Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2012/01/13
 |
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}
definately not PD 98.88.54.247 05:17, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Deleted by Kyro Morning Sunshine (talk) 09:15, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
Unused personal picture. Ices2Csharp (talk) 11:06, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
Keep Could be used in articles, see ru:Рубен Маншпайзер. Has better resolution than the same picture that's now used there: File:Рубен М.jpg. Rename the picture to File:Рубен Маншпайзер. --Geitost diskusjon 14:47, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
- Ok, file is now available at File:Рубен Маншпайзер.jpg. I cancel this nomination. Ices2Csharp (talk) 16:10, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
Not apd - bookcover FU is not permeted on commons 98.88.54.247 15:54, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio Courcelles (talk) 19:45, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
Probably NOT a PD- a poster? FU is not permited on the commons! 98.88.54.247 06:03, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: by EugeneZelenko. Yann (talk) 14:29, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
I doubt this is own work: this looks like an official portrait and the man died in 1974 Hekerui (talk) 08:03, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
- Fair use Rationale: 1) Subject is deceased. No free replacement possible 2) Used only in the infobox of the article on subject for illustration)--srither (talk) 08:24, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
- I uploaded a fair use image to the Wikipedia article and requested deletion of the Commons version. I think this discussion can be closed. Hekerui (talk) 13:10, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: copyright violation Polarlys (talk) 13:49, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Useless personal picture. Ices2Csharp (talk) 11:12, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: Out of scope. Yann (talk) 14:29, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 11:22, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. No permission. Yann (talk) 14:36, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 11:23, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. Yann (talk) 14:33, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 11:24, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. Yann (talk) 14:34, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 11:25, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. Yann (talk) 14:34, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 11:25, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. Yann (talk) 14:34, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 11:25, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. Yann (talk) 14:34, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 11:25, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. Yann (talk) 14:31, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 11:26, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. Yann (talk) 14:35, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 11:26, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
Oppose I have added the image to the WP article about the magazine. Magazine covers are useful for this purpose and at least one should be kept. --Jonund (talk) 17:07, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
- Uploading files with random names is quite bad enough. In addition, there is no permission. Yann (talk) 14:33, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. And no permission. Yann (talk) 14:31, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 11:26, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. Yann (talk) 14:34, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 11:26, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. Yann (talk) 14:34, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
Derivative work GrapedApe (talk) 12:47, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio. Yann (talk) 14:34, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
bad joke SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:17, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
- Delete used only for vandalism at ANI on enwp Hurricanefan25 (talk) 21:19, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
- Tagged for speedy deletion as trolling, along with File:Page2claim.JPG. Reaper Eternal (talk) 21:34, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: by Herbythyme. Yann (talk) 14:37, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
bad joke SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:18, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
- Delete used only for vandalism at ANI on enwp Hurricanefan25 (talk) 21:19, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: by Herbythyme. Yann (talk) 14:37, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
this is not own work but a scan and there is no reason to believe the image is in the public domain Hekerui (talk) 08:02, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
- I agree, the Mistake Was during Fast work, this is the Fair Usage of Infobox only. I don't know
about how to change the suitable license. please help for rectification the license to Continue the file --srither (talk) 23:02, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
- Fair use Rationale: 1) Subject is deceased. No free replacement possible 2) Used only in the infobox of the article on subject for illustration)--srither (talk) 08:24, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
- I uploaded a fair use image to the Wikipedia article and requested deletion of the Commons version. Therefore I think this discussion can be closed. Hekerui (talk) 12:57, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: copyright violation Polarlys (talk) 13:42, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
unused, personal file, see COM:SCOPE Polarlys (talk) 23:37, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope Captain-tucker (talk) 01:39, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
unused, personal file, see COM:SCOPE Polarlys (talk) 23:37, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope Captain-tucker (talk) 01:39, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
unused, personal file, see COM:SCOPE Polarlys (talk) 23:40, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope Captain-tucker (talk) 01:39, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
All images uploaded by User:Bağdat Caddesi must be deleted.
Copyvio. There is no evidence to prove {{Own work}}.
- File:Bağdat Caddesi 1.jpg Image was posted to Wowturkey on June 23, 2004 by Burrç.
- File:Bağdat Caddesi 2.jpg Image was posted to Wowturkey on April 17, 2006 by Burç.
- File:Bağdat Caddesi 3.jpg Image posted to Wowturkey on January 4, 2005 by Faruk.
- File:Bağdat Caddesi 4.jpg [1] posted to Türkiye'de Görünen Baba Arabalar in 2007 (I couldn't find it in Wowturkey, but this image includes the logo of wowturkey.com)
- File:Bağdat Caddesi 5.jpg Image posted on September 15, 2003 by Faruk.
- File:Bağdat Caddesi 6.jpg Image posted on [April 19, 2006] by Başdoğan.
- File:Bağdat Caddesi 7.jpg Image posted to Wowturkey on October 10, 2006 by Faruk.
- File:Bağdat Caddesi 8.jpg Image posted to Wowturkey on November 7, 2005 by ayça_leovinus.
- File:Bağdat Caddesi 9.jpg Image posted to Wowturkey on January 14, 2007 by Necdet Cevahir.
- File:Bağdat Caddesi 10.jpg Image was posted to Wowturkey on August 19, 2006 by Faruk.
- File:Bağdat Caddesi 12.jpg Image posted to Wowturkey on April 9, 2007 by Burç.
- File:Bağdat Caddesi 13.jpg Image posted to Wowturkey on July 15, 2004 by osman_k.
- File:Bağdat Caddesi 14.jpg Image posted to Wowturkey on July 15, 2004 by osman_k.
- File:Bağdat Caddesi 15.jpg Image posted to Wowturkey on January 27, 2004 by Burç.
- File:Bağdat Caddesi 16.jpg Image posted to Wowturkey on January 5, 2006 by Burç.
- File:Bağdat Caddesi 17.jpg Image posted to Wowturkey on October 10, 2006 by Faruk.
![[1]](http://www.exoticspotter.com/bt00026/bt00026_21562.jpg){kind=link}
Takabeg (talk) 03:45, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:49, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
Copyright holder appears to be the Los Angeles Times 72Dino (talk) 20:49, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio Captain-tucker (talk) 10:15, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
No evidence, that uploader owns rights on all the portrait photographs in this diagram Funfood ␌ 21:07, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio Captain-tucker (talk) 10:04, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
most likely no own work, like other uploads by this user (watermarked, removed source information from photo) Polarlys (talk) 21:36, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: deleted via Commons:Deletion requests/File:Gate of Galatasaray.jpg Captain-tucker (talk) 10:00, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
Copyvio. File:Galatasaray Lisesi in Istanbul.jpg and File:Garden of Galatasaray.jpg were taken from wowturkey.com. These two files contained the logo of wowturkey and deleted. The tendency of the behavior of User:Galatasaray Liesei. This use took images from wowturkey.
- File:Galatasaray Gate.jpg This image was posted to wowturkey on May 1, 2004 by Burç.
- File:Gate of Galatasaray.jpg This image was posted to wowturkey on May 1, 2004 by Burç.
- File:Galatasaray Square.jpg This image was posted to http://www.skyscrapercity.com in 2006 (At present I couldn't find it in wowturkey, but I guess it was also taken from the same website)
- File:Gate of Galatasaray Lisesi from above.jpg This image was posted to wowturkey on May 16, 2004 by osman_k.
Takabeg (talk) 21:44, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio's Captain-tucker (talk) 09:59, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
Delete, copyvio? only edit of the contributer, it is the person on IMDb [2] Traumrune (talk) 22:21, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Probable Copyvio, COM:PRP Captain-tucker (talk) 09:57, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
derivative work Polarlys (talk) 23:24, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: COM:DW Captain-tucker (talk) 09:51, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
Orphaned, used in a now deleted article on en.wikipedia. no foreseeable use. FASTILYs (TALK) 05:25, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
- Strong Keep That's the classic postcard picture of Prague with the Charles Bridge and Pražský hrad! What's the problem? -- Herby (Vienna) (talk) 21:37, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
- Keep. High quality, educational image. VolodyA! V Anarhist Beta_M (converse) 15:36, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
- Keep Even if it was taken out of english wikipedia, it doesnt mean that this file have to be deleted, as this wiki does not set standards for others projects. Even if this was not in use, is in scope as it shows a boat in the czech capital, explains tourism, the water transportation, the scenery of prague in this spot, and others themes that are in scope. Tm (talk) 11:26, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
Kept: Per consensus. --ZooFari 23:57, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photoalbum. Not used. EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:43, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:22, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
and File:Chris Kailan In Alaska.jpg. Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photoalbum. Not used. EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:44, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:22, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
very bad quality unused picture. Japs 88 (talk) 23:20, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. --ZooFari 23:54, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
Orphaned, Low Quality, out of scope, no foreseeable use. FASTILYs (TALK) 05:15, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 16:26, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
Orphaned, Low Quality, out of scope, no foreseeable use. FASTILYs (TALK) 05:16, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 16:27, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
Orphaned, used in a now deleted article on en.wikipedia. no foreseeable use. FASTILYs (TALK) 05:16, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 16:27, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
Orphaned, used in a now deleted article on en.wikipedia. no foreseeable use. FASTILYs (TALK) 05:16, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 16:28, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
Orphaned, used in a now deleted article on en.wikipedia. no foreseeable use. FASTILYs (TALK) 05:16, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 16:28, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
Orphaned, used in a now deleted article on en.wikipedia. no foreseeable use. FASTILYs (TALK) 05:16, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 16:28, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
Orphaned, used in a now deleted article on en.wikipedia. no foreseeable use. FASTILYs (TALK) 05:17, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 16:29, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
Orphaned, used in a now deleted article on en.wikipedia. no foreseeable use. FASTILYs (TALK) 05:17, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 16:30, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
Orphaned, used in a now deleted article on en.wikipedia. no foreseeable use. FASTILYs (TALK) 05:17, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 16:30, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
Orphaned, used in a now deleted article on en.wikipedia. no foreseeable use. FASTILYs (TALK) 05:17, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 16:31, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
Orphaned, used in a now deleted article on en.wikipedia. no foreseeable use. FASTILYs (TALK) 05:17, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 16:31, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
Logo of some sort, used in a now deleted advert on en.wikipedia. no foreseeable use FASTILYs (TALK) 05:30, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 16:33, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
Unused logo of non-notable company, the article it was intended for was deleted in 2010. (w:SN Sons). Possibly non-free (UK origin, where the threshold of originality is lower). January (talk) 09:01, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
Delete per COM:SCOPE, COM:TOO#UK and COM:PRP. --Stefan4 (talk) 19:51, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 16:34, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
Probably useless file Marco 10:14, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
- Delete. Uploaded by a persistent sockpuppeteer for use in hoax articles on enwiki, see Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:FDale (it's the same person in all the images). January (talk) 19:51, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 15:44, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
Useless personal picture. Ices2Csharp (talk) 11:10, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 16:34, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 11:10, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 16:35, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 11:16, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 16:35, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 11:17, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 16:36, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
Useless personal picture. Ices2Csharp (talk) 11:18, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 16:36, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 11:22, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 16:26, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 11:26, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 16:25, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 11:26, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 16:25, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 11:26, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
- In addition, we need a formal written permission. Yann (talk) 07:33, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 16:25, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 11:26, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 16:24, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 11:26, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 16:24, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 11:27, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 16:24, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
out of scope AtelierMonpli (talk) 13:55, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 16:23, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
{{Out of scope}} AtelierMonpli (talk) 13:56, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 16:23, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
Useless personal picture. Ices2Csharp (talk) 15:46, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 16:21, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
and File:Logo-inmacwstore.jpg. Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused text-only logos. EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:52, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 16:20, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
Also
Unused personal image, out of project scope. ■ MMXX talk 20:52, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 16:19, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
Commons:Project scope Polarlys (talk) 23:32, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 16:18, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
We do not know what the threshold of originality (COM:TOO) in Italy is, but this shows enough creativity to say, within reasonable doubt, that it possibly is above Italy's threshold. Magog the Ogre (talk) 02:20, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
Comment - If this image goes, then all the images from Category:Association football logos of Italy should also go.--Sreejith K (talk) 06:05, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
- I've marked several of those as {{Copyvio}}; others will hinge on this discussion. Magog the Ogre (talk) 23:31, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
- I personally have very strict standards, stricter than most of the file workers here or on Wikipedia that I work with. In my opinion, the only one in that category that I'd say is DP-ineligible and should be kept on Commons is File:SSC Napoli.svg. Sven Manguard (talk) 19:01, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
- I've marked several of those as {{Copyvio}}; others will hinge on this discussion. Magog the Ogre (talk) 23:31, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
Kept: The Italian copyright law enumerates in article 2 works which are protected by this law. Registered trademarks (marchio registrato) and logos as this appear to belong to opere del disegno industriale which are considered in section 10:
- Le opere del disegno industriale che presentino di per sé carattere creativo e valore artistico.
Hence, some creativity and artistic value are required for a protection. I understand this requirement to that extent that applied art has a higher level of required originality in comparison to other kinds of works. This appears to be to some extent similar to other European continental countries like Germany which have similar provisions. I cannot claim to have knowledge of Italian case law but I think that it should be safe enough to keep this logo on the ground that it lacks artistic value as it consists of text and simple geometric shapes only, i.e. an ellipse, a simple cross, and multiple stripes in alternating colors. --AFBorchert (talk) 23:01, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Simo82 as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: image alredy deleted with anoter name (Commons:Deletion requests/File:Acm.png), also original image transferred from en.wiki has no free license Sreejith K (talk) 19:26, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
- And under which rationale do you want to have it deleted? Do have read my rationale above? --AFBorchert (talk) 19:59, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Deleted by Fastily.--Anatoliy (talk) 15:50, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
- Restored per COM:UDEL as below Italy TOO. Daphne Lantier 00:20, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
This is a screen shot from a copyright movie and therefore cannot possibly be in the public domain. Diannaa (talk) 02:44, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. A.Savin 18:07, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
Orphaned, used in a now deleted article on en.wikipedia. no foreseeable use. FASTILYs (TALK) 05:25, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
- Keep No reason for deletion! -- Herby (Vienna) (talk) 21:41, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
- Keep While "in use" is automatic keep, "not in use" is not a reason for deletion. VolodyA! V Anarhist Beta_M (converse) 15:39, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
- Keep Even if it was taken out of english wikipedia, it doesnt mean that this file have to be deleted, as this wiki does not set standards for others projects. Even if this was not in use, is in scope as it shows a boat in the czech capital, explains tourism, the water transportation, the scenery of prague in this spot, and others themes that are in scope. Tm (talk) 11:25, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
Kept: No valid reason for deletion. A.Savin 18:09, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
Orphaned, used in a now deleted article on en.wikipedia. no foreseeable use. FASTILYs (TALK) 05:26, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
- Keep No reason for deletion! -- Herby (Vienna) (talk) 21:52, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
- Keep While "in use" is automatic keep, "not in use" is not a reason for deletion. VolodyA! V Anarhist Beta_M (converse) 15:40, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
Keep image clearly in scope. En wikipedia is not the holy bible of the others projects. Tm (talk) 11:29, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
Orphaned, used in a now deleted article on en.wikipedia. no foreseeable use. FASTILYs (TALK) 05:27, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
- Keep While "in use" is automatic keep, "not in use" is not a reason for deletion. VolodyA! V Anarhist Beta_M (converse) 15:40, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope & lowest quality. A.Savin 18:11, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
Low resolution, no EXIF data, one of two uploads by this user. Own work claim doubted. The Evil IP address (talk) 18:07, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. A.Savin 18:13, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
Not quite sure what this really is, but kind of product photo and therefore needs permission. Funfood ␌ 21:05, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. A.Savin 18:14, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
Promotional image of some sort. Likely copyrighted. No reason given to suggest that uploader is copyright holder FASTILYs (TALK) 05:24, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
- Delete. As demonstrated by the user's other uploads, they have a rather casual relationship with what we like to call "the truth." —LX (talk, contribs) 11:30, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: found on http://www.cpgrafix.org/2010/07/undercover-rascal-movie-trailer.html from 2010. Túrelio (talk) 11:01, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Incorrect ratio, proper flag at File:Flag of North Korea.svg ~ Fry1989 eh? 03:51, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. MBisanz talk 18:24, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
Orphaned, used in a now deleted article on en.wikipedia. no foreseeable use. possibly copyrighted. FASTILYs (TALK) 05:18, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. MBisanz talk 18:24, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
Professional diagram of some sort. Likely copyrighted. No reason given to suggest that uploader is copyright holder. FASTILYs (TALK) 05:19, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. MBisanz talk 18:24, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
Orphaned, used in a now deleted article on en.wikipedia. no foreseeable use. FASTILYs (TALK) 05:19, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
Delete crop and copvio from [[3]] Copyright © 2000 - 2011 Shihan Shigeru Ishino.
Deleted. MBisanz talk 18:24, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
Orphaned, used in a now deleted article on en.wikipedia. no foreseeable use. Possibly copyrighted FASTILYs (TALK) 05:20, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. MBisanz talk 18:24, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
Orphaned, used in a now deleted article on en.wikipedia. no foreseeable use. FASTILYs (TALK) 05:22, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. MBisanz talk 18:25, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
Promotional image of some sort. Likely copyrighted. No reason given to suggest that uploader is copyright holder FASTILYs (TALK) 05:23, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. MBisanz talk 18:25, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
Promotional image of some sort. Likely copyrighted. No reason given to suggest that uploader is copyright holder FASTILYs (TALK) 05:23, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. MBisanz talk 18:25, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
Screencap of some sort (implied by title) Likely copyrighted. No reason given to suggest that uploader is copyright holder FASTILYs (TALK) 05:24, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. MBisanz talk 18:25, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
Orphaned, used in a now deleted article on en.wikipedia. no foreseeable use. FASTILYs (TALK) 05:25, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
- Keep No reason for deletion! -- Herby (Vienna) (talk) 21:43, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
- Keep While "in use" is automatic keep, "not in use" is not a reason for deletion. VolodyA! V Anarhist Beta_M (converse) 15:39, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
- Keep Even if it was taken out of english wikipedia, it doesnt mean that this file have to be deleted, as this wiki does not set standards for others projects. Even if this was not in use, is in scope as it shows a boat in the czech capital, explains tourism, the water transportation, the scenery of prague in this spot, and others themes that are in scope. Tm (talk) 11:26, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
Orphaned, used in a now deleted article on en.wikipedia. no foreseeable use. FASTILYs (TALK) 05:25, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
- Keep While "in use" is automatic keep, "not in use" is not a reason for deletion. VolodyA! V Anarhist Beta_M (converse) 15:39, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
Orphaned, used in a now deleted article on en.wikipedia. no foreseeable use. FASTILYs (TALK) 05:25, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
- Keep No reason for deletion! -- Herby (Vienna) (talk) 21:45, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
- Keep While "in use" is automatic keep, "not in use" is not a reason for deletion. VolodyA! V Anarhist Beta_M (converse) 15:39, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
- Keep Even if it was taken out of english wikipedia, it doesnt mean that this file have to be deleted, as this wiki does not set standards for others projects. Even if this was not in use, is in scope as it shows a boat in the czech capital, explains tourism, the road (the bridge) and water transportation, the scenery of prague in this spot, and others themes that are in scope. Tm (talk) 11:16, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
Orphaned, used in a now deleted article on en.wikipedia. no foreseeable use. FASTILYs (TALK) 05:25, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
- Keep Not correct. In use at cs.wikipedia.org --Stunteltje (talk) 08:11, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
- Keep No reason for deletion! -- Herby (Vienna) (talk) 21:46, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
- Keep While "in use" is automatic keep, "not in use" is not a reason for deletion. VolodyA! V Anarhist Beta_M (converse) 15:39, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
- Keep In use in czech wikipedia, so automatically in scope, even if it was taken out of english wikipedia, as this wiki does not set standards for others projects. Even if this was not in use, is in scope as it shows a boat in the czech capital, themes tahat are in scope. Tm (talk) 11:11, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
- Keep part of our Commons photo database. -- Docu at 21:33, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
Orphaned, used in a now deleted article on en.wikipedia. no foreseeable use. FASTILYs (TALK) 05:25, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
- Keep No reason for deletion! -- Herby (Vienna) (talk) 21:48, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
- Keep While "in use" is automatic keep, "not in use" is not a reason for deletion. VolodyA! V Anarhist Beta_M (converse) 15:39, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
- Keep Even if it was taken out of english wikipedia, it doesnt mean that this file have to be deleted, as this wiki does not set standards for others projects. Even if this was not in use, is in scope as it shows a boat in the czech capital, explains tourism, the road (the bridge) and water transportation, the scenery of prague in this spot, and others themes that are in scope. Tm (talk) 11:21, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
Orphaned, used in a now deleted article on en.wikipedia. no foreseeable use. FASTILYs (TALK) 05:26, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
- Keep No reason for deletion! -- Herby (Vienna) (talk) 21:51, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
- Keep While "in use" is automatic keep, "not in use" is not a reason for deletion. VolodyA! V Anarhist Beta_M (converse) 15:40, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
- Keep Even if it was taken out of english wikipedia, it doesnt mean that this file have to be deleted, as this wiki does not set standards for others projects. Even if this was not in use, is in scope as it shows a boat in the czech capital, explains tourism, the water transportation, the scenery of prague in this spot, and others themes that are in scope. Tm (talk) 11:33, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
Orphaned, used in a now deleted article on en.wikipedia. no foreseeable use. FASTILYs (TALK) 05:27, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
- Keep While "in use" is automatic keep, "not in use" is not a reason for deletion. VolodyA! V Anarhist Beta_M (converse) 15:40, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
- Keep English wiki is not the holly bible to the others projects. Even if the article was taken out, the user FASTILY doesnt seem to have realized that this (and other images in the same situation) is not automatically out of scope. So i advice that this user uses more ponderation when opening this DR. File is in scope as it shows one airport in Massachusetts. Also it can be foreseeable used in the english wiki article about Dukes County, Massachusetts. Tm (talk) 11:55, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
2D work of art or derivative of some sort. Likely copyrighted, no reason given to suggest that uploader is copyright holder. FASTILYs (TALK) 05:29, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. MBisanz talk 18:26, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
Orphaned, used in a now deleted article on en.wikipedia. no foreseeable use. FASTILYs (TALK) 05:30, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
- Keep While "in use" is automatic keep, "not in use" is not a reason for deletion. VolodyA! V Anarhist Beta_M (converse) 15:40, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
Orphaned, used in a now deleted article on en.wikipedia. no foreseeable use. FASTILYs (TALK) 05:30, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
- Keep While "in use" is automatic keep, "not in use" is not a reason for deletion. VolodyA! V Anarhist Beta_M (converse) 15:40, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
Photograph of a 3D work of art. Likely copyrighted. No reason given to suggest that uploader is copyright holder FASTILYs (TALK) 05:32, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. MBisanz talk 18:27, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
Photograph of a 3D work of art. Likely copyrighted. No reason given to suggest that uploader is copyright holder FASTILYs (TALK) 05:32, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. MBisanz talk 18:27, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
Photograph of a 3D work of art. Likely copyrighted. No reason given to suggest that uploader is copyright holder FASTILYs (TALK) 05:32, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. MBisanz talk 18:27, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
Not a free image: http://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/nate-robinson-of-the-golden-state-warriors-celebrates-after-news-photo/136726427 Zagalejo (talk) 05:42, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
- Speedy delete - I don't see the need for discussion here. --Ytoyoda (talk) 21:24, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. MBisanz talk 18:27, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
Copyvio. This image was posted to Wowturkey on June 27, 2007 by Bruç (Checkuser of wowturkey.com). Takabeg (talk) 07:19, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. MBisanz talk 18:27, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
COM:FOP#Denmark. 84.61.131.15 14:36, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
- speedy deletion - Mr. Hill (talk) 15:42, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. MBisanz talk 18:27, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
Looks like this image is an advertising platform and contains website adress 98.88.54.247 15:32, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
- Delete Advertisement. VolodyA! V Anarhist Beta_M (converse) 15:47, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. MBisanz talk 18:28, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
Book cover is NOT PD unless its over 70 yeard old. This looks like a recent book. 98.88.54.247 15:34, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
- Of course, it is copyvio, Delete. Dmitry89 (talk) 12:52, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. MBisanz talk 18:28, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
Its a screen shot which is fount in lot of Youtube videos. NOT own worki and therefore not a PD 98.88.54.247 15:39, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. MBisanz talk 18:28, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
Extremly low quality self-shot without surplus for the respective Category:Videos of ejaculation Elya (talk) 19:10, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
- Keep Per COM:PORN We delete images which do not contribute anything to already existing collection. This is the only video of a male ejaculating completely without any manual stimulation of the penis. Thus by definition it contributes something. VolodyA! V Anarhist Beta_M (converse) 15:53, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
- Keep - the only other video we seem to have of ejaculation without manual stimulation is File:Nipple massage 2.ogv, which focusses more on the nipples than the penis. I agree it's a small video, but I think it's a useful one. -mattbuck (Talk) 13:33, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
- Keep, quite unique and educational. -- Cirt (talk) 00:26, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Although ejaculation is in scope, this animation is in poor quality and unused, plus the original version had watermark like "URL VIDEO CONVERTER" and "http://XXXXXXXXX.com", which means that this may be taken from a porn site, rather than own work A1Cafel (talk) 07:24, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
Speedy delete likely copyvio Dronebogus (talk) 21:28, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
- Keep, unvalid rationale as I cannot read anything written in the original version of the file. Ejaculation without hands is in scope. RodRabelo7 (talk) 04:47, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
VANDALISM! Mihai Popa Message me! 12:50, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:52, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
No foreseeable educational use. SchuminWeb (Talk) 19:45, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
Since it is currently in use within the Institute for Humane Studies article on the English Wikipedia to help illustrate the section that explains the internship program that the photograph subjects are participants in, I have to disagree. Id4abel (talk) 23:51, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
- And it was unencyclopedic there as well, and since removed. SchuminWeb (Talk) 19:19, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
- If you can find a free use image that better depicts the Institute for Humane Studies internship program then great, however, deleting a picture of Koch Summer Fellows while they were Koch Summer Fellows doing what all Koch Summer Fellows do without offering anything better doesn't improve anything.Abel (talk) 20:35, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
- We have no evidence that it is actually Koch Summer Fellows, and it doesn't illustrate anything beyond what many people in the DC area do. We ride the Metro. This is a personal photo without educational value, and it shouldn't be in the encyclopedia article either. SchuminWeb (Talk) 01:22, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
- So you don't believe the author who titled the work, "Koch Summer Fellows waiting for the train (2004)?" If you have something better, I would love to see it.Abel (talk) 02:24, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
- We have no evidence that it is actually Koch Summer Fellows, and it doesn't illustrate anything beyond what many people in the DC area do. We ride the Metro. This is a personal photo without educational value, and it shouldn't be in the encyclopedia article either. SchuminWeb (Talk) 01:22, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
- If you can find a free use image that better depicts the Institute for Humane Studies internship program then great, however, deleting a picture of Koch Summer Fellows while they were Koch Summer Fellows doing what all Koch Summer Fellows do without offering anything better doesn't improve anything.Abel (talk) 20:35, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
- Keep I think that we can't start doubting everything. VolodyA! V Anarhist Beta_M (converse) 15:57, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
- Keep I fail to see how this image is so radically different from the photograph of Senate Pages engaging in a snowball fight.Abel (talk) 16:33, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
- Keep In use in en wikipedia so this image is clearly and automatic in scope and has educational value. Even if it wasnt in use can the deletion requester show with which alternatives can it illustrate the Washiongtion D.C. metro ridership and the waiting periods, the Koch Summer Fellows (it wasnt showed any proof to the contrary)
Graphics on the basis of a printed map that is obviously not self-made. Copyright status of base map unknown. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:02, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. MBisanz talk 18:28, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
Image under copyright to soccer club (probl. fake) André Koehne TALK TO ME 23:14, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. MBisanz talk 18:29, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
Copyrighted symbols (UOL, Banco Real, etc) André Koehne TALK TO ME 23:15, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. MBisanz talk 18:29, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
Advertisement and no permission (product photo) Funfood ␌ 23:29, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. MBisanz talk 18:29, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
File:Juana_de_ibarbourou.jpg deleted, file unused Polarlys (talk) 23:42, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. MBisanz talk 18:29, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
Unused personal image, out of scope Morning Sunshine (talk) 08:04, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. MBisanz talk 18:29, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
Copyvio.
- File:Pera Museum 13.jpg This image was posted to wowturkey on August 25, 2005 by Alper.
- File:Pera Museum Rembrandt.jpg This image was posted to wowturkey on November 16, 2006 by Burç.
Takabeg (talk) 22:19, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
Could you elaborate on the nature of the violation? Who claims to own the image? It is not uncommon for images in the commons to also appear, amongst other places, on forums. Has the introduction of this image to the Commons been shown to be theft, or is that conjecture?Mavigogun (talk) 09:03, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
For clarity: the providence of 2 separate files are being contested- http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Pera_Museum_Rembrandt.jpg, and http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Pera_Museum_13.jpg.Mavigogun (talk) 09:17, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
There is no evidence to prove that these images are work of User:Pera Müzesi. Takabeg (talk) 09:58, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: When a file has appeared elsewhere on the Web without a free license, with a different name on it, we require the original author to confirm permission via Commons:OTRS. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:56, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
All images uploaded by User:Istanbul AVM
Copyvio. I think that the member named MeRek in wowturkey could be same person as User:Mehmet Kerem Tuncay and User:M.K.T. Istanbul (Mehmet Kerem Tuncan) in Commons (see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Distant view of Maslak.jpg, Mehmet Kerem Tuncay's contribution). I think User:Istanbul AVM is not Tuncy.
- File:Istinye Park.JPG Image posted to Wowturkey on September 22, 2007 by MeRek.
- File:Istinye Park Mall Istanbul.jpg Image posted to Wowturkey on September 22, 2007 by MeRek.
- File:Istanbul Istinye Park.jpg [4] posted to Wowturkey on September 22, 2007 by MeRek.
- File:Istinye Park Istanbul.JPG Image posted to Wowturkey on September 22, 2007 by MeRek.
- File:City's Nisantasi.jpg Image posted to Wowturkey on February 22, 2008 by Halil.
- File:Nisantasi Istanbul City's.jpg Image posted to Wowturkey on November 24, 2007 by MeRek.
![[4]](http://wowturkey.com/t.php?p=/tr180/MeReK_ist7.jpg){kind=link}
Takabeg (talk) 08:41, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: all by Jameslwoodward Morning Sunshine (talk) 02:10, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
Seems like been taken from politicians website http://kuzmiuk.com.pl/ , doubtfully own work, unclear rights Funfood ␌ 10:13, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: First upload gave the correct source, http://republika.pl/blog_mj_4574339/6855031/sz/top3.jpg , uploader simply uploaded it a second time with untrue "own work" claim to evade the deletion. Copyright violation. Martin H. (talk) 18:44, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
Screenshot of a copyrighted webpage, showing a copyrighted book. Mahahahaneapneap (talk) 20:27, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
- Primary reason its shown is because of the following on this page about the source "(Note: it can take several attempts to see the 142nd page on Google Books from the reference and this is primarily shown owing to this factor)." - Its just shown for illustrative purposes only as sometimes the reference link doesn't show up until after you have clicked more than several times. Sometimes it shows up right away. Surely its allowed to illustrative purposes? NarSakSasLee (talk) 21:24, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
- I understand why you've added it to the page, but Wikimedia Commons doesn't accept images unless they are freely licensed. Mahahahaneapneap (talk) 13:43, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
- Okay, how do I change the license? Its going to be used purely for illustrative purposes. NarSakSasLee (talk) 23:47, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
- You don't own the image, so you can't release it under a free license. Mahahahaneapneap (talk) 01:21, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
- Okay, how do I change the license? Its going to be used purely for illustrative purposes. NarSakSasLee (talk) 23:47, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
- I understand why you've added it to the page, but Wikimedia Commons doesn't accept images unless they are freely licensed. Mahahahaneapneap (talk) 13:43, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
Piss off, like it matters.Screw copyright.
Deleted: by herbythyme Morning Sunshine (talk) 02:10, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
subject died in 1969, there is no evidence this is in the public domain in India Hekerui (talk) 08:12, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:02, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
subject died in 1964, there is no evidence this is in the public domain in India Hekerui (talk) 08:14, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:02, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
Probably not own work. Ices2Csharp (talk) 11:15, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:02, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
logo of fr:Paris Football Club - probably under copyright H4stings (talk) 11:16, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:02, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 11:20, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:02, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 11:21, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:02, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
DW on Disney's char Timon from Lion King Funfood ␌ 13:54, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:01, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
See Commons:When to use the PD-Art tag#Photograph of an old coin found on the Internet. This medal looks like a coin, so the same rule would probably apply. The only source given is that the coin is preserved by the de:Kunsthistorisches Museum in Vienna, but it's not clear where the photo comes from or who the photographer is. Note that the photo also is listed as de:Datei:ChristophHartungMuenze.jpg. --Stefan4 (talk) 17:18, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
- Notified at the talk page:
- de:User:Mai-Sachme (original uploader at German Wikipedia)
- User:Mai-Sachme (uploader at Commons)
After that, I noticed that the user names are the same and that I've probably notified the same person twice. --Stefan4 (talk) 17:27, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
- I didn't know about this guideline. So I don't really oppose to a deletion, although I struggle to find a sufficient creativity in the lighting arrangements for the photographer to obtain a new copyright on the image in this specific case . --Mai-Sachme (talk) 18:23, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:01, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
because I am unable to link it to the page I wanted to which was David Tremlett Tremlett (talk) 14:18, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
- Keep Which isn't a reason for deletion. VolodyA! V Anarhist Beta_M (converse) 15:45, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
Kept. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:01, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
no rights, the artist is born in 1935 Reinhardhauke (talk) 14:20, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
- Keep. Work is in a public place, so according to freedom of panorama it is legally uploaded here. --Stefan ■ 11:54, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
- Keep OK per FOP in Germany! -- Herby (Vienna) (talk) 18:59, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
Kept. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:00, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
Photograph is a simple reproduction of a recent (presumed copyrighted) two-dimensional museum display. cmadler (talk) 14:27, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
Comment The question is if the two pictures is PD or not. I asumed that the photo was from 1863. I have now checked the description in the article on en-wiki says "Benjamin Harrison (right) and William McKinley exhibit".
The two presidents died in 1901 according to the articles (Benjamin Harrison (August 20, 1833 – March 13, 1901) and William McKinley, Jr. (January 29, 1843 – September 14, 1901)). That makes the photos from 1901 or before and therefore most likely {{PD-US}}. --MGA73 (talk) 15:37, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
- My thought was that, although the four underlying photos may each be PD-US, here they have been arranged in an exhibit, including displaying quotes and a timeline. This photo is not an attempt to faithfully reproduce any one (or several) PD photos, which would be acceptable, but is rather a photo showing the exhibit. So my concern is whether the new arrangement creates a copyright over the whole. cmadler (talk) 18:38, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
- By comparison, File:Theodore Roosevelt exhibit at Presidential Museum Picture 1865.jpg, from the same exhibit, is clearly PD-US, since it is just a faithful reproduction of a pre-1923 photo, with any additional content from the museum exhibit cropped out. cmadler (talk) 18:42, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
- Delete I am inclined to say that the making of this montage is a new creative work, with its own copyright and therefore this image infringes. And, by the way, we already have File:BHarrison-desk.jpg one of the two major constituent images. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:34, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:00, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
copyright violation: no public place (Lufthansa Aviation Center) and the artist is born in 1964 Reinhardhauke (talk) 14:33, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
Hello Reinhardhauke, yes please delete this file, the Lufthansa Aviation Center is not a public space, as I now realized. Sorry for this. Best wishes, Blaise Mann
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:59, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
COM:FOP#Denmark. 84.61.131.15 14:37, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
- Whatever. I really don't care since I left the project. --Christina Bedina (talk) 17:32, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:58, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
This is a copyrighted image from a small business (whose website is named in the image). It's possible that the uploader is the business owner, but I'm not sure and wanted someone else to take a look.
There is a lower resolution version at File:Dollar-bill-business-cards.jpg. (The images have a potential educational value if they're legal; they could be used to illustrate the concept of a 'drop card', which is a business card that is dropped on the ground in the hopes that someone will pick it up and read it.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:21, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
- Delete The uploader has no obvious connection to the business (and has not spoken up since this DR was opened). I thought at first the design was identical to the real 100 dollar bill, which would make it public domain (since US currency designs are generally in the public domain), but it's got differences - the border is quite different, the lettering is in a different location, and so on. Dcoetzee (talk) 12:14, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:58, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
Screenshot of a copyrighted TV channel Jacopo Werther (talk) 15:24, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:52, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
Are uploader also copyright holder of poster Motopark (talk) 20:01, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:50, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
It is not Voegelin. Hron02 (talk) 20:17, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Whether or not it is Voegelin, the uploader is not the author. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:50, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
Unlikely to be of educational use as we have multiple images in this category, and this one has been obscured by rain on lens Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:13, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
- Keep Having many images is not a reason to deletion and this image is not obscured by "rain on lens", as this building is clearly and completely visible. Tm (talk) 11:48, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
- Objects in the frame are visible, yes, but I think it's factually wrong to say "clearly" so, due, again, to obvious presence of rain drops on the lens. However, I can see that as a relative newbee here, I haven't understood how low the bar is, and that a form of visual en:WP:NOTPAPER applies, even for rather poor images. Most of my other noms are for images that are much worse; I agree that this one is not as bad, even if I can't see someone using it over the many other better ones in the series. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:33, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
- And deleting an image only hides it from the public, it does not save any resources so in a case like this if its been uploaded it might as well just stay visible. --Captain-tucker (talk) 02:30, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
- Really? Can you point me to where it says that? I see the Commons intro article states: "... For example, the fact that an unused blurred photograph could theoretically be used to illustrate an article on “Common mistakes in photography” does not mean that we should keep all blurred photographs." "Keep" makes it sound, to me, like deleted files are not kept... Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:56, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
- I am not sure that it says that anywhere, admins need to be able to restore deleted files all the time. Sometimes it takes a while for OTRS permissions to get approved, an author can change their mind and freely license a photo that used to be restricted and was deleted here, images through the passage of time come into the Public Domain. We have setup catagories for images that can be restored when they come into the public domain, see Category:Undelete_in_2013. So as admins we say we delete a file but it is just hidden from public view. Any deleted image can be easily restored with a couple clicks. Those are some of the extra buttons that you get if you become an admin.--Captain-tucker (talk) 11:47, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
- That's true, I'm more familiar with the English Wiki undeletion role, I guess. One last question: everything submitted under Wikipedia Takes Montreal isn't going to be uploaded by the bot, right? There does seem to be some selection going on... Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:43, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
- I am not sure that it says that anywhere, admins need to be able to restore deleted files all the time. Sometimes it takes a while for OTRS permissions to get approved, an author can change their mind and freely license a photo that used to be restricted and was deleted here, images through the passage of time come into the Public Domain. We have setup catagories for images that can be restored when they come into the public domain, see Category:Undelete_in_2013. So as admins we say we delete a file but it is just hidden from public view. Any deleted image can be easily restored with a couple clicks. Those are some of the extra buttons that you get if you become an admin.--Captain-tucker (talk) 11:47, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
- Really? Can you point me to where it says that? I see the Commons intro article states: "... For example, the fact that an unused blurred photograph could theoretically be used to illustrate an article on “Common mistakes in photography” does not mean that we should keep all blurred photographs." "Keep" makes it sound, to me, like deleted files are not kept... Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:56, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
- And deleting an image only hides it from the public, it does not save any resources so in a case like this if its been uploaded it might as well just stay visible. --Captain-tucker (talk) 02:30, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:49, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
unused personal image, out of project scope. ■ MMXX talk 22:38, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
- Keep not just a personal image, not unused anymore, is in project scope as you see here. Rename to File:Kristopher Nimbley.jpg. --Geitost diskusjon 23:13, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
- See my comment on this DR. ■ MMXX talk 23:29, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:45, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
Orphaned, used in a now deleted article on en.wikipedia. no foreseeable use. FASTILYs (TALK) 05:16, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 08:13, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 06:02, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
Orphaned, used in a now deleted article on en.wikipedia. no foreseeable use. FASTILYs (TALK) 05:17, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 08:13, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 06:02, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
user grabbed images from various websites, credited them to <website X>, and then tried to license them as "copyrighted but free for any use with attribution".
- File:ImagesGRF.jpg
- File:Ground reaction force.jpg
- File:Android vs gynoid.jpg
- File:Walking+obestiy.jpg
- File:Gynoid vs android.jpg
- File:Groun rxn force.png
DS (talk) 02:28, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:39, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
Uploader request for admiral of navy image deletion
[edit]
I (the uploader) am requesting the deletion of these iamges as these are simply exported png versions of svg images i have uploaded. --Officer781 (talk) 04:46, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:04, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
Stained glass windows of Église Saint-Jacques-le-Majeur (Montrouge)
[edit]- File:Montrouge Saint-Jacques-le-Majeur199.JPG
- File:Montrouge Saint-Jacques-le-Majeur854.JPG
- File:Montrouge Saint-Jacques-le-Majeur849.JPG
- File:Montrouge Saint-Jacques-le-Majeur851.JPG
- File:Montrouge Saint-Jacques-le-Majeur197.JPG
- File:Montrouge Saint-Jacques-le-Majeur209.JPG
- File:Montrouge Saint-Jacques-le-Majeur860.JPG
- File:Montrouge Saint-Jacques-le-Majeur192.JPG
- File:Montrouge Saint-Jacques-le-Majeur195.JPG
- File:Montrouge Saint-Jacques-le-Majeur201.JPG
- File:Montrouge Saint-Jacques-le-Majeur193.JPG
- File:Montrouge Saint-Jacques-le-Majeur202.JPG
- File:Montrouge Saint-Jacques-le-Majeur203.JPG
- File:Montrouge Saint-Jacques-le-Majeur205.JPG
- File:Montrouge Saint-Jacques-le-Majeur207.JPG
- File:Montrouge Saint-Jacques-le-Majeur187.JPG
- File:Montrouge Saint-Jacques-le-Majeur859.JPG
- File:Montrouge Saint-Jacques-le-Majeur188.JPG
- File:Montrouge Saint-Jacques-le-Majeur855.JPG
- File:Montrouge Saint-Jacques-le-Majeur850.JPG
- File:Montrouge Saint-Jacques-le-Majeur200.JPG
- File:Montrouge Saint-Jacques-le-Majeur856.JPG
- File:Montrouge Saint-Jacques-le-Majeur853.JPG
- File:Montrouge Saint-Jacques-le-Majeur210.JPG
- File:Montrouge Saint-Jacques-le-Majeur204.JPG
- File:Montrouge Saint-Jacques-le-Majeur198.JPG
- File:Montrouge Saint-Jacques-le-Majeur196.JPG
- File:Montrouge Saint-Jacques-le-Majeur852.JPG
- File:Montrouge Saint-Jacques-le-Majeur858.JPG
Reasons for deletion request : these Stained glass windows are in the fr:Église Saint-Jacques-le-Majeur de Montrouge, all made in the 1940 or 1950 --> no PD. And there is no FOP in France. ----MGuf (d) 15:15, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:08, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
Carlinhos Rhenuis
[edit]
not needed personal picture of irrelevant person with no other edits --Geitost diskusjon 14:31, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 16:22, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
Commons:Deletion requests/File:Shchelkovskaya-mm.jpg
La pyramide, oeuvre de Pei n'a pas 70 ans Convivial94 (talk) 22:26, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
"il n'y a pas de liberté de panorama en France, ni pour les sculptures, ni pour les bâtiments qui présentent une forme d'originalité. Une cour a statué récemment (TGI Lyon, 4 avril 2001, Buren & a. c/ Tassin & a.) que « le droit d'auteur s'étend incontestablement à la reproduction de l'œuvre installée dans un espace public ». En ce qui concerne les bâtiments, la jurisprudence (CA Riom, 26 mai 1967) reconnait deux critères pour déterminer l'originalité : « un caractère artistique certain » et le fait qu'il ne s'agisse pas d'une construction en série. Par exemple l'architecte de la Pyramide du Louvre est en droit de réclamer des droits d'auteur sur les représentations de son œuvre'Texte en gras'. Cette règle peut s'étendre au concepteur de l'éclairage d'un bâtiment : par exemple la société qui gère la Tour Eiffel a demandé des droits sur les photos qui représentaient la Tour éclairée de nuit." Cf commons
- been discussed quite a few times (though I can't find logs) and we agreed that in such case, the main subject can be considered the (free) courtyard, with the pyramid obstructing it. We asked no one to put the pyramid there and prevent anyone from taking the courtyard from that place. - Benh (talk) 22:36, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
Keep Per Behn. Already discussed a long time ago. Argumenter par: "La pyramide, oeuvre de Pei n'a pas 70 ans", c'est dire une ânerie (sorry). Une image de la pyramide du Louvre ne sera dans le domaine public que 70 ans après la mort de son auteur, pas 70 ans après sa construction. Mais là, en l'occurrence, il s'agit d'une image de la Cour Napoléon, dont les architectes/auteurs sont morts depuis jolie lurette. Pas de la faute du photographe s'il y a cette f....pyramide dans le champ. Maybe should we have a permanent link or a special category for these specific and recurrent deletion requests...--Jebulon (talk) 16:09, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
Il ne faut pas jouer avec les mots, l'exemple de Commons est clair ou alors il faut revoir les critères "d'élimination" des photos et c'est à Commons qu'il appartient dele faire. On peut jouer sur les mots mais il s'agit bel est bien d'une image qui a la pyramide en son centre et Pei n'est pas encore mort donc insister sur le fait que la pyramide sera dans le domaine public apres sa mort est une super maladresse !!!!! Pas la faute du photographe, on peut le dire pour n'importe quoi, ce n'est pas un argument, il faut être sérieux. De plus dire que le fichier n'est pas la pyramide du louvre mais la cour napoléon est une ... sottise car le fichier s'appelle "Louvres Pyramid" et non "Cour Napoléon"(Sorry) et Commons dit bien "Par exemple l'architecte de la Pyramide du Louvre est en droit de réclamer des droits d'auteur sur les représentations de son œuvre". Si Commons atténue ses critères pour toutes les photos c'est sur qu'il n'y aura aucun problème de soulevé. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Convivial94 (talk • contribs) 16 janvier 2012 à 17:28 (UTC)
Qui écrit ?--Jebulon (talk) 23:24, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
- -le nom du fichier dont la suppression est demandée ne parle pas de pyramide.
- -Faire du Droit sérieusement, c'est parfois s'exposer à jouer sur les mots.
- -Ce n'est pas parce que la pyramide figure sur cette image qu'il s'agit d'une image de la pyramide.
- -Comment faire pour avoir une photo de la Cour Napoléon qui soit libre de droit ?
- -Toute photo de la pyramide (pas la pyramide elle-même !) sera dans le domaine public non 'après la mort' de Pei, mais plus précisément 70 ans après cette mort ! Je ne vois pas de super maladresse là-dedans.
- -On lira, peut-être avec profit, la page COM:DM dans sa version française, et on s'amusera peut-être de l'illustration...
- -On se reportera enfin à l'Arrêt du 15 mars 2005 (Pourvoi n° 03-14820) de la Cour de cassation qui tranche en France définitivement le sujet.--Jebulon (talk) 00:06, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
- Quand on promène le curseur sur le fichier on voit "pyramid Louvres" et la description dit "La cour Napoléon du Musée du Louvre, avec sa pyramide au centre. ".
- Je suis d'accord avec vos arguments qui s'appliquent à toutes les photos mais ce n'est pas à moi qu'il faut le dire et il faut donc arréter les suppressions.
- Si je suis votre raisonnement (c'est un exemple) je vais prendre la photo d'un picasso (décédé en 1973) et je dirais "j'ai pris la photo d'un mur, c'est n'est pas de ma faute si quelqu'un a accroché un tableau" !!!! Si commons applique ce raisonnement à toutes les oeuvres j'en serais ravi. - If I am your reasoning (it is an example) I am going to take the photo of a picasso (died in 1973) and I would say " I took the photo of a wall, it is is not of my fault if somebody hung on(collided) a picture(board) "!!!! If commons apply this reasoning to all the works I would be delighted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Convivial94 (talk • contribs) 17 janvier 2012 à 12:55 (UTC)
-la super maladresse est que ça ne change rien mais que ça ajoute encore du temps et c'est donc une polémique inutile. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Convivial94 (talk • contribs) 17 janvier 2012 à 10:02 (UTC)
- "Autre cas, celui de la Liberté de panorama ; ça n'existe pas en France" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Convivial94 (talk • contribs) 17 janvier 2012 à 10:10 (UTC)
Neutral, probably legal, because into limits of de minimis, bt not really oppose if we choose to delete this file, bad example hard to understand for many newbees. ----MGuf (d) 11:42, 17 January 2012 (UTC)- l'exemple du Picasso et du mur n'est pas bon. Personne ne voudra prendre le mur nu (à part un bon artiste moderne abstrait), tandis que la cour Napoléon peut représenter un intérêt photographique. Si je veux la prendre, je ne peux pas à cause de la pyramide. Il y a de la mauvaise foi partout et bien sûr, la jurisprudence de la Cour de Cassation sur la place des Terreaux à Lyon arrange bien. Mais c'est des deux côtés. La SETE pousse le vice assez loin avec la Tour Eiffel en démontant puis en remontant l'éclairage pour ensuite réclamer des droits à l'image dessus. Curieux de voir ce que ça donnerait devant des tribunaux... - Benh (talk) 21:40, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
ça sert à rien de jouer avec les mots c'est un exemple tu peux en prendre un autre, je suis sur que tu trouverais. Et ton mur ça peut etre une salle du grand palais ou autre lieux d'exposition et mon exemple et tres bon. Il y a pléthore d'exposition dans des salles tres jolies et si je veux prendre un mur de ceramiques et que à coté il y a une sculture moderne je n'aurais pas demandé qu'on place la la sculture. Si je suis ton raisonnement, quel est l'intéret de la cour Napoléon a part la pyramide alors que de l'autre coté tu as la cour carrée qui est d'un bien plus grand intéret ?
Encore une fois ce n'est pas à moi qu'il faut le dire mais aux gens qui font les lois et aussi à commons qui a des règles qui citent nomément la pyramide. Et là je suis d'accord avec toi !!!!
- Bien sûr que je joue avec les mots... Si on n'avait pas à le faire, les avocats pourraient pointer aux Assedics. Ça n'est pas moi qui ai lancé cette demande de suppression d'image un peu fatiguante. Et c'est subjectif. Personnellement, je trouve que la pyramide ajoute beaucoup à l'image, mais elle empêche tout point de vue sur la cour Napoléon, et on peut donc comprendre la jurisprudence de la CDC sur la place des Terreaux, qui s'applique sûrement ici. Si tu prends une jolie salle avec une oeuvre (protégée) dessus mais que cette oeuvre n'est pas le sujet principal de l'image (elle y apparaîtra sûrement en petit qui plus est), il n'y aura pas de problème d'après moi. Moi je ne dis rien aux gens qui font les lois. Je ne suis pas assez riche et je n'ai pas de Yacht (à prêter) ou autre pour qu'ils m'écoutent. - Benh (talk) 22:41, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
- Keep -- Has been discussed times and times and it's boring starting it again. As long as the Pyramid is not the main subject (like in this case), it's ok. Sting (talk) 23:12, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
Dans ce que tu dit il y a trois aspects :
Le débat sur la pyramide et la pyramide est un autre débat qui a eu lieu en son temps. Il y a meme une association sur la reconstruction du palais des tuileries et une pétition que tu peux signer. Mais c'est un autre débat que celui du droit à l'image.
Je suis entièrement d'accord avec toi sur ce que tu dit sur les lois mais elles existent et il faut faire avec et commons nepeut pas écrire noir sur blanc "l'architecte de la Pyramide du Louvre est en droit de réclamer des droits d'auteur sur les représentations de son œuvre" et laisser la photos incriminée et toutes les photos de ce type. Mais commons peut avoir plus de tolérance pour des photos qu'on peut trouver n'importe ou et je ne pense pas qu'il y ait eu un seul problème ?
Je maintiens mes propos pour l'oeuvre d'art comme une statut qui comme la pyramide peuvent se trouver la sans qu'on l'est demandé.
Je t'invite a aller voir la photo d'un batiment de Rolan Piédéri (architecte qui a travaillé avec Riboud et avait une vision humaine des nouvelles cités dans les années 60) qui est demandée à la suppression car il y a une sculture de Gérard Ramon sur le coté !!!! Tu devrais pouvoir y développer tes arguments !!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Convivial94 (talk • contribs) 18 janvier 2012 à 10:09 (UTC)
- La photo en question est celle-ci File:WKPDJDA16.JPG : on peut encore contester ou argumenter en faveur de la conservation, même Convivial94, c'est ici. ----MGuf (d) 09:26, 18 January 2012 (UTC) Merci — Preceding unsigned comment added by Convivial94 (talk • contribs) 18 janvier 2012 à 10:35 (UTC)
En outre certaines de ces photos illustraient des articles de wilkipédia. Si on veut des articles de Wilkipédia mornes et sans illustration alors supprimons les photos non ? je pense que là tu peut etre d'accord avec moi ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Convivial94 (talk • contribs) 18 janvier 2012 à 10:17 (UTC)
- Looking at File:WKPDJDA16.JPG we understand that the photographer's purpose was to picture both the building and the sculpture (point of view, partial view of the building and landscape framing). If he did have made two steps at the left he would have been able to photograph the whole building without the problematic sculpture, and that's the huge difference with the Louvre where the Pyramid is so big and in the center that there is no way to photograph the courtyard without having the Pyramid in the frame. And even the strict French law understands that and doesn't consider it a copyright violation as long as the Pyramid is not the main subject. You should read the whole chapter of the law and not only the first sentences. And the fact that the description of the picture mentions the Pyramid isn't a source of copyright infringement. Sting (talk) 09:49, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
- PS: On the other side you don't seem to have any problem with File:Palacio_del_Louvre-Paris170.jpg or File:Paris_Place_du_Carrousel_Louvre_063.JPG for example... Is it because they don't mention the Pyramid in their description? Two pictures, two measures...
- Keep I don't understand French, but I agree with arguments in English in favor of keeping. --Lošmi (talk) 16:16, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
- Keep Je ne suis pas très familier avec les règles de la propriété intellectuelle, mais je pense qu'il faut se garder d'encourager le découragement, car on peut constater que ces demandes de suppression confinent parfois à l'obsessionnalité : on a récemment retiré la photo d'un édicule Guimard (vulgairement, une bouche du métro parisien), parce que ce dernier est mort il y a seulement... 69 ans (70 dans 3 mois... Youpi, on va pouvoir remettre les photos). Bref, il faut bien composer avec la loi (dont l'esprit est d'ailleurs largement détourné, puisqu'il s'agit de préserver les intérêts moraux et pécuniaires des auteurs) mais, tout en se gardant de faire preuve de mauvaise foi, je pense que lorsque l'on peut trouver des excuses, il faut aller dans le sens du maintien, sans chercher à tortiller. En l'occurrence, il est impossible de photographier la Cour Napoléon sans la Pyramide... Basta. Dimitri Destugues (talk) 22:25, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
- Keep Tout à fait d'accord avec Dimitri. De plus, je ne pense pas qu'il faille faire l'impasse sur un tel monument à cause d'une pyramide. Sans pousser la démagogie, sérieusement, on est pas en train d'affamer un artiste là... --Citron (talk) 20:04, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
Kept: Whily the pyramid is featured on this image, it's not the main part of this image. It's a borderline decision though. Denniss (talk) 14:55, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
Very dirty pictures Dealtsamsi (talk) 21:55, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
Kept: Not a reason for deletion, though I do agree, it is a very dirty picture. -mattbuck (Talk) 13:50, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
I am the copyright holder of this picture to stop the distribution of the photo. Dealtsamsi (talk) 05:03, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
- Keep - Looks to me like you're just a vandal who downsized the image. -mattbuck (Talk) 10:17, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
- Keep speedily. VolodyA! V Anarhist Beta_M (converse) 15:33, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
- Non-admin closure Bulwersator (talk) 12:12, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
To stop the distribution of the photo. Siryusis (talk) 11:37, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
Speedy kept -mattbuck (Talk) 15:07, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
- Comment
I have previously raised concerns about the specific type of behaviour which appears to be happening here. People upload the photo and then leave, there is no identifiable information which links them to the photo, and they seem to have forgotten about their account. The style of their uploads is different from one another, for example we can look at how date field is presented, sometimes it's with '/' as the delimiter, sometimes it's '-', sometimes it's written out. Many times we have a rather good grasp of English language shown in the description field. Then all of the sudden they come back and start making demands to remove the image, without engaging in any discussion, but always stating their demand grammatically incorrectly. I honestly believe that we may be dealing with somebody who is just picking the passwords of the nudity/sexually explicit uploader profiles. I once again request that this is investigated by somebody who has access to logs or somesuch and report on the finding. This isn't the first time this has happened, but the pattern is too similar to be ignored. VolodyA! V Anarhist Beta_M (converse) 14:39, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
- I've asked Herby to weigh in on this pattern. We might want to move the discussion elsewhere. -mattbuck (Talk) 15:07, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
- Herby says no, perhaps if you gather some more evidence we can do something about it. Anyway, I've closed this discussion, upload protected the image and semiprotected the image page, so should be OK for now. -mattbuck (Talk) 10:58, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
- I've asked Herby to weigh in on this pattern. We might want to move the discussion elsewhere. -mattbuck (Talk) 15:07, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
Info according to the block of both accounts it seems that user:Siryusis and user:Dealtsamsi are the same. Also note that Dealtsamsi uploaded probably a copyvio: File:Jigsaw Squirting Dildo-0.jpg --Saibo (Δ) 15:48, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
Deleted uploaded to [5] in 2007 --Denniss (talk) 18:52, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
new logo of fr:Red Star Football Club 93 - probably under copyright H4stings (talk) 11:03, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
- Keep Too simple. Fry1989 eh? 22:22, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
Kept: Clearly too simple for copyright. Ices2Csharp (talk) 17:41, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
No indication of where this is located such that freedom of panorama might apply, or that the sculptor has released with an appropriate licence. Rodhullandemu (talk) 02:29, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
- Keep Last time I checked, Jerusalem was still in Israel and they have FOP. -- Herby (Vienna) (talk) 21:05, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
- That's assuming that the sculpture is in Jerusalem; where would you expect to find a Jerusalem artichoke? I see some reflected lettering in the window behind the sculpture, but I can't read it and I can't assume it's Jerusalem. Rodhullandemu (talk) 21:35, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
- The roadsign is in hebrew, arab and english. So Jerusalem seems plausible at least. -- Herby (Vienna) (talk) 22:22, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
- OK, it may well be in Jerusalem, but the photographer has not provided a location for any of his images by this artist, which makes things unnecessarily difficult for those who try to pick up the pieces at a later date. Accordingly, I'll concede the point, but please please, tell us where you took the photographs! I have little hair left after dealing with so many of these! Rodhullandemu (talk) 01:39, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
- The roadsign is in hebrew, arab and english. So Jerusalem seems plausible at least. -- Herby (Vienna) (talk) 22:22, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
- That's assuming that the sculpture is in Jerusalem; where would you expect to find a Jerusalem artichoke? I see some reflected lettering in the window behind the sculpture, but I can't read it and I can't assume it's Jerusalem. Rodhullandemu (talk) 21:35, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
- Keep You are wrong when you say that there is no indication where the picture is taken.
a road sign can be seen in the reflection of the glass with an Israeli traffic sign indicating a parking lot : The letter "P" (for "parking") is encircled by the Hebrew letter "ח" for "חניה" ħanayá ("parking").
See also category: Parking signs in Israel.The "ROLEX" shop is located in Mamila Mall in Jérusalem : 31.777085,35.222681 (see Google street).
| Object location |  | View all coordinates using: OpenStreetMap |  |
|---|
Djampa (talk) 07:40, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
- Keep OK, I'll withdraw this nomination since we now have a plausible location. Rodhullandemu (talk) 13:58, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
Kept: Per discussion. Badseed talk 18:47, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
Upscaled from File:Eabuli.jpg, different uploader, both claim own work Funfood ␌ 09:22, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 08:04, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Americophile accused of providing a copyvio as evidence the following link : http://par3e.mihanblog.com/post/tag/%D8%B9%DA%A9%D8%B3+%D8%AA%D8%AE%D8%AA+%D8%AC%D9%85%D8%B4%DB%8C%D8%AF. However, while I gave him notice that the images are different, Americophile persists. The picture of Commons was imported in 2005 on fr.wikipedia, and is larger than the picture found on the blog (and according wayback machine, the picture was not yet on the blog in 2010). It is possible that this is a copyvio, I did not originally imported, but it should at least provide credible evidence. Thank you. Bloody-libu (talk) 06:03, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
- You were talking in French and I knew nothing about the French language. The picture on the blog is in a higher resolution and the one uploaded on Commons seems to be a copyvio. A tineye or Google reverse search shows lots of similar results. AMERICOPHILE 20:43, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
- The picture was imported in 2005. Seven years later, other websites have had time to copy it. I believed in the good faith of the original importer by importing this picture here. If the picture is copyvio, we have to delete File:Tehran autoroute.jpg and File:Tehran azadi.jpg too (files from the same user). Bloody-libu (talk) 21:09, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
Kept: The blog linked appears to be a lower resolution and later; I don't see evidence of copyvio here. Philosopher Let us reason together. 06:40, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
Image seems from Zimbio, which site licenses under a CC-NC-ND license (terms and policies). Not own work as suggested and not licensed free enough. Lymantria (talk) 10:17, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
- Delete, obvious {{Copyvio}}. —LX (talk, contribs) 17:10, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: NC-ND licenses are not allowed on Commons. Philosopher Let us reason together. 06:41, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private drawing album. Not used. EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:46, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
La imagen forma parte de un cuento, no debería ser borrada. No es un archivo utilizado para formar un albúm personal sino un dibujo que sirve para ilustrar un personaje de un cuento que aparece en la siguiente web: www.willien9006.wordpress.com. Sirve para ilustrar al lector sobre el rostro de uno de sus personajes. En este sentido, y atendiendo a su función lúdica, pido formalmente que el archivo no sea borrado.
this file is being used with a ludic functions, please don't delete it. This picture it's an ilustration of a character that appears in a tale called "el hombre de hielo y la espada de fuego", you can find it in google. The writer is William Ramírez González, web's owner and he drews also the picture. He share the tale as a public content, and in the end of the tale he puts the picture.
- Keep Per unsigned comment VolodyA! V Anarhist Beta_M (converse) 15:50, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
I'm William Ramírez, I'm the author of the draw. I made the draw in order to ilustrade my readers about one character of one tale I wrote in my website. It means that this file has a didactic function and many people will thank you if you don't erased it. Of course, this file and the tale where belongs are public for anyone who wanted to used.
thanks for the attention: William Ramírez González
p.d.: for any question you can adressed to me to my web site: willien9006.wordpress.com or to my e-mail: lobo1822@hotmail.com
Nice tal dude, I have read it, I like it, I think that someone in wikipedia must be an article, I meant, I have seen many articles about stupid things that doesn't have any interest, but this tale is really good. ROBERTO TORRES
Well, at this point it's quite obvious that this picture have a function, so just keep it man, I have seen many pictures here that doesn't any use meanwhile this it's an ilustration of a beautiful tale (trust me, I have read it), Pedro Ortega
lovely picture, nice tale, great writer, keep it the damn picture and make an article about the tale!!!, Lara Gomez
Deleted: Out of scope FASTILY (TALK) 07:14, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
Author noted at the Illustration Workshop, "The result is poor, and most damningly, many aspects of it was my interpretation. While it is now "clean" and "resolution independent", it is very much my drawing and is removed from a signature of HC. I recommend against using this in Wikipedia." Hazmat2 (talk) 18:33, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
- Keep: Quoting a file description is not a valid reason for requesting a deletion. I don't see any problem on the sign vectorization. And finally, this Deletion request dates from January, and nobody has been discussed this, so I'll remove the Deletion request tag because no valid reasons has been provided, and there is no problem with the graphic. Amitie 10g (talk) 07:03, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
- Delete: It's not the quoting that is the reason. The reason is that it's not Henry Cooper's signature which is evident when you view the images used to do the tracing. At the very least it should be renamed to something that notes this discrepancy. Hazmat2 (talk) 19:48, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
- Delete: I am the uploader of the jpg original. This signature won't be use for any purpose on the English wikipedia.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 00:17, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 07:14, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
