplaced. Geo Swan (talk) 02:31, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
- Someone on WR pointed out that many of the images are CC-BY, which makes it unlikely that they merely changed half of them but that they changed their default part way through when they realized the problem. This would suggest that this image always was CC-NC because the recent images are not the same. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:30, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
- WR? Is that Wikipedia Review? What in the name of heck do you mean "CC-BY, which makes it unlikely that they merely changed half of them but that they changed their default part way through when they realized the problem"? It sounds like you are second guessing the flickr uploaders, asserting, essentially, that they were too stupid to place the license they really want on their images -- so stupid they require you to protect them against their stupidity. You don't seem to recognize any flickr contributor who wants to change the licenses on all their images, all at once, can do so in less than 2 minutes. Rather than second guessing the flickr contributors I think we should assume that they understand the licenses they put on their images. Geo Swan (talk) 08:24, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
- "It sounds like you are second guessing the flickr uploaders" Quite the opposite. The mere fact that the older images have the NC license and newer ones have the BY, it makes it obvious that those claiming he went back and changed the license have absolutely no basis to make the claim. Why change all the older ones and not the newer ones? There is no proof of a change. The flickr bot has a problem recognizing images and the right pages, and has a long history of bugs. We are supposed to be taking the safest approach to copyright. It seems like people here are being reckless. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:02, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
- The author uploaded photos directly to Commons under the GFDL. Many other photos under CC-by-2.0 at his flickr account were copied to Commons by other users, including several before June 2009. Just with a quick search, we can find the examples File:Tigerwater.jpg (u:Dalmacia), File:GrayLine Montreal 8.jpg (u:Secondarywaltz, r:Giggy), File:Agilitydog.jpg (u:A2 supersonique, r:MBisanz), File:Bob Jagendorf - Lunar Eclipse (by).jpg (u:ComputerHotline), File:Fabfaux2.jpg (en.wp-u:Jenolen), File:Clarksville TN.jpg (u:Avala), File:Franklin D. Roosevelt East River Drive.jpg (u:Chin tin tin), File:Citadel Hill Soldier Reenactors.jpg (u:WarBaCoN), File:Union station interior nashville.jpg (u:Kaldari), File:HobokenNJ Downtown.jpg (u:Yassie), File:Agelaius phoeniceus -standing on wood-8.jpg (u:Snowmanradio), File:Chinese New Year Balloons.jpg (u:Atlaslin), File:Driving on the Verrazano Bridge.jpg (r:Abigor), File:MidCityLanesSignDaytimeDec2006.jpg (u:Infrogmation, r:Kved). They were uploaded to Commons by many different users and they were reviewed by several different trusted reviewers. Only with those few examples linked, we can count 10 uploaders, plus 4 reviewers, plus 2 reviewer bots (Flickrrevier and File upload bot), who all confirm the CC-by-2.0 license. Is it reasonable to think that those users all independently made the same stupid mistake about the license on this Flickr account? It is unlikely. On one side, besides the bots, we have at least those 14 users, who each personnally witnessed the Flickr pages of those images and who all independently confirmed that those images of that Flick account were offered under the CC-by-2.0 license. On the other side, we have two users, who never saw the Flickr pages at the time of the uploads, and who, without any evidence, are merely making speculations. I'll believe the 14 direct witnesses. -- Asclepias (talk) 22:25, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- Keep. Passed flickrreview. Was validly reused under CC-by-2.0 offered by the Flick user at the time. -- Asclepias (talk) 22:25, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
- No bot is perfect and all of them have an unfortunately high rate of error. This has always been true and flickr bot should have been discontinued long ago. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:18, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
- Do you have any evidence for errors on the side of falsely confirming a license that was not there? Until then, I believe that Rima is in error. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 23:46, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
- See its talk page history for dozens of reports of misreading images and its block log to see that it did malfunction in such an egregious manner that it had to be blocked to stop it and then clean up after it. Bots are really, really buggy and faulty. The first archive shows a whole list of bug reports over time where it was unable to read images properly and mislicensed material. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:42, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
- You are egregeously malfunctioning, there is no evidence on the side of falsely confirming a commons-compatible license, you are really really buggy and faulty. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 00:52, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
- User:Ottava Rima recently initiated Commons:Village_pump#Really_tired_with_flickr. I have repeatedly asked User:Ottava Rima ([1], [2], [3]) to substantiate their assertion that flickrreview is unreliable. I am afraid I have not found O.R. attempts to explain why they claim flickrreview is unreliable to be convincing. Geo Swan (talk) 01:58, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
- I showed plenty of instances where flickrbot was reading the wrong images or misread licenses, and it even had to be blocked. I'm not sure why Geo Swan doesn't understand that, but it is quite confusing. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:30, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
- Really? You realize that the flickr upload bot is a completely different program from flickrreview? Did you mean to challenge it, here, as well? Or did you get the two confused? As for where you think you "showed plenty of instances" -- I request you back up this claim with diffs. I dispute you have found a single instance where flickrreview incorrectly passed an unfree image as if it had proper free license. The talk page archives contain a lot of instances where individuals complained failed to pass images they thought should have been passed -- but where the bot functioned properly, and the individual making the complaint failed to understand the copyright issues involved. I am sorry, but there is no tactful way to say this. I am afraid it appears you haven't really tried to read those talk page archives, and that your claims that the bot has "many many bugs" are without basis. Geo Swan (talk) 08:38, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
- Flickrbot has been a nickname for FlickrReviewerR for a long time. Your off topic attacks above are really inappropriate, especially when you have responded to the use of the nickname before knowing that the referred to bot was FlickrReviewerR. "ou mean to challenge it, here, as well? Or did you get the two confused? As for where you think you "showed plenty of instances" -- I request you back up this claim with diffs" It was provided by links to the page complaints and to the block log. You have seen overwhelming evidence but are pretending it doesn't exist. You are beginning to become disruptive and you need to cut it out. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:16, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
- See its talk page history for dozens of reports of misreading images and its block log to see that it did malfunction in such an egregious manner that it had to be blocked to stop it and then clean up after it. Bots are really, really buggy and faulty. The first archive shows a whole list of bug reports over time where it was unable to read images properly and mislicensed material. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:42, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
- Do you have any evidence for errors on the side of falsely confirming a license that was not there? Until then, I believe that Rima is in error. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 23:46, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
- Keep -- keep for the reasons offered above and at Commons:Village_pump#Really_tired_with_flickr. Geo Swan (talk) 02:37, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
- Keep properly reviewed file from flickr.--Prosfilaes (talk) 10:39, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
- Keep I chose to believe 14 contributors mentioned above over the historical revisionism. VolodyA! V Anarhist (converse) 13:46, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
- There are no "14 contributors mentioned above" and the bot has failed majorly. It has a history of looking at the wrong page and even Bryan, the bot's operator, has admitted that. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:00, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
- You repeating the lie doesn't make it true. From "above" Asclepias: "Only with those few examples linked, we can count 10 uploaders, plus 4 reviewers, plus 2 reviewer bots". I can sort of see the point about the bot not being the omniscient being that we must trust in all cases, but in this case it has clearly made no mistake and actually helped. It was there for this exact reason, when there will be a dispute about the changed licence terms. VolodyA! V Anarhist (converse) 16:29, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
- And where do those "14 contribotrs" back up anything you state? And how do you know it made no mistake? Were you there to see if there was no change in the license? And the bot is there because only a handful of people were involved in discussing the matter. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:48, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
- You repeating the lie doesn't make it true. From "above" Asclepias: "Only with those few examples linked, we can count 10 uploaders, plus 4 reviewers, plus 2 reviewer bots". I can sort of see the point about the bot not being the omniscient being that we must trust in all cases, but in this case it has clearly made no mistake and actually helped. It was there for this exact reason, when there will be a dispute about the changed licence terms. VolodyA! V Anarhist (converse) 16:29, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
Kept: per Pieter Kuiper, Asclepias et al. Passed Flickrreview, so license is ok. And BTW, contrary to what some might believe, it IS possible to retrospectively change the licenses for one's entire photostream on Flickr (batch license change). Rosenzweig τ 08:58, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
This image may not be realistically useful for an educational purpose. Mys 721tx (talk) 05:26, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
- Delete per nom, educational value unclear. -Pete F (talk) 16:55, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope Captain-tucker (talk) 15:20, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
This image may not be realistically useful for an educational purpose. Mys 721tx (talk) 06:26, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
- It appears that the uploader is trying to create an article about himself in userspace. (see here.) My inclination would be to keep pending the outcome of this recent effort. I have no idea what this person's notability is, or what the Spanish Wikipedia's notability standards are, for that matter -- so as long as there is an active, good faith effort to create an article, deleting the photo seems ill advised. -Pete F (talk) 16:54, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
Kept: COM:PS says the uploading of small numbers of images (e.g. of yourself) for use on a personal user page of another project is allowed Captain-tucker (talk) 15:28, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
obviously bogus licensing...promotional item from film with watermarked website-of-origin is definitely not within uploader's ownership to release as CC DMacks (talk) 07:03, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio Captain-tucker (talk) 15:31, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
This photograph can't be public domain due to old age 88.65.29.201 07:25, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
- The IP above was me. Forgot to log in :) --StYxXx ⊗ 07:28, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio, looks like a crop of this photo: http://www.clubzone.com/events/349070/edmonton/empire-ballroom/john-ocallaghan-unfold-album-tour-w-betsie-larkin Captain-tucker (talk) 15:31, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
Useless personal picture. Ices2Csharp (talk) 08:10, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Educational value unclear. -Pete F (talk) 19:48, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope Captain-tucker (talk) 15:29, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
Doubtfully own work, advertising image Funfood ␌ 08:33, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio Captain-tucker (talk) 15:34, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Bad quality, totally blurred Funfood ␌ 08:47, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: Out of scope Captain-tucker (talk) 15:34, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Picture is taken by Jon-Are Berg-Jacobsen, a contract photographer for a couple of Norwegian newspapers [4] [5] [6] It is available commercially through various news agencies. It is not a free picture. You can also see the same in the picture's EXIF data. Laniala (talk) 09:25, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for nominating - slipped through at Commons_talk:Questionable_Flickr_images#lwpkommunikacio_55269648.40N04. --Saibo (Δ) 18:17, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
- Delete - At the time I uploaded this image, I had no reason whatsoever to suspect it was under any license other than the one displayed at flickr, which I checked to make sure it was applicable to commons. Since I now know otherwise, I have no objections to the image being deleted, and thanks for the warning :) BarkingFish (talk) 13:35, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio Captain-tucker (talk) 15:36, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
no permission www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10150178278096445&set=a.10150178277996445.326754.6184226444&type=1 217.186.26.36 10:37, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio Captain-tucker (talk) 15:38, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
no permission www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10150178278096445&set=a.10150178277996445.326754.6184226444&type=1 217.186.26.36 10:37, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio Captain-tucker (talk) 15:38, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
An unused private image. GeorgHH • talk 14:03, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. -Pete F (talk) 19:50, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope Captain-tucker (talk) 16:06, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
Private image of an inactive user. unused. GeorgHH • talk 14:10, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope Captain-tucker (talk) 16:07, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
Made himself or his/her son an article on userpage. E4024 (talk) 04:08, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 10:22, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photoalbum. Not used. EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:48, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Educational value unclear. -Pete F (talk) 18:57, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope Captain-tucker (talk) 16:09, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
out of scope, unused AtelierMonpli (talk) 12:11, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 22:24, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
out of scope and unused AtelierMonpli (talk) 12:35, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 22:25, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
Private video, unused. GeorgHH • talk 14:04, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 22:26, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
Owner's ask Егор Осин (talk) 16:34, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Per Uploader's request George Chernilevsky talk 22:27, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
disputed for more than one month. I(creater) agree with the dispute and deletion. Gauravjuvekar (talk) 16:34, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
- Note that the problems are due to stupid text formatting incompatibilities between RSVG and the creating software, not due to real chemical inaccuracies in the SVG file itself. AnonMoos (talk) 08:56, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
- Delete The image is not useful as is (compare File:Fast Green FCF.png). --Leyo 00:09, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Per nom. George Chernilevsky talk 22:29, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photoalbum. Not used. EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:35, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 22:28, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photoalbum. Not used. EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:43, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 22:29, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
and File:Jallikattu-palamedu.jpg. Unlikely to be own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF. EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:49, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: Copyvio Captain-tucker (talk) 20:53, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photoalbum. Not used. EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:49, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope Captain-tucker (talk) 20:53, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
I seriously doubt that this logo would pass as {{PD-textlogo}}. Definitely {{Copyvio}} in my opinion. Stefan4 (talk) 20:08, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
- Delete - complex shape with 3D effects. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:46, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio Captain-tucker (talk) 21:09, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
This picture as taken after Línea 3 Metro Madrid (25).jpg and has the same content but unfocused. I see no reason to retain this picture.Smiley.toerist (talk) 11:55, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- Delete - hurts the eyes. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:47, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope Captain-tucker (talk) 21:10, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
The 3D item in five colours might be too complex for {{PD-textlogo}}. Stefan4 (talk) 20:15, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio Captain-tucker (talk) 21:11, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
Orphaned, used in a now deleted article on en.wikipedia. no foreseeable use. FASTILYs (TALK) 21:23, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
- Keep Person depicted has a whole category... -- Herby (Vienna) (talk) 22:17, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
- Keep Really no reason for deletion. According to Fastily's view about 2/3 of the Commons media should be deleted. The image shows the tennis player "Serena Williams" about whom there are articles on nearly every Wikimedia project. --High Contrast (talk) 07:30, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
- Keep - absurd DR. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:52, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
Kept: In scope Captain-tucker (talk) 20:47, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
Orphaned vanity photo, low quality, out of scope, no foreseeable use. FASTILYs (TALK) 21:23, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 22:31, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
Orphaned vanity photo, low quality, out of scope, no foreseeable use. FASTILYs (TALK) 21:24, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 22:31, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
Orphaned, Low Quality, Unencyclopedic, no foreseeable use. FASTILYs (TALK) 21:25, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 22:32, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
Seems to be a photo of some kind of famous person.[7] Is the uploader really the copyright holder? Stefan4 (talk) 21:52, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
![[7]](http://www.google.com/imgres?q=%22Sol+Rezza%22&um=1&hl=ja&client=seamonkey-a&sa=N&rls=com.ubuntu:en-US:unofficial&biw=1366&bih=500&tbm=isch&tbnid=qBhwEDhoryBOQM:&imgrefurl=http://zoltan.net1zen.com/%3Fp%3D1356&docid=XvB8aoJaWbH4cM&imgurl=http://freemusicarchive.org/file/images/artists/Sol_Rezza_-_2011102825251376.jpg%253Fwidth%253D290%2526height%253D290&w=290&h=290&ei=9ff0TpanI_OM4gSokKiTCA&zoom=1&iact=hc&vpx=778&vpy=152&dur=1148&hovh=225&hovw=225&tx=147&ty=248&sig=117570889966180310795&page=1&tbnh=147&tbnw=130&start=0&ndsp=13&ved=1t:429,r:10,s:0){kind=link}
Deleted: Copyvio Captain-tucker (talk) 20:36, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
"Books" in the description should probably be "Copyrighted books". I'm guessing that this is a copyright violation. Stefan4 (talk) 21:54, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
- What do you mean by copyright violation? Please explain in detail. I don't really understand what you said above.Trongphu (talk) 22:43, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
- Holy cow, this is complicated! Can someone explain to me simply why this is derivative work? I took this picture myself.Trongphu (talk) 22:12, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
- What is complicated about reading COM:DW#If I take a picture of an object with my own camera, I hold the copyright to the picture. Can't I license it any way I choose? Why do I have to worry about other copyright holders?? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:17, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
- Someone took a photo of a penguin. Someone took a photo of a flag. You have to ask the photographer for permission to use the photo of the penguin and the photo of the flag. --Stefan4 (talk) 23:05, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
- But i took this picture with my own camera. According to what i understand is someone else already has a copyright of these books?Trongphu (talk) 09:18, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, someone else owns the copyright to the books. --Stefan4 (talk) 10:29, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
- I don't really understand these copyright rules. It is just a picture of the covers of the books. Why would someone care about it? What is the point of getting copyright about the covers? It should be free for public use. I'm pretty use whoever own the copyright has no problem with someone else taking the picture of them. Those books after all are school books.Trongphu (talk) 04:13, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, someone else owns the copyright to the books. --Stefan4 (talk) 10:29, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
- But i took this picture with my own camera. According to what i understand is someone else already has a copyright of these books?Trongphu (talk) 09:18, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
- Someone took a photo of a penguin. Someone took a photo of a flag. You have to ask the photographer for permission to use the photo of the penguin and the photo of the flag. --Stefan4 (talk) 23:05, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
- What is complicated about reading COM:DW#If I take a picture of an object with my own camera, I hold the copyright to the picture. Can't I license it any way I choose? Why do I have to worry about other copyright holders?? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:17, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Derivative work Captain-tucker (talk) 20:35, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
own work, not really working sufficiently better than svg or large png versions. G.Hagedorn (talk) 21:57, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Deleted by Romaine Captain-tucker (talk) 20:33, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
Probably too many artistic effects to stay here. Stefan4 (talk) 21:58, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Deleted by EugeneZelenko Captain-tucker (talk) 20:33, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
Very likely to be copyright violation: multiple other versions found with TinEye. P199 (talk) 22:53, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Copvio Captain-tucker (talk) 20:32, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
Warped minuscule image, unusable, out of scope. Likely a picture of another picture (copyvio). P199 (talk) 23:09, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
- Delete, educational value unclear. -Pete F (talk) 18:48, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Probable copvio, COM:PRP Captain-tucker (talk) 20:31, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
Unused personal image, out of scope Morning Sunshine (talk) 11:45, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope Captain-tucker (talk) 20:30, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
Unused personal image, out of scope Morning Sunshine (talk) 11:55, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope Captain-tucker (talk) 20:29, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
This image is sourced from a deleted flickr account and was never verified under the license by someone in good standing (the reviewing individual, Abigor, was later de-admin and blocked on many Wikis for abuse). Flickr deletes accounts based on copyright, and when it doubt must delete. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:41, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
- Delete - I have no doubts about the Flickr review, but there is no exif and it is difficult to find out whether the flickr user James (Jim) Gordon owned the rights. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 09:14, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
- That was why I got a little bothered by it too - deleted account, no exif, a very prominent person you weren't able to get close to, etc. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:32, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: per Pieter Kuiper. Rosenzweig τ 15:34, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
Image reviewed by a person later desysopped and banned elsewhere, so untrustworthy. Page lists as NC and thus not compatable with Commons. No proof that the license was changed and easy to mistake NC for still being allowed on Commons. There is no real reason to move from BY to NC so it is unlikely it was changed. When in doubt must delete. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:58, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
- Keep It's been flikrreviewed. The fact that you're willing to cast aspersions on a former administrator does you no credit.--Prosfilaes (talk) 09:13, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
- Disgraced former admin. There is a major difference. He also did not say what the original license was when reviewing it, which is odd. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:07, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
- Keep. No real reason to believe that there is anything wrong with the license of this file. Also see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Atlantic City, aerial view.jpg. -- Asclepias (talk) 22:34, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
- It was pointed out many times that the flickrbot has a very long track record of messing up. Commons requires us to be certain beyond a doubt and this image is one that can be found on many copyrighted sites without any mention of Wiki or Flickr. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:46, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
- If the flickrbot has a long track record of messing up (and, of course, only false positives are interesting), then surely you can can provide a link to a concise summary of the issue. Beyond a doubt is not the standard; it is one that few, if any, of the images on Commons could meet.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:46, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
- "Beyond a doubt is not the standard; it is one that few, if any, of the images on Commons could mee" Really? Because I see tons of images that are met - having Meta data, uploaded by the person who took it, OTRS checked, etc. Then there are the hundreds of thousands of PD images. Anyone can upload anything to flickr without any control. That is why we have the term flickrwashing. See our Precautionary principle. If you feel that there is not enough doubt then fine, but I do not see a reason for the flicker user to move from CC-BY to CC-NC for only some of his images. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:21, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
- If the flickrbot has a long track record of messing up (and, of course, only false positives are interesting), then surely you can can provide a link to a concise summary of the issue. Beyond a doubt is not the standard; it is one that few, if any, of the images on Commons could meet.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:46, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
- Keep - was an a commons-compatible license. And was not Ottava Rima also blocked? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:12, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
- I was never a reviewer nor am I supposed to be the sole person trusted with what a page may or may not have said. You have no proof what the previous license was because there are no cache versions of the page to verify if it was changed or not. You need proof when it comes to copyright, and when in doubt it must be deleted. That is our policy. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:36, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
Kept: per Prosfilaes, Asclepias et al. Rosenzweig τ 15:48, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
Mario is not free and I don't think it's de minimis either. Stefan4 (talk) 15:05, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Not de minimis in this case. VolodyA! V Anarhist (converse) 14:11, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Rosenzweig τ 15:49, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
2D poster - says at top "MonkiMusic presents..." Ronhjones (Talk) 00:25, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted as this is unlikely to be "own work" (if it is, this needs to be processed through OTRS). --AFBorchert (talk) 10:06, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
Non-encylopedic. No credible use to either Commons or WP projects. May also be a copyvio from http://www.foliotek.com/ Andy Dingley (talk) 00:39, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted as being out of COM:SCOPE. There was once an attempt to create an article about foliotek which got deleted twice as unambiguous advertising or promotion and as copyvio. At the time of deletion it is unused except for a unrelated 2006 user page which precedes the upload of this file – there was another file of this name uploaded to en-wp. It is not a copyvio as this is below the threshold of originality. {{PD-textlogo}} would apply if it would be in scope. --AFBorchert (talk) 10:23, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
Current license is implasible; this is a one-of-a-kind Soviet aircraft built and flown in 1948. It is highly doubtful that a grainy black and white photo of the aircraft would be taken in 2004. Grondemar (talk) 00:57, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
- This picture has been uploaded by Ralf Roletschek at de-wp as PD image. This picture was incorrectly transfered to Commons as it was put then under a GFDL license without his doing. Hence there was originally not a claim that this picture was taken 2004 but that it has been PD. I've asked the original uploader for a comment. As he was most likely not aware of this DR, this DR should be put on hold until he has found the time to respond. Thanks, AFBorchert (talk) 10:54, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
- In the meantime, this file has been restored at de-wp. According to this edit this photograph has been taken by Ralf Roletschek. This edit which also added the GFDL license was done by another user who claimed to act on his behalf. I am still waiting for a comment/confirmation from the original uploader. --AFBorchert (talk) 11:35, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: The original uploader, Ralf Roletschek, assumed in good faith 2004, when this file was uploaded, that this would fall under {{PD-Soviet}}. At that time we believed that at Commons, too. Thanks to Lupo we learnt that this assumption was false and consequently this license template was made a redirect to {{Copyvio}} in 2007. However, this file was never subjected to the analysis of PD-Soviet cases as, before this file was moved to Commons, it was relicensed as GFDL to Ralf Roletschek by an ill-programmed bot which was relicensing early uploads at de-wp. This is the reason why this file was transferred as GFDL and later relicensed as CC-BY-SA during the license migration. In summary, I've to delete it now as it is very likely still copyright protected as this photograph cannot have been taken before 1948 when this aircraft was constructed. Please note that this file has been uploaded to en-wp as Ilyushin Il32.jpg under a fair use rationale. --AFBorchert (talk) 13:26, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
Non notable musician's logo. [[w:ja:♪ Via null (talk) 04:28, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
Out of scope and non notable musician's logo. ♪AKKO♪ (ja) was deleted (Articiles for deletion in ja-wp). --Via null (talk) 04:36, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted as being out of COM:SCOPE per Via null: It is unused at the time of deletion and unlikely to be used or to be of educational value. And, if this would be the case this would have to be processed through OTRS as this logo seems to be eligible of copyright. --AFBorchert (talk) 18:21, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
bad quality Neptuul (talk) 07:54, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted per request by the uploader as it is unused at the time of deletion and as we have this File:Vogelsberg in Feldatal im Vogelsberg, Hessen, von Osten betrachtet.jpg replacement from the same uploader and apparently taken from the same location. --AFBorchert (talk) 18:28, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
The boat seems to be the same of Dnipro official logo (http://www.fcdnipro.ua/, en:File:FC Dnipro Dnipropetrovsk.svg, uk:Файл:Емблема ФК Дніпро Дніпропетровськ.png). --Simo82 (talk) 10:27, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
- The shape and style of boat elements is slightly different. --PavloFriend (talk) 18:55, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted as derived work from the original logo which is eligible for copyright, at least, I think, under consideration of US law. The logo itself does not seem to be very old. If I take a look at this gallery, the sailing boat with the five oars seems to have been introduced in 1987. Some variants followed and this SVG is yet another variant which depends on these original logos. Just redrawing it with some minor modifications does not create an independent work. The whole point of this exercise was apparently to get something which looks close enough – otherwise it would not have been uploaded and used here. --AFBorchert (talk) 20:52, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
The artist died in 1947, so not in public domain yet. Bad license so far, moreover. Frédéric (talk) 10:51, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
- Keep The license tag is indeed incorrect; however, unless there is reason to doubt the 1904 date, {{PD-1923}} applies. -Pete F (talk) 17:53, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted as this is still copyrighted as pointed out by Kilom691. And {{PD-1923}} does not apply unless we have proof that this was published in the United States before 1923. As Jean Coraboeuf died in 1947, I've put this DR into Category:Undelete in 2018. --AFBorchert (talk) 21:00, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
It's a clone of File:JESC_2012_Map.svg. Both pictures are used to depict the participating countries in the w:Junior Eurovision Song Contest 2012. Redundant. Kosm1fent (talk) 12:26, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
- It isn't a clone. -- DaMaFer (talk) 22:50, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
Kept as it is in use and not identical to the other map. --AFBorchert (talk) 11:41, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
Test file of JoseDLG (see upload history). Unuseful file (at current moment). Have an different times uploaded duplicates of the same Eurovision project files: JESC 2012 Map.svg, JESC 2013 Map.svg, JESC 2014 Map.svg, JESC 2015 Map.svg and JESC 2016 Map.svg. ← Aléxi̱s Spoudaíos talkrus? 10:09, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 20:40, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
Being the logo of a recent manga, this is certainly copyrighted. Frédéric (talk) 12:42, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
Kept as this logo is below the threshold of originality as it consists of letters only. This is just protected by trademark laws, not by copyright. --AFBorchert (talk) 11:45, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
logo of the trademark Tropico, hence copyrighted. Frédéric (talk) 13:19, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
- Speedy Delete per nom. -Pete F (talk) 19:49, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
Has already been speedily deleted by EugeneZelenko. --AFBorchert (talk) 12:35, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
It's not Polish name but Dutch and this recording is besides inconsistent with Polish pronunciation. 83.20.62.113 13:38, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
- Keep - pronunciation is fine, consistent with Dutch, as it should be. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 14:56, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
Kept per Pieter Kuiper. --AFBorchert (talk) 12:42, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
El contenido para el cual fue subido, ha sido borrado por el colectivo de wikipedia. El dueño de la fotografia desea retirarla Dittoduarte (talk) 22:31, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
El contenido para el cual fue subido, ha sido borrado por el colectivo de wikipedia. El dueño de la fotografia desea retirarla Dittoduarte (talk) 13:51, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted as requested by the uploader and as this seems to be out of COM:SCOPE. The associated article was deleted at es-wp as being promotional. At the time of deletion it was unused. --AFBorchert (talk) 13:12, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 14:15, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
- Keep In my opinion the real friendship never is out of scope... Electron ツ ➧☎ 23:42, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
- This picture doesn't have any realistic possible usage in the encyclopedia, so it's out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 23:50, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
- Well, I think that it can illustrate e.g. friendship... Electron ツ ➧☎ 17:31, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
- No way, every try to paste this picture into an article about friendship would be reverted as soon as noticed. Ices2Csharp (talk) 19:41, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
- Well, have you tried? Electron ツ ➧☎ 23:27, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
- No, it's not permitted to disrupt Wikipedia in order to make some kind of point. Ices2Csharp (talk) 10:54, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
- So, if you haven't tried it is nothing more than yours own unproved opinion... Electron ツ ➧☎ 11:27, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
- Btw. Commons is the store of files not only for wikipedias but for others Wikimedia projects, too; like: wikisources, wikibooks, wikinews, wikiquotes, and so on... The photo can be a good illustration for poems, texts an modules stored on these projects. I am afraid that you don't awere of this... Electron ツ ➧☎ 11:37, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
- I am aware of that, but this file isn't suitable for one of those projects either. Ices2Csharp (talk) 12:08, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
- In my opinion it can be a good illustration for e.g. poems or a texts about frienship. For this purpose it is a perfect illustration. Electron ツ ➧☎ 12:23, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
- I am aware of that, but this file isn't suitable for one of those projects either. Ices2Csharp (talk) 12:08, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
- No, it's not permitted to disrupt Wikipedia in order to make some kind of point. Ices2Csharp (talk) 10:54, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
- Well, have you tried? Electron ツ ➧☎ 23:27, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
- No way, every try to paste this picture into an article about friendship would be reverted as soon as noticed. Ices2Csharp (talk) 19:41, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
- Well, I think that it can illustrate e.g. friendship... Electron ツ ➧☎ 17:31, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
- This picture doesn't have any realistic possible usage in the encyclopedia, so it's out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 23:50, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted per Ices2Csharp as being out of COM:SCOPE. While it is in principle possible to keep good photographs that illustrate friendship, this isn't one of them. This photograph suffered severely from a huge watermark spread over the entire photograph and a signature in the lower right. The amount of work required to get rid of this watermark would be in no relation to the possible use of this photo. Hence it is, as Ices2Csharp already pointed out, very unlikely that this gets used in any of the WMF projects. --AFBorchert (talk) 13:21, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
The source claim "Familiar" is a nice joke or something like that, but not actually a source information. The file is likely a thumbnail taken from http://www.jrcasan.com/MONFORTE/Alcaldes/1931_1933.htm (that page existed in 2004 already), but whats the copyright status? The source page - the page I think is the true source - does not allow to conclude on anonymous work. The filepage claims that the author died 70 years ago without naming that author. Martin H. (talk) 13:08, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
- Esta imagen está en dominio público, se trata de un político fallecido hace suficientes años para ello, como creo que ya se te ha indicado. Ahora que sí quieres hacer caso omiso, es tú problema. Quedarás igual de bien que cuando has borrado la imagen de Ricardo Mella, fallecido en 1925 y donada ya hace años por mi familia a las publicaciones que se ocupan de su obra. Te estás cubriendo de gloria. --Ensada (talk) 01:30, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted as {{PD-old}} does not apply if we do not know the author and we cannot be sure that he died before 1942. The depicted person, Juan Tizón died in 1945 and was then 50 years old. This picture could have even been taken post 1941 and we are far from being able to conclude that the photographer died 1941 or earlier. The alternative, {{Anonymous-EU}} requires proof of an anonymous publication 70 ago which was not given. --AFBorchert (talk) 11:57, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope and possible insulting description. Ices2Csharp (talk) 14:21, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
- Keep - I do not see the problem, but I do not read Arabic. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:21, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
- It says: "No age limits for the love relationship of the couple" - Ices2Csharp (talk) 00:22, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
- That is what google translate says. You do not know any Arabic either. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 00:36, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
- My Arabic skills are limited, but not zero. (Not sure how you could conclude something like that without even knowing more than a username and an edit history about me.) I'm at least sure the description isn't something completely different, however the translation may be bad in details. Ices2Csharp (talk) 17:22, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
- That is what google translate says. You do not know any Arabic either. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 00:36, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
- It says: "No age limits for the love relationship of the couple" - Ices2Csharp (talk) 00:22, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
Kept as this is a picture of a street scene with a couple of educational value. Surely it would have been preferably to know where exactly this has been shot in the Arabic world. But even without this info it is a good photograph. And no convincing arguments were brought forward that the description could be insulting. (I have no knowledge of Arabic either beyond the capability to use Google Translate but as long I am not convinced otherwise I follow AGF.) --AFBorchert (talk) 13:40, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
Permission field suggests 'Wikipedia only' permission. Ices2Csharp (talk) 15:10, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
- Keep But once a person releases the photo into the public domain, permission stops being exclusive in any way. So Wikipedia can use that image, but not only Wikipedia, since there's no way to limit the use. VolodyA! V Anarhist (converse) 14:13, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
- The text makes me concerned uploader isn't aware of that. Ices2Csharp (talk) 16:51, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
- Keep - it does not say wikipedia only. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:26, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
Kept per Pieter Kuiper. This was the very first upload of this user and he was apparently confused about the Permission field. {{PD-self}} is good enough for us. --AFBorchert (talk) 14:43, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
because I need to substitute the ancient one with a newer. Fh387dfyt87 (talk) 15:41, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted as requested by the user who uploaded it. This is an unused personal photo. --AFBorchert (talk) 16:45, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
je vais mettre à jour le fichier "Etoile Ferroviaire d'Hirson.jpg" à la plce Igmar911 (talk) 17:23, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Tiptoety talk 07:26, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Extremely low quality photo of an already well-represented car (Category:Honda Civic (2011, United States). Also it is blocked Mr.choppers (talk) 17:37, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
- Delete - Per nom --Katarighe (Talk · Contributions · E-mail) 02:42, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Tiptoety talk 07:26, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Small, blurry picture of a car of which there are already countless images available. Mr.choppers (talk) 17:39, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
- Delete - User request, bad quality --Katarighe (Talk · Contributions · E-mail) 02:39, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Tiptoety talk 07:26, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Modified car, photographer's shadow showing, front of car is cropped. There are tons of better images of sixth gen Civic sedans Mr.choppers (talk) 18:47, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
- Delete - User request --Katarighe (Talk · Contributions · E-mail) 02:41, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Tiptoety talk 07:27, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
According to wikia:es.mortalkombat:File:Hydro_cibors.png, no licence has been selected at Wikia. I would assume that it is a copyvio from Mortal Kombat since it comes from a Wikia wiki about that. Stefan4 (talk) 20:19, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Deleted by another administrator. Tiptoety talk 07:27, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
COM:FOP#Slovenia says that there's no freedom of panorama in Slovenia. I think that we need permission from whoever hates us. Stefan4 (talk) 20:44, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
- Keep - illegal graffiti. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:49, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
- The fact that the graffiti is illegal to produce doesn't affect its copyright status, does it? --Stefan4 (talk) 22:58, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
- Policy is to keep, see Commons:Image casebook#Graffiti, as this can be considered abandoned property. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 23:08, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
- Keep Yet another policy I wasn't aware of. --Stefan4 (talk) 00:21, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
- Keep, I was unaware as well. Please note there is an open deletion discussion for the relevant template, as well: Template:Non-free graffiti -- it's an interesting topic. -Pete F (talk) 17:50, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
- Policy is to keep, see Commons:Image casebook#Graffiti, as this can be considered abandoned property. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 23:08, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
- The fact that the graffiti is illegal to produce doesn't affect its copyright status, does it? --Stefan4 (talk) 22:58, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
Renominating for deletion, now that 1) we have two copyright experts from Slovenia claiming that graffiti are not free, and 2) we have already deleted a large number of them - see Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Graffiti in Ljubljana. Eleassar (t/p) 21:52, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 08:29, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
This film, w:The 39 Steps (1935 film), is not in the public domain. Its copyrights were restored per {{Not-PD-US-URAA}}. Magog the Ogre (talk) 22:17, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
- Delete per nom, it appears this film will not be in the public domain until 2030. -Pete F (talk) 18:46, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Tiptoety talk 07:28, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
This film, w:The 39 Steps (1935 film), is not in the public domain. Its copyrights were restored per {{Not-PD-US-URAA}}. Magog the Ogre (talk) 22:26, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
- Delete per nom, it appears this film will not be in the public domain until 2030. -Pete F (talk) 18:47, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Tiptoety talk 07:28, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
The individual photos are not listed, so their licences are unknown. Stefan4 (talk) 16:37, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. MBisanz talk 23:52, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
and other uploads by Seaspray66 (talk · contribs). Unlikely to be own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF. EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:38, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. MBisanz talk 23:59, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
and other uploads by Manas83 (talk · contribs). Looks like web banners. Unlikely to fit into Commons:Project scope. EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:45, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. MBisanz talk 00:01, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
This image is found on http://takebacksa.wordpress.com/ (http://takebacksa.files.wordpress.com/2011/05/tabasa4.jpg} and there is no evidence this is the work of the uploader or that he has permission to licence the image Ww2censor (talk) 17:08, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. MBisanz talk 00:01, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
Two issues here I would like to clarify: COM:PEOPLE (does this person knows that everyone can see her?), license questionalbe (no Exif-Data?) Yikrazuul (talk) 18:41, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
- Keep - no reason for deletion. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:43, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
Two files uploaded by JulisRocks (talk · contribs)
[edit]Especially when considered together, these two pictures look like almost certain copyright violations. File:PaulaChavesPedroAlfonso.jpg is a tiny image apparently from FaceBook, but claimed as "own work". File:PaulaChaves1.jpg sports a license that would require it to have been taken before its subject was born. Only contributions by uploader.
Jmabel ! talk 01:54, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
- PaulaChaves1.jpg was uploaded as "own work" and a CC-BY-SA/GFDL license, then also added the mistaken PD tag. Looking at that alone, the mistaken tag should just be removed. The other one looks like a clear copyvio though -- copies here and several other blogs. I don't see any evidence of the license, or the true author -- not sure that is the original site either. Delete on that one. However, that is not claimed "own work" like the first one. I can't find that first one anywhere else on the web. Maybe from a video? Not sure... do we assume good faith, or think it's copied from somewhere else? No EXIF. Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:40, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
- PaulaChaves1.jpg was uploaded as "own work" and a CC-BY-SA/GFDL license, then also added the mistaken PD tag. Looking at that alone, the mistaken tag should just be removed. The other one looks like a clear copyvio though -- copies here and several other blogs. I don't see any evidence of the license, or the true author -- not sure that is the original site either.
- The facebook image has been nuked as Facebook is generally non-free. The other looks very questionable as well, one would assume to have at least rudimentary Exif data from a Camera, not just from Photoshop. --Denniss (talk) 12:07, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: File:PaulaChavesPedroAlfonso.jpg was already speedied by Denniss as copyvio. And I agree that the other picture looks like a copyvio as well. It had an odd combination of {{PD-AR-Anonymous}} and {{Cc-by-sa-all}} which makes it apparent that the uploader had no understanding of copyright and licenses. --AFBorchert (talk) 14:19, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
Some of them contain logos, suggesting that they are copyvios from an unidentified source (possibly a TV programme). The ones without logos seem to come from the same source, so if the logo ones are copyvios, the ones without logos are presumably also copyvios.
- File:Sindicato niver bianca.jpg
- File:Carnaval sds.jpg
- File:Sindicato do samba no programa a tarde é nossa.jpg
- File:Sindicato antes do show.jpg
- File:Sds na batuque.jpg
- File:Sds no samba da ilha.jpg
- File:Sds no botafogo do anil.jpg
- File:Show na cidade operaria.jpg
- File:Sds ao vivo no anil.jpg
- File:Show vava e marcio (4).jpg
- File:Show vava e marcio (1).jpg
- File:Sindicato do Samba 2011.jpg
- File:Grupo Sindicato Do Samba.jpg
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Stefan4 (talk) 20:24, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
- Delete: I suggest to add this file as well to the list:
- A watermark points to www.gruposindicatordosamba.com.br, the web site of this group. Likewise File:Sds no botafogo do anil.jpg points to fotosorria.com.br. --AFBorchert (talk) 10:26, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
- Delete - I've looked at a few and while only some seem to be obvious, I think that the similar style in all of them suggests that if one is bad that most of them are bad. When in doubt about the copyright we should delete. This, for example, seems professional. There does not seem to be any actual link between uploader and the group mentioned as the author. It could be a file put up by that group, but OTRS should be used to confirm that. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:26, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. MBisanz talk 00:07, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
Orphaned personal picture : Commons is not a hosting web site Civa (talk) 09:06, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
- Keep Commons is a hosting web site, and w:Josh Freese is notable. Trycatch (talk) 09:46, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
Kept Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:58, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
Moved from a {{Copyvio}} which had the following reason:
- "This file is a copyright violation for the following reason: This is a promotional photo of Josh Freese, which was used as cover art for his 2009 album Since 1972 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Since_1972). There is no evidence that the uploader is the photographer or copyright holder, or that they have permission to release it under a free license. The claim of "own work" is not credible." 09:36, 23 December 2011 IllaZilla
Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:22, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
- I note that the album cited in the nomination is from 2009. The image has EXIF, including a 2006 date and was uploaded here in 2008. Even if the EXIF is forged, it is hard to explain how a 2008 upload can be taken from a 2009 album. On the other hand is the fact that this uploader has only two contributions -- this and one other image of Josh Freese -- and the image is relatively small. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:31, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
- Delete: The most likely scenario is that this is a promotional photo of Mr. Freese (a professional drummer with hundreds of album credits & a member of notable acts including The Vandals, A Perfect Circle, and Devo) that was taken in 2006, may have appeared on a website related to him, and was later used to make the cover art for his 2009 album. The fact that the image is small indicates that the uploader, User:Tannerc, likely is not the photographer/copyright holder, because if he were then he would most likely have uploaded the original size which would be much larger than 640 × 480. It is also highly unlikely that a freely-licensed image (belonging, possibly, to a fan) would later be used as album cover art by a professional musician who routinely uses professional photographers and whose catalog of promotional photos are all copyrighted. In short, the claim by Tannerc that this is his own work is not credible, especially since this appears to be a promotional photo which are almost always copyrighted. --IllaZilla (talk) 15:49, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
- I should add that I think you're probably right -- I just didn't think it was quite clear enough to be a Speedy, particularly since it's been here for three years and the uploader is no longer around to defend it. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 00:46, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted as if the uploader is indeed the copyright holder this would have to be processed through OTRS such that we can be on the safe side. Similarly, we have also a problem with the other upload by this user, File:Joshfreesehimself.jpg, which has apparently been taken from Facebook. --AFBorchert (talk) 14:35, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
and other uploads by IFUNA (talk · contribs). Unlikely to be own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF. EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:51, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Denniss (talk) 20:42, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
The TV might be too complex to be used without OTRS. Additionally, it seems that the page using the logo might have been proposed for deletion, although I don't know the reason to this: ru:Википедия:К_удалению/23_декабря_2011#Телекомпания "Регион 52". Stefan4 (talk) 15:38, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 00:04, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
This logo is almost certainly too complex to be at Commons. Stefan4 (talk) 20:19, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 00:04, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
usless pdf-file, out of scope AtelierMonpli (talk) 23:09, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 00:00, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
This film, w:The Smallest Show on Earth, is not in the public domain. Its copyrights were restored per {{Not-PD-US-URAA}}. Magog the Ogre (talk) 22:25, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 00:04, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
This is either {{Copyvio}} or {{PD-text}}. Any opinions? Stefan4 (talk) 20:42, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
Kept: {{PD-text}} Sreejith K (talk) 18:29, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
No Freedom of Panorama in Iceland. Claritas (talk) 20:54, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom. Sreejith K (talk) 18:29, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
unused, usless, out of scope AtelierMonpli (talk) 22:57, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
Not particularly right: this picture is part of an article under construction, it is not useles as it demonstrates in an unprecedented manner the connection of validation and verification in the context of a broader or general model and it should not be out of scope as it lays the foundation for an article about an important issue. So i would prefer this piece not to be erased.--Antarctica365 (talk) 21:30, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
- Delete - first: Commons isn't the place for articles. Second: the Antarctica365 reaction suggest original research, for which Wikipedia isn't the place either. Ices2Csharp (talk) 17:46, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom. Sreejith K (talk) 18:30, 30 May 2012 (UTC)