Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2012/06/05
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
|
|
Copyright 83.61.230.146 10:04, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Kept: Denniss (talk) 10:12, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
{{copyvio:File:Los secretos de Albión.Édalis y el poder mestizo. Formato de 2 capítulos.pdf]]
personal use, out of scope Trex2001 (talk) 09:01, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope so should be speedy tagged Herby talk thyme 09:36, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
Non-commercial license is incompatible with Commons licensing. ukexpat (talk) 00:43, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted per nom; false license claim by Commons uploader not matching Flickr original. -- Infrogmation (talk) 22:40, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
undisclosed person. out of scope Hedwig in Washington (MAIL?) 05:16, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of scope Wvk (talk) 16:05, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
unneeded redirect -- Tuválkin ✉ 08:13, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 22:11, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
no visibility of South Kuril islands --Yuriy Kolodin (talk) 08:49, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
This map should be deleted, because South Kuril islands are too small to be visible on the map of Russian Federation. There is no encyclopedic value of this image. Its creation should be treated as a kind of disruption. --Yuriy Kolodin (talk) 08:49, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
Keep. 1. We can see South Kuril islands clearly. 2. Franz Josef Land is also very small relatively to territory of Russian Federation, there are also many another small islands under Russian administration. I think, that the small size of some islands is a rather strange reason for deletion of map of some big territory, that is much bigger than these islands, because we always will see small parts of big thing badly at the common map of this big thing. Map of Russian Federation obviously has encyclopedic value. P.S. Could Yuriy Kolodin say, disruption of what rule he see in creation of image? Dinamik (talk) 10:43, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
- There is no sense of this image, because we cannot see the highlighting because of the small size of the islands relatively to the territory of Russian Federation.--Yuriy Kolodin (talk) 11:31, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
- In such situation we should delete all maps of big countries, because we couldn't see small parts of them clearly. Dinamik (talk) 12:01, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
- We have the same file File:Russian Federation (orthographic projection).svg without highlighting, file with highlighting has no sense, because we cannot see the highlighting. Too small territory is highlighted. Please compare two files:
- There is no sense of this image, because we cannot see the highlighting because of the small size of the islands relatively to the territory of Russian Federation.--Yuriy Kolodin (talk) 11:31, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
- with highlighting:
- and without highlighting
.- Is any visible difference between them? So, what is the sense of highlighting? --Yuriy Kolodin (talk) 11:38, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
- You chose resolution, with using of which you couldn't see difference clearly, another users can choose another resolution and see small parts of Russia, that they want to see. What is the sense of deleting free image with correct information? Dinamik (talk) 12:01, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
_highlighted.svg)
.svg)
- This is an obvious Keep: even if someone deliberately left out the mentioned islands, then deletion would not be the answer. This is a high-quality image with a clear educational value. You can only blame the South Kuril islands for being damn small compared to Russia... —Quibik (talk) 13:18, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
- What is a name of water body in Northern Primorsky Krai (or east Habarovsk Krai)? Is it Amur River so wide river? --Pauk (talk) 13:47, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
Kept, bogus deletion request. Kameraad Pjotr 20:06, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
No Kuril Islands Karel (talk) 09:48, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
- It is not true. If you see this image with low resolution, of course, you don't see them, because Russia is big and Kuril Islands are small. If you choose bigger resolution, you will see Kuril Islands. Dinamik (talk) 10:03, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
Kept: speedy kept Denniss (talk) 22:04, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
No Kuril Islands Karel (talk) 09:51, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
Strong oppose What is that supposed to mean? Deleting the image is hardly necessary in any case. - Ssolbergj (talk) 16:23, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
Kept: speedy kept Denniss (talk) 22:04, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
According to page 3 of the pdf, it is under a cc-by-nc-sa license, not the cc-by-sa-3.0 license on the file description. The non-commercial clause is in conflict with Commons:Licensing. 95.166.78.149 13:05, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 22:01, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
Appears to be a crop of this photo on Flickr. Unclear whether the Flickr user and the uploader are the same person. Ytoyoda (talk) 15:39, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: The uploader shows a pattern of taking copyrighted images from several flickr accounts. Materialscientist (talk) 23:43, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
{{Delete}} Freshinup098 (talk) 15:50, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
Kept: Uhm... no. -mattbuck (Talk) 15:53, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
Der Fotograf und Urheberrechtsinhaber (ich) hat keine Freigabe mehr zur Publizierung des Titelbildes durch den Verlag. Das Bild ist im Artikel bereits durch ein Bild des Verlages ersetzt worden. Gerhard kemme (talk) 17:57, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Missing permission, that was detected only some months after upload. Túrelio (talk) 21:02, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
Has an "all rights reserved" license on Flickr: http://www.flickr.com/photos/lanceturner/267226393/ Needs to be changed to Ytoyoda (talk) 18:04, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
Comment issue appears to be that image is also seen here on Flickr with an all rights reserved license. That was not listed as the source of the photo by the uploader on en:W, who stated they were the photographer. I have alerted the original uploader, en:User:Cardsplayer4lifeto this discussion. -- Infrogmation (talk) 23:34, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: The uploader (Cardsplayer4life) shows a pattern of taking copyrighted images from several flickr accounts. Materialscientist (talk) 23:50, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
Image cropped from an "all rights reserved" Flickr image: http://www.flickr.com/photos/momnurse/269517041/ Ytoyoda (talk) 19:30, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: The uploader shows a pattern of taking copyrighted images from several flickr accounts. Materialscientist (talk) 23:42, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
Taken from an unfree Flickr image: http://www.flickr.com/photos/9637166@N04/705752351/ Ytoyoda (talk) 19:33, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: The uploader shows a pattern of taking copyrighted images from several flickr accounts. The correct link is [1]. Materialscientist (talk) 23:41, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
Tiny duplicate of File:Flag of Spain.svg, no use. Fry1989 eh? 21:28, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom. Sreejith K (talk) 06:32, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
This is a sexualised image of a child of little educational value. Such content is illegal in many jurisdictions (if not the United States), and should not be hosted on Commons. Robofish (talk) 16:18, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
- Keep COM:NOTCENSORED, legal in the United States, in scope. Besides, I'm not convinced that the illustration is sexualised. It just shows a normal person walking with little clothes on the bottom half of the body, possibly changing to a bikini at a beach, already wearing the bottom half of the bikini. --Stefan4 (talk) 20:41, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
- Keep, I'm not seeing the interpretations suggested by the nominator; it looks more like an adult like Amy from Futurama. -- Cirt (talk) 14:20, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
Kept: Is of obvious educational value as it is used in the en:Panchira article for exactly what the article describes. We don't concern ourselves with whether anything is legal in every jurisdiction in the world; only in the US. russavia (talk) 14:04, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
Copyright violation. "27 February 2012" isn't the creation date. The image appeared on a Korean blog dated "2011.01.30", so "27 February 2012" can't be the date of the work's creation.
I also doubt that Mao Szyslak is the image's creation. Mao Szyslak's enwiki account is Barney Gambler. "Mao Szyslak" is a reference to Moe Szyslak, while "Barney Gambler" is a reference to Barney Gumble. Moe Szyslak and Barney Gumble are fictional characters from The Simpsons. I don't believe that the true artist behind the image would want the image to be credited to a pseudonym based on a fictional character from an American cartoon, especially when that pseudonym doesn't appear anywhere else on the Internet.
The titles "Dork1.jpg" and "Dork2.jpg" are references to two famous altern.org images: dork1.jpg and dork2.jpg. Combine this with the references to The Simpsons that I've mentioned earlier, and I would say that YHBT.
In addition, Stefan4's comment is incorrect. The image portrays the shimapan (striped panties) fetish; it isn't the bottom of a bikini. The girl's facial expression is that of embarrassment, and she's looking behind her as if there's someone there. She's also tugging her shirt downwards in order to cover her front. The image is sexual. There isn't a beach.
Cirt's comment is incorrect as well. The Korean blogger states that the images embedded in the blog entry are "little girls".
--Michaeldsuarez (talk) 12:50, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
Delete per nom ... --JN466 13:32, 5 June 2012 (UTC)- Delete - per nom - Alison ❤ 17:41, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Regardless of arguments about sexual intent, copyviol & false claim of creation is sufficient reason for deletion. -- Infrogmation (talk) 23:17, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
Source contradicts claim of license-ownership; no evidence this is a free image DMacks (talk) 14:33, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 17:27, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
claimed source website does not exist and pd-ineligible is not valid for people. Dup of File:Carrie Underwood at the 2012 Billboard Music Awards.jpg in which same uploader claims "found it" as source and also self as author/creator (tagged it for deletion as unlikely to be free there as well) DMacks (talk) 14:35, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 17:27, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
The image is of low resolution and there are no valid EXIF information. It is highly likely not the uploader's own work. High Contrast (talk) 09:26, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: cpvio and per Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Dineshparisutham JuTa 11:55, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
The image is of low resolution and there are no valid EXIF information. It is highly likely not the uploader's own work. High Contrast (talk) 09:26, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: cpvio and per Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Dineshparisutham JuTa 11:57, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
Taken from an "all rights reserved" Flickr image: http://www.flickr.com/photos/jamesguske/699399799/ Ytoyoda (talk) 19:36, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyright violation Sreejith K (talk) 11:38, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
Uploader says that he "just copied it from the net" which implies that the image is not his own work. Uploader has not shown evidence of permission to use such possibly copyrighted/non-free image for non-commercial/commercial purposes. Xeltran (talk) 15:08, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: copyright violation Polarlys (talk) 22:01, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
not the uploader's own work; no evidence for this Creative Commons license High Contrast (talk) 09:27, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
--Parimucha (talk) 09:39, 5 June 2012 (UTC) I work for Tripomatic.com and the map was created by me, we are releasing this under the CC license. All the relevant data sources are attributed in the image.
- Tripomatic.com gave you the permission to release their map here under a free license? --High Contrast (talk) 10:00, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
- Yes. I have a permission to release this under Creative Commons Attribution & Share-alike license. --Parimucha (talk) 11:07, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
- We need a "written" permission to be stored for this image. Please send it to this Email adress: permissions-commons@wikimedia.org. More info about this can be found here. --High Contrast (talk) 14:15, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
Comment OTRS email received, see ticket:2012060710006501. I haven't decided yet if the permission is valid. Trijnsteltalk 15:58, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
Kept: All problems have been solved High Contrast (talk) 17:35, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
Files in Category:Grave of Nikita Khrushchev
[edit]This tomb is created by Russian sculptor Ernst Neizvestny (born 1925 in Russia) who is alive. As there is no FOP in Russia, these files have to be deleted until there is FOP in Russia, or until the sculptor has been deceased long enough for the design to fall out of copyright.
- File:Grave N. S. Krushchev.jpg
- File:Hruščov.JPG
- File:Khrushchev grave snow.jpg
- File:Nikita khrouchtchev tombe clair.jpg
- File:Nikita Khruschev Novod 7.jpg
- File:Nikita Khrushchev' grave, Novodevichy Cemetery, Moscow, 2007.JPG
- File:Novodevicij Cemetery Nikita Khrushchev.JPG
russavia (talk) 00:22, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 19:13, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
Files in Category:Grave of Nikita Khrushchev
[edit]No FoP for 3D works in Russia, artist Ernst Neizvestny died in 2016
- File:Détail de la sculpture sur la tombe.jpg
- File:Moskau-Nowodewitschi-Friedhof-28-Nikita Sergejewitsch Chruschtschow-2012-gje.jpg
- File:Moskau-Nowodewitschi-Friedhof-30-Nikita Sergejewitsch Chruschtschow-2012-gje.jpg
- File:Nikita Khrushchev Tomb 20160930.jpg
- File:Russia (Moscow) Tomb of Krushchev, former Soviet leader in the Novodevichy Cemetery (36612391912).jpg
- File:Tombe de Nikita KROUTCHEV.JPG
A1Cafel (talk) 03:23, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ymblanter (talk) 18:17, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Chris022009 (talk · contribs)
[edit]out of scope
Hedwig in Washington (MAIL?) 05:18, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of scope Wvk (talk) 16:07, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
out of scope
- File:Da Smooth Baron MC 3.JPG
- File:Da Smooth Baron MC 2.JPG
- File:Da Smooth Baron MC 1.JPG
- File:Pannage MTL 6.jpg
Hedwig in Washington (MAIL?) 05:56, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of scope Wvk (talk) 16:11, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
I cannot see, that the company (the copyright holder) has given any permission to upload this picture. And I cannot see, that the company (copyright holder) has given any permission to upload the picture under the licenses that are used here. Hereiamfriends (talk) 07:40, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
- and File:Grand piano seen from above - No commercials.jpg th nominator uploaded that derviate work himself. JuTa 12:37, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, on the page File:Bechstein D280 top view.jpg I clearly wrote a link to the File:Grand piano seen from above - No commercials.jpg. When I uploaded the File:Grand piano seen from above - No commercials.jpg I became aware of that File:Bechstein D280 top view.jpg probably is uploaded illegally. That is why I am calling attention to it. --Hereiamfriends (talk) 15:49, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
- Shouldn't we be requesting OTRS instead of just deleting? Uploader asserted that he/she had permission. - Jmabel ! talk 16:54, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
- Ah, but I see the uploader hasn't been on here since 2008. Probably a lost cause unless someone wants to pursue getting those rights themselves. - Jmabel ! talk 16:55, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
- The picture should be removed immediately. Using the picture on Commons and Wikipedia without permission is illegal. If we get a permission from the copyright holder then we can always upload the picture again. --Hereiamfriends (talk) 15:56, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, on the page File:Bechstein D280 top view.jpg I clearly wrote a link to the File:Grand piano seen from above - No commercials.jpg. When I uploaded the File:Grand piano seen from above - No commercials.jpg I became aware of that File:Bechstein D280 top view.jpg probably is uploaded illegally. That is why I am calling attention to it. --Hereiamfriends (talk) 15:49, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 16:21, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
Fails COM:SCOPE as it does not have an educational use. Furthermore, there is no such I-506, it would not be signed with a crude paper cutout nor would it exist in a bedroom. Imzadi 1979 → 02:06, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
- Delete --Hedwig in Washington (MAIL?) 02:09, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
- Delete --Rschen7754 03:11, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
- Delete No value for Commons. Dough4872 03:22, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 19:33, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
out of project scope, unused personal image Trex2001 (talk) 04:57, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 19:36, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
out of project scope, unused personal image Trex2001 (talk) 04:57, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 19:36, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
out of project scope, unused personal image Trex2001 (talk) 04:57, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 19:36, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
out of scope Hedwig in Washington (MAIL?) 06:01, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 19:38, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
out of scope Hedwig in Washington (MAIL?) 06:02, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 19:39, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
out of scope Hedwig in Washington (MAIL?) 06:04, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 19:39, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
out of scope Hedwig in Washington (MAIL?) 06:06, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 19:39, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
out of scope Hedwig in Washington (MAIL?) 06:12, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 19:40, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
out of scope Hedwig in Washington (MAIL?) 06:15, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 19:45, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
out of scope (IMHO) Hedwig in Washington (MAIL?) 06:15, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 19:45, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
out of scope Hedwig in Washington (MAIL?) 06:17, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 19:46, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
out of scope Hedwig in Washington (MAIL?) 06:20, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 19:48, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
out of scope, band spam Hedwig in Washington (MAIL?) 06:21, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 19:49, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
unusable, filename states it :) Hedwig in Washington (MAIL?) 06:26, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 19:50, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
out of scope Hedwig in Washington (MAIL?) 06:27, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 19:50, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
File:Dental Marketing mobile app solution for a dentist website (Before and After) example.jpg
[edit]out of scope Hedwig in Washington (MAIL?) 06:28, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 19:51, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
bad quality, out of scope LutzBruno (talk) 06:36, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 19:58, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
Unused user pic - no probability of use in future. Hindustanilanguage (talk) 06:37, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 19:59, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
unused user selfimage. no future use. Hindustanilanguage (talk) 06:38, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 19:59, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
unused user self-images. no use in future also Hindustanilanguage (talk) 07:02, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 20:00, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
not used, commercial article del. on DE. Total assets in 2011: 397.619,52€ Nolispanmo 10:08, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 19:42, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
not used, commercial article del. on DE. Total assets (of the company) in 2011: 397.619,52€ Nolispanmo 10:09, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 19:43, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 10:15, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 19:43, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 10:15, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 20:02, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 10:15, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 20:02, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 10:15, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 20:02, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 10:15, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 20:02, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Probably promo, judged by User:ACTIVEFC and the history of his user talk page. Trijnsteltalk 15:44, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 20:05, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Copyvio? See also User:Francisco-lopez-pro. Trijnsteltalk 15:47, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 20:05, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. See also User:Jonkulbacki1. Trijnsteltalk 15:49, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 20:07, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
Gross violation of civility as depicted in this "Up yours" barnstar that is disguised as a derivative of the original image of "Civility Barnstar". Dave1185 (talk) 16:00, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
- Actually, that "Civility barnstar" this is a derivative of is the same image, so I'm going to delete that as a duplicate. -mattbuck (Talk) 16:03, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
- Keep "Gross violation of civility"? it's a fun illustration that has been used a couple of times on en.wp. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 17:44, 5 June 2012 (UTC) Personal attacks removed. --99of9 (talk) 12:05, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
- PS: It wasn't "disguised" as anything. I did both illustrations and I cocked up the uploads. Sheesh, some people. No humour and now no good faith. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 17:47, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
- Fred, you've overstayed your welcome here when you started this new sock account of yours avoiding the scrutiny for your main de-facto BANNED account - User:WebHamster on English Wikipedia, this is not something funny. --Dave1185 (talk) 16:57, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
- Keep 'Gross violation of civility' is putting it a bit strong. pablo 09:05, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
- Keep Commons has many examples of such gestures, and Fred's voicing a valid opinion about the real state of civility round these parts.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 15:51, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
- Kinet, last warning to you, do not remove comments by other user in an ongoing discussion. You have been warned~! --Dave1185 (talk) 00:22, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
- Shall we go that route? I would be happy to take this over to the admin noticeboard and illustrate how you're turning a deletion review into a forum to take potshots at another user. Shall we? Let's do!--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 01:22, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
- Let me head you off at the pass there - calm down both of you. Address the image, not the user. -mattbuck (Talk) 02:07, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
- Keep I can't see any valid reason for deletion. --Tony Wills (talk) 10:44, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
- Keep Same as Tony Wills. Fry1989 eh? 01:36, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
Kept: I'm just going to stick my neck out and close this early, as I think it should be kept, and everyone except the nominator seems to agree. Plus this is turning into a primary school playground with people standing around insulting each other. -mattbuck (Talk) 02:12, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
Unused, low quality, and not the same stero as in Lividomycin.svg. Yikrazuul (talk) 16:23, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
- Delete Is byte-for-byte identical to the image for "lividomycin" provided on chemicalbook (the cited source), found via [2]. I don't think that is a freely-licensed source. I'm not seeing the specific stereochemical differences nom mentions--all sorta blurs together. en:Lividomycin does not have any actual literature sources to compare either. DMacks (talk) 04:37, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 20:09, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
meaningless name, file description, no use on the wikis Hindustanilanguage (talk) 16:23, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
- Delete orphan low res photo of unidentified people, uncategorized since November, insulting random character "description". -- Infrogmation (talk) 23:23, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
- Unless someone authoritatively states that it highlights the agility and liveliness of a visually impaired man. Even then doubtful.Hindustanilanguage (talk) 16:13, 6 June 2012 (UTC).
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 20:10, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Copyvio? See also Fauster atta mensah. Trijnsteltalk 16:33, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 20:11, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Copyvio? See also Fauster atta mensah. Trijnsteltalk 16:33, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 20:12, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. See also Michael Wayne Truitt. Trijnsteltalk 16:36, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 20:12, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. See also Michael Wayne Truitt. Trijnsteltalk 16:36, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 20:12, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
Advertising and/or self-promotion --Dandelo (Diskussion) 16:38, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 20:13, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
Probably out of scope. No description. Kramer Associates (talk) 21:17, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 20:13, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope: no encyclopedic value possible High Contrast (talk) 21:26, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 20:14, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
Scalable SVG at File:Flag of the Marshall Islands.svg Fry1989 eh? 23:22, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: unused scaled down duplicate George Chernilevsky talk 20:15, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
out of scope Hedwig in Washington (MAIL?) 08:22, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
out of scope Hedwig in Washington (MAIL?) 06:18, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 19:47, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
There is no FOP in Russia, so this file is unable to be hosted on Commons until Russian FOP law changes. russavia (talk) 00:26, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:15, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
Photo scan, not PD shizhao (talk) 01:42, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
- Delete No source, no permission. Picture taken between 1974 and 1975, Hong Kong PD after 50 yrs of death of known author. --Hedwig in Washington (MAIL?) 02:15, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:15, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
violación de copyright LutzBruno (talk) 06:34, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
- Delete Motopark (talk) 18:48, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:21, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
violación de copyright (copy from a book) LutzBruno (talk) 06:40, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
- Delete Motopark (talk) 18:49, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:21, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
violación de copyright (copy from a book) LutzBruno (talk) 06:40, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
- Delete Motopark (talk) 18:48, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:21, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
violación de copyright (copy from a book) LutzBruno (talk) 06:40, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
- Delete Motopark (talk) 18:48, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:21, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
violación de copyright (copy from a book) LutzBruno (talk) 06:41, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
- Delete Motopark (talk) 18:47, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:21, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
violación de copyright (copy from a book) LutzBruno (talk) 06:41, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
- Delete Motopark (talk) 18:47, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:21, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
violación de copyright (copy from a book) LutzBruno (talk) 06:41, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
- Delete Motopark (talk) 18:46, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:21, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
nothing seems to be discernible from the file. Hindustanilanguage (talk) 06:50, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Polar bear in a snowstorm? Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:22, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
I'm unable to understand how this is Munich Show? Pic is an enigma. Hindustanilanguage (talk) 07:09, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
- Delete No in scope usefulness. -- Infrogmation (talk) 22:54, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
- Completely out of scope. Hindustanilanguage (talk) 16:14, 6 June 2012 (UTC).
- Ok, it's a tylacocephalan. But it is a useless picture. Delete it. --Ghedoghedo (talk) 16:32, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
- Completely out of scope. Hindustanilanguage (talk) 16:14, 6 June 2012 (UTC).
- Good judgement. Hindustanilanguage (talk) 14:53, 10 June 2012 (UTC).
Deleted: . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:24, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
I wonder if it is possible to show a boy's love for his girl by upload her pics on commons. Hindustanilanguage (talk) 07:11, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:26, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
This also appears to be uploaders way of expressing love for his sweetheart. Hindustanilanguage (talk) 07:43, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:26, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
This also appears to be uploaders way of expressing love for his sweetheart. Hindustanilanguage (talk) 07:45, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:26, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
From the description, the persons seems non-notable. Other aspects of description are not easily discernible. Hindustanilanguage (talk) 07:56, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:26, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
I am not sure whether the usage provisions of the source page are sufficiently free for Commons:
"Dieses Material steht allen offiziellen Gliederungen der Partei DIE LINKE uneingeschränkt zur Verfügung. MedienvertreterInnen können das Material für die redaktionelle Berichterstattung über DIE LINKE ebenfalls uneingeschränkt nutzen. Um Quellenangabe wird gebeten."
The provisions only talk of usage within the party and in the media. Other possible uses are not mentioned. ALE! ¿…? 08:42, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:27, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
Suspected television screenshot based on quality and angle. SocietyBox (talk) 08:45, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:27, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
"Moihy" or probably "Moi" in French - unused user's upload of self image. No academic value. Hindustanilanguage (talk) 08:54, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:28, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
Seems to be some video screenshot High Contrast (talk) 09:29, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:32, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 10:09, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:32, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 10:13, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:32, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 10:14, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:32, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 10:14, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:32, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 10:15, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:32, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
From speedy: looks like PD_Text and trivial fragment source code M5 (talk) 10:17, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
- Whose copyright has been violated here - some unknown government intelligence agency? Are they going to come forward to claim copyright? How exactly have their commercial interests been adversely affected? How will a screenshot of one page of thousands lines of source code cause injury to that unknown party's interests? How can this source code be used by another party, as there's nothing more there than the names of a few code modules (as opposed to any code that can be re-used)? Socrates2008 (talk) 10:54, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
- PS: Anyone seen the recent court case between Google and Oracle? API's cannot be copyrighted, so what's the issue with function names in malware? Socrates2008 (talk) 11:44, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
- I think Socrates2008 is right. רדיומן (talk) 13:36, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
- I think Socrates2008 is right.
- There is almost only text; we can recreate (redraw) it. The code fragment is short; and i think author will not complain about possible copyright infringement. Article is popular and this picture is often used to show what is the Flame. `A5b (talk) 06:08, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
This is exactly the same image used by the BBC when reporting on this story.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.118.79.164 (talk • contribs)
- but as i know it was created in antivirus lab. `A5b (talk) 14:11, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: All of the arguments above are invalid per COM:PRP. This is code that is long enough to have a copyright. There is no evidence of a free license to that copyright. Therefore we cannot keep it. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:35, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 10:20, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:35, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 10:20, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:35, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 10:21, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:35, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 10:21, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:36, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
No freedom of panorama in France, you need the artist's permission. FunkMonk (talk) 10:22, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
- Keep not an artwork but a scientific reconstruction, copyright does not apply. --Bjs (talk) 09:29, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
- A scientific reconstruction is copyrightable artwork. FunkMonk (talk) 11:38, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
- A scientific reconstruction should hopefully not have any threshold of originality. --Bjs (talk) 16:51, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
- Everything apart from the bones themselves is speculation. And even if we assumed the animal was entirely known, it's still a sculpture, not the animal itself. Are sculptures of extant animals, or let's say, landscape paintings, not subject to copyright? They are. It is art. FunkMonk (talk) 16:57, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
- A scientific reconstruction should hopefully not have any threshold of originality. --Bjs (talk) 16:51, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
- A scientific reconstruction is copyrightable artwork. FunkMonk (talk) 11:38, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Well put, FunkMonk. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:37, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 10:22, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:37, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 10:25, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:37, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
This is in no way PD-SIMPLE. -mattbuck (Talk) 11:06, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
- Delete More complex than the Edge logo. See COM:TOO#United Kingdom. --Stefan4 (talk) 01:01, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:38, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
Fails PD-simple. -mattbuck (Talk) 11:06, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:38, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
Seems like a scanned image, or image cut from another image, or photograph of image (see bottom black line). Definitely not original work per the license claim. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 11:55, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:40, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
No FOP in France. Jacques Monestier is still alive. Coyau (talk) 12:38, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:40, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
Obviously scanned from a newspaper, therefore the claim that this is "own work" is highly dubious — Yerpo Eh? 12:56, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:41, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
Statue may still be copyrighted by its sculptor, as it is surely a recent work (Escriva was canonized in 2002), which would make the photo a derivative (The Philippines have no freedom-of-panorama exemption). However, I'm not totally sure whether this rather simple statue is really above the threshold of originality and would like to hear other opinions with more expertise. -- Túrelio (talk) 13:33, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
Similar cases: File:Aruizjf.JPG and File:Ruizjf.JPG. --Túrelio (talk) 13:34, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: I don't see this as a simple statue -- I see a full body sculpture, with much detail. Even much simpler sculptures would have a copyright. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:42, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
COM:FOP#Japan. 84.61.149.75 13:39, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:43, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
COM:FOP#Japan. 84.61.149.75 13:41, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:43, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
COM:FOP#Japan. 84.61.149.75 13:44, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:43, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
A foto of a bookpage. The text of that page exceeds threshold of originality. JuTa 14:02, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:43, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
No freedom of panorama in Russia. FunkMonk (talk) 14:25, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:43, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
No freedom of panorama in france FunkMonk (talk) 14:28, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:44, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
no fop in france FunkMonk (talk) 14:32, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:44, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
no fop in france FunkMonk (talk) 14:34, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
- i don't understand this reason for a deletation ! this is just a picture inside a prehistorical museum in Quinson (south of France). Véronique PAGNIER (talk) 11:11, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
- I should had been clearer, see: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Freedom_of_panorama#France The image shows an artistic sculpture. FunkMonk (talk) 12:15, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Ad FunkMonk says, the image infringes the copyright belonging to the sculptor of the mammoth. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:45, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
no fop in france FunkMonk (talk) 14:36, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:45, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope: Commons is no private photo album High Contrast (talk) 14:44, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:45, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
no freedom of panorama in us FunkMonk (talk) 15:00, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:46, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
Tagged "This image is believed to be non-free or possibly non-free in its home country, the United Kingdom." on enwiki Bulwersator (talk) 15:00, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
- Comment looks like {{PD-textlogo}} to me. --El Grafo (talk) 09:58, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
Kept: . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:46, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
Tagged as "This image is believed to be non-free or possibly non-free in its home country, Canada. " on enwiki Bulwersator (talk) 15:01, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
- Keep - {{PD-textlogo}} --Sreejith K (talk) 18:10, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
- Keep PD-textlogo, too simply under Canadian copyright law. Fry1989 eh? 02:33, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
Kept: . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:46, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
There is no freedom of panorama in Iran Bulwersator (talk) 15:04, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:47, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
out of project scope
- File:Churdji85.jpg
- File:Churdji 56r.jpg
- File:Churdji90.JPG
- File:Churdji 11.JPG
- File:Churdji 9.jpg
- File:Churdji7.jpg
- File:Churdji5.jpg
- File:Churdji6.jpg
Trex2001 (talk) 04:29, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 19:35, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
Looks like collection of promotional materials.
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:47, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope -- George Chernilevsky talk 06:43, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
Files uploaded by INEA Nacional (talk · contribs)
[edit]out of scope
- File:Lista de directores.jpg
- File:D-INEA .jpg
- File:Directores INEA.jpg
- File:Logo 30 Años Oficial.jpg
- File:Logo inea.gif
Hedwig in Washington (MAIL?) 05:18, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 19:37, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
out of scope
Hedwig in Washington (MAIL?) 06:07, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
Kept: In scope (and in use). -- Common Good (talk) 19:48, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Rock&Animation Studio (talk · contribs)
[edit]out of scope
Hedwig in Washington (MAIL?) 06:12, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 19:41, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Bszsurgico (talk · contribs)
[edit]out of scope, promo pics w/o useful description
- File:Titanium extracting forceps.jpg
- File:Dental luxator set.jpg
- File:BSZ DENTAL SHOW.jpg
- File:MOUTH MIRROR HANDLE.jpg
- File:MOUTH MIRRORS.gif
- File:MIRROR-HANDLE-BLACK.gif
- File:IRIS SCISSOR.gif
- File:DENTAL-TWEEZER.gif
- File:IMPRESSION Trays-SET-OF-6.gif
- File:DENTAL-SYRINGE.gif
- File:Sinus-Lift-Window-Kit copy.jpg
- File:Orthodontic pliers.jpg
- File:Dental forceps set.jpg
- File:Bone-crusher.jpg
- File:Bone cutter.jpg
Hedwig in Washington (MAIL?) 06:29, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
- Template:Tegenweg Some images just useful as example for tools. No reason at all to delete. --Stunteltje (talk) 06:44, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
Kept: those that showed only tools -- deleted images that were advertising. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:20, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
screenshot of non-free software
- File:Topaze.gif
- File:Topaze.jpg
- File:La plannification.jpg
- File:La gestion de production.gif
- File:La gestion de la qualite.gif
- File:Ventes.jpg
- File:Achats.jpg
- File:Vendre.jpg
- File:Reporting.gif
- File:Produire.jpg
- File:Gérer les finances.jpg
- File:Concevoir.jpg
- File:Acheter.jpg
Trex2001 (talk) 07:22, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
derived from images found on the net
- File:Plastique.jpg
- File:Médical.jpg
- File:Electronique.jpg
- File:Boisss.jpg
- File:Bijouterie.jpg
- File:Aéronautique.jpg
- File:Automobale.jpg
- File:Agroalimentaire.jpg
Trex2001 (talk) 09:11, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Too small to be useful. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:25, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
out of scope
Trex2001 (talk) 09:00, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 20:01, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Donat trez (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photoalbum. Not used.
- File:DONAT TREZ FLAZ (15).jpg
- File:DONAT TREZ FLAZ (6).jpg
- File:DONAT TREZ FLAZ (14).jpg
- File:DONAT TREZ FLAZ (11).jpg
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:48, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 20:06, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
most likely copyvio (as all other uploads by this user) Polarlys (talk) 19:06, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 20:12, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
This is not just text but also considerable decorations. Compare with Commons:Deletion requests/File:BF-Schriftzug.png. No evidence of permission for the CC-BY-SA claim. Stefan4 (talk) 15:37, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
- Delete.
Copyright logo from: http://thevoiceoftv.com/?attachment_id=7182 "© 2009-2012 The Voice of TV. All rights reserved." Mega-buses (talk) 00:37, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
.svg){kind=link}
_highlighted.svg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
_example.jpg){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.svg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.svg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
_highlighted.svg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_highlighted.svg){kind=link}
_highlighted.svg-1){kind=link}
_highlighted.svg){kind=link}
_highlighted.svg){kind=link}
_highlighted.svg){kind=link}
_highlighted.svg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.svg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
_Tomb_of_Krushchev,_former_Soviet_leader_in_the_Novodevichy_Cemetery_(36612391912).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_example.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_example.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 03:20, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
A copy on Tumblr, [3], looks earlier. This may mean that the own work claim is wrong. Stefan4 (talk) 15:41, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 03:19, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
misuse of commons for promotion of website Hedwig in Washington (MAIL?) 06:25, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom MorganKevinJ(talk) 15:54, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused text-only logo. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:08, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom MorganKevinJ(talk) 15:17, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
copyrighted text FunkMonk (talk) 18:09, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope text only MorganKevinJ(talk) 15:20, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Photo uploaded by copyvio uploader, all other Alexynho's uploads from 3 November 2007 were deleted from english wikipedia as unambiguous copyright infringement[4], as well as most other he uploaded later. This photo is in very low resoultion, unlikely an own work. Oleola (talk) 21:03, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom MorganKevinJ(talk) 15:21, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Files uploaded by LeastCommonAncestor (talk · contribs)
[edit]flickr user hosts a collection of files on the Syrian uprising, all "freely licensed"
images from
- Alexandria, Egypt
- Indiana, USA
- Amman, Jordan
- various places in Syria 1, 2, 3 and others
- various tv stations addounia.tv, arte
- the Syrian government: 1
caricatures from various sources 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
You can also find a large portion of photos hosted by this flickr account on Google Plus without any licensing. This account may have it's purpose, but is certainly not an appropriate source for free material for Wikimedia Commons since the user compiles images from the web and other sources. I would also suggest to add the flickr account to User:FlickreviewR/bad-authors.
- File:Houla Massacre - 23.jpg
- File:Houla Massacre - 21.jpg
- File:Houla Massacre - 22.jpg
- File:Houla Massacre - 20.jpg
- File:Houla Massacre - 19.jpg
- File:Houla Massacre - 17.jpg
- File:Houla Massacre - 18.jpg
- File:Houla Massacre - 16.jpg
- File:Houla Massacre - 15.jpg
- File:Houla Massacre - 14.jpg
- File:Houla Massacre - 13.jpg
- File:Houla Massacre - 12.jpg
- File:Houla Massacre - 11.jpg
- File:Houla Massacre - 9.jpg
- File:Houla Massacre - 10.jpg
- File:Houla Massacre - 8.jpg
- File:Houla Massacre - 7.jpg
- File:Houla Massacre - 6.jpg
- File:Houla Massacre - 5.jpg
- File:Houla Massacre - 4.jpg
- File:Houla Massacre - 3.jpg
- File:Houla Massacre - 2.jpg
- File:Houla Massacre -1.jpg
The files were uploaded to the best of LeastCommonAncestor’s knowledge, so this hasn’t anything to do with this user but targets the known problem of "flickr washing".
Polarlys (talk) 15:15, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
keep couln't find any thing which had a publish date before the 28th of May and so i have to assume that the flickr account is also the auther of the pics--Sanandros (talk) 21:46, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
- He is obviously not the author:
- The images are watermarked with a URL of a huge image collection on Google+ without addition licensing information.
- The files are attributed to Photo AFP/Getty Images or REUTERS/ Houla News Network, not to this flickr account. --Polarlys (talk) 21:52, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Polarlys showed from where these images come from. High Contrast (talk) 20:41, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
COM:FOP#Belgium. 84.61.149.75 16:26, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 21:34, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Deprem LodosTa (talk · contribs)
[edit]out of scope, no permission/source for covers. band spam
- File:Deprem LodosTa f,.png
- File:Deprem LodosTa ,.png
- File:Deprem LodosTa ...png
- File:Deprem LodosTa 00.jpg
- File:Deprem LodosTa 3.jpg
- File:Folder5p.jpg
- File:Folder4.jpg
- File:Folder3.jpg
- File:Deprem lodosta.jpg
- File:Testere Mixtape.jpg
- File:Folder (2).jpg
- File:İnstrumental Album -1.png
- File:Hediye.png
- File:Ön Kapa 12.5 Lp.jpg
- File:Deprem LodosTa.png
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Hedwig in Washington (MAIL?) 06:31, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 21:35, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
This is my picture and I would like to have deleted. 207.81.122.24 06:11, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
- Comment "My picture" as in you took the photograph, or the photograph is of you? If you have an account here, I suggest you log in to comment. Why do you want it deleted? -- Infrogmation (talk) 22:51, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
- Keep Your reasons are not clear when you say "my picture". Furthermore, the woman is nice :) Fma12 (talk) 13:03, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
- Comment It could be a self-portrait, taken from arm's length. It's not in use on our wikis, and the photo used in the subject's en wiki article is a better photo IMO - not overexposed like this one. I'm not sure there's much educational value in having a second photo of her, although it does show a different eye colour. Yes, it would be nice to know if the nominator is the subject and/or uploader, and why they would like it deleted. --Avenue (talk) 03:47, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Nominator is uploader and contacted me via IRC; closed as self-request. PeterSymonds (talk) 19:36, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Super goten 1993 (talk · contribs)
[edit]random web collection:
- watermarked
- no source
- collages with images of unknown source
- copyright violation, http://www.elaph.com/Web/Environment/2011/7/670853.html,
- copyright violation, http://www.hispanoarabe.org/mundo_arabe/trajes_arabes.htm,
- copyright violation, http://www.alfayhaa.tv/index.php?news=41394
....
- File:معرض بابل الدولي.jpg
- File:9ifafiir.jpg
- File:Motamar 6ibi4.png
- File:Zo8a811.png
- File:Timman.jpg
- File:Sia7i.jpg
- File:Shet6 7ilo.jpg
- File:Montaja3b.jpg
- File:Mektaba.jpg
- File:Mirjan.jpg
- File:Lovely hilla2.jpg
- File:Jeza2ir.jpg
- File:Hospitalhilla.jpg
- File:Bab 2l7seen.jpg
- File:16-monteje30.png
- File:15-te8a6o3 2lthora.jpg
- File:14-mojeser1.jpg
- File:13-jisir1 3etik.jpg
- File:12-shenashil2.jpg
- File:10-mred 2lshemis.jpg
- File:11-zo8a8.jpg
- File:9-hilladancing2.jpg
- File:8-kadm2hilla.jpg
- File:7-tshkili w 2shkilak.JPG
- File:4-motamar 6ibi.jpg
- File:6-jami3at babil.jpg
- File:5-kenissa.jpg
- File:2-iraq korn2.jpg
- File:3-tobak 2ljilla.jpg
- File:1-bistan 2l7illa.jpg
- File:Hilly.gif
- File:Mapofhilla.jpg
- File:Jisir.jpg
- File:MOOONTEJE3 BABIL.png
- File:Shari3 40.jpg
- File:2lthaora.jpg
- File:Safi2ldin.jpg
- File:Shet.jpg
- File:Jisir2.jpg
- File:Jisir1.jpg
- File:Yakot.jpg
- File:Shenashil.jpg
- File:3.Hilla.jpg
- File:Souk2l.jpg
- File:Mred2l.jpg
- File:Kadmbabil.jpg
- File:Tshkili.JPG
- File:Nesij3.jpg
- File:Jami3a.jpg
- File:Motamar.jpg
- File:Churchbabil.jpg
- File:Iraq korn.jpg
- File:Nesij2.jpg
- File:Ne5il.jpg
- File:Tobak.jpg
- File:Besir.JPG
- File:Shio5.jpg
- File:Shet3.jpg
- File:Aimam almehdi grave.jpg
- File:Hilla1960.jpg
- File:Hillaashtar.jpg
- File:Hilladancing.jpg
- File:Hilly.jpg
- File:Babilmap.PNG
- File:Random Photos of Al-Hilla.jpg
Polarlys (talk) 16:51, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom Denniss (talk) 10:17, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Selvakumar mallar (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unlikely to be own work: small/inconsistent resolutions, missing EXIF/different cameras.
- File:S. J. Surya.jpeg
- File:Vimal Actor.Jpeg
- File:Pamban Swamigal Samadhi.JPEG
- File:J&J DEPUY IN CHENNAI.JPEG
- File:Ilanthai c.s.i3.JPEG
- File:Ruth England.JPEG
- File:C.Selvakumar Mallar.JPEG
- File:IMMANUVEL.JPEG
- File:Mela IlandaikulamR.C CHURCH.JPEG
- File:KATTAPOMMAN THUN.JPG
- File:Kamaraj Memorial House.jpeg
- File:Palayamkottai.jpg
- File:POWER FAN.JPEG
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:01, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom Denniss (talk) 10:20, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
After much thought, I would like this image of myself removed due to privacy concerns. Alecpatterson (talk) 02:25, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted, orphan blurry poorly photographed self-penis pic. Infrogmation (talk) 13:38, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
Possibly fails PD-SIMPLE? Borderline case. -mattbuck (Talk) 11:06, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
Close as kept; rectangular capital letter E with simple text; seems to pass.-- Infrogmation (talk) 13:48, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
Fails PD-SIMPLE. -mattbuck (Talk) 11:06, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted, design seems to have too much distinctive artistic detail to qualify for PD-Simple. -- Infrogmation (talk) 13:49, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
completely unidentified person - no use for the file - Spanish speakers can help about the description. Hindustanilanguage (talk) 16:25, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyright violation. Uploader says: El archivo no es mío, se publicó en otro sitio - see Commons:Image casebook#Internet images. Martin H. (talk) 21:43, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
Auf dem Bild wird urheberrechtlich geschütztes Beiwerk gezeigt, im Innenbereich ist das Fotografieren verboten, Personen dürfen nicht ungefragt fotografiert werden. Gerhard kemme (talk) 18:04, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
- Keep No copyrighted material shown inside the image. --Krd 07:20, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
Closed as Kept per Krd; -- Infrogmation (talk) 14:23, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
After much thought, I would like this image of myself removed due to privacy concerns. Alecpatterson (talk) 02:27, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 07:19, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Possible copyvio from https://anavryta.wordpress.com/gallery/ Ralgis 02:46, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 07:16, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Original description states "design/draft by Henri-Marcel Magne", while the glass window is said to carry a signature by Charles Champigneulle. Henri-Marcel Magne died only in 1944 and his works are copyrighted til end of 2012. I hoipe we don't need to delete this image, but the role of Henri-Marcel Magne in this work needs to be clarified. -- Túrelio (talk) 07:00, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 07:18, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
Copyright not clear - contains an official club logo. Cycn (talk) 12:32, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 07:15, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Natuur12 as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: This flag is based upon the original flag of the footballclub AZ and was deleted ones before if I remember correctly INeverCry 02:05, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 23:10, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
and File:Roberto López Vega.jpg. Unlikely to be own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:39, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 07:10, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
nothig visible. Please upload a higher resolution version. Otherwise this could be deleted. McZusatz (talk) 16:20, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
Comment all other uploads of this user could be out of scope anyway. --McZusatz (talk) 16:25, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. Martin H. (talk) 16:29, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Unlikely own work by the uploader: missing EXIF, and low resolution. A.Savin 08:58, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 22:05, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Catégorie créée avec une erreur dans le titre. --Thesupermat (talk) 09:02, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 20:44, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Bomazi as no source (no source since). I found http://www.ornl.gov/info/ornlreview/rev29-12/text/physical.htm using google. Not sure that it is the original source (would probably be better to ask the original uploader on en-wiki). I could not find the copyright section. MGA73 (talk) 10:41, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 21:44, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
No evidence of GFDL release, linked permission page http://sandiegoairandspace.org/collections/collection_index.php?id=3 states that images marked as "No Known Copyright Restrictions" are not for commerical use MilborneOne (talk) 10:52, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 21:05, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Fails PD-SIMPLE. -mattbuck (Talk) 11:06, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 21:05, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Bitte löschen Sie dieses Bild incl. Text. Ich habe diese Datei hochgeladen und weiß nun nich wie ich diese Datei wieder löschen kann. Bitte helfen Sie mir weiter. Ich bedanke mich schon einmal im Voraus. Grüße John Haupt Portforce (talk) 16:30, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 21:21, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
I doubt that this is realy own work: compare i.e. here and here JuTa 16:45, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 21:13, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Even the uploader might b Johannes Fest but this does not look like a public place but like a private atelier. Fredom of panorama seems not aplicabble here. A permission by the artist Gerhard Gleich and best by the fotografer too via OTRS would be reuired. JuTa 17:03, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
.JPG){kind=link}
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 21:13, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
.JPG){kind=link}
Even the uploader might b Johannes Fest but this does not look like a public place but like a private atelier. Fredom of panorama seems not aplicabble here. A permission by the artist Gerhard Gleich and best by the fotografer too via OTRS would be required. JuTa 17:06, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 21:40, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Ce logo est une marque déposée en France, soumise au droit d'auteur. / This svg file is a copyrighted logo in France, see file on french wikipedia.
— Tcharvin ( discuter ) 17:35, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 21:26, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
no fop in france FunkMonk (talk) 18:03, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 21:31, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
It's a trademark, not free-use SergeyTitov (talk) 16:32, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 21:17, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
according de:Bewegung 30. September its an anonymous poster of 1965 or later without any description or source on the description page. The given GFDL and CC license are obviouly wrong. Is there any valid license for such anonymous works (out of indonesia)? JuTa 21:33, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 21:13, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
better version available:File:Venus Drawing.jpg İnfoCan (talk) 15:48, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 21:45, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Picture of a picture. FunkMonk (talk) 16:06, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
- Delete - the text is probably also copyrightable. -mattbuck (Talk) 16:43, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: photo of a photo, prob copyrightable text too PumpkinSky talk 23:32, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
COM:FOP#United States. 84.61.149.75 17:09, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
- Keep Any potentially copyrightable details would be de minimis in this general view. -- Infrogmation (talk) 23:25, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:19, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
Der Fotograf hat keine Freigabe mehr für die Publizierung des Titelbildes durch den Verlag. Gerhard kemme (talk) 18:02, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
- Delete No permission achievable at this moment for shown works. --Krd 07:22, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 20:57, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
most likely copyright violation, can be found elsewhere, e.g. http://www.filmous.com/person93453/producer/ Polarlys (talk) 16:48, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
- Comment On ticket:2012061410010947 the uploader gives some information about the files he/she uploaded. Trijnsteltalk 18:14, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
- Unless ticket contains valid license/source info I'll delete this file at the end of the week. --Denniss (talk) 12:02, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Time's up. No permission. Wknight94 talk 20:36, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
Low quality picture, blurred → useless. Daniel Baránek (talk) 08:49, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
- Weak Keep. Undistinguished but not terrible image, showing building from somewhat different angle than other pix we have. -- Infrogmation (talk) 03:06, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
Hmm. Is there a rule that says that a picture has to be awesome? Please don't call my work for useless. --- Løken (talk) 15:09, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
- It doesn't have to be awesome, however not blurred and tilted. There are quite enough much more better images in category Category:Ministry of Industry and Trade of the Czech Republic. I can't imagine any page, where this blurred and tilted picture could be used. That's the reason, why I consider this picture useless. --Daniel Baránek (talk) 16:55, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
- You will have a hell of a big job ahead of you, if you want to remove all the blurred, tilted, useless, bad, not-awsome images from Commons. Good luck :) --- Løken (talk) 19:21, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
- Keep Hrm, it's okay, it's not useless. Osiris (talk) 15:41, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
Kept: per consensus Ezarateesteban 16:49, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
This is a copy of File:Countries_by_most_used_web_browser.png, and a wrong one at that, since it does not show Monaco, San Marino and the Vatican State. DutchHoratius (talk) 16:24, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
- Keep How does not counting a few countries make this image wrong? Ziiike (talk) 23:07, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
- Because File:Countries_by_most_used_web_browser.png is the original file that does show all countries. User Camoka4 has been trying to push his changes there, but when that was refused he created File:Most used web browser map.png. Now I don't mind people creating their own versions of files, but not when those versions are wrong. DutchHoratius (talk) 10:32, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
- I totally agree with DutchHoratius--A7N8X (talk) 09:26, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: per discussion. MBisanz talk 01:47, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
Derivative of a widely used Soviet poster. Never ever own work by uploader. A.Savin 08:46, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
- This is an enhanced version from my own photo of the Soviet poster. If need really be, I have changed the specification of the source. Michaelwuzthere 15:30, 5 June 2012
- You may not declare a derivative work as your own. - A.Savin 22:01, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
- Hence why the "source" and licensing has been changed. - Michaelwuzthere 17:07, 5 June 5 June 2012
- I agree it should be deleted, even if it was his own entire creation, its just an insult to Marx and so on from an ideological viewpoint. I think to avoid conflict as well just get rid of it. --90.196.241.31 06:29, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
- Files will not be deleted from the commons due to an individual's impertinent ideological views. That's a personal problem, not something that you need to impose upon the community.--Michaelwuzthere (talk) 04:19, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 20:56, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
This is a two dimentional work of art whose author can easily be established via official archives. Russian copyright law applies after the fall of the Soviet Union. This is a fine art painting of a probably still living (if not recently deceased) artist. Retouching it digitally and claiming free ownership would not be OK from legal standpoint. The fact that the painting might have been mass produced in the USSR does not deprive its autor of his copy rights. Poeticbent talk 04:51, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 22:36, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
| File also included in this DR: |
|---|
| *File:Mojang.jpg |
This is not a simple logo. C3F2k (Questions, comments, complaints?) 18:58, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
- I'd say it's no more complex than, say, File:Best Western logo.svg, which is considered a simple logo. Allmightyduck (talk) 22:43, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
- — Note to closing admin: Allmightyduck (talk • contribs) is one of the uploaders of the files that are the subject of this DR. C3F2k (Questions, comments, complaints?) 10:17, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
- What's the TOO in Sweden? That's where the logo comes from. C3F2k (Questions, comments, complaints?) 03:12, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
- I've tried searching for court cases on the threshold of originality in Sweden for a long time but can't find anything related to logos. The only ones I find are for technical drawings (one case, not protected), utilitarian objects (multiple cases, all protected), a photo (protected) and Nintendō games (protected as a computer program but not protected as a film[5]). --Stefan4 (talk) 21:12, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
- Then it would be eligible for deletion per COM:PRP, as I am not sure about if it is simple and I myself do not think it's a simple logo. C3F2k (Questions, comments, complaints?) 18:33, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
- I've tried searching for court cases on the threshold of originality in Sweden for a long time but can't find anything related to logos. The only ones I find are for technical drawings (one case, not protected), utilitarian objects (multiple cases, all protected), a photo (protected) and Nintendō games (protected as a computer program but not protected as a film[5]). --Stefan4 (talk) 21:12, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
- What's the TOO in Sweden? That's where the logo comes from. C3F2k (Questions, comments, complaints?) 03:12, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
- Comment I'm adding another image to this deletion request. It is another copy of the same logo, so if one is going to be deleted, then the other one also needs to be deleted. --Stefan4 (talk) 22:50, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
- Delete The current logo and crop "Mojang" only. We need evidence that it is ineligible in Sweden (see Commons:TOO#Sweden). Tbhotch™ 20:08, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
- Keep See Commons:Simple_photographs, though it may not apply in most cases to logos. "Criteria not defined by the law but supposed to be threshold of originality", as the section of Sweden states. I'm not sure what that means, but I think this logo is simple enough. Longbyte1 (talk) 02:35, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
- The threshold of originality for photos is very different from the threshold of originality for other kinds of creations, as shown by the cases related to utilitarian objects. You can't really make any judgement here by comparing with photos. --Stefan4 (talk) 14:26, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Consensus is that this is not simple enough to qualify under TOO FASTILY (TALK) 20:57, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
After much thought, I would like this image of myself removed due to privacy concerns. Alecpatterson (talk) 02:23, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
- Comment image is in use. I believe name can be deleted from history if that is what is of concern. -- Infrogmation (talk) 22:43, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
- Keep With File:Uncircumcised 1.jpg illustrates the same penis before and after adult circumcision surgery. Looks to be one of the very few penis photos on Commons that is actually unique and legitimately medically illustrative. I support the uploader's rights to have their name removed from the image history and suggest this be done. -- Infrogmation (talk) 02:51, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Courtesy blanking FASTILY (TALK) 03:14, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
After much thought, I would like this image of myself removed due to privacy concerns. Alecpatterson (talk) 02:24, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
- Comment Image is in use. Infrogmation (talk) 13:40, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
- It looks like he's tried to remove it from the article, but has been reverted. Osiris (talk) 15:34, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
- Keep With File:12 days after adult circumcision.jpg illustrates the same penis before and after adult circumcision surgery. Looks to be one of the very few penis photos on Commons that is actually unique and legitimately medically illustrative. I support the uploader's rights to have their name removed from the image history, and suggest this be done. -- Infrogmation (talk) 02:53, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Courtsey blank FASTILY (TALK) 03:15, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
No valid license, probable copyvio. Appears to be cropped from this copyrighted online image: http://www.whosay.com/cheyennejackson/photos/177898 The Big Bad Wolfowitz (talk) 11:38, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
This is a personal photo that I took. This is not a copyrighted image. Why is thsi being deleted. What do I need to do to prove this? You have a link to a picture on Cheyenne Jackson's whosay page. He did not take this photo I did, and its a crop of an image.
The image at the who say url does note exist anymore, it is not copyrighted this is an image I took. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sander london (talk • contribs)
- This does not appear to be copyrighted online image at all, as claimed a reason for nomination for deletion, but rather a personal photo taken apparently by new editor Jason Sander above who has uploaded the photo later as a crop of another bigger photo he had personally taken as well as he clearly explains above, see the photo credits . Then it was posted on the Cheyenne Jackson page on Wikipedia page [6] . As far as I can see, there is no basis to ask for a deletion of this clearly specific personal original photo. It can stay in Wikimedia Commons and consequently in Wikipedia as well Werldwayd (talk) 00:05, 7 June 2012 (UTC) Werldwayd (talk) 00:13, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
- The photo appeared at the URL listed with a copyright statement attributing ownership to the subject. The fact that it now doesn't appear at that URL is irrelevant as to ownership, especially since the upload date here was later than the date for the posting with the copyright notice. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (talk) 16:53, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
- I have revisited the notes for upload and uploader's later comments as well. He clearly states that it was a photograph he had taken himself. I am talking about the original photograph you are referring to as copyright on the URL http://www.whosay.com/cheyennejackson/photos/177898 . (Please refer to his comments in this regard). It was his photo they were using all the time. All Jason Sander was doing was taking a segment of a photo he had taken himself personally and using a part of it to make yet another photo leaving most of the photo out as they presumably contain other subjects or persons he obviously didn't want to show. He has also given copyright permission of a segment of a work which was originally his as well. As to the URL "not appearing now" just a day after you mention it was taken from it, isn't it yet one more additional proof that it was his and his alone all the way and that he has absolute control of its use on the URL page you are referring to...? In any case that URL does not exist any more. So on what are we basing all this argument? Taking all above arguments and statements into consideration, I stand by my request to keep the new photo as is, for use at least on Cheyenne Jackson's infobox page. As far as I am concerned, I see no evident proof of copyright infringement and we do have a clear release to use it at least on Cheyenne Jackson's page. Werldwayd (talk) 09:31, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Unclear copyright status. Unless we have clear, written/textual, tangible evidence indicating that this file is indeed freely licensed under a Commons compatiable license, we cannot host it on Commons FASTILY (TALK) 03:15, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
duplicitní soubor, nepoužitý -kloin- (talk) 12:23, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
- Keep It's not an exact duplicate of anything, it is an alternatively sourced version, always useful if a problem arises with copyright etc of other versions. No reason to delete. --Tony Wills (talk) 10:50, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
původní odkazy jsem opravil na File:Znak mesta otrokovice.svg, tento soubor je nadbytečný -kloin- (talk) 13:04, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
- No problem, new version is here: File:Znak mesta otrokovice.svg Hanhil (talk) 18:51, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
- Keep Keep for two reasons, it has been here for a long time, deleting it will break any external uses of it, and we can't even redirect it to another image (redirects from PNG to SVG are no good). Also it is a different version of the COA, different proportions (eg the "hole" in the "handle" on the charge on the right side). So it is a differently sourced, different version. --Tony Wills (talk) 11:42, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
Hallo, ich bitte darum diese Seite mit dem Foto sofort zu löschen, auf dem Foto bin ich so abgebildet, das man mein Gesicht gut erkennen kann. Ich habe der Veröffentlichung nicht zugestimmt, bzw. wurde nicht gefragt. Es kann ja nicht sein, das einfach ein Foto mit mir im Internet veröffentlicht wird. Sollte dieses Foto nicht entfernt werden, werde ich rechtliche Schritte einleiten.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.140.32.27 (talk • contribs) 17:08, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
Eingriff in die Persönlichkeitsrechte, mein Gesicht ist klar zu erkennen, ich wurde vor der Veröffentlichung nicht gefragt. Ich bitte darum das Bild schnellstens zu löschen, ansonsten werde ich meinen Rechtsanwalt einschalten, es kann ja nicht sein, das einfach Fotos mit mir im Internet veröffentlicht werden. 80.140.32.27 17:16, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
Info Summary of the request in english: The IP claims to be one of the persons in the photograph, his/her face being clearly recognizable. He/she had not been asked before the picture was published and wants it to be deleted immediately, otherwise he/she will inform his/her lawyer. --El Grafo (talk) 11:12, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
Info The photo was taken in the netherlands. Whoever is going to decide this request might want to have a look at Commons:Country_specific_consent_requirements#Netherlands. Sorry, the picture was taken in Germany, so Commons:Country_specific_consent_requirements#Germany would be the right link. In Germany, publishing pictures of a person in a public space requires consent, so imho the picture has to be deleted. --El Grafo (talk) 11:18, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
Delete Apart from whatever law is applicable here, I think we should respect the wish of privacy. --El Grafo (talk) 11:12, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
Keep We have here a request from an anonymous IP editor who does not even tell us which of the several persons in the photograph he or she claims to be. I might delete this if we received a message at Commons:OTRS that gave full details, but I think that responding to anonymous threats of legal action is just silly. . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 20:57, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
This is an arbitrarily colored map that has no usage as a template. —Ryūlóng (竜龙) 08:07, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
- The map depicts "Turkish visa regime for Foreign tourists". It has a use even if it is poorly named. It may be a duplicate but your rationale is not right either way. If it is a duplicate it does not need com-del process. I am unsure what the file portrays but it isn't a complete match to File:TurkeyVisaPolicy.PNG. -- とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 23:23, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
Kept: It's not up to us to decide which one is correct. As there does appear to be some sort of scope, discuss it, and perhaps redirect the incorrect file to the other russavia (talk) 16:12, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
This is supposedly covering the nations that Turkey has visa ties with, but this purpose is superceded by File:TurkeyVisaPolicy.PNG. Also the filename is entirely nondescriptive. —Ryūlóng (竜龙) 08:59, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
- Just a casual comment on File:TurkeyVisaPolicy.PNG -- from an accessibility standpoint, I really hate seeing the map legend actually on the image. Osiris (talk) 15:38, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
Kept Being superseded is not reason for deletion; it may be used in the case of a historical look at the Turkish visa regime with other countries. If it is now out-of-date, please a note on the image description as such; being outdated is not a reason for deletion. Renaming can take place inline with relevant policies. russavia (talk) 15:44, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
This is an unused duplicate of File:TurkeyVisaPolicy.PNG that has an inappropriate file name. Why hasn't this been deleted? —Ryūlóng (竜龙) 16:08, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
Kept This has been kept twice before and the reason has been explained. Do not nominate it for deletion again or you may be blocked for vandalism. . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 23:46, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
soubor je duplicitní se souborem File:Znak mesta otrokovice.svg. Slučoval jsem tři shodné obrázky a opravoval odkazy na File:Znak mesta otrokovice.svg -kloin- (talk) 13:02, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
- The cleanest way to have handled this would be to merge the two files upload histories, that would keep the uploaders details intact. But as this has now been re-uploaded over top of the earlier SVG, this one can be deleted as a duplicate of File:Znak mesta otrokovice.svg and a redirect left behind. --Tony Wills (talk) 11:53, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: 03:24, 12 September 2012 by Fastily, closed by . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:43, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Lemoinepatrack (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unlikely to be own work: small/inconsistent resolutions, missing EXIF. Likely to be collection of promo/fan photos.
- File:LA BLONDE or not LA BLONDE.jpg
- File:LA BLONDE S'AIME.jpg
- File:LA BLONDE POSE ROSE.JPG
- File:LA BLONDE BISOU.jpg
- File:LA BLONDE LIVE.jpg
- File:LA BLONDE BLEUE.jpg
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:50, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 22:41, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small/inconsistent resolutions, missing EXIF/different cameras.
- File:Biju patnaik2.jpg
- File:Dilip tirkey2.jpg
- File:NIT Rourkela, Swimming Pool.jpg
- File:NIT Rourkela Quadrangle.jpg
- File:Biju Pattnaik Central Library.jpg
- File:Prankrushna Parija Auditorium.jpg
- File:Nit main building2.jpg
- File:IB River with Ib bridge in the background.jpg
- File:Laxmi Narayan Temple of Brajrajnagar.jpg
- File:Birla Temple of Brajrajnagar.jpg
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:54, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
- No valid reason for deletion, no significant reason doubt that the uploaders claims are true. These are all simple average quality pictures, mainly taken on cell phones over a number of years. I can readily accept that someone owns or has access to multiple devices over this period. I am not suprised that images from a variety of cellphones are a variety of resolutions, and most have been edited (cropped?) anyway. The dimensions are much bigger than I would expect to see if they were for instance copied off the institutions website. I didn't find any evidence of any of these elsewhere on the web. If one of these images turns up from another source then we should look again. We should assume good faith until there is evidence otherwise. --Tony Wills (talk) 09:16, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
- File:Biju patnaik2.jpg is an odd one out, very poor quality perhaps a screen grab from a video. Used quite widely, but probably sourced from here. This is one that needs a closer look. --Tony Wills (talk) 09:39, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
- Subject died in 1997 when uploader was apparently 5 years old (en:User:Meyvun), so ""own work" seems unlikely (perhaps he means he digitised it) - significant doubt on this one --Tony Wills (talk) 09:54, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
- File:Biju patnaik2.jpg is an odd one out, very poor quality perhaps a screen grab from a video. Used quite widely, but probably sourced from here. This is one that needs a closer look. --Tony Wills (talk) 09:39, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
- No valid reason for deletion, no significant reason doubt that the uploaders claims are true. These are all simple average quality pictures, mainly taken on cell phones over a number of years. I can readily accept that someone owns or has access to multiple devices over this period. I am not suprised that images from a variety of cellphones are a variety of resolutions, and most have been edited (cropped?) anyway. The dimensions are much bigger than I would expect to see if they were for instance copied off the institutions website. I didn't find any evidence of any of these elsewhere on the web. If one of these images turns up from another source then we should look again. We should assume good faith until there is evidence otherwise. --Tony Wills (talk) 09:16, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: I found copyrighted sources for the first two I looked at, so "own work" and AGF are not applicable here. . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:16, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
Die gezeigte Baulichkeit befindet sich im Innenhof eines Gebäudekomplexes - Genehmigung für Innenaufnahme wäre erforderlich gewesen. Gerhard kemme (talk) 18:17, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
- Behalten. Der Innenhof ist frei zugänglich, daher keine Genehmigung notwendig. Zum Anderen betrifft die Frage der Genehmigung nur den Fotografen, nicht aber die Nachnutzbarkeit, da keine Urheberrechte betroffen sind. --Mogelzahn (talk) 07:12, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
Kept: . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:44, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
