Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2012/04/13
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
|
|
_-_Trakai_Island_Castle_-_Lithuania1.jpg){kind=link}
_-_Trakai_Island_Castle_-_Lithuania2.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_by_Aric_Addison_(Robert_Franklin).jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
-2-Methyl-CBS-oxazaborolidine.jpg){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
File:Flicker- Karaim language in Arabic script near Menorah (Hanukkah) - Trakai Island Castle - Lithuania1.jpg
[edit]_-_Trakai_Island_Castle_-_Lithuania1.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_-_Trakai_Island_Castle_-_Lithuania1.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Taken from flickr (http://www.flickr.com/photos/moacirdsp/3942087749/in/set-72157622199271073/) but not under a suitable license BabelStone (talk) 00:10, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: The source license (All rights reserved) is incompatible with Commons. Materialscientist (talk) 06:12, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
File:Flicker- Karaim language in Arabic script near Menorah (Hanukkah) - Trakai Island Castle - Lithuania2.jpg
[edit]_-_Trakai_Island_Castle_-_Lithuania2.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_-_Trakai_Island_Castle_-_Lithuania2.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Taken from flickr (http://www.flickr.com/photos/moacirdsp/3942867638/in/set-72157622199271073/) but not under a suitable license BabelStone (talk) 00:11, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: The source license (All rights reserved) is incompatible with Commons. Materialscientist (talk) 06:12, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
copyrighted material from google earth McZusatz (talk) 09:06, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Martin H. (talk) 09:18, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
i want it deleted 71.188.224.213 00:56, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Denniss (talk) 13:18, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Unused personal picture, no license. Ices2Csharp (talk) 13:06, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted. Denniss (talk) 13:19, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Changing from speedy request by Rotpunkt (talk · contribs): speedy deletion reason was "All rock climbing images are already in Category:climbing by country and Category:climbing. This one is a duplicated category." --Closeapple (talk) 16:51, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
Keep: It appears that this should have its own category, and have files copied into it. There are plenty of kinds of climbing other than scaling rocks, as well as lots of examples of rock climbing, and Category:Climbing by type seems to exist to distinguish them. I see 400+ hits in the Commons search for "rock" "climbing", and 700+ if the quotes are removed. A search for incategory:"Rock_climbing" shows at least 5 categories and 9 files the last time the Commons search was reindexed, so it was cleaned out in the last 24 hours. I'd be interested in knowing how many files were in this category 48 hours ago. For what it's worth, the 14 matches still in the index are: Category:Bouldering, Category:Deep-water soloing, Category:Sport climbing, Category:Top roping, Category:Traditional climbing, File:Bouldering at Lizard's Mouth in santa barbara, ca.jpg, File:Climbing a small roof.jpg, File:El delfín, Rodellar, Huesca.jpg, File:Fairhead-Jollyroger.jpg, File:Kletterer in der Sächsischen Schweiz.JPG, File:Klettern im Ith 01.jpg, File:Klettern im Ith 02.jpg, File:Klettern im Ith 03.jpg, File:Wspinaczka.jpg --Closeapple (talk) 17:20, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
- Just for your information, ALL sub-categories of category:climbing are about "Rock climbing". THIS is the problem. --Rotpunkt (talk) 18:49, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
- That is not true, see Category:Bottle crate climbing, Category:Cargo nets (climbing), Category:Industrial climbing, Category:Jungle gyms, or Category:Tree climbing. I think both categories should be kept. May be we can move all Rock climbing subcategories to Category:Rock climbing which then would be a sub category of category:climbing together with other categories I mentioned. --Jarekt (talk) 18:59, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
- Sorry but I never understood Category:Rock climbing and Category:Sport climbing. Almost all images in Category:climbing by country should go in both Category:Rock climbing and Category:Sport climbing. IMVHO It doesn't make any sense. --Rotpunkt (talk) 19:06, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
- As you know I write on wikipedia only about climbing. We should have something like "Rock climbing by country" (that exists already as "Climbing by country"). "Rock climbing" without "by country" doesn't make sense because there are too many images. --Rotpunkt (talk) 19:21, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
- I want to add another example.
- In italian wikipedia we have: it:Arrampicata and it:Arrampicata su ghiaccio, but there isn't "Arrampicata su roccia" (roccia=rock)
- In french wikipedia we have: fr:Escalade and fr:Escalade glaciaire, but there isn't "Escalade du rocher" (rocher=rock)
- In spanish wikipedia we have: es:Escalada and es:Escalada en hielo, but there isn't "Escalada en roca" (roca=rock).
- In deutsch wikipedia we have: de:Klettern and de:Eisklettern, but there isn't "Fels Klettern" (fels=rock).
- This is because in our countries arrampicata/escalade/escalada has a primary meaning of "rock climbing". --Rotpunkt (talk) 19:41, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
- About Category:Rock climbing and Category:Sport climbing. In US English the nomenclature seems to be that Rock climbing has 3 main styles: traditional climbing using "trad gear", Sport climbing of bolted routs and Bouldering using "crash pads". See more at Climbing style and Rock climbing. Also I agree that the content of Category:climbing by country should be moved to Category:Rock climbing by country and should contain only Rock climbing images. --Jarekt (talk) 19:52, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
- OK! If you move "Climbing by country" in "Rock climbing by country" for me is ok. However I always considered "Climbing" as "Rock Climbing" (as a primary meaning). And in many other wikipedias the primary meaning for "Climbing" is "Rock climbing". --Rotpunkt (talk) 20:02, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
- About Category:Rock climbing and Category:Sport climbing. In US English the nomenclature seems to be that Rock climbing has 3 main styles: traditional climbing using "trad gear", Sport climbing of bolted routs and Bouldering using "crash pads". See more at Climbing style and Rock climbing. Also I agree that the content of Category:climbing by country should be moved to Category:Rock climbing by country and should contain only Rock climbing images. --Jarekt (talk) 19:52, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
- That is not true, see Category:Bottle crate climbing, Category:Cargo nets (climbing), Category:Industrial climbing, Category:Jungle gyms, or Category:Tree climbing. I think both categories should be kept. May be we can move all Rock climbing subcategories to Category:Rock climbing which then would be a sub category of category:climbing together with other categories I mentioned. --Jarekt (talk) 18:59, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
- Just for your information, ALL sub-categories of category:climbing are about "Rock climbing". THIS is the problem. --Rotpunkt (talk) 18:49, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
I think the organization should be:
- Climbing
- Rock Climbing
- Rock climbing by type
- Sport climbing
- Traditional climbing
- Bouldering
- Rock climbing by country
- Rock climbing equipment
- Rock climbing competitions
- Rock climbers
- Rock climbing signs
- ...
- Rock climbing by type
- Bottle crate climbing
- Cargo nets (climbing)
- Industrial climbing,
- Jungle gyms
- Tree climbing
- ...
- Rock Climbing
If it is OK with everybody, I can reorganize it. --Jarekt (talk) 20:13, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
- I agree we need to reorganize the categories but I see some problems here. For me it's wrong now putting "Rock" in front of everything like: "Rock climbing competitions" (competitions doesn't have rock) and also "rock climbers".
- I am also thinking what to do about the common categories inside "Climbing in XYZCountry", like Category:Climbers from France and Category:Climbing walls in France inside Category:Climbing in France. --Rotpunkt (talk) 20:29, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
- I need some days for thinking about the reorganization! (I don't agree to put "rock" in front of everything, I prefer the current situation in this case). As I wrote before, using "Rock climbing" is common only in english wikipedia. The most important climbing magazine are named: www.climbing.com, www.ukclimbing.com, www.grimper.com, www.klettern.de, there isn't the word "rock". --Rotpunkt (talk) 20:31, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
- I have re-checked the categories (also of other sports) and I have found the solution, only 1 change: adding "Category:Rock climbing in XYZCountry" as a CHILD of "Category:Climbing in XYZCountry" and as a CHILD of a new "Rock climbing by country". The same as: Category:Skiing by country => Category:Skiing in Austria => Category:Cross-country skiing in Austria. In this case Category:Cross-country skiing in Austria is a child of both: Category:Cross-country skiing by country and Category:Skiing in Austria. --Rotpunkt (talk) 21:14, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
- Obviously in this way we don't delete Category:Rock climbing, we only put inside a new Category:Rock climbing by country. --Rotpunkt (talk) 21:17, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
Kept: I think we all agree to Keep and reorganize the category, so lets close this discussion and move it to Category talk:Climbing Jarekt (talk) 02:32, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
low resolution, no metadata, another photos of this uploader was copyvios Ezarateesteban 21:23, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
- See http://allboxing.ru/fotolenta/archive/2012-03-31_20_06.html. At the bottom is written Photos: Akim Ivkin/AllBoxing.Ru (in my translation, - some other source translates/transcribes the name differently). The provided author and source information is untrue, the file is from an unfree source. --Martin H. (talk) 21:42, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Low-resolution file lacking EXIF data, taken from copyrighted sources mentioned by Martin H. Materialscientist (talk) 01:56, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
There is no evidence that Everett Raymond Kinstler was ever an employee of the Federal government, so this portrait is not PD. See also http://www.everettraymondkinstler.com/pages/about_erk_biography.html Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:23, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
- Comment: There seems to already be a discussion in regard to White House portraits going on here. Happyme22 (talk) 01:14, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: See OTRS #2012041610008058, where Kinstler explicitly says that he owns the copyright for all of his works and has never transferred copyright to the government. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:00, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
There is no evidence that Everett Raymond Kinstler was ever an employee of the Federal government, so this portrait is not PD. See also http://www.everettraymondkinstler.com/pages/about_erk_biography.html Note also the explicit copyright notice in the lower left corner of the painting. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:25, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
- Keep We've been through this before. Please refer to: Portraits with unclear copyright status from the U.S. Federal Government. Also, please look at this category for reference Category:Official presidential painted portraits in the White House. Evrik (talk) 17:13, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, we have been through this before with works by this artist. See Commons:Deletion requests/File:Portrait of Lawrence Summers.jpg and Commons:Deletion requests/File:Portrait of George P. Shultz.jpg. In both cases they were deleted. I have sent an e-mail to Kinstler -- we will see what he says. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 23:18, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
- I can't see that. Evrik (talk) 18:45, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: See OTRS #2012041610008058, where Kinstler explicitly says that he owns the copyright for all of his works and has never transferred copyright to the government. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:56, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
slow resolution, no metadata, another uploads of this uploader was copyvio Ezarateesteban 21:23, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
- See allboxing.ru/fotolenta/archive/2012-03-31_20_06.html, photo is number 16 on the page. Bottom of the page reads Фото: Аким Ивкин / AllBoxing.Ru - translated: Photo Akim Ivkin, AllBoxing.Ru. --Martin H. (talk) 21:46, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Denniss (talk) 19:45, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
no metadata, slow resolution, another photos of this uploader was copyvio Ezarateesteban 21:24, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Denniss (talk) 19:45, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
Por que la Persona de la Imagen solicito su eliminacion por motivos personales Anfernandez (talk) 21:44, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Denniss (talk) 19:46, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
Unused personal picture. Ices2Csharp (talk) 12:51, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 | This user loves to ice skate with friends |
it's a nice picture for this sort of thing. Penyulap ☏ 19:57, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
- Ok, let's keep it then :-) - Ices2Csharp (talk) 21:36, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
The source of the film is "naver blog". No author is given. No proof of license is given. Bbb23 (talk) 23:42, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. russavia (talk) 20:11, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Out of scope, no educational value, appears to have no use other than to promote a web site. – JBarta (talk) 01:28, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: Out of scope Morning Sunshine (talk) 05:28, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Out of scope, no educational value, appears to have no use other than to promote a web site. – JBarta (talk) 01:29, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope Morning Sunshine (talk) 05:28, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
_by_Aric_Addison_(Robert_Franklin).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_by_Aric_Addison_(Robert_Franklin).jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Out of scope, no educational value, appears to have no use other than to promote a web site. – JBarta (talk) 01:29, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
_by_Aric_Addison_(Robert_Franklin).jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: Out of scope Morning Sunshine (talk) 05:28, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
_by_Aric_Addison_(Robert_Franklin).jpg){kind=link}
Incorrect structure: missing H on the exocyclic N. Also low quality (resolution, bg/margins): unused and have correct .svg available DMacks (talk) 04:41, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Per nom. Leyo 08:05, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
Incorrect structure: missing H on O and has unclear front/back positioning of the central bridged-ring structure. Also low quality (resolution, bg/margins): unused and have .svg available that fixes the chemistry and is very clear about the geometry DMacks (talk) 04:43, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Per nom. Leyo 08:03, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
out of scope Reinhardhauke (talk) 10:09, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
- Keep - a view from above of a narrow shopping street in Bangkok - Why out of scope? Deror avi (talk) 10:11, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
- Because you offered no description, no location, no adequate categorization. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 11:22, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
- Keep In scope. Tm (talk) 05:15, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
- Keep: Realistically educational per COM:SCOPE now that we know what it is. For example: I did not realize that streets so narrow would still be used for shopping. (A description should be added to the file page, as well as to any other files that show specific attributes or specific points in an area.) --Closeapple (talk) 04:57, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope, no permission. Ices2Csharp (talk) 15:04, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
Delete per COM:SCOPE: "Advertising/promotional material does not advance Commons' aims." This is 1/3 banner ad, 2/3 low-resolution of storefront too close for decent context. (The file description is priceless, though. "Spoken English, Tally provide best education with affordable fees. Access 15 year old institute in chhatterpur with experience team of faculty." Too bad that a file description by itself doesn't qualify a page for Category:Irony.) --Closeapple (talk) 07:35, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Morning Sunshine (talk) 06:14, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
Unused personal picture. Ices2Csharp (talk) 15:09, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
- Delete: No evidence of being realistically useful for an educational purpose per COM:SCOPE; no identification of why these people would be worth having a picture of, or even where they are or what they are doing in this photo. Appears to be the same photo as on http://profile.ameba.jp/buenavistars/ and appears to be a musical(?) group called The BuenaVistars. "職業: 中学生" on that web site appears to translate as "occupation: middle school students" but also has "未既婚: 既婚" which appears to translate as "marital status: married". Married middle school students who play guns as instruments? Even though they seem to have uploaded content on a few places on the web, I am presuming that these are kids that are not famous. --Closeapple (talk) 04:19, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope Morning Sunshine (talk) 06:33, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
Inappropriate file type, better versions available in Category:DMPU. Leyo 16:32, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Morning Sunshine (talk) 05:33, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
Poor quality, many better versions in Category:ECB hazard symbols. Leyo 16:34, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Morning Sunshine (talk) 05:33, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Poor quality, many better versions in Category:ECB hazard symbols. Leyo 16:35, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted. Morning Sunshine (talk) 05:33, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Poor quality, many better versions in Category:ECB hazard symbols. Leyo 16:37, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted. Morning Sunshine (talk) 05:33, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Poor quality, better version available: File:GHS-pictogram-silhouete.svg. Leyo 16:40, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Morning Sunshine (talk) 05:37, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
Poor quality, better version available: File:GHS-pictogram-exclam.svg. Leyo 16:41, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Morning Sunshine (talk) 05:37, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
Poor quality, better version available: File:GHS-pictogram-acid.svg. Leyo 16:42, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Morning Sunshine (talk) 05:38, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
-2-Methyl-CBS-oxazaborolidine.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
-2-Methyl-CBS-oxazaborolidine.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Poor quality; replaced by File:(R)-2-Methyl-CBS-oxazaborolidine.png and File:(R)-2-Methyl-CBS-oxazaborolidine.tif. Leyo 16:45, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
-2-Methyl-CBS-oxazaborolidine.png){kind=link}
-2-Methyl-CBS-oxazaborolidine.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted. Morning Sunshine (talk) 05:38, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
-2-Methyl-CBS-oxazaborolidine.jpg){kind=link}
unused, personal file, see COM:SCOPE Polarlys (talk) 20:30, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
- This would be cool for a visual guide to what is wanted on commons. If people have a camera handy and want to upload, we can suggest not so much of this, and can you please improve Hi5, facepalm, sign language gestures, hand gestures in general, and so on. A set of generically useless images like this one would be useful for improving documentation. Right now, there is little in the way of visual documentation, and it is very much needed, it's incredibly easy to translate from one language to another. Penyulap ☏ 01:36, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope Morning Sunshine (talk) 06:32, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope, unused personal photo, also very low resolution Captain-tucker (talk) 00:09, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Tiptoety talk 16:00, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope, unused personal photo Captain-tucker (talk) 00:12, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Tiptoety talk 16:01, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
own work? slow resolutiom Ezarateesteban 00:15, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Morning Sunshine (talk) 11:02, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 07:10, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
- Keep article in The New York Times, ridiculous nomination. Trycatch (talk) 14:09, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
- Not every random newspaper is in scope, we are not a newspaper archive. Ices2Csharp (talk) 15:49, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
personal rights Reinhardhauke (talk) 10:04, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
- Keep - personality rights as a room is not a reason for deletion. Second - this is a teacher in a cooking school. Image was taken by approval. Deror avi (talk) 10:12, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
- Keep Image is not derogatory, appears to have been taken in a public place... AnonMoos (talk) 16:15, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
out of scope Reinhardhauke (talk) 10:05, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
.JPG){kind=link}
Deleted. Tiptoety talk 16:03, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
.JPG){kind=link}
seems copyvio. the same image appears at http://www.eng.yale.edu/content/historicMalone.asp and seems to be from December 11, 2003 ELEKHHT 10:44, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
- Delete — COM:COPYVIO: Photographs, with first publication in the U.S. and after 1989, have copyrights even without copyright notices. --Closeapple (talk) 06:38, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Tiptoety talk 16:03, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 11:43, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
- Delete as copyvio by Wikipedia-blocked vandalism-only account: (1) COM:COPYVIO: Derived from File:Ryan Hollins autograph.jpg (a CC-BY-2.0 work) without acknowledging the original author. (2) "Files apparently created and/or uploaded for the purpose of vandalism or attack." per COM:SCOPE#Examples: see en:Special:Contributions/Hurricanes1281, which makes the purpose of this file obvious. --Closeapple (talk) 06:58, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Tiptoety talk 16:03, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
Unused personal picture. Ices2Csharp (talk) 12:39, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Tiptoety talk 16:04, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
Unused personal picture. Ices2Csharp (talk) 12:39, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Tiptoety talk 16:04, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
Unused personal picture. Ices2Csharp (talk) 12:39, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Tiptoety talk 16:04, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
Unused personal picture. Ices2Csharp (talk) 12:44, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Tiptoety talk 16:06, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
Is a downscaled version of File:Rahul Kumar.jpg – JBarta (talk) 13:28, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
- Delete Motopark (talk) 13:53, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Morning Sunshine (talk) 11:13, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope - unused personal image INeverCry 18:56, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
Deleted, Taivo (talk) 11:51, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
Out of COM:SCOPE, personal shot of likely non-notable person. -- Túrelio (talk) 14:58, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
Deleted. INeverCry 02:23, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
Personal photo. Same reason as above two deletion requests... Perhaps we should create-protect this file name. This, that and the other (talk) 11:53, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
Deleted. --Krd 18:41, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
Unused personal picture. Ices2Csharp (talk) 13:29, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
- Weak Delete: User created his user page at es:Usuario:DanielGLopez then uploaded this image, but has not put the image on the page. He has made no other edits. Maybe he is just confused about how to proceed; but 2 months is enough to say that he gave up, I guess. --Closeapple (talk) 04:00, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Tiptoety talk 16:06, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
copyright violation Reality006 (talk) 14:22, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
- Delete. Above the very low threshold of originality in Turkey. If the company is large enough and in scope of Wikipedia I doubt that the uploader - who acts on Commons as a natural person - is authorized to publish this under a free license. More likely the company is small, the uploader tried to spam in tr.wikipedia, he failed and we have this out of scope logo on Commons. One reason applies, either copyvio/lack of permission or out of scope. --Martin H. (talk) 15:13, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Tiptoety talk 16:07, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope, no permission. Ices2Csharp (talk) 15:03, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
- Delete as spam and copyvio. (1) It is advertising that is not particularly illustrative of anything, and is for a business of no apparent notability. COM:SCOPE says "Advertising/promotional material does not advance Commons' aims." (2) Copyright violation: Contains at least 2 or 3 logos that are eligible for copyright. --Closeapple (talk) 07:43, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Tiptoety talk 16:07, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
DVD cover to "La Usurpadora" - copyrighted image to Televisa. André Koehne TALK TO ME 12:57, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
- Please, see this link, in Amazon.com. André Koehne TALK TO ME 13:00, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Morning Sunshine (talk) 05:09, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
Copyrighted image to Televisa (not self work, false license, false author) André Koehne TALK TO ME 13:04, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Morning Sunshine (talk) 05:10, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope, no educational value, appears to have no use other than to promote a web site. – JBarta (talk) 01:06, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 12:55, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Subject is blurred, no use. Kiran Gopi (Talk to me..) 05:19, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
.JPG){kind=link}
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 12:55, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
.JPG){kind=link}
Seems to be random upload, out of scope. Kiran Gopi (Talk to me..) 05:41, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
- pls delete :)--Manojk (talk) 07:57, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 12:56, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
Orphaned image. Very poor quality. Original work here Ashay Gupta (talk) 08:15, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: unused poor duplicate George Chernilevsky talk 12:58, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
Duplicate of File:Brunkans ljusa.ogv (wrong aspect-ratio) McZusatz (talk) 08:25, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: poor duplicate George Chernilevsky talk 12:59, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
{{Blurry}} duplicate of File:Jäskorgarny.jpg McZusatz (talk) 08:43, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: unused poor duplicate George Chernilevsky talk 13:00, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
Unused personal picture. Ices2Csharp (talk) 12:43, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
- this is excellent quality and composition, where is it, Philippines ? Thailand ? useful for lots of things. Penyulap ☏ 20:01, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope, private photo George Chernilevsky talk 13:01, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
Unused personal picture. Ices2Csharp (talk) 12:44, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 13:02, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
Unused personal picture. Ices2Csharp (talk) 12:46, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 13:11, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
Useless for lack of quality. Ices2Csharp (talk) 12:52, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 13:19, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope, no permission. Ices2Csharp (talk) 13:03, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 13:20, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
Unused personal picture. Ices2Csharp (talk) 13:04, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 13:20, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
Possible derivative work, Images showing on the board may copy righted. Kiran Gopi (Talk to me..) 05:33, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
- it's my mistake.pls delete it.will careful in future --Manojk (talk) 07:59, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Morning Sunshine (talk) 10:16, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
Unused personal picture. Ices2Csharp (talk) 12:45, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
- Delete There isn't anything in this photo to provide context as to location or what the people in the photo are doing. Senator2029║talk 16:59, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
- Keep - The context is in the description. This is not a personal photo, it's not the user, it is a photo the user took. I have added a few categories. -mattbuck (Talk) 18:00, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
Neutral Is it within the project scope? See 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. --Ras67 (talk) 18:51, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
- It's a beach, it's Sri Lanka, it's families... I'd say there's a reasonable case. -mattbuck (Talk) 19:38, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
- Keep You've convinced me. --Ras67 (talk) 20:31, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
- Keep Not a personal picture. Image clearly in scope. Tm (talk) 05:26, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
Kept, description and categorization indicate potential usefulness within project scope. -- Infrogmation (talk) 18:00, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
Source of the image (Ebay page) does not describe it as "public domain" or "without copyright notice". Cresix (talk) 16:50, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
- Comment: As uploader, the photo description along with the source description, shows clear photos of the front and back that there was no copyright notice. Rarely are things without a copyright notice marked with a "public domain" notice. Publicity photos were, at that time, generally not copyrighted. The source states: "This is an original, very limited glossy publicity photo of The Beatles." Without proof of copyright it is PD by default. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 17:53, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
- Comment: Copyrighted images can be sold without copyright notices. Someone can own or sell a photo, the original of which is copyrighted. I own several photos that are protected by copyright and were published in books, with permission. Buying the photo does not entitle me to post it and call it a free image. Note for admins: Please review this editor's talk page history, which has numerous notices about images nominated for deletion because the image's free-image status was not demonstrated. Cresix (talk) 18:29, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
- A copy of this on the iTunes site has "Photo © Apple Corps Ltd." in fine print at the bottom of the page. We hope (talk) 23:09, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
- However, Apple was not established until 1968, four years after the photo was taken. BTW, everyone and their uncle sticks a copyright notice on their web or printed materials, as the creation of the page itself is copyrightable, but not typically the photos they got permission to use. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 23:40, 13 April 2012 (UTC) [appended to clarify previous sentence] . . . each of which require their own separate filed copyright along with a notice on the image.--Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 04:13, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
- "but not typically the photos they got permission to use": No evidence of this whatsoever. The burden of proof that an image is free is on the editor who wishes to use it. There is no assumption that an image is not copyrighted without the evidence. In this case, there is no evidence. Cresix (talk) 00:03, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
- From http://www.apple.com/legal/terms/site.html: "All text, graphics, user interfaces, visual interfaces, photographs, trademarks, logos, sounds, music, artwork and computer code (collectively, “Content”), including but not limited to the design, structure, selection, coordination, expression, “look and feel” and arrangement of such Content, contained on the Site is owned, controlled or licensed by or to Apple, and is protected by trade dress, copyright, patent and trademark laws, and various other intellectual property rights and unfair competition laws" (bold added). Cresix (talk) 00:07, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
- You're obviously not an attorney: "All text, graphics, . . . sounds, music, artwork . . . is protected by trade dress, copyright, patent and trademark laws . . ." is boilerplate and not even possible (ie. you don't patent text.) --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 00:30, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
- First, you have no idea whether I am an attorney or a garbage collector. Secondly, your absurd and arrogant excuses about copyright "not typically [applying] to photos" on websites and "boilerplate" dismissal of legal notices does not remove a photo's copyright. I can most assuredly guarantee you that Apple website's copyright notice was written by an attorney. You are already under serious investigation at Wikipedia, and if you continue this flippant attitude about copyright I'll take this up at Wikipedia's ANI page. And I think there'll be quite a few Wikipedia editors who'll be happy to join in, especially when they see how many of the images you have uploaded have been deleted for copyright reasons. And BTW, no one said anything about "patenting text". As anyone with third grade reading skills can see, the notice includes the word "copyright", and regardless of your refusal to get the point, text can be copyrighted. Cresix (talk) 02:09, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
- You're obviously not an attorney: "All text, graphics, . . . sounds, music, artwork . . . is protected by trade dress, copyright, patent and trademark laws . . ." is boilerplate and not even possible (ie. you don't patent text.) --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 00:30, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
The image was also used as one of the first set of Topps gum cards in 1964. Here's an example of one of the cards with back shown "© T. C. G. Printed in USA". We hope (talk) 00:16, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
- It's quite obvious that this image is copyrighted and that this was not determined when the image was uploaded to Commons and added to Wikipedia at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Beatles&diff=486559186&oldid=486357552. Cresix (talk) 00:19, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
- BTW here's what the iTunes separate copyright notice says "Copyright © 2012 Apple Inc. All rights reserved." We hope (talk) 00:21, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
- I'm not sure such a notice 48 years after the photo was published is valid for this image. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 04:13, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
- BTW here's what the iTunes separate copyright notice says "Copyright © 2012 Apple Inc. All rights reserved." We hope (talk) 00:21, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
The 2012 notice applies to the Apple iTunes website. We hope (talk) 04:33, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
Front and back of photo has now been uploaded, uncropped, for reference. Can someone do a U.K. copyright search for added support? --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 05:11, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
Comment Perhaps I'm confused about what's going on here, but: I presume this photograph was first published in either the UK or the U.S. The photograph would only fall into the public domain if authorized publication (not merely an internal copy) of the image occurred in the United States (not the United Kingdom) prior to 1989 without a copyright notice:
- Missing copyright notices only resulted in public domain in countries that were not signatory to the Berne Convention. The United Kingdom was one of the founding signatories to the Berne Convention in 1887; it hasn't required a copyright notice since then, as far as I know. (The countries that required copyright notices limited themselves to the Universal Copyright Convention; the United States was the most prominent of these, but the U.S. itself joined the Berne Convention in 1989.)
- In countries that required a copyright notice (like the U.S.), it's publication that causes public domain for a missing copyright notice. The photograph itself doesn't need a copyright notice; only the copies that were distributed with the copyright holder's permission (and, for example, before 1989 in the U.S.) need notices in order for copyright to stay intact. If this was a publicist's internal copy, for example, it doesn't count. --Closeapple (talk) 08:18, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
- The reason I mention all this: If this image or a duplicate was published in the United Kingdom first, the UK was probably the country of first publication, even if this particular copy of the photo happened to make its way into the United States and later end up in U.S. publications. I haven't seen much discussion above about when this photo was originally taken: This could have been an older photo, and copies could have already been circulating in publication in the UK for months, or even more, before this particular copy made its way into the U.S. for February 1964 publicity. --Closeapple (talk) 08:32, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
My initial belief was that the gum card photos were the property of Brian Epstein/Nems Enterprises with many having been taken prior to the Beatles' 1964 US debut. While Topps entered into an agreement with him for the US version of the cards which appear to be identical to those produced in the UK by A & BC. Checking eBay UK auctions for the cards found this:
- eBay UK auction
- photo of some cards with one of the backs shown They say "photos with the courtesy of Nems Enterprises Ltd; © A. & B. C. Chewing Gum Ltd”.
- eBayUK auction Note the headshot of Paul McCartney and that seller notes; "The reverse reads “No. x in a series of 60 photos; photos with the courtesy of Nems Enterprises Ltd; © A. & B. C. Chewing Gum Ltd”.
- photo of front of cards.
- photo of card backs The back is more easily read with the above auction.
- Ebay US auction
- front of cards Note the McCartney headshot that was seen above in the UK A & BC cards.
- back of cards with copyright notice for Topps (TGC) but no acknowlegement of Nems.
The photos are the property of Nems. I believe they were published in the UK before they were in the US, as Epstein was an astute businessman and worked ceaselessly to promote this group, whom he initially had an agreement to take 25% of their income as his management fees. As the original owner of the photos, Epstein was at liberty to license any given shot to as many licensees as he desired, provided there was no exclusivity in the agreement. We hope (talk) 15:59, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Thanks to We hope for the detective work. Multiple points, perhaps the most important being that PD-US no notice would only apply if the original was created in the USA rather than the UK, which has not been established. -- Infrogmation (talk) 17:12, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
All the files uploaded by users are the subject of copyright. See Fujifilm global terms of use and Terms of use for Swedish site that contains high definition images.
- File:Fujifilm X-Pro1 Front.jpg
- File:FUJINON XF18mmF2 R.jpg
- File:FUJINON XF60mmF2.4 R Macro.jpg
- File:Fujifilm X-Pro1 rear.jpg
- File:Fujifilm X-Pro1 Right.jpg
Maksim Sidorov 11:11, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Morning Sunshine (talk) 11:12, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
Unused personal pictures and images.
- File:Chittaranjan meher 31.jpg
- File:Chittaranjan snake.jpg
- File:Chittaranjan meher pmi.jpg
- File:Cittaranjan meher pmi 1.JPG
- File:Chittaranjan 001.jpg
- File:Chittaranjan signature.png
- File:Chittaranjan (58).jpg
- File:Chittaranjan.jpg
- File:Chittaranjan meher@ dhauli.jpg
- File:Chittaranjan meher @ puri.jpg
- File:Chittaranjan meher's art.jpg
- File:Chittaranjan meher 2.jpg
- File:Chittaranjan meher 1.jpg
- File:Chittaranjan meher.jpg
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Ices2Csharp (talk) 12:48, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 04:49, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Comicworld (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unused personal pictures.
- File:Brockton McKinney Ehmm Theory.jpg
- File:Brockton McKinney Ehmm Theory and DeathCurse writer.jpg
- File:Brockton McKinney and Larkin Ford.jpg
- File:Brockton McKinney writer of Ehmm Theory.JPG
- File:Brockton Mckinney DeathCurse writer.jpg
- File:Brockton McKinney with friend at Gallery opening.jpg
- File:Bo Fader and Brockton Mckinney writers of the comicbook DeathCurse.jpg
- File:Brockton McKinney BMX crash.jpg
- File:Brockton mckinney and bo fader.jpg
- File:Brockton Mckinney writer Ehmm Theory.jpg
- File:Brockton mckinney 2.jpg
Ices2Csharp (talk) 15:08, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
- Keep sigh, not "unused personal pictures", see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Brockton Mckinney.jpg below. --Trycatch (talk) 13:53, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
- I'm not convinced about the person being in scope, but even if so, these pictures are out of scope anyway IMHO. Ices2Csharp (talk) 15:46, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
Kept: per Commons:Deletion requests/File:Brockton Mckinney.jpg--Morning Sunshine (talk) 06:09, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
Unused personal pictures.
- File:Cliff 10.jpg
- File:Cliff 9.jpg
- File:Cliff 4.jpg
- File:Cliff 5.jpg
- File:Cliff 6.jpg
- File:Cliff 7.jpg
- File:Cliff 8.jpg
- File:Cliff 2.jpg
- File:Cliffv 3.jpg
Ices2Csharp (talk) 15:12, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 04:55, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Malkuth Levi2612
[edit]User is uploading only copyright violations.
- File:System of rieg.jpg
- File:Mision ArriBa.jpg
- File:Perez Jimenez.jpg
- File:Ing. Camipolongo.jpg
- File:Construccionrepre.jpg
- File:GuAricO.jpg
- File:ConstruC.jpg
- File:ComPuertAs Abajo.jpg
- File:CompuertAs.jpg
- File:Angulo Compuertas.jpg
- File:ConsTru.jpg
- File:Construccionrepresa.jpg
- File:CaTeDrAl.jpg
- File:CalaBozO.jpg
- File:ViajeLLanero050.jpg
- File:ViajeLLanero153.jpg
- File:ViajeLLanero040.jpg
- File:ViajeLLanero048.jpg
- File:ViajeLLanero141.jpg
- File:ViajeLLanero146.jpg
- File:ViajeLLanero149.jpg
- File:Av.Octavio viana.jpg
- File:Av. Octavio Viana.jpg
- File:ESCUDOUNEFA.jpg
- File:Parque Romulo Gallegos.jpg
- File:Autobus Ruta Cañafistola.jpg
- File:FgHvpF717149-02-1-.jpg
- File:El Calvario.jpg
- File:Calabozo41.jpg
- File:Calabozo5.jpg
- File:Calabozo tapon.JPG
- File:93 big.jpg
- File:Calabozo- Viejo.jpg
- File:Copia de red troncal digital.gif
- File:P6240129.jpg
- File:Vista Calabozo.jpg
- File:Plaza bolivar.jpg
- File:Escultura de la entrada.jpg
- File:La catedral al fondon.jpg
- File:Compuertas2.jpg
- File:Centro de Calabozo.jpg
- File:Carrera 10.jpg
- File:Calle 5.jpg
- File:Compuertas.jpg
- File:23 de enero2.jpg
- File:23 de enero1.jpg
- File:23 de enero.jpg
- File:Canocorozo.jpg
- File:Anochecer4.jpg
- File:Corozopando.jpg
- File:Corozo.jpg
- File:Calabozo3.jpg
- File:Calabozo2.jpg
- File:Calabozo.jpg
- File:Guardatinajas4pg.jpg
- File:Guardatinajas3jpg.jpg
- File:Guardatinajas2.jpg
- File:Antonio Estevez.jpg
- File:Calabozo Compuertas.jpg
- File:Aeropuerto de calabozo.jpg
- File:Entrata al Centro.jpg
- File:Calle 6.jpg
- File:Iglesia del carmen.jpg
- File:124257 2.jpg
- File:Iglesia las mercedes de Calabozo.jpg
- File:Catedral MetropolitanaCalabozo.jpg
- File:Bachillerato.jpeg
- File:Y1ponJ8JcKdwlCPJDonhCekobrTqwuWvhFRsG5qCOTeys32ZuAGGIsoLaZhgWns-XSjidZIkGyUPsA.jpeg
- File:Noti03 noti.jpg
- File:Llanos.jpg
- File:7g 14.jpeg
- File:5g 14.jpeg
- File:2g 14.jpeg
- File:3g 14.jpeg
- File:Rio Guarico.jpg
- File:Embalse desde Calabozo.jpg
- File:Franciscodemiranda-guarico.png
- File:Bandera-guarico.gif
- File:3cafa9773f.jpg
- File:659966b162.jpg
- File:Hei.jpg
- File:Compuertas de Calabozo.jpg
- File:Redoma-metros-represa-calabozo.jpg
- File:Av.Octavio Via.jpg
- File:Plaza Bolivar Centro.jpg
Martin H. (talk) 16:58, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: copyright violation, see Commons:Licensing Polarlys (talk) 20:49, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Phuongminhminh (talk · contribs)
[edit]Random image collection from the web, mostly images of historic events. Even modern images of low quality are taken from somewhere else. --Polarlys (talk) 20:28, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
- File:Tiệm tạp hóa thị trấn..jpg – http://www.whatsonningbo.com/news-2238-us-man-don-sammons-60-is-the-only-resident-of-buford-wyoming.html
- File:Ảnh Đại tướng do Mật thám chụp trong thời gian bị giam Lao phủ..jpeg
- File:Một góc nhà lưu niệm của Đại tướng Võ Nguyên Giáp.JPG – http://dantri.com.vn/c20/s20-511704/30-nam-giu-nha-dai-tuong.htm
- File:Nhà Đại tướng Võ nguyên Giáp.JPG
- File:Đại tướng và Bác Hồ năm 1957.jpg
- File:0502Fo22L.jpg
- File:May bay phap tai db.jpg
- File:Rytrt.jpeg
- File:Bless-s-fran-ais.jpg
- File:Tu binh phap db.gif
- File:20090516085139 image005.jpg
- File:931linhPhapDBP.jpg
- File:171109hha50.jpg
- File:Đại tướng nhân dịp 100 tuổi.jpg
- File:Nhà Đại tướng Võ Nguyên Giáp.jpg
- File:Nhà của Đại tướng tại Quảng Bình.jpg – http://ttgiang.wordpress.com/tag/lethuy/
- File:Đại tướng cưỡi ngữa trên chiến dịch Biên giới.jpeg
- File:Đại tướng cùng các thân phụ..jpg
- File:Bữa cơm với Chủ tịch Hồ Chí Minh.jpg
- File:Mừng tin chiến thắng Điện Biên Phủ.jpg
- File:Bác Hồ và Đại tướng Võ Nguyên Giáp.jpg
- File:Bị bắt giam tại nhà tù Lao Phủ.jpg
- File:Đại tướng được trao quân hàm Đại tướng khi mới ở tuổi 37.jpg
- File:Đại tướng thăm bác trong chiến dịch Biên giới.jpg
- File:Phiên đấu giá giao bán thị trấn Buford , Wyoming.PNG
- File:Buford , Wyoming.PNG
- File:Vonguyengiap12.JPG
- File:Giap1m.gif
- File:Vng2.jpg - http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_pictures/3673211.stm
- File:Vo nguyen giap.jpg - http://vietnam-war.commemoration.gov.au/combat/the-other-side.php
- File:Chùa Diên Khánh - La Khê.jpg - http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?p=84703438 (http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_mRgAE-rZGSQ/TG6CXwVk7wI/AAAAAAAAAL4/JW1-KudAgHc/s1600/Ch%C3%B9a+Di%C3%AAn+Kh%C3%A1nh+-+La+Kh%C3%AA+4.jpg)
- File:Biaba.jpg – http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_mRgAE-rZGSQ/TG1ip0fwHJI/AAAAAAAAAKA/zn3lL8_aOB0/s1600/Trong+%C4%90%E1%BB%81n+Bia+B%C3%A0+2.jpg
Polarlys (talk) 20:25, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
- Delete per Polarys. Only copyvios. --Tlusťa (talk) 10:17, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio Morning Sunshine (talk) 06:04, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Phuongminhminh (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unlikely to be own work: bad quality, no exif. Uploader has long history of copyvios
- File:Bác Hồ và Đồng chí Đỗ Mười..PNG
- File:Bn4.PNG
- File:Banoi23.jpg
- File:Bn3.PNG
- File:Ba noi.jpg
- File:Một góc thị trấn Buford.PNG
/St1995 22:33, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio --Krd 07:36, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
Own work seems to be doubtful: the image resolution is in typical websize (even TinEye displayes some results). In accordance to this, a invulnerable kind of EXIF information is not provided. I assume that this image is a derivative work of some other file that was not created by the uploader 91.57.70.39 13:30, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
- This is several PD (or claimed to be PD) photos banded together in graphic redactor AND specially greately reduced in size and resolution (in case the originals were falsly claimed PD- in such resolution it is of virtually no difference from any other picture of such object). Moreover - the resulting works is an accurate and low resolution 2D depiction of utiliatarian object, lacking the neccessary creative originality.
- This is several PD (or claimed to be PD) photos banded together in graphic redactor AND specially greately reduced in size and resolution (in case the originals were falsly claimed PD- in such resolution it is of virtually no difference from any other picture of such object). Moreover - the resulting works is an accurate and low resolution 2D depiction of utiliatarian object, lacking the neccessary creative originality.
Also - here are the TinEye result - turning out no direct "originals". --RussianTrooper (talk) 15:34, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
- Could RussianTrooper please provide or describe the claimed PD source? "Own work" wouldn't appear to be correct. --Paul_012 (talk) 03:03, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
Kept: This image is no more similar to Tineye results than it is to other results that we have on Commons. Given the commonness of the AK-47, and the prevalence of sideview images out there, I find little to merit passing the threshhold of originality. Bastique ☎ appelez-moi! 02:55, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
The uploader stated that he/she created this image by using different other "public domain"-images. Because this should be checked and was not clarified in the previous DR, I please the uploader to give the source those "public domain"-images that have been for this creation. Because it is complex enough to be beyond the threshold of originality 79.221.108.21 08:42, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Obviously not the uploader's own work as he stated above: "several PD (or claimed to be PD) photos banded together". He is not willing to give which alleged PD-images these are (Paul_012 commented this above). But all in all this image is beyond the threshold of originality. It is no simple drawing and it consists not of simple geometric structures. --High Contrast (talk) 12:08, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Personal photo of uploader's friends; useless for educational or informative purposes Nyttend (talk) 13:29, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- Note that this was transferred from en:wp; by "uploader" I mean the en:wp uploader, not the person who transferred it to Commons. Nyttend (talk) 13:30, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
- Keep: Strangely enough, illustrates a well-known tradition, at least in Illinois, at a national landmark. Rubbing Lincoln's nose on the front bust at Lincoln's Tomb for good luck (or just because you can) is common practice. I think I did even did it when I was a kid; and even for anyone who doesn't know about the tradition, the eye-catching shine on his nose makes them do what comes naturally. Evidence back at least 40 years: Irene Hunt discussed it in 1967 when accepting her Newberry Award; Bloomington's sister city delegation from Vladimir, Russia rubs the nose in a 1989 photo: "Sister City Association celebrates 20th anniversary" by Sharon K. Wolfe, The Pantagraph (Bloomington, Illinois), 2009-09-12; travel guide page 126 of In Lincoln's Footsteps (1991); author mentions doing it in the Introduction in The Lincolns: A Scrapbook Look at Abraham and Mary (2008); a 2008-06-21 blog post at The State Journal-Register (Springfield's main newspaper) about tomb renovations is titled "The nose … is closed"; and there is a retired Christmas ornament from 1996. There are no other photos of this on Wikipedia. --Closeapple (talk) 08:13, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
Withdraw per Closeapple's evidence; I never imagined that this was anything but a silly juvenile attempt to disgust viewers. Nyttend (talk) 14:34, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- I can see how the way the kid in the hat is positioned might be suggestive; but regular behavior really is to touch the outside like he's doing, not what his finger suggests. (There are pictures on the web of people doing otherwise, and inside the monument no less, but they are of course vulgar blasphemers. Tsk!) --Closeapple (talk) 15:30, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
- I assumed that they were pretending to pick his nose :-) Nyttend (talk) 01:08, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
- Keep clearly an often-touched nose. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:27, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
Kept - nomination withdrawn (non-admin closure). /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:54, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Unused personal picture. Ices2Csharp (talk) 13:04, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Question: How is this different than before, when the result was Keep? (It illustrates an Illinois tradition, and for a file to be out-of-scope under Commons:Project scope#File not legitimately in use, it also must not be "realistically useful for an educational purpose".) --Closeapple (talk) 13:10, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
- It's not true the result was 'keep'. The nomination was canceled instead. I see no realistic educational purpose, adding such a picture to an article would be considered vandalism. Ices2Csharp (talk) 13:13, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
- I think perhaps you're misunderstanding what is going on in that picture: Perhaps you think they are picking his nose? This was discussed in the previous nomination. They are rubbing the tip of his nose for "good luck" (or just because it attracts people to touch it). It's actually one of the better-known attributes of Lincoln's Tomb, at least to people in Illinois. If Commons had a better image of the same behavior at Lincoln's Tomb, maybe I could see how this file would be an unnecessary duplicate because it has been mistaken for nose-picking in the past. --Closeapple (talk) 13:56, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
- Also, as far as it being canceled: I see "Kept" from a non-admin closure, which is allowed by Commons:Deletion policy#Closure "if they have a good understanding of the process, and provided the closure is not controversial". An explanation, agreement, and withdrawal of a nomination, followed by a over a month and a half open for anyone else to assert deletion reasons again, with no response, is about as uncontroversial as it gets. --Closeapple (talk) 02:11, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
- It's not true the result was 'keep'. The nomination was canceled instead. I see no realistic educational purpose, adding such a picture to an article would be considered vandalism. Ices2Csharp (talk) 13:13, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
- Keep speedy - it is quite clear that Ices2Csharp had not considered the previous nomination. Plaes stop making this kind of nominations. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 13:39, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
- It's true I didn't see the other nomination when I started this one, but I still think this file should be deleted. (You didn't add any valid reason for 'speedy' closure.) Ices2Csharp (talk) 14:03, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
- Keep sigh. Pro-tip -- if the link to the talk page is blue, the picture was already nominated for deletion or there is something on the talk page you should consider before the nomination. Trycatch (talk) 15:51, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks for the tip. Could you also say why you want to keep this? "Sigh" is not quite a clear argument. Ices2Csharp (talk) 20:25, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
- Keep per same reasons as previous discussion: Still "realistically useful for an educational purpose" (per Commons:Project scope#File not legitimately in use), with all the citations I noted in the previous nomination, all of which are still online. Likely to remain realistically educational unless Commons gets better examples of someone rubbing the nose in front of Lincoln's Tomb, which is a long-established, well-documented tradition in Illinois. --Closeapple (talk) 02:11, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
- Keep. It appears to have been uploaded as a personal picture, but it's a member of the rare breed of personal pictures that are realistically useful for the general public. No reason to delete this, given the sources that Closeapple gave in the first deletion nomination. Nyttend (talk) 03:40, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
Kept per comments and previous nom. -- Infrogmation (talk) 18:27, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
This image is neither copyrighted by Tumblr nor it's in PD. Refer terms of service of Tumblr. —Bill william comptonTalk 07:19, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 19:15, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
- Should have used copyvio tag instead of deletion request. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 20:01, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
- Many times uploader provides good assertions for such cases, so I used a deletion request.—Bill william comptonTalk 03:09, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
- Well.... i guess this single purpose editor wont. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 19:33, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
- Many times uploader provides good assertions for such cases, so I used a deletion request.—Bill william comptonTalk 03:09, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
- Should have used copyvio tag instead of deletion request. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 20:01, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyright violation Sreejith K (talk) 19:51, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
unused nearly private image - should be a film director (works available form "Brain damage films"), notability is not proven - out of scope Cholo Aleman (talk) 04:28, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
- Comment Image is low res and orphan. Per a quick Google, Brockton McKinney has a film availible on DVD from Amazon [1] and has been a name guest at a horror convention [2]. Whether he is notable enough to be within project scope I'll leave to someone who knows something about low budget horror films. Infrogmation (talk) 14:12, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
CommentNote that upload is by User:Brockton01. Could this be self-promo? Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:50, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
- could this be really self promo?? - could be... - perhaps we should keep it as a typical gesture and behaviour of low budget horror movie directors.... :) I admit with a second look: this is so funny, that we should really keep it. Cholo Aleman (talk) 21:05, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
- Keep I think him notable enough to have what is after all a low res image on commons Oxyman (talk) 21:00, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
Kept. Withdrawn by nom. sort of. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 23:00, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
Unused personal picture. Ices2Csharp (talk) 15:09, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
- Keep Although I think this is a close call, he has directed two movies that made it to IMDB, so an argument can be made that he is notable. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:37, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
- Keep notable enough for Commons, obviously Ices2Csharp didn't bother to read the previous nomination. --Trycatch (talk) 13:47, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
- It's just for some days I'm aware of the importance of a blue talk page link. I try to take this into account from now on. Ices2Csharp (talk) 15:43, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
- That would be good -- you will find that most of the time when there is a talk page, it's a {{Kept}}. Are you withdrawing your nomination here -- if so, I'll close it. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:38, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
- No, I don't withdraw for the moment. I looked around another time at the internet and I don't think this person is notable at the moment. I still think this file doesn't belong to Commons. Ices2Csharp (talk) 21:29, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
- That would be good -- you will find that most of the time when there is a talk page, it's a {{Kept}}. Are you withdrawing your nomination here -- if so, I'll close it. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:38, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
 |  |
I think some images may find a use. Penyulap ☏ 00:36, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
- Keep per above. -- Infrogmation (talk) 18:30, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
Kept. per discussion. Geagea (talk) 08:03, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
Which one of these pictures is the own work? 45.250.252.166 14:33, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
- Per description, both. The briefly overwritten version, soon reverted, stated "Overwriting due photographers request. Same photographer, different file though." Different photo should be split off. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 14:39, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
- Where is the photographer's permission? 45.250.252.166 14:56, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
Kept: no evidence presented that this is not an own work. --Abzeronow (talk) 21:59, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
- "Overriting due to photographer's request" means uploader is not the photographer. That means VRT permission is required. See COM:PCP. — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 186.172.231.218 (talk) 00:03, 12 July 2024 (UTC)This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Nothing implies this file is in the public domain (PD-Afghanistan) due to age. とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 06:28, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: High Contrast (talk) 13:26, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
Nothing implies this file is in the public domain (PD-Afghanistan) due to age. とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 06:29, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: High Contrast (talk) 13:26, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
Possibly not a {{PD-textlogo}} Allan Aguilar • talk • 23:54, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
- Comment: Original bee logo introduced in 1969 when company was German ([3]); clear image of that version at VN-og-MN-1974.jpeg via [4]. Company became "100% Danish" in 1980 (per [5], still with same version of logo in image). The next clear copy of the logo on the site is from 1999 at [6], by which time the logo had become the current version with the simpler head. So it appears we have a Danish 1980s or 1990s simplification of a 1969 German work. --Closeapple (talk) 06:27, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:28, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
No information about the book, if the book has copyright please delete. Kiran Gopi (Talk to me..) 05:58, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyrighted book. Sreejith K (talk) 05:24, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
No information about the book, if the book has copyright please delete. Kiran Gopi (Talk to me..) 05:58, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyrighted book. Sreejith K (talk) 05:24, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
Source = google, file description page states: 'This work was published in Google Images, which is a an Image publisher, and allows people to download images for uses. This image is for a common good. This work is being uploaded only for educational purposes. By uploading it into Wikipedia, I am not making any money and so is Wikipedia.' Ices2Csharp (talk) 14:32, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
- Delete, obvious {{Copyvio}}. The uploader is advised to read Commons:First steps and Commons:Image casebook#Internet images. —LX (talk, contribs) 09:49, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: see ↑ and COM:L. Saibo (Δ∇) 16:54, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope, no permission. Ices2Csharp (talk) 07:12, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom. JuTa 20:13, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope, no permission. Ices2Csharp (talk) 07:12, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom JuTa 20:13, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
Incorrect source information: I doubt that both images: the cathedral in the back and the person in front are the uploader's own work. Note that all images that the uploader has put on Commons are combinations of different images of which he is NOT the author. An administrator should remind the uploader on how to give correct source information. The current doing by the author could be a perfect method to hide copyvios. 79.221.107.11 12:07, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
- Danke, but maybe you can remind me on my talkpage rather than asking an admin to pass on messages ? Save everyone's time that way. Penyulap ☏ 22:38, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
*Delete. If this were simply listed as "Own work", I wouldn't believe that a problem existed, but the "from two free images" bit makes it much more problematic: why would you mention the two free images if they were entirely your own work? We would need evidence that both free images were in the public domain in order for this to be copyright safe, and I strongly doubt that any Wikipe-tan images are PD. Nyttend (talk) 13:20, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
- one of them was linked directly when you wrote that as far as I can tell, sorry about that, anyhow tomorrow I'll pick out the other image from the page which it is also linked to, sorry I made it a bit too hard, it's a bit hard for me right now as I'm tired. Penyulap ☏ 02:25, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
- Commons wizard is a steaming pile of dog turd. It gives no proper choices, and today doesn't even load, which is unhelpful.
- one of them was linked directly when you wrote that as far as I can tell, sorry about that, anyhow tomorrow I'll pick out the other image from the page which it is also linked to, sorry I made it a bit too hard, it's a bit hard for me right now as I'm tired. Penyulap ☏ 02:25, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
I made another one by way of explaining which images it comes from, and include them in that description. The documentation which is supposed to help, doesn't describe anything at all, and what the difference is between collage and derivative, you can read all day long and still be none the wiser, the docs are EPIC FAIL, but would be a good resume for a politician, anyone who can shove that many words into an explanation without actually explaining anything is a genius. Penyulap ☏ 14:03, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
I have now added the proper source and author entries, so that everything is o.k. and therefore Keep. --Túrelio (talk) 14:51, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
- Keep. Besides the copyright issue, there were no problems when this was nominated, and the copyright issue has been resolved. I strongly suggest that the uploader give up on the wizard; I've uploaded thousands of files with the fully-manual upload, and I find it easiest and most reliable. Nyttend (talk) 03:00, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
- Keep and close I don tsee any reason here wh ythe image needs to be deleted. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:44, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
Kept: per the only person that brought valid words in this discussion - Túrelio. High Contrast (talk) 21:19, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
The source cannot give clearance that this file is in the public domain. Nothing given that the author Enu placed this photo in PD. This is missing 79.237.171.235 23:19, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyright violation High Contrast (talk) 07:12, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
Might be a coat of arms "found on the Internet". This seems to be identical but is of lower resolution. Stefan4 (talk) 00:19, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 11:42, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
The author of the image is not listed on the PDF, so there is no way to say it is from this archive or from a private person (or collection). User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 00:25, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 11:16, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
No assertion that a government employee took this photo. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 00:47, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 12:09, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
No assertion it was a work of the California government, CalParks claims copyright on everything from their website http://www.parks.ca.gov/?page_id=26420 User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 00:52, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 12:12, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
I strongly doubt the source statement: no EXIF information and a typical low image resolution for internet images High Contrast (talk) 02:20, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 12:28, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
In india FOP is not ok for 2d works, derivative work. Kiran Gopi (Talk to me..) 05:22, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 11:23, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
FOP in india not applicable for 2d works. Derivative work Kiran Gopi (Talk to me..) 05:44, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 12:05, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Nothing indicates this file is in the public domain due to age (PD-Afghanistan). とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 06:09, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 11:33, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
While source may be FBI, this image still retains copyright of the original creator. Do we care about that copyright I am not sure. In any case this is not PD-Afghanistan due to age. とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 06:10, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 11:52, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
1985 isn't old enough to qualify for PD-Afghanistan which is life/publication + 50 which would put the cut off date to 1962 earliest. とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 06:14, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 12:26, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Nothing implies this file is in the public domain (PD-Afghanistan) due to age. とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 06:23, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 10:26, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Nothing implies this file is in the public domain (PD-Afghanistan) due to age. とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 06:23, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 11:24, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Nothing implies this file is in the public domain (PD-Afghanistan) due to age. とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 06:24, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 11:24, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Nothing implies this file is in the public domain (PD-Afghanistan) due to age. とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 06:29, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 12:27, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Nothing implies this file is in the public domain (PD-Afghanistan) due to age. 1985 is not old enough. とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 06:30, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 10:30, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
This file is in the public domain (PD-Afghanistan) due to age as the cutout date currently is at 1962 with life/publication +50. This file can be undeleted in about 3 years. とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 06:32, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 12:39, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
This file is in the public domain (PD-Afghanistan) due to age as the cutout date currently is at 1962 with life/publication +50. This file can be undeleted in about 3 years. とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 06:32, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 12:39, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
This file is in the public domain (PD-Afghanistan) due to age as the cutout date currently is at 1962 with life/publication +50. This file can be undeleted in about 3 years. とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 06:32, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 12:39, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
This file is in the public domain (PD-Afghanistan) due to age as the cutout date currently is at 1962 with life/publication +50. This file can be undeleted in about 16 years. とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 06:34, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 12:34, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Not old enough for claimed PD. とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 06:35, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 12:05, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Nothing indicates Afghan money is freely licences. とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 06:39, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 10:18, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Nothing indicates Afghan money is freely licences. とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 06:39, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 10:17, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Nothing indicates Afghan money is freely licences. とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 06:40, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 10:20, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Source[7] information is insufficient to prove publication before 1923 ({{PD-1923}} or before 1989 ({{PD-1989}}) without following formalities Magog the Ogre (talk) 06:48, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 12:27, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope, no permission. Ices2Csharp (talk) 07:12, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 10:38, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 07:13, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 10:39, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
1:1 duplicate of File:Glutentest.ogv McZusatz (talk) 08:36, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 11:37, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
error in filename, replaced by Kronprinzenpalais, Stuttgart, vor 1926.jpg Gerd Leibrock (talk) 08:52, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 11:55, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
It should be uploaded on Wikipedia. KRoihio (talk) 08:56, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 12:03, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
A derivative work Captain-tucker (talk) 09:17, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 10:19, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Error personae - mistake in person (do not is "Maria de Xangô") - and new violation of copyright (see this link to Commonsdelinker in pt-wiki) André Koehne TALK TO ME 12:53, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 12:00, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Useless for lack of quality. Ices2Csharp (talk) 12:54, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 12:10, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope, there may be a copyright problem as well. Ices2Csharp (talk) 12:55, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 11:01, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
copyright violation Reality006 (talk) 14:21, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 11:47, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
copyright violation Reality006 (talk) 14:21, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 12:27, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
copyright violation Reality006 (talk) 14:22, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 12:07, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
copyright violation Reality006 (talk) 14:22, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 12:05, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
copyright violation Reality006 (talk) 14:22, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 11:39, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
copyright violation Reality006 (talk) 14:22, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 11:40, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Authorship listed on the PDF for this photo is unknown. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 14:41, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 11:26, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Useless for lack of quality. Ices2Csharp (talk) 14:57, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 11:20, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Copyright infringement. This photo lists Steve Rivkin as the author of this photo. That is impossible, as he is the subject of the photo. Under copyright law, people appearing in photographs do not own the photos. I request that the OTRS ticket of this photo be examined to acertain its copyright status, that it be deleted if there is no proof offered that the actual copyright owner transferred the copyright to Rivkin, and that the actual photographer be listed in the "author" field if this photo is to be retained. Jay Tepper (talk) 16:03, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 12:16, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
very bad quality of File:NATO_flag.svg Flor!an (talk) 19:43, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 12:06, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Commons:Project scope Polarlys (talk) 20:22, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 11:12, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
"Transfered from hu wikipedia" is no valid source. Where is this piece of art from? Sebastian Wallroth (talk) 23:15, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 12:19, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
The file was to be used as part of a template, but is no longer needed. 
is an example of a working substitute. Devo (talk) 23:50, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 12:37, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
The file was to be used as part of a template, but is no longer needed. is an example of a working substitute. Devo (talk) 23:51, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 12:23, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
The file was to be used as part of a template, but is no longer needed. is an example of a working substitute. Devo (talk) 23:51, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 12:30, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
The file was to be used as part of a template, but is no longer needed. is an example of a working substitute. Devo (talk) 23:52, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 12:19, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
The file was to be used as part of a template, but is no longer needed. is an example of a working substitute. Devo (talk) 23:52, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 12:16, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
The file was to be used as part of a template, but is no longer needed. is an example of a working substitute. Devo (talk) 23:53, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 12:06, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
While source may be FBI, this image still retains copyright of the original creator. Do we care about that copyright I am not sure. In any case this is not PD-Afghanistan due to age. とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 06:12, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 20:21, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Nothing indicates Afghan money is freely licenced. とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 06:39, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 20:05, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
COM:FOP#Philippines. 84.62.204.235 14:00, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 20:25, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Ce fichier est un doublon LINA'S PARIS (talk) 14:33, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 20:19, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
While researching for the article on this species, i had to find out this can impossibly be a Xiphophorus kallmani. There exist plenty of better photographs of unidentified Xiphophorus species on Commons i see no reason to keep this one. --Dbr (talk) 20:53, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 20:25, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
This is a photo from a university and not a government agency of California. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 00:33, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
- The University of California, San Diego is a public university, and is part of the California government. - Presidentman (talk · contribs) Wikipedia Random Picture of the Day 20:06, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
- Then this image does not list an author credit, so it is not known who took this photo. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 20:16, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
- I have added the author info. - Presidentman (talk · contribs) Wikipedia Random Picture of the Day 11:36, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
- I just think the main issue I have is while a university was created by a state statute or board, the university has their own special copyrights. Plus, from reading the rulings that was cited in making this template (again), the key thing that was made public domain was "written" official records. I do not see photos applying to this template. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 23:26, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
- The template states "...works uploaded on the basis of this license shall be considered to be public domain for the purposes of Wikipedia." - Presidentman (talk · contribs) Wikipedia Random Picture of the Day 13:38, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
- I am saying the template is wrong, based on the wording of the ruling. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 15:53, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
- The template states "...works uploaded on the basis of this license shall be considered to be public domain for the purposes of Wikipedia." - Presidentman (talk · contribs) Wikipedia Random Picture of the Day 13:38, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
- I just think the main issue I have is while a university was created by a state statute or board, the university has their own special copyrights. Plus, from reading the rulings that was cited in making this template (again), the key thing that was made public domain was "written" official records. I do not see photos applying to this template. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 23:26, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
- I have added the author info. - Presidentman (talk · contribs) Wikipedia Random Picture of the Day 11:36, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
- Then this image does not list an author credit, so it is not known who took this photo. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 20:16, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Clearly not all work of California university employees is PD -- a professor writes a book and it does not have a copyright? ALso, we do not know that this was in fact the work of a university employee. . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:38, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
It is listed on the website, but there is no assertion it was an photo from a Cal Berkley staff member (that might not even be a state employee) or from another source. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 00:39, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Insufficient evidence offered for free license. Source website states "Copyright © 2012 UC Regents; all rights reserved". -- Infrogmation (talk) 17:45, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:36, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
The Courts of California website does not contain that public domain statement and is their own separate website. On the Courts website, it says "(c) Supreme Court of California. All Rights Reserved." User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 00:45, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
- Keep. The nominator's first argument is incorrect, the court's website is within the ca.gov domain and therefore is not its "own separate website". Secondly, California's Public Records Act defines a "public record" as "any writing containing information relating to the conduct of a public's business prepared, owned, used or retained by any state or local agency regardless of physical form or characteristic." (emphasis mine). Obviously, the state courts fall within the designation "state or local agency". This compounded with the decision of the state appellate courts that anything that falls within the public record designation is not eligible for copyright makes it very clear that this image is in the public domain. --Haha169 (talk) 20:55, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
- Delete This image is from before he joined the court source and we have no evidence that it was taken by a state employee. The Bay Citizen calls it a courtesy photo and its file name there is "faculty photo". The Huffington Post and Politico claim the image belongs to the Associated Press [8][9]. Now the AP may merely have claimed copyright or may have obtained it, but regardless, I have doubts this is a free image and we have no evidence to go on except that it is hosted by a California state website that hosts all kinds of images without sourcing them properly. Hekerui (talk) 22:56, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Just because California hosts it does not mean that they own the copyright. . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:36, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
copyrighted logo Hindustanilanguage (talk) 05:24, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
THis logo is my work ! No probs qith copyrighting !— Preceding unsigned comment added by Gendalfnet (talk • contribs) 12:13, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
- Dear uploader, you may discuss your point of view on the project page instead of this page or sending emails to me. The admins, I am sure, will definitely look into your point of view as well. Hindustanilanguage (talk) 16:33, 13 April 2012 (UTC).
Deleted: This is either an official logo, in which case we need permission, or it is (as claimed) personal art, in which case it is out of scope. In either case, we cannot keep it. . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:06, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
This is a list of pupil passed from 3rd standard to 4th standard.Is it fall under commons scope? Kiran Gopi (Talk to me..) 05:31, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
i think no issues with the scope of usage in commons. if it's under copyright then delete it.--Manojk (talk) 08:06, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:03, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Derivative work. Kiran Gopi (Talk to me..) 06:02, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
.JPG){kind=link}
- If it is a paid work and has been done for the uploader, then he owns the copyright. I would wait to hear from him. --Sreejith K (talk) 11:45, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: , . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:02, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
.JPG){kind=link}
While source may be FBI, this image still retains copyright of the original creator. Do we care about that copyright I am not sure. In any case this is not PD-Afghanistan due to age. とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 06:07, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
- Delete --Officer (talk) 18:26, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: , . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:00, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
Nothing indicates this publicity-photo like image is freely licensed. Source is facebook of all places. とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 06:34, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
- Keep - Afghanistan is not a signatory to the Berns Convention and the current PD-Afghanistan that you edited is vague. Makes no difference if this old image of an Afghan singer is on Facebook, the person in the image has been dead since the mid 1980s.--Officer (talk) 03:37, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: White Cat's comment is incorrect -- the life of a copyright is measured by the life of the creator, not the subject or copyright holder -- if the latter were the case, then every artist would assign his copyrights to his youngest grandchild. . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:59, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
Duplicate of File:Mirwais-Hotak.jpeg とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 06:42, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
- now asked to speedy delete with {{duplicate|Mirwais-Hotak.jpeg}}. ----MGuf (d) 05:42, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:57, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
nieaktualne logo Lothse1 (talk) 07:37, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
- Comment. Translation of the reason for deletion: outdated logo. — Kpalion(talk) 10:29, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
- Keep and rename. Being obsolete is not a valid reason to delete. I suggest, instead, renaming the file to File:Tatrzański Park Narodowy Pre-2009 LOGO.gif or something similar and keep as a historical image. The same should be done with File:POL Tatrzański Park Narodowy LOGO.svg.
- Polski: Nieaktualność nie jest dobrym powodem do usunięcia. Zamiast tego proponuję zmienić nazwę pliku na File:Tatrzański Park Narodowy Pre-2009 LOGO.gif czy coś w tym stylu i pozostawić jako logo historyczne. To samo powinno się zrobić z plikiem File:POL Tatrzański Park Narodowy LOGO.svg.— Kpalion(talk) 10:29, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
- Comment: I have requested renaming of the two files as described above. — Kpalion(talk) 23:29, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
- Renamed. Cheers! Pi.1415926535 (talk) 04:15, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
Kept: . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:57, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
Basically a duplicate of File:Fint rågmjöl.jpg (other background). McZusatz (talk) 08:53, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
- Delete Copyright violation. The photo on the packaging is copyrightable and the logos are complex and unlikely de minimis, cf. case T 3440-08. --Stefan4 (talk) 21:46, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:57, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Mithril as Speedy (clearly falls outside of Commons' scope) FASTILY (TALK) 10:11, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
- It has no educational value. Mithril (talk) 12:27, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
- Keep in use on a user page. Trycatch (talk) 13:54, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
- I wonder if you have read Commons:Project scope. Mithril (talk) 15:36, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
- Me too. "An otherwise non-educational file does not acquire educational purpose solely because it is in use on a user page (the "User:" namespace) of another project, but by custom the uploading of small numbers of images (e.g. of yourself) for use on a personal user page of another project is allowed." Trycatch (talk) 03:35, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
- I wonder if you have read Commons:Project scope. Mithril (talk) 15:36, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
- Keep (but see below) but rename: Appears to meet COM:SCOPE. On the user page ru:Участник:Ильдар55, it is labeled "Диметродон" ("Dimetrodon", a real species of dinosaur); it is currently the only file in the section "Моё творчество" ("My creativity" in English). Two reasons it meets COM:SCOPE: (1) An example of a user's own art, displayed on his own user page, and not an apparent attempt at spam/advertising; COM:SCOPE#File in use in another Wikimedia project says that "uploading of small numbers of images (e.g. of yourself) for use on a personal user page of another project is allowed". (2) Marginally realistically useful to illustrate a typical scene of the Dimetrodon, which English Wikipedia calls the "apex predator of its time". This would probably need the bottom of the photo retouched or crop to look good if used, though. (File also needs to be renamed: "Фотография 2012-04-07 в 19.37" appears to be Russian for "Photo from 2012-04-07 7:37pm", which is pretty meaningless.) --Closeapple (talk) 05:32, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
- What traits of Dimetrodon can be you see there? The drawing is illiterate. This certain schoolchild have no idea how bones and muscles are connected. It's a pelmen with legs. Mithril (talk) 20:42, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
- That is fair, I guess: If that image is that inaccurate, then my #2 claim is bad. However, it is still a user's own picture — they are allowed to put a small number of personal images on a user page. --Closeapple (talk) 22:12, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
- What traits of Dimetrodon can be you see there? The drawing is illiterate. This certain schoolchild have no idea how bones and muscles are connected. It's a pelmen with legs. Mithril (talk) 20:42, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: "Small number" -- this is one of many images. Commons is not Flickr. . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:57, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
This photo is made by an official of the 'TV-Igra Ukraina' company. The uploader has no rights for this work. Administrators may contact TV-Igra Ukraina officials, here are the contacts. Maksim Sidorov 11:19, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
I got the permission form both TV-Igra Ukraina and Grigori. There is no need to be so pedantic. Andrake
- Permission from Grigory isn't necessary. But initially you have stated, that it is your own work. Do you claim now, that initial statement was wrong? Maksim Sidorov 13:50, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:55, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
File:PQAAAFvmOKqKM8O57-3mmALF7BIpNXIyAIXvBv7yRboFWgxqd YelF6Eakwrbtbszz3DEUX5LNnKARJPFEtnodmNZjIAm1T1UNOKI4umFibKOw2xj3NFFwfWiZSn.jpg
[edit]
Unused personal picture. Ices2Csharp (talk) 13:30, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
- Neutral: I'm divided on this.
- Arguments for deletion: Not an outstanding example of an airport waiting area; there is another example of an airport waiting area at File:Newark waiting area.jpg, for example. Not an outstanding example of Pinto Martins International Airport, either; there is a Category:Aeroporto Internacional Pinto Martins with other examples of that airport.
- Arguments for keeping: It does illustrate how bored some people get waiting for planes to open for boarding; I don't see any better photos of this on Commons. The uploader appears to be the main person in the photo, and the people behind him are not very identifiable or controversial, so the photo is likely harmless regarding Commons:Photographs of identifiable people ("personality rights"). And it may be difficult to find other examples of typically bored people at an airport without personality rights problems. --Closeapple (talk) 23:54, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: If the uploader is the subject, then he is not the photrgrapher, so we need OTRS for the photographer's permission. Otherwise it violates Commons:Photographs_of_identifiable_people . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:52, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope, no permission, no license. Ices2Csharp (talk) 13:31, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
- Weak Keep: Realistically educational/encyclopedic use: demonstrates a feature on Facebook). (But see below.) Even though it is blatantly copied and cropped (this screenshot via this official Facebook blog post), permission may not be needed for this one, because I think we can tag this {{PD-ineligible}}: Facebook is a U.S. publication by a U.S. author, and this probably doesn't meet Commons:Threshold of originality in the U.S., because it consists solely of (1) text of no substantial length, (2) straight lines, (3) a speaker icon of very common shape, and (4) face thumbnails that have been faded out because they are not the focus of the image, so Commons:De minimis. (This certainly needs to be renamed, though.) --Closeapple (talk) 01:03, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
- I also tagged the image {{PD-ineligible}} based on my analysis above. (I assume that's better than no license tag at all.) --Closeapple (talk) 01:27, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
- Note on realistic use: This is a bit blurrier than File:Música face.jpg, which is apparently from the same screenshot. This file could probably be fixed quickly just by doing a lossless JPEG crop on File:Música face.jpg though. --Closeapple (talk) 01:41, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:44, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope, no permission. Ices2Csharp (talk) 13:31, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
- Keep: Same reasons as differently cropped version discussed in Commons:Deletion requests/File:21774271565rec.jpg: {{PD-ineligible}}, etc. --Closeapple (talk) 02:43, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
- Comment: I've also tagged File:Musica Face(2).jpg as a duplicate of this file; that filename was given an {{OTRS pending}} tag on March 3 but has not been updated since, and is from the same uploader, who used his own Flickr account as the source. --Closeapple (talk) 02:43, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
- Comment: File:Musica Face(2).jpg (which will presumably be redirected to this file) is in actual use at pt:Facebook#2012, which means it's in use for an educational purpose per Commons:Project scope#File in use in another Wikimedia project. --Closeapple (talk) 03:28, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Deleted: Facebook is (c) . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:44, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope, no permission. Ices2Csharp (talk) 13:32, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
- Weak Keep: Shows the results of multiple people choosing to listen to each others' audio track on Facebook. Similar reasons to keep as Commons:Deletion requests/File:21774271565rec.jpg: {{PD-ineligible}} if the faces are considered Commons:De minimis. (This file comes from the same Facebook blog post also.) Could be cropped for easier use. --Closeapple (talk) 03:22, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Facebook is (c) . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:43, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
copyright violation Reality006 (talk) 13:52, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
- Been down this road before. You can't just say "copyvio" and expect everyone to listen. You need a reasoning why. Keep until one is provided. Fry1989 eh? 00:39, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
- Could you look at this website? This is official website of Bilkent University and again could you look at this mainpage of website? There is a copyright information at the bottom of page: © Bilkent University | Bilkent University, TR-06800 Bilkent, Ankara, TURKEY. I think this is enough for deleting. By the way, my English is not very well and I am not native speaker of English language. If I wrote wrong or rude words, I apologize.--Reality006 (talk) 13:05, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
- Been down this road before. You can't just say "copyvio" and expect everyone to listen. You need a reasoning why.
- Comment According to the statement of Uğur Olgun, who had posted this file to English Wikipedia, works on electronics at Bilkent University. I think that it's not so difficult for him to take permission. Takabeg (talk) 13:17, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
- Comment Of course, if Bilkent University allow to use this file, there is no problem.--Reality006 (talk) 13:34, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
- None of the links you have given specifically mention this file. They're general copyright notices which are applied to websites all th etime. Still no proof it's copyrighted and for that reason it is a Keep. Fry1989 eh? 21:12, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
- None of the links you have given specifically mention this file. They're general copyright notices which are applied to websites all th etime. Still no proof it's copyrighted and for that reason it is a
- Keep per Takabeg above. Considering the uploader's English user page ("I work on electronics at Bilkent University"), it seems reasonable to believe the uploader's assertion of being the author. He could have been involved in creating the nano-flag, and/or could have permission from the creators to scan the flag himself. (I left a message on en:User talk:Posuur#Nanobayrak.jpg deletion discussion, but I don't know whether the user looks at Wikipedia talk anymore.) --Closeapple (talk) 23:16, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
- Delete at present. Because of the lack of permission. Takabeg (talk) 04:40, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
- Delete per Takabeg.--Rapsar (talk) 12:23, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: We need permission from an officer of the University, not simply someone who works there. Please use Commons:OTRS . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:42, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
to save the space 14.97.117.59 15:02, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
- I don't understand the reason. I doubt it should be deleted. --Ranveig (talk) 16:27, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
- don't delete it
- Oppose: No valid reasons provided by IP address user? Spam nomination? --Ekabhishek (talk) 13:23, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
Kept: . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:40, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
I can't find the quoted licence, {{Copyrighted free use provided that|there is no likelihood of the user of the emblem being confused with the European Community or the Council of Europe or the emblem is not used in connection with objectives or activities which are incompatible with the aims and principles of the European Community or of the Council of Europe. Permission to use the European emblem does not confer on those to whom it is granted any right of exclusive use, nor does it allow them to appropriate the emblem or any similar trademark or logo, either by registration or any other means. Each case will be examined individually to ascertain whether it satisfies the criteria set out above. This will be unlikely in a commercial context if the European emblem is used in conjunction with a company's own logo, name or trade mark}}, anywhere in the provided source. Definitely above the threshold of originality in some EU countries, but maybe not in all of them. It might also be above the threshold of originality in the United States, so it might not be free in the United States. Stefan4 (talk) 15:38, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
- please look at http://www.coe.int/aboutcoe/index.asp?page=symboles. there is a paragraph about copyright with this license. -- T.seppelt (talk) 16:17, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
- oh sorry. my mistake. is there any license that includes? please delete this file otherwise. -- T.seppelt (talk) 17:53, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:40, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
Duplicate of - http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Chronological_Table_and_Index_of_the_Statutes.djvu Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:22, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
- I uploaded this on behalf of Sfan00 IMG. No objection to deleting it. —Tom Morris (talk) 18:18, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:39, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
No permission. -- ~ Common Good (talk) 18:24, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
I feel I have given all the information I can about this image, and I believe that it does not meet grounds for deletion. If this is still problematic, would someone with more wikipedia editing experience please be willing to find another image, for use on the Julie Landsman wikipedia page. Thank you. --Tubeporch59 (talk) 02:48, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
- This appears to be a reduced version of Landsman-edit-1.jpg via this SFCMF page. It has "Copyright 2007 InSight Foto, Inc." and "PO BOX 2789 Santa Fe, NM 87504 USA www.insightfoto.com info@insightfoto.com (505) 988-1424" embedded in the photo data. In order for Commons to keep this image, these two things are required:
- Information on whether InSight Foto still owns the copyright, or whether it was a work for hire/contract for which Music Academy of the West or the Santa Fe Chamber Music Festival now owns the copyright.
- Evidence that the copyright holder releases the photo under the license you gave. You can provide this evidence by the procedure at Commons:OTRS. --Closeapple (talk) 06:43, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:39, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
This is a 3-dimensional object, so {{PD-art}} doesn't apply. Magog the Ogre (talk) 19:55, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
- Keep. I don't see any reason to apply (or not) {{PD-art}} if this image is in PD in Russia. All Russian (and Soviet) orders are in public domain per {{PD-RU-exempt}}, including this order as well — NickK (talk) 20:01, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
- Comment - this is partially my fault for not including it in the original request, but the image at en.wp says it was from http://www.museum.ru/museum/orden/ord27.htm. If you read Commons:When to use the PD-Art tag, you'll see that medals and coins actually gain their own copyright when someone scans them. So the museum holds its own copyright on this image - and if anyone is zealous about upholding its copyrights, it's often museums. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 03:46, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Magog is correct, PD-Art cannot apply and the museum's image has a copyright which we must honor. . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:39, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
We have a free license from the Lordprice Collection, but the Lordprice collection says "The Lordprice Collection is an amazing archive of images sourced from printed material: magazines, posters, books, advertisements, photographs, printed ephemera etc. from all periods and all around the world."[10], so they don't have a copyright anywhere that scanning a work doesn't give you a new copyright. We don't know when this was published or where, and just because the Lordprice Collection didn't see fit to note who did it doesn't mean that it's anonymous. Prosfilaes (talk) 22:34, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
- Keep as PD. Lordprice (or any memorabilia seller) could not attribute the copyright of a photo not taken by them. My edits specifying this were repeatdtly reverted by Prosfilaes who seemed to have change his mind nominating this file for deletion. Due to there is no author's information, anonymous works published before 1961 are PD in New Zealand (Template:PD-New Zealand). The photo would also be PD in the US so it was published before 1923. According to World Rugby Museum website, the Middlesex and the Original All Blacks played a match in 1905 see link (just Lordprice stated). Therefore the information about what year was the photo taken in (1905), sounds reliable for me. The matches against Middlesex are also cited at All Blacks official website (see here) being the game dated 4 October, 1905. Fma12 (talk) 20:56, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
- I have no idea what you mean by "could not attribute the copyright of a photo not taken by them"; they certainly could tell us who took the photo, who published it and what they knew about who held the copyright.
- Lordprice deleting author information does not make it anonymous; the original could have been attributed to the photographer in the original publication. What year it was taken in is irrelevant; what matters was when it was published, and while it's likely that was circa 1905, there is no proof that it was published then, instead of later, say in a 1925 (or 1965) retrospective of All Blacks history.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:09, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
- Your question is clearly cunning, but I will answer you anyway: what I meant is that the photo was uploaded as a template:cc-by-2.5 as if Lordprice had taken the picture themselves. I'm not a native English speaker but I know what the verb "attribute" means. But if you prefer we can discuss in Spanish (my language) from now on, if this helps you.
- In conclusion, I'm pretty sure the photo is PD, out of copyright in NZ and the US due to the reasons explained above. I'm pretty sure the Original All Blacks played Middlesex in 1905, according to the links I put before as proof (All Blacks official website is the clearer example about this). If there not information about the picture, or other version of the image on the web (which I could not find) the image should be considered anonymous unless you can give further information, what it would be appreciated. Fma12 (talk) 02:53, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
- You don't know what the verb attribute means. Just because someone ripped off the author information from a work doesn't make it an anonymous work. I don't know why you repeat the fact that they played in 1905; it doesn't tell us when the photo was published.--Prosfilaes (talk) 03:05, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
- Whatever you say, I have an English dictionary which defines the verb "attribute" very well, thanks anyway. About the picture itself, you do know why I "repeat" that the Original All Blacks played in 1905; if you had taken a look to the links I put above (All Blacks official site, World Rugby Museum), you would have not say that, but evidently you don't want to see what is evident. All the information given by Lordprice (the only source of this picture so I could not find another similar image) about the match is right (teams, year, place), except the author that remains unknown/anonymous. Contrary to you stated supporting the "own" work license tag (see your edit reverting mine), the image is PD. Fma12 (talk) 04:17, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, they played in 1905. Who really cares? It has nothing to do with its copyright status in the United States; all that matters is publication.--Prosfilaes (talk) 10:45, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
- I do care if they played in 1905, it is relevant in order to state that the image has no copyright and it is PD in NZ and the US as well. A simple editing on the tag (obviously supressing the line that indicates copyright attributed by Lordprice themselves) should be enough to finish this discussion. The photo does not infringe any copyright Law, I'm pretty sure about that. Fma12 (talk) 22:36, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, they played in 1905. Who really cares? It has nothing to do with its copyright status in the United States; all that matters is publication.--Prosfilaes (talk) 10:45, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
- Whatever you say, I have an English dictionary which defines the verb "attribute" very well, thanks anyway. About the picture itself, you do know why I "repeat" that the Original All Blacks played in 1905; if you had taken a look to the links I put above (All Blacks official site, World Rugby Museum), you would have not say that, but evidently you don't want to see what is evident. All the information given by Lordprice (the only source of this picture so I could not find another similar image) about the match is right (teams, year, place), except the author that remains unknown/anonymous. Contrary to you stated supporting the "own" work license tag (see your edit reverting mine), the image is PD. Fma12 (talk) 04:17, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
- You don't know what the verb attribute means. Just because someone ripped off the author information from a work doesn't make it an anonymous work. I don't know why you repeat the fact that they played in 1905; it doesn't tell us when the photo was published.--Prosfilaes (talk) 03:05, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Just because we do not know the photographer does not make it an anonymous work -- as noted, Lordprice could simply have removed the name. We have no evidence of when or where this was first published -- indeed Lordprice itself may be the first publication. UK (where match took place) is 70 PMA, so very likely this is still under copyright if first published there. . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:37, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
Not a free image, and certainly over the threshold of originality. InverseHypercube 23:02, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
- Please close. The user has contacted me; she works at UDLAP. This will go through OTRS. InverseHypercube 00:09, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
Kept: . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:33, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
According to http://tzek-design.com/blog/2009/10/13/diseno-del-escudo-institucional-udlap/, this is from 2009, and is thus not old enough to be in the public domain. InverseHypercube 23:38, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
- Please close. The user has contacted me; she works at UDLAP. This will go through OTRS. InverseHypercube 00:08, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
Kept: . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:33, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
Comes from http://web.udlap.mx/congresoindustrial/campus-udlap/, and is copyrighted InverseHypercube 23:39, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
It is the map that we use for default for multiple sites in our university. The site listed belongs to our university and it was created on 2012, I've uploaded this file, past year 2011. - Dulcinea.navarrete
- Please close. The user has contacted me; she works at UDLAP. This will go through OTRS. InverseHypercube 00:08, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
Kept: . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:33, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
Derivative work, In india FOP is not applicable for 2d works. Kiran Gopi (Talk to me..) 05:21, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
ഇത് ഡിയര് പാര്ക്ക് എന്ന സ്ഥാപനത്തെക്കുറിച്ചുള്ള അറിയിപ്പാണ്. കവാടത്തില് സ്ഥാപിച്ചിരിക്കുന്ന ബോര്ഡ്. വിവരം നല്കുന്ന ഒരു ബോര്ഡിന് കോമണ്സില് സ്ഥാനമില്ലേ? Navaneeth Krishnan S
- കോമൺസിൽ സ്ഥാനമുണ്ട്, പക്ഷെ അതിൽ ഉപയോഗിച്ചിരിക്കുന്ന ചിത്രം പകർപ്പവകാശം ഉള്ളതാണ്.--Kiran Gopi (Talk to me..) 05:47, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
തമിഴ്നാട് സര്ക്കാരിന്റെ സ്ഥാപനമാണിത്.ഇത്തരത്തില് നോക്കിയാല് ഒരു സര്ക്കാര് ബസ്സിന്റെ ചിത്രം എടുത്ത് ഉപയോഗിക്കാന് പറ്റില്ല. കാരണം അതില് കെ എസ് ആര് ടി സി യുടെ ലോഗോ ഉണ്ടല്ലോ --Edukeralam (talk) 02:58, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
- ലോഗൊ പ്രധാഫോക്കസിൽ ആണങ്കിൽ പറ്റില്ല, എന്നാൽ ചില സന്ദർഭങ്ങളിൽ നമുക്ക് ഇത് സഹായമാകും.--Kiran Gopi (Talk to me..) 03:01, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
ലൈസന്സ് മാറ്റിയാല് പോരെ. അനുയോജ്യമായ ലൈസന്സ് നിര്ദ്ദേശിക്കൂ...--Edukeralam (talk) 15:48, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
- നിലവിൽ സാധ്യമല്ല, കോമൺസിൽ സ്വതന്ത്ര ചിത്രങ്ങൾ മാത്രമേപാടുള്ളു.--Kiran Gopi (Talk to me..) 00:39, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
- The copyrighted image has been blurred. Now the image is not a copyright violation, but I am unsure whether it is {{Out of scope}}. Might marginally qualify to be in scope, I think. --Sreejith K (talk) 15:51, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
- നിലവിൽ സാധ്യമല്ല, കോമൺസിൽ സ്വതന്ത്ര ചിത്രങ്ങൾ മാത്രമേപാടുള്ളു.--Kiran Gopi (Talk to me..) 00:39, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
- Sreejith it is not blurred completly --Kiran Gopi (Talk to me..) 04:30, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Infringes copyright of photograph and text on the board. FOP in India does not allow either. Nothing on the notice board is de minimis as it it the only think in the image. . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:39, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
- Restored as per Carl L. on Commons:Undeletion requests/Current requests#File:DeerPark-ooty-board.jpg. The text is too simple to get a copyright and the image is blurred. Yann (talk) 03:36, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
This is a seal of a city in California, so it is not a "work by a state employee." User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 00:49, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
- Delete license is clearly incorrect; delete per nom (unless some other reason it is free licensed can be demonstrated). -- Infrogmation (talk) 17:47, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Per discussion. MBisanz talk 02:54, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
Derivative work. The copyright probably is owned by Konkan Railways, if not the artist. Sreejith K (talk) 05:49, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
- The simple statement "Derivative work" isn't helpful. Show us of what original work this one is derivate and prove that the original work is copyrighted. Without this important information any discussion is useless. -- Ies (talk) 07:17, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
- No need to prove original work is copyrighted, need to prove that the original work is copy left.--Kiran Gopi (Talk to me..) 08:43, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
- Lets make it a little more clear. The original work is the painting on the railway station. Derivative work is this photograph. The uploader needs to prove that the original work (painting) is under a license compatible with commmons. --Sreejith K (talk) 10:10, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. The copyright would reside with the artist who did the cartoon (original work) rather than the person who took the photo of the original cartoon (derivative work). No evidence presented that the cartoonist has shared the work under a free license. Commons:Freedom_of_Panorama#India covers architecture, but not drawings or paintings. -- Infrogmation (talk) 17:55, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Per discussion. MBisanz talk 02:55, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
Derivative work. Kiran Gopi (Talk to me..) 05:51, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
- The simple statement "Derivative work" isn't helpful. Show us of what original work this one is derivate and prove that the original work is copyrighted. Without this important information any discussion is useless. -- Ies (talk) 07:16, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
- No need to prove original work is copyrighted, need to prove that the original work is copy left.--Kiran Gopi (Talk to me..) 08:42, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Per discussion. MBisanz talk 02:55, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
Derivative work. Kiran Gopi (Talk to me..) 05:52, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
- The simple statement "Derivative work" isn't helpful. Show us of what original work this one is derivate and prove that the original work is copyrighted. Without this important information any discussion is useless. -- Ies (talk) 07:16, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
- No need to prove original work is copyrighted, need to prove that the original work is copy left.--Kiran Gopi (Talk to me..) 08:42, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. The copyright would reside with the artist who did the cartoon (original work) rather than the person who took the photo of the original cartoon (derivative work). No evidence presented that the cartoonist has shared the work under a free license. Commons:Freedom_of_Panorama#India covers architecture, but not drawings or paintings. -- Infrogmation (talk) 17:55, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Per discussion. MBisanz talk 02:55, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
Derivative work. Kiran Gopi (Talk to me..) 05:52, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
- The simple statement "Derivative work" isn't helpful. Show us of what original work this one is derivate and prove that the original work is copyrighted. Without this important information any discussion is useless. -- Ies (talk) 07:15, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
- No need to prove original work is copyrighted, need to prove that the original work is copy left.--Kiran Gopi (Talk to me..) 08:42, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Per discussion. MBisanz talk 02:55, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
Derivative work. The copyright probably is owned by Konkan Railways, if not the artist. Sreejith K (talk) 05:49, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
- The simple statement "Derivative work" isn't helpful. Show us of what original work this one is derivate and prove that the original work is copyrighted. Without this important information any discussion is useless. -- Ies (talk) 07:17, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
- No need to prove original work is copyrighted, need to prove that the original work is copy left.--Kiran Gopi (Talk to me..) 08:43, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
- Lets make it a little more clear. The original work is the painting on the railway station. Derivative work is this photograph. The uploader needs to prove that the original work (painting) is under a license compatible with commmons. --Sreejith K (talk) 10:10, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. The copyright would reside with the artist who did the cartoon (original work) rather than the person who took the photo of the original cartoon (derivative work). No evidence presented that the cartoonist has shared the work under a free license. Commons:Freedom_of_Panorama#India covers architecture, but not drawings or paintings. -- Infrogmation (talk) 17:55, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Per discussion. MBisanz talk 02:55, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Derivative work. Kiran Gopi (Talk to me..) 05:52, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
- The simple statement "Derivative work" isn't helpful. Show us of what original work this one is derivate and prove that the original work is copyrighted. Without this important information any discussion is useless. -- Ies (talk) 07:15, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
- No need to prove original work is copyrighted, need to prove that the original work is copy left.--Kiran Gopi (Talk to me..) 08:42, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Per discussion. MBisanz talk 02:55, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
Derivative work. Kiran Gopi (Talk to me..) 05:53, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
- The simple statement "Derivative work" isn't helpful. Show us of what original work this one is derivate and prove that the original work is copyrighted. Without this important information any discussion is useless. -- Ies (talk) 07:14, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
- No need to prove original work is copyrighted, need to prove that the original work is copy left.--Kiran Gopi (Talk to me..) 08:43, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Per discussion. MBisanz talk 02:55, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 12:53, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
- Keep indeed a cute thing, not a copyvio, good picture for Category:Stuffed animals category. Trycatch (talk) 14:02, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
Comment I'm on the fence -- we don't keep personal art, so Ices2Csharp is correct, but, as Trycatch says, it's cute and good for the Cat because we have the creator's permission, which is not possible for most stuffed animals. . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:55, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
Kept: Per discussion. MBisanz talk 02:56, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
This is a flag of a city in California, so it is not a "work by a state employee." User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 00:50, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
- Dependant on the outcome of Commons:Deletion requests/File:Seal of Chula Vista, California.svg Fry1989 eh? 23:04, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
Kept: Aside from TOO issues, our general rule is that coats of arms, flags, and seals, have a copyright only in each realization and are not derivative works of their blazon (description). . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:38, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
This is a seal of a city in California, so it is not a "work by a state employee." User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 00:50, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
- But is is of public officials and agencies. It's cloudy I would say. Fry1989 eh? 00:58, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
- I am thinking it is an issue of derivative works too, depending on when this was made. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 02:31, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
Kept: . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:39, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
This is a seal of a city in California, so it is not a "work by a state employee." User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 00:50, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
- Adopted in 1859, that's beyond old enough. Keep Fry1989 eh? 23:05, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
- Is there an online source we could even trace the drawing to/from? If this is from 1859, then I think it could be recreated and put under a free license. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 02:49, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: This realization may or may not still be under copyright. . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:39, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
No proof the FBI created the image just because they used it in their posters/website. FunkMonk (talk) 12:07, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, no evidence that this photo was taken by a FBI employee. Kameraad Pjotr 16:56, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
While source may be FBI, this image still retains copyright of the original creator. Do we care about that copyright I am not sure. In any case this is not PD-Afghanistan due to age. とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 06:07, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
- Delete --Officer (talk) 18:25, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
- Delete per both above and previous deletion request. Wizardman 15:29, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted Not FBI an image . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:01, 20 August 2012 (UTC)