Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2012/06/12
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
|
|
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
Appears to be a personal page Carl Lindberg (talk) 05:58, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
Kept and moved to User:Depakmuniraj. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:13, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
Unused image series – from File:10Becky.JPG to File:18Becky.JPG to promote the uploader girl herself. Hindustanilanguage (talk) 06:37, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of scope Wvk (talk) 10:13, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
Unused image series – from File:10Becky.JPG to File:18Becky.JPG to promote the uploader girl herself. Hindustanilanguage (talk) 06:38, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of scope Wvk (talk) 10:14, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
Unused image series – from File:10Becky.JPG to File:18Becky.JPG to promote the uploader girl herself. Hindustanilanguage (talk) 06:38, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of scope Wvk (talk) 10:15, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
Unused image series – from File:10Becky.JPG to File:18Becky.JPG to promote the uploader girl herself. Hindustanilanguage (talk) 06:38, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of scope Wvk (talk) 10:16, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
Unused image series – from File:10Becky.JPG to File:18Becky.JPG to promote the uploader girl herself. Hindustanilanguage (talk) 06:40, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of scope Wvk (talk) 10:16, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
Unused image series – from File:10Becky.JPG to File:18Becky.JPG to promote the uploader girl herself. Hindustanilanguage (talk) 06:41, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of scope Wvk (talk) 10:17, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
Unused image series – from File:10Becky.JPG to File:18Becky.JPG to promote the uploader girl herself. Hindustanilanguage (talk) 06:41, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of scope Wvk (talk) 10:18, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
Unused image series – from File:10Becky.JPG to File:19Becky.JPG to promote the uploader girl herself - with the exception of one or two files. Hindustanilanguage (talk) 06:45, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of scope Wvk (talk) 10:20, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
Unused personal image just as in the series: Unused image series – from File:10Becky.JPG to File:19Becky.JPG to promote the uploader girl herself barring a few exceptions. Hindustanilanguage (talk) 06:54, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of scope Wvk (talk) 10:21, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
Unused personal image just as in the series: Unused image series – from File:10Becky.JPG to File:19Becky.JPG to promote the uploader girl herself barring a few exceptions. Hindustanilanguage (talk) 07:01, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of scope Wvk (talk) 10:22, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
Unused personal image just as in the series: Unused image series – from File:10Becky.JPG to File:19Becky.JPG to promote the uploader girl herself barring a few exceptions. Hindustanilanguage (talk) 07:01, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of scope Wvk (talk) 10:26, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
Unused personal image just as in the series: Unused image series – from File:10Becky.JPG to File:19Becky.JPG to promote the uploader girl herself barring a few exceptions. Hindustanilanguage (talk) 07:03, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of scope Wvk (talk) 10:26, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
Unused personal image just as in the series: Unused image series – from File:10Becky.JPG to File:19Becky.JPG to promote the uploader girl herself barring a few exceptions. Hindustanilanguage (talk) 07:04, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of scope Wvk (talk) 10:27, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
Unused personal image just as in the series: Unused image series – from File:10Becky.JPG to File:19Becky.JPG to promote the uploader girl herself barring a few exceptions. Hindustanilanguage (talk) 07:04, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of scope Wvk (talk) 10:28, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
Unused personal image just as in the series: Unused image series – from File:10Becky.JPG to File:19Becky.JPG to promote the uploader girl herself barring a few exceptions. Hindustanilanguage (talk) 07:05, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of scope Wvk (talk) 10:28, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
out of scope Hedwig in Washington (MAIL?) 07:05, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of scope Wvk (talk) 10:29, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
User's unused selfimage. No academic value. Hindustanilanguage (talk) 07:07, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of scope Wvk (talk) 10:30, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
I think File:ACV-300 2.jpg and File:ACV-300.jpg are likely to be photographed by User:LightAj, the first were File:SANY2898.jpg and File:SANY3141.jpg (two generic filenames likely came from his computer and the the camera likely to be owned by him). I don't think 2 other images likely to be photographed by someone. Please discuss. If successfully deleted 2 other images, they will contact Flickr management to impose sanctions against him and suspend him indefinitely on Flickr. Please detect them with Google Images. See this page Dmitry Medvedev (talk) 08:14, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
- According to LightAj, "I upload the image I always make sure to have a full permission to use their image.. Sir PUG, Cebuboy, Shipwreck, Cygnus, Coupmander Yoda, Sandy etc.. You can ask them...". There may be a result of the dispute. --Dmitry Medvedev (talk) 08:41, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
- If I made accidental changes, you may contact Adroth to resolve. --Dmitry Medvedev (talk) 08:59, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted:
flickrvio from flickrwashing account of former user LightAj.
File:NARO SIMBA.jpg published a year before the flickr upload at pages such as this. LightAj edited the photo colors, but that not makes the photo his own work.
File:ACV-300 2.jpg - a 640px small size photo - is uploaded to flickr in April 2010 but publishe e.g. in this forum in March already. For File:SANY2898.jpg the uploader himself removed the claims of {{Own}} and replaced it with a source link http://www.timawa.net/forum/index.php?topic=22000.msg212146#msg212146.
This means: The claims of own work where always lies. The upload to flickr is obvious flickrwashing against the terms of service of flickr (that only allow people to upload self-created photos). Evidence of permission from the (unmentioned) photographers at the sources was never provided. --Martin H. (talk) 16:03, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
Self promotional unused pic along with File:Androw_ashraf2.jpg and File:Androw_ashraf3.jpg Hindustanilanguage (talk) 09:59, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of scope Wvk (talk) 10:32, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
Self promotional unused pic along with File:Androw_ashraf.JPG and File:Androw_ashraf3.jpg Hindustanilanguage (talk) 10:00, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of scope Wvk (talk) 10:33, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
Self promotional unused pic along with File:Androw_ashraf.JPG and File:Androw_ashraf2.jpg Hindustanilanguage (talk) 10:01, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of scope Wvk (talk) 10:34, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
möchte das bild nicht mehr Klausi1 (talk) 12:48, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 15:56, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
couverture du premier tome de la série Thesupermat (talk) 15:16, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 21:24, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
There is a whole category with better pictures than this one. It's too small (not the penis, the image), too dark and fails to serve an encyclopedic purpose. O.Koslowski (talk) 15:49, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 15:58, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
Bogus license, no permission. Yann (talk) 18:12, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 21:24, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
I am greatly suspicious of this image. This is a high-profile Kenyan politician; a difficult person to find a free image for. It looks like it should be an official portrait. I do not believe the uploader, who has only a handful of contribs, all frankly similarly suspicious, is being truthful in describing this as "own work". I reckon this is more likely to be snarfed from a website somewhere. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 20:14, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Derivative of http://www.mwakilishi.com/sites/default/files/saitoti-ojode.jpg. Obvious copyvios may use {{Copyvio}} Эlcobbola talk 20:22, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
out of scope LutzBruno (talk) 21:09, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyright violation. Martin H. (talk) 23:22, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
Possibly a copyvio, definitely out of scope. -mattbuck (Talk) 02:05, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 10:24, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Unused personal artwork. -mattbuck (Talk) 02:14, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 10:25, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Unused personal artwork. -mattbuck (Talk) 02:14, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 10:25, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Unused personal artwork. -mattbuck (Talk) 02:14, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 10:25, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
I think this exceeds TOO, and I'm not sure from the info that the uploader made it. -mattbuck (Talk) 02:15, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 10:25, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
characters from STTOS do not have their own categories, but the actors do. her acting category is sufficient, and no gallery is needed Mercurywoodrose (talk) 02:53, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: I don't think the nom's reason is valid, but this is a single image gallery and therefore is delete-on-sight. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 10:28, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
incomplete source and licensing information 117Avenue (talk) 03:37, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
- Which information do you need? The author of the pictures Maude Chauvin, explicitely gave this picture in the Public Domain. She can be joined at info@maudechauvin.com. Dirac (talk) 10:21, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
- I see no licensing information at that website, and if the author gave this image to Wikimedia an OTRS volunteer would have placed an OTRS ticket number on it. 117Avenue (talk) 02:11, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
- Fair enough. The author gave me the explicit right. I did not know that you have to go through someone in particular to have it release into the Public Domain. I suggest to be more constructive here. Instead of erasing the file, could you help me by indicating how can I manage to have an OTRS volunteer to put an OTRS ticket number on it? 03:46, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
- Ask Chauvin to e-mail permissions-commons@wikimedia.org, further info can be found at http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:OTRS. 117Avenue (talk) 03:12, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
- On this OTRS page, it is written OTRS is often backlogged and it may take a month before someone responds. The way I see it, it would be more efficient if the picture could be found on her website with an explicit statement indicating that the image under the Public Domain. Could you confirm? Dirac (talk) 12:58, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, but I don't see that happening. 117Avenue (talk) 13:28, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
- Well, give me the chance to ask the author first, then we'll see. Dirac (talk) 14:28, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: I looked on the web site given as the source (which apparently has code defects) -- I could not find this image and could not find any indication of copyright status, one way or the other. That means we must assume this is a copyvio. If and when permission is sent to OTRS we can promptly show it again -- if someone puts a request on my talk page after the permssion has been sent, I will do it. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 10:33, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
out of scope (logo of a local band) --Lucas (msg) 04:25, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 10:33, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
out of scope (photo of the gig of a local band) --Lucas (msg) 04:26, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 10:33, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
The original Flickr source is suspect (it's mostly NSFW photographs of dubious origins), nothing to indicate that this news-quality photograph is personal work. Ytoyoda (talk) 05:46, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 10:34, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
out of scope Hedwig in Washington (MAIL?) 06:27, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 10:35, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
unusable without description, out of scope Hedwig in Washington (MAIL?) 06:42, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 10:35, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
out of scope, unlikely own work Hedwig in Washington (MAIL?) 07:08, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 10:36, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Nothing seems discernible in this picture. Hindustanilanguage (talk) 07:15, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 10:37, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
BadJPG, orphaned (replaced in Native chemical ligation). Leyo 07:56, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
sounds good FelixP (talk) 12:58, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 10:38, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
BadJPG, better alternatives in Category:Sucrose. Leyo 08:02, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 10:38, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
BadJPG, replaced by File:Pradofloxacin.png and File:Pradofloxacin Structure.png. Leyo 08:04, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: . Materialscientist (talk) 01:23, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Very poor quality. Leyo 08:07, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
Delete Hopelessly small and low-resolution. Only use is a failed article-submission (rejected as irredeemable advertising over a year ago)--could be trivially redrawn in an encyclopediacly-useful fashion if there were a need (see for example File:Chemical structure of FDKP, the raw material used to prepare Technosphere particles.jpg). DMacks (talk) 17:27, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Unused, very low quality, File:Chemical structure of FDKP, the raw material used to prepare Technosphere particles.jpg is much better anyway. Materialscientist (talk) 01:15, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Look's like oficcial promo-photo without permission. ShinePhantom (talk) 08:10, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 10:38, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Chembox should be reinserted. Leyo 08:12, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 10:39, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
This image cannot obviously cannot date to the 1403. It must be a very modern image, considering its quality. The source, the CD it is taken from, most likely owns the copyright. See also: Commons:When_to_use_the_PD-Art_tag#Photograph_of_an_old_coin_found_on_the_Internet. Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 08:40, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
- Almost the same image is in 19th century sketch book. So, it is hardly can be called "a very modern image", I think. 更迅速 (talk) 14:55, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 10:42, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
I doubt whether this is an original work. Please provide full resolution image if it is. Sreejith K (talk) 08:40, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 10:42, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Copyvio [1] . HombreDHojalata.talk 08:48, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 10:42, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
No evidence that this image is in the public domain. No author given. The quality of the image is rather good, so it must be modern. If it dates to 2009, then someone owns the copyright. Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 08:52, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 10:43, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
BadGIF, orphaned/replaced by File:Polyethersulfones V.1.svg. Leyo 09:23, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 10:44, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
"English" is no worthwhile description of the person depicted. Face not viewable. Image not used on any Wikis. Hindustanilanguage (talk) 09:44, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 10:44, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Contrary to the name "Alvingham Priory Abbey Church Site", we don't see any church - only greenary. Hindustanilanguage (talk) 09:49, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
- Of course there's no church - it no longer exists. As the file name and the description both state, it is a photograph of the site of the church. Doh!! JohnArmagh (talk) 15:49, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
Kept: It needs categories, please John. Otherwise it will never be found among our 13 million images. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 10:45, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 10:11, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 10:46, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 10:13, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
Keep. It has educational value and can be used in some articles. (See categories) --McZusatz (talk) 10:45, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
- I cannot imagine how this could be of any use for any Wikipedia article. Ices2Csharp (talk) 15:16, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 10:46, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 10:16, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 10:46, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 10:16, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 10:46, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 10:17, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 10:46, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope, no permission. Ices2Csharp (talk) 10:17, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 10:46, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 10:17, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 10:46, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 10:18, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 10:46, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 10:18, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 10:46, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 10:19, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 10:47, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope, no permission. Ices2Csharp (talk) 10:19, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 10:47, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Unused personal picture. Ices2Csharp (talk) 10:19, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 10:47, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Unused personal picture. Ices2Csharp (talk) 10:19, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 10:47, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Unused personal picture. Ices2Csharp (talk) 10:20, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 10:47, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Unused personal picture. Ices2Csharp (talk) 10:20, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 10:48, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 10:21, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
- Educational content, supplementing the article about Esperanto on Wikipedia. Why should it be out of scope? --Petrus Adamus (talk) 16:54, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: We do not keep personal artwork or personal papers here. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 10:50, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 10:21, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 10:50, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 10:22, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 10:50, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 10:22, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 10:50, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 10:22, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 10:50, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 10:23, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 10:50, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 10:23, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 10:50, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 10:24, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 10:50, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 10:24, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 10:50, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 10:25, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 10:50, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 10:25, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
- This file was a part of a Operating System Classroom task. I didn't understand the meaning of "out of scope". Pjuniorlima (talk) 08:26, 12 June 2012 (UTC-3)
- See COM:PS for the meaning of 'out of scope'. Ices2Csharp (talk) 15:18, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 10:51, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Unused image of the uploader. Doubtful if this image has any academic value. Hindustanilanguage (talk) 10:44, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 10:51, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Unused image of the uploader. Doubtful if it can be of any academic value. Hindustanilanguage (talk) 10:45, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 10:51, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
no longer used and desired Luxusfrosch (talk) 11:04, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 10:51, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
no longer used and desired Luxusfrosch (talk) 11:05, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 10:51, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Unused personal photo. Sreejith K (talk) 11:19, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 10:51, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Poor quality, orphaned/replaced by File:Synthesis Nitrocellulose.svg. Leyo 11:47, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 10:52, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Author given as Steven McGlinchey, yet licensed with a self-license. -- Deadstar (msg) 12:44, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 10:53, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Replaced by corrected file Keepcool28 (talk) 13:55, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 10:53, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
wrong name, replaced by file:Städtisches Lapidarium Stuttgart, Nr. A197.jpg Gerd Leibrock (talk) 14:03, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Please use {{Rename}} in the future. It wastes time and resources to delete one file and upload it again under a new name. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 10:54, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
The uploader seems to be a user who has been blocked indefinitely but who continues to reappear under new names. He claims that the file is his own work, a reference perhaps to scanning a magazine picture, since if he were the photographer a higher resoluton would surely be possible. Still more important, only the official Vatican photographer take pictures of the audiences granted by the Pope to ambassadors for the presentation of their credentials. Esoglou (talk) 14:22, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 10:55, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Undeeded redirect un the wake of a mass renaming (see this): Used only in a few user and project pages, some of which are abandoned and/or bound to be renamed in mass, or are meant to become redlinks in catch-all repertoires. -- Tuválkin ✉ 14:23, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 10:55, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Undeeded redirect un the wake of a mass renaming (see this): Used only in a few user and project pages, some of which are abandoned and/or bound to be renamed in mass, or are meant to become redlinks in catch-all repertoires. -- Tuválkin ✉ 14:24, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 10:55, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Undeeded redirect un the wake of a mass renaming (see this): Used only in a few user and project pages, some of which are abandoned and/or bound to be renamed in mass, or are meant to become redlinks in catch-all repertoires. -- Tuválkin ✉ 14:25, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 10:55, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Undeeded redirect un the wake of a mass renaming (see this): Used only in a few user and project pages, some of which are abandoned and/or bound to be renamed in mass, or are meant to become redlinks in catch-all repertoires. -- Tuválkin ✉ 14:28, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 10:55, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Undeeded redirect un the wake of a mass renaming (see this): Used only in a few user and project pages, some of which are abandoned and/or bound to be renamed in mass, or are meant to become redlinks in catch-all repertoires. -- Tuválkin ✉ 14:33, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 10:55, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Undeeded redirect un the wake of a mass renaming (see this): Used only in a few user and project pages, some of which are abandoned and/or bound to be renamed in mass, or are meant to become redlinks in catch-all repertoires. -- Tuválkin ✉ 14:36, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 10:55, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Undeeded redirect un the wake of a mass renaming (see this): Used only in a few user and project pages, some of which are abandoned and/or bound to be renamed in mass, or are meant to become redlinks in catch-all repertoires. -- Tuválkin ✉ 14:39, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 10:55, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Undeeded redirect un the wake of a mass renaming (see this): Used only in a few user and project pages, some of which are abandoned and/or bound to be renamed in mass, or are meant to become redlinks in catch-all repertoires. -- Tuválkin ✉ 14:49, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 10:55, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Undeeded redirect un the wake of a mass renaming (see this): Used only in a few user and project pages, some of which are abandoned and/or bound to be renamed in mass, or are meant to become redlinks in catch-all repertoires. -- Tuválkin ✉ 14:51, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 10:55, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photoalbum. Not used. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:04, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 10:56, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Undeeded redirect un the wake of a mass renaming (see this): Used only in a few user and project pages, some of which are abandoned and/or bound to be renamed in mass, or are meant to become redlinks in catch-all repertoires. -- Tuválkin ✉ 15:16, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 10:56, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Undeeded redirect un the wake of a mass renaming (see this): Used only in a few user and project pages, some of which are abandoned and/or bound to be renamed in mass, or are meant to become redlinks in catch-all repertoires. -- Tuválkin ✉ 15:20, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 10:56, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Tagged for incorrect structure of histidine (missing carbon between ring and amino-acid backbone). Also missing stereochemistry at the backbone. And adenosine and guanosine are also wrong (missing an oxygen; these are deoxyadenosine and deoxyguanosine). Unused, but any use could pull the individual correct structures of the chemicals and add appropriate and correct captions rather than a single raster image. These are also cherry-picked with no obvious use as a set (why not both adeosine and deoxyadenosine, and why not adenine itself (a more obvious analog)?) DMacks (talk) 15:26, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:01, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Undeeded redirect un the wake of a mass renaming (see this): Used only in a few user and project pages, some of which are abandoned and/or bound to be renamed in mass, or are meant to become redlinks in catch-all repertoires. -- Tuválkin ✉ 15:28, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:01, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Unused personal picture. Ices2Csharp (talk) 15:31, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:01, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Unused personal picture. Ices2Csharp (talk) 15:31, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:01, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work. Copyright violation? Appears on microphone producer website with higher quality: http://www.shure.com.cn/zh-cn/support_download/educational_content/microphones-basics/microphone_polar_patterns Theoriefinder (talk) 15:49, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:02, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Undeeded redirect un the wake of a mass renaming (see this): Used only in a few user and project pages, some of which are abandoned and/or bound to be renamed in mass, or are meant to become redlinks in catch-all repertoires. -- Tuválkin ✉ 16:08, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:02, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
The image states it is from http://www.snooker.webeden.net/ , but the bottom of that site says all content is copyrighted, and I cannot find any evidence of the image being published under an open source license Mifter Public (talk) 12:49, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
just becouse i change picture Snooker1147 (talk) 17:37, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:47, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Undeeded redirect un the wake of a mass renaming (see this): Used only in a few user and project pages, some of which are abandoned and/or bound to be renamed in mass, or are meant to become redlinks in catch-all repertoires. -- Tuválkin ✉ 18:04, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:07, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
File:First Gold Beam-Beam Collision Events at RHIC at 100 100 GeV c per beam recorded by STAR.jpg
[edit]
This pic was taken from argonne's flickr gallery but it is courtesy Brookhaven laboratory, hence it is not their to release freely.
The source is here, and it is CC BY-NC-ND. Commercial use of this image is thus not allowed and it should be deleted. Bomazi (talk) 18:08, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
- The two images are not identical. -Nard (Hablemonos)(Let's talk) 18:52, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
- You are right! I didn't notice. That doesn't change the fact that it is a Brookhaven pic, which makes the permission given by Argonne invalid. I too could publish a copyrighted pic on my flickr profile and mark it as free, that doesn't make it so. And as we know that Brookhaven pics are usually not PD, as their are contractors, not federal employees, the pic cannot stay unless we receive proper permission from Brookhaven. Bomazi (talk) 19:34, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:08, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Undeeded redirect un the wake of a mass renaming (see this): Used only in a few user and project pages, some of which are abandoned and/or bound to be renamed in mass, or are meant to become redlinks in catch-all repertoires. -- Tuválkin ✉ 18:11, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:08, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Appears elsewhere on the Internet (e.g. here), so dubious own work. As it shows a member of the US Army, it might be {{PD-USGov}} but we would need a source for that. Stefan4 (talk) 18:18, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:08, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Collage of multiple images without a source for the individual images. Very low resolution. Stefan4 (talk) 18:22, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:08, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
The description contains the word "screenshot" suggesting copyvio. Stefan4 (talk) 18:24, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:08, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
The uploading user has all the earmarks of EN-banned user Jvolkblum, whose sockpuppets have uploaded hundreds of images with false license claims. This particular image scale and file size are fully consistent with its being an image from the web, not a photo taken by the uploader. Orlady (talk) 18:44, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:09, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Facebook link is dead. Looks like a screenshot from a game or something. Stefan4 (talk) 18:53, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:09, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
No evidence that the creator of this reproduction (photo or drawing?) is dead for 70 years. Martin H. (talk) 18:55, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
- Delete I've made a mistake. ~Pyb (talk) 15:30, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:09, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
It says that "This photo is for use ONLY on Wikipedia" but it also says GFDL+CC-BY-SA 3.0. Do the latter two still apply despite the Wikipedia-only licence? Stefan4 (talk) 19:04, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
- Delete This photo would be fine except for the declaration that this has been "previously published." We need OTRS for that. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 02:16, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
- The uploader has removed that line. The "previously published" text seems to come from some standard field in the English Wikipedia upload wizard which was used for uploading this image. Users sometimes specify "Previously published: Not previously published" or the like. I guess this statement was meant to mean something like this. --Stefan4 (talk) 11:53, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
Kept: . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:10, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Badly damaged svg, and it is superceded anyway. Yikrazuul (talk) 19:57, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: . Materialscientist (talk) 01:17, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Copyvio as literature work. The original, copyrighted long text is written in this Twitter screenshot. Not PD-ineligible. Vantey (talk) 19:57, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:11, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
out of scope, unused Chesdovi (talk) 20:27, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:12, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
DW of copyrighted logo. Anatoliy (talk) 21:21, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
No DW, picture is about Harkov train station, logo in just part of photo not even majority of it. --Mile (talk) 08:40, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: No, the problem is the logo, which is the central focus of the image. The station is de minimis. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:14, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
bad quallity LutzBruno (talk) 22:20, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:14, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Unlikely own work, 73 matches on tineye Herzi Pinki (talk) 22:22, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:14, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Undeeded redirect un the wake of a mass renaming (see this): Used only in a few user and project pages, some of which are abandoned and/or bound to be renamed in mass, or are meant to become redlinks in catch-all repertoires. -- Tuválkin ✉ 23:21, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:17, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
No evidence that the copyright of this image has expired. No date. No author. The coin is medieval, but the picture is not. See also: Commons:When_to_use_the_PD-Art_tag#Photograph_of_an_old_coin_found_on_the_Internet. Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 08:34, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
- The image is from about 1010. I have added that. I believe any photographs of coins that old are normally considered PD. 81.233.186.229 10:26, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
- The coin may be from the 11th century, but the image isn't. See the above wlink, pictures of old coins aren't automatically PD.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 13:46, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
- I have uploaded this in good faith, believing it is OK, and will leave it to others to determine if it is PD or not. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 19:09, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
- The coin may be from the 11th century, but the image isn't. See the above wlink, pictures of old coins aren't automatically PD.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 13:46, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: This is a speedy delete -- the image is lifted from Encyclopedia Britannica. Serge, you have been around long enough so that when someone tells you to read the relevant policy, you should read it. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 10:41, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
No evidence that the copyright of this image has expired. No date. No author. The coin is medieval, but the picture is not. See also: Commons:When_to_use_the_PD-Art_tag#Photograph_of_an_old_coin_found_on_the_Internet. Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 08:35, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
- The image is from about 1080. I have added that now. I believe any photographs of coins that old are normally considered PD. 81.233.186.229 10:23, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
- The coin may be from the 11th century, but the image isn't. See the above wlink, pictures of old coins aren't automatically PD.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 13:46, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
- I have uploaded this in good faith, believing it is OK, and will leave it to others to determine if it is PD or not. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 19:08, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
- The coin may be from the 11th century, but the image isn't. See the above wlink, pictures of old coins aren't automatically PD.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 13:46, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 10:42, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
- Sorry about this! I was asked to upload that file and it never occurred to me that a photo of a coin could have different rules than a photo of any other sculpture or artwork. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 17:56, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Flickr user is not the photographer, flickr uploads is a fan collection of official photos. Martin H. (talk) 17:27, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:03, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
No evidence of permission. Not sure if it is copyrightable. Stefan4 (talk) 23:54, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Uploader's claims are clearly wrong -- source site has an explicit (c). Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:47, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Weak description. Image contributes nothing new to this well populated categorty of images. O'Dea (talk) 13:06, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
- Keep Fully in the scope of the particular category. Besides, this is the only file which claims to present an Indian woman. Hindustanilanguage (talk) 19:34, 28 May 2012 (UTC).
- Keep Fairly high quality, in scope as per Hindustanilanguage. Handcuffed (talk) 21:59, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
- Keep, good quality, unique in character, appropriate categorization. -- Cirt (talk) 21:18, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
- Delete Anonymous uploader, no evidence of model age and consent (cf. [2] and Wikimedia terms of use). --JN466 13:36, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
upload new file Sherinmal (talk) 15:23, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
Kept: I see no real reason for deletion here. The uploader is just as anonymous as anyone else, anf if they are as JN suggests then there are no issues of identifiability. -mattbuck (Talk) 22:34, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
- File:Indian female vagina.jpg (2nd nomination)
change the file Sherinmal (talk) 01:58, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
- You would like us to delete the file you uploaded? Why? -mattbuck (Talk) 02:04, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
- Delete It is out of scope. no educational purpose Nothing new that we don't already have. Even a picture of an indian vagina we already have. --Ed. J. 13:42, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
- Do you believe they all look the same? -mattbuck (Talk) 15:47, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
- I'm pretty sure that File:Vagina of an Indian woman.jpg is the same woman but from an other angle. --Ed. J. 08:01, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
- Do you believe they all look the same? -mattbuck (Talk) 15:47, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
- Keep, of appropriate photographic quality and scope, unique in character as differentiated from other images along a topic, useful for illustrative and encyclopedic purposes. -- Cirt (talk) 13:29, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
- what is unique of this photo? We have thousands of this photos and even one of the vulva of the same woman: File:Vagina of an Indian woman.jpg. See COM:PENlS. --Ed. J. 08:01, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
- Keep - useful to illustrate racial differences in vulvas. --Claritas (talk) 21:48, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
- upload new file Sherinmal (talk) 15:03, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted - uploader clearly (and vehemently) wants this deleted, and is uploading probable copyvios over it. -mattbuck (Talk) 18:00, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
Out of COM:SCOPE because of its very low image quality. O.Koslowski (talk) 15:57, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 09:16, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
Nonsense image; total crap; no need for this rubish on Commons. It is only used on a disc page on en wiki. So it should be transferred to the english wiki if the people there see any value in it 188.104.103.204 17:37, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
- Delete - out of project scope. --Claritas (talk) 18:03, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
- Keep The file is in use on another project (en-wiki) so it is actually within SCOPE: A media file that is in use on one of the other projects of the Wikimedia Foundation is considered automatically to be useful for an educational purpose, as is a file in use for some operational reason such as within a template or the like. Such a file is not liable to deletion simply because it may be of poor quality: if it is in use, that is enough.
- And dear IP (we haven't met before have we?), I'm sorry you don't appreciate the works' intrinsic aesthetic value or humor. Other people do.
- And my dear Claritas, I assume you're here because of our interaction at [3]. Is this an instance of you putting into practice the opinion that acting in bad faith is disruptive only if Pietr Kuiper does it, but it's just fine and dandy if you engage in vindictive petty retaliatory votes and nominations? Because it's clear that that's what you're doing here.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:11, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
- So basically, what PK was doing was fine, but if I do the same thing, it isn't ? That sounds like you're following my logic ;) --Claritas (talk) 23:08, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
Delete Nonsense image. Should be transferred to the English Wikipedia where there is obiously a need for such nonsense. Delete it here. Thank you --188.104.122.61 17:51, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
Besides, where is the source for the bear image that has been pasted onto the main/background photo? --Túrelio (talk) 20:13, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 09:18, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 07:10, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
Oppose Hmm, we have 500 Smilies and other non-educational stuff. Baaba-Beeba-Buuba may be used for talk pages etc. --Mattes (talk) 10:03, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 09:11, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
Yet another penis shot that adds nothing to Commons. The image is also badly out of focus, so out of scope. Provides no useful descriptive information to justify inclusion. Likely another vanity display. O'Dea (talk) 13:09, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
upload new file Makka (talk) 15:04, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted, another blurry orphan vanity penis pic. -- Infrogmation (talk) 19:13, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
Image of low technical quality and, in addition, uploader's own image description as "boy penis" may confict with US law 2257. -- Túrelio (talk) 13:31, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
Speedy deleted, same image, same name, uploaded by different account name. -- Infrogmation (talk) 14:17, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
This appears to be a cropped image from a website - http://doon93.blogspot.co.uk/2007_03_01_archive.html. The source indicates it is a fourteen year old image, with this and other uploads by the user indicating to me that this is not the work of the uploader. CT Cooper · talk 17:28, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
- Following discussion with the uploader, I'm switching this to a PD file. However, more information on the author and date of creation are needed - I have asked the uploader to provide this information - see User talk:CT Cooper. CT Cooper · talk 20:21, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
- Unfortunately the uploader has been unable to provide the year or author - the lack of any date/author information is arguably grounds for deletion alone per the precautionary principle. Furthermore, given that the subject wasn't born until 1936, it seems highly unlikely that this image was in the public domain on the URAA date of 1 January, 1996, and hence will stay copyrighted in the US until 95 years after publication, which is likely decades away. Furthermore, photos taken from 1941 onwards are granted protection for 60 years after publication in India, so this image is unlikely to be PD there either. CT Cooper · talk 14:44, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted, insufficient info on source, date, etc to determine actual copyright status (person shown still alive at date of website 2007) -- Infrogmation (talk) 19:18, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Nikbot as no license (no license) Yann (talk) 18:41, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
- PD-textlogo? It may be borderline. Let's discuss. Yann (talk) 18:43, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
Kept. I can't see anything which would be any potential copyright violation. The only part of the logo which isn't simple text is the little "bone" shaped design, and since that symbol for a bone goes back centuries (example File:ENG COA Newton.svg from 18th century) it too is PD. -- Infrogmation (talk) 20:00, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
Still from a television program. Probably unfree. Trijnsteltalk 12:44, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
- I don't know if it is simple enough to be PD-textlogo, but the copyright status does not depend of the source of the logo. Yann (talk) 13:10, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
- Oh, sorry, I didn't notice the previous request, but imho it's not PD-textlogo. And as all the other uploads are deleted, I vote for Delete. Trijnsteltalk 15:27, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
- DRs are not contest, and votes do not count. The fact that other files were deleted is irrelevant. Do you have any information why it would not be PD-textlogo? Yann (talk) 05:10, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
- Because of this and the fact that the lettertype and file is used for all marketing stuff. Besides, those title cards/still are usually not free. Trijnsteltalk 13:13, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
- All this is irrelevant for determining the copyright status of this file. What would be useful is a court case or an opinion from a legal expert, about a similar logo. Yann (talk) 13:30, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
- None of that matters. If a user drew this and uploaded it without it being used for anything, it would be just as copyrightable (or not) as one in wide use as a trademark. Commercial value has no effect on a work's copyrightability in the U.S. (nor does visual appeal for that matter). Typeface is also not copyrightable, even if custom. However... the 3-D effects may push things over the line (I've not seen a Copyright Office registration refusal which does contain a 3-D effect at least). The dog bone is pretty stock; maybe its placement may matter a little, but sort of doubt it. Not completely sure... don't think the bone adds much in the way of copyrightability in this case, but I may lean delete based on the 3-D effect, as basic as it seems, as there are non-typeface effects involved there. But I think that would be the only thing which has a chance of making it copyrightable. It's borderline for sure. Carl Lindberg (talk) 23:00, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
- Because the "3-D effects" are merely a subtle drop shadow on the lettering (note that it's not applied to the bone), I see that as on par with italicizing text; it's still just part of typeface. cmadler (talk) 12:23, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
- It can involve elements like how deep, how much perspective, etc. which aren't really part of the typeface. I'm not really sure to be honest; it's just that in all the appeals decisions posted online where logos were involved, I don't remember any which had 3D effects, which makes me a bit suspicious. Granted, this is a very simple effect, so maybe this one wouldn't qualify. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:12, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
- Because the "3-D effects" are merely a subtle drop shadow on the lettering (note that it's not applied to the bone), I see that as on par with italicizing text; it's still just part of typeface. cmadler (talk) 12:23, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
- Because of this and the fact that the lettertype and file is used for all marketing stuff. Besides, those title cards/still are usually not free. Trijnsteltalk 13:13, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
- DRs are not contest, and votes do not count. The fact that other files were deleted is irrelevant. Do you have any information why it would not be PD-textlogo? Yann (talk) 05:10, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
- Oh, sorry, I didn't notice the previous request, but imho it's not PD-textlogo. And as all the other uploads are deleted, I vote for
- Keep The font itself is not copyrightable in the US, which is the country of origin. There is not enough text to be copyrightable as text. The bone is not copyrightable, because "copyright does not protect familiar shapes, or mere variations in size and color" ([4]). Looking at the image as a whole, there is simple text aligned flush left, and the familiar bone shape. When I compare it to works known to be uncopyrightable, such as File:Best Western logo.svg and File:Nikken Logo.jpg, I think this pretty clearly fails to meet the US originality requirement. cmadler (talk) 18:52, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
Kept as per Carl L. and Cmadler. Yann (talk) 13:49, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
No evidence of permission. Possibly PD-old, but there is no way to tell without more information. Stefan4 (talk) 23:35, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
Keep This is a professional 1908 photo of a USA building owned by a major philanthropist, Edward Harkness, so it seems very likely that it is PD-1923. Although it is certainly possible that it sat in a file drawer, unpublished, until after 1989 (the last date when it could be PD for lack of notice or registration), that seems very unlikely since the building has been owned by the Commonwealth Fund since 1952. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:33, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Kept and {{PD-US}} added per Jameslwoodward. As can be seen by people who have worked with early 20th century original materials, the image pattern shows this is from something published in print in that era, rather than an original photo "that sat in a file drawer, unpublished, until after 1989". -- Infrogmation (talk) 20:10, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
unknown person, out of scope Hedwig in Washington (MAIL?) 06:58, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
Comment see one down. --Hedwig in Washington (MAIL?) 07:03, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: already deleted --Marco Aurelio (disputatio) 19:15, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
I doubt the claimed "own work" based on the other deleted uploads of this user Special:Log/Frpenna and based on the image properties. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Proc%C3%B3pio_d%27Ogum.jpg could be from http://oloyeogalagbeomimlewade.blogspot.de/p/grandes-sacerdotes-do-candomble.html (no date).
Saibo (Δ∇) 01:20, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 10:24, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Rico.Ricardo Graça (talk · contribs)
[edit]out of scope
- File:Ninja Tux - An animated short series - By Ricardo Graça.png
- File:"Fabula" a short movie scene - By Ricardo Graça.png
- File:"Ego" - Open source game.png
- File:Android Invasion - By Ricardo Graça.jpg
- File:2D animation Scene - Short movie "Fabula".png
- File:3D Scene - "Circunstâncias" - Short movie.png
Hedwig in Washington (MAIL?) 06:11, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 10:34, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Maps uploaded by Xmonopoliox (talk · contribs)
[edit]A bunch of poor-quality maps which are not properly identified and are unused.
- File:Mapa de restauracion.png
- File:Ubicación geográfica.png
- File:Ramon Santana mapa.jpg
- File:Sector miramar.jpg
- File:Barrio mirmar.jpg
Dominic (talk) 06:23, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 10:35, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
out of scope
Hedwig in Washington (MAIL?) 06:54, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 10:35, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
out of scope
- File:Bsyjc4mv.jpg
- File:Screen shot 2011-07-01 at 14.22.27.png
- File:Futuremediagrouplogo.jpg
- File:Fmglogo.jpg
- File:162056 102006613206547 268608 n.jpg
Hedwig in Washington (MAIL?) 06:57, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
- Delete as purely promotional. Out of scope. --P199 (talk) 21:57, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 09:10, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Georgekaripaparampil (talk · contribs)
[edit]unknown person, out of scope
Hedwig in Washington (MAIL?) 06:59, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 10:36, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
In English Wikipedia, there are doubts that this logo is ineligible for copyrights. The S and Y arrows may appear creative enough for one user, and I don't know it is creative enough for me and you. Nevertheless, even this logo is possibly non-free, but it was uploaded as ineligible, anyways. No one explains how arrows of S and Y can be eligible or ineligible for copyrights, as there is no evidence to prove either point. George Ho (talk) 11:21, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
- As a possible analogy, File:Best_Western_logo.svg is not copyright in the U.S. according to the U.S. Copyright Office.[5]. See Commons:Threshold of originality Thincat (talk) 23:45, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
- Keep Fry1989 eh? 02:44, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
- Keep: Please see who uploaded the image and see the history. The file has been transfered from en:Wikipedia by a Bot using CommonsHelper, and does not qualify for fair use, because the arrows are simple geometric forms, and the Public domain trademark tag is OK. Amitie 10g (talk) 05:40, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
- Neutral. I'm presumably the "one user" referred to in the nomination; on English Wikipedia I opined that the logo might meet the threshold of originality due to the novel placement of the arrows and the selection of colours, borders, etc. However, having just seen the document linked to by User:Thincat I note and accept that the US Copyright Office would likely disagree in this case. Nonetheless, it's also clear from that document that corporations try to vigorously assert their "intellectual property" rights, which is a (chance of a) headache that the Commons can do without. I don't see any great value in hosting this particular logo here when it could just as easily serve its purpose as a fair-use image on the English Wikipedia. Anyone looking to use the English-language Subway logo for a non-Wikipedia purpose will have no trouble finding it on Subway's website. —Psychonaut (talk) 08:39, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
- Keep Our primary concern is not whether a corporation might try to asssert a copyright claim (which wrongly happens all the time, see en:Copyfraud for more egregious cases), but whether we think the US Copyright Office and/or a US court would find infringement, and as pointed out above, this is surely no more "original" than the Best Western logo that was rejected. I think en:File:Alternative subway logo.svg is also uncopyrightable and should be moved from en-wp to Commons as well. cmadler (talk) 12:28, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
Withdrawn, as file:Alternative subway logo.svg is moved into Commons.George Ho (talk) 16:23, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Sophiaabellatoday (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unused personal pictures.
- File:Sophia abella camouflages.jpg
- File:Sophia abella.jpg
- File:Sophia abella wardrobe.jpg
- File:Sophia abella kolkata knight riders.jpg
- File:Sophia abella pic1.jpg
- File:Sophia abella pic3.jpg
- File:Sophia abella pic2.jpg
- File:Sophia abella nm.jpg
- File:Sophia abella nm1.jpg
- File:Sophia abella necafe.jpg
- File:Sophia abella tyrabanks.jpg
- File:Sophia abella kkr victory.jpg
- File:Sophia abella 1027e.jpg
- File:Sophia abella 1026e.jpg
- File:Sophia abella goes green.jpg
- File:Sophia abella booty tooch for KKR.jpg
- File:Sophia abella braless.jpg
- File:Sophia abella 1028e.jpg
- File:Sophia abella new magazine 1.jpg
- File:Sophia abella twitter peg.jpg
Ices2Csharp (talk) 15:24, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Commons is not Facebook, or a place for personal promotion. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:00, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Files of User:LeCompasDirect
[edit]- File:Mass-Konpa.jpg (speedy)
- File:Rick Ross (2007).jpg (speedy)
- File:RickRoss.jpg (speedy)
- File:Rick-Ross.jpg (speedy)
- File:Meek-Mill.png (speedy)
- File:Gracia Delva and Richie.jpg
- File:Gracia and Richie (tèt frèt ti blada) Yo remele.jpg
- File:J-Derulo.jpg (speedy)
- File:Gracia Delva sur scène.jpg
- File:Mr le Député.jpg (speedy)
- File:Député Garcia Delva.jpg (speedy)
- File:Jason Derülo.jpg (speedy)
- File:Gracia Delva -Mass Konpa.jpg
- File:Gracia Delva and Frero Jean Baptiste.jpg
- File:Ti blada.jpg
- File:JasonDerulo.jpg (speedy)
- File:Jasonderulo.jpg (speedy)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_Yo_remele.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
User has uploaded nothing but copyvios (see also deleted uploads). Most of the above files have already been tagged for speedy deletion; this request is to cover those for which a source was not immediately identifiable. Эlcobbola talk 16:47, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:03, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Files of User:Umgx
[edit]- File:UMGX Retail Brand Development Vintage Brand Development 29.jpg
- File:UMGX Retail Brand Development Vintage Brand Development 27.jpg
- File:UMGX Retail Brand Development Vintage Brand Development 28.jpg
- File:UMGX Retail Brand Development Vintage Brand Development 26.jpg
- File:UMGX Retail Brand Development Vintage Brand Development 24.jpg
- File:UMGX Retail Brand Development Vintage Brand Development 25.jpg
- File:UMGX Retail Brand Development Vintage Brand Development 23.jpg
- File:UMGX Retail Brand Development Vintage Brand Development 22.jpg
- File:UMGX Retail Brand Development Vintage Brand Development 21.jpg
- File:UMGX Retail Brand Development Vintage Brand Development 20.jpg
- File:UMGX Retail Brand Development Vintage Brand Development 19.jpg
- File:UMGX Retail Brand Development Vintage Brand Development 18.jpg
- File:UMGX Retail Brand Development Vintage Brand Development 17.jpg
- File:UMGX Retail Brand Development Vintage Brand Development 16.jpg
- File:UMGX Retail Brand Development Vintage Brand Development 15.jpg
- File:UMGX Retail Brand Development Vintage Brand Development 13.jpg
- File:UMGX Retail Brand Development Vintage Brand Development 14.jpg
- File:UMGX Retail Brand Development Vintage Brand Development 12.jpg
- File:UMGX Retail Brand Development Vintage Brand Development 11.jpg
- File:UMGX Retail Brand Development Vintage Brand Development 10.jpg
- File:UMGX Retail Brand Development Vintage Brand Development 09.jpg
- File:UMGX Retail Brand Development Vintage Brand Development 07.jpg
- File:UMGX Retail Brand Development Vintage Brand Development 08.jpg
- File:UMGX Retail Brand Development Vintage Brand Development 06.jpg
- File:UMGX Retail Brand Development Vintage Brand Development 05.jpg
- File:UMGX Retail Brand Development Vintage Brand Development 03.jpg
- File:UMGX Retail Brand Development Vintage Brand Development 04.jpg
- File:UMGX Retail Brand Development Vintage Brand Development 02.jpg
- File:UMGX Retail Brand Development Vintage Brand Development 01.jpg
- File:UMGX Retail Brand Development Vintage Branding 45.jpg
- File:UMGX Retail Brand Development Vintage Branding 44.jpg
- File:UMGX Retail Brand Development Vintage Branding 43.jpg
- File:UMGX Retail Brand Development Vintage Branding 42.jpg
- File:UMGX Retail Brand Development Vintage Branding 41.jpg
- File:UMGX Retail Brand Development Vintage Branding 40.jpg
- File:UMGX Retail Brand Development Vintage Branding 39.jpg
- File:UMGX Retail Brand Development Vintage Branding 37.jpg
- File:UMGX Retail Brand Development Vintage Branding 38.jpg
- File:UMGX Retail Brand Development Vintage Branding 36.jpg
- File:UMGX Retail Brand Development Vintage Branding 35.jpg
- File:UMGX Retail Brand Development Vintage Branding 34.jpg
- File:UMGX Retail Brand Development Vintage Branding 33.jpg
- File:UMGX Retail Brand Development Vintage Branding 32.jpg
- File:UMGX Retail Brand Development Vintage Branding 31.jpg
- File:UMGX Retail Brand Development Vintage Branding 30.jpg
- File:UMGX Retail Brand Development Vintage Branding 29.jpg
- File:UMGX Retail Brand Development Vintage Branding 28.jpg
- File:UMGX Retail Brand Development Vintage Branding 27.jpg
- File:UMGX Retail Brand Development Vintage Branding 26.jpg
- File:UMGX Retail Brand Development Vintage Branding 24.jpg
- File:UMGX Retail Brand Development Vintage Branding 25.jpg
- File:UMGX Retail Brand Development Vintage Branding 21.jpg
- File:UMGX Retail Brand Development Vintage Branding 23.jpg
- File:UMGX Retail Brand Development Vintage Branding 22.jpg
- File:UMGX Retail Brand Development Vintage Branding 20.jpg
- File:UMGX Retail Brand Development Vintage Branding 19.jpg
- File:UMGX Retail Brand Development Vintage Branding 18.jpg
- File:UMGX Retail Brand Development Vintage Branding 17.jpg
- File:UMGX Retail Brand Development Vintage Branding 16.jpg
- File:UMGX Retail Brand Development Vintage Branding 15.jpg
- File:UMGX Retail Brand Development Vintage Branding 14.jpg
- File:UMGX Retail Brand Development Vintage Branding 13.jpg
- File:UMGX Retail Brand Development Vintage Branding 12.jpg
- File:UMGX Retail Brand Development Vintage Branding 09.jpg
- File:UMGX Retail Brand Development Vintage Branding 11.jpg
- File:UMGX Retail Brand Development Vintage Branding 10.jpg
- File:UMGX Retail Brand Development Vintage Branding 08.jpg
- File:UMGX Retail Brand Development Vintage Branding 07.jpg
- File:UMGX Retail Brand Development Vintage Branding 06.jpg
- File:UMGX Retail Brand Development Vintage Branding 04.jpg
- File:UMGX Retail Brand Development Vintage Branding 05.jpg
- File:UMGX Retail Brand Development Vintage Branding 03.jpg
- File:UMGX Retail Brand Development Vintage Branding 01.jpg
- File:UMGX Retail Brand Development Vintage Branding 02.jpg
- File:UMGX Retail Brand Development Vintage Typography Art & Accents 14.jpg
- File:UMGX Retail Brand Development Vintage Typography Art & Accents 13.jpg
- File:UMGX Retail Brand Development Vintage Typography Art & Accents 12.jpg
- File:UMGX Retail Brand Development Vintage Typography Art & Accents 10.jpg
- File:UMGX Retail Brand Development Vintage Typography Art & Accents 11.jpg
- File:UMGX Retail Brand Development Vintage Typography Art & Accents 09.jpg
- File:UMGX Retail Brand Development Vintage Typography Art & Accents 06.jpg
- File:UMGX Retail Brand Development Vintage Typography Art & Accents 08.jpg
- File:UMGX Retail Brand Development Vintage Typography Art & Accents 07.jpg
- File:UMGX Retail Brand Development Vintage Typography Art & Accents 05.jpg
- File:UMGX Retail Brand Development Vintage Typography Art & Accents 04.jpg
- File:UMGX Retail Brand Development Vintage Typography Art & Accents 02.jpg
- File:UMGX Retail Brand Development Vintage Typography Art & Accents 03.jpg
- File:UMGX Retail Brand Development Vintage Typography Art & Accents 01.jpg
- File:UMGX Retail Brand Development Vintage Typography 6.jpg
- File:UMGX Retail Brand Development Vintage Photo & Typography 9.jpg
- File:UMGX Retail Brand Development Vintage Crest2.jpg
- File:UMGX Retail Brand Development Vintage Typography 2.jpg
- File:UMGX Retail Brand Development Vintage Photo & Typography 8.jpg
- File:UMGX Retail Brand Development Vintage Photo & Typography 7.jpg
- File:UMGX Retail Brand Development Vintage Photo & Typography 6.jpg
- File:UMGX Retail Brand Development Vintage Photo & Typography 5.jpg
- File:UMGX Retail Brand Development Vintage Photo & Typography 4.jpg
- File:UMGX Retail Brand Development Vintage Photo & Typography 3.jpg
- File:UMGX Retail Brand Development Vintage Photo & Typography 2.jpg
- File:UMGX Retail Brand Development Vintage Wallscape 7.jpg
- File:UMGX Retail Brand Development Vintage Interior 19.jpg
- File:UMGX Retail Brand Development Vintage Interior 18.jpg
- File:UMGX Retail Brand Development Vintage Interior 17.jpg
- File:UMGX Retail Brand Development Vintage Interior 16.jpg
- File:UMGX Retail Brand Development Vintage Interior 15.jpg
- File:UMGX Retail Brand Development Vintage Interior 14.jpg
- File:UMGX Retail Brand Development Vintage Wallscape 6.jpg
- File:UMGX Retail Brand Development Vintage Interior 12.jpg
- File:UMGX Retail Brand Development Vintage Wallscape 5.jpg
- File:UMGX Retail Brand Development Vintage Interior 11.jpg
- File:UMGX Retail Brand Development Vintage Interior 10.jpg
- File:UMGX Retail Brand Development Vintage Interior 9.jpg
- File:UMGX Retail Brand Development Vintage Interior 8.jpg
- File:UMGX Retail Brand Development Vintage Interior 7.jpg
- File:UMGX Retail Brand Development Vintage Interior 4.jpg
- File:UMGX Retail Brand Development Vintage Interior 5.jpg
- File:UMGX Retail Brand Development Vintage Interior 6.jpg
- File:UMGX Retail Brand Development Vintage Interior 3.jpg
- File:UMGX Retail Brand Development Vintage Interior 2.jpg
- File:UMGX Retail Brand Development Vintage Wallscape 4.jpg
- File:UMGX Retail Brand Development Vintage Wallscape 3.jpg
- File:UMGX Retail Brand Development Vintage Wallscape 2.jpg
- File:UMGX Retail Brand Development Vintage Wallscape 1.jpg
- File:UMGX Retail Brand Development Vintage Photo & Frame.jpg
- File:UMGX Retail Brand Development Vintage Photo & Typogrpahy.jpg
- File:UMGX Retail Brand Development Vintage Photo & Typography.jpg
- File:UMGX Retail Brand Development Vintage Crest 29.jpg
- File:UMGX Retail Brand Development Vintage Interior.jpg
- File:UMGX Retail Brand Development Vintage Wallscape.jpg
- File:UMGX Retail Brand Development Vintage Identity.jpg
- File:UMGX Retail Brand Development Vintage Typogrpahy.jpg
- File:UMGX Retail Brand Development Vintage Crest.jpg
- File:UMGX Retail Brand Development Vintage Typography.jpg
Out of scope, promotional, not reasonably useful for educational purposes. More than likely copyright issues as well. – JBarta (talk) 19:20, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: ad, spam, file description pages packed with keywords and links Denniss (talk) 21:23, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
Files of User:Karanja.moses
[edit]- File:Provincial Administration.jpg
- File:George Saitoti in his Constituency Kajiado North.jpg
- File:John michuki.jpg
User has uploaded numerous images of Kenyan politicians, all of which appear to be copyvios. Those with easily identifiable sources (e.g. File:President Kibaki Saitoti.jpg, File:BookLaunch10122009 Njenga Karume.jpg, File:Saitoti Somalia.jpg, File:The ICC Meeting.jpg and File:John Michuki 2.jpg) have been tagged for speedy deletion. Remaining images - those here - are low resolution, lacking camera metadata, etc.; as a whole and in consideration of uploader's history, these are DUCK copyvios. Эlcobbola talk 20:54, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
- Delete, with thanks to the nominator for work to clear up what I'd somewhat cluelessly poked (this isn't a project I know my way around). Given how suspect all the other uploads are, it looks to me like these are as close to certain copyvios as is possible without tracking an exact source image. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 21:42, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:13, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Jacklondon2030 (talk · contribs)
[edit]Photos of copyrighted books. See en:Gary Cox (philosopher).
Stefan4 (talk) 23:15, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:15, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Looks like an ad or something. Unlikely own work. Stefan4 (talk) 23:17, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:15, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
No evidence of permission. No idea if it is copyrightable or not. Stefan4 (talk) 23:45, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 10:32, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Christinefh (talk · contribs)
[edit]No evidence of permission. Possibly PD for some reason, but there is no way to tell without more information.
- File:1931 Portrait of Commonwealth Fund Founder Anna Harkness.jpg
- File:Child receiving rabies innoculation.gif
Stefan4 (talk) 23:51, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
Comment The first is very probably PD, but there is not enough to prove it, so Delete. The second appeared in the 1929 Annual Report of the Commonwealth Fund. It seems to me very unlikely that the Fund would have bothered to renew copyright in 1957. There is, in fact, no entry in Google's catalog of copyright entries for Commonwealth Fund, so this seems to me a clear Keep. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:44, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
First Deleted and second Kept per above. Note first image is a photo of a painting by en:Albert Herter, and so will become {{PD-Art}} in 2021. -- Infrogmation (talk) 20:17, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
No evidence of permission. Possibly PD for some reason, but there is no way to tell without more information.
- File:Dixon at the new 3-13 (now 3-14) Wurlitzer of the Tower Ballroom, Blackpool. This is one of the very first photographs taken of him at this organ, in 1935.jpg
- File:Dixon at the original 2-10 Wurlitzer of the Tower Ballroom, Blackpool. This is one of the very first photographs taken of him at this organ, in 1930.jpg
- File:Reginald Dixon at the Regent Dudley Wurlitzer.jpg
_Wurlitzer_of_the_Tower_Ballroom,_Blackpool._This_is_one_of_the_very_first_photographs_taken_of_him_at_this_organ,_in_1935.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Stefan4 (talk) 23:53, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Very unlikely PD, unless the photographers (who are named) died within seven years. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:46, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
site it came from says it's copyrighted. "Star Trek is Copyright © CBS Paramount Television" We hope (talk) 02:51, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
- It's no more copyrighted than the other publicity stills, including the ones you uploaded. Each is from the same set. I could find other "sources" but clearly these were published before 1978. Erikeltic (talk) 02:56, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
- So why does the site say "Copyright CBS/Paramount", where the others are clearly from when the program aired on NBC and are shown to have no copyright marks? We hope (talk) 02:59, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
- The source is incorrect. The photos are very clearly part of the same set of publicity stills that you uploaded from -- they're just in color. Erikeltic (talk) 03:00, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
- So why does the site say "Copyright CBS/Paramount", where the others are clearly from when the program aired on NBC and are shown to have no copyright marks? We hope (talk) 02:59, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
You are the one who gave the link above as the source of these photos. We hope (talk) 03:02, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
Here are some additional sources then [6], [7], or the one from eBay [8] which is the source you used. If you could, please help me out w/ the licensing rather than nom for deletion. Erikeltic (talk) 03:04, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
- Copyright to Paramount can be seen at the link for the Shatner photo.
- this is not a link I used as a source. It's to an eBay "About Me" page, not an item for auction. These photos are not public domain but are able to be used by other sites as fair use photos. We hope (talk) 03:09, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
[9] That's an item for sale... I don't see how you can defend a photo from the same set on one hand & then advocate the deletion from the same set on the other. Both are pre-1978 and can be used as fair use. Could you help me fix them, rather than just nominate them for deletion because I messed up on the licensing? I'd appreciate the help. Erikeltic (talk) 03:14, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
The photo is seen at the Amazon link you previously gave with a Paramount copyright on it--there's no fixing to it because it's copyrighted. We hope (talk) 03:17, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
- Well, then I guess so are the other ones since they're from the same publicity set. You should probably nominate them for deletion too. Erikeltic (talk) 03:18, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
Here is the "other" photo from the same publicity sets w/ eBay as their primary source. [10] Erikeltic (talk) 03:20, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
![[10]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Star_Trek_William_Shatner.JPG){kind=link}
- Delete Original photo may or may not be PD-US-no notice, but it is sourced only to a website that does not give us sufficient info to make that determination. -- Infrogmation (talk)
Deleted: insufficient information to confirm no-notice Denniss (talk) 09:58, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
Photos are copyrighted according to source site. "Star Trek is Copyright © CBS Paramount Television" We hope (talk) 02:55, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
- It's no more copyrighted than the other publicity stills, including the ones you uploaded. Each is from the same set. I could find other "sources" but clearly these were published before 1978. Erikeltic (talk) 02:57, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
- Again, why does the fansite indicate a CBS/Paramount copyright where the older photos are from NBC and show no copyright marks? We hope (talk) 03:00, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
- Same reasons as on the other file. Should we have two conversations? Erikeltic (talk) 03:05, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
- Copyright statement on source site is not from the copyright holder -- it is, rather, a statement made by an unaffiliated fan site as a cautionary measure. If Paramount or other potential claimants have not seen fit to ask this fan site to delete its images, then it would be absurd indeed for WP to remove them. Clevelander96 (talk) 15:11, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
- Same reasons as on the other file. Should we have two conversations? Erikeltic (talk) 03:05, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
- Again, why does the fansite indicate a CBS/Paramount copyright where the older photos are from NBC and show no copyright marks? We hope (talk) 03:00, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
- Delete Original photo may or may not be PD-US-no notice, but it is sourced only to a website that does not give us sufficient info to make that determination. -- Infrogmation (talk) 19:07, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: insufficient information to confirm no-notice Denniss (talk) 09:58, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
Copyright in the US under the URAA, since its copyright expired after 1996, presumably in 2006. —innotata 21:18, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 07:17, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Copyright in the US under the URAA, since copyright expired after 1996 in India (in 2007, if published in 1946). —innotata 21:24, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 07:17, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Möchte das bild nicht mehr Klausi1 (talk) 12:49, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 21:38, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Looks more complex than the Edge logo, cf. COM:TOO#United Kingdom. No evidence of permission. Stefan4 (talk) 18:47, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 20:54, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
The source has the images with a AFP watermark, but says they are by Diana Morkosian of VOA. —innotata 19:58, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 21:03, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
I have a change of mind about Privacy here...:) Srikarkashyap (talk) 11:46, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
- Delete as per request. Personal photo, and no other possible use anyway. --P199 (talk) 21:58, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
- Comment I'd vote delete as a personal photo not useful for Commons -- however it is in use in te:W (which I can't read so I can't evaluate the context). -- Infrogmation (talk) 19:11, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
- Comment Please delete it soon.The telugu wiki page on which it is in use is my user page. Strike Eagle (talk) 06:12, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:28, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
Delete: The same image was uploaded to the enwiki less than an hour before this one stating "Before and after photo of gynecomastia patient. Courtesy of Dr. Blau. Website www.cosmetic-md.com", so it clearly appears the uploader does not own the image and there is no evidnece of permission for Dr Blau. Ww2censor (talk) 16:21, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
- The enwiki image was deleted on June 19. Ww2censor (talk) 00:47, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: per discussion. MBisanz talk 01:50, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
copyvio see spanish article [11]. I am sure the picture was deleted before, maybe at my request. Traumrune (talk) 22:06, 12 June 2012 (UTC) I wrote a message on User talk:Carlitospradera to ask if he is the copyrightholder. Traumrune (talk) 22:16, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per discussion. MBisanz talk 01:51, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
this template is completely redundant to {{PD-old-70}}. We just need to create a new template for the w:Publication right, which applies to the whole EU, and not just Belgium. Liliana-60 (talk) 17:17, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
- In lieu of deletion I suggest reverting to an earlier revision, when it was just a disambiguation template (directing to other templates). Dcoetzee (talk) 18:43, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 05:30, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Apparent near-duplication of File:Two typical usuicha (thin tea) bowls for the Japanese tea ceremony.jpg. -- Trevj (talk) 12:28, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
_bowls_for_the_Japanese_tea_ceremony.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
- It would appear that we don't require both copies of the file. Each is used in various Wikipedias. I'm happy to update such links to the alternative file, if that would be of use. -- Trevj (talk) 12:31, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 02:39, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Low quality illustration. Gogo Dodo (talk) 17:51, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
- I take offense. I based it on the original from 2011, and I did my best. Yes, I am not the best artist. But it is an image that is in use in the article, and the above user is trying to delete it from that article and even delete it from here. GogoDodo, please draw your own better image and I will be fine with this one being replaced. But for now I am trying to provide an illustration to a technical article that is hard to visualize. Please don't be so aggressively mean with your art criticisms. Cheers, Nesnad (talk) 18:18, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
- Delete - While I greatly appreciate the editor's willingness to create artwork for Wikipedia, at this point I would encourage him/her to work on adding detail to this graphic, then re-loading it when it is "ready for prime time." Thanks. Ebikeguy (talk) 18:21, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
- keep - content is mortified and improved... I provide it like this and someone who doesn't like it can *improve* it. Deleting it just kills the evolution process. Nesnad (talk) 18:24, 12 June 2012 (UTC) EDIT: A third opinion on the article page was that a fairuse copyright image was prefered on English Wikipedia over a free use image. I will respect that opinion. However, foreign language Wikipedias can not use fairuse so I still think this image should not be deleted, so it can be used by anyone that wants to use something that has no copyright. Cheers, Nesnad (talk) 01:49, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
- Delete as unusable personal artwork. Out of scope. --P199 (talk) 22:02, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
- Comment: What is with everyone and the attack of my efforts to contribute and just wanting to delete and silence the evolution of the piece? Compare it with the one currently in use on the French Wikipeida, wouldn't you say that it is at least more usable than that? Please define how this is "out of scope"? Nesnad (talk) 14:37, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
- Comment This should have nothing to do with allegations of "attacks" and "offense". It is a question of application of Commons:Project scope. The image is an orphan and only categorized as "Category:Drawing". If no potential in scope usefulness can be demonstrated, should be deleted. -- Infrogmation (talk) 19:22, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
- Comment That's why I'm offended! Because no one is talking about it's potential usefulness they are just saying "poor quality" when I made it to replace the extremely low quality image that is being used on several foreign language Wikipedias that can't use "fairuse" copyright based images. I think English Wikimedia/Wikipedia users need to remember that not all Wikipedias can use "perfect" images from the copyright source. I think my effort is light years ahead of what is currently in use, but I don't want to replace the one currently in use while this is nominated for deletion so this won't be "in use" until it is untangled from this silly nomination. And I am totally open to someone making a superior version of this, that's the nature of Wikipedia. But I will continue to feel attacked if no one will acknowledge the point of this image's creation. Nesnad (talk) 08:32, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Consensus is to delete FASTILY (TALK) 02:40, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
I highly doubt this is ineligible for copyright, and the supposed "Brazilian law" cited is the fair use policy of the Portuguese Wikipedia: this can be on the English or Portuguese Wikipedia if used in an article, but not on Commons. —innotata 19:54, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
- No, Pt-Wikipedia don't adopt fair use. All clauses of its policy are based on strict copyright law. Eduardofeld (talk) 21:01, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
- What does "Conteúdo restrito" mean then? I don't believe you, it seems pretty clear the list is of materials which are acceptable for fair use; it's actually a direct translation on the English Wikipedia equivalent. —innotata 21:13, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
- Sorry, you are correct, I was good-faithfully based on an elder documentation. Eduardofeld (talk) 22:50, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
- What does "Conteúdo restrito" mean then? I don't believe you, it seems pretty clear the list is of materials which are acceptable for fair use; it's actually a direct translation on the English Wikipedia equivalent. —innotata 21:13, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 02:39, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
Copyright in the US under the URAA, since its copyright in India expired after 1996 (in 2007 or later, in fact) —innotata 21:21, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
- With respect to the provided "source", a deeplink that tells us nothing about the publication history of this work: That source is trash. For our educational project this upload is useless. I dont know why the uploader is unable to simply write this, the photo is taken from http://www.oldindianphotos.in/2012/01/indian-soldier-leads-away-hindu-rioter.html. There the source is "ebay". Lets go to ebay and find http://www.ebay.com/itm/1946-Bombay-India-Soldier-Hindu-Rioter-Press-Photo-/250941638870. A press photo, likely was not even first published in India but in the US by Acme Newsphoto. So the copyright tag is wrong. I like to add that not only the indicated copyright status is wrong but also claiming first publication in some random country based on zero evidence is manipulation of history and thats bad. Also the author is not unknown but identifiable, research about the initials in the caption on the backside of the photo. Evidence is required that this photo was published, and not only sent in by a staff photographer and stored in some archives unpublished. --Martin H. (talk) 22:17, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
DELETE BUT: Martin, I gave the deeplink that you mentioned as I could not find the precise link which you eventually did. I myself saw the pic on the same blog in another post which had a rather long list of pics and I intended to give a precise link to the pic. That's why I gave this deeplink. The blogpost did mention the source as "ebay" but I was not sure how to find out about it on ebay. However, I disagree with your statement that the pic is of no educational value. Yes, I did make a mistake with this upload and will try to be more careful in future. Being a relative newbie, I'm still learning the nuances of the Copyright laws. Lovy Singhal (talk) 07:32, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
- If you saw the blog, why adding a deeplink to the file? But thats not the problem. The problem is that you say the file was first published >60 years ago in India. Why do you say this without knowing it?? Thats the problem. And yes, that is uneducational. What educational value has a picture if half of the description is not true but the uploaders fiction and if there is no chance for the viewer to confirm the description by having a reliable source. --Martin H. (talk) 22:15, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 02:39, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
Files in Category:De Gesammelte Abhandlungen (Hertz W)
[edit]- File:De Gesammelte Abhandlungen (Hertz W) 009.jpg
- File:De Gesammelte Abhandlungen (Hertz W) 010.jpg
- File:De Gesammelte Abhandlungen (Hertz W) 011.jpg
- File:De Gesammelte Abhandlungen (Hertz W) 012.jpg
_009.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_010.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_011.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_012.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Ich bin mir nicht sicher, aber wenn der Autor dieses Vorworts mit de:Friedrich von der Leyen ( † 1966) identisch ist, sind diese vier Buchseiten urheberrechtlich geschützt.
en:I'm not sure, but if the author of this preface is identical with de:Friedrich von der Leyen ( † 1966), these four book pages are most likely copyrighted.|subpage=Files in Category:De Gesammelte Abhandlungen (Hertz W) 02:01, June 12, 2012 user:IusticiaBY
Note: Re-created after original was lost to Database corruption --Denniss (talk) 09:56, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 22:07, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Undeeded redirect un the wake of a mass renaming (see this): Used only in a few user and project pages, some of which are abandoned and/or bound to be renamed in mass, or are meant to become redlinks in catch-all repertoires. -- Tuválkin ✉ 19:29, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
- Bummer, I forgot to wait for the delinker to fix these first, before asking for deletion. Sorry about that! I’ll be more careful in the future: Check both "global usage" and "what links here". -- Tuválkin ✉ 21:03, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:52, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
File:Fig. 1.—Medial side of the right torus tubarius and the pharyngeal ostium of the auditory.jpg
[edit]
Mistake in the file name Marchetto42 (talk) 20:31, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
- Just use the {{Rename}} template to correct the mistake. --P199 (talk) 02:38, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
Kept: renamed . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:52, 20 September 2012 (UTC)