Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2012/11/02
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
|
|
Useless (unencyclopedic), probably defamatory Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 00:57, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
Delete - useless, but not defamatory, given it does not appear to be a photoshop job (to put the woman in), merely a joke. -mattbuck (Talk) 01:25, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 12:26, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
The EXIF says Copyright holder is Graham Crouch. We need OTRS permission to confirm authorship. Sreejith K (talk) 03:42, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
- Site :- [1] -Naveenpf (talk) 09:31, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyright violation. See: http://grahamcrouch.com/Asset.asp?AssetID=11677&AKey=A2RTBE6R Sreejith K (talk) 19:01, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
What new could be added to Category:Human penis? EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:37, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 02:08, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
Unused, low quality image with no realistic encyclopedic value. AshFriday (talk) 01:02, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
- Speedy keep Johnny has an agenda. Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:56, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
- Delete per COM:PENIS. Low photographic quality amateurish depiction of male genitalia that is redundant to any of a number of other files we have of men's penises. Commons is not the place to store your Pornhub profile pic. Moreover this is a pretty classic nondescriptive filename squatter ("adult penis"), which is very common among uploaders with an exhibitionist intent. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 02:36, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
Keep per COM:CENSOR and Tgeorgescu. — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 03:42, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 00:52, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
out of scope Mjrmtg (talk) 22:01, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
- Deleted. Anna (Cookie) (talk) 22
- 13, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
Likely not the uploader's own work High Contrast (talk) 22:17, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 00:58, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
Likely not the uploader's own work High Contrast (talk) 22:17, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 00:58, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
Photo credit should read STRDEL/AFP/Getty Images (per EXIF data) Puramyun31 (talk) 10:41, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Clear case. 1) the source www.in.com is not published under cc-by, contrary to the uploaders claim. Maybe the uploader is irritated by files from websites such as filmitadata or bollywoodhungama. The difference is: that websites have content published under a free license, this website here has not. 2) the website is not the photographer or copyright holder. Martin H. (talk) 11:54, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
Image is not pre-1923 as claimed; the record was made in 1931, and the film around the same time. Diannaa (talk) 01:53, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 01:47, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
do not want it. Fs 19100 (talk) 23:16, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
- The file never existed in the first place, so speedy delete file description page. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 10:24, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: File doesn't exist. EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:32, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
Does this logo meet the threshold of originality? Ralgistalk 17:02, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
Oppose it is removed.This logo is from the Raw brand, this also deserves to stay in the English Wikipedia Rulo Garciatalk 17:33, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
Support Los logos tienen copyright y no me parece un diseño simple. Si un logo de tal calibre no puede estar en wikipedia, no puede estar. Aparte, las reglas entre la wiki inglesa y la española son diferentes. --Techarrow (talk) 17:19, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
Comment In this case, we should consider the fact that this is not English Wikipedia nor Spanish Wikipedia, but Wikimedia Commons, an independent project. --Ralgistalk 19:32, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
- Deleted. This logo is not simple text, there's a design involved and all content is copyrighted in the oficial site. Anna (Cookie) (talk) 21:25, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
Does this logo meet the threshold of originality? Ralgistalk 17:04, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
Support Es un logo demasiado complejo como para ser un diseño simple. --Techarrow (talk) 17:22, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
- Borrado. Lo es y todos los contenidos, incluidos logos, están bajo copyright Anna (Cookie) (talk) 22:03, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
Possible copyright violation. Small file with no EXIF and own work claim is doubtful. I think this should be deleted as per COM:PRP. Rapsar (talk) 14:16, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 01:12, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
Although the license of eldiario.es is compatible with that of commons, I don't really think eldiario.es is the owner of the picture. For instance, the same picture is available here. As both pieces of news come from the same source (news agency EFE), I simply think that EFE is the author of the picture. Ecemaml talk to me/habla conmigo 23:24, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
- Agree See This (same photo, sourced as "EFE").--Coentor (talk) 14:52, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyright violation. No need to go on with the discussion Ecemaml talk to me/habla conmigo 09:16, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
Copyrighted non-free logo of Zojirushi. 68.173.113.106 20:51, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 16:31, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
Unused image not in project scope. 68.173.113.106 21:01, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 16:31, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
Unused and not within project scope; may be a copyvio. 68.173.113.106 21:02, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 16:32, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
Transfer from ukwiki: Tagged with cryptical source info as "Any in the Internet" and "Flickr", this image already circulated before upload date at ukwiki (2008) on several pages (examples: 2004, 2007). The German journal "Süddeutsche Zeitung" in an article from 2010 refers to "© Foto: dpa" (= German Press Agency en:Deutsche Presse-Agentur). Summarizing: Unlikely to be CC-BY-2.5. Copyrighted work. Gunnex (talk) 21:31, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
- Update: See also focus.de: "dpa / Werner Baum".Gunnex (talk) 21:38, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: copyvio Denniss (talk) 16:33, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
Superseded, is no longer in use by any project or site. Topographie (talk) 00:32, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
- Keep its a reasonable quality 2K image. The SVG does not optimise well. John Vandenberg (chat) 02:01, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
Superseded, is no longer in use by any project or site. Topographie (talk) 00:33, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
- Keep its a reasonable quality 2K image. The SVG does not optimise well. John Vandenberg (chat) 00:56, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
The subject of this photo is a copyrighted character. Vantey (talk) 01:46, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 16:08, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
Image whose only purpose is vandalism/hoax article on enwiki. Possible derivative image with no evidence that original images are freely available. KinuP (talk) 02:55, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of scope Morning ☼ (talk) 16:08, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
Image whose only purpose is vandalism/hoax article on enwiki. KinuP (talk) 02:58, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of scope Morning ☼ (talk) 16:09, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
This is a non-free logo, and should not be on the Commons. Diannaa (talk) 03:04, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 15:55, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
Derivative of copyrighted product packaging. Kelly (talk) 05:44, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
- Delete Clear example of product packaging.--Sphilbrick (talk) 19:48, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 16:10, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
Unused user's self image (see other images uploaded by him as well). Hindustanilanguage (talk) 06:42, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
- Delete Personal photographs, no indication they have any value other than identifying subject, who is not claimed to be notable.--Sphilbrick (talk) 19:52, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 15:53, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
Unused user's self image (see other images uploaded by him as well). Hindustanilanguage (talk) 06:42, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
- Delete Personal photographs, no indication they have any value other than identifying subject, who is not claimed to be notable.--Sphilbrick (talk) 19:52, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 15:53, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
Unused user's self image (see other images uploaded by him as well). Hindustanilanguage (talk) 06:42, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
- Delete Personal photographs, no indication they have any value other than identifying subject, who is not claimed to be notable.--Sphilbrick (talk) 19:52, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 15:53, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
Unused user's self image (see other images uploaded by him as well). Hindustanilanguage (talk) 06:43, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
- Delete Personal photographs, no indication they have any value other than identifying subject, who is not claimed to be notable.--Sphilbrick (talk) 19:52, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 15:53, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
Unused user's self image (see other images uploaded by him as well). Hindustanilanguage (talk) 06:44, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
- Delete Personal photographs, no indication they have any value other than identifying subject, who is not claimed to be notable.--Sphilbrick (talk) 19:52, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 15:53, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
The very dominant watermark makes the image not useful for Commons Wouter (talk) 07:38, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: no permission Morning ☼ (talk) 16:03, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
The very dominant watermark makes the image not useful for Commons Wouter (talk) 07:40, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: no permission Morning ☼ (talk) 16:02, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
Unlikely own work. Taken from [2] and used in uk.wp as non-free since 2007 [3]. Jafeluv (talk) 10:26, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
![[3]](https://uk.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A4%D0%B0%D0%B9%D0%BB:%D0%93%D0%B5%D1%82%D1%8C%D0%BC%D0%B0%D0%BD%D1%89%D0%B8%D0%BD%D0%B0-%D0%BF%D0%BE%D0%BB%D0%BA%D0%B8_%28%D0%B7%D0%B0_%D0%9A%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%BF%27%D1%8F%D0%BA%D0%B5%D0%B2%D0%B8%D1%87%D0%B5%D0%BC%29.svg){kind=link}
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 16:02, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
out of scope, del. on DE Nolispanmo 10:33, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 15:56, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
out of scope Mjrmtg (talk) 10:35, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 15:56, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
Same picture has been used in here, in 16 August 2010. Rapsar (talk) 10:52, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 16:16, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
The file depicts a bust created in 1991 by Zlato Rudolf (1952-). Per COM:FOP#Slovenia, it is not free for Commons. Eleassar (t/p) 11:18, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 16:06, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
Photo taken at the FIFA Ballon d'Or Gala 2010. Probably a screenshot or a crop of a copyrighted image. Hekerui (talk) 13:29, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 15:56, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
Copyright violation. Rapsar (talk) 13:57, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 16:06, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
Copyright violation. Rapsar (talk) 13:59, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 16:05, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
Copyright violation. Rapsar (talk) 14:12, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 16:06, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
This is a recent architectural work in France. 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) 14:57, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 16:12, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
Recent architectural work in France. 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) 14:59, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 16:12, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
Recent architectural work in France. 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) 14:59, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 16:12, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
Recent creative work in France. 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) 15:01, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 16:11, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
Recent architectural work in France. 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) 15:02, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 16:11, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
Recent creative work in France. 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) 15:02, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 16:11, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
Artist died 1997. No evidence of permission for this. . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:16, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 15:58, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
Not an own work. Was it free licensed by its author? Ralgistalk 15:31, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 15:58, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
I posted this image in the wrong category. Jrh008 (talk) 12:36, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
- Request closed by Alan. November 12, 2015.
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:39, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 15:54, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
File:PQAAAPYUuEqY2dQysiDCnh7LIgJJmPCuoHyFvCXwf4TjQ-6RF3XIIZar Kz71IKWPygfPFb-D52BfDOlsylir3wnH-IAm1T1UD6iJHPy--EYVsX 2VAx0RX-65dA.jpg
[edit]
Possible copyvio, low resoltion, see picture name and uploaders history Motopark (talk) 16:09, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 15:58, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
File:PQAAAOxrl7Dn01aWXsRVNlL52rXZliZ5fKd9jDJgVyTGQYurgKh8vkov0d4YHIMhgPQZOwiv92R4X4x17ACpYpmZ5dwAm1T1UPAik3xaMG9a92z2Zo2k9P--dxZW.jpg
[edit]
Possible copyvio, low resoltion, see picture name and uploaders history Motopark (talk) 16:10, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 15:58, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
The subject of this photo is a copyrighted character. Vantey (talk) 01:46, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 16:08, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
out of scope, del on DE Nolispanmo 16:46, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 15:59, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
Copyvio. Rapsar (talk) 17:21, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 16:17, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
Copyvio. Rapsar (talk) 17:22, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 16:18, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
Copyvio. Rapsar (talk) 17:24, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 16:18, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
Copyvio. Rapsar (talk) 17:25, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 16:18, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
Copyvio. Rapsar (talk) 17:26, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 16:18, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
Copyvio. Rapsar (talk) 17:27, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 16:19, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
Copyvio. Rapsar (talk) 17:27, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 16:19, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
Copyrighted cover of a book. Rapsar (talk) 17:28, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 15:59, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
Copyvio. Rapsar (talk) 17:30, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 16:23, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
Copyvio. Rapsar (talk) 17:32, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 16:24, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
Copyrighted logo. Rapsar (talk) 17:36, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 16:24, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
Copyvio. Rapsar (talk) 17:44, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 16:24, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
Copyvio. Rapsar (talk) 17:48, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 16:25, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
not own work (satellite image) Calliopejen1 (talk) 18:42, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 16:25, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
not own work (satellite image) Calliopejen1 (talk) 18:43, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 16:25, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
copyvio - http://jennifermarohasy.com/2008/02/blue-gums-in-grose-valley-healthy-after-back-burning/ Calliopejen1 (talk) 19:36, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 16:26, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
copyvio - http://www.panoramio.com/photo/1188851 Calliopejen1 (talk) 19:37, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 16:25, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
Copyrighted cover of a book. Rapsar (talk) 20:05, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 16:00, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
Copyright violation. Rapsar (talk) 20:09, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 16:26, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
Copyright violation. Rapsar (talk) 20:10, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 16:26, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
Copyright violation. Rapsar (talk) 20:10, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 16:26, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
Copyrighted cover of a book. Rapsar (talk) 20:19, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 16:00, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
Copyrighted covers of books. Rapsar (talk) 20:20, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 16:00, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but this is not realy covered by COM:FOP#Argentina. Sculptor Fernando Botero is still alive. JuTa 20:35, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 16:01, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but this is not realy covered by COM:FOP#France. JuTa 20:51, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 16:01, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
Copyright by the educational institution (СОБДиЮ). No permission. -Ю. Данилевский (talk) 09:34, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:19, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
No relevant Exif, low resolution, and unlikely to be the work of the uploader, given that this image has been used in news stories and is all over the Web (do a Google Images search). David1217 (talk) 00:04, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:19, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
I uploaded it to Wikipedia back when I was 14, didn't really know what I was doing, and would like it removed. 50.9.36.120 00:17, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
- Are you Jessica Skinner? – Quadell (talk) 10:16, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
- I'm not sure if the anon is going to reply. If she is Jessica Skinner, the photographer, then I think we should respect her wishes and take down a photograph that she uploaded as a young teenager and now regrets. (That goes for this and the following 2 images.) If the anon is not Jessica Skinner, but uploaded the photo, then it's a copyvio. Either way, I say delete this and the next two. – Quadell (talk) 13:15, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:19, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
I uploaded it to Wikipedia back when I was 14, didn't really know what I was doing, and would like it removed. 50.9.36.120 00:17, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:20, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
I uploaded it to Wikipedia back when I was 14, didn't really know what I was doing, and would like it removed. 50.9.36.120 00:18, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:20, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
Superseded, is no longer in use by any project or site. Topographie (talk) 00:21, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
Kept: per request on my talk from nominator. INeverCry 00:20, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
Superseded, is no longer in use by any project or site. Topographie (talk) 00:23, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
- Keep its a reasonable quality 2K image. The SVG does not optimise well. John Vandenberg (chat) 02:02, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
Artist born in 1963. Siob's artworks are not in public domain. Copyright violation. 90.2.99.4 00:24, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:22, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
Artist born in 1963. Siob's artworks are not in public domain. Copyright violation. 90.2.99.4 00:25, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:22, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
Artist born in 1963. Siob's artworks are not in public domain. Copyright violation. 90.2.99.4 00:25, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:22, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
Artist born in 1963. Siob's artworks are not in public domain. Copyright violation. 90.2.99.4 00:26, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:22, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
Artist born in 1963. Siob's artworks are not in public domain. Copyright violation. 90.2.99.4 00:27, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:22, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
No Exif, low resolution, unlikely to be uploader's work. David1217 (talk) 00:30, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:25, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
I uploaded it to Wikipedia back when I was 14, didn't really know what I was doing, and would like it removed. 50.9.36.120 00:39, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
- Note related images above, probably should have same treatment (File:BabyGoosLooking.jpg, and two following)--Sphilbrick (talk) 19:32, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:26, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
Low quality unused image; sourcing is sketchy; similar crests are in use on en.wiki, but as fair use only. For example, en:File:CivitellainValdiChiana-Stemma.gif; en:File:Sant'AgataFeltria-Stemma.gif. This image may be a low-quality version of en:File:Zinasco-Stemma.png Diannaa (talk) 01:17, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:26, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
File does not have a source. The picture might be in the public domain in the United States, as it may have been published prior to 1923, but we have no proof that it is in the public domain in its country of origin (Hungary). Diannaa (talk) 01:28, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:26, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
De foto werd gepubliceerd door carsroute.com op 15 augustus 2010. Er is geen toestemming nodig van de auteur. トトト (talk) 04:52, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:30, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
This file was used in an article on the English Wikipedia, which has since been speedily deleted for being unambiguous advertising. These files also appear to be promotional in nature. Further more, there is no evidence of permission, the filename is is not very specific, and since the deletion of the article on the English Wikipedia, this file is an orphan. Patchy1 (talk) 05:35, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
- Note: See similar files uploaded by the same user, also nominated for deletion: File:Bandwidth Hogs.png, File:Flow Monitoring.png, File:Screenshot main.png, File:Banner logo2.png and File:Bandwidth Monitoring.png
- The image might be ineligible for copyright, but since it is so easily replaceable, it would be safer to assume that it's eligible for copyright. Besides, it seems to be out of scope, so let's Delete. --Stefan4 (talk) 10:21, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:31, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
This file was used in an article on the English Wikipedia, which has since been speedily deleted for being unambiguous advertising. These files also appear to be promotional in nature. Further more, there is no evidence of permission, the filename is is not very specific, and since the deletion of the article on the English Wikipedia, this file is an orphan. Patchy1 (talk) 05:42, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
- Note: See similar files uploaded by the same user, also nominated for deletion: File:Bandwidth Hogs.png, File:Flow Monitoring.png, File:Screenshot main.png, File:Banner logo2.png and File:Bandwidth Monitoring.png
Deleted: INeverCry 00:31, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
It does not seem like the uploader's own work. It is an official logo of an institution and, therefore, must most likely be copyrighted. Lovy Singhal (talk) 05:44, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
- Delete I can think of four possibilities:
- The editor simply copied someone else's work
- The editor used an image program to produce a similar version
- The editor is the original creator of the image, which was a work for hire
- The editor is the original creator of the image, which was stolen by the school
- In cases 1 & 2, it should be deleted. In case 3, if the author can provide a permission statement from the copyright owner, it can be saved, but absent such a statement, should be deleted until such a statement is provided. Case 4 is the only case in which the image can remain, but seems unlikely enough that deletion is warranted, until such time as proof can be provided.--Sphilbrick (talk) 19:46, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:31, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
This file was used in an article on the English Wikipedia, which has since been speedily deleted for being unambiguous advertising. These files also appear to be promotional in nature. Further more, there is no evidence of permission, the filename is is not very specific, and since the deletion of the article on the English Wikipedia, this file is an orphan. Patchy1 (talk) 05:46, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
- Note: See similar files uploaded by the same user, also nominated for deletion: File:Bandwidth Hogs.png, File:Flow Monitoring.png, File:Screenshot main.png, File:Banner logo2.png and File:Bandwidth Monitoring.png
Deleted: INeverCry 00:31, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
This file was used in an article on the English Wikipedia, which has since been speedily deleted for being unambiguous advertising. These files also appear to be promotional in nature. Further more, there is no evidence of permission, the filename is is not very specific, and since the deletion of the article on the English Wikipedia, this file is an orphan. Patchy1 (talk) 05:46, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
- Note: See similar files uploaded by the same user, also nominated for deletion: File:Bandwidth Hogs.png, File:Flow Monitoring.png, File:Screenshot main.png, File:Banner logo2.png and File:Bandwidth Monitoring.png
Deleted: INeverCry 00:31, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
This file was used in an article on the English Wikipedia, which has since been speedily deleted for being unambiguous advertising. These files also appear to be promotional in nature. Further more, there is no evidence of permission, the filename is is not very specific, and since the deletion of the article on the English Wikipedia, this file is an orphan. Patchy1 (talk) 05:46, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
- Note: See similar files uploaded by the same user, also nominated for deletion: File:Bandwidth Hogs.png, File:Flow Monitoring.png, File:Screenshot main.png, File:Banner logo2.png and File:Bandwidth Monitoring.png
Deleted: INeverCry 00:31, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
Creator:Boris Lipnitzky died 1971. French work, so not PD until 1971+70 years. Rd232 (talk) 05:52, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
- File:Vd'Indy.JPG has same issue. Rd232 (talk) 06:10, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:32, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
Blurry —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:07, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:34, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
Purpose of article was likely autobio (see COI in username) article at enwiki which has been deleted. Uploader appears to have no other purpose on any wiki, and thus image has no other encyclopedic value. KinuP (talk) 07:31, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:34, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
The image is copyright protected by Embsec. 87.227.60.7 09:52, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
- Delete Obvious professional quality (and the EXIF shows software, not a camera model). Even if uploader is the photographer, the images are almost certainly the property of the company, but in any case, formal permission statement needed.--Sphilbrick (talk) 19:59, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:34, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
The image is copyright protected by Embsec. 87.227.60.7 09:52, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
- Delete Obvious professional quality. Even if uploader is the photographer, the images are almost certainly the property of the company, but in any case, formal permission statement needed.--Sphilbrick (talk) 19:59, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
Copyvio, Schwitters died in 1948 Alinea (talk) 10:19, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:36, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
Website logo, no indication of free license on the source page. Jafeluv (talk) 10:30, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
- It is my own work--Mikolavos (talk) 11:16, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
- Oh, I see. Is 100krokiv.info your site? If so, I hope you could confirm the license by OTRS so that we can be sure that we have sufficient permssion to use the file. (I'll be happy to post on your talk page and explain the system a little more if needed.) Jafeluv (talk) 11:56, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:37, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
Possible copyright violation. Small file with no EXIF and own work claim is doubtful. I think this should be deleted as per COM:PRP. Rapsar (talk) 10:38, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:37, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
Poor quality (out of focus) image which has now been replaced by a better version of the same subject uploaded by the original uploader (File:EF210-301 20121028-2a.JPG). No Wiki pages link to this image. DAJF (talk) 10:51, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:37, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
Possible copyright violation. Small file with no EXIF and own work claim is doubtful. I think this should be deleted as per COM:PRP. Rapsar (talk) 10:53, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:38, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
Test Upload Capability. Not needed in Wiki. Duplicates existing pages from Wiki 3630greyfield (talk) 11:43, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:39, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
No reliable evidence that the postcard was originally published by an unknown author or that the author has died before 1945. Eleassar (t/p) 11:58, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:39, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
Possible copyright violation. Small file with no EXIF and own work claim is doubtful. I think this should be deleted as per COM:PRP. Rapsar (talk) 12:11, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:39, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
Possible copyright violation. Small file with no EXIF and own work claim is doubtful. I think this should be deleted as per COM:PRP. Rapsar (talk) 12:13, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:39, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
Possible copyright violation. Small file with no EXIF and own work claim is doubtful. I think this should be deleted as per COM:PRP. Rapsar (talk) 13:49, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:40, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
Montage is affected by copyvio of File:Cristalina aerea diurna.jpg. Gunnex (talk) 14:56, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:41, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
This was erected in the Ukaraine after 1954. 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) 15:14, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:42, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small resolution, missing EXIF. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:28, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:43, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
I doubt that the original author is truly unknown, because the COBISS database file gives some information about who made the poster (S. I.; publisher: Čemažar in drug; established by Josip Čemažar). I also don't understand why the entry gives 1930 as the year of creation, because Čemažar and drug company was registered only in June 1932.[4] (pg. 75) The poster could be free if the copyright holder was the company itself; however, per this article (pg. 27), the law in that period did not specify anything in this regard, and therefore the copyright holders are or were the creators of works. Eleassar (t/p) 15:55, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:44, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
Possible copyright violation. Small file with no EXIF and own work claim is doubtful. I think this should be deleted as per COM:PRP. Rapsar (talk) 16:11, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:44, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
Possible copyright violation. Small file with no EXIF and own work claim is doubtful. I think this should be deleted as per COM:PRP. Rapsar (talk) 16:11, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:44, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
Unused personal image, out of scope. Rapsar (talk) 16:15, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:44, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
We have a better version of this picture and this one is not being used. Rapsar (talk) 16:26, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:44, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
Possible copyright violation. Small file with no EXIF and own work claim is doubtful. I think this should be deleted as per COM:PRP. Rapsar (talk) 16:29, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:44, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
Possible copyright violation. Small file with no EXIF and own work claim is doubtful. I think this should be deleted as per COM:PRP. Rapsar (talk) 16:29, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:44, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
Possible copyright violation. Small file with no EXIF and own work claim is doubtful. I think this should be deleted as per COM:PRP. Rapsar (talk) 16:30, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:45, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
Possible copyright violation. Small file with no EXIF and own work claim is doubtful. I think this should be deleted as per COM:PRP. Rapsar (talk) 16:30, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:45, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
Possible copyright violation. Small file with no EXIF and own work claim is doubtful. I think this should be deleted as per COM:PRP. Rapsar (talk) 16:30, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:45, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
Possible copyright violation. Small file with no EXIF and own work claim is doubtful. I think this should be deleted as per COM:PRP. Rapsar (talk) 16:31, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:45, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
Esta foto me pertenece, no autoricé su publicación, acá está la prueba de que es mia http://instagram.com/p/NV0fptOwSu/ Juanmurs (talk) 17:28, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:45, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
Copyvio. Rapsar (talk) 17:29, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:45, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
Copyrighted cover of a book. Rapsar (talk) 17:31, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:45, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
Possible copyright violation. Small file with no EXIF and own work claim is doubtful. I think this should be deleted as per COM:PRP. Rapsar (talk) 17:34, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:46, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
likely copyvio (user only uploads web-res images, some of which are obviously not own work, including satellite photos) Calliopejen1 (talk) 18:44, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:48, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
no source for base image Calliopejen1 (talk) 18:44, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:48, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
likely copyvio (user only uploads web-res images, some of which are obviously not own work, including satellite photos) Calliopejen1 (talk) 18:44, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:48, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
likely copyvio (user only uploads web-res images, some of which are obviously not own work, including satellite photos) Calliopejen1 (talk) 18:44, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:48, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
likely copyvio (user only uploads web-res images, some of which are obviously not own work, including satellite photos) Calliopejen1 (talk) 18:45, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:48, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
likely copyvio (user only uploads web-res images, some of which are obviously not own work, including satellite photos) Calliopejen1 (talk) 18:45, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:48, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
likely copyvio (user only uploads web-res images, some of which are obviously not own work, including satellite photos) Calliopejen1 (talk) 18:45, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:48, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
no source for base image Calliopejen1 (talk) 18:45, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:48, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
obvious copyvio - copyright watermark (also, user only uploads web-res images, some of which are obviously not own work, including satellite photos) Calliopejen1 (talk) 18:46, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:48, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
likely copyvio (user only uploads web-res images, some of which are obviously not own work, including satellite photos) Calliopejen1 (talk) 18:46, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:48, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
likely copyvio (user only uploads web-res images, some of which are obviously not own work, including satellite photos) Calliopejen1 (talk) 18:46, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:48, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
The image is of low resolution and there are no valid EXIF information. It is highly likely not the uploader's own work. High Contrast (talk) 19:06, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:48, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
A permission of the author Frank Vincentz is missing. Ies, the uploader must provide such a permission because he is obviously not the photographer of this image 79.237.169.102 19:10, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
- What a nonsense! I am Ies / Frank Vincentz and I uploaded more than 50000 images with theese data. Now this image should be deleted for that reason? I stongly suggest to open your eyes and switch on your brain before you make nonsense delition requests like this. Btw. I'm personally known by some other users. If in any doubt you may ask for instance User:Atamari who is admin in the German wiki. -- Ies (talk) 06:57, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
Suspect that licensing information is inaccurate. It's unusual for companies such as the one represented by this logo to release their artwork for free. -- Trevj (talk) 19:35, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:49, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
no real source (says Template:World Wrap - what does that mean?). looks like a satellite photo, likely copyvio Calliopejen1 (talk) 19:40, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:49, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
dubious own work Calliopejen1 (talk) 19:46, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:51, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
Copyright violation. Rapsar (talk) 20:02, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:51, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
Possible copyright violation. Small file with no EXIF and own work claim is doubtful. I think this should be deleted as per COM:PRP. Rapsar (talk) 20:12, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:51, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
Possible copyright violation. Small file with no EXIF and own work claim is doubtful. I think this should be deleted as per COM:PRP. Rapsar (talk) 20:27, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:52, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
Possible copyright violation. Small file with no EXIF and own work claim is doubtful. I think this should be deleted as per COM:PRP. Rapsar (talk) 20:28, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:53, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
Possible copyright violation. Small file with no EXIF and own work claim is doubtful. I think this should be deleted as per COM:PRP. Rapsar (talk) 20:28, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:53, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
Several images appear in this collage. The source and author information of every image used in this collage is missing or is insufficient. High Contrast (talk) 22:15, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:00, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
Sourced to Wikitravel which sources it to [5] but that link no longer works, so the licence can't be verified. Stefan4 (talk) 23:51, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
- Hooray for copyright paranoia again. Isn't WikiTravel a reliable enough source that it was once there? And what evidence do you have that the license posted in WikiTravel isn't actually correct other than the expiration of the original source link? Then again, Commons SOP: assume all uploaders are copyright violators. "Thank you very much for your contributions and the effort you exerted in finding the image, your uploaded file will be deleted in X days". Cheers.--Obsidi♠nSoul 00:29, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:03, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
Modern sculpture (M. Begić, 1953) and modern architecture, per COM:FOP#Slovenia not free for Commons. Eleassar (t/p) 00:06, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:19, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
This picture is kind of Original research, but is pretending to have a reference and giving a link on the picture as a reference! Although the states are from a source, but the green crescent is painted by the user. (The green crescent is the main idea in this image.)
I suggest reupload the pic without giving those misleading links below the map, or replace it with another reliable pic (like [6], [7] in this article, [8], [9], [10])
--Neutralllist (talk) 00:52, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
![[7]](http://geopolitics.co.za/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/nytshiitecrescent2.jpg){kind=link}
![[8]](http://cdn.criticalppp.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/Shia3.jpg){kind=link}
![[10]](http://gulf2000.columbia.edu/images/maps/Shia_Crescent_lg.jpg){kind=link}
- Keep: Wikimedia Commons does not have any "no original research" policy, and you have not alleged any factual problems. AnonMoos (talk) 13:05, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
- Keep And is isn't even OR as there are links to other maps and sources which also use the term Shia Crescent. Shia Crescent might be nonsense but that is no reason for deletion. NNW (talk) 13:26, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
- Not opining on deletion, but just observing - there's something odd about a purported crescent of high Shia concentration when it includes a region with 12% and excludes a region with 85%. Was it drawn incorrectly? It would be more accurate if the green crescent were flipped about its axis. That may not match what is meant in the literature, but the numbers don't support the image.--Sphilbrick (talk) 19:29, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
Kept: Not a valid reason to delete PierreSelim (talk) 06:49, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
FoP and de minimis does not applies here Tbhotch™ 04:59, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Newspapers from 2005, thoses are still protected PierreSelim (talk) 06:51, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
I have uploaded a new version of this file Relly Komaruzaman Talk 12:03, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
Kept: Not a reason to delete this, unless they are identical -- in which case the new version should have been uploaded here. . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:20, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Aanoskaan as Speedy (speedy) and the most recent rationale was: Bilde strider med flere regler, som jeg først oppdaget nå. Jeg ber derfor om at det fjernees slik at Wikipedia ikke gjenngir noe som bryter med rettningslinjene Denniss (talk) 12:40, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
- Delete --84.209.19.176 16:22, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
- We need a proper translation of the reason first, autotranslate pops up with some usage restrictions but not enough to assume the intention of the uploader. --Denniss (talk) 16:45, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
- The photo violates whit several wikipedia rules, which I first discovered now. I therefore ask that the image is deleted so that Wikipedia does not have a image which violates the norwegian law and wikipedia rules. Pleas delete. --Aanoskaan (talk) 18:43, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
- Please be a bit more specific. --Denniss (talk) 20:34, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
- The photo violates whit several wikipedia rules, which I first discovered now. I therefore ask that the image is deleted so that Wikipedia does not have a image which violates the norwegian law and wikipedia rules. Pleas delete. --Aanoskaan (talk) 18:43, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
- We need a proper translation of the reason first, autotranslate pops up with some usage restrictions but not enough to assume the intention of the uploader. --Denniss (talk) 16:45, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
- Delete --84.209.19.176 16:22, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
I have not taken the picture, i dont holde the rights to the picture. Sombody other has taken it. --Aanoskaan (talk) 10:40, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
- Delete this picture--148.83.132.224 09:03, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
Kept: No valid reason given for deletion. . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:21, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
per COM:DW Morning ☼ (talk) 14:22, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
- Please explain the reason of the request. --Marianne Casamance (talk) 19:07, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: derivative work needs permission form the original authors (La photo est une oeuvure dérivée du sujet de la photo, il faudrait une autorisation de l'auteur. ) PierreSelim (talk) 06:57, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
The photo shows more of the sculpture park than would be de minimis. As such, it is per COM:FOP#Slovenia not eligible for Commons. Eleassar (t/p) 14:24, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
- Keep It's pretty clear to me that the primary subject is the building, not the sculptures that may appear in it. (The building is PD-old, right?) -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 10:20, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
- I'd say that the primary subject are both the building (pd) and the park (not pd). --Eleassar (t/p) 14:55, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
- Keep Potentially close call, but IMO, the main subject of the photo is the building framed by the sky and the green and the tree, and he single sculpture is incidental. (Personally, I would crop out the protrusion on the left, but that's not pertinent.) If one wanted to take a picture of the sculpture one would have taken more of a closeup. I cannot imagine someone characterizing it as a picture of a sculpture, which happened to have some other elements in it. It is a picture of a building, which happens to have some other elements in it.--Sphilbrick (talk) 20:59, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
- Fair enough, although I can count five, not one, sculptures - that's why I'd say that the park is also an essential subject. Although it's hard to make an image depicting less of it. --Eleassar (t/p) 21:07, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
Kept: I am generally fairly tough on de minimis claims, but the only sculpture that approaches that limit is shown from a very bad angle, so I think we are OK here. . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:23, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
Per COM:FOP#Slovenia. Eleassar (t/p) 22:56, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:00, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
File:Wdiv-hq.jpg SonicTheHedgehogDude (talk) 20:09, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
Kept: No reason to delete. Yann (talk) 12:08, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
Not the uploader's own work. Might be under the threshold of originality as an automatically-generated image, however. Closeapple (talk) 03:09, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
- Comment: Obviously the Google Street View image of 42°19′47.89″N 83°3′14.92″W / 42.3299694°N 83.0541444°W on Lafayette Avenue from June 2009, including the blurred back wheel on the convertable. Therefore, uploader's license is fake. However, it may be that Google Street View images are uncopyrightable (the copyright watermarks on them notwithstanding), based on what en:Threshold of originality#Pre-positioned recording devices says; in other words, Google Street View images might be in the public domain. It seems fairly certain that the image was captured as a long series of automatic photographs, of which neither the car driver nor any other person was exercising any sort of creative control. It also seems fairly certain that the selection of photographs for display on Google Street View was not done by hand. The Wikipedia article quotes a 1984 Copyright Office document that says that "in order to be entitled to copyright registration, a work must be the product of human authorship. Works produced by mechanical processes or random selection without any contribution by a human author are not registrable." --Closeapple (talk) 04:10, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
- Delete - It's not a pure mechanical process - creative decisions have been taken in advance such as the height of the cameras (as opposed to those decisions being taken for say security reasons, such as CCTV cameras), creative decisions are made at the time of taking the photograph such as the route taken to photograph the scenes (the latter often being the decision of the driver), They then undergo a semi-automatic processing phase where as well as elements automatically censored, other elements are censored on the creative decision of the processing team. In short it's closer to a work made for hire than an automatic work. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 11:56, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
- Questions: Is the camera height variable (e.g., from day to day or drive to drive), and if so who sets it and on what basis, or is it mounted at a fixed height above the car? (A fixed height above the car would make it more akin to a security video, while an adjustable mount, particularly one adjusted at the driver's discretion from day to day or drive to drive points toward a creative decision.) How does the route effect the final still outcome (other than a slightly different time of day resulting in slightly different cloud cover, for example)? Once the camera height is set, what does it matter in the context of the resulting still photo whether the driver went down Lafayette and then Fort Street, or Fort Street and then Lafayette? Finally, you mention censored elements. Within the context of this particular image, what elements might have been censored? (The car's license plate might have been manually blurred, but it's hard to tell because other elements around that, such as the tire, are also blurry, and in any case, I'd think blurring a single license plate would not be adequate creative input to copyright an otherwise uncopyrightable work.) cmadler (talk) 14:05, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
- I would assume that blurring is made automatically by a computer program. Sometimes, the blurring goes wrong, and the errors seem to be things which only computers would get wrong. For example, check Helsinki Central Station (search for "Brunnsgatan, Helsingfors"). There are some giant statues in front of the station, and Google thought that the faces on the statues were human faces, so the statue faces have been blurred out. The statues haven't been blurred out on all of Google's images, but they are still blurred out on many of them. Also, still in Helsinki, check the bus terminal right next to the train station. Car registration numbers are frequently blurred out for privacy, but the computer has also blurred out the text on the advertisements on the buses, presumably thinking that the advertisements are car registration plates. Also, many road signs in Europe have been blurred out for the same reason. --Stefan4 (talk) 14:43, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
- I don't know the details about camera height adjustment as I don't work for Google, but someone has made creative decisions on suitable camera angles in order to make this creative work, they've decided on an angle that's not too high so as to be looking down on every object passes nor too low to make objects look larger than they actually are and they do have different types of equipment used to get different shots in different locations such as using the lower height trailer bike camera to get close up to and around various buildings. That's very different from a CCTV camera that only ever monitors the one patch of ground at the one height. On the route issue, I've seen Google drivers pass a local landmark but have it blocked by a passing (or parked) bus or truck and so return down the street on the opposite side to get a better angle - that's a creative decision that does affect the final outcome. Similarly when they can't do that, I've seen them return at a later date to re-shoot the landmark and again that's another creative choice. Finally I see blurring as only a part of the overall creative process rather than the sole creative input going into the images, though there will be other creative processes such as image selection taking place when they process the images. But if the human process that blurs images like these (where the blurring is by human input and not the automatic face/licence plate detection) operates on all google images then then is a creative work in there and it will be much easier for Google to show that in court than for an end user of this image to prove they didn't. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 14:59, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
- Questions: Is the camera height variable (e.g., from day to day or drive to drive), and if so who sets it and on what basis, or is it mounted at a fixed height above the car? (A fixed height above the car would make it more akin to a security video, while an adjustable mount, particularly one adjusted at the driver's discretion from day to day or drive to drive points toward a creative decision.) How does the route effect the final still outcome (other than a slightly different time of day resulting in slightly different cloud cover, for example)? Once the camera height is set, what does it matter in the context of the resulting still photo whether the driver went down Lafayette and then Fort Street, or Fort Street and then Lafayette? Finally, you mention censored elements. Within the context of this particular image, what elements might have been censored? (The car's license plate might have been manually blurred, but it's hard to tell because other elements around that, such as the tire, are also blurry, and in any case, I'd think blurring a single license plate would not be adequate creative input to copyright an otherwise uncopyrightable work.) cmadler (talk) 14:05, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
- Delete: I'm uncomfortable with broad extensions of uncopyrightability. This is basically film, shot under the active control of a cameraman. By these lines, huge numbers of amateur photos would be uncopyrightable; angles of monuments that show no creative influence, times of day picked because the cameraman happened to be there, not because of importance.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:30, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
- File:Lowell MBTA.jpg is a photo of mine that's a good example. I took a bunch of photos one day. Some time later, I realized the picture on Wikipedia was thumbnail-size, and I had previously taken this photo from the exact same angle. The day was also chosen because I was traveling that day. So there's little creativity in angle and time was dictated by convenience, in a similar manner to these Google photos. Nonetheless, I maintain that what little creativity is there would sustain a copyright, and that courts would probably dismiss an claim otherwise out of hand.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:58, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
- Delete. Let's say I go up to the Taj Mahal and take a perfectly symmetrical picture of it. It's something that's been done millions of times before. So the primary input of my creativity would be in the timing: getting good light and minimizing distractions. Likewise, there is creativity in choosing when to drive the Street View car (it's not like a CCTV which is constantly on) in addition to the already mentioned positioning of the camera. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:39, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
Delete per consensus. INeverCry 00:29, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
- File:Palais de Chaillot 2012-09-27 11-46-34.jpg
- File:Palais de Chaillot 2012-09-27 11-50-11.jpg
- File:Palais chaillot paris.jpg
The architects died less than 70 year ago (1978 for Léon Azéma). Since the is no Freedom of panorama in France, the picture can't be free. VIGNERON (talk) 19:22, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:49, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
Copyvio. Rapsar (talk) 17:42, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
- Thats a general problem of this uploader. File:Tomb of maruf.jpg? From flickr. File:Justice Fathima beevi.jpg? Stolen, and the other photos of people are not own work too. If you ask me: Delete all this users uploads, not trustworthy, much stealing. --Martin H. (talk) 20:33, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
- There is a proverb in Turkish: "Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater." :) Deleting files like this or this one is not right.--Rapsar (talk) 20:52, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
- Hi, For other files atleast i am getting notification. But why the image "File:Tiruparankundram dargah.jpg" was delted without any notice.? Kindly let me know what violation the file had? Wasifwasif (talk) 13:50, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
- You never uploaded a file of that name to Commons. en:File:Tiruparankundram dargah.jpg. However, this is not a game of uploading and getting "notifications". This is a project of saying the truth in the first place. So the question you have to answer here now is: why do you upload files with untrue author and source statements? Why do you infringe copyrights and damage our project? Thats the question. --Martin H. (talk) 20:54, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyio, can be easily replaced. Yann (talk) 12:51, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
si añadir el Delete plantilla para la página de descripción del archivo crear la solicitud de eliminación de páginas en discusión añadir la página de discusión para el registro diario notificar el cargador con un mensaje en su idioma de preferencia utilizando su firma, que es su dirección IP si no se ha iniciado la sesión en . Estos son los pasos que deben realizarse para una solicitud de supresión ordinaria. Por favor, asegúrese de que su solicitud está en consonancia con nuestra política de eliminación . Usted no está actualmente conectado . Aunque usted es libre de editar sin iniciar sesión, su dirección IP (visible en su talkpage , donde se pueden consultar los mensajes enviados a su dirección IP) se registra en esta página de la historia de edición . Crear una cuenta le ocultar su dirección IP y le proporcionará muchos otros beneficios . Por favor, no guardar ediciones de prueba. Si desea experimentar, por favor utiliza el Sandbox . 186.6.71.33 18:34, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
- Keep – No reason for request provided. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 04:38, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
" Dont delete the image. Its history!" User: Sarkirssian
Kept: No reason to delete. Yann (talk) 12:50, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
This is an architectural drawing of a building that has not yet been built. This image infringes on the creator's copyright. . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:36, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
[copied the following from the discussion page] This is the proposal for construction of tallest building in Erbil-Iraq, our company (KIRMANJ CONSTRUCTION) signed the agreement to do the construction work, and there is approval from erbil municipality and the Design made by our Design Group
www.kirmanj.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by Akar sabah (talk • contribs) 20:48, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio. Yann (talk) 12:55, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
Не соответствует правилам АП Lobkovs (talk) 06:59, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
Kept: No reason given for deletion. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:17, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
Не нужен файл Lobkovs (talk) 08:41, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
Kept Not a valid reason for deletion. . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 00:16, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
Не соответствует правилам АП Lobkovs (talk) 07:02, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
Kept: No reason given for deletion. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:17, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
Не нужен файл Lobkovs (talk) 08:42, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
Kept Not a valid reason for deletion. . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 00:17, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
no logo on Commons, tranfert to wp:fr --MGuf (d) 09:46, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:21, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
This may be PD, but certainly USA-1923 is not the right tag. . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:10, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: COM:PP. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:25, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
This is an old photograph. We need more information before accepting "own work". . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:17, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
- Delete looks more like a derivative work taken with a phone. --PierreSelim (talk) 07:00, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: per PierreSelim. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:25, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
Parece infringir una ley italiana Laura Cantero (talk) 18:41, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
Kept: We don't care about the any non-US law other than copyright law. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:27, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
Possible copyright violation. Small file with no EXIF and own work claim is doubtful. I think this should be deleted as per COM:PRP. Rapsar (talk) 20:27, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
- It's a photo where in the larger portion, he actually sits with Yusuf Islam and my cousin and his dad standing in the centre. I don't know if I still have that picture, coz it's been a couple of years since I uploaded this and I've changed laptops a lot after that. If you think the work claim is doubtful, here's the simple test. Find this or a larger version anywhere on the internet dated earlier than me uploading this. ~
- I couldn't find any file as you say. But as I said own work claim is "doubtful", not own work claim is "wrong". There is no reason to delete this file anymore, I think.--Rapsar (talk) 08:43, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
Kept: Accepting explanation from uploader. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:32, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
Villa Noailles
[edit]- File:Hyères (83) - Villa Noailles - Entrée.jpg
- File:Villa de noailles.jpg
- File:Villa Noailles Hyeres.JPG
_-_Villa_Noailles_-_Entr%C3%A9e.jpg){kind=link}
This house has been designed by the architect Robert Mallet-Stevens who died in 1948, less than 70 years ago. As there is no freedom of panorama in France, this picture can't be considered as free before 2019. --Pymouss Let’s talk - 19:38, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
- This house was build in 1923-1924, more than 70 years ago. This edifice is inscrit Monument Historique. Patrub01 (talk) 17:54, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:18, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
Paintings made about 1957, author died in 1986, no details on permission.
- File:Skuin-Elena-Pfingstrosen 118x92 1957.jpg
- File:Е.Скуинь. Пионы, 1957, масло, 118x92.jpg
- File:Е.Скуинь.(подпись) Пионы, 1957, масло, 118x92.JPG
_%D0%9F%D0%B8%D0%BE%D0%BD%D1%8B,_1957,_%D0%BC%D0%B0%D1%81%D0%BB%D0%BE,_118x92.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
A.Savin 06:51, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 16:23, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
Files in Category:Logos of Portugal
[edit]These logos may not pass the threshold of originality. It's required OTRS permission for most of the cases.
- File:AbutreNetlabel.gif
- File:AMI.JPG
- File:Ampliretorno.jpg
- File:Ampliretornologo.jpg
- File:BFA Logo.jpg
- File:Desporto Escolar logo.svg
- File:Escola Secundária de Penafiel.png
- File:ForcaAerea2008.jpg
- File:Fupamp estrela.jpg
- File:FX BAR in Funchal.jpg
- File:GrupoPCP pagInicial.jpg
- File:IHRU logo (cropped).jpg
- File:IHRU logo.jpg
- File:LOGO CDSCCVN PNG.png
- File:Logo, Centro Hospitalar Lisboa Ocidental.png
- File:Logotipo BTTCLUBEPINHEIROS.jpg
- File:LogotipoCASAPINHEIROS.jpg
- File:Myportuguesehome.jpg
- File:Reckless Paradise Logo.jpg
- File:Rota do alvarinho logo.gif
- File:Rotalmo.png
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Blond (talk) 10:47, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
- I changed from bullets to numbers so I could offer my views on originality.
- IMO
- Meets threshold of originality 1,2,6,7,11, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19
- Does not meet threshold of originality 4, 8, 12, 13
- Too close for me to call 3, 5, 9, 10, 20, 21 --Sphilbrick (talk) 21:14, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Mostly , but not entirely, agreed with Sphilbrick . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:19, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Tbaguiar.ans (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unlikely to be own work: small/inconsistent resolutions, missing EXIF.
Gunnex (talk) 10:59, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 15:56, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
Files in Category:Jurij Vega
[edit]Work of sl:Ivan Zajec (1869-1952), per COM:FOP#Slovenia not eligible for Commons.
Eleassar (t/p) 11:40, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 16:20, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
Files in Category:Forma Viva Symposium
[edit]Non-free works, per COM:FOP#Slovenia not eligible for Commons.
- File:Forma Viva - Skulptur 2 (HDR).jpg
- File:Forma Viva - Skulptur.jpg
- File:Kostanjevica-FormaViva.JPG
- File:Portorož sculpture 2.jpg
- File:Portorož sculpture.jpg
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Eleassar (t/p) 23:57, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
- These are no problems in germany. It's allowed to take pictures in public places. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Richard Huber (talk • contribs)
- These photos were made in Slovenia, therefore the country of origin is Slovenia. --Eleassar (t/p) 09:49, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:42, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
Files in Category:Forma Viva Symposium
[edit]The Seča Peninsula Sculpture Park was arranged according to the plan by sl:Vojteh Ravnikar (1943-2010). Per COM:FOP#Slovenia, its images are not free for Commons.
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Eleassar (t/p) 13:51, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:38, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Ismael zniber (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unlikely to be own work: small/inconsistent resolutions, missing EXIF.
- File:Façade maristane salé.JPG
- File:Bab sebta siège de fennich.jpg
- File:Restauration esplanade bab lamrissa.jpg
- File:Canons bab khmiss salé.jpg
- File:Salé vue depuis la kasbah des oudayas.jpg
- File:Entré borj addoumoue salé.jpg
- File:Canon italien salé.jpg
- File:Souk bab sebta salé.jpg
- File:Stèle médersa salé.jpg
- File:Bordj Roukni à Salé.jpg
- File:Borj roukni salé.jpg
- File:Intérieur Gde mosquée salé.jpg
- File:Intérieur Gde mosquée salé 2.jpg
- File:Forteresses bab maalqa salé.jpg
- File:Patio Gde Mosquée Salé.jpg
- File:La mosquée de salé vue depuis derb hassouni.jpg
- File:Entrée mosquée salé.jpg
- File:Dar assinaa salé.jpg
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:44, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
- You can't delete these photos my friend. they're mine for the majority! you don't give strong arguments to dare deleting MY pictures. Is this File:Stèle médersa salé.jpg a small photo ? I took it my self. they're my own copyrights! For the others they were taken by mobile phone! ... I don't understand even why i'm justifying to you! Some pictures are "Small" because i cut them to center the subject! So please i hope you understanding ! (if you speak french it's better for you and for me) Sincerely. --Ismael zniber (talk) 17:50, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
- Files uploaded by Ismael zniber (talk · contribs)
Historical photos of some kind. May be in public domain but relevant info must be provided.
- File:BAB BOUHAJA SALE.jpg
- File:Costume slaoui traditionnel.jpg
- File:Houcine slaoui jouant le malhoun Salé.jpg
- File:Salé Cité Corsaire.jpg
- File:Oqbat al mdarsa salé 1910.jpg
- File:Ambassador Mohamed Ben Abdelhadi Zniber in Madrid.JPG
- File:Barcassier de Salé.jpg
- File:Salé vue de haut 1930.jpg
- File:Place du souk el kebir à salé.jpg
- File:Médersa mérinide de salé 1910.jpg
- File:Rue principale salé.jpg
- File:Fontaine publique salé.jpg
- File:Bab lamrissa 1910.jpg
- File:Bab el khemiss salé.jpg
- File:Salé en dehors de l'enceinte 1910.jpg
- File:Maison de convalescence salé.jpg
- File:Naser Ed dine Tagmouti zniber jouant aux echecs.jpg
- File:Tramway Salé (1920).jpg
- File:Timbre bab lamrissa.jpg
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:25, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
Il faut fournir plus d'information sur vos images :
- Date et lieu ou elles ont été prises ;
- Nom du photographe ;
- Source de l'image si vous n'êtes pas le photographe ;
- Date de la publication.
Pour les cartes postales, vous trouvez une partie de ces infos au dos de la carte, dont vous pouvez déposer une copie ici. Cordialement, Yann (talk) 16:11, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
Kept: Will assume good faith. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:23, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Ninaburleigh (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unlikely to be own work: small/inconsistent resolutions, missing EXIF/different cameras.
- File:Nina Burleigh in Assisi..jpg
- File:Nina Burleigh Lecture Explorers Club.jpg
- File:Nina Burleigh at Assisi.jpg
- File:Nina Burleigh near Jericho.jpg
- File:Nina Burleigh.jpg <-- this one has an OTRS ticket. --Túrelio (talk) 17:06, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:07, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
- The second one on the list looks like a video screencap, the Assisi photographs look like a private vacation. Delete with an obvious exception for the last on the list. --Vera (talk) 15:41, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:42, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Melissa2508 (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unlikely to be own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF.
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:40, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 16:17, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Melissa2508 (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unlikely to be own work: small/inconsistent resolution, missing/inconsistent EXIF, per COM:PRP. Uploader Melissa2508 was identified as a sock of a paid spammer via m:User:Rschen7754/Reports/Morning277. A paid spammer is someone who is doing PR/spam in Wikipedia articles and elsewhere. Doing this, the spammer normally receives material for spamming (text & images). So it is most unlikley that Melissa2508 did pull the trigger on the digicam(s) for the following files. In other words: Permission needed from their respective copyright owners. All files apparently related to Parts Models, deleted 1x in enwiki.
Additional info:
- File:Parts Models.jpg --> grabbed from http://www.partsmodels.com/ (All rights reserved.® PARTS©2006) = http://www.partsmodels.com/images/indexon_08.jpg (last modified: 2006)
Gunnex (talk) 21:47, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:53, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
Files in Category:Transport Tower
[edit]There is no COM:FOP in Kazakhstan.
- File:Astana Main Square.jpg
- File:Astana Ministerium nach Brand.jpg
- File:Astana.jpg
- File:Transport Tower.jpg
russavia (talk) 09:12, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
- Delete all. All transferred to enwiki. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 10:28, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 15:22, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
Files in Category:Transport Tower
[edit]File:Astana Main Square.jpg was nominated above. It says "deleted" but the file was kept with a {{Delete}} template present. It seems that something went wrong with the previous nomination, so I'm reopening it. I would argue that the transport tower and Bayterek are allowed as de minimis on this image: the purpose is not to show those buildings but to show the main square. --Stefan4 (talk) 19:38, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
- Keep Although there's not much to see of the main square, this argument sounds reasonable, as the main subject does not appear to be the tower. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 10:23, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted This image shows a large, empty, expanse of paving and a copyrighted building -- nothing else. The de minimis argument fails because there is nothing else here for the building to be subsidiary to. . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:48, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
Architecture created after 1945, therefore not eligible for Commons, per COM:FOP#Slovenia. Also depictions of logos of companies of Slovenia, unclear copyright status, see Commons:Deletion requests/Logos of Slovenia.
Eleassar (t/p) 20:25, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:52, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
Possible copyvio - derivative works of non-PD artistic works in Japan. Per {{NoFoP-Japan}}, we cannot host pictures of copyrightable artistic works from Japan. These sculptures/paintings/drawings are attached to/located in a temple which was built in 2008. (w:ja:佛教之王堂) They look as new as the temple, and thus I don't believe they are in the public domain.
- File:Nizyuhachibusyu02.jpg
- File:Kaeru04.jpg
- File:Kaeru01.jpg
- File:Tennyo04.jpg
- File:Tennyo03.jpg
- File:Tennyo01.jpg
- File:Tennyo02.jpg
- File:Ryu03.jpg
- File:Ryu01.jpg
- File:Ryu04.jpg
- File:Ryu05.jpg
- File:Ryu02.jpg
- File:Rakan02.jpg
whym (talk) 12:11, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
- added 1. --whym (talk) 15:09, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:30, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
Possible copyvio regarding depicted sculptures and paintings. Although no information is given to show who created them and where they were located, considering
- that the majority of the uploader's contributions are pictures of ja:佛教之王堂, a temple that dates to 2008, and
- that the style of the sculptures, paintings and architecture looks quite similar to that of the temple, (see also Special:DeletedContributions/Nakanosan if you have the privilege)
I believe these were also photos taken in the temple. EXIF information also supports this reasoning. If that is true, these would be derivative works of non-free 3D artworks. And per {{NoFoP-Japan}}, even if they were taken in a public place, we cannot host them.
- File:Shishi03.jpg
- File:Shishi02.jpg
- File:Shishi01.jpg
- File:Houou08.jpg
- File:Houou010.jpg
- File:Houou09.jpg
- File:Houou07.jpg
- File:Houou05.jpg
- File:Houou06.jpg
- File:Houou03.jpg
- File:Houou01.jpg
- File:Houou04.jpg
- File:Kirin01.jpg
- File:Tora01.jpg
- File:Kirin02.jpg
- File:Urashimataro01.jpg
whym (talk) 21:49, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
Files in Category:Saint Francis church, Ljubljana
[edit]Work by Jože Plečnik (1872-1957). See COM:FOP#Slovenia.
- File:Cerkev sv.Frančiška LJ-Šiška-jug.JPG
- File:Cerkev sv.Frančiška lj2.JPG
- File:Plečnikova cerkev sv. Franciska v Šiški pri Ljubljani 1931.jpg
- File:SvFransicekIzDaljave.JPG
Eleassar (t/p) 22:13, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:00, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
Files in Category:Built in Slovenia in 1993
[edit]Per COM:FOP#Slovenia.
Eleassar (t/p) 22:55, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:00, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
Despite some effort I cannot find a source for this photo. Author and publication date remain unknown. Rd232 (talk) 06:26, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
- Did you ask the uploader from where he copied the photo? The file was uploaded in November 2005 by this user. He seems to be somewhat inactive but he has a few contributions in 2012, so there's some chance that he might reply to a request. A previous version of his user page indicated that he can speak English. An internet search returns one copy slightly larger than the Commons copy, on this blog entry from 2004, so it is possible that this was the source, although that blog doesn't seem to identify its own source, so it doesn't help, but, if we really have to, maybe we could try to ask the blogger from where he copied his file. Versions of this photo were used on the covers of boxes of records by companies like Philips and Decca. It is plausible that this photo could be in the public domain with a reasoning similar to that for other photos of Ravel in the Commons category, published near the time of its creation and unknown author, although I understand that we may prefer a certainty. That said, we don't really need this file, as we have better photos of the subject. -- Asclepias (talk) 19:34, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
- published near the time of its creation - we don't have a creation date either. We could estimate from how old he looks, but frankly that's too much uncertainty for my taste. Rd232 (talk) 22:06, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
- Uploaders of these {{PD}} files (I found it in Category:PD tag needs updating) are rarely still active, and this one was uploaded from hr.wp via ja.wp... so I didn't bother with trying to contact the original uploader, no. But now you've pointed it out, I've left a note pointing to this DR. PS it has to be said this is one of the less flattering photos of Ravel in the relevant category... Rd232 (talk) 19:44, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 23:57, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
Assuming that the "statue" shown in this image is still copyrighted, the photo violates copyright as it was shot inside a building[11] and thereby is hardly covered by Commons:FOP#Spain. -- Túrelio (talk) 19:44, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
![[11]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Vcarceler#File:Merc.C3.A8_2012_-_Nebula_-_B.JPG){kind=link}
- The "statue" it's a Diable of Trinitat Vella folklore, made to be used on celebrations on streets. The picture it's taken in the courtyard of the town hall of Barcelona during the Mercè celebration. I've contacted with Dolors Sans (the artist, http://www.dolorssans.com/index.php?option=com_contact&view=contact&id=1&Itemid=97). And I'm waiting for her response. I guess this is not a violation of copyright, but we can wait Dolors response. Vcarceler (talk) 21:28, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
- Finally the author, Dolors Sans, has expressed her permission: "And you have my permission to upload photos to Wikipedia, no problem.". Hope this will be enough to remove the deletion request. Vcarceler (talk) 21:44, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
- Hi Vcarceler, thanks for your effort. But a permission "for Wikipedia" is not sufficient. We require images to be free for any kind of use. In addition, such a permission needs to be recorded by OTRS and therefore to be sent to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org . See here for a permission template ("libre LICENCIA elegir al menos una de aquí" should be replaced by the name of the choosen free license) and Commons:OTRS/es for details. --Túrelio (talk) 06:44, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
- Hi Túrelio, you made me review Commons:FOP#Spain legislation and I found this: "Artículo 35. Utilización de las obras con ocasión de informaciones de actualidad y de las situadas en vías públicas
- Hi Vcarceler, thanks for your effort. But a permission "for Wikipedia" is not sufficient. We require images to be free for any kind of use. In addition, such a permission needs to be recorded by OTRS and therefore to be sent to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org . See here for a permission template ("libre LICENCIA elegir al menos una de aquí" should be replaced by the name of the choosen free license) and Commons:OTRS/es for details. --Túrelio (talk) 06:44, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
- Finally the author, Dolors Sans, has expressed her permission: "And you have my permission to upload photos to Wikipedia, no problem.". Hope this will be enough to remove the deletion request. Vcarceler (talk) 21:44, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
1. Cualquier obra susceptible de ser vista u oída con ocasión de informaciones sobre acontecimientos de la actualidad puede ser reproducida, distribuida y comunicada públicamente, si bien sólo en la medida que lo justifique dicha finalidad informativa.
2. Las obras situadas permanentemente en parques, calles, plazas u otras vías públicas pueden ser reproducidas, distribuidas y comunicadas libremente por medio de pinturas, dibujos, fotografías y procedimientos audiovisuales." [12]. So, given that I made the picture and I used a free licence to my work, and the subject of the picture its a work covered by the first point "Cualquier obra susceptible de ser vista u oída con ocasión de informaciones sobre acontecimientos de la actualidad puede ser reproducida...". We don't need OTRS at all for this picture. Please retire the deletion request, thanks for your work. Vcarceler (talk) 09:08, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
- Ähem, Vcarceler, it is not that simple. I know that FOP-legislation is not easy to understand (especially due to the legal-speak) and that its terms differ from country to country. However, as you can see from this revert by one of our FOP/OTRS specialists, the cited #1 does not really refer to our requirements. Works to be covered by FOP-exemption of Spain need to be "situadas permanentemente en parques, calles, plazas u otras vías públicas". Of course there is often dispute about what is "vías públicas", but it seems clear that it does not cover works inside a museum. In addition, there is the second condition "permanentemente", which may also not be met in this case.
- Anyway, as you are already in contact with the artist, why don't you prepare a permission text (as explained above) and ask the artist to send her permission to OTRS? She might be interested by herself to get her work known. --Túrelio (talk) 09:25, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
- Finally I've prepared a permission request mail and send it to the autor. Vcarceler (talk) 21:53, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
- She replied to me the permission grant mail template, I forward it to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org Vcarceler (talk) 09:13, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
Kept: Permission received. Image tagged with {{OTRS permission}}. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 00:16, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
This was taken from the NCCS website, a subsidiary of the Oak Ridge National Laboratory. Images published by Oak Ridge are only allowed for non-commercial reasons. See: wikipedia:Template talk:PD-USGov-DOE. James086Talk | Email 18:40, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
- Comment I transfered the image to Commons from English Wikipedia and I'm not an expert in copyright law, but I think I might have missed on this one. I though I was safe when I saw the .gov TLD. Go ahead and delete if you're sure about this. Michael Barera (talk) 00:32, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
- It's one of the rare exceptions unfortunately even though Oak Ridge is operated by the US DOE so it is a reasonable assumption. I only discovered it because I was looking for the correct pd-gov tag for a similar image. 86.174.100.194 01:12, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
- Comment I have contacted the Oak Ridge National Lab to request permission to use their images, they have replied that their images are free to use for any purpose provided you credit the source, unless the image is copyrighted and that those copyrighted images are clearly marked. I will be submitting an OTRS ticket with a copy of the email and will return to this discussion when I have fully clarified whether this image is ok. James086Talk | Email 22:54, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
- Comment The OTRS ticket has been processed and this image is indeed a PD image. I've updated the file info to reflect that. James086Talk | Email 20:54, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
- Comment I have contacted the Oak Ridge National Lab to request permission to use their images, they have replied that their images are free to use for any purpose provided you credit the source, unless the image is copyrighted and that those copyrighted images are clearly marked. I will be submitting an OTRS ticket with a copy of the email and will return to this discussion when I have fully clarified whether this image is ok. James086Talk | Email 22:54, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
- It's one of the rare exceptions unfortunately even though Oak Ridge is operated by the US DOE so it is a reasonable assumption. I only discovered it because I was looking for the correct pd-gov tag for a similar image. 86.174.100.194 01:12, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
File:Villa_di_Poggio_a_Caiano,_sala_di_Leone_X,_Franciabigio,_Ritorno_di_Cicerone_dall'esilio.JPG
[edit]
no permission of the Superintendence of Cultural Heritage of florence Pratoprovincia 22:44, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
Kept. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:44, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
blurry;other files e.g.File:Franciabigio TriunfCicero.jpg Oursana (talk) 15:33, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 21:55, 10 December 2012 (UTC)