Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2012/06/30
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
|
|
Derivative work of File:Dominique Bertinotti au dessus du 4e, depuis la Tour Morland.jpg, deleted as No permission Jean-Fred (talk) 21:07, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 21:44, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
Derivative of File:JoelleDolle 230610 EuropeEcologie 459 PascalCanfin.JPG, deleted as No permission Jean-Fred (talk) 21:09, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 21:44, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
This should probably have been included in Commons:Deletion requests/Images of User:Sonisona. —LX (talk, contribs) 22:40, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
All photos are my property - please stop deleting all my uploaded photos.--Sonisona (talk) 22:43, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
- So you own at least nine different cameras ranging from a Kodak EasyShare C310 to a Canon EOS 5D Mark II and you work at multiple photo studios? —LX (talk, contribs) 22:56, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted, by Yann: Copyright violation (log). —LX (talk, contribs) 09:52, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
Unlikely authorship claims. See Commons:Deletion requests/Images of User:Sonisona. —LX (talk, contribs) 22:39, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 07:56, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
Unlikely to be uploader's own work. Description says "Cover of my page", implying that the uploader is the author. However, she still needs the rights to the photograph and cover. Also note that the back of the cover clearly states "Cover Design by: U. H. Memon", proving that the author did not create the cover. Chris the Paleontologist (talk | contribs) 17:46, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Needs OTRS permission Sreejith K (talk) 10:10, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
Unused private photo - out of project scope. Art-top (talk) 16:22, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 17:45, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
Unused private photo - out of project scope. Art-top (talk) 16:23, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 17:46, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
Too small picture, not usable, please upload bigger version. Motopark (talk) 16:30, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 17:52, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
Unused private image - out of project scope. Art-top (talk) 16:40, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 17:53, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
Uncategorized, unused, without description. Doubtful educational use. Art-top (talk) 17:50, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 17:53, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
Unused, uncategorized, not significant logo - out of project scope. Doubtful authorship and license. Art-top (talk) 17:54, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 17:53, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
Screenshot of the actress from the 1972 Pakistani film Baharo Phool Barsao. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 10:56, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
- Delete agree. Actually no need for nomination. It is a blatant copyright violation. Boseritwik (talk) July 10, 2012 11:19 (UTC)
- Delete – All his/her uploads are like this.—Bill william comptonTalk 19:22, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom. Sreejith K (talk) 02:20, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
Comons has more than enough amateur genitalia images and these are no better than the many existing images we have. Delete per COM:PENIS and COM:PORN.
- File:Vaginal sex.jpg
- File:Vulva Marija .JPG
- File:Marijina Vagina.JPG
- File:Vagina marija .jpg
- File:Photoshooting with my wife Marija Shawed pussy lips.jpg
- File:Photoshooting with my wife Marija ass and pussy.JPG
- File:Photoshooting with my wife Marija.JPG
– JBarta (talk) 00:55, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
Also:
Keep Serial DRs against images of humans - Do you know COM:NOTCENSORED and the word "disruptive"? List several better but nearly identical replacements per listed file if you think those here are not useful. --Saibo (Δ∇) 01:08, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
- This has nothing to do with being against images of humans or censorship. Commons nudity guideline sums it up pretty well... "Commons does not need you to drop your pants and grab a camera. If you want to, try to fill a real gap in our collection." – JBarta (talk) 01:39, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, it is not censorship, you just want to delete many images of humans, I understand. You still did not list the many replacements you've mentioned. --Saibo (Δ∇) 02:39, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
- You're an administrator around here. I'm sure you can find your way to all the pussy images. You shouldn't need my help for that. – JBarta (talk) 22:48, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
- Keep, essentially agree with analysis by Saibo (talk · contribs), above. Good quality images with unique depictions of useful educational and encyclopedic material. -- Cirt (talk) 14:50, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
- Keep - high quality photographs with high educational value. --Claritas (talk) 21:01, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
Decent enough quality, and a set of images is useful. JBarta, please be civil and mellow. -mattbuck (Talk) 02:59, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
Files or User:Marciaartedigital
[edit]- File:ME ENCANTA.jpg
- File:RECIPROCO.jpg
- File:PASION.jpg
- File:HORA PICO.jpg
- File:FIGURA FEMENINA.jpg
- File:FORMAS GEOMETRICAS BASICAS.jpg
- File:CORTINA.jpg
- File:BESOS.jpg
- File:SUSHI.jpg
- File:GAY U.jpg
- File:GAY O.jpg
- File:GAY I.jpg
- File:GAY E.jpg
- File:GAY A.jpg
- File:DOS.jpg
- File:CAMINANDO.jpg
- File:REDES.jpg
All files, uploaded by User:Marciaartedigital - unused, low quality, not educational, not artistic private images. Out of project scope. --Art-top (talk) 16:31, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 17:51, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
Other uploads by the user have been confirmed as copyright violations, being manipulated versions of demonstrably non-free photos. Presumably, these are also based on non-free photos. Additionally, such manipulations are not realistically useful for educational purposes and therefore outside of Commons:Project scope.
—LX (talk, contribs) 23:22, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted, by Yann: Mass deletion of pages added by Mhymgt. —LX (talk, contribs) 10:05, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
Reasons for deletion request -206.116.195.226 23:20, 30 June 2012 (UTC) Wrong copyrights stated. Copyright infrigement.
Comment Well, the map data itself (layout of the streets, forest areas, buildings etc.) are, as far as I can see, exactly the same as in OSM. However, the map has been heavily edited and some other than the default renderer has been used. If you choose the bike map renderer at the top right corner (don't know how it's called in english since I only get the german language version), you get something that looks rather similar (including the contour lines): [1]. Of course the licenses are wrong: OSM is CC-BY-SA 2.0 and not 1.0 generic or 3.0 unported. The Information template should be changed to {{OpenStreetMap}} or {{Openstreetmap render}} (if it was rendred from the raw data by Mrjane). --El Grafo (talk) 11:24, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
Info I notified the uploader and changed the information template to {{OpenStreetMap}}, so the license issue should be resolved now. However, I'm still wondering which renderer has been used – the bike map style comes near but seems to be slightly different? --El Grafo (talk) 11:45, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
Kept: I spent about five minutes using the link El Grafo supplied and was able to come up with a very similar image using blurs and playing with darkness, contrast, and hues in Paint.NET. It's agreed upon above that the source is OSM, and I proved that it's got a whole lot of makeup on. There's no evidence that the modifications were not preformed by the uploader, so I'm inclined to believe that in this case. Sven Manguard Wha? 02:17, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
Unencyclopedic; impossible to determine the subject of the photograph. Description says it depicts a solar eclipse from 1996, but there is nothing definitively recognizeable (at least by me) in this image. — Huntster (t @ c) 00:41, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
- Delete as unusable, poor quality. --P199 (talk) 18:58, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Quality too low to meet scope. Sven Manguard Wha? 01:51, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
Screenshot of the actress from the 1972 Pakistani film Umrao Jan Ada. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 10:55, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 10:49, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
Doubtful authorship - low resolution for own drawing, through the TinEye are 103 variants of this image. Art-top (talk) 16:19, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 07:17, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
a very creative usage of {{PD-because}} JuTa 16:47, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 07:17, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
No links to verifiable external resources (Nationalistic map?!) Dzlinker (talk) 23:20, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 07:10, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
seems to be the scanning of an image in a publication, like at least one other file uploaded by this editor banned from the English Wikipedia but using a series of aliases to evade the banning Esoglou (talk) 09:31, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 21:19, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Work by a French painter in a French museum, not PD in France Zolo (talk) 10:30, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 21:25, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Most probably not own work. Yann (talk) 11:49, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 21:27, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Copyright violation. Not made or taken by an FBI employee, quite probably taken in a studio (looks like a ID card picture). Redistribution by the FBI does not make this PD. Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:26, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 21:35, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Torsch as duplicate (dup) and the most recent rationale was: licate|Ieacid2.png — billinghurst sDrewth 14:31, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 21:19, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
No permission of the people at the background... especially the man (face between Laura and her alleged lawer) seems to be a non-participant of the interview. Btr 14:32, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
The circumstances do not require an individual permission by all pictured persons. The picture was taken during a press conference and all present people knew that they might be photographed and that those pictures might be published. Their presence at the press conference implies agreement to be photographed.
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 21:24, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
No permission of the people at the background... especially the man (face between Laura and her alleged lawer) seems to be a non-participant of the interview. Btr 14:33, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 21:25, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Doubtful authorship. Just recently uploaded (May 2012), on this website a version of the same file has been at least for 6 months. A.Savin 14:58, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 22:06, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Licence? Antemister (talk) 15:12, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 21:05, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small resolution, missing EXIF. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:14, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 22:32, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Cover for "In nomine Satanis - Magna Veritas" RPG 3rd ed., published by Asmodée in 1997. Uploader is most probably not the author. GPask (talk) 15:22, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 21:44, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
This photograph appears on several websites. I can't find any information on when the photograph was taken or its copyright status, but it doesn't seem as though the uploader is likely to be the author. The subject was a prominent educator who established several schools during the 1930's. From the uploader's self-pic, it seems unlikely that he/she would have been alive when the photo was taken. Osiris (talk) 15:41, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 21:21, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
No evidence that the subject of the photograph is available under a free license. Unused file. Osiris (talk) 15:48, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 21:17, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Orphaned file with a dubious claim to authorship. Appears on several government websites related to Dilip Walse-Patil. Osiris (talk) 15:52, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 21:02, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
a very creative usage of {{PD-because}} JuTa 16:24, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 20:50, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
a very creative usage of {{PD-because}} JuTa 16:29, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 21:53, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
No proof that this was published in the same year it was created, or that its author is unknown, or that it is free in the US ({{Not-PD-US-URAA}}). Magog the Ogre (talk) 17:26, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 21:30, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
I can't find this one on the net, but all other images from this user were deleted because of copyvios. Yann (talk) 17:55, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 20:55, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Author: Paja Jovanović. Unfree in home country until 2028. Magog the Ogre (talk) 18:45, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 21:31, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Unclear authorship/license: "Author:anonymous Source: My own photos while on holiday Fair use rationale: Photos taken in public domain" Saibo (Δ∇) 18:46, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 21:00, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Image comes from www.emblemstudios.com (all rights reserved). Not clear who uploader is, the artist? the website creator? or who owns the rights to the image. Bbb23 (talk) 19:17, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 21:20, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Admin: Only hide (revdel) the contents of the first versions. DW of the artwork on the right side (the uploader also wrote something about fair use originally: "This Flickr image is acceptable under the fair use guidelines"). I already uploaded a crop as new version on top. The text may be okay as it is fairly simple. Saibo (Δ∇) 19:17, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 21:50, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Maurice Boutterin architect, dead 1970. No FOP in France. 90.44.45.29 20:24, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 21:31, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Sculpture created in 1975, not in public domain. No FOP in France. 90.44.45.29 20:29, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 21:33, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Sculpture by Jacques Voitot, created in 1978. No FOP in France. 90.44.45.29 20:35, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 21:40, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Sculpture by Jens Boettcher created in 1993. Not in public domain. No FOP in France. 90.44.45.29 20:38, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 21:31, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
The source is cc-by-cl-3.0 but this exact image is not linked to. -Nard (Hablemonos)(Let's talk) 20:40, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 21:20, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Sculpture by François Morellet created in 1996. No FOP in France. 90.44.45.29 20:44, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 21:02, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Very low quality ; name of the tree unknown and impossible to identify ; place unkown Tangopaso (talk) 21:39, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 20:52, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
This photo is the logo of an organisation and as such should only be used under an assertion of fair use. If it were of the logo on a jacket featuring the person and some other context then I'm guessing the image would be permissible, but the way this image is cropped/framed is just to show the logo and therefore it doesn't belong here. Biker Biker (talk) 21:39, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 21:31, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
This photo is the logo of an organisation and as such should only be used under an assertion of fair use. If it were of the logo on a jacket featuring the person and some other context then I'm guessing the image would be permissible, but the way this image is cropped/framed is just to show the logo and therefore it doesn't belong here. Biker Biker (talk) 21:39, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 21:32, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
This photo is the logo of an organisation and as such should only be used under an assertion of fair use. If it were of the logo on a jacket featuring the person and some other context then I'm guessing the image would be permissible, but the way this image is cropped/framed is just to show the logo and therefore it doesn't belong here. Biker Biker (talk) 21:39, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 21:41, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
This photo is the logo of an organisation and as such should only be used under an assertion of fair use. If it were of the logo on a jacket featuring the person and some other context then I'm guessing the image would be permissible, but the way this image is cropped/framed is just to show the logo and therefore it doesn't belong here. Biker Biker (talk) 21:39, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 21:44, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
This photo is the logo of an organisation and as such should only be used under an assertion of fair use. If it were of the logo on a jacket featuring the person and some other context then I'm guessing the image would be permissible, but the way this image is cropped/framed is just to show the logo and therefore it doesn't belong here. Biker Biker (talk) 21:40, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 21:57, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Very low quality ; name of the tree unknown and impossible to identify ; place unkown Tangopaso (talk) 21:44, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 20:52, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Derivative work. Not de minimis. No evidence of permission for pictured work. Author(s) of pictured work not credited. Asclepias (talk) 22:04, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 21:33, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
The map is made up by the uploader with *no references to any external resources*, he inserted a link to another file from which he made this version. Dzlinker (talk) 23:05, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 21:26, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Corbis does not license images in a manner compatible with Commons. See [2] where royalty free content is only redistributable to a maximum of 10 people, which means it could never be hosted on Commons -Nard (Hablemonos)(Let's talk) 23:27, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 21:30, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
The Corbis "royalty free" grant does not allow redistribution in original form to more than 10 users, see [3]. This means this image could never be hosted on Commons. -Nard (Hablemonos)(Let's talk) 23:34, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 21:49, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Not covered by Bridgeman v Corel as this is a 3 dimensional photo. -Nard (Hablemonos)(Let's talk) 23:36, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 21:49, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Source for image is listed as "Own work" and "Boi-1da photo from twitter". The image is obviously a promo photo and unlikely to be from the uploader. Fixer23 (talk) 23:51, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 21:45, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
it isn't a simple text-logo Metrónomo (talk) 02:13, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
- Keep:I don't put that Templete. The image is a derivation from other free photo. --Sahaquiel - Hast du eine Frage?
04:17, 30 June 2012 (UTC) - Keep Derived from a FoP image and also is below the threshold. The shape is similar to many PD traffic signs. -Nard (Hablemonos)(Let's talk) 18:36, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
- Comment: w:es:Wikipedia:Café#Plantillas y logos. As derivative work is nearly plagiarism: File:Placa Cali 2.JPG. --Metrónomo (talk) 22:03, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
- Keep - I would agree this is not original enough to warrant a copyright. It's a common shield with some lettering. PD-Ineligible is correct. Also, in this instance, FOP or considering it a derivative work of anything are irrelevant. Being ineligible for copyright, it doesn't matter where it comes from. – JBarta (talk) 07:49, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
- Keep We Should keep the image, is a derivation of another free image and that is something allowed by the Creative Commons license --
Remux - I will never forget that i fell in love with the more beautiful flower Ĉu mi povas helpi vin je io? 04:37, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
- Comment A reasonable time passed already and the tendency is to keep the file. I ask for the close of this request. --Sahaquiel - Hast du eine Frage? 03:53, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
- The deletion request will be disposed of in due course. Be patient. – JBarta (talk) 09:57, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
I see no evidence that the government of Pakistan exempts its works for copyright. Magog the Ogre (talk) 02:42, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
- I had uploaded the file believing that the works of the Government of Pakistan is a public property, however after reading the comments of Magog the Ogre, I read The Copyright Ordinance, 1962, and found no such provision. I will find a free replacement to the file and upload it as soon as possible. Ahmer Jamil Khan
- Ahmer Jamil Khan had uploaded the file to the English Wikipedia only. Since I wanted to reuse it on the German Wikipedia, I had moved the file to Commons. When a free replacement is found, please upload it on Commons directly, so that it can be used across multiple languages.--AK456 (talk) 12:20, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted Infrogmation (talk) 19:29, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
cropped from twitter image. here [4] Adamgerber80 (talk) 17:37, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: "25 November 2017 Jcb (talk | contribs | block) deleted page File:Raja Pervez Ashraf.jpg (Copyright violation: Copy-right violation. cropped from twitter here [5])". --Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:48, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Saibo as no license (no license)
A Collage of many other images. During file history th given license was "lost". As I'm not sure which license(s) might be correct here, I put this as an DR to get this clarified. JuTa 05:20, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
- All of the file sources are given, and you are an administrator. It troubles me greatly you cannot figure out what the license should be. -Nard (Hablemonos)(Let's talk) 18:25, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
- I could if I want to.... and maybe I will ... later, if nobody is quicker. --JuTa 18:58, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
- Several of the source photos have unverifiable licenses, so the correct license is likely copyvio. -Nard (Hablemonos)(Let's talk) 20:43, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
--- Deleted; clear info on required attribution of some files not given; some files used have since been deleted. -- Infrogmation (talk) 19:32, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Don-kun as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: character from tv series (digimon), no permission. --Don-kun (talk) 18:48, 29 June 2012 (UTC). As I don't know the original figure, this may need some discussion about how near this user-created drawing is to the original copyrighted figure. -- Túrelio (talk) 09:18, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
- The character is named in the description: Omegamon. So you can search with google if you want to know how the character looks. This image is just a drawing of a copyrighted character, so it is a copyright violation. Delete --Don-kun (talk) 10:09, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
- It is clearly fanart from the copyrighted character Omegamon. The drawing is his own creativity, but he clearly copied the design of the character which is a copyright violation. It's like drawing Asterix your own way. Delete --／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ 署名の宣言 10:14, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
- Delete Agreed. The author does have a copyright in his work, and can release that as he wants; however, since it is a derivative work, there is also the copyright in the original to consider. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 10:39, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted Infrogmation (talk) 19:34, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
copyright violation — ƒorajump, 13:18, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
- Keep No it's not. -Nard (Hablemonos)(Let's talk) 18:40, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
- Keep - It's a simple text logo. Not eligible for copyright, therefore no copyright violation. I changed the license accordingly. – JBarta (talk) 08:04, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
To me Pd-textlogo does not apply here. Kyro (talk) 18:39, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
- Tomorrow I will transfer it to the German Wikipedia and the I don't care what will happen to thos file. Greetings--Das Schäfchen (talk) 18:47, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
- Delete not pd-simple. --McZusatz (talk) 20:41, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom. -- Common Good (talk) 18:27, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
Looks like a screenshot. Sreejith K (talk) 19:00, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
- Uploader wrote "A Scene of O Bandido da Luz Vermelha" - that is a 1968 Brazilian film (pt:O Bandido da Luz Vermelha). Brazil has 70 years copyright for films after publication (Commons:L#Brazil) - if I read correctly. So, that is a screenshot from a still copyrighted film. Delete --Saibo (Δ∇) 19:42, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
- That is also the opinion by an Brazlian IP. --Saibo (Δ∇) 19:45, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 11:59, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
Map uploaded as own work, while original source here [6] Dzlinker (talk) 23:09, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
- Keep it is more likely that site is using the image in violation of the license, as it is a smaller resolution. A capture of the page in 2007[7] does not show this map being used, even though it was uploaded to Commons in 2006 -Nard (Hablemonos)(Let's talk) 23:17, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
- Keep per above, even JoshuaProject used to use files taken from Commons in violation of the copyright. --Omar-Toons (talk) 14:48, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
Oppose many errors in the map--— Mouh2jijel [Talk] 07:42, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Kept: as above. Yann (talk) 12:01, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Dzlinker as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: Mustafa isn't the creator of this map either, you can't get anything from en.wikipedia.org without verifying the sources. reopening: the original file is from this website, as it has a bigger resolution, yo can get a small resolution from a bigger one, not the other around. INeverCry 04:06, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
- Delete Seems to have some weird stuff going on copyright wise. Sarah (talk) 22:51, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 23:40, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Nikbot as no license (no license)
Uploader added {{PD-US}} afterwards. Is this realy valid here? JuTa 05:47, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
- Struck {{Vd}}. Wasn't thinking about {{PD-ineligible}}. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 07:14, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
- Keep Too simple to copyright. The US has a very high threshold for logos. -Nard (Hablemonos)(Let's talk) 18:33, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
- Keep - I would tend to agree with Nard. – JBarta (talk) 07:53, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
Kept: . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:49, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
This logo is inconsistently licensed stating (i) it's released under Art libre license (ii) it's licensed especially to be reused on Wikimedia projects (iii) it doesn't meet threshold of originality. In those situations, the most plausible statement is often the (ii), making (i) and (iii) bogus. Could we clarify the license, send an OTRS permission if needed or delete this logo if copyright holder only wanted to allow reuse on Wikimedia? Dereckson (talk) 12:12, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
- Delete Clearly passes COM:TOO in my opinion. I can't see evidence of the free art license on the source page. --99of9 (talk) 04:53, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:49, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
Files in low resolution, without original exif, can be found on the Internet. Author's name does not match the name of uploader, no permission from original author. Warning template is removed by User:Lx 121. Art-top (talk) 16:51, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
- Also nominated: File:Pendant2011.jpg (the same reasons). --Art-top (talk) 16:52, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Per nom., author not the same as uploader and no permission or explanation. Wknight94 talk 04:34, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
Logo; I doubt uploader owns the rights on this logo. Sumurai8 (talk) 07:31, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
Delete - From www.wpist.nl. The uploader might try to get permission from the source to use this logo. If succesful, then it can stay. – JBarta (talk) 07:59, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
Please, delete this logo not too fast. The uploader is secretary of the board of the WPIST. I'll contact him in Dutch and will help him to place the logo the proper way. Geus (talk) 21:47, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
- I received OTRS permission, and although it is from a regular/personal mail-adres, I do not have any reason to believe this person is not allowed to release this logo. The use of the logo on the internet is limited, and always refers to this Dutch competition, and the competition itself is a small tournament. Edoderoo (talk) 20:06, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 03:03, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
Portrait d'une personne non identifiée Claude Truong-Ngoc (talk) 14:25, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
- Keep - Nikolas Rose Magog the Ogre (talk) 18:26, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
- Delete per nom unless info provided. -- Infrogmation (talk) 19:37, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
- Did you read what I wrote? Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 23:04, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
Kept: Keep? FASTILY (TALK) 03:02, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
To me, there is still to much of the Excel interface to be out of the copyright. Kyro (talk) 18:31, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
- No, we're still in de minimis. The only interface items not in public domain are the gradient and border used for columns heading A B C D and the slider at the left of the formula bar. So I would keep the picture. --Dereckson (talk) 06:35, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
- There is nothing in this picture peculiar to Microsoft Excel It is primarily text. The artwork above column header C at the top of the screen displaying fx may not be generic, but it does not indicate a control button, it is not part of the active "Excel interface", and it is not a copyright issue.
- There is no reason to delete this figure, or even to alter it slightly. In suggesting that material be deleted, it would be helpful if the objections were detailed in specific terms, rather than in broad-brush terms of ambiguous import such as "exhibiting too much of the Excel interface". Brews ohare (talk) 14:41, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
Kept: Pd-ineligilbe FASTILY (TALK) 03:03, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
"Created by myself for the Party, fair use." does not sound like the author has understood the free licenses (which are there, too). Not in use currently, not clear for which party that is.. Saibo (Δ∇) 18:52, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
Go ahead and delete it. It's not in use by the article it was intended for. Knave (talk) 20:18, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
- Hi, we can keep it if it is useful somehow (does not need to be in an article) - I do not know what it is. However, your licensing is a bit strange. What did you want to express with "fair use"? Just tell what you like. Not needed anymore and not useful? --Saibo (Δ∇) 02:40, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
- It was years ago, I probably wasn't sure how to classify the license at the time. It was originally uploaded for an English Wikipedia article on an upstart Canadian political party called the Party of Alberta. I would say it's not needed and not useful, now. Knave (talk) 20:57, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 03:02, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
copyright license changed on youtube Wykymania (talk) 08:45, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
Kept: license is not revocable Jcb (talk) 10:17, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
copyrighted http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hWnTVWpNQsk Wykymania (talk) 12:23, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
- So, Wykymania, did you lie when you uploaded it as own work, or are you lying now? -Nard (Hablemonos)(Let's talk) 18:35, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted 20:34, 13 September 2012 by Fastily, closed by . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 20:58, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Brian McNeil (talk · contribs)
[edit]Commons:Derivative works: Text is big enough to be copyrighted.
- File:NGS Lusieri Exhibition July 2012. 173.JPG
- File:NGS Lusieri Exhibition July 2012. 154.JPG
- File:NGS Lusieri Exhibition July 2012. 151.JPG
- File:NGS Lusieri Exhibition July 2012. 146.JPG
- File:NGS Lusieri Exhibition July 2012. 143.JPG
- File:NGS Lusieri Exhibition July 2012. 141.JPG
- File:NGS Lusieri Exhibition July 2012. 139.JPG
- File:NGS Lusieri Exhibition July 2012. 136.JPG
- File:NGS Lusieri Exhibition July 2012. 134.JPG
- File:NGS Lusieri Exhibition July 2012. 130.JPG
- File:NGS Lusieri Exhibition July 2012. 128.JPG
- File:NGS Lusieri Exhibition July 2012. 126.JPG
- File:NGS Lusieri Exhibition July 2012. 124.JPG
- File:NGS Lusieri Exhibition July 2012. 122.JPG
- File:NGS Lusieri Exhibition July 2012. 120.JPG
- File:NGS Lusieri Exhibition July 2012. 118.JPG
- File:NGS Lusieri Exhibition July 2012. 113.JPG
- File:NGS Lusieri Exhibition July 2012. 110.JPG
- File:NGS Lusieri Exhibition July 2012. 111.JPG
- File:NGS Lusieri Exhibition July 2012. 104.JPG
- File:NGS Lusieri Exhibition July 2012. 102.JPG
- File:NGS Lusieri Exhibition July 2012. 100.JPG
- File:NGS Lusieri Exhibition July 2012. 097.JPG
- File:NGS Lusieri Exhibition July 2012. 095.JPG
- File:NGS Lusieri Exhibition July 2012. 093.JPG
- File:NGS Lusieri Exhibition July 2012. 091.JPG
- File:NGS Lusieri Exhibition July 2012. 084.JPG
- File:NGS Lusieri Exhibition July 2012. 082.JPG
- File:NGS Lusieri Exhibition July 2012. 076.JPG
- File:NGS Lusieri Exhibition July 2012. 074.JPG
- File:NGS Lusieri Exhibition July 2012. 068.JPG
- File:NGS Lusieri Exhibition July 2012. 064.JPG
- File:NGS Lusieri Exhibition July 2012. 063.JPG
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:23, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
- Comment I've zero objections to the reasoning behind this deletion request. I simply lacked the time to rewrite/summarise the image descriptions. Feel free to remove once used as the basis for adding additional information to the non-infringing images and/or renaming the non-infringing images. --Brian McNeil / talk 13:49, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 04:09, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF.
- File:Wargar, A Neolithic site near Harsin, Kermanshah, Iran.JPG
- File:A page of National Museum of Iran brochure 2010.jpg
- File:Location Map- National Museum of Iran.JPG
- File:A general view of Iran Bastan museum, Tehran.jpg
- File:Middle Paleolithic stone tool, Mar Tarik Cave, Bisetoun, Kermanshah, Iran.jpg
- File:Front view of Iran Bastan museum, Tehran.jpg
- File:Upper Paleolithic Human tooth from Wezmeh Cave near Kermanshah.jpg
- File:Darband- excavation.jpg
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:30, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 22:45, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Bechstein1853 (talk · contribs)
[edit]Advertisement from web site. No evidence of permission.
- File:C. Bechstein Tastatur Detailfoto.jpg
- File:Bechstein grand piano A 190 Classic style.jpg
- File:C. Bechstein upright piano Millenium116K Palisander.jpg
- File:C. Bechstein upright piano Concert 8.jpg
- File:C. Bechstein grand piano L 167 Chippendale.jpg
- File:CB MP192 Inlay clip.jpg
- File:C. Bechstein Konzertflügel D 282.jpg
- File:C. Bechstein concert grand D 282.jpg
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:41, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
Dear Eugene Zelenko, I just sent an e-mail to permissions-de@wikimedia.org. I'm working for the C. Bechstein Pianofortefabrik AG and we uploaded this photos, because we want to allocate this photos for wikimedia. For further questions please contact willmes@bechstein.de. Kind regards, i.A. Gregor Willmes C. Bechstein Pianofortefabrik AG — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bechstein1853 (talk • contribs) 13:52, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
- OTRS received
|
An email has been received at VRTS concerning this file, and can be read by users with a VRTS account. The email was not sufficient as it does not contain an explicit release under a free license; a reply has been sent outlining the next required steps. For an update on the issue, please contact the user who added this template to the page, or someone else with a VRTS account, or the VRT noticeboard. If a valid permission is not provided within 30 days of the first response by a VRT agent, this file will be deleted. Please do not file an additional deletion nomination for permission reasons.
Ticket link: https://ticket.wikimedia.org/otrs/index.pl?Action=AgentTicketZoom&TicketNumber=2012070210005171 |
Regarding all files in the list above.--Wdwd (talk) 19:25, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
![36 File:"location of sitapur in chhattisgarh".jpg](#File:"location_of_sitapur_in_chhattisgarh".jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
![16:24, 30 June 2012 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2012/06/30#c-JuTa-2012-06-30T16:24:00.000Z-File:"location_of_sitapur_in_chhattisgarh".jpg){kind=link}
![20:50, 23 July 2012 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2012/06/30#c-Fastily-2012-07-23T20:50:00.000Z-File:"location_of_sitapur_in_chhattisgarh".jpg){kind=link}
![[4]](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CqQtMYPVIAEdFtB.jpg){kind=link}
- Why is none of these images tage with the OTRS received tag?!? --Denniss (talk) 10:52, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
- Note:I tagged all images listed above with the provided OTRS received tag. --Denniss (talk) 20:34, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: previously deleted, closed by . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 20:59, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
I'm not convinced this is simple enough to be PD-shape, and the source says all rights reserved. Wknight94 talk 12:38, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
As the creator of the logo, and one who is a part of the ACES board, I'm saying it's fine to use. Thedanielhunt17:29, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
- If you have ownership of the copyright, please send e-mail to the address at COM:OTRS. Thank you. Wknight94 talk 17:38, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
- To clarify, the OTRS e-mail should come from the corporation -- usually such actions come from the Corporate Secretary, in this case, David Sullivan. While Mr. Hunt may be the creator, once he has transferred the work to the organization, it is not his to license here. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:42, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
Kept. - PD-textlogo, although a borderline case - Jcb (talk) 16:01, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
That is not really PD-textlogo (even Jcb admits "borderline"). Permission from copyright holder needed. Saibo (Δ∇) 18:50, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted 03:01, 14 September 2012 by Fastily, closed by . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:01, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
Ljn series Wrestling figures
[edit]photographer seems to think himself that his phot is a DW ("Rationale for the fair use " - no FU allowed at COM). See Commons:Image_casebook#Toys.
Saibo (Δ∇) 19:11, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
- Delete COM:TOYS is very clear about this. --Stefan4 (talk) 07:30, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Per above. Wknight94 talk 04:30, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
This photo is the logo of an organisation and as such should only be used under an assertion of fair use. If it were of the logo on a jacket featuring the person and some other context then I'm guessing the image would be permissible, but the way this image is cropped/framed is just to show the logo and therefore it doesn't belong here. Biker Biker (talk) 21:38, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
- Hi, can't follow this argumentation. I see a biker's garb with Hells Angels colors, not a vector graphic. --92.224.3.176 21:27, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
- Hello Biker Biker. As the author of this pictures and I don't really understand why you want to delete it, and the fact that it has been cropped is not an argument to me. --DaiFh discuT 12:29, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
- Comment i hope we can keep that pic. Otherwise a lot of work waits in Category:Motorcycle club colors --AtelierMonpli (talk) 12:14, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: 03:02, 14 September 2012 by Fastily, with which I agree. It is clearly derivative of the copyrighted logo. Closed by . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:05, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
This stamp was not published by the Nazi Germany postal service. It is an allied fake intentionally made to look like a German stamp. Hence, the tag information is incorrect, and the stamp is presumably not in the public domain. --Cú Faoil (talk) 19:17, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
- So the question is: in which country was the stamp designed? According to this book the stamp was produced by the Polish resistance movement, so I assume the Polish copyright applies. Here I read:
- "According to the Polish Copyright Law of February 4, 1994 (Article 4, case 2) governmental symbols, documents, materials and signs are not subject to copyrights. However in some instances the use of this image in Poland might be regulated by other laws. It is being debated if postage stamps fall into this category."
- "Polish copyright law prohibits copyright for: 1. legislative acts and their official drafts, 2. official documents, materials, logos and symbols, (...)"
- So this reproduction is possibly within PD, either because this is true for Polish stamps in general, either because it is not a stamp (because it was not valid), but an "official document". To verify this, we need an expert for the Polish copyright. --Phrontis (talk) 14:09, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
- Addition: another source claims that the british Political Warfare Executive is the author of this "stamp". In this case, the image would be PD-UKGov. --Phrontis (talk) 15:12, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
- Also de:Briefmarkenfälschung#Generalgouvernement says that these "stamps" were made by the British goverment. 'Keep als PD-UKGov. -- Robert Weemeyer (talk) 19:10, 22 August 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) 02:42, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
In the absence of a "Commons:Deprecation requests", I have filed this. There is one user whom demands a vote as a precondition for the template to be deprecated. {{Wallpaper}} can be kept but should be deprecated and the main intention of this nomination is to gather consensus.
Commons featured Wallpaper tagging is currently handled by {{Assessments}} with parameter value "1" for normal aspect ratios and "2" for "WideScreen" aspect ratios.
-- とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 23:28, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
- Info -- It is not true what とある白い猫 says. This is just a childish trick to force his "Assessment" template against consensus. I have removed the "Deprecated" template from the Wallpaper file. Please check Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems#とある白い猫 -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 14:46, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
- The template has 4 uses just because your reverted (revert warred) to keep this template in use (despite stating "You are quite right, I don’t give a s* for whether the wallpaper thing is put inside the template or not (though it seems a useless piece of information if applied this way, and only to FP)"). You demanded a vote (proper procedures) and I provided you with one. Oh, pull the other leg... -- とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 16:24, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
- Keep If it's in use, it's in scope, a small minority cannot declare something deprecated and then mass-remove it.
More concerning, this template is not limited to featured pictures, so merging with the assessment template doesn't make sense.--99of9 (talk) 03:25, 4 July 2012 (UTC)- Template is limited to featured pictures. It reads (emphasis mine) "This featured picture is fairly large and has an aspect ratio of approximately 4:3 or 5:4, making it suitable as a computer wallpaper." -- とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 23:07, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
- Ok, sorry, I don't know how I missed that. --99of9 (talk) 01:12, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
- Template is limited to featured pictures. It reads (emphasis mine) "This featured picture is fairly large and has an aspect ratio of approximately 4:3 or 5:4, making it suitable as a computer wallpaper." -- とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 23:07, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
- Keep I never liked this template but that is not enough reason for deletion. But the wording and categorization should be corrected to apply to all pictures, not only to FP. And the recent changes to migrate the info to the Assessment template should be reverted. Alvesgaspar (talk) 23:25, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
- This template was created on 14 July 2007 to handle featured pictures only. You are trying to change the scope of something this template had from the start. Why has not this thought occur to you until today? Also vast majority of "wallpaper" taggings were made through the assessments template not through the wallpaper template. There is no version to revert to in such cases. -- とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 21:27, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
- Delete. Please delete it or merge it to {{Assessments}} or make it more general by merging other same templates to it (like {{Wallpaper-en}}, {{WideCommonsWallpaper}} and {{WideWallpaper-en}}) or change it to let non-featured pictures use it also. If it is about featured picture, why {{Assessments}} doesn't handel it [via a parameter]? I want to ask, If a suitable for background wide picture is featured on commons, enwiki, dewiki, frwiki, what templates it must use? {{WideCommonsWallpaper}}, {{WideWallpaper-en}}, {{WideWallpaper-de}} (fortunately doesn't exist yet!!) and {{WideWallpaper-fr}}? And if this picture is not wide? Possibly {{Wallpaper}}, {{Wallpaper-en}}, {{Wallpaper-fr}} and {{WideWallpaper-de}}?!! This functionality totally is something that {{Assessments}} must support (if it is really needed because I think every picture can used as a background, no-matter that our screen ratio is compatible with that picture ratio or not) −ebraminiotalk 20:08, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
- I can extend the code of Assessments template to handle Wikipedia flavors of wallpaper assessments. This template ({{Wallpaper}}) and {{WideCommonsWallpaper}} is already handled by {{Assessments}}. Not all pictures are suitable to be wallpapers IMHO as some featured pictures are fairly small (such as animations). The idea is to mark the aspect ratio as well (wide/non-wide) which currently cannot be done automatically. -- とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 16:31, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
Delete - {{Assessments}} covers this, and I just don't see it as a particularly great concept: almost anything can be used as wallpaper. Rd232 (talk) 00:16, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
- Delete. Now that Assessments handles this, deletion due to deprecation is fine. Wizardman 16:13, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Per consensus. INeverCry 19:40, 12 October 2012 (UTC)