Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2013/02/15
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
|
|
Dirivative work of a copyright work (the sign) while a Fair Use Claim can be made for it's use on a local wiki one is not available here. LGA (was LightGreenApple) talk to me 00:01, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
- Sigh. I deliberately uploaded this image at a low-resolution (500×375) scale, so that one could not read the text (other than the title) in this notice. Unfortunately FlickreviewR came along the next day and automatically uploaded the high-resolution (1632×1224) version. Can the high-resolution version be deleted only? I'm assuming that the low-resolution version which I uploaded, where you cannot read the text, is acceptable on commons? Pasicles (talk) 00:10, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
- I am not sure, possibly or possibly not. I would recommend uploading it to en.wp with a FUR covering the text of the sign and a {{Do not move to Commons|reason=The text of the sign is copyright and therefore this is a derivative work }} so if it does get deleted here it will still be on the article. LGA (was LightGreenApple) talk to me 00:19, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
- I would say that is the best course of action LPA. FAir use is not allowed on Commons anyway, so it would make more sense to place directly onto en.wp with the template you suggest. {{subst:User:IComputerSaysNo/sig}} (talk) 00:38, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
- I have now deliberately blurred the text in the body of this photograph - obviously the two earlier versions should definitely be deleted. But I would be interested to know why it would be problematic to have this on commons? I am not trying to make a claim for "Fair Use" - I'm claiming that there's nothing copy-writable here. Pasicles (talk) 00:48, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
- I like your thinking, however I think that takes away its usefulness on the article it is used on and urge you to reconsider that and upload it to en.wp. As for why it is not suitable here, Commons has some very strict rules to make sure only totally free content is uploaded, the text of the sign was written by shop and therefore it is copyright to them, taking a photo of that sign is still coping the work without consent. I agree that it is unlikely the company would complain but in theory they could. LGA (was LightGreenApple) talk to me 02:58, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
- I have now deliberately blurred the text in the body of this photograph - obviously the two earlier versions should definitely be deleted. But I would be interested to know why it would be problematic to have this on commons? I am not trying to make a claim for "Fair Use" - I'm claiming that there's nothing copy-writable here. Pasicles (talk) 00:48, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
Even if it was protected by copyright, would the owners really sue? They're not making any money with the sign, and reproducing the sign does not hurt their ability to make money. There's no reason for them to try and sue Wikimedia Commons. No-one is harmed by this. 24.246.89.144 04:38, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
Kept: Now that the issue is fixed. I decided to keep the oldest (low-res) version; blurring looks ugly and should be avoided if possible, especially when the same purpose can be achieved by making the text small enough to be unreadable. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:59, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
The text of this image is, as correctly mentioned in the message box, copyrighted to Tesco. Even at this resolution it is easily discernible what the text is, and it is clearly a derivative work. What people are looking for is fair-use rationale -- this can take place on other project, but not on Commons. russavia (talk) 11:23, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
- Oh lordy, not this again. I really wish I hadn't bothered uploading it. :) I suppose if you zoom right into this image, and squint really hard, you can _just_ read the text -- if so, then that was my mistake. Assuming this image is replaced with a slightly lower resolution version, or with the text blurred on this version -- is there any reason that this image cannot be hosted on Commons? I want to make it absolutely clear that I have no desire or intention of ever uploading this image to English Wikipedia with a fair-use licence! -- Pasicles (talk) 19:02, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
- Right well, just to clarify -- I've applied an extra blurring to this image to absolutely guarantee that the writing in the body of the notice cannot be read. The previous versions should be deleted, but I assume there is no legal reason why this image, as it currently stands, cannot be kept on Commons. Pasicles (talk) 18:06, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
Problem fixed -FASTILY 06:01, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
The text blur applied makes the image meaningless and it should be deleted as it does not add anything to the article 86.187.168.71 20:49, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
Keep. The editors of multiple Wikipedia editions clearly believe that this image does add something to their articles. I see no reason to second-guess them by deleting an image that's COM:INUSE. Omphalographer (talk) 21:25, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
Comment. Well this is the gift that keeps on giving. An image I uploaded from Flickr in 2013 has now been nominated for a third time. Anyway, this should be a speedy keep since the reason given seems little more than the proposer not liking the image. Pasicles (talk) 23:17, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
Speedy keep COM:INUSE. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:48, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
Kept: In use, no consensus to delete. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 21:31, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
Dirivative work of a copyright work (the sign) while a Fair Use Claim can be made for it's use on a local wiki one is not available here. LGA (was LightGreenApple) talk to me 00:01, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
- Sigh. I deliberately uploaded this image at a low-resolution (500×375) scale, so that one could not read the text (other than the title) in this notice. Unfortunately FlickreviewR came along the next day and automatically uploaded the high-resolution (1632×1224) version. Can the high-resolution version be deleted only? I'm assuming that the low-resolution version which I uploaded, where you cannot read the text, is acceptable on commons? Pasicles (talk) 00:10, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
- I am not sure, possibly or possibly not. I would recommend uploading it to en.wp with a FUR covering the text of the sign and a {{Do not move to Commons|reason=The text of the sign is copyright and therefore this is a derivative work }} so if it does get deleted here it will still be on the article. LGA (was LightGreenApple) talk to me 00:19, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
- I would say that is the best course of action LPA. FAir use is not allowed on Commons anyway, so it would make more sense to place directly onto en.wp with the template you suggest. {{subst:User:IComputerSaysNo/sig}} (talk) 00:38, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
- I have now deliberately blurred the text in the body of this photograph - obviously the two earlier versions should definitely be deleted. But I would be interested to know why it would be problematic to have this on commons? I am not trying to make a claim for "Fair Use" - I'm claiming that there's nothing copy-writable here. Pasicles (talk) 00:48, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
- I like your thinking, however I think that takes away its usefulness on the article it is used on and urge you to reconsider that and upload it to en.wp. As for why it is not suitable here, Commons has some very strict rules to make sure only totally free content is uploaded, the text of the sign was written by shop and therefore it is copyright to them, taking a photo of that sign is still coping the work without consent. I agree that it is unlikely the company would complain but in theory they could. LGA (was LightGreenApple) talk to me 02:58, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
- I have now deliberately blurred the text in the body of this photograph - obviously the two earlier versions should definitely be deleted. But I would be interested to know why it would be problematic to have this on commons? I am not trying to make a claim for "Fair Use" - I'm claiming that there's nothing copy-writable here. Pasicles (talk) 00:48, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
Even if it was protected by copyright, would the owners really sue? They're not making any money with the sign, and reproducing the sign does not hurt their ability to make money. There's no reason for them to try and sue Wikimedia Commons. No-one is harmed by this. 24.246.89.144 04:38, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
Kept: Now that the issue is fixed. I decided to keep the oldest (low-res) version; blurring looks ugly and should be avoided if possible, especially when the same purpose can be achieved by making the text small enough to be unreadable. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:59, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
The text of this image is, as correctly mentioned in the message box, copyrighted to Tesco. Even at this resolution it is easily discernible what the text is, and it is clearly a derivative work. What people are looking for is fair-use rationale -- this can take place on other project, but not on Commons. russavia (talk) 11:23, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
- Oh lordy, not this again. I really wish I hadn't bothered uploading it. :) I suppose if you zoom right into this image, and squint really hard, you can _just_ read the text -- if so, then that was my mistake. Assuming this image is replaced with a slightly lower resolution version, or with the text blurred on this version -- is there any reason that this image cannot be hosted on Commons? I want to make it absolutely clear that I have no desire or intention of ever uploading this image to English Wikipedia with a fair-use licence! -- Pasicles (talk) 19:02, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
- Right well, just to clarify -- I've applied an extra blurring to this image to absolutely guarantee that the writing in the body of the notice cannot be read. The previous versions should be deleted, but I assume there is no legal reason why this image, as it currently stands, cannot be kept on Commons. Pasicles (talk) 18:06, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
Problem fixed -FASTILY 06:01, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
The text blur applied makes the image meaningless and it should be deleted as it does not add anything to the article 86.187.168.71 20:49, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
- Keep. The editors of multiple Wikipedia editions clearly believe that this image does add something to their articles. I see no reason to second-guess them by deleting an image that's COM:INUSE. Omphalographer (talk) 21:25, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
- Comment. Well this is the gift that keeps on giving. An image I uploaded from Flickr in 2013 has now been nominated for a third time. Anyway, this should be a speedy keep since the reason given seems little more than the proposer not liking the image. Pasicles (talk) 23:17, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
- Speedy keep COM:INUSE. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:48, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
Kept: In use, no consensus to delete. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 21:31, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
uploader is using Commons as an imagehost for his class project DS (talk) 00:16, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
- Also file:Slide1.GIF, file:Slide3.GIF, file:Slide4.GIF, file:Slide5.GIF, file:Slide6.GIF, file:Slide7.GIF, file:Slide8.GIF, file:Slide9.GIF, file:Slide10.GIF, file:Slide11.GIF, file:Slide12.GIF, file:Slide13.GIF, file:Slide14.GIF, file:Slide15.GIF, and File:Técnicas para disminuir tiempos de configuración de maquinaria.GIF. DS (talk) 00:18, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. -mattbuck (Talk) 09:18, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
This is the personal image of a new user with no notoriety and which seems a self promotion of his company
Deleted: Obvious humor/joke/prank Badseed talk 12:15, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
outside project scope DS (talk) 00:20, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Per nomination. Badseed talk 12:17, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
Official student club logo, without evidence of permission GrapedApe (talk) 01:37, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:12, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
Gibberish; unused GrapedApe (talk) 01:39, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:12, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
File:Stereoscopic views of streets in Boston, Massachusetts, from Robert N. Dennis collection of stereoscopic views 2.png
[edit]Empty endcard from set of images - has no conceivable educational value. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 02:17, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:12, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
Note that the life magazine was published in 1955, so the PD-self sounds pretty unlikely. Svnnsmsn (talk) 03:08, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 14:42, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
"Photo by Rob Doda uploaded by Avatarecordinc" suggests that the real author of this image is Rob Doda so missing permission Morning ☼ (talk) 03:22, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
I am the uploader and author of this image of myself. I am Alannah Myles whom is featured in the image. I have uploaded this file titled Rob Doda for which I have attained exclusive rights for worldwide usage to be able to share with my fans and inquirers for the promotion of my public image. The reason for so many uploads of the same file is because this forum is so highly complex. I neglected to click on preview before remitting the photos and discovered I had not uploaded a small enough file. It took several attempts before I finally uploaded the correct file.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Avatarecordinc (talk • contribs)
If you really are Alannah Myles a) thanks for the music, b)In order for the image to be kept, you should send an email to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org stating that you are the copyright holder and you release the image with a free license. You can see an email template here. Regards, Badseed talk 12:25, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
File:90 Rob Doda Retouch Hi Res File.jpg is also a part of this DR, I restored it since there's a possible incoming OTRS email about these images, see User_talk:Avatarecordinc#File:.2AAlannah_Myles_Star_Photo_by_Rob_Doda_.jpg - Badseed talk 05:38, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: We will need permission directly from Rob Doda to restore these. Also, please note that "discovered I had not uploaded a small enough file" is backwards -- you should always upload the largest possible file, up to our 100 megabyte maximum. Commons and WP have excellent facilities for displaying images at any required size. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:11, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
another version available since 2010, so this image is unlikely own work Morning ☼ (talk) 04:20, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:13, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
Text contribution, out of project scope. Commons:Project scope#Excluded educational content. Martin H. (talk) 05:25, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:13, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
Text contribution, out of project scope. Commons:Project scope#Excluded educational content. Martin H. (talk) 05:25, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:13, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
Private picture of user, out of project scope. Martin H. (talk) 05:26, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:13, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
Private picture of user, out of project scope. Martin H. (talk) 05:30, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:13, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
Private picture of user, out of project scope. Martin H. (talk) 05:31, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
Delete unused on any Wikimedia wiki, no clear educational purpose. -Pete F (talk) 16:17, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:14, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
авторстов и лицензия под сомнением, есть в интернете такой же файл (http://babkina.ru/) Dogad75 (talk) 05:56, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:14, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
Copyvio. Picture was drawn by ko:장우성(died in 2005). ChongDae (talk) 07:37, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
- Delete – Kwj2772 (msg) 14:17, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:20, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
Duplicate of File:Atletico Madrid.png. Yann (talk) 07:43, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:20, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
derechos de autor copyright Jmsolerb (talk) 20:57, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination --Krd 12:59, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
Probably not own work. Yann (talk) 07:44, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:21, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
There is something wrong with this image. Robert961000 (talk) 08:12, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:22, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
There is another file similar to this one. so it is needed to be removed. Robert961000 (talk) 08:14, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:22, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
Its graphic is unclear and there is another version of this image. Robert961000 (talk) 08:15, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:23, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
Its graphic is unclear and there is another version of this file. Robert961000 (talk) 08:17, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:23, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
Another file was uploaded. Robert961000 (talk) 08:18, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:24, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
Its uploader is going to upload new one later. Robert961000 (talk) 08:20, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:24, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
Its uploader is going to upload new one later. Robert961000 (talk) 08:21, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:24, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
Advertisment / promotional image Senator2029 08:22, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:24, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
Its image is unclear and so small. Robert961000 (talk) 08:28, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:27, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
Its graphic is unclear and this image is so small. Robert961000 (talk) 08:35, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:27, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
Its graphic is unclear. Robert961000 (talk) 08:37, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:27, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
The uploader is going to upload new file. Robert961000 (talk) 08:39, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:27, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
The uploader is going to upload new version. Robert961000 (talk) 08:41, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:27, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
The uploader will upload new file later. Robert961000 (talk) 08:42, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:27, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
The uploader is going to upload new file. Robert961000 (talk) 08:44, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:27, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
Koska kyseessä ei ole kalvaskeltavalmuska vaan Tricholomopsis decora, lahovalmuska! 128.214.62.205 09:24, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
- Thank You for notation. Well, if it really is T. decora, then better to change name, not to delete it. At least it is a species of Tricholoma. --Höyhens (talk) 02:52, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
- Now, I can still get this sample under a microscope within two weeks. Then, if agreed, let the name be changed in to Tricholomopsis decora. No too late? --Höyhens (talk) 03:31, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
Copyright violation - Recent work of an architect Marie-Claire (talk) 09:54, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:28, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
Better alternative available: This is a low quality slightly cropped version of File:Voorgevel - Abbekerk - 20004082 - RCE.jpg. Lymantria (talk) 10:52, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:28, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
From the EULA, "Except as expressly permitted in this License Agreement, the Software Product may not be Used, copied, translated, redistributed, retransmitted, published, sold, rented, leased, marketed, sublicensed, pledged, assigned, disposed of, encumbered, transferred, altered, modified or enhanced, whether in whole or in part, nor may You create derivative works from or based on the Software Product." This is unfortunately incompatible with Commons:Screenshots#Software. Storkk (talk) 11:38, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:29, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
From the EULA, "Except as expressly permitted in this License Agreement, the Software Product may not be Used, copied, translated, redistributed, retransmitted, published, sold, rented, leased, marketed, sublicensed, pledged, assigned, disposed of, encumbered, transferred, altered, modified or enhanced, whether in whole or in part, nor may You create derivative works from or based on the Software Product." This is unfortunately incompatible with Commons:Screenshots#Software. Storkk (talk) 11:38, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:29, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
Microsoft Windows Movie Maker license unfortunately incompatible with Commons:Screenshots#Software Storkk (talk) 11:49, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:29, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
yiuijuuyutymv gfgf 41.47.234.113 12:01, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
Kept: No valid reason for deletion. --Stefan4 (talk) 14:41, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
Unclear copyright status: Tagged with {{GFDL}} but coming originally (see "Wilson de Santis Jr") from http://web.archive.org/web/20080329134513/http://www.estacoesferroviarias.com.br/j/jacana.htm (03.2008) with no "free" license visible or the file was grabbed from internet. Gunnex (talk) 13:06, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:29, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
problems with upload — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gürbetaler (talk • contribs) 2013-01-19T23:48:04 (UTC)
Deleted: Duplicate, not in use. Yann (talk) 06:49, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
Note: this was a malformed deletion request, I am simply reformatting. --Storkk (talk) 18:22, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
Sketch is erroneous and has been replaced.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Peulle (talk • contribs) 10:46, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
Kept: In use, no reason to delete. Yann (talk) 06:48, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
The sketch contains a factual error: it places the nobility ("adel" in Norwegian) as the first estate, while in reality the first estate was the clergy ("geistlighet" in Norwegian) and the nobility was the second estate. Peulle (talk) 16:25, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 17:08, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
file needed to illustrate a problem, problem solved, file now useless, no inherent worth — Preceding unsigned comment added by Felis domestica (talk • contribs) 2013-02-12T13:29:45 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:30, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
Note: This was a malformed deletion request by MichaelOnTheGo25 (talk · contribs). I am just cleaning up the request
MichaelOnTheGo25 (talk · contribs) states: "I am requesting the file be deleted because I uploaded a version with the background brighter by accident, so I changed the picture but the original that I didn't want uploaded is still archived so I am requesting this be deleted please so I can ONLY have the one I want online"
- DR fixer's comment - no comment, just fixing the deletion request. Storkk (talk) 16:50, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 17:26, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
image uploaded for a promotional article of a non-encyclopedic person. Not useful for educational purposes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by L736E (talk • contribs) 2013-01-07T12:19:12 (UTC)
Deleted by someone. --Stefan4 (talk) 18:15, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
Wrong filename --Badener (Diskussion) 12:44, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
- Keep It has been under this name for half a year. Someone might be using this name somewhere. --Stefan4 (talk) 18:16, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
no OTRS (license) from artist Horst Antes — Preceding unsigned comment added by Artmax (talk • contribs) 2013-01-30T12:29:16 (UTC)
Deleted by someone. --Stefan4 (talk) 18:18, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
moved to Category:French Valley (Chile) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Createaccount (talk • contribs) 2013-02-04T20:30:28 (UTC)
Deleted by someone. --Stefan4 (talk) 17:56, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
wrong spelling (NeomaRIca gracilis) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Uleli (talk • contribs) 2013-02-13T16:30:05 (UTC)
Deleted by someone. --Stefan4 (talk) 18:20, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
wrong category name (new name: Category:International German Red Fox Award — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kürschner (talk • contribs) 2013-02-06T19:47:40 (UTC)
Deleted by someone. --Stefan4 (talk) 18:21, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
Replaced with more specific categories — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tuvalkin (talk • contribs) 2013-02-08T09:08:06 (UTC)
Deleted by someone. --Stefan4 (talk) 17:56, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
See Commons:Deletion requests/File:Flickr - Israel Defense Forces - Infographics, Ahmed Jabari.jpg. IDF does not have the copyright for that photo. CennoxX (Diskussion) 22:21, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 14:49, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
File:Cephalocereus columna-trajani (1).jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by Uleli (talk • contribs) 2013-01-16T22:22:40 (UTC)
Deleted by McZusatz (talk · contribs) as dupe of File:Pachycereus pecten-aboriginum (4).jpg. --Stefan4 (talk) 17:42, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
Tagged with {{Delete}} but it doesn't say why. There are smaller copies of the image here and here, so it might be a copyright violation. Stefan4 (talk) 14:09, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:32, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
Tagged with {{Delete}} but no reason given. Possibly copyvio from thumbnail here: http://www.parquedorio.ufrj.br/pteText.asp?sMenu=AMBI Stefan4 (talk) 14:21, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:32, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
Bitte diese Version des Bildes löschen, der originale Urheber hat es jetzt selber hochgeladen, thx --Biberbaer (talk) 21:17, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
- Ich bin der originale Urheber und habe für meine Datei das Bild bewusst als "touristische" Zweitversion (Titel, Beschreibung) hochgeladen und unter Lake Constance kategorisiert. Die "schiffige" Version (Cat.:Konstanz (1964) sollte m. E. weiterhin den Wikpedia-Artikel Konstanz (1964) zieren und kann gerne in der Commons-Liste von Biberbaer bleiben, der das Bild auf meine Bitte hochgeladen hat. Ich kenne mich noch zuwenig aus, würde mich aber über eine Lösung in diesem Sinne freuen. Gruß --Ameichle (talk) 10:53, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
- Nachtrag: da der "touristische" Titel beim Wikipedia-Artikel "Konstanz (1964)" verdeckt ist und die "schiffige" Beschreibung bleibt, wäre ich auch mit der von biberbaer beantragten Löschung einverstanden. --Ameichle (talk) 16:36, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: redirected to new version Denniss (talk) 00:50, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
this picture is taken from a tv-show and from this link http://www.dr.dk/Ramasjang/Pendlerkids/galleri.htm . --Gajolen (talk) 18:39, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:33, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
Duplication in File:Yamagata HigashiMurayama-gun.png -検見川町 (talk) 02:48, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
Kept: ja:ファイル:Yamagata HigashiMurayama-gun.png is identical, but no need to delete a cross-project duplicate. whym (talk) 14:38, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
Duplication in File:Yamagata NishiMurayama-gun.png -検見川町 (talk) 02:42, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
Kept: ja:ファイル:Yamagata_NishiMurayama-gun.png is identical, but no need to delete cross-project duplicate. whym (talk) 14:37, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
Flickr sources the image to http://carpictures.us/2012-lancia-thema/ and it is not clear if the carpictures.us user has permitted the image to be licensed under CC-BY. Stefan4 (talk) 14:47, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:34, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
Although the majority of the book is old, the first two pages consist of copyrighted text by Google. Stefan4 (talk) 15:03, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
- I was uploading many djvus with Google logo. Look Special:ListFiles/Maltaper. I want to respect the original source from Internet Archive and Google logo page says "Please do not remove it." --Maltaper (talk) 15:16, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
- Most djvu files in French belong to http://fr.wikisource.org/. Don't delete them without discussing in http://fr.wikisource.org/wiki/Wikisource:Scriptorium. --Maltaper (talk) 15:49, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
Kept: Google pages removed. Yann (talk) 07:45, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
This opera of Claes Oldenburg (living person) is too recent and Italy has no FOP exemption. dega180 (talk) 15:08, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:34, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
User namespace template used in file namespace. Redundant to {{COAInformation}} -- ΠЄΡΉΛΙΟ 15:11, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
File page with no valid file uploaded Sreejith K (talk) 15:12, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: poss. copyvio McZusatz (talk) 10:56, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
This image comes from fr:wikipédia where there has been a non-conclusif discussion about its licence, see: fr:Wikipédia:Images à supprimer/Fichier:Vittoz.jpg The decision about keep or delete is now asked at commons. Havang(nl) (talk) 15:13, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
Kept: {{Anonymous-EU}} is OK. Yann (talk) 08:08, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
Unclear source given. The air traffic control recording is unlikely to be released by the airport itself and be released under copyleft. Wylve (talk) 15:27, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:36, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
I'm not convinced that this is the work of the uploader. Firstly, the author is unclear. Who is "Andy"? Is it the uploader or someone else? This appears to be a picture from a trial in 2002 (the date on the image is wrong) - this along with the lack of metadata, suggests to me that the image is a cropped version of a pre-existing image of the trial on the internet. CT Cooper · talk 16:02, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:36, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used. EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:39, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:43, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small resolution, missing EXIF. EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:40, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:43, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
What new could be added to Category:Human penis? EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:47, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: lousy quality "Here's my dingdong" image Denniss (talk) 14:53, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small resolution, missing EXIF. EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:50, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:44, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small resolution, missing EXIF. EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:54, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:47, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Trivial logo of questionable notability. EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:55, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:47, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Low resolution photo of land mark already well represented on Commons. EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:57, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:47, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small resolution, missing EXIF. EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:57, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:47, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small resolution, missing EXIF. EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:58, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:47, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
Low quality; we already have better quality images of elephant riding. Jonund (talk) 17:41, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Deleted as part of cleanup russavia (talk) 18:23, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
Not clear why it is in scope. Jonund (talk) 17:50, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Deleted as part of cleanup russavia (talk) 18:23, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
Probably not own work. Yann (talk) 18:07, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:48, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
Probably not own work. Yann (talk) 18:49, 15 February 2013 (UTC) I've read the policy.
Deleted: INeverCry 00:48, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
Probably not own work. Yann (talk) 18:49, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:48, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
Invalid PD rationale. Assuming the work is anonymous (and simply not being mentioned on http://www.fanpop.com/clubs/katharine-hepburn/images/4291727/title/katharine-with-president-roosevelt-photo is not a sufficient indication of that), the general copyright term according to US copyright law is 95 years after first publication – not 70 years after creation. This can only be kept if it can be demonstrated that {{PD-US-not renewed}}, {{PD-US-no notice}}, {{PD-US-1978-89}} or {{PD-USGov}} applies. The photo is a crop of http://www.corbisimages.com/stock-photo/rights-managed/U574743ACME/franklin-and-elliott-roosevelt-lunching-with-katharine, which is also available as http://www.corbisimages.com/stock-photo/rights-managed/BE003172/fdr-having-lunch-with-katharine-hepburn. —LX (talk, contribs) 19:22, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:49, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
File not in use on any project and seems to hold no realistic educational or helpful value, therefore existing outside Commons' scope. MJ94 (talk) 19:23, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
- Although I agree that it doesn't look very useful, the image is in use. See w:User:Wiki nol ege. --Stefan4 (talk) 19:33, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
- Ah, so it is. My apologies, thanks for catching this. MJ94 (talk) 00:32, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
Picture of a poster. There is no reason to believe the poster, nor the picture of cheikh Nasrallah used in the poster is freely licenced. Hence the picture on Commons is not eligible to free licencing. (:Julien:) (talk) 19:25, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:49, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
There simply isn't enough visible information in this image to be conceivably useful. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:41, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
- Delete as above. Yann (talk) 07:55, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
- Delete Shawn says it all --Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:38, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 06:47, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
No evidence to support the claim that the author has been dead for 70 years (in fact, the uploader doesn't know who the author is, so that claim obviously hasn't been verified), and no PD rationale for the US (which is always required, not to mention that this is presumably a US work). —LX (talk, contribs) 19:46, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:50, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
Painter's date of death is not known. Probably still within copyright. J Milburn (talk) 19:48, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:50, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
No evidence to support the claim that the author has been dead for 70 years (in fact, the uploader doesn't know who the author is, so that claim obviously hasn't been verified), and no PD rationale for the US (which is always required, not to mention that this is presumably a US work). —LX (talk, contribs) 19:50, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:50, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
This is a fictional character made by me but it can lead to misunderstanding that it has been used. I want it to be deleted. - Yes0song (talk) 19:51, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:50, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
No evidence to support the claim that the author has been dead for 70 years (in fact, the uploader doesn't know who the author is, so that claim obviously hasn't been verified), and no PD rationale for the US (which is always required, not to mention that this is presumably a US work). —LX (talk, contribs) 19:52, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:50, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
Another poor image from Bull Doser. I'd suggest that this image doesn't clearly show ANY of the claimed photo subjects in the description, and is of no use. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:55, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:50, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
Too blurry to be of practical use; the car's Cnmmons category has much better and clearer examples. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:05, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:59, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
copy of a copyrighted photo: http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/spanish/ency/esp_imagepages/19825.htm Angelito7 (talk) 20:07, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 14:54, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
Too blurry to be of practical use; the Scion xD category is not lacking for much better and useful images. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:08, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:59, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
I dispute that this qualifies as Pd-textlogo - the image of a group of people overlayed on the flag of India and font arrangement indicate originality Mono 20:32, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:59, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
Author and date are not stated. So how can the uploader claim this image is PD-old? Rosenzweig τ 20:59, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:00, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
Author and date are not stated. So how can the uploader claim this image is PD-old? Rosenzweig τ 21:01, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:00, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
dubious FOP: Austrian law requires, IIRC, that the work be situated permanently in a public place, but this is an information sign at a construction place, which despite being there for several years is pretty certain to disappear after the railway station depicted will be finished darkweasel94 Diskussion/talk/diskuto 21:07, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
Kept: Several years is long enough. Yann (talk) 07:57, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
not in use, no educational value Ezarateesteban 21:09, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:00, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
And:
The images have low resolution and missing EXIF. Unlikely to be own works. Jespinos (talk) 21:23, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:01, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope: no encyclopedic value High Contrast (talk) 21:30, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 14:54, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
I can't find any date for the statue, but I did find a bigger image of the sign: http://livedoor.blogimg.jp/hyqgg693/imgs/b/9/b9b5f778.jpg
The sign contains a reference to ja:太陽の法, which is from 1987. It is possible that the statue was made at about the same time. Unfortunately, you can't take photos of recent Japanese statues. Stefan4 (talk) 21:41, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
- I don’t think that the picture should be deleted, because it contains not only the sign of reference to the Laws of the Sun but also the view of statue itself and building of Chugoku Shoshinkan. I agree that such bigger image of the sign above is also uploaded, but the picture should be kept as it is.
- Regarding the time sequence, the Laws of the Sun was written in 1987, Chugoku Shoshinkan (and also maybe this statue) was built in April 2004, and I took the picture in April 2010. There is no problem. Happipedia
- The problem is not the sign but the statue (輝ける黄金のシャチ). You can't take photos of statues in Japan unless the sculptor has been dead for at least 50 years, and this doesn't seem to be the case here. --Stefan4 (talk) 18:31, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
- The problem is not the sign but the statue (
Deleted: Per Stefan4 and {{NoFoP-Japan}} whym (talk) 13:20, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope, unused personal image. Jespinos (talk) 21:50, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:02, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope, unused personal image. Jespinos (talk) 21:51, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:02, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope, unused personal image. Jespinos (talk) 21:52, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:02, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
No educational value, only part of an image Torsch (talk) 22:18, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:03, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope, unused personal image. Jespinos (talk) 23:23, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:03, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope, unused personal image. Jespinos (talk) 23:25, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:03, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
I uploaded the wrong image Dotti28 (talk) 23:30, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 21:03, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope, unused personal image. Jespinos (talk) 23:30, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:03, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope, only text contribution. Jespinos (talk) 23:39, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:03, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
Low resolution, missing EXIF. Unlikely to be own work. Jespinos (talk) 23:42, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:04, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
out of scope - promotional image INeverCry 23:49, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 04:01, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
out of scope INeverCry 23:58, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 04:01, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
Derivative of poster content. Not covered by FOP of Germany as temporarily installed and located indoors. Túrelio (talk) 15:33, 27 December 2012
Keep The file pictures a booth of a publishing company in a public place, the Frankfurt Book Fair 2012. Part of the booth are four posters published by the company, as specimens, but none of them is the focus of the picture, all are just part of the presentation. As until now there is no other wikimedia file about the publishing company, the deletion of the photo would result in a loss of information. -- ThomasPusch (talk) 16:13, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: per COM:DW. INeverCry 04:04, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Several chemical mistakes; have File:Hopane.svg that matches several refs. DMacks (talk) 22:37, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
- Comment I'll try to upload a corrected version on the weekend. --NEURO ⇌ 21:26, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
- Is there a need (some *different* way to represent this compound)? Otherwise, we already now do have one that seems to be how this one would be (modulo mistake-corrections) in the same fileformat and seemingly following the same style-guide. DMacks (talk) 22:21, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
- The only argument for an additional file is the appearance, which would be identical to the rest of my images. This is especially important because many of my images are parts of a bigger set, as for example used in de:Terpene. Sorry that I haven't been able to upload a corrected version yet, but I'm working on that. --NEURO ⇌ 10:56, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
- Is there a need (some *different* way to represent this compound)? Otherwise, we already now do have one that seems to be how this one would be (modulo mistake-corrections) in the same fileformat and seemingly following the same style-guide. DMacks (talk) 22:21, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: The chemical structure is incorrect. Although the uploader suggested he would upload a correction, it has been a month and deletion does not preclude re-uploading a correction at a later point. File:Hopane.svg can be used until then. Ed (Edgar181) 14:14, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Same as File:Der Lübecker Dom.jpg but not a tif-File. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Heinz-Josef Lücking (talk • contribs) 2012-12-30T11:34:14 (UTC)
Deleted: not useable with current mediawiki version. The other one is older - so I trust that uploader. JuTa 02:40, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
Note: This was a malformed deletion request by Jabbi (talk · contribs). I am just cleaning up the request
Jabbi (talk · contribs) states: "Not notable, an unheard of individual."
- DR fixer's comment - This person seems to have an enWiki page. Provenance of image may be doubtful, though, and may qualify it for deletion anyway. Storkk (talk) 16:16, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
- Well, the image is of high resolution and has EXIF data, so "own work" doesn't seem implausible. As the person seems to be notable and not "unheard of" (see English Wikipedia article mentioned by Storkk), I think we can Keep it unless there is some evidence that provenance of the image is indeed "doubtful". Gestumblindi (talk) 01:00, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
- Well, the image is of high resolution and has EXIF data, so "own work" doesn't seem implausible. As the person seems to be notable and not "unheard of" (see English Wikipedia article mentioned by Storkk), I think we can
Kept: its in use, could not find th image in th internet with this resolution. JuTa 02:55, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
Note: This was a malformed deletion request by Angela Huster (talk · contribs). I am just cleaning up the request
Angela Huster (talk · contribs) states "file damaged."
- DR fixer's comment - Note: original uploader is deletion requester. I can't see the damage claimed at a first glance. Storkk (talk) 16:21, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: uploaders request shortly after upload of unused image. JuTa 02:58, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
Pachycereus pecten-aboriginum (1).jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by Uleli (talk • contribs) 2013-01-16T22:18:44 (UTC)
Deleted: unused rotated duplicate of File:Pachycereus pecten-aboriginum (1).jpg. JuTa 03:03, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
Tagged with {{Delete}} but no reason given. Possibly copyvio from thumbnail here: http://www.parquedorio.ufrj.br/pteText.asp?sMenu=AMBI Stefan4 (talk) 14:22, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . JuTa 03:17, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
The file is badly named, the prefix "dX" is per convention used for half with curves. BjørnN (talk) 10:54, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
Kept: Its still in use on som pages. JuTa 00:58, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
I accidentally uploaded this image on wikimedia whereas i should have uploaded it on wikipedia as a logo so that i can choose an adapted licence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Karlgerma (talk • contribs) 2013-02-02T17:21:42 (UTC)
- Depending on what country this comes from, it might qualify for {{PD-textlogo}}. Without any information on what company this is, then the image is probably out of scope. --Stefan4 (talk) 14:19, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: per Stefan4 JuTa 02:27, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
Hi there, this logo is no longer in use, nor on Wikipedia or by the University it belongs to, and as it is trademarked there are reasonable doubts that it might have been incorrectly uploaded. It's been released under a CC license and I doubt the trademark holder would like to do so. Is it a candidate for speedy deletion? Cheers, Cvalda (talk) 10:02, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
- Keep - it seems {{PD-textlogo}} and is used at en:Frédéric Boyenga-Bofala ant it:La Rioja (España). --whym (talk) 14:41, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
Kept: per whym. JuTa 08:38, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
Though a nice photograph it´s not apt for public use. The person concerned would appreciate its deletion.--Mehlauge (talk) 18:24, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: obligingness deletion. JuTa 08:42, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
NeoBarock
[edit]OTRS-ticket missing, [1], photographer and uploader are not the same person --TotalUseless (talk) 00:31, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
- Uploader pleads for deletion: "veraltetes Bild, bitte löschen, aktuelles Bild bereits hochgeladen", translation: "old image, please delete, recent image has already been uploaded" --TotalUseless (talk) 02:14, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted per nomination. --Krd 18:10, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
OTRS-ticket missing, photographer and uploader are not the same person. --TotalUseless (talk) 00:37, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
Kept per OTRS permisssion. --Krd 18:11, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
Il pianto
[edit]Photos of works by sculptor Arnaldo Filone, who died in 1985, still under copyright. --Jaqen (talk) 00:39, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
Ok I agree please proceed to deletion - 79.32.235.242 17:43, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
Yes I agree, I'm the uploader, yes please proceed to deletion, thank you Decio Mure (talk) 10:09, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Seems to be a clear case of a derivative. Would be one, even if the original bust would have been in public space due to missing FOP exemption in Italy. Uploader agrees to deletion. -- Túrelio (talk) 21:19, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
Files in Category:Possibly out of scope
[edit]Personal photos, snapshots, and/or internet images that are not usable for Wikimedia Project.
- File:Joseiazz.jpg
- File:Luke ferraro 1.png
- File:Luke ferraro 2.png
- File:Luke ferraro.png
- File:Markeleveld.jpg
- File:Michelle Cason (Kymberrlie ).JPG
- File:SHY AND ENTHUSIASTIC.jpg
- File:TaajManzorr.png
- File:Valeew.jpg
Senator2029 05:40, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
- Delete all per nomination. Note that the Luke F. photos are used in a failed/out of scope "Article for Creation" on English Wikipedia. This AFC has no prospect of succeeding, it was apparently a joke unrelated to Wikipedia's purpose. -Pete F (talk) 16:22, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:14, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
Jpg and png files now wrapped into file Il Volapük - Critici e Abolitori.djvu
[edit]- File:Il Volapük Critici e Abolitori - 001.jpg
- File:Il Volapük Critici e Abolitori - 002.jpg
- File:Il Volapük Critici e Abolitori - 003.jpg
- File:Il Volapük Critici e Abolitori - 004.jpg
- File:Il Volapük Critici e Abolitori - 005.jpg
- File:Il Volapük Critici e Abolitori - 006.jpg
- File:Il Volapük Critici e Abolitori - 007.jpg
- File:Il Volapük Critici e Abolitori - 008.jpg
- File:Il Volapük Critici e Abolitori - 009.jpg
- File:Il Volapük Critici e Abolitori - 010.jpg
- File:Il Volapük Critici e Abolitori - 011.jpg
- File:Il Volapük Critici e Abolitori - 012.jpg
- File:Il Volapük Critici e Abolitori - 013.jpg
- File:Il Volapük Critici e Abolitori - 014.jpg
- File:Il Volapük Critici e Abolitori - 015.jpg
- File:Il Volapük Critici e Abolitori - 016.jpg
- File:Il Volapük Critici e Abolitori - 017.jpg
- File:Il Volapük Critici e Abolitori - 018.jpg
- File:Il Volapük Critici e Abolitori - 019.jpg
- File:Il Volapük Critici e Abolitori - 020.jpg
- File:Il Volapük Critici e Abolitori - 021.jpg
- File:Il Volapük Critici e Abolitori - 022.jpg
- File:Il Volapük Critici e Abolitori - 023.jpg
- File:Il Volapük Critici e Abolitori - 024.jpg
- File:Il Volapük Critici e Abolitori - 025.jpg
- File:Il Volapük Critici e Abolitori - 026.jpg
- File:Il Volapük Critici e Abolitori - 027.jpg
- File:Il Volapük Critici e Abolitori - 028.jpg
- File:Il Volapük Critici e Abolitori - 029.jpg
- File:Il Volapük Critici e Abolitori - 030.jpg
- File:Il Volapük Critici e Abolitori - 031.jpg
- File:Il Volapük Critici e Abolitori - 032.jpg
- File:Il Volapük Critici e Abolitori - 033.jpg
- File:Il Volapük Critici e Abolitori - 034.jpg
- File:Il Volapük Critici e Abolitori - 035.jpg
- File:Il Volapük Critici e Abolitori - 036.jpg
- File:Il Volapük Critici e Abolitori - 037.jpg
- File:Il Volapük Critici e Abolitori - 038.jpg
- File:Il Volapük Critici e Abolitori - 039.jpg
- File:Il Volapük Critici e Abolitori - 040.jpg
- File:Il Volapük Critici e Abolitori - 041.jpg
- File:Il Volapük Critici e Abolitori - 042.jpg
- File:Il Volapük Critici e Abolitori - 043.jpg
- File:Il Volapük Critici e Abolitori - 044.jpg
- File:Il Volapük Critici e Abolitori - 045.jpg
- File:Il Volapük Critici e Abolitori - 046.jpg
- File:Il Volapük Critici e Abolitori - 047.jpg
- File:Il Volapük Critici e Abolitori - 048.jpg
- File:Il Volapük Critici e Abolitori - 049.jpg
- File:Il Volapük Critici e Abolitori - 050.jpg
- File:Il Volapük Critici e Abolitori - 051.jpg
- File:Il Volapük Critici e Abolitori - 052.jpg
- File:Il Volapük Critici e Abolitori - 053.jpg
- File:Il Volapük Critici e Abolitori - 054.jpg
- File:Il Volapük- Critici e Abolitori - 005.jpg
- File:VolapukCriticiEAbolitori Pagina01.png
- File:VolapükCriticiEAbolitori Pagina02 03.png
- File:VolapükCriticiEAbolitori Pagina04 05.png
- File:VolapükCriticiEAbolitori Pagina06 07.png
- File:VolapükCriticiEAbolitori Pagina08 09.png
- File:VolapükCriticiEAbolitori Pagina10 11.png
- File:VolapükCriticiEAbolitori Pagina12 13.png
- File:VolapükCriticiEAbolitori Pagina14 15.png
- File:VolapükCriticiEAbolitori Pagina16 17.png
- File:VolapükCriticiEAbolitori Pagina18 19.png
- File:VolapükCriticiEAbolitori Pagina20 21.png
- File:VolapükCriticiEAbolitori Pagina22 23.png
- File:VolapükCriticiEAbolitori Pagina24 25.png
- File:VolapükCriticiEAbolitori Pagina26 27.png
- File:VolapükCriticiEAbolitori Pagina28 29.png
- File:VolapükCriticiEAbolitori Pagina30 31.png
- File:VolapükCriticiEAbolitori Pagina32 33.png
- File:VolapükCriticiEAbolitori Pagina34 35.png
- File:VolapükCriticiEAbolitori Pagina36 37.png
- File:VolapükCriticiEAbolitori Pagina38 39.png
- File:VolapükCriticiEAbolitori Pagina40 41.png
- File:VolapükCriticiEAbolitori Pagina42 43.png
- File:VolapükCriticiEAbolitori Pagina44 45.png
- File:VolapükCriticiEAbolitori Pagina46 47.png
- File:VolapükCriticiEAbolitori Pagina48 49.png
- File:VolapükCriticiEAbolitori Pagina50 51.png
- File:VolapükCriticiEAbolitori Pagina52 53.png
- File:VolapükCriticiEAbolitori Pagina54.png
These files were originally uploaded by User:Qualc1 and User:Smeira to be used into a wikisource proofreading in pionieering period of this kind of jobs; then, a multipage djvu file has been build to support s:it:Indice:Il Volapük - Critici e Abolitori.djvu and original jpg and png images are not used at all.
Individual files will be tagged for deletion by my bot waiting for its flag here (User:Alex brolloBot) as a test. Bot will run as soon as creators will be notified. Alex_brollo Talk|Contrib 07:01, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:19, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
The watermarks on these images are so obstructive that they make the images themselves basically useless for our purposes. (gallery of images in this nom at User:Russavia/wm).
- (Please note the significant offer from the photographer towards the bottom of this DR)
- (OTRS is pending for all images.)
- (Uploading of originals and/or watermark removal is available for all images.)
- File:2008 Kentucky State Fair Roping Show (2765079725).jpg
- File:2008 Kentucky State Fair Roping Show (2765926132).jpg k
- File:A roadster Pony at the Shelbyville Horse Show (2731052407).jpg d
- File:A roadster Pony at the Shelbyville Horse Show (2731881964).jpg d
- File:Afternoon yoga (2743121958).jpg d
File:Akhal Teke Stallion - Gerald (2835601679).jpg- striking/already kept -- looks goodFile:Akhal Teke Stallion - GErald (2836432954).jpg- striking/already kept -- looks goodFile:Akhal Teke Stallion - Koublet (2836435266).jpg- striking/already kept -- looks good- File:Akhal Teke Stallion - Murmansk (2835595865).jpg k
- File:Akhal Teke Stallion - Murmansk (2836434376).jpg k
- File:Akhal Teke Stallion - Victory (2835600519).jpg kk completed
- File:Akhal Teke Stallion -Gerald (2835598637).jpg kk
File:Akhal Teke Stallion- Gerald (2835597069).jpg- striking/already kept -- looks good- File:Alaa Jabbar Maabsha (2660117090).jpg k
- File:Alborozo 10 (2690566112).jpg d
- File:Alborozo 11 (2690566038).jpg k
- File:Alborozo 12 (2689754253).jpg k
- File:Alborozo 13 (2690565878).jpg k
- File:Alborozo 14 (2689754081).jpg k
- File:Alborozo 15 (2690565734).jpg k
- File:Alborozo 16 (2690565634).jpg k
- File:Alborozo 17 (2689753837).jpg k
- File:Alborozo 18 (2689753745).jpg d
- File:Alborozo 19 (2690565382).jpg k
- File:Alborozo 2 (2689754923).jpg
- File:Alborozo 20 (2690565282).jpg
- File:Alborozo 21 (2690565196).jpg
- File:Alborozo 22 (2690565082).jpg
- File:Alborozo 3 (2690566574).jpg
- File:Alborozo 4 (2690566506).jpg k
- File:Alborozo 5 (2690566434).jpg k
- File:Alborozo 6 (2690566368).jpg
- File:Alborozo 7 (2689754621).jpg k
- File:Alborozo 8 (2689754535).jpg
- File:Alborozo 9 (2690566164).jpg
- File:Alborozo at the 2008 Breyerfest Celebration (Alborozo 1) (2680987111).jpg
- File:Ambendream (2668757693).jpg k
- File:American Saddlebreds (2744967394).jpg k
- File:Andalusian (Uraneo) (2694412050).jpg k
- File:Apaladin (2668758155).jpg k
- File:Appaloosa (2694411042).jpg
- File:Arabian (2692094677).jpg
- File:Arabian (2692908670).jpg
- File:Arabian (2692908698).jpg
- File:Arabian (2692908744).jpg
- File:Arabian Fine Harness Horse (2668752749).jpg k
- File:Arabian Fine Harness Horse (2668754017).jpg k
- File:Baskafirebey (2668758811).jpg
- File:Bay Andalusian (Half brother to Alborozo) (2690237419).jpg
- File:Bay Andalusian (Half brother to Alborozo) (2691048046).jpg
- File:Bay Andalusian (Half brother to Alborozo) (2691048104).jpg
- File:Bay Andalusian (Half brother to Alborozo) (2691048534).jpg
- File:Beyjullyen (2669580292).jpg
- File:Beyjullyen (2669580868).jpg
- File:Beyjullyen(jullyeneljamaalxbeyshahslady) (2669581518).jpg
- File:Beyjullyen(jullyeneljamaalxbeyshahslady)4 (2668760711).jpg
- File:Black Egyptian Arabian Filly Getting a Bath (Nahkda Nera) (2660288605).jpg
- File:Black Egyptian Arabian Filly Getting a Bath (Nahkda Nera) (2661118216).jpg
- File:Black Egyptian Arabian Filly Getting a Bath(Nahkda Nera) (2660288755).jpg
- File:Black Egyptian Arabian Filly Getting a Bath(Nahkda Nera) (2661118116).jpg
- File:Blowing off some steam during the show (Doesnt he look lovely anyway?) (2797697219).jpg
- File:Bluegrass Bandit (2691047588).jpg
- File:Boomerang (2669582192).jpg
- File:Boomerang (2669582660).jpg
- File:Carnivalcity (2664848841).jpg
- File:Caturday (2743122058).jpg
- File:Cowgirl Drill Team (2693598109).jpg
- File:Cowgirl Team (2694411692).jpg
- File:Curlin in the paddock at churchill downs before the Stephen Foster Handicap (2972612102).jpg
- File:Curlin on his way to the post in the Stephen Foster Handicap (2971767047).jpg
- File:Curlin on his way to the post in the Stephen Foster Handicap (2971767165).jpg
- File:Curlin on his way to the post in the Stephen Foster Handicap (2971767245).jpg
- File:Curlin on his way to the post in the Stephen Foster Handicap (2972612624).jpg
- File:Curlin on his way to winning the Stephen Foster Handicap (2972612204).jpg
- File:Daisy (2662073505).jpg
- File:Daisy (2662073553).jpg
- File:Daisy (2662899116).jpg
- File:Daylillies from July 10 2008 (2658472462).jpg
- File:Drum Horse (2694411914).jpg
- File:DZ Weedo (2690236459).jpg
- File:DZ Weedo (2690236543).jpg
- File:DZ Weedo (2690236611).jpg
- File:Eaerrogance (2668762513).jpg
- File:Equitation Class (2797696053).jpg
- File:Equitation Class (2797696553).jpg
- File:Equitation Class (2798539924).jpg
- File:Equitation Class (2798540468).jpg
- File:Female Ruby Throated Hummingbird (2675345719).jpg
- File:Female Ruby Throated Hummingbird (2675347787).jpg
- File:Female Ruby Throated Hummingbird (2721276366).jpg
- File:Female Ruby Throated Hummingbird (2721312246).jpg
- File:Female Ruby Throated Hummingbird (2725310825).jpg
- File:Female Ruby Throated Hummingbird (2744200019).jpg
- File:Female Ruby Throated Hummingbird (2772110677).jpg
- File:Female Ruby Throated Hummingbird (2772110729).jpg
- File:Female Ruby Throated Hummingbird (2772957668).jpg
- File:Female Ruby Throated Hummingbird (2789032795).jpg
- File:Female Ruby Throated Hummingbird and Black and Blue Salvia Flower (2739259280).jpg completed
- File:Fine Harness Class at the Shelbyville Horse Show (2733326105).jpg
- File:Fireworks (2662047095).jpg
- File:Fireworks (2662047135).jpg
- File:Fireworks (2662047199).jpg
- File:Fireworks (2662873398).jpg
- File:Freisian (2693598327).jpg
- File:Friesian (2692095179).jpg
- File:Friesian (2693597363).jpg
- File:Friesian (2694411738).jpg
- File:Friesian (2694411852).jpg
- File:Friesian (2694412340).jpg
- File:Friesian (2694412520).jpg
- File:Friesian at the Kentucky Horsepark (2666908361).jpg
- File:Friesian at the Kentucky Horsepark (2666908401).jpg
- File:Friesians (2692094785).jpg
- File:Friesians (2692095013).jpg
- File:Got him! (2766288586).jpg
- File:Green Dragonfly (2745036490).jpg
- File:Gypsy Horse Mare (2694411154).jpg
- File:Hackney Pony (2788620270).jpg
- File:Highflinger Vaulting Demonstration (2690237691).jpg
- File:Highflinger Vaulting Demonstration (2691048928).jpg
- File:Highflinger Vaulting Demonstration (2691048972).jpg
- File:Hovering female ruby throated hummingbird (2739259080).jpg
- File:Hovering female ruby throated hummingbird (2739259116).jpg
- File:Hovering female ruby throated hummingbird (2739259198).jpg
- File:Hovering female ruby throated hummingbird (2739259246).jpg
- File:Hysterical lady (2664849433).jpg
- File:Hysterical lady (2665672060).jpg
- File:Icelantic Horse (2693597777).jpg
- File:Icelantic Horse (2693597817).jpg
- File:Icelantic HOrses (2694411194).jpg
- File:IMG 4703ep (2664848595).jpg
- File:Kathleens reel (2664849545).jpg
- File:Kiger Mustang (2692908156).jpg
- File:Kiger Mustang (2692908248).jpg
- File:Kitty feet (2742315129).jpg
- File:Ldpistal (2668766165).jpg
- File:Ldpistal (2668766987).jpg
- File:Ldpistal (2668767787).jpg
- File:Ldpistal (2669586786).jpg
- File:Ldpistal2 (2668765051).jpg
- File:Lillies (2699212106).jpg
- File:Lippizan (2693598799).jpg
- File:Lippizan (2693598939).jpg
- File:Lippizan (2694410820).jpg
- File:Lippizan (2694410856).jpg
- File:LIppizan (2694412120).jpg
- File:Lippizan (2694412462).jpg
- File:Lippizan (2694412572).jpg
- File:Magneeto wlf (2669589348).jpg
- File:Magneeto wolf (2669589986).jpg
- File:Mailbox spiderweb (2699212030).jpg
- File:Maileys cat (2665672662).jpg
- File:Mary Gaylord McClean and the Saddlebred Mare "According to Lynn" (2797700425).jpg
- File:Mary Gaylord McClean and the Saddlebred Mare "According to Lynn" (2797700865).jpg
- File:Mcamagnumgold (2669591690).jpg
- File:Mcamagnumgold(magnumpsychexlitique) (2668770189).jpg
- File:Michael matz (2665673526).jpg
- File:Miniature Donkey (2690237655).jpg
- File:Miniature Horse Mare (2694412008).jpg
- File:Miniature Horse Stallion (2694411428).jpg
- File:Miniature Horse Stallion (2694411488).jpg
- File:Miniature Horse Stallion (2694411528).jpg
- File:Miniature Horse Stallion (galloping with birds!) (2694411386).jpg
- File:Miniature Pony Mare (2693598451).jpg
- File:Miniature scale Blue, black and white braided bridle by Heather Moreton-Abounader of Desert Night Creations (3900202991).jpg
- File:Mocha (2662074201).jpg
- File:MOcha (2662899294).jpg
- File:Mocha (2662899360).jpg
- File:Mocha (2662899742).jpg
- File:Morgan Horse (2756635853).jpg
- File:Morgan Horse (2757470324).jpg
- File:Morgan Horse (2787706849).jpg
- File:Morgan Horse (2788561338).jpg
- File:Morgan HOrse (2788561646).jpg
- File:Ms firedevil (2668770779).jpg
- File:Msfiredevil(padronspsychexaerialfireecho)2 (2668771061).jpg
- File:Mustang (2692094159).jpg
- File:Mustang (2692907806).jpg
- File:Mustang (2692907896).jpg
- File:Nakota horse (2692094383).jpg
- File:Nakota horse (2692094571).jpg
- File:Nakota horse (2692908414).jpg
- File:Native Arabian Costume Horse (2668748231).jpg
- File:Native Arabian Costume Horse (2668748621).jpg
- File:Native Arabian Costume Horse (2668749063).jpg
- File:Native Arabian Costume Horse (2669568052).jpg
- File:Native Arabian Costume Horse (2669568566).jpg
- File:Navajomoun (2668771663).jpg
- File:Photo of my Son (2774751475).jpg
- File:Piaff4 (2668772089).jpg
- File:Playboy Playing (2658715091).jpg
- File:Playboy Playing (2658715129).jpg
- File:Playboy Playing (2659542318).jpg
- File:Playboy Playing (2659542474).jpg
- File:Playboy Trotting (2658715267).jpg
- File:Post Office Horse (2771209728).jpg
- File:Practice Polo at the Kentucky Horsepark (2667750884).jpg
- File:Practice Polo at the Kentucky Horsepark (2667750928).jpg
- File:Practice Polo at the Kentucky Horsepark (2667750978).jpg
- File:Practice Polo at the Kentucky Horsepark (2667751092).jpg
- File:Practice Polo at the Kentucky Horsepark (2667751140).jpg
- File:Practice Polo at the Kentucky Horsepark (2667751228).jpg
- File:Practice Polo at the Kentucky Horsepark (2667751276).jpg
- File:Practice Polo at the Kentucky Horsepark (2667751314).jpg
- File:Practice Polo at the Kentucky Horsepark (2667751372).jpg
- File:Practice Polo at the Kentucky Horsepark (2667751422).jpg
- File:Practice Polo at the Kentucky Horsepark (2667751470).jpg
- File:Quarter Horse (2662073883).jpg
- File:Quarter Horse (2662899644).jpg
- File:Quarter Horse (2662899854).jpg
- File:Quarter horse (2692908100).jpg
- File:Quarter horses (2634380567).jpg
- File:Quarterhorse (2662899254).jpg
- File:Quiet Time (2742284519).jpg
- File:Rashadvanryad (2668773495).jpg
- File:Rashadvanryad (2669593866).jpg
- File:Recapture the Glory (2665675664).jpg
- File:Regency Dandy Daylily July 2008 (2658798084).jpg
- File:Roadster Ponies at the Shelbyville Horse Show (2732623418).jpg
- File:Roadster To bike (2744967440).jpg
- File:Roadster To bike (2744967522).jpg
- File:Roadster To bike (2744967574).jpg
- File:Roaster Ponies (2731881924).jpg
- File:Rob Byers and "After Eight" at the 2008 Rock Creek Spring Show (2673579453).jpg
- File:Roping Show (2757470078).jpg
- File:Saddlebred (2692094043).jpg
- File:Saddlebred Horse (2787764131).jpg
- File:Saddlebred Horse (2787764829).jpg
- File:Saddlebred Horse (2788619858).jpg
- File:Saddlebred Horse (2788620622).jpg
- File:Sahara In the Sun (2847238238).jpg
- File:Sale Pending (2664848981).jpg
- File:Sassy Bird (female grey jay) (2698999047).jpg
- File:Shire (2692908618).jpg
- File:Shire (2693598727).jpg
- File:Shire (2694411008).jpg
- File:Shire Horse (2690237151).jpg
- File:Shire Horse (2691048372).jpg
- File:Shire Horse (2694410932).jpg
- File:Sjustice (2669595068).jpg
- File:Sjustice(justafiredglxaalusivebey) (2669595626).jpg
- File:Sleepy Cat (2789762985).jpg
- File:Sly storm (2664849311).jpg
- File:Spotted DOnkey (2694411334).jpg
- File:Spotted Saddle Horse (2692908296).jpg
- File:Stallion (2694411102).jpg
- File:Steer Roping at the Kentucky State fair QUarter Horse show (2751000601).jpg
- File:Steer Roping at the Kentucky State fair QUarter Horse show (2751833602).jpg
- File:Steer Roping at the Kentucky State fair QUarter Horse show (2751833934).jpg
- File:Texas wildcater (2664850981).jpg
- File:The Andalusian stallion, Uraneo (2680987157).jpg
- File:The Fine Harness Mare, "Along Came a Spider" (2797698087).jpg
- File:The Fine Harness Mare, "Along Came a Spider" (2797698577).jpg
- File:The Racehorse "Sale Pending" (2664849145).jpg
- File:The Roaster Pony "Beaulah Jean" winning the roadster championship at the 2008 WOrlds Championship Horse Show (2817699688).jpg
- File:The Roaster Pony "Beaulah Jean" winning the roadster championship at the 2008 WOrlds Championship Horse Show (2817700158).jpg
- File:The Saddlebred Mare According to Lynn (2744967654).jpg
- File:The Stallion Eight O Clock (2797699841).jpg
- File:The Worlds Champion Five Gaited Horse, "Breaking News" (2797694539).jpg
- File:This Female hummingbird sat on this bush for hours protecting her territory (Luckily for me!) (2830642993).jpg
- File:Trakehner (2692908530).jpg
- File:Unbridled vicar (2664849957).jpg
- File:Uraneo Andalusian (alborozos Half brother) (2694412182).jpg
- File:Uraneo Bay Andalusian (Half brother to Alborozo) (2690237479).jpg
- File:Uraneo Bay Andalusian (Half brother to Alborozo) (2690237607).jpg
- File:Visionaire (2664851101).jpg
- File:Visionaire (2664853951).jpg
- File:Visionaire (2665672432).jpg
- File:Visionaire, My Pal Charlie (2665670158).jpg
- File:Visionaire, My Pal Charlie and Pyro (2664852605).jpg
- File:Vj justaberry bey (2668774943).jpg
- File:Waiting for a turn (2751000703).jpg
- File:Welsh Pony (2662899054).jpg
- File:Welsh Pony (2662899612).jpg
- File:Winner of the Equitation Class (2797697675).jpg
- File:Zeezee (2665672890).jpg
- File:Zeezee cjs leelee (2664850793).jpg
- File:Zeezee pure clan (2665673006).jpg
russavia (talk) 08:14, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
- Keep I'm more ambivalent on this. I was the one that sorted these out into a 'watermarked' category; if the photographer has complained, then yes, I'd let these go. However for those particularly interested in horse breeds, some of these may be worth a bit of time digitally restoring. As the watermark is the same across all these, it would not be hard to create a mask that could be used across many of the files. I would draw a comparison with my recent category Ministry of Information Second World War colour transparencies (watermarked), this has 45 photographs from WWII, important due to how rare colour photographs were from the period and the fact that they include some good quality portraits of senior military figures. I am not planning to fix all these myself, but it really does not matter if only a small proportion end up being used, or if digital restoration does not happen for a couple of years, the point is that they have reasonable potential use for educational purposes and we should not be acting in haste on photographs that fall within scope. --Fæ (talk) 08:45, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
removing watermarks is fast and easy with varying results. Many of these are useful, probably all. I've done some watermarks in this series and see a lot of usefulness for all of the images I've yet seen. There is plenty of space and plenty of use for them. Penyulap ☏ 06:10, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
.jpg)
_wmr.jpg)
.jpg)
Sad speedy delete and speedy delete derived works.The images appear to be (CC BY-NC 2.0) and hence non-free in our terms. Rich Farmbrough, 15:02 17 February 2013 (GMT).- Rich, the files at the time of uploading were available under CC-BY. They have since stopped offering photos under that licence, and now have them licence as CC-BY-NC, but we are able to continue using the photos which we have on Commons under the CC-BY licence. russavia (talk) 16:21, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
- Ah, well in that case I incline to "keep" - automatic cleaning will be possible, in maybe a few weeks. Rich Farmbrough, 17:30 17 February 2013 (GMT).
- Rich, the files at the time of uploading were available under CC-BY. They have since stopped offering photos under that licence, and now have them licence as CC-BY-NC, but we are able to continue using the photos which we have on Commons under the CC-BY licence. russavia (talk) 16:21, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
- Delete I think that files with such a instrusive watermark are out of scope. New edited versions should be uploaded over the old ones. Yann (talk) 08:16, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
I'm marking some with a k or a kk or a d.
k meaning that there is either a good result expected from watermark removal, or there is something else in the picture of value after cropping, or a valuable texture. Usually, it's just the watermark can be removed.
kk means keep this for certain, the removal of the watermark is extremely trivial and it's guaranteed to be a good photo afterward.
d is delete in my opinion, it's crap.
The list is long and something serious has come up, I'll try to get them marked at least, I hope to show which to save, and work on them a little later. (saving now after a page or two have been reviewed, wow, only 1/7th marked.) Penyulap ☏ 09:07, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
- Having the list worked on in this way, is sort of the point of me sticking them in a backlog category. I suggest that this working list of what to keep, delete or fix, is moved to the category talk page and we close this DR as unnecessary. This way there would be no artificial deadline for Penyulap to finish this good work of review, or for others to join in, discuss and help out. It's, er, a more mellow approach. --Fæ (talk) 11:02, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
It takes about 10 minutes to do each one semi-automated. That is not at all a lot to ask for at the graphics lab. To do all of them would take too long for me, to do them when asked would be a snap.
I suggest leaving them in the collection and doing them on request. A bit of a review might be the go, to throw out a few, but that should be done by someone who can remove watermarks, so they choose correctly for todays technology, OR simply grade them assuming that software will improve and the watermark should be totally ignored, then judge what is left in the photo and keep according to content. Penyulap ☏ 11:20, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
Delete There are 279 images here. At 10 minutes each, that's 46 hours of volunteer time to clean these up. That's not a good use of our resources and it rewards the photographer's poor (for our needs) behavior. I'd delete these and ask that she upload them again without the watermarks. If we don't get them that way, then it is not a tragedy -- far more of a problem is wasting a lot of volunteer time with these. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:20, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
- A somewhat bizarre rationale, we are not forcing viewers to spend time looking at these images, nor are we forcing anyone to remove the watermarks. If any volunteer wishes to make use of these photographs in the benefit of open knowledge, I'm not sure that it is a good thing for a self-selected elite on Commons (yes, us) to decide that they must spend their time doing something else that we think is more valuable. What should matter here is policy, these images are realistically of an educational purpose and it has already been demonstrated that as and when any of these might be useful, the watermarks on an image can be removed fairly easily. There should be no time-limit in this scenario and nobody has actually said that all 279 images must be kept forever. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 19:12, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
.jpg)
I think that the conversation may have become TLDR, as some comments don't appear to follow the conversation at all, but appear somewhat drive-by. The person closing the discussion would do well to take this into account. Penyulap ☏ 20:03, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
- Interesting group here. We have our most senior Admin, Yann, and probably our most prolific contributor, Fæ (I can't document that but I haven't seen anybody else with anything like 600,000 edits on Commons). As Admins for only three years, Russavia and I are relative beginners. I respect all three of their opinions, although, Lord knows, we don't always agree. Yann, Russavia, and I would delete; Fæ, would keep. Although Rich has been around a long time, he has only 450 edits on Commons. Penylap, I have seen recently in several discussion, but also has relatively little experience here.
- I don't think it is a question of being an "elite", as Fæ puts it, but of having enough experience to have a good instinct about what Commons consensus on a matter would be. The three Admins on the delete side of this are very rarely reversed on appeal to an UnDR - well less than one tenth of percent of their 125,000 deletions have been restored. Of course, against that, we have Fæ's much larger experience, albeit untested as an Admin.
- In addition to my "bizarre" (really?) comments above, I point out that these images have had their source license changed to NC. When some of these very nice images get out into commercial use without their watermarks, I wouldn't be surprised at all if the WMF gets a DMCA takedown notice, or other legal sword rattling. This is a professional photographer who either made a mistake or did not realize that she was putting good images out there for the world to use without her watermark. While any use of our versions of these files would be entirely legal, we do no one a favor to host a lot of images that are currently licensed NC and are potentially a lawsuit. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 02:58, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
- Strange to put so much weight into such strange places. I always give respect where it's due, however I don't think that people develop a halo and earn a place in scriptures at a particular point in their contributions, where people with such thinking surround a leader in RL, disaster usually follows quickly. Military campaigns are often defined by this.
- Are there any pictures on commons safe from retroactive changes in licensing ? Which of them should be deleted 'just in case' ?
- A take-down notice resulting in simply taking them down is a good argument to keep them as they are with watermarks and all, and do the work as and when requested. Investment, 10 mins per pic or less, and it's same as any other picture on commons. Every time I put up a Whambo made from images on commons, someone eventually finds a loophole. Loopholes are common on commons, no need to worry about them.
- The template for watermark really needs work, it focuses more on people arguing about these images, discouragement and demands, rather than emphasising the increasing ease with which they can be removed with modern techniques. Perhaps a link to a tutorial, the graphics lab, and some examples would help avoid the stress and arguments that break out in places. Penyulap ☏ 04:27, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
- (responding to Jameslwoodward) On the main point, I did say "if the photographer has complained, then yes, I'd let these go". You will also note that User:Dana boomer wrote on my talk page User_talk:Fæ#Princess_Merida_photographs (everyone did read that right?
) about these horse photos and I advised them to write to the photographer before using them for anything significant, because of the change to NC on Flickr and that this would be a respectful thing to do. I suggest, as we have spent so long talking rather than doing, that someone takes the initiative to check with Dana on progress, and if there has been no reply from the photographer (Heather Morton) that someone now writes to the Flickr account, point out this discussion, and ask for any feedback or request they would like to give us. If Morton now confirms that she changed to the NC licence to stop the sort of re-use that Commons offers, including removal of watermarks, then as said before, I would support deleting all these and reconsider any others that have had watermarks removed. - I'd do this myself, but I'm way over-committed for several days now. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 07:48, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
- (responding to Jameslwoodward) On the main point, I did say "if the photographer has complained, then yes, I'd let these go". You will also note that User:Dana boomer wrote on my talk page User_talk:Fæ#Princess_Merida_photographs (everyone did read that right?
.JPG){kind=link}
![69 File:" 12 Luxury black sedan - Lancia Thema - Executive car.jpeg](#File:"_12_Luxury_black_sedan_-_Lancia_Thema_-_Executive_car.jpeg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){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){kind=link}
![14:47, 15 February 2013 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2013/02/15#c-Stefan4-2013-02-15T14:47:00.000Z-File:"_12_Luxury_black_sedan_-_Lancia_Thema_-_Executive_car.jpeg){kind=link}
![00:34, 22 February 2013 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2013/02/15#c-INeverCry-2013-02-22T00:34:00.000Z-File:"_12_Luxury_black_sedan_-_Lancia_Thema_-_Executive_car.jpeg){kind=link}
-2013-02-15T15:13:00.000Z-File:Vittoz.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&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
-2013-02-15T19:25:00.000Z-File:HassanNasrallah,poster.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&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&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&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(2680987111).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_(2694412050).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_(2690237419).jpg){kind=link}
_(2691048046).jpg){kind=link}
_(2691048104).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(2691048534).jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_(2669581518).jpg){kind=link}
4_(2668760711).jpg){kind=link}
_(2660288605).jpg){kind=link}
_(2661118216).jpg){kind=link}
_(2660288755).jpg){kind=link}
_(2661118116).jpg){kind=link}
_(2797697219).jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_(2668770189).jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_(2694411386).jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
2_(2668771061).jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_(2698999047).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_(2669595626).jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_(2830642993).jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_(2694412182).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(2690237479).jpg){kind=link}
_(2690237607).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
- I'd like to precise my opinion after the comments above. These images are out of scope with such a watermark. If someone wants to remove these watermarks, great, but this could take a long time, and never happen. So, 1. they should not have been uploaded with the watermark, 2. they should not stay with a watermark. I'd suggest copying them on some other place in the waiting (Flickr, Dropbox, etc.). Regards, Yann (talk) 19:27, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
 | This user no longer requires hardware to login to the WikiMatrix. |
Yeah, this userbox sucks so much it'll never be used, but seriously, how is anyone going to make or answer a graphics lab request to remove a watermark ? If people can't upload them in order to ask, are they all supposed to learn to do it themselves ? I can't see that happening, on en.wiki people defend their right to be ignorant to the death. I'm not going to expose myself by hacking into other people's computers directly, and posting links to attack sites that supposedly host watermarked images is unsafe. I think we should just encourage the olde working together sort of thing here on commons.
But I support the idea of using flickr instead of commons outright, it's a lot more stable. Commons can't host content for non wmf sites reliably, flickr can. Penyulap ☏ 21:19, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
Delete The creator of these images uploaded them to Flickr with the watermark. Why would someone stamp a large and obtrusive watermark diagonally across an image? My presumption is that she wanted people to be able to see the images, but not re-use them. If she wanted people to re-use them but ensure that she was recognized as the source, she would likely have placed the watermark at the bottom. But she likely also knows that some people would simply crop the watermark off and use the image without credit. Since the images were uploaded to Commons, she has changed the license to non-commercial. I have no doubt that she did not expect someone to remove her watermark and offer the images for any use, including in commercial projects. I am appalled by lack of common sense and empathy displayed here. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:36, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
- I think better reasons can be found than presuming her intention was contrary to her action.
- If you're worried about her feelings, why not ask her ? If she has a business, there'd be contact details, if she sells images, she must have a shop. There is also the flickr account and she might be contacted there as well. Plus there is always good olde google. There is no need to presume, speculate and double guess.
- I for one am happy to vote for the artists wishes not against, but I won't follow double guesses speculating what they are. So I still suggest keep, until she actually says otherwise in her own voice... Penyulap ☏ 09:42, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
- Comment As nobody else seemed prepared to get their finger out, I have now written to the photographer as below. I suggest any admin action is deferred for a reasonable period (say, another 7 days at least) to allow for a reply. Thanks Fæ (talk) 10:57, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
LOlz. edit conflict, I wrote to Heather as well. Penyulap ☏ 10:58, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
- I've got a response from Heather. More soon. Penyulap ☏ 13:56, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
Looks like a keep from the artist. Other details will take time. I recommend just marking as keep, watermarks can be removed on request or when I'm bored, Heather may upload originals over the top later on, although it is not definite. Most likely the image pages will get links to her site added and I guess that would lead to the photos being spruced up a little. That's my view on it for now. Regardless of what happens, with them here, people can ask and have the images either way, and some of them are lovely that is indisputable, and many are marked keep already. But I recommend we find someone with a serious look on their face and a slightly grumpy disposition to delete a few so that Heather doesn't get a big head from all the praise over these fine photos. Maybe delete a few of the fireworks ones, they would be good textures for painting with, but would be out of scope on commons. Penyulap ☏ 14:50, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
- Yep, similar message received by me. Very much a thumbs up from the photographer as she recognizes the educational mission of Wikimedia Commons and has no problem with volunteers removing watermarks. --Fæ (talk) 21:45, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
- Well I would like to thank Heather publicly for her kindness and generosity as I understand it, a flickr glitch had allowed us to get a hold of the images in the first place, and I can see on her website that some of the images we have here and consider the best are the very same images she is offering for sale. So allowing us to keep what we have is quite significant.
- Heather has asked for a link from the images back to her website, and according to our clear policy page at Com:USER, I'll do that for her. Penyulap ☏ 00:03, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
- OTRS needed What is needed here is for her to send in a solid OTRS release. The photos currently show on flickr with a licensce NOT comaptible with COMMONS. I can process such a request if it is received. The watermarks are really bad. Many may get deleted in the meantime. I can process OTRS if need be. PumpkinSky talk 23:29, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
- Sorry PumkinSky, I have to say that we certainly do not need OTRS when the evidence is this completely clear of the wishes of the photographer. It is bizarre that you apparently do not trust me, a trusted user and a previous productive OTRS volunteer for two years with over 600,000 Commons edits, over 40,000 images uploaded to Commons and instead want to rely on a database number rubber-stamped from an OTRS volunteer with far less Commons experience, to record precisely the same information that I have supplied publicly. Access to OTRS does not give a magical badge of authority that overrules all on-project processes, it is primarily a means to offer reasonable confidence to private information, and even that cannot be guaranteed for records held on that database. Thanks for your suggestion, but it is misplaced in this case as there is no private information to be kept private. --Fæ (talk) 00:29, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
- OTRS is not required when a Flickr review has been done already, even if they change the license. If you want to argue that at the time of licensing she did not consent to it since it was a glitch - how do we know it's a glitch? Through the mouth of a Commons user. If you don't trust a Commoner to truthfully relay her new intentions, how can you trust them to be telling the truth in the first place? -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 10:59, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
- I hope that I'm not being disruptive or stepping in where I don't belong: but please let me explain about the watermarks. At the time that I uploaded those photos to flickr I had just had my first child and I was still dealing with some postpartum issues. I never dreamed that anyone would want to use them because I didn't think that they were that good. I put the watermarks on out of insecurity. (You're right, the watermarks are bad and I should replace those photos.) Then as the years went on, I just kinda forgot and didn't think twice about it. I want wikimedia to use my photos if you guys want to do so. I'll be happy to help upload any photos (and I realize that there are a lot) that you guys wish to use. I don't know the procedures but I learn fast :) It will take me time of course but I'm happy to share them with you. Some of the horse breeds represented in my photos are quite rare (akhal teke, fell pony, caspian horses, dales pony, kerry bog pony) and I think that they would be a good reference for folks. I will digitally sign or actually sign whatever forms that you need me to, to authorize their usage. Thank you, Heather Moreton Abounader --abounaderphoto
- Hi Heather, thanks for taking the time to join in the project. It is a lot more meaningful to have an attribution license that then gives you the legal right to claim attribution for any re-use. For example with a license requiring attribution of your name and a link to your website, should a magazine or newspaper ever want to re-use the photo, they can do so freely, but only if they respect your attribution, if they fail to do so, they run the risk of finding you asking for compensation for not being correctly attributed for your work. This is much better protection than a water-mark, which could be cropped off or claimed to be misunderstood as to what your intention was.
- You can upload a un-watermarked, or higher resolution version of any of the above images just by going to the image page and clicking the "Upload a new version of this file" link towards the end of the page. The file you upload will over-write the file, but nicely keep the current categories and history of the old file. If you would like to read more about Commons and how things work, you will find Help:Contents very useful.
- There's no hurry, and you can always ask for basic advice at Commons:Help desk where our most helpful volunteers tend to hang out.
- By the way, if you get one image nicely sorted out and have an attribution statement you are happy with (such as your name and a website link on a CC-BY-SA template), then I can fairly easily mass change the other files in this category to include your preferred wording. Cheers --Fæ (talk) 01:19, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
- I hope that I'm not being disruptive or stepping in where I don't belong: but please let me explain about the watermarks. At the time that I uploaded those photos to flickr I had just had my first child and I was still dealing with some postpartum issues. I never dreamed that anyone would want to use them because I didn't think that they were that good. I put the watermarks on out of insecurity. (You're right, the watermarks are bad and I should replace those photos.) Then as the years went on, I just kinda forgot and didn't think twice about it. I want wikimedia to use my photos if you guys want to do so. I'll be happy to help upload any photos (and I realize that there are a lot) that you guys wish to use. I don't know the procedures but I learn fast :) It will take me time of course but I'm happy to share them with you. Some of the horse breeds represented in my photos are quite rare (akhal teke, fell pony, caspian horses, dales pony, kerry bog pony) and I think that they would be a good reference for folks. I will digitally sign or actually sign whatever forms that you need me to, to authorize their usage. Thank you, Heather Moreton Abounader --abounaderphoto
- Hi Heather, you are most welcome to the project and your presence here isn't in the slightest bit disruptive. The only issue I have with the images as listed above is the presence of the watermark across them, which as you acknowledge detracts from their usability. If editors are willing to take on the task of removing the watermarks, that would be great. It might be even better if you might be able to provide to unwatermarked versions of the images. I am sure that Fae would be willing to assist you with the nitty gritty of this. russavia (talk) 01:32, 2 March 2013 (UTC){{}}
(Edit conflict)x2 I'd like to confirm that Abounaderphoto is my friend Heather, everything she has typed here is an exact match :D
( 'Trust me I'm a politician / used car salesman / expert has never worked for me either )
I think the ideal thing to do is if someone drafts an OTRS letter, I know there is a form letter somewhere, I've sent it to many people with some success, but I have no idea where it is right now. Someone could put a copy of the draft letter and the list of images onto Heather's talkpage and she could fill in her name and email it to OTRS.
When people stumble across the images with the watermark and aren't familiar with this TLDR (too long didn't read) discussion, they'll see the OTRS template and know it is all OK.
I would like to keep the before and after images of the nice looking horse and handler shown on this page so that we can add it to the watermarks guideline page as a fine example of the watermark removal process. This I think was discussed elsewhere, can't recall where, that we could put examples on that page to improve it. People could see two things. One, that it is not a big deal to put a watermark on, because it can be removed, so maybe they should look at other ways to present their images and attribution,... and Two, that it is NOT worth all the fuss some people make saying that watermarked images shouldn't be uploaded, because it is a trivial matter to remove the watermarks and the images are just fine afterwards. This second message is quite important, as it will take some time to educate people that with the use of modern software, watermarks on images are no cause for concern. Penyulap ☏ 01:36, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
It would be fine with me for you to keep the "befores" and "Afters". I have a whole lot to read before I can properly upload so that will have to wait until tomorrow. I'm also fine with the watermarks being removed if possible. Thank you for the nice welcome and thank you to Fae and penyulap for the private emails asking for my permission to use my photos :-). abounaderphoto
- @FAE...It's not that I don't trust you. That's not it at all. It's more like what Penyulap said...."I think the ideal thing to do is if someone drafts an OTRS letter, I know there is a form letter somewhere, I've sent it to many people with some success, but I have no idea where it is right now. Someone could put a copy of the draft letter and the list of images onto Heather's talkpage and she could fill in her name and email it to OTRS. When people stumble across the images with the watermark and aren't familiar with this TLDR (too long didn't read) discussion, they'll see the OTRS template and know it is all OK." For the long term, OTRS is the best solution. PumpkinSky talk 15:14, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
- No it certainly is not the *best* solution. The best solution is one that fits our shared values of openness for open knowledge. This DR itself can be linked to from any image page under discussion, or all image pages if necessary. This would avoid any possible need to hide things away on a secret database where only a group of people, most of whom do not even openly use their real names and have no open system of public accountability or governance, control access away from public eyes. If needs be, I can set up a *public* sub-page of my user page with the emails as evidence and add a link to that page on every upload in the permissions parameter of the information template. I would rather make some small effort to do that, rather than arbitrarily increase the 'power' of OTRS by forcing members of the public to find OTRS agents to ask about the secret records, for situations where there is no need for secrecy or confidentiality. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 15:59, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
- I am not clear why an OTRS ticket could not be placed on the files. That's the usual way, and then any and every user will then be totally clear that the images are okay. Not everyone knows who you are, Fæ, so having a sub-page under your name would not prove a thing to the run-of-the mill user. -- Diannaa (talk) 20:18, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
- My name is entirely tangential, as the photographer now has an account on Commons, a relevant declaration could even be a sub-page of her own user page. Saying that, if she does soon over-write the file with a better version, then the standard Commons process is not to require OTRS tickets for self uploads with perfectly good self-made attribution statements on a self-release. Again OTRS is not needed where there are no issues of confidentiality, at that point it just becomes a random number and a link that damages openness and transparency by locking material away from public view - something that begins to look a lot like bureaucracy for the sake of it. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 20:33, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
- My point is that random users need to be able to tell at a glance that the licenses are valid, and the OTRS ticket is the usual way to do that. If the copyright holder decides to re-upload the images without watermarks, those files would not technically require OTRS tickets, but even there, it might be a good idea to have an OTRS ticket in place because that confirms for the casual user that the Flickr account and the Commons account are held by the same person. An email on a subpage is not the usual way to do that; the email is normally held by the OTRS team and a template placed on the file. -- Diannaa (talk) 20:53, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
- I think I've put the case clearly enough why resorting to secret OTRS records does not fit our value of openness for the public benefit. I'll take this page off my watchlist and leave it to others to help finish sorting out these image pages, I probably take this value and the mission far too seriously. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 21:06, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
- My point is that random users need to be able to tell at a glance that the licenses are valid, and the OTRS ticket is the usual way to do that. If the copyright holder decides to re-upload the images without watermarks, those files would not technically require OTRS tickets, but even there, it might be a good idea to have an OTRS ticket in place because that confirms for the casual user that the Flickr account and the Commons account are held by the same person. An email on a subpage is not the usual way to do that; the email is normally held by the OTRS team and a template placed on the file. -- Diannaa (talk) 20:53, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
- My name is entirely tangential, as the photographer now has an account on Commons, a relevant declaration could even be a sub-page of her own user page. Saying that, if she does soon over-write the file with a better version, then the standard Commons process is not to require OTRS tickets for self uploads with perfectly good self-made attribution statements on a self-release. Again OTRS is not needed where there are no issues of confidentiality, at that point it just becomes a random number and a link that damages openness and transparency by locking material away from public view - something that begins to look a lot like bureaucracy for the sake of it. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 20:33, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
- I am not clear why an OTRS ticket could not be placed on the files. That's the usual way, and then any and every user will then be totally clear that the images are okay. Not everyone knows who you are, Fæ, so having a sub-page under your name would not prove a thing to the run-of-the mill user. -- Diannaa (talk) 20:18, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
- No it certainly is not the *best* solution. The best solution is one that fits our shared values of openness for open knowledge. This DR itself can be linked to from any image page under discussion, or all image pages if necessary. This would avoid any possible need to hide things away on a secret database where only a group of people, most of whom do not even openly use their real names and have no open system of public accountability or governance, control access away from public eyes. If needs be, I can set up a *public* sub-page of my user page with the emails as evidence and add a link to that page on every upload in the permissions parameter of the information template. I would rather make some small effort to do that, rather than arbitrarily increase the 'power' of OTRS by forcing members of the public to find OTRS agents to ask about the secret records, for situations where there is no need for secrecy or confidentiality. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 15:59, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
- @FAE...It's not that I don't trust you. That's not it at all. It's more like what Penyulap said...."I think the ideal thing to do is if someone drafts an OTRS letter, I know there is a form letter somewhere, I've sent it to many people with some success, but I have no idea where it is right now. Someone could put a copy of the draft letter and the list of images onto Heather's talkpage and she could fill in her name and email it to OTRS. When people stumble across the images with the watermark and aren't familiar with this TLDR (too long didn't read) discussion, they'll see the OTRS template and know it is all OK." For the long term, OTRS is the best solution. PumpkinSky talk 15:14, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
- Fae, I think the original reason for concern is that Heather's photos were all mass-uploaded by a now-blocked user, so it made the whole thing look a bit sketchy. The other problem besides the watermarking is that the categorization by the uploader was terrible -- I mean, "Category:Spring"? Also, and more to the point, many of the rare breed photos weren't put in categories for that breed and, worse yet, several were miscategorized - I found this whole mess by accident when I discovered photos of Andalusians and ponies categorized as Morabs! =:-O But the photos are excellent for our purposes, but the watermarks are distracting and violate NOADS, and we really could use them in the equine wikiprojects if they get cleaned up! So however we get there, let's get there, If someone can send an OTRS to Heather to independently verify that she is the owner of her username and she is who she says she is, then we can work with her to remove the watermarks (I don't have the software to do it, myself though. But I can work on categories) -- and I could REALLY use the sidesaddle and fine harness images in some wikipedia articles! Montanabw (talk) 16:39, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
I put a draft otrs email on heather's talkpage so that it can be edited and corrected by people who are better at it than me :) Penyulap ☏ 13:35, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
- Great, let's just get this done! Montanabw (talk) 17:11, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
- Also, can someone restore or re-upload the four images (or the best one from each of the two groups) above that WERE deleted? They happened to be quite useful and appropriate for some wikipedia articles on roadster horses and Team roping... Montanabw (talk) 17:13, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
- The sample on her talk page is fine as long as she sends it in. The ones with watermarks (which are many including deleted ones) are unuseable as is simply because they are ugly. Can someone reiterate that if she releases these under a commons compatible license that would be okay to be cleaned up? (probably a dumb request but eh....warm fuzzies never hurt). PumpkinSky talk 23:26, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
- Also, can someone restore or re-upload the four images (or the best one from each of the two groups) above that WERE deleted? They happened to be quite useful and appropriate for some wikipedia articles on roadster horses and Team roping... Montanabw (talk) 17:13, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
I sent in the Form Just now. Also, if the watermarks can be removed, then please feel free to remove them. If not, I would be happy to upload a replacement. I am willing to help in any way I can. :) HeatherAbounaderphoto
- You are very kind. There is no hurry, you can upload as it takes your fancy. A list of priority images from Montanabw is what we need now. That way, if any can't be found, I can make them, and they can be added to the articles Montanabw is working on. Penyulap ☏ 23:44, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
- Russavia has closed the OTRS ticket as approved but hasn't had time to process the images. I will do that. But someone please remove the watermarks or upload clean images. And as OTRS is now in, this will be closed as keep. PumpkinSky talk 19:14, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
- As above I've approved the OTRS ticket and have applied it to all images. Can I leave this DR up to others to close? russavia (talk) 19:26, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
- Working on it now.PumpkinSky talk 19:33, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
Kept: OTRS received PumpkinSky talk 19:35, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
There's an SVG of the Canadian flag, this is a scaled down dupe of it. Fry1989 eh? 20:52, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
- Does the uploader want it to be white and red or light green and dark green? -- AnonMoos (talk) 15:09, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
- I'm not sure if they know, but it was red and white when I nominated it and I hadn't looked at it since, waiting for this to pop up in my watchlist. I do know that the Canadian Forces uses the patch in both forms. Fry1989 eh? 18:08, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
There is already a SVG file of flag of Canada. Robert961000 (talk) 08:24, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:26, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
Files uploaded by LuizGXavier (talk · contribs)
[edit]Considering exif (Photographer: "Ralph Hodgson", Copyrights: "Shell International Ltd") unlikely to be own work of ptwiki-related User:LuizGXavier. Permission needed.
Gunnex (talk) 10:04, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:28, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
Unclear copyright status as relevant info must be provided. File:Ceres portico.jpg was grabbed from seol.com.br (archive from 07.2006) with no "free" licence visible. Identical problem with File:Starosa.jpg. File:Marialva.jpg has no author/year and looks too "fresh", failing {{PD-old}}
Gunnex (talk) 10:45, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:28, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
Inaccurate map. Reasons for deletion have been given in previous deletion requests. The file is not longer in use in any project expect for :es. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Coentor (talk • contribs) 2012-12-16T13:07:32 (UTC)
No es un mapa de lenguas de España, sino de dialectos del español en España. Quien propone borrarlo está confundiendo ambas cosas. Por ejemplo, existe un subdialecto vasco del español, obviamente distinto de la lengua vasca. Es un error muy obvio, solo posible en una persona poco experta en dialectología. Si se borrase un mapa de este tipo, habría que censurar toda referencia a los atlas clásicos de dialectología del español, como la obra monumental de Manuel Alvar, y simplemente no se podría tratar enciclopédicamente la dialectología del español de España. Sería un disparate. Por tanto, no hay motivo para el borrado del mapa ni menos hablar de manipulación alguna, pues el propio mapa clarifica la cuestión en nota al pie. De hecho esto ya se discutió en su momento y se decidió mantenerlo, no se aporta motivo nuevo alguno (al menos motivo enciclopédico/técnico), para reabrir una discusión de borrado que ya se zanjó en su momento. -- Yonderboy (talk) 12:05, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
- Si este es un mapa de dialectos, entonces que se aporten referencias de que existen un "dialecto vasco/catalán/Valenciano" del español, que ése es su nombre, y que su extensión se circunscribe al territorio marcado en el mapa. Si se zanjó fue porqué estaba en uso en :es y en :jp, ahora sólo se usa en :es. --Coentor (talk) 11:35, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
- If it is true that this is a map of the dialects of Spanish language in Spain, then references should be given. We need references of an existing "Basque/Catalan/Valencian" dialect of Spanish, that this dialect is named in that way, and more important: We should prove that the extension of those dialects fits to the portion of map marked in the picture. Otherwise, it seems like We are acting as primary source with maps like this.--Coentor (talk) 11:35, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
- Comment See also the previous deletion requests at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Español España dialectos.png. --Stefan4 (talk) 17:50, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
Kept: The decision to use this file should be left to the respective project(s) linking to it. Inaccuracies can, and should be corrected as necessary. -FASTILY (TALK) 20:46, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
Hallo, beim Hochladen dieses Bildes: File:Boat stop Rostrup.jpeg ist beim Hochladen die Lizenz verlorengegangen. Ich beantrage deshalb die Löschung oder die Änderung der Lizenz in CC-By SA.3.0. Gruß User:Kalima
Deleted: by Érico Júnior Wouters JuTa 14:00, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
File:Residential Developments at Beacon Cove.jpg
[edit]
Reasons for deletion request This is an identical image with File:Residential Development at Beacon Cove Port Melbourne.jpg Donaldytong (talk) 09:28, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom JuTa 03:27, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
gleiches bild gleiches bild wie Feuerwehr_Steinbach_(Taunus)_047.jpg --Woelle ffm (talk) 13:31, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: by Axpde JuTa 14:01, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
Files of DevildocRuiz (talk · contribs)
[edit]- File:Austin Lephew.jpg
- File:Surprise!!.JPG
- File:Riding a bycicle on a beautiful day.JPG
- File:Oh please stop it.JPG
- File:Just standing...JPG
- File:I didn't do it, I promise ;).JPG
- File:Hard day at work (but that's not all that's hard).JPG
- File:Couldn't get much gayer.JPG
- File:The sun is in my eyes.JPG
- File:A lonely day at the river.JPG
- File:Just stop.JPG
- File:Come get me.JPG
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
- Note, File:Thinking about....JPG and File:I'm just me 3.JPG (not listed above) are already have their own nominations, here and here, so are not bundled in this DR.
All fail COM:SCOPE#Must be realistically useful for an educational purpose. Considering some of the filenames, and assuming the uploader is not the person pictured (possible given "Ruiz" in username, cf. the first file's name) these could be speedied as General criterion 3 or Commons:Deletion_policy#Privacy. --Storkk (talk) 15:40, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
Delete Hindustanilanguage (talk) 10:13, 21 February 2013 (UTC).
Deleted: INeverCry 00:36, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Juanjojimenez (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unlikely to be own work: small/inconsistent resolutions, missing EXIF.
- File:Zzzzz.jpg
- File:Foto1chile.jpg
- File:Chilessecos.jpg
- File:00chiless.jpg
- File:00Chiles.jpg
- File:00Chile.jpg
- File:Chiles.jpg
- File:Chileseco.jpg
- File:Chiless.jpg
- File:Tostadas.jpg
- File:Tostada.jpg
EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:31, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
Delete Hindustanilanguage (talk) 10:48, 21 February 2013 (UTC).
Deleted: INeverCry 00:37, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
Advertisement materials and historical photos. No evidence of permissions.
- File:Lehde EVORA-Arena Hamm.jpg
- File:07 -Lehde-Manschaft 1952.jpg
- File:1955 - NB Finanzamt Soest - c.jpg
- File:13 -1950 - Germanenschinder.jpg
- File:03 -1946 - Entwurf Lehde Decke.jpg
- File:Bahnhofsumbau Soest.jpg
- File:Rettungszentrum Soest.jpg
- File:Logo tür alt.jpg
- File:Kugelgas farbe.jpg
- File:Actie.jpg
- File:Gaslaterne Siegen.jpg
- File:SWH Verwaltungsgebäude2.jpg
- File:Stadtwerke Hemer Verwaltungsgebäude.jpg
EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:33, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:38, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: could be found on other webs sites.
EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:35, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:38, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Natalia13597 (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unlikely to be own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF.
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:36, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:38, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
Looks like collection of promo/fan photos, not own work.
- File:MR.GOOD 4 THE LADIES.jpg
- File:FAME.jpg
- File:471542 4485070797782 58612358 o.jpg
- File:Fame Sene.jpg
- File:477163 373519982672714 332340062 o.jpg
EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:38, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:43, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Violetteraok (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unlikely to be own work: small/inconsistent resolutions, missing EXIF.
- File:Rafa.jpg
- File:Jorge blanco.jpg
- File:Blancojpg.jpg
- File:Candee.jpg
- File:Facu gambande.jpg
- File:Facu.jpg
- File:Albarico.jpg
- File:Clari.jpg
- File:Lodo comello.jpg
EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:42, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:43, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF.
- File:Նկար.jpg
- File:Արթուր.jpg
- File:Վահրամ.jpg
- File:Արմեն.jpg
- File:Վարդգես.jpg
- File:Արսեն.jpg
- File:Ռուսլան.jpg
- File:Գենադի.jpg
- File:Արարատ.jpg
- File:Հովիկ.jpg
- File:Իվան.jpg
- File:Արպատ.jpg
- File:Գագիկ.jpg
- File:Chashka lojka.jpg
- File:Փառանձեմ.jpg
- File:Alyona.jpg
- File:Ալյոնա.jpg
EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:45, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:43, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF.
- File:Dique los cascabeles.jpg
- File:Ingenio Rosales.jpg
- File:Atardecer en el Dique Los cascabeles.jpg
- File:Av independencia.jpg
- File:Antiguo Ingenio Rosales.jpg
- File:Atardecer en centro de barrio.jpg
- File:Principales atractivos.jpg
- File:Entrada principal1.jpg
- File:Centro ciudad.jpg
- File:Parque tienda LEY.jpg
- File:Clinica IMSS.jpg
- File:Iglesia principal costa rica.jpg
- File:Vista panoramica1.JPG
- File:Plazuela principal.jpg
- File:Costa Rica Iglesia.JPG
- File:Iglesia principal.jpg
EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:52, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
Delete Hindustanilanguage (talk) 10:12, 21 February 2013 (UTC).
Deleted: INeverCry 00:47, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Doris Heidelmeyer (talk · contribs)
[edit]Modern art. I think painter permissionconfirmation via Commons:OTRS is necessary.
- File:Traverse Antonides.jpg
- File:Sublime David Antonides.jpg
- File:Respire.jpg
- File:Antonides - Flow Forward II.jpg
EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:53, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:47, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
wrong source and license; no longer needed Slatzy (talk) 19:57, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
Original uploader requests deletion. Image is not used for any article and is no longer needed. Slatzy (talk) 20:29, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
- Keep This is no reason to delete. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 17:59, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
Kept. John Vandenberg (chat) 12:05, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
duplicate image Slatzy (talk) 20:01, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
- I can't find what is it a duplicate of. Sinnamon (talk) 03:47, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
author name is showing up under old file history, I would request that this image or at least its file history be deleted for privacy reasons - thank you Slatzy (talk) 20:22, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
Kept. added {{PD-old}} --JuTa 14:08, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
Files uploaded by BilinmeyenDenklem (talk · contribs)
[edit]This is such an uneven collection featuring some Turkish musical celebrity that I have great difficulty to believe the images are actually "own work".
Rosenzweig τ 21:06, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: copyvios, user blocked for using fake Flickrreview tags Denniss (talk) 14:41, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Ashishdhyani90 (talk · contribs)
[edit]out of scope
INeverCry 23:37, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 04:02, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
out of scope - promotional images - a couple of the graphs link to a declined AFC, otherwise none in use
- File:Slf.jpg
- File:ALC India.jpg
- File:ALC Integrated Support System.jpg
- File:Alc tms.jpg
- File:Alc logo.jpg
- File:ALC Logo.JPG
INeverCry 23:40, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 04:02, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Koreanladybug (talk · contribs)
[edit]out of scope - unused personal images
INeverCry 23:44, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 04:01, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Brewcrew666 (talk · contribs)
[edit]out of scope - promotional images
INeverCry 23:53, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 04:01, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
Even if it was disseminated to the public, there is no proof that it was first published prior to 1923. The photograph was taken in 1917, but she did movie debut in 1922. Zere (talk) 18:31, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Per uncontested DR. MBisanz talk 14:02, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
Even if it was disseminated to the public, there is no proof that it was first published prior to 1923. The photograph was taken in 1895, but her daughter did movie debut in 1922. Zere (talk) 18:37, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Per uncontested DR. MBisanz talk 14:02, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
- Restored: as per [2]. Yann (talk) 10:41, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
![[2]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Undeletion_requests/Current_requests&oldid=339580248#File:CBmother.jpg){kind=link}
Acme Newspicture was an American company, and there is no evidence to support the claim that the author is Agence Mondial [3], so this work must not be classified as PD-old-70. Svnnsmsn (talk) 18:59, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Per uncontested DR. MBisanz talk 14:02, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
Seems to be a faked picture, created from http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Moon_5.jpg by crudely overtyping "CALIFORNIA" with "New Jersey". 86.167.124.138 20:35, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Per uncontested DR. MBisanz talk 14:03, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Mono as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: Not PD-textlogo, meets threshold of originality INeverCry 20:52, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
- Delete as nominator, I believe the gradient, shape, and layout of this image is beyond that of simple geometry and therefore meets the threshold of originality. Mono 23:26, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Per uncontested DR. MBisanz talk 14:02, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Mono as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: Not PD-textlogo, meets threshold of originality INeverCry 20:53, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Per uncontested DR. MBisanz talk 14:02, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
Unused; superseded by better-quality File:FlagOfDorset.svg. Alkari (?), 15 February 2013, 23:36 UTC 23:36, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
- Agreed. The definitive gallery uses an svg version, though the better one, namely File:Saint Wite's Cross.svg.Hogweard (talk) 18:13, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Per uncontested DR. MBisanz talk 14:03, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
Unused; superseded by better-quality File:Flag of Cornwall.svg. Alkari (?), 15 February 2013, 23:39 UTC 23:39, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
- Agreed. The definitive gallery uses the svg versions. Hogweard (talk) 18:10, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Per uncontested DR. MBisanz talk 14:03, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
Unused; superseded by better-quality File:Flag of England.svg. Alkari (?), 15 February 2013, 23:41 UTC 23:41, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Per uncontested DR. MBisanz talk 14:03, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
Unused; superseded by better-quality File:Flag of Northumberland.svg. Alkari (?), 15 February 2013, 23:45 UTC 23:45, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
- Agreed. Is it unused by outside projects though? The definitive gallery now uses an svg version anyway.Hogweard (talk) 18:17, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Per uncontested DR. MBisanz talk 14:03, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
Unused; superseded by better-quality File:Flag of Cornwall.svg. Alkari (?), 15 February 2013, 23:48 UTC 23:48, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Per uncontested DR. MBisanz talk 14:03, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
Unused; superseded by better-quality File:Royal Standard of members of the British Royal Family.svg. Alkari (?), 15 February 2013, 23:50 UTC 23:50, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Per uncontested DR. MBisanz talk 14:03, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
Without knowing which Popes, these is useless to us. I've checked for any similar papal arms and can't find any, so I have no clue who these is for. If the uploader can identify which popes this is for, I'll retract my DR. Fry1989 eh? 23:43, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 21:19, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
Published at an earlier date in Flicker (https://secure.flickr.com/photos/69012613@N04/6275941007/in/photostream) but still the version here is bigger. Raising a DR to clarify Sreejith K (talk) 15:16, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 22:33, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
LOGO NOT IN USE
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 22:33, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
Looks like processed historical photos and advertisement. No evidence of permission for originals.
- File:AngeleHerry17.jpg
- File:GeorgesLeTueur1971.jpg
- File:RomainBouteillePortrait.jpg
- File:ColuchePainting.jpg
- File:Mediasat-1995.jpg
- File:Madiasat1995.jpg
- File:D2MacDecoder1989.jpg
- File:DecodeurSyster-Clef.jpg
- File:Discret11DecoderCanalPlus.jpg
- File:PatrickDEWAERE-35.jpg
- File:DewaereFacSimileB2.jpg
- File:DewaereFacSimileA2.jpg
- File:CarlinaBiarritz1.jpg
- File:DewaereSignature1968.jpg
- File:DewaereFacSimileB.jpg
- File:DewaereFacSimileA.jpg
- File:DewaereMarieTrintignantSerieNoire.jpg
- File:Dewaere7yearsold.jpg
- File:DewaereMaisonParis.jpg
- File:DewaereTeenager.jpg
- File:Dewaere.png
EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:49, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
- File:AngeleHerry17.jpg is originally from a Marc Esposito documentary called Patrick Dewaere, according to [4].
- File:RomainBouteillePortrait.jpg looks like it was straightened and then digitally processed from the same source that this blog got their photo.
- File:PatrickDEWAERE-35.jpg is almost certainly originally a photo by Tony Frank, probably the second one here, flipped (and with the bowtie restored, hence the very white area of the shirt where the hand used to be).
- File:DewaereFacSimileB2.jpg, File:DewaereFacSimileA2.jpg, File:DewaereFacSimileB.jpg and File:DewaereFacSimileA.jpg are all straight copyvios
- File:DewaereMarieTrintignantSerieNoire.jpg is from the film, also at the bottom of this page
- File:Dewaere.png is also here, but not sure which came first.
- File:DewaereTeenager.jpg was originally from the same source as this one
- Therefore, I suggest
Delete allas copyvios. Storkk (talk) 18:05, 15 February 2013 (UTC)Delete someper discussion below and findings above. Storkk (talk) 10:45, 19 February 2013 (UTC) See my comment re: Coluche photo below, I'm back to a "delete all" opinion Storkk (talk) 16:59, 21 February 2013 (UTC) - Delete all as this is only derivative work based on copyrighted material. Alchemica (talk) 11:34, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Hello everyone, first I d'like to know where in WP rules is mentioned that it's forbiden to give it's own "licence free" work as such as all original drawings or paintings that I made and then scan, digitalized and treat with photoshop, to match with the actual free licensing in WP. In fact, all this is my own work and totaly for free use and given to Commons. These portraits, "nature mortes" and scenes are precisely my work and NOT any duplication or direct reproduction but an artistic interpretation of some caracters, poeple or living scenes. There is no difference between types of pieces of arts when they are made according in a creation even "inspired" by real subjects, existing models or pictures. In Commons, it's easy to take in consideration several pictures that are exactly in the same conditions than my work, according to several pieces of art in history (eg : Da Vinci's Joconda revisited by many artists) :
Of course, I'm ready to add some official mention in Commons if it's helps to solve this. Best regards to all. Martino75 (talk) 11:46, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
- Sorry but the only way of fixing this up is to delete everything, as I explained in your talk page. For example, this picture you mention above might be digitaly treated, sure, but who says that the uploader is not ALSO the photographer in the first place? While there is no proof that he is not, we know for sure that YOU ARE NOT the original author of these pictures. You just treated them with a bit of Photoshop. As for these other pictures in general: some of them might be copyright violations too, and if they are, they will be removed as well. The fact that there are other pictures that do not respect the law is not an excuse: there are hundreds of thousands of files here, and it takes time to clean up, but eventually any and all copyrighted images end up spotted and removed, one day or another. Sorru for your pictures and the time you spent creating them - dura lex, sed lex... Alchemica (talk) 11:55, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
- Hello again. It's wrong to think that that a work of art consisting in reinterpretation from an existing model, is a violation of copyright. When is a reinterpretation, that is to say, it is not a simple direct or partial copy but an original piece of artistic work that can not be legally considered a simple copy. As I stated here, I've listed a few examples in Commons and I gave a specific example for the type of work that will squarely in the direction of the reinterpretation of an existing model (Joconda and its multiple reinterpretations). My work is not just "adding" a color but from artistic considerations such as reviewing, editing, style (such as impressionist, coloring, pop art, etc ...), finding a new angle or format, framing the form of an existing model, to create an original work, clearly distinct from the starting model. If you watch full resolution of any document I made, you will of course recognize a "model of the real world", but artistically reviewed and modified by my own personal and artistic approach. In Commons, if a specific rule completely forbade the interpretation of an existing model, no design, no portrait, no painting of an existing model would then be accepted. Obviously, this is not the case, unless I'm mistaken. In the contrary, I gladly and readily admit that for the fac simile of the letter files I made, I agree for the deletion because the rule is clear. But for the rest of my original artwork, I beg you to give me objective and specific rules according to your point of view that this is not admissible. Have a nice day.Martino75 (talk) 12:20, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
- Of course there are rules like that, because we aim at respecting the law... You cannot upload a picture of a recent building because it is violates the architect's rights, for example. Derivative work is illegal too, so there is no need to find a Commons-specific rule against it, since it's clearly stated in the international copyright agreements. Basically, you cannot just take any existing document and turn it into an "artwork". Alright you flipped the picture, posterized it, changed the colors. No offense but that's nothing I couldn't do myself in more than a minute with Photoshop since it was my job for a few years. So now let's state it the other way : if this is enough to cancel copyrights, then why haven't we thought about it way earlier? Why do we struggle that much to obtain illustrations for some subjects? Well because unless the copyrights owners agree, there is no legal way of reproducing their work. That's quite simple. Alchemica (talk) 12:51, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
- Hello again. It's wrong to think that that a work of art consisting in reinterpretation from an existing model, is a violation of copyright. When is a reinterpretation, that is to say, it is not a simple direct or partial copy but an original piece of artistic work that can not be legally considered a simple copy. As I stated here, I've listed a few examples in Commons and I gave a specific example for the type of work that will squarely in the direction of the reinterpretation of an existing model (Joconda and its multiple reinterpretations). My work is not just "adding" a color but from artistic considerations such as reviewing, editing, style (such as impressionist, coloring, pop art, etc ...), finding a new angle or format, framing the form of an existing model, to create an original work, clearly distinct from the starting model. If you watch full resolution of any document I made, you will of course recognize a "model of the real world", but artistically reviewed and modified by my own personal and artistic approach. In Commons, if a specific rule completely forbade the interpretation of an existing model, no design, no portrait, no painting of an existing model would then be accepted. Obviously, this is not the case, unless I'm mistaken. In the contrary, I gladly and readily admit that for the fac simile of the letter files I made, I agree for the deletion because the rule is clear. But for the rest of my original artwork, I beg you to give me objective and specific rules according to your point of view that this is not admissible. Have a nice day.Martino75 (talk) 12:20, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
- Hi again, i beg your pardon but in your answer, you are not mentioning any specific rule or source. You only give your point of view. Could-you be more specific when you write "it's clearly stated in the international copyright agreements" (where, when, according to which organisation?). An original piece of art, event reinterpreting existing another like a "derivative work", still is an original piece of art like a detournement or tribute to, not an illegal copy, neither a counterfeit. So again, please give a precise sourced reference rule or restriction according to your point of view.
Here again are examples for reinterpreting existing pieces of art :
- http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Jocondevraiescouleurs.png (couleurs retouchées)
- http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:MonLisa.jpg
- http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Stylized_Mona_Lisa.svg
- http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Mona_a%27la_Mace_in_ballpoint_pen_by_Lennie_Mace_1993_(shown_cropped).jpg
- http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Monna_Vanna.jpg
- http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Sapeck-La_Joconde_fumant_la_pipe.jpg
- http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:MonaLisaGraffiti.JPG
- [[5]] (derivative work)
- http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Las_Meninas_Mininas.JPG
.jpg){kind=link}
Here are some legal sources about these topics :
Best regards to all. Martino75 (talk) 13:45, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
- Of course, some of these images are cool, and it would be a pity to lose them all but, as the Sheriff says, "This is the law !". The problem is that this, for example, is obviously made after a photo, which is probably copyrighted. I am less sure about this one, though : can the original photo be identified ?? Maybe we could give Martino75 the time to make new, more stylized pictures which would not look like digitally-altered photos, and replace the current ones. I know it would represent an awful lot of work for him, and maybe he won't feel like it, but it could be a solution to salvage his efforts. JJ Georges (talk) 14:40, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
- Martino, Leonardo da Vinci has been dead long enough for his works to enter the public domain. The copyright for the works that you used as a basis for your uploads is almost certainly still in effect, which means that you cannot use them as a basis for works for which you own the full copyright (i.e. you have basically just created derivative works, =Œuvres dérivées en français). Best regards, Storkk (talk) 15:05, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
OK JJ, as you mentioned, what about for instance this original work I made ? (down) thumb||Dewaere's portrait wich is not base on any photo. Why would it be deleted ? And what about my own photo (down) too ?
Before deleting all these works, I understand that it has to be obviouly different. But if I re-work all these, then anyone could say that he feels that It's looking like the previous version, so it will be impossible to solve, according subjective artistic point of view. Rules has to be universal for anyone and for any subject in Creative Commons, not POV relevant. OK also Stork but when a contributor is drawing a porttrait of a poeple, he can be inspired by the model, then can re-interprete thru its own vision and artwork. That's what I did. Please consider again all examples I mentioned and liked here. Best regards. Martino75 (talk) 15:12, 18 February 2013 (UTC) Thanks again. Martino75 (talk) 15:12, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
- I think the images should be examined one by one, at least on the disputed cases. For instance, Martino75 tells us that this is not based on a particular photo : in that case, it would be ok to keep it. JJ Georges (talk) 15:33, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
- I agree with JJG on this point. If some pics were not created by copying a photo, then it's ok to keep them but there's no way we can keep the others. As for the rules... there you go. I'm not stating my point of view, it's not my opinion, I'm just quoting some minor international convention that has been ruling copyrights worlwide for the last 130 years, no big deal. ;) And Martino, all the pictures you mention above ARE in the public domain because their copyright has expired, which is not the case with your own pictures. You can do whatever you want with La Joconde (like adding a pipe or a moustache) since Da Vinci's been dead for quite a long while, but you can't do the same thing with a work of art that is still protected. This is why we have no problem illustrating "old" subjects, like long-time dead people, but have a real bad time illustrating more recent biographies or general subjects. Alchemica (talk) 15:49, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Hi ! I understand all that but how to make a sort between the files to be deleted and others like my own photographs ? Example for this file [[9]]. According to this deletion requests, ALL my file will be suppressed ! Thanks again for your kind help and answers. Martino75 (talk) 17:10, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
![[9]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:CarlinaBiarritz1.jpg){kind=link}
- Don't worry, now that it is clear that not all pictures are copies of existing work, I guess no-one will want to see all of them gone anymore. The best thing to do would be for you to name which pictures are derivative work and which ones are not, so that we can remove any original work from the deletion request. Is that ok? Alchemica (talk) 19:06, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks for your kind advice wich is fully logical (as could say Mr Spok) ! ;) I'll try to specify for each file, how I actually worked with or without watching an existing model or picture. But please be a little patient because I have to travel ten days from now and I'm not sure to an Internet connection there. Have a nice evening. Martino75 (talk) 18:21, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
Here are the drawings and paintings I made wich are originals and not derivative work :
- File:ColuchePainting.jpg
- File:PatrickDEWAERE-35.jpg
- File:CarlinaBiarritz1.jpg -> my own photography
- File:DewaereSignature1968.jpg -> this, I made myself, immitating his style of handwriting.
- File:DewaereMaisonParis.jpg -> my own photography
- File:Dewaere.png -> this one is original (drawing) that I made in 2010.
Best regards. Martino75 (talk) 18:32, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
- I would just like to reiterate that File:PatrickDEWAERE-35.jpg is exceptionally reminiscent of the second photo by Tony Frank here, flipped horizontally and with the hand removed, where the shirt is very white on the "drawing". Not only the position and expression, but the shadows/shading on the collar, the stray hairs on both sides of the forehead, etc. Storkk (talk) 16:39, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
- And File:ColuchePainting.jpg is just a straightening, dog-removal, and posterization of the photo here (direct link: [10]). So that's why he had such a weird expression - he was being licked by a dog. Changing my opinion above again back to Delete all, as uploader is still protesting his ownership of files he clearly has taken from elsewhere. Storkk (talk) 16:59, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
- Note: rereading what I wrote, it sounds like I meant it punitively - I emphatically do not. I meant that, assuming Good Faith, uploader is showing a deep misunderstanding of copyright law, and that the precautionary principle applies. Therefore delete all. Storkk (talk) 17:46, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
![[10]](http://www.lametropole.com/assets/application/files/coluche.jpg){kind=link}
Hello evenyone. I just understood the "undirect" problem of copyright. Some of my drawings and paintings are inspired by movie scenes (e.g. for Dewaere). But the one I made in 2010 was a complete original one and are no copyvio relevant :
- [[11]] File:Dewaere.png
As such as the fac simile of is "signature" in 1968
- [[12]] File:DewaereSignature1968.jpg
![[12]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:DewaereSignature1968.jpg){kind=link}
Please note also that the photos I took myself are originals :
![[13]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:DewaereMaisonParis.jpg){kind=link}
I hope if I have to remake brand new drawings or paintings of the same subjects not directly inspired by any existing photo or movie scene, then, they will be be OK according to WP Commons rules. Thank's for your kind understanding. Have a nice day. Martino75 (talk) 10:22, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
- Comment Deleted a few as copyvios and out of scope. Yann (talk) 08:15, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 22:34, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
Wrong name. The correct name is Leucotaenius favannii (with two "n"). This page still exists. So here we have an uncorrect named duplicate — Preceding unsigned comment added by Llez (talk • contribs) 2013-01-12T14:03:14 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 22:33, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
Insufficient license and not supported by source; source merely says "vapaasti julkaistavissa" (publicly available/freely publishable) and does not articulate whether derivatives are allowed, whether this applies to commercial usage, etc., as required by COM:L. Note user uploaded a similar image (File:Oasisazipods.jpg) saying it was "Copyrighted free use provided that the use is non-commercial" which suggests a failure to understand the level of freeness required by the Commons. Эlcobbola talk 17:42, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
The phase "vapaasti julkaistavissa" means plainly, simply and irrevokably "freely publishable". Who made the other faulty translation for you? By all means publicly declare your expertise in the Finnish language if you are able to read Finnish that well yourself.
Moreover, the picture has ACTUALLY BEEN CLEARED PREVIOUSLY FOR CC by the request of the user Makele-90 (who seems to have some authority somewhere), after he had kindly contacted the originator of the work the Finnish press agency STT. Please contact him.
Regarding the other one of my pictures, I will therefore need to ask my contact person ABB Finland again for a licence in these very words?:
"I, Mr/Ms XX, acting on behalf of and as the representative of the ABB corp, who is the legal originator of the enclosed picture, hereby declare for all intents legal and otherwise that the said picture is free for ALL kinds of publication in the entity known as "Wikipedia Commons", this including, but not being limited to, commercial, non-commercial, educational, institutional and private uses. The picture can be resized when and if needed. In all instances, the picture must be accompanied by a written indication to the effect that the copyright holder of the picture is and remains ABB Finland."
What the effing thing is a "derivation" of a picture? Where does it say such licence has to be explicity applied for?
- 1) Lingual ability not being germane to the issue, you nevertheless validate my Finnish as you and I indeed both conclude it says "freely publishable," which is precisely the problem; that verbiage is too vague and does not address the elements of freeness required (per COM:L "[S]imply writing that 'the material may be used freely by anyone' or similar isn't sufficient.") 2) Makele-90 (talk · contribs) is not an OTRS member. If this has been submitted, what is the ticket number? 3) The impetus is on the uploader to provide sufficient support, not for us to "contact him"; 4) As per the nomination statement, COM:L states derivatives must be explicitly allowed. Эlcobbola talk 19:56, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
- Delete, I have previously commented this on Commons:Kahvihuone#Kuvan lisenssitietojen tarkistaminen, and I concur with Elcobbola's opinion that the wording "vapaasti julkaistavissa" is not sufficient for Commons. The source provides a permission to publish the photograph, but does not mention modifiying. I believe this photograph falls under Commons:Copyright rules by subject matter#Press photos.
- Commons:Derivative works or Commons:Jälkiperäiset teokset is a result of modifying a copyrighted work; typically the resulting derivative has two copyright holders, the original and creator of the derivative work. Commons requires that derivative works of Commons files can be created without contacting the original copyright holder. For this reason eg. CC-ND license is not considered free enough. It is a quite nice picture, but we really would need an OTRS permission for it. MKFI (talk) 19:30, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY 09:26, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
I am the uploader and author of this image, which is of mediocre quality (it is a screenshot of a mediocre video). I have been contacted by the subject, who wishes the photo to be removed. The video was taken in France at what I believe qualifies as a public event, but according to Commons:Country specific consent requirements, subject consent is required even in such a case in France. In case it matters, the subject was a minor when the image was taken. I think the absence of explicit consent should be enough to have the image deleted; otherwise, I am asking for a courtesy deletion. Pruneautalk 17:04, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
- Additional note: after more e-mails exchanged with the subject of the image: if this image is deleted, I think that she will probably agree to releasing a higher quality image under a free licence. Pruneautalk 11:43, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY 09:26, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
No FOP in Russia russavia (talk) 21:21, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
- Question: How does Freedom of Panorama get invoked here? That is, what sorts of pictures are allowed of Russia? --Jayron32 (talk) 04:33, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
- How about this picture in the same article? Do you seriously propose that every single picture taken in Russia should be removed from Wikipedia? Th4n3r (talk) 19:55, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
- Keep Despite the filename, the image is a general panorama of the area and doesn't focus on a specific building. COM:DM. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:19, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
- The circus building is clearly the main focus of the image here; it's smack bang in the centre of the image. A panoramic photo would generally have a much wider inclusion of landscape on either side of the image. russavia (talk) 15:31, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
- For me, the high-rise to the left of it is equally prominent. When you add in the buildings at the right, it all dilutes the importance of the circus. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:46, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
- The circus building is clearly the main focus of the image here; it's smack bang in the centre of the image. A panoramic photo would generally have a much wider inclusion of landscape on either side of the image. russavia (talk) 15:31, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
Unused; superseded by better-quality File:2007 Flag of Orkney.svg. Alkari (?), 15 February 2013, 23:44 UTC 23:44, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
- Agreed. Is it unused by outside projects though? The definitive gallery now uses an svg version anyway.Hogweard (talk) 18:16, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
- Having said that, File:2007 Flag of Orkney.svg is not quite the same: it is too short and the colours are duller. I have therefore uploaded a derivative SVG file, File:Orkney county flag.svg, which I believe better matches the specification in the UK Flag Registry and unless one has sight of what is written in the grant from the Lord Lyon, the UK Flag Register is the better source. Both versions though are legitimate expressions of the flag. Hogweard (talk) 22:04, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY 01:55, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Unused; superseded by better-quality File:Flag of Shetland.svg. Alkari (?), 15 February 2013, 23:47 UTC 23:47, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
- Agreed. Is it unused by outside projects though? The definitive gallery now uses an svg version anyway. Beware of rival versions in the sense of minor alterations in colour, proportions of the elements etc, each of which has may be a valid preference for the display of the flag, so we should not hope to delete all but one.Hogweard (talk) 18:21, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY 01:54, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Dark and low res copy of file:Zhuravlev 04.jpg Shakko (talk) 11:47, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
- Comment - they aren't exactly the same: towards the bottom of the painting, about three quarters of the way to the right, on the floor, there are two whitish napkins or pieces of paper that don't match. Additionally, just next to the tray-carrying waiter on the left, on the floor around his left shoe, the paintings differ quite a bit. Storkk (talk) 19:15, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
- Уважаемая! Это две разные картины. file:Zhuravlev 04.jpg хранится в ГТГ, повторение под названием «Поминки» находится в ГРМ, зал 30. --proktolog (talk) 17:19, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY 19:24, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
Non-free screenshot (Windows elements) - replaced by PhishingWaarschuwingFirefox18.png under the right license without Windows elements Smile4ever (talk) 17:51, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
- The Polished Wood Firefox persona is also non-free according to Commons criteria, as its license is CC-BY-NC-SA-3.0.
- The warning in the replacement file PhishingWaarschuwingFirefox18.png also contains different text.
- I've removed most visuals and elements to leave only the page. -Mardus (talk) 19:45, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
- User:Brentjee has also uploaded File:Phishingwarning in Mozilla Firefox 18.png, which still contains the non-free Persona. -Mardus (talk) 19:52, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY 19:23, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
Unused; superseded by better-quality File:Queen Mary of Teck Standard.svg. Alkari (?), 15 February 2013, 23:50 UTC 23:50, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
- There are differences between the two, so for that reason I would say Keep at this point. Fry1989 eh? 00:25, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
- Delete The arms of Teck are the wrong color. They should be gold and black not white and black. The inescutcheon of Hanover is also incorrect: the smaller inescutcheon of gold crown on a red field should not be there: that is reserved for the sole use of the head of the house. The crown prince has a red inescutcheon without a crown and other members have no inescutcheon. DrKiernan (talk) 21:14, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY 22:46, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
Also nominating:
- File:Aleister Crowley, Yoga.jpeg
- File:Aleister Crowley, Ceylon 1901.jpg
- File:Aleister Crowley, thinker.jpg
- File:Aleister Crowley, wickedest man in the world.jpg
- File:Aleister Crowley, Golden Dawn.jpg
- File:Aleister Crowley, Magus.png
No source, no evidence of public domain status. J Milburn (talk) 19:40, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
These images are in many cases over 100 years old, and others prior to 1923. Is that not public domain?
They have been published in numerous works. Do you really require I track down specifics? Howabout you prove otherwise before suggesting deletion, such as a DMCA notification.
Thanks.
- Yes, you are expected to provide an explanation of why images are public domain when you upload them. We do not assume that content is public domain- the onus is on you to prove that it is, not for me to produce a DMCA notification. In answer to your question, if the images originate in the US and were published in the US before 1923, then they are public domain. If the author died more than 100 years ago, then yes, they are public domain. J Milburn (talk) 21:36, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
He was born in 1875 and died in 47, he looks less than 50 in some photos, so that puts it prior to '23ish. Based on the birthday of the subject of the image, I'd suggest keeping the younger looking ones, unless a reason is found not to. Penyulap ☏ 06:44, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
- Most of these pictures are well known, used a lot in the literature, and are very old. Of course the pics of a younger Crowley should be kept. And every effort should be made to alert the main people who edit the Crowley pages of this action, as they may have information relevant to this discussion. Aleister Wilson 9:04 27 February 2012 (UTC)
- Yoga pic published after 1923, under copyright.
- Ceylon, takan circa 1901, probably public domain, though I am unsure of its first publication date, so status still not certain
- "Thinker" pic: This is part of the Life magazine shoot ca 1929 - presumably under copyright
- "Wickedest Man in the World": The famous bullethead pic is from Equinox I.10 (1913) and public domain.
- "Golden Dawn": This was used in publicity materials for the Rites of Eleusis in 1910, so public domain.
- Crowly as Magus: Published in Book 4 ca 1912, public domain.
- In short, we can keep the latter three, the others do need to be deleted --Rodneyorpheus (talk) 16:12, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
- Thank you for providing this information- the images need to be public domain in both the United States and the UK (if that is their country of origin) for them to be free enough for Commons. If the author of the photograph is definitely not known, {{PD-UK-unknown}} would apply. If the author is known and they died more than 70 years ago, {{PD-old-70-1923}} would probably be appropriate. See Commons:Copyright rules by territory/United Kingdom. J Milburn (talk) 23:11, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Unclear copyright status. Unless we have clear, explicit written/textual, tangible evidence indicating that these files are indeed freely licensed under a Commons compatible license, we cannot host them on Commons FASTILY 05:53, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
Fictional flags or symbols
[edit]All the files below are uploaded by me.
- File:Samtaegeuk and Samjogo.png†
- File:New Union Flag proposal by Liam Roberts.png‡
- File:New Union Flag including Cornwall based on Liam Roberts' proposal.png†‡
- File:New Union Flag.png†
- File:New Union Flag with Scottish blue.png†
- File:Union Flag (including Wales and Cornwall).png†
- File:Flag of the Channel Islands 1.png† (and File:Normande.png, a redirection page)
- File:Flag of the British Isles.png†
.png){kind=link}
- †Flags or symbols personally made by me. I was aware that sometimes they lead to misunderstanding that they are being used by authorities or they are notable.
- ‡Possible copyright violation. I did not understand the GFDL and the CCL in detail at that time.
I think they should be deleted. --Yes0song (talk) 19:27, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
- File:Samtaegeuk and Samjogo.png has been found useful by some, and neither File:Samtaegeuk and Samjogo.png nor File:Flag of the British Isles.png is likely to confuse anybody, so I lean towards "keep" on those two. I don't know or don't care about the others... AnonMoos (talk) 05:15, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
- Currently, File:Samtaegeuk and Samjogo.png is not used by other people (neither de jure nor de facto). Of course, it is used in some pages in the Wikimedia Projects but it can be replaced with other better images.
- File:Flag of the British Isles.png has two problems: the the flags for Cornwall and Northern Ireland.
- Cornwall is not recognized as a separate entity in the islands group called the British Isles or the IONA and it is considered as a county of England by the British government. Of course, I understand Cornish nationalists want Cornwall to be recognized as separate entity, but it is not achieved yet.
- The flag for Northern Ireland I added is not the official flag of Northern Ireland (NI). Since 1970s NI does not have its own official flag and the Union Flag is the only official flag in NI. Formerly, the Ulster Banner was the official flag and the flag I added has never been official and it is just one of proposals for the new official flag of NI.
- Hence, I think all the images listed above should be removed. --Yes0song (talk) 07:30, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
- Don't be too hard on yourself -- compared to those like Oren neu dag (not to mention hoaxers/irredentists and those who assiduously promote micronations) you have little to reproach yourself with. As for File:Samtaegeuk and Samjogo.png, it is not in use in any Wikipedia article on official or accepted emblems or symbols (which would be inappropriate), but nevertheless, it seems that some people have found it useful, as you can see from the "File usage on other wikis" listing. And File:Flag of the British Isles.png would have great problems if you try to consider it to be official, but hardly anybody who has any knowledge would consider it official -- and as something openly and professedly unofficial, it's not particularly problematic... AnonMoos (talk) 13:29, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
- Keep them all, they have fictitious tags, that is sufficient. Fry1989 eh? 00:24, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
- Strong delete all - mostly made by Wikipedia users, referring to original work isn't appropriate on Wikipedia. 109.176.223.23 14:45, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
- This is Commons, not Wikipedia. We do not have such policies. Fry1989 eh? 16:48, 18 March 2013 (UTC)