Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2012/06/20
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
|
|
Photo-0002.jpg){kind=link}
![143 File:ד"ר סמי שניידרמן.jpg](#File:ד"ר_סמי_שניידרמן.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
Unused private photo - out of project scope. Art-top (talk) 04:20, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: {{Out of scope}} Sreejith K (talk) 08:41, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Unused private photo - out of project scope. Art-top (talk) 04:26, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: {{Out of scope}} Sreejith K (talk) 08:41, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Unused private photo - out of project scope. Art-top (talk) 04:27, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: {{Out of scope}} Sreejith K (talk) 08:41, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Unused private photo - out of project scope. Art-top (talk) 04:27, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: {{Out of scope}} Sreejith K (talk) 08:36, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Unused private photo - out of project scope. Art-top (talk) 04:27, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: {{Out of scope}} Sreejith K (talk) 08:41, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Unused private photo - out of project scope. Art-top (talk) 04:42, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: {{Out of scope}} Sreejith K (talk) 08:41, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Copyrighted artwork 188.104.125.51 18:19, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Speedy deleted -- duplicate of Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:13, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
Copyrighted artwork 83.61.124.239 19:05, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Screenshot from Electronic Arts game "FIFA 2010 World Cup South Africa", screenshots here. Thuresson (talk) 21:42, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted, Thuresson (talk) 21:42, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Unused private photo - out of project scope. Art-top (talk) 04:20, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of scope Wvk (talk) 21:22, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Unused private photo - out of project scope. Art-top (talk) 04:21, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of scope Wvk (talk) 21:24, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Unused private photo - out of project scope. Art-top (talk) 04:22, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of scope Wvk (talk) 21:26, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Unused private photo - out of project scope. Art-top (talk) 04:22, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of scope Wvk (talk) 21:27, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Unused private photo - out of project scope. Art-top (talk) 04:22, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of scope Wvk (talk) 21:28, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Unused private photo - out of project scope. Art-top (talk) 04:29, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of scope Wvk (talk) 21:30, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Unused private photo - out of project scope. Art-top (talk) 04:30, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of scope Wvk (talk) 21:31, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Unused private photo - out of project scope. Art-top (talk) 04:31, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of scope Wvk (talk) 21:32, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Unused private photo - out of project scope. Art-top (talk) 04:32, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of scope Wvk (talk) 21:33, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Unused private photo - out of project scope. Art-top (talk) 04:35, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of scope Wvk (talk) 21:34, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Unused private photo - out of project scope. Art-top (talk) 04:35, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of scope Wvk (talk) 21:35, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Unused private photo - out of project scope. Art-top (talk) 04:36, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of scope Wvk (talk) 21:36, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Unused private photo - out of project scope. Art-top (talk) 04:36, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of scope Wvk (talk) 21:37, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Unused private photo - out of project scope. Art-top (talk) 04:36, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of scope Wvk (talk) 21:37, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Unused private photo - out of project scope. Art-top (talk) 04:37, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of scope Wvk (talk) 21:38, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Unused private photo - out of project scope. Art-top (talk) 04:37, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of scope Wvk (talk) 21:38, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Unused private photo - out of project scope. Art-top (talk) 04:37, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of scope Wvk (talk) 21:39, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Unused private photo - out of project scope. Art-top (talk) 04:37, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of scope Wvk (talk) 21:39, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Unused private photo - out of project scope. Art-top (talk) 04:37, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of scope Wvk (talk) 21:40, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Unused private photo - out of project scope. Art-top (talk) 04:41, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of scope Wvk (talk) 21:42, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Unused private photo - out of project scope. Art-top (talk) 04:42, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of scope Wvk (talk) 21:43, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Unused private photo - out of project scope. Art-top (talk) 04:43, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of scope Wvk (talk) 21:44, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Unused private photo - out of project scope. Art-top (talk) 04:44, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of scope Wvk (talk) 21:45, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Unused private photo - out of project scope. Art-top (talk) 04:45, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of scope Wvk (talk) 21:46, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
unused, out of project scope Trex2001 (talk) 04:45, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of scope Wvk (talk) 21:47, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Unused private photo - out of project scope. Art-top (talk) 04:46, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of scope Wvk (talk) 21:48, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Unused private photo - out of project scope. Art-top (talk) 04:55, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of scope Wvk (talk) 21:49, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Unused private photo - out of project scope. Art-top (talk) 04:56, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of scope Wvk (talk) 21:50, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Unused private photo - out of project scope. Art-top (talk) 05:02, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of scope Wvk (talk) 21:51, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Photo-0002.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Photo-0002.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Unused private photo - out of project scope. Art-top (talk) 06:21, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Photo-0002.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: out of scope Wvk (talk) 21:51, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Photo-0002.jpg){kind=link}
Unused private photo - out of project scope. Art-top (talk) 06:23, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of scope Wvk (talk) 21:52, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Unused private photo - out of project scope. Art-top (talk) 06:23, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of scope Wvk (talk) 21:53, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Copyvio - http://www.eniro.se/ Tournesol (talk) 09:24, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
- Deleted. Uploader admitted it was a mistake to upload image ([1]). Thuresson (talk) 21:59, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted, Thuresson (talk) 21:59, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Unused personal picture. Ices2Csharp (talk) 10:22, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of scope Wvk (talk) 21:55, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Unused personal picture. Ices2Csharp (talk) 10:22, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of scope Wvk (talk) 21:56, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Unused personal picture. Ices2Csharp (talk) 10:23, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of scope Wvk (talk) 21:57, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
bad Quality, out of scope LutzBruno (talk) 16:19, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 19:04, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
bad Quality, out of scope LutzBruno (talk) 16:20, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 19:04, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
bad Quality, out of scope LutzBruno (talk) 16:20, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 19:04, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
bad Quality, out of scope LutzBruno (talk) 16:20, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 19:05, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
bad Quality, out of scope LutzBruno (talk) 16:21, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 19:05, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
bad Quality, out of scope LutzBruno (talk) 16:21, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 19:05, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
bad Quality, out of scope LutzBruno (talk) 16:21, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 19:05, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
bad Quality, out of scope LutzBruno (talk) 16:21, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 19:05, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
bad Quality, out of scope LutzBruno (talk) 16:21, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 19:05, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
bad Quality, out of scope LutzBruno (talk) 16:22, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 19:06, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
bad Quality, out of scope LutzBruno (talk) 16:24, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 19:06, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
bad Quality, out of scope LutzBruno (talk) 16:24, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 19:06, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
bad Quality, out of scope LutzBruno (talk) 16:25, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 19:06, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
bad Quality, out of scope LutzBruno (talk) 16:25, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 19:06, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
bad Quality, out of scope LutzBruno (talk) 16:25, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 19:06, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
bad Quality, out of scope LutzBruno (talk) 16:25, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 19:06, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
bad Quality, out of scope LutzBruno (talk) 16:26, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 19:07, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
bad Quality, out of scope LutzBruno (talk) 16:26, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 19:07, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
bad Quality, out of scope LutzBruno (talk) 16:26, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 19:07, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
bad Quality, out of scope LutzBruno (talk) 16:27, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 19:07, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
bad Quality, out of scope LutzBruno (talk) 16:27, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 19:07, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
bad Quality, out of scope LutzBruno (talk) 16:27, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 19:07, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
bad Quality, out of scope LutzBruno (talk) 16:33, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 19:08, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
bad Quality, out of scope LutzBruno (talk) 16:33, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 19:08, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
out of scope LutzBruno (talk) 16:34, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 19:18, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
out of scope LutzBruno (talk) 16:38, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 19:08, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
out of scope LutzBruno (talk) 16:40, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 19:11, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
out of scope LutzBruno (talk) 16:41, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 19:08, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
out of scope LutzBruno (talk) 16:41, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 19:08, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
out of scope LutzBruno (talk) 16:41, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 19:13, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
out of scope LutzBruno (talk) 16:43, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 19:08, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
out of scope bad quality LutzBruno (talk) 16:45, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 19:08, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
out of scope LutzBruno (talk) 16:46, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 19:09, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
cos im not using this photo anymore Iwrote (talk) 21:01, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: requested by uploader Wvk (talk) 22:03, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
"la foto dal book" suggests not "own work". Same reasoning can be made by the resolution. Saibo (Δ∇) 00:27, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted, clear derivative work, false copyright statement -- Infrogmation (talk) 17:08, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
Unused private photo - out of project scope. Art-top (talk) 06:26, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
THIS IS THE OFFICIAL PHOTO OF FRANK OCEAN. I AM THEIR PUBLICIST AND WORK HAND IN HAND WITH MANAGEMENT. PER ARTISTS REQUEST WE WANT TO USE THIS PHOTO. I DON'T KNOW HOW TO USE WIKIPEDIA .. PLEASE JUST KEEP THIS PHOTO. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sweisscheese (talk • contribs)
Keep, can be used Frank Ocean page. Motopark (talk) 19:03, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Speedy kept, used non-private photo of person with articles about them in Wikipedias in 7 languages, in project scope; free licensed; superior to most other photos we have of the person. -- 17:12, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
Image of a star from a website, as mentioned in the file summary itself Aristitleism (talk) 09:24, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 15:07, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
Source states "Release information: Editorial Use Only. Use of this image in advertising or for promotional purposes is prohibited". This is not free enough for Commons. Lymantria (talk) 12:23, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
- Claramente dice en la descripción de la licencia de la imagen de Irina Shayk: Solo Para Uso de Contenido Editorial. El uso de esta imagen en publicidad o para propósitos promocionales está prohibido. Especifica en un cuadro desplegable Contenido Editorial Imágenes de Contenido Editorial, las cuales incluyen eventos informativos y celebridades, no están autorizadas para uso comercial. Las imágenes No Editoriales se pueden usar para casi cualquier propósito. No estoy haciendo uso de la imagen para lucro o cualquier otro provecho, más que para ilustrar la galería de la modelo.--Ninrouter (talk) 00:31, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
- Delete Stock Photograph, clear copyvio -- Herby (Vienna) (talk) 09:45, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
Speedy deleted, not free licensed. -- Infrogmation (talk) 17:18, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
bad Quality, out of scope LutzBruno (talk) 16:23, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 21:35, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
bad Quality, out of scope LutzBruno (talk) 16:24, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 21:35, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
bad Quality, out of scope LutzBruno (talk) 16:24, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 21:35, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
bad Quality, out of scope LutzBruno (talk) 16:24, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 21:35, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
bad Quality, out of scope LutzBruno (talk) 16:25, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 21:35, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
bad Quality, out of scope LutzBruno (talk) 16:26, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 21:35, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
bad Quality, out of scope LutzBruno (talk) 16:27, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 21:35, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
out of scope LutzBruno (talk) 16:27, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 21:35, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
bad Quality, out of scope LutzBruno (talk) 16:27, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 21:35, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
out of scope LutzBruno (talk) 16:28, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 21:35, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
out of scope (we got enough pussys here..) LutzBruno (talk) 16:28, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
- Todas las fotos son de mi autoría, pido disculpas por Xtreme, estaba tratando de aprender a subir las fotos y tomé esa como prueba, Les reitero mis disculpas. (comment from Anilia Rodrígues Castillo).
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 21:35, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
bad Quality, out of scope LutzBruno (talk) 16:32, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 21:35, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
bad Quality, out of scope LutzBruno (talk) 16:32, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 21:35, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
bad Quality, out of scope LutzBruno (talk) 16:33, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 21:34, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
bad Quality, out of scope LutzBruno (talk) 16:33, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 21:34, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
bad Quality, out of scope LutzBruno (talk) 16:33, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 21:34, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
out of scope LutzBruno (talk) 16:33, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 21:34, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
out of scope LutzBruno (talk) 16:37, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 21:34, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
out of scope LutzBruno (talk) 16:38, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 21:34, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
out of scope LutzBruno (talk) 16:38, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 21:34, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
out of scope LutzBruno (talk) 16:39, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 21:34, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
out of scope LutzBruno (talk) 16:39, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 21:34, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
out of scope LutzBruno (talk) 16:40, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 21:34, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
out of scope LutzBruno (talk) 16:40, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 21:34, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
out of scope LutzBruno (talk) 16:41, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 21:34, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
out of scope LutzBruno (talk) 16:41, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 21:34, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
out of scope LutzBruno (talk) 16:41, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 21:34, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
out of scope LutzBruno (talk) 16:41, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 21:34, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
out of scope LutzBruno (talk) 16:43, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 21:34, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
out of scope LutzBruno (talk) 16:44, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 21:34, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
out of scope LutzBruno (talk) 16:44, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 21:34, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
out of scope bad quality LutzBruno (talk) 16:44, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 21:34, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
no neet, out of scope LutzBruno (talk) 16:45, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 21:34, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
out of scope LutzBruno (talk) 16:46, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 21:34, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
out of scope LutzBruno (talk) 16:46, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 21:34, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
massoccer01 Hmonzon (talk) 21:44, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Dont understand your reason. But my reason to delete it is clear: Unfree file grabbed from http://www.tuteve.tv/noticia/deportes/39809/2011/12/05/rivera-tras-salvar-la-baja--celebramos-como-si-fuera-un-titulo Martin H. (talk) 00:19, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
Licensing information appears incorrect. The image is a screenshot from a World of Warcraft computer game and thus copyrighted by Blizzard Entertainment. Ojan (talk) 17:13, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: there is no liicense at all JuTa 21:42, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
The tiny little aircraft images are not the uploader's own work - copyright violation 188.104.125.51 18:22, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Not entirely own work, copyright violation. Martin H. (talk) 18:53, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
This is not under a free licence. The licence on that site explictly does not allow derivative works. C3F2k (Questions, comments, complaints?) 15:26, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Comment Marked with Template:Nonderivative for now. C3F2k (Questions, comments, complaints?) 01:41, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom. Sreejith K (talk) 08:35, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
a copyrighted image 85.210.98.121 22:56, 20 June 2012 (UTC) delete simply lifted from source. Agathoclea (talk) 19:37, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
- Delete 1984 photo credited to the Press Association (apimages.com). Thuresson (talk) 20:09, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: copyvio Hystrix (talk) 16:38, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
Unused private drawing - out of project scope. Art-top (talk) 04:23, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope and unused at the time of deletion. AFBorchert (talk) 20:14, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
Unused private drawing - out of project scope. Art-top (talk) 04:24, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope, unused at the time of deletion, without description and categories. AFBorchert (talk) 20:15, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
Unused private photo - out of project scope. Art-top (talk) 04:25, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope, unused at the time of deletion. AFBorchert (talk) 20:16, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
Unused private photo - out of project scope. Art-top (talk) 04:26, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: In violation of COM:PEOPLE. AFBorchert (talk) 20:17, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
Unused private photo - out of project scope. Art-top (talk) 04:26, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Question What about those dots on the feet and in the face? If that's some kind of Tamil tradition, this might be a very useful Image. --El Grafo (talk) 12:34, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: In violation of COM:PEOPLE. If this appears to be within COM:SCOPE as noted by El Grafo, we need a documented parental consent. AFBorchert (talk) 20:18, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
Doubtful authorship - low resolution for own work, no original exif. Art-top (talk) 04:34, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Per COM:PRP as this is the single upload of user who had just a single edit at en-wp. This picture is also unused at the time of deletion. AFBorchert (talk) 20:30, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
Unused private photo - out of project scope. Doubtful license. Art-top (talk) 04:40, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Unused private photo where we do not even know if {{PD-USGov}} applies. AFBorchert (talk) 20:32, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
Doubtful authorship - rephotographed image in low resolution. Art-top (talk) 04:48, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: derived work of another photograph. AFBorchert (talk) 20:40, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
Unless the author uploads a new version, this is completely useless. (Does anyone have an idea what might have been the problem here)? El Grafo (talk) 10:04, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: This failed scan appears to be an accidental upload. AFBorchert (talk) 21:08, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 10:25, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Unused one-page PDF with some lines of Spanish text. This is out of scope. AFBorchert (talk) 21:13, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
I can't find anything that looks like a permission at (the english version of the) the website menitoned in the description. El Grafo (talk) 10:30, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: The site appears to be Copyright © 2012 Jan Rozlivka and I haven't found any hints towards a CC-BY-SA license as claimed either. AFBorchert (talk) 21:17, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
If the author is unknown, it is unlikely that the uploader holds the copyright. If the uploader does not hold the copyright, he/she has not the right to release the file as PD. So we either need a different PD-Template or the file has to be deleted. El Grafo (talk) 10:40, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: This is a scan of a photo where no indication is given for the original source, where and when it has been published first and who its author is. AFBorchert (talk) 21:19, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
bad quality Oursana (talk) 11:39, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Kept: It is used in two different Wikipedia articles and thereby within scope. AFBorchert (talk) 21:25, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
Obviously, something went wrong here. Unless anyone can fix this, the file is rather useless :-( El Grafo (talk) 10:08, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted, orphan corrupt image -- Infrogmation (talk) 17:11, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
no longer used (+ via redirected file) and desired Luxusfrosch (talk) 10:41, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: useless now George Chernilevsky talk 18:29, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
out of scope, deleted on DE Nolispanmo 12:22, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 18:30, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
out of scope, deleted on DE Nolispanmo 12:22, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
- Keep in scope, Categories added. -- Herby (Vienna) (talk) 09:43, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
- yeah, really usefull like File:Akustikmodule.jpg & File:Sprachaufnahme efstudio.JPG. Only usage: spam for efstudio--Nolispanmo 09:53, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
- I don't see a problem with this picture. Yes, sometimes even the stuff suplied by spammers can be really of some use. This one for example is not more or less useful than any other one in Category:Condenser microphones, just take a look! But the others seem deletable to me. -- Herby (Vienna) (talk) 14:16, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
- yeah, really usefull like File:Akustikmodule.jpg & File:Sprachaufnahme efstudio.JPG. Only usage: spam for efstudio--Nolispanmo 09:53, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
Close as kept, free licensed useful pic of object, properly categorized. -- Infrogmation (talk) 17:14, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
out of scope, deleted on DE Nolispanmo 12:22, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted per nom; poor quality photo with no evidence of in scope potential usefulness. -- Infrogmation (talk) 17:16, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
It is a logo used for certificates, I realized after upload it's not a good idea to have it over the internet. Airaindorvalsuani (talk) 12:53, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted, fairly prompt uploader request, orphan file, questionable in scope usefulness, possible Com:DW license problem. -- Infrogmation (talk) 17:19, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
Panespol logo. Unused, questionable utility to the project. Art-top (talk) 13:05, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 18:31, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
useless image Chesdovi (talk) 13:40, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
![13:40, 20 June 2012 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2012/06/20#c-Chesdovi-2012-06-20T13:40:00.000Z-File:ד"ר_סמי_שניידרמן.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 18:32, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
![18:32, 29 June 2012 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2012/06/20#c-George_Chernilevsky-2012-06-29T18:32:00.000Z-File:ד"ר_סמי_שניידרמן.jpg){kind=link}
Uploaded by a vandal. Out of Commons' scope. Savhñ 14:11, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted, out of scope Infrogmation (talk) 17:39, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
because i uploaded the incorrect photo Samonnate (talk) 14:24, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: per Uploader's request George Chernilevsky talk 18:33, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope: Commons is no private photo album High Contrast (talk) 15:02, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 18:33, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not drawing photoalbum. Not used. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:56, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted apparent private joke or insult image. -- Infrogmation (talk) 17:40, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
Licensing information appears incorrect. The image is a screenshot from the Warcraft III computer game and thus copyrighted by Blizzard Entertainment. Ojan (talk) 17:11, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted per COM:DW; not uploader's "own work" to license. -- Infrogmation (talk) 17:47, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
SVG at File:Flag of the United States.svg Fry1989 eh? 21:37, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: unused scaled down duplicate George Chernilevsky talk 18:35, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
The PDF is just a capture of information that could be put in a wiki table instead. Thumbnail image does not help the reader, and it's bad for editors. JBrown23 (talk) 08:00, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
- Delete per the second point of Commons:Project scope#Non-allowable reasons for PDF and DjVu formats along with File:Bsc Arbeitshilfe neu.pdf, File:GDP PPP1.pdf, File:Kopie von Mappe2.pdf, File:Balanced scorecard aid.pdf, File:Arbeitshilfe BSC I.pdf, File:Bsc Arbeitshilfe.pdf, File:Dokument1.pdf, File:Freiheit in der Welt.pdf, File:Freiheit in der Welt 2010.pdf, File:Mappe1.pdf and File:Evaluations-Prüfliste.pdf by the same uploader. These can all be presented equally well or better using wiki markup. Several similar files by the same uploader have already been deleted: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Freedom.pdf, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Freedom (2).pdf, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Evaluations-Modell 3-2.pdf, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Freiheit in der Welt 2009.pdf, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Freiheit in der Welt 2010 (2).pdf and Commons:Deletion requests/File:Kopie von freedom-1 (1).pdf. —LX (talk, contribs) 12:35, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: COM:PS#Non-allowable reasons for PDF and DjVu formats. These images can be replaced with wiki markup. – Kwj2772 (msg) 18:03, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
Kept: File:Bsc Arbeitshilfe.pdf is in use and used for (probably) explaining layout. – Kwj2772 (msg) 18:15, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
The image is of low resolution and there are no valid EXIF information. It is highly likely not the uploader's own work. High Contrast (talk) 15:10, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: see the watermark. Martin H. (talk) 09:55, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Potential problems here. This is a Flickr image without {{Licensereview}}. It became a valued image last year, but the discussion doesn't mention the licence at all, so maybe no one ever checked. Unfortunately, the image is currently listed as CC-BY-NC-SA 2.0 on Flickr, which is unfree. It is possible that the Flickr user has changed the licence statement on Flickr at some point, but there is no way to tell. Additionally, Commons lists the image as CC-BY-SA 1.0, but Flickr only uses version 2.0 of the Creative Commons licences, so it is impossible that Flickr might have used the Commons licence in the past. It is possible that the image might have been listed as CC-BY-SA 2.0 on Flickr at some point, but if someone overlooked the version number, there is also a risk that someone might have overlooked an "NC" in the licence. Stefan4 (talk) 17:44, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
- Delete, Very dubious license, no evidence of permission from photographer evident. This is troubling; that this has been made a featured image and put in wide use on Wikimedia apparently without any check of the license status. The supposed license, CC-BY-SA-1.0 is NOT and HAS NOT BEEN a license tag used on Flickr (CC-BY-SA-2.0 is used on Flickr). I didn't find an old version of this photo page on Internet Archive, though I did see some other 2010 archived versions of other Flickr pages by the photographer, NONE of which were under licenses acceptable to Commons. I am not deleting the photo outright myself, since there seems to have some discussion on the photos by the photographer on de:W here and I don't speak German; can some de user check just to see there isn't some type of OTRS on de:W that was never forwarded to Commons? There seem to be some other photos on Commons by the same photographer with the same situation. The link to the flickr photographer is Heinrich Klaffs if someone wishes to contact them directly. -- Infrogmation (talk) 18:11, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
- It has not only been used by Wikimedia. In fact, I only noticed this because my local newspaper published this image with the attribution "Foto: Wikimedia Commons" on its web site and I decided to check whether any attribution requirements had been violated. The fact that it is so widely used by Wikimedia just makes it all worse. --Stefan4 (talk) 18:25, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: That's bad luck but if there never was a licensereview we cannot verify a free Creative Commons license. High Contrast (talk) 17:16, 4 July 2012 (UTC) --- Restored per Undeletion Request. Flickr license history shows this was OK. Abzeronow (talk) 16:22, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Files of User:Middleca4
[edit]- File:Darren-shan.jpg
- File:Reek-Da-Villian.jpg
- File:Happy-Birthday-Miranda-Cosgrove.jpg
- File:Lecraemoore.png
- File:MichaelStevenson.jpg
- File:1st and 15th Logo.jpg
- File:Childrebelsoldier.jpg
- File:B.o.B Performs.jpg
- File:Lupe-Fiasco.jpg
- File:Daniel Simmons.jpg
- File:Elzhi.jpg
These appear to be copyrighted images from different sources being passed off as the uploader's own work.--CyberGhostface (talk) 00:39, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
- I agree, the earliest appearance of File:B.o.B Performs.jpg I could find was from February 2012 at zimbio.com [2] which has: "Source: Andrew H. Walker/Getty Images North America". Here are the contributions of the English Wikipedia user with the same username (talk page here). The earliest appearance for File:Reek-Da-Villian.jpg is here but that has no attribution. A "oneten-mag" watermarked version appears from 22 February 2011 here. -84user (talk) 20:22, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio uploader. Martin H. (talk) 21:05, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
- Note: These requests have been split from Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Ramon FVelasquez. However, all numeric disambiguations have been retained. _ JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 23:18, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Ramon FVelasquez (talk · contribs) 1
[edit]No freedom of panorama in the Philippines. Some photos show other photos and it is possible that some of those other photos might be old. The uploader has also uploaded photos of lots of buildings and 3D artworks in the Philippines. Is there some site where architects and dates of death of architects can be located so as to determine if the buildings are in the public domain or not?
- File:Apsjfa.JPG
- File:APSjfss.JPG
- File:APSjfff.JPG
- File:APSjf.JPG
- File:APSjfc.JPG
- File:Gsmarijf.JPG
- File:Bsmarijf.JPG
- File:Dsmarijf.JPG
- File:Fsmarijf.JPG
- File:Csmarijf.JPG
- File:Lindalvajf.JPG
- File:Lrt1jf.JPG
- File:Lrt1jfa.JPG
- File:Museummanaoag33jf.JPG
- File:Manaoagmuseumeeedjf.JPG
Stefan4 (talk) 19:40, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
- "Alien" and "UFO" files by Ramon FVelasquez
Photos of flash reflecting of dust that are presented as photos of aliens and UFO's. Hoax, patent nonsense, utterly unusable, garbage.
P199 (talk) 03:16, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
- They could (or are already) be sorted into Category:Photographical orbs - examples of that. Not sure about that mass and quality (if we can/should talk about quality while illustratic a photographic error)... The comment at File:911 unknown objectjf8.JPG ("Considering the essence of the picture, I humbly submit and request that this photo be nominated as candidate for Picture of the Day of 2012 Year.") is a bit strange, indeed... --Saibo (Δ∇) 11:59, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
- There are already enough good examples in Category:Photographical orbs. Most of the pictures above are of black nights taken with a flash, showing nothing! They are useless, see COM:PS#File not legitimately in use. The fact that the file name and description refer to aliens and UFO's means that you can't take this serious. It's rather juvenile, making a mockery of Commons. --P199 (talk) 19:16, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
The first set deleted as derived works of other copyrighted works (photographs, plaques etc) where no exception according to Philippine law appears to exist, see COM:FOP#Philippines. There are some comments on Ramon FVelasquez's talk page in response to this DR which I have read. One quote:
- In fact, Filipino journalists take picture of these daily, and I did so like them.
This is surely correct and even legal as the Philippine law provides a fair use clause in Section 184 Limitations on Copyright. But fair use requires a context under which such derived works are permitted, for example as part of reports of current events by means of photography or for teaching purposes. Wikimedia Commons, however, does not provide such a context as this is a separate project from en-wp and other Wikimedia projects. It is just a media archive where all the content must be free of such context restrictions. Some of these pictures which are currently used at en-wp could be possibly transfered to en-wp under this policy.
I've deleted the second set of supposed ufos etc. as well as being out of scope as they mostly consist of single spots of uncertain origin. To me some of them appear to be even simple dust spots. Exceptions like File:Alien33jf.JPG or File:Orbsaliensjfn.JPG that depict childs are a problem due to personality rights and would require documented parental consent. Likewise File:Orbsaliensjf.JPG appears to be a violation of COM:PEOPLE, too. --AFBorchert (talk) 19:51, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Ramon FVelasquez (talk · contribs) 3
[edit]No FOP in the Phillipines.
Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 01:31, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
- Delete Buildings in the Philippines, no FOP exemption. See above conversation too. – czar 08:04, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: McZusatz (talk) 18:23, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Ramon FVelasquez (talk · contribs) 4
[edit]Unused images of tarpaulins (2 images) and an advertising banner (one image). Out of COM:SCOPE.
JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 06:03, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
Also (by the same uploader): File:Naicjf9776 08.JPG (an advertising board). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 06:10, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
- File:Naicjf9776 07.JPG is a derived work of a plaque which includes a photograph. Unfortunately, there is no freedom of panorama in the Philippines. --AFBorchert (talk) 14:50, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
- @AFBorchert: it is not a plaque actually, but a kind of tarpaulin. The camera's angle is upwards so it looked like a plaque. But, it contains an underlying portrait of the bishop, so violation of COM:DW. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 15:40, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
In line with foregoing Legal Discussions I humbly beg the Commons Community to Put on Hold and or DEFER Any and All Mass Nominations for Deletions in My Talk Pages by Herein Mass Nominator; I humbly Suggest that Any User of Commons may Re-Nominate Objectively and in Line with the cited a) Legal, b) Moral Reasons and in the c) LIGHT OF the Universal Code of Conduct of Users inter alia
|
|---|
|
- Keep I humbly submit the Unabridged Legal Treatise, ONLY as persuasion to Keep; I underscore that amid my Legal Expertise, I have just One Commons Editor Vote co-equal with any Nominator or Opposing Uploader under the Commons Admin who will keep or delete; the foregoing Legal Submissions are not meant to touch upon Commons Legal Policy on FOP;
- Keep PREMISES CONSIDERED, I humbly submit and register a the Strongest Legal Objections EVER to the Requested Mass Non-Stop Deletions of herein Nominator and Fervently Appeal to Commons Community to wait for the Supreme Court Ruling on the Matter of FOP and I guess that would be my starting point... I reiterate with all due respect, that I respectfully and humbly submit to the Sound Discretion of the Commons Community considering that the subject photos are National Cultural Treasures Most Valued Photos for present and future generations, very sincerely Judgefloro (talk) 07:09, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
- a) Your opinion - like that of my b) fish vendor which had tons of wisdom not only in Fish but in Commerce, of my c) Trike Driver who is expert in Transportation - may be believed by the onlookers or Voters in Elections Periods; but without Citation of Philippine Jurisprudence, without basing you argument on any USA or Federal ruling, and worst, without supporting your above Repeated opinions-comments-mirror replies, whatever you may term them - is not worth a Lawyer's salt, or here, a Commons Community Policy on keeping or deleting; rest assured that if you are believed, I never filed or would ever file any Undeletions Requests, for I know my limitations in time and effort; I would rather go inside the corridors of the DOJ, the IPO and or Bureau of Copyright for Official Statements, PROMISE Judgefloro (talk) 11:22, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 04:57, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Ramon FVelasquez (talk · contribs) 5
[edit]Derivative works: see the ff. identifications
- File:RMCjf9695 08.JPG - DW of advertising posters with underlying images
- File:PSCjf9743 09.JPG - DW of a map
- File:MaragondonTownhalljf9952 15.JPG - DW of a government-commissioned tarpaulin (but see: COM:CRT/Philippines#Commissioned works)
- File:NaicChurchjf9526 11.JPG - DW of a portrait of still-living Luis Antonio Cardinal Tagle
JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 06:30, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 14:47, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Ramon FVelasquez (talk · contribs) 6
[edit]The Ricni Building in Tarlac City is modern (dates to circa early 2010s). There is no freedom of panorama yet in the Philippines, and the need of permission from the architect of this building is still required.
- File:MaharlikaHighwayjf9660 36.JPG
- File:MaharlikaHighwayjf9660 34.JPG
- File:MaharlikaHighwayjf9660 33.JPG
- File:MaharlikaHighwayjf9660 27.JPG
- File:MaharlikaHighwayjf9660 20.JPG
- File:MaharlikaHighwayjf9660 19.JPG
- File:MaharlikaHighwayjf9660 18.JPG
JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 06:37, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 04:57, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Ramon FVelasquez (talk · contribs) 7
[edit]Possible COM:Derivative work problems. Tarpaulins, posters, billboard ads, many more. Possibly out of COM:SCOPE too.
- File:Cardona,Rizaljf5126.JPG
- File:CardonaChurchjf5324 11.JPG
- File:Angono,Rizaljf4786 03.JPG
- File:Binangonan,Rizaljf4844 06.JPG
- File:Taytay,Rizaljf4386 08.JPG
- File:SanJose,Tarlacjf3700 04.JPG
- File:Tanza,CaviteChurchjf2628 01.JPG
- File:GeneralTriasChurchjf2831 10.JPG
- File:Tanza,Cavitejf2469 11.JPG
- File:Noveletajf1701 06.JPG
JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 04:26, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
Deleted per nom; DW, no FOP in Philippines. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 14:54, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
All files uploaded by Sbonacorsi (talk · contribs)
[edit]All these files and file description pages are full of advertising (e-Mail addresses, URLs). Their intention is being promotional, not educative. Therefore they are not usable in WMF-projects, I think. Some sheets also contain images likely taken from an image-library shipped with a software product and are therefore non-free.
- File:Product Order Cycle Time Six Sigma Case Study.pdf
- File:Printer Consumable Process Six Sigma Case Study.pdf
- File:PC Shipping Improvement Six Sigma Case Study.pdf
- File:Print Server Availability Six Sigma Case Study.pdf
- File:Payroll Remittance Six Sigma Case Study.pdf
- File:Operating System Six Sigma Case Study.pdf
- File:Monitor Costs Six Sigma Case Study.pdf
- File:Location Accuracy Six Sigma Case Study.pdf
- File:Lease Buyout Cost Reduction Six Sigma Case Study.pdf
- File:Local Asset Inventory Six Sigma Case Study.pdf
- File:Kaiser Permanente Six Sigma Case Study.pdf
- File:IBM Imaging Cycle Time Six Sigma Case Study.pdf
- File:Image Update Six Sigma Case Study.pdf
- File:Gillette Six Sigma Case Study.pdf
- File:Gage Area Deployment Six Sigma Case Study.pdf
- File:GEAE Tech Support Website Six Sigma Case Study.pdf
- File:E-mail Optimization Six Sigma Case Study.pdf
- File:Domain Consolidation Six Sigma Case Study.pdf
- File:Ecolab Redeployed Systems Six Sigma Case Study 03-16-03.pdf
- File:Depot Repair Cycle Time Six Sigma Case Study.pdf
- File:Deployment Output Improvement Six Sigma Case Study.pdf
- File:Deploy Image Cycle Time Six Sigma Case Study.pdf
- File:Data Conversion Cycle Time Six Sigma Case Study.pdf
- File:Dell Server Ordering Six Sigma Case Study.pdf
- File:Data Transfers Six Sigma Case Study.pdf
- File:Data Collection Six Sigma Case Study.pdf
- File:Critical Updates Six Sigma Case Study.pdf
- File:Certification Process Six Sigma Case Study.pdf
- File:BMW IMAC Form Completeness Six Sigma Case Study.pdf
- File:BMW Helpdesk Consolidation Six Sigma Case Study.pdf
- File:Backup Completeness Six Sigma Case Study.pdf
RE rillke questions? 07:34, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
- Speedy delete. Obviously out of scope + promo. Trijnsteltalk 10:07, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
- Delete as per nom. --P199 (talk) 21:16, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
This is Steven Bonacorsi, there is zero advertising in any of these project case studies, nor do they contain e-mail addresses or promotional content. The pictures are visual metrics taken from screen shots of before and after process improvement senario's using standard Microsoft office graphs. 95% of all Fortune 1000 companies practice Lean Six Sigma process improvement projects and these 50 case studies pioneer the many early projects that demonstrate the application of the Six Sigma Methodology in over 20 Industries. These are a significant record of business team projects in an executive overview format. All have been vetted by the companies and teams involved for shaing on the public domain. Any challenges to what I have stated, feel free to contact me directly, Steven Bonacorsi at sbonacorsi@comcast.net.]] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sbonacorsi (talk • contribs) 05:10, 21. Jun. 2012 (UTC)
- No advert for General Electrics/ Steven Bonacorsi? And please stop making biased comments like an executive overview format (which is clearly advert-language) or pasting your Email-address everywhere. The file description pages are full of URLs; please note that Commons is not a Linkfarm. File:Lease Buyout Cost Reduction Six Sigma Case Study.pdf is just one of those that contain an Office Clip Art, where you have no permission to re-license it freely.
- There is no educational intention behind these sheets: You just present results but don't mention how they were achieved. If you want to tell the world how-to, please use wikibooks:. Commons is the wrong place. Read about our project goal. -- RE rillke questions? 09:51, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
- Speedy delete: if those are so scientific, they can be made in wikipedia articles. Commons is for media, not for texts in slide shows. --Foroa (talk) 08:17, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
- deletion will avoid that I have to clean out the massive category spam. --Foroa (talk) 08:18, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted as being promotional material which is out of COM:SCOPE. The context of the uploader's activities at our projects can be seen here, here, and here. All these presentations are showcases about how successfully the Six Sigma method was applied by the uploader. This is advertising at its best and of no use for educational resources like the WMF projects. --AFBorchert (talk) 21:02, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Губин Михаил (talk · contribs)
[edit]Obviously files collected from Internet -- low res, with watermarks, official-looking, etc.
- File:Mongolian antarctic station.jpg
- File:Jonathan huang.jpeg - [3]
- File:Хашбаатарын Цагаанбаатар.jpg
- File:Халзхуугийн Наранхуу.jpg
- File:Mederdeneta.jpg
- File:Ganzorig1.jpeg
- File:Surenkhorloo.jpg
- File:Ganzorig.jpg
Trycatch (talk) 19:11, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
- Where is "low res, with watermarks, official-looking". Yes the size is small. However, not all the files on Wikipedia are large. Watermarks? Where? You do not understand something. Look how beautifully they illustrate some of my articles! [4] Gubin, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
- Please! Do not delete. I really need them to illustrate my articles. Honestly! Gubin, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
- This is not vandalism or a hoax, the files not violate any rules. Without them, my articles look empty. Save them please. Gubin, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
- Delete. Yes, these are not own pics. Some even have the website stated where they were taken from. --P199 (talk) 21:28, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Obvious {{Copyvio}}s - unfree files taken from the web, Commons:Image casebook#Internet images. @Gubin: An article in a free encyclopedia is not better if you decorate it with unfree files uploaded to the projects with false information... Martin H. (talk) 01:07, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Ovechkinsamy (talk · contribs)
[edit]All of these images can be found in multiple locations on the internet and at least one is heavily watermarked with the copyright holder. Uploader has an amusing interpretation of "own work".
- File:Lacen.jpg
- File:Mostefa01052012.jpg
- File:5c535d8df514654c477ce90dbae36148.jpg
- File:Hachoud24052012.jpg
- File:Medj losc aca.jpg
- File:Hehey.jpg
- File:Ismael-Bouzid.jpg
- File:Belkalem13062012.jpg
- File:Zemmamouche.jpg
- File:Azzedine Doukha.jpg
- File:SiMohamed CEDRIC.jpg
- File:Rais-m-bolhi.jpg
– JBarta (talk) 22:20, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: All deleted, obvious case of copyright violations. Martin H. (talk) 23:59, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Licensing information appears incorrect. The image is from a World of Warcraft computer game [5] and thus copyrighted by Blizzard Entertainment. Ojan (talk) 17:02, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
![[5]](http://eu.media.blizzard.com/wow/media/artwork/wow-cataclysm/artwork-deathwing1-full.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 07:17, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
il n est utilisé par aucun wikipedia, et c est un travail personnel. Heyholetsgreg (talk) 10:00, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 21:32, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Belgique is no proper description of the file. Seems to be fanciful edit by an online site. Hindustanilanguage (talk) 11:26, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 21:14, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Out of project scope: unused personal image ireas (talk) 10:51, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: --Krd 07:59, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
out of project scope Krd 08:46, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
- Delete and salt, this is the 3rd DR for this file, the user just keeps re-uploading it. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 00:49, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
deleted. INeverCry 02:24, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
Doubtful authorship. Questionable benefit to the project. Art-top (talk) 12:32, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 21:22, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
doesn't give location or date, no EXIF, possible bogus license Chesdovi (talk) 14:03, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 22:06, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small resolution, missing EXIF. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:06, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 22:31, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Delete Yet another case of lock-step belief that Flickr has it right. If you look at the metadata on the image, it's apparent that NBC holds copyright. The flickr user is self representing as "John Edwards 2008". Even assuming they are the legit group for that campaign, this does not provide any proof that the campaign had release of rights from NBC, and subsequently was able to release rights under the license stipulated. Hammersoft (talk) 16:31, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 21:06, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
This work would enter the public domain 50 years after the photographer's death. But who is the photographer? Is the photographer really dead for 50 years? There is a need for more evidence to use this PD license 188.104.125.51 16:37, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 21:43, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Licensing information appears incorrect. The image is a screenshot from a World of Warcraft computer game and thus copyrighted by Blizzard Entertainment. Ojan (talk) 17:07, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 21:04, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Licensing information appears incorrect. The image is a screenshot from a World of Warcraft computer game and thus copyrighted by Blizzard Entertainment. Ojan (talk) 17:08, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 21:03, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Licensing information appears incorrect. The image is a screenshot from a World of Warcraft computer game and thus copyrighted by Blizzard Entertainment. Ojan (talk) 17:10, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 21:49, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Licensing information appears incorrect. The image is a screenshot from a World of Warcraft computer game and thus copyrighted by Blizzard Entertainment. Ojan (talk) 17:10, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 22:01, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Licensing information appears incorrect. The image is a screenshot from a World of Warcraft computer game and thus copyrighted by Blizzard Entertainment. Ojan (talk) 17:10, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 21:08, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Licensing information appears incorrect. The image is a screenshot from a World of Warcraft computer game and thus copyrighted by Blizzard Entertainment. Ojan (talk) 17:11, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 21:52, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Licensing information appears incorrect. The image is a screenshot from the Warcraft III computer game and thus copyrighted by Blizzard Entertainment. Ojan (talk) 17:12, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 21:50, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Licensing information appears incorrect. The image is a screenshot from a World of Warcraft computer game and thus copyrighted by Blizzard Entertainment. Ojan (talk) 17:15, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 21:51, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Licensing information appears incorrect. The image is from the StarCraft II computer game and thus copyrighted by Blizzard Entertainment. File can be found in [6] (path: /StarCraft_II_Fansite_Kit/logos/Terran_Icon.jpg ) Ojan (talk) 17:33, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 21:50, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Licensing information appears incorrect. While there is custom made graphics (ie not by Blizzard) in the picture, large parts of the screenshot is graphics from StarCraft and thus copyrighted by Blizzard Entertainment. Ojan (talk) 17:35, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 21:18, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Licensing information appears incorrect. While there is custom made graphics (ie not by Blizzard) in the picture, large parts of the screenshot is graphics from StarCraft and thus copyrighted by Blizzard Entertainment. Ojan (talk) 17:35, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 21:18, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Licensing information appears incorrect. While there is custom made graphics (ie not by Blizzard) in the picture, large parts of the screenshot is graphics from StarCraft and thus copyrighted by Blizzard Entertainment. Ojan (talk) 17:35, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 21:18, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Licensing information appears incorrect. While there is custom made graphics (ie not by Blizzard) in the picture, large parts of the screenshot is graphics from StarCraft and thus copyrighted by Blizzard Entertainment. Ojan (talk) 17:35, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 21:18, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
File:Armoiries NZLD.png
File:ArmoiriesNZ.jpg
No source, doubt "own work", SVG at File:Arms of New Zealand.svg Fry1989 eh? 21:47, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 20:51, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
copyvio from http://www.arirang.ru/biografy/yugai_b.htm (from mil.kg) Kaganer (talk) 22:12, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 22:02, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
The watermark of http://travel.ua/ implies that this work is copyrighted. Andrei Romanenko (talk) 22:15, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 22:03, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
The watermark of http://vladimir-foto.ucoz.ua implies that this work is copyrighted. Andrei Romanenko (talk) 22:17, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 22:05, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Listed as CC-BY 1.0 but there is no evidence of permission for this licence. Australian logo and the Australian threshold of originality is, as far as I have understood, not very different from the British one, so I would guess that this is copyrightable in the source country at least and possibly also in the United States. Although it doesn't have to mean anything, English Wikipedia lists the logo as unfree. Stefan4 (talk) 23:36, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 22:06, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Color version available at File:Follower of Hieronymus Bosch - Adoration of the Magi - Upton House (open).jpg. Vincent Steenberg (talk) 19:43, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- Delete as redundant. --P199 (talk) 21:32, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
- Comment I do not understand exactly why this should be deleted. It is in grayscale, yes, but also does not show the white vertical line that appears in the colour version File:Follower of Hieronymus Bosch - Adoration of the Magi - Upton House (open).jpg. My advice would be to cross link the two images, and place the less-desired version in another category, although, as at here, I again fail to understand why Commons should not offer the user multiple versions. -84user (talk) 22:21, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
- I nominated this one for deletion, because I think it is easier to maintain one version, rather than two or more. I have also noticed the vertical folding mark on the color version. This might be fixed by our Photography workshop. Vincent Steenberg (talk) 10:59, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
- Keep I see no problem having more than one image of historic artwork. Not "redundant", different version. -- Infrogmation (talk) 17:28, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, but the file description of both versions should be the same. Am I right? Vincent Steenberg (talk) 18:26, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
- The description of the artwork should be the same, but the source of the photography appears different: the grayscale image appears from a book published in 1984 while the colour version appears to be from a folded out stapled colour print (which explains the vertical white line) and the source link http://www.nationaltrustcollections.org.uk/object/446744 only shows the NT logo for me. Also the grayscale shows the complete wooden frame (and has a different projection) while the colour version is a cropped view. -84user (talk) 20:20, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, but the file description of both versions should be the same. Am I right? Vincent Steenberg (talk) 18:26, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
Kept: Different sources, advantages/disadvantages in quality. To align descriptions, consider using Template:Object photo. Dcoetzee (talk) 04:18, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
Color version available at File:Follower of Hieronymus Bosch - Adoration of the Magi - Upton House (closed).jpg. Vincent Steenberg (talk) 19:16, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- Delete. Let's ensure the right version is used. --P199 (talk) 21:30, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
- Keep Grayscale version is higher resolution, and shows some of the faint details better. Also, there is generally no need to delete these versions - no Commons diskspace is saved. Put it in a specific category if its prescence in the main categories is undesired. -84user (talk) 22:08, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
- Strong Keep per 84user. No reason to delete. I have linked the two images to each other in the "other versions" field. -- Infrogmation (talk) 17:24, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
Kept: Per discussion. MBisanz talk 02:46, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
This is one of those popular "fun pics" you can find all over the web. TinEye found 53 duplicates, lots of them with a higher resolution. It is nearly impossible to find out where the original comes from, but here is a version that was uploaded 2 years before ours. El Grafo (talk) 14:01, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
- Comment The uploader has shared a large number of photos of the Island of Saint Martin. This file has been on Wikimedia since 2007, and is in use in multiple projects. The uploader seems not to have been active on Commons for some months, but has still been active on fr:W recently. I have alerted them to this discussion on their talk page there. For these reasons, I suggest giving them a bit more time to respond. -- Infrogmation (talk) 17:32, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
- Comment Hello gentlemen. I also wish the removing of this picture, because I know the photographer who took it. The man in the foreground is a friend who had come for his holidays in SXM. The photo was taken by a policeman on the island of St. Martin (French Side) and was used to sanction one of the AOM pilots who was well known to make some "sportive" approaches, but then there was no evidences to charge him. This picture proved his fault and he was fired from the company. I currently have the original photo in my possession and can scan it to prove that. I also could be join on the French wikipedia. --Xb-70 (talk) 13:24, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
- Delete The user has been repeatedly active on fr:W since being notified there and has still not responded about this photo. Note: for where this photo is used to illustrate Princess Juliana Airport in various Wikipedias, I suggest it be replaced by a different image from Category:Princess Juliana Airport before deletion. File:Air Caraibes Airbus A330-223 Breidenstein.jpg looks to me to be a decent substitute. -- Infrogmation (talk) 14:34, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: As per nom russavia (talk) 15:38, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
This file was tagged by Tyg728 as Speedy for the following reason: 低质量的文件，没有对焦，曲扭严重 Sreejith K (talk) 09:20, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
- Do you have any high quality photos able to replace this?--Chong Fat (talk) 09:41, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
- 已有在同一地点附近拍摄的多张高品质的照片 --Tyg728 (talk) 15:17, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
Kept: Its not the best quality but IMHO good enough to keep. JuTa 01:14, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Tyg728 as Speedy (低质量，已有质量更好的列車駛經大學站的多张页面) Sreejith K (talk) 08:32, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: by User:Fastily
Clearly a post-1942 monument, therefore unfortunately has to be deleted due to lack of freedom of panorama in Russia. Ymblanter (talk) 12:36, 20 June 2012 (UTC) ==== Да, не знали герои войны, отдавшие жизни в борьбе против фашизма, что изображение их памятника должно быть скрыто и удалено... Партизанская война продолжается?--Наталия19 (talk) 15:18, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 07:51, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
Copyrighted logo, I would think. Is this design really simple enough for PD-textlogo? Dominic (talk) 13:05, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
- Comment: Please see my comments on this DR too. --Captaincollect1970 (talk) 14:20, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
- Comment: Is simple enough for PD-textlogo exccept the "windows" logo in the left that is simple 4 bit/pixel graphics. There is a font that can reproduce this as textlogo but dont know watever it's licence allows it to be used freely. --FlorinCB (talk) 14:43, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
- Delete Motopark (talk) 04:33, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 07:51, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Copyrighted artwork; needs the permission of the museum for a free use (in Commons sense) 188.104.122.61 19:09, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
.JPG){kind=link}
Oppose Not a license problem, even if the photograph of objects has been taken without a permission of the institution. --Mattes (talk) 19:15, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
.JPG){kind=link}
According to this it is a copyright violation. --188.104.122.61 19:24, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
.JPG){kind=link}
- Exactly which part of that decision tree do you mean? The "threshold of originality" decision or the "permanently installed in a public place" decision or something else? Italy has no freedom of panorama, therefore I guess the decision hangs on whether a scientific reconstruction is a work of art. This and this are deletion discussions that approached this question. -84user (talk) 21:25, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
- This work is not displayed on a public place - as such no freedom of panorama applies (it should be displayed indoors). And it is indisputable that this work meets the threshold of originality. --188.104.122.61 17:53, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, in this case it appears the only way to keep this would be if the creator of the reconstruction gave an sufficiently free license to the photographer. Otherwise, it looks like a Delete; together with File:Pelz-Beinkleid des Ötzi, Südtiroler Archäologiemuseum.jpg. -84user (talk) 19:52, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, in this case it appears the only way to keep this would be if the creator of the reconstruction gave an sufficiently free license to the photographer. Otherwise, it looks like a
- This work is not displayed on a public place - as such no freedom of panorama applies (it should be displayed indoors). And it is indisputable that this work meets the threshold of originality. --188.104.122.61 17:53, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
Who gives a rat's ass? - 202.45.119.13 1 August 2012
- Wikimedia Commons is a database of media that have a free license, we care because people should be able to rely on this database to be free of copyright violations.
- File:Clothes of Ötzi, Naturhistorisches Museum Wien.jpg should be included in this DR. --Vera (talk) 16:36, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
.JPG){kind=link}
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) 07:51, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
.JPG){kind=link}
No freedom of panorama in Australia, I suppose. Seems to be based on the British law. Stefan4 (talk) 19:23, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
- Keep: According to the section 65 of Australian copyright Act. The copyright in a work to which this section applies that is situated, otherwise than temporarily, in a public place, or in premises open to the public, is not infringed by the making of a painting, drawing, engraving or photograph of the work or by the inclusion of the work in a cinematograph film or in a television broadcast. --Coekon (talk) 23:03, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
- However, COM:FOP#Australia says: "See the United Kingdom section for more details." And according to COM:FOP#United Kingdom, information boards are neither "sculptures" nor "works of artistic craftsmanship". --Stefan4 (talk) 23:25, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
- The section 65 of Australian Copyright Act is applicable for certain other works in public places. The unique condition of the "certain other works" is these works are situated in public place permanently. In this case, the information board can be classified as the certain other work. And it is situated permanently in public place. Therefore, it is not necessary to refer British laws, if there is Australian law applicale in this case. --Coekon (talk) 04:37, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
- Hm? "This section applies to sculptures and to works of artistic craftsmanship of the kind referred to in paragraph (c) of the definition of artistic work in section 10." --Stefan4 (talk) 00:30, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
- The section 65 of Australian Copyright Act is applicable for certain other works in public places. The unique condition of the "certain other works" is these works are situated in public place permanently. In this case, the information board can be classified as the certain other work. And it is situated permanently in public place. Therefore, it is not necessary to refer British laws, if there is Australian law applicale in this case. --Coekon (talk) 04:37, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
- However, COM:FOP#Australia says: "See the United Kingdom section for more details." And according to COM:FOP#United Kingdom, information boards are neither "sculptures" nor "works of artistic craftsmanship". --Stefan4 (talk) 23:25, 20 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) 07:51, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
It is not at all clear that this image is a work of the US Federal Government. Robert Weemeyer (talk) 22:29, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
- Comment The source caption says "George Bush Presidential Library and Museum". -- Infrogmation (talk) 23:06, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
- The Library was dedicated only in 1997, so the photo certainly was not taken by a employee of this library. -- Robert Weemeyer (talk) 23:27, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
- Certainly. Images available at US Presidential library websites from before the library was dedicated tend to be US Government works. (For example this 1962 photo was certainly not taken by an employee of the John F. Kennedy Presidential Library and Museum. It was taken by an employee of the Federal Government during the Kennedy administration.) U.S. Presidential libraries are part of the U.S. Government National Archives and Records Administration. What is your reason to suspect that this photo is not a US Federal Government work? -- Infrogmation (talk) 17:06, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
- In your 1962 example there is a clear indication that the photo was taken by a White House employee. This is not the case with the 1988 photograph. And do government officials take photos of election campaigns? In Germany they don't. -- Robert Weemeyer (talk) 18:43, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
- As to whether election campaigns are covered, apparently at least sometimes Example - Nixon campaigning in 1968. Additionally, note that at the time of this photo, Reagan was the sitting President (and probably usually being photographed at events) and Bush the sitting Vice President. Infrogmation (talk) 22:53, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
- The Library was dedicated only in 1997, so the photo certainly was not taken by a employee of this library. -- Robert Weemeyer (talk) 23:27, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 07:51, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
DoD files with unknown author
[edit]- File:Medium ocean tanker "Pechenga" in 1994.JPEG (my upload)
- File:MLRS in REFORGER 1985.jpg (User:Tm)
- File:JS Mineyuki at Pearl Harbor, -1 Jun. 1986 b.jpg (User:トトト)
- File:JS Asakaze in San Diego Bay, -1 Jul. 1991 a.jpg (User:トトト)
- File:JS Setogiri at San Diego, -1 Jul. 1991 a.jpg (User:トトト)
- File:JS Katori in Pearl Harbor, -1 Jul. 1991 a.jpg (User:トトト)
- File:Ilyushin Il-76 in 1983.JPEG (my upload)
- File:Kiev 1985 DN-SN-86-00684r.jpg (User:Pibwl)
- File:Medium ocean tanker "Dubna" in 1987.JPEG (my upload)
- File:A sailor from JS Shirane (DDH-143), -1 Oct. 1986 a.jpg (User:トトト)
- File:Ilyushin Il-76 in 1988.jpeg (my upload)
- File:JS Ayase (DE-216), -1 Oct. 1986 a.jpg (User:トトト)
- File:Amphibious landing ship "Mitrofan Moskalenko" in 1994.JPEG (my upload)
- File:JS Kurama in San Diego Harbor, -1 Jul. 1994 a.jpg (User:トトト)
- File:JS Kongō and JS Kurama at San Diego Naval Base, -1 Jul. 1994 a.jpg (User:トトト)
- File:JS Amagiri arrives at San Diego, -1 Jul. 1994 a.jpg (User:トトト)
- File:JS Amagiri arrives at San Diego, -1 Jul. 1994 b.jpg (User:トトト)
- File:Hamagiri and Amagiri at San Diego -1 Jul. 1994 a.jpg (User:トトト)
- File:Aircraft carrier "Minsk" in 1986 (3).jpeg (my upload)
- File:Aircraft carrier "Minsk" in 1986 (4).jpeg (my upload)
- File:Aircraft carrier "Kiev" in 1980.jpeg (my upload)
- File:Aircraft carrier "Minsk" in 1980.jpeg (my upload)
,_-1_Oct._1986_a.jpg){kind=link}
,_-1_Oct._1986_a.jpg){kind=link}
.jpeg){kind=link}
.jpeg){kind=link}
Per result of this deletion request this files should be deleted. --James R. Nockson (talk) 19:33, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
- Keep There is a description of copyright status in the EXIF of File:JS Asakaze in San Diego Bay, -1 Jul. 1991 a.jpg, which says public domain (I retouched the file using Photoshop but did not manipulate the EXIF). So let's keep this file without condition.
- And I see that some of the above images were taken from aircrafts (File:Aircraft carrier "Minsk" in 1986 (3).jpeg, File:JS Ayase (DE-216), -1 Oct. 1986 a.jpg, etc.). Is it not safe to assume that these were taken by people belonging to military organization, most likely of U.S.? Records of photographers may have been lost after 26 years. Who else could do this, and let the picture displayed in www.defenseimagery.mil? Even if they had been taken by people of military organization/government of other countries, these were the works created in thier official duty. There is little chance that anyone uses these files and gets sued by, say, Australian or Japanese government. --トトト (talk) 18:03, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
- I agree with you but admin decided that if exact author of photo is unknown then it should be deleted. I wanted to see if rules here are same for everyone - this is why I started this DR. If yes, then most of these files should be deleted. If no - then I request to restore my previously deleted file. James R. Nockson (talk) 18:48, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
- Also - description of defenseimagery says that it host DoD imagery that are in public domain. If they upload non-DoD image they note about its copyright status. But, if we don't trust that then why should we trust to EXIF of photo? James R. Nockson (talk) 18:48, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
- And I see that some of the above images were taken from aircrafts (File:Aircraft carrier "Minsk" in 1986 (3).jpeg, File:JS Ayase (DE-216), -1 Oct. 1986 a.jpg, etc.). Is it not safe to assume that these were taken by people belonging to military organization, most likely of U.S.? Records of photographers may have been lost after 26 years. Who else could do this, and let the picture displayed in www.defenseimagery.mil? Even if they had been taken by people of military organization/government of other countries, these were the works created in thier official duty. There is little chance that anyone uses these files and gets sued by, say, Australian or Japanese government. --トトト (talk) 18:03, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
- 'Comment'To admin who will close this DR - if you decide to keep these files then I officially request to restore File:Medium ocean tanker "Irkut" in 1985.JPEG. It was deleted for the same reason. Thanks in advance, James R. Nockson (talk) 18:48, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
- And a lot of them have an author in the exif--Sanandros (talk) 05:00, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
- It's not author, it's a person who entered data into EXIF after scanning photos. James R. Nockson (talk) 14:04, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
- And a lot of them have an author in the exif--Sanandros (talk) 05:00, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
Keep As the terms say "In general, imagery on this site is not copyrighted" we are allowed to assume PD with these pics.--Sanandros (talk) 09:11, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
Keep Don't us be "more catholic than the Pope". If US DoD published these photos on its official page and claims, that they belong to public domain as DoD photos, we have a right to use them in a good faith. Has anyone directed claims about these photos? If no, then why deprive Wikipedia of valuable and hard to replace materials? The same for File:Prozorlivy Kildin-mod DN-SN-83-05600.jpg, which somebody marked to deletion. Pibwl (talk) 14:37, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
- do also a deletion request on the other pic and ask what is wrong with it.--Sanandros (talk) 05:51, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Per discussion. MBisanz talk 02:57, 21 August 2012 (UTC)