Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2012/11/15
 |
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}
_-_fotopolska.eu_(317898).jpg){kind=link}
.jpeg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
Deletion requested by trusted user Thehelpfulone, who were on Google Talk with someone called Victor, who wanted this picture to be deleted. I prefer to use a regular DR instead, as we're in the blurry frontier between public person and private person image. Dereckson (talk) 00:46, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Recently unused media file. At the uploader request. Dereckson (talk) 00:50, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
The template here says: "This official Kaltim coat of arms is ineligible for copyright, but its usage is restricted according to Kaltim penal law, independent of the copyright status of the depiction shown here. Other regions may or may not have similar restrictions." I think a proper license is needed. Yann (talk) 14:28, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: This is actually eligible for speedy delete because it is a small version of File:East kalimantan coa.png . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:51, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
i have uploaded the SVG version. Mazta (talk) 06:45, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
Speedy delete See DR above. . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:46, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
Author request, image replaced by File:Wikidata mop.svg. Riley Huntley (talk) 00:49, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: uploader request Ezarateesteban 12:05, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
Copyright violation. Cropped from this picture. Rapsar (talk) 17:09, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 00:09, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
Possible copyright violation. Small file with no EXIF and own work claim is doubtful. I think this file should be deleted as per COM:PRP. Rapsar (talk) 17:10, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 00:09, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
por que fue mal subido Bruce jay wayne (talk) 17:44, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
Delete Motopark (talk) 18:41, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: per author request. Trijnsteltalk 20:18, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
Copyright violation, seems like a still of a telivision broadcast Narayan (talk) 20:18, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio. INeverCry 20:20, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
This image was uploaded in 2009 as "own work by the uploader". One year later, another user added a "full res" version of the image. It's unclear how the user had access to the full-resolution version. Here's the odd thing: it was uploaded to Wikitravel already in 2007, citing Wikipedia as source, and listing a different licence (public domain), but listing no reason for this claim, and listing no link to Wikipedia. Also, User:MGA73 told me that the file does not appear among the Commons user's deleted Wikipedia contributions. The "own work" claim appears to be a lie. As Wikitravel doesn't tell where the image appeared on Wikipedia, there is no way to verify the licence claim at Wikitravel. This should be deleted as incorrectly/insufficiently sourced. Stefan4 (talk) 21:37, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
- Just continue follow the traces. The file was uploaded to wikivoyage in January 2007. This means: the same file was already in Wikipedia in January 2007. The closest version to the wikivoyage upload date is http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mogadishu&oldid=99296784. And there we have en:File:Mogadishu2006--.jpg. A file uploaded by en:User talk:RoboRanks whos uploads have been nuked in January 8 2007 because of copyright violations. --Martin H. (talk) 22:25, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
- Ah, I thought I checked that. I must have looked at a wrong revision of the page... Well, it's clear that the file should be deleted, then. --Stefan4 (talk) 22:28, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Did so. The file was on other websites before the initial Wikipedia upload already, for example it was in larger size at this forum (but thats not the copyright holder) 2 month before the Wikipedia upload. Martin H. (talk) 22:54, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
Blurred, adds nothing. -mattbuck (Talk) 00:54, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
Delete per nom --Simonxag (talk) 18:34, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: blurred, adds nothing Julo (talk) 12:05, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
Unuseful redirect (was a wrong name) Tangopaso (talk) 22:00, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 23:38, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
In the source field there are pixelio.de and bilderkiste.de mentioned but no authors. This (unused) composition might be a copyright violation, the license can't be veryfied. 32X (talk) 00:38, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 14:00, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
watermark claims copyright Powers (talk) 03:18, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 10:11, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
Derivative of photograph on 1979 book cover Man vyi (talk) 07:06, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
I have no idea what the problem is with this photo, nor why anyone would deem it so. Surely the author would be happy it is distributed: it's just the cover of the book and therefore hardly "content". Also, there are plenty of photos of covers of books on Wikipedia so why would this be any different? Reinthal (talk) 12:45, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
- It's not a free image. You've claimed this as your own work; if you are not in fact the copyright owner, you cannot license the image. en: Wikipedia can host book cover images using fair use provisions; Commons cannot. Richard's Bicycle Book (I have it on my bookshelf) bears a 1979 copyright notice in the name of Richard Ballantine. Man vyi (talk) 15:59, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio. Yann (talk) 10:13, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope montage with no educational purpose Man vyi (talk) 07:10, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. Yann (talk) 10:14, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
i dont like this samnad.s (talk) 11:26, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. Yann (talk) 10:15, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
Look like as video frame, doubtuful authorship. Art-top (talk) 11:30, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio. Yann (talk) 10:15, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
Unencyclopedic photo, only used in a speedily deleted article en:Dan Williams (rapper). Mike Rosoft (talk) 11:31, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. Yann (talk) 10:16, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
Unencyclopedic video, only used in a speedily deleted article en:Dan Williams (rapper). Mike Rosoft (talk) 11:33, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. Yann (talk) 10:16, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
because it false file Shivampire (talk) 12:03, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. Yann (talk) 10:17, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
Wrong picture uploaded. Backroomedit (talk) 14:39, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. Yann (talk) 10:21, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
Wrong picture uploaded. Backroomedit (talk) 14:40, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. Yann (talk) 10:21, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
seem like a personal image, out of scope Morning ☼ (talk) 14:51, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. Yann (talk) 10:20, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:18, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. Yann (talk) 10:22, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
These seem copyrighted book covers rather than own work to me. Lymantria (talk) 15:46, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 12:53, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
Scan of a modern bookcover, doubtful if the uploader has the rights on all elements. A.Savin 17:33, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 10:25, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
Scan of modern bookcovers, doubtful if the uploader has the rights on all covers depicted here. A.Savin 17:43, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 10:25, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
Copyright violation from http://thecityline.wordpress.com/2009/04/27/and-now-some-solid-advice-from-former-utah-jazz-center-mark-eaton-3/ 178.2.56.117 17:46, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 10:25, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
Seems taken from http://www.russiachess.org/news/report/womens_moscow_championship_report/, unlikely own photo by the uploader. A.Savin 17:56, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 12:56, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
This is promotional image from a commercial website without correct attribution. See [1] Mattnad (talk) 20:01, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
What is it you want me to do? I took the pictures for the website and the picture that I used is actually my personal HTPC. I have full permission to use this picture. Feel free to call the owner of the company if you have any doubts. Otherwise please close this deletion request.
Deleted: Copyvio. Yann (talk) 10:26, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
Promotional photo, no EXIF, available on several external websites (try Google search), was formerly deleted here due to lack of permission and uploaded again later. A.Savin 20:16, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 10:27, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
copyright violation, non free image Narayan (talk) 20:17, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 10:27, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope -private image Narayan (talk) 20:24, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 10:28, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
Commons isn't the new eBay or so. Furthermore out of scope, but I might be wrong and this image could be useful maybe. Trijnsteltalk 20:27, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 10:28, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
out of scope - private picture Narayan (talk) 20:28, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 10:29, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope -private image Narayan (talk) 20:33, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 10:29, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope -private image Narayan (talk) 20:33, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 10:29, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
Out of project scope. Martin H. (talk) 21:20, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 10:30, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
out of scope - collection of logos, some of which look to be copyrighted - single upload of user - only link is to declined AFC INeverCry 21:45, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 10:32, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
Out of project scope: most of it is text which is not in scope of Commons. The pdf file contains many images not created by the user - i.e. copyright violations. Martin H. (talk) 21:55, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 10:32, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
Out of project scope. Personal picture and the photo is vandalized. Martin H. (talk) 21:59, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 10:33, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
out of scope INeverCry 21:59, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 10:33, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
out of scope - personal bio INeverCry 22:02, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 10:34, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
Company spam in pdf file format. Out of project scope of Commons. Martin H. (talk) 22:04, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 10:34, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
out of scope - unused personal image INeverCry 22:06, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 13:29, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
out of scope - promotional - unused text logo - single upload of user INeverCry 22:11, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 13:49, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
out of scope INeverCry 22:17, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 13:49, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
Personal image, irrelevant Yann (talk) 13:51, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. Yann (talk) 13:51, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
out of scope - no educational value INeverCry 22:40, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 10:47, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
Text contribution, out of scope of Commons. Commons:Project scope#Excluded educational content. Martin H. (talk) 23:14, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 10:48, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
It's just an alternative version of the same file, used to illustrate the proposed image corrections during the FPC discussion. Ximeg (talk) 23:29, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: by Túrelio. Yann (talk) 10:48, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
The image comes from Wikitravel and is claimed to be own work by the uploader. However, the file on Wikitravel has a typical Flickr file name (but with the space removed). Looking up the file on Flickr, I see that it is listed as "all rights reserved". The Wikitravel username (LukaP) is very different to the Flickr user name (mattymcmatt), so it is reasonable to assume that the users are not the same person. There is no evidence that the Flickr user has given the Wikitravel user permission to publish the image on Wikitravel under the specified licence. Stefan4 (talk) 00:52, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
- Delete Even if it is the same person, the uploader needs to either confirm it via OTRS, or, better yet, change the Flickr license, although I suspect it is not the same person, so delete, per nom--Sphilbrick (talk) 18:04, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 00:07, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
Uploader is not the copyright holder. It is the flag on the Western Independence Party, and has been used since 1989, as seen here. 117Avenue (talk) 03:02, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
- I'm not so sure it is copyrightable, and more-so since it's a flag of a group, you'd think they would NOT want it copyrighted so more people can get one and fly it in support of their cause. Fry1989 eh? 23:41, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
Kept: No copyright issue, in use. Yann (talk) 08:53, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
- Delete No clear evidence that this was ever freely licensed. It is watermarked to a Lombok (Mount Rinjani - Indonesia) trekking reseller, it is a possible promotional seed, or just a copyvio, or both. I removed it from both the WV Indonesia and the WV Mount Rinjani articles on 15 nov 2012. It should not be confused with a different file of the same name sitting at http://wts.wikivoyage-old.org/wiki/File:Rinjani.jpg
- Delete Questionable, Tineye only finds it at http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/73/P6030133.jpg/800px-P6030133.jpg This is the same file as the Image:Rinjani.jpg detailed above, it appears to have been uploaded by the same contributor, somewhat connecting this upload with the one bearing the "copyright" watermark, (this version lacks the watermark). Felix505 (talk) 03:32, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 00:09, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
Very low resolution - doubtful authorship, questionable value. Art-top (talk) 08:31, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
Kept: NOt a great image, but it is in use. AGF. . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 00:10, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
Per COM:FOP#Slovenia. Kocbekovo zavetišče was rebuilt in 1999.[2]
Žiga (talk) 08:32, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
- Delete, particularly because the chapel in the background was built in the 1990s and is not de minimis. I consider the hut under the threshold of originality. The image has been uploaded locally to en:File:Molič Mountain Pasture Hut and Chapel of Sts. Cyril and Methodius.jpg. --Eleassar (t/p) 14:02, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:14, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
Per COM:FOP#Slovenia. Object was built in 1936, author may not be dead before 1944.
Žiga (talk) 08:32, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
- Delete The author was Janez Gregorčič from Slovenska Vas. It is known that he broke his leg in 1962, therefore not eligible for Commons.[3] :) By the way, the correct year is 1945. --Eleassar (t/p) 14:39, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 00:18, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
Later deleted:
Already deleted once; per COM:FOP#Slovenia. This hayrack has ornamental elements that make it special compared to other hayracks; that's why it has been described as the "author's achievement of the carpenter Janez Gregorčič... Without ornamental wood cuttings it would have been nothing special" [avtorski dosežek tesarja Janeza Gregorčiča... Brez okrasnih izrezov v lesu ne bi bil nič posebnega.][4] Eleassar (t/p) 10:12, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
- Also, File:Bistrica, Šentrupert - kozolec od daleč.jpg. Perhaps we could keep this one as the object of interest was the hayrack in its entirety and its usage, not its front side, which is difficult to see. --Eleassar (t/p) 10:17, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
Keep It has already been undeleted (see COM:UNDEL arhiche for January 2013). Furthermore, the hayrack was reportedly built in the first half of 19th century [5][6], so it is highly unlikely that the carpenter passed away after 1945.--Miha (talk) 17:59, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
- Another source [7] (however, less reputable as Europeana or state founded DEDI) claims that this same hayrack was built in 20th century... --Miha (talk) 19:51, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
- I really don't want to have incorrect information written in Commons and Wikipedia based on non-reliable sources, and this one is not a reliable academic source like I have cited above.
- The Europeana source is using DEDI as its reference. DEDI actually contains conflicting information: it first mentions the first half of the 19th century, but later states that it was erected in 1936 by the carpenter Janez Gregorčič, which is the correct information.[8]
- The Slovenian Registry of Cultural Heritage also states that the hayrack was built in 1936 by Janez Gregorčič.[9] As stated above, Janez Gregorčič was still alive in the 1960s.[10]
- The undeletion discussion[11] did not consider that the work has been described in reliable sources as an "author's achievement" due to the ornaments on its front side.[12] That's how it surpasses any potential threshold of originality and that's why the first image showing the front side should be deleted in my opinion, whereas the second should probably be kept as the photographer's (mine, actually) interest was elsewhere (the building and its usage). --Eleassar (t/p) 21:55, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
- Another source [7] (however, less reputable as Europeana or state founded DEDI) claims that this same hayrack was built in 20th century... --Miha (talk) 19:51, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
- It is questionable on what exactly this "author's achievement" reffers to. If you ask me, not as much to the ornaments themselves or their aestethics, but rather to the achievement in a strict construction sense (i.e. innovative carpeting methods; even nowadays you can hear radio reports that some tunnel will be built using some special Swiss drilling method developed by XY). Nevertheless, I hope we both agree that at least the second picture (File:Bistrica, Šentrupert - kozolec od daleč.jpg) is de minimis (it says hayrack from distance) and the ornaments are not seen in full, and therefore should be kept. --Miha (talk) 09:54, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
- The cited academic paper clearly states: "author's achievement of the carpenter Janez Gregorčič... Without ornamental wood cuttings it would have been nothing special" [avtorski dosežek tesarja Janeza Gregorčiča... Brez okrasnih izrezov v lesu ne bi bil nič posebnega.][13] The second image can be kept in my opinion. --Eleassar (t/p) 14:44, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted. Unclear copyright status. Unless we have clear, explicit written/textual, tangible evidence indicating that this file is indeed freely licensed under a Commons compatible license, we cannot host it on Commons -FASTILY 09:36, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
Janez (Janko) Gregorčič died on 20 November 1984. --Eleassar (t/p) 20:00, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
Claimed to be PD70. The subject was born in 1911, the picture is probably taken around 1950. 4ing (talk) 09:37, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 00:18, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
Claimed to be PD70. The subject was born in 1915, the picture is probably taken in the 1960's. 4ing (talk) 09:39, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 00:18, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
Program screenshot Tuankiet65 (talk) 11:12, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 00:18, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
Source seems to be a book, not selfmade. FunkMonk (talk) 11:27, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 00:18, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
PD-Old 70 does not apply in the USA. Photographer died 1934 Rupert Pupkin (talk) 12:11, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
- Keep No decision by WMF so far. --Leyo 14:41, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
Kept Almost certainly first published in German, so pma 70 is the correct rule. . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 00:27, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
PD-Old does not apply in the US. Photographer died 1934. File has now been uploaded to de.wp where it qualifies for PD Rupert Pupkin (talk) 12:19, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
Kept: . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 00:22, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
Not full camera resolution, missing original exif, the rest of the user contributions deleted as copyvio. Art-top (talk) 12:35, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:15, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
This appears to be a candid photograph. The subject, who has the same name as the uploader, probably did not take it. We will need a license from the actual photographer, using the procedure at Commons:OTRS. . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:35, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:15, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Copyrightverletzung Nichtvermittelbar (talk) 12:47, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: INeverCry 01:15, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
_-_fotopolska.eu_(317898).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_-_fotopolska.eu_(317898).jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Private people on small party. Ciacho5 (talk) 13:51, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
_-_fotopolska.eu_(317898).jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: INeverCry 01:17, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
_-_fotopolska.eu_(317898).jpg){kind=link}
No freedom of panoama in Russia. Several other images of the same building were already deleted Alvesgaspar (talk) 14:02, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:17, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
No freedom of panorama in Russia. Several other images of the same subject were already delete Alvesgaspar (talk) 14:04, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:19, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
No freedom of panorama in Russia. Several other images of the same subject were already delete Alvesgaspar (talk) 14:05, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:19, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
No freedom of panorama in Russia. Several other images of the same subject were already delete Alvesgaspar (talk) 14:05, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:20, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
No freedom of panorama in Russia. Several other images of the same subject were already delete Alvesgaspar (talk) 14:06, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:20, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
No freedom of panorama in Russia. Several other images of the same subject were already delete Alvesgaspar (talk) 14:06, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:20, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
No freedom of panorama in Russia. Several other images of the same subject were already delete Alvesgaspar (talk) 14:07, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:20, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
No freedom of panorama in Russia. Several other images of the same subject were already delete Alvesgaspar (talk) 14:07, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:20, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
No freedom of panorama in Russia. Several other images of the same subject were already delete Alvesgaspar (talk) 14:08, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
* The law introducing FoP for buildings may take action on January 1, 2013, so I suggest not to close this request before that date.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:36, 15 November 2012 (UTC) Delayed till at least March one, sorry for confusion.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:00, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:20, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
No freedom of panorama in Russia. Several other images of the same subject were already delete Alvesgaspar (talk) 14:08, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
* The law introducing FoP for buildings may take action on January 1, 2013, so I suggest not to close this request before that date.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:36, 15 November 2012 (UTC) Delayed till at least March one, sorry for confusion.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:00, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:20, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
No freedom of panorama in Russia. Several other images of the same subject were already delete Alvesgaspar (talk) 14:09, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:20, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
No freedom of panorama in Russia. Several other images of the same subject were already delete Alvesgaspar (talk) 14:09, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:20, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
Photo of 1930s, unknown author, unlikely Public Domain. A.Savin 14:30, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
- Данное произведение является моей собственной работой, производной от оригинальной фотографии 1937 года.--IgorEK II (talk) 00:55, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:23, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
Questionable authorship claims. Web-resolution photo with no metadata. Found (albeit in lower resolution) at http://t.caijing.com.cn/album/forward?tid=850183 before it was uploaded here. The uploader originally claimed that the source of the image was "public" and only later changed that to claim that it's his or her own work (and removed the no source tag without further discussion or explanation). This also affects File:Xi'an montage.jpg, which includes this photo. —LX (talk, contribs) 15:30, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
：This picture is a work of my net pal, I used this picture under his permission. I fixed the source info because I thought that the warning on the page of the picture was some kind of robot mistake and I thought I could fix the problem in that way. If it's against the rules here I'm sorry about that. I'm just starting with wikimedia, hope that I can be helpful and make it a better place. --Danielinblue (talk) 15:16, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
- This "net pal" of yours, did they also give you permission to claim that you created the photo? —LX (talk, contribs) 20:24, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
- I've told you that I claim the photo because I thought it was the way to fix the problem, it's my fault. I thought I was dealing with a machine. I changed the info after the warning, and I wasn't originally intended to do that. -Danielinblue (talk) 00:46, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
- That's not true; you've claimed to be the author and copyright holder from the start. Even if your unnamed "net pal" gave you some kind of permission (and you're going to have to provide more details about that permission), you obviously cannot claim to be the author and copyright holder of their work. —LX (talk, contribs) 10:24, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:22, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
Only upload by a user with a total of 4 global contribs. Just seems mildly suspicious, though I have no proof of anything. It is high res and has metadata. -mattbuck (Talk) 15:47, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
- Keep Unless there is a stronger argument for deletion. Badzil (talk) 13:17, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
Kept: as above. Yann (talk) 08:49, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
The source is doubtful, and the license is most likely fake. The image seems to be a screenshot from some kind of a movie. Niklem (talk) 16:15, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:25, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
misunderstanding problems whiel uploading Akteurin (talk) 16:19, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:26, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
Copyright violation. Rapsar (talk) 16:52, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:26, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
.jpeg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpeg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Unlikely own work. Low resolution, missing EXIF. TV screenshot? A.Savin 17:15, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
.jpeg){kind=link}
Deleted: INeverCry 01:29, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
.jpeg){kind=link}
Copyright violation, scan of a photo made in the 1950s or 1960s, no details on original author or permission. A.Savin 17:23, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:30, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
A photo made in WWII, unlikely own work by the uploader, no further details on permission available. A.Savin 17:37, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:30, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
Personal photo made in 1960s, unlikely own work by uploader, no info on permission. A.Savin 17:38, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:30, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
War photography from 1940s, unlikely own work by uploader, no info on permission. A.Savin 17:39, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:30, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
War photography from 1940s, unlikely own work by uploader, no info on permission. A.Savin 17:40, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:30, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
Scan of a possibly copyrighted war map made in the 1940s. No info on author/permission. A.Savin 17:41, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:30, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
Scan of a possibly copyrighted war map made in the 1940s. No info on author/permission. A.Savin 17:42, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:30, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
Derivative work of modern 2D artwork in public space, no COM:FOP in Ukraine. A.Savin 17:44, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:31, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
Derivative photo of a poster with artwork. No infos on author(s)/permission. A.Savin 17:46, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:31, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
Derivative work of a modern sculpture in Moscow, no Panorama Freedom in Russia. A.Savin 18:19, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:31, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
Created after 1945, therefore copyrighted in Slovenia and Hungary. Eleassar (t/p) 19:05, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:31, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
Lacks permission from the sculpture artist. PereslavlFoto (talk) 19:57, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:31, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
Derivative of modern (after 1978) monument in Saint Petersburg, no Freedom of Panorama in Russia. A.Savin 20:12, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:32, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope- private image Narayan (talk) 20:35, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:34, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
unused and svg available Flor!an (talk) 20:58, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:34, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
unused and svg available Flor!an (talk) 20:58, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:34, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
Possible copyright violation, looks like a photograph of the map on Air Canada's in flight entertainment unit. Who the original map creator would be I don't know, but not the user. Apart from that as noted on the talk page, it isn't actually a great circle, as it avoids North Korea (not that incorrect description is cause for deletion). Kelapstick (talk) 21:16, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
- Comment I don't care - delete it if you want. This IS the GC route with respect to aviation even if it does not follow the GC path for 100% of the flight -- no flight follows GC exactly. --Kristoferb (talk) 16:34, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
- Delete Agree with Kelapstick nomination. Delete unless evidence can be established that the map was created without copyright artwork. --138.25.157.99 09:08, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:35, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
Per File:Delfinrosado.jpg where the same uploader has stolen a 500px thumbnail image from flickr showing a Chinese White Dolphine (identification by User:DolphinSmile) from flickr and declared it a "Delfin Rosado del Amazonas Colombiano". The same here. This is a 500px thumbnail picture, the identification is wrong, the location is most likely also wrong. The file is also stolen from a source such as flickr and uploaded here with false description. Martin H. (talk) 21:45, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:35, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
out of scope - promotional - unused text logo - single upload of user INeverCry 21:53, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. Érico Wouters msg 00:29, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
out of scope - promotional - unused text logo of blog - single upload of user INeverCry 21:56, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. Érico Wouters msg 00:29, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
out of scope - promotional - unused text logo - single upload of user INeverCry 21:56, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. Érico Wouters msg 00:29, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
out of scope - promotional - unused text logo - single upload of user - link is to a deleted article INeverCry 21:57, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. Érico Wouters msg 00:28, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
unused uncropped duplicate of File:LucReychler.jpg INeverCry 22:13, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 09:11, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
out of scope - promotional - unused text logos - only uploads of user INeverCry 22:18, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. Érico Wouters msg 00:28, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, but this building is too recent and Italy has no FOP exemption. Delete per Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Palazzo della Civiltà Italiana. -- Túrelio (talk) 22:20, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
- Delete per Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Palazzo della Civiltà Italiana Raoli ✉ (talk) 23:38, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:41, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
Per COM:NOT, COM:PORN & COM:NUDE. Angelus(talk) 22:23, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
- This low-quality photo is blurred, out of focus, and it does not provide additional useful information (e.g. about the background and age of the individual, or relevant vital statistics). According to the policy "categories such as male reproductive system, penis and vaginas show that Commons has a large quantity of images relating to human genitalia. New images of low resolution or poor quality, which provide little descriptive information, of a subject we already have images of, may be nominated for deletion, citing appropriate rationale(s). Such images are of limited value as media for categories related to human anatomy and stages of development". Moreover there are better alternatives on Commons. --Angelus(talk) 22:24, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
- Delete - per ANGELUS.--Baku (talk) 01:02, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:41, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
Per COM:NOT, COM:PORN & COM:NUDE. Angelus(talk) 22:35, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
- This low-quality photo is blurred, out of focus, and it does not provide additional useful information (e.g. about the background and age of the individual, or relevant vital statistics). According to the policy "categories such as male reproductive system, penis and vaginas show that Commons has a large quantity of images relating to human genitalia. New images of low resolution or poor quality, which provide little descriptive information, of a subject we already have images of, may be nominated for deletion, citing appropriate rationale(s). Such images are of limited value as media for categories related to human anatomy and stages of development". Moreover there are better alternatives on Commons. --Angelus(talk) 22:37, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
- Delete - per ANGELUS.--Baku (talk) 01:03, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:42, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
Per COM:NOT, COM:PORN & COM:NUDE. Angelus(talk) 22:35, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
- This low-quality photo is blurred, out of focus, and it does not provide additional useful information (e.g. about the background and age of the individual, or relevant vital statistics). According to the policy "categories such as male reproductive system, penis and vaginas show that Commons has a large quantity of images relating to human genitalia. New images of low resolution or poor quality, which provide little descriptive information, of a subject we already have images of, may be nominated for deletion, citing appropriate rationale(s). Such images are of limited value as media for categories related to human anatomy and stages of development". Moreover there are better alternatives on Commons. --Angelus(talk) 22:37, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
- Delete - per ANGELUS.--Baku (talk) 01:03, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:42, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
out of scope - promotional - unused text logo - single upload of user INeverCry 22:42, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 10:43, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
Taken from http://www.world66.com/asia/southasia/india/tamilnadu/chennai/lib/gallery/showimage?pic=asia/southasia/india/tamilnadu/chennai/anna_flyover, which claims that it is {{Cc-by-sa-1.0}}. However, CC-by-sa requires attribution of the author, which is not given. Note that it appears as though anyone can upload files to this site without providing any sort of contact details or credentials, effectively making it a potential open license washing service. Obs.: justification text (modified) by User:LX via Commons:Deletion requests/File:Manaus-Vista.jpg. There is nothing left to be added. Gunnex (talk) 23:04, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:43, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
Taken from http://www.world66.com/asia/southasia/pakistan/sargodha/lib/gallery/showimage?pic=asia/southasia/pakistan/sargodha/kinnows_delecious, which claims that it is {{Cc-by-sa-1.0}}. However, CC-by-sa requires attribution of the author, which is not given. Note that it appears as though anyone can upload files to this site without providing any sort of contact details or credentials, effectively making it a potential open license washing service Obs.: justification text (modified) by User:LX via Commons:Deletion requests/File:Manaus-Vista.jpg. There is nothing left to be added. Gunnex (talk) 23:16, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:43, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
Taken from http://www.world66.com/europe/portugal/guimaraes/lib/gallery/showimage?pic=europe/portugal/guimaraes/guimaraes_castle, which claims that it is {{Cc-by-sa-1.0}}. However, CC-by-sa requires attribution of the author, which is not given. Note that it appears as though anyone can upload files to this site without providing any sort of contact details or credentials, effectively making it a potential open license washing service Obs.: justification text (modified) by User:LX via Commons:Deletion requests/File:Manaus-Vista.jpg. There is nothing left to be added. Gunnex (talk) 23:19, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
- Delete -- Plus very poor image quality. No reason to keep this file. Alvesgaspar (talk) 18:35, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:43, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
Taken from http://www.world66.com/europe/portugal/guimaraes/lib/gallery/showimage?pic=europe/portugal/guimaraes/central_guimaraes, which claims that it is {{Cc-by-sa-1.0}}. However, CC-by-sa requires attribution of the author, which is not given. Note that it appears as though anyone can upload files to this site without providing any sort of contact details or credentials, effectively making it a potential open license washing service Obs.: justification text (modified) by User:LX via Commons:Deletion requests/File:Manaus-Vista.jpg. There is nothing left to be added. Gunnex (talk) 23:26, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:43, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
Taken from http://www.world66.com/europe/georgia/bakuriani/lib/gallery/showimage?pic=europe/georgia/bakuriani/kukushka_train_to, which claims that it is {{Cc-by-sa-1.0}}. However, CC-by-sa requires attribution of the author, which is not given. Note that it appears as though anyone can upload files to this site without providing any sort of contact details or credentials, effectively making it a potential open license washing service Obs.: justification text (modified) by User:LX via Commons:Deletion requests/File:Manaus-Vista.jpg. There is nothing left to be added. Gunnex (talk) 23:29, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
- The license says "Attribution - You must attribute the work in the manner specified by the author or licensor...". And "Licensor" means the individual or entity that offers the Work under the terms of this License. Geagea (talk) 05:06, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
- That refers only to the tecnical stuff how to redistribute the work :-) -->Restrictions, 4c "If you distribute, publicly display, publicly perform (...) you must keep intact all copyright notices for the Work and give the Original Author credit reasonable to the medium or means you are utilizing by conveying the name (or pseudonym if applicable) of the Original Author if supplied (...)". See also world66.comcopyright policy: "Attribution. You must give the original author credit." Gunnex (talk) 08:25, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:43, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
Photo of 1930s, unknown author, unlikely Public Domain. A.Savin 14:29, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
- Данная фотография была опубликована в газете "Правда Севера" в 1937 года фотографом Соколовым В.А. Согласно данным ГААО, а именно помиенным списком репрессированных, Соколов был репресиирован и погиб в 1939 году.--IgorEK II (talk) 00:58, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
A signature of a Chinese person is copyright protected unelss it is of someone who died >50 years ago; is from a document of legislative, administrative, or judicial nature; or is written in a standard typeface and not handwritten. Jfd34 (talk) 06:49, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
- Surely Jiang's signature, preserved across all legislative / administrative / judicial documents, would be exempt? Jon C (talk) 03:56, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: We're not confident whether the exceptions defined PRC law would apply in this signature. If there are proofs that it falls under the exceptions, undeletion request may be opened. – Kwj2772 (msg) 07:09, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
A more accurate version exists with road alignment and ramp configurations based satellite imagery. (ILjunction-bengurion.png) --@Efrat (talk) 07:45, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Uncontested DR. MBisanz talk 04:07, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
not in use, no educational purpose, PD-textlogo apply here? Ezarateesteban 11:56, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Uncontested DR. MBisanz talk 04:07, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Sanandros as no license (no license). Can somone check the file if its free? I think this file could be PD-under the crown copyright. Here is probably the source. Sanandros (talk) 16:37, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Uncontested DR. MBisanz talk 04:08, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
Not important anymore! Se9494 (talk) 21:21, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Uncontested DR. MBisanz talk 04:07, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
out of scope - unused text logo - single upload of user INeverCry 21:44, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Uncontested DR. MBisanz talk 04:07, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
out of scope - promotional - unused text logo - single upload of user INeverCry 21:48, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Uncontested DR. MBisanz talk 04:07, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
out of scope INeverCry 22:02, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Uncontested DR. MBisanz talk 04:09, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
out of scope - promotional - unused logo - single upload of user with company username INeverCry 22:10, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Uncontested DR. MBisanz talk 04:09, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
out of scope - promotional INeverCry 22:15, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Uncontested DR. MBisanz talk 04:09, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
Logo of commercial web-site. Repost of speedy-deleted File:Ivi.ru logo.png. Is it simple enough to be PD-Textlogo? A5b (talk) 22:43, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Uncontested DR. MBisanz talk 04:10, 23 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)
according to [14] Fernrohr (talk) 10:15, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
- Delete, relevant file has been already moved to wikipedia, no need to keep similar files elsewhere. NVO (talk) 09:15, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
Kept. - insufficient information in DR to judge this - Jcb (talk) 23:15, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
No freedom of panorama in Russia. Several other images of the same subject were already deleted Alvesgaspar (talk) 14:04, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:18, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
No evidence that the image was originally published anonymously. Eleassar (t/p) 16:01, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
- Keep - Please do at least a little research before creating these deletion requests and creating unnecessary work for other people. It it xplained in the already linked source (this is for all the photos from this source):
"vMuzeju novejse zgodovine Siovenije hranimo obsezno zbirko fotografij 0 Ljubljani.lzvira iz prve polovice 20. stoletja in spada v fotografski fond easopisa Siovenec. Gradivo je Muzej pridobil v petdesetih letih prejsnjega stole~a. Casopis Siovenec je izhajal med letoma 1873 in 1945, od konca leta 1924 do poletja leta 1932 je kot njegova tedenska priloga izhajal tudi Ilustrirani Siovenec in mnogo original nih fotografij iz nasega foto arhiva je bilo objavljenih prav tam. Razstava in katalog sta zasnovana tako, da je na eni strani stara erno-bela fotografija iz muzejskega arhiva, na drugi strani pa danasnja barvna fotografija, ki je posneta z istega mesta in s eim bolj podobnega zornega kota kot stara fotografija. o stari podobi Ljubljane, arhitekturi, njenem spreminjanju v prejsnjih desetletjih je bilo objavljenih vee knjig. Zelimo dodati se muzejski prispevek, ki temelji na originalnih kvalitetnih fotografijah ulic, trgov, zgradb, veeinoma posnetih v letih med svetovnima vojnama, brez zelje, da bi se prikazalo vse, kar je bilo v Ljubljani zanimivega. Tako morda nismo zajeli kaksnega zanimivega in lepega predela Ljubljane, pomembne stavbe ali pogleda na del Ljubljane, ki ga danes ni vee. Objavili smo najboljse in najzanimivejse fotografije iz muzejskega arhiva, ki vecinoma se niso bile objavljene v drugih·publikacijah. Fotografije so opremljene Ie z osnovnimi podatki. Za poglobljen studij in proueevanje je na voljo vee knjig, ki govorijo o nastanku in razvoju stavb, ulic in mestnih predelov. Podpisi pri starih fotografijah so originalni napisi na fotografijah iz arhiva ali kombinacija originalnega napisa in podpisa pod fotografijo, objavljenega v Ilustriranem Siovencu. Namen razstave, kataloga in koledarja je ponovno obuditi stare poglede na Ljubljano, starejsim Ljubljaneanom mogoee v nostalgieen spomin, mlajsim v primerjavo, kaksna je bila Ljubljana nekoe. Na drugi strani pa vse novo po doloeenem casu postane staro in tudi fotografije, narejene v letu 2006, bode nekoe postale dokument easa. Fotografije je urednistvo Siovenca pridobivalo na razliene naeine. Iz fonda ne razberemo, da so imeli svoje profesionalne fotografe, na originalnih fotografijah fotografi veeinoma niso navedeni, razen celjskega fotografa Josipa Pelikana, ki se veekrat pojavlja in na katerega fotografijah pise "po objavi vrniti avtorju«. Ker se urednistvo tega mnogokrat ni drzalo, sedaj bogatijo muzejski foto arhiv. Tudi fotografije, ki so bile objavljene v Ilustriranem Siovencu, so v veeini primerov nepodpisane oziroma fotografi niso navedeni. Izjema so fotografija struge stare Ljubljanice fotografa Avgusta Bertholda, nekaj fotografij Ijubljanskega velesejma fotografa Antona Ursiea, nekaj fotografij Velieana Bestra, ki so bile izdelane v ateljeju Helios, fotografije fotografa Davorina Rovska in mnogokrat reproducirani posnetek dogajanja na Kongresnem trgu 29. oktobra 1918 fotografa Frana Grabjeca. Ta fotografija je bila izdana v obliki razglednice , na kateri pise, da je ponatis prepovedan. V urednistvu so ta del poernili in fotografijo objavili v lIustriranem Siovencu. Na fotografa niso pozabili. Na mnogih kasnejsih objavah pa so napis, ki prepoveduje reproduciranje enostavno odrezali in mnogokrat niso navedli niti fotografa."--Sporti (talk) 11:15, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
- What exactly from this text makes you think this image is free? According to it, some images from this collection were published anonymously, others were not. One cannot be certain that this one was published anonymously. --Eleassar (t/p) 11:42, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
- Its basically says that photos without noted author were published anonymously in Ilustrirani Slovenec between 1924 and 1932. --Sporti (talk) 12:05, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
- It actually says that most of images were published anonymously, and some were not. It also says that some photos were made by Davorin Rovšek, and only one is marked as such. How can we be certain this one was not made by him? --Eleassar (t/p) 12:11, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
- Yes it says most photos were published anonymously and states all the exeptions so what is unclear? --Sporti (talk) 12:15, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
- What is unclear is the discrepancy between the photographers mentioned in the introduction (Berthold, Uršič, Rovšek, Bešter) and the captions that e.g. don't mention Berthold at all, but this would not be a problem if no photos were made by Rovšek who died in 1949. In the introduction, it is stated that some images were made by him, but only one is marked as such in the caption. Why do they mention these photographers in the introduction, but not in captions? This makes it unclear whether all images without the mention of the photographer were originally published anonymously or not. I'd suggest that this image is deleted per lack of clarity about the author and undeleted in 2020. --Eleassar (t/p) 12:26, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
- It also says that they have kept all the original notes under the photographs, so if it was published with an author's name, they would have kept it. --Sporti (talk) 12:27, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
- Ok, fair enough. However, there is another problem with this image. Unless proven otherwise, the image was evidently published for the first time in 2006, because those from the newspaper's collection that went published before have this written in the caption. It is also written that the authors were known (despite in the case of images from the newspaper names were not published in the newspaper). The copyright therefore lasts for the lifetime of the creator and 70 years afterwards. In the case that the name would not be known, one would have to consider Article 61 of the Slovene copyright act,[15] and the image would be actually copyright-free only in 2077, 70 years after its lawful publication. In any case, the image is not free. --Eleassar (t/p) 12:48, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
- It doesn't say all images are from Ilustrirani Slovenec, this one is obviously from regular Slovenec newspaper. --Sporti (talk) 13:04, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
- It doesn't matter. The image was evidently published for the first time in 2006 (in the timeframe of 70 years) and if I understand correctly the sentence "na originalnih fotografijah fotografi večinoma niso navedeni" [On original photographs the photographers are mainly not cited], its author is not known, which means that it will become public domain only in 2077 (70+1 years after its first lawful disclosure; Article 61). Unless one can prove that it was not only part of the newspaper's collection but actually went published in the newspaper. --Eleassar (t/p) 13:08, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
- It doesn't say that any of the photographs were never published. They were published either in Ilustrirani Slovenec or regular Slovenec for the first time. --Sporti (talk) 13:18, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
- It says: "We have included the best and most interesting photographs from the Museum's archives which, for the most part, have not been published yet." (pg. 5) --Eleassar (t/p) 13:22, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
- ...published in other publications (objavljeni v drugih publikacijah). --Sporti (talk) 13:28, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, other than this book (Lost Sights). --Eleassar (t/p) 13:29, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
- No, other than the newspapers Ilustrirani Slovenec regular Slovenec. Or the paragraph doesn't make sense ("Casopis Siovenec je izhajal med letoma 1873 in 1945, od konca leta 1924 do poletja leta 1932 je kot njegova tedenska priloga izhajal tudi Ilustrirani Siovenec in mnogo original nih fotografij iz nasega foto arhiva je bilo objavljenih prav tam").--Sporti (talk) 13:37, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
- It makes a complete sense to me. The newspaper (the organisation) kept a large collection of images, which were then handled to the museum. Many of these were published in the first half of the 20th century, but Lost Sights is a collection of images, which were for the most part not published until 2006. --Eleassar (t/p) 13:39, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
- "mnogo originalnih fotografij iz našega foto arhiva je bilo objavljenih prav tam" and "ki večinoma se niso bile objavljene v drugih·publikacijah" contradicts each other following your interpretacion.--Sporti (talk) 13:44, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
- Where do you see the contradiction? The museum keeps a large number of images. The images from Lost Sights were mainly not published in other publication than this one. --Eleassar (t/p) 13:46, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
- Why else would it say "v drugih publikacijah" then, it would just say "ki večinoma še niso bile objavljene". --Sporti (talk) 13:57, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
- I don't think this "other publications" refers to anything else than Lost Sights, and the English translation makes it completely clear. As long as one does not provide a newspaper where it was published in the 1930s, the image should be considered non-free. --Eleassar (t/p) 14:01, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
Kept: as per Sporti. Yann (talk) 15:02, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
This file was published anonymously for the first time in 2006, according to the source stating: "We have included the best and most interesting photographs from the Museum's archives which, for the most part, have not been published yet." (pg. 5) This is less than 70+1 years after its creation. It is evident that it does not derive from 1938, because a new four-story building was constructed at the site of Tiskarna Slovenije in 1937-38 and it's simply not there. The same information "before 1938" is written on the cited dLib page. What I see is a two-story building that was taken down in the 1930s. Per the Slovene copyright and related rights act, it will be free after 70+1 years from the initial event, which is its first publication in 2006. Eleassar (t/p) 15:08, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
I withdraw my nomination If the depicted building is the old building, which was demolished in the early 1930s, it is clear that the photo must have been created more than 70 years ago before its original publication in 2006. --Eleassar (t/p) 16:58, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
Kept: -- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 10:32, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
Images taked by Del Potro XD
[edit]- File:Automovilzona-Kimi-Lotus-7.jpg
- File:Juan-monaco-wimbledon.jpg
- File:Del-potro-wimbledon.jpg
- File:Julia-ballario.jpg
- File:Del potro roland garros 2009.jpg
slow resolution, no metadata, possibly copyvio --Ezarateesteban 12:01, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 00:06, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Phantombmc (talk · contribs)
[edit]collection of obvious copyvios taken from the internet
- File:Sona Aslanova.jpg
- File:Max Black.jpg
- File:Ella Leya.jpg
- File:Paul Murad.jpg
- File:Semyon Bilmes.jpg
- File:Lotfi Zadeh.jpg
- File:Rustam Jabrailov 1.jpg
- File:Rustam Jabrailov.jpg
- File:John Amiral.jpg
INeverCry 00:46, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
- Delete I spotchecked a couple, they were not just clear copyvios, but the source is indicated. Probably a new user unaware that this is not allowed.--Sphilbrick (talk) 17:57, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 13:58, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Three7zero (talk · contribs)
[edit]Possibly out of scope.
- File:Erotic Humiliation.JPG
- File:Male nurse in costume.JPG
- File:Sissy boy.JPG
- File:Caged slave.jpg
- File:Sissy in lingerie.JPG
- File:Sissy with small penis.JPG
- File:Man in panties.JPG
- File:Pink Cheerleader.JPG
- File:Man dressed as a cheerleader.jpg
- File:Maid cleaning.jpg
- File:Male cheerleader.jpg
- File:Sissy maid.jpg
- File:Public Humiliation.JPG
- File:Male Sissy.jpg
Ralgistalk 01:43, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Uncontested DR. MBisanz talk 04:07, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
Files uploaded by FrancoBras (talk · contribs)
[edit]Flag and coat of arms of Brazilian municipality founded in 1992. Symbols created per municipal law 85/1994 (see also http://www.altofeliz.rs.gov.br/dados_gerais.php?pag=simbolo, "© 2001 - 2012 - Todos os Direitos Reservados "), failing {{PD-BrazilGov}} = "(...) prior to 1983."
Gunnex (talk) 09:08, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:15, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
Files uploaded by PotapenkoMax (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unlikely own photographic works by the uploader. Recent uploads, several of them available on external websites. Photos shot with different camera models, or having low resolution and no EXIF.
- File:Laser group.png
- File:CNIIT RAMN.JPG
- File:Kornilova.JPG
- File:Zulfira Kornilova.JPG
- File:Boris Komberg.jpeg
A.Savin 13:27, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:16, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
Files in Category:Solkan bridge
[edit]The bridge was constructed in 1906 upon the plans by Rudolf Jaussner. It is the most important feature of the photo. There's no information about when R. Jaussner died, so it cannnot be confirmed that he died before 1945, as demanded by COM:FOP#Slovenia for the image to be free per the Commons criteria.
- File:Eisenbahnbrücke Nova Gorica.JPG
- File:Nova Gorica Solkan Eisenbahnbruecke ueber die Soca 120720069 1600x1062 88.jpg
- File:Ponte di Salcano.jpg
- File:PontediSalcano.jpg
- File:Solkanski most 1906.jpg
- File:Solkanski most čez Sočo.jpg
- File:Solkanski most čez Sočo2.jpg
- File:Solkanski-most-1906 vir SŽ ŽM Tiri in čas 10-1998.jpg
- File:SolkanskiMost1.jpg
Eleassar (t/p) 18:06, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
- Keep all. It is very likely that he died before 1945, because he would have to have been a well-established (=not very young) architect before 1906 to get such an important project. Preemptive deletion is not Commons policy and we can always delete later if it turns out that the gentleman actually outlived WWII. — Yerpo Eh? 07:12, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
- Per COM:EVIDENCE, the burden of proof is on the uploader. It's not so rare that authors who created in 1906 or before were still alive after World War II (think only of Fabiani (97 y), Zaninović (70 y), Zajec (83 y) etc., the creators of the most notable works from Slovenia from the period before 1906). In addition, the man who was actually charged with building the bridge, Leopold Örley, is described as young in this reference (the 2nd paragraph), so it's not true that these guys could not have been young. I'd say that all works created in 1895 or later (roughly 120 years) should be regarded as copyrighted until proven otherwise. --Eleassar (t/p) 09:05, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
Info Haven't found a death date, but Jaussner was active in 1887. I suppose that still doesn't rule out a death date after 1945. —LX (talk, contribs) 10:26, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
It's a grey area, and I see no practical benefit whatsoever in applying this cautionary principle so radically. In my opinion, all works from before World War I. can reasonably be assumed ok unless evidence to the contrary emerges. Especially for cases like this when it's obvious that it isn't an author's early work. The three Eleassar mentioned above lived exceptionally long for those times. — Yerpo Eh? 10:38, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
- Can you provide a source for the last two claims? After all, we can't even be sure that it is the same Rudolf Jaussner. For example, I recently searched for Franc Ravnikar. There were two, living in the same period, one was a sculptor, another was a carpenter. There are other such cases. Otherwise, Commons policy is clear and in regard to 'no practical benefit', see COM:NOT and COM:PRP. --Eleassar (t/p) 11:52, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
- COM:PRP says that a file should be deleted "if there is significant doubt about the freedom of a particular file" (with "significant" accented). I still believe there isn't - even if Jaussner was as young as 25 when he made the plans in 1903, he would be well over the average life expectancy by the end of WWII (= around 45 years for 1901 births in a comparable country [16]). — Yerpo Eh? 12:17, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
- First, this guy was not an average farmer John Doe, but a well educated and probably well-off architect. If it is so easy to cite people who lived longer, like the examples above indicate, this raises significant doubt that their life span was exceptionally long for such circles. This means that there is significant doubt whether Jaussner died before 1945, and therefore a significant doubt about the copyright-free status of the listed files. --Eleassar (t/p) 12:40, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
- You ignore two world wars that weren't so picky as far as the social status was concerned, and there's a long way from average to 1945 within the time frame we have here. There is a doubt, yes, but it's far from significant. According to a likely scenario, he was middle-aged (i.e. over 40) at the time of creation, meaning that out of your examples, only Fabiani would outlive him, and he's exceptional even by today's standards. But it looks like we'll just have to agree that we disagree, and I hope the closing admin will choose the reasonable course of action. — Yerpo Eh? 13:18, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
- The scenario sounds likely. I'll try to find some other information about R. Jaussner to provide further credence to it. Perhaps this book offers the birth and death years. --Eleassar (t/p) 14:44, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
- I got curious too, so I intend to write to some local museum with the query. — Yerpo Eh? 17:34, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
- Until then, the fact is that many notable architects lived for a long time (besides the listed ones also e.g. Vurnik - 87 years and Plečnik - 85 years). I can't remember anyone who died in the world wars. The low life expectancy at birth was primarily due to high childhood mortality. That's what I base my doubt upon; all the rest is just a guess. --Eleassar (t/p) 13:52, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
- I've verified the mentioned book (Humar, G. Kamniti velikan na Soči). It is a very fine book with a lot of details. Unfortunately it doesn't provide the birth and death years of Jaussner. It does provide the birth and death years of Leopold Örley (1872-1936). I'm afraid that these images will have to be deleted due to the lack of proof about the copyright-free status. --Eleassar (t/p) 14:54, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
- I wasn't able to get anything specific either, but I still believe that there is no significant doubt here, although we can only infer - for example, Örley is described as "young" at the time of construction (unlike Jaussner), meaning that Jaussner must have been markedly older. So even if he reached Plečnik's or Vurnik's age, it's likely that he died before 1945. — Yerpo Eh? 08:46, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
- I agree, Jaussner must have been older (I'm not sure though how much). I'd send a letter to Mr. Humar if I would know his e-mail, but otherwise I feel I have done enough to clarify the status of these images and will leave the final decision to the concluding administrator. --Eleassar (t/p) 09:11, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
- I've sent a letter to Mr. Humar and hope he will reply soon. --Eleassar (t/p) 09:20, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
- I've verified the mentioned book (Humar, G. Kamniti velikan na Soči). It is a very fine book with a lot of details. Unfortunately it doesn't provide the birth and death years of Jaussner. It does provide the birth and death years of Leopold Örley (1872-1936). I'm afraid that these images will have to be deleted due to the lack of proof about the copyright-free status. --Eleassar (t/p) 14:54, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
- The scenario sounds likely. I'll try to find some other information about R. Jaussner to provide further credence to it. Perhaps this book offers the birth and death years. --Eleassar (t/p) 14:44, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
- You ignore two world wars that weren't so picky as far as the social status was concerned, and there's a long way from average to 1945 within the time frame we have here. There is a doubt, yes, but it's far from significant. According to a likely scenario, he was middle-aged (i.e. over 40) at the time of creation, meaning that out of your examples, only Fabiani would outlive him, and he's exceptional even by today's standards. But it looks like we'll just have to agree that we disagree, and I hope the closing admin will choose the reasonable course of action. — Yerpo Eh? 13:18, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
- First, this guy was not an average farmer John Doe, but a well educated and probably well-off architect. If it is so easy to cite people who lived longer, like the examples above indicate, this raises significant doubt that their life span was exceptionally long for such circles. This means that there is significant doubt whether Jaussner died before 1945, and therefore a significant doubt about the copyright-free status of the listed files. --Eleassar (t/p) 12:40, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
- COM:PRP says that a file should be deleted "if there is significant doubt about the freedom of a particular file" (with "significant" accented). I still believe there isn't - even if Jaussner was as young as 25 when he made the plans in 1903, he would be well over the average life expectancy by the end of WWII (= around 45 years for 1901 births in a comparable country [16]). — Yerpo Eh? 12:17, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
- In case he doesn't reply or know, one final clue can be found here. On p. 62, there is an entry about a Rudolf Jaussner who was a "Technikstudent" in 1887 and later became an engineer, so almost certainly the same person. If he was in his twenties at the time (on the picture it surely looks so), it means that he was born somewhere around 1865. It isn't impossible that he survived WWII, but he'd have to be 80 or over by then. Slightly less than my first estimate, but male life expectancy in Austria today is 77, which, in my opinion, is a suitably generous and a more reliable predictor than random architects that may or may not have lived exceptionally long for people of their stature. — Yerpo Eh? 07:14, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
- There are lies, damned lies, and then there are statistics. :-) Averages really say nothing about distribution. A life expectancy of 77 could mean a quarter the population dies at 20 and the rest at 96. Wars tend to have a greater impact on distribution (particularly at the lower end) than on averages or maxima. Also keep in mind that "life expectancy" without further specification typically refers to the population's average life expectancy at birth. Life expectancy for someone having reached adult age can be significantly longer than at birth, and in the west, adult life expectancy has changed less during recent history compared to life expectancy at birth. —LX (talk, contribs) 10:31, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
- In case he doesn't reply or know, one final clue can be found here. On p. 62, there is an entry about a Rudolf Jaussner who was a "Technikstudent" in 1887 and later became an engineer, so almost certainly the same person. If he was in his twenties at the time (on the picture it surely looks so), it means that he was born somewhere around 1865. It isn't impossible that he survived WWII, but he'd have to be 80 or over by then. Slightly less than my first estimate, but male life expectancy in Austria today is 77, which, in my opinion, is a suitably generous and a more reliable predictor than random architects that may or may not have lived exceptionally long for people of their stature. — Yerpo Eh? 07:14, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
- It's hard to say anything conclusive. Mr. Humar has replied but has sent me the dates of Örley, I'll hope he'll be generous enough to reply again and send them for Jaussner. --Eleassar (t/p) 08:26, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
Kept: No reasonable doubt that these are not in the public domain, as per the discussion above. Yann (talk) 13:04, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
- Files in Category:Solkan bridge
A reasonable doubt was raised for these images, because it was shown that the author could have died after 1945.
- File:Eisenbahnbrücke Nova Gorica.JPG
- File:Nova Gorica Solkan Eisenbahnbruecke ueber die Soca 120720069 1600x1062 88.jpg
- File:Ponte di Salcano.jpg
- File:PontediSalcano.jpg
- File:Solkanski most 1906.jpg
- File:Solkanski most čez Sočo.jpg
- File:Solkanski most čez Sočo2.jpg
- File:Solkanski-most-1906 vir SŽ ŽM Tiri in čas 10-1998.jpg
- File:SolkanskiMost1.jpg
Eleassar (t/p) 15:37, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
The 'no significant doubt' claim was based on a false and rejected premise that an average lifetime can be regarded as the relevant statistical information. It was demonstrated that the average is skewed and as such unreliable. It was shown that the author was probably born around 1865, which would mean that he was 80 or a bit over in 1945. I'd like to get some other opinions whether there is really "no significant doubt" that he died before this year, particularly because it was shown that many or most of notable architects active in Slovenia in that period lived for over 80 years. Per this article, one should regard the year 1900 as the year where one is safe regarding the copyright and a similar opinion has been expressed by other users, e.g. here. The bridge was built in 1905. --Eleassar (t/p) 15:39, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
- This is getting tedious. The average life expectancy is not a perfect predictor, but unless we find a more reliable one, I suggest we leave this be. Besides, the plans for the bridge were drawn in 1903 and the article you quoted was published in 2010. Again, it's a grey area. I, for one, find the German "pragmatic rule" a lot more reasonable, and the Village pump discussion you mentioned is a perfect example of "no consensus". — Yerpo Eh? 20:42, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
- I agree. I just want some more input in regard to whether there is really "no significant doubt" that an engineer born in ca. 1865 died before 1945, because I think there is such a doubt and that the closure rationale was just made up. After all, if one takes into consideration that the "adult life expectancy has changed less during recent history compared to life expectancy at birth", the difference from 77 years or 75 years to 80 years, or better, 85, is not very extreme, particularly when there are many examples of notable people living over 80. In my opinion, this is not the first such case and there must be some rough case-based consensus about the birth year that is too early for an image to be copyrighted. I hope an experienced administrator or user will be able to provide it. In the discussion, people agreed that 100 years is too short and that over 120 years must have passed since the monument was created. As for the article, it is an article about people who constantly look for sources just for the same reason as we do, to verify the copyright status, because they develop the dLib library. With the exception that they do this professionally, so they probably know what they're talking about. --Eleassar (t/p) 21:09, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
I think we should at first agree on a statistical definition of what is a "reasonable doubt" (let's say that this means the same as "a significant likelihood of an event occurring"). Then we can simply calculate, if we agree to assume that Jaussner was born e.g. in 1865, whether the risk that he was still alive in 1945 is significant, from these pyramids and these data. If it is, the burden of proof is on the uploader. This seems fair to me. --Eleassar (t/p) 22:24, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
- Ok, I've asked impartial users at the Reference desk of the English Wikipedia. According to them, the probability for a newborn in 1865 to survive until 1945 is 15%, and to survive until 1950 is 5%.[17] This makes it apparent that the possibility he was still living in 1945 or after is not negligible. A significant doubt therefore does exist. The burden of proof is now on the uploader. --Eleassar (t/p) 14:50, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
- For males, you get 12 % surviving until 1945. This is slightly more accurate than average life expectancy, but there is no "standard definition of risk" here apart from the one we make. You have your opinion, I have mine, so I guess it falls to the closing admin again. Another useful clue could be mr. Humar's commercial work for which I doubt that he obtained permission for photographic reproductions from current owners of R. Jaussner's copyright (since he apparently doesn't know anything at all about Jaussner). It's is still not a proof, but if nothing else, it's a proof that nobody cares – so effectively, the work is free. — Yerpo Eh? 09:35, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
- You're correct that there is "no standard definition of risk" here, but it's also clear that the probability he was still living in 1945 is far from negligible (particularly as he was a well educated and probably well-off engineer and it's known that he was still living in 1909), so one has every reason to doubt the file is actually free. As to the argument that no-one cares, I'm sure you know it is not valid. Because of our scope, it is also not true. What we aim to do here is to maintain a collection of files that are free with no significant doubt about this. --Eleassar (t/p) 09:48, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
- I withdraw my nomination --Eleassar (t/p) 13:14, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
- For males, you get 12 % surviving until 1945. This is slightly more accurate than average life expectancy, but there is no "standard definition of risk" here apart from the one we make. You have your opinion, I have mine, so I guess it falls to the closing admin again. Another useful clue could be mr. Humar's commercial work for which I doubt that he obtained permission for photographic reproductions from current owners of R. Jaussner's copyright (since he apparently doesn't know anything at all about Jaussner). It's is still not a proof, but if nothing else, it's a proof that nobody cares – so effectively, the work is free. — Yerpo Eh? 09:35, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
Withdrawn Yann (talk) 08:47, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF.
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:50, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:24, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
Everything uploaded by the user probably are copyvios. He lists the sources correctly, but they were taken from random Internet sites. Except, maybe, File:Собор Алагир.jpg.
- File:Зосима.jpg
- File:Колокольня алагир.jpg
- File:Алагирский Собор.jpeg
- File:Собор Алагир.jpg
- File:В. Коняев.jpg
- File:Виктор Коняев.JPG
- File:ОсТеатр.jpg
- File:Булат Газданов.jpg
- File:Эмилия Цаллагова.jpg
- File:Адырхаева.jpg
- File:ЕленаОбразцова.jpg
- File:ВБаллаев.jpg
- File:Владимир Баллаев.jpg
Trycatch (talk) 13:02, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio Morning Sunshine (talk) 15:41, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
Derivative works of modern Soviet / Russian grave sculptures, possible copyright violation, as there is no Freedom of Panorama in Russia.
- File:Мурадели.jpg
- File:Томский.jpg
- File:Утёсов.jpg
- File:Свиридов.jpg
- File:Налбандян.jpg
- File:Свешников.jpg
- File:Малиев Г..jpg
- File:ТугановМ.jpg
A.Savin 17:10, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:28, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
Unfree images (partially stolen from the web, or reproductions of modern paintings w/o permission by the painter), all claimed as own work by the uploader.
- File:Elena obraztsova.jpg
- File:Bishop Innocenty.jpg
- File:Narechenie Antonia.jpg
- File:Archibishop Antony.jpg
- File:Bishop Antony 1975.jpg
- File:Vladimir bishop of Chita.jpg
- File:Metropolitan Lazar.jpg
- File:Antony bishop of Achtubinsk.jpg
- File:Taytiev May 1945.JPG
- File:Metropolitan Juvenaliy.jpg
- File:Патриарх Алексий I.jpg
- File:Подпись таутиева.jpg
- File:Taytiev Vladimir.jpg
- File:Taytiew pismo.jpg
- File:Taytiew na ucheniyah.jpg
- File:Taytiew v minuty zatishiya.jpg
- File:Taytiew raketny zalp.jpg
- File:Chugaewa Valeriya.jpg
- File:Zosima archibishop.png
- File:Nikogosyan.png
- File:АдырхаеваСв.png
- File:Adyrchaewa.jpg
A.Savin 01:06, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Deleted. INeverCry 01:12, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
9 uploads= 7x copyvios, 1x coincidental Panoramio-Cc-by-sa-3.0declared as "own work". This is the remaining one: Per COM:PRP - unlikely to be own work: small/inconsistent resolution, missing EXIF.
Gunnex (talk) 20:17, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:32, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Cathycampagna (talk · contribs)
[edit]Biography article, out of project scope of Commons. Commons:Project scope#Excluded educational content.
Martin H. (talk) 21:06, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 10:29, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Enrique manzullo (talk · contribs)
[edit]collection of out of scope PDFs
- File:Chagas agudo.pdf
- File:Social y laboral.pdf
- File:Terapeutica paraciticida.pdf
- File:Riesgo de muerte.pdf
- File:MEGAVISCERAS.pdf
- File:Riesgo de incapacidad.pdf
- File:CHAGAS TRANSFUSIONAL Y OTRAS FORMAS DE TRANSMISIÓN.pdf
INeverCry 21:50, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 10:32, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Nazrulbdjessore (talk · contribs)
[edit]out of scope - promotional - unused text logo and photos of non-notable persons
INeverCry 22:08, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Uncontested DR. MBisanz talk 04:09, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
possible copyvios - small sizes - no EXIF
INeverCry 22:19, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: as above, plus very bad quality, wrong format, not in use, so scope doubtful. Yann (talk) 09:25, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
possible copyvios - small sizes - no EXIF - own work claim doubtful
- File:Silvestre en el parque de la leyenda vallenata.jpg
- File:Silvestre con el Pibe.jpg
- File:Silvestredangond2.png
INeverCry 22:22, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Uncontested DR. MBisanz talk 04:09, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
possible copyvios - some of these are small with no EXIF - the rest seem to be promotional and unused and so possibly out of scope
- File:الفنان العراقي اياد في الوسط و المنتج مروان ابوالغنم.jpg
- File:الغلاف الخارجي.jpg
- File:شعار دبي مدينة الحب.jpg
- File:الفنان اللبناني وديع الصافي.jpg
- File:الفنان المصري هاني شاكر والمخرج صفوان نعمو.jpg
- File:الفنان الاماراتي عبد الله بالخير و المنتج مروان ابوالغنم.jpg
- File:الفنان المصري حمادة هلال.jpg
- File:الفنان السوري نور مهنا والمخرج صفوان نعمو.jpg
- File:صوره عن القضية المرفوعة ضد قناة موال الفضائية 2.jpg
- File:صوره عن القضية المرفوعة ضد قناة موال الفضائية 1.jpg
- File:MARWAN ABOU ALGHANAM 2.jpg
- File:MARWAN ABOU ALGHANAM.jpg
- File:ESA ALKOBESE SINGER & MARWAN ABOU ALGHANAM.jpg
- File:ABDALLA ALSAEGH & MARWAN ABOU ALGHANAM.jpg
- File:HABEB ALI SINRER & MARWAN ABOU ALGHANAM.jpg
- File:TARIQ KAMES SINGER & MARWAN ABOU ALGHANAM.jpg
- File:BEAR ASHQAR & MARWAN ABOU ALGHANAM.jpg
- File:HOSAM TAHSEN & MARWAN ABOU ALGHANAM.jpg
- File:Hatem aliraqi singer & marwan abou alghanam.jpg
- File:MARWAN AL-GHANAM MELODY ART PRODUCTION.jpg
- File:MELODY ART PRODUCTION GROUP.jpg
- File:DINA SINGER & MARWAN ABOU AL-GHANAM.jpg
- File:MARWAN ABOU AL-GHANAM MELODY ART PRODUCTION.jpg
- File:FATMA& AHMAD& MARWAN ABOU ALGHANAM.jpg
- File:AYAD SINGER & MARWAN ABOU ALGHANAM.jpg
- File:ALSHOMO BAND AND MARWAN ALGHANAM.jpg
- File:Marwan abou alghanam and hatem aliraqi singer.jpg
- File:صوره الفنان احمد الهرمي و مروان ابوالغنم.jpg
INeverCry 22:34, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
- Delete Most out of scope. Pictures of non notable people. Yann (talk) 13:55, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Uncontested DR. MBisanz talk 04:10, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Kalimbaradio (talk · contribs)
[edit]out of scope - unused personal images
- File:Shaking hands (May 2009) USC Campus, Grace Ford Salvatori Building..jpg - deleted by Yann
- File:With my shades on.jpg
_USC_Campus,_Grace_Ford_Salvatori_Building..jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
INeverCry 22:46, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. Érico Wouters msg 00:26, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
This is a picture of me that I would like either deleted, or at least have my name removed. To contact me on Wikipedia, please go here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Andrew_Parodi 140.211.66.167 05:00, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 22:25, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
.svg){kind=link}
.svg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
The Hungarian flag never existed in this form, neither officially, nor unofficially. That is why it is not used in the Hungarian wikipedia at all. --Szilas (talk) 08:31, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
.svg){kind=link}
Delete No source, no reference, out of scope, Commons spread no fantasy.
-- ΠЄΡΉΛΙΟ ℗ 13:13, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
.svg){kind=link}
- It most certainly DID exist in this form unofficially. It's well known the Hungarians cut out the communist symbol in protests, so it's an obvious Keep. Fry1989 eh? 19:23, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
- The Hungarians cut out the communist symbol from the previous flag, in 1956. After 1956 the new flag did not contain the coat-of-arms, exactly because of this experience.
- Besides, I lived through this period in Hungary and never saw this kind of flag. (I was born in 1947.)--Szilas (talk) 19:40, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
- Until you can establish that the lag was NEVER made like this, official or unofficial or otherwise, it stays. Fry1989 eh? 19:55, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
- It is an interesting idea that I should prove that something did NOT exist. I think you should prove that it DID exist. Any source?--Szilas (talk) 20:28, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
- I think it's an interesting idea that just because you never saw one, that means it doesn't exist. Fry1989 eh? 21:26, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
- I lived in this country during those 32 years, and before that, and after that.--Szilas (talk) 14:16, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
- Again, "I've never seen it, so it must not exist" is not a reason for deletion. Fry1989 eh? 18:28, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
- I lived in this country during those 32 years, and before that, and after that.--Szilas (talk) 14:16, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
- I think it's an interesting idea that just because you never saw one, that means it doesn't exist. Fry1989 eh? 21:26, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
- It is an interesting idea that I should prove that something did NOT exist. I think you should prove that it DID exist. Any source?--Szilas (talk) 20:28, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
- Until you can establish that the lag was NEVER made like this, official or unofficial or otherwise, it stays. Fry1989 eh? 19:55, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
I know this is not much, but I have seen/located flags on sites (like ebay) that show the flag with the communist arms in the middle (especially the Khadr arms). Such banners, mostly pennants or flags on pennants, can be seen at http://www.ebay.com/itm/b834-HUNGARY-COMMUNIST-PERIOD-1962-NATIONAL-FLAG-PENNANT-EMBROIDED-/140719378030?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item20c3874e6e and http://www.ebay.com/itm/Hungary-COMMUNIST-BLOC-FLAGS-PENNANT-Banner-1956-Hungarian-Revolution-Soviet-era-/330775513984?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item4d03c1cb80. It is also used on posters at times, such as http://www.ebay.com/itm/ORIGINAL-VINTAGE-POSTER-HUNGARY-UNIT-FLAG-FLAGS-1967-20X15-CM-/230865421359?pt=Art_Posters&hash=item35c0a6c42f. So yes, the flag might not have been the legal flag of Hungary (and Szilas has pointed out to me before of this fact, of which I agree with him) but to say the flag never existed in any form, regardless officially or not, is not correct. Keep User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 19:44, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
Delete, out of scope as an private artwork.--Antemister (talk) 09:35, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
.svg){kind=link}
- Dear Zscout, your examples are not real flags, but ad hoc combinations of symbols. The coat-of-arms was also used on those wide, tricolor shoulder-ribbons used by the officials at the marriage ceremonies, but is not a flag, neither.--Szilas (talk) 10:30, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
- Correct. I still believe these ad hoc combination of symbols is what confused those outside of Hungary with this flag existing and if this image is kept, it needs to be modified heavily to show reality. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 16:45, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
- It already says "unofficial", what more modification does it need? This is silly nitpicking. Fry1989 eh? 16:47, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
- Correct. I still believe these ad hoc combination of symbols is what confused those outside of Hungary with this flag existing and if this image is kept, it needs to be modified heavily to show reality. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 16:45, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
- Dear Zscout, your examples are not real flags, but ad hoc combinations of symbols. The coat-of-arms was also used on those wide, tricolor shoulder-ribbons used by the officials at the marriage ceremonies, but is not a flag, neither.--Szilas (talk) 10:30, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
Kept: Already named as unofficial Denniss (talk) 01:41, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
.svg){kind=link}
copyvios - most are small sizes with no EXIF and have various watermarks - all of the high resolution images are watermarked with "Traidnt.Net"
- File:مبنى الهندسة الكهربية.jpg
- File:حفلة تخرج.jpg
- File:مبنى الأقسام الميكانيكة.jpg
- File:Tarek Nour.jpg
- File:أبو هشيمة.jpg
- File:Katameya.jpg
- File:Masjed elhamd.jpg
- File:Morsi house.jpg
- File:Morsi home.jpg
- File:Estad.jpg
- File:Mubarak research.jpg
- File:Masjed sattar.jpg
- File:مصر 25.jpeg
- File:Abu haiba.jpg
- File:شبكة رصد.jpg
- File:ش طلعت حرب.jpg
- File:ش قصر الثقافة.jpg
- File:مسجد النادي.jpg
- File:مركز الروضة التجاري.jpg
- File:المستشفى الجامعي.jpg
- File:السنترال.jpg
- File:صلاة التراويح مسجد اللطيف الستار.jpg
- File:شارع طلعت حرب.jpg
- File:أحد البيوت.jpg
- File:بنك1.jpg
- File:بنك2.jpg
- File:بنك3.jpg
- File:مسجد الـ800.jpg
- File:مدينة المهندسين منطقة الفيلات.jpg
- File:مدرسة حسن عباس حلمي.jpg
- File:HSBC Borg elarab.jpg
- File:أمام حي البنوك و جهاز المدينة.jpg
- File:Madinat borg elarab.jpg
INeverCry 19:39, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
- I deleted images with a watermark, images of people. I don't have any reasonable doubt on the remaining ones. Yann (talk) 09:09, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
File:Katameya.jpg seems to be taken from http://www.nileestate.com/en/property/17786/katameya-heights-egypt-stand-alone-palace-for-sale-in-compound-katameya -- Robert Weemeyer (talk) 08:31, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 06:26, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
diente als Bildbeweis für ein Fake und stellt eine Person da, die es so wohl nicht gegeben hat N. Gaspari Löschdiskussion auf de.WP Machahn (talk) 22:03, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
- Da oben Anker abgeschnitten, hier der korrekte Link zur Artikellöschdiskussion auf de.wp (de:Victor N. Gaspari). --YMS (talk) 10:16, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 10:33, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
