Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2013/02/12
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
The file has copyrigh. Obvious copyvio: http://www.flickr.com/photos/embaixadaeua-caboverde/6482458483 G. Coronades | Do you have a question? 05:31, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: ARR on Flickr. INeverCry 05:53, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
- Switched to Kept: PD-USGov. INeverCry 20:08, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, is someone in danger here? Regardless, the page should be deleted. SeanZCampbell (talk) 10:22, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Speedy close -- houskeeping. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:31, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
Creating user requests deletion Dbromage (talk) 04:52, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
Keep per Commons:Deletion requests/File:Cutaway English Electric 12SVT.jpg Andy Dingley (talk) 10:41, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
Kept: Denniss (talk) 17:56, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
Creating user requests deletion Dbromage (talk) 04:52, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
- Keep per Commons:Deletion requests/File:Cutaway English Electric 12SVT.jpg Andy Dingley (talk) 10:41, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
Kept: Denniss (talk) 17:57, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
Creating user requests deletion Dbromage (talk) 04:52, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
- Keep per Commons:Deletion requests/File:Cutaway English Electric 12SVT.jpg Andy Dingley (talk) 10:41, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
Kept: Denniss (talk) 17:56, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
Obviously is a copy of Pikachu (Pokémon Company). Gusama Romero (talk) 09:10, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 17:50, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
Unused user graphic, uploader has no other live contributions other than an edit filter report. Out of project scope. ƏXPLICIT 12:20, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ahmadtalk 21:58, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
Лицензия несоответствует действительности. Это кадр из телесериала, который защищён авторским правом телекана The CW. Spillik (talk) 20:56, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . Materialscientist (talk) 23:34, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
Лицензия несоответствует действительности. Это кадр из телесериала, который защищён авторским правом телекана The CW. Spillik (talk) 21:38, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . Materialscientist (talk) 23:34, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
Commons:Project scope Polarlys (talk) 00:02, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. Yann (talk) 13:17, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
File of a dubious origin: previously deleted because of missing source; watermark of a "Yuri Dmitrienko" (who is probably not the uploader) in the lower right corner; apparently fake EXIF data ("June 2012" despite of an obviously winter photography). A.Savin 00:07, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
- A couple of questions for the nominator:
- what makes you think this image was taken in winter? Note the short sleeves in the detail I cropped.
- What triggered the concern that the exif data was faked?
- I looked at the file's log -- this is a poor choice of name. How do you know that the previously deleted image was the same as this one?
- Thanks. Geo Swan (talk) 07:18, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
- The files I see in 800x533 preview and those I see (now) as thumbnail are different ones. --A.Savin 08:24, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
- I think you are saying you nominated the wrong image due to some kind of weird anomaly with your browser's cache. Is that what you meant? If it is are you still planning to nominate the actual image for deletion? In that case shouldn't you update the nomination? Geo Swan (talk) 00:19, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
- The files I see in 800x533 preview and those I see (now) as thumbnail are different ones. --A.Savin 08:24, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
- Note: I requested restoration of File:Detail of Moscow City, short sleeves show this is not a winter picture .jpg at COM:Undeletion requests. Geo Swan (talk) 02:32, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
Comment I just deleted and restore the image to see what would happen. Unfortunately, the preview still does not match the 100%. I have no idea what is going on, but we should resolve this issue first before considering deletion. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:28, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
- Filed as bugzilla:44983. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:35, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
- Thank you. And yes, the image is actually unproblematic if it's those one we see in 100% view. --A.Savin 09:52, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
- Filed as bugzilla:44983. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:35, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
- Comment: (Leaving aside the confusion about the previous deleted file of the same name, this comment adresses the issue of the current file only.) A user had placed speedy deletion tags on two of this uploader's (User:Bawdiest) eight files and one of those two files was speedy deleted. That was because the photos are also present in a Flickr user's (mikmak_storm) account (see his set "Russia" on Flickr). For example, this photo, File:Moscow City.jpg, is IMG_8717.jpg. The questioning of the uploads for that reason was fair. However, the uploads could be legitimate. If the uploader is a copyright infringer, then he is a perfectionist one, as he has somehow guessed or found the real name (Mikhail Makarov) of the Flickr user and has credited him in his first upload to Commons. He would also have to go through the extra trouble of uploading the files to Commons under a reduced size (1980x1320) which is not available in the sizes on Flickr. After being notified in German, the uploader replied on his talk page. If I get the idea, he seems to say he sent something to the German-language Wikimedia permissions, some sort of Flickr invitation, as that's the only thing available for him to send from his Flickr account, as he can't send mail from Flickr. Maybe someone having access to permissions.de can have a look at it and see if it that explanation looks believable. Of course, one might say that it would be easier if the Flickr user changed the licensing of his Flickr photos to CC-by-sa. But there are legitimate reasons why a user may want to reserve all his rights on the higher resolution versions on Flickr while offering the Commons versions under a free license. Or maybe he just doesn't know that he can change the specific licensing of those few photos on Flickr. -- Asclepias (talk) 20:12, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
- I left a note on the flickr image description page. Geo Swan (talk) 02:19, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
- With regard to this bug -- which hasn`t appeared for me -- has anyone compared the rogue image to the previously deleted image? If that is the case maybe all that is required for a temporary fix of this particular image would be to give this image a different name? It needs a better name, anyhow. Geo Swan (talk) 02:24, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
Withdrawn this DR. File has been renamed. --A.Savin 18:22, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
Windows 7 UI is non-free, copyrighted email message displayed as well. ViperSnake151 (talk) 00:07, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:22, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
Derivative work of a 1990s sculpture by Tsereteli (still alive), no Panorama Freedom in Russia. A.Savin 00:12, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:22, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
Photo made in 1962. Declared as self-made work by the uploader, but unlikely being it. No info on true photographer, no permission. A.Savin 00:28, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:22, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
fonte falsa 177.132.69.128 00:39, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
- Translating "fake source". Flickr link doesn't exist. It's the same situation for File:Pollo vpdm.jpg, that is tagged for speedy deletion. Ednei amaral (talk) 04:58, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:22, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
Meets the Commons:Threshold_of_originality#United_Kingdom so too complex for us to keep it. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 00:58, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:24, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
this is duplicate logo (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:CBeebies.svg) Hector Augustus (talk) 22:07, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
Delete Copyvio. Fry1989 eh? 00:37, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
Gone --Denniss (talk) 11:52, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
Private picture of user, out of project scope. Martin H. (talk) 01:01, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. Yann (talk) 13:38, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Not a simple logo made up of shapes/or type faces. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 01:07, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:24, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
Bad file. Fry1989 eh? 01:10, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:24, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
out of scope - no educational value - unused personal artwork INeverCry 01:14, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. Yann (talk) 13:39, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
out of scope - no educational value - unused personal artwork INeverCry 01:15, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. Yann (talk) 13:39, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
out of scope - only link is to AFC declined for lack of notability INeverCry 01:16, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 04:22, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
out of scope - unused text logo INeverCry 01:18, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 04:22, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
out of scope - low quality - better version in use (File:Buchananband.jpg) INeverCry 01:21, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 04:22, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
possible copyvio - small size - no EXIF - own work claim doubtful INeverCry 01:23, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 04:22, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
Il ne s'agit pas d'une photo récente du Collège, la croix était en restauration lors de la prise de cette photo. Collegebrebeuf (talk) 01:24, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
- Keep Pas une raison valable pour la suppression. C'est une photo historique, comme des milliers d'autres photos historiques sur ce site. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 02:11, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
out of scope - unused image of non-notable person INeverCry 01:27, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. Yann (talk) 13:40, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
out of scope - unused personal image INeverCry 01:33, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. Yann (talk) 13:40, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
out of scope - no educational value - low quality INeverCry 01:35, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. Yann (talk) 13:40, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
out of scope - unused text logo INeverCry 01:40, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 09:07, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
out of scope - unused personal image INeverCry 01:42, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. Yann (talk) 13:41, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
out of scope - unused personal image INeverCry 01:43, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. Yann (talk) 13:41, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
out of scope - unused personal image INeverCry 01:47, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. Yann (talk) 13:41, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
out of scope - unused text logo INeverCry 01:51, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 04:22, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
out of scope - unused personal image INeverCry 01:56, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. Yann (talk) 13:42, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
out of scope - no educational value - unused personal artwork INeverCry 02:06, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. Yann (talk) 13:46, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
out of scope - promotional - unused text logo - single upload of user INeverCry 02:09, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 04:22, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
possible copyvio - small size - no EXIF - own work claim doubtful INeverCry 02:14, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 13:56, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
possible copyvio - small size - no EXIF - own work claim doubtful INeverCry 02:15, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 13:58, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
out of scope - promotional image INeverCry 02:16, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 04:22, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
out of scope - no educational value INeverCry 02:20, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. Yann (talk) 13:58, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
out of scope INeverCry 02:21, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. Yann (talk) 13:59, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
out of scope - unused image of non-notable person INeverCry 02:24, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 04:23, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
out of scope - unused personal image INeverCry 02:25, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. Yann (talk) 14:00, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
possible copyvio - small size - no EXIF - own work claim doubtful INeverCry 02:26, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 14:00, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
out of scope - no educational value at this tiny size INeverCry 02:27, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
Delete or 
Replace with a higher resolution image. Nicoli Maege (talk) 19:41, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. Yann (talk) 14:01, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
out of scope - promotional image INeverCry 02:30, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 04:23, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
out of scope - promotional image/logo INeverCry 02:31, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 04:24, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
out of scope - promotional - unused text logo - single upload of user INeverCry 02:34, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 04:24, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
Pornographic; currently unused, and also unlikely to be within the scope of the Wikimedia Commons project. -- 83.100.152.133 02:42, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
- Keep No reason to delete. Yann (talk) 07:24, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
- Delete I see no reason to keep this manipulated (does not really look like painted onto her) image. --Denniss (talk) 18:07, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
- Keep, a most unique form of artistic expression, I see no reason to delete this useful image. -- Cirt (talk) 05:31, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
- Keep This picture (rather harmless, imho) is part of a series from the same artist which had already been discussed, see Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Nude portrayals of computer technology. --Momotaro (talk) 15:06, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Kept: as above. Yann (talk) 13:15, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
There is no evidence that files from the Mexican Senate website are available under a licence which complies with COM:L -- this is includes able to be used for commercial usage, derivative works, is perpetual and irrevocable. This will affect all files in Category:Mexican Senate Copyright. russavia (talk) 04:45, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 03:09, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
There is no evidence that files from the Mexican Presidency website are available under a licence which complies with COM:L -- this is includes able to be used for commercial usage, derivative works, is perpetual and irrevocable. This will affect all files in Category:Mexican Presidency Copyright. russavia (talk) 04:47, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
- Hmmm. The bottom of the main website page has the term "Some rights reserved" which is often indicative of a CC license. But there are no links to any explicit terms, which is more than just a little troubling for a tag. It's possible it was more obvious on older versions of the website (or something in the Spanish-language pages that I'm missing), and some research should be done, but if nothing can be found this tag can't stay, nor any images solely relying on it. Carl Lindberg (talk) 08:24, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 03:08, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
User requests deletion Dbromage (talk) 04:51, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
- Keep per Commons:Deletion requests/File:Cutaway English Electric 12SVT.jpg Andy Dingley (talk) 10:41, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
Kept: No reason to delete. Yann (talk) 13:19, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
Creating user requests deletion Dbromage (talk) 04:51, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
Keep Keep and restore. There is no simple user-request right for deletion at Commons. If the user has some good Commons-acceptable reason for deletion, you're going to have to be a bit clearer as to the reason for it. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:36, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
- Given http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Changing_username/Current_requests#Dbromage_.E2.86.92_gqulnljpeutkzgzm
- and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Dbromage/Archive
- I'm not seeing any need to delete these for other reasons. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:19, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
- File:QR McKeen.jpg
- File:Beaudesert Shire Tramway Foden 1944.jpg
- File:Beaudesert Shire Tramway 185.jpg
- Kept - old, PD. Andy Dingley (talk)
- File:1262 Workshops Rail Museum.JPG
- File:DL1 Workshops Rail Museum.JPG
- File:PB15 732 Workshops Rail Museum.JPG
- File:A10 No.6 Workshops Rail Museum.JPG
- File:DD17 1051 Workshops Rail Museum.JPG
- File:1281 Workshops Rail Museum.JPG
- Keep
Public domain images. They do not belong to the uploader.Images in use. License is irrevocable. Yann (talk) 13:53, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
- The older ones might be, but the recent ones are the uploader's and not PD. There are some other old ones too that have never been tagged. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:26, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
- Delete - These are my own work and not PD. I wish them to be deleted. Dbromage (talk) 00:43, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
- I see that you removed old images. Yann (talk) 05:56, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
- I've restored their list. If Dbromage is going to continue disruptive moves like that, I'd request a re-blocking.
- There is no en:template:db-u1 user deletion right on Commons as there is on WP. A valid upload and licence on Commons is irrevocable. If you have some reason to delete them (they're not actually yours, or there's some personality rights issue), then you're going to have to be clear than just "I want". Thanks for confirming that they are definitely yours. Given your actions and blocks at WP, I'm not inclined to see this deletion request as anything other than disruptive pique. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:46, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
Kept: No reason to delete. Yann (talk) 13:16, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
Creating user requests deletion Dbromage (talk) 04:52, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
- Keep per Commons:Deletion requests/File:Cutaway English Electric 12SVT.jpg Andy Dingley (talk) 10:41, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
Kept: No reason to delete. Yann (talk) 13:16, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
Creating user requests deletion Dbromage (talk) 04:52, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
- Keep per Commons:Deletion requests/File:Cutaway English Electric 12SVT.jpg Andy Dingley (talk) 10:41, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
Kept: No reason to delete. Yann (talk) 13:16, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
Creating user requests deletion Dbromage (talk) 04:52, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
- Keep per Commons:Deletion requests/File:Cutaway English Electric 12SVT.jpg Andy Dingley (talk) 10:41, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
Kept: No reason to delete. Yann (talk) 13:16, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
Creating user requests deletion Dbromage (talk) 04:52, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
- Keep per Commons:Deletion requests/File:Cutaway English Electric 12SVT.jpg Andy Dingley (talk) 10:41, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
Kept: No reason to delete. Yann (talk) 13:16, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
Creating user requests deletion. Dbromage (talk) 05:04, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
Kept: No reason to delete. Yann (talk) 13:17, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
Copyvio per Commons:Freedom of panorama#Syria. This was designed by Syrian sculptor Abdallah al-Sayed in 1993.
- File:Salahaddin.jpg
- File:Chatillon in Damascus.jpg
- File:Damasco il SaladinoHPIM3262 2.JPG
- File:Damascus(js) 6.jpg
- File:Damascus(js) 7.jpg
- File:Damascus(js) 8.jpg
- File:Dimashq-salahuddin208.jpg
- File:Standbeeld Saladin Damascus.JPG
- File:Statue of Saladin, Damascus.jpg
Takabeg (talk) 05:08, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:27, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
description attributes origin of file to Facebook site, the University also has own website. Very unlikely to be covered by the license claimed by uploader. Previous deletion of file with same name in 2013 for copyvio. Drchriswilliams (talk) 19:33, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination; complex logos need permission. --Gbawden (talk) 08:47, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
Copyrighted by SCB, Statistics Sweden. No evidence of acceptable license (indeed, no evidence of any permission of free use at the supplied URL) Sjö (talk) 05:59, 12 February 2013 (UTC) A new file has been uploaded, where the copyright information is removed. It's still an image produced by Statistics Sweden. 31.193.207.2 11:44, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
Kept: PD-ineligible. Yann (talk) 14:05, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Copyright. Only contribution of user. No meta data, Higher resolution image at http://www.diytrade.com/china/pd/7814816/oriental_coat_Wall_finish_Wall_covering_Silk_plaster_Wallpaper_Wall_clothing.html Wouter (talk) 08:27, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:28, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
It seems to be copied from Google Maps. -Kattegatt (talk) 09:27, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:28, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
Work by Boris Kobe (1905-1981); per COM:FOP#Slovenia, not free for Commons. Eleassar (t/p) 10:00, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
- For the same reason:
- --Eleassar (t/p) 10:02, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
Agree, this one is obvious. — Yerpo Eh? 10:09, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:28, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
Image obviously not the work of the uploader (see also the other uploads of Abdessamed-88) Hektor (talk) 10:32, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: by Courcelles. Yann (talk) 14:10, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Image obviously not the work of the uploader (see also the other uploads of Abdessamed-88) Hektor (talk) 10:33, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: by Courcelles. Yann (talk) 14:11, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Image obviously not the work of the uploader (see also the other uploads of Abdessamed-88) Hektor (talk) 10:34, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: by Courcelles. Yann (talk) 14:11, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Image obviously not the work of the uploader (see also the other uploads of Abdessamed-88) Hektor (talk) 10:34, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: by Courcelles. Yann (talk) 14:11, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Image obviously not the work of the uploader (see also the other uploads of Abdessamed-88) Hektor (talk) 10:35, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: by Courcelles. Yann (talk) 14:11, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Creator, Henri Martin, died in 1943 so the painting is not PD until 2014. Painting was made in 1900 so URAA-PD. Léna (talk) 11:35, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:30, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
Possible copyright violation. Small files with no EXIF and own work claims are doubtful. This file should be deleted as per COM:PRP. Takabeg (talk) 11:39, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:31, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
Possible copyright violation. Small files with no EXIF and own work claims are doubtful. This file should be deleted as per COM:PRP. Takabeg (talk) 11:41, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:31, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
No evidence that uploader owns copyright. Image - or variants of it - are all over the web on dubious sites, including http://www.perfectpeople.net/photo-picture-image/154271/catherine-siachoque.htm, http://www.tvrage.com/person/id-309569/Catherine%20Siachoque, http://www.magweb.com/actors/catherine_siachoque and http://latinas100.wordpress.com/2011/01/21/catherine-siachoque-2/. Bbb23 (talk) 12:03, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:32, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
Copyrighted image, no evidence of OTRS permission, cnnot be released under CC by anonymous editor. Randykitty (talk) 12:24, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:32, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope: Commons is no private photo album High Contrast (talk) 12:35, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:33, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
Rights of the uploader to release this under CC-BY-SA are dubious - whilst uploader appears to be a role account of the museum, this would still constitutea a non-free logo unless the uploader's identity and rights to the image can be confirmed via OTRS. Yunshui (talk) 13:31, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:33, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
Probably not own work: very small size, no EXIF. Yann (talk) 13:45, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:33, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
Probably not own work: very small size, no EXIF. Yann (talk) 13:46, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:33, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
Probably not own work: very small size, no EXIF. Yann (talk) 13:46, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:33, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
The file page say the author created the file recently, but there the photo is already exist on many web sites. 維基小霸王 (talk) 13:45, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:33, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
Copyvio (famous French artist Dunoyer de Segonzac dies in 1974) Remi Mathis (talk) 14:08, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Per nom: creaotr died in 1974, copyrighted until 2045 Jean-Fred (talk) 22:12, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
Unnecessary and out-of-date request to change data. It has been changed by the asking user Blackfish (talk) 15:02, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
- As the author of the request, I agree. Nova (talk) 09:25, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 02:43, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
Delete, empty category Friedrichstrasse (talk) 15:35, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 02:48, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
Is is possible to claim it under the threshold of originality? I don't think so Ecemaml talk to me/habla conmigo 17:17, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:35, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
Unused genealog map; duplicate of ru:Template:Родственники Потемкина. Errors in the captions. Unuseful.-- Kaganer (talk) 17:17, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:35, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
Modern painting of a medieval king. Obviously not own work as claimed by original uploader in 2006. True source and artist unknown. May or may not be PD-art. There seems to be an artist's signature in Georgian, which I can't read. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:00, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
- Delete. Both files should be deleted. The author is the modern painter Giorgi Gegechkori. There's no evidence that he has released his works in public domain.--Kober (talk) 18:40, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: modern painter work. Geagea (talk) 06:33, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
Modern (19th or 20th century) painting of medieval queen. Claim of PD-old unsubstantiated; no information about authorship provided. Might be much more recent than "c. 19th century" as asserted by uploader. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:06, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
- See Commons:Deletion requests/File:Queen Tamar of Georgia (1160-1213).jpg and her. Geagea (talk) 04:10, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
Kept: per Commons:Deletion requests/File:Queen Tamar of Georgia (1160-1213).jpg PierreSelim (talk) 07:17, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
Coat of arms of Brazilian municipality pt:Abadia de Goiás founded in 1995, failing {{PD-BrazilGov}} = "(...) prior to 1983." No trivial text logo, failing {{PD-textlogo}}. Gunnex (talk) 18:33, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
- Delete. {{PD-BrazilGov}} was misleading at the time the file was uploaded; see Commons talk:Licensing/Archive 34#Brazilian coats of arms. —LX (talk, contribs) 20:28, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:36, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
Probably not own work: small size, all other uploads are copyvios. Yann (talk) 19:08, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:36, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
Probably not own work: small size, no EXIF, all other uploads are copyvios. Yann (talk) 19:10, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:36, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
Probably not own work: small size, no EXIF, all other uploads are copyvios. Yann (talk) 19:11, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:36, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
Is this template in scope? It looks to me like something from WP, but not something we need here. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:34, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
- Keep - I argue it serves a useful purpose helping users navigate between Senator's pages. Ideally, all of these pages should be created since these figures are producing a lot of public domain images (PD-USGov) on their websites. --Tom (talk - email) 20:02, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
Kept: No consensus to delete FASTILY (TALK) 03:04, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
Copyright violations falsely claimed to be own work. All these images are available on the web and easily found using search engines. The uploader, Pauchpedia (talk · contribs), has a history of uploading copyrighted images without permission. PCock (talk) 21:40, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
- File:Chantal Karam.jpg
- File:Chantal Karam, winter shoot.jpg
- File:Chantal Karam, magazine shoot.jpg
- File:Chantal Karam, photoshoot.jpg
- File:Chantal Karam, contestants.jpg
- File:Chantal Karam, coronation night.jpg
Deleted: INeverCry 00:37, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
I'm the uploader, and decided to remove it by repentance. Mam.mel (talk) 22:24, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: by Érico Júnior Wouters. Yann (talk) 14:16, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
The image is of low resolution and there are no valid EXIF information. It is highly likely not the uploader's own work. High Contrast (talk) 22:55, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 14:18, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope: Commons is no private photo album High Contrast (talk) 23:09, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. Yann (talk) 14:18, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope: Commons is no private photo album High Contrast (talk) 23:09, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. Yann (talk) 14:18, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
The image is of low resolution and there are no valid EXIF information. It is highly likely not the uploader's own work. High Contrast (talk) 23:42, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
Well this picture is an image with an a better resolution than the last that I upload, the picture was taken in the Les Enfoires show and is not low resolution, so I ask please don't nominee every picture that I upload at this portal and encyclopedia because yes is my own work and I been doing this in long time a go so I don't think that someone can teach me something that the online instructorial guide of Wikipedia can't and the fact that my "ID" look's that someone new don't mean that I don't know what I'm doing I made this count because I lost some old count that I don't remember the password so thanks for the help.--Greek89 (talk) 00:21, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
- Because of this low resolution it is not so clear that this image is your own work: upload it in a higher resolution (~ 2 MPixels) and one can believe what you are claiming. --High Contrast (talk) 14:34, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Blatant copyvio, not own work. Martin H. (talk) 20:06, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
The image is of low resolution and there are no valid EXIF information. It is highly likely not the uploader's own work. High Contrast (talk) 23:44, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyright violation. Martin H. (talk) 19:58, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
The copyright owner of this image is "Davi de Almeida" as the camera metadata and the flickr source state, not the flickr account owner. Commons might need COM:OTRS permission from Davi de Almeida here. Leoboudv (talk) 23:49, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:38, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
A PUF. I do not understand Russian. Hence, cannot say anything about copyright notice. However, date of blogpost is 29 Nov. 2012. SeanZCampbell (talk) 08:23, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: http://www.pravda.ru/photo/album/20853/8/, reproduction prohibited (very bottom of the page). Martin H. (talk) 02:46, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
Three Dublicate. Keep first and last Logo. PhWüst (talk) 09:12, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
Kept: but marked with "no permission". JuTa 01:18, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
Photographic stuff from http://seagall.livejournal.com/. Needs permission.
A.Savin 00:17, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:22, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
Copyright-protected logo & uploads available on external websites. Supposed copyright violation, missing permission by true author(s).
A.Savin 00:21, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:22, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
The HLN logo was "non-fre content" when EEIM copied it in PNG format and uploaded it to Commons. I have moved the SVG here as File:HLN logo.svg because it's obviously too simply under US copyright law. However, EEIM needs to learn to not copy "non-free content" from other Wikipedias and just upload it here, that causes problems. Fry1989 eh? 22:05, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
Do What You Want--EEIM (talk) 05:05, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
Kept: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 23:59, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Unused, replaced by File:HLN logo.svg. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 00:51, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:24, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
out of scope - promotional images/images of non-notable persons - unused text logo
- File:Chef-Daniel-2.jpg
- File:Chef-Daniel.jpg
- File:Chef Scannell Head Shot.JPG
- File:Culinary Olympic Team USA 2004.jpg
- File:CMCLOGO.jpg
INeverCry 01:26, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 04:23, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
Files uploaded by حزب التنمية والتطوير (talk · contribs)
[edit]out of scope
- File:Development party of libya.pdf
- File:For leaders of development party only.pdf
- File:Member of development party paper.pdf
INeverCry 01:35, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. Yann (talk) 13:39, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Amandineelb (talk · contribs)
[edit]out of scope - promotional - unused text logos - single uploads of user
INeverCry 01:44, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 04:22, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
out of scope - no educational value - unused low quality images
INeverCry 02:04, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. Yann (talk) 13:42, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
out of scope - no educational value - unused personal artwork
INeverCry 02:08, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. Yann (talk) 13:51, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Map images come from http://oldmapsofacadianationalpark.blogspot.com/2016/11/maps-of-abandoned-and-lost-trails-in.html
Ytoyoda (talk) 13:16, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 16:11, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
possible copyvios - small sizes - no EXIF - own work claim doubtful
INeverCry 02:12, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 13:54, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Files uploaded by AngelMonreal (talk · contribs)
[edit]possible copyvios - small sizes - no EXIF - own work claim doubtful
INeverCry 02:13, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 13:57, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Files uploaded by ValeHunterBiebs (talk · contribs)
[edit]out of scope - promotional images
INeverCry 02:15, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 04:23, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
out of scope - unused personal images
INeverCry 02:25, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 04:23, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Pravinbell (talk · contribs)
[edit]out of scope - promotional images - also (c) Rana Snehal per EXIF
- File:The Flour Works - Outside facade.JPG
- File:The Flour Works - Display counters for Bakery.JPG
- File:The Flour Works - Ambience.JPG
INeverCry 02:37, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 04:24, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
out of scope - promotional images - only links are to year-old declined AFC
INeverCry 02:38, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 04:24, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
No need for this particular template: we should instead use {{Convert to SVG|musical notation}} or maybe a shorthand like {{Convert to SVG|mn}}; there aren't other templates like this (e.g. {{Convert to SVG-MI}} for Military Insignia) Ricordisamoa 09:38, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 02:58, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
Excuse me, I didn't think of possible inclusions of the template before nominating it for deletion, so I re-created it and put all files in a category; now I have replaced all occurrences of it (with VisualFileChange) and now it can be definitively deleted. Ricordisamoa 22:47, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Márcia da Silva Katzeir (talk · contribs)
[edit]After identifying today several uploads as copyvio: IMHO untrusted user uploading a bunch of copyrighted material (small/inconsistent resolutions, missing exif etc.) so these one (unknown source) can't be believed either. As usually, the uploader cropped the files. File:Xavier da Silva.PNG and File:Vicente machado.JPG are paintings from unknown authors: They may be in public domain but relevant info must be provided. Same case for File:Miguel Bakun.jpg (1909-1963, taken in 1940s?) which fails {{PD-BR-1937}}.
- File:Xavier da Silva.PNG
- File:Armazem santa ana salgado filho.PNG
- File:Armazem santa ana uberaba.jpg
- File:Armazem santa ana curitiba.jpg
- File:Antigo Matadouro do Guabirotuba.PNG
- File:Ivo Rodrigues.PNG
- File:Vicente machado.JPG
- File:Miguel Bakun.jpg
- File:Bosque zaninelli.jpg
Gunnex (talk) 10:04, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:29, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
Blurry, noisy, low-quality self-pics of no realistic educational application -- i.e. COM:VAGINAS, COM:PORN
- File:Vaginal fingering.jpg
- File:Shaved female genitalia.JPG
- File:Post pregnancy breasts.jpg
- File:Female genitalia view from behind.jpg
- File:My breasts.jpg
Rrburke (talk) 14:58, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
- I'd swear I've deleted File:Shaved female genitalia.JPG twice, maybe it was just something similar, unsure. I'd say the post-pregnancy breasts maybe has merit, but no, not great photographs. -mattbuck (Talk) 17:17, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
- You probably have - this isn't their first account. Perhaps if you keep deleting their uploads they will get the message that only penis shots are immune from deletion here. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:07, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
- Oh do shut up. Go and be a troll elsewhere. russavia (talk) 19:52, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
- Please don't speak to me that way. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 04:30, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
- Oh do shut up. Go and be a troll elsewhere. russavia (talk) 19:52, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
- You probably have - this isn't their first account. Perhaps if you keep deleting their uploads they will get the message that only penis shots are immune from deletion here. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:07, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
- Delete Instead of opining with trolling comments as per ^ ^ these images obviously should be deleted as low quality photographs for which there would be little, if any, scope for. If they were higher quality photos, I would have a different opinion perhaps. russavia (talk) 07:49, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
- As far as the scope and quality of the photos go, the first two files File:Vaginal fingering.jpg and File:Shaved female genitalia.JPG are the only two that should warrant the possibility for deletion. Am I right Mattbuck? -User:jamjam625
Deleted: per nominator PierreSelim (talk) 07:19, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
Files uploaded by DiezelSun777 (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of scope artwork created by the uploader without obvious educational use. Commons is not a free web host. See also Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by_DiezelSun777
- File:Άλλοι.jpg
- File:Adam Lambert σύρεται DiezelSun..jpg
- File:Znaki.jpg
- File:Esoterix77.jpg
- File:UFO's.jpg
- File:НЛОошник.jpg
- File:Майка D.S..jpg
- File:DiezelSun77.jpg
- File:Иисус Хритос.jpg
- File:Татарников С.jpg
- File:Татарников Александр.jpg
- File:Diezelsun.jpg
- File:DiezelSun.jpg
- File:DiezelSun, Diezel Sun.jpg
Rrburke (talk) 15:20, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. Yann (talk) 14:14, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Montybenedict (talk · contribs)
[edit]Likely copyvios, one of [1] and for the other [2] (slide 27) predates the upload to Commons.
January (talk) 17:47, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:35, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
Uploader has claimed works by two different photographers, Alexander Chernyshev and Natalia Pogudina, as "own work", raising significant doubt about the freedom of the files.
Rrburke (talk) 22:46, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 14:18, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
SVG exists at File:AB5.svg Fry1989 eh? 01:02, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Per uncontested DR. MBisanz talk 13:53, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
SVG exists at File:AB3B.svg Fry1989 eh? 01:03, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Per uncontested DR. MBisanz talk 13:53, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
SVG exists at File:AB3A.svg Fry1989 eh? 01:04, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Per uncontested DR. MBisanz talk 13:54, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
out of scope - unused personal image INeverCry 02:26, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Per uncontested DR. MBisanz talk 13:54, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
Vandalism - First, note the errors in the date field. Second, the image is an alteration of File:David Miscavige - Portrait.jpg, just flipping it horizontally. C.Fred (talk) 13:15, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Per uncontested DR. MBisanz talk 13:54, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
No source of photographer given. Reverdy died in 1960. Alinea (talk) 15:20, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Per uncontested DR. MBisanz talk 13:54, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
Upload wrote picture K.b.cheng (talk) 17:14, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Per uncontested DR. MBisanz talk 13:54, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
Upload wrong picture K.b.cheng (talk) 17:15, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Per uncontested DR. MBisanz talk 13:54, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
borrar duplicado. Xiuhtecuhtli (talk) 18:39, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Per uncontested DR. MBisanz talk 13:54, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
Author Permission B4n92uid (talk) 20:11, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Per uncontested DR. MBisanz talk 13:54, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
"Os dados podem ser utilizados livremente desde que se faça referência ao IPPAR como fonte de informação, agradecendo-se que, sempre que se detectarem deficiências, lhe seja comunicado, de modo a proceder-se à respectiva correcção. Estas informações deverão ser transmitidas através do e-mail: ippar@ippar.pt"[3] [emphasized by me]. If I understand this correctly, basically, if you detect some error in the work, you are obliged to contact them by email. This is a condition in conflict with commons licensing policy, reminiscent in its nature of the obnoxious BSD advertising clause. Also, "utilizados livremente" (free use) is ambiguous. --Rtc 08:20, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- Wrong. The disclaimer states that data from IPPAR may be used freely as long as there is a reference to the source, IPPAR; they will appreciate if you/we report errors so they can corrected them. You are *not* obliged to anything, except for the reference, which is a common procedure in copyright [GFDL also requires that]. -- Nuno Tavares ☜ PT 14:55, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for the clarification. The GFDL explicitly permits derivative work and commercial use; this license doesn't. --Rtc 17:06, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
- Delete This statment is no more avaiable at the IPPAR website. Manuel Anastácio (talk • contribs) tryed to contact the copyright holder with no results (see here, in portuguese) Lugusto • ※ 01:57, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
_6.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_7.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_8.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
..png){kind=link}
..png&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
..png){kind=link}
..png){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpeg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpeg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpeg){kind=link}
.jpeg){kind=link}
.jpeg){kind=link}
![[1]](http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/45293000/jpg/_45293194_161164.jpg){kind=link}
Keep Hey people, the statement is still there, in the "Pesquisa de Património" section. It can be seen here. Thus, the template can still be kept. Another thought: when they state "data can be used freely" (Os dados podem ser utilizados livremente) with the condition that "IPPAR be cited as reference" (desde que se faça referência ao IPPAR), then it must mean that the information concerning the Portuguese monuments in the site, including images (which are clearly part of the "data" provided by the site), are free to be used. They do not establish any condition appart from attribution. If one day IPPAR changes its mind and decides to state that the images cannot be used, then we stop using them, but right now they are clearly granting anyone the right to use them freely. This is literally what the Portuguese sentence in here means. --Fulviusbsas 02:37, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
- The statement is still available, and in my opinion, it means "use for whatever you want, as long as...". Maybe we could try to contact IPPAR again and check if that is really what they mean. Lusitana 15:48, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
template kept --ALE! ¿…? 11:24, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
This says that images are available for private use only, and additionally "Permission is required for using any material available on this website for other purposes, including commercial purposes. Each request will be analysed on a case by case basis in conformity with existing regulations and under the conditions set out thereof." This is clearly not what the template states, and even then the text in template allows them to revoke any permission, which does not conform with COM:L. This will affect all images in Category:Images from IPPAR. russavia (talk) 04:52, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
- This template was kept before... it's entirely possible the licensing terms have changed, in which case we need to determine when, and put a cutoff date on the tag, not delete it. The original licensing terms were here; the date on that was May 23, 2009, and is the last date in the Internet Archive for that link. It appears the website and organization name changed shortly after that (from IPPAR to IGESPAR) and the terms also seem to have changed. So anything using this template after mid-2009 or so would seem to be bad. But, this template was kept before, so uploads from that era should still be allowed I think (and the template needs to be kept to support them, but of course the wording needs to be changed quite a bit). Carl Lindberg (talk) 07:59, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
No clear consensus to delete. Looks like a cutoff date should be established to prevent new images that do not meet the licensing requirements described in the tag from being uploaded with it. -FASTILY (TALK) 00:37, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
No scope, also the ECB made a ruling disallowing Sede Vecante coins. Fry1989 eh? 23:58, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 22:28, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
Posible violación de derechos. Esta imagen se encuentra en varios sitios (como: [4], [5] [6], etc.). No encontré la versión original, sin embargo es evidente que está imagen ha sido modificada de otra sin señalar la fuente. Gusama Romero (talk) 09:12, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
![[4]](http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-_RpWOjcH4hQ/TXwWb4HogcI/AAAAAAAAC-g/lIHVbBeeFxc/s400/chicas-emos-06.jpg){kind=link}
![[5]](http://modaellas.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/10/10388410-12565643.jpg?){kind=link}
![[6]](http://s3.argim.net/files/w/chicas_emos_06_240x400_240x400.jpg){kind=link}
- Possible copyvio. This image is in several places. Did not find the original version, however it is obvious that this image has been modified from another without indicating the source. --Gusama Romero (talk) 18:00, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
- Not cropped version of this photo in google search. --Gusama Romero (talk) 18:11, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 22:28, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
File:Generate mathematical exercises - adding subtracting numbers - level random (range 7 to 707, 7 to 907, 7 to 1107).pdf
[edit]Very low content: This file shows a list of simple mathematical exercises. It was created as part of b:Mathematik: Schulmathematik: Mathematik für die Grundschule (de-WB: Maths for Primary School). It's not appropriate to put a C++ program to create a LaTeX file and a pdf file with those simple exercises into this site. Therefore I reverted the changes and deleted the section "Lernmittel". By the same reasons, the pdf file doesn't have any value for commons. Juetho (talk) 15:24, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 22:28, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
Although based on simple geometrical shapes, the fact that it's hand-made makes me think it's not so obviously under the threshold of originality. Opinions? Ecemaml talk to me/habla conmigo 11:40, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 22:28, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
Not so certain about this being in PD. James Anthony Wills never was a white house employee EvilFreD overleg 05:48, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 22:28, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
Vague sourcing and no evidence of licensing or permission DMacks (talk) 11:59, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
- This pic is taken by my friend "Rifat Ahsan", he shared this pic in facebook and permitted me to share this on wikipedia. Should I ask him to re-upload this picture by opening an account in wikipedia or it is ok to modify information by me? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Msnat (talk • contribs) 09:45, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
- It's best if he makes the explicit release himself, either by creating an account and uploading it (or at least confirming on the image-page that he's the photographer and intends to release) or via email to Commons:OTRS. Either way, he'd need to release it for much more than "share on Wikipedia" (for example, the explicit permissions listed in the creative-commons tag you used). DMacks (talk) 10:06, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
- I sent an email to OTRS but did not get any return reply. I own this work now so can I update the pic accordingly?
I withdraw my nomination I see an explicit release-statement in the OTRS ticket now, so I think we're all set. Thanks! DMacks (talk) 14:34, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
- I sent an email to OTRS but did not get any return reply. I own this work now so can I update the pic accordingly?
- It's best if he makes the explicit release himself, either by creating an account and uploading it (or at least confirming on the image-page that he's the photographer and intends to release) or via email to Commons:OTRS. Either way, he'd need to release it for much more than "share on Wikipedia" (for example, the explicit permissions listed in the creative-commons tag you used). DMacks (talk) 10:06, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
I do not believe the uploder is the original photographer of this photo, as it is claimed. Jarekt (talk) 03:35, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
Keep It's an old copy photo given to me, and I know I am not the uploader, but it is my work to upload it on Wikimedia, yes the photo was given to me to upload so yes I would like to keep it.--External Radiance (talk) 15:11, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
- I guess the question is who took this photo? Only photographer has the right to give it to you for upload, but even then you need to file his release of copyrights with OTRS. Also if the photo was published in Polish sources than it might meet the requirements of {{PD-Polish}} (most Warsaw Uprising images use that license) --Jarekt (talk) 16:19, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
- Yea, Some old friend who had relatives from Europe,but knows my grandmother gave me this copy photo of this scene and I was hoping to use it, although, it should may have been in a Polish Wikipedia or a useful tool about warfare weaponry; any way if there is a possible way to keep it in a more resourceful type in weaponry warfare category, I would be satisfied, if any thing else does not come to mind , thanks anyway, and let Wikimedia run its course.--External Radiance (talk) 21:47, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
- It is a great and useful photo, however we need a valid license. Otherwise we can wait for a few years and upload it under {{Anonymous-EU}}. --Jarekt (talk) 20:11, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
- Yea, Some old friend who had relatives from Europe,but knows my grandmother gave me this copy photo of this scene and I was hoping to use it, although, it should may have been in a Polish Wikipedia or a useful tool about warfare weaponry; any way if there is a possible way to keep it in a more resourceful type in weaponry warfare category, I would be satisfied, if any thing else does not come to mind , thanks anyway, and let Wikimedia run its course.--External Radiance (talk) 21:47, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
- It's been a while, since I have searched all the copyright edits for Wikimedia Commons license use, but sure this could help if nothing else, I suppose already there are other ways of licensing to save it, otherwise this {{Anonymous-EU}} would be more efficient for any cause on article.--External Radiance (talk) 21:45, 16 March 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 01:52, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Nominated on behalf of Powerstorm; reason given was "I created this page and was known as Webmaster7 Now known as Powerstorm, Please delete my page and photo" FASTILY (TALK) 07:52, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
- Speedy Keep as unfounded. The image was properly marked as cc-by-sa-2.0 with the OTRS tag 2011102310000747 (which was later removed by Powerstorm.) The OTRS correspondence is quite voluminous, so I'll have to sift through it to see if any mistake has been made, but so far there's no indication of any such mishap. Powerstorm has also edited the Cal Rein Page on en:wp in a disruptive manner, so we need to know exactly what his/her connection to this image actually is. Does s/he claim any copyright violation here, and so, on whose behalf? Meanwhile, I'll reinstate the license information so editors with OTRS access can examine it. I request that no further changes are made to the page until this matter is resolved. Asav (OTRS) | Talk 08:17, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
- I've investigated the matter further, and it seems this user is a one trick pony account that's set on disrupting the article proper. S/he has marked it for speedy, then deletion when that was reverted by another editor. No AfD has been filed, so I removed the tag. Seems like a cyberstalker. I've conferred with a steward, and we agree a request should be filed to block the account. Asav (OTRS) | Talk 09:08, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
Kept: Sppedy kept, per Asav. Darwin Ahoy! 14:35, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
OTRS request for deletion; reasons given are "not educationally useful" and "self-promotion". The successful deletion request of the en.wiki article this was used on (en:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cal Rein) is possibly relevant here and was requested in the same ticket:2012121210003911. – Philosopher Let us reason together. 11:11, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 01:51, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Not so certain about this being in PD. Everett Kinstler never was a white hous employee EvilFreD overleg 05:33, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
- When a Official Presidential Portrait is made, the painter doesn't create it at random but is asked by the incumbent president himself before the end of his term. So technically the painter is working for the White House at that time. --ATX-NL (talk) 11:26, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
- The uploader used for the license the Template:PD-USGov-POTUS. This template contains the following text: "This image is a work of an employee of the Executive Office of the President of the United States, taken or made as part of that person's official duties. As a work of the U.S. federal government, the image is in the public domain." More about that can be read here: "A “work of the United States Government” is a work prepared by an officer or employee of the United States Government as part of that person’s official duties." It is clear the uploader used an incorrect license since the painter was not an employee of the Executive Office of the President of the United States; it looks like he was not even an officer or employee of the United States Government. - Robotje (talk) 10:00, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: The creator must be a federal employee for PD-USGov to apply. The rights remain with the author. Slim chance this qualifies for {{PD-US-no notice}} but you would have to prove it was published (in the US sense) before 1978 without a copyright notice. Can't assume that. –moogsi (blah) 04:44, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
Not so certain about this being in PD. Everett Kinstler never was a white house employee. EvilFreD overleg 05:32, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
- When a Official Presidential Portrait is made, the painter doesn't create it at random but is asked by the incumbent president himself before the end of his term. So technically the painter is working for the White House at that time. --ATX-NL (talk) 11:26, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
- The uploader used for the license the Template:PD-USGov-POTUS. This template contains the following text: "This image is a work of an employee of the Executive Office of the President of the United States, taken or made as part of that person's official duties. As a work of the U.S. federal government, the image is in the public domain." More about that can be read here: "A “work of the United States Government” is a work prepared by an officer or employee of the United States Government as part of that person’s official duties." It is clear the uploader used an incorrect license since the painter was not an employee of the Executive Office of the President of the United States; it looks like he was not even an officer or employee of the United States Government. - Robotje (talk) 09:55, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: The creator must be a federal employee for PD-USGov to apply. Rights remain with the author. –moogsi (blah) 04:41, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
The arranger Eric Westberg (1892–1944) has yet not been dead för 70 years. Rex Sueciæ (talk) 12:25, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
- Something to prove, as I did scanned the music notes on the scanner? Your behavior is more than a little odd. If you are a king (Rex Sueciæ), then show me the license of your copyright on of the Royal Anthem! You have naked ambition and the position of administrator with a template. Of course you are aggressively striving for remove. You started following me chase, after talking in the Swedish Wikipedia. You did not help, but I asked for help! But you have no proof that you are right! You are encroaching on the popularity the Royal Anthem in the Free encyclopedia. You're a bad patriot Sweden. You're not helping me, and you want do harm and destroy. I dare you to remind you for of this money is not given and an award at a jacket not do trailer. I'm not a Swedish citizen, I am not a Swede - proves you're your own who you are after this.
--Krupski Oleg (talk) 21:22, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
- The music scanned is a copy of an arrangement for piano made by the Swedish composer Eric Westberg (1892–1944). The arranger must have been dead for 70 years before the work is in the free domain. It's as simple as that.
- The file I have uploaded (File:Kungssången.jpg) is a copy from a songbook published 1883–1901 and it is therefore in the public domain. The music is the original music for male chorus by Otto Lindblad and it is hence a better illustration to any article on the song Kungssången. I see no reason to illustrate a male voice song from 1844 with a picture of an arrangement for piano from the early 20th Century when the original work is available. Rex Sueciæ (talk) 23:38, 12 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 19:19, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
- Restored: as pere [7]. Yann (talk) 11:01, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
![[7]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Undeletion_requests/Current_requests&oldid=350511789#File:Kungssangen.jpg){kind=link}
Free license from the artists (orchestra and arranger) has not been proven. Rex Sueciæ (talk) 12:32, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
- This file is taken from free public sources, and converted by me personally (the information these sites have). Why do you ask stupid questions? Your behavior is more than a little odd. If you are a king (Rex Sueciæ), then show me the license of your copyright on of the Royal Anthem! You have naked ambition and the position of administrator with a template. Of course you are aggressively striving for remove. You started following me chase, after talking in the Swedish Wikipedia. You did not help, but I asked for help! But you have no proof that you are right! You are encroaching on the popularity the Royal Anthem in the Free encyclopedia. You're a bad patriot Sweden. You're not helping me, and you want do harm and destroy. I dare you to remind you for of this money is not given and an award at a jacket not do trailer. I'm not a Swedish citizen, I am not a Swede - proves you're your own who you are after this. --Krupski Oleg (talk) 21:27, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
- It's a question of copyright. If you have downloaded the file from "free public sources" then link to the source on the file's page. I tried to help by following the links, but one (Källa/Source) led to a Russian converter (http://online-audio-converter.com/ru/), not to the source and one (Tillstånd/Permission) led directly to the sound file (http://media.rozhlas.cz/svet/evropa/_audio/00080963.mp3) not to a permission. I also followed http://www.rozhlas.cz/portal/portal/ but I could not find any information there saying the music was in public domain, although I admit my Czech is weak. Instead of arguing about my intentions – just add the copyright information needed and everything will be fine! Rex Sueciæ (talk) 23:35, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
- I ask for your advice (point name license-template), I ask your help in order to preserve the unique file. You are an administrator - you know more and better than me. I personally have converted the file (open on-line converter http://online-audio-converter.com/ru/) - source file from open source (http://media.rozhlas.cz/svet/evropa/_audio/00080963.mp3). Regards --Krupski Oleg (talk) 17:56, 22 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 19:20, 13 April 2013 (UTC)