Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2012/06/18
 |
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}
_(2).jpg){kind=link}
_At_NNU.China.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_Gutshaus.jpg){kind=link}
Official.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Thanks for uploading. I converted the file to ogv so it can be deleted now... McZusatz (talk) 07:13, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: As per nom russavia (talk) 07:16, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Blatant copyvio Tournesol (talk) 08:04, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom. Sreejith K (talk) 09:25, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
unused, out of project scope Trex2001 (talk) 08:52, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom. Sreejith K (talk) 09:43, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Doubtful authorship - low resolution, no original exif. Art-top (talk) 09:25, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom. Sreejith K (talk) 09:42, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
see Commons:Stamps/Public_domain#United States Magog the Ogre (talk) 01:01, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 13:42, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
This is not an original. The original has a 20th Century Fox copyright. We hope (talk) 01:20, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 14:00, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
out of scope Hedwig in Washington (MAIL?) 03:09, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Kept: in use, user page image Denniss (talk) 14:01, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
out of scope Hedwig in Washington (MAIL?) 04:09, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: low Q Denniss (talk) 14:02, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
child porn 68.102.235.25 05:17, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Kept: BS Denniss (talk) 14:02, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Seems to be non-notable father-son pic - unused on Wikis Hindustanilanguage (talk) 05:20, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 14:03, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
converted to ogv. Can be deleted now... McZusatz (talk) 07:11, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 14:04, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
_(2).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(2).jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Thanks for uploading. I converted the file to ogv so it can be deleted now... McZusatz (talk) 07:12, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
_(2).jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 14:04, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
_(2).jpg){kind=link}
Doubtful authorship - promo photo with low resolution wihtout exif. Art-top (talk) 08:03, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 14:04, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Unused private photo - out of project scope. Art-top (talk) 08:04, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 14:08, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Unused private photo - out of project scope. Art-top (talk) 08:05, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 14:10, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Unused private photo - out of project scope. Art-top (talk) 08:06, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 14:10, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Unused private photo - out of project scope. No permission from author. Art-top (talk) 08:07, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 14:14, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Unused private photo - out of project scope. Art-top (talk) 08:07, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 14:10, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Unused private photo - out of project scope. Art-top (talk) 08:10, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 14:15, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Unused private photo - out of project scope. Art-top (talk) 08:11, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 14:08, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Unused private photo - out of project scope. Art-top (talk) 08:12, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 14:08, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Unused private photo - out of project scope. Art-top (talk) 08:14, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 14:15, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Unused private photo - out of project scope. Art-top (talk) 08:15, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 14:15, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Unused private photo - out of project scope. Art-top (talk) 08:15, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 14:16, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Unused private photo - out of project scope. Art-top (talk) 08:16, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 14:16, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Unused private photo - out of project scope. Art-top (talk) 08:20, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 14:16, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Unused unknown logo - out of project scope. Art-top (talk) 08:21, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 14:19, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Unused private photo - out of project scope. Art-top (talk) 08:24, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 14:17, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Unused private photo - out of project scope. Art-top (talk) 08:24, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 14:17, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
No original author in source, low resolution. Image published on many sites. Art-top (talk) 08:28, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 14:16, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Unused, uncategorized. Doubtful authorship - low resolution, no original exif. Art-top (talk) 08:33, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 14:27, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Doubtful license - no simple image. Art-top (talk) 08:37, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Clearly false license. Seems to have been intended for vanity/commercial article at en:W. -- Infrogmation (talk) 22:07, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Unused private photo - out of project scope. Art-top (talk) 08:42, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 14:27, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Unused private photo - out of project scope. Art-top (talk) 08:59, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 14:28, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Doubtful authorship - low resolution, no exif. Art-top (talk) 09:00, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 14:28, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Unused private photo - out of project scope. Art-top (talk) 09:01, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 14:10, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
_At_NNU.China.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_At_NNU.China.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Unused private photo - out of project scope Art-top (talk) 09:02, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
_At_NNU.China.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 14:11, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
_At_NNU.China.jpg){kind=link}
Unused private photo - out of project scope. Art-top (talk) 09:02, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 14:10, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Unused private photo - out of project scope. Art-top (talk) 09:13, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 14:30, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by 1Veertje as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: derivative work Sreejith K (talk) 09:15, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
- I've cropped out the part that would violate copyright law. --Vera (talk) 18:55, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Kept, The part of the image that is protected by copyright was cropped outVera (talk) 18:59, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Logo without permission. Art-top (talk) 09:24, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted, non free artwork with false creation and license claim. -- Infrogmation (talk) 22:13, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
No permission from player authors, movie authors. Art-top (talk) 09:26, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted per COM:DW -- Infrogmation (talk) 22:17, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Low Res copy of File:SerovElizabethDepartingOnAHunt.jpg Shakko (talk) 09:27, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 14:35, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Unused private photo - out of project scope. Low resolution, no original exif - doubtful authorship. Art-top (talk) 09:58, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 14:31, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Unused private photo - out of project scope. Art-top (talk) 09:59, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 14:31, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Unused private photo - out of project scope. Art-top (talk) 10:00, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 14:33, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Unused private photo - out of project scope. Art-top (talk) 10:01, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 14:33, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Unused private photo - out of project scope. Art-top (talk) 10:01, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 14:33, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Unused private photo - out of project scope. Art-top (talk) 10:01, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 14:33, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Unused private image - out of project scope. Art-top (talk) 10:02, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 14:33, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Unused private photo - out of project scope. Art-top (talk) 10:03, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 14:33, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Unused private photo - out of project scope. Art-top (talk) 10:07, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 14:33, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Unused private photo - out of project scope. Art-top (talk) 10:08, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 14:36, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Unused private photo - out of project scope. Art-top (talk) 10:08, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 14:37, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Unused private photo - out of project scope. Art-top (talk) 10:09, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 14:37, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Unused private photo - out of project scope. Art-top (talk) 10:09, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 14:37, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Unused personal picture. Ices2Csharp (talk) 10:13, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 13:44, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Unused personal picture. Ices2Csharp (talk) 10:14, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 13:45, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Unused personal picture. Ices2Csharp (talk) 10:14, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 13:45, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Unused personal picture. Ices2Csharp (talk) 10:14, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 13:46, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Unused personal picture. Ices2Csharp (talk) 10:14, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 13:46, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Unused private photo - out of project scope. Art-top (talk) 10:15, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 13:46, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Unused private photo - out of project scope. Art-top (talk) 10:16, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 13:46, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Doubtful authorship - low resolution, no original exif, look like as frame of video or game screenshot. Art-top (talk) 10:18, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 13:48, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Unused private photo - out of project scope. Art-top (talk) 10:19, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 13:48, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Unused private photo - out of project scope. Art-top (talk) 10:19, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 13:48, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Unused personal picture. Ices2Csharp (talk) 10:22, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 13:51, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Unused personal picture. Ices2Csharp (talk) 10:22, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 13:51, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Unused personal picture. Ices2Csharp (talk) 10:28, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 13:51, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Unused personal picture. Ices2Csharp (talk) 10:29, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 13:51, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Unused private photo - out of project scope. Art-top (talk) 10:33, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 13:51, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Unused private photo - out of project scope. Art-top (talk) 10:34, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 13:52, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Bad quality image - not educational use. Art-top (talk) 10:36, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: copyvio Denniss (talk) 13:52, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Unused private photo - out of project scope. Art-top (talk) 10:41, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 13:53, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Doubtful authorship. Art-top (talk) 10:42, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 13:53, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Doubtful authorship. Art-top (talk) 10:43, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 13:53, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Out of project scope. Art-top (talk) 10:46, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 13:53, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
_Gutshaus.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_Gutshaus.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
It is the wrong building in Roggenthal (my own fault) / Es ist das falsche Gebäude in Roggenthal (mein eigener Fehler) Gerold Rosenberg (talk) 10:52, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
_Gutshaus.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: uploader request Denniss (talk) 13:58, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
_Gutshaus.jpg){kind=link}
Official.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Official.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Unused private photo - out of project scope. Art-top (talk) 12:41, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Official.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 13:54, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Official.jpg){kind=link}
Doubtful authorship - low resolution for own work, no original exif. Not educational - bad quality image, no description. Art-top (talk) 12:43, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
- Also duplicates:
- File:Ezs.jpg
- File:201020122013paris.PNG
- --Art-top (talk) 12:45, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 13:55, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Unused personal drawing - no educational use, out of project scope. Art-top (talk) 12:49, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
- Also duplicate: File:Christopher Evans.png. --Art-top (talk) 12:50, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 13:55, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Unused private photo - out of project scope. Art-top (talk) 12:50, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 13:57, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Unused private photo - out of project scope. Art-top (talk) 12:51, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 13:57, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Unused private photo - out of project scope. Art-top (talk) 12:52, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 13:57, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Unused private photo - out of project scope. Art-top (talk) 12:53, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 13:57, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Unused private photo - out of project scope. Art-top (talk) 12:53, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 13:56, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Unused private photo - out of project scope. Art-top (talk) 12:53, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 13:56, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Unused private photo - out of project scope. Art-top (talk) 12:54, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 13:56, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Unused private photo. Art-top (talk) 12:57, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 13:56, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Unused private photo. Art-top (talk) 12:58, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 13:41, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Unused private photo. Art-top (talk) 12:58, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 13:41, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Unused private photo - out of project scope. Art-top (talk) 13:04, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 13:57, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Blatant copyright violation; obviosly a TV screenshot (CNN). The flickr user is not authorized to publish such screenshots under free Creative Commons licenses High Contrast (talk) 16:46, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted, obvious COM:DW copyviol; false license on Flickr, should not have been uploaded to Commons. -- Infrogmation (talk) 22:35, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
obvious copyright violation, over 100 google hits Polarlys (talk) 17:14, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Photo by Frazer Harrison/Getty Images. Martin H. (talk) 17:41, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Suspicious file name. The name on the form a_b_c_n.jpg reminds of the Facebook syntax a_b_c_d_e_n.jpg (where a, b, c, d and e are long numbers). Stefan4 (talk) 20:07, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 20:45, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Circa 1981 and copyright Douglas Kirkland-Corbis. User's source is a blog displaying the photo.We hope (talk) 21:28, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Delete per nom. -- Infrogmation (talk) 21:55, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 22:38, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
a very creative use of {{PD-because}}: Promoting of a concert JuTa 21:32, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 22:38, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Thehoboclown as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: The image is a non-free logo from here, which should be removed from the commons and re-uploaded to the wikipeda. Sreejith K (talk) 09:03, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: there was no license at all JuTa 16:41, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Thehoboclown as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: The image is a non-free logo from here, which should be removed from the commons and re-uploaded to the wikipeda. Sreejith K (talk) 09:03, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: there was no license at all JuTa 16:41, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
Template:Delete first version 2012-6-16
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 08:33, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
Commons is not a online-shop Wer?Du?! (talk) 22:57, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 08:29, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
Commons is not a online-shop Wer?Du?! (talk) 22:57, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 08:29, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
Commons is not a online-shop Wer?Du?! (talk) 22:57, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 08:29, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
Unused personal photo, out of COM:SCOPE russavia (talk) 07:10, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 18:59, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
unused personal photo, out of COM:SCOPE russavia (talk) 07:10, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. No other contributions by user who uploaded this more than a year ago. -- Infrogmation (talk) 22:02, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 18:59, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
unused personal photo, out of COM:SCOPE russavia (talk) 07:12, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 19:00, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
unused personal photo out of COM:SCOPE russavia (talk) 07:13, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 19:01, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
Unused private photo - out of project scope. Art-top (talk) 07:50, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
- And also:
- File:Alan3.JPG
- File:Alan6.JPG
- File:Alan18.JPG
- File:Alan7.JPG
- File:Alan8.JPG
- File:Alan9.JPG
- File:Alan19.JPG
- File:Alan20.JPG
- File:Alan12.JPG
- File:Alan13.JPG
- File:Alan14.JPG
- File:Alan15.JPG
- File:Alan21.JPG
- File:Alan22.JPG
- File:Alan23.JPG
- File:Alan25.JPG
- File:Alan27.JPG
- File:Alan29.JPG
- File:Alan30.JPG
- File:Alan31.JPG
- File:Alan40.JPG
- --Art-top (talk) 07:56, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 19:05, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
Unused, uncategorized, no author, no description - out of project scope, doubtful license. Art-top (talk) 09:06, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 19:06, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
Not educational - out of project scope. Low resolution, without exif - doubtful authorship. Art-top (talk) 09:32, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 19:06, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
already deleted once. low res, no educational value. Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 07:01, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:11, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
Personal work, may be promotional since picture includes a web address. Out of scope. Mippzon (talk) 19:57, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 20:30, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
Unused private photo - out of project scope. Art-top (talk) 12:38, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 19:12, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
Unused private photo - out of project scope. Art-top (talk) 12:39, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 19:12, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
Unused private photo - out of project scope. Art-top (talk) 12:40, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 19:12, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
Unused private photo - out of project scope. Art-top (talk) 12:41, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
- Delete per nom; uploader description "English: mmvnb". -- Infrogmation (talk) 22:32, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 19:12, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photoalbum. Not used. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:02, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 19:13, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
Does this have an educational use? oos? Chesdovi (talk) 15:46, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 19:14, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
usued logo, oos Chesdovi (talk) 15:46, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 19:14, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
out of scope blog page ss Chesdovi (talk) 15:47, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 19:16, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
unused, oos Chesdovi (talk) 15:48, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 19:17, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
unused, out of scope Chesdovi (talk) 15:49, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 19:17, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
unused personal photo: "it's me!" Chesdovi (talk) 15:49, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 19:17, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
personal photo, Fida Hussain is not notable Chesdovi (talk) 15:52, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 19:18, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
Nonsense or out of scope. 丁 (talk) 16:28, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 19:18, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. No possible encylopedic use. Also {{Personality rights}} applies. Sreejith K (talk) 18:08, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
- Delete Out of scope: I don't see any encyclopædic use for this photo. I don't see why personality rights would apply. Although the cat might not have understood that someone was taking a photo of it, I fail to see how the woman wouldn't be aware of this. According to Flickr, the photo shows the Flickr user's cat, and based on the other photos from that Flickr account, the girl seems to be the Flickr account holder. If you upload a photo of yourself using your own Flickr account, you obviously do approve to appear on a photo. However, since the photo shows the Flickr account holder, it would seem that someone other than the Flickr account holder took the photo, so we don't know if the photographer approved to the Flickr account holder's use of the CC-BY licence. Thus, no evidence of permission from the photographer. --Stefan4 (talk) 15:15, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 19:15, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
just another GTK project. here out of scope Hedwig in Washington (MAIL?) 01:26, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Kept: In use on eswiki Ezarateesteban 17:41, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
out of scope Hedwig in Washington (MAIL?) 03:13, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Kept: in use Ezarateesteban 17:45, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 07:05, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of scope Ezarateesteban 17:48, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 07:06, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope Lymantria (talk) 09:28, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
The picture does not belong to Frachet. It was actually taken by me in May 2008. I own the original version of this picture (798x1200 pixels) and I have published it on the following website: http://www.landrucimetieres.fr/spip/spip.php?article1442 (Monument Guilleminet. Statue par P. Claitte).— Preceding unsigned comment added by MarieVonB (talk • contribs) 07:16, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
Frachet ne détient pas de droits d'auteur sur ce fichier. À l'origine, ce document vient du site suivant : http://www.landrucimetieres.fr/spip/spip.php?article1442 où il a été pris sans autorisation. MarieVonB (talk) 07:15, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
- Delete No evidence that Frachet is the one who shot the picture. I don't think it's necessary to prove the claim to own the original here, but it probably wouldn't hurt either. --El Grafo (talk) 16:18, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
- Delete Pix is same as on thelandrucimetieres.fr website (even EXIF params and reduced pixel dims). Credible claim by MarieVonB with no rebuttal. Glrx (talk) 01:04, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
- Delete Here is the link to the same picture (bigger size) on my Flickr account: http://www.flickr.com/photos/58771062@N05/7427710452/in/photostream. MarieVonB
Deleted: Copyrighted Lymantria (talk) 09:30, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
This is a sculpture by a living sculptor, Bernard Romain. There is no FOP in Belgium. BrightRaven (talk) 07:51, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
- It seems the uploader is the sculptor. I have asked him to send an e-mail to OTRS. BrightRaven (talk) 08:01, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Kept: OTRS Permission Bapti ✉ 15:36, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
This is a sculpture by a living sculptor, Bernard Romain. There is no FOP in Belgium. BrightRaven (talk) 07:51, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
- It seems the uploader is the sculptor. I have asked him to send an e-mail to OTRS. BrightRaven (talk) 08:02, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Kept: OTRS Permission Bapti ✉ 15:36, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
contemporary photo, marked as "unknown author"; uploader has problems with vandalisms Pibwl (talk) 15:28, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Given cross wiki issues with this user deleted Herby talk thyme 16:00, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
contemporary photo, marked as "unknown" author; uploader has problems with vandalisms Pibwl (talk) 15:31, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Given cross wiki issues with this user deleted Herby talk thyme 16:01, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
File:Army National Guard Insignia.jpg Duplicate uploaded to bypass the DR of the first one
File:National Guard.gif Transfered to Commons but also from the Army Institute of Heraldry's website which holds copyright
SVG at File:US Army National Guard Insignia.svg. Also the Army Institute of Heraldry (where these two images were grabbed from) has a clear copyright warning at the bottom for all it's images, therefore this rendition is a violation. Fry1989 eh? 19:17, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 17:30, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
Tippfehler im Name - Verschieberest. Wäre nett - besten Dank. ST ○ 21:22, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 17:30, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
Uploader claimed to be John Baselmans (nl:Gebruiker:Baselmans) and uploaded the pictures as own work under a free license. But now an IP claims to be John Baselmans and wants the images deleted (1).
Hoo man (talk) 00:48, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
- Delete When in doubt, delete. The first image is a copyvio, TNT (NL-mail) and author share the copyright. I believe the same law is in effect on the NL-Antilles. Without OTRS all images are copyvios IMHO. --Hedwig in Washington (MAIL?) 01:14, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
♦♦ I do not understand that drawings (schildpadden - curacao market - Iguanaman) made by me I can't give permission to place them. If you see the schildpadden.gif that was placed by an administrator from the Netherlands and we NL-Antilles are a part of the Netherlands. This administrator this this work because I send him a written letter that this is my work. All the other drawings and photographs coming from my hand. I'm not a computer nerd who knows how to work with all these codes and that is the reason I stopped participate on this wikipedia project. For me it looks more that you people do not believe I make this work and photographs. Please visit my website www.johnbaselmans.com to see that this is my work who I was willing to share with wikipedia. But it looks like my work is not welcome here.
Also this whole wikipedia page is no longer up to date. I wrote over 52 books, made newer postal stamps and did also a lot sculpting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Baselmans (talk • contribs) 01:56, 18. Jun. 2012 (UTC)
- No need to get angry. :-) It seems to be a misunderstanding. We here don't know who is the real Baselmans. That's why I wrote when in doubt, delete. We HAVE to follow the copyright laws and if we can't figure out who is the real author, we have to delete to protect the author and wikimedia commons. The stamps are, in my humble opinion, not Baselmans sole property. The NL laws state that the copyright on postage images is shared between TNT and the author of the picture. We need to have the permission from both. The other images seem to me non-problematic. Very helpful would be an email to our OTRS-Team. They can verify the author and tag the picture with the appropriate permission. Please have a look here: Commons:OTRS/nl. And your work is welcome here, very much so. We LOVE to have quality here. Thanks for your time! --Hedwig in Washington (MAIL?) 04:27, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
- My name is John Baselmans (may 20 1954) and the first reaction I saw I answered not logged in. It looks that Veertje take action against me for a reason I do not know. This image/drawing was made by my self and gives the administrator in the Netherlands a written permit from me and the postoffice from Curacao to place it on wikipedia! He placed the image as you can see and there must be a history of that some where! Now 5 years later I see veertje want to take all the images away I give permit to place. I do not know how I place the license and wrote that Veertje but it seems nobody want to help me. If everything is a problem do what you want to do but I do not give ANY permission for my work ever to wikipedia after this! Always there are people out there who think they are God. I'm not the technician who know how to change permissions and all these codes. I'm an artist who want to participate and help where I can but can not spend my valuable time to fight with frustrated people like here! Sorry I'm mad but this goes me to far.
- PS For the last time I give wikipedia permission to place the images who now on Wikipedia
Sincerely John H Baselmans Curacao 18 juni 2012 (my native language is dutch so that explain my bad englis sorry for that)
- You do realise you aren't giving permission to have your drawings be used on Wikipedia alone? Wikimedia Commons is a database of images with some level of educational value that have been licensed in a way that allows commercial use. You have given your drawings and photographs a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike. This means that anyone can use them as long as they attribute the work to you, and when they make a derivative work should use the same license. Wikipedia is an open encyclopedea, and strives to be as accessible as possible. That means that materials published here and there should have the option of being reused on other platforms, and that includes publications that are considered commercial.
- I haven't nominated the the drawings who have been listed here. I don't see a problem with the drawings as long as you understand the terms of the license. The postage stamps however, are commisioned drawings. You got payed for them and in return, the postal company owns part of the copyright. You are simply not the only one who gets to deside wheather or not they get published.
- Please be more considered of our mission here. I am just as much a volunteer as you are here. Commons can only stay a collection of freely licensed work when we remove copyright infringements. --Vera (talk) 15:00, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
- I know these drawings and photographs in Wikipedia are around the world. As you can see I do not protect my drawings even on my websites and as long they put my name with, there is no problem. As I wrote above; in 2007 there was a long briefing about these stamps and I send Wikipedia (administrator) a written letter from the post office Netherlands Antilles who declared by its Director Mr. Sidney Paulina that there was no problem to put these stamps on Wikipedia. That letter must be somewhere in your files. Later on I got even a compliment from this director for taking just that from all my over thousand drawings to let them place there. The administrator in the Netherlands helped me to make the right tags. Now 5 years later again these stamps are a problem. I know the copyrights very well and if you can see on my website I owned 3 different advertising agencies (Curacao-Holland and US) and never got problems about copyrights.
- As I wrote, I stopped to be volunteer Wikipedia because I do not understand all these codes. I thought to help with some articles. But I'ts nothing for me to sit and play games on the internet. I have to write books, make drawings and be there for people. For me case is now closed because this all tooks more as a day telling you people who made the pictures and drawings. again again.
- Dear John, I've contacted a guy I know who works on the OTRS system. He has found your letter that states that the stamps can be published on Wikipedia. It also says that they aren't allowing the picture to be published anywhere else. This isn't a kind of license we allow here on Commons, nor on the Dutch Wikipedia. The picture of the stamps should have been deleted at that point. We are puzzled why that wasn't done at the time. --Vera (talk) 21:42, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
- "dear john, whyn't you go buzz off, we should gave deleted before" & "when in doubt delete" either send the man an OTRS compliant email, and tag it OTRS pending, or be known as deletionist vandals. when you Assume Bad Faith of uploaders, you harm the project. i take it that is your intent. yet another novice driven off. Slowking4⇔ †@1₭ 03:18, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
- Your indignation isn't entirely justified, when you check out his userpage you can see I put a lot of effort into explaining why his images were nominated for deletion. --Vera (talk) 13:59, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
- "dear john, whyn't you go buzz off, we should gave deleted before" & "when in doubt delete" either send the man an OTRS compliant email, and tag it OTRS pending, or be known as deletionist vandals. when you Assume Bad Faith of uploaders, you harm the project. i take it that is your intent. yet another novice driven off. Slowking4⇔ †@1₭ 03:18, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
- Dear John, I've contacted a guy I know who works on the OTRS system. He has found your letter that states that the stamps can be published on Wikipedia. It also says that they aren't allowing the picture to be published anywhere else. This isn't a kind of license we allow here on Commons, nor on the Dutch Wikipedia. The picture of the stamps should have been deleted at that point. We are puzzled why that wasn't done at the time. --Vera (talk) 21:42, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Kept, but one, nomination of most of these images was based on a misunderstanding. Consent that was given to publish the stamps is too restrictive for commons. Vera (talk) 13:59, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Astarothmli (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of scope, personal photos. Commons is not Facebook.
- File:Marcos Cambrany Sandoval.JPG
- File:Marcos Cambrany Bubulubueno.JPG
- File:Marcos Cambrany en Colegio de San Nicolás de Hidalgo.JPG
- File:Marcos Cambrany.JPG
- File:Marcos Cambrany.jpg
– JBarta (talk) 01:11, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 18:57, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
Files uploaded by George Miquilena (talk · contribs)
[edit]parts of the collages can be found on the internet. not own work, sources missing.
- File:Acariguacollage.png
- File:Ciudadbolivarcollage.png
- File:Maturincollage.png
- File:Sancristobalcollage.png
- File:Ciudadguayana.png
- File:Barcelonacollage.png
- File:Maracacaycollage.png
- File:Maracaibocollage.png
Hedwig in Washington (MAIL?) 01:27, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
out of scope
Hedwig in Washington (MAIL?) 01:28, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Comment My bad, I thought of the panorama timeshare company. The newspaper is within scope. Shall we keep both? I think the license should be pd-texlogo? --Hedwig in Washington (MAIL?) 01:54, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: non sources provided Ezarateesteban 17:42, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
Commons has more than enough nudity & genitalia images. Delete per COM:PENIS and COM:PORN.
- File:My precum.jpg
- File:MeinPenis.jpg
- File:OpenVulva.jpg
- File:SchwangereL.jpg
- File:UnshavedLis3.jpg
- File:UnshavedLis2.jpg
- File:UnshavedLis.jpg
– JBarta (talk) 06:04, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: stop pennis Ezarateesteban 17:46, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
Either out of scope or copyvios (see e.g. File:10ng93wu49h93h.jpg)
- File:15fj29j4g92g923j4g.jpg
- File:13f923hjf92h49f.jpg
- File:11nvi9wh4g98h38.jpg
- File:09gfih3e8rhg58.jpg
- File:10ng93wu49h93h.jpg
- File:07dju347rh3ujrf8ej.jpg
- File:01hdyegehdiuwgfd.jpg
- File:03fhdd747h4uf8r.jpg
- File:05 fjuf488jh4hgu.jpg
- File:74hbgir8rhg.jpg
- File:Vjf774hr8fh3eheu.jpg
- File:F74hrfi9v84ufh.jpg
- File:74ht8v7rhrhvhf.jpg
- File:73nf984htu7g.jpg
- File:74bgug684j.jpg
- File:4678hrtfuj.jpg
- File:48ed8vb7t5j.jpg
- File:7ch474jfg9g.jpg
- File:Sfjwryjwryj.jpg
- File:4adgnhae.jpg
- File:Learning and leaning.jpg
- File:Dfhgfbdghadb.jpg
- File:Asrgdghsdg.jpg
RE rillke questions? 14:39, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: nuked Denniss (talk) 14:56, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
artist without article, please see Commons:Project scope
- File:PINTURA10.jpg
- File:Oleo son titulo2.jpg
- File:Sin Titulo Rojo Sobre Azul.jpg
- File:Oleo con cordeles.jpg
- File:INVASION2.jpg
- File:Patagonia Chilena - Oleo sobre tela - Zamora 2011.jpg
- File:JORGE ZAMORA NAVARRO.jpg
Polarlys (talk) 17:12, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 19:19, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
unused, personal file, see COM:SCOPE
- File:Talib Haider reporting from Balakot.jpg
- File:Talib Haider with Winners Students Girls in Intra School Debate Competition Karachi 2011.jpg
- File:Talib Haider with Students 2011 Inter School Debate Competition.jpg
- File:Talib Haider in Balakot (Pakistan).jpg
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Polarlys (talk) 17:35, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 19:16, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
Files from Flickr account Odabade
[edit]
Only 2 files uploaded to Flickr account Odabade'. The files uploaded in the same day to Commons. Taken possibly from her. --Geagea (talk) 23:39, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 08:31, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
Non-free logo as per COM:TOO#UK Sreejith K (talk) 05:43, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 07:17, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 07:09, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 07:15, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Doubtful authorship - low resolution for own work, no original exif. Art-top (talk) 09:40, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 07:14, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
The source page (Museum) says that there are no known copyright restrictions, but that it is the user of the image that has to make sure that no copyright of third persons is infringed. IMHO this is against Commons policy. ALE! ¿…? 09:52, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 07:17, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
The subject claims to be the author. Strong doubt. Pleclown (talk) 18:58, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 07:19, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
The subject claims to be the author. Strong doubt. Pleclown (talk) 18:58, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 07:19, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 07:06, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 21:17, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 07:07, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 21:42, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 07:10, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 21:01, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope, no permission. Ices2Csharp (talk) 07:11, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 21:55, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 07:12, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 21:59, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Indoor. No panorama freedom. . HombreDHojalata.talk 08:17, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 21:37, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
personal image, out of project scope Trex2001 (talk) 08:54, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 21:33, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Doubtful authorship - low resolution for own work, no original exif. Art-top (talk) 09:10, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 21:36, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Doubtful authorship - low resolution for own work, no original exif. Art-top (talk) 10:14, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 21:41, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Doubtful authorship - look like as cover or logo image. Art-top (talk) 10:44, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 20:59, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Doubtfurl authorship - low resolution for own work, no original exif. Art-top (talk) 13:02, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 21:20, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
This commemorative plaque was created around 2000-s, its author is not indicated. No FoP in Ukraine. Shureg (talk) 13:13, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 22:04, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Apparent copyvio or misattribution. Flickr user's initials are MC, but the watermark is MB. 99of9 (talk) 14:07, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 20:56, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Possible copyvio from http://www.theory.nipne.ro/~poenaru/ - not clear whether the Commons image is taken from there or vice versa. ukexpat (talk) 14:30, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 21:01, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Copyright violation Riley Huntley (talk) 15:11, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 21:36, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
USED AT USERPAGE, BUT EDITOR IS NOT A USER, soapboxing Chesdovi (talk) 15:51, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 21:46, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Dodany przez przypadek w ramach testowania Wikimedia Commons. Przepraszam! Abaran (talk) 16:12, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 20:44, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Okładka książki Asymetria. Rosyjska ruletka.jpg Patrycjusz (talk) 11:32, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
Likely a screenshot/capture from video/movie. -- Túrelio (talk) 16:15, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 22:00, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Image is all over the internet on filmsites and fan image-collections; not sure this uploader (who has other image-licensing problems on .en) actually took the photograph himself DMacks (talk) 16:32, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 21:48, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Highly unlikely that this image is User:DOrgnar own work. High Contrast (talk) 17:03, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 21:36, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
This file is not PD. It comes from Sandia National Laboratories, who claim copyright and reserve all rights, as per their copyright notice. It is one of many files incorrectly assumed to be PD-USGov-DOE, as discussed at Template talk:PD-USGov-DOE. Bomazi (talk) 17:16, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 21:22, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
The witch from Disney's Snowwhite, copyrighted design. FunkMonk (talk) 17:42, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 21:08, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Probably not free. Fry1989 eh? 19:26, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 21:32, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Amitie 10g as Speedy. But isn't this {{PD-textlogo}}? Sreejith K (talk) 19:28, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 21:25, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
According to a comment here, the picture may violate copyright. Tomer T (talk) 19:43, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 21:26, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
accoding the used license: date and source of any publication prior to 20 year old ar not provided. JuTa 19:54, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 21:30, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Well, I doubt that this photograph was really taken by the uploader. My doubts are based on the fact that this user has uploaded this single image. Besides, this photo seems more to be the work of a prifessional, authorized photographer during this event. The problem is that this image could hardly be found on the web (at least the original one). This scan of the photograph from the olympic games in 1972 could be appeared in some book of the games or something like that. 188.104.124.79 21:00, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 21:35, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
This appears to be circa 1981, not pre 1978. photo of the actress by Douglas Kirkland at Corbis Images in same clothing which he dates at circa 1981.We hope (talk) 23:19, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 21:14, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Screen capture from copyrighted film Jtalledo (talk) 23:22, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 21:58, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Unused private photo - out of project scope. Art-top (talk) 08:10, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
- Comment Keepable, a good ethnographic portrait. But without a more precise description not very much of use. -- Herby (Vienna) (talk) 14:44, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
Close as Kept; agree with Herby (Vienna). Location identified and categories added. -- Infrogmation (talk) 12:02, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
I, the nominator nominate this image/picture for deletion from the Wikimedia Commons. The picture looks like a cutout form a magazine or a cutout from a film or a television serial clip. To add to this, the image is of low resolution and very small in size. Also, there is no source of where is the origin of the image taken or coming from. There is no proof or validity just by looking at the picture that the description of the picture if what is really shown in the picture, I ask to delete this image without further delay as this image does not meet the copyright criteria of Wikimedia Commons. Varghese Jacob (talk) 11:49, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
- It certainly looks like a screenshot or similar derivative work. Delete unless the uploader provides a satisfactory explanation. -- Infrogmation (talk) 22:30, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
No explanation has been offered. Deleted. Infrogmation (talk) 12:09, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
Hoax - no credible source Président (talk) 13:21, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
- That image, I'm sure I have seen it many times before (Dutch history?) .... Just can't remember the name that goes along with it. But yeah, this looks like a hoax. TheDJ (talk) 07:34, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. (That TheDJ has "seen it many times before" is some indication that it might be a notable hoax, but also clarifies that the uploader's claim that it is their own original work from 2012 is also false.) Infrogmation (talk) 12:13, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
Color version available at File:Workshop of Jheronimus Bosch 005.jpg. Vincent Steenberg (talk) 18:33, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
- The color version is of very low resolution; although the black and white version also has other issues (overall poor quality; cropped), some details might still be better recognizable in the high resolution image, so maybe it would make sense to keep it for the time being? Gestumblindi (talk) 00:37, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
Kept -- Infrogmation (talk) 12:16, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by WhisperToMe as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: Non-free logo: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Wi-Fi_Logo.svg identifies it as non-free!!!! Sreejith K (talk) 09:04, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
- I actually think PD-textlogo and PD-shape would apply in the US. Fry1989 eh? 04:25, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
- But would it apply to this image in particular? If so, why? Shape says that "simple geometry" is depicted, while text says "simple geometric shapes and/or text" - IMO it doesn't look simple enough WhisperToMe (talk) 16:23, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
- I wouldn't say it if I wasn't talking about this logo in particular. Fry1989 eh? 17:51, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
- But would it apply to this image in particular? If so, why? Shape says that "simple geometry" is depicted, while text says "simple geometric shapes and/or text" - IMO it doesn't look simple enough WhisperToMe (talk) 16:23, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
- Note - If this image is decided to be a copyright violation, please delete File:Wi-Fi Logo.svg too. --Sreejith K (talk) 17:57, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
Kept: The SVG version has been moved from en.wiki to Commons. Sreejith K (talk) 19:37, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
see Commons:Currency#Hungary, coins of the Hungarian forint are copyrighted to their respective designers. Teemeah (talk) 08:35, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Also listing the other Forint coin images:
- File:HUF 3000 2012 Madách obverse.jpg
- File:HUF 50 2006 1956 reverse.jpg
- File:HUF 50 2006 vöröskereszt obverse.jpg
- File:HUF 100 2002 Kossuth reverse.jpg
- File:HUF 50 2004 EU reverse.jpg
- File:HUF 50 2005 gyermekmentő obverse.jpg
- File:HUF 50 2004 EU obverse.jpg
- File:HUF 20 2012 reverse.jpg
- File:HUF 50 2006 vöröskereszt reverse.jpg
- File:HUF 50 2007 romai szerzodes obverse.jpg
- File:HUF 50 2005 gyermekmentő reverse.jpg
- File:HUF 50 2006 1956 obverse.jpg
- File:HUF 200 2012 reverse.jpg
- File:HUF 50 2007 romai szerzodes reverse.jpg
- File:Special coin Hungary 2007.jpg
- File:HUF 20 Deák reverse.jpg
- File:HUF 20 Deák obverse.jpg
- File:HUF 100 2002 Kossuth obverse.jpg
- File:HUF 10 2005 József Attila reverse.jpg
- File:HUF 10 2005 József Attila obverse.jpg
- File:Ungheria 50 fiorini.JPG
- File:Ungheria 2 forint.JPG
- File:Ungheria 100 forint.JPG
- File:Ungheria 1 fiorino.JPG
- File:Monedashungria.png
- File:Magyar apró pénz.jpg
- File:HundertForint.jpg
- File:HUF 50 2012 obverse.jpg
- File:HUF 50 1992 reverse2.JPG
- File:HUF 50 1992 obverse2.jpg
- File:HUF 5 2012 reverse.jpg
- File:HUF 5 2012 obverse.jpg
- File:HUF 5 1992 reverse2.JPG
- File:HUF 5 1992 obverse2.jpg
- File:HUF 200 2012 obverse.jpg
- File:HUF 200 2009 reverse2.png
- File:HUF 200 2009 obverse2.png
- File:HUF 20 2012 obverse.jpg
- File:HUF 20 1992 reverse2.JPG
- File:HUF 20 1992 obverse2.jpg
- File:HUF 2 1992 reverse2.jpg
- File:HUF 100 2012 obverse.jpg
- File:HUF 50 2012 reverse.jpg
- File:HUF 100 2012 reverse.jpg
- File:HUF 100 1996 PP obverse2.jpg
- File:HUF 10 2012 reverse.jpg
- File:HUF 10 2012 obverse.jpg
- File:HUF 10 1992 reverse2.JPG
- File:HUF 10 1992 obverse2.jpg
- File:HUF 1 1992 reverse.jpg
- File:FerencDeak.jpg
- File:5forint.jpg
- File:200huf1.JPG
- File:HUF 5000 2012 Reményi reverse.jpg
Teemeah (talk) 08:41, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
- anyone?? Teemeah (talk) 11:10, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Per discussion. MBisanz talk 02:34, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 10:10, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
- Keep Clearly in scope as it shows the comemorations of the 200 years of NOAA and its predecessors as well it relations with students (in this specific image) and the general public. Also I would like to ask to the deletion requester to explain, in more than three words, as to why does he thinks that this image is out of scope. Tm (talk) 15:55, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
- This file does not have any educational value and is therefore out of scope. (14 words) - Ices2Csharp (talk) 15:58, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
- Comment And why is it that it doesnt have "any educational value and is therefore out of scope" as I have stated before this image was taken in the context of the comemorations of the 200 years of the United States federal government National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and its predecessors.
- This file does not have any educational value and is therefore out of scope. (14 words) - Ices2Csharp (talk) 15:58, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Also this image is educational enough as it shows (the irony) educational activities. Especifically it shows one of several educational interactions with students and it is given in the description:
"On a beautiful June morning at Constitution Gardens on the National Mall in Washington DC, NOAA Fisheries volunteers helped 25 kids from Ross Elementary School learn about the glorious fun that is boating and fishing. The kids had a blast, and so did the NOAA Fisheries volunteers! One of the kids jumped up and down with excitement and his 3" fish, (which he then released) and shouted, "This is the best day of my whole life!" The annual event is a collaboration of the National Park Service, the Department of the Interior, NOAA, DC Fisheries Program, and the non-profit Recreational Boating and Fishing Foundation."
So why is this file that shows educational interactions and NOAA, not educational value? Tm (talk) 16:10, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
- Even if the event itself would be notable, nothing of your enthusiastic story is visible in the picture. This is just a group photo of non notable people. Ices2Csharp (talk) 21:37, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
- Keep The U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration is a notable organization, with Wikipedia articles in some 28 languages. This is how they chose to celebrate their 200th anniversary. Free licensed "slice of life" photo illustrative of the culture of a notable organization. -- Infrogmation (talk) 22:22, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Kept: Per discussion. MBisanz talk 02:35, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
Es handelt sich hier um pure Theoriefindung. Valide wissenschaftliche Quellen zu dem Thema sind keine aufzutun. Lediglich Verschwörungszeugs und brauner Wirrkram, bestehend aus Hörensagen, Vermutungen und jeder Menge Spekulatius. Weissbier (talk) 10:13, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
- Keep ist aber trotzdem im scope--Sanandros (talk) 17:57, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
- Keep article in stabilisation. see[1] + [2] --178.13.20.114 19:50, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
- Keep widly international used. --91.59.40.13 19:58, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
- Keep. Look the other answers. --MittlererWeg (talk) 10:12, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
- vgl. Zeichnungs-Nr. E-30404/1 vom 29. Dezember 1942 von Krupp. Quellen:
- Fritz Hahn: Waffen und Geheimwaffen des deutschen Heeres 1933-1945. Bernard & Graefe, Bonn 1998, ISBN 3-7637-5915-8, S. 92.
- Michael Ellenbogen: Gigantische Visionen – Architektur und Hochtechnologie im Nationalsozialismus. 1 Auflage. Ares Verlag, Graz 2006, ISBN 3-902475-25-0, S. 135.
- TF sieht anders aus! HexaChord (talk) 19:00, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
- Keep there exist plans for this monster --Hedwig Klawuttke (talk) 09:51, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
- Keep all said...--LutzBruno (talk) 09:09, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
- Keep Sehr interessanter und aufschlussreicher Artikel. Hört bitte mit eurer Platzwartmentalität hier in Wikipedia auf. Ihr vernichtet die Arbeit von tausenden Menschen nur um eure psychischen Abarten auszuleben. IHR seid nicht relevant für die Wikipedia also geht da hin wo ihr herkommt ihr Löschnazis! 85.127.12.171 02:52, 03 August 2012 (UTC)
- Keep kann mich bur anscließen, sowas zu löschen wäre nicht in ordnung
Kept: Per discussion. MBisanz talk 02:33, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
not used, no proper description, out of scope (see others by uploader too) Chesdovi (talk) 15:44, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
- Delete all Many file names consist of five long numbers separated by a space and with an "n" at the end. Those are Facebook file names and the middle number is the Facebook account number. Since the third number differs from image to image, it is possible to tell that multiple Facebook accounts have been involved. No evidence that the uploader operates sockpuppets on Facebook. Besides, it is not clear if the photos are owned by the Facebook users either or if the files are copyvios on Facebook too. --Stefan4 (talk) 20:16, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Per discussion. MBisanz talk 02:36, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
Photo listed as copyright 2006 Getty Images. We hope (talk) 21:40, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
- Obvious PD film promo photo, taken in 1971 per Getty. If Getty owns the copyright, it does not show up in a search for 2006 or any other year.--Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 23:27, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
- May or may not be. impossible to determine without seeing the full image + backside for confirmation there's no copyright notice. --Denniss (talk) 00:10, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
- The sellers, professional dealers, would not have altered the original photo by trimming without mentioning that. They also have a Certificate of Authenticity shown on their listing. Typically, a dealer selling a photo for $425 would disclose any other printed info. Autographed, posed promo photos are for the film's publicity, not art. If you want me to ask what's on the back, let me know. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 02:09, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
- It's up to you, the uploader, to provide all information required to ensure an image falls under this special copyright excempt. The includes an unaltered image front and back as those relevant infos are often noted on the back. --Denniss (talk) 10:18, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 04:02, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
and
- File:Meir and Boerentoren 2.JPG
- File:Meir and Boerentoren.JPG
- File:Boerentoren 4.JPG
- File:Boerentoren 5.JPG
- File:Boerentoren 6.JPG
- File:Kbc-building-antwerpen.jpg
COM:FOP#Belgium. 84.61.149.75 20:27, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Please use a more specific tag. This is a building build in the 1931. Nothing to do with "Modern pieces of art". A complete motivation is necessary. Smiley.toerist (talk) 13:33, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
- DeleteThis is a FOP issue. no real need to get more specific about it. The two architects died in 1958 and 1973 respectively. So these images should be removed. --Vera (talk) 19:31, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Al discussion about this building should be done in one thread centraly, not every image individualy.Smiley.toerist (talk) 13:43, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
- merged all DR;s with this one. --Vera (talk) 19:31, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
KeepThe no-FOP rule on buildings in Belgium is restricted to buildings wich are considered "artwork". Not standaard everyday buildings. This means distinctive creative buildings. This building was one of the first "American" skyscrapers in the style of the late 1920's. (stepped pyramids) Locally the building was distinctive and unusual. The architect did no more than copy the style of the American skyscrapers at the time. Is this creative work? There are no special architectural details such as with Horta. (design windows, etc) Only boring square windows and concrete. The only special feature is the box on top and some decorated coloms in the front.Smiley.toerist (talk) 08:44, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
- 3 architects worked on its design, There are ornamental statues featured on it's façade. It was remarkable enough to be featured on a post card. It was one of the first of its kind in Europe. --Vera (talk) 09:35, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
This issue was discussed in the Dutch wikipedia but no conclusion was reached.Smiley.toerist (talk) 08:50, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
- Oh, and we've been here before--Vera (talk) 19:43, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Keep I think FOP applies here. DimiTalen 09:56, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
- Don't you mean to say Delete then? --Vera (talk) 12:21, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
- Not necessarily, because his comment, Freedom of panorama applies here, is literally interpreted "it can be kept". SPQRobin (talk) 18:38, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
- There is no FOP in Belgium, this makes no sense --Vera (talk) 14:51, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
- Not necessarily, because his comment, Freedom of panorama applies here, is literally interpreted "it can be kept". SPQRobin (talk) 18:38, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
- No need to discuss FOP in Belgium, we won't change the law on this talk page. I also don't like copyright on CD-covers, but we delete those every day. Edoderoo (talk) 10:19, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
One argument that could be made is that the 1930's post card must have gotten permission to use the image of the building commercially. But we're not actually sure the author of the post card has been dead long enough. --Vera (talk) 13:27, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Keep A known building. Please do more usefull things than trying to delete usefull pictures. No need for copyright mania. If you delete this you can delete 90% of the pictures at Wikipedia. Only buildings were the author had declared that pictures are forbidden should be deleted like the Atomium and so on. A picture of the Boerentoren will not harm anybody. So strongly in favour of keeping the pictures.
BTW: I think the request is made by a vandal. Look at his user page. It's clearly a nomination to harm Wikipedia. --Zuydkamp (talk) 06:09, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
(wie deze afbeelding verwijderd is eigenlijk niets meer dan een ingelogde vandaal. We moeten de wet nu ook strikter dan noodzakelijk interpreteren. )
- You clearly don't know what this is about. Copyright doesn't work that way. You have copyright protection, unless you give it away. Not the otherway around. Not all countries concider architectural buildings as copyrightable, Belgium does. It's not trolling, you can't publish pictures of buildings from Belgium on a commercial basis if you don't have permission of the owner to do so. --Vera (talk) 14:51, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
- Sure the building itself is copyrighted. But that's not necessary the case for pictures of it, especially for pictures taken from the street. That's just a (very) strict interpretation of the law. Just a few organisation interpreted it so strict (like Atomium vzw). Let's follow that strict interpretation only when necessary. For other buildings there is no need for it since the change that somebody will complain is very limited.
- So please Keep. 1Veertje, are are not helping Wikipedia.--__ wɘster 11:29, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
- Delete No freedom of panorama in Belgium I'm afraid. Last surviving architect died in 1973. Copyright sucks.... Multichill (talk) 16:49, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
Keep I share the opinion of Smiley.tourist. --Stefn (talk) 17:44, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
- Keep - There is indeed no panorama freedom in Belgium. Modern pieces of art cannot be the central motive of a commercially available photograph without permission of the artwork copyright holder. However, on these pictures either parts of a building and street view, or several buildings and street view represent a city view, the image does not single out or shows a detailed view of the copyright protected building, so this is de minimis. Kvdh (talk) 06:38, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
- That is not the case in:
- and arguably neither so in the other pictures. --Vera (talk) 15:39, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
- Keep - this building is no "artwork", only a sort of copy of the stepped style of the American buildings from late 1920's. Further on, in Belgium there is absolutely no strict interpretation of the law. (only when the copyright holder is asking for). Pictures of this building are not blurred on Google Street View. Even the Flemish gouvernment (Vlaamse gemeenschap) is publishing pictures about this building which states that the FOP issue is almost dead letter in Belgium. Sonuwe (talk) 13:56, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
- How is this not artwork? I don't see advertisments on that website, making that publication non-commercial. There is also nothing stated about its FOP status. We on commons only allow pictures that can be published commercially. We had a big discussion when street view was launched in Belgium. It's there because they ignore local jurisdictions, it would be bad for commons if we did that. The 360 degree photographs are not like the kind of photographs we have here on Commons. --Vera (talk) 20:15, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
- No Vera. It's there because they have some common sense. You clearly haven't. And to be honest I think users like you are much more 'bad for commons' than copying Google's common sense policy. --__ wɘster 14:29, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
It's clear that there is no support to delete the images. Can we please close this discussion now?--__ wɘster 14:29, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
- If by consensus you mean that people are saying "keep because fop" in a non-fop country, saying that the building is an incidental feature when there are close-ups of the statues on its façade, and the fact that there is a previous DR that deleted the images, then yes, close this DR and remove these images already. Non-fop countries suck but this is a very clear violation of their copyright. Like Edodero said, this isn't a discussion on weather or not there is FOP in Belgium, there isn't. --Vera (talk) 21:03, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
- I think this is a mistrial since people seem to skip over the part where this DR concerns multiple images. I would suggest starting over. --Vera (talk) 13:34, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, but there is no COM:FOP#Belgium. Dura lex, sed lex. According to COM:PRP, the fact that a copyright holder seems to tolerate derivative works, has no relevance for Wikimedia Commons, unless the copyright holder has the work explicitly licensed under a free license. --84.61.164.191 13:09, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
- Nonsense. That's not workable. We can delete every photo then. There is no consensus to delete these photos so discussion closed.--__ wɘster 22:28, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: No FOP in Belguim. FASTILYs (TALK) 02:43, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
Copy apparently scanned from book copyrighted by Pergammon Press. Glrx (talk) 02:49, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
- Same thing as with the other two below: We need some evidence that a) user:Bnland is the original author of the graph and b) has not given his right to re-publish it to the publisher of the book. --El Grafo (talk) 15:40, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Info I contacted the uploader at his talk page at en:wp. He wrote me an email, stating that he made the three figures himself for the Atmospheric Electrodynamics book, but does not know if he gave away his right to re-publish them. Any idea how we can figure this out? --El Grafo (talk) 07:40, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 07:44, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
Illustration appears to be copied from a book; note left margin darkens indicating a binding. Glrx (talk) 02:51, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
- Putting together the file description (Volland and 1984) and the sources of the article the file is used in leads to the assumption that the graph was probably scanned from this Book: Hans Volland (1984): Atmospheric Electrodynamics, Springer. If the uploader claims to be the one who drew the graph back in 1984, he/she would have to to find a way to prove that, otherwise the file has to be deleted. I would appreciate a statement from user:Bnland here. --El Grafo (talk) 15:28, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
- Info I contacted the uploader at his talk page at en:wp. He wrote me an email, stating that he made the three figures himself for the Atmospheric Electrodynamics book, but does not know if he gave away his right to re-publish them. Any idea how we can figure this out? --El Grafo (talk) 07:41, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 07:46, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
Previously published; copyright uncertain. Glrx (talk) 02:53, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
- Comment If the uploader is the actual copyright holder as they claim, they may release it under such license as they wish. Just to be clear that copyright was not transferred to the publication when it was previously printed? -- Infrogmation (talk) 22:00, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
- Putting together the file description (Volland and 1984) and the sources of the article the file is used in leads to the assumption that the graph was probably scanned from this Book: Hans Volland (1984): Atmospheric Electrodynamics, Springer. If the uploader claims to be the one who drew the graph back in 1984, he/she would have to to find a way to prove that, otherwise the file has to be deleted. I would appreciate a statement from user:Bnland here. --El Grafo (talk) 15:33, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
- Info I contacted the uploader at his talk page at en:wp. He wrote me an email, stating that he made the three figures himself for the Atmospheric Electrodynamics book, but does not know if he gave away his right to re-publish them. Any idea how we can figure this out? --El Grafo (talk) 07:40, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 07:45, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
Appears to be incorrectly licensed. It uses this blog as its source, but we cannot determine from that either when the photograph was taken nor by whom. Since we know neither of these details, the uploader is not in a position to assert that 60 or more years have passed since either first publication or author's death. Sitush (talk) 08:55, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
- I'm going to guess this was taken before 1939 when he died. I am also suspicious of the licensing, however. It seems the depicted individual lived in the United States, so PD-India may not apply. -Nard (Hablemonos)(Let's talk) 18:32, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
- See this long discussion, though it was on another copy of this image! --Tito Dutta (Send me a message) 08:03, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Unclear copyright status. Unless we have clear, explicit written/textual, tangible evidence indicating that this file is indeed freely licensed under a Commons compatible license, we cannot host it on Commons FASTILY (TALK) 07:44, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
OB by File:Chez Ashton Hamel 05.JPG Chesdovi (talk) 11:03, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
- Sorry, but what does "OB" mean ? --MAURILBERT (discuter) 19:19, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
- Je crois que ça signifie un double. La seule différence notable entre cette image et l'image 5 est la présence de clients sortant du restaurant. La prise de vue présente l'édifice dans le même angle que celle de l'image 5. Je laisse à votre discrétion la décision de garder l'image ou non. Je garde cette page en suivi. -- ChristianT (talk) 11:40, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
- Merci pour l'explication. L'ensemble des photos que j'ai téléversées en même temps que celle-ci ont été prises dans le cadre de Wikipédia prend Québec ; étant donné que c'est un concours, et que des prix sont en jeu pour la meilleure photo et le meilleur portefolio, ce serait appréciable que toutes les photos que j'ai téléversées restent sur Commons au moins jusqu'à la remise des prix. Après... j'avoue ne pas être familier avec la politique de Commons envers les quasi-doublons comme celui-ci. Mon interprétation est que l'espace de stockage n'est pas un facteur déterminant pour décider de conserver 2 ou 3 photos plutôt qu'une. Donc, je laisserais plusieurs photos, afin que chaque réutilisateur décide lui-même de laquelle il veut se servir, suivant son besoin. --MAURILBERT (discuter) 14:15, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
- Je crois que ça signifie un double. La seule différence notable entre cette image et l'image 5 est la présence de clients sortant du restaurant. La prise de vue présente l'édifice dans le même angle que celle de l'image 5. Je laisse à votre discrétion la décision de garder l'image ou non. Je garde cette page en suivi. -- ChristianT (talk) 11:40, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 07:43, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Verica Atrebatum as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: This is a modern painting, at most ten years old, and is still in copyright Sreejith K (talk) 11:14, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
- The original uploader never gave any source information. Later, Angusmclellan added that it was a photo of a frieze at the Scottish National Portrait Gallery, painted by William Hole (d.1917): [3] Later, Verica Atrebatum stated that this identification is wrong, and that the image is of a modern frieze at Edinburgh Castle: [4].
- I've Googled around a bit, and although I can't confirm that it is a modern painting at the castle, it now seems to me that it it wasn't Hole's painting at the portrait gallery. For example, this website shows photos of his frieze: [5]. This one shows Malcolm Canmore, but it's different: [6]. Thanks to Sreejith K for listing this at Deletions requests. Unless someone can bring forward some other evidence, I think that this image should prolly be deleted—it doesn't seem to be part of Hole's work. I'll upload a cropped version of Hole's painting to replace this one. Done, see File:Margaret and Malcolm Canmore.jpg.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 11:56, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
![[3]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Malcolm_III.jpg&diff=34955155&oldid=34954943){kind=link}
![[4]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Malcolm_III.jpg&diff=72809692&oldid=42982143){kind=link}
![[6]](http://www.rampantscotland.com/famous/graphics/portrait_gallery_kenneth_maid_of_norway_x4961cf.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 07:45, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
See en:Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2012 June 10#File:Crémazie-StationArt.JPG. Stefan4 (talk) 13:57, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
- We do not have to come to the same conclusion as Wikipedia. This does not appear to be a painting, which would be mere 2D. It appears to be physical objects stuck to the wall in a pattern, in 3Dish manner. -Nard (Hablemonos)(Let's talk) 18:35, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
- Well, the "physical objects" seem to have things painted on them, and aren't most of them flat (i.e. 2D)? Hard to tell from the image, though. --Stefan4 (talk) 17:36, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 07:43, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
As the work is per se still copyrighted (sculptor died in 1970) and as the image was shot inside a zoo, we need to assess whether Commons:FOP#Germany is indeed applicable here, which I hope, but not sure about. -- Túrelio (talk) 15:00, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Da es Deutschland betrifft, auch auf deutsch: ich habe leise Zweifel, ob bei einer Aufnahme im Zoo die gesetzlichen Anforderungen bzgl. Panoramafreiheit wirklich erfüllt sind. --Túrelio (talk) 15:10, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Same question with File:Fritz Behn Bobby Berlin Zoo.jpg, File:Orang-Utan von Fritz Behn um 1935 - Bronce - Foto Simone Guski.jpg, File:Gorilla Bobby von Fritz Behn im Berliner Zoo - um 1938 - schwarzer Granit - Foto Simone Guski.jpg and File:Iguanodon-Skulptur Berlin Zoo.jpg (sculptor?). --Túrelio (talk) 15:04, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Also File:SchulgartenBehnPanther.jpg was shot in a "garden", though not in the same as the other Behn-sculptures. --Túrelio (talk) 16:03, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Möhring/Nicolini verneinen Panoramafreiheit, wenn Kontrollen und Eintritt vorhanden sind (beim Zoo der Fall). Bei Parks, die offen sind und nur abends geschlossen werden, wäre das was anderes. Vielleicht müssten wir hier also tatsächlich löschen. Andererseits sind diese Skulpturen seit Jahren hier unbeanstandet in diversen Files hochgeladen. --15:38, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
- FOP-"Verletzungen" fallen, wenn sie nicht krass sind, oft nur zufällig auf. Dass sie sich hier ggf. lange gehalten haben, bedeutet also nichts. --Túrelio (talk) 15:43, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 07:46, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
This is a great photograph, but unfortunately the design of the medal is copyrighted by the Government of Singapore. The copyright will only expire 70 years after the design was made. Assuming that this happened in 1962 when the award was instituted, the copyright in the design would lapse after 2032. In Singapore there is no special exemption from copyright for Government works. See "Commons:Licensing#Government works". — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 16:44, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Dear Jackasslee, I have specifically requested for permission from the Prime Minister's Office (which issued the medal) to upload a photograph of the medal (and the medal only - i.e. the medal is the main and only subject of the photograph) to Wiki Commons. The PMO has clearly stated that there is no requirement to seek permission for posting photographs of National Day Medals online. PM — Preceding unsigned comment added by ProjectManhattan (talk • contribs) 12:07, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- Well, if this fact is correct, it was not clear from the file description page because you used a {{Self}} template which suggests you are personally claiming copyright over the image. You need to comply with the requirements of "Commons:OTRS" by forwarding a copy of the e-mail indicating the consent of the Prime Minister's Office to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org so that this can be verified. (Note that the e-mail must clearly state that the Government of Singapore has released the copyright in the design of the medal under the CC-ZERO licence which you used. A statement like "you can use this image on Wikipedia" or "you can post this image on the Internet" is insufficient. For more information, see "Commons:OTRS".) — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 14:30, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Unclear copyright status. Unless we have clear, explicit written/textual, tangible evidence indicating that this file is indeed freely licensed under a Commons compatible license, we cannot host it on Commons FASTILY (TALK) 07:46, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Files in Category:Public footpaths in England
[edit]These images don't seem to be covered by COM:FOP#United Kingdom.
- File:Dollis Valley Greenway Map.JPG
- File:Dollis Valley Greenway Sign.JPG
- File:London Loop Section 18.JPG
Stefan4 (talk) 00:04, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Delete: The Dollis and London Loop signs also have significant amounts of presumably copyrighted text. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 03:32, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Per discussion. MBisanz talk 02:32, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
Files of User:JagtapDS
[edit]- File:AMBEDKAR JAYANTI.jpg
- File:Preeti Jagtap With Husbond Dnyaneshwar.jpg
- File:Picnik collage pdj.jpg
- File:Picnik collage pdj3.jpg
- File:Picnik collage shruti.jpg
- File:Picnik collage shruti2.jpg
- File:Picnik collage shruti3.jpg
- File:Picnik collage taj.jpg
- File:Preeti dnyaneshwar 2.jpg
- File:Family photo of dnyaneshwar jagtap.jpg
- File:Shruti d. jagtap.jpg
- File:Shruti dnyaneshwar jagtap.jpg
- File:9aebdcb9baff954732bf545de0e78bbc.jpg
- File:Images 8.jpg
- File:Images 9.jpg
- File:Images (3.jpg
- File:Sbvmm7.jpg
- File:COPITATIONS.jpg
- File:KALU1.jpg
- File:NOTEBOOK DESTRI & KARATE TRAINING1.jpg
- File:NOTEBOOK DESTRI & KARATE TRAINING2.jpg
- File:Sarvangeen balvikas manch.jpg
- File:Sbvmm13.jpg
- File:Ambedkar jayanti by sbvmm.jpg
- File:Sadhana dadhich.jpg
- File:Sbvmm logo.jpg
- File:Sbvmm meating.jpg
- File:Dnyaneshwar jagtap with preeti, priyanka and bipin at 1st birthday of doughter shruti.jpg
- File:First birthday of dnyneshwar and preeti jagtap.jpg
- File:Late- Sundarrao Genuji Jagtap ,father of dnyaneshwar jagtap.jpg
- File:Preeti and dnyaneshwar jagtapat 1st birthday of doughter shruti.jpg
- File:Preeti dnyaneshwar jagtap- june 2011.jpg
- File:Shruti dnyaneshwar jagtap 1st birthday.jpg
- File:Shruti dnyaneshwar jagtap 1st birthday -daman.jpg
- File:DNYANESHWAR SUNDAR JAGTAP( FOUNDER OF SARVANGEEN BALVIKAS MANCH ).jpg
- File:D.S.JAGTAP.jpg
- File:3 D.S.JAGTAP.jpg
- File:5D.S.JAGTAP.jpg
- File:DNYANESHWAR SUNDAR JAGTAP ( MARKAL ).jpg
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Most of files, uploaded by User:JagtapDS - unused private photos. Some of these is published here before upload to Commons, part - in very low resolution without exif (doubtful authorship). --Art-top (talk) 07:23, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 22:11, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Unused personal picture. Ices2Csharp (talk) 10:17, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Kept: in use Denniss (talk) 13:47, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Per previous nomination. I saw the usage in wikt:id:modeling, but this was clearly a bug. Nobody meant to use this picture in that article. I couldn't find the cause at the moment of nomination, but this has been fixed by now. Ices2Csharp (talk) 15:06, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Orphan personal photo, no in scope usefulness evident. Infrogmation (talk) 12:07, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
Dubious own work, small and no EXIF. E4024 (talk) 20:08, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Ruthven (msg) 05:25, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
Low resolution image. There are many better alternatives in Category:Vanessa cardui. Lymantria (talk) 10:40, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, but I think we don't have to delete this image, because it shows the presence of this specie of butterfly in a specific place, the Laguna de Gallocanta. This image can be useful to show that in the article "Laguna de Gallocanta" or "Comarca del Jiloca" to illustrate that. Kind regards.--DSB1 (talk) 10:46, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
- You cannot recognise the location from the photograph. Furthermore, it is not at all noteworthy that this butterfly, known as a migratory species that migrates from Africa to Europe, up to Scandinavia, indeed also is seen in the Laguna de Gallocanta. Lymantria (talk) 20:51, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: 00:02, 2 September 2012 by Fastily, closed by . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:18, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
Files of User:Concacafsoccer
[edit]- File:Jong Holland Players Celebration Goal.jpg
- File:Hato feijenoord.jpg
- File:Lisandro trenidad.jpg
- File:Jerry wansing.jpg
- File:Edgar cassiani perez.jpg
- File:Cvc zebras players celebrating.jpg
Uploaded by User:Concacafsoccer. Professional photos without exif, in low resolution - doubtful authorship. Many of uploaded by this user files were removed as copyvio. --Art-top (talk) 12:20, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
- User:Concacafsoccer was blocked twice for uploading unfree files after warnings. --Art-top (talk) 12:26, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Per discussion. MBisanz talk 02:36, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Mountainlife (talk · contribs)
[edit]No commercial FOP for artworks in Japan. See COM:FOP#Japan.
- File:Shinjuku grand15.JPG
- File:Nyakutakuji3.jpg
- File:Shimashimadani river5.jpg
- File:Shimashimadani river1.jpg
- File:Shinjuku Grand tower B.JPG
- File:Bandoko Falls3.JPG
- File:Bandoko Falls2.JPG
Stefan4 (talk) 14:03, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 22:27, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Unused personal picture. Ices2Csharp (talk) 10:17, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Kept: in use Denniss (talk) 13:47, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Per previous nomination. I saw the usage in wikt:id:modeling, but this was clearly a bug. Nobody meant to use this picture in that article. I couldn't find the cause at the moment of nomination, but this has been fixed by now. Ices2Csharp (talk) 15:06, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Orphan personal photo, no in scope usefulness evident. Infrogmation (talk) 12:07, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
Dubious own work, small and no EXIF. E4024 (talk) 20:08, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Ruthven (msg) 05:25, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Polarlys as no source (no source since) Sreejith K (talk) 17:49, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
- Why "no source"? I see a source given in the description: "Annick Lemoine, Evariste Carpentier (1845-1922), Mecenart / Galerij Depypere, 1994" - so, it's probably a scan from this 1994 book. This poses the question when the work was published for the first time - if more than 70 years ago, and if the creator is really anonymous, {{Anonymous-EU}} might be applicable. As it looks like a portrait made for dissemination (maybe on cartes de visite etc.), I think that publication not too long after creation (ca. 1882, according to description) is likely. So, it's also very likely that it was first published before 1923, making it PD in the U.S. as well. I think in such cases of anonymous portraits from the 19th century we mostly assume contemporary publication. However, of course there's the possibility that this 1882 photo was published for the first time in the 1994 book, then it would be still protected in EU countries due to publication right. Still, I lean towards keeping this photo, but would like to read more opinions. Gestumblindi (talk) 00:48, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
Kept: There admittedly uncertainties here, but I think Gestumblindi is probably right. . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:23, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
Files of User:Charasman
[edit]- File:Garagesaleapp logo.png
- File:Sold.png (speedy)
- File:Variasfotos.jpeg
- File:Super-mario-bros-g 306.gif (speedy)
- File:SELL.png (speedy)
- File:Metro-Macro-256.png
- File:Macro ligado.png
- File:Macro ligado.jpeg (speedy)
- File:Macro desligado.png
- File:Nopicture.png
- File:Newproduct title status.png
- File:Newproduct clean.png
- File:Newproduct pictures.png
- File:Newpeoduct description tags price.png
- File:Newproduct all.png
- File:MYPRODUCT THUMBNAILS.png (speedy)
- File:MYPRODUCT FULLPAGE.png (speedy)
- File:Macro desligado.jpg (speedy)
- File:Iluminacao2.jpeg (speedy)
- File:Iluminacao.jpeg
- File:Home just product.png (speedy)
- File:Detalhe do produto.png
- File:Bid.png
- File:Bg simples2.jpeg (speedy)
- File:Bg simples.jpeg (speedy)
- File:Bg claro sem flash.png
- File:Bg escuro sem flash.png
- File:Bg claro com flash.png
- File:Ahead.jpeg (speedy)
User uploaded a group of photos which appear largely related to http://garagesaleapp.me. Obvious copyvios have been tagged as such; this request is to cover the others. Several images have metadata which credit "MARINAA VIEIRA" as the author; no evidence uploader is this person. Photos are all claimed to be own work, but disparate camera models (for example, File:Bg simples.jpeg is a Canon CX1, File:Macro_ligado.jpeg is a Canon Powershot S90, etc.) may suggest images have multiple authors. Claimed authorship of blatant copyvios (e.g. File:Iluminacao2.jpeg is actually from here) undermine credibility of authorship claims for all images. Some images may be scope issues (e.g., File:Iluminacao.jpeg is blurry; File:Garagesaleapp logo.png may be {{PD-textlogo}}, but website appears non-notable, etc.) COM:PCP suggests all should go. Эlcobbola talk 21:50, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 22:09, 23 July 2012 (UTC)