Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2012/04/05
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
|
|
Can't find any credit on the source web site. Source listed as both NASA (i.e. free) and ESA (i.e. unfree) on the file information page. Stefan4 (talk) 01:40, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: I nuked all of his files. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 01:57, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
Essentially an unused duplicate of File:Iris versicolor FWS.jpg. – JBarta (talk) 06:30, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: scaled down duplicate Jarekt (talk) 12:25, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
possible copyvio, dubious PD-tag PierreSelim (talk) 12:49, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Yes, indeed, it is a copyvio and the PD tag does not apply russavia (talk) 14:36, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
je ne veux plus que ma photo soit référencée sur google Ninon Dubourg (talk) 22:22, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
- Delete. Personal picture for the user's page. If the user wants it deleted, I guess that's fine. Mais ça aiderait probablement si vous commenciez par l'enlever de votre page d'utilisatrice sur Wikibooks. -- Asclepias (talk) 00:30, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: good-faith req by uploader and depicted; image only used on a userpage. Túrelio (talk) 07:01, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
Confusing sourcing and licensing. The source is "e-mail", implying that it is not a work of the uploader. Both CC-BY-SA 1.0 and CC-BY-SA 3.0 are listed, but the "permission" field in {{Information}} provides a link to the licence statement which goes directly to the CC-BY-NC 3.0 licence text. Stefan4 (talk) 00:27, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: licensing not clear, upload again with true licenses Ezarateesteban 19:54, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
Licence statement claimed to be at the "I have no idea" website. Obviously no evidence of permission. Is this copyrightable? Stefan4 (talk) 00:59, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
- Dayle Flowers seems to be the owner of greatergoodgames.org. (see this). That said, we don't know if the uploader is in fact Dayle Flowers. To clarify this, on the website greatergoodgames.org he could make a page or note explicitly releasing the logo to the public domain, and then list the url as evidence of permission on the image description page. Problem solved and slammed shut. – JBarta (talk) 04:01, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: license not clear Ezarateesteban 19:55, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
This is an image taken from http://www.rebeccaforreal.com/bio/ and is a copyright violation. Gobonobo (talk) 01:06, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: copyright violation Ezarateesteban 19:56, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
COM:DW of a file that was deleted per Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Canderel Jar.jpg, but this still infringes on the luscious strawberries. Pieter Kuiper (talk) 05:39, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: per Peter Ezarateesteban 19:58, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
solely for promotional purposes. Image features only the operational structure of that firm. Image features logos and trademarks which are non-free. Lakokat (talk) 05:53, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Ezarateesteban 19:59, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
solely for promotional purposes Lakokat (talk) 06:01, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Ezarateesteban 19:59, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
I accidentally uploaded the wrong image, this is another users work and I did this by accident, Sorry Lumastan (talk) 06:28, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
Delete If you were the uploader, I have no reasons to keep the file, that is what you wish. Fma12 (talk) 04:30, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Ezarateesteban 20:00, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
It is not a simple logo, it is not a work of the Indonesian Government and the rest of the templates/licenses used here we do not have confirmed permission for. The file was already here as a jpg and got deleted for same reasons Trex2001 (talk) 12:45, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: by PierreSelim Morning Sunshine (talk) 11:08, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
It is not a simple logo, it is not a work of the Indonesian Government and the rest of the templates/licenses used here we do not have confirmed permission for. The file was already here as a jpg and got deleted for same reasons Trex2001 (talk) 12:45, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: by PierreSelim Morning Sunshine (talk) 11:08, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
Copyvio, claimed by author here, origional (with (c), wich is blacked out in this image on commons), can be found here. Freaky Fries (talk) 12:53, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: by Polarlys Morning Sunshine (talk) 11:08, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
Missing stereochemistry (no evidence that this is *this particular* ketoheptose), anionic phosphates also did not match claimed molecular formula in its only use (gl:Sedoheptulosa 1,7-difosfato). Replaced by file:Sedoheptulose 1,7-bisphosphate.png that resolves these problems DMacks (talk) 15:16, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Per nom. Leyo 09:09, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
Copyright belongs to Elsevier. Pieter Kuiper (talk) 23:00, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyright violation. Ed (Edgar181) 13:17, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
per watermark unlikely "own work" by uploader. -- Túrelio (talk) 07:57, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Morning Sunshine (talk) 11:46, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
most likely copyright violation, see other uploads by this user Polarlys (talk) 09:05, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
I'm not violating but somebody other violating on other sites where did u see this image.Sabeel Fsd (talk) 16:05, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: by Zscout370 Morning Sunshine (talk) 11:32, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
Unused personal picture. Ices2Csharp (talk) 10:07, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Morning Sunshine (talk) 11:44, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
Unused personal picture. Ices2Csharp (talk) 10:07, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Morning Sunshine (talk) 11:45, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope, no permission. Ices2Csharp (talk) 10:17, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Morning Sunshine (talk) 11:46, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 10:17, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Morning Sunshine (talk) 11:45, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
Unused personal picture. Ices2Csharp (talk) 10:18, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Morning Sunshine (talk) 11:45, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
Unused personal picture. Ices2Csharp (talk) 10:21, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Morning Sunshine (talk) 11:43, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
Unused personal picture. Ices2Csharp (talk) 10:21, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Morning Sunshine (talk) 11:43, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
Unused personal picture. Ices2Csharp (talk) 10:21, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Morning Sunshine (talk) 11:42, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
Unused personal picture. Ices2Csharp (talk) 10:21, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Morning Sunshine (talk) 11:43, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
Unused personal picture. Ices2Csharp (talk) 10:26, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Morning Sunshine (talk) 11:41, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope, no permission. Ices2Csharp (talk) 10:27, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Morning Sunshine (talk) 11:42, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
Commons:Deletion requests/Commons:Deletion requests/File:Victor SCHERRER.jpg
Advertisement, out of scope. Jafeluv (talk) 11:30, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Morning Sunshine (talk) 11:34, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
Advertisement, out of scope. Jafeluv (talk) 11:32, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Morning Sunshine (talk) 11:34, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
Lack of meta data, makes me think this is a copyvio Flickrworker (talk) 12:14, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Morning Sunshine (talk) 11:34, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
and File:Jonasfilho.jpg. Unlikely to be own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:02, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Morning Sunshine (talk) 11:34, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
Non-notable logo, out of scope. Rosenzweig τ 20:05, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Morning Sunshine (talk) 11:40, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
No permission. ©2008-2012 ~SaiogaMan. -- ~ Common Good (talk) 20:13, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Morning Sunshine (talk) 11:40, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
copyright violation (http://www.gelawej.net/modules.php?name=Content&pa=showpage&pid=3337) Reality006 (talk) 20:22, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
- Delete Copyvio. That article was published on December 5, 2010. Takabeg (talk) 10:25, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Morning Sunshine (talk) 11:36, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
copyright violation (http://kurdishrepublic.com/index.php) Reality006 (talk) 20:23, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
- Delete Not notable. Takabeg (talk) 10:22, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Morning Sunshine (talk) 11:36, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
copyright violation (http://yuksel.org/) Reality006 (talk) 20:26, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
Delete Copyvio. 3 February 1999. Takabeg (talk) 10:15, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Morning Sunshine (talk) 11:36, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
Out of project scope, banned user on enwiki for posting much the same racist soapboxing Acroterion (talk) 22:10, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Morning Sunshine (talk) 11:40, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
The screenshot is derivative of a copyrighted material, therefore this image can only be used as "fair use" and thus not on Commons Hellknowz (talk) 07:17, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted, Gestumblindi (talk) 22:08, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 10:03, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 20:50, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 10:12, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 20:50, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
digital treatment artefacts 84.97.149.219 22:37, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: fake, out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 20:52, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
Scaled down dupe of File:Flag of Italy.svg ~ Fry1989 eh? 22:43, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: unusable too small, so, out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 20:53, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
Text in a jpg, out of COM:PS Funfood ␌ 23:12, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 20:53, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
Files uploaded by High Contrast (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of scope, no educational purpose. Pictures of a simple girl in a bikini.
- File:Woman nearby the pool.jpg
- File:Pink bikini 04.jpg
- File:Pink bikini 03.jpg
- File:Pink bikini 02.jpg
- File:Pink bikini 01.jpg
- File:Orange bikini, young woman.jpg
- File:Yellow bikini, swimming pool.jpg
- File:Woman running in the water.jpg
Vera (talk) 23:32, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
Keep Images are within the Commons project scope. All images are of above average image quality that can perfectly used for illustrating a number of articles on any Wikipedia project, articles such as "bikini", "swimwear", "fashion", etc. As a consequence these files are useable for educational purposes. --High Contrast (talk) 23:36, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
- so only white chubby women can illustrate fashion. --Vera (talk) 23:59, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
- Sorry? How did you come on that. Nobody said that only these image must be used for such articles - they just can be used for illustrating them. If you find (free) photos of other people wearing this fashion item, then feel free to upload them - they would be within the scope as well. --High Contrast (talk) 00:04, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
Keep Per High Contrast --Funfood ␌ 22:34, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
Keep we don't have such a lot of those bikinis by this colors and design --AtelierMonpli (talk) 22:59, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, I didn't know commons was a place for perverts who want to see near naked women categorized by the color of their bikini. --Vera (talk) 23:50, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
- What a silly comment. It seems to be quite hard for you to accept that a) Commons is not censored b) categorizing women in bikinis is not perverted and c) others do not share your opinion. What a pitty to have such improper comments by an admin. --High Contrast (talk) 00:00, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
- Yeah, because you can be completely sure these near naked pictures have been posted with consent of the subject. --Vera (talk) 08:11, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
- For such issue we have {{Personality}}. But nevertheless this question applies to nearly all uploads from other image hosts but with these photos we can be quite sure that the depicted person knows about what the photographer did and was going to do. Besides, if dozen, no hundreds, of photos of the same person are uploaded on flickr by the the same user, then one can assume that there is highly likely no problem with it. But if you want to bring up a new Commons policy where such permissions necessarily required then feel free to run one. --High Contrast (talk) 08:29, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
- Keep The reason given to nominate the image is hard to understand, sincerely. You can consider me another "pervert" who believes in freedom of publishing photos like that. Certainly, I would have expected a more appropiate argument coming from an administrator. Fma12 (talk) 04:41, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
- For such issue we have {{Personality}}. But nevertheless this question applies to nearly all uploads from other image hosts but with these photos we can be quite sure that the depicted person knows about what the photographer did and was going to do. Besides, if dozen, no hundreds, of photos of the same person are uploaded on flickr by the the same user, then one can assume that there is highly likely no problem with it. But if you want to bring up a new Commons policy where such permissions necessarily required then feel free to run one. --High Contrast (talk) 08:29, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
- Yeah, because you can be completely sure these near naked pictures have been posted with consent of the subject. --Vera (talk) 08:11, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
- What a silly comment. It seems to be quite hard for you to accept that a) Commons is not censored b) categorizing women in bikinis is not perverted and c) others do not share your opinion. What a pitty to have such improper comments by an admin. --High Contrast (talk) 00:00, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
Kept: Per comment above Morning Sunshine (talk) 11:37, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
Files uploaded by ZoelenaShuster (talk · contribs)
[edit]Apparently some kind of advertisement for this person. As such out of scope.
Rosenzweig τ 20:14, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Morning Sunshine (talk) 11:35, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
Polandball
[edit]All files in Category:Polandball, except File:Polandball.PNG.
- File:Aussie loves Poland.jpg in use at en:User:Russavia/PolandballAE
- File:Australiaball angry.jpg
- File:Australiaball happy.jpg
- File:Australiaball happy.png in use at en:User:Russavia/PolandballAE and en:Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive111
- File:Australiaball sad.jpg
- File:Australiaball sad.png
- File:Britball tears.jpg in use at en:User talk:Rich Farmbrough/Archive/2012Apr
- File:Britball.jpg in use at en:User:Russavia/Polandball
- File:Estoniaball wanna into Nordic.jpg
- File:Poland can into space.png in use at en:User:Russavia/PolandballAE
- File:Poland can into Wikipedia.jpg in use at en:User:Russavia and en:Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive111
- File:Polandball emotions.jpg
File:Polandball.PNG in use at en:User:Russavia, en:Template:Did you know nominations/Polandball, en:User:Russavia/userboxes/polandball, ru:Polandball.- File:Russia can into space.jpg in use at en:User:Russavia
- File:Russiaball balalaika.jpg
- File:Sveaball the Viking.jpg
- File:Sweden and Russia compete in fashion.jpg in use at en:User:Russavia/PolandballAE
- File:Typical Polandball.jpg
Articles on this subject were created by 2 users on English Wikipedia, German Wikipedia and Russian Wikipedia (one of the two users is the creator of the artwork; the other is User:Russavia). Two of those three articles have been deleted (en:Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Polandball, de:Wikipedia:Löschkandidaten/26._März_2012#Polandball). The subject is not encyclopedic, and therefore these examples of an unexceptional internet meme do not serve an educational purpose, and are out of Commons' project scope.
In addition, these files are original user-created artwork; it is doubtful whether these would legitimately serve an educational purpose even if the article were encyclopedic. Commons:PS#Must_be_realistically_useful_for_an_educational_purpose says "The expression “educational” is to be understood according to its broad meaning of “providing knowledge; instructional or informative”." User-created artwork does not provide knowledge. COM:NOT#Commons is not your personal free web host applies.
Rd232 (talk) 20:02, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
- Note: the only file in use in the main namespace of a Wikimedia project at time of nomination is File:Polandball.PNG, on Russian Wikipedia. All others are English Wikipedia uses either by en:User:Russavia or relating to discussions about his uses of these files. I've therefore excluded this file, on the basis that use in mainspace must be supported by Commons, regardless of our own views of educational purpose. (In addition, use in a userbox may be considered a legitimate Wikipedia-internal use not subject to the educational purpose requirement.) Rd232 (talk) 20:31, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
- Note2: en:User:Russavia/PolandballAE (look closely at the links, and be aware of the en:Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive111 context which the page is explicitly linked to in the title via the abbreviation AE=Arbitration Enforcement) helps clarify the non-educational purposes of many of these images. Most telling is this: Another ball, I think he be of a Britball (hence Britball be in of cartoons) ("another ball" is wikilinked to User:Moreschi). Rd232 (talk) 20:40, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, some of these images are in use on a subpage, which is valid usage. Some of them will be put into use here on Commons. Such as at the top of userpage right now. Other's will be created in the future too, hopefully covering all countries, and these can be used in a gallery of sorts on Commons, to support those projects which have articles. As a user-generated subject, being user-generated is expected. And it will be near on impossible to get other images licenced under CC. This is what we have at present, this is what we keep. russavia (talk) 20:45, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
Keep Speedy keep in fact. ru:Polandball still exists and any of these images can be used to illustrate that article. Might I also add that Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Poland_can_into_Wikipedia.jpg was closed as keep by another admin, to which Rd232 didn't like (User_talk:Beria#DR_close), so he is now trying to subvert that consensus by this DR. So long as files have possibility of use, they should be kept. Also, note that several of the files are used on enwp user pages, humour pages, etc, and do not have to be within the educational scope as such, as is being portrayed here. Nothing has changed here from Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Poland_can_into_Wikipedia.jpg which was closed a matter of a couple of hours ago. russavia (talk) 20:39, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
- I stated in that DR that actually the same issues applied to all the Polandball images - hence this mass DR. The closure of that DR was also clearly wrong, with a misapplication of COM:SCOPE. Rd232 (talk) 20:43, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
- Sorry Rd232, but the close was done by an uninvolved admin, and it was kept. You have opened this one up, a matter of hours afterwards, and now you are claiming that others are wrong -- this seems to be more of a case where you didn't get your own way, so you are intent on keep trying until you do. That's not right. russavia (talk) 20:48, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
- Delete - nothing educational about this, out of scope. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:49, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
Kept, Oh please, let's not be disruptive. You didn't liked the result of one DR and now wanna delete the whole category? Seriously?!? Do you ever thougth about if everyone did the same with every DR? The full chaos that this would become? You're an admin, start acting like one and respect the policies please. Béria Lima msg 20:50, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
This appears to be some sort of encyclopedia article, and Commons is not an encyclopedia. The topic is already covered on Wikipedia at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polandball; does not fall within the scope of Commons. IllaZilla (talk) 21:35, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
- Keep - This isn't an article, it's a collection of Polandball icons, aka a gallery, which is a perfectly acceptable thing to have. Given it's covered on Wikipedia, it's in scope. -mattbuck (Talk) 22:11, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
- The talk page indicates "This should really go the English language Wikipedia, but as the topic is banned there, I will post it here", which indicated to me that it had been deleted from Wikipedia at some point so someone decided to put it on Commons instead. If it's just a gallery, isn't that redundant to Category:Polandball and its subcats? I find it odd that it's structured somewhat like a Wikipedia article, with a descriptive lead section and explanatory subsection intros. --IllaZilla (talk) 22:20, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
- You mean it's structured in a way which lets people understand what the page is about? Oh my god, call the FBI. -mattbuck (Talk) 07:28, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
- The talk page indicates "This should really go the English language Wikipedia, but as the topic is banned there, I will post it here", which indicated to me that it had been deleted from Wikipedia at some point so someone decided to put it on Commons instead. If it's just a gallery, isn't that redundant to Category:Polandball and its subcats? I find it odd that it's structured somewhat like a Wikipedia article, with a descriptive lead section and explanatory subsection intros. --IllaZilla (talk) 22:20, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
- Keep - This seems to be a good use of a gallery to me, since it has already been decided not to delete the files or the category containing them. How else would a gallery of these files look like? The same but without the introductory paragraph? We really need more people developing the galleries on this project not deletion of galleries that actually are reasonably decent. Oxyman (talk) 01:24, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
Kept: I think these files are out of scope, but there is no community consensus for that point of view. So the files are there, making this gallery valid. --Jcb (talk) 21:45, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
Files of User:TuanUt (part 2)
[edit]Out of scope, personal photos, kids just taking pictures of themselves. These appear to be re-uploads of files that were recently deleted. – JBarta (talk) 12:35, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: and speedily per obviously out of scope Morning Sunshine (talk) 11:45, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
Unused personal pictures.
- File:Xuexue.jpg
- File:Hezhao4.jpg
- File:Hezhao3.jpg
- File:Hezhao1.jpg
- File:Hezhao2.jpg
- File:Heyan.jpg
- File:Tongyu.jpg
- File:Hanhan.jpg
- File:Xuyi.jpg
- File:Leilei.jpg
Ices2Csharp (talk) 10:19, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope Morning Sunshine (talk) 11:33, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
Files uploaded by IveGotALife05 (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unused personal pictures.
Ices2Csharp (talk) 10:22, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope Morning Sunshine (talk) 11:08, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
promotional work
- File:Box Internet.png
- File:Sécurité.png
- File:Telephonie fixe.png
- File:Téléphonie mobile.png
- File:Alarme.jpg
- File:Box Internet.jpg
- File:Téléphonie fixe.jpg
- File:Téléphonie mobile.jpg
- File:LidHome.jpg
Vera (talk) 08:25, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Morning Sunshine (talk) 11:47, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Huhaoyu321 (talk · contribs)
[edit]random collection of unfree images from the web
- File:Qionglong Hill-1.jpg
- File:Lingyan Temple.jpg
- File:Suzhou fish.jpg – http://www.meishichina.com/Eat/RMenu/200503/2875.html removed watermark
- File:苏州轨道交通路线图.jpg
- File:昆曲.jpg – from http://www.plcsky.com/yl/xqyz/103463.shtml
- File:苏州香格里拉.jpg
- File:Ron logo.jpg
- File:新余仙女雕像.jpg
- File:虎丘塔.jpg
- File:拙政园.jpg
- File:李公堤.jpg
- File:Bank of Suzhou.JPG
- File:新余学院校园.jpg
- File:新余学院.jpg
- File:孔目江国家湿地公园.jpg
- File:Holyriverwood.png
- File:Xinyu station.jpg
- File:Soochow City.JPG
- File:新余万年桥.jpg
- File:新余新区.jpg
- File:新余2.jpg
- File:新余1.jpg from http://upload.newsxy.com/2012/0309/1331276992781.jpg
- File:仙女湖.jpg from http://www.jxly.com/jqdq/2010/0411/18533.html
Won’t waste my time identifying more.
Polarlys (talk) 08:54, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio Morning Sunshine (talk) 12:24, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Sabeel Fsd (talk · contribs)
[edit]promo/press material
Polarlys (talk) 09:08, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
These photos have been uploaded for the puropse of enhancing the articles on wiki. Sabeel Fsd (talk) 13:39, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
Delete. Sockpuppetry and block evasion by persistent copyright violator Sabeeel43. —LX (talk, contribs) 19:41, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
- nopes my Dear I'm not.Sabeel Fsd (talk) 04:02, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Nuked user and the files. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 04:42, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
COM:FOP#United States. 84.61.139.62 15:57, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
- Keep Photo of an entrance gate and a text sign? I don't see any copyright problem. -- Infrogmation (talk) 02:53, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Denniss (talk) 18:16, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
No source, not "own work". ~ Fry1989 eh? 23:01, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
- Keep Flags (as National flags of different countries) are ineligible for copyright and therefore in the public domain, because they consist entirely of information that is common property and contains no original authorship. Fma12 (talk) 04:26, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
- The flag? yes, that's just 3 bars of green yellow and red. The coat of arms in the centre however, no. Where ever the uploader got this from, it could easily be copyrighted. Every version holds it's own rights. Fry1989 eh? 05:06, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
- But coats of arms are national symbols too, not copyrightable because in most of the cases they are anonymous works, and more than 100 years have passed since their creation. I should search the PD Bolivian Law to give a definitive opinion about this issue.Fma12 (talk) 13:55, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
- We do not know where this rendition came from. It could easily be copyrighted and for that reason it must go. Fry1989 eh? 20:45, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
- The symbol on the flag is the coat of arms of Bolivia (as seen here), which is not copyrightable as far as I know. In Bolivia, copyright is ruled by Law 1.322 (text in Spanish). The Article 18 recognizes the "traditional and cultural works made by unknown authors" as "National heritage and therefore public domain", so my position is to Keep the flag. Unfortunately, there is no copyright tags specifically for Bolivian works in Commons Fma12 (talk) 23:05, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
- The symbol on the flag is the coat of arms of Bolivia (as seen here), which is not copyrightable as far as I know. In Bolivia, copyright is ruled by Law 1.322 (text in Spanish). The Article 18 recognizes the "traditional and cultural works made by unknown authors" as "National heritage and therefore public domain", so my position is to
- We do not know where this rendition came from. It could easily be copyrighted and for that reason it must go. Fry1989 eh? 20:45, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
- But coats of arms are national symbols too, not copyrightable because in most of the cases they are anonymous works, and more than 100 years have passed since their creation. I should search the PD Bolivian Law to give a definitive opinion about this issue.Fma12 (talk) 13:55, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
- The flag? yes, that's just 3 bars of green yellow and red. The coat of arms in the centre however, no. Where ever the uploader got this from, it could easily be copyrighted. Every version holds it's own rights. Fry1989 eh? 05:06, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
- You're not listening. THIS particular rendition of the arms is unsourced. We don't know who made it. Every rendition holds it's own rights, so the creator can copyright his rendition, even if under Bolivian law national symbols are public domain. Unless you can source this file, it must go. Fry1989 eh? 23:07, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
- Who is not listening is YOU (apart from being unpolite with a person who is just trying to help). In fact the creator has attributed the creation to himself (what is right for me, so this is his particular rendition of the Bolivian flag, which does not have those excesively dark tones of colors). Due to this is a different version of the real national flag, this should not been deleted and considered as an "own author", although specifying that Bolivian flag and coat of arms are under public domain in that country. Fma12 (talk) 23:29, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
- "Own work" is extremely doubtful. Do you know how many people upload something as "own work" when it isn't? It happens every day. Fry1989 eh? 23:30, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
- Indeed I know many people uploading their "own" works. I have nominated a lot of those so "original" works for deletion due to copyright violations. You're right. Fma12 (talk) 03:16, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: This same image was uploaded with different licensing and lack of source information, but also by the same uploader. But, under COM:COA, each rendition has their own copyright and this was taken from stock government images. We cannot have it. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 18:39, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
Copyvio. This image was taken from this, which had been taken from the copyrighted book titled Köktürk Kağanlığı Sikkeleri Kataloğu , TİKA, 2007, ISBN 978-975-19-4060-5, p. 91. Takabeg (talk) 12:32, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Takabeg as Copyvio (Copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: This image was taken from this, which had been taken from the copyrighted book titled Köktürk Kağanlığı Sikkeleri Kataloğu , TİKA, 2007, ISBN 978-975-19-4060-5, p. 91. Bidgee (talk) 22:50, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
- About your this edit: Maybe {{PD-ineligible}} can be applied in the United States. But this copyrighted book was published in Turkey. and I cannot find such application in the Turkish copyright law. Fair quotations are allowed even in the Turkish copyright law, but it doesn't make works free contents. Thank you. Takabeg (talk) 23:05, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
- Does {{PD-Art}} not apply? —Firespeaker (talk) 08:22, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 16:01, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
copyright violation http://www.yeniozgurpolitika.org/ Reality006 (talk) 20:13, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
- Keep Clearly a textlogo, which does not reach the threshold of originality to be copyrightable. Fma12 (talk) 04:32, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
- Keep per Fma12. This newspaper is written in Turkish language, but is not published in Turkey. Takabeg (talk) 13:57, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
Kept: PD-text User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 17:50, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
The source is apparently as:চিত্ৰ:Madhab than Mondir.jpg, but that file has an almost empty file information page with only a category given. I don't know what the category means or if it has anything to do with licensing. The image is additionally sourced to this website. Stefan4 (talk) 00:36, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 11:47, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
No source. We have several reditions already. ~ Fry1989 eh? 03:09, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 11:32, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
License conflict. This image appears to come from http://www.panoramio.com/photo/64339992 The uploader and the photographer may be the same person, but the photo as displayed on Panoramio explicity says no derivative works. Either the Panoramio license has to be changed or the file has to be deleted. – JBarta (talk) 04:55, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 11:41, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
License conflict. This image appears to come from http://www.panoramio.com/photo/64340546 The uploader and the photographer may be the same person, but the photo as displayed on Panoramio explicity says no derivative works. Either the Panoramio license has to be changed or the file has to be deleted. – JBarta (talk) 05:00, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 12:00, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope, no permission. Ices2Csharp (talk) 07:07, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 12:06, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope, no permission. Ices2Csharp (talk) 07:07, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 12:13, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope, no permission. Ices2Csharp (talk) 07:08, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 12:00, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope, no permission. Ices2Csharp (talk) 07:08, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 12:34, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope, no permission. Ices2Csharp (talk) 07:09, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 10:23, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 07:09, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 10:34, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 07:10, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 10:24, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Out op scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 07:10, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 12:14, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 07:10, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 11:55, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 07:11, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 10:34, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 07:11, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 10:35, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 07:11, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 10:35, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 07:12, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 10:36, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Hier ist die svg Version http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Datei:Stadtwappen_Noerdlingen.svg. Zimtstern 2k (talk) 10:14, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 12:25, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Source of image not clear, found on many websites without proper license info Funfood ␌ 10:18, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 12:18, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
copyright violation Reality006 (talk) 14:10, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 11:32, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
copyright violation Reality006 (talk) 14:10, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 10:21, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
The image caption on http://fr.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Marc_Ronet&oldid=77354323 says "© Benoist Baillergeau, portrait de Marc Ronet." If that is true, then the uploader, who claims "own work", is probably not the photographer. -- Túrelio (talk) 15:22, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 12:12, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Origin and license of original photograph used unknown Funfood ␌ 15:32, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 12:30, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
and other uploads by Jorgemontoyap (talk · contribs). Unlikely to be own work: small/inconsistent resolutions, missing EXIF. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:33, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 12:09, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Il n'est pas correct, se sont les armoiries de la famille de la combe! Lordisland 16:53, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 11:14, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
ce fichier n'est pas correct, se sont les armoiries de la famille de la combe! Lordisland 16:55, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 11:33, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
A TinEye search gave a hit on http://www.sandwichtechnik.com/ Pieter Kuiper (talk) 17:27, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 11:46, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
copyright violation (http://www.krg.org/services/print_material.asp?lngnr=12) Reality006 (talk) 20:17, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 11:54, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
copyright violation Reality006 (talk) 20:17, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 11:55, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
this file has not any source it causes probably copyright violation Reality006 (talk) 20:18, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 12:15, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Produvt photo, package design doubtfully free Funfood ␌ 20:18, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 12:27, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
copyright violation (http://khakelewe.com/wene/details.php?image_id=1588&sessionid=1626b68b2d9843a90a2be9fe25fa7d10) Reality006 (talk) 20:21, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 11:39, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
copyright violation Reality006 (talk) 20:24, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 12:09, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Source, author and licence information for each single image is missing High Contrast (talk) 22:30, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 12:04, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Uncategorised, unused, probably out of scope. Possible copyvio (low res image, well-shot, drive-by uploader, no camera metadata). -mattbuck (Talk) 23:46, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 12:21, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
No reason to believe the author of the book is the photographer of the cover image, so no evidence it is actually PD-old. -mattbuck (Talk) 23:49, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 12:13, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Company logo; not used anywhere This, that and the other (talk) 10:54, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
- speedy delete This may pass Commons:TOO too, and I doubt that is the uploader's own work. C3F2k (Questions, comments, complaints?) 20:34, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 21:59, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
File's name is a mistake, i'll download this file under another name. Sammyday (talk) 14:49, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 20:20, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
The image caption on http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexia_Bretaudeau says "© Elodie Daguin, portrait de Alexia Bretaudeau". If that is true, then the uploader, who claims "own work", is probably not the photographer. -- Túrelio (talk) 15:19, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 20:22, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
copyright violation Reality006 (talk) 20:11, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, I tried to add some information on the map is existed but for other purpose, if you find that the purpose of use pours to the same article you have to delete mine . but its for different purpose with regards Burhan br (talk) 11:44, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
Delete Derivative work of the map of Yahoo travel. Takabeg (talk) 14:30, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 21:59, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
uploader had a multitude of copyright violating uploads on his talkpage at en wikipedia - See en wikipedia - User_talk:Afinebalance - the chances that this and his other remaining upload were actually his own work is , well, zero - this one is to be found on-line prior to his upload here - http://www.desitwist.com/image-corner/pakistan-lakes-20152.html - I left him a question asking him to confirm or provide some detail but the user stopped editing a year ago - no meta data - cut and copied from the web. - The other pic is :Shimshal_lake.jpg - might as well get them deleted together. Youreallycan (talk) 22:58, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 20:20, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Combined deletion rationale - see Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Lulusarlake.jpg Youreallycan (talk) 23:03, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 20:23, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Grandhoteldulac (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of scope, no permission.
- File:Hôtel du Lac 1.jpg
- File:Copie de Swimming Pool edited.jpg
- File:XF93.0447.jpg
- File:Deluxe Room.jpg
- File:XF87.0519.jpg
- File:XF88.0027.jpg
- File:Amaryllis Spa 1.jpg
- File:Salon oriental.jpg
- File:0N0F8384.jpg
- File:Suite Léman.jpg
- File:Côté ville.JPG
- File:Jsuite.jpg
- File:Lounge 1.jpg
- File:Barghdl.jpg
- File:Grand Hôtel du Lac bleu.jpg
- File:XF38.0274.jpg
- File:Evening View.jpg
- File:XF41.0044.jpg
Ices2Csharp (talk) 10:13, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 20:28, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
There is no source to prove the accuracy of it. Today, there are approximately 1-2 millions Kurds live in İstanbul and millions of Turks are live in Eastern of Turkey. In addition, Zazas are generally live in Tunceli not Kurds however Zazas do not show the map. Reality006 (talk) 17:11, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
Comment Unfortunately this map was created with author's POV. File:Ethnic Groups Turkey Dutch.jpg is better than this. Takabeg (talk) 07:24, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
Kept: The map may be erroneous but is not necessarily a cause for deletion. Removed the categories and assigned to a generic "map of Turkey", then protected the file to avoid edit wars on it. SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 18:24, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
The map doesn't have any source for 9 years and contraditcs with maps that have sources such as this one. If it'd have source and contradicts anyway, I'd of course prefer to keep it. Since it is not being used (and I don't see a point of using it), I think it would be right thing to delete it. And the styles of those two maps are similar, which makes me think that those contradictions were made on purpose (we see more ethnic Turks in this map). Nanahuatl (talk) 08:04, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
Deleted. Let me be bold and close the request due to missing source. Taivo (talk) 11:21, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
please, delete this page, need to move another one. just got confused Eluveitie (talk) 17:47, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
- changed my mind, don't delete it, please. --Eluveitie (talk) 15:50, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
Kept: but please don't make us waste time SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 18:21, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
copyright violation (http://koyauni.ac/) Reality006 (talk) 20:16, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
- Keep I think PD-textlogo should be ok. Fma12 (talk) 13:56, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: A bit too elaborated to claim PD-Textlogo SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 18:27, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
The author cites this source http://www.panoramio.com/user/267382 that clearly specifies copyright Ileana n (talk) 20:32, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
- Patricio Cabezas is my friend. He recorded the video and allowed me to use it on Commons. Patricio is registered at Panoramio, so am I. Panoramio is a site where we share PICTURES, so the copyright status at Panoramio has nothing to do with this VIDEO. When I uploaded the video, I credited him a author and added a link to his gallery at Panoramio. Jorge Barrios (talk) 01:01, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Per nom SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 18:30, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Nudimmud as Speedy (This is registered trademark of a corporation, Hanwha SolarOne, and this file in Commons is clearly a copyright violation. It meets criteria for speedy deletion), but looks like rather simple geometrics elements. -- Túrelio (talk) 21:48, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
- If you take this image as simple "geometric elements", then virtually any logo or wordmark of a corporation can be taken as simple geometric elements. Those "Tri-circles" logo and the wordmark are clearly copyrighted, and registered trademarks and under protection of corporate and copyright law of South Korea, Japan, USA and other countries. Uploading such image is a clear violation of commons policy, and the image should be deleted immediately. --Nudimmud (talk) 15:12, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
Kept: Under threshold of originality. Only circles and a text SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 18:31, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Nudimmud as Speedy (This is registered trademark of a corporation, Hanwha SolarOne, and this file in Commons is clearly a copyright violation. It meets criteria for speedy deletion), but looks like rather simple geometrics elements. -- Túrelio (talk) 21:48, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
- If you take this image as simple "geometric elements", then virtually any logo or wordmark of a corporation can be taken as simple geometric elements. Those "Tri-circles" logo and the wordmark are clearly copyrighted, and registered trademarks and under protection of corporate and copyright law of South Korea, Japan, USA and other countries. Uploading such image is a clear violation of commons policy, and the image should be deleted immediately. --Nudimmud (talk) 15:13, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: as above SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 18:32, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
Heavily treated image: delete or replace? See discussion for details 84.97.149.219 22:03, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
- Heavily treated image now replaced --Senra (talk) 11:25, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
Kept: no reason for removing SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 18:33, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
Please do not upload twice. See File:Game-Boy-Advance-SP-Mk1-Blue.png ~ Fry1989 eh? 22:48, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
- This should not be deleted. Files are uploaded twice because they are different file formats. One has a transparent background (the png) and the other is a regular JPG. The transparent-backed images are preferred in some situations, while the regular JPG is better for others. Evan-Amos (talk) 12:02, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
- They are both uploaded as JPEGs. One has transparency while the other does not, but we don't really need them both. Fry1989 eh? 21:17, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
- Nope, File:Game-Boy-Advance-SP-Mk1-Blue.png is a PNG file, not JPEG. And the PNG format supports transparency which JPEG does not. Both variants have their advantages: JPEG provides a smaller file size (thanks to its lossy compression), the PNG variant allows to put this image in front of a different background color:
- Hence, it is inherently useful to keep both files. --AFBorchert (talk) 14:25, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
- Nope, File:Game-Boy-Advance-SP-Mk1-Blue.png is a PNG file, not JPEG. And the PNG format supports transparency which JPEG does not. Both variants have their advantages: JPEG provides a smaller file size (thanks to its lossy compression), the PNG variant allows to put this image in front of a different background color:
.png){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_Lazowski,_Poland.jpg){kind=link}
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.svg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.svg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.svg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.svg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Kept: both are useful SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 18:35, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
_Lazowski,_Poland.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_Lazowski,_Poland.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
There's no proof it was published before 1994 without a copyright notice. Plushy (talk) 10:42, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
_Lazowski,_Poland.jpg){kind=link}
- Thanks for noticing that the source page has expired. I have replaced it with an Internet Archive Wayback Machine capture from 2007. The photo is a museum piece from before World War II. It is in the public domain because according to the Art. 3 of copyright law of March 29, 1926 of the Republic of Poland and Art. 2 of copyright law of July 10, 1952 of the People's Republic of Poland, all photographs by Polish photographers without copyright notice from before 1994 are assumed public domain. Thanks. Poeticbent talk 14:00, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
- There is no evidence it was published withouth copyright notice or that it was published before 1994 at all.Plushy (talk) 14:15, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
- I'm not sure what you mean. I updated the link to Museum of Stalowa Wola webpage. Apparently, the actual photograph has not been archived by Wayback Machine, but I'd like you to please assume good faith. That's where it originated from. The photograph, made in the interwar period is on display at the museum, so what possible evidence are we talking about here. Thanks. Poeticbent talk 16:41, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
- The website doesn't have copyright restrictions but I doubt it was published before 1994. Other photos have sources like old books and newspapers where it can be checked if there are copyright notices or not.Plushy (talk) 17:41, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: I'm quite willing to believe based on appearance, source, and the uploader's word that it predates 1994. However, proving it was published before 1994 without a copyright notice is much more difficult and cannot be done based on a website republication after 1994 - it requires a reference to an actual pre-1994 publication in which no notice was present. Dcoetzee (talk) 22:52, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
_Lazowski,_Poland.jpg){kind=link}
poor quality, we already have File:Escremento.jpg. I know we arent censored, but we usually have limits on poor quality images of sexual subjects, same rule should probably apply here Mercurywoodrose (talk) 01:04, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
- Image protest in opposition of banishments user's. Junius (talk) 18:40, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
- I cant quite make out the poster's comment, but if he is worried that i have tried to have him identified as a vandal, or asked for his being blocked, I can assure him i have not. A brief look at his other edits show a highly productive uploader, of good quality images. this one i simply disagree with it applying here. In truth, if it was higher quality, i would have still been shocked (and its ok to be shocked, see "rites of spring" or, of course, ["Fountain" by Duchamp]), but would have defended it being here as appropriate.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 02:50, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
- Image protest in opposition of banishments user's. Junius (talk) 18:40, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
- I'm not a vandal. I'm an excelent editor. It's a protest image. I'm sorry. Junius (talk) 21:57, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
- Caro Mercury, quando as pessoas estão unidas por princípios claros, já dizia Rodrigo Constantino, não existe espaço para arbitrariedade. Os princípios servem como critério objetivo para julgar os atos. Em contrapartida, quando se trata de um grupo tribal, cujo exemplo afirmo ser o corporativo e seleto corpo de administradores desta pédia de Pindorama, o seu membro será sempre tratado com complacência. Veja o exemplo recente do administrador Yanguas que seria alvo de uma pedido de desnomeação e que pediu perdão alegando que passaria a agir com menos arrogância e mais paciência com os demais usuários que recorressem à sua página para lhe pedir auxílio, que não raro, são negados. O que se notou é que continua no seu comportamento de reverter mensagens de editores os quais não gosta, agindo de forma totalmente parcial, além de tratar mal as pessoas, sobretudo IPs, e não dar maiores satisfações de seus malfeitos. Já os "de fora", os editores comuns, como eu, serão sempre duramente condenados. O uso de dois pesos e duas medidas é característica comum e vale tudo para salvar a pele do "companheiro", por mais criminoso que tenha sido o seu ato. Aristóteles, um dos maiores pensadores de todos os tempos, dizia que uma sociedade adequada é governada por leis, não por homens. Com isso, ele queria dizer que devemos adotar um império de leis igualmente válidas para todos, em oposição ao poder arbitrário que aos amigos tudo dá, enquanto aos inimigos se aplica todo o rigor. Da mesma forma uma associação adequada é unida por ideias, não por homens, e seus membros são leais às ideias, não ao grupo. A máfia, por exemplo, é o oposto de tal associação, pois seus membros devem lealdade aos demais membros, e não a valores objetivos. Com essa distinção em mente, fica claro que boa parte dos administradores sempre adotou essa postura tribal ou mesmo mafiosa em detrimento das leis deste projeto e de seus editores que o sustentam com artigos e fotos. Administradores e "burrocratas" são tratados como "especiais" detentores de um salvo-conduto para malfeitos. Os fins nobres sempre justificam os meios obscuros e os crimes perpetrados por seus líderes nunca são crimes, ao contrário daqueles realizados pelos editores comuns. São sempre dois pesos diferentes para se obter duas medidas diametralmente opostas, daí o meu simples, pacífico e solitário protesto por uma Wiki que perdoa um Adailton, um Yanguas, ambos membros desta classe tribal que condena um Junius que nunca compactuou com essa lealdade mafiosa, sectária e golpista. Abraços, Junius (talk) 22:17, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
- I support Junius. He really is an excellent editor, one of the few at the pt.wiki. OffsBlink (talk) 03:18, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
Kept: In scope SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 17:19, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
COM: NOTUSED "Files that add nothing educationally distinct to the collection of images we already hold covering the same subject, especially if they are of poor or mediocre quality. Perfektsionist (talk) 23:27, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
- Keep per previous keep and that for such an every-day subject Commons has very few illustrations. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 23:29, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion - If one wishes to renominate this file with another policy-based rationale, they are able to do so. I will defer to other administrators to review it. Happy holidays. --Missvain (talk) 17:23, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 10:04, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
- Keep Commons has Category:Toilet_signs in other languages. I will agree to the deletion of this file if the deletion other such files is also endorsed or a consensus is arrived at.Hindustanilanguage (talk)
- This isn't even a picture, this is just two words, in a JPG-file, made with e.g. MS Paint. This file is just useless. If I find an out of scope file, I do not need to start a hunt for any comparable file. I'm also not the only one who noticed that this file is out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 16:14, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
- You're not the only one on Commons (statement:If I find an out of scope file, I do not need to start a hunt for any comparable file)- exemplified by the example you've cited yourself. I've uploaded a new image for the file and I hope this should settle the issue. Best wishes, Hindustanilanguage (talk) 05:37, 6 April 2012 (UTC).
- I reverted to first version. Please don't confuse deletion nominations by overwriting with completely different files. The new file seems also the result of photoshopping instead of being a real picture. Ices2Csharp (talk) 14:28, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
- Points to be considered:
- Points to be considered:
- I reverted to first version. Please don't confuse deletion nominations by overwriting with completely different files. The new file seems also the result of photoshopping instead of being a real picture. Ices2Csharp (talk) 14:28, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
- You're not the only one on Commons (statement:If I find an out of scope file, I do not need to start a hunt for any comparable file)- exemplified by the example you've cited yourself. I've uploaded a new image for the file and I hope this should settle the issue. Best wishes, Hindustanilanguage (talk) 05:37, 6 April 2012 (UTC).
- This isn't even a picture, this is just two words, in a JPG-file, made with e.g. MS Paint. This file is just useless. If I find an out of scope file, I do not need to start a hunt for any comparable file. I'm also not the only one who noticed that this file is out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 16:14, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
-Is there not a need for a signboard in Hindi?
-My recent uploads should not be misread as "just two words, in a JPG-file, made with e.g. MS Paint" as stated above. It is full-fledged signboard.
-This can form part of an article, or can be referenced outside Wikiworld or simply the text can be copied and taken for a signboard.
-Take the case of File:Vehicle Insurance Certificate in India.pdf - This file was marked for deletion because of personal copyright violation (name of an individual being included in the certificate), I removed the name,address, phone number, etc and reuploaded another while the DR was still pending. The file was then 'kept'.
-I would not like to enter into editwarring with Ices but I request the admins to consider retaining the second upload.Hindustanilanguage (talk) 05:24, 7 April 2012 (UTC).
- You may consider uploading the new file under a new name, although I don't think the new file is in scope either, but overwriting the old file is a bad idea. Ices2Csharp (talk) 11:36, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
Kept: The fact it uses words instead of symbols doesn't mean per se it's out of scope SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 10:02, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
Per previous DR. It's not my habit to repeat a DR, this is actually the first time. I believe this closure is a clear mistake. I request second opinion by another admin. Ices2Csharp (talk) 14:11, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
- Please note that the closure was actually too early, closer didn't give it 7 days, thus ignoring the normal procedure. Ices2Csharp (talk) 14:13, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
- 7 day time is no religiously binding rule. In the above DR discussion, I cited the example of a DR started in Nov'11 & closed in Mar'12 (5 months). PD Text issue clearly undisputed. Hindustanilanguage (talk) 16:36, 8 April 2012 (UTC).
- This is not a 'PD-text' issue, this is a scope issue. I did not nominate for copyright reasons. There was no justification to close this DR too early and the closure didn't address the arguments in the DR. Ices2Csharp (talk) 16:52, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
- 7 day time is no religiously binding rule. In the above DR discussion, I cited the example of a DR started in Nov'11 & closed in Mar'12 (5 months). PD Text issue clearly undisputed. Hindustanilanguage (talk) 16:36, 8 April 2012 (UTC).
- Nearly all uploads of Heyhello1234567 such as File:IconEliminate.gif and File:IconImmune.gif were wrongly claimed as his original works. Yet they were restored as PD Text post DR and post deletion.One of the Commons admins was skeptical about restoring File:IconEliminate.gif because of the "scope" issue, yet it was restored speedily by an undeletion request. Hindustanilanguage (talk) 05:22, 9 April 2012 (UTC).
- Please stop distracting attention away from the real problem. We are not talking about copyright, we are talking about a file being *completely* useless. Ices2Csharp (talk) 13:58, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
- Nearly all uploads of Heyhello1234567 such as File:IconEliminate.gif and File:IconImmune.gif were wrongly claimed as his original works. Yet they were restored as PD Text post DR and post deletion.One of the Commons admins was skeptical about restoring File:IconEliminate.gif because of the "scope" issue, yet it was restored speedily by an undeletion request. Hindustanilanguage (talk) 05:22, 9 April 2012 (UTC).
- Admins may kindly make a note of highly arrogant and aggressive nature of messages posted by this user:
- Admins may kindly make a note of highly arrogant and aggressive nature of messages posted by this user:
- "If I find an out of scope file, I do not need to start a hunt for any comparable file" (- implying (s)he is the only one on commons, as stated above).
- (S)He reverted my reupload and doesn't want to look at all into my argument or example.
- (S)He renominated the file for deletion when an admin closed the discussion. Is (s)he looking for a rift or clash of admins?
- I explained cases where delays and early closures are possible on commons, but this does not satisfy him/her.
- I explained PD Text aspect - but (s)he just likes to dismiss this issue as well.
- I am explain a precedent pertaining to a user uploads and this again does not pacify deletion requester.In fact, no correlation or inferences are supposed to be drawn.
- He unilaterally terms my uploads to be *completely* useless even though I am the person who uploaded maximum number of autographs on Commons.
- Is anybody empowered to use words such as *completely* useless on Commons. Hindustanilanguage (talk) 08:45, 10 April 2012 (UTC).
- Renominations are not uncommon. Like users can use COM:UDR if they think a file should not have been deleted, users can also use a new DR if they think a file should not have been kept. There is nothing arrogant or aggressive in asking a second opinion. Ices2Csharp (talk) 10:11, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
- Is anybody empowered to use words such as *completely* useless on Commons. Hindustanilanguage (talk) 08:45, 10 April 2012 (UTC).
Delete This is not a sign like the other images, this is an Photoshop/MS Paint text box that adds no pictorial value of a sign to any articles and is therefore out of scope. —SpacemanSpiff 18:19, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
- Keep Although the nominator may say that this is not a copyright issue, I wouldn't hesitate to state that the file is a Textlogo. Whatever the language a sign uses, if there are not complex graphic symbols within, it should be considered as not ineligible for copyright. This is mostly common in signage system, where no authorship can be claimed for symbols (as pictograms) or typography that are part of a universal code. Fma12 (talk) 19:18, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
- If you are so aware that nobody sees copyright problems, why do you post this comment? It doesn't add anything usefull to the debate. Ices2Csharp (talk) 20:12, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
- Has this re-nomination added some useful to the debate? I also wonder.... Fma12 (talk) 22:26, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
- If you are so aware that nobody sees copyright problems, why do you post this comment? It doesn't add anything usefull to the debate. Ices2Csharp (talk) 20:12, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
- Ices, I think that when one admin has given the judgment "kept", the matter is closed. Ices, I s'pose you should upload a few files, update the no. of filemoves as a filemover (now dismally low @ 69) before actively indulging in DRs and DR debates. After all, I would have saluted you or your friend Spiff, if you had uploaded a single worthwhile (or even worthless) pic on Commons, which you never ever thought of in your stint at the Commons. Unfortunately, you want to show to others that their face is terribly wrong when you don't have anything to offer straightaway from your very own side. Further, you were also blocked on Commons for massively terming Commons images as "out of Scope", which were actually not. Hindustanilanguage (talk) 12:12, 22 April 2012 (UTC).
Deleted. This is a simple, low resolution computer rendering of Hindi text which could be reproduced in formatted text easily, which would greatly increase its accessibility, editability, and print quality. It is also unused and has no apparent educational use (the uploader did not describe any plausible such use, I find the "copied and taken for a signboard" use quite absurd given the low resolution). The uploader is admonished to avoid aggressively attacking the nominator and focus on issues of policy. Dcoetzee (talk) 22:40, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
