Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2012/09/20
 |
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}
2.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_Original_Size.jpg){kind=link}
Obvious copyvio. Watermarked image. Dismas (talk) 02:29, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 04:17, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
The photo is outdated. Band's management Silverback Music requests that it be replaced. Uncg (talk) 01:01, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Kept: What the singers management wants is irrelevant for us. Denniss (talk) 11:24, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
The photo is outdated. Band's management Silverback Music requests that it be replaced. Uncg (talk) 01:01, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
Kept: What the singers management wants is irrelevant for us. Denniss (talk) 11:24, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
copy from web http://www.snehasallapam.com/malayalam-movie-discussions/8019-bachelor-party-bachelors-keralathil-polichadukkunnu-released-good-response-133.html Rojypala (talk) 05:53, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 11:26, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
error, malfuction 77.186.2.134 11:01, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 11:27, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
error, malfuction 77.186.2.134 11:02, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 11:27, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
Nominated on behalf of Vivaelcelta; reason given was "Rossy appears very wrong with this photo and there are more photos of her in category:Rossy de Palma" FASTILY (TALK) 07:51, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
- Speedy keep. Nonsense request. You don't nominate a picture for deletion just because you think the person on it looks bad. JJ Georges (talk) 12:22, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
Kept: Nonsense request, speedy kept. Darwin Ahoy! 14:19, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
Nominated on behalf of Powerstorm; reason given was "I created this page and was known as Webmaster7 Now known as Powerstorm, Please delete my page and photo" FASTILY (TALK) 07:52, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
- Speedy Keep as unfounded. The image was properly marked as cc-by-sa-2.0 with the OTRS tag 2011102310000747 (which was later removed by Powerstorm.) The OTRS correspondence is quite voluminous, so I'll have to sift through it to see if any mistake has been made, but so far there's no indication of any such mishap. Powerstorm has also edited the Cal Rein Page on en:wp in a disruptive manner, so we need to know exactly what his/her connection to this image actually is. Does s/he claim any copyright violation here, and so, on whose behalf? Meanwhile, I'll reinstate the license information so editors with OTRS access can examine it. I request that no further changes are made to the page until this matter is resolved. Asav (OTRS) | Talk 08:17, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
- I've investigated the matter further, and it seems this user is a one trick pony account that's set on disrupting the article proper. S/he has marked it for speedy, then deletion when that was reverted by another editor. No AfD has been filed, so I removed the tag. Seems like a cyberstalker. I've conferred with a steward, and we agree a request should be filed to block the account. Asav (OTRS) | Talk 09:08, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
Kept: Sppedy kept, per Asav. Darwin Ahoy! 14:35, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
OTRS request for deletion; reasons given are "not educationally useful" and "self-promotion". The successful deletion request of the en.wiki article this was used on (en:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cal Rein) is possibly relevant here and was requested in the same ticket:2012121210003911. – Philosopher Let us reason together. 11:11, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 01:51, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Photo is copyrighted by Dan_R_Boyd, see EXIF -DoomWarrior (talk) 13:43, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
- Please consider deleting all of his pictures. Obviously all are taken from different sources and claimed to be owned by this user. -- DoomWarrior (talk) 13:50, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio (http://web.archive.org/web/20110708224119/http://www.danboyd.com/about.asp). All uploads by this user deleted as well. Darwin Ahoy! 14:59, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
I think this is a photograph of another photograph, there are some blemishes visible and the grey outline just visible at the bottom and left may be a wall behind it. It was uploaded in 2011 and a version of the photo was published here in 2010. January (talk) 14:38, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio from http://www.weeklyblitz.net/236/david-harris-hero-of-our-time Darwin Ahoy! 15:03, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
User's other uploads were all deleted for copyvio or lack of source. No useful source information given and the same photo was used in a SNY promo. Likely copyvio. Ytoyoda (talk) 01:18, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 22:35, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
Unused personal logo, single upload from user, out of COM:PS Funfood ␌ 10:17, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 22:34, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
Derivative work of a (probably modern) 3D model of the Smolny Cathedral, unclear authorship & permission. A.Savin 12:58, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
OK, you can delete it
Deleted: Uploader requested speedy deletion. A.Savin 16:40, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Derivative of a modern painting (see the plaque at the bottom). A.Savin 13:00, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
.JPG){kind=link}
OK, you can delete it
Deleted: Uploader requested speedy deletion. A.Savin 16:40, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
.JPG){kind=link}
Derivative of a modern painting (see plaque). A.Savin 13:01, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
.JPG){kind=link}
OK, you can delete it.
Deleted: Uploader requested speedy deletion. A.Savin 16:41, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
Personal image ; No notability ; No use : Commons is not a personal web site Tangopaso (talk) 15:31, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope.Érico Wouters msg 02:37, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
Unused personal photo. Outside of Commons:Project scope. —LX (talk, contribs) 19:28, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 22:45, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
I've uploded it under the wrong license and the license there is Attribution-NoDerivs 2.0 Generic , it dosent work on commons Itzuvit (talk) 22:03, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 22:27, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
I've uploded it under the wrong license and the license there is Attribution-NoDerivs 2.0 Generic , it dosent work on commons Itzuvit (talk) 22:03, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 22:27, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
blurry and unused personal pic AtelierMonpli (talk) 22:18, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 22:34, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
Uploaded by mistake, please delete Duan25 (talk) 06:58, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: per upl req on day of upload and per WLM Phil. manager, http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:T%C3%BArelio#WLM_deletion_request_2 Túrelio (talk) 05:45, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
Uploaded by myself over a year ago. Blurry, not of usable qualty. Mattythewhite (talk) 00:11, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 18:01, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 07:10, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. Érico Wouters msg 00:25, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope, no permission. Ices2Csharp (talk) 07:11, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. Érico Wouters msg 00:25, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 07:12, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
Delete – No encyclopaedic use.—Bill william comptonTalk 13:24, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. Érico Wouters msg 00:25, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
אני יצרתי ואני רוצה למחוק Yanki14 (talk) 13:11, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Creator request to delete personal image. INeverCry 18:03, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
Unused personal picture, single upload from user, out of COM:PS. Funfood ␌ 19:21, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 18:06, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
Deleted for lacking a source, but almost certainly PD-old image. Can someone perhaps find where this come from? Darwin Ahoy! 19:31, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
- The image appears in Arthur Fürst: Die Welt auf Schienen. Here is a reprint from 2011 ("Copyright 1918 by Albert Langen, Munich"), the image can be found as figure No. 108a) on page 158. There's a version from 1918 here. In the snippet view, i can't see the figure itself, but the legend is there (here it is figure No. 107a)). Our version has an even lower number (104), which may be a hint that it came from an even older edition of the book – or from a completely different book. en:Artur Fürst died on 13 May 1926. Greetings, --El Grafo (talk) 11:31, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
- Thank you very much! I'll complete the missing information in the image and speedy close this as keep, since there is no doubt that it's PD-old-1923.-- Darwin Ahoy! 23:45, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
Kept: Speedy kept, PD-old-1923 Darwin Ahoy! 23:57, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
Although the documentation of {{PD-old-70}} insists {{PD-old}} is not a duplicate, the claim is unconvincing. {{PD-old}} should be deprecated in favour of auto-type templates, notably {{PD-old-auto-1923}} and {{PD-old-auto-1996}}. See also the similar case of Commons:Deletion requests/Template:PD-US. Warning: {{PD-old}} has nearly 1 million transclusions: deprecating this is not a small job. Rd232 (talk) 00:10, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
- Merge with {{PD-old-70}}. They are clearly duplicate templates. However, there are times when we are not sure of the author's date of death but we do know it was a long time ago (e.g., a 2nd century painting), so PD-old-100 should be kept, as should the PD-old-(number) templates for the PD-auto to work properly. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 00:20, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, PD-old-XX templates should be kept for now (though theoretically they could all be merged and just use different numbers, really........ maybe....). But I wanted to say that {{PD-old-auto-1923|deathyear}} is better than {{PD-old-100}}, even though it uses the latter template when deathyear>100 years ago. More info is better for future maintainability. Rd232 (talk) 00:26, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
- Merge, at the very least, they are duplicates indeed (I thought it was sort of a redirect until now). Whoever wrote that documentation at PD-Old-70 doesn't seem to know what PD-old is - "PD-old (...) is for old works where US and European Union copyright expired while it was meant for worldwide public domain after more than 100 years after authors' deaths." If it was like that, it would default to PD-old-100 and not to PD-old-70.-- Darwin Ahoy! 00:27, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
- What exactly do we mean by "merge" here? Note that {{PD-old}} has many more translations than {{PD-old-70}} does, and that there are slight differences in the footnote "exceptions" text. I would suggest transferring missing translations from PD-old to PD-old-70, and then gradually deprecating PD-old, rather than just redirecting it. Or at least, if it is redirected, then afterwards try to replace all uses with better PD-old templates over time. As with Commons:Deletion requests/Template:PD-US, deprecating it (whether before or after merger/redirection) will help us work through a backlog of Things That Need Cleaning Up That We Probably Wouldn't Otherwise... Rd232 (talk) 00:34, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
- The text may be somewhat different, but PD-old clearly defaults to PD-old-70. If it would remain like that, you could have a redirect as well.
- The text of PD-old is confuse. It says that "This image (or other media file) is in the public domain because its copyright has expired.". Then says that "this applies to Australia, the European Union and those countries with a copyright term of life of the author plus 70 years.". It passes the wrong idea that an expired copyright is something universal. And I really do not understand why it defaults to PD-old-70, when PD-old-70 apparently is something that you should (almost) never use.-- Darwin Ahoy! 00:46, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, it's trying to say the same as {{PD-old-70}}, but {{PD-old-70}} is better worded (clearer). PS {{PD-old}} was originally created as "100 years", and changed to 70 years with this edit (worth checking it out just for the edit summary...). Rd232 (talk) 01:09, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
- *Sigh* Those were the days... :) -- Darwin Ahoy! 01:37, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, it's trying to say the same as {{PD-old-70}}, but {{PD-old-70}} is better worded (clearer). PS {{PD-old}} was originally created as "100 years", and changed to 70 years with this edit (worth checking it out just for the edit summary...). Rd232 (talk) 01:09, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
- What exactly do we mean by "merge" here? Note that {{PD-old}} has many more translations than {{PD-old-70}} does, and that there are slight differences in the footnote "exceptions" text. I would suggest transferring missing translations from PD-old to PD-old-70, and then gradually deprecating PD-old, rather than just redirecting it. Or at least, if it is redirected, then afterwards try to replace all uses with better PD-old templates over time. As with Commons:Deletion requests/Template:PD-US, deprecating it (whether before or after merger/redirection) will help us work through a backlog of Things That Need Cleaning Up That We Probably Wouldn't Otherwise... Rd232 (talk) 00:34, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
Hello, Before doing anything, we need to update the tools we use. All files uploaded via Special:Upload or the Upload Wizard with the choice Author died more than 70 years ago use this template. Yann (talk) 09:45, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
- We need to decide what to do before we do it. Rd232 (talk) 11:17, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
- OK, but a DR is definitely not the right place to discuss a modification of the templates currently used by the uploading tools. Yann (talk) 11:53, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
Personally, I don't think the proliferation of templates with the same purpose is a good thing. And I find a bit strange that you create 2 DRs for templates which are currently added by our tools.Yann (talk) 09:48, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
- Personally, I don't think the proliferation of templates with the same purpose is a good thing. - I agree, which is why I proposed deprecating PD-old (as it's covered by PD-old-70, whether used directly or via an auto template like {{PD-old-auto-1923}}). I also think the various PD-old-XX templates could actually be merged, so eg PD-old-70 just contains {{PD-old-combined|requirement=70}}, and {{PD-old-combined}} slots the "requirement" into the standard PD-old text. Standardising this way would be better for maintenance purposes, and address the PD-old-XX inconsistencies. Rd232 (talk) 11:17, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
Kept: Not the right place to discuss this. Yann (talk) 13:04, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
User claims the file as own, but the photo can be found here. Unclear copyright status. Blond (talk) 01:03, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 13:12, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
No real EXIF, very unlikely to be own work since it's a classic reporter picture. Kyro (talk) 03:11, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
- Delete Unknow real photografer. See also Commons:Deletion requests/File:Sophie Dion.jpg. ----MGuf (d) 05:39, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
- Delete – Most likely a copyright violation.—Bill william comptonTalk 13:21, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 13:11, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
Scaned from unknow printed document: unkwow real author. See also Commons:Deletion requests/File:Sophie Dion Jean-Claude Killy.jpg --MGuf (d) 05:37, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
- Delete – No EXIF data, scanned copy, ought to be copyrighted.—Bill william comptonTalk 13:23, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
Comment Image apparently belongs to the same set as this one, published in Sophie Dion photostream in Flickr. I deleted 2 other images uploaded by this user which were from that photostream, marked All Rights reserved. I'm not entirely convinced those images are copyvios, since they were uploaded a few days after being posted in that photostream. There is the possibility that they are legitimate uploads by Sophie Dion or someone connected to her, but in that case a OTRS permission is needed for them to be released here.-- Darwin Ahoy! 14:09, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 13:10, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
Wrong and unauthorized reproduction from http://www.campinenseclube.net 200.229.198.131 20:28, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
Keep PD-textlogo, ineligible for copyright. Fma12 (talk) 20:38, 20 September 2012 (UTC)- Keep, nothing copyrightable here, just text and simple shapes, like stars.-- Darwin Ahoy! 21:50, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
Kept: PD-textlogo. Yann (talk) 13:21, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photoalbum. Not used. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:59, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 05:21, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
No description (except repeat of file name), no categories, unless someone recognizes them, this is useless. . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:25, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 05:29, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
Uploader requested, better file provided at File:PR W14-3.svg Fry1989 eh? 22:26, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: unused duplicate George Chernilevsky talk 05:24, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
Bad file, rendering now exists at File:PR W14-3.svg Fry1989 eh? 22:30, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: corrupt file George Chernilevsky talk 05:25, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
Unused and unsourced low quality version of this logo already available as a good quality SVG Darwin Ahoy! 22:34, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
_logo.svg){kind=link}
Deleted: unused poor duplicate George Chernilevsky talk 05:26, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
No description except filename, no cats, not used anywhere. Does not seem to be a notable person. Only upload by the editor. . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:47, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 05:29, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
Only contribution from this editor. It appears to be a family portrait. Commons is not Flickr. . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:50, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 05:26, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
No description except "arbol atipico" which Google cannot translate. No cats, not used. . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:53, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 05:28, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
This photo is private photo for general person, see w:ja:Wikipedia:削除依頼/とある人物 20120921 S-PAI (talk) 23:04, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 05:27, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
This photo is private photo for general person, see w:ja:Wikipedia:削除依頼/とある人物 20120921 S-PAI (talk) 23:04, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 05:27, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
Russia is now life+70, so works from 1944 are under copyright. Prosfilaes (talk) 00:01, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 16:32, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
low quality, blurry image. a better version has been uploaded under https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Zeppelin_Raid_plaque,_61_Farringdon_Road,_London,_England,_IMG_5217_edit.jpg Peter Weis (talk) 00:01, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
- Keep, after this photo the plaque seems to have suffered some kind of restoration, so the second photo is not really a replacement for this one.-- Darwin Ahoy! 04:48, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
Kept: INeverCry 16:32, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
Russia is now life+70, so works from 1944 are still under copyright Prosfilaes (talk) 00:02, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
- It actually seems to be cited to this book published in Belarus; but Belarus has a 50-year from publication duration for anonymous works, which would cover it until 2015.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:12, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 16:33, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
Russia is now life+70, so works from 1944 are still under copyright. Prosfilaes (talk) 00:02, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 16:33, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
Russia is now life+70, so works from 1944 are still under copyright. Prosfilaes (talk) 00:03, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 16:33, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
Copyrio per Commons:Freedom of panorama#Azerbaijan. Takabeg (talk) 02:28, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 16:34, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
Outdated, unused. New version: File:Innocence_of_muslims_protest_map2.png. Triggerhippie4 (talk) 04:01, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
- And a bad format for such a kind of map, too. PNG is the better solution. NNW (talk) 10:27, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
- I am the owner of this file and I want to delete it, too.--Camoka5 (talk) 01:39, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 16:35, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
No FOP in France. Thesupermat (talk) 08:43, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 16:35, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
Bad quality, unidentified location, unused single upload from user. Funfood ␌ 10:18, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
Delete per nomination. Senator2029 05:51, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 16:36, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Derivative work of a (probably modern) 3D model of the Smolny Cathedral, unclear authorship & permission. A.Savin 12:57, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
.JPG){kind=link}
Deleted: INeverCry 16:37, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
.JPG){kind=link}
This logo does meet the threshold of originality. These are not simple geometric shapes. XenonX3 (talk) 13:15, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 16:37, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
2.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
2.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Unuseful redirect after a rename (I am the author of the photo and of the rename request) Tangopaso (talk) 15:45, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
2.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: INeverCry 16:37, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
2.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Unuseful redirect (I am the author of the photo and of the rename request) Tangopaso (talk) 15:47, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: INeverCry 16:37, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Logo in the background is almost certainly copyrighted. -mattbuck (Talk) 17:31, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
- Keep The logo is of the SCO, which is an inter-governmental organisation between states which have exemptions for government works. This particular logo is a work of the Tajik government, and hence Tajik government exempt status would apply on their iteration of the logo. russavia (talk) 21:12, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
Kept: INeverCry 16:38, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
Out of project scope: personal image used for non-notable autobiographies on enwiki. Acroterion (talk) 17:58, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 16:39, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
Uploader request. Misidentified person. ℇsquilo 18:29, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 16:39, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
Old photo declared as "own work", probably a newspaper scan. A.Savin 18:35, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 16:40, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
Unlikely owned by uploader (low resolution, no EXIF, same picture present at several external websites e.g. [1]) A.Savin 18:37, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 16:40, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
An early 1950s photo, uploaded as "own work", doubtful license status. A.Savin 18:50, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 16:40, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
Derivative of modern monument erected in 1997. No COM:FOP in Russia. A.Savin 20:05, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 16:46, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
This is identical to the image I nominated earlier today as Commons:Deletion requests/File:David Harris AJC.jpg although it was uploaded in 2008 – same problem (appears to be a photograph of another photograph), and a smaller version of the original photograph was published here in 2005. January (talk) 20:10, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 16:47, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
There are two SVGs of the Swiss flag, we don't need a GIF. Fry1989 eh? 20:37, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 16:48, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
Was just deleted. Fry1989 eh? 19:34, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted INeverCry 01:51, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
_Original_Size.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_Original_Size.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Inferior format, we have an SVG of the Olympic rings. Fry1989 eh? 20:39, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
_Original_Size.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: INeverCry 16:48, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
_Original_Size.jpg){kind=link}
Background image found on severeal websites as wallpaper, original source unclear, no own work at all. Funfood ␌ 20:39, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 16:48, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
Looks like CD covers. Google translation of description indicates Artist is Barbara Timchenko. But marked as {{Own}} and {{PD-old}}. This cannot fit together. JuTa 21:08, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 16:48, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
Cartoon from the internet, no own work. Funfood ␌ 21:27, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 16:49, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
PD-old-50 not applicable to a US work. Likely copyrighted. Liliana-60 (talk) 21:30, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
- Perhaps the PD-common title or type is in error or misstated. This photo was first published in the U.S. in 1939 by the University of Washington Tyee Yearbook without copyright notice, and no notice of copyright renewal was found or evident within 28 years of first publication. No photo attribution or credit was identified in original work. No subsequent publication of the yearbook was created beyond the original work in 1939. Publication is beyond 70 years old. Therefore, I believe that reproductive use of this photo from the 1939 yearbook falls under the copyright rule that a work published in the U.S. without a copyright notice from 1923 to 1977 is in the public domain. --BC (talk) 03:47, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
- Keep I've searched for a renewal and found none. Thus I changed the license to PD-US-no renewal.--Prosfilaes (talk) 04:55, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
Kept: INeverCry 16:49, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
PD-old-50 not applicable to a US work. Likely copyrighted. Liliana-60 (talk) 21:41, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
- Delete There's lots of maybes here, but ultimately a photo where the first publication is likely 1976 in the US must be deleted.--Prosfilaes (talk) 04:56, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 16:49, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
Work of a living artist, no evidence of permission. . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:59, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 16:49, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
No description, license, source, permission. Not in use. . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:00, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 16:49, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
Unknown dates and source. "Family archives" could mean anything, but this image shows all the signs of having been copied from an image in a newspaper or magazine. Copyright status is therefore unclear. The photograph is post WWI, so the photographer may well have not died before 1942. . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:37, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 16:50, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
Unknown dates and source. "Family archives" could mean anything, but this image shows all the signs of having been copied from an image in a newspaper or magazine. Copyright status is therefore unclear. The photograph is post WWI, so the photographer may well have not died before 1942. . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:38, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 16:50, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
Proper dimensions available at File:MUTCD R4-7.svg Fry1989 eh? 00:51, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
- Delete and redirect as a useful alternate name. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:53, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: as uncontested DR. MBisanz talk 16:32, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
Not enough information to assume/confirm it was a publicity still and there's no copyright renewal. For lack of copyright notice we need an uncropped image of front and back and some evidence the uploader actually tried to search copyright databases for a possible renewal. Denniss (talk) 11:21, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
Keep – The original source website for this image states: Here's where you'll find very high quality images of famous screen stars, mostly from the 1940's and earlier. We've scanned 8 × 10 glossy movie stills and publicity photos, and the resulting full-size pictures are presented for your viewing and downloading pleasure—all free. Senator2029 06:04, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Uncertain copyright status. Unfortunately, that statement don't address the copyright of the original photo. Philosopher Let us reason together. 18:40, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
After identifying +/- 15 recent uploads as copyvio it might be reasonable enough to doubt all the other uploads (declared always as own work): We have small/inconsistent resolutions, missing EXIF and/or an arsenal of different digicams/mobile phones in use: Canon PowerShot SX230 HS, SONY DSC-R1, Canon EOS 50D, NIKON D90, Canon EOS Kiss X4, Canon EOS 5D Mark II, NIKON D200, Sony Ericsson K750i, Canon IXY 30S, SONY DSC-W120, Canon PowerShot A75, SONY CYBERSHOT, SONY DSC-P73, SONY DSC-P93A, Canon PowerShot S3 IS, SONY DSC-P100, NIKON E5200 (some of them already tagged as copyvio). IMHO untrusted user uploading a bunch of copyrighted/unsourced material so these ones (considering COM:PRP) can't be believed either.
- File:11 farsh afshar.jpg
- File:Sadegi turkin deli.jpg
- File:Takhte soleiman takab ghorub.jpg
- File:Vorodi va borj takht.jpg
- File:Takhte soleiman123.jpg
- File:Takab panaroma.jpg
- File:22222222-ostad sadeghi.jpg
- File:220023432-javani.jpg
- File:220022241javani-ostad sdeghi.jpg
- File:Shagerdostad sadeghi va veda sakht.JPG
- File:Yarisadeghitakab.JPG
- File:Abasaltsadeghitakabveda11.JPG
- File:456-1takab.jpg
- File:130915692dsfdsfsdfsdfdsf.jpg
- File:1335356666 ostad-abasalt.jpg-32.jpg
- File:220020-sadeghi.jpg
- File:Abasalt Sadeqi - 8.jpg
- File:Emza honari-ostad sadeghi.jpg
- File:1309181496700ddddd567 large.jpg
- File:Ostad sahraei-.JPG
- File:1336902306719260 ostad sadeghi.jpg
- File:1335356708 ostad-abasalt.jpg-39.jpg
- File:Ostad bakhtiyari b yad ostad sadeghi.jpg
- File:Abasalt-sadeghi.jpg
- File:Ostad sadeghi004.jpg
- File:Ostad sadeghi003.jpg
- File:Ostad sadeghi002.jpg
- File:Ostad sadeghi001.jpg
- File:Veda mardom takab ba ostad sadeghi.jpg
- File:Zemstan dar Takht.jpg
- File:Takab1koh.JPG
- File:Bolgheys takab.JPG
- File:Boghe ayubansari.jpg
- File:Ostad sadeghi.jpg
- File:Ostad sadeghi va veda mardome takab ba osatd.JPG
- File:تخت سلیمان.jpg
- File:Takht-e soleymana123.jpg
- File:Ostad-abasalt sadeghi-takab.jpg
- File:Bank meli takab.JPG
- File:Karvansaraye shahr-barbari.JPG
- File:Bazar takab-ahad nabati.JPG
- File:Masjed jame takab.JPG
- File:Bazar takab afshar.jpg
- File:Sardar ghalasi-ahad nabati.JPG
- File:Takab negin azarbayjan-ahad nabati.jpg
- File:Takab-melat baghi.JPG
- File:Takhte soleiman-atashkade azargoshasb-ahad nabati.jpg
- File:Takhte soleiman &zartoshti-ahad nabati.jpg
- File:Takhte soleiman -anahita-ahad nabati.JPG
- File:Poshte takhte soleiman va ab shodan barfha.JPG
- File:Takhte soleiman-sang ezhdeha -ahad nabati.jpg
- File:Tasvir panaroma az takhte soleiman takab-ahad nabati.jpg
- File:Takhte soleiman negin azarbayjan-ahad nabati-11.JPG
- File:Tasvir ziba az takhte soleiman negin azrbyjan-ahad nabati.JPG
- File:Boghe ayub ansari-ahad nabati-west azarbayjan.jpg
- File:Boghe ayub ansari-west azarbayjan.jpg
- File:Boghe ayub ansari takb -west azrbayjan.jpg
- File:Takab-west azrbayjan.JPG
- File:Tasvir ziab az tikantape -ahad nabati.JPG
- File:Zemdane soleiman va rusta nosrat abad-azarbayjan-takab.jpg
- File:Zendane soleiman-ahad nabati.JPG
- File:Zendane soleiman- takhte soleiman-dar azarbayjan.JPG
- File:Takhte soleiman takab negin azarbayjan.JPG
- File:Takhte soleiman takan-ahad nabati.JPG
Gunnex (talk) 09:07, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Per nominator PierreSelim (talk) 11:36, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Ashok.gharge94 (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photoalbum. Not used.
- File:ImagesCANFSMLP ashokgharge.jpg
- File:Untitled bmp ashokghsrge.jpg
- File:Love jpg ashokgharge.jpg
- File:Vodafone teamashok gharge.jpg
- File:Gharge ashok4.jpg
- File:58gharge ashok3.jpg
- File:Gharge ashok1 1.jpg
- File:Gharge ashok2.jpg
- File:ASHOKS.jpg
- File:ASHOK GHARGE.jpg
- File:547400 368169833252325 1739091744 n 2.jpg
- File:540926 368168889919086 560888776 n 1.jpg
- File:532322 368166063252702 63201817 n 1.jpg
- File:431887 368166489919326 46550852 n 2.jpg
- File:529295 368165713252737 1916613967 n 1.jpg
- File:428477 368170666585575 1030988161 n 1.jpg
- File:396964 368165896586052 1787577000 n 1.jpg
- File:479784 368166716585970 1690950919 n 1.jpg
- File:376937 368165413252767 993422417 n 1.jpg
- File:314787 368162883253020 1097755603 n 1.jpg
- File:208957 368164563252852 2135206722 n 1.jpg
- File:311636 368163043253004 495742202 n 1.jpg
- File:179171 368170276585614 409380130 n 1.jpg
- File:293737 368170743252234 478549621 n 1.jpg
- File:179111 368170803252228 475295774 n 1.jpg Kept: do not think it fits in COM:SCOPE.
- File:293165 368165076586134 2001104740 n 1.jpg
- File:547649 368159576586684 1949168820 n 1.jpg
- File:582603 368161039919871 1380048215 n 1.jpg
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:52, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope.Érico Wouters msg 21:53, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Victor Sr. (talk · contribs)
[edit]Looks like set of TV screenshots.
- File:Vlcsnap-2012-09-19-21h15m21s141.png
- File:Vlcsnap-2012-09-19-19h55m19s218.png
- File:Vlcsnap-2012-09-19-21h19m25s252.png
- File:Vlcsnap-2012-09-19-21h38m13s14.png
- File:Vlcsnap-2012-09-18-21h24m55s44.png
- File:Vlcsnap-2012-09-18-21h33m50s20.png
- File:Vlcsnap-2011-12-15-20h26m24s175.png
- File:Vlcsnap-2011-12-17-20h35m07s239.png
- File:Vlcsnap-2011-12-18-15h28m11s171.png
- File:4-e7534409832d28af604c9072996669b6.jpg
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:54, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 22:35, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Cyrus jake (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photoalbum. Low quality. Not used.
- File:SI MAAM.jpg
- File:SARAP.jpg
- File:HEHEHE.jpg
- File:TEACHER.jpg
- File:ANTOK.jpg
- File:PWEDE.jpg
- File:CLASS.jpg
- File:HAGDAN.jpg
- File:Cyrus jake.jpg
EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:00, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope.Érico Wouters msg 21:45, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Cyrus jake (talk · contribs)
[edit]unused user images, out of scope
- File:Mine08.jpg
- File:Nung dati4.jpg
- File:Tita.jpg
- File:Globe 23.jpg
- File:Mem2.jpg
- File:Nung dati.jpg
- File:Daryll.jpg
- File:Pascal11.jpg
- File:Tita mafe.jpg
- File:Class pic. 3rd year.jpg
- File:Steve n mr.jpg
- File:Nung kinder.jpg
Aa1bb2cc3dd4ee5 (talk) 11:23, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:18, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Badr Elyaalaoui (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photoalbum. Not used.
EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:01, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope.Érico Wouters msg 02:46, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
Uploading on a large scale of images without permission, see User talk:Anurang and Special:Log/Anurang for all uploads (including the deleted ones).
- File:उपेक्षितांचा वकील अँड. राजाराम मुकणे.jpg
- File:कोकांवासियांनो, मतलबी राजकारण्यांपासून सावध राहा.jpg
- File:मेळावे भरतात व संपतात, आमची दुःस्थिती मात्र कायम ......एका हरीजानाचे ह्रदगत.jpg
- File:Marathi Article.jpg
- File:Untouchability in Congress Party .jpg
- File:गुरुजींची ती मुलाखत म्हणजे बुरसट पणाचे प्रदर्शन.jpg
- File:LtRajaram Mukne.jpg
- File:Rajaram Mukne TVNews.jpg
- File:Rajaram Mukne TVNews2.jpg
- File:Rajaram Mukane News4.jpg
- File:Rajaram Mukne News2.jpg
- File:Rajaram Mukne News3.jpg
- File:Rajaram Mukne Article.jpg
- File:Rajaram Mukne News.jpg
- File:R.P.Mukne Article.jpg
- File:Pravin WKP.jpg
- File:Advocate Rajaram P Mukane.jpg
- File:Advocate R.P. Mukane.jpg
- File:RPMWiKP.jpg
- File:Web Copy - Small - Copy.jpg
- File:Advocate Mukane.jpg
- File:RP Mukne Photo.jpg
- File:Rajaram P Mukane.jpg
- File:Rajaram Mukane.jpg
- File:RP Mukane Photo.jpg
Trijnsteltalk 18:54, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 16:40, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
- I deleted more images which were uploaded by this user, see Special:Log/Anurang. Trijnsteltalk 20:29, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
A lot of dubious uploads: Some old 1960s/70s photos of Soviet personalities, a city collage with pics of unknown origin, and many low resolution pics taken with different camera types. Everything is declared as "own work" made in 2012.
- File:Bpkoms.jpg
- File:Plitakoms.jpg
- File:KomsBuks.jpg
- File:Nm collage.JPG
- File:Индига мост.jpg
- File:Андег сельсовет.jpg
- File:Iskat4.jpg
- File:Iskat1.jpg
- File:Iskat2.jpg
- File:Iskat3.jpg
- File:SeloNes.jpg
- File:Kotkino.jpg
- File:Haruta2.jpg
- File:Haruta1.jpg
- File:Nelmin.jpg
- File:PKSS.jpg
- File:KrasnoeDK2.jpg
- File:Oksino.jpg
- File:Velikovis.jpg
- File:KamenkaNAO.jpg
- File:Hongurey2.jpg
- File:Hongurey.jpg
- File:Mostviska.jpg
- File:Viska.jpg
- File:DKTelv.jpg
- File:OrbitaTelv.jpg
- File:KotkinSN.jpg
- File:Здание администрации Ненецкого автономного округа.JPG
- File:PostNAO.JPG
- File:SablinLI.jpg
- File:Guber 83.jpg
- File:Apanteleev.jpg
- File:AbesadzeV.JPG
- File:A kalinin.jpg
- File:V Ledkov.jpg
- File:Javtis.jpg
- File:Pirerka.jpg
- File:A-Ordina.jpg
- File:Barinov A.jpg
- File:U-Komar.JPG
- File:Бу2.jpg
- File:V Habarov.jpg
- File:Nmaronl12.JPG
- File:Nmaronl.JPG
- File:NAO-geo-stub.png
- File:Nordavianao.JPG
- File:Mi-8NAO.JPG
- File:Mi8NAO.JPG
- File:An2NAO.JPG
- File:Amdermaaero.jpg
- File:Vterminal2.jpg
- File:Vterminal.jpg
- File:Harjaga.jpg
- File:Hver.JPG
- File:Ukara.JPG
- File:Saprstr.JPG
- File:Smidst.jpg
- File:SapriginNE.jpg
- File:VARANDEY.JPG
- File:KARATAYKA.JPG
- File:Karataika.jpg
A.Savin 19:11, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 16:42, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
Everything here seems to be scanned from a Soviet magazine of 1941. No further details on authors/permission available.
- File:Dzn animation.gif
- File:Electricity tm 1941 04 59.jpg
- File:Dzn logo Iz-okna-vagona1940.jpg
- File:Prospect Iz-okna-vagona1940.jpg
- File:Building of DZN (Sherementev palace).jpg
- File:Geological room of DZN.jpg
- File:Advertisment of DZN.jpg
- File:Kids in phisical room.jpg
- File:Cover of Perelman's brochure..jpg
- File:Kadya Molodovsky.png
- File:Eygns Almanach.jpg
- File:Di dame mitn hintl.jpg
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
A.Savin 19:18, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 16:43, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
This is not a proper solution, I have tried through two AN/U sections now to get a consensus-forming discussion to start rolling, that is the proper way to solve the issue It's how we solve other disputes like this, it's how this one should be done. The Holy See is 100% clear about it's symbol, the fact that one user is on a crusade to say they're wrong doesn't change that. Consensus must be formed. Fry1989 eh? 19:57, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
- Keep Or we could just leave the two images as they are and stop edit-warring about the issue. I see no evidence that you are willing to accept any consensus that you're wrong; the Holy See is not a Commons editor to help form consensus.--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:22, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
- You mean be blind to our encyclopedic role to be accurate? Yah, what a genius idea. Esoglou edit warred and fought against a consensus, he shouldn't be obliged to get his way just out of shear insistence. A consensus is the practice here, and this issue is no difference. What YOU think of me is frankly irrelevant, I've been demanding a consensus for over a week, long before you came along, and my language has always been that I would accept the outcome of it. What you think I would do in the event a consensus was formed which didn't agree with my stance is nothing more than your own ignorant opinion of someone you don't even know. Fry1989 eh? 20:54, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
- We don't have an encyclopedic role at all!--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:02, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
- Actually we do, by the simple fact that "no encyclopedic value" is an accepted reasoning for file deletion all the time. I see it every day and never once have I seen you object. Fry1989 eh? 21:04, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
- It's "no educational value" not "no encyclopedic value".--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:07, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
- Actually we do, by the simple fact that "no encyclopedic value" is an accepted reasoning for file deletion all the time. I see it every day and never once have I seen you object. Fry1989 eh? 21:04, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
- BTW, you have a consensus on the two file structure. I'm counting 3 people for the two file structure against you.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:07, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
- You mean like how there was 3 people to 1 telling Esoglou he was wrong? I didn't see you chiming in there and saying "there's a consensus! we gotta follow it!". Funny how you only do that against me. Your opinions are worthless because of your own bias. Fry1989 eh? 21:21, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
- We don't have an encyclopedic role at all!--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:02, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
- You mean be blind to our encyclopedic role to be accurate? Yah, what a genius idea. Esoglou edit warred and fought against a consensus, he shouldn't be obliged to get his way just out of shear insistence. A consensus is the practice here, and this issue is no difference. What YOU think of me is frankly irrelevant, I've been demanding a consensus for over a week, long before you came along, and my language has always been that I would accept the outcome of it. What you think I would do in the event a consensus was formed which didn't agree with my stance is nothing more than your own ignorant opinion of someone you don't even know. Fry1989 eh? 20:54, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
- Keep Commons has room for more than one version. I am sure there is no consensus for excluding it. Esoglou (talk) 21:01, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
- Keep Per Prosfilaes --PierreSelim (talk) 21:09, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
- Keep Both images are free images (or at least no one has contested their licenses yet) and the fact that the nominator, Holy See or such-and-such sources do not like their contents does not automatically mean that they should be deleted. Contributors on Wikimedia Commons have wide latitude to contribute whatever they like and to make derivative copies from other free works. The nominator should also acknowledge that COM:Deletion requests is not a valid venue for addressing consensus issues and should not be used as a leverage to force his own personal will upon others. Fleet Command (talk) 23:13, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
- It is a final recourse when admins like you are so incompetent that you will completely ignore valid requests on the appropriate pages for a discussion to form consensus. If you admins wouldn't ignore them, I wouldn't have to come here. Don't blame me for your incompetency. It is absolutely neccesary when a single user is being allowed to completely ignore what was a standing consensus, edit war, fight, ignore sources, and still somehow get his way. I have never tried to force my way, if I've said it once I've said it a million times, I WANT CONSENSUS, whatever that turns out to be, I'll accept! But I will not accept people deliberately ignoring the issue and pretending they know anything about it or that there is a consensus when there simply is not. Fry1989 eh? 23:20, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
Kept: per consensus. INeverCry 16:45, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
It's the same as File:Baljaffray Primary School, South Baljaffray, Bearsden - geograph.org.uk - 75441.jpg, but in PNG format. Given that the original geograph image is JPG, I don't see any reason to keep this version. ghouston (talk) 08:10, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Uncontested DR. MBisanz talk 20:59, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
Can someone verity this license and possibly replace it with a standard license template? Jarekt (talk) 20:08, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Uncontested DR. MBisanz talk 20:59, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
ne ressemble pas à Cheb Hasni — Mouh2jijel [Respectueusement et Amicalement] 08:49, 30 October 2012 (UTC) 16:48, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
- DeleteGood enough likeness, from I presume an amateur artist, for me to reject rationale that it does not resemble the subject, FOP guidance for Morocco at Commons:FOP#Morocco however seems to indicate that there is a case for deletion with regards to FOP.--KTo288 (talk) 12:36, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
Oppose not a reason, just don't use it where you think it's not suitable. Meanwhile it can be used in other subjects, like foreign influences of Algerian music, as this picture was taken in Morocco. - Dzlinker (talk) 22:13, 21 September 2012 (UTC)- DeleteI'm with the removal of this photo, real photo of hasni is available on wiki, it is: Cheb_Hasni_aux_USA.jpg
This drawing does not look like hasni delete it
- Delete yes delete and delete and 1000 deletes
- Delete delete, there are two photos of Cheb Hasni, Cheb_Hasni_aux_USA.jpg and Cheb_Hasni_image.jpg (— Mouh2jijel [Respectueusement et Amicalement] 08:49, 30 October 2012 (UTC) 08:14, 29 October 2012 (UTC))
Deleted: Uncontested DR. MBisanz talk 20:59, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
- ?!? --Denniss (talk) 22:10, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
- Comment by duplicate I presume you mean that it is a duplicate of File:Martini2.jpg, and I see what you mean the images are very similar they are not exact duplicates, which is the criteria for deletion.--KTo288 (talk) 12:49, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
- What is the purpose of publishing these two photos (File:Martini1.jpg and File:Martini2.jpg)that does not have a big defference? Mouh2jijel
- As you may have noticed, in File:Martini1.jpg the tower is set more to the left of the frame, and not totally upright. In File:Martini2.jpg the tower is more to the center, and exactly perpendicular to the baseline. It's a matter of tast which one you like best. There is of course no cause for deletion because the two are different, probably even on purpose. I think nominating files for deletion should be done with more care than was done in this case, as the nomination has already had some effect and motivated users to replace it by another picture in an article. What's the procedure for removing the tag? I think it should be removed fairly soon now. Wikiklaas (talk) 20:53, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
- I have proposed for deletion File: Martini1.jpg but File: Martini2.jpg I insist to keep it, and I saw the two pictures, they are not the same Mouh2jijel (talk
- As you may have noticed, in File:Martini1.jpg the tower is set more to the left of the frame, and not totally upright. In File:Martini2.jpg the tower is more to the center, and exactly perpendicular to the baseline. It's a matter of tast which one you like best. There is of course no cause for deletion because the two are different, probably even on purpose. I think nominating files for deletion should be done with more care than was done in this case, as the nomination has already had some effect and motivated users to replace it by another picture in an article. What's the procedure for removing the tag? I think it should be removed fairly soon now. Wikiklaas (talk) 20:53, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
- What is the purpose of publishing these two photos (File:Martini1.jpg and File:Martini2.jpg)that does not have a big defference? Mouh2jijel
- Comment by duplicate I presume you mean that it is a duplicate of File:Martini2.jpg, and I see what you mean the images are very similar they are not exact duplicates, which is the criteria for deletion.--KTo288 (talk) 12:49, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
Kept: We don't delete unless it's an exact or scaled-down duplicate. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:30, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
New England is not a country, this is therefore fake. Fry1989 eh? 20:29, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
- Then also delete File:Roadsign-nouturn.png and all other images in Category:Diagrams of road signs of New England. Jfd34 (talk) 11:54, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
- There can be multi-state standards (though I don't know if that's actually the case here). AnonMoos (talk) 07:06, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
- It's a European (German a a matter of fact) style road sign, you would NEVER find it anywhere in the US. Nevermind the fact that it has been flipped around for driving on the left, when the US drives on the right. Fry1989 eh? 19:19, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 00:01, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
Polish Air Force roundel with red changed to blue, looks fake, no scope. Fry1989 eh? 20:31, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
- Not a fake, it's the logo of geodata.no, probably taken from here. It's probably inteded to be used for no:Geodata (selskap), which is currently a deletion candidate. I think we should wait until the people at no: have decided that case: If they keep it (and add the file to the article) it's not out of scope. --El Grafo (talk) 11:46, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
- Interesting. I have no objection to waiting it out to see if the article is kept. Fry1989 eh? 19:02, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
Kept: . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 00:02, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
Video game logos
[edit]- File:Guitar Hero III Legends of Rock Companion Pack Logo.jpg
- File:Half-Life 2 Logo.svg
- File:Helghastlogo.jpg
- File:Marathon_logo.svg
- File:Portal 2 beta logo.png
- File:Red Dead Redemption Logo.png
- File:StarCraft2logo.png
- File:BlackOps2Logo.svg
- File:Disney Club Penguin Logo.svg
- File:Fallout logo.svg
- File:2 Days to Vegas logo.png
- File:AC Lost Legacy.png
- File:Alice Madness Returns Logo.png
- File:Assassin's Creed Brotherhood.png
- File:Assassin’s Creed logo.svg
Most of the files in Category:Video game logos are obvious copyright violations. There seems to be a strange notion that anything involving text, or merely very simple design (like the Half-Life logo) does not meet the threshold of originality. I find this idea absurd, as this would mean that a majority of modern company logos could also be treated the same way, including giants like American Airlines (blue and red text in simple Helvetica), IBM (horizontally striped text) or Apple (stylized outline of an apple). And I seriously doubt anyone would suggest that's a realistic stance on copyright issues for Commons.
The files above are just examples. The entire category, and its sub-categories, needs to be considered. And unless we're talking about logos that are literally nothing but text written in run-of-the-mill fonts, they should be deleted. Peter Isotalo 07:49, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
- Comment Legitimate concerns − there is certainly a lot of crap in this category (for example, the StarCraft 2 logo is clearly IMO abusive interpretation of PD-textlogo).
- Still, please read Commons:Threshold of originality and our "case law" mentionned there. You will see that Commons stance is clearly to rule the logos of Boeing, IBM, American Airlines or Apple Inc. as indeed uneligible for copyright protection.
- Copyright is about creativity. It is not the Alpha and Omega of intellectual property − where it does not apply, be assured something else does, be it patents, database rights, Copydesign or (in the present case) trademarks. But Commons policy is to rule them out as Non-copyright restrictions.
- As it is, I am incited to close this DR as too broad and ask you to raise concerns on specific files.
- Jean-Fred (talk) 08:32, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
- I'm surprised that Commons allows logos like those of Apple and IBM on Commons. But to focus on this issue, is there any way of filing a mass deletion request without having to edit in notices on every file page and uploader's talkpage manually?
- Peter Isotalo 16:08, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
- Keep Most logos are simple text logos. Some others even have OTRS. Please check each file and make a proper del. request for the not simple ones. There's a mass del request, but you still have to edit each file. --Kungfuman (talk) 13:22, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
- Keep Most stuff is simple (text, plain colored, geometrical primitives). So, please make specific deletion requests for the very few clearly beyond the threshold of originality. PS: another question, it is possible to move stuff automatically back to local WPs instead of deletion? specifically stuff which was moved from a local WP (with less restrictive policies, like de:WP fr:WP etc) by bot transfer. This missing capability bothers me for a long time. Shaddim (talk) 13:44, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
- We do have bots like you describe, see User:Commons fair use upload bot. Jean-Fred (talk) 18:34, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
- Interesting, while this bot has not exactly the wanted behaviour, it's a start. This fair use bot seems to move non-free stuff to "fair-use" in the en:WP. My asked for use case is the reversal of the automated transfer to the commons. If a file is nominated for deletion AND was transfered from a local WP it should be transfered back to the original local WP. The file's page should be reconstructed with the original license and content (would apply to all licenses not only Fair use). Should be technical not to complicated, as the transfer bots seems to save all relevant information overall. Shaddim (talk) 22:20, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
- We do have bots like you describe, see User:Commons fair use upload bot. Jean-Fred (talk) 18:34, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
Comment There is a legitimate question here, and I think we need to do some clean up in the video game logos category. However it is important to explain why you think a logo is not PD or there is a copyvio (it simply ease the discussion). From the given list I would single out 2 files as not being {{PD-textlogo}} (and Delete):
- File:Half-Life 2 Logo.svg (it could be discussed whether it's simple shape or not {{PD-shape}} --PierreSelim (talk) 14:56, 24 September 2012 (UTC))
- File:Assassin’s Creed logo.svg
--PierreSelim (talk) 13:41, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
- Keep. This was discussed before at Commons:Deletion_requests/Logos. — Mr White 20:01, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
- Comment Someone placed a {{Delete}} on Category:Video game logos. I can see deleting individual logos that violate copyright, but so long as there is even one properly licensed logo, surely deleting the category is premature? Geo Swan (talk) 18:27, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
Kept all but three. The nom's basic premise is wrong -- PD-text logo applies to almost all of them, and would also apply to the American Airlines logo (except for the eagle, which he does not mention) and the IBM logo -- they are very strong trademarks, but they don't have a copyright. . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 23:48, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
This file is a derivative of File:-Roadsign-startover.png which has now been deleted. It is now the lone file in its now obselete category. Serenthia 00:06, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
- Deletion rationale for the other file was 16:04, 27. Sep. 2010 Bidgee (Diskussion | Beiträge) hat „File:-Roadsign-startover.png“ gelöscht (Mass removal of files added by sock of User:Rukshanawahab) (global usage; delinker log). What was the exact reason for deletion of this one? Doesn't look like something protected to me, at least this derivative should be fine for keeping, as it is just a 2D-reproduction of a simple road sign. --PaterMcFly (talk) 08:16, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
New England is not a country, this is therefore fake. Fry1989 eh? 20:28, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
- I don’t see how that follows; I may be wrong, but I understood the title to mean that the sign is commonly seen in New England, or is officially used by some or all of the states (or perhaps the counties & municipalities, whichever is responsible for such things in the USA) comprising the region. Here in Canada, at least, there are some variations in signage style from one jurisdiction to another, some of which might well be common to, or characteristic of, larger regions.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 19:49, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
- I've never seen a sign like that in North America, but that's not the reason I nominated it. The reason I nominated it is because it's part of Category:Diagrams of road signs of New England. Look at the few signs in there. I only know of two "New England" areas of the World, one in the Northeastern United States, and one in Australia, and both countries absolutely do not use or allow signs like File:Roadsign-nouturn.svg (especially not the US considering they drive on the right, not the left) and File:Roadsign-noovertakinglorriesend.svg (which is positively European in it's design). The fact those are in there makes the entire category and it's contents suspect. Fry1989 eh? 20:51, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted Per Fry -- I've spent most of my driving life in New England and I've never seen a sign like this. Also, of course, road signs are largely specified by the Federal Department of Transportation, and by the various states, so there is no such thing as a New England road sign. . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 23:53, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
Dupe of File:Puerto Rico R1-2.svg Fry1989 eh? 22:14, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
- This is not a dupe of File:Puerto Rico R1-2.svg. This is a properly rendered with correct fonts and proportions version of the sign unlike File:Puerto Rico R1-2.svg which is incorrect in its typography and colors. This was Pantone matched to MUTCD specs. --Lieutenant Ramathorn (talk) 22:19, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
- You could have just corrected the other file, rather then uploaded separately. Fry1989 eh? 22:21, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
- The other file needs to be deleted as it is still inaccurate even with your revisions. You can find the MUTCD here. [2] --Lieutenant Ramathorn (talk) 22:44, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
- That is not how things work here. If there is a problem with a file, you correct the file, you do not upload a separate one and then delete the pre-existing file. This is the one that must be deleted. Fry1989 eh? 22:47, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
- The other file needs to be deleted as it is still inaccurate even with your revisions. You can find the MUTCD here. [2] --Lieutenant Ramathorn (talk) 22:44, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
- You could have just corrected the other file, rather then uploaded separately. Fry1989 eh? 22:21, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
Kept: Deletion discussions are not the place to settle content disputes. Please figure this out on the relevant talk pages and merge the files, if necessary so that a correct version can be established. ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 20:14, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
This file has already Rico R1-2.svg been merged on to the other pre-existing one, and is not in use, nor does the uploader dispute the two files anymore. Try a little due dilligence if you're gonna close a DR. Fry1989 eh? 20:53, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
- The colours of the files are still different and neither of the files' talk pages nor this deletion discussion indicate that you have come to a consensus. I will, however, leave this for someone else to handle. Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 21:07, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
- The problem between the two files was primarily the font of the text, the shape is the same on both. I merged the text on to the pre-existing file long ago. As for the colour, the uploader has problems with his "claim" that it's wrong. He also reverted dozens of my US warning sign files saying the yellow was wrong. I showed him my sources that the MUTCD now uses a different yellow (infact, the yellow I got was not from any "guide" that needed conversions, it was provided embedded in their vector files themselves), and he called me a liar then disengaged himself. As with the yellow on the warning signs I have provided, the red I have on the pre-existing file is the red that the MUTCD is currently using. Fry1989 eh? 22:32, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
deleted, merged and 
widely used --Neozoon (talk) 22:03, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: --Neozoon (talk) 22:09, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
