Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2012/08/29
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
|
|
.jpg){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_Tucson_small_2011,_oil_on_canvas,_76_x_76_inches.jpg){kind=link}
The uploader has no authority to release this under a Free Art License! This is basically an unauthorized scan of a cover from a DVD release of a copyrighted film. Clearly a violation of Disney's copyrights. SethAllen623 (talk) 00:42, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio. INeverCry 05:59, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope —Vensatry (Ping me) 05:39, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
Kept: File is in use on 2 user pages. INeverCry 06:00, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope —Vensatry (Ping me) 05:39, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
Kept: File is in use. INeverCry 06:02, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
Insufficiently sourced: I'm not sure how to prove that the image really was made by NASA. Stefan4 (talk) 08:37, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
Kept: NASA logo (on the top right) is enough on the image, also commonsense. Bidgee (talk) 08:50, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
Insufficiently sourced: I'm not sure how to prove that the image really was made by NASA. Stefan4 (talk) 08:37, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
Kept: NASA logo (on the top right) is enough on the image, also commonsense. Bidgee (talk) 08:51, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
Insufficiently sourced: I'm not sure how to prove that the image really was made by NASA. Stefan4 (talk) 08:38, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
Kept: NASA logo (on the top right) is enough on the image, also commonsense. Bidgee (talk) 08:51, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
Insufficiently sourced: I'm not sure how to prove that the image really was made by NASA. Stefan4 (talk) 08:38, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
Kept: NASA logo (on the top right) is enough on the image, also commonsense. Bidgee (talk) 08:45, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
Insufficiently sourced: I'm not sure how to prove that the image really was made by NASA. Stefan4 (talk) 08:39, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
Kept: NASA logo (on the top right) is enough on the image, also commonsense. Bidgee (talk) 08:52, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Also possible copyvio. INeverCry 03:48, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 12:06, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
Possible copyvio. INeverCry 04:00, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 12:01, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
Non-notable parody without educational use, out of scope. Rudolph Buch (talk) 07:14, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 12:03, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
This image has been simply taken from the web 79.221.101.66 09:25, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 12:02, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
Template:SUBST：NPD Myeong (talk) 09:28, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 12:04, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
Unused personal photo. -mattbuck (Talk) 12:17, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. INeverCry 16:58, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
and File:HeathenHarvestlogo.png. Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused text-only logo. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:54, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. INeverCry 16:55, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
Unused personal picture, out of COM:PS. Funfood ␌ 15:58, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. INeverCry 16:54, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
Unused personal image, advertising purpose, out of COM:PS. Funfood ␌ 16:09, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. INeverCry 16:53, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
No own work, found on many websites in higher resolutions, e.g. here http://blogs.privet.ru/community/YANA_2008/53207322 with copyright notice. Funfood ␌ 16:14, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio. INeverCry 16:52, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
Unused personal image, single upload from user, out of COM:PS. Funfood ␌ 16:15, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. INeverCry 16:52, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio. INeverCry 16:50, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
Unspecified person, possibly a copyrighted TV-Screenshot, unused, no description. Rudolph Buch (talk) 16:42, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. INeverCry 16:49, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
See en:Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2012 August 29#File:Tatata Bombing.jpg. Stefan4 (talk) 08:27, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: copyvio - photo of a photo Sven Manguard Wha? 00:22, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
Derivative work of a likely copyrighted image, as per Commons:Deletion requests/Files of User:Canaluldestiri —Andrei S. Talk 13:43, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio, out of scope. Yann (talk) 14:23, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
Possible derivative work of a copyrighted sign. 68.173.113.106 19:31, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyright violation per Commons:FOP#Japan. -mattbuck (Talk) 03:04, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
This image has already been provided to Commons by myself at File:Syfy HD.svg Fry1989 eh? 20:55, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Duplicate Bapti ✉ 13:17, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
It's hard to tell what this is. 68.173.113.106 21:44, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
Kept: It's vitiligo (some sort of skin dispigmentation) of the human anus and perineal area. -mattbuck (Talk) 03:02, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope —Vensatry (Ping me) 05:39, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. INeverCry 18:40, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope —Vensatry (Ping me) 05:40, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. INeverCry 18:40, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope —Vensatry (Ping me) 05:40, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. INeverCry 18:39, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope —Vensatry (Ping me) 06:04, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. INeverCry 18:41, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope —Vensatry (Ping me) 06:05, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. INeverCry 18:41, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope —Vensatry (Ping me) 06:05, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. INeverCry 18:42, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope —Vensatry (Ping me) 06:05, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. INeverCry 18:42, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope —Vensatry (Ping me) 06:05, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. INeverCry 18:42, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope —Vensatry (Ping me) 06:05, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. INeverCry 18:42, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope —Vensatry (Ping me) 06:05, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. INeverCry 18:42, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
I, the owner, allows anyone to delete this picture, it is not worth the upload. GoShow (talk) 19:19, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
- looks like screenshot..--...Captain......Tälk tö me.. 04:39, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Uploader requests deletion Sreejith K (talk) 16:02, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
I, the owner, allows anyone to delete this picture, it is not worth the upload. GoShow (talk) 19:19, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
- looks like screenshot..--...Captain......Tälk tö me.. 04:39, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Uploader requests deletion Sreejith K (talk) 16:02, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
- File:ALAN REGGAETON - ISAIAS 61.jpg
- File:ALAN REGGAETON (de Guiller Flow).jpg
- File:AR TV 2.jpg
- File:Alan Reggaeton MINISTRANDO ´´VISION PROFETICA´´ 1.jpg
- File:Alan Reggaeton CAMPAÑA.jpg
- File:Alan Reggaeton (evangelista abriendo brecha en la calle).JPG
- File:Alan Reggaeton - tarjeta.JPG
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
See the rest here
Out of scope. All files depict the user engaging in some form of religious proselytism. The purpose of Commons is not to serve as a venue for self promotion or religious proselytism, but to host useful files that can be used by everyone. Darwin Ahoy! 02:04, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: All files nuked by Denniss Darwin Ahoy! 08:09, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 10:19, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nom. Sreejith K (talk) 17:24, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 10:19, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom. Sreejith K (talk) 17:24, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
It's not a free document, comes from "Conception & réalisation AGATE - Angouleme - 05 45 61 12 89". Is "AGATE" gives this work with free licence ? And all pictures also available with free licence ? --MGuf (d) 13:31, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
- Bonjour,
- Ce document appartient à la CDC Braconne et Charente. Vous le trouverez par exemple sur notre site internet : http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Braconne_Charente&diff=next&oldid=75889169
- Merci — Preceding unsigned comment added by Braconne Charente (talk • contribs) 29 août 2012 à 15:37 (UTC)
- Ce document est une "oeuvre dérivée", c'est à dire un assemblage de plusieurs oeuvres : photos, cartes, dessin, maquette...). Pour que l'on puisse conserver ce document sur Commons, il faut qu'il soit effectivement disponible avec une licence compatible, c'est à dire qui permette d'en faire ce que l'on veut, par tous, pour tous usages, même commerciaux, y compris le modifier, sans accord préalable. C'est l'auteur qui peut choisir la licence avec laquelle son travail est disponible, en l'occurence, il semble que ce soit "Conception & réalisation AGATE - Angouleme - 05 45 61 12 89" : sous quelle licence AGATE a-t-il rendu disponible ce document ? (si c'et une licence libre, elle ne sera valable que si tous les éléments sont eux aussi disponibles avec une licence libre compatible : les photos (il n'y a que le photographe qui peut choisir la licence pour ses photos), les fonds de cartes (il n'y a que le dessinateur de la carte qui peut choisir la licence pour ses cartes)...
- Si vous apportez la démonstration que tous ces éléments sont réunis, en effet ce document peut être distribué sous une licence libre valable ; ce n'est pas encore le cas.
- ----MGuf (d) 14:06, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: copyvio Bapti ✉ 13:44, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Version of this image already present in the old revisions of File:Leghold trap.JPG; the uploader changed the coloring on Commons but appears to have forgotten about the English Wikipedia version (this one). The image is redundant and should be redirected to the other; no reason to keep unless someone has an objection. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 00:09, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
.JPG){kind=link}
- Delete. It was inadvertently copied a second time. Alan Liefting (talk) 00:10, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 04:13, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
.JPG){kind=link}
Copyrighted advertisement in the streets of Santiago Diego Grez return fire 01:25, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:07, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. INeverCry 01:42, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 04:13, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. INeverCry 01:45, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:01, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
Low quality. Unreadable - unuseable. INeverCry 01:47, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
Keep I do not think it is unusable. Letters are small but readable. BartekChom (talk) 20:13, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
Kept: Withdraw nom. INeverCry 07:05, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. INeverCry 01:48, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:02, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. INeverCry 01:49, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:02, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Promotional - userpage this links to has been deleted. INeverCry 01:55, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:05, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
Possible copyvio. 1965. Low qualuty, no EXIF. INeverCry 01:57, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:05, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. INeverCry 01:58, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:05, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. INeverCry 01:59, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:06, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Too small too see what this depicts. No educational value. INeverCry 02:01, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:07, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. INeverCry 02:03, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:07, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Also copyrighted with no permission according to watermark. INeverCry 02:08, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:07, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. INeverCry 02:13, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 22:41, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Promotion of non-notable band. INeverCry 02:24, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:08, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
Possible copyvio. No EXIF, low quality. INeverCry 02:26, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
- This is not an easy case, the user uploaded what seems to be a bunch of legit photos that were mixed with copyvios. No way to tell if it is a copyvio, without a source for the file online. I thought I had found it, but it is more recent than his upload.-- Darwin Ahoy! 02:54, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 04:53, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. INeverCry 02:27, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:08, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
Scaled down dupe of an SVG we already have. Fry1989 eh? 02:32, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Per nom. INeverCry 19:39, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
Low resolution and no EXIF, probably another copyvio as all the rest of this user uploads Darwin Ahoy! 03:18, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Per nom. INeverCry 19:38, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. INeverCry 03:28, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:07, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. INeverCry 03:28, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:02, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Out of scope. INeverCry 03:29, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:04, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Possible copyvio. Low quality, no EXIF. INeverCry 03:40, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:05, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. INeverCry 03:42, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:06, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. INeverCry 03:44, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:07, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. INeverCry 03:44, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:07, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Promotional. INeverCry 03:47, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:07, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. INeverCry 03:49, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:08, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
Possible copyvio. Low quality, no EXIF. INeverCry 03:50, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:08, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
Possible copyvio. INeverCry 03:56, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:09, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. INeverCry 03:57, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:09, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
Poor quality image of a signboard; if it is of higher quality then there are copyvio concerns as the logo usage fails de minimis and the layout is also subject to copyright. The current image is so low res that it's not usable and is out of scope. —SpacemanSpiff 04:02, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:05, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. INeverCry 04:03, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:02, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. INeverCry 04:05, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:02, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. INeverCry 04:05, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:02, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. INeverCry 04:07, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:08, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
- also nominating: File:Mehmud-qeshqeri2.jpg
Photograph of a modern wallpainting, wrongly described as "own work" (which contradicts the source given by the uploader). No reason to assume the original painting is either PD-old or the uploader's own work. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:11, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
- The painting was painted by Hadjumurat A., he doesn't set any license for his painting. --Aparhan (talk) 14:22, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 04:53, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
Uncorrect filename. "Ryssien" is not a correct term. More correct is H.Kuusinen venäläisten kanssa (H.Kuusinen with russians) 83.145.206.184 07:23, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
- If we give priority to style - and that's OK for me - it should be renamed, not simply deleted. --Jonund (talk) 07:55, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
Kept: No valid reason given to delete. INeverCry 07:07, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Dany kruk as Speedy (Requested by Justyna Steczkowska Management).
Converted by me to DR, as the image is still in use and as the case needs some discussion. -- Túrelio (talk) 07:47, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
Comment: The requester Dany kruk might (or might not) be identical to the original photographer and Flickr account holder Daniel Kruczynski. --Túrelio (talk) 07:49, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
Same cases:
- File:Justyna Steczkowska singing 07.jpg - unused, indeed not a nice shot; removed from Flickr;
Delete --Túrelio (talk) 21:43, 3 September 2012 (UTC) - File:Justyna Steczkowska singing 03.jpg - unused, indeed not an ideal face expression; removed from Flickr; Delete --Túrelio (talk) 21:43, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
- File:Justyna Steczkowska singing 05.jpg - unused and not a very good shot; removed from Flickr; Delete --Túrelio (talk) 21:43, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
- File:Justyna Steczkowska singing 09.jpg - unused and removed from Flickr; smiling face expression; Keep --Túrelio (talk) 21:43, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
- File:Justyna Steczkowska singing 08.jpg - unused and removed from Flickr;
Neutral --Túrelio (talk) 21:43, 3 September 2012 (UTC) - File:Justyna Steczkowska singing 06.jpg - unused; not an ideal face expression; removed from Flickr; Delete --Túrelio (talk) 21:43, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
--Túrelio (talk) 07:57, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
Comment:
I am the original photographer and Flickr account holder - Daniel Kruczynski indeed;
That is why Ms Steczkowska Management asked me to delete the files from Wikimedia;
in terms of the photo heavily used on wikipedia: File:Justyna_Steczkowska_singing_03.jpg
my suggestion confirmed with the Management is to replace this photo on Wikipedia articles by the new one that I can upload based on the cc license:Justyna Steczkowska Flickr
They have no problem with this photo as it was presented on the official Artist page:
photo 23/33 Justyna Steczkowska Dany kruk (talk) 17:51, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
Comment:
I have replaced the file File:Justyna_Steczkowska_singing_03.jpg with the new one confirmed with Ms Steczkowska Management: File:Justyna_Steczkowska_in_Hard_Rock_Cafe.jpg in all the articles.
Also nominated 3 other photos from the same set for the deletion:
- File:Justyna_Steczkowska_singing_01.jpg
- File:Justyna_Steczkowska_singing_02.jpg
- File:Justyna_Steczkowska_singing_10.jpg
I would appreciate your help with deletion. --Dany kruk (talk) 10:16, 02 September 2012 (UTC)
- If the picture is still available on Flickr, I don't see how it would be deleted here. Yann (talk) 09:32, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
Comment:
To confirm the will of the Management for deletion of this photo I have deleted it from the flickr;
Could you help me with the deletion of the rest listed above? --Dany kruk (talk) 14:25, 02 September 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 04:55, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
Nevyhovuje mi jeho uveřejnění s osobních důvodů... Stopka (talk) 08:52, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
- Deletion request by uploader? 68.173.113.106 15:41, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 04:54, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
Simple diagram elements without content. Rudolph Buch (talk) 09:41, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:02, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 10:18, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:04, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 10:20, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
- Delete private image, not an art, useless. --Art-top (talk) 10:28, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 05:04, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 10:20, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 05:04, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 10:20, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:06, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
This image infringes on the sculptor's copyright. In most countries, all paintings, sculpture, architecture, text, and other creative works have copyrights which last for 70 years after the death of the creator. An image of a work that is still under copyright is a derivative work, and infringes on the copyright so that we cannot usually keep the image on Commons. In some countries, there is a special exception to the copyright law which allows such images under certain circumstances. We call that exception freedom of panorama (FOP). Unfortunately there is no applicable FOP exception in this case. . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 10:59, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:05, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
This image infringes on the sculptor's copyright. In most countries, all paintings, sculpture, architecture, text, and other creative works have copyrights which last for 70 years after the death of the creator. An image of a work that is still under copyright is a derivative work, and infringes on the copyright so that we cannot usually keep the image on Commons. In some countries, there is a special exception to the copyright law which allows such images under certain circumstances. We call that exception freedom of panorama (FOP). Unfortunately there is no applicable FOP exception in this case. . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:00, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:02, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
Was this particular book printed more than 70 yrs ago? -mattbuck (Talk) 12:16, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:05, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
Possibly a derivative of an unfree work? -mattbuck (Talk) 12:17, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:07, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
Superseded by the now properly-credited File:ReginaCollage.jpg Psychonaut (talk) 13:14, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: File was deleted. INeverCry 19:41, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
Unused promotional logo of a probably non-notable entity (can´t be sure about the notability as the only information about the company I could find was a ghost site on myspace) Rudolph Buch (talk) 13:15, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:07, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
Promotional illustration for a non-established product; possibly a copyvio from www.klarmax.com; article in EN-Wikipedia has been deleted Rudolph Buch (talk) 13:49, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:08, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
Artwork created by the uploader without obvious educational use Rudolph Buch (talk) 13:53, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:08, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
The metadata says that the copyright holder is Anne M. Eberhardt/Blood-Horse Publications. Thus, most likely a scan and a copyright violation. Ymblanter (talk) 14:04, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:02, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
This is a post-2000 construction, and the photo unfortunately has to be deleted since there is no freedom of panorama in South Korea. Ymblanter (talk) 14:13, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:05, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
duplicate of same image uploaded 18 September 2011 - the earlier image has better description of licence Apuldram (talk) 14:30, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:03, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
A very low-res, grotesque image. I dare you to open it. 68.173.113.106 14:35, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
- Nevertheless it's educational. However, it may be a copyvio, as I found it here in (very) slightly higher resolution. --Túrelio (talk) 15:42, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
Delete Grotesque does not imply useless BUT:- No EXIF data. Only upload by user. Higher resolution version found elsewhere. Copyvio. --Simonxag (talk) 23:16, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
- Delete Smells like copyvio. --Yikrazuul (talk) 16:59, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 05:04, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
Blurred, and obvious child porno. 68.173.113.106 14:42, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
- Keep Comment - Nudity is not the same as pornography. This is I accept an image of a child's genitalia, but that is to illustrate female genital mutilation. It's hard to show that without showing genitals. -mattbuck (Talk) 03:06, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
- Keep as per mattbuck. Handcuffed (talk) 07:17, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
- Delete Obviously not child porno, though whether US law thinks the same I wouldn't like to say! But it is an obvious scan from a printed source (look at the pattern of dots on the picture). This original source is not stated and there is no indication of permission. So it's a copyright violation. --Simonxag (talk) 22:58, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
- Delete No EXIF-data, and seems to be a scan from a textbook. --Yikrazuul (talk) 17:00, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 05:04, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
Unused image of dubious provenience, as the uploader removed his authorship claim 3 years after the upload. In addition, as the woman in the image is identifiable, it is hardly usable without permission, as it is rather clearly an indoor-shot. Finally, the uploader has been banned from :en for vandalism[1]. -- Túrelio (talk) 15:32, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:03, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
Extremely low resolution and border at the top make me a bit suspicious. Moreover, author is not the same as the uploader. -mattbuck (Talk) 15:33, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:01, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
Superior quality copy at File:Jean-Paul_Flandrin_-_Odalisque_with_Slave_-_Walters_37887.jpg though as coloration different, should be put before community. — billinghurst sDrewth 15:49, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:05, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
Possibly eligible for literary copyright? -mattbuck (Talk) 16:43, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
- literary copyright? Really? This consists of a name of an event, a date, a name of a railway company, a name of a person the plaque is dedicated to, a description of who he was "Poet and friend of the railways" and the dates of the time he was alive. This hardly seems like literature Oxyman (talk) 00:31, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 05:05, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
op last van nieuwe studie. Timlovesoma (talk) 17:32, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:06, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
op last van nieuwe studie Timlovesoma (talk) 17:33, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:06, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
Copyrighted no doubt. Fry1989 eh? 17:37, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:06, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
Uploader heeft geen recht voor het uploaden van deze foto. 31.151.103.166 17:37, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:06, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
Ridiculous scopeless set of images. Fry1989 eh? 17:41, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:02, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
Copyrighted image, see source ˉanetode╦╩ 18:09, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:04, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
screenshot 2602:306:39E1:C830:9C38:370D:D374:EC52 18:16, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:09, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
out of scope Reinhardhauke (talk) 18:36, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:09, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
this is a factually incorrect user-generated image. It is blatantly misleading (the Audi R8 has 6 gears, not 5), and its inclusion here on Commons could be construed as some kind of endorsement of factually incorrect information 78.32.143.113 18:37, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:09, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
copied from Facebook (here), no evidence of release into public domain. Holyoke, mass (talk) 19:28, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:08, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by 24.49.162.64 as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: http://econtent.unm.edu/cdm4/item_viewer.php?CISOROOT=/abqmuseum&CISOPTR=524&CISOBOX=1&REC=16%7C1=Dated in source as "c. 1925", so does not qualify as public domain; copyright claimed by The Albuquerque Museum Darwin Ahoy! 19:35, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:03, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
- Restored: as per [2]. Yann (talk) 14:15, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
Please completely zap the file uploaded at 19:13. It is non-free. The free version was uploaded at 19:31. Pmg (talk) 19:39, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:09, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
File:Gerben Mulder, Untitled (ascending butterflies) Tucson small 2011, oil on canvas, 76 x 76 inches.jpg
[edit]_Tucson_small_2011,_oil_on_canvas,_76_x_76_inches.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_Tucson_small_2011,_oil_on_canvas,_76_x_76_inches.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Photo of work by living artist = derivative. FOP in the US not valid for non-buildings. -- Túrelio (talk) 20:02, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:04, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
No evidence of permission, but obviously {{PD-ineligible}}. However, I'm not sure that it is in scope. Stefan4 (talk) 20:20, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:04, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
Appears to be out of scope. Stefan4 (talk) 20:30, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:04, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
Uploader heeft geen recht voor het uploaden van deze foto. 31.151.103.166 17:37, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:06, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
Unused personal picture, single upload from user, out of COM:PS. Funfood ␌ 21:14, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:06, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
Looks like TV screenshot. Funfood ␌ 21:17, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:06, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
No own work, source website lacks author information. Funfood ␌ 21:21, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:06, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
Scaled-down near-duplicate of File:Coat of arms of the United Kingdom.svg (which is itself superseded by File:Royal Coat of Arms of the United Kingdom.svg); not used or needed. Alkari (?), 29 August 2012, 21:44 UTC 21:44, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 05:05, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
Note: Undeleted per Commons:Undeletion requests/Current_requests#File:Coat_of_arms_of_the_United_Kingdom.svg, but after looking, it does seem as though this PNG is just a rendering of the SVG, with the only differences being some rendering errors introduced to the SVG (missing gradients and/or elements). I could see re-deletion. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:06, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. This file was uploaded to illustrate pages posted on en.wikipedia, apparently about a so-called organization, pages which were speedily deleted three times for being out of scope, "patent nonsense" [3] and "vandalism" [4] and was a probable hoax [5]. The uploader claimed authorship of the image to "Jon Fernandez", although it is visibly a copy (with minor oddities thrown in) of another file illustrating the arms of the United Kingdom and made by other people. As such it is also a copyright violation. This file was correctly deleted per Commons:Deletion requests/File:Theknightsoftheproverbialtable.png. It was strangely undeleted on the occasion of an undeletion request about a different file. However, even the only user who had advocated the undeletion has changed his mind, as he explained in addenda on those deletion and undeletion pages. I can't imagine a good reason to keep a copyvio faking the Arms of the UK and whose only role was to illustrate a deleted wikipedia probable hoax article about a supposed organization. This file serves no useful purpose whatsoever. It is out of scope. Asclepias (talk) 20:43, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
- DeleteAs it is just the rasterization of a SVG, there is no need to keep this file. Kathisma (talk) 17:03, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 08:28, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
Scaled-down duplicate of File:Arms of Edward, Duke of Windsor.svg; not in use. Alkari (?), 29 August 2012, 22:00 UTC 22:00, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:01, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
Many of this collage's images are directly taken from the TV shows El Chavo del Ocho, El Chapulín Colorado and others. UAwiki (talk) 22:05, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:08, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
Image not from Party & Events of BollywoodHungama. License not verified. Sreejith K (talk) 23:07, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:08, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
Official fraternity coat of arms. No evidence of free licence or PD status. GrapedApe (talk) 23:17, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:04, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
- File:DXNTheta.jpg
- File:DXNEta.jpg
- File:DXNZeta.jpg
- File:DXNEpsilon.jpg
- File:DXNGamma.jpg
- File:DXN Beta.jpg
- File:DXNAlpha.jpg
- File:Delta Xi Nu National Conference in Houston.jpg
- File:Delta Xi Nu Community Service.jpg
- File:Delta Xi Nu's Founding Mothers.jpg
Suspicious images of every chapter in Delta Xi Nu sorority all uploaded by same user. It is highly likely that the uploader is from the sorority's HQ and uploaded images from a database, thus, images must be deleted as lacking in permission. --GrapedApe (talk) 23:19, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:04, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
Vandalism; the user also created a page on rowiki about this young unnotorious box fighter: Enescu Emil Gikü (talk) 23:19, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
- Delete 68.173.113.106 02:16, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
- Delete - if the DR claim is correct. But I suppose "non-notable" instead of "unnotorious" will be a better word. Hindustanilanguage (talk) 11:10, 30 August 2012 (UTC).
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 22:03, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
There is no evidence on the source page that this file is in the public domain. Chris the Paleontologist (talk | contribs) 23:37, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:02, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Lucasjohannes1992
[edit]Reproductions of newspaper articles, autograph cards, etc., not entirely own work.
- File:Peter B. Schwarz.pdf
- File:Peter Schwarz Fußball.jpg
- File:Verletzung Schwarz Peter.JPG
- File:Salzburg gegen Roter Stern Belgrad.JPG
- File:Torjubel gegen Roter Stern.JPG
- File:Generali.JPG
- File:Peter Schwarz 1975 2.JPG
- File:Peter Schwarz 1975 3.JPG
- File:Peter Schwarz 1975 1.JPG
- File:Peter Schwarz SV Austria Salzburg.JPG
- File:Peter Schwarz will zu Austria Salzburg.JPG
- File:Neuzugang Wacker.JPG
- File:Wacker Innsbruck 1975.JPG
- File:Wacker 1975 Mannschaftsbild.jpg
- File:UEFA-Team 1972.JPG
- File:Peter Schwarz 1975 Wacker Innsbruck.JPG
- File:Autogrammkarte (2).JPG
- File:Peter Bruno Schwarz.jpg
- File:Peter Schwarz.jpg
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Martin H. (talk) 23:28, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:13, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Promotional. Article on en.wiki that these images link to was deleted as non-notable person.
INeverCry 02:05, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:14, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
Files uploaded by DS success (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of scope. Non-notable persons. A couple of these link to deleted en.wiki pages. The rest are un-used.
- File:ASOsignature.png
- File:ASO In SIX.jpg
- File:AhmedOkasha 03.jpg
- File:Saraomar.jpg
- File:Signature okasha.png
INeverCry 02:16, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:10, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Frédéric SOMMERLAT (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of scope. Non-notable company.
INeverCry 02:18, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:11, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Promotional.
INeverCry 02:19, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:12, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
Files uploaded by DARKORIGIN (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of scope. Promotion of non-notable people/companies.
- File:Syclonus in Yard.jpg
- File:Syclonus At Inarcadia reggae bash September 18th 2010.jpg
- File:Darkorigin offical logo.jpg
- File:Slide1 Record label logo.jpg
INeverCry 02:23, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:10, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
Copyrighted video game screenshots.
INeverCry 03:20, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:11, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Promotion of non-notable band.
INeverCry 03:24, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:14, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Jmacasaquit (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of scope. Unused personal images.
INeverCry 03:34, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:11, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
Files uploaded by DedricCathey (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of scope.
INeverCry 03:35, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:11, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
Possible copyvios.
INeverCry 03:37, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 04:53, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
Doubtful auhtorship. User upload many files without permission and copyright compliance. Many of these files can be found in the Internet or already marked as copivio. User believes that copyright does not exist - quote from file talk page:
Please do not keep removing my files, whether they lack valid licencing informations or not. They are all free and no one has a copyright on them on this part of the world! They are very much happy to see them published on wikis! Thanks (RMizo (talk) 08:32, 29 August 2012 (UTC))
- File:Sapdanga Vanglaini.jpg
- File:Pu Liandala.jpg
- File:Pu Dokhuma.jpg
- File:Pu Patea.jpg
- File:Sạzêp.gif
- File:Khawbung.gif
- File:Dungtláng.gif
- File:Farkawn.jpg
- File:Vangchhia.gif
- File:Samthang.gif
- File:Vaphai.gif
- File:Zoppen club lehkhabu thehlép.pdf
- File:Lemlawi.jpg
- File:Tumphit.jpg
- File:Phenglawng.jpg
- File:Rawchhem.jpg
- File:Bengbung.jpg
- File:Zerman ral run zai.ogg
- File:Khuang.jpg
- File:PUC chhinchhiahna.jpg
- File:Census of India - Distribution of the 100 non-scheduled languages.pdf
- File:MZP chhinchhiahna.GIF
- File:BOOK of the year chuanna.pdf
- File:Vanglaini, April 12, 2012.pdf
- File:Tengtere küng.jpg
- File:Fanghma.jpg
- File:Ara-fanghma.jpg
- File:Changkha.jpg
- File:Theibal.jpg
- File:Maitamtawk.jpg
- File:Behliang.jpg
- File:Athlo.jpg
- File:Hnahsin par.jpg
- File:Anhling.jpg
- File:Tualvungi èm.jpg
- File:Kelbean.jpg
- File:Mitthi sunhlu.jpg
- File:Chakawk.jpg
- File:Builukham.jpg
- File:Mizo Hla Kungpui Mual.JPG
- File:K Sapdanga.jpg
- File:Lalsangzuali Sailo.jpg
- File:Lalzova.jpg
- File:Zirsangzela Hnamte.jpg
- File:Mafaa Hauhnar.jpg
- File:Saihnuna.jpg
- File:RL Kamlala.jpg
- File:Damhauhva.jpg
- File:PL Liandinga.jpg
- File:Vanneihtluanga.jpg
- File:Dr Laltluangliana Khiangte.jpg
- File:Zodi Thangvêla.png
- File:MizoWikifiahbu lemvàwr.png
- File:Wikizémpui.gif
- File:Wikipedia lemvàwr.png
- File:Tlaizawng par.jpg
- File:Phuihnam.jpg
- File:Pu Rokunga.jpg
- File:JF Laldailova.jpg
- File:PS Chawngthu.jpg
- File:Capt LZ Sailo.jpg
- File:Laltanpuia thlalâk.jpg
- File:Laltanpuia.jpg
- File:Kaphleia.jpg
- File:Pu Thena.GIF
- File:Liangkhaia.jpg
- File:Awithangpa leh Kamlala.jpg
- File:Cheraw.jpg
- File:Palak dil.jpg
- File:Palak Dil.JPG
- File:Khuallam.gif
- File:Chhimtuipui.jpg
- File:Chhimtuipui bawk.jpg
Art-top (talk) 09:32, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks for your feedback. The pronunciations are all my work. If you delete them, I'd need to pronounce them again with the aid of audacity (software!). You'd only make additional tasks for me. Please restore the earlier files you have deleted also.
- For the other files, there are no formal copyrights or licencing information. If you understand Mizo language, then you can read the descriptions here. In fact the owner of this website (hlakungpui.com) is my acquaintance and he has permitted me to reuse all his files in Mizo wikipedia, with whatever licence I'd like to release them. Unfortunately, for most of the photos there are absolutely no licencing informations in Mizoram. If that means that the files be removed from wikimedia, then so be it. You will not find any such information for these old files. Everyone possesses them (photos of the Mizo poets especially) since we do not remember when. They are all FREE. So if there is no appropriate licence term in wikimedia, then happily remove it.
- These photos are not my work of course, but I released them as if they were my work because I thought that the licence info etc. are detected automatically in wikimedia; and releasing them as if they were my own work would save them from stupidly (intelligently?) deleting them automatically.
- As for the pronunciation audio files, they are my own work. Pronouncing all mizo alphabets is a real casse-tête, please do not remove them. As for the rest, it is up to you, to decide their fate.
- Please understand my zeal for the Mizo wikipedia. Removing a single file is a hallucinating discouragement for me. If you do not care about the fate of Mizo wikipedia, it's your choice. Go your own way, and I'll go mine.
- Thank you.
- (RMizo (talk) 11:42, 29 August 2012 (UTC))
- Ok, I remove some audio files from deletion request. To publish files made by another persons need an explicit permission from authors. Permission can be sent via COM:OTRS. --Art-top (talk) 15:44, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
- Thank you (RMizo (talk) 07:10, 30 August 2012 (UTC))
- Ok, I remove some audio files from deletion request. To publish files made by another persons need an explicit permission from authors. Permission can be sent via COM:OTRS. --Art-top (talk) 15:44, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 05:04, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
unused user images, out of scope
- File:Swe.jpg
- File:Catsw.jpg
- File:Lucasdiniz.jpg
- File:Logo-olinguagrande.png
- File:OG2.png
- File:Olinguagrande-logo.png
Aa1bb2cc3dd4ee5 (talk) 21:39, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. INeverCry 19:44, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
unused user images, out of scope
Aa1bb2cc3dd4ee5 (talk) 21:42, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. INeverCry 19:44, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
Low resolution professional photos without original exif. One of them marked as copyvio from flickr, others can also be found on the Internet. Doubtful auhtorship.
Art-top (talk) 10:27, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:10, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
out of project scope
- File:Nikhil Maharaj white.jpg
- File:Nikhil Maharaj red 2.jpg
- File:Nikhil Maharaj white 2.jpg
- File:Nikhil maharaj Red.jpg
Trex2001 (talk) 14:32, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:09, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF.
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:09, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:10, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Moreno Barletta (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unlikely to be own work: small/inconsistent resolutions, missing EXIF.
- File:Chiesa Del Carmine Lucera.jpg
- File:Panoramica di Palazzo Cavalli.jpg
- File:Il Duomo Visto Dal Grattacielo Di Piazza Del Popolo.jpg
- File:Lucera Vista Dal Grattacielo di Piazza Del Popolo.jpg
- File:Piazza San Giacomo Di Notte.jpg
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:50, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
- Hello, I confirm that at least the first file is a copyright violation: it was taken from this site rete.comuni.italiani.it, whose page footers state explicitly that all the contents are copyrighted. The third and fourth files are the same image: one is just a manipulation of the other one (vertical image distortion). By the way: this user has been banned indefinitely from it.wiki for reiterate copyright infringements (including fake self-attributions), abuse of multiple identities and programmatic usage of the project. --L736E (talk) 07:18, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 05:05, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
I, the owner, allows anyone to delete this picture GoShow (talk) 19:14, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:04, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
Blurry and out of scope. 68.173.113.106 19:30, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
- Keep - It's not blurry, it's sharp, it's just artistically lit. -mattbuck (Talk) 03:06, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
- Keep as per mattbuck. Handcuffed (talk) 07:17, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
- Keep as per mattbuck --Simonxag (talk) 23:11, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
- Keep, essentially agree with analysis as per style of artistic merit and encyclopedic use therein as such for various capacities. -- Cirt (talk) 15:21, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
- Delete C'mon this image is qualitativly crap and superceded by others in the categories shown. --Yikrazuul (talk) 16:58, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
- Delete per nom and per Yikrazuul. INeverCry 07:11, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
- Keep This image is not blurry nor is it out of scope. It is in scope in Category:Use of toilets, as such it is usable for encyclopedic purposes. It depicts an ordinary visit to the toilet/bathroom in a way all other images in the category does: the woman was made anonymous and there is no explicit display of reproductive systems. --High Contrast (talk) 10:19, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
Kept: Keep? FASTILY (TALK) 03:36, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
Missing evidence of permission. This is a complex logo that would fall under the precedents discussed at Commons:Deletion requests/File:BBC.svg. Osiris (talk) 16:22, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
- Almost certainly has crossed the TOO under UK law, as there are lighting effects, gradients, letters stylised to look like a police box rather than just plain text and an arrangement of the various objects in the image. Techtri (talk) 17:12, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 05:57, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
No evidence of permission. Both {{Cc-by-sa-3.0}} and {{Cc-by-nc-nd-3.0}} are mentioned. I can't determine if any of those licences is correct. The second licence isn't free anyway. Stefan4 (talk) 20:58, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
- Keep - {{Cc-by-sa-3.0}} is the only licence mentioned and it is correct. I received permission personally from the originator of the image. Ambassador Neelix (talk) 02:53, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
- I have also e-mailed in the permissions as granted through an e-mail correspondence. Ambassador Neelix (talk) 18:42, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: No evidence of permission. If you do recieve permission for this file, forward that to COM:OTRS and have them restore the file for you FASTILY (TALK) 05:58, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
Derivative of an image which includes elements from unknown source, and arguably non-free; at best dubious educational purpose. Keφr (talk) 21:15, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
- I think it serves evil masterminds reasonably well. Fashionable attire which also promotes uniformity is important in Evil organisations. They often forget solidarity is not to be overlooked in the rush for creative, fresh and individualistic ways to destroy humankind.
- I think the question here is, who do we educate ? Do we limit ourselves to particular sections of society and pick and choose who we support, or do we take a more inclusive and universal approach ?
- If wikipedia is not going to educate the fashion inept evildoers, then who will ?, and should we assume automatically that they cannot work out how to dress themselves properly at all ? I think these people are not knuckle - dragging mouth breathers. I think we would make that mistake at our own peril.
- Other images we have for this topic may include evildoers queue for confession in government sponsored seasonal reds and This fashion faux pas is not a doom-inspiring look for an evil-doer, possibly government funding is a problem.
- Keep. I concur it has a dubious educational purpose, and that is reason enough for its inclusion in the project. Penyulap ☏ 00:28, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
- Keep The image uses free images and light hearted images are accepted in the commons.81.105.63.121 12:42, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: non-free derivative work FASTILY (TALK) 05:57, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
Low res, lack of metadata make me suspect copyvio - tineye comes up with several NSFW sites with the same image. -mattbuck (Talk) 00:05, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
Those NSFW websites recieved the image from me under my copyright. --Brow276 (talk) 06:57, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Every time the uploader has different explanations, hence we have to assume COM:PRP.
- @LX: then there are a few hundred-thousand OTHER files on commons is no argument; if you feel so then start deletion debates on those 100.000 other files. --Yikrazuul (talk) 18:33, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
- hey again, yik. i've now officially lost count of the number of debates we are having, on this exact topic, BUT 2 points:
- i. the link to policy that you have provided says nothing about "guilt-by-association"
- ii. i'm not the one who thinks that files should be deleted as "probably copyvio" on this flimsy basis. i'm trying to point out what is wrong with your logic in this matter.
- Yeah, I agree that all uploaded pictures of Brow276 just provides a flimsy basis for the correct copyright. --Yikrazuul (talk) 18:45, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
- ok, you're not making sense anymore; let's just agree to disagree, & end the interaction? Lx 121 (talk) 18:59, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
- What are we talking about? The uploader is not credible, the upload is a blatant copyvio from porn website. This is precedence for his other uploads. We can say to him that it is a shame that he absues his privilege to contribute to an open project for uploading stolen files, thereby poisoning the atmosphere in this already very difficult topic. A shame too that he has the nerve to claim this copyio an act of education and himself an educated person, but well, Wikipedia is full of false information and it not only attracts honest people. --Martin H. (talk) 19:54, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
- OK there we have some actual proof that there is a problem. NOW the onus would be on the uploader, to provide evidence that they are the creator/copyright's-holder of the file.
- on that basis, i am willing to change my vote
- tangentially though, the person does make a perfectly valid point about the educational value & relevance of (non-copyvio) images for this purpose.
- & we are looking at removing a photo that is legitimately "in-use" @ wikipedia.
- so... do we have a suitable replacement "in stock"?
- I'm not sure it's legitimately in use - I think the uploader added it. It rather goes against en policy of no real sex please. -mattbuck (Talk) 06:15, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
- huh!? when did that policy get approved @ wiki/en? o__0 (& can you link me to it, pls?) Lx 121 (talk) 10:30, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
- Consensus on en.wp has generally been to remove all pictures of actual sex where possible, and replace with drawings and Greek urns. Don't know if it's an actual policy or just what's happened. -mattbuck (Talk) 18:52, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
- how very stupid! i'll have to go poke around there & see where that came from. i don't actually spend very much time on sex-related topics (except for occasional sorting efforts here), but mindless "bowdlerization" offends me, in ways that sex does not :P Lx 121 (talk) 10:48, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
- Consensus on en.wp has generally been to remove all pictures of actual sex where possible, and replace with drawings and Greek urns. Don't know if it's an actual policy or just what's happened. -mattbuck (Talk) 18:52, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
- huh!? when did that policy get approved @ wiki/en? o__0 (& can you link me to it, pls?) Lx 121 (talk) 10:30, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
- I'm not sure it's legitimately in use - I think the uploader added it. It rather goes against en policy of no real sex please. -mattbuck (Talk) 06:15, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Highly likely not the own work of the uploader: per COM:PRP High Contrast (talk) 09:37, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
Out-of-scope porn image, possibly an infringement of personality rights. I would anonymize this. 68.173.113.106 21:51, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
Oh, AND LOOK. The person just re-added the image. 68.173.113.106 22:08, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
Speedy deleted as copyright violation - http://www.imagefap.com/photo/538934646/3.jpg?link=thm. -mattbuck (Talk) 22:21, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
You all are rediculous. The original image is my own personal work. The model is my girlfriend. In fact she is laying next to me as I write this. We have been posting online for a long time and becuase of this her photos are on several sites and have been reused several times. Jmw55018 (talk) 16:58, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
Comment The imagefap photo has a logo on it. I don't think it can be the original so there's no evidence of a copyvio. The image is very much in scope as a clear illustration of butt plug use. But I am concerned about the subject being identifiable in a very private situation. --Simonxag (talk) 23:08, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
- Delete No exif-data, copyvio shown, and btw: this is my girlfriend. --Yikrazuul (talk) 17:01, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
- No, the uploader is right, the image we have is non-watermarked, also is significantly larger. -mattbuck (Talk) 16:19, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
- Perhaps the author could send an email saying previously published etc to COM:OTRS? That would make things ok IMO. -mattbuck (Talk) 23:06, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
- No, the uploader is right, the image we have is non-watermarked, also is significantly larger. -mattbuck (Talk) 16:19, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
There is no actual proof that this is a copyright violation. But there is no EXIF data, this user has not uploaded anything else (I think they may have tried to upload it as "beckyplugged" before), and we have had many problems with this sort of image being copied from porn sources only to be discovered as copyright violations much later. I think the uploader must email OTRS and convince the volunteer who handles this of their good faith and of the subject's consent, (this conversation will be private!!!). I know we normally assume good faith, but certain problems are depressingly familiar. Otherwise, though I strongly support the hosting of this sort of image, I'd say Delete --Simonxag (talk) 22:26, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY (TALK) 03:35, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
Once again this map of historical area of en:Lezgistan uploaded to Commons, but it's copyrighted image, previously deleted. Uploaders don't understand copyright laws. Please, offer them to use existing files in the Commons as the basis of their images. Furthermore, here we can see absolutely incorrect borders - South Dagestan's districts for some unknown reason attached to Azerbaijan.--Soul Train (talk) 09:56, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
- Both maps are derivative works of this map by the US Department of State, which is {{PD-USGov-DOS}} and can be edited (irrespective of what the maps show). As these maps don't show a real territorial situation but an imaginary Greater Azerbaijan POV (not official by Azerbaijan) they shouldn't be used in Wikipedia articles at least. NNW (talk) 15:26, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
- Delete --Melikov Memmed (talk) 12:41, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
- I changed the license template to {{PD-USGov-DOS}} and enhanced the description to indicate that this is not an "official" map. Afaik, NPOV is a Wikipedian policy, not one of Commons. It can surely be useful, if used carefully → Keep --El Grafo (talk) 13:48, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
- Eh, This image is a work of a United States Department of State employee, taken or made during the course of an employee's official duties.? No, not at all. And as the original file is PD, Lezgistxa was allowed to upload this file with CC-BY-SA, too. Please undo the license change. And Names and boundary representation are not necessarily authoritative is quite an euphemism. The boundary between Russia and Azerbaijan is completely fictious. NNW (talk) 14:46, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
- Hi, I reverted my changes for now, let's talk about that first. I don't have time for a longer statement atm, but I'll add one later (please don't hesitate to remind me in case I forget). --El Grafo (talk) 15:10, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
- Eh, This image is a work of a United States Department of State employee, taken or made during the course of an employee's official duties.? No, not at all. And as the original file is PD, Lezgistxa was allowed to upload this file with CC-BY-SA, too. Please undo the license change. And Names and boundary representation are not necessarily authoritative is quite an euphemism. The boundary between Russia and Azerbaijan is completely fictious. NNW (talk) 14:46, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
Kept: Derivitives of PD images are allowed. Description should reflect the origin of the image and the original's copyright status, though. Philosopher Let us reason together. 04:48, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
