Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2012/11/04
 |
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}
oh yeah..blind.deaf n dumb..juz imagine oscilliation of troposcope scatters utilizin nasa thermal imagry of 9/11...wot..well w3c org is the basic standard.im ex sigint for 9yrs an internet radiation..tempest well its all energy 178.104.49.67 03:35, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
Kept: Nonsense request. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:53, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
Not a simple logo. Ralgistalk 19:36, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
- Deleted' Not a simple text, it has a design and a copyright Anna (Cookie) (talk) 21:13, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
page moved; original page no longer needed Morn (talk) 22:55, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 16:27, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
Bad name, no description Mjrmtg (talk) 02:02, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 01:15, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
Bad name, no description Mjrmtg (talk) 02:03, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 01:15, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
Bad name, no description Mjrmtg (talk) 02:03, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 01:15, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
Bad name, no description Mjrmtg (talk) 02:03, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 01:15, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
Bad name, no description Mjrmtg (talk) 02:03, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 01:15, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
Bad name, no description Mjrmtg (talk) 02:04, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 01:15, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
Bad name, no description Mjrmtg (talk) 02:04, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 01:15, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
Parce que o Wikirosia (talk) 19:40, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 01:16, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
No FOP in France. De minimis does not apply since the pyramid is the main subject of this photo. –sumone10154(talk) 23:58, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: sadly a derivative work Denniss (talk) 17:28, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
low quality, useless --Bigbitgnom (talk) 14:43, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. Yann (talk) 13:08, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but this looks not covered by COM:FOP#France. JuTa 00:50, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 14:26, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
It's fake. See pt:Marya DeLue 85.244.139.82 03:11, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. Yann (talk) 13:11, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
Child fantasy; probably an auto portrait of non relevant young girl. See pt:Marya DeLue 85.244.139.82 03:13, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. Yann (talk) 13:11, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
Reproduction of a newspaper page without evidence for permission. Also, regarding the photo itself, "own work" appears to contradict the fact that a website is given as source. HaeB (talk) 04:27, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
Delete Clearly a copyright issue. (I think many GF editors are under the mistaken impression that if they snap a picture themselves, rather than find the image on the internet, that makes it OK)--Sphilbrick (talk) 20:13, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Derivative work. Yann (talk) 13:12, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
Appears to be a photo of a photo print, probably taken at the Bob Marley birthplace museum judged from the other images uploaded by the user at the same time (e.g. File:Nine-Mile-Jamaica.JPG). Contradictory file information (uploader claims the photo was taken in 2011, but the person it depicts died in 2008) HaeB (talk) 04:32, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Derivative work. Yann (talk) 13:13, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
Not simple ?, need OTRS-permission in Commons Motopark (talk) 05:20, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
- I think,not likely. logo is depicting florin,right?
- Keep because the logo is seen under the "f"--Lostrust III (talk) 05:41, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 14:53, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
Not simple ?, need OTRS-permission in Commons Motopark (talk) 05:21, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
- Not likely,i think? it's depicts florin,okay?
- Keep. The f in the logo is okay. --Lostrust III (talk) 05:40, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 14:53, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
This seems far too complex for {{PD-textlogo}}. There are simulated 3D effects, highlights, bevels, shadows, reflections etc. I presume it's also an out-of-process re-upload of the file that was previously deleted. The rather hostile "description" makes some incoherent argument about the image not being a copyright violation "because we can see it", which is of course patent nonsense. —LX (talk, contribs) 10:43, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination and previous deletion. Green Giant (talk) 03:21, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
Not simple ?, need OTRS-permission in Commons Motopark (talk) 05:22, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
- i think, it's letter is Broken C,yeah?
- Keep . why? It's okay enough.
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 14:52, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
This is not realy covered by COM:FOP#Argentina. As culptor en:Erminio Blotta died 1976 the sculture will become PD in 2047. JuTa 07:51, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 14:25, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
I'm sorry, but there is no Freedom of panorama in Greece. JuTa 08:46, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 14:25, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
This image contain advertisment infomation Tuankiet65 (talk) 10:46, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Derivative work. Yann (talk) 13:14, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
This image contain advertisment infomation Tuankiet65 (talk) 10:47, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Derivative work. Yann (talk) 13:14, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
duplicated with: File:Stanisław_Dzikowski_z_córka_Wandą.jpg Apaw (talk) 10:59, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
Keep Uploading a separate crop is perfectly acceptable. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:54, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
Kept: per King of Hearts Morning ☼ (talk) 14:37, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
This is a professional portrait. The claimed author is the subject, and possibly also the uploader. We will need permission from the actual photographer, using the procedure at Commons:OTRS. . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:15, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 14:32, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
Should have been covered by Commons:Deletion requests/Photos from ITTF. —LX (talk, contribs) 11:22, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 14:31, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
The design on the napkin is likely copyrighted, and is central to the meaning of the picture, i.e. is not de minimis. Avenue (talk) 12:43, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
- Indeed, I am afraid it has to be deleted.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:55, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
- Return to Wikivoyage, where it may still be useful under a non-free content policy. Powers (talk) 13:13, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
- Delete While the image is licensed correctly, there's no license for the napkin, which is key, not de minimis, as the image name alone will attest. (Not clear that it would survive a non-free debate, but if someone wants to take a shot, not opposed to returning it)--Sphilbrick (talk) 20:26, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 14:31, 10 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) 13:07, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 14:37, 10 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) 13:08, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 14:35, 10 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) 13:08, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 14:37, 10 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) 13:08, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 14:37, 10 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) 13:08, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 14:37, 10 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) 13:09, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 14:36, 10 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) 13:09, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 14:36, 10 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) 13:09, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 14:36, 10 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) 13:09, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 14:36, 10 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) 13:09, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 14:54, 10 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) 13:09, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 14:54, 10 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) 13:09, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 14:55, 10 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) 13:10, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 14:55, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
Derivative work. See Commons:Image casebook#Product packaging. Jafeluv (talk) 13:44, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 14:50, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
Unused personal image (he is not a notable person), out of scope. Rapsar (talk) 14:46, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
Info it's in use here.Hindustanilanguage (talk) 16:01, 4 November 2012 (UTC).
- Not anymore ;)--Rapsar (talk) 19:09, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of scope Morning ☼ (talk) 14:32, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
Copyright violation. Rapsar (talk) 15:13, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 14:50, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used. EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:07, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. Yann (talk) 13:16, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used. EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:09, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. Yann (talk) 13:18, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used. EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:10, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. Yann (talk) 13:18, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used. EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:14, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
- Comment I was intrigued, because my name is Steve, and I am from Berwick. But it isn't me.--Sphilbrick (talk) 20:35, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. Yann (talk) 13:20, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
and File:BrunuhVille.jpg. Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used. EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:22, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. Yann (talk) 13:20, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
Unused photos of author with questionable notability. EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:33, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. Yann (talk) 13:24, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
Unclear and out-of-focus jumble of unspecified computer equipment that uploader has not seen fit to describe. Questionable educational use even *with* description. (I actually kind of like the arty shallow focus, but that's outwith Commons' scope). (Important: Please note; uploader does not apparently speak English, so we may have to take account of this).
- Übersetzt: Unklar und Out-of-Focus Durcheinander von keine Angabe Computerausrüstung, dass Uploader hat gesehen passt nicht zu beschreiben. Fragwürdige pädagogische Nutzung sogar * mit * Beschreibung.
Ubcule (talk) 16:48, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
I withdraw my nomination Ubcule (talk) 19:06, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
- Additional; image is used here to demonstrate depth-of-field. There are probably better examples of depth-of-field *but* this probably swings things in favour of keeping it. (Had I noticed this, I would not have nominated image). However, I would still give it a meaningful title it and add a proper description, as should have been done in first place. Ubcule (talk) 18:56, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
Kept: withdrawn by nominator Morning ☼ (talk) 14:24, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
promotional content Vera (talk) 17:18, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. Yann (talk) 13:26, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope: Unused personal image. GrapedApe (talk) 18:29, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 14:33, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope: Unused personal image. GrapedApe (talk) 18:29, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. Yann (talk) 13:27, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope: Unused personal image. GrapedApe (talk) 18:30, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 14:51, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope: Unused personal image of homoeroticism GrapedApe (talk) 18:30, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. Yann (talk) 13:28, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope: Unused personal image. GrapedApe (talk) 18:31, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. Yann (talk) 13:28, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope: Unused instagram-stlye personal image. GrapedApe (talk) 18:32, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
- Weak Keep: Not a bad photo of prom fashion or humans jumping, and maybe photographic technique. --Closeapple (talk) 23:25, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
- Keep In my opinion joy or happiness is never "out of scope", obviously. The photo can be used to illustrate, e.g. joy, happiness or jumping. Commons stores files not only for the current use but also for the future. Electron ツ ➧☎ 07:51, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
- Keep Has potential use.--Sphilbrick (talk) 20:40, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
Kept: as above. Yann (talk) 13:28, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope: Unused personal image. Also, there is something wrong with the GFDL license that the uploader attempted to use.GrapedApe (talk) 18:32, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
Kept: still in use Morning ☼ (talk) 14:34, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope: Unused personal image. GrapedApe (talk) 18:36, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. Yann (talk) 13:29, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
personal photo! out of scope.... -- ♪Karthik♫ ♪Nadar♫ 18:38, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. Yann (talk) 13:29, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
personal photo! out of scope.... -- ♪Karthik♫ ♪Nadar♫ 18:39, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. Yann (talk) 13:29, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
useless, out of scope 24.5.77.151 19:51, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
- Indeed. Delete. --Túrelio (talk) 19:59, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. Yann (talk) 13:30, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
out of scope - simple text in a jpg INeverCry 20:39, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. Yann (talk) 13:30, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
Private image, unused, out of scope. GeorgHH • talk 21:44, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. Yann (talk) 13:30, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
Unused private image, out of scope. GeorgHH • talk 22:31, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. Yann (talk) 13:30, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
Christelle Romulus is a non notorious artist born in 1973. Copyright violation. 92.132.253.195 22:39, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Derivative work. Yann (talk) 13:32, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
Christelle Romulus is a non notorious artist born in 1973. Copyright violation. 92.132.253.195 22:39, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Derivative work. Yann (talk) 13:32, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
Christelle Romulus is a non notorious artist born in 1973. Copyright violation. 92.132.253.195 22:40, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Derivative work. Yann (talk) 13:32, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
Christelle Romulus is a non notorious artist born in 1973. Copyright violation. 92.132.253.195 22:40, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Derivative work. Yann (talk) 13:32, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
Christelle Romulus is a non notorious artist born in 1973. Copyright violation. 92.132.253.195 22:41, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Derivative work. Yann (talk) 13:32, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
Christelle Romulus is a non notorious artist born in 1973. Copyright violation. 92.132.253.195 22:41, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Derivative work. Yann (talk) 13:33, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
Christelle Romulus is a non notorious artist born in 1973. Copyright violation. 92.132.253.195 22:41, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Derivative work. Yann (talk) 13:33, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
Christelle Romulus is a non notorious artist born in 1973. Copyright violation. 92.132.253.195 22:43, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Derivative work. Yann (talk) 13:34, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
Christelle Romulus is a non notorious artist born in 1973. Copyright violation. 92.132.253.195 22:45, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Derivative work. Yann (talk) 13:34, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
Christelle Romulus is a non notorious artist born in 1973. Copyright violation. 92.132.253.195 22:45, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Derivative work. Yann (talk) 13:34, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
This very small photo seems a copyright violation. Clicsouris (talk) 02:26, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
- I haven't found it on the Internet: why do you think so? [still, it's a crappy picture...] Remi Mathis (talk) 22:30, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:14, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
We need to have source and licensing information on each image in the montage, and none of that information is present. Diannaa (talk) 03:23, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:14, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but this is not covered by COM:FOP#United States. As sculptor en:Robert Arneson died in 1992 the sculpture will become PD in 2063. JuTa 08:09, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 14:25, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but there is no freedom of panorama in Italy. JuTa 09:34, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
- It's not a panorama but a diorama !!!!!!!!!!!! --- Salutations. louis-garden pinXit (On en cause) 11:14, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
- "Ceci n'est pas un diorama", dirait Magritte, c'est une photographie d'un pièce de musée, representant un diorama. Et la photographie tombe sous Pas de FOP in Italie--Havang(nl) (talk) 11:39, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
- et faudra-t-il supprimer d'autres photographies similaires de plans des installations muséographiques du musée (qui m'avaient guidé pour faire les miennes) en Category:Museo archeologico del territorio di Populonia ? --- Salutations. louis-garden pinXit (On en cause) 09:01, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
- "Ceci n'est pas un diorama", dirait Magritte, c'est une photographie d'un pièce de musée, representant un diorama. Et la photographie tombe sous Pas de FOP in Italie--Havang(nl) (talk) 11:39, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
Delete : derivated work of copyrited pictures, unkow authors, unknow licence. ----MGuf (d) 15:26, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:15, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
- OK, je vire la référence à wikipédia de mon site de photographies pour cette image, qui redevient la mienne exclusivement. --- Salutations. louis-garden pinXit (On en cause) 10:28, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
עידן27 (talk) 11:27, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
Kept: No reason given for deletion. INeverCry 00:19, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
COM:FOP#Russia. 84.61.186.88 12:43, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 14:30, 10 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) 13:07, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:21, 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) 13:08, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:21, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
No source of photographer given. Barbara Will is author of a book concerning Stein. Alinea (talk) 14:18, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:21, 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) 14:50, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:21, 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) 14:58, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:21, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
The source photo on en.wiki has been nominated for deletion. The subject of the photo is an actor from India, and the uploader has a history of sketchy uploads. The question is do we agf that the uploader took the photo themselves as claimed? Diannaa (talk) 15:17, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:21, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF. EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:04, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:21, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small resolution, missing EXIF. EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:11, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:22, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
inappropiate; student discovered at elementary school; will prevent our ability to use Wikimedia as a resource 151.188.18.87 13:10, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Commons is not censored. Being offensive for some people is not a valid reason for deletion. --PaterMcFly (talk) 14:28, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
Kept. Coyau (talk) 16:24, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
- Keep - In use, no further discussion needed. -mattbuck (Talk) 14:49, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
- Keep, within usage on multiple sites, utilized under an appropriate free-use license on this project. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 04:22, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
- Keep It's not low quality but low resolution. Since it is in use, I see no valid reason that supports a deletion.--FAEP (talk)
- Keep In use, so useful. No other concerns have been raised about this image. At some point in the future, as our stock of good sexuality images increases and several higher quality alternatives are available, it may be appropriate to delete it. --Simonxag (talk) 14:23, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
Kept No reason for deletion. Yann (talk) 13:18, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
internet image from here: 88.64.112.86 17:29, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
There is no reason specified why this image is up for deletion. As there is no reason, the file should NOT be deleted. Proof of valid license information has been submitted via email on November 3. 212.127.136.160 19:59, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
Kept: Valid OTRS. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:45, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
Commons:Derivative work of a horse sculpture. Insufficent information provided to determine whether the sculpture is PD or freely licensed. GrapedApe (talk) 18:21, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:26, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
Official crest of Sigma Theta Pi fraternity, without evidence of free license or PD status GrapedApe (talk) 18:22, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:26, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
Commons:Derivative work of a permanently installed plaque. Insufficent evidence of PD status or free license of plaque. GrapedApe (talk) 18:25, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:26, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope: Unused personal image. GrapedApe (talk) 18:30, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:26, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
File:Пам'ятник Героям Великої Жовтневої соціалістичної революції в Маріїнському парку в Києві.jpg
[edit]
Derivative work, no freedom of panorama in Ukraine. According to [1] (p. 473), architect Vasyl Onashchenko was still alive in at least 1969 if I understand correctly. That would mean that the depicted work is still under copyright in Ukraine. Jafeluv (talk) 18:41, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:26, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
In consideration of the depicted person (a well-known billionaire), it is very unlikely that the uploader's claim of "own work" is true. In addition, this image was on the web prior to this upload[2]. -- Túrelio (talk) 19:13, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 16:51, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but there is no freedom of panorama in Ukraine - compare COM:FOP#Ukraine. JuTa 19:25, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:27, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
Info Mosaic by ru:Горская, Алла Александровна (1929—1970) --Butko (talk) 12:37, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Derivative work of the pictured sculpture. Powers (talk) 21:07, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:27, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Zoro arifi . HombreDHojalata.talk 22:32, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:30, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
grafika nieużywana - zbędna Grzegorz Petka (talk) 22:44, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:30, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but this is not covered by COM:FOP#Argentina. Sculptor en:Lucio Fontana died 1968. This means this artwork will become PD in 2039. JuTa 23:20, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:28, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
Obvious copyright violation. Nominated for regular deletion only because the uploader blanked the {{Copyvio}} tag. This is obviously not the uploader's own work, and he's obviously not the copyright holder. It was published on http://www.rpp.com.pe/2011-03-18-telegraph-avenue-reaparece-oficialmente-el-1-de-abril-noticia_346849.html more than a year before it was uploaded here, even though the uploader claims to have taken it just the day before. —LX (talk, contribs) 23:33, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
my friend that picture appears in RPP.com.pe but that does not mean that the photo was taken by me that RPP RPP has taken, by God, I'm a photographer.--Cesar8807 (talk) 23:35, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
- Sorry, but that sentence makes no sense. I have great difficulty believing you created this photo, because the photo obviously existed before the date when you claim you created the photo. I also have great difficulty believing you created the photo because of the large number of strange and demonstrably false authorship claims you've made in relation to your other uploads. —LX (talk, contribs) 23:40, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
- Delete Motopark (talk) 17:02, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:28, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
Obvious copyright violation. Nominated for regular deletion only because the uploader blanked the {{Copyvio}} tag. The uploader's claims that this is his own work and that he is the author and copyright holder are clearly false. This is a non-free photo taken from an album cover, as seen at http://rateyourmusic.com/artist/pepe_cipolla. —LX (talk, contribs) 23:35, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:28, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
An image from an unknown, but not necessarily anonymous, photographer from 1910 is too late to assume that the photographer died before 1942. . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 23:38, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:28, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
Looks like collage of non-free images, some of which were used e.g. here: http://www.plcdev.com/allen_bradleys_plc_programming_handbook A5b (talk) 23:43, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:28, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
Looks like copyvio from presentation. A5b (talk) 23:45, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:29, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
Looks like copyvio from presentation. A5b (talk) 23:46, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:29, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
Looks like collage from Siemens catalogs. A5b (talk) 23:50, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:29, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
Looks like collage from Siemens catalogs. A5b (talk) 23:50, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:29, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
The license at http://developer.android.com/license.html only applies to photos found under the domain "Developer.android.com" not "www.android.com". Sp33dyphil 23:51, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
- I've thought it is the same like File:Back_view_of_Nexus_7.png but it's now deleted as well.--Lolametro (talk) 10:46, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:29, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
Photo of non-free image. A5b (talk) 23:54, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:29, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
COM:FOP#Philippines. 84.61.186.88 13:27, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:21, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
COM:FOP#Philippines. 84.61.186.88 13:29, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:21, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
COM:FOP#Russia. 84.61.186.88 13:15, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:21, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
File:Lister Künstler Atelierrundgang 2012, Eröffnung Kollenrodtstraße 10A Hannover, Guido Kratz, 077, 2012, Hochtemperaturmalerei, Zweischichtenbild.jpg
[edit]
Derivative of (presumably) copyrighted painting. -mattbuck (Talk) 00:12, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
- You can see the artist itself on the picture. He is laughing into my camera ...--Bernd Schwabe in Hannover (talk) 01:33, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
- Hallo Bernd Schwabe, dass der Künstler in die Kamera lacht, ist sicher gut gemeint, hat aber nur bedingt Rechtskraft. Besser wäre es, wenn der Künstler sein Einverständnis zur Veröffentlichung geben würde. Deshalb bitte eine Mail an permissions-commons@wikimedia.org mit der Zustimmung des Künstlers. --Wvk (talk) 19:45, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
- Ich arbeite 12 bis 14 Stunden täglich in der Wikimedia Foundation für die Menschen. Ich laufe mit Wikipedia-Umhänger um den Hals herum. Die in meine Kamera blickenden Künstler sind sämtlich über meine Arbeit informiert, unterstützen diese und sind deshalb in der Regel auf meinen Wunsch hin Absprache-gemäß neben ihren Werken aufgestellt, um diese Kulturschaffenden und ihre Kulturarbeit/en über Commons als Kulturgüter nachhaltig zu dokumentieren. Sowohl bei Wikipedia und insbesondere bei Commons arbeitet nicht der Bruchteil eines Promilles mit, hunderte von Menschen allein in Hannover bitten mich um eine Einweisung für Commons - ich komme mit der vielen Arbeit kaum noch hinterher. Meine Fotos sind genau deshalb so konzeptioniert, um mir die Arbeit mit den Nachweisen zu erleichtern: KÜNSTLER|IN IST EINVERSTANDEN! Bitte macht mir das Leben nicht unnötig schwerer, als es ohnehin schon ist - der Tag hat nur 24 Stunden - und ich werde keine 500 Jahre alt. --Bernd Schwabe in Hannover (talk) 21:18, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
- Hallo Bernd Schwabe, dass der Künstler in die Kamera lacht, ist sicher gut gemeint, hat aber nur bedingt Rechtskraft. Besser wäre es, wenn der Künstler sein Einverständnis zur Veröffentlichung geben würde. Deshalb bitte eine Mail an permissions-commons@wikimedia.org mit der Zustimmung des Künstlers. --Wvk (talk) 19:45, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
- You can see the artist itself on the picture. He is laughing into my camera ...--Bernd Schwabe in Hannover (talk) 01:33, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: All understood, thanks to Google. Nonetheless, Commons needs a written license from the artist, telling us that he is OK with use anywhere for any purpose, including commercial use and deriviative works. It is long way between smiling at the friendly man from WP and understanding that your work may be used to advertise toothpaste. . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:36, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
File:Lister Künstler Atelierrundgang 2012, Eröffnung Kollenrodtstraße 10A Hannover, Leiv Warren Donnan, Fenstersturz, 2003.jpg
[edit]
Derivative of (presumably) copyrighted painting. -mattbuck (Talk) 00:12, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
- Please see the artist himself on my picture. He is laughing into my camera ... --Bernd Schwabe in Hannover (talk) 01:34, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:36, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
No author named, mentioned website lists a source for the picture on the bottom (http://lamula.pe/), but I don't know if there is a free license given somewhere that allows this upload to Commons. Could some Spanish speaker carefully check this, please , since I have doubts. If I'm wrong, I'm sorry... Miss-Sophie (talk) 00:16, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Even a non-Spanish speaker such as me can understand "(c)2010 Todos los derechos reservados" at the bottom of the source page. . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:38, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
before being uploaded here this image was used in an advertisement by Global Media Productions at http://exopolitics.org/Exo-Comment-116.htm so the "own work" claim is questionable Hekerui (talk) 00:34, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
- That image you linked is clearly *not* an original and in fact was probably sourced *from* Wikimedia. If we assume good faith by the original uploader (Sharf), then we should *not* delete it. In fact, if you search the GMP site, the image 'source' was the *modified* version; see [3] on [4] -- Limulus (talk) 20:13, 4 November 2012 (UTC) (IOW, GMP is probably violating the CC licensing. -- Limulus (talk) 20:17, 4 November 2012 (UTC))
- The version I linked is from April 1, this image was uploaded on April 8, so it's not the source. Hekerui (talk) 22:57, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
- Hmm... your point about dates made me dig a little deeper; the image (exactly the same resolution) appears on [5] (hint in filename: "Icke-2-via-promoter.jpg") via [6] which makes one wonder, as it's dated March 22 for an event on the 31st: [7] though it does not preclude Sharf being the photographer... -- Limulus (talk) 11:29, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks for your work. The image title of the one image and the usage implies that this is a promotional image. However, we have no evidence that Sharf is the promoter. The uploader was notified, if evidence for permission appears, great, if not I think we can count that as one of the instances where a user uploads an image from the internet. Hekerui (talk) 15:23, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
- Hmm... your point about dates made me dig a little deeper; the image (exactly the same resolution) appears on [5] (hint in filename: "Icke-2-via-promoter.jpg") via [6] which makes one wonder, as it's dated March 22 for an event on the 31st: [7] though it does not preclude Sharf being the photographer... -- Limulus (talk) 11:29, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
- The version I linked is from April 1, this image was uploaded on April 8, so it's not the source. Hekerui (talk) 22:57, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
![[3]](http://www.globalmediaproductions.com/images/IckeOP.jpg){kind=link}
![[5]](http://mauifeed.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/Icke-2-via-promoter.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:40, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
File already existing at http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Trait%C3%A9_historique_de_la_Chambre_des_comptes_de_Savoie_%281662%29.jpg (correct name) It's my mistake. Thanks. Floflo (talk) 16:49, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:42, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Unclear and out-of-focus jumble of unspecified computer equipment that uploader has not seen fit to describe. Questionable educational use even *with* description. (I actually kind of like the arty shallow focus, but that's outwith Commons' scope). (Important: Please note; uploader does not apparently speak English, so we may have to take account of this).
- Übersetzt: Unklar und Out-of-Focus Durcheinander von keine Angabe Computerausrüstung, dass Uploader hat gesehen passt nicht zu beschreiben. Fragwürdige pädagogische Nutzung sogar * mit * Beschreibung.
Ubcule (talk) 16:49, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:43, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
This painting looks too contemporary to be PD Vera (talk) 17:02, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:48, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
Non-notable person (at least until we know who the man is), abusive language has to be revdeled, not a hosting. Ymblanter (talk) 17:20, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
Ah, she claims this is Robert Agostinelli, Withdraw this one, will nominate another one here.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:22, 4 November 2012 (UTC)- I see now that the creator is different from the uploader, and the file must go through OTRS then.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:23, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
Comment I s'pose its withdrawn till OTRS is confirmed or otherwise. Hindustanilanguage (talk) 16:29, 5 November 2012 (UTC).
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:49, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
Image can be found in the internet: here http://www.lilithlove.eu/content/img/c1ad45813.jpg 88.64.112.86 17:28, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
The image is the same image except for the resolution. To provide sufficient quality to Wikipedia, the picture has been uploaded separately to Wikimedia.
HansTunnissen (talk) 19:04, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
Kept: . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:50, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
content was:File:白冷圳.jpg is wrong named (correct name: File:東勢本圳.jpgFile:東勢本圳與金門橋).--GaomeiWu (talk) 16:27, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
- Additional：According to image notes.--GaomeiWu (talk) 11:19, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
Kept: No valid reason to delete. INeverCry 22:06, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used.
EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:06, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. Yann (talk) 13:16, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Krystyna Matuschowitz, amateur painter from Poland
[edit]I think that these images are out of project scope.
- File:Landschaft Krismat.jpg
- File:Rysunki Krismat K.Matuschowitz,akwarela.jpg
- File:Rysunki Krismat K.Matuschowitz.jpg
- File:Peiting, Krismat K.Matuschowitz.jpg
- File:Rysunki Krismat.jpg
- File:Krismat K.Matuschowitz akwarela.jpg
- File:Krismat K.Matuschowitz.jpg
- File:Krismat K.Matuschowitz.JPG
- File:Krismat akwarela,aquarelle.JPG
- File:Krismat Kon.JPG
- File:Krismat Ptak.JPG
- File:Akwarela,aquarelle Krismat Krystyna.jpg
- File:Krismat Krystyna M.jpg
- File:Akwarel,Krismat.jpg
- File:Akwarela,aquarelle Krismat K.M.jpg
- File:Akwarela,kredki Krismat Krystyna Matuschowitz.JPG
- File:Akwarela,Krismat Krystyna Matuschowitz.jpg
- File:Akwarela,aquarelle Krismat Krystyna M.jpg
- File:Akwarela Krismat Krystyna Matuschowitz.jpg
- File:Akwarela,aquarelle Krismat K.jpg
- File:Akwarel Krismat.jpg
- File:Akwarelki Krismat Krystyna Matuschowitz.jpg
- File:Akwarela,aquarelle Krismat Krystyna Matuschowitz.jpg
- File:Blumen Krismat obrazy.jpg
- File:Krismat Krystyna Matuschowitz.jpg
- File:Krismat akwarela Krystyna Matuschowitz.jpg
- File:Krismat akwarela aquarelle, Krystyna Matuschowitz.jpg
- File:Krismat rysunek Krystyna Matuschowitz.JPG
- File:Krismat akwarelka Krystyna Matuschowitz.jpg
- File:Krismat pastelle suche Krystyna Matuschowitz.jpg
- File:Krismat aquarelle Krystyna Matuschowitz.jpg
- File:Krismat akwarele Krystyna Matuschowitz.jpg
- File:Krismat akwarela.jpg
- File:Krismat akwarela.JPG
- File:Akryl.jpg
- File:Akwarela kredki Krismat.JPG
- File:Mischung Krismat.jpg
- File:Akwarela.jpg
- File:Olejne Krismat.jpg
- File:Akwarele Krismat.jpg
- File:Krismat.jpg
- File:Mischung, farby mieszane Krismat.jpg
- File:Akwarela, pastele Krismat.jpg
- File:Pastele suche Krismat.jpg
- File:Aquarelle,akwarela Krismat.jpg
- File:Akwarela aquarelle Krismat.jpg
- File:Obrazy olejne Krismat.jpg
- File:Mischung, Peiting Krismat.jpg
- File:Akwarela Krismat.jpg
- File:Akwarele,aquarelle Krismat.jpg
- File:Obraz olejny Krismat.jpg
- File:Peoting, akwarela Krismat.jpg
- File:Akwarela,aquarelle Krismat.jpg
- File:Peiting Krismat.jpg
- File:Akryl,ackryl Krismat.jpg
Kobac (talk) 22:37, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. MBisanz talk 21:29, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
Modern art. I think painter identity confirmation via Commons:OTRS is necessary.
- File:Peiting aquarelle.jpg
- File:Rysunki www.krismat.eu.JPG
- File:Akwarele Krismat.jpg
- File:Akwarele krismat Krystyna Matuschowitz.jpg
- File:Akwarele krismat.jpg
- File:Alwarela.JPG
- File:Akwarela,krismat.JPG
EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:08, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
- Delete Presumably, the art of Krystyna Matuschowitz. I agree, wihout OTRS permission, should be deleted.--Sphilbrick (talk) 20:32, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 22:04, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Jakeshunterg (talk · contribs)
[edit]Looks like collection of promo photos, not own work.
EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:24, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. Yann (talk) 13:21, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
What new could be added to existing collection of explicit images on Commons?
EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:27, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
- Comment - you could ask the same about the hundreds of photos of the Statue of Liberty... In regards to the images, none is especially bad quality, so I don't see a real reason for deletion - they're within scope and freely licensed. -mattbuck (Talk) 10:05, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
- Keep, these are high-quality, high-resolution images, with good contrast and clear anatomical depictions. -- Cirt (talk) 04:22, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
We have enough images about penis. Out of scope
- File:Shaved penis.jpg
- File:Masturbation.JPG
- File:Flacid penis.jpg
- File:Masturbating.JPG
- File:Erect penis 32.JPG
Morning ☼ (talk) 09:23, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
- I fail to see what has changed since 3 months ago when 3 of these were kept. -mattbuck (Talk) 00:59, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
- They should have been deleted the first time around, per COM:PENIS. Having been kept once is no protection from being deleted. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:36, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
- Keep he decided share this image,where's the problem--EEIM (talk) 01:02, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
- Delete per COM:PENIS. These are very similar to, and no better than, existing images. These are not significantly different from existing images. If anyone feels that these images are better than existing images, please identify which ones so that those inferior images can be deleted. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:36, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
- No, that's backwards. On copyright grounds, we apply COM:PRP and delete; on scope grounds we apply the same caution and keep. It's up to you to show why these specifically should be deleted. -mattbuck (Talk) 21:56, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, I did that: COM:PENIS. I was offering you a chance to justify why it wouldn't apply in this case. So far, your arguments seem to be that we have a lot of pictures of the Statue of Liberty, and that we didn't delete these before. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 04:05, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
- Keep per mattbuck--Steinsplitter (talk) 21:43, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
- Delete on File:Shaved penis.jpg as too blurry and having too much digital noise to be useful. Indifferent on the rest, but do agree that they are indeed very similar to, and no better than, existing images in an already well-populated corner of Commons. Additionally, this user has the irritating habit (File:Flacid penis.jpg, File:Masturbation.JPG, File:Shaved penis.jpg) of uploading over existing images. --Rrburke (talk) 18:18, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
- Keep--Albedo-ukr (talk) 17:57, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
No consensus to delete -FASTILY 22:48, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
Looks like collection of promo photos, not own work.
- File:Sara Gallo Style.jpg
- File:Sara Gallo Video.jpg
- File:Reading Sara Gallo.jpg
- File:Sara Gallo Blonde.jpg
- File:Elle Shooting.jpg
- File:Elle Shooting 3.jpg
- File:Elle Shooting 2.jpg
- File:Sara Gallo Reality.jpg
EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:28, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Most probably copyvios. Yann (talk) 13:23, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Ashford Hockey (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used.
- File:Oli kent.png
- File:Josh houston.png
- File:Ellis sharp.jpg
- File:Ellis Sharp.jpg
- File:Matt Carter.jpg
- File:Ashford Hockey.png
- File:Ashford Hockey.jpg
EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:31, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope, except the last one, which might be useful. Yann (talk) 13:24, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
This painting looks too contemporary to be PD Vera (talk) 17:00, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
Leis brasileiras = Brazilian Laws
[edit]
Eugenio Hansen, OFS (talk) 00:47, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
Kept: Eugenio appears to be correct. The Brazilian FOP reads "Works permanently located in public places may be freely represented by painting, drawing, photography and audiovisual processes." There is no limitation to outdoor places. . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:47, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
copyvio anime images taken from http://magi.wikia.com - no permission
- File:Jafar.jpg
- File:Yunan.png
- File:Zagan.png
- File:Yamuraiha.jpg
- File:Ugo.png
- File:Titus.png
- File:Spartos.jpg
- File:Sinbad.png
- File:Sharrkan.jpg
- File:Scheherazade.png
- File:Paimon.png
- File:Pisti 1.jpg
- File:Morgiana.jpg
- File:Koumei.png
- File:Masrur.jpg
- File:Judal.png
- File:Kouha.png
- File:Kougykou.png
- File:Hinahoho.jpg
- File:Hakuei.png
- File:Hakuryuu.png
- File:Drakon 1.jpg
- File:Gyokuen.png
- File:Alibaba.png
- File:Amon.png
- File:Aladdin.jpg
- File:Kouen.png
INeverCry 22:45, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Anime/manga. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:36, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
Way too many copyright violations to consider any of the uploader's copyright claims credible.
- File:Paxenvivo.JPG
- File:TrafficSound.JPG
- File:Joe Danova y Regina Alcover.JPG – supposedly, subject of the photo are also the authors (so they both took the photo), but it's the uploader's own work (so he took the photo), and he's also the copyright holder... which makes no sense at all.
- File:Los Steivos.jpg – same thing here
- File:SaicosenTV.JPG
- File:The (St. Thomas) Pepper Smelter.jpg – another photo supposedly both taken by the band it depicts and by the uploader
- File:Autocontrol.jpg – apparently, the uploader thinks that grabbing stuff from Facebook makes it his own work and that it magically makes him the copyright holder
- File:Jpmgnet.jpg – taking stuff from Facebook sure is hard work. That must mean you get the copyright. Right?
- File:Jimmy santi joven.JPG
- File:Space bee.jpg
- File:Pelomadueño.JPG
- File:Wicho garcia 2009.jpg
- File:Salimvera2010.JPG
- File:Jhovan2010.JPG
- File:Zen10.JPG
- File:Libidoooo5464.JPG
- File:Huelgadhmbre545654.JPG
_Pepper_Smelter.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
—LX (talk, contribs) 22:52, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
- Note that instead of commenting here, the uploader chose to blank the notices pointing to this discussion despite clear warnings not to do so. —LX (talk, contribs) 23:27, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
- Note that the uploader was blocked for this, but continues to evade the block to continue blanking the notices. —LX (talk, contribs) 06:55, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
- See also Commons:Requests for checkuser/Case/Cesar8807 and Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Estiven88. —LX (talk, contribs) 13:28, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
- Delete Motopark (talk) 14:53, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 16:51, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
Logo of commercial company. Not PD-textlogo Miho (talk) 16:51, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
Oppose it is a logo created by the OV-Bureau Randstad, an organisation created by the Dutch government. Bonaber (talk) 14:04, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
Kept: . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 01:57, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
Not realeased under CC-BY-SA by the credited author. Not immediately clear that it would qualify for pd-shape or pd-textlogo either. Bestand is niet vrijgegeven onder CC-BY-SA door de aangegeven auteur; niet direct duidelijk dat dit onder pd-shape of pd-textlogo zou vallen. Pbech (talk) 11:23, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
- Keep It's {{PD-text-logo}} so its copyright status is not important. . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:41, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
Licensing cannot apply. Should either be pd-textlogo (but 'm not going to put that here, since I do not agree with that assessment) or this logo is not free. Pbech (talk) 09:14, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Not properly licensed, not simple text. Would need OTRS permission by the company. -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 11:07, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
Has not been released under CC-BY-SA by the alleged author. May qualify for pd-textlogo, but that is not obviously clear. Is niet onder CC-BY-SA vrijgegeven door de aangegeven auteur. Zou pd-textlogo kunnen zijn, maar dat is niet evident. Pbech (talk) 11:41, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:00, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
There is no evidence that this photo has been licenced under a CC licence russavia (talk) 02:46, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
- Delete No evidence of permission. Hekerui (talk) 16:55, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
Deleted, per nominator. Kameraad Pjotr 19:25, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
Invalid license, isn't the work of a US government employee in the course of his duties. Ryan Vesey Review me! 04:23, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
- Delete Cropped from this with no indication it is the work of a government employee in course of duties.--Sphilbrick (talk) 20:09, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
Dubious own work, uploader has added a number of non-free images of Ed Rendell. No gimp details exist. Ryan Vesey Review me! 17:00, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
- Actually, I've volunteered for many campaigns over the years and have pictures with many politicians including Mr Rendell. I have several more of him as well. You can search for similar images across the web, but you won't find it elsewhere because this is the only place I uploaded it. Because I uploaded images from the GOVERNMENT site, you're going to say my own images are not mine. Unfair and baseless.MavsFan28 (talk) 20:43, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
- It's completely fair. When someone consistently uploads images under false licenses, it's difficult to trust any images they upload. Do you happen to know when you took this photo? Ryan Vesey Review me! 04:00, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
- I know the difference between a image I found on a government site and one that I took. Again, I was confused because I found an image on a Gov site thought I could use it, didn't know that federal sites use state images. Issue has been fixed and addressed. This picture was from Dining in the Dark back in June.MavsFan28 (talk) 19:09, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
- As you've failed to bring any substantial reason for this picture to be deleted, I'll ask you to tie your shoes and remove the deletion request. Thanks MavsFan28 (talk) 02:32, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
- To tie my shoes? Ryan Vesey Review me! 17:07, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, so that you stop trippin'. But I see you've now changed the request, so thanks, I appreciate it. MavsFan28 (talk) 18:05, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
- To tie my shoes? Ryan Vesey Review me! 17:07, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
- It's completely fair. When someone consistently uploads images under false licenses, it's difficult to trust any images they upload. Do you happen to know when you took this photo? Ryan Vesey Review me! 04:00, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
- KeepAfter looking at the other uploaded images from MavsFan28, I am fairly confident that this is his own work. Ryan Vesey Review me! 17:07, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
Logo of commercial company. Miho (talk) 16:48, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose it is a logo created by the Gelderland province. Bonaber (talk) 14:04, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
Kept: Tagged {{PD-NL-Gov}}. Dcoetzee (talk) 00:48, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
Does not fall within the scope of art. 15b of the Dutch copyright act (Auteurswet) unless it can be shown that this logo was indeed published by a public authority and not by Syntus (the domain veluwelijn.nl is owned by Syntus, this can be checked on https://www.sidn.nl/nc/over-nl/whois/). Valt niet onder art. 15b Auteurswet tenzij kan worden aangetoond dat dit logo door de openbare macht is openbaar gemaakt (bijv. de provincie Gelderland) en niet door Syntus zelf (www.veluwelijn.nl is eigendom van Syntus, dat is na te gaan op https://www.sidn.nl/nc/over-nl/whois/) Pbech (talk) 11:39, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: This appears to be the logo of a bus line, see nl:Veluwelijn (buslijn). Even if this bus line is owned by the public, I do not see how {{PD-NL-Gov}} applies here. There remains the question whether this logo falls under the threshold of originality. This could be very well the case given its simplicity. But unfortunately, we have currently no information about Dutch case law in this regard at Commons such that it seems best to delete it for now. --AFBorchert (talk) 13:25, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
Possible copyvio. It has not been ascertained that this is indeed a government publication, see also previous deletion request(s). Pbech (talk) 10:58, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
I have speedily deleted this as this is just a new upload of an already deleted image. To my knowledge, no request for restoration has been put at COM:UDEL, no other community discussion has taken place, and nothing has been presented that puts the previous conclusion into doubt. If this is to be challanged, this has to go to COM:UDEL. --AFBorchert (talk) 13:12, 22 March 2013 (UTC)