Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2013/03/10
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
|
|
Fischer died in 1986: this doesn't qualify for {{PD-South Africa}}. moogsi (blah) 01:50, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
- So my understanding of SA copyright law is wrong? "The work meets one of the following criteria: It is a cinematographic or photographic work and 50 years have passed since the date of its publication (or creation, whichever date is the latest)." Morne72 (talk) 06:20, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
I withdraw my nomination My apologies, it's my understanding which is flawed. I thought it was 50 pma for everything, but photos and movies are excepted. Sorry. --moogsi (blah) 09:11, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
Kept: withdrawn Denniss (talk) 14:28, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
The picture clearly says "AP" (Associated Press). This media isn't free. Banfield - Amenazas aquí 03:14, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Obvious cases may use {{Copyvio}} Эlcobbola talk 20:21, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
Obviously false authorship claims by serial copyright violator. What's the threshold of originality in Poland? —LX (talk, contribs) 09:15, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 14:29, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
Obviously false authorship claims by serial copyright violator. Not a likely candidate for {{PD-textlogo}} either. —LX (talk, contribs) 09:17, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 14:29, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
Photograph is meaningless and is out of scope. Bidgee (talk) 09:52, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
Delete No description, no way to do anything with it.--Prosfilaes (talk) 10:01, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: commons is not facebook McZusatz (talk) 11:58, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
ORTS-ticket needed. Upload by User:Mimartcontact, but the copyrightholder ist some Robert Scubacz. User:Mimartcontact asserts only, that he has a letter from the author from 12. October 2007 that allows him ... (what?) -- OTRS-ticket needed. --Bin im Garten (talk) 17:45, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
- The uploader has contacted the photographer for ORTS. Give him a little bit time. --Bin im Garten (talk) 11:23, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
Kept per OTRS permission. --Krd 13:19, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
File:Spanish Lady in Crinoline by Pablo Picasso, 1901 - Ny Carlsberg Glyptotek - Copenhagen - DSC09452.JPG
[edit]Picasso painting. A contributor noted here directly on the media file the author isn't Daderot but Picasso. Dereckson (talk) 12:14, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Spanish law states that a work enters into the public domain 80 years after the death of its author Ecemaml talk to me/habla conmigo 20:13, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
same photo here http://www.news.at/a/marinemanoever-china-usa-325585 88.64.115.138 13:08, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 14:29, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
Uploader is not the creator. Copyright! See: http://www.octaviaplusklaus.com/impressum.php# Sämtliche Fotografien auf dieser Website unterliegen dem Copyright. Jegliche Weiterverwendung bedarf der ausdrücklichen Genehmigung von den abgebildeten Personen und von den Fotografen. Tvwatch (talk) 13:22, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 14:29, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
License is not given 88.64.115.138 21:36, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: obvious cpvio. JuTa 19:00, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 License Рудський (talk) 22:24, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom. JuTa 19:05, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
no metadata, user uploads another copyvios Ezarateesteban 22:56, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Obvious copyvio. Available in many web sites Ecemaml talk to me/habla conmigo 22:57, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
no metadata, user uploads another copyvios Ezarateesteban 22:56, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 14:50, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
no metadata, user uploads another copyvios Ezarateesteban 22:57, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Per COM:PRP Ecemaml talk to me/habla conmigo 23:03, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
duplicate http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Frantisek_Provaznik_Hruska_7621_resize.jpg Svajcr (talk) 12:02, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Per nom. Podzemnik (talk) 16:13, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
duplicate http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Frantisek_Provaznik_Hruska_7622_resize.jpg Svajcr (talk) 12:04, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Per nom. Podzemnik (talk) 16:10, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
duplicate File:Frantisek Provaznik Hruska 7625 resize.jpg Svajcr (talk) 12:05, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Per nom. Podzemnik (talk) 16:10, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Uploader requests deletion Sphilbrick (talk) 13:32, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
- Uploader was concerned that the image appeared in a search for pornography, which was caused by a categorization. I fixed that, and informed the subject, but that responded was missed or ignored, as a follow-up request for deletion was received. Not worth arguing about - subject hasn't filed a proper permission statement, so easiest to just delete.--Sphilbrick (talk) 13:37, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
Speedy deleted as personality rights violation per ticket:2013030810004808. --Krd 14:26, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope, unused personal image. Jespinos (talk) 00:09, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:13, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope, unused personal image. Jespinos (talk) 00:10, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:13, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
Low resolution, missing EXIF. Unlikely to be own work. Jespinos (talk) 00:12, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:13, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope, unused personal image. Jespinos (talk) 00:13, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:13, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
Unsourced and personnal version of Michelangelo da Caravaggio's Supper at Emmaus. Copyright into the frame. Notice a family picture lower right !... 82.124.61.160 00:16, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:13, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope, unused personal image. Jespinos (talk) 00:25, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:16, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
Possible copyright violation. Small and own work claim is doubtful. This file should be deleted as per COM:PRP. Takabeg (talk) 00:27, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:16, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
Possible copyright violation. Small and own work claim is doubtful. This file should be deleted as per COM:PRP. Takabeg (talk) 00:29, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:16, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
Possible copyright violation. Small and own work claim is doubtful. This file should be deleted as per COM:PRP. Takabeg (talk) 00:31, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:17, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope, unused personal image. Jespinos (talk) 00:36, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:17, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
Low resolution, missing EXIF. Unlikely to be own work. Jespinos (talk) 00:46, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:18, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope, unused personal image. Jespinos (talk) 01:07, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:18, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope, unused personal image. Jespinos (talk) 01:12, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:19, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope, unused personal image. Jespinos (talk) 01:13, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:19, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope, unused personal image. Jespinos (talk) 01:15, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:19, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
No evidence of authorship and free license; Flickr file indicates "all rights reserved". Previous images of the same subject deleted. See http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Log/Elaniqa, http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Log/Todd25 ELEKHHT 01:17, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
- We own the rights to this photo. We originally uploaded it on our flicker account (Texas Professional Powerlifting) with “all rights reserved.” Now this has been changed and the photo is published as “ Attribution-ShareAlike Creative Commons.” We grant permission for Wikipedia users to use this photo. Please refer to link: http://www.flickr.com/photos/93708773@N07/8522500133/in/photostream/ Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Texasprofessionalpowerlifting (talk • contribs) 11 March 2013 (UTC)
- Note that Texasprofessionalpowerlifting has been confirmed as sock of Todd 25. --ELEKHHT 22:01, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:19, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
No evidence of authorship and free license; Flickr source indicates "all rights reserved". Previous images of the same subject deleted. See http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Log/Elaniqa, http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Log/Todd25 ELEKHHT 01:18, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
- We own the rights to this photo. We originally uploaded it on our flicker account (Texas Professional Powerlifting) with “all rights reserved.” Now this has been changed and the photo is published as “ Attribution-ShareAlike Creative Commons.” We grant permission for Wikipedia users to use this photo. Please refer to link: http://www.flickr.com/photos/93708773@N07/8523614644/in/photostream/ Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Texasprofessionalpowerlifting (talk • contribs) 11 March 2013 (UTC)
- Note that Texasprofessionalpowerlifting has been confirmed as sock of Todd 25. --ELEKHHT 22:01, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:19, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope, unused personal image. Jespinos (talk) 01:23, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:22, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope, unused personal image. Jespinos (talk) 01:29, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:22, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
Derivative work of copyrighted bear labels. LGA (was LightGreenApple) talk to me 01:42, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:23, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope, unused personal image. Jespinos (talk) 01:50, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Didym (talk) 00:21, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope, unused personal image. Jespinos (talk) 01:51, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 23:33, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
Low resolution, missing EXIF. Unlikely to be own work. Jespinos (talk) 01:53, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:24, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope, unused personal image. Jespinos (talk) 01:54, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Didym (talk) 00:20, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope, unused personal image. Jespinos (talk) 01:54, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Didym (talk) 00:19, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope, unused personal image. Jespinos (talk) 01:58, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Didym (talk) 00:19, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope, unused personal image. Jespinos (talk) 02:01, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:24, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
Screenshot of a website, promotional purpose, unknown photographer. moogsi (blah) 02:02, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:25, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
Low resolution, missing EXIF. Unlikely to be own work. Jespinos (talk) 02:03, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:25, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
Scan/photo of a recent newspaper (2012). Copyrighted. moogsi (blah) 02:26, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:25, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
The copy on en.wiki says the image was taken from the Silver Jubilee book for Faculty of Medicine Ain Shams University, not the uploader's own work as claimed here on the Commons. Diannaa (talk) 02:54, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:25, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
Low resolution photo without original exif, published in internet for example here (before upload). Art-top (talk) 07:49, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:26, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
Please delete File:Elisabeth Siewert 1912.jpg, uploaded by myself.
(Uploaded with better quality and more correct dates as File:Elisabeth Siewert 1905.jpg. Lienhard Schulz (talk) 10:38, 10 March 2013 (UTC))
Deleted: wrong date McZusatz (talk) 21:27, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
Unknown author. Unknown publication date. License information currently claims to be published before 1923, but the source is > 1923, without any indication the media has been published before. We should clarify the license information. It would be nice to contact the books' authors and ask them the photography sources. I would also like to point the fact the authors could only be unknown because the book authors weren't diligent enough to document media files. Dereckson (talk) 11:04, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
- Same applies to the following files:
- File:Comte Médéric de Vasselot de Régné00.jpg
- File:Henry Georges Fourcade01.jpg (book is "A History of Scientific Endeavour in South Africa", 1977)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:29, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
Copyvio. Author is w:Dmitriy Nalbandyan. Abiyoyo (talk) 12:23, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:35, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
Copyvio. Magazine article scan. 1966. Abiyoyo (talk) 12:29, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:35, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
Author is a clear fake. Not a PD-RU-exempt (not an official document), not a PD-trivial - initial is an artwork Abiyoyo (talk) 12:34, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:35, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
This simply cannot be PD-Shape. Clear copyvio. Pbech (talk) 12:39, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:35, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
Does not seem to be 'own work' of the uploader (as claimed), and even PD-text is questionable. Pbech (talk) 12:41, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:35, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
No indication that this is under a free license. Uploader states that photo can be used with mention of the source, but the source of the photo says no such thing. The website that is mentioned, says "Copyright © 2013 Sneltram Utrecht - Alle rechten voorbehouden!" and the Flickr account that is linked to from there) only says "All rights reserved". Even though it is possible that the free use of the photo applied in the past, there is now (also because there is no exact link given) no way to verify that. Pbech (talk) 12:46, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:35, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
Erreur dans le nom de l'espèce. ThomasCHATAIN03 (talk) 13:48, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
I make a mistake when I load this file to use it in "Faune de Madagascar". It was named Furcifer verucosa on my computer but his real name is Furcifer oustaleti.
Kept: the deletion requester actually wants renaming and NOT DELETION. Hindustanilanguage (talk) 17:51, 11 March 2013 (UTC).
personal artwork, not used Avron (talk) 14:04, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:38, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
Website mentions copyright. Not seen by uploading. Pimbrils (talk) 14:10, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:38, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
Website mentions copyright. Not seen when uploading. Pimbrils (talk) 14:11, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:38, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
raw text content not in scope: Commons:Scope#Excluded_educational_content Avron (talk) 14:21, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:38, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
Insufficient licensing permission per OTRS; this image, a scanned in newspaper article, shows several works with different copyright holders: the author of the newspaper article, the photographer Bill Wyman, whose photos are displayed in the article, and three artists who made adaptations of the photos, which are also printed in the article. Only one of the artists, James Mylne, gave his permission via OTRS. The other copyright holders didn't give a permission. Miss-Sophie (talk) 14:23, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:38, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
Several images appear in this collage. The source and author information of every image used in this collage is missing or is insufficient. High Contrast (talk) 14:38, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:38, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
Artwork of a living artist, no free licensing possible. Julius1990 (talk) 15:00, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:38, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope, unused personal image. Jespinos (talk) 15:54, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 23:37, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
Re-upload of recently deleted image File:Analog Pussy Jiga and Eva, 2013.jpg. While uploaders claim of authorship isn't impossible, it needs more evidence. -- Túrelio (talk) 15:57, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:43, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
Private picture of user, out of project scope. Martin H. (talk) 16:17, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:44, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
Private photo, not used. Kulmalukko (talk) 19:36, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 04:14, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
Unused personal photo(s), out of scope. Minoraxtalk 06:44, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --MBisanz talk 02:46, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
Private picture of user, out of project scope. Martin H. (talk) 16:18, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:44, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
Copyrighted image from here, not used on any wikis that I can see Fox Wilson (talk) 17:40, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:45, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
Not own work, this was grabbed from somewhere. Fry1989 eh? 18:21, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:45, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
Copyvio de http://allauch.blogspace.fr/image/134824184968-jpg/ Patrick Rogel (talk) 18:43, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
- Delete Copyvio. --Havang(nl) (talk) 15:45, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:45, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
no aporta nada a ningun wikiproyecto Priscila guerrero solis (talk) 19:19, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
Kept: in use Denniss (talk) 23:39, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
out of scope - blurry unused personal image of child INeverCry 19:51, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 03:42, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
out of scope Amada44 talk to me 19:53, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:52, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
out of scope - unused personal image INeverCry 19:58, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 03:42, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
out of scope - promotional - unused text logo - single upload of user INeverCry 20:03, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 03:42, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
No indication why it's in scope. Jonund (talk) 20:04, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:52, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
out of scope - unused personal image INeverCry 20:25, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 03:44, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
out of scope - promotional - unused text logo - single upload of user INeverCry 20:38, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 03:44, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
out of scope - promotional - unused text logo - single upload of user INeverCry 20:42, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 03:44, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
out of scope - promotional - unused text logo INeverCry 20:44, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 03:44, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
out of scope - promotional - unused text logo - single upload of user INeverCry 20:47, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 03:44, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
out of scope - promotional - unused text logo - single upload of user INeverCry 20:48, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 03:44, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
out of scope - unused personal image/logo INeverCry 20:49, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 03:44, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
out of scope - promotional - unused text logo INeverCry 20:52, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 03:44, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
out of scope - promotional - unused text logo - single upload of user INeverCry 20:53, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 03:44, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
out of scope - no educational value INeverCry 20:55, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 03:44, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
out of scope - no educational value INeverCry 20:59, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 03:45, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
out of scope - promotional - unused text logo - single upload of user INeverCry 21:08, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 03:47, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
possible copyvio - unsourced collage INeverCry 21:14, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 03:47, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
out of scope INeverCry 21:15, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 03:47, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
out of scope - unused personal image INeverCry 21:18, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 03:47, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
out of scope - unused personal/promotional image INeverCry 21:19, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 03:47, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
out of scope - promotional - unused text logo - single upload of user INeverCry 21:27, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 03:40, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
out of scope - promotional - unused text logo - single upload of user INeverCry 21:27, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 03:40, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
out of scope - promotional - unused text logo - single upload of user INeverCry 21:28, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 03:40, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope, unused personal image. Self-promotion too. Jespinos (talk) 21:59, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 23:47, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope, only text contribution. Jespinos (talk) 22:05, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:55, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
Low resolution, missing EXIF. Unlikely to be own work. Jespinos (talk) 22:06, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:55, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
Low resolution, missing EXIF. Unlikely to be own work. Jespinos (talk) 22:15, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:55, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
Low resolution, missing EXIF. Unlikely to be own work. Jespinos (talk) 22:20, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:56, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope, unused personal image. Jespinos (talk) 22:21, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:56, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope, mostly text contribution. Jespinos (talk) 22:28, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:56, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope, unused personal image. Self-promotion too. Jespinos (talk) 22:42, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:57, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
Derivative. Related discussion at Commons:Administrators/Requests/HJ_Mitchell. Time to start the clock. 99of9 (talk) 22:42, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 03:41, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope, unused personal image. Jespinos (talk) 22:43, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:57, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope, unused personal image. Jespinos (talk) 22:45, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:57, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
COM:SCOPE the vast majority of the image is out of focus, I don't see significant educational use beyond what our other images can provide 99of9 (talk) 23:44, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
Support --Viscontino (talk) 09:28, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
- Support what? Deletion? Or hosting the file? Also, since you uploaded it, you should probably let us know what you feel is educational about this image. --99of9 (talk) 11:29, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
- I supported the deletion, of course! I just used an uploader bot, didn't check all those images (~1600) --Viscontino (talk) 12:22, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
- Support what? Deletion? Or hosting the file? Also, since you uploaded it, you should probably let us know what you feel is educational about this image. --99of9 (talk) 11:29, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
Delete, lots of those images are not in scope. Amada44 talk to me 14:18, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 03:40, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
Copyright in the frame. 82.124.61.160 00:18, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
Keep: This is a painting by Victor Pierre Ménard (French, 1857–1930). Even if the date of 1908 is incorrect, as far as Commons is concerned this image is public domain --moogsi (blah) 04:42, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
- Keep: I personnally know the actual owner (and the former owner) of this painting by Victor Pierre Ménard. I personnaly taked the foto (the rol2009 in the frame is just the mention or the origine of the foto). For the foto, and for the painting I am sure of the origine and the autorization to put it in Wikipedia.. Anyway this image is in public domain. (Effectively 1908 is not exact, and could be changed by "approximatively 1900" ?)--rol (talk) 19:03, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
Kept: Morning ☼ (talk) 03:50, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
Image quality too poor to be useful for educational purposes (for anything other than as a bad example of image quality, at least) WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:10, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 03:58, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
Duplicate of File:New alkonost.png. Froztbyte (talk) 06:35, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 03:57, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
Duplicate of original file: File:NREL 10secs.png. Froztbyte (talk) 06:36, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 03:58, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
Scaled down duplicate of File:Nnmm2.JPG. Froztbyte (talk) 07:48, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 03:58, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
By the uploader: Image segment replaced by File:PP D255 poster by the brothers beggarstaff for 'the hour' bottom.jpg. — Ineuw 09:27, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 03:54, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
By the uploader: Image segment replaced by File:PP D255 poster by the brothers beggarstaff for 'the hour' top.jpg. — Ineuw 09:25, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 03:54, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
This is a picture of me and myself. I want it deleted. --Palatinatian (talk) 15:36, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 03:54, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Ralgis as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: There isn't FOP on Costa Rica Denniss (talk) 14:22, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 03:52, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Ralgis as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: No FOP for Costa Rica Denniss (talk) 14:22, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 03:52, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Ralgis as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: No FOP for Costa Rica Denniss (talk) 14:22, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 03:52, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
Not true SVG. Fry1989 eh? 18:20, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 03:59, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
Not true SVG. Fry1989 eh? 18:20, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 03:59, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
Not true SVG. Fry1989 eh? 18:21, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 03:59, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
out of scope INeverCry 19:47, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 03:52, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
possible copyvio - photo of an old photo - not own work - EXIF date is 2010, while description date is 2007 INeverCry 20:08, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 03:52, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
possible copyvio - BnW thumb - own work claim doubtful INeverCry 20:11, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 03:52, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
out of scope - promotional - unused text logo - single upload of user INeverCry 20:18, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 03:53, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
possible copyvio - old BnW thumb image - own work claim doubtful INeverCry 20:20, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 03:53, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
Unfree screenshot Kyores (talk) 16:23, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
- Somebody who edits the English Wikipedia might want to upload a local copy of this there, as it's used in an article. Kyores (talk) 16:24, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 16:32, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
Copyright in the frame. 82.124.61.160 00:18, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
- Keep: I personnally know the actual owner (and the former owner) of this painting by Victor Pierre Ménard. I personnaly taked the foto (the rol2009 in the frame is just the mention or the origine of the foto). For the foto, and for the painting I am sure of the origine and the autorization to put it in Wikipedia.. Anyway this image is in public domain. (Effectively 1908 is not exact, and could be changed by "approximatively 1900" ?)--rol (talk) 19:03, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
Kept: Painter died over 70 years ago (in 1930) so this work of art is in PD Morning ☼ (talk) 07:33, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
Was used on en.wikipedia to promote a view of original research and content cited only to forums. No purpose even if in public domain. TenPoundHammer (talk) 00:19, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
- That really doesn't explain very much. If there's a factual or content problem with it, tell us what it is, instead of invoking irrelevant "original research" (which doesn't apply on Commons). AnonMoos (talk) 00:31, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
Kept: OR is not a reason to delete files PierreSelim (talk) 07:35, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
Copyright in the frame. 82.124.61.160 00:20, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
- Keep: I am the actual owner of this painting by Victor Pierre Ménard. I personnaly taked the foto (the rolxxxx in the frame is just the mention or the origine of the foto). For the foto, and for the painting I am sure of the origine and I like to put it in Wikipedia.. Anyway this image is in public domain. (Effectively 1908 is not sure, and could be changed by "approximatively 1900" ?)--rol (talk) 19:03, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
Kept: Painter died over 70 years ago (in 1930) so this work of art is in PD Morning ☼ (talk) 07:34, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
Created in 1949, so it's still in copyright by the life + 70 years rule. Underlying lk (talk) 02:13, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
- I changed the license to a more appropriate one. Thanks. Dzlinker (talk) 13:17, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
Close as Kept; issue seems to have been resolved; copyright expired in country of origin. -- Infrogmation (talk) 19:07, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Kurtnibain (talk · contribs)
[edit]The images appear to come from an online shopping website.
- File:Riel de camara.jpg
- File:Slider Universal.jpg
- File:Soporte de anillo para lente.jpg
- File:Estabilizador de cámara al hombro.jpg
- File:Disco duro externo.jpg
- File:Microfono Ambiental.jpg
- File:Viewfinder Universal.jpg
- File:Filtros Solares.jpg
- File:Cabezal Manfroto.jpg
Jespinos (talk) 00:32, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:17, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Gilleswalter (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of scope, unused personal images.
Jespinos (talk) 00:33, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:17, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Jason Collin (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of scope, unused personal images.
- File:Jason Raphael Switchblade at The Ocho Seafood and Grill Tacloban City in July 13, 2011.jpg
- File:Jason Raphael Switchblade Jr. at The ((Robinsons Place Tacloban City)) in April 14th, 2012.jpg
- File:Rafael is Watch a 1st Floor at The Robinsons Place Tacloban City.jpg
Jespinos (talk) 00:39, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:17, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Jason Collin (talk · contribs)
[edit]Personal photo, unused, out of COM:SCOPE. Uploader's last-remaining contribution.
JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 11:35, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 20:06, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
Out of scope, unused personal images.
Jespinos (talk) 00:41, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:18, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Marckinhoos (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of scope, unused personal images.
- File:Marcos um dia antes.JPG
- File:Marcos villas no lançamento do livro.jpg
- File:Marcos villas.jpg
- File:Marcos villas no momento.jpg
Jespinos (talk) 01:04, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:18, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Mauriciocacus (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of scope, unused personal images.
Jespinos (talk) 01:07, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:18, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Alexis1952 (talk · contribs)
[edit]No evidence uploader is the copyright holder of the images.
Jespinos (talk) 01:10, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:19, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Thomas arias ysidor (talk · contribs)
[edit]Possible copyvios or out of scope.
- File:Thomas arias 44.jpg
- File:Thomas arias staff.jpg
- File:Thomas arias the super star.jpg
- File:Thomas arias second base.jpg
- File:Thomas arias 2da base.jpg
- File:Thomas arias.jpg
- File:Thomas arias ysidor.jpg
- File:Thomas (2).jpg
- File:Richard thomas arias ysidor.jpg
- File:Thomas arias ysidor baseball.jpg
Jespinos (talk) 01:20, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:21, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
Files uploaded by 123ahmedkamal (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of scope, unused personal images.
Jespinos (talk) 01:33, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:22, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Mijinmijinmijin (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of scope, unused images of an apparently non-notable band.
- File:Cdbcdbcdb.jpg
- File:Asdsddfd.jpg
- File:Signo CDB.jpg
- File:Cdbarras.jpg
- File:Puloss.jpg
- File:Curkito.jpg
- File:Aaaaaaaaaaaaa.jpg
Jespinos (talk) 01:36, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:23, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Carlosbechas (talk · contribs)
[edit]Low resolution, missing EXIF. The images are likely not own work.
Jespinos (talk) 01:40, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:23, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
Files uploaded by BobbyCachorro (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of scope, unused personal images.
Jespinos (talk) 01:43, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Didym (talk) 00:21, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
No evidence uploader is the copyright holder of the images.
Jespinos (talk) 02:04, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:25, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Tobiasferna (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of scope, unused personal images.
Jespinos (talk) 02:06, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Didym (talk) 00:17, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
Derivative of artwork and poster, see Commons:FOP#Japan
Morning ☼ (talk) 10:14, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:27, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Shipluislam (talk · contribs)
[edit]Images of unremarkable person, out of scope. Some are copyvio
- File:Shiplu.jpg
- File:Shiplu Islam.jpg
- File:Shiplu islam 17.jpg
- File:Shiplu islam 18.jpg
- File:Shiplu islam 16.jpg
- File:Shiplu islam 15.jpg
- File:Shiplu islam 13.jpg
- File:Shiplu islam 11.jpg
- File:Shiplu islam 12.jpg
- File:Shiplu islam 10.jpg
- File:Shiplu islam 8.jpg
- File:Shiplu islam 7.jpg
- File:Shiplu islam 9.jpg
- File:Shiplu islam 4.jpg
- File:Shiplu islam 6.jpg
- File:Shiplu islam 5.jpg
- File:Shiplu islam 3.jpg
- File:Shiplu islam 2.jpg
- File:Shiplu islam 1.jpg
- File:Bedom Warsi.jpg
- File:Nahid Samsetabriz (7).jpg
- File:Nahid Samsetabriz (6).JPG
- File:Bedom Warsi (5).jpg
- File:Bedom Warsi (6).jpg
- File:Bedom Warsi 5.jpg
- File:BABA JAHANGIR 11.jpg
- File:BABA JAHANGIR 7.jpg
- File:BABA JAHANGIR 9.jpg
- File:BABA JAHANGIR 6.jpg
- File:BABA JAHANGIR 5.jpg
- File:BABA JAHANGIR 4.jpg
- File:BABA JAHANGIR 3.jpg
- File:BABA JAHANGIR 2.jpg
- File:BABA JAHANGIR 1.jpg
- File:Quran 2 Final.jpg
- File:Quran Final.jpg
- File:Dr.BaBa JAHANGIR Ba-Iman Al Sureswari Kamel Pir O Murshed.jpg
- File:Marefoter Bani.pdf
- File:Sufibad Atto-Porichoy 02.pdf
- File:Marefat 2nd 3rd part Cover Page.jpg
- File:Marefater bani Cover Page.jpg
Morning ☼ (talk) 10:28, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:31, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Shipluislam (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of project scope: Commons is not a private photo album + advertising or self-promotion. No educational purpose: Not used (as I could verify). Mostly all files grabbed from (his?) http://www.flickr.com/photos/68240570@N02/with/6210321652/
- File:33333insha.jpg
- File:322bedum.jpg
- File:311guru.jpg
- File:100bedum.jpg
- File:299guru.jpg
- File:288bedum.jpg
- File:277bedum.jpg
- File:2555mahirshejuti.jpg
- File:244mahir.jpg
- File:233shejuti.jpg
- File:222nahid.jpg
- File:200bedum.jpg
- File:199shejuti.jpg
- File:188shejuti.jpg
- File:177shejutimahir.jpg
- File:144shejuti.jpg
- File:1555rahi.jpg
- File:133shiplu.jpg
- File:122shejuti.jpg
- File:101shejutimahir.jpg
- File:09shejuti.jpg
- File:777shejuti.jpg
- File:08shejuti.jpg
- File:6666666666666666666sai.jpg
- File:44444444444444family.jpg
- File:5555555555555555555555family.jpg
- File:2222222mahir.jpg
- File:33333333shejuti.jpg
- File:1111saifulislamlavlu.jpg
- File:3 Sufibad Atto-Porichoy 02.pdf
- File:1 Marefoter Bani.pdf
- File:2 Marefoter Gopon Kotha.pdf
- File:11 Udoyaer Pothe.pdf
- File:10 Amar Fokiri.pdf
- File:9 Sufibader Rohoshya.pdf
Gunnex (talk) 07:56, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
- Adding (batch task missed)...
- File:8 Sufibad Sarbojonin.pdf
- File:7 Sufibad Atto-Porichoy 04.pdf
- File:6 Sufibad Atto-Porichoy 03.pdf
- File:1 Quran Part 1.pdf
- File:2 Quran Part 2..pdf
- Gunnex (talk) 07:59, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:42, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Jestomaniaco (talk · contribs)
[edit]Looks like collection of promo photos/album covers, not own work.
- File:Jesto (Photoshoot Supershallo).jpg
- File:Il Mio Primo E Ultimo Disco (Cover).jpg
- File:DuemilaNonSoCosa (Web Edition).jpg
- File:Rancore & DJ Myke - Capolinea (Screenshot).jpg
- File:Rancore & DJ Myke - Silenzio (Cover).jpg
- File:Rancore - Exclusives (Front).jpg
- File:Hopsin (Logo).png
- File:Jesto 1.jpg
- File:Banner Exclusives (Rancore).jpg
- File:Photoshoot Rancore (Rapper).jpg
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:10, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:43, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Gaabbrriieell (talk · contribs)
[edit]No evidence uploader is the copyright holder of the images.
- File:Estádio Doutor Osvaldo Teixeira Duarte.jpg
- File:Estádio Francisco Stédile.jpg
- File:Estádio Centenário.jpeg
- File:Estádio Heriberto Hülse.jpg
Jespinos (talk) 16:00, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
- Delete All files grabbed from internet, as all the other (ex-) uploads by user. Gunnex (talk) 23:50, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:43, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Felipe.ir.1999 (talk · contribs)
[edit]The images have mostly low resolution and missing EXIF. These are likely not own work. The logos are likely above the threshold of originality and the b&w images can be in the public domain, but it needs to be clarified.
- File:Marina Huerta.jpg
- File:The Kitchen Inc.jpg
- File:René Pinochet.jpg
- File:Logo Windows ME.jpg
- File:Nilda Patricia Velasco.jpg
- File:Virgina Salinas Balmaceda.JPG
- File:Clara Oriol.jpg
- File:Efraín Morales Sánchez.jpg
- File:Víctor Manuel Espinoza.jpg
- File:2943263 249px (1).jpg
- File:Sociales.- CORONEL.JPG
- File:29li5x1.png
Jespinos (talk) 19:11, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:52, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Mexicalibook (talk · contribs)
[edit]out of scope - promotional images
INeverCry 19:49, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 03:42, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Cataroldan23 (talk · contribs)
[edit]out of scope - no educational value
INeverCry 19:56, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 03:42, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Esta Group (talk · contribs)
[edit]out of scope - collection of promotional images and logos - none in use
- File:Master fresh.png
- File:Emily Style.png
- File:EmilyStyle.png
- File:Freshidea.png
- File:Hellonow.jpg
- File:Parloshoe.jpg
- File:HelloNow.jpg
- File:PARLO.png
- File:Hellolady.png
- File:Hello lady.png
- File:Fresh Idea.png
- File:MasterFresh.png
- File:Masterfresh.png
- File:Tyron.png
- File:Tyronpng.png
- File:Hellobabyclub.jpg
- File:Hello baby.png
- File:Esta.png
- File:Esta Group.png
- File:ESTA.png
INeverCry 20:15, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 16:33, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Ilseba.carta (talk · contribs)
[edit]out of scope - promotional images of non-notable band - none in use
- File:Gamas Andrea Fox.jpg
- File:Gamas Nicola.jpg
- File:Gamas Marco.jpg
- File:Gamas Alessio.jpg
- File:Gamas Acustico.jpg
- File:Gamas Gruppo.JPG
INeverCry 20:23, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 03:53, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Haithemsekri (talk · contribs)
[edit]out of scope - unused personal images
INeverCry 20:25, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 03:44, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Irina Goryuchkina (talk · contribs)
[edit]out of scope
INeverCry 20:37, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 03:44, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Omarfaruqtony (talk · contribs)
[edit]out of scope - unused personal images
INeverCry 20:58, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 03:45, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Monalisa Chinda (talk · contribs)
[edit]out of scope - unused personal/promotional images
- File:Monalisa Chinda 22 March 2012.jpg
- File:Monalisa Chinda at a Photo Shoot April 2012.jpg
- File:Monalisa Chinda at Turner Studios Atlanta.JPG
- File:Monalisa Chinda Carnival Queen 2011.jpg
- File:Monalisa Chinda on Movie Set.jpg
INeverCry 21:03, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 03:49, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Monalisacode Chinda (talk · contribs)
[edit]out of scope - unused personal/promotional images
- File:Monalisa Chinda during Easter photo shoot.jpg
- File:Lisa Chinda.jpg
- File:Monalisa PrepN for Fashion Show.jpg
- File:Monalisa Chinda En route to Charity Event.jpg
- File:Monalisa Chinda at NewNollywood Media 1.JPG
- File:Monalisa Chinda carnival queen.jpg
- File:Monalisa Chinda at New Nollywood Media Conference.JPG
- File:Monalisa Chinda at Turner Studios Atlanta Oct 2011.jpg
INeverCry 21:05, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 03:50, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Mcbeat2010 (talk · contribs)
[edit]out of scope - unused personal/promotional images
INeverCry 21:22, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 03:47, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
out of scope - promotional image and logo
INeverCry 21:24, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 03:40, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Micatarocco (talk · contribs)
[edit]Possible copyvios or out of scope.
Jespinos (talk) 21:24, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:53, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
Files uploaded by 1juanantonio (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of scope, unused personal images.
Jespinos (talk) 21:26, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:53, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
Most of the images have low resolution and missing EXIF. These are likely not own work.
- File:CHINONACHO.jpg
- File:Chino-y-Nacho.jpg
- File:Chinoynacho..jpg
- File:CHINOYNACHO.jpg
- File:Chino y nacho.jpe.jpg
- File:Chino y nacho.jpg
- File:Chino-y-nacho-protagonistas-22 590x395.jpg
Jespinos (talk) 21:41, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:54, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope, unused personal images.
Jespinos (talk) 21:44, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:55, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope, unused personal images.
Jespinos (talk) 22:00, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:55, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Elbesodejudas (talk · contribs)
[edit]No evidence uploader is the copyright holder of the images.
Jespinos (talk) 22:03, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 23:50, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
Files uploaded by AdamKemp22 (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of scope, unused personal drawings.
Jespinos (talk) 22:12, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:55, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
Partec logos
[edit]Almost identical to File:Partec.png, but of inferior quality.
Leyo 22:16, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
Dear Leyo, thank you for the note. I would like to apologize for the inconvenience created by the multiple logo upload. This happened by mistake as I am completely new in making use of the image download functions in Wikimedia Commons. The three above mentioned logos can indeed by deleted, as a high resolution png file has been successfully uploaded. It would be great if the png version of the Partec logo could be kept. Kind regards and best wishes! --Rgoehde (talk) 07:16, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: uploader requested deletion McZusatz (talk) 08:30, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Marcela.Landauro (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of scope, text contributions.
Jespinos (talk) 22:25, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:56, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Debjyoti dhar (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of scope, self-promotional images.
- File:Ronitroy.jpg
- File:Sagnik.jpg
- File:Somdev.jpg
- File:Ronai.jpg
- File:Meghadri.jpg
- File:Riju.jpg
- File:Dipayan.jpg
- File:Pramit.jpg
- File:Krishnendu.jpg
- File:Bbalogo.jpg
- File:Bba grp pic.jpg
Jespinos (talk) 22:35, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:57, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
No need for this particular template: we should instead use {{Convert to SVG|musical notation}} or maybe a shorthand like {{Convert to SVG|mn}}; there aren't other templates like this (e.g. {{Convert to SVG-MI}} for Military Insignia) Ricordisamoa 09:38, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 02:58, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
Excuse me, I didn't think of possible inclusions of the template before nominating it for deletion, so I re-created it and put all files in a category; now I have replaced all occurrences of it (with VisualFileChange) and now it can be definitively deleted. Ricordisamoa 22:47, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
Very low resolution, no EXIF data. Ought to be a screenshot. —Bill william comptonTalk 12:03, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
Low resolution, bad quality, no EXIF, likely a screenshot from video Morning ☼ (talk) 12:03, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:34, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
File:Mollet_parad_Jaume_I_b2-_2013-03-10_-_JT_Curses.jpg internal_api_error_DBQueryError. Uploaded new file File:Mollet parada Jaume I b2- 2013-03-10 - JT Curses.jpg JT Curses (talk) 22:19, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: speedied as duplicate — billinghurst sDrewth 10:36, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
If the picture dates back to 2012 as claimed, the copyright can't have expired. My understanding is that FOP doesn't allow the upload without permission of other people's photos, either. Underlying lk (talk) 01:50, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
- Actually it's part of a 1899 photo album (library of congress), link here. I'll change the date. Thanks. Dzlinker (talk) 13:37, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
Kept: Photochrome image from 1899, not under copyright in Algeria or U.S. moogsi (blah) 14:32, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
The artist was born in 1970. The copyright has not expired yet. Underlying lk (talk) 01:56, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
- You got me here ;). It's a nice piece of art. Dzlinker (talk) 13:46, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyright violation: 2009 painting moogsi (blah) 14:56, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
Used only on userpages copied from ENWP. The template doesn't work - it's not functional or necessary. Mono 04:35, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
- Yes deleted. It is obsolete. --Jörg (Jwnabd) (talk) 14:05, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 06:48, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
blurred image. nothing visible. not in com:scope McZusatz (talk) 12:01, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: by Ecemaml - out of scope moogsi (blah) 14:06, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
Claimed as own work but apparently copied from somebody else's (unfree) work bobrayner (talk) 19:04, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
- Image is the same as [1] from somebody else's site which prohibits commercial reuse. bobrayner (talk) 19:07, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
- I've also opened similar deletion requests for other images uploaded by this editor:
- On second thought, it might be prudent to delete other images uploaded by the same person if they are likely to be somebody else's work and have licensing problems. bobrayner (talk) 21:34, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Assume everything you find on the internet is copyrighted unless stated otherwise. No original source or author for this image. moogsi (blah) 15:22, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
Claimed as own work but actually copied from the NHS. bobrayner (talk) 19:12, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
- It was done as a Google image search (neck manipulation and safety) and the image was not linked to the NIS whatsoever. Clearly I was not trying to be malevolent as the metadata indeed showed it was copy written. I support a speedy deletion of this image. Regards, DVMt (talk) 21:52, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
- I've also opened similar deletion requests for other images uploaded by this editor:
- On second thought, it might be prudent to delete other images uploaded by the same person if they are likely to be somebody else's work and have licensing problems. bobrayner (talk) 21:35, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
- I second that idea. A misunderstanding of copyright seems to be the case, but to claim something is one's "own work" when one found it on the internet is just not right. If you didn't create it, from scratch, without any knowledge of it from before, it can't be claimed as one's "own work," especially when it is identical in every detail to the work of a professional artist who sells rights to its use. -- BullRangifer (talk) 07:02, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
- I agree with BullRangifer here. All of the images by DVMt should be presumed to violate copyright considering his misunderstanding of copyright law as demonstrated here: en:Talk:Chiropractic#More_copyright_violations. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:38, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Assume everything you find on the internet is copyrighted unless stated otherwise. moogsi (blah) 15:22, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
Claimed as own work but actually copied from [2] which is copyright. bobrayner (talk) 19:29, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
- It was not taken from there; it was found in the public domain. DVMt (talk) 20:42, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
- Can you prove that the file is not copyright protected? 75.142.149.15 21:35, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
- "I found it on somebody else's website" does not mean "public domain". The CMCC website is "Copyright 2012" and there's no reason to believe that DVMt, rather than CMCC, holds the copyright on an image of CMCC's building. bobrayner (talk) 21:38, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
- This was not obtained at CMCCs page, however I do recognize that it is not my copyright either; rather it was subject to public domain. Regardless, there is already a similar image of CMCC so I support its speedy deletion. DVMt (talk) 23:50, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
- I've also opened similar deletion requests for other images uploaded by this editor:
- It might be prudent to delete other images uploaded by the same person if they are likely to be somebody else's work and have licensing problems. bobrayner (talk) 21:38, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
- "I found it on somebody else's website" does not mean "public domain". The CMCC website is "Copyright 2012" and there's no reason to believe that DVMt, rather than CMCC, holds the copyright on an image of CMCC's building. bobrayner (talk) 21:38, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
- Can you prove that the file is not copyright protected? 75.142.149.15 21:35, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Assume everything you find on the internet is copyright unless stated otherwise. moogsi (blah) 15:16, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
Uploaded as own work, but actually copied from [3] which is "© 2004-2013 All rights reserved - Bigstock®" bobrayner (talk) 21:31, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
- This image was not obtained from big stock as suggested by Bob Rayner. It is the chiropractic emblem, designed in the 1920s and is public domain. Regards, DVMt (talk) 21:45, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
- The metadata on the file says that the copyright holder is "cteconsulting". From their website, I got this image which looks to be the same and has a definite copyright attached. So DVMt, could you clarify on where exactly you got that image? --McSly (talk) 22:52, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
- This image was not obtained from big stock as suggested by Bob Rayner. It is the chiropractic emblem, designed in the 1920s and is public domain. Regards, DVMt (talk) 21:45, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
- I've also opened similar deletion requests for other images uploaded by this editor:
- On second thought, it might be prudent to delete other images uploaded by the same person if they are likely to be somebody else's work and have licensing problems. bobrayner (talk) 21:36, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
- Agree, the "own work" rational used for this image and the others is definitely wrong and we should stay on the safe side and delete everything especially since the uploader doesn't seem to be able to provide the source he used for those files.--McSly (talk) 22:52, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
It appears this is the work of John T. Takai and it must be purchased:
Contrary to what is claimed, it is not DVMt's "own work," even if he stenciled it or otherwise copied it. The chiropractic caduceus comes in many variations, and most of them are copyrighted by the creators. We have previously dealt with exactly this same issue, since we wished to use one, but we never found one that wasn't copyrighted, so we haven't used it. -- BullRangifer (talk) 06:59, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
- The image has been purchased; ($20) and I allow its use on the commons. Attribution to shutterstock should be made. If someone can help me properly edit the image it would be helpful! Regards, DVMt (talk) 00:20, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
- I'm not certain that that is enough. The creator must also release any copyrights. That has not been done. I'm not an expert on this, and I suggest you wait for more input. -- BullRangifer (talk) 04:33, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
- Okay, here is the place to go. Get clarification there and report back here. Link to this discussion. -- BullRangifer (talk) 04:36, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
- I'm not certain that that is enough. The creator must also release any copyrights. That has not been done. I'm not an expert on this, and I suggest you wait for more input. -- BullRangifer (talk) 04:33, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
- Speedy delete Can a passing admin just speedy delete all the images? It should be clear from even a passing glance at this thread that it is copyvio; albeit unintentional. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:50, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Assume everything you find on the internet is copyrighted unless stated otherwise. Buying the right to publish an image is not the same as buying the IP rights to an image, which remain with the creator. moogsi (blah) 15:20, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
This map is the original research. No "ukrainians" in 1897 in Russian Empire. This is "malorossy" in official terminology, to name malorossy - "Ukrainians" - by mistake. Different concepts are in 1897. This map must be delete as original research, unencyclopaedic style. Glavkom NN (talk) 18:49, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
- The origin of data this map is unknown. Information of map falls short of to data of census of population 1897 year in the Russian empire. Glavkom NN (talk) 18:50, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
- You have misinterpreted archaic terms of Russian ("малорусское наречие" - "Little russian dialect", malorossy) either Austro-Hungarian ("ruthenische Sprache" - Ruthenian Language, ruthenians) Censuses: language was used as ethnic marker in these censuses. In modern linguistics these obsolete terms have been replaced with "Ukrainian": Ukrainian (formerly sometimes known also as "Little Russian" or "Ruthenian") Sussex, Roland (2006) The Slavic languages, Cambridge University Press, p. 84 ISBN: 978-0-521-22315-7. . In modern demographic studies "Malorossy" = Ukrainians in Russian Census of 1897 and in Austro-Hungarian Census of 1900 Ruthenians = Ukrainias Eberhardt, Piotr (2003) Ethnic groups and population changes in twentieth-century Central-Eastern Europe: history, data, and analysis, M.E. Sharpe ISBN: 9780765606655. - page 219, Table 4.36 and page 190, Table 4.9. --Kurgus (talk) 10:17, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
Kept: original research is not a reason to delete on commons. JuTa 00:34, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
There is no way it can be in public domain. The man was born in 1907 and died in 1976. He looks 50 in the picture. Even if the author died the second after taking the picture, it still cannot be 70 years since he died. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.36.187.236 (talk • contribs) 2013-02-15T20:26:13 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom. JuTa 01:09, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
This file is faulty h=and has been replaced by File:EM spectrumrevised.png. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Keoka (talk • contribs) 2013-02-19T15:23:44 (UTC)
Deleted: authors request shortly after upload. JuTa 01:13, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
Bad copy of File:Fundadores de Ventanillahj.png -Broc (talk) 18:44, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom. JuTa 01:34, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
Files in Category:Indomie
[edit]Copyvio per COM:CB#Product packaging.
Stefan4 (talk) 11:35, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:33, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
una pagina que no aporta nada a wikimedia Priscila guerrero solis (talk) 19:20, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
Delete Cuenta títere del usuario Leitoxx. --Jcfidy (talk) 22:35, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 00:41, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
Possible copyvio.[4] Jonund (talk) 13:33, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 09:50, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
Non-free rendition, this has been deleted over and over again. Fry1989 eh? 23:12, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 09:44, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
The location is wrong, the autor should change the location (see openstreetview p.e.) 217.234.61.135 15:43, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
- So you mean that this should be deleted because the EXIF indicates a location about 500 metres to the west of the correct location? That's not a reason to delete it. On the other hand, the image appeared here in a smaller resolution before it appeared on Commons (according to the webserver's "Last-Modified" HTTP header), so it might be a copyright violation. --Stefan4 (talk) 17:29, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
Duplicate with wrong extension and slightly worse graphics than original 68.50.121.17 16:43, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY 09:37, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
No claim of first publication before 1987, the picture is undated. Underlying lk (talk) 01:57, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
- This actually was taken after the inauguration of the site.. http://www.imedyazen.com/spip.php?article121
- Can you quote and translate the relevant bit that proves it was taken before 1987? Very few people here can read Tamazight and it can't be machine-translated, either.--Underlying lk (talk) 11:38, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY 09:38, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
I thought there was a copyright violation first, but then I saw that web site's content is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License.Rapsar (talk) 22:56, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
- By what reason? LuCKY (talk) 08:04, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
- So there is no any problem. LuCKY (talk) 10:32, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
- Keep: Seems OK to me (the license is at the bottom of the page) --moogsi (blah) 17:56, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
This file is exactly the same image as one of two photos of the page 24 of this book in my possession: Ismaïl Alaoui and Driss Mrini, "Salé : Cité millénaire", 1997 (ISBN 9981-9995-0-4). I also noticed another copyvio issued from this book. Frenchinmorocco (talk) 20:53, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
- If someone wants proof of this copyvio, I can photograph the whole page and send it by mail. --Frenchinmorocco (talk) 18:23, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY 09:35, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
Imagen no utilizada en ningún artículo Laukatu (talk) 22:31, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY 09:36, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
Calendar for 1980, so the copyright has most likely not expired yet. Underlying lk (talk) 01:51, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
- I changed the copy right to a more appropriate one. Thanks. Dzlinker (talk) 13:24, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Missing source information FASTILY 09:34, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
Same photo, though in slightly lower resolution, had been posted already on December 12th to http://alwaysinhighheels.blogspot.de/2012/12/cj-is-new-kk_12.html, where Flickr-user claims it has been created only in January 12th. Thereby, lilkely Flickr-washing. -- Túrelio (talk) 15:27, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
Hola Gracias por la ayuda, estoy totalmente de acuerdo que se estudie la imagen, ustedes saben como hacen su trabajo. Les agradezco por todo lo que puedan hacer por ayudarme.
Deleted: FASTILY 09:34, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
Same photo was uploaded already in 2009 to http://lamparaesamovida.blogspot.de/2009/12/pasando-revista-las-movidas-mas.html and has been creedited to Roberto Pomisar. Thereby, this upload is likely Flickr-washing. -- Túrelio (talk) 15:33, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
Hola Gracias por la ayuda, estoy totalmente de acuerdo que se estudie la imagen, ustedes saben como hacen su trabajo. Les agradezco por todo lo que puedan hacer por ayudarme.
la imagen ha sido borrada pero no hay ningun problema con ella, y no viola las condiciones, helpme
Deleted: FASTILY 09:34, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
I don't see any proof that this coat of arms falls under any of the PD-Dominica clauses listed. If this version of the coat of arms was drawn for the state, it would have had to have been 70 years ago, but it was unquestionably no earlier than 1961 (per en:Coat of arms of Dominica). If it was drawn by a private citizen of Dominica, the author would have had to have died 70 years ago. If it was drawn by a private citizen of another country, then that country's laws apply. Even 70 years after 1961, it's unclear who drew this version of the coat of arms, and it isn't free per COM:COA Magog the Ogre (talk) 00:05, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
- Learn to read more thoroughly before you keep nominating files. This is the third file you have nominated where you claim it's not covered by it's license but it is. In this case, *"It is one of "any official text of a legislative, administrative or legal nature, or any translation thereof"" includes the coat of arms. Speedy Keep Fry1989 eh? 00:09, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
- Um, that doesn't look like text to me. Magog the Ogre (talk) 00:11, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
- The blazon of the coat of arms is described in legal text, and the arms was adopted through legislative text. Your ignorance of that is not a reason to delete the file which is PD according to the law. Fry1989 eh? 00:14, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
- Um, that doesn't look like text to me. Magog the Ogre (talk) 00:11, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
- Learn to read more thoroughly before you keep nominating files. This is the third file you have nominated where you claim it's not covered by it's license but it is. In this case, *"It is one of "any official text of a legislative, administrative or legal nature, or any translation thereof"" includes the coat of arms. Speedy Keep Fry1989 eh? 00:09, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
- Keep. What? Again? Does Magog not read the text of these PD templates? A country's CoA is in itself, and by its very nature, an official document partly because of what it is and partly because it appears on numerous public/official documents. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 00:52, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
- Not it's not. See COM:COA. Magog the Ogre (talk) 00:54, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, it is. Fry1989 eh? 00:56, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
- Can you point to a legal precedent which shows that? Because I've already pointed to page that shows it doesn't. Simply ignoring it when I point it out that doesn't change the fact either. Magog the Ogre (talk) 01:03, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
- There are countless coats of arms on here that are allowed because they are Public Domain under national law because they are part of "any official text of a legislative, administrative or legal nature, or any translation thereof". The coat of arms is legally described in text, it is legally adopted in text, that makes it PD under the Law. Albania's coat of arms is licensed on Commons this way, so is the coats of arms of Armenia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Botswana, Brazil, Bulgaria, Cameroon, the People's Republic of China, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, the Republic of the Congo, Croatia, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Ethiopia, Georgia, Hungary, India, Jordan, Kyrgyzstan, Latvia..... Do I need to go on? . Fry1989 eh? 01:19, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
- Can you point to a legal precedent which shows that? Because I've already pointed to page that shows it doesn't. Simply ignoring it when I point it out that doesn't change the fact either. Magog the Ogre (talk) 01:03, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, it is. Fry1989 eh? 00:56, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
- Just want to comment a bit on law interpretation: I can tell you from Germany that CoAs in Germany count as "amtliches Werk" {{PD-Coa-Germany}} although the legal definition in the law sounds more like it is only about texts. Just as an example. ... which does nothing say about the law and courts in Dominica. What I want to say: It simply doesn't help much to try to read the law sometimes - but(!) it also doesn't help to claim (without a source or reasonable explanation) why CoAs are covered ... And until we know they are covered by any "official works" law COM:PRP and COM:PS#Evidence should be thought of. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 01:25, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
- Saibo, check the licensing of the coats of arms I listed above. They are all licensed under the same reasoning, because they are part of an official text. Show me a single country whose national emblem wasn't adopted via some sort of official text. The license is accurate and applies, per all the others I listed. Fry1989 eh? 01:31, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio of http://images.vector-images.com/117/dominica_coa_n1129.gif User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 01:46, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
Not own work, probably grabbed off the net. Fry1989 eh? 23:13, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 09:35, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
No scope. Fry1989 eh? 22:59, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
It's only a image to get an idea if he becomes pope. This is the scope. --Kekoalmeida (talk) 23:25, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
- How? If he becomes pope, then this or something no-doubt similar will be his new arms. If he is not elected, then it's just conjecture of what his papal arms may have been if he had been elected instead of whoever else, and would be deleted. As there's no way, short of being a fly on the wall in the Sistine Chapel, to know who the new pope will be. There's no point in uploading predictions. Fry1989 eh? 23:33, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
- And he didn't become pope after all. Fry1989 eh? 18:44, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY 09:35, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Brimz as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: copyvio, not a text logo INeverCry 16:37, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY 09:37, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
дубль File:ECC NASA standard coder1.svg Мастер теней (talk) 09:21, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY 09:34, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
Per [5]. Fry1989 eh? 18:19, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
- I've uploaded a few "special or fictional flags myself, but this one is rather bizarre, and probably not in a good way... AnonMoos (talk) 01:50, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY 09:36, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
There was some error while uploading this file and the image doesn't show up. Niera (talk) 16:54, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
Now the image seems to be alright, but I already uploaded new image, so this file is redundant.Niera (talk) 18:36, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY 09:37, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
This image is of a Canadian coin issued after 1962, and per the Royal Canadian Mint Intellectual Property Policy, coin designs that are not at least 50 years old are copyrighted. Furthermore, the image is not the uploader's own work as is claimed, and was likely taken from the website of the Royal Canadian Mint. Aamsse talk to me 22:59, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY 09:35, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
Product packaging. How old is the art? Stefan4 (talk) 21:06, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
- Well, we have here a lot of text in a circle, and some pretty non-descript images of a horse cart and two milk churns. That starts to look a lot like being below the threshold of originality. Pbech (talk) 00:59, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY 09:36, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
Possible copyright violation, definitely *not* own work by uploader Pbech (talk) 11:11, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
- Keep per Commons:Deletion requests/File:Croton Dam Muskegon River Dscn1100 cropped.jpg. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:14, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
- Keep looks like a case for {{Pd-ineligible}}. ← Körnerbrötchen » ✉ 21:35, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
Kept, {{PD-ineligible}}. Kameraad Pjotr 20:00, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
Copyright violation. Company logo of NS (dutch national railways), rights owned by that company, designed by Dumbar & van Raalte in 1968, definitely not public domain as indicated. Jaho (talk) 13:23, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
- I added a {{Trademarked}} now. But I think {{PD-ineligible}} or even {{PD-shape}} does apply here. Keep --JuTa 13:36, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Kept - clear case of PD-ineligible - Jcb (talk) 18:47, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
- The logo is a registerd trademark or at least a copyrighted image. The fact that a template exists that can be used to suggest that image is in the public domain doesn't make it so. Using that template only means that someone thinks the image is in the public domain. There's no proof given that is in fact in the public domain and the disclaimer on the website of the NS suggests otherwise. Until it is 100% proven that this image is in the public domain, it is not. And nobody here can be the judge of that, you need unbiased, reliable sources for that. EvilFreD overleg 17:39, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
- No, the license is correct. Just the trademark warnign was missing. --Denniss (talk) 14:49, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
- Keep design too simple, could use moar templates for less drama. Penyulap ☏ 17:14, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
Copyright violation. Company logo of NS (dutch national railways), rights owned by that company, designed by Dumbar & van Raalte in 1968, definitely not public domain as indicated. Jaho (talk) 13:23, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
- I added a {{Trademarked}} now. But I think {{PD-ineligible}} or even {{PD-shape}} does apply here. Keep --JuTa 13:33, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
- Keep - {{PD-ineligible}}. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:22, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
- Keep -- i believe {{PD-shape}}applies in this case Hybirdd (talk) 19:50, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
Kept. Jcb (talk) 18:46, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
- The logo is a registerd trademark or at least a copyrighted image. The fact that a template exists that can be used to suggest that image is in the public domain doesn't make it so. Using that template only means that someone thinks the image is in the public domain. There's no proof given that is in fact in the public domain and the disclaimer on the website of the NS suggests otherwise. Until it is 100% proven that this image is in the public domain, it is not. And nobody here can be the judge of that, you need unbiased, reliable sources for that. EvilFreD overleg 17:25, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
- Keep per last DR, nothing new. Fry1989 eh? 17:50, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
- Keep The image is still simple enough to be under the threshold of originality, no matter what the company claims. Of course, the image is a trademark and is tagged as such. --B1mbo (talk) 19:05, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
- Keep design too simple, could use moar templates for less drama. Penyulap ☏ 17:13, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
Hay otra imagen igual, y esta imagen no se utiliza en ningun artículo. Laukatu (talk) 22:29, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY 09:36, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
inferior file superseded by File:Queen Mary of Teck Standard.svg; colors of part of the standard are incorrect (the white and black chequers should be gold and black). DrKiernan (talk) 21:23, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY 09:35, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
Due to the spread over the net it is highly unlikely, that the uploader has the right to publish this photo under CC-BY-SA-3.0 licence. Ras67 (talk) 21:07, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY 09:36, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
Duplicate saved as jpg, fuzzy graphics 68.50.121.17 16:47, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY 09:37, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
very bad quality picture Toilet (talk) 12:00, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
- Delete Low quality — Habib M'HENNI [Message] 00:30, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY 09:34, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
Unclear what "self-made" is (unfortunately common on Commons); needs clarification whether the uploader made this work originally or designed a copy or what. Otherwise, move to English Wikipedia where U.S.-only threshold of originality might save it. Closeapple (talk) 02:25, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY 09:33, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
Copyrighted banner. Per COM:FOP#Slovenia. Eleassar (t/p) 16:24, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
Keep - "Copyright protection shall not be afforded to: folk literary and artistic creations;" --Sporti (talk) 16:36, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
- This refers to folklore works, as is evident from these judgments: [6][7] - "avtorske zaščite niso deležna avtorska dela le v primeru, če je od smrti avtorja preteklo 70 let, in folklorna dela" [Copyright is not afforded to author's works only in the case that more than 70 years have passed since the death of the author, or it is a folklore work.] --Eleassar (t/p) 10:41, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY 09:37, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
Copyrighted poster. Per COM:FOP#Slovenia. Eleassar (t/p) 16:03, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
Keep - "Copyright protection shall not be afforded to: folk literary and artistic creations;" --Sporti (talk) 16:26, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
- This refers to folklore works, as is evident from these judgments: [8][9] - "avtorske zaščite niso deležna avtorska dela le v primeru, če je od smrti avtorja preteklo 70 let, in folklorna dela" [Copyright is not afforded to author's works only in the case that more than 70 years have passed since the death of the author, or it is a folklore work.] --Eleassar (t/p) 10:41, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY 09:37, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
Copyrighted poster. Per COM:FOP#Slovenia. Eleassar (t/p) 16:04, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
- Also:
- --Eleassar (t/p) 16:06, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
Keep - "Copyright protection shall not be afforded to: folk literary and artistic creations;" --Sporti (talk) 16:26, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
- This refers to folklore works, as is evident from these judgments: [10][11] - "avtorske zaščite niso deležna avtorska dela le v primeru, če je od smrti avtorja preteklo 70 let, in folklorna dela" [Copyright is not afforded to author's works only in the case that more than 70 years have passed since the death of the author, or it is a folklore work.] --Eleassar (t/p) 10:41, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
- Law says folk art (ljudske književne in umetniške stvaritve) not folklore so it covers Folk art. --Sporti (talk) 10:49, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY 09:37, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Gatsbylemagnifique (talk · contribs)
[edit]All uploads are artwork by Stefan Ramniceanu or pictures of Stefan Ramniceanu. It is unclear at least what right Gatsbylemagnifique has to release Ramniceanu's work under CC-BY-SA —Andrei S. Talk 08:28, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
- File:Stefan Ramniceanu - Studio.jpg
- File:Stefan Ramniceanu - The Universal Man.jpg
- File:Stefan Ramniceanu - The Islands' Memory.jpg
- File:Stefan Ramniceanu - The Golden Nights.jpg
- File:Stefan Ramniceanu - The Manuscripts.jpg
- File:Stefan Ramniceanu - The Poetic of Geometry.jpg
- File:Stefan Ramniceanu - The Centaurs.jpg
- File:Stefan Ramniceanu - The Shirt of the Walls.jpg
- File:Stefan Ramniceanu 01.jpg (1)
- File:Stefan Ramniceanu 02.jpg
- File:Stefan Ramniceanu 03.jpg
- I would ask Gatsbylemagnifique to go through OTRS verification. He seems to have a special interest in this artist. If he has been authorised to upload these pictures, OTRS is the way to go. I couldn't find an instance of previous publication to the last two image on the list, making some form of association more likely. The works of art don't need a previous publication to be considered for deletion, since they are works of art and therefore copyrighted. Please be aware of the consequences of licensing these works of art under a Creative Commons license: people will be allowed to copy your work as long as they mention the artist's name- Vera (talk) 10:17, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY 09:38, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
if the picture dates back to the 60s, the copyright is unlikely to have expired already Underlying lk (talk) 01:43, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
- I changed the license to a more appropriate one. Thanks.Dzlinker (talk) 13:45, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
Comment Would be PD in country of origin if published in 1962 or earlier. Images is currently dated only to the "1960s". It looks like better info on actual publication date would be needed to establish copyright status. -- Infrogmation (talk) 19:15, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
- Keep The Algerian War ended in 1962, so it can't be more recent. I added this date according to the description, but actually it could be as old as 1954. I will fix that. - Olybrius (talk) 21:42, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
- There is no way to know if the picture really dates back to the Algerian War, but it can be kept under the Template:PD-Algeria-photo-except, which is valid as it was surely made before 1987, if it is considered a photograph (and not a postcard).--Underlying lk (talk) 14:51, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
- Keep Photo prise avant 1962 et la loi en Algérie est claire (Droits expirés aprés 50 ans). --— Mouh2jijel [Talk] 19:59, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
Kept: Algerian War ended over fifty years ago, so PD O (谈 • висчвын) 23:09, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
Shows copyrighted software and map tile (copyright notice is visible on the screen). Does not qualify as de minimis or incidental inclusion. Notice: my proposed solution is not complete deletion, but to blur out the software on the screen and then have an admin delete the old revision. Mono 18:12, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
I can help a little bit to decompose the image.
- The Samsung logo is only made of text, and doesn't meet originality threshold.
- The screen is composed of a vertical top bar, which is probably on a open source license, as a part of Android, but constituted from simple widgets, that doesn't meet originality threshold either.
- Two applications are opened and constitues the bottom.
- The left seems to be Google Maps, which offers a copyrighted map.
- The widgets of Google Maps are de minimis for me.
- So only the map is in question. I guess from the uploader description it infers from the the lack of information on the map, that doesn't meet originality threshold.
- The right part shows a drawing, with a zoom (uploader claims it his own).
- The left seems to be Google Maps, which offers a copyrighted map.
I don't know the US precedents on map copyright, so have no advice to give on the matter. --Dereckson (talk) 19:07, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
- Commons:Image_casebook#Maps_.26_satellite_imagery says "Satellite pictures and derived maps from commercial projects like Google Earth, Google Maps, bing.com, and others are based on a combination of free and copyrighted satellite imagery and are, therefore, not acceptable on Commons." I don't think that the map can be exempted as de minimis or simple - the copyright notice is clear and fully visible when zoomed in. AFAIK, the Google Maps app is copyrighted and not part of the open-source Android project; I see a logo and icons (but that's not a huge problem) zoomed in as well. The best thing to do would be to blur out the map, but I'd like community input because the description indicates that the map's content is an important part of the image. Furthermore, if I was to blur out the map, it would make sense to blur out the whole screen to ensure there is no infringement. But how strong should the blur be? This becomes complex quickly. Mono 19:16, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
- Could you indicate why you highlight twice the existence of a copyright notice? --Dereckson (talk) 19:21, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
- There's no policy basis there, just an example to highlight how I believe the map as a whole doesn't qualify for de minimis exemption - the road lines are nearly as clear as the actual map here. Mono 19:30, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
- Copyright protection is automatic: you gain protection by publishing a work. The presence or the lack of a copyright symbol is nowadays irrelevant to determine if a media is copyrighted: the US law harmonized with other countries law in this aspect. This table will indicate you the case where you could still have to use the presence of notice, but for 21th century photos, this is irrelevant. --Dereckson (talk) 10:37, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
- As I said, there is no policy basis to the presence of a copyright notice, just a symbol of the image's high resolution and clarity that is clearly visible. Mono 16:42, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
- Copyright protection is automatic: you gain protection by publishing a work. The presence or the lack of a copyright symbol is nowadays irrelevant to determine if a media is copyrighted: the US law harmonized with other countries law in this aspect. This table will indicate you the case where you could still have to use the presence of notice, but for 21th century photos, this is irrelevant. --Dereckson (talk) 10:37, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
- There's no policy basis there, just an example to highlight how I believe the map as a whole doesn't qualify for de minimis exemption - the road lines are nearly as clear as the actual map here. Mono 19:30, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
- Could you indicate why you highlight twice the existence of a copyright notice? --Dereckson (talk) 19:21, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: contents of screen and their extent on the total picture do not qualify as de minimis. If a copy is needed to remove the screen contents, please post on my talk page. O (谈 • висчвын) 23:16, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
The resolution really sucks! This graphics editor is capable of far better work than this mediocre crap. Please overwrite with a version that shows your true skills. Canoe1967 (talk) 07:49, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
- Any more resolution and I'd be tempted to show more bellybuttons. There is a crowd of people, hmm, maybe a belly-button-fest-protest. :) delete ! boo ! hiss ! Penyulap ☏ 07:56, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
Keep. Withdraw as nominator after response from creator.--Canoe1967 (talk) 07:59, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
- I like to see it deleted, because it is finished, I know that sounds strange, but it's like a maṇḍala sort of thing, or art is a living thing, once it's finished growing and changing, it dies. I mean, look at the original concept of slapping someone with a fish, when John Cleese and his crew did it, it had something, but look at the institutionalisation of it now, the humour has been trampled into the dust under the concrete and oil stains of the highway of bureaucracy. Penyulap ☏ 08:18, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
Speedy Keep: not a valid rationale for deletion.Does it matter? Mono 04:10, 11 March 2013 (UTC)- Delete - The issue of "parody" images has been discussed recently at COM:AN in relation to another of Penyulap's images. As in the other image, this uses an identifiable person in a way that portrays them in a negative light and therefore violates COM:IDENT. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:23, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
- Images must not unfairly ridicule or demean the subject. He's not done up as a jet pilot slaughtering women and children, doesn't have the body of an octopus, isn't saying anything damn stupid either. COM:IDENT is not even a policy, it's a guideline.
- So please, you embarrass yourself by not reading a dictionary first, but aside from that, on what planet is this considered to be 'negative' ? oh yes, planet you said so. Perhaps a 2 minute google of parodies of Jimbo Wales will show just what negative is. With no shortage of trolls on the project, phobias, people with their mouse in one hand and most photographed subject in the other hand, any serious work is too good for this place. I've already said it, and will say it again too good for commons, delete. Penyulap ☏ 04:25, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
- Odd, I don't feel embarrassed. I'm sure you are right that there are worse images but that doesn't mean Commons should retain this one. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:17, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
- So please, you embarrass yourself by not reading a dictionary first, but aside from that, on what planet is this considered to be 'negative' ? oh yes, planet you said so. Perhaps a 2 minute google of parodies of Jimbo Wales will show just what negative is. With no shortage of trolls on the project, phobias, people with their mouse in one hand and most photographed subject in the other hand, any serious work is too good for this place. I've already said it, and will say it again too good for commons, delete. Penyulap ☏ 04:25, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
- Comment This image from Penyulap I actually do get and understand completely. As to deletion, I'm staying out of this one. russavia (talk) 03:45, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
- Keep make the trolls work for their dinner. Nothing wrong with this image. His mom wouldn't shriek in horror at those eyebrows. The look on Jimbo's face doesn't make nuns feint. Penyulap ☏ 01:21, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
- Delete. Still possible copyvio. --McZusatz (talk) 09:32, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
- well it's PD, so it needs no attribution, and I've expanded the description in case you'd like to go looking for it. Penyulap ☏ 10:11, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
- Hang on a second, all of the sources ARE given. I was under the impression from the diff given that the logo wasn't there, however a closer look at the diff shows that it IS there and IS attributed. Penyulap ☏ 12:05, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
- Well? if it is supposed to be a copyvio, what part of it is supposed to be a violation ? more information please. Penyulap ☏ 09:08, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
While the Parody clearly places Jimbo into his leadership capacity and is therefore a Parody of either his leadership (at a stretch) or the intended parody of wiki administration in general, I would think this page and this page may give light to the question of what Jimbo thinks of Parody. I don't know if there are others, I didn't look, and gave up asking on his talkpage when he was evasive or disinterested (I prefer to think of it as stage-fright that held his tongue :) whatever) I hardly see how Wikipe-tan could pull this one off, you just need any old face, somewhat like in 1984. Doesn't need anything else special about it, and isn't derogatory or unfair because it doesn't need to be at all, just needs to be a face on the screen and that's all it is, a copy of the face in '84 (not even wearing lipstick like in that link given). Penyulap ☏ 05:32, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
Kept: No real consensus to delete the file. In-use personal files fall within Commons' scope. FASTILY 08:56, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope. Comparing Jimmy Wales to a fictional murderous and ruthless dictator is neither kind, nor is this in use as a political parody of some sort, indeed we have better illustrations for this educational purpose at Category:Political parody. Fæ (talk) 23:21, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
- Keep – Per my comments at the Santorum discussion and the "Moratorium on user-generated art about living people" discussion. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 23:34, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
- Delete - One cannot in good faith support retention of this and deletion of the Wales/Pricasso imagery. We're either going to hold all of these childish sorts of things up to COM:IDENT's "Images must not unfairly ridicule or demean the subject" standard or we're going to hold none of them to it. That this particular one is an amateur-hour cut n paste....I wouldn't even goes far to say "Photoshop", more like "MS Paint"...job is all the more reason for deletion. Tarc (talk) 02:04, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
- Delete Not in scope. (We miss the creator here; a good friend of me.) Jee 03:38, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
- Comment The basis for the request is bad guessing from a consistently bad guesser. Fae, I always try to encourage you in a positive way wherever I can, despite other editors consistent observations that you have poor curating skills. Remember
this image with no apparent educational value on earth ? I put my imagination to the test coming up with things it MIGHT be used for, although, well, I don't think I'd be able to find anyone who would be convinced you know what is educational after looking at images like that, but I try to encourage you in a positive way. Political parody ? well, I guess you're stretching your imagination there aren't you, and good luck on that one. However, just because you think up some category that probably doesn't apply and think 'hey the category I just invented is incorrect' doesn't mean that you automatically list the image for deletion. You should try to have a quick look at what all the other editors think. Some have said it's a personal image, some have said it's Jimmy in art, some say it's 1984, some say wiki humour. Looking at those categories, I think we can see they have a point. Which is better for the category Jimmy in art ? I have no idea, but note these images are there.
_363_flies_past_an_observation_post_at_Forward_Operating_Base_Edinburgh,_Helmand_province,_Afghanistan_120101-M-UC900-034.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=link}
_(Apr_17,_1966).jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_Picture_of_Oxford_English_Reference_Dictionary.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}
_(Apr_17,_1966).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(Apr_17,_1966).jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_(Apr_17,_1966).jpg){kind=link}
_(Apr_17,_1966).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){kind=link}
_Picture_of_Oxford_English_Reference_Dictionary.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_Picture_of_Oxford_English_Reference_Dictionary.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_Picture_of_Oxford_English_Reference_Dictionary.jpg){kind=link}
_Picture_of_Oxford_English_Reference_Dictionary.jpg){kind=link}
)_in_April_14th,_2012.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
),_((Philippines))_in_July_18,_2011.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}
.png&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}
![[1]](http://m.cdn.blog.hu/pi/piackutatas/image/kep8/neuro_science2.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
![[5]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Proposed_Flag_of_future_Iranian_Antarctica.PNG){kind=link}
![[12]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Belokranjske_pisanke.JPG){kind=link}
![[13]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Avba3.jpg){kind=link}
![[14]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Idrijska_cipka.jpg){kind=link}
I'm not saying it's better or worse than other images in this non-imaginary category, I'm simply observing that is where OTHER editors have placed it. I'm glad they find my personal work useful. For the non-imaginary category of 1984, it competes with a picture of the author of the book, rather than a character from the book, but that category is quite sparse on art and is full of maps. Hmm, I don't know, but then again, it's a case of what many other editors already think and not what I think, as they have categorized the image themselves.
I also don't think other editors value your judgement in things like 'kindness' Fae, as I recall, you make consistent fake anti-semitic and homophobic attacks against multiple other editors, and spend time enthusiastically participating in pages which have no other purpose except to attack other editors. I can give you diffs and examples if you like, it's no trouble at all. I just mention it because you brought the subject of 'unkind' up, and three times in your three failed requests for adminship the community has overwhelmingly said that your poor judgment is a serious problem.
@ Tarc The image wasn't created using anything as unprofessional as photoshop or whatever the other one was, those programs have an appalling reputation in the industry.
So, someone thought up a category that it doesn't fit in. Hey, who can't do that >]ping[< Category:goldfish. It doesn't belong in category goldfish. Yeah, I think people can go on all day with dumb-ass categories it doesn't belong in, that's not the categories that multiple editors have placed it in. As for 'not kind', well the community said three times that Fae is the last person they want judging what is kind or unkind, so whoever wants to follow that leader, good luck to you, you're in the minority. Plus, he just can't help tampering with other people's votes, ever. (sigh). The image was only meant to be for internal humorous use, but it's nice to see many times in the past that people find it intriguing. As the people who do have a sense of humour are driven away from the project, and as Jimbo's sense of humour has always been at least 'well hidden', I guess there is less and less need of it. Make room for more smashed windscreens and number plates eh. Penyulap ☏ 11:19, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
- TLDR. darkweasel94 12:43, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
- Twitter-sized summary, lots of editors have thought of lots of ways to categorize the image. When Fae tried, and could only copy what the artist put as a description, he double-guessed himself. So as he can't think of an actual category, all other editors and their efforts in categorizing the image count for naught apparently, then the image can't be categorized or useful. Penyulap ☏ 12:59, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
- Keep Whether it is well deserved or not (I will make no comment one way or the other), the perception that Jimbo Wales is a dictatorial ruler, that he makes harsh and arbitrary judgements, that he applies policy unevenly based on his personal viewpoints, and that he is treated with cult-leader-like reverence by Wikimedians are all frequent themes of discussion both within and outside of the Wikimedia community. This is a legitimate social commentary, and therefore is within Commons' scope. Sven Manguard Wha? 18:26, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
- Delete per my comment in the last DR. (still possible copyvio because one source image whambo.jpg does not exist on commons and is not linked to any other webpage) --McZusatz (talk) 19:16, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
- Delete - it amuses me muchly, but I think this can be deleted as being user-created artwork with no educational purpose. -mattbuck (Talk) 12:57, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
- Delete Unused, and unlikely to be ever used in an encyclopedia article. --Conti|✉ 13:19, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
- Being usable for an encyclopedia article is not a necessary condition for being in scope (although it is a sufficient condition). Just saying. darkweasel94 23:18, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
- Keep This is unlike the whole Pricasso imbroglio in that it is beyond dispute that this is taking a shot at Jimbo, but it is also different in that it is clearly about harmless humor alluding to common complaints regarding the culture of Wikipedia. No one would suggest this is some sort of malicious harassment. We allow this sort of inside-baseball stuff on other projects, like all them humor essays on Wikipedia, so I fail to see why these sorts of images should be any different.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 22:57, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
- Keep, per the unanimous decision in Hustler Magazine v. Falwell. -- Cirt (talk) 16:09, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
- Comment Can someone explain why we need user generated works like this given it is politics internal to the project? Even getting past the self-licking ice-cream cone issue, I can't image any other organization that would support its members creating a hostile work environment like this. Perhaps if the author was notable in his/her own right or the work was notable due to prior publishing exposure then we could look at keeping it, otherwise it is out of scope. Saffron Blaze (talk) 04:16, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
- The sole point of the DR is getting people to follow the largest public disgrace to the project in an exercise to show what an open, tolerant community wiki is, by being intolerant of any comment that suggests otherwise. Hello IRONY.
- Mattbuck is the reason there is so much less professional high quality contributions from myself, see my talkpage, and Fae and Mattbuck have little else to do except troll, as they did with the attack-page they together created previously. Like the attack page, which has no other purpose except trolling, this DR has no other purpose . Very public disgraces like this one, which is being followed elsewhere on the internet, is just another in the long line of public disgraces that Fae has dragged the project into.
- It is perfectly obvious in this case, as half the opposes are ignoring the policies which welcome works like this, and the other half are imagining policies which do not actually exist, and both halves are imagining maliciousness in the work which simply does not exist. This is a perfect case for the public to be pointed to and say "See, THAT is the sort of behavior which fucked up wikipedia and commons". Yep. All my professional work has been embargoed because of the abuse directed at me by Mattbuck, and here he is continuing with commons unable to regulate itself. Classic public example in the making. Penyulap ☏ 05:48, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
- Sorry mate, you must be under the mistaken impression we have all been here long enough to understand, or care about, your personal dramas. Answer the fucking question directly and stop with the rambling diatribes. Either that or go join Cirt on the Tamarian home planet because I can't understand what you two get on about. Saffron Blaze (talk) 06:20, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
- The DR will make another lovely public disgrace for critics of the project to enjoy. It's like crying wolf over cry wolf.image. Or trolling someone by writing troll in their blocklog. What part of 1984 politics won't apply here if it's deleted ? HA! who is writing the jokes that wiki has become. Wiki is so banally predictable I could vomit. Sociopaths have no imagination whatsoever, look it up. That's what makes the infestation of trolls and their behavior so predictable, along with the ever-falling new editor numbers. When there is no creativity left, there is only the death of the project.
- You have a question ? I think you had lost the readers attention when you got to your 'self-licking ice-cream cone issue[s]'. As for getting an answer, your version of asking nicely could use a little polish. Penyulap ☏ 14:49, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
- I asked if you as the author and uploader were notable? As others have said, this file appears to have been created with a purpose in mind that is indeed legitimate satire. My concern is should we keep every file that is satirical just because the commentary is legitimate, as opposed to only those that are either notable as coming from a third party source (online magazine, news, etc) or where the artist is notable in their own right. I also have a concern that every time an editor has a beef with another participant in the project they use their familiarity here to use the site to settle scores or take digs at them. I am not saying that is the case here, as I don't know the history, but we have seen this type of behavior elsewhere. As you can hopefully see I don't care about external perceptions, I care about doing what is right in the long term for this project. If external audiences can't see that Commons is working to address some long term complaints about the "fuck-you" culture here then so be it. Saffron Blaze (talk) 17:44, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
- You're in the wrong venue to invent new policy and you know it. Go to the VP/VPP.
- Wrong person. A browse through my work shows a great deal of skill and creativity, especially according to my colleagues on wiki. I also have a reputation for the firm belief that all critics, trolls, assholes and the like have no part to play in history, or as a subject of my work. They'll be forgotten by history and by me, (I have a hard time to recall their names as it is). If an artist makes the mistake of including morons in their work, then chaos ensues. Like throwing cash into a crowd or lollies to kiddies, including assholes in art makes the trolls get all excited and come out of the woodwork. Polandball is a cautionary tale along those lines.
- I don't know Jimbo from a hole in the ground. Jimbo was included in my work originally for two reasons, one, it was a request. Without it being a request in the first place from someone who has done more than a thousand or something Did-you-knows, and who-knows how many articles for en.wiki, there would never have been any Whambo's. Two, Jimbo was a public figure, or at least I thought so at the time, as a public figure, commentary is considered par for the course. Today I wouldn't consider Jimbo to be popular or well-known, people get forgotten. I think he came up with a good idea originally, but the public has lost all interest in wiki and it's founder as something new and interesting. It's a ship of trolls (ship of fools) in the public eye and speaking highly of wikipedia in public is a social faux pas that says you have no freaking idea about the workings.
- I've asked Jimbo what he thought of my musings, which I would expect any normal person who is the subject to find funny, but I never got any meaningful or clear response out of him. He's never expressed any dislike of my work, and his lack of humor about my art and poor response to it has been criticized by others. I'd consider it to be wasting my time to include him in anything further, and have thought so for a LONG time. He's not in the same category as trolls though, he could ask me and change my mind, whereas there is nothing trolls can do in order to be included in my art. But it would take some convincing on Jimbo's part, as he has shown he can't handle attention very well on the public social stage imho, and I don't have time for drama.
- The whambo series is old history, some people seemed to find it interesting in the past and have said so, but I'd hardly call it a popular work of mine, not by a long shot. Any random award I make has had a far better reception and lifespan.
- I asked if you as the author and uploader were notable? As others have said, this file appears to have been created with a purpose in mind that is indeed legitimate satire. My concern is should we keep every file that is satirical just because the commentary is legitimate, as opposed to only those that are either notable as coming from a third party source (online magazine, news, etc) or where the artist is notable in their own right. I also have a concern that every time an editor has a beef with another participant in the project they use their familiarity here to use the site to settle scores or take digs at them. I am not saying that is the case here, as I don't know the history, but we have seen this type of behavior elsewhere. As you can hopefully see I don't care about external perceptions, I care about doing what is right in the long term for this project. If external audiences can't see that Commons is working to address some long term complaints about the "fuck-you" culture here then so be it. Saffron Blaze (talk) 17:44, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
- Sorry mate, you must be under the mistaken impression we have all been here long enough to understand, or care about, your personal dramas. Answer the fucking question directly and stop with the rambling diatribes. Either that or go join Cirt on the Tamarian home planet because I can't understand what you two get on about. Saffron Blaze (talk) 06:20, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
- It is perfectly obvious in this case, as half the opposes are ignoring the policies which welcome works like this, and the other half are imagining policies which do not actually exist, and both halves are imagining maliciousness in the work which simply does not exist. This is a perfect case for the public to be pointed to and say "See, THAT is the sort of behavior which fucked up wikipedia and commons". Yep. All my professional work has been embargoed because of the abuse directed at me by Mattbuck, and here he is continuing with commons unable to regulate itself. Classic public example in the making. Penyulap ☏ 05:48, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
- Considering the consistent, long-term and current attempts at trolling and bullying by Fae and Mattbuck, their attack page/personal attacks and abuse of admin tools and so on, the idea that I'd be uploading anything to commons that has a commercial value, like Sailors of Minas Geraes is absurd.
- This nomination is just another failed attack by the pair of them. While they both have a public reputation across the Internet as being two reasons why Commons/wiki is/are failing, you can't help but think, "Hey, what a fucked up image to choose to troll Penyulap with" because it's a perfectly harmless, fair commentary about what many many people think the project is coming to on it's darker days, and the people most responsible for ruining the project are the exact ones using that exact image to produce that exact deplorable environment. I ask, who could write better irony ? 1984 was characterized by a belligerent regime that couldn't handle either critique or whimsy (like satirical whambo-artworks).
- Fae picking this image as an attempted troll is almost as bad as the image he chose to feign an anti-semitic attack. as a personal attack against me. {insert another comment about the IRONY} I knew he was gay at the time, a lot of my friends are gay, but I didn't know he was a jew at the time, so claims I could actually care were -FAIL. Even my Gay, Jewish, and Gay AND Jewish (both) colleagues didn't believe a word Fae said. This image, a personal attack against Jimbo ? don't make me laugh. Well people, it's another false claim by the king of false claims who aggressively opposes any new policies to remove actually offensive images from commons. Penyulap ☏ 21:00, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
- Keep In scope per Sven Manguard and The Devil's Advocate. INeverCry 20:05, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
- Delete Out of Scope, as self-upload by a non-notable artist. The work is also non-notable given it is not used in the main space of any project nor elsewhere on the internet. Saffron Blaze (talk) 20:13, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Non-notable personal "art" (sic), created just to make a point. No educational use, except as a honey pot to catch trolls. Yann (talk) 20:21, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
copyvio, derivate of a Damian Hirst installation h-stt !? 14:14, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
- Keep He didn't create the shark, God did. He ripped off an existing work. -Nard (Hablemonos)(Let's talk) 20:28, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
- fack you, h-stt! Its my work!!! --Agent001 (talk) 08:51, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
Kept: Per discussion. MBisanz talk 01:58, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
Detail of an artwork of a living artist, no free licensing possible. The last deletion equest decision is a joke. Julius1990 (talk) 15:02, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
- No, that shark in something resembling water is not protectable. --Denniss (talk) 14:42, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
- Keep: Can't copyright a shark, some glass, formaldehyde, or an idea. Being artwork doesn't make something copyrightable automatically --moogsi (blah) 15:08, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
Kept for the reasons stated by Moogsi. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 07:41, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Ralgis as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: There is not FOP on Costa Rica Denniss (talk) 14:22, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
Is a real sorprise (and desolution) my nomination in these pages:
In Costa Rica there is complete freedom to photograph and publish public buildings or statues, there is no restriction law.
Someone knows any law in Costa Rica that says you can’t photograph that? http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Arco_chino_San_Jos%C3%A9.JPG http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Plazoleta_de_la_M%C3%BAsica_San_Jos%C3%A9.JPG http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Estatua_de_Confucio_-_Costa_Rica.jpg http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Estatua_de_Confucio_Costa_Rica.jpg --Apega71 (talk) 01:01, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: According to COM:FOP, local law "allows photographs and pictures made from statues, monuments and other works acquired by the authorities, but it doesn't allow commercial use." MichaelMaggs (talk) 08:38, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
Doubt that uploader is the author. This is an obvious passport photo, probably shot in the 1960s based on biography of the person. Teemeah (talk) 23:15, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
Dear Teemeah, this photo is one of three photos that I have of István Jacsó. My name is Dániel Jacsó, I am István Jacsó's grandson. I did not take this photograph, this photo belongs to our family and I have uploaded it. I may have incorrectly put the Share or Rights option to this photo, but I do have the original and I did upload the photo in support of the article. Please do not delete this photo. Thank you/Köszönöm, Dániel Jacsó (d100763)
Dear Daniel, unfortunately these are not valid reasons. Even if the photo is physically yours, the copyright ownsership won't be yours. The copyright ownsership rests with the author of the photograph. While it depicts your grandfather, due to copyright laws, it cannot be put under a free licence without the copyright owner's permission. Wikimedia is a free licenced project, we cannot store copyrighted photographs due to our licence. Teemeah (talk) 22:07, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Does Hungarian law make it public domain
- if it is a face photograph with very little artistic innovation, a bit like {{PD-Austria}},
- or if it is a passport photograph taken by the authorities, a bit like {{PD-USGov}} ? Oliv0 (talk) 09:59, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Sorry, but we have no alternative but to delete this, as we currently have no reliable indication that a passport-type photo is copyright free under the provisions of Hungarian law. If anyone wants to do the legal research to show that is is OK, please do so MichaelMaggs (talk) 08:46, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
copyvio, derivate of a Damian Hirst installation h-stt !? 14:14, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
- Keep He didn't create the shark. -Nard (Hablemonos)(Let's talk) 20:29, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
- fack you, h-stt! Its my work!!! --Agent001 (talk) 08:52, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
Kept: Per discussion. MBisanz talk 01:58, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
Artwork of a living artist, no free licensing possible. Julius1990 (talk) 15:03, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
- No, that shark in something resembling water is not protectable. --Denniss (talk) 14:43, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
- For that i would want a qualified answer, not just a personal opinion. --Julius1990 (talk) 06:17, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
- This is a qualified answer and the DR wil be closed as kept. --Denniss (talk) 09:09, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
- If you call this a qualified answer it is just a further proof that commons turns out to be a joke. --Julius1990 (talk) 11:07, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
- Keep: Copyright does not apply to ideas or processes. Nothing in this artwork is subject to copyright, unless you can argue that the tank isn't utilitarian --moogsi (blah) 15:07, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
Kept for the reasons given by Moogsi. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 08:42, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
Cropped duplicate of Media:Admiral Hipper cruiser in dry dock Kiel 1945.jpg Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 22:02, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
- Possibly also Media:Kiel Harbour, Germany, 19 May 1945 TR2882.jpg - but I'm not sure which of the three versions is best to keep. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 22:05, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
- I agree with the nomination as uploader since I uploaded it from en-wiki during a "move-to-commons" drive it is not entirely surprising there was already one on commons. Both have significant JPG artefacts, but the first one appears to have had some imperfections edited out (i.e. black marks etc.).--Gilderien (talk) 00:15, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
- The file is deleted/redirected but I'd like opinions which one of the two survivirs we should keep. The 2013 upload seems to be the original while the 2011 version has improved brightness/contrast. --Denniss (talk) 00:35, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY 07:47, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
Product packaging. How old is the art? Stefan4 (talk) 21:08, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
- Keep. "Rocamadour fermier" is the name of a cheese, not a commercial brand. No problem IMO.--Jebulon (talk) 22:23, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
- See COM:CB#Product packaging. --Stefan4 (talk) 22:46, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
- Irrelevant, per Myrabella below.--Jebulon (talk) 15:34, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
- Keep For three reasons: 1) as Jebulon pointed out, "Rocamadour fermier" is the name of a kind of cheese, not a commercial brand. The specific name of the farm from which this cheese comes has been cut. 2) The drawing of the goat is standard, very simple, and can be considered "so simple as to be ineligible for copyright protection". 3) The drawing depicting the village of Rocamadour above the printed name is archetypal, probably derived from a XIXe century print like this one. Furthermore, it is blurred. --Myrabella (talk) 13:15, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
- The village drawing might be old, but drawing a goat sounds more artistic than writing the word "paradis" above a door or making a nail clipper (see COM:TOO#France). --Stefan4 (talk) 13:25, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
- The goat here can be considered as a standard and utilitarian piece of information, without genuine personalization. It is only a secondary part of the image. It can be considered as de minimis. --Myrabella (talk) 13:53, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
- The village drawing might be old, but drawing a goat sounds more artistic than writing the word "paradis" above a door or making a nail clipper (see COM:TOO#France). --Stefan4 (talk) 13:25, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
Kept: DM seems applicable here FASTILY 07:47, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
Product packaging is probably not free. This is a new image that for the previous deletion request. Lionel Allorge (talk) 12:21, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: I reverted to the overwritten file and deleted (as copyvio) the one referred to here. --Herby talk thyme 13:07, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks. Lionel Allorge (talk) 07:22, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
We have 2 SVGs of this symbol, File:Armada Española.svg and File:Emblem of the Spanish Navy.svg. Fry1989 eh? 01:44, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
Please, visit the official web page of the Spanish navy and see the real seal or emblem before deleting this file, please:
http://www.armada.mde.es/ArmadaPortal/page/Portal/ArmadaEspannola/_inicio_home/prefLang_es/
I don´t understand the reason for deleting this file. Do you want to change the official emblem of the Spanish Navy???? -- 20:16, 10 March 2013 User:Wallace CT
I can't even see it in my browser -- it keeps downloading, but nothing is displayed... AnonMoos (talk) 23:18, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
- It's basically File:Emblem of the Spanish Navy.svg but with the crown about doubled in size, and black instead of blue. Fry1989 eh? 23:37, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
Try to visit this page: http://www.armada.mde.es/ArmadaPortal/page/Portal/ArmadaEspannola/_inicio_home/prefLang_es/ and you will see the color is black!!!!!!
- You're going to need more sources than that because the image on the Armada's website is very poor. However, if it is black instead of blue, we can change that on the SVG files, so you need to calm down. Fry1989 eh? 18:45, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
Well: Try this: http://www.laglorieta.net/escarapela-oficial-armada-espanola. This is the emblem for the hat of the spanish Navy officers. You can see it's black and the crown is bigger than the other. http://usuarios.multimania.es/miguelangelbonet/espana.htm In this web page you can see a collection of hats of the spanish Navy. Black.
Bad quality image, it is not the official design and it has a bad format :::Official emblem of the SPA Navy [15] Navy website [16] Detailed image, the crown design is identical Official coat of Spain design [17]--Heralder (talk) 06:29, 15 March 2013 (UTC) Have you ever seen a navy officer? Have you served in the spanish navy? The official emblem ground is black. I appreciate your job, but the Spanish Navy emblem is BLACK.
![[16]](http://de.academic.ru/pictures/dewiki/49/150px-armada_espanola.svg.png){kind=link}
![[17]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Escudo_de_Espa%C3%B1a_(mazonado).svg){kind=link}
- Autor arguments:
- The background is black no blue according the official resources as we can see at the Navy Website.
It is true and it has corrected
- Author insist on the Crown according the official design is bigger
Crown size is right
- Height (arches) is the same. Cross is even highter than original.
- Bottom is very similar. Distance from the shield is exact.
- Arches width is only bigger at the original but this is a result of different designs.--Heralder (talk) 14:29, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY 07:44, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
Files in Category:Ramyeon
[edit]Copyvio per COM:CB#Product packaging.
- File:Instant ramen.jpg
- File:Kimchi ramyun by viralbus.jpg
- File:Korean food-Ramyeon and bulgogi sauce.jpg
- File:Korean Gimchi Ramyeon.jpg
- File:Tasty ramyeon.jpg
Stefan4 (talk) 11:32, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY 09:34, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
Packaging violation
[edit]- File:Cup Noodles.jpg
- File:A cabine do Demae Itcho em HKCEC 8140026.JPG
- File:PICT0588.JPG
- File:Little Prince Snack Noodles original flavor 8 packages.jpg
- File:CURRY UDON de SKY.jpg
- File:Maruchan_Akai_Kitsune_Udon.jpg
- File:Japan_cup_noodle_products_over-packed_Aug-2012.jpg
- File:Japanese Maruchan Midori no.jpg
- File:Maruchan Akai Kitsune Udon.jpg
- File:Midori no tanuki - tempura soba by richardmasoner.jpg
- File:Namie Yakisoba Cup.jpg
- File:NISSIN Yakisoba UFO.jpg
- File:Tobikkiri Oudon.jpg
- File:SOBA de SKY.jpg
- File:UDON de SKY.jpg
- File:Okinawa_soba_cup_noodle_by_jetalone_in_Naha,_Okinawa.jpg
- File:Japanese Ramen SapporoIchiban taste of the sesame.jpg
- File:Nissin Donbei Kitsune for West Japan J09 1.jpg
螺钉 (talk) 13:24, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
- Voor behouden (Keep) van File:Cup Noodles.jpg. Zie deze pagina. --トトト (talk) 16:26, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
- Keep File:Cup Noodles.jpg at least. The w:Supreme Court of Japan decided that the second and third cups on the bottom row are below the threshold of originality. See http://www.trkm.co.jp/tizai/05082502.htm
- The other cups in File:Cup Noodles.jpg just add an extra word ("curry" or "seafood") with a simple line on the seafood one, so I'd assume that all cups in that image are below the threshold of originality. --Stefan4 (talk) 16:32, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted, except for one -FASTILY 08:15, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
packaing violation
[edit]- File:PICT1242.JPG
- File:Hunya 77 Chocolate.jpg
- File:SamuelSmithsOatmealStout.jpg
- File:Marston's Oyster Stout 01.jpg
- File:Sake barrels.jpg
- File:Maotaiphoto.jpg
- File:Er guo tou 1.jpg
- File:Bottles of Umeshu for sale.PNG
- File:Sake Bottles.JPG
- File:Iphone 4G-2.jpg
- File:Iphonesimcard.JPG
- File:3rareiphoneviews.jpg
- File:SHISEIDO, uno 3 kinds of face-wash .jpg
- File:Konica Digital Image banner in Taiwan 1.jpg
- File:Konica nice shot.JPG
- File:Sanyo VPC-S760 digatal camera.jpg
- File:2009 Toyota Mark-X 05.jpg
- File:'07 Toyota Camry Taxi.jpg
- File:Cup Noodles HK Chicken Flavour.JPG
- File:Japanese NissinChickenRamen DonburiSet.JPG
- File:Asahi beer display.PNG
- File:YEBISU, All Malt Beer, .jpg
- File:Sapporo beer crop.jpg
- File:Kirin Ichiban 01.jpg
- File:HK CWB Windsor Plaza Ground Floor Yamazaki Bakery.JPG
- File:出前一丁2.jpg
- File:出前一丁.jpg
- File:Flasche Calpis.JPG
- File:ピースボトル.jpg
- File:ITO En LTD, Green Tea series .jpg
- File:Kikkoman litre bottles.jpg
- File:Yakult (Yakult Honsha).jpg
- File:Yakult300light TW.JPG
- File:Pack of Hong Kong Yakult LT.JPG
- File:YAHKLIGHT.JPG
- File:Yakult variant flavours.JPG
- File:TW Weider In Jelly Energy 20121204.jpg
- File:Hi-chews available in Japan.jpg
- File:Morinaga Milk Caramel (Morinaga).jpg
- File:JapaneseSpice-20060118.jpg
- File:Ramune Sangaria.jpeg
- File:Lipovitan-D .jpg
- File:Pocari Sweat (Otsuka Pharmaceutical).jpg
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
螺钉 (talk) 13:57, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
- Keep some, Delete some. For example, the following should be kept:
- File:HK CWB Windsor Plaza Ground Floor Yamazaki Bakery.JPG: COM:FOP#Hong Kong clearly tells that it is fine to take photos of architecture, and this is essentially only a part of the interior of a building.
- File:Sanyo VPC-S760 digatal camera.jpg: The text on the camera is unquestionably below the threshold of originality. Also, the camera is a utilitarian object. I believe that Japan is one of those countries where utilitarian objects aren't copyrightable.
- File:2009 Toyota Mark-X 05.jpg: Same thing here: a car is purely utilitarian.
- File:Iphonesimcard.JPG: I believe that it was conclued somewhere that the Apple logo was published on computers without a copyright notice long ago, so it should be in the public domain.
- Some of the images are very clear copyright violations, though. For example, File:出前一丁.jpg needs to go away. --Stefan4 (talk) 17:41, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Kept some, deleted others, per Stefan FASTILY 08:19, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
If this was published by Getty, as claimed in the description page, the country of origin is not Algeria, and the 10-year copyright rule doesn't apply. Underlying lk (talk) 01:47, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
- I'm sure about what you're saying, but this was life's not getty's. Dzlinker (talk) 13:49, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
- The country of origin is where the work was first published, not where the picture was taken. Hence if this picture was first published by an American organisation, US copyright law applies, not the Algerian one.--Underlying lk (talk) 04:37, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
- getting it from life magazine, doesn't mean they were the first to publish it. i have good reasons to believe it was first published in algeria. Dzlinker (talk) 00:18, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
- Share these good reasons with us, then. :P--Underlying lk (talk) 14:00, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
- The summit was held there :) -Dzlinker (talk) 22:06, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
- That's not a good reason to think that, because you're mistaken. The picture has to go, regrettably.--Underlying lk (talk) 00:43, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
- The summit was held there :) -Dzlinker (talk) 22:06, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
- Share these good reasons with us, then. :P--Underlying lk (talk) 14:00, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
- getting it from life magazine, doesn't mean they were the first to publish it. i have good reasons to believe it was first published in algeria. Dzlinker (talk) 00:18, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Plausible that this was published in Algeria, but no evidence offered, and more likely that it's from the US, so the 10-year copyright rule doesn't apply. James F. (talk) 02:31, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
